The Rhesus Attributed to Euripides (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, Series Number 63) 1107026024, 9781107026025

Citation preview

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

editors J. D I G G L E     N. H O P K I N S O N     S . P. OA K L E Y  J. G. F. P O W E L L  M . D. R E E V E     D. N. S E D L E Y     R . J. TA R R A N T     

63 T H E R H E S U S AT T R I B U T E D TO EURIPIDES

THE RHESUS ATTRIBUTED TO EURIPIDES E D I T E D W I T H I N T RO D U C T I O N A N D C O M M E N TA RY BY

M A RC O FA N T U Z Z I Roehampton University London

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107026025 doi: 10.1017/9781139199032 © Marco Fantuzzi 2020 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. isbn 978-1-107-02602-5 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

CONTENTS Foreword

page vii

I N T RO DU CT I ON  1  Plot, Cast and Setting 2  Rhesus in Legend, Epic and Novel 3 Authorship 4  Evidence for a Late-fourth-century Dating 5  The ‘Macedonian Connection’ 6  The Most Plausible Chronology 7  Were Tragic Smiles Allowed in Menander’s Time? 8  ‘Political’ Tragedy – For Which Polis? 9  The Transmission of the Text

1 6 16 24 41 49 50 59 71

S I GLA U SED IN THE APPARATUS OF T H IS EDIT IO N  80 ABBREVIAT IONS OF THE MANUS CR I P T S  8 1 TEXTS Ancient Hypotheseis and Fragments of Prologues to Rhesus Rhesus

82 87

C O MMENTARY  Fragments of Prologues to Rhesus Rhesus

133 142

B I B LIO G RAP H Y  Editions of Rhesus Commentaries and Editions of Ancient Texts

627 628

v

CONTENTS

Other Bibliography Bibliographic Abbreviations INDEX ES  General Index Index of Greek Words Discussed

vi

632 688 690 708

FOREWORD My interest in the Rhesus stems from my research on the ‘realistic’ coincidence of the daylight time of the dramatic performance and the time of tragic action that encompasses all of the non-fragmentary tragic plays we know, apart from Rhesus. Although that research culminated and concluded in a brief paper of 1990, the project of a comprehensive approach to the play – where literary and historical interpretation of every episode would preface and accompany the linguistic, grammatical, and text-critical commentary – became a major part-time project that unfolded parallel to my other research interests in rather different fields. This holistic approach required time; and the distractions engendered by my other interests (I think in particular of my falling in love with  Achilles in Love, a few years ago) let it take, perhaps, more time than it should have. During my long engagement with the play, which lasted a bit more than the siege of Troy, a small alliance of great friends helped me to solve individual interpretative problems or to correct mistakes which should not have seen the light of day. Among them I am proud to remember in particular Angelos Chaniotis, Joel Lidov, Richard Martin, Robin Osborne, and Benjamin Henry, whose contribution to the metrical analysis of the lyric sections was especially thorough and original. The reworking of the final version of this book also took some months and could hardly have been completed without the incredibly painstaking help of Neil Hopkinson and Michael Reeve, editors of the ‘Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries’ series, and of Martin Cropp, who shared with my pages his superb experience of ancient Greek language and tragedy.  Benjamin Henry, again, Mathias Hanses, and Matthew Ward contributed, at different stages, to ‘anglicise’ the form of my English or the structure of my arguments; generous supports from the Loeb Foundation, a decade ago, and vii

F O R E WO R D

more recently from the School of Humanities at the University of Roehampton, London, allowed me to compensate at least in part their priceless editorial help. James Diggle gave this project his unrelenting attention from its beginning to its very end. His erudition, linguistic insight, and scholarly acumen benefited every single step of my work in progress, and he came back to the whole book again when it was almost finished, directing me on how to redeem it from its pre-final stage and bring it to its final one. For the past two years I have had the good fortune to work in the Department (now School) of Humanities of the University of Roehampton and at the Institute of Classical Studies; for the stimulating and happy environment that Roehampton immediately provided to me I am most grateful to my colleagues and students. And right before reaching this happy and proactive academic community, a blissful semester at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton and a long summer at the Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies, also at Princeton, paved the way for me to conclude my commentary. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to Michael Sharp, whose confidence in the completion of this project fostered my own belief when it might have faltered. And to my wife Maria and my daughter Alessia, whose love and exceptional patience helped me to feel less guilty for being all too often a mentally distant or physically absent husband and father. 

Greek texts are usually quoted from the ‘Oxford Classical Texts’ series, but quotations of the Iliad and Odyssey are from the editions by M.L. West in the ‘Bibliotheca Teubneriana’. English translations of Greek and Latin texts are from the ‘Loeb Classical Library’, often with modifications, unless otherwise stated. Translations from the Iliad are by M. Hammond (Harmondsworth and New York, 1987). 

viii

I N T RO D U C T I O N 1 ) P L O T, C A S T A N D S E T T I N G 1a) Plot Rhesus, a play that focuses on the problem of power in the military sphere, begins appropriately enough at the bivouac of the leader of the Trojan army, Hector, and this remains the setting until the end.1 One of the eisodoi leads to the Thracian camp and beyond it to Troy and Mt Ida, the other to the Greek camp. Hector is the protagonist. He is on stage throughout except from 565 to 807, when Odysseus and Diomedes appear with Athena, and then Rhesus’ charioteer enters: Hector cannot be allowed to encounter the enemy raiders, and Rhesus’ charioteer must be free to level his hostile accusation against Hector in his absence. Otherwise, all the characters converse with him, or with him and the chorus – Aeneas 87–148, Dolon 154–223, Messenger 264– 341, Rhesus 388–526, Rhesus’ charioteer 808–78. The epiphany of the Muse, from 890, concludes the play, although the very last words (983–96) are spoken by Hector and the chorus. In the parodos (1–51), the chorus of watchmen wake Hector to report that new fires have been lit in the Greek camp and to ask him to mobilise the army. The watchmen do not know the significance of the fires, but see them as a sign of danger. The first episode (52–223) begins with Hector interpreting the fires as a sign that the Greeks are trying to cover up their escape. He wants to launch an attack, but the chorus appear to doubt his interpretation. Aeneas intervenes in the debate, objecting to Hector’s idea of a night attack, which would be very dangerous. He suggests sending a spy to find

One may compare Soph. Ajax, another military play, but there the skene follows the protagonist Ajax. The play opens at his tent, but at 815 the scene shifts to a grove or the sea-shore, where he goes to hide his sword.

1

1

I N T RO D U C T I O N

out what the enemy intend to do. In a first sung interlude (131–6), with tragic irony, the watchmen praise this solution as a prudent one; in fact it will facilitate Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ raid, as the Trojans and their allies will remain asleep. Hector yields to what seems to be the opinion of the majority (137), and looks for a volunteer for the spy mission. When Dolon volunteers, Hector engages in a stichomythia with him concerning the reward to be assigned. After Hector has guessed incorrectly several times, this finally ends when Dolon asks for Achilles’ horses. A second, antistrophic interlude follows (195–200): the watchmen celebrate, again with tragic irony, Dolon’s future success. Next, in a long dressing scene, details are given of how Dolon is to be camouflaged as a wolf. At the end of it, in the first stasimon (224–63), the watchmen synthesise the perspectives of both interludes and celebrate Dolon’s certain success in his mission and Trojan victory in the war. The second episode (264–341) begins with a report delivered by a Trojan shepherd, who announces the arrival of the Thracian army led by Rhesus, and emphasises its military strength. The chorus hail it as a blessing for Troy. Hector on the other hand regards Rhesus as an opportunist: in his opinion, he is hoping to take advantage of a victory that Hector has effectively already won. But in the end he again yields to the opinion of those advising him, accepts Rhesus’ alliance, and tells him where to camp. Now that Hector has accepted their views, in the second stasimon (342–87) the chorus celebrate Rhesus’ greatness in a hymn which practically raises him to the level of a god. The third episode (388–526) begins with a dialogue. Hector reprimands Rhesus for arriving too late to help Troy and accuses him of being a bad ally: with his delay, he has abandoned the bond of ξενία (guest-friendship) which had connected him to Hector at least since the time when Hector helped him to consolidate and extend his royal power in Thrace. In his long reply, Rhesus justifies himself: he had to defend his country from Scythian incursions and his journey to Troy involved logistical difficulties. He boasts that he can now win the war alone, and 2

1 ) P lot, C ast and S etting

in a single day. The chorus express their agreement with these claims by celebrating his greatness again in a strophe serving as an interlude (454–66). Rhesus boasts that after winning the war, he will sail to invade Greece. He would like personally to face Achilles and his contingent on the battlefield; when Hector informs him that Achilles has withdrawn from the fighting, he promises to kill Odysseus, whose prior exploits Hector has described. Both Rhesus and Hector leave by the eisodos that leads to the allies’ camp, to which Hector escorts Rhesus. The third stasimon (527–64) has a less boastful tone. The watchmen describe the coming of dawn while they wait for the next watch to take over, and express anxious doubts as to Dolon’s fate as they leave the stage. With the fourth episode (565–674), the second part of the play begins. This includes the deaths of Dolon (not described, as in Il. 10, but presupposed as having happened already while the debate between Hector and Rhesus was taking place) and of Rhesus (described as in Il. 10, but in a very different way) and continues with the accusation levelled at Hector by Rhesus’ charioteer (totally absent from Il. 10). Odysseus and Diomedes come from the no-man’s-land between the Trojan and Greek camps (i.e. by the eisodos that leads to the Greek camp) and are probably carrying spoils that they have stripped from Dolon. They are hoping to kill Hector in his bivouac, where of course they cannot find him. Just as they are on the verge of deciding to return to the Greek camp, Athena appears from above and suggests that they kill Rhesus instead. She draws attention to his strength and the danger that he poses for the Greeks, confirming the naïve impressions of the shepherd-messenger. When she sees that Alexander (Paris) is entering, Odysseus and Diomedes exit (Odysseus perhaps already after 626, Diomedes after 641), both towards the eisodos leading to the Thracian camp, by which Paris enters. Athena meets Alexander disguised as Aphrodite; with a false show of friendship, she distracts him so that he does not raise the alarm and alert the Trojans, while Odysseus and Diomedes take the opportunity 3

I N T RO D U C T I O N

to kill Rhesus. The treacherous raid against Rhesus and the treacherous use of disguise in the humiliation of Alexander are thus synchronous episodes in which different forms of deception are employed – in the former case, deception of a military kind, as in Il. 10; in the latter case, the deception of disguise, probably invented by the Rh. author in the wake of the comic tradition. The chorus of watchmen re-enter in the epiparodos (675– 727). They come across Odysseus and Diomedes while they are leaving the camp, but with one more act of jeering deception Odysseus fools them by pretending to be Trojan; he uses the password that Dolon had revealed to him when he was captured in the hope of being spared. In the final song (692–727), the watchmen comment on the deviousness of Odysseus. They sense that he is the individual who has given them the slip. The exodos (728–996) opens with the report of Rhesus’ charioteer, acting as a second messenger, on the slaughter of Rhesus and his Thracians. The charioteer reports that he had fallen asleep after seeing two suspicious shadows (Odysseus and Diomedes) close to Rhesus’ horses and shouting at them to go away. But in his sleep he had a vision that precisely, though metaphorically, reflected what was happening in reality: he saw wolves riding away with the horses. When he woke up, he was wounded, while Rhesus was actually murdered. He could not however identify Odysseus and Diomedes as Greeks, and was convinced that Hector was behind the killing of Rhesus and the stealing of the horses. At 808 Hector enters, having been informed of these events, and accuses the chorus of having allowed Greek spies into the camp. In a final lyric interlude (820–32, corresponding to 454–66), the watchmen assure Hector that they had always been alert and had never fallen asleep. A dialogue follows, in which the charioteer now openly accuses Hector of having stolen the horses, and Hector argues that he had no part in Rhesus’ killing. Finally, the Muse appears ex machina, carrying Rhesus’ body in her arms. She reveals that Odysseus and Diomedes were responsible for Rhesus’ death, 4

1 ) P lot, C ast and S etting

thus absolving Hector from responsibility. She explains that she became the mother of Rhesus by the river god Strymon when she and the other Muses had gone to Thrace to compete against Thamyris, who had hubristically boasted that he was a better musician than the Muses; and Rhesus had been killed because of his military ambitions, although the Muse and Strymon had warned him of the risks of his campaigns. She curses Athena as the principal in her son’s murder, and Athens as the beneficiary of Athena’s protection. But the Muse’s threat not to return to Athens in the future, despite her past visits, is an aition of Athens’ cultural stature, and also perhaps (if Rhesus was composed in the fourth century) mirrors the contemporary cultural ambitions of Macedon.2 She concludes her lament by announcing Rhesus’ immortality as a cult hero (another aition, this time of the cult of Rhesus in Thrace). The last words of Hector to the chorus (986–96) are an order to mobilise the army. This mirrors the request with which the watchmen had approached Hector at the beginning (23–33). The similarity of beginning and end lays further emphasis on the idea of military decision-making as the specific issue with which the play is concerned. It also highlights the fact that all the discussions about Rhesus’ alliance, the military actions, and the deaths that occurred in the tragedy have not changed anything. It is as if nothing had happened: Rhesus was not there to help at the beginning, and he is not there at the end. 1b) Cas t and Setting The actor who plays Hector may also have played Odysseus. A second actor would have played Dolon, Athena and the Muse. A third actor may have played all the other characters. A fourth actor was probably required: see below 627–41n.

See below p. 27, 46–8.

2

5

I N T RO D U C T I O N

The Thracian camp is some distance from the Trojan camp, and this contributes to the verisimilitude of the action (the Trojans do not perceive the massacre) both in Rh. and in Il. 10.434. Rhesus must have crossed the Propontis at the Bosporus (428b–9), and not at the Hellespont, closer to Troy (cf. 282–3n., 428b–9n.). He proceeded to Troy along the southern coast of the Propontis (437) and arrived at Hector’s bivouac from Mt Ida (282–3, 290–3). The plain between Troy and the sea must have been largely occupied by the moored Greek ships, the Greek camp, and Trojan bivouacs. Hector says (519–20) and Athena confirms (613–15) that the Thracian bivouacs are separate from those of the Trojans, and Athena states that they are close to Hector’s bivouac (613); the Greek raiders could only reach the Thracians’ bivouac by crossing the Trojan camp (696–8, 808– 13, 843–6). The Thracian bivouacs must then have been on the opposite side of Hector’s bivouac. Thus the stage represented Hector’s bivouac in the middle; eisodos B, on the left for the audience, led to the Thracian camp, the city of Troy and, at a distance, Mt Ida, while the right-hand eisodos, A, led to the Trojan camp, the Greek camp and, after it, the sea.3 2 ) R H E S U S I N L E G E N D, E P I C A N D N OV E L Many epic heroes were fictional characters who did not become cult heroes. Rhesus is one of those few epic heroes who were also cult heroes of some importance in local religion; others include Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Helen and Menelaus.4 As a literary character, however, Rhesus has no backstory when he first appears in Il. 10.5 When the Trojan spy Dolon first mentions him in Il. 10, he is a new arrival. He is not mentioned in Cf. Battezzato (2000b) 367–8. Antonaccio (1995) 147–69. A neat distinction between the epic hero and the religious hero is drawn by Ekroth (2007) 100–6. 5 Leaf (1915) 1–2. 3

4

6

2 ) R hesus in L egend, E pic and N ovel

the Cyclic Cypria or elsewhere in the Iliad. Dolon simply suggests Rhesus and the Thracians as an easy and profitable target: they are camped out of the way, and Rhesus has a precious chariot of gold and silver and incomparably fast horses (10.433–45). In the seventh century, Hipponax (IEG 72 = 72 Degani) refers to Rhesus as ‘king of the inhabitants of Ainos’ (Αἰνειῶν πάλμυς), who was killed near his white Thracian horses (ἐπ᾽ ἁρμάτων τε καὶ Θρεϊκίων πώλων / λευκῶν †ὀείους κατεγγὺς† Ἰλίου πύργων / ἀπηναρίσθη). This recalls the Iliadic narrative: the white horses and beautiful chariot and their proximity to the place where Rhesus was slaughtered are familiar from Il. 10. But it also suggests that there was an extra-Iliadic tradition. The city of Ainos, near the mouth of the river Hebrus and perhaps the only city with this name in Thrace, is never mentioned in Homer as the seat of Rhesus’ kingdom: he is regularly king of ‘the Thracians’ (Il. 10.434–5) and the leader of the Thracian contingent at Troy (Il. 10.464, 470, 506).6 Strabo (Book 7 F 16a Radt) situated his kingdom among the Odomantes, Hedoni, and Bisaltae, and thus closer to the river Strymon. The Homeric patronymic ‘son of Eioneus’7 may point to the same area: Eion is a city on the east bank of the Strymon’s mouth. Both Hipponax and Strabo seem to presuppose Thracian sources. This cannot be said of the more generic references to ‘Thracians’ in Homer. Most of the known versions of the myth attempt to make Rhesus more heroic than he is in the Iliad. But his heroism remains ephemeral or unrealised: he dies almost immediately, as in the Iliad. The version adopted or invented by Pindar F 262, from which we have not a single word of text, and the folkloric But ‘inhabitants of Ainos’ may stand for Thrace by synecdoche, as suggested by Degani (1991) 87: Ainos is the largest and oldest city of Thrace. 7 Il. 10.435. In Conon, Narr. 4 Eioneus is said to be a river, later called Strymon, whose sons were Brangas, Rhesus (Ῥῆσσος in Conon) and Olynthus. Conon was probably trying to synthesise the Homeric tradition with later sources that made the river Strymon Rhesus’ father, like Rh. 6

7

I N T RO D U C T I O N

so-called ‘oracle version’, which does not appear ever to have surfaced in literature, are found together at Σ D Il. 10.435: διάφορος δὲ τῶν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν γενόμενος ἐν πολεμικοῖς ἔργοις ἐπῆλθε τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὅπως Τρωσὶ συμμαχήσηι, καὶ συμβαλὼν πολλοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀπέκτεινεν. δείσασα δὲ Ἥρα περὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων Ἀθηνᾶν ἐπὶ τὴν τούτου διαφθορὰν πέμπει, κατελθοῦσα δὲ ἡ θεὸς Ὀδυσσέα τε καὶ Διομήδην ἐπὶ τὴν κατασκοπὴν ἐποίησεν προελθεῖν. ἐπιστάντες δὲ ἐκεῖνοι κοιμωμένωι Ῥήσωι αὐτόν τε καὶ τοὺς ἑταίρους αὐτοῦ κτείνουσιν, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Πίνδαρος.   ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσιν νυκτὸς παραγεγονέναι τὸν Ῥῆσον εἰς τὴν Τροίαν, καὶ πρὶν γεύσασθαι αὐτὸν τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς χώρας φονευθῆναι. χρησμὸς γὰρ ἐδέδοτο αὐτῶι φασιν, ὅτι εἰ αὐτός τε γεύσεται (v.l. γεύσηται) τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ οἱ ἵπποι αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σκαμάνδρου πίουσιν (v.l. πίωσι) καὶ τῆς αὐτόθι νομῆς, ἀκαταμάχητος ἔσται εἰς τὸ παντελές. As he was distinguished among the people of his age in warlike activities, he went against the Greeks to be an ally of the Trojans and, engaging them, he killed many of the Greeks. Worried about the Greeks, Hera sent Athena to destroy him; the goddess went down and made Odysseus and Diomedes go forth to spy. They approach Rhesus while he is asleep and kill both him and his companions, as Pindar narrates (F 262; a summary of this version, including the mention of Pindar, is found at Σ exeg. Il. 10.435).   Some say that Rhesus arrived at Troy in the night and was murdered before he could taste the water of the land. For an oracle had been given to him, they say: if he tastes the water and his horses drink from the Scamander and the pasture there, he will be utterly invincible.

We do not know from Homer when Rhesus had come to Troy as he is never mentioned before Book 10; but his contribution to the war turns out to be insignificant. His heroic status differs in Pindar’s version, in the oracle version, and in Rh. It cannot be determined whether the oracle version predated Rh. or not. Prophecies and oracles are, however, a common motif in the Epic Cycle, which dealt with several allies of the Trojans and may have included a flashback on Rhesus.8 In Pind. F 262, Kullmann (1960) 221–3, Fenik (1964) 10–12. Fenik (1964) 7–16 tried to demonstrate that both the version followed by Pindar and the oracle ver-

8

8

2 ) R hesus in L egend, E pic and N ovel

Rhesus fought for one day and inflicted severe damage on the Greek enemy (μίαν ἡμέραν πολεμήσας πρὸς Ἕλληνας μέγιστα αὐτοῖς ἐνεδείξατο κακά). But in the oracle version, as in Rh., he had just arrived at Troy on the night when he was slain. There is also no mention in Rh. of the invincibility promised by the oracle, though it may be suggested by Rhesus’ boastful promise at 447–50 and Athena’s alarmed prediction at 600–4 (εἰ διοίσει νύκτα τήνδ᾿ ἐς αὔριον …9). The reference to the charioteer feeding Rhesus’ horses just before Rhesus is killed (770–2) may also be inspired by the oracle. If the author and some of those in the audience had heard of that story, Rhesus will have seemed extremely unfortunate: his horses did eat fodder, but apparently not from the Scamander pastures, and they are not said to have drunk from the river. The tragic Rhesus is thus neither the totally insignificant character of the Il., nor the Pindaric hero who has his own aristeia. The play gives him an expressive identity and a virtual heroism based on promises and boasts, but no actual deeds;10 although he does not become invincible as in the oracle version, the Muse indicates (962–73) that he will obtain heroic immortality after his death, and announces his cult at Mt Pangaeum, in the context of Orphic-Dionysiac mysteries. The epic hero who dies prematurely is thus compensated with immortality of a sort as a cult hero. As has been aptly stated, ‘the dramatist has selected his motifs so as to leave the fate of Rhesus as open as possible, while he yet reminds his audience of the alternative possibilities offered by the lyric and the epic traditions’.11 Both the cult evidence and the literary treatments give us an image characterised by ‘the absence of any common bond of sion are filled with motifs and details that connect them to Cyclic epic, and should thus be older than Il. 10.     9 Cf. Fenik (1964) 26. 10 Cf. below p. 15. 11 Burnett (1985) 184 n. 74.

9

I N T RO D U C T I O N

locality or legend’. There is no evidence for any cult of Rhesus in archaic Greece (or for many other cult heroes, who mainly proliferate in the seventh and sixth centuries). But he is comparable to and may perhaps be identified with the deity or hero whom modern scholars call ‘the Thracian Horseman’ or Heros equitans, whose simple iconography is ubiquitous in Thrace. ἥρως is one of the most frequent inscriptional theonyms used of this obscure deity. We also find κύριος and δεσπότης. These suggest the name of Rhesus, which linguists take to mean ‘king’ in Thracian.13 The Heros equitans is a healing deity and a god who could be identified with Apollo and Asclepius;14 similarly, the Rhesus worshipped in the Rhodope mountains was thought to keep pestilence away. Both are hunters, both go around clad in armour and on horseback; Rhesus is destined to be immortal but he is confined to an underground abode, and the Heros equitans is frequently associated with the underworld. Rhesus is the prophet of Bacchus (Rh. 972), and the Heros equitans has strong Dionysiac associations.15 Evidence for a cult of Rhesus first appears in the fifth century. According to Polyaen. 6.53, the Athenian general Hagnon, after several unsuccessful attempts to found a colony in Thrace, managed to found Amphipolis. An oracle had indicated that the bones of Rhesus first had to be transferred from Troy to his native soil (πατρίηι … ἀρούρηι). Hagnon therefore had the presumed bones of Rhesus fetched from Troy to the Strymon, buried them by the side of the river (κατώρυξε παρὰ τὸν ποταμόν), and defended himself and the bones against the local people with a ditch and palisades. This was the beginning of the foundation of the city.16 Transferring the bones of 12

Leaf (1915) 2 (perhaps somewhat too negative about the reality of a heroic cult of Rhesus). 13 Wathelet (1989) 222, Liapis (2011b) 99 n. 26. 14 Extensive bibliography in Liapis (2011b) 101 n. 33. 15 Seure (1928), Liapis (2011b) 102–3. 16 Cf. Malkin (1987) 81–4. 12

10

2 ) R hesus in L egend, E pic and N ovel

a hero was a relatively common practice in hero-cults: the most famous examples are the transferral of the bones of Theseus from Scyros and those of Orestes from Tegea.17 Polyaenus’ report that Hagnon worked by night to deceive the local people may be fictional, as Hagnon’s night operation with the bones of Rhesus probably continues the thematic association of the Iliadic Rhesus with night-time deceit. But this cult of Rhesus at Amphipolis is unlikely to be a late fiction. It was probably known to the author of Rh. It is not surprising that the Amphipolis connection is not mentioned in the play, as even scholars who favour an early dating do not believe that the play predates the foundation of Amphipolis, and some have taken 437 as the terminus post quem for its composition.18 The author may have deliberately left out this local cult. After the Battle of Amphipolis in 422, the cult may have shared Hagnon’s fate. The Amphipolitans transferred the colony to Brasidas as oecist, demolished the Ἁγνώνεια (buildings in honour of Hagnon?) and erased (ἀφανίσαντες) any reminder of his foundation that might survive (εἴ τι μνημόσυνόν που ἔμελλεν αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκίσεως περιέσεσθαι): Thuc. 5.11.1.19 Rhesus retained a shrine in the centre of Amphipolis, opposite that of the Muse Clio, which the historian Marsyas of Philippi was still able to see in the third century; cf. FGrHist 136F7.20 The Muse of Rh. (972) also informs us that after his death Rhesus became a ‘prophet of Bacchus’ in the area of Pangaeum. This story, like many other closing prophecies in Euripidean tragedies, is the aition of a cult practice or institution that an Athenian audience knew to exist. Rhesus was understood to be the archetype of the priests (Bessoi) of the oracle of Bacchus situated in the Pangaeum Cf. McCauley (1999), Blomart (2004). Cf., e.g., Leaf (1915) 6–7, Goossens (1932) 96–7. 19 According to Malkin’s interpretation (1987) 228–32. 20 The existence of the two shrines close together may have suggested to the author of Rh. the idea that Rhesus’ mother was a Muse: Fries 13. On the excavations of Clio’s shrine, cf. Lazarides (1997), Archibald (1998) 101. 17

18

11

I N T RO D U C T I O N

mountains, and he may have been venerated there as the founder of that priesthood. The main monumental evidence for the cult of Rhesus at Amphipolis, his sanctuary, cannot have been destroyed: Marsyas was able to see it. But Rhesus’ connection with the founding of Amphipolis was probably one of those μνημόσυνα of Hagnon’s foundation which the Spartan re-foundation erased. The cult was probably marginalised. This marginalisation might perhaps help to explain a statement of Cicero, De nat. deor. 3.45–46. Cicero is wondering whether demigods born of a god and a human should be considered gods or not; he seems inclined to accept figures like Aristaeus, Theseus, and Achilles as gods, but Orpheus and Rhesus are ‘venerated nowhere’ (nusquam coluntur) and should not be considered gods. He concludes that divine honours are to be explained not by divine parentage but in terms of ‘virtues’: vide igitur ne virtutibus hominum isti honores habeantur, non immortalitatibus.21 Cicero is probably wrong to maintain that Rhesus was not venerated anywhere, but the view that Rhesus, who lacks ‘virtues’, is a minor demigod may have been widely shared. In the time of the Heroicus of Philostratus (third century AD), Rhesus was a local deity worshipped on the Rhodope mountains, where he was believed to hunt (17.3–6): γινώσκειν δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θραικὸς Ῥήσου· Ῥῆσος γάρ, ὃν ἐν Τροίαι Διομήδης ἀπέκτεινε, λέγεται οἰκεῖν τὴν Ῥοδόπην καὶ πολλὰ αὐτοῦ θαύματα ἄιδουσιν· ἱπποτροϕεῖν τε γάρ ϕασιν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁπλιτεύειν καὶ θήρας ἅπτεσθαι. σημεῖον δὲ εἶναι τοῦ θηρᾶν τὸν ἥρω τὸ τοὺς σῦς τοὺς ἀγρίους καὶ τὰς δορκάδας καὶ ὁπόσα ἐν τῶι ὄρει θηρία ϕοιτᾶν πρὸς τὸν βωμὸν τοῦ Ῥήσου κατὰ δύο ἢ τρία, θύεσθαί τε οὐδενὶ δεσμῶι ξυνεχόμενα καὶ παρέχειν τῆι μαχαίραι ἑαυτά. λέγεται δὲ ὁ ἥρως οὗτος καὶ λοιμοῦ ἐρύκειν τοὺς ὅρους· πολυανθρωποτάτη δὲ ἡ Ῥοδόπη καὶ πολλαὶ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν αἱ κῶμαι, ὅθεν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ βοήσεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ συστρατιωτῶν ὁ Διομήδης, εἰ τὸν μὲν Θρᾶικα τοῦτον, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτὸς μηδὲν εὐδόκιμον ἐν Τροίαι ἐργασάμενον, μηδὲ δείξαντά τι ἐκεῖ λόγου ἄξιον πλὴν ἵππων Such a view of heroes may already be implied in Hesiod and is certainly explicit in Pindar; cf. Jones (2010) 6 (Hesiod), 9–10 (Pindar).

21

12

2 ) R hesus in L egend, E pic and N ovel λευκῶν, εἶναί τι ἡγοίμεθα καὶ θύοιμεν αὐτῶι διὰ Ῥοδόπης τε καὶ Θράικης πορευόμενοι, τοὺς δὲ θεῖά τε καὶ λαμπρὰ εἰργασμένους ἔργα ἀτιμάζοιμεν μυθώδη τὴν περὶ αὐτοὺς δόξαν ἡγούμενοι καὶ κεκομπασμένην. You should also know something about the Thracian Rhesus. Rhesus, whom Diomedes  killed at Troy,  is said to inhabit Rhodope, where they celebrate many of his wonders in song. They say that he keeps horses, does armoured training, and engages in hunting. A sign  – they say – that the hero is a hunter is that the wild boars, deer, and all the wild beasts on the mountain come to the altar of Rhesus by twos or threes and are sacrificed unbound and offer themselves to the sacrificial knife. This same hero is also said to keep his borders safe from plague. Rhodope is extremely populous, and many villages surround the sanctuary. For this reason I think Diomedes will actually cry out in defence of his fellow soldiers, if we believe this Thracian counts for something (whom Diomedes himself killed when he had done nothing famous at Troy nor displayed there anything worthy of mention other than his white horses) and we make sacrifices to him while travelling through Rhodope and Thrace, thereby dishonouring those who have performed divine and brilliant works, believing the fame surrounding them to be nothing more than fabulous tales and idle boasting.22

It is not inconceivable that the Rhodopian Rhesus was a new hero of the Imperial age, a petty divinity of Thrace rediscovered in the third century AD,23 but in view of his connection with the Bessoi priests in Dionysus’ temple in the Pangaeum mountains, mentioned by the Muse in Rh., and his designation as a hero by Philostratus, it seems more probable that he had been receiving heroic honours in the Rhodope region for a long time. But again, as in Cicero, he is presented as hardly worthy of his cult: his inglorious death makes him less heroic than heroes like Diomedes. One is reminded of the speech of the charioteer in Rh., who twice (751–3, 756–61) laments that Rhesus died ingloriously, despite his merits; that speech may be in the background. Trans. by E. Bradshaw Aitken and J.K. Berenson Maclean, with many modifications. 23 A thorough analysis of many cases in Jones (2010). 22

13

I N T RO D U C T I O N

After a fairly long literary career as an epic character in search of glory, Rhesus almost became ‘a peg on which to hang unappropriated stories’,24 and lived an alternative life as the protagonist of a love story in the fantasy of Asclepiades, a grammarian of the first century from Myrleia in Propontis, and after him in one of the novel-plots of Parthenius (36), who quotes Asclepiades (FGrHist 697F*2) as his source.25 According to Parthenius, Rhesus, ‘before going to Troy as an ally, travelled through many lands winning over allies and imposing tribute’ (πρὶν ἐς Τροίαν ἐπίκουρον ἐλθεῖν, ἐπὶ πολλὴν γῆν ἰέναι προσαγόμενόν τε καὶ δασμὸν ἐπιτιθέντα).26 He arrived at Cius (Propontis) ‘after hearing reports’ of a beautiful girl called Arganthone. They were both fond of hunting, and soon fell in love; Arganthone resisted her feelings at first, through shame, but soon revealed them to Rhesus, and they got married. When the war at Troy began, ‘the kings’ of Troy (βασιλεῖς: probably Priam, called ‘king’ in the Il., and Hector, called ‘king’ in Rh.) summoned him as an ally (Rh. 399–403 is a likely model). ‘Whether it was the great love she had or some other instinct which led her to foresee the future, Arganthone refused to let him go (βαδίζειν αὐτὸν οὐκ εἴα)’: the Muse’s opposition to Rhesus’ departure for Troy, in Rh. 899–903 and 934–7, is again a likely model. Rhesus, however, could not bear to be ‘weak and effeminate’ at home. So he went to Troy, where he was killed by Diomedes while fighting, and Arganthone, when she heard of his death, went back to the place where they had first made love and, while mourning him, neglected herself and died, perhaps

Leaf (1915) 3. The love story of Rhesus and Arganthone is also quoted by Steph. Byz. α 394 Billerb. and is perhaps presupposed by Arr. FGrHist 156F83, on Arganthone and her two sons. 26 Compare Rhesus’ account of the wars aimed at consolidating and expanding his power at Rh. 434–6. The reappearance of the idea of imposing ‘tribute’ is striking evidence that Conon depended on Rh., or Rh. and Conon drew from a common source. 24 25

14

2 ) R hesus in L egend, E pic and N ovel

of starvation (the text is unclear). Despite its romantic emphasis on the love story, even this erotic novel (or its unknown source27) is careful to indicate that Rhesus died in battle: μαχόμενος ἐπὶ ποταμῶι τῶι νῦν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου Ῥήσωι καλουμένωι πληγεὶς ὑπὸ Διομήδους ἀποθνήισκει (the river Rhesus is mentioned at Hom. Il. 12.20, but without reference to Rhesus). Thus even as protagonist of a bourgeois love story Rhesus gets the share of military glory that Homer had denied him: he dies in battle, not in his sleep, and his death is glorious enough to justify the naming of a river after him. In the play Rhesus does not have time to fight, and dies ‘ingloriously’ (758–61), as in the Il., but at least he speaks extensively, in a long debate with Hector (388–517). This debate has two structural aims. First of all, together with Athena’s claim that Rhesus could annihilate the Greeks on the battlefield in a single day (598–606), it constructs what we might call the virtual and boastful heroism of Rhesus. This in part replaces his non-existent martial glory with extreme ambition (e.g. the desire to invade and subjugate Greece). Most modern scholars have considered this to be mere braggadocio,28 but this boastful self-presentation may have become a common motif for the Trojan allies, if not already in the Epic Cycle, at least in the case of Cycnus or Memnon in fifth-century tragedy.29 Those who remembered the Pindaric version of the Rhesus story may have found his promises less improbable than they sound in light of Il. 10. They may even have wondered whether Rh. would include the single day of glory which Pindar had

According to an attractive suggestion of Lightfoot (1999) 554, Parthenius’ source may have developed the oracle version: ‘Rhesus had to be killed before he could fulfil an oracle predicting his invincibility if he could drink the water of Troy … Diomedes and Rhesus perhaps are imagined to struggle on the river bank and Rhesus is killed before he can drink its water’. 28 Cf. most recently Cropp (2005) 288: ‘the blustering Hector and Rhesus are unengaging as tragic figures’. 29 Cf. Ritchie (1964) 96–100. 27

15

I N T RO D U C T I O N

granted to him, perhaps described by a messenger. But Rhesus dies almost immediately in the play, as in Homer, before he can have an aristeia. The second aim of the debate between Hector and Rhesus is to consider in depth the risks and benefits of military alliances. Both during the Peloponnesian War and in the fourth century, this question must have been one of crucial importance in Athenian political life and consequently in Athenian assemblies. As we shall see,30 Rhesus is in good company. Hector and Aeneas, the two other main characters that the play inherits from epic, undergo a similar repurposing and often become, in a way, role-players of two specific speech acts: the decision-making leader and the good advisor in decision-making. 3 ) AU T H O R S H I P The Euripidean authorship of Rh. has been doubted since antiquity31 and often discussed by modern scholars; the same is true of its date. However, its literary agenda and ambitions have not always received as much consideration, and doubts about its authenticity have often been based on judgements of literary quality. But the poetics of Rh. can tell us much both about the skill of the poet and about authorship and chronology. The play engages in sophisticated literary and historical interactions with the literature and culture of its age. And the most plausible contexts for these interactions belong not to the fifth century but to the second half of the fourth. Rh. is transmitted in the corpus of the tragedies of Euripides, where it was part of the ‘selection’, the ten plays studied in schools.32 However, one of the ancient hypotheseis that precede the text in some MSS (hyp. b Diggle) records that ‘some have suspected that this drama is inauthentic, and is See below, Chap. 8. In hyp. b to the Rh. (see below p. 83) and Σ 41 (see 41n.). 32 See below, p. 71. 30 31

16

3 ) Authorship

not by Euripides (νόθον, … Εὐριπίδου δὲ μὴ εἶναι), and that it shows more the stamp of Sophocles (τὸν … Σοφόκλειον μᾶλλον ὑποφαίνειν χαρακτῆρα)’.33 But, hyp. b continues, ‘in the Didaskaliai34 the play is recorded as authentic’. In Σ Rh. 528 we read that Crates forgave what he considered a mistake of astronomy at Rh. 528, observing that Euripides was young and therefore no expert in ἡ περὶ τὰ μετέωρα θεωρία when he wrote the tragedy. He thus excused the astronomical mistake by pointing to Euripides’ youth, rather than seeing it as evidence for the lack of skill of an anonymous author. We have no evidence that the ancients considered Rh. an inferior work that, as such, could not be by Euripides; they do not appear to have thought that it fell below his level, or below the level of Sophocles for that matter. M.A. Del Rio (1593) and J.J. Scaliger (1600) were the first modern scholars to express doubts about Euripidean authorship. Scaliger did not connect these doubts with the idea of an inferior author. Rather, he felt that the style was too grandiloquent for Euripides, and hesitantly suggested Sophocles instead.35 Two centuries later, A. Matthiae suggested that it was the work either of a contemporary of Euripides or of an earlier tragic poet,36 and K. Lachmann argued from the lyric structures of the choral songs in Rh. that it could be by Aeschylus rather than Sophocles.37 The idea of an inferior author became prominent at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but it did not appear out of nowhere. A few years before Scaliger, Del Rio had

On the sense of ‘Sophoclean stamp’ in the Rh., cf. Mierow (1928). The catalogue of essential records of Athenian theatre productions (archon in year of performance, author, title, festival, choregos, actors), compiled by Aristotle’s school. It parallels epigraphic records such as IG II–III2.2318 2318, known as fasti of the City Dionysia, or the later IG II–III2. 2319–23. 35 Scaliger (1600) 6–8 (but pages not numbered). 36 Matthiae VIII.2–5. 37 Lachmann (1819) 116–17. 33

34

17

I N T RO D U C T I O N

conjectured that Rh. was composed by a minor author: Euripides junior, nephew (or son) of the tragedian, or Euripides senior, who was a generation older than the Euripides best known to us.38 Del Rio did not offer any negative evaluation of the play’s aesthetic qualities. But in 1630 S. Petit started to collect evidence for the supposed weakness of the plot. He surmised that the play was by Aristarchus, a tragedian contemporary with Euripides.39 A century later, Jacques Hardion criticised the plot for lacking verisimilitude, but he did not attempt to identify an author.40 These two scholars were probably the first to suggest that Rh. could not be by Euripides or by Sophocles, and must be by a lesser author. It is significant for what we are about to argue that Hardion in particular based his speculations on anomalies in tragic dramaturgy. He maintained that ‘the aim of tragedy, in Aristotle’s opinion, must be to provoke terror and pity, and to purge us from them Del Rio (1593) Prolegom. I 22 ‘Euripides, vel Iunior eius quem habemus nepos, vel secundum alios Senior eiusdem avus: huic tribuuntur Medea, Orestes, Polyxena; ego et Rhesum illi tribuerim’. Boeckh (1808) 225–32 suggested that Euripides Junior was the author. He was followed by Porter lii–liii, who agreed with Boeckh in ascribing to this younger Euripides both our play and the anapaestic prologue of Iphigenia in Aulis, which was staged posthumously. 39 Petit (1630) III.185–6. The idea was based on the improbable assumption that the Aristarchus quoted in Σ D Il. 10.282 was the tragedian and not the Hellenistic scholar. 40 Most of the objections raised by these authors cannot be taken seriously. For instance, both Petit (1630) III.195–6 and more clearly Hardion (1737) 331–3 insist that the chorus of watchmen in Rh. does not behave plausibly. They note that the Odysseus and Diomedes of this play seem to move around freely in the camps of the Trojans and their allies, whereas Homer had more credibly distinguished between the Trojans, who kept watch, and the allies, who were asleep (see also the criticism of the charioteer at Rh. 763–9). This makes it more plausible that Odysseus and Diomedes were able to reach Rhesus’ camp. But Hector in Rh. emphasises precisely that it is dangerous for the watchmen to leave their post and, more importantly, the watchmen do finally intercept Odysseus and Diomedes. 38

18

3 ) Authorship

by letting them come to us. But there is nothing in the tragedy Rh. which is aimed in this direction’.41 More than a century later, L.C. Valckenaer (1767) sympathised with Del Rio’s suggestions about Euripides junior.42 He supported the opinion of Petit and Hardion43 that Rh. cannot be by Euripides or Sophocles, not only because it is different from their work but also because it is inferior. He also noted that the play uses more uncommon words than all the other surviving tragedies of Euripides put together.44 His main point is the inadequacy of Rh. as a tragedy; he finds the boastfulness and ineffectiveness of Hector and Rhesus inappropriate for tragic protagonists.45 The first thorough, impassioned, and authoritative attack on the Euripidean authorship of Rh. was also based on similar criteria. G. Hermann argued that Rh. was composed by an enthusiastic but incompetent writer and described his psychology with a verve that may seem humorously mean-spirited to us. He admitted that this tragedian was well acquainted with the formal structural elements typical of tragedy,46 but he gave five reasons why the play is of poor quality. Two of his reasons had already been adduced by Valckenaer: the excessive use of rare words from the most various authors (undique collecta)47 and Hardion (1737) 329–30. He remarks that the action narrated in Rh. is not really tragic, because it demonstrates again and again the superiority of the Greeks over the Asiatic Trojans; it therefore communicates an agreeable and reassuring message, which does not cause fear in the audience (this remark is in line, again, with Aristotle’s observation that contemplating the pain of an enemy in war cannot arouse compassion). 42 Valckenaer (1767) 95. 43 Both are mentioned by Valckenaer (1767) 98 (Petit) and 95 (Hardion). 44 Valckenaer (1767) 96. 45 Valckenaer (1767) 98–114. 46 Hermann (1828) 282: ‘descriptio actionis, distributio partium, officia personarum, ratio diverbiorum, dispositio divisioque chori, munerumque inter cantores alternatio, eqs.’ 47 Hermann (1828) 287–96 provides the first full list of rare words in Rh. See below p. 25. 41

19

I N T RO D U C T I O N

the imperitia inventionis, details of plot or character unsuited to a tragedy, especially in the parodos and epiparodos. In the first, the chorus enter the orchestra confusedly and have a series of agitated exchanges with Hector (1–33). In the second, they encounter Odysseus and Diomedes (675–91). For this unusually physical confrontation with Odysseus, who pretends to be a Trojan, Hermann adduced only the single parallel of the nocturnal encounters of Sosia and Amphitruo with their respective doubles in Plautus’ Amphitryon and commented: comoediae plura licita sunt quam tragoediae.48 In keeping with these observations, Hermann characterises the Rh. author as an overambitious dilettante, utterly unaware of his shortcomings. Had that author just abandoned the project, Hermann would have forgiven him, but instead, he sedulo perfecit expolivitque, with the typical stubbornness of a man who, sitting in the isolation of his house, studia sua umbratica tranquillo animo tractat: he hopes to find admirers who are similar to him, but is not interested in appealing to people who, unlike himself, applaud poets who stir their emotions.49 This explains Hermann’s dating of the play to the Hellenistic age, which is shared by R. Morstadt (1827) and O. Menzer (1867).50 Although the idea that Rh. must be the work of a lesser talent dominated later nineteenth-century scholarship,51 the author was commonly thought to have lived not in the Hellenistic age but in the fourth century.52 Hermann (1828) 283–4. Hermann (1828) 283. His emphasis on the absolute isolation of the poetaster who works only for his friends and colleagues and does not care about a larger popular audience should not surprise us, if we consider the strong Kantian background of Hermann’s aesthetic thought. For Kant, universality is one of the crucial requisites for beauty, and in 1794 Hermann had written an essay, ‘De poeseos generibus’, which consisted of a detailed application of Kant’s aesthetic principles: cf. Selden (1990) 162–5, and Schramm (2010). 50 After Menzer, the Hellenistic dating appears to have been supported only by Fabbri (1920), who offers no new arguments. 51 Cf., e.g., Bernhardy (1845) II.434–8 and Hagenbach (1863). 52 The same chronology had been suggested by Hardion (1737) 336–7. Following Bernhardy and Hagenbach, scholars who do not believe that Rh. is 48

49

20

3 ) Authorship

The twentieth century saw two major attempts to reassert Euripidean authorship. One was made by R. Goossens (1932) and H. Grégoire (1933),53 who suggested that Rh. reflects on the relations between Athens and its Thracian allies in the 420s.54 The other was William Ritchie’s. Ritchie (1964) provides the most recent detailed stylistic and metrical analysis of the tragedy, and he lists formidable evidence in favour of the thesis that Rh. could be by Euripides, suggesting (after Crates) that it is the earliest of Euripides’ extant works, and that it was composed between 455 and 440. Ritchie’s book was the standard work on this play for forty years, but its main conclusions on authenticity have never met with great favour. Eduard Fraenkel (1965), for instance, expressed appreciation for the author’s acumen and analyses, but maintained that the play was probably composed by a fourth-century author. The question remains unsettled. This is not surprising: the slight differences or analogies between fifth-century tragedy and Rh. in vocabulary, metrics, and dramatic techniques are hardly substantial enough to persuade everyone that Rh. does or does not belong in the fifth century.55 And an author does not necessarily write in the same way throughout his life.56 At the level of genre, Rh. resists definition. The lack of consistent tragic pathos and the presence of some comic elements were often taken, in the nineteenth century, to demonstrate non-Euripidean authorship. They have been re-interpreted by Burnett (1985) as fitting the work of a young Euripides, a novice who ‘has not yet found his own mode; he loves but distrusts the conventional forms, and so he raids and ridicules the work of by Euripides generally place it in the fourth century. Boeckh (1808), quoted above, had already ascribed Rh. to the son of Euripides. 53 Cf. also Grégoire and Goossens (1934). 54 See below, pp. 67–9. 55 Ferguson (1972) 488. 56 As observed, e.g., by Tuilier (1983).

21

I N T RO D U C T I O N

others without a qualm. In Rhesus he writes a play against war, but he makes it also an attack on the traditions of tragedy by systematically reducing its familiar structures and material to the level of the absurd’. However, as Burnett herself admits, ‘there is a structural wit to be observed, and also a knowing experimentation with dramatic forms, and these are qualities that are found elsewhere only in the mature plays of Euripides. The interest in exotic religion, and the balancing dry, demythologised, but serious glance given to the Hellenic gods, are exactly what we should expect from the poet of Helen, Iphigenia among the Taurians, and the Bacchae.’57 Burnett’s is perhaps the best way to interpret some features of Rh. within the confines of fifth-century tragedy. But one cannot agree with her when she takes Rh. to be the equivalent of a satyr-drama or a tragedy of reversed catastrophe: the charioteer’s description of the stealthy massacre and the Muse’s mourning scene are not a proper conclusion for a burlesque or a play with a happy ending.58 If we think that Rh. is from the fifth century and limit ourselves to comparing it with the tragic canon (including the ‘melodramatic’ plays of Euripides59) in order to evaluate its literary ambitions and achievements, it will be hard to decide whether the author is a minor non-Euripidean imitator of Euripides, a Burnett (1985) 51. See also n. 59. As observed by Kitto (1977) 344. Roisman (2018) has recently re-scrutinised the various points of contact between Rh. and satyr-plays (e.g. lack or inconsistency of pathos, deflation of the heroic dimension, humour of some scenes) and reproposed the idea that Rh. was a burlesque satyr-play intended to release the tension constructed by the three previous tragic performances. 59 Unlike satyr-dramas, or plays of reversed catastrophe such as Alcestis, Rh. definitely does not have a happy ending: the poetic intention of its author ‘was not one that could be conveyed by the joyous cruelty or the fantastic quality of the satyr genre. Instead he has made a piece that is neither tragic nor satyresque, one that is cruel without much jollity …’ (Burnett (1985) 49). 57

58

22

3 ) Authorship

young Euripides experimenting with literary forms, or an older Euripides who took the literary experiments familiar from his later plays to a new level. Any choice will appear to be a conjectural act of faith. If the investigation of Euripidean or non-Euripidean authorship has not progressed effectively from the radical disagreement between Ritchie and Fraenkel over the conclusions from a linguistic and stylistic analysis of the play, research on other aspects of the play during the past two decades has produced the almost unanimous conclusion that Rhesus belongs in the fourth century. Our play was possibly authored by a pseudonymous tragic poet, as may have been the case with the trilogy Tennes, Rhadamanthys, Pirithous of Euripides, which two redactions of an ancient ‘Life of Euripides’ (TrGF V.1, pp. 47 and 49) present as inauthentic (νοθεύεται) or disputed (ἀντιλέγεται). Athenaeus, the source of TrGF I 43F2 (from Pirithous), introduces the play with the phrase ‘whether this is Critias the tyrant or Euripides’, but all the other testimonia ascribe the three tragedies to Eur., and they must thus have been included in the Euripidean corpus at the library of Alexandria and usually considered Euripidean.60 Or, alternatively, our Rh. may be a text composed by one or more actors or producers from the fourth century.61 In that case, rather than a composition from scratch, it may have been a reworking of the original Euripidean play with the same title, a reworking that was just more extensive than the many interpolations and alterations of the authorial text that are usually ascribed to actors or producers, mainly but not only in Iphigeneia at Aulis.

Cf. Kannicht (1995), MinGrTrag I.180–3, 218–19, Cropp (2020). As argued by Ragone (1969) and Liapis (2009b) and (2012) lxxii–lxxv (see also below n. 123).

60 61

23

I N T RO D U C T I O N

4 ) E V I D E N C E F O R A L AT E - F O U RT H C E N T U RY DAT I N G 4 a ) S t y l i s t i c a n d D r a m at u r g i c a l E v i d e n c e Recent commentaries,62 including the present one, highlight features of Rh. that appear to ‘come after’ the fifth century and are best explained as belonging to the fourth century – in particular, I think, to the 330s. None of these features is striking in itself, nor is there any single feature which can be considered sufficient proof by itself, but they all point to the fourth century, and some to the late fourth century. This impression of secondariness (not qualitative but chronological) is evident in both the intertextual practice of Rh. and the way in which it reuses fifth-century tragedy and comedy. At a stylistic level this secondariness finds expression in the frequent use of the stylistic ‘mosaic technique’, discussed by Fraenkel63 and Fries.64 The author sometimes combines expressions from different authors into a single expression. The phrases used may not be rare in fifth-century drama, but they are not found combined elsewhere. Thus at 837 μακροῦ γε δεῖ σε καὶ σοφοῦ λόγου, the construction of impersonal δεῖ with genitive of the thing and accusative of the person, rather than with the usual dative of the person, is found often in Euripides, but in the extant plays and fragments Euripides never uses μακρὸς λόγος in δεῖ phrases, and the author of Rh. may have thought of Aesch. PV 870 μακροῦ λόγου δεῖ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπεξελθεῖν and 875–6 ταῦτα δεῖ μακροῦ λόγου / εἰπεῖν. Similarly, at 887, νεόκμητον νεκρόν is a pleonasm of a kind that is paralleled in tragedy (e.g., θανὼν νέκυς, κατθανὼν νέκυς, νεκροὶ ὀλωλότες) and recalls the Homeric νεκροὶ κατατεθνηῶτες. However, all these phrases include verbs meaning ‘die’, whereas νεόκμητος is derived from the euphemism καμεῖν ‘be tired’ = ‘be dead’: the two terms Liapis (2012) and Fries (2014). Cf. Poe (2004). Fraenkel (1965) 233. 64 Fries 35–6. 62 63

24

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

κεκμηκότες and καμόντες = ‘those who have become tired’ = ‘dead’ are common in epic and not uncommon in tragedy. The mosaic technique may also operate at the level of wide-ranging stylistic choices. The author of Rh. is fond of using uncommon words, and in particular hapax eiremena (= words not found elsewhere).65 The proportion of the play’s vocabulary that falls into that category, though consistently higher in the early tragedies of Euripides, is comparable with the proportions in his late plays. But the author’s avoidance of frequent resolution in his trimeters recalls the early plays of Euripides: his late plays are characterised by a high number of resolutions. The systematic use of this ‘mosaic technique’, of which Rh. provides several examples,66 suggests an author drawing on a long tradition of tragic texts. He can freely re-use their vocabulary and is not concerned with reproducing Euripidean or tragic style of a particular period.67 The author freely re-uses stage conventions of fifth-century drama in a way that has few if any parallels in fifth-century tragedy. A fourth actor is most probably needed for the Alexander scene, whereas fifth-century tragedy usually employed three actors or fewer.68 Various other items are listed by Ritchie and Poe. For example, it is not clear when Dolon enters: at 154, he seems to have heard Hector’s appeal for a volunteer (149–50), and he may have been on stage from the beginning of the play. Hector is silent between 195 and 263, and it is not clear whether he is present throughout or exits and re-enters. Athena appears As pointed out many times: e.g., Hermann (1828) 287–9, Eysert (1891) 18– 19, Ritchie (1964) 150–6, and Liapis (2012) liv–lv. 66 Apart from the combination of early Euripidean metricatl strictness and late Euripidean taste for the hapax, see the lexical examples 116–18n., 119– 22n., 438–42n., 498b–500n, 816–19n., 837b–40n., 886–9n., 915–16n. 67 Liapis (2017) 342. 68 Cf. 627–41n. A fourth actor was however probably needed in Aesch. Cho. and Soph. OC; cf. Taplin (1977a) 353–4, Di Benedetto and Medda (1997) 215–30. 65

25

I N T RO D U C T I O N

on high in the middle of the play, and not to resolve the dramatic action but to participate in it (595ff.). The chorus enter twice, and on the second occasion (675ff.) they physically assault and capture an actor, Odysseus. The charioteer has the role of a second messenger, but he does not have the detachment expected of a messenger. Then he remains on stage after 803, when his report should be concluded, and becomes a participant in the action: he tries to charge Hector with arranging the slaughter of Rhesus and the other Thracians.69 There are other awkward but perhaps minor slips in the construction of the plot that would be surprising in an author of the fifth century.70 For each of these anomalies, parallels exist, but what remains unparalleled is the presence of a high number of them in a single play. Attempts to locate the play on the map of cultural history have provided useful results in the last decade. Various details in Rh. are easier to explain if they are placed in the second half of the fourth century. For example, the author pays attention to peculiarities of Macedonian military organisation.71 Hector and Aeneas are afraid that panic will arise among the sleeping Trojans (16–89); likewise, Aeneas Tacticus (mid-fourth century) is preoccupied with ‘panic’.72 At Rh. 151–94 there is a long discussion of the honours to be awarded to Dolon for his mission, Cf. Battezzato (2000b), Poe (2004), Mattison (2015). For example, the fires in the Greek camp that the watchmen report to Hector at the beginning of the play, which are the topic of a debate between Hector, the watchmen, and Aeneas, are totally forgotten from line 130 onwards. One may also point to the role of Dolon, which is totally ineffectual. He reveals where Hector’s bivouac is, but Hector is not sleeping there, and so his information is useless. He does, however, at least inform the raiders of the Trojan password. In Il. 10, on the other hand, he had the crucial role of alerting the two Greek raiders to the presence of Rhesus and his horses. Finally, Alexander’s entrance and Athena’s disguise seem to have no dramatic function ‘save the (rather cheap) thrill occasioned by the goddess’s sensational trick’ (Liapis xl) – and this is a thrill more typical of comedy than of tragedy. Cf. Poe (2004), Liapis xxxviii–xlv and (2017). 71 See below pp. 42–6. 72 Cf. Fantuzzi (2011a) and below 36–7a n. 69 70

26

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

and this is probably what led the author to devote so much space to Dolon’s ineffectual role in the play:73 it reflects public debates on the honours to be awarded to civic benefactors, a common topic in the fourth-century Athenian assembly.74 At 941–9 the Muse emphasises the role of Orpheus and Musaeus in Greek culture; the passage is an aition for Athens’ cultural eminence but also perhaps evidence of Macedonian claims for the priority of the culture of Northern Greece.75 Although some of these details could also be at home in the last decades of the fifth century,76 taken together, they probably point to the Athens of the second half of the fourth century: Athenians, and not only Athenians, may have discussed such topics frequently at the boule and the ekklesia at the beginning of the age of Macedon,77 but it is unlikely that they were discussed so frequently in the fifth century.78 4b) Neoptolemus and the Bes t peripeteia A new piece of evidence for the chronology and the ‘Macedonian connection’ of Rh. may be found in the new motif of peripeteia that surfaces in the second stasimon.79 That song immediately follows a long debate about whether Rhesus should be

See above n. 70 and below pp. 64–6. Cf. Fantuzzi (2016b). 75 See below pp. 45–9. 76 For example, ὑπασπιστής (see below pp. 42–3, 147) may mean simply ‘squire’, a sense it has in Hdt. 5.111.1, 5.112.2; Orpheus and Musaeus had always been archetypes of Greek cultural identity. 77 The ‘political art of Greek tragedy’ (to quote the title of a pioneering work by Meier (1993); the new standard reference on the topic is now Carter (2007)) made of tragedy a performance at which the spectators could continue to reflect on some of the issues that they were debating or had recently been debating as citizens in the assembly. Tragedy provided them with the opportunity to consider such issues from the distant viewpoint of myth. 78 Cf. Fantuzzi (2016b). 79 This section presupposes Fantuzzi (2016a). 73

74

27

I N T RO D U C T I O N

accepted as an ally. Hector is initially hostile to this idea, noting that Rhesus arrived late, but in the end he accepts that Rhesus and his army could bring the war to a quick conclusion. At this point, the chorus display their enthusiasm for Rhesus in a song of joy and great expectation. Their hyperbolic praise of, and prayer to, Rhesus is shaped as a cultic hymn (342–79); then excited anapaests accompany his entrance (380–7). In this hymn, and nowhere else in the play, Rhesus is identified as a god (355–6 Ζεὺς… ἥκεις, 358–9 νῦν σοι τὸν Ἐλευθέριον/ Ζῆνα πάρεστιν εἰπεῖν, 385 θεός… θεός, αὐτὸς Ἄρης). There are passages in epic in which a warrior is compared to a θεός or a δαίμων80 or to Ares,81 but such similes are concerned with appearance, and do not suggest identification; in some cases they are ‘appropriate for marking the climactic moment of god-hero antagonism in epic narrative’ and thus also for marking the hero for death.82 Already in the first stasimon the chorus had compared Rhesus to a δαίμων (301–2), and the Muse will announce that, after his death, he will be an ἀνθρωποδαίμων (971) and will be granted a form of immortality in his underground abode, like many cult heroes. But in the second stasimon, Rhesus is not simply like a god: rather, he is a god. It is certain, in the light of Aristotle’s distinction between metaphor and simile, that the difference would be felt.83 Gods and cult heroes were regularly believed to provide help, and they were invoked in every age of Greek religion.84 But Ε.g., θεὸς ὣς τίετο Hom. Il. 5.78, 10.33, 11.58, 13.218, ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος 5.438, 459, 884, 16.705, 786, 20.447, 21.227. 81 E.g., ἶσος Ἄρηϊ Hom. Il. 11.295, 604, 13.802; ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ 13.295, 16.784; οἷος … Ἄρης 7.208, 13.298. 82 Nagy (1979) 293; cf. also 143–4. 83 While the simile expresses separately the two terms that are compared, the metaphor, a simile without ὡς, substitutes one notion for the other, identifying them in one image, and expressing both in a single word; cf. 56–8n., 385–7n., Cope and Sandys (1877) 137–8. 84 On cult heroes as saviours in archaic and classical religion, cf. most recently Nagy (2013) 655–83. 80

28

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

there are no parallels in fifth-century tragedy for the idea that a leading political or military figure could be deified while still alive in order to secure his help. The notion has been thought foreign to the fifth century.85 There is a parallel, however, in the later honours granted by the Athenians to Demetrius Poliorcetes. The ithyphallic poem sung by the Athenians in 291/290 to celebrate the arrival of Demetrius in Athens (Athen. 6.253d–f = CA 173–4) is probably the earliest piece of evidence for the divine cult of rulers in the Hellenistic period: Ὡς οἱ μέγιστοι τῶν θεῶν καὶ ϕίλτατοι τῆι πόλει πάρεισιν· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ Δήμητρα καὶ Δημήτριον ἅμα παρῆχ΄ ὁ καιρός. χἠ μὲν τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Κόρης μυστήρια  ἔρχεθ᾽ ἵνα ποιήσηι, ὁ δ᾽ ἱλαρός, ὥσπερ τὸν θεὸν δεῖ, καὶ καλὸς καὶ γελῶν πάρεστι. σεμνόν τι ϕαίνεθ᾽, οἱ ϕίλοι πάντες κύκλωι, ἐν μέσοισι δ᾽ αὐτός,  ὅμοιον ὥσπερ οἱ ϕίλοι μὲν ἀστέρες, ἥλιος δ᾽ ἐκεῖνος. ὦ τοῦ κρατίστου παῖ Ποσειδῶνος θεοῦ, χαῖρε, κἀϕροδίτης. ἄλλοι μὲν ἢ μακρὰν γὰρ ἀπέχουσιν θεοί,  ἢ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὦτα, ἢ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἢ οὐ προσέχουσιν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ ἕν, σὲ δὲ παρόνθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν, οὐ ξύλινον οὐδὲ λίθινον, ἀλλ΄ ἀληθινόν. εὐχόμεσθα δή σοι·  πρῶτον μὲν εἰρήνην ποίησον, ϕίλτατε, κύριος γὰρ εἶ σύ, τὴν δ᾽ οὐχὶ Θηβῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἑλλάδος Σϕίγγα περικρατοῦσαν ‒ Αἰτωλὸς ὅστις ἐπὶ πέτρας καθήμενος  ὥσπερ ἡ παλαιά, τὰ σώμαθ᾽ ἡμῶν πάντ᾽ ἀναρπάσας ϕέρει, κοὐκ ἔχω μάχεσθαι·

5

10

15

20

25

Cf. Wilamowitz (1931/1932) II.259–60, Hall (1989) 92–3, Liapis (2007) 381.

85

29

I N T RO D U C T I O N Αἰτωλικὸν γὰρ ἁρπάσαι τὰ τῶν πέλας, νῦν δὲ καὶ τὰ πόρρω ‒  μάλιστα μὲν δὴ κόλασον αὐτός· εἰ δὲ μή, Οἰδίπουν τιν᾽ εὑρέ, τὴν Σϕίγγα ταύτην ὅστις ἢ κατακρημνιεῖ ἢ σπίνον ποιήσει.

30

How the greatest and dearest of the gods are present in our city! For the circumstances have brought together Demeter and Demetrius; she comes to celebrate the solemn mysteries of Core, while he is here full of joy, as befits the god, fair and laughing. It is an impressive sight, his friends all around him and he in their midst, as though they were stars and he the sun. Hail, son of the most powerful god Poseidon and Aphrodite! For the other gods86 are either far away or they do not have ears or they do not exist or do not take the slightest notice of us, but you we can see present here, not made of wood or stone, but real. So we pray to you: first make peace, dearest one; for you have the power. And then, the Sphinx that rules not only over Thebes but over the whole of Greece – for it is an Aetolian, sitting on a rock like the ancient Sphinx, who seizes and carries away all our people, and I cannot fight him, as it is an Aetolian custom to seize the property of neighbours and now even property that is afar – most of all, punish him yourself; if not, find an Oedipus who will either hurl down that Sphinx from the rocks or reduce her to ashes.87

The initial aretalogy praises features of the divinity of Demetrius (he is comparable to Demeter,88 smiling and cheerful, beautiful and impressive, and of divine parentage, 1–12) and Perhaps ‘the other gods’, not ‘other gods’, i.e., gods other than those that are mentioned as present and concerned with Athens (Demeter, Poseidon, Aphrodite), with ἄλλοι … θεοί ~ οἱ ἄλλοι θεοί, Homerically (Il. 2.1 ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί… and 10.1, cf. Σ A ad locc.). The adulation is more effective if the Greek text contrasts Demetrius, a divinised mortal, visible king, to ‘all the other’ gods, who are immortal but invisible; cf. Chaniotis (2011) 179, Platt (2011) 144. 87 Trans. by Chaniotis (2011), with modifications. 88 As Platt (2011) 144 observes (on the basis of Plut. Dem. 23.3), ‘all the evidence suggests that Demetrius’ cult at Athens supplemented traditional religious practice rather than supplanted it: he supposedly inhabited the Parthenon as a synnaos theos with Athena rather than as her successor, for example’. 86

30

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

concludes with a brief centrepiece (13–19) that links hymn and prayer.89 This emphasises that Demetrius is there, physically, in Athens – not made of wood or stone, like ‘the other gods’, but real, so it is certain that he can confer protection. The last part of the hymn (20–34) is a prayer exhorting Demetrius to help the Athenians stop the raids of the Aetolians. There are obvious parallels between the structure and motifs of our stasimon and the song for Demetrius. Both are divided into two parts. The first includes the hymnic description of the subject’s divine parentage; the subject is equated to traditional gods (Demeter in the hymn; Zeus Phanaios and Ares in Rh.); there is the παρουσία motif, found in the thrice repeated ἥκεις at Rh. 346–7 and 356 and ἐπλάθης at 347, which parallel lines 15–19 of the hymn to Demetrius. Initial invocations of the god in cultic hymns – the genre to which the hymn to Demetrius and the Rh. stasimon are closest – often included imperatives like ἐλθέ, βαῖνε, βῆθι, ἱκοῦ, μόλε, sometimes repeated. The god was asked to move to the place where the prayer was being performed and become ἐπιφανής there (cf., e.g., the Elean prayer to Dionysus, PMG 871, which begins with ἐλθεῖν ἥρω Διόνυσε, and Sappho’s prayer to Aphrodite).90 Both the hymn for Demetrius and the Rh. stasimon are proud to announce that their god is physically present and thus ready to listen to their pleas,91 though the point is more strongly emphasised in the

Cf. Henrichs (1999) 244 n. 68. Cf. Weinreich (1912), Versnel (1981) 26–37, Pulleyn (1997) 134–44. 91 Platt’s (2011) 145 observation about the hymn to Demetrius also substantially applies to the Rh. stasimon: ‘the epiphanic language of the opening lines works to bind the ruler into the reciprocal honours system of the city. The hymn itself functions as part of this do ut des exchange, for each performance of the text confirms the illustriousness of its addressee in a way that boosts the very claim made in its opening lines. Demetrius is epiphanēs not just because of his godlike agency, but also because the Athenians make him so.’ 89 90

31

I N T RO D U C T I O N

hymn. The requests promptly follow.92 The second part consists in a prayer for military help. These resemblances are not the result of direct imitation. It is more likely that both texts reflect the occasion (and thus probably the topoi and rhetoric) of an ἀπάντησις, the formalised reception with which Athens celebrated the arrival of distinguished political figures like Alcibiades or Demosthenes or Hellenistic kings and Roman envoys.93 Both seem to reflect the divine epiphanies that functioned as ‘crisis management tools’, where a deity appeared in order to release a community from a plague, a famine, or, most frequently, a siege (as in Rh.), and was consequently honoured with epiphanic festivals.94 And both suggest the equivalence of human and divine subjects of praise. There are only a few parallels for this perspective, and, at least in Plato, it seems to be presented as untraditional and of quite recent origin. Resp. 607a contrasts hymns for gods and enkomia for men, although we do not know how widespread this distinction was, and Plato himself is inconsistent (at Laws 801e–802a both terms are used for gods and humans). At Laws 700a–e, however, Plato insists that it is preferable if people observe the distinction between prayers to gods and songs for mortals, implying perhaps that this distinction was fading away in his time. It was probably only among Macedonians and fourth-century Greek audiences, accustomed to Macedonian and Northern Greek tastes, that the laudatory blurring of the borders between humans and divinity would have been really familiar. There had been occasions on which living mortals

Antistr. β, in which Rhesus is asked to start fighting the Greeks (something that he is destined never to do), begins with ἐλθὲ φάνηθι: he is asked to ‘come’ and ‘appear’ on the battlefield. Str. α on the other hand concentrates on the fact that he has come already (cf. ἥκεις, ἐπλάθης), thus emphasising that Rhesus is actually present where his help is needed. 93 Cf. Currie (2005) 181–3, Chaniotis (2011) 166–71, Perrin-Saminadayar (2004/2005), 355–6. 94 Cf. Petridou (2015) 125–41, 314–17.

92

32

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

were deified. The divine honours that the Spartan admiral Lysander received in his lifetime at Samos and elsewhere after Aegospotami – altars erected in his name ὡς θεῶι, a festival named after him, paeans (PMG 867) sung in his honour – were the first example of the divinisation of a mortal during his lifetime, according to Douris, FGrHist 76F71.95 But already in the first half of the fifth century, a Delphic oracle ordered a herocult to be instituted for the boxer Euthymus, who was victorious at Olympia in 484, 476, and 472 (Callim. Aet. F 98–9 and Dieg. 4.6–17 Harder),96 and heroic honours were granted by the people of Amphipolis to the re-founder Brasidas after 422 BC (Thuc. 5.11.1); the same may have happened in relation to the founder Hagnon after 437.97 A statue of Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse, may have portrayed him with the features of the god Dionysus ([Dio Chrys.] Or. 37.21).98 After 363, Clearchus, tyrant of Heracleia, exacted divine honours from his subjects, and in 356, Dion, the pupil of Plato and tyrant of Syracuse, was granted τιμαὶ ἡρωϊκαί in his lifetime (Diod. Sic. 16.20.6).99 These few and often overlooked examples suggest that divine honours started long before the late fourth-century examples, and the novelty of the practice of divinisation favoured by Philip II or Alexander should not be overstressed. But these remained isolated cases for many decades, and (with the single exception of the specifically divine cults for Lysander) these cases were characterised by an obvious local origin and limited extension of the cult. Most of them may have involved

Cf. Mari (2004). Cf. Currie (2002). Another athlete, Theagenes of Thasos, was said by the Thasians to be the son of Heracles: Pausan. 6.11.2. 97 Cf. Malkin (1987) 228–32. For a thorough discussion of all these cases of fifth-century cults of military leaders or city-founders, cf. Currie (2005) 158–200. 98 Cf. Sanders (1991). 99 Other dubious cases include those of Pythagoras and Empedocles: cf. Fredricksmeyer (1981) 149–51, Currie (2005) 167–8 on Empedocles. 95

96

33

I N T RO D U C T I O N

heroic rather than divine cults.100 In the second half of the fourth century, however, divine cults for Philip II, Alexander, and, a few years later, Demetrius Poliorcetes became the rule. A shrine of Philip II, the Philippeion, was erected at Olympia with his statue and statues of members of his family fashioned by the famous Athenian sculptor Leochares (Pausanias 5.20.9– 10).101 The people of Eresus on Lesbos erected altars to him as Zeus Philippios,102 and in 336/335, at the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra, he was deified as the thirteenth Olympian god (Diod. Sic. 16.92.5, 16.95.1). Alexander made clear to the Athenians that he would have liked to receive divine honours.103 And when the politician Demades moved a decree enacting divine honours for him (Athen. 6.251b), apparently Demosthenes suggested giving Alexander the choice whether to be worshipped as the son of Zeus or as the son of Poseidon (Hyperid. 5.31) – though he may have been speaking tongue in cheek.104 The cult of Alexander enjoyed greater popularity and lasted longer than those of earlier deified mortals.105 The list of divine honours accorded by the Athenians to Demetrius Poliorcetes and his father Antigonus in 307/306 was impressively long;106 contests were held for the composers of paeans in Heroisation most often involves a dead man who is worshipped locally at a more official level than the ordinary dead (his tomb is often the focus of a cult or periodic celebrations) but with shrines that are less grand than gods’ temples. A few peculiar types of sacrifice characterise heroic cults. See in general Ekroth (2007), Parker (2011) 103–23. Currie (2005) 4–9 and 159–72 emphasises that heroic cults could, sometimes, be established for the living before they died. 101 We cannot be sure that the building, which was probably finished only after the death of Philip, had originally been conceived by Philip as his own shrine; cf. Momigliano (1987) 176–7. 102 Greek Histor. Inscript. 83.ii.4–5 Rhodes-Osborne, about 340 BC. 103 Cf. Badian (1981 = 2012) 262–7. 104 Momigliano (1986) 185, Badian (1981 = 2012) 262 and 278 n. 43, Parker (1996) 256–8. 105 Up-to-date review in Chaniotis (2003) 435. 106 Diod. Sic. 20.46.1–4, Habicht (1997) 67–97, Mikalson (1998) 75–104. 100

34

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

honour of both men (cf. Philoch. FGrHist 328F165 = SH 492). Altars and shrines were even granted to three of Antigonus’ courtiers, Bourichus, Adeimantus, and Oxythemis (Democh. FGrHist. 75F1). Hyperid. 6.21–2 was not far from the truth when he complained: θυσίας μὲν ἀνθρώποις γ[ιγνο]μ̣ένας ἐϕορᾶν, ἀγάλμ[ατα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς καὶ ναοὺς τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς ἀμελῶς, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώ[ποις] ἐπιμελῶς συντελούμενα, καὶ [τ]οὺς των οἰκέ̣τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαζομένους. ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς θεοὺς ὅσια διὰ τὴν Μακεδόνων τόλμαν ἀνήιρηται, τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν; we are now compelled to see not only sacrifices being made to men, but also statues, altars, and temples neglected in the case of the gods and carefully celebrated for men. We ourselves are forced to honour their slaves as heroes. When respect for the gods has been destroyed by Macedonian arrogance, what can we expect would have happened to human respect?107

Hyperides was perhaps optimistic in assuming that all the Greeks were ‘compelled’ (ἀναγκαζομένους) to confer divine honours on the Macedonian warlords. In Athens, these honours had to be approved by the ekklesia. Although servile flattery of this kind was opposed by others besides Hyperides,108 Momigliano (1986) 184 agrees with Hyperides’ claim (unquoted in his paper): ‘people were finding it easy to call exceptionally powerful men gods because they were losing faith in the existence, or at least in the effectiveness, of their traditional gods’. 108 See especially Philippides, PCG 25, and cf. Habicht (1970) 213, Parker (1996) 260–1. Tragic hymns are an approximation of real cultic hymns. Their purpose is to indicate the deities affecting the action of the play, and above all to show – through the activity of worship – the conceptions concerning deities that are held by the actors or the chorus. They also usually create an intense ritual atmosphere. The expectations that they raise are to be contrasted with the dramatic situation that the plot creates (Furley (1999/2000) 192, 196). The watchmen of Rh. appear not to be troubled by the idea of the divinisation of a mortal. Rhesus will turn out not to be an immortal god at all, and his mother will only obtain the rank of ἀνθρωποδαίμων for him (971). But the watchmen pave the way for this initiative on the part of the Muse (Burnett (1985) 26–8). 107

35

I N T RO D U C T I O N

­ ivinisation of helpful kings and military leaders must have d been a widespread practice in Hyperides’ age. But frequent resort to this practice was relatively new, and it could offend Hyperides and his (studied?) faith in traditional religious behaviour. Similarly, the watchmen of Rh. feel apprehensive, and their appeal to Adrasteia at the start of their hymn shows that they are aware of the novelty of Rhesus’ divinisation. This cautious rhetorical strategy follows Pindar’s attitude to his victors: the watchmen (and the author), proudly aware of the novelty of their song, highlight the risks implicit in it. The chorus similarly ask Zeus at 455–7 to ‘ward off’ the φθόνος (again εἴργειν and φθόνος, as at 343) that Rhesus’ speech at 393–453 was liable to arouse. Adrasteia was a goddess originally related to Cybele in the Troad, and one of the nurses of the baby Zeus in Crete. But the ‘Inescapable’ mainly became one of the personifications of divine justice, connected to Nemesis. At least until the classical age, Nemesis appears to be the goddess who punishes overweening pride post eventum, whereas Adrasteia is propitiated beforehand: the speaker hopes that his words will not arouse her indignation.109 It may have seemed appropriate for Idaean Adrasteia110 to be invoked in the stasimon simply because she was a local goddess and thus a loyal partisan of the chorus of Phrygians, one who would share their hopes for Trojan victory. She may have seemed a dependable supporter of the alliance with the Thracian Rhesus: a joint cult of Adrasteia and the Thracian goddess Bendis was established in a sanctuary at Piraeus before

Offence felt by Nemesis or Adrasteia and the φθόνος that they and the gods feel as a result appear to stand for the righteous indignation that is aroused by behaviour that runs contrary to socially accepted norms (especially by violations of αἰδώς: cf. Bonanno (2014)). If someone acts above their station, or praises someone else for so acting, as in Rh., and raises them to the level of their superiors or that of the gods, they are risking divine indignation. 110 See below, 342–5n. 109

36

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

429 BC.111 But her main role here is to avert the risk that the identification of Rhesus as a god may attract. At Pyth. 8.71–8 Pindar asked the gods: … θεῶν δ᾽ ὄπιν / ἄϕθονον (v.l. ἄφθιτον) αἰτέω, Ξέναρκες, ὑμετέραις τύχαις. / εἰ γάρ τις ἐσλὰ πέπαται μὴ σὺν μακρῶι πόνωι, / πολλοῖς σοϕὸς δοκεῖ πεδ᾽ ἀϕρόνων / βίον κορυσσέμεν ὀρθοβούλοισι μαχαναῖς· / τὰ δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἀνδράσι κεῖται· δαίμων δὲ παρίσχει, / ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλον ὕπερθε βάλλων, ἄλλον δ’ ὑπὸ χειρῶν. … and I request the gods’ ungrudging favour, Xenarkes, towards your family’s good fortune; for if someone has gained success without long labour, he seems to many to be a wise man among fools and to arm his life with effective good planning. But those things do not rest with men; a god grants them, exalting now one man, but throwing another beneath his hands.

There are close parallels to this passage at Pyth. 10.19–22, Ol. 13.24–8, Isthm. 7.39–48, all of which focus on the limits set for humans by the gods. That is also the moral of the story of Bellerophon, narrated at Isthm. 7.44–8, a paradigmatic case of ἀθανάτων ϕθόνος. A man should remember that human achievement depends on the gods, as we are reminded at Pyth. 8.76–7; but victory gives a man, for a moment, a status very close to that of the gods. The notion of divine envy has its origins in the religious idea of a neat separation between the human and divine realms,112 but in Pindar it also becomes the metaliterary evidence of the dangerous potential of praise to raise the laudandus to a divine status.113 Cf. Montepaone (1990), Parker (1996) 170–5, 195–7, Archibald (1999) 456– 9, Munn (2006) 332–4. Bendis’ festival, the Bendideia, included the procession of Thracian (military?) knights that impressed Plato’s Socrates at Resp. 327a, 328a. 112 Cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 5.440–2 ‘the breed of immortal gods and of men who walk the ground is in no way alike’, Pind. Ol. 5.26 ‘do not try to become god’. 113 Cf. Kirkwood (1984) 175–6, with the qualifications of Boeke (2007) 143 n. 123; on Pindar’s prayers about gods’ ϕθόνος, also Race (1990) 131–5, Bulman (1992) 31–5. 111

37

I N T RO D U C T I O N

Read from this perspective, the caution of Rh. 342–5 appears to redeploy and also challenge Pindar’s point. The watchmen of the chorus accomplish what Pindar decided only to intimate. They do divinise Rhesus, just as the Greeks of the last three decades of the fourth century had divinised Macedonian rulers. If epinician heroes are advised by Pindar to live a moderate life, our watchmen tragically experiment with the perils of transcending humanity, while still adopting the epinician strategy of neutralising divine φθόνος. But despite all their hopes for moderation, expressed in Pindaric style, the divinised Rhesus tragically dies a few hours after being celebrated as a god, and thus has an extreme and shocking peripeteia. Tragedy seems never to have presented such a peripeteia before 336, according to the evidence of the extant tragic texts.114 That evidence is reinforced by an intriguing anecdote concerning the actor Neoptolemus. The second hypothesis to Demosthenes 19 Περὶ παραπρεσβείας (p. 335 Butcher), the oration that reviews the events leading up to the Peace of Philocrates in 347/346, records that when the actors Neoptolemus and Aristodemus went to Macedonia to sound out the chances of a peace with Philip, Philip ‘received them so warmly (φιλοφρόνως) that he added gifts from his own possessions to their other remuneration’.115 According to Diod. Sic. 16.92.3–4, at a symposium at Aegae after his daughter’s wedding, on the night before he was assassinated, Philip asked Neoptolemus to perform ‘one of his most successful pieces, in particular such pieces as were related to the Persian expedition’. This could be either a piece that Neoptolemus had composed Passages like Heracles’ praise in Eur. Her. 687–700, a few hundred lines before his downfall, seem to come close to it, but Heracles is a semi-divine figure by birth, different from Rhesus, who is divinised on the spot. 115 As Moloney (2014) 242 observes, Archelaus attracted several eminent playwrights to his court. Philip’s reign was also distinguished by the high number of famous actors who visited him. (Philip’s special interest in actors rather than authors tells us something about the fashion for reperformances of fifth-century plays: Lycurgus’ initiatives at Athens took place at about the same time.) 114

38

4 ) E vidence for a L ate - fourth - century Dating

for that performance, or a piece from his repertory. He chose a lyric piece on ‘sudden, unpredictable death’ that ‘robs us of our distant hopes’ and proves the vanity of ‘thoughts that reach higher than the air’ (Diod. Sic. records ten lines of it: adesp. TrGF 127).116 According to Diodorus, he intended to suggest to Philip that even the great Persian Empire could suffer a reversal of fortune. Philip was enchanted by the message and motivated more than ever to overthrow the Persian king. At this point Diodorus leaves Neoptolemus behind and moves on to Philip’s assassination in the theatre. This came immediately after a parade of the statues of the twelve Olympian gods together with a thirteenth, himself.117 Stobaeus relates Neoptolemus’ reactions to that sequel of divinisation and death (4.34.70):118 Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν τῆς τραγωιδίας ὑποκριτὴν ἤρετό τις, τί θαυμάζοι119 τῶν ὑπ᾽ Αἰσχύλου λεχθέντων ἢ Σοϕοκλέους ἢ Εὐριπίδου· ὁ δὲ ‘οὐδὲν μὲν τούτων’ εἶπεν· ὃ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐθεάσατο ἐπὶ μείζονος σκηνῆς,120 ϕρονεῖτε νῦν αἰθέρος ὑψηλότερον / καὶ μεγάλων πεδίων ἀρούρας, / ϕρονεῖθ’ ὑπερβαλλόμενοι / δόμων δόμους, ἀϕροσύναι / πρόσω βιοτὰν τεκμαιρόμενοι. / ὁ δ’ ἀμϕιβάλλει ταχύπους / κέλευθον ἕρπων σκοτίαν, / ἄϕνω δ’ ἄϕαντος προσέβα / μακρὰς ἀϕαιρούμενος ἐλπίδας / θνατῶν πολύμοχθος Ἅιδας. 117 His cult image? Cf. Chaniotis (2003) 434. 118 As Stobaeus’ narrative focuses on the actor, his information is probably drawn from the same anecdotal source that Diodorus used for his report about Neoptolemus’ performance at the wedding of Cleopatra and Suet. at Life of Caligula 57.4. 119 The idea of θαυμαστόν suits fourth-century literary terminology. Aristotle uses this word in the Rhetoric (1.1371b24–5), in a context where he is not speaking of tragedy but in general of the pleasures of art, precisely to describe the effect of sudden changes of fortune. ‘Amazement’ is an element that Aristotle considers essential to tragedy; cf., e.g., δεῖ μὲν οὖν ἐν ταῖς τραγωιδίαις ποιεῖν τὸ θαυμαστόν (Po. 1460a11–12), ἐν δὲ ταῖς περιπετείαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς πράγμασι στοχάζονται ὧν βούλονται θαυμαστῶς· τραγικὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ϕιλάνθρωπον (Po. 1456a19–21), with Gastaldi (1989) 93–7 (in particular on the coordination of the θαυμαστόν with the crucial pursuit of εἰκός). 120 For the more general opposition (or merging) of life and the stage, cf. Easterling (2002) 333–41, Chaniotis (1997) 219–20. Chaniotis’ paper is fundamental for our understanding of the progressive establishment of a 116

39

I N T RO D U C T I O N Φίλιππον ἐν τοῖς τῆς θυγατρὸς Κλεοπάτρας γάμοις πομπεύσαντα καὶ τρισκαιδέκατον θεὸν ἐπικληθέντα, τῆι ἑξῆς ἐπισϕαγέντα ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι καὶ ἐρριμμένον. Someone asked the tragic actor Neoptolemus what amazed him most in the stories told by Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. He said ‘Nothing of those’, but instead something he himself had seen take place on a greater stage: Philip, who had taken part in the procession at the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra and had been acclaimed the thirteenth god, murdered on the next day in the theatre and lying prostrate.

Several further connections between tragic peripeteiai and Philip’s reversal of fortune will have occurred to Neoptolemus and readers of the anecdotes about him. In light of the assassination of Philip in the theatre, the choice of the tragic piece performed at the wedding, which Neoptolemus had intended to be heard as a prediction of success for Philip against the Persians, ‘turns out to have another layer again, a true prediction, this time, of an event which the spectators watch instead of a dramatic show, seen by many as punishment for his overweening presumption in being made a god. His literally theatrical reversal of fortune was similar to the worst peripeteiai suffered by arrogant heroes in tragedy. Neoptolemus had hinted at that allegory apropos of the Persian king, but it transpired that the haughtiness punished by death was not that of the Persian king but that of Philip.’121 In any case, the readers of the story will easily have inferred that the amazement produced by the old tragic cliché of unpredictable death disrupting human power and hopes was much inferior to the spectacle provided by the death of the god Philip on the ‘greater stage’ of real life. ‘culture of onlookers’ in which both occasions of public life, such as assemblies, trials, etc., and theatrical events were seen more and more, from the fourth century up to the Hellenistic age, as similar forms of performance and spectacle. 121 As observed by A. Chaniotis per litteras.

40

5 ) T he ‘ M acedonian C onnection ’

Neoptolemus’ renown and his numerous victories at the Dionysia and the Lenaea122 show that he was well acquainted with the tastes of his age. It thus comes as no surprise that, probably a short time after he expressed his opinion concerning the tragic θαυμαστόν, the second stasimon of Rh. suggested a peripeteia that exactly reflected the amazing peripeteia that Neoptolemus had prized. Rhesus, just divinised by the chorus, dies immediately afterwards. Such an extreme and surprising change of fortune was new to tragedy, if we can trust the anecdote about Neoptolemus, but familiar to him from the real-life death of Philip II. If Neoptolemus’ poetics of tragic ‘amazement’ suggest the taste of theatregoers in the second half of the fourth century – and the second stasimon of Rh. is a strikingly clear example of similar tastes – we may cautiously conclude with a chronological suggestion. In principle, Neoptolemus, or his biographer, may have forgotten about the divinisation of Rhesus and his death shortly afterwards. But the death of Philip in 336 appears to be at least a plausible terminus post quem, especially as many other details of Rh. fit the second half of the fourth century.123 5) THE ‘MACEDONIAN CONNECTION’ Fifth-century tragedy devotes ample attention to decision-making. We do not know whether this is true of fourth-century tragedy. Decision-making is certainly important in Rh., but, unlike IG II–III2.2320 and 2325. Liapis’ ((2009b) and (2012) lxxii–lxxv) suggestion that the author of Rh. was in fact the actor Neoptolemus is merely speculative. Neoptolemus is no more than one possible candidate. His reaction to the θαυμαστόν of the death of Philip – which escaped Liapis’ attention – supports his candidature, but Aristotle also leads us to suppose that many theatregoers of the second half of the fourth century shared his tastes and paid close attention to the effects of the tragic θαυμαστόν (cf. n. 119 above). Neoptolemus is just one of the fourth-century actors who could have reworked the original Rh. of Eur. and eventually replaced it.

122 123

41

I N T RO D U C T I O N

fifth-century tragedy, the play does not deal with the issue of how power is to be properly exercised in the polis. Instead, it is a ‘Soldatenstück’,124 where the problem of the nature of εὐβουλία125 is analysed with regard to its military dimension, and with a keen attention to military details and technical jargon. The play includes long discussions between Hector, the chorus, and Aeneas about the fires that have been lit in the Greek camp and the best way to respond to them; a debate between Hector, the chorus, and Rhesus on whether Rhesus should be accepted as an ally; and a debate between Hector, the chorus, and the charioteer concerning the responsibility for the slaughter of Rhesus. These are the background for an exploration of the contradictions and troubles involved in military leadership and interstate military relations.126 It is noteworthy that these scenes include Rh.’s two longest additions to the narrative provided by Il. 10.127 Many of the features of the military world that are of special interest in Rh. seem to be Macedonian. Hector is presented in terms that evoke the Macedonian ‘king’. The first scene is set in front of Hector’s tent. Hector is called βασιλεύς ‘king’ (l. 2)128 and he is surrounded by ‘ὑπασπισταί of the king’. ὑπασπισταί were the bodyguards of the Macedonian king. While on campaign, they guarded the king’s tent at night, with weapons at the ready in case of danger, just as the ὑπασπισταὶ βασιλέως do at Rh. 4–6.129 The watchmen of the chorus believe that they Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1926) 286. Cf. Hesk (2011) 136–43. 126 Cf. below, pp. 59–64, 67–70. 127 In substantial isolation, Fenik (1964) pursued the idea that Rh. mainly derives from non-Iliadic versions of the Rhesus myth, such as the oracle version or Pindar’s version, and that its debt to Il. 10 is only ‘of a secondary, or surface, nature’ (p. 28). Systematic analyses of the extensive indebtedness of Rh. to Il. 10 are provided by Ritchie (1964) 62–100, Bond (1996), Fries 8–11. 128 Αn anachronism for which there are parallels in tragedy; see 2–5n. 129 See Curt. Ruf. 3.12.3 cohors quoque quae excubabat ad tabernaculum regis, verita, ne maioris motus principium esset, armare se coeperat. 124 125

42

5 ) T he ‘ M acedonian C onnection ’

have to get in touch with these ὑπασπισταί before they can communicate with Hector. The concrete protective function of the royal ὑπασπισταί in Rh., the use of the plural,130 and the specification βασιλέως, lead one to think not of the traditional meaning ‘squires’ or ‘shield-bearers’, but specifically of this Macedonian elite corps.131 Immediately after the ὑπασπισταί, the play introduces the φίλοι of the king, that is, the royal retinue, also called ἑταῖροι, who accompanied Philip II and Alexander to war, when they were hunting, and when they were feasting.132 At Rh. 26, the watchmen ask Hector to order these φίλοι to summon his λόχος. In view of the task that this λόχος is supposed to perform – ἁρμόσατε ψαλίοις ἵππους ‘fit horses with the bridles’, Rh. 27 – λόχος should be understood as signifying a unit of cavalry.133 The equestrian ἴλη βασιλική ‘royal squadron’ is one of the best-known institutions of the Macedonian army from the

As noted by Braswell (1998) 113. There is already a stipulation about wages for the ὑπασπισταί in an Athenian inscription recording the renewal, in 336, of the treaty between Ath3 ens and Alexander the Great, IG II–III .1.443.9 (brought to my attention by S.D. Lambert); for a discussion of the inscription, see Heisserer (1980) 3–26. This probably shows that the use of the term in connection with the Macedonian army was acknowledged in Athens as early as the 330s. 132 See 26–7n. connections between the references to ὑπασπισταί and φίλοι and the Macedonians in Rh. have been learnedly discussed by Liapis (2009b). It is less certain that the πέλται (light Thracian shields) of Rh. 409–10 and 485–7 or the ἰσηγορία of the chorus of watchmen conversing with the leaders Aeneas and Hector could also be recognised by the audience as distinctly Macedonian, as Liapis suggests. 133 I consider it certain that the order to fit the bridles in Rh. 27 is addressed not to the φίλοι but to the λόχος, and that the λόχος is thus a cavalry unit. The strophe (23–33), which lists army units that have to be alerted, includes two other explicit orders, one at 25 and another at 33. In both cases we find the same sequence (first, a mention of the unit to be alerted, then an order that focuses on the equipment of that unit). We should therefore expect the same sequence at 26–7. The order concerning the horses, then, is addressed to the λόχος. 130 131

43

I N T RO D U C T I O N

age of Alexander onwards (there is no evidence for the reign of Philip II), but λόχος, the term used in Rh., is not the term that we expect to be used to refer to it. It is never certainly attested in Greek with reference to a Greek cavalry unit.134 Two passages from Arrian, both concerned with the Macedonian army or presupposing its terminology, are the only exceptions: Alexander’s Anabasis 3.16.11 and Order of battle against the Alans 20.135 In the first of these, Arrian informs us that Alexander, after receiving reinforcements from Macedon, κατέστησε … λόχους δύο ἐν ἑκάστηι ἴληι, οὐ πρόσθεν ὄντας λόχους ἱππικούς, καὶ λοχαγοὺς ἐπέστησε τοὺς κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν προκριθέντας ἐκ τῶν ἑταίρων ‘formed two companies in each squadron of cavalry – there had formerly been no cavalry companies – and as captains he appointed those of the companions distinguished for valour’.136 Arrian’s categorical statement that there were no For λόχος ‘cavalry company’, Liapis (2012) 80 cites Aesch. Sept. 56. But the troops of the Seven probably include chariots rather than horsemen, as is the standard in Homeric epic (cf. Sept. 50, 151–4; also Eur. Pho. 175–8, where the plural πῶλοι is used in connection with Amphiaraus). λόχος in Sept. 56 and 460 is probably used in the extended sense ‘contingent’. The term will then refer to infantry soldiers, chariots, and perhaps cavalry: see Eur. Pho. 107–8 and 112–13 ‘the Pelasgian army is now stirring, and they are separating the λόχοι one from another … Polynices has come to this land in no mean style: what a din he makes with his many horses and his myriad men-at-arms’. Cf. the further generalised λόχος ‘group of people’ at Aesch. Eum. 46, 1026, Sept. 111–12. 135 Arrian’s work on the expedition against the Alans concerns the structure of the Roman army, but employs terminology that is often modelled on that of the army of Alexander: Bosworth (1977) 249–50. 136 Arrian is the only historian who writes about this reorganisation of the cavalry by Alexander. It seems to parallel the better attested reorganisation of the ὑπασπισταί (cf. Curt. Ruf. 5.2.2–5). Both initiatives were in all probability ‘a first step towards breaking the ties between the original commanders and their men. There was now an intermediate level of command in which the officers had no necessary connection with their men but owed their appointment solely to royal favour’: Bosworth (1988) 268 (also Bosworth (1980/1995) 148–9, 320–1). Curt. Ruf. 5.2.6 confirms the military initiatives taken by Alexander at Susa described by Arrian, though 134

44

5 ) T he ‘ M acedonian C onnection ’

equestrian λόχοι before Alexander’s initiative of 331/330 does not necessarily give a terminus post quem for Rh.: the term may have been used for horsemen within the Macedonian army before Alexander made it the official designation of a cavalry unit. We may however surmise that our author was using an unequivocally Macedonian technical term, which Athenians may have come across in 331/330 or at any rate in the 330s.137 This use of λόχος (after ὑπασπισταὶ βασιλέως and the reference to the king’s φίλοι) may also have had poetic implications. λόχος had occurred a few lines earlier (l. 17) in the more common sense ‘ambush’ – the only sense in Homer, where the word does not yet seem to mean ‘body of troops’.138 The use of two different senses in the space of a few lines may be a clue to the complex literary atmosphere of Rhesus. The keyword λόχος is first used in the traditional sense, emphasising the play’s epic model. But λόχος is then used of an equestrian unit, un-epically, presenting the audience with up-to-date military language and topics. The Trojans, it is suggested, are both the Trojans of Homer and the new ‘others’ that Greek culture now faced, i.e., the Macedonians with their formidable army. The ‘Macedonisation’ of Hector and the Trojans and the presentation of the Thracians recall issues that had often been addressed in earlier tragedies. Fifth-century plays had often described the ‘others’ with whom their own age was concerned. In this respect, the Persians in Aeschylus resemble the he speaks only of the hypaspists, without mentioning the subdivision of the equestrian ἶλαι, and stresses that the new commanders appointed by Alexander did not have territorial affiliations. There is also a reference to Alexander ‘scrutinising closely the reports of good conduct’ in Diod.Sic. 17.65.3; this may suggest that Diodorus used the same source as Arrian. Modern historians do not appear to have doubts about Arrian’s information: cf. Bosworth (1988) 262, 268, Hatzopoulos (1996) 447–52, Sekunda (2007) 333. 137 On λόχος in Arrian, see also 26–7n. 138 Cf. LfgrE s.v., quoting Björck (1950) 292.

45

I N T RO D U C T I O N

Trojans in the Trojan tragedies of Euripides, who are often effeminate cowards, prone to luxuriousness and excessive emotions: these are features of ‘barbarians’.139 On the other hand, Euripides’ Trojans are sometimes presented as ‘noble barbarians’ who highlight the degeneration of bad Greeks.140 If Rh. dates from the late fourth century, then the Trojans’ Macedonian flavour adapts this fifth-century idea to the new context:141 instead of singling out the ‘oriental’ enemies of the Persian wars, Rh. would be focusing on the Macedonians, who, by the mid-fourth century, had become the Greeks’ most aggressive neighbours. ‘Macedonian’ Trojans and even Thracians, still more radically ‘others’ for fourth-century Greeks, are presented with some sympathy in Rhesus. Thracians had quite often been depicted (in tragedy and the visual arts) as stupid, violent boors.142 Rhesus is from time to time almost a miles gloriosus, but he seems to have the potential to be a good fighter. Still, his and his army’s display of riches, along with his tendency to show despotic arrogance, do recall the presentation of Orientals in tragedy,143 and he should certainly have appointed night-watchmen in the camp, as the devoted charioteer suggests at 763–9. Besides, the Trojans of fifth-century tragedy are usually cowards, but Rh. portrays Hector, at least, as a brave fighter and a competent leader. The epithet ‘barbarian’ appears to be freer of derogatory associations in Rh., even compared to the Trojan tragedies of Euripides; it means Cf. Hall (1989) 21–32, 76–84. Cf. Hall (1989) 211–23, Saïd (2002), Mattison (2009) 68–76. 141 If we see the Trojans as ‘Macedonians’, this might also help to explain the prominent role given to Aeneas in Rh. He had been a rather shadowy character in the Iliad. His new importance is normally connected to the more important role that he had already played in the Epic Cycle. But he also had a role in Macedonian mythology: he founded various Macedonian cities during his journey from Troy to Italy, and was featured on Macedonian coins. Cf. Liapis (2009b) 81–2. 142 Hall (1989) 105–10, 122–3, 134–5, Tsiafakis (2000). 143 Cf. Mattison (2009) 71–5. 139

140

46

5 ) T he ‘ M acedonian C onnection ’

simply ‘non-Greek’.144 The Macedonians were ‘others’, but at least in the fourth century they strove to be acknowledged as part of Greek culture.145 The Muse is characterised most emphatically as Thracian (915–25), and she constructs in her mourning a kind of aetiology for the cultural priority of Northern Greece over the highest cultural centre of Greece. She is furious with Athena, the mastermind behind the killing of Rhesus. She presents one of Athens’ oldest sources of poetic pride, Musaeus, as her pupil, and boasts of her role in the introduction of the mysteries at Athens: it was Orpheus, Rhesus’ cousin, who introduced them (941–7).146 By claiming that Athens’ cultural success is due to the wisdom of Northern Greece that she personifies, the Thracian Muse seems to endorse the Macedonians’ wish to be identified as culturally Greek. Through the Trojan or the Thracian ‘lens’, Rh. reveals an unprecedented interest in the Macedonian army and – more generally – in Northern Greek culture and religion. But the frequent focus on Northern Greece is not enough to prove that Rh. was composed for a Macedonian audience.147 It proves only that the audience(s) that its author envisaged were interested in the reality of Northern Greece. The ‘Macedonian’ Trojans, Hector, Rhesus and the Thracians remain ‘other’ and the foes of the Greeks: their spy is a failure, and they slip into stupidity, buffoonery (in Dolon’s case), or (in Hector’s case) megalomania, from time to time. It is plausible that the Archelaus of Euripides was performed at the court of Archelaus at the end of the fifth century, and a Rh. by an imitator of Euripides (or by actors rewriting Euripides148)

So Liapis (2009b) 83. However, most modern scholars agree that Euripides had already in many cases undermined the opposition between barbarian Trojans and civilised Greeks: see above. 145 Badian (1982 = 2012), Revermann (1999/2000) 454–67. 146 Cf. Markantonatos (2004). 147 As suggested by Liapis (2009b). 148 See above p. 23. 144

47

I N T RO D U C T I O N

could have been intended for that audience. If the play is dated to the second half of the fourth century, it could still have been composed, in principle, for Macedonian viewers and readers because the Macedonians of the age of Alexander the Great or his successors tried to exercise control over theatrical activity.149 They may have appreciated the apocryphal attribution to Euripides, since they liked to place a retrospective emphasis on the Macedonian phase in his life; they seem, in fact, to have encouraged the biographers under their patronage to do the same. But the ‘Macedonian’ Trojans and the Thracians are the defeated ‘other’ in Rh.,150 and the complex ambiguity of Macedonian and Thracian identities resembles the ambiguity in Eur. Bacchae. It has been argued that Bacchae could have been staged not only at the great Dionysia in Athens, but also at the court of Archelaus,151 as it includes elements that might appeal to both audiences: the Macedonians and the Athenians will have interpreted the characters and the action differently, and the Macedonians, for instance, will have felt more sympathy for Dionysus as an aggressive, vengeful outsider. Similarly, the suggestions of Macedonian or Northern Greek culture and life in Rh. may have intrigued two different audiences and been taken by them in different ways. A Macedonian audience would have detected reflections of their cultural ambitions.152 The Athenians would have appreciated hints of the still relatively unfamiliar culture of the warlords of their time: the orators suggest that they often came up in political debate, from Dem. First Philippic (c. 350 BC) onwards. But, at the same time, they could identify, at least in the reassuring fiction of theatre, with the commandos Odysseus and Diomedes who win the day. It is possible, then, that the author of Rh. was a non-Athenian, or that he envisaged a specifically Macedonian audience. But Cf. Hanink (2014). See above, pp. 45–7. 151 Revermann (1999/2000), Duncan (2011) 80–2. 152 See above pp. 46–7. 149 150

48

6 ) T he M ost P lausible C hronology

it is also conceivable that he was an Athenian who envisaged a primarily Athenian audience, keen to know about the new warlords, and perhaps had in mind the possibility of later performances in places under Macedonian control. 6 ) T H E M O S T P L AU S I B L E C H RO N O L O G Y If Rh. is dated to the years immediately following the death of Philip II in 336 BC,153 or in the thirties of the fourth century,154 it is worth considering a detail in the death of Rhesus in relation to the iconographic tradition. We have four depictions of the slaughter of Rhesus and his Thracians from the fifth and fourth centuries. First, there is LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 2, a black-figure amphora of c. 550/540. Diomedes grasps Rhesus, who reclines to the right, by the throat, preparing to plunge his sword in (side A); Odysseus plunges his sword through the throat of a reclining Thracian (side B). Around them on the ground are eleven corpses.155 Every detail can be drawn from the Homeric narrative, though Odysseus’ participation in the slaughter is not paralleled either in Homer or in Rhesus.156 Likewise, LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 3 and LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 6, of the fourth century, do not presuppose any narrative details found only in Rhesus. In the upper register of LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 3, an Apulian volute crater of c. 360, Diomedes is creeping with drawn sword in the direction of Rhesus, who is dressed in an elaborately embroidered costume and sleeping among Thracian soldiers, while Odysseus leads away a pair of horses. LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 6, an Apulian situla of c. 350, has in

As noted above (pp. 39–40), in that case his divinisation and death is parallel to the divinisation and immediate death of Rhesus in the play. 154 The use of λόχος to refer to a cavalry unit may be relevant here; cf. above pp. 43–4. 155 At Il. 10.495 Homer speaks of twelve Thracians plus Rhesus killed by Diomedes; Rh. does not give figures. 156 Cf. True (1995). 153

49

I N T RO D U C T I O N

the upper register three dead Thracians (one of whom is perhaps Rhesus), all dressed in oriental costume. Below, the two Greeks are retreating: Diomedes with sword drawn moves to the left, looking back; Odysseus, also with sword drawn, holds two of Rhesus’ horses. But in LIMC ‘Rhesos’ 4, an Apulian volute crater by the Darius Painter of c. 340, details are introduced that appear to presuppose the Rh. narrative. In the lower register and in the upper register on the left-hand side are the usual motifs: below, Odysseus standing between a pair of white horses, and above, Diomedes standing by the sleeping Rhesus and on the verge of killing him. But there are also two female figures, both on the right-hand side of the upper register, and a river god. One of the two female characters is Athena, who appears to give directions, as the mastermind of Rhesus’ slaughter: this suggests Rh. rather than Il. 10. The other female character is veiled as if mourning. Modern scholars have unanimously identified her as the Muse, the mother of Rhesus in Rh., and the river god as his father, Strymon.157 The only one of these vases that shows possible evidence of the influence of Rh. is thus approximately contemporary with the play, if the arguments above are accepted. This would be a striking coincidence, if it were a coincidence. 7 ) W E R E T R AG I C S M I L E S A L LOW E D I N MENANDER’S TIME? Hermann (1828) noted the incongruously comic nature of the parodos and epiparodos of Rh.; the epiparodos in particular reminded him of Plautus.158 The panic-stricken watchmen of the parodos are so anxious to inform Hector of the unexpected fires in the Greek camp as to appear bewildered; the Cf. Giuliani (1996) 81–2, 84–5, Taplin (2007) 163–5. More on the crater of the Darius Painter and the iconography of the myth of Rhesus in the fifth and fourth centuries at 346–8a n. and in Liapis (2009a) 286–9. 158 See above p. 20. 157

50

7 ) W E R E T R AG I C S M I L E S A L LOW E D ?

scene finds its best parallels in comedy (Ar. Ach. 564–71) or in the ‘Hilferuf ’ scenes of satyr drama.159 Later on, after leaving the stage at 564, the chorus re-enter (epiparodos). Before they left, they had just missed Odysseus and Diomedes (527–64). As the two Greeks and the watchmen run into each other again (675ff.), the first part of the epiparodos turns into a messy comedy of errors. The natural result of the encounter would be the defeat and capture of Odysseus and Diomedes. But Odysseus pretends to be a Trojan, and his trickery turns this scene into another potentially comic encounter like that between Paris and Athena, pretending to be Aphrodite, at Rh. 642–74. It is uncommon for the chorus to offer or suffer violence in tragedy; the closest parallels are Aesch. Suppl. 836– 910, Ag. 1650–6, and Soph. OC 856–7. But there is certainly nothing in all fifth-century tragedy like the turmoil and physicality of Rh.’s chase scene.160 The chorus’ shouts at its opening – ἔα ἔα· βάλε βάλε βάλε βάλε· θένε θένε. / τίς ἁνήρ; / λεῦσσε· τοῦτον αὐδῶ. / δεῦρο δεῦρο πᾶς, 675–80 – are paralleled by another brief astrophic song with a similar series of imperatives, Ar. Ach. 280–3 οὗτος αὐτός ἐστιν, οὗτος· / βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, / παῖε παῖε τὸν μιαρόν. / οὐ βαλεῖς, οὐ βαλεῖς; There too the chorus are rushing from a hiding-place. The Aristophanic passage has sometimes been thought a parody of Rh., and so used to prove that the tragedy is by Euripides.161 But the author of Rh. may simply be imitating a typical comic scene,162 as he apparently does in the parodos: apart from Ar. Ach. 280–3 see, e.g., Eq. 247–54. Another comic scene immediately precedes the epiparodos. At Rh. 642–64, Athena, pretending to be Aphrodite, makes fun of Paris. Gods in disguise are otherwise attested only in comedy or Burnett (1985) 18. As Burnett (1985) 41 comments: ‘at this point the drama’s latent absurdity and bestiality take over the stage’. 161 Cf. Bates (1916) 5–8. 162 I agree with Liapis (2012) 256. 159

160

51

I N T RO D U C T I O N

satyr-drama. Dionysus is dressed as Heracles in Ar. Frogs,163 and disguised as Paris and as a ram in Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros;164 Zeus disguised as Artemis entered Callisto’s bed in a comedy by Amphis.165 In satyr-drama, there is Silenus pretending to be Ganymede and seducing his enemy in Eur. Cyclops.166 Then there is the ‘guessing game’ scene at 164–83, a sort of dialogue of the deaf that ridicules Hector’s monomaniacal focus on heroic values and Dolon’s venality. The episode is irrelevant to the dynamics of the action. The opening distich of the stichomythia (164–5), in which Hector asks Dolon to choose his reward, and the concluding distich (182–3), in which Dolon finally states that he wants Achilles’ horses, could perfectly well stand alone, and it is tempting to suppose that the author had a special reason to add 166–81. Hector suggests several different prizes, and Dolon rejects them one after another until Hector apparently has no more ideas. He asks Dolon what he wants (181) and Dolon gives his final answer. The theme of the dialogue is easily understood as a piece of ‘political tragedy’. It recalls debates in the assembly concerning the honours to be bestowed on euergetai of the city.167 But its form has no precedent in the short dialogue between Hector and Dolon in Il. 10. It is formally paralleled only by some comic scenes in Ar. and in Men. Peric. 276–92.168 The last passage may be a striking case of paratragedy, following the (semi-comic) model of Rhesus.169

Cf. Ran. 495–6. PCG 39–51. 165 PCG 46. 166 Cf. Burnett (1985) 39–40 and 185 n. 83. 167 Cf. Fantuzzi (2016b). 168 Cf. 164–83n. 169 Moschion wants to send Daos as a κατάσκοπος at 295 (κατάσκοπος 9x in Rh.) to spy on his mother and his beloved Glycera, and lists two possible ways of life with which Daos might be rewarded if he accomplishes his mission. Daos rejects them both and then specifies the profession that he wants. Cf. Fantuzzi and Konstan (2012). 163

164

52

7 ) W E R E T R AG I C S M I L E S A L LOW E D ?

Rh. thus includes at least four scenes that the audience could probably understand as comic or at least as displaying a tone that was paralleled in comedy rather than in tragedy. That comic tone is firmly integrated into the parodos and epiparodos, and thus might have structural significance: the epiparodos is a real new beginning for the second part of the tragedy, which deals with the slaughter of Rhesus and its consequences, whereas the first part was a variation on the theme of the Homeric ‘Doloneia’. These numerous, recognisable, and structurally emphatic passages do not reveal, perhaps, that the author aimed at writing a coherently tragic tragedy but proved unable to do so, as Hermann suggested; we may then have to assume that the author of Rh. wanted to write a tragedy where comic smiles are allowed.170 Comic elements may well have been included in Rh. because the author wished to expand upon features of the poetics underlying Il. 10.171 In doing so, he would understand the anomalous position that, according to some of the ancients, Book 10 had within the Il., and within the epic genre. Accordingly, he would have mimicked in his play some of the peculiarities that characterised his model. Σ exeg. 10.1 reports: ϕασὶ τὴν ῥαψωιδίαν ὑϕ᾽ Ὁμήρου ἰδίαι τετάχθαι καὶ μὴ εἶναι μέρος τῆς Ἰλιάδος, ὑπὸ δὲ Πεισιστράτου τετάχθαι εἰς τὴν ποίησιν ‘people say that this rhapsody was arranged by Homer as a separate composition and was not a part of the Il., but was included in the poem by Peisistratus’. The separateness that the ancients identified in the case of Book 10 has led some modern scholars to suppose that it was not part of the oral tradition that produced the Iliad.172 However, the Σ does not necessarily mean what it has To paraphrase the title (and reverse the conclusions) of Burnett (1985). In what follows of Chap. 7 I will presuppose Fantuzzi (2018). 172 See for instance West (2001) 10: ‘It is a lively, exciting episode, certainly composed to stand where it does now in the poem, but structural and stylistic considerations combine to show that it was no part of the original poet’s design, nor from his workshop.’ The most recent extensive treatment 170 171

53

I N T RO D U C T I O N

often been assumed to mean – that the book is not Homeric.173 It appears to suggest only that, in the view of some ancient scholars, Il. 10 presupposes the rest of the Il. as the frame for its narrative and for some details of the plot174 but includes features which feel non-Iliadic, whereas the Il. does not presuppose Il. 10.175 For our purposes, it is enough to note that Book 10 seemed separate to some of the ancients, and thus maybe also to the author of Rh. or the actors rewriting it. He would then have intentionally recreated the impression of separateness or apocryphal interpolation that at least some ancient and modern readers have felt in the case of the model, Il. 10.176 Or it may have been an editor of the Euripidean corpus who inserted the work of an unknown author (for instance to replace a lost play by Euripides with the same title177). He will then have been pleased that a tragedy developing the themes of Il. 10 generated the same impression within the Euripidean corpus as that book generated within the Iliad.178 of the Book, Danek (1988), reaches a similar conclusion. Cf. also Reinhardt (1961) 248–50, Taplin (1992) 11 and 152–3. 173 Cf. Dué and Ebbott (2010) 5–6. 174 An analysis of these details in Thornton (1984) 164–9. 175 Petegorsky (1982) 177–8 has noted that, after remarking that the wall is not going to be sufficient to hold Hector back (Il. 9.346–55), Achilles maintains that the Greeks are going to need a μῆτις ἀμείνων (9.421–6); Odysseus and Diomedes’ mission would involve and enact precisely the Odyssean (= non-Iliadic) skills evoked by μῆτις ἀμείνων; cf. also Dué and Ebbott (2010) 103. Furthermore, Martin (2000) 62–5 has pointed out that Nestor remembers his own nocturnal raid in Il. 11.677–85, after proposing the spy mission in 10.204–17 and welcoming Odysseus and Diomedes back at 10.532–3, so that the two night raids seem ‘mutually reinforcing, shared attempts to vary the texture of the poem’. 176 In the Teubner edition by West (1998/2000) the whole book is athetised. 177 This has been a popular hypothesis concerning the origin of the ascription, most recently proposed again by Kovacs (2002) 352 and Liapis (2009b). 178 The idea of Il. 10 as a possible model for a narrative which in stylistic and ideological standards sets the narrative apart from the work or set of works to which it belongs (‘a piece of poetry that doesn’t quite “fit”’: Lavigne

54

7 ) W E R E T R AG I C S M I L E S A L LOW E D ?

This suggestion cannot be more than a guess. But it is attractive to surmise that it is no coincidence if Rh. turns out to be unusual in the same ways in which Il. 10 was probably felt by the ancients to be unusual. The two texts share an uncommonly high frequency of archaisms or other exotic words;179 the almost banal re-use, in Il. 10, of formulae that are often connected to specific characters or situations in the rest of the Il. matches the careless repetition of single words or phrases in Rh.;180 Il. 10 and Rh. feature odd, archaising arming scenes, with recurring references to the donning of animal skins which probably have a primitive symbolic value that reappears nowhere in the Il. and seldom in tragedy;181 both Il. 10 and Rh. describe intelligence-gathering, night-raids, and ambushes, and these are not common in the Il., where the main form of fighting is single combat in daylight,182 or in tragedy.183 (2008) 119) hardly finds parallels in Greek or Latin literature, as far as I know. One may, however, compare the long episode concerning the night raid of Nisus and Euryalus in Virg. Aen. 9, a raid like that of Odysseus and Diomedes. Its atmosphere, style, and ethical values are widely agreed to be different from those of the rest of the Iliadic section of the Aeneid (Books 7–12); cf. Fowler (2000) 91, Casali (2004) 322–3, Fantuzzi (2012) 246–8, 255– 6. Comparable is also the long inset of the story of Cnemon in Book 1 of Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, on which cf. Morgan (1989). 179 Cf. above p. 25. 180 Set phrases are repeated in Rh. with no apparent stylistic motivation even more frequently than para-formulaic phrases are used in (especially) Eur. Hipp. and Bacch.; cf. 17–18n., Ritchie (1964) 218–25, Pickering (1999) 60, 79–80, Fries 28–30, and Prato (1978 = 2009) on the para-formulaic aspect of Euripidean versification. 181 On all these differences, cf. Danek (1988). 182 Williams (2000). The themes of ambush and nocturnal raid are traditional in archaic epic: they occur again and again in the Epic Cycle, and are occasionally alluded to in the Il.; cf. Dué and Ebbott (2010) 31–87 and 507b–9a n. But they seem to be avoided by the branch of the oral tradition from which the Il. itself originated. 183 No other extant tragedy is set entirely at night (see Donelan (2014) 544–8 on the few initial night scenes we know), although some fragmentary ones probably were set at night, such as, in particular, Soph. Ναύπλιος, which

55

I N T RO D U C T I O N

The comic elements of Il. 10 also distinguish it from the rest of the poem. There is the boasting of the burlesque Dolon and his cowardice during Odysseus’ interrogation, which reduce the pathos of his death. There are hints of incongruous or unconventional behaviour throughout the book. They involve the Trojans, the Greeks, and even the gods: they range from the way in which Diomedes comments on Nestor’s indefatigable old age (10.164–7) when he is unconventionally awoken by Nestor’s kick (10.158) to Agamemnon’s concern for the survival of his weak brother Menelaus (10.240). Among the divinities, Apollo is surprisingly ineffectual: he ‘kept no blind watch’ (10.515), but intervenes only after Athena and Diomedes’ scheming has led to the slaughter of Rhesus. As a result, he merely manages to wake Rhesus’ cousin Hippocoon, who laments the slaughter.184 It has been observed that resonances of the identification with paradigmatic animals typical, in particular, of iambic poetry are concentrated in Il. 10 as nowhere else in the poem. Prominent among them is the figure of the trickster, often emblematised by the wolf in archaic and especially in iambic

focused on how Nauplius placed torches on a promontory of Euboea in order to draw the Greek fleet onto the rocks (one subtitle with which the play was often quoted is πυρκαεύς; it included a prayer to Night: TrGF 433). Another candidate for a night-time play is Soph. Ἀχαιῶν σύλλογος, which begins in the evening (this play was, like Rh., another military drama set outside the quarters of Agamemnon at Tenedos: TrGF 143). Cf. Sommerstein, Fitzpatrick, and Talboy on Soph. Ἀχαιῶν σύλλογος, TrGF 143 (with pp. 90, 92); Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Palam. and Naupl. TrGF 433 (pp. 137–8). Also Soph. Λάκαιναι, which appears to have combined the theft of the Palladium and the πτωχεία, the spy mission inside Troy, must have been entirely set at night-time. So was Ion’s Φρουροί, in which Odysseus’ πτωχεία was again the subject and in which the chorus were sentinels, as in Rh.; cf. below 503–7a n., 532–4n., 551–3n.; TrGF Ion 19F45 (from Φρουροί) and 53b (possibly from the same play) are set in the darkness before dawn. 184 See Henry (1905), Shewan (1911) 199–204.

56

7 ) W E R E T R AG I C S M I L E S A L LOW E D ?

poetry. Dolon (= ‘The Tricky One’) wears a wolf pelt in Il. 10; in Rh. 205 (see n.) he says that it befits the deed and ‘thievish steps’. He seems destined to play this role, but in the end he dies dishonoured at the hands of Odysseus. Dolon is in some ways equivalent to the disreputable Thersites: he is ugly (10.316), and he displays cowardice when Odysseus interrogates him, which may be due to his having been raised with five sisters (10.317).186 It is thus Odysseus who turns out to play the role of the victorious trickster-wolf. He is appropriately presented (10.261–70) as wearing a peculiar helmet decorated with boartusks, which had been stolen by his grandfather Autolycus (= ‘The Real Wolf ’), known as a master thief. Likewise in Rh., Dolon is presented, at least in the first part of his dialogue with Hector, as a prosaic self-seeker in contrast with the heroic idealism of Hector (161–83), and his donning a wolf skin is seen, more than in Il. 10, as a complete man/animal camouflage that makes him the perfect trickster (208–15).187 Scoptic laughing at the Trojans is implied in their foolish joy and feasting at the beginning of the book: they wrongly assume that they will be victorious (10.11–13). Nestor decides to inspect the watchmen because he is afraid that the Greeks may become ‘a cause of rejoicing to the foes’ (μὴ χάρμα γενώμεθα δυσμενέεσσιν, 10.193). Instead we witness the intense joy of Odysseus and the other Greeks when he and Diomedes return victorious to the Greek camp: they rejoice (χαρέντες, χαίροντες: 10.541, 565) and laugh (καγχαλόων: 10.565) because of their success and their scorn for the enemy.188 The same motif is found at Rh. 814b–15: Hector is afraid that the enemy are mocking the Trojans for their unmanliness. The roles and behaviour 185

On the hints of the complex symbolism of the wolf in Il. 10, cf. Steiner (2015) 348–54. 186 Lavigne (2008) 132–3. 187 Cf. 208–13n. 188 On defeat of and scorn for the enemy as an iambic element, see Nagy (1979) 257–9, Lavigne (2008) 121–30, Gilhaus (2019). 185

57

I N T RO D U C T I O N

of φίλοι and ἐχθροί thereby become almost indistinguishable.189 From the very beginning of Il. 10, Greeks and Trojans behave and think in similar ways and their actions mirror each other. The same duplication can be observed in Rhesus. The leaders of both camps are awake and call a council; in each camp, a leader has the idea of a spy mission and asks for a volunteer; in both cases, the volunteers arm themselves in an unusual way, wearing animal pelts or unusual headgear (see above); and the spies are promised the enemy’s best horses (in the case of the Trojans) or in fact receive them (in the case of the Greeks). Rh. thus shares with Il. 10 a sort of common iambic strategy, as there are other passages of the Il. where, iambically, the abuser is ‘outblamed’ by his object of ridicule, and thus backfires and taints his own reputation,190 but the roles of Greeks and Trojans are systematically compared and reversible only in the course of the narrative of Il. 10. Besides, invective is also a motif of epic, and mocking is found in the Il. (in particular in Book 2 in relation to Thersites and in Book 3 in relation to Paris), but Il. 10 focuses primarily on blame and ridicule. The Trojans, military enemies, come thus to occupy the structural position of, say, Lycambes, the personal target of Archilochus’ poetry.191 An attempt to imitate these non-epic features of Il. 10 may have led the author of Rh. to include comic elements in his tragedy. But this hybridisation, motivated as it seems to be by allusion to Il. 10, also easily finds its place within the synchronic system of literary genres of the fourth century. On this reading, Rh. would not be a failed tragedy but an example of the ongoing and subtle exchanges that distinguished and united tragedy and comedy in some tragedies of the late fifth century (especially the Euripidean plays of reversed catastrophe), and reshaped tragic scenes and myths in New Comedy so successfully that Cf. Fantuzzi (2006a), Steiner (2015) 349–51. Cf. Suter (1993). 191 For the relevance of iambic features in Il. 10, Lavigne (2008) and Steiner (2015) are now fundamental. 189 190

58

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

they could hardly be perceived as extraneous.192 Parody may still have been the primary means of bringing tragic structures and plot-elements to comedy, as in the fifth century.193 But during the fourth century and (as far as we can tell) especially with Menander, tragic motifs became consistent components of a sort of hybrid comedy, which ‘largely urbanises and secularises narratives shaped by tragic μῦθος, overlaying an urban “superstratum” onto a mythical “substratum”, often with the crust being rather thin’.194 Seen from this perspective, Rh. may be thought to display a literary strategy opposite but symmetrical to that of New Comedy and therefore fully in accordance with the rules of the contemporary system of literary genres. It would represent the only extant comico-tragic pendant to the tragicomic hybrid of Menander’s comedy.195 The play is perhaps more consistent as an imitation of Il. 10 than has usually been assumed. Most of its supposed oddities and clumsiness as a tragic piece can be justified from this perspective. And its incorporation of comic elements recalls the peaceful exchange of ideas between tragedy and comedy that was typical of the age of Menander. 8 ) ‘ P O L I T I C A L’ T R A G E DY – F O R W H I C H POLIS? Tragedy is the city putting itself on the stage, and many plays incorporate a variety of political discourses of the city, and represent or emulate the various ways in which decisions were On the overlap of tragedy and comedy in the fifth century, see most recently Medda, Mirto, and Pattoni (2006); for the fourth century, Xanthake-Karamanou (1991). 193 Nesselrath (1993). 194 Petrides (2014) 82. 195 For some ancient scholars, the unmotivated joy of the Trojans’ songs and music at Il. 10.11–13 was already ‘comic’: Σ exeg. ad loc. τὴν βαρβάρων δὲ ἄγνοιαν κωμωιδεῖ ἐν τοιούτωι καιρῶι μουσικευομένων ἐπὶ τοσούτων πτωμάτων καὶ μὴ μᾶλλον τῶι κοιμᾶσθαι ποριζομένων ἰσχὺν εἰς τὴν αὔριον. 192

59

I N T RO D U C T I O N

made. Tragedians often hint at contemporary political issues, ideas, and values which we know or can surmise to have been topics of more or less heated discussion in public assemblies at the time when their plays were performed. They shape their myths as exemplary foils for these debates. Tragic performances were spectacles, and thus a break from everyday routine; but they were also occasions on which spectators could reflect on controversial issues to be debated in the ekklesia or the boule197 and thus an essential complement to everyday political routine. They gave the spectators a chance to consider those issues from the distanced viewpoint of ‘heroic vagueness’,198 and to examine their ‘selves’ through a series of ‘others’.199 Rhesus is ‘updated’ in his play. The question of what a good ally should be and the distinction between φιλία and συμμαχία arise in his dialogue with Hector. As a Thracian ally, he is open to suspicion, and the scene may suggest the questions and problems that should be considered before accepting an alliance.200 Hector is similarly politicised in the play. In the Il., he is a great warrior and a Trojan leader, but also the father of Astyanax and husband of Andromache.201 Very little of that complexity remains in Rh.; he becomes the supreme leader of the army. He considers, discusses, and passes military decisions in the interest of his city, with very little emotion. His first reactions are sometimes rash, and he does not respect the watchmen, the 196

Goff (1999/2000) 93. See above p. 27 n. 77. On the ‘imbrication’ of the paideusis of the audience by the democratic polis and, in particular, the strong emotions inherent in tragic poetics, cf. Goldhill (2000). 198 Tragedies are set in the remote past and use elevated poetic language, so that even the most problematic questions can be addressed without becoming over-divisive: Easterling (1997) 25, 28–9. 199 Cf. Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (1988) 334–8, Zeitlin (1990). 200 Cf. Fantuzzi (2011b). 201 Cf., e.g., Erbse (1978). 196 197

60

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

shepherd, and the charioteer, who are not his peers.202 But he is prepared to listen to his peers, and he accepts the verdict of the majority. He disagrees with the watchmen when they enthusiastically support an alliance with Rhesus, and seems ready to reject Rhesus’ offer, but in the end he is persuaded by Rhesus, who is his peer, and forgives him for the lukewarm φιλία that he demonstrated towards Troy. Hector uses his professional military competence203 in reaching decisions, and his willingness to accept the verdict of the majority may seem to show εὐβουλία. Nonetheless the course of action that he rationally selects leads to misfortune.204 His acceptance of the will of the majority and the attention that he pays to the opinions of his peers may seem praiseworthy, or else an example of ‘tremendous volatility … and apparent inability to enforce his own authority’.205 The author was probably not interested in making Hector appear laudable for his decision-making skills. Rather, he was trying to make his audience consider decision-making in some of its forms. And so Hector often seems reckless in his decision-making in Rh. This recalls the various moments in the Il. when his pursuit of kleos almost causes him to make military mistakes. On the other hand, unlike the Iliadic Hector, the tragic Hector is ready to listen to other people’s opinions, and consequently to make better decisions: ‘To some extent, then, the play models

See in particular 91–8, where Aeneas practically accuses Hector of δυσβουλία (cf. 105–8). 203 Hector’s professional competence and emotional detachment are clear in all circumstances. Cf. 15–22n., 17c–19n., 34–40n., 81–3n. etc. 204 Rosivach (1978) 55, 63. If Hector had not sent out the spy Dolon and let his forces sleep, the Trojans and Thracians would not have been fast asleep and thus an easy target for Odysseus and Diomedes. And if he had not accepted the alliance, Rhesus and the Thracians would not have camped, and fallen asleep, near the Trojan camp. 205 Cf. Mattison (2015) 492–6 (quotation from 496). Hector’s about-turns are stigmatised as examples of insupportable inconsistency by most modern readers. 202

61

I N T RO D U C T I O N

the importance of dialogue and debate in the specific situation of decision-making within a polis at war’.206 Finally, Aeneas exists in Rh. only as a paradigmatic decision-maker in dialogue with Hector. He never appears in Il. 10. In Rh., he takes the place of the Homeric Polydamas, a companion of Hector who criticised his plans in the Iliad.207 The Iliadic Hector hardly ever accepts Polydamas’ suggestions, and the suggestions are peremptorily phrased. Rh. is quite different in this respect. In the play, Hector discusses with Aeneas the choice between launching a night attack and sending a spy. He eventually chooses the second option, which Aeneas had favoured and which the watchmen too came to prefer.208 The ‘contradictor’ Polydamas is thus replaced by the persuasive Aeneas, and Rh. is the earliest extant example of the motif of Aeneas as an exceptional counsellor, well attested from the Hellenistic age onwards.209 ***

Hesk (2011) 141. Cf. 28–9n.; Fantuzzi (2006a) 256–9. 208 Cf. 137 ‘You win (singular νικᾶις, addressed to Aeneas, perhaps correctly; but the MSS have plural νικᾶτ(ε), addressed to the majority), as this course of action appeals to everyone’. 209 For Lycophr. 1235, Aeneas was βουλαῖς ἄριστος, οὐδ᾿ ὀνοστὸς ἐν μάχαις; Dion. Hal. AR 1.46.1–2, reporting Hellanicus of Lesbos, FGrHist 4F31, praises Aeneas’ subtle cunning (μηχάνημα) and thoughtfulness (λογισμός, νοῦς) as shown in the defence of the citadel and in his later decision to abandon the wall and save as many Trojans as possible, along with the holy objects of the city, by escaping to Mt Ida; for Dioscorides (dating uncertain) FGrHist 594F*8, Aeneas was ὁ δεινότατος τῶν Τρώων ἐν τῶι βουλεύεσθαι; for Philostr. Her. 38.1–2, he was inferior to Hector in battle but superior in wisdom, and the two were accorded equal esteem by the Trojans – an idea which may have its origin in Hom. Il. 5.467–8 and 6.78–9; in particular, says Philostratus, Aeneas ‘never ceased reasoning and calculating even in the most frightful circumstances; so the Greeks called Hector the arm of the Trojans, but Aeneas their mind (τὸν μὲν Ἕκτορα χεῖρα τῶν Τρώων, τὸν δὲ Αἰνείαν νοῦν), and Aeneas’ wisdom caused them more trouble than Hector’s raging’. Cf. Galinsky (1969) 39. 206 207

62

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

The debate at Rh. 52–130 about the choice between a night attack and a spy mission may have belonged among the discussions that arose in the popular assemblies of Athens or other cities in the late fifth and fourth centuries, or in battlefield debates between generals. Military reconnaissance was probably not new in the late classical age, and it acquired a special relevance in historiography in the fourth century. Epic warfare focused on face-to-face combat in daylight.210 Military reconnaissance in the ancient world was usually carried out by scouts, and scouts are not found in the action of the Il. outside Book 10,211 although they are depicted on the shield of Achilles (18.520–9) and in a simile (5.767–72). These passages show that military intelligence operations were familiar, although the Il. chooses to focus on open combat.212 There is only ambiguous evidence for the use of scouts in the late archaic and early classical age, and some modern historians maintain that they were not systematically employed until the age of Xenophon.213 But the nature of the sources should be considered: Xen. Anabasis, Hipparchicus, and Cyropaedia, for example, are rich in detailed information about reconnaissance practices, whereas the Hellenica, which does not often give detailed descriptions of marching and camping, places no greater emphasis on them than Hdt. and Thucydides.214 In any case, it is in the fourth century that references to scouting increase in number. Xenophon used his cavalry to scout ahead of his Ten Thousand in Thrace, and later let the Thracian cavalry of Seuthes take over this role; Agesilaus used scouts while campaigning in Asia, and

For the question of how consistently scouts or lookouts in fixed position were used in the classical period, cf., e.g., Pritchett (1971/1991) I.127–33 and Andrewes (1981) 458–60. On reconnaissance and epic, cf. above p. 55. 211 Cf. Williams (2000). 212 Williams (2000). 213 Pritchett (1971/1991) I.127–32, Wheeler and Strauss (2007) 202. 214 As Russell (1999) 14 n. 15 pointedly observes. 210

63

I N T RO D U C T I O N

that was also Alexander’s usual practice.215 The initial debate between Hector, Aeneas, and the chorus belongs to the miseen-abyme of Dolon’s spy mission as ‘the other war’ (the war of intelligence, ambushes, and night raids, which is featured by Il. 10 and Rh.), to be contrasted with the face-to-face combat on the open field preferred in the Iliad. But it may also have been enjoyed by the audience as a piece of ‘political tragedy’ mirroring contemporary debates on the relative importance and timing of rapid engagement on the battlefield and intelligence operations.216 *** The debate between Dolon and Hector is a major addition to the plot of Il. 10. It highlights Dolon’s choice of the horses of Achilles, with its bitter tragic irony.217 But this ‘guessing game’ is also a piece of ‘political tragedy’. It does not contribute at all to the play’s action, but may have led the audience to reflect on the question of who is a ‘benefactor’ of the polis and how they should be rewarded. When Hector advertises the spy mission and looks for a volunteer, he only speaks of the volunteer becoming a ‘benefactor’ (151) of the fatherland and showing oneself to be a ‘patriot’ (158). His focus is on the glory and honour of the future benefactor and his family (158–60). In the following stichomythia concerning the prize to be assigned to Dolon, Hector suggests several alternatives, and Dolon rejects them Cf. Engels (1980), Spence (1993) 145–6, Russell (1999) 15–16. Hesk (2011) 141 rightly concludes that ‘the play models the importance of dialogue and debate in the specific situation of decision-making within a polis at war’. 217 The choice of Achilles’ horses brings the ‘guessing game’ to a surprise ending; the preceding suggestions are more obvious. There is tragic irony in the choice because Dolon will not live to receive the horses of Achilles, and Hector will not live to claim the horses himself or award them to anyone else. Moreover, the focus on capturing Achilles’ horses foreshadows (and is presumably motivated by) the later seizure of Rhesus’ horses by Odysseus and Diomedes, which, again, amounts to a sort of peripeteia for Hector’s expectations. 215

216

64

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

one after the other. Finally, Hector apparently runs out of ideas and asks Dolon directly what he would like (181); Dolon gives a direct answer. Until 169, Hector emphasises rewards that are honorific, or provide Dolon with social distinction. Even after Dolon has requested a material μισθός and Hector has agreed (161–5), Hector continues to think in terms of honour – the honour of acquiring political power (165) or social distinction by marrying a princess (167). Even when he acknowledges that the κέρδος that Dolon requests is of a material kind (at 169), he only briefly considers the possibility that Dolon may want ‘gold’ before suggesting that he may want Greek prisoners on whom to take revenge (173–6): that would be an award of martial and heroic relevance but no practical value. For the theatre audience, this long discussion evokes public debates concerning the honours that poleis granted to citizens or foreigners who deserved to be called ‘benefactors’. In particular, there is evidence in oratory and inscriptions for the frequency with which discussions about the size and nature of such rewards were conducted in the fifth and (above all) fourth centuries. Epigraphical evidence of the fifth and fourth centuries shows that benefactors were entitled to request, or received at the city’s own instigation, a series of honorific (non-monetary) privileges that were usually extended to other members of their families or were hereditary: προξενία either alone or with other distinctions; the titles πρόξενος and εὐεργέτης either alone or with other distinctions; the title εὐεργέτης accompanied by other privileges but not προξενία; the title of πρόξενος associated with other privileges but not εὐεργεσία. The main honours apart from προξενία and εὐεργεσία were public praise, or the privilege of front-row seating in the theatre and at festivals (προεδρία), immunity from some or all taxes and liturgies (ἀτέλεια), safety of the person (ἀσυλία), the right of landownership (ἔγκτησις), access to the βουλή and the ἐκκλησία, free meals at the prytaneum (σίτησις), direct access to the law-court of the polemarchos (normally without paying), a promise of compensation if the honorand was injured (ἐπιμέλεια), and publication of the honorific decree, through the erection of a 65

I N T RO D U C T I O N

stele financed by the polis.218 Hector’s description of the spy mission as an act of εὐεργεσία and his initial focus on honours or social distinctions recall the practice of praising and compensating civic benefactors, and discussing in the assembly which honours should be granted to which benefactor. For Aristotle, being a benefactor of the city and gaining honour were two sides of the same coin: cf. Eth. Nic. 1163b3–8 ‘honour is the reward of virtue and benefaction (τῆς μὲν γὰρ ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἡ τιμὴ γέρας) … A citizen who contributes nothing of value to the community is not held in honour (οὐ γὰρ τιμᾶται ὁ μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν τῶι κοινῶι πορίζων), for the common property is given to the benefactor of the community (τῶι τὸ κοινὸν εὐεργετοῦντι), and honour belongs to the community (ἡ τιμὴ δὲ κοινόν)’, Rhet. 1361a28–9 ‘honour is a sign of reputation for being a benefactor (τιμὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶν μὲν σημεῖον εὐεργετικῆς εὐδοξίας), and benefactors are the people most honoured, rightly’. To my knowledge, εὐεργέτης inscriptions hardly ever decreed monetary compensation for a city benefactor. The question of which honorific rewards were to be assigned to the civic benefactors may have been discussed in public as early as the fifth century, but it became a more frequent topic of discussion in Athens only around the mid-fourth century. In the fourth century the number of awards granted to benefactors increased, and the correct functioning of the system seems to have acquired a new importance: Athenian politicians of the second half of the fourth century very often accused their rivals of passing unconstitutional decrees that conferred excessive honours on undeserving individuals, and more than half of the graphai paranomon (indictments against illegal proposals) are concerned with precisely this kind of decree.219 ***

Cf. Gauthier (1985) 103–28. Liddel (2007) 162, after Hansen (1974) 22–7, 62. For more details on the ideology of rewards to benefactors, cf. Domingo Gygax (2016); on this ideology as enacted by the stichomythia of Dolon and Hector, Fantuzzi (2016b).

218 219

66

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

The tragic author’s third major addition to the epic plot, Rh. 320–526, is another piece of ‘political tragedy’. The play gives us a sophisticated lesson on how to come to considered decisions about the choice and confirmation of allies, and on the question of whether Athens is overly dependent on them. Rh. may not have been alone in bringing this issue to the audience’s attention. The Eurypylus of Soph. Eurypylus, son of the Mysian king Telephus,220 was probably an ally for whose assistance Troy appealed repeatedly (cf. Rh. 399–400, 935–7).221 And the wicked traitor Polymestor, a Thracian king, killed the boy Polydorus after he had been entrusted to him by his father Priam, who was bound to Polymestor by ties of ξενία. It may be no coincidence that the Euripidean play on this subject, Hecuba, was produced c. 424, when the Athenians had begun to see how dangerous it was to rely on Sitalces’ promises (see below). And the Athenian king Pandion had given his daughter Procne in marriage to the Thracian king Tereus to confirm an alliance (Thuc. 2.29.3) or to reward him for his help in war; the terrible consequences for Procne’s sister Philomela were the plot of Soph. Tereus. Sophocles’ play may have contained an implied warning about Thracian alliances, and the legend gave a sinister aetiological justification for the claim that a kinship existed between Athenians and Thracians.222 Mythical and contemporary Thracian dangers appear to have been considered together in late-fifth-century Athens: according to Thuc. 2.29.3, some Athenians confused the mythological Tereus and Teres the father of Sitalces, and a Thracian soldier in Ar. Lys. 563 goes to buy figs in the market ‘brandishing his πέλτη and spear like Tereus’.223 The Mysians were considered by the ancients to be descendants of the Thracians. 221 Σ Juven. 6.655 = TrGF IV p. 195, perhaps referring to the Sophoclean plot, makes the iteration of Priam’s pleas explicit. 222 Xen. An. 7.2.31, 7.3.39, Thuc. 2.29.3, Parker (1996) 174 with n. 76. 223 Cf. Hall (1989) 137, Sears (2013) 144–5. 220

67

I N T RO D U C T I O N

Because of Athenian interests in the north, the kings of Thrace were courted by the Athenians again and again in the late fifth and fourth centuries, though seldom effectively. Athenian history was dotted with episodes demonstrating (at least from Athens’ point of view) the Thracians’ unreliability or ingratitude. The kings notoriously received gifts without giving anything in return (Thuc. 2.97.3–4). The difficulties that the Athenians had in their relationship with their phantom ally Sitalces from 431 to 429 were particularly well known; they were recorded by both Ar. (Ach. 141–72) and Thuc. (2.29, 2.95, 2.101). However, the Athenians’ need to interact with unreliable Thracian allies did not end with the Peloponnesian War. The story of Seuthes II’s ingratitude towards Xenophon in 399 BC is narrated at length at An. 7.2.10–7.57. Later on, Cotys became king of most of Thrace in 383 and the Athenians, trying to court his favour, granted him citizenship and a gold crown. But, according to Dem. 23.131–2, he did not reward the loyalty demonstrated by the Athenian general Iphicrates, who had married into his family.224 Perhaps the most self-serving of all the Thracian kings was Cersebleptes, son of Cotys and king of Eastern Thrace. Cersebleptes and Athens concluded a treaty in 357, which acknowledged Athenian control over the Thracian Chersonese. But the Athenians courted and made alliances with all three of the Thracian kings – in 358 with Berisades and Amadocus, and in 355 with Cersebleptes. In 356 Athens made an anti-Macedonian alliance with the king of Western Thrace, Cetriporis, and with kings of Paeonia and Illyria (IG 2 II–III .127). Nevertheless, at least according to Dem., the turncoat Cersebleptes and Philip II seemed to plot against Athens and Athenian interests in the Chersonese at the diplomatic conference of Maroneia. But Cersebleptes was swift to change plans, and he came to an arrangement with the Athenians (354 or 353?). The anti-Macedonian plotting of Athenians and Iliescu (1976) surmised that Rh. may reflect the Athenians’ troubles with Cotys.

224

68

8 ) ‘ P olitical’ T ragedy – F or W hich P olis ?

Thracians escalated again in 347 and 346, and some Athenian fortresses were constructed on the Thracian coast, probably at the request of Cersebleptes.225 A related problem is that of the connections between the concepts of ξενία, φιλία, and συμμαχία. This was absent from Homer, where only the idea of ξενία was widely operative and the protocols of political alliance seem as yet unknown, but it must have been widely discussed in the late fifth and fourth centuries. The situation at Rh. 336–8 may be contrasted to that described at Hdt. 1.69.1–70.1, where Croesus and the Spartans decide to embrace reciprocal ξεινίη and συμμαχίη. Unlike the Spartans, who renewed their old connections with Croesus (ξενία), Hector refuses at first to form a συμμαχία with Rhesus: like the Spartans, he acknowledges that he has ties of ξενία with Rhesus, but because of the bad φιλία that Rhesus has shown through his late arrival at Troy, Hector maintains that he cannot accept his offer of συμμαχία. A new or stronger distinction is drawn between the ideas of political alliance (συμμαχία or φιλία) and ξενία. The latter term never occurs in the surviving diplomatic documents of the classical age, and is not used by Thucydides or Xenophon to characterise relationships between states; the word φιλία is used instead. Herodotus had used ξενία 20x and ξένος 16x of an interstate relationship between individuals or communities. However, he used these terms almost exclusively of treaties and relationships between tyrants or between tyrants and different rulers.226 It may not be coincidental that Hector uses the term ξένος at 337 for the connection that exists between him, the ‘king’ of Troy (as he is called in the play), and Rhesus, the Thracian king, but speaks at 324 of Rhesus’ lack of φιλία towards Troy. The dialogue in Xen. Hell. 4.1.34–8 between the Spartan king Agesilaus and the satrap Pharnabazus, who had been an ally of Sparta against Athens, provides a very interesting example of this Cf. Dem. 7.37, 8.64, 9.15, 10.8, 65, 18.27, 19.56, Aeschin. 3.82. Cf. Bauslaugh (1991) 60–1, 88–9.

225

226

69

I N T RO D U C T I O N

antithesis between the private affairs of ξενία and the interpersonal rules imposed by the city at war: pre-existing connections of ξενία had to be renewed through a formally established new συμμαχία.227 Similarly, Hector is at first only willing to respect the obligations of ξενία at a personal level: Rhesus is admitted to the table at Rh. 336–7 but not to συμμαχία. But Hector’s preliminary opinion (321–6) is that Rhesus’ φιλία for and from Troy had, in a way, expired. Only after the watchmen and the shepherd-messenger make him see how useful Rhesus’ powerful army could be does Hector agree to form a new συμμαχία with him (341).228 *** Apart from the specific issues discussed, the debates that pivot on Hector as the supreme commander form a micro-anthology of case studies concerned with good or bad decision-making. Many tragedies included episodes of εὐβουλία and δυσβουλία, and plays like Soph. Tr. and Euripides Suppl. did so throughout.229 Both in his debate with Aeneas (and the watchmen) and in his debates with the shepherd-messenger and with Rhesus (and the watchmen), Hector seems at first rash or prejudiced or both. But after engaging in dialogue with the watchmen, who represent in some ways the citizen body, with competent peers like Aeneas, or with powerful potential helpers like Rhesus, he reaches decisions which seem wiser. Rh. thus demonstrates the importance of shared decision-making. But Aeneas’ reasonable caution leads Hector to adopt a plan that is only apparently the most reasonable. The spy mission will not succeed. Dolon does not gather the required intelligence and, thanks (at least in part) to the information he gives to Odysseus and Diomedes, the two Greeks can carry out a massacre in the Thracian camp; so ‘it turns out that Hector would have been better off ignoring Aeneas’ advice and Cf. Herman (1987) 1–9, to be read with Konstan (1997) 83–7. For a detailed discussion of Thracian unreliability and the ideas of ξενία, φιλία, and συμμαχία, see Fantuzzi (2011b). 229 Cf. Hall (2009) for the former, Hesk (2011) 127–36 for the latter. 227

228

70

9 ) T he T ransmission of the T ext

attacking the Greeks immediately’.230 It is consistent with the poetics of tragedy that Rh. makes its audience reflect not only on what is or is not εὐβουλία, but also on the limits and failure of εὐβουλία, when it is hampered by hostile τύχη. 9) THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT The play is transmitted as part of the so-called ‘selection’ of Euripides, ten plays that, according to Wilamowitz’s widely accepted theory,231 were likely the ‘canonical’ plays read in the schoolrooms of the early Imperial age.232 The selection comprised Alcestis, Andromache, Bacchae, Hippolytus, Medea, Rhesus, Troades, Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae. All these plays, apart from Bacchae, have scholia (though, of the Medieval MSS, only V copied them systematically).233 They are transmitted by L and P and other unrelated MSS. Hec., Or., and Pho., which constituted the narrow ‘triad’ of plays of the Byzantine school canon, are transmitted not only by L and P, but also by numerous late MSS. Distinct from the ‘selection’ is the ‘alphabetical’ branch of the transmission, whose two oldest MSS (L and P) include nine plays presented in roughly alphabetical order (Hel., El., Hcld., Her., Supp. (= Ἱκέτιδες), IA, IT, Ion, Cycl.) that must have come from an ancient set of codices containing the whole Euripidean Hesk (2011) 142; but this whole paragraph is indebted to Hesk (2011) 136– 43. 231 Wilamowitz (1907) 195–203. 232 This selection emerged either in the second century AD (Wilamowitz ibid.), in the third (Turyn (1957) 311), or in the fourth (Zuntz (1965) 256). It is also possible that no single standard selection existed in late antiquity, and the group we call the select plays arose in the ninth century or later from the amalgamation of surviving smaller sets (Mastronarde (2016) 16). 233 The loss of the scholia to Bacch., a play used extensively, along with Rh. and Hec., in the compilation of the Christus patiens, must be an accident of the transmission. The play cannot have belonged in the alphabetic branch of the tradition (on which see below): Barrett (1964) 51 n. 3. 230

71

I N T RO D U C T I O N

corpus (more than seventy tragedies and satyr-plays).234 L (Laurentianus plutei 32.2) is the oldest medieval MS for the ‘alphabetical’ plays; along with them it includes the Byzantine triad (Hec., Or., Pho.) and six other tragedies from the ancient ‘selection’ (Hipp., Med., Alc., Andr., Rh., Bacch.). P (Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 287 + Laurentianus Conventi soppressi 172) is considered to be a copy of L in Rh. and the ‘alphabetic’ plays (but see below). Only three papyri of Rh. survive, whereas there are 20+ of both Or. and Pho. and 12–15 of Med., Andr., and Hec. The play cannot therefore have been among the most popular during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Still, it was included in the ‘selection’ of canonical plays, words taken from the play are frequently mentioned by ancient lexicographers,235 and the scholia fairly often quote commentators on Rh.236 It is clear that it had a firm position in the schools of the late Imperial age. However it may have been evaluated in aesthetic terms, it will have lent itself to exercises of comparison to Homer.237

A discussion of the ancient lists of Euripides’ plays can be found in Wilamowitz (1875) 144–61. 235 As observed by Diggle (1994) 517 n. 27; cf. the apparatus of testimonia in Zanetto’s or Fries’ editions. 236 They include references to scholarly observations on the text for lines 5 (Crates), 523 (Parmeniscus), 528 (Crates, Parmeniscus), and 540 (Aristarchus). Parmeniscus discusses προταινί of 523 and reacts to Crates’ observation on a supposed astronomical mistake at 528; while the confutation of Crates’ interpretation may derive from Parmeniscus’ essay Against Crates, Crates does not seem to have dealt with προταινί; so a commentary on the Rh. has been plausibly ascribed to Parmeniscus (cf. Breithaupt (1915) 34, Merro (2008) 35–6). For a list of the Σ to Rh. which appear to include material from Didymus, the famous grammarian of the first century AD, cf. Merro (2008) 32–40 (references to commentators are not frequent in the Σ to Eur.; there are, however, more than twenty references to observations by Didymus). 237 Zuntz (1965) 255–6. 234

72

9 ) T he T ransmission of the T ext

The papyri Π1 PSI XII 1286, from the second century AD, includes hyp. a of Rh., and hypotheses to Rhadamanthys and Scyrioi, with a large initial lacuna. Π2

PAchmîm 4, from the fourth or fifth century AD, includes Rh. 48–96. Π3

POxy. LXVII 4568, from the third century AD, includes only the line-beginnings of Rh. 839–47. The MSS O Laurentianus plutei 31.10 (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence) was copied by a team of scribes coordinated238 by Ioannikios, who was active from the last quarter of the twelfth century,239 or even earlier, from the years 1135/1140.240 The oldest extant copy of Euripidean plays, it includes all the tragedies in the Euripidean ‘selection’ apart from Troades, with Rh. at the end (only lines 1–714), and all the extant plays of Sophocles.241 MS O sometimes agrees with V against LQ in distinctive corruptions (cf., e.g., 66 ἔφησαν VO: ἔπεισαν LQ), but there cannot be a direct connection between the two, as O offers correct readings

At Constantinople (Wilson (1991) 454) or in Sicily (Cavallo (1980) 214–15). For this dating, see Wilson (1983) 161–76. 240 Vuillemin-Diem and Rashed (1997) 137 and n. 4, 178, Degni (2008), Mastronarde (2017) 162–3. 241 Rh. is incomplete because of textual loss at the end of the Euripides block: the two blocks were circulated separately before they were combined in a single manuscript (Degni (2008) 211–13). 238 239

73

I N T RO D U C T I O N

independently of V in at least a dozen cases.242 All or some of the scholia for many plays are given by O, but not those for Rh. V

Vaticanus gr. 909 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome), was probably copied at Constantinople in the Palaeologan era243 or even earlier, in the first half of the thirteenth century.244 It includes the plays in the Euripidean ‘selection’ (Hec., Or., Pho., Med., Hipp., Alc., Andr., Tro., Rh.), without Bacchae. There are various lacunae where pages have been lost (especially in Or. and Rh.); for Rh., the hypothesis and lines 1–111, 152–550, 631–719, 812–940 are present. The last leaf of Rh. in this MS, covering lines 899–940, was erroneously bound in the MS Vaticanus gr. 2315, but was restored to V by Rabe in 1908.245 Where V is unavailable, Va (Palatinus gr. 98: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana) is used. It was copied from V (without Σ) at the beginning of the fourteenth century, before the relevant pages were lost. The scribe of Va introduced several corrections, especially for metrical reasons; he may have stopped copying from V at line 940, after which he left a gap, and copied the final lines from another source (Rabe (1908), Turyn (1957) 91). The ancient Σ to Rh. survive mainly through V; L and Q include scattered Σ, mainly overlapping with the Σ in V, and P only has glosses. Af

Ambrosianus F 205 inf. (Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan), copied in the thirteenth century, includes Eur. Andr. 1–102 and Rh. 856–84, 985–9.

At lines 179, 205, 236, 271, 343, 379, 431, 505, 536–7, 548, 560, 595, 601, 619, 635, 654; cf. Wecklein (1922) 69, revised by Fries 49. 243 Zuntz (1965) 276, 282. If this dating is correct, the MS may have belonged to the environment of Maximus Planudes; cf. Di Benedetto (1965) 23–51. 244 Wilson (1966) 342. 245 Rabe (1908). 242

74

9 ) T he T ransmission of the T ext

Va

Palatinus gr. 98 (Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana), copied in the fourteenth century. See above on V. Hn

Hauniensis 417 (Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Gamle Kongelige Samling, Copenhagen), was copied around 1475.246 It includes the same nine plays as V, although in a slightly different order. It is a composite MS whose scribe used various sources,247 but Alc., Andr., Tro., and Rh. appear to have been copied from Va.248 L

Laurentianus plutei 32.2 (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence) was copied by more than one scribe249 before 1319.250 It includes Aesch. PV, Sept., Pers. (in part); all the extant tragedies of Sophocles except OC; Hes. Op.; a selection of Theocr.; and all the extant tragedies of Eur. apart from Tro., in the order: Supp., Bacch. (1–755), Cycl., Hcld., Her., Hel., Rh., Ion, IT, IA, Hipp., Med., Alc., Andr., El., Hec., Phoenissae. It is a book made ‘by scholars for scholars’.251 The scribe who copied Rh. also copied the ‘alphabetic’ sequence Ion, IT, and IA (fols. 119r–156v give the texts of these four plays).252 He has been identified as Nicolaus Triclines, a kinsman (possibly younger brother) of the more famous scholar Demetrius Triclinius,253 who probably discovered the exemplar for the ‘alphabetic’ plays and is responsible

Turyn (1957) 329. Turyn (1957) 330–1. 248 Turyn (1957) 332. 249 Two or three; the latest discussion is that of Collard (2007) 109–14 (where pp. 109–12 = SIFC 35 (1963) 107–11). 250 For the most recent bibliography and discussion of its dating, cf. Magnani (2000) 13–15, Bianconi (2005) 150 with n. 104. 251 Zuntz (1965) 128. 252 Zuntz (1965) 134. 253 Bianconi (2005) 122–41. 246 247

75

I N T RO D U C T I O N

for three series of corrections, recording variants from other MSS and his own conjectures. P

Palatinus gr. 287 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana) + Laurentianus Conventi soppressi 172 (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence)254 was copied at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The plays of Euripides were copied by at least two scribes,255 rather than by a single scribe.256 The rubricator Ioannes Catrares, who was active in Triclinius’ circle in 1321–1322,257 also added the end of IA and the fragment of the Danae. P is closely connected to L (see below). It contains all the tragedies that are in L, but, for the sake of completeness, adds Tro. and OC from other exemplars. It contains only tragic texts. The first printed edition of Euripides, published by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1503, was not based on P, as was long thought,258 but on a lost copy of L.259 Q

Harleianus 5743 (British Library, London), copied by a single hand in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, includes Soph. Tr., Ph., the end of Alc., Rh., and Tro. It shares many errors with L. It is thought that they have a common ancestor but that Q is contaminated with Va in Tro. 611–end. Ao

Ambrosianus O 123 sup. (Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan), written in the sixteenth century, includes part of hyp. a to Rh. and

Robert (1878) 133–6 discovered that the two MSS originally belonged together. 255 Smith (1982). 256 As maintained by Zuntz (1965) 136. 257 Turyn (1964) 124–30, Bianconi (2005) 141–56. 258 After Kirchhoff (i) xi–xiii. 259 Cf. Sicherl (1975), Magnani (2000) 207–33. 254

76

9 ) T he T ransmission of the T ext

part of hyp. a to Medea. It probably descends from the same ancestor as L. gV, gB, gE

Athous Vatopedi 36 (gV), of the eleventh or twelfth century,260 Vaticanus Barberini gr. 4 (gB) of c. 1300,261 and Escorialensis gr. X.1.13 (gE),262 of the beginning of the fourteenth century, are gnomologies that transmit excerpts from the play (gV 47 lines, gB 58 lines, gE 76 lines). When a gnomic line is removed from its original context, adaptation is often required: for example, particles or other words that connect the line to its context are usually eliminated.263 Gnomologies are thus especially useful in the case of plays such as Rh., for which we have to rely on a small number of MSS (Matthiessen (1966) 409–10). The limited but important contribution of the gnomologies to the text of Euripides is well summarised by G.A. Longman apropos of gV: ‘there appears to be no irrefutable or highly convincing case of the gnomology [scil. gV] helping to solve a problem in the text which has not been solved before. But some readings are interesting and at least worthy of consideration, while others are important since they give earlier support to readings found in only one of the six later major manuscripts of the Selection.’264 Christus patiens This cento, a religious play dating from the twelfth century,265 is a patchwork of lines of Euripides. In order of frequency, Rh. comes fourth after Med., Bacch., and Hipp. as a source of the Cf. Longman (1959), with a collation of the excerpta from Rhesus. Cf. Matthiessen (1965), with a collation of the excerpta from Rhesus. He observes that gB is derived from a MS close to V. 262 Cf. Matthiessen (1966), with a collation of the excerpta from Rhesus. He observes that gE, like gB, must have been copied from a MS close to V. 263 Meschini (1973/1974) 352–4 gives some examples for Rh. 264 Longman (1957). 265 The most recent ed. is that of Tuilier (1969); cf. Vakonakis (2011). 260 261

77

I N T RO D U C T I O N

play. The textual evidence provided by Chr. pat. poses problems of the same kind as that provided by the gnomologies. The lines that the author extracts are heavily modified to suit the different context and for metrical and stylistic reasons. ***

Turyn (1957) 288–98 argued that at least for Alc., Tro., and Rh., L, P, and Q were descended from the same ancestor, which contained both the ‘alphabetic’ and the ‘select’ plays. Zuntz (1965) 127–51 analysed their shared errors, shared good variants, and disagreements, and concluded that the three MSS in question constitute a family, Λ, comprising both ‘select’ and ‘alphabetic’ plays. This family is to be distinguished from that of O, V, and Va, the family of the ‘select’ plays, known as family Δ. According to Zuntz’s reconstruction, L and Q are descended from the same MS: L is a direct descendant, whereas Q is contaminated, often in the hypotheses and sometimes in the text, from a MS belonging to the family of V. As for P, it differs from L only in error in the ‘alphabetic’ plays, while in the ‘select’ plays it is contaminated and occasionally includes readings attested in other MSS. Scholars had long maintained that (a) L and P were derived from the same ancestor, or (b) P is a copy of a copy of L.266 Zuntz suggested that P is a copy of L itself, in the ‘alphabetic’ plays and Rh., made after Triclinius had inserted his first series of corrections (in black or dark-grey ink), but before he inserted the two later series (the second in grey ink, the third in reddish-brown ink).267 The thesis of the direct derivation of P from L for Rh. has been challenged, especially by K. Matthiessen, and S. Martinelli Tempesta. These scholars maintain that P offers correct readings that are not present in L or has errors (a) R.P. Prinz, U. von Wilamowitz, N.W. Wecklein, A. Turyn; (b) G. Vitelli, Barrett (1964) 73, 429, Reeve (1967), Barrett (2007) 422 (unpublished review datable to 1958). Cf. Magnani (2000) 29–51 and Barrett (2007) 422–31 for discussions of the theories concerning P’s relationship to L. 267 The first and second batch of corrections are mainly corrections of the text; the third focuses on metrics; cf. Zuntz (1965) 6–13. 266

78

9 ) T he T ransmission of the T ext

in common with other MSS where L has the truth.268 Diggle, on the other hand, accepted Zuntz’s view that P is dependent on L and was copied from it after Triclinius had inserted the first series of his corrections, and demonstrated that, where P diverges from L, its readings are insignificant ‘trifles’ and do not prove that its scribe collated one or more MSS while copying L.269 In my edition, which follows Diggle’s very closely, I have accepted his view that P is of very limited value for the constitution of the text, at least in Rh.270 As I could not find a single significant case in which P goes beyond banal correction of obvious mistakes in L, I have made use of P only when L is not available. Matthiessen (1974) 16 n. 14, Martinelli Tempesta (1992). Diggle (1994) 508–13. 270 The most recent editor, Fries (p. 51), agrees that P is only of limited use for the constitution of the text. 268

269

79

SIGLA Sigla used in the apparatus of this edition, following the editions of Diggle (Oxford 1994) and Fries (Berlin 2014) Aac A before correction A(p)c A after correction by a hand not certainly identified 1c A A after correction by the first hand A1s Written above the line in A by the first hand A2 Written in A by the second hand, whether in the text or above the line r A The rubricator of A Agl Gloss in A i gl A Reading that the glossator of A found in his text, as his interpretation shows γρ A Variant reading in A with the indication γρ(άφεται) or the like Am A in the margin Auv A, as it seems ? A A is not certainly read (A) A diverges insignificantly from the reading in question [A] A is illegible or unavailable A is illegible but its reading can be inferred from elsewhere Tr1, Tr2, Tr3 First, second, or third stage of Demetrius Triclinius’ corrections in L Σ Scholiast or scholia ΣA Reading expressly attested by the scholiast of A l A Σ Lemma of the scholiast of A i A Σ Reading that the scholiast of A found in his text, as his interpretation shows ~ The reading agrees with the other MSS against the reading or conjecture just recorded ❅ Letter deleted

CODICES O Laurentianus plut. 31.10 (c. 1175–1200): vv. 1–714 V Vaticanus gr. 909 (c. 1250–1280): vv. 1–111, 152–550, 631–791, 812–940 Va Palatinus gr. 98 (saec. xiv): adhibetur ubi V deficit L Laurentianus plut. 32.2 (ante 1319) Q Harleianus 5743 (c. 1500) Af Ambrosianus F 205 inf. (saec. xiii): vv. 856–84, 985–9 Ao Ambrosianus O 123 sup. (saec. xvi in.): hypothesis (a) Ω Δ Λ

codicum, quotquot adsunt, consensus consensus codicum OV(Va)(Hn) consensus codicum L(P)Q

raro memorantur P Palatinus gr. 287 (c. 1315–1325): codicis L apographum Hn Hauniensis 417 (c. 1475): codicis Va apographum PA P Y R I Π  PSI XII.1286 = Mertens-Pack3 454.40 (saec. ii p.C.): argumenti (a) pars Π  P. Achmîm 4 (P. Par. Suppl. gr. 1099.2) Mertens-Pack3 427.00 (saec. iv–v p.C.): vv. 48–96 Π  P. Oxy. 4568 = Mertens-Pack3 427.01 (saec. iii p.C.): vv. 839–47 1

2

3

GNOMOLOGIA gV Athous Vatopedi 36 (saec. xi vel xii) gB Vaticanus Barberini gr. 4 (c. 1300) gE Escorialensis gr. X.1.13 (saec. xiv in.)

81

YΠOΘΕΣΙΣ PHΣΟΥ (a)

5

10

Ἕκτωρ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπικοιτῶν ἀκούσας αὐτοὺς †δείλλης† πυρὰ καίειν ηὐλαβήθη μὴ φύγωσιν. ἐξοπλίζειν δὲ διεγνωκὼς τὰς δυνάμεις μετενόησεν Αἰνείου συμβουλεύσαντος ἡσυχάζειν, κατάσκοπον δὲ πέμψαντα δι᾽ ἐκείνου τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἱστορῆσαι. Δόλωνα δὲ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ὑπακούσαντα †ἐκπέμπεσθαι τόπον εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν ἀφώρισεν αὐτῶι†. ἐπιφανέντες δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα Δόλωνα μὲν ἀνηιρηκότες, ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν Ἕκτορος κατηντηκότες σκηνὴν πάλιν ἀπέστρεφον οὐχ εὑρόντες τὸν στρατηγόν. οὓς Ἀθηνᾶ κατέσχεν ἐπιφανεῖσα καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἕκτορα ἐκέλευσε μὴ ζητεῖν, Ῥῆσον δὲ ἀναιρεῖν ἐπέταξε· τὸν γὰρ ἐκ τούτου κίνδυνον ἔσεσθαι μείζονα τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἐὰν βιώσηι. τούτοις δὲ ἐπιφανεὶς μὲν ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐπηισθημένος τὴν πολεμίων παρουσίαν, ἐξαπατηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ὡς δῆθεν

codd.: (a) VQAo et inde a 11 ( ]υ̣ κιν[δ-) Π1; (b) et (c) VLQ (hoc ordine V; (b) post (d) LQ; (c) 1–8 post (b), (c) 9–11 post (a) Q); (d) OVLQ (a) Inscriptio ὑπόθεσις ῥήσου Vr: ὑπ- τοῦ εὐριπιδείου ῥ- Q: εὐριπίδου ῥῆσος Ao   1 ἐπικοιτῶν Ao: ἐπὶ κ- V: ἐποικτῶν Q   δείλλης Q: om. VAo: δείλης Nauck, δι᾽ ὅλης Kirchhoff (δι᾽ ὅλης Schwartz)  2 πυρὰ Nauck: πυρὰν QAo: πῦρ V  ηὐλαβήθη Ao: εὐ- VQ  6 τόπον V: τάττει Ao: om. Q   6 ἀφώρισεν VQ: ἀφορίσας Ao   7–8 ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν Ἕκτορος om. Ao  8 κατηντηκότες σκηνὴν Q: σκηνὴν Ao: κοίτην tum spat. vac. fere ix litt. V  ὑπέστρεφον Va, coni. Schwartz  εὑρόντες VQ: εὗρον δὲ Ao  9 κατέσχεν ἐπιφανεῖσα QAo: ἐπι- κατέσχε V  10 ἀναιρεῖν VQ: ἀνελεῖν Ao  ἐπέταξε VAo: -εν Q  11 ἔσεσθαι μείζονα QAo: μ- ἔ- V: [Π1]  11–12 ἐὰν βιώση(ι) VQ: εἰ βιώσει Ao: [Π1] (ἐὰν εἰς αὔριον βιῶι in Π1 suppl. Luppe coll. 600) 12 τούτοις QAo: ]ς Π1: τούτων V   δ επι[φανεὶς μὲν ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος] in Π1 suppl. Luppe: δὲ ἐπιφανεὶς ἀλ- Ω  12–13 επησθη[μένος τὴν πολεμίων παρ]ο̣υσ ̣ ιαν in Π1 suppl. Gallavotti: ἐπίστασθαι (ἐπι tum spat. vac. fere vi litt. V) πολέμου (πολεμίων Kirchhoff) παρουσίαν Ω  13 ἐξαπ- VAo: ἐξηπ- Q: [Π1]   τῆς Π1: om. Ω  13–14 ὡς δῆθεν ὑπὸ ἀφροδίτης fere Ω (ὑπ᾽ Ao): [ὡς Ἀφροδίτ]ης in Π1 suppl. Gallavotti  

82

YΠΌΘΕΣΙΣ PΉΣΟΥ

ὑπὸ Ἀφροδίτης ἄπρακτος ὑπέστρεψεν. οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Διομήδην φονεύσαντες Ῥῆσον ἐπειγομένως ἐχωρίσθησαν. ἡ συμφορὰ δὲ τῶν ἀνηιρημένων καθ᾽ ὅλον ἐλαλήθη τὸ στράτευμα. παραγενηθέντος δὲ Ἕκτορος ἵνα αὐτόπτης τῶν πεπραγμένων γένηται τετρωμένος ὁ τῶν Ῥήσου πώλων ἐπιμελητὴς διὰ τοῦ Ἕκτορος τὸν φόνον ἐνηργῆσθαι †ἐπινοεῖ†. τούτου δὲ ἀπολογουμένου τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐτοῖς ἐμήνυσεν ἡ Καλλιόπη νεκρὸν κομίζουσα τοῦ Ῥήσου τὸ σῶμα. κατοδυρομένη δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐπιπλακέντα αὐτη῀ι Στρυμόνα διὰ τὸ τοῦ παιδὸς πένθος καὶ τὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου γεγενημένον Ῥῆσον οὐδ᾽ Ἀχιλλέα φησὶν ἀδάκρυτον ἔσεσθαι, τῶι κοινῶι τῶν ἐπιφανῶν θανάτωι τὴν ἰδίαν παραμυθουμένη λύπην. (b) τοῦτο τὸ δρᾶμα ἔνιοι νόθον ὑπενόησαν, Εὐριπίδου δὲ μὴ εἶναι· τὸν γὰρ Σοφόκλειον μᾶλλον ὑποφαίνειν χαρακτῆρα. ἐν μέντοι ταῖς διδασκαλίαις ὡς γνήσιον ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ ἡ περὶ 14 ὑπέστρεψεν Ω: επεστρε[ψεν Π1  τον Π1: om. Ω 15 επειγομενως Π1: om. Ω  η συμφορα δε Π1: καὶ ἡ σ- Ω  16 καθόλου Ao ελαληθη Π1: 1 ἦλθε Ω  παραγενηθε[ντος Π : παραγενομένου Ω  17 τοῦ ἕκτορος Ao   αυτοπτη. ς ̣ τ. [ῶν] πεπραγμε[ν]ω. ν. γενηται Π1: αὐτὸς περιγένηται (-γίνηται V) τῶν πεπραγμένων Ω  18 τω. [ν] Ῥή]σου πωλων Π1: τοῦ ῥήσου Ω  18–19 δια τ. [οῦ Ἕκ]τορ. ος τον φ[όνο]ν ενηργησθα[ι ἐ]π. ι.νοει Π: δι᾽ αὐτοῦ φησὶν (φησὶν Ao: φασὶν Q: om. spat. vac. relicto V) ἕκτορος τὸν (τὸν om. V) φόνον γεγενῆσθαι Ω  19 τ. ο. υ. τ. ο. υ. δ Π1: τοῦ δὲ ἕκτορος Ω   20 εμηνυ[σε ἡ] κ.α.λλιοπη (vel εμηνυ[σεν]) Π1 (suppl. Luppe): ἐμήνυσεν ἡ τοῦ ῥήσου μήτηρ ἡ μοῦσα Ω (ante μοῦσα spat. vac. fere v litt. V)   κομίζουσα Π1QAo: κομίζειν V  το]υ. ρησ. ου Π1: om. Ω 21 κατοδυρομένη QAo: κατοδ[ Π1: κἀποδ- V: κατοδυραμένη Wecklein (cf. arg. Tro. 179.12 Diggle)  23 αχ[ιλέα Π1? (suppl. Gallavotti): ἀχιλ(λ)εῖ Ω (-λ- V)  φησὶν Ao: φασὶν VQ: [Π1]  post ἔσεσθαι nihil Π1: τὴν στρατείαν (haec om. V) τῶ(ι) κοινῶ(ι) τῶν ἐπιφανῶν (τῶν ἐπι om. spat. vac. relicto V)   24 θανάτω(ι) τὴν ἰδίαν παραμυθομένη (-ην V) λύπην Ω  (b) 1–2 εὐριπίδου δὲ μὴ εἶναι V: ὡς οὐκ ὂν εὐριπίδου Λ   τὸ V   2 μᾶλλον Λ: λον praemisso spat. vac. fere iii litt. V   ὑποφαίνειν Valckenaer: -νει Ω  

83

15

20

YΠΌΘΕΣΙΣ PΉΣΟΥ 5

τὰ μετάρσια δὲ ἐν αὐτῶι πολυπραγμοσύνη τὸν Εὐριπίδην ὁμολογεῖ. πρόλογοι δὲ διττοὶ φέρονται. ὁ γοῦν Δικαίαρχος (fr. 81 Wehrli = 114 Mirhady = 72 Verhasselt) ἐκτιθεὶς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ Ῥήσου γράφει κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως (cf. Eur. TrGF V.2 p. 642)· Νῦν εὐσέληνον φέγγος ἡ διφρήλατος

10

15

20

καὶ ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕτερός τις φέρεται πρόλογος, πεζὸς πάνυ καὶ οὐ πρέπων Εὐριπίδηι· καὶ τάχα ἄν τινες τῶν ὑποκριτῶν διεσκευακότες εἶεν αὐτόν. ἔχει δὲ οὕτως (adesp. TrGF 81 = Eur. TrGF p. 642)· Ὦ τοῦ μεγίστου Ζηνὸς ἄλκιμον τέκος Παλλάς, τί δρῶμεν; οὐκ ἐχρῆν ἡμᾶς ἔτι μέλλειν Ἀχαιῶν ὠφελεῖν στρατεύματα. νῦν γὰρ κακῶς πράσσουσιν ἐν μάχηι δορός, λόγχηι βιαίως Ἕκτορος στροβούμενοι. ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἄλγιον βάρος, ἐξ οὗ γ᾽ ἔκρινε Κύπριν Ἀλέξανδρος θεὰν κάλλει προήκειν τῆς ἐμῆς εὐμορφίας καὶ σῆς, Ἀθάνα, φιλτάτης ἐμοὶ θεῶν, εἰ μὴ κατασκαφεῖσαν ὄψομαι πόλιν Πριάμου, βίαι πρόρριζον ἐκτετριμμένην.

4 μετάρσια Λ: inter μετα et σια spat. vac. fere iii litt. V   δὲ Λ: δὲ ἐν αὐτῶ V 5 Δικαίαρχος Nauck: δικαίαν VL: om. Q  6 ἐκτιθεὶς V: ἐπιτιθεὶς Λ  7 οὕτως VL: -ω Q   10 φέρεται Λ: φαίνεται V   11 ἄν τινες L: ἀντὶ Q: ἂν V  11–12 inter ὑποκρ et τῶν spat. vac. fere iii litt. V 14 τέκος om. spat. vac. relicto V   15 τί δρῶμεν Morstadt: παρῶμεν VL: παρῶ παρῶμεν Q   16 στρατεύματα L: -ματι Q: στράτευμα V  17 μάχηι Valckenaer: μακῆ L: μακρῶ V, -ρῆ V1c?: μακαῇ Q   18 βιαίως Hermann: βιαίας Λ: βιαία V   19 οὐδέν ἐστιν Λ: οὐκ ἔνεστι V  ἄλγιον βάρος L: ἀλγίβαρος Q: βάρβαρος V  20 οὗ γ᾽ L: ὥτ᾽ Q: ὅτ᾽ V   ἔκρινε VQ: -να L   Ἀλέξανδρος Valckenaer: ἀλεξάνδρου Λ: ἀλέξαι V   21 προήκειν Valckenaer: προσήκειν Ω  22 Ἀθάνα Valckenaer: ἀθηνᾶ Ω  φιλτάτης Valckenaer: φίλτατ᾽ fere Ω (φίλατ᾽ V)   24 βίαι om. V

84

YΠΌΘΕΣΙΣ PΉΣΟΥ

(c) Ἀριστοφάνους ὑπόθεσις Ῥῆσος παῖς μὲν ἦν Στρυμόνος τοῦ ποταμοῦ καὶ Τερψιχόρης Μουσῶν μιᾶς, Θραικῶν δὲ ἡγούμενος εἰς Ἴλιον παραγίνεται νυκτός, στρατοπεδευομένων τῶν Τρώων παρὰ ταῖς ναυσὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων. τοῦτον Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Διομήδης κατάσκοποι ὄντες ἀναιροῦσιν, Ἀθηνᾶς αὐτοῖς ὑποθεμένης· μέγαν γὰρ ἔσεσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι κίνδυνον ἐκ τούτου. Τερψιχόρη δὲ ἐπιφανεῖσα τὸ τοῦ παιδὸς σῶμα ἀνείλετο. ὡς ἐν παρόδωι δὲ διαλαμβάνει καὶ περὶ τοῦ φόνου τοῦ Δόλωνος.   ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ἐν Τροίαι. ὁ χορὸς συνέστηκεν ἐκ φυλάκων Τρωϊκῶν, οἳ καὶ προλογίζουσι. περιέχει δὲ τὴν Νυκτεγερσίαν. (d) τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα· χορὸς φυλάκων, Ἕκτωρ, Αἰνείας, Δόλων, ἄγγελος ποιμήν, Ῥῆσος, Ὀδυσσεύς, Διομήδης, Ἀθηνᾶ, Πάρις, Ῥήσου ἡνίοχος, Μοῦσα.

(c) Inscriptio ἀριστοφάνους ὑπόθεσις Vr: ὑπ- ῥήσου Λ  1–2 ῥῆσος παῖς … μιᾶς Λ: ῥ- … μιᾶς παῖς V   καὶ om. Q   3 στρατοπεδευομένων Wecklein: στρατευομένων Ω   τῶν L: om. VQ   5 αὐτοῖς VQ: om. L   5–6 μέγαν γὰρ (δὲ Q) ἔσεσθαι τοῖς ἕ- (τοῖς ἕ- om. V) κίνδυνον VQ: μέγας γὰρ ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι τοῖς ἕ- κίνδυνος L   7–8 ὡς … δόλωνος L: om. VQ  (d) personarum indicem hoc ordine L: fere eodem O (Πά- et Ῥή- ἡν- ante Ῥῆ-): χο- φυ- ὀδ- ἕκ- ἄγγ- ποι- αἰ- δό- διο- ῥῆ- ἀθ- ῥή- ἡν- πά- μοῦ- Vr: χο- φυ- ὀδἕκ- διο- αἰ- ἀθ- δό- πά- ἀγγ- ποι- ῥή- ἡν- ῥῆ- μοῦ- Q (indice qualem prae se fert L transvorsum perlecto: vide personarum indices Aesch. Sept., Eur. Or. et Pho.) post indicem ὁ χορὸς προλογίζει O

85

5

ΡΗΣΟΣ

ΡΗΣΟΣ

ΧΟΡΟΣ

Βῆθι πρὸς εὐνὰς τὰς Ἑκτορέους· 
 τίς ὑπασπιστῶν ἄγρυπνος βασιλέως 
 ἢ τευχοϕόρων; 
 δέξαιτο νέων κληδόνα μύθων, 
 οἳ τετράμοιρον νυκτὸς ϕυλακὴν πάσης στρατιᾶς προκάθηνται. 
 ὄρθου κεϕαλὴν πῆχυν ἐρείσας, 
 λῦσον βλεϕάρων γοργωπὸν ἕδραν, 
 λεῖπε χαμεύνας ϕυλλοστρώτους, Ἕκτορ· καιρὸς γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι.

5

10

ΕΚΤΩΡ Χο. Χο.

τίς ὅδ’ — ἦ ϕίλιος ϕθόγγος; — τίς ἀνήρ; 
 τί τὸ σῆμα; θρόει. τίνες ἐκ νυκτῶν τὰς ἡμετέρας κοίτας πλάθουσ’; ἐνέπειν χρή. ϕύλακες στρατιᾶς. Εκ. τί ϕέρηι θορύβωι; 
 θάρσει. Εκ. θαρσῶ. 
 μῶν τις λόχος ἐκ νυκτῶν; [Χο. οὐκ ἔστι. Εκ.] τί σὺ γὰρ

Inscriptio εὐριπίδου ῥῆσος Λ: ὑπόθεσις ῥησου Δ (ante personarum indicem O) 1n Χο. aut L aut Tr: Χορὸς φυλάκων VQ: om. O  1 Βῆθι Diggle: βᾶθι fere Ω et ΣV  2 ὑπ᾽ ἀσπιδῶν O  5 φυλακὴν Δ et ΣV: φρουρὰν Λ  6 πάσης στρατιᾶς Δ: π- σ- πόλεως τροίας Λ   7 habent ΔgB et γρΣL et Chr. Pat. 1304: om. Λ  ὄρθου Δ et Chr. Pat.: ὤρθου γρΣL: ὄρθρου gB   8 λύσιν Q   γοργοπὸν L   9 φυλλο- L: φυλο- Δ: φιλο- Q   10 ἕκτορα L   11 τίς ὅδ᾽ ἦ (Barnes: ἢ V: ἡ O) φίλιος φθόγγος τίς ἀνήρ Δ: τίς ὅδ᾽ εἶ φίλος φθέγμ᾽ ὅστις ἀνήρ Q: τίς ἀνὴρ ὦ φίλος φθέγγ᾽ ὅστις ἀνήρ P: τίς ὅδ᾽ ὦ φίλος εἶ φθέγγ᾽ ὅστις ἀνήρ Tr3   parenthesin indic. Diggle   12 θρόει V: θροεῖ OΛ  13 τᾶς ἁμέρας O   13–14 ταῖς ἡμετέραις / κοίταις Bothe   14 ἐνέπειν Tr2/3: ἐνν- Ω  17n (ante μῶν) nullam notam Δ: paragr. L: Χο. Q   17 λόχος V: δόλος OQ et Tr3P2: δοῦλος    17n (ante οὐκ) Χο. Δ: paragr. L: Ἕκ. Q   17 οὐκ ἔστι Λ: οὐκέτι Δ  Xo. οὐκ ἔστι. Eκ. del. Dindorf   17n (ante τί) Ἕκ. O: paragr. L: om. VQ  

89

15

ΡΗΣΟΣ

20

25

30

35

40



ϕυλακὰς προλιπὼν κινεῖς στρατιάν, 
 εἰ μή τιν’ ἔχων νυκτηγορίαν; οὐκ οἶσθα δορὸς πέλας Ἀργείου 
 νυχίαν ἡμᾶς 
 κοίτην πανόπλους κατέχοντας; 


Χο.

ὁπλίζου χέρα, συμμάχων, 
  Ἕκτορ, βᾶθι πρὸς εὐνάς, 
 ὄτρυνον ἔγχος αἴρειν, ἀϕύπνισον. 
 πέμπε ϕίλους ἰέναι ποτὶ σὸν λόχον, 
 ἁρμόσατε ψαλίοις ἵππους. 
 τίς εἶσ’ ἐπὶ Πανθοΐδαν 
 ἢ τὸν Εὐρώπας, Λυκίων ἀγὸν ἀνδρῶν; ποῦ σϕαγίων ἔϕοροι, 
 ποῦ δὲ γυμνήτων μόναρχοι 
 τοξοϕόροι τε Φρυγῶν; 
 ζεύγνυτε κερόδετα τόξα νευραῖς. 


Εκ.

τὰ μὲν ἀγγέλλεις δείματ’ ἀκούειν, 
  τὰ δὲ θαρσύνεις, κοὐδὲν καθαρῶς. 
 ἀλλ’ ἦ Κρονίου Πανὸς τρομερᾶι 
 μάστιγι ϕοβῆι, ϕυλακὰς δὲ λιπὼν 
 κινεῖς στρατιάν; τί θροεῖς; τί σε ϕῶ 
 νέον ἀγγέλλειν; πολλὰ γὰρ εἰπὼν οὐδὲν τρανῶς ἀπέδειξας. 


Χο. πύρ’ αἴθει στρατὸς Ἀργόλας, 
  Ἕκτορ, πᾶσαν ἀν’ ὄρϕναν, 


[στρ.

[ἀντ.

20n Χο. O   22 κοίτην Dindorf: -αν Ω   πανόπλοις O   23n Χο. ΣL: om. Ω  23 συμμάχων Bothe, denuo Hermann: σύμμαχον Ω  24 ἕκτωρ L   25 ὄτρυν᾽ fortasse Tr1 pot. qu. L   ὄτρυνον ἔγχος bis O   αἴρειν Badham: ἀείρειν Ω  27 ψαλίους O   28 Πανθοΐδαν Bothe: -οίδαν Ω  29 τῶν Q   εὐρώτας V (~ V2 et ΣV)  32 δὲ O   33 τόξα γε Tr1   νεβραῖς O  34 ἀγγέλλεις OQ et L1c pot. qu. Tr1: -έλεις VL   35 θρασύνεις Q   36 ἦ Heath ἢ Ω et l V Σ     39 νέον δ᾽ L? (~ Lc?P)   ἀγγέλειν V   40 τρανῶς VΛ: -οῦς O: -ὲς gE   ἀπέδεξας O  41 πύρ᾽ αἴθει Reiske: πῦρ᾽ αἴθει O: πυραίθει VΛ et ΣV  ἀργόλας OQ: -όλαος V: -έλας L  

90

ΡΗΣΟΣ



διιπετῆ δὲ ναῶν πυρσοῖς σταθμά. 
 πᾶς δ’ Ἀγαμεμνονίαν προσέβα στρατὸς 
 ἐννύχιος θορύβωι σκηνάν, 
 νέαν τιν’ ἐϕιέμενοι 
 βάξιν· οὐ γάρ πω πάρος ὧδ’ ἐϕοβήθη 
 ναυσιπόρος στρατιά. 
 σοὶ δ’, ὑποπτεύων τὸ μέλλον, ἤλυθον ἄγγελος ὡς 
 μήποτέ τιν’ ἐς ἐμὲ μέμψιν εἴπηις. 


Εκ.

ἐς καιρὸν ἥκεις, καίπερ ἀγγέλλων ϕόβον· 
 ἅνδρες γὰρ ἐκ γῆς τῆσδε νυκτέρωι πλάτηι 
 λαθόντες ὄμμα τοὐμὸν αἴρεσθαι ϕυγὴν 
 μέλλουσι· σαίνει μ’ ἔννυχος ϕρυκτωρία. 
 ὦ δαῖμον, ὅστις μ’ εὐτυχοῦντ’ ἐνόσϕισας 
 θοίνης λέοντα, πρὶν τὸν Ἀργείων στρατὸν 
 σύρδην ἅπαντα τῶιδ’ ἀναλῶσαι δορί. 
 εἰ γὰρ ϕαεννοὶ μὴ †ξυνέσχον† ἡλίου λαμπτῆρες, οὔτἂν ἔσχον εὐτυχοῦν δόρυ, 
 πρὶν ναῦς πυρῶσαι καὶ διὰ σκηνῶν μολεῖν 
 κτείνων Ἀχαιοὺς τῆιδε πολυϕόνωι χερί. 
 κἀγὼ μὲν ἦ πρόθυμος ἱέναι δόρυ 
 ἐν νυκτὶ χρῆσθαί τ’ εὐτυχεῖ ῥύμηι θεοῦ· 
 ἀλλ’ οἱ σοϕοί με καὶ τὸ θεῖον εἰδότες 
 μάντεις ἔπεισαν ἡμέρας μεῖναι ϕάος 


43 διιπετῆ Ω et ΣV: διειπ- Elmsley  ναῶν VQ et L1c vel Tr1: νηῶν Luv: νεῶν O   πυρσοῖς Δ et ΣV: -σοῖ Λ  44 ἀγαμεμνονίαν Δ: -είαν Λ  προσέβα OL: -έβη VQ   49 σοὶ δ᾽ (Π2) ΔQ: σὺ δ᾽ P: σοὶ γὰρ Tr3  51 τιν᾽ ἐς ἐμὲ μέμψιν Lindemann: τινα μ- εἰς ἔμ᾽ (Π2)Ω: ἐς ἐμέ τινα μ- Musgrave, denuo Bothe   εἴπη(ι)ς Π2Δ et Tr1: -εις Λ  52 ἥκεις Π2 et Chr. Pat. 1870, 2389, 2390: ἦλθες Ω  ἀγγέλων V  53 ἅνδρες Elmsley: ἄ- Ω: α- Π2 54 αἴρεσθαι Ω: αιρεισθαι Π2: ἀρεῖσθαι Nauck   φυγήν Stephanus: φυγῆ(ι) OΛ: φ*υγῆ V (ras.): φυγη[ Π2  55 σημαίνει O   φυκταρία Q?  57 τῶν Q   ἀργεῖον O   58 σύρδην OLQ?: σύρσην V et 2 Q : ]υρδην Π2: φύρδην Blomfield   59 ξυνέσχον fere Π2ΔQgB (ξύν- VgB) et Chr. Pat. 2338: συν- L: ᾽ξέλειπον Wecklein   60 ουταν Π2: οὐκ ἂν ΩgB   εὐτυχοῦν om. spat. vac. relicto Q   61 ναυσι Π2 (~ Π2 man. sec.)   63 η Π2, coni. Cobet: ἦν Ω et Chr. Pat. 88, 2334   64 εὐτυχεῖν O   65 με Π2Λ: μοι Δ et L1s  ἰδόντες V  66 ἔπεισαν Π2Λ et Chr. Pat. 90, 2337: ἔφησαν Δ  μεῖναι Π2Δ et Chr. Pat. 2337 (μίμνειν 90): εἶναι Λ  

91

45

50

55

60

65

ΡΗΣΟΣ

70

75

80

85

Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο.

κἄπειτ’ Ἀχαιῶν μηδέν’ ἐν χέρσωι λιπεῖν. 
 οἱ δ’ οὐ μένουσι τῶν ἐμῶν θυοσκόων 
 βουλάς· ἐν ὄρϕνηι δραπέτης μέγα σθένει. ἀλλ’ ὡς τάχιστα χρὴ παραγγέλλειν στρατῶι 
 τεύχη πρόχειρα λαμβάνειν λῆξαί θ’ ὕπνου, 
 ὡς ἄν τις αὐτῶν καὶ νεὼς θρώισκων ἔπι 
 νῶτον χαραχθεὶς κλίμακας ῥάνηι ϕόνωι, 
 οἱ δ’ ἐν βρόχοισι δέσμιοι λελημμένοι 
 Φρυγῶν ἀρούρας ἐκμάθωσι γαπονεῖν. 
 Ἕκτορ, ταχύνεις πρὶν μαθεῖν τὸ δρώμενον· 
 ἅνδρες γὰρ εἰ ϕεύγουσιν οὐκ ἴσμεν τορῶς. 
 τίς γὰρ πύρ’ αἴθειν πρόϕασις Ἀργείων στρατόν; 
 οὐκ οἶδ’· ὕποπτον δ’ ἐστὶ κάρτ’ ἐμῆι ϕρενί. πάντ’ ἂν ϕοβηθεὶς ἴσθι δειμαίνων τόδε. 
 οὔπω πρὶν ἧψαν πολέμιοι τοσόνδε ϕῶς. 
 οὐδ’ ὧδέ γ’ αἰσχρῶς ἔπεσον ἐν τροπῆι δορός. 
 σὺ ταῦτ’ ἔπραξας· καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ νῦν σκόπει. 
 ἁπλοῦς ἐπ’ ἐχθροῖς μῦθος ὁπλίζειν χέρα. 
 καὶ μὴν ὅδ’ Αἰνέας καὶ μάλα σπουδῆι ποδὸς 
 στείχει, νέον τι πρᾶγμ’ ἔχων ϕίλοις ϕράσαι.

ΑΙΝΕΑΣ

Ἕκτορ, τί χρῆμα νύκτεροι κατὰ στρατὸν 
 τὰς σὰς πρὸς εὐνὰς ϕύλακες ἐλθόντες ϕόβωι 


67 μηδέν᾽ Π2Λ: μηδὲν Δ  68 θυοσκόων Δ: -όπων Λ: [Π2]  69 ὄρφνει V   70 παραγγέλειν V   72 νεὼς Π2Λ: νεῶν Δ  ἔπι Ω: εστι Π2  73 ῥάνοι O   74 δέσμιοι Π2VΛ, ~ Chr. Pat. 2351 (-ος): δεσμίοις O   λελημμένοι O, ~ Chr. Pat. pars codd. (-ος): λελημ- Π2 et Chr. Pat. pars codd. (-ος): λελη(ι)σμ- VΛ  75 γαπονεῖν fere Π2Δ (γᾶ π- V; γε Π2m man. sec.): γηπ- Λ  76 τὸ δρώμενον Ω et Π2 man. sec. et Chr. Pat. 2346: πορωμενον Π2  77 ἅνδρες Matthiae: ἄ- Ω: [Π2]   φευγωσιν Π2 (~ Π2 man. sec.)   τωρως Π2  78 τί O et Chr. Pat. 2314 pars codd.   πυρ᾽ αιθειν Π, coni. Reiske: πῦρ αἴθειν V: πυραίθειν OΛ (πυρὰ αἴθειν Lgl)  82 ὧδέ γ᾽ Π2L: ὧδε δ᾽ OQ: ὧδ᾽ V   ἐκ Q   84 ἁπλῶς ἐπ᾽ ἐχθροὺς Basil. leg. lib. gent. (31.576 Migne) (et Chr. Pat. 2373)   μῦθος Ω(gV)gB et Chr. Pat.: μυθοις Π2: θυμὸς Basil.   ὁπλίζει Basil., Chr. Pat. pars codd.   χέρα Π2ΔQgV et ΣV et Basil.: χέρας LgB: utrumque Chr. Pat.   85 ὅδ᾽ Π2OΛ: οὐδ᾽ V   αἰνέας Π2ΔL: -είας Q et L1c vel Tr(2?)  86 ἔχων φίλοις fere Π2Ω (ἔχον L): ἔχων ἴσως Chr. Pat. 99, ἔ- ἴσως et ἴσως ἔ- 1135  

92

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Εκ. Αι. Εκ. Αι. Εκ. Αι. Εκ. Αι.

νυκτηγοροῦσι καὶ κεκίνηται στρατός; Αἰνέα, πύκαζε τεύχεσιν δέμας σέθεν. 
 τί δ’ ἔστι; μῶν τις πολεμίων ἀγγέλλεται 
 δόλος κρυϕαῖος ἑστάναι κατ’ εὐϕρόνην; 
 ϕεύγουσιν ἅνδρες κἀπιβαίνουσιν νεῶν. 
 τί τοῦδ’ ἂν εἴποις ἀσϕαλὲς τεκμήριον; 
 αἴθουσι πᾶσαν νύκτα λαμπάδας πυρός· 
 καί μοι δοκοῦσιν οὐ μενεῖν ἐς αὔριον, 
 ἀλλ’ ἐκκέαντες πύρσ’ ἐπ’ εὐσέλμων νεῶν 
 ϕυγῆι πρὸς οἴκους τῆσδ’ ἀϕορμήσειν χθονός. 
 σὺ δ’ ὡς τί δράσων πρὸς τάδ’ ὁπλίζηι χέρα; ϕεύγοντας αὐτοὺς κἀπιθρώισκοντας νεῶν 
 λόγχηι καθέξω κἀπικείσομαι βαρύς· 
 αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἡμῖν, καὶ πρὸς αἰσχύνηι κακόν, 
 θεοῦ διδόντος πολεμίους ἄνευ μάχης 
 ϕεύγειν ἐᾶσαι πολλὰ δράσαντας κακά. 
 εἴθ’ ἦσθ’ ἀνὴρ εὔβουλος ὡς δρᾶσαι χερί. 
 ἀλλ’ οὐ γὰρ αὑτὸς πάντ’ ἐπίστασθαι βροτῶν 
 πέϕυκεν· ἄλλωι δ’ ἄλλο πρόσκειται γέρας, 
 σὲ μὲν μάχεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ βουλεύειν καλῶς· 
 ὅστις πυρὸς λαμπτῆρας ἐξήρθης κλυὼν

89 νυκ]τηγορευουσι Π2 (~ Π2 man. sec.)   90 πύκαζε Π2Λ et Chr. Pat. 91: πυκάζου Δ  τεύχεσιν Aldina: -σι Π2Ω  σέθεν (Π2)Δ: τὸ σὸν Λ  91 πολεμων Π2 (~ Π2 man. sec.)   ἀγγέλλεται OΛ et Π2 man. sec.: αγελλ- Π2: ἀγγέλ- V   92 δόλος Ω (cf. Chr. Pat. 1913): λόχος Chr. Pat. 94 (et P2γρ vel Prγρ): [Π2]  93 ἅνδρες Matthiae: ἄ- Ω: α- Π2  94 τοῦδ᾽ Λ et Chr. Pat. 2345: τῶνδ᾽ Δ: utrumque Chr. Pat. 2193: ]δ᾽ Π2  95 πᾶσαν Ω: πανος Π2, πανας Π2 man. sec.   νυκτος vel -ας Π2  λαμπαδα Π2 (~ Π2 man. sec.)   96n Αἰ. O   96 καί μοι VΛ: κἀμοὶ O: ]ι Π2  μενεῖν Portus: μένειν Ω: μενειν Π2  97 ἐκκέαντες OQ et Tr1: ἐκκαίαντες V   πῦρ V   99n Αἰ. Λ: om. Δ  99 ὁπλίζεις L   χέρα Aldina: -ας Ω  100n om. V   101 κἀπικήσομαι V   105 πρόβουλος Chr. Pat. 2367 (~ Stob. 4.13.8)   106 ὡυτὸς L?: ὡὐτὸς Q et P2: ὠϋτὸς V: αὐτὸς OgVgBgE et L1c vel Tr1: αὐτὸς vel ἁὐτὸς P: de Stob. et Chr. Pat. 2368 incertum   βροτῶν] βροτῶν βία gE; χερὶ Stob.; (~ Chr. Pat.)   107 γέρας] κακόν γέρας O; χάρις Chr. Pat. 2369 pars codd. (~ Stob.)   108 σοὶ … τοῖς δὲ fere Chr. Pat. 2370 (τοῖσδε), coni. Stephanus (~ Stob.)   109 κλυὼν West: κλύων Ω (item 286, 573, 858)  

93

90

95

100

105

ΡΗΣΟΣ 110

115

120

125

130



ϕλέγειν Ἀχαιούς, καὶ στρατὸν μέλλεις ἄγειν 
 τάϕρους ὑπερβὰς νυκτὸς ἐν καταστάσει. 
 καίτοι περάσας κοῖλον αὐλώνων βάθος, 
 εἰ μὴ κυρήσεις πολεμίους ἀπὸ χθονὸς 
 ϕεύγοντας ἀλλὰ σὸν βλέποντας ἐς δόρυ, 
 νικώμενος μὲν τήνδε μὴ οὐ μόληις πόλιν· 
 πῶς γὰρ περάσει σκόλοπας ἐν τροπῆι στρατός; 
 πῶς δ’ αὖ γεϕύρας διαβαλοῦσ’ ἱππηλάται, 
 ἢν ἆρα μὴ θραύσαντες ἀντύγων χνόας; 
 νικῶν δ’ ἔϕεδρον παῖδ’ ἔχεις τὸν Πηλέως, ὅς σ’ οὐκ ἐάσει ναυσὶν ἐμβαλεῖν ϕλόγα, 
 οὐδ’ ὧδ’ Ἀχαιοὺς ὡς δοκεῖς ἀναρπάσαι· 
 αἴθων γὰρ ἁνὴρ καὶ πεπύργωται θράσει. 
 ἀλλὰ στρατὸν μὲν ἥσυχον παρ’ ἀσπίδας 
 εὕδειν ἐῶμεν ἐκ κόπων ἀρειϕάτων, 
 κατάσκοπον δὲ πολεμίων, ὃς ἂν θέληι, 
 πέμπειν δοκεῖ μοι· κἂν μὲν αἴρωνται ϕυγήν, 
 στείχοντες ἐμπέσωμεν Ἀργείων στρατῶι· 
 εἰ δ’ ἐς δόλον τιν’ ἥδ’ ἄγει ϕρυκτωρία, 
 μαθόντες ἐχθρῶν μηχανὰς κατασκόπου βουλευσόμεσθα· τήνδ’ ἔχω γνώμην, ἄναξ.

Χο. τάδε δοκεῖ, τάδε μεταθέμενος νόει. 
  [στρ. σϕαλερὰ δ’ οὐ ϕιλῶ στρατηγῶν κράτη. 
 τί γὰρ ἄμεινον ἢ ταχυβάταν νεῶν κατόπταν μολεῖν 110 φλέγειν Musgrave: φεύγειν fere Ω (-εις Q) et ΣV  112 κοίλων αὐλóνων Q  113 κυρήσηις Ο 115 τήνδε μὴ οὐ Schaefer: οὔτι μὴ Cobet: τήνδ᾽ οὐ μὴ L:τήνδε μὴ VaQ et Tr3: τήν᾽ ἐμὴ Ο πόλιν Ω: πάλιν Reiske  116 περάσει … στρατός ΔQ (-εις Va2): -εις … δορός L  σκόλωπας Q  118 ἆρα Va: ἄρα OΛ  ἀξόνων Blaydes (~ Hesych. α 5546; cf. Suda α 2660)   χρόας O (~ O1s)  121 διαρπάσαι Va (~ Va2)   122 om. Q   ἁνὴρ Valckenaer: ἀ- ΩgVgBgE   πεπύρωται O   θράσει OgV: χερί VaLgB: δορί gE   124 κόπων Λ: πόνων Δ  126 φυγήν Stephanus: -ῆ(ι) Ω  127 ἀργείωι Q  128 εἰς Δ: ὡς Λ  129 κατασκόπου Λ: -ους Δ  130 βουλευσόμεθα L (~Tr1)   γνώμην ἄναξ VaΛ: προθυμίαν O: γνώμην ἐγώ Chr. Pat. 1916 et fere Chr. Pat. 2231 (-ης ἐγώ)  131 μεταθέμενος Hn, coni. Musgrave: μετατιθέμενος Ω  134 κατόπταν OQ: -την HnL: κατόπταν Hesych. κ 1840 utrum huc an ad 558 spectet incertum

94

ΡΗΣΟΣ



πέλας ὅτι ποτ’ ἄρα δαΐοις πυρὰ κατ’ ἀντίπρωιρα ναυστάθμων δαίεται;

Εκ. Αι. Εκ.

νικᾶις, ἐπειδὴ πᾶσιν ἁνδάνει τάδε. 
 στείχων δὲ κοίμα συμμάχους· τάχ’ ἂν στρατὸς 
 κινοῖτ’ ἀκούσας νυκτέρους ἐκκλησίας. ἐγὼ δὲ πέμψω πολεμίων κατάσκοπον. 
 κἂν μέν τιν’ ἐχθρῶν μηχανὴν πυθώμεθα, 
 σὺ πάντ’ ἀκούσηι καὶ παρὼν εἴσηι λόγον· 
 ἐὰν δ’ ἀπαίρωσ’ ἐς ϕυγὴν ὁρμώμενοι, 
 σάλπιγγος αὐδὴν προσδοκῶν καραδόκει 
 ὡς οὐ μενοῦντά μ’· ἀλλὰ προσμείξω νεῶν 
 ὁλκοῖσι νυκτὸς τῆσδ’ ἐπ’ Ἀργείων στρατῶι. 
 πέμϕ’ ὡς τάχιστα· νῦν γὰρ ἀσϕαλῶς ϕρονεῖς. 
 σὺν σοὶ δ’ ἔμ’ ὄψηι καρτεροῦνθ’ ὅταν δέηι. 
 τίς δῆτα Τρώων οἳ πάρεισιν ἐν λόγωι θέλει κατόπτης ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων μολεῖν; 
 τίς ἂν γένοιτο τῆσδε γῆς εὐεργέτης; 
 τίς ϕησιν; οὔτοι πάντ’ ἐγὼ δυνήσομαι 
 πόλει πατρώιαι συμμάχοις θ’ ὑπηρετεῖν.

135

140

145

150

ΔΟΛΩΝ

ἐγὼ πρὸ γαίας τόνδε κίνδυνον θέλω 
 ῥίψας κατόπτης ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων μολεῖν, 
 καὶ πάντ’ Ἀχαιῶν ἐκμαθὼν βουλεύματα 
 ἥξω· ’πὶ τούτοις τόνδ’ ὑϕίσταμαι πόνον. 


135 ὅτι Λ: ὅθι Δ  ἄρα Δ: ἂρ Λ  136 ἀντίπρωνα L (~ Tr2/3)  137 νικᾶις Bothe: -ᾶτ᾽ Ω et Chr. Pat. 498   138 κοίμα Pierson: κόσμει OΛ: σκόπει Va: cf. 662  139 νυκτέρας O  142 σύμπαντ᾽ O  λόγον Λ: -ους Δ  145 προσμείξω Murray: -μίξω fere Ω (-μίζω Q)   146 ὀλκοῖσιν O   στρατῶ(ι) Δ: -τόν Λ  147 πέμπε , πέμπ᾽ Tr(2?)

(~ P2)  148 δ᾽ ἔμ᾽ Bothe et Chr. Pat. 1932 pars codd.: δέ μ᾽ Ω et Chr. Pat. codd. plerique   149 λόγω(ι) ΔQ: λόχω L et Q1s  150 θέλει] τολμᾶι Chr. Pat. 1934 pars codd.   152 οὔτι L  154 πρὸς O (~ O1c) et Chr. Pat. 1941  

95

155

ΡΗΣΟΣ

160

165

170

175

180

Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο. Εκ. Δο.

ἐπώνυμος μὲν κάρτα καὶ ϕιλόπτολις 
 Δόλων· πατρὸς δὲ καὶ πρὶν εὐκλεᾶ δόμον νῦν δὶς τόσως ἔθηκας εὐκλεέστερον. 
 οὔκουν πονεῖν μὲν χρή, πονοῦντα δ’ ἄξιον 
 μισθὸν ϕέρεσθαι; παντὶ γὰρ προσκείμενον 
 κέρδος πρὸς ἔργωι τὴν χάριν τίκτει διπλῆν. 
 ναί, καὶ δίκαια ταῦτα κοὐκ ἄλλως λέγω. 
 τάξαι δὲ μισθόν, πλὴν ἐμῆς τυραννίδος. 
 οὐ σῆς ἐρῶμεν πολιόχου τυραννίδος. 
 σὺ δ’ ἀλλὰ γήμας Πριαμιδῶν γαμβρὸς γενοῦ. 
 οὐδ’ ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ μειζόνων γαμεῖν θέλω. 
 χρυσὸς πάρεστιν, εἰ τόδ’ αἰτήσεις γέρας. ἀλλ’ ἔστ’ ἐν οἴκοις· οὐ βίου σπανίζομεν. 
 τί δῆτα χρήιζεις ὧν κέκευθεν ῎Ιλιον; 
 ἑλὼν Ἀχαιοὺς δῶρά μοι ξυναίνεσον. 
 δώσω· σὺ δ’ αἴτει πλὴν στρατηλάτας νεῶν. 
 κτεῖν’, οὔ σ’ ἀπαιτῶ Μενέλεω σχέσθαι χέρα. 
 οὐ μὴν τὸν Ἰλέως παῖδά μ’ ἐξαιτεῖς λαβεῖν; 
 κακαὶ γεωργεῖν χεῖρες εὖ τεθραμμέναι. 
 τίν’ οὖν Ἀχαιῶν ζῶντ’ ἀποινᾶσθαι θέλεις; 
 καὶ πρόσθεν εἶπον· ἔστι χρυσὸς ἐν δόμοις. καὶ μὴν λαϕύρων γ’ αὐτὸς αἱρήσηι παρών. θεοῖσιν αὐτὰ πασσάλευε πρὸς δόμοις. 
 τί δῆτα μεῖζον τῶνδέ μ’ αἰτήσεις γέρας; 
 ἵππους Ἀχιλλέως· χρὴ δ’ ἐπ’ ἀξίοις πονεῖν 


160 τόσωι σ᾽ O   ἔθηκεν gV   161 οὔκουν Denniston: οὐκοῦν fere ΩgVgBgE (item 481, 543, 585, 633)   μὲν V: με OΛgVgB et Chr. Pat. 1964    164 λέγεις Chr. Pat. 1620 (cf. 1968–9), coni. Nauck   165 ἐμὴν τυραννίδα Nauck coll. 173   166 πολιόχου OQ: πολιούχου V: πολυόχου L  168 οὐδ᾽ V: οὐκ OΛ  169 πάρεστιν Δ: γάρ ἐστιν Λ  αἰτήσηι V   170 σπανίζομεν βίου O  171 ἴλιον OQ: -ος VL   174 χέρα Δ: -ας Λ  175 ἰλέως V: ἴλεόν O: ὀϊλέως Λ  παῖδά μ᾽ VΛ: γε παῖδ᾽ O   ἐξαιτῆ V   177 ζῶντ᾽ ἀποινᾶσθαι iΣVL: -τ᾽ ἀποίνασθαι O: -τα ποινᾶσθαι VΛ et lΣV et iΣL  179 γ᾽ O: om. VΛ  λαβών O  180 δόμοις Q et L1s: -ους ΔL  181 δ᾽ εἶτα Q (~ Q1c)  αἰτήσεις Λ et fere Chr. Pat. 1972 (ἀπ-): -σηι O: ‑σει V   182 ἀχιλέως V   μολεῖν O  

96

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Εκ. Δο.

ψυχὴν προβάλλοντ’ ἐν κύβοισι δαίμονος. 
 καὶ μὴν ἐρῶντί γ’ ἀντερᾶις ἵππων ἐμοί· 
 ἐξ ἀϕθίτων γὰρ ἄϕθιτοι πεϕυκότες 
 τὸν Πηλέως ϕέρουσι θούριον γόνον· 
 δίδωσι δ’ αὐτοὺς πωλοδαμνήσας ἄναξ 
 Πηλεῖ Ποσειδῶν, ὡς λέγουσι, πόντιος. 
 ἀλλ’ οὔ σ’ ἐπάρας ψεύσομαι· δώσω δέ σοι, κάλλιστον οἴκοις κτῆμ’, Ἀχιλλέως ὄχον. 
 αἰνῶ· λαβὼν δ’ ἄν ϕημι κάλλιστον Φρυγῶν 
 δῶρον δέχεσθαι τῆς ἐμῆς εὐσπλαγχνίας. 
 σὲ δ’ οὐ ϕθονεῖν χρή· μυρί’ ἐστὶν ἄλλα σοι 
 ἐϕ’ οἷσι τέρψηι τῆσδ’ ἀριστεύων χθονός.

Χο.

μέγας ἀγών, μεγάλα δ’ ἐπινοεῖς ἑλεῖν·[ἀντ.
 μακάριός γε μὰν κυρήσας ἔσηι. 
 πόνος ὅδ’ εὐκλεής· μέγα δὲ κοιράνοισι γαμβρὸν πέλειν. 
 τὰ θεόθεν ἐπιδέτω Δίκα, τὰ δὲ παρ’ ἀνδράσιν τέλειά σοι ϕαίνεται.

Δο. Χο. Δο. Χο.

στείχοιμ’ ἄν· ἐλθὼν ἐς δόμους ἐϕέστιος 
 σκευῆι πρεπόντως σῶμ’ ἐμὸν καθάψομαι, 
 κἀκεῖθεν ἥσω ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων πόδα. 
 ἐπεὶ τίν’ ἄλλην ἀντὶ τῆσδ’ ἕξεις στολήν; 
 πρέπουσαν ἔργωι κλωπικοῖς τε βήμασιν. 
 σοϕοῦ παρ’ ἀνδρὸς χρὴ σοϕόν τι μανθάνειν· 
 λέξον, τίς ἔσται τοῦδε σώματος σαγή; 


183 προσβ- Q   διαίμονος V   184 γ᾽ Δ: τ᾽ Λ  187 αὐτοὺς OΛ: -τὰς V: -τὸς Dobree   πολο- Q   191 δ᾽ ἄν Verrall: δέ Ω  κάλλιστον φρυγῶν VΛ: τῆς ἐμῆς εὐσπλαγχνίας O   192 εὐσπλαχνίας V   195 μέγας ΔQgE: μ- μὲν L   μεγάλας δ᾽ Q   196 μὰν Diggle: μὴν ΩgE  197 ὅδ᾽ Nauck: δ᾽ Ω  μέγα Δ: μεγάλα Λ  199 τὰ Bothe, denuo Seidler: τὰ δὲ Ω  θεόθι ἐπί τωι δίκαι O 200 τάδε O  ἀνδράσιν Heath: -σι Ω: ἀνέρων Wecklein  τέλειά Λ: τέλεά Δ   201 Aldina   ἀφ᾽ ἑστίας Q   203 κἀκεῖθεν ἥσω Δ: κεῖθεν δ᾽ ἐφήσω Λ  204 ἐπεὶ τίν᾽ Δ et Q1c: ἐπεὶ τήν τίν᾽ Q: εἴπ᾽· ἦ τιν᾽ L   205n om. O  205 κλωπικοῖς O: κλοπτ- V: κλεπτ- Λ  206 παρ᾽] πρὸς gV (~ Stob. 2.31.14 = Orio anth. 1.7 = [Men.] sent. 718, Chr. Pat. 1766)   207 ἐστι V  

97

185

190

195

200

205

ΡΗΣΟΣ

210

215

220

225

230

Δο. Χο. Δο.

λύκειον ἀμϕὶ νῶτ’ ἐνάψομαι δορὰν 
 καὶ χάσμα θηρὸς ἀμϕ’ ἐμῶι θήσω κάραι, βάσιν τε χερσὶ προσθίαν καθαρμόσας 
 καὶ κῶλα κώλοις τετράπουν μιμήσομαι 
 λύκου κέλευθον πολεμίοις δυσεύρετον, 
 τάϕροις πελάζων καὶ νεῶν προβλήμασιν. 
 ὅταν δ’ ἔρημον χῶρον ἐμβαίνω ποδί, 
 δίβαμος εἶμι· τῆιδε σύγκειται δόλος. 
 ἀλλ’ εὖ σ’ ὁ Μαίας παῖς ἐκεῖσε καὶ πάλιν 
 πέμψειεν Ἑρμῆς, ὅς γε ϕηλητῶν ἄναξ. 
 ἔχεις δὲ τοὔργον· εὐτυχεῖν μόνον σε δεῖ. 
 σωθήσομαί τοι καὶ κτανὼν Ὀδυσσέως οἴσω κάρα σοι — σύμβολον δ’ ἔχων σαϕὲς 
 ϕήσεις Δόλωνα ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων μολεῖν — ἢ παῖδα Τυδέως· οὐδ’ ἀναιμάκτωι χερὶ ἥξω πρὸς οἴκους πρὶν ϕάος μολεῖν χθόνα.

Χο.

Θυμβραῖε καὶ Δάλιε καὶ Λυκίας[στρ. α ναὸν ἐμβατεύων 
 Ἄπολλον, ὦ Δία κεϕαλά, μόλε τοξή- 
 ρης, ἱκοῦ ἐννύχιος καὶ γενοῦ σωτήριος ἀνέρι πομπᾶς ἁγεμὼν καὶ ξύλλαβε Δαρδανίδαις, 
 ὦ παγκρατές, ὦ Τροΐας 
 τείχη παλαιὰ δείμας



μόλοι δὲ ναυκλήρια καὶ στρατιᾶς[ἀντ. α Ἑλλάδος διόπτας 


208n om. O  208 νῶτ᾽ ἐνάψομαι Cobet: νῶτον ἅψομαι Δ: νῶτα θήσομαι Λ  209 χάσμα Δ et Q1γρ et Hesych. χ 224: σχῆμα Λ   ἐμῶ(ι) VΛ et O1s: αὐτῶι O  212 πολεμίους O  215 εἶμι Q et Tr2?: εἰμὶ L?P: εἰμι Δ  217 φιλητῶν ΛgE: φηλ-Δ  218 μόνον σε δεῖ ΛgE: σὲ δεῖ μ- O: μ‑ σε χρή V   219 τοι Diggle: τε VΛ et lΣV: δὲ O: γε Wilamowitz   ὀδυσέως V   220 δ᾽ ἔχων σαφὲς fere VΛ (ἔχω Q): σαφὲς δ᾽ ἔ- O  226–8 Δία Mantziou: δία V: δῖα OΛ  ἱκοῦ Dindorf: ἵκου fere Ω (ἥκ- Q)   ἐννύχιος VL: εὐνύχ- O: ἐνοίκQ  229–30 καὶ γενοῦ … ἁγεμὼν Dindorf: ἁγεμὼν (ἁ- Tr2: ἡ- P) … καὶ γενοῦ Ω  231 Τροΐας Lachmann: τροίας Ω  232 τεύχη Q   234 ἑλλάδος διόπτας Λ et ΣV: om. Δ  

98

ΡΗΣΟΣ



ἵκοιτο καὶ κάμψειε πάλιν θυμέλας οἴκων πατρὸς Ἱλιάδας· Φθιάδων δ’ ἵππων ποτ’ ἐπ’ ἄντυγα βαίη, δεσπότου πέρσαντος Ἀχαιὸν Ἄρη, τὰς πόντιος Αἰακίδαι Πηλεῖ δίδωσι δαίμων.



ἐπεὶ πρό τ’ οἴκων πρό τε γᾶς ἔτλα μόνος[στρ. β ναύσταθμα βὰς κατιδεῖν· ἄγαμαι λήματος· ἦ σπάνις αἰεὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὅταν ἦι δυσάλιον ἐν πελάγει καὶ σαλεύηι πόλις. ἔστι Φρυγῶν τις ἔστιν ἄλκιμος. ἔνι δὲ θράσος ἐν αἰχμᾶι· πόθι Μυσῶν ὃς ἐμὰν συμμαχίαν ἀτίζει;



τίν’ ἄνδρ’ Ἀχαιῶν ὁ πεδοστιβὴς σϕαγεὺς[ἀντ. β οὐτάσει ἐν κλισίαις, τετράπουν μῖμον ἔχων ἐπὶ γαίας θηρός; ἕλοι Μενέλαν, κτανὼν δ’ Ἀγαμεμνόνιον κρᾶτ’ ἐνέγκοι Ἑλέναι κακόγαμβρον ἐς χέρας γόον, 
 ὃς ἐπὶ πόλιν, ὃς ἐπὶ γᾶν Τροΐαν χιλιόναυν ἤλυθ’ ἔχων στρατείαν.

235–7 κάμψειε Q: ‑ειεν Δ et Tr3uv: -οι L   πατρὸς Δ: πάτρας Λ  ἰλιάδας O: -δος VΛ  238 δ᾽ ἵππων VΛ: οἴκων O   πότ᾽ V: τότ᾽ O: om. Λ  ἄντυγι V  239 ἀχαιὸν Δ et ΣV: -ῶν Λ  240 ποντίας V  241 δαίμων OL: δαιμόνων Q: δόμων V   242–3 οἴκως Q   245 σπάνις αἰεὶ Diggle praeeunte Wilamowitz (ἀεὶ): σπάνια O: σπανία V2 et ΣV: πανία V: σπάνις Λ: σπάνις ἐστὶ Ritchie   246–7 δυσάλιον Δ et ΣV: -ος Λ  248 σαλεύηι V: -ει OΛ et ΣV  249 τις Aldina (cf. Chr. Pat. 1443): τίς Ω   250–2 (~ 261–3) numerorum ratio incerta est  250 θάρσος ΣV (~ lΣV) et Tr3  251–2 αἰχμᾶ(ι) OuvV: -αῖς Λ  πόθι Hoffmann: ποτὶ Ω et iΣV  255 οὐτάσει ἐν VΛ: -σειεν O  256 γαίας Λ: γαίαι O: γαῖαν V   257–8 μενέλαον L   ἀγαμεμνόνιον V: -ειον OΛ  260 χέρας Λ: χεῖρας Δ  261 πόλιν O: πτόλιν V: πόλον Q: πῶλον L  262–3 Τροΐαν Dindorf: τροίαν ΔQ: del. Tr1   ἤλυθ᾽ Δ et Tr1: -θεν Q   στρατείαν Heath: -τιάν Ω  

99

235

240

245

250

255

260

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Α Γ Γ Ε ΛΟ Σ 265

270

275

280

285

Εκ. Αγ. Εκ. Αγ. Εκ. Αγ. Εκ. Αγ. Εκ. Αγ.

ἄναξ, τοιούτων δεσπόταισιν ἄγγελος 
 εἴην τὸ λοιπὸν οἷά σοι ϕέρω μαθεῖν. 
 ἦ πόλλ’ ἀγρώσταις σκαιὰ πρόσκειται ϕρενί· καὶ γὰρ σὺ ποίμνας δεσπόταις τευχεσϕόροις 
 ἥκειν ἔοικας ἀγγελῶν ἵν’ οὐ πρέπει. 
 οὐκ οἶσθα δῶμα τοὐμὸν ἢ θρόνους πατρός, οἷ χρῆν γεγωνεῖν σ’ εὐτυχοῦντα ποίμνια; 
 σκαιοὶ βοτῆρές ἐσμεν· οὐκ ἄλλως λέγω. 
 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν ἧσσόν σοι ϕέρω κεδνοὺς λόγους. 
 παῦσαι λέγων μοι τὰς προσαυλείους τύχας· 
 μάχας πρὸ χειρῶν καὶ δόρη βαστάζομεν. 
 τοιαῦτα κἀγὼ σημανῶν ἐλήλυθα· 
 ἀνὴρ γὰρ ἀλκῆς μυρίας στρατηλατῶν 
 στείχει ϕίλος σοι σύμμαχός τε τῆιδε γῆι. 
 ποίας πατρώιας γῆς ἐρημώσας πέδον; 
 Θρήικης· πατρὸς δὲ Στρυμόνος κικλήσκεται. Ῥῆσον τιθέντ’ ἔλεξας ἐν Τροίαι πόδα; 
 ἔγνως· λόγου δὲ δὶς τόσου μ’ ἐκούϕισας. 
 καὶ πῶς πρὸς ῎Ιδης ὀργάδας πορεύεται, 
 πλαγχθεὶς πλατείας πεδιάδος θ’ ἁμαξιτοῦ; 
 οὐκ οἶδ’ ἀκριβῶς· εἰκάσαι γε μὴν πάρα. 
 νυκτὸς γὰρ οὔτι ϕαῦλον ἐσβαλεῖν στρατόν, 
 κλυόντα πλήρη πεδία πολεμίας χερός. 
 ϕόβον δ’ ἀγρώσταις, οἳ κατ’ Ἱδαῖον λέπας 
 οἰκοῦμεν αὐτόρριζον ἑστίαν χθονός, 


264n Ἄγγελος VΛ: Ποιμήν O   265 οἴην L   μαθεῖν φέρω O   266 ἦ fere OΛ (ἦι Q): ἢ VgV   ἀγρώσταις OP: -ώταις V et Tr2/3: -όταις Q: -ῶτες gV  267 τευχεσιφόροις Q   268 ἥκεις V   ἔοικας om. Q   269 πατρὸς θρόνους O   270 οἷ χρῆν fere Δ (χρὴν V): οἷς χρὴ Λ   γεγωνεῖν σ᾽ ΔL: -εῖς Q   ποιμνίων O   271n Ποιμήν O   271 λέγω O: -εις VΛ  274 δόρη VL et ΣVL: δόρυ OQgE   276 ἀλκῆς Λ: ἀρχῆς Δ  280 εἰς Τροίαν O   282 post 283 O  283 πλαγχθεὶς OL: πλαχ- VQ  πλατείας V: ‑αις Λ: πατρώιας O  θ᾽ ἁμαξιτοῦ Stiblinus: τ᾽ ἀμ- ΔL: ἁμαξίτοις Q   285 ἐσβαλεῖν Diggle (coll. Chr. Pat. 2096, 2452): ἐμβαλ- Ω  286 κλυόντα West: κλύοντα Ω  287 λέπας ΔL: ὄπας Q   288 αὐτόριζον Q  

100

ΡΗΣΟΣ



παρέσχε δρυμὸν νυκτὸς ἔνθηρον μολών. πολλῆι γὰρ ἠχῆι Θρήικιος ῥέων στρατὸς 
 ἔστειχε· θάμβει δ’ ἐκπλαγέντες ἵεμεν 
 ποίμνας πρὸς ἄκρας, μή τις Ἀργείων μόληι 
 λεηλατήσων καὶ σὰ πορθήσων σταθμά, 
 πρὶν δὴ δι’ ὤτων γῆρυν οὐχ Ἑλληνικὴν 
 ἐδεξάμεσθα καὶ μετέστημεν ϕόβου. 
 στείχων δ’ ἄνακτος προυξερευνητὰς ὁδοῦ 
 ἀνιστόρησα Θρηικίοις προσϕθέγμασιν· 
 Τίς ὁ στρατηγὸς καὶ τίνος κεκλημένος 
 στείχει πρὸς ἄστυ Πριαμίδαισι σύμμαχος; καὶ πάντ’ ἀκούσας ὧν ἐϕιέμην μαθεῖν 
 ἔστην· ὁρῶ δὲ Ῥῆσον ὥστε δαίμονα 
 ἑστῶτ’ ἐν ἵπποις Θρηικίοις τ’ ὀχήμασιν. 
 χρυσῆ δὲ πλάστιγξ αὐχένα ζυγηϕόρον 
 πώλων ἔκληιε χιόνος ἐξαυγεστέρων. 
 πέλτη δ’ ἐπ’ ὤμων χρυσοκολλήτοις τύποις 
 ἔλαμπε· Γοργὼν δ’ ὡς ἐπ’ αἰγίδος θεᾶς 
 χαλκῆ μετώποις ἱππικοῖσι πρόσδετος 
 πολλοῖσι σὺν κώδωσιν ἐκτύπει ϕόβον. 
 στρατοῦ δὲ πλῆθος οὐδ’ ἂν ἐν ψήϕου λόγωι θέσθαι δύναι’ ἄν, ὡς ἄπλατον ἦν ἰδεῖν, 
 πολλοὶ μὲν ἱππῆς, πολλὰ πελταστῶν τέλη, 
 πολλοὶ δ’ ἀτράκτων τοξόται, πολὺς δ’ ὄχλος 
 γυμνὴς ἁμαρτῆι, Θρηικίαν ἔχων στολήν. 


290 ῥέων στρατός VL: σ- ῥ- O: λέγων σ- Q  292 πρὸς Δ: ἐς Λ  293 πορθμήσων O  295 ἐδεξάμεθα L  296 προυξενευρητὰς O  ὁδοῦ V: στρατοῦ OΛ  298 κεκλιμένος O  299 πριαμίδεσι V  302 ἑστῶτ᾽ ἐν VΛ: ἑστῶθ᾽ O   ἵπποις (-σι Q) θρη(ι)κίοις τ᾽ ὀχήμασιν (-σι LcP) Λ: ἱππείοισι θρη(ι)κίοις ὄχοις Δ  303 χρυσῆι O  πλάστιγξ Λ: -ιξ V: -ιγγι O   ζυγηφόρον Δ: -ων Λ  304 ἔκλυε Q  χρόνος O  εὐαυγεστέρων Blaydes   305 πέλτη Λ: ‑ηι O: -ης V   δ᾽ Λ: τ᾽ O: om. V   ὦμον V   τύποις OL et Q1c: δίφροις V: ἵπποις Q  306 ἀπ᾽ O  θοᾶς V  308 κόδωσιν L (~ Tr2/3)  309 ψήφωι λόγου O   310 δύναι᾽ ἄν Δ: δυναίμην Λ  311 ἱππῆς Dindorf: ‑εῖς ΩgE  πολλὰ δὲ gE   πέλη Q   312 πολλοὶ] πομποί O   δ᾽ (prius) L: τ᾽ ΔQgE   ἀστράκτων O   313 γυμνὸς Q   ἁμαρτῆι Wackernagel: ὁμαρτῆ(ι) Δ: ὁμαρτεῖ ΛgE et O1c   στολὴν ἔχων O  

101

290

295

300

305

310

ΡΗΣΟΣ 315

320

325

330

336 337 338 334 335

Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο. Εκ. Χο. Αγ.

τοιόσδε Τροίαι σύμμαχος πάρεστ’ ἀνήρ, 
 ὃν οὔτε ϕεύγων οὔθ’ ὑποσταθεὶς δορὶ 
 ὁ Πηλέως παῖς ἐκϕυγεῖν δυνήσεται. 
 ὅταν πολίταις εὐσταθῶσι δαίμονες, 
 ἕρπει κατάντης ξυμϕορὰ πρὸς τἀγαθά. 
 πολλούς, ἐπειδὴ τοὐμὸν εὐτυχεῖ δόρυ καὶ Ζεὺς πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν, εὑρήσω ϕίλους. 
 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν δεόμεθ’, οἵτινες πάλαι 
 μὴ ξυμπονοῦσιν ἡνίκ’ ἐξώστης Ἄρης 
 ἔθραυε λαίϕη τῆσδε γῆς μέγας πνέων. 
 Ῥῆσος δ’ ἔδειξεν οἷος ἦν Τροίαι ϕίλος· 
 ἥκει γὰρ ἐς δαῖτ’, οὐ παρὼν κυνηγέταις 
 αἱροῦσι λείαν οὐδὲ συγκαμὼν δορί. 
 ὀρθῶς ἀτίζεις κἀπίμομϕος εἶ ϕίλοις· 
 δέχου δὲ τοὺς θέλοντας ὠϕελεῖν πόλιν. 
 ἀρκοῦμεν οἱ σώιζοντες ῎Ιλιον πάλαι. πέποιθας ἤδη πολεμίους ἡιρηκέναι; πέποιθα· δείξει τοὐπιὸν σέλας θεοῦ. ὅρα τὸ μέλλον· πόλλ᾽ ἀναστρέφει θεός. μισῶ ϕίλοισιν ὕστερον βοηδρομεῖν. ὁ δ’ οὖν, ἐπείπερ ἦλθε, σύμμαχος μὲν οὔ, 
 ξένος δὲ πρὸς τράπεζαν ἡκέτω ξένων· 
 χάρις γὰρ αὐτῶι Πριαμιδῶν διώλετο. ἄναξ, ἀπωθεῖν συμμάχους ἐπίϕθονον. 
 ϕόβος γένοιτ’ ἂν πολεμίοις ὀϕθεὶς μόνον.

318 ἔρπε O  ξυμ- VL: συμ- OQgV  τἀγαθά ΔgV: -όν Λ  322 ξυμπονοῦσιν L: -ῶσιν ΔQgB  323 ἔθραυε V: ἔθραυσε OgB: ἔφαυσε Λ  λαίφη VLgB: λαίφθη O: λέχη Q   μέγα OgBuv  324 δ᾽ om. V   τροία(ι) Δ: -ας Λ  325 κυνηγέτης gE, coni. Elmsley   326 αἱροῦσι L: αἴρουσι ΔQ  δουρί V  327 ἀτίζεις VΛ: ἀτιμάζεις gB: ἔλεξας OgV  κἀπίμομφος OΛgV: -μορφος VgBuv  328 πόλιν ΩgB: φίλους gV   329 πάλαι Δ: πόλιν Λ  330 εἰρηκέναι V   331 δείξοι V (~ Chr. Pat. 1768)   θεοῦ σέλας O (~ Chr. Pat. 1768)   333, 336–8, 334–5, 339–41 hoc ordine Nauck correcta personarum dispositione: 334–8 nuntio 339–41 choro trib. Δ, 334–5 choro 336–8 Hectori 339–41 choro L (praescriptis paragr.), 334–8 choro 339–41 Hectori Q   aut 336–8 aut 339–41 del. West   336 ὁ δ᾽ vel ὃδ᾽ Nauck: ὅδ᾽ Ω  337 ἱκέτω L   ξένον Q   338 ἀπώλετο L   335 ὀφθεὶς VΛ: ἐλθὼν O   

102

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Εκ. σύ τ’ εὖ παραινεῖς καὶ σὺ καιρίως σκοπεῖς. ὁ χρυσοτευχὴς δ’ οὕνεκ’ ἀγγέλου λόγων 
 Ῥῆσος παρέστω τῆιδε σύμμαχος χθονί.

339 340 341

Χο.

Ἀδράστεια μὲν ἁ Διὸς  παῖς εἴργοι στομάτων ϕθόνον· 
 ϕράσω γὰρ δὴ ὅσον μοι 
 ψυχᾶι προσϕιλές ἐστιν εἰπεῖν. 
 ἥκεις, ὦ ποταμοῦ παῖ, 
 ἥκεις ἐπλάθης Φιλίου πρὸς αὐλὰν 
 ἀσπαστός, ἐπεί σε χρόνωι 
 Πιερὶς μάτηρ ὅ τε καλλιγέϕυρος ποταμὸς πορεύει

[στρ. α




Στρυμών, ὅς ποτε τᾶς μελωι-  δοῦ Μούσας δι’ ἀκηράτων 
 δινηθεὶς ὑδροειδὴς 
 κόλπων σὰν ἐϕύτευσεν ἥβαν. 
 σύ μοι Ζεὺς ὁ Φαναῖος 
 ἥκεις διϕρεύων βαλιαῖσι πώλοις. 
 νῦν, ὦ πατρὶς ὦ Φρυγία, 
 ξὺν θεῶι νῦν σοι τὸν Ἐλευθέριον 
 Ζῆνα πάρεστιν εἰπεῖν.

[ἀντ. α



ἆρά ποτ’ αὖθις ἁ παλαιὰ Τροΐα  τοὺς προπότας παναμερεύ- 
 σει θιάσους ἐρώτων 
 ψαλμοῖσι καὶ κυλίκων οἰνοπλανήτοις 


[στρ. β


345

350

355

339 κυρίως O (~ Chr. Pat. 1969)   340 δ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ OΛ: οὖν ἐκ V   341 παρέστω Λ: -έσται Δ et iΣV  342n om. V   342 ἀδράστεια O et V1glTr3: -άστια V, -αστία LuvQ , utrumque ΣV  ἁ om. O   343 εἴργοι O: -ει V: -οις Λ  344 φράσον Q  345 ἔστ᾽ P (~ Tr3)  347 φιλίου Λ: φρυγίαν Δ  348 ἀσπαστός γ᾽ P (~ Tr3)  351 ταῖς Q  352 διακράτων V   354 σὰν ἐφύτευσεν Q et Tr3: σὰν ἐφύτευσ᾽ L: ἀνεφύτευσεν O, ‑σαν V   356 διφρεύων Δ: -σων Λ  358 ἐλεύθερον V   359 ἰδεῖν V   360 Τροΐα Murray: τροία Ω  361 τὰς O   363 ψαλμοῖσι Canter: ψάλμασι Ω  οἰνοπλάντοις O  

103

360

ΡΗΣΟΣ 365

370

375

380

385



ἐπιδεξίοις ἁμίλλαις 
 κατὰ πόντον Ἀτρειδᾶν Σπάρταν οἰχομένων Ἰλιάδος παρ’ ἀκτᾶς; ὦ ϕίλος, εἴθε μοι σᾶι χερὶ καὶ σῶι δορὶ πρά- 
 ξας τάδ’ ἐς οἶκον ἔλθοις.



ἐλθὲ ϕάνηθι, τὰν ζάχρυσον προβαλοῦ[ἀντ. β Πηλεΐδα κατ’ ὄμμα πέλ- 
 ταν δοχμίαν πεδαίρων 
 σχιστὰν παρ’ ἄντυγα, πώλους ἐρεθίζων 
 δίβολόν τ’ ἄκοντα πάλλων. 
 σὲ γὰρ οὔτις ὑποστὰς 
 Ἀργείας ποτ’ ἐν ῞Ηρας δαπέδοις χορεύσει· 
 ἀλλά νιν ἅδε γᾶ καπϕθίμενον Θρηικὶ μόρωι 
 ϕίλτατον ἄχθος οἴσει.



ἰὼ ἰώ, μέγας ὦ βασιλεῦ. καλόν, ὦ Θρήικη, 
 σκύμνον ἔθρεψας πολίαρχον ἰδεῖν. 
 ἴδε χρυσόδετον σώματος ἀλκήν, 
 κλύε καὶ κόμπους κωδωνοκρότους παρὰ πορπάκων κελαδοῦντας. 
 θεός, ὦ Τροία, θεός, αὐτὸς Ἄρης 
 ὁ Στρυμόνιος πῶλος ἀοιδοῦ 
 Μούσης ἥκων καταπνεῖ σε.

364 ἐπιδεξίοις Dindorf (-αις iam Musgrave): ὑποδεξίοις O, -αις VΛ et iΣV  367 ἀκτᾶς VL: -άς Q: -ὰν O   369 δόρατι V   ἐς Aldina: εἰς Ω  ἔλθης L (~ L1c)  370 προβαλοῦ OL: -βαλλοῦ Q: -λαβοῦ V   372 πεδραίνων Q   373 πώλους Reiske: κώλοις Λ: om. (una cum ἐρεθίζων) Δ  379 καπφθίμενον Bothe, denuo Elmsley: καταφθ- Ω   θρηικὶ O: ‑κίω L: ‑κίων VQ  οἴσοι Q  380b θρίκη V   381 πολίαρχον Δ: πολύ- Λ  382 ἰδὲ Liapis   384 πορτάκων O   386 στρυμόνειος V   387 ἀναπνεῖ Hn   σε] σου West, σοι Feickert

104

ΡΗΣΟΣ

ΡΗΣΟΣ Εκ.

χαῖρ’, ἐσθλὸς ἐσθλοῦ παῖ, τύραννε τῆσδε γῆς, 
 Ἕκτορ· παλαιᾶι σ’ ἡμέραι προσεννέπω. χαίρω δέ σ’ εὐτυχοῦντα καὶ προσήμενον 
 πύργοισιν ἐχθρῶν· συγκατασκάψων δ’ ἐγὼ 
 τείχη πάρειμι καὶ νεῶν πρήσων σκάϕη. 
 παῖ τῆς μελωιδοῦ μητέρος Μουσῶν μιᾶς 
 Θρηικός τε ποταμοῦ Στρυμόνος, ϕιλῶ λέγειν 
 τἀληθὲς αἰεὶ κοὐ διπλοῦς πέϕυκ’ ἀνήρ. 
 πάλαι πάλαι χρῆν τῆιδε συγκάμνειν χθονὶ 
 ἐλθόντα, καὶ μὴ τοὐπὶ σ’ Ἀργείων ὕπο 
 Τροίαν ἐᾶσαι πολεμίωι πεσεῖν δορί. 
 οὐ γάρ τι λέξεις ὡς ἄκλητος ὢν ϕίλοις οὐκ ἦλθες οὐδ’ ἤμυνας οὐδ’ ἐπεστράϕης. 
 τίς γάρ σε κῆρυξ ἢ γερουσία Φρυγῶν 
 ἐλθοῦσ’ ἀμύνειν οὐκ ἐπέσκηψεν πόλει; 
 ποῖον δὲ δώρων κόσμον οὐκ ἐπέμψαμεν; 
 σὺ δ’ ἐγγενὴς ὢν βάρβαρός τε βαρβάρους 
 Ἕλλησιν ἡμᾶς προύπιες τὸ σὸν μέρος. 
 καίτοι σε μικρᾶς ἐκ τυραννίδος μέγαν 
 Θρηικῶν ἄνακτα τῆιδ’ ἔθηκ’ ἐγὼ χερί, 
 ὅτ’ ἀμϕὶ Πάγγαιόν τε Παιόνων τε γῆν 
 Θρηικῶν ἀρίστοις ἐμπεσὼν κατὰ στόμα ἔρρηξα πέλτην, σοὶ δὲ δουλώσας λεὼν 
 παρέσχον· ὧν σὺ λακτίσας πολλὴν χάριν 
 ϕίλων νοσούντων ὕστερος βοηδρομεῖς. 


388n om. O, Ῥῆσος βασιλεύς O1m  388 ἐσθλὸς ἐσθλοῦ παῖ Q et Chr. Pat. 2098, 2538: ἐ‑ ἐ‑ παῖς L: ἐσθλοῦ παῖ V: ἐσθλοῦ πατρὸς παῖ O   versum suspectum habuit Diggle  392 πρήσσων L  393 παῖ Δ: παῖς Λ  394 θρη(ι)κός ΔQ et Tr(3?)P2: παῖς L

   395 αἰεὶ Va: ἀεὶ ΩgVgBgE   πέφηκ᾽ V  396 συγκάμειν V  397 τοὐπὶ σ᾽ VΛ: τοὐπίσω O  398 πολεμίωι Va1s, coni. Bothe: -ων Ω  399 φίλοις OL: -ος VQ   400 om. O   ἦλθες Λ: ‑ας V    402 ἐπέσκυψε V  403 ποῖον Λ: ποίων Δ (cf. Chr. Pat. 1720)   τε O   404 ἐγγενὴς VL: εὐγ- OQgE   τ᾽ ὢν gE   βαρβάρους Λ: -ου ΔgE  408 παγαῖον O   409 ἀρίστοις Λ et Chr. Pat. 1724: -ους Δ  411 πολὺν Q   412 φίλων ΩgE: ἡμῶν gV (sed 411 ἐσθλῶν φίλων δὲ pro παρέσχον ὧν σὺ)   ὕστερος OQgV: -ον VLgE   βοηδρομεῖν V  

105

390

395

400

405

410

ΡΗΣΟΣ

415

420

425

430

435

Ρη.

οἱ δ’ οὐδὲν ἡμῖν ἐγγενεῖς πεϕυκότες, 
 πάλαι παρόντες, οἱ μὲν ἐν χωστοῖς τάϕοις 
 κεῖνται πεσόντες, πίστις οὐ σμικρὰ πόλει, 
 οἱ δ’ ἔν θ’ ὅπλοισι καὶ παρ’ ἱππείοις ὄχοις 
 ψυχρὰν ἄησιν δίψιόν τε πῦρ θεοῦ 
 μένουσι καρτεροῦντες, οὐκ ἐν δεμνίοις 
 πυκνὴν ἄμυστιν ὡς σὺ δεξιούμενοι. ταῦθ’, ὡς ἂν εἰδῆις Ἕκτορ’ ὄντ’ ἐλεύθερον, 
 καὶ μέμϕομαί σοι καὶ λέγω κατ’ ὄμμα σόν. 
 τοιοῦτός εἰμι καὐτός· εὐθεῖαν λόγων 
 τέμνω κέλευθον κοὐ διπλοῦς πέϕυκ’ ἀνήρ. 
 ἐγὼ δὲ μεῖζον ἢ σὺ τῆσδ’ ἀπὼν χθονὸς 
 λύπηι πρὸς ἧπαρ δυσϕορῶν ἐτειρόμην. 
 ἀλλ’ ἀγχιτέρμων γαῖά μοι, Σκύθης λεώς, 
 μέλλοντι νόστον τὸν πρὸς ῎Ιλιον περᾶν 
 ξυνῆψε πόλεμον· ἀξένου δ’ ἀϕικόμην 
 πόντου πρὸς ἀκτάς, Θρῆικα πορθμεύσων στρατόν, ἔνθ’ αἱματηρὸς πελανὸς ἐς γαῖαν Σκύθης 
 ἠντλεῖτο λόγχηι Θρήιξ τε συμμιγὴς ϕόνος. 
 τοιάδε τοί μ’ ἀπεῖργε συμϕορὰ πέδον 
 Τροίας ἱκέσθαι σύμμαχόν τέ σοι μολεῖν. 
 ἐπεὶ δ’ ἔπερσα, τῶνδ’ ὁμηρεύσας τέκνα, 
 τάξας ἔτειον δασμὸν ἐς δόμους ϕέρειν, 
 ἥκω περάσας ναυσὶ Πόντιον στόμα, 
 τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πεζὸς γῆς περῶν ὁρίσματα — 
 οὐχ ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς τὰς ἐμὰς ἀμύστιδας 
 οὐδ’ ἐν ζαχρύσοις δώμασιν κοιμώμενος,

413 ἐγγενεῖς VLQ: εὐγ- O: συγγ- Chr. Pat. 1741: ἐν γένει Valckenaer  415 μικρὰ O    416 ἔν θ᾽ ὅπλοισι V: ἐν ὅ- O: ἐνθάδ᾽ ὅπλοις Λ    417 ἄησι V (~ lΣV)   δίψιόν τε] διψίοντες V (~ Vc)  418 μένουσι] οὐκ ἐν O  421 καὶ κατ᾽ ὄμμασιν λέγω O  422n om. O  422 sic interpunxit Fries post Nauck  423 τέμνω (vel τέμνειν) Nauck: τέμνων Ω  424 μείζον᾽ L   426 λαὸς σκύθης O   428 ἀξένου Markland: εὐξ- Ω  429 πορθμεύσων L: ‑εύσας Δ: ‑εῦσαι Q , coni. Aldina, haud male  στρατόν om. Q  430 ἐς Δ: εἰς Λ  431 φόνος O: -ω(ι) VΛ, quo accepto Θρηικὶ συμ‑ Matthiae   432 ἀπῆγε V  433 μολεῖν τέ σοι O   435 ἔσειον O  

106

ΡΗΣΟΣ



ἀλλ’ οἷα πόντον Θρήικιον ϕυσήματα 
 κρυσταλλόπηκτα Παίονάς τ’ ἐπεζάρει 
 ξὺν τοῖσδ’ ἄυπνος οἶδα τλὰς πορπάμασιν. 
 ἀλλ’ ὕστερος μὲν ἦλθον, ἐν καιρῶι δ’ ὅμως· 
 σὺ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη δέκατον αἰχμάζεις ἔτος 
 κοὐδὲν περαίνεις, ἡμέραν δ’ ἐξ ἡμέρας 
 ῥίπτεις κυβεύων τὸν πρὸς Ἀργείους Ἄρη· 
 ἐμοὶ δὲ ϕῶς ἓν ἡλίου καταρκέσει 
 πέρσαντι πύργους ναυστάθμοις ἐπεσπεσεῖν 
 κτεῖναί τ’ Ἀχαιούς· θἠτέραι δ’ ἀπ’ Ἱλίου πρὸς οἶκον εἶμι, συντεμὼν τοὺς σοὺς πόνους. 
 ὑμῶν δὲ μή τις ἀσπίδ’ ἄρηται χερί. 
 ἐγὼ γὰρ ἥξω τοὺς μέγ’ αὐχοῦντας δορὶ 
 πέρσας Ἀχαιούς, καίπερ ὕστερος μολών.

Χο.

ἰὼ ἰώ.  ϕίλα θροεῖς, ϕίλος Διόθεν εἶ· μόνον 
 ϕθόνον ἄμαχον ὕπατος 
 Ζεὺς θέλοι ἀμϕὶ σοῖς λόγοισιν εἴργειν. 
 τὸ δὲ νάιον Ἀργόθεν δόρυ 
 οὔτε πρίν τιν’ οὔτε νῦν ἀνδρῶν ἐπόρευσε σέθεν κρείσσω. πῶς μοι τὸ σὸν ἔγχος Ἀχιλλεὺς ἂν δύναιτο, πῶς δ’ Αἴας ὑπομεῖναι; 


440

445

450

[στρ.

440 πόντον Λ: -ιον Δ  441 κρυσταλό‑ V   Παίονάς Aldina: παιόνας Ω  ἐπεζάρει Scaliger et iVglQgl (ἐπεβάρει; cf. Hesych. ε 4304): -ζάτει Ω  442 ξὺν Λ: σὺν Δ  ἄυπνος οἶδα Δ: ἀόπλοις οἷα Λ  πορπάμασιν Porson: ‑πημΛ: ‑πάσμ‑ Δ  443 ὕστερος Cobet: -ον ΩgV et Chr. Pat. 1728   μὲν om. Q  εἰς καιρὸν Chr. Pat.   446 ῥίπτεις Sallier: πίπτεις fere Ω (-ης O)   ἄρη OQ: -ην VL  448 ναυστάθμοις Λ: -ους Δ  -πεσὼν Q  449 θἠτέραι Feickert et Chr. Pat. 1732 pars codd.: θ᾽ ἡτ- Ω et Chr. Pat. codd. pler.: θατέρᾳ Brunck    δ᾽ Δ: τ᾽ Λ  451 ἄρηται Dindorf: αἴρηται V: αἱρεῖται O: αἰρέτω Q , αἱ- L   452 ἥξω fere simul Diggle et Kovacs: ἕξω Ω   μεγαλαυχοῦντας V  453 ὕστερος V: -ον OΛ  455 μόνος L   457 θέλοι Λ: ἐθ- Δ  459 τιν᾽ οὔτε νῦν Nauck: οὔτε νῦν τιν᾽ Ω  460 ἐπόρευσεν L   461–2 τὸ σὸν ἔγχος Ἀχιλλεὺς Wilamowitz: Ἀχιλλεὺς τὸ σὸν ἔγχος fere Ω (Ἀχιλεὺς V)  

107

455

460

ΡΗΣΟΣ 465

470

475

480

485



εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ τόδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἦμαρ 
 εἰσίδοιμ’, ἄναξ, ὅτωι πολυϕόνου 
 χειρὸς ἄποιν’ ἄροιο σᾶι λόγχαι.

Ρη. Εκ. Ρη. Εκ. Ρη. Εκ. Ρη. Εκ.

τοιαῦτα μέν σοι τῆς μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας 
 πρᾶξαι παρέξω· σὺν δ’ Ἀδραστείαι λέγω. 
 ἐπεὶ δ’ ἂν ἐχθρῶν τήνδ’ ἐλευθέραν πόλιν θῶμεν θεοῖσί τ’ ἀκροθίνι’ ἐξέληις, 
 ξὺν σοὶ στρατεύειν γῆν ἐπ’ Ἀργείων θέλω 
 καὶ πᾶσαν ἐλθὼν Ἑλλάδ’ ἐκπέρσαι δορί, 
 ὡς ἂν μάθωσιν ἐν μέρει πάσχειν κακῶς. 
 εἰ τοῦ παρόντος τοῦδ’ ἀπαλλαχθεὶς κακοῦ 
 πόλιν νεμοίμην ὡς τὸ πρίν ποτ’ ἀσϕαλῆ, 
 ἦ κάρτα πολλὴν θεοῖς ἂν εἰδείην χάριν. 
 τὰ δ’ ἀμϕί τ’ Ἄργος καὶ νομὸν τὸν Ἑλλάδος 
 οὐχ ὧδε πορθεῖν ῥάιδι’ ὡς λέγεις δορί. 
 οὐ τούσδ’ ἀριστέας ϕασὶν Ἑλλήνων μολεῖν; κοὐ μεμϕόμεσθά γ’, ἀλλ’ ἅδην ἐλαύνομεν. 
 οὔκουν κτανόντες τούσδε πάντ’ εἰργάσμεθα; 
 μή νυν τὰ πόρσω τἀγγύθεν μεθεὶς σκόπει. 
 ἀρκεῖν ἔοικέ σοι παθεῖν, δρᾶσαι δὲ μή. 
 πολλῆς γὰρ ἄρχω κἀνθάδ’ ὢν τυραννίδος. 
 ἀλλ’ εἴτε λαιὸν εἴτε δεξιὸν κέρας 
 εἴτ’ ἐν μέσοισι συμμάχοις πάρεστί σοι 


464 τόδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ Dindorf: τόδ᾽ Ω: τόδε γ᾽ Hermann   465 ὅτωι Musgrave: ὅπως Ω  466 ἄποιν᾽ ἄροιο σᾶι Diggle: ἀποινάσαιο Δ: ἀπονάσαιο fere Λ (-όνα- Q , ~ Q1c)   λόγχαι OQ: ‑α VL   467 post hunc versum lac. indic. Kovacs  469 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν Morstadt: ἐπειδὰν OΛ: ἐπειδ᾽ ἂν δ᾽ V  470 ἰῶμεν Q  471 ξὺν Λ: σὺν Δ  τρατεύειν O  ἀργείων Δ: ‑αν Λ  476 ἦ Λ: ἢ Δ  πολλὴν Δ et iΣV: -οῖς Λ  ἀν θεοῖς ἂν Q (~ Q1c)  477 ἄργους Q   478 ῥᾳδίως O   479 τούσδ᾽ ΔQ: τούς γ᾽ L   ἀριστέας VΛ: -εῖς O   480 κοὐ VΛ et ΣV: οὐ O   ἀλλ᾽ ἅιδην O: ἀλλ᾽ ἄδην V: ἀλλὰ δὴν Λ  481 οὔκουν: vide ad 161  πάντ᾽ εἰργάσμεθα Q: πᾶν εἰργ- Δ: πάντ᾽ εἰργάσμεθ᾽ ἄν L: cf. ΣV πάντα διεπραξάμεθα (διαπεπραξόμεθα Schwartz, διαπραξόμεθα Wilamowitz)  482 νυν gV, coni. Scaliger: νῦν ΩgBgE   πόρσω Dindorf: πόρρω ΩgVgBgE  483 ἔοικεν O   484 τυρρ- O (~ O1c)  

108

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Ρη. Εκ. Ρη. Εκ. Ρη. Εκ. Ρη.

πέλτην ἐρεῖσαι καὶ καταστῆσαι στρατόν. 
 μόνος μάχεσθαι πολεμίοις, Ἕκτορ, θέλω. 
 εἰ δ’ αἰσχρὸν ἡγῆι μὴ συνεμπρῆσαι νεῶν πρύμνας, πονήσας τὸν πάρος πολὺν χρόνον, 
 τάξον μ’ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ στρατοῦ κατὰ στόμα. 
 οὐκ ἔστ’ ἐκείνωι θοῦρον ἀντᾶραι δόρυ. 
 καὶ μὴν λόγος γ’ ἦν ὡς ἔπλευσ’ ἐπ’ ῎Ιλιον. 
 ἔπλευσε καὶ πάρεστιν· ἀλλὰ μηνίων 
 στρατηλάταισιν οὐ συναίρεται δόρυ. 
 τίς δὴ μετ’ αὐτὸν ἄλλος εὐδοξεῖ στρατοῦ; 
 Αἴας ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδὲν ἡσσᾶσθαι δοκεῖ 
 χὠ Τυδέως παῖς· ἔστι δ’ αἱμυλώτατον 
 κρότημ’ Ὀδυσσεὺς λῆμά τ’ ἀρκούντως θρασὺς καὶ πλεῖστα χώραν τήνδ’ ἀνὴρ καθυβρίσας·
 ὃς εἰς Ἀθάνας σηκὸν ἔννυχος μολὼν 
 κλέψας ἄγαλμα ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων ϕέρει. 
 ἤδη δ’ ἀγύρτης πτωχικὴν ἔχων στολὴν 
 ἐσῆλθε πύργους, πολλὰ δ’ Ἀργείοις κακὰ 
 ἠρᾶτο, πεμϕθεὶς Ἱλίου κατάσκοπος· 
 κτανὼν δὲ ϕρουροὺς καὶ παραστάτας πυλῶν 
 ἐξῆλθεν· αἰεὶ δ’ ἐν λόχοις εὑρίσκεται 
 Θυμβραῖον ἀμϕὶ βωμὸν ἄστεως πέλας 
 θάσσων· κακῶι δὲ μερμέρωι παλαίομεν. οὐδεὶς ἀνὴρ εὔψυχος ἀξιοῖ λάθραι 
 κτεῖναι τὸν ἐχθρόν, ἀλλ’ ἰὼν κατὰ στόμα. 
 τοῦτον δ’ ὃν ἵζειν ϕὴις σὺ κλωπικὰς ἕδρας 


488n om. L   488 ἕκτωρ L (~ L1c vel Tr1)  491 ἀχιλέως V  492 ἔστιν Q  ἀντᾶραι Reiske: ἐντάξαι Ω  495 δορί O   496 τίς δὴ Λ: τίς δὲ V: τί δαὶ O  497 ἡσσᾶσθαι Dindorf: ἡττ- Ω  498 τυδέος Q  499 ὀδυσεὺς V   θρασύν V   500 καὶ] εἷς Hermann   501 ἀθάνας V: ἀθ*νᾶς O: -ηνᾶς Λ  503 ἤδην O (~ O1c)  στολὴν ἔχων O   504 ἀργείοις Δ: -ους Λ  505 ἰλίου O: ἴλιον VΛ  506 πυλῶν OΛ et Chr. Pat. 1737: φρυγῶν V  π‑ παραστάτας O (~ Chr. Pat.)   507 αἰεὶ Λ: ἀεὶ Δ  508 ἄστεως Λ: -ος Δ  ἢ ἄστεος v.l. in ΣV  509 μερμαίρωι O   512 δ᾽ om. V   ἵζειν VΛ: -εις O: -ει gB (om. φὴις σὺ)   σὺ OΛ: οὐ V   κλωπικὰς ἕδρας ΔgB -αῖς … -αις Λ  

109

490

495

500

505

510

ΡΗΣΟΣ

515

520

525

530

535

Εκ.

καὶ μηχανᾶσθαι, ζῶντα συλλαβὼν ἐγὼ 
 πυλῶν ἐπ’ ἐξόδοισιν ἀμπείρας ῥάχιν 
 στήσω πετεινοῖς γυψὶ θοινατήριον. 
 ληιστὴν γὰρ ὄντα καὶ θεῶν ἀνάκτορα 
 συλῶντα δεῖ νιν τῶιδε κατθανεῖν μόρωι. 
 νῦν μὲν καταυλίσθητε· καὶ γὰρ εὐϕρόνη. 
 δείξω δ’ ἐγώ σοι χῶρον, ἔνθα χρὴ στρατὸν τὸν σὸν νυχεῦσαι τοῦ τεταγμένου δίχα. 
 ξύνθημα δ’ ἡμῖν Φοῖβος, ἤν τι καὶ δέηι· 
 μέμνησ’ ἀκούσας Θρηικί τ’ ἄγγειλον στρατῶι. 
 ὑμᾶς δὲ βάντας χρὴ προταινὶ τάξεων 
 ϕρουρεῖν ἐγερτὶ καὶ νεῶν κατάσκοπον 
 δέχθαι Δόλωνα· καὶ γάρ, εἴπερ ἐστὶ σῶς, 
 ἤδη πελάζει στρατοπέδοισι Τρωϊκοῖς.



Χο. τίνος ἁ ϕυλακά; τίς ἀμείβει τὰν ἐμάν; πρῶτα[στρ. δύεται σημεῖα καὶ ἑπτάποροι Πλειάδες αἰθέριαι· 
 μέσα δ’ Αἰετὸς οὐρανοῦ ποτᾶται. 
 ἔγρεσθε· τί μέλλετε; κοιτᾶν 
 ἔξιτε πρὸς ϕυλακάν. 
 οὐ λεύσσετε μηνάδος αἴγλαν; 
 ἀὼς δὴ πέλας, ἀὼς γίγνεται καί τις προδρόμων ὅδε γ’ ἐστὶν ἀστήρ.

514 ἀμπείρας Δ et Hesych. α 3775: ἐμπ‑ fere Λ (-πύρ- Q)  515 θήσω O  θοιναστήριον O  517 πότμωι V (~ Chr. Pat. 1440)  518n notam erasam L  518 καταυλίσθητε Ω et Chr. Pat. 1815: καταυλίσθητι Kirchhoff  522 δ᾽ V   ἄγγελον Q   523 τάξεως L   525 δέχθαι Aldina: δέχεσθαι fere Ω (‑θε O)   529 ἑπτάπορος Q   530 πληϊάδες V   531 μέσα VQ et Tr3: μέσας O: μέσον P et Tr2  οὐράνιός γε P (~Tr2/3)  533 ἔξιτε Hartung (coll. Chr. Pat. 1855–6): ἔγρεσθε Ω  534n ἡμιχ. O  534 λεύσετε V   535n ἡμιχ. L (~ Tr3)  535 ἀὼς δὲ πέλας ἀὼς δὴ O   536–7 προδρόμων Musgrave: προδόμων Δ: πρὸ δόμων Λ  ὅδε γ᾽ O: οὐδέ γ᾽ V: ὅδε γὰρ Λ  ἀστήρ VΛ et Oc (cf. Chr. Pat. 1998): ἀνήρ O et Tr1s  

110

ΡΗΣΟΣ

— τίς ἐκηρύχθη πρώτην ϕυλακήν; 
 — Μυγδόνος υἱόν ϕασι Κόροιβον. — τίς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῶι; — Κίλικας Παίων στρατὸς ἤγειρεν, Μυσοὶ δ’ ἡμᾶς. — οὔκουν Λυκίους πέμπτην ϕυλακὴν 
 βάντας ἐγείρειν 
 καιρὸς κλήρου κατὰ μοῖραν; Χο.

καὶ μὰν ἀίω· Σιμόεντος ἡμένα κοίτας[ἀντ. ϕοινίας ὑμνεῖ πολυχορδοτάται 
 γήρυϊ παιδολέτωρ μελοποιὸν ἀηδονὶς μέριμναν. 
 ἤδη δὲ νέμουσι κατ’ Ἴδαν 
 ποίμνια· νυκτιβρόμου 
 σύριγγος ἰὰν κατακούω. 
 θέλγει δ’ ὄμματος ἕδραν ὕπνος· ἅδιστος γὰρ ἔβα βλεϕάροις πρὸς ἀῶ.

— τί ποτ’ οὐ πελάθει σκοπός, ὃν ναῶν 
 Ἕκτωρ ὤτρυνε κατόπτην; 
 538n ἡμιχ. Ω  538 ἐκληρώθη Dobree   φυλακάν O   539n ἡμιχ. VQ et L1c: paragr. L: om. O   539 μιγδόνος O   κόροιβον V et ΣV: -ρυβ- OΛ et ΣV ad 5  540n (ante τίς) ἡμιχ. O: paragr. VL: om. Q   (ante Κίλικας) paragr. VL: om. OQ   540 παίων Λ: παιὼν Δ et ΣV ad 5   541–2n (ante Μυσοὶ) nullam notam OQ: paragr. VL   543n ἡμιχ. O: paragr. VL: om. Q   543 οὔκουν: vide ad 161   544 μάντας ἐγείρει V   545n (ante κλήρου) ἡμιχ. O   546–7n paragr. VL: om. OQ   546–7 μὰν Diggle: μὴν Ω  ἡμέρα O   548 φοινίας O: φον- VΛ  θρηνεῖ γρΣV  ‑χορδοτάταν O? (~ O1c?)  549 παιδολέτωρ O et Tr3: ἁ π‑ VΛ  550 μελοποιὸν Dindorf: μελοποιὸς Ω  μέριμναν Reiske, denuo Dindorf: μέριμνα fere Ω (μερίμναι Q)   552 νυκτιβρόμου Pierson: νυκτιδρόμου Δ: νυκτὶ δρ‑ Λ  554 θέλθει Q   555–6n (ante ὕπνος) Χο. O   555–6 βλεφάροις Musgrave (cf. Chr. Pat. 1820, 1850, 2000): -οισι Ω  ἀῶ Blaydes, Headlam: ἀοῦς Ω   557–9 om. L, add. L1c vel Tr1 (559 denuo add. Tr2, del. Tr3)  557n ἡμιχ. ΔQ: om. ut vid. L1c vel Tr1  557 πελάθει ΔQ: -θη L1c vel Tr1: πλάθει Nauck   ὃν ναῶν om. Va   558 κατόπτην Wecklein: -ταν Ω  

111

540

545

550

555–6

ΡΗΣΟΣ 560

— ταρβῶ· χρόνιος γὰρ ἄπεστιν. — ἀλλ’ ἦ κρυπτὸν λόχον ἐσπαίσας 
 διόλωλε; †τάχ’ ἂν εἴη† ϕοβερόν μοι. 
 — αὐδῶ Λυκίους πέμπτην ϕυλακὴν 
 βάντας ἐγείρειν 
 ἡμᾶς κλήρου κατὰ μοῖραν. ΟΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ

565

570

575



Διόμηδες, οὐκ ἤκουσας — ἢ κενὸς ψόϕος 
 στάζει δι’ ὤτων; — τευχέων τινὰ κτύπον; 


ΔΙΟΜΗΔΗΣ οὔκ, ἀλλὰ δεσμὰ πωλικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων 
 κλάζει σίδηρον· κἀμέ τοι, πρὶν ἠισθόμην δεσμῶν ἀραγμὸν ἱππικῶν, ἔδυ ϕόβος. Οδ. ὅρα κατ’ ὄρϕνην μὴ ϕύλαξιν ἐντύχηις. 
 Δι. ϕυλάξομαί τοι κἀν σκότωι τιθεὶς πόδα. 
 Οδ. ἢν δ’ οὖν ἐγείρηις, οἶσθα σύνθημα στρατοῦ; 
 Δι. Φοῖβον Δόλωνος οἶδα σύμβολον κλυών. 
 Οδ. ἔα· εὐνὰς ἐρήμους τάσδε πολεμίων ὁρῶ. 
 Δι. καὶ μὴν Δόλων γε τάσδ’ ἔϕραζεν Ἕκτορος 
 κοίτας, ἐϕ’ ὧιπερ ἔγχος εἵλκυσται τόδε. 
 Οδ. τί δῆτ’ ἂν εἴη; μῶν λόχος βέβηκέ ποι; 
 Δι. ἴσως ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν μηχανὴν στήσων τινά. 
 Οδ. θρασὺς γὰρ Ἕκτωρ νῦν, ἐπεὶ κρατεῖ, θρασύς. 559n nullam notam Ω  559 γὰρ τις Tr3  ἄπεστιν ἐμπεσών O  560n paragr. L: om. ΔQ  560 ἦ Matthiae: ἢ Ω  εἰσπαίσας O: εἰσπεσὼν VaΛ  561 διόλωλε P: διόλωλεν Q et aut L aut Tr3: ὄλωλεν Va: διώλεσεν O  561n (ante τάχ᾽) paragr. L   561 τύχ᾽ Va   562n ἡμιχ. O: paragr. L: om. VaQ   565 οὐκ om. Va   ἢ κενὸς OΛ: ὡς ἧκε Va   568 σίδηρον Bothe, denuo Paley: σιδήρου Ω  569 ἀραγμῶν Va   570 ὄρφνην Δ: -αν Λ et Chr. Pat. 1980   571 τοι OΛ: τι Va: utrumque Chr. Pat. 1981   573 κλυών West: κλύων Ω  575 ἔφραξεν Va   576 εἵλκισται O   577 ποι OΛ et Chr. Pat. 2033 pars codd. (πηι vel που cett.): σοι Va   578n et 579n om. Va   579 ἕκτορ Q   νῦν δ᾽ O et Chr. Pat. 2035   ἐπικρατεῖ Va  

112

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Δι. Οδ. Δι. Οδ. Δι. Οδ. Δι.

τί δῆτ’, Ὀδυσσεῦ, δρῶμεν; οὐ γὰρ ηὕρομεν 
 τὸν ἄνδρ’ ἐν εὐναῖς, ἐλπίδων δ’ ἡμάρτομεν. 
 στείχωμεν ὡς τάχιστα ναυστάθμων πέλας. 
 σώιζει γὰρ αὐτὸν ὅστις εὐτυχῆ θεῶν 
 τίθησιν· ἡμῖν δ’ οὐ βιαστέον τύχην. 
 οὔκουν ἐπ’ Αἰνέαν ἢ τὸν ἔχθιστον Φρυγῶν 
 Πάριν μολόντε χρὴ καρατομεῖν ξίϕει; 
 πῶς οὖν ἐν ὄρϕνηι πολεμίων ἀνὰ στρατὸν 
 ζητῶν δυνήσηι τούσδ’ ἀκινδύνως κτανεῖν; 
 αἰσχρόν γε μέντοι ναῦς ἐπ’ Ἀργείων μολεῖν δράσαντε μηδὲν πολεμίους νεώτερον. 
 πῶς δ’ οὐ δέδρακας; οὐ κτανόντε ναυστάθμων κατάσκοπον Δόλωνα σώιζομεν τάδε 
 σκυλεύματ’; ἢ πᾶν στρατόπεδον πέρσειν δοκεῖς; 
 πείθεις· πάλιν στείχωμεν· εὖ δοίη τύχη.

580

585

590

ΑΘΗΝΑ

ποῖ δὴ λιπόντε Τρωϊκῶν ἐκ τάξεων 
 χωρεῖτε, λύπηι καρδίαν δεδηγμένοι, 
 εἰ μὴ κτανεῖν σϕῶιν Ἕκτορ’ ἢ Πάριν θεὸς 
 δίδωσιν; ἄνδρα δ’ οὐ πέπυσθε σύμμαχον 
 Τροίαι μολόντα Ῥῆσον οὐ ϕαύλωι τρόπωι; ὃς εἰ διοίσει νύκτα τήνδ’ ἐς αὔριον, 
 οὔτ’ ἄν σϕ’ Ἀχιλλεὺς οὔτ’ ἂν Αἴαντος δόρυ 
 μὴ πάντα πέρσαι ναύσταθμ’ Ἀργείων σχέθοι, 


580 ηὕρομεν Dindorf: εὕρ- VaΛ: ἕβρ‑ O  581 τὸν Δ: τόνδ᾽ Λ  582 ναυστάθμων Δ: -ου Λ  583 ὅστις ΔgV et Chr. Pat. 2040: ὅσπερ Λ  εὐτυχεῖ O  585 οὔκουν: vide ad 161   αἰνέαν Δ: -είαν Λ  586 μολόντε Canter: -όντες OΛ: -ῶντες Va  χρὴ Δ: χρῆν Λ  590 πολεμίοις O  591 δ᾽ om. Va   δέδορκας O (~ O1c)   ναυστάθμω Va   593 ἦι Q   594n Δι. VaQPr: om. OL   594 πείθεις Wilamowitz: πείθου Ω et Chr. Pat. 2038   δοίη Nauck (noluit Vater): δ᾽ εἴη Ω et Chr. Pat. 2009, 2038   τύχη Va: τυχεῖν OΛ et Chr. Pat. 2009, 2038   595 λιπόντε O: -τες VaΛ: ᾽λλιπόντε Bothe   596 κραδίαν Va (~ Va1s)   δεδηγμένοι OΛ: -μένον Va: -μένω Wecklein   597 κατανεῖν Q (~ Q2)  600 τήνδ᾽ Reiske: τὴν Ω  ἐς αὔριον OΛ: ἐπαύριον Va  601 οὔτ᾽ ἄν O: οὔτε Λ: [Va]   ἀχιλλεὺς Va: -έως OΛ  ἂν (alterum) om. Q  

113

595

600

ΡΗΣΟΣ

605

610

615

620

625

Οδ. Αθ. Οδ. Δι. Αθ.

τείχη κατασκάψαντα καὶ πυλῶν ἔσω 
 λόγχηι πλατεῖαν ἐσδρομὴν ποιούμενον. 
 τοῦτον κατακτὰς πάντ’ ἔχεις· τὰς δ’ Ἕκτορος 
 εὐνὰς ἔασον καὶ καρατόμους σϕαγάς· 
 ἔσται γὰρ αὐτῶι θάνατος ἐξ ἄλλης χερός. 
 δέσποιν’ Ἀθάνα, ϕθέγματος γὰρ ἠισθόμην 
 τοῦ σοῦ συνήθη γῆρυν· ἐν πόνοισι γὰρ παροῦσ’ ἀμύνεις τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἀεί ποτε. 
 τὸν ἄνδρα δ’ ἡμῖν ποῦ κατηύνασται ϕράσον· 
 πόθεν τέτακται βαρβάρου στρατεύματος; 
 ὅδ’ ἐγγὺς ἦσται κοὐ συνήθροισται στρατῶι, 
 ἀλλ’ ἐκτὸς αὐτὸν τάξεων κατηύνασεν 
 Ἕκτωρ, ἕως ἂν νὺξ ἀμείψηται ϕάος. 
 πέλας δὲ πῶλοι Θρηικίων ἐξ ἁρμάτων 
 λευκαὶ δέδενται, διαπρεπεῖς ἐν εὐϕρόνηι· 
 στίλβουσι δ’ ὥστε ποταμίου κύκνου πτερόν. 
 ταύτας, κτανόντε δεσπότην, κομίζετε, κάλλιστον οἴκοις σκῦλον· οὐ γὰρ ἔσθ’ ὅπου 
 τοιόνδ’ ὄχημα χθὼν κέκευθε πωλικόν. 
 Διόμηδες, ἢ σὺ κτεῖνε Θρήικιον λεών, 
 ἢ ’μοὶ πάρες γε, σοὶ δὲ χρὴ πώλους μέλειν. 
 ἐγὼ ϕονεύσω, πωλοδαμνήσεις δὲ σύ· 
 τρίβων γὰρ εἶ τὰ κομψὰ καὶ νοεῖν σοϕός. 
 χρὴ δ’ ἄνδρα τάσσειν οὗ μάλιστ’ ἂν ὠϕελοῖ. 
 καὶ μὴν καθ’ ἡμᾶς τόνδ’ Ἀλέξανδρον βλέπω 
 στείχοντα, ϕυλάκων ἔκ τινος πεπυσμένον 


603 εἴσω L (~ L1c vel Tr1)  606 σφαγὰς καρατόμους O   607 ἔσται OΛ: ἥκει Va: ἥξει Va1s  608n om. O, Ὀδ. καὶ Δι. O1m  609 συνήθη Λ: -οὑς Δ  611 ποῖ O  κατηύνασται Dindorf: -εύ- Ω  613 ἧσται VaL: ἔσται O: ἧσθαι Q  614 τάξεων Λ: -εως Δ  κατηύνασεν Dindorf: -ευ- Ω  615 νὺξ Ω: νύκτ᾽ Lenting   ἀμείψεται Ouv (~ O1c?)  617 δέδηνται Q   618 στίλβουσι δ᾽ OΛgB: -σιν Va   ὥστε Λ: ὥσπερ ΔgB et Chr. Pat. 2058   πτερὸν κύκνου O  619 κτανόντε O: -τες VaΛ  621 πωλικόν VaΛ: τρωικόν O  623 ᾽μοὶ VaL: μοι OQ   πάρες γε OΛ: πάρεχε Va: παράσχες Reiske, πάρες σφε Dobree   πώλους Δ: -ων Λ  625 κομψὰ] σοφὰ Q   626 ὠφελ*ῖ Q (~ Q1c)  

114

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Δι. Αθ. Δι. Αθ.

δόξας ἀσήμους πολεμίων μεμβλωκότων. πότερα σὺν ἄλλοις ἢ μόνος πορεύεται; 
 μόνος· πρὸς εὐνὰς δ’, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ἕκτορος 
 χωρεῖ, κατόπτας σημανῶν ἥκειν στρατοῦ. 
 οὔκουν ὑπάρχειν τόνδε κατθανόντα χρή; 
 οὐκ ἂν δύναιο τοῦ πεπρωμένου πλέον· 
 τοῦτον δὲ πρὸς σῆς χειρὸς οὐ θέμις θανεῖν. 
 ἀλλ’ ὧιπερ ἥκεις μορσίμους ϕέρων σϕαγὰς 
 τάχυν’· ἐγὼ δὲ τῶιδε σύμμαχος Κύπρις 
 δοκοῦσ’ ἀρωγὸς ἐν πόνοις παραστατεῖν 
 σαθροῖς λόγοισιν ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρ’ ἀμείψομαι. καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐγὼ μὲν εἶπον· ὃν δὲ χρὴ παθεῖν 
 οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδ’ ἤκουσεν ἐγγὺς ὢν λόγου.

630

635

640

ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ σὲ τὸν στρατηγὸν καὶ κασίγνητον λέγω, Ἕκτορ, καθεύδεις; οὐκ ἐγείρεσθαί σ’ ἐχρῆν; ἐχθρῶν τις ἡμῖν χρίμπτεται στρατεύματι, 
 ἢ κλῶπες ἄνδρες ἢ κατάσκοποί τινες. 
 Αθ. θάρσει· ϕυλάσσω σ’ ἥδε πρευμενὴς Κύπρις. 
 μέλει δ’ ὁ σός μοι πόλεμος, οὐδ’ ἀμνημονῶ 
 τιμῆς, ἐπαινῶ δ’ εὖ παθοῦσα πρὸς σέθεν. 
 καὶ νῦν ἐπ’ εὐτυχοῦντι Τρωϊκῶι στρατῶι ἥκω πορεύουσ’ ἄνδρα σοι μέγαν ϕίλον, 
 τῆς ὑμνοποιοῦ παῖδα Θρήικιον θεᾶς 
 [Μούσης· πατρὸς δὲ Στρυμόνος κικλήσκεται]. 
 Αλ. ἀεί ποτ’ εὖ ϕρονοῦσα τυγχάνεις πόλει 
 κἀμοί, μέγιστον δ’ ἐν βίωι κειμήλιον 
 κρίνας σέ ϕημι τῆιδε προσθέσθαι πόλει. 
 630 σὺν ΔQ: πρὸς L   631 δ᾽ Δ: om. Λ  632 ἥκει Q   633 οὔκουν: vide ad 161   καταθανόντα O   635 χειρὸς οὐ θέμις fere Δ (θέμις post θανεῖν O): οὐ θ‑ χερὸς Λ  θανεῖν O et aut L1m aut Trm: κτανεῖν VΛ  636 ὧπερ P2: ὥσπερ Ω  σφαγὰς φέρων O   638 ἀρωγοὺς Q   642n Ἀλέξανδρος ΔQ: Πάρις L (item 653, 663)   643 σ᾽ ἐχρῆν O: σ᾽ ἐχρή V: σε χρή Λ  644 ἡμῶν Q  στρατεύμασι O (~ O1c)  646 φυλάσσω Naber: -ει Ω  647 μέλλει O   652 del. Lachmann (cf. 279)   654 δ᾽ O: om. VΛ  655 σέ VΛ: δέ O  

115

645

650

655

ΡΗΣΟΣ

660

665

670

675

Αθ. Αλ. Αθ.

ἥκω δ’ ἀκούσας οὐ τορῶς — ϕήμη δέ τις 
 ϕύλαξιν ἐμπέπτωκεν — ὡς κατάσκοποι 
 ἥκουσ’ Ἀχαιῶν. χὠ μὲν οὐκ ἰδὼν λέγει, 
 ὁ δ’ εἰσιδὼν μολόντας οὐκ ἔχει ϕράσαι· ὧν οὕνεκ’ εὐνὰς ἤλυθον πρὸς Ἕκτορος. 
 μηδὲν ϕοβηθῆις· οὐδὲν ἐν στρατῶι νέον· 
 Ἕκτωρ δὲ ϕροῦδος Θρῆικα κοιμήσων στρατόν. 
 σύ τοί με πείθεις, σοῖς δὲ πιστεύων λόγοις 
 τάξιν ϕυλάξων εἶμ’ ἐλεύθερος ϕόβου. 
 χώρει· μέλειν γὰρ πάντ’ ἐμοὶ δόκει τὰ σά, 
 ὥστ’ εὐτυχοῦντας συμμάχους ἐμοὺς ὁρᾶν· 
 γνώσηι δὲ καὶ σὺ τὴν ἐμὴν προθυμίαν. 
 ὑμᾶς δ’ ἀυτῶ τοὺς ἄγαν ἐρρωμένους, 
 Λαερτίου παῖ, θηκτὰ κοιμίσαι ξίϕη. κεῖται γὰρ ἡμῖν Θρήικιος στρατηλάτης 
 ἵπποι τ’ ἔχονται, πολέμιοι δ’ ἠισθημένοι 
 χωροῦσ’ ἐϕ’ ὑμᾶς. ἀλλ’ ὅσον τάχιστα χρὴ 
 ϕεύγειν πρὸς ὁλκοὺς ναυστάθμων. τί μέλλετε 
 σκηπτοῦ ᾽πιόντος πολεμίων σῶσαι βίον;

Χο. ἔα ἔα· βάλε βάλε βάλε βάλε· θένε θένε. 
 τίς ἁνήρ; 658 ἰδὼν Lenting coll. Chr. Pat. 1876: εἰδὼς Ω  659 εἰσιδὼν OΛ et Chr. Pat. 1877: ὡς ἰδὼν V   μολῶντας V   660 εὐνὰς VΛ: ἦλθον O   662 κοιμήσων Δ: κοσμ- Λ   663 πείθοις O (~ Chr. Pat. 1806)   δὲ πιστεύων Δ: τε πιστεύω Λ et Chr. Pat. 1806   665 μέλειν OΛ: μέλλει V, -ειν V1cgV: eandem varietatem Chr. Pat. 1808   δόκει L: δοκεῖ ΔQgV et Chr. Pat.   666 ὥστ᾽ ΔgV: ὡς Λ  συμμάχους Ω: ἐς φίλους gV   668 δ᾽ ἀυτῶ fere VΛ (δ᾽ αὐτῶι Q): μὲν αὐδῶ O   ἐρωμ‑ Q   669 κοιμίσαι V: κοιμῆσαι O: κομίσαι L: κοσμίσας Q , κοιμ- Q1c   670 om. O   ὑμῖν Valckenaer   672 τάχιστα χρή Δ: -τ᾽ ἐχρῆν Λ    675–82 inter hemichoria distribuit Bothe, inter singulos choreutas, praeeunte Vater, Arnoldt    675n Χο. L: Χο. Λυκίων OQ et ΣV: [V]: Ἡμ. Bothe   675a ἔα ἔα Λ: ἔααε V: om. O   675b βάλε quater ΔQ et Tr2/3, ter Tr1: βάλλε quater L   θένε bis ΔL: θάνε bis Q   676 ἁνήρ Murray: ἀ‑ Ω  τίς ἀνήρ Musgrave  

116

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Οδ. Οδ. Χο.

λεῦσσε· τοῦτον αὐδῶ. δεῦρο δεῦρο πᾶς. τούσδ’ ἔχω, τούσδ’ ἔμαρψα κλῶπας οἵτινες κατ’ ὄρϕνην τόνδε κινοῦσι στρατόν. τίς ὁ λόχος; πόθεν ἔβας; ποδαπὸς εἶ; οὔ σε χρὴ εἰδέναι. Χο. θανῆι γὰρ σήμερον δράσας κακῶς· οὐκ ἐρεῖς ξύνθημα, λόγχην πρὶν διὰ στέρνων μολεῖν; 
 †ἵστω θάρσει. Χο. πέλας ἴθι, παῖε πᾶς.† 
 ἦ σὺ δὴ Ῥῆσον κατέκτας; Οδ. ἀλλὰ τὸν κτενοῦντα σέ. ἴσχε πᾶς τις. Χο. οὐ μὲν οὖν… Οδ. ἆ· ϕίλιον ἄνδρα μὴ θένηις. καὶ τί δὴ τὸ σῆμα; Οδ. Φοῖβος. Χο. ἔμαθον· ἴσχε πᾶς δόρυ. οἶσθ’ ὅποι βεβᾶσιν ἅνδρες; Οδ. τῆιδέ πηι κατείδομεν. Χο. ἕρπε πᾶς κατ’ ἴχνος αὐτῶν· ἢ βοὴν ἐγερτέον; 
 ἀλλὰ συμμάχους ταράσσειν δεινὸν ἐκ νυκτῶν ϕόβωι. 


677 λεῦσσε Diggle: λεύσ(σ)ετε Ω (-σσ- Λ, -σ- Δ): λεῦσσε λεῦσσε Hartung   ἀυτῶ O   680–1 post 677 trai. Diggle  680n ἡμιχ. O  678–9 κλῶπας Diggle: ‑ες Ω  ὄρφνην ΔL: -αν Q et Tr1  κινοῦσι OΛ: κτεν- V   682 λόχος Δ: λόγος Λ   ἔβας· ποδαπὸς εἶ Δ: ἔβας πόδα πῶς εἶ Q: σὸν φέρεις πόδα· πῶς εἶ Tr1  683 οὔ σε χρὴ εἰδέναι VQ (χρὴν V2): οὐκ ἐχρῆν σ᾽ εἰδέναι O: οὐ χρὴ εἰδέναι σε L: εἰδέναι σ᾽ οὐ χρή Heath  683n (ante θανῆι) Ἡμ. Matthiae: om. Ω  683 σήμερον om. V   684n nullam notam L: Χο. OQ: ἡμιχ. Tr2/3: paragr. V  684 ξύν- Δ: σύν- Λ   λόγχων Q  685 ἵστω ΣL (ἵστω ἵστασο) et iVglQgl (ἀνίστασο), coni. Portus: ἴστω Ω  πέλας τις ἴθι Tr1  παῖε bis O et Tr3 (tum πᾶς τὶς ἄν Tr3)  686n (ante ἦ) nullam notam O: ἡμιχ. VΛ  686 ἦ fere Q (ἦι): ἢ ΔL  δὴ om. V  Ῥῆσον Ω: φίλους West   686n (ante ἀλλὰ) Ὀδ. O: om. VΛ  686 Dindorf   κτενοῦντα VL: κταν- OQ  687n (ante ἴσχε) Χο. O: Ὀδ. VΛ  687 ἴαχε V   τις L: om. ΔQ  687n (ante οὐ) ἡμιχ. ΔQ: Χο. L  687 μὲν οὖν Reiske: μενῶ Ω   post μὲν οὖν sermonem fractum indicavi  687n (ante ἆ) Ὀδ. Stiblinus: Χο. O: ἡμιχ. VΛ  687 ἆ Musgrave: ἆ ἆ vel ἂ ἂ Ω   φίλιον OPQ: φίλον V et Tr2/3  688n (ante καὶ) ἡμιχ. ΔQ: Χο. L   (ante ἔμαθον) ἡμιχ. VQ: Χο. O: paragr. L   688 ἴαχε V  689n (ante οἶσθ᾽) ἡμιχ. ΔQ: paragr. L   689 ὅποι Aldina: ὅπη(ι) Ω: ὅπη in ὅπο aut ὅπο in ὅπη mut. Pc  βεβήκασιν O   ἅνδρες O?, coni. Matthiae: ἄ- VΛ  689n (ante τῆιδε) Ὀδ. VQ: ἡμιχ. L: [O]   689 τῆ(ι)δέ OL: πῆδέ V: τί δέ O   πηι om. O   κατίδομεν O   690n (ante ἕρπε) Χο. O: om.VΛ  690 αὐτοῦ O   690n (ante ἢ) Χο. VQ: ἡμιχ. O: paragr. L   691n nullam notam Λ: paragr. V: [O]   691 ἐν Q

117

677 680 681 678–9 682

685

690

ΡΗΣΟΣ

695

700

705

Χο.

τίς ἀνδρῶν ὁ βάς;[στρ.
 τίς ὁ μέγα θρασὺς ἐπεύξεται 
 χέρα ϕυγὼν ἐμάν; 
 πόθεν νιν κυρήσω; 
 τίνι προσεικάσω, 
 ὅστις δι’ ὄρϕνης ἦλθ’ ἀδειμάντωι ποδὶ 
 διά τε τάξεων καὶ ϕυλάκων ἕδρας; 
 Θεσσαλὸς ἢ παραλίαν Λοκρῶν νεμόμενος πόλιν; 
 ἢ νησιώτην σποράδα κέκτηται βίον; 
 τίς ἦν; πόθεν; ποίας πάτρας; 
 ποῖον ἐπεύχεται τὸν ὕπατον θεῶν;

— ἆρ’ ἔστ’ Ὀδυσσέως τοὔργον ἢ τίνος τόδε; 
 — εἰ τοῖς πάροιθε χρὴ τεκμαίρεσθαι· τί μήν; 
 — δοκεῖς γάρ; — τί μὴν οὔ; 
 — θρασὺς γοῦν ἐς ἡμᾶς. 
 — τίν’ ἀλκὴν τίν’ αἰνεῖς; — Ὀδυσσῆ. 
 — μὴ κλωπὸς αἴνει ϕωτὸς αἱμύλον δόρυ. 692 om. Q   692n Χο. Tr3: paragr. L: om. V: [O]   693 μέγας V   θρασὺς Madvig: θράσος Ω  694 χέρα Hn, coni. Musgrave: χεῖρα Ω  696 om. O  697 δι᾽ OΛ: δ᾽ V  ὄρφνης Δ: ‑ας Λ  ἀδιμάντωι Q  702 πόθεν Hermann: πόθεν ἢ O: ἢ πόθεν ἐστὶν ἢ V: ἢ πόθεν ἐστὶν; ἐκ Q: γὰρ· ἢ πόθεν ἐστὶν· ἢ P: ἢ πόθεν ἢ (del. etiam ἦν) Tr3  ποίας VΛ: τίνος O   703 ποῖον Δ: ὁποῖον Λ  ἐπεύχεται Hermann: εὔχ- Ω: δ᾽ εὔχ- Porson, Bothe   704n ἡμιχ. ΔQ: Χο. L  704 ὀδυσσέως Λ: -σ- Δ et LcP  705n nullam notam VΛ: ἡμιχ. Tr2/3: Χο. O   705 πάροιθε O?Λ: -εν V   τί μήν O: τιμήν L: τί μή Q et Tr2: om. V   706n (ante δοκεῖς) ἡμιχ. O: paragr. VL: om. Q   706 δοκεῖ O   706n (ante τί) Χο. O: paragr. VL: spat. Q   706 τιμὴν L?P (~ Tr2/3?)  707n ἡμιχ. O: paragr. VL: om. Q   707 ἐς Λ: εἰς Δ  708n (ante τίν᾽) Χο. O: paragr. VL: om. Q   708 τίν᾽ (prius) Δ: τίς Λ  708n (ante Ὀδ-) ἡμιχ. O: paragr. VL: spat. Q   708 ὀδυσσῆ VL: -σῆ O et LcP: -σσεῖ Q   709n paragr. VL: om. Q: [O]   709 αἱμύλον fere Λ (αἴμυλ- Q): -ου ΔgBgE  

118

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Χο.

ἔβα καὶ πάρος[ἀντ. κατὰ πόλιν ὕπαϕρον ὄμμ’ ἔχων, 
 ῥακοδύτωι στολᾶι 
 πυκασθείς, ξιϕήρης 
 κρύϕιος ἐν πέπλοις· 
 βίον δ’ ἐπαιτῶν εἷρπ’ ἀγύρτης τις λάτρις, 
 ψαϕαρόχρουν κάρα πολυπινές τ’ ἔχων· 
 πολλὰ δὲ τὰν βασιλίδ’ ἑστίαν Ἀτρειδᾶν κακῶς 
 ἔβαζε δῆθεν ἐχθρὸς ὢν στρατηλάταις. ὄλοιτ’ ὄλοιτο πανδίκως, 
 πρὶν ἐπὶ γᾶν Φρυγῶν ποδὸς ἴχνος βαλεῖν.

— εἴτ’ οὖν Ὀδυσσέως εἴτε μή, ϕόβος μ’ ἔχει. 
 — Ἕκτωρ γὰρ ἡμῖν τοῖς ϕύλαξι μέμψεται. — τί λάσκων; — δυσοίζων ... 
 — τί δρᾶσαι; τί ταρβεῖς; 
 — καθ’ ἡμᾶς περᾶσαι ... — τίν’ ἀνδρῶν; 
 — οἳ τῆσδε νυκτὸς ἦλθον ἐς Φρυγῶν στρατόν. ΗΝΙΟΧΟΣ

ἰὼ ἰώ· δαίμονος τύχη βαρεῖα· ϕεῦ ϕεῦ.

710n Χο. Tr3: paragr. VL: om. Q: [O]   711 πόλιν Δ et Tr2?: πτ- PQ et Tr3  712 ἐν ῥακ- P (~ Tr2/3)   στολᾶ(ι) Δ: -ῆ(ι) Λ  714 κρύφιος Bothe, denuo Morstadt: κρυφαῖος Ω  715 ἀγύρτης τις Tr1: ἀγύρτης Λ: ἀγύρτις V   λάτρης Q   716 κάρα Λ: κράτα V   πολυπινές Tr(1?)s: -νῆ Ω  717 τὰν V: τὴν Λ  718 ἀτρειδᾶν V: -ῶν Λ  720n notam erasam L: ἡμιχ. VQ   721 γᾶν Λ: γᾶ VgE   722n paragr. V: Χο. L: om. Q   722 ὀδυσσέως ΛP: -σ- V et Lc  722 sic interpunxi  723n paragr. V: nullam notam Λ    723 μέμψεται Λ: -φεται V   724n (ante τί) paragr. VL: om. Q   (ante δυσοίζων) paragr. VL: spat. Q   725–7n (quater) paragr. VL: om. Q   725 δρᾶσαι Dindorf: δρᾶς Ω: δρᾶς δὴ Tr1  728n Ἡνίοχος Dindorf: Οἰκέτης Ῥήσου in ras. Tr3: [L]: om. VQ   728a ἰὼ ἰώ Q: ἰώ VL   728b τύχη Kirchhoff: τύχα Ω    φεῦ φεῦ om. Q (~ Qr)  

119

710

715

720

725

ΡΗΣΟΣ 730

735

740

745

750

Χο. Ην. 
 Ην. Χο. Ην. Χο. Ην.

ἔα ἔα· σῖγα πᾶς ὕϕιζ’· ἴσως γὰρ ἐς βόλον τις ἔρχεται. ἰὼ ἰώ· συμϕορὰ βαρεῖα Θρηικῶν. Χο. συμμάχων τις ὁ στένων. ἰὼ ἰώ· δύστηνος ἐγὼ σύ τ’ ἄναξ Θρηικῶν· ὦ στυγνοτάτην Τροίαν ἐσιδών, 
 οἷόν σε βίου τέλος εἷλεν. 
 τίς εἶ ποτ’ ἀνδρῶν συμμάχων; κατ’ εὐϕρόνην 
 ἀμβλῶπες αὐγαὶ κοὔ σε γιγνώσκω τορῶς. ποῦ τιν’ ἀνάκτων Τρώων εὕρω; 
 ποῦ δῆθ’ Ἕκτωρ τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κοῖτον ἰαύει; 
 τίνι σημήνω διόπων στρατιᾶς 
 οἷα πεπόνθαμεν, οἷά τις ἡμᾶς 
 δράσας ἀϕανῆ ϕροῦδος, ϕανερὸν 
 Θρηιξὶν πένθος τολυπεύσας; 
 κακὸν κυρεῖν τι Θρηικίωι στρατεύματι 
 ἔοικεν, οἷα τοῦδε γιγνώσκω κλύων. 
 ἔρρει στρατιά, πέπτωκεν ἄναξ δολίωι πληγῆι. ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ, οἵα μ’ ὀδύνη τείρει ϕονίου τραύματος εἴσω. πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμην; 


729n Χο. Tr3: paragr. V et Tr3 (primitus) pot. qu. L: om. LuvQ  729 ἔα ἔα V et Qr: ἔα Λ  730 σῖγα Dindorf: σίγα VQ: σιγᾶ L   730n (post πᾶς) nullam notam Dindorf: Χο. Ω: ἡμιχ. Tr3  730 ὕφιζ᾽ Reiske, praeeunte Barnes: ὕφιζος V: ὕβριζ᾽ Λ  ἴσως γὰρ εἰς βόλον Q et Tr3: ἴσως γὰρ εἰσβολή L: εἰς βόλoν γὰρ ἴσως V   731n paragr. V: ἡμιχ. L: om. Q   731 ἰὼ ἰώ V: ἰώ Λ: ὦ Tr1  732n (ante συμμάχων) Χο. Hermann: (post συμ-) ἡμιχ. L, paragr. V: om. Q   732 τις Hermann: τίς Ω  733an paragr. V: Οἰκέτης in ras. Tr3: [L]: om. Q   733a ἰὼ ἰώ V: ἰώ Q et Tr3: ὦ P   734 ὦ V et Tr2/3: ἰὼ P: ὡς Q   στυγνοτάταν Q   ἐσιδών Tr3: εἰσ- PQ: ἰδών V   737 τορῶς] γ᾽ ὅλως Q (~ Qγρ et Chr. Pat. 2177)   738n Οἰκέτης in ras. Tr3: [L]: ἡμιχ. VQ   738 Τρώων Diggle (Τρώιων iam Hermann): τρωϊκῶν Ω  741 σημήνω V et Tr3: σημανῶ PQ   διόπων Portus: διοπῶν Tr3: δι᾽ ὀπῶν V: διοπτῶν Λ  747n Ἡν. VQ: Οἰκέτης in ras. Tr3: [L]   748–9 ἆ quater L, ter Q: ἂ ter V   751 πῶς V: πῶς δ᾽ Λ  ὀλοίμην VQ: -μαν L  

120

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Χο.

χρῆν γάρ μ’ ἀκλεῶς Ῥῆσόν τε θανεῖν, 
 Τροίαι κέλσαντ’ ἐπίκουρον; 
 τάδ’ οὐκ ἐν αἰνιγμοῖσι σημαίνει κακά· 
 σαϕῶς γὰρ αὐδᾶι συμμάχους ὀλωλότας.

Ην.

κακῶς πέπρακται κἀπὶ τοῖς κακοῖσι πρὸς 
 αἴσχιστα. καίτοι δὶς τόσον κακὸν τόδε· 
 θανεῖν γὰρ εὐκλεῶς μέν, εἰ θανεῖν χρεών, 
 λυπρὸν μέν, οἶμαι, τῶι θανόντι — πῶς γὰρ οὔ; — τοῖς ζῶσι δ’ ὄγκος καὶ δόμων εὐδοξία· 
 ἡμεῖς δ’ ἀβούλως κἀκλεῶς ὀλώλαμεν. 
 ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ηὔνασ’ Ἑκτόρεια χείρ, 
 ξύνθημα λέξας, ηὕδομεν πεδοστιβεῖ 
 κόπωι δαμέντες, οὐδ’ ἐϕρουρεῖτο στρατὸς 
 ϕυλακαῖσι νυκτέροισιν οὐδ’ ἐν τάξεσιν 
 ἔκειτο τεύχη πλῆκτρά τ’ οὐκ ἐπὶ ζυγοῖς 
 ἵππων καθήρμοσθ’, ὡς ἄναξ ἐπεύθετο 
 κρατοῦντας ὑμᾶς κἀϕεδρεύοντας νεῶν 
 πρύμναισι· ϕαύλως δ’ ηὕδομεν πεπτωκότες. κἀγὼ μελούσηι καρδίαι λήξας ὕπνου 
 πώλοισι χόρτον, προσδοκῶν ἑωθινὴν 
 ζεύξειν ἐς ἀλκήν, ἀϕθόνωι μετρῶ χερί. 
 λεύσσω δὲ ϕῶτε περιπολοῦνθ’ ἡμῶν στρατὸν 
 πυκνῆς δι’ ὄρϕνης· ὡς δ’ ἐκινήθην ἐγώ, 
 ἐπτηξάτην τε κἀνεχωρείτην πάλιν. 


753 κέλσαντ᾽ L: -τες V: κελεύσαντ᾽ Q   754 ἐν om. Q   755 αὐδᾶ(ι) Λ: -ᾶς V  756n Ἡν. VQ: ἡμιχ. L   757 καὶ σοὶ gV   759 μὲν] γὰρ Q (~ Q1c)  762 ηὔνασ᾽ Ἑκτόρεια χείρ Dindorf: εὔνασ᾽ ἑκτορεία (-ία L?P, ~ Lc?) χείρ Λ: ἑκτορέα χεὶρ εὔνασε V   763 ξύν- Λ: σύν- V   ηὕδ- Dindorf: εὕδ- Ω  πεδοστιβεῖ Morstadt: -εῖς Ω et fere Chr. Pat. 1852 (-ής)  764 κόπωι VQ: κόμπω L   765 τάξεσι(ν) Λ: -αισιν V   767 ἐπεύθετο Λ: ἐπύθ- V   768 ἡμᾶς Q   νεῶν Λ: νηῶν V  769 πρύμναισι Λ: -ησι V  ηὕδομεν Dindorf: εὑδ- Ω  770 μελλούσηι Q  λήξας Λ et V1c: ζήλας V  772 ἐς V: πρὸς Λ  μετρῶ Luv et ΣV: μέτρω(ι) VQ et Tr1uvP  773 λεύσω V   φῶτα Q   στρατόν Λ: ‑ῶ V   775 -είτην Λ: -ήτην V  

121

755

760

765

770

775

ΡΗΣΟΣ

780

785

790

795



ἤπυσα δ’ αὐτοῖς μὴ πελάζεσθαι στρατῶι, 
 κλῶπας δοκήσας συμμάχων πλάθειν τινάς. 
 οἱ δ’ οὐδέν· οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐγὼ τὰ πλείονα· 
 ηὗδον δ’ ἀπελθὼν αὖθις ἐς κοίτην πάλιν. καί μοι καθ’ ὕπνον δόξα τις παρίσταται· 
 ἵππους γὰρ ἃς ἔθρεψα κἀδιϕρηλάτουν 
 Ῥήσωι παρεστὼς εἶδον, ὡς ὄναρ δοκῶν, 
 λύκους ἐπεμβεβῶτας ἑδραίαν ῥάχιν· 
 θείνοντε δ’ οὐρᾶι πωλικῆς ῥινοῦ τρίχα 
 ἤλαυνον, αἱ δ’ ἔρρεγκον ἐξ ἀρτηριῶν 
 θυμὸν πνέουσαι κἀνεχαίτιζον ϕόβωι. 
 ἐγὼ δ’ ἀμύνων θῆρας ἐξεγείρομαι 
 πώλοισιν· ἔννυχος γὰρ ἐξώρμα ϕόβος. 
 κλύω δ’ ἐπάρας κρᾶτα μυχθισμὸν νεκρῶν· θερμὸς δὲ κρουνὸς δεσπότου παρὰ σϕαγῆς 
 βάλλει με δυσθνήισκοντος αἵματος νέου. 
 ὀρθὸς δ’ ἀνάισσω χειρὶ σὺν κενῆι δορός· 
 καί μ’ ἔγχος αὐγάζοντα καὶ θηρώμενον 
 παίει παραστὰς νεῖραν ἐς πλευρὰν ξίϕει 
 ἀνὴρ ἀκμάζων· ϕασγάνου γὰρ ἠισθόμην 
 πληγῆς, βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα τραύματος λαβών. 
 πίπτω δὲ πρηνής· οἱ δ’ ὄχημα πωλικὸν 
 λαβόντες ἵππων ἵεσαν ϕυγῆι πόδα. 


776, 775, 780–1, 777–9 hoc ordine V1c (litteris adscriptis)   776 ἤπυσα Λ: ἀπ- V   αὐτοῖς Λ: -οὺς V   πελάζεσθαι Λ: πλάθειν V   778 οὐδ᾽ V: οἶδ᾽ Λ  779 ηὗδον Dindorf: εὕδ- Ω  ἐς V: εἰς Λ   781 om. spat. vac. relicto V, add. ΣV  ἃς Λ: οὓς ΣV  κἀδ‑ Q et ΣV: καὶ ἐδ- : καὶ δ- L1c vel Tr1  783 ῥάχιν Λ: ῥοήν V  784 θείνοντε L: -τες VQ  δ᾽ om. V  τρίχα om. V  785 ἔρρ‑ Nauck: ἐρ‑ Ω  ἀρτηριῶν Musgrave: ἀντηρίδων fere Ω (ἐξαντ‑ VQ)  786 πνέουσαι Λ: πνεί- V   φόβην Reiske   787 ἀμείνων Q   788 ἐξόρμα Q   789 μυχθισμὸν V et ΣL (in textu) et iΣL (in marg.): -ῶν Λ  790 σφαγῆς Musgrave: -αῖς Ω et ΣV, quo servato πάρα Hermann (παρὰ Λ, παραV et ΣV), insolenti verborum ordine   792–835 om., 812–35 post 855 add. deinde del. V  792 ὀρθὸς Hn: -ῶς Ω  ἀναΐσω Q  794 νεῖραν Bothe: νείαιραν Ω: cf. Chr. Pat. 1213 νύσσει παραστὰς νειάτην πλευρὰν ξ‑   πλευρὰν Va et Chr. Pat.: -οῦ Λ  795 ἀὴρ Q  

122

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Χο. Εκ.

ἆ ἆ· ὀδύνη με τείρει κοὐκέτ’ ὀρθοῦμαι τάλας. καὶ ξυμϕορὰν μὲν οἶδ’ ὁρῶν, τρόπωι δ’ ὅτωι 
 τεθνᾶσιν οἱ θανόντες οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι 
 οὐδ’ ἐξ ὁποίας χειρός. εἰκάσαι δέ μοι 
 πάρεστι λυπρὰ πρὸς ϕίλων πεπονθέναι. 
 ἡνίοχε Θρηικὸς τοῦ κακῶς πεπραγότος, 
 μηδὲν δυσοίζου· πολέμιοι ’δρασαν τάδε. 
 Ἕκτωρ δὲ καὐτὸς συμϕορᾶς πεπυσμένος 
 χωρεῖ· συναλγεῖ δ’, ὡς ἔοικε, σοῖς κακοῖς. 
 πῶς, ὦ μέγιστα πήματ’ ἐξειργασμένοι, 
 μολόντες ὑμᾶς πολεμίων κατάσκοποι λήθουσιν αἰσχρῶς καὶ κατεσϕάγη στρατός, 
 κοὔτ’ εἰσιόντας στρατόπεδ’ ἐξαπώσατε 
 οὔτ’ ἐξιόντας; τῶνδε τίς τείσει δίκην 
 πλὴν σοῦ; σὲ γὰρ δὴ ϕύλακά ϕημ’ εἶναι στρατοῦ. 
 ϕροῦδοι δ’ ἄπληκτοι, τῆι Φρυγῶν κακανδρίαι 
 πόλλ’ ἐγγελῶντες τῶι στρατηλάτηι τ’ ἐμοί. 
 εὖ νυν τόδ’ ἴστε — Ζεὺς ὀμώμοται πατήρ — ἤτοι μάραγνά γ’ ἢ καρανιστὴς μόρος 
 μένει σε δρῶντα τοιάδ’, ἢ τὸν Ἕκτορα 
 τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι καὶ κακὸν νομίζετε.

Xο.

ἰὼ ἰώ, 
 μέγα σύ μοι, μέγ᾽ ὦ πολίοχον κράτος, 
 τότ’ ἄρ’ ἔμολον ὅτε σοι 
 ἄγγελος ἦλθον ἀμϕὶ ναῦς πύρ’ αἴθειν· 


[ἀντ.

805 πολέμιοι ᾽δρασαν Murray (π- δρῶσιν iam Lenting, δρᾶσαν West): πολεμίους δρᾶσαι Ω  806 συμφορᾶς VaL: -ᾶι Q: -ὰς Lenting, -ὰν Wecklein  812 τείσει , coni. Murray: τίσει Q et L1c vel Tr1 et Chr. Pat. 2309 codd. plerique: δώσει V et Chr. Pat. pars codd.   816 νυν L: νῦν VQ   ὀμώμοται Buttmann: -οσται Ω  817 ἤτοι VQ et Tr1 et ΣL: ἢ L   μάραγνά Barnes: μαράγνα Ω et ΣL  818 μένει V: μενεῖ Λ  820n om. Q   821 μοι Tr1  μέγα σύ μοι μέγ᾽ ὦ Nauck: μέγας ἐμοὶ μέγας ὦ Ω  πολίοχον Vater: -οῦχον Ω  822 ἔμολον VQ et Tr1s: ἔμολ᾽ Tr1  823 ἀμφὶ VQ: περὶ P et aut Tr1 (~ L) aut L (rescr. Tr2)   ναῦς Badham: ναυσὶ Ω  πύρ᾽ αἴθειν Reiske: πυραίθειν Ω  ἀργείων στρατόν quae post πυραίθειν habet Ω del. Badham,

123

800

805

810

815

820

ΡΗΣΟΣ 825

830

835

840

845

ἐπεὶ ἄγρυπνον ὄμμ’ ἐν εὐϕρόναι 
 οὔτ’ ἐκοίμισ’ οὔτ’ ἔβριξ’, 
 οὐ τὰς Σιμοεντιάδας παγάς· μή μοι κότον, ὦ ἄνα, θῆις· ἀναίτιος γὰρ 
 †ἔγωγε πάντων†. 
 εἰ δὲ χρόνωι παρὰ καιρὸν ἔργον ἢ λόγον πύθηι, κατά με γᾶς ζῶντα πόρευσον· οὐ παραιτοῦμαι. Ην.

τί τοῖσδ’ ἀπειλεῖς βάρβαρός τε βαρβάρου 
 γνώμην ὑϕαιρῆι τὴν ἐμήν, πλέκων λόγους; 
 σὺ ταῦτ’ ἔδρασας· οὐδέν’ ἂν δεξαίμεθα 
 οὔθ’ οἱ θανόντες οὔτ’ ἂν οἱ τετρωμένοι 
 ἄλλον· μακροῦ γε δεῖ σε καὶ σοϕοῦ λόγου, 
 ὅτωι με πείσεις μὴ ϕίλους κατακτανεῖν, 
 ἵππων ἐρασθείς, ὧν ἕκατι συμμάχους τοὺς σοὺς ϕονεύεις, πόλλ’ ἐπισκήπτων μολεῖν. 
 ἦλθον, τεθνᾶσιν· εὐπρεπέστερον Πάρις 
 ξενίαν κατήισχυν’ ἢ σὺ συμμάχους κτανών. 
 μὴ γάρ τι λέξηις ὥς τις Ἀργείων μολὼν 
 διώλεσ’ ἡμᾶς· τίς ἂν ὑπερβαλὼν λόχους 
 Τρώων ἐϕ’ ἡμᾶς ἦλθεν, ὥστε καὶ λαθεῖν; 
 σὺ πρόσθεν ἡμῶν ἧσο καὶ Φρυγῶν στρατός. 
 τίς οὖν τέτρωται, τίς τέθνηκε †συμμάχων† 


Kirchhoff (στρατόν iam del. Tr1)  824 εὐφρόναι Diggle: -η(ι) Ω et Chr. Pat. 1840, 2331   825 ἔβριξα L et iΣQ: ἔβρισ᾽ VQ et Chr. Pat. 1853, 2332   826 οὐ Hermann: οὐ μὰ Ω  Σιμοεντιάδας Hermann: -ίδας Ω  παγάς Badham: πη- Ω  827 ὦ ἄνα VQ: ὦ ἄναξ P: ὦ ῎ναξ Tr2/3  828 ἔγωγε VQ: ἐγὼ Tr1  πάντων πάντηι (praestat πάνται) ἔγωγε Nauck   829 παράκαιρον Vater   830 ἔργον V: ἔργ᾽ L: ἔργα Q   με γᾶς Barnes: με γᾶ(ι) VQ: γᾶς με Tr1  831–2 οὐ γὰρ Tr1  833n Ἡν. VQ: ἡμιχ. L   834 ἀφαιρῆι Chr. Pat. 2324   835 οὐδέν᾽ L: οὐδὲν VQ et Chr. Pat. 2323   836 θανόντες V: μαθόντες Λ  841 ηλθε. [ Π3  842 σὺ om. Q   843 λέξη(ι)ς Λ: ‑εις V   ὥς τις VL: ὅστις Q   844 ἂν Nauck: δ᾽ Ω, quo servato 845 ἦλθ᾽ ἄν Beck  846 σὺ (Π3ac)VΛ: ου Π3pc  847‑8 συγγενῶν | τῶν σῶν vel ἐν λόχωι | τῶι σῶι Murray  

124

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Εκ. Ην. Εκ. Ην. Εκ.

τῶν σῶν, μολόντων ὧν σὺ πολεμίων λέγεις; 
 ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ τετρώμεθ’, οἱ δὲ μειζόνως παθόντες οὐχ ὁρῶσιν ἡλίου ϕάος. 
 ἁπλῶς δ’ Ἀχαιῶν οὐδέν’ αἰτιώμεθα. 
 τίς δ’ ἂν χαμεύνας πολεμίων κατ’ εὐϕρόνην 
 Ῥήσου μολὼν ἐξηῦρεν, εἰ μή τις θεῶν 
 ἔϕραζε τοῖς κτανοῦσιν; οὐδ’ ἀϕιγμένον 
 τὸ πάμπαν ἦισαν· ἀλλὰ μηχαναὶ τάδε. 
 χρόνον μὲν ἤδη συμμάχοισι χρώμεθα 
 ὅσονπερ ἐν γῆι τῆιδ’ Ἀχαιικὸς λεώς, 
 κοὐδὲν πρὸς αὐτῶν οἶδα πλημμελὲς κλυών· 
 ἐν σοὶ δ’ ἂν ἀρχοίμεσθα. μή μ’ ἔρως ἕλοι τοιοῦτος ἵππων ὥστ’ ἀποκτείνειν ϕίλους. 
 καὶ ταῦτ’ Ὀδυσσεύς· τίς γὰρ ἄλλος ἄν ποτε 
 ἔδρασεν ἢ ’βούλευσεν Ἀργείων ἀνήρ; 
 δέδοικα δ’ αὐτὸν καί τί μου θράσσει ϕρένας, 
 μὴ καὶ Δόλωνα συντυχὼν κατέκτανεν· 
 χρόνον γὰρ ἤδη ϕροῦδος ὢν οὐ ϕαίνεται. 
 οὐκ οἶδα τοὺς σοὺς οὓς λέγεις Ὀδυσσέας· 
 ἡμεῖς δ’ ὑπ’ ἐχθρῶν οὐδενὸς πεπλήγμεθα. 
 σὺ δ’ οὖν νόμιζε ταῦτ’, ἐπείπερ σοι δοκεῖ. 
 ὦ γαῖα πατρίς, πῶς ἂν ἐνθάνοιμί σοι; μὴ θνῆισχ’· ἅλις γὰρ τῶν τεθνηκότων ὄχλος. 


848 ὧν Bothe: ὡς Ω  849 μείζονα Elmsley   851 ἀχαιῶν Λ: -οὺς V   οὐδέν᾽ Λ: οὐδὲν V   αἰτιώμεσθα Q   852 ἂν Q et ΣV: αὖ VL et 1ΣV  853 ἐξηῦρεν Dindorf: ἐξεῦρεν Ω  854 ἀφιγμένοι Q (~ Orus B 77 = Et. Gen. AB, Suda η 573, EM 439.3)   855 ἦ(ι)σαν VQ et iΣVL et Et. Gen., Suda, EM: ἶσαν lΣL: ἴσαν in ἶσαν aut ἶσ‑ in ἴσ- mut. L1c vel Tr   μηχαναὶ Et. Gen. B (deest A), coni. Musgrave: -ᾶ(ι) Ω  857 ἀχαιικὸς Λ: -αϊκὸς VAf   858 κοὐδὲν VΛ: οὐδὲν gE: [Af]  πλημελὲς (-μμ- L1c) οἶδα L κλυών West: κλύων Ω  859 δ᾽ ἂν ἀρχοίμε(σ)θα VL (-μεθα V): δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀρχ- Q: δ᾽ ἀρ[χοίμε]σθα Af?  ἕληι Q  860 τοσοῦτος Wecklein  861 καὶ] ἦ Dawe  ὀδυσσεύς ΛAf: ‑σ‑ V: ‑σσέως Fix   863 αὐτὸν ΛgE: -τῶν V: -τοῦ Af?  864 κατέκτανεν Matthiae: κατακτάνη(ι) Ω  866 ὀδυσέας V   867 ἀπ᾽ Q   868 post 869 (ambos Hectori tributos) Af    868 δ᾽ οὖν ΛAf: δὲ V: δὴ Va: γοῦν Chr. Pat. 2376  869n, 870n om. Q   869 ἐνθάνοιμι VL: θάν- Q: ]άν- Af   

125

850

855

860

865

870

ΡΗΣΟΣ

875

880

885

Ην. Εκ. Ην. Εκ. Ην. Εκ.

ποῖ δὴ τράπωμαι δεσπότου μονούμενος; 
 οἶκός σε κεύθων οὑμὸς ἐξιάσεται. 
 καὶ πῶς με κηδεύσουσιν αὐθεντῶν χέρες; 
 ὅδ’ αὖ τὸν αὐτὸν μῦθον οὐ λήξει λέγων; 
 ὄλοιθ’ ὁ δράσας· οὐ γὰρ εἰς σὲ τείνεται 
 γλῶσσ’, ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς· ἡ Δίκη δ’ ἐπίσταται. 
 λάζυσθ’· ἄγοντες αὐτὸν ἐς δόμους ἐμοὺς 
 οὕτως ὅπως ἂν μὴ ’γκαλῆι πορσύνετε. 
 ὑμᾶς δ’ ἰόντας τοῖσιν ἐν τείχει χρεὼν Πριάμωι τε καὶ γέρουσι σημῆναι νεκροὺς 
 θάπτειν κελεύθου λεωϕόρου πρὸς ἐκτροπάς. 


Χο.

τί ποτ’ εὐτυχίας ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης 
 Τροίαν ἀνάγει πάλιν ἐς πένθη 
 δαίμων ἄλλος, τί ϕυτεύων; 
 ἔα ἔα· 
 τίς ὑπὲρ κεϕαλῆς θεός, ὦ βασιλεῦ, 
 τὸν νεόκμητον νεκρὸν ἐν χειροῖν 
 ϕοράδην πέμπει; 
 ταρβῶ λεύσσων τόδε πῆμα.

ΜΟΥΣΑ 890



ὁρᾶν πάρεστι, Τρῶες· ἡ γὰρ ἐν σοϕοῖς 
 τιμὰς ἔχουσα Μοῦσα συγγόνων μία 


871 δὴ Porson: δὲ VΛ: ν[ῦν Af?  τράπωμαι VQ: -ομαι L: [Af]   872 οἶκος VΛ: ὁ μαῖκος Af   873 κηδεύσουσιν ΛAf?: -σωσιν V: utrumque Chr. Pat. 1125  874 λέξων Af    interrogationis nota dist. Diggle   875–6 ὄλοιθ᾽ ὁ δράσας· ἡ Δίκη ἐπίσταται ceteris omissis Chr. Pat. 276   post 875 vel post 876 γλῶσσ᾽ lacunam stat. West   875 εἰς σὲ fere ΛAf (εἴς σε Q): εἰσέτι V   877 Morstadt (~ Chr. Pat. 1446)   878 ᾽γκαλῆ(ι) ΛAfuv: κ- V   πορσύνεται Af   881 κελεύθου Dobree: κελεύειν Ω  λεωφόρου Afuv et Vgl, coni. Vater: λαοφόρου Λ, -ους V   883 ἀνάγει Af, coni. Heath: ἄγει VL: ἄγοι Q   πένθη VΛ: πένθως pot. qu. -θος Af    884 ἄλλος, τί Tyrwhitt: ἄλλό τι Λ: ἄλλοτε V ]τι Af    885 ἔα ἔα Dindorf: ἔα ἔα ὦ ὦ fere VQ et Tr3 (ἔα ἔα ω ω V): om. L   887 νεόκμητον Λ: νεόχμ- V: νεόδμ- Va et Chr. Pat. 1456   χειροῖν Valckenaer: χεροῖν Ω   889 om. L   λεύσσων Q: ‑σ‑ V  

126

ΡΗΣΟΣ



πάρειμι, παῖδα τόνδ’ ὁρῶσ’ οἰκτρῶς ϕίλον 
 θανόνθ’ ὑπ’ ἐχθρῶν· ὅν ποθ’ ὁ κτείνας χρόνωι 
 δόλιος Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀξίαν τείσει δίκην.

ἰαλέμωι αὐθιγενεῖ[στρ. τέκνον σ’ ὀλοϕύρομαι, ὦ 
 ματρὸς ἄλγος, οἵαν 
 ἔκελσας ὁδὸν ποτὶ Τροίαν 
 — ἦ δυσδαίμονα καὶ μελέαν — ἀπὸ μὲν ϕαμένας ἐμοῦ πορευθείς, ἀπὸ δ’ ἀντομένου πατρὸς βιαίως. 
 ὤμοι ἐγὼ σέθεν, ὦ ϕιλία 
 ϕιλία κεϕαλά, τέκνον, ὤμοι. Χο. ὅσον προσήκει μὴ γένους κοινωνίαν 
 ἔχοντι λύπης τὸν σὸν οἰκτίρω γόνον. 
 Μο. ὄλοιτο μὲν Οἰνεΐδας, 
 ὄλοιτο δὲ Λαρτιάδας, 
 ὅς μ’ ἄπαιδα γέννας 
 ἔθηκεν ἀριστοτόκοιο· ἅ θ’ Ἕλλανα λιποῦσα δόμον 
 Φρυγίων λεχέων ἔπλευσε πλαθεῖσ’, 
 †ὑπ’ Ἱλίωι ὤλεσε† μὲν σ’ ἕκατι Τροίας, 
 ϕίλτατε, μυριάδας τε πόλεις 
 ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐκένωσεν.

900

905

[ἀντ.

894 ὀδυσεὺς V   τείσει Murray: τίσει Ω et Chr. Pat. 277, 786   898–9 parenthesin indicavi  899 ἦ fere Λ (ἦι Q): ἢ V   900 ἀπὸ μὲν φαμένας Dindorf: ἀπομεμφομένας V: -μεμψαμένας L: ‑πεψαμένας Q et Tr1s  904 ὅσηι (et 905 λύπηι) Wecklein (~ Chr. Pat. 1159)   γένος Q (~ Chr. Pat. 1159, 1282)  905 λύπης Kirchhoff: -η L: -ην VQ   οἰκτίρω Murray: -ει- Ω  906 Οἰνεΐδας Aldina: -είδας VL: -ίδας Q   907 Λαρτιάδας Heath: λαρτιάδης V: λαρτίδας P: λαερτίδας Q et Tr3  909 ἔθηκ᾽ L (~ Tr3)   ἀριστοτόκοιο Aldina: -τοτόκου VL: -τόκου Q  910 Ἕλλανα Badham: ἑλένα Ω  912 ὅπου ὤλεσε Wilamowitz, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ὤλεσε Henning (ἀπό τ᾽ Wecklein), ἃ διώλεσε Jackson   σ᾽ ἕκατι Bruhn: σε κατὰ Ω  913 μυριάδος vel μυριάδων Ritchie   πόλεων Reiske  

127

895

910

ΡΗΣΟΣ 915

920

925

930

935



ἦ πολλὰ μὲν ζῶν, πολλὰ δ’ εἰς ῞Αιδου μολών, 
 Φιλάμμονος παῖ, τῆς ἐμῆς ἥψω ϕρενός· 
 ὕβρις γάρ, ἥ σ’ ἔσϕηλε, καὶ Μουσῶν ἔρις 
 τεκεῖν μ’ ἔθηκε τόνδε δύστηνον γόνον. 
 περῶσα γὰρ δὴ ποταμίους διὰ ῥοὰς λέκτροις ἐπλάθην Στρυμόνος ϕυταλμίοις, 
 ὅτ’ ἤλθομεν γῆς χρυσόβωλον ἐς λέπας 
 Πάγγαιον ὀργάνοισιν ἐξησκημέναι 
 Μοῦσαι μεγίστην εἰς ἔριν μελωιδίας 
 κλεινῶι σοϕιστῆι Θρηικὶ κἀτυϕλώσαμεν 
 Θάμυριν, ὃς ἡμῶν πόλλ’ ἐδέννασεν τέχνην. 
 κἀπεί σε τίκτω, συγγόνους αἰδουμένη 
 καὶ παρθενείαν, ἧκ’ ἐς εὐύδρου πατρὸς 
 δίνας· τρέϕειν δέ σ’ οὐ βρότειον ἐς χέρα 
 Στρυμὼν δίδωσιν ἀλλὰ πηγαίαις κόραις. ἔνθ’ ἐκτραϕεὶς κάλλιστα παρθένων ὕπο, 
 Θρήικης ἀνάσσων πρῶτος ἦσθ’ ἀνδρῶν, τέκνον. 
 καί σ’ ἀμϕὶ γῆν μὲν πατρίαν ϕιλαιμάτους 
 ἀλκὰς κορύσσοντ’ οὐκ ἐδείμαινον θανεῖν· 
 Τροίας δ’ ἀπηύδων ἄστυ μὴ κέλσαι ποτέ, 
 εἰδυῖα τὸν σὸν πότμον· ἀλλά σ’ Ἕκτορος 
 πρεσβεύμαθ’ αἵ τε μυρίαι γερουσίαι 
 ἔπεισαν ἐλθεῖν κἀπικουρῆσαι ϕίλοις. 
 καὶ τοῦδ’, Ἀθάνα, παντὸς αἰτία μόρου — 
 οὐδὲν δ’ Ὀδυσσεὺς οὐδ’ ὁ Τυδέως τόκος

915 ἦ fere Λ (ἦι Q) et Chr. Pat. 1338 pars codd.: ἢ V   917 σφ᾽ Q   919 διὰ ῥοάς Dindorf: διαρροάς Ω  920 ἐπλάσθην Q   φυλταμίοις V   922 ἐξησκημένοι L  924 κλεινῶι Dobree: κείνω(ι) Ω: δεινῶι Valckenaer κἀτυφλώσαμεν Hn: κἀκτ- Ω  925 ἐδένναζεν Wecklein   926 συγγόνως Q (~ Q1c)  927 παρθενείαν L: -ίαν VQ   εὐύδρου Λ: ἐΰδ‑ V   928 σ᾽ VL: γ᾽ Q   βρότειον Elmsley: βροτείαν Ω et Chr. Pat. 1348   ἐς χέρα V: ἐσχάραν Λ et Chr. Pat.   932 φιλαίματος Q (φιλαιμάτους Q1c)  937 ἔπεισ᾽ ἀνελθεῖν Q   κἀπικυρῆσαι V   938 καὶ] σὺ Kirchhoff   939 ὀδυσεὺς V   οὐδ᾽ ὁ Λ: οὐδὲ V  

128

ΡΗΣΟΣ

Χο. Εκ. Μο.

ἔδρασε — δρῶσα μὴ δόκει λεληθέναι. 
 καίτοι πόλιν σὴν σύγγονοι πρεσβεύομεν 
 Μοῦσαι μάλιστα κἀπιχρώμεθα χθονί, 
 μυστηρίων τε τῶν ἀπορρήτων ϕανὰς 
 ἔδειξεν Ὀρϕεύς, αὐτανέψιος νεκροῦ 
 τοῦδ’ ὃν κατέκτεινας σύ· Μουσαῖόν τε, σὸν 
 σεμνὸν πολίτην κἀπὶ πλεῖστον ἄνδρ’ ἕνα 
 ἐλθόντα, Φοῖβος σύγγονοί τ’ ἠσκήσαμεν. 
 καὶ τῶνδε μισθὸν παῖδ’ ἔχουσ’ ἐν ἀγκάλαις 
 θρηνῶ· σοϕιστὴν δ’ ἄλλον οὐκ ἐπάξομαι. μάτην ἄρ’ ἡμᾶς Θρήικιος τροχηλάτης 
 ἐδέννασ’, Ἕκτορ, τῶιδε βουλεῦσαι ϕόνον. 
 ἤιδη τάδ’· οὐδὲν μάντεων ἔδει ϕράσαι 
 Ὀδυσσέως τέχναισι τόνδ’ ὀλωλότα. 
 ἐγὼ δὲ γῆς ἔϕεδρον Ἑλλήνων στρατὸν 
 λεύσσων, τί μὴν ἔμελλον οὐ πέμψειν ϕίλοις 
 κήρυκας, ἐλθεῖν κἀπικουρῆσαι χθονί; 
 ἔπεμψ’· ὀϕείλων δ’ ἦλθε συμπονεῖν ἐμοί. 
 οὐ μὴν θανόντι γ’ οὐδαμῶς συνήδομαι· 
 καὶ νῦν ἕτοιμος τῶιδε καὶ τεῦξαι τάϕον καὶ ξυμπυρῶσαι μυρίαν πέπλων χλιδήν· 
 ϕίλος γὰρ ἐλθὼν δυστυχῶς ἀπέρχεται. 
 οὐκ εἶσι γαίας ἐς μελάγχιμον πέδον· 


940 ἔδρασε — δρῶσα Lenting: ἔδρασε δράσας Ω (cf. Chr. Pat. 1411 ἔδρας ἔδρασας κτλ.): ἔδρασ᾽ — ἔδρασας Heath, quibus acceptis τοῦτ᾽ pro τοῦδ᾽ 938 Paley   post hunc versum desinunt VVa; spat. vac. relicto rursus in novo folio incipit Va   942 κἀπιχρώμεθα L: -μεσθα Q: χρώμεθα Va   943 φανάς Lobeck et Chr. Pat. 1387, 1400 pars codd.: φάνας Ω  945 ὃν κατέκτεινας σύ Cobet: οὖν κατακτείνασα Va: οὕνεκα κτείνασα Λ: ὃν κατακτείνεις σύ Bothe, ὃν κατέκτανες σύ Seager  946 πλεῖσθον Q (~ Q1c)  949 ἐπάξομεν Paley  950 τροχηλάτης Valckenaer: στρατηλάτης Ω: διφρηλάτης Portus  951 ἕκτορ Va: -ωρ Λ  φόνων Luv

(~ LcPc)  952n Ἕκ. Q: om. VaL  952 ἤδη Va: ἤ(ι)δειν Λ  μάντεων Va: -εως Λ  955 πέμπειν L (~ Tr2/3)  959 ἕτοιμος Λ et Chr. Pat. 1378: ἑτοίμως Va   960 ξυμ- Va: συμΛ  μυρίαν Wecklein: ‑ίων Ω et Chr. Pat. 1379   961 ἀποίχεται Vater   962 μελάγχιμον VagB: -χεῖμον Λ  

129

940

945

950

955

960

ΡΗΣΟΣ

965

970

975

980

985

Χο. Εκ.

τοσόνδε νύμϕην τὴν ἔνερθ’ αἰτήσομαι, 
 τῆς καρποποιοῦ παῖδα Δήμητρος θεᾶς, 
 ψυχὴν ἀνεῖναι τοῦδ’· ὀϕειλέτις δέ μοι 
 τοὺς Ὀρϕέως τιμῶσα ϕαίνεσθαι ϕίλους. 
 κἀμοὶ μὲν ὡς θανών τε κοὐ λεύσσων ϕάος 
 ἔσται τὸ λοιπόν· οὐ γὰρ ἐς ταὐτόν ποτε 
 ἔτ’ εἶσιν οὐδὲ μητρὸς ὄψεται δέμας· κρυπτὸς δ’ ἐν ἄντροις τῆς ὑπαργύρου χθονὸς 
 ἀνθρωποδαίμων κείσεται βλέπων ϕάος, 
 Βάκχου προϕήτης, ὅς γε Παγγαίου πέτραν 
 ὤικησε, σεμνὸς τοῖσιν εἰδόσιν θεός. 
 ῥᾶιον δὲ πένθος τῆς θαλασσίας θεοῦ 
 οἴσω· θανεῖν γὰρ καὶ τὸν ἐκ κείνης χρεών. 
 θρήνοις δ’ ἀδελϕαὶ πρῶτα μὲν σ’ ὑμνήσομεν, 
 ἔπειτ’ Ἀχιλλέα Θέτιδος ἐν πένθει ποτέ. 
 οὐ ῥύσεταί νιν Παλλάς, ἥ σ’ ἀπέκτανεν· 
 τοῖον ϕαρέτρα Λοξίου σώιζει βέλος. ὦ παιδοποιοὶ συμϕοραί, πόνοι βροτῶν· 
 ὡς ὅστις ὑμᾶς μὴ κακῶς λογίζεται 
 ἄπαις διοίσει κοὐ τεκὼν θάψει τέκνα. 
 οὗτος μὲν ἤδη μητρὶ κηδεύειν μέλει· 
 σὺ δ’, εἴ τι πράσσειν τῶν προκειμένων θέλεις, 
 Ἕκτορ, πάρεστι· ϕῶς γὰρ ἡμέρας τόδε. 
 χωρεῖτε, συμμάχους δ’ ὁπλίζεσθαι τάχος 
 ἄνωχθε πληροῦν τ’ αὐχένας ξυνωρίδων. 
 πανοὺς δ’ ἔχοντας χρὴ μένειν Τυρσηνικῆς 


965 ὀφειλέτης Q   966 τιμῶσαι Q   968 ἐς ταὐτόν VaL: ἔστ᾽ αὐτόν Q   969 ἔτ᾽ … οὐδὲ Kirchhoff (ἔτ᾽ iam Dindorf): οὔτ᾽ … οὔτε Ω  970 τῆς Musgrave: τῆσδ᾽ Ω  972 ὅς γε Matthiae: ὅς τε Q: ὥστε VaL   974 ῥᾶιον Valckenaer, denuo Musgrave: βαιὸν Ω et Chr. Pat. 1777  θαλασσίου L  975 εἴσω Q   ἐκ κείνης Λ: ἐκείνης Va: utrumque Chr. Pat. 1773, 1778   976 θρήνοις Va: -ους Λ  σ᾽ om. L   977 ἀχιλέα Va   981 καλῶς Va   983 οὗτος Λ: οὕτως Va  985 ἕκτωρ Af   ἡμέρα Q  986 δ᾽ VaAf: θ᾽ Λ  ὁπλίζεσθε Q  987 πληροῦν Va: -ου Λ: -ου[ Af    αὐχένας VaL: -να Q: [Af]   988 πανοὺς Reiske: πόνους Ω: [Af]  

130

ΡΗΣΟΣ



σάλπιγγος αὐδήν· ὡς ὑπερβαλὼν τάϕρον τείχη τ’ Ἀχαιῶν ναυσὶν αἶθον ἐμβαλεῖν 
 πέποιθα Τρωσί θ’ ἡμέραν ἐλευθέραν 
 ἀκτῖνα τὴν στείχουσαν ἡλίου ϕέρειν.

Χο.

πείθου βασιλεῖ· στείχωμεν ὅπλοις κοσμησάμενοι καὶ ξυμμαχίαι τάδε ϕράζωμεν· τάχα δ’ ἂν νίκην δοίη δαίμων ὁ μεθ’ ἡμῶν.

989 ὑπερβαλὼν Lenting: -βάλλων Ω: [Af]  τάφρον Jacobs: στρατόν Ω: [Af]  991 τρωσί VaL: τρωισίν Q  993 στείχωμεν Va: -ομεν Λ  994 καὶ ξυμμαχίαι Q: καὶ συμμ- L: ξυμμαχίαν Va  995 νίκην Dindorf: -αν fere Ω  Subscriptio ὡδὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς ῥήσου τραγωδίας L: τέλος τοῦ εὐριπιδείου ῥήσου Q: τέλος Va

131

990

995

F R A G M E N T S O F P RO L O G U E S TO   R H E S U S Some medieval MSS and a papyrus offer introductory material: summaries, and information about the play’s pseudonymity, the transmitted prologues, and the production. This material is not presented in the same order in all the MSS. It falls into two main blocks, the second of which has a different title in one MS: ἀριστοφάνους ὑπόθεσις (only V, in the hand of the rubricator; VQ have the title ὑπόθεσις (τοῦ εὐριπιδείου) ῥήσου at the beginning of the first block, Ao εὐριπίδου ῥῆσος). In Diggle’s edition, the two blocks are divided into four sections. Section b Diggle in the first block explains the doubts of some (ἔνιοι) about the Euripidean authorship of the play, defends its authenticity and immediately afterwards reports that two prologues were transmitted (φέρονται). The openings of both prologues are then quoted (a single line from one, eleven lines from the other). δικαίαν, a keyword in the lines 5–7 that introduce the two transmitted prologues, is probably corrupt, and the proposal of Nauck (1848) 254 that δικαίαν (τὴν ὑπόθεσιν) should be emended to the nominative Δικαίαρχος, subject of γράφει, is almost universally accepted. It is hard to understand what δικαίαν could mean with ὑπόθεσιν, as δίκαιος is never used in Greek of the ‘genuineness’ or ‘correctness’ of a text.1 Instead of ‘the one who set out the right (?) hypothesis of Rh. writes to the letter as follows’, all modern editors now read ‘Dicaearchus, when setting out the hypothesis of Rh., writes to the letter as follows’. Sextus Emp. Adv. math. 3.3 ascribes a collection of Euripidean and Sophoclean Plot Summaries (ὑποθέσεις μύθων) to Dicaearchus of Messana, a Peripatetic of the late fourth century. These ‘hypotheseis of Dicaearchus’ are quoted twice elsewhere in summaries from medieval MSS (to Ajax and Alcestis).2 Dicaearchus is also quoted in some papyrus summaries of tragic plays arranged alphabetically according to the first letter of the title that are called ‘Tales from Euripides’ by Zuntz (1955) 135–9 and ‘Narrative hypotheseis’ Cf. Liapis (2001) 315 and Verhasselt (2015) 618; Tuilier (1983) and Carrara (1992) try to defend that sense. 2 It has also been suggested (by Budé (1977) 173–205) that Dicaearchus was the source, through an intermediary compilation, of the so-called ‘learned hypotheseis’, a group of summaries (of Aesch. Pers., Soph. Aj., OT, OC, Eur. Alc., Med., Hel., and Rh.), which have come down in medieval MSS, and which sometimes include historical information, comments about the title, and references to Dicaearchus. 1

133

C O M M E N TA RY TO T H E F R A G M E N T S O F P RO L O G U E S TO R H E S U S by van Rossum‑Steenbeek (1998). Furthermore, the collection of papyrus summaries of fourteen plays of Eur. PSI 1286, first edited by Gallavotti (1933), with the plays arranged in alphabetical order, and each hypothesis beginning with the first line of the play, have been ascribed to Dicaearchus,3 as have two summaries of lost plays of Sophocles later published as POxy 3653 and 3013. The reliability of the passage in Sextus Emp. has been challenged in recent years, as has the idea that any of the summaries that we have stem from Dicaearchus (see in particular Verhasselt (2015) and (2018) 38–41). Various theories have been formulated to explain why they might have been falsely labelled Dicaearchan: it has been suggested that they were (A) later summaries falsely circulated under Dicaearchus’ name, (B) an epitome derived from one of Dicaearchus’ treatises (e.g., περὶ Διονυσιακῶν ἀγώνων, suggested by Liapis) and so circulated under his name, or (C) written by another Dicaearchus. For (A) cf. Zuntz (1965) 143–6, Rusten (1982), and Kassel (1985=1991); for (B), Liapis (2001) 324–8 and Montanari (2009) 384–90; for (C) Reinesius (1660) 608, Wilamowitz (1882) 355, Meccariello (2014) 67–82, and, doubtfully, Verhasselt (2015) 635–6. In fact, considerations of content and linguistic expression suggest that the hypotheseis as we have them arose some time after Dicaearchus, working between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century. They share with Asianic oratory (acme between late second and early first century) a noticeable taste for rhythmical clausulae, as Diggle (2005) has demonstrated. Besides, hyp. b to Rh. includes some of the types of information that are usually characteristic of the hypotheseis of Aristophanes of Byzantium, the Alexandrian scholar of the late third and early second century who, inter alia, edited Eur., and hyp. c is labelled ‘of Aristophanes’ in one of the MSS (Ritchie (1964) 31–2, Tuilier (1968) 55–6 and (1983) 23–6). Aristophanes of Byzantium may well be the source of hyp. b as well as of hyp. c, although the idea that the material in some hypotheseis is descended from him is not universally accepted; cf. in particular Brown (1987). However the restored reference to Dicaearchus in hyp. b is taken, we should distinguish carefully between what is ‘Dicaearchan’ in hyp. b and what belongs rather to the source (Aristophanes?). Surprisingly enough, both Wehrli (1967) 30 and 68 and Mirhady (2001) 110 appear to quote lines 5–24 as a Dicaearchan fragment. But I suggest that ‘Dicaearchus’ may have been quoted only as evidence for a first line different from that of the text of Rh. that we have, and we cannot say whether he discussed the prologues at all (so already Verhasselt (2018) 578–9.). Liapis 62–5 maintains that ‘Dicaearchus’ would

After Gallavotti (1933) 188, the ascription was supported by Haslam (1975) 152– 6 and repeatedly by Luppe, most recently (2002) 66–7.

3

134

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 1 have discussed both prologues in connection with the original Euripidean play. He bases his suggestion on the assumption that (1) the phrase used by ‘Dicaearchus’ to introduce the incipit – γράφει κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως ‘writes to the letter as follows’ – suits an extensive quotation, and (2) the subject of Prol. 1 must be Eos, not Selene, and therefore (as the action begins in our Rh. at dead of night) is not suitable for our Rh., and must have belonged to the Rh. of Euripides. But on point (2), see below on Prol. 1; on point (1), γράφει … οὕτως may, but does not necessarily have to, introduce extensive quotations (Cropp (2015) 158–9, with examples of γράφει … οὕτως introducing quotations of two lines). If we agree that ‘Dicaearchus’ may have focused specifically on the incipit, without discussing the prologues at all, then that discussion should be ascribed to the source of hyp. b (Aristophanes?), where it may have continued the defence of the authenticity of the play. It is true that there is a syntactic break (with δέ) between the defence of the authenticity and the discussion of the prologues, but the text that our hyp. b summarises could easily have connected these two different subjects by means of the observation concerning Euripides’ penchant for celestial phenomena (καὶ ἡ περὶ τὰ μετάρσια δὲ ἐν αὐτῶι πολυπραγμοσύνη τὸν Εὐριπίδην ὁμολογεῖ). This remark is applicable both to the plays of Eur. in general and specifically to the astronomical indication of the time at Rh. 527–36 or in Prol. 1.4 As there is no trace of these prologues in the MSS of the text of Rh., it seems clear that no prologue appeared in the canonical edition of Euripides that was established – probably by Aristophanes – towards the end of the third century. Hyp. c, ascribed to Aristophanes, also assumes a text of Rh. without an informative prologue: ὁ χορὸς συνέστηκεν ἐκ φυλάκων Τρωϊκῶν, οἳ καὶ προλογίζουσι. But while only a single line of Prol. 1 was known to the compiler of hyp. b, many lines of Prol. 2 did survive and were copied for a century or more (although one could suppose that the play had also come to be performed without any informative prologue at all). Both prologues would have given the audience a smoother introduction to the play. As Fries 26 has observed, ‘an audience “brought up” on Euripidean expositions may have been irritated at the archaising opening parodos, which so perfectly sets a mood of disorder and suspense, but does not well prepare for the reversals of the plot …, and the obvious solution was to supply an iambic speech or dialogue providing all the information that was missed’.5

As has been observed by Wehrli (1967) 68 and Budé (1977) 136–7. Defenders of the Euripidean authorship of Rh., like Ritchie (1964) 105–13, understandably feel more comfortable with the idea that an informative prologue was prefaced to the play by its author; without such a prologue, Rh. would be unlike any other surviving Euripidean tragedy – ‘but if the Rh. is not Euripidean, then that would not be surprising’ (Taplin (1977a) 63–4 n. 4).

4 5

135

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 1 In particular Prol. 2, which the author of hyp. b calls πεζὸς πάνυ and says was ‘perhaps composed by some of the actors’, may have been more audience-friendly and offered more useful information concerning the literary and mythological background of the plot (see below). The suggestion that Prol. 2 was composed by actors shows that the source of hyp. b shares the hostile stance usually adopted by Hellenistic and later commentators towards changes made by actors in the text: ‘the actor becomes the agent of textual infidelity in his willingness to settle for an imperfect text, to change the text, to misattribute lines or introduce inauthentic materials’ (Falkner (2002) 352).6

P RO L . 1 The subject may be the Moon or the Night that is dispensing its light while journeying the sky on her chariot, or the Dawn that will cancel out the light of the Moon. If we assume that the Moon7 or the Night8 was the subject, the reference to the intense light of the moon would perhaps indicate the middle of the night. Snell (1964) 11 (F 660a), Diggle ed., and Kovacs 455, suggest that the Dawn is the subject, who ‘follows’ or ‘chases away’ the light of the Moon.9 Collard and Cropp (2008) 119 mention both the Moon and the Dawn as options. As Dawn must still be far off at the beginning of the play, it seems more probable that the Moon or the Night indicates the time. At 534–6 it is the quality of the light of the moon that first indicates the closeness of dawn: οὐ λεύσσετε μηνάδος αἴγλαν; / ἀὼς δὴ πέλας, ἀὼς / γίγνεται. So the Moon or the We can see a similar stance in another passage of ancient exegesis of Eur., where a contemptuous ascription of a portion of text to actors is found alongside the statement that it is not ‘easy’ to attribute it to Euripides. This is the admittedly confusing passage of Eur. Or. where the Phrygian is described as both leaping from the roof and exiting through the door: Σ Eur. Or. 1366 οὐκ ἄν τις ἐξ ἑτοίμου συγχωρήσειεν Εὐριπίδου εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. 7 Mastronarde (2004) 17. 8 Rusten (1982) 360 n. 17, Manousakis (2017) 58–61. If Νύξ was the subject, not Σελήνη, the tautology of Σελήνη/εὐσέληνον was not fortuitous. This tautology, emphasised, e.g., by Kovacs 455 and Liapis 63, might however be easily avoided by adopting as subject simply θεά or a genealogic periphrasis of Selene/Artemis (Mastronarde (2004) 17), or the alternative name Μήνη or Μηνάς. 9 Snell suggested that the governing subject-verb in line 2 was Ἕως διώκει; Diggle Ἕως διώκουσ᾽, as at Eur. Ion 1157–8 ἥ τε ϕωσϕόρος / ῞Εως διώκουσ᾿ ἄστρα, and adesp. TrGF 688.1–2 ’Ηὼς λευκόπωλον̣ ἀντολήν / ν]έαν ἔϕ̣α̣[ιν]ε̣ν̣, ἀ̣σ̣τ̣έ̣ρ̣ων με[ταλ]λαγήν, where Dawn is dimming the stars. Kovacs prefers the idea that the light of Dawn ‘is about to banish’ the light of the Moon. But anticipating in the prologue this action of Dawn, which breaks only at the end of the play, seems clumsy, even for actors.

6

136

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 2 Night was perhaps said to be still dispensing full brilliant moon- or startlight in the middle of the night, but it is impossible to ascertain which of the two. διφρήλατος ‘chariot-borne’ is only paralleled in high-flown poetry; cf. διφρηλασία ‘chariot driving’ at Pind. Ol. 3.38; διφρηλάτης ‘charioteer’ at Pind. Pyth. 9.82, Isthm. 1.17, Aesch. Eum. 156, Soph. El. 753, Eur. IA 216; διφρηλατεῖν ‘guide as a charioteer’ at Rh. 781 or ‘drive a chariot’ at Theod. TrGF 72F17 and Soph. Aj. 845–6 ὦ τὸν αἰπὺν οὐρανὸν διϕρηλατῶν / ῞Ηλιε, where it is used absolutely with an accusative of the space traversed: this is the closest parallel to our passage. Σελήνη, Νύξ, and Ἕως are frequently depicted as moving on horse-driven chariots. For Σελήνη, cf. HHom. 32.9–11, Pind. Ol. 3.19, Eur. Suppl. 990–4, Ovid Met. 2.208–9, Tibull. 1.8.21, 2.4.17–18; for Νύξ, Aesch. Cho. 660–1, TrGF 69.7–8, Eur. Ion 1150–1 and TrGF 114; for Ἕως, Od. 23.243–6, Bacch. F 20c.22, Aesch. Pers. 386–7, Soph. Aj. 673, Eur. Tro. 855–6, Or. 1004, adesp. TrGF 688.1, Theocr. 13.11, LIMC III.1, 750–5 (‘Eos’ 1–43). εὐσέληνον φέγγος ‘fine light of the moon’. If the Moon was the subject, the second component of εὐσέληνον may have been equivalent to a possessive = ‘her fine’ (light); cf. Eur. IT 1139 εὐάλιον ἔρχεται πῦρ and the examples quoted in 257b–60n.; on the easily avoidable tautology Σελήνη/εὐσέληνον, see above, n. 8. εὐσέληνος is perhaps attested elsewhere at adesp. PMG 981 εὐσέλανον δῖον οἶκον, but the text there may be corrupt (εὐσέλαον Διὸς οἶκον Salmasius). Hesych. Lex. ε 7177 Latte εὐσέληνος· εὐϕεγγής appears to be drawn from our passage; if φέγγος of Prol. 1 suggested the explanation εὐϕεγγής, as seems probable, the gloss is an example of the common lexicographical practice of interpreting a word through another contiguous to it in a literary text (cf. Bossi and Tosi (1979/1980) 15–20).

P RO L . 2 ‘Mighty daughter of greatest Zeus, Pallas, what are we to do? We should no longer delay helping the Achaean army. For they are now faring badly in the spear fight, being violently thrown into turmoil by Hector’s javelin. There is no more painful burden for me – ever since Alexander judged that the goddess Aphrodite surpassed my beauty and yours, Athena, dearest to me among the gods – than if I shall not see Priam’s city razed to the ground, with its foundations violently dug out.’ Arguing that this prologue is unworthy of Eur. and ‘perhaps composed by some actors’, hyp. b calls it πεζός, usually interpreted in its most common sense ‘prosy’ (Kovacs 455, Liapis 65).10 See above, pp. 135–6. πεζός has this sense elsewhere in the Σ to the tragedians; cf. at least Σ Soph. OT 84 τὸ σχῆμα δὲ τοῦτο τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶι πεζῶι λόγωι

10

137

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 2 But there are many borrowings from tragic language in Prol. 2, which could hardly escape the memory of the ancient scholar to whom hyp. b goes back, and which must have made Prol. 2 sound an hyper-Euripidean patchwork: more than half of the lines contain a clear borrowing from fifth-century tragic language (cf. Stephanopoulos (1988)). On the other hand, what we have of Prol. 2 is constructed around the two hackneyed motifs of Hera’s and Athena’s hostility to Troy and of the judgement of Paris (the latter was especially frequent in Eur.; see Prol. 2.7–8n.). The meaning ‘ordinary’ (LSJ) or ‘banal’, rather than ‘prosy’, may perhaps better reflect what the author of hyp. b thought of Prol. 2. Use of obviously tragic phrases and well-known myths was perhaps a strategy more than a sign of incompetence for the author of hyp. b, whose aim may have been to introduce the play’s intertextual relationship with its literary models and to highlight a few major novelties in the way the play shapes its plot against the background of its models. This aim would be in line with the kind of audience-orientated explicative facility that is usually assumed to characterise many of the changes or interpolations made by actors in the texts of the Tragedians11 and would help us to understand why hyp. b prompted the suggestion that Prol. 2 is the fruit of actors’ work. What remains of Prol. 2 presents Hera conferring with Athena: she complains about the difficulties suffered by the Greeks under Hector’s assault and confesses her hatred for the Trojans, which she has fostered since the time when Paris preferred Aphrodite to her. The opening of Hera’s speech, lines 1–5, including the reference to Hector, is strikingly similar in its rhetorical frustration to her speech to Athena about the progress of the war at Il. 8.350–6 τοὺς δὲ ἰδοῦσ᾽ ἐλέησε θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη, / αἶψα δ᾽ Ἀθηναίην ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα· / ‘ὦ πόποι αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος, οὐκέτι νῶϊ / ὀλλυμένων Δαναῶν κεκαδησόμεθ᾽ ὑστάτιόν περ, / οἵ κεν δὴ κακὸν οἶτον ἀναπλήσαντες ὄλωνται / ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς ῥιπῆι; ὃ δὲ μαίνεται οὐκέτ᾽ ἀνεκτῶς / ῞Εκτωρ Πριαμίδης, καὶ δὴ κακὰ πολλὰ ἔοργε’. Likewise, at Il. 5.711–18, Hera’s similar speech inviting Athena to intervene in defence of the Greeks is preceded by a summary of Hector’s and Ares’ aristeiai, that highlights Hector as a major cause of the Greek military vexation. The idea that Hera and Athena take particular care to eliminate Rhesus in order to help the Greeks was foreign to Iliad 10. It was present, however, in the Pindaric version of Rhesus’ aristeia and death, at least according to the σύνηθες, Σ Eur. Or. 1521 ταῦτα κωμικώτερά ἐστι καὶ πεζά. Cf. Page (1934) 117, Fantuzzi 2015. The explicit evidence from the ancient scholia regarding the explanatory function of actors’ interpolations seems, however, limited to Σ Soph. Aj. 841, ‘some say that these words are spurious, inserted for the clarity of what is said’.

11

138

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 2 summary at Σ D Il. 10.435 (see Introduction, p. 8). By emphasising Athena’s (and Hera’s) relevance to the play’s plot, the prologue prefigures Athena’s crucial intervention in directing Odysseus and Diomedes against Rhesus, which is a sure point of contact between the Pindaric version and our play. We do not know for sure whether the Rh. prologue went on to adduce Hector or introduced Rhesus as the new principal cause of Hera’s distress. In Iliad 8, Hector played this role, and in the lines which came down to us the prologue follows Homer by naming Hector as responsible for the routing of the Greeks. But at the beginning of a play where Athena masterminds Rhesus’ death, Hera may conceivably have introduced the imminent arrival of Rhesus as the reason why, together with Hector’s prowess, the Greeks’ war effort was about to take a turn for the worse. After speaking of Hector, Athena may have anticipated the warning about the danger posed by Rhesus that Athena gives to Odysseus and Diomedes at 598–605. Especially in that case (but also if Rhesus’ arrival was not anticipated in the prologue) the prologue constituted a kind of bridge between the actions of Athena and Hera in the Iliad (where they try to thwart Hector’s success, but are not the agents of Rhesus’ death) and the targeted intervention of Athena against Rhesus in Rh. This intervention, which we know was already present in the Pindaric version, will thus have been introduced by Prol. 2 as a further episode of the Iliadic anti-Trojan hostility of the two goddesses. The prologue, then, provides the audience with the information needed to understand what Aristotle called προπεπραγμένα (Poet. 1455b30), i.e., where in the myth the play’s plot is located (as prologues usually do), and also intimates some of the play’s innovations. But in addition to presenting what is going to be narrated, it indicates how the narrative of the play is balanced between two of the treatments of the myth, Il. 10 and what we know as Pindar’s version. This overview of the play’s main literary debts could have been the work of either a professional playwright12 or a clever actor, who wanted to indicate some of the fundamental novelties of the play about to be performed. I prefer the second option, as our text of Rh. and especially its beginning are concerned with bringing to the stage the fear and ignorance that go along with night-time darkness and often make the play a real ‘tragedy of errors’. In view of his emphasis on ἄγνοια, in its aspects of deception and self-­deception (Fantuzzi (2006a)), it seems more probable that the original author of Rh. wrote the play without a prologue, as the absence of preliminary information would have contributed to the atmosphere of uncertainty that the play evidently aims at enacting. The prologue to Eur. Hel., for example, has similar metaliterary features; for a synopsis cf., e.g., Downing (1990).

12

139

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 2 The presence in the tradition of alternative openings, possibly reflecting actors’ or producers’ alterations, joins Rh. to a few other plays of Eur., the dramatist most often re-performed in the fourth century. Many modern scholars agree that a large number of lines were interpolated into the prologue (as well as other sections) of IA (see, e.g., Willink (1971=2010), Bain (1977), Kovacs (2003b)). The prologue, in its transmitted form, seems a clumsy combination of parts by different hands (the conventional iambic prologue, 49–114, and other anapaestic sections, 1–48 and 115–63, irreconcilable with the iambic section, represent ‘the uneasy and post-Euripidean combination of two designs for the prologue scene’, ‘probably in the hands of a theatrical director working quickly and with successful performance as his object’: Collard and Morwood on IA, pp. 239 and 246.13 Evidence of alternative openings has been adduced for Archelaus and Meleagrus (Page (1934) 92–5); but both cases are dubious (Hamilton (1974) 401–2). According to Plut. Mor. 756b, two openings were transmitted for the Melanippe sophe (TrGF 480 and 481), but Plutarch assigns them to two different versions of the play by Eur., and in any case TrGF 480 seems an improbable opening for any tragedy and may rather ‘come from parody, anecdote or simple confusion’ (Collard, Cropp, and Lee (1995) ad loc., pp. 266–7). Rh. thus remains the only play for which we have sure evidence of multiple alternative forms of the opening (Prol. 1, Prol. 2, and no prologue). This peculiarity blends well with the idea of hyp. b that the prologue was composed by actors. Aristotle reports an anecdote concerning the famous actor Theodoros (Pol. 1336b28–31) which proves that at least some actors ascribed special importance to the openings of plays: ‘(Theodoros) allowed no one ever to appear on the stage before he did, not even the petty actors, on the grounds that the audience is won by what they have heard first’.14 To Aristotle’s testimony can be added Σ Eur. Or. 57, according to which actors performing in the prologue displayed the arrival of Helen and the spoils from Troy in the morning (πρώι). The scholion comments that they did so ‘incorrectly … since (the poet) says explicitly that she had been brought in during the night, and the action of the drama takes place during the day’. It has been taken as implying an interpolated procession before line 1 or a spurious prologue preceding our MSS prologue and later athetised in the Alexandrian editions (cf. respectively, Page (1934) and Malzan (1908) 18–19), but ‘it seems at least as likely that an enterprising producer made a spectacular feature of Helen’s entry … at line 71’ (Willink on Eur. Or. 56ff.). See below, pp. 142–3. As Hamilton (1974) 401 observes, ‘if the protagonist is to speak the first words in every play, this would often mean considerable relocation and adaptation of the original’; cf. also Page (1934) 94, Vahtikari (2014) 56–7).

13

14

140

C O M M E N TA RY TO P RO L . 2 1 ~ Eur. Alc. 1136 ὦ τοῦ μεγίστου Ζηνὸς εὐγενὲς τέκνον. But εὐγενές, inappropriate for a goddess, is here conveniently replaced by ἄλκιμον, and prosaic τέκνον by the high-flown epic noun τέκος. 2a τί δρῶμεν; = Eur. Hipp. 782 and Ion 756 (in the same position). 2b–3 οὐκ ἐχρῆν ἡμᾶς … μέλλειν: for (ἐ)χρῆν governing an infinitive phrase with accusative subject, see 642–3n.; with μέλλειν, cf. Eur. TrGF 451.2 χρῆν καὶ σὲ μέλλειν. ὠφελεῖν ‘help’. As observed by Liapis 66, βοηθεῖν would have been better suited to the situation of military hardship, but the more generic ‘help’ shows that Hera is not thinking of a drastic direct intervention. στρατεύματα The Greek army at Troy is usually singular in tragedy. At Eur. Hel. 453 τὰ κλεινὰ ποῦ ᾽στί μοι στρατεύματα; Menelaus’ nostalgia may be behind the magnifying use of the plural, pointing to the largeness of the army or to the number of the various national contingents. 4 κακῶς πράσσουσι is an Attic idiom, not attested before the fifth century but often used in classical tragedy and comedy. ἐν μάχηι δορός = Aesch. Ag. 439; cf. Soph. TrGF 1130.9–10 τὰ πρὸς μάχην / δορός, Eur. Cycl. 5 ἀμφὶ … μάχην δορός, TrGF 360.24 εἰς μάχην δορός, 1048.5 μάχηι δορὸς σθένων. 5 στροβούμενοι literally ‘whirled about’, as if by a strong wind, is used by Aesch. and Ar. (never in Eur.). 6–7a ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐδέν … ἐξ οὗ ~ Soph. Ant. 11–12 ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδεὶς … ἐξ ὅτου. 7–8 the Judgement of Paris, mentioned by Hom. Il. 24.25–30, is a frequent motif in Eur.: Andr. 274–92, Hec. 629–56, IA 573–89, 1283–314, Stinton (1965=1990) 26–47, Liapis 66. θεὰν / κάλλει προήκειν ~ Eur. Tro. 930–1 θεὰς ὑπερδράμοι / κάλλει. προήκειν was conjectured by Valckenaer (1767) 90; transmitted προσήκειν gives here no adequate sense. 8 The noun εὐμορφία is found only in Eur. and Aesch. PV 495. εὔμορφος is more widely used in tragedy and Hdt., but attested only in Sappho before the fifth century. 9 φίλτατος or φιλτάτη θεῶν is attested 2x in Eur. and 1x in Soph., in the probable model Soph. Aj. 14 ὦ φθέγμ᾿ Άθάνας, φιλτάτης ἐμοὶ θεῶν. 10 cf. Eur. Tro. 1263–4 κατασκάψαντες Ἰλίου πόλιν / στελλώμεθ᾽ οἴκαδ᾽ ἄσμενοι. For κατασκάπτειν with reference to city walls, see 391b–2n. 11 πρόρριζον ἐκτετριμμένην ~ Eur. Hipp. 684 πρόρριζον ἐκτρίψειεν; also in prose: Hdt. 6.86.δ.1 ἐκτέτριπταί τε πρόρριζος.

141

C O M M E N TA RY 1 – 5 1

T H E P L AY 1–51 The text of Rh. as transmitted begins with a parodos consisting of a dialogue between the chorus of Trojan watchmen and Hector: (i) 1–10 are anapaests addressed by the chorus first to themselves and then to Hector; (ii) 11–22 are a dialogue between the chorus and Hector, again in anapaests. (iii) This dialogue continues in the next section, where a short choral song, consisting of strophe (23–33) and antistrophe (41–51), is interrupted by an epirrhematic speech by Hector in anapaests, which answers the strophe. Choral parodoi with alternating anapaestic and lyric sections are not uncommon: Aesch. Pers., Supp., Ag., PV, Soph. Aj., Ant., Ph., OC, Eur. Alc., Med., Brown (1977), 538–41n. Only a few, however, are found right at the beginning of the play, where the prologue by an actor became standard; there are no certain cases after Aesch.’s Pers. and Supplices. The anapaestic beginning of Rh. recalls those two plays, where however the anapaests do not intermingle with choral song as in Rh: in Pers., the two anapaestic systems, 1–64 and 140–54, are separated by a choral song, 65–139, while in Supp. a single anapaestic system, 1–39, precedes the choral song, 40–175. Little can be said of Aesch.’s other anapaestic beginnings. Prometheus Lyomenos (TrGF 190–9) may have opened with a lyric-anapaestic epirrhematic exchange between actor and chorus, as in the parodos of PV 128–92 (cf. Taplin (1977a) 424, Griffith (1983) 287). Anapaestic entrances of the chorus were also in Myrmidons (TrGF 131; cf. Taplin (1977a) 65) and Nereids (TrGF 150; cf. Taplin (1977a) 252), which both belong to Aesch.’s Iliadic trilogy. In Aesch. at least, we may suppose, a choral opening had no specific archaic associations, but was simply an alternative to a prologue spoken by an actor; after him, a choral opening may have produced ‘a distinctly strange and archaic effect’ (Taplin (1977a) 63; cf. also Griffith (1977) 103, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 1–139, p. 43, Perris (2012) 161–2). Among the tragedies ascribed to Eur., there are only two other instances of anapaestic openings in place of the usual iambic expository prologue, in Andromeda and Iphigenia in Aulis. As far as we can tell from the fragments and the evidence of Ar. Th. 1065–9 (and Σ 1065), Andromeda began with a threnodic monody in anapaests sung by the protagonist, followed by an amoibaion in lyric metres between her and the chorus. Andromeda was certainly interrupted by the repetitions of Echo, but these interruptions will hardly have altered the monodic character of the beginning (so rightly Kovacs (2003a) 81 n. 21, against Knox (1972) 243; cf. Ar. Th. 1077). The opening of IA, which, at least in part, is certainly not Euripidean, also resembles that of Rh.: an initial anapaestic dialogue (between the old man and Agamemnon, 1–48 and 115–63) is followed by the choral song of the parodos, 164–302. Several formal similarities may be noted. (i) No other surviving Greek tragedy begins with such a sharp imperative as Rh.

142

C O M M E N TA RY 1 – 5 1 1 βῆθι πρὸς εὐνάς, but IA 1–2 ὦ πρέσβυ, δόμων τῶνδε πάροιθεν / στεῖχε is comparable: the imperative is combined with a specification of the locale, as in Rh., and is likewise followed within a few lines by the description of the nocturnal setting (IA 4–11 ~ Rh. 5–10). (ii) Antilabe within an anapaestic metron is extremely rare in Greek tragedy. It occurs in Soph. at Tr. 977, 981, 991. Otherwise, there are only IA 2 (first metron: (Agamemnon) στεῖχε. (Old man) στείχω), 3 (second metron: (Agamemnon) σπεῦδε. (Old man) σπεύδω), 149, and Rh. 16 ((chorus) θάρσει. (Hector) θαρσῶ) and 17. Admittedly, these two lines of Rh. have been suspected, and 17 is certainly corrupt. (iii) Other similar expressions (allusions?): Rh. 12 ~ IA 143 θρόει, Rh. 274 ~ IA 36 πρὸ χερῶν ... βαστάζεις, Rh. 529–30 ~ IA 7–8 ἑπταπόρου Πλειάδος. These similarities may suggest an intertextual connection between the pseudo-Euripidean author(s) of Rh. and of spurious parts of IA (Fraenkel (1965) 235, Fries 34). Furthermore, at least some parts of the composite prologue of IA, and the two expository prologues to Rh. known to the ancients may reflect a similar genesis, and were possibly written by actors or commissioned by producers in the fourthcentury, in the same environment (see above Introduction to Prol. 2, p. 139). The chorus’ lively interaction with Hector, not paralleled in IA, is peculiar to Rhesus. It may be associated with the play’s setting on the field of war (Taplin (1977a) 63 n. 4), and possibly emphasises that Hector and the watchmen, as citizens of Troy, have a shared destiny. We may compare Aesch.’s emphasis on the ruin of both the Persian people and Xerxes in Persians. More speculatively, one could find here an archaising reaction to the reduced significance of the chorus in fourth-century drama, as suggested by Taplin (1976) 50, followed by Fries 40. The parodos of the chorus has similar motivations in Rh. and Aesch. Ag., Soph. Aj., and Eur. Hipp, where they need to receive information, and they speculate on facts and rumours known to them, while the audience already knows the facts from the prologue (Finglass on Soph. Aj. 134–200). In Rh., the watchmen are not themselves in need of information, but want to share information with Hector. A closely similar situation is found in a tragic fragment usually ascribed to Astydamas’ Hector, TrGF 60F1i. A messenger enters with news for Hector, and asks him to take care of the garrison, so that things may be arranged in a timely fashion: 2–4 ταῦτ᾽ ἀγγελῶν σο̣ῖς οὐ καθ̣’ [ἡδονὴν δόμοις / ἥκω· σὺ δ᾽, ὦναξ, τῆς ἐκεῖ ϕρ[ουρᾶς ⏑– / ϕρόντιζ᾽, ὅπως σοι καιρίως ε[–⏑– (cf. Rh. 4, 34 and 8–10). Hector reacts by asking for his arms: 5–6 χώρει πρὸς οἴκους ὅπλα τ’ ἐ[x–⏑– / καὶ τὴν Ἀχιλλέως δοριάλωτ[ον ἀσπίδα (at Rh. 23 Hector is asked by the chorus to arm himself). He accuses the messenger of causing the troops to be faint-hearted: 9–10 εἰς λ̣α̣[γῶ ϕρένας / ἄγοις ἂν ἄνδρα καὶ τὸν εὐθα[ρσέστατον (cf. Rh. 80). The analogy is all the more surprising as there appears to be no common Homeric precedent.

143

C O M M E N TA RY 1 – 5 1 The piece of news that the watchmen report, concerning the fires in the Greek camp, is a matter of fact, but they do not know how to interpret it, or how to react; Hector, confident in his response, will change his ideas about the appropriate reaction. Besides, the action of the tragedy is triggered by this news, but it is not mentioned again after line 264. This will have conveyed to the audience the idea of the ambiguity and irrelevance that may affect even the most certain information. The disappearance of an initial troublesome problem is, however, not without parallels. For instance, at the start of Soph. OT, the big problem for the city is the pestilence, the subject of the priest’s initial speech to Oedipus and of the chorus’ first song, but after the end of the parodos it is hardly mentioned again. The chorus of Trojan watchmen make their entrance stepping in time to marching anapaests, chanted to aulos accompaniment. The metre is appropriate to soldiers, and in particular to excited soldiers with urgent news to report. They move hastily and appear to speak anxiously, in short asyndetic phrases that trigger antilabai. Liapis 70 maintains that ‘the anapaests are meant to impart essential information’, but the watchmen do not give a clear report for a long time (cf. 35–40), precisely because of their excitement. After using this recitative metre for their dialogue with Hector, they switch to choral strophic lyrics and longer phrases for the call to arms of 23–33. There is disagreement whether the initial anapaests 1–10 were performed by the coryphaeus or by the chorus as a whole, or divided among various members of the chorus. The Attic dialect brings the marching anapaests close to the spoken parts of the coryphaeus; the opening may have been more impressive, however, if the anapaests were recited by the whole chorus (Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 242 n. 4, Kaimio (1970) 181). The MSS have no paragraphoi or other indications of change of speaker, such as are used (not always reliably) in the dialogues between what they call the two halves of the chorus at 538–45, 556–64, 704–9, 722–7. It is unnecessary to distinguish between an introductory sentence delivered by the chorus-leader (1) and the utterances of three individual watchmen at 2–3, 4–6, and 7–10 (so, e.g., Murray (1913) 3), or find here two hemichoria addressing each other, as suggested for the stasimon that begins with a similar imperative (βᾶθι) at Eur. Supp. 271 by Collard ad loc. βῆθι of Rh. may be a self-inclusive exhortation through which the chorus-speaker highlights the movements of the choreutai (see below 1n.). It is only a modern conjecture that the agitation of the chorus is expressed through agitated cries from various directions (Kaimio (1970) 129–37, in particular 132). The shift in position does not imply a plurality of voices, but may simply reflect the chorus’ progress: after the opening self-­address (1), which implies that the sentinels are far from the bivouac, the members of the chorus come closer to Hector’s squires, address them (2–3), and introduce themselves and the reason for their presence,

144

C O M M E N TA RY 1 asking for Hector’s attention, probably while passing the line of the squires (4–6). By the end of their speech, they can be heard by Hector, and address him. There is a similar shift in position at 574–81, reflecting the movement of Odysseus and Diomedes towards Hector’s bivouac, just after their first appearance on stage. Before the chorus enters, the actor playing Hector must have walked into his bivouac. His entrance was not necessarily concealed from the audience; we can surmise that the first entry of an actor before the beginning of a play was conventionally accepted by the public as forming no part of the play itself (Spitzbarth (1946) 40–2, Taplin (1977a) 134–6). 1 βῆθι ‘let us go’ is probably a self-inclusive imperative (Σ: ἀντὶ τοῦ βῶμεν); see above 1–51n., Mastronarde (2004) 27. There is no need to take it as an order addressed to other choreutai or to Hector’s squires, as Kovacs 357 ‘Ho, there, any of the prince’s squires or armour bearers who are awake, go to where Hector sleeps’. The imperative probably is a kind of stage-direction in the text (cf. Kaimio (1970) 137–40 and Collard on Eur. Supp. 271, quoted above): the chorus instruct themselves to engage in an action that they are already performing, so highlighting it (the imperatives in the epiparodos at 675–82 are comparable). The first person is similarly avoided at line 6, where the third person plural προκάθηνται refers to the members of the chorus and includes the speaker. The transmitted Doric alpha does not belong here. Even if we were to admit Doricisms in the endings of proper names in marching anapaests (with Smyth (1896) 145–56, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 44 and 1569; contra Diggle (1991) 122), Doric alpha in βᾶθι is unacceptable, and it is surprising that here and at 538 (φυλακάν) it was not corrected before Diggle’s edition. Lyric ᾱ may occasionally have been used instead of Attic η to mark excitement in non-lyric anapaests, perhaps in a ‘quasi-lyric’ delivery (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 208ff.). But false Doricisms are often wrongly imported from lyric anapaests into marching anapaests (cf. Diggle, loc. cit., Parker on Eur. Alc. 864), and our case could be influenced by the correct Doric βᾶθι in a similar phrase in the lyric line 24. εὐνάς refers to Hector’s ‘bivouac’. This meaning is rare in archaic poetry; only at Il. 10.408 and 464 in epic. But it is attested at Aesch. Ag. 559 and in Plato and Thuc., and may belong to the everyday language of fifth-century Athens. Björck (1957), Taplin (1977a) 455, and Perris (2012) 153–6 have pointed out that Hector’s sleeping area is never called a σκηνή, but εὐναί or κοῖται: see also 13–14, 88, 574–6, 580–1, 605–6, 631, 660, 740. The Greek camp is made up of tents (σκηναί, κλισίαι, 45, 61, 255), but the Trojans temporarily bivouac just outside it, close to the ships hauled ashore and the Greek camp: the day before, they had been on the verge of invading it.

145

C O M M E N TA RY 2 – 5 τὰς Ἑκτορέους: a Homeric epithet (Il. 2.416, 10.46, 24.276, 579, Il. parva PEG F 21.2), with the Aeolic ending -ρεος instead of -ριος (Wathelet (1970) 162–5). The frequent use of a denominal adjective instead of the possessive genitive of the name in Hom. reflects the secondary nature of the genitive in this construction; after Hom., it is a Homerising poeticism (Wackernagel (1908=1955) 1362–7, Neumann (1910), Rosén (1984) 85–112); cf. Rh. 44 Ἀγαμεμνόνιος, 386 Στρυμόνιος, 436 Πόντιος, 826 Σιμοεντιάς. The article is sometimes found in Eur. with epithets formed from proper names, when the epithet ‘gives needed definition to the noun’ (Diggle (1990=1994) 381); cf. 386 and 826, but 44–5 Ἀγαμεμνονίαν ... σκηνάν. 2–5 If we accept the paradosis here, οἵ in 5 refers back to a demonstrative, such as τούτων or ἐκείνων, elliptically implied in the main clause of 4; cf. Murray (1913) 3 ‘let Hector know new rumour of alarms from sentinels who stand at mark the four long watches’ ~ Kovacs 357. Similar ellipses are often found: e.g. Soph. OT 862 (with Finglass ad loc.), Ant. 1194, Ph. 1227, Eur. IT 513, Aeschin. 1.13, Diggle (1994) 502. Porter 43 suggested taking οἵ with νέων  = ‘from the young men who’, ablatival genitive with δέχεσθαι (a Homeric construction, also found, e.g., at Soph. OT 1163); but νέων can hardly be separated from μύθων, despite Porter’s claim that ‘in the acting of the play the ambiguity would not appear if the speaker paused slightly after νέων’. Some editors have preferred indefinite τις to interrogative τίς, taking it as the subject of βῆθι (cf. 685, 687 ἴσχε πᾶς τις, 688, 690). With this in the text, the second editio Hervagiana of 1544, followed by Vater 70–1, Dindorf (i) 283, Paley 11, Feickert 103–4, emended ἤ (3) to εἰ; Wecklein 7 tentatively suggested ἐκ instead of ἤ; Nauck (3rd ed.) 310 transposed 4 after 9, and changed the optative δέξαιτο to imperative δέξαι τε. But, as observed by Diggle (1998) 44 n. 22, ‘such a τις offends not only by its position in the sentence but also by its position at the beginning of an anapaestic dimeter’. In any case, if τις … εἰ is adopted, the watchmen of the chorus will be calling themselves τευχοφόροι, a term more naturally applied to another body of Hector’s companions and thus equivocal (see below). Zanetto (i) 7, who also has indefinite τις, marks δέξαιτο ... μύθων (4) as a parenthesis, but it is hard to see how an audience could understand it in this way without a particle such as γάρ or δέ or any relevant indication in the text. ὑπασπιστῶν ... βασιλέως ἢ τευχοφόρων: ὑπασπιστής ‘shield-bearer’ may denote here the ‘squire’, i.e., the attendant who carries the hoplite’s shield and the rest of his arms. Σ ad loc. interprets: ὁ ὑπασπιστὴς ἴδιον ὄνομα, σύνεγγυς παρασπίζων τοῦ βασιλέως· ὁ γὰρ τευχοφόρος κοινὸν παντὸς ὁπλίτου. This may be based on the specification βασιλέως at 2 (which however could be taken ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with both ὑπασπιστῶν and τευχοφόρων). But it is also possible that the Σ is correctly pointing to the corps of the bodyguards or squires of the Macedonian king called ὑπασπισταί.

146

C O M M E N TA RY 2 – 5 In Hom., a warrior’s θεράπων did occasionally carry his arms (Il. 7.121–2, 13.709–11), but his functions were manifold, far from the specialisation of a squire. In its technical sense ‘squire’, ὑπασπιστής is not attested before the fifth century (on classical squires, Pritchett (1971/1991) I.49–51, Welwei (1974/1988) I.57–65). The Homeric adverb ὑπασπίδια means (to proceed) ‘being covered with a shield’, and later instances of the adjective ὑπασπίδιος have similar meanings; cf. Rh. 740, Asius, PEG F 13.7, Soph. Aj. 1408 (ὑπασπίδιον κόσμον ‘body armour’). Likewise, ὑπασπιστήρ at Aesch. Supp. 182 means ‘shield-bearing’. ὑπασπίζειν ‘be a squire’ is found at Pind. Nem. 9.34 (later at Eur. Hcld. 216), and ὑπασπιστής means ‘squire’ at Hdt. 5.111.1, Eur. Pho. 1213, and Xenophon. Possibly in the list of military corps at Men. Asp. 61 (ἱππεῖς, ὑπασπισταί, στρατιῶται) and most probably in Rh., ὑπασπιστής appears to be used for the first time in the different meaning ‘guard’ or ‘bodyguard’. The situation in Rh. (the ὑπασπισταί appear to constitute a cordon around Hector’s bivouac that has to mediate between the watchmen and Hector), the plural (as noted by Braswell on Pind. Nem. 9.34), and above all the specification βασιλέως, lead one to think not of ‘squires’ in general, but specifically of the élite corps of the Macedonian army. At least later in the reign of Philip II and at the beginning of the reign of Alexander the Great, they were responsible for protecting the king’s safety, and during campaigns they were consistently on duty at the king’s tent during the night (Curt. Ruf. 3.12.3, Hammond (1989) 151), as they are in Rhesus. These royal ‘bodyguards’ are never called ὑπασπισταί in connection with Philip II, and Macedonian ὑπασπισταί are first mentioned in Alexander’s early campaign against Thracian rebel tribes at the beginning of his reign (Arr. An. 1.5.2), but both the institution of the royal bodyguards and the name ὑπασπισταί probably date from the reign of Philip II (cf. Milns (1967) 511, Griffith, Hammond and Walbank (1972/1988) II.416–18, Anson (1985) 246–8, Hammond (1991), Heckel (1992) 244–53, Sekunda (2010) 454–6). This name may already have been used in earlier years more broadly of the squires who carried into battle the shields of the king and of the Macedonian nobles (cf. Griffith, Hammond and Walbank (1972/1988), II.415–16; Foulon (1996) 56). In any case, a word which evoked the reality of the Macedonian military – either specifically the king’s bodyguards or the nobles’ squires – may have been especially welcome and telling in Rh., with its geographical focus on northern Greece (see Introduction, Chap. 5). Ancient lexicographers repeatedly proposed the interpretation ὑπασπιστής  ~ ὁπλοφόρος or δορυφόρος, and some of them included the specification ‘of the king’ (βασιλέως, less frequently τῶν τυράννων): Synagoge δ 352 Cunn., Hesych. Lex. δ 2242 LatteCunn., Phot. Lex. δ 728 Theod., Suda δ 1403 Adler, Etym. magn. 284.21–2 Gaisf. The striking concurrence in this specification may have had its origin in Rh. 2–3.

147

C O M M E N TA RY 2 – 5 βασιλέως ‘prince’ or ‘member of the royal family’. Polyxena, Hector’s sister, is called βασιλίς at Eur. Hec. 552 and Hesione, daughter of Laomedon and sister of Priam, is βασίλεια ‘woman of royal blood’ at Soph. Aj. 1302. Hector is never called βασιλεύς in the Il., where Priam is the supreme authority – by contrast, on the one occasion in which Priam is mentioned by name in Rh. (880), he has to carry out instructions that Hector gives him through the chorus. Priam is still on the throne (see 269), although Hector is the leader of the army, and the focus of the play is consistently on military activity. In Rh. the Greek leaders are for the most part referred to collectively as ‘generals’ (στρατηλάται) at 173, 495, 719, but considered ‘kings’ at 718. Hector is consistently called ἄναξ (130, 264, 334, 827) or βασιλεύς (886, 993) and refers to his power as τυραννίς (165, 484), or it is referred to thus by others (166, 388); see 164–5n. τευχοφόρων is a hapax. It may mean ‘hoplite’, like τευχεσφόρος at Aesch. Cho. 627 and Eur. Supp. 654, as suggested by Σ (followed by Fries 119). The reference might then be to the soldiers of Hector’s λόχος (26). Differently, τευχεσφόρος at 267 has the basic meaning ‘bearing arms’. ἄγρυπνος, often in Hippocr., appears in poetry in Aesch. PV 358 and Lycophr. 386; ἀγρυπνεῖν is already in Theogn. IEG 471. 4 δέξαιτο νέων κληδόνα μύθων: cf. Eur. Med. 173–5 πῶς ἂν ... / ἔλθοι μύθων τ᾿ αὐδαθέντων / δέξαιτ᾿ ὀμφάν;, also spoken by a chorus.15 For the situation, cf. Eur. IA 802–4 ποῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἐνθάδ᾿ ὁ στρατηλάτης; / τίς ἂν φράσειε προσπόλων τὸν Πηλέως / ζητοῦντά νιν παῖδ᾿ ἐν πύλαις Ἀχιλλέα;. δέξαιτο is an optative of polite request, with an epic flavour (Goodwin (1889) 291, Gildersleeve (1910/1911) I.155, Ritchie (1964) 181). This mild form of invitation is here followed by a series of brusque imperatives, ὄρθου, λῦσον, λεῖπε (7–9). The reverse sequence can be found, e.g., at Hom. Od. 2.230–2 ἔστω ... εἴη ... ῥέζοι, Aesch. PV 1043–51 ῥιπτέσθω ... ἐρεθιζέσθω ... κραδαίνοι ... συγχώσειεν, Xen. An. 3.2.37 ἄλλως ἐχέτω ... ἡγοῖτο. δέχεσθαι ‘listen to’ is common in Eur.; see also, e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1060, Moschion, TrGF 97F5.1. νέων κληδόνα μύθων: cf. Eur. Hel. 1250 λόγων ... κληδόν(α). κληδών, ‘tidings’, is Attic and especially tragic (Homeric κλεηδών/κληηδών). νέων is pleonastic, or it may add the connotation of ‘unexpected’ or ‘unsettling’, certain at 39 and 590 (see 38b–40n.). 5 τετράμοιρον is a hapax = τετάρτην (Σ: οὐκ ἐν τῶι καθόλου φησὶ τετραφύλακον, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τῶι παρόντι φυλακήν, ὡσανεὶ πρώτην ἢ δευτέραν), The term found in Rh., κληδών, is often used in the lexicographical tradition as an explanation of ὀμφή; cf., e.g., Porph. Hom. quaest. I.100.9 Schrader, Σ Hom. Il. 2.41, Synagoge. ο 160–1 Cunn., Phot. Lex. ο 327–8 Theod., Eust. on Hom. Il. 2.41 (169.27).

15

148

C O M M E N TA RY 5 namely ‘pertaining to the fourth part’ of the night (ThGL, s.v.). Such a form for the ordinal meaning sounds odd, but it may be compared with Hom. Od. 12.312 = 14.483 τρίχα νυκτὸς ἔην ‘it was the third part of the night’ (the usual meaning of the adverb τρίχα is ‘in three parts’). The epithet may be an attempt to concentrate in a single word the longer designation of the time of night at Hom. Il. 10, just before the arming scene with which the expedition of Odysseus and Diomedes starts: 10.252–3 ἄστρα δὲ δὴ προβέβηκε, παροίχωκεν δὲ πλέων νύξ / τῶν δύο μοιράων, τριτάτη δ᾿ ἔτι μοῖρα λέλειπται. The formal echo of Homer is, however, connected to a modernisation of the contents. The night of Rh. is divided into five ‘watches’ (see also 538, 543), not into three, as it was at Il. 10.252–3, quoted above (cf. Σ A 10.252 τριϕύλακος γὰρ ἦν καθ᾽ Ὅμηρον ἡ νύξ), at Od. 12.312 = 14.483, quoted above, and apparently also in a few later passages (e.g., Mosch. Eur. 2). The division of the night into four watches of about three hours each seems to have been more common at least from the fourth century, and it was standard at Rome: cf. Aen. Tact. 18.21, Prop. 4.4.63–4, Caes. BG 1.40, Stat. Theb. 10.326, Arr. An. 5.24.2, Pliny, NH 10.24.46, Curt. Ruf. 7.2.19–20, Veget. De re mil. 3.8.17; Suda φ 822 Adler, Bosworth on Arr. An. 5.24.2. According to Σ Rh. 5, the five-shift division of the night was also attested at Stesich. F 297 Finglass (text uncertain) and Simon. PMGF 644 = 317 Poltera. φυλακή ‘watch’ (confirmed at 15, 18) also makes clear that in Rh. the Trojans deployed special detachments of sentries, unlike the Trojans of Hom. Il. 10.416–17 (who were criticised at least in Σ exeg. on 10.417, for a choice ἀστρατήγητον); see 523–6n. νυκτός: the relatively unusual nocturnal setting is frequently brought to the attention of the audience. There are over twenty occurrences of terms from the root of νύξ or pointing to nocturnal sleep, throughout the play. Many references concern beds and sleep (1, 14, 24, 71, 88, 554–5, 576, 581, 643, 740); night watches and the nocturnal assembly of the Trojans (5, 19, 87–9, 139, 527, 535–45); fires providing light in the Greek camp (41–3, 53–5); difficulties associated with trying to see in the dark (570–1, 736–7); the dark making it easy to run away (69) or to arrange trickery (17, 92, 678–9); stars and birds singing at dawn (546–55); stars and the moon: 528–36. See 42n., Fantuzzi (1990), Burlando (1997) 11–16, Jouan xxxviii–xli.16 φυλακήν: internal accusative or accusative of time. It is preferable to φρουράν (Λ). From Hdt. 9.51.3 onwards φυλακή is well attested in the meaning

Donelan (2014) 549–50 observes that, despite the various verbal confirmations of the night environment, Rh. shuns using props for it, such as torches (torches are not mentioned until 990, and for setting fire to the Greek ships, not for lighting the way); he concludes that the author ‘seems to treat the play as a kind of dramaturgical challenge, almost as if he wanted to put his audience’s imagination to the test’.

16

149

C O M M E N TA RY 6 – 1 0 ‘span of time of a watch’, needed here (again at 527, 533, 538, 543); φρουρά, possibly just a banalising gloss, never has that sense. 6 After πάσης στρατιᾶς, L and Q add πόλεως τροίας, either a gloss inserted into the text (so Zanetto (i) 7) or a variant reading. If the latter, it is unsuitable, as the Trojans that night were camped at some distance from the city (Porter 44). οἳ … προκάθηνται governs στρατιᾶς. The antecedent of the relative is implied in what precedes (see 2–5n.). Klyve 112 suggested making this explicit, supplying παρὰ τῶν φυλάκων before οἵ. Never attested elsewhere in poetry, this verb was probably a military term: for ‘soldiers’ or ‘army’ as its subject, cf., e.g., Thuc. 8.76.5, Xen. Hell. 5.2.4, Polyb. 2.24.8, Dion. Hal. 6x, App. BC 2.125 ἀρχὰς ἐκέλευσε νυκτοφυλακεῖν τὴν πόλιν ... προκαθημένας, Dio Cass. 48.13.2 τὴν μὲν φρουρὰν τὴν προκαθημένην σφῶν. 7–10, according to Kovacs 357, are the content of the νέων κληδὼν μύθων that the bodyguards are to pass on to Hector (hence placed in inverted commas in his trans.). Rather, they are addressed directly by the chorus to Hector. They seem in fact to presuppose a communication in progress: Hector has now heard the watchmen, and has woken up with the gesture of arm and head which the chorus in dialogue with him emphasise for the sake of the audience. These lines reshape details of Hom. Il. 10.72–81 and 159–61, at the beginning of the same night as the events of Rh., when Agamemnon wakes Nestor to ask for his advice and afterwards Nestor wakes Diomedes. The most obvious allusion (already acknowledged by a gloss in V) is to Il. 10.80: as soon as he was awake, Nestor ‘rose on his elbow, lifting up his head’ (ὀρθωθεὶς δ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀγκῶνος, κεφαλὴν ἐπαείρας). Hector at Rh. 7 wakes up with exactly the same combination of gestures. In the Il., Nestor later tells Diomedes to wake up in order to hear the disquieting noise from the enemy: ἔγρεο, ... οὐκ ἀΐεις …; (159–60); in Rh. the chorus tell Hector that it is καιρὸς … ἀκοῦσαι the news about the enemy. Lastly, the qualification of Hector’s couch as φυλλοστρώτους at Rh. 9 may be reminiscent of the εὐνὴ μαλακή where Agamemnon finds Nestor (10.75). For Rh. 11–14 ~ Il. 10.82–5, Rh. 20–2 ~ Il. 10.159–61, Rh. 41–8 ~ Il. 10.11–16, and Rh. 28–9 as a ‘fulfilment’ of Il. 10.67–8, see below ad locc. Although the atmosphere is Homeric, there is an important difference: the scene of the ‘Doloneia’ of Rh. is set in the Trojan, not in the Greek camp, though the events which take place in the Trojan camp are interspersed with details evoking what had happened in the Greek camp in Il. 10; cf. Fantuzzi (2006a). This opening speech of the chorus introduces the audience to the allusive or emulative intentions of the author, as it leads the audience to acknowledge that the story of Il. 10 is going to be told, but also that it will be told from a different narrative perspective (from the point of view of the Trojans, much more than that of the Greeks), and dressed in a

150

C O M M E N TA RY 7 – 8 new language (no single word may be labelled as Homeric, though many hint at the Homeric lexicon) and new historical environment (cf. ὑπασπιστής and βασιλεύς at 2, the quinquepartite night at 5). 7 ὄρθου κεφαλήν: a jussive phrase typical of Eur. (Alc. 388 ὄρθου πρόσωπον, Hcld. 635 ὄρθωσον κάρα, Hipp. 198 ὀρθοῦτε κάρα, Bacch. 933 ὄρθου κάρα); elsewhere in Nonn. Dion. 10.169 ὀρθώσας κεφαλήν. See above 7–10n. for the Homeric model. The two present imperatives ὄρθου 7 and λεῖπε 9 denote a long-lasting state, unlike ἐρείσας and λῦσον, which express the preliminary gestures: ‘where ὀρθῶσαι is “put upright”, ὀρθοῦν can be “hold upright”’ (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 198). πῆχυν ἐρείσας ‘using your arm as support’ is an adonian also found at verse-end at Nicand. Th. 927 διὰ πῆχυν ἐρείσας, and 4x at Nonn. Dion. ἐρείσας appears at verse-end, preceded by a trochaic accusative, 4x in Hom., in Tyrt. IEG 11.31, [Theocr.] 26.266, and three out of four times in Ap. Rh., where cf. in particular 1.784 ὦμον ἐρείσας. 8 ‘Release the repose of the eyelids, so that your eyes can be terrifying.’ βλεφάρων ... ἕδραν refers to the ‘seat (= repose) of the eyelids’, an uncommon periphrasis for ‘closed eyelids’ (synecdoche for ‘closed eyes’ (LSJ s.v. II, DGE s.v. 2) that also appears in ὄμματος ἕδραν at 554. It was perhaps suggested by the literary idiom in which sleep ‘sits upon’ eyes or eyelids or ‘is poured’ on them, for which see 554–5n. The eyelids are open when they are not ‘lulled’ into sleep; cf., e.g., Aesch. Sept. 3 βλέφαρα μὴ κοιμῶν ὕπνωι and Liban. Or. 11.267 about the τυραννίς of Hypnos ἐπὶ τῶν βλεφάρων. The implication that this is not the time for sleep may have been perceivable in both passages of Rh., as well as in the more explicitly disapproving contexts of Bacch. F 15.1 oὐχ ἕδρας ἔργον οὐδ’ ἀμβολᾶς, Soph. Aj. 811 oὐχ ἕδρας ἀκμή, Eur. Or. 1292 οὐχ ἕδρας ἀγών. The verb λύειν, ‘unbind’, denotes the opposite action to that of repose, which ‘binds’ the eyelids: e.g., Hom. Od. 23.17 (ὕπνου) ὅς μ᾿ ἐπέδησε φίλα βλέφαρ᾿ ἀμφικαλύψας, Pind. Nem. 10.90 ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἔλυσεν μὲν ὀφθαλμόν. γοργωπόν: γοργωπός and γοργώψ are favourite words of tragedy, in particular of Eur., used to refer to a grim and terrifying glance and usually associated with Γοργώ: Aesch. PV 356, Eur. El. 1257, Her. 131, 868, 1266, Ion 210, Or. 261, TrGF 754a.3; see also Aesch. Sept. 537 γοργόν τ᾿ ὄμμ᾿ ἔχων, Eur. Supp. 322 γοργὸν ὄμμ(α) (conjectured by Wecklein; contra Collard ad loc., but see Diggle (1981) 12–13), Her. 990 ἀγριωπὸν ὄμμα Γοργόνος, Pho. 146 ὄμμασι γοργός. The gloss γοργωπὸν ἕδραν· φοβερὰν καθέδραν vel sim., found in several lexicographers,17 may go back to our line, since the accusative is not adjusted to the nominative. Hesych. Lex. γ 850 Latte-Cunn. γοργωπὸν ἕδραν· φοβερὰν καθέδραν. ἢ ὄψιν; similarly Synagoge γ 79 Cunn. = Phot. Lex. γ 186 Theod. = Suda γ 399 Adler.

17

151

C O M M E N TA RY 9 γοργωπόν is here to be taken as proleptic and in enallage with βλεφάρων = ‘eyes’; it qualifies the gorgon glance Hector displays once the eyelids have been parted. The chorus’ appeal reflects their anxious perspective: they imply that the eyes of Hector asleep may be ‘compelled’ to rest by sleep, and ask Hector to ‘release the resting of the eyelids’, so that they may reveal his customary terrible glance (the opposite is described at 554–5 ‘sleep enchants the repose of the eyes’). According to Klyve 114 γοργωπός ‘conveys the guards’ dread of Hector. It is a commonplace of tragedy that barbarians have an exaggerated respect for and fear of figures of authority.’ Rather, the watchmen wishfully anticipate the dismaying effect of Hector’s glance on the enemy in battle. Hector is described as ‘having the eyes of the Gorgon’ (= ‘The Grim One’) at Il. 8.349 Γοργοῦς ὄμματ᾿ ἔχων ἠὲ βροτολοίγου Ἄρηος. This line comes at the end of the last scene of the κόλος μάχη, the evening preceding the night of the Rhesus. Hector casts his Gorgon glance of 8.349 while attacking the routed Greeks as they miserably invoke the gods’ aid from behind their ships; but immediately after that, sunset saves the Greeks from what might have been their final defeat (8.487–8). The chorus of Rh. asks Hector to wake up with the same fiery and victorious glance as he had in Hom. before dusk put him and the army to bed. 9 χαμεύνας: nominal form of the Homeric adjectives χαμαιεύνης and χαμαιευνάς (Il. 16.235, Od. 10.243, 14.15). χάμευνᾰ (for the accent, cf. Solmsen (1909) 256–7, Debrunner (1917) 33, Wilamowitz (1918) 737) is first attested as a tragic word (Aesch. Ag. 1540, Soph. TrGF 175.1, Eur. IT 1266, TrGF 676.1; again at Rh. 852), and is seldom used later. It may have been a term of everyday language in the fifth and fourth centuries: it appears at Ar. Av. 816, in a list of Alcibiades’ private possessions put up for sale by the Athenian state, IG I3.421.204 (confirmed by Pollux, On. 10.36 Bethe), and at Herond. 3.16. It was a low (χαμαί) couch, but not necessarily humble (pace Hesych. Lex. χ 144 Hansen-Cunn., Synagoge χ 16 Cunn.; cf. Pritchett (1956) 231), associated with bivouacking at Ap. Rh. 3.1193, and Theocr. 13.33–4. φυλλοστρώτους: first here, but cf. Eur. Cycl. 386–7 ϕύλλων … χαμαιπετῆ / ἔστρωσεν (Pierson: ἔστησεν L) εὐνήν (on this passage as a possible model of the new word coined by Rh., cf. Fries (2016) 27–8), TrGF 11a ἀνθεμόστρωτον λέχος, [Theocr.] AP 9.338.1 = HE 3468 εὕδεις φυλλοστρῶτι πέδωι; for the word formation, also Aesch. Ag. 910 πορφυρόστρωτος, Soph. Ant. 1204 λιθόστρωτος. The term emphasises the makeshift character of the couches which the Trojans had arranged for themselves instead of returning to the city.

152

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 – 1 1 10 καιρὸς γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι: cf. Eur. TrGF 727a.66 ἀκοῦσαι καιρός; but καιρός + infinitive is common in both Eur. and Sophocles. The messenger approaching Hector at TrGF I, 60F1i.4 (Astydamas’ Hector?) invites Hector to act (?) καιρίως; see 1–51n. καιρός is here the ‘due time’, as most often in Eur. and Soph. (but see 52n.). The frequent mention of καιρός/ἀκαιρία by Thuc., Isocr., Dem., and Aeschin. as a key idea of political and military debate and action (examples in Trédé (1992) 230–44, Sipiora (2002) 10–14) shows that appeals by the orators to the ‘right moment’ may have become a familiar motif in the quickly changeable interstate relations of fourth-century city-states. 11–14 Hector, just awoken, questions the watchmen about their identity twice, asks them for the password, and twice orders them to answer. This animated sequence of questions recalls the generic-type scenes of knocking at the door, which are common in comedy and in Eur. (for the tragic occurrences, cf. Brown (2000)). At the beginning of Il. 10, Nestor puts similar questions with a similar anxiety to Agamemnon as soon as he wakes up and leans on his elbow (the position that the watchmen ask Hector to adopt: see 7–10n.): cf. Il. 10.82–5 τίς δ᾿ οὗτος κατὰ νῆας ἀνὰ στρατὸν ἔρχεαι οἶος / νύκτα δι᾿ ὀρφναίην, ὅτε θ᾿ εὕδουσι βροτοὶ ἄλλοι, / ἠέ τιν᾿ οὐρήων διζήμενος, ἤ τιν᾿ ἑταίρων; / φθέγγεο, μήδ᾿ ἀκέων ἐπ᾿ ἔμ᾿ ἔρχεο. But the specific anxiety about the identity of the others, that darkness makes hardly identifiable as friends or enemies, and the demand for the password, neither of which appears at the beginning of Il. 10, may have been understood as a reflection of the experience of night panic in large hoplite armies of the fifth and fourth centuries. Both details, presented in an atmosphere of nervous uncertainty caused by darkness, feature in Thuc.’s (7.44.1–2 and 4) description of the night attack led by the Athenian general Demosthenes against the Syracusan fortifications of Epipolae (according to Thuc. 7.44.1 the only significant night battle in the whole Peloponnesian War); cf. also Jos. BJ 5.293–5. The checking of the σύνθημα ‘password’ and even its doubling through παρασυνθήματα, additional signs such as sounds or gestures, were recommended by Aen. Tact. 25.1 τῶν τε πανείων ἕνεκεν καὶ πρὸς τὸ γνωρίζειν μᾶλλον τοὺς ϕίλους. On the relevance of military panic in Rh., see 15–22n., 17c–19n., 138–9n. 11 τίς ὅδ(ε) … τίς ἀνήρ; ‘Who (is) this? … Which man (is) this’? Eur. was fond of τίς ὅδε/ἥδε: Cycl. 113, Her. 548, Tro. 266, Ion 170 and 757, Or. 333 and 1269–70, Bacch. 578, 985, Diggle (1981) 42. The iteration of the two questions is paralleled by Soph. OT 1189 τίς γάρ, τίς ἀνήρ and the many pairs of interrogatives in Eur. that start with reduplicated τίς (‘a figure much favoured by Eur. in anxious questions’: Collard on Eur. Supp. 606–7): e.g. Hec. 695, Supp. 606–7, 623, 990, Her. 451, Tro. 266–7. The two interrogatives of Rh. may have been felt as the result of the breaking of a continuous τίς ὅδε ἀνήρ (cf., e.g.,

153

C O M M E N TA RY 1 2 – 1 4 Hom. Il. 3.226, Eur. Or. 333) into two parts, as at Or. 1268–9, with the anaphora of a second τίς. The sequence would then be broken by ἦ φίλιος φθόγγος (so approximately O and V, with Barnes’ correction of ἢ V and ἡ O), to be interpreted as a parenthesis ‘perhaps it is the sound of the voice of a friend?’. On parentheses in tragedy that separate governing from governed words, cf. Rh. 565–6, Diggle (1981) 116 and (1994) 429 n. 40; on parenthetical questions interrupting questions, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 873–5. φίλιος ‘friendly’ or ‘belonging to the friendly army’, as opposed to πολέμιος, is common in the historians from Hdt. onwards; cf. Eur. Hec. 858–9 φίλιος/ ἐχθρός. φθόγγος: at night warriors’ nationality could only be recognised by their language (as observed by Liapis 75); cf. Rh. 294–5, Thuc. 3.112.4, Virg. Aen. 2.423, Liv. 23.34.6. 12 τί τὸ σῆμα; Here and at 688 σῆμα = ‘watchword’: possibly a military term, easily derivable from the commoner meaning of the word, ‘token by which identity is certified’. Cf. Eur. TrGF 758a.10 τί τὸ σῆμα;, where however σῆμα appears to have the usual meaning ‘sign’ (Bond ad loc. = Hyps. 57.10, p. 120). The use of a password is nowhere attested in Il. 10, but it plays an important role in Rh.: σῆμα again at 688, σύνθημα or ξύνθημα at 521, 572, 684, 763, and σύμβολον at 573. The mention of the password maintains a sense of the unusual nocturnal atmosphere, where people cannot see and recognise each other (see 11–14n.). passwords appear to have been assigned a key role by Hector in the surveillance of the Thracian camp (cf. 521, 688, and 763): the fact that Odysseus and Diomedes have learned the password from Dolon implicitly accounts for the ease with which they approach Rhesus’ bivouac and ensures the ultimate success of Odysseus’ scheme of pretending to be a Trojan at 684–8. θρόει is almost exclusively tragic; the same imperative at Aesch. PV 608, Eur. Or. 187, IA 143. 13–14 ‘Which men are coming by night to our bivouac? You have to let me know’ echoes the question posed at 11, and may simply repeat it. The question at 12 would then be one of the few unanswered questions to be found in tragedy (on which cf. Mastronarde (1979) 75–97). Hence Ritchie (1964) 291 supplies Φοῖβος· θάρσει at the end of 12, and Fries 122 suggests the justification ‘nothing must interrupt Hector’s breathless speech’. But already at 11 Hector has begun to surmise from their language that his interlocutors are Trojans, and perhaps between 12 and 13 the chorus have come closer to Hector’s bivouac (cf. 14 πλάθουσ᾿), and he can understand that they are φίλοι and not Greeks; his demand for the password is no longer necessary, and is left unanswered, while he moves on to inquire about their specific identity.

154

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 – 1 4 ἐκ νυκτῶν = 17 and 691; see 5n. The expression is found in Hom. Od. 12.286, Theogn. IEG 460, Aesch. Cho. 288; from Hippocr. and Xen. onwards it is mainly attested in prose. ἐκ is here temporal but also causal, as it suggests that the danger comes out of the night: cf. Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 288. κοίτας in the sense military ‘quarters’ is attested in documentary papyri between the third and first centuries (Preisigke and Kiessling (1925/1927) I.816). πλάθουσ᾿: πλάθω and πελάθω parallel the commoner πελάζω ‘come close’. They are confined to tragedy, as is ἐπλάθην, the aorist passive of causative πελάζω with intransitive sense. These forms (πλάθω, πελάθω, and ἐπλάθην) are mainly found in lyric or anapaestic sections. The mannered author of Rh. is fond of them: they occur in five other places (347, 556, 777, 911, 920), whereas there are only six instances in all the surviving tragedies attributed to Euripides. By contrast, Rh. uses thrice the common πελάζω, which occurs about 20x in Eur., 6x in Aesch., and about 10x in Soph. These verbs are usually constructed with the dative, which Bothe (ii) 84 proposed to introduce here as well, but πελάζω + accusative is found at least once, at Eur. Andr. 1167. The accusative of end of motion, where Attic prose requires a preposition, is not rare in Hom. and tragedy, where it is an archaising feature; also, ‘a reduction in the number of small “empty” words adds something to the weight and dignity of a line of verse’ (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 3); cf. Moorhouse (1982) 45, Bers (1984) 62–85, De Boel (1988). It is found especially with places, as here and at Rh. 223, 233, 366, 432, 547, 934. ἐνέπειν χρή corresponds to the conclusion of the chorus’ speech, 10 καιρὸς γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι. Knowing that the men approaching his bivouac are soldiers of his army, Hector reciprocates the chorus’ polite periphrasis about the ‘right time’ to wake up with a mild periphrastic order (χρή) for them to speak. The stylistically elevated register of ἐννέπειν and ἐνέπειν, here ‘announce’, also contributes to the lofty tone. The verb is ‘almost always for things which are of more than ordinary importance to the speaker or audience, and may imply a certain solemnity’ (LfgrE s.v.), and in the fifth century it is restricted to the language of tragedy. Aesch. and Soph. appear to adopt only the form ἐννέπειν; Eur. too most often uses ἐννέπειν, but has a dozen instances of ἐνέπ-, which the MSS always misspell with a geminate as here. 15–22, 41–55, and 70–5 presuppose the speech of Hector at Il. 8.497–541, immediately preceding the night of Il. 10 and Rhesus. The victorious Trojans camp outside the walls and Hector orders that many fires should be lit all night long (8.508–9 παννύχιοι μέσφ᾿ ἠοῦς ἠριγενείης / καίωμεν πυρὰ πολλά). He hopes to check the movements of the Greeks and to do them as much harm as possible, should they decide to embark for home (8.510–16). He also wants to prevent a Greek incursion into the city while the Trojan soldiers

155

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 – 1 8 are outside the walls; the boys and old men are to bivouac and keep watch, in case Greeks enter the city while the army is away: φυλακὴ δέ τις ἔμπεδος ἔστω, / μὴ λόχος εἰσέλθησι πόλιν λαῶν ἀπεόντων (8.521–2). The Hector of Rh. expresses fears that parallel the precaution of the Homeric Hector. But when he remarks that the watchmen are apparently moving ‘in confusion’ θορύβωι (15), he is adding a further reason for anxiety: the absence of the watchmen from their post (18). In the darkness of night, any movement inside an encamped army is liable to provoke or increase confusion and arouse panic; this situation may be especially dangerous when the enemy are close and fear increases the disorder (as here: Rh. 20–2). Aen. Tact. 22.1 recommends to the general in command ‘to keep guard by night when danger threatens (νυκτοϕυλακεῖσθαι ἐν … τοῖς κινδύνοις) and the enemy are already lying near the city or camp’. The Homeric problems compiled by Aristotle’s school (F 384 Gigon) also display familiarity with the idea: στρατηγῶν ἂν εἴη τὸ φυλάσσεσθαι τοὺς νυκτερινοὺς θορύβους. 15 φέρηι ‘you are carried away’ or ‘you move around’: the passive of φέρειν is often used ‘of motion over which one has no control’ (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 191–7), and thus of ‘drifting’ under the compulsion of winds or a stream (cf. φερόμην ὀλοοῖς ἀνέμοισιν, Hom. Od. 9.82, 12.425, 14.313), or metaphorically of ‘being carried away’ under the effect of passions or mental states (typically tragic language: cf. Aesch. PV 883–4, Eur. Hipp. 197, Andr. 729, Her. 1246, Hel. 1642). Cf. Hommel (1974) 248–9 (with a list of passages), Fries 123. θορύβωι, dative of manner, has its usual ambiguity between ‘noise’ and ‘disarray’, but the latter meaning most probably prevails, and Hector impli­ citly charges the watchmen with deserting their position out of panic (18; see 15–22n.). 16: cf. Eur. (?) IA 2 (Ag.) στεῖχε. (Old man) στείχω, 3 (Ag.) σπεῦδε. (Old man) σπεύδω, 1–51n. θάρσει is a common apostrophe of reassurance in Hom. and tragedy, which adopts the dignified Homeric-Ionic form, whereas colloquial Attic (Ar., Plato, Xen., Men.) appears to prefer the assimilated form θάρρει. It may seem strange for watchmen to address their ‘king’ with a heartening θάρσει; Hector’s θαρσῶ acknowledges, perhaps rebukingly, the chorus’ unrequested encouragement (Willink (1971=2010) 60 n. 38). 17–18 are dubious, because 17 is unmetrical, while 18 repeats the second metron of 37 and the first of 38 (but Dobree (1833) 87, followed by Harsh (1937) 449, Zanetto (i) 9–10, and Kovacs 360, preferred to delete the second half of 37 and the first half of 38). Furthermore, there is no catalectic period-end at 15, though the paroemiac (= anapaestic dimeter catalectic) is almost always used by Eur. before change of speaker in anapaestic dialogues

156

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 – 1 8 (but for period-end after full metra, cf. Med. 97, 1389–414, Mastronarde on Med. 96–130 (Metre) and 184–204). Finally, antilabe within a single anapaestic metron is attested in Eur. only at IA 2, 3, 149, and is found here at 16 and 17; it is however attested 3x in Soph. Tr. (see 1–51n.). Diggle adopts the solution of deleting 16 as well as 17–18, in order to re-establish a meaningful connection between 15 (second metron) and 19–22 as a single utterance by Hector; he tentatively suggests the possibility of a lacuna between 15 and 19, in order to avoid producing hiatus, which the synapheia of the anapaestic system generally allows only between cola at speaker-change or where there is a heavy pause. But if we delete 16, it becomes difficult to justify τὰ δὲ θαρσύνεις of 35, since apart from the invitation θάρσει of 16 the chorus does not instil θάρσος in Hector before 35. The repetition at 18 and 37–8 is perhaps not intolerable, as the frequent repetition of single words and phrases is a recurring feature of Rh.: see 1 and 24, 23 and 84, etc. Such repetitions only exaggerate a trend already found in Eur., specifically in Hipp. and Bacch. (cf. Harsh (1937), Ritchie (1964) 218–25, 37b–38a n. The most popular solution before Diggle’s deletion of 16–18 had been the deletion of the single response by the chorus at 17, οὐκ ἔστι LQ , which gives a hypermetrical line, or οὐκέτι OV (the deletion of οὐκέτι/οὐκ ἔστι was proposed by Dindorf (iii) III.2.589; it has been most recently reproposed by Zanetto (i) 8, Jouan 8, and Fries 67). οὐκέτι is metrically less impractical (οὐκέτι τί σὺ γὰρ could be an anapaestic metron, though anapaestic metra of the form −⏑⏑ ⏑⏑− are very rare in recitative anapaests in tragedy: cf. Diggle (1981) 45–6). However, despite its defence by Ebener (1963) 205, οὐκέτι does not give plausible sense, in the absence of any mention of or obvious reason for an ambush. It may have been a banal scribal attempt to recover the anapaestic cadence once οὐκ ἔστι had found its way into the text. οὐκ ἔστι, perhaps originally a ‘παρεπιγραφή histrionum monendorum causa adscripta’ (Murray (ed.); but cf. Taplin (1977b) 126), could easily survive when inserted into the text because it made good sense. One may attempt to preserve οὐκ ἔστι (or an emended form) by changing the neighbouring text, although this looks sound. Dindorf (v) pars III, 2, for instance, abandoning his previous athetesis of οὐκ ἔστι/οὐκέτι, emended it to οὐ δή, but also had to add σε φοβεῖ after μῶν τίς. Paley, who kept οὐκ ἔστι, athetised θαρσῶ and σύ. The proposal of Lindemann (1834) 6–7, which makes the most of both variants δόλος and λόχος, restores an acceptable dimeter: (Hector) μῶν τις λόχος ἢ δόλος ἐκ νυκτῶν; (Chorus) οὔπω (the hendiadys λόχος ἢ δόλος finds a close parallel at Polyaen. Strat. 8.37.1), but it requires the further emendation of οὐκέτι. The most economical proposal not involving any deletion is the supplement of Jackson (1955) 12–13 οὐκ ἔσθ᾿, , where the vocative Ἕκτορ may have perished before an abbreviated designation of the next speaker, such as Ἕκ(τωρ).

157

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 In any case, Dindorf ’s, Lindemann’s, and Jackson’s solutions leave an odd speaker-division between the two anapaests of the second metron. The diaeresis after ἐκ in the word-group ἐκ νυκτῶν at the end of the first metron of 17 is also surprising: every metron at Rh. 1–21, consistently with the norm for recitative anapaests (e.g., Dale (1968) 47–50), coincides with a word or wordgroup.18 But the diaeresis after a prepositive, breaking the word-group, was probably felt to be less striking than the complete overlap of the diaeresis in recitative anapaests. For the overrunning of the diaeresis in anapaests, cf. Aesch. PV 172 and Ar. Av. 523 (sometimes emended: cf. Dunbar ad loc.); cases of diaeresis after prepositives (καί, ὡς, οὐ), listed by Griffith (1977) 70–1, are Aesch. Pers. 47, Ag. 800, Soph. Ph. 162, Eur. Her. 449. The iambic trimeters of Eur. also include examples of caesura after a preposition: Alc. 289, IT 1174. Both the odd antilabe and the breaking of the word group may be forms of anomalous ‘interruption’ intended to connote the midnight alarms and confusion of the situation (Taplin (1977a) 126). 17a ‘Perhaps there is ambush in the night?’ μῶν: a speaker asks ‘μῶν X’ when reluctant to accept something as true, and thus is hoping for a negative answer; but a positive answer may also be envisaged, and then the reluctance involved in μῶν is due to apprehension, or to surprise, at the possibility (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 794). At the end of 17 a new answer-question with progressive γάρ effacing the previous question (Denniston (1954) 81) follows, revealing Hector’s anxiety; in this case οὐκ ἔστι, which interrupts the flow of the two questions, was perhaps inserted in the course of transmission because of the misunderstanding of the anxiety conveyed by the immediate succession of the two questions. λόχος is the chief term for an ‘ambush’ or ‘ambushing group of men’ from Hom. until Thuc., who replaced it with ἐνέδρα; cf. Wheeler (1988) 44. It covers a series of military actions that involve shrewd planning, concealment, and surprise, more than field operations; cf. also Pritchett (1971/1991) II.177– 89, Edwards (1985) 36–7. Concealment and surprise attacks are of course easier at night than during the day; cf. Eur. Pho. 724 and 726 εἰ νυκτὸς αὐτοῖς προσβάλοιμεν ἐκ λόχου; … ἴσον φέρει νύξ, τοῖς δὲ τολμῶσιν πλέον. Hector’s preliminary question about λόχος would reflect the anxiety of Hector at Il. 8.522, who was afraid that ‘ambushing enemies’ (= λόχος) could enter the city while the army was outside. Hector’s fear may also anticipate the future treacherous raid-attack against Rhesus: that is not strictly speaking an ambush, but shares some typical features with it. λόχος is preserved in V and appears at 560, where the paradosis is unanimous. δόλος ‘stratagem’, a more general term that includes the specific operation of λόχος (Edwards (1985) The latter difficulty has been emphasised by Ritchie (1964) 290–1, who suggested that the corruption of our passage may be much more extensive.

18

158

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 – 1 9 19–39, Wheeler (1988) 30), is commonly assumed to have been originally a gloss of λόχος, later inserted into the text;19 the glossator may have wished to indicate that λόχος here means ‘ambush’ and not ‘division’ of an army, as at 26. 17c–19 ‘Why else then did you abandon your guard post and agitate the army, if you have no nocturnal report to make?’ For the closeness of the enemy as a reason of special danger, cf. Il. 10.159–61 (Nestor wakes Diomedes) ἔγρεο Τυδέος υἱέ· τί πάννυχον ὕπνον ἀωτεῖς; / οὐκ ἀΐεις, ὡς Τρῶες ἐπὶ θρωσμῶι πεδίοιο / εἵαται ἄγχι νεῶν, ὀλίγος δ᾿ ἔτι χῶρος ἐρύκει;. Hector suggests that the chorus should not provoke confusion and panic in the rest of the army, since they are perilously close to the enemy camp and lack the protection formerly given by the city walls: see 15–22n. γάρ, progressive (‘why else then’), introduces the request for further information (if οὐκέτι/οὐκ ἔστι is athetised, and Hector’s question μῶν τις … remains unanswered), or marks the transition to a new point, after the elimination of previous doubt (if Hector now knows that there is no λόχος, thanks to the negative answer of the chorus); cf. Denniston (1954) 81–2. κινεῖς στρατιάν may mean here ‘set the army in motion’ (~ ὅπλα κινεῖν in, e.g., Thuc. 1.82.1), and thus anticipate the watchmen’s recommendation at 23–33. But this is not the sense of the phrase at 678–9, where κινοῦσι στρατόν means ‘disturb the army’. In 18, 38, 89, and 678–9, κινεῖν στρατιάν probably refers to the ‘agitation’ of the army potentially provoked by the watchmen of the chorus, who have left their post and are moving around while the rest of the camp sleeps – with φυλακὰς (προ)λιπών here and at 37–8, and τὰς σὰς πρὸς εὐνὰς ... ἐλθόντες 88, to be taken in a causal rather than temporal sense. The same applies to 138–9 τάχ᾿ ἂν στρατὸς κινοῖτο, where Hector fears that agitation may arise if the army realises that ‘nocturnal assemblies’ (139) are taking place. He is afraid specifically that the watchmen may stir up the dangerous turmoil technically termed πάνεια, πανικὸς θόρυβος (cf. Rh. 15) or πανικὸς φόβος or πανικὰ δείματα (cf. Rh. 88) by the historians. This phenomenon is typical of large hoplite armies and is not attested in Homer. The first certain descriptions of panic are in Thuc. (4.125.1, 7.44.1–2 and 4 (quoted in 11–14n.), 7.80.3), but only in the fourth century is military panic connected to the operation of the god Pan. Aeneas Tacticus devotes a full chapter (27) of his treatise to military panic. Panic takes place mainly in the night and breaks out irrationally and ἀπὸ αἰτίας οὐδεμιᾶς (Paus. 10.23.7, Cornut. De nat. deor. 50.7–10, Suda π 201 Adler), often because of the spread of false news (see 34–40n.), and it provokes disoriented movements, which are

δόλος and δόλιος are associated synonymically with λόχος in the imperial age: Paus. 4.12.4, Opp. Hal. 3.347, [Opp.] Cyn. 3.259, Polyaen. Strat. 8.37.1.

19

159

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 hard to control but must be checked.20 Aen. Tact. 27.8 reports that the line of conduct adopted by a Spartan harmost when there is danger of panic (ὅταν τις θόρυβος γίγνηται) was to order that ‘no one should stand upright, and if anyone saw a man standing up, he gave orders in the hearing of all to treat him as an enemy’. Besides, the watchmen, having abandoned their posts, have abandoned the duty of checking for the first signs of panic and disorder. As Aen. Tact. 27.12 recommends, ‘it is necessary ... to station men in each watch of the night over every company or regiment, both on the flanks and in the centre, to keep a look-out for anyone they notice beginning to cause a commotion (θορυβεῖν) – after waking up from a dream or for some other reason – and to be on hand to check and restrain him immediately’. νυκτηγορίαν, ‘nocturnal report’ or ‘nocturnal assembly’ (the same double meaning as in ἀγορά or ἀγορεύειν); here and at 89 probably in the former sense. Both here and in his answer to the choral strophe (34–40), Hector’s aim is to induce the chorus to share the news that he imagines must be their reason for leaving their post; if they have nothing to report, they will reveal themselves prey to panic. The only precedent for the term is Aesch. Sept. 29 νυκτηγορεῖσθαι, where the verb appears to mean ‘debate in the night’ (Σ ad loc. ἐν νυκτὶ ἀγορεύεσθαι καὶ βουλεύεσθαι vel sim.). It also appears at [Arist.] Hom. probl. F 384 Gigon (ap. Porph. Hom. quaest. on Il. 10.194, I.145–6 Schrader), in an analysis of why in Il. 10 the Greek leaders dangerously held their assembly outside the ditch that defends their camp. One of the reasons suggested there is that the leaders wanted to avoid panic; see 138–9n. Kovacs (2003a) 146 proposed changing ἔχων νυκτηγορίαν to ἐρῶν νυκτηγρεσίαν ‘announcing some stirring in the night’ (< ἐγείρειν), which he finds ‘sharper’. But there is no evidence that νυκτεγερσία/νυκτηγρεσία antedates the Hellenistic age, and in any case it seems to have had a different and limited use. The plural of this term means ‘nocturnal watches’ at the late Philo, Cherub. 92, and the verb νυκτεγερτεῖν ‘watch by night’ at Plut. Caes. 40.2 and Σ exeg. Il. 18.495. Elsewhere the singular of the noun occurs only either as the title of Il. 10 (at the end of hyp. c to Rh., in a papyrus commentary to Hippon. IEG 118b.6, Strabo 9.5.18 (439), Porph. Hom. quaest. on Il. 10.274 (Schrader I.153.26 and 155.8), Σ Vat. in Dion. GG I.3.179.29–180.2 Hilgard, Σ exeg. Il. 8.91, and the initial Σ A Il. 10), or as the name of Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ raid ([Plut.] Vita Hom. II.209 Kindstrand). 20–22 ‘Do you not know that we are encamped for the night under arms near the Argive army?’

Cf., e.g., Diod. Sic. 15.24.3, 20.67.4, 20.69.1, Jos. BJ 5.293–5, App. Pun. 21, Polyaen. Strat. 1.2.1, 3.9.4, Paus. 10.23.7–10, Borgeaud (1988) 88–116.

20

160

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 – 2 2 a n d 2 3 – 5 1 δορὸς πέλας Ἀργείου: cf. Aesch. Sept. 59–60 ἐγγὺς γὰρ ἤδη πάνοπλος Ἀργείων στρατὸς / χωρεῖ, Eur. Her. 1176 δορός γε παῖδες ἵστανται πέλας. Eur. is fond of the phrase Ἀργεῖον or Ἀργείων δόρυ as a synecdoche for the Greek army, where the ethnic adjective is more common than the genitive of the noun: Hcld. 674, 834, 842, Tro. 8, 346, Pho. 1080, 1086, 1094, 1394, Diggle (1994) 442 n. 4. Ἀργεῖοι, like Δαναοί and Ἀχαιοί, is a common synecdoche from Hom. onwards (Il. 2.109, Od. 1.211, etc.) for all the Greeks who participated in the Trojan War (elsewhere 19x in Rh.); cf. Plut. Mor. 272b Ἀργείους δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ παλαιοὶ πάντας ὁμαλῶς προσηγόρευον. νυχίαν is mainly confined to tragic language (but v.l. in Hes. Op. 523 and the reading of all MSS at Th. 991). ἡμᾶς / κοίτην ... κατέχοντας: cf. Aesch. Ag. 1539–40 τόνδ(ε) ... κατέχοντα χάμευναν. For the Attic η of κοίτην, restored by W. Dindorf, see 1n. (βῆθι). πανόπλους, originally perhaps a military technical term and substantival at Tyrt. IEG 11.38 (‘those in full armour’), is later found almost exclusively in tragedy and as an adjective: Aesch. Sept. 59, Eur. Pho. 149, 671, 779. The closeness of the enemy (20) and the danger of an incursion make the Trojans sleep ‘fully armed’. The Greek leaders sleep with their arms close to hand in the Il.: 10.75–9, 150–4. 23–51 Lyric strophe + antistrophe of the chorus, separated by an anapaestic response to the strophe by Hector. Corresponding pairs of strophe and antistrophe are often separated in Rh. by shorter or longer passages of recitative. Short intervals: parodos 23–33 = 41–51 (with an anapaestic passage in between) and epiparodos 692–703 = 710–21 (with an iambic passage in between and a second iambic passage following the antistrophe). Long intervals: 131–6 ~ 195–200, 454–66 ~ 820–32. This separation is more common in comedy than in tragedy (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 362–72), but responsion is likewise delayed by an intervening actor at Aesch. Sept. 417–21 ~ 452–6, 481–5 ~ 521–5, 563–7 ~ 626–30 and Ag. 1407–11 ~ 1426–30 (also in the rest of the long epirrhematic section, 1448–576 are six stanzas sung by the chorus and separated by Clytemnestra’s answers in anapaests), Soph. OT 649–57, 660/1– 668  ~ 678–86, 689/90–697, Ph. 391–402 ~ 507–18, OC 833–43 ~ 876–86, Eur. Hipp. 362–72 ~ 669–79, Or. 1353–65 ~ 1537–48. Metrical structure 23 ~ 41 ⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑− gl 24 ~ 42 −−−⏑⏑−− || ph (D−) 25 ~ 43 ⏑−⏑−⏑−−⏓−⏑− || ia ia˰(ba) ia 26 ~ 44 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑ 4da 27 ~ 45 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−−− D−−

161

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 – 5 1 ⏑D 28 ~ 46 ⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− 29 ~ 47 −⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−−    e−D− 30 ~ 48 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑− D 31 ~ 49 −⏑−−−⏑−⏒ E⏒ 32 ~ 50 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−| D 33 ~ 51 −⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ − ⏑−−|||   cr cr ia‸ (ba) 23–4 ~ 41–2 Glyconic and pherecratean form the dicolon called ‘priapean’ by ancient metricians. Here it introduces an iambic line; another iambic line closes strophe and antistrophe in ring-composition (Dale (1968) 134–5). Choriambic-iambic combinations are very frequent: cf. Dale (1968) 132–4. The choriambic-iambic introduction meshes well with the ­prevailing dactylo-epitrite rhythm (26–32 ~ 44–50; the pherecratean, for instance, has the structure D−: Willink (2002/2003=2010) 562–3); some examples in West (1984) 118–20. Other combinations of glyconics, pherecrateans, dactylo-epitrites, enoplians, and syncopated iambics: Eur. Alc. 588–96 ~ 597–605 and Med. 410–31 ~ 432–45. The metrical and phrasal pattern of the strophe ὁπλίζου # χέρα· # συμμάχων, # Ἕκτορ, # βᾶθι # πρὸς εὐνάς is exactly matched in the antistrophe πύρ᾿ αἴθει # στρατὸς # Ἀργόλας, # Ἕκτορ, # πᾶσαν # ἀν᾿ ὄρφναν (Willink (2002/2003=2010) 562). The parallelism in the structure of the phrasing, highlighted by the repetition of the vocative Ἕκτορ in the same structural position, may strengthen the connection between the exhortation (strophe) and the motivation behind it (antistrophe). 25 ~ 43 Non-catalectic baccheus, not beginning or ending a verse and with iambic metron following, is very rare in Aesch., Soph., and early Eur., but attested at least 9x in late Eur. (Stinton (1975=1990) 126). The strophe has a sense-pause after the baccheus; the absence of such a pause in the antistrophe is not, in principle, sufficient reason to reject the division; cf. Stinton (1977=1990) 338–9. Ritchie (1964) 297; Stinton (1975=1990) 119–28, Willink (2002/2003=2010) 562, and Fries 127 divide 25 into two lines. But to separate the last iambic metron may not be necessary, as one or two lyric trimeters of this shape are found in late Eur. The sequence ia ba ia is certainly attested at Eur. Or. 1458–9 and perhaps at Pho. 686 (scanned differently by Mastronarde). 26 ~ 44 Dactylic tetrameter, known to the ancients as alcmanian. 27 ~ 45 Dactylic tetrameter catalectic (Dale (1968) 43). This ‘expanded hemiepes’ effects the transition from the pure dactyls of 26 to the following dactylo-epitrites: Fries 127. 29–33 ~ 47–51 Dactylo-epitrites: epitrite and hemiepes pendant (29 ~ 47), blunt hemiepes (30 ~ 48), two epitrites (31 ~ 49), blunt hemiepes (32 ~ 50). The transmitted text of 33 does not match that of 51: the sixth syllable is short in 33, long in 51. There are two modern attempts to justify this.

162

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 – 3 3 Zanetto (i) 66 interpreted 33 as an iambic trimeter with a resolved cretic in the second metron (˰ia ˰ia ia˰) in free responsion to ˰ia ia ia˰ in 51. Pace ((1998) and (2001) 23) interprets 33 as a trochaic metron + reizianum in free responsion to troch. + ithyphallic in 51. Both solutions are dubious. The former presupposes not only the resolution of the second longum just before syncopation, which is very rare in iambic or trochaic cola (Dale (1968) 73–4), though not unparalleled (as shown by Diggle (1981) 18), but also responsion between syncopated and full iambic metra, a licence of which there are no certain examples (West (1990a) 109–10, Diggle (1984b=1994) 314–15). The latter, apart from the non-standard definition of reizianum, presupposes synapheia at 33 between two such different units as a trochaic metron and an Aeolic reizianum, and the responsion reizianum/ithyphallic, which is not paralleled. Therefore it is necessary to emend either the strophe or the antistrophe. Ritchie (1964) 298 added τὰ before κερόδετα at 33, and Dale (1971/1983) I.95 changed ζεύγνυτε to ζεύγνυτ᾿ εὖ (alternatively, Willink (2002/2003=2010) 564 proposed ζεύγνυτ᾿ ὦ): in both cases 33 and 51 are interpreted as iambic. It is more economical to accept in the antistrophe the transposition proposed by Lindemann (1834) 7, μήποτέ τιν᾿ ἐς ἐμὲ μέμψιν εἴπηις or that of Musgrave 404 and Bothe (i) 285 μήποτ᾿ ἐς ἐμέ τινα μέμψιν εἴπηις (as Diggle (1981) 20 remarks, the latter text has ‘slightly less agreeable word-divisions’). Fries 126 suggested taking the line as D (res.) ⏑−−, but there are no certain cases of resolution of a long in tragic dactylo-epitrites (Dale (1971/1983) I.95).21 I prefer to stick to the interpretation of the line by Diggle (1981) 20 as syncopated 3ia in the form cr cr (both with a resolved longum) ba, although the split resolution of the first cr is ‘ugly’ (Willink (2002/2003=2010) 564 n. 17), and the combination with the adjacent resolution of a different longum in the second cr is unparalleled.22 The second stasimon 342–50 ~ 351–9 has something in common with our lyric: it consists of a similar sequence of glyconic and pherecratean lines, iambic elements, and dactylo-epitrites. 23–33 The watchmen assert that Hector must mobilise the Trojan and allied forces together: three lines (23–5) exhort him to wake up the allies, and the next two (26–7) invite him to order his own men to bridle the horses. The other lines introduce the main Trojan and allied heroes who are to be contacted (28–9, one for the Trojans and one for the allies), and finally list military units to be Natale (2011) 133–40, who takes both Rh. 33 ~ 51 and Aesch. Pers. 664 ~ 672 as dactylic lines with resolution of a long, has however increased the number of the uncertain cases. 22 Parker (1997) 44 observes that cretic with the first longum resolved and cretic with the second longum resolved are never found side by side in the same verse; but there seems to be no reason why they should not be. 21

163

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 – 3 3 readied for battle. Already in Il. 2.802–6 Iris, in disguise as Polites, Hector’s brother and one of the Trojan scouts (σκοποί), approaches Hector and invites him to give the leaders of the allies the order of mobilisation (τοῖσιν ἕκαστος ἀνὴρ σημαινέτω, οἷσί περ ἄρχει, / τῶν δ᾽ ἐξηγείσθω κοσμησάμενος πολιήτας); cf. Roisman (2015) 3–4. The difference between the allies, who have to be woken, and Hector’s men, who appear to be not sleeping, may reflect Il. 10.418–22, where the Trojans ἐγρηγόρθασι ϕυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται / ἀλλήλοις, whereas ἐπίκουροι / εὕδουσι· Τρωσὶν γὰρ ἐπιτραπέουσι ϕυλάσσειν. The imperative tone of the chorus, their aggressiveness in pursuit of their duty, and their willingness to take responsibility for their actions and advice are stronger than in any other Greek tragedy. The long dialogues between Hector and the chorus both here and later on the alliance with Rhesus serve to portray Hector as a rather weak leader, and the watchmen as extraordinarily assertive, in contrast with the devotion and obedience to their leader displayed by the other two choruses of military men on active duty known to us, those of Soph. Ph. and Aj. (on which cf. Mastronarde (2010) 101). See however TrGF 60F1i.3–4, quoted in 1–51n., for a messenger forcefully summoning Hector to battle (more generally, Rh. raises questions about leadership in a democracy with a directness that seems to be avoided in other plays: Foley (2003) 17–19, Liapis 72, 102). The ranks to be lined up in the field according to the watchmen do not include all the ranks of the typical hoplite army of a fifth-century polis. In fact Rh. identifies only cavalry and components of the front lines of the infantry: at the very front are the sacrificial victims and their overseers, who sometimes preceded the ranks of the soldiers (sacrifices immediately preceded or coincided with the clash with the enemy, see 30n.); immediately after come the light infantry γυμνῆτες (31) and the archers (32), who usually acted as a screen and initiated the skirmish before the hoplite battle. But there is no mention in Rh. of the heavily armed hoplites, who in the fifth and fourth centuries were the bulk of the army. For Rh.’s presentation of both the Trojans and Rhesus’ Thracians as forces that did not include heavy infantry, see 311–13n. 23–5 ‘Arm your hand! Hector, go to the bivouacs of the allies, incite them to take up the spear, wake them up.’ The watchmen will explain in the antistrophe why he should do that. The link between this request and its motivation is stressed by the repetition of the vocative at the beginning of the second line of both strophe and antistrophe. ὁπλίζου χέρα: same synecdoche (~ ‘arm yourself ’) again at Rh. 84, 99; probably from Eur. Alc. 35, Pho. 267, Or. 926, 1223. In his speech at the end of the tragedy Hector gives the allies the order to arm themselves (986) that the chorus now recommend to him, and he will promptly endorse at 84, 90, 99. But no real open-field fighting will follow, and the war agenda at the beginning of the action of the play remains unaltered at the end of it; see 986–92n.

164

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 – 2 7 The singular is regularly used by Eur. with χείρ for a singular subject (see 99n.), and here χέρα for plural σύμμαχοι may be a distributive singular (Kovacs on Eur. Tro. 392) pointing to the individual soldiers, each holding his spear or sword in one of his hands; Hector will have thought the same at 84. συμμάχων (proposed by Bothe (i) 283, Hermann (1828) 300, and Dobree (1833) 37) is unavoidable, in place of the transmitted σύμμαχον, for metrical reasons (the glyconic is in synapheia with the pherecratean of 24, and thus a final long is needed), and because it is necessary to specify whose εὐναί Hector has to reach. Ἕκτορ, βᾶθι πρὸς εὐνάς strongly resembles line 1. This repetition may reflect the iteration of βαίνειν in the phrases describing the movement of the various characters who successively wake their companions at the beginning of Il. 10: Menelaus βῆ … ἴμεν ἀνστήσων ὃν ἀδελφεόν (10.32); Agamemnon βῆ … ἰέναι μετὰ Νέστορα (10.73); Nestor βῆ … ἰέναι κατὰ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (10.137). But on frequent unmotivated repetitions in Rh., see 37b–38a n. ἔγχος αἴρειν: cf. Hom. Il. 8.424 ἔγχος ἀεῖραι, 20.373 ἔγχε᾿ ἄειραν. In Hom., however, ingressive aorist appears to be more appropriate for the action of starting battle. It is wrong to keep ἀείρειν of the MSS and read it as a disyllable, with synizesis of ἀει- (Schroeder (1928) 166, Zanetto (i) 66, Pace (2001) 22). The correction of Badham (1855) 336 imposes itself. The tragedians do sometimes use uncontracted epicising forms of ἀείρειν, in lyric metres (cf. Diggle (1981) 65, Collard, Cropp, and Gibert on Eur. TrGF 752f.39, p. 233), but only when disyllabic ἀει- is metrically convenient. ἀφύπνισον: the verb appears only in classical comic poets (Eup. PCG 205, Pherecr. PCG 204) and in later prose writers. A hysteron-proteron is possibly involved, since Hector should first wake the allies, and then give them orders. Hysteron-proteron is a common rhetorical figure in tragedy; cf. Battezzato (2008) 36–7. But Hector’s shouts while approaching the sleeping allies may also have woken them before he reaches their εὐναί. 26–7 ‘Send the order that your companions should go to your division: fit the horses with bridles!’ πέμπε: either transitive, ‘send’, governing the accusative φίλους and the infinitive of purpose ἰέναι, or absolute, ‘send orders’, construed with the infinitive φίλους ἰέναι, as in Eur. IA 360 and Xen. Hell. 3.1.7. The sense is not affected: the royal retinue has to go to mobilise Hector’s special band. φίλους. The royal retinue is a common feature of many monarchic societies and can already be found in the Homeric poems (cf. van Wees (1997) 670–1). But if Rh. was indeed composed in the fourth century, the mention of φίλοι surrounding ‘king’ Hector, just a few lines after the mention of his ὑπασπισταί, will have led the audience to think of a specific institution: the φίλοι or ἑταῖροι of the Macedonian king, a royal retinue who permanently accompanied Philip II and Alexander the Great. These φίλοι were in many

165

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 – 2 7 kingdoms of the diadochi a Council of State of a sort, and had political weight, but in Xen. Cyrus’ φίλοι appear still to be both his highest military commanders and his advisors (Cyr. 5.5.44, 7.3.1, 7.5.1, Herman (1980) 112). Cf. Corradi (1929) 318–25, Griffith, Hammond, and Walbank (1972/1988) II.158–60 and 395–404, Hammond (1989) 54–8 and 140–5, Konstan (1997) 95–8, Meissner (2000). σὸν λόχον: here not in the usual Homeric sense ‘(place for an) ambush’ (as above, see 17a n.) or ‘group of soldiers participating in an ambush’, but in the sense army-‘division’ (De Lamberterie (1975) 239), attested already at Hom. Od. 20.49. This second meaning is common for infantry troops from Hdt. and the tragedians onwards (e.g., Aesch. Sept. 56 and 460, Soph. OC 1371). The Iliadic Hector had no cavalry, only chariots, and 27 may simply refer to chariot-horses, as in 616–17 (Fries 129). But the watchmen appear to refer here to a specific λόχος ‘division’ of knights of ‘king’ Hector, with a typical tragic anachronism. It would be an innovation reflecting the contemporary reality of the classical Macedonian army, in tune with the mention of the φίλοι and the ὑπασπισταί above at 2–3, as from the age of Philip II the Royal Macedonian Guard included a squadron (ἴλη) of knights. According to the testimony of Arrian, over which modern historians appear to have no doubts, Alexander in 331–330 subdivided the equestrian squadrons of the army into two λόχοι, although the word λόχος, as Arrian makes clear, had never been used earlier of an equestrian unit.23 It is thus a fair guess that a division of Alexander’s knights could be called (even before the term became official in 331–330) ‘his λόχος’. ἁρμόσατε is construed with the dative of the accessory and the accusative of the object, as at 33. With this shift to the plural the chorus may be anxiously anticipating the order that Hector’s φίλοι will have to give to his λόχος (the emendation of Musgrave II.404 to ἁρμοσάτω is thus unnecessary). It is hard to interpret ἁρμόσατε as addressed to φίλοι and to see why the φίλοι should ride their horses around within the camp. Besides, both at 26–7 and at 32–3 the same sequence appears to be used, with the mention of the unit to be alerted followed by an order focusing on the specific equipment that the unit is to get ready. ψαλίοις ἵππους is most probably the source of the lemma ψαλίοις ἵππων at Hesych. Lex. ψ 42 Hansen-Cunn. (where Schmidt emended ἵππων to ἵππους, from Rh.). The ψάλια were U-shaped metal cavessons: ‘a band or ring round the horse’s nose, used either by itself, in which case it guides the horse by pressure upon the outside of the nose (cf. the modern ‘hackamore’ bridle), or in conjunction with a bit, in which case it serves the additional function of preventing the horse from evading the bit’s action by opening his See Introduction, pp. 43–5

23

166

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 – 2 9 mouth and throwing up his head; it may be fastened to reins, or to a single lead-rope’ (Anderson (1960) 4). 28–9 Both of the leaders mentioned by the chorus are called not by name but by patronymic or metronymic. The watchmen appear to put into practice Agamemnon’s exhortation to Menelaus (Il. 10.67–9) to wake up all the warriors he encounters, but to be especially kind and respectful to them and to call each one by his patronymic (πατρόθεν ἐκ γενεῆς ὀνομάζων ἄνδρα ἕκαστον). Entreaty and address by name are combined in Il. 22.414–15 πάντας δ᾿ ἐλλιτάνευε ... / ἐξ ὀνομακλήδην ὀνομάζων ἄνδρα ἕκαστον (Σ exeg. on the adverb: οὐ κοινῶς ἀλλ᾿ ἰδίως). ‘Panthoides’ is the epithet used in the Il. in reference to Polydamas and Euphorbus, two of the three sons of the Trojan Panthous. While Hom. always specifies the name of the character in question when using this epithet (except at Il. 17.70, where however the name Euphorbus had preceded at 59), the identification of the ‘Panthoides’ of Rh. is troublesome. The only argument in favour of his being Euphorbus is that in the Il. Polydamas is mainly characterised as Hector’s advisor in decision-making, and must be saved by Apollo when he ventures into battle (15.521–2), whereas Euphorbus is a warrior who has a short but glorious aristeia, and is the first to strike Patroclus after he has killed Sarpedon (16.805–17). But ‘Panthoides’ may have become an unambiguous designation for Polydamas in the Epic Cycle, since Euphorbus is killed by Menelaus in Il. 17.45–60, whereas Polydamas survives the events of the Il., and has a post-­ Iliadic career – he endeavours to make peace with the Greeks (Q.S. 2.41–63, Dares 37), and is wounded (Q.S. 6.505) or killed (Dictys 4.7) by Ajax. Moreover, Polydamas is the first in the list of those who led the defence of Hector when he fell in the duel with Ajax at Il. 14.425–6; already at Il. 12.210–29 Polydamas and Hector seem almost to share the same rank of supreme leadership of the army; cf. Wathelet (1988) 906. Above all, Aeneas, who enters the scene at Rh. 87, essentially plays the same prudent role, and utters in some cases almost exactly the same phrases with respect to the impulsive Hector as Polydamas in Il. 12 and 13; cf. Introduction, p. 62, and Fantuzzi (2006a) 256–8. Λυκίων ἀγόν: the ally to whom the chorus refer here by specifying his mother, Europa, and his people, the Lycians, is Sarpedon, called Λυκίων ἀγός (ἀσπιστάων) in Hom. Il. 5.647, 16.490, 16.541. In Hom. he was the son of Zeus and Laodamia and was killed by Patroclus in Il. 16. Σ Rh. 29 informs us that Europa was Sarpedon’s mother according to Hesiod (F 140) and Hellanicus (FGrHist 4F94 = EGM F 94), and from Σ A Hom. Il. 12.307 we know that this genealogy was also shared by Bacch. F 10. The imminent arrival of Sarpedon’s body in Lycia and his mourning by Europa were the focus of the PDidot fragment usually ascribed to Kares or Europe of Aesch. (TrGF 99). Whether Kares is by Aesch. or by his son Euphorion (cf. West (2000=2013)), it antedates Rh., and thus the metronymic designation of Sarpedon emphasises

167

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 – 3 1 Rh.’s choice of the post-Homeric, tragic lineage. In fact, Kares appears to have continued the Homeric description of the death of Sarpedon (Il. 16.479–675), another Iliadic ally of the Trojans whose body was mourned by his mother (for the parallels between the Muse’s and Europa’s reactions, see 915–49n.) and was perhaps celebrated as an aition of the heroic cult which certainly existed around what was considered the ‘temple of Sarpedon’ (OGIS 552, Σ exeg. Hom. Il. 16.673, App. BC 4.78–9, Philostr. Her. 39.4). Λυκίων ἀγὸν ἀνδρῶν ~ Il. 7.13 = 17.140 Λυκίων ἀγὸς ἀνδρῶν (Glaucus). See 543–5n. 30 σφαγίων ἔφοροι: σφάγιον, a general term for ‘sacrifice’ or ‘sacrificial victim’ (almost 30x in Eur.), is also used specifically for the sacrifice performed in the camp just before the two opposing armies engage, both in the historians and in Aesch. Sept. 377–9, Eur. Hcld. 399–400 and 819–22, Pho. 174, Or. 1603. ἔφορος and ἐφορεύειν are often used for gods or quasi-divine powers watching over human affairs: e.g., Aesch. Supp. 627, 674, 677, Eum. 530, Garvie (1980) 81 and 89 n. 8. Rh. uses the word in the secularised sense ‘superintendent’, as in Aesch. Pers. 7 and 25, Soph. OC 145. In the fifth and fourth century mantic sacrifices were a regular practice of Greek warfare, e.g., before departing from home, leaving the borders of one’s own land, leaving camp in the morning while in a hostile country, crossing a river, or engaging the enemy. In the last case the σφάγια were usually performed when the battle had already been decided upon or even when the skirmishing of the ψιλοί had already begun (see Thuc. 6.69.2). They more often had supplicatory or propitiatory purposes than a real divinatory intention, and were meant as a confirmation of divine favour, the demonstration of which served to boost the troops’ morale (Casabona (1966) 180–3 and 320– 1, Pritchett (1971/1991) I.109–15 and III.83–90, Jameson (1991), Parker (2000), Flower (2008) chap. 6). The watchmen recommend that the supervisors of the σφάγια be summoned at the same time as they call for the γυμνῆτες and τοξοφόροι to be arrayed, as the presence of the σφάγια in front of the arrayed ranks was practically a sign of readiness for battle: cf., e.g., Eur. Hcld. 673 παρῆκται σφάγια τάξεων ἑκάς and Plut. Lyc. 22.2. 31 γυμνήτων μόναρχοι: γυμνῆτες is a common technical term for lightly armed troops, from Tyrt. IEG 11.35 onwards. They were called ‘unclad’ because of their light equipment, which included a soft hat instead of the helmet and a wicker shield instead of the sturdy ἀσπίς of the hoplite. The phrase γυμνήτων μόναρχοι probably refers to the variously light-armed tribes of allies attached to the Trojan army, each with its own leader (cf. Porter 46). μόναρχος is not attested elsewhere in the sense of ‘military leader’, and even in the more general sense ‘king’ it is very rare in classical Greek in comparison with its synonym βασιλεύς (after a few occurrences in archaic poetry: cf. Noussia Fantuzzi on Solon, F 12.3 Gent.-Prato = IEG 9.3). The term may

168

C O M M E N TA RY 3 2 – 3 3 have been less infrequent in Northern Greece than elsewhere: in Pind. F 169.10 Diomedes is called μόναρχος Κικόνων and located παρὰ Βιστονίδι λίμναι (Thrace). μόναρχος may thus have been a local title paralleling the more common βασιλεύς (Diomedes is βασιλεύς of the Bistonians in Apollod. Bibl. 2.96 (2.5.8)). The title μόναρχος is later used in an inscription from Adulis in Eritrea reported by Cosmas Indicopleustes that lists the conquests of Ptolemy III in the war against Seleucus II of 246–241 (OGIS 54.17). μόναρχοι there refers to the local dynasts or chieftains that Ptolemy established or made subject to his authority in the conquered lands of the Seleucid kingdom; earlier too, it may not have been foreign to the Macedonian terminology of power. μόναρχος was also the titular head and eponymous magistrate of the state in Cos. The term is first attested there in inscriptions from the years around 300 and is very frequent in the third and second centuries; but it has been strongly argued that it was a title at Cos well before the end of the fourth century and that it may have survived from the archaic monarchic regime: cf. Sherwin-White (1978) 187–98. It may therefore be a coincidence that the earliest epigraphical record of μόναρχος is close in time to the Macedonian occupation of Cos (332), or to the beginning of the long Ptolemaic presence in the island. 32 τοξοφόροι: attested in epic (rarely: Hom. 1x, Hom. Hymns 2x), and in Pind.; elsewhere in tragedy only at Eur. Tro. 804. Φρυγῶν ~ Trojans, here and elsewhere in Rh. (11x). Hom. distinguishes between Trojans and their eastern neighbours and allies, Phrygians (cf., e.g., Il. 2.862, 3.184 and 401, 10.431), as was recognised by ancient scholars (e.g., Strabo 12.8.7 (573), Σ A Il. 2.862, Σ Eur. Hec. 4). According to HHom. Aphr. 112–15 the Phrygians and Trojans spoke different languages, but the Phrygian Trojan king Otreus spoke Trojan as well as Phrygian, as he had had a Phrygian nurse. Aesch. (TrGF 446; but cf. Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Poim., TrGF 515, p. 204 n. 1), Soph. (Aj. 1054, TrGF 210.77, 368.2, 373.6), and Eur. in particular blurred this distinction. The identification of Phrygians and Trojans may recall a time when the Phrygians controlled Mysia, Lydia, and Troy (Keen (2005) 74), but it is above all due to the process of ‘barbarisation’ that the Trojans underwent in classical Greek culture, where they became tantamount to the Persians and all their cultural and social shortcomings (Hall (1988), (1989) 38–9, 273, Erskine (2001) 51–4, 61–92, Introduction, pp. 45–6). Two tragedies of Soph. that focused on Trojans or allies, Ποιμένες and Τρωίλος, emphasised different language or other details in portraying them as oriental or exotic; cf. Sommerstein, Fitzpatrick, and Talboy on Soph. Troil., TrGF 620, 622, 634, Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Poim., TrGF 509, 515, 518–20. 33 ‘Attach your horned bows to the strings’ is not an invitation improbably addressed to Phrygian = Trojan archers offstage (Kaimio (1970) 109 n. 4), but

169

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 rather a suggestion as to the order that Hector should give the Phrygians. The ‘sinew-string’ was permanently attached only at one end of the bow: when a bow was to be used, the string was fastened to a hook at the other end, so that the two extremities of the bow became ‘yoked’ ~ ‘joined together’. This is the preliminary operation of (ἐν)τανύειν which the suitors cannot (but Odysseus can) accomplish with Odysseus’ bow in Hom. Od. 21.150, 152, 185, 407, 409; cf. Bulanda (1913) 90–6. κερόδετα ‘bound with horn’ or ‘overlaid with horn’ is a hapax, recorded by Hesych. Lex. κ 2352 Latte κερόδετα· τόξα, probably derived from our passage according to the lexicographic technique of explaining a noun through an adjective, or an adjective through a noun, which are found combined in literary texts (see above Introduction to Prol. 1, p. 137). Σ paralleled κερόδετα with κερουλκά ‘tipped with horn’, which was said of τόξα in Eur. Or. 268 (κερουλκοί was also said of the Trojan archers in Soph. TrGF 859), and perhaps already used in Stesichorus, whom Or. 268–9 imitated, as we know from Σ ad loc. and from an ancient Stesichorean commentary (181a.22–4 Finglass). It is commonly agreed that bows consisting of a single solid horn or of two horns joined together with a bridge would not have been flexible enough to be of any practical use, and thus ancient bows must have been made either of solid wood or of a wooden bow-stave decorated with strips of horn, gold, or other precious materials: cf. Reichel (1901) 112–14, Bulanda (1913) 72–81, Geffcken (1936) 401–2, Lorimer (1950) 290, Stubbings (1962) 518–20. It was traditional, however, for poetic descriptions of composite bows to focus on the horn decorations: cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 4.105–11, where the bow of Pandarus is described as if it were solid horn, and Od. 21.393–5, where only the horn of Odysseus’ bow is mentioned and the wooden bow-stave is omitted; κέρας is found for the whole bow in Callim. AP 13.7.3 = HE 1131, Leon. AP 5.188.2 = HE 2530, Lycophr. 563, [Theocr.] 25.206. Compounds in ‑δετος are attested elsewhere in poetry for inlaid decorations of arms: Alcae. F 350.1–2 Voigt ἐλεφαντίναν / λάβαν τὼ ξίφεος χρυσοδέταν, Bacch. F 4.69 σιδαροδέτοις πόρπαξιν, Soph. TrGF 244.1 χρυσόδετον κέρας (in a lyre), Eur. Or. 821–2 μελάνδετον δὲ ϕόνωι / ξίϕος (metaphorical decoration from blood). Most often, however, ‑δετος appears to have no semantic function and the epithet simply has the sense of the first part of the compound: Aesch. Sept. 43 μελάνδετον σάκος and 160 χαλκοδέτων σακέων, Diggle (1989=1994) 343.24 This is perhaps also the case in Il. 15.713 φάσγανα … μελάνδετα, [Hes.] Sc. 252 μελάνδετον ἆορ, Eur. Pho. 1091 μελάνδετον ξίφος, TrGF 373.2 φασγάνου μελανδέτου, where however the epithet may, alternatively, point to the dark leather hilts to which the sword blade was joined (Σ exeg. Il. 15.713).

24

170

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 – 3 7 34–40 Hector has already speculated that the watchmen would not have left their post and ‘stirred’ the rest of the army unless they had some ‘nocturnal news’ to announce (16–19). Since they have urged him in the strophe to be ready for battle, but in spite of his questioning have not yet said why, he starts to believe that they are not motivated by concrete and ‘clear’ news (references to the absence of clarity open and close his speech at 35 and 40), but are affected by insubstantial rumours, and are thus irresponsibly spreading fear through the ranks (cf. 34, 39–40) – as when φόβος πανικός affects troops (17c–19n.). Cf., e.g., Paus. 10.23.7–8 (on panic falling on the Gauls of Brennus) ‘it was when evening was turning to night that confusion fell on the army; at first only a few became mad, and these imagined that they heard the trampling of horses at a gallop, and the attack of advancing enemies; but after a little time the delusion spread to all’ (see also Diod. Sic. 20.69.1). Hector’s emphasis is anxiously repetitive, but it rests on a logical concern to avoid the spread of panic. 34–5 ‘Some things in your report are alarming to hear, and in some others you are encouraging; but nothing is clear.’ Cf. Aesch. Pers. 210–11 ταῦτ᾿ ἔμοιγε δείματ᾿ ἔστ᾿ ἰδεῖν, / ὑμῖν δ᾿ ἀκούειν and 215–16 οὔ σε βουλόμεσθα … οὔτ᾿ ἄγαν φοβεῖν λόγοις / οὔτε θαρσύνειν, Hdt. 6.112.13 καὶ τὸ οὔνομα τὸ Μήδων ϕόβος ἀκοῦσαι, Eur. Ion 1142 θαύματ᾽ ἀνθρώποις ὁρᾶν. τὰ δὲ θαρσύνεις takes up 16 θάρσει, spoken by the chorus, which had excluded Hector’s fear that an ambush was taking place. 34 points to the chorus’ appeal to mobilisation in the strophe, which implies that some danger does exist. οὐδέν is accusative of the internal object with both the verbs of 34–5a: the watchmen give neither a clear report of their frightening news nor clear reassurance. It is unnecessary to suppose that οὐδέν is governed brachylogically by an understood λέγεις (Liapis 82). καθαρῶς ‘clearly’, of thought and its expression, probably belongs in everyday language; cf. Ar. Vesp. 631–3 καθαρῶς … λέγοντος, Pl. Phd. 66e μηδὲν καθαρῶς γνῶναι. 36–7a Hom. does not record military panic. The author of Rh. certainly presupposes it, as he mentions the fear of κινεῖν στρατιάν and the danger of φυλακὰς λιπεῖν, which belonged in it (see 15–22n., 17c–19n.), but his formal model remains Διὸς μάστιγι at Hom. Il. 12.37 and 13.812, the only epic passages where μάστιξ appears with the same uncommon metaphorical meaning ‘oppressive plague’.25 Mental derangement or loss of control were The metaphor of the divine whip is found in Aesch.: Sept. 608 πληγεὶς θεοῦ μάστιγι παγκοίνωι, Ag. 642 διπλῆι μάστιγι, τὴν Ἄρης ϕιλεῖ, PV 681–2 οἰστροπλὴξ … / μάστιγι θείαι; later frequent in Nonn. Dion. 10.4, 10.13, 21.118, 44.280, and 45.6, where the peculiar mention of Cronos reappears, perhaps reminiscent of Rh.; cf. Lloyd-Jones (1961) 24.

25

171

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 – 4 0 broadly ascribed by the ancients to possession by some god, most frequently Hecate, Cybele, the Corybants, or Pan; cf. Eur. Med. 1172, Hipp. 141–4, Theocr. 5.14–16, HOrph. 11.23, Borgeaud (1988) 123–9. Pan is usually called the son of Hermes or Zeus, but Aesch. TrGF 25b and Soph. TrGF 136 presuppose the existence of two Pans, one the son of Zeus, the other of Cronos. Rh. may also use Κρόνιος as a παππωνυμικόν, like Αἰακίδης for Achilles, as was suggested by Σ. ἀλλ᾿ ἦ gives the remonstrance an interrogative form, expressing ‘a feeling of surprise or incredulity’ (Denniston (1954) 27). Most often, as here, the speaker using the phrase hopes to receive a negative answer, Bond on Eur. Her. 1128). τρομερᾶι: here transitive, ‘which provokes a shiver’, not, as usually, ‘shivering’. The same sense is possible but not certain in Ar. Av. 950 (cf. Dunbar on 950–3); compare φοβερός, which can be used with both the transitive and the intransitive meaning. 37b–8a have been doubted as an interpolation doubling 18; see 17–18n. But the fear of κινεῖν στρατιάν and causing panic is a leitmotif of both Hector and, later, Aeneas and the watchmen: see 89, 138–9, 678–9 and 17c–19n. The emphasis of repetition may thus find a special motivation in the prominence of this idea in Hector’s mind (Porter 46). Other repetitions in Rh. which must certainly be retained are 150 ~ 155, 543–5 ~ 562–5; but 652 is probably interpolated after 279 (Harsh (1937) 449, Fries 133). 38b–40 τί θροεῖς; is a question typical of Eur. (Hipp. 212, Tro. 153, Bacch. 1168, TrGF 753d.15); also attested in Soph. Ph. 1185, but nowhere else. Hector expresses surprise at what the watchmen have finally ‘spoken’ with the same verb with which he had first asked them to ‘speak’ at 12. τί σε φῶ / νέον ἀγγέλλειν;: cf. Aesch. PV 561–2 τίνα φῶ λεύσσειν / τόνδε, TrGF 46a.8 τί φῶ τόδ᾿ εἶναι; (but τί φῶ is a common deliberative subjunctive in the language of the tragedians). For νέον ἀγγέλλειν, cf. Pl. Prt. 310b and Luc. 21.33. νέον, like καινόν, connotes euphemistically an unpleasant or unsettling event here, at 590, and possibly also at 4, as often in tragedy; cf., e.g., Stevens on Eur. Andr. 60, Collard on Eur. Supp. 89b–91 and 92, D’Angour (2011) 64–84. τρανῶς expresses the precision of a thought or its verbal expression which impresses the mind by ‘piercing’ it. τρανής may share the etymology of τορός ‘piercing’ and τείρειν (cf. De Roos (1976) 329–30), or derives from the same root as Latin intrare (Chantraine (2009) 1089, Beekes (2010) 1498–9); it is formed from the same suffix ‑ᾱνης which is also found in σαφηνής (Meissner (2006) 209). It is mainly limited to tragedy: 2x in Aesch., 1x in Eur., 1x Soph. (Aj. 23 ἴσμεν γὰρ οὐδὲν τρανές, spoken by Odysseus in a similar situation of lack of certain knowledge), 1x in Moschion. οὐδὲν τρανῶς at 40 recalls κοὐδὲν καθαρῶς at 34 (καθαρός and τρανής are often synonyms, e.g., in Dion. Hal. Comp. verb. and Plut.), just as 39 νέον ἀγγέλλειν recalls 34 ἀγγέλλεις.

172

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 – 4 2 ἀπέδειξας ‘you revealed’; cf. Eur. TrGF 839.14 μορϕὴν … ἀπέδειξεν and γνώμην ἀποδέξασθαι about 20x in Herodotus. 41–8 The fires and agitation in the Greek camp which make the Trojan watchmen anxious and prompt them to wake Hector mirror the fires which Hector commanded to be lit in Il. 8 in order to check the Greeks and prevent them from fleeing without suffering losses (see 8.508–11, discussed in 15–22n.). They may also echo the merry noise and fires of the victorious Trojan camp at the beginning of Il. 10, which dismay the Homeric Agamemnon and lead him to seek the advice of other leaders (10.11–16). The story of the ‘Doloneia’ (the first part of both Il. 10 and of Rh.) involves a constellation of similar feelings, decisions, and actions which develop almost simultaneously in the two armies, though neither side is aware of what the other is doing; see Introduction, pp. 57–8. 41 Σ ad loc. observes that the line was marked with the symbol χ, commonly indicating lines suspected of being spurious, because verb + object are written as a single compound (πυραίθει, the reading of most MSS, see below) and because it is ‘not Euripidean’ (οὐκ ἔστιν Εὐριπίδειος ὁ στίχος). There is no reason to suspect line 41, which is in strophic responsion with 23 and syntactically congruent. Ritchie (1964) 50 persuasively suggests that this scholion was originally written for Rh. 823, where the MSS give again the verb + object as a compound (πυραίθειν), and the metrically redundant words Ἀργείων στρατόν are added; a grammarian would have observed that ‘the line is not Euripidean’, and later his scholium would have been transferred to line 41, which includes the same wrong compound. Less probable seems the interpretation of Wilamowitz (1877) 11–12, according to whom the scholion would be the remnant of an original edition κεχιασμένη, signalling the passages of Rh. that proved the play to be spurious. The original text would have thus expressed the idea that ‘the tragedy is not Euripidean’ but the original subject, e.g., τραγωιδία, would have been replaced by more common στίχος. πύρ᾿ αἴθει: the majority of the medieval MSS fail to offer the correct word division here, in 78, and in 823 (all MSS in the last case). There can be no doubt about the division (restored by Reiske (1754) 86), in view of Π2 78 πυρ᾿ αιθειν, and of Callim. Lyr. F 228.13 Pf. in PBerol. 13417 (πύραιθεῖν); it is paralleled on the one hand by πῦρ αἴθοιεν of Hdt. 4.145.4 and αἴθηι πῦρ of Aesch. Ag. 1435 (the only precedents for transitive αἴθειν), and on the other by the more common (and Homeric) πῦρ/πυρὰ καίειν. Cf. 95 αἴθουσι ... λαμπάδας πυρός. Ἀργόλας occurs only here, in Eur. TrGF 630, and in Ar. PCG 311 (most probably paratragic). 42 πᾶσαν ἀν᾽ ὄρφναν: cf. Thuc. 3.22.1 ἀνὰ τὸ σκοτεινόν, where ἀνά has the same local-temporal sense (Ritchie (1964) 181, Fries 134). ὄρφνη, elsewhere

173

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 very rare (but cf. Aesch. Ag. 21 ὀρϕναίου πυρός), is one of the most common designations of the darkness of night in Rh.: 69, 570, 587, 678–9, 697, 774. It is a favourite word of Eur. (6x; Ar. Ran. 1331 may parody the penchant of Eur. for the word), and probably evokes here the formula νύκτα δι᾿ ὀρφναίην, typical of Il. 10 (83, 276, and spurious 386; elsewhere at Od. 9.143 and, probably in its wake, HHom.Herm. 578); cf. Laser (1958) 391, Danek (1988) 80. On the frequent references to the nocturnal setting of Rh., see 5n. 43 Fires are lit throughout the Greek camp (41), but the watchmen concentrate on the moorings of the ships: they may thus have unwittingly led Hector to surmise that the Greeks are embarking, though they state that they do not intend this specific interpretation (79), and claim a more general apprehension (49, 79). διιπετῆ means here and usually in classical poetry ‘shiny’; elsewhere, sometimes, ‘falling through’, ‘falling from Zeus’ or ‘sent from heaven’ (as in Hom.), from the root Δι- or from διά; cf. Treu (1958), Humbach (1967), Renehan (1972), Calame on Alcman F 26.67 = PMGF 3.67, Battezzato (2000a) 146–8, West (2007) 350–1. The correction διειπ- (Elmsley on Eur. Bacch. 1266, after Elmsley on Eur. Med. 326 n. r) has been unanimously accepted from Murray onwards, with the exception of Fries, and seems to be confirmed by Eur. Hyps., TrGF 752h.31 ν] ά̣ματ᾽ οὐ διειπετῆ (‘clear’ Bond ad loc., pp. 82–3, or ‘rain-fed’ LSJ).26 The same spelling διειπ- has also been adopted by modern editors in Eur. Bacch. 1267 (where MS P has διιπ-), Emped. VS 31B100.9 (MSS διιπετέος or δι᾿ εὐπετέοις), and Erotian. Lex. Hipp. 65.12 Nachm. (MSS διηπετής). Some of the ancients considered the spelling διειπ- the proper form of the adjective in the sense ‘shiny’: cf. Zenodotus (?) ap. Σ Hom. Od. 4.477 Ζηνόδοτος (in one MS; Ζηνόδωρος in the other) δὲ διιπετῆ τὸν διαυγῆ ἀποδίδωσι. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ γράφει διειπετέος διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου. The spelling maintained by Zenodotus (?) is supported by Hesych. Lex. δ 1535 Latte-Cunn. διειπετέος (but see δ 1784 διιπετέος). The modern acceptance of this spelling is most probably to be traced back to Solmsen (1911) 162–3, who defended διειπ- as analogical to forms such as the common Attic names Διειτρέφης, Διϝείφιλος, and Διϝείθεμις (LGPN 2.115, 1.131). However, Homeric papyri consistently give the spelling διιπ-. The only available evidence for διειπετής is the papyrus of Eur. Hyps., TrGF 752h.31, quoted above, PHerc. 1428 fr. 16.5–6 of Philod. De piet. (Henrichs (1975) 96) = Democr. VS 68A75, and a single manuscript of Hipp. De morb. mul. 1.24 (out of the three primary MSS; the other two have διιπ-). In the absence of more substantial linguistic evidence, the spelling διειπ- in its three isolated cases may have been simply an error due to itacism.27 The form διιπετής should be left untouched in our passage. Eur. also has the form διοπετής at IT 977 and TrGF 971.1. On the large number of itacistic mistakes in the papyri of Philodemus, cf. Crönert (1903) 24–30.

26 27

174

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 – 4 7 δέ continuative returns at 44 and 49 and neatly marks the four major divisions in the report of the watchmen. σταθμά, with ναῶν, refers to the ‘ship-sheds’ (Chadwick (1996) 256; cf. Morrison and Williams (1968) 181–5 on the archaeological evidence at Piraeus): first here and later only at Lycophr. 290 ναύλοχα σταθμά, again of the Greek ships at Troy. Commoner in Rh. (136, 244, 448, 582, 591, 602, 673) is ναύσταθμα, which is widely attested in prose at least from Thuc. 3.6.2 onwards, but never in fifth-century poetry (possibly it sounded too much like a technical term: Sinko (1934) 423). Neither ship-sheds nor dockyards are mentioned in Hom., where the ships are hauled ashore and supported with stone ἕρματα; cf. Il. 1.486, 2.154, Gray (1974) 102–4. The mention of σταθμά/ ναύσταθμα in Rh. should be considered one of the anachronistic modernisations (Easterling (1985)) typical of tragedy. 44–7a ‘The whole army went in the night to Agamemnon’s tent, urging some new announcement.’ Agamemnon had called an assembly of the Greek leaders in Il. 9.9–15, and Dolon knows of it or surmises that it is taking place when he makes his plans at 10.325–7: τόφρα γὰρ ἐς στρατὸν εἶμι διαμπερὲς ὄϕρ᾽ ἂν ἵκωμαι / νῆ’ Ἀγαμεμνονέην, ὅθι που μέλλουσιν ἄριστοι / βουλὰς βουλεύειν ἢ ϕευγέμεν ἦε μάχεσθαι. Ἀγαμεμνονίαν ... σκηνάν contrasts with εὐνὰς τὰς Ἑκτορέους of 1 (see n.). The Greek camp, with tents, is more permanent than the bivouacs of the Trojans, who are camped right outside their walls. Cf. Eur. Tro. 139 σκηναῖς ... Ἀγαμεμνονίαις; the epithet is found once in Pind. and twice in Aesch. For the accusative without preposition, see 13–14n. στρατὸς ... ἐννύχιος: here and at 227 ἐννύχιος has an adverbial sense = διὰ νυκτός, as usually in epic; cf. Hom. Il. 11.683 and 21.37 with Σ D ad locc., Od. 3.178, Hes. Th. 10. It is a literary word, 2x in Pind., 3x in Eur., 5x in Soph. (Ar. Eq. 1290 is paratragic). See also Rh. 501 ἔννυχος μολών. θορύβωι: see 15n. νέαν ... ἐφιέμενοι βάξιν: cf. Mimn. IEG 16 ἀργαλέης αἰεὶ βάξιος ἱέμενοι; but βάξις is common in tragedy (Aesch. 4x, Soph. 8x, Eur. 6x). With ἐφίεσθαι ‘aim at’ or ‘long for’, a genitive is more natural than an accusative. Mimnermus’ ἵεσθαι governs a genitive, and the only relevant parallel for ἐφίεσθαι ‘wish’ with accusative is Xen. Ages. 11.14 μεγάλην καὶ καλὴν ἐφιέμενος , where δόξαν is conjectural for a lacuna in the MSS, but the paradosis of the first two accusatives is unanimous. Soph. OT 766 τί τοῦτ᾿ ἐφίεσαι, where the verb seems ambiguous between ‘desire’ and ‘order’, proves that, although ἐφίεμαι can take a genitive, it need not (Finglass ad loc.). Perhaps in Rh. as well it expresses both nuances of ‘desiring’ (Kovacs 361) and, consequently, ‘urging’ (Mastronarde (2004) 28). οὐ γάρ πω πάρος: cf. Ar. Vesp. 1536 οὐδείς πω πάρος, Ap. Rh. 4.319 οὐ γάρ πω … πάρος; οὐ γάρ πω is quite common in Hom. and fourth-century

175

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 – 5 1 prose writers. The psychological state of φόβος explains (γάρ) the behaviour termed θόρυβος at 45. 48 The Greeks besieging Troy are called ναυτικός(-όν), ναυβάτας or ναύφαρκτος(‑ον) στρατός/στράτευμα in Aesch. Ag. 634 and 987, Soph. Ph. 57–8 (cf. also ναυτικός/ναυβάτης στόλος: Ph. 270, 561), Eur. IA 914 and 1259 (cf. also Hec. 921 ναύταν … ὅμιλον). On the reference to the fleet as suggesting to Hector that the Greeks may be ready to flee, see 43n. ναυσιπόρος, here intransitive, ‘seafaring’, may be modelled on Eur. IA 171–3 Ἀχαιῶν στρατιάν (cf. Rh. στρατιά) … / Ἀχαιῶν τε πλάτας ναυσιπόρους ἡ/μιθέων (thus Fries 36); cf. also Eur. Tro. 877 ναυπόρωι ... πλάτηι. 49 ὑποπτεύων τὸ μέλλον: in 79 the chorus will again ‘look with apprehension’ at the fires they now describe to Hector. ὑποπτεύειν means ‘have an inkling of ’ something with some degree of apprehension; perhaps idiomatic with τὸ μέλλον: Xen. Hell. 4.4.4, Polyb. 18.20.3, [Ael. Arist.] Or. 43, p. 89.4 Keil. 50 ἤλυθον ἄγγελος: predicative ἄγγελος and ἦλθ- occur 9x in Homer; participles of ἀγγέλλειν and forms of ἦλθον occur in Aesch. Cho. 709, PV 943, Eur. Andr. 821, Hel. 1518. Rh. gives the phrase a special Euripidean flavour by employing ἤλυθον, occurring again in a lyric context at 263 and in iambic trimeters at 660. Epic ἤλυθ-, in place of the common Attic ἦλθον, belongs in the literary language in hexametric, elegiac and lyric poetry (Hes., Solon, Theogn., Ibyc. Pind.), but in tragedy it is never used in Aesch., only once in Soph. (Aj. 234), and over a dozen times in Eur., mainly in lyric or anapaestic metres (Soph. and Eur. also use forms of reduplicated ἐλήλυθον); cf. Denniston on Eur. El. 168, Ritchie (1964) 178, Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 1108. 51 ‘So that you have not to utter a rebuke against me’: cf. Soph. Ph. 522–3 τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅπως ποτ’ εἰς ἐμὲ / τοὔνειδος ἕξεις ἐνδίκως ὀνειδίσαι, 1308–9 κοὐκ ἐσθ᾿ ὅτου / ὀργὴν ἔχοις ἂν οὐδὲ μέμψιν εἰς ἐμέ. For the text, see above ‘Metrical structure’ 29–33 ~ 47–51. Tragic μέμψιν ἔχειν (‘carry on a rebuke’ or ‘incur a rebuke’: Aesch. PV 445, Soph. Ph. 1309, quoted above, Eur. Hcld. 974, Holt (1941) 125 with n. 3) is equivalent to μομφὰν ἔχειν at, e.g., Pind. Isthm. 3/4.54. Abstract ‑σις nouns became frequent only in the fifth century, when with the sophists ‘abstract thinking furthered abstract expression’ (Willi (2003) 136), and were parodied by Ar. (cf. Handley (1953)). They are often construed with verbs meaning ‘carry out’ in Thuc. and tragedy, especially Soph. (cf. Long (1968) 34, 81–90, Freundlich (1987) 32–40). These periphrases appear to express the event in a less determinate and factual way than the non-periphrastic verbs, and may thus be a symptom of the trend toward ‘de-individuation or typicalisation’ of language in fifth-century Greek (Willi (2003) 136). For the report motivated by the fear of punishment if the messenger does not conscientiously report the news, or does so too slowly, cf. Aesch. Sept. 651–2 ὡς οὔποτ᾽ ἀνδρὶ

176

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 – 7 5 τῶιδε κηρυκευμάτων / μέμψηι (perhaps echoed in Rh.: Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. 651–2), Soph. Ant. 223–36. More generally for the messenger’s fear of the interlocutor’s reactions, cf. Eur. Pho. 1213–18, Bacch. 668–71. 52–75 Hector’s speech narrates the events that determined the situation in the night of Rh., and is thus a sort of displaced prologue. Up to 62, and again at 70–3, this retrospective summary plays an intertextual game with Il. 8, a book that described the fighting of the day preceding the night of Il. 10 (and of Rh.). At dawn the fight is even, but then Zeus turns the battle in favour of the Trojans, and Hector boasts that he will soon burn the Greek ships (8.182–3 πυρὶ νῆας ἐνιπρήσω, κτείνω δὲ καὶ αὐτοὺς / Ἀργείους: cf. Rh. 61–2). Hera fails to persuade Poseidon to intervene in favour of the Greeks, and the Trojans cross the Greeks’ wall and trench. At this point Hector ‘would have burned the shapely ships with blazing fire’, if Hera had not put it in Agamemnon’s mind to charge to the rescue (8.217–19). The favourable moment of Agamemnon’s rally does not last, and once again the Trojans cross the trench. Only nightfall stops their assault: 8.487–8 Τρωσὶν μέν ῥ᾿ ἀέκουσιν ἔδυ φάος, αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοῖς / ἀσπασίη τρίλλιστος ἐπήλυθε νὺξ ἐρεβεννή. Hector admits (8.497–541) that victory has been interrupted, and says they all have to ‘obey the night’ (8.502), although he would have liked to make the final attack and go back to Troy (8.498–9) ‘having destroyed all the Achaeans and their ships’. The motif of the ‘interrupted final victory’ by night, Hector’s vainglorious tone, and his wish to have achieved victory (explicitly criticised by Σ exeg. Il. 8.497 ὑπερηϕανίας μεστὸς ὁ λόγος) serve as a model for Rh. 56–62. The references to the future in Hector’s speech centre on his fear that the Greeks may escape under cover of night (52–5, 65–75). As noted by Goossens (1962) 299 n. 71, he interprets the fires as evidence of the intention of the Greeks to escape. It was common for fleeing armies to light camp-fires to simulate normal activity and cover their retreat: cf. Hdt. 4.134.3–135.3, Thuc. 7.80.1, Jos. AJ 13.178, Polyaen. Str. 3.9.50, 7.11.4, Frontin. Str. 2.12.4, 3.11.5. There is no justification for the claim of Zanetto (ii) 61 that in 97–8 Hector supposes that the Greeks would need lights to organise their embarkation, or of Menzer (1867) 15, that the author is guilty of ‘imbecillitas’, because of Hector’s interpretation: ‘nam si fugam parassent, sine dubio obscuritate usi essent’. Hector’s idea that the Greeks may attempt to run away probably originates in the desperate wish to flee expressed by Agamemnon at Il. 8.242–4, 9.9–28, and 14.64–81. There Hector is not considering a night attack as he does in Rh., but at Il. 10.101 Agamemnon is afraid that the Trojans may attempt one and in Il. 8 Hector wishes he had made a night attack (see above). Hector had also warned the Trojans to keep a watch, so as to do the Greeks as much harm as possible, should they decide to flee: μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδεί γε νεῶν ἐπιβαῖεν ἕκηλοι (8.512; cf. Rh. 103 ἄνευ μάχης).

177

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 – 7 5 The seers mentioned in the final part of Hector’s speech at Rh. 63–75, whom Hector blames for having counselled against a night attack, are not present in Il. 8. The night comes ‘unwished’ for the Trojans in Il. 8.487–8, but Hector expresses no desire to continue fighting in the darkness. This detail of the Rh. may be reminiscent of Hector’s statement, when he finally reaches the ships and begins to set fire to them, that once in the past he wanted to set fire to the ships but was prevented by the ‘elders’ (γέροντες, Il. 15.719–23) from ordering a final attack. Another precedent may have been Il. 12.195–250. There the Trojans, led by Hector and Polydamas, are about to breach the Greek defences one more time and set the ships on fire (12.198), when the prodigy of an eagle and snake is interpreted by Polydamas as a warning to the Trojans not to carry the fighting to the ships (12.216). Polydamas presents himself as possessing the wisdom of a good seer (12.228–9), but Hector firmly rejects the advice and relies, mistakenly, on the promise of victory that Iris (11.200–9) had presented to him as the favourable will of Zeus. More distant from the epic model is Hector’s belief that the interruption of his success is due to a δαίμων (Rh. 56–8). The Homeric Hector briefly acknowledges that nightfall interrupted his victorious fighting and ‘saved’ the Greeks (8.500–2 cit.). Hector’s speech in Rh. may have originated as an interpretation or adaptation of the overlapping divine interventions and alternating successes of Trojans and Greeks in the κόλος μάχη of Il. 8 (nowhere else in the Il. do gods influence the result of the fight in favour of either army as frequently and changeably as in this book). His main innovation in Rh. – the intervention of a hostile δαίμων – may derive from a text of Hom. where the darkness of the night saving the Greeks from utter destruction was ascribed to Zeus himself. Σ A to the second hemistich of Il. 8.501 (ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης) reports: ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος γράφει ‘ἐπεὶ Διὸς ἐτράπετο φρήν’. ἐξ ἄλλου δὲ στίχου (scil. Il. 10.45) τὸ ἡμιστίχιόν ἐστι νῦν ἀναρμόστως προστεθειμένον· οὐ γὰρ κατὰ Διὸς προαίρεσιν νὺξ ἐγένετο. The arrival of night is not ascribed to divine will in the Homeric paradosis of 8.500–1, κνέφας ἦλθε, τὸ νῦν ἐσάωσε μάλιστα / Ἀργείους καὶ νῆας ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης, but it was certainly in the text favoured by Zenodotus, reading ἐπεὶ Διὸς ἐτράπετο φρήν in 8.501. At 56–8 the author of Rh. may have presupposed the text of Il. 8.501 that Zenodotus was later to favour; cf. Fantuzzi (2005). If this is so, by referring to an anonymous δαίμων (56), and not to Zeus, as the divine force supporting Hector, the author of Rh. may have rationalised the jumble of initiatives which in Hom. result from the scheming of Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and Athena, by attributing their effects to the agency of an unnamed superior power (‘characters use δαίμων to make statements about the impact non-human forces have in the action without giving them a name’: Budelmann (2000) 145).

178

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 52 ἐς καιρόν is common in Eur., who uses it most often with verbs of motion to qualify an arrival or a departure: Hipp. 899, Hec. 666, Her. 701, Tro. 744, Hel. 1081, Pho. 106, Or. 384 (also adverbial accusative καιρόν at Hel. 479 and TrGF 495.9, 757.60i.27); elsewhere, e.g., Soph. Aj. 1168 ἐς αὐτὸν καιρόν, and 34, 1316 adverbial accusative καιρόν, Ant. 386 ἐς δέον, Alexis, PCG 151.1 εἰς καιρὸν ἥκεις, 153.9 εἰς καιρὸν ἐλθών. The sense ‘right time’ is the most common for καιρός in the fifth and fourth centuries, and ‘timely’ will probably be the prevailing meaning in this phrase too. The sense ‘appropriate situation’, which is common for the word in earlier poetry and is also found in Aesch., Soph., and Eur., may contribute a significant nuance beyond the temporal sense; in fact the verb of motion leaves room for the possibility that the phrase includes a spatial nuance, ‘to the right time and appropriate place’. Cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 386–7, Wilson (1980) 182, 189, 193, 197 and (1981) 418–19, Race (1981) 213 and n. 44, Trédé (1992) 25–44, Diggle on Theophr. Char. 12.1 p. 321. Hector congratulates the watchmen on reporting their information when it is not too late (i.e., before all the Greeks run away unharmed, as he believes they are doing: 53–4) and at the right spot (i.e., to the right person: he is the one who would have liked to attack the Greeks at dusk, despite the opinion of the seers, and thus can now lead the attack against the Greeks while they are still embarking: 70–5). ἥκεις, the reading of Π2, is usually preferred to ἦλθες, the reading of the medieval MSS. The aorist is paralleled in Eur. Tro. 744 ἐς καιρὸν ἦλθε = Hel. 1081, quoted above; but ἥκεις is imitated by Christ. pat. 1870, 2299, 2390, and paralleled in a fragment usually ascribed to Astydamas’ Hector, TrGF 60F1i.2–3 (a messenger to Hector, see 1–51n.) ταῦτ᾿ ἀγγελῶν ... ἥκω; cf. also Eur. TrGF 757.27 καιρὸν γὰρ ἥκεις and Alexis quoted above. Turyn (1957) 311 surmises that the archetype of the ‘selected plays’ of Eur. had the double reading ἤκεις and ἦλθες, and the hyparchetypes from which our medieval MSS derived coincidentally chose ἦλθες. καίπερ ἀγγέλλων φόβον: cf. Eur. Hcld. 656 βοὴν ἔστησας ἄγγελον φόβου, Soph. OT 917 ἢν φόβους λέγηι, Plut. Num. 8.3 φόβους τινὰς ἀπαγγέλλων (in all these passages, φόβος = ‘cause of fright’). Concessive καίπερ implies the proverbial topos that a messenger of ill tidings is never welcome: Aesch. Pers. 253, Ag. 636–49, Soph. Ant. 276–7, Eur. Tro. 710–11, Pho. 1214–18, adesp. TrGF 122, Fries 138. Hector’s ‘fear’ does not arise from a suspicion that the movements inside the Greek camp represent preparations for an attack, as maintained by Musgrave II.405. The context (in particular 56–62) shows that he is afraid instead of being deceived by the sudden flight of the unpunished Greek army. Triphiod. 235–7 ἤδη δὲ Τρώεσσι καὶ Ἰλιάδεσσι γυναιξὶν / ὄρθρον ὑπὸ σκιόεντα πολύθροος ἤλυθε ϕήμη / δήιον ἀγγέλλουσα ϕόβον σημάντορι καπνῶι may allude to the phrase in Rh., but uses φόβος in the Homeric sense to refer to the ‘rout’ of the Greeks.

179

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 – 5 4 53 νυκτέρωι πλάτηι is unparalleled, but the synecdoche πλάτη ‘oar’ ~ ‘ship’, mainly singular, has a secure Euripidean flavour (about thirty occurrences in Eur., 5x in Soph., 2x in Aesch.). Both words are exclusively tragic; for νύκτερος, see 764b–7a n., for πλάτη, Diggle (1994) 499 n. 29. 54–5a λαθόντες ὄμμα τοὐμόν ‘escaping my eye’: cf. Aesch. Ag. 796 οὐκ ἔστι λαθεῖν ὄμματα ϕωτός, Nonn. Dion. 5.609, 7.190, 24.73 Διὸς λάθεν ὄμμα. Hector does not argue for his idea that the Greeks are trying to run away, and does not even mention the fires that would support it. His strictly personal interpretation of recent events and of the state of the war thus becomes obvious and incontrovertible reality. His language ‘illustrates the personal view he takes of the battle as he speaks exclusively in the singular ... there is no suggestion of the Trojan army or Trojan state: it is as if Hector were single-handedly waging war against the Greeks’ (Rosivach (1978) 55–6). αἴρεσθαι φυγήν (φυγῆ(ι) MSS), from αἴρεσθαι ‘undertake’, ‘shoulder’, not αἱρεῖσθαι ‘choose’; cf. 126, where the MSS read αἴρωνται φυγῆ(ι), and the phrases αἴρεσθαι + πόλεμον Aesch. Supp. 342, 439, 950 and Eur. TrGF 50.2; + κίνδυνον Eur. Hcld. 504; + πένθος Her. 147; + ἄχθος Eur. Or. 3; Barrett (2007) 257–9; also Aesch. Pers. 481 αἴρονται φυγήν (Elmsley: MSS αἰροῦνται or αἱροῦνται) and Soph. Aj. 246 ποδοῖν κλοπὰν ἀρέσθαι (perhaps from ἄρνυσθαι). With the dative φυγῆι, which is transmitted by all MSS both here and at 126 and defended by Pace (2002), 454–5, Barrett (2007) 258 n. 69, and Liapis (2011a) 52, the phrase would mean ‘put to sea in flight’, which is a plausible meaning in this context. But Hector seems to imagine the Greeks at an early stage in engineering their escape, not yet actually weighing anchor, and at 72–3 the Greeks are still embarking according to Hector’s hunch. A parallel for the accusative φυγήν (suggested by Stephanus (1568) 115–16 both here and at 126) is Aesch. Pers. 481, quoted above, about the Persian fleet sailing away defeated; the phrase comes in the same position in the line. The future infinitive ἀρεῖσθαι, proposed independently by Nauck (1889) 450 and Wecklein (1922) 14, has been accepted by most editors. The future form may be reflected by Π2 αιρεισθαι. But this may equally be a corruption of a present αἴρεσθαι, prompted by the verb αἱρεῖσθαι. The present (attested by the medieval MSS) should be kept. μέλλειν is combined with a future infinitive to express an action which is going to take place at some future time, whereas with a present infinitive μέλλειν expresses the ‘probability of the present’ (LSJ), and is used for actions in progress in a more immediate continuation of the present (Magnien (1912) II.101–4, Basset (1979) 135). The latter temporal perspective and thus the sense ‘are about to set sail’ (as in

180

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 – 5 8 Thuc. 7.50.4 μελλόντων αὐτῶν, ἐπειδὴ ἑτοῖμα ἦν, ἀποπλεῖν) better fit our passage.28 Hector is disappointed that he is missing the opportunity to massacre the Greeks and must imagine the embarkation to be taking place that night: his only hope is in fact an immediate attack (ὡς τάχιστα, 70); the dawn raid proposed by the seers will be too late. 55b σαίνει: the Greeks would have tried to escape Hector’s notice, but their fires ‘seek his attention’ or ‘get through to him’. σαίνειν was properly said of a dog wagging its tail or fawning to attract attention. It could thus be said of a ‘sight or a sound which appeals for recognition by vividly striking our senses’, often causing a sensation of pleasure (Jebb on Soph. Ant. 1213–14). But the dog often fawns misleadingly and treacherously before biting, or it fawns for food. Thus both in choral lyric and in tragedy the verb σαίνειν often means ‘cringe’ and ‘beguile’: e.g., Hes. Th. 770–1, Pind. Pyth. 1.53, 2.82, Bacch. 1.77 and 165, Aesch. Ag. 797–8, Cho. 194, 420, Soph. TrGF 577.4, 885, Harriott (1982) 11–15. As Hector appears to think that the fires are intended to deceive him as to the Greeks’ true activities, he may imply that they ‘beguile’ him into feeling an unjustified sense of calm (Σ: εὐθυμεῖν με ποιεῖ). φρυκτωρία, first attested in Aesch. Ag. 33, 490 and Soph. TrGF 432.6, recurs in several historians (Thuc., Dion. Hal. AR, Plut., Herodian, Cass. Dio); it may be military terminology. Soph. TrGF 432.6 presents φρυκτωρία as one of Palamedes’ military inventions (cf. Hershbell (1978) 82 and Russell (1999) 145–9 on fire signals as a technique mainly used in war, and 527–30n.). 56–8 ‘O destiny, who have deprived me, the lion, of my feast before I could exterminate the whole army of the Argives with this spear in a single charge!’ The lines were possibly the model for Lycophr. 212–14 δαίμων … λέοντα θοίνης … σχήσει. On destiny or divine power that deprives, cf. IT 157–9 ἰὼ δαῖμον, μόνον ὅς με κασίγνητον συλᾶις …, Ap. Rh. 4.36 ἥν τε νέον πάτρης ἀπενόσφισεν αἶσα. A confirmation of αἴρεσθαι may come from the answer of the chorus to Hector, which includes a present indicative (ἅνδρες γὰρ εἰ φεύγουσιν, 77), and Hector will repeat his belief to Aeneas by using the same tense: φεύγουσιν … κἀπιβαίνουσιν (93); cf. also 110 στρατὸν μέλλεις ἄγειν, 126 κἂν μὲν αἴρωνται φυγήν. According to the statistics of Markopoulos (2009) 28, founded on a large sampling of texts from historiography, philosophy, tragedy, and comedy, in the fifth and fifth–fourth centuries the future infinitive more often complements μέλλειν than the present infinitive, but the former seems less frequent in the fourth or fourth–third century (fifth century respectively 52.4 per cent and 38.7 per cent; fifth–fourth centuries respectively 54.0 per cent and 43.3 per cent; fourth century respectively 43.4 per cent and 54.2 per cent; fourth–third centuries 15.8 per cent and 82.9 per cent).

28

181

C O M M E N TA RY 5 6 – 5 8 εὐτυχοῦντα is a verb that Rh. favours, like Menander. Both authors also tend to avoid ὄλβιος and εὐδαίμων, which are the commonest epithets for happiness in Eur. but are never found in Rh.; cf. McDonald (1978) 309–14. Temporary εὐτυχία – of Hector (here and 60, 64, 319, 390, 583), Dolon (218) or Troy and the Trojans (649, 666, 882) – is a leitmotif of Rhesus. The δαίμων now checks the military εὐτυχία of Hector; it will finally plunge the whole of Troy from εὐτυχία back into grief (882–4). This δαίμων is a personification of ‘destiny’, as usual in the fifth century and in Eur. (cf. Eur. TrGF 901.2 εἴτε τύχη εἴτε δαίμων τὰ βρότεια κραίνει, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 98, Mikalson (1991) 22–9, Giannopoulou (1999/2000) 267–71, Budelmann (2000) 143–8). For the connection of εὐτυχία with the action of a δαίμων, cf. Soph. El. 999, OT 1478–9, TrGF 576.4, Eur. Med. 1229–32, Her. 884. Hector also defines his original εὐτυχία as a favour from a θεός (64 ῥύμηι θεοῦ, 103 θεοῦ διδόντος), according to the concept of εὐτυχία as a ‘gift’ sent by gods: cf., e.g., Aesch. Sept. 417–18, 422, 625 (θεοῦ δὲ δῶρόν ἐστιν εὐτυχεῖν βροτούς), Eur. TrGF 617a.1 θεοῦ γὰρ οὐδεὶς χωρὶς εὐτυχεῖ βροτῶν, Carcin. TrGF 70F4.1 ἀσκεῖν μὲν ἀρετήν, εὐτυχεῖν δ᾽ αἰτεῖν θεούς. δαίμων and θεός are in these passages nearly synonymous, and in fact both are commonly used in the fifth century to refer without further specification to a divine agency in control of human affairs; cf. 52–75n., Hdt. 9.76.2, Soph. El. 1264–9 (with Giannopoulou (1999/2000) 267 n. 52), Eur. Med. 1391, Hec. 164, El. 1234, TrGF 1073.1–4, François (1957) 119–38, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1111–14, Schlesier (1983) 267–79, Mikalson (1991) 241 n. 26. λέοντα: lion-similes, frequent in Hom. and tragedy, indicate the courage, power, and relentless speed of warriors, and tragedy uses the lion image mainly in relation to vengeance or protection (Wolff (1979) 145–9); both connotations are appropriate here. Instead of a simile, we have here the full metaphorical identification of individual and animal, produced by the suppression of the comparative conjunction (cf. Arist. Rh. 3.1406b20–4 and Quintilian 8.6.8–9, both using the paradigm of the lion-simile and the lion-metaphor). Metaphors of this kind are mainly post-Homeric, from Theogn. IEG 347 onwards, and common both in comedy and satyr-drama (examples in Kassel (1973=1991) 388–90) and in tragedy (e.g., Aesch. Sept. 836, Ag. 394, 827, 1258, Cho. 938, PV 857, Soph. OC 1081, Eur. Or. 1401, 1555, Diggle (1997) 102–3). Although Hector has moments of self-aggrandisement in the Il. too (cf., e.g., 7.73–5), ‘the self-application of the simile by the Rhesus’ Hector suggests a measure of presumption’ (Roisman (2015) 7). θοίνης means (food-)‘feast’, both of humans and animals (mainly a poetic word, but 2x in Hdt.); cf. also 515 θοινατήριον. In Eur. θοίνη, θοινατήριον, θοίνημα most often have connotations of excess and savagery, and are used in particular of the eating of human bodies by birds (Ion 505, 904, 1495; cf. Rh. 515, Timoth. PMG 791.138) or by other animals (TrGF 145.1), or of

182

C O M M E N TA RY 5 7 – 6 1 cannibalism (Cycl. 550, Hec. 1070–2, Or. 814, Bacch. 1184, TrGF 472e.39); cf. also Aesch. Ag. 1502, Moschion, TrGF 97F6.33, Lycophr. 1200. Ἀργείων must certainly be preferred to the variant Ἀργεῖον, which between the two accusatives τὸν … στρατόν is a very simple error (cf. Diggle (1994) 509). The genitive is required with στρατός in Hom. and the tragedians (Il. 8.472, Od. 24.81, Aesch. Th. 59, Ag. 652, Eur. Hcld. 289, Hec. 544, Tro. 342, Pho. 711, 732, 789, 1099, 1188, IA 518, Soph. Aj. 95, Ant. 15, Ph. 420, TrGF 432.1), whereas the corresponding adjective is found only at Eur. Pho. 1469, where metre requires it. The phrase occurs again at 78, 127, 146; cf. also ναῦς ἐπ᾿ Ἀργείων at 150, 155, 203, 221, 502, 589, with Ἀργείων in the same position in the line. As noted by Fenik (1964) 28n. ‘this approaches formulaic usage, and it may be an attempt to imitate the repetitive, formulaic epic diction’. σύρδην ‘in a trailing line’. Elsewhere only at Aesch. Pers. 54 and Ael. Arist. Or. 27(16), p. 454.20 Keil (conjectural in Alciphr. Ep. 3.40.1 and [Manetho], Apot. 5.172). In Aesch. the mournful chorus of Persians recall the grandeur of Xerxes’ army, which they say consisted of ‘hordes of every kind in a long trailing line’ (σύρδην). Hector fancies that he could have massacred all the Greeks, one column after the other without intermission. After Aesch. the very rare σύρδην may have remained associated with the idea of a massacred invading army, and this association would be in tune with Hector’s feelings. τῶιδ᾿ ... δορί: Rh. is fond of supplementing verbs with a material instrumental dative which points synecdochically to the whole person (above all δορί, χερί, ποδί, ξίφει, φρενί: 62, 105, 214, 222, 266, 315, 407, 451, 452, 472, 586, 794). This mannerism parallels a stylistic device especially common in Eur. (Ritchie (1964) 235–6 counts twelve of these phrases in Pho., ten in Med. or Hec., seven in El.). Here however the spear, and at 62 the hand, may function as silent witnesses of Hector’s triumphant massacre. Also typical of tragedy, and of Eur. in particular, is δορί at the end of a trimeter (7x in Rh.; Aesch. 6x, Soph. 8x, Eur. about 30x). 59–61 Cf. Eur. Alc. 357–62 εἰ δ᾿ Ὀρφέως μοι γλῶσσα … παρῆν / ... καί μ᾿ οὔθ᾿ ὁ Πλουτῶνος κύων / οὔθ᾿ … ἂν Χάρων / ἔσχ᾿ ἄν, πρὶν ἐς φῶς σὸν καταστῆσαι βίον. ξυνέσχον: perhaps ‘constrained’ or ‘oppressed’ (Σ: δύντες ἐπέσχον). This sense of συνέχειν is hardly attested in the active voice except in the language of the Septuagint and the Gospels (LSJ). Some papyri, most of which date from the third or second century (Preisigke and Kiessling (1925/1927) II.538), attest a meaning ‘keep under arrest’, which might suit our context, if understood in the metaphorical sense of ‘immobilise’ (an understanding facilitated by the ingressive aorist). In both meanings, the expression would remain odd, however, as the action of ‘constraining’ or ‘immobilising’ normally presupposes an agency which is in operation, whereas here the light of day would ‘constrain’ or ‘immobilise’ Hector with its own disappearance at dusk. With

183

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 – 6 1 this interpretation we must also postulate an unexpressed object με (often presupposed from Stiblinus 389 onwards). As an alternative to unexpressed με, we might take ξυνέσχον in an intransitive sense ‘go into hiding’; such an intransitive use is not paralleled, though it is attested for several compounds of ἔχειν (e.g., ἐξέχειν, ἀνέχειν, κατέχειν, ἐπέχειν); cf. Musgrave II. 405. Many corrections have been proposed, with variable degrees of closeness to the paradosis: e.g., μὴ ’ξανεῖσαν if the sun’s rays ‘had not failed me’ (Heimsoeth (1872) vii–viii, followed by Kovacs 363); μὴ ’φθόνησαν ‘had not begrudged me’ (Herwerden (1878) 31–2); μὴ ’ξέλειπον ‘had not let me down’ (Wecklein (ed.) 9); μή μ᾽ ἐπέσχον ‘had not held me back’ (Blaydes (1901) 2); cf. Magnelli (1999) 101–4 for a full list and thorough discussion. But it is possible that ξυνέσχον is a corruption produced by ἔσχον in the following line; in that case, the original word may have been radically different (Wecklein (1897) 484). In Homeric language the form ξύν, which is attested in Mycenaean and usually assumed to be older (but cf. Dunkel (1982)), alternates with the Ionian preposition σύν. σύν, however, is much more frequent than ξύν (Wackernagel (1916) 38–40, Wathelet (1977)), as the newer form may have replaced the older where the double consonant ξ was not metrically necessary. The paradigm of Hom. may have motivated the appearance in the texts of the three major tragedians of both συν-/ξυν- in composition and preposition σύν/ξύν. In MS M of Aesch., there are 101 instances of ξυν-/ξύν and 42 of συν-/σύν (West (1990a) xli), and one or the other form are, at times, required by metre. Fifthcentury tragedy parallels synchronically the slow transition in Attic inscriptions from ξύν (the only form transmitted in Thuc.) to Ionic and modern Attic σύν (the only form transmitted in Hdt.). Down to the last quarter of the fifth century only a handful of inscriptions have σύν, but in 425–405 the frequency of σύν increases in public documents, although ξύν remains more common; only in inscriptions later than 403 does the normal spelling become σύν, and ξύν almost disappears after 399–398; cf. Threatte (1980/1996) I.553–4. The fourth-century author of Rh. may have still oscillated between the two forms, following the Homeric and tragic tradition; or he may have opted consistently for the modern σύν, while scribes replaced some original occurrences of ξύν (as here), perhaps ‘from an overzealous desire to “restore” the old Attic forms’ (Mastronarde and Bremer (1982) 174–5; cf. also Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 40). ἡλίου λαμπτῆρες: ‘sunbeams’. λαμπτήρ, first attested in Hom. Od. (3x), remains a literary word in the fifth century, being found often in tragedy (Aesch. 3x, Eur. 3x, Soph. 1x) but never in comedy; in the fourth century it is very common in Aen. Tact. (12x), and also found in Aristotle (6x). It usually refers to any kind of artificial light used for nocturnal illumination: in Hom. the brazier where wood was lit, later usually a watch-fire, or a torch (as in Rh. 109) or a lamp.

184

C O M M E N TA RY 6 1 – 6 2 οὔτἂν (= οὔτοι ἂν) Π is preferable to οὐκ ἂν of the Medieval MSS, because οὔτοι, whose commonest function is to bring home to the comprehension of the person addressed a truth of which he seems temporarily oblivious, may add here a hint of a remonstrating (or boastful: Liapis 88) threat directed at the interlocutor – ‘I tell you’ (Denniston (1954) 537, 540, 544). ἔσχον εὐτυχοῦν δόρυ ‘checked’; cf. Hom. Il. 11.96 δόρυ ... σχέθε. εὐτυχοῦν δόρυ echoes Eur.’s similar expressions for Hector’s (and only Hector’s) success on the battlefield: Hec. 18 Ἕκτωρ ... ηὐτύχει δορί, Tro. 1162 Ἕκτορος μὲν εὐτυχοῦντος ἐς δόρυ. Here the spear’s success parallels Hector’s εὐτυχία (see 56–8 n.). The personification which invests the hero’s arms with a life of their own is quite common in Hom., as acknowledged by Arist. Rh. 1411b31–1412a9: e.g., (of the spear) Il. 11.573–4 = 15.316–17, 21.69–70 and 167–8. As remarked by Hainsworth on Il. 11.574, ‘it is a question ... whether the personification is a rhetorical fancy of the poet or an animistic aspect of popular speech; in a world where wind (5.524), rivers (12.18), fire (23.177) ... are said to have μένος, weapons may easily share the μένος of the hands that hurl them’. 2

61–2 πρὶν ναῦς πυρῶσαι: cf. Eur. Alc. 357–62 quoted at the head of 59–61n. The infinitive is used, rather than the finite verb usually found with πρίν in classical Attic after a negative protasis, because the action of the πρίν clause is not to take place, and thus does not require the temporal and modal specification provided by a finite verb; cf. KG II.457–8, Smyth (1956) 553. The boastful idea of burning the Greek ships in Hector’s speech at Il. 8 was probably the model of Rh. 50–62 (see 52–75n.). Hector actually sets fire to the ship of Protesilaus (Il. 15.704–6) and Achilles allows Patroclus to intervene precisely to prevent the Trojans from burning the ships (Il. 16.81–2); in both Iliadic passages the connection between the ships and the Greeks’ last chance of escape is also expressed, as here. An adesp. fragment, probably from a tragedy on Achilles (adesp. 640b.56–68, TrGF V.2, pp. 1133–4), includes a report of a Trojan attack that compelled the Greeks to push the ships offshore, perhaps in order to prevent their being burned. τῆιδε … χερί is used again, and in the same position in the line, at 406 to focus on the body part that, by handling arms, has enabled Hector to be victorious; see 56–8n. (δορί). Ἀχαιούς: the ethnic without article usually denotes the nation as a whole; cf. KG I.598–9, Gildersleeve (1900/1911) II.230–1. πολυφόνωι: also at 465 and at Eur. Her. 420. But ἀνδροφόνος had been mainly an epithet of Hector (11x) in the Il., where it was also used of the hands of Achilles (18.317 = 23.18 and 24.479). The use of πολυ- to vary the Homeric epithet may have been suggested by Il. 24.478–9, where Trojan Priam focuses on Achilles’ hands: χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος λάβε γούνατα καὶ κύσε χεῖρας / δεινὰς ἀνδροϕόνους, αἵ οἱ πολέας κτάνον υἷας.

185

C O M M E N TA RY 6 3 – 6 9 63–4 ‘And I myself was eager to hurl my spear in the night and to exploit the fortunate support of the god.’ ἦ (Π2) is the old Attic form of the first person imperfect (contraction of Hom. ἦα). It has often been replaced by ἦν in medieval MSS, as it was here. But it appears to have been regularly used by Aesch. and Soph. instead of the more recent ἦν, wherever a vowel does not follow. There are however six passages in Eur. where ἦν must have been used, as it is followed by a vowel (Alc. 655, Her. 1416, Ion 280, and, perhaps interpolated, Hipp. 1012, Hel. 992, IA 944); therefore it is probable that Eur. used both forms. Cf. also Jackson (1941) 170–1, Harrison (1942), Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 700, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 992, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 59, Parker on Eur. Alc. 655. πρόθυμος: probably an everyday word of Ionic-Attic; not attested before the fifth century but common in Hdt., Thuc., Ar., Hippocr., and Xen., though it remains rare in high poetry: never in Aesch., 2x in Soph., more than 20x in Euripides. ἱέναι δόρυ ‘hurl the spear’ = Eur. Pho. 1247 (at the same position in the line). But the phrase is already found in Hom. Il. 16.608; see also 20.438. ῥύμη appears nowhere else in tragedy, but is common in comedy, prose writers and Aristophanes. The phrase χρῆσθαι ῥύμηι θεοῦ (with θεός ~ destiny; see 56–8n.) may have been idiomatic: Plut. Caes. 53.2 ἐχρῆτο τῶι καιρῶι καὶ τῆι ῥύμηι τῆς τύχης, Pyrrh. 23.3 εὐτυχίαι δὲ καὶ ῥύμηι τῶν παρόντων ἐπαιρόμενος, Nic. 18.6 ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν τῶι παρόντι ῥύμης καὶ τύχης ἀνατεθαρρηκώς. Zeus’s support and the fortunate victories of Hector’s spear (εὐτυχεῖ) are associated again at 319–20. 65–9 On Hom. Il. 12.210–50 as a possible model, see 52–75n. The flashback on the μάντεις, unattested in the Il., reflects the interest in contemporary military practice found throughout Rhesus. The consultation of seers was routine for generals in the classical age, but it certainly was not a consistent practice in Homer. So the chorus at 30 had included the σφαγίων ἔφοροι in the list of units to be readied for battle; then at 68–9 we have a reference to the temporising θυοσκόων βουλαί. These prophesying priests are the contemporary equivalent of Calchas. Generally, a spirit of partnership governed relations between the military leader, guided by strategic considerations, and the professional interpreters of omens who advised him, but even in real life their exchanges could become unfriendly. According to Pl. La. 199a, the law enjoins the general to give orders to the μάντις, and not vice versa, and in most cases generals imposed their position over reluctant seers. Disregarding omens or the advice of seers was perilous for generals, as the seers usually had a significant impact on public opinion, and a military leader ‘had to decide whether to trust them and act on their advice, risking disaster if they turn out to be mistaken, or to defy and overrule them, trusting in his own judgement and risking punishment from gods and men if the seers prove to

186

C O M M E N TA RY 6 5 – 6 9 have understood the divine intervention correctly’ (Dover (1973) 64; see also Pritchett (1971/1991) III.48–56, Flower (2008) 147–83). Eur. is the tragedian in whose works the strongest criticism of seers, and of prejudicial reliance on them, can be found; cf. Hipp. 1058–9, El. 399–400, IT 570–5, Pho. 772 and 954–9, Bacch. 255–7, IA 520, 955–9 (probably spurious), TrGF 795; Cropp on Eur. El. 399–400, Calderón Dorda (2006), Flower (2008) 138–41. Soph. and Eur. have clear statements that the advice of seers should not be preferred a priori to one’s own thoughtful consideration of the facts; cf. Soph. OT 387–98 and 498–506, Eur. Hel. 744–57 (but 752–7 may be interpolated). 65–7 οἱ σοφοὶ ... εἰδότες: for σοφός of the seer, cf. Aesch. Sept. 382, Soph. Aj. 783, Ant. 1059, Eur. Med. 686. Here the qualifications σοφοί and τὸ θεῖον εἰδότες have an ironic note, like σοφός used in connection with a seer in Soph. OT 484, 563, 568. The collocation of με between the two attributes modifying μάντεις, σοφοί and τὸ θεῖον εἰδότες, is due to Wackernagel’s Law, according to which enclitics and other weakly accented postpositives like ἄν tend to occupy second place in their clause (Wackernagel (1892=1955), Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 10–11, Ruijgh (1971) 293, Diggle (1991) 59 n. 33 and (1977=1994) 170, Goldstein (2016)). ἔπεισαν: the variant ἔφησαν in Δ was probably an ancient ‘aural error’ (Klyve 144), a banalisation of ἔπεισαν. Confusions of η, ει, and ι are frequent in papyri, especially from the Roman age onwards, and the interchange of aspirated and voiceless stops is not rare: Gignac (1976/1981) I.189–91 and 90–5, respectively. This mistake may have resulted in the change of με in 65 to μοι. ἔπεισαν implies that Hector may have been reluctant to accept the seers’ opinion, and the implication is not out of place in this resentful speech. ἡμέρας ... φάος: also at 985; cf. Eur. Alc. 244 ἅλιε καὶ ϕάος ἁμέρας, TrGF 443.1 ὦ λαμπρὸς αἰθὴρ ἡμέρας θ’ ἁγνὸν ϕάος, Ar. Eq. 973 ἥδιστον ϕάος ἡμέρας (where Σ comments: ἀπ’ Εὐριπίδου). μηδέν(α) ... λιπεῖν ~ ‘leave no-one alive’ occurs repeatedly in military contexts: e.g., Xen. Cyr. 4.2.18, Hell. 2.3.41, Pl. Resp. 567b, Plut. Otho 7.3. 68–9 Cf. Dem. 4.37 οἱ δὲ τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ μένουσι καιροὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν βραδυτῆτα. μένουσι parallels μεῖναι at 66: the Greeks do not ‘stay for’ the advice of Trojan seers about ‘waiting for’ dawn for the attack. θυοσκόων (θυοσκόπων LQ is a banalisation) are the seers who take omens from burnt sacrifices; cf. Casabona (1966) 118–19, Flower (2008) 22–3. The term is here a synonym of μάντις (cf. 66), together with which it is found already at Hom. Il. 24.221 ἠ᾽ οἳ μάντιές εἰσι θυοσκόοι ἠ᾽ ἱερῆες, where θυοσκόοι is in apposition to or an epithet of either μάντιες or ἱερῆες. It is found elsewhere in tragedy at Eur. Bacch. 224; the verb θυοσκεῖς is conjectured in Aesch. Ag. 87. δραπέτης: unlike φυγάς, which means ‘fugitive’, δραπέτης is often used for the ‘deserter’ (e.g., Aeschin. 3.152, Dinarch. 1.82) and the ‘runaway slave’

187

C O M M E N TA RY 7 0 – 7 3 (e.g., Hdt. 6.11.2, Ar. Av. 760). The word lends a derogatory note to Hector’s maxim; for a similar derogatory use of δραπέτης, cf. Eur. Hcld. 140, with Allan ad loc. Hector’s maxim would then be similar, but opposite in tone, to Pho. 726 ἴσον φέρει νύξ, τοῖς δὲ τολμῶσιν πλέον. μέγα σθένει ‘has great strength’: cf. Aesch. Ag. 938, Soph. OC 733, Eur. TrGF 302; also μεγασθενής in Pind. and Aeschylus. The phrase parallels Homeric μέγα σθένος (Il. 8x, Od. 1x; also in Soph. Tr. 497, Eur. Andr. 675. El. 427, 958). The verb σθένειν is not attested before the tragedians. 70–1 At the end of the unsuccessful embassy to Achilles in Hom. Il. 9, Ajax urges his fellow ambassadors to return to camp with a speech that begins ἀπαγγεῖλαι δὲ τάχιστα / χρὴ μῦθον Δαναοῖσι (626–7). ἀλλ(ά) ‘marks an emphatic change of gear as Hector stops complaining and turns to the matter of an attack’ (Klyve 145; cf. Denniston (1954) 13–14). τεύχη ... λαμβάνειν: cf. Eur. Hcld. 726–7 ἐμοὶ πρόχειρ᾿ ἔχων / τεύχη κόμιζε; for πρόχειρος of a weapon, also Eur. El. 696, Hel. 1563–4, Soph. Ph. 747. λῆξαί θ᾿ ὕπνου ~ 770 λήξας ὕπνου, = Eur. Her. 1011 λήξας ὕπνου.29 The present infinitive is used for the continuous action of ‘putting on the ready armor’, the aorist for the ingressive event of waking up, which precedes that action. The hysteron-proteron, as at 23–5, puts first the action on which more stress is laid (here the goal that the speaker has in mind), without regard to order in time (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 589, Battezzato (2008) 36). 72–3 ‘So that many a one of them, even while leaping on his ship, may be carved in the back and sprinkle the ladders with his blood’ ~ Rh. 100–1: cf. Hom. Il. 8.513–15 ὥς τις τούτων γε βέλος καὶ οἴκοθι πέσσηι / βλήμενος, ἠ᾽ ἰῶι ἠ᾽ ἔγχεϊ ὀξυόεντι / νηὸς ἐπιθρώισκων (see 52–75n.). Both in Hom. and in Rh. Hector’s subjective fantasy of the war’s end may mirror the scene with which the war objectively began: when the Greek ships land at Troy, the first Greek to be killed is Protesilaus, slain while he disembarks (Il. 2.702 νηὸς ἀποθρώισκοντα πολὺ πρώτιστον Ἀχαιῶν). ὡς ἄν and ὅπως ἄν with subjunctive are final conjunctions expressing ‘a purpose of the speaker which is capable of fulfilment in the future’ (Dobson (1910) 144), with ὡς ἄν more common in tragedy, and ὅπως ἄν more common in prose (Amigues (1977) 101–3). Rh. includes four instances of this construction (also 420, 473, 878). τις αὐτῶν: here and in Il. 8.513, quoted above, τις means ‘many a one’ (e.g., Il. 2.271, Od. 3.224): not, as Hector would have liked, all the Greeks (whom his Iliadic counterpart had boasted that he could have killed, 8.498 πάντας Ἀχαιούς), but only the few who are still embarking.

Fries 144 emphasises a few other verbal correspondences beween the context of this passage and Rh.: 1007 νῶτον with Rh. 73; 1009 δεσμὰ ... βρόχων with Rh. 74.

29

188

C O M M E N TA RY 7 3 – 7 5 νεὼς θρώισκων ἔπι ~ 100. νῶτον χαραχθείς and ῥάνηι φόνωι: these phrases are attested in archaic and classical Greek only here and in Pind.: Pyth. 1.28 στρωμνὰ δὲ χαράσσοισ᾿ ἅπαν νῶτον ... κεντεῖ (said of the effect on Typhon’s back of his rocky bed under Aetna), Isthm. 8.50 αἵμαξε Τηλέφου μέλανι ῥαίνων φόνωι πεδίον (said of Achilles killing Telephus); ῥαίνειν φόνωι is found elsewhere only in Nonn. Dion. 7.168. Neither verb is common in tragedy, although uncompounded ῥαίνειν has been conjectured at IA 1516 and is found in spurious IA 1589 and in TrGF 386c.2 (text uncertain). χαράσσειν ‘carve’ is attested at Aesch. Pers. 683 χαράσσεται πέδον. Being wounded in the back (where νῶτον is retained accusative: ‘having had his back carved’; cf. KG I.326 n. 7) is evidence of flight; cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 8.94–5, 13.288–91, Tyrt. IEG 11.19–20 (all focusing on the detail of the wounded νῶτον), adesp. TrGF 450, Lys. F 182 Carey. χαράσσειν suggests the disfiguring mistreatment of the body that prevents the dead warrior from gaining a heroic ‘beautiful death’ (Vernant (1991) 67–74). In particular, in the light of 69 δραπέτης, the image may have been connected to the flogging of slaves (Liapis 91) or the branding (στίζειν) of them. Cf. Soph. Aj. 110, where Ajax in his hallucination predicts that he will cause his despised enemy Odysseus to die νῶτα φοινιχθείς by his whip; and many Athenian prisoners, after the victory of the Syracusans in 313, happened to be dishonoured by a slave brand, according to Plut. Nic. 29.1 καὶ τούτους ὡς οἰκέτας ἐπώλουν στίζοντες ἵππον εἰς τὸ μέτωπον· ἀλλ’ † ἦσαν οἱ καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς τῶι δουλεύειν ὑπομένοντες. Sprinkling with the blood of one’s back the ships’ ladders (not the battlefield), in a desperate attempt to embark, is an extreme manifestation of cowardly avoidance of battle and dishonour. Hector’s revenge for the κακά that the Greeks inflicted on Troy (see 104), consists not so much in killing the defeated Greeks as in debasing their honour with shameful wounds, in tune with the practice of revenge killing, which at least in the Homeric code of war could involve mutilation, whereas conventional killing did not (Lendon (2000) 4–11; see also 219–22a n.). κλίμακας: ‘ladders’ used to embark on the ship from the shore are mentioned by Eur. IT 1351, 1382, Hel. 1570, Arr. An. 1.19.5. They were in use in everyday life at sea in classical Athens: cf. the list of ship-equipment in IG II/ III2.1622.149 and 203. φόνωι means both ‘murder’ and the resulting ‘spilt blood’. 74–5 ‘And others, held bound in ropes, may learn to till the Phrygians’ soil.’ The acquisition of booty was a raison d’être of Greek warfare in every age. When a city was conquered in war, the persons and property of the inhabitants belonged to the captors; cf. Xen. Cyr. 7.5.73, Mem. 4.2.15, Arist. Pol. 1255a6–7, Pritchett (1971/1991) V.68–541, Gabrielsen (2007) 250–3, van

189

C O M M E N TA RY 7 4 – 7 5 Wees (2007) 284. In the Il. there is no indication of the practice of shackling prisoners of war and exploiting their labour, though Od. 14.263–72 recounts a raid whose apparent aim was to provide slave-manpower (14.272 σφίσιν ἐργάζεσθαι ἀνάγκηι). This practice may have become more common in late archaic and classical times, when reducing the population of a defeated city to near-servile status, working the land for the conquerors, may have bec0me more consistently one of the significant economic motives for war. Hdt. 1.66.2–4 reports a war between Sparta and Tegea, datable to the first part of the sixth century, where the Lacedaemonians, misinterpreting an oracle, went to attack Tegea equipped with a supply of fetters, as they were sure that they would take the enemy away in them; but they were defeated, and were themselves enslaved to till Tegea’s land. However, while women and children from captured cities were regularly enslaved, the evidence concerning the enslavement of soldiers captured after a battle remains scanty until the midfourth century. Cf. Ducrey (1968) 80–2 and 218–28, van Wees (1992) 238–42, Rosivach (1999) 139–41. ἐν βρόχοισι δέσμιοι (with δέσμιος passive = ‘bound’, as at Soph. Ph. 608, Eur. Bacch. 226) is a pleonastic combination typical of Eur.: Her. 1009 δεσμὰ … βρόχων and IT 1411 δεσμὰ καὶ βρόχους; also Bacch. 615 δεσμίοισιν ἐν βρόχοις (where δέσμιος active = ‘binding’; the variant δεσμίοις in our passage presupposes this active meaning). The lexicographers commonly gloss βρόχος with δεσμός or vice versa, or juxtapose the two as synonyms: Σ Hom. Od. 8.288, Σ Opp. Hal. 2.270, Phot. Lex. μ 413 Theod., Suda μ 978 Adler. δέσμιοι λελημμένοι: a brachylogy with hysteron-proteron for ‘being captured and put in bonds’; a possible parallel is Soph. Ph. 678 δέσμιον ... ἔλαβεν (in a textually debated passage). The two actions of taking prisoners and making them δέσμιοι are often distinguished; cf., e.g., Eur. Bacch. 355–6 κἄνπερ λάβητε, δέσμιον πορεύσατε / δεῦρ᾿ αὐτόν, Diod. Sic. 18.66.3, Dion. Hal. AR 20.16.1, Plut. Ant. 50.4, Jos. AJ 15.8. The perfect passive of λαμβάνω is more frequently λέλημμαι in tragedy than epicising εἴλημμαι (Soph. Ant. 732 and Eur. or Crit. TrGF 43F7.7). Φρυγῶν: see 32n. ἀρούρας: Homeric and mainly a poetic word. Here it may have its original, technical sense of ‘arable’ land (i.e., cultivated; from the root of ἀροῦν) as opposed to ἀγρός, land used for pasture (cf. Chantraine (1956a) 35–6). ἐκμάθωσι, with its intensive ἐκ, and the technical word γαπονεῖν, here for the first time and later very rare (but see γαπόνος, first attested at Eur. Supp. 420), make clear the harshness of Hector’s intentions: the Greek prisoners will have to learn very thoroughly the specific job of tilling the Trojan soil. γαπονεῖν Π2 and Δ is indisputably correct. The MSS of both Aesch. (γαμόρος, γαπότος, γατόμος) and Eur. (γαπετής, γαπόνος) consistently attest the vocalism γα- for these compounds, and tragedy almost never uses forms in γεω-,

190

C O M M E N TA RY 7 6 – 7 8 possibly to differentiate from standard everyday language (see 138–9n., 279n.), as these technical terms were commonly used in Attic prose (Björck (1950) 115). 76–7 The watchmen’s emphasis on the fires in the Greek camp is the first cause of Hector’s alarm about the Greeks’ unpunished flight (see 43n.). But they now refuse to give credit to Hector’s interpretation or to agree with his consequent line of conduct. ταχύνεις πρὶν μαθεῖν: cf. Ar. Plut. 376 κατηγορεῖς … πρὶν μαθεῖν τὸ πρᾶγμά μου; but πρὶν μαθεῖν is common in Soph., Eur., and Attic prose. δρώμενον/-α, with article, is attested as a substantive in Soph. El. 40, 85, 1333, Tr. 588, OC 1144, 1644 and Eur. IT 1295, Pho. 1334, 1358 (disputed), and is not rare in later prose writers. Here the term has a present conative sense, ‘what the enemy is trying to do’; it refers to the significance of the fires reported by the watchmen. So too in Eur. (locc. citt.; also Her. 1012 τοῖς δεδραμένοις) it often points to the content of a message; cf. De Jong (1991) 10 n. 21. οὐκ ἴσμεν τορῶς, ‘clearly’; also at 656 and 737, always with ‘not’ (as rarely elsewhere) and with a verb of perception. For the sense, both ‘clear’ and ‘piercing’ (de Roos (1976) 327–9), see 38b–40n. on τρανῶς. The phrase introduces information that is ‘unclear’ because of the limited knowledge of the person reporting it, as at Aesch. Ag. 632 οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδεὶς ὥστ᾽ ἀπαγγεῖλαι τορῶς; cf. also Soph. Aj. 23 ἴσμεν γὰρ οὐδὲν τρανές, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλώμεθα. First attested in Emped. VS 31B23.11 τορῶς ταῦτ᾿ ἴσθι, this adverb is a favourite word of Aesch. (12x, and 6x the adjective τορός); never in Soph., only once each in Eur., Ar., and Plato. 78 τίς γάρ…; Hector’s previous statement – the Greeks are embarking – is doubted by the chorus because the facts are unclear. With progressive γάρ Hector rhetorically asks them ‘what other’ interpretation is possible (Denniston (1954) 81). By claiming that there is a clear connection between the fires and the flight of the Greeks, both here and at 82, Hector relies on his knowledge that lighting fires is a strategic trick of fleeing armies (see 52–75n.), but the watchmen appear not to be aware of this. πύρ᾿ αἴθειν ~ Rh. 41. At the beginning of Hector’s rejection of the chorus’ doubts, his quotation from the beginning of the antistrophe has a kind of argumentative force. He is accusing the chorus of inconsistency: their present stance is one of agnostic prudence, whereas their previous reaction to the fires was to recommend immediate action (cf. 76–7). Likewise, two words of Hector at 84 seem to quote the first two words of the chorus’ suggestion at 23 (see 84n.). πρόφασις here means the antecedent condition that can precipitate an event, a sense first attested in the Hippocratic corpus. The word more often

191

C O M M E N TA RY 7 9 – 8 1 means ‘alleged motive’. Cf. Deichgräber (1933), Pearson (1952), Schäublin (1971), Rawlings III (1975), Nikitas (1976). στρατόν: πρόφασις + accusative and infinitive is found at Xen. Eq. 7.16; for πρόφασις + dative and infinitive cf. Soph. Ph. 1034 αὕτη γὰρ ἦν σοι πρόφασις ἐκβαλεῖν ἐμέ (line suspected). There is no good case for emending στρατόν to στρατῶι, with Morstadt (1827) 16, as advocated by Klyve 147. 79 ὕποπτον recalls the watchmen’s generalised and indefinite apprehension at 49. The adjective seldom appears in tragedy outside Eur. (7x; 1x Aesch.). The frequency of ὕποπτος and ὑπόπτως in Thuc. (almost 30x) and Xen. (6x) leads one to suppose that they may have been familiar from military situations and language; likewise ὑποπτεύειν, see 49n. κάρτ(α), Ionic equivalent to Attic intensive μάλα and affirmative πάνυ, not attested before Hipponax, Hdt., the Presocratics, and the corpus Hippocraticum. It is common in tragedy, where it is often used, as here, with asseverative force (‘truly’), in answers to questions. It is seldom attested in Attic comedy (3x) and in Attic prose (once in Plato); but its appearance with καλός in love-inscriptions on Athenian vases may show that it belonged in colloquial Attic (Dunbar on Ar. Av. 342). ἐμῆι φρενί: synecdochic presentation of the self, instead of plain ἐμοί; it points to the prudent reasoning (φρήν) by which the watchmen feel themselves characterised in their reactions to the new developments in the Greek camp – and most probably implies a subtle criticism of Hector’s unilateral and hasty reaction. 80 ‘Believe me: you would shudder at everything, if you are afraid of this’: cf. Eur. Hipp. 519 πάντ᾿ ἂν φοβηθεῖσ᾿ ἴσθι. δειμαίνεις δὲ τί;. For the double participle (ἂν φοβηθείς ~ potential apodosis; δειμαίνων ~ present general condition), cf. Ag. 680 τοσαῦτ᾿ ἀκούσας ἴσθι τἀληθῆ κλυών. εἰδέναι + participle is a typical construction of the tragedians (e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1302, PV 824, Eur. Alc. 150, 1063, El. 53, Hel. 452), not found before them. As noted by Ritchie (1964) 206, it occurs in a parody of Euripidean style at Ar. Ach. 456 and 460, where it carries, as here, a tone of irritation. In a papyrus fragment usually ascribed to Astydamas’ Hector (TrGF 60F1i, quoted in 1–51n.), lines 9–10, a character, possibly Hector, accuses a messenger of being unduly frightened; cf. Liapis and Stephanopoulos (2019) 33. ἄν: for the position, see 65–7n. δειμαίνων is a verb of which Eur. is fond (14x in the surviving tragedies, 3x in Aesch. and 2x in Soph.). 81–3 The watchmen try to justify their apprehension (cf. 78) about the unusual number of fires in the Greek camp. Hector’s reply, ‘yes, but…’, with corrective γε (Denniston (1954) 132–3), both reaffirms the relevance of the fires and corrects their reaction to them. The logic of the chorus reflects

192

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 – 8 4 the anxious hesitancy of ordinary soldiers; Hector’s reasoning, though it will prove mistaken, rests on the strategic competence and experience of a military leader; see 68–9n. ἐν τροπῆι δορός ‘in the turning of battle’ or ‘in a rout of the (Greek) army’, with synecdoche of δόρυ ~ ‘combat’ (e.g., Soph. Ant. 670, Eur. Supp. 475, 752, Her. 1190–1, Pho. 859, Or. 1603) or ~ ‘army’ (see 20–2n.). The same phrase occurs at Soph. Aj. 1275, where Teucer reminds Agamemnon of Ajax’s crucial role in the phase of the war when the Greeks were practically ‘routed’ and shut up inside their defences, and Hector fired the ships; see also Soph. Ant. 674–5 δορὸς τροπάς, Aesch. Ag. 1237 ἐν μάχης τροπῆι. With this specification, Hector applies the final touch to his expressions of contempt for the Greeks. They have not only been massacred, but ‘fell dishonourably’ (αἰσχρῶς ἔπεσον) in a rout: see 72–3n. 83 The chorus employ plain logic as ordinary soldiers ready to acknowledge their leader’s superiority; the phrase of the second hemistich also appears in Antiphon 1.31 and Dion. Hal. AR 3.26.5. 84 ‘Concerning enemies, my order is simple: arm your hand!’ The line recalls Il. 12.243 εἷς οἰωνὸς ἄριστος, ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης, Hector’s rebuke of Polydamas’ fearful interpretation of the omen of the eagle and the snake, for which see 52–75n. ἁπλοῦς ... μῦθος is a phrase typical of tragedy, and used to introduce an order in Aesch. and Eur.: Aesch. Cho. 554 ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος· τήνδε μὲν στείχειν ἔσω, Eur. Alc. 519 διπλοῦς … μῦθος ἔστι μοι λέγειν, Hel. 979 ἁπλοῦς λόγος, Pho. 469 ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος τῆς ἀληθείας ἔφυ, TrGF 253.1 ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος· μὴ λέγ᾿ εὖ; also cf. or. 446 βραχὺς λόγος, 758 ὁ μῦθος οὐ μακρός, TrGF 304.1 βραχὺς λόγος. ἐπ᾿ ἐχθροῖς may be taken with ἁπλοῦς ... μῦθος (‘where enemies are concerned my orders are simple: to arms’: Kovacs 365; so also, e.g., Vater 98, Liapis 92), or with ὁπλίζειν (‘my word is simple: arm and face the foe’: Σ ad loc. and, e.g., Murray (1913) 7, Klyve 148, Zanetto (ii) 59). ὁπλίζειν χέρα ~ ὁπλίζου χέρα 23, at the beginning of the chorus’ suggestions to Hector. At the very end of his speech, Hector again takes up the verbal technique employed in the first line of his criticism of the chorus’ hesitation: he implies that he is taking the decisions which the chorus had suggested before fear and excessive prudence caused them to reconsider their stance (from 76 onwards). The general subject ‘everyone’ remains unexpressed, and the phrase does not have here the evident reflexive sense that favours the middle voice at 23 and 99. The active form of the verb is also attested at Eur. Alc. 35. χέρα is preferable to plural v.l. χέρας; cf. 23–5n., 99n. Hector will think of the single individual ‘everyone’, as the chorus at 23 χέρα, transmitted by all MSS. Hector’s other ‘quotations’ from the chorus are made with great precision insofar as syntax allows.

193

C O M M E N TA RY 8 5 – 8 7 85–6 νέον τι πρᾶγμ(α) … φράσαι: Taplin (1977a) 147 n. 3 and Liapis 93 suggest that this is modelled on Eur. Hec. 216–17 καὶ μὴν Ὀδυσσεὺς ἔρχεται σπουδῆι ποδός, /… νέον τι πρὸς σὲ σημανῶν ἔπος, since (they claim) the phrase seems awkwardly out of place when Aeneas has no news and wants instead to be briefed by Hector. But 87–9 suggest that Aeneas is also bringing news that the watchmen have left their post in the grip of panic and that the army is in a state of κίνησις (cf. 36–8a). καὶ μήν usually indicates the sudden realisation of a fact just seen or heard, that was not expected at that very moment (see 546–50n.), or introduces the announcement of a new character coming on stage, whose approach is presented as seen or heard by the speaker, as at 627–8, and had not been announced in the preceding lines. It is especially common in Soph. (7x), Eur. (14x), Ar. (6x); once in Aeschylus. It is frequently followed by some form of ὅδε, as here and 627. Cf. Denniston (1954) 356, Taplin (1977a) 147–8, Diggle (1997) 98, Wakker (1997) 227–8, van Erp Taalman Kip (2009). ὅδ’: the demonstrative is very common in entrance announcements (15x in Eur. according to Kovacs (2018) on Eur. Tro. 230, who counts 18 entrances without the demonstrative for the entrant). Αἰνέας, with synizesis of -εα-; but no synizesis in Soph. TrGF 373.1. This is the Ionic and Attic form (Thuc. and Xen.) for Aeolic Αἰνείας usual in Homer, with the isolated exception of Αἰνέας at Il. 13.541 (according to several MSS and Aristarch. ap. Σ A ad loc.); cf. Wackernagel (1916) 2, von Kamptz (1982) 283, Barrett (2007) 148. καὶ μάλα: καί emphasises μάλα, and μάλα modifies σπουδῆι (ποδός) ­adverbially, as if it were σπουδάζων (Porter 49). σπουδῆι ποδός ‘with haste of foot’ is a specification of the simple adverbial dative σπουδῆι ‘quickly’, common from Hom. onwards; Rh. 82 ἐν τροπῆι δορός is similar. Cf. Aesch. Sept. 369–71 ὅ τοι κατόπτης, … / πευθώ τιν᾿ ἡμῖν … νέαν ϕέρει, / σπουδῆι διώκων πομπίμους χνόας ποδῶν, Eur. Andr. 879– 80 καὶ μὴν ὅδ᾿ ἀλλόχρως τις ἔκδημος ξένος / σπουδῆι πρὸς ἡμᾶς βημάτων (Brunck: δωμάτων MSS) πορεύεται, Hec. 216–17 (quoted above), Pho. [1430] προθυμίαι ποδός (where Σ gloss προθυμίαι with σπουδῆι). στείχει is ‘the vox propria for stage movements’ (Collard on Eur. Supp. 940; also Diggle (1997) 98–9), commonly used in entrance announcements in both Eur. (Cycl. 87, Med. 270, 1119, Hcld. 50, Hipp. 52, Tro. 232, 708, Pho. 696, 1309, 1334, Or. 460, 726, TrGF 105.2, 752h.14, 1132.62) and Soph. (OT 632, Tr. 179, OC 312). Announcements that combine καὶ μήν and the verb στείχειν (as also at Rh. 627–8) are typical of Eur.; cf. Alc. 611–12, Hipp. 1342, Tro. 230–2, Or. 348, IA 1619. 87–130 When Aeneas first appears in the Il. (5.166–238), he is addressed by Pandarus as Τρώων βουληφόρε χαλκοχιτώνων (5.180; indeed he promptly provides Pandarus with effective advice), and he is called βουληφόρος in three

194

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 – 1 3 0 other places in the Iliad. Apart from the epithet βουληφόρος, which however is occasionally used of various Greek leaders, Aeneas᾽ wisdom as a counsellor is implemented by more marginal hints which can be found throughout the Il., such as 20.264–8, where his clearheadedness (δαΐφρονος) is contrasted with Achilles’ foolishness (νήπιος). His role as a figure of political authority explains a few cryptic hints at his grievance against Priam and his family’s competitive rivalry with Priam’s royal dynasty (13.460–1, 20.179–81, 302–8; also HHom.Aphr. 196–7; cf. Smith (1981)), and complements Hellanicus’ narrative according to which he leads a final attempt at resistance in the citadel after the Greeks had penetrated the lower city (FGrHist 4F31). Aeneas never features in Il. 10, but all these details suggest his high standing in the post-­Iliadic Trojan leadership and may have encouraged the author of Rh. to introduce a debate between him and Hector, by substituting him for Polydamas as Hector’s trusted advisor (see 105–8n. and 109–18n.).30 Rh. is the first text to ascribe to Aeneas a crucially relevant role, as an advisor (see Introduction, p. 62). The stances of Aeneas and Hector in their dialogue recall the development of the discussion of Adrastus’ request for recovery of the bodies of the Argives in the first episode of Eur.’s Supp. (87–364). At first, Theseus angrily rejects the idea, in spite of the favourable reaction of the chorus, but Aethra persuades her son, mainly by employing some of his own arguments against him: Theseus refuses Adrastus’ plea primarily on the grounds of Adrastus’ moral, religious, and political mistakes, and Aethra’s first argument is that to deny burial to the Argives fallen at Thebes would be a violation of the ‘will of the gods’ (301–2), and also a political mistake, as his refusal would be damaging to the image of Athens (314–25). She demonstrates a concern for the principles that motivate Theseus, but points to applications of those principles which Theseus had not envisaged. Likewise, although Aeneas is not assumed to have heard the conversation between the watchmen and Hector, the two characters coincide on some ideas, and this basic level of agreement lends greater weight to Aeneas’ own objections. In fact he agrees with Hector’s assessment of the risk posed by the watchmen; but his interpretation of the fires in the Greek camp is far more sceptical than Hector’s, and in his final speech (105–30) he will suggest sending a spy to ascertain the real reason for the fires, instead of launching the risky nocturnal attack that Hector favours. His initial agreement shows, however, that he shares Hector’s military knowledge and experience.31 Hector disregards completely the ­opinion of the For a different evaluation of Aeneas in the Il. and Rh., which seems demeaning, cf. Roisman (2015) 12. 31 Already in the Il. Aeneas had been called the greatest leader of the Trojans together with Hector (cf. 5.467–8), since he and Hector were ἄριστοι / πᾶσαν 30

195

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 – 8 9 chorus, with his characteristic attitude of superiority and lack of patience towards those of lower social station, as in his reaction to the chorus’ advice regarding the fires (34–40), his harsh treatment of the shepherd (266–74), his castigation of the chorus for allowing Odysseus and Diomedes into the Trojan camp (808–19), and his brusqueness with the charioteer (856–78); cf. Rosivach (1978) 56–7. But Aeneas is Hector’s social and military peer, and Hector, in dialogue with him, is prepared to back down and take part in a more political and collective kind of decision-making; cf. Hesk (2011) 141 and below 137n. 87–9 are in tune with Hector’s criticism of the watchmen for leaving their post without serious news to relay, and his suspicion that their report may be the effect of φόβος, while they risk provoking a dangerous disturbance in the army (17–18, 34–40). The nocturnal setting is especially emphasised through νύκτεροι … ἐλθόντες, νυκτηγοροῦσι, and εὐνάς. Aeneas may imply what Hector had said explicitly, namely that military panic is especially dangerous at night; see 36–7a n. Aeneas’ entrance, like the entrance of Dolon at 154, is not anticipated by the chorus or Hector. In the light of the narrative of Il. 10, after Hector asks who wants to endorse the spying mission, it is not surprising that someone volunteers. By contrast, the entrance of Aeneas, who also did not feature in Il. 10, is completely unexpected. Surprising entrances of this kind are associated especially with Eur., in whose plays even important characters can enter the stage unannounced. Such is the case with Orestes in Andr., Evadne and Iphis in Supp., Menelaus in Tro., the Pythia in Ion, Pylades in Or. (for Soph. see Tiresias and Eurydice in Ant.; for Aesch., Oceanus and Io in PV). Cf. Taplin (1977a) 11–12, Hamilton (1978) 64–6, Griffith on Aesch. PV 284–396 p. 140, Halleran (1985) 24–5. τί χρῆμα, adverbial accusative, here equivalent to τί ‘why?’. It is a favourite phrase of Eur. (Alc. 512, Hcld. 633, 646, 709, Hec. 977, El. 831, Her. 1179, Ion 255), not attested elsewhere in tragedy; cf. Jakob (1975) 379–81, Parker on Eur. Alc. 512, Collard (2018) 60. νυκτηγοροῦσι: ‘make a night report’, intransitive; cf. νυκτηγορία in 19 (Porter 45–6). Differently Kovacs 365 ‘are deliberating at night’; in this sense the verb might be transitive, as at Aesch. Sept. 28–9 (προσβολὴν … νυκτηγορεῖσθαι; see 17c–19n.), with τί χρῆμα as object (Fries 150). But in view of the coincidence between Aeneas’ and Hector’s concern about the watchmen (see 87–130n.), I prefer to suppose that Aeneas uses the verb in the same sense as Hector used νυκτηγορία in 19. κεκίνηται στρατός: see 17c–19n. ἐπ᾿ ἰθύν ... μάχεσθαί τε φρονέειν τε (6.78–9; cf. 17.513, Virg. Aen. 11.285–92, with Horsfall ad loc.).

196

C O M M E N TA RY 9 0 – 9 2 90 The question asked by Aeneas remains unanswered until 93, as Hector is anxious to proceed to action as soon as possible (Mastronarde (1979) 39 n. 13). Hector’s order echoes the excited haste of the watchmen in dialogue with him at 23. πύκαζε of Π2 and Λ should be preferred to πυκάζου Δ as the lectio difficilior. Middle or passive voices are found in the reflexive meaning of ‘crown one’s own head’ (middle in Archestr. F 60.1 Olson-Sens στεφάνοισι κάρη ... πυκάζου, passive in Eur. Alc. 831–2 κάρα / στεφάνοις πυκασθείς, middle/reflexive in Cratin. PCG 105.7 τῶι … μελιλώτωι κάρα πυκάζομαι), but the active is also used for this reflexive action: cf. Men. Sam. 732–3 πύκαζε σὺ / κρᾶτα, the oracle 282.5 Parke-Wormell ap. Dem. 21.52 κάρη στεφάνοις πυκάσαντας, adesp, lyr. CA 38.5 τί στεφάνο]υς ῥοδίνους πυκάζεις;. πυκάζειν is a conventional word in Greek for putting on crowns and such like, not for arming, and it appears to be applied to military equipment elsewhere only at Hom. Il. 10.271 Ὀδυσσῆος πύκασεν κάρη ἀμφιτεθεῖσα, referring to the unconventional κυνέη of boar’s tusks which Odysseus wears for his night expedition, and in Eur. Hcld. 720–5 ὅπλων … παντευχίαν, / ϕθάνοις δ’ ἂν οὐκ ἂν τοῖσδε σὸν κρύπτων δέμας· / … εἰ δὲ τευχέων ϕοβῆι βάρος, / … ἐν δὲ τάξεσιν / κόσμωι πυκάζου τῶιδ(ε), from which (as Fries 150 observes) Rh. takes some words of this line. πυκάζειν ... δέμας appears again only at Nonn. Dion. 41.307, where it is said of a dress. δέμας σέθεν, like 969 μητρὸς … δέμας, is a periphrasis of the βίη Ἡρακληείη type (cf. 351b–4n.), designating an individual by pointing, synecdochically, to a part of him or her; it is especially frequent in Eur. with δέμας (Burkhardt (1906) 90). Other nouns with which this periphrasis is common are ἴς, σθένος, μένος, κῆρ, κάρα, σῶμα (KG I.280–1). 91–2 ‘What is going on? Is the report that the enemy are engaging in a treacherous nocturnal ploy?’ rephrase Hector’s fear concerning a λόχος in 17. τί δ᾽ ἔστι;, accompanied sometimes by the vocative of the addressee, expresses the speaker’s surprise when faced with an undefined problem or event; it is frequent in Eur. (14x), Soph. (20x), Ar. (more than 30x). It is followed by another question introduced by μῶν at Eur. Hcld. 795 and Hipp. 1160, once in Ar. Pax 281, and once in Archipp., PCG 37.1. δόλος κρυφαῖος ἑστάναι The choice between variants δόλος and λόχος is very diffficult, but the sense would not change substantially. For δόλος, cf. Eur. El. 983 ὑποστήσω δόλον, [Opp.] Cyn. 4.221 δόλον ἐστήσαντο. κρυφαῖος, pleonastic with δόλος, is combined with it at, e.g., Dion. Hal. AR 8.57.3; Jos. AJ 10.164; Plut. Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.3; Nonn. Dion. 8.228, 49.95. λόχος, interlinear variant in P for δόλος, was perhaps a gloss explaining that δόλος here means ‘ambush’ (Diggle (1994) 510–12). But the opposite – that δόλος arose as a gloss of original λόχος, explaining that λόχος means here not ‘contingent’ of soldiers but ‘ambush’ – is also feasible. And λόχος is found with intransitive ἑστάναι at Eur. Andr. 1114 τῶι δὲ ξιϕήρης ἆρ᾽ ὑϕειστήκει λόχος and with

197

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 – 9 3 κρυπτός/κρύφιος at Paus. 4.12.4 and Triphiod. 120, 539. Besides the question would pick up more directly Hector’s question at 17 (on the close parallels between Hector’s and Aeneas’ reactions to the situation, see 87–130n.). κατ᾿ εὐφρόνην: εὐφρόνη, again at Rh. 518, 616, 737, 825, 852 (always at lineend), first appears at Hes. Op. 560, and possibly Archil. IEG 23.9 (cf. Handley (2007) 95–7), adesp. SLG S 473.1. It later occurs in Ionian prose-writers (Hdt., Heraclit., Hippocr.), and more than 20x in the three major tragedians. In an Attic context it must certainly have been felt to be a literary and elevated word – it is found only once in comedy, in Ar. Eccl. 954, a passage of highflown language. Aeneas may be thought to have chosen the word to neutralise his apprehension and make use of its positive euphemistic overtones, as at Aesch. Ag. 265 (cf. Fraenkel ad loc. ‘Addenda’ (III.829) ‘I might have admitted the possibility that Aesch. chose the word εὐφρόνη here because its beginning with εὐ- made it boni ominis’). As noted by Troxler (1964) 13–16, in tragedy the word often refers to an especially momentous span of time: the night in which a character has an important dream (e.g., Aesch. PV 655), or Cassandra’s and Agamemnon’s nights of love, which, at least according to Hecuba’s logic, ought to have imposed on the Greek king some moral obligation towards Cassandra and herself (e.g., Eur. Hec. 828), or the night when an important event takes place or has just taken place, such as the fall of Troy (Aesch. Ag. 337) or Agamemnon’s decision to sacrifice Iphigenia (Eur. IA 109); in Eur. Pho. 727 εὐφρόνη is used, as here, for a night when an ambush is to take place. The night of Rh. was not, as usually in epic, an unremarkable time of sleep and absence of action (the inert opposite of the day), but rather a special night extending activity which is characteristic of daytime. 93: cf. 53–5, spoken by Hector, to which the chorus has already reacted with greater prudence in 77. As Klyve 150 notes, in order to make Aeneas emotionally involved, Hector answers Aeneas’ question τί δ᾿ ἔστι; with an exaggeration that focuses on his interpretation of the fires, not on the facts themselves. Contrast 95–8, where, after Aeneas requests proof at 94, Hector admits that he is only guessing. φεύγουσιν: with his obsessive emphasis on the idea that the Greeks are running away (again in 98, 100, 104, in every case with φεύγειν or φυγή at this point in the line), Hector aims to make Aeneas as mortified as he is himself at their escaping unharmed: cf. 102–5. κἀπιβαίνουσιν νεῶν: this phrase is used not uncommonly of ‘embarking’ in prose writers of the Imperial age, but until Hellenistic times it is attested only here and in Hom. (Il. 2x, Od. 3x; it is probable at Hes. F 204.110). Both the Iliadic occurrences are in speeches of Hector in Book 8 (196–7 and 512): he hopes to ‘make the Greeks mount their ships’ to flee back to Greece (ἐελποίμην κεν Ἀχαιοὺς / αὐτονυχὶ νηῶν ἐπιβησέμεν ὠκειάων) or to hurt them during their nocturnal embarkation (μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδεί γε νεῶν ἐπιβαῖεν ἕκηλοι).

198

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 – 9 6 94 Cf. Aesch. Ag. 272 τί γὰρ τὸ πιστόν; ἔστι τῶνδέ σοι τέκμαρ; and 352 ἀκούσας πιστά σου τεκμήρια, Supp. 53–4 ἐπιδείξω / πιστὰ τεκμήρια, Soph. El. 773–4 πίστ᾽ ἔχων τεκμήρια προσῆλθες, Men. PCG 513.2. ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον seems to become an idiomatic phrase in the Imperial age: cf. Plut. Mor. 214f, Arr. Cyn. 31.5, Galen, In Hipp. aph. 17b.816.4. τεκμήριον is a ‘sign’, a known fact that provides evidence about unknown facts through ‘inference’; cf., e.g., Alcmeon, VS 24F1, Aesch. Ag. 352 (after 315 τέκμαρ; from the beacon scene, of which the debate in Rh. on the fires in the Greek camp is reminiscent; cf. Fantuzzi (2006a) 245–6), Eur. Alc. 239–41, TrGF 811 τἀφανῆ τεκμηρίοισιν εἰκότως ἁλίσκεται, TrGF 574, Hdt. 2.33.2, Thuc. 1.1.3, Andoc. 3.2, Isocr. 4.141. Neither the noun τεκμήριον nor the sense ‘infer’ of τεκμαίρεσθαι (at Rh. 705) are attested in Hom., where the verb means ‘assign’ – but there is an isolated example of τέκμωρ used of a divine sign at Il. 1.526. At Pind. Ol. 8.3 τεκμαίρεσθαι refers to inferential prediction of the future on the basis of divine signs in sacrificial ritual; cf. Corcella (1984) 42–3. Fifthcentury tragedy, medicine (Hippocr., e.g., Progn. 17.46, 24.71, Aer. 8.56–68, Ars 12.5.1) and historiography appear to employ τεκμήριον and τεκμαίρεσθαι as technical terms for inference; cf. Lloyd (1966) 425–6, Perilli (1991) 168–79. τεκμήριον is sometimes just a synonym of σημεῖον, as in Thuc. (Hornblower (1987) 100–4); but it may also be used in a narrower sense than σημεῖον, designating only the surer ‘signs’ that are most reliable, e.g., in Aristotle’s Rhetoric; cf. Cope (1867) 160–3, Grimaldi (1980). It is often joined in tragedy with epithets stressing the idea of universality and reliability, like ἀσφαλές here (σαφές: Eur. TrGF 382.2, Med. 517, Hipp. 925; πιστόν: see above). αἴθουσι … πυρὀς ~ 41–2. λαμπάδας πυρός: a pleonastic expression, attested only here (see also 109 πυρὸς λαμπτῆρας), in the Septuagint, and in Philo. 96–8 μενεῖν future (Portus (1599) 69), as 98 ἀφορμήσειν. ἐς αὔριον is the form found in epic and tragedy; ἐς/εἰς τὴν αὔριον, with article, is more common in prose writers. ἐς retains perhaps its force = ‘until’ here and at 600; cf. Hom. Od. 11.351, Hes. Op. 410, Callim. Aet. F 43.16 Harder, Fries 152. ἐκκέαντες: archaic Attic aorist; either asigmatic (Schwyzer (1939) 745 n. 3), with metathesis of Homeric ἔκηα, or an originally sigmatic aorist with loss of intervocalic sigma (Threatte (1980/1996) II.529 and 549). Participle κέας is perhaps found at Aesch. Ag. 849 and Soph. El. 757 (conjectural), and the present ἐκκαίειν occurs at Eur. Cycl. 633 and 657. This archaism is not exclusively poetic, as ἐγκέαντι is found in IG I3.476.271, an inventory of 408–407 concerning building expenses for the Erechtheion, and in Ar. Pax 1132. The preverb ἐκ- has here its usual mild intensifying force; cf. Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. 155; Fraenkel (1950) on Aesch. Ag. 1033.

199

C O M M E N TA RY 9 6 – 1 0 0 πύρσ(α), heteroclite plural of πυρσός, not attested elsewhere; probably analogous to πυρά at 42 and 78. εὐσέλμων νεῶν: Homeric formula (with ἐυσσελμ-); after the Il. (14x) and the Od. (15x) its use appears to be restricted to HHom.Dion. 6, Stesich. F 91.a.2 Finglass, Eur. IT 1383 (εὐσέλμου Pierson: εὐσήμου L), adesp. TrGF 463.1, Opp. Hal. 3.550, 5.154. τῆσδ᾿ ἀφορμήσειν χθονός: intrans., cf. Eur. Med. 1237 τῆσδ᾿ ἀφορμᾶσθαι χθονός. 99 ‘What are you going to do by arming your hand?’ According to Burnett (1985) 19, Hector now starts to arm himself, and he may be at least in part armed when he utters his swashbuckling threats at 100–1. On this view he would be inappropriately armed when he suddenly becomes prudent at 137– 9; this would produce a comic effect (a dove in hawk’s clothing). But Hector is far from becoming a dove, and 144–6 show that he is only postponing an attack that he still favours. Hector’s armour may be carried by an attendant; cf. Taplin (1977a) 160, Klyve 151. σὺ δ(έ): the personal pronoun, usually omitted, contrasts Hector with the Greeks (Klyve 151). ὡς τί δράσων: cf. Eur. Alc. 537 ὡς δὴ τί δράσων τόνδ᾿ ὑπορράπτεις λόγον;, Med. 682 σὺ δ᾽ ὡς τί χρήιζων τήνδε ναυστολεῖς χθόνα;, IT 557 ὡς τί δὴ θέλων;, Hel. 1037–8 ἐσφέρεις γὰρ ἐλπίδας / ὡς δή τι δράσων χρηστόν, Soph. Tr. 160 ὥς τι δράσων εἷρπε. It is a colloquial phrase whose tone is ironical or incredulous: Denniston (1954) 211, 230, Parker on Eur. Alc. 537. πρὸς τάδ(ε) ‘in view of this’ and πρὸς ταῦτα are common phrases in Attic drama (14x in Aesch. 13x in Soph., 15x in Eur., 23x in Ar.), most often found at the beginning of defiant imperatival clauses, and sometimes in defiant questions, as here and at Eur. El. 274 and Soph. Ph. 568–9: cf. Jebb on Soph. Ant. 658, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 249, Diggle (1981) 38. Aeneas’ question may indicate that he doubts that the mobilisation of the Trojan army can significantly check the flight of the Greeks by sea. ὁπλίζηι: here and at 23 the self-reflexive meaning favours the middle voice; see 84n. χέρα (Ald.) distributive singular (see 23–5n.) is more appropriate than transmitted χέρας with a singular subject; cf. χέρα of all MSS at Rh. 23 (with 23–5n.) and χέρα of most MSS at 84) and Eur. Alc. 35 χέρα ... ὁπλίσας (sing. sub.), Or. 926 ὁπλίζεσθαι χέρα (sing. sub.; χέρας V), but Or. 1223 ὁπλιζώμεσθα ... χέρας (plural subject). 100–1: cf. 72–3. κἀπιθρώισκοντας ... κἀπικείσομαι: the striking double crasis and the rhetorical parallelism of the hendiadys at 100 ‘they flee and leap onto the ships’ and 101 ‘I will attack with my spear and fall heavily on them’ emphasise the

200

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 1 – 1 0 3 tit for tat strike that Hector is planning. αὐτούς, the common object of both verbs, is as usual in the case governed by the first of them; cf. KG II.652–3, Fries 153. κἀπιθρώισκοντας confirms 72 θρώισκων ἔπι. κἀπικείσομαι βαρύς ‘and I will heavily fall on them’ may be military language: cf. Diod. Sic. 13.110.5 (βαρεῖς ἐπικείμενοι) ~ 20.38.6, 20.54.5 (ἐπικειμένων ... βαρύτερον), 20.64.5 (βαρέως ἐπικείμενοι), Jos. AJ 6.334 (ἐπικεῖσθαι βαρεῖς). 102–4 The propriety of retaliating on one’s enemies is a topos of tragedy: e.g., Aesch. PV 1041–2, Eur. Hcld. 881–2, Andr. 438, Ion 1046–7, Bacch. 877–80 (but text uncertain), TrGF 1091 and 1092, Xen. Mem. 2.3.14; also, specifically, on military enemies, Thuc. 7.68.1. On the two symmetrical principles of helping friends and harming enemies, cf., e.g., Dover (1974) 180–4, Blundell (1989), Herman (2006) 184–94, 270–81. αἰσχρὸν ... καὶ πρὸς αἰσχύνηι κακόν ~ Rh. 756–7. For the expression, cf. Hes. Op. 211 πρός τ᾽ αἴσχεσιν ἄλγεα, Eur. Cycl. 670 αἰσχρός γε φαίνηι. ⸬ κἀπὶ τοῖσδέ γ᾽ ἄθλιος, Dion. Hal. AR 9.4.2 πρὸς τῆι αἰσχύνηι ... καὶ κίνδυνον. κακός and αἰσχρός are often found together, the former used of what causes objective, material harm, or of a base person, the latter of what dishonours and damages somebody’s reputation in the eyes of others, or of the dishonoured person: see, e.g., Mimn. IEG 1.6, Theogn. IEG 1150, Aesch. Sept. 683–5, Eur. Hcld. 450, Pl. Grg. 474c–5d. In Hom., αἰσχρόν occurs only three times, always referring to the specific martial dishonour of accomplishing a poor military enterprise with no booty to show for it (Il. 2.119–22, 298) or without fighting (Il. 21.436–8; cf. ἄνευ μάχης here below); cf. Cairns (1993) 59–60. Here predicative κακόν may mean the ‘damage’ to the reputation of the Trojans for their failing to retaliate, or the material harm falling to them from the Greeks’ safe escape: if the Greeks escape undisturbed, the Trojans would be unable to enslave at least some of them and exploit their labour, which Hector had looked forward to at 74–5 (see n.). θεοῦ διδόντος: genitive absolute designating the divine will thanks to which, or less commonly in spite of which, human actions are accomplished. The phrase is common in tragedy: cf., e.g., θεῶν διδόντων Aesch. Pers. 294, Sept. 719, Eur. Hipp. 1434, θεοῦ διδόντος IA 702 (also Aesch. Eum. 393, Soph. Ph. 1316–17). It has a precedent in Solon, IEG 33.2 ἐσθλὰ γὰρ θεοῦ διδόντος αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐδέξατο, the only other passage, besides ours, where the genitive absolute has a concessive rather than causal value (the accusative ἐσθλά is to be taken apo koinou with διδόντος and the finite verb: a similar construction is found at Aesch. Sept. 719). Divine support was mentioned at 64 (see 52–75n.), divine obstruction at 56. ἄνευ μάχης corresponds to ἀσπουδεί and ἕκηλοι in the probable model Hom. Il. 8.512, discussed in 52–75n. ἄνευ μάχης and δρᾶν κακά are phrases

201

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 5 – 1 0 8 of everyday language, not attested before the fifth century, but common thereafter. 105–8 In a difficult phase of a Trojan attack during the day after Il. 10 Polydamas protests to Hector (Il. 13.726–35): ‘Hector, you are a hard man to persuade. Zeus gave you mastery in arms; therefore you wish to excel in strategy as well (οὕνεκά τοι περὶ δῶκε θεὸς πολεμήϊα ἔργα, / τοὔνεκα καὶ βουλῆι ἐθέλεις περιίδμεναι ἄλλων). And yet you cannot have all gifts at once. God gives one man skill in arms, another skill in dancing ... but the lord Zeus who views the wide world has instilled clear thought in yet another ... Let me tell you the best thing as I see it (αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω, ὥς μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἄριστα; cf. Rh. 130)’. This same speech of Polydamas intimates at 745–7 the possibility that Achilles will return to battle, so resembling Rh. 119–22. In the Homeric passage (as well as in Rh.), ‘the priamel softens the rebuke by granting that one cannot be good at everything, including taking advice’: Janko on Il. 13.726– 47. It may also imply that Hector should yield to the advice of people who are cleverer in decision-making, according to the principle ‘the greatest is he who can deliberate the best for himself, second best the one who can listen to another person’s wise suggestion’ (Hes. Op. 293–7, Hdt. 7.16.α1, reversed by Zeno, SVF 235). The distinction between martial valour and physical strength on the one hand and on the other wisdom in decision-making or oratorical talent as antithetical virtues, sometimes joined to the principle that the gods do not give all excellences to one man, is a commonplace already in Hom., where the synthesis of the two is presented as a rarely attainable ideal of the epic hero; cf. Il. 1.258, 4.320–5, 9.53–4, 13.730–3, 18.105–6, 18.252, 23.670–1, Od. 8.167–75, Nagy (1979) 45–9, Schofield (1986); in tragedy, Med. 485, Supp. 161, Pho. 746. 105 ‘How I wish that you were as good a man in making plans as in action.’ εὔβουλος does not appear before Theogn. IEG 325, Aesch. Pers. 749 (εὐβουλία), Pind., and Bacch., and is attested (though only occasionally) in all three tragedians and in Thucydides, where it had become a technical term of political language in the practice of decision-making (Hesk (2011)). The ambiguities of this concept were often explored in tragedy and historians; cf., e.g., Eur. Pho. 721 quoted in 109–18n. about victory depending on εὐβουλία, and Thuc. 3.82.4–5 on prolonged deliberation in order to avoid mistakes, used as an excuse for avoiding action. δρᾶσαι is troublesome. Straightforward syntax would make ὡς here consecutive (= ὥστε), so that the phrase would mean: ‘O that you were wise enough to act with strength of arm!’ But this sense does not fit the logic of Aeneas’ speech, or any logic at all. The two members of the phrase are probably in the same connection as in Eur. Hcld. 731 εἴθ᾿ ἦσθα δυνατὸς δρᾶν ὅσον πρόθυμος εἶ or Soph. TrGF 896.1 εἴθ᾿ ἦσθα σώφρων ἔργα τοῖς λόγοις ἴσα

202

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 5 – 1 0 8 (quoted by the Σ to our passage). But if this meaning ‘good at making plans as in action’ is to be obtained from our phrase, εὔβουλος must not only mean ἀγαθὸς βουλήν, but also imply the general idea of ἀγαθός or εὖ πεφυκώς or ἱκανός and thus govern the infinitive δρᾶσαι χερί as in phrases like Theb. PEG F 10 ἀμφότερον μάντίς τ᾽ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δουρὶ μάχεσθαι (so, first, Matthiae VIII.10, comparing Eur. Or. 717–18). The second hemistich would thus contrast ability in practical skills (cf. Eur. TrGF 7a.2 δρᾶσαι δὲ χειρὶ δυνατός) with good counsel. This contrast is often expressed by χείρ and βουλή (cf. Hom. Il. 16.630, Od. 16.242, Pind. Pyth. 4.72, Nem. 8.8, Aesch. PV 619, Eur. TrGF 200.3– 4, Ion, TrGF 19F63.3), and it would make good sense here. Alternatively we may, with Diggle, suppose that there is a lacuna after our line. Or we may emend: e.g. to δραστήριος Schmidt (1886) 370 (cf. Eur. Hel. 992), θρασὺς χερί Bothe (i) 286, δράστης χερί Hartung 28, δράσας χερί Porter 49. 106–8 ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γάρ introduces an unfulfilled wish: Denniston (1954) 104. ἄλλωι δ᾽ ἄλλο: the polyptoton of distributive ἄλλος is often used to express the difference between individuals belonging to different groups (Krause (1976) 34–5); cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 2.400, 13.730–3; for Eur. Hipp. 104, Pho. 1037, IA 1325, TrGF 560, 742. πρόσκειται, of qualities or injuries that ‘belong to’ a person: Rh. 267, Soph. OT 232, Ant. 1243, Eur. Hipp. 970, adesp. TrGF 1b(b). γέρας, an epic term, is usually applied to the honorific privileges or material goods allotted by people to kings or by kings to heroes; see 181n. Liapis 97 considers it improper for the ‘innate’ abilities suggested by Rh. 108 πέφυκεν. But cf. Il. 4.320–3 (Nestor is speaking) ἀλλ’ οὔ πως ἅμα πάντα θεοὶ δόσαν ἀνθρώποισιν ... ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς ἱππεῦσι μετέσσομαι ἠδὲ κελεύσω / βουλῆι καὶ μύθοισι· τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ γερόντων …, which may have been Rh.’s model (Ritchie (1964) 66, followed by Liapis 96, compares Il. 13.730–3, quoted in 105–8n., where however wisdom in general, not decision-making is featured). σὲ μὲν μάχεσθαι and τοὺς δὲ βουλεύειν are infinitive nominal phrases in apposition to γέρας. The subjects of the infinitives are not here attracted to the case of the person in the governing phrase, though such attraction is frequent with governing impersonal verbs. In a few such passages, datives and accusatives coexist; cf. Soph. El. 478–80 (with Finglass ad loc.), 959–62, Eur. Med. 57–8 (with Mastronarde ad loc.), 1236–7, KG II.25–7, 111–13, Diggle (1981) 44, Rijksbaron (1991) 131–2. Variants with datives and infinitive should be rejected as faciliores (Finglass); the emendation by Stephanus (1568) 116 to σοὶ ... τοῖς δὲ (= Chr. pat. 2370) banalises the syntax. τοὺς δέ = ἄλλους δέ τινας, not rare in Attic: Cooper (1998) I.50.1.12. 109–18 Aeneas’ concern about the difficulty of retreat, if retreat is necessary, again strongly resembles Polydamas’ warning to Hector, when the Trojans contemplate breaching the defensive trench, that he should not

203

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 9 – 1 1 8 enter the Greek camp with chariots (cf. Il. 7.341–3); hence the emphasis on charioteers and the chariots at 117–18. The Iliadic Hector had already shown great self-confidence in relation to the ditch at Il. 8.177–80, in particular at 8.180 ἵπποι δὲ ῥέα τάϕρον ὑπερθορέονται ὀρυκτήν. But Polydamas warned how dangerous the ditch could be, especially for the horses, and all the more so in case of retreat, at Il. 12.61–74; cf. in particular 12.71–4 εἰ δέ χ′ ὑποστρέψωσι, παλίωξις δὲ γένηται / ἐκ νηῶν καὶ τάϕρωι ἐνιπλήξωμεν ὀρυκτῆι, / οὐκέτ᾽ ἔπειτ′ οἴω οὐδ′ ἄγγελον ἀπονέεσθαι / ἄψορρον προτὶ ἄστυ ἑλιχθέντων ὑπ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν, which seems to have been reworked at Rh. 113–15. Some of the topoi relevant to night attacks and their risks that are found in Rh. appear in the dialogue between the wise Creon and the impetuous Eteocles about how to avoid the encirclement of Thebes at Pho. 718–32 – it is hard to determine whether the two passages have independently exploited the same topoi, or whether the Pho. passage is ‘a tragic precedent’ to Rh. (as maintained by Fries 154). Creon warns that ‘victory depends entirely on εὐβουλία’ (721; cf. Rh. 105); Eteocles wants to lead out the army, and envisages four scenarios of attack against the Seven. He suggests first of all a nocturnal surprise attack (724), which parallels the night attack that Hector favours at Rh. 64; Eteocles believes that the night helps bold men (726), a maxim which resembles that used by Aeneas at 69; Creon objects that there is a real risk that Eteocles will not get home safely (725), and his warning resembles Aeneas’ worry at Rh. 115. Here, as in the Il., Aeneas appears to argue that Hector does not have the specific εὐβουλία that consists of an ‘enemy-orientated’ assessment of the situation and avoids taking for granted that the enemy is inferior. In fact both in this dialogue with Aeneas and in the following dialogues with the shepherd and the chorus and with Rhesus, Hector does not sufficiently consider the real strength of the enemy, but takes it for granted that the Greeks are defeated beyond recovery – though he is coaxed by his interlocutors into focusing on the possibility that the Greeks may not be crushed, and is then prompt to change his wrong initial approach. Cf. Hesk (2011). 109–10a ὅστις goes with σέ in 107. For other examples of separation of relative from antecedent by an intervening expression, cf. Eur. Hcld. 957–8, Cooper (1998) I.51.13.14 and II.58.3.9. ἐξήρθης: ‘you were excited’ (LSJ) or ‘agitated’, as is clear from 52 and from the tone of the whole of Hector’s subsequent speech (53–75), which is consistently anxious; therefore not ‘your hopes have been aroused’ (Zanetto (ii) 61, Kovacs 367, ~ TGrL s.v.). κλυών: most probably aorist rather than present (it is paroxytone in the MSS, where the verb is always accented as present κλύειν, never as aorist ἔκλυον/κλυών), since it is subordinated to another aorist denoting a simultaneous action: cf. West (1984) 178.

204

C O M M E N TA RY 1 0 9 – 1 1 2 πυρὸς λαμπτῆρας ... φλέγειν: cf. Eur. Tro. 320 ἀναφλέγω πυρὸς φῶς. φεύγειν of the MSS (defended by Vater 102; kept in the text only by Zanetto among twentieth-century editors) is unacceptable. The watchmen have told Hector that the Greeks were lighting fires in their camp, not that they were escaping (Musgrave II.405). Moreover, if we accept φεύγειν, the line would be at odds with Aeneas’ point that the Greeks may not be fleeing at all. The many occurrences of φ(ε)υγ- in line-initial position (see 93n.) may have aided the corruption. Hector’s indignant reaction to the Greeks’ unpunished flight, frequently repeated, may also be a contributory factor. 110b–11 The first obstacle that Aeneas envisages is the first that Hector will mention (Rh. 989 ὑπερβαλὼν τάφρον) when ordering the attack the following morning. In Rh. 989, and always in the Il., the singular is used to refer to the ditch around the Greek camp, dug recently on the advice of Nestor according to Il. 7.341–3. The plural used for the ditch(es) in this line and in 112 (αὐλώνων) may magnify the danger of the obstacle, like the focus on their βάθος in 112. But it may have been in tune with the historical reality of, at least, Troy VI. Two defensive ditches have been excavated. One is about 400 metres south of the citadel, in the area of what may have been the Lower Town of Troy VI, and runs close to a burnt mudbrick wall. Another runs at a distance of more than 100 metres south of the first inner ditch, more or less parallel to it. Originally dug to defend the Lower Town together with the wall, perhaps at different stages of the expansion of Troy VI, these two ditches – if both existed at the time of the war – may have been used by the Greeks as a double line of defence for their camp, as with their steep scarps they could be driven over by chariots only with difficulty, and fleeing chariots would plunge into them and shatter; cf. Easton, Hawkins, and Sherratt (2002) 90–1, Mannsperger (1995), Korfmann (1996) 48, Jablonka and Rose (2004) 616–18; contra Hertel and Kolb (2003) 77–84. νυκτὸς ἐν καταστάσει: not ‘in the stillness of night’ or ‘in the hush of night’ (LSJ, Porter 50, Ritchie (1964) 214), but simply ‘in the dead of night’, or ‘at full night-time’, with κατάστασις denoting a fixed condition (Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 1266). The phrase, called an ‘inflated expression’ by Fraenkel (1965) 237, is attested nowhere else, but should be understood in the light of the equally unparalleled genitive absolute τῆς νυκτὸς καθεστώσης (opposed to ἡμέρας γενομένης) of Diod. Sic. 11.10.4; likewise, Hyper. F 205 Jensen ἐν τοιαύτηι καταστάσει ... τῆς ἡλικίας is equivalent to the more common καθεστηκυῖα ἡλικία vel sim. ‘mature age’ (Thuc., Plato, Galen). Eur. has other such periphrases: Med. 1197 ὀμμάτων κατάστασις, Hipp. 1296 κακῶν κ-, Pho. 1266 δαιμόνων κ-. 112 καίτοι ‘and yet’, adversative, introduces an objection, often in interrogative form, through which the speaker casts doubt upon what he has said, or makes it seem surprising (Denniston (1954) 556).

205

C O M M E N TA RY 1 1 2 – 1 1 5 αὐλώνων βάθος: the τάφρος that defends the Greek ships is said to be βαθεῖα by Hom. (Il. 7.341, 440, Il. 8.336). αὐλών is a synonym for Homeric τάφρος, not attested before Aesch. TrGF 164a and 419. In Carcin. TrGF 70F1d βαθεῖαν εἰς αὐλῶνα περίδρομον στρατοῦ, from the tragedy Achilles, αὐλών also referred to the ditch of the Greek camp. τάφρος and αὐλών occur together at Xen. An. 2.3.10 for military ‘furrows’ filled with water which are arranged as an obstacle for the enemy. 113–14 Aeneas foresees what in fact happened to Hector when he assaulted the ships at Hom. Il. 13.143–8. κυρήσεις: εἰ-protases containing a verb in the subjunctive without ἄν are common in Hom., Theogn., Pind., Hdt. and the tragedians (KG II.474). κυρήσηις of O might thus be a Homerism. However, the subjunctive puts some stress on the supposition, and undermines the certainty which Aeneas displays in order to be persuasive. κυρεῖν with the accusative is mainly confined to the tragedians: cf. LSJ s.v. ἀπὸ χθονὸς / φεύγοντας: cf. Eur. Hel. 805 φεῦγε δ᾿ ἐκ τῆσδε χθονός. χθών, both alone as here (and at 942, 956, 970) or with ἥδε (98, 194, 341, 396, 424), usually refers to the land of Troy in Rh. (the only exceptions being 223 and 621, where χθών = ‘earth’ in general). 114 σὸν βλέποντας ἐς δόρυ ‘facing your spear’ is a sign of courage often evoked by Eur.: Med. 264, Hcld. 687, 943, Supp. 318 ἐς κράνος βλέψαντα καὶ λόγχης ἀκμήν, 856, El. 377 πρὸς λόγχην βλέπων, Her. 163–4 μένων βλέπει τε κἀντιδέρκεται / δορὸς ταχεῖαν ἄλοκα, 811–12. 115 Cf. Eur. Pho. 725 εἴπερ σϕαλείς (cf. Rh. νικώμενος) γε δεῦρο σωθήσηι πάλιν (see for the context 109–18n.). Both transmitted readings in the second hemistich, τήνδ᾿ οὐ μή and τήνδε μή, involve at least one ancient mistake. In τήνδ᾿ οὐ μή L, οὐ is an inadmissible long syllable in a short element. A plausible explanation for this text (suggested by D.J. Mastronarde, per litteras) is that, as often (and most probably in VaQ for our line, see below), an original μὴ οὐ was reduced to μή (e.g., because the scribes did not understand the crasis and thought there were too many syllables), but in collation οὐ was supplied in the margin or above the line and then inserted in the wrong position; for this pattern of omission accompanied by transposition, cf. Diggle (1982=1994) 266. τήνδε μὴ οὐ μόληις πόλιν, proposed by Schaefer 85 (likewise Dobree (1833) 87, but with adverbial τῆιδε ‘here’ instead of τήνδε), and accepted by Porter 50, Zanetto (i) 14, Klyve 155, and Feickert 129–30, solves the metrical problem. The construction of μή/μὴ οὐ with subjunctive in an independent sentence signalling the fear that something may or may not happen is common in Hom. and is attested in Aesch., Eur., and Plato, though it is never common (Goodwin (1889) 90–1 and 392, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 341); it is therefore understandable that this construction should be displaced in the transmission

206

C O M M E N TA RY 1 1 5 by the much more common οὐ μή + subjunctive. As for τήνδε μή, VaQ and Triclinius’ correction in L (τήνδ᾿ ἐμή O, with faulty word division, presupposes the same original reading), it lacks the negative almost certainly required by the sense – unless we interpret the line not as ‘if defeated, (I fear you may) not come to this city’, as usually, but ‘(I fear you may) come defeated to this city’, as suggested by Vater 103; but cf. Hom. Il. 12.73–4 οὐκέτ᾿ ἔπειτ᾿ οἴω οὐδ᾿ ἄγγελον ἀπονέεσθαι / ἄψορρον προτὶ ἄστυ, probably the main model for our passage, where the stress is on the idea of not coming. The demonstrative τήνδ(ε) may also seem odd, because ὅδε is usually applied to something close to the speaker. Diggle elegantly gets rid of both τήνδ(ε) and πόλιν by adopting the corrections of Cobet (1873) 583 and Reiske (1754) 86–7 and replacing τήνδ(ε) (οὐ) μή … πόλιν with οὔτι μή … πάλιν (confusion of πόλιν and πάλιν is attested, e.g., in the MS of Demetr. De eloc. 202). But πόλιν may be retained in the light of the possible model Il. 12.73–4 ἀπονέεσθαι / ἄψορρον προτὶ ἄστυ, quoted above. It would be one of the common terminal accusatives of tragedy (see 13–14n.); δόμος and πόλις are the words that occur most frequently as such terminal accusatives (9x in Eur.), with forms of μολ- at Supp. 621, El. 1194, IA 1520; cf. Bers (1984) 80–3. As for τήνδ(ε), Hector and Aeneas are speaking in the nocturnal camp of the Trojans (part of which, the bivouac of Hector, is represented in the skene of Rh.), and this is outside the city and close to the Greek ships. It has commonly been claimed that in Greek tragedy or comedy ὅδε must always refer to something present on stage. But a series of tragic and comic passages with deictics have been recently highlighted, where ὅδε refers to a person or thing which, though not present, either has been previously mentioned or is at the forefront of the speaker’s thought (A), or is figuratively brought into view by the speaker (B). For (A), cf., e.g., Eur. Alc. 881 and Soph. El. 540, where ὅδε is used for dead people (Lloyd-Jones (1965) 241–2); Hec. 325 ἥδε κεύθει σώματ᾿ Ἰδαία κόνις, though the stage action does not take place on Ida (cf. 8). For (B), Aesch. Sept. 395, 424, 470, 631 (?), where the Messenger points at the Argive enemies standing at the gates, who are not seen on stage, ‘as a way of actualising the scene for an audience deprived of “scenery’’’ (Dale (1964) 166), or Eur. Andr. 735, where the deictic is used to counteract the impression of vagueness for an unnamed city (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 735). Cf. Hunger (1950/1951), Handley (1965) on Men. Dysc. 185, Taplin (1977a) 150–1, Stockert (1992) 192. I find it difficult to believe that the Trojan camp is here simply equated with the city (as suggested by Klyve 155). With τήνδε Aeneas may have pointed behind himself, in the direction of Troy (the Trojans’ bivouacs have to be thought of as situated somewhere between the walls of the city and the Greek ships), thus making more vivid the idea of the beloved city, and more emotionally effective the fear of not returning to it. νικώμενος, with conditional sense, parallels νικῶν in 119.

207

C O M M E N TA RY 1 1 6 – 1 1 8 116–18 ‘How will the army get over the stakes in case of rout? How will the charioteers cross the embankments without smashing the axles of the chariots?’ These lines develop the statement of the Iliadic Polydamas that if the Trojans try to enter the Greek camp with chariots, the ditch will be ‘difficult to cross’ especially if there is a Greek counter-attack, because of its stakes (σκόλοπες): cf. Il. 12.63–74 (quoted in 109–18n.). At Il. 16.370–9, when the Trojans, routed by Patroclus, flee from the ships and recross the trench, ‘in the ditch (τάφρος) many fast chariot-pulling horses left their master’s chariots, broken short at the joining of the pole’. The ditch with stakes and the mound are often mentioned together; see 210–12n. ἐν τροπῆι στρατός: see 82. γεφύρας: defensive ‘embankments’ (Kovacs 369) or ‘dikes’ ~ Il. 12.64 τεῖχος and in harmony with Homeric usage (cf. Il. 5.88–9, LfrE s.v.); not ‘bridges’ (Liapis 98), unparalleled in Homer. ἢν ἆρα: ἆρα Va (crasis of ἦ ἄρα), necessary for the metre, is here not interrogative, but equivalent to ἄρα, as often in poetry from Archil. onwards, especially in Attic poets. In a conditional protasis ἄρα ‘denotes that the hypothesis is one of which the possibility has only just been realised’ ~ ‘if after all’ (Denniston (1954) 37–8, 45, KG II.324–5). It should be taken with circumstantial θραύσαντες to express an exception to the impossibility of getting over ~ πῶς διαβαλοῦσι, ἢν ἆρα μὴ διαβάλωσι θραύσαντες; (‘how will they get over, unless they perhaps get over breaking …?’). εἰ μή (ἄρα) is commonly used to introduce an exception, mainly in prose from Hdt. onwards (with participles, e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1139, Ar. Nub. 229). But ἐὰν μή or ἢν μή are not well paralleled in this meaning (cf. however Ar. Eq. 996, Lys. 251, Wakker (1994) 283 n. 25), and the normal position of ἆρα/ἄρα would be after μή. The main alternative interpretation (suggested by Naber (1882) 2, approved by Blaydes (1901) 2, Wilamowitz (1926) 288, Fries 161; contra Fraenkel (1965) 239) is that ἢν ἆρα is an isolated equivalent to the elliptical εἴπερ ἄρα ‘if at all (they get over)’, with μὴ θραύσαντες governed by πῶς διαβαλοῦσ(ι); but the phrase is attested in this sense only in late authors. θραύσαντες ἀντύγων χνόας During the Trojan retreat under Patroclus’ counterattack at Il. 16.371, quoted above, the poles of the chariots were broken. ἄντυξ, properly the rail round the front and most often the sides of the chariot, is here and at 237 a synecdoche for the whole chariot; cf. Eur. Hipp. 1231, Callim. HArt. 140, Theocr. 2.166 (Σ ad loc. ἄντυγα δὲ ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ ἅρμα φησί). This synecdoche is awkward here, because the genitive ἀντύγων, which would represent the part for the whole, depends on a term, χνόας, which itself properly refers to a part of the chariot, namely that part of the axle which turns in the socket of the nave, or the socket itself. The whole phrase is paralleled in Ar. Nub. 1264 τύχαι θραυσάντυγες, a mock-tragic invention by Ar. or parody of a tragic passage with the same

208

C O M M E N TA RY 1 1 8 – 1 2 2 compound, perhaps used already to refer to a chariot accident, which may have inspired θραύσαντες ἀντύγων of Rh.32 Otherwise, the phrase of Rh. may have been an adaptation of either Soph. or Aesch., or the fusion of both, in tune with the taste of Rh. for ‘mosaic-like combination of borrowed expressions’ (Fries 35–6; see also Introduction, pp. 24–5. Magnani (2001), Fries (2010), and Fries 36 and 162 rightly argue that the phrase should not be corrected to the more banal ἀξόνων χνόας, as suggested by Blaydes on Soph. El. 745 comparing Soph. El. 745–6 ἔθραυσε δ᾿ ἄξονος μέσας χνόας / κἀξ ἀντύγων ὤλισθε and Aesch. Sept. 153 ἔλακον ἀξόνων βριθομένων χνόαι. 119–22 Aeneas speaks again with the voice of the Iliadic Polydamas. When he advises Hector to be prudent and discusses his plan for an attack with the other Trojan leaders (13.726–47: see 105–8n.), Polydamas briefly anticipates the possibility of Achilles re-entering the war: παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀνὴρ ἆτος πολέμοιο / μίμνει, ὃν οὐκέτι πάγχυ μάχης σχήσεσθαι ὀΐω (13.746–7). In the light of 121, the ships mentioned in 120 must be the Greek fleet in general. Hector has already threatened to burn the ships at 61. παῖδ(α) … τὸν Πηλέως This phrase, attested nowhere else before or after Eur., expands the common Homeric epithet Πηλεΐδης: cf. Hec. 37, 383–4, 534, IA 802–3, 896, 975, 1568, TrGF 727c.39. ἔφεδρον ‘he who sits by’, posted in reserve, refers to the contestant who waits to challenge the winner of the preceding match, if there is an odd number of competitors; cf. Pind. Nem. 4.96, Aesch. Cho. 866, Ar. Ran. 792, Xen. An. 2.5.10, Gardiner (1905) 16–18, Poliakoff (1980) 257, Ebert (1995/1996) 95. Again, but with a different meaning, at 954. ναυσὶν ἐμβαλεῖν φλόγα: cf. Rh. 990, Hom. Il. 15.597–8 νηυσὶ ... πῦρ ἐμβάλοι, 13.320 ἐμβάλοι … δαλὸν νήεσσι, 16.122–3 ἔμβαλον … πῦρ νηί, Eur. Alc. 4 ἐμβαλὼν φλόγα. ἀναρπάσαι ‘ravage’ or ‘exterminate’: the meaning occurs mainly in the middle voice, but in the transitive passive at Eur. Hel. 751, Pho. 1079, Aeschin. 3.133. διαρπάσαι Va appears never to be used with human beings as object. αἴθων ‘fiery’ parallels ἆτος πολέμοιο said of Achilles in a similar context at Hom. Il. 13.746 (quoted above). The epithet is usually applied to the colour of animals, metal objects, or sources of light, and refers to either a glittering shine or a tawny or reddish-brown colour (primarily the latter). It also often points, in the case of animals or human beings, to their fiery spirit or vigorous nature (Levaniouk (2000) argues that this sense prevails in most of the As M. Cropp observes per litteras, the source of the compound is probably not Xenocles’ play on Licymnius’ death, TrGF 33F2, as suggested by Σ Nub. 1264 and Rau (1967) 191, because no known account of Licymnius’ death involves horses or chariots.

32

209

C O M M E N TA RY 1 2 2 – 1 2 4 occurrences of the word). The anthroponym Αἴθων is found as early as Hom. Od. 19.183, but the use of the adjective with reference to human beings seems to be limited to tragedy: Aesch. Sept. 448, Soph. Aj. 222, 1088, Hermipp. PCG 47.7 in a parody of tragedy; later Lycophr. 109. The etymological connection with αἴθειν ‘burn’ is often felt (cf. Levianiouk (2000) 27–8), and in Rh. the epithet may have been used in connection with Achilles’ ability to defend the ships from the Trojan fire. πεπύργωται θράσει imitates Eur. Or. 1568 πεπύργωσαι θράσει, said of the ‘towering’ rage of lofty Menelaus, a well-chosen model for Achilles’ spiteful withdrawal from the fighting. This model is perhaps combined in ‘mosaic technique’ with αἴθων, another tragic word, but Aeschylean and Sophoclean (Fries 35). Metaphorical πυργοῦν ‘raise to a towering height’, hence ‘magnify’, passive ‘be haughty’, is a favourite word of Eur. (Med. 526, Hcld. 293, Supp. 998, Her. 238, 475, Tro. 612, 844, TrGF 286.15), and rare elsewhere (Bacch. 3.13, Aesch. Pers. 192, Ar. Pax 749, Ran. 1004; never in Soph.; cf. Müller (1974) 90). Both variants δορί and χερί fit well the context. But δορί of the gnomol. Escor. was perhaps a banal attempt to make clear the implication of χερί. But χερί is paralleled by the Homeric formula χερσὶ πεποιθώς of Il. 16.624, Od. 8.181 (ἥβηι τε πεποίθεα χερσί τ᾽ ἐμῆισι), 16.71 (οὔ πω χερσὶ πέποιθα) = 21.132; for the singular, cf. Rh. 105. It may however be a mechanical repetition of the verse-ending at 99 and 105. θράσει is an echo of Or. 1568, quoted above, and appropriately emphasises the arrogance of Achilles, reinforcing the connotation of πεπύργωται (on the meanings of θράσος, see 249b–51a n.). 123–4: see 21–2; for the fatigue of the Thracians, 763–4. ἀλλά marks here the shift from one discourse topic to another (more common in comedy than tragedy, and especially rare in Eur.: Sicking and van Ophuijsen (1993) 38, Basset (1997) 82, Drummen (2009) 151–2). In particular in commands or exhortations, it expresses ‘a transition from arguments for action to a statement of the action required’: Denniston (1954) 14. ἥσυχον ... εὕδειν: cf. Anacr. IEG iamb. 6 ἥσυχος καθεύδει. ἐκ ‘after’: cf. Eur. Her. 1034 (with εὕδοντος), Soph. Ph. 272–3 (εὕδοντα), El. 231 (ἀποπαύσομαι), Ar. Ran. 1531 (παυσαίμεθα). ἀρειφάτων: Homeric-Ionic ἀρηΐφατος means ‘slain in war’ in Hom. (Il. 19.31, 24.415, Od. 11.41); cf. Philox. F 160 Theod., Ap. Soph. 43.5 Bekker, Σ exeg. and D Hom. Il. 19.31, Σ D 24.415. After Homer it is found almost exclusively in fifth-century tragedy, where it appears to be used as one of the tautologous ‘composita abundantia’ (the second component, from the same root as *φον- ‘murder’, may have little semantic relevance; therefore ἀρείφατος ~ ἄρειος ‘warlike’); cf. Aesch. Eum. 913, TrGF 146b, 147, and Eur. Supp. 603–4, TrGF 741a, Meyer (1923) 90–102, Breitenbach (1934) 188–9, Collard on Eur. Supp. 603–7.

210

C O M M E N TA RY 1 2 5 – 1 3 0 125–7 κατάσκοπον ... πέμπειν ~ 140, 505. The phrase occurs at Aesch. Sept. 36, 369 κατοπτήρ/κατόπτης στρατοῦ, Eur. Hcld. 337–8 and is probably a military idiom; cf., e.g., Hdt. (4x), Thuc. 4.27.4, Xen. Cyr. 6.2.11, 6.3.14, Aeschin. Ctes. 82.10, Theop. FGrHist 115F357 κατάσκοπος τοῦ στρατεύματος. κατάσκοπος, a keyword in Rh. (129, 140, 505, 524, 591–2, 645, 657–8, 809), and κατόπτης/διόπτης/κατάσκοπος are frequently joined in Rh. to an objective genitive denoting the spy’s target (cf. in particular 809 πολεμίων), and Dolon is defined as a πολεμίων κατάσκοπος, νεῶν κατάσκοπος, and ναυστάθμων κατάσκοπος. After the first explicit mention of his death at 591– 2, the Greek commandos will be called κατάσκοποι … Ἀχαιῶν and πολεμίων κατάσκοποι (657, 809). κἂν μὲν αἴρωνται: cf. 54. στείχοντες ἐμπέσωμεν: for the participle of στείχειν + a finite verb used of the motion with which an action begins (also at 138), cf., e.g., Soph. OT 798, Ph. 1452, Eur. Or. 1222–3, Bacch. 352. For ἐμπεσεῖν ‘attack’, see 408–11a n. Ἀργείων: on ἀργείωι Q , see 56–8n. 128–30 ἐς δόλον: the first suspicion Aeneas had expressed at 91–2. φρυκτωρία: see 55b n. μαθόντες ... βουλευσόμεσθα: the connection between μάθησις of the events and better βουλή is not rare; cf., e.g., Thuc. 7.8.2, Dem. 20.15, Nicol. Dam. FGrHist 90F130.39. κατασκόπου is genitive of origin, not uncommon for the informant (the genitive being often accompanied by the accusative of the object of information); cf. Hom. Il. 2.98, Od. 1.370, Aesch. PV 701–2, Soph. OT 574–5, Tr. 408, KG I.361. ἐχθρῶν μηχανάς: cf. 141. βουλευσόμεσθα echoes 105 εὔβουλος. Aeneas’ speech concludes as it began by recommending careful deliberation. Homeric -εσθα is frequently used in tragedy and comedy for metrical reasons (mainly in iambic trimeters); cf. Lautensach (1896) 26–8, Sideras (1971) 115–16. τήνδ᾽ ἔχω γνώμην The demonstrative highlights the conclusion of the rhesis; cf. Ercolani (2000) 60. ἔχω γνώμην is idiomatic: e.g., Theogn. IEG 319, Heracl. VS 22B78.2, Hdt. 1.207.3, Thuc. 7.15.1, Eur. Her. 205. The variant in O, τήνδ’ ἔχω προθυμίαν (= Eur. Alc. 1107), is another idiomatic phrase (cf. Hdt. 7.53.1, Eur. Hcld. 410, Tro. 689, Pho. 902, Pl. Prt. 361c and Mx. 247a, Lys. 12.50), but in a decision-making debate thoughtful Aeneas is more likely to express his ‘opinion’ than his ‘zeal’. Similar brief phrases often conclude tragic (and Menandrean) speeches, announcing that the speaker has no more to say, and often precede the exit of the speaker (perhaps an echo of closural phrases in public speeches at Athens: Fraenkel (1963) 52). They usually include λόγος or μῦθος or verbs of saying: εἴρηται λόγος Aesch. Eum. 710, Eur. Pho. 1012, Or. 1203; πάντ᾽ ἔχεις λόγον Aesch. Ag. 582, TrGF 47a21;

211

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 0 – 1 3 6 λόγος λέλεκται πᾶς Soph. Ph. 389; εἴρηται γάρ Eur. Hec. 1284; τὰ μὲν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν πάντ᾽ ἔχεις Eur. Pho. 953; λέλεκται μῦθος ἀψευδὴς ὅδε Eur. Med. 354; ταῦτά σοι βραχέα λέλεκται καὶ σαφῆ καὶ ῥάιδια Eur. IA 400; ἀκήκοάς μου πάντα Men. Asp. 82; εἴρηκα τόν γ᾽ ἐμόν λόγον Men. Epitr. 292. Apart from concluding the speech, the γνώμη and its context (129–30) emphasise the thoughtful nature of the utterance. In comparison with Hector’s impulsiveness, Aeneas’ appeal for prudence and his rejection of Hector’s hasty plan for a night attack seem the wisest options, though in the course of the night they will result in the Trojans’ double disaster: had Hector succeeded in mobilising the army, he would have thwarted the Greek spies, who would neither have found the camp quiet nor been able to get the password from Dolon, and so reach Rhesus and kill him; cf. Klyve 127. The more prudent and thoughtful Aeneas’ option seems, the more clearly the tragic irony of Hector’s ἁμαρτία is highlighted. 131–6 and 195–200, in mixed iambics and dochmii, are brief choral interludes within episodes, different from stasima, which separate episodes. They correspond metrically as strophe and antistrophe, but are separated by some distance. A second pair of corresponding interludes is found at 454–66 and 820–32. Iambic passages separating strophe and antistrophe, usually shorter than fifty lines, are not uncommon in comedy, where they are called iambic syzygies. But they are much rarer in tragedy: Aesch. Sept. 417–21 ~ 452–6, 481–5 ~ 521–5, 563–7 ~ 626–30, Ag. 1407–11 ~ 1426–30, Soph. OT 649–67 ~ 678–96, Ph. 391–402 ~ 507–18, OC 833–43 ~ 876–86, Eur. Hipp. 362–72 ~ 669–79, Or. 1353–65 ~ 1537–48 (other interludes, but monostrophic: Aesch. Cho. 152–63, Eum. 254–75, PV 687–95, Soph. Tr. 205–24, Eur. Med. 1081–115, Hec. 1024–34, Supp. 918–24, El. 585–95, IT 644–56); cf. Centanni (1991). On the author’s penchant for including interludes within episodes and the peculiarity of the wide separation of the second pair, see 454–66 (metre) n. All these songs are outbursts of emotional reaction (joy or lament) replacing the dialogic iambic comments by the chorus that usually follow crucial long dialogues. The first two interludes respond to the dialogues between Aeneas and Hector (concluding with the suggestion of the spy mission) and between Hector and Dolon (on the reward for the mission, concluding with Dolon’s decision to undertake it, after being promised the gift he desires); they express the watchmen’s support for Aeneas’ suggestion and their enthusiastic confidence in the turn the action seems to be about to take. The other paired interludes, 454–66 and 820–32, are delivered after the first appearance of Rhesus on the scene and after Hector’s statement on the watchmen’s responsibility for his death. The focus of the first three interludes is thus on the Trojans’ optimism about the utility of Dolon’s expedition and Rhesus’ arrival; the fourth makes clear that all those hopes are over.

212

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 1 – 1 3 6 Metrical structure 131 ~ 195 ⏑ ⏑⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − 2do 132 ~ 196 ⏑ ⏑⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − − ⏑ − 2do 133–4 ~ 197–8 ⏑ ⏑⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − − ⏑ −  3do 135 ~ 199 ⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − 2ia 136 ~ 200 ⏑⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − − ⏑ − ||| ˰2ia do Iambo-dochmiac rhythm is very frequent in tragedy (Conomis (1964) 47–8, Dale (1968) 107–11, West (1982) 111–12, Lourenço (2011) 59). Prevailing dochmiac rhythm, commonly associated by the ancients with intense emotions and excitement, is standard in all the interludes of Aesch. quoted above, in occasional combination with iambics. More extensively combined with iambics, it is the most common rhythm in the choral interludes of Soph. and Eur.; cf. Ritchie (1964) 299. The very simple composition of the dochmii and the closeness of their responsion (both here and at 692–703 ~ 711–21) is paralleled by the treatment of this metre in Aesch. and early Eur.; contrast the greater freedom of late Eur. in varying the metre and responsion (Ritchie (1964) 322–3). Diaeresis occurs almost everywhere between the dochmii of Rh. (see also 454–66 ~ 820–32, 692–703 ~ 710–21), but there is run-over between the first and second dochmii of 131. The first dochmius of 131 has a split resolution in the third princeps (-δε με-), which is uncommon in Eur. except where all the princeps positions are resolved (6x; exceptions, similar to 131, are Tro. 252, Her. 1070; cf. Parker (1968) 267–8, Willink (2002/2003=2010) 565). The relative irregularity of both 131 and 135 (split resolution of the first iambic princeps -λας ὅ-; cf. Parker (1968) 249) may perhaps connote the anxious haste of the watchmen as they express their assent to the spy mission. 131 ~ 195 might be interpreted as a syncopated iambic trimeter, with Ritchie (1964) 299, Dale (1971/1983) III.150, Zanetto (i) 66. The sequel does not encourage this interpretation; cf. Willink (2002/2003=2010) 565 n. 19. 133 and 134 ~ 197 and 198 are given in the MSS as a 1do colon (133) and a 2do colon (134), but Diggle’s line-division, as observed by Willink (2002/2003=2010) 565, shows more clearly the run of three. 136 ~ 200 synthesises the two rhythms of the song, and may be interpreted as do + ia cr (syncopated iambic dimeter), with Conomis (1964) 48 and Diggle (ed.), or vice versa as cr ia (syncopated iambic dimeter = lecythion) + do, with Zanetto (i) 66 and Willink (2002/2003=2010) ibid., whom I follow. Similar metrical structures with final dochmiac are found in Aesch. Cho. 944–5, Eur. El. 1153–4 ~ 1161–2, Or. 1361–2 ~ 1545–6, and possibly 1402 (according to the text established by Diggle ap. Willink ad loc.), Pho. 1287 ~ 1299, 1288 ~ 1300; see also 2ia + do 693–4 ~ 711–12, Eur. Alc. 394–5 ~ 407–8, Aesch. Ag. 1156

213

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 1 – 1 3 6 ~ 1167, and in particular Eur. Med. 1281 ~ 1292, with a clausula (as here) of mixed dochmiac and iambic rhythms (cf. Fries 167). 131 ‘This plan seems good; change your mind and adopt this plan!’ τάδε δοκεῖ presents the mission as an idea widely supported. The second τάδε, picking up τάδε δοκεῖ, is constructed with νόει: ‘this seems good; change (your mind) and endorse this opinion’. The repetition confirms that the plan most widely accepted is the plan to be adopted. δόκει Dawe (ap. Diggle) would needlessly duplicate the imperative in the second hemistich. The phrase τάδε or ταῦτα δοκεῖ is usually accompanied by the dative of the person whose opinion is referred to, but its absolute use here is easily understandable as pointing to the opinion of the majority (cf. 137), as in Dem. 62.50.1. μεταθέμενος Hn, probably a lucky scribal slip, has to be accepted, since μετατιθέμενος of the other MSS would give a double short in the first anceps of the second dochmius in responsion with a single short in the second dochmius of 195. West (1982) 111 lists four other cases where the paradosis presents this responsion, but all of them are more or less doubtful: Aesch. Sept. 126–7 ~ 147–8 (defended by West (1990a) 468), Eur. Med. 1259 ~ 1269 (where modern editors usually correct 1259), Bacch. 978 ~ 998 (defended by Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 997–1001), Rh. 456 ~ 822 (where most modern editors correct 822). Further, but even more doubtful, instances are listed by Pace (2001) 25–6 (contra Delle Donne (2004/2005) 202–3). μετατίθεσθαι is here used intransitively or with implied γνώμην or γνώμης or the like, as in, e.g., Pl. Resp. 334e, 889e, Gorg. 493c, Dem. 18.177, Men. Peric. 168. The idea that it is appropriate to change one’s opinion in order to accept the best option is paralleled in Eur. IA 388 γνοὺς πρόσθεν οὐκ εὖ, μετετέθην εὐβουλίαι, Men. Peric. 167–8 εἰ τοῦτ ἐδυσχέρανέ τις / ἀτιμίαν τ᾽ ἐνόμισε, μεταθέσθω πάλιν. As in the case of 454–66 and 820–32 the rather loose resemblance between the first two separated songs in terms of content is compensated for by aural echoes: τάδε … τάδε in 131 is echoed by the polyptoton μέγας ... μεγάλα in the first line of the antistrophe at 195; infinitives μολεῖν and πέλειν correspond with each other in 134 and 198 and cretics δαίεται and φαίνεται in 136 and 201 (Jackson (2019) 66). 132 expresses a topos attested in Archil. IEG 114 οὐ φιλέω μέγαν στρατηγόν ... ἀλλά μοι σμικρός τις εἴη ... ἀσφαλέως βεβηκὼς ποσσί, and common in Eur.: Supp. 508 σφαλερὸν ἡγεμὼν θρασύς, Pho. 599 ἀσϕαλὴς γάρ ἐστ᾿ ἀμείνων ἢ θρασὺς στρατηλάτης, TrGF 194.3–4 οὔτε ναυτίλον ϕιλῶ / τολμῶντα λίαν οὔτε προστάτην χθονός, 774.5–6 προστάτης θ᾿ ἁπλοῦς πόλει / σφαλερός (on the contrary three anchors protect a ship better than one; cf. 774.4–5a). σφαλερός may be intransitive, ‘fallible’, or active, ‘likely to make one stumble’. Both meanings – the former focusing on the leader’s decision-making, the second

214

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 2 – 1 3 7 on its consequences for his subjects – may coexist not only here but also in ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον (94) and in ἀσφαλῶς φρονεῖς (147). This insistence on the σφαλ- root contributes to the tragic characterisation of Aeneas and the chorus at this point of the action: they seem wise and thoughtful in their rejection of Hector’s ‘fallible’ impulsiveness, as by avoiding immediate action they succeed in not exposing the Trojans to the risks of night attack, but ultimately this decision will prove disastrous for them. δ(έ) is not rare in contexts which would seem to demand γάρ: in these cases ‘the writer is content with merely adding one idea to another, without stressing the logical connection between the two, which he leaves to be supplied’ (Denniston (1954) 169). κράτη, plural (likewise, e.g., ἀρχαί, θρόνοι, or σκῆπτρα), where a singular might be expected in prose, is found about twenty times in the tragedians (and in two paratragic passages of Ar., Ran. 1126 = 1138), seldom elsewhere; cf. Jones (1910) 93–9. 133–7 ‘What is better than the plan that a swift-footed man should go as a spy near the ships, to see why ever the enemies are burning fires at the prow side of the mooring-places?’ τί ... ἄμεινον ἤ is a common rhetorical question; cf., e.g., Pl. Resp. 456e, Xen. An. 7.3.17, Epict. Diss. 2.7.13. γάρ introduces ‘the matter of the question as a reason for asking it’ (Earle on Eur. Alc. 1143). ταχυβάταν ‘fast-walking’: hapax, but parallel to ταχυβήμων at adesp. TrGF 333a, Arist. Phgn. 813a.7, and similar in meaning and form to Aesch. TrGF 280 αὐριβάτας, which according to Hesych. Lex. α 8338 Latte-Cunn., who cites it, was equivalent to ταχυβήμων. κατόπταν: again in Rh. 150, 155, 558, 632. First attested in HHom.Herm. 372, the word is a rarer synonym of κατάσκοπος (see 125–7n.), which glosses the lemma κατόπταν in Hesych. Lex. κ 1840 Latte (possibly taken from our line, in view of the accusative not normalised as a nominative), and in Σ Aesch. Sept. 41, 369. κατόπτης is mainly a word of tragedy in the fifth century: Aesch. Sept. 36, 41, 369, Eur. Hel. 1175; otherwise only in Hdt. But it becomes a technical military term in Dion. Hal. AR, Jos. AJ, Dio Cass. ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἄρα introduces an interrogative clause governed ad sensum by the idea of ‘seeing’ implicit in κατόπταν μολεῖν; on this kind of construction, cf. Page on Eur. Med. 206, Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 1288, Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 69 = TrGF 773.25, (1981) 58, and (1996b) 193–4. In questions, ἄρα ‘forecasts the effect of enlightenment which the answer will bring’ (Denniston (1954) 39); ποτε emphasises the impatience. δαΐοις πυρὰ ... δαίεται: δάϊοι or δήϊοι is a common poetic word for ‘enemies’ (from Hom.: Il. 2.544). Only δάϊο- is attested in tragedy; δήϊο- in Hom.

215

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 5 – 1 3 7 and the elegiac poets (Björck (1950) 127–8). δαίεσθαι (intransitive middle) means ‘blaze’, from Hom. Il. 21.343 ἐν πεδίωι πῦρ δαίετο onwards. But in the light of the ambiguity inherent in δάϊος, ‘hostile’ or ‘burning’ (Σ Aesch. PV 352 δάϊον: πολεμικὸν ἢ καυστικόν), and of the traditional phrase δάϊον or δήϊον πῦρ (9x in Hom., Alcm. PMGF 121, Stesich. F 112.8 Finglass, Aesch. Sept. 222, Eur. Hel. 197, etc.), there may be an etymological pun here connecting the Greek enemy with the destructiveness of the fire. κατ᾿ ἀντίπρωιρα ναυστάθμων: ‘at the prow side of the mooring-places’, not ‘in front of the mooring-places’, as suggested by most interpreters from at least Brodaeus ap. Stephanus 33 (‘ante navium stationem’) to Kovacs 369 (‘in front of their naval encampment’), including ThGL and LSJ. ἀντίπρωιρος may indeed be used metaphorically as equivalent to ἐναντίος – e.g., Soph. Tr. 223 (with Σ ad loc. and Hesych. Lex. α 5466 Latte-Cunn.), Eur. El. 846, Xen. Hell. 7.5.23, Lac. const. 11.10, Plut. Mor. 979b. In these passages, however, the metaphor involves persons, animals, or objects unconnected with prows, whereas κατ᾿ ἀντίπρωιρα is here connected with real ships, and thus πρωιρcan hardly have lost its proper significance. κατ᾿ ἀντίπρωιρα ναυστάθμων (with ναυστάθμων partitive genitive) should be taken as reminiscent of the frequent Iliadic hemistich for the topography of the Greek camp and the battle at the ships, νηυσὶν ἐπὶ πρύμνηισι or ἐπὶ πρύμνηισι νέεσσι (8x), cf. also ἐπὶ πρύμνηισι (4x) – from which, perhaps, Bacch. 13.150 ν]αυσὶ δ᾿ εὐπρύμνοις παρα). The Greek ships at Troy must have been beached in the usual way, with the stern towards the land and the prow towards the sea (Gray (1974) 102), so that pointing to the prows, and not the sterns, highlights the fact that the fires are burning almost in the surf. On ναύσταθμα, see 43n. 137: cf. Eur. Hel. 997 οὕτω δὲ κρῖνον ὡς ἅπασιν ἁνδάνηις. νικᾶις, suggested by Bothe (i) 288, fits the context better than the reading νικᾶτ᾿ of the paradosis. If Hector addresses νικᾶτ᾿ to both Aeneas and the chorus, who have just declared themselves in favour of Aeneas’ advice, or to the chorus alone, for whom the plural number is usually adopted by the actors (Kaimio (1970) 211–18), then there is a rather abrupt shift to the single Aeneas in 138, κοίμα, with no vocative apostrophe and no clear change of addressee. On the other hand, it is easy to understand νικᾶις as continuing the preceding dialogue between Hector and Aeneas. This dialogue would thus have been only briefly interrupted by the chorus’ comment (131–6), which remains unanswered. Choruses comment on characters’ action, but characters seldom reply to choral comments; cf. Stevens on Eur. Andr. p. 114. Hector would then yield first of all to the opinion of his peer Aeneas (see 87–130n.), and in fact at 141–6 (see n.) he rephrases Aeneas’ plans. However, at 137b he makes clear that Aeneas’ advice coincides with the opinion of the majority.

216

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 7 – 1 3 9 Hector’s readiness to take into consideration the opinion of the majority is probably a modernisation of his epic character. As Hesk (2011) 141 observes, on the one hand Hector is rash in a way which calls to mind the various moments in the Il. when his pursuit of kleos leads him to make military mistakes; on the other hand, unlike the Iliadic Hector, he is ready to listen to other people’s opinions, and consequently to make better decisions: ‘to some extent, then, the play models the importance of dialogue and debate in the specific situation of decision-making within a polis at war’. But there is no need to think, with Liapis 102, that behind Hector’s volte-face there lies ‘a reflection of the play’s Macedonian milieu, where the soldiers had as much of a right to free speech as the king himself ’ (and after all Aeneas is not merely a soldier, but Hector’s peer). 138 κοίμα ‘put to sleep’ is the necessary emendation by Pierson (1752) 81 for the κόσμει of the paradosis (defended most recently by Feickert 135). The original verb has completely disappeared here, whereas in 662 κοιμήσων is preserved in the Δ family (κοσμήσων Λ). Line 662 presents again the same action of Hector as 138–9, so the same verb is needed. In military contexts, κοσμεῖν invariably means ‘set in array’, ‘marshal’ (cf. Haebler (1967) 103), but this sense is incompatible with the advice of Aeneas στρατὸν ... εὕδειν ἐῶμεν (123–4), which supports κοίμα in our line. Similarly, at 140, Hector takes up Aeneas’ recommendation at 125–6 that a spy be sent, and his conditional sentence at 141 rephrases Aeneas’ at 128–9. 138–9 τάχ᾿ ἂν στρατὸς / κινοῖτ᾽ ἀκούσας νυκτέρους ἐκκλησίας: see 17c–19n. During the night of the events of Rh., Agamemnon arranges two assemblies in the Il., one at the beginning of Book 9 before sending the embassy to Achilles and one after it at the beginning of Book 10 (the latter is called νυκτερινὴ ἐκκλησία by Dio Chrys. Or. 11.85). The impromptu and unannounced gathering of Hector, Aeneas, and the chorus can hardly be called an ‘assembly’, but the author of Rh. defines it as such, probably following the precedent of Il. 10. The assembly of Il. 10 was held in the no-man’s land amid the bodies of the fallen in battle (10.199–200), outside the fortifications of the Greek ships, which the leaders cross before starting (10.194–5). [Arist.] Hom. probl. (F 384 Gigon, quoted in 17c–19n.) listed four possible solutions for the aporia of such a dangerous assembly being held ἔξω τοῦ τείχους ... ἐξὸν ἐντὸς τοῦ τείχους ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ. The fourth explanation was that the assembly was held outside the camp so as not to frighten the soldiers: στρατηγῶν ἂν εἴη τὸ φυλάσσεσθαι τοὺς νυκτερινοὺς θορύβους, τὸ δ᾿ ἐν τῶι στρατεύματι νυκτὸς συνιόντας βουλεύεσθαι νεωτερισμοῦ ὑποψίαν παρασχὸν φόβον ἐνεποίει. This exegesis met with approbation beyond the Problems; cf. Σ exeg. Il. 10.194: ἐν τῶι στρατεύματι νυκτὸς συνιόντες θόρυβον ἂν ἐκίνησαν, καὶ ταῦτα προτεταλαιπωρημένων ἤδη τῶν Ἑλλήνων (bT) and διέβη διὰ τῆς τάφρου, ἵνα

217

C O M M E N TA RY 1 3 8 – 1 4 5 μὴ θόρυβος ἐν τῶι στρατοπέδωι γίνηται, τὴν μὲν σύνοδον ὁρώντων, τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν ἀγνοούντων (A). The explanation of the unusual spot for the assembly of Il. 10 as an attempt to avoid the risk of panic may perhaps have predated the Problems. In that case Rh. perhaps reflected it. The instructions given by Hector to Aeneas in Rh. 138–9, as well as the circumspection of Aeneas at Rh. 87–9 about every movement inside the sleeping camp, ascribe to the Trojans a similar precaution; cf. Fantuzzi (2011a). τάχ᾽ ἄν ‘“quickly”, implying “readily”, of what can be easily envisaged’ (West on Hes. Op. 312); also at 561 (?) and 995–6. ἐκκλησία (also at 401 and 936) is the classical term for ‘assembly’, not attested before Thuc. But it is the term used most often in the Σ for the Iliadic assemblies, with the same anachronism as here. The word occurs many times in Ar. but is hapax in tragedy. It may have been one of those expressions that the tragedians avoided for their ‘too technical precision’ (Björck (1957) 12). Eur. Or. 612 ἔκκλητος ὄχλος and 949 ἔκκλητοι are perhaps novel terms that attempted to replace standard ἐκκλησία of technical political language. 141–6 in part propose again the plan set out by Aeneas at 125–30, and not without verbatim repetitions (140 πολεμίων κατάσκοπον ~ 125, 141 ἐχθρῶν μηχανήν ~ 129, 143 ἐὰν δέ ... ἐς φυγὴν ὁρμώμενοι ~ 126, 145–6 προσμείξω ... Ἀργείων στρατῶι ~ 127). Aeneas had said that as soon as the information is received, ‘we’ shall decide together what to do (βουλευσόμεσθα, 130). And Hector takes care to stress that Aeneas will receive directly from him all information concerning possible enemy tricks. But he is also very clear in reaffirming that if the Greeks are in fact embarking, as he still appears to suspect, he will personally lead the night attack against them. The shift to the first-person singular of 145–6, after the first plural of πυθώμεθα 141 and the second singular of 142, is telling: should the report confirm Hector’s suspicion, Aeneas will be left with the role of the subordinate who must be ready to carry out the order to attack (144–5). 142 For the redundant linking of the two verbs of perceiving or understanding, cf. Semon. IEG 7.13 πάντ᾿ ἀκοῦσαι, πάντα δ᾿ εἰδέναι θέλει; similarly Soph. OC 290 εἰσακούων πάντ᾿ ἐπιστήσηι. First-hand autoptic information (παρών) is superior to a second-hand report for Hes. F 199.3, Hdt. 2.104.1, Aesch. Pers. 266 (with Garvie ad loc.), Cho. 851–2, Soph. OT 6–7 (with Finglass ad loc.), Eur. Med. 654–5, Tro. 481–3, IT 901, Hel. 1295, Or. 532–3, TrGF 757.60i.35, Euang. PCG 1.4, Diggle (1981) 17–18 and (1973=1994) 81 n. 60, Barrett (2002) 31–9, 76–7. 143–5a ἀπαίρωσ(ι) ‘depart’, with ‘ship’ or ‘foot’ or ‘army’ understood. 11x in Eur., most often in the same intransitive sense as here; only 1x certain in Aesch., never in Soph., but not rare in prose writers.

218

C O M M E N TA RY 1 4 3 – 1 4 4 ἐς φυγὴν ὁρμώμενοι is a phrase attested in Timoth. PMG 791.174–5 and idiomatic in prose: e.g., Hdt. 3x, Thuc. 3x, Xen. 4x (with ἐς); also Lycurg. 95 and Polyb. 15.14.8 (with πρός). σάλπιγγος αὐδήν: again at 988–9, announcing the beginning of the battle, at the dawn of the next day. From at least the fifth century onwards the trumpet was the typical instrument for summoning men to arms or for sounding the charge: see 988–9a n. This function of the σάλπιγξ seems unknown to Hom., though he knew the instrument, as Aristarchus observed: Σ Il. 18.219 and 21.388. αὐδή, most frequently the sound of the human voice, is used for a musical instrument in, e.g., [Hes.] Sc. 278, Eur. Hel. 1346. προσδοκῶν καραδόκει is most probably the source of a consistent lexicographic tradition where προσδοκᾶν glosses καραδοκεῖν, according to a common practice (see Introd. to Prol. 1, p. 137): Hesych. Lex. κ 761 Latte, Phot. Lex. κ 131 Theod., Synagoge κ 70 Cunn., Suda κ 354, π 1219 Adler, Etym. Gud. 298.55 Sturz). καραδοκεῖν ‘watch to see’ is not attested before Hdt.; never in Aesch. and Soph. but 8x in Euripides. It seems to have a more specific meaning than προσδοκᾶν ‘expect’, as it ‘implies waiting with nervous expectation for an outcome, often in a military context with the notion of determining one’s behaviour according to who wins a battle’ (Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 1117). Aeneas has to be waiting for the order to attack that Hector will promptly give, if the Greeks turn out to be escaping. For the combination of a participle of μένειν and a finite form of καραδοκεῖν (‘wait and expect’), cf. Eur. Med. 1116–17, Hcld. 279, Hel. 739–40 (participle of καραδοκεῖν and finite form of μένειν). All modern editors put a comma at the end of the line, assuming either that σάλπιγγος αὐδήν goes with both verbs apo koinou or, alternatively, καραδόκει is used absolutely (as in, e.g., Eur. Tro. 93) and that ὡς οὐ μενοῦντά μ(ε) is an accusative absolute with ὡς pointing to the attitude of the subject (‘wait for the sound of the trumpet and expect it, because I will not wait around’); cf. Soph. OT 100–1, Eur. Ion 964–5, Pho. 1461–2 (with Mastronarde ad loc.), Diggle (1982=1994) 225–6. But καραδόκει ‘expect’ may govern ὡς οὐ … μ(ε): ‘wait for the sound of the trumpet and expect that I will not await around’. The construction of ὡς + predicative accusative participle with verbs of knowing and thinking is not uncommon in the tragedians, often after imperatives, as here: e.g., Soph. OT 848 (ἐπίστασο), Tr. 289 (φρόνει), Ph. 253 (ἴσθι), 415 (νόει), 567, OC 1583–4 (ἐξεπίστασο), KG II.94 n. 5, Monteil (1963) 339–41, Moorhouse (1982) 318. A possible parallel for the phrase is Eur. Hcld. 693 ὡς μὴ μενοῦντα (μενοῦντι Diggle, cf. (1982=1994) 225–6) τἄλλα σοι λέγειν πάρα, where ὡς μὴ μενοῦντα, if sound, is an accusative absolute.

219

C O M M E N TA RY 1 4 5 – 1 4 8 145b–6 προσμείξω νεῶν / ὁλκοῖσι … ἐπ᾿ Ἀργείων στρατῶι: ‘I shall go close up to the ships’ slipways against the Argive army in this night’ is a product of Hector’s obsession with the idea that he ought to fire the ships of the Greeks in order to prevent them escaping. A more straightforward logic would have resulted in wording like ‘I shall engage with the Argive army among the beached ships’, and indeed προσμειγνύναι is an idiomatic verb in military contexts in the sense ‘engage in battle with’. Since it is construed here with an inanimate object (ὁλκοί), it must mean ‘go close up to’ (a sense attested in military contexts, e.g., in Thuc.; cf. LSJ), but the audience is left with a strong impression that the object of Hector’s attack is the slipways used for hauling the ships down to the sea. The form of the verb was emended from transmitted προσμίξω by Murray, who made the same change at Or. 1290. συνμείσχιν (sic) is already attested for the future infinitive of μειγνύναι in CEG 47.1, from c. 525–500. Originally some tenses of the verb adopted the form μειγ-, others μῐγ- (cf. Threatte (1980/1996) II.623–4), but in the fifth century μειγ- encroached on μῐγ-. At least from the second century onwards μειγ- started to be written as μιγ (i.e., μῑγ‑), and this is the form found almost exclusively in the medieval MSS. ὁλκοί, from ἕλκειν ‘draw’, were ‘slipways’ (Morrison and Williams (1968) 204) of stone or mud bricks for hauling ships, e.g., across the Isthmus of Corinth (this slipway is called διολκός at Thuc. 3.15.1; cf. Cook (1986), MacDonald (1986)) or from the sea into the ναύσταθμα, the boat-sheds mentioned at 43 and 673 (again ὁλκοὺς ναυστάθμων). The slipways are the part of the Greek camp on which Hector obsessively focuses his attention, possibly because they would aid flight. νυκτὸς τῆσδ(ε): genitive of time. The phrase does not occur before the tragedians; cf. Soph. Aj. 21, Eur. El. 90; again at Rh. 727. ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων στρατῶι: cf. 57. ἐπί includes the idea of hostility, as often in tragedy and Hom. with both dative and accusative; cf. KG I.503, Cooper (2002) IV.2819–21, 2827. Dative ὁλκοῖσι for a parallel goal of motion favours στρατῶι over the variant accusative; cf. Fries 172. 147–8 The actor playing Aeneas exits by eisodos A (where the camp of the Trojans’ allies is supposed to be); he will return later as the shepherd-messenger. The alternative is that he leaves at 223 together with Dolon. Taplin (1977a) 8 n. 3, Klyve 162, and Poe (2004) 29–30 argue that he is more likely to leave now. In fact it is inherent in the logic of the situation that he promptly carries out Hector’s order to calm the troops (138). Besides, Aesch., Soph., and Eur. usually highlight the exits of relevant characters with parting statements of two or more lines.33 As 147–8 are Aeneas’ last statement, and According to Poe (1993) 378 n. 87 and 388–9 only in six out of forty-eight twoor three-actor episodes does the actor leave the stage without one of these statements.

33

220

C O M M E N TA RY 1 4 8 – 1 4 9 characters usually exit immediately or shortly after their last statements (Poe (1993) 378–9 n. 88), it is implausible that Aeneas waits in silence for more than seventy lines (Poe (2004) 29 n. 45). πέμφ᾿ ὡς τάχιστα: the phrase, with ὅτι or ὡς, is found at, e.g., Hom. Od. 5.112, Sapph. F 27.10 Voigt, Hippon. IEG 39.2, Hdt. 8.144.4, Ar. Lys. 747. ἀσφαλῶς accompanies verbs of thinking in, e.g., Thuc. 1.84.4 (προνοουμένων), Soph. OT 613 (γνώσηι). Aeneas sympathises with the chorus’ opinion concerning σφαλερὰ κράτη (132), and reaffirms his view that an ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον (94) is required. For the irony implicit in this emphasis on security, see 132n. σὺν σοὶ δ᾿ ἔμ᾿ ὄψηι … ὅταν δέηι: for the emphatic ‘me as well’ (as Hector) the accented form of the personal pronoun, introduced by Bothe (i) 90, is more suitable than the transmitted enclitic: cf. KG I.557, Feickert 137, Fries 173. For Liapis 104 Aeneas’ statement raises the false expectation that he will reappear, which would be a sign of ‘incompetent dramaturgy’. But Aeneas’ choice of words – ‘you will see …’, instead of a straightforward promise ‘I shall be as brave as you’ – may rather point to his delusional ignorance about the immediate future. In parallel to the destiny of Rhesus, whose great military potential will not have the time to materialise, Aeneas will never be seen again on stage facing dangers – actually he will not be seen at all in the play – because the ‘need’ (δέηι) for his bravery in a night attack against the Greeks will never arise, as this attack will never take place. καρτεροῦντα ‘enduring at my post’, as in, e.g., Pl. La. 193a, Jos. BJ 3.316, Plut. Crass. 25.1. ὅταν, with conditional force (~ ἐάν: cf. LSJ), parallels Hector’s ἐὰν δ᾿ ἀπαίρωσ(ι), 143. 149–52a: Hector immediately labels the volunteer who will endorse the spy mission as a ‘benefactor’ of the fatherland. This is in tune with the viewpoint of Iliadic Nestor, according to whom pure courage should be the motivation of the Greek spy (10.204–7). Nestor concludes his speech with a promise of glory, to which the prospect of a concrete reward is supplementary: ‘Then he would win great glory among all men under the heavens, and honourable gifts (δόσις … ἐσθλή) will be his, etc.’ (10.212–17), where the δόσις remains undefined, and seems to consist of the feat’s prestige (Hainsworth on Il. 10.212–17). By contrast, the preliminary presentation of the mission as ‘mercenary’ by the Homeric Hector indicates a practical point of view, which sounds all the more unheroic because of its conflict with the elevated tone of Nestor’s summons, as acknowledged by the ancient Σ exeg. Il 10.303–8 ‘the Greeks offer a gift (δῶρον), Hector, dishonourably, a fee (μισθός)’. The mercenary element in Hector’s speech is probably the result of the poet’s occasional anti-Trojan bias. The presentation of Hector in Rh. is different: he speaks only of doing good services to the fatherland (151) and of winning

221

C O M M E N TA RY 1 4 9 glory (159–60). The venal request will be left to Dolon (161–3), and even after Dolon has asked for a κέρδος, Hector does not immediately understand, and believes that Dolon wants political power (164–5) or a marriage to enhance his social position (167). On the one hand, Dolon’s unheroic interest in gaining a material reward seems the leitmotif of his characterisation, a perfect foil for Hector’s sublime ideals of glory and service to Troy. On the other, Dolon appears less contemptible in Rh. than in the Il. because Rh. does not include the Homeric emphasis on Dolon’s physical ugliness, which, added to the doom of defeat and death, makes him similar to Thersites (Gernet (1981) 131), and does not mention that he was the only male child among five sisters, which might suggest that he is destined to be a sissy (as noted by Σ exeg. Il. 10.317 ὡς γυναικοτραϕὴς δειλὸς ἦν καὶ ῥιψοκίνδυνος); and in Rh. Hector’s rivalry with him over the horses (184– 90) makes Dolon’s whim appear less capricious than in Il. 10.321–3. Cf. Bond (1996) 259: ‘the author’s recollection of Agamemnon and Achilles through Hector and Dolon must prohibit Dolon from appearing too low’. τίς δῆτα ... θέλει ...; τίς ἂν γένοιτο…; τίς φησιν;: cf. Eur. IT 1072–3 τί φάτε; τίς ὑμῶν φησιν ἢ τίς οὐ θέλει / — φθέγξασθε — ταῦτα;. These questions intimate that the character who is going to enter is the volunteer, and thus practically replace the formal announcement of an entrance; cf. Ercolani (2000) 119. In Il. 10.303–4, quoted above, Hector makes his call for a volunteer just once, whereas in Rh. Hector articulates his question in three parts, which accompany Dolon’s progress from the eisodos to the centre of the stage. His use of questions addressed to all present and not directed to a particular agent is ‘relatively mild’ and appropriate for the attempt to find a volunteer (Mastronarde (1979) 112). And the avoidance of imperatives makes clear that he is not giving orders. On the other hand, the insistent anaphora of τίς adds force and urgency to the invitation. δῆτα, very common in tragedy, mainly in questions, marks transition to a new point: now that the mission has been decided on, who will be the spy? Here it is more a temporal transition (post hoc, as e.g., in Eur. Bacch. 925), not a logical propter hoc, as often; cf. Denniston (1954) 269. It is typical of Hector’s dialogue with Dolon (again at 171 and 181). οἳ πάρεισιν ἐν λόγωι ‘those who are within hearing of my words’ (Ritchie (1964) 115) is an everyday expression, found at Ar. Av. 30 ὦνδρες οἱ παρόντες ἐν λόγωι, Ach. 513 φίλοι … οἱ παρόντες ἐν λόγωι, Aesch. Supp. 200–1, Cho. 679, Soph. El. 891, Lys. 2.1. The closest contextual parallel is a passage of Sophocles’ Ichneutae, where Apollo offers a reward and Silenus enters the scene in response to his call: TrGF 314.39–46 ποι]μὴν εἴτ᾿ ἀγρωστη[ / μαριλοκαυτῶν ἐν λόγωι πάρ[ (παρίσταται Wilamowitz, πάρεστ᾽ ἀνήρ or πάρεστι νῦν or πάρεστί που Vollgraff) / εἴτ᾿ οὖν ὀρ]είων … / Σατύρω]ν̣ τίς ἐστι, πᾶσιν ἀγγέλ[λω / … τοῦ Παιῶνος ὅστις … / …] .το χρῆμα μισθός ἐσθ᾿

222

C O M M E N TA RY 1 4 9 – 1 5 0 ὁ κε[ίμενος. / (Sil.) ἐπεὶ θ]εοῦ φώνημα τὼς ἐπέκλυον / βοῶ]ντος ὀρθίοισι σὺν κηρύγμασ[ιν … (text mainly as printed in TrGFrSel). ἐν λόγωι may be reminiscent of the situation in Hom. Il. 10.300, where Hector addresses a select council of leaders (Feickert 137). When did Dolon enter? He utters his first words at 154, but he may have been present for the questions put by Hector at 149–53, or may have entered the scene as a result of hearing them from off-stage (the scenario favoured by Ritchie (1964) 114–15 and Poe (2004) 27). A newcomer is usually assumed not to have heard or to have heard only confusedly what has been said on stage, but there are exceptions, in particular in Eur.; cf. Hcld. 69–74, 642–3, Hipp. 141, El. 750, Hel. 437–40, Pho. 301–3 and 1067–9, Bacch. 170–3 and 912–16, Mastronarde (1979) 26–30. Alternatively, Dolon may have been present but silent on stage after entering together with Aeneas at 87 (Burnett (1985) 20), or from the beginning of the play together with the chorus, either as a member of a group of attendant soldiers surrounding Hector’s bivouac – one of the ὑπασπισταὶ ... βασιλέως mentioned at 2–3, or of Hector’s division (λόχος), mentioned at 26 (cf. Menzer (1867) 44, Porter 52, Perris (2012) 157–8) – or as a member of the chorus, which is sometimes called λόχος, e.g., at Aesch. Sept. 111 and Eum. 46 and 1026 (Heath (1762) 94, Morstadt (1827) 8–9, Vater, Vind. II.liv, p. liv, Hartung 124). The variant ἐν λόχωι would then emphasise Dolon’s belonging in Hector’s division or in the chorus. But it is not clear that there were soldiers around Hector’s bivouac – at 2–4 the watchmen assume that there are, but immediately afterwards they address Hector directly. And there is no evidence that any member of a tragic chorus had even a minor individual speaking part. In other cases a character is silent on the stage for an even longer time before starting to speak (the most famous silences are Aeschylean: in Aesch. PV Prometheus is on stage but does not speak until 88, and in Ag. Cassandra is silent for nearly 300 lines after entering together with Agamemnon). But in no other case does a character remain totally unidentified for such a long time (Ritchie (1964) 113–14).34 ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων μολεῖν = 155, 221, 589, also with variations in 203 ἥσω ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων πόδα, 502 ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων ϕέρει, 602 ναύσταθμ᾽ Ἀργείων σχέθοι. Comparable are Eur. Andr. 401 ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων ἔβην and Tro. 954

The cases of Alcestis in Eur. Alc. and Danaus in Aesch. Supp., invoked by Liapis 106, are different, as Alcestis has been amply presented by the chorus as the wife of Admetus when she enters at 232–6, and Danaus, who speaks only at 176, may or may not be in the orchestra beforehand, as the chorus is uninterrupted up to that point and does not interact with him; but if he is on stage before speaking at 176, the best moment for him to enter will be together with his daughters at 1, and the Danaids may be pointing at him at 11 (Bowen on Supp. 11–18).

34

223

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 1 – 1 5 3 ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων μολεῖν, in the wake of Hom. 24.298 νηυσὶν ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων ἰέναι (also Il. 12.246 νηυσὶν ἐπ’ Ἀργείων = 19.236).35 εὐεργέτης, attested in fifth-century historians and inscriptional epigrams (especially in Athens), is not rare in inscriptions of the fourth, third and early second centuries and in the orators. Especially in Athens (our evidence is scantier for other cities) egalitarian democracy seems to have initially hindered the emergence of an institutionalised class of civic benefactors, but the idea of euergetism, and the practice of rewarding it, underwent a complex evolution. In this evolution there were several stages: a stage in which rewards for civic benefactors were exceptional (fifth century), a stage in which they expanded (first half of the fourth century) and a final stage in which the operation of the citizen-benefactors was integrated into the system of the polis (second half of the fourth century); cf. Domingo Gygax (2016). In almost all its occurrences in fifth- or fourth-century Athenian inscriptions the praise of εὐεργεσία/εὐεργέτης/εὐεργήματα focuses on non-Athenians awarded Athenian προξενία (or more rarely citizenship) and other distinguished honours for their benefactions. Only one inscription appears to be known from the fifth century about Athenian εὐεργέται of Athens, SEG XXVIII.46 of 403–2 BC, a peculiar text that does not feature any of the usual rewards but decrees financial support for the children of the fallen in the war that restored democracy in Athens in 410 BC. Warriors who died in victorious battles were declared εὐεργέται in the epigrams FGE 12.6 and 40c.2 ascribed to Simonides. It seems that, until the mid-fourth century, it was above all military commanders who had been successful in war (such as Cleon, Conon, Evagoras, Chabrias, Iphicrates, Timotheus, etc.) or had fallen in war who became ‘benefactors’ of Athens and were awarded a series of honours different from but parallel to those of foreign εὐεργέται. It is only from the 340s that the Athenian demos appear to have begun inscribing honorary decrees for Athenians who had undertaken voluntary liturgies or fulfilled duties or state offices. Hector’s emphasis on honours and social distinction, contrasted with Dolon’s desire for material reward, is a good fit for the ideology of the mainly honorary rewards that benefactors were expected to receive; see Introduction, pp. 64–6, 161–3n., Fantuzzi (2016b). 152b–3 Hector cannot believe that anyone really expects him to undertake the mission himself. Rather, with a cunning rhetorical strategy, his forewarning strengthens the idea that a volunteer is necessary. It possibly includes a A similar formula was perhaps used in the Epic Cycle for the conclusion of operations accomplished by the Greeks outside their camp: Proclus may preserve an echo of it in the summaries of Aeth., PEG p. 69 ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς κομίζει, Il. parva, PEG p. 75 ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀϕικνεῖται, and Il. persis, PEG pp. 88–9 ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς κατάγει.

35

224

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 3 – 1 5 6 tone of piqued surprise (-τοι of οὔτοι may include a note of remonstration directed at the audience, here as well as at 60; see 59–61n.): Hector should not be left alone to accomplish this other task in favour of his fatherland, especially as that task had been the choice of the majority, but not his own first choice (137n.). πάντ᾿ ... ὑπηρετεῖν is idiomatic; often in martial contexts: Pl. Resp. 467a, Xen. Hell. 4.4.12, 5.2.34, Dion. Hal. AR 8.68.2, 9.2.3. πόλει πατρώιαι: already in Pind. Pyth. 5.53, and typical of tragedy: Aesch. Sept. 582, 647, Eur. Andr. 97, IT 453, TrGF 282.18. 154–5 ‘I want to throw the dice of this risk and go as a spy to the ships of the Argives.’ θέλω … κατόπτης ... μολεῖν echoes Hector’s line 150, and thus may be an example of the widespread Homeric technique of verbatim repetition in reports of direct speeches (see 149–52a n.); or else Dolon sticks closely to Hector’s words in order to pretend that he shares Hector’s nobly unselfish perspective. It is thus unnecessary to athetise 150, with Lachmann (1822) 43–4, or to define Dolon’s repetition as ‘inept’, with Liapis 107. κίνδυνον ... ῥίψας is a Euripidean variation (Hcld. 148–9, TrGF 402.6–7) for the commoner metaphors for dicing ἀναρρίπτειν κύβον (e.g., Crit. TrGF 43F7.27, Ar. PCG dub. 929, Men. PCG 64.4, Plut. Caes. 32.6, Pomp. 60.2, Mor. 206c) and κίνδυνον ἀναρρίπτειν, especially frequent in military narratives (e.g. Hdt. 7.50.3, Thuc. 4.85.4, 4.95.2, 6.13.1, Dion. Hal. AR 3.52.3, 6.74.6 etc., Jos. BJ 4.217.2, Plut. Nic. 11.7, Dem. 20.3 etc., Ael. Nat. an. 13.6); see also κίνδυνον ἀναβάλλειν (Aesch. Sept. 1028) and ῥιψοκίνδυνος ‘foolhardy’ (e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.3.9, 1.3.10). Cf. Kokolakis (1965) 5–41. Similar metaphors from dicing at 183 and 446. 156–7a Cf. Aesch. Sept. 40–1, where a messenger returning from a spying mission claims: ἥκω σαφῆ τἀκεῖθεν ἐκ στρατοῦ φέρων· / αὐτὸς κατόπτης (cf. Rh. 155) δ᾿ εἴμ᾿ ἐγὼ τῶν πραγμάτων. The verb ἥκειν, more commonly ‘have arrived’, means ‘come back’ here as at 223 (Dolon’s concluding boast, which broadens the goal of the incursion into the Greek camp) and at Aesch. Sept. 40, quoted above, Pers. 524 ἥξω λαβοῦσα πελανὸν ἐξ οἴκων ἐμῶν, Supp. 726 ἐγὼ δ᾿ ἀρωγοὺς ξυνδίκους θ᾿ ἥξω λαβών, Eum. 487–8 κρίνασα δ᾿ ἀστῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τὰ βέλτατα / ἥξω, Eur. Hcld. 275–6 ἥξω δὲ πολλὴν Ἄρεος Ἀργείου λαβὼν / πάγχαλκον αἰχμὴν δεῦρο, Men. Epitr. 462–3 ἥξω διαδραμών — εἰς πόλιν γὰρ ἔρχομαι / νυνί — περὶ τούτων εἰσόμενος τί δεῖ ποεῖν; see also 452 again a boast, by Rhesus. Emphatically at line-beginning, with his ἥξω, soon after volunteering, Dolon anticipates the moment when he will return, having successfully accomplished his mission, to claim his prize (ἐπὶ τούτοις, 157). πάντ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν ἐκμαθὼν βουλεύματα telescopes Dolon’s boast in Hom. Il. 10.325–7: ὄφρ᾿ ἂν ἵκωμαι / νῆ᾿ Ἀγαμεμνονέην (cf. Rh. ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων μολεῖν) …, ὅθι που μέλλουσιν ἄριστοι / βουλὰς βουλεύειν ἢ φευγέμεν ἦε μάχεσθαι. For

225

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 7 – 1 5 8 πάντ(α) ἐκμαθὼν βουλεύματα (where the preverb expresses the completion of the action), cf. Dio Cass. 51.24.2 πάντα τὰ βουλεύματα αὐτῶν ἐκμαθεῖν; also App. Sam. 1 and Sextus Jul. Afr. Cesti 2.12 (all in military contexts). ᾿πὶ τούτοις Prodelision is not uncommon in Attic drama (in Rh. also at 674, 805), most often affecting the initial vowel of ἐπί, ἐκ, ἐς, ἐν. It is rare after sentence-end, but cf. Soph. Ph. 591, Eur IA 719, Ar. Nub. 1354, KB I.241–2, Platnauer (1960) 140, 142–3. Concerning the demonstrative, Jackson (1955) 204–5 objected ‘Hector has made no promises, Dolon no stipulations, and the question of a quid pro quo is not touched till 161–3’; consequently he emended ἐπὶ τούτοις to ἐπὶ τούτων ‘in front of these witnesses’, namely the watchmen. But on the one hand Hector had made a promise when he announced that the volunteer would have the glory of becoming ‘benefactor of the fatherland’, and on the other Dolon is going to stipulate conditions. I surmise that ἐπὶ τούτοις may be ambiguous, and the two characters interpret the phrase according to their different outlooks. When two things are mentioned, one preceding and one following, ὅδε refers to what follows in time or order, οὗτος to what precedes (ὅδε has a strong deictic force, οὗτος being more anaphorical: cf. most recently Ruijgh (2006)), but when there are not two things referred to at the same time, οὗτος can refer to what follows (LSJ), though it still more often refers back. Thus by using ἐπὶ τούτοις in the sense ‘on these conditions’ Dolon may have wanted to anticipate the idea of material compensation, like the Iliadic Hector at Il. 10.304 δώρωι ἔπι μεγάλωι (cf. Jouan 61, Fries 177–8). But Hector of Rh. misinterprets him by assuming that, as more commonly, the phrase refers back: influenced by his usual martial heroism, and above all his idea of life as ‘service’ to the fatherland (153), Hector believes that Dolon’s ἐπὶ τούτοις means the purpose of the mission, ‘with a view to achieving these things’ (Liapis 108), and thus refers to the honorific reward of becoming εὐεργέτης of Troy, which Hector mentioned at 151, and Dolon amplified at 154–6. Hence the eulogy of Dolon as φιλόπτολις that Hector delivers at 158–60. ὑφίσταμαι πόνον first appears in Eur. Supp. 189, 345, but is later idiomatic in prose (Jos., Plut., Dio Chrys., Luc.). 158–60 sound like an inscriptional epigram celebrating the εὐεργεσία of Dolon. The first one-and-a-half lines point to the new glorious identity of Dolon as the hero of δόλος – an obvious connection, which here even precedes (Dué and Ebbott (2010) 124) and motivates his name, but which had not been highlighted in the Iliad. Another one-and-a-half lines are devoted to the effect of Dolon’s mission on the renown of his family. They recast in terms of glory the richness of Eumedes, father of Dolon, whom Hector called πολύχρυσος πολύχαλκος at Il. 10.315. In his response to Dolon’s final choice of the horses of Achilles as his reward, Hector similarly considers them a heroic κάλλιστον οἴκοις κτῆμα (190).

226

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 8 – 1 6 0 The prediction that Dolon is making his father’s house twice as εὐκλεής as it was before presupposes the tragic irony of Il. 10.330–1, where Hector states that no-one else will enjoy Achilles’ horses but they will be Dolon’s pride for ever (σέ ϕημι διαμπερὲς ἀγλαΐεσθαι). It is formally modelled on Tyrt. IEG 12.23–4 αὐτὸς δ’ ἐν προμάχοισι πεσὼν φίλον ὤλεσε θυμόν / ἄστυ τε καὶ λαοὺς καὶ πατέρ’ εὐκλεΐσας, probably already re-used for civic celebration of a military feat at IG I3.1353.3–4, of the third quarter of the fifth century (Pythion of Megara, who bravely saved many Athenians by guiding them back to Athens from Megara, εἵλετο τὰν ἀρετὰν πατέρα εὐκλείζων ἐνὶ δήμωι). It is also closely in harmony with a gnomic truth formulated by Arist. Rh. 1390b16–31 and alluded to at Eur. TrGF 739: birth from a well-born father brings pride and worth, but a man will typically want to add to the τιμή that comes from being well-born. Hector, then, is congratulating Dolon on behaving like a true εὐγενής – which makes Dolon’s reply demanding κέρδος all the more disappointing. Hector’s perspective is in harmony with the rhetoric of the celebration of ‘benefactors’ of cities, whose rewards mainly consisted of honours and other forms of social distinction (honorary citizenship for foreigners, memorial inscriptions, etc.). For Aristotle, being a benefactor of the city and gaining honour were two sides of the same coin (EN 8.1163b3–8, Rhet. 1361a28–9); see Fantuzzi (2016b). ἐπώνυμος μὲν κάρτα ... Δόλων: cf. Aesch. Sept. 658 ἐπωνύμωι δὲ κάρτα ~ Eum. 90. κάρτα ‘strongly’ confirms the etymological connection; elsewhere in tragedy with ὀρθῶς, ἐνδίκως, ἀληθῶς, ἐτητύμως: Aesch. Ag. 681–2 (also 699), Sept. 405, 829, Soph. TrGF 965.1, Eur. Supp. 496–7, Tro. 990, Pho. 636, TrGF 781.12–13; Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 225 = TrGF 781.13, Collard on Eur. Supp. 496–7a, Griffith (1978) 83–4. Dolon, because of his name, is the most appropriate person to accomplish a deceitful mission in which he has to remain hidden and unrecognised by the enemy, and which has to evolve into an ambush (Dué and Ebbott (2010) 31–87, 124); for Dolon as an ambushed ambusher, see in particular 219–22a n. Considerations of the relation of the personal name to the actions or attitudes of a character are ubiquitous in Greek culture; for tragedy, cf. Aesch. Supp. 46–8, PV 85–7, Soph. Aj. 430–3, 574–6, OT 903, Eur. IT 32–3 (parodied by Ar. PCG 373), Ion 661–3, Hel. 12–15, Bacch. 367, 507–8, Or. 1635, TrGF 696.10–13, Smereka (1936/1937) II.1.172–3. The frequency of this motif in tragedy may be related to the broader discussion, common among fifth-century philosophers (e.g., Heraclitus, the Sophists, Plato’s Cratylus), of the question whether the connection between ordinary objects and their names depends on nature or convention (Wilamowitz (1895) II.18, Griffith (1978) 84 n. 5). In the late tragedies of Eur., however, etymology seems to be a decorative element of high stylistic level; cf. Kranz (1933) 287–9, Sulzberger (1926), Risch (1947),

227

C O M M E N TA RY 1 5 8 – 1 6 3 Fehling (1969) 260–3, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 13–15, van Looy (1973), Collard (1975) on Eur. Supp. 426–7a. Its ubiquitous presence in comedy (cf. Kanavou (2011)) suggests that it may have been a familiar topic of jokes in everyday life. φιλόπτολις: Homerising equivalent of φιλόπολις, only here in tragedy. First attested in poetry as an adjective designating the gods as protectors of the city (Pind. Ol. 4.16; Aesch. Sept. 176), it frequently expresses the Athenian ideal of the patriotic citizen in Ar., Thuc., Plato, Xen., Isocr., Dem., Lycurg., Dinarchus. See 149–52a n. δὶς τόσως, intensive adverbial phrase, elsewhere in tragedy only at Eur. Med. 1194 and El. 1092. Rh. 281, 757 have declinable δὶς τόσ(σ)ον/α, first in Hom. Od. 9.491 and Theogn. IEG 1090 and in tragedy typical of Eur.: Cycl. 147, Med. 1047, 1134, Hcld. 293, Hec. 392. δὶς τόσως + comparative seems unparalleled, and dative τόσωι would be more natural; hence the variant of O (where σ(ε) is clearly not acceptable) and its emendation to τόσωι τέθηκας by Nauck (1889) 451. In support of τόσως, cf. Aeschin. 2.122 διπλασίως ἄμεινον (but διπλασίωι v.l. and conjectured by Bekker). ἔθηκας εὐκλεέστερον: cf. Eur. Alc. 623–4 ἔθηκεν εὐκλεέστερον βίον / γυναιξίν, Soph. Ph. 1422 εὐκλεᾶ θέσθαι βίον. 161–3 ‘Should not then a man who works, when he works, also carry off a worthy wage? A profit, attached to every task, generates a double favour.’ Dolon here echoes the language of Athenian inscriptions related to benefactors, which in a couple of instances from the fifth century and very frequently from the second half of the fourth century onwards included, between the list of benefactions and the list of rewards, brief statements (so called ‘hortatory clauses’) concerning the proper reciprocation of χάρις and the appropriateness of the rewards, such as ‘in order that all know that the Athenian demos knows how to reciprocate . . . (χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι is the recurrent verb)’. See also Dem. 20.64, where the inscriptions must witness that the city has benefited her benefactors in return (ὅσους εὖ ποιήσαντας ἡ πόλις ἀντ’ εὖ πεποίηκεν), 20.71, where the honours awarded to Conon for his εὐεργεσία are a return of χάρις (δικαίως ὧν εὐεργέτηντο χάριν ὤιοντο δεῖν ἀποδιδόναι). Cf. Fantuzzi (2016b) 521–2, Domingo Gygax (2016) 220–1. The relationship between benefaction and ensuing τιμή (honours and social distinction) is thus fundamental to the theory and practice of civic εὐεργεσία, and fully justifies Dolon in bringing up the principle of reciprocation. But in the vast majority of cases the rewards for the benefactors were only honorary, and thus, while Hector’s emphasis on pure glory at 158–60 is appropriate, Dolon’s request for a material reward is out of place. At the same time, the idea was also widespread in popular morality that rewarding the most enterprising and helpful people is correct, although cities often failed in complying with this task; cf., e.g., Eur. Hec. 306–8 ἐν τῶιδε γὰρ κάμνουσιν αἱ πολλαὶ πόλεις, / ὅταν τις ἐσθλὸς καὶ πρόθυμος ὢν ἀνὴρ / μηδὲν

228

C O M M E N TA RY 1 6 1 – 1 6 3 φέρηται τῶν κακιόνων πλέον. For a material bonus awarded by the recipient of a favour, that comes (or does not come) combined with his gratitude, cf. Soph. OT 231–2 εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τις … οἶδεν … μὴ σιωπάτω· τὸ γὰρ / κέρδος τελῶ ᾿γὼ χἠ χάρις προσκείσεται, Tr. 190–1 πρῶτος ἀγγείλας τάδε / πρὸς σοῦ τι κερδάναιμι καὶ κτώιμην χάριν, OC 1482–4 ἐναισίου δὲ σοῦ τύχοι/μι, μηδ᾽ ἄλαστον ἄνδρ᾽ ἰδὼν / ἀκερδῆ χάριν μετάσχοιμί πως, MacLachlan (1993) 73–86, Blundell (1989) 44–52. Jokes about the expectation that the recipient’s gratitude is joined to a substantial μισθός are at least as old as Simonides, according to Plut. Mor. 520a. While Dolon’s material request is ill-fitted in terms of the specific etiquette of polis-benefaction, it is not totally inappropriate in ethical terms. πονοῦντα is a generalising participle, ‘whoever toils’, hence the absence of the article: KG I.608–9. οὔκουν: Murray, Zanetto, Feickert, and Jouan accept the progressive οὐκοῦν ‘well then’ (stress on inferential οὖν) of the paradosis, and punctuate the phrase as an affirmation. Diggle and the other modern editors print a question mark after φέρεσθαι, and correct the accent to introduce the livelier interrogative adverb οὔκουν (almost = οὐ alone), usually placed at the beginning of the phrase. The impatient or impassioned tone of οὔκουν is more suitable here than the quieter οὐκοῦν of intellectual discussions (Plato and Xen.), and is typical of passages in tragedy where emotional style prevails (KG II.166–7; Denniston (1954) 430–3). μὲν ... δέ distinguishes the initial favour by the bestower from the concrete token of gratitude by the recipient, but the moral obligation applies to both, so they share the same verb χρή. In view of the impersonal apophthegmatic orientation of 162b–3, emphasised by παντί (cf. below), it is likely that 161–2a is a general statement that places Dolon’s wish for a material gift in the context of widespread human ambitions; V has (alone) με, a specific accusative that would be a gauche and improbable move for the diplomatic Dolon. χρή expresses the moral obligation felt by bestower or recipient at a subjective level, whereas external need or necessity is usually expressed by δεῖ; cf. Redard (1953) 53, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 41, Benardete (1965). ἄξιον μισθόν parallels the promise of the Iliadic Hector: μισθὸς δέ οἱ ἄρκιος ἔσται (10.304). παντὶ γὰρ προσκείμενον / κέρδος … τὴν χάριν τίκτει διπλῆν: παντί is generalising, equivalent to παντὶ ἀνθρώπωι (Liapis 109), while ἔργον will mean ‘action’ (not necessarily ‘military action’: Liapis ibid.), and is to be connected with εὐεργέτης in 151: Dolon will not have missed a chance to stick to Hector’s terms as far as possible (‘if as you say I am one who acts well for the city, then for everyone reward attached to an action …’). The sense is that Dolon is going to bestow a χάρις ‘favour’ on the Trojans by undertaking the task of acting as a spy, and if they provide him with the reward that he

229

C O M M E N TA RY 1 6 3 – 1 6 5 wants for his work, he will consider it a second, reciprocal favour to him (so Palmer (1890) 229). Differently Fries 179 and Liapis 109, for whom χάρις here means, respectively, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘delight’ (likewise Paley 21 ‘the pleasure of doing it, ἡ τοῦ πονεῖν χάρις’ and Kovacs 373 ‘the pleasure of it’). Dolon does not want to upset Hector’s ideal picture of disinterested εὐεργεσία. Therefore, while he does name the μισθός/κέρδος that he wants, at the same time he strives to present it not as a demand that must be satisfied if he is to undertake the mission, but as itself a favour from the city to him, which parallels the favour that he is going to bestow upon the city. He emphasises not the material nature of the gift but the underlying principle of reciprocity, which in fact often characterised the lexicon of the relationships between benefactors and the cities (see 161–3n.). διπλῆν is proleptic and predicative, ‘gives birth to a favour, thus making it double’, after the first. For χάρις becoming διπλῆ when one is joined by a second, cf. Soph. Tr. 618–19 ἡ χάρις κείνου τέ σοι / κἀμοῦ ξυνελθοῦσ’ ἐξ ἁπλῆς διπλῆ ϕανῆι and 1370–1. Reciprocation is conveyed by the idea of ‘proliferation’ of χάρις also in Soph. Aj. 522 χάρις χάριν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τίκτουσ᾿ ἀεί (an ideal whose rarity is stated by Anaxandr. PCG 69 οὐχὶ παρὰ πολλοῖς ἡ χάρις τίκτει χάριν) and Eur. Hel. 1234 χάρις γὰρ ἀντὶ χάριτος ἐλθέτω. 164–83 are a long stichomythia, framed by an introductory distich (164–5), where Hector asks Dolon to choose his reward for the spy mission, and a concluding distich (182–3), in which Dolon finally states that he wants Achilles’ horses. Hector suggests several prizes, and Dolon rejects them one after another until Hector seems to have no more ideas. Only at this point does Hector ask an explicit question (181) and thus provide an opportunity for Dolon to give his final explicit answer, which is the rationale of the whole stichomythia. The prizes offered by Hector dramatise the list of gifts that Agamemnon is ready to offer Achilles in Il. 9.121–57. But the two main ‘political’ gifts suggested by the Iliadic Agamemnon come last in his list, and are followed by the final demand that Achilles must submit to Agamemnon’s royal power. Hector, on the other hand, starts with the honorific marriage to a member of Priam’s family, and the inalienability of his royal power is his preliminary point. This guessing game has no direct precedent in the brief dialogue between Hector and Dolon in Il. 10.313–37, but it is formally paralleled by some comic scenes such as Ar. Ach. 418–31, Vesp. 74–85, Ran. 55–67, Men. Per. 276–92. The passage of Men. may be an example of paratragedy based on Rh., as the reward discussed in the guessing game of Per. concerns, again, a spy-mission of a sort (295–6 τῶν ὅλων κατάσκοπος / πραγμάτων γενοῦ); cf. Fantuzzi and Konstan (2012). 164–5 κοὐκ ἄλλως λέγω, again at 271, is a strongly affirmative litotes (Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1102–6), typical of Eur. (hence the parody by Ar. Ran.

230

C O M M E N TA RY 1 6 5 – 1 6 6 1140): cf. Hec. 302, El. 1035, Hel. 1106, Or. 709; also Aesch. Sept. 490 (οὐκ ἄλλως ἐρῶ), Eur. El. 226 (οὐκ ἄλλως ἐρεῖς). τάξαι δὲ μισθόν: cf. Pl. Men. 91b μισθὸν τούτου ταξαμένους. δέ is here equivalent to continuative οὖν (Denniston (1954) 170). πλὴν ἐμῆς τυραννίδος Σ ad loc. remarks: γελοῖον τὸ οἴεσθαι ὅτι βασιλείαν αἰτήσει. In fact, Hector’s statement perhaps reinterprets Agamemnon’s final demand following his offer to Achilles in Il. 9: ‘and let him yield place to me, inasmuch as I am the kinglier (βασιλεύτερος) and I can call myself born the elder’ (Il. 9.160–1); see also Il. 1.185–7. But Achilles had actually attacked Agamemnon’s authority, whereas Dolon is not expected to attack Hector’s power; hence the remark of Σ. However, Hector’s caution is not implausible. According to Hdt. 9.34.1, Melampus asked the Argives for a half share in the kingship of Argos as payment for curing the Argive women of an epidemic of madness (μισθὸν προετείνατο τῆς βασιληίης τὸ ἥμισυ), and having completed his task got a further third share in the kingship for his brother Bias. τύραννος in Eur. often carries the negative connotation of an absolute ruler who has gained or wields his power illegitimately through violence (Seaford (2003a), and is used more frequently of Asiatic = barbarian kings than of Greek ones (O’Neil (1986) 27–8; on the topos of the proneness of the barbarians to tyrannical rule, see 237–41n.). But the term often refers in tragedy, as certainly here, to a legitimate βασιλεύς (O’Neal (1986), Lenfant (1993) and (1997), Parker (V.) (1998), Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 119, Kõin (2016)). 166 οὐ σῆς ἐρῶμεν ... τυραννίδος may be reminiscent of Archil. IEG 19.3 μεγάλης δ᾿ οὐκ ἐρέω τυραννίδος (so too 132, spoken by the chorus, may presuppose Archil. IEG 114; see 132n., 484n.), and in general belongs in the widespread motif of the opposition between the pursuit of wealth or political power and the choice of a humbler life of pleasant moderation; cf. Anacr. PMG 361, Simon. PMG 584 = 298 Poltera, Pind. Pyth. 11.50a–4, Eur. Med. 119–30, Hipp. 1013–20, Ion 621–32, Pho. 549–57, Young (1968) 9–20. Thus Dolon not only denies that he is pursuing the hyperbolic ambition of which Hector speaks, but may imply that he will opt for a more personal and idiosyncratic reward. πολιόχου: here metrically necessary, but also the common Attic form of the epithet ‘protector of the city’ (also πολιοῦχος, πολιήοχος, πολιάοχος, and πολιᾶχος). The form πολίοχος is an epithet of Athena in Pind. Dith. F 70d.38 (cf. also F 52l.12) and in some Attic inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries. It is also attested as a proper name, especially in Athens: Lys. 18.4, PCG VII p. 550, Athen. 2.60b and 7.313c, Harpocr. Lex. π 79 Keaney = Phot. Lex. π 1019 Theod. = Suda π 1909 Adler, LGPN II.370. It is normally used of protective deities (RE XXI.2, 1379–80), not of human characters. In this respect, our passage and Rh. 821–2 πολίοχον κράτος (again used to define Hector’s power) are almost unique; see however in the fourth-century Isyllus

231

C O M M E N TA RY 1 6 6 – 1 6 8 16 (CA p. 133) οἷς πολιοῦχος ὑπὸ στέρνοις ἀρετά τε καὶ αἰδώς, where the term is used of a civic value. Liapis 110 suggests that here and at 821 the epithet seems to set Hector ‘upon a par with the gods’, in the fashion of the oriental monarchs; but its sense in Isyllus and its use as an anthroponym do not favour this interpretation. 167 In the Il. Agamemnon similarly promises Achilles, and Nestor reports to him, that he can become Agamemnon’s γαμβρός by marrying one of his daughters (Il. 9.142, 146, 284, 288). σὺ δ᾿ ἀλλά introduces an alternative request, after a previous suggestion has been rejected (Denniston (1954) 10). Πριαμιδῶν is to be taken with γαμβρός (‘marry and become cognate to Priam’s family’). The word is a common Iliadic patronymic used of Hector and other sons of Priam, not attested again before tragedy; it is used by Aesch. (3x) and most frequently by Eur. (17x) as a patronymic or in the plural in the sense ‘Priam’s family’ (it is nowhere necessary to assume that it is equivalent to the ethnic ‘Trojans’, with Wilamowitz (1893) II.182; cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 747). Hector uses the word twice (again at 338), and the messenger once (at 299); in Hector’s mouth, it may have an inclusive nuance, ‘myself and the royal family’. γαμβρός: ‘relation by marriage’, namely the person who becomes cognate to members of the family of the bride (cf. Chantraine (2009) 200: ‘the general and imprecise nature of the term is explained by the fact that it is used of the man … in connection with the woman, and this was a relation originally of little importance’). Dolon would become both brother-in-law of Hector and son-in-law of Priam. One may be the γαμβρός of a family, rather than of a specific individual or individuals within it: so the kin of the bride are γαμβροί (‘in-laws’) of the bridegroom (Eur. Hipp. 635) and the kin of the bridegroom γαμβροί of the bride (Aesch. Ag. 708, Pollux, On. 3.31 Bethe). 168 ‘Nor do I want a marriage from the family of one of my betters.’ The Iliadic Achilles rejected Agamemnon’s proposal that he should marry one of his daughters (see 167n.), ironically admitting his lower social status: ‘let Agamemnon choose another of the Achaeans, someone who is suitable for him, and more royal (βασιλεύτερος)’ (9.391–2). After Hector proposes that Dolon should marry one of his sisters, without making explicit the idea of social advancement, Dolon presupposes that implication and alternatively endorses a widespread moral principle, often ascribed to one of the Seven Sages (Pittacus according to Callimachus, AP 7.89 = HE 1277–92), that recommended marriage to a social equal.36 Others, however, considered mar This principle was perhaps an application of the general rule ‘peer to peer’ (cf. Hom. Od. 17.218): marriage to a richer but lowlier wife was seen as contrary to

36

232

C O M M E N TA RY 1 6 8 – 1 7 0 riage above one’s own rank a most honourable achievement, and could have appreciated Hector’s promise: cf. Xen. Hiero 1.28 ‘it is commonly held that a marriage into a family of greater wealth and influence is most honourable, and a source of pride and pleasure to the bridegroom’. ἐξ … γαμεῖν: Euripidean; cf. (ἐκ) Andr. 1279, TrGF 59; (ἀπό) Hcld. 299, Andr. 975, Or. 1676; but also in Theogn. and Xen. citt. ἐμαυτοῦ μειζόνων: cf. Men. Dysc. 825. 169 In his list of the prizes that he is ready to award Achilles (see 164–83n.), Agamemnon first proposes ‘ten talents’ weight of gold’ (Il. 9.122). χρυσὸς πάρεστιν: χρυσὸς γάρ ἐστιν (Λ) is adopted only by Zanetto ((i) 17), according to whom ((ii) 140) γάρ expresses a missing logical shift: ‘you are correct in refusing to marry a woman of higher standing; but you may want to become rich ...’. But this brachylogic connection of 169 and 167 would be isolated, as Hector gives a straightforward list of proposals in which each entry gets one line. εἰ τόδ᾿ ... γέρας (~ 181): after a couple of failed proposals concerned with socio-political advancement, he finally thinks of monetary compensation, but, at the same time, the conditional phrase half-apologetically indicates that he still doubts whether this is what Dolon will request. The future indicative with εἰ may be used in ‘a present intention … that something shall be done hereafter’ (Goodwin (1889) 146). γέρας is here the epic ‘gift of honour’, the evidence of τιμή. It usually refers to the honours or material goods (coming primarily from the distribution of booty) that were allotted either by the δῆμος to kings and other heroes (e.g., Il. 1.135, 161, 276) or by kings to heroes (Il. 9.334, 367–8); cf. Benveniste (1973) 340–2, Bottin (1979), Carlier (1984) 151–60, van Wees (1992) 299–310, Wagner-Hasel (2000) 176–91. 170 Homeric Dolon was the son of a rich herald (Il. 10.314–15), and, when taken prisoner by Odysseus and Diomedes, he vainly promised a ransom in exchange for his life, ‘as there is plenty of gold and bronze in my house’ (10.378–81): he is proud here of ‘gold’ that will soon be of no help to him when he tries to ransom himself.

the eugenic strategies of aristocratic endogamy (at least in Theogn. 189–92; cf. Lape (2010) 103–4) or as hubristic and unwise (cf. Alcm. PMGF 1.17, Pind. Pyth. 2.33–6, Aesch. PV 890, Soph. TrGF 353, Eur., TrGF 214, 502, 503, Callim. quoted above; [Men.] Mon. 196) or, in particular, as posing a danger to the authority of the husband (cf. Eur. El. 930–7 and Cleoboulos’ warning in the version of the Seven Sages’ apophthegms recorded by Demetr. Phal. VS 10.3.α.18 γαμεῖν ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων· ἐὰν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν κρειττόνων, δεσπότας, οὐ συγγενεῖς κτήσηι ~ Plut. Mor. 13f; Ovid, Her. 9.29–32).

233

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 0 – 1 7 3 οὐ βίου σπανίζομεν ‘we do not lack livelihood’: βίου σπανίζειν or βίου σπάνις (ἐστί) are Euripidean phrases: Hec. 12, Supp. 240, El. 235, TrGF 285.12; elsewhere at Hdt. 1.196.5 and Soph. OT 1460–1 from the classical age (σπανίζειν appears 14x in Eur., 2x in Aesch., never in Soph.). The association of ‘gold’ and ‘livelihood’ occurs already but seldom in Hom., where it involves a view of gold as money or as wealth that provides for a person’s needs (cf. in particular Od. 3.301 πολὺν βίοτον καὶ χρυσὸν ἀγείρων); by contrast, Hector’s offer (169) of gold as a luxury γέρας ‘prize of honour’ presupposes epic values and the traditional associations of gold and silver with the magnificent lifestyle of aristocrats or gods (Seaford (2004) 26–33, 151). The primary sense of βίος is ‘life’: Dolon is a character who appears only briefly in the narrative (in Rh. even more briefly than in the Il.), and only to disappear and die in a very short time; the potential ambiguity of his phrase ‘we are not lacking in βίος’ will have seemed a boast fraught with tragic irony. 171 δῆτα marks here the transition between, on the one hand, two proposals concerning rewards immediately available, and, on the other, a series of proposals that depend upon a Trojan victory; see 149–52a n. The transition is here logically propter hoc: ‘since nothing that I have already in my control appeals to you…’. κέκευθεν Ἴλιον (again, modified, at 621) is probably modelled on Hom. Il. 22.118, about Trojan goods to be distributed. In the Il. Hector considered and rejected the dishonourable negotiation of offering to the Greeks to return Helen and the goods stolen by Paris and ‘to divide between Greeks and Trojans whatever is still in the city (ἀποδάσσεσθαι ὅσα τε πτόλις ἥδε κέκευθεν)’. Neuter Ἴλιον is the usual form in tragedy; Homeric feminine Ἴλιος is found only at Andr. 103 (the first hexameter in an elegiac passage, where the form may be a deliberate Homerism) and in a corrupt line of Troades (1295), where Σ read Ἴλιον: cf. Diggle (1987=1994) 324 n. 9. 172 Both ἑλών here and Hector’s δώσω of 173 seem to imply, with tragic irony, that acquiring the Greeks’ goods is only a matter of time for the Trojans. Compare Agamemnon’s prudence with the list of the gifts for Achilles at Il. 9.135–8: ‘if hereafter (εἰ δέ κεν αὖτε) the gods grant that we storm and sack the great city of Priam, let him go to his ship and load it deep as he pleases with gold and bronze, when (ὅτε κεν) we Achaians divide the war spoils’. συναινῶν: the verb usually means ‘agree (upon)’; here ‘approve’, as in Xen. An. 7.7.31, Cyr. 8.5.20, Ap. Rh. 4.463, likewise with dative of the person and accusative of the object. 173 Hector and Dolon are again at cross purposes. For Dolon, the defeat of the Greeks (ἑλὼν Ἀχαιούς) is a step that will lead to Achilles’ horses, the gift that he desires. But Hector believes that Dolon is referring to the Greek

234

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 3 – 1 7 5 prisoners who will be part of the booty to be distributed among the Trojans (see 74–5n.). The fate of the two leaders of the Greek army will be in the hands of Hector, perhaps because, as king of Troy, he is their peer. στρατηλάτας νεῶν ‘admirals of the ships’ = Agamemnon and Menelaus, is the object of αἴτει, with πλήν clarifying the exception as at 165: ‘ask for everything but the two leaders …’. στρατηλάτης νεῶν is used of Agamemnon at Aesch. Eum. 637; similar expressions for Agamemnon at Ag. 184–5 ἡγεμὼν … νεῶν Ἀχαιικῶν, 1227 νεῶν ἄπαρχος Ἰλίου, Cho. 723 ναύαρχος, Eum. 456 ἀνδρῶν ναυβάτων ἁρμόστωρ. στρατηλατεῖν is attested without specific associations before the tragedians in Herodotus, but στρατηλάτης most often refers to Agamemnon not only in Aesch. but also in Soph. (Aj. 1223) and in Eur. (El. 1082, Tro. 295, 420, Or. 574, 852, 1402, IA 801). It is also used of Menelaus (Eur. Andr. 486, Hel. 395) and both Atreidae (Rh. 495 and 719, Soph. Aj. 58, Ph. 264, 793, 873). It is a word typical of the tragedians (elsewhere, down to the historians of the Imperial age, only στρατηλατεῖν in Hdt.): Pratinas, TrGF 4F3.9, Aesch. 1x, Soph. 5x, Eur. more than 30x, Rh. 5x, later in Ezechiel and Lycophron. Perhaps it was ‘an Ionic word which sounded poetic in Attic’ (Finglass on Aj. 56–8). On the plural to designate the leadership of the Trojan war, which is a tragic innovation, see 494–5n. 174 ἀπαιτῶ ‘demand’, envisaging Hector’s reluctance, in contrast to the plain polite ‘requesting’ of 173 αἴτει; cf. Andoc. 2.22 ταῦθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, εἰ μὲν βούλεσθε, αἰτῶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ βούλεσθε, ἀπαιτῶ. Μενέλεω: genitive of the Attic nom. Μενέλεως (metathesis: Hom. Μενέλᾱος), not attested before the tragedians. σχέσθαι χέρα ‘keep your hands off’ ~ ‘spare’: σχέσθαι has here the same meaning and construction with genitive (Μενέλεω) as the more explicit ἀπέχειν or ἀπέχεσθαι χεῖρα(ς): Hom. Od. 22.316, Emped. VS 31B141, Aesch. Supp. 756, Eum. 350, Antiph. PCG 27.16, Crates, PCG 19.2, Pl. Smp. 214d; Diog. Laert. AP 7.121.1. The singular χεῖρα in Aesch. Supp. 756 ἡμῶν χεῖρ᾿ ἀπόσχωνται supports the v.l. of Δ. Menelaus, as organiser of the expedition against Troy, was a plausible object of revenge for the Trojans. 175 οὐ μήν, after a rejected suggestion, introduces a tentative alternative suggestion (Denniston (1952) 334), as at Eur. Alc. 518. τὸν Ἰλέως παῖδα is the Lesser Ajax, so called in opposition to the more famous Ajax, son of Telamon: cf. Hom. Il. 13.701 = 14.520 Αἴας ... Ὀϊλῆος ταχὺς υἱός. Our text of the Il. always gives the name of his father as Ὀϊλεύς, but he was called Ἰλεύς already in the Il. persis according to Proclus’ summary (PEG p. 89). The Ἰλ- form of the name is attested in Hes. F 235.1, in the caption of a scene (from the Il. persis?) describing the sacrifice of Polyxena on an amphora from 570–560 (LIMC I.1, 338 ‘Aias II’ 8), in Stesich. F 291 Finglass, Pind. Ol. 9.112, Lycophr. 1150. Zenodotus tried, unsuccessfully, to standardise this spelling

235

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 5 – 1 7 6 in Hom., as is clear from Σ Il. 1.264, 2.527–31, 12.365, 13.203 (ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος ἄρθρον ἐνόμιζε τὸ ο, Ἰλέως τὸν Αἴαντα καὶ οὐκ Ὀϊλέως ἀκούων· διὸ καὶ ἔγραϕεν ‘κόψεν ἄρ᾽ Ἰλιάδης’), 694, 712, 14.442, 15.336, 23.759; cf. Nickau (1977) 36–42. Both names appear to result from an original ϝιλεύς (the ο- is attested elsewhere as a trace of the ϝ no longer pronounced in Ionic Asia: cf. W.A. Oldfather, RE XVII.2.2175–83, von Kamptz (1982) 295–8). In Rh., where Ἴλιον the city is frequently mentioned, a mechanical banalisation of an original Ὀιλέως to Ἰλέως is easy. However the variant ἰλέως V, adopted by Fries, appears to be a fully legitimate lectio difficilior. The author of Rh. may have chosen to adopt the form of the name used by the post-Homeric authors quoted above, or he may have read Ἰλεύς in his text of the Il., anticipating Zenodotus. By contrast, Οἰλέως (standard in the editions up to Paley, and adopted by Diggle, Kovacs, and Jouan) may be a banalisation influenced by the vulgate text of Homer. The paradosis of Eur. IA (only L) has the Homerising form in Οἰλέως at 193 (spondaic) and 263 (cretic). In the light of [Arist.] Peplos 16 Rose3 where Αἴαντ᾽ Οἰλιάδην fits in the first hemistich of a pentameter, Οἰλ- of Eur. IA 193 and 263, without Homeric diaeresis, is perhaps acceptable as an isolated Attic innovation (RE XVII.2.2180, Stockert on IA 263), and the name should not be emended to Ἰλέως in Eur. (England on IA 193, Wilamowitz (1921) 283, and cautiously Stockert). But in Rh. the family Δ supports the legitimate post-­ Homeric Ἰλέως, and should be followed. The Lesser Ajax is a secondary figure. By excluding the Greek commanders, who, as Dolon acknowledges (174), belong to Hector, perhaps Hector thinks that Dolon desires to possess a prisoner more like himself; cf. Klyve 170. Or Hector selects this Ajax as a target of special hatred or scorn for his brutal and abusive behaviour in the Il. (13.197–205, 23.473–81) and his later impious violence against Cassandra and the Palladium during the sack of Troy (Il. persis PEG p. 89); cf. Liapis 112. Alternatively, he may have been selected because of his speed in running (Il. 14.521–2, 23.754–83), and this suggests an association with Dolon, described as a fast runner at Il. 10.316 and 358–76. In particular, Il. 23.754–83, quoted above, may have occurred to the author’s memory, where the Lesser Ajax is about to win in the running race at the funeral games, but Athena hands the victory to his rival, Odysseus; similarly Dolon in Il. 10.358–76 runs so fast that he almost manages to escape from Odysseus and Diomedes, before Athena infuses special strength in his pursuer Diomedes. 176 εὖ τεθραμμέναι: the phrase is not attested before Eur. El. 65 and TrGF 111.2, but occurs in a few places in late fifth- and fourth-century prose or comedy (Pl., Theopompus, Cleanth. SVF 611, Diod. PCG 3.3). Compare Hector’s wish to see the imprisoned Greeks working his land (74–5). The audience will have contrasted Hector’s and Dolon’s evaluations of the utility of the prisoners, and noted that Dolon is associated with utility, Hector with revenge.

236

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 7 – 1 7 9 177–8 recall the Iliadic typical scenes of supplication where a defeated Trojan asks to be spared in exchange for a ransom: 6.46–8 (Adrastus to Menelaus) ‘take me alive and win a ransom of proper worth (ἄξια … ἄποινα). My father is rich, there are many treasures stored in his house (πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐν ἀϕνειοῦ πατρὸς κειμήλια κεῖται), bronze and gold and iron laboriously worked’, 10.378–81 (Dolon to Odysseus), 11.131–5 (Peisandrus and Hippolochus to Agamemnon). Note in particular the mention at 178 of ‘gold in the house’, already found in all these Homeric scenes – although Rh. re-uses the phrase χρυσὸς (or χρυσὸν) ἐν δόμοις, which had occurred already in the iambic trimeters of Anan. IEG 3.1 and of Eur. Med. 542, Hec. 27, 1245. The ransoming of prisoners, especially of soldiers taken after a battle, was a common way to make money from war: Ducrey (1968) 238–46, Pritchett (1971/1991) V.245–312. ἀποινᾶσθαι (Σ: ἀποίνασθαι O) must mean here ‘hold to ransom’ (Σ ad loc.: τίνα οὖν ... τῶν Ἀχαιῶν λύτρα λαβὼν βούλει ἀπολῦσαι;), a sense not attested elsewhere but perhaps understandable from the meaning of active ἀποινᾶν ‘exact a fine’ (due from a murderer: Dem. 23.28 ~ 33 = Solon F 16 Ruschenbusch). ποινᾶσθαι ‘punish’, the reading of the other MSS, is defended by Willink (2002/2003=2010) 576 n. 36, comparing Eur. IT 1433, and is not impossible in principle, as Hector wishes to retaliate against the defeated Greeks (see 72–3n., 102–4n.). But ζῶντ(α), which belongs in the phraseology of ransoming (cf., e.g., Il. 6.46 and 50, 10.378 and 381, 11.131 and 135 quoted above), favours ἀποινᾶσθαι. Moreover, the choice of ἀποινᾶσθαι may highlight the tragic irony of the situation: Hector assumes that Dolon will soon be able to treat the defeated Greeks in the same way that the Iliadic Dolon will in reality plead in vain to be treated by Odysseus. 179 καὶ μήν … γ᾽ ‘But, as for …’ usually introduces a new fact or thought; ‘when this new fact or thought raises a difficulty in the way of something proposed by the last speaker, then καὶ μήν acquires an adversative force’ (Jebb on Soph. Aj. 531; Wakker (1997) 214–18). γ(ε) ‘serves to define more sharply the new idea introduced’ (Denniston (1954) 119). λαφύρων is not attested before the tragedians (Aesch. 3x; Soph. 2x; Eur. 2x), but is later not uncommon (e.g., in Xen.). In tragedy it designates not general booty (called ληίς/λεία or σκῦλα), but especially valuable arms or clothes to be hung on the walls of a temple as offerings, or of a house as glorious decorations (cf. Bravo (1980) 822). By using the term λάφυρα, Hector thinks that Dolon may want some particularly distinguished part of the booty to hang on the walls of his house or of temples as evidence of his glory. Likewise, Megareus at Aesch. Sept. 479 is ready either to die or to win the shield of one of the besiegers, so as to ‘decorate the home of his father with spoils (λαφύροις δῶμα κοσμήσει πατρός)’. Differently, Dolon wishes to secure a part of the Greek booty, as he anticipated at 172, but not as something that he could hang on the wall.

237

C O M M E N TA RY 1 7 9 – 1 8 2 αὐτὸς αἱρήσηι παρών: Hector promises that Dolon will be entitled to be present at the distribution of the booty (παρών, see 142) and so be able to take his pick; Agamemnon offers Achilles an analogous privilege at Hom. Il. 9.135–8, quoted in 172n.; cf. also 8.281–91, 17.229–32. 180 may be modelled on the last two lines of the dedicatory ‘epigram’ which the herald of Aesch. Ag. 577–9 utters to celebrate the victory of the Greeks over Troy: Τροίαν ἑλόντες δήποτ᾿ Ἀργείων στόλος / θεοῖς λάφυρα ταῦτα τοῖς καθ᾿ Ἑλλάδα / δόμοις (= ‘temples’, as at Rh. 178) ἐπασσάλευσαν ἀρχαῖον γάνος. If the audience caught the parallelism of the two texts (Ritchie (1964) 199 is sceptical about direct reminiscence), or remembered Agamemnon’s offers of Trojan spoils in Argive temples as described at Eur. El. 6–7 and 1000–1, these words would have taken on a bitter tragic irony: the Greeks of Aesch. used the Trojan λάφυρα in the same way as Dolon invites Hector to use the λάφυρα that they expect to obtain from the Greeks. Evidence of captured arms or spoils hanging from the walls of private buildings or temples includes, e.g., Alcae. F 357.7–9 Voigt, Aesch. Ag. 579, Eur. Hcld. 695–9, Andr. 1121–3, Bacch. 1212–15 (featuring πάσσαλοι), and Hom. Il. 7.82–3, Aesch. Sept. 276–8, 479, Soph. Aj. 92–3, Eur. El. 6–7 and 1000–1, quoted above, Tro. 574–6, TrGF 369.4–5; cf. Pritchett (1971/1991) III.277–95, Lonis (1979) 157–78, Jackson (1991). πρὸς δόμοις: gods’ houses, i.e., ‘temples’ is common usage, from Hom. onwards, but here it may be reminiscent of Aesch. Ag. 578, quoted in 180n. Verbs like (προσ‑)/(δια‑)πασσαλεύειν or κρεμαννύναι can be constructed with πρός + accusative (e.g., HHom.Ap. 8; Hdt. 1.144.3, 7.33.1). Aesch. PV 56 πασσάλευε πρὸς πέτραις and the dedications with πρός + dative at Eur. Bacch. 1238–40 (πρὸς δόμοις), Leon. AP 6.188.2 = HE 1973 (πρὸς … σκοπέλοις), Plut. Caes. 26.4 (πρὸς ἱερῶι) favour δόμοις here against δόμους ΔL. 181 τί δῆτα points to a shift not in the nature of his proposals, as it did in 171, but in the quantitative value of what he is offering. Hector seems to have exhausted the different kinds of options he imagines to be attractive. γέρας: here ‘gift of honour’ as at 169. It is used in a different sense at 107; see 106–8n. The reward termed a γέρας here in the language of Hector’s heroic idealism becomes a mere gift (δῶρον) from Dolon’s point of view (192). 182–3 ‘The horses of Achilles! It is right that I work for a worthy reward, as I am playing my life in the dice-game of fate.’ ἵππους Ἀχιλλέως: Xanthos and Balios, divine horses, offspring of the harpy Podagre and the wind Zephyros (cf. Hom. Il. 16.149–51). Dolon finally expresses his wish in a straightforward way. The audience is left with the impression that it would have been much simpler for Hector to ask from the very beginning, instead of trying to guess Dolon’s thoughts while imposing his idealistic emphasis on honour.

238

C O M M E N TA RY 1 8 2 – 1 8 4 Dolon resembles Achilles in certain minor respects – apart from liking the same horses, they are the only heroes in the Il. to whom an epithet referring to fleetness of foot is applied (see 175n.) – but of course the two characters are very different in heroic standing and ideals. Therefore the idea that on some day in the future such an insignificant Trojan will ride the chariot of Achilles sounds especially surprising here and in the corresponding Il. 10.321–3 (Rabel (1991) 289). See the comments of Odysseus at Il. 10.400–4 and of the narrator in Virg. Aen. 12.350. χρή ~ 161: both in his request for a gift and in his specific choice Dolon adopts the rhetoric of appropriateness. δ᾽ ~ γάρ: see 132n. ἐπ᾿ ἀξίοις πονεῖν confirms 161–2. ψυχὴν προβάλλοντ(α): cf. Hom. Il. 9.322 ἐμὴν ψυχὴν παραβαλλόμενος πολεμίζειν (Achilles), Soph. Aj. 1270 τὴν σὴν προτείνων ... ψυχὴν δορί, OT 745–6 ἔοικ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀρὰς / δεινὰς προβάλλων ἀρτίως οὐκ εἰδέναι, Diod. Sic. 30.9.2 τὴν ἰδίαν παραβάλλονται ψυχήν. ἐν κύβοισι δαίμονος: the dicing metaphor for the hazardous result of the mission confirms 154–5 and strengthens the idea that the mission may be fatal (and should thus be well rewarded). References to playing κύβοι often come with the negative undertone of ‘gambling’ (Kurke (1999) 283–95; Kidd (2017), and suit Dolon ‘the tricky’ (Rh. 150). On divine control over the ‘dice’ of human destiny, cf. Anacr. PMG 398.1–2 ἀστραγάλαι δ᾽ Ἔρωτός εἰσιν / μανίαι τε καὶ κυδοιμοί, Aesch. Sept. 414 ἔργον δ᾿ ἐν κύβοις Ἄρης κρινεῖ, Soph. TrGF 895 Διὸς κύβοι, Eur. Her. 1228 θεῶν πτώματα, with Bond ad loc. 184 καὶ μήν … γ᾽ introduces again, as in 179, something that Dolon may not have had in mind in his previous statement, and which may destabilise it. ἐρῶντί ... ἀντερᾶις: the figura etymologica is an especially frequent rhetorical device in tragedy: e.g., Aesch. Ag. 340, Cho. 144, Soph. OT 306, Ant. 1109, Tr. 798, TrGF 953.1, Eur. Alc. 1103, Hcld. 26–7, Supp. 1007, Pho. 1283, Fehling (1969) 254–6. ἀντερᾶν is not attested elsewhere in the present sense ‘rivalling in love’ before Plut. Lyc. 18.4 and Mor. 972d (its common meaning in classical Greek is ‘love in return’ ~ ἀντιφιλεῖν). However, the noun ἀντεραστής means ‘rival in love’ at Pl. Resp. 521b (as here, without an explicit sexual meaning), and at Ar. Eq. 733, Xen. Cyn. 1.7, Arist. Rh. 1388a14, Men. Sam. 26. ἐρᾶν is re-used in Rh. of Hector’s passion for Achilles’ horses at 839 and 859. Its strong erotic value creates ‘the impression of an intensity of competition between Hector and Dolon like that between rivals in love’ (Klyve 174); it may be associated with the tendency of tragedy to give an erotic presentation of events which in other genres do not have, or less frequently have, erotic undertones (Sissa (2008) 99–103, Fantuzzi (2012) 217–18). By using the

239

C O M M E N TA RY 1 8 4 – 1 8 5 compound ἀντ- for Dolon, and the simple verb for himself, Hector is perhaps implying that his passion for the horses of Achilles is chronologically prior to that of his rival: another indirect way for Hector to emphasise his supposed ability to pre-empt his subjects’ wishes. The Hector of Il. 10 does not confess any interest in Achilles’ horses in his short dialogue with Dolon, but in a few places the Il. hints that he would have liked to ride them: 17.75–8, 448–9, 485–90. The author of Rh. constructs here a motive for the allegations of the charioteer at 837–40; see also Hector’s defence at 859–60 (Jouan 17 n. 50). The erotic aspect given to the two Trojans’ rivalry may have evoked the dispute over Briseis in the Il. (Bond (1996) 258); an implication of that comparison might have been that rivalry over exceptional war-horses fits the heroic world better than rivalry over women. 185–8 presuppose Il. 17.443–4, the opening of Zeus’ speech to the horses of Achilles: ‘you yourselves are immortal and ageless’, 23.276–8, where Achilles refuses to participate in the horse race, commenting that his horses are immortal, as ‘Poseidon gave them to my father Peleus, and he then handed them to me’, 16.866–7 ‘… swift immortal horses that the gods had given as a splendid gift to Peleus’, and their genealogy at 16.149–51. Achilles’ horses are mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.769–70) as the best horses of those besieging Troy. 185 is modelled on Il. 16.149–51 and 17.444 (quoted above in 185–8n.), but shifts the attention from swiftness (inherited from parents who are winds) to immortality (inherited from immortal parents). Il. 17.446–7 had commented about Achilles’ horses painfully sharing human suffering: ‘there is nothing more miserable than men among all creatures that breathe and move on earth’, and the markedly ‘existentialist’ interpretation of Σ exeg. Il. 17.443–55 also pointed to the miserable condition of mortal humanity: ‘the whole passage is for the disparagement of the human race; if the horses are in trouble and therefore wretched because they live together with humans, all the more so humans’. The passage may have influenced the decision here to emphasise the immortality rather than the swiftness of the horses. The idea that immortal parents should guarantee immortality is highlighted in Rh. by the polyptoton. Etymologic identity is frequent in statements about the inheritance of moral qualities and the equality of parents and children: e.g., Hom. Il. 14.472, Archil. IEG 23.12, Theogn. IEG 185–6, Soph. Aj. 557, 1304, El. 589–90, OT 1379, Ant. 379–80, 471, Ph. 384, 874, Eur. Andr. 590, Pho. 1701, Or. 1676, TrGF 75.2, 166.2, 520.3, Ar. Eq. 336–7, Ran. 731, Pl. Cra. 394a, Phdr. 246a, Resp. 461a, Mx. 273a, Andoc. 1.109, Lys. 13.18, Arist. Rh. 1367b30, Gygli-Wyss (1966) 92–3.

240

C O M M E N TA RY 1 8 5 – 1 8 7 πεφυκότες ‘born’, first in Hes. F 412, is a Euripidean word (27x); Soph. (5x); never in Aeschylus. Chariot horses are conventionally depicted as stallions on vases and in sculpture, but as mares most commonly in tragedy and lyric, especially when they are referred to as a team (cf. Σ Eur. Pho. 3; McDevitt (1994) 503, with a collection of epigraphical evidence); epic fluctuates between the two genders. But authors are not always consistent on this point even within a single text, and in Soph. El. Orestes’ team are feminine in the plural (703–5, 734–5, 737–8), but its members are masculine in the singular (721–2 and 744): cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 231 and Maehler on Bacch. 3.3–4 and 5.43. The horses of Achilles are always masculine in the Il. (2.770, 10.323, 16.149–50, 23.277–8). The horses of Rhesus are mares at 237, 240, 781, 785–6, but stallions here and, probably, 187. Perhaps the author of Rh. was under the influence of different literary models: Hector introduces the horses as stallions at 185–8, where he speaks of their being a gift from Poseidon in the wake of a model (explicitly hinted: 188 ὡς λέγουσι), but in the later passages the chorus or the charioteer stick to the common practice of making the horses feminine. 186 reworks Hom. Il. 2.770 ἵπποι θ’ οἳ ϕορέεσκον ἀμύμονα Πηλεΐωνα (~ 10.323). Πηλέως ... γόνον: a tragic patronymic of Achilles, variating παῖς Πηλέως of 119; cf. Aesch. TrGF 132c2, Soph. Ph. 333, Eur. Hel. 98. The focus on Achilles’ father, who, unlike Thetis, was mortal, perhaps contributes to the contrast between mortal human beings and immortal horses. θούριον: the -ιος form is tragic, used instead of epic θοῦρις/-ιδος or θοῦρος, which occurs at Rh. 492. From θορεῖν, the epithet refers to the onrush of battle or to a warrior charging the enemy (‘impetuous’); it is well suited to Achilles here, as he is mentioned in connection with his swift horses. ἀμύμων ‘blameless’, used in the Iliadic model (2.770 ~ 10.323), would be less appropriate in the mouth of a Trojan (Fries 187), and in any case is a word foreign to tragedy. Epic θοῦρις and θοῦρος are used in archaic epic with martial subjects: Ares, or ἀλκή ‘battle’, and ἀσπίς or αἰγίς. The epithet is extended to warlike persons in tragedy: by Soph. to Ajax (Aj. 212, 1212) and by Aesch. to Xerxes (Pers. 73, 718, 754), the Seven (Sept. 42), and Typhon (PV 354). 187–8 Cf. Hom. Il. 23.277–8 Ποσειδάων δ᾽ ἔπορ᾽ αὐτοὺς / … Πηλῆϊ. Apollod. Bibl. 3.170 (3.13.5) specifies that they were a wedding gift for Peleus. δίδωσι is a ‘present of permanent relation’, also called ‘registering present’, identifying or earmarking things, e.g., in genealogical statements (Pearson on Eur. Hel. 568). It records that the horses ‘are a gift of ’ etc., and indicates that ‘a past state of affairs is still relevant at the moment of utterance’ (Rijksbaron (1991) 2–4). For present δίδωσι used for past gifts, cf. Aesch. Eum. 7, Soph. OT

241

C O M M E N TA RY 1 8 7 – 1 9 0 1040, 1173, Eur. Med. 955, 1322, Hec. 1133–4, Supp. 6, El. 34, Her. 19, Hel. 33, 568, Pho. 25, Bacch. 44, IA 703; also dat in Virg. Aen. 9.266. αὐτούς, the reading of the majority of the MSS, is probably correct, in the light of Il. 23.277 quoted above, where αὐτούς is the reading of almost all the MSS, and no female v.l. is attested. In Rh., αὐτάς of V is perhaps the correction of a scribe who remembered that team horses are commonly female (see 185n.), or who was trying to make the line consistent with Rh. 237 and 240, where Achilles’ horses are female (the inconsistency is observed by Σ 239). The emendation αὐτός, to be taken either with δίδωσι or with πωλοδαμνήσας, proposed by Dobree (1833) 87 and adopted by Diggle, Kovacs, and Jouan, is more pointed and is well paralleled (e.g., Hom. Il. 2.827 ὧι καὶ τόξον Ἀπόλλων αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν and Od. 19.396–7 θεὸς δέ οἱ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν / Ἑρμείας, Il. 24.294 = 312 αὐτὸς ἐν ὀϕθαλμοῖσι νοήσας; δ᾽ ἔπορ᾽ αὐτός is also v.l. in Il. 23.277), but the paradosis is acceptable. πωλοδαμνήσας: again of horses at 624 in a slightly different sense, and metaphorical (‘educate’) at Soph. Aj. 549; technical of breaking horses 6x in Xen. For transitivised denominative verbs in -εω from compound nouns, cf. Wifstrand (1946) 245. That Poseidon had broken the horses of Achilles is attested nowhere else; but he had the title ἵππιος, and he and Athena were thought to have invented or taught men horsemanship and the taming of horses: e.g., Hom. Il. 23.307–8, Pind. Pyth. 6.50, Soph. OC 712–15, Σ Pind. Pyth. 4.1(a), Mylonopoulos (2003) 365–9. ἄναξ ... Ποσειδῶν ... πόντιος: the probable model is Eur. Hipp. 44–5 ὁ πόντιος / ἄναξ Ποσειδῶν; for πόντιος cf. Bacch. 17.35–6, Eur. Cycl. 21, 286, 413, Andr. 1011, Hel. 1585, TrGF 370.56, Ar. Th. 322. ὡς λέγουσι, a frequent parenthetic phrase in Eur. (Med. 684, Supp. 105, El. 327, 1115, Ion 1139, Or. 5, 8), sometimes distances the author from the narrative, or simply indicates, as here, a reference to previous mythological narratives, rather than suggesting disbelief: cf. Stinton (1976=1990), Willink on Eur. Or. 5. It would be unwise to emend to ὡς λέγουσ᾿, ὁ (Lindemann (1834) 8): in phrases consisting of the name of a god and an epithet, usually either both take the article, or neither; cf. Gildersleeve (1910/1911) II.235–6. 189–90 ἀλλ᾿ οὔ σ᾿ ἐπάρας ψεύσομαι ‘But, having stirred you up, I shall not cheat you’: cf. Eur. Or. 286–7 ὅστις μ᾿ ἐπάρας †ἔργον ἀνόσιώτατον† / τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρανε, τοῖς δ᾽ ἔργοισιν οὔ (where με, like σε here, is construed with both verbs). ἐπαίρειν occurs more than 20x in Eur. (the penchant of Eur. for the verb is perhaps parodied by Ar. Ran. 777). For the sense ‘stir up’, cf. Supp. 581, Her. 173, TrGF 69.1, 134a, 293.1; also Soph. OT 1328, Ph. 889. δώσω ... ὄχον may echo the promise of the Homeric Hector: δώσω … δίφρον τε δύω τ᾿ ἐριαύχενας ἵππους (Il. 10.305). ὄχος here means not ‘chariot’ but ‘team’, namely ‘(chariot) horses’, or ‘team and chariot’, a synecdoche which also occurs in Rh. 620–1 and perhaps 797 and is not rare in poetry: Eur.

242

C O M M E N TA RY 1 8 9 – 1 9 0 Alc. 66–7, Hipp. 1166, 1229, 1355, El. 1135, Phaeth. TrGF 779.6 (with Diggle on line 173), Ar. Pax 865 ὄχημα κανθάρου ~ κάνθαρον, a ‘paratragic periphrasis’ (Olson ad loc.). The usage may be parallel to that of ἅρμα, which commonly means chariot or chariot and horses, or horses alone; cf. Dale on Eur. Alc. 66–7. κάλλιστον οἴκοις κτῆμ(α): possession of Achilles’ horses provides social distinction. The point is echoed by Athena speaking of Rhesus’ horses at 620. Cf. Eur. El. 1003 σμικρὸν γέρας, καλὸν δὲ κέκτημαι δόμοις, Pho. 88 κλεινὸν οἴκοις ... θάλος. κάλλιστον, with its usual ambiguity, expresses both beauty and social distinction – Hector may think of the latter meaning, Dolon of the former. Chariot and horses are in Hom. a status symbol. As observed by van Wees (1994) 10–12 and (2004) 291 n. 18, of forty-one chariot-fighters mentioned in the Il., twenty are explicitly said to be commanders of contingents. Teams were so valuable that some warriors might prefer to leave them at home, in order to spare them and make sure that they would not go hungry (Il. 5.197–205). In classical Athens horse-breeding was evidence of affluence and aristocratic life: cf., e.g., Aesch. PV 465–6 (among the inventions benefiting mankind is the fact that ὑϕ’ ἅρμα τ’ ἤγαγον ϕιληνίους / ἵππους, ἄγαλμα τῆς ὑπερπλούτου χλιδῆς), Xen. Hiero 11.5 (Simonides discusses the common opinion that the breeding of chariot horses is τὸ … πάντων κάλλιστον καὶ μεγαλοπρεπέστατον … ἐπιτήδευμα), Arist. Pol. 1289b33–8 ‘horse-rearing is always not easy without wealth’, Greenhalgh (1973) 42–4, Spence (1993) 191–8, Thomas (2007) 143–4. 189–90 are Hector’s last words until 266, after the shepherd addresses him at 264; from 194 to 264 his presence on stage is not required. It is the watchmen who raise the issue of Dolon’s disguise, so it is perhaps not surprising that only the watchmen and Dolon discuss it. Once Hector has approved Dolon’s mission, and after the interlude of 195–200 in praise of the mission, the watchmen’s praise and curiosity about it come to the fore, and Dolon is the person whom they can most naturally address to obtain further information. Is Hector on stage in silence this whole time, or does he exit after 194, and re-enter before 264? In Hipp. 601–68 it is uncertain whether Phaedra exits (Smith (1960) 162–71, Østerud (1970) 314–20, Kovacs (1987b) 54–60) or stays to eavesdrop on the dialogue between Hippolytus and the Nurse, hidden from them but in view of the audience (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 601, Hourmouziades (1965) 28, Sider (1977) 17–18, Halleran on Eur. Hipp. 601–68). In Eur. Hcld. 720–83 Alcmene does not speak during the dialogue between Iolaus and the servant at 720–47 (which, as in Rh., is an arming scene at the end of which Iolaus leaves for the battlefield, never to return to the stage, like Dolon) nor during the following stasimon at 748–83 (a song where appreciation of Athens’ military commitment against Argos triggers an appeal for

243

C O M M E N TA RY 1 9 0 – 1 9 2 divine support, like that in Rh.). We understand that she is on stage only at 784, when a messenger addresses her (and a messenger addresses Hector at Rh. 264). The text offers no hint as to whether she is on stage or has left tacitly, although her silence has usually been taken to imply a temporary exit. Cases of a character more or less probably standing idle on the stage during a choral song are Soph. Aj. 1185ff., OC 1211ff.; Eur. Hipp. 1268ff., Hec. 905ff., Tro. 511ff., 799ff., 1060ff., Pho. 784ff. (listed by Ritchie (1964) 116). Hector may in principle be supposed to exit after 194. A silent departure conventionally belongs to characters of secondary importance and there are very few cases of significant characters leaving the scene tacitly. This general convention of fifth-century tragedy may not apply in fourth-century Rh., where in fact Aeneas also exits silently after 148 (see 147–8n., Poe (1993) 379–80 and (2004) 27–8). But the audience knows from Aeneas why he is leaving (147–8). By contrast, 191–4, the last lines presupposing Hector’s presence before the choral interlude, are spoken by Dolon. It would thus be strange if Hector exits and the audience is given no clue to when and why, since he continues to be a character of major importance in the action; cf. Taplin (1977a) 205. It is more likely that Hector remains on stage, waiting for the spy’s report (cf. 141), as he is still ready to attack the Greeks immediately, if the spy confirms his ideas expressed at 143–6. 191–2 αἰνῶ (at line-beginning in trimeters 9x in Eur.) refers to Hector’s promise and his definition of the horses as κάλλιστον κτῆμα. Sometimes ‘yes, thank you’, but here rather ‘that is right’, as in Eur. IT 1486 (see Parker ad loc.) and TrGF 603.1 (with αἰνῶ isolated at the beginning of the line), Alc. 1093, Her. 275; cf. Quincey (1966) 144–8. It is common in tragedy for a speech to begin with a single word followed by a stop, especially in Eur.; again in Rh. 201, 281, 877; cf. Ritchie (1964) 254. δ᾿ ἄν (Verrall ap. Murray, ed.) for the transmitted δέ, with ἄν as usual in the second position in the phrase (see 65–7n.), to be taken with δέχεσθαι (cf. Goodwin (1889) 173, 178, 335–6, KG I.242–3 n. 1, Ruijgh (1971) 293) and forming the apodosis of a conditional sentence, whose protasis is λαβών: λέγω ὅτι, εἰ λάβοιμι, δεχοίμην ἄν (Porter 55). Verbs of expecting and promising sometimes allow the present infinitive, instead of the future, for a future action (Goodwin (1889) 45–6); compare 196, where the chorus summarise what Dolon has said in 191–2, and use a future. δῶρον … τῆς ἐμῆς εὐσπλαγχνίας ‘gift in return for my valour’ (genitive of price or value; cf. Pl. Grg. 511d, KG I.377–8) is the compensation that Hector had mentioned with a high-flown epic term, γέρας (see 169n.). Dolon devalues the honorific component of what he is going to be awarded for his courage by calling it a mere δῶρον. σπλάγχνον/α is often the seat of emotions and sensation in the tragedians, and apparently not before (Capone Ciollaro (1987) 12–16). εὐσπλαγχνία

244

C O M M E N TA RY 1 9 2 – 1 9 5 ‘guts’ is not attested before Rh. and becomes frequent only from the second century onwards. The adjective εὔσπλαγχνος is, however, attested in Aesch. TrGF 451c.33–4, and other compounds in ‑σπλαγχνος are not rare in the tragedians: Aesch. Sept. 237 κακόσπλαγχνος, PV 730 θρασύσπλαγχνος (= Eur. Hipp. 424), Soph. Aj. 472 ἄσπλαγχνος, Eur. Med. 109 μεγαλόσπλαγχνος, Ar. Ran. 496 ἀφοβόσπλαγχνος, probably paratragic. εὐσπλαγχνία ‘strength of gut’ may be a different and inferior kind of strength when compared with, e.g., εὐψυχία ‘strength of soul’, as suggested by Burnett (1985) 22; but this does not entail that Dolon’s bravery is presented as second-class (Liapis 116). 193–4 τῆσδ᾿ ἀριστεύων χθονός ‘being the best in this land’: the verb, denominative from a superlative, is construed with a genitive of comparison (KG I.393); cf. Pind. Nem. 1.14 ἀριστεύοισαν εὐκάρπου χθονός / Σικελίαν, Simonides (?), FGE 786 ἀνδρὸς ἀριστεύσαντος … τῶν ἐϕ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ. In the Il. ἀριστεύειν μάχεσθαι is said of several leaders: Hector (ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι / Τρώων 6.460–1 ~ Τρωσὶ ... μεταπρέπω 16.835), Sarpedon (16.551), the ἡγεμών of the Paeonians (16.292), another leader of Paeonian reinforcements (17.351), a ἡγεμών of the Epeians (11.746). In fact excellence in fighting is something that subjects admire in their king (Il. 12.310–21), and a good justification for the material rewards and honours that they give him. As van Wees (1992) 83 observes: ‘it would seem that the poet has tailored his image of the heroic world to fit the ideology that hereditary power and honour should be justified by merit’; see also van Wees (1988) 17–21. Since Achilles’ horses attracted Hector’s interest (184–90), they might have belonged in his share of the booty, after the defeat of the Greeks; cf. Carlier (1984) 151–4. Dolon counters this idea by noting that Hector can enjoy many different honorific prerogatives or material goods which symbolically confirm his superior power. 195–200: choral interlude, antistrophe of 131–6; for metrical interpretation, see 131–6 (Metre) n. In the three distichs 195–6, 197–8, 199–200 the watchmen emphasise aspects of the mission that Dolon is going to accomplish (195, 197a) and his blessedness (196, 197b–8, 199–200). They point up in particular the ‘greatness’ of the mission, through μέγας at 195 and 197, εὐκλεής at 197, τέλεια at 200, with the effect of indirectly heroising Dolon (Bond (1996) 259). 195 μέγας ... μεγάλα (see 197) parallels the anaphora of the demonstrative in the first interlude at 131. μέγας ἀγών is a phrase typical of Eur. (Hipp. 496, Hec. 229, Hel. 843, 1090, Pho. 860, Bacch. 975, IA 1254; μέγιστος ἀγών Med. 235, IA 1003–4), also attested in Hdt., in Thuc., and in Aristophanes. δ(έ) is continuative, not correlated to an initial μέν, as not rarely in tragedy in anaphora (Denniston (1954) 163–4, Diggle (1981) 55–6).

245

C O M M E N TA RY 1 9 5 – 1 9 7 ἐπινοεῖς ἑλεῖν: cf. Pl. Timae. 64b ἐπινοοῦμεν ἑλεῖν. ἐπινοεῖν refers mainly to a kind of ‘reflecting’ oriented towards action, and thus ‘planning’ (Huart (1968) 237). It is a word found in prose (Hdt., Thuc., Pl., Xen.) and comedy (Ar., Men.), but only here in serious poetry (ἐπίνοια 2x in Eur.). 196 μακάριος is a fifth-century word, mainly limited to Eur. (more than 30x), and the comic poets (Ar. more than a dozen times, Cratin. 3x, Pherecr. 2x). In its first occurrence in Pind. Pyth. 5.46 it refers to the victorious charioteer who achieves, after heavy toil, the great glory of being celebrated by Pind.; compare Rh. 197 πόνος … εὐκλεής. Before Ar., μακάριος appears to be used of humans, whereas for gods μάκαρ is standard: cf. McDonald (1978) and (1979). The adjective refers to a godlike bliss, the condition of being μάκαρ, but less so than gods (de Heer (1969) 52; for Arist. EN 1178b25–6 the gods’ whole life is fully μακάριος, and that of humans only in part and for a limited time). γε μάν ‘at any rate’, adversative (Denniston (1954) 348, Wakker (1997) 225– 6). Doricising μάν is the only form of the particle attested by MSS in Aesch. (Supp. 1018, Cho. 963), Soph. (OC 153, 182, 1468), and Eur. (Alc. 89, Ion 201) in lyric metre, where μήν never occurs. κυρήσας ~ 191 λαβών. 197–8 ‘This toil is great. Still, it is also a great thing to marry into a royal house.’ The idea that toil is a precondition for glory is a topos attested in Pind. F 227.1–2 νέων δὲ μέριμναι σὺν πόνοις εἱλισσόμεναι / δόξαν εὑρίσκοντι and common in tragedy: Aesch. TrGF 315 τῶι πονοῦντι δ᾽ ἐκ θεῶν / ὀϕείλεται τέκνωμα τοῦ πόνου κλέος, Soph. Ph. 1422 ἐκ τῶν πόνων τῶνδ’ εὐκλεᾶ θέσθαι βίον, Eur. TrGF 134 εὔκλειαν ἔλαβον οὐκ ἄνευ πολλῶν πόνων, 237.2–3 οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὢν ῥάιθυμος εὐκλεὴς ἀνήρ, / ἀλλ᾽ οἱ πόνοι τίκτουσι τὴν εὐανδρίαν, 240.2 τίς δ᾽ ἄμοχθος εὐκλεής;, 474 πόνος γάρ … εὐκλείας πατήρ, 1007d κτήσασθ’ ἐν ὑ[σ]τέροισιν εὔ[κ]λειαν χρόνοι[ς] / ἅπασαν ἀντλή[σαν]τες ἡμέραν [πόν]ον / ψ[υ]χαῖς, 1052.5–7 οὐκ ἔνεστι στέϕανος οὐδ᾽ εὐανδρία, / εἰ μή τι καὶ τολμῶσι κινδύνου μέτα· / οἱ γὰρ πόνοι τίκτουσι τὴν εὐανδρίαν. The chorus recalls the first of Hector’s offers, though Dolon had refused it. According to Liapis 118 the remark makes sense only if the chorus were advising Dolon to reconsider Hector’s offer, and the fact that they do not follow up on this suggestion indicates ‘authorial negligence’. But the watchmen may simply wish to stress that Dolon has been offered a multitude of glorious rewards: what he finally gained is great, but kinship with the royal family would also have been great. πόνος ὅδ᾿, conjectured by Nauck (i) 22, has to be preferred to MSS πόνος δ᾿. It gives exact responsion with 133–4 – although the free responsion ⏑⏔−⏑− would not be impossible in tragic dochmiacs: cf. Pace (2001) 26 and Tessier (1993) 670. δέ would tack πόνος onto what precedes in no particularly pointed way, while ὅδ(ε) gives 197–8 a consistent focus: after the general statement of

246

C O M M E N TA RY 1 9 7 – 2 0 3 195 (big contest, but also big prizes), both the statements of 197a with ὅδ(ε) and 197b–8 emphasise deictically the concrete toil of Dolon and also point concretely to one of the possible great rewards. Besides, with πόνος ὅδ(ε), 195, 197–8, and 199–200 all have the same structure – a first short colon with no particle, and a second, longer colon with δέ. 199–200 ‘Let Justice determine the reward you get from the gods, but your reward amongst men seems accomplished (i.e., ‘assured’)’ (Cropp (2015) 159). The reward from the gods is of course victory or death in the spy mission. On Zeus or the gods in general as responsible for the definitive result (τέλος or τέρμα) of human actions, cf. Hes. Op. 669, Archil. IEG 298, Solon IEG 13.17, Alcm. PMGF 1.83–4, Semon. IEG 1.1–2, Pind. Ol. 13.104–5, Nem. 10.28–30, Aesch. Supp. 823–4, Ag. 1487, Eur. Supp. 615–17, Or. 1545–6, adesp. TrGF 621, Keyssner (1932) 117–19. For παρά + dative ἀνδράσιν = ‘amongst humans’ or ‘at the human level’, cf. Eur. Hcld. 201, Ar. Av. 1278, Lys. 11, Eccl. 485. τὰ θέοθεν ... τὰ δὲ παρ᾽ ἀνδράσιν: cf. Hdt. 7.99.2 τὰ πρὸς πατρός, τὰ μητρόθεν. τά for transmitted τὰ δέ is a metrical emendation by Bothe (i) 288 and (independently) Seidler (1811/1812) I.61 n.* For the distinction between human effectiveness and divine power, e.g., Eur. Pho. 257–8 δειμαίνω τὰν σὰν ἀλκὰν καὶ τὸ θεόθεν. ἐπιδέτω Δίκα ~ Aesch. Supp. 145 μ᾽ ἐπιδέτω Διὸς κόρα (prayer to Artemis). ἐφορᾶν means ‘not just witnessing but supervising or taking an active interest in what one sees’ (West (1990b) 262) and is often used of gods ‘watching over’ or ‘surveying’ the human world; cf., e.g., Od. 17.486–7 (θεοί) ἐπιστρωϕῶσι πόληας, / ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐϕορῶντες, Soph. El. 175 Ζεύς, ὃς ἐϕορᾶι πάντα (with Finglass ad loc.), Mugler (1964) 183. Surveying humans, and reporting to Zeus or the gods, is, however, the typical province of Dike, from Hesiod (Op. 249–62) onwards. See for tragedy Aesch. Cho. 61–5, Soph. TrGF 12, Eur. El. 771, TrGF 151, 255, 506.7–8, 555, Dionys. TrGF 76F5, adesp. TrGF 421, 485, 496.2, Lloyd-Jones (1971) 82–7. τέλεια is an Aeschylean word (a dozen times; only once in Soph. and twice in Eur.); its sense in Rh., ‘accomplished’, namely ‘assured’, is comparable with some instances in Aesch., but none in the other two tragedians (Waanders (1983) 205–8, Cropp (2015) 159). 201–3 Dolon’s introduction to his arming scene includes some high-flown phrases, which sound oddly unsuccessful by the standard of conventional tragic usage. This inadequacy is not necessarily due to the author’s poor command of tragic language, as suggested by Fraenkel (1965) 237–8 apropos of 203 ἥσω ... πόδα. Linguistic awkwardness may be a deliberate part of the characterisation of Dolon. His reason for volunteering had been presented initially as a materialistic foil for Hector’s hyper-idealism in the long dialogue

247

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 1 – 2 0 2 of 154–82, but in 195–200 the chorus’ enthusiasm almost transformed him into a hero. The elevation of Dolon’s linguistic register reflects perhaps this shift, just as at the same time the infelicity of his language may show that he is a poor candidate for sublimity. στείχοιμ᾿ ἄν: optatives of στείχειν with ἄν in the second person are often used in tragedy to express a mild order (A), or in the first person a resolution or promise (B). For (A), cf., e.g., Aesch. Supp. 500, Soph. Tr. 624; for (B) Soph. Ant. 1108, Eur. El. 669, Ion 418, 668, 981, Bacch. 515, 845.37 Here, as in many other examples of the first-person optative in drama, the speaker is consenting to a course of action which somebody else desires or has ordered to be carried out (Lattimore (1979) 211–12, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 88). ἐλθὼν ἐς δόμους ἐφέστιος: ἐφέστιος ‘at my fireside’ in tragedy usually carries the more or less sacred connotations of ἑστία, so that the meaning of the adjective ‘varies from “guest of one’s hearth” to “protected suppliant”, from the ordinary obligation of a host to a guest to the more specialised obligation of a protector of a suppliant’ (Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 713). Here the epithet is used with no sacred connotations, in the local sense ‘at home’, which is standard in Hom. (e.g., Od. 3.234 ἐλθὼν ἀπολέσθαι ἐφέστιος, 23.55 ἦλθε … ζωὸς ἐφέστιος). Moreover, Dolon seems to have forgotten that he is in the camp, far from the walls of Troy and his house (Porter 55). He thus terms his bivouac δόμοι here and οἶκοι at 223 as if it were a building, and also clumsily includes the term ἐφέστιος, which usually refers to the stone ἑστία of a proper house. As a result he re-uses – inappropriately in this context – the phrases of tragedy in which plural δόμοι and a form of ἐφέστιος are combined at line-end, with reference to a proper building: Aesch. Sept. 73 δόμους ἐϕεστίους (probably spurious), 853 δόμων ἐϕέστιοι, Supp. 365 κάθησθε δωμάτων ἐϕέστιοι, Ag. 851–2 ἐς μέλαθρα καὶ δόμους ἐφέστιος (Karsten: ἐφεστίους MSS) / ἐλθών, Eum. 577 δόμων ἐϕέστιος, 669 δόμων ἐϕέστιον, Soph. Tr. 262 ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς δόμους ἐϕέστιον, Eur. Med. 713 δόμοις ἐϕέστιον. σκευῆι … σῶμ᾽ ἐμὸν καθάψομαι ‘I will equip my body with my gear by fastening it on.’ καθάπτειν/-εσθαι (in tragedy only 2x Eur. and 3x Soph.) is the proper verb for the wearing of an animal‑skin; cf. Soph. Ichn., TrGF 314.225–6 νεβρίνηι καθημμέν[ο]ς / δορᾶι, Eur. Bacch. 24 νεβρίδ᾽ ἐξάψας χροός, TrGF 752.1–2 νεβρῶν δοραῖς / καθαπτός (parodied by Ar. Ran. 1211–12), Strabo 15.1.71 (719) καθημμένους νεβρίδας ἢ δορκάδων δοράς. For the construction with σῶμα and dative, cf. Archias, AP 9.19.2 = GPh 3701 μίτραις κῶλα καθαψάμενος. This verb here and ἐνάψομαι at 208 point to the unusual Compare in particular 210–12 with Bacch. 845, where Pentheus announces that he will go into the house (843a ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς οἴκους ~ Rh. ἐλθὼν δ᾿ ἐς δόμους) in order to disguise himself as a Maenad, in one of the few scenes of role-doubling in Greek tragedy; cf. Drummen (2013) 89–96.

37

248

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 2 – 2 0 4 feature of Dolon’s gear: it is not the conventional and easy-fitting armour of the Homeric hero or classical soldier, which the audience might have expected him to wear, but a skin which has to be ‘fastened’ around Dolon’s shoulders and head. σκευή, usually ‘equipment’, refers to animal-skins at Eur. Bacch. 34, 180, 915; like σαγή in 207, it is an appropriate word in this context, as it can mean both ‘outfit’ (e.g., Thuc. 1.6.3) and ‘armour’ (e.g., Thuc. 3.94.4). πρεπόντως is mainly a prose word (Pl., Isocr.; only 1x in Ar. and in Men.); in poetry, see Pind. Ol. 3.9 and Aesch. Ag. 688. This adverb, taken up by the adjective at 205, anticipates that the wolfskin is an appropriate disguise; 209–11 will explain why. ἥσω ... πόδα ‘I will let my feet go’ is unparalleled (Od. 12.442 is different: Fraenkel (1965) 238), and is tantamount to the common middle ἵεσθαι ‘speed oneself ’ in some direction (the similar wording with uncompounded ἱέναι at 798 ἵεσαν φυγῆι πόδα commends κἀκεῖθεν ἥσω of Δ over κεῖθεν δ᾽ ἐφήσω of Λ). The phrase has been considered evidence of the ‘bombastic tone of a tragic style which is in decay’ (Fraenkel (1965) 237–8), but it is just a further example of the poetic periphrasis, common in Rh. and in Eur., in which πόδα(ς) is used, as object of a verb, by synecdoche for the person going or coming: cf. Rh. 280, 721, 798, Eur. Med. 729 ἐκ τῆσδε ... γῆς ἀπαλλάσσου πόδα (~ ἀπαλλάσσου), Hec. 977 ἐπέμψω τὸν ἐμὸν ἐκ δόμων πόδα (~ με μετεπέμψω), Supp. 718 ἔτρεψαν ἐς ϕυγὴν πόδα (~ ἐτράποντο), TrGF 495.3 πρὸς αὐτὸν πάλιν ὑποστρέψας πόδα (~ ὑποστρέψας), TrGF 781.43 ἔστρεψ᾽ ἐκ δόμων ταχὺν πόδα (~ ἐστράφην ταχέως), KG I.280, Smereka (1936/1937) II.1.71–2. ναῦς ἐπ᾿ Ἀργείων μολεῖν = 150. 204 ἐπεὶ τίν᾿: ἐπεὶ + interrogative τίς/τί asks here for a detail that will help to confirm the truth of what has just been said (Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 330), and has an elliptical sense similar to that of ὥστε preceding interrogatives (KG II.462): ‘as you have spoken of a change of attire, what will you be wearing?’ Not attested before Pind. Pyth. 7.5, it is typical of the language of the Attic theatre: Aesch. Supp. 330, Cho. 214, Soph. Tr. 139, Eur. Hel. 97, Or. 526, TrGF 892.1, Ar. Nub. 786, Lys. 258–9; later in Plato, Dem., and Polybius. τίν᾽ ἄλλην ἀντὶ τῆσδ᾽ ἕξεις στολήν; ~ Ar. Nub. 653 (probably spurious), Pl. Timae. 26e; cf. Aesch. PV 467, Soph. Aj. 444. ἄλλην and ἀντί indicate that Dolon will change his outfit. Like σκευή at 202, στολή can conveniently refer to both military equipment (e.g., Aesch. Supp. 764(?), Pers. 192) and, more often, clothing (e.g., Aesch. Pers. 1018, Soph. El. 191). In addition to the wolfskin, Dolon was equipped in Il. 10.333–5 with bow and spear, and the description of his arming uses formulas echoing Iliadic phrases found in arming scenes; cf. Pattoni (2004) 102–3. He puts the skin on his shoulders, together with his bow (ἕσσατο δ᾽ ἔκτοσθεν ῥινὸν πολιοῖο

249

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 4 – 2 0 5 λύκοιο). Menelaus and Diomedes are also said to have worn over their shoulders a leopard-skin and a lion-skin, respectively, on the night of Il. 10 (10.29 μετάφρενον ... κάλυψεν; 10.177–8 ἀμϕ᾽ ὤμοισιν ἑέσσατο), together with arms. Likewise, in Hom. Od. 14.529–30 Eumaeus puts on cloak and goatskin for his watch over the pigs at night (Newton (1997/1998) 149–50; Dué and Ebbott (2010) 56), but he also has a sword. Differently, the Dolon of Rh. mention no arms at all. Hom. does not explicitly indicate that the wearing of these skins is designed to represent a symbolic identification with an animal. By contrast, Dolon in Rh. wishes to be perfectly disguised as a wolf: at 211b–13 he explains why, and at 208–11a he anticipates that he will fit the skin around his head and limbs. As he says nothing of arms we understand that, like wolves, he does not bear any. The wolfskin seems for him a radical alternative to armour. So in a battle in Messenia described by Pausanias 4.11.3 some of the mountaineers of Arcadia wore wolfskins and bearskins because they did not have proper shields; but this unconventional armour is much more surprising in the case of the regular soldier Dolon, who is equipping himself inside a military camp, than in the case of Arcadian mountaineers, and it has a specific symbolic value. Dolon’s wolfish attire enacts the analogical identification of human and animal features that the frequent similes comparing heroes and animals had made familiar to the readers of epic; cf. Lissarrague (1980) 19–20, Gernet (1981) 126–33, Schnapp-Gourbeillon (1981) 193–9, Mainoldi (1984) 97–8.38 It recalls in particular the representations of Heracles wrapped in his typical lion-skin with the lion’s mouth agape on his head; see, e.g., Eur. Her. 361–3 πυρσῶι δ᾽ ἀμϕεκαλύϕθη / ξανθὸν κρᾶτ᾽ ἐπινωτίσας / δεινοῦ χάσματι θηρός and 465–6 στολήν τε θηρὸς ἀμϕέβαλλε σῶι κάραι / λέοντος. However Dolon does not seek the force of a mighty animal, such as the lion, but he finds the appropriate symbolic analogy in the deceitful gait of the wolf; cf. the anecdote about Lysander in Plut. Mor. 190e ~ 229b ‘to those who found fault with him for accomplishing most things through deception (a procedure which they asserted was unworthy of Heracles) he used to say in reply that where the lion’s skin does not reach it must be pieced out with the skin of the fox (ὅπου μὴ ἐϕικνεῖται ἡ λεοντῆ, προσραπτέον εἶναι τὴν ἀλωπεκῆν)’. ἀντὶ τῆσδ(ε) ‘instead of this outfit you are wearing now,’ deictic. 205 ‘(Outfit) appropriate to the task and my thievish pace.’

As Dué and Ebbott (2010) 124 observe, it is as if Rh. answers an implicit question, left open by epic: why are so many animal-skins worn in the night of Il. 10? (Elsewhere in the Il. only the leopard-skin worn by Paris is mentioned, at 3.17.).

38

250

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 5 – 2 0 7 κλωπικοῖς is a hapax, derived from κλώψ (Rh. 645, 678, 709, 777). The adjective occurs also, but with root vowel omicron, at Pl. Cra. 408a (omicron is also printed in the latest OCT edition by Duke, Hicken, Nicoll et alii). ‑ικός formations become common only from the end of the fifth century. Ar. uses around one hundred of them, mainly to parody fashionable intellectuals fond of the technical language of philosophy. But in the fourth century the suffix extends beyond the philosophical lexicon, to simply indicate relationship to a particular group or class, and is found also in inscriptions (Chantraine (1956a) 100–1, 120–2; Dover (1997) 118–19 and Willi (2003) 139– 45; contra Peppler (1910) and Ammann (1953), who maintain that it remained peculiar to philosophy). ‑ικός formations have a classificatory function in Rh.: κλωπικός (here and at 503), πτωχικός (512), πωλικός (567, 621, 784, 797), ἱππικός (569). Elderkin (1935) 349 suggests that Dolon proposes to mimic the gait of a wolf because the Greek watchmen would not stop or kill the animal sacred to their Apollo (Apollo bore the appellative Λύκειος at Argos as well as at Athens). But κλωπικός shows that it is primarily the furtive behaviour of the wolf that Dolon has in mind in adopting this disguise. This adjective occurs again at 512, where it refers to Odysseus’ ambushes (successful, unlike that of which Dolon speaks at 219–20, see 219–22a n.), and the mention of κλῶπες frequently points to spies or raiders in Rh. (645, 678-9, 709, 777). In Hom. wolves are known as predators of lambs (cf. Il. 16.352–5; cf. Marcinkowski (2001) 8–10) and for their courage (ἀλκή, Il. 16.157). Autolycus ‘The Wolf Itself ’, grandfather of the trickster hero Odysseus and himself a renowned thief and perjurer (Od. 19.395–6 ἀνθρώπους ἐκέκαστο / κλεπτοσύνηι θ᾽ ὅρκωι τε), proves the early association of the wolf with thievish cunning (Buxton (1987) 64). The special cunning of wolves’ gait is mentioned by Pind. Pyth. 2.84–5 ποτὶ δ᾽ ἐχθρὸν ἅτ᾽ ἐχθρὸς ἐὼν λύκοιο δίκαν ὑποθεύσομαι, / ἄλλ᾽ ἄλλοτε πατέων ὁδοῖς σκολιαῖς (see 210–12n.), and their cunning in general by Arist. HA 488b18, on the wolf as ἐπίβουλος; see Artemid. 4.56, on wolves as symbols of ‘thieves and robbers’ (ληισταὶ καὶ ἅρπαγες), Mainoldi (1984) 20. 206 For the principle that information is best acquired from competent people, cf. Theogn. IEG 563–5 παρέζεσθαι … παρ᾿ ἐσθλὸν / ἄνδρα χρεὼν σοφίην πᾶσαν ἐπιστάμενον. / τοῦ συνιεῖν, ὁπόταν τι λέγηι σοφόν, ὄφρα διδαχθῆις, Eur. Bacch. 178–9 σὴν γῆρυν ἠισθόμην κλυὼν / σοϕὴν σοϕοῦ παρ᾽ ἀνδρός. The last passage and Ar. Ran. 896 παρὰ σοφοῖν ἀνδροῖν ἀκοῦσαι suggest that παρ᾽ ἀνδρός should be preferred to the variant πρὸς ἀνδρός, defended by Liapis (2011) 57. 207 λέξον, τίς is a questioning address typical of tragedy, used to ask for more specific information (Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 438–40); cf. Aesch. Pers. 439, Supp. 460, Eur. Hcld. 122, El. 599, Ion 405, IA 1067.

251

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 7 – 2 1 3 σαγή is a tragic word: Aesch. 5x, Soph. 1x, Eur. 1x, Ion, TrGF 19F7; elsewhere in classical Greek only at Ar. PCG 881, Men. PCG 570. Like σκευή (202) and στολή (204), it suits the ambiguity of this arming scene without arms, as it means both ‘equipment’ in general (e.g., Aesch. Cho. 560, where it is equipment used in a disguise) and military ‘armour’ (e.g., Aesch. Pers. 240, Sept. 125, 391, Eur. Her. 188) or ‘panoply’ (Ar. and Men.; cf. Soph. Ant. 107 πανσαγία). τοῦδε σώματος: deictic (‘this body I see now’). 208–13 The expedition of Dolon as a spy, described in detail in Il. 10, is suppressed in Rh., though briefly anticipated in these few lines, in which he mainly announces his change of costume and disguise and presents his wolfish gait as his key strategy. The description that he provides is un-Iliadic. He will wear the wolfskin as tight-fitting ‘attire’ with the wolf ’s gaping mouth fitted to his head (cf. 204, 209). This radical disguise is attested in some iconographical representations of the fifth century (Sieveking (1921/1922) 117–19 and Lissarrague (1980)). In the most ancient piece, a Middle Corinthian cup (LIMC III.1, 661 ‘Dolon’ no. 1), Dolon is naked. But on an Attic oenochoe dating from c. 500–490 (LIMC no. 12), on an Attic cup of c. 490–480 (LIMC no. 13), on an Attic lekythos of c. 480–470 (LIMC no. 2), and perhaps also on a fragmentary Attic cup of c. 480–470 (LIMC no. 11; cf. Lissarrague (1980) 20–1), Dolon wears the skin tied to his body as a disguise, with the wolf head, mouth agape, fitted to his head (the wolf ’s head is not certain in the oinochoe LIMC no. 12). In particular in LIMC no. 11 the skin appears to be tightly fastened to the body by straps; on the Attic lekythos LIMC no. 2 he is also moving on all fours, as he promises to do at Rh. 201–11. This iconographic evidence of Dolon wearing the wolfskin as a disguise is limited in place and period – after the fifth century it resurfaces only in a terracotta plaque, perhaps of the third century (LIMC III.1, 661 no. 3), and it is totally absent from the South Italian vases of the fourth century portraying the capture or killing of Dolon (LIMC no. 14, 15, 17, 18). Thus the motif of Dolon’s radical theriomorphic disguise in Rh. certainly predates the play. But we need not infer that other literary texts pre-­existed and influenced the painters (as maintained by Thomson (1911) 239, Gernet (1981) 126, and Burlando (1997) 62–3). The painters and the author of Rh. may rather have shared a keener interest than Hom. in the symbolic implications of wearing the animal-skin, and thus presented it as an effective masquerade. Deception of the enemy by wearing animal-skins and walking on all fours was not unknown in military practice. During the siege of Jotopata by Vespasian, Josephus managed to communicate with Jews outside the city through messengers who ‘had general orders to creep past the sentries on all fours and to wear fleeces on their backs (τὰ νῶτα καλύπτειν νάκεσιν), in

252

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 8 order that, if they were seen at night, they might be taken for dogs’ (Jos. BJ 3.192); and native Americans are reported to have killed English sentinels whom they had approached on all fours, looking like hogs (cf. Porter 55–6). In literature, Virg. Aen. 11.677–82, describing the ‘strange armour’ of the Etruscan Ornytus, notes that ‘his head is shielded by a wolf ’s huge gaping mouth and white-fanged jaws’. Dorcon, a rejected lover of Chloe in Longus’ novel, devised a trick to ambush the girl (1.20.2–3): ‘taking the skin of a big wolf (λύκου δέρμα μεγάλου; cf. Rh. 208 λύκειον … δοράν) that had once been gored to death by a bull defending his cows, he put it over his back (cf. Rh. 208 ἀμφὶ νῶτ᾽ ἐνάψομαι), and wrapped it round his body from head to toe, so that the front paws fitted over his hands, the back ones over his legs down to the ankles (cf. Rh. 210 βάσιν τε χερσὶ προσθίαν καθαρμόσας), and the gaping jaws covered his head (cf. Rh. 209 χάσμα θηρός), like an infantryman’s helmet. Having thus made himself into a beast (ἐκθηριώσας) …’. Dorcon’s disguise was so perfect that Chloe’s sheep-dogs mistook him for a real wolf and almost tore him to pieces. Cf. Pattoni (2004) 100–5 and Liapis (2015). 208 λύκειον ... δοράν probably presupposes λυκέη (with ellipsis of δορά: Eust. on Hom. Il. 3.336 κυνέη (421.8)), the hapax used at Il. 10.459 for the wolfskin taken by Odysseus and Diomedes from the corpse of Dolon. λύκειος does not mean ‘belonging to a wolf ’ anywhere else, but mainly occurs as an epithet of Apollo; in tragedy, cf. Aesch. Sept. 145, Supp. 686, Ag. 1257, Soph. El. 7, 645, 654, 1379, OT 203, 919; never in Eur. At Aesch. Sept. 145 καὶ σύ, Λύκει᾽ ἄναξ, λύκειος γενοῦ / στρατῶι δαΐωι and perhaps also Soph. OT 203–6 Λύκει᾽ ἄναξ, τά τε σὰ χρυ/σοστρόϕων ἀπ᾽ ἀγκυλῶν / βέλεα θέλοιμ᾽ ἂν ἀδάματ᾽ ἐνδατεῖσθαι / ἀρωγὰ προσταθέντα, the epithet is used in prayers that seem to point to the capacity of Apollo-wolf as a destroyer of enemies (Jebb on Soph. El. 6–7, Appendix), although in both cases Apollo is going to inflict disaster on those whom he is asked to help (respectively Thebes and Oedipus; cf. de Roguin (1999) 104–7). This ominous tradition may be relevant here, since Dolon’s wolfish disguise will not help him at all. Besides, most of the myths accounting for Λύκειος as an epithet of Apollo (a list is found in Servius on Virg. Aen. 4.377) insisted on the sense ‘wolf-like’ (Jebb quoted above, Burkert (1983) 120–1, Mainoldi (1984) 22–8, Gershenson (1991) 1–17, de Roguin (1999) 99–100), and wolves were proverbially destructive raiders (see 204n.). This may have pointed to the raiding ambitions that Dolon prefigures for his mission at 219–223. ἀμφὶ νῶτ᾽ ἐνάψομαι (Cobet (1873) 583) introduces a common verb for ‘fitting oneself with’ or ‘being fitted with’ (the perfect passive is frequent in this sense: DGE 1529). It is used in particular for ‘wearing’ animal skins: Hdt. 7.69.1 παρδαλέας τε καὶ λεοντέας ἐναμμένοι, Ar. Nub. 72 (διϕθέραν), Av. 1250 (παρδαλᾶς), Ran. 430 (λεοντῆν), Eccl. 80 (διφθέραν), Luc. 5.1 (διϕθέραν … τὴν τοῦ λέοντος). The expression is more pointed than either ἀμφὶ νῶτον ἅψομαι

253

C O M M E N TA RY 2 0 8 – 2 1 0 of Δ (which gains no support from Eur. Hipp. 770–1, of fitting a noose around the neck, a quite different operation) or ἀμφὶ νῶτα θήσομαι (Λ), feebly anticipating θήσω in 209. Cases of medial caesura coinciding with elision are common in tragedy; cf. Wilamowitz (1895) II.170–1, Goodell (1906), Stephan (1981) 21–7), West (1982) 83, Diggle (1994) 473–4 (who counts 122 cases, excluding lines with an additional break at the penthemimeral or hephthemimeral caesura). Rh. has at least one more (986). 209 χάσμα θηρὸς ἀμφ’ ἐμῶι θήσω κάραι Dolon proposes to fit the head of the wolf with gaping mouth (χάσμα) to his head (σχῆμα is a banal anagrammatism). If the wolfskin of 208 is like armour, the wolf-head is like a helmet, as Longus quoted in 208–13n. makes clear. Heracles did the same with his lion-skin: Eur. Her. 361–3 (quoted in 204n.), where χάσμα θηρός also occurs. In the real world, during the battle against Marius the Cimbrian horsemen wore κράνη ... εἰκασμένα θηρίων φοβερῶν χάσμασιν (Plut. Mar. 25.7). The term χάσματα ‘gaping mouths’ (of snakes) occurs in a hypothesis of Critias’ Pirithous (TrGF 43F1), where it may echo the author’s original text (Renehan (1975) 203–4, more prudently Cropp in MinGrTrag p. 220), and is often attested later: [Alcae.] AP 6.218.4 = HE 137, Anacreont. 24.4, Strabo 16.2.17 (755), Plut. Mor. 366a, 670c, 918f, 981a. ἀμφ᾽ ἐμῶι θήσω κάραι vaguely echoes for the same operation Hom. Il. 10.271 Ὀδυσσῆος πύκασεν κάρη ἀμϕιτεθεῖσα (said of the leather helmet with boar tusks that Odysseus dons for the spy mission) and 10.261 = 257 ἀμϕὶ δέ οἱ κυνέην κεϕαλῆϕιν ἔθηκε (said respectively of the same helmet and of the helmet of Diomedes). Cf. Eur. Her. 465, quoted in 204n., and Hec. 432 μ᾽ ἀμϕιθεὶς κάραι πέπλους. Neuter dative κάρηι occurs first in Theogn. IEG 1024 (Homeric κάρητι or καρήατι). Attic κάραι often occurs in tragedy: Aesch. 3x, Eur. about 18x. 210–12 ‘Fitting the forelegs (of the wolf ’s skin) to my arms and the hind legs to my legs, I shall imitate the quadruped walk of the wolf, which is hard to detect for its enemies’: cf. Eur. Hec. 1057–8 τετράποδος βάσιν θηρὸς ὀρεστέρου / τιθέμενος ἐπὶ χεῖρα καὶ ἴχνος, another human imitation of an animal gait. That passage shares with Rh. the emphasis on the transformation of the human biped into a quadruped and the word βάσις ‘foot’. The case of the Pythia at Aesch. Eum. 37 τρέχω δὲ χερσίν is different: she probably enters the stage crawling on hands and knees (cf. Taplin (1977a) 363), but is compared to a baby (cf. 38 ἀντίπαις) not to an animal. βάσιν ‘foot’: cf. for humans, Soph. Ph. 1378, Eur. Hec. 1057–8, quoted above, IA 421; for animals, Eur. TrGF 540.2, Pl. Timae. 92a, Arist. De gen. anim. 750a4.

254

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 0 – 2 1 1 προσθίαν ‘fore(-footed)’, not attested before Hdt., is mainly a word of comedy (Cratin. PCG 41.2; Ar. Ran. 548) and satyr-drama (Achae. TrGF 20F10.2), but cf. adesp. TrGF 659.18; it is later common in descriptions of animals (Xen., Arist., Galen). καθαρμόσας is also at 767; 3x in Eur., 1x in Soph. (TrGF 314.346, a satyr play). χερσὶ ... κώλοις ‘hands’ and ‘legs’ is a Euripidean pairing: cf. Hec. 1163–4, Pho. 1185. τετράπουν ... / λύκου κέλευθον πολεμίοις δυσεύρετον imply the same view concerning the craftiness of the wolf as Pind. Pyth. 2.84–5 λύκοιο δίκαν  … ἄλλ᾽ ἄλλοτε πατέων ὁδοῖς σκολιαῖς. In particular, both Pind. and Rh. indicate that the wolf chooses devious paths in dealing with its enemies. For τετράπουν ... κέλευθον, cf. Aesch. Ag. 80–1 τρίποδας μὲν ὁδοὺς / στείχει, Eur. Hec. 1057–8, quoted above. κέλευθος ‘gait’ is also perhaps at Eur. Tro. 887–8 δι᾽ ἀψόϕου / βαίνων κελεύθου (LSJ), but κέλευθος there may simply mean ‘path’. δυσεύρετον occurs in Aesch. PV 816 and Eur. Bacch.1221 (probably spurious); later in prose. μιμήσομαι There are only a few cases in tragedy of role-doubling by the same character, either (A) with a change of costume or (B) not necessarily with a change of costume. Many more cases can be found in comedy, where the change of clothes can take place in sight of the audience (a survey in Slater (2002) 16–17)). (A) In Eur. Hel. 1087–9 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐς οἴκους βᾶσα (cf. Rh. 201) βοστρύχους τεμῶ / πέπλων τε λευκῶν μέλανας ἀνταλλάξομαι / παρῆιδί τ’ ὄνυχα ϕόνιον ἐμβαλῶ †χροός†. Helen describes her re-entry in mourning clothes and with a new mask with cropped hair and bloody cheeks; then, when she actually re-enters after changing costume in the house, her new look is described in detail by Theoclymenus at 1186–90. In Eur. Bacch. 821–61, at the prompting of Dionysus (827, 843, 914; cf. Rh. 201), Pentheus agrees to go back home and wear female clothes (anticipated at 821–39, 852; described after his re-entry from the house at 915–17, 928–43) in order to disguise himself as a Maenad. It is commonly assumed that the family of Heracles have put on black mourning clothes at Eur. Her. 549, when Megara mentions them. (B) In Aesch. Cho. 653–718 Orestes pretends to be a messenger giving a report about his own death, and in Soph. El. 38–66 Orestes instructs his tutor to play the part of a messenger with the same news. The play-within-a-play in these scenes has obvious metatheatrical potential; cf. Foley (1980) 112–15, Goldhill (1986) 260–2, Segal (1997) 223–8. As early as Plato μιμεῖσθαι was the word used to express the impersonation of a character by an actor (Halliwell (2002) 22–81). Here μιμήσομαι may not only convey Dolon’s imitation of a wolf; by using this theatrical term the actor performing Dolon may have reminded the audience that he was going to play a new and bizarre role (as suggested by Bernacchia (1990) 43–4; Bond

255

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 3 – 2 1 7 (1996) 260). It is impossible to know whether the actor here may have moved with a wolf ’s gait while he was describing it (Burnett (1985) 22, Bond (1996) 260), or while he silently crossed the stage at the end of the choral ode 224–63 (Murray (1913) 16). τάφροις … καὶ νεῶν προβλήμασιν is perhaps the model of Lycophr. 290 οὔτε τάϕρος οὔτε ναυλόχων σταθμῶν / πρόβλημα, again of the wall and ditch defending the Greek camp at Troy. Together with the ‘ditch(es)’ (see 110b–11n.), the Il. had presented ‘towers’ (πύργοι) and ‘wall(s)’ (τεῖχος, τείχεα) (respectively 7.338 = 7.437; 7.436, 7.449) as defences of the ships (εἶλαρ νηῶν, νεῶν ὕπερ), and wall and ditches are frequently mentioned together as defences of the Greek ships and camp (7.449–50, 9.67, 9.87, 9.349, etc.). πρόβλημα, not attested before Aesch. Sept. 540, 676 and Hdt., occurs in Soph. Aj. 1076, Eur. Supp. 208, Ar. Vesp. 615. It is perhaps a fifth-century technical word; cf. Pl. Pol. 288b ‘all clothing, most arms, all circuit walls of earth or of stone … since they are all made for defence (προβολῆς … ἕνεκα), they may most rightly be called by the collective name of defence (πρόβλημα)᾽. πελάζων: see 13–14n. 214–15 χῶρον ἐμβαίνω ποδί: cf. Eur. Cycl. 91–2 γῆν / τήνδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτες, Hec. 922 Τροίαν Ἰλιάδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτα, El. 1288 Ἰσθμίας γῆς αὐχέν᾽ ἐμβαίνων ποδί. For redundant instrumental datives like ποδί, see 56–8n.; cf. προσβαίνων ποδί at Eur. Cycl. 707. δίβαμος: elsewhere only in Eur. TrGF 472b.32 τετρ]ασκελὴς γὰρ ἢ δίβαμ[ος ἔρχεται;, referring to the Minotaur, an ambiguous being that is half human and half bull. The word formation is paralleled by παλίμβαμος in Pind. (tragedy prefers ‑βαμων compounds: 4x Aesch., 8x Eur.). εἶμι, as usual in classical Greek, has a future sense (Létoublon (1985) 73–80). σύγκειται: not ‘consists of ’, the common sense of the verb, which is construed with ἐκ + genitive, but ‘is arranged’, with τῆιδε ‘in this way’; cf. Pl. Cra. 425a ‘(the ancients) gave (language) the complex arrangement in which it is structured (συνέθεσαν … ἧιπερ σύγκειται)’. Hector had anticipated at 158 that Dolon’s name would be justified anew by his endorsement of the δόλος of the spying mission. Dolon explains at 208–15 how he plans to deceive. 216–17 Valediction to Dolon. Hermes is called on to escort Dolon both as the guide of travellers and as the god of trickery and thieving – Dolon’s mission is an example of δόλος (158, 215), and he derives ‘thievish’ features from the wolf (205). Hermes is often called δόλιος: Soph. Ph. 133, Ar. Th. 1202, Plut. 1157, Aen. Tact. 24.15, Hippias Erythr., FGrHist 421F1; also HHomHerm. 282 (δολοφραδής), 405 (δολομήτης), Aesch. Cho. 728 (νύχιος: see Garvie ad loc.). In fact, he is a thief and patron of thieves: Hom. Il. 5.390, 24.24, 109, Od. 19.395–7, HHom.Herm.

256

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 6 – 2 1 7 14, 174–5, 291–2, 446, Hippon. IEG 3a, Ar. Pax 402, Hellan. FGrHist. 4F19b = EGM 19b. He is also particularly associated with nocturnal action: HHom.Herm. 15 νυκτὸς ὀπωπητήρ, 284 ἔννυχος, and 290 μελαίνης νυκτὸς ἑταῖρος. Rh. does not mention this aspect of the god, but it may be implied here. Hermes is invoked by Orestes as one who can guarantee his righteous success at Cho. 583–4 and by the chorus at 727–9 and 812–14 (both texts uncertain). He is implored as πομπαῖος to assist suppliant Orestes at Eum. 90–9 and to assist Medea at Eur. Med. 759–63. In Soph. El. 1395–7 the chorus declares that Hermes δολιόπους is helping Orestes and ‘hides the plot in darkness and brings him to the very end (σφ᾽ ἄγει δόλον σκότωι / κρύψας πρὸς αὐτὸ τέρμα)’. In Soph. Ph. 122–33, when Odysseus promises to help Neoptolemus in his first contacts with Philoctetes – contacts that will include disguise and deceitful stories (cf. 129–30) – he expresses the wish that Ἑρμῆς … ὁ πέμπων δόλιος may guide them (133). The god played no role in Il. 10, but a red-figure cup ascribed to Onesimus from c. 500–490 (LIMC III.1, 662 ‘Dolon’ 11), shows Odysseus and Diomedes going to kill Dolon and Athena watching the scene on the right, while on the left Hermes seems to be turning his back to it and running away (Lissarrague (1980) 18, 24, 26; but the figure of Hermes is mainly the result of restoration: Wathelet (1989) 229–30). ἀλλ(ά) often breaks off and concludes a dialogue in tragedy by shifting to the future with a wish that concerns the forthcoming action of the character who is leaving; cf. Denniston (1954) 15–16, Pulleyn (1997) 132–3. Μαίας παῖς: beginning with Hom. Od. 14.435 and HHom.Herm. (passim), Hermes is often called metronymically ‘son of Maia’; in Attic tragedy, Soph. El. 1395, Eur. Med. 759, El. 462, Hel. 243, 670, 1670, Or. 998. ἐκεῖσε καὶ πάλιν / πέμψειεν is Euripidean phraseology: cf. Andr. 618 ἐκεῖσε δεῦρό τ᾽ ἤγαγες πάλιν, Hel. 1141–3 δεῦρο καὶ αὖθις ἐκεῖσε καὶ πάλιν … πηδῶντ(α); cf. also Pl. Resp. 619e. The verb alludes to the god’s function of ‘showing the way’, as in his epithets πομπός, πομπαῖος, and ἡγεμόνιος. In this role he most often accompanies the souls of the recently deceased to Hades (ψυχοπομπός), and this well-known role may give rise, here, to some tragic irony: Dolon will not be guided by Hermes to succeed in his mission, but will be escorted by him to Hades. But I share the scepticism of Finglass on Soph. El. 1395–6, quoted above; there too the funerary role of Hermes, ‘despite the context, is not mentioned and therefore not felt’. ὅς γε limitative-causal ~ Lat. quippe qui (Denniston (1952) 141–2). It introduces the reason why Hermes is invoked; see 970–3n. φηλητῶν ἄναξ ~ HHom.Herm. 175 φηλητέων ὄρχαμος, 292 ἀρχὸς φηλητέων. The phrase appears (with the spelling φιλ‑) in the Chian inscription CIG 2229 = Epigr. Gr. 1108, which however is usually considered to be a modern

257

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 7 – 2 1 9 forgery. φηλήτης, a poetic word first attested at Hes. Op. 375, Archil. IEG 49.7, and Hippon. IEG 79.10, 102.12, occurs elsewhere in tragedy at Aesch. Cho. 1001 and in Soph. TrGF 314.340 (satyr play), 933. The form φιλητ- is a recurring v.l. of φηλητ- in the MSS, already attested by the papyrus of Soph. TrGF 314.340, Hellan. FGrHist 4F19(b) = EGM 19b, and the tablets of Callim. Hec. 74.24 Hollis. φιλατίας occurs in an early third-century inscription Fouilles de Delphes III.1.486, IB8 and IIA13. There is no consensus about the spelling among ancient MSS and grammarians (survey of the latter in Egenolff (1902) 87–9). The etymology also remains uncertain. For φηλητ- in connection with φηλοῦν ‘deceive’, cf. Luther (1935) 167–8, Fraenkel (1910/1912) I.122–3 and II.207, Troxler (1964) 158, Beekes (2010) 1566; for φιλητ-, Maas (1912=1973) 45, Buck (1925) 143–4, Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 1001–3, Chantraine (2009) 1160–1. 218 ‘The asyndeton makes the latter hemistich stand out: luck is an all-important precondition for Dolon’s success’ (Liapis 123). ἔχεις δὲ τοὔργον ‘you know your task’: cf. Soph. Ph. 789 ἔχετε τὸ πρᾶγμα.39 The article, here in crasis with ἔργον, has possessive value; cf. Gildersleeve (1910/1911) II.227–8. εὐτυχεῖν μόνον σε δεῖ The v.l. of O, εὐτυχεῖν σὲ δεῖ μόνον, may seem preferable, in view of the possible model Eur. Hel. 1424 τῆς τύχης με δεῖ (Musgrave: μέλει L) μόνον. But O is characterised by a conspicuous number of cases of vitium Byzantinum: at 170, 220, 265, 269, 290, 331, 421, 426, 433, 503, 506, 606, 618, 635, 636 (see also 175, 308) the order of the last two or three words in a line is reversed to introduce a paroxytone word at the end, thus making the trimeter sound like a Byzantine dodecasyllable. This probably reflects an idiosyncrasy of the scribe of O, Ioannikios (Fries 49 n. 7), or of his exemplar. Gods are usually responsible for human εὐτυχία (cf. 56–8n., 199–200n., Pind. Ol. 6.81, Aesch. Sept. 626–7, Supp. 1014, Cho. 1063–4, Soph. El. 67–8, OT 145–6). But here good luck is a requirement separated from the watchmen’s awareness, expressed at 199, that only divine will, mediated by Dike, can decide the success of Dolon’s mission. The watchmen wish that the mission is successful, but, piously, do not want to force the decision of the gods. μόνον ‘is tinged with irony. The chorus speak as if the successful completion of (Dolon’s) task were a mere formality, but luck is just what he does not enjoy’ (Klyve 184). 219–22a highlight Dolon’s intention of turning his mission into a raid in which he will kill Odysseus. This broadening of Dolon’s aim is not envisaged

In Solon, IEG 13.57 ἄλλοι / Παιῶνος … ἔργον ἔχοντες / ἰητροί the sense is different: ‘others, who practise the job of Paeon, are doctors’.

39

258

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 9 – 2 2 2 in the Il. It is as if Dolon in his wolf disguise takes on not only the thievish ability of the wolf to find paths that are hard to find (212) but also its predatory nature (see 205n.). There is a sinister tragic irony in Dolon’s self confidence and boasts (four futures at the beginning of four consecutive lines indicate the he is certain of his success: Klyve 184–5). He promises the chorus that he will be back safe (σωθήσομαι) and carry away the head of Odysseus or Diomedes after killing one of them, as evidence of his reaching the Greek ships. Actually it is Odysseus and Diomedes who at 591–3 will safely carry back to their camp (σώιζομεν) the spoils of Dolon, after killing him, and the audience will have remembered from the Il. that Dolon was beheaded (10.455–7) τοι ‘mark my words’, suggested by Diggle (1994) 513–14) for transmitted τε or δέ, suits perfectly the boast with which Dolon answers the chorus’ wish for good luck. In general τοι ‘brings home to the comprehension of the person addressed a truth of which he is ignorant’ (Denniston (1954) 537; also Parker on Eur. Alc. 38), and in particular it is the particle often used in answers to commands or wishes; its corruption to τε is well attested (cf. Diggle, quoted above, to be consulted also for his criticism of γε, suggested by Wilamowitz). δή, suggested by Liapis (2011) 58, has a strong pathetic tone, and is ‘peculiarly at home in the great crises of drama’ (Denniston (1954) 214–15). It sometimes has a weaker emotional force and conveys a purely intellectual emphasis. But τοι, not δή, is the most appropriate particle for this sense. κτανὼν Ὀδυσσέως / οἴσω κάρα σοι ‘after killing Odysseus I will bring (his) head to you’: the object of κτανών has to be understood from the genitive attached to the object of the principal verb. A similar brachylogy is found at 258–60 κτανὼν δ᾽ Ἀγαμεμνόνιον / κρᾶτ᾽ ἐνέγκοι / Ἑλέναι. Mutilation of the corpse of the defeated enemy, in particular decapitation, is mentioned fairly often in Hom. (a review in Segal (1971)); see in particular Il. 18.176–9, where Iris reports Hector’s threat to impale Patroclus’ head on a stake, and 22.345–50, where the vengeful Achilles wishes to cut Hector’s body in pieces and eat them raw (other beheadings by Greek heroes: Il. 11.146, 11.261, 13.202, 14.496–9, 20.481–2). And so, despite Apollo᾽s ethical disapproval of Achilles’ maltreatment of the body of Hector (Il. 24.33–54), which other gods appear to share (24.23–6, 107–9; but cf. Kucewicz (2016)), mutilation of the enemy and beheading was not a barbarian practice restricted to the Trojans. It was, however, mainly associated with special anger and the desire for special vengeance (Achilles’ abuse of Hector’s body is just the most famous case), and inflicted on specific hated enemies who had to be shamed as much as possible. Cf. Hall (1989) 26, Longo (1996) 43–5, Lendon (2000) 3–11; on the various forms of mutilation, Dunn (2018). Dolon of Rh. may then wish to behead Odysseus and Diomedes in tune with the special status as super-enemies of the Trojans they enjoy in the list which will be

259

C O M M E N TA RY 2 1 9 – 2 2 2 formulated by Hector at 497–509; Odysseus in particular is already responsible for a series of treacherous actions against the Trojans according to both Hector (ibid.) and the watchmen (707–21). The fifth century may have developed a new aversion to beheading, which the Spartan Pausanias declared to be ‘more suited to barbarians than Hellenes’ (Hdt. 9.79.1, Muller (2014) 53–61, Kucewicz (2016)). But it is difficult to be sure that even in the fifth century this was the current opinion, and it seems more probable that this idea was shared only by a few intellectual circles at Athens (Asheri on Hdt. 9.79.5); physical mutilations were certainly considered by Pausanias’ Aeginetan interlocutor in Hdt. 9.78.2–3 to be a legitimate form of vengeance on Mardonius for the beheading of Leonidas after Thermopylae. Therefore we should not assume that Dolon’s (and later, at 258–60, the watchmen’s) wish would be felt by the Athenian audience as barbarian cruelty.40 σύμβολον … μολεῖν ‘So you will say, having sure evidence, that Dolon arrived at the ships of the Greeks.’ This is a parenthesis which complicates the syntax, especially because of the zeugma that frames it: ‘Odysseus’ and ‘son of Tydeus’ are both objects of κτανών, but ‘Odysseus’ stands in the genitive in the periphrasis with κάρα (see 219–22a n.) while παῖδα Τυδέως, properly governed by κτανών, comes as an unexpected addition after the parenthesis. Use of a parenthesis implies that what precedes is incomplete, and we expect the sentence to be completed after the interruption. But here κτανὼν Ὀδυσσέως οἴσω κάρα σοι is a complete sentence (cf. Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 167, who goes so far as to suspect Rh. 222–3 of being interpolated). Liapis 124 calls this syntax ‘awkward’ or ‘clumsy’, and probably it is. But the structure may serve to place the focus on Odysseus: similarly, the focus is on him in the list of the ‘worst enemies’ of Troy formulated by Hector at 497–509. For σύμβολον ... σαφές, cf. Soph. Ph. 403 ἔχοντες, ὡς ἔοικε, σύμβολον σαϕές, Eur. Hel. 290–91 ἀνεγνώσθημεν ἄν, / εἰς ξύμβολ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἃ ϕανερὰ μόνοις ἂν ἦν (MSS text unmetrical, and possibly an interpolation); also τεκμήριον σαφές at Eur. Med. 317, Hipp. 925–6, TrGF 382.2. First attested at Theogn. IEG 1150, σύμβολον originally designates one of the parts of a piece of pottery, knucklebone, or similar items that were broken in two, and, when fitted together with the other part, could prove the identity of the person carrying it to the person who had the other part. The term is used here in the metaphorical sense ‘token’; but the fact that the token is a piece of the body of Odysseus may lie behind the choice of this specific word, which also had the See Rosivach (1983) 198–9 on the beheading of Aegisthus, which may (e.g., Sider (1977) 16–17) or may not (e.g., Kovacs (1987a), Cropp on Eur. El. 855–7) be presupposed in Eur. E1. 855–6.

40

260

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 2 – 2 2 3 connotation of a fragment of a whole; cf. Eubul. PCG 70 †τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν† ἅπαντα διαπεπρισμένα / ἡμίσε᾽ ἀκριβῶς ὡσπερεὶ τὰ σύμβολα;, Pl. Smp. 191d ἕκαστος οὖν ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου σύμβολον, ἅτε τετμημένος ὥσπερ αἱ ψῆτται, ἐξ ἑνὸς δύο, Arist. EE 1239b32 ὡς σύμβολα γὰρ ὀρέγεται ἀλλήλων διὰ τὸ οὕτω γίνεσθαι ἐξ ἀμϕοῖν ἓν μέσον, Falus (1981) 123–7, Müri (1931=1976) 3. For σαφής ‘sure’, ‘reliable’, cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 346, Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 52 and 62 (TrGF 773.8 and 18), Bond on Eur. Her. 55. φήσεις Δόλωνα: Dolon stages his triumph in advance by suggesting to his interlocutors the phrase with which they will be able to describe it; hence the reference to himself in the third person. Achilles’ prediction at Il. 1.240 ἦ ποτ᾽ Ἀχιλλῆος ποθὴ ἵξεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν similarly aims at increasing the objective detachment of the speaker from the prediction. Likewise Eteocles and Oedipus in Aesch. Sept. 6–8 and Soph. OC 3–4 anticipate what their fellow citizens will say or how they will interact with them by presenting themselves in the third person. ναῦς ... μολεῖν = 150, 155. παῖδα Τυδέως = Diomedes occurs also at 498 ~ 939. Τυδέος υἱός is used without a name at Hom. Il. 2.406, 4.370, 5.25, etc.; likewise πάις Τυδέος at Ibyc. PMGF 293 ~ Soph. Ph. 570, 592, Eur. Supp. 1218. Diomedes is mentioned together with Ajax and Odysseus at 498, and with Odysseus at 939. Apart from being the killer of Rhesus in Rh., together with Odysseus, he collaborated with Odysseus in killing Palamedes (Cypria PEG F 30) and recovering Philoctetes’ bow (at least according to Eur. Ph., TrGF test. iv.c; cf. Soph. Ph. 592–4), and stole the Palladium, alone or with Odysseus (see 501–2n.). As he led eighty ships to Troy, the third largest contingent, and belonged in the circle of the Achaean elders (cf. Il. 2.406), Diomedes could thus rightly be considered one of the Trojans’ most harmful enemies. His prominent role in the battles of the Il. may also indicate that he was the central character in an Argive tradition of the Trojan War before the focus of the poem was placed on the story of Achilles’ wrath; cf. Nilsson (1933) 260. In fact his role in the narrative – like Ajax’s (see 461–3n.) – is that of a substitute for Achilles: after Achilles’ withdrawal he dominates in Il. 5 and part of Il. 6 (Hdt. 2.116.3 refers to Il. 6.289–92 as belonging to ‘Diomedes’ aristeia’), and is twice given the typical epithet of Achilles, ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν (5.103, 414). 222b–3 rephrase and amplify 156–7, where Dolon spoke only of entering the Greek camp as a spy. Now he adds that his incursion will be accompanied by bloodshed. In both passages, in line with his boastful mood, the description of future action pivots around the certainty of his ensuing ‘return’ (ἥξω). οὐδ᾽ ἀναιμάκτωι χερί: the litotes conveys a sort of false modesty. The synecdoche of χείρ, focusing on the idea of a specific activity (again at 286, 762; see also ὁπλίζεσθαι χέρα 23, 84, 99), is frequent in tragedy: Aesch. Pers. 202 σὺν θυηπόλωι χερί, Sept., 783 πατροφόνωι χερί, 788–9 σιδαρονόμωι … χερί,

261

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 4 – 2 6 3 Ag. 1061 καρβάνωι χερί, Soph. Aj. 230 παραπλήκτωι χερί, Ant. 52 αὐτουργῶι χερί, Tr. 923 συντόνωι χερί, TrGF 659.3 ἀγρίαι χερί, Eur. Hcld. 106 βιαίωι … χερί, Supp. 108 ἱκεσίαι χερί, Pho. 838 παρθένωι χερί, Or. 271 βροτησίαι χερί, 863 λευσίμωι χερί. The epithet ἀναίμακτος is also a tragic word: elsewhere Aesch. Supp. 196, Eur. Pho. 264; Lycophr. 988 (later common in the Imperial age). πρὶν φάος μολεῖν χθόνα: cf. Hes. Op. 339 ὅτ᾽ ἂν ϕάος ἱερὸν ἔλθηι, Aesch. Ag. 766–7 ὅτε τὸ κύ/ριον μόληι ϕάος τόκου, Eur. Alc. 1145–6 πρὶν ἂν … τρίτον μόληι ϕάος. Here πρίν expresses a simple temporal relation = ‘before’, as usual in the fifth century with infinitives, whereas with finite moods it usually means ‘until’, with reference to a temporal limit (Sturm (1882)). Metrical structure of 224–32 ~ 233–41 and 242–52 ~ 253–63 224 ~ 233 ⏓−⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−   x e D 225 ~ 234 −⏑−⏑−− ith 226–8 ~ 235–7 ⏑−⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−−   ⏑ e – D −   −⏑⏑−⏑⏑− || D ⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ 229 ~ 238 − −−− − −− e –D − 230 ~ 239 −⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− e–D 231 ~ 240 −−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−   –D 232 ~ 241 −−⏑−⏑−− |||    – ith (2ia˰) 242–3 ~ 253–4 ⏑−⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑−⏑− ia cho ia 244 ~ 255 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑− D2 245 ~ 256 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−− D− 246–7 ~ 257–8 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−   D ⏑ D 248 ~ 259 −⏑−− || e− 249 ~ 260 ⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑−⏑−⏑− || teles ⏑ e, or enopl. diomed. e 250 ~261 ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑    ⏑⏑cr⏑⏑ 251–2 ~ 262–3 ⏑⏕−⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑−− |||   hi2c Strophe-antistr. α are dactylo-epitrites. Strophe-antistr. β begin as dactylo-epitrites, but 249–52 ~ 260–3 are aeolo-choriambic.

α. There is usually a link syllable between e and D units, or word division where there is no link syllable. But 224 ~ 233 x e D has neither word division between the two units nor link syllable; the same applies at Eur. Andr. 1011–12 ~ 1020– 1, TrGF 303.4; also Soph. Tr. 94 ~ 103, first line; cf. West (1982) 134. Willink

262

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 4 – 2 6 3 (2002/2003=2010) 566 and Fries 202 add Eur. TrGF 781.63–4 and Hel. 1107 ~ 1122, the first line of an ode which concludes, like ours, with an ith 1121 ~ 1136; but unlike the passage under discussion, as Fries observes, these two passages come from heavily iambic dactylo-epitrites, where the epitrites sound like iambic metra (Dale (1968) 191). An ithyphallic rounds off the first verse and another the whole strophe (Dale (1968) 181, Ritchie (1964) 300). Both with link syllable and without, the ithyphallic is commonly found at the end of strophes in which dactylo-epitrites stand alone or predominate, especially in Eur. (it ‘clearly has the effect of an elongated epitrite with added final anceps’, Dale (1968) 180; also West (1982) 132–3): with initial link syllable Aesch. PV 430, 535 ~ 544, Soph. TrGF 476, Eur. Med. 420 ~ 430, 634 ~ 642, 995 ~ 1001, Hipp. 763 ~ 775, Hec. 932 ~ 942, Hel. 1121 ~ 1136; without link syllable Alc. 465 ~ 475, Hipp. 169, Andr. 300 ~ 308, 776, Supp. 625 ~ 633, Tro. 530 ~ 550, IT 1258 ~ 1283.

β. 242–3 ~ 253–4 = Aesch. Pers. 1017–20 ~ 1030–2, Soph. OC 1050 ~ 1065, Eur. Hipp. 877, El. 181–2 ~ 204–5, Or. 811 ~ 823; cf. Parker (1997) 79. The line can be analysed as ⏑ e d ⏑ e, a variation of the rhythm of almost the whole of 224–5 ~ 233–4, taken as ⏑ e D e ⏑ −− (with the last two longa equivalent to a catalectic epitrite); cf. Willink (2002/2003=2010) 566–7. It can also be analysed as ia cho ia, foreshadowing the aeolo-choriambic character of 249–52 ~ 260–3 (ia cho ia occurs in a choriambic context in Aesch. Pers., Soph. OC, Eur. El. and Or.). 249 ~ 260 may be taken as teles. + ⏑ e or as enopl. diomed. + e (Itsumi (1991–1993) 246). According to either interpretation this line marks the transition from the initial dactylo-epitrites to the final aeolic lines. The telesillean (18x in Eur. according to Buijs (1986) 70, with a full list) = enoplian would introduce the predominantly aeolic lines that follow. 250–2 ~ 261–3 Lines 251 ~ 262 and 252 ~ 263 are choriambic cola (choriambic dimeter and aristophanean), if we accept Murray’s colometry for 250 ~ 261 (colon end after 250 αἰχ- and 261 ἐπὶ), which is adopted by Ritchie (1964) 304–5, Dale (1971) I.97, and Diggle. 250 ~ 261 would then be a (hypo) dochmius. But an isolated dochmiac colon in a choriambic context is difficult to parallel (the Aeschylean cases of the interweaving of runs of dochmiacs of various lengths with choriambic lines analysed by Dale (1968) 106–7 are different). The best solution seems to be that of Parker apud Fries 243, with colon end after θράσος and πόλιν: 250 ~ 262 will then be a resolved cretic (which may incidentally recall the preceding epitrites, like 249 ~ 260); the following line will be a pendant ‘greater asclepiad’, i.e., a hipponactean with three choriambs (which may recall the preceding telesillean (= acephalous

263

C O M M E N TA RY 2 4 2 – 2 5 1 a n d 2 2 4 – 2 6 3 glyconic) of 249 ~ 260; on the frequent choriambic expansion, see now Lourenço (2011) 113). The responsion ⏑−/⏑⏑⏑ in the base is, however, anomalous, as the base ⏑⏑⏑ does not correspond with other forms (and ⏑− and −⏑ hardly ever correspond with each other (Itsumi (1984) 70, Parker (1997) 71). 224–63, on Dolon, parallel 342–79, on Rhesus. In both passages the watchmen react to what they have seen (Dolon preparing for his mission) or heard (Rhesus arriving with his army) with enthusiastic optimism about the future, though in each case they prudently call for divine help. Tragic choruses often sing and dance, paradoxically, in situations where festive singing would not be appropriate; cf., e.g., Henrichs (1994/1995) and (1996), Fantuzzi (2007), Murnaghan (2013) 159–60. In particular these two stasima resemble the songs of misguided optimism that are most frequent in Soph.: Aj. 693–718 and OT 1086–1109 (in which the gods are called on to share or support this optimism), Ant. 1115–54, Tr. 205–24, 633–62; also Eur. Alc. 455–75 and Hcld. 535–80. Cf. Kranz (1933) 213, Gardiner (1987) 95–6, March (1991/1993) 26, Finglass on Soph. OT 693–718, p. 342. As Griffith on Soph. Ant. 1115–54 puts it, the odes of misplaced joy ‘both increase the pathetic impact of the announcement of the bad news, and also serve to emphasise the puniness of the Chorus’ attempts to understand and control the action unfolding around them’. In all the Sophoclean passages the song of false hope is immediately followed by the appearance of a messenger who announces the disaster or paves the way for it (in Tr. Deianeira’s report at 672–722 has the function of a messenger’s report). In Rh. after the stasimon of misplaced joy the messenger enters to announce the arrival of Rhesus, another event which can only fuel the optimism of the chorus; thus there is another choral song of misplaced joy (342–79, in particular 360–9), which glorifies Rhesus and predicts a victorious end of the war. If in Soph. reality deceives the chorus once, in Rh. it deceives them twice, and in crescendo (in the first stasimon Apollo is invited to intervene and help Dolon; in the second, Rhesus is the god who will help). An audience which recalled the Sophoclean technique may have inferred that Rh. was going to have two tragic protagonists, Dolon and Rhesus, and that both deaths thus belong to the plot, as in Il. 10; in fact Dolon will not reappear on stage after the song devoted to him. Rh. 224–63 is a cletic hymn cast in triadic form, as often in Homeric prayers: (A) an invocation (accompanied by an invitation to the god to appear or to come (as here) to the supplicant), (B) a specific request, and (C) a part that develops a topic not included in the other two parts – usually the argument supporting the request, or a reminder to the god of past epiphanies or benefactions (cf. Ausfeld (1903) 514, Bremer (1981) 196, Pulleyn (1997) 132–55, Griffith on Soph. Ant. 100–61). The same structure underlies the ode of misplaced joy in Soph. Ant. 1115–54 (address, epithets, and attributes of the god; reminder of his past connection with Thebes; appeal for help in the present).

264

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 4 – 2 2 6 Both at Rh. 224–63 and Ant. 1115–54 ‘the chorus catch the mood of apprehension and urgent excitement from the end of the preceding scene and carry it over into their song, so that the actors’ speeches and their own lyric are fused into one crescendo of emotion’ (as observed apropos of Ant. by Burton (1980) 134). The triadic form is frequent in Hom., and has sometimes been considered the original template of liturgical prayer, but it is not found everywhere in Hom. and undergoes several variations in tragedy (Aubriot-Sévin (1992) 218–37 and Pace (2010)). It occurs in 86 per cent of the prayers in Hom. (Morrison (1991) 148) and is the core of a Homeric ‘typical scene’ found, e.g., in Chryses’ prayer of Il. 1.37–41 (an invocation through a series of epithets, followed by a mention of the speaker’s past service to the god, apparently the motive for the request, and a request). Here 224–6a of strophe-antistr. α are the invocation, while 226b–30a and 233–42 express the wishes of the chorus concerning Dolon, which closely parallel the actions requested from the god in the invocation; 230b extends the request for assistance from Dolon to all the Trojans, and concludes with a da quia dedisti claim in 231–2. Stropheantistr. β (242–63) describe Dolon’s great courage, probably with the intention of demonstrating that he is worthy of accomplishing his mission and of the relevant divine help (cf. 242 ἐπεί), and 249b–53 extend the praise for bravery from Dolon to all the Trojans. 224–6a A series of epithets in the vocative referring to the locations of the god’s cults or spheres of influence is found in the initial invocations of the ‘Homeric’ and ‘Orphic’ hymns. Strategically placed at the beginning, it is intended to please the god by emphasising the variety and extent of his or her power (Artemis in Callim. HArt. 7 explicitly asks her father Zeus for the gift of πολυωνυμία: Keyssner (1932) 46–7). Apollo’s epithets form a tricolon: such tricola consisting of three names, the last of which is often accompanied by an amplification, appear to be an Indoeuropean stylistic device (West (1988) 155–6, Pulleyn (1997) 145–6; for tricolon in tragedy, cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1243, Bond on Eur. Her. 494). The number three has always been important in magic (Usener (1903), Pease on Verg. Aen. 4.510, Diggle on Theophr. Char. 16.2), and the repetition makes the speakers feel that their requests are more forceful. Similar phrases are found at Pind. Pyth. 1.39 Λύκιε καὶ Δάλοι᾽ ἀνάσσων Φοῖβε Παρνασσοῦ τε κράναν Κασταλίαν ϕιλέων, Ar. Nub. 595–7 ἀμϕί μοι αὖτε Φοῖβ’ ἄναξ / Δήλιε, Κυνθίαν ἔχων / ὑψικέρατα πέτραν. The first and last of the epithets of Apollo here point to his Trojan connections. This is in keeping with the final prayer, in which he is asked not only to help Dolon (229–30a) but in general ‘to help the sons of Dardanus’ (230b). The temple of Thymbraean Apollo, at the confluence of the rivers Thymbr(i)us and Scamander, was a few miles from Troy; cf. Rh. 508 ἄστεως

265

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 4 – 2 2 6 πέλας and 507b–9a n., Strabo 13.1.35 (598), Hesych. Lex. θ 868 Latte. The cult site of Apollo Lykios at Patara in Lycia was connected with Telephus, who consulted the local oracle about his incurable wound in one version of the myth (cf. Menaechm. FGrHist 131F11, Xenag. FGrHist 240F4, Paus. 9.41.1, and perhaps already Eur. TrGF 700, on which see Collard, Cropp, and Lee ad loc., pp. 46–7); in the most common version he consulted the Delphic Pythia. This Greek, a son of Heracles who had become king of Mysia, was the first enemy that the Argive army had to fight, before disembarking in the Troad, in their abortive landing in Mysia, and was wounded by Achilles (Cypria, PEG F 20, Eur. Telephus (TrGF pp. 680–718), Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 3.17, Hygin. Fab. 101). Lycians were among the most important allies of the Trojans during the war, and are often mentioned together with them in the Il.; see 28–9n. At Rh. 543–5 they should take turns with the Trojan watchmen. They were camped ‘in the direction of Thymbra’ during the night when Rhesus was killed (Il. 10.430). Lycian Apollo is invoked for help as an archer in a choral prayer at Soph. OT 203–6. As for the mention of ‘Delian’ Apollo, the existence of his cult at Delos is attested by votive offerings from the eighth century, and presupposed by Hom. Od. 6.162–3 and HHom.Ap. 16–18. The combined mention of Delian and Lycian Apollo has precedents at Simon. PMG 519.55a.1–3 = 103 Poltera and Pind. Pyth. 1.39, and is later found, e.g., in Ap. Rh. 3.876–8. Hdt. 1.182.2 attests that the oracle of Apollo was ‘not always’ functioning at Patara, and this possibly means that he knew already of the belief, attested by Virg. Aen. 4.143–4 and Serv. ad loc., and presupposed by Hor. C. 3.4.62–4, that in the autumn and winter Apollo was resident at Patara, but in the spring and summer at Delos. Λυκίας ... ἐμβατεύων amplifies Apollo’s common epithet Λύκειος. It is one of the participial phrases sometimes used in place of epithets in lists of divine cult-places in hymnodic invocations (Norden (1913) 166–8). The mention of this region may point to the ‘wolfish’ connections of Apollo (see 208n.), which link him to the wolfish Dolon; it certainly advertises the Trojan alignment of Apollo’s most illustrious cult-seats (see above). ἐμβατεύειν is an exclusively tragic word, used for gods at Aesch. Pers. 449 (Pan), Soph. OC 679 (Dionysos), Eur. TrGF 696.3 (Pan), Cratin. PCG 359 (paratragic Pan), and in Eur. and Cratin. it belongs to invocations. In Soph. OT 825 and Eur. El. 595, 1251 it is used for mortals. Its frequentative suffix emphasises how often Apollo visits his temple. 226–8 ὦ Δία κεφαλά: κεφαλή and κάρα are frequent synecdoches that focus on the ‘head’ as the vital part of the body of the person addressed (on the anthropological significance, Onians (1954) 95–100), and stand as a synecdoche for the whole person from Hom. onwards: Il. 15.39, 18.114, Od. 1.343, 11.557, [Hes.] Sc. 104. It is sometimes used as a form of address, in Hom. (Il.

266

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 6 8.281 φίλη κεφαλή, 23.94 ἠθείη κεφαλή) always complimentary, but in later authors either complimentary or insulting (van Hook (1949) 414, Dickey (1996) 135). In an address, apart from here and at 902–3, the form κεφαλή is not found in tragedy, which elsewhere uses κάρα for these phrases (e.g., (ὦ) φίλον κάρα Aesch. Ag. 905 and Soph. OC 1631), whereas the comic poets use both κεφαλή and κάρα; cf. Wendel (1929) 33, 112. As suggested by Σ (ὦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Διὸς κεφαλή) and Mantziou (1985) 100–1, here Δία must be an adjective replacing the genitive of the name = ‘descended from Zeus’; cf. Hom. Il. 9.538 and HHom.Dion. (1) 2 Δῖον γένος, Aesch. Supp. 536 Δῖαί τοι γένος εὐχόμεθ′ εἶναι, Soph. Tr. 956 Δῖον γόνον, Eur. Ion 200, 1144 Δῖος παῖς, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 176–7). Before Mantziou, δία was normally taken in its common meaning ‘divine’ or ‘illustrious’. But with reference to persons, the epithet is attested in this sense only for goddesses, minor gods, the river Scamander, heroes or heroines, and humans, not for important male gods (Wackernagel (1912=1955) II.993–4 n. 2). On the other hand, Δῖος replacing the genitive Διός is not rare in tragedy: Aesch. PV 619, 654, 1033 and Supp. quoted above, Eur. Alc. 5, Hec. 461, Ion 200 and 1144, quoted below, IT 1271, Hel. 1093, Bacch. 8, 245, 599. Yet no other form of address with the synecdoche κεφαλή or κάρα is found with epithets expressing physical origin; Fries 206 rightly observes that the combination of this form of address and the genealogical reference in a single phrase ‘stretches the boundaries of Greek idiom’. But κεφαλή may have been used to suggest an emotional colouring of familiarity with the god, as in θεία κεφαλά of the second-century ad Athenian hymn to Asclepius by the priest Diophantus of Sphettus, IG II–III2.4514.6 (where θεία is a banalisation of Δία, if Rh. was the model for Diophantus: Fries 206). Δίᾱ (δία V; δῖα OΛ) is a hyperionism like δίη at Hes. Th. 260 and F 70.10, 169.2, but with choral-Doric alpha; the common prosody is δῖᾰ, as we should expect from δίϝ-yα (West on Th., p. 80; Kastner (1967) 63, 82). It is perhaps modelled on Aesch. Supp., a tragedy where forms of Δῖος replacing Διός are found with unparalleled frequency (4–5 Δίαν ... χθόνα, 41 Δῖον πόρτιν, 314 Δῖος πόρτις, 536 quoted above, 558 Δῖον … ἄλσος, 646 Δῖον ... σκοπόν, 1057 φρένα Δίαν), and both singular feminines (4 and 1057) have long alpha. μόλε ... ἱκοῦ: people offering a prayer usually ask the god either to listen to the prayer or else to come to them, and in the latter case the tone may be more explicitly coercive (see Pulleyn (1997) 136–44). The aorist here may have an instantaneous value and emphasise the once-and-for-all nature of the request, where a present would be durative (Duhoux (1992) 239, followed by Pulleyn (1997) 225–6). The two verbs of divine movement are set in parallel to Dolon’s resulting safe movements in his mission (233–6). μόλε τοξήρης: μόλε with a predicative adjective specifying the nature of the divine intervention is elsewhere found in Eur. (Andr. 508, Pho. 296, Or. 177);

267

C O M M E N TA RY 2 2 6 – 2 3 0 with similar verbs in Anacr. PMG 357.6–7 σὺ δ᾽ εὐμενὴς / ἔλθ᾽ ἡμίν, Soph. OT 163 τρισσοὶ ἀλεξίμοροι προϕάνητέ μοι, Eur. Alc. 975–6 μή μοι, πότνια, μείζων / ἔλθοις, Hipp. 528–9 μή μοί ποτε σὺν κακῶι ϕανείης / μηδ᾽ ἄρρυθμος ἔλθοις, Or. 1300 ἔλθ’ ἐπίκουρος ἐμοῖσι ϕίλοισι, Timoth. PMG 791.204 ἐμοῖς ἔλθ’ ἐπίκουρος ὕμ/νοις, Ar. Th. 1143–7 φάνηθ᾽ … ἔχουσα δέ μοι μόλοις / εἰρήνην. τοξήρης ‘equipped with a bow’ is found elsewhere only at Eur. Alc. 35 (of a protective Apollo); cf. Her. 188, 1063 (‘belonging to the bow’); and compare ξιφήρης, also typically Euripidean, at Rh. 713. ἱκοῦ ἐννύχιος: cf. 44–5 προσέβα … ἐννύχιος, Hes. Th. 10 ἐννύχιαι στεῖχον, Ap. Rh. 2.1260 ἐννύχιοι ... ἵκοντο. Predicative ἐννύχιος perhaps has a concessive nuance: operating in the night may have seemed unusual and vexing for a god who was at times identified with Helios41 and deserved the epithet Ἑώιος for appearing to mortals at dawn according to Ap. Rh. 2.669–88. Certainly, Apollo never appears to operate at night in tragedy, as observed by Mikalson (1989) 92. 229–30 ‘And become the saving leader in the escorting of this man, and assist the sons of Dardanus.’ Apollo’s intervention has a double aim: by helping Dolon he will help all the Trojans, who rely on the success of his spy mission. καὶ γενοῦ σωτήριος ἀνέρι πομπᾶς / ἁγεμών, suggested by Dindorf (ii) Praef. xx–xxi gives excellent word-order. In the transmitted ἁγεμὼν ... καὶ γενοῦ, ἁγεμὼν would be a plausible predicate of ἱκοῦ at 227, but isolated καὶ γενοῦ without a predicate at the beginning of 230 is not acceptable. For examples of transpositions between the initial words of adjacent lines, cf. Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 308, p. 252, Fries 207. The phrase parallels Eur. Bacch. 965 πομπὸς εἶμ᾽ ἐγὼ σωτήριος, where Dionysos promises to escort Pentheus; also cf. Aesch. Ag. 512–13 νῦν δ᾽ αὖτε σωτὴρ ἴσθι καὶ παιώνιος, / ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, Cho. 1–2 Ἑρμῆ χθόνιε … σωτὴρ γενοῦ μοι σύμμαχός τ᾽ αἰτουμένωι, Soph. OT 149–50 Φοῖβος … σωτήρ θ᾽ ἵκοιτο. I take πομπή to be the abstract nomen actionis paralleling the nomen agentis πομπός in Eur. Bacch. 965: ‘become the saving leader in the escorting of this man’ (πομπή = ‘mission’, as suggested by Fries 207, is unparalleled). Escorting is a common role of Hermes, not of Apollo, as observed by Mikalson (1989) 92. But among Apollo’s epithets were ἀγυιάτης, ἀγυιεύς and ἐφόδιος, and as supervisor of the streets he could easily be assigned the capacity of guiding (Köves-Zulauf (1999) 175–6). On Apollo in this capacity, cf. That identification, ascribed by late sources to Parmenides and Empedocles (VS 28A20 and 31A23), is certain at least at Eur. TrGF 781.11–13, Callim. Hec. F 103 Hollis, carm. pop. PMG 860, and probable at Aesch. Supp. 212–14 (cf. Boyancé (1966), Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 225 = TrGF 781.12, West (1983b) 68 on Aesch. Bassaridae).

41

268

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 0 – 2 3 2 Aesch. Ag. 1086–7 ἀγυιᾶτ᾽ ἀπόλλων ἐμός. / ἆ ποῖ ποτ᾽ ἤγαγές με; πρὸς ποίαν στέγην; / ⸬ πρὸς τὴν Ἀτρειδῶν (Cassandra questions, the chorus answers). ξύλλαβε, properly ‘take part with’, is well chosen here instead of another verb for simply ‘helping’, in the light of the pro-Trojan or pro-Greek partisanship of the gods interested in the war. At Il. 10.515–18, after Athena had invited Odysseus and Diomedes to go back to their camp, Apollo showed an awkwardly tardy vigilance in favour of the Thracians and against the two Greeks by waking Rhesus’ cousin Hippocoon. Rh. may have picked up from there the idea that Apollo represented the Trojan side of the contest between pro-Greek and pro-Trojan gods in the night of Il. 10. Δαρδανίδαις: Dardanus, son of Zeus and Electra, was grandfather of Tros the founder of Troy. He founded Dardania at the foot of Mt Ida, which Il. 20.216–18 describes as older than Ilion (κτίσσε δὲ Δαρδανίην, ἐπεὶ οὔ πω Ἴλιος ἱρὴ / ἐν πεδίωι πεπόλιστο πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων, / ἀλλ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ὑπωρείας οἴκεον πολυπίδακος Ἴδης) and Il. parva PEG F 28 clearly distinguishes from Ilion. In Homer the Dardan(i)oi are mentioned together with the allies of the Trojans (3.456, 7.348, 368, 8.497), or together with the Lycians (8.173 = 11.286, 13.150, etc.), and Δαρδανίδης is used as a patronymic for individuals (Ilos, Priam, Anchises) = ‘descendant of Dardanus’ (it occurs in the same sense at Eur. IA 1049 for Ganymedes). It is an ethnic = ‘Trojan’ probably in Hes. F 165.12 and certainly in Pind. F 120; Δαρδανία means Troy at Eur. Tro. 535, 818 (text uncertain), Hel. 384, Or. 1391. Together with παλαιά, the term magnifies Apollo’s help for Troy by projecting it into a remote past. 231–2 According to Il. 21.441–57 Apollo and Poseidon served Laomedon for a year, and during that time Poseidon built the walls of Troy while Apollo herded Laomedon’s cattle on Mt Ida. At Il. 7.452–3 Poseidon says that he and Apollo built the walls; the same version is found at Hes. F 235.4–5, Pind. Ol. 8.31–52, Eur. Andr. 1009–18, Tro. 4–7, Hellan. FGrHist 4F26 = EMG F 26, Apollod. Bibl. 2.103 (2.5.9), Luc. 30.4. In Rh. the focus of the prayer is on Apollo, and that may be the reason why Poseidon is omitted (cf. Fries 208). However, Apollo alone is mentioned as the wall-builder at Eur. Tro. 814, 1174, Hel. 1511, Or. 1388, IA 755–6. In the most widespread version Laomedon refused to pay the two gods for their service and threatened to tie Apollo hand and foot and sell him as a slave and to amputate both gods’ ears with a knife (Il. 21.450–7); hence Poseidon sent a sea monster to torment the Trojans, and Apollo a pestilence (Apollod. Bibl. 2.103. If this was a version known to the author of Rh. and his audience, Apollo had good reason to be unwilling to help the Trojans, and the reference to his help with the walls in a request for aid would involve tragic irony. In another version attested only by late sources (Σ Lycophr. 34 and Σ D Hom. Il. 21.444) Apollo was repaid by

269

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 0 – 2 3 2 Laomedon and devoutly worshipped by the Trojans, while Poseidon was not; that enraged him and he took his revenge. ὦ παγκρατές, ὦ Τροΐας τείχη: anaphora of vocative ὦ is mainly a poetic device, found, e.g., in Hom. (Il. 6.55, 17.238 ὦ πέπον, ὦ Μενέλαε) and Eur. (Hec. 414 ὦ μῆτερ ὦ τεκοῦσ(α)), and paratragic Ar. Eq. 559–60 ὦ χρυσοτρίαιν’, ὦ / δελϕίνων μεδέων. παγκρατής is a strategic epithet in a prayer: a god who is all-powerful can certainly accomplish what he is asked for (Austin and Olson on Ar. Th. 368– 70). It is lyric (Simon. PMG 541.5 = 256.5 Poltera, Pind. Nem. 4.62, F 70b.15, Bacch. 11.44, 17.24, F 14.4, Hymn to Cretan Zeus from Palaikastro 3 = 13 = 23 etc. (CA pp. 160–2), Cleanth. HZeus 1 (CA p. 227)) and tragic (Aesch. Sept. 255, Eum. 918, Soph. Aj. 675, Ph. 679, 986, OC 609, TrGF 684.4) or paratragic (Ar. Th. 317, 368). It is commonly used of Zeus in tragedy and elsewhere, but is sometimes applied to other gods and divine forces: truth (Simon. PMG 541.5 = 256.5 Poltera and Bacch. F 14.4), fire (Pind. Nem. 4.62), Zeus’s thunder (Pind. F 70b.15), Hera (Bacch. 11.44), god-sent destiny (Bacch. 17.24), Hypnos (Soph. Aj. 675), time (Soph. OC 609), the blaze of Hephaestus’ volcanoes on Lemnos (Soph. Ph. 986), Athena (Ar. Th. 317). Therefore the author of Rh. cannot be said to violate a tragic convention in applying the adjective to Apollo (as mantained by Mikalson (1989) 92). Τροΐας trisyllabic, is a prosodic archaism (Führer (1984) 290), restored here by Lachmann (1819) 154–5. This anapaestic form is better suited to this ­dactylo-epitrite context than spondaic Τροίας (MSS) and gives correct responsion; likewise for the choriambic rhythm at 262 and 360. The form is certain for metrical reasons in a few lyric passages, where in some cases the MSS read Τρωι-: Sapph. F 16.9 Voigt, Stesich. F 100.15 Finglass, Pind. Nem. 2.14, 3.60, 4.25, 7.41, Isthm. 6.28, 8.51, F 52f.75, carm. conv. PMG 898.2, 899.2, 917b.4.42 Aristarchus suggested that Hom. used trisyllabic Τροΐη as an adjective (e.g., with πόλις at Il. 1.129 and Od. 11.510), and disyllabic Τροίη where it stood alone and designated the land: Σ Hom. Il. 1.129, 21.544, Od. [5.39 =] 13.137, Laum (1928) 333–4 (this view may have been current before Aristarchus, since the vulgate text of Hom. agrees with his orthography). His interpretation of Τροΐα as the city and Τροίη as the region is, however, not anticipated by the practice of Rh., where metrical convenience seems to be the sole criterion (Τροΐα only in lyric passages – here, 262, 360; Τροία in iambics and anapaests, but in lyric at 898, 912). τείχη παλαιά conveys the idea of the antiquity of Apollo’s connection with Troy (see Δαρδανίδαις 229–30n.). But here and at 360 παλαιὰ Τροΐα the This form is usually written Τροΐα, but Doric Τρωΐα with omega shortened before a vowel has also been defended, e.g., by West (1969) 141 for Stesich. and by Henry (2005) 34 for Pindar.

42

270

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 3 epithet may have an affective value = ‘venerable’ (Évrard (1984) 196; Horsfall on Virg. Aen. 2.137). This is probable, e.g., in Soph. El. 4 παλαιὸν Ἄργος, OT 1395 παλαιὰ δώματ(α), Aesch. Ag. 710 Πριάμου πόλις γεραιά, Hor. C. 1.15.8 regnum Priami vetus, Virg. Aen. 1.375 and 4.312 Troia antiqua, 2.137 and 4.633 patria antiqua, 2.363 urbs antiqua, 10.688 patris antiqua ... urbs. δείμας is a typical Iliadic verb with τείχη: Il. 7.436, 9.349, etc. 233–8 μόλοι ... βαίη, after the imperatives of the strophe, are optatives of wish (KG (1898/1904) I.226–10). They are especially frequent in Eur. (Ziegler (1905) 10–13; Pulleyn (1997) 150–1). For the alternation of imperatives and optatives in prayers, cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 1.41–2, Od. 9.530–5, 20.115–19; Aesch. Supp. 31–6, Cho. 802–6; Eur. Med. 160–3, Hipp. 888–90. The hope that Dolon may accomplish his mission is presented as consequent on the fulfilment of the prayers μόλε ... ἱκοῦ (226, 227): ‘come, Apollo; and (if you come,) may Dolon then accomplish his missions’ (and then κάμψειε ... βαίη 235, 237 ‘may Dolon come back home’ and ‘may he achieve his reward’). The god’s arrival to help Dolon is practically the premise from which the chorus’ hopes about the success of Dolon’s mission as a spy derive. In the chorus’ wishful thinking, the Greek ships and camp are the turning post (κάμψειε πάλιν), on reaching which Dolon should come back to Troy and wait for his reward after the defeat of the Greeks. The watchmen see the mission of Dolon as a competitive race, whose quick course they map in their wishes (the καμπτήρ was the turning point in the δίαυλος and longer races, and the goal in the single-lap race). The racing imagery is appropriate here, as in Il. 10 Dolon is pursued and overcome in the race by Odysseus (with Athena’s help), and consequently killed, before he can round the point of return of the Greek camp. ναυκλήρια, here an accusative of end of motion without preposition (like θυμέλας of 235: see 13–14n.), designates the ships qua possessions of a ναύκληρος. The ναύκληρος owned seagoing merchant ships, and was often engaged in person in commanding his ships, but he did not usually own the merchandise that he transported, unlike the ἔμπορος (Finkelstein (1935) 335, Vélissaropoulou‑Karakosta (1980) 48–51, Reed (2003) 12–13). ναυκλήριον = ‘ship’ is also found at Dem. 23.211, Plut. Mor. 234f, POxy. 87.7, 20; cf. Eur. Hel. 1519 ναυκληρία (fem.) ‘ship’. Abstract nouns used in place of concrete nouns are typical of choral language (cf. Breitenbach (1934) 177–9), and words from the root ναυκληρ-, sometimes in an extended sense, are common in tragedy: Aesch. Sept. 652, Supp. 177, Soph. Ant. 994, Eur. Hipp. 1224 ναύκληρος/ ναυκληρεῖν ‘commander’/’to command’, but not in a ship; Soph. TrGF 143.1, Eur. Alc. 112, Med. 527, Hel. 1589 ναυκληρία ‘(ship‑)voyage’; Soph. TrGF 430 ναύκληρος ‘belonging to a ship’. The leisured élite with their aristocratic perspective appear to have scorned sea-traders and captains of merchant ships, mainly foreigners, for

271

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 3 – 2 3 5 their obsession with money: Hom. Od. 8.161–4, Solon, IEG 13.43–4, Soph. Ph. 128–9, Tibull. 1.3.39–40, Prop. 3.7.1–6, Hor. Epist. 1.1.45–6, 6.31–5, C. 1.1.16–18, 31.10–15, Sat. 1.4.29–32, Ovid, Am. 2.10.33–4, Humphreys (1978) 167, Cozzo (1988) 31–2, Reed (2003) 55, 66–7, Schein on Soph. Ph. 128. Here the use of the term by Trojans may ascribe to the Greek expedition an undertone of commercial, unheroic enterprise, as at Eur. Med. 527 (cf. Mastronarde ad loc.), although the Greek ships were in reality not a merchant navy. θυμέλας, from θύειν, ‘surfaces where sacrifices are burnt’, ‘altars’, is Euripidean (7x; once in Aesch., once in Pratinas). It is usually taken as a synonym of ἑστία ‘hearth’ (Feickert 158, Liapis 131, Fries 209), the religious and architectural core of the house. Since, however, there is a single ἑστία in each house, and it personifies the house’s individual life, it would perhaps be odd to use the amplifying plural instead of the singular, common in tragedy. θυμέλας perhaps refers here to the central ἑστία together with other house altars – likewise at Eur. Alc. 162–74 Alcestis first calls on the ἑστία of Admetus’ house at 162 and then at 170 moves on to honour ‘all the other βωμοί which are in Admetus’ house’ (Gow (1912) 219–20). In particular, after the reference to Apollo escorting Dolon back home, which may point to Apollo’s titles Agyiates and Agyieus (see 229–30n.), θυμέλας may also have included here the altar to Apollo Agyieus that was usually erected, together with an aniconic statue of the god in the form of a pillar, on the road near the door of the prothyron in fifth-century Athenian houses. This altar or the statue of Apollo Agyieus were frequently mentioned or presupposed in fifth- and fourth-century drama: Aesch. Ag. 1080–1, 1085– 6, Soph. El. 637–8, OT 919–20, TrGF 370, Eur. El. 221, Pho. 631 (with Σ), Ar. Vesp. 875 (with Σ), Th. 489, 748, Cratin. PCG 403, Eup. PCG 420, Pherecr. PCG 92, Men. Dysc. 659, Mis. 314, Sam. 309, 444, 474, PCG 481, 893, Plaut. Bacch. 172–3, Diggle (1981) 33–4, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 631. It must also have been a quite common piece of stage furniture; cf. Pollux, On. 4.123 Bethe, Poe (1989) 135–6. We need not suppose, however, that it stood on stage in plays where the skene did not represent a house or palace (Poe (1989) 137), and thus we need not assume that it belonged to the skene of Rh. στρατιᾶς Ἑλλάδος διόπτας probably echoes Odysseus’ reference to Dolon as sent by Hector to be διοπτῆρα στρατοῦ ... ἡμετέροιο in Hom. Il. 10.562, within the triumphal list of the enemies slaughtered by Odysseus and Diomedes in their raid (cf. also 10.450–1 διοπτεύων); spectators who remembered this model will have appreciated the tragic irony in the chorus’ optimism. Ἑλλάδος (with στρατιᾶς) and Ἰλιάδας (with θυμέλας), both already in Hdt., and Φθιάδων (with ἵππων) are almost exclusively tragic feminine epithets (Φθιάδ- only in Eur.).

272

C O M M E N TA RY 2 3 7 – 2 3 9 διόπτης is found only here in Rh. (whereas κατόπτης appears 5x; see 631– 2n.) and elsewhere only at Ar. Ach. 435 as a parodic synonym of κατόπτης, applied to Zeus, who is sometimes called παντόπτης (but the sense of διά is different in Ar.: the god has put on rags so tattered that anyone can easily ‘see through’ them). 237–41 ‘And when our king has destroyed the Achaean army, may he (= Dolon) finally mount the chariot with its Phthian horses, which the god of the sea gave to Peleus son of Aeacus.’ Φθιάδων: see 233–8n., on Ἑλλάδος; for the gender of the horses, 185n. ἵππων ... ἄντυγα: cf. Rh. 567–8 πωλικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων, Soph. Aj. 1030 ἱππικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων. Here a word for the rail delimiting the front and sides of the chariot is used for the whole chariot. This synecdoche never occurs in Hom.; in tragedy perhaps in Eur. Hipp. 1231 (see 116–18n. and Finglass on Soph. El. 746). δεσπότου: a very common word in Eur. (more than 120x; Ritchie (1964) 190; Liapis 132); but also about 20x in Aesch. and 20x in Soph. Outside the master-slave relationship it is a poetic word (Collard on Eur. Supp. 634–8a), used to designate a superior authority for gods (cf. Eur. Hipp. 88) or sometimes for kings (mainly oriental kings). Hector in Rh. is usually called τύραννος or βασιλεύς; see 2–5n., 164–5n. In Eur. δεσπότης is mainly an opprobrious word, always implying the inferiority of those ruled (Bond on Eur. Her. 28, Lenfant (1997) 29–30). The topos of the proneness of the barbarians to tyrannical rule, contrasted with the Athenian preference for democracy and rejection of tyrannical power, belonged in the repertoire of the fifth-­century Athenian theatre; cf. Eur. Pho. 503–67 (Eteocles’ commendation of τυραννίς is juxtaposed to Jocasta’s eulogy of ἰσότης), Ar. Eq. 1112–14 πάντες ἄν/θρωποι δεδίασί σ′ ὥσ/περ ἄνδρα τύραννον, Hall (1989) 154–9, 190–200, Waters (1971), Hartog (1988) 330–40, Dewald (2003), 164–5n. Here δεσπότης refers to a barbarian king and does not seem to have strong implications of despotism, as, e.g., at Archil. IEG 3.5 or often in Hdt. (where it is always used for oriental kings). δεσπότης is in fact nowhere attested for a military commander; Eur. Supp. 636, where the Messenger calls the seven leaders of the army against Thebes δεσπόται, is not a certain example, as he may use this term because of his own position as a λάτρις of Capaneus: cf. Collard ad loc. πέρσαντος: always in Hom. and most often in later authors πέρθειν and πορθει˜ν are used of ‘laying waste’ to cities (see 291b–3n.), but they can also be used with a personal object in the sense ‘destroy’ – both with reference to an ‘army’, as here (Pind. Ol. 10.32), or to individuals (e.g., Soph. Aj. 896, Eur. Hipp. 541, TrGF 605.3). Ἀχαιὸν Ἄρη: Ares is used by metonymy for ‘army’, as at Aesch. Pers. 85, 951, Eur. Hcld. 275 (Ἄρεος Ἀργείου), 290, Andr. 106, Tro. 560, Pho. 1081, IA 237,

273

C O M M E N TA RY 2 4 0 – 2 4 2 283, 764. The phrase may have been suggested by the background of the Iliadic formulas ἀρήϊοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν (7x) and ἀρηϊϕίλων ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν (4x). For the spelling of the accusative, see 444–6n. 240–1: ~ 187–8. Apart from the later HOrph. 17.8, πόντιος ... δαίμων is attested elsewhere only in Ar. Ran. 1341 ἰὼ πόντιε δαῖμον, in the context of Aeschylus’ parody of Euripidean monodies (Poseidon is θεὸς πόντιος in Eur. Cycl. 21, 286, 413, TrGF 472e.24). δαίμων is applied in tragedy to several Olympian gods (François (1957) 334–6); in particular Poseidon is called δαίμων at Soph. OC 709, and πόντιος at Soph. OC 1072 and Eur. Andr. 1011. In Homer ‘Aeacides’ is mainly a papponymic of Achilles, grandson of Aeacus (more than 20x). Here, as always in Eur. (Andr. 790, IA 1045), it is a patronymic of Peleus, after Hom. Il. 16.15, 18.433, 21.189, Hes. F 211.3, 7. 242–4a ἐπεί: it is because of Dolon’s bravery (strophe β) that the chorus hopes for his success (antistr. α). Cf. Eur. Med. 759–63 ἀλλά σ’ ὁ Μαίας πομπαῖος ἄναξ / πελάσειε δόμοις ..., ἐπεὶ / γενναῖος ἀνήρ, / Αἰγεῦ, παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ δεδόκησαι (quoted by Fries 210). The run-over across the boundary between stanzas, found also at Rh. 348b–351a, is common in choral lyric but less so in tragedy – rare in Aesch. and Eur., more frequent in Sophocles. In tragedy (especially Aesch. and Eur.) most of the small number of cases involve, as here, a minimal enjambement: the preceding stanza is syntactically complete, and the new stanza begins with a clause that constitutes an addition to the preceding stanza, often a relative or attributive clause (Kranz (1933) 117, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 238–9, Ritchie (1964) 333–4, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 49). These ‘soft’ run-overs occur mainly between strophe and antistrophe (see, e.g., Eur. Hcld. 777, where ἐπεί also introduces an argument justifying the request for divine help in the strophe); but in a few places – never in Eur. – the run-over is between an antistrophe and the strophe of another strophic pair: Aesch. Sept. 750, Ag. 176, 238, Soph. Ant. 1136, Tr. 646, Ph. 706. πρό τ᾽ οἴκων πρό τε γᾶς: Hector had proclaimed that the mission would be a benefit ‘for this land’ (151 ~ 154); he had also stated that the glory of the mission would have made more famous the ‘house’ of Dolon (159–60) and that the reward of Achilles’ horses would have become a great acquisition for it (190). πρό introduces the reason for an action, as in the phrase ‘die πρὸ πόληος/πόλεως’ of Hom. Il. 22.110, Eur. Tro. 1168, [Simon.] AP 7.442.3 = FGE 906. The hendiadys of ‘fatherland’ and ‘home’ was formulaic in Hom. (οἶκόνδε ϕίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν 6x; οἶκον ἐυκτίμενον/ἐς ὑψόροϕον καὶ σὴν ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν 9x); also at Eur. Med. 32 γαῖαν οἴκους θ᾽. The repetition of πρό emphasises the distinction of the two terms of the hendiadys, whereas a single

274

C O M M E N TA RY 2 4 2 – 2 4 5 preposition before the first of two or more nouns would point out their synthetical unity (KG I.548–9). μόνος in Hom. often connotes a sense of being threatened or in danger, unlike οἶος, which usually distinguishes a person in a crowd, although both terms can be sometimes used for any state of singleness (Goldhill (2010)). The connotation of ‘danger’ may apply here. ναύσταθμα ... κατιδεῖν: The ναύσταθμα of the Greeks were the space where the disquieting fires were lit (43), and those fires were the unknown new fact that a κατόπτης had to investigate (133–6). Odysseus defines Dolon as ναυστάθμων κατάσκοπος at 591–2. ἄγαμαι λήματος has the strength of an exclamation of admiration and gratitude (Lloyd (1999) 38): ‘What courage!’. The verb is construed with accusative of the object of admiration in Hom. (and in Eur. IA 28, spurious); with genitive in prose and comedy (Hdt. 6.76.2, Ar. Ach. 489, Av. 1744, Eup. PCG 349, Phryn. PCG 10.1; often in Plato and Xen.), in tragedy only here and Eur. Alc. 603. Some ancient grammarians consider the genitive with this verb typical of Attic, and the accusative ‘non-Attic’ (cf. Moeris α 1 Hansen ἄγαμαι Ὑπερβόλου Ἀττικοί, ἄγαμαι Ὑπέρβολον ῞Ελληνες; also Eudem. Rhet. p. 146 Rupprecht (Phil. Supp. 15.1 (1922)), Suda α 138 Adler); but Herodian. Philet. 137 Dain argues, differently, that the accusative conveys serious praise and the genitive hyperbolic irony. Both interpretations may just be speculations based on the archaic and classical evidence. λῆμα, first attested in Pind. (4x), is common in fifth-century drama: Aesch. 7x (4x lyr.), Soph. 3x (2x lyr.), Eur. 16x (3x lyr.); Epicharmus 1x (lyr.), Strattis 1x, Ar. 9x (mainly lyr.); not in prose apart from Hdt. (4x). Again at Rh. 499. 245–9a: the metaphor of the state in distress as a storm-tossed ship at sea is found again at Rh. 322–3. As Σ Ar. Vesp. 29 observes, ἀεὶ οἱ ποιηταὶ τὰς πόλεις πλοίοις παραβάλλουσιν. The metaphor is attested at Alcae. F 6, 73, 208 Voigt, Archil. IEG 105, perhaps Solon,43 Theogn. IEG 669–80 (= Euen. IEG *8b), 855–6, Aesch. Sept. 208–10, 795–6, Soph. Aj. 1083, OT 22–3 (πόλις . . . ἄγαν / ἤδη σαλεύει, κἀνακουϕίσαι κάρα / βυθῶν ἔτ᾽ οὐχ οἵα τε ϕοινίου σάλου), Ant. 162–3 (τὰ μὲν δὴ πόλεος ἀσϕαλῶς θεοὶ / πολλῶι σάλωι σείσαντες ὤρθωσαν πάλιν), Eur. Supp. 268–9, 473–5, Ar. Ran. 704, Pl. Resp. 488–9, Lys. 6.49.2 (ἐπιστάμενος ἐν πολλῶι σάλωι καὶ κινδύνωι τὴν πόλιν γενομένην), Polyb. 6.44.3–8; Hor. C. 1.14; cf. van Nes (1963) 71–95, Gentili (1988) 197–215.

According to Plut. Sol. 19.2 Solon thought that ἐπὶ δυσὶ βουλαῖς ὥσπερ ἀγκύραις ὁρμοῦσαν ἧττον ἐν σάλωι τὴν πόλιν ἔσεσθαι καὶ μᾶλλον ἀτρεμοῦντα τὸν δῆμον παρέξειν. However, Plutarch is fond of the metaphor of the distressed ship of state, and of using the word σάλος in such contexts: Pomp. 53.5, Phoc. 3.3, Mor. 321f.

43

275

C O M M E N TA RY 2 4 5 – 2 4 7 σπάνις αἰεί: the transmitted σπάνις and (σ)πανία are one or two syllables shorter than the corresponding line-end in 256. Dindorf (ii) Praef. xxi and Jouan 19, 20 adopt σπανία and prefer to change ἐπὶ γαῖαν/γαίας/γαίαι transmitted in the corresponding line 256 to ἐπὶ γᾶν or ἐπὶ γᾶς: cf. ἐπὶ γᾶν at 261 and πρό τε γᾶς at 242. But σπανία is attested only in prose and not before Diod. Sic. 24.1.4; besides, the corruption of monosyllabic γη-/γα- forms to γαια- forms is rarer than the reverse (Denniston on Eur. El. 678, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1642–5, Fries 213). Most modern editors add the two syllables that 245 misses for the responsion with 256. Wilamowitz (apud Murray) suggests σπάνις ἀεί, scanning ἀεί with long alpha, whereas the first syllable of ἀεί is short in tragic lyrics; Willink (2002/2003=2010) 568) σπάνι᾽ οἷα ‘rare indeed (are λήματα) such as (are those) of οἱ ἀγαθοί’, which has a very contorted syntax and needs a disorienting change of number from singular λήματος to plural λήματα presupposed by οἷα (Liapis (2011) 60); σπάνις ἐστίν (Ritchie (1964) 301) is possible; σπάνις αἰεί (Diggle, followed by Fries) more elegant. Dolon is admired here for his bravery (cf. 249 ἄλκιμος), and the opposite reaction of passive fear was perhaps assumed to be normal when the ship of the city was storm-tossed: Alcae. F 6 Voigt entreats his companions or fellow-citizens not to succumb to fear and thus dishonour their noble fathers, as one more great wave of difficulties hits the ship of the city (1–3 τόδ᾽ αὖτε κῦμα τὼ προτέρ̣ω ᾽νέμω / στείχει, παρέξει δ᾽ ἄμμι πόνον πόλυν / ἄντλην ἐπεί κε νᾶος ἔμβαι, 9–10 μή τιν’ ὄκνος μόλθ[ακος / λάβη, 12–15 νῦν τις ἄνηρ δόκιμος γε̣[νέσθω, / καὶ μὴ καταισχύνωμεν [ / ἔσλοις τόκηας). Dem. 25.31 is similarly afraid that Athens may run the risk of ‘shortage of true men’ (σπάνις ἀνδρῶν), so that only disreputable people like Aristogeiton are left for the accomplishment of great deeds. In Rh. ἀγαθοί will then mean the ‘good’ or ‘brave’ citizens, defined in terms of correct behaviour (Alcaeus’ δόκιμος), who are still capable of great deeds (like the ἄνδρες in Dem.), not ‘noblemen’ in a political sense, as supposed by Liapis 133 – it is hard to see why the elite class should become less numerous when the city is in trouble, or why nobility should be relevant here. δυσάλιον: the neuter implies the idea of ‘weather’: cf. Xen. Cyn. 8.1 ὅταν μέν ἐπινεφῆι καὶ ἦι βόρειον, Arist. HA 597b.10 ἐὰν μὲν εὐδία ἢ βόρειον ἦι, Meteor. 369b23 ὅταν ἐπινέφελον ἦι. δυσήλιος (in particular) and εὐήλιος are mainly tragic words: Aesch. Eum. 396 δυσάλ-, 906 εὐηλ-, Eur. Hipp. 129, IT 1139, Pho. 674b εὐαλ-, Moschion, TrGF 97F6.5 δυσήλ-, adesp. TrGF 340 δυσήλ-; elsewhere εὐήλ- in Ar. Ran. 242 (lyr.), and also in prose (Xen., Arist., Theoph.). The absence of sunshine accompanies storms at sea, e.g., at Hom. Od. 5.293–4 = 9.68–9, 12.314–15, Ap. Rh. 4.1694–8, and, within the metaphor of the ship of the state, at Theogn. IEG 672 (Μηλίου ἐκ πόντου νύκτα διὰ δνοφερήν). σαλεύηι ‘is tossed’ and σάλος are mainly tragic words down to the fourth century; cf. Soph. OT 22–3, quoted above, El. 1074, Ant. 163, Ph. 271, Eur. Hec.

276

C O M M E N TA RY 2 4 9 – 2 5 1 28, El. 1241, IT 262, 1443, Or. 994, adesp. TrGF 379.2; elsewhere Ar. Th. 872, paratragic (Austin and Olson on Ar. Th. 871–3). 249b–51a Φρυγῶν = Trojans; see 32n. ‘Phrygians’ were strongly associated with slavish barbarity and in particular with cowardice and effeteness in fifth- and fourth-century Athens: Eur. Or. 1351–2, 1483–8, 1528, Ar. Av. 1244–5, Apollod. PCG 6, Men. Asp. 241–3, Virg. Aen. 12.99, Cic. Flacc. 65, Battezzato (1995) 52–3, De Vries (2000) 341–2. The chorus’ self-reassuring statements about the warlike prowess of the Trojans may thus have appeared to be imbued with tragic irony, especially in the light of Dolon’s pusillanimous behaviour in Il. 10 and in Rh., where Dolon reveals the Trojan password to try to save his life. ἄλκιμος and ἀλκή etymologically refer to the valorous man who is able to protect (ἀλέξειν) himself or others, and does not yield in the face of danger. In Hom. they are applied to situations in which defensive strength is needed or to characters endowed with such strength (e.g., Ajax, who fends off Hector until Patroclus intervenes in the battle, and Patroclus, who re-enters battle in order to defend all the Greeks from utter defeat) or weapons of defence (Benveniste (1973) 358–60, Parry (1973) 45, 205–10). θράσος: here commendable ‘boldness’. It most often means ‘rashness’ and ‘over-confidence’ both in prose and in many poetic instances (tragedy included), opposed – despite etymological identity – to positive θάρσος/ θάρρος ‘boldness’. This opposition is presented as clear-cut and standard by Arist. EE 1234b12, but in poetry, for metrical convenience, θράσος and θάρσος are sometimes synonyms: cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 803–4, Huart (1968) 428– 30, Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 92 = TrGF 773.48, Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 469. If ἄλκιμος still points to the idea of defence of the city (see above), θράσος ‘boldness’ in facing danger complements it and points to offensive initiative. The two aspects of bravery are also paralleled at Rh. 707–8, Bacch. 18.38–9 ἰσχυρόν τε καὶ ἄλκιμον / ὧδε καὶ θρασύν, Eur. Or. 1201–2 οὔτε γὰρ θρασὺς / οὔτ’ ἄλκιμος πέϕυκε and 1405 θρασὺς εἰς ἀλκάν. ἔνι δὲ θράσος ἐν αἰχμᾶι ‘there is boldness in our spear’ may possibly echo the Homeric hendiadys αἰχμητήν τ᾽ ἔμεναι καὶ θαρσαλέον πολεμιστήν (Il. 5.602, 16.493, 22.269). αἰχμή ‘spear-point’ is a synecdoche for ‘(our) warriors’ (see 20–2n.), or for ‘battle’, as at Anacr. PMG 382 and commonly in Eur. (with ἐν at Her. 158 (see Bond ad loc.), 437, TrGF 16.1; δόρυ, ἔγχος, ἀσπίς also occur in the same sense). 251b–2 ‘Where is the Mysian who scorns to have me as his ally?’ Σ 251 explains the lines in connection with the topos on the worthlessness of the Mysians. This disrepute was reflected by the proverbs such as Μυσῶν λεία ‘Mysian plunder = easy to plunder = helpless’ (Semon. IEG 37, Strattis PCG 36, Dem. 18.72, Arist. Rh. 1372b33, Harpocr. Lex. μ 46 Keaney, Phot. Lex. μ

277

C O M M E N TA RY 2 5 1 635 Theod., Greg. Cypr. Paroem. Gr. II.77) and ἔσχατος Μυσῶν ‘the last of the Mysians’ (Magn. PCG 5, Philem. PCG 80, Pl. Tht. 209b and Σ, Men. PCG 54, 153, 658, Cercid. CA 4.34 (?), Cic. Flacc. 65). The origin of ἔσχατος Μυσῶν depended perhaps on the geographic remoteness of Mysia; the Mysians would be negligible because they dwelt in such a remote place that nobody had ever seen them (so Pearson (1917b) 58 and (1918), comparing Pl. Tht. 209b and Appendix prov. in Paroem. Gr. II.85 ἐπὶ τῶν πορρωτάτω που κατοικούντων). With transmitted ποτὶ Μυσῶν ‘on the side of ’ or ‘in tune with the Mysians᾽ (cf. Rh. 320, Phot. Lex. π 1314 Theod. πρὸς ἐμοῦ εἶ· ... φίλος μου, Meschini (1976) 178), or ‘in the direction of the Mysians’ (Pearson (1917) 58), and no question mark, the phrase would evaluate the Mysian reviler of the Trojan allies in the context of the cheapness of the Mysians, and exploit the topos of their irrelevance to intimate the inadequacy of their opinion. As has often been observed (e.g., Vater 142, Hoffmann (1862) 599, Wecklein (1873/1875) 411, Porter (1917) 159), this contempt seems gratuitous, since it brands the Mysians as despicable judges of the Trojan allies, but we do not know from other sources that they ever slighted the Trojans. By contrast, at 541 the Mysians are the sentinels who have woken up the Trojan watchmen of the chorus. So, unless we accept the proposal of Sansone (2013) who suggests emending ἀτίζει to ἀτίζοι (for the potential optative without ἄν in this type of relative clause, cf. Moorhouse (1982) 229–30), the reference in Rh. to the Mysians as vilifiers of the Trojans must presuppose information or epic narratives on them that remain unknown to us. Hoffmann (1862) 599 and independently Wecklein (1873/1875) 411, commonly followed by modern editors, suggested emending ποτί to πόθι and taking 251b–2 as interrogative. The πόθι Μυσῶν rhetorical question, that expects the negative answer ‘none of the Mysians should slight the Phrygian alliance’, does not necessarily involve sarcastic acerbity of the watchmen about an actual disparaging statement by the Mysians on the Trojans. It may rather point to their well-known superior bravery. Instead of focusing, with the ancient topoi, on the worthlessness of the Mysians (the usual interpretative approach to our passage), I suggest that Rh. 251b–2 reflects the Homeric background. In the Il. Mysians were thrice qualified with adjectives singling out their nature as ‘hand to hand fighters’ or as ‘strong hearted’ or as ‘high-minded’ (or ‘arrogant’): ἀγχέμαχος at Il. 13.5,44 καρτερόθυμοι at Σ D Il. 17.165 ἀγχέμαχοι· γενναῖοι. ὥστε ἐγγὺς ἐστῶτες ἀλλήλων μάχεσθαι. Posidonius, according to Strabo’s report (F 45 Theiler = Strabo 7.3.3 (296)) interpreted ἀγχέμαχος of Il. 13.5 as ἀπόρθητοι, καθὰ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ πολεμισταί (and to match this definition with his interpretation of the Mysians as an especially religious and peaceful people he suggested emending transmitted Μυσῶν to Μοισῶν, thus introducing a mention of the Danubian Moesi).

44

278

C O M M E N TA RY 2 5 1 – 2 5 4 14.512, and ἀγέρωχοι at 10.430. The latter term always means in Homer, positively, ‘high-minded’ or ‘honoured’, but in post-Homeric authors means ‘arrogant’ (Ap. Soph. 7.33–8.3 Bekker ~ Epim.Hom. (Lex. ΑΙΜΩΔΕΙΝ) α 163, II.112 Dyck). Because of their high standard of warlike strong-heartedness or high-­mindedness or arrogance, the Mysians were well entitled to sit in judgement on the bravery of the Trojan allies. But even among them, strong-minded or arrogant as they are, no one would be ready to scorn the all too obvious bravery of the Trojans. The πόθι question thus presents the Mysian criticism as made de facto impossible by the excellence of the Trojans. Short rhetorical questions often conclude strophic units: Aesch. Sept. 156–7, Supp. 126, Cho. 638, Eum. 522–5, Soph. El. 1081, OT 895–6, Tr. 139–40, Eur. Alc. 130, Hcld. 369–70, Hipp. 1148–50, Andr. 133–4, 1036, Hec. 929–32; Kranz (1933) 152, 180; Liapis 134. The stress on the reliability of the Trojans as allies anticipates the theme of the relations between allies and their reciprocal trust, which will be the focus of the discussions between Hector, the Messenger, and Rhesus from line 319 on (cf. 327 ἀτίζεις) and later of the impeachment of Hector by the charioteer. ἀτίζει may mean ‘pays no heed to’, as in the case of the lion at Hom. Il. 20.166–7 who ‘continues on his way heedless’ (ἀτίζων ἔρχεται), as if the hunters were not trying to kill him (he reacts only when hit by a spear). But more probably here and at 327 the verb has the stronger sense ‘scorn’, usual in tragedy, and serves as the antonym of τίειν and practically as a synonym of ἀτιμάζειν; cf. Aesch. Sept. 441, Eum. 542, Soph. OC 1153, Eur. Alc. 1037, IT 105 (conjectural), TrGF 347.2, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Supp. 733. 254–63 Antistrophe α celebrates the accomplishment of Dolon’s incursion, while antistrophe β celebrates the accomplishment of the raid into which the reconnaissance will evolve. The chorus’s certainties will be disappointed in both cases. 254–5a πεδοστιβής ‘treading on the ground’ is a grandiloquent tragic word (it is re-used in the sense ‘deriving from the march’ at 763). Compounds in ‑στιβής are not attested before Aesch., who also has ἀστιβής, ἡλιοστιβής, μονοστιβής, πλανοστιβής (Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 1000). πεδοστιβής is found at Aesch. Pers. 126–7 ἱππηλάτας / καὶ πεδοστιβὴς λεώς, Supp. 1000 κνώδαλα πτεροῦντα καὶ πεδοστιβῆ (cf. also Cho. 591 πτανά τε καὶ πεδοβάμονα), Eur. Med. 1122–3 μήτε ναΐαν / λιποῦσ᾽ ἀπήνην μήτ᾽ ὄχον πεδοστιβῆ, Hel. 1516 πτεροῖσιν ἀρθεῖσ᾽ ἢ πεδοστιβεῖ ποδί;, TrGF 670.3–4 ὑγρὰ δὲ μήτηρ, οὐ πεδοστιβὴς τροϕὸς / θάλασσα, always balancing an epithet that means, in binary opposition, ‘flying’ or ‘marine’. An example (the only one I know) not found in such a binary opposition is Eur. TrGF 472e.17, from the Cretans, where πεδοστιβής means ‘walking’, and is said of the hide

279

C O M M E N TA RY 2 5 4 – 2 5 6 (ῥινός) covering the wooden cow fabricated by Daedalus for Pasiphae so that she could mate with the Minotaur; it is possible that the author of Rh. had the Cretans among his models, in his un-Homeric emphasis on Dolon’s wolfskin as an accomplished disguise (see 208–13n.). σφαγεύς refers properly to one who kills by cutting the throat, and thus is often used in a sacrificial context (in tragedy: Soph. Aj. 815, Eur. Andr. 1134, Her. 451, IT 621–3). It may also mean ‘murderer’: e.g., Xen. Hell. 3.2.28, Andoc. 1.78, Dem. 13.32. As it is used of Dolon by other Trojans who are enthusiastic about his enterprise, it may have an aura of religious justice in relation to the unlawfulness of the siege of Troy (cf. Bernacchia (1990) 47, Liapis 135). But cognate terms are also used for the ‘killing’ effected by Odysseus and Diomedes, with no religious aura: 606, 636, 790, 810. οὐτάσει: used in Hom. mainly of blows inflicted from a short distance away by thrusting or stabbing (Trümpy (1950) 92–3), and thus only occasionally with reference to missiles, but twice for missiles in Eur.: Hipp. 684, Her. 199; differently TrGF 176.3 (δορί). Σ Hipp. 684 complains that οἱ νεώτεροι (= post-Homeric authors) could not distinguish between βαλεῖν and οὐτάσαι. Rh. conforms to the common Homeric usage, as Dolon is to behead his victims. 255–7a τετράπουν μῖμον ἔχων ... θηρός: enallage for τετράποδος μῖμον ἔχων ... θηρός; see 211–12. For the periphrasis ἔχειν μίμημά τινος = ‘imitate something or someone’, cf. Eur. Hel. 74–5 ὅσον μίμημ᾽ ἔχεις / Ἑλένης Pl. Leg. 713b τις ἀρχή … ἧς μίμημα ἔχουσά ἐστιν ἥτις τῶν νῦν ἄριστα οἰκεῖται, Nonn. Dion. 17.239–40 Λυαῖος / οὐράνιον μίμημα βοώπιδος εἶχε Σελήνης. Down to the end of the fourth century μῖμος means most often the dramatic performance and its script = ‘mime’ (e.g., Arist. Poet. 1447b10) or the ‘actor performing a mime’ (e.g., Dem. 2.19). The sense μῖμος = μίμημα ‘act or result of imitation’ is probable in the first known instance of the word, Aesch. TrGF 57.8–11 ταυρόϕθογγοι δ᾽ ὑπομυκῶνταί / ποθεν ἐξ ἀϕανοῦς ϕοβεροὶ μῖμοι, / τυπάνου δ᾽ εἰκών, ὥσθ᾽ ὑπογαίου / βροντῆς, ϕέρεται βαρυταρβής. Since the fragment deals with sounds and instruments, the sense μῖμοι ‘actors’ is not probable (but for a defence of this meaning cf. Sörbom (1966) 57), and lines 8–9 probably refer to bullroarers, whose sounds are described as ‘imitations’ of a bull’s bellow. However, it is possible that these bullroarers’ sounds are metaphorically personified, and characterised as ­quasi-dramatic actors (Halliwell (2002) 17). As the technical term for mimic play or mimic imitation or mimic actor, μῖμος had perhaps a special appeal for the author of Rh., as it helped to intimate, metatheatrically, the exceptional nature of Dolon’s forthcoming wolf-disguise as a sort of μῖμος ‘mime’ of an animal in the context of a tragedy. Dances imitating the movements of animals are listed by Pollux, On.

280

C O M M E N TA RY 2 5 6 – 2 6 0 4.101, 103, 104 Bethe and the ‘imitations of horses neighing, oxen bellowing, rivers gurgling, etc.’, quoted by Plato among possible forms of imitation (Resp. 396b), may have belonged in ancient mimic performances (Reich (1903) 478–80; E. Wüst in RE XV.2.1730). ἐπὶ γαίας is pleonastic after πεδοστιβής and τετράπουν. The phrase may echo Eur. Alc. 869 ἐπὶ γαίας πόδα πεζεύων (where ‘earth’ means the world of the living). Both genitive (LQ , accepted by Diggle and Fries) and dative (O; cf. Il. 4.443 ἐπὶ χθονὶ βαίνει) in locative sense to designate the earth as the support of the legs are justifiable. The accusative of V is printed by Zanetto and Feickert (γᾶν Jouan). But in the absence of an adjective with γαῖαν designating extent, it is hard to accept its only possible interpretation as an accusative of extension over a space, pointing to the fact that Dolon ‘will pursue his mission over a large stretch of land’ (suggested by Liapis (2011) 61). On the responsion with 245, see 245–9a n. 257b–60 ἕλοι: ‘may he kill Menelaus’ (Kovacs 383, Fries 213), rather than ‘may he lay hands on Menelaus’ (Liapis 135), as it would not be realistic for Dolon, who is alone, to take prisoners. Focus is now on the commando aspect of the expedition, in contrast to μόλοι ... ἵκοιτο ... κάμψειε of 233, 234, concerning the reconnaissance. κτανὼν Ἀγαμεμνόνιον / κρᾶτ᾽ ἐνέγκοι / Ἑλέναι κακόγαμβρον ἐς χέρας γόον ‘and after slaying Agamemnon may he carry his head into Helen’s hands to make her lament her evil brother-in-law’: the same idea of the beheaded enemy as in 219–20 and a similar brachylogic structure (the object of κτανών, with which the repeated relative ὅς in 261 has to be taken, is inferred from Ἀγαμεμνόνιον, the epithet applying to the object of the principal clause; see 219–22a n.). But the victims are different. Dolon thinks of two especially valorous/dangerous enemies; the chorus thinks of justice and points to the two leaders to be blamed for the siege of Troy, together with the ἀρχὴ κακῶν Helen. κακόγαμβρον ... γόον is appositive to the verbal phrase κρᾶτ᾽ ἐνέγκοι, and specifies the consequence of the action of the verb, as in Eur. Hipp. 755–6 ἐπόρευσας ἐμὰν ἄνασσαν … κακονυμϕοτάταν ὄνασιν, Andr. 103–4 Ἰλίωι αἰπεινᾶι Πάρις οὐ γάμον ἀλλά τιν᾽ ἄταν / ἀγάγετ᾽ εὐναίαν ἐς θαλάμους Ἑλέναν, Or. 1105 Ἑλένην κτάνωμεν, Μενέλεωι λύπην πικράν. The construction is found in Hom., and occurs in Aesch., Soph., and Plato, but is especially frequent in Eur.; cf. KG (1898/1904) I.284–6, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 752–63, Moorhouse (1982) 45–6, Diggle (1978=1994) 191–2, (1982=1994) 223–4. In the hapax compound κακόγαμβρος ‘concerning the evil brother-in-law’ the second part of the compound is equivalent to an objective genitive of the governing noun (Breitenbach (1934) 206), as in, e.g., κακονυμϕοτάταν ὄνασιν Hipp. 756, καλλίνικον ὠιδάν El. 865, εὐάλιον πῦρ IT 1138.

281

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 1 – 2 6 2 261–3 Epanalepsis is found in Aesch. and Soph., but Eur. is especially fond of this mannerism, for which Ar. Ran. 1352–5 mocks him (examples in Breitenbach (1934) 214–21, Diggle (1990=1994) 370, 376, and 388–90, Allan on Eur. Hel. 195). Other Euripidean epanalepse of almost isometric phrases: Hel. 198–9 δι᾽ ἐμὲ τὰν πολυκτόνον, / δι᾽ ἐμὸν ὄνομα πολύπονον, Or. 170–1 οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν, / οὐκ ἀπ’ οἴκων. Here the repetition brings out the scale of the attack – the expedition was not only against the city, but also against the land. Τροΐαν may here be apo koinou appositive to πόλιν and γᾶν (cf. Eur. El. 2–3 ναυσὶ χιλίαις . . . / ἐς γῆν ἔπλευσε Τρωιάδ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων; Hel. 582 and Soph. Ph. 1175), and should not be emended (Willink (2002/2003=2010) 569 changes transmitted ἐπὶ γᾶν Τροίαν to ἐφ’ ἱρὰν Τροΐαν, unnecessarily). For the prosody of Τροΐα according to Aristarchus, see 231–2n. χιλιόναυν ... ἔχων στρατείαν reinforces the idea that Dolon’s raid is a just response to the expedition against Troy. The Greek ships were 1,186 in number according to the Catalogue of Il. 2, and the figure is rounded up to 1,200 in Thuc. 1.10.4. The rounded-down figure of 1,000, first attested in Aesch. Ag. 45 χιλιοναύτης (which may be an invention by Aesch., but is more likely to have occurred in post-Homeric epic: Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 45), is standard in Eur., who uses both χιλιοναύτης (IT 141) and χιλιόναυς (Andr. 106, Or. 351, IA 174); later Plaut. Bacch. 928, Virg. Aen. 2.198, 331, 9.148, Petron. 89.11. στρατείαν (conjectured by Heath (1762) 95) is necessary in place of transmitted unmetrical στρατῐάν. The many occurrences of στρατιά in Rh. (6, 15, 18, 38, 48, 233, 741, 747; nowhere στρατεία) may have led to the banalisation of original στρατείαν. Semantically speaking, στρατιά, from στρατός, means ‘army’ (only occasionally ‘military service’ or ‘expedition’), whereas στρατεία (from στρατεύειν ‘wage war’) means ‘expedition’, and ancient lexicographers frequently distinguish between στρατεία and στρατιά, and emphasise that the latter has the sense ‘army’.45 LSJ, Scheller (1951) 85, Liapis 136, and Fries 215 assume that στρατεία means ‘army’ here and at Eur. IA 495, where it is an emendation of the transmitted στρατιά. But in the latter passage ἴτω στρατεία διαλυθεῖσ(α) probably means ‘let the expedition be disbanded’ (Kovacs on IA, p. 215 ~ Collard and Morwood on IA p. 127) and in Rh. χιλιόναυν στρατείαν can mean ‘expedition consisting of a thousand ships’, with a synecdoche of the whole (expedition) used for the part (army). ἐπὶ πόλιν ... χιλιόναυν ἤλυθ᾽ ἔχων στρατείαν would then be a periphrasis equivalent to στρατεύειν ναυσί and ἐπί/ἐς with accusative at, e.g., Thuc. 1.26.4 (στρατεύουσιν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς οἱ

Ammon. 449 Nickau, Ael. Herodian. Part. 267.19 Boiss., Herodian. GG III.2.2.1.6.16–17, Suda σ 1175–6 Adler, Etym. magn. 729.19–20 Gaisf. = Etym. Gud. 513.11–13 Sturz, Σ Eur. Hec. 133, Σ Ar. Th. 828.

45

282

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 4 – 3 4 1 Κερκυραῖοι τεσσαράκοντα ναυσὶ) ~ 1.112.2, 2.66.1, etc. and Diod. Sic. 4.32.2, 4.49.7. 264–341 Herdsmen frequently roamed from one place to another, and could thus know more than city-dwellers about movements within their territory. It was perhaps the shepherd Menoetes who informed Geryon of Heracles’ arrival in Stesich. Geryoneis; cf. Davies and Finglass on Stesich., p. 241. Shepherds featured as messengers in Aesch. Glaucus Pont. TrGF 25e(?), Soph. OT 924–1185, Shepherds TrGF 502–4 (see below), Tereus, POxy 82.5292.ii (cf. Finglass (2016) 68–70), Eur. IT 236–339, Bacch. 660–774, Coo (2010) 88–90. In the real world too, shepherds might act as informants for military commanders. According to Diod. Sic. 19.38.1–5, when Eumenes set up a decoy camp in the night with the help of lights, ‘the flames were seen by some of those who pastured flocks on the hills opposite .... Believing that this truly was a camp, they hurried down to the plain and carried the news to Antigonus and Pithon’. Soph. Shepherds (possibly a satyr-drama rather than a tragedy: so most recently Rosen (2003), but cf. Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Shepherds, Introd. pp. 184–8) had a chorus of Phrygian shepherds (TrGF 515), and also had among the dramatis personae a goatherd (cf. TrGF 502.2) who announced the arrival of ‘an army marching (στρατὸν στείχοντα; cf. Rh. 290–1 στρατὸς / ἔστειχε) over the cliff-tops by the sea’ (TrGF 502.3), and perhaps made a report to Hector about it, as in Rh. (Pattoni (2011) 326 n. 34). This ‘marching’ army can hardly have been that of the Greeks, who reached the Troad by sea. It was probably that of the Trojan ally Cycnus; cf. Wilamowitz (1926) 282–3, Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Shepherds., Introd. p. 179. This ally, according to Arist. Rh. 1369b24–7, ‘prevented the whole Greek army from disembarking, as he was invulnerable’; possibly he confronted Hector, who was certainly one of the characters, before he was killed by Achilles the first time he fought (in all our sources apart from Dictys 2.12–13, where his death is not recorded). Soph. Shepherds may have influenced our scene in general; in particular TrGF 501 parallels Rh. 514–15, TrGF 502 may have been in the background of Rh. 770–2, and TrGF 515 parallels Rh. 380 (see 380–1n., 770–2n.). In Ar. Ran. 961–3, Eur. criticises the ‘special effects’ used by Aesch. to frighten his audience in the entrances of Cycnus and Memnon ‘with horses which have bells on their cheek-pieces’ (see 306b–8n.). We do not know in which lost play Aesch. put Cycnus on stage.46 However, we can surmise that There were two mythological characters with this name – one the son of Ares, who raided ­travellers on their way to Delphi, and the Trojan ally – but the ­combination with Memnon makes it probable that the Cycnus of Ar. Ran. was the latter; cf. Pattoni (2011) 319 nn. 16, 18, 19.

46

283

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 4 – 2 7 4 in Aesch. Memnon, Soph. Shepherds, and Rh., the arrival of the Trojan ally at Troy was a stock plot-pattern (Taplin (1977a) 422, Pattoni (2011)), where the delusional hopes of the Trojans, the exotic strangeness of these princes, the grandeur of their appearance, and the imminence of their deaths came together to create a special pathos. Besides, in both Shepherds and Rh. the grandeur and arrogance of the protagonist seem to anticipate the idea that he is heading for a fall (cf. Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Shepherds, Introd. p. 179), and the naivety of the herdsman and his awe at the unexpected sight of a large army probably made more credible his glorification of the unknown powerful warrior and army and Cycnus’ rodomontade (cf. Soph. TrGF 501, and also 499, 500, if the speaker is Cycnus; for Rhesus, Rh. 391–2, 447–53, 471–3, 512–17). 264–74 Hector almost dismisses the shepherd before learning what kind of news he brings, because he believes that a shepherd is likely to speak only of matters connected with his work. Hector’s prejudicial behaviour may be compared to Eur. Hcld. 646–59, where Alcmena straightaway takes the messenger-servant to be hostile and threatens him (Gibert (1995) 62 n. 10). Shepherds᾽ and rustics’ work was not in itself universally held to be unworthy, but they did have their detractors, such as, most famously, the Muses of Hes. Th. 26 or Antinous at Hom. Od. 21.85, and they could be considered at the low end of the social spectrum (as Rosen (2003) 377 observes apropos of the chorus of shepherd-satyrs in Eur. Cyclops, who disdain their status and complain about it). The serenade of the Cyclops in Theocr. 11 in particular and in general the separateness and specificity of the world of bucolic poetry also exemplify the topos that shepherds are exclusively (and thus at times laughably) focused on their own world. According to Wilamowitz (1926) 282 n. 3, Hector’s assumption in Rh. that the shepherd is going to talk about his flock parallels the goatherd-messenger in Soph. Shepherds, who opens his report about the approaching army (see 264–341n.) with a description of the hour of the day that focuses in detail on the rustic environment and rustic occupations: TrGF 502 ἑωθινὸς γάρ, πρίν τιν’ αὐλιτῶν ὁρᾶν, / θαλλὸν χιμαίραις προσϕέρων νεοσπάδα, / εἶδον στρατὸν στείχοντα; and the chorus of shepherds also spoke of their life as ‘enslaved’ to the needs of their flock (TrGF 505 τούτοις γὰρ ὄντες δεσπόται δουλεύομεν, / καὶ τῶνδ’ ἀνάγκη καὶ σιωπώντων κλύειν) – a statement that may have been accompanied by a list of their avocations. Hector’s harshness has been considered ‘wholly unjustifiable’, and the result of ‘the author’s tendency to split up the action into unrelated conflicts, focusing on momentary dramatic excitement’ (Liapis 137). It is certainly more surprising than the exchange between Creon and the guard at Soph. Ant. 223–36. There Creon confronts the logical weakness of the guard’s unsolicited and unnecessary apologies and his garrulous description of his selfish contradictory fears – fear of going and disappointing the addressee of the

284

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 4 – 2 6 5 report along with fear of not going and being punished for failure to give a report. These emotions suit the simple-minded character, but do not impinge on Creon, and the guard is foil to the self-assurance of the man-of-power Creon or the courage of Antigone (Seidensticker (1982) 84–5). In Rh. the problem is Hector and the shaky logic of his aggression, not the shepherd. Perhaps these lines mainly confirm the characterisation of Hector in the negotiation with Dolon: he censures the shepherd for what he believes the shepherd will say, just as he attempted to guess what reward Dolon wanted. Lines 266–70 also prepare for the characterisation of Hector in his dialogue with Rhesus: just as he doubts whether the shepherd has anything serious to say simply because he is a shepherd, so he doubts whether Rhesus is to be a useful ally simply because he has not been such in the past. Although Hector here fails to exhibit the reasonableness and sensitivity that Aristotle (EN 1142a–3b) associates with practical εὐβουλία, and his prejudiced attitude may seem absurd, the passage should not be seen as just farcical and untragic; rather, the drama now stages how δυσβουλία may impinge on good and successful deliberation (Hesk (2011) 139 and n. 39). 264–5 ‘My king, I wish I may in the future be the messenger for my masters of the kind of news I am now bringing for you to know.’ Soph.’s messengers often introduce their speeches with a declaration of their intention to report news or of the quality of their news, and the beginning of the ensuing report is often connected by γάρ to the prefatory statement: Aj. 284, 719, El. 680–1, 892–3, OT 1237–40, Ant. 234–6, 245, 407, 1192–5, Tr. 180–1, 749, 899, OC 1586. By contrast, the messengers of Eur. begin from the facts, almost everywhere without preamble, the only exceptions being Hcld. 784–5, 799, Pho. 1427, IA 1540–2 (from the spurious exodos); cf. Rassow (1883) 21–3, Wilkins on Eur. Hcld. 799, De Jong (1997) 180–1, Finglass (2005) 561–2, (2016) 64, and on Soph. El. 680. Here the Sophoclean preamble is interrupted by the harsh comment of Hector and the ensuing reply of the shepherd, who has then to repeat the prefatory statement at 275, and can begin his report (connected to the statement by γάρ) at 276. Good news is not common in tragedy, and when it is to be found, it is usually, as here, the result of misconception or misplaced optimism. Those bringing good news are often eager to stress from the start that it is good: Soph. El. 666–7 φέρων ἥκω λογους / ἡδεῖς, 873 φέρω γὰρ ἡδονάς, OT 86–8 τίν’ ... ἥκεις ... ϕήμην ϕέρων; / ∷ ἐσθλήν· λέγω γὰρ καὶ τὰ δύσϕορ᾽, εἰ τύχοι / κατ’ ὀρθὸν ἐξελθόντα, πάντ’ ἂν εὐτυχεῖν, 936–7 τὸ δ’ ἔπος οὑξερῶ τάχα, / ἥδοιο μὲν πῶς δ’ οὐκ ἄν; ἀσχάλλοις δ’ ἴσως, Tr. 180–1 πρῶτος ἀγγέλων / ὄκνου σε λύσω, 229–31 ἀλλ᾽ εὖ μὲν ἵγμεθ᾽, εὖ δὲ προσϕωνούμεθα, / γύναι, κατ’ ἔργου κτῆσιν· ἄνδρα γὰρ καλῶς / πράσσοντ’ ἀνάγκη χρηστὰ κερδαίνειν ἔπη, Eur. Supp. 634 ἥκω πόλλ᾽ ἔχων λέγειν ϕίλα, El. 230 πρῶτα γάρ σοι τἀγάθ᾽ ἀγγέλλειν θέλω; cf. also Ar. Eq. 642–3 ὦ βουλή, λόγους ἀγαθοὺς

285

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 4 – 2 6 6 ϕέρων / εὐαγγελίσασθαι πρῶτον ὑμῖν βούλομαι. This eagerness is sometimes motivated by hope for a warm reaction or even a reward (Soph. Tr. 190–1 πρῶτος ἀγγείλας τάδε / πρὸς σοῦ τι κερδάναιμι καὶ κτώιμην χάριν, 230–1, quoted above). Rewards are in fact often promised to or expected by messengers reporting good news: Soph. El. 797–801, OT 230–2, 1002–6, Tr. 492–6, Eur. Med. 1127–8, Hel. 1280–4, Headlam (1902a) 60, Wilkins on Eur. Hcld. 784–7; compare the messengers’ opposite fear of being punished for defective information at Rh. 51. But after Hector’s outburst of contempt, the shepherd here does not express any such hope. τοιούτων ... οἷα would be semantically neutral, (‘good’ or ‘bad’) ‘things such as these’, but acquires a positive sense in the light of the topos according to which it is pleasurable to bring good news. δεσπόταισιν: see 237–41n. φέρω μαθεῖν is probably modelled on Aesch. Ag. 1134–5 πολυεπεῖς τέχναι / θεσπιωιδῶν ϕόβον ϕέρουσιν μαθεῖν, where the final infinitive, as here, has a consecutive–final value: ‘the wordy arts of oracle-chanters … bring tidings fearful to learn’. φέρειν ‘report’ with an object expressing the quality of the news is conventional in tragedy: e.g., Aesch. Sept. 40, Ag. 639, Soph. Aj. 789, El. 873, Ant. 1172, Eur. Hec. 663, Pho. 1071, 1337, IA 1536, TrGF 253.2; also Rh. 272. 266 ‘Really, how stupid often is the mind of people living in the countryside.’ Affirmative ἦ (Denniston (1954) 280) seems to formulate or confirm a prejudice about shepherds. Hector never uses sententious wisdom and general prejudices to point up his arguments elsewhere. Here the general truth expressed by the maxim (all shepherds are often stupid) paves the way for the harsh tone of his reproach to the individual in front of him (Liapis 137). ἀγρώσταις ... φρενί: ‘part and whole’ construction, common in poetry; the part is often a part of the body (Hahn (1954), Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 87–8 = TrGF 773.43–4 and (1994) 365 n. 4). The reference to shepherds as persons living in the countryside is in line with the claim that they often behave stupidly, as their usual isolation suggests ‘withdrawal from participation in human culture’ (Halperin (1983) 95–6). ἀγρώσταις (with a non-organic -σ-; Chantraine (1956a) 58) and ἀγρώταις are both attested by MSS here, but only ἀγρώστ- at Rh. 287; cf. ἀγρώσταν Eur. Her. 377 (the single MS L) but ἀγρώτας Bacch. 564 (both MSS). Both forms are legitimate; cf. Herodian. GG III.1.1.74.19 Lentz, Steph. Byz. α 49 Billerb., Fraenkel (1910/1912) I.40–1, Pearson (1917a) I.60. The unanimity of the MSS at Rh. 287 suggests that we should accept here too the form ἀγρώστ- (Fries 217). The term will mean ‘rustics’, here as well as at Aesch. TrGF 46c.5 (satyrs) and Soph. TrGF 94 (satyrs?), Eur. Bacch. 564 (beasts), Anaxilas, PCG 12 (wolves); at Eur. Her. 377 and possibly Soph. TrGF 314.39 the sense may be specifically ‘farmers’ (cf. Hesych. Lex. α 844 Latte-Cunn. ἐργάται). Herdsmen are ἀγροιῶται in Hom.

286

C O M M E N TA RY 2 6 6 – 2 7 0 Od. 11.293, 21.85, [Hes.] Sc. 39; ἄγραυλοι in Hom. Il. 18.162, Hes. Th. 26, HHom.Herm. 286. σκαιά is a word of which Eur. is fond (more than 20x; Aesch. 1x; Soph. 4x, plus 1x σκαιότης and σκαιοσύνη). It is attested very seldom in classical Attic in the original sense ‘left’, and comes to express value judgements in the ethical or intellectual field (Chantraine (1956b) 61–2). It here means ‘ill-advised’, ‘stupid’, or ‘socially ignorant’ (Bond on Eur. Her. 283), with reference to lack of σοφία (e.g., Soph. TrGF 771.2–3, 921, Eur. Med. 190, 298 (~ Ar. Th. 1130), Hcld. 458, El. 972, Her. 299–300, TrGF 657.2), or of παιδεία (e.g., Ar. Vesp. 1183). πρόσκειται ‘belongs to’: see 106–8n. 267–8 ‘And in fact you seem to have come bringing news about the herds to your masters while they are wearing their armour.’ καὶ γάρ: this combination is used when an individual instance of a general statement provides inductive proof of it (hence γάρ), and vice versa, after quotations of gnomai or paradigmatic narratives (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1040, Denniston (1954) 66, Friis Johansen (1959) 51, 57 n. 11, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 650–2). δεσπόταις τευχεσφόροις contrasts Hector spending the night in his fighting gear with other members of the royal family, who are at home in Troy. Compare 20–2, where spending the night armed with full panoply intimates a situation of serious military alarm. ποίμνας ... ἀγγελῶν: ἀγγέλλειν, here returning to the shepherd’s ἄγγελος at 264, is often construed with internal objects qualifying the news, most often neuter sustantivised adjectives; for non-internal objects, which however focus, likewise, on the substance of the report, cf., e.g., Soph. Aj. 567 ἐντολήν, 848 ἄτας. However, ‘reporting flocks’ (and their health: 270) to a king in arms sounds strange (Cropp (2015) 159). The separation of the object from the verb through the hyperbaton of δεσπόταις τευχεσφόροις makes neater the juxtaposition of ‘flocks’ and ‘kings in arms’. Hector is mockingly emphasising the irrelevance of the only informative contribution he may expect from a shepherd. ἥκειν ἔοικας ἀγγελῶν: cf. Soph. Ph. 971–2 μαθὼν / ἔοικας ἥκειν αἰσχρά, Ar. PCG 469.2 ἔοιχ᾽ ἥκειν ἄγων (also Soph. Ant. 1280 ἔοικας ἥκων ... ὄψεσθαι). But ἥκειν ... ἀγγελῶν (final future) is typically Euripidean: Andr. 1070 οἵας ὁ τλήμων ἀγγελῶν ἥκω τύχας, Tro. 238 ἥκω καινὸν ἀγγελῶν λόγον, Hel. 1200 ἥκει γὰρ ὅστις καὶ τάδ᾽ ἀγγέλλει σαϕῆ; nowhere else in tragedy, Pho. 1075 τί μοί ποθ᾽ ἥκεις καινὸν ἀγγελῶν ἔπος; (suspected). 269–70 ‘Do you not know that my house or the throne of my father are where you must inform about the prosperity of our flocks?’ The palace inside the city is the proper place for the routine administration. Priam is more marginal in Rh. than in the Il., perhaps not because he is only nominally the king (as

287

C O M M E N TA RY 2 7 1 – 2 7 3 maintained by Liapis 138) but because the focus of Rh. is on the Trojans’ military activity and the camp outside the city, which is in Hector’s hands. γεγωνεῖν, usually said to be connected to the root of γιγνώσκειν (but cf. Vine (2007)), is a poetic word almost confined to Hom., Hes., and tragedy. Here it takes an accusative with supplementary participle, as often in the case of verbs of announcing; cf., e.g., Smyth (1956) 470. It always means ‘shout’ or ‘call loudly’ in Hom., but mainly ‘speak out’ or ‘report’ in tragedy; cf. Aesch. PV 193, Soph. Ph. 238, Eur. Ion 696, Or. 1220 (γέγωνέ τ’ ἐς δόμους), Wackernagel (1916) 156–7, van der Valk (1949) 193, Griffith on Aesch. PV 193–6. εὐτυχοῦντα: Hector is so focused on the military dimension, and so proud of the success of the Trojans, that he uses the same verb for the flourishing of the flocks as for his triumph in battle on the previous day at 56, 60, and 319 (εὐτυχεῖν again in a military sense at Rh. 666; see 56–8 n.). 271–2 σκαιοὶ βοτῆρές ἐσμεν: the remark of Hector now becomes an admission by the messenger-shepherd; in his mouth it also applies universally, whereas the general gnomic sentence of Hector on the rustics entailed limitations (cf. πόλλ᾽). The shepherd concentrates on defending the relevance of his own κεδνοὶ λόγοι, which are opposed at the end of his second line to σκαιοὶ βοτῆρες at the beginning of the first. οὐκ ἄλλως λέγω is a Euripidean cliché; see 164–5n. The speaker makes a similar confession, followed by an affirmation of his limited knowledge of city business, in Men. Georg. F 5.1–3 Sandbach εἰμὶ μὲν ἄγροικος, καὐτὸς οὐκ ἄλλως ἐρῶ, / καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ ἄστυ πραγμάτων οὐ παντελῶς / ἔμπειρος. οὐδὲν ἧσσον: absolute adverbial οὐδέν or μηδὲν ἧσσον (‘nevertheless’ or ‘for all that’) date from the fifth century and belong mainly in prose (more than 10x each in Hdt. and Thuc.); cf. Eur. Hcld. 514, IT 1364. σοι: postpositives are usually avoided after the caesura in tragedy, but see Aesch. Cho. 181, 193, 573 (μοι), Eum. 595, Eur. IT 696 (σοι), Soph. OT 809, 1401 (μου), Descroix (1931) 284–7, West (1982) 83, Parker on Eur. IT 695–8, Finglass on Soph. OT 141. φέρω κεδνοὺς λόγους: cf. Aesch. Cho. 659 ϕέρω καινοὺς λόγους. κεδνός, ‘careful’ or ‘reliable’, is exclusively poetic in archaic and classical Greek (Finglass on Soph. Aj. 661–3). It is used of the λόγοι that Apollo promises he will share with Thanatos at Eur. Alc. 38 (δίκην τοι καὶ λόγους κεδνοὺς ἔχω) and the tidings that Clytemnestra wishes to hear at Aesch. Ag. 261–2 (εἴ τι κεδνὸν εἴτε μὴ πεπυσμένη / εὐαγγέλοισιν ἐλπίσιν θυηπολεῖς) or the chorus at 622 (πῶς δῆτ᾽ ἂν εἰπὼν κεδνὰ τἀληθῆ τύχοις;) and that Ion wishes to hear at Eur. Ion 1485 (λέγ᾽· ὡς ἐρεῖς τι κεδνὸν εὐτυχές τέ μοι). 273 ‘Stop telling me the farm-yard fortunes.’ The shepherd did not have the leisure to speak at all, but Hector believes that the good news that the

288

C O M M E N TA RY 2 7 4 – 2 7 4 shepherd is going to report can only concern the prosperity of the royal flocks, and prevents him from starting. παῦσαι λέγων is a Euripidean phrase (Ritchie (1965) 253): Eur. Med. 451–2 μὴ παύσηι ποτὲ / λέγουσ᾽, Hipp. 706 παῦσαι λέγουσα, El. 1123 = Ion 650 παῦσαι λόγων τῶνδ᾽, IT 803 οὐ παύσηι λέγων;, Bacch. 809 σὺ δὲ παῦσαι λέγων, TrGF 36.1 παύσεται λέγων κακῶς; also Aesch. Ag. 1047 σοί τοι λέγουσα παύεται. παύεσθαι λέγων is common in prose: 5x in Isocr., 4x in Dem. λέγων ... τύχας: cf. Aesch. PV 633, Eur. Andr. 973, Her. 1116. προσαυλείους, a hapax from αὐλή ‘farm-yard’. It sounds like a technical term – either a real one, or one that the audience could take to be invented by Hector on the spot in order to make fun of the shepherd’s alleged preoccupation with his work. It may give a humorous contrast to the tragic diction of παῦσαι λέγων ... τύχας. 274 μάχας πρὸ χειρῶν … βαστάζομεν ‘we hold in our hands battles and spears’: cf. Od. 21.405 (Odysseus at the beginning of the slaughter of the suitors) μέγα τόξον ἐβάστασε, Soph. Ph. 655 ἃ (sc. τόξα) βαστάζω χεροῖν, Eur. El. 695–6 ϕρουρήσω δ᾽ ἐγὼ / πρόχειρον ἔγχος χειρὶ βαστάζουσ᾽ ἐμῆι, Theocr. 16.78 βαστάζουσι . . . μέσα δοῦρα (~ are ready for the battle); also IA 35–6 δέλτον τε γράϕεις / τήνδ’ ἣν πρὸ χερῶν ἔτι βαστάζεις. According to Suda β 1738 Adler, in Attic βαστάζειν does not refer only to ‘raising’ or ‘taking hold of ’ an object but rather to ‘poising’ and ‘weighing’ it in the hand. The distinction between Attic and non-Attic meaning is probably inappropriate (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 35; Dale and Parker on Eur. Alc. 19). In our passage and in the other tragic passages quoted above, both meanings of ‘poising’ or ‘holding’ in mid-air can apply to a spear or a bow. But the second one is more appealing in our context, where Hector, as it seems, presents himself as ready to throw the spear but is not on the point of throwing it. The zeugma, with μάχας and δόρη standing together as objects of βαστάζομεν, is justified by the metonymy: the operation of Hector’s spear is what gave the Trojans victory in battle, and as a general he had the responsibility of deciding when to fight or not, so his hands poised his spear and also controlled the battle. Hector in his conceitedness had already suggested a similar equation of cause and effect at 60–4, where the checking of his spear and the interruption of the Trojans’ success in battle were one and the same. πρὸ χειρῶν = Soph. Ant. 1279, Eur. Tro. 1207. Not ‘at hand’ (LSJ s.v. πρό A.I.1) but ‘in my hands in front of myself ’ (Biehl on Eur. Tro. 1207–8), ‘visible in the hands’ (Jebb on Soph. Ant. 1279–80). δόρη: plural, instead of the expected singular δόρυ (which is v.l.). The form is also attested in Aesch. TrGF 74.7, Theop. PCG 26. The same declension (from *δόρεϝ-; cf. Martínez García (1996) 63–4) includes the dative singular δόρει, certain in Aesch. TrGF 99.20 and 129 and restored elsewhere in

289

C O M M E N TA RY 2 7 5 – 2 7 6 Aesch. and Soph., and genitive plural δορῶν, mentioned at Hesych. Lex. δ 2210 Latte-Cunn. and conjectural at Σ Hom. Il. 24.2. 275 is the second prefatory ‘declaration of intention to narrate’; the first was interrupted by Hector’s harsh comment. σημαίνειν is a common verb for the uttering of tragic messages: e.g., Soph. Ant. 242, Tr. 345, OC 366 ταῦτα σημανοῦσ’ ἐλήλυθα, Eur. Hcld. 799, Andr. 1084, 1238 ὧν δ’ οὕνεκ᾽ ἦλθον σημανῶ, Hec. 217, 512 μετῆλθες … σημανῶν κακά, El. 765, IT 237 ἥκει σημανῶν τί σοι νέον, 1312, Pho. 1076, 1355, IA 117, 127, TrGF 1132.46 (spurious). 276–7 ἀνὴρ … στρατηλατῶν / στείχει φίλος σοι σύμμαχός τε τῆιδε γῆι: cf. Aesch. Eum. 686–7 (the Amazons) ἦλθον Θησέως κατὰ ϕθόνον / στρατηλατοῦσαι, Eur. Or. 688–90 ἥκω γὰρ ἀνδρῶν συμμάχων κενὸν δόρυ / ἔχων, πόνοισι μυρίοις ἀλώμενος, / σμικρᾶι σὺν ἀλκῆι τῶν λελειμμένων ϕίλων – a description by Menelaus of the weakness of the military force with which he came back to Sparta after the Trojan War, where the context, the opposite of that in Rh., ‘seems comparable enough to have caused the echo’ (Fries 219, after Ritchie (1964) 214 and Klyve 202–3). Rh. sticks to a structural ‘rule’ that can be observed in most Euripidean messenger-speeches. First, still in dialogue with the interlocutor, the messenger gives a very brief statement concerning the purport of the message, which only a few lines later is followed by the long detailed report, usually elicited by a πῶς question from the interlocutor (Rh. 282–3): cf., e.g., Andr. 1073–5 with 1085–165, Ion 1111–12 and 1117–18 with 1122–8, Hel. 1514–15 with 1526–1626, Bacch. 664–7 with 677–774. This twofold structure helps to make clear what is going on as quickly as possible through the first brief statement; the audience can thus more readily accept the slow pace of the exposition in the full report; cf. Rassow (1883) 10–12, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 567–604, Collard on Eur. Supp. 634–777, p. 275, De Jong (1991) 32–4. Rh. 276–7 clearly parallels the preliminary statements of the essential purport given by Euripidean messengers, and has a πῶς question at 282–3. Rhesus is called στρατηλάτης again at 670; but in tragedy in general, as well as in Rh. (see 173n.), the στρατηλάται mentioned most often are Agamemnon and Menelaus. The use of the same term here may suggest the heartening idea that Rhesus is leading a contingent that is going to counterbalance that commanded by the Atreidae. ἀλκῆς μυρίας: the genitive is found with στρατηλατεῖν instead of the commoner dative at Eur. Her. 61 (δορóς ‘army’ ~ Rh. ἀλκῆς); the verb too is Euripidean (11x; Aesch. 2x, never in Soph.). ἀλκή, etymologically pointing to the idea of ‘warding off’, ‘defending’ (see 249b–51a n.), is here ambiguous between the abstract sense ‘(defensive) force’ (against the Greek siege), and the concrete sense ‘military force’ = ‘army’. The term has the same ambiguous sense at Eur. Or. 690, quoted above, or

290

C O M M E N TA RY 2 7 7 – 2 7 9 Pho. 861–2 βασιλεὺς ... βέβηκε ... πρὸς ἀλκὴν Ἐτεοκλῆς Μυκηνίδα; likewise σθένος at Hom. Il. 18.274 and Soph. Aj. 438. μυρίος ‘numerous’, said of a military force, seems to be exclusively Euripidean: Hec. 606, Pho. 113, TrGF 243.2. A formal parallel for the phrase is Bacch. 11.126 μυρίας ἀλκάς, but there ἀλκαί has the different sense ‘(war) deeds’. στείχει is probably used here in the military sense ‘march in ranks’, etymologically from στίχος, as at Pind. Nem. 9.20, Soph. TrGF 502.3, Eur. Hcld. 933, Pho. 1114; cf. Létoublon (1985) 168–71. φίλος σοι σύμμαχός τε: the shepherd is enthusiastic about Rhesus in large part because he is an ally (a point reiterated at 299 and 314); but whether Rhesus really is a φίλος and can thus be a σύμμαχος of Troy remains seriously in doubt for Hector still at 317–41. The pairing of φιλία and συμμαχία belongs in the language of interstate politics from Hdt. 1.69.2 and 2.181.1 and Thuc. onwards and is frequently found in Xen., fourth-century orators, and Hellenistic inscriptions and historians; see Introduction, pp. 67–70 and Fantuzzi (2011b) 132–5. It is found in tragedy at Soph. Aj. 1053. 278 πατρώιας γῆς ... πέδον: cf. Soph. Aj. 859–60 γῆς ἱερὸν οἰκείας πέδον … πατρῶιον ἑστίας βάθρον, TrGF 202 πατρώιας γῆς ἀγυιαίου πέδον, Eur. TrGF 558.1 γῆς πατρώιας … πέδον, all of them belonging in a salutation addressed to the numinous fatherland, which justifies the high-flown language. Cf. also Aesch. Ag. 503 πατρῶιον οὖδας Ἀργείας χθονός, 1589 πατρῶιον αἱμάξαι πέδον. Our phrase is also a synthesis of familiar tragic phrases. πατρώια γῆ/ γαῖα, a poeticism already attested in Hom. (Od.), Theogn., and Pind., occurs 5x in Aesch., 7x in Soph., and 13x in Eur. γῆς/γαίας πέδον is exclusively tragic: Aesch. 3x, Soph. 2x, Eur. 8x; cf. Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 316. ἐρημώσας πέδον: to ‘desert’ a place may simply mean to ‘leave’ it, as in Eur. Andr. 314 κεἰ μὴ τόδ᾽ ἐκλιποῦσ᾽ ἐρημώσεις πέδον and, possibly, lacunose TrGF 175.1 (Antigone) = TrGFrSel. p. 87 (Antiope). The verb also means ‘lay waste’ or ‘despoil’; and the idea that Rhesus has left his country bereft of young men may possibly be evoked here, as it was evoked for Xerxes’ expedition by the verb κενοῦν at Aesch. Pers. 718 κενώσας πᾶσαν ἠπείρου πλάκα (Fries 219–20). But the immensity of the host that Xerxes marshalled out of Asia had already been depicted in the parodos of Pers., whereas the shepherd has said nothing yet about the size of Rhesus’ army. 279 The Messenger names Rhesus’ father, although Hector did not ask for this information, to confirm that Rhesus is Thracian (δέ continuative). Or the father’s name may be added simply because both nationality and father’s name are usually given when identifying someone; cf., e.g., Hom. Od. 1.180–1, 9.19–21, 504–5, 24.304–5. The inclusion of the father emphasises

291

C O M M E N TA RY 2 7 9 – 2 8 1 Rhesus’ divine origin, in line with the shepherd’s admiration for him; contrast Hom. Il. 10.435, where the father was Eioneus. For the genitive of origin with κικλήσκεσθαι, καλεῖσθαι or ὀνομάζεσθαι, cf. Soph. El. 283–4 πατρὸς … δαῖτ᾽ ἐπωνομασμένην, Eur. Her. 1329–30 ταῦτ᾽ ἐπωνομασμένα / σέθεν, Ion 9 Παλλάδος κεκλημένη, Or. 1008 ἐπώνυμα δεῖπνα Θυέστου, KG I.374–5. For the use with reference to a son, cf. Pind. Pyth. 3.67 Λατοίδα κεκλήμενον ἢ πατέρος, Hdt. 6.88.1 Νικόδρομος Κνοίθου καλεόμενος, Ar. Vesp. 151 πατρὸς νῦν Καπνίου κεκλήσομαι, Theocr. 24.104 κεκλημένος Ἀμφιτρύωνος. The non-Attic Θρῆιξ or Θρήικιος are standard in tragedy, possibly a Homeric Ionism that defamiliarises the everyday Attic Θρᾶι-; cf. Björck (1950) 354–6. 280 In poetry and less frequently in prose (Fournier (1946) 184), verbs of knowing or perceiving and, by extension, thinking or saying and denying sometimes take the participle in agreement with the object or the subject, instead of the usual accusative and infinitive phrases or ὅτι/ὡς + indirect speech (Goodwin (1889) 361, KG II.72). Cf. Rh. 755. This construction occurs particularly in cases where the matter-of-fact reality of the action expressed by the participle is emphasised: perhaps the more objective participle helps to establish a fact while the infinitive is more abstract, ‘did you say that … really …’. Cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 269, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 396, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 532–4, Moorhouse (1982) 318. τιθέντ᾽ … πόδα ‘setting foot.’ The phrase is common in tragedy; cf. Eur. Andr. 546, Supp. 171–2, IT 32, Hel. 1528, Pho. 1721 and TrGF 124.3, parodied by Ar. Th. 1100; also at Rh. 571 τιθεὶς πόδα and 203 ἥσω ... πόδα (with 201– 3n.). But here the periphrasis, highlighting the physical foot, may suggest that Hector finds it hard to believe that Rhesus has really set foot, at last, on Trojan soil – in fact, Hector had despaired of his coming, after his unfulfilled promises and long delay (see 321–6, 396–405). ἐν Τροίαι anticipates the rest that follows the motion (Smyth (1956) 368); it is thus a lectio difficilior to be preferred to ἐς with the accusative. ἔλεξας: the aorist is commonly used in tragedy with verbs of saying to refer to what the interlocutor has just said, especially in rapid dialogue exchange; cf., e.g., Soph. Tr. 1220, Eur. Tro. 262, Hel. 134. It may suggest the instantaneous aspect of the utterance (Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 983) or point to the immediate past of an utterance now concluded (Moorhouse (1982) 196, Lloyd (1999) 44). 281 ‘You know it. You have relieved me of a report twice as long.’ The appropriateness of rhetorical brevity is often emphatically noted in tragedy (e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1296, PV 505, Soph. Aj. 1040, Eur. Med. 1351, Hipp. 704, Hec. 1180, Tro. 87–8, IA 1249, TrGF 28, 696.8), especially by or about messengers (Aesch. Ag. 598 καὶ νῦν τὰ μάσσω μὲν τί δεῖ σέ μοι λέγειν;, Soph. OC 1115–16 καί μοι τὰ πραχθέντ᾽ εἴπαθ᾽ ὡς βράχιστ᾽, ἐπεὶ / ταῖς τηλικαῖσδε σμικρὸς ἐξαρκεῖ λόγος,

292

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 1 – 2 8 2 Eur. Hcld. 784–5 μύθους σοί τε † συντομωτάτους … φέρω, Supp. 566 βούληι συνάψω μῦθον ἐν βραχεῖ τιθείς; (τιθείς Diggle, σέθεν L; cf. Diggle (1969=1994) 18–19), 638–9 λόγου δέ σε / μακροῦ ἀπολύσω (ἀπολύσω Herwerden; ἀποπαύσω L), Hel. 1522 ἐν βραχεῖ μάθηις). Cf. Collard on Eur. Supp. 566 and 638b–40. δὶς τόσου: see 158–60n. ἐκούφισας: a verb typical of tragedy (Eur. 8x, Soph. 4x), it is mainly used elsewhere for heavily oppressive ‘pains’ or ‘evils’. Its use here in connection with the light burden of a speech may be hyperbolic and suggest the shepherd’s deference. In the absence of any other hints of irony in the messenger’s words, we must assume that he is characterised in line with his social inferiority, and it is improbable that his brief reply ‘mocks Hector’s earlier failure to understand’ (Fries 220) – and at Rh. 280 Hector had not failed to understand, but simply asked for a confirmation of the guess that he promptly formulated as soon as he heard that the general of whom the shepherd spoke was Thracian. ἔγνως is an immediate aorist, which especially applies to the act of feeling or comprehension, often the comprehension or acceptance of news, and presents the action of learning as taking place just before the speech act in which this learning is acknowledged; it is absent from Aesch. and especially frequent in Euripides; cf. KG I.163–5, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 330, Moorhouse (1982) 195–6, Lloyd (1999), Finglass on Soph. El. 668. In particular, the second person of the aorist of γιγνώσκειν is commonly used in Eur. to confirm (‘exactly!’) the surmise of a previous speaker, usually standing alone at the beginning of the line: Andr. 883, 920, Hec. 688, El. 617, Ion 1115, Hel. 565 parodied by Ar. Th. 911, Pho. 983, Or. 1131, Ritchie (1964) 253. Eur. Ion 1111–15 closely parallels ἔλεξας … ἔγνως at Rh. 281–2. The ­servant-messenger has come to warn the chorus that Creusa has been sentenced to be stoned (1111–12); they ask for confirmation of what they fear: οἴμοι, τί λέξεις; (1113); then the servant-messenger confirms what they say at 1115 ἔγνως. 282–3 is a πῶς-question like those that usually trigger a long report in Eur.; see 276–7n. But instead of inquiring about the details of the events and requesting a descriptive report in reply (as is usual: Eur. Med. 1134, Hipp. 1171, Andr. 1083, Hec. 515, Supp. 647–8, El. 772–3, Her. 917–18, IT 256–7, Ion 1119, Hel. 1523, Pho. 1086–7, 1354–5), Hector asks ‘how was it possible that, etc.’, and requests a justification of Rhesus’ route. His question thus suggests his doubts about Rhesus’ real intentions. πρὸς Ἴδης ὀργάδας: ὀργάς is a Euripidean word (never elsewhere in tragedy), designating the glades of an unworked and wooded landscape at El.

293

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 2 – 2 8 4 1163–4 ὀρεία τις ὡς λέαιν᾽ ὀργάδων / δρύοχα νεμομένα and the wild mountainside of the Maenads’ revelries at Bacch. 340 and 445; cf. Didym. on Dem. col. 14.3–5 Harding λέγεται τοίνυν ὀργὰς κοινότερον μὲν ἅπαν χωρίον δενδρῶδες οἷον ἄλσος, Harpocr. Lex. ο 27 Keaney ὀργὰς καλεῖται τὰ λοχμώδη καὶ ὀρεινὰ χωρία καὶ οὐκ ἐπεργαζόμενα. The epigraphic evidence of the late fifth and fourth centuries includes two references to ὀργάς as land consecrated to a god and thus not tilled (IG I3.426 col. ii.94, 414 BC; II–III2.204.26, 352 BC). Perhaps it was land kept untilled for the gods in exchange for their making the rest fertile (Parker (1983) 162–5). The term will point here to the wild and uninhabited slopes of Ida in opposition to the large plain traversable by carriages mentioned at Rh. 283. The massif of Ida was often mentioned as pasture for flocks and cows: e.g., Hom. Il. 4.475–6, 11.104–6, 20.91, 21.448–9, HHom.Aphr. 54–5, Cook (1973) 305. πλαγχθείς ‘diverted away from’ with genitive of separation has only the dubious parallel of Aesch. Sept. 784 τῶν … ὀμμάτων ἐπλάγχθη (where ἐπλάγχθη has been suspected, and most MSS introduce ἀπό before the genitive). But the archaising use of genitive, dative, or accusative without preposition is not rare in tragedy; cf. 14n., Pind. Ol. 1.58 εὐφροσύνας ἀλᾶται, Eur. Tro. 640 ἀλᾶται τῆς πάροιθ᾽ εὐπραξἰας (see for a different interpretation of these genitives Bluck (1961) 125–6). Rhesus may seem to have been going astray, if he was heading to Ida when his destination was Troy: the Ida massif is south-east of Troy, whereas Troy is in the north-western part of the Troad. But Rhesus opted for circuitous routes, and also crossed the Propontis at the Bosporus not at the Hellespont (cf. 428–9, 436), possibly so that the Greeks besieging Troy would not be aware of his arrival. ἁμαξιτοῦ: not aspirated in Hom. and Pind., but certainly aspirated in fifth-century Attic; cf. Σ Hom. Il. 18.487 (Herodian.), Forssman (1966) 9–11. In tragedy, the word appears only in Eur. El. 775 and in Soph. OT 716, 730. 284 ‘I do not know exactly, but it is possible to guess’: cf. Gorg. VS 82B11a.22 εἰδὼς ἀκριβῶς ἢ δοξάζων, Antiphon. 6.18 εἰκάζοντας μᾶλλον ἢ σάϕα εἰδότας. οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ἀκριβῶς: a colloquial phrase (1x Ar., 3x Xen., more than 10x Dem.); also at Aesch. PV 328 οὐκ οἶσθ᾽ ἀκριβῶς. εἰκάσαι … πάρα: cf. Aesch. Cho. 976–7 ἐπεικάσαι … πάρεστιν (also Sept. 356), Soph. OC 1504 εἰκάσαι πάρα, 1677 ἔστιν μὲν εἰκάσαι, TrGF 269c.22 εἰκάσαι πάρεστι, Eur. Hel. 421–2 εἰκάσαι / πάρεστι. For the distinction between conjecture and sense perception, cf., e.g., Eur. Hcld. 677 ἠικάζομεν ταῦτ᾽· οὐ γὰρ ἐξηκούομεν (a servant-messenger speaks), and Tro. 163 οὐκ οἶδ᾽, εἰκάζω δ᾽ ἄταν (from Hecuba reporting the news of the imminent departure of the Greeks). So too the charioteer emphasises what is conjectural in his report, and contrasts it with what he had seen at 800–1.

294

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 4 – 2 8 6 γε μήν: asseverative μήν reinforces the opposition between contrasting assertions, while γε emphasises that the statement in which it belongs is in implicit or explicit contrast with another (Wakker (1994) 308 n. 14, (1997) 224–5). 285–6 Transmitted ἐμβαλεῖν ‘introduce’, transitive, is construed with the object στρατόν = Rhesus’ army, and the subject must be an unexpressed indefinite τινα, as interpreted by Kovacs 385, Liapis 140–1, and Fries 223. The shepherd elaborates his conjectural justification for the mountainous and circuitous route of Rhesus: ‘My guess is that introducing an army into flatlands (πεδία) which one has heard to be brimming with enemy troops is no light matter.’ His logic is feeble, as nowhere in the text is Rhesus said to have heard that the flatlands are brimming with enemies, and in fact the Greeks are cooped up by the ships; besides, the alleged gravity of the arrival of an army at night time does not automatically explain why Rhesus had deviated from the level high-road and opted for a mountainous route (Diggle (1994) 515). The feebleness of the shepherd’s conjecture led Diggle to correct ἐμβαλεῖν to ἐσβαλεῖν. With ἐσβαλεῖν, used in the sense ‘come upon’, the subject to be understood is ‘me’ = the shepherd; στρατόν is what the shepherd comes upon, and the noise with which the land is full is the noise that comes from Rhesus’ army (290–1, 308). The shepherd would thus be speaking of his own reaction of fright and flight on coming upon the army of Rhesus, and justifies in terms of emotional distress his lack of information about Hector’s question (Fries 223 suggests that ἐσβαλεῖν may also be interpreted in the sense ‘throw an army into a place’ = ‘invade’, but this sense makes it a synonym of ἐμβαλεῖν, and leaves us with the problem of the weak logic of the charioteer’s attempt at justifying Rhesus’ itinerary). Diggle’s emendation gives the shepherd’s answer a perfect logic, and the objection of Liapis (2011) 61–2 that ἐσβαλεῖν ‘come upon’ is used with the accusative of the place entered (Eur. Cycl. 99, Hipp. 1198, Andr. 968, Bacch. 1045, TrGF 779.1), not of a person or a collective group of persons such as στρατός, cannot be an issue if we keep in mind that Rhesus’ army might be considered in terms of the large area occupied by its many soldiers, so that ἐσβαλεῖν στρατόν is not appreciably different from, e.g., Eur. Cycl. 99 πόλιν … ἐσβαλεῖν. οὔτι φαῦλον ‘not at all easy’: cf. Eur. El. 760 οὔτοι βασιλέα ϕαῦλον κτανεῖν. The adjective occurs more than 30x in Eur., twice in Soph. and once in Aesch. κλυόντα aorist (West (1984) 178), not present κλύοντα (MSS), as at 109; see 109–10a n. πολεμίας χερός: the phrase may mean in its primary sense ‘strength of the enemy’, a sense already found in Pind. Nem. 4.55, Eur. Alc. 506, Med. 1322. But χείρ may also mean here ‘military force’ in the concrete sense ‘soldiers’, as often in Hdt. or Thuc. and at Eur. Hcld. 337. At that precise moment the

295

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 6 – 2 8 8 Greeks were cooped up near their ships rather than moving around in the plain (Diggle (1994) 515); but the shepherd on Ida and Rhesus did not necessarily have up-to-date information about the war. 287–9 δ(έ), continuative, marks the transition at 287 from the shepherd’s guess about Rhesus’ route to the rest of his report, just as, at 296, it marks the transition from the first part of the report, the shepherd’s and the other rustics’ reactions on seeing the army (287–95), to the description of the army itself (296–316). ἀγρώσταις: see 266n. Ἰδαῖον λέπας = Eur. TrGF 411.2 and Andr. 294–5 (where λέπας is the dwelling place of Paris as a shepherd on Ida). In both passages and Rh., as well as in Bacch. 677, 751, 1045 (where λέπας includes pastures), and Pho. 24 (where the λέπας οf Cithaeron includes a λειμών), λέπας does not mean ‘bare rock’, which would be unsuitable for grazing, but is a synecdoche referring to the typical upland mixture of pasture, rocks, and bushes (Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 677–8, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 295, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 24). αὐτόρριζον ἑστίαν χθονός probably presupposes the tradition that before the foundation of Troy there was an earlier settlement on the low foothills that fringe Ida. This tradition is reported by Hom. Il. 20.216–18, quoted above in 229–30n., and was frequently referred to: Hellan. FGrHist 4F25a = EGM F 25a, Pl. Leg. 681e, Dion. Hal. AR 1.61.4–5, Strabo 13.1.25 (592–3), Aristocles Mess. T 5.4 Chiesara. αὐτόρριζος may mean here (1) ‘self-rooted’/‘self-founded’, practically ‘autochthonous’, emphasising the spontaneous nature of the primeval settlement on Ida. This is the commonest interpretation (e.g., Brodaeus ap. Stephanus ed. ‘Pars altera’ p. 34, LSJ, Porter 59, Fries 224), although a reflexive meaning of αὐτόρριζος is poorly attested (Fries 224 quotes Opp. Hal. 2.465, Nonn. Dion. 40.470, Par. 1.64, 19.224; but in Opp. the meaning of the epithet, qualifying the weapon of the swordfish, is anything but certain). Alternatively, αὐτόρριζος ἑστία χθονός may mean (2a) ‘hearth which is the very root of this country’ (DGE) or similarly (2b) ‘hearth of this country which includes its root’. The meaning (2b), which I favour, would be in line with the most common sense of the word, ‘together with the roots’, found at Diod. Sic. 4.12.5, Babr. 36.1, Ael. Nat. an. 5.55, 14.27, 17.29, Nonn. Dion. 21.104, 25.475, 45.201, 4.185; likewise αὐτόπρεμνος in Aesch. Eum. 401, Soph. Ant. 714; see also the comitative datives Hom. Il. 9.541–2 χαμαὶ βάλε δένδρεα μακρὰ / αὐτῆισιν ῥίζηισι and Aesch. PV 1046–7 χθόνα δ᾽ ἐκ πυθμένων / αὐταῖς ῥίζαις πνεῦμα κραδαίνοι. Meaning (1) would look back to the origin or nature of the primeval settlement on Ida; (2a) and (2b) look forward to Troy, which had its origins in that settlement. ἑστία also probably points to the latter perspective. Ida is to the Trojan land the ‘geographic focal point’ that the ἑστία is to the

296

C O M M E N TA RY 2 8 8 – 2 9 0 house and the κοινὴ ἑστία to the polis (Fries 224; also, e.g., Vernant (1983) 128 and Malkin (1987) 124–5), the original seat of the sacred fire which was transferred to Troy, in a symbolic rite of continuity that was a longstanding feature of colonisation (Malkin (1987) 114–34). The idea of ῥίζα, frequently used for ‘that from which anything springs as from a root’ (LSJ), may specifically suggest here the idea of colonial derivation and continuity: Thera is the ‘root’ from which the pentapolis of Cyrene sprang in Pind. Pyth. 4.15 (cf. Pyth. 9.8 on Libya as one of the ‘roots’ from which the ‘mainland’ of the inhabited world sprang). The possibility that our passage intimate the idea of colonial derivation counts against the interpretation ‘hearth rooted in the earth’ of Liapis 141 (after Sheppard (1914)), which points only to the shepherds’ ‘natural residence, such as a cave or the hollow of a tree’ and fails to appreciate the presentation of Ida as ‘aboriginal settlement’ of Troy. χθονός: for χθών ~ ἥδε χθών, namely the Troad, see 113–14n. δρυμὸν … ἔνθηρον: accusative of place or extent (KG I.312–23), with μολών, ‘coming through the thickets full of wild beasts in the night’. Ida is commonly described as rich in forests: e.g., Il. 21.449 (ὑλήεις), Eur. Andr. 284 (ὑλοκόμον νάπος), Hec. 631 (ὕλαν), Theocr. 17.9 (πολύδενδρον). μήτηρ θηρῶν was one of its formulaic descriptions in epic (Il. 8.47, 14.283, 15.151, HHom. Aphr. 68). δρυμός ‘thicket’ is the vegetation where wild animals would be expected to dwell: Aesop. 49.2 ἐρχομένου αὐτοῦ εἴς τινα δρυμὸν εὑρίσκει λέοντα, Eur. Hipp. 1128–9 ὦ δρυμὸς ὄρεος ὅθι κυνῶν / ὠκυπόδων μέτα θῆρας ἔναιρεν, Theocr. 1.72 χὠκ δρυμοῖο λέων, 25.134–5 ὁπότ’ ἐκ λασίοιο … προγενοίατο θῆρες / ἐς πεδίον δρυμοῖο, Agatharch. 54 (hunters) ἑστᾶσιν ἐν δρυμῶι παρὰ τὰς τῶν θηρίων διεξόδους. ἔνθηρος is a tragic word, first attested in Aesch. Ag. 562 (metaphorical, of ‘verminous’ hair), Soph. Ph. 698 (metaphorical, of the sick foot, which is ἔνθηρος ‘possessed by a wild beast’), and, with the same sense ‘brimming with wild beasts’ as in Rh., Soph. Ichn. TrGF 314.222, Eur. TrGF 669.2. 290–1a ῥέων: the metaphor is commonly used in tragedy of marching armies, which are as unstoppable as a river. Cf. Aesch. Pers. 88 μεγάλωι ῥεύματι ϕωτῶν, 412 ῥεῦμα Περσικοῦ στρατοῦ, Sept. 80 ῥεῖ πολὺς ὅδε λεώς, Soph. Ant. 128–9 σϕας ἐσιδὼν / πολλῶι ῥεύματι προσνισομένους, Eur. IT 1437 ῥεῦμα … στρατοῦ, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 87–92. πολλῆι … ἠχῆι recalls perhaps the Homeric dative of manner ἠχῆι θεσπεσίηι, which refers to the noise of groups of soldiers or people in seven of its nine occurrences. Θρήικιος: cf. 279. The shepherd had spoken Thracian with the scouts of the army, as he reports at 297.

297

C O M M E N TA RY 2 9 1 – 2 9 7 291b–3 When Agesilaus attacked the Acarnanians in 389, all their cattle were driven off to remote parts in the mountains to prevent their being captured by Agesilaus’ army (Xen. Hell. 4.6.4). Hell. 4.5.1 also reports that when Agesilaus was attacking, the Corinthians temporarily managed to save their cattle by driving them to the mountainous peninsula of Piraeum. θάμβει … ἐκπλαγέντες: the two words, and their cognates, are frequently paired: Plut. Phoc. 28.2 σὺν ἐκπλήξει καὶ θάμβει τῶν πολεμίων, Aem. Paul. 34.1, Mor. 36e, Hesych. Lex. α 479 Latte-Cunn., ε 627 ἐθάμβησεν· ἐθαύμασεν, ἐξεπλάγη, θ 75 Latte. θάμβος and θαμβεῖν express extreme wonder at what is beyond the ordinary – either numinous or frightening – and in Hom. are reserved for groups of people (Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 570, Aubriot (1989)). In tragedy, the noun is found elsewhere at Soph. TrGF 730f.9(?) and Eur. Hec. 179. ἵεμεν: imperfect of attempted action (Goodwin (1889) 12). μή τις Ἀργείων μόληι ‘lest some Argive should come’ conveys a mixture of fear (cf. θάμβει … ἐκπλαγέντες) and negative purpose (prevention of the plunder). λεηλατήσων καὶ … πορθήσων: πορθεῖν is the mot juste for the activity of looting where troops are seeking booty and provisions, vs the destruction of the enemy’s cities, properties, or crops. When troops are described as both plundering and devastating, πορθεῖν is usually accompanied by some other verb explicitly designating destruction (Hanson (1998) 187–8). This specific sense of πορθεῖν, common in tragedy, is here reinforced by λεηλατήσων, from λεία ‘booty’, which is rare in tragedy (Soph. Aj. 343 and Eur. Hec. 1143). The same synonymous pairing is perhaps a military idiom, found at Hell. Oxy. 21.1, 21.5, Polyb. 4.26.4, Diod. Sic. 12.34.3, Plut. Cam. 23.1, Herodian. 3.9.3. 294–7 and the following question 298–9 apply the usual convention of Attic tragedy, whereby speeches in non-Attic dialects or in non-Greek languages are turned into Attic, and the audience is made aware that the language of the original speech was different either through a statement to that effect, as here, or through the inclusion of a few non-Attic or non-Greek words (the second device is more common in Aesch. and Soph. than in Eur.; cf. Bacon (1961) 117); only occasionally in comedy are such speeches in foreign languages or in non-Attic dialects mimicked in order to convey their foreign origin (Colvin (1999) 74–89). Our lines imply that the shepherd was bilingual. This comes as no surprise in the light of the plurilingualism that Hom. ascribes to the Trojans and their allies: cf. Il. 2.803–4 ‘there are many allies about the great city of Priam and language differs from language among the scattered nations’, 4.437–8, Watkins (1986) 51–2. In particular, the Thracian language (or rather Thracian dialects) and Phrygian have been assumed in the past to be languages close

298

C O M M E N TA RY 2 9 4 – 2 9 7 to each other, although linguists have more recently emphasised their substantial differences (R.A. Crossland in CAH III.1.848–9, E.C. Polomé in CAH III.1.888, Brixhe and Panayotou (1994)). However, Phrygians, Trojans, and peoples of Thracian origin lived close to one another in the Propontis, and thus had opportunities for linguistic contact. A character in Menander (PCG 359) observes: οἱ Θρᾶκες … / Τρῶες καλοῦνται· πάντα νῦν ἤδη ᾽σθ᾽ ὁμοῦ – it remains obscure in what sense Thracian and Trojan were equated, but the fragment proves that ‘the kinship between the two peoples was especially felt in the heyday of Macedonian expansion’ (Liapis 144). According to a tradition widespread in the ancient world, Thracians were thought to have spread into Anatolia from Macedonia and Thrace; cf., e.g., Hdt. 7.73.1 ‘according to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time that they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name Βρίγες᾽; Xanth. FGrHist 765F14–15; Conon, Narr. 1 Brown; Strabo 7.3.2 (295), 10.3.16 (471) and in particular 12.4.4, quoted below. Abydos, on the border between the Troad and Mysia, was occupied by Thracians after the Trojan War (Strabo 13.1.22 (591)), until it was colonised by Miletus. And the population of Mysia in general, bordering on the Troad to the west and on Phrygia to the south-east, was considered to be of Thracian origin (cf. Strabo 12.4.4 ‘it is difficult to mark the boundaries between the Bithynians and the Phrygians and the Mysians … one might conjecture that all these tribes were Thracian … because the people on either side do not differ much from one another’); the ancestors of the Bithynians on the southern coast of the Black Sea were also of Thracian origin (Pherec. FGrHist 3F27 = EGM F27, Hdt. 7.75.2), so that, according to Hdt. 3.90.2 and Xen. An. 6.4.1, the coast of the Euxine from Byzantium to Heracleia was called ‘Thrace-in-Asia’. The names of Thracian tribes that evoke the ethnic ‘Phrygian’ (Brygoi, Briges; cf. Hdt. 7.73.1 quoted above, Strabo 7.3.2 (295), Petrova (1998)) and the toponym ‘Garden of Midas’ (Midas was the Greek form of the name of the most famous Phrygian king) near the Macedonian Mt Bermius (Hdt. 8.138.3, Strabo 7 F 25 Radt) also prove that this tradition was rooted in historical reality and that a cultural corridor had long been open between the Northern Balkans and the Propontis (Vassileva (1998)). Alternatively, the Paeonians of Thrace presented themselves to Darius as colonists of the Trojan Teucrians (Hdt. 5.13.2, Strabo 7 F 17a Radt). In historical terms, this migration may have taken place during the upheavals associated with the collapse of some major centres of Western Asian civilisation at the end of the Bronze Age (= end of the second millennium BC), but may also be a construction of Hdt. and Xanthus (Drews (1993)). Epigraphical onomastic evidence also shows that Thracians were still a significant component of the populations of Cyzicus, Cius, Nicaea, Prusa, and Nicomedia in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. There is no doubt that at least during the first millennium BC

299

C O M M E N TA RY 2 9 4 – 2 9 6 Thracian was a language widely spoken in north-western Anatolia as well as in the south-eastern part of the Balkans (Brixhe and Panayotou (1997) 184–5). 294–5 πρὶν δὴ … φόβου: δή ‘marks the decisive point’ (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 1147). πρίν ‘until’, here equivalent to ἔστε or ἕως with indicative (also at Rh. 568), is common in prose only with a negative main clause; with an affirmative main clause, the infinitive is commoner, but that would focus attention on the main clause, whereas with the indicative the stress is on the event of the πρίν-clause as a turning-point: ‘but then this event happened’ (Goodwin (1889) 245–6, Moorhouse (1982) 298, Dawe on Soph. OT 776). It is never attested in Hom., but occurs at HHom.Ap. 357; in tragedy Aesch. PV 481 has πρίν with the indicative after negative/affirmative main clauses; Soph. OT 776 after an affirmative one; only Eur. has πρίν with the indicative relatively often after an affirmative main clause: Alc. 128, Med. 1173, Andr. 1147, Hec. 131, IA 489, TrGF 696.15. δι᾽ ὤτων γῆρυν … ἐδεξάμεσθα: δέχεσθαι refers to hearing also, e.g., at Rh. 4, Eur. Med. 173–5 ἐς ὄψιν τὰν ἁμετέραν / ἔλθοι μύθων τ᾽ αὐδαθέντων / δέξαιτ᾽ ὀμϕάν, Hipp. 647–8 μήτε προσϕωνεῖν τινα / μήτ᾽ ἐξ ἐκείνων ϕθέγμα δέξασθαι πάλιν, El. 110 ἤν τι δεξώμεσθ’ ἔπος, Bacch. 1086 ὠσὶν ἠχὴν οὐ σαϕῶς δεδεγμέναι, Callim. HArt. 63. δι᾽ ὤτων is common in tragedy: Aesch. Cho. 56, 451, Soph. OT 1387, El. 737, Ant. 1188, Eur. Med. 1139. γῆρυς, ‘articulated expression’ in general, of voice or song (in the latter sense at Rh. 549, 609), refers to a national language in its single Homeric occurrence (Il. 4.437–8 οὐ γὰρ πάντων (of the Trojans) ἦεν ὁμὸς θρόος οὐδ᾽ ἴα γῆρυς, / ἀλλὰ γλῶσσ᾽ ἐμέμικτο), as it does here and at Ap. Rh. 4.731 Κολχίδα γῆρυν ἱεῖσα. γηρύεσθαι occurs twice in Hes., but γῆρυς is not attested between Hom. and tragedy; 3x in Soph., 7x in Eur., never in Aesch. (and never in prose; once in high-flown Ar. Av. 233). μετέστημεν φόβου: line-endings consisting of quadrisyllabic forms of μεθιστάναι followed by an iambic noun in the genitive are typically Euripidean: Alc. 21 μεταστῆσαι βίου, IT 991 μεταστῆσαι πόνων, 1177 μεταστήσω ϕόνου, Hel. 856 μεταστήτω κακῶν, 1442 μετάστησον κακῶν, Pho. 75 μεθίσταται θρόνων, Or. 133 μεταστήσουσ’ ὕπνου, Bacch. 944 μεθέστηκας ϕρενῶν; once in Aesch. (Eum. 900 μεθίσταμαι κότου), never in Sophocles. 296–7 ‘And I went and questioned the scouts looking for the path ahead of their lord, addressing them in Thracian language.’ ἄνακτος Hector was called ἄναξ ‘king’ by Aeneas (130) and the shepherd-messenger (264); Rhesus receives the title ἄναξ here for the first time, later from Hector (407), from the watchmen of the chorus (465), and from the charioteer (733, 747, 767). The shepherd-messenger, who admires Rhesus from the start, will have been eager to give him the royal title. Their matching

300

C O M M E N TA RY 2 9 6 – 2 9 9 titles (accepted by Hector at 407) give Rhesus and Hector an identical royal dimension, and make it credible that they should be equals in their later debate. There is no good reason to emend ἄνακτος, e.g., to ἔναντα (Morstad (1827) 20 n. 2), followed by Kovacs 385; the shepherd may have guessed that the leader of the army was in a position of high power (Fries 227) or Rhesus may have been called ἄναξ by the Thracian scouts in the answer to his question at 298–9. Double genitives (here possessive and objective or defining) are more common in prose; for tragedy, cf., e.g., Soph. Aj. 54 λείας ἄδαστα βουκόλων ϕρουρήματα, 732 ἀνδρῶν γερόντων ἐν ξυναλλαγῆι λόγου, Eur. TrGF 752h.21 ἐν Διὸς λειμῶνι Νεμεάδος χθον[ός, Wilamowitz (1895) II.46–8, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 135–6. προυξερευνητὰς ὁδοῦ has a literary precedent in Eur. Pho. 92 προυξερευνήσω στίβον (a slave offers to reconnoitre before Antigone ventures out of the house into public view), but both Eur. and Rh. may presuppose technical military phraseology: compare, for the practice of scouting, Xen. Cyr. 5.4.4 προδιερευνᾶσθαι, 6.3.2 διερευνητής, Aen. Tact. 15.5 προεξερευνᾶν, Onas. 6.7 and Dion. Hal. AR 9.19.1 διερευνᾶσθαι τὰς ὁδούς. Here προ- stresses that Rhesus’ scouts operated, as usual, in advance of the main body of the troops (another common term for scouts was πρόδρομοι). On the absence of scouts in the action of the Il., in general the difference between the poetics of the war in the Il. (face-to-face combat in the open field) and Rh. (intelligence and deception), and the relevance of scouting in fourth-century military practice and historiography, see Introduction, pp. 63–4. διερευνᾶσθαι τὰς ὁδούς in Onas. and Dion. Hal. quoted above favours ὁδοῦ of V over v.l. στρατοῦ. ἀνιστόρησα is mainly used in tragedy in the fifth and fourth century (and 1x in Theophr. CP 1.5.5); not attested before Aesch. PV 963, Soph. 4x, Eur. 6x. προσφθέγμασιν: ‘addresses’ (Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 876). The term is used for an utterance that states the Greek identity of the interlocutor in Soph. Ph. 235. It is another typical tragic word, not attested before Aesch. (3x, Soph. 2x, Eur. 10x), and not again before Lycophr. Al. 687. 298–9 ‘Who is the general – and what is his father’s name – who comes to the city as an ally for the sons of Priam?’ By addressing them in Thracian the shepherd had already acknowledged that the army was Thracian – and thus not an enemy force, but a potential ally of Troy. The three pieces of information commonly given to establish identity: nationality, name, and paternity had all featured at 279–80. Oratio recta is common in messengers’ reports, where it usually lends emphasis to the phrases that the messenger deems to be of special importance; often these are his own words (De Jong (1991) 138). But it is not certain that Rh. 298–9 are a quotation, since present στείχει would also be apposite in an indirect question (Cropp (2015) 160). τίνος κεκλημένος belongs to the messenger’s language; cf. 279.

301

C O M M E N TA RY 2 9 8 – 3 0 1 στείχει: the same verb was used just before, at 296, but with a different subject; cf. Eur. Andr. 1090–1 διαστείχων πόλιν /… ηὔδα λόγους (direct speech follows: ὁρᾶτε τοῦτον, ὃς διαστείχει, etc.). For such repetitions in tragedy cf. Jackson (1955) 220–2. Πριαμίδαισι: the ‘royal family’; see 167n. 300 ‘And when I heard all I wished to know’: cf. Soph. Ph. 1315–16 ὧν … σου τυχεῖν ἐϕίεμαι / ἄκουσον. 301b–8 A laudatory description of the armour and horses of Rhesus also features in Il. 10. After being captured by Odysseus and Diomedes, Dolon tried to save his life by informing them of the target of their raid on the Trojan camp, and stressed how valuable it was (435–40): τοῦ δὴ καλλίστους ἵππους ἴδον ἠδὲ μεγίστους· / λευκότεροι χιόνος, … / ἅρμα δέ οἱ χρυσῶι τε καὶ ἀργύρωι εὖ ἤσκηται· / τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια πελώρια θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι / ἤλυθ᾽ ἔχων. Rh. splits that description into (1) the messenger’s report here and (2) the enthusiastic comments of the chorus at 346–56 (especially on the horses) and 370–4 (on the armour). The shepherd is clearly an admirer of Rhesus’ grandeur, but in his description he tries to be mostly objective, as tragic messengers usually aim to be, and he has only a brief optimistic prediction about the superiority of Rhesus to Achilles at 314–16. He does not go too far in his hint at Rhesus’ superhuman appearance at 301 ὥστε δαίμονα, which is a simile and does not imply an outright deification. By contrast, the divine nature of Rhesus is fully stated in the chorus’ praise of his divine origins at Rh. 349–54, in their identification of Rhesus with Zeus at 355 and with Ares at 385, and statement about his invincibility at 375–9. The relatively restrained admiration of the shepherd is magnified by the enthusiastic praise of the watchmen. 301b–2 ὁρῶ is a historic present – contrast the past ἔστην in the same line and ἔκληιε at 304. It re-enacts the original vision, and shares it with the interlocutor. Long. Subl. 25 comments on these presents: ‘if you introduce events in past time as happening at the present moment, the passage will be transformed from a narrative (διήγησιν) into vivid actuality (ἐναγώνιον πρᾶγμα)’. Eur., who includes messenger-speeches in fifteen of his tragedies, has historic presents in each speech (as many as 14x in Her. and in Ph., as few as 1x in Hel.: data from De Jong (1991) 185–9; cf. Rassow (1883) 41–2). At the same time, ὁρῶ stresses the fact that the messenger was an eyewitness (De Jong (1991) 44). It belongs to the typical lexicon of Euripidean messengers, and occurs most frequently at the beginning of a description: cf. Supp. 653 (where 652 ἔστην θεατής, like Rh. ἔστην, emphasises that the messenger concentrates on the act of vision), IT 1345 (ὁρῶμεν), Pho. 1099 (εἰσορῶμεν), 1165, Or. 871, 879, Bacch. 680, TrGF 145.1. ὥστε δαίμονα is an adaptation, unparalleled elsewhere, of the epic formula δαίμονι ἶσος οf Il. 5.438 = 459, 884, 16.705, 786, 20.493, 21.18, 21.227, which always refers to warriors acting with superhuman valour; HHom.Dem.

302

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 3 – 3 0 4 235 extends the comparison to the non-military sphere. ὥστε = ὥσπερ, as in 618, is typically used in tragedy to introduce brief comparative phrases with the governing verb understood; cf. Denniston (1954) 526–7, 588, Diggle (1987=1994) 321–3. ἑστῶτ᾽ ἐν ἵπποις Θρηικίοις τ᾽ ὀχήμασιν, transmitted by Λ, probably combines the Homeric hendiadic phrases ἑσταότ᾽ ἔν θ᾽ ἵπποισι καὶ ἅρμασι κολλητοῖσιν (Il. 4.366 = 11.198) and σὺν/παρ᾽/πρόσθ᾽ ἵπποι(σ)ιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν (Il. 4.297, 5.107, 5.219, 5.794, 9.384, 18.237; also Od. 4.533 ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσϕιν); it may also be reminiscent of their adaptation by Aesch. Supp. 182–3 ὄχλον … / λεύσσω (cf. Rh. ὁρῶ) ξὺν ἵπποις καμπύλοις τ᾽ ὄχημασιν, one of the few passages in tragedy where the common epic hendiadys ‘horses and chariot’ occurs. The text of Δ, ἱππείοισι Θρη(ι)κίοις ὄχοις, conforms in a straightforward way to tragic language, where in place of the Homeric hendiadys ‘horses and chariot’ the chariot is often given the epithet ἵππειος/ἱππικός, as at Rh. 416: Soph. El. 740 ἱππικῶν ὀχημάτων, Eur. Alc. 66–7 ἵππειον μετὰ / ὄχημα, Hcld. 845 ἵππειον δίϕρον, Hipp. 1355 ὄχημ᾽ ἵππειον, IT 214 ἱππείοις … ἐν δίφροισι, TrGF 46a.6 πω[λι]κοῖς ὄχοις, Timoth. PMG 791.190–1 τετράορον ἵππων / ὄχημ(α). The hendiadic formulas of Homer and their Aeschylean modification may have been used purposefully in a play heavily dependent on Il. 10, rather than the tragic phrases without hendiadys. 303–4 πλάστιγξ means primarily ‘scale of a balance’, here a ‘horse collar’, which hangs from the yoke as the scales hang from the beam (and yoke and beam have a similar form, so that ζυγόν could mean the beam of the balance); cf. Chantraine (2009) 878. It has the sense of ‘collar’ at Aesch. Cho. 290, where it refers to the bronze collar by which Orestes’ neck is envisaged as tied to a pole in the punishment for assassins called ἀποτυμπανισμός, which was practised in Athens; cf. Battezzato (1992) 71–4, Eidinow (2016) 238, 241–2; differently Livrea (1990). As πλάστιγξ is a collar that presupposes connection to the yoke (cf. αὐχένα ζυγηφόρον), it is probably tantamount to the λέπαδνον that the horse wore around its neck (Vigneron (1968) I.111–13) and cannot be made of solid gold but must be a leather-like strap decorated with gold (usually the λέπαδνον was made of leather, as it pressed upon the windpipe). The interest of Rh. in the ‘golden’ trappings (χρυσῆ; cf. also 305 χρυσοκολλήτοις) is new: in Il. 10, Dolon said nothing about the trappings of Rhesus’ horses. The detail is probably to be connected to a real peculiarity of Thracian culture. Golden decorations for horse-trappings are not common in the Greek tradition, but have frequently been found in Thracian tombs; in some cases these Thracian trappings display models, motifs, and techniques characteristic of the best contemporary Greek-style jewels for human adornment, such as filigree, granulation, and enamel; cf. Berger (1982) 287–90, Tonkova (2011) and (2015) 219.

303

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 3 – 3 0 5 ζυγηφόρον: a tragic word, attested elsewhere only at Eur. Hipp. 1183, Her. 121 and Aesch. TrGF 465.1–2 (uncertain adscription) πώλους τέσσαρας ζυγηϕόρους / ϕιμοῖσιν αὐλωτοῖσιν ἐστομωμένας. ἔκληιε here means ‘confined’; cf. Eur. Andr. 501–2 χέρας … βρόχοισι κεκληιμένα. χιόνος ἐξαυγεστέρων In Hom. Il. 10.437 the horses of Rhesus are λευκότεροι χιόνος. Rh. here replaces Homeric ‘white’ with an adjective, ἐξαυγής, that emphasises the reflection of the dim nocturnal light by the snow-white horses. Both εὐαυγεστέρων (unnecessary emendation by Blaydes (1901) 4) and even more the transmitted hapax ἐξαυγεστέρων (where ἐξ- may not be ‘intensifying’ (Fries 230), but point to the idea that the whiteness ‘glances off’ the horses’ bodies) links the radiance of the horses to that of snow: cf. Eur. Bacch. 662 λευκῆς χιόνος … εὐαγεῖς (εὐαυγεῖς Hemsterhuys) βολαί, Diod. Sic. 26.1.3 διὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν τῆς κατὰ τὴν χιόνα λευκότητος ἀμαυρουμένη ἡ ὄψις τῆς ἀκριβοῦς θεωρίας ἀποστερεῖται (also 17.82.5 λευκὴν καὶ ἀνταυγῆ τὴν χιόνα). The slight change in Rh. from just whiteness to whiteness plus its radiance explains why the horses attracted the shepherd’s attention and intimates why they were visible in the obscurity (like the female breast whose white radiance prevails over obscurity in Chaerem. TrGF 71F14.5–6 χρῶμα δ’ ὄμμασιν / λευκὸν μελαίνης ἔργον ἀντηύγει σκιᾶς). At 617 Rhesus’ horses are, likewise, described as both λευκαί and διαπρεπεῖς ἐν εὐφρόνηι. 305–6a πέλτη … χρυσοκολλήτοις τύποις: Rhesus was given τεύχεα … χρύσεια πελώρια at Hom. Il. 10.439. Here his πέλτη has ‘inlaid golden blazons’, while at 370–2 it seems made of solid gold (τὰν ζάχρυσον … πέλταν). Thracian Diomedes is also ζαχρύσου Θρηικίας πέλτης ἄναξ at Eur. Alc. 498 (‘lord of the richly-golden Thracian targe’, with Parker ad loc., not ‘shield-bearing lord of Thrace rich in gold’ with Kovacs (1994) 205). The πέλτη was usually a small shield, most often crescent-shaped, made of wicker or wood and faced with animal hide (sometimes with a thin bronze overlay; cf. Xen. An. 5.2.29, Polyaen. 7.39). It was lighter and smaller than the hoplite shield, and did not have the bronze rim that characterised the latter, according to Σ Rh. 311, quoting Arist. F 504.4 Gigon, and Timaeus, Lex. Plat. π 19 Ruhnken. Rhesus’ πέλτη, however, may have had an external face of bronze (not mentioned) sumptuously inlaid with gold, or a cut-out gold silhouette may have been attached to the wooden facing. The solid structure and precious material of Rhesus’ πέλτη would be appropriate: the belongings of gods or humans of royal status are commonly presented as golden. Compare Telamon in Eur. TrGF 530.1–2 and Diomedes in Eur. Alc. 498, quoted above, who hold shields of gold or with gold decorations. The πέλτη was often mentioned as a distinctively Thracian piece of armour: Hdt. 7.75.1, Eur. Alc. cit., TrGF 369.4, Ar. Ach. 160 (cf. 155–6), Lys. 563, Thuc. 2.29.5, Xen. Mem. 3.9.2. Mainly on the basis of Rh. 487 πέλτην

304

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 5 έρεῖσαι and the reference to the πόρπαξ at 384, Liapis (2009b) 74–5 (~ Liapis 202) maintains that the πέλται here and at 410, 487 were not of the same size as Thracian ones, which were small and light, but matched instead the Macedonian πέλται, which had a diameter of 66 to 74 cm, and were slightly less heavy and less large than the hoplite shield with its diameter of 80 to 100 cm (they are first depicted from about 400 BC; cf. Liampi (1998)). Similarly, Fries 231 and 261 regards the πέλτη mentioned in Rh. as the larger and heavier Macedonian shield with this name. In fact a reform of the Macedonian shield took place under Archelaus or Philip II, when the πέλτη may have been brought into line with the Iphicratean peltast’s equipment (for which see 311–13n.). Polyaen. 4.2.10 probably reflects the original arming of the Macedonian army when, in relation to an expedition of Philip II in 359–358, he speaks of the infantry as armed with πέλται, whereas in 341 Dem. 9.49 specifically speaks of Macedonian ‘hoplites’ as distinct from Philip’s usual troops of light-armed, and in the so-called ‘Alexander’s Sarcophagus’ of the late fourth century, the phalangites of Alexander seem heavily equipped as hoplites. Thus the late-fourth-century inscriptions from Athens and Lindos, where the shields of Macedonian infantrymen are called πέλται, and Plut. Aem. Paul. 19.2, who speaks of πέλται with reference to the shields of Macedonian infantry in the age of Perseus, may be using the term for a shield larger than the Thracian πέλτη but smaller than the original hoplite shield; cf. Anderson (1970) 131, 306; Griffith (1981) 161–2; Sekunda (2010) 449–50; Liampi (1998) 3–4, 15–16. Rh. may be doing the same, and in that case Rhesus’ πέλτη will be the heavier Macedonian shield of the age of Philip II. χρυσοκόλλητος ‘inlaid or soldered with gold’ (also at Eur. Pho. 2, certainly interpolated), like the equivalent χρυσόκολλος (Soph. TrGF 378.3, Eur. TrGF 587), is a word typical of Attic tragedy, also re-used paratragically at Antiph. PCG 105.2, 234.2 (Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 2), and not attested elsewhere down to the Imperial age. Parallel formations like λιθοκόλλητος and ῥινοκόλλητος are also first attested in Attic drama (and ῥινοκόλλητος remains unattested elsewhere): λιθο- Soph. Tr. 1261, Men. PCG 275.1; ῥινο- Soph. TrGF 314.375 (satyr drama). Cf. Fraenkel (1965) 234. The image of a soldier on the shield of Polynices and its inscription at Aesch. Sept. 644 and 660 were qualified with similar compounds: χρυσήλατος and χρυσότευκτος. τύποις means ‘images shaped by hammering or carving’ (from the same root as τύπτειν), as at, e.g., Aesch. Supp. 282 (cf. Marenghi (1959) 321, Sommerstein (1977) 69–70) and Eur. TrGF 752c.2, 928a.3. ἐπ᾽ ὤμων: when a warrior was not in combat, he threw his shield over his left shoulder so that it hung down his back on a carrying strap or baldric (τελαμών). His hands were thus free and his left arm no longer bore the weight of the shield; in this position, it may also have provided some protection to the back. Cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 5.738 ἀμϕὶ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὤμοισιν βάλετ᾽ αἰγίδα

305

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 6 ~ 18.204, 11.593 σάκε᾽ ὤμοισι κλίναντες ~ 15.479 ἀμϕ᾽ ὤμοισι σάκος θέτο, Hanson (1989) 66–9). In Xen. An. 7.4.17 (οἱ δὲ Θρᾶικες ϕεύγουσιν, ὥσπερ δὴ τρόπος ἦν αὐτοῖς, ὄπισθεν περιβαλλόμενοι τὰς πέλτας) and Plut. Aem. Paul. 19.2 (τῶν ἄλλων Μακεδόνων τάς τε πέλτας ἐξ ὤμου περισπασάντων) soldiers move their shields from the front round to the shoulder when fleeing and from the shoulder round to the front when standing in the front line before battle, and in both cases πέλται are referred to; cf. Best (1969) 12. ἔλαμπε emphasises the reflection of the scanty nocturnal light by the golden parts of the shield-face. There is no suggestion in the text of the imprudence of wearing reflective equipment while marching in the night in a land occupied by the enemy – no hint of a tragic mistake, as in Virg. Aen. 9.373–4 galea Euryalum sublustri noctis in umbra / prodidit immemorem radiisque adversa refulsit, and no authorial irony, as in Ovid, Met. 13.103–6 (Ajax speaks of Odysseus in the contest for the arms of Achilles) quo tamen haec Ithaco, qui clam, qui semper inermis / rem gerit et furtis incautum decipit hostem? / ipse nitor galeae claro radiantis ab auro / insidias prodet manifestabitque latentem (cf. Fantuzzi (2012) 237). But Rhesus’ first presentation may well have led members of the audience to think that such a glittering and noisy (cf. 308) show was not appropriate for an army on that risky night; likewise, where the naïve shepherd sees unusual effects aimed at scaring the enemy (cf. 308), others may have detected eccentric braggadocio. Golden arms in particular suggested ill-founded rodomontade. Aesch. Sept., with its long ekphrases of arms and military leaders, is a major model for our passage (certainly of Rh. 308, see 306b–8n) and spectators may have recalled it: there, speaking of Polynices’ shield, that included the golden (χρυσήλατον) image of a warrior and golden (χρυσότευκτα) letters that ‘blather insanely’ (φλύοντα σὺν φοίτωι φρενῶν), Eteocles doubts whether it will be able to bring Polynices home (644, 659–61), and Capaneus, whose shield has in golden (χρυσοῖς) letters the vaunt ‘πρήσω πόλιν’ (427, 434), is, in the view of the scout, someone for whom ὁ κόμπος… οὐ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ϕρονεῖ (425). The armour of comic milites gloriosi is sometimes characterised by impressive luxury: for golden arms, cf. Men. PCG 24, Philem. PCG 73; Aristophanic Lamachus, assisted by his slave, polishes his bronze shield with oil, so as to make it shine like a mirror (Ach. 1128–9; cf. Konstantakos (2016) 115–16); at Plaut. Mil. glor. 1–4 Pyrgopolynices orders his attendants to make his shield surpass the dazzle of the sun; similarly, the Persian army is presented as πολύχρυσος at Aesch. Pers. 3, 9, 45, 53 (cf. Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 1–139, p. 45 ‘the fourfold repetition of πολύχρυσος impresses firmly upon the audience the wealth on which the army and fleet rely’). The naivety and unconditional admiration of the shepherd for Rhesus’ grandeur is in tune with this tradition, while lacking any hint of criticism. 306b–8 ‘A Gorgon of bronze, like that on the aegis of the goddess, was attached to the horses’ frontlets and struck a fearful noise with its many bells.’

306

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 6 – 3 0 8 Gorgon-heads were the commonest archaic decoration on Greek shields, where they both symbolised the aggressive terror that the holder of the shield hoped to strike into the enemy and had an apotropaic function (Chase (1902) 106–7, Howe (1954), Philipp (2004) 34–5, 103, 222–32). It is not clear what αἰγίς originally signified. According to context, it means a hurricane wind-storm (cf. Aesch. Cho. 592) or a goatskin (from αἴξ ‘goat’; compare νεβρίς) or a shield (perhaps with a goatskin facing) or, especially in association with Athena and in classical iconography, a shield-like breastplate in the form of an all-round bib usually bordered by snakes’ heads and decorated with a central gorgoneion; cf. Fowler (1988). It is associated with various gods in the Il. and used in various ways (cf. Halm-Tisserant (1986) 253–64). It seems to belong mainly to Zeus (the only god given the epithet αἰγίοχος), but it was sometimes used by Apollo and Athena, who at least from the Pseudo-Hesiodic Aspis (197–201, 443–5) onwards is often associated with it; and a cult of Dionysus Μελάναιγις was attested at Hermione (Paus. 2.35.1). In Hom. it is mainly an instrument of divine power. In Il. 17.593–6 Zeus, by holding it in his hands, provokes a storm and causes the Trojans to panic, thus ensuring victory for the Greeks; he also shakes it against those he is angry with (Il. 4.167). By shaking it in his hands, Apollo causes the Greeks to panic at Il. 15.229–30; Athena uses it to confuse the minds of the suitors at Od. 22.297. But she also uses it as defensive protection for her shoulders at Il. 5.738–42 and 21.400–1, and Apollo uses it to protect the body of Hector at 24.18–21. The αἰγίς held by Athena at Il. 5.738–42, quoted above, is decorated with frightening personifications, Phobos, Eris (Strife), Alke (Power), and the Gorgon’s head; according to Eur. Ion 987–97 Athena’s αἰγίς was made of the skin of the Gorgon killed by her. In comparing the Gorgons on the frontlets of Rhesus’ horses specifically to the Gorgon on Athena’s αἰγίς the shepherd yet again shows his admiration for Rhesus’ grandeur. Besides, the shepherd expresses this comparison in a very Athenian way. The αἰγίς was a consistent element of the iconography of Athenian Athena. Pheidias’ famous statue of Athena Parthenos on the Athenian Acropolis had a Gorgon-head decoration both on her shield and on her breastplate-αἰγίς. With similar chauvinism, Eur. El. 459–60 described the first shield of Achilles as reproducing the iconography also adopted by Athena Parthenos: Περσέα λαιμοτόμαν … κορυϕὰν Γοργόνος ἴσχειν (Csapo (2009) 102–3, Fantuzzi (2020) 37–8). Also, calling Athena simply θεά without further specification is idiomatically Athenian, as in Athens – and only in Athens according to our evidence – Athena was ‘the goddess’ par excellence;47 cf. Ar. Eq. 656, 1090, 1092, Plut. 1193, Thuc. 1.126.2, 1.126.11, 2.13.5, The standard Athenian idiom was ἡ θεός, but such single-termination nouns are used for the feminine only with the article or an epithet that makes the gender clear (Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 31), and Rh. has neither.

47

307

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 6 – 3 0 8 2.15.2, Pl. Timae. 21a, 23d, Resp. 327a (?), Aeschin. 1.110, Dem. 24.8, 120, 121, 122, 125, 130, 136, 182, 25.28, 70.48 Horse frontlets, usually called προμετωπίδια (cf. Xen. Cyr. 6.4.1, 7.1.2, An. 1.8.7, Eq. 12.8), protected the space between the eyes of the horse, technically called μέτωπα. From archaeological evidence we know that Gorgon-heads were a frequent decorative motif of προμετωπίδια and frontlets: cf. Stephani (1866) 166–70, Pernice (1896) 28, Kunze (1967) 191, Berger (1982) 279–86, Treister (2001) 42. In general on the material evidence for bells as decorations of horses, cf. Pease (1904). Hartung 47 and 130–1 suggested instead that 306b–8 continued the description of the shield: its decoration consisted of a Gorgon’s head surrounded by horse-heads whose foreheads (μέτωπα) were in touch with it (307 πρόσδετος). But πρόσδετος is not easily taken to refer to simple contiguity. It retains the reference to ‘binding’ that the etymology would lead us to expect in its only other known occurrence, Antiph. APlan. 147.2 = GPh 1088 where it refers to Andromeda ‘tied to’ a rock. μετώποις ἱππικοῖσι πρόσδετος / πολλοῖσι σὺν κώδωσι ἐκτύπει φόβον: cf. Aesch. Sept. 385–6 ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος δὲ τῶι / χαλκήλατοι κλάζουσι κώδωνες ϕόβον, where the bells are attached not to horse frontlets but to the shield of Tydeus (just as bells are probably also attached to the shield of Rhesus at 382–4; see n.). ἐκτύπει φόβον = ἐκτύπει φοβερὸν κτύπον, with φόβον equivalent to an accusative of the internal object; cf. Eur. Hec. 1113 ϕόβον παρέσχ᾽ ἂν οὐ μέσως ὅδε κτύπος, Pho. 269 κτύπον ϕοβούμεθα, 1181 ἐκτύπησε δὲ / χθών, ὥστε δεῖσαι πάντας. Bells on shields and harnesses used to scare the enemy may have an exotic or barbarian association in the tragedians. Tydeus (called μειξοβάρβαρος by Antigone in Eur. Pho. 138) has bells on his shield in Aesch. Sept. (see above) and the Trojans are called σὺν σάκει … κωδωνοκρότωι παλαισταί at Soph. TrGF 859 (possibly from the Shepherds). Bells also adorn the cheekpieces of the horses of the Aethiopian Memnon at Ar. Ran. 963, where Eur. boasts that he never tried to shock the audience with special effects (οὐδ᾽ ἐξέπληττον αὐτούς, 962), unlike Aesch., Κύκνους ποιῶν καὶ Μέμνονας κωδωνοϕαλαροπώλους.49 Memnon, a pivotal character in Aesch.’s trilogy that included the plays Memnon and Psychostasia (on Memnon’s death), came to help Troy after the Amazon Penthesileia died and together with her was a leading character in

There was a board of ταμίαι τῆς θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν; cf. the Athenian decree of 405–404 quoted by Andoc. 1.77, Arist. Ath. pol. 30.2. 49 Tzetzes’ gloss ad loc. κωδωνοϕαλαροπώλους: τὸν Τυδέα καὶ ἑτέρους παράγει ἐπὶ τῶν ϕαλάρων καὶ προμετωπιδίων τῶν ἵππων κώδωνας ἔχοντας is a curious synthesis that probably reflects not only the actual text of Ar. with its reference to bells on horses’ cheek-pieces but also the bells on Tydeus’ shield at Aesch. Sept. 386 and the bells on the frontlets in Rh.

48

308

C O M M E N TA RY 3 0 8 – 3 1 0 the Cyclic Aethiopis. He had many points of contact with Rhesus (short time on the battlefield, divine mothers, immortality after death), and, like Rhesus, he was a Trojan ally whose equipment was especially valuable: according to the Aeth. (Proclus’ summary, PEG p. 68), it was made by Hephaestus, and was given to Ajax after Memnon’s death (Q.S. 4.457–9); his dagger was still displayed in a temple at Nicomedia in the time of Pausanias (3.3.8). Elaborate horse-trappings were commoner among non-Greeks (northern Scythians and Thracians, or those from oriental kingdoms: see 303–4n., Jacobson (1995) 261–74). By giving Rhesus’ horses a harness with bell-decoration that Aesch. had given to the horses of Memnon, Rh. probably highlights the parallelism between the two characters in respect of exotic grandeur. 309–10 στρατοῦ … πλῆθος: cf., e.g., Aesch. Pers. 235 ὧδέ τις πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς ἀνδροπλήθεια στρατοῦ;, 39–40 ναῶν ἐρέται / δεινοὶ πλῆθóς τ᾽ ἀνάριθμοι, Eur. Hcld. 668–9 πόσον τι πλῆθός συμμάχων πάρεστ᾽ ἔχων; /⸬ πολλούς· ἀριθμὸν δ᾽ ἄλλον οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι, Thuc. 1.129.3, 2.97.5, 5.61.5, 6.26.1. οὐδ᾽… ἐν ψήφου λόγωι ‘not even reckoning with pebbles’, with reference to the pebbles of the ψηφολόγιον (Ar. PCG 362.2) ‘abacus’, a board set with rows of small metallic or wooden counters called ψῆφοι; cf. Diggle on Theophr. Char. 14.2 (with bibliography). The phrase is unparalleled (but for the verbal phrase cf. Aesch. Ag. 570 τοὺς ἀναλωθέντας ἐν ψήφωι λέγειν) and has been labelled ‘awkward’ by recent critics (Fraenkel (1965) 238, Liapis 147, Fries 233). But it is in Rh.’s manner, and in that of tragedy in general (Breitenbach (1934) 196–7), to create periphrases in which a verb expressing an action is replaced by a noun or a noun-phrase of the action, governed by a verb; see 51n., 255–7a n., 261–3n. ὡς ἄπλατον ἦν ἰδεῖν ‘so overwhelming it was to behold!’, causal-­ exclamatory phrase not rare in tragedy: e.g., Aesch. PV 908–9 (οἷον), Soph. OT 345 (ὡς), Eur. Hipp. 879–80 (οἷον οἷον), Her. 817 (οἷον), Ion 799 (οἷον οἷον), Hel. 74–5 (ὅσον), KG II.370–1. Post-Homeric Ionic ἄπλητος (Hes. Th. 153, 315, 709, [Sc.] 147, 230 v.l., 250, 268, HHom.Dem. 83; Semon. IEG 7.34) and ἄπλᾱτος, lyric (Pind. Pyth. 1.21, 12.9, F 93, Bacch. 5.62, 13.51, with Maehler ad loc.) and tragic (it is certain in Soph. Aj. 256, Tr. 1093, Eur. Her. 398, adesp. TrGF 617.4 and 653.14), mean ‘unapproachable’, from the root of πέλας ‘near’/πλάθειν ‘approach’. In all these passages, ἄπλατος is used either of monstrous creatures (snakes, Typhon, giant) or of fire, both of which are ‘unapproachable’, and takes from its previous associations the sense ‘terrible’ (in Soph. Aj. 256 it refers to ‘fate’), or, from confusion with ἄπλετος,50 ‘boundless’ (Liapis 147–8), ‘too large

At least at Diph. PCG 54 κυψέλην δ’ ἔχεις / ἄπλατον ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν the quantitative sense of ἄπλατος ~ ἄπλετος ‘immense’ seems certain.

50

309

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 0 – 3 1 3 for sense to grasp’ (Porter 61). If ἄπλατος ~ ἄπλετος in Rh., then πλῆθος … ἄπλατον as ‘immense multitude’ would parallel πλῆθος ... ἄπλετον at Pl. Leg. 676b χρόνου πλῆθος ... ἄπλετόν τι καὶ ἀμήχανον ἂν εἴη, Arist. De gen. anim. 755b26–7 ἄπλετον … τὸ τούτων πλῆθος τῶν ὠιῶν. ἰδεῖν is epexegetic infinitive; cf., e.g., Aesch. Sept. 644 χρυσήλατον γὰρ ἄνδρα τευχηστὴν ἰδεῖν, Eur. Andr. 1123 ἔστη ᾽πὶ βωμοῦ γοργὸς ὁπλίτης ἰδεῖν, TrGF 472e.13 ὡς εὐπρεπὴς μὲν ἐν πέπλοισιν ἦν ἰδεῖν, KG II.15–16. 311–13 In this brief review of the Thracian contingent, only light-armed troops are mentioned as infantry. Heavy-armed infantry of a hoplite-type are likewise not mentioned in the short list of the components of the Trojan and allied army that Hector is asked to mobilise by the watchmen of the chorus at 30–3. The two passages seem to convey the idea that Thracians, as well as Trojans and other allies (the Lycians mentioned at 28), did not include hoplites among their troops – even ‘king’ Rhesus carries a relatively light πέλτη at 304. Contrast the description of an army with both heavy- and light-armed components at Eur. Bacch. 781–4 κέλευε πάντας ἀσπιδηϕόρους / ἵππων τ᾽ ἀπαντᾶν ταχυπόδων ἐπεμβάτας / πέλτας θ᾽ ὅσοι πάλλουσι καὶ τόξων χερὶ / ψάλλουσι νευράς (bearers of the aspis opposed to peltasts). We may perhaps infer from this omission of the heavy infantry that the author of Rh. extended to the ancient Thracians and Trojans (both nonGreeks = ‘barbarians’ for Greek tragedy) the modern fighting techniques of the Thracians, perhaps considered a primitive survival, by contrast with the typical hoplite ethos of classical Greek poleis (Best (1969) 14–16, Sears (2013) 285–7).51 Anyway the omission of the hoplites can hardly have been haphazard in Rh., after many decades of debate and military reforms relating to the heaviness of military equipment. In Attic vase-painting of the sixth and fifth centuries, the hoplite and his equipment functioned as a positive image of self-identification in which peltasts and hoplites were polar opposites and peltasts and archers represented negative alien images of ‘non-Greeks’ and ‘others’ (Lissarrague (1990) 13–20, Osborne (2000) 34–40). The bow distinguished Persian soldiers from Greek soldiers with their spears in Aesch. Pers. 85–6, 146–9, Ar. Vesp. 1081–4, and Thracian barbarians from Greeks in Ar. Ach. 707; see also Soph. Aj. 1120–3, Ar. Av. 1185–7. But from the time of the expedition of Cleon against the Spartan hoplites at Pylos in 425, which relied above all on peltasts from Thracian Ainos and archers (Thuc. 4.28.4), we know of a series of important victories won by forces mainly consisting of light infantry (often but not always Thracian Thuc. often mentions Greek peltasts, but they are always from Greek colonies in Thrace or islands close by; cf. Best (1969) 13.

51

310

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 1 – 3 1 3 mercenaries), commanded by Athenian or Spartan leaders (Alcibiades, Conon, Iphicrates, Xenophon, Spartan Clearchus); cf. Sears (2013) 273–82, Wheeler and Strauss (2007) 220–1. In the battle of 390 at Lechaeum near Corinth, Xen. Hell. 4.5.13–17 emphasises that the light-armed Thracians of Iphicrates overwhelmed a battalion of 600 hoplites (without light-armed troops and cavalry). These military events may have ushered in a new attention for light weaponry and a critical reconsideration of the traditional reliance on heavy-armed hoplites. An echo of this scrutiny can be found in tragedy in the long debate at Eur. Her. 151–203 between Lycus (against Heracles’ heroism and in favour of the hoplite combat against the bow, κάκιστον ὅπλων, 161: ‘a bow does not show a man’s courage: that is done by standing your ground, looking straight at the swift swathe cut by enemy spears, and holding ranks’, 162–4) and Amphitryon (in favour of Heracles and the πάνσοφον εὕρημα of the bow: when fighting in a hoplite line one must rely on a single spear and is endangered by the possible cowardice of one’s fellow-fighters, whereas an archer does not have to depend on comrades, can rely on many arrow-shots from his bow, and fights the enemy from afar, not exposing his body to the enemy but keeping it well protected, 195–201). Cf. Papadopoulou (2005) 137–51. The heavy infantry, of course, was never discarded. Xen. clearly acknowledges the difference between his hoplites and the light-armed infantry of Seuthes in respect of their operations on the battlefield, and integrates their action (An. 7.3.37–43). According to Polyaenus (Strat. 3.9.22), Iphicrates compared the army to the human body, where the phalanx is the chest, the lightarmed troops the hands, and the cavalry the feet. But even if we leave aside the much-debated detail of the ‘Iphicratean reform’, slightly increasing the heaviness of peltasts’ equipment (source-discussion: Anderson (1970) 129–31), it seems that the issue of heaviness/lightness of the equipment was a serious consideration in the first half of the fourth century, and in many cases even heavy infantry were given lighter equipment, as happened in Philip II’s phalanx. πολλοὶ μὲν … πολλὰ … πολλοὶ δ᾽… πολὺς δ᾽: the vast number of different troops is emphasised by the repetition of πολύς in Hom. Il. 20.326 πολλὰς δὲ στίχας ἡρώων, πολλὰς δὲ καὶ ἵππων. The polyptoton provides the tone of a solemn staccato (Seaford (2003b) 141) and is common in tragedy (GygliWyss (1966) 47–8, Fehling (1969) 169–73), but mainly in the form of gemination. Here the tetracolon crescens (a two-word sentence with μέν, three words with δέ, four words with a participial phrase attached) further conveys the idea of multitude. πολλοὶ … ἱππῆς: Thracians were so famous as horsemen that Thracian costume seems to have been a quintessential symbol of cavalry as late as the second half of the fifth century. Some Athenian horsemen on the Parthenon

311

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 1 – 3 1 3 frieze wear the typical ἀλωπεκίς (fox-skin cap) of the Thracians, and some vases, especially from 450–420 bc, show riders wearing a coat that resembles the Thracian ζειρά; cf. Lissarrague (1990) 210–19, Sears (2013) 196–9. πελταστῶν: a modern military term, first attested in IG I3.60.17, from about 430 BC, and IG I3.1381 = CEG 88, a funerary epigram from the Athenian agora datable to 430–400 BC (Bradeen (1974)), and, later, in Thuc. and Xenophon. It refers to light infantry of javelin-throwers armed with a πέλτη; see 305–6a n. τέλη: τέλος refers to a military ‘unit’, i.e., a complete contingent of soldiers, from the sense ‘completion’ (Chantraine (2009) 1063), or a contingent of soldiers with a specific task, from the other sense of τέλος, ‘executive function’ (Waanders (1983) 57; LfgrE s.v.). The term is Homeric, twice in Il. 10 with a genitive of material (56 ἐλθεῖν ἐς φυλάκων ἱερὸν τέλος ἠδ᾽ ἐπιτεῖλαι, where ἐπιτεῖλαι may hint at the etymology of τέλος, and 470 Θρηικῶν ἀνδρῶν τέλος); elsewhere in the formula κατὰ στρατὸν ἐν τελέεσσιν, Il. 7.380 (dubious line) and 11.730. But it was also a fifth-century military term, often used by Hdt. and Thucydides. ἀτράκτων here ‘arrows’, usually ‘spindles’. ἄτρακτος ‘arrow’ seems to be a poetic pleonasm embellishing τοξόται, the expected term of everyday and military language, and is attested only at Aesch. TrGF 139.2, Soph. Tr. 714, Ph. 290 and Thuc. 4.40.2, where it is used in a joke by one of the Spartan hoplites who surrendered to Cleon at Pylos. The Spartan veteran had been sarcastically questioned whether the Spartans who fell at Pylos, who had not surrendered, were the καλοὶ κἀγαθοί of the contingent. He answered that πολλοῦ ἂν ἄξιον εἶναι τὸν ἄτρακτον – λέγων τὸν οἰστόν – εἰ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς διεγίγνωσκε (the parenthesis is a comment by Thuc., which proves the rarity of the word in the sense ‘arrow’). The joke of the veteran from Pylos was perhaps only an example of the traditional prejudice against archers, who were considered to be lower-level warriors, or he (an ex-hoplite) may have called the arrows ‘spindles’ in contempt; but Pylos had proved the value of Thracian light infantry and archers in fighting against hoplites (ironically enough, according to Thuc. 5.10.9, Cleon died at Amphipolis at the hand of a Thracian peltast belonging to the army of Brasidas, who had clearly learned this lesson about the uses of peltasts and archers). So we cannot rule out that ἀτράκτων ‘arrows’ simply was for the author of Rh. a poeticism inherited from the tragic tradition; but in a passage where the review of the Thracian army probably caused our author to reflect on the military debate about heavy vs light infantry, the joke of the Spartan veteran – in the Thucydidean version or from popular lore – may have crossed his mind, and contributed to the phrase ἀτράκτων τοξόται. A number of arrowheads have been discovered in Thracian graves from the fifth to the third centuries (Stoyanov (2015) 426–7), and according to

312

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 2 – 3 1 3 Thuc. (2.96.1), some of the Thracian tribes had the same military equipment as the Scythians, ‘all being mounted archers (πάντες ἱπποτοξόται)’. ὄχλος γυμνής: v.l. γυμνός is a banalisation, as γυμνής is the technical term for ‘light-armed soldier’, used already at 31 (see n.). For the adjectival use of the noun – γυμνής = γυμνήτων – cf. Eur. Supp. 660 ἱππότην … ὄχλον, a phrase which also exemplifies ὄχλος used in the neutral meaning ‘big mass of people’ and not in the negative meaning ‘mob’ (Matthiessen on Eur. Hec. 880) or with the negative connotations of indiscipline and lack of unity, resulting in ineffectiveness, that are clear, for instance at Thuc. 4.126.6.52 ἁμαρτῆι: both this adverb ‘together’ and the verb ὁμαρτεῖν ‘accompany’ are from the roots of ἅμα and ἄρτιος, and thus their original form must have been ἁμαρτ-. Attic probably shifted the initial vocalism to ὁμαρτ- for the verb in order to differentiate it from ἁμαρτεῖν ‘be mistaken’ (the MSS of Aesch., Soph., and Eur. are consistent about 17x ὁμαρτ- for the verb; only one case of ἁμαρτ-, at Eur. TrGF 680). In the adverb, where the dissimilation from ἁμαρτεῖν is not needed, the MSS give Atticising ὁμαρτ- in Rh., but are inconsistent in its three fifth-century occurrences, all Euripidean (Hcld. 138, Hipp. 1195, Hec. 839), and give ἁμαρτ- in Solon, IEG 33.4 (but ὁμαρτ- consistently at both Callim. HArt. 243 and Ap. Rh. 1.538); cf. Wackernagel (1916) 70, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1194–7. The MSS of Rh. also waver between -τῆ and -τῆι. The form -τή, supported by Aristarchus for Hom. (ΣA Il. 5.656), is perhaps the correct original ending for adverbs derived from verbs, in opposition to ‑τῆι for adverbs from nouns and pronouns (Wackernagel (1902=1955) 132 n. 1, Schwyzer (1939) 550), but -τῆι, which is unchallenged in all the MSS of all periods, may have supplanted the original ending already in the fifth century (Barrett loc. cit.). Θρηικίαν ἔχων στολήν: the audience of tragedy was accustomed to interpreting representations of clothing, or notional references to it, as symbols of national identity (examples in Battezzato (1999/2000)). στολή may mean ‘equipment’ or ‘clothing’, as at Pers. 1018 (see 204n.). But, as the arms have been mentioned in 311–12, στολή will probably refer to the whole national clothing as at Bacch. 18.31–2 τίνα δ᾽ ἔμμεν πόθεν ἄνδρα τοῦτον / λέγει, τίνα τε στολὰν ἔχοντα;, Hdt. 4.78.5 τὴν στολὴν ἀποθέμενος τὴν Σκυθικὴν λάβεσκε ἂν Ἑλληνίδα ἐσθῆτα, Soph. Ph. 223–4 σχῆμα μὲν γὰρ Ἑλλάδος / στολῆς ὑπάρχει, This neutral meaning is not rare in tragedy; cf. Aesch. Sept. 234, Supp. 182, Eur. Andr. 605, 759, Hec. 521, 533, Pho. 148. But there are some debatable cases where the negative connotation may surface or not. For instance in Pers. 42, 53, 956 the undisciplined nature of the Lydian and Babylonian armies or of the ‘friends’ of Xerxes may be suggested, according to Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 42–3 (contra Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 182, Liapis 148–9); likewise at Eur. Supp. 681 (Collard on 680–3).

52

313

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 3 – 3 1 6 Eur. Hcld. 130–1 καὶ μὴν στολήν γ᾽ ῞Ελληνα καὶ ῥυθμὸν πέπλων / ἔχει, τὰ δ᾽ ἔργα βαρβάρου χερὸς τάδε, Timoth. PMG 791.167–8 Περσίδα στολήν περὶ στέρ/νοις ἔρεικον, Xen. Cyr. 8.1.40 στολήν γε γοῦν εἵλετο τὴν Μηδικήν, Phylarch. FGrHist 81F41.27 Μακεδόνες … Μακεδονικὰς στολὰς ἔχοντες. Vasepainting begins to depict Thracian warriors from the last decades of the sixth century (Raeck (1981) 67–85), and Thracian dress, including a kneelength tunic (στολή) and a cloak over it, is standard in both iconography and the historians. The Thracian-Bithynian allies of Xerxes in 480 ἐπὶ μὲν τῆισι κεϕαλῆισι ἀλωπεκέας ἔχοντες ἐστρατεύοντο, περὶ δὲ τὸ σῶμα κιθῶνας, ἐπὶ δὲ ζειρὰς περιβεβλημένοι ποικίλας, περὶ δὲ τοὺς πόδας τε καὶ τὰς κνήμας πέδιλα νεβρῶν, πρὸς δὲ ἀκόντιά τε καὶ πέλτας καὶ ἐγχειρίδια σμικρά (Hdt. 7.75.1–2). The same items of clothing characterised, almost a hundred years later, the Thracians of Seuthes allied to Xen.: An. 7.4.4 τὰς ἀλωπεκᾶς ἐπὶ ταῖς κεϕαλαῖς ϕοροῦσι καὶ τοῖς ὠσί, καὶ χιτῶνας οὐ μόνον περὶ τοῖς στέρνοις ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῖς μηροῖς, καὶ ζειρὰς μέχρι τῶν ποδῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ χλαμύδας. The cap made of fox-skin (or of the similar panther- or catskin), often with the tail shown hanging down the neck, the boots sometimes reaching above the knee at the front and with their tops folded back, and the chiton with covering mantle are the most frequent items of Thracian costume in vase-painting; cf. Vos (1963) 44. 314–16 ‘Such is the ally who has arrived to help Troy: Peleus’ son will not be able to escape him by running away or by facing him.’ The Trojan shepherd, who lives in the wilderness far from Troy and the battlefield, may not know that Achilles had withdrawn from the fighting; at 370–2 the watchmen of the chorus too foresee a fight between Achilles and Rhesus, although they should know of the absence of Achilles, whose reasons Hector will explain to Rhesus at 493–4. Another ally, Cycnus, had boastfully challenged Achilles, singled out for his martial prowess as the champion of the Greeks: in Soph. Shepherds, TrGF 501 (see 264–341n.), he threatens to strike Achilles’ buttocks ‘with the flat of (his) foot for whip’. Achilles is however a recurring parallel for Rhesus, who seems at times a sort of ‘exaggerated Achilles’ (Michelakis (2002) 169). The prospect of a confrontation is frequently evoked (here, at 370–4 (spoken by the messenger), 460–2 (by the chorus), 489–91 (by Rhesus), 600–4 (by Athena)), evidently because of their comparable prowess and their comparable destiny of imminent premature death (974–7). Rhesus’ impatient readiness for action and the criticism that he levels at Hector’s strategy (444–50, 488–91), his straightforwardness in speech (422–3), and his boastfulness (444–53) will have reminded the audience of Achilles in the Il. or in Eur. Telephus and IA (see 449b–50, with n.); for Rhesus’ entrance in his golden armour and Achilles’ terrifying epiphanies in arms, see 382–4n. Rhesus has not yet fought at Troy, but he is the hope of the Trojan watchmen. In this he resembles Achilles, who has

314

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 4 – 3 1 7 withdrawn from battle but, potentially, will return to fight with the Greeks. This seeming parallelism is soon to end: Achilles will be able to display his prowess in the course of the war, whereas Rhesus will not. σύμμαχος … ἀνήρ = σύμμαχος is not common in tragedy (only Eur. Or. 688), but 4x in Rh. (also at 314, 598, 736); common in, e.g., Hdt. and Thucydides. οὔτε φεύγων … ἐκφυγεῖν δυνήσεται The paronomasia of participle φεύγων and a finite form of a similar verb is not rare: Hom. Il. 14.81 ϕεύγων προϕύγηι κακὸν; Hdt. 4.23.5 ϕεύγων καταϕύγηι, Eur. Pho. 1216 φεύγων ἐκφύγηις πρὸς αἰθέρα, Ar. Ach. 177 φεύγοντ᾽ ἐκφυγεῖν, Nub. 167 φεύγων ἄν ἀποφύγοι (~ Xen. An. 2.5.7), Pl. Hp. Ma. 292a ἐκφύγω φεύγων. Here the prefix ἐκ- points to the total accomplishment of the action, and the complexive sense of the aorist contrasts with the conative sense of the present participle: ‘will succeed in escaping’, ‘will get away’ (Mastronarde on Pho. 1216). ὑποσταθεὶς δορί ‘standing his ground in battle’ graphically contrasts with the opposite ‘fleeing’ (Cropp (2015) 160). The same opposition is found in Plut. Dem. 25.1 οὐδενὸς ὑϕισταμένου τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀλλὰ ϕευγόντων. On δορί, see 56–8n. ὁ Πηλέως παῖς: see 119–22n. 317–18 ‘When the gods favour the citizens, adversity turns back to good fortune.’ Cf. Aesch. Cho. 1063–4 ἀλλ’ εὐτυχοίης, καί σ’ ἐποπτεύων πρόϕρων / θεὸς ϕυλάσσοι καιρίοισι συμϕοραῖς, Eur. Hel. 1443–5 (invocation to Zeus) ἕλκουσι δ᾿ ἡμῖν πρὸς λέπας τὰς συμφορὰς / σπουδῆι σύναψαι· κἂν ἄκραι θίγηις χερί, / ἥξομεν ἵν’ ἐλθεῖν βουλόμεσθα τῆς τύχης, Xen. Hipparch. 5.14 σὺν τῶι θεῶι πράττειν συμβουλεύω, ἵνα καὶ ἡ τύχη συνεπαινῆι θεῶν ἵλεων ὄντων. Aesch. often presents gods or a δαίμων, the impersonal divinity, as determining the outcome of wars; cf. for instance, Sept. 21–3, 109–80, 265–81, 301– 20, and Pers. 293–4, 454–5, 513–14, 905–6. In Soph. and Eur., gods or δαίμονες are most frequently concerned with the deaths and sufferings of individuals, and only rarely, in Eur., with the destiny of a city: Eur. Supp. 594–7 ἓν δεῖ μόνον μοι· τοὺς θεοὺς ἔχειν ὅσοι / δίκην σέβονται. ταῦτα γὰρ ξυνόνθ᾽ ὁμοῦ / νίκην δίδωσιν· ἁρετὴ δ’ οὐδὲν ϕέρει / βροτοῖσιν ἢν μὴ τὸν θεὸν χρήιζοντ᾽ ἔχηι, Pho. 1200–1 καλὸν τὸ νικᾶν· εἰ δ’ ἀμείνον᾽ οἱ θεοὶ / γνώμην ἔχουσιν, εὐτυχὴς εἴην ἐγώ, Mikalson (1991) 50, 248–9 n. 148, Parker (1997) 150. πολίταις: dative of advantage. εὐσταθῶσι ‘are stable’ (i.e. ‘tranquil’): the verb is not attested before Rh., but the adjective from which it is derived was most probably used by Democritus. Two different and apparently independent testimonia, Diog. Laert. (VS 68A1.45) and Stobaeus (VS 68B191), attest the term εὐσταθής, with reference to ψυχαί, as the psychological precondition for εὐθυμία ‘contentness’ in Democr.; on the development of εὐσταθής in the ethical views of Epicureans and Stoics, cf. Grilli (1984). The use of this rare term by the author of Rh. may have been a rationalistic interpretation of divine behaviour. ‘Stability’

315

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 7 – 3 1 8 of the soul is mentioned in later authors together with πραιότης ‘kindness’, in phrases where the former seems to be a condition of the latter (e.g., Jos. BJ 2.290, Plut. Luc. 2.1, Mor. 144e). The phrase may imply here ‘if δαίμονες are calm (and thus cheerful and kind) towards the citizens’. κατάντης … πρὸς τἀγαθά ‘sloping down to (the citizens’) well-being’, implies the idea of quick motion with no obstacles; cf. Diod. Sic. 12.12.3 κατάντης γὰρ ἡ πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον ὁδός, ῥαιδίαν ἔχουσα τὴν ὁδοιπορίαν, Plut. Artax. 28.3 λεία γάρ τις ἡ πορεία καὶ κατάντης ἐπὶ τὸ βουλόμενον. κατάντης is not attested before Ar. Ran. 127 βούλει ταχεῖαν καὶ κατάντη (scil. ἀτραπόν; cf. 123) σοι ϕράσω;; but cf. adverbial κάταντα in Hom. Il. 23.116. It appears nowhere else in tragedy, but was conjectured at Soph. Ph. 23, and Eur. has προσάντης ‘uphill’ and thus ‘arduous’ or ‘adverse’ at Med. 305, 381, IT 1012, Or. 790. ξυμφορά: ‘what happens’, namely the ‘situation’, seen as a conjunction (ξυν-) of events; neither good nor bad, although often bad in tragedy (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 24). It is here liable to become good thanks to divine non-hostility. 319–41 In Il. 10 Rhesus is already encamped together with the other allies, and so the issue of his status as an ally never surfaces. Hector’s reaction to Rhesus’ arrival, his suspicion that he has come only to share undeservedly in the imminent victory and the booty, and the reasons why he had expected Rhesus to come much earlier to help Troy are diffusely presented at 388–421; lines 321–6 have been taken as mere repetition or an example of mismanagement of the plot (so Liapis 150), but their format as a brief summary is entirely appropriate for Hector’s charges and doubts in a dialogue with the chorus, whereas, as soon as Rhesus enters, he can present to him the detail of his complaints. Hector’s recriminations and their discussion are an example of the striving of fourth-century tragedy to create rhetorical confrontations. They take up almost a fifth of the text, from 320 to 526, and are the prerequisite for the vehement attack by Rhesus’ charioteer on Hector at 832–81. However, they do not advance the action of the plot. In fact the only specific dramatic purpose that they have is to make clear that Rhesus has a right to fight as an ally of Troy. The focus on the idea of good and bad allies should probably be placed in the tradition of the Athenian ‘political tragedy’. Hector’s doubts and Rhesus’ confutation may enact an issue that was frequently debated in Athenian assemblies. The connections of χάρις, ξενία, and φιλία, the contrasts between them, and the modalities of their betrayal are significant issues in Eur., particularly in Hec.; cf. Battezzato (2003). Rh. 320–526 may focus in particular on the question whether or not the alliance of Athens with Thracian leaders was to be welcomed. On both the issue of the unreliability of the Thracians

316

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 9 – 3 4 1 and the shifting ideologies of interstate relations of friendship in Greek diplomacy between the end of the fifth and the fourth centuries, see Introduction, pp. 69–70. Hector’s negative attitude towards Rhesus appears, initially, as an expression of annoyance at the messenger’s assumption that Rhesus will be an ally, σύμμαχος, of Troy, and his confident belief that he will put an end to the war (276–7, 299, 314). In his first reaction, Hector refuses to accept the possibility that Rhesus might be an ally, because of his late intervention (333 and 336; he will return on this point at 412). The pragmatic perspective of the shepherd and chorus concerning the future benefit of Rhesus’ συμμαχία is replaced by Hector’s ethical evaluation, based on the past – implicitly, Hector is assuming that a person who was a bad φίλος in the past cannot be a good σύμμαχος in the future. As is only briefly mentioned by Hector at 337, but demonstrated by him at length in the later dialogue at 406–12, Rhesus had contracted a debt to Hector when Hector helped him to establish his power by fighting other Thracian princes (on that occasion, or before it, they had become ξένοι); but Rhesus did not reciprocate Hector’s χάρις when Troy was besieged (411). Hector does not immediately make the basis of his feelings clear; his determination to be the protagonist and his jealousy may seem to be the only grounds for his rejection of Rhesus. This does not mean that he ‘initially chooses one course of action in an unthinking fashion and for what we might call “wrong” or “base” motives, but is then persuaded by others to put aside his “base” motives and rationally to adopt an alternate course founded on “higher” motives’ (Rosivach (1978) 5, 35). Rather, at the beginning he is reacting sharply to the praise that Rhesus receives from the messenger and the chorus. He is personally resentful towards Rhesus for his late arrival as an ally at 333, and at 338 he implies that Rhesus’ demonstration that he is not a φίλος had engendered hostility more broadly from the Trojan royal family. But Hector’s interpretations of the Trojans’ feelings for Rhesus progressively fall apart as they do not match the majority opinion. Thus he cannot but accept what the watchmen and the messenger say. As at 137, although he ‘has to be helped towards good decisions through the questioning dialogue of others’ (Hesk (2011) 140), Hector opts to yield to a more and more collective idea of power. His decision-making mirrors that of the polis, and contrasts with the sometimes unilateral decisions taken by his Greek counterpart Agamemnon in the Il. (see 87–130n.). 319–20 correct in part the statement of the chorus at 317–18: it is not only the divine help of Zeus but also the good fortune of his powerful spear that is making the war go so well for him and the Trojans.

317

C O M M E N TA RY 3 1 9 – 3 2 0 πολλοὺς … εὑρήσω φίλους sounds like gnomic wisdom; it finds a close parallel in the ‘Maxims of Democrates’ ascribable at least in part to Democritus: VS 68B106 ἐν εὐτυχίηι ϕίλον εὑρεῖν εὔπορον, ἐν δὲ δυστυχίηι πάντων ἀπορώτατον. For the topos: Soph. TrGF 88.1 τὰ χρήματ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν εὑρίσκει φίλους = [Men.] Sent. 733, Eur. Her. 58–9, 559–61, 1224–5 τῶν καλῶν μὲν ὅστις ἀπολαύειν θέλει, / συμπλεῖν δὲ τοῖς ϕίλοισι δυστυχοῦσιν οὔ, El. 605 (cf. Cropp ad loc.), Pho. 403, Or. 1095–6, [Men.] Sent. 34, 687, 748 τῶν εὐτυχούντων πάντες εἰσὶ συγγενεῖς, Plaut. Stich. 522 res amicos invenit. A variant of the same topos focused on the view that, when things are going well, friends are not needed (cf. Eur. Or. 665–7 τοὺς ϕίλους / ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς χρὴ τοῖς ϕίλοισιν ὠϕελεῖν· / ὅταν δ’ ὁ δαίμων εὖ διδῶι, τί δεῖ ϕίλων;), a view which Arist. criticizes at EN 1169b3–70a19. ἐπειδὴ τοὐμὸν εὐτυχεῖ δόρυ: see 59–61n. The re-use of a phrase introduced at 60 – where Hector claimed that the dusk and seers had interrupted his military success – may tell us something about his feelings and fears here. By repeating this phrase Hector shows that he is afraid that his own near-victory is going to be interrupted again, this time by the powerful newcomer’s wish to intervene in the war and thus, from Hector’s viewpoint, to share and erode Hector’s personal decisive victory. In fact at 445–53 Rhesus presents himself as a champion who can win the war alone, again in a duel against all foes, and challenges Hector explicitly when he contrasts the effect of a single day of his fighting with the ten years of Hector’s activity. In both cases, Hector features as a heroic warrior defending his glory against every challenge. Ζεὺς πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν: cf. Thuc. 4.92.7 πιστεύσαντας δὲ τῶι θεῶι πρὸς ἡμῶν ἔσεσθαι. For πρός with genitive = ‘on the side of ’, cf. Aesch. Supp. 531 (with Friis Johansen and Whittle ad loc.), Soph. Tr. 479, Eur. Alc. 57. In the Il. Hector appears to know that Zeus favours him specially only at 11.195–209, from Iris’ message; see 52–75n. 321–3 In a very complicated metaphor, Ares, here the personification of war, is identified with a strong wind capable of making the ship deviate from the right route (= capable of disorienting the city) and shredding the sails ‘of this land’ (323), in line with the common emphasis on wind in the metaphors of the state as a ship in distress; see 245–9a n. For the equation of the action of Ares (= the effects of war on cities) and the destructive effects of strong and unfavourable winds on ships, cf. Aesch. Sept. 62–4 σὺ δ’ ὥστε ναὸς κεδνὸς οἰακοστρόϕος / ϕάρξαι πόλισμα, πρὶν καταιγίσαι πνοὰς / Ἄρεως· βοᾶι γὰρ κῦμα χερσαῖον στρατοῦ, 114–15 κῦμα περὶ πτόλιν δοχμολόϕων ἀνδρῶν / καχλάζει πνοαῖς Ἄρεος ὀρόμενον, and 342–3 χραίνεται πόλισμ᾽ ἅπαν· / μαινόμενος δ’ ἐπιπνεῖ λαοδάμας / μιαίνων εὐσέβειαν Ἄρης. Sept., a play concerned with war in Thebes under siege, in which nautical imagery is repeatedly applied to the city (discussions: Petrounias (1976) 34–51, Thalmann (1978)

318

C O M M E N TA RY 3 2 1 – 3 2 3 32–8), may well have been a direct model for the nautical imagery used here of the besieged Troy. οἵτινες … μὴ ξυμπονοῦσι is a relative clause with conditional sense, expanding on αὐτῶν to indicate the kind of friends of which Hector does not want to avail himself (‘we have no need of those people who (~ if/unless they) have not worked with us from the start’). It may also have a causal sense and point to the reason why Hector does not want to avail himself of those friends; cf. Friis Johansen (1959) 126 n. 80, Liapis 151. The generalising subjunctive ξυμπονῶσι of most MSS would be suitable in principle (even without ἄν: Goodwin (1889) 208, Bers (1984) 155–8). But the following ἡνίκα sentence, which refers to a specific point in time, counts against it, and the indicative is preferable; cf. Feickert 182, Liapis 151, Goodwin (1889) 141–2 on particular and general protases. πάλαι ‘for a long time in the past’ and πάρος with a present verb refer to an action beginning in the past which is not concluded, but continues in the present; again at 329, 414; cf. KG I.134–5, Jouanna (2004). ἐξώστης, probably an ionicism (cf. Fraenkel (1910/1912) I.241), is not attested before Hdt. (below) and Hippocr. De prisca med. 9 Jones, nor elsewhere in tragedy or classical Attic. It means the wind ‘which makes ships deviate from their route’, as at Hdt. 2.113.1 καί μιν (scil. Alexander), ὡς ἐγένετο ἐν τῶι Αἰγαίωι, ἐξῶσται ἄνεμοι ἐκβάλλουσι ἐς τὸ Αἰγύπτιον πέλαγος, [Aeschin.] Ep. 1.3 ζάλη δὲ καὶ ἄνεμος ἐξώστης ἐμπεσὼν ἀπήνεγκεν ἡμᾶς εἰς Κρήτην, Heliod. 1.22 ἄνεμος ἐξώστης καὶ λαίλαπες … τὴν ναῦν τοῦ εὐθέος παραϕέρουσι, Liban. Or. 59.138 ἐξῶσται δὲ ὑπολαμβάνοντες ἄνεμοι πρὸς ἀπέραντον ἐκϕέρουσι πέλαγος. Probably it does not mean the wind ‘which drives ships ashore’ (LSJ and Liapis 151), as when ἐξωθεῖν means ‘drive ships ashore’ the direction is regularly specified by ἐς/πρὸς τὴν γῆν or ἐς τὸ ξηρόν; cf. Thuc. 2.90.5, 7.52.2, 8.104.4, 8.105.1; also Eur. Cycl. 279. The sense of the metaphor is not that the city is at risk of running aground = coming to a standstill, but that it is disorientated. ἔθραυε λαίφη τῆσδε γῆς The storm of opposing winds that represents the trouble in the city shreds the sails of the ship in Alcae. F 208.7 Voigt (λαῖϕος δὲ πὰν ζάδηλον ἤδη). θραύειν usually refers to the shattering of solid objects, and the author mentions here the sails but is thinking of the whole ship; cf. Eur. Hel. 1544 θραύσαντες … σκάφος; Lycophr. 890 ἄθραυτον σκάφος, App. Pun. 4.25 αἱ νῆες ἐθραύοντο. But the sails of the metaphorical image (λαίφη) that represents the land (τῆσδε γῆς) merge with the represented object, producing the rather awkward espression ‘sails of this land’. The imperfect is preferable to the aorist of O and gB, as it emphasises the durative aspect of the threat or the iteration of damages suffered by the sails, in line with the pathos of Hector’s speech (Vater 158). μέγας πνέων, with μέγας predicative, is found elsewhere for wind, e.g., at Thuc. 6.104.2 ἁρπασθεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμου … ὃς ἐκπνεῖ ταύτηι μέγας, Hipp. De morbo

319

C O M M E N TA RY 3 2 3 – 3 2 5 sacr. 16 Jones (νότος) οὐκ εὐθὺς πνέει μέγας, Arist. Met. 345a1 (νότος) ἔπνευσε μέγας. 324 ‘Rhesus has shown what a friend he was to Troy’ ironically echoes proud statements of really valuable deeds, such as carm. conv. PMG 907 αἰαῖ Λειψύδριον … οἵους ἄνδρας ἀπώλεσας, … οἳ τότ’ ἔδειξαν οἵων πατέρων ἔσαν. ‘Failure to provide assistance when required was a breach of friendship, and a friend so heedless of loyalty might be considered a personal enemy’ (Konstan (1997) 57–8). ἦν refers to the point in the past at which Hector acknowledged Rhesus’ failure to demonstrate real friendship to Troy (Feickert 183). 325–6 ἥκει … ἐς δαῖτ(α): recent interpreters (Kovacs 389, Liapis 151, Fries 238) render ‘he has come to the feast’; but the sense may be more complex. From Homer onward, δαίς means most often (apportioned) ‘meal’ or ‘feast’, but the etymological sense of ‘portion’ comes to the surface at least in the formulaic Homeric phrase δαιτὸς ἐΐσης (Il. 1.468, 602, 2.431, etc.), which designates the correct ‘portion’ allotted to individuals or gods in meals or sacrifices. Moreover, verbs from the root of δαίς are often used for the apportionment of the booty (Il. 1.125 δέδασται, 1.368 δάσσαντο, 9.138 = 280 δατεώμεθα, 9.333 διὰ … δασάσκετο, 11.705 δαιτρεύειν ~ 11.688, Od. 9.42 δασσάμεθ’). Finally, according to epic etiquette it was the most prominent leader (here Hector) who had to make decisions about apportionment, the only constraint upon him being the need to respect individuals’ τιμή in assigning the γέρας; cf. van Wees (1992) 219–310. In Hector’s eyes, Rhesus has come as a parasite to the ‘feast’ at the end of a hunt = war to which he did not contribute, with perhaps the additional implication that he has come to participate in the ‘sharing’ of the booty produced by other people’s fighting (the term used for the hunters’ quarry at 326 is not the specific ἄγρα, but λεία, which most often means ‘booty’). Hector is sure about the result of the war, and has already begun to promise parts of the Greek booty at 173, 175, and 177. It was not taken for granted that in classical Greece the allies of a polis could share with it the booty from a victorious war. After the fall of Sestus and Byzantium, Cimon allowed the allies of Athens to choose which part of the booty they wanted (according to Plut. Cim. 9.2), but Lysander rejected the demands of Thebans and other allies to share with Sparta the booty of Aegospotami (Xen. Hell. 3.5.12, Plut. Lys. 27.2). κυνηγέταις is the common form in Attic prose (Plato, Xen.; also in Ar.). Phryn. Ecl. 401 Fischer observed that ‘Athenians’ prefer this tetrasyllabic form, whereas ‘tragedians’ prefer κυναγός with Doricising vocalism. In fact Eur. has κυνηγέτης/(κυναγέτας (lyric)/(ἐκ)κυνηγετεῖν tetrasyllabic 6x and (συγ)κυναγός/κυναγεῖν trisyllabic 10x; Aesch. 1x tetras., 3x tris. Soph.

320

C O M M E N TA RY 3 2 5 – 3 2 9 4x tetras., 3x tris. (Soph. also uses the hybrid form κυνηγέσσειν; cf. Maas (1912=1973) 44). The reference to the hunting that provides food for a feast sounds very much in line with Thracian customs. In most Greek cities, meat was eaten only on special occasions such as public festivals (e.g., Olson on Ar. Ach. 84–7), but meat and game in particular seem to have been widely eaten in Thracian feasts, and many bones from game animals have been found in Thracian village sites; cf. Stronk (1995) 231, Sears (2013) 210, both commenting on the feast organised by Seuthes II and described by Xen. An. 7.3.21–33. αἱροῦσι λείαν: (hunters) ‘who aim at catching quarry’, conative participle; cf. KG I.140–1, Liapis 152. The verb αἱρεῖν seems to be idiomatic for ‘catching’ a prey, and thus preferable to the v.l. αἴρουσι; cf. [Hes.] Sc. 302 τοὶ δ’ … λαγὸς ἥιρευν / ἄνδρες θηρευταί, Xen. Cyn. 12.3 αἱρεῖν τὰς ἄγρας. The generic term λεία is commonly used of war booty, e.g., at Thuc. 2.94.3, 5.115.2, Antiphon F 1.1 Gernet. λεία contributes to the ambiguity of ἐς δαῖτ(α), see above. συγκαμών: typically tragic, not attested before Aesch. PV 414, 1059, Soph. Aj. 988, El. 987 (σύγκαμν᾽ ἀδελϕῶι, with a dative of the person sharing the pain; maybe συγκαμών and παρών in Rh. govern κυνηγέταις apo koinou), Eur. Alc. 614, Her. 1386, nor elsewhere in fifth- or fourth-century literature. δορί: also typical of tragedy at the end of the trimeter; see 56–8n. 327–8 Approval of something in a course of action is here prefatory to a ‘polite rejection’ of it (Liapis 152); cf. Aesch. PV 340–3, Eur. Alc. 1104, IA 506–12, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 1683. ἀτίζεις: here ‘you pay no heed’ (see 251b–2n.) to Rhesus as φίλος. Hector may be correct in criticising Rhesus in that capacity. But his alliance is of great utility to the city, and he should not be spurned. κἀπίμομφος ‘censorious’, in an active sense. The word is passive, ‘blamable’, elsewhere in tragedy: Aesch. Ag. 553, Cho. 830. φίλοις: a category of people to which Rhesus belongs, as Hector admits – once seriously at 320, once sarcastically at 324. τοὺς θέλοντας ὠφελεῖν πόλιν: cf. 314 for Rhesus as an ‘ally’. ὠφελεῖν πόλιν, probably a key phrase of polis ideology, occurs only in prose from Thuc. onwards (often in Xen. and Dem., 2x in Ar., never in tragedy). 329 ἀρκοῦμεν οἱ σώιζοντες Ἴλιον πάλαι The watchmen have tried to persuade Hector by appealing to the overriding interests of the city. Hector had stated that he did not need the help of latecomers (321), now he explains that he is enough for Troy’s safety. ἀρκοῦμεν, used personally, and πάλαι lay emphasis on the proficient and long-lasting agency of the subject (cf. Feickert 184). For personal use, cf. Eur. Alc. 383 ἀρκοῦμεν ἡμεῖς οἱ προθνήισκοντες σέθεν, Or. 668 ἀρκεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ὠϕελεῖν θέλων; also Soph. Ant. 547 ἀρκέσω θνήισκουσ᾽ ἐγώ. The subject οἱ

321

C O M M E N TA RY 3 2 9 – 3 3 2 σώιζοντες Ἴλιον corrects τοὺς θέλοντας ὠφελεῖν πόλιν at 320: Hector has been the ‘saviour’ of Troy for a long time, not just a ‘benefactor’. πάλαι goes with present σώιζοντες: Hector is still the saviour of Troy, but at the same time the adverb reminds the audience of the long years of war during which Hector had to stand alone, and thus ‘harps on the point of Rhesus’ belated willingness to join the war’ (Liapis 152). 330 ἡιρηκέναι: the perfect tense emphasises the fait accompli; contrast Xen. Hipparch. 5.14 αἱρεῖν τοὺς ἐναντίους βουλόμενος, where a present is used for the beginning of the attempt to vanquish the enemy. 331 πέποιθα ‘I am confident’ answers at verse-beginning the question πέποιθας (in the same position, in the second person) put by the chorus. This rhetorical device is especially frequent in Aesch.: Pers. 1017–19 ὁρᾶις τὸ λοιπὸν τόδε τᾶς ἐμᾶς στολᾶς; ∷ ὁρῶ ὁρῶ, Sept. 262–3 σίγησον … ∷ σιγῶ, Eum. 202–3 ἔχρησας … ∷ ἔχρησα, PV 69–70 ὁρᾶις ... ∷ ὁρῶ …, 971–2 χλιδᾶν ἔοικας ... ∷ χλιδῶ. δείξει The final victory of Hector on the battlefield has to wait for dawn in order to become patent. Hector makes a similar statement at 991–2, again introduced by πέποιθα. Likewise Solon, IEG 10.1 δείξει δὴ μανίην μὲν ἐμὴν βαιὸς χρόνος ἀστοῖς warns that time will reveal the truth about his alleged insanity. τοὐπιὸν σέλας θεοῦ is a solemn periphrasis, where θεός = ‘sun’ (Diggle (1991=1994) 405–6). It occurs in two tragic edicts: Eur. Med. 352 εἴ σ᾽ ἡ ᾽πιοῦσα λαμπὰς ὄψεται θεοῦ, Supp. 469 θεοῦ … σέλας; cf. Soph. Tr. 145 θάλπος θεοῦ, Eur. Alc. 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο τοῦ θεοῦ, Hcld. 749–50 λαμπρόταται θεοῦ / ϕαεσιμβρότου αὐγαί, Or. 1025 φέγγος … θεοῦ, TrGF 772.1 θερμὴ δ᾽ ἄνακτος φλόξ. 332 ὅρα τὸ μέλλον became one of the ‘Precepts of the Seven Sages’ according to Stob. 3.1.173 (III.126.1 Hense) and is an idiomatic phrase; cf. Isocr. 1.29 τὸ μέλλον ἀόρατον, Arist. De anima 433b10, EE 1248a38. πόλλ᾽ ἀναστρέφει θεός: the indefinite θεός, or δαίμων, are equivalent to impersonal τύχη ‘fate’, as often in Eur.; see 56–8n., 317–18n. At 882–4 the chorus will ascribe the responsibility for the περιπέτεια to a δαίμων. (ἀνα)στρέφειν is a common verb in such contexts in tragedy: Aesch. Eum. 650–1 (Zeus) τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντ᾽ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω / στρέϕων τίθησιν, Eur. Andr. 1007–8 ἐχθρῶν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν μοῖραν εἰς ἀναστροϕὴν / δαίμων δίδωσι, Supp. 331 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς πάντ’ ἀναστρέϕει πάλιν, Hel. 711–12 ὁ θεὸς ὡς ἔϕυ τι ποικίλον / καὶ δυστέκμαρτον, εὖ δέ πως πάντα στρέϕει, TrGF 536 τὰ τῶν εὐδαιμονούντων ὡς ταχὺ στρέϕει θεός. A comparable motif is that of the ‘wheel of fortune’, applied to the cyclic instability of human affairs and destiny (cf. Davies on Soph. Tr. 129–35, Liapis 153). That motif may involve reversal of fortune from bad to good and

322

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 2 – 3 4 1 can sometimes be consolatory (Kassel (1958) 93–4) See in tragedy Soph. Ant. 1158–9, Tr. 129–35, TrGF 871, Eur. Hcld. 608–17, Moschion, TrGF 97F9.5–6, adesp. TrGF 368a and 700a.26–9. In moralising authors: Theogn. IEG 165–8, Phocyl. 16 Gent.-Prato, Hdt. 1.207.2. In comedy: Alexis, PCG 35.3, Philem. PCG 178.11–12, Men. PCG 311, 853.1, Comp. Men. et Phist. 2.17a–22, 4.10–11 Jäkel. 333–41 The order of lines and the distribution of speakers is uncertain. The transposition of 336–8 after 333 (by Nauck (1862) 171–3, accepted by all editors since, with the exception of Zanetto), is probably correct. It would be illogical if 336–8, denying the alliance to Rhesus, were immediately followed by 339–41, as 339–41 convey a final acceptance of Rhesus’ συμμαχία, which can only come from Hector. Either the coryphaeus or the messenger (so the MSS) would then have to speak 336–8, which propose that Rhesus should not be accepted as a σύμμαχος but only admitted as a ξένος to the dinner table; this seems strange, as the messenger had proclaimed Rhesus a great σύμμαχος for Troy (314) and the chorus had emphasised the importance of accepting a man who was going to ‘help the city’ (328). Nauck’s transposition eliminates the chorus’ (or messenger’s) volte-face. Moreover, by placing two pro-συμμαχία statements, given to the chorus and the messenger, between Hector’s contrasting statements at 333–336–337 and 339–340–341, this transposition strengthens Hector’s logic, when considered (as it should be) in the light of the distinction between old-fashioned formal ξενία and the modern synthesis of φιλία and συμμαχία (see Introduction, pp. 69–70 and Fantuzzi (2011b). At the beginning, influenced by the personal resentment that he feels towards Rhesus because of his late arrival (333), and in the belief that, for the same reason, the whole royal house hates him (338), Hector is ready to allow Rhesus only the formal treatment that he deserves because of the bond of ξενία that the two kings had established at the time of Hector’s campaigns in Thrace (336–7). But as soon as Hector brings up the idea of Rhesus’ ξενία, the polis, represented here briefly but with one voice by the miniature-­assembly of the watchmen and the shepherd, rejects the proposal, and Hector has to go along with its position; see 319–41n. There is no need to suppose that the argument on Rhesus’ behalf was originally longer and that something has dropped out before or after 335 (before: Klyve 225–6; after: Fries 239), as the watchmen and shepherd had already spoken out in favour of Rhesus’ συμμαχία. As Nauck’s transposition makes Hector’s mental evolution seem perfectly logical, we need not consider the different solutions that have been proposed (West ap. Klyve 225 suggested that 336–8 and 339–41 were alternative versions of Hector’s resolution, one of which should be athetised; Zanetto (i) 26–7 and (ii) 145–6 n. 46 transposed 336–8 after 328 and took 338 to be a question asked by the coryphaeus).

323

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 3 – 3 3 7 333 μισῶ is a typical Euripidean line-beginning, used to introduce an expression of strong feelings (Eur. about 15x, Soph. 2x, Aesch. never). While a parallel for the whole line was perhaps a passage of Eur. (Telephus?) that Ar. parodies in a description of Alcibiades at Ran. 1427–9 μισῶ πολίτην ὅστις ὠϕελεῖν πάτραν / βραδὺς ϕανεῖται, μεγάλα δὲ βλάπτειν ταχύς, / καὶ πόριμον αὑτῶι, τῆι πόλει δ᾽ ἀμήχανον, the verbal phrase of the second hemistich has a parallel in Eur. Pho. 1432–3 ὑστέρα βοηδρόμος / πάρειμι. ὕστερον is predicative with βοηδρομεῖν here and at 412; it agrees with the unexpressed indefinite subject τινα ‘one who is late in coming to help’; see 285–6n. βοηδρομεῖν, properly ‘run in response to cries for help’, and its noun βοηδρόμος were probably Euripidean neologisms, derived from βοηδρόμιος ‘succourer’, an epithet of Apollo, or βοηδρόμια, the Athenian festival celebrating the help given by Theseus against the Amazons, or Βοηδρομιών the Attic month in which this festival occurred. Differently from commoner βοηθεῖν/βοηθός from θεῖν (Kretschmer (1930) 97–8), they are tragic words in Classical Athens: 11x in Eur., 1x in Aesch., nowhere else before Lycophr. 923 and Ezech. TrGF 128.232 (perhaps imitations of Eur.) and Appian (who may reveal that the word had become military language). 336–7 For the opposition ξενία/συμμαχία, see Introduction, pp. 69–70 and 319–41n. ὁ δ᾽ οὖν … ἡκέτω: δὲ οὖν, almost always preceded by σύ, ὁ, ἡ, or οἱ, introduces a dismissive ‘defiant ironical imperative’ (Headlam and Knox on Herond. 1.19): ‘the speaker waives any objection that he has, or might be supposed to have, to something being done, or contemplated, by another person’ (Denniston (1954) 466–7; cf. Finglass on Soph. Aj. 112–13, Collard (2018) 150–1). For the structure of the clause, with subject and οὖν separated from the verb, cf. Soph. Aj. 114–15 σὺ δ᾽ οὖν, ἐπειδὴ τέρψις ἥδε σοι τὸ δρᾶν, / χρῶ χειρί, Ar. Ran. 31–2 σὺ δ᾽ οὖν, ἐπειδὴ τὸν ὄνον οὐ ϕήις σ᾽ ὠϕελεῖν, / ἐν τῶι μέρει σὺ τὸν ὄνον ἀράμενος ϕέρε. ξένος δὲ πρὸς τράπεζαν … ξένων: polyptota are sometimes used in Eur. with reference to an individual belonging to a group (Gygli-Wyss (1966) 127 with n. 3); cf., e.g., with ξένος, Aesch. Cho. 703, Eum. 660; with φίλος, Aesch. Cho. 89. It is probably not the case that ‘Rhesus is admitted as a guest only by a grudging sense of social decency’ (Liapis 153), nor is ξενία here just the social decency of hospitality. From at least the time when Hector helped him, Rhesus and Hector were connected by the bond of ξενία, ritualised ‘guest-friendship’, which was founded above all on hospitality – either given or received, and in any case reciprocal – and a common meal had an essential binding force in creating or confirming solidarity (many cultures share the idea that the possession of a common substance is the basis of a mystical bond, and ‘in most rites of incorporation or communion consubstantiality

324

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 8 – 3 3 4 through eating and drinking is an ever-recurring theme’: Herman (1987) 66; also Rudhardt (1958) 158–60, Gould (1973=2001) 30–1). ξενίη τράπεζα is mentioned along with the hearth and Zeus ξένιος in Odysseus’ oath at Hom. Od. 14.158–9 = 17.155–6. Archilochus levels against Lycambes the reproach ὅρκον δ᾽ ἐνοσφίσθης μέγαν / ἅλας τε καὶ τράπεζαν (IEG 173). The chorus of Aesch. Ag. 401 disapproves of Paris, who seduced Helen while he was a guest of Menelaus: ἤισχυνε ξενίαν τράπεζαν. Aeschin. 3.224 is similarly angry because Demosthenes had his ξένος Anaxinus killed by the demos: ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς τραπέζης ἔϕαγες καὶ ἔπιες καὶ ἔσπεισας, καὶ τὴν δεξιὰν ἐνέβαλες ἄνδρα ϕίλον καὶ ξένον ποιούμενος, καὶ τοῦτον ἀπέκτεινας … ἔϕησθα γὰρ τοὺς τῆς πόλεως ἅλας περὶ πλείονος ποιήσασθαι τῆς ξενικῆς τραπέζης;. Dinarch. 1.24 is angry with Demosthenes because he went along with Philip II’s destruction of Thebes, with whose citizens he had often been ὁμόσπονδος and ὁμοτράπεζος. Commensality is an essential symbol of sacred ξενία, and Hector is understandably very careful not to break it. 338 χάρις … διώλετο: cf. Soph. TrGF 920 ἀμνήμονος γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ὄλλυται χάρις, Eur. Hcld. 438 οὔτοι σοί γ᾽ ἀπόλλυται χάρις, TrGF 736.5–6 ἡ δ᾽ ἐν ὀϕθαλμοῖς χάρις / ἀπόλωλ’, ὅταν τις ἐκ δόμων ἀνὴρ θάνηι. Here χάρις means ‘favour’, i.e., ‘readiness to favour’, which is motivated not by gratitude (Hector has benefited Rhesus, rather than vice versa) but by the reciprocal friendship connecting the ξένοι to each other. Since Rhesus did not help Troy despite Hector’s previous help to him, he did not provide the royal family of Troy with the concrete return of χάρις ‘favour’ that could renew their χάρις ‘readiness to favour’ and thus interrupted the chain of χάρις; cf. Soph. Aj. 522 χάρις χάριν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τίκτουσ’ ἀεί, Arist. EN 1133a1–5, Millett (1991) 23–6, Konstan (1997) 81 and (2006) 166–8, Parker (1998) 108–13. So the Trojan royal family’s readiness to favour ‘perished utterly’ or ‘was forgotten’. Both senses are possible for διώλετο. The verb clearly means ‘forget’ at Soph. OT 317–18 ταῦτα γὰρ καλῶς ἐγὼ / εἰδὼς διώλεσ(α), but ὄλλυται χάρις seems ambiguous between the two senses at Soph. TrGF 920, quoted above (compare for the opposite sense σώιζεσθαι = ‘remember’, e.g., Soph. El. 1257, Tr. 682, Pl. Resp. 455b). The death or ageing of χάρις ‘gratitude’ occurs in Menander (PCG 702 ἅμ’ ἠλέηται καὶ τέθνηκεν ἡ χάρις, / ἣν δεόμενος τότ’ ἀθάνατον ἕξειν ἔϕη; cf. 701 ἀεὶ δ᾽ ὁ σωθείς ἐστιν ἀχάριστον ϕύσει) and his later tradition (PCG 702 = [Men.] Sent. 43 = gnomol. PCG 907. 2; [Men.] Sent. 477 μετὰ τὴν δόσιν τάχιστα γηράσκει χάρις, 743 τέθνηκ᾽ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι πᾶσα … χάρις (for the ageing of χάρις, also Eur. Her. 1223 χάριν δὲ γηράσκουσαν ἐχθαίρω ϕίλων). 334 ἐπίφθονον The same construction with an infinitive as subject is found, e.g., at Eur. Hcld. 202–3, Ar. Eq. 1274. It is normal behaviour to accept help when offered, and so rejecting it may seem ἐπίφθονον. A thing can be ἐπίφθονον ‘liable to envy’ whether the envy is that of men (e.g. Hdt. 7.139.1

325

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 4 – 3 3 5 πρὸς τῶν πλεὀνων ἀνθρώπων) or of gods (e.g., Hdt. 4.205.1 πρὸς θεῶν, Thuc. 7.77.3 τῶι θεῶι). Liapis 154 and Fries 241 take ἐπίφθονον as ‘likely to arouse resentment in both men and gods’; likewise Sanders (2014) 41, who interprets, generically, ‘hateful’. But in the light of the chorus’ first warning to Hector about his rejection of Rhesus’ help at 322 πóλλ᾽ ἀναστρέφει θεός, the audience will have probably connected ἐπίφθονον with the idea of φθόνος θεῶν, and will have found this sense confirmed later on by the chorus’ caution concerning ‘divine envy’ and Adrasteia at 342–3. The idea of φθόνος θεῶν, nowhere explicit in Hom. (although it may be underlying at, e.g., Il. 5.440–2, Od. 4.78– 81), is developed by Pind., Aesch., and Hdt., where this divine feeling is more or less ethically motivated, and with few exceptions (especially in Hdt.) the hubristic attitude of the human victim is emphasised – he does not remember the gulf between human and divine prosperity, or deliberately rejects the idea of mortal limits, through an inflated idea of himself as master of his success; cf. Walcot (1978) 46–51; Fisher (1992) 360–3; Cairns (1996) 17–22 and (2003b) 249–50; Harrison (2003) 158–61; Konstan (2003) and (2006) 124–8. 335, 339 Line 339 shows that Hector has two interlocutors, and so the speaker of 335 must be the shepherd-messenger. It is unusual for a messenger to remain on scene and participate again in the dialogue after making his report (as observed by Strohm (1959) 270). He usually gives a single continuous speech and then exits: this holds true in almost every case in Eur. and for the most part in Soph. (Rassow (1883) 2–10; Aesch.’s messengers give sometimes more than one speech). But, at least in Eur. Hel., the servant-messenger who had concluded his report at 621 remains on stage and listens in silence to the conversation between Helen and Menelaus down to line 699, when he intervenes again, converses with Menelaus, and makes a long comment concerning Helen in the light of the new information (700–33); cf. Ritchie (1964) 139. 335 ‘Merely by being seen he would become an object of fright for the enemies’: cf. Eur. Hcld. 687 οὐδεὶς ἔμ᾽ ἐχθρῶν προσβλέπων ἀνέξεται, Her. 494–5 ἄρηξον, ἐλθέ ... / ἅλις γὰρ ἐλθὼν κἂν ὄναρ γένοιο σύ. ὀφθεὶς μόνον appears again, in a military context, at Jos. BJ 2.72 ὀϕθείς τε μόνον μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως τὰ στρατόπεδα τῶν Ἰουδαίων διεσκέδασεν; also Heliod. 4.19, 7.28. As observed by Fenik (1964) 26 n. 3, the comment may recall Achilles’ ability to scare the enemy simply by showing himself, as at Il. 18.198–9, where, before Achilles receives his new armour and can thus re-enter the fighting, Iris suggests: ἐπὶ τάϕρον ἰὼν Τρώεσσι ϕάνηθι, / αἴ κέ σ᾽ ὑποδδείσαντες ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο (~ Il. 16.40–2, where Patroclus makes the request to Achilles: δὸς δέ μοι ὤμοιιν τὰ σὰ τεύχεα θωρηχθῆναι, / αἴ κ᾽ ἐμὲ σοὶ ἴσκοντες ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο / Τρῶες). For Rhesus as parallel to Achilles, see 314– 16n., 348b–51a n.

326

C O M M E N TA RY 3 3 9 – 3 4 0 Euripidean messengers often give their superiors advice on how to react to their news in the very last lines of their speeches: IT 336–9, 1411–13, Pho. 1259–63, Or. 953–6, Bacch. 769–74, IA 435–9. The last words of the shepherd’s report at 314–16 were concerned with the contribution that Rhesus could make to the fighting; he gave no advice to Hector there. 335 is also not explicitly a piece of advice, but after the debate between Hector and the chorus the messenger’s comment suggests that he agrees with the chorus and thinks that it would be better for Hector to change his mind. 339–41 σύ τ(ε) … καὶ σύ: anaphora or polyptoton of the second-person pronoun frequently marks the transition from one addressee to another in Soph., Eur., and Ar.; cf. Soph. El. 678, OT 637, Ant. 724–5, 1340–1, Eur. Cycl. 547–8, IT 656, 1068–9, 1079, Hel. 1590–1, Pho. 568, Ar. Pax 960, Av. 434, Th. 627–8, 1203–4, Ran. 164–5, Plut. 788; never in Aesch. As observed by Fries 242, in most cases the last speaker is addressed first. The first σύ is praised for giving good advice, and the chorus has been giving advice consistently from 317. As for the second addressee, καιρίως σκοπεῖς may mean in principle either ‘the consideration (recommendation) you (the messenger) urge is also opportune’ (Mastronarde (2004) 28) or ‘you have done timely lookout duty’ (e.g., Kovacs 389). While the latter meaning would be possible, it is not attested for σκοπεῖν; and we hardly want a reference to broken duty at this point. The messenger’s comments had concentrated on Rhesus’ positive contribution to the war (on what might happen if Rhesus were accepted as an ally), thus complementing ‘at the right time’, ‘appropriately’, the chorus’ warnings (on what might happen if Rhesus were not accepted as an ally). On the sense of καιρίως, see 52n. 340–1 χρυσοτευχής ‘with golden armour’: hapax, comparable to χαλκεοτευχής ‘with bronze armour’ (Capaneus) at Eur. Supp. 999, also hapax, and χρυσότευκτος ‘wrought in gold’ at Aesch. Sept. 660, TrGF 184.2, Eur. Med. 984, Pho. 220–1, Eub. PCG 19.4. Rhesus had τεύχεα … χρύσεια already at Hom. Il. 10.439. The epithet helps us to understand why in these lines Hector refers only to the messenger, after indicating at 339 that he had taken the contributions of both the chorus and the messenger into account in making his decision. The impressive appearance of Rhesus and his armour and army has explained why the messenger is enthusiastic about the alliance with Rhesus from the beginning of his description at 290 up to its conclusion at 336, and it is something that he alone can share with Hector, as he alone has seen Rhesus. The view that magnificence is evidence of power seems pivotal in Hector’s decision to accept Rhesus as an ally. Allies of the Trojans are elsewhere said to have splendid armour; perhaps this was a cliché. Hes. Th. 984 (possibly interpolated) calls Memnon χαλκοκορυστής and in the Iliad this epithet, formulaic for Hector, is also

327

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 2 – 3 7 9 referred once to the ally Sarpedon; According to Virg. Aen. 8.383–4 Memnon’s arms had been made by Hephaestus at the request of his mother Eos, and their exceptional quality is alluded to at Aen. 1.489 and 751. οὕνεκα … λόγων ‘in view of the words’ introduces a consequent action, e.g., at Eur. Med. 450 λόγων /ματαίων οὕνεκ᾽ ἐκπεσῆι χθονός, Tro. 912–13 τῶν σῶν δ᾽ οὕνεχ᾽ … λόγων / δώσω τόδ᾽ αὐτῆι, Klyve 228. οὕνεκα is an Attic by-form of ἕνεκα, especially common in fifth-century comedy and tragic dialogue (in tragedy ἕνεκα is very rare, but only ἕνεκα in New Comedy); cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 453–6. Metrical structure of the second stasimon: 342–50~351–9 and 360–9~370–9 α 342 ~ 351 ⏓−−⏑⏑−⏑− gl ⏑⏑ ⏑ 343 ~ 352 −−− − − gl 344 ~ 353 ⏓−−⏑⏑−− ph 345 ~ 354 −−−⏑⏑−⏑−− hi 346 ~ 355 ⏒−−⏑⏑−−|| ph 347 ~ 356 −−⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑−−   ia ch ia‸ (ba) 348 ~ 357 −−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− –D 349 ~ 358 −⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−   e – D 350 ~ 359 −⏑⏑−⏑−− cho ba=ia‸ (ar) β 360 ~ 370 −⏑⏑−⏑−⏑−−⏑⏑− cho ia cho 361 ~ 371 −⏑⏑−⏑−⏑− cho ia 362 ~ 372 −⏑⏑−⏑−− cho ia‸ (ba) (ar) 363 ~ 373 −−⏑−⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−− ia 2io 364 ~ 374 ⏑⏑−⏑−⏑−− anacr 365 ~ 375 ⏑⏑−⏑⏑−− io‸ io 366–7 ~ 376–7 −−−⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑−−||   hic 368 ~ 378 −⏑⏑−⏑− dod A 369 ~ 379 −⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−−⏑⏑−⏑−− 3cho ia‸ (ba) (ar2c) Both str.-antistr. α and β begin with aeolic (α) or iambo-choriambic (β) rhythm. α evolves into iambo-choriambic and dactylo-epitrite, with aeolic clausula. The sequence seems to recall the parodos 23–33 ~ 41–51, where however the final dactylo-epitrite section takes up most of the stanza. The same

328

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 2 – 3 7 9 sequence is found in Eur. Tro. 1060–70 ~ 1071–80 but with the sections similarly balanced. Iambics are followed by dactylo-epitrite and then glyconics in Eur. Med. 432–8 ~ 439–45. Dactylo-epitrite is followed by a combination of glyconic and iambic elements in Eur. Ion 1048–60 ~ 1061–73 (Ritchie (1964) 306). β is mainly iambo-choriambic, with a central ionic digression. The transition between the two rhythms is effected very smoothly: 363, ia + 2io, includes two choriambs, while 366–7 is probably a colon of the asclepiad family (Ritchie (1964) 307; Fries 246). Ionic cola in predominantly iambo-choriambic contexts are not uncommon, and the resulting lines are often deliberately ambiguous between the two rhythms; cf. in particular Aesch. Ag. 681–98 ~ 699–716, 737–49 ~ 750–62, Eur. Pho. 1508–29 (1514–16 ionic in a section with predominantly iambo-choriambic rhythm), Hipp. 732–41 ~ 742–51 (beginning with a choriamb, continuing with four ionic dimeters, concluding with glyconics and pherecrateans; note that str.-antistr. β, Hipp. 752–63 ~ 764–75, begins with glyconics and pherecrateans, continues with dactylo-epitrite, and concludes with iambics, so resembling Rh. str.-antistr. α), West (1982) 126–7, Dale (1968) 143–7, Lucarini (2016). 347 ~ 356 Iambo-choriambic trimeters (both catalectic, as here, and acatalectic), in which a choriamb is the first or second metron, are ‘distinctively tragic’ (Parker (1997) 78–80). 350 ~ 359 The aristophanean is a typical clausula in stanzas of iambo-­ choriambic rhythm, as it practically consists of a choriambic dimeter catalectic, the choriamb giving an effect of iambic anaclasis (Dale (1968) 132). Eur. uses it almost exclusively in his earlier plays and in iambo-choriambic and aeolo-choriambic contexts; thus it is definitely an ‘unorthodox clausula’ (Parker (1997) 83; Fries 245) after dactylo-epitrite, despite the iambo-choriambic rhythm of 347 = 356. 360–2 ~ 370–2 are interpreted by Fries 245 (following Willink (2002/2003=2010) 571 n. 28) as doubly dovetailed iambo-choriambics, with colon ends at παλαι|ὰ and παναμερεύ|σει: cho ia ∫ 2 cho ia ∫ cho ia‸(ar). She finds similar double dovetailing in 363–5 = 373–5: −−⏑ 2cho ∫ cho ia ∫ D −. But the price of leaving −−⏑ unidentified at the beginning of 363 ~ 373 seems to me higher than Fries is ready to acknowledge, and I prefer to consider the composite structure of str.-antistr. β (iambo-choriambic at the beginning and end + ion) as parallel to α (simple aeolic cola at the beginning + dactylo-epitrites). Willink (2002/2003=2010) 571 goes in the opposite direction: he tentatively takes 360–2 ~ 370–2 as ionic, scanning the lines as – anacr io anacr io‸ ba (this interpretation seems to be reflected in the MSS’ lineation). As suggested by Liapis 158, authorial intention may be behind this ambiguity, as ionics are often ambiguous in various rhythmic contexts (cf. Dale (1968) 145),

329

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 2 – 3 7 9 and the erotic and sympotic themes dominating in the strophe may have triggered a conscious imitation of Anacreon here and at 364 ~ 374 (Liapis 158; on Anacreon’s metrics as inspirational for Aesch. PV, cf. Σ PV 128, Lucarini (2016) 125 n. 11). 360 ~ 370 Iambo-choriambic trimeter, see 347n. 366–7 ~ 376–7 The line division of the MSS gives dod B and ar, but it is better to take the colon as a hipponactean with two choriambs (Fries 246); cf. below 369 ~ 379 aristophanean with three choriambs; also 251–2 ~ 262–3. An aeolo-choriambic interpretation would give a link to what follows. 342–79 The first strophic pair is a cultic hymn addressed to Rhesus. Unlike the ‘Homeric’ rhapsodic hymn, the cultic hymn addresses the god in the second person, is often concerned with a specific situation, and emphasises a request (Race (1990) 102–6). An outburst of misplaced joy anticipating the victory achieved thanks to Rhesus (see 224–63n.) follows in strophe β, and justifies the intensity of the prayer in antistrophe β. The stasimon and the anapaestic announcement of Rhesus’ entrance at 380–7 are thus tripartite, like 224–63. In the preliminary hymn to Rhesus, and only there, Rhesus is repeatedly identified as a god (355–6 Ζεὺς … ἥκεις, 359 Ζῆνα; also 385 θεός … θεός, αὐτὸς Ἄρης). On the significance of this divinisation in the cultural context of the divinisations of Philip II, Alexander the Great, and Demetrius Poliorcetes, see Introduction, pp. 29–32. Hymns in tragedy are an approximation to real cultic hymns, introduced in order to define the deities affecting the action, and to show – through the way in which worship is featured – the conceptions of deities held by actors or the chorus. They usually create an intense ritual atmosphere, only to set the expectations they have raised against the different dramatic situation which the plot is creating (Furley (1999/2000) 192, 196). The watchmen show themselves eager to promote the deification of a mortal. Rhesus will turn out not to be a god at all, but the chorus’ praise of his greatness as properly divine foreshadows the Muse’s statement at 971 that he will be heroised as an ἀνθρωποδαίμων (Burnett (1985) 26–8). 342–5 Rhesus utters a similar propitiatory invocation to Adrasteia at 467– 8, a few lines after the chorus ask Zeus at 455–7 to ‘ward off’ the φθόνος (again εἴργειν and φθόνος, as here) that Rhesus’ triumphal speech at 443–53 was liable to arouse. Adrasteia (= ‘The Inescapable’, from ἀποδιδράσκειν according to the ancient etymology: Chrys. SVF phys. 528 (II.169), Σ Aesch. PV 663, Phot. Lex. α 384 Theod.) was a mountain goddess related to Cybele in the Troad, and one of the nurses of baby Zeus in Crete (Callim. HZeus 47–8, Ap. Rh. 3.132–6, Apollod. Bibl. 1.5 (1.1.6)). The main centres of her cult were a mountain near Cyzicus named after her (Strabo 12.8.11 (576),

330

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 2 – 3 4 5 13.1.13 (588)), Phrygian Ida (Phoronis PEG 2, Aesch. TrGF 158), and Adrasteia, a sanctuary supposedly erected by a king Adrastus near the river Aesepus.53 Perhaps because of her special connection with Zeus, which is parallel to the strong connection of Dike and Zeus, and because of her name, she became one of the personifications of divine justice, connected to Nemesis. She was however commonly distinguished from Nemesis (cf. Men. PCG 226, Nicostr. PCG 35, Iscrizioni di Cos ED 62 face A.16 (second century) and ED 144.9 (first century) Segre).54 Their spheres of action were similar but differently specialised. Down to the classical age Nemesis is the goddess who punishes overweening pride post eventum, whereas Adrasteia is propitiated beforehand, in the hope that what is going to be said will lack the boastful tone that arouses her indignation. So here the chorus invoke Adrasteia before their exaltation of Rhesus. At 443–53 Rhesus boasts that he can win the war alone and in a single day, without invoking Adrasteia in advance: when this arrogant boast is already uttered, the chorus pray for the φθόνος θεῶν following the boast to be checked and limited (by Zeus, post eventum, not by Adrasteia). And then Rhesus – as if he had learned a lesson in Greek religion from the chorus – asks for the cooperation of Adrasteia at 468 pre-emptively, before he mentions his plan to invade Greece. On the idiomatic propitiatory phrases of προσκύνησις to Adrasteia and Pindar’s asking the gods not to feel φθόνος when faced with the greatness of his laudandus, see Introduction, pp. 36–8. μέν, with no answering δέ within the song, is inceptive. The preserved tragedies of Aesch. with the exception of Sept. and Cho. (plus, probably, Myrmidons, TrGF 131), Soph. Aj., Tr., Ph., and Eur. Hipp. and Hel. begin with inceptive μέν (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1). This μέν is common at the beginning of a speech in early oratory, where Antiphon adopts it ten times in fifteen speeches and Andocides in all his authentic speeches; cf. Denniston (1954) 383. The intimation of beginning inherent in μέν, with the consequent lack of any connection between the triumphant song and the contingent decision at 339–41 concerning the alliance with Rhesus, anticipates that in the mind of the watchmen a new era is opening for Troy, one of revels and freedom from the Greek siege as described in strophe β. All the questions about the alliance seem forgotten, and the arrival of the divine Rhesus practically coincides with this beginning of a new era.

Cf. Antim. F 131 Matthews, Callisth. FGrHist 124 F 28, Amm. Marc. 14.11.25, Harpocr. Lex. α 33 Keaney ~ Synagoge. (cod. B) α 344 Cunn., Phot. Lex. α 385 Theod. 54 LSJ s.v. ‘title of Nemesis’ is wrong and corrected in the Suppl. s.v., although Antimachus and a few later sources do identify the two goddesses; cf. Posnansky (1890) 71–82; van Bremen (2010) 446, 452–3). 53

331

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 2 – 3 4 5 ἁ Διὸς παῖς: Adrasteia is better known as a nurse of Cretan baby Zeus: see 342–5n. Σ 342 point to the peculiarity (ἰδικῶς … φησι) of this genealogy. Plut. Mor. 564e, on Adrasteia as supreme requiter of all crimes, is the only other passage where she is introduced as daughter of Zeus (and of Ananke). From Hes. Th. 901 onwards Dike is considered to be a daughter of Zeus; Rh. may rely on a tradition reflecting an identification of Adrasteia and Dike. στομάτων plural, for a single speaker, appears at Soph. OT 1219; it perhaps involves the idea of ‘words’ (Ellendt) or ‘lips’ (Jebb). The genitive indicates separation. φθόνον: on Adrasteia’s role, see above; on φθόνος, 334n. φράσω, as observed by Fries 247, is a proper introductory future. It points forward to the song that has not yet begun. The watchmen, like other archaic and classical choral poets, speak as though they are still considering the content and shape of their song at the beginning of their performance, so that the process of composition is dramatised and the performance sounds like work in progress. This use of the future is similar to but distinct from the so-called ‘encomiastic’ (Bundy (1962) I.20–2) or ‘performative’ future (Dover on Ar. Nub. 127), whose nuances may also be relevant here. This future is found especially in Pind. (but also in other periods and genres, tragedy included) with verbs of singing or praising that point to the performance in which they appear, thus actually fulfilling the promise of praise; cf. Fogelmark (1972) 93–116, Carey (1989) 552, Faraone (1995), Pelliccia (1995) 317–32, D’Alessio (2004) 278–84. γάρ: the fondness of the chorus for Rhesus is the reason why they run the risk of praising him excessively. μοι ψυχᾶι προσφιλές: ‘part and whole’ construction, as in ἀγρώσταις ... φρενί at 266. The phrase probably presupposes the Homeric formula μοι/ τοι/οἱ/τῆι ϕίλον (ἔπλετο) θυμῶι (8x; also Ap. Rh. 3.787 οἱ θυμῶι ϕίλον), but updates it by replacing ϕίλον with fifth-century Attic προσφιλής (3x Hdt., 3x Thuc., 1x Aesch., about 10x Soph., 5x Eur.) and θυμῶι with ψυχᾶι. In epic ψυχή designates the ‘breath’ of life or the life-spirit surviving the body as a wraith of the dead (Jahn (1987) 27–38, Clarke (1999) 37–60), and has little psychological extension, but from the lyric poets onwards it points to all kinds of emotions and supplants the standard epic θυμός (other terms expressing the capacities of the soul, φρήν, καρδία, and νóος, are more frequently or exclusively connected to deliberation or courage); cf. Furley (1956) 2–10, Webster (1957), Padel (1992) 27–33. Aesch. sticks to the Homeric sense of ψυχή (13x) whereas Soph. and Eur. use it (35x and 117x respectively) mainly to denote emotions or ethical reactions (Sullivan (2000) 94–112, with statistics). In both Soph. and Eur. ψυχή is often presented as conditioning the action of the feeling subject (cf., e.g., Soph. Ant. 929–30 ἔτι τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνέμων αὐταὶ / ψυχῆς ῥιπαὶ τήνδε γ᾽ ἔχουσιν, Eur. Hipp. 504–6 ὑπείργασμαι μὲν εὖ / ψυχὴν

332

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 6 ἔρωτι, τἀισχρὰ δ᾽ ἢν λέγηις καλῶς / ἐς τοῦθ᾽ ὃ ϕεύγω νῦν ἀναλωθήσομαι, TrGF 220.2–3 γνώμηι ϕρονοῦντες οὐ θέλουσ’ ὑπηρετεῖν / ψυχῆι). If the chorus feel too much love for Rhesus in their ψυχαί, they risk praising him excessively. 346–8a ἥκεις ‘you are here’ is repeated at the beginning of the line three times, at 346, 347, 356. Initial anaphora is common in Eur., frequently in choral songs (Med. 978–9, Hec. 1095–6, Supp. 73–4, 271–2, 623, 1138–9, Tro. 201–2, Pho. 1060–1, Or. 1545, Bacch. 533; Diggle (1990=1994) 370). Here the anaphora expresses the ‘jubilant impatience’ of the watchmen (Liapis 159). Hieratic language often includes doubling of words, especially of imperatives in addresses to the participants in the cult or in invocations of a god (‘sacral iterations’: Fehling (1969) 169–70, Collard on Eur. Supp. 73–4, Davies on Soph. Tr. 655. Initial addresses to the god in cletic hymns, too, could include imperatives, sometimes repeated, inviting the god to move to the place where the prayer was performed, e.g., ἐλθέ, βαῖνε, βῆθι, ἱκοῦ, μόλε, φάνηθι (see 370n.). Thus ant. β begins with ἐλθὲ φάνηθι: Rhesus is asked to ‘come’ and ‘appear’ so that he may start fighting, which he has not yet done (and never will). Str. α, on the other hand, concentrates on the fact that he has come already (thrice repeated ἥκεις and 347 ἐπλάθης). See Introduction, pp. 31–2. ὦ ποταμοῦ παῖ: at Hom. Il. 10.435 Rhesus is son of Eioneus, an otherwise unknown mortal, and his mother’s name is not mentioned. Only Dictys Cret. (2.45) takes over this version, naming the father as Eion ~ Homeric Eioneus, while Conon, Narr. 4 offers a synthesis with the most widespread version, according to which the father, Strymon, was a king of the Thracians, after whom the river previously called Eioneus was renamed. The presentation of both of Rhesus’ parents as gods (see Rh. 359 for the mother) complements his superhuman stature. In particular, persons credited with superhuman qualities or heroised were sometimes said to be sons of river gods: Euthymus of Locri, a boxer victorious at Olympia in 484, 476, and 472 BC, was reputed to be the son of the river god Caecinos (Paus. 6.6.4) and was recommended for heroic cult by a Delphic oracle (see Introduction, p. 33); and the athlete Attalus of Magnesia (second century ?) claimed Maeandrus as his father ([Aeschin.] Ep. 10.8); cf. Currie (2002) 41. There is a probable parallel for this parentage in a volute crater produced in the second half of the fourth century by the Darius Painter, now at the Antikensammlung at Berlin. The crater, which seems to combine motifs from Il. 10 and Rh., includes a female figure near a pond and a male figure with horns, who is certainly a river god. It is commonly assumed that these two figures are the Muse and Strymon; cf. Giuliani (1996) 81–5. Alternatively, the female figure is a nymph and the male horned figure is Xanthus or Scamander, and one might think of the version of the legend according to which Rhesus would have become invincible if his horses had drunk from the water of Scamander; see Introduction, pp. 7–9.

333

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 6 – 3 4 7 Σ exeg. and Σ D Il. 10.435 identify Rhesus’ parents as the river god Strymon and the Muse Euterpe. Σ bT may indicate that Pind. F 262 made Euterpe his mother: Ῥῆσος Στρυμόνος τοῦ ποταμοῦ τῆς Θράικης υἱὸς καὶ Εὐτέρπης Μούσης. ἱστορεῖ δὲ Πίνδαρος ὅτι καὶ μίαν ἡμέραν πολεμήσας πρὸς ῞Ελληνας … But Pind. is mentioned only in the second sentence, about his glorious fighting for a single day, not in the first, which concerns his parentage. The other ancient sources are uncertain about the name of the Muse – Euterpe (Heracleides Pont. F 111 Schütrumpf ap. Σ Rh. 346, Apollod. FGrHist 244F146 ap. Σ Rh. 346 and Bibl. 1.18 (1.3.4), Serv. Daniel. on Virg. Aen. 1.469 who cites the river Hebrus or Ares as other supposed fathers of Rhesus, Σ Hom. exeg. and D Il. 10.435, quoted above, Σ Rh. 393, Eust. on Il. 10.435 (817.25–6); Clio (Marsyas of Philippi, FGrHist 136F7 ap. Σ Rh. 346, Σ Rh. 393); Calliope (Apollod. Bibl. 1.18 (1.3.4)); Terpsichore (hyp. Rh. c, Σ D Hom. Il. 10.435, Tzetz. Σ Lycophr. 831). The mother of Rhesus remains Musa without a name in Cic. De nat. deor. 3.45 as in Rh., but Cicero seems to be using there a common designation to refer to both the mother of Rhesus and the mother of Orpheus. This fluctuation, and the fact that Rh. did not name the Muse, may suggest that the author of Rh. invented his version of Rhesus’ parentage, perhaps on the model of Orpheus, and that there was no standard version of the identity of the mother (as observed by Rempe (1927) 38–9, Fries 13). ἐπλάθης … αὐλάν ‘You have come to the court of Zeus Philios.’ For ἐπλάθης, see 13–14n. For the asyndeton ἥκεις ἐπλάθης, where the second verb is longer than the first, cf. Diggle (1974=1994) 99–100. Most of the epigraphic records of Zeus Philios – IG II–III2.2935, 4555, 4623–5, 4845–6, Horos 8–9 (1990/1991) 59 – date from the fourth century, with the earliest from 400–350. Parker (1996) 241 is certainly correct in considering him a ‘new god’ of the late fifth and fourth centuries. The literary references come from the same period: Eur. Andr. 602–4 (the subject is Helen) ἐκ δόμων / τὸν σὸν (scil. of Menelaus) λιποῦσα Φίλιον ἐξεκώμασεν / νεανίου μετ’ ἀνδρὸς εἰς ἄλλην χθόνα, Ar. Ach. 730, Pherecr. PCG 102.1–6, Pl. Euthphr. 6b, [Alc. I] 109d, Grg. 500b and 519e, Phdr. 234e, [Min.] 321c, Men. PCG 53. In Eur. the ‘Zeus Philios’ of Menelaus is clearly the god who protects the φιλία between the guests and the house, and whom Helen has deserted by eloping. Elsewhere he is the god evoked as a witness to the sincerity of a statement. Almost everywhere in literary texts Φίλιος appears alone, without the name ‘Zeus’, and this use is probably a colloquial idiom of comedy or everyday language (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 603; Parker (1996) 241). Fries 248, after Wilamowitz and Nilsson, speculates that Φίλιος (θεός) may have been originally a deity independent of Zeus, but all the fourth-century inscriptions quoted above include Zeus’s name. He is the god who protects φιλία, especially the φιλία of members of a family, and is worshipped with theoxenic dinners or symposia in which he is imagined to participate, thus contributing

334

C O M M E N TA RY 3 4 7 – 3 4 9 to the well-being of the house that hosts them; his iconography often includes a cornucopia. Like Zeus Xenios, Philios is the theonym that accounts for the special dimension of Zeus as a wandering god who visits mortals to test their hospitality.55 He has thus strong connections with the domestic space, in particular the symposium, as an inscription of a dining-club (ἐρανισταί) in his honour demonstrates (IG II–III2. 2935 of 324–323 BC; cf. Sjövall (1931) 75–84; Nilsson (1932=1951) I.432–5; Petridou (2015) 298–301). The chorus may already have in mind the sympotic reverie of 360–4. But the reference serves primarily to boost Rhesus’ spirits as a guest-φίλος of Troy: apart from the φιλία that the chorus has shown (345), he comes ‘welcomed with joy’ (ἀσπαστός 348) to a royal house (αὐλή 347, synecdochically for all Troy), where Zeus Philios is reassuringly at home. ἀσπαστός: an epic word, nowhere else in tragedy; but ἀσπασίως occurs at Aesch. Ag. 1555 and ἀσπάζεσθαι in all three tragedians. 348b–51a The runover between strophe and antistrophe emphasises the name Strymon, but the periphrasis that introduces this name at 349–50 allows the strophe to retain its syntactic autonomy and softens the runover; cf. 242–4a. χρόνωι (or τῶι χρόνωι or ἐν χρόνωι) ‘in course of time’, first attested at Solon, IEG 4.16 and in Pindar, is widely used in tragedy, Ar., and Ionic-Attic prose (Hdt., Thuc., Pl.). It goes with πορεύει ‘send on one’s way’ (subjects ‘Pierian mother’ and Strymon). The qualification implies that Rhesus’ parents tried to postpone their son’s departure, as is made explicit at 934–7. This provides a further parallel between Rhesus and Achilles, whose mother Thetis delayed his joining the Greeks by disguising him as a girl on Scyros (cf. Fantuzzi (2012) 21–9). Πιερίς: a common epithet of the Muses, derived from Pieria, the region in South Macedonia stretching from the northern side of the Olympus massif to the river Haliacmon. This localisation is not attested in Hom., where the Muses are ‘Olympian’. Pieria is their birthplace at Hes. Th. 53–4, Op. 1 Μοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν. The epithet appears at [Hes.] Sc. 206 and often in lyric: Sapph. F 103.8 Voigt (cf. also F 55.3), Anacr. PMG 346.11+3+6.9, Solon, IEG F 13.2, Pind. Ol. 10.96, Pyth. 1.14, 6.49, 10.65, Nem. 6.32, Isthm. 1.65, F 52f.6, F 215a.5. In drama, references to the Pierian connection of the Muses are mainly found in choral songs: Soph. TrGF 568.1, Eur. Med. 833, Bacch. 410, IA 798, 1041, and Pratinas, TrGF 4F3.4, perhaps a satyr drama (cf. D’Alessio (2007)). Cf. the story of Zeus visiting Lycaon to test his or his children’s impiety, narrated, e.g., by Apollod. Bibl. 3.98 (3.8.1) and Nonn. Dion. 18.20–4, or the Philemon and Baucis story at Ovid, Met. 8.611–724. Diodor. PCG 2 humorously presents Zeus Philios as the inventor of the art of being a parasite.

55

335

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 1 – 3 5 4 The author of Rh. may have also felt ‘Pierian’ appropriate in order to give his Muse a Macedonian location, and one so close to Strymon. For the identity of the Muse, cf. 346–8a. καλλιγέφυρος ‘with beautiful bridges’, not attested elsewhere, parallels the usual καλλι- epithets that refer to parts of the body or garb (e.g., καλλιβλέφαρος, καλλίσφυρος, καλλίπεπλος). Well-read spectators with Hdt. or Thuc. in mind may have thought of the bridges that Xerxes constructed near Ennea Hodoi (Her. 7.24.1, 7.114.1) or of the bridge north of Amphipolis which Brasidas crossed on the night he conquered the city in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.103.4–5, 4.108.1).56 If the bridge of Brasidas was so wellknown that καλλιγέφυρος was enough to point specifically to it (as Fries 249 assumes), then this may be an indirect reference to that city and its heroic cult of Rhesus, which is not reflected elsewhere in Rh.; see Introduction, pp. 10–12. 351b–4 For the sexual language applied to Strymon, cf. Ovid, Met. 3.342–5 … Liriope, quam quondam flumine curvo / implicuit clausaeque suis Cephisos in undis / vim tulit. enixa est utero pulcherrima pleno / infantem nymphe. Iconography as a rule shows river gods as mixanthropic: either as bulls with human faces or as horned men (LIMC IV.1, 140 ‘Fluvii’). The bull form may have been suggested by the bellowing or roaring of the water, but also by male potency (Forbes Irving (1990) 43, Aston (2011) 88, 142). Water, which guaranteed the fertility of plants, was frequently joined to fertilising masculine power (Ninck (1921) 25–30, Ginouvès (1962) 420–2, Pirenne-Delforge (1994) 151–3). River gods had a scanty mythology consisting mainly of erotic adventures and numerous progeny; Strymon for instance had two other sons, Brangas and Olynthus (Conon, Narr. 4), and at least two daughters, Tereine (Ant. Lib. 21) and Evadne (Apollod. Bibl. 2.3 (3.1.2)).57 Greek brides often bathed in a river for pre-nuptial rites and at Troy explicitly dedicated their virginity to Scamander. This was possibly connected to the idea of the fertility of water, and interpreted as a sort of symbolic marriage with the local river god; cf. Many of its posts survived and have recently been excavated; cf. Bougia (1996) 193–200, Lazarides (1997) 33–6, Maniates et al. (2010). 57 Achelous wrestled with Heracles for the love of Deianeira (e.g., Soph. Tr. 9–21) and was the father of the Sirens by Terpsichore or Melpomene (e.g., Ap. Rh. 4.893–6; Lycophr. 713, quoted below); Acis was the successful lover of Galatea (Ovid, Met. 13.780–897); Alpheus was the father of Phegeus (Hygin. Fab. 244) and Ortilochus by Telegone (Hom. Il. 5.545–6), but was less lucky with his passion for Artemis (Telesilla, PMG 717; Paus. 6.22.9–10) and the nymph Arethousa (e.g., Ibyc. PMGF 323); Enipeus was loved by Tyro (Hom. Od. 11.236–40); Spercheus had a son from Polydore (Il. 16.174–7); Selemnus loved Argyra (Paus. 7.23.1); Cephisus sired Eteocles/Eteoclus (Paus. 9.34.9); Inachus sired Phoroneus (Paus. 2.15.5); the daughters of Boeotian Asopus were nine in Corinna’s catalogue PMG 654 coll. ii–iv. 56

336

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 1 – 3 5 6 Alcae. F 45 Voigt (on Thracian Hebrus), Alcm. F 241.15–18 Calame, Aesch. Supp. 854–8, 1026–8, Eur. Pho. 347–8, with Σ, Thuc. 2.15.5, Artemid. 2.38, Harpocr. Lex. λ 28 Keaney ~ Phot. Lex. λ 411 Theod. and Suda λ 694 Adler, Ginouvès (1962) 267–82, Borthwick (1963) 231–6, Currie (2002) 31–4, Håland (2009) 122–38. μελωιδοῦ Μούσας: the epithet, repeated by Hector at 393 (cf. also 923), points to her ability in ‘lyric song’, as at Eur. TrGF 752f.14. It is not found before Eur., Ar. (PCG 753, 853, and 5x μελωιδία/μελωιδεῖν), and the late-fourth- and third-century phlyacographer Sopater, PCG 10.4. μελωιδός, nomen agentis of the profession that the Muses patronise, and likewise ἀοιδός at 386 are not normally applied to the Muses, as here and at 393 (a partial parallel is perhaps Eur. Tro. 384–5 μηδὲ μοῦσά μοι / γένοιτ᾽ ἀοιδὸς ἥτις ὑμνήσει κακά, where μοῦσα is metaphorical = ‘music’; the lines are possibly interpolated). However Muses often sing, from, e.g., Hom. Il. 1.1 and Hes. Th. 75 onwards; cf. HHom. 14.2 Μοῦσα λίγεια, Hes. Th. 965–6 = 1021–2 ἡδυέπειαι Μοῦσαι, Alcm. PMGF 14a.1–2 Μῶσ᾽ ἄγε Μῶσα λίγηα πολυμμελὲς / αἰὲν ἀοιδέ, Pind. Isthm. 1.64–5 εὐφώνων … Πιερίδων, Ol. 6.21 μελίφθογγοι Μοῖσαι, Pyth. 3.90 μελπομενᾶν … Μοισᾶν. Lycophr. 713 μελωιδοῦ μητρός, said of the mother of the Sirens, probably the Muse Melpomene or Terpsichore may allude to Rh. δι᾽ ἀκηράτων … κόλπων ‘passing through the undefiled womb’ is paralleled, and probably alluded to, by Nonn. Dion. 3.284–5 ῎Επαϕον Διὶ τίκτεν, ἀκηρασίων ὅτι κόλπων / Ἰναχίης δαμάλης ἐπαϕήσατο θεῖος ἀκοίτης. ἀκήρατος ‘undefiled’, here ‘virgin’ (as at Eur. Tro. 675, IA 1083) accounts for the peculiar intercourse by which Rhesus was generated, described at 919–20. κόλποι ‘lap’ sometimes means ‘womb’ in poetry both in the singular (Callim. HDel. 214, Aet. F 7.9 Harder, Archias AP 9.11.2 = GPh 3695, Nonn. Dion. 5.195), or in the plural, as here and, e.g., Eur. Hel. 1145; the use of the plural in this sense may be derived from the most frequently plural κόλποι ‘garment fold(s)’. δινηθεὶς ὑδροειδής ‘eddying in watery form’, with passive δινεῖσθαι ‘spin round’ in intransitive sense; cf. Arist. Mech. 858b5 and 14 δινούμενον ὕδωρ. σὰν ἐφύτευσεν ἥβαν: a periphrasis of the type βίη Ἡρακληείη for ‘sired you, young man’; see 90n. φυτεύειν often means, metaphorically, ‘sire’ in tragedy (cf., e.g., ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ at Soph. OT 793, 1514, Eur. IA 1177, and ὁ φυτεύσας = ‘father’ at Soph. Tr. 1244, Ph. 904). The most common non-­ metaphorical sense of this verb is ‘plant’ trees; it is well suited to river gods, whose reputation for fertility was based primarily on the beneficial effect of water on vegetation; cf. above and Aesch. Supp. 281 καὶ Νεῖλος ἂν θρέψειε τοιοῦτον ϕυτόν (= the Danaids of the chorus). 355–6 For the identification of Rhesus as a god, without comparative conjunction, see 342–79n. Φαναῖος appears nowhere else for Zeus, but is attested for Apollo at Achaeus, TrGF 20F35 ap. Hesych. Lex. φ 141 Hansen-Cunn., where the epithet is explicitly said to be local to Chios; cf. Steph. Byz. φ 24

337

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 5 – 3 5 6 Billerbeck. At Chios Apollo had a temple near the harbour by the promontory of Φάναι, which was said by Strabo 14.1.35 (645) to be connected to the temple. Authors of the Imperial age explain the epithet Phanaios allegorically, and connect it to Apollo as the Sun, ‘as it appears new every day’ (Macrob. 1.17.34), or as the god who reveals the truth, e.g., through prophecy (Plut. Mor. 385b, Cornut. 67.2–7); but those were probably late and speculative re-interpretations. Both the epithet Φαναῖος and the toponym Φάναι may derive from φαναί ‘torches’ (Liapis (2007) 382–5). These ‘torches’ would be connected to the mysteries, according to Markantonatos (2004) and Liapis (2007). Φαναῖος may also be connected with Φάνης ‘The one who makes (or is) manifest’, an important god in many Orphic theogonies, who was identified as Zeus (Markantonatos (2004) 28–9). However, while torches and light have a wellknown role in mysteries (cf. most recently Seaford (2010), Christopoulos (2010), Paleothodoros (2010), Patera (2010)), there is no evidence of Apollo or Zeus in mysteries in the whole of continental Greece (apart from a few pieces of evidence, quoted by Liapis, which are all late), and we do not expect here a strange and uncommon epithet of Zeus, which would be too ‘heavily laden’ (Fries 251), side by side with other straightforward epithets (Φίλιος, Ἐλευθέριος). It is more economical to suppose, with Fries 250, that the torches of both the toponym Φάναι and the epithet Φαναῖος refer to the beacons which may have illuminated the Chian promontory and guided ships in the night to the safety of the harbour (as suggested by Crusius (1894) 16; cf. 358–9 ἐλευθέριον Ζῆνα). The metaphor of light as salvation is common in epic and tragedy and has many parallels in Indoeuropean cultures: Hom. Il. 15.741, 18.102, 21.538,58 Aesch. Ag. 522 ἥκει γὰρ ὑμῖν ϕῶς ἐν εὐϕρόνηι ϕέρων, Cho. 131, 809–10, 961, Soph. El. 1354, Ant. 500–600, Eur. Med. 482, Hec. 841, El. 449–50, 585–7, Her. 531 ὦ ϕάος μολὼν πατρί, Or. 243 ἥκει ϕῶς ἐμοῖς καὶ σοῖς κακοῖς, TrGF 316.5–7, Lossau (1994), Giannakis (2001), West (2007) 482. Epiphanies of heroes or gods often feature divine radiance and relevant light imagery; cf. Hom. Il. 5.4–8, 18.205–6, HHom.Ap. 440–2, HHom.Dem. 189, 278–80, Eur. Bacch. 1083, Plut. Lys. 12.1, Pfister (1924) 315, Richardson on HHom.Dem. 188–90, Bravo (2004) 66–7, Csapo (2008) 278, Cropp on Eur. El. 449. διφρεύων βαλιαῖσι πώλοις: cf. Eur. Andr. 1010–11 πόντιε κυανέαις ἵπποις διϕρεύ/ων ἅλιον πέλαγος. The verb is exclusively Euripidean in tragedy (Andr. 108, 1010–11, Supp. 991, TrGF 114.3). Until the fourth century, βαλιός is a Homeric-Euripidean word. Βαλίος is the name of one of the two horses of Achilles at Il. 16.149 and 19.400, βαλιός an epithet of animals at Eur. Alc. Σ A ad loc. comments: ‘(Hom.) says τεῦξαν ϕάος instead of “provided σωτηρία to the fugitives.”’

58

338

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 6 – 3 5 9 578, Hipp. 218, Hec. 90, IA 222. The adjective βαλιὀς is usually assumed to mean ‘dappled’ in Hom. and Eur., but ‘quick’ at Triphiod. 84, Synes. H. 1.77, Nonn. Dion. (always: more than 10x), passages in which βαλιός often modifies nouns like πτερά, ἄνεμοι, αὖραι, ἀῆται, γούνατα, etc., and is unequivocally connected to speed, not to dappling. In fact, the scholia to the βαλιός passages of Hom., Eur. and Oppian frequently interpret it as ‘quick’ or suggest both ‘dappled’ and ‘quick’: Σ exeg. Hom. Il. 16.149; Σ Eur. Hec. 90, Σ Eur. Hipp. 218; Σ Opp. Hal. 2.434, [Cyn.] 2.314. The ambiguity between the two semantic fields of colour and speed which has been supposed to begin with Callimachus (Aet. F 110.53 Harder; cf. Schmitt (1970) 53–4 n. 6), may have been much earlier in the case of βαλιός, as in the case of ἀργός (cf. Frisk (1954/1972) I.214). Modern interpreters, from Hermann (1828) 293 to Feickert 198–9, Liapis 162, and Fries 251, find a contradiction between the description of the horses as βαλιαί at 356 and as white at 304 and 618, and try to explain it as a misunderstanding of Eur. IA 222 (πώλους) λευκοστίκτωι τριχὶ βαλιούς, taken to refer to horses dappled and white at the same time, rather then dappled with white spots. But we cannot rule out that, before Callimachus, the author of Rh. may have made his own scholarly choice about the alternative meanings between which βαλιός was perhaps already fluctuating and opted for the meaning of speed.59 357–9 ὦ πατρὶς ὦ Φρυγία: cf. Rh. 869 ὦ γαῖα πατρίς, Eur. Hec. 905 ὦ πατρὶς Ἰλιάς. The apostrophe ὦ (γαῖα/φίλη) πατρίς is found only in Eur. (7x) down to the fourth century. For the anaphora of vocative ὦ, see 231–2n., Eur. Tro. 601 ὦ πατρίς, ὦ μελέα. σὺν θεῶι νῦν σοι τὸν ἐλευθέριον / Ζῆνα πάρεστιν εἰπεῖν ‘God being with you, now it is possible for you to address Zeus the Liberator’ confirms the appeal to Adrasteia in the first line of the strophe (342–3; also cf. 467–8), and tries to neutralise the hubristic effect of Rhesus’ divinisation at 355–6. εἰπεῖν in the sense ‘address’, with accusative of person, is a Homeric rarity, found at Il. 12.60 = 12.210 and 13.725, 17.237, 17.334, 17.651, 20.375; the peculiarity of the construction is confirmed by the remark of Σ in each place, ‘πρός is missing’. Rh. also splits the common phrase σὺν θεῶι εἰπεῖν between the beginning and the end of the final lines 358–9 of the antistrophe. This phrase – a parenthesis with final infinitive ‘in order to speak with god on my side’ – was in the fifth and fourth centuries an apotropaic idiom concerning the risks of φθόνος. It is found at Soph. TrGF 479.1–2 (where it has the sense ‘by the grace of god, let it be said’ and acknowledges divine help in the past), and in Pl. Tht. 151b, Prt. 317b, Leg. 858b, [Pl.] Ep. 311d, 320b, The contradiction with the whiteness of Rhesus’ horses at 304 was already noted by the Σ, which suggests the alternative interpretation βαλιαῖσιν … δύναται … ἀντὶ τοῦ ταχείαις.

59

339

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 8 – 3 5 9 320c; Dem. 29.6 (θεοῖς); with small variants at Hdt. 1.86.3, Eur. Med. 625, Ar. Plut. 114. The phrase ‘is tantamount to an acceptance that divine help (or at least non-hindrance) will be needed if the assertion is to prove, or remain, true’ (Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Palam., TrGF 479); cf. Lobeck (1866) 287–8, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 168–9. τὸν Ἐλευθέριον Ζῆνα: if Φαναῖος qualifies Zeus as ‘Bearer of the light’ of salvation (see 355–6n.), then Ἐλευθέριον explains why. At Il. 6.526–9 Hector hopes: τὰ δ᾽ ὄπισθεν ἀρεσσόμεθ᾽, αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεὺς / δώηι ἐπουρανίοισι θεοῖς αἰειγενέτηισι / κρητῆρα στήσασθαι ἐλεύθερον ἐν μεγάροισιν / ἐκ Τροίης ἐλάσαντας ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς. The ‘freedom’ that Zeus secures appears to be freedom of the fatherland from external aggression or occupation, such as was ensured by the victory at Plataea in 479; see 989b–92n. After the battle, the Spartan king Pausanias made sacrifices to Zeus Eleutherios (Thuc., 2.71.2) and an altar was erected in Plataea to Zeus Soter with the epiclesis ‘Eleutherios’ (Paus. 9.2.5, Strabo 9.2.31 (412), Plut. Aristid. 19.6–7; Harpocrat. Lex. ε 35 Keaney, Hesych. Lex. ε 2020 Latte, Raaflaub (2004) 102–4); the altar was inscribed with an epigram for the dedication to Zeus Eleutherios, under the name of Simonides, FGE 736–9. A recently found Plataea inscription (Étienne and Piérart (1975)) proves that in the first half of the third century a dual cult existed of Zeus Eleutherios and Homonoia of the Hellenes, celebrating the unity of the panhellenic effort against the Persians. West (1977) and Raaflaub (2004) 102–3 argue that the cult of Zeus Eleutherios may have been reawakened in the second half of the fourth century, in the context of Macedonian – or Isocratean – propaganda for the campaign against the Persians that was being planned by Philip II and Alexander the Great. An altar was erected to Zeus Soter Eleutherios in the agora at Athens (Men. PCG 482, Paus. 1.3.2 and Σ, Σ Ar. Plut. 1175, Σ Pl. Erx. 392a, Hesych. Lex. ε 2020 Latte), and arms of warriors fallen in battle who had contributed to the freedom of Athens were dedicated on the walls of the nearby stoa (Paus. 1.26.2, 10.21.5). In Athens Zeus Eleutherios appears to be a new post-Plataea god (cf. Parker (1996) 187), though his cult may have had stronger roots at Sparta (Wide (1893) 17). And in the fourth century, Hypereides suggested a different interpretation of the epithet, not focused on the public dimension of the freedom of the state, but on the more private dimension of the freedom of the freedmen; cf. Harpocr. Lex. ε 35 Keaney Ἐλευθέριος Ζεύς· Ὑπερείδης (F 197 Jensen) ‘τῶι μὲν τοίνυν Διί, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἡ ἐπωνυμία γέγονε τοῦ ἐλευθέριον προσαγορεύεσθαι διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἐξελευθέρους τὴν στοὰν οἰκοδομῆσαι τὴν πλησίον αὐτοῦ’. ὁ δὲ Δίδυμός ϕησιν ἁμαρτάνειν τὸν ῥήτορα· ἐκλήθη γὰρ ἐλευθέριος διὰ τὸ τῶν Μηδικῶν ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ~ Phot. Lex. ε 597 Theod.; Etym. magn. 349.43–9 Gaisf.; Suda ε 804 Adler. This interpretation of the epiclesis as focused on individual freedom may have been a reaction

340

C O M M E N TA RY 3 5 8 – 3 6 2 to the Spartan (Pausanias’) recognition of Zeus Eleutherios as the god who assisted the Greeks at Plataea; it must have been taken seriously even beyond the fourth century, if Didymus criticised it and again proposed the Plataea connection. It is tempting to surmise that the description in Rh. of the happiness of Troy after the end of the Greek siege was meant as a defence of the traditional interpretation of Eleutherios as connected with the freedom of the fatherland. 360–2 ‘Can it ever again be that ancient Troy will spend the whole day in toasts that pledge the health of our beloveds?’ The reverie is comparable to Eur. Bacch. 862–9 ἆρ’ ἐν παννυχίοις χοροῖς / θήσω ποτὲ λευκὸν / πόδ’ ἀναβακχεύουσα, δέραν / αἰθέρ’ ἐς δροσερὸν ῥίπτουσ’, / ὡς νεβρὸς … ἁνίκ’ ἂν ϕοβεράν ϕύγηι / θήραν and Erechth. TrGF 370.5–10 ἦ ποτ᾽ ἀνὰ πόλιν ἀλαλαῖς – ἰὴ παιάν – / κ]αλλίνικον βοάσω μέλος / ἀναλαβόμενος [ἔρ]γον γεραιᾶς χερὸς / Λίβυος … [λω]τοῦ / κιθάριδος βοαῖς … / τροχαλὸς ἑπομέναις; / ἆρα νέα γέροντι [κοι]ν̣ώσεται / χοροῦ παρθένος;, where the chorus wish to celebrate relief from a siege (cf. Cropp (2015) 160). The evident Dionysiac colouring of this whole second strophe may include echoes of Orphic-Dionysiac eschatology, according to which – as it would seem from Pl. Resp. 363c–d, and from the great number of cups found inside the graves – the souls of the dead ­participated in endless banquets; cf. Burnett (1985) 26–8, 103 and Markantonatos (2004) 28–9. Burnett and Markantonatos have also highlighted a number of further, but less certain ritual themes in the hymn to Rhesus that initiates could take to be Orphic and mystic (see 355–6n.). ποτ᾽ αὖθις expresses the length of the wait (ποτε) for the desired return (αὖθις) to normality and its pleasures, after the gloomy years of the siege. The question is not ‘dispirited’ (Liapis 164); the chorus wish that the symposia of the past will soon return, thanks to Rhesus; tragic irony arises precisely because the idea that this scenario is only wishful thinking does not occur to the watchmen. παλαιά ‘old’ ~ ‘venerable’; see 231–2n. προπότας … θιάσους ἐρώτων qualifies the special kind of revels in which symposiasts toast those they love. And toasts – most commonly προπόσεις (cf. Rh. 361) – may point, implicitly, to some intrinsic un-Hellenic excess in the symposia which the chorus remember with nostalgia from the past, and imagine in the future. In fact toasts were occasions for the circulation of the ‘friendship cup’ (φιλοτησία). Each of the symposiasts uttered the name of the person toasted, drank from a cup, and passed it to the right; cf. Dion. Chalc. IEG 1.1–3 δέχου τήνδε προπινομένην / τὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ποίησιν· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπιδέξια πέμπω / σοὶ πρώτωι, Χαρίτων ἐγκεράσας χάριτας, 4.1 ὕμνους οἰνοχοεῖν ἐπιδέξια σοί τε καὶ ἡμῖν, Eur. TrGF 468 χαῖρε κύλικος ἑρπούσης κύκλωι, Men. Perinth. F 4 Sandbach οὐδεμίαν ἡ γραῦς ὅλως / κύλικα παρῆκεν ἀλλὰ πίνει τὴν κύκλωι, Suda φ 427 Adler φιλοτησίαν προπίνειν ἐστίν, ἡνίκα τις ἐν ἀρίστωι

341

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 1 – 3 6 2 ἀπὸ τῆς δοθείσης αὐτῶι ϕιάλης πιὼν μέρος, τὸ λοιπὸν παράσχηι ϕίλωι, καὶ τὴν ϕιάλην χαρισάμενος. These repeated circulations of cups were among the ἀναγκαῖαι πόσεις which Lycurgus is said to have abolished at Sparta (Xen. Lac. const. 5.4). According to Critias, IEG 6, circular toasts were excluded by law from the symposia at Sparta, precisely to ensure moderation in drinking, whereas the introduction of προπόσεις had been ‘Asian-born’. A fragment of the Spartan constitution by, again, Critias (VS 88B33) explains that Chians, Thasians, and Athenians pass cups around the circle of drinkers to the right, whereas the Spartans sip from their own cups and the slave who pours the wine replaces only what they have drunk. Circulation of the cups escalated the consumption of wine, as intimated, e.g., at Bacch. F 20b.6–7 εὖτε νέων ἁ[παλὸν] γλυκεῖ’ ἀνάγκα / σευομενᾶν κυλίκων θάλπησι θυμόν and Theogn. IEG 487–91. Cf. Hobden (2013) 105–7, Wecowski (2014) 85–97. παναμερεύσει ‘will spend the whole day’ (in revelling)’ points to the relaxed atmosphere of the symposia that the chorus idealise. A formal model may have been Hom. Od. 12.23–4 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγετ᾽ ἐσθίετε βρώμην καὶ πίνετε οἶνον / αὖθι πανημέριοι. The verb is a hapax and its transitive construction (with θιάσους) is odd, as the other compound verbs ending with ἡμερεύειν (διημ-, ἐνδιημ-, συνδιημ-, etc.) are intransitive. Addiction to dissolute pleasures throughout the day has a place in the criticism of the customs of non-Hellenic peoples by Theopompus, FGrHist 115F49 (the Thessalians) ἐν κύβοις καὶ πότοις καὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀκολασίαις διημερεύοντες; see 418b–19n. The commonly accepted time for symposia was from early evening until the following dawn; cf. Ar. PCG 695 for evening as the time when one is invited to join ὁ χορὸς (χρόνος MSS) ὁ φιλοτήσιος.60 Drinking by day is often criticised as debauchery: Pherecr. PCG 34; Eupol. PCG 385.3; Amphis, PCG 43; Dem. 54.3. θιάσους were originally the ‘revels’ of Dionysus’ worshippers. By the end of the fifth century the term can mean any throng of people (of Centaurs, e.g., in Eur. IA 1059; cf. Harpocr. Lex. θ 25 Keaney θίασος· … ῎Ιων δὲ ἐν Ὀμϕάληι (TrGF 19F32) κοινῶς ἐπὶ παντὸς ἀθροίσματος). But the religious connotation surfaces time and time again, and the term is used for the group of the Muses at Ar. Th. 41, for the Erinyes at Eur. Or. 319, for girls engaged in a ritual dance at IT 1146 (of the kind of Alcman, PMGF 1.39–91). Here θίασος means ‘revels’, not Dionysiac but sympotic, and it may still have a vague religious flavour. This almost religious appraisal of the Trojan victory is paralleled by the presentation of the Greek defeat as a negated ritual at 375–6; see n. ἐρώτων is taken with ψαλμοῖσι by Porter 63, Feickert 201, Liapis 164, and Fries 253. I follow Kovacs 393 in taking it as a genitive of the toast to be Asclep. AP 12.50 = HE 884, where the fact that the first fingers of dawn’s light on the horizon (δάκτυλος ἀώς) are still small (= that dawn is still far off) probably is presented as a good reason to indulge in the pleasures of symposion.

60

342

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 2 – 3 6 4 construed with hapax προπότας, ‘pledging the health of (our loves)’. While pouring wine into the cup the person making the pledge would toast, in the genitive or dative, the name of the beloved or, in the same cases, ἔρως/ Ἔρως: cf. Alexis, PCG 116.1–3 παῖ, τὴν μεγάλην δός, ὑποχέας / ϕιλίας κυάθους μὲν † τῶν † παρόντων τέτταρας, / τοὺς τρεῖς δ’ Ἔρωτος προσαποδώσεις ὕστερον, Eub. PCG 93.1–4 τρεῖς γὰρ μόνους κρατῆρας ἐγκεραννύω / τοῖς εὖ ϕρονοῦσι·  … τὸν δὲ δεύτερον / ἔρωτος ἡδονῆς τε, etc., Theocr. 2.151–2 αἰὲν ῎Ερωτος / ἀκράτω ἐπεχεῖτο, 14.18–20 ἔδοξ᾽ ἐπιχεῖσθαι ἄκρατον / ὧτινος ἤθελ′ ἕκαστος· ἔδει μόνον ὧτινος εἰπεῖν, Callim. AP 12.51.1–2 = HE 1063–4 ἔγχει καὶ πάλιν εἰπὲ ‘Διοκλέος’· οὐδ᾽ Ἀχελῶιος / κείνου τῶν ἱερῶν αἰσθάνεται κυάθων, Mel. AP 5.136.1–2 = HE 4222–3 ἔγχει καὶ πάλιν εἰπέ, πάλιν πάλιν, ‘Ἡλιοδώρας’· / εἰπέ, σὺ δ᾽ ἀκρήτωι τὸ γλυκὺ μίσγ᾽ ὄνομα. 363–4 ψαλμοῖσι καὶ κυλίκων οἰνοπλανή/τοις ἐπιδεξίοις ἁμίλλαις: ‘among the strains (of music) and contests of cups that make the wine wander round from left to right’, with ψαλμοῖσι and ἁμίλλαις comitative datives describing the acoustic atmosphere and the circulation of the cups as attendant circumstances to the toasts. ψαλμός is the action of ‘plucking’ a bowstring or a string of a musical instrument such as the lyre. Here the comitative dative denotes the ‘strains’ of stringed instruments that accompany the toasts, as at Pind. F 125.3, Telest. PMG 810.4, Phryn. TrGF 3F11 (quoted below), Aesch. TrGF 57.7 (not ‘songs’, as translated by Kovacs 393 and Liapis 164; Phryn. TrGF 3F11 ψαλμοῖσιν ἀντίσπαστ᾽ ἀείδοντες μέλη and Jos. AJ 7.80 appear to distinguish vocal μέλη and instrumental ψαλμοί). οἰνοπλάνητος is a hapax, but other -τος compounds from the verb πλανᾶν are found in poetry: θαλασσοπλάνητος, νυκτοπεριπλάνητος, ποντοπλάνητος. It refers to the ‘competitions of cups’ and means ‘making wine wander’ or ‘made to wander by wine’, from transitive πλανᾶν or passive πλανᾶσθαι. The first meaning, as observed by Fries 253, describes the action of the circulation of the cups of wine and thus is more specific for our context, while the second would introduce the unparalleled image of the cups made drunk by wine. Certainly wrong was the interpretation of Σ, ταῖς διὰ τοῦ οἴνου παραγούσαις τὸν νοῦν, which presupposes the idea, here unexpressed, of the effect of the cup contests on human minds. For the image of wine circulation at symposia, cf. Phocyl. 14 Gent.-Prato χρὴ δ’ ἐν συμποσίωι κυλίκων περινισομενάων / … οἰνοποτάζειν, Eur. TrGF 468, quoted above (360–2n.), Xen. Smp. 2.27 χρὴ τοὺς οἰνοχόους μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἁρματηλάτας, θᾶττον περιελαύνοντας τὰς κύλικας, Callim. Aet. F 178.13–14 Harder περιστείχοντος ἀλείσου / τὸ τρίτον. ἐπιδεξίοις: the cups circulated in the symposion are often said to be passed around from left to right, and adverbial ἐπὶ δεξιά or ἐπιδέξια are common to designate a movement oriented from left to right; cf. Hom. Od. 21.141–2, Eup.

343

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 4 – 3 6 7 PCG 354, 395, Pl. Smp. 223c, Resp. 420e, Anaxandr. PCG 1, Hesych. Lex. τ 796 Hansen-Cunn., Darbishire (1895) 65–87, Braunlich (1936). For the φιλοτησία cup in particular, cf. Theogn. IEG 489, Critias, IEG 6 and Dion. Chalc. IEG 1, quoted above. This specific sympotic usage supports the emendation of transmitted ὑποδεξίοις/ὑποδεξίαις to ἐπιδεξίοις, construed with ἁμίλλαις (L. Dindorf in ThGL III.1567–8, after ἐπιδεξίαις Musgrave II.407; feminine endings are not attested, whereas PHerc. 176F5 col. 24.6 Vogl. gives ταῖς π[ρ]ὸς ἕκαστον ἐπιδεξίοις ὁμιλίαις). ὑποδεξίοις/ὑποδεξίαις (defended by Porter 64 and Pace (2002) 456–8) seem a generic banalisation: ‘ready to receive’ abundant wine, i.e., ‘capacious’, as at Hdt. 7.49.3 λιμένων ὑποδεξίων, harbours capable of hosting ships (so Σ Rh. 364 ὑποδεξίαις: ὑποδεκτικαῖς and Porter), or ‘ready to receive, i.e., welcome, the victorious Trojans’ (Pace). κυλίκων … ἁμίλλαις were the competitions in hard drinking, that were distinct from the rotation of the φιλοτησία cup, but associated with it and the strains of music in the cumulative imagery of the watchmen’s sympotic reverie; cf. Wecowski (2014) 41–7 and, in general on sympotic games, Lissarrague (1990) 68–86. We know of a contest of drinking unmixed wine (ἀκρατοποσία) organised by Alexander (Plut. Alex. 70.1); Pollux, On. 6.25 Bethe includes a list of forms of hard drinking that may have had an ­agonistic character: Θραικία πρόποσις, Σκυθικὴ πρόποσις (cf. Anacr. PMG 356b.3), ἀμυστὶ πίνειν and ἀμυστίζειν ‘drinking without closing the mouth’, i.e., ‘drinking in a single draught’ (cf. Anacr. PMG 356a.2; Anacreont. 9.1–2 West; Antiph. PCG 75.13–14 speaks of a special contest of drinking ἀπνευστί with both hands behind the back), χανδὸν πίνειν ‘drinking with mouth wide open’. Another contest required those taking part to drink while holding the cup by their teeth, with hands and legs stretched out, as we can see in a cup by the Adria Painter (Adria, Mus. arch. naz. B471; cf. Wecowski (2014) 46). The connection between music (cf. 363 ψαλμοῖσι) and the circling of cups is attested in a fragment by Amipsias that appears to involve a synchronisation of μέλος and circling of the goblet called ἄμυστις (PCG 21 αὔλει μοι μέλος, / σὺ δ’ ἆιδε πρὸς τήνδ᾽· ἐκπίομαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ τέως. / ⸬ αὔλει σύ, καὶ τὴν ἄμυστιν λάμβανε), with the explanation of Athen. Epit. 11.783e ἔπινον δὲ τὴν ἄμυστιν μετὰ μέλους, μεμετρημένου πρὸς ὠκύτητα χρόνου. 365–7 ‘As the Atreidae travel over the sea to Sparta, away from the shore of Ilium.’ The joyful celebrations at the supposed departure of the Greek fleet may foreshadow the Trojan celebrations that will follow the false departure of the Greek fleet to Tenedus, and immediately precede the decision of the Trojans to bring the Wooden Horse within the city walls; cf. Proclus’ summary of the Il. parva  (PEG p. 75) οἱ δὲ Τρῶες τῶν κακῶν ὑπολαβόντες ἀπηλλάχθαι τόν τε δούρειον ἵππον εἰς τὴν πόλιν εἰσδέχονται … καὶ εὐωχοῦνται ὡς νενικηκότες τοὺς ῞Ελληνας, and Virg. Aen. 2.21–6. In Eur. Hec. 914–32 the collective voice of the chorus of Trojan women remembers how each went to

344

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 6 – 3 6 8 bed after songs, dances, and sacrifices, and her husband (919–22) ἐν θαλάμοις ἔκει/το, ξυστὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ πασσάλωι, / ναύταν οὐκέθ᾽ ὁρῶν ὅμιλον / Τροίαν Ἰλιάδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτα. Σπάρταν: at Hom. Od. 1.285 and 11.460 Menelaus is king of Sparta, whereas Agamemnon, the leader of the Greek expedition against Troy, is king of Mycenae (Il. 2.569) or Argos (1.30, 2.108). But the Od. and the Cypria may have presupposed a version in which both were Spartan and shared the kingdom. At Od. 4.514–15 (suspected of being interpolated) Proteus tells of Agamemnon rounding Cape Malea in order to sail home from Troy: evidently he was heading for Laconia, not for Argos or Mycenae. At Od. 3.249, Telemachus asks Nestor where Menelaus was when Agamemnon was killed, apparently expecting that he would have been with the brother. Proclus’ summary of the Cypria (PEG p. 39) reads: ἐπιβὰς δὲ τῆι Λακεδαιμονίαι Ἀλέξανδρος ξενίζεται παρὰ τοῖς Τυνδαρίδαις. At Il. 9.149–53 Agamemnon offers Achilles, among other things, Messenian cities. Cf. Kiechle (1963) 41–9, Merkelbach (1969) 47–50, Sommerstein (2010) 139. Certainly Agamemnon’s kingdom was at Lacedaemon according to Stesich. F 177 Finglass, Simon. PMG 549 = F 276 Poltera, Pind. Pyth. 11.16 (Laconian Orestes) and 32 (Agamemnon is killed by Clytemnestra at Amyclae, near Sparta), Nem. 11.34 (Amyclaean Orestes), Hdt. 7.159.1 (Agamemnon king of the Spartiatai). He also had a cult at Amyclae, documented from the early fifth century down to the age of Pausanias, who could still see his tomb (3.19.6). Either the author of Rh. focuses on Menelaus’ return together with Spartan Helen, as her abduction by Paris had led to the war (Liapis 165), or he thinks in lyric terms of Sparta as the common kingdom of the two Atreidae (Aesch. retains the idea of a joint kingship in the Oresteia, but transfers it to Argos; Eur. El. and Or. also locate Agamemnon’s kingdom at Argos, Soph. El. at Mycenae). On Agamemnon and Menelaus cohabiting in the same palace in tragedy, cf. 717–19n. Ἰλιάδος is here an epithet, as at 238. 368–9 ὦ φίλος: nominative instead of vocative, common with φίλος especially when substantivised, as here; cf. Svennung (1958) 199–203 and 206–7. Use of the nominative often gives a nuance of emotional intensity, and this may make the plea here more respectful: cf. Gildersleeve (1900/1911) I.4, Wackernagel (2009) 385–6, West (1966) 140, Fries 254. This form of address is frequent in Eur. (Cycl. 73, Andr. 510, 530, 842, 1205, Supp. 278, Tro. 267, 1081, IT 830; only twice in Hom. Od., once in Soph., once in Aesch., once in Ar.). Both nominative and vocative of φίλος are seldom used in dialogues between a mortal and a god, but where it appears, it sometimes highlights the intimacy of a special relation, as, e.g., at Aesch. Sept. 174 (cf. Hutchinson ad loc.), Eum. 999 (cf. 911), Soph. Aj. 14, 38, Eur. Cycl. 73 (cf. 435), Hipp. 82, TrGF 448a.65 (Hermes?), Ar. Pax 718, Av. 1504. σᾶι χερὶ καὶ σῶι δορί: cf. Aesch. Ag. 111 σὺν δορὶ καὶ χερὶ πράκτορι (parodied by Ar. Ran. 1289), Eur. Andr. 523–4 σὰν / χεῖρα καὶ δόρυ σύμμαχον, CEG

345

C O M M E N TA RY 3 6 8 – 3 7 0 488.3 κτώμενον εὔκλεαν (= εὔκλειαν) δορὶ καὶ χερί (beginning of the fourth century). χερὶ καὶ … δορί is a hendiadys for ‘with your hand armed with a spear’ (cf., e.g., Aesch. Ag. 116 χερὸς ἐκ δοριπάλτου). The pairing was made easy by epic phrases that focus on the hand accomplishing the act of brandishing or throwing the spear, such as Il. 10.31 δόρυ δ᾽ εἵλετο χειρὶ παχείηι, 15.474 χερσὶν ἑλὼν δολιχὸν δόρυ, 16.117 πῆλ᾽ αὔτως ἐν χειρὶ κόλον δόρυ, Od. 14.277 δόρυ δ᾽ ἔκβαλον ἔκτοσε χειρός; in tragedy, e.g., at Eur. Her. 268 ὦ δεξιὰ χείρ, ὡς ποθεῖς λαβεῖν δόρυ. 370–4 Rhesus is pictured by the watchmen as going to fight Achilles in the way that Iliadic heroes are commonly presented when they go to the battlefield: mounted on a chariot. Homeric heroes do not fight on horseback, and the chariot, in which they drive up to the front line or retreat from it, is a status symbol that the mass of warriors do not enjoy (see 189–90n.). This use of the chariot is not unparalleled in the ancient world. Celts and Cyrenaics used to dismount from chariots to fight hand to hand; cf. Anderson (1965) and (1975), Drews (1995) 116–18. There is no need to suppose (with Greenhalgh (1973) 40–62, Worley (1994) 17–19) that the use of the chariot in the Il. was a heroic convention superimposed on original narratives that assumed mounted cavalry: cf. van Wees (1994) and (2004) 158–60, Littauer and Crouwel (1983/2002), 53–61. In some cases warriors on chariots come close enough to the enemy to fight from the chariot, usually by thrusting with spears (Il. 5.12–19, 8.116–21, 11.531–9; cf. Snodgrass (1964) 260 n. 26, Greenhalgh (1973) 8–9). But most often they dismount and fight on foot, perhaps because they do not want to risk losing their valuable horses in battle, and so that they can escape quickly if need be: cf. van Wees (1994) 12. A chariot charge is described only at Il. 4.297–300, and a fight between chariots only at Il. 11.150–2 (often considered to be interpolated). Only at the conclusion of the fight do warriors return to the chariot in order to store spoils, move to another place on the battlefield, or pursue the enemy. Rhesus is imagined on his chariot coming face to face with Achilles, who is not said to be mounted on a chariot; he will then charge him with the chariot, as at Il. 5.12–13 (Phegeus and Idaeus vs Diomedes) τώ οἱ ἀποκρινθέντε ἐναντίω ὡρμηθήτην· / τὼ μὲν ἀϕ’ ἵπποιιν, ὃ δ’ ἀπὸ χθονὸς ὤρνυτο πεζός, or dismount and fight on foot. The text is silent about the posture of Achilles, and provides no support for the idea, proposed by Fries 255, that Achilles and Rhesus are imagined as fighting from their chariots, unusually in Iliadic terms. 370 ἐλθὲ ϕάνηθι … προβαλοῦ: threefold imperative, with asyndeton for further emphasis (Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. 30–4, Finglass on Soph. El. 115). Cf. Aesch. Pers. 658–9 ἴθι, ἱκοῦ, / ἔλθ(ε) … 663 βάσκε … 666–7 φάνηθι (Darius is asked to come from his tomb to help; at 660–2 his impressive

346

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 0 – 3 7 2 dress and appearance are described, as in Rh. 371–4), Soph. El. 115 ἔλθετ᾽, ἀρήξατε, τείσασθε, Eur. Her. 494 ἄρηξον, ἐλθέ· καὶ σκιὰ ϕάνηθί μοι (addressed to the absent Heracles shortly before he appears, as here in the case of Rhesus: Sansone (2013)), TrGF 757.60i.16 ἄρηξον, ἐλθέ. First attested in Sapph. F 1.5 Voigt, ἐλθέ is also found in prayers to the gods at Eur. Cycl. 602 and high-flown passages of comedy (Ar. Ach. 665, Eq. 559, Nub. 269, Th. 319). It may have a kind of coercive nuance, paralleled in magical texts (perhaps overemphasised by Ausfeld (1903) 516–18); but it may simply express a desire for mystical union with the invoked god (Pulleyn (1997) 136–43). For the cletic imperative φάνηθι, or milder second person optatives, cf. Alcae. F 34.3 Voigt, Soph. Aj. 698, OT 164, Ant. 1149, Eur. Alc. 92, Hipp. 528, Her. 494, quoted above, Bacch. 1017, Ar. Eq. 591, Nub. 266, Th. 1143, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 695–8. ζάχρυσον occurs at Eur. Alc. 498 (construed with πέλτη, as here; see 305– 6a n.) and IT 1111. The Aeolic and Homeric intensive prefix ζα- = διά- is used often in tragedy: Aesch. Pers. 316 ζαπληθής, Supp. 194 ζαχρεῖος, PV 1084 ζάπυρος, TrGF 284.4 ζάθεος, Soph. Aj. 137 ζαμενής, Eur. Andr. 1282 ζάπλουτος. Rhesus’ πέλτη is not made of solid gold, but heavily decorated with gold (cf. 305–6, 382). Thrace was famous in antiquity for its gold mines, and πέλτη is the technical term for the typical Thracian shield; see 305–6n. προβαλοῦ: most commonly in the middle voice, as here, the verb was a technical term for holding a shield in front of oneself for protection (ἀσπίς at Xen. Mem. 3.8.4, Strabo 17.3.7 (828), App. Pun. 26, BC 1.120; or ἴτυς at carm. pop. PMG 856 claimed to be from Tyrtaeus by Σ Dio Chrys. Or. 2.59, and perhaps inspired by him). 371–2 κατ᾽ ὄμμα, or κατ᾽ ὄμματα, is ‘face to face’; see 420–1n. πέλταν δοχμίαν πεδαίρων: the πέλτη, a shield of fairly small dimensions, had to be raised (πεδαίρων) to protect the upper part of the body, the most exposed for a warrior mounted on a chariot. It is held aslant (δοχμία ‘inclined’, ‘non-perpendicular’, predicative), so that arrows or spears will glance off it (Liapis 166; Fries 256) – a position in which it could easily be held thanks to the πόρπαξ (Rh. 384) with which it was equipped (Snodgrass (1967) 53, Schwartz (2009) 34–5 and (2013) 162–3). Alternatively, δοχμία ‘askew’ may point to the shape of the πέλτη, which was frequently crescent-shaped, and did not have the regular (round or oval) outline like most other shields (cf. 305–6a); so DGE. Doric-Aeolic πεδ- (for μετ-) is especially suited to choral lyrics, in which all its occurrences in Eur. are found (contrast non-choral IT 1157 μεταίρεις). πεδαίρειν occurs in Eur. Her. 819, 872, Pho. 1027. Aesch. has πεδ- compounds with αἴρειν (πεδάρσιος Cho. 846, PV 269, 710, 916, πεδάορος Cho. 590) and other roots (πεδαίχμιος Cho. 589, πέδοικος TrGF 246d). As a typical tragic word, πεδάρσιος was taken up for paratragic re-use by Ar. Av. 1197 (possible model: adesp. TrGF 47.1).

347

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 2 – 3 7 4 372–3 σχιστὰν παρ᾽ ἄντυγα. For ἄντυξ, see 116–18n. The so-called ‘rail chariot’ of the Bronze Age replaced the heavier ‘box chariot’ and the ‘dual chariot’. The dual chariot had curved wings at the rear; both types had solid sides. The rail chariot produced several variants for a range of uses until the end of the archaic age. It had a rail at hip height running round the front and sides; the sides were not walled at all or had low walls, and the lateral rail was horizontal or rose towards the corner with the front – most markedly in the so-called ‘Helladic’ model (Crouwel (1981) 70–4). ἄντυξ is often found in the plural in Hom. (Il. 11.535, 20.500, 21.38), and the περίδρομοι ἄντυγες of Hera’s chariot are said to be δοιαί at Il. 5.728, perhaps because the rails of a chariot were thought of as composed of two partial semicircles; or being ‘double’ was perhaps meant to be a specifically divine feature of the rail of Hera’s chariot (Lorimer (1950) 326). The point where the rail might seem σχιστός ‘split’ was probably the rear, where the rails of the two sides might run down in a curve (Crouwel (1981) 71), and were separate for easy access. Fries 251 suggests instead that σχιστός refers to the rail branching out in two parts from the front of the breastwork; for Liapis 167, σχιστός reflects the pronounced rising hoop of the rail at the front of the ‘Helladic’ chariot type from which the two side rails might seem to split off. ἐρεθίζων is not common for ‘goading’, for which the normal word is κεντεῖν. This specific meaning of ἐρεθίζειν is not attested before Heliod. 8.16, 9.17, but the verb may be used here in its more general sense ‘incite’, ‘spur’, for which cf. Eur. Bacch. 148 πλανάτας ἐρεθίζων. πώλους is a certain emendation for transmitted κώλοις by Reiske (1754) 88 and Musgrave (1762) 144. The two colts were already mentioned at 355. In his first clear appearance in Greek poetry after Hom., Hippon. IEG 72.5– 7, Rhesus is mentioned as killed while being ἐπ᾽ ἁρμάτων τε καὶ Θρεϊκίων πώλων / λευκῶν. 374 δίβολóν τ᾽ ἄκοντα πάλλων: cf. Pind. Nem. 3.45 βραχυσίδαρον ἄκοντα πάλλων ἴσα τ᾽ ἀνέμοις, of the young Achilles. Parallels for δίβωλóν τ᾽ ἄκοντα are the source of Hesych. Lex. τ 1350 Hansen-Cunn. τρίβολον ἄκοντα· τρίαιναν, where the lemma sounds like an excerpt from a lyric or tragic text (West ap. Fries 257), Ar. PCG 492 τῶν πλατυλόγχων διβολίαν ἀκοντίων, and ἀκόντιον ἰθυβόλον, a present to Procris from Minos in love, which sounds like an excerpted poetic phrase in Apollod. Bibl. 3.198 (3.15.1). The specification δίβολον ‘twice hitting’ may highlight an ironical overlapping between Achilles and Achilles’ would-be vanquisher Rhesus, here and in 335 and 248–51 (this overlapping of winner and loser would parallel the ironic overlapping of Odysseus and Dolon in the first part of the tragedy; see 219–22a n.). In fact, according to Σ Pind. Nem. 6.85b, Il. parva PEG F 5.2 described a double-pronged and fork-shaped spear (δίκροος αἰχμή) as a special weapon of Achilles (Σ Pind. δόρυ … ἰδιαίτερον παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα

348

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 4 – 3 7 6 κατεσκεύαστο). This famed spear of Achilles was mentioned in tragedy: cf. Aesch. TrGF 152 †κάμακος† γλώσσημα †διπλάσιον† (from Nereids) and Soph. TrGF 152 δορὸς διχόστομον πλᾶκτρον· / δίπτυχοι γὰρ ὀδύναι μιν ἤρικον / Ἀχιλληΐου δόρατος (from The Lovers of Achilles), both quoted by Σ Pind. loc. cit. These texts were roughly contemporary with a piece of iconographic evidence for the employment of the double-pronged spear in real life (a lost stele with a Phrygian inscription and the image of a warrior, dated to the second half of the fifth century, reproduced in de Vries (2000) 353; for the iconography of the bident in myth, cf. Cook (1914/1940) II.2.799–806). We cannot rule out, however, the possibility that Rhesus’ ‘twice hitting’ spear was not a spear with a single fork-shaped spike, but one with the usual spearhead plus the butt-spike called στύραξ or σαυρωτήρ or οὐρίαχος, a standard item of hoplite weaponry (cf. Hanson (1991) 71–4); in this interpretation, suggested by Stevens on Eur. Andr. 1130 and Liapis 167–8, Rhesus’ δίβολος ἄκων would hardly be evocative of Achilles. 375–6 In the watchmen’s imagination the Greek(s) who dared to challenge Rhesus would have thought of celebrating their victory over him back at home, honouring a divinity (Hera) and a place (Argos) strongly linked with the origins of the expedition; for dancing as an expression of victory or success, cf. Aesch. Ag. 22–4, Soph. El. 277–81, Eur. Alc. 1154–5, El. 873–9, Her. 763–71, Bacch. 862–81, Erechth. TrGF 370.9–10, quoted above (360–2n.). The specific reference to the δάπεδα ‘floors’ of ‘Argive Hera’ may have conveyed the watchmen’s vengeful contempt for the Greek besiegers at many levels of detail. Hera was the main patron goddess of Sparta, Mycenae, Argos (Hom. Il. 4.51–2, O’Brien (1993) 119–31), and the kingdoms of Agamemnon and Menelaus (see 365–7n.). She was commonly credited with the initiative of summoning the leaders of the other contingents against Troy (in a version of the prelude to the Trojan War known only from the late Dictys 1.16, the supreme leadership of Agamemnon in the expedition was formally sanctioned by a vote of the other Greek leaders in the temple of Argive Hera). She was, along with Athena, the goddess most favourable to the Greeks; cf., e.g., Il. 4.7–8 δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελάωι ἀρηγόνες εἰσὶ θεάων / Ἥρη τ᾽ Ἀργείη καὶ … Ἀθήνη and Eur. Tro. 23–4 νικῶμαι … Ἀργείας θεοῦ / Ἥρας Ἀθάνας θ᾽, αἳ συνεξεῖλον Φρύγας. Besides, the mention of the ‘floors’ of Argive Hera may have evoked the Heraeum, the large sanctuary near Argos built c. 423 about five miles from Argos and three from Mycenae, and the Heraea of Argos, an annual festival held in its precinct. Paus. 2.17.3 records that the metopes and pediments of the Heraeum represented ‘in part the birth of Zeus and the battle against the giants, in part the war against Troy and the taking of Ilion’ and the metopes included scenes of Amazonomachy. Thus it seems that they drew a parallel between the establishment of the power of Zeus and the Olympic gods on the one hand and

349

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 5 – 3 7 6 the Greek victories against foreign people and Troy in particular on the other (Waldstein (1902) 146–52, Eichler (1916/1919) 93–103, Pfaff (2003) 119). With tragic irony, the Trojan watchmen in their misguided optimism state that no Greek will ever defeat Rhesus and celebrate his victory in that Heraeum which in fact was destined to memorialise the destruction of Troy. Furthermore, the ‘dancing’ on the ‘floors’ of Argive Hera may evoke the festive atmosphere of the Heraea of Argos. This festival included dances ‘of boys in arms of military age’ (Aen. Tact. 17.2 πομπὴ σὺν ὅπλοις τῶν ἐν τῆι ἡλικίαι), i.e., an initiation ritual for ephebes; cf. [Plut.] Paroem. Gr. I.327–8, Lonis (1979) 210, Burkert (1983) 163, O’Brien (1993) 145–9, De Polignac (1995) 46, Nagy (2010) 292–5. The contest of boys which constituted one of the highlights of the festival, called Ἀσπίς, rewarded the winners with metal objects such as hydriai, tripods, or, most often from the classical age onwards, bronze shields; cf. Pind. Nem. 10.22–3 and Σ Pind. Ol. 7.152, Billot (1997) 50–4. The mention of the Argive Heraea at Eur. El. 167–92 was probably triggered by the memory of this Ἀσπίς contest and the related celebrations of the winners of the shield. As demonstrated by Zeitlin (1970) 659–60, the focus on the shield of Achilles in the praise of the heroic stature of the expedition against Troy in the first stasimon of El. (432–86), together with the chorus’ earlier invitation to Electra to participate in the celebration of the Heraea (El. 167–74) and her refusal (El. 175–92), will have led the audience to appreciate that the Heraea and their contests of boys were in counterpoint to the sad situation of Electra, and highlighted the contrast between Electra’s humiliation and the enthusiasm of the Heraean dances. In the wake of Eur. El., the allusion in Rh. to the sad non-performance of dances on the ‘floors’ of Argive Hera may stand in counterpoint to the joy of the watchmen, ­anticipating Rhesus’ victory, and the emphasis on Rhesus’ πέλτη at Rh. 371–3, immediately preceding this allusion, may have intimated the shield as the prize at Hera’s festival. οὔτις ὑποστάς may be reminiscent of Aesch. Pers. 87–9 δόκιμος δ᾽ οὔτις ὑποστὰς / μεγάλωι ῥεύματι ϕωτῶν / ἐχυροῖς ἕρκεσιν εἴργειν. ὑφίστασθαι, absolute or with dative or accusative (as here), was perhaps a common term for ‘holding the ground’ on the battlefield; cf. Rh. 315 ὑποσταθείς δορί (absolute), Eur. Pho. 1470 κοὐδεὶς ὑπέστη (absolute), Thuc. 2.61.4 (with dative), 4.54.2 (absolute), 1.144.4 (with accusative), Xen. Hell. 7.5.12 (with dative). Ἀργείας … Ἥρας: the designation of Hera as ‘Argive’ is almost limited to epic: Hom. Il. 4.7–8, quoted above, Il. 5.908, Hes. Th. 11–12, Phoron. PEG F 4.2; in tragedy at Eur. Tro. 23–4. δαπέδοις can sometimes mean any natural level plane (πέδον), and thus ‘ground’, ‘soil’ (e.g., Eur. Alc. 591, Hel. 207, Ar. Plut. 515), but, as we should expect in view of the original derivation of δα- from the root of δέμειν/δóμος, it usually designates artificially produced level surfaces for building on (in

350

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 6 – 3 7 9 Hom. almost always the floors of a house; in Pind. and Eur. mainly the floors of temples or grounds of their precincts, for which the name of the relevant god is usually specified); cf. Pind. Nem. 7.34 and 83, Eur. Hipp. 230, Andr. 117, Supp. 271, Tro. 540, Ion 121, 576, Or. 330, TrGF 955h.2, Barrett on Hipp. 230; nowhere else in tragedy, apart from Aesch. Cho. 798. 378–9 ἅδε γᾶ /καπφθίμενον Θρηικὶ μόρωι, / φίλτατον ἄχθος οἴσει ‘This soil will bear him, killed with a Thracian doom, as a pleasant burden’ is an oxymoron, as ἄχθος ‘burden’ is commonly used as a metaphor for unpleasant things, such as pains or old age (e.g., Soph. El. 120 λύπης ἀντίρροπον ἄχθος, Eur. Her. 637–40 ἄ/χθος δὲ τὸ γῆρας αἰεὶ / βαρύτερον Αἴτνας σκοπέλων / ἐπὶ κρατὶ κεῖται, IT 710 τῶν ἐμῶν ἄχθη κακῶν), not for something ‘most welcome’. In particular, bodies, living or dead, are unpleasantly heavy ‘burdens’ for the earth, whose oppression by the weight of mankind moved Zeus to provoke the war of Troy according to Cypria, PEG F 1. Heaviness is emphasised when the body belongs to a human or other being considered especially helpless and inept: Achilles at Il. 18.104, feeling useful to nobody and sitting idle by his tent, considers himself ἐτώσιον ἄχθος ἀρούρης; Odysseus disguised as a beggar looks like ἄχθος ἀρούρης at Od. 20.379; helpless women are περισσὸν ἄχθος at Soph. El. 1241; helpless human beings are βάρος περισσὸν γῆς ἀναστρωϕώμενοι at Soph. TrGF 945.3; triflers are γῆς … ἄχθη for society at Pl. Tht. 176d; animals contaminated by human defilement and thus useless are περισσὸν ἄχθος … γῆς at Men. F 113* Körte-Thierf. (hence, perhaps, Plaut. Bacch. 820 terrai iam odium ambulat); obnoxious animals are called ἄχθεα μυρία γαίης at Nic. Ther. 9. The bodies of the dead are a burden for the earth. However, anyone who tries to resist Rhesus will be so hateful to Troy that retaining their corpse, whilst still a burden, will be a paradoxically welcome one. καπφθίμενον (Bothe (i) V.293 and – independently – Elmsley (1814) 58–9) is not attested elsewhere, but is an emendation that mends the metre. Forms of this verb with apocope and partial assimilation (three aspirated consonants would be cacophonous; cf. Tryph. Path. 23.8–10 Schneider; Eust. on Hom. Il. 12.208 (900.14–15)) have been restored for similar participles at Eur. Supp. 984 (καπφθιμένου) and El. 1299 (καπφθιμένης); assimilation of final τ to φ is known from Il. 16.106 κὰπ φάλαρ(α). Θρηικὶ μóρωι: μόρος, from μείρεσθαι ‘receive as one’s share’, means ‘fated death’ or in some cases ‘way of death’ (at least in epic, Hdt., and tragedy it never seems to mean simply ‘fate’ ~ μοῖρα, πότμος); ‘way of death’ is the meaning required here and at 517, 817, 938. Cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1146, Denniston and Page on Aesch. Ag. 1144ff., Lloyd-Jones (1978) 57; Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 440–2. The combination of a verb meaning ‘die’ or ‘kill’ with the dative of μόρος qualified by an epithet that illustrates (or inquires about) the nature of the

351

C O M M E N TA RY 3 7 8 – 3 8 7 death is a tragic mannerism: Aesch. Pers. 444 τεθνᾶσιν … δυσκλεεστάτωι μόρωι, 446 ποίωι μόρωι δὲ τούσδε ϕὴις ὀλωλέναι;, Supp. 987 δορικανεῖ μόρωι θανών, Ag. 1495 = 1519 δολίωι μόρωι δαμείς, Cho. 296 ταριχευθέντα παμϕθάρτωι μόρωι, Soph. Aj. 1059 θανόντες ἂν προὐκείμεθ᾽ αἰσχίστωι μόρωι, Ant. 1266–8 νέος νέωι ξὺν μόρωι … ἔθανες, Tr. 1042–3 εὔνασόν μ᾽ / ὠκυπέται μόρωι τὸν μέλεον ϕθίσας, OC 1656 μόρωι δ᾽ ὁποίωι κεῖνος ὤλετ(ο), Eur. Hec. 695 τίνι μόρωι θνήισκεις;, Bacch. 1041 τίνι μόρωι θνήισκει;, Neophr. TrGF 15F3.1 ϕερεῖς γὰρ αὑτὸν αἰσχίστωι μόρωι. It may have been more generally an Ionic-Attic fifth-century idiom: Hdt. 3.65.5 ἀνοσίωι μόρωι τετελεύτηκε, 5.21.1 τούτωι τῶι μόρωι διεϕθάρησαν, 9.17.4 διαϕθαρῆναι αἰσχίστωι μόρωι. 380–7 As often elsewhere in tragedy (about thirty occurrences: Taplin (1977a) 73), anapaests recited by the chorus mark the transition to a new scene, usually coming at the end of a stasimon, and announce the appearance of a new character. They may introduce grand and awe-inspiring entries (as here or in Soph. Ant. 155–61; Eur. El. 988–97 quoted below, Or. 348–55, TrGF 822. ii.1.10–18), or funeral processions (e.g., Aesch. Sept. 871–4, Soph. Ant. 1257–60, Eur. Supp. 794–7, 1114–22, Tro. 1118–22, Pho. 1480–4), or the entry of prisoners condemned to death and under guard (e.g., Soph. Ant. 376–83, 801–5, Eur. Andr. 494–500, Her. 442–50, IT 456–66, Or. 1012–17); cf. Taplin (1977a) 73. After a choral song a new scene is commonly expected to begin with the entry of a character (Taplin (1972) 84); perhaps for this reason the entrance of a new character is not usually announced unless as part of a moving tableau, such as, most typically, groups of prisoners with escort or dead bodies brought in (Hamilton (1978) 63–72). But our case and some of the other brief anapaestic entries are not mere announcements, but awed ‘greetings’ or ‘salutations’ addressed to characters of superior standing, sometimes characters of royal stature entering on a chariot (Taplin (1977a) 287). Rather than merely identifying the new character, they comment on his or her rank or role in the action; cf. Aesch. Pers. 150–8 (in anapaests preceded by a few trochaic tetrameters: welcome of Atossa), Ag. 783–809 (Agamemnon is welcomed home from Troy just before his murder), Eur. El. 988–97 (Clytemnestra is welcomed just before her murder), IA 590–7 (Clytemnestra arrives at Aulis with Iphigeneia, who is known to be destined for death), Taplin (1977a) 73–8, Ley (2007) 69–83. It is reasonable to surmise, from Ar. Ran. 961–3, that in the Memnon of Aesch. Memnon entered in a chariot (perhaps with horses’ bells jangling, as at Rh. 306–8; see 382–4n.), which was possibly anticipated or commented on in excited laudatory terms by some amazed rustics or hopeful Trojans (Taplin (1977a) 422). All these passages are loaded with tragic irony, as they entail the contrast between the imminent death or defeat of the character entering and the highflown praise of the chorus’ welcome, which may even include comparisons between the greatness of the character and the gods (Aesch. Pers. 150–1 and

352

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 0 – 3 8 7 157, Eur. El. 994, IA 596). The chariot itself allowed the character to enter at a higher level than the chorus, and thus to be in isolation in the orchestra (Di Benedetto and Medda (1997) 70–8). The symbolism of the chariot is confirmed by its radical reversal at Tro. 568–76 in the sad destiny of Andromache and Astyanax, who are leaving home for ever (Astyanax will soon be killed); their vehicle does not belong to them but to Neoptolemus, and it emphasises their enslavement instead of being the usual symbol of greatness (cf. Arnott (1959) 178, Di Benedetto and Medda (1997) 78). The welcome to Rhesus by the chorus at 380–7 does not mention the horses or the chariot, although they had been described by the s­ hepherd-messenger at 301–8. Nor are they mentioned in the welcomes of Aesch. Pers. (where it is only at Atossa’s second entrance in 607–9 that the ὀχήματα of her first entrance are mentioned) and Ag. (it is only at 906 and 1039 that Agamemnon’s ἀπήνη is mentioned). Taplin (1977a) 75–9, 201 may be right to maintain that chariot-borne entries were so common in early theatre (see 264–341n., Ar. Ran. 961–3) that the audience’s attention did not need to be drawn to them. We can surmise that a striving for the spectacular was in general a feature of fourth-century theatre (both in new plays and in re-performances of fifth-century tragedies); but it would be unsafe to infer, with Taplin (1977a) 77–8 followed by Liapis 169 and Fries 258, that chariot-borne entries (absent in the surviving plays of Soph. and rare in Eur.) became popular again in the fourth century. Σ Eur. Or. 57 informs us that actors used to interpolate a procession at the beginning of the play – perhaps not a dumb show, as Σ seems to suggest, but a new relevant prologue (see Introduction, pp. 140–1). Aesch. Eum. 405, implying that Athena entered in a horse-drawn chariot, was perhaps composed to replace 404 (where she states that she had travelled under her own power) by a fourth-century producer (Taplin (1977a) 77, 388–90, Sommerstein ad loc.). But apart from the case of Eum. 405, we have no evidence that the actors’ relish for the spectacular led to a fashion for chariot-borne entries in the fourth century. If there was no such fashion, it is improbable that a late fourth-century author could take this feature from Aesch. and archaic tragedy, and yet fail to refer to the horses in the text. Exotic Rhesus alone may have been considered impressive enough even for the fourth century relish for the spectacular (Fries 259). As Taplin (1977a) 200–2 remarked on Aesch. Supp. 234, where it is unclear whether Pelasgus’ entry included the horses and chariots which Danaus described at 181 and 183, the words of these two lines may be a substitute for any attempt at ­staging horses and chariots in the context of the actual entry. A similar attempt at ‘verbally enacting’ the horses may have taken place in the words of the shepherd-messenger at 301–8. 380–1 ἰὼ ἰώ (with ῑ-, in anapaestic contexts) is common in Eur. at the beginning of an anapaestic series, both extra metrum (Soph. OC 140, Eur. Andr.

353

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 0 – 3 8 1 1226, Supp. 1114 (?), Tro. 164, 187, 1118, 1251; also Aesch. Pers. 908, where single ἰώ is v.l.) and intra metrum (Eur. Cycl. 656, Alc. 741, Ion 912, IA 590; also Aesch. Ag. 1489=1513, where single ἰώ is v.l.); cf. Diggle (1974=1994) 118–19. The examples of ἰὼ ἰώ extra metrum are usually violent outbursts (an exclamation intra metrum will have had less impact on the audience: Rutherford (2012) 82); the intense excitement of the chorus makes more probable that the exclamation is here extra metrum. ἰώ is typical of tragedy and in almost all its many occurrences in Ar. is probably paratragic (cf. Labiano Ilundain (2000) 231–41; at Nub. 1259–61 ἰώ μοί μοί is labelled as a phrase worthy of one of the gods of the tragic poet Carcinus). It is not inappropriate at the head of an enthusiastic salutation, as at Aesch. Ag. 503, TrGF 143, Eur. Supp. 1114, IA 590 (cf. Diggle (1974=1994) 118 n. 85). Usually in tragedy and almost always in comedy ἰώ is an exclamation of excited grief or vexation, or an appeal for help (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 503, Nordgren (2015) 227–8). It confirms here that the watchmen are overcome by their feelings and indulging them freely, as they had admitted at 344–5. The salutation ‘ἰώ, king’, in particular, finds perhaps a parallel in the greeting of a chorus of Trojans upon the arrival of a character of royal standing, possibly the allied prince Cycnus, at Soph. Shepherds, TrGF 515 ἰὼ βαλλήν (where βαλλήν = ‘king’ in Phrygian); cf. Sommerstein and Talboy ad loc. μέγας ὦ βασιλεῦ A vocative of μέγας is attested only at Aesch. Sept. 822 μεγάλε (cf. Hutchinson ad loc.). A nominative adjective of exclamation is sometimes construed with a vocative noun of address, or vice versa (as here and at 388); cf. Hom. Il. 4.189 φίλος ὦ Μενέλαε, HHom.Dem. 54, HHom. 30.17, Parm. VS 28B1.24, Soph. Aj. 923, Eur. Andr. 348, Callim. AP 7.277.1 = HE 1265, Svennung (1958) 199–245, West on Hes. Th. 964, Richardson on HHom. Dem. 54, Moorhouse (1982) 23–5, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 372–3, 641/2. Postponed ὦ is common in verse: Hom. Il. 4.189 quoted above, Il. 10.43 διοτρεφὲς ὦ Μενέλαε (= Od. 4.26, 4.561), Il. 17.716 ἀγακλεὲς ὦ Μενέλαε, Od. 8.408 πάτερ ὦ ξεῖνε (= Od. 18.122, 20.199), HHom.Ap. 14 μάκαιρ᾽ ὦ Λητοῖ, [Hes.] Sc. 78 = 118 ἥρως ὦ Ἰόλαε, Pind. Pyth. 8.1–2 Ἡσυχία, δίκας / ὦ μεγιστόπολι θύγατερ, Soph. Aj. 395 ἔρεβος ὦ φαεννότατον, Eur. El. 167 Ἀγαμέμνονος ὦ κόρα, Or. 1246 Μυκηνίδες ὦ φίλιαι, Bacch. 565 μάκαρ ὦ Πιερία, Ar. Nub. 1206 μάκαρ ὦ Στρεψίαδες, Callim. HDel. 118 Πήλιον ὦ Φιλύρης νυμφήιον and 325 ἱστίη ὦ νήσων εὐέστιε, AP 6.351.1 = HE 1151 λεοντάγχ’ ὦνα συοκτόνε, Aet. F 103 Harder ἥρως ὦ κατὰ πρύμναν, Iamb. F 193.1 Pfeiffer ἄναξ ὤπολλον, Ap. Rh. 4.1411 δαίμονες ὦ καλαί, Simias, CA F 13.1 μᾶτερ ὦ ποντία, Diotim. AP 6.267.1 = HE 1719 Φωσφόρος ὦ σώτειρ(ε), Crinag. AP 7.636.1 = GPh 2030 ποιμὴν ὦ μάκαρ. μέγας βασιλεύς is not a common phrase: it is used of Pelias at Hes. Th. 995, of Zeus (king of the gods) at Pind. Ol. 7.34, of Agamemnon and Menelaus at Soph. Aj. 189, of Phaethon at Eur. TrGF 781.23–4. But, as observed by Fries

354

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 1 – 3 8 2 259, it was often a title of the Persian kings (e.g., Aesch. Pers. 24, Hdt. 1.188.1, 1.192.1, 5.49.7, Xen. An. 1.4.11, always in connection with Achaemenid kings); it may thus have contributed to the exotic dimension of Rhesus, for which see 264–341n., 306b–8n. The epigonoi of Alexander used for themselves the plain title βασιλεύς, and usually avoided the titles βασιλεὺς βασιλέων or βασιλεὺς μέγας, probably because ‘to be βασιλεύς … was to be a Macedonian, an Hellenic, king; to be βασιλεὺς μέγας was to be an Oriental one, the successor of the Babylonians and Persians’ (Bevan (1902) 244; but see Griffiths (1953) for certain exceptions). καλóν, ὦ Θρήικη, / σκύμνον πολίαρχον ἰδεῖν ‘a cub splendid to behold’: probably with πολίαρχον a proleptic predicative adjective with σκύμνον (‘a fine whelp you have raised, o Thrace, to be a leader of cities’ Liapis 170; but Fries 259 understands differently: ‘A fine cub you have reared, o Thrace, an obvious ruler of cities’). Cf. Pind. Nem. 7.84–5 on Zeus becoming the father of Aeacus, the future ruler of Aegina: λέγοντι γὰρ Αἰακόν νιν … φυτεῦσαι / ἐμᾶι μὲν πολίαρχον εὐωνύμωι πάτραι. Rhesus is καλός, according to the standard of impressive splendour that characterises other allies of the Trojans: Penthesilea’s beauty conquers Achilles’ love, Mysian Eurypylus is κάλλιστος, after Aethiopian Memnon, among the warriors at Troy that Odysseus saw in the underworld (Od. 11.522). ἰδεῖν is an epexegetic infinitive, used in tragedy especially for descriptions of bodily appearance or clothing: Aesch. Sept. 644 χρυσήλατον (cf. Rh. 382 χρυσόδετον) … ἄνδρα τευχηστὴν ἰδεῖν, Eur. Andr. 1123 ἔστη ᾽πὶ βωμοῦ γοργὸς ὁπλίτης ἰδεῖν, Pho. 146–7 ὄμμασι γοργὸς / εἰσιδεῖν νεανίας, TrGF 472e.13 ὡς εὐπρεπὴς μὲν ἐν πέπλοισιν ἦν ἰδεῖν. σκύμνος is the ‘cub’ of an animal, particularly of a lion, first at Hom. Il. 18.318–19 πυκνὰ μάλα στενάχων (Achilles on Patroclus’ body) ὥς τε λὶς ἠυγένειος, / ὧι ῥα θ᾽ ὑπὸ σκύμνους ἐλαφηβόλος ἁρπάσηι ἀνήρ (cf. Soph. Aj. 986–7). Rhesus is a ‘cub’ of Thrace, not of a lion, but his identification with a mainly leonine σκύμνος helps to elevate him to a heroic dimension. Lions, often mentioned together with their cubs, or the cubs themselves, connote in the fifth century the idea of great strength, in particular of ferocity and warlike courage (e.g., Hom. Il. 5.782–3 (783 spurious), Aesch. Ag. 717–28, Eur. Hcld. 1006–7, Supp. 1222–3, Her. 1210–13, IT 296–7), or of power and attitude to command.61 The dream or prophecy of giving birth to a lion appears in stories concerning the mothers of Cypselus, tyrant of Corinth, at Hdt. 5.92.β3, of Pericles at Hdt. 6.131.2, and of Cleon at Ar. Eq. 1037 (cf. also Ar. Th. 514). Hence the cautious ‘democratic’ saying οὐ χρὴ λέοντος σκύμνον ἐν πόλει τρέφειν, quoted at Aesch. TrGF 452.1 and paratragically at Ar. Ran. 1431a.

61

355

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 2 – 3 8 4 πολίαρχον, properly ‘city-ruler’, a synonym of βασιλεύς of 380, as at Pind. N. 7.85 ἐμᾶι μὲν πολίαρχον εὐωνύμωι πάτραι and Callim. HZeus 73–4 σὺ (scil. Zeus) δ᾽ ἐξέλεο πτολιάρχους / αὐτούς. Differently Σ Pind. N. 7.85 (=123), which glosses πολίαρχος as βοηθός, an interpretation adopted by Wilamowitz (1908) 242 and Wüst (1967), for whom πολίαρχος is a cult title = πολιοῦχος. This title would suggest that Rhesus is the honorary co-leader of Troy. It parallels Astyanax ‘lord of the city’ (Troy), title-name that the Trojans gave to the son of Hector, Scamandrius, to express the gratitude that they felt towards Hector as saviour of Troy (οἶος γὰρ ἐρύετο ῎Ιλιον ῞Εκτωρ: Hom. Il. 6.403). Apart from being a possible Pindaric reminiscence, πολίαρχος was perhaps a word of the contemporary world. An officer called π(τ)ολίαρχος is attested for some Thessalian cities in a few inscriptions of the third century and for Thessaloniki in the second century AD epigram GVI 365 (Helly (1977) and (1995) 329–53; Liapis 170–1). If this office already existed in Thessaly before the third century (as seems probable: Gschnitzer, RE Supp. XI.1111–12), πολίαρχος would have been another of the allusions to the material culture and institutions of Northern Greece that are found occasionally in Rhesus. 382–4 ‘Look at his mighty body dressed in golden armour; listen to the ­jangling of the bells on the (shield) handles.’ The watchmen may be instructing themselves to engage in ecstatic admiration even as they perform it, as with βῆθι at 1 (see n.) or with βάλε … θένε … λεῦσσε at 676–7. Cf. Soph. Tr. 821–2 ἴδ᾽ οἷον, ὦ παῖδες, προσέμειξεν ἄϕαρ / τοὔπος τὸ θεοπρόπον ἡμῖν, where Σ correctly comments: ὁ χορὸς πρὸς ἀλλήλας διαλέγεται περὶ τοῦ … μαντείου, or El. 1384–5 ἴδεθ’ ὅπου προνέμεται / … αἷμα … Ἄρης, where Σ: τὸ ἴδετε πρὸς ἀλλήλας ϕασὶν αἱ [ἀπὸ] τοῦ χοροῦ. Alternatively, they may be addressing the imagined audience of the world at large and asking them to bear witness to the truth of their proposition – not the audience in the theatre, irrelevant for the dramatic dimension of the play (Liapis 171). Authors of the imperial age maintain that tragedy could include passages addressed to the audience, although less frequently than comedy (Ael. Arist. Or. 28(49) pp. 172.14–173.6 Keil, Pollux, On. 4.111 Bethe, with reference to the lost Eur. Danae and Soph. Hipponous), and the scholia to Soph. and Eur. sometimes accuse them of disrupting the theatrical illusion with digressions in which the author expresses himself (Trendelenburg (1867) 60–1, 90–2, Elsperger (1907/1910) 152–4); but the tragic texts known to us do not include any passages certainly addressed to the spectators (Leo (1908) 8 n. 1, followed by Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 39, Fraenkel (1967) and (1968), Bain (1975), Taplin (1977b) 130–2, 394–5, Chapman (1983), Willink on Eur. Or. 128–9, Davies on Soph. Tr. 1079–80). In comedy the most common form of paraenesis addressed to the audience is the second person singular used in an interrogative or, more rarely, imperative sentence (‘did you see?’, ‘did you hear?’, ‘look!’, ‘hear!’): e.g.,

356

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 2 – 3 8 4 Ar. Ach. 366 ἰδοὺ θέασαι (v.l. θεᾶσθε), Vesp. 799 ὅρα τὸ χρῆμα, τὰ λόγι᾽ ὡς περαίνεται, Av. 1211 ἤκουσας αὐτῆς οἷον εἰρωνεύεται;, Lys. 379 ἤκουσας αὐτῆς τοῦ θράσους;. Tragedy may have the same (see Eur. Pho. 1676 εἶδες τὸ τόλμημ᾽ οἷον ἐξωνείδισεν;) but more frequently uses the second person plural imperative: e.g., Soph. Aj. 1028–9 (probably interpolated) σκέψασθε … τὴν τύχην δυοῖν βροτοῖν, Eur. Andr. 622–3 τοῦτο καὶ σκοπεῖτέ μοι, / μνηστῆρες and 950 πρὸς τάδ᾽ εὖ φυλάσσετε, Ion 1090–1 ὁρᾶθ᾽ ὅσοι δυσκελάδοι/σιν … ἀείδεθ᾽ ὕμνοις;, Or. 128–9 ἴδετε γὰρ ἄκρας ὡς ἀπέθρισεν τρίχας. Perhaps the tragic poets wished to avoid the typical interrogative second person singular of comedy (Bain (1975) 21). ἴδε paroxytone is the pan-Hellenic form and an epicism (Hom. Il. 17.179, Od. 8.443, 22.233), and later the accentuation in the koine; cf. Probert (2006) 76. The oxytone form, preserved in the Attic dialect, may be due to the ana­ logy of the more common middle form ἰδοῦ (Jannaris (1897) 230). The distinction is emphasised at Σ A Hom. Il. 1.85, Herodian. GG III.1.431.5 Lentz. The paroxytone accentuation may well be a poeticism conventionally adopted by the tragedians, or only later by the Alexandrian scholars who edited their texts. While we do not have evidence favouring the latter view, the defamiliarisation of everyday language, and the expectation that Athenian plays might be exported beyond Attica, often led tragic poets to avoid usages that were characteristic of Attic (see 497–8a n.). Therefore the accent should not be changed to Attic ἰδέ in Rh. and the other tragic passages (differently Liapis 171, followed by Fries 260). The Homerising accent is almost unanimously transmitted in MSS of the tragedians, where it belongs, as here, to the language of the chorus: Aesch. Supp. 350, Soph. Tr. 222, OC 1462, Eur. Alc. 398, Or. 1541, Thesp. TrGF 1F4.1, 3, 7 (anapaests); ἰδέ is transmitted, and printed by modern editors, only in Soph. (?) TrGF 1131.7 and Aesch. (?) TrGF 451h.2 – but Soph. (?) TrGF 1131, which has been sometimes ascribed to a comedy or a satyr drama, may have adopted the linguistic level of everyday Attic. χρυσόδετον σώματος ἀλκήν is an enallage, facilitated by the fact that σώματος ἀλκήν represents the single concept ‘strong body’. χρυσόδετον should logically go with σώματος: the body of Rhesus, capable of powerfully defending him and Troy (ἀλκή), was protected by his arms decorated with gold (cf. 305, 340, 370). But here physical strength and the precious beauty of gold are brought together (a comparable synthesis in καλόν … πολίαρχον of 380–1). For ἀλκή referring etymologically to the ability to defend oneself and others, see 249b–251a n. The epithet χρυσόδετος ‘inlaid with gold’ is used of the haft of a sword at Alcae. F 350.2 Voigt; later at Hdt. 3.41.1 (signet ring); Soph. El. 837 (necklace), TrGF 244.1 (the horn of a lyre); Eur. Pho. 805 (brooches); see 33n. The impressive appearance of Rhesus in golden armour (cf. also 305–8) is a further point of contact between him and the striking epiphanies of Achilles in his armour in Hom. and probably in lost

357

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 4 – 3 8 5 tragedies: cf. Il. 18.203–29, 19.357–86, Simon. PMG 557 = 277 Poltera, Eur. IA 1071–3 περὶ σώματι χρυσέων / ὅπλων Ἡϕαιστοπόνων / κεκορυθμένος ἐνδύτ’, Michelakis (2002) 53–4, 122–3, 169. κόμπους κωδωνοκρότους: cf. Soph. TrGF 859 σὺν σάκει … κωδωνοκρότωι; cf. also Anacr. PMG 473 γονύκροτος (‘coward’), an oracle ap. Hdt. 1.66.2 Τεγέην ποσσίκροτον, and Pind. Pyth. 5.92 ἱππόκροτον … ὁδόν, where the first element of the compound indicates the source of the sound, as in Rhesus. In agreement with LSJ, and differently from Kovacs 395, Liapis 171, Fries 260, I take κόμπος not in the negative metaphorical sense ‘loud (self­)praise’ or ‘boast’ (standard in Hdt., Thuc., tragedy, and Ar.), which would hardly suit the enthusiastic praise of the watchmen and is employed with reference to human voices, but in the primary Homeric sense ‘din’ (from the tusks of a wild boar, Il. 11.417 = 12.149; from dancers playing with a ball, Od. 8.380). παρὰ πορπάκων κελαδοῦντας For κελαδεῖν ‘sound’, said of the noise itself, cf. Pind. Pyth. 2.15–16. κελαδεῖν/ κέλαδος are often used of a prolonged sound (in Hom. and Sappho mainly of river- and sea-water, or of winds). Bells could be attached to a shield, as in the case of Tydeus at Aesch. Sept. 385–6 ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος δὲ τῶι / χαλκήλατοι κλάζουσι κώδωνες φόβον and the Trojans (?) at Soph. TrGF 859, or to horses’ cheek-pieces, as in the case of Memnon’s horses at Ar. Ran. 963, or to horses’ frontlets, as at Rh. 307 (see 306b–8n.). Line 307 leads LSJ to suppose that the bells of 383 belong to the horses’ harness, and that πόρπαξ is a constituent part of the frontlets (see, more cautiously, Pattoni (2011) 324 n. 27). But πόρπαξ never occurs in connection with the harness, whereas it is the technical term for the armband of the shield (see below). Rhesus therefore had bells both on his horses’ harness and on his shield. The πόρπαξ was a metal armband, usually extending from rim to rim across the shield and bowed in the centre to form a loop through which the warrior’s left arm passed up to the elbow to catch hold of the leather or cord grip near the rim on the right called ἀντιλαβή. The double-grip system of πόρπαξ and ἀντιλαβή made it possible to distribute the shield’s weight and made for more precise handling. It was commonly adopted by heavy-armed hoplites. Cf. Snodgrass (1964) 61–7, Lazenby and Whitehead (1996), Schwartz (2009) 32–8. The Thracian πέλτη was or at least could be equipped with πόρπαξ and ἀντιλαβή, which are clearly visible, e.g., in the vase representations of Thracian peltasts from the Coll. Astarita, Naples, fr. A (Best (1969) Appendix, plate B) and Nat. Mus. Copenhagen (Best (1969) plate 1b). Iconography does not give us any information about the inside of the heavier Macedonian shield, which was probably introduced by Archelaus or Philip II and is perhaps what Rh. calls πέλτη (see 305–6a n.), as we have only depictions of the outside of it (Liampi (1998) 10–11). Here πόρπαξ used of the shield of a Homeric hero is anachronistic, as the term is not attested

358

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 5 – 3 8 7 before Bacch. F 4.69 and its use dates from the beginning of the seventh century, when it begins to feature in illustrations. Homeric heroes handled their shields with a single hand-grip and a shoulder strap, the τελαμών (mentioned, e.g., at Il. 2.388). The same anachronism is found at Soph. Aj. 575–6 (where the πόρπαξ, called πολύρραφος, will be a leather strap, not a metal band; cf. Eur. Tro. 1196, Hel. 1376–7 (with Kannicht on Hel. 1375–81), Finglass ad loc., pp. 306–7). 385–7 ‘A god, O Troy, a god, Ares himself, this son of Strymon and Muse the singer has come to breathe upon you.’ Several Iliadic similes likened the exceptional honour received by a hero or his exceptional strength to the honours or strength of a θεός or a δαίμων: e.g., θεὸς ὣς τίετο δήμωι Il. 5.78, 10.33, 11.58, 13.218, 16.605; ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος 5.438, 459, 884, 16.705, 786, 21.227) or equated his warlike fury with that of Ares (ἶσος Ἄρηϊ 11.295, 604, 12.130, 13.802; ἀτάλαντος(-ον) Ἄρηϊ 8.215, 13.295, 16.784, 17.72; οἷος … Ἄρης 7.208; ἶσος Ἐνυαλίωι 22.132. But these similes seem to concern appearance, as is clearest at 2.478–9 ὄμματα καὶ κεϕαλὴν ἴκελος Διὶ τερπικεραύνωι, / Ἄρεϊ δὲ ζώνην, στέρνον δὲ Ποσειδάωνι, and do not entail divine identity. They are used rather to mark the climactic moment of god-hero antagonism, and this antagonism sometimes points to the hero’s inferiority and foreshadows his death, reminding the audience that a real god can instantly cancel the equation of man and god: cf. 11.604 (Patroclus) ἔκμολεν ἶσος Ἄρηι, κακοῦ δ᾽ ἄρα οἱ πέλεν ἀρχή and 16.784 ἐπόρουσε θοῶι ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηι, 16.786 ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος immediately preceding the description of Apollo’s attack on him and his death at 16.788–804 (Nagy (1979) 143–4, 293–4, Janko on Il. 16.784–6. The absence of ὡς/ὥστε at 385 makes it clear that the watchmen are actually identifying Rhesus with Ares. While the simile keeps distinct the two terms that are compared, the metaphor, without ὡς, substitutes the one notion for the other, identifying them in a single image, and expressing both in a single word; cf. Arist. Rh. 1406b20–5, 1412b28–1413a14. The apostrophe to Troy (cf. 357, 360–7) and the anadiplosis of θεός show the excitement of the watchmen faced with Rhesus’ powerful and warlike appearance. Anadiplosis, which is common in Euripidean lyrics (Breitenbach (1934) 214–21, Diggle (1998) 45–6), may have been frequent in ancient ritual (examples in Norden on Virg. Aen. 6.46). The repetition of, in particular, θεός or θεοί often occurs in ritual contexts; cf. Pind. Pyth. 2.49–50, Diagor. PMG 738.1, Aesch. Sept. 566 (if the transmitted text is sound), Eur. Andr. 1031, Her. 772. Ael. Dion. θ 8 Erbse θεὸς θεός· καὶ ἐν ἱεροποιίαις καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις πράξεσιν ἐπελέγετο. It may have suggested the repeated cry of the priest(ess) announ­ cing the epiphany of a god to worshippers (so Wills (1996) 61–2, Horsfall on Virg. Aen. 6.46); cf. Bacch. 3.21–2 where, after a description of the lavish sacrifices that Hiero organises and of the golden tripods dedicated at Delphi, the poet bursts out: θεόν, θ[εό]ν τις / ἀγλαϊζέθὠ γὰρ ἄριστος [ὄ]λβων, Soph.

359

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 5 – 3 8 7 TrGF 314.100 (a fourfold repetition of θεός that recognises divine help behind current events), Virg. Aen. 6.46 deus, ecce deus (the Sibyl announces the epiphany of Apollo), Ovid. Met. 15.677 en, deus est, deus est (the priest announces Asclepius’ epiphany); also Lucr. 5.8 deus ille fuit, deus, Virg. Ecl. 5.64 deus, deus ille, Stat. Th. 5.751–2 deus iste, deus, Silv. 4.6.36–7 deus ille, deus. At the peak of their excited eulogy the watchmen practically present themselves as priests of the new god, lending to his entry the atmosphere of a divine epiphany. Rhesus is identified specifically with Ares, a very suitable choice, as Ares is one of the three gods worshipped by the Thracians, according to Hdt. 5.7.1, and is at home in Thrace. After their affair came to light, Aphrodite sought refuge at Paphos and Ares in Thrace according to Hom. Od. 8.361–2. It is from Thrace that he departs for war together with Phobos at Il. 13.301. He is ἀγχίπολις of the Bosporus shores and Salmydessus at Soph. Ant. 969–71 and ζαχρύσου Θρηικίας πέλτης ἄναξ at Eur. Alc. 498. He spies for Hera from the peak of Thracian Haemus at Callim. HDel. 63–4; the Thracian Hebrus is where he prepares for war at Virg. Aen. 12.331–6; Thracian forests and the slopes of Haemus are his delubra and domus according to Stat. Theb. 7.41–2. As a Thracian, Ares was a natural ally of the Trojans (despite his false promises to Hera and Athena to help the Greeks at Il. 5.832–4). At Il. 5.461–2 he chose to be disguised as a Thracian leader in order to urge the Trojans on. Στρυμόνιος … Μούσης: for patronymic epithet with genitive of the mother, cf. Pind. Ol. 2.13 ὦ Κρόνιε παῖ Ῥέας, Aesch. Supp. 314 τίς οὖν ὁ Δῖος πόρτις εὔχεται βοός;. In general on the use of the epithet in place of a genitive, like Ἑκτόρεος, see 1n. πῶλος is ‘appropriate for the leader of the “horse-loving” Thracians’ (Fries 262). The reference may (less certainly) have suggested his Bacchic associations (cf. 870–4), as πῶλοι often feature in similes of Bacchic ecstasy in Eur.; cf. Mossman (1995) 149–50, Markantonatos (2004) 29 n. 50. When πῶλος metaphorically refers to humans it often conveys affection: at Anacr. PMG 417.1 πῶλε Θρηικίη is addressed to the author’s beloved; at Aesch. Cho. 794 the chorus, who cherish Orestes, call him πῶλος, and at Eur. Pho. 947 Teiresias calls Menoeceus a πῶλος, while in dialogue with Menoeceus’ father; at Eur. Hec. 142 Polyxena is a πῶλος for her mother and the sympathetic chorus, and at Hipp. 546 the chorus call Iole, the victim of Eros, a πῶλος; cf. Petrounias (1976) 110–11. ἥκων καταπνεῖ σε: gods often ‘inspire’ humans in order to influence their actions. In Hom. they breathe strength, μένος or θάρσος, as at Il. 10.482 τῶι δ᾽ ἔμπνευσε μένος γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη, 15.60 ἐμπνεύσησι μένος, 15.262 = 20.110 ἔμπνευσε μένος μέγα, 19.159 ἐν δὲ θεὸς πνεύσηι μένος, Od. 9.381 θάρσος ἐνέπνευσεν μέγα δαίμων, 24.520 ἔμπνευσε μένος μέγα Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη; cf. Clarke (1999) 84. In HHom.Dem. Demeter feeds the human baby Demophoon with the immortals’ ambrosia and ‘sweetly breathes’ on him (238 ἡδὺ

360

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 8 – 4 5 3 καταπνείουσα). Compounds of πνέω/πνείω are also common later for the gods breathing on humans for good or ill: Aesch. Sept. 343–4 μαινόμενος δ᾽ ἐπιπνεῖ λαοδάμας / μιαίνων εὐσέβειαν Ἄρης, Ag. 105 θεóθεν καταπνείει, Soph. Ant. 135–7 μαινομέναι ξὺν ὁρμᾶι / βακχεύων ἐπέπνει / ῥιπαῖς ἐχθίστων ἀνέμων (Capaneus on Thebes), Eur. Med. 836–9 τὰν Κύπριν κλήιζουσιν ἀϕυσσαμέναν / χώρας (Reiske: χώραν MSS) καταπνεῦσαι μετρίας ἀνέμων / ἡδυπνόους αὔρας, Ar. Lys. 551–2 ἤνπερ ὅ γλυκύθυμος Ἔρως χἠ Κυπρογένει᾽ Ἀϕροδίτη / ἵμερον ἡμῶν κατὰ τῶν κόλπων καὶ τῶν μηρῶν καταπνεύσηι, Archestr. 16.3–4 Olson–Sens (= SH 146.3–4) μή σοι νέμεσις καταπνεύσηι / δεινὴ ἀπ᾽ ἀθανάτων (closely paralleled by another parodic poet, Philoxenus, as quoted by Plat. PCG 189.15), Ael. NA 12.2 τῆς θεοῦ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν καταπνεούσης. The accusative σε is most probably not the object of καταπνεῖ, as the accusative with this verb normally refers to what one’s breath consists of, not that which is breathed upon or over (exceptions are Heliod. 3.2 τὸν τόπον εὐωδίαι κατέπνεον (Liapis (2011) 385) and perhaps Eur. Med. 837, quoted above, if we accept the transmitted χώραν). It may be taken as an accusative of goal of motion apo koinou with ἥκων and καταπνεῖ: ‘by coming to you, it breathes upon you’. This accusative without preposition is found especially with places (see 13–14n.), but there are cases in tragedy where the goal of motion is a person (Bers (1984) 75–7), and here Troy is a personified place. For the accusative of the personal pronoun without preposition after a verb of motion, cf. Hom. Od. 6.169 χαλεπὸν δέ με πένθος ἱκάνει, Eur. Hipp. 1371 ὀδύνα μ᾽ … βαίνει, Ar. Nub. 30 χρέος ἔβα με, Moorhouse (1982) 45. By emending σε to σοι (the dative of interest would be paralleled by Archestratus and Plato com. quoted above) with Feickert 210 οr to σου with West (ap. Fries 263), we would perhaps obtain more conventional Greek. ἀοιδοῦ Μούσης: the Muse is described as μελωιδός at 351; see 351b–4n. 388–453 This debate on Rhesus’ late arrival implicitly resumes that at 319–41 on the issue of whether Rhesus had been enough of a ‘friend’. It is very similar to what is called an agon, a formal debate, usually made up of two set speeches of roughly the same length; examples are found in all the tragedies of Soph. and Eur. with the exception of Soph. Tr. and Eur. IT (Lloyd (1992) 1–6). Rh. lacks the final angry exchange which often concludes the agon (for exceptions, cf. Lloyd (1992) 7–8). This may be the result of the tone of the speakers, in particular Rhesus, who has no intention of antagonising Hector or causing him to make further accusations; his apologetic stance and the conciliatory conclusion produce a tone distinct from that of other agones. In context and content the agon of Rh. should be compared in particular with Eur. El. 998–1146, where Clytemnestra entering on a chariot defends her killing of Agamemnon, and Electra criticises her; in Rh. Hector blames Rhesus for his long failure to come and help Troy.

361

C O M M E N TA RY 3 8 8 – 3 8 9 After the comment in the choral interlude at 454–66, the agon of 388–453 develops (at 467–526) into a second debate in dialogue form, thus not formally an agon, concerning plans for military action, which concludes with the stasimon at 527–64. Both debates have a connection with the charioteer’s attack on Hector at 832–81, which presupposes Hector’s hostility at 319–41, and his coldness. Lines 319–41, together with 467–526, do not develop any narrative found in Il. 10; they are pieces of ‘political tragedy’, concerned with contemporary issues such as the reliability of the Thracians (which was not questioned in Hom.) and in general the diplomacy of φιλία and συμμαχία (there is no trace of inter-state diplomacy in Hom.): see Introduction, pp. 67–70, 319–41n. The contents of all these scenes are only tangentially relevant to the chief threads of the plot, but apart from their ‘political’ relevance they may fulfil the specific dramatic purpose of presenting Rhesus as a credible tragic character with his own grand story. Besides, Rhesus’ anti-­Hellenic bragging and threats to invade Greece soon after freeing Troy from the enemy (469–73) may be intended to show the boastful arrogance for which the punishment will be death (cf. Goossens (1962) 250). 388–9 Elaborate apostrophes two or three lines in length, which are not rare in Eur. (cf. at least Med. 764–6, 1121–3, Hec. 953–5, Supp. 1034–5, Tro. 634–5, Or. 71–4, 852–4), have sometimes been suspected to be or to include interpolated prefatory expansions (cf. Willink on Eur. Or. 71–2, Kovacs on Tro. 634–5). Here Diggle (ed.) contemplates deletion of 388. But a lofty homage to king Hector, such as 388, is expectable from Rhesus in the present situation (Fries 266), and παῖ with a eulogy of the father in 388 would parallel παῖ with a reference to Rhesus’ parents at 393–4 in Hector’s mouth. The phrase ὦ χαῖρε plus vocative is a common form of address in tragedy (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 22), and when a character addresses another with χαῖρε alone and a vocative, the vocative is usually preceded by ὦ. Our χαῖρε followed by a series of vocatives without ὦ is not found elsewhere in tragedy. ἐσθλὸς ἐσθλοῦ παῖ: cf. Eur. TrGF 75.2 ἐσθλῶν ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἐσθλὰ γίγνεσθαι τέκνα. On the polyptoton, which strengthens the idea of the son’s moral equality to the father, see 185n. On nominative ἐσθλός with vocative παῖ, 380–1n. The vocative of ἐσθλός is not attested in tragedy (Diggle (1997=1994) 324 n. 10). τύραννε is here without negative connotations: see 164–5n. παλαιᾶι … ἡμέραι: cf. Soph. Aj. 600–4 παλαιὸς ἀφ᾽ οὗ χρόνος … εὐνῶμαι, 623 παλαιᾶι σύντροφος ἁμέραι, Eur. Hipp. 908 οὔπω χρόνος παλαιός, Hel. 625–6 ὁ μὲν χρόνος / παλαιός. ἡμέρα is here clearly a metaphor for a span of time with a beginning and an end. It is usually interpreted as expressing the length of the period of time during which the arrival of Rhesus has been expected (Porter 65, Fries 267; cf. Kovacs 395 ‘it is late’, Liapis 173 ‘after

362

C O M M E N TA RY 3 9 0 – 3 9 1 a long time’). But it can also be taken to point to Hector and refer to the time of the war (‘when the war has become old = long’). In either case the phrase would presuppose the notion that time in passing ‘grows old’, so that ‘long’ time is ‘old’ time, as for instance at Aesch. PV 981 ἐκδιδάσκει πάνθ᾽ ὁ γηράσκων χρόνος. προσεννέπω is solemn and formal, often used for addressing gods (e.g. Aesch. Ag. 162, Soph. Aj. 857, Eur. Hipp. 99) and almost exclusively tragic (Aesch. 6x, Soph. 1x, Eur. 8x; also in Pind. Isthm. 6.17, for gods). 390–1a For verbs of rejoicing construed with object and predicative accusative participle instead of infinitive, perhaps on the analogy of verbs of perception (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1338–41), cf. Hom. Il. 8.377–8 εἰ νῶι … Ἕκτωρ / γηθήσει προφανέντε, Soph. Aj. 136 σὲ μὲν εὖ πράσσοντ᾽ ἐπιχαίρω, Ph. 1314 ἥσθην πατέρα τὸν ἀμὸν εὐλογοῦντά σε, Eur. Hipp. 1339–40 τοὺς γὰρ εὐσεβεῖς θεοὶ / θνήισκοντας οὐ χαίρουσι, TrGF 673 χαίρω γέ σ(ε) ... τόν τε μιαρὸν ἐξολωλότα; also with the opposite sense Hom. Il. 13.352–3 ἤχθετο γάρ ῥα / Τρωσὶν δαμναμένους (with the Achaeans as implied object), Eup. PCG 49 Ἀρίσταρχον στρατηγοῦντ᾽ ἄχθομαι. Σ A Hom. Il. 6.479–80 (quoting our passage) states that the construction of object and predicative accusative instead of infinitive is a ‘customary Attic phrase’ and has not to be taken as an example of the omission of ἰδών. εὐτυχοῦντα: a key word for Hector; cf. 56–8n. προσήμενον πύργοισιν, ‘sitting at the towers’, may be reminiscent of (and anticipate in the chronology of myth) Hector’s focus on towers as the first object of his attack intended to ‘break the walls’ (ῥήγνυσθαι μέγα τεῖχος) of the Greek fortifications at Hom. Il. 12.256–62 (Liapis 173). Here the verb (Aesch. 5x, Soph. 1x; not elsewhere) may have the hostile sense ‘besieging’, as at Aesch. Ag. 1191 δώμασιν προσήμεναι (the Erinyes ‘sit at’ the inner chambers; if it has this connotation, Rhesus would be presenting the formerly besieged Trojans as now themselves besiegers. πύργοι are often mentioned in the Il. as a component of the fortifications of the Greek camp around the ships, together with the τεῖχος and the ditches: Il. 7.337–8, 436–7, 8.213, 12.36–7, 154, 258, 260, 265, 430–1; see 110b–11n., 210–12n. Unless we adopt the unsupported idea of Leaf on Il. 4.334, 7.437 that πύργοι means ‘ramparts’, not proper towers, the term may seem more apt for the permanent walls of a city than for fieldworks. But they are featured among the fortifications that the Athenian army erects around the sanctuary of Delion in two and a half days (Thuc. 4.90). The Il. includes frequent references to the fortifications of the Greek camp, around which the fighting takes place in Books 12 (the τειχομαχία) and 13–15, and in Rhesus. They are perhaps a substitute for the walls of Troy, which are never the focus of the Iliad.

363

C O M M E N TA RY 3 9 1 – 3 9 5 391b–2 συγκατασκάψων … τείχη ‘to help you raze the walls to the ground.’ κατασκάπτειν is a technical term for destroying buildings and cities, entailing the idea of bringing them down to their foundations (Kovacs on Tro. 1263), and is often found with τείχη/τεῖχος as object: apart from Rh. 603 (Athena warns that Rhesus can destroy the Greek walls), cf. Hdt. 7.156.2, Thuc. 4.109.1, 8.92.10, Isocr. 11.137, 14.19, 20.11, Andoc. 3.31, Xen. Hell. 2.2.23, Lys. 12.40, 13.8, 34, 46, Dem. 19.325, Aeschin. 3.157. After Aesch. Sept. 46–7 πόλει κατασκαϕὰς / θέντες (Thebes), it is frequent in tragedy in relation to Troy: Ag. 525 Τροίαν κατασκάψαντα, Soph. Ph. 998 Τροίαν … κατασκάψαι βίαι, Eur. Tro. 1263 κατασκάψαντες Ἰλίου πόλιν, Hel. 196 Ἰλίου κατασκαϕαί, IA 92 κατασκαϕὰς Φρυγῶν ~ 1379, Rh. Prol. 2.10–11 εἰ μὴ κατασκαϕεῖσαν ὄψομαι πόλιν / Πριάμου; also, governing πόλις, Eur. Pho. 1155, IA 64. The ‘wall’ defending the Greek camp, probably a palisade, is presented in Hom. as a town wall (J.B. Hainsworth in Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth (1988) 323), and called τεῖχος 15x (LfgrE IV.355) in the Il.; cf., e.g., 7.436–7, mentioning wall and towers. The verbal prefix συν- either implies the idea ‘together with’ (you), as in Eur. Or. 735, Andoc. 1.101, Lycophr. 222, Strabo 12.4.3 (563), or has an intensifying nuance (‘utterly’), as at Eur. Pho. 884 (cf. Mastronarde ad loc.). νεῶν … σκάφη is mainly Euripidean; cf. Cycl. 85, 467, 702, Tro. 538–9, 686, 1048, IT 742, 1345; also Aesch. Pers. 419 and Soph. Aj. 1278 ναυτικὰ σκάφη (Hector burns the ships). Here it may designate the hull of the ship, or it may be used synecdochically for the whole ship. πρήσων: Rhesus does not know that Hector has already boasted at 61 that he will set fire to the Greek ships (he will repeat the boast at 990). Hector does not object to Rhesus’ statement of his intentions, but the overlapping of their plans may serve to exacerbate the animosity displayed by Hector in his reproving speech. 393–4a τῆς μελωιδοῦ μητέρος: the article points to one particular goddess; cf. Eur. TrGF 885 ὦ παῖ τῆς θαλασσίας θεοῦ and the possible parody at Ar. Ran. 840 ὦ παῖ τῆς ἀρουραίας θεοῦ. Μουσῶν μιᾶς: the numeral has here indefinite meaning (~ τις) to designate membership of a group, as in, e.g., Hom. Il. 5.603 ἕεις … θεῶν = 20.98, 14.275–6 Χαρίτων μίαν ὁπλοτεράων, Πασιθέην, Pind. Nem. 4.65 ὑψιθρόνων μίαν Νηρεΐδων (unnamed Thetis), Eur. Ion 2–3 θεῶν μιᾶς (unnamed Pleione), Hel. 6–7 τῶν κατ᾽ οἶδμα παρθένων μίαν … Ψαμάθην, Bacch. 917 Κάδμου θυγατέρων … μιᾶι. 394b–5 ‘I like to speak always the truth, and am not double-tongued’. A similar statement of a speaker concerning himself is found at 422–3 (see n.). As he is going to give a speech consisting of restrained but irritated criticism of Rhesus’ delay, Hector introduces his parrhesia with a brief

364

C O M M E N TA RY 3 9 4 – 3 9 8 justification. A similar expression introduces Achilles’ speech of discontent after the slight inflicted by Agamemnon: Il. 9.309–13 χρὴ μὲν δὴ τὸν μῦθον ἀπηλεγέως ἀποειπεῖν, … ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύληισιν / ὅς χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθηι ἐνὶ ϕρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπηι. Plain ‘simplicity’ and ‘singleness’ are often opposed to crooked doubleness: cf. Archil. IEG 196a.36 σὺ] μ̣ὲν γὰρ οὔτ’ ἄπιστος οὔτε διπλό̣η, Pind. Nem. 8.35–6 κελεύθοις / ἁπλόαις ζωᾶς ἐϕαπτοίμαν, Aesch. PV 46 ἁπλῶι λόγωι = 610, TrGF 176 ἁπλᾶ γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἀληθείας ἔπη, possibly imitated by Eur. Pho. 469–70 ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος τῆς ἀληθείας ἔϕυ, / κοὐ ποικίλων δεῖ τἄνδιχ᾽ ἑρμηνευμάτων,62 Eur. Hel. 979 ἁπλοῦς λόγος, IA 927 ἔμαθον (subject Achilles) τοὺς τρόπους ἁπλοῦς ἔχειν, TrGF 253.1 ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος, Ar. Plut. 1157–8 δόλιον; ἥκιστά γε· / οὐ γὰρ δόλου νῦν ἔργον, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶν τρόπων (paratragedy? = adesp. TrGF 63a). φιλῶ λέγειν/τἀληθές: cf. Hom. Od. 17.15 ἦ γὰρ ἐμοὶ ϕίλ’ ἀληθέα μυθήσασθαι. λέγειν τἀληθές or τἀληθῆ becomes idiomatic in fifth- and fourth-century Ionic and Attic, Soph., and Eur. (never in Aesch.); Soph. has both τἀληθές and τἀληθῆ, Eur. almost only the latter. διπλοῦς πέφυκ᾽ ἀνήρ: πέφυκ᾽ ἀνήρ at line-end is formulaic in Eur. (8x). 396–7a χρῆν … συγκάμνειν … ἐλθόντα: χρή is construed with infinitive and circumstantial participle of a verb of movement again at 523–4 and 586. πάλαι πάλαι: the same anadiplosis is found at Ar. Av. 921 and is conjectured at Eur. TrGF 579.1; on tragic anadiplosis, see 385–7n. συγκάμνειν Hector resumes the resentment expressed at 326. By pointing to the hardships of the war, without mentioning fighting and the glory that it may bring, the verb echoes (with συγ-) and implicitly criticises Rhesus’ boastful claim that he would raze quickly the walls of the Greek camp to the ground. Rhesus should have contributed prolonged assistance in the toils of a long war. τοὐπὶ σ᾽ ‘in so far as it depended on you’: cf. Eur. Alc. 666 τέθνηκα γὰρ δὴ τοὐπὶ σ(έ). τοὐπὶ σέ/τοὐπ’ ἐμέ can also have a weaker sense, ‘as far as regards you/me’, as at Eur. Hec. 514 or Soph. Ant. 889, but here, as at Eur. Alc. 666 (cf. Parker ad loc.) or Or. 1345, the person addressed is in a position to influence events. If Troy did not fall, it was because the war took a different course, not because of any help from Rhesus. The crasis (for τὸ ἐπί) is mainly attested in Eur.: Alc. 666, Hec. 514, Tro. 945, Or. 1453, IA 1557; also Soph. Ant. 889. πολεμίωι πεσεῖν δορί: cf. Hec. 5 δορὶ πεσεῖν Ἑλληνικῶι, 1112 πεσόντας ... Ἑλλήνων δορί, Tro. 479 δορὶ πεσόνθ᾽ Ἑλληνικῶι, 868 δορὶ πεσοῦσ᾽ Ἑλληνικῶι. The adjective πολεμίωι (a correction in the recentior Va, proposed as a 62

Both Pind. and Eur. may perhaps be criticising the sophistic idea of the relative nature of truth, whereas traditional honesty seems to be all that is involved in Rh., and there is no attack on rhetoric; cf. Fries 268.

365

C O M M E N TA RY 3 9 8 – 4 0 3 conjecture by Bothe (ii) II.103) is certain, with δορί to be taken either in the literal sense or as synecdoche for ‘army’ (see 20–2n.); cf. Aesch. Sept. 216, 416, Soph. Aj. 1013, Eur. Hcld. 500 ἐχθρὸν Ἀργείων δόρυ, TrGF 370.83, Ar. Ach. 1193–4 (paratragedy). πολέμιος is much more common in verse as an adjective (‘hostile’ or ‘of/from the enemy’) than as a substantive (~ ‘enemy’), and transmitted πολεμίων … δορί is easily explained as the result of assimilation to Ἀργείων in the previous line. 399–403 According to Parthen. Narr. am. 36 the huntress Arganthone, whom Rhesus would have met ‘when he travelled through many lands winning over allies and imposing tribute (δασμὸν ἐπιτιθέντα) before going to Troy as an ally’, tried to prevent him from going when ‘the kings summoned him as an ally’. The common detail of the δασμός in Parthenius and at Rh. 435 (see 434–5n.), and of the pressure from the ‘kings’ (Priam and family?) summoning him to Troy both in Parthenius and at Rh. 401–3 seem direct points of contact. But Parthenius’ source is perhaps not, or not only, Rhesus. δασμός, a widespread technical term, is hardly a certain point of contact. And the motif of the Trojans’ embassies to possible allies appears to have been recurrent. Ctes. FGrHist 688F1.22 (pp. 441–2) = p. 237 Stronk writes that Priam ‘sent ambassadors for help’ to the king of Assyria, who contributed an army led by Memnon. And at Q.S. 2.34–7 Priam states that he had sent a ‘message’ long before to Memnon, and Memnon had promised that ‘he would come and accomplish everything that Priam requested’. The narrator of Od. 11.520–1 states that Eurypylus and many companions died at Troy ‘for a woman’s gifts’, and Σ D to the passage, quoting Acusilaus (FGrHist 2F40 = EGM F 40) as its source, reports that Priam ‘having learnt of Eurypylus’ power, sent (ambassadors) to him in order that he might come as an ally’; but Priam managed to persuade Eurypylus’ mother Astyoche to allow her son to fight only by bribing her with an expensive golden grapevine (Σ vet. Juven. 6.655 speaks of the warnings of Eurypylus’ father, Priam’s repeated attempts (hunc saepius ad auxilium petit Priamus), and later the successful bribe). The story of Astyoche and her gift of jewellery parallels Hector’s complaint at Il. 17.225–6 that he must impoverish the Trojans by giving ‘food and gifts’ to the allies. οὐ γάρ τι λέξεις ‘certainly you will not say’ rules out in advance the excuse that Rhesus had been summoned only half-heartedly (Denniston (1954) 243). It is the polite equivalent of a negative imperative; cf., e.g., Aesch. PV 296–7 οὐ γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐρεῖς ὡς Ὠκεανοῦ / ϕίλος ἐστὶ βεβαιότερός σοι, Eur. Alc. 658–9 οὐ μὴν ἐρεῖς γέ μ᾽ ὡς ἀτιμάζοντα … / … προὐδωκας, Ar. Nub. 53 οὐ μὴν ἐρῶ γ᾽ ὡς ἀργὸς ἦν, Th. 251 οὐ γὰρ ταῦτά γ᾽ ὡς οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἐρεῖς. ἄκλητος ‘unsummoned’ is the opposite of ‘invited through ambassadors’ at 401–3; cf. Aesch. Cho. 838 ἥκω μὲν οὐκ ἄκλητος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάγγελος, Soph. Aj. 289–90 ἄκλητος οὔθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀγγέλων / κληθεὶς ἀφορμᾶις πεῖραν, Tr. 391 οὐκ ἐμῶν ὑπ᾽ ἀγγέλων, / ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόκλητος ἐκ δόμων πορεύεται, Thuc. 6.87.2

366

C O M M E N TA RY 3 9 9 – 4 0 3 ξύμμαχοι … οὐκ ἄκλητοι, παρακληθέντες δὲ ἥκειν, Asclep. AP 5.164.3 = HE 868 κληθείς, οὐκ ἄκλητος, ἐλήλυθα. φίλοις here is not generically ‘friends’ but entails the precise interstate relation of φιλία. οὐκ ἦλθες οὐδ᾽ ἤμυνας οὐδ᾽ ἐπεστράφης ‘you did not come or fight in our defence or turn your mind to us’ is a rising tricolon, where ἐπεστράφης is the weightiest member in size; for the tricolon see 224–6a and 370n. τίς γάρ … οὐκ …; ποῖον δὲ … οὐκ …; The variation τί/ποῖον is regular in a series of questions. Here it amplifies the eagerness of Hector’s attempts at reminding Rhesus of his unresponsiveness; cf., e.g., Hdt. 7.21.1 τί γὰρ οὐκ ἤγαγε … ἔθνος  … Ξέρξης; κοῖον δέ μιν πινόμενον ὕδωρ οὐκ ἐπέλιπε;, Soph. Aj. 1012 oὗτος τί κρύψει; ποῖον οὐκ ἐρεῖ κακόν;, Eur. Andr. 299–300 τίν᾽ οὐκ ἐπῆλθε, ποῖον οὐκ ἐλίσσετο / … βρέφος φονεύειν;, Hcld. 440–1 ποῖ τρεψόμεσθα; τίς γὰρ ἄστεπτος θεῶν, / ποῖον δὲ γαίας ἕρκος ούκ ἀφίγμεθα;, Pho. 878–9 (interpolated?) τί οὐ δρῶν, ποῖα δ᾽ οὐ λέγων ἔπη;, Herond. 6.74–5, Theocr. 2.90–1, Callim. HArt. 183–4. κῆρυξ ἢ γερουσία: cf. 936 πρεσβεύμαθ᾽ αἵ τε μυρίαι γερουσίαι. At Hom. Il. 9.170 Agamemnon decides that the embassy to Achilles must be composed of three commanders accompanied by two κήρυκες. The fact that heralds belong in this embassy to Achilles highlights the official character of the mission, backed by Agamemnon’s authority and the δῆμος of the whole army, according to Σ exeg. ad loc. (ἵνα δηλωθῆι ὅτι δημοσία ἡ πρεσβεία); cf. Wéry (1967) 172–80, 189–95. But the practice of sending ambassadors and herald(s) on such missions was widespread: cf. Aesch. Supp. 727 ἴσως γὰρ ἂν κῆρύξ τις ἢ πρέσβη μόλοι, Thuc. 2.12.2, 4.118.6, 4.118.13, 5.80.1, Pl. Leg. 941a, Aeschin. 2.13, 3.62, Dem. 18.165. γερουσία, first attested in the late fifth century in Doric forms (γερωχία most MSS at Ar. Lys. 980, ἁγερωχία A.C. Cassio; γεροντία at Xen. Lac. const. 10), refers to the ‘assembly of the elders’ in oligarchic poleis such as Sparta. Both here and at 936 it must mean ‘embassy of elders’, with a shift in meaning possibly facilitated by the synonymy of πρέσβυς (‘ambassador’ but also ‘elder’) and γέρων (‘elder’); cf. Liapis 176 (πρεσβεία, conversely, means ‘senior dignity’ at Aesch. Pers. 4). In any case, the term emphasises the role of the elders, traditionally renowned for oratorical skills: cf. Hom. Il. 3.146–53 γήραϊ … πολέμοιο πεπαυμένοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγορηταί. ποῖον … δώρων κόσμον οὐκ ἐπέμψαμεν; ‘what gifts did we not send to honour you?’ (Fries 271). Or, if we interpret δώρων κόσμος as ‘luxury’ articles offered as ‘gifts’ (with δώρων partitive), with Liapis 177, who compares Eur. Med. 972–3, the words may refer to an otherwise unknown gift of finery similar to the one with which Priam bribed Astyoche (see 399–403n.). It may also presuppose the systematic exchange of expensive δῶρα for goodwill and support that was an important part of the relationships of Thracian leaders or kings with their peers or subjects: cf. Thuc. 2.97.3–4 (Seuthes the

367

C O M M E N TA RY 4 0 3 – 4 0 5 Odrysian king received from subjects and foreigners gifts of gold, silver, brocade, etc., tantamount to regular official tribute: οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρᾶξαι οὐδὲν μὴ διδόντα δῶρα), Xen. An. 7.3.16–20, 26–31 7.7.46, Mitchell (1997) 18–21, 134–7, Archibald (1998) 148–50. Or it may presuppose Hector’s complaint at Il. 17.225–6; see 399–403n. 404–5 ‘But, although you are akin, and a barbarian, for your part you presented us, who are barbarians as well, to the Greeks.’ ἐγγενής: ἐγγενής here and ἡμῖν ἐγγενεῖς at 413 mean ‘born to the same nation (Trojan γένος) as us’ or ‘born in the same family (Priam’s γένος)’ – the interpretation ‘born in the same race (as barbarian = non-Greek, like the Trojans)’, favoured by Roisman (1984) 185, would be suitable here but is improbable at 413 (see 413–15n.). A familial or national kinship of Rhesus with Hector is unknown elsewhere, and at 904–5 the Trojan watchmen say that they are unrelated by blood to the Muse, mother of Rhesus. But the reference to Rhesus’ kinship with Priam’s family or the Trojan nation may antici­pate the trend, evident in the formal language of Hellenistic inscriptions, of providing a strong motivation for declarations of φιλία or συμμαχία between cities or between cities and monarchs, or decrees of ἀσυλία between cities and individuals, by appealing to pre-existing but often fictional connections of συγγένεια or οἰκειότης (Musti (1963), Herman (1987) 16–29, 32–3). On Rhesus as betrayer of a bond of ξενία and φιλία with Hector and the duties it would have implied (411–12), see 319–41n. βάρβαρος … βαρβάρους: the same polyptoton of βάρβαρος, re-used at 832, occurs at Eur. IT 31 ἀνάσσει βαρβάροισι βάρβαρος. From Aesch. Pers. (187, 255, 337, 391, 423, 434, 475, 634, 798, 844) onward it is customary in tragedy that non-Greeks refer to themselves as ‘barbarians’. Despite the possible derogatory implications of the term, in fifth-century tragedy it simply meant ‘non-Greek’ (Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 186–7). Both here and at 832 the polyptoton reinforces the idea of a sort of national unity which Rhesus has been breaking with his late answer to Hector’s appeals. ‘Barbarians’ are not a single people, and Hector is not necess­arily appealing here and at 833 to a pan-barbarian idea, implying ‘a bond of kinship (and thus loyalty owed) between all foreigners as opposed to the Greeks’ (Fries 272). The idea will be that of a non-Greek unity analogous to the relative unity of the Greek side. φιλία between συγγενεῖς of the same side would seem natural; cf. Pl. Resp. 470c ϕημὶ γὰρ τὸ μὲν Ἑλληνικὸν γένος αὐτὸ αὑτῶι οἰκεῖον εἶναι καὶ συγγενές, τῶι δὲ βαρβαρικῶι ὀθνεῖόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον … ῞Ελληνας δὲ Ἕλλησιν … ϕύσει μὲν ϕίλους εἶναι. Ἕλλησιν ἡμᾶς προύπιες ‘you presented us to the Greeks’. When one person challenges another to drink by ‘drinking before’ him (with προtemporal), usually to his health, he may at the same time present an object of value to the person challenged (frequently the cup, offered as a

368

C O M M E N TA RY 4 0 5 – 4 0 7 permanent possession): cf. Pind. Ol. 7.1–4 φιάλαν ὡς εἴ τις … δωρήσεται / νεανίαι γαμβρῶι προπίνων οἴκοθεν οἴκαδε, πάγχρυσον, κορυϕὰν κτεάνων along with Σ on 4–5 which quotes: Ἀνακρέων (PMG 407) ‘ἀλλὰ πρόπινε ῥαδινοὺς ὦ ϕίλε μηρούς’ ἀντὶ τοῦ χαρίζου. καὶ Δημοσθένης (18.296) τοὺς προδιδόντας τὰς πατρίδας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς προπίνειν ἔϕη τοῖς ἐχθροῖς; also Latin propinare in Enn. Sat. F 7, Ter. Eun. 1087, Apul. Met. 5.30; cf. Macurdy (1932). The verb is also used of presenting the cup to the person pledged at Xen. Cyr. 8.3.35, Athen. 1.14a ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐδεξιοῦτο, ὅ ἐστι προέπινεν αὐτῶι τῆι δεξιᾶι διδοὺς τὸ ποτήριον. The gift of the cup is often used as a political metaphor for ‘betraying to the enemy’, as here, e.g. at Aesch. TrGF 131 τάδε μὲν λεύσσεις, ϕαίδιμ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῦ, / δοριλυμάντους Δαναῶν μόχθους, / οὓς σὺ προπίνεις εἴσω / κλισίας (Achilles’ failure to take part in the war is seen as betrayal of his compatriots), Dem. 3.22 προπέποται τῆς παραυτίκα χάριτος τὰ τῆς πόλεως πράγματα, 18.296 τὴν ἐλευθερίαν προπεπωκότες πρότερον μὲν Φιλίππωι, νῦν δ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρωι, Steph. PCG 1.1 τούτωι προέπιεν ὁ βασιλεὺς κώμην τινά, PLond. III.887.3 (third century) προπείνων τὰ ἐμὰ ἑτέρωι Αἰγυπτίωι, Plut. Arat. 14.1 προέπινον αὐτοῖς τὰς πατρίδας. With this sympotic term for the action of ‘presenting’ Hector may point to both the Thracians’ typical culture of gift-receiving (see 401– 3n.) and their indulgence in drinking parties. τὸ σὸν μέρος ‘for your part’ is an adverbial accusative of respect mainly found in Soph.: OT 1509, Ant. 1062, OC 1366; also τοὐμὸν μέρος Tr. 1215 and Eur. Hcld. 678, IA 499. 406–7 Hector complaining that Rhesus is ungrateful (406–12) and had an easy life (418b–19) while the other allies (413–18a) died or toiled on the battlefield may be modelled on Iliadic Achilles complaining at Il. 9.315–33 that Agamemnon was taking it easy and benefiting from all the hard work he had done on the battlefield; cf. Sansone (2013). καίτοι ‘and yet’ expresses surprise, emphasising how inappropriately Rhesus has behaved; see 112n. μικρᾶς ἐκ τυραννίδος μέγαν … ἄνακτα: a polar expression; cf. Isocr. 2.9 πόλιν … μεγάλην ἐκ μικρᾶς ποιῆσαι, Pl. Timae. 54c, 89c, Leg. 905b, Dem. 9.21, 18.183. τυραννίς has the same neutral sense as at 164–5; see n. The abstract τυραννίς instead of the personal τύραννος is not uncommon; cf. Hdt. 8.137.2, Aesch. Cho. 405, 973. But the combination of abstract τυραννίδος + personal ἄνακτα – instead of the expected combination of personal + personal, as at Soph. OT 454 τυφλὸς … ἐκ δεδορκότος – is rare, apart from Eur. Hel. 1021 ἐκ δυσσεβείας ὅσιον εἰ τίθημί νιν (cf. Dale ad loc.), where we also find τιθέναι with accusative of the person and relevant predicative. Rh. perhaps reflects the fifth-century historical reality of the formation of a large Odrysian kingdom which unified the whole of Thrace (except the

369

C O M M E N TA RY 4 0 7 – 4 1 1 mountaineers) under Teres (480–460) and especially his son Sitalces († 424); cf. Diod. Sic. 12.50. τῆιδ᾽ … χερί: Hector’s right hand has been a ‘witness’ of his bravery in defeating the adversaries of Rhesus; see 56–8n. 408–11a ‘When near Pangaeum and the land of the Paeonians I hurled myself face to face against the princes of the Thracians, broke their shields, subjugated the people and passed them on to you.’ At 931–3 the Muse confirms that Rhesus had been πρῶτος …ἀνδρῶν in his military exploits for his fatherland. The Paeonians, known already to Hom. as allies of the Trojans (Il. 2.848–50), originally inhabited northern and central Macedonia between the rivers Axios and Strymon, whose eastern bank borders the Pangaean massif before flowing into the sea (cf. Hdt. 5.1.2, 5.13.2, 5.98.1, 7.113.1). They were perhaps of Illyrian origin but are most often mentioned together with the neighbouring Thracians (cf., e.g., Hdt. 5.14, 9.32.1). They played an important role as allies of the Thracians and Illyrians in the conflicts with Macedonia, until they became subjects of Philip II. The Thracians originally inhabited the eastern coast and interior of Aegean Thrace and the Balkan coast of the Black Sea south of the Danube, but in the course of the seventh century (perhaps under pressure from the Cimmerians) there was a westward shift of Thracian tribes along most of the western Thracian coast; cf. Griffith-Hammond-Walbank (1972/1988) I.427–9. Paeonia and the Pangaeum, ‘up to whose neighbourhood’ or ‘somewhere by which’ (for the former, a rare use of ἀμφί, cf. Aesch. PV 829–30) Hector fights for Rhesus, were the western borders of the Thracian land, the farthest Thracian spot for Hector, from the perspective of Troy and the Propontis. If motion is implied in ἀμφί, the idea is conveyed that Hector crossed the whole of Thrace from Propontis to Pangaeum and Paeonia, breaking the resistance of the local tribal chiefs and making their tribes submit to Rhesus’ rule. ἀρίστοις ἐμπεσών ‘attacking the chiefs’. The same military sense of the verb, with dative, is found at 127, Hom. Od. 24.526 ἐν δ᾽ ἔπεσον προμάχοις, Xen. Hell. 2.4.19 ἐμπεσὼν τοῖς πολεμίοις, Hipparch. 8.25 τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐμπίπτειν. ἀρίστοις (Λ) is thus to be preferred to v.l. ἀρίστους of Δ, though this could be taken as goal of motion without preposition (see 13–14n.). For the common Homeric sense ἄριστοι or ἀριστεῖς ‘leaders’, second to the king in the chain of command, cf., e.g., Il. 10.300–1 (Hector) ἄμυδις κικλήσκετο πάντας ἀρίστους, / ὅσσοι ἔσαν Τρώων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες. The aorist participles ἐμπεσών and δουλώσας of 410 describe different aspects of the actions expressed in the aorist finite verbs (ἔρρηξα and παρέσχον), with which they are coincident in time; cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 289–92. The syntactical resemblance between 409–410a and 410b–411a emphasises the strong immediate connection between defeat of the leaders of the tribes and subjugation of the tribes to Rhesus’ authority. As was

370

C O M M E N TA RY 4 0 9 – 4 1 0 appropriate in a tribal society, in order to support Rhesus’ central power, Hector fought the princes who had become powerful enough to challenge Rhesus’ authority. That scenario strongly resembles the competition for the leadership described by Xenophon in Book 7 of the Anabasis, where the regional prince of the Thracian Odrysians, Seuthes II, attempts to destabilise the authority of the central Thracian king Amadocus, and sees in Xen. and his mercenaries a way to shift the balance in his own favour. A few minor Thracian princes are known from coins that they issued, and in some cases, particularly in the latter part of the fourth century, coinage appears to be a manifestation of local identity, if not autonomy (Archibald (1998) 216, 106). For defiance of central monarchic authority as typical of the Thracians, cf. Hdt. 5.3.1 Θρηίκων δὲ ἔθνος μέγιστόν ἐστι μετά γε Ἰνδοὺς πάντων ἀνθρώπω. εἰ δὲ ὑπ᾽ ἑνὸς ἄρχοιτο ἢ ϕρονέοι κατὰ τὠυτό, ἄμαχόν τ᾽ ἂν εἴη, Irwin (2007) 78–83. κατὰ στόμα ‘face to face’, as in Aesch. Cho. 573. The phrase was probably technical for the foremost position on the battlefield, facing the enemy: Rh. 491, 511, Eur. Hcld. 800–1 ἀλλήλοισιν ὁπλίτην στρατὸν / κατὰ στόμ᾽ ἐκτείνοντες ἀντετάξαμεν, Diod. Sic. 16.4.5 κατὰ στόμα τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐπιπεσών, Plut. Ages. 39.4, Marc. 11.3; for στόμα = ‘front’, also Xen. An. 3.4.42, 5.2.26, Arr. An. 5.15.6. ἔρρηξα πέλτην ‘I broke their shields’ (Σ on 409, Kovacs 397, Fries 273), rather than ‘I broke the ranks of peltasts’ (Passow, Bailly and LSJ, Porter 66, Liapis (2009) 73 n. 15, Liapis 179). ῥηγνύναι/ῥήγνυσθαι is a technical term for ‘breaking’ ranks (στίχες, φάλαγγες) from Hom. onwards (Il. 11.90, 13.680, 15.615). But breaking, or most often failure to break a shield is also described in epic duels and is evidence of victory (or failure to achieve it): Hom. Il. 3.347–8, 7.258–9, 17.43–4, 20.267–8, 21.164–5, [Hes.] Asp. 139–40, Batrach. 254, Diod. Sic. 17.20.3. Hector’s language suggests that he is presenting his military operation as a series of Homeric duels, not as the routing of troops. πέλτην with plural ἄριστοι is an example of the familiar distributive singular; for singular arms belonging to plural individuals, cf., e.g., Thuc. 3.22.3, 6.58.2, Xen. An. 4.7.16. δουλώσας ‘by subjugating’, in a political sense (as in Thuc. 8.84.5; Dem. 9.43, Arist. EN 1160b27–32), with or without the idea of deprivation of freedom, is often connected to monarchic power (most clearly in opposition to the freedom of polis citizens: Lys. 2.42 κρεῖττον μετ᾽ ὀλίγων ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας κινδυνεύειν ἢ μετὰ πολλῶν βασιλευομένων ὑπὲρ τῆς αὑτῶν δουλείας). λεών ‘people’, as expectable with δουλοῦν, rather than ‘army’. Ionic λεώς, again at 426, 622, 857, is the commonest form in Attic drama of epic λαός. First attested in Archil., possibly IEG 89.9 and 94.3 and certainly 115 (the personal name Λεώφιλος), then Phryn. TrGF 3F5.2 and Hdt. (6x; λαός 2x), λεώς is frequent in tragedy, especially in Aesch., Eur., and in Lycophr. (5x, λαός

371

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 0 – 4 1 3 ‘army’ 1x); also Ar. (3x, λαός 4x). λεώς is absent from Attic inscriptions and rare in Attic prose writers (Plato 2x); cf. Björck (1950) 104–5, 318–25. λαός/λεώς mostly means ‘host of soldiers’ or ‘army’ in the Il. (e.g., 2.115, 708, 809; differently, ‘folk’, especially people gathered in assembly, in the Od.), and this military sense may have been its etymological meaning (Heubeck (1969=1984) 542, Katz (2004) 204–6). From the original sense ‘troop of followers of a leader’, generally but not always in wartime, the terms came subsequently to denote ‘people’; cf. Wyatt (1994/1995) 169, Casevitz (1992) 193–7 and, in general on the archaic history of the term, Haubold (2000). 411b ὧν σὺ λακτίσας πολλὴν χάριν ‘scornfully kicking the great favour I had demonstrated with these (operations)’. ὧν, genitive of material, refers back to Hector’s operations against the Thracian chiefs and the subjugation of the tribes. χάρις is the ‘favour’ that Hector had demonstrated for the sake of what ought to be the reciprocal friendship connecting ξένοι, but Rhesus had not repaid it with a due display of χάρις ‘gratitude’ (as Herman (1987) 48 observes, ‘a benefaction – a favour accepted or imposed – is like a debt: it must be repaid at all costs’). Already at 338 Hector told Rhesus that he had let χάρις ‘die’ with his lack of reciprocation (see 338n.). The image with which Hector portrays Rhesus’ offence to χάρις is reminiscent of Aeschylean images of sacrilegious behaviour: cf. Ag. 369–72 οὐκ ἔϕα τις / θεοὺς βροτῶν ἀξιοῦσθαι μέλειν, / ὅσοις ἀθίκτων χάρις / πατοῖθ᾽ (where χάρις means primarily the ‘grace’ belonging to the sacrosanct), 382–4 ἀνδρὶ / λακτίσαντι μέγαν Δίκας / βωμὸν εἰς ἀϕάνειαν, 1192–3 ἀπέπτυσαν / εὐνὰς ἀδελϕοῦ τῶι πατοῦντι δυσμενεῖς, Cho. 641–3 Δίκας … / λὰξ πέδοι πατουμένας, Eum. 110 πάντα ταῦτα λὰξ ὁρῶ πατούμενα, 540–1 μηδέ νιν κέρδος ἰδὼν ἀθέωι ποδὶ / λὰξ ἀτίσηις, PV 651–2 μὴ ᾽πολακτίσηις λέχος / τὸ Ζηνός; also Soph. TrGF 683.2–3 τὰ μὲν δίκαια καὶ τὰ σώϕρονα / λάγδην πατεῖται; Lebeck (1971) 74–7. 412 νοσούντων: ‘infirmity’ is a common metaphor for the hardship of houses or cities; for hardship of war, cf. Xen. Vect. 4.9.2 ὅταν τε αὖ νοσήσωσιν πόλεις ἢ ἀϕορίαις καρπῶν ἢ πολέμωι. ὕστερος βοηδρομεῖς: predicative ὕστερος is preferable here to the neuter adverbial v.l. ὕστερον; cf. 333 (where the masculine accusative may have been misinterpreted as an adverbial neuter and have fostered the wrong adverbial variant here), 443, 453. 413–15 ‘Yet, those who do not belong in the same (Trojan) nation as us, and who have been here for a long time, some have fallen and lie in barrow tombs, not a small pledge of loyalty for the city.’ Differently from the allies, Rhesus is ἐγγενής (404), but did much less for Troy than the allies who were not ἐγγενεῖς.

372

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 4 A similar recrimination is found in Isae. 5.46 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐστράτευσαι τοσούτου καὶ τοιούτου γενομένου πολέμου, εἰς ὃν Ὀλύνθιοι μὲν καὶ νησιῶται ὑπὲρ τῆσδε τῆς γῆς ἀποθνήισκουσι μαχόμενοι τοῖς πολεμίοις, σὺ δέ, … πολίτης ὢν, οὐδ᾽ ἐστράτευσαι. οὐδὲν ἡμῖν ἐγγενεῖς πεφυκότες either ‘not native-born Trojan like us’, or ‘not kinsmen to my (Priam’s) family’ (the sense ‘not born in the same race as us’, i.e., ‘not barbarian like us’, is not possible here, as the Trojans’ allies were all barbarians rather than Greeks, with the exception of Telephus). Cf. Soph. OC 1167 ἡμῖν ἐγγενής, where ἐγγενής may refer to the family (of Oedipus) = ‘kinsman’, but also to his and his daughters’ nationality; the latter sense is certain at OT 452–3 ξένος λόγωι μέτοικος, εἶτα δ᾽ ἐγγενὴς / ϕανήσεται Θηβαῖος (Kamerbeek on Soph. OC 1166–8). Valckenaer’s emendation (1767) 105 n. 7 of ἐγγενεῖς to ἐν γένει is improbable, despite the formal parallels Aesch. Cho. 287, Soph. OT 1016, 1430, Eur. Alc. 903–4, Dem. 23.72, 57.28, [Dem.] 47.70, because ἐγγενεῖς is supported by 404 and because ἐν γένει seems to be limited to family ties (Fries 274). πάλαι παρόντες: cf. Soph. OT 289 πάλαι δὲ μὴ παρὼν θαυμάζεται, Tr. 87 κἂν πάλαι παρῆ, Ar. Av. 312–13 οὑτοσὶ πάλαι πάρειμι κοὐκ ἀποστατῶ ϕίλων. For the sense of πάλαι, see 321–3n. χωστοῖς τάφοις ‘barrow tombs’ ~ Hom. Il. 21.323 τυμβοχόη (cf. Σ D ad loc. Etym. magn. 771.40 Gaisf.). Earth or earth-and-sherd mounds, round or rectangular, customarily stood above the shaft of cremation or inhumation graves of the archaic age; the grave might be that of a single deceased person (Hom. Il. 6.418–19, 23.255–6, 24.797–9) or of more than one (cf. Il. 7.435–6). Only at the end of the archaic age (around 600 BC in Athens) did this type of construction change and built tombs became the standard. They had walls of brick that replaced the less durable walls of the earth mounds, they could hold the composite earth core more effectively in place, and they could be decorated with painted stelai. Mounded tombs will thus have been perceived in the fifth century as the older type. The archaic burial standard was reflected elsewhere in tragedy: Aesch. Sept. 1022 τυμβοχόα χειρώματα, Cho. 351–2 πολύχωστον … τάφον, Soph. Ant. 848–9 ἕρμα τυμβόχωστον … τάϕου. It was mentioned much later in relation to the tombs of heroes of the archaic age: Paus. 2.11.1 μνῆμα Ἐπωπεῖ κέχωσται, 2.32.4 (Hippolytus), 7.24.1 (Talthybius). The reference to the mound, the most visible part of the tomb complex, which had to preserve the memory of the deceased, points to the fact that Troy guaranteed that the allies’ devotion to the city would be remembered: cf. Hom. Od. 11.72–6 (the ghost of Elpenor to Odysseus) μή μ᾽ ἄκλαυτον ἄθαπτον ἰὼν ὄπιθεν καταλείπειν / νοσϕισθείς, … / ἀλλά … / σῆμά … μοι χεῦαι πολιῆς ἐπὶ θινὶ θαλάσσης / ἀνδρὸς δυστήνοιo καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι, 24.80–4 ἀμϕ’ αὐτοῖσι (Achilles, Patroclus and Antilochus) … μέγαν καὶ ἀμύμονα τύμβον / χεύαμεν Ἀργείων ἱερὸς στρατὸς αἰχμητάων / ἀκτῆι ἔπι προυχούσηι, ἐπὶ

373

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 5 πλατεῖ Ἑλλησπόντωι, / ὥς κεν τηλεϕανὴς ἐκ ποντόϕιν ἀνδράσιν εἴη / τοῖς οἳ νῦν γεγάασι καὶ οἳ μετόπισθεν ἔσονται. κεῖνται πεσόντες: cf. Eur. Pho. 1687 πεσὼν ὅπου μοι μοῖρα κείσομαι πέδωι; paratragic in Soph. TrGF 314.127 [ἐ]χῖνος ὥς τις ἐν λόχμηι κεῖσαι πεσών, Ar. Nub. 126 ἀλλ’ οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ μέντοι πεσών γε κείσομαι, Eccl. 963 καταπεσὼν κείσομαι (of a lover), Theocr. 3.53 κεισεῦμαι δὲ πεσών (of a goatherd in love). The literary tradition of the phrase has a military beginning: Tyrt. IEG 10.21–2 αἰσχρὸν … μετὰ προμάχοισι πεσόντα / κεῖσθαι πρόσθε νέων ἄνδρα παλαιότερον and 10.1–2 τεθνάμεναι γὰρ καλὸν ἐνὶ προμάχοισι πεσόντα / ἄνδρ᾽ ἀγαθόν. The allusion to Tyrt., more direct in Rh. than in any other parallel, serves to eulogise the allies fallen in war. According to Tyrtaeus’ ideal, the younger soldiers had to fight and die in the front ranks, rather than the older soldiers. Rhesus is the implied negative paradigm: he does not risk fighting for Troy, although he is duty-bound to do so. πίστις … πόλει stands in apposition to the subject of the preceding phrase οἱ μὲν … πεσόντες and expresses an opinion concerning what those who fell in battle mean for Troy. This nominative construction is well attested from Hom. to tragedy. An appositive internal accusative would also be possible here, as well as at 260, if πίστις … πόλει expresses the result of the action rather than commenting on it (see 257b–60n.). But here πίστις … πόλει is Hector’s opinion, and there is no good reason for emending to πίστιν… σμικράν, with Bothe (i) V.293 and Liapis 180–1. πίστις is first attested in Theognis P. Primarily meaning ‘that which gives confidence’, it must be understood here either in its common sense ‘pledge of loyalty’ (Kovacs 397, Fries 274), or simply ‘loyalty’ (as, e.g., in Aesch. Pers. 443, Soph. OC 611). It is improbable that it means ‘proof (of their devotion) to the city’ (Paley (1872) 35, Porter 66, Liapis 181), because in the judicial meaning ‘proof ’ πίστις does not seem to imply ‘loyalty’. ‘Loyalty’ is the behaviour demonstrated by A when he has an obligation to B to fulfil a predefined duty, and fulfils it although this obligation requires him to subordinate his own interest to that of B (Roisman (1984) 1). Formal tokens of reliability and loyalty like oaths or handshakes are most often associated with the terms πιστός, πιστόω, or post-Homeric πίστις: cf. Eur. Hipp. 1037 ὅρκους παρασχών, πίστιν οὐ σμικράν, θεῶν, Calderone (1964) 45–50, Roisman (1984) 23–31 and passim, Herman (1987) 49–54. The allies’ deaths in battle were ‘no small’ pledge of their loyalty to Troy, whereas no pledge came from Rhesus, despite his kinship ties with Troy and his obligation to reciprocate Hector’s favour. Roisman (1984) 185–6 observes: ‘Homeric loyalty is always personal; in Rh. it is interchangeably directed toward a person or polis. When Hector reminds Rhesus of the charis he owes him, he is referring to his own deeds, but what he asks for is loyalty to the polis.’

374

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 5 – 4 1 8 οὐ σμικρά: a common litotes, attested in Aesch. (3x), Soph. (6x), Eur. (more than 10x), Hdt. (5x), Thuc. (3x). 416–18a ἔν … ὅπλοισι ‘(serving) in armour’ ~ Eur. Hcld. 399, Supp. 1150 (conjectural), Bacch. 303. παρ᾽ ἱππείοις ὄχοις ‘on horse-chariots’ and likewise 621 ὄχημα … πωλικόν are common tragic phrases; see 301b–2n. ἄησιν ‘blast’ of wind (Eur. TrGF 781.46 καπνοῦ μέλαιν᾽ ἄησις), or perhaps pars pro toto = χειμών ‘winter’ (cf. Σ ad loc.); for the latter meaning cf. Eur. TrGF 78a.2 ἐν τοῖσδ᾽ (clothes) ἄησιν καὶ θέρος διέρχομαι, recorded by Phot. Lex. α 448 Theod., who glosses ἄησις with χειμών. This word-formation is attested only in Eur. locc. citt.; Aesch., Soph., Callim. and Nonn. have ἄημα. δίψιον causative ‘provoking thirst’, as possibly at Aesch. Cho. 185 (cf. Garvie on 185–6) and certainly at Nic. Ther. 147, Jos. Apion 1.164; more commonly = ‘thirsty’, ‘dry’ (e.g., Argos, or Sparta, or ‘dust’). θεοῦ = sun; see 331n. μένουσι καρτεροῦντες ‘endure with strength’: the participle completes the meaning of the verb; cf. Soph. Ph. 1274 δέδοκταί σοι μένοντι καρτερεῖν (with Schein ad loc.), Pl. Grg. 507b ὑπομένοντα καρτερεῖν, Isocr. 8.33.2 καρτερεῖν καὶ μένειν, KG II.55.5; Moorhouse (1982) 260. 418b–19 πυκνὴν ἄμυστιν: cf. Eubulus or Philyllius, PCG V.199 βαθείας καὶ πυκνὰς / ἕλκουσι τὰς ἀμύστιδας (quoted without author’s name by Σ Rh. 419). ἄμυστις, from privative alpha and μύειν ‘close one’s mouth’, denotes ‘a long draught taken without stopping to draw breath’ or the relevant cup (Athen. Epit. 11.783d; see Dettori (2004) 55). Here and at 438 ἄμυστις may have both meanings, but perhaps the latter meaning is preferable in the light of Eubul./Philyll., where the adjective πυκνάς is shared with Rh., and βαθείας favours the sense ‘cups’. Apart from sympotic poetry (Anacr., Anacreont., Callim., quoted below, and Alcae. F 58.20 Voigt) the word is found mainly in comedy: Epicharm. PCG 31.4, Cratin. PCG 322, Ar. Ach. 1229, Amips. PCG 21.3, Pl. PCG 205.4, Eub. or Philyll., quoted above; also Eur. Cycl. 417; never elsewhere in tragedy. This form of hard drinking is often connected to non-Greeks dwelling to the North, such as Thracians and Scythians, and suggests the excess that defenders of Greek sympotic etiquette often criticise. Cf. Callim. Aet. F 178.11–12 Harder καὶ γὰρ ὁ Θρηϊκίην μὲν ἀπέστυγε χανδὸν ἄμυστιν / οἰνοποτεῖν, ὀλίγωι δ᾽ ἥδετο κισσυβίωι, where the ἄμυστις is Thracian par excellence, and is contrasted with moderate drinking from small cups; Anacr. PMG 356, where ἄμυστιν προπίνειν entails long draughts, which however consist of diluted wine and thus allow one to ‘play the Bacchant with decorum’ and is opposed to noisy drinking ‘in the manner of the Scythians’

375

C O M M E N TA RY 4 1 9 – 4 2 1 (differently, in Anacreont. 9 West unqualified πιεῖν ἀμυστί allows the speaker to fulfil his wish to μανῆναι), Hor. C. 1.36.14 Threicia vincat amystide, Athen. Epit. 11.781d μὴ κωθωνιζόμενον μηδὲ Θραικίωι νόμωι ἄμυστιν ζωροποτεῖν, Pollux, On. 6.25 ἀμυστὶ πίνειν, ἀμυστίζειν, χανδὸν πίνειν, Θραικία πρόποσις, Σκυθικὴ πόσις, where the ἄμυστις and the heavy drinking of Thracians and Scythians are brought together at least at the level of association of ideas. On the heavy drinking of the Thracians in general, cf., e.g., Archil. IEG 42, Ar. Ach. 141, Pl. Leg. 637d–e, Σ exeg. Hom. Il. 24.234, Goossens (1962) 254, Hall (1989) 133–4, Hobden (2013) 104–5, and above 363–4n. The huge number of gold and silver sympotic vessels found in Thracian tombs and the description of the endless feast given by Seuthes II for Xen. and his mercenaries (Xen. An. 7.3.21–33) show that feasting must have been of primary importance for Thracian tribal aristocracies; royal dinners could also serve as daily occasions for reinforcing the image of the king as a benefactor; cf. Archibald (2013) 275–6, Valeva, (2015). δεξιούμενοι, a technical term of the symposium, refers to the raising of the right hand with the cup for the toast which each symposiast drank after receiving it from another symposiast (see 360–2n.); cf. Athen. 1.13f, quoted above in 404–5n. It is construed with the accusative (Jos. AJ 6.363) or dative (Men. Dysc. 948) of the person pledged. ἐν δεμνίοις ‘on the mattress’ ~ ‘in bed’, a phrase found only in Eur. (4x), possibly suggests both laziness and lechery (the latter meaning is even more probable in κοιμώμενος at 439). According to Hdt. 5.6.1 some Thracians gave unmarried women (παρθένοι) the freedom to have intercourse with whomever they wanted, and their polygamy was a frequent topos: Hdt. 5.5.1, 5.16.2, Aesch. TrGF 376a, Eur. Andr. 215–18, Men. PCG 877, Heracl. Lemb. Polit. 58 Dilts, Liapis 188. 420–1 Hector repeats at the conclusion of his speech what he had said at 394–5, likewise Polynices at Eur. Pho. 469–72 and 494–6: he has to say what he really thinks because of his sincerity and outspokenness. He adds a proud justification: he is sincere because he was born free. ‘The freeman tells the truth because falsehood implies fear or need, and he should not be motivated by either’ (Dover (1974) 115); cf. Democr. VS 68B226 οἰκήιον ἐλευθερίης παρρησίη, κίνδυνος δὲ ἡ τοῦ καιροῦ διάγνωσις, Soph. Tr. 453–4 εἰπὲ πᾶν τἀληθές· ὡς ἐλευθέρωι / ψευδεῖ καλεῖσθαι κὴρ πρόσεστιν οὐ καλή, Ph. 1006 ὦ μηδὲν ὑγιὲς μηδ᾽ ἐλεύθερον ϕρονῶν, TrGF 927a ἐλευθέρα γὰρ γλῶσσα τῶν ἐλευθέρων, Eur. Hipp. 421–2 ἐλεύθεροι / παρρησίαι θάλλοντες, Supp. 438–41 τοὐλεύθερον δ’ ἐκεῖνο· ‘Τίς θέλει πόλει / χρηστόν τι βούλευμ᾽ ἐς μέσον ϕέρειν ἔχων;’ / … τί τούτων ἔστ᾽ ἰσαίτερον πόλει;, Ion 674–5 τό γε στόμα / δοῦλον πέπαται κοὐκ ἔχει παρρησίαν, Pho. 391–2 οὐκ ἔχει παρρησίαν δούλου τόδ᾽ εἶπας, οὐ μέτεστί σοι λόγου, Eub. PCG 25 τοῖς σκώπτουσι … / ἑαυτὸν

376

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 1 – 4 2 3 εὐόργητος· ἡγεῖται δὴ / τούτους μόνους ἐλευθέρους, κἂν δοῦλος ἦι, [Men.] Sent. 234 ἐλευθέρου γάρ ἐστι τἀληθῆ λέγειν. Such appreciation of freedom of speech as one of the main components of liberty could be regarded as propaganda for the παρρησία guaranteed in the fifth- and fourth-century Athenian boule and ekklesia; but it was also in line with the practice of radical ἰσηγορία between soldiers and Macedonian kings (e.g., Polyb. 5.27.6); cf. Griffith (1966), Momigliano (1973) 257–60. ταῦθ᾽… μέμφομαί σοι: cf. Ar. Nub. 525 ταῦτ᾽ … ὑμῖν μέμφομαι, Xen. Oec. 2.15, Pl. Ap. 41e. λέγω κατ᾽ ὄμμα σόν ‘I am telling to your face’: cf. Eur. El. 910 ἅ γ’ εἰπεῖν ἤθελον κατ᾽ ὄμμα σόν, Ar. Ran. 626 ἵνα σοι κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς λέγηι. κατ᾽ ὄμμα(τα) is found in tragedy at Soph. Ant. 760, Eur. Andr. 1064, Or. 288, Bacch. 469; for synonymous κατὰ στόμα, see 408–11a n. 422–3 To demonstrate his agreement, Rhesus echoes Hector’s initial and final statements to the effect that he loves truth and speaks frankly (see 394b– 5n., 420–1n.). Simplicity and truthfulness are often equated; the ‘frankness’ of direct speaking is opposed to fine circumlocutions that camouflage truth at Eur. Hipp. 490–2 τί σεμνομυθεῖς; οὐ λόγων εὐσχημόνων / δεῖ σ᾽ ἀλλὰ τἀνδρός. ὡς τάχος διιστέον, / τὸν εὐθὺν ἐξειπόντας ἀμϕὶ σοῦ λόγον; likewise Pind. Ol. 13.11–13 ἔχω καλά τε ϕράσαι, τόλμα τέ μοι / εὐθεῖα γλῶσσαν ὀρνύει λέγειν. / ἄμαχον δὲ κρύψαι τὸ συγγενὲς ἦθος. See also 851n. τοιοῦτός εἰμι καὐτός: cf. Eur. El. 53 ἴστω καὐτὸς αὖ τοιοῦτος ὤν. εὐθεῖαν λόγων / τέμνω κέλευθον: cf. Pind. F 108a (when God has indicated the beginning for an endeavour) εὐθεῖα δή / κέλευθος ἀρετὰν ἑλεῖν, where however the metaphor of the path applies to a course of action, not to speech. Travelling along a ‘path’ is a common metaphor for the development of a song or discourse in performance; e.g., οἷμος ἀοιδῆς (HHom.Herm. 451), ἐπέων οἷμος (Pind. Ol. 9.47), μύθων ἀτραπός (Emp. VS 31B24), κέλευθος μέλεων (Bacch. 19.1–2), κέλευθος ὕμνων (Pind. F 191); cf. Durante (1958), Nünlist (1998) 228–54. Likewise, ‘cleaving a path’ – in the air or over the sea, as the air is considered analogous to the sea (Dunbar on Ar. Av. 1398–400) – is a very common metaphor for ‘travelling’ by flying or sailing, and τέμνειν is the idiomatic verb in this metaphor: Archil. IEG 181.10 τάμνων (suppl. Lobel) κέ]λευθον ὠκέως δι᾽ αἰθέρος, adesp. PMG 939.16–17 ἄλοκα Νηρεΐας πλακὸς τέμνοντες, Aesch. Supp. 806–7 τίν᾽ ἔτι πόρον / τέμνω;, Eur. Pho. 1–3 ὦ τὴν ἐν ἄστροις οὐρανοῦ τέμνων ὁδὸν … Ἥλιε (1–2 were most probably interpolation by actors; see 438–42n.), Eur. (?) ap. Athen. 2.61b = FGE 560 ὦ τὸν ἀγήρατον πόλον αἰθέρος, ῞Ηλιε, τέμνων, Eur. TrGF 124.2–3 διὰ μέσου γὰρ αἰθέρος / τέμνων κέλευθον πόδα τίθημ᾽ ὑπόπτερον (reproduced verbatim at Ar. Th. 1099–1100; cf. Σ), Ar. Av. 1398–1400 νοτίαν στείχων πρὸς ὁδόν …

377

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 3 – 4 2 5 ἀλίμενον αἰθέρος αὔλακα τέμνων.63 Rh., in an unparalleled fashion, shifts the metaphor of ‘cleaving’ a path from motion to speech. τέμνω, suggested by Nauck (1862) 173–4, should replace the participle of the MSS. Statements with demonstrative τοιοῦτος/τοιόσδε, followed with no interposition of a participial phrase by an explanatory coordinate phrase with finite verb in asyndeton, are typical of Eur.; cf. Cycl. 524 τοιόσδ’ ὁ δαίμων· οὐδένα βλάπτει βροτῶν, Andr. 173–4 τοιοῦτον πᾶν τὸ βάρβαρον γένος· / πατήρ τε θυγατρὶ παῖς τε μητρὶ μείγνυται, Supp. 881–2 ὁ δ᾽ αὖ τρίτος τῶνδ᾽ Ἱππομέδων τοιόσδ᾽ ἔϕυ· / παῖς ὢν ἐτόλμησ᾽ . . . Or. 895–6 τὸ γὰρ γένος τοιοῦτον· ἐπὶ τὸν εὐτυχῆ / πηδῶσ’ ἀεὶ κήρυκες, TrGF 196.1–2 τοιόσδε θνητῶν τῶν ταλαιπώρων βίος· / οὔτ᾽ εὐτυχεῖ τὸ πάμπαν οὔτε δυστυχεῖ, 322.1–2 ἔρως γὰρ ἀργὸν κἀπὶ τοιούτοις ἔϕυ· / ϕιλεῖ κάτοπτρα καὶ κόμης ξανθίσματα. Cf. Liapis (2011) 71–2, Fries 278. The -ν endings of the accusatives preceding and following the verb, as well as the ‑ων of λόγων, may have encouraged the corruption. Failure to recognise the asyndeton (a frequent fault) may also have played a part. 424–5 δέ marks the transition from the introductory 422–3 to the speech proper (Denniston (1954) 170–1). μεῖζον ἢ σὺ … / λύπηι πρὸς ἧπαρ δυσφορῶν ἐτειρόμην ‘In my distress, I was more vexed than you by grief in my liver.’ μεῖζον of most MSS is an adverbial neuter singular, attested for Soph. Ph. 456 and Eur. Supp. 216. Since the adverbial use of neuter plural μείζονα is unparalleled, there is no good case for μείζον᾽ = μείζονα, the v.l. of L which was also conjectured without knowledge of L by Reiske (1754) 88 (who improbably considered μείζον᾽ elision of dative μείζονι to be construed with λύπηι) and by Porson (1812) 278; cf. Pace (2009) 181–2. λύπηι should be taken as dative of agent with ἐτειρόμην, rather than as a causal dative with δυσφορῶν; cf. Hom. Il. 22.242 ἐμὸς ἔνδοθι θυμὸς ἐτείρετο πένθεϊ λυγρῶι, Od. 2.70–1 μ᾽ οἶον ἐάσατε πένθεϊ λυγρῶι / τείρεσθ’, 7.218 καὶ μάλα τειρόμενον καὶ ἐνὶ ϕρεσὶ πένθος ἔχοντα ~ 24.233, Ap. Rh. 4.1523 οὔ μιν ὑπέρβιον ἄλγος ἔτειρεν. For Pl. Timae. 71a–d the liver is the seat of emotions, as it mediates thoughts from the brain – the brain either strikes terror into the appetitive part through the liver’s bitter bile, thereby producing λῦπαι and ἄσαι ‘nausea’, or else it soothes it by making the part of the body where the liver is gentle and calm; cf. Onians (1954) 84–9, Dumortier (1935) 18–20, De Romilly (1958) 28–31, Capone Ciollaro (1987) 7–12. πρός, ἐπί, or ὑπό + accusative are often used of

63

For sailing or rowing as ‘cleaving’ the sea or the air, again idiomatically with τέμνειν but without mentioning the ‘path’, cf. Hom. Od. 3.174–5, 13.88, HHom. Dem. 383, Pind. Pyth. 3.68; Bacch. 5.17, [Orph.] Arg. 303.

378

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 5 – 4 2 8 pains attacking the liver, often with an explicit verb of movement; cf. Aesch. Ag. 432 πολλὰ … θιγγάνει πρὸς ἧπαρ, 791–2 δῆγμα δὲ λύπης / οὐδὲν ἐϕ᾽ ἧπαρ προσικνεῖται, Cho. 271–2 δυσχειμέρους / ἄτας ὑϕ᾽ ἧπαρ θερμὸν ἐξαυδώμενος, Soph. Ai. 938 χωρεῖ πρὸς ἧπαρ, οἶδα, γενναία δύη, Eur. TrGF 979.1–2 ἡ Δίκη σε … / παίσει πρὸς ἧπαρ. For similar brachylogic use of πρός followed by the organ attacked by pain, but with no explicit verb of movement, as in our passage, cf. Hippocr. Epid. 5.80 πρὸς καρδίην ὀδύνη, 7.62 πρὸς καρδίην ἄλγος δεινόν. The absence of a verb therefore is not a cogent reason to emend to κατ᾽ ἦμαρ (Nauck (1862) 174). δυσφορεῖν/δυσφορία may connote as little as ‘uneasiness’ or ‘discomfort’, the opposite of εὐφορία ‘sense of well-being’ (e.g. in the Hippocratic corpus; cf. Berrettoni (1970) 56–7), but in tragedy the verb normally has a stronger sense, designating distress and rage that border on madness: cf., e.g., Aesch. Sept. 780–1 ἐπ᾽ ἄλγει δυσϕορῶν / μαινομέναι κραδίαι, Soph. El. 254–5 αἰσχύνομαι μέν, … εἰ δοκῶ / πολλοῖσι θρήνοις δυσϕορεῖν ὑμῖν ἄγαν; also Soph. Aj. 51–2 δυσϕόρους ἐπ᾽ ὄμμασι / γνώμας βαλοῦσα, where δυσϕόρους implies that the illusions contrived by Athena have an irresistible force to which the intellect succumbs (cf. Finglass ad loc.). λυπεῖσθαι and δυσφορεῖν are sometimes synonyms in later prose (Plut. Ant. 44.3, Mor. 112b, 467e–468d; Dio Chrys. F 1 von Arnim), and in the Stoic terminology of passions δυσϕορία was a variety of λύπη: Andron. Pass. p. 227.50 Glibert-Thirry = Chrysipp. (Mor.) F 414 (SVF III p. 100) δυσϕορία δὲ λύπη μετ᾽ ἀπορίας τοῦ πῶς χρήσεται τοῖς παροῦσιν. If this sense of being at a loss as to how to manage the situation had any currency before the Stoics, δυσφορῶν would aptly point to Rhesus’ dilemma: he needs to defend his land from the Scythians but wishes to intervene on behalf of Troy. 426–8a Rhesus makes excuses to justify his failure to help the Trojans. Tragic heroes do not usually make excuses, but Euripidean heroes do so at least twice. At Andr. 732–6 Menelaus excuses his hasty departure by alleging that he has to lead the army against a formerly friendly city which has taken hostile action against Sparta; at Hec. 962–7 Polymestor, summoned by Hecuba, excuses his ἀπουσία by saying, as Rhesus at 467, that he was away in the inland regions of Thrace. A tradition appears to have existed that Rhesus performed warlike deeds in defence of his kingdom before coming to Troy; cf. the Muse’s statement at 932–3, Σ D Hom. Il. 10.435 διάφορος δὲ τῶν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν γενόμενος ἐν πολεμικοῖς ἔργοις ἐπῆλθε τοῖς Ἕλλησιν quoted in Introduction, p. 8, Parthen. Narr. am. 36.1, quoted in 399–403n. Rh., Parthenius, and Σ D Hom. Il. 10.435 may have followed an independent, local tradition of Rhesus’ wars of conquest, parallel to the archaic tradition (and poems?) on Achilles’ various expeditions and sackings of cities around Troy before or during the first years of the Trojan War. No other record exists of a campaign carried out by Rhesus

379

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 5 – 4 2 7 against the Scythians. A detail about the Scythian attacks emphasises the seriousness of the danger with which Rhesus had to cope: if the Scythians, usually living north of Thrace, attacked Rhesus in the southernmost zone of his kingdom, ‘this means that they were alarmingly deep into his territory’ (Liapis 185). It is common opinion that this Scythian invasion was invented by the author of Rh. (Liapis 184, Fries 279); but Scythians and Thracians left no record of their history, apart from what was related by Greek or Latin historians. If the Scythian invasion was an innovation of Rh., it was historically plausible. The difference between the Scythians living on the northern side of the river Ister = Danube, who remained nomadic and pastoral down to the fourth century (cf., e.g., Hdt. 4.46.3, 4.97.4), and the Thracians, a settled agricultural population living south of the river, set the scene for incursions by roving Scythians into Thrace (Gavrilyuk (2007) 140, Braund (2015) 354). ἀγχιτέρμων γαῖά μοι, Σκύθης λεώς: the subject, ‘a land coterminous with mine’, is qualified by the apposition ‘people of Scythia’, which in fact is the logical subject of 428 συνῆψε πόλεμον. The hendiadys linking ‘land’ and ‘people’ is not uncommon in tragedy: cf. Aesch. Eum. 289–90 κτήσεται δ᾽ ἄνευ δορὸς / αὐτόν τε καὶ γῆν καὶ τὸν Ἀργεῖον λεών, 668 τὸ σὸν πόλισμα καὶ στρατὸν τεύξω μέγαν, 762–4 χώραι τῆιδε καὶ τῶι σῶι στρατῶι, Eur. Hcld. 316 γῆν τοσήνδε καὶ Πελασγικὸν λεών, Her. 1389 ὦ γαῖα Κάδμου πᾶς τε Θηβαῖος λεώς, Hel. 414–15 ὄνομα δὲ χώρας ἥτις ἥδε καὶ λεὼ / οὐκ οἶδ(α). ἀγχιτέρμων is attested primarily in tragedy (Soph. TrGF 384, Theodect. TrGF 72F17.1, Lycophr. 729, 1130). Pollux, On. 6.113 Bethe labels the word διθυραμβῶδες, but it is found in prose that is anything but high-flown: Xen. Hiero 10.7. The contiguity of the Thracians with the Scythians living to the north-west of the Black Sea is observed as early as Hdt. 4.99.1. Thuc. 2.96.1 presents the river Ister as the boundary between Scythians and northeastern Thrace, which was mainly inhabited by the Getae and the numerous Thracian tribes of the Odrysian kingdom. νόστον τὸν πρὸς Ἴλιον: νόστος and νεῖσθαι, usually connected by linguists to an Indo-European root *nes conveying the sense ‘saving (oneself)’ from deadly dangers, appear to be used of safely reaching a destination. In archaic epic νόστος frequently means the ‘(journey of) return home’, thus emphasising the idea of home as, probably, the most common place of safe return; cf. Frame (1978) 6–24 and (2009) 28–9, 38–50, Heubeck (1987), Pignani (1995), Bonifazi (2009). The only exceptions are, perhaps, Il. 10.509 (where the word appears to be used of the return of Diomedes and Odysseus, after the killing of Rhesus, to the Greek camp – which however may have been considered, in a way, the safe temporary ‘home’ of the Greeks) and Od. 5.344–5 (of arrival at Phaeacian Scheria, where Odysseus is destined to find salvation: χείρεσσι νέων ἐπιμαίεο νόστου / γαίης Φαιήκων, ὅθι τοι μοῖρ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀλύξαι). The more general meaning of νοστεῖν ‘make one’s way’ and νόστος ‘journey’

380

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 7 – 4 2 9 parallels the generalising sense ‘go’ that some originally specific verbs of motion like χωρεῖν, στείχειν, ἕρπειν, etc., often convey in the fifth century (Létoublon (1985) 176); cf. Soph. Ph. 43 (with Schein ad loc.), Eur. Hel. 428, 474, 891, IA 965–6 (πρὸς Ἴλιον … νόστος (of Achilles)), 1261 (οἷς νόστος οὐκ ἔστ᾽ Ἰλίου πύργους ἔπι); Ar. Ach. 29; Pherecr. PCG 87.2; also περινοστεῖν ‘wander around’ at Ar. Pax 762, Alexis, PCG 28.3. The memory of Odysseus’ wish for his νόστος will have helped to preserve for this term the original sense of motion toward a place where arrival means success – a nuance which Rhesus may have found useful for persuading Hector of his sincere desire to arrive at Troy; and just as it was not Odysseus’ fault if he could not go home for ten years after the war, so it is not Rhesus’ fault if he was kept from Troy for the same number of years. Neither much enjoyed his years of absence. ξυνῆψε πόλεμον or μάχην is common in historians (Hdt. 1.18.2, 6.94.1, 6.108.5, Thuc. 6.13.2, Xen. Ages. 6.2, Hell. 5x), and frequent in Eur. (Alc. 502, 1140, Hcld. 808, 831, Supp. 144, Pho. 1230; said not of those waging war but of Helen as cause of the war, Hel. 55); elsewhere in tragedy only at Aesch. Pers. 336. 428b–9 The shortest routes from Thrace to Asia Minor were across the Propontis via the Hellespont and the Bosporus. These were the routes taken, in the opposite direction, by the army of Darius, which crossed on a pontoon bridge at Chalcedon in the campaign of 513 against the Scythians, and by the army of Xerxes, who crossed the Hellespont in the same way at Abydus in his campaign of 480 against Greece. Rhesus must have crossed the Propontis at the Bosporus, on the Black Sea (436 πόντιον στόμα = Bosporus), possibly because the Hellespont was too close to the Greek camp; see 282–3n. ἀξένου … πόντου: as suggested by Vasmer (1921=1971) and (1923) 315–17 and, independently, Boisacq (1924) 317–19, and argued in detail by Allen (1947), the ancient name of what we call the Black Sea may have originally been the Avestan epithet ‘axšaēna’, which means ‘dark-coloured’, although it is only poorly documented in Avestan for the Black Sea (Hecataeus may have called it only the πóντος par excellence; cf. FGrHist 1F214, 216, 196, Strabo 1.2.10 (21)). Despite the criticism of Moorhouse (1940b) 124–7, Vasmer’s theory is now standard. The closeness of the local name to Aeolic ἄξενος (and still more to Ionic ἄξεινος) may have produced a popular etymology, while the first troubled experiences of the colonists in the waters of this new sea suggested an interpretation of the original name as ‘inhospitable’, which became standard, διὰ τὸ δυσχείμερον καὶ τὴν ἀγριότητα τῶν περιοικούντων ἐθνῶν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν Σκυθικῶν ξενοθυτούντων καὶ σαρκοϕαγούντων, as Strabo comments (7.3.6 (298–9); also cf. Diod. Sic. 4.40.4 = Dion. Scytobr. F 14.18–21 Rusten, [Scymn.] 735–7). ἄξενος is also used of the land of the cannibal Cyclops at Eur. Cycl. 91; and the cape of Salmydessus, in the Black Sea, is called at Aesch. PV 727 ἐχθρόξενος ναύταισι. The more optimistic

381

C O M M E N TA RY 4 2 7 – 4 3 0 εὔξεινος ‘friendly to foreigners’ would have been introduced when, from the early seventh century, colonisation consolidated the Greeks’ control of the coasts and new harbours made navigation easier (as Strabo comments ibid.: ὕστερον δ᾽ Εὔξεινον κεκλῆσθαι, τῶν Ἰώνων ἐν τῆι παραλίαι πόλεις κτισάντων); or perhaps it was one of the many examples of Greek lexical euphemisms, such as Εὐμενίδες for Ἐρινύες (see 38b–40n., 589–90n.); cf. Ronconi (1931) 215–18, West (2003). εὔξεινος, the more recent form, may have displaced the older ἄξεινος in scribal transmission. εὔξεινος is the most frequent form of the name in the MSS from Hdt. and Thuc. onwards, but the paradosis of Pind. and Eur. seems often to have εὔξεινος along with probably original ἄξε(ι)νος. The MSS give ἄξε(ι)νος at Pyth. 4.203 and εὔξεινος at Nem. 4.49, but it is unlikely that the same author used both forms, and West’s emendation to ἄξενος at Nem. 4.49 (quoted and approved by Henry ad loc.) should be accepted. In Eur. too ἄξε(ι)νος was liable to be corrupted. In IT, e.g., the Black Sea is mentioned at 125, 218, 253, 341, 395, 438, 1388, and the MSS have εὔξεινος at 125, 395, 1388, ἄξε(ι)νος in the other cases – but at 253 a third century BC papyrus has εὐξε[. As the more recent and standard form is likely to have taken the place of the older and as the expedition of Orestes to the Black Sea in IT was a perilous one, whereas εὔξεινος suggests the opposite (Bond on Eur. Her. 410), modern editors emend εὔξε(ι)ν- forms given in all or part of the MS tradition to ἄξε(ι)ν- forms at IT 125, 395 (after Markland on IT 125), and 1388 (after Cobet (1873) 592) and also, for the sake of consistency within the works of one author, at Andr. 1262 (after Cobet (1873) 592) and Her. 410 (after Meineke (1859) 1). A reference to an inhospitable landscape also suits Rhesus’ rhetoric. He wishes to emphasise his toils in the years when he failed to help Troy, and the εὐξένου of the MSS should be corrected to ἀξένου at Rh. 428. πορθμεύσων The v.l. πορθμεῦσαι is also plausible; cf. Diggle (1987=1994) 324, Liapis 185, Fries 280–1. There is a similar choice to be made at Eur. Med. 1303 ἐμῶν δὲ παίδων ἦλθον ἐκσώσων (v.l. ἐκσῶσαι) βίον. For the final infinitive after verbs of motion, cf. Aesch. Eum. 488, Soph. OC 12, 35, Eur. TrGF 773.54, Neophr. TrGF 15F1.1, Moorhouse (1982) 237–8. πορθμεύειν, derived from πορθμός ‘crossing’, ‘strait’, is especially appropriate here, as Rhesus’ army has to cross a strait. It is a verb which, after Eur. IT, the theatre-going public may have associated with action on Black Sea landscapes. As observed by Parker on Eur. IT 265–6, Eur. is exceptionally fond of πορθμεύειν (elsewhere in tragedy it is found only once in Aesch. and once in Soph.), but seven of his eleven occurrences – both literal (‘ferry over’) and metaphorical (‘convey’ tout court) – are in IT. 430–1 ἔνθ(α) may be here relative (‘when’, ‘where’), preceded by a comma, or demonstrative (‘then’, ‘there’), preceded by a full stop. Demonstrative ἔνθα, common in epic, is rare in tragedy. The most probable examples are

382

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 0 – 4 3 1 Aesch. Supp. 33 and Eur. Pho. 657, although in some other cases it makes little difference (Aesch. Pers. 490, Supp. 958, Eur. Supp. 1105, Andr. 21, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 33, Sandin (2002) 151, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 489–90). Relative ἔνθα here may refer back to πόντου … ἀκτάς, introducιng the results of the battle fought there as a brief parenthesis. However, magnifying this marginal battle helps Rhesus’ rhetorical strategy, and the demonstrative value of ἔνθα gives the episode a greater syntactic autonomy and emphasis. αἱματηρὸς πελανός … / ἠντλεῖτο λόγχηι may be an imitation of Aesch. Pers. 816–17 τόσος … ἔσται πελανὸς αἱματοσφαγὴς / πρὸς γῆι Πλαταιῶν … λόγχης ὕπο; if perceived, the allusion will have led the audience to compare the battle between Rhesus and the Scythians to the national Greek glory of Plataea. The idea of blood drunk up by the earth, so that the bloodshed is irrevocable, is typical of Aesch.: Sept. 734–9, Supp. 443–51, Ag. 1019–21 τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γᾶν πεσὸν ἅπαξ θανάσιμον / πρόπαρ ἀνδρὸς μέλαν αἷμα τίς ἂν / πάλιν ἀγκαλέσαιτ᾽ ἐπαείδων;, Cho. 66–74, Eum. 261–3, 647–8. Here it will suggest the extinction of the Scythian enemy. πελανός, not attested outside tragedy down to the end of the fourth century (Aesch. 6x, Eur. 10x, not in Soph.), most frequently refers to a semi-liquid mixture of meal, oil, and honey poured or burnt in libations or sacrifices, mainly for chthonic gods or the dead (Aesch. Pers. 204, 524, Ag. 96, Cho. 92, Eur. Tro. 1063, Ion 226, 707, TrGF 912.2, Ar. Plut. 661, Ap. Rh. 4.712), and sometimes to other kinds of thick liquid: honey (Eur. TrGF 467.5); eye-rheum (Stob. 4.36.8); mouth-foam (Eur. Or. 220); gore, as here = Eur. Alc. 851 (αἱματηρὸν πελανόν), Aesch. Pers. 816–17, quoted above, Eum. 265 (ἐρυθρὸν ἐκ μελέων πελανόν). Cf. Stengel (1910) 66–72, Amandry (1950) 87–103. For the accent (πέλανος proparoxytone is a frequent v.l.), cf. Herodian. GG III.1.178.19 Lentz. αἱματηρός is attested only in tragedy (Aesch. 7x, Soph. 5x, Eur. 12x) and Hippocratic writings in the fifth and fourth centuries. λόγχηι goes apo koinou with both πελανός and φόνος: the spear draws the Scythians’ gore and the Thracians’ spilt blood out of their bodies and into the soil. The sense is virtually unchanged if we accept the v.l. φόνωι with the emendation of Θρήιξ τε to Θρηικί by Matthiae VIII.23; in that case πελανός … Θρηικὶ συμμιγὴς φόνωι would be the single composite subject οf ἠντλεῖτο. συμμιγής is a high-flown word, not attested before tragedy (Aesch. 2x, Soph. 3x, Eur. 1x), lyric Ar. (1x), and Plato (3x). φόνος: here not ‘murder’ but ‘blood shed’ (rare in prose; first attested at Alcae. F 390 Voigt), practically a synomyn of πελανός. πελανός was mainly a term of sacrificial practice, whereas φόνος could refer to sacrificial killing of animals (e.g., Eur. Hcld. 822, Hipp. 537) but also was the technical term for ‘homicide’ in classical Greek (Chantraine (1949) 146). Rhesus’ phrasing may

383

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 2 – 4 3 4 emphasise that the killing of Scythian enemies is a kind of sacrificial slaughter, and the killing of Thracians is a crime. 432–3 τοιάδε τοί μ᾽ ἀπεῖργε συμφορά … ἱκέσθαι: cf. Eur. Hcld. 662–3 τίς νιν εἶργε συμϕορὰ / σὺν σοὶ ϕανέντα δεῦρ᾽ ἐμὴν τέρψαι ϕρένα;. πέδον Τροίας is found only in Eur. (Andr. 11, 58, Or. 522; also Τροίας πεδία Hec. 140, δάπεδον IA 755–6), Τροίας πεδία/πεδίον at Soph. Ph. 920, 1297, 1332, 1376, 1435. σύμμαχόν τέ σοι μολεῖν: cf. Soph. OC 1376 ξυμμάχους ἐλθεῖν ἐμοί. 434–5: the two circumstantial participles ὁμηρεύσας and τάξας stand in asyndeton, as participles often do when one modifies or defines the other (KG II.103–4): he took hostages to ensure that the tribute would be paid. The asyndeton results in brevity of expression, and this suggests the speed with which Rhesus’ operation was carried out. ἔπερσα has as its object ‘the Scythians’, easily understood from the context; for the sense, see 237–41n. τῶνδ᾿ ὁμηρεύσας τέκνα: ὅδε usually refers to what follows, unlike οὗτος (see 156–7a), but here it refers to the understood object of ἔπερσα. For the relatively rare use of ὅδε to refer to what precedes, cf., e.g., Aesch. Ag. 57, Sept. 424, PV 904, Soph. Aj. 28, 113, El. 421, Ant. 575, Eur. Hec. 427. τέκνα, without the article, is indefinite: ‘some children’. ὁμηρεύειν transitive, ‘make into a hostage’, is not attested elsewhere; usually it is absolute, ‘be a hostage’, as at Aeschin. 2.81 and 3.133, Antiph. PCG 115.2, and probably Eur. Bacch. 297. Hostages were mainly taken from among the defeated by victors in war in order to ensure that the conditions of peace established by treaties would be observed; cf. Thuc. 1.56.2, 1.108.3, 1.115.3, 2.26.2, 3.90.4, Ar. Ach. 326–7 with Olson ad locum. Rhesus’ purpose in taking hostages seems to have been to ensure that the Scythians would pay the tribute that he had imposed. So after the Athenian defeat in the expedition of 415–413, Nicias tried to come to an agreement with Syracuse: if the Syracusans let Nicias’ army go back to Athens, the Athenians would repay Syracuse’s war expenses, and Athenian citizens would stay with the Syracusans, one hostage for each talent owed, until the money was paid in full (Thuc. 7.83.2, Plut. Nic. 27.2). Likewise, after the capitulation of the Samian rebels in 440, Pericles imposed a full indemnity for Athenian expenses in the war and the immediate delivery of hostages (Thuc. 1.117.3, Plut. Per. 28.1). Cf. Amit (1970) 139–40, Lonis (1977) 233, Kallet (2001) 176–80. Victors designing peace treaties often required the hostages to be children; cf., e.g., Hdt. 1.64.1, 6.99.1, 7.165.1, Thuc. 1.115.3, 5.77.1, 3, Xen. Hell. 6.1.18, Aen. Tact. 10.23, Lonis (1977) 222–3. In particular, interstate relations with Northern Greece often entailed this practice: in 369 or 368, at the apogee of Theban hegemony after Leuctra, the king of Macedon, Alexander II, entrusted the future Philip II, and thirty other

384

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 4 – 4 3 6 children of the Macedonian nobility to Pelopidas in exchange for Theban help in consolidating his power against his brother Ptolemy (Diod. Sic. 15.67.4, Plut. Pel. 26.4). According to another version, when Amyntas king of Macedon was defeated by the Illyrians, they took his youngest son Philip as a hostage (Diod. Sic. 16.2.2). A few years later, Ptolemy entrusted to Pelopidas his son and fifty noble companions (Plut. Pelop. 27.3–4). In 352 or 346 the king of the Thracian Odrysians, Cersobleptes, gave his son as a hostage to Philip II, thus admitting that he was a vassal of Macedon (Aeschin. 2.81). Cf. Amit (1970) 143–4. τάξας ἔτειον δασμὸν … φέρειν: τάσσειν ‘fix’ and φέρειν ‘supply’ are regularly used with δασμός ‘tribute’; cf. Xen. An. 5.5.10 δασμὸν ἡμῖν ϕέρουσιν . . . τεταγμένον, Cyr. 8.6.8 δασμοὺς μέντοι συνέταξεν ἀποϕέρειν καὶ τούτους; also Hell. 3.4.26 τὸν ἀρχαῖον δασμὸν αὐτῶι ἀποϕέρειν, Cyr. 3.1.10 δασμὸν οἴσειν, 3.1.34 ἔϕερες δασμὸν, 8.6.16 δασμῶν ϕορᾶς, Pl. Leg. 706b χαλεπήν τινα φορὰν δασμοῦ. On Parthenius’ reference to tributes that Rhesus imposed on his enemies, see 399–403n. Thucydides’ information (2.97.3–4) about the culture of gift-receiving and exacting huge φόροι that underlies the wealth of the Odrysian kings may also have been familiar to the audience of the Rh.: ‘a culture of taking rather than giving, in which to refuse a demand was more shaming than to have a demand refused’ (Archibald (1998) 148–50; also (2013) 74–6). ἔτειον means either ἐτήσιον ‘lasting one year’, as at Aesch. Ag. 2, or, as here, ‘taking place once a year’, like the ἆθλα of Pind. Isthm. 4.67. 436–42 The length of allies’ journeys from their homes is noted by Lycian Sarpedon at Hom. Il. 5.478–80 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ἐπίκουρος ἐὼν μάλα τηλόθεν ἥκω· / τηλοῦ γὰρ Λυκίη Ξάνθωι ἔπι δινήεντι, / ἔνθ᾽ ἄλοχόν … ϕίλην ἔλιπον, in the context of criticism of Hector’s ingratitude towards the allies. 436–7 ἥκω, the only main verb standing with the four participles of 434–7, is also the rhetorical pivot of Rhesus’ narrative: after the effort to defeat the Scythians, which culminated in ἔπερσα at 432, the participles refer to a series of marginal actions that took place between that victory and the arrival at Troy (‘all that matters is that Rhesus is now at Troy’: Liapis 187). περάσας and περῶν: ‘terminative’ aorist (Liapis 187) and present durative participles mark the relative chronology of the two actions: the crossing of the Bosporus is antecedent to another long march. Πόντιον στόμα: after Aesch. Pers. 877 στόμωμα Πόντου and Pind. Pyth. 4.203 ἐπ᾽ Ἀξείνου στόμα, the phrase στόμα (τοῦ) Πόντου becomes a standard designation of the Bosporus: Hdt. 4.81.3, Thuc. 4.75.2, Xen. An. 6.4.1, Scyl. Per. 67, 92, Ap. Rh. 1.2, 4.1002, Theocr. 22.28, Polyb. 4.38.2, 4.39.2. But here the phrase may be still using a Homeric-poetic epithet instead of the possessive genitive; see 1n.

385

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 7 – 4 4 2 τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα … γῆς … ὁρίσματα: the southern coast of the Propontis, through which Rhesus had to go, was divided between many different cities and peoples: Bebryces, Mysians, Bithynioi, and Phrygians, at least. Perhaps it is implied that new borders involved new dangers, and δ(έ) distinguishes the crossing of the strait from the border-crossings but suggests that they are parallel exploits. Down to the Imperial age ὅρισμα (~ more common ὅρος) is attested only in Hdt. 2.17.1 and 4.45.2 (Ionic: οὕρισμα), Eur. (Hipp. 1459, Andr. 968, Hec. 16), adesp. TrGF 560 χωρὶς τὰ Μυσῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν ὁρίσματα (a proverbial statement concerned with the boundaries between two peoples of the South Propontis), Strabo 12.4.4 (564) and 12.8.2 (572) (recording the tragic adespoton line). 438–42 ‘Not going through deep draughts of wine, as you loudly claim, or sleeping in my golden house. Rather, such icy blasts as tormented the Thracian Pontus and the Paeonians I know I have suffered without sleeping, wrapped in this cloak here.’ A similar syntax is used in Jason’s reply to Medea’s charges at Eur. Med. 555–9 οὐχ, ἧι σὺ κνίζηι, σὸν μὲν ἐχθαίρων λέχος / καινῆς δὲ νύμϕης ἱμέρωι πεπληγμένος / οὐδ᾽ εἰς ἅμιλλαν πολύτεκνον σπουδὴν ἔχων / … / ἀλλ᾽ ὡς, τὸ μὲν μέγιστον, οἰκοῖμεν καλῶς. Rhesus concludes his self-defence by denying all Hector’s final accusations (417–19): that, unlike other allies, he has not helped (1) because he was enjoying deep draughts (2) in the comfort of his bed, or (3) he did not want to be exposed to excessive cold and heat. The syntax of 438–9 has been questioned. Matthiae VIII.24 and Porter 67–8 maintained that a participle such as δεξιούμενος or ποιῶν should have been added to govern ἀμύστιδας. For Fries 283 the lines present ‘a very harsh anacoluthon, in which the expected participle (δεξιούμενος from 419) is omitted and its object transferred to the parenthesis ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς, and for Liapis 188 (see already Feickert 225) ‘κοιμώμενος (439), although connected with 438 by οὐδ’, is syntactically unrelated with it, for it continues the participial syntax of 436–7 (περάσας … περῶν)’. This anacoluthic syntax has been compared by Porter, followed by Feickert, Liapis, and Fries, to that produced by the similar (but perhaps less invasive) parenthesis ὡς σὺ φήις in Eur. Bacch. 685–8. But the syntax is straightforward if we suppose that after a first literal use of περᾶν in 436 (with reference to ‘going through’ the strait and the land borders), (ἥκω) περῶν of 437 is understood with ἀμύστιδας in the metaphorical sense ‘going through’ = ‘accomplishing’ (cf. Bothe (ii) II.105 ‘nans per amystidas’). This metaphorical use of περᾶν is attested; cf. Rh. 427 (νόστον), Pind. Nem. 11.9–10 (τέλος δωδεκάμηνον), Aesch. Cho. 270 (κίνδυνον), Xen. Oec. 21.3 (πλοῦς). The zeugma, with the same verb used for effortful and self-­indulgent activities, would add a touch of defiant sarcasm not unsuited to a man embittered by Hector’s charges at 418–19 (see n. on ἐμάς and ἐν … δώμασιν).

386

C O M M E N TA RY 4 3 8 – 4 4 1 ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς = Rh. 876 and Eur. Or. 571 (considered interpolated by Kovacs (2003a) 88–90). In all these passages, κομπεῖν refers not to boasting, but to a loud and haughty complaint (Porter 68, Kovacs 399, Fries 284); cf. κόμπος at 383, with 382–4n. When Hector accused Rhesus of laziness, he had been proud of the endurance of the allies, without bragging about himself; if we assume that κομπεῖς includes here the idea of boasting, then κομπεῖς will refer to Hector’s boast about the loyalty of the allies at 413–19. τὰς ἐμὰς ἀμύστιδας and τοὺς σοὺς … Ὀδυσσέας at Rh. 866, are examples of the possessive of contempt, often used in Soph. and a few times in Eur. when the speaker points with distaste to something that the interlocutor has mentioned (Soph. Aj. 792, El. 1037, 1110, Ant. 573, Ph. 1251, TrGF 165.1, Eur. Hipp. 101, 113, KG I.559, Bruhn (1899) 46; but cf. Dawe (1973/1978) III.107). At 419 Hector had been proud that the allies had been tolerant of fatigue and prohibitive weather and were not lying in bed and toasting like Rhesus (ὡς σύ), but did not say, contemptuously, ‘your draughts’ (‘quasi iis unice deditus esset Rhesus’: Matthiae VIII.24). Rhesus, hurt in his pride, adds the possessive to intensify the scornful tone which he perceived in Hector’s words. ἐν ζαχρύσοις δώμασιν: houses made of = decorated with gold chiefly belong to gods: Hom. Il. 13.21 δώματα χρύσεα (Poseidon), Hes. Th. 933 χρύσεα δῶ (Poseidon, Triton, and Amphitrite), Stesich. F 10.3–4 Finglass π[αγχρ]ύ̣σεα δώ/ μα]τ(α) (Hesperides), Pind. Isthm. 4.60 χρύσεοι οἶκοι (Heracles in Olympus), Pyth. 9.56 δώματα χρύσεα (Apollo’s gift to Cyrene), Nem. 10.88 χρύσεοι δόμοι (Polydeuces in heaven); cf. also χρύσεον δάπεδον of Zeus’s house at Hom. Il. 4.2; χρύσεοι θάλαμοι of Athena on Olympus at Eur. Ion. 459. Or they are ‘a standard symbol of excessive (non-Greek) luxury’ (Fries 284; cf. Aesch. Pers. 3–4, 159, Eur. Hel. 928). Hector did not speak of ‘golden houses’. But Rhesus in his bitterness once again exaggerates Hector’s criticisms. On ζάχρυσος, see 370n.; on Thrace as rich in gold-mines, 305–6a n. κοιμώμενος: see 418–19. οἷα πόντον Θρήικιον φυσήματα / κρυσταλλόπηκτα Παίονάς τ᾽ ἐπεζάρει balance the ψυχρὰ ἄησις that the allies suffered around Troy according to Hector at 417. The reference to the Paeonians (living in northern and central Macedonia; see 408–11a n.), singled out at 408 to indicate the areas where Hector had fought the rebellious Thracian princes, makes it certain that the ‘Thracian πόντος’ is not the ἄξενος ποντος (Black Sea) of 428–9, facing the north-eastern coast of Thrace, but the northern Aegean Sea, facing the southern coast of Thrace. Lines 440–1 are thus concerned with the first phase of Rhesus’ travels, down to the Bosporus, and complement 436–7, which had hinted at the second part from the Bosporus to Troy. Snowy and frosty winters are commonly associated with Thrace; cf. Hom. Il. 14.227, Eur. Andr. 215, Hec. 81, Hor. C. 3.25.10–11 (snow), Epist. 1.3.3–5 (rivers frozen), Eur. Alc. 67, Arist. HA 606b4–5, Flacc. AP 7.542.1–2 = GPh 3813–14 (the Hebrus frozen).

387

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 0 – 4 4 1 The devastating effects of ‘winds from the Strymon’ – mainly Boreas – on the sea were described at Aesch. Ag. 192–5 πνοαὶ δ᾽ ἀπὸ Στρυμόνος μολοῦσαι / κακόσχολοι, νήστιδες, δύσορμοι / βροτῶν ἄλαι, / ναῶν καὶ πεισμάτων ἀϕειδεῖς. Boreas is a particularly violent wind which blows down from Thrace and hits the Aegean north-west of the Troad – and its effects on this sea are often mentioned, e.g., at Hom. Il. 9.4–6, 23.229–30, Hes. Op. 505–8. Θρήικιος is a recurrent epithet for Boreas: cf. Hes. Op. 553, Tyrt. IEG 12.4, Ibyc. PMG 286.9, Simon. IEG 25.2, Eur. Cycl. 329, Ap. Rh. 4.1484; Callim. HArt. 114, HPall. 63–5. For the phrase Θρήικιος πόντος, Hom. Il. 23.229–30, quoted above, Hdt. 7.176.1, Callim. Lyr. F 228.42 Pf. (con.). φύσημα means ‘gasp’/’blow’ from breathing (Eur. Pho. 1438, IA 1114, Ar. Ran. 825), or ‘horse‑snorting’ (Xen. Eq. 11.12), or, as here, ‘wind-blast’ (Eur. Hipp. 1211, Tro. 79, TrGF 370.40); in tragedy, it is used only by Euripides. κρυσταλλόπηκτα ‘that solidify ice’ is a hapax, most probably modelled on another hapax, Aesch. Pers. 501 κρυσταλλοπῆγα, used of the frozen river Strymon, crossed by Xerxes’ army: another item of Thracian geography and another army on the march ‘crossing’ something (περᾶν) to complete the trip. The combined use of the model Aesch. Pers. 501 for κρυσταλλόπηκτα and Eur. Pho. 45 for the rare word ἐπεζάρει is probably an example of the ‘mosaic technique’ often practised by our author. ἐπεζάρει (conjectured by J.J. Scaliger for ἐπεζάτει; cf. Collard (1974) 249) = Eur. Pho. 45. Hesych. Lex. ε 4304 Latte ἐπεζάρει· ἐπεβάρει. ἐπέκειτο. ἐπεκράτει ascribes to the verb the meaning ‘press on heavily’, or metaphorically ‘vex’, which fits the contexts of both Rh. 441 and Eur. Pho. 45. The verb is not attested elsewhere, although Hesych. Lex. ε 4303 ἐπεζάρηκεν points to the existence of a third literary occurrence, in the perfect tense (ἐπεζάρησαν at Eust. on Il. 12.346 (909.28) does not necessarily prove that there was a fourth literary occurrence, as Eust. may have constructed this aorist to parallel ἐπέβρισαν in the Homeric text). The aorist ἐπιζαρῆσαι is a v.l. in two MSS of Σ D Hom. Od. 22.9–12, quoting Arist. F 589.3 Gigon, and Gigon accepts this form, whereas Rose, the previous editor of the fragments of Arist., had opted for ἐπιβαρῆσαι of the other MSS. Eust. on Il. 3.54 (381.19–20) and on 12.346 (909.28–9) maintains that the word was Arcadian. Linguists still debate the question whether this word and ἐπιβαρεῖν (βαρύς) are equivalent, as suggested by Hesych. (and maintained, e.g., by Dubois (1988) I.68–9), or not (Chantraine (2009) 342). In fact in another Arcadian gloss, ζέρεθρα = βάραθρα, Arcadian ζερ- becomes βαρ- in other dialects. But the affricate produced by palatalisation of the initial labiovelar (here ζ- instead of panhellenic occlusive β-) is a well-documented feature of Arcadian found in sixth- and fifth-century inscriptions before /e/ and /i/ (cf. Dubois (1988) I.64–7); this result is not attested before /a/, but ζαρ- may be apophony from the original root ζερ-, as supposed by Hoffmann (1891) 102, who compares the vowel

388

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 1 – 4 4 3 alternation in, e.g., βένθος/βάθος/βαθύς, πένθος/πάθος, or θέρσος (Aeolic)/θέρσης (Hom.)/θάρσος/θρασύς; cf. Meissner (2006) 64–71; also Arena (1971) 113–14 n. 21. It remains unclear why Eur. Pho. 45 and Rh. use an Arcadian word in a narrative where that dialect has no relevance. ξὺν τοῖσδ(ε) … πορπάμασιν: deictic, ‘in this cloak here’ (Kovacs 399). Together wiτh ἄυπνος, the idea that Rhesus spent his nights dressed in his day clothes counters Hector’s malicious suggestion that the Thracian tarried in order to drink and lie abed (418–19). Zanetto (ii) 81 and 149 n. 62 interprets ‘with these men … wrapped in mantles’; but nowhere in his dialogue with Hector does Rhesus mention an escort, and the final πορπάμασιν would not be easily understandable without a preposition. πορπάμασιν means any kind of cloak pinned at one or both shoulders with πόρπαι ‘brooches’ (Denniston on Eur. El. 820, Gow on Theocr. 15.21); cf. also περονατρίς and περόναμα (from περόνη = πόρπη) in the Doricising Theocr. 15.21 and 79. Here the term may designate the Thracian ζειρά, for which see 311–13n. The emendation for the transmitted πορπήμασιν/πορπάσμασιν (Porson, ‘Appendix II’ in Toup (1790) 439, Hermann on Eur. Her. 954, cf. Pace (2009) 185–6) reasonably presupposes that the author of Rh. conformed to the usage of the Attic dramatists. In words derived from πόρπη ‘brooch’ (and in a few other words, often not native to Attic: cf. Björck (1950) 139–40; Griffith on Aesch. PV 60–1) tragic dialogue keeps the final long alpha impurum of the stem, as in Doric, and does not change it to η, as would be usual in Attic and in dramatic dialogue: apart from πóρπαμα, transmitted at Eur. El. 820 and Her. 959, cf. πορπακίζεσθαι Ar.; πόρπαξ Soph. Eur.; πορπαφόρος Soph.; προσπορπατός Aesch.; imperative πόρπασον Aeschylus. οἶδα τλάς: the common object of the two verbs is the phrase οἷα … ἐπεζάρει of 440–1. The participle may in principle be either complementary (‘I know, having suffered’), as at 573 οἶδα … κλυών, Aesch. Cho. 570 οἶδεν ἔνδημος παρών, Hdt. 1.20.1, 2.52.1, 3.40.3, 3.117.6 οἶδα ... ἀκούσας, or predicative (‘I know that I have suffered’), as at Soph. Ph. 946 κοὐκ οἶδ᾽ ἐναίρων νεκρόν, Eur. Her. 166 οἶδα γὰρ κατακτανών (complementary) … θρόνους ἔχων (predicative), Ar. Eccl. 516. ξυμμείξασ᾽ οἶδα. But the first alternative is more probable: complementary τλάς will be used to contrast certain personal suffering with less certain sources of knowledge (e.g., hearsay; examples above). 443 ὕστερος (Cobet (1862) 435–7) is predicative with ἦλθον. It is either absolute ‘(too) late’ or used by Rhesus to distinguish himself from the allies who arrived earlier, whom Hector had already praised and contrasted with Rhesus in this respect (ὕστερος) at 412–15. The usual sense of the adverbial neuter ὕστερον of the MSS, ‘afterwards’, is, however, not impossible. A similar problem arises at Thuc. 7.27.2 οἱ δ᾽ Ἀθηναῖοι, ὡς ὕστερον (ὕστεροι Herwerden, accepted by Stuart Jones and Powell) ἧκον. Predicative ὕστερος is given by V at 453 ὕστερος μολών (ὕστερον the other MSS), by all MSS. at

389

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 3 – 4 4 6 Hom. Il. 18.320 ὃ δέ τ᾽ ἄχνυται ὕστερος ἐλθών, and by all MSS but one at Ar. Eccl. 381 ὕστερος νῦν ἦλθον, which, as Fries 286 correctly states, is a paratragic borrowing. In the light of the frequent scribal confusion between ὕστερος and ὕστερον, Cobet’s elegant emendation should be accepted, as the text does not make clear ‘after’ what Rhesus arrived (it may seem from Hector’s words (413–19) that Rhesus arrived after some of the allies, but he never speaks of the other allies). The admission of belatedness, that echoes Hector’s charge at 412, is balanced by the speed and effectiveness that Rhesus ascribes to his military operation. ἐν καιρῶι is to be taken with ἦλθον: ‘I came at the right moment’ (cf. Eur. Bacch. 1287 ἐν οὐ καιρῶι πάρει, Xen. Hell. 5.1.18 ὅπως πλεύσωμεν … ἐν καιρῶι ἀφιξόμενοι). It varies 52 ἐς καιρὸν ἥκεις. ἐς καιρόν is more common than ἐν καιρῶι in tragedy, especially with verbs of motion (see 52n.); but cf. with parallel δέον, Eur. Alc. 817 ἦλθες ἐν δέοντι, Or. 212 ἡδύ μοι προσῆλθες ἐν δέοντί τε, TrGF 727c.39 ἐν δέοντι δ’ ἦλθες. Rhesus has finished speaking of his journey, and now focuses on the timeliness of his presence at Troy through locatival ἐν. 444–6 αἰχμάζεις ‘arm yourself with a spear’ or ‘wield a spear’, here synecdoche for ‘fight’; probably a poetic formation (Trümpy (1950) 109). A hapax in Hom. (Il. 4.324 αἰχμὰς δ᾽ αἰχμάσσουσι νεώτεροι), it is re-used in tragedy: Aesch. Pers. 756, Soph. Aj. 97 (with Finglass ad loc.), Tr. 355, Lycophr. 441; paratragic at Men. Sam. 629; never in Euripides. κοὐδὲν περαίνεις ‘and yet you achieve nothing’; only Eur. uses the expression in tragedy (Supp. 584, Pho. 589, TrGF 727c.45 τὸ δ᾽ ἔργον [ο]ὐ̣δαμοῦ περαίνεται). Collard on Eur. Supp. 582b–4 observes ‘the frequency of this verb with negatives … suggests the expression is colloquial in origin’. It occasionally occurs in many fourth-century prose authors: Isocr. 1x, Xen. 1x, Pl. 3x, Lys. 2x, Dem. 1x, Arist. 2x. For adversative καί ~ καίτοι, Denniston (1954) 292. ἡμέραν δ᾽ ἐξ ἡμέρας = Henioch. PCG 5.13, Aristid. Or. 33(51) p. 235.34 Keil, Hesych. Lex. η 796 Latte; also Hdt. 9.8.1 ἐξ ἡμέρης ἐς ἡμέρην, Soph. Ant. 340 ἔτος εἰς ἔτος, Theocr. 11.69 ἆμαρ ἐπ᾽ ἆμαρ, 18.15 κἠς ἔτος ἐξ ἔτεος, Ap. Rh. 1.861 εἰς ἦμαρ … ἐξ ἤματος, 4.1774 εἰς ἔτος ἐξ ἔτεος. The polyptoton gives the image of a series of days identical to each other repeating themselves (Landgraf (1888) 162, cf. Gygly-Wyss (1966) 69–71). Here it may anticipate the opposition between Hector’s practice – fighting day after day in the same way – and the strategy of the attack on one single day that Rhesus is about to suggest; see 447–9a n. ῥίπτεις κυβεύων … Ἄρη ‘you play a dice game in the war against the Greeks’, with Ἄρη taken either apo koinou with both verbs or with ῥίπτεις

390

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 6 – 4 4 9 alone, and κυβεύων absolute. For ῥίπτεις (proposed by Sallier (1729) 183–4), see 154–5n. The transmitted πίπτεις, ‘you fail’, does not suit the context, as Rhesus had congratulated Hector on his success and cannot accuse him of failure while still trying to gain his favour and become his ally (Liapis 190–1). For ‘dice-playing’ with war, cf. Plut. Caes. 40.1 ἀναρρῖψαι μάχην, Onas. 32.3 στρατεύματι δὲ παντὶ τὴν ἄδηλον ἐκκυβεύειν τύχην οὐ δοκιμάζω. The danger of this prolonged strategy (the only one that Hector has so far pursued) prepares the way for Rhesus’ promise at 447–9 that he will be able to conclude the war in a single day. Ἄρη is the Attic form of the accusative of Ἄρης (from contraction of the Homeric Ἄρηα); it is the only form certainly attested in Attic inscriptions (Threatte (1980/1996) II.274). The accusative singular ‑ην of ­consonant-declension nouns, due to analogy with the masculine declension of the athematic nouns in long alpha, is a late Attic development attested in fourth-century inscriptions (Meisterhans (1900) 136), and the option to use it may have arisen within Soph.’s and Eur.’s lifetimes (Collard on Aesch. Supp. 928–9, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 72). Ἄρην is frequently a v.l. for Ἄρη in tragic texts, but is nowhere required by metre, and modern editors print Ἄρη. In principle, the late-fourth-century Rh. may have adopted either form. But since Ἄρη is given by all MSS at Rh. 239, this older Attic spelling should be printed. The name of the god is here a metonymy for ‘war’, his area of influence (so also, e.g., Hephaestus for ‘fire’ and Aphrodite for ‘sex’); cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 2.381, Aesch. Eum. 862–3, Soph. OC 1046. 447–9a Rhesus’ extraordinary aristeia, which provoked many casualties among the Greeks, and deeply upset pro-Greek Hera, had been a matter of fact in Pindar’s version of his death (cf. Introduction, pp. 7–9). The members of the audience who knew that version will have known that Rhesus’ boasting was not unmotivated and might even expect the aristeia that Pind. ascribed to him. In other words, he is not necessarily a miles gloriosus comparable, e.g., to Lamachus in Ar. Ach., as has often been maintained: cf. Wilamowitz (1926) 288, Ritchie (1964) 99–100, Burnett (1985) 28–9, Michelakis (2002) 170. The fact that he is killed on the night of his arrival after his potential aristeia is alluded to makes his peripeteia all the more pathetic. Rhesus does not merely die, but dies without achieving the glory that is often a compensation for early death in epic. Rhesus’ emphatic claim that one day will be enough for him to conclude the war may recall by contrast the fact that in the Il. one day was not enough for Hector. The evening before the night of Il. 10 Hector complained at Il. 8.498–500 that he would have preferred to make the final attack and go back to Troy after destroying the Greek ships; but he had to yield to night. He has made the same complaint at Rh. 56–62. Rhesus now promises that he will be able to accomplish what Hector did not.

391

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 7 – 4 5 0 φῶς ἓν ἡλίου ‘one light of the sun’ = ‘day’ is not attested elsewhere; it parallels 331 τοὐπιὸν σέλας θεοῦ, Aesch. Pers. 261 νόστιμον βλέπω φάος, Eur. Med. 352 ἡ ᾽πιου̃σα λαμπὰς … θεοῦ, Tro. 860 ἡλίου σέλας τόδε. πέρσαντι πύργους ναστάθμοις ἐπεσπεσεῖν / κτεῖναί τ᾽ Ἀχαιούς Hector believed that he was close to reaching the same result at 61–2a and at 390–1 Rhesus congratulated Hector for successfully ‘sitting at’ = ‘besieging’ the towers of the Greek camp. In Il. 8 Hector and the Trojans crossed the wall twice and reached the Greek ships (see 52–75n.); they burst into the camp again at 12.469, 15.395–6. But those raids had no lasting effects and could seem inconclusive (cf. Rh. 445 κοὐδὲν περαίνεις). ἐπεσπεσεῖν here takes up ἐμπίπτειν at 127 and 409, again in a military context. In principle, ἐπί may convey the idea that Rhesus’ attack comes ‘after’ the Trojans have met with success in ‘destroying the towers’ (448). The idea of addition is one of the meanings conveyed by preverbal ἐπί, but it is not certain in any of the fifth-century occurrences of ἐπεσπεσεῖν – Hdt. 7.42.2 (with dative, as here), Soph. OC 915, Eur. Hec. 1042, Her. 34, Bacch. 753; cf. Bond on Her. 34 – and it cannot be assumed in Rh. either. The similarity between Rh. ναυστάθμοις ἐπεσπεσεῖν, Strabo εἰσέπεσον εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ναύσταθμον at 13.1.36 (598), quoted above, and Tab. Iliacae I.g.50–2 Sadurska Ἕκτωρ δὲ ῥήξας τὰς [ἐς στρα]τὸν πύλας εἰς τὸ τεῖχος [εἰσ]πίπτει τῶν Ἑ[λ]λήνων makes it probable that the preverbs in ἐπεσπεσεῖν of Rh. convey the idea of aggression. 449b–50 Rhesus’ boastful promise of an immediate return home after victory, and the charge implicitly levelled at Hector at 444–5a, parallel the aggressive self-confidence of Achilles at Eur. Telephus, TrGF 727c.43–8 αἰεί ποτ᾽ ἐστὲ νωχελεῖς καὶ μέλλετε, / ῥήσεις θ’ ἕκαστος μυρίας καθήμενος / λέγει, τὸ δ᾽ ἔργον [ο]ὐδαμοῦ περαίνεται. / κἀ[γ]ὼ μέν, ὡς ὁρᾶ[τ]ε, δρᾶν ἕτοιμος ὢν / ἥκω, στρατός τε Μ[υρ]μιδών, καὶ πλεύσ[ομαι / τὰ [τ]ῶν Ἀτρειδ̣[ῶν οὐ μένων] μελλήμ[ατα (in particular Rh. 445 may be reminiscent of TrGF 727c.45; see 444–6n.). θἠτέραι = τῆι ἑτέραι ‘on the morrow’, with ellipsis of ἡμέραι (as in, e.g., Soph. OT 782, Pl. Crit. 44a), is a minimal correction of the transmitted θ᾽ ἡτέραι. θητέραι was printed as a single word by Kirchhoff (i) 352, who wrongly believed (p. 556) that it was a variant reading. Brunck (1780) 372 had printed θατέραι, followed by all modern editors before Feickert 227–8 and Fries 84, 288–9. In Attic the crasis of ἕτερος with the definite article is ἅτερος for the masculine and θἄτερον for the neuter, from the ancient form ἅτερος. But according to Paus. Att. θ 2 Erbse and Phot. Lex. θ 32 Theod. the proper forms in the feminine were nominative ἡτέρα and dative θἠτέραι, from ἡ/τῆι ἑτέρα(ι), the standard Ionic-Attic form. θἠτέραι is not found in Attic inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries, but ἡτέρα and ἡ ἑτέρα do occur (Threatte (1980/1996) I.431 and II.346, 747). MSS consistently read

392

C O M M E N TA RY 4 4 9 – 4 5 3 (with or without coronis) θἀτέραι at Eur. Hipp. 894, Ar. Ach. 789 and Henioch. PCG 5.16–17, but θἠτέραι at Ar. Av. 1365 and ἡτέρα at Soph. OC 497 and Ar. Lys. 85, 90; θἠτέραι and θἀτέραι are variants at Soph. OT 782 and Tr. 272, χἀτέρα and χἠτέρα at Ar. Lys. 1088. In view of the prevailing use of θἀτforms in the feminine in later Greek (Lucian has θἀτέραι 3x), θἀτ- forms may readily have been produced in texts by authors of the classical period through banalisation of original θἠτ- forms. Cf. Fries 288–9. πρὸς οἶκον εἶμι: the chorus had expressed a similar wish for Rhesus at 369. The nostos was a substantial risk for some heroes of the Trojan Cycle, and some of the allies of the Trojans died before even beginning to return home. συντεμὼν … πόνους may not only mean ‘after cutting short your pain’, but also entail the sense of ‘incision’, which was part and parcel of everyday medical practice, as is shown by the idiomatic dichotomy ‘cut’ or ‘cauterise’ occurring, e.g., at Aesch. Ag. 849–50 κέαντες ἢ τεμόντες εὐϕρόνως / πειρασόμεσθα πῆμ᾽ ἀποστρέψαι νόσου, and many times in the Hippocratic writings (cf. Dumortier (1935) 47–9). This surgical imagery perhaps underlies various passages of tragedy that connect healing with cutting: Aesch. Cho. 539 ἄκος τομαῖον … πημάτων ~ Supp. 268 ἄκη τομαῖα ~ Ag. 17 ἐντέμνων ἄκος, Soph. Aj. 582 τομῶντι πήματι, Eur. Andr. 121 εἴ τί σοι δυναίμαν / ἄκος τῶν δυσλύτων πόνων τεμεῖν. But in most of these passages τέμνειν may alternatively refer to the shredding of medicinal herbs; cf. Dumortier (1935) 55–6, van Brock (1961) 80–2, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 121, Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 539. 451 ἄρηται was conjectured on the basis of subjunctive αἴρηται (V) by L. Dindorf (i) 297. Prohibitions in the second and third persons are usually expressed with aorist and not present subjunctives with μή; cf. Goodwin (1889) 89, KG I.220, 237, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 343. The aorist subjunctive is also more suitable than the durative present imperative αἰρέτω (Q), which should refer to an action in progress or repeated (Louw (1959), Bakker (1966) 33–66). αἴρειν is technically appropriate for raising the shield (Xen. Hell. 2.1.27 ἆραι ἀσπίδα), with the middle voice pointing to the fact that each soldier would raise his own (cf. Plut. Lys. 11.1 ἀσπίδα … ἐπάρασθαι; K.-G. I.102): none of the Trojans will need to lift his shield, as Rhesus will return victorious within a day. The tone of prohibitions expressed by subjunctives with μή is softer and more polite than that of negative imperatives (KG I.238), and thus more appropriate for Rhesus, who is speaking to prospective allies. But the Trojans’ participation, anyway unnecessary, is presented through the synecdoche of lifting the shield (a defensive action), while Rhesus promises to attack with his spear: the contrast may suggest a certain swagger. 452–3 ἥξω … πέρσας Ἀχαιούς ‘I shall come back … after plundering the Greeks’. The transmitted ἕξω was corrected to ἥξω independently by Kovacs

393

C O M M E N TA RY 4 5 2 – 4 6 6 (2003a) 147 and Diggle (ap. Jouan 29, 67). The phrase ἕξω … πέρσας Ἀχαιούς might be interpreted as a periphrastic perfect with ἔχειν, producing an example of the so-called σχῆμα Ἀττικόν or Σοφόκλειον (as suggested by Feickert 228), used extensively by Hdt. (10x), Soph. (21x), Eur. (14x), Dem. (9x), Plato (4x); cf. Bentein (2016) 124. It sometimes has a stronger resultative force than the simple perfect or aorist (Aerts (1965) 129–48), and this force would suit Rhesus’ emphasis on definitive victory as already achieved. But future ἕξω is never found in these periphrases, as observed by Fries 289 after Aerts (1965). Alternatively, ἔχειν may mean ‘withstand the attack of ’; but this meaning is improbable here, as the Greeks are on the defensive. Rhesus’ ἥξω would sound similar to the boast of Dolon about the predicted success of his mission at 156–7 καὶ πάντ’ Ἀχαιῶν ἐκμαθὼν βουλεύματα / ἥξω (at 219 and 510–17 the two characters similarly boast that they will easily slaughter Odysseus, who is in fact going to kill them both; cf. Bond (1996) 262–3). With ἥξω Dolon and Rhesus focus on the idea of being ‘present’ again, after accomplishing the mission. Parallel phrases with ἥξω and aorist participle expressing the certainty of a prompt return: Aesch. Pers. 524 ἥξω λαβοῦσα πελανóν, Supp. 726 ἀρωγοὺς ξυνδίκους … ἥξω λαβών, Eum. 487–8 κρίνασα δ′ ἀστῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τὰ βέλτατα / ἥξω, Eur. Alc. 488 κτανὼν ἄρ’ ἥξεις ἢ θανὼν αὐτοῦ μενεῖς, Hcld. 275–6 ἥξω δὲ πολλὴν ῎Αρεος ’Αργείου λαβὼν / πάγχαλκον αἰχμὴν δεῦρο, Hec. 930–2 παῖδες Ἑλλάνων, πότε δὴ πότε τὰν / Ἰλιάδα σκοπιὰν / πέρσαντες ἥξετ’ οἴκους;, Supp. 356–7 λεκτοὺς ἀθροίσας δεῦρ᾽ Ἀθηναίων κόρους / ἥξω, Tro. 460–1 ἥξω δ’ ἐς νεκροὺς νικηφόρος / καὶ δόμους πέρσασ’ Ἀτρειδῶν. Other emendations of ἕξω, less suitable and more distant from the paradosis, are discussed by Liapis (2011) 74–5. δορὶ πέρσας: see 56–8n., Rh. 472 ἐκπέρσαι δορί, 478 πορθεῖν … δορί,. These passages, as well as Eur. Ion. 296 ἔπερσε … κοινῶι δορί, Hec. 909 δορὶ πέρσαν, show that δορί should be taken not with αὐχοῦντας but with πέρσας. With tragic irony, Rhesus delivers a boast that sounds like the opposite of the more reasonable boast that the Greeks besieging the city were to forebode: as Europa, mother of Sarpedon, has heard, the Greek champions boasted that they would plunder Troy (Aesch. TrGF 99.19 α̣ὐχεῖν δὲ Τρώων ἄστυ πορθήσειν βίαι). καίπερ ὕστερος μολών echoes 443, and both phrases reply to Hector’s charge at 412. 454–66 and 820–32: strophe and antistrophe of the second pair of interludes, after 131–6/195–200; see 131–6n. No tragedy has more than one pair of strophe-antistrophe interludes, with the single exception of Aesch. Sept. 417–21 = 452–6, 481–5 = 521–5, 563–7 = 626–30, where however the six short lyrics are composed according to a context-bound pattern (as highlighted by Ritchie (1964) 329): after a piece of iambic dialogue between the Messenger, who names one of the assailants, and Eteocles, who points to one of the

394

C O M M E N TA RY 4 5 4 – 4 6 6 defenders, the chorus sing of their solidarity with Eteocles and their wishes in relation to the defenders. The length of the gap between the strophe and the antistrophe in Rh. is also anomalous: two choral songs, a chorus exit, and the second epiparodos fall in the gap. That is the longest gap in all surviving tragedy, though one may compare the kommos of Eur. Hipp. 362–72/669– 79: there, apart from iambic dialogue, a stasimon and a dochmiac exchange between Phaedra and the chorus separate strophe and antistrophe. Hardly comparable are Eur. Or. 1353–65/1537–48, where strophe and antistrophe are separated by the dialogues of the Phrygian with the chorus and Orestes, and Soph. Ph. 391–402/507–18, where strophe and antistrophe are separated by a single iambic dialogue. These two songs from the chorus are self-absorbed, in line with their nature as interludes limited in size. They reflect the events of the play only in so far as they affect the watchmen. They deal with the watchmen’s hopes of taking revenge on the Greeks, after the arrival of the irresistible Rhesus (454–66), and with the fear and dishonour that they feel after Hector’s accusation of incompetence (820–32). They show the personal tragedy of the watchmen’s peripeteia, as they sink from pride in the vengeance that they hope to take to repudiation of the charge of military inadequacy. Metrical structure of 454–66 ~ 820–32 454 ~ 820 ⏑͡⏑⏑ − cr 455 ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ −  2do 821 † ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − † ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − 456 ~ 822 ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − || do kaibelianus or ⏑⏑do 457 ~ 823 − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − − cho ia ia‸ (ba) 458 ~ 824 ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − || an ia (en) 459 ~ 825 − ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − lec 460 ~ 826 − − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − − − −D−− 461–2 ~ 827 − − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏒ − ⏑ − − || − D ⏓e − 463 − − − ⏑ ⏑ − − ||  pher or more probably contr. D −   828 † ⏑ − ⏑ − − † 464 ~ 829 − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ D ⏑ 465 ~ 830 − ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ − lec and ⏑⏑cret 466 ~ 831–2 − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − ⏑ − − − ||| cho ia ‸ia‸ 454 ~ 820 As an interjection, ἰὼ ἰώ may be extra metrum, but a resolved cretic finely anticipates the initial rhythm of the two dochmii in the following line (Fries 292). Cretics with resolved first longum (with the omega in the first ἰώ shortened by correption) are attested e.g., at Aesch. Sept. 87, Ag. 1136 ~ 1146, PV 576, Eur. Hipp. 811, Ion 1445, 1502, Pho. 296, Or. 1353 ~ 1537. The repeated initial interjection helps to connect the two songs in both Or. and Rh. Other isometric echoes between strophe and antistrophe exist in Rh.: ἰὼ ἰώ 454 and 820; 455 φίλα … φίλος ~ 821 †μέγας … μέγας†; 457 ἀμφί = 823; εἴργειν and αἴθειν at line-end in 457 and 823; οὔτε … οὔτε in the same

395

C O M M E N TA RY 4 5 4 – 4 6 6 position in lines 459 and 825; final μοι in 460 and 826; first syllable εἰ in 464 and 829 (Jackson (2019) 67). Echoes in the antistrophe of particular words or phrases in the corresponding place in the strophe, probably associated with a particular musical phrase, are not uncommon in Eur. whatever the distance between strophe and antistrophe; cf. Bond on Eur. Her. 763ff. (Metre), West (1982) 5, Fries 293. 455 ~ 821 is a dochmiac dimeter (the MSS consistently divide after μόνον and κράτος). Dale (1971/1983) I.100 and Willink (2002/2003=2010) 573 prefer to give 454 ~ 820 as ἰὼ ἰώ, … θροεῖς = ἰὼ ἰώ, … σέ μοι and 455 ~ 821 as φίλος … εἶ = μέγας … πολίοχον. This would give a syncopated iambic dimeter (Dale, Zanetto) or two cretics (Willink) followed by a single dochmius, which is admissible. In fact in dochmiac contexts cretics behave in resolution exactly like the dochmiacs, being shorter units of the same type (Dale (1968) 110); iambic sequences are also commonly found with dochmiacs (Conomis (1964) 47–8). 456 ~ 822 A ‘Kaibelianus’ is a hexasyllabic dochmiac colon of iambic character, fully resolvable (Conomis (1964) 28–31, West (1982) 111). It does not usually have both the first two longa resolved, but cf. Aesch. Eum. 158 = 165, Eur. Her. 1058 and Tro. 311 (?, cf. Diggle (ed.), app. to both passages), all in iambo-dochmiac contexts. Fries 292, after Wilamowitz (1921) 405, 588 and Parker (1968) 261 n. 3, suggests that it may be interpreted as a dochmius with two initial shorts substituted for the initial anceps; but she admits that the ⏑⏑do is never or only exceptionally found in tragedy; cf. Diggle (1977=1994) 167 with n. 28, (1984b=1994) 315. 457 ~ 823 is interpretable as d⏑ ith or d⏑ e ba, or alternatively as do with long first anceps and iambo-trochaic pentasyllabic expansion. Cf. Eur. Med. 419–20=430–1. The dochmiac interpretation is favoured by Wilamowitz (1921) 587, Liapis 194; for the iambo-trochaic pentasyllable cf. Dale (1968) 108. 458 ~ 824 The ‘Cyrenaic’ enoplian is found in Eur. in dochmiac contexts and especially in the dragged form ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ ⏑ − ⏑ − − −: El. 586, 588, Her. 1188, Ion 1448, 1482, 1494, Hel. 657, 680, 681, TrGF 759a.94, 781.66 (Dale (1968) 170–1, Itsumi (1991/1993) 246); also Soph. Tr. 647 ~ 655, in an iambic context (double-short enoplians have an anapaestic-iambic rhythm: Wilamowitz (1921) 127, Denniston (1936) 137). 459 ~ 825. Lecythion, equivalent to a double epitrite (Dale (1968) 88). This line, ambiguous between trochaic and iambic rhythm, is here probably iambic, in keeping with the anapaestic-iambic rhythm of the preceding enoplian. Here, as occasionally elsewhere, it is a link into iambic (or trochaic) rhythm from another rhythm and vice versa; cf. Lourenço (2011) 41–2. At Eur. Pho. 119–22, for instance, the lecythion 120 marks the transition between

396

C O M M E N TA RY 4 5 4 – 4 6 6 a n d 4 5 4 – 4 5 5 the enoplian 119 (⏑D) and the dactylo-epitrite 121–2 (−e⏑ D− −); likewise at Pho. 128–30. 460 ~ 826 Ritchie (1964) 311, Liapis 193–4, and Fries 293 accept the division proposed by Wilamowitz (1921) 587–8, which coincides with that of the MSS in the strophe. It makes 460 ~ 826 end after κρείσσω ~ παγάς, each of which is followed by strong punctuation. Wilamowitz also transposes Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς after ἔγχος at 461, so that the hiatus μοι Ἀχιλλ- is avoided and 461–2 are dactylo-epitrites in perfect responsion with 827. In the traditional colometry with πῶς μοι and μή μοι standing at the end of 460 and 826 (accepted by Diggle ed. and Lourenço (2011) 352), 460 is –D + 2sp (with period end) and 461–2 en + ba. 463 In the light of the context, where dactylo-epitrites prevail, our line should be analysed as a D− colon (Willink (2002/2003=2010) 575); for the contraction of the first biceps in dactylo-epitrites, cf. Rh. 535 ~ 554, Aesch. Pers. 906, Eur. Med. 980 ~ 987, Andr. 773 ~ 785, Tro. 517 ~ 537, Ion 1478. 465 ~ 830 and 466 ~ 831–2 may be interpreted as lec and ⏑⏑cr and cho ia ˰ia˰ (Lourenço (2011) 353, Fries 293) or as hypodo do and as 2do (West (1982) 110–11, Liapis 195–6). They appear to resume either the iambo-choriambic rhythm of 457 ~ 823 (Fries 293), or alternatively the dochmiac rhythm of 455, which is 2do in Liapis’ interpretation (195–6). Line 466, in particular, has exactly the same structure as Eur. Her. 1024, in a dochmiac song. It has been doubted that ⏑ − − −, following the initial dochmiac monometer, can be interpreted as ‘syncopated dochmiac’ (Denniston (1936) 137, 141–2, Jackson (1955) 37–9, Conomis (1964) 35; contra Wilamowitz (1921) 407, Bond on Eur. Her. 1024, West (1982) 111–12, Diggle (1974=1994) 107). Ritchie (1964) 310 may be right to warn against considering irregular substitutes for standard dochmiacs and to note instead how easily a transition can be made between dochmiac and iambic rhythms. 454 ἰὼ ἰώ: see ‘Metrical Structure’ on 454 ~ 820. 455a φίλα θροεῖς: the verb is frequent in tragedy but almost unattested elsewhere; with the neuter plural object, cf. Soph. Ph. 209, Eur. IA 143, 1345. λέγειν is more common in tragedy with φίλα (‘welcome news’): Soph. Tr. 373, Eur. Hec. 517, Supp. 634, Hel. 796. φίλος Διóθεν: at 355 Ζεὺς … ἥκεις Rhesus had been identified with Zeus. Zeus is here presented as the god responsible for Rhesus’ arrival. Divine masterminding often promotes the arrival of someone unexpected but helpful: e.g., Hom. Il. 24.194, 561 Διόθεν … ἄγγελος ἦλθε, Aesch. Cho. 939–41 ἔλασε δ᾽ εἰς τὸ πᾶν / ὁ πυθόχρηστος ϕυγὰς / θεόθεν εὖ ϕραδαῖσιν ὡρμημένος, Soph. El. 69–70 σοῦ γὰρ ἔρχομαι / δίκηι καθαρτὴς πρὸς θεῶν ὡρμημένος.

397

C O M M E N TA RY 4 5 5 – 4 6 0 455b–7 μόνον introduces a reservation, after the unqualified initial enthusiasm: ‘I only hope that’. For this use of μόνον cf. Aesch. Supp. 1012, Cho. 244, Soph. Ph. 528, Tr. 596, 1109, OC 1206, Eur. Cycl. 219, Hipp. 522, Supp. 1229, Ar. Av. 1315, Moschion, TrGF 97F5.1, Herond. 2.89, Collard (2018) 162. φθόνον … εἴργειν repeats 343, thus highlighting the homology of the two passages. ἀμφί expresses association (the envy ‘concerning’ your words) or more physically place (the envy ‘surrounding’ your words, because of their arrogant tone). ἄμαχον The (gods’) grudge is ἄμαχον ‘difficult to fight’; cf. Bacch. 16.23 ἄμαχος δαίμων, Aesch. Ag. 768–9 δαίμονα … ἄμαχον ἀπόλεμον, Soph. Ant. 781 Ἔρως ἀνίκατε μάχαν, 799–800 ἄμαχος γὰρ ἐμ/παίζει θεὸς Ἀϕροδίτα, Ph. 198 θεῶν ἀμάχητα βέλη. ὕπατος: an epithet of Zeus 11x in Hom.; later in poetry, e.g., at Pind. Ol. 13.24, Aesch. Ag. 509, Theocr. 26.34. The sense is probably metaphorical = ‘the highest’ in authority, as ὕπατος is found side by side with an evaluative epithet in the Homeric formula for Zeus θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος (Il. 19.258, 23.43, Od. 19.303), and ancient Σ to Hom. usually gloss it ἄριστος, ἐξοχώτατος, μέγιστος, ἐνδοξότατος. But it may have been felt to include a reference to mountain-top sanctuaries. At Athens the altar of Zeus Hypatos was on the acropolis (Paus. 1.26.5, 8.2.2–3); in general on Zeus’s mountain cults, cf. Cook (1914/1940) I.117–18. ὕπατος refers to the ‘high’ residence of Zeus at Pind. Ol. 1.42. Cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 55, Graf (1985) 202–3, Parker (1996) 29–30 with n. 2, 6. 458 νάιον … δόρυ: νήιον δόρυ/νήια δοῦρα is an epic phrase, always referring to the ship’s timber (Il. 15.410, 17.744, Od. 9.384, 498, HHom.Ap. 403; later Ap. Rh. 2.79, 597 νήια δοῦρα; also Hes. Op. 807–8 θαλαμήια δοῦρα / νήιά τε ξύλα … τά τ᾽ ἄρμενα νηυσὶ πέλονται), but does not apply to the ship as a whole. The synecdochic use of δόρυ ‘plank’ for the whole ship, with or without a clarifying epithet, is found at Simon. PMG 543.10 = 271.9 Poltera, adesp. SLG 460a.5 ποντο]π̣όρον δόρυ Ἀργώ, Pind. Pyth. 4.27 ἐννάλιον δόρυ and 38, Bacch. 17.90 ὠκύπομπον δόρυ, Aesch. Pers. 411, Supp. 135 δόμος ἅλα στέγων δορός, 851, 1007, Ag. 1618, Soph. Ph. 721 ποντοπόρωι δούρατι, Eur. Cycl. 15, 19, Andr. 793, IT 1326 (cf. Parker on 1325–6), Hel. 1268, 1568, 1611, IA 1492 δόρατα … νάϊ(α), Ap. Rh. 3.582 δόρυ νήιον. Ἀργόθεν = ‘from Greece’, in line with the common synecdoche by which the Greeks who fought at Troy are called ‘Argives’; see 20–22n. 459 The emendation of Nauck (i) II.xxiii ‘postulates only that τιν᾽ was skipped after πρίν and later restored in the wrong place’ (Willink (1999=2010) 576). This is a simpler way to restore responsion than οὔτε πρίν οὔτε νῦν τιν’ (Ritchie (1964) 311), as observed by Liapis (2011) 76 and Fries 295. 460 σέθεν κρείσσω: cf. Ar. Vesp. 232 κρείττων … σου.

398

C O M M E N TA RY 4 6 1 – 4 6 2 461–3 On the possibility of a duel between Rhesus and Achilles, see 314–16n. Achilles and Salaminian Ajax are named as possible rivals of Rhesus here and at 601; Ajax or Diomedes at 491–8. Achilles and Ajax were the two greatest champions of the Greeks in Hom. (Achilles first); cf. Il. 2.768–9, 17.279–80 ~ Od. 11.469–70 and 550–1, 24.17–18. Ajax’ valour appears to be complementary but alternative to that of Achilles: as a defensive hero (he is ἕρκος Ἀχαιῶν: 3.229, 6.5, 7.211), he helps the wounded Odysseus (11.485–6), is called upon by Menestheus (12.331–69), defends Patroclus’ body and organises its rescue (17.132–7, 278–87, 715–34), and is the last defender of the ships (15.727–46). He tells Hector that he himself proves that ‘after Achilles’ (μετ᾽ Ἀχιλλέα) there are excellent champions among the Greeks (7.226–8; see 494–5n.), and he does not fight in Books 20–22 of the Il., in which Achilles does fight. Achilles, Ajax, and Patroclus exemplify the ἄριστοι of the Greeks said by Nestor to have died at Troy at Od. 3.109; cf. also Ibyc. PMGF S151.33–4, where Achilles and Ajax come at the start of the list of participants in the war. For the later consistent ranking of Achilles over Ajax, cf. Alcae. F 387 Voigt Αἴαν τὸν ἄριστον πεδ᾽ Ἀχίλλεα, Pind. Nem. 7.27 Αἴας … κράτιστον Ἀχιλέος ἄτερ μάχαι, carm. conv. PMG 898 παῖ Τελαμῶνος Αἶαν αἰχμητά, λέγουσί σε / ἐς Τροΐαν ἄριστον ἐλθεῖν Δαναῶν μετ᾽ Ἀχιλλέα, 899 τὸν Τελαμῶνα πρῶτον, Αἴαντα δὲ δεύτερον / ἐς Τροΐαν λέγουσιν ἐλθεῖν Δαναῶν μετ᾽ Ἀχιλλέα. In Exekias’ famous amphora representing Achilles and Ajax playing dice (LIMC I.1, 324 ‘Aias I’ 67) of c. 540–530 the painter contrasts the two heroes. Achilles is taller and wears a very tall helmet, Ajax has no helmet; Achilles’ stool is slightly higher; he has scored four, Ajax three, and he is sitting on the left, the traditional winning side in contests on vases; Ajax seems tenser, with his foot raised and in a slightly more bowed posture, whereas Achilles has his right foot planted flat on the floor and looks relaxed and secure in his victory; cf. Lowenstam (2008) 39–41, Mackay (2010) 331–9, Moignard (2015) 21–4. The Cyclic narrative of the Ὅπλων κρίσις in the Aethiopis and the reworking of that episode by Aesch. in the Ajax trilogy and by Soph. in Aj. may have reinforced the image of Ajax as the hero who was always second best. He boasts of absolute superiority only when in the grip of madness in Aj. 421–6 οὐκέτ᾽ ἄνδρα μὴ / τόνδ᾽ ἴδητ᾽ / … οἷον οὔτινα / Τροία στρατοῦ / δέρχθη χθονὸς μολόντ᾽ ἀπὸ / Ἑλλανίδος; and Odysseus re-establishes the traditional hierarchy at the end of the play (1340–1 ἕν᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἰδεῖν ἄριστον Ἀργείων, ὅσοι / Τροίαν ἀϕικόμεσθα, πλὴν Ἀχιλλέως). μοι is ethic dative, stressing the personal interest of the speaker: ‘I want to know, please’. τὸ σὸν ἔγχος Ἀχιλλεύς: for the transposition, see above ‘Metrical Structure’ on 460 ~ 826. ἔγχος … ὑπομεῖναι: cf. Hom. Il. 6.126 ἐμὸν δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος ἔμεινας, 8.535–6 ἐμὸν ἔγχος / μείνηι ἐπερχόμενον. The compound ὑπομεῖναι, where

399

C O M M E N TA RY 4 6 3 – 4 6 6 the preverb may point to the position of physical downtrodden inferiority of any Greek attacked by the dominant Rhesus, is a standard term in Hom. and in classical Greek for ‘withstanding’ the enemy, as opposed to running away: Il. 5.498 ὑπέμειναν ... οὐδ᾽ ἐϕόβηθεν, 17.174 Αἴαντα πελώριον οὐχ ὑπομεῖναι, Hdt. 6.40.2 τούτους ἐπιόντας οὐκ ὑπομείνας ... ἔϕευγε, 6.96.1 οἴχοντο ϕεύγοντες οὐδὲ ὑπέμειναν, Thuc. 1.115.4 οὐχ ὑπέμειναν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔϕυγον, 2.81.7 οὐκέτι ὑπέμειναν, ἀλλ’ ἐς ϕυγὴν κατέστησαν, Xen. An. 4.4.21 τὸν θόρυβον οὐχ ὑπέμειναν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔϕευγον. 464–6 ‘O that I might see that day, my lord, in which with your spear you exact requital for the hand that killed many’ is the desiderative version of the common affirmative anticipation or prophecy (e.g., Hom. Il. 4.164 = 6.448 ἔσσεται ἦμαρ ὅτ(ε) …, adesp. TrGF 620.1–2 ἔσται γὰρ ἔσται κεῖνος αἰῶνος χρόνος, / ὅταν …, [Theocr.] 24.86). Cf. Eur. Cycl. 437–8 εἰ γὰρ τήνδ᾽ ἴδοιμεν ἡμέραν / Κύκλωπος ἐκϕυγόντες ἀνόσιον κάρα, Ar. Pax 346 εἰ γὰρ ἐκγένοιτ᾽ ἰδεῖν ταύτην με τὴν ἡμέραν, PCG 111.2–3 εἰ γὰρ ἐμοὶ παυσαμένωι τοῦ πολέμου γένοιτο ... : all three passages, as well as Rh., include the ‘assentient’ γάρ that introduces a wish complementary to something wished or stated as true by the same or another speaker (Denniston (1952) 92–3). For ‘seeing’ intimating the idea of ‘living enough to see’, cf. Soph. OT 831–2 μὴ δῆτα ... ἴδοιμι ταύτην ἡμέραν, Eur. Supp. 731 τήνδ’ ἄελπτον ἡμέραν ἰδοῦσ(α) ~ 784–5. τόδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἦμαρ (Dindorf (iv) 182) and τόδε γ᾽ ἦμαρ (Hermann (1828) 304) for the transmitted τόδ᾽ ἦμαρ restore responsion with 829. Hermann’s suggestion is plausible (cf. Thuc. 7.40.2 τῆς γε (‘at least’) ἡμέρας ταύτης), but Dindorf ’s ἔτι is idiomatic in drama in menacing predictions: Aesch. Ag. 1429, 1666, PV 167, 907, Soph. Aj. 607, El. 66, Tr. 257, Eur. Alc. 731, Andr. 492, El. 485, Bacch. 306, 534, Eup. PCG 99.108, Ar. Ach. 1156, Pax 1187. πολυφόνου χειρὸς ἄποιν᾽ ἄροιο σᾶι λόγχαι: the ‘hand that killed many’ may belong to either Achilles or Ajax, but in archaic epic the similar epithet ἀνδροφόνος had been used 3x for Achilles’ hands, never for those of Ajax; see 61–2n. ἄποιν᾽ ἄροιο σᾶι λόγχαι is an emendation by Diggle (1994) 516– 17 for the transmitted ἀπο(ι)νάσαιο, far superior to Hartung 137 ἄποινα σᾶι φέροις (or λάβοις) λόγχαι. Unlike Hartung’s φέροις/λάβοις, ἄροιο (aorist of ἄρνυσθαι) is idiomatic for ‘exacting’; cf. Hom. Il. 1.159–60 τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι Μενελάωι σοί τε κυνῶπα / πρὸς Τρώων ~ 5.553 τιμὴν Ἀτρεΐδηις Ἀγαμέμνονι καὶ Μενελάωι / ἀρνυμένω,64 Soph. El. 33–4 ὅτωι τρόπωι πατρὶ / δίκας ἀροίμην τῶν ϕονευσάντων πάρα, Eur. Hec. 1073–4 ἀρνύμενος λώβας λύμας τ᾽ ἀντίποιν᾽ / ἐμᾶς. On ἄποινα ‘penalty’ exacted as compensation for a misdeed, see 177– 8n. ἄποινα regularly takes the objective genitive of the thing to be requited; 64

Σ A on Il. 1.159 observes that Zenodotus athetised the line, not knowing ὅτι ἡ τιμὴ νῦν ἀντὶ τῆς τιμωρίας κεῖται; cf. Heubeck (1949=1984) 126–7.

400

C O M M E N TA RY 4 6 6 – 4 6 8 cf. Aesch. Pers. 808 ὕβρεως ἄποινα, Ag. 1420 μιασμάτων ἄποιν(α),Eur. Alc. 7 τῶνδ᾽ ἄποιν(α), El. 1181–2 ἄποιν᾽ ἐμῶν πημάτων, IT 1459 τῆς σῆς σφαγῆς ἄποιν(α), Bacch. 516 ἄποιν᾽ ὑβρισμάτων. The optative mood of ἄροιο results from attraction to the mood of εἰσίδοιμ(ι), the verb of the main clause, as often in relative clauses; cf. KG I.255–7, Moorhouse (1982) 233, Fries 296. 467–84 and 485–526 continue the agon that began at 388 and was interrupted by the first choral interlude. Three main threads of military discourse are developed before and after the interlude: the question whether Rhesus is an ally or not (396–442); Rhesus’ strategy as an ally during and after the war, as set out by himself or discussed between himself and Hector (443–50 and 467–517); and the logistics of his employment as an ally, mainly treated by Hector (451–3, 485–91, 518–26). At this point, however, in the wake of the praise of his prowess by the watchmen, Rhesus suggests his own idea of a post-war strategy, but formulates it in a way that seems to second what he knows of Hector’s military operations. As Hector had fought with him to expand his Thracian kingdom (406–11), so he envisages a conquest of Greece with Hector (471–4). When Hector says that conquering Greece is going to be difficult (477–8), he replies by setting out his strategy of eliminating all the major Greek champions and asks Hector for information about them (479, 481, 489–518). His reasoning recalls Hector’s operations in Thrace: Hector had overthrown the major defiant leaders who had not accepted Rhesus’ authority before subduing the rest of the people (408–11). 467–8 τοιαῦτα … πρᾶξαι παρέξω ‘Such things will I allow you to exact from me in return for my long absence’ (Mastronarde (2004) 21). The text has been suspected. Kovacs (2003a) 147–8) suggests that a line is missing after 467, where the idea of compensation would have been more clearly expressed (ἄξι᾽ ὠφελήματα is in fact the second hemistich of the line he reconstructs between 467 and 468). Likewise, Liapis (2011) 77 favours the emendation by Musgrave (1762) 94–5 of transmitted πρᾶξαι to πρᾶξιν = ‘compensation’ (Eur. IA 272; often in fourth-century prose). But the verb πράσσειν also has the technical meaning ‘exact’ a payment or compensation, properly to ‘put into effect one’s own right to receive a tribute or a service or a retribution from another’ (Bravo (1980) 702); cf. Pind. Pyth. 9.104, Ol. 3.7, Aesch. Pers. 476, Cho. 311. As such, transmitted πρᾶξαι is a suitable word for a Thracian prince and his traditional culture of exaction of φόροι, which had already surfaced at 434–5 (see n.). Besides, in this context, where Rhesus offers to pay the debt of his delay in terms of compensation, τῆς … ἀπουσίας would be readily understood as a genitive of exchange (see below). The syntax of 467–8 is thus ‘unusual but understandable’ (Mastronarde (2004) 21).

401

C O M M E N TA RY 4 6 7 – 4 6 9 τοιαῦτα is recapitulatory and refers to Rhesus’ promise to win the war against the Greeks besieging Troy; μέν contrasts this victory in the Trojan War, that Rhesus has promised to win without Trojan help (447–53), with the newly proposed invasion of Greece (471–3), to be shared with Hector (471), which is marked by ἐπεὶ δ’ ἄν (469); cf. Liapis (2011) 77. Likewise, in Jason’s long response to Medea at Eur. Med. 522–75, τοσαῦτα μέν σοι recapitulates at 545 the first half of the speech (in which Jason belittles Medea’s help in Colchis and defends himself), and two lines later, at 547 ἃ δ᾽ ἐς γάμους μοι βασιλικούς, the particle δέ marks the transition to the theme of the second half of the speech (Jason’s remarriage). τῆς μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας: cf. Eur. Hec. 962 τῆς ἐμῆς ἀπουσίας (spoken by the Thracian Polymestor apologising for his absence), IA 651 ἡ ᾽πιοῦσ᾽ ἀπουσία, 1172 διὰ μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας. ἀπουσία is a fifth- and fourth-century prose word (Thuc. 2x, Plato 2x, Xen. 1x, Arist. more than 10x), in tragedy found only in Eur., in Aesch. 2x, and in Achaeus TrGF 20F33.3. Here it is a genitive of cause or exchange (‘in return for’), sometimes used for the thing bought or that for which pay is demanded; cf., e.g., Soph. Tr. 287–8 εὖτ’ ἂν ἁγνὰ θύματα / ῥέξηι πατρώιωι Ζηνὶ τῆς ἁλώσεως, Eur. Med. 534–5 μείζω γε μέντοι τῆς ἐμῆς σωτηρίας / εἴληϕας ἢ δέδωκας, Smyth (1956) 325, Diggle (1991) 95 n. 5, Cooper (1998) I.234. The middle πράσσεσθαι ‘exact’ is found with this kind of genitive at, e.g., Pl. Grg. 511e ταύτης τῆς μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας … δύο δραχμὰς ἐπράξατο, Xen. Mem. 1.6.11 οὐδένα γοῦν τῆς συνουσίας ἀργύριον πράττηι. σὺν δ᾽ Ἀδραστείαι λέγω: cf. 358–9 ξὺν θεῶι σοι ... πάρεστιν εἰπεῖν, with 357–9n. On Adrasteia and the relevant invocations addressed to her, see 342–5n. Copulative δέ demarcates the beginning of a parenthesis, a function in which explanatory γάρ is also used: KG II.275, Mayser (1934) 186–918, Denniston (1954) 169–70. 469–70: at 443–53 Rhesus had spoken in the first person singular when he proposed to defeat and kill the Greeks in a single day. The recapitulative 467–8 too are in the first person singular. But the plural θῶμεν at 470, clarified by ξὺν σοί at 471, shows that Rhesus wants to share leadership with Hector in the second part of his plan, invasion of Greece. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἄν is the correct word division, suggested by Morstadt (1827) 25 n. 2; cf. ἐπεὶ ἄν with subjunctive at Hom. Il. 6.412. ἐπειδάν of most MSS is unacceptable for metrical reasons (final ‑δάν, from ‑δὴ ἄν, is long). Moreover, δέ appropriately balances the corresponding μέν of 467 (Pearson (1921) 56); the intervening δέ of 468 introduces a parenthesis. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἄν is also certain at Aesch. Sept. 734–5 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν αὐτοκτόνως / αὐτοδάικτοι θάνωσι, where all MSS have unmetrical ἐπειδάν. It is restored at Aesop. 120.ii.5 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν περικατάληπτος γένηται, where the transmitted variants are ἐπειδάν and ἐπὰν δέ. The transposition suggested by Sansone (2013), ἐχθρῶν δ᾽ ἐπειδάν, is a plausible alternative; cf. Aesch. Eum. 647 ἀνδρὸς δ᾽ ἐπειδὰν αἷμ(α). The

402

C O M M E N TA RY 4 6 9 – 4 7 2 mistake would have been produced by scribes’ tendency to simplify the word order in poetic texts to match that of prose (Headlam (1902b)). τήνδ᾽ ἐλευθέραν πόλιν / θῶμεν: cf. Solon, IEG 36.15 ἐλευθέρους ἔθηκα. In both passages, the periphrasis with τιθέναι adds a more formal note than would be conveyed by the simple verb ἐλευθεροῦν. For the word order, with τήνδε separating ἐλευθέραν from its dependent genitive ἐχθρῶν, cf. 574 εὐνὰς έρήμους τάσδε πολεμίων ὁρῶ, where the predicative adjective is similarly placed between the noun and the pronoun. ἀκροθίνι᾽ ἐξέληις: ἀκροθίνια ‘choice-offering (ἄκρος) from the top of a heap (θίς)’ are a token of gratitude for victory or any successful activity, set aside for the gods before the booty was distributed among the army, or before agricultural produce or other earnings were shared. ἐξαιρεῖν is the technical term for this action of setting aside. Cf. Hdt. 8.121.1 τοῖσι θεοῖσι ἐξεῖλον ἀκροθίνια, 9.81.1 δεκάτην ἐξελόντες τῶι ἐν Δελϕοῖσι θεῶι, Xen. Cyr. 5.3.2 τοῖς θεοῖς ἐξελόντες τὰ νομιζόμενα καὶ τῆι στρατιᾶι τὰ ἱκανὰ τὴν ἄλλην τούτωι δοίημεν λείαν, 7.3.1 πρῶτον μὲν τοῖς θεοῖς ἐξελεῖν ὁποῖ᾽ ἂν οἱ μάγοι ἐξηγῶνται, 7.5.35 ὡς δοριαλώτου τῆς πόλεως οὔσης ἀκροθίνια τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τεμένη ἐκέλευσεν ἐξελεῖν, Jim (2014) 45–6, 177–80, 183–4. The reason why Rhesus mentions the ‘choice offerings’ to the gods that Hector has to pay is probably twofold: it confirms his belief that the siege and war are in effect over, and it expresses his hope for continued divine protection in the new enterprise that he is going to announce (the conquest of Greece): ‘the proper discharge of obligations to the gods might have provided a source of psychological assurance to the army: just as the gods had granted them victory then, so would they continue to side with them’ (Jim (2014) 191). 471–2 γῆν ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων θέλω … Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐκπέρσαι δορί finds a parallel in Aesch. Pers. 177–8 (Atossa speaking of Xerxes) παῖς ἐμὸς στείλας στρατὸν / Ἰαόνων γῆν οἴχεται πέρσαι θέλων. Xerxes and Rhesus were among the very few non-Hellenic leaders who contemplated or attempted an invasion of Greece, and Rh. may perhaps have re-used Aesch. Pers. in a few passages (see 278n., 290–1a n., 375–6n., 430–1n, 436–7n.). However, apart from our passage and perhaps 278 (see n.), these allusions do not seem to suggest that Rhesus and Xerxes are parallel characters, and it is not easy to agree with Fries 299 that ‘Rhesus is consistently portrayed as a would-be Xerxes’. Aesch. Pers. may have been rather for Rh. a source of tragic-military idioms. By echoing δορὶ πέρσας at Rh. 452–3, ἐκπέρσαι δορί at 472 emphasises that the ravaging of Greece parallels (and is vengeance for) the Greeks’ attack on Troy. The prefix ἐκ- expresses the thoroughness of the action (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 556): no Greek is going to escape if, after ravaging the Greeks at Troy, Rhesus goes and plunders the whole of Greece. γῆν ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων … καὶ … Ἑλλάδ(α), of which there is a variation at 477, probably presupposes the formula καθ᾽/ἀν᾽ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος at Od.

403

C O M M E N TA RY 4 7 1 – 4 7 3 1.344, 4.726, 4.816, 15.80). Strabo (8.3.8 (340)) interpreted this formula as a poetic σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, where the whole is Hellas and the part is Argos. In fact, ‘Hellas’ and ‘Panhellenes’ refers to the whole of Greece and its people already at Hes. Op. 528, 653 and Alcm. PMGF 77, but in Hom. ‘Hellenes’ and ‘Hellas’ may apply sometimes (Il. 2.683–5, 9.395, 9.478–80, 16.594–6, Od. 11.495–6) only to an area identified with or close to the Myrmidons and Peleus’ kingdom = Phthia and Thessaly around the Malian Gulf (as observed by Thuc. 1.3.2–3, Apollod. FGrHist 244F200, and Aristarchus ap. Σ A Il. 9.395). Besides, ‘Argos’ often means ‘Peloponnese’ as distinguished from continental Greece, as in the Homeric formula καθ᾽/ἀν᾽ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος (as observed by Aristarchus, Σ Il. A 4.171 and 6.152) and in Il. 3.75 Ἄργος ἐς ἱππόβοτον καὶ Ἀχαιΐδα (for Pliny, NH 4.7(11) ‘Hellas’ begins at the Corinthian isthmus and runs north). The phrase of Rh., as well as the Homeric formula καθ᾽/ἀν᾽ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος, and, e.g., Dem. 19.303 where, to say that Philip II is fostering alliances everywhere in Greece, the phrase ‘Hellas and Peloponnese’ is used, will mean ‘all Greece’ through a synecdoche of two different regions of northern and southern Greece; cf. Wathelet (1975) 119–21, Lévy (1991) 58–64, Fowler (1998) 10–11, Hall (2002) 125–34. στρατεύειν … θέλω … ἐλθὼν … ἐκπέρσαι ‘I want to accomplish an expedition … and go and plunder.’ While the continuative present στρατεύειν acknowledges the duration of the expedition, the aorist ἐκπέρσαι surveys at a glance the course of the action (Smyth (1956) 430–21), and emphasises how definitively Rhesus will plunder the whole of Greece, once he arrives; cf. Soph. Ant. 200–1 κατελθὼν ἠθέλησε μὲν πυρὶ / πρῆσαι. If ‘Hellas’ and ‘Argive land’ designate here northern and southern Greece (see above), στρατεύειν and ἐκπέρσαι are to be taken apo koinou with both. 473 concludes the plan of retaliation for the Greeks’ invasion and siege. Hector had expressed his wish to punish the Greeks besieging Troy at 75. It is notable that Hector and Rhesus use the same subjunctive (ἐκ)μάθωσι. The motif that painful experience can teach a lesson, often including forms of μανθάνειν and γιγνώσκειν, was a commonplace: Hom. Il. 17.31–2 = 20.197–8 μηδ᾽ ἀντίος ἵστασ᾽ ἐμεῖο / πρίν τι κακὸν παθέειν· ῥεχθὲν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω, Hes. Op. 218 παθὼν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω, Aesch. Ag. 177–8 τὸν (scil. Zeus) πάθει μάθος / θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν (also Ag. 1619–20, 1649, 1658), Soph. OT 402–3 εἰ δὲ μὴ ᾽δόκεις γέρων / εἶναι, παθὼν ἔγνως ἂν οἷά περ ϕρονεῖς, Eur. Supp. 580 γνώσηι σὺ πάσχων, Hdt. 1.207.1 τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε, Pl. Smp. 222b ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων παθημάτων γνόντα εὐλαβηθῆναι, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν ὥσπερ νήπιον παθόντα γνῶναι, Dörrie (1956), Smith (1980) 21–6. The echo of the topos ‘knowledge through experience’ in Rhesus’ wish makes it even more bitter: the Greeks will not learn something through painful experience, but will learn to suffer.

404

C O M M E N TA RY 4 7 3 – 4 7 8 ἐν μέρει ‘in turn’, of the reciprocation between two, as, e.g., at Aesch. Eum. 198, 436, Eur. Cycl. 253, Hcld. 182, Hec. 1130; also in Hdt., Thuc., Xen.; never in Sophocles. Elsewhere it may mean ‘one by one’, of two or more in a sequence. For the distinction, cf. Diggle (1994) 469. πάσχειν κακῶς is also an idiomatic phrase; already at Hom. Od. 16.275 and Theogn. IEG 655, it becomes common in fifth-century prose and poetry. 474–6 τοῦ παρόντος … ἀπαλλαχθεὶς κακοῦ was a popular phrase in the fifth and fourth centuries. With or without παρών, ἀπαλλάσσειν/ἀπαλλαγῆναι/ ἀπαλλαγὴ τῶν (παρόντων) κακῶν/τοῦ κακοῦ is found in prose and Eur.: Hdt. 2.120.3, 5.4.2, Eur. Hipp. 629, Andr. 1255, Hel. 278, 294, Or. 1522, IA 1004, Isocr. 15x, Plato 12x (elsewhere in tragedy only at Aesch. PV 773 σ᾽ ἀπαλλάξει κακῶν); cf. also ἀπαλλαγὴ πόνων Ag. 1, 20, PV 749–50, Eur. Hcld. 586, 811, πημάτων ἀπαλλαγή PV 316, 754. πόλιν νεμοίμην: νέμειν and ἀμφινέμειν, often in the middle voice, are common in the sense ‘inhabit (a city)’ both in poetry (Hom., Pind., Aesch., Soph.; never in Eur.) and in prose (Hdt. 4x, Thuc. 4x). ὡς τὸ πρίν ποτ(ε): cf. ὡς τὸ πρίν Hom. Il. 21.476; πρὶν μέν ποτ(ε) Od. 6.4 = 15.226; πρίν ποτ(ε) Aesch. Supp. 37, Eur. Tro. 581, Hel. 1437, Bacch. 1024, Soph. TrGF 546.4, Ar. Vesp. 1063, Pax 593. The article balances τοῦ παρόντος at 474; it may imply that the situation is supposed to have extended over the whole period, that is, the whole of the past (Rijksbaron (2006), De la Villa (2013)). ἀσφαλῆ: because not under attack from the besiegers. For absence of war as a requirement for ἀσφάλεια, cf. Isocr. 8.20 μετὰ πολλῆς μὲν ἀσϕαλείας τὴν πόλιν οἰκήσομεν, ἀπαλλαγέντες πολέμων καὶ κινδύνων. κάρτα πολλήν ~ Aesch. Eum. 646, Soph. Aj. 1359. θεοῖς εἰδείην χάριν ~ Hdt. 3.21.3, 4.136.4, Xen. Smp. 8.37, An. 7.6.32. εἰδέναι χάριν is a common idiom, elsewhere in tragedy only 1x in Eur., but 11x in Xenophon. 477–8 ἀμφί τ᾽ Ἄργος καὶ νομὸν τὸν Ἑλλάδος: see 471–2n. νομόν ‘dwelling-place’ (Verdenius on Pind. Ol. 7.33) or ‘pasture land’ (Slater (1969) 353) as always in Hdt. (Porter 69). The ‘νομός of Hellas’ may point here to the fertile plains of Thessaly, famous for pasturing horses (Liapis 199, Fries 300–1). οὐχ ὧδε … ῥάιδι(α) ‘not so easy’ (… ‘as you say’). Cf. 120–2, where Aeneas gives a similar warning about Hector’s boasts. The characterisation of Hector has been found inconsistent at this point: his present unwillingness to undertake aggressive action would be ‘ out of character in this play, given his excessively warlike spirit’ (Liapis 198–9). But he may have taken Aeneas’ advice not to underestimate the enemy, as in Rh. he is a leader ready to engage with his peers, and consequently to learn and to change his opinion; see 87–130n., 137n., 319–41n. The litotes οὐ (…) ῥάιδιος/-ον and ῥαιδίως is found at Solon,

405

C O M M E N TA RY 4 7 8 – 4 8 0 IEG 9.5, Bacch. 18.43, Soph. Aj. 1350, TrGF 78; common in Thuc. (13x) and Eur. (9x). It is perhaps not a coincidence that one of the three cases of that litotes in Ar. is given to the character Eur. at Ran. 930 οὐ ῥάιδι᾽ ἦν, perhaps a parody of a line of Euripides. δορί, separated from πορθεῖν with which it is to be taken, is placed side by side with λέγεις to highlight the contrast between boastful statements and actual fighting on the battlefield. 479 ἀριστέας was the expected form in fifth- and fourth-century Attic (Threatte (1980/1996) II.247–8); the accusative ending ‑εῖς transmitted by O is attested in inscriptions for the ‑εύς declension only from the last decade of the fourth century. ἀριστέας may thus have felt here suitably Homeric (a Homeric linguistic atmosphere is probably established by the double name used for Greece at 471–2 and 477–8; see nn.). Tragedy uses for ‘champion’ both the more general superlative ἄριστος (ἀνήρ) and the specific ἀριστεύς (ἀνήρ), already found in archaic epic (together with ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν or ἀριστῆες Ἀχαιῶν; see below). ἀριστεύς is much used in Hellenistic epic, where it designates the Argonauts more than 30x in Ap. Rh. and in Theocr. 13.17. ἄριστος is more often attested in the MSS than ἀριστεύς (Aesch. Pers. 306, Soph. Aj. 1304, 1380, Ant. 197, Ph. 997, Eur. Alc. 921, Med. 5, Pho. 1267; forms of ἀριστεύς are transmitted at Soph. Aj. 1304 (ἀριστέοιν), and Eur. IA 28 ἀριστέως), but the Homeric forms could easily be corrupted to the commoner word, and they have been restored by modern editors especially in passages where the general superlative ἄριστος would give weaker sense and listeners would have found it hard to understand the word in the specific sense ‘leader’ (cf. Parker on Eur. Alc. 920–1, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 1304–7). Therefore there is no good reason to change transmitted ἀριστέας to ἀρίστους, as tentatively suggested by Cobet (1873) 583–4, referring to the Σ, which in reality may offer a simplifying paraphrase: οὐχ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἄριστοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων οἱ ἐνταῦθα ἐλθόντες. Ἑλλήνων Rhesus concentrates first on Achilles as his antagonist, and we cannot rule out the possibility that ‘Hellenes’ refers to the inhabitants of Peleus’ kingdom, according to the Homeric usage (see 471–2n.). But ἀριστέας Ἑλλήνων seems modelled on the Homeric ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν and ἀριστῆες Ἀχαιῶν, which refer to the pre-eminent leaders of the whole Greek army (Il. 12x, Od. 1x), and the ‘Hellenes’ of this phrase, like the Παναχαιῶν/ Ἀχαιῶν of the model, will be all the Greeks. 480 κοὐ μεμφόμεσθά γ(ε) ‘yes, and moreover we do not find fault’ (with them as enemies), as suggested by Σ (οὐκ ἐκφαυλίζομεν αὐτούς).65 καὶ … γε confirms

μέμφομαι and ἐκφαυλίζω are presented as synonyms, side by side, to explain ὄνομαι at Ap. Soph. 121.17 Bekker; cf. 124.26.

65

406

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 0 – 4 8 1 a previous statement and also introduces a new addition (Denniston (1954) 157). Rhesus has posed a rhetorical question in order to make Hector confirm that the best Greek heroes have come to Troy, and thus to prove that a future invasion of Greece is going to be easy after they have been annihilated. Hector, who does not share Rhesus’ interest in the idea of an invasion, confirms that the enemy are the best heroes of Greece but adds with personal pride that the Trojans are capable of dealing with them. ἅδην ἐλαύνομεν: (1) ‘we harass (them) till they have their fill’ of being harassed, with transitive ἐλαύνειν, and satiety affecting the object (cf. Hom. Il. 13.315 οἵ μιν ἅδην ἐλόωσι καὶ ἐσσύμενον πολέμοιο (Σ A ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἅδην ἐλόωσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ κορεσθῆναι αὐτὸν ποιήσουσι τοῦ πολέμου, καίπερ προθυμίαν ἔχοντα), 19.423 οὐ λήξω πρὶν Τρῶας ἅδην ἐλάσαι πολέμοιο, Od. 5.290 ἔτι μέν μίν ϕημι ἅδην ἐλάαν κακότητος; cf. Liapis 200); or (2) ‘harassing (them) is enough work for us’, with transitive ἐλαύνειν, and satiety affecting the subject (cf. Kovacs 403); or (3) ‘we plunge into our fill (of them)’, with intransitive ἐλαύνειν, and satiety again affecting the subject (Porter 69, Fries 302; cf. Tyrt. IEG 11.10 ἀμϕοτέρων δ᾽ ἐς κόρον ἠλάσατε and Solon, IEG 4c.2 πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐς κόρον [ἠ]λ̣άσατε; cf. Σ Rh. πάνυ κάμνομεν καὶ ἄγαν ἐμϕορούμεθα τοῦ κόπου μαχόμενοι αὐτοῖς). The ‘surfeit’ that affects Hector as a result of dealing with the enemy in interpretations (2) and (3) suits better than (1) Hector’s prudent consideration of the remaining strength of the Greeks. ἅδην is an adverbial accusative from the same root as ἄμεναι/ἆσαι ‘be satiated’ and ἁδηφάγος ‘glutton’, here meaning εἰς κόρον: Σ T Hom. Il. 5.203 ~ D 13.315, Ap. Soph. 9.25 Bekker. It is usually accompanied, though not in our passage, by a genitive specifying the surfeit. In interpretations (1) and (2) the genitive is not expressed, but can be understood from ἐλαύνειν – it is the surfeit that results from being too often harassed (1) or from too often repulsing (2); (3), by contrast, leaves the nature of the surfeit totally unexpressed. Interpretation (2) should be preferred. 481 οὔκουν is characteristic of the lively style of tragic dialogue; see 161–3n. πάντ᾽ is perhaps preferable to πᾶν in the light of Rh. 605 τοῦτον κατακτὰς πάντ᾽ ἔχεις; cf. Eur. TrGF 426.1–2 τά τοι μέγιστα πάντ᾽ ἀπείργασται βροτοῖς / τόλμ᾽ ὥστε νικᾶν. But in transmitted Soph. El. 1022 πάντα … κατειργάσω the plural seems to have replaced original πᾶν (likewise at Aesch. PV 617); cf. Finglass ad loc. εἰργάσμεθα: Σ reads διεπραξάμεθα, but Rhesus has not killed any of the Greek champions at Troy, and we can surmise, with Schwartz (1887) II.338, that the aorist of Σ is a banalisation of a rare future perfect such as διαπεπραξόμεθα that explained εἰργάσμεθα. Just as the present can be used for the future, εἰργάσμεθα can be used vividly instead of the future perfect to anticipate the completion of an action (KG I.150. Gildersleeve (1900/1911) I.101), Smyth (1956) 435). The role of the perfect is to emphasise that the fait

407

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 1 – 4 8 2 accompli in the past is relevant to the present situation of the speaker (e.g., Orriens (2009) 221–32). Rhesus’ use of the perfect in a future sense shows his certainty. The perfect in place of the future is usually accοmpanied by a conditional future phrase expressing the requirement for the completion of the action, as in Eur. Or. 940–1 εἰ δὲ δὴ κατακτενεῖτ᾽ ἐμέ, / ὁ νόμος ἀνεῖται (KG I.150); here the participle κτανόντες has this conditional sense. 482 is drawn from a background of maxims about the need to be content with what is within reach and not to pursue what is out of reach. Cf. Hes. F 61 νήπιος, ὃς τὰ ἑτοῖμα λιπὼν ἀνέτοιμα διώκει, Bacch. 1.174–7 τὸ δὲ πάν/τῶν εὐμαρεῖν οὐδὲν γλυκὺ / θνατοῖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ τὰ ϕεύ/γοντα δίζηνται κιχεῖν, [Men.] Mon. 20 ἀφεὶς τὰ φανερὰ μὴ δίωκε τἀφανῆ, Dist. Catonis I.32 ignotum tibi tu noli praeponere notis: / cognita iudicio constant, incognita casu. In war, common sense requires one to concentrate on what is near, before making plans about what is far away; cf. Xen. Cyr. 6.1.18 οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι δυνήσονται τῶν ἐγγὺς ἑαυτῶν ὄντων ἀμελοῦντες τοῖς πρόσω ὑμῖν ἐπιβουλεύειν. The motif has many Hellenistic variations, especially erotic: e.g., Callim. AP 12.102.5–6 = HE 1039–40 τὰ μὲν ϕεύγοντα διώκειν / οἶδε, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν μέσσωι κείμενα παρπέταται, Theocr. 11.75 τὰν παρεοῖσαν ἄμελγε· τί τὸν ϕεύγοντα διώκεις; ~ 6.17, Hor. Sat. 1.2.108 transvolat in medio posita et fugientia captat, Ovid, Am. 2.9.9 sequitur fugientia, capta relinquit, 2.19.36 quod sequitur fugio, quod fugit ipse sequor. The line may also evoke Pindaric warnings that longing for what is ‘beyond’ may become dangerous arrogance and lead one to ignore the limitations of human greatness: Pind. Pyth. 3.21–3 ἔστι δὲ ϕῦλον ἐν ἀνθρώποισι ματαιότατον, / ὅστις αἰσχύνων ἐπιχώρια παπταίνει τὰ πόρσω, / μεταμώνια θηρεύων ἀκράντοις ἐλπίσιν, Ol. 1.113–14 τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον κορυϕοῦται / βασιλεῦσι. μηκέτι πάπταινε πόρσιον, 3.43–5 Θήρων ἀρεταῖσιν ἱκάνων ἅπτεται / οἴκοθεν Ἡρακλέος σταλᾶν. τὸ πόρσω δ᾽ ἐστὶ σοϕοῖς ἄβατον / κἀσόϕοις. οὔ νιν διώξω· κεινὸς εἴην. μή νυν: enclitic νῠν (also νῠ in Hom., Hes., and Hellenistic epic) is an affirmative or inferential particle. Apoll. Dysc. GG II.1.1.257.8 Schneider calls it ‘mainly poetic’. It has a sense similar to δή but is less emphatic (Monro (1891) 320); usually it does not have the full temporal force of νῦν, but only the weakened meaning ‘then’, ‘quae cum ita sint’ (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 937). In tragedy it is often found in commands introduced by μή, most frequently at line beginning, as here (Denniston on Eur. El. 408): Aesch. Sept. 242, 246, Supp. 209, Ag. 937, Cho. 770, PV 507, Soph. Aj. 1129, OT 975, Ant. 648, 705, 1337, Ph. 576, 1449, Eur. Alc. 1077, Med. 584, Hcld. 461, 500, Hipp. 1456, Tro. 169, 1049, Ion 970, Hel. 805, 1419, Or. 636, IA 141, TrGF 908b.5. Scribes have banalised and give νῦν almost everywhere, but the full temporal meaning of νῦν would be pointless in most of the μή commands (exceptions: Soph. El. 324, TrGF 314.298), and modern editors have emended to μή νῠν.

408

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 2 – 4 8 4 πόρσω (Dindorf (iii) III.2.608, for transmitted πόρρω), and πρόσω, used according to metrical convenience, are the forms most consistently attested in tragedy; πόρσω is corrupted to πρόσω or less frequently, as here, to πόρρω (the form familiar from prose and comedy) by banalisation in at least some MSS whenever it appears: Pind. Ol. 10.55, Soph. El. 213, OC 178, 181, 226, Eur. Alc. 911, Her. 752, Tro. 189 (πόρρω), Ion 796, Bacch. 392 (πόρρω), Diggle on Eur. Phaeth. 7 = TrGF 772.2. τὰ πόρσω τἀγγύθεν ‘what is far away, what is near at hand’, may refer to space (the Greek fatherland is far from Troy), or figuratively to time, as favoured by Fries 303. For the polar opposition, cf. Soph. TrGF 858.3 πρόσω δὲ λεύσσων, ἐγγύθεν δὲ πᾶς τυφλός (of the presbyopia of the elderly), Eur. Ion 585–6 οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶδος φαίνεται τῶν πραγμάτων / πρόσωθεν ὄντων ἐγγύθεν θ᾽ ὁρωμένων (~ Xen. Cyn. 9.4.4, Pl. Phlb. 41e–42a, Prot. 356c, Resp. 602c), TrGF 772 θερμὴ δ᾽ ἄνακτος φλὸξ … / καίει τὰ πόρσω, τἀγγύθεν δ᾽ εὔκρατ᾽ ἔχει, adesp. TrGF 485 ἐγγὺς δ᾽ ἐστὶ (scil. Zeus’s eye) καίπερ ὢν πρόσω, 496.2 πόρρω γὰρ ἑστὼς ὁ θεὸς ἐγγύθεν κλύει. 483 ‘It seems enough for you to suffer, rather than to act’ suggests the principle according to which the wronged should retaliate against the wrongdoer, a principle stated by Hector at 102–4. Hector had focused exclusively on the Greeks besieging Troy; Rhesus’ broader idea of the Greeks as the whole nation, including their fatherland, leads him to accuse Hector of passive inaction. For δρᾶν in reaction to previous παθεῖν, or παθεῖν as a consequence of previous δρᾶν, cf. Aesch. Cho. 313–14 ‘δράσαντα παθεῖν’, τριγέρων μῦθος τάδε φωνεῖ, Soph. OC 271 ὅστις παθὼν μὲν ἀντέδρων, 953 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν πεπονθὼς ἠξίουν τάδ᾽ ἀντιδρᾶν, TrGF 223b τὸν δρῶντα γάρ τι καὶ παθεῖν ὀϕείλεται, 962 εἰ δείν’ ἔδρασας, δεινὰ καὶ παθεῖν σε δεῖ, Eur. Hipp. 598 τί δράσεις, ὦ παθοῦσ᾽ ἀμήχανα;, Andr. 438 τοὺς παθόντας (subject) ἀντιδρᾶν (a universal principle of conduct), Supp. 1178–9 γενναῖα γὰρ / παθόντες ὑμᾶς ἀντιδρᾶν ὀϕείλομεν, Pho. 480 κακόν τι δρᾶσαι καὶ παθεῖν, TrGF 711 εἶτα δὴ θυμούμεθα / παθόντες οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἢ δεδρακότες; (parodied at Ar. Th. 519), Pl. Cri. 49d ἀρχώμεθα ἐντεῦθεν βουλευόμενοι, ὡς οὐδέποτε ὀρθῶς ἔχοντος οὔτε τοῦ ἀδικεῖν οὔτε τοῦ ἀνταδικεῖν οὔτε κακῶς πάσχοντα ἀμύνεσθαι ἀντιδρῶντα κακῶς (Socrates rejects the popular morality of retaliation), Resp. 872e ἡ τῶν συγγενῶν αἱμάτων τιμωρὸς δίκη ἐπίσκοπος νόμωι χρῆται τῶι νυνδὴ λεχθέντι καὶ ἔταξεν ἄρα δράσαντί τι τοιοῦτον παθεῖν ταὐτὰ ἀναγκαίως ἅπερ ἔδρασεν. 484 γάρ focuses on the connection between Hector’s statement and the previous statement of Rhesus, instead of expressing partial agreement with it: ‘Yes, for …’ (Denniston (1954) 73). πολλῆς τυραννίδος, here with no negative implication (see 164–5n.), is used not only of absolute individual power but also of the land and people

409

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 4 – 4 8 5 subject to it, which the τύραννος governs, as at 406 (in fact ἄρχειν with genitive usually means ‘rule’ a land or a people). This complex sense of power over and control of people and goods may be found already at Archil. IEG 19 (to which Rh. 166 probably alludes; see n.), where the speaker presents μεγάλη τυραννίς (l. 2) side by side with material enjoyment of riches (l. 1 οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω τοῦ πολυχρύσου μέλει) as things commonly sought after. 485–7 ‘But you may lean your shields and locate your army on the left or right wing or in the middle of the allies.’ Planning the relative strength of the parts of an arrayed army became an essential task for the hoplite general: ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ συντάξεως ἄχρηστον τὸ ὁπλιτικόν, αἱ δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐμπειρίαι καὶ τάξεις ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις οὐχ ὑπῆρχον, observed Arist. Pol. 1297b19–20, confirming the crucial relevance of σύνταξις for the modern phalanx – first of all the balancing of the strength of the two κέρατα according to their different operations (Echeverría Rey (2008) 172–6).66 In the fifth and fourth centuries it was common to station elite troops or the largest bulk of the phalanx, which could be from about eight to fifty ranks deep, under the general on the right wing; but sometimes a general could shift the decisive contingent from right to left and attempt to charge head on into the enemy’s strong right wing (a surprise tactic, as at Leuctra in 371 BC); cf., e.g., Lévêque and P. Vidal-Naquet (1960) and Buckler (1980=2008), maintaining with Ephorus (~ Diod. Sic.) and Callisthenes (~ Plut. Pelop.) that this shift was a revolutionary innovation by Epameinondas, and Hanson (1988), who reassesses the novelty and importance of Epameinondas’ initiative. Here Hector seems concerned to settle the position that Rhesus and the Thracians will hold on the battlefield, so that he can consequently arrange the other forces of the allies on either wing or in the middle ranks. But Rhesus shows that the phalanx is not in his mind. ἀλλ(ά) marks a shift to a new topic, often from speculation about the future to immediate action, as here and at 123; see 123–4n. λαιὸν … δεξιὸν κέρας has been taken as internal accusative with both καταστῆσαι στρατόν and πέλτην ἐρεῖσαι, comparable to the cognate accusative at Pl. Phdr. 247a κατὰ τάξιν ἣν ἕκαστος ἐτάχθη (Paley 39); or as a The importance of the σύνταξις of the ranks had however a Homeric prehistory (see 488–91n.). For instance in a battle of Il. 13 Hector did not at first understand the weakness of his army on the left side, and he had to intervene to prevent a Greek victory (674–6). However the dynamics of the interaction between right and left ranks are hardly ever elsewhere in the spotlight in the Il., and the ‘right’ or ‘left’ of the Iliadic battles coincides with the ‘right’ or ‘left’ of the Greek camp, since the most common viewpoint is Greek, in the opinion of some of the ancients, also when the battles are presented from the Trojan viewpoint (cf. Σ A Il. 13.675, Σ exeg. 13.765, Cuillandre (1944) 37–41).

66

410

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 5 – 4 9 1 kind of predicative apposition ‘you may rest your shield and set your army either as right or left side’, etc. (Jouan 68); or as governed by a participle like τεταγμένον, to be understood from the context (cf. Eur. Supp. 657–8 δεξιὀν τεταγμένους / κέρας, Liapis 202). πέλτην ἐρεῖσαι ‘lean the shields’ on the ground (so, e.g., Morstad (1827) 23–4, Jouan 68 n. 147) or on the soldier’s back (with Kovacs 403 and Liapis 202, according to the well-attested custom of carrying it over the left shoulder with a shield-strap when not fighting; see 305–6a n.). That custom is documented both for the original Thracian light πέλτη and for the heavier Macedonian πέλτη; cf. Xen. An. 7.4.17, Plut. Aem. Paul. 19.2, quoted above in 305–6a n., Snodgrass (1967) 118. Albert (1876) 36 and Fries 304 have interpreted πέλτην ἐρεῖσαι as ‘pressing shields against each other’ in the typical hoplite formation later known as συνασπισμός (‘locking of shields’), comparing Il. 16.215 = (spurious?) 13.131 ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε and Tyrt. IEG 11.31 πόδα πὰρ ποδὶ θεὶς καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος ἀσπίδ’ ἐρείσας; but in these passages the idea of reciprocal pressing is made clear by the polyptoton; the absence of, e.g., πέλτηι (as in Hom.) or ἐπὶ πέλτηι (as in Tyrt.) makes this sense improbable in Rh. (Liapis 202). 488–91 ‘Hector, I want to fight alone against the foes. But if you think it is dishonourable not to join in burning the prows of the ships, after toiling so long up to now, station me face to face with Achilles and his army.’ Rhesus has no preference about his station in the ranks, since he focuses on the idea of fighting alone. If Hector wants to share the victory, Rhesus asks at least to fight against Achilles and the Myrmidons (a personal goal which is more important in his mind than his positioning in the ranks). This individualism is not compatible with the classical technique of the hoplite phalanx. It is extravagantly excessive even in Homeric terms. Iliadic book-titles rightly included ‘Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Μενελάου μονομαχία’ for Book 3 and ‘Ἕκτορος καὶ Αἴαντος μονομαχία’ for Book 7, and many of the combats described in the Il. are duels between πρόμαχοι (‘frontline fighters’) – probably as the result of the Iliadic technique of focusing on a few heroes amidst the mass (πληθύς or λαοί). But the tactical role of the mass in the military history of the Il., although hardly ever emphasised, should not be underestimated: 485–7n., Latacz (1977) 26–67, Morris (1987) 197–201, van Wees (1988), (1994) 1–9, Raaflaub (2005), Echeverría Rey (2008) 108–27, Kagan and Viggiano (2013) 44–9. Besides, although single combat is the most common fighting technique in the Il., the terms μονομαχεῖν, μονομαχία, or μόνος μάχεσθαι never designate it in Hom. These terms are not attested before the fifth century, and in the classical age they are mostly limited in tragedy to the war of the Seven, culminating in the duel between Eteocles and Polynices: Aesch. Sept. 798 μονομάχοισι προστάταις, Eur. Hcld. 807–8 ἐμοὶ μόνος μόνωι / μάχην

411

C O M M E N TA RY 4 8 8 – 4 9 1 συνάψας, 819 μονομάχου δι᾽ ἀσπίδος, Pho. 1220 χωρὶς μονομαχεῖν παντὸς στρατοῦ, 1300–1 μονομάχον / ἐπὶ ϕρέν᾽ ἠλθέτην, 1325 μονομάχωι … δορί, 1361–3 ἔστησαν ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς μέσον μεταίχμιον … ὡς εἰς ἀγῶνα μονομάχου τ᾽ ἀλκὴν δορός (paratragic in Ar. PCG 570.2–3 ἔς τε μονομάχου πάλης / ἀγῶνα νῦν ἑστᾶσιν, Men. Sam. 570 μονομαχήσω τήμερον). The military technique of the Il. also entailed that a man should not isolate himself from his companions and fight alone against many enemies: 4.303–4 μηδέ τις ἱπποσύνηι τε καὶ ἠνορέηϕι πεποιθὼς / οἶος πρόσθ᾽ ἄλλων μεμάτω Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι, 12.410–12, 16.620–2, 20.355–7. Therefore both Rhesus’ wish at 488, echoing his boast at 447–9, and his more limited wish at 489–91 focus on the technique of one-to-one combat, which was especially famous from Homer, but use a phrase, μόνος μάχεσθαι, which is foreign to Homeric language and is found only in connection with the later duel. Thracians and Macedonians appear to have had a special penchant for single combat, which was often included in the agonistic contests accompanying the funeral rites of their nobles: cf. Hdt. 5.8.1, Diyllus FGrHist 73F1 (on the games held by Cassander at Aegae in 316–315 for members of the Macedonian royal family), Petropoulou (1986/1987). αἰσχρὸν ἡγῆι: cf. Soph. Ph. 108 οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγῆι … τὸ ψευδῆ λέγειν;, Lys. 3.17, [Pl.] Amat. 133b. συνεμπρῆσαι: in the Il. and Rh. Hector often aims to burn the Greek ships (see 52–75n., 61–2n., 391b–2n.), and ἐμπρήθειν is the verb generally used in that context (almost never elsewhere): Il. 8.182, 217, 235, 9.242, 12.198, 13.319, 14.47, 15.417, 507, 16.82, 22.374. Rhesus’ addition of the preverb συν- to the Homeric compound, unparalleled before the Roman Imperial age, relegates Hector to a role of partnership in the task of burning the ships. νεῶν πρύμνας is a synecdoche for ‘ships’, as at 768–9, Eur. Tro. 1047, Ion 1243, IA 1319–20. Its use here may reflect an Iliadic detail: when at 15.704–6 Hector reaches Protesilaus’ ship, the only one that the Trojans manage to set on fire, he ‘got hold of the stern’ (πρυμνῆς νεὸς ἥψατο ποντοπόροιο), and when Ajax’ defiant resistance is finally defeated, the description of the fire cast by the Trojans on Protesilaus’ ship emphasises again the detail of the stern: 16.122–4 τοὶ δ᾽ ἔμβαλον ἀκάματον πῦρ / νηῒ θοῆι· τῆς δ᾽ αἶψα κατ᾽ ἀσβέστη κέχυτο ϕλόξ. / ὣς τὴν μὲν πρυμνὴν πῦρ ἄμϕεπεν. τὸν πάρος πολὺν χρόνον: accusative of extent of time, with the adverb πάρος used attributively with χρόνον, paralleled at Eur. TrGF 285.9–10 τὸν πάρος χρόνον / πλουτῶν; cf. also Soph. El. 1445–6 ἐν τῶι πάρος / χρόνωι ~ OC 551. Ἀχιλλέως καὶ στρατοῦ ‘Achilles and his army’; cf. Eur. IA 241 Ἀχιλλείου στρατοῦ. This is more than a hendiadys; the task of facing a multitude shows Rhesus’ lack of restraint.

412

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 1 – 4 9 3 κατὰ στόμα: ‘face to face’, hence ‘in the front line’; see 408–11a n. 492, with transmitted ἐντάξαι, has been interpreted as (A) ‘it is not possible for him (Achilles, with ἐκείνωι as subject of ἐντάξαι) to interpose his furious spear in the ranks’ (Palmer 1890) 229) or (B) ‘it is not possible for you (Rhesus) to oppose to him (ἐκείνωι dative of disadvantage) your furious spear’. With ἐντάξαι emended to ἀντᾶραι (Reiske (1754) 89–90), the line means (C) ‘it is not possible for you (Rhesus) to raise your furious spear against him’ (ἐκείνωι dative of disadvantage). (C) has been the most commonly accepted in recent times (Kovacs 403, Liapis 203–4, Fries 305–6). In fact ἀνταίρειν δόρυ ‘raising the spear’ is an elegant synecdoche for ‘join battle’, echoing 451 ἀσπίδ᾽ ἄρηται χερί and antici­ pating 495 οὐ συναίρεται δόρυ. It is well paralleled: cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 20.373 οἳ δ᾽ ἀντίοι ἔγχε᾽ ἄειραν, Hdt. 3.144.1 τίς σϕι χεῖρας ἀνταείρεται, 7.101.2 χεῖρας ἐμοὶ ἀνταειρόμενοι, Thuc. 1.53.2 ὅπλα ἀνταιρόμενοι. (B), endorsed by LSJ, Paley 39, Porter 70, Feickert 238, has to assume the equivalence ἐν ~ ἀντί, which is not paralleled with ἐντάσσειν (it is found in ἐνστάτης = ‘enemy’ at Soph. Aj. 104, but that is hardly a parallel). (A) is not implausible and suits Hector the phalanx-planner. He was concerned with the structure of the ranks at 484–7, and Rhesus himself had considered the question at 491 (τάξον). Hector’s ἐντάξαι would produce the observation that it is impossible that Achilles ‘inserts’ his spear in the Greek ranks, i.e., it is impossible that he is present at the battle, next day. The author of Rh. is fond of military technical jargon, and ἐντάσσειν/ἔνταξις came to be a technical term for the insertion of light-armed infantry into the standard ranks of the hoplite phalanx, intended to make the front of the phalanx more compact; cf. Arr. Tact. 25.4 ὁ ἐς τὸ μῆκος ἐντεταγμένος, ἐπάνιθι ἐς τάξιν, 26.6 ἔνταξιν δὲ ὀνομάζουσιν, ἐπειδὰν τοὺς ψιλοὺς ἐς τὰ διαστήματα τῶν πεζῶν ἐντάξωσιν, ἄνδρα παρ᾽ ἄνδρα ἱστάντες, Ael. Tact. 31.3 ἔνταξις δέ ἐστιν, ἐάν τις προαιρῆται τοὺς ψιλοὺς εἰς τὰ διαστήματα τῆς ϕάλαγγος ἐντάσσειν, ἄνδρα παρ᾽ ἄνδρα. This military sense of ἐντάσσειν, however, remains unparalleled before the early Roman Imperial age, and ἐντάξαι may have been an easy scribal slip conditioned by 491 τάξον. θοῦρον ‘impetuous’ or ‘furious’, from θορεῖν/θρώσκειν, refers to the onrush of battle (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 112) or its violence and is extended to arms that share the martial fury of their bearers (Leaf on Il. 11.32). Homeric θοῦρος/θοῦρις is limited to the god of war Ares, ἀλκή, and ἀσπίς/αἰγίς; see 186n. 493 καὶ μήν: see 184n. Rhesus’ perplexity is justified, since a warlike champion such as Achilles was expected to be fighting, if he was with the army. Commenting on Ajax’ remarks to Hector about Achilles at Il. 7.226–30,

413

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 3 – 4 9 6 Porphyry reported that the ‘Homeric question’ existed διὰ τί ὁ Αἴας τῶι Ἕκτορι δεδήλωκε τὴν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως μῆνιν;, and observed: ἀναγκαῖον οὖν δηλῶσαι τί πέπονθεν Ἀχιλλεύς, καὶ ὅτι μηνίων οὐ πάρεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τεθνηκὼς ἢ ἀποπλεύσας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐν νηυσὶ κορωνίσι μηνίων (I.109.22–5 Schrader). 494–5 At Il. 4.512–13 Apollo told the Trojans that Achilles had withdrawn, but he spoke generically of ‘wrath’, and did not make clear its origin: οὐ μὰν οὐδ᾽ Ἀχιλεὺς … / μάρναται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ νηυσὶ χόλον θυμαλγέα πέσσει. Only at 7.226–30 did Ajax tell Hector that there were other strong ἀριστῆες among the Greeks, even after Achilles had withdrawn in his μῆνις against Agamemnon: εἴσεαι οἰόθεν οἶος / οἷοι καὶ Δαναοῖσιν ἀριστῆες μετέασι / καὶ μετ᾽ Ἀχιλλῆα ῥηξήνορα θυμολέοντα. / ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μὲν ἐν νήεσσι κορωνίσι ποντοπόροισιν / κεῖτ᾽ ἀπομηνίσας Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν. μηνίων is a denominative verb from μῆνις, the ‘anger’ of Achilles towards Agamemnon, presented as the subject of the Il. in 1.1, and often mentioned elsewhere in the poem as the reason for Achilles’ withdrawal from fighting; apart from 7.229–30, quoted above, cf. 1.422, 488, 2.771–3, 7.229–30, 9.517– 18. Noun and verb are largely reserved in the Il. and later literature for gods, heroes, and the dead, and the substantial number of supernatural applications has prompted the belief that in the wake of the Il. these terms convey a specialised idea of wrath arising from the violation of cosmic prohibitions and justice that upholds them (Muellner (1996)) or that they are particularly appropriate for divine wrath and for human unusually violent anger (Cairns (2003a) 31–4). στρατηλάταισιν (see 173n.; again at Rh. 719) is governed by μηνίων. By referring to both army leaders, Agamemnon and Menelaus, Rh. updates the Iliadic plot, where Achilles’ rage is focused on Agamemnon (cf. Il. 1.6–7 διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε / Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς). It is in tragedy that Menelaus becomes a major character and a supreme leader matching Agamemnon (Aesch. Ag. 42–7, 109, 123–5, Soph. Aj., Eur. IA, Hel., Tro., Andr., Or.), perhaps under the influence of the Spartan diarchal kingship, which the expression τούς τε δισσάρχας … βασιλῆς at Soph. Aj. 389–90 possibly intimates. 496 τίς δή ‘now, who …’. Connective δή ‘expresses something intermediate between temporal and logical connection, and marks the progression from one idea to a second of which the consideration naturally follows’ (Denniston 239). The v.l. τί δαί might conceal an original τίς δαί. δαί, a colloquial form of δή (Denniston (1954) 262–4), is frequent with τί in Old Comedy (about forty-five occurrences in Ar.; very rare in New Comedy, and disappearing thereafter), but it is attested by MSS at Aesch. PV 933 and in some passages of Eur. characterised by a brisk and informal tone, such as, e.g., Med. 1012, El.

414

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 6 – 4 9 7 244, Ion 275. As δαί disappeared after the early fourth century, scribes probably ‘corrected’ it to δή in some of its occurrences, and Brunck and Elmsley wished to eliminate this word from tragedy even when no variant exists. But δαί should be kept when well attested in the paradosis, and may be preferred to δή as a v.l., when it is not in contrast with the dignified language of tragedy (as Jebb on Soph. Ant. 318 (Appendix) commented on the Euripidean occurrences of δαί); cf. Collard (2018) 101–3. In our case τίς δαί would be more plausible if Rhesus ‘showed signs of relaxing’ (Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 339), for example by bringing up the possibility that he might not confront a specific Greek champion; but he is still tense, and the more dignified δή is thus preferable here. εὐδοξεῖ: εὔδοξος and εὐδοξία appear to belong originally to encomiastic-moralising language, as they are first attested in Theogn. (IEG 195), Simonides (PMG 531.6 = 261.5 Poltera), Pind. (13x), and Bacch. (4x). Among the tragedians Aesch. only once uses εὔδοξος, but Eur. has εὐδοξία at Med. 627, Supp. 779, Hec. 956, Tro. 643 and εὔδοξος at Med. 592, Hipp. 772–3. The verb εὐδοξεῖν, unparalleled before the fourth century, is fashionable then, but later rare: Xen. Hell. 1.1.31, Mem. 3.6.16, [Pl.] Ep. 360e, Dem. 8.20, 20.142, 34.40, Aeschin. 2.66, 2.118, 2.172, Men. Asp. 4 (εὐδο[ξο]ῦντα Sandbach), [Arist.] Divis. 56, p. 60.17 Mutschm., Theophr. HP 9.19.3. Its popularity is coincident with a series of fourth-century metrical inscriptions that celebrate the δόξα arising from the virtue or success of the person celebrated (CEG 600.4, 670.3, 726.1, 732.4, 891.6; cf. also Thuc. 2.43.2) – only one mention of δόξα (CEG 396.2) survives from verse inscriptions between the eighth and fifth centuries. δόξα/εὐδοξεῖν/εὐδοξία points to the socially established ‘good opinion’ which rewards victory or excellence (sometimes military excellence, as at Simon. PMG 531.6, quoted above, Eur. Supp. 779, Isocr. 6.91, Hyperid. 6.42), with an emphasis on the general acknowledgement by society that was alien to the Homeric idea of κλέος; for δόξα ‘good opinion’ as a social value cf. Alcae. F 72.11–12 Voigt, Tyrt. IEG 12.9, Solon, IEG 13.4, Theogn. IEG 571–2. 497–8a ‘In my opinion Ajax is in no way inferior to him, nor is the son of Tydeus:’ cf. 461–3n. A hint at a survey of Greek champions at 497 and 498a, which evoke the Iliadic τειχοσκοπία (3.161–242), rapidly develops into a detailed presentation of Odysseus, which likewise had featured at the end of the τειχοσκοπία (3.203–24); cf. Fries 297. The motif ‘there are other fierce enemies for Troy, apart from Achilles’, had been touched upon at Hom. Il. 7.226–30 (see 494–5n.). ἡσσᾶσθαι, ‘be inferior’, from comparative ἥσσων. -σσ- (Homeric and panhellenic) is a certain correction by Dindorf (iii) III.2.608 for the transmitted

415

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 7 -ττ-. Attic inscriptions in prose have Attic -ττ- almost universally instead of -σσ- in all but foreign words until the age of Augustus, but already in Attic metrical inscriptions of the fourth century -σσ‑ is common; perhaps it was felt to belong to traditional poetic diction; cf. Meisterhans (1900) 101–2, Wackernagel (1907) 13–15, Allen (1987) 12–14, Threatte (1980/1996) I.537–41. The MSS of the tragedians and of prose authors up to and including Thuc. almost always avoid Attic -ττ- and keep -σσ- (tragic -ττ- is limited to some interjections such as ἀτταταί, ψύττα and the proper name Ἀττικός), while the MSS of comic poets have in most cases Attic -ττ- (cf. Arnott (2002) 210–14). Tragedians, who usually distinguished their diction from everyday language (e.g., in keeping ‑ρσ‑ rather than Attic ‑ρρ‑), may have opted for -σσ- as evoking traditional literary language, or as an Ionism, or as general Greek – perhaps with the expectation that their dramas might be exported beyond Attica (Rutherford (2012) 69). Moreover, to preserve -ττ- would be felt parochial; it was perhaps ‘the feature of standard Attic which the Athenians were most embarrassed about’, as it was shared only with the Euboeans and the traditionally porcine Boeotians; cf. Colvin (2004) 101. In any case ἡσσᾶσθαι might not feel like an Ionism; Hdt. has ἑσσοῦσθαι, perhaps an innovation by analogy with κρέσσων.67 There is irony in Hector’s statement at 497 that Ajax is ‘not inferior’ to Achilles, as in fact he fights Ajax on more or less equal terms but is going to be killed by Achilles: Ajax wounds him in Il. 14, leads the retreat before Hector in Il. 15, is hard-pressed by Hector before Patroclus’ intervention in Il. 16 and helps to rescue Patroclus’ body in Il. 17. Hector’s appreciation of the valour of Ajax may allude to the sad lot of Ajax always to be the second: second to Achilles on the battlefield, but also second to Odysseus in the contest over Achilles’ arms and never winning first prize in his three contests at the funeral games for Patroclus. The Epic Cycle may have introduced the idea that Trojans sympathised with Ajax: cf. Σ Ar. Eq. 1056a ὅτι διεϕέροντο περὶ τῶν ἀριστείων ὅ τε Αἴας καὶ ὁ Ὀδυσσεύς, ὥς ϕησιν ὁ τὴν μικρὰν Ἰλιάδα πεποιηκώς (Il. parva PEG F 2)· τὸν Νέστορα δὲ συμβουλεῦσαι τοῖς ῞Ελλησι πέμψαι τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τὰ τείχη τῶν Τρώων, ὠτακουστήσοντας περὶ τῆς ἀνδρείας τῶν προειρημένων ἡρώων. τοὺς δὲ πεμϕθέντας ἀκοῦσαι παρθένων διαϕερομένων πρὸς ἀλλήλας. ὧν τὴν μὲν λέγειν ὡς ὁ Αἴας πολὺ κρείττων ἐστὶ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, διερχομένην οὕτως· ‘Αἴας μὲν γὰρ ἄειρε καὶ ἔκϕερε δηϊοτῆτος / ἥρω Πηλείδην, οὐδ᾽ ἤθελε δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς’. χὠ Τυδέως παῖς: see 219–22a n. 498b–500 ‘And Odysseus is the most wily piece of artfully forged metal, amply bold of heart, and one who has most harmed this land here.’ Odysseus,

It is not clear how the present ἑσσῶμαι – or perfect ἔσσωμαι ? – at Herond. 8.19 is to be interpreted; cf. Schmidt (1968) 75.

67

416

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 8 – 4 9 9 to whom are devoted eleven-and-a-half lines out of thirteen in this list of the worst enemies, takes over the leading role that Diomedes had played in Il. 10. Odysseus tricks the watchmen at 674–709, in a scene where Diomedes remains totally silent; he takes the lead in the conversation with Athena at 608–23; he is the one whom Athena greets before leaving at 669–74, whereas she had directed the final farewell to Diomedes at Il. 10.507–11. αἰμυλώτατον / κρότημα brings together two series of derogatory descriptions of Odysseus in Attic drama (Fraenkel (1965) 232, Jouan 68): Soph. Aj. 379–89 ἁπάντων τ᾽ ἀεὶ / κακῶν ὄργανον, τέκνον Λαρτίου, / κακοπινέστατόν τ᾽ ἄλημα στρατοῦ … τὸν αἱμυλώτατον, / ἐχθρὸν ἄλημα (perhaps the model of our passage: Finglass on Aj. 388–91), TrGF 913 πάνσοϕον κρότημα, Λαέρτου γόνος (Aj. 389 αἱμυλώτατον was perhaps combined in ‘mosaic technique’ with TrGF 913 κρότημα; cf. Fries 35), Eur. Cycl. 104 οἶδ’ ἄνδρα, κρόταλον δριμύ, Σισύϕου γένος, TrGF 715.1 οὐκ ἆρ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς ἐστιν αἱμύλος μόνος adesp. TrGF 564d ὦ πλεῖον †ἴλως† αἱμύλης ἀλώπεκος (Odysseus?). Abstract verbal nouns in ‑μα, common in comedy (López Eire (1996), 23–4), are often used in tragedy (over 150 instances), in abusive contexts, to characterise persons who represent the essence of the evil expressed by the noun (Long (1968) 114–20, Willi (2003) 138, Barrett (2007) 352, Collard (2018) 131). κρότημα, deverbal from κροτεῖν, may reflect its sense ‘cause a musical instrument to sound’, like κρόταλον ‘castanet’, or the sense ‘beat’ and ‘forge’ wrought metal. In the former sense it would be to some extent a synonym of κρόταλον (thus Hesych. Lex. κ 4205 Latte) meaning ‘chatterbox’ (cf. Ar. Nub. 260 λέγειν γενήσει τρῖμμα, κρόταλον, παιπάλη; Σ ad loc. κρόταλον· εὔγλωσσος, εὔστομος ~ Suda κ 2477 Adler) with reference to Odysseus’ verbal skill (he is called κρόταλον at Eur. Cycl. 104, quoted above). But here he is not being denounced for glibness, but demonised as the enemy who has most harmed the Trojans. Therefore at Soph.TrGF 913 (where πάνσοφον suggests cunning, rather than glibness) and in our passage κρότημα is better connected with κροτεῖν in the sense ‘forge’ and interpreted as ‘someone as subtle and artful as an elaborately wrought bronze artefact’ (after Pearson (1917a) III.93, Long (1968) 115–16; Liapis 207); cf. Σ Theocr. 15.48–50 κεκροτημένοι· ἀντὶ τοῦ διερραπισμένοι, ἐθάδες πανούργων ἔργων. ἡ δὲ μεταϕορὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κεκροτημένου χαλκοῦ, Hesych. Lex. κ 4209 Latte κρότημα· ἐπὶ τῶν δολίων τάσσεται; Σ Ar. Nub. 260.68 In Hes. F 198 Odysseus, defined as πολύκροτα μήδεα εἰδώς (198.3), courts Helen not with concrete presents, in unequal competition with the much more affluent Menelaus (198.4–6), but with frequent messages to Helen’s brothers (198.7 ἀγγελίην δ᾽ αἰεὶ Λακεδαίμονάδε προΐαλλεν). πολύκροτα μήδεα may point both to the cunning of sending messages instead of presents or to the persuasive fluency of the messages.

68

417

C O M M E N TA RY 4 9 8 – 5 0 0 αἱμύλος (etymologically parallel to αἵμων ‘expert’: Güntert (1921) 103, Briand (1997) 142–4, Weiss (1998) 55–6) regularly refers to Odysseus in tragedy; cf. Rh. 709, Soph. Aj. 388, Eur. TrGF 715.1, adesp. TrGF 564d (?), Stephanopoulos (1988) 235. λῆμα … θρασύς: self-confidence (θράσος) leads to boldness (λῆμα); cf. Ar. Nub. 1349–50 ἀλλ᾽ ἔσθ᾽ ὅτωι θρασύνεται· δῆλόν / τὸ λῆμα τἀνθρώπου (text conjectural). λῆμα is accusative of respect. ἀρκούντως is a prose word (Thuc., Xen., Dem., Hippocr.), only occasionally found in tragedy: Aesch. Cho. 892, Soph. El. 354 (ἐπαρκούντως), Eur. Hec. 318. Like ἄδην in 480 (see n.), it conveys the strength of the enemy by suggesting that they are worthy opponents for Hector and the Trojans. καὶ πλεῖστα χώραν τήνδ᾿ ἀνὴρ καθυβρίσας: ἀνήρ is here equivalent to an indefinite pronoun (‘and one who has done great harm’), as, e.g., at Pl. Phd. 63e ἀνὴρ … ἐν ϕιλοσοϕίαι διατρίψας (‘one who has spent time …’), 114d οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί (‘one who is wise’), Smp. 179a ἐρῶν … ἀνήρ (‘one in love’). But there is considerable appeal in the conjectures εἷς ἀνήρ of Boissonade IV.289 (with εἷς for τήνδ᾽) and εἷς … ἀνήρ of Hermann (1828) 304–5 (with εἷς for καί), here introducing the tragic idiom in which εἷς strengthens a superlative; cf. 946–7 κἀπὶ πλεῖστον ἄνδρ’ ἕνα / ἐλθόντα, Aesch. Pers. 326–8 Συέννεσίς τε … / … εἷς ἀνὴρ πλεῖστον πόνον / ἐχθροῖς παρασχών, Ag. 1456–7 μία τὰς πολλὰς / … / ψυχὰς ὀλέσασ(α), Soph. Aj. 636–8 (where εἷς is conjectural), 1340 ἕν᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἰδεῖν ἄριστον Ἀργείων, Tr. 460 πλείστας ἀνὴρ εἷς Ἡρακλῆς ἔγημε, Ph. 1344–5 Ἑλλήνων ἕνα / κριθέντ’ ἄριστον, OC 563–4 χὠς εἷς πλεῖστ᾿ ἀνήρ . . . / ἤθλησα κινδυνεύματ(α), Eur. Hcld. 7–8 πόνων / πλείστων μετέσχον εἷς ἀνηρ, Hdt. 6.127.1 ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ ἀπίκετο, Thuc. 8.68.1 πλεῖστα εἷς ἀνὴρ … δυνάμενος ὠφελεῖν). This would appropriately emphasise the contrast between single Odysseus and the magnitude of the damage he has caused to Troy (Garvie on Pers. 326–8, Liapis 208, Fries 309). For χώραν … καθυβρίζειν, cf. Hom. Il. 24.54 (probably interpolated) κωϕὴν γὰρ δὴ γαῖαν ἀεικίζει μενεαίνων, Moschion, TrGF 97F7.2 τί τὴν ἄναυδον γαῖαν ὑβρίζειν πλέον;, Plut. Rom. 23.6 ἐμβαλόντας ἐλάσασθαί τε λείαν καὶ καθυβρίσαι πολλὰ τὴν, χώραν. 501–9 detail two deceitful and stealthy missions that Odysseus accomplished inside Troy in a period of the war covered by the Ilias parva (501–7a): the theft of the Palladium, which Odysseus carried out either alone or with the help of Diomedes (see 501–2n.), and the spying mission at Troy in disguise as a beggar (πτωχεία). Both may have been chosen for their relevance to the ongoing missions of Dolon and of Odysseus and Diomedes. They also are operations requiring personal bravery and the ability to deceive, thus showing Odysseus’ usual cunning treachery; and the theft of the Palladium also took place at night. Cf. Dowden (2010) 112–13.

418

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 1 – 5 0 9 Both Trojan expeditions of Odysseus are mentioned in Proclus’ summary of the Ilias parva, and it is possible that little time elapsed between them (they are separated only by the expression καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα in Proclus’ summary of Il. parva, PEG pp. 74–5) and are actually combined at Ar. Vesp. 350–1, Antisth. Aj. 6 (p. 189 Prince), Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13, Σ Eur. Hec. 240. In the Epic Cycle they occurred in the Ilias parva, after the Aethiopis and before the sack of Troy, whereas in Rh. they precede the ‘Doloneia’ and are narrated by Hector, who at the time of the Ilias parva was already dead. This serious anachronism, noted already by Σ Rh. 502 (παρὰ τοὺς χρόνους· ὕστερον γὰρ τούτων τὸ Παλλάδιον ἔκλεψε), finds no parallel elsewhere in the play. Perhaps the author of Rh. allowed this chronological discrepancy because he wanted the πτωχεία (here and at 710–19) to have in his play a prefigurative function similar to that of the πτωχεία narrated by Helen at Od. 4.242–58. In fact the spying mission at Troy, which according to Proclus and Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13 concluded with the slaughter of ‘some’ or ‘many’ Trojans, parallels Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ slaughter of Thracians at the end of the ‘Doloneia’. Besides, ancient scholars pointed out that the narrative of the Homeric πτωχεία, chosen by Helen at Od. 4.242–58 as a paradigm of Odysseus’ harmfulness for the Trojans, prefigured his beggar-disguise in the slaughter of the suitors; cf. Σ exeg. Od. 4.245 καὶ πρὸς τὴν μνηστηροκτονίαν ταῦτα ὠικονόμηται, ἵνα μηδὲ τοῖς μνηστῆρσι συνὼν ἐν τοιούτωι σχήματι ἀπίθανος ϕαίνοιτο. If this kind of interpretation of Od. 4.242–58 predated the Hellenistic age, the author of Rh. may have found it appropriate to follow the model of Helen’s speech in Od. 4 in emphasising the prefigurative references of both the disguise of the nocturnal πτωχεία and the nocturnal theft of the Palladium to the ‘Doloneia’; see 710–21n., Fantuzzi (1996). 501–2 The theft of the Palladium, the talismanic statue of Athena whose presence at Troy, according to a prophecy of the Trojan seer Helenus, guaranteed the survival of the city, was carried out by Diomedes and Odysseus in most literary sources and sometimes in art (LIMC III.1, 401 ‘Diomedes I’ 23–9, and 404–5 ‘Diom.’ 66–80; Il. parva arg. 1 and 2, Soph. TrGF 367; Dion. Hal. AR 1.69.2, Virg. Aen. 2.163–8 and Serv. on Aen. 2.166, Ovid, Met. 13.350–1, 353–6, Sil. It. 13.47–50, Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.9 and 13, Q.S. 10.350– 7); by Diomedes alone often in art (LIMC III.1 401–5 ‘Diomedes I’ 32–8, 46–61, 81–4); by Odysseus alone only seldom in art (LIMC III.1, 404 ‘Diom. I’ 62–3) and in no literary source. A small cluster of texts shows that versions of the myth existed that emphasised fierce competition between Odysseus and Diomedes, each of them claiming that he was primarily or exclusively responsible for the success of the enterprise: Ovid, Met. 13.98–100 (Ajax speaks: conferat his Ithacus Rhesum imbellemque Dolona / Priamidenque Helenum rapta cum Pallade captum; / luce nihil gestum, nihil est Diomede remoto) and 13.335–56 (Odysseus boasts of the theft of the Palladium as if he had stolen it alone;

419

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 1 after Ajax’ objections Odysseus suggests that Diomedes was ready to admit that his warlike valour was inferior to Odysseus’ cunning), Conon, Narr. 34 (Diomedes finds a way to leave Odysseus behind and snatch the Palladium alone; while going back to the Greek camp Diomedes tries to make Odysseus believe that the statue that he had stolen was not the Palladium), Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13 (Odysseus and Diomedes go to Troy together in order to seize the Palladium, but Odysseus enters the city alone, disguised as a beggar, and steals the Palladium with the help of Helen, whose intervention is probably drawn from the episode of the πτωχεία), Eust. on Il. 10.531 (822.20–3) (Odysseus decided to kill Diomedes; Diomedes saw Odysseus’ unsheathed sword, drew his own sword, and followed hard on the heels of Odysseus, striking his back with the flat of the sword) ~ Serv. on Aen. 2.166. ἔννυχος ‘in the night’ draws attention to the furtive character of the expedition. Ajax uses the nocturnal setting as an argument against Odysseus, face-to-face fighting on the open field being more in accordance with the traditional heroic ideal; cf. Antisth. Aj. 6 νύκτωρ and Ovid, Met. 13.14 sua narret Ulixes, / quae sine teste gerit, quorum nox conscia sola est, 13.100 luce nihil gestum. κλέψας: cf. 709 κλωπός of the theft of the Palladium and 512 κλωπικάς of another furtive activity of Odysseus. κλοπὴ ἱερῶν χρημάτων was a technical synonym of ἱεροσυλία in Greek law (Cohen (1983) 92–115). The theft of the Palladium was called κλοπή in Hesychius’ paraphrase of that episode in Ilias parva PEG F 25; (but whether the term was used in the Cyclic poem remains uncertain), Dion. Hal. AR 1.69.2–3, Conon Narr. 34, Liban. Decl. 1.105, Σ Dosiadas, Altar 15–18. Odysseus was the grandson of Autolycus, and Autolycus had been endowed by Hermes with thievery and perjury (κλεπτοσύνηι θ᾽ ὅρκωι τε, Od. 19.396). He stole cattle (Apollod. Bibl. 2.129 (2.6.2), and broke into a house (πυκινὸν δόμον ἀντιτορήσας) in order to steal the boar-tusk helmet that Odysseus wore in the ‘Doloneia’ (Il. 10.266–7). Apollod. Bibl. 1.112 (1.9.16) introduces Autolycus as a son of Hermes, himself a thief and robber (from Hom. Il. 24.24, HHom. Herm. 14 onwards) and thus patron of thieves. Ovid, Met. 11.313–15 presents Autolycus as furtum ingeniosus ad omne and an expert trickster (candida de nigris et de candentibus atra / qui facere adsuerat), who was patriae non degener artis; cf. Σ Od. 19.432 οἰκῶν τὸν Παρνασσὸν πλεῖστα κλέπτων ἐθησαύριζεν. εἶχε γὰρ ταύτην τὴν τέχνην παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, ὥστε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὅτε κλέπτοι τι, λανθάνειν. Hermes and Odysseus are compared for their exceptional skills as thieves or tricksters in HHom.Herm. (Vergados on HHom.Herm., pp. 65–6). As the theft affected a holy precinct (σηκόν) of a goddess and a divine statue, it could be considered a sacrilege, and the use of ἄγαλμα and σηκόν in connection with the theft reminds the audience of that. ἱεροσυλία was one of the most heinous crimes for Greek popular morality. Athenian temple-­ robbers were put to death as ἀνίατοι ‘incurable’ in Plato’s state (Leg. 854d–e)

420

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 1 – 5 0 2 and often in Athens, and they were forbidden burial on native soil (Xen. Hell. 1.7.22). And when other punishments were remitted, temple-robbers and murderers were sometimes excluded, as in the case of Alexander’s ‘recall of the exiles’ of 324. The negative potential implicit in ‘temple-robber’ was so strong that orators often tried to apply that charge to their opponents (Parker (1983) 170–6; see also 512–15n.). Ἀθάνας: second ᾱ is given by all or the majority of the MSS in over thirty passages, choral or dialogic, of the three major tragedians (list in Björck (1950) 133). The occasional v.l. Attic Ἀθηνᾶ is a scribal banalisation, and Ἀθάνα an Attic archaism preserved by the conservatism of religious language (Björck (1950) 133) which, unlike Attic vernacular Ἀθηνᾶ, Ἀθήνη or Ἀθηναίη, left origi­ nal -ᾱ untouched (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 108, 1120–5). Ἀθηναίη, with modern -η, is used in tragedy where a quadrisyllabic form is convenient. σηκόν: either the holy ‘precinct’, external to the temple of a god or the shrine of a hero (e.g., Eur. TrGF 370.90); or, as in Eur. Ion 300 and adesp. TrGF 424 (cf. Pollux, On. 1.6 Bethe, Synagoge σ 58 Cunn. = Phot. Lex. σ 188 Theod. = Suda σ 302 Adler, Σ Eur. Pho. 1751, Σ D Hom. Il. 8.131 = Etym. magn. 710.55 Gaisf.), the innermost holy room of a temple of a god, generally a room at the bottom of the cella, separated by a wall from the rest of the cella, ~ ἄδυτον; or synecdochically the whole temple. According to the story reported by Dion. Hal. (AR 1.69.2–3) on the basis of the mythographers Callistratus (FGrHist 433F10) and Satyrus (FGrHist 20F1), the Il. persis (PEG F 1) reported that Odysseus seized not the original Palladium, which was hidden ἐν ἀβάτωι, but a copy exhibited in the open air; cf. also Serv. on Virg. Aen. 2.166 simulacrum hoc a Troianis absconditum fuisse intra exstructum parietem templi, postquam agnoverunt Troiam esse perituram. ἄγαλμα occurs more than 50x in Eur. (only 8x, e.g., in Hom.). Its original sense is ‘ornament’ for a god or for a dead person and it designates sacred statues of gods or heroes or, from the fourth century, kings, emperors, or benefactors; cf. Schubart (1866) 561–5, Robert (1937) 17 n. 1, Bloesch (1943) 24–36, Stieber (2011) 116–17. ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων φέρει: see 149–52a n. 503–7a are a concise narrative, later expanded by the emotional voice of a choral song at 710–19. Other narratives of the πτωχεία are Hom. Od. 4.244– 50, Proclus’ summary of the Il. parva and Il. parva PEG F7, Eur. Hec. 239–41, Lycophr. 779–85 with Σ 780, Plut. Sol. 30.1–2, Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5, PKöln VI.245 Parca. In almost all these narratives, but not at Rh. 503–5 and 711–19, Odysseus pretended to have been disfigured by his companion Thoas (as in Il. parva PEG F 7 and Lycophr. 780) or disfigured himself (the most common version). In fact, in Rh., instead of pretending to have been beaten up by his compatriots, he pretends to hate and curse them. Comparable to this version is Eur. TrGF 789d (from Philoctetes), where Odysseus claims to have suffered at

421

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 3 – 5 0 7 the hands of the Greeks, and when Philoctetes asks (in Dio’s paraphrase) καὶ τί δὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὃ πέπονθας οὕτως χαλεπόν; (25), he does not allege assault and battery, but simply answers that Odysseus had compelled him to run away from the Greek camp (26). The fact that in the πτωχεία of Rh. Odysseus presents himself in conflict with the other Greeks and as hostile to the Atreidae may derive from another Cyclic trickster, Sinon. Sinon, a first cousin of Odysseus according to Lycophr. 344, deceived the Trojans about the nature of the wooden horse by claiming to be at odds with the Greeks and disfiguring himself (Triphiod. 219–21, 228–9, 258–61, Tzetzes, Posthom. 687, Eust. on Od. 4.244 (1494.39–40); but not Virg. Aen. 2.57–198). Either the author of Rh. took the initiative of presenting Odysseus at odds with the Greeks, or he followed in this detail a text that already combined the Odysseus of the πτωχεία and the Sinon of the wooden horse.69 Odysseus’ spy mission was a theme of Ion’s Φρουροί (TrGF 19F44 comes from a dialogue between Odysseus and Helen; cf. Stevens (2007) 251–4, MinGrTrag ad loc.). Soph. wrote a Sinon (TrGF 542–4). Odysseus’ avoidance of the mission was the theme of Epicharmus’ Ὀδυσσεὺς αὐτομόλος, PCG 97–105. 503–4a ‘And then he came within the walls as a scrounger dressed in beggarly clothes.᾽ 712–13 and 715 also mention that Odysseus was disguised in beggarly clothes in the πτώχεια. At Od. 4.247–8 Helen narrates how Odysseus ἄλλωι … αὐτὸν ϕωτὶ κατακρύπτων ἤϊσκε, / Δέκτηι (or δέκτηι), ὃς οὐδὲν τοῖος ἔην ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν. The syntax and the sense of 4.248 are uncertain, and both lines have been suspected of interpolation (Friedländer (1849) 580–1, West (2013) 196). For the Hellenistic scholars it was uncertain in particular whether Δέκτης/δέκτης was the proper name of an individual, or a common noun δέκτης = ‘receiver’, i.e., ‘beggar’. As we know from Σ V Od. 4.248, going back to Aristonicus, at Il. parva PEG F 6 Dektes was the name of an otherwise unknown individual from whom Odysseus took the rags (ῥάκη) he wore for his disguise, but Aristarchus interpreted δέκτηι as a noun (= ‘beggar’). Rh. 503 ἀγύρτης πτωχικὴν ἔχων στολήν, making clear that Odysseus was disguised and dressed as a beggar, seems to endorse emphatically the interpretation of Od. 4.247–8 that Aristarchus was later to favour. Contrast other narratives of the πτωχεία suggesting more generally that Odysseus was disguised in ‘poor’ clothes: Od. 4.245, where Odysseus wears σπεῖρα κακ(ά) and is disguised as Serv. on Virg. Aen. 2.79 suggests that Virgil rightly ascribed the mission to Sinon, the cousin of Odysseus, in order to remain as close as possible to a supposedly original version in which Odysseus, not Sinon, carried out the mission of finally deceiving the Trojans. This version was perhaps presupposed by Hom. Od. 8.492–4 ἵππου κόσμον … / δουρατέου, … / ὅν ποτ᾽ ἐς ἀκρόπολιν δόλον ἤγαγε δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς, and was endorsed by Euphor. F 94 Lightfoot.

69

422

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 3 – 5 0 4 an οἰκεύς ‘waged servant’ (slightly inconsistent with 4.248 δέκτης ‘beggar’; cf. Stanford (1962/1964) I.275), Eur. Hec. 240 δυσχλαινίαι τ᾽ ἄμορφος, Ar. Vesp. 351 ἐκδῦναι ῥάκεσιν κρυϕθεὶς ὥσπερ πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς, Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13 πενιχρὰν στολὴν ἐνδυσάμενος ... εἰς τὴν πόλιν εἰσέρχεται ὡς ἐπαίτης. ἤδη ‘already’ reminds the audience that the πτωχεία had taken place before the theft of the Palladium: Hector narrates the later raid first, perhaps to highlight, in his indignation, the more sacrilegious of the two. ἀγύρτης (again Rh. 715) from ἀγείρειν ‘collect’ (Fraenkel (1910/1912) I.55–6). The verb ἀγυρτάζειν is used with no obvious derogatory implication by the disguised Odysseus in his fictitious report at Od. 19.284 χρήματ᾽ ἀγυρτάζειν πολλὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἰόντι, where χρήματ᾽ ἀγυρτάζειν is a synonym for κτήματ᾽ … ξυναγείρατ᾽ of Od. 14.323. But the noun was used in particular of the beggar-priests who collected alms for their gods (mainly foreign). They were itinerant professionals, who, unlike the traditional priests of the Olympian gods, were not attached to a single city (Finglass on Soph. OT 387, pp. 294–5). The most famous were the μητραγύρται/μηναγύρται = Cybele’s Γάλλοι. These marginal and venal figures were often presented as charlatans and oracle-mongers who swindled others to support themselves (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1273), and they were ridiculed in comedy (see below). By the fifth century, μάγος, γόης and ἀγύρτης were generally terms of reproach, whereas μάντις was usually a positive and respectful term (Dickie (2001) 60–74, Parker (2005) 118, Flower (2008) 65–6). Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1273–4 (the priestess Cassandra on the scorn that was heaped on her), ϕοιτὰς ὡς ἀγύρτρια, / πτωχὸς τάλαινα λιμοθνὴς ἠνεσχόμην, Hippocr. De morbo sacro 1.4 (the idea of epilepsy as a ‘sacred disease’ was circulated first of all by charlatans) οἷοι καὶ νῦν εἰσι μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ ἀλαζόνες, ὁκόσοι δὴ προσποιέονται σϕόδρα θεοσεβέες εἶναι καὶ πλέον τι εἰδέναι, Soph. OT 387–9 … μάγον τοιόνδε μηχανορράϕον, / δόλιον ἀγύρτην, ὅστις ἐν τοῖς κέρδεσιν / μόνον δέδορκε, Pl. Resp. 364b ἀγύρται δὲ καὶ μάντεις ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες πείθουσιν ὡς ἔστι παρὰ σϕίσι δύναμις ἐκ θεῶν ποριζομένη θυσίαις τε καὶ ἐπωιδαῖς; the fraudulent dishonesty and gluttony of Lampon, practitioner of religion and magic, was often a target for comic poets, cf. Ar. Av. 521, Cratin. PCG 62 and 125, Lysipp. PCG 6, adesp. PCG 1105.98. The term ἀγύρτης, generally derogatory in the fifth century (and at 503, 715), had acquired a specifically negative association with deceitful mendicant priests by the fourth century (Rigsby (1976) 112 n. 13). The term is especially suited to Odysseus the bogus beggar profiting from his unscrupulous skills in verbal and non-verbal schemes of deceit in order to fool the Trojans. πτωχικὴν ἔχων στολήν: cf. Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13 πενιχρὰν στολὴν ἐνδυσάμενος, quoted below in 712–14a n. The phrase may have been idiomatic; cf. Lycurg. 86 λαβόντα πτωχικὴν στολὴν ὅπως ἂν ἀπατήσηι τοὺς

423

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 4 – 5 0 6 πολεμίους, κατὰ τὰς πύλας ὑπεκδύντα ϕρύγανα συλλέγειν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως (another expedition in disguise behind enemy lines) and Dio Chrys. Or. 9.9 πτωχοῦ στολὴν ἔχοντι. στολήν is both ‘clothing’ and ‘equipment’; see above 205n. 504–5 On the pretended hostility of Odysseus to the Greeks, see 503–7a n. ἠρᾶτο, often ‘pray’, here (as frequently in tragedy) in the negative sense ‘curse’. πεμφθεὶς … κατάσκοπος here with concessive value (= ‘although he had been sent…’). For κατάσκοπος predicative, cf., e.g., Hdt. 7.146.1, Eur. Hec. 239 ἦλθες Ἰλίου κατάσκοπος, Xen. Cyr. 6.3.14 ὁ πεμφθεὶς πάλαι κατάσκοπος. Ἰλίου is an objective genitive; see 125–7n. 506–7a The detail of the slaughter of the guards probably presupposes the narrative of the πτωχεία at Od. 4.257–8 πολλοὺς δὲ Τρώων κτείνας ταναήκεϊ χαλκῶι / ἦλθε μετ᾽ Ἀργείους and in the Il. parva as summarised by Proclus (PEG p. 75) κτείνας τέ τινας τῶν Τρώων ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀϕικνεῖται. The killing of the guards is found – but in connection with the abduction of the Palladium, and thus with a focus on its guardians – at Virg. Aen. 2.166, where Odysseus and Diomedes snatch the Palladium caesis summae custodibus arcis, Sil. It. 13.48–50, where Diomedes together with Odysseus dextra amolitus in ipso / custodes aditu templi, caeleste reportat / Palladium, Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 5.13, quoted below in 712–14a n., where after being recognised by Helen Odysseus τὸ παλλάδιον ἔκλεψε πολλοὺς κτείνας τῶν φυλασσόντων ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς μετὰ Διομήδους κομίζει. Differently, in Soph. Lakainai Odysseus and Diomedes resorted to their cunning and entered the city through a sewer (cf. TrGF 367 and a possible allusion to this version at Ar. Vesp. 350; Serv. on Virg. Aen. 2.166 reports that they entered Troy according to some through cunicula, according to others through cloacae). At Conon 34 and Q.S. 10.350–1 they scaled the walls. φρουροὺς καὶ παραστάτας πυλῶν, probably a hendiadys, ‘the guardians who stand by the gates’ of the city walls, to defend them. It is unnecessary to surmise that φρουροί are sentries placed inside the city – to do what, if the gates were closed, as they should be? – and thus distinct from the guardians of the gates (Liapis 209–10, Fries 311). The idea of ‘assistance’ or ‘defence’ is often connected to the proper meaning of physical contiguity conveyed by παραστάτης / παραστατεῖν, both for divine support (at Archil. IEG 94.2 παρασταθεῖσα, Aesch. Sept. 668–9, Ag. 1079, Soph. Aj. 92, El. 916–17, adesp. TrGF 527, Ar. Th. 370, Ran. 385b, Xen. Cyr. 3.3.21, Men. PCG 500.1) and for the support of a comrade who ‘stands beside’ one in the battle (Aesch. Pers. 957, Soph. Ant. 671, Eur. Hcld. 88, 125; also in a metaphorical non-military sense, ‘supporter’, at, e.g., Eur. TGrF 295.1 δίκης παραστάτας).

424

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 7 – 5 0 8 507b–9a ‘He is always to be seen about the altars of Thymbraean Apollo near the city, crouching in ambush.’ As a hero of cunning and deceit more than martial might, Odysseus is frequently connected to the ambush. The poetics of Il. favours an idea of war as, mainly, open combat; it does mention ambushes, but only as having taken place in the past or in the extradiegetic dimension of ekphrasis, although even Achilles and Diomedes, heroes of the open combat, may occasionally employ the technique. Achilles captured Lycaon by night (Il. 21.34–44); at 1.226–8 Achilles criticises Agamemnon for not participating in ambushes. Cf. Σ A Il. 22.188 μόνος Ὅμηρός φησι μονομαχῆσαι τὸν Ἕκτορα, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ πάντες ἐνεδρευθῆναι ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως (but we find the version of the ambush only at Dictys 3.15), Edwards (1985) 15–41, Dué and Ebbott (2010) 31–87, Sheldon (2012) 1–41. Odysseus on the other hand at Od. 14.216–21 claims a military primacy mainly centred on ambushing. At Od. 14.462–506, in his Cretan lies to Eumaeus, the disguised Odysseus invents a story about an ambush set up ὑπὸ Τροίην (469; cf. also 473 περὶ ἄστυ) by Odysseus and Menelaus; he also boasts of another ambush at Od. 13.267–70. According to Proclus’ summary of the Il. parva (PEG p. 74) Odysseus caught Helenus in an ambush (λοχήσας … λαμβάνει); Soph. Ph. 603–10 also mentions that Odysseus deceitfully seized Helenus in the night, and the ‘imprisonment’ of Helenus by Odysseus probably featured in Eur. Philoctetes (TrGF 789b(2) Ἕλενος … ὡς ἔτυχεν αἰχμάλωτος ληφθείς). ἐν λόχοις … θάσσων ‘crouching in ambush.’ The commonest iconography of ambush shows that those who take part in it crouch to hide. According to Idomeneus (Hom. Il. 13.279–85) the bravery of the good ambusher consists in sitting still fearlessly, ἐπειδὰν πρῶτον ἐσίζηται λόχον ἀνδρῶν. ‘Sitting in a λόχος’ is technical for ‘setting an ambush’; cf. Rh. 512 ἵζειν … ἕδρας, Hom. Il. 4.392, 6.189 ~ Od. 4.531, Hes. Th. 174, Dion. Hal. AR 3.64.4, 9.20.2, 9.56.4, 11.27.3, Jos. Vita 400, Polyaen. Strat. 5.38, KG I.313–14 n. 13, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1492. The verb θάσσειν, a contraction of the Homeric θαάσσειν, is a typically Euripidean word (about 20x), found at Soph. OT 161, perhaps at Aesch. TrGF 131.3 (Taplin (1972) 66 n. 27), and Ar. Vesp. 1482 and Th. 889 (paratragic: Austin and Olson ad loc.). Θυμβραῖον ἀμϕὶ βωμὸν The shrine was a cult place attended by both besieging Greeks and Trojans and features regularly in the iconography of Achilles as ambusher. There he ambushed Troilus and Polyxena (cf. Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 3.32 ἐνεδρεύσας … φονεύει and Kemp-Lindemann (1975) 94–108, Cambitoglou (1986/1988) II.2–4, LIMC I.1, 87–90 ‘Achilleus’ 359– 88). According to Dictys 4.10–11 and other late sources Achilles was also ambushed and killed in the Thymbraean grove by Paris. ἄστεως πέλας: cf. Serv. on Virg. Aen. 3.85 Thymbraeus Apollo dicitur a loco Troiae, id est agro vicino, pleno thymbra. According to Σ Rh. 508, Dionysodorus of

425

C O M M E N TA RY 5 0 8 – 5 1 0 Troezen, a pupil of Aristarchus, argued in his work ‘On the mistakes of the tragedians’ that our passage contained a geographical mistake: ὁ δὲ Εὐριπίδης τὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἄλσος τοῦ Θυμβραίου στάδια ν’ (= 50) ἀπέχον τῆς πόλεως, κατὰ τῶν πυλῶν ϕησι.70 Dionysodorus suggested saving Eur. from the error by punctuating after βωμόν and writing ἢ ἄστεος πέλας, with ἤ in synaloephe with ἄ-. Then two distinct places would be mentioned. Dionysodorus had possibly noted the distance between the Thymbraean shrine of Apollo and Troy of his time (fifty stadia is a little less than six miles, and the confluence of the Thymbr(i)us and the Scamander, where the shrine was, is south-west of Troy-Hissarlik at about that distance). Hesych. Lex. θ 868 Latte and Strabo 13.1.35 (598) inform us that the distance between the shrine and the old city of Troy was ten stadia (little more than a mile). Hesychius’ and Strabo’s references to ἀρχαίας πόλεως and παλαιὸν κτίσμα suggest that for some ancient scholar(s) the alleged mistake in Rh. was not in fact a mistake. The author of Rh. too may have placed ancient Troy closer to Thymbra; so in the second century, for example, Demetrius of Scepsis, followed extensively by Strabo in Book 13 about the Troad, was persuaded that the Homeric Troy was not in the same place as the Troy of his time. 509b κακῶι … μερμέρωι ‘deadly plague’ is perhaps based on Hom. Il. 10.48 τόσσαδε μέρμερ(α) … μητίσασθαι and 10.52 τόσα … κακὰ μήσατ(ο); according to a well-known Greek lexicographic and rhetorical practice (see Prol. 1 n.) the two words μέρμερα and κακά, which were used in contiguous phrases in a previous literary text, are made into a single noun + epithet phrase. μέρμερα is connected by ancient and modern linguists to μέριμνα ‘distress’. It is found 3x in Hom. as a neuter plural adjective of ἔργα and 3x as a substantival neuter plural, always of ‘destructive’ actions in war; in particular it is applied at Il. 10.48 and 11.502 to the most harmful actions of Hector raging on the battlefield (possibly the model for calling Odysseus κακῶι … μερμέρωι as the most harmful of the foes at Rh. 509). The term is extended beyond the martial sphere to ‘harmful’ female actions in Hes. Th. 603, and Pl. Hp. Ma. 290e μέρμερος πάνυ ἐστίν, probably a burlesque quotation from epic (cf. Friedländer (1964) II.316–17 n. 1), applies it to a person, as here. 510–11 ‘No courageous man thinks it right to kill the enemy by stealth, but fighting face to face’ presupposes the contrast between types of fighting by which, e.g., Ajax distinguishes himself from Odysseus in Antisth. Aj. 5, ὃ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι ἂν δράσειε ϕανερῶς, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδὲν ἂν λάθραι τολμήσαιμι πρᾶξαι (cf. Montiglio (2011) 28). The idea that Odysseus fought underhandedly returns at 707–9 and was widespread; it is especially clear in Pind. in Text of Merro (2008); στάδια ν’ is a correction of στάδιον (V) by L. Dindorf, who compared Strabo 13.1.35 (598) quoted below.

70

426

C O M M E N TA RY 5 1 0 – 5 1 4 relation to the award of the arms of Achilles (Nem. 8.32–6 ἐχθρὰ δ᾽ ἄρα πάρϕασις ἦν καὶ πάλαι, / αἱμύλων μύθων ὁμόϕοιτος, δολοϕραδής, κακοποιὸν ὄνειδος· … εἴη μή ποτέ μοι τοιοῦτον ἦθος, Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ κελεύθοις / ἁπλόαις ζωᾶς ἐϕαπτοίμαν; also Nem. 7.20–7), and in tragedy: Soph. Ph. 90–1 εἴμ᾽ ἕτοιμος πρὸς βίαν τὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἄγειν / καὶ μὴ δόλοισιν (Neoptolemus, distinguishing himself from Odysseus; cf. 102–3), TrGF 913, quoted in 498b–500n., Eur. Or. 1403–4 κακόμητις ἀνὴρ / οἷος Ὀδυσσεύς, σιγᾶι δόλιος; on Odysseus’ deceitful rhetoric, cf. Eur. Hec. 131–3, Tro. 282–7, IA 1362–4. Odysseus’ deceit has been made clear by Hector’s account of his raids on Troy. Rhesus, who has not yet been personally damaged by Odysseus, explains his sympathy for Hector and hostility to Odysseus with general principles of military ethics. Criticism of the inappropriate use of deception or tricks is not rare: e.g., Hdt. 1.212.2, Thuc. 4.86.6, Arr. An. 3.10.1–2 ~ Plut. Alex. 31.7, and most explicitly the idealisation of archaic or epic warfare at Polyb. 13.3.2–6 οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι … οὐδὲ τοὺς πολεμίους ἡιροῦντο δι᾽ ἀπάτης νικᾶν, ὑπολαμβάνοντες οὔτε λαμπρὸν οὐδὲ μὴν βέβαιον εἶναι τῶν κατορθωμάτων, ἐὰν μή τις ἐκ τοῦ προϕανοῦς μαχόμενος ἡττήσηι ταῖς ψυχαῖς τοὺς ἀντιταττομένους. Despite their preference for such fighting, however, many Greek battles were actually decided by tricks and deceit. Xen., for instance, concludes some of his narratives of deceitful military successes with positive comments on their legitimacy (ὅσιος, δίκαιος, etc.: Ages. 1.15–17, 1.29, Mem. 4.2.15, Cyr. 1.6.27–9 and 38), and in Hipparch. 5.10–11 plainly states: ὄντως γὰρ οὐδὲν κερδαλεώτερον ἀπάτης ἐν πολέμωι … καὶ ἐνθυμούμενος δ᾽ ἂν τὰ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις πλεονεκτήματα εὕροι ἄν τις τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ μέγιστα σὺν ἀπάτηι γεγενημένα. Cf. Krentz (2000) 168–96. ἀνὴρ εὔψυχος: cf. Eur. Hel. 852 εὔψυχον ἄνδρα; elsewhere in tragedy only at Eur. Andr. 764 and Aesch. Pers. 394 (but Eur. has the noun εὐψυχία 14x). The adjective is often used of military boldness, and specifically of boldness in attack: e.g., Thuc. 2.11.5; Xen. Hipparch. 8.21. ἰὼν κατὰ στóμα ~ 409 ἐμπεσὼν κατὰ στόμα (Hector describing his own way of fighting; Rhesus could not express his sympathy more clearly than by adopting Hector’s words); see 408–11a n. 512–15 ἵζειν … κλωπικὰς ἕδρας: for the poetic internal accusative with verbs of ‘sitting in’, see 507b–9a n.; for κλωπικός, 205n. μηχανᾶσθαι is here absolute, as at Hom. Od. 4.822–3 δυσμενέες γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶι μηχανόωνται, / ἱέμενοι κτεῖναι, where however the participial phrase points to the purpose (LfgrE). ζῶντα συλλαβών is perhaps a military idiom; cf. Diod. Sic. 8.4.2, 30.14.1, Jos. AJ 6.370, 12.390, 20.208. πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξóδοισιν, ‘at the exits of the gates’ or ‘at the doors, where they look out’ ~ Aesch. Sept. 33, 58; cf. Soph. El. 328 πρὸς θυρῶνος ἐξόδοις. According to Tucker (1908) 16, followed by Liapis 211, the phrase ‘distinguishes

427

C O M M E N TA RY 5 1 4 – 5 1 5 the πύλαι in the narrower sense of the actual passage-way from πύλαι in the larger sense of the whole structure with its tower and flank-walls or bastions’. But ἐξ- emphasises the idea of ‘way out’ (cf. Soph. El. 1322 = Tr. 532 ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδωι ‘with departure in view’); the exemplary execution of Odysseus is for the eyes of the Greeks, not for the Trojans inside the city. ἀμπείρας ῥάχιν Rhesus’ threat is extreme. Impalement is the second of the two punishments (the first is ‘throwing from a cliff’) that Thoas threatens to inflict on Orestes and Pylades for their stealing from a sacred place at Eur. IT 1429–30 (σκόλοψι πήξωμεν δέμας). Hdt. 4.103.3 also attests that the Tauroi impaled their enemies: πολεμίους δὲ ἄνδρας τοὺς ἂν χειρώσωνται ποιεῦσι τάδε· ἀποταμὼν ἕκαστος κεϕαλὴν ἀποϕέρεται ἐς τὰ οἰκία, ἔπειτα ἐπὶ ξύλου μεγάλου ἀναπείρας (cf. Rh. ἀμπείρας) ἱστᾶι ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκίης ὑπερέχουσαν πολλόν. In Athens temple-robbers were subjected to the most extreme methods of execution, and even denial of burial, and Hector with his emphasis on the theft of the Palladium has presented Odysseus as sacrilegious (see 501– 2n.). But very little historical evidence exists of impalement being practised in Athens. In a scene of cruel resentment and contempt, Orestes, who carries Aegisthus’ body, invites Electra to impale it as if it were that of a slave (cf. Eur. El. 897–9, with Cropp (2015) 160). Elsewhere this practice is mentioned only in connection with the primitive justice of the Erinyes (Aesch. Eum. 189–90), with the savagery of the Cyclops (Eur. Cycl. 302–3), with the paradoxical punishments inflicted by the unjust on the just (Pl. Resp. 361e), or with barbarian Assyrians, Medes, and Persians at Hdt. 1.128.2 (Astyages), 3.159.1 (Darius), 4.43.6 (Xerxes), 4.202 (the Persian vassal Pheretime of Cyrene), 9.78–9 (an Aeginetan suggests impaling Mardonius, but the Spartan king Pausanias rejects the proposal as ‘appropriate more for barbarians than for Greeks’); cf. Hall (1989) 158–9, Halm-Tisserant (1998) 1315, Kyriakou on Eur. IT 1422–30. ἀμπείρας may be a technical term for impalement, with ἀνα- pointing to the usual movement of the impaling pole from near the anus or the base of the spine to the neck; cf. Hdt. 4.103.3 ἀναπείρας quoted above. In our line the MSS are divided between the verbal forms ἐμπείρειν and ἀναπείρειν, as at Jos. AJ 16.315, where the sense, as here, must be ‘impale’; likewise in Ar. Ach. 796, where the verb has the similar meaning of ‘skewering’ meat on a spit, the transmitted ἐμπεπαρμένον is consistently emended to ἀμπ‑ by modern editors, in the light of ἀναπείρω, used in the same sense at 1007. στήσω … θοινατήριον: the topos of birds feasting on the exposed bodies of the dead or wounded is widespread, especially in epic and tragedy: Hom. Il. 1.4–5: αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν / οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, 4.237 τῶν ἤτοι αὐτῶν τέρενα χρόα γῦπες ἔδονται ~ 16.836 and Od. 22.30, Il. 11.161–2 οἳ δ’ ἐπὶ γαίηι / κείατο, γύπεσσιν πολὺ ϕίλτεροι ἠ᾽ ἀλόχοισιν, Od. 3.271 κάλλιπεν οἰωνοῖσιν ἕλωρ καὶ κύρμα γενέσθαι (also Il. 2.393, 8.379 ~ 13.831, 17.241; 18.271 ~ 22.42; Od. 5.473, 24.292), Soph. Aj. 1065 ὄρνισι ϕορβὴ …

428

C O M M E N TA RY 5 1 5 – 5 1 7 γενήσεται, Ant. 29–30 ἄταϕον, οἰωνοῖς γλυκὺν / θησαυρὸν εἰσορῶσι πρὸς χάριν βορᾶς, Eur. Pho. 1634 ἄκλαυτον, ἄταϕον, οἰωνοῖς βοράν, Timoth. PMG 791.137–8 κείσομαι οἰκτρὸς ὀρ/νίθων ἔθνεσιν ὠμοβρῶσι θοίνα (also Soph. Aj. 829–30, El. 1487–8, Ph. 957, Eur. Hec. 1077, Tro. 599–600), West (2007) 476, 491–2. At Il. 1.4–5 quoted above, which was athetised by Zenodotus, a variant existed for the last word, δαῖτα. This variant, known only through Athen. 1.12f–13a, more explicitly introduces the idea of the corpse as food for birds, as θοινατήριον here; cf. Pasquali (1952) 236–7, Pfeiffer (1968) 111–14, Renehan (1979). The text of Il. 1.5 in Athen. finds close parallels also at Aesch. Supp. 800–1 κυσὶν δ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽ ἕλωρα κἀπιχωρίοις / ὄρνισι δεῖπνον οὐκ ἀναίνομαι πέλειν, where δεῖπνον ‘feast’ (for birds), like δαῖτα, balances ἕλωρα ‘prey’ (for dogs), and in similar images concerning animals preying on the dead at Eur. Hec. 1075–8 ποῖ πᾶι ϕέρομαι τέκν᾽ ἔρημα λιπὼν / Βάκχαις Ἅιδα διαμοιρᾶσαι / σϕακτά, κυσίν τε ϕοινίαν δαῖτ’ ἀνή-/μερον . . . ; and Ion 503–6 παρθένος μελέα βρέϕος / Φοίβωι πτανοῖς ἐξόρισεν / θοίναν θηρσί τε ϕοινίαν / δαῖτα. The exposure of the unburied corpse of Odysseus is here legally appropriate. Odysseus had been accused of temple robbery by Hector at 501–2, and Rhesus repeats the accusation at 516–17. On temple robbers being denied burial, see 501–2n. θοινατήριον ‘eating-place’, from θοίνη; compare εὐνατήριον ‘­sleeping-room’ from εὐνή (Aesch.; see below). The long alpha, irregular in Attic, should not be doubted, nor should O’s θοιναστήριον be preferred. εὐναστηρίοις transmitted at Soph. Tr. 918, and εὐναστήριον at Eur. Or. 590 and in the pap. of TrGF 223.130, are corrected by all modern editors to εὐνατηρίοις and εὐνατήριον. The anomalous vocalism is also found in another word derived from θοίνη in Xen. Oec. 9.7 (θοινατικά most MSS). Even in dialogue, the MSS of the tragedians consistently have eta in θοίνη but long alpha in its derived forms θοινάτωρ, θοίναμα, as well as, e.g., in πόρπαμα (see 438–42n.); cf. Nauck (1862) 175, Mahlow (1926) 140, Smereka (1936/1937) I.58, Björck (1950) 139–42. 516–17 ‘This is the right death for him, a thief and temple robber.’ This perhaps re-uses the common topos that the barbarians were doomed to fail to conquer Greece because they had sacked the temples: Aesch. Pers. 805–15 (in particular 807–10 οὗ σϕιν κακῶν ὕψιστ᾽ ἐπαμμένει παθεῖν, / ὕβρεως ἄποινα κἀθέων ϕρονημάτων· / οἳ γῆν μολόντες Ἑλλάδ᾽ οὐ θεῶν βρέτη / ἠιδοῦντο συλᾶν οὐδὲ πιμπράναι νεώς), Hdt. 8.109.3, and Diod. Sic. 14.63.1–2, 70.4, 76.3–4, 77.4 on the disasters suffered by the Carthaginians when they plundered temples. Cf. Parker (1983) 171, Fisher (1992) 258–61, Cairns (1996) 16–17 n. 68, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 808–15.

429

C O M M E N TA RY 5 1 6 – 5 1 8 θεῶν ἀνάκτορα = Eur. Tro. 15. ἀνάκτορον ‘temple’ (or ‘king’s home’), parallel to ἀνάκτωρ ‘lord’ (< ἄναξ), is typically Euripidean (14x); 1x in Soph., never in Aeschylus. συλῶντα points specifically to Odysseus’ theft of the Palladium, mentioned by Hector at 501–2. The verb is often used of pillaging divine statues in temples: Aesch. Pers. 809–10, Eur. TrGF 328.3, Polyb. 32.15.3, Diod. Sic. 13.108.4, 31.35.1. τῶιδε κατθανεῖν μόρωι: for the turn of phrase, and on the sense of μóρος, see 378–9n. The v.l. πότμωι, which is also found for μόρωι at Aesch. Pers. 444, quoted in 378–9n., was perhaps a gloss explaining μόρος as ‘destiny’; cf. Eur. Hec. 695 τίνι μόρωι θνήισκεις, τίνι πότμωι κεῖσαι…;. 518 νῦν μέν: Hector’s temporal νῦν ‘now’ takes Rhesus’ boast to be concluded and focuses on totally different and practical topics, the password and the immediate agenda. καταυλίσθητε, plural (all MSS), is suitable in view of Hector’s attention to Rhesus’ troops at 519–20 and 522. Rhesus is addressed in the singular, but only as the person who will share Hector’s orders or information with the Thracian army, at 519 δείξω … σοι and 522 μέμνησ(ο) … ἄγγειλον. Note also the plural ὑμᾶς at 523, opposed to the plural ἡμῖν used for the Trojan army. The plural ending of the verb should thus be kept, with Zanetto (i) 37, Kovacs 406, Mastronarde (2004) 21, Jouan 32. Diggle (ed.), Liapis 213, and Fries 316 favour καταυλίσθητι, suggested by Kirchhoff (i) 556 (but suppressed in Kirchhoff (ii) 328). The singular would continue the one-to-one communication in the preceding dialogue; but after νῦν Hector focuses on the practical organisation of Rhesus and his army. The verb is sometimes used for night lodging; cf. Hippon. IEG 16.2 κνεϕαῖος ἐλθὼν … κατηυλίσθην, Soph. Ph. 30 ὅρα καθ’ ὕπνον μὴ καταυλισθεὶς κυρῆι (where the weak v.l. κατακλιθείς was perhaps suggested by καθ’ ὕπνον (Jebb ad loc.)) and 33 στιπτή γε ϕυλλὰς ὡς ἐναυλίζοντί τωι, Eur. TrGF 752d.8 εἰ δύ[να]τον [ἡμῖ]ν̣ νύκ̣τ’ ἐ̣[ναυλίσ]α̣ι̣ μίαν, Polyb. 5.8.8, Diod. Sic. 13.49.6, Plut. Crass. 23.5 (also Aesch. Ag. 555–6 εἰ λέγοιμι … δυσαυλίας, / σπαρνὰς παρήξεις καὶ κακοστρώτους, TrGF 78c.i.7 κο̣[ίτ]ω̣ ι ̣ καὶ κακαῖς δ[υσ]αυ̣λ̣ί ̣α̣ι ̣ς). It can mean ‘be under the shelter of a hall or tent’ (LSJ), but Plut. Mor. 578e αὐτόθι κατηυλισμένον ἐπὶ στιβάδων· ϕαίνεσθαι γὰρ ἄγνου καὶ μυρίκης χαμεύνας, with its reference to beds of leaves, shows that it can also refer to a bivouac in the open air. The Trojans were certainly bivouacking, and not sheltered by tents (see 1n.); so too the Thracians (Liapis 213), since Rhesus refers to the cold winds that he had to endure in his cloak on the way to Troy (440–2). Bivouacs and improvised huts in unfortified camps seem to have been more common than stable tents in the classical age, at least for marching armies (and Rhesus had just arrived after a long march); cf. Anderson (1970) 61–6.

430

C O M M E N TA RY 5 1 8 – 5 2 0 καὶ γάρ ‘and in fact’ is explanatory (Denniston (1954) 108–9). There is a further instance at the end of the speech (525–6). Both emphasise the fact that Hector is giving justified orders. εὐφρόνη: see 91–2n. 519–20 ~ 613–14. In Il. 10 Dolon, captured by Odysseus and Diomedes, had been asked where Hector was sleeping, and about the watches and ­sleeping-places of the other Trojans (10.408 πῶς δαὶ τῶν ἄλλων Τρώων ϕυλακαί τε καὶ εὐναί;). Hoping to save his life, he answers in considerable and unrequested detail (as observed by Dio Chrys. Or. 55.14). Dolon’s information, including the first mention of Rhesus in the Il., is probably in the background of Rh. 519–20. He had revealed that the allies were sleeping, while the Trojans had no distinct detachments of sentries guarding the camp (10.416– 17) but were staying awake and telling one another to keep watch (10.419–20); this contrasts with the steadfast vigilance of the detachments of Greek sentinels at Il. 9.80–8 and 10.180–9. Dolon also reported that the Thracians with Rhesus were sleeping in an isolated position (10.434 Θρήϊκες οἵδ’ ἀπάνευθε νεήλυδες ἔσχατοι ἄλλων), thus suggesting they would be easy prey. δείξω … χῶρον … ἔνθα: cf. HHom.Herm. 393–4 δεῖξαι τὸν χῶρον … ὅππηι, HHom.Ap. 521 χῶρον … ἔνθ’, Hom. Od. 9.181–2 τὸν χῶρον … ἔνθα, Hom. Il. 10.520, 23.138 χῶρον … ὅθ(ι), Soph. Aj. 657 χῶρον … ἔνθ’. The phrase may have been suggested by the deictic οἵδ(ε) used by Dolon at Il. 10.434, quoted above. Σ exeg. Il. 10.434, in fact, observed: τῆι χειρὶ δείκνυσι, καθ᾽ ὃν τόπον ἐστρατοπεδεύκασιν, confirmed by Eust. ad loc. (817.25–7) τὸ δὲ ‘οἵδε’ ἴσως μὲν καὶ δακτύλωι ἀϕελῶς δεικνὺς ὁ Δόλων ϕησίν, εἰ καὶ νὺξ ἦν, μάλιστα δὲ ἀναϕορικῶς. ἀναϕέρει γὰρ πρὸς τὴν ἐν ἑαυτῶι εἴδησιν περὶ τῶν Θραικῶν. νυχεῦσαι ‘spend the night’. Fries 317 rightly argues that this verb is simply the antonym of ἡμερεύειν ‘spend the day’, with no specific concern for either sleep or wakefulness (cf. Σ Soph. Ant. 784 ἐννυχεύεις· διατρίβεις, Plut. Mor. 434e ἐννυχεύσας οὖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος … τῶι σηκῶι καὶ κατακοιμηθείς, where the action of ‘sleeping’ in the night is conveyed by the specific κατακοιμηθείς). However it is used of a night spent in wakefulness in its other tragic appearances (Soph. Ant. 784 ἐννυχεύεις, Eur. El. 181, TrGF 753c.19–20), and thus we cannot rule out that it was a ‘misuse of dictio tragica’ in Rh. (Liapis 213). τοῦ τεταγμένου δίχα ‘separately’ from the Trojan army, already arranged in ranks; see 614 ἐκτὸς … τάξεων. In classical Greek camps soldiers did sometimes sleep and eat in the ranks in which they were organised for marching or fighting: cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.5.12 ἐκάθευδον … ἐν τάξει ὥσπερ οἱ ὁπλῖται, οὕτω δὲ καὶ οἱ πελτασταὶ καὶ οἱ τοξόται and An. 7.3.15, where the troops of Xen. κατὰ τάξεις ἐσκήνησαν. Although it is difficult to say how far Xen.’s depiction of Cyrus’ ideal army corresponded to reality, in his camps the tents ‘were each large enough in size to accommodate a company’, as he thought that ‘their quartering together helped them to gain a perfect acquaintance with their

431

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 0 – 5 2 6 τάξεις; for the captains had the companies under them in as perfect order as when the company was marching single file’ (Cyr. 2.1.25–8). Cf. Anderson (1970) 62, Krentz (2007) 164, Rico (2013) 75–80. 521 ξύνθημα … Φοῖβον: on the regular military use of passwords, especially at night-time, see 11–14n. σύνθημα, again at 684, 752, 763, is a technical term for ‘password’ in Hdt., Thuc. and Xen. The names of gods were frequently used. This is the case for all but three of the seventeen passwords mentioned at Aen. Tact. 24.1 and 24.15; cf. also ‘Hera’ or ‘Hebe’ at Hdt. 9.98.3, ‘Zeus saviour and Victory’ at Xen. An. 1.8.16, ‘Zeus saviour and Heracles leader’ at Xen. An. 6.5.25, ‘Athena’ at Xen. An. 7.3.39, ‘Zeus ally and leader’ at Xen. Cyr. 3.3.58, ‘Zeus saviour and leader’ at Xen. Cyr. 7.1.10, ‘Hermes friendly’ at Polyaen. Strat. 3.9.21, Russell (1999) 183. Aen. Tact. 24.14 also recommends that they be ‘easily remembered and as nearly related as possible to the intended operations’. In Rh., the password ‘Phoibos’ (the Sungod) perhaps refers by contrast to night-time (for emphasis on the night as the time of the action, cf. Introduction, pp. 55–6, 5n.). Another reason may have been that Apollo was ­favourable to the city – he is invoked as such by the chorus at 224–32 to protect Dolon. ἤν τι καὶ δέηι ‘if any need (of the password) actually arises’ (cf. Pl. Smp. 199b εἴ τι καὶ τοιούτου λόγου δέηι), i.e., in case on their way to the place assigned they meet a Trojan sentry. 522 μέμνησ᾽ ἀκούσας ‘listen and remember’, as at Aesch. Ag. 830 μέμνημαι κλυών, Pl. Prm. 126c ἀκούσας … ἀπομνημονεύει, Hp. Ma. 285e ἀκούσας … ἀπομνημονεύσω; not ‘remember that you have listened’ as at Xen. Cyr. 1.6.3, 1.6.6, 2.4.12; cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 830. Diomedes’ οἶδα σύμβολον κλυών at 573 may echo this phrase with tragic irony: it is not Rhesus but someone else who will remember and use the password; see 688. 523–6 ὑμᾶς δὲ βάντας … φρουρεῖν ἐγερτί: Dolon’s information at Il. 10.419– 20 that the Trojans had no special sentry detachment but ‘told one another to keep watch’ probably lies behind the order that Hector now gives to the watchmen to stay awake (524 ἐγερτί) and keep watch. The fact that Hector of Rh. has sentries and takes care that they are operational may correct a mistake of his Iliadic model. Σ exeg. to Il. 10.417 criticised Hector leaving it to individuals to volunteer for sentinel duty, out of undue contempt of the Greeks (ἀστρατήγητον τὸ πᾶσιν ἐπιτρέψαι τὴν ϕυλακὴν ἑκουσίως, καὶ πολλῆς τῆς ἀλαζονείας· καταϕρονεῖ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων), and Aen. Tact. 22.1 recommends: νυκτοϕυλακεῖσθαι ἐν μὲν τοῖς κινδύνοις καὶ προσκαθημένων ἤδη ἐγγὺς πολεμίων πόλει ἢ στρατοπέδωι. The command focuses attention on the chorus, which will soon perform their stasimon. The optimistic reference to the welcome to be accorded Dolon, promptly undercut by the conditional of 525, thus anticipates the

432

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 3 – 5 2 6 second part of the play, where Dolon’s death is revealed and Rhesus is slaughtered. προταινί, adverb, here can only have a prepositional local sense: ‘in front of ’ (Σ ad loc. σημαίνει δὲ τὸ ἔμπροσθεν). Elsewhere it seems always to have a temporal sense (Hesych. Lex. π 3966 Hansen προταίνιον· πρὸ μικροῦ and 3967 προταίνιον· παλαιόν). Parmeniscus, a pupil of Aristarchus (second or first century), states that it is a Boeotism, and in fact it is supplied – in the form προτηνί, with the typical Boeotian vocalism η instead of αι of other dialects (Page (1953) 59) – in a few inscriptions of the fourth and third centuries from Thespiae (IG VII.1739.10, 14; BCH 21 (1897) 557.2) and Thebes (IG VII.2406.7), where it always has an adverbial temporal sense ‘previously’. Rh. has a second possible Boeotism, attributive μυριάς, at 913. The word is derived from πρό + demonstrative dative ‑ται‑/‑τηι‑ (scil. ἡμέραι) + ‑νί (with final particle -νε strengthened by deictic suffix ‑ί). πρό and other prepositions are not seldom construed with dative instead of genitive in various dialects: Buck (1955) 108. The Doricising (cf. Phot. Lex. π 1118 Theod.) epithet ποταίνιος ‘recent’, first attested at Ibyc. PMGF S174.3, Pind. Ol. 10.60, Bacch. 17.51, later used in tragedy (Aesch. Sept. 239, Cho. 1055, Eum. 282, PV 102, TrGF 46b.6, 149.5, Soph. Ant. 849, TrGF 149.5), is perhaps etymologically connected to προτηνί; it may have influenced the choice of the vocalism αι instead of Boeotian η in Rh. For Liapis 214 προταινί with local sense is ‘a misuse suggesting that the author may have been too quick to fish a precious word from a dialect he did not know too well’. Ritchie (1964) 159 less censoriously compares the shift from temporal to local sense attested in other words of similar meaning, such as πάροιθεν, πάρος, πρόσθεν, etc. ἐγερτί, from the root of the present ἐγείρειν, is also found at Soph. Ant. 413 (elsewhere only at Heracl. VS 9B63 – an emendation, but very probable). The model of Rh. will have been the hapax ἐγρηγορτί, from the root of the perfect, used at Il. 10.182 for the ‘alert’ Greek sentries sitting with their arms. τάξεων: see 519–20n. The sentries are ahead of the ranks = Trojan camp. Rhesus and his Thracians will thus not be watched by them, as the charioteer will make clear at Rh. 764–5. νεῶν κατάσκοπον: see 125–7n. δέχθαι, an athematic infinitive, is a correction given in the Aldine edition. Unmetrical δέχεσθαι of the MSS is an obvious banalisation. δέχθαι is attested before Rh. only at Hom. Il. 1.23 (where most MSS evidence the same corruption) = 1.377, imitated by HHom.Aphr. 140; compare Hom. ὑποδέχθαι, δέγμενος, ἔδεκτο. It remains restricted to epic language (Callim. Hymns 1x, Ap. Rh. 7x). πελάζει: see 13–14n. στρατοπέδοισι Τρωϊκοῖς may be a ‘poetic’ plural for singular, common in tragedy (Liapis 215, Fries 319). But ‘camps’ may refer, here and at 811, to

433

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 7 – 5 6 4 the camp ‘arranged in ranks’ (520) of the Trojans with their allies and the separate (δίχα) camp of the Thracians – both under the control of Hector. The two camps may be called ‘Trojan’ here because Hector has in mind a single στρατός under his command, as is clear from 810, where he complains that his army has been put to the sword; from 813, where he notes that the sentinels should have watched over the army, but did not, and thus made it possible for the Thracians to be killed; and from 537–45, where of the five watches one is taken by Trojans and four by allied forces but they seem to be responsible for protecting Trojans and allies alike (in the night of Il. 10, by contrast, the allies sleep and do not patrol: cf. 10.420–1). 527–64 mention astronomical and audible indications that dawn is approaching: it is time to wake up the sentries of the last watch. The play opened with the chorus introducing their guard duty and stating that their watch was the fourth (5), thus making clear that the action was taking place in the night. The dawn song thus prefaces the second beginning of the play, dominated by the second achievement of the Greek spies, who after having killed Dolon will now kill Rhesus. The time reference also leads the chorus to speak of the return of Dolon from what was to be his glorious spying mission (556–61). Preparations for that mission had been the main concern of the first part of the play, together with the anticipation of Rhesus’ triumph. The anxiety with which they speak of Dolon’s mission anticipates its disastrous end – practically the end of Dolon’s participation in the plot, as after the chorus’ prediction (in reality post eventum) he will be mentioned only briefly. The parodos of Eur. Phaethon (TrGF 773.19–42) parallels the combination of astronomical signs (here the position of the Pleiades and Aquila in the sky; in Phaeth. the position of the Pleiades and the light of dawn), and sounds (in both, the song of the nightingale), and in particular sounds provided by the resumption of human activities (in both, the σύριγγες of shepherds driving their flocks to pasture). But in Rh. the chorus appears actually to listen to the sound of the shepherds’ pipes, and both stars and sounds evoke the imminent dawn. By contrast, in Phaeth. (773.27–42), the mention of the shepherds with their pipes occurs in a short list of human activities that begin again at dawn. These activities are not related to the narrative action; rather, they contrast the situation of the chorus (who intend to celebrate the marriage of their masters) with the usual routine activities of others at dawn. Metrical structure of 527–37 and 546–56 527–8 ~ 546–7 ⏔−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− ⏒−⏑− − −||  ⏔D⏒ (= paroemiac) + e e‸ 529 ~ 548 −⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−  e−D 530 ~ 549 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−  D

434

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 7 – 5 6 4 531 ~ 550 ⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑−⏑− − || ‸D⏑e− (= diomedean enoplian + e‸) 532 ~ 551 ⏓−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−− ⏒D− (= erasmonidean enoplian) 533 ~ 552 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑− D 534 ~ 553 −−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−− || −D− (= erasmonidean enoplian) 535 ~ 554 −−−⏑⏑−− contr. D− 536–7 ~ 556–7 −⏑−−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑−− ||| e−D⏑−− Strophe and antistrophe consist of dactylo-epitrites, which are frequently expanded and can be interpreted as paroemiac or erasmonidean enoplian or diomedean enoplian. 527–8 ~ 546–7 The same structure is found at the end of the strophe-­ antistrophe of the hymenaeus in Eur. Phaeth. (TrGF 781.21–2). Cretic + spondee (syncopated ithyphallic) appears in similar structures at Eur. Tro. 515 ~ 535, TrGF 911.4; it is a clausular rhythm in the context of prevailing dactylo-epitrites, e.g., at Stesich. F 192 Finglass, Pind. Pyth. 9.2, Soph. OT 1097 ~ 1109, Eur. Her. 898 ~ 909, Tro. 283, 287, Diggle (1990=1994) 392–3. The spondee is a rare ingredient of dactylo-epitrites (Dale (1968) 182, Fries 320, with examples). 530–1 ~ 549–50 are divided according to Ritchie (1964) 324–5, Diggle (ed.), Willink (2002/2003=2010) 578, and Lourenço (2011) 353. The word-breaks suggest the treatment of 531~550 as a separate colon, which would be paralleled by Rh. 900–1 ~ 911–12, Eur. Alc. 437 ~ 447 and 442 ~ 452, and can be interpreted as a dactylo-epitrite colon with rising start (West (1982) 133) expanded by final ⏑e− (Liapis 217). The interpretation of the two lines 530–1 ~ 549–50 as dactylic tetrameter acatalectic + ithyphallic (Dale (1968) 181 and (1971/1983) I.101 and Fries 320–1) requires there to be a colon not marked off by word division in the antistrophe, and introduces an isolated sequence of four dactyls in the context of straightforward dactylo-epitrites. Other syncopated iambics may follow dactyls ending in double short (examples in Fries 321), but the ithyphallic ‘does not abut directly on to dactyls ending in double short’, as observed by Diggle (1990=1994) 395 n. 107; see also Mastronarde, metrical n. to Eur. Pho. 1581, p. 561.71 536–7 ~ 556–7 The same colon is a clausula of a dactylo-epitrite period at Soph. Ant. 585. The last ten syllables are an alcaic decasyllable, a period clausula at Soph. El. 1062 ~ 1074 and OC 1214 ~ 1227 (Pohlsander (1964) 30, 59, 82; Dale (1971/1983) I.20, II.42–3, II.64).

On the colometry accepted there by Mastronarde see Diggle (1990=1994) 361.

71

435

C O M M E N TA RY 5 2 7 – 5 2 9 527–30 Dawn sometimes marks the resumption of human activities in drama: e.g., Soph. El. 22, Eur. El. 102–5, IA 156–60, TrGF 773.19–42 (see 527– 64n.), Ar. Eccl. 20–3. Mentions of typical activities external to the narrative that begin at dawn are also frequent in epic: e.g., Hes. Op. 579–81, Callim. Aet. F 21.3 Harder, Hec. F 74.22–8 Hollis, Virg. Aen. 11.182–3, Ovid, Am. 1.13.11–24. τίνος ἁ φυλακά; τίς ἀμείβει τὰν ἐμάν; (sc. φυλακάν) ‘Who is on watch duty now? Who takes over my watch?’ Cf. Hom. Il. 9.471 οἳ μὲν ἀμειβόμενοι ϕυλακὰς ἔχον, Q.S. 8.498–9 Δαναοὶ … ἴαυον / αἰὲν ἀμειβόμενοι ϕυλακάς. The chorus’ emphasis on the fact that they should be relieved of duty matches the recommendation of Aen. Tact. 22.24–5 that watches must ‘fall fairly and equally’ on all the sentries involved.72 πρῶτα … σημεῖα either ‘the early stars are sinking’, i.e., the first stars to appear in the sky that night, or the first to appear when the Trojan watch began (as Σ observes, πρῶτα σημεῖα τῆς φυλακῆς; cf. Webb (1921) 75, Merro (2008) 220, 224); or ‘the stars that set first, towards dawn, are sinking’ (Jouan 69, Fries 322). If the former is correct, the words indicate both the vicinity of dawn and the lapse of time between the moment at which the stars appeared and the present moment, at which they are sinking; this fits the viewpoint of the watchmen, who complain that they have been on duty too long. The author may have thought of Boötes and its brightest star Arcturus (Liapis 220). The stars are called σημεῖα because they indicate the hour of the night or the times of seasons: cf. Hom. Il. 22.30 λαμπρότατος μὲν ὅ γ’ ἐστί (scil. Orion), κακὸν δέ τε σῆμα τέτυκται, Aesch. Ag. 5–6 τοὺς φέροντας χεῖμα καὶ θέρος βροτοῖς / λαμπροὺς δυνάστας ἐμπρέποντας αἰθέρι (spoken by another watchman looking at the starry sky to find out the time), Soph. TrGF 432.2–3 (Palamedes) ἐϕηῦρε … οὐράνιά τε σήματα and 432.8–11 ἐϕηῦρε δ’ ἄστρων μέτρα καὶ περιστροϕάς, / ὕπνου †ϕυλάξει(ς)† … σημαντήρια / νεῶν τε ποιμαντῆρσιν ἐνθαλασσίοις / ἄρκτου στροϕάς τε καὶ κυνὸς ψυχρὰν δύσιν, Arat. 10–13 αὐτὸς (Zeus) γὰρ τά γε σήματ’ ἐν οὐρανῶι ἐστήριξεν / ἄστρα διακρίνας, ἐσκέψατο δ’ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν / ἀστέρας οἵ κε μάλιστα τετυγμένα σημαίνοιεν / ἀνδράσιν ὡράων. For σημεῖον said of a star, instead of the commoner σῆμα, cf. Eur. Ion 1156–7 Ἰάδες τε, ναυτίλοις / σαϕέστατον σημεῖον. As Fries 322 observes, our author remains vague in his first astronomical reference, perhaps following the model of Hom. Il. 10.251–2, quoted below in 535–7n., before mentioning constellations that indicate the hour more precisely; comparable is Sapph. (?) F 168b Voigt δέδυκε μὲν ἀ σελάννα / καὶ Πληΐαδες, μέσαι δὲ / νύκτες, παρὰ δ᾽ ἔρχετ᾽ ὤρα, / ἔγω δὲ μόνα κατεύδω. For mathematical precision he even recommends using a clepsydra since the length of the night changes over the course of the year. It appears from Veget. De re mil. 3.8.17 that this was normal practice; cf. Pattenden (1987).

72

436

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 0 – 5 3 1 Πλειάδες αἰθέριαι ‘the Pleiades are aloft’, with αἰθέριαι predicative describing the heliacal rising of the Pleiades. From Σ ad loc. we know that Crates of Mallos (F 89 Broggiato) interpreted αἰθέριαι as attributive epithetum ornans (‘in the sky’) and took δύεται apo koinou with σημεῖα and Πλειάδες: ‘the early constellations and the seven-starred Pleiades are setting’. He thus faulted the poet for an astronomical mistake due to his youth, as, when the Pleiades set, Aquila cannot culminate: ἀγνοεῖν ϕησι τὸν Εὐριπίδην τὴν περὶ τὰ μετέωρα θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ νέον ἔτι εἶναι ὅτε τὸν Ῥῆσον ἐδίδασκε. μὴ γὰρ δύνασθαι Πλειάδων καταδυομένων τοῦ ἀετοῦ μεσουρανεῖν. If Crates’ interpretation is correct, his criticism is justified, as at the time of the astronomer Eudoxus (fourth century), in May, the Pleiades appeared high in the sky close to sunrise, and Aquila culminated (Gemin. Eisag. p. 107 Aujac). But the fault was not with the author but with Crates’s interpretation. His interpretation was immediately criticised by Parmeniscus, a grammarian of the second–first century (F 17 Breithaupt; see above, Introduction, p. 72 n. 236); the grammarian from whom our scholion derives, perhaps Didymus (Merro (2008) 217), also is in agreement with Parmeniscus in interpreting αἰθέριαι in the sense ‘aloft’, as predicative of Πλειάδες with understood εἰσί, and δύεται construed only with πρῶτα … σημεῖα. The Aquila constellation of 530b–1 is most visible in the summer in the northern hemisphere, together with the Pleiades, whose heliacal rising in May and setting in November were often mentioned as markers of seasons for both farmers and sailors, from Hes. Op. 383–4 onwards.73 ἑπτάποροι ‘with seven (star) tracks’. Although only six are usually clearly visible (Arat. 259–60), the Pleiades are traditionally seven. ἑπτάπορος is their most common epithet, from Eur. onwards: Or. 1005 ἑπταπόρου ... Πλειάδος, IA 7–8 ἑπταπόρου / Πλειάδος; also TrGF 779.4 ἑπτὰ Πλειάδων, Arat. 257, Nonn. Dion. 5x. 530b–1 μέσα … οὐρανοῦ ποτᾶται ‘flies in the middle of the sky’, i.e., culminates (a position for which the technical term is μεσουρανεῖν); cf. epic ἠέλιος μέσον οὐρανὸν ἀμϕιβεβήκει (Il. 8.68 = 16.777 ~ Od. 4.400) and Ὠρίων καὶ Σείριος ἐς μέσον ἔλθηι / οὐρανόν (Hes. Op. 609–10). The uncommon adverbial μέσα may echo Eur. Or. 982–3 μόλοιμι τὰν οὐρανοῦ μέσον χθονός τεταμέναν πέτραν ‘in the middle between sky and earth’. This is the first literary reference to the small constellation of Aquila; the next is Arat. 313–15 and 522–4, where, as in Rh., the motion of Aquila in the sky is called ‘flying’ (ἀητεῖται, 523), as suits a bird (Feickert 252); cf. later Manil. 1.343–4 magni Iovis ales … evolitans. Theophr. Sign. 6 states that ‘the Pleiades’ setting and rising divide the year in two’, and in Aratus 265–6 Zeus is said to have authorised them to signal with their risings and their settings ‘the beginnings of summer and winter and the onset of ploughing time’; cf. RE XXI.2.2505–14, West on Hes. Op. 383–4.

73

437

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 2 – 5 3 4 532–4 parallel the series of three imperatives with which the watchmen wake Hector at 7–9; see 527–64n. According to Lammers (1931) 125–7 the first strophe is sung by the first half-chorus, who wake the second half-chorus, who will later sing of dawn in the antistrophe. But, as Kaimio (1970) 109–10 correctly states, it is not likely that a half-chorus fell asleep in the short timespan between 522–6 (where Hector addressed the chorus as a single group who should stay awake) and 527; it is more probable that the imperatives of 532–4 are addressed by the whole chorus to the sentries of the last watch, offstage (cf. 33, where the chorus give an order to the archers who are to be imagined offstage). It is unlikely, too, that 534 and 535–6 are to be assigned to half-choruses, as suggested by some MSS. The imperative ἔγρεσθε is followed by a question (532b) with which the chorus chides the sentinels of the fifth watch for not carrying out their orders, and that pattern is repeated at 532c–4, where the imperative of 532c–3 is followed by a question (534) with which the chorus scolds the sentinels for not understanding that the time has come for the guard to be changed. The model may have been one of the descriptions of the Greek leaders being woken at Il. 10.159–61 ἔγρεο Τυδέος υἱέ· τί πάννυχον ὕπνον ἀωτεῖς; / οὐκ ἀΐεις ὡς Τρῶες ἐπὶ θρωσμῶι πεδίοιο / εἵαται ἄγχι νεῶν…;.74 The Trojan sentries carry out the task of ascertaining that those on duty after them are awake. After the assignment of watch duties at Hom. Il. 9.65–7, 80–8, the Greek leaders carry out the first watch-patrol at 10.181–93 οὐδὲ μὲν εὕδοντας ϕυλάκων ἡγήτορας ηὗρον, / ἀλλ’ ἐγρηγορτεὶ σὺν τεύχεσιν εἵατο πάντες … ‘οὕτω νῦν, ϕίλα τέκνα, ϕυλάσσετε· μηδέ τιν’ ὕπνος / αἱρείτω, μὴ χάρμα γενώμεθα δυσμενέεσσιν’. Aen. Tact. 26 deals in detail with instructions about patrols (περιοδεῖαι) of the night watches. Eur. TrGF 589, from Palamedes, seems to have introduced a patrol in which sentries were tested or woken with bells.75 ἔγρεσθε is probably a momentary aorist imperative here, not present indicative; Fries 324–5 takes it as indicative, comparing Eur. TrGF 773.29–30 ἔγρονται δ᾽ εἰς βοτάναν / … πώλων συζυγίαι, which, however, is a description of usual occupations at dawn, where the indicative is iterative.

Accius Ant. F III Dangel heus, vigiles, properate, expergite / pectora tarda sopore, exsurgite! perhaps is reminiscent of the lively and excited passage addressed by guards to other guards in Rh., when he rewrites the scene of the fight between the guards (φύλαξ ἐλέγχων φύλακα) that broke out at Soph. Ant. 259–67 as the first day-watch discovered that someone had paid burial rites to the body of Polynices (the scene was narrated by one of the guards in Soph., not enacted as in Accius; cf. Ribbeck (1875) 484, Leo (1910=1960) 198–9, Aricò (1987) 210). 75 According to Webster (1967) 176 and Collard, Cropp, and Gibert (2004) ad loc., p. 95, the chorus of the play was probably composed of watchmen, as in Rh. and in Ion’s Φρουροί; differently Wilamowitz and Kannicht, TrGF V.2 p. 602. 74

438

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 2 – 5 3 4 τί μέλλετε and τί μέλλεις ‘what’s the delay?’, absolute expressions of impatience, are found exclusively in Eur. after or before jussive expressions, to confirm their urgency: Alc. 255–6 τί μέλλεις; / ἐπείγου, Hec. 1093–4 ὦ ἴτε μόλετε πρὸς θεῶν. / κλύει τις ἢ οὐδεὶς ἀρκέσει; τί μέλλετε;, Or. 275–6 τί δῆτα μέλλετ’; ἐξακρίζετ’ αἰθέρα / πτεροῖς, TrGF 727c.ii.13 τί μέλλετ᾽; οὐ χρῆν ἥσυχον κεῖσθαι πόδα. For occurrences of this question followed by the infinitive, with the sense of an urgent imperative, cf. Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 1146. Here the question emphasises the contrast between a necessary action and untimely sleep, as at Rh. 7–9 and Il. 10.159 ἔγρεο … τί πάννυχον ὕπνον ἀωτεῖς;. ἔξιτε in place of the transmitted ἔγρεσθε (from the previous line) restores correspondence with 552 ποίμνια (emendation by Hartung 142, coll. Christ. pat. 1855–6 ἔγρεσθ᾽ ἔγρεσθε· τί, γυναῖκες, μέλλετε; / ἔξιτ᾽ ἄπιτε βαιὸν ὡς πρὸς τὴν πόλιν). κοιτᾶν, genitive, goes with the preverb of ἔξιτε: ‘get out of bed!’. 534 οὐ λεύσσετε is an adaptation of the phrases οὐχ ὁράαις/οὐχ ὁρᾶις/οὐχ ὁρᾶτε found in epic (Hom. Il. 7.448, 15.555, 21.108, Od. 17.545) and in tragic iambics (e.g., with absolute οὐχ ὁρᾶτε/οὐχ ὁρᾶις;, Eur. IT 267, Or. 760), to fit the common dactylo-epitrite opening (x) D. These questions amount to bland exhortations demanding readiness to acknowledge something, and may include an intimation of scolding, which is also possible here. In the northern hemisphere the full moon rises in the evening sky and remains visible until dawn, but its light progressively fades away before and at dawn. The waning moon reaches its highest position in the sky a couple of hours before sunrise, whereas the waxing moon reaches its highest position around dusk and sets around midnight, so that it is especially visible in the evening sky (a time absurd in our context, where the moonlight has to point to dawn). The watchmen may refer to the light of the waning moon (as observed by Hermann (1828) 270–1 and Vater 202–3), which has now become more visible than before. αἴγλη is usually a bright glow, whereas the light of the waning moon is weak (Liapis 221); but αἴγλη may perhaps indicate here that there is moonlight in the sky, whereas the moon was not visible before. Or, if they presuppose full moon, as the author of Prol. 1 (see ad loc.) possibly interpreted, they may be signifying that the moon’s light is changing, namely fading away; in that case it would be necessary to suppose that res ponitur pro defectu rei (KG II.569–70), with αἴγλη referring to the fading light of the moon. μηνάδος: a metrically convenient variant of μήνη: cf. πέλεια/πελειάς, οἶνος/οἴνη/οἰνάς, λίθος/λιθάς. αἴγλαν ‘light’, designates the light of the moon (σελήνη) and of the sun at Hom. Od. 4.45, 7.84; of Μήνη at HHom.Sel. 32.3–5; of σεληναίη at Ap. Rh. 4.167.

439

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 5 – 5 4 1 535–7 The closeness of dawn and the position of stars in the sky are mentioned together as an indication that the night is in its last third at Hom. Il. 10.251–3 ἀλλ’ ἴομεν· μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται, ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς, / ἄστρα δὲ δὴ προβέβηκε, παροίχωκεν δὲ πλέων νὺξ / τῶν δύο μοιράων, τριτάτη δ᾽ ἔτι μοῖρα λέλειπται, probably followed by Mosch. Eur. 2 νυκτὸς ὅτε τρίτατον λάχος ἵσταται, ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς. ἀὼς δὴ πέλας, ἀὼς γίγνεται: the second statement appears to refine the first (‘dawn is close, it is happening’), perhaps in order to make a stronger argument for changing the guard; cf. Fries 326. Liapis 221 assumes anadiplosis of ἀώς and takes πέλας and γίγνεται together: ‘daybreak, daybreak is approaching’ ~ Kovacs 407. But γίγνεσθαι is commonly used in Attic in the fifth and fourth centuries to designate the ‘happening’ of natural phenomena (with ἕως, e.g., Aesch. Ag. 265 ἕως γένοιτο, Thuc. 4.32.2 ἅμα δὲ ἕωι γιγνομένηι, 4.67.3 ἐπειδὴ ἕως ἔμελλε γίγνεσθαι, Pl. Smp. 220d μέχρι ἕως ἐγένετο, Xen. An. 2.4.24 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἕως ἐγένετο; also with, e.g., ἑσπέρα, ἡμέρα, φῶς) and would perhaps have been more naturally understood in that sense, rather than with πέλας. δή ‘the fact is (that dawn is approaching…)’ directs the hearer to what meets the eye and hints that the hearer is bound by what shall be heard or seen to subscribe to the speaker’s statement (Sicking and van Ophuijsen (1993) 82–3, 141). καί τις προδρόμων ὅδε γ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀστήρ ‘and this star is one of the forerunners’, with ‘of the dawn’ understood. The partitive προδρόμων is an emendation (by Musgrave (1762) 95 and independently by Vater 205) for προδόμων/ πρὸ δόμων of the MSS. It may point both to other stars announcing dawn, such as the planet Mercury (cf. Feickert 253–4), and to different signs that the chorus is going to mention, namely the song of the nightingale and the music of the shepherds (Vater 204). The star, which remains unnamed, is probably Venus, the ‘morning star’, which appears in the sky in the late afternoon (and is thus called Ἕσπερος) and again just before sunrise, and is thus called Ἑωσφόρος (Hom. Il. 23.226, Hes. Th. 381), Ἑῶιος (Eur. TrGF 929), or Φωσφόρος (Arist. De mundo 392a27); cf. Hom. Od. 13.93–4 ἀστὴρ ὑπερέσχε ϕαάντατος, ὅς τε μάλιστα / ἔρχεται ἀγγέλλων ϕάος Ἠοῦς, Mel. AP 12.114 = HE 4390 Ἠοῦς ἄγγελε, χαῖρε, Φαεσϕόρε. πρόδρομος of the morning star in Rh. parallels Ion, PMG 745 ἀοῖον ἀεροϕοίταν / ἀστέρα μείναμεν, ἀελίου / λευκᾶι πτέρυγι πρόδρομον, a passage that possibly influenced Soph. Ant. 100– 9, a welcome to the rising sun sung by a male chorus (Bagordo (2003) 219–21). 538–41 and 557–60 are anapaestic tetrameters, not sung but recitative: they do not include choral doricisms and have word-end after each metron (as observed by Liapis 218). They are constituted of brief amoibaia, rounded off by short anapaestic codas almost identical to each other and without alternation of speakers: 543–5 and 562–4. They serve as appendices to the strophe

440

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 8 – 5 4 1 and antistrophe, and are parallel in structure, but not in full responsion. The closest tragic parallel (as observed by Dale on Eur. Alc., p. 61, Parker on Eur. Alc. 77–135, p. 68) is the parodos of Alc., where all the anapaests and likewise str. and ant. α entail alternation of speakers, as here: an. 77–85, str. α 86–92, an. 93–7, ant. α 98–104, an. 105–11, str. β 112–20, ant. β 121–30, an. 131–5 (?). Alc. also includes at 861–934 a kommos consisting of four anapaestic systems chanted by Admetus, each followed by a lyric stanza from the chorus (it is not certain that the chorus exits at 746, see 565–94n.; if they do, 861–934 will be an epiparodos). That passage may have been the model for the alternation in Rh. of anapaestic sections and choral song outside the parodos, which is very rare except in Aesch. (see below). A less closely comparable case of the interweaving of a series of passages in anapaests and lyrics (with no alternation of speakers) is the parodos of Soph. Ant. 100–61: str. α 100–9, an. 110–16, ant. α 117–26, an. 127–33, str. β 134–40, an. 141–7, ant. β 148–54, an. 155–61; cf. also the anapaestic introductions by the chorus to their parodos lyrics at Aesch. Pers. 1–64, Supp. 1–175, Ag. 40–103 and Soph. Aj. 134–71; or the anapaestic introductions to lyric songs within the play, found, apart from our Rh. passage and Eur. Alc. 861–934, in Aesch. Pers. 532–47, 623–32, Sept. 822–31, Supp. 625–9, Ag. 355–66, Eum. 307–20, Kranz (1910) 48–54, Fraenkel (1950) II.184. An interweaving of lyric stanzas and anapaests is also found at Aesch. PV 128–92, Soph. Ph. 135–218, and Eur. Med. 96–213, where the anapaests are delivered by actors. The anapaestic passages here consist of dialogue between two­ semi­choruses (one semichorus posing the questions at 538 and 540a; the other answering them at 539 and 540b–41) or between four speakers of the chorus (Liapis 222). At least in 557–60 it seems likely that the exchange is between two semichoruses. The two passages exemplify the peculiar liking of Rh. for choral speeches where the choreutae speak as individuals or as individual semichoruses, rather than as a collective. This liking is evidenced by the relatively frequent use of antilabai which do not indicate strong opposition or emotional intensity or excitement, as is usual in tragedy (Bonaria (1991)), but are delivered by members of the chorus or semichoruses that rather resemble individuals in calm conversation (here at 540 as well as at 706, 708, 724, 726; cf. Hogan (1997), Jackson (2019) 56–9). The watchmen here consult each other about the past watches. Lines 542–5 are the conclusion, most probably spoken by the coryphaeus for the chorus in unison, that answers the general question of 527 and is based on the observations about the roster at 539–41. After it has been determined that dawn is near, and the previous watches have been reviewed, it is confirmed that it is time for the fifth watch, that of the Lycians. 538 ἐκηρύχθη Heralds were sometimes designated to circulate the results of choices by lot. At Hom. Il. 7.181–9, a κῆρυξ (whose usual role is to convey

441

C O M M E N TA RY 5 3 8 – 5 4 1 information) passes the winning lot around the nine warriors deciding who is to fight a duel with Hector, until it comes into the hands of the actual winner, who acknowledges his mark on it. But κηρύσσειν ‘make a herald-proclamation to’ usually takes dative of the person and accusative of the content. Therefore passive ἐκηρύχθη with nominative of the person and accusative of the content, unattested elsewhere, has been emended to ἐκληρώθη (Dobree (1833) 87), to be taken in the sense of a middle, ‘obtained by lot’. But κηρύσσειν here may parallel verbs of commanding such as ἐπιτάσσειν, ἐπιτρέπειν, ἐπιστέλλειν, which are sometimes found in the passive with the person in nominative and the content in accusative (probably felt as accusative of respect); cf. Thuc. 1.126.11 ἐπιτετραμμένοι τὴν ϕυλακήν, KG I.125. Or, alternatively, our line may be a variation of Homeric phrases like κηρύσσειν ἀγορήνδε (or πολεμόνδε) … Ἀχαιούς (Il. 2.51, 2.443; Od. 2.7), where κηρύσσειν, in the sense ‘herald-summon’, is construed with accusative of the person and suffix -δε of the direction (Fries 328). 539–41 Μυγδόνος υἱόν φασι Κόροιβον … Παίων / στρατός: the ‘army of the Paeonians’ are the soldiers of Coroebus. Coroebus, who is not mentioned before the Epic Cycle, is usually said to be a Phrygian leader, who had come to Troy hoping to marry Cassandra (Virg. Aen. 2.341–6, Paus. 10.27.1, describing Polygnotus’ Ilioupersis in the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi, and Q.S. 13.174–5). He seems to be a Cyclic doublet of the Othryoneus of Hom. Il. 13.363–82. He was killed by Neoptolemus during the sack of Troy (the most common version in Pausanias’ opinion) or by Diomedes (= Il. parva PEG F 15) or by Peneleus (Virg. Aen. 2.424–5) or, perhaps, by Ajax (Vivenzio hydria, LIMC VI.1, 103 ‘Koroibos’ uncertain no. 2). Coroebus and Rhesus are both allies killed soon after their arrival. Coroebus too arrived late (Virg. Aen. 2.342–3 illis … diebus venerat, Q.S. 13.174–5 ἵκανε / χθιζὸς ἐπὶ Πριάμοιο ).76 According to Q.S. (13.175–6), Coroebus, like Rhesus, boasted that he would drive the Greeks away from Troy: ὑπέσχετ᾽ Ἀχαιοὺς / Ἰλίου ἂψ ὦσαι. His father Mygdon, king of Phrygia around the Sangarius river (Il. 3.184–7), had a bond of ξενία with Priam similar to that connecting Rhesus and Hector according to Rh. 406–11, as Priam intervened as an ally when Mygdon’s land was invaded by the Amazons (Il. 3.188–9). He had an imposing tomb on the outskirts of the Phrygian city of Stectorium (Paus.) and may have been awarded a hero cult (RE XI.1.1421). Coroebus became a by-word for stupidity: Eust. on Hom. Od. 10.552 (1669.47) ὕστατον τῶν ἐπικούρων ἀϕικόμενον τῶι Πριάμωι δι᾽ εὐήθειαν, Euphor. 96 Lightfoot = Serv. on Virg. Aen. 2.341, Luc. Philops. 3 and [Am.] 53, Ael. Var. hist. 13.15, Hesych. Lex. κ 3649 Latte, Etym. magn. 577.32 Gaisf., Zenob. Paroem. Gr. 4.58, Apost. Paroem. Gr. 10.3, 11.93.

76

442

C O M M E N TA RY 5 4 0 – 5 4 2 But at Rh. 540–1 the army of Coroebus son of Mygdon is called ‘Paeonian’. Before Alexander’s expedition the ethnic Mygdones/Mygdonia referred to (1a) a city of Phrygian Bithynia on the Propontis and Mysian Olympus, (1b) the land around the city of Stectorium in Phrygia, and (2) a land between the river Axius and Lake Volvi in Macedonia, whose inhabitants are defined as Paeoniae gentes by Pliny, NH 4.35; cf. Hom. Il. 21.140–3 and 154–60, Hdt. 7.124.1, Strabo 7 F 7a, 16a, 17a Radt for the Paeonians living by the Axius river. The reference in Hom. Il. 3.184–6, quoted above, Mygdon’s tomb near the Phrygian Stectorium, and the widespread use of ‘Mygdonian’ for ‘Phrygian’ in poetry (Hor., Ovid, Val. Flacc., Nonn.; also mentioned by Paus. 10.27.1) show that Mygdon, and thus Coroebus too, were widely considered Phrygians. And the identification of Coroebus as leader of the Paeonians is unparalleled for us. The author of Rh. may have thought that Mygdon was the eponym of the Paeonian Mygdones of Thrace (cf. Liapis 223). Or, alternatively, he was aware of the Thracian and Paeonian origins of many Phrygian cities of the Troad and Propontis (see 294–7n.), and thus named the nation of Phrygian Mygdon and Coroebus after their ancestors; cf. Strabo 7 F 17a Radt τοὺς δὲ Παίονας οἱ μὲν ἀποίκους Φρυγῶν οἱ δ᾽ ἀρχηγέτας ἀποϕαίνουσι. 540–2 γάρ is progressive, signalling the transition from the first question to the second; see 17c–19n. Κίλικας … Μυσοί were identified as the same people by Crates of Mallus (F 88 Broggiato) according to Σ Rh. 5 Κράτης … τρίτους δὲ Κίλικας, οὓς καὶ Μυσούς ϕησιν, ὁμοεθνεῖς νομίζων. παραγειτνιᾶι γὰρ ὁ Ἀδραμυττηνὸς κόλπος τοῖς Μυσοῖς … τοὺς Μυσοῦς τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοῖς Κίλιξι φάσκων εἶναι. The identification is not attested elsewhere. To judge by the reference to the Adramyttian gulf, Crates assumed that Rh. is referring to the Iliadic Cilicia, a small region south of Troy and west of Mysia where Thebes was located, the kingdom of Eetion the father of Andromache, which was sacked by Achilles. But Σ Rh. 5 criticised Crates for that assumption, and identified the Cilicia of Rh., instead, as the region of south-western Asia Minor around the Taurus massif: ἡ μὲν γὰρ Κιλικία ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν μέρεσι τῆς Τροίας κεῖται … οἱ γὰρ τραγικοὶ Κίλικας οὐκ ἴσασι τούτους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐν Ταύρωι ὠικηκότας. The argument of Σ, probably going back to Aristarchus, is strong, as in extant Greek tragedy (Aesch. Pers. 327, Supp. 551, PV 351) Cilicia is consistently the region in south-western Asia Minor, which will have played some role in Aegean trade in the classical age. Crates’ speculation is probably wrong, and Cilicians and Mysians are in Rh. two distinct sets of allies. The Mysians were a branch of Thracians living (1) on the coast of the Black Sea south of the Danube and (2) on the coast of Propontis immediately east of the Troad, most probably after a migration similar to that of Paeonian Mygdones from Thrace to the Mygdonia of Propontis (see

443

C O M M E N TA RY 5 4 2 – 5 4 6 294–7n.); cf. Strabo 7.3.2 (295) ‘the Getae lived on either side of the Ister, as did the Mysians, these too being Thracians … from these Mysians sprang the Mysians who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and Trojans’. Homer appears to have known of both the Mysians of Danube and the Mysians of Propontis (at Il. 13.4–5, where Zeus averts his eyes from Troy and looks back at the ‘land of Thracians and Mysians’, the reference may be to the European Mysians of the Danube area: Janko on Il. 13.4–7). Rh. is probably referring to the Mysians of the Propontis, who are mentioned in the catalogue of Trojan allies at Il. 2.858 and are connected to Priam by a bond of friendship at Il. 24.277–8. 543–5 ~562–4 ‘Then is it not the right moment for us to go and wake the Lycians, the fifth watch according to the lot’s apportionment?’, spoken by the coryphaeus (like 562–4, see n.), or perhaps by the chorus in unison, having come to a conclusion after the dialogue at 538–42. καιρός, with the infinitive, transforms what might be formulated as a demand (‘we must go’) into a thoughtful statement about the appropriateness of the action; cf. 10 καιρὸς γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι. Λυκίους: the Lycians were mentioned in the Catalogue of Trojan allies (Il. 2.876–7) at the very end, as here. They were led by Sarpedon and Glaucus. The importance of their contribution is made clear by Hector’s formulaic address to his army in the Il., Τρῶες καὶ Λύκιοι καὶ Δάρδανοι ἀγχιμαχηταί (6x), by the Iliadic formula ‘Trojans and Lycians’ (14x), probably suggesting that the Lycians were the most important allies, and by Sarpedon’s frequent appearances (5.628–62, 12.290–471, 16.419–505). κλήρου κατὰ μοῖραν: see 538 with n. Military watches were assigned by lot, at least in the Roman army from the second century onwards; cf. Polyb. 6.35.11 οἱ δὲ προκριθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν οὐραγῶν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἴλης τέτταρες, ἐπειδὰν διαλάχωσι τὰς ϕυλακάς, etc., 6.36.1 συνάψαντος δὲ τοῦ καιροῦ τὴν πρώτην ἐϕοδεύει ϕυλακὴν ὁ ταύτην λαχών, etc., Jos. BJ 5.510–11 τὴν μὲν πρώτην ϕυλακὴν τῆς νυκτὸς περιιὼν αὐτὸς (scil. emperor Titus) ἐπεσκέπτετο, τὴν δευτέραν δ᾽ ἐπέτρεψεν Ἀλεξάνδρωι, τὴν τρίτην δ᾽ ἔλαχον οἱ τῶν ταγμάτων ἡγεμόνες. διεκληροῦντο δ᾽ οἱ ϕύλακες τοὺς ὕπνους, etc. Perhaps this was already the practice in the classical age, although Polyb. 6.37.6 considers the Roman army’s system of night watches to be peculiar and incomparably better than any other because of its strict discipline. 546–50 Birdsong indicates the imminence of dawn at Soph. El. 17–19 ὡς ἡμὶν ἤδη λαμπρὸν ἡλίου σέλας / ἑῶια κινεῖ ϕθέγματ’ ὀρνίθων σαϕῆ, / μέλαινά τ’ ἄστρων ἐκλέλοιπεν εὐϕρόνη, Virg. Aen. 8.455–6 Euandrum ex humili tecto lux suscitat alma / et matutini volucrum sub culmine cantus. The nightingale, in particular, was known to sing early at dawn (e.g., Sapph. F 30.6–9 Voigt ἀλλ᾽ ἐγέρθε̣ι̣ς, ἠϊθ[έοις / στεῖχε σοὶς ὐμάλικ̣[ας / ἤπερ ὄσσον ἀ λιγ̣ύϕω̣ [νος / ὔπνον [ ἴ ]δωμεν,

444

C O M M E N TA RY 5 4 6 – 5 5 0 Ibyc. PMGF 303b ἆμος ἄυπνος κλυτὸς ὄρθρος ἐγείρησιν ἀηδόνας, Philostr. Her. 5.4 τῶν ἀηδόνων ἤκουσας, οἷον τῶι χωρίωι ἐναττικίζουσιν, ἐπειδὰν δείλη τε ἥκηι καὶ ἡμέρα ἄρχηται), but also throughout the night (cf. Hes. F 312 λέγει Ἡσίοδος, τὴν ἀηδόνα μόνην ὀρνίθων ἀμελεῖν ὕπνου καὶ διὰ τέλους ἀγρυπνεῖν, Virg. Georg. 4.511–15): ‘the belief that the nightingale sings only at night is a fallacy fostered by the poetic imagination, but the fallacy has effectively banished the nightingale in literature from all but the night hours’ (Diggle on Phaeth. 70 = TrGF 773.26). The myth of the nightingale makes its first appearance at Hom. Od. 19.518–23, where she is similarly presented, singing a many-toned song, for the beloved child whom she killed: ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε Πανδαρέου κούρη, χλωρηῒς ἀηδών, / καλὸν ἀείδηισιν ἔαρος νέον ἱσταμένοιο, / δενδρέων ἐν πετάλοισι καθεζομένη πυκινοῖσιν, / ἥ τε θαμὰ τρωπῶσα χέει πολυηχέα ϕωνήν, / παῖδ᾽ ὀλοϕυρομένη Ἴτυλον ϕίλον, ὅν ποτε χαλκῶι / κτεῖνε δι᾽ ἀϕραδίας (Penelope compares her pain and helplessness to the mourning of the daughter of Pandareus, Aedon = Nightingale). In the most common version of the myth, established by Attic tragedy (Soph. wrote a Tereus, TrGF 580–95b, which was set in Thrace; on the play, cf. Fitzpatrick (2001), Finglass (2016)), Procne, daughter of the Athenian king Pandion, killed her son Itylus/Itys not because of her ‘folly’, as in Hom., but to avenge the rape of her sister Philomela by her husband Tereus, king of Thrace – she cooked their son and served him to Tereus. When Tereus tried to pursue her, she was transformed into a nightingale, Philomela into a swallow and Tereus into a hawk or hoopoe. The cry of the nightingale was thus thought to reflect Procne’s lament over the death of the son. Comparing female lament to the nightingale’s song is a topos especially common in tragedy: Aesch. Supp. 57–67, Ag. 1140–55, TrGF 291, Soph. Aj. 624–33, El. 107–9, 147–9, 1076–7, Tr. 962–3, Eur. Hec. 336–8. In Ar. Av. and Eur. Hel. and Pho. the nightingale seems to be the Muse-like mediator of the tragic lament: cf. Ar. Av. 659 τὴν δ᾽ ἡδυμελῆ ξύμϕωνον ἀηδόνα Μούσαις, 737 Μοῦσα λοχμαία, Eur. Hel. 1107–12 σὲ τὰν ἐναύλοις ὑπὸ δενδροκόμοις / μουσεῖα καὶ θάκους ἐνί/ζουσαν ἀναβοάσω, / τὰν ἀοιδοτάταν / ὄρνιθα μελωιδὸν / ἀηδόνα δακρυόεσσαν, / ἔλθ᾽ ὦ διὰ ξουθᾶν γενύων ἐλελιζομένα / θρήνων ἐμοὶ ξυνεργός, Pho. 1518 ἐμοῖς ἄχεσι συνωιδός, TrGF 88 ἀηδόνων μουσεῖον, 588 (Palamedes) τὰν πάνσοϕον … ἀηδόνα Μουσᾶν, Suksi (2001) 649–51, Barker (2004) 184–93, Fantuzzi (2007) 181–2. In Eur. TrGF 773.19–26, from the parodos of the Phaethon, as well as in Rh., the song of the nightingale is not merely a term of comparison to which the lament of a human character is paralleled, but it is staged, in a way, through the chorus’ description; for a similar reification in Rh. of the Euripidean motif of the Muse-inspiration of the dirge, see 890–949n. The song of the nightingale is interpreted by the watchmen simply as a sign of the coming dawn, after the astronomical signs highlighted at 527–30

445

C O M M E N TA RY 5 4 6 – 5 4 7 and before the audible ones of 551–3. But the strong association of the nightingale with female tragic lament and its frequently resentful tone (cf., e.g., Holst-Warhaft (1992) 137–44, Foley (2001) 33–6, 54, 144–63) will have led the audience to feel that the reference also foreshadows the death of Rhesus and the vengeful lament of his mother the Muse. καὶ μὰν ἀίω ‘And, yes, I hear’ (the nightingale). The statement of the chorus, emphasised with καὶ μάν (see 85–6n.), sets out the sounds which the audience has to imagine; cf. Aesch. Sept. 245 καὶ μὴν ἀκούω γ᾽ ἱππικῶν ϕρυαγμάτων, Eur. Andr. 820–1 καὶ μὴν ἐν οἴκοις προσπόλων ἀκούομεν / βοήν, Ion 201–2 καὶ μὰν τόνδ᾽ ἄθρησον / πτεροῦντος ἔϕεδρον ἵππου, Callim. HApoll. 4 οὐχ ὁράαις; ἐπένευσεν … ἡδύ τι φοῖνιξ, HPall. 2–3 τᾶν ἵππων ἄρτι ϕρυασσομενᾶν / τᾶν ἱερᾶν ἐσάκουσα. On the choral Doric alpha of μάν, see 196n. Σιμόεντος ἡμένα κοίτας φοινίας: Σιμόεντος is local genitive (not rare in Hom. and in tragedy: KG I.384–5, Moorhouse (1982) 59), or pertinentive. κοίτας is accusative of cognate internal object (Bers (1984) 69), found often in tragedy with intransitive verbs of ‘sitting’: Aesch. Ag. 183 σέλμα σεμνὸν ἡμένων, Soph. Aj. 248–9 εἰρεσίας ζυγὸν ἑζόμενον, OT 2 τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε…;, 160–1 θρόνον εὐκλέα θάσσει, Eur. Andr. 117 δάπεδον καὶ ἀνάκτορα θάσσεις, Her. 1214 θάσσοντα δυστήνους ἕδρας, IT 277 θάσσειν φάραγγ(α), Ion 91 θάσσει δὲ γυνὴ τρίποδα, 1480–1 τὸν ἐλαιοϕυῆ πάγον / θάσσει, Or. 871 θάσσοντ᾽ ἄκραν, 956 τρίποδα καθίζων, Ar. Th. 889 τί δαὶ σὺ θάσσεις τάσδε τυμβήρεις ἕδρας; (paratragedy), KG I.313–14. The nests of the nightingale are for ever ‘bloodied’ after Procne’s murder of her son just as Procne, the nightingale, perennially sings her mourning for her son. φόνιος, not attested before tragedy, is typically Euripidean (around 50x; Aesch. 6x, Soph. 4x). It seems less probable that κοίτας are here the nightingale’s nests polluted by blood from the battles around Troy (cf. Macurdy (1943) 410, Feickert 257) or that they are the river-beds of Simoeis, bloodied by corpses, as Scamander was after Achilles’ attack at Hom. Il. 21.211–21 (Liapis 225). Arist. HA 632b26 observes that nightingales are not seen very often, as they stay in their nests, and the topos which has the nightingale sing hidden among the leaves is widespread: e.g., Hom. Od. 19.520, HHom. 19.17, Soph. OC 670–8, Eur. Hel. 1107–8, quoted in 546–50n., Pho. 1515–16, Ar. Av. 215–16, 742, [Mosch.] Bionis epit. 9, Catull. 65.13, Diggle (1996b) 193–4. The river-bank setting is probably due to the nightingale’s preference for lush vegetation (Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 63); cf. Alcm. PMGF 10a.6–7 ἄκουσα ταν ἀηδ[ον- / παρ᾽ Εὐρώτα., Aesch. Supp. 62–5 κιρκηλάτου τ᾽ ἀηδόνoς, / ἅτ᾽ ἀπὸ χώρων ποταμῶν τ᾽ ἐργομένα / πενθεῖ μὲν οἶκτον ἠθέων, / ξυντίθησι δὲ παιδὸς μόρον, Aristaen. 1.3 ἡδὺ καὶ ἀηδόνες περιπετόμεναι τὰ

446

C O M M E N TA RY 5 4 6 – 5 5 0 νάματα μελωιδοῦσιν, Anton. Lib. 11.11 Ἀηδὼν δὲ καὶ Χελιδών[ις], ἡ μὲν παρὰ ποταμοὺς καὶ λόχμας τὸν παῖδα τὸν Ἴτυν θρηνεῖ. ὑμνεῖ is preferable to the v.l. θρηνεῖ (the more obvious verb, and therefore probably a banalisation), as it accords with the appreciation of the musical quality of the nightingale’s song expressed by πολυχορδοτάται; compare μέλπει at Eur. TrGF 773.23, quoted below. The song of the nightingale has the sublimity of a ‘hymn’ (a word often applied to a song sung by human beings for gods; see 976–7n.) only here and at Ar. Av. 210 λῦσον δὲ νόμους ἱερῶν ὕμνων and 678–9 πάντων ξύννομε τῶν ἐμῶν / ὕμνων, ξύντροϕ’ ἀηδοῖ; cf. Pischinger (1901) 77–8, 80. πολυχορδοτάται γήρυϊ: cf. Hom. Od. 19.521 (quoted above) πολυηχέα ϕωνήν, Eur. Hec. 337–8 σπούδαζε πάσας ὥστ᾽ ἀηδόνος στόμα / ϕθογγὰς ἱεῖσα, TrGF 773.23–4 μέλπει δ᾽ ἐν δένδρεσι λεπ/τὰν ἀηδὼν ἁρμονίαν (‘“subtle” in its rapid and intricate variations’: Diggle ad loc. = Phaeth. 67–8). Pliny, NH 10.81–2 offers a detailed description of the variety and harmonious modulation of the notes that nightingales produce; in fact they can modulate over one thousand different sounds, three times as many as skylarks. πολυχορδία is an appreciated aesthetic quality: cf. Eur. Med. 196–7 πολυχόρδοις / ὠιδαῖς, Theocr. 16.44, adesp. PMG 947b. Fries 332, following Barker (2004) on Ar. Av., plausibly observes that there may be here an allusion to the extremely various range of notes that characterised the late fifth-century ‘new music’. γῆρυς is mainly used for a human voice or for music (Bacch. F 20b.2), very rarely for an animal’s voice (Ap. Rh. 1.1244); see 294–7n. It humanises the nightingale’s song, comparably to μέλπει at Eur. TrGF 773.23, quoted above, and may serve, along with ὑμνεῖ, to magnify the artistic dimension of the nightingale’s song. παιδολέτωρ ‘child-killer’: cf. Soph. El. 107 τεκνολέτειρ᾽ … ἀηδών, Nonn. Dion. 48.748 Πρόκνη παιδολέτειρα. The epithet is also found in Aesch. Sept. 726 (of ἔρις) and Eur. Med. 1393 (of Medea, called παιδολέτειρα at Med. 848 and adesp. AP 16.138.1). μελοποιὸν … μέριμναν (Dindorf (iii) III.2.611) corrected the two nominatives of most MSS. The emendation of μέριμνα to μέριμναν (already suggested by Reiske (1753) 89 and Heath (1762) 96) seems unavoidable, as with the nominative we should have to take ἀηδονίς as an adjective (Hermann (1828) 291, 306), not found elsewhere, or take μελοποιὸς … μέριμνα to stand in apposition to παιδολέτωρ … ἀηδονίς (Ebener (1963) 205), with very doubtful word-order. μελοποιóς should also be changed, in order to avoid the accumulation of three epithets with ἀηδονίς (Fries 332), while μέριμναν badly needs one, and the specification that the nightingale’s μέριμνα produces the melodious song attractively explains her paradoxical nature as a child-killer capable of sweet song.

447

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 0 – 5 5 3 μελοποιός is a technical term, designating the musical composer or, most often, the melic poet and parallels ὑμνοποιός for the Muse, mother of Rhesus, at 651. It appears in poetry only here and at Ar. Ran. 1250, and was probably modelled on Eur. Hel. 1109–10 τὰν ἀοιδοτάταν ὄρνιθα μελωιδὸν / ἀηδόνα δακρυόεσσαν. Together with πολυχορδοτάται and ὑμνεῖ, it reinforces the idea that the nightingale’s skills are almost equal to those of a human professional (the nightingale had been human Procne). ἀηδονίς, a female form of ἀηδών, is not attested elsewhere before the third century, when it becomes fashionable in poetry (Callim. HPall. 94 and (supplement) Aet. F 1.16 Harder, Noss. AP 7.414.3 = HE 2829, Posidipp. 37.6 Austin-Bast., [Theocr.] 8.38, AP 9.437.11 = HE 3484, Parthen. 33.2, adesp. SLG S460.8, adesp. AP 9.380.2). Arist. HA 536a28–30 (followed by Pliny, NH 10.51) claims that both female and male nightingales can sing. But he speaks only of ἡ … ἀηδών when he describes the seasonal variations in the song (HA 632b21–2). In reality it is only the male that sings, to establish his territory and to serenade the female; cf. Arnott (2007) 1. 551–3 For the sounds of human professional activities starting up again at dawn, see 527–64n. As Plut. Mor. 654f–655a comments: ‘evening marks the end of the day’s work, … and morning the beginning … morning rouses us for our duty to Athena Mistress of Work and Hermes Lord of the Market. Thus, song, dance, and the marriage-hymn occupy the evening …, but the morning is filled by the clang of hammers, the chatter of saws, the early morning cries of the tax-collectors, etc.’. νυκτιβρόμου ‘sounding in the night’ (Pierson (1752) 34), for νυκτιδρόμου / νυκτὶ δρόμου, is accepted in all modern editions. νυκτίδρομος ‘running in the night’ is attested only twice, in HOrph. 9.2 and SB 4127.14, but ‑δρομος compounds are at least 5x more common than -βρόμος compounds (cf. Buck and Petersen (1944) 197–8), and that may have helped the corruption. νυκτίβρομος, though not attested elsewhere, is paralleled by βαρύβρομος which occurs 5x in Euripides. βρέμειν, sometimes used of the sounds of musical instruments (e.g., Pind. Nem. 11.7 λύρα δέ σφι βρέμεται), is used of the music of the σῦριγξ in Nonn. Dion. 14.403 ἔβρεμε σῦριγξ and 43.385 ἁλίβρομος σῦριγξ, which may be modelled on Rh. 552–3. The idea of sound also meshes with the prevailing sound-imagery of the whole antistrophe and eliminates the idea of haste inherent in δρόμος, which does not suit the slow pace of shepherds and flocks or the rhythm of σῦριγξ music (if νυκτίδρομος is taken by hypallage with ἰάν, as it is by Pace (2002) 459). σύριγγος: the ‘panpipe’ was a set of three to nine reeds (in the archaic age) or four to ten (in the classical age) or four to eighteen (in the Hellenistic period), which were held together by wax; variation in tuning was effected by filling the reeds with wax to different depths (if the reeds were of the same

448

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 3 – 5 5 5 length), as usual in the classical age, or by using reeds of different lengths. Cf. West (1992) 109–12. It had a lowly status in Greece and was considered the typical instrument of herdsmen and their gods. Hom. Il. 18.525–6 introduces shepherds who enjoy the pleasure of playing their σύριγγες. Pl. Resp. 399d accepts the σῦριγξ in his ideal state, but for the shepherds in the countryside, whereas λύρα and κιθάρα are to be used in the city. A κηρόπλαστος δόναξ (= σῦριγξ by synecdoche) belongs to Hermes and the herdsman Argus at Aesch. PV 574–5 (cf. Weiss (2018) 143–4) and to the pastoral god Pan (HHom.Pan 15, Eur. El. 702–3, Ion 498=502, Bacch. 952). For shepherds playing σύριγγες in tragedy, cf., e.g., Soph. Ph. 213–14, Eur. Alc. 572–9, IA 573–6 (Paris as a cowherd on Ida), 1085–6. The sound of the shepherds’ σύριγγες is a sign of dawn in the parodos of Phaethon, Eur. TrGF 773.27–8 σύριγγας δ᾽ οὐριβάται / κινοῦσιν ποιμνᾶν ἐλάται, immediately following a mention of the nightingale’s song. The Φρουροί of Ion, which had a chorus of sentinels (see 532–4n.), described a transition from night to dawn (TrGF 19F53b νῦν δ’ ἐγγὺς ἠοῦς ἡνίκ’ οὐδέπω φάος / οὐδ’ ἀμβλὺς ὄρθρος), and at TrGF 19F45 ῥοθεῖ δέ τοι σῦριγξ Ἰδαῖος ἀλέκτωρ introduced the cock as σῦριγξ Ἰδαῖος or, with Kaibel’s emendation of the testimony of Athen., the σῦριγξ as Ἰδαῖος ἀλέκτωρ, ‘cock of Ida’ (see MinGrTrag ad loc.). ἤδη also appears in the parallel passage of Phaethon, where it introduces the hunters’ preparations (TrGF 773.31). ἰάν ‘voice’ is a high-flown word, attested in an oracle ap. Hdt. 1.85.2 and at Aesch. Pers. 937, Eur. Hipp. 585 (both lyric; in Eur. it is confirmed by a papyrus – the medieval MSS have ἰαχάν). It is also conjectured at Med. 205 (cf. Willink (2003=2010) 500–1) and Soph. OT 1219 (cf. Finglass on OT 1218–19/20). κατακούω refers to instrumental music, e.g., at Ar. Ran. 312 and Arist. EN 1175b4 (αὐλοί). Preverbal κατά is probably intensive, ‘I hear distinctly’; cf. Σ Dem. 1.159 οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ‘ἀκούειν’ μόνον, ἀλλὰ ‘κατακούειν’, ὅ ἐστι πάνυ ἀκούειν. 554–5 ‘And sleep enchants the repose of the eyes. For it comes most sweetly on the eyelids towards dawn.’ Sleep is formulaically ‘sweet’ in poetry, from Hom. onwards (νήδυμος/ἡδύς/γλυκύς/γλυκερός/μελίφρων/μελιηδής). The watchmen suggest the motif that sleep is especially sweet and thus desirable at dawn, attested at Pind. Pyth. 9.23–5 τὸν δὲ σύγκοιτον γλυκὺν / παῦρον ἐπὶ γλεϕάροις / ὕπνον ἀναλίσκοισα ῥέποντα πρὸς ἀῶ (the model of our lines, according to Liapis 226 and Fries 334), Bacch. F 4.76–8 οὐδὲ συλᾶται μελίϕρων / ὕπνος ἀπὸ βλεϕάρων / ἀῶιος ὃς θάλπει κέαρ, Leon. AP 7.726.1 = HE 2411 ἑσπέριον κἠῶιον ἀπώσατο πολλάκις ὕπνον, Mosch. Eur. 2–4 νυκτὸς ὅτε τρίτατον λάχος ἵσταται ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς, / ὕπνος ὅτε γλυκίων μέλιτος βλεϕάροισιν ἐϕίζων / λυσιμελὴς πεδάαι μαλακῶι κατὰ ϕάεα δεσμῶι, [Tibull.]

449

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 4 – 5 6 1 3.4.21–2 cum summo Phoebus prospexit ab ortu, / pressit languentis lumina sera quies, Luc. 36.24 ἕωθεν … ὑπὸ κώδωνι ἐξαναστὰς ἀπoσεισάμενος τοῦ ὕπνου τὸ ἥδιστον; also Alcm. PMGF 3.i.7 [ὕπνον ἀ]πὸ γλεϕάρων σκεδ[α]σεῖ γλυκύν (at dawn?; the subject is the song of the chorus). In the light of this motif, the sleepiness enchanting the watchmen’s eyes is mentioned as a further proof that sunrise is coming, and δ(έ) of 554 is continuative (Denniston (1954) 162– 5). Further, the watchmen may refer to sleepiness as an obvious danger for them, and imply that they should not continue with their guard duty, but rather wake up those who are to take over.77 The image of sleep located on the eyelids or the eyes – ‘seated’ on them, or ‘falling’ on them, or ‘poured’ on them by a god, or ‘vanishing’ from them – is common from epic onwards: e.g., Il. 10.26, 91–2, 14.164–5, Od. 1.364, 2.398, Mosch. Eur. 3; in tragedy, Soph. Tr. 989–91 μὴ σκεδάσαι / τῶιδ᾽ ἀπὸ κρατὸς / βλεϕάρων θ᾽ ὕπνον, Eur. Or. 302 ὕπνωι τ᾽ ἄυπνον βλέϕαρον ἐκταθεῖσα δός. θέλγει: for sleep as a bewitching spell or drug, cf. Hom. Il. 24.343–4 (Hermes) εἵλετο δὲ ῥάβδον, τῆι τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ὄμματα θέλγει / ὧν ἐθέλει, τοὺς δ᾽ αὖτε καὶ ὑπνώοντας ἐγείρει (~ Od. 24.2–4; cf. Nonn. Dion. 35.234–6), Eur. Or. 211 ὦ ϕίλον ὕπνου θέλγητρον, ἐπίκουρον νόσου, IA 142 μήθ’ ὕπνωι θελχθῆις, Nonn. Dion. 31.192–3 Ὕπνος … ὤμοσεν ὄμματα θέλγειν / Ζηνός, 48.605 ἡδέι θέλγομαι ὕπνωι. Through the verb θέλγειν, concerned as they are with the task of remaining dutifully awake, the watchmen focus on the powerful agency of ὕπνος as an external force dangerously impinging on them. ὄμματος ἕδραν ‘repose of the eyes’, i.e., when the eyelids are closed. The phrase varies βλεφάρων ἕδραν at 8. πρὸς ἀῶ ‘at dawn’ (independently suggested by Blaydes (1901) 7 and Headlam (1901) 102), is the Doricising form equivalent to Attic πρὸς ἕω of Ar. Eccl. 312 and appears at Pind. Pyth. 9.25, quoted above, and Theocr. 18.55. The accusative is paralleled by the more common πρὸς ὄρθρον (e.g. Ar. Eccl. 20, Xen. Hell. 2.4.24, Herond. 7.42) and πρὸς ἑσπέραν. Transmitted πρὸς ἀοῦς, genitive, is not attested in a temporal sense and would suggest that ‘sleep is regarded as a gift from the hand of Morning’ (Headlam (1901) 102). 557–61 are an amoibaion roughly corresponding to 538–41, and likewise divided between the semichoruses or among single choreutae. There is no paragraphos signalling a change of speaker between 558 and 559, and 559 may be assigned to the same character as 557–8, as an explanation of the question; but the changes of speakers suggested by Diggle give a dialogue which is more lively (as observed by Liapis 227) and has an interchange of speakers similar to the parallel 538–41. Two speakers (the two semichoruses?) Aen. Tact. 22.5 warns about sleepiness as a danger that too long guard duties aggravate.

77

450

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 6 – 5 6 1 are enough, with 557–8 and 560–1a spoken by the ‘questioner’, and 559 and 561b by an anxious interlocutor. This second amoibaion is unrelated to the problem of the change of the guard, but here too the approach of dawn is relevant: at 223 Dolon had predicted that he would return before dawn, and his failure to do so makes the chorus anxious. τί ποτ᾽ οὐ πελάθει σκοπός: cf. Aesch. TrGF 132 τί ποτ᾽ ἀνδροδάικτον ἀκούων, / ἰή, κόπον οὐ πελάθεις ἐπ’ ἀρωγάν; (lines from the Iliadic play Myrmidons, which the verbatim quotation at Ar. Ran. 1264–5, at the beginning of a small anthology of Aeschylean texts, may have made especially memorable). σκοπός is used of Dolon in Il. 10.324, 526, 561; only here in Rh., where κατάσκοπος is usually found (8x) in trimeters; see 125–7n. ναῶν / Ἕκτωρ ὤτρυνε κατόπτην: κατόπτης is usually connected in Rh. (134, 150, 155) with the mention of the ships = Greek camp as the geographical goal of Dolon’s mission. ὤτρυνε may echo a phrase addressed by Menelaus to Agamemnon at Il. 10.37–8 ἦ τιν᾽ ἑταίρων / ὀτρυνέεις Τρώεσσιν ἐπίσκοπον (ἔπι σκοπόν Nicias, ἐπίσκοπον MSS and Aristarchus); see also 10.561–3 τὸν … σκοπὸν … / τόν ῥα διοπτῆρα στρατοῦ ἔμμεναι ἡμετέροιο / Ἕκτωρ τε προέηκε καὶ ἄλλοι Τρῶες ἀγαυοί. χρόνιος: ‘for a long time’ or ‘after a long time’. The predicative construction with adverbial sense is regular with adjectives of time, from Hom. onwards, and adverbial forms are rare (KG I.274, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 345). This use of χρόνιος, in particular, with verbs of coming, going, or staying, is typical of Eur.; cf. Cycl. 249, Andr. 84 τί δῆτα ϕήσω χρόνιος οὖσ᾽ ἐκ δωμάτων;, Supp. 91 χρονίαν ἀποῦσαν ἐκ δόμων, El. 1157, IT 258, Ion 403, Hel. 566, 1035, 1232, Or. 485, IA 1099 χρόνιον ἀπόντα (not in Aesch., but cf. Soph. Ph. 1446, 1449). ἐμπεσών at the end of the line in O must have been a marginal gloss on ἐσπαίσας below that made its way into the text. ἀλλ᾽ ἦ introduces an anxious question. The speaker hopes for a negative answer; see 36–7a n. κρυπτὸν λόχον The adjective is redundant, as an ‘ambush’ is always ‘hidden’ (Liapis 227). But here the epithet will probably indicate that the ambush remained ‘hidden’ to him, so that he could not avoid it. ἐσπαίσας ‘having burst into’, i.e., ‘rushed into’ the ambush with some violence (εἰσπεσών of VaΛ reflects the same banalisation found at Soph. OT 1252). He was in a rush (Dolon was a fast runner, as Il. 10.355–71 indicates) and did not notice the ambush in advance. Comparable passages are Hom. Od. 22.468–9 ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ’ ἂν ἢ κίχλαι τανυσίπτεροι ἠὲ πέλειαι / ἕρκει ἐνιπλήξωσι, Eur. Or. 1315 στείχει γὰρ ἐσπαίσουσα (Wecklein: ‑πεσοῦσα codd.) δικτύων βρόχους, Callim. Aet. F 75.36–7 Harder θαμεινοί / πλήσσονται λινέαις ὄρτυγες ἐν νεϕέλαις. διόλωλε; †τάχ᾽ ἂν εἴη† φοβερόν μοι is unmetrical. The most economical emendation is διόλωλε; — τάχ᾽ ἄν· φοβερόν μοι (Headlam (1901) 103).

451

C O M M E N TA RY 5 6 1 – 5 9 4 τάχ᾽ ἄν ‘probably’ (138–9n.) appears alone in answers in Plato: Sph. 255c, 257d, Pol. 258b, Phl. 23d, 66c, Resp. 369a, Leg. 658a, 831b. Other suggestions: Herwerden (1894) 85 διόλωλε τάλας; — φοβερόν μοι, Hermann (1828) 306 διόλωλε; τάχ᾽ ἂν εἴη φανερόν, Diggle (ed.) διόλωλε; τάχ᾽ ἂν εἴη φοβερόν μοι. 562–4 ‘I command: go and wake the Lycians, the fifth watch according to the lot’s appointment.’ The lines are spoken by the same speaker as 543–5 – probably the coryphaeus, as only the first person singular, as here, is used by the three tragedians and Ar. when the chorus leader refers to his own words (Kaimio (1970) 162). At 543–5 the conclusion about the time of night and the timeliness of the change of the guard was still presented in an interrogative form. After acknowledging further signs (nightingale, shepherds’ panpipes) and wondering about Dolon, the chorus now formulates a precise order. αὐδῶ has been rendered ‘I say’ (e.g., Liapis 228 ‘I say that we should go and wake…’, Kovacs 411 ‘I say: go and wake…’); but ‘saying’ or ‘stating’ is only just a little stronger than the rhetorical question of 543–5. It is better to take the verb to mean ‘I command’, with a strong performative force that justifies the repetition of most of 543–5, giving a climax: ‘now I am not asking whether you should go …; now I command you to go…’. For αὐδᾶν ‘order’ in tragedy, cf., e.g., Aesch. Sept. 1042, Soph. OC 864, Eur. Andr. 619, Her. 499, 1215, Tro. 1260 (with Kovacs ad loc.). 565–94 The watchmen do not see or hear what Odysseus and Diomedes are plotting, nor are they aware of the epiphany of Athena and the dialogue between Athena-Aphrodite and Alexander. It seems that they depart after 564, so that they can wake the Lycians for their guard duty; but, curiously enough, this purpose will not be carried out, and no explanation is provided. The same watchmen reappear on guard duty at 675. The chorus rarely leave the stage in Greek tragedy (μετάστασις), originally perhaps only during a change of location (Aesch. Eum. and Soph. Aj.), but from Soph. Aj. onwards also to enable a character or characters to remain on stage isolated from the chorus (Ritchie (1964) 118–19; differently Taplin (1977a) 380–1). Such choral exits are found at Aesch. Eum. 231 (ἐπιπάροδος, namely re-entrance, at 244), possibly PV 283 (but the chorus may stay behind the skene: Griffith on PV 128–92), Soph. Aj. 814 (re-entrance at 866), Eur. Alc. 746 (the chorus does not intervene after 746 and speak again only at 872, but may remain in the orchestra, unobserved, during the scene with Heracles and the servant: Parker ad loc., pp. 299–301), Hel. 385 (re-entrance at 515); at Phaeth., TrGF 781.61–74, where the maidens of the subsidiary chorus led on stage by Merops have sometimes been assumed to re-enter from the palace (e.g., Ritchie (1964) 118–19), but they probably remain in the orchestra (Diggle on Eur. Phaeth., pp. 149–50, Taplin (1977a) 376).

452

C O M M E N TA RY 5 6 5 – 5 9 4 The chorus leave without seeing Odysseus and Diomedes, who must enter, however, from the same eisodos (the one leading to the seashore and the Greek camp). Simultaneous entrances are not rare in tragedy but occur no more than once in each play, and only with characters who are closely connected to each other (as Odysseus and Diomedes certainly are, in military terms, in the ‘Doloneia’) and thus ‘bring a common experience to the stage’ (Poe (1992) 138). It is less frequent (as observed by Stevens on Eur. Andr., pp. 114–15, Taplin (1977a) 363–4, Liapis 229, Fries 338) for characters to enter continuing a dialogue already begun; cf. Soph. Ph. 1222, Eur. Supp. 381, Hipp. 601, IA 303, TrGF 62a.2–5. This kind of entrance is more common in Ar. (Nub. 1214, Av. 801, Lys. 1, Ran. 830) and becomes very frequent in Men.: Asp. 250, Dysc. 233–4 (with Gomme and Sandbach ad loc.), Epitr. 1062, Georg. 22, Heros 1, Peric. 267, Phasma 26, Sam. 61, 283, 369, Sic. 150, 312. The Greeks enter unannounced, as is usual immediately after the conclusion of a choral song, unless there is an actor on stage to whom the announcement is addressed (Hamilton (1978), 72, Riemer (1991) 20–2, Kovacs on Eur. Tro. 230–4). They can be supposed to enter either shortly after the chorus have left or at the same time (if the former, the orchestra would remain empty, and this is not attested in the tragic texts we know). In either case, it would be reasonable for Hector to accuse the watchmen of letting them slip past (808–9). A character who is leaving need not meet a character who is entering by the same eisodos: at Eur. Alc. 860, for example, Heracles is supposed to leave for Alcestis’ tomb without meeting Admetus as he enters. The nocturnal setting of Rh. would make it more plausible for the characters not to notice each other. It has been suggested that Odysseus and Diomedes enter during the preceding performance of the chorus and take cover by the thymele (Wiles (1997) 156–8). As the first stasimon invoked Thymbraean Apollo (224), the altar on the stage may already have been associated by the audience with Thymbraean Apollo, and in Hom. Il. 10.430–4 it is in the direction of Thymbre that Rhesus is said to have made his camp; moreover, at Rh. 507–9 it was said that Odysseus often hides in ambush behind this altar. But if Odysseus and Diomedes were already on stage and had overheard the watchmen, and seen when they left, it would be curious that at 570, a few lines after the chorus’ departure, Odysseus could warn Diomedes to take care ‘not to run into guards in the dark’ (Liapis xxxvii–xxxviii). Liapis (2017) 339 suggests that between the chorus’ exit and the entrance of Odysseus and Diomedes there is a dramatically pregnant silence, as it will become clear with their appearance that Dolon is dead and that the dramatic action prepares for the climactic slaughter of Rhesus: ‘a performance area … is by definition an “empty space” waiting to be filled with visual and aural stimuli; a theater

453

C O M M E N TA RY 5 6 5 – 5 9 4 stage that is empty of motion and sound is bound to produce an unsettling, even eerie effect’. The entrance of Odysseus and Diomedes is marked by indeterminacy. They may have entered carrying spoils (Dolon’s wolfskin: 591–3n.), but the audience do not know yet from whom those spoils have been won, and they are not mentioned until 592–3, nor will they ever be described. In the light of Il. 10, the audience may have suspected that they were taken from Dolon, but it is only at 573 that it is implied that he has indeed been killed, and only at 591–3 that his death is confirmed. Furthermore, Diomedes is addressed by name at 565, but Odysseus is not named until 580–1. Finally, it is only at 570–1 that it becomes clear that the two Greeks are on the move, and at 574 that we learn that they are heading for Hector’s bivouac. The plans of the two Greeks at their entrance come to nothing. This ineffectiveness is a link (not the only one) between the Trojan watchmen at the start of the play and Odysseus and Diomedes here. Both approach Hector’s tent (βῆθι πρὸς εὐνάς 1, εὐνὰς ἐρήμους … ὁρῶ 574) and both are affected by φόβος (37, 569). But just as the alarm caused by fires in the Greek camp is emphasised at the beginning of the play but soon forgotten (1–51n.), so the second beginning proves abortive. The watchmen found Hector in his tent, but Odysseus and Diomedes do not, and the second part of the play cannot begin as the two Greeks had planned (580–1). They seem unmindful, too, of the task for which, according to Il. 10, they left the Greek camp: rather than attempting to gather information about the Trojans’ intentions (Il. 10.207–10), they are focused on killing Hector (575–81). They are certainly not thinking of Rhesus and his horses, and they are curious about the clatter from horses nearby, but not about the relevant horses; they are so concerned with their present danger that they only want to make sure that the noise they hear is not the clatter of arms (τευχέων … κτύπον, 566). Later, when they realise that it will be impossible to find Hector, they discuss whether to return to the Greek camp as soon as possible (a choice of inaction, which seems to prevail) or to opt for another target. Only Athena’s intervention provides a new impetus for action. 565–6: cf. Eur. El. 747–8 φίλαι, βοῆς ἠκούσατ᾿, ἢ δοκὼ κενὴ / ὑπῆλθέ μ᾿, ὥστε νερτέρας βροντῆς Διός. For the topos that, in a state of anxiety, any sound may cause terror, cf. Soph. TrGF 61 βοᾶι τις, ὤ· ἀκούετ᾽; ἢ μάτην ὑλῶ; / ἅπαντα γάρ τοι τῶι ϕοβουμένωι ψοϕεῖ, TrGF 314.145 τί μοι ψ[ό]ϕον ϕοβ[εῖσθε] κα[ὶ] δειμαίνετε …; (Diggle (1996a) 8) and Eur. Pho. 269–71 ὠή, τίς οὗτος; ἢ κτύπον ϕοβούμεθα; / ἅπαντα γὰρ τολμῶσι δεινὰ ϕαίνεται, / ὅταν δι᾽ ἐχθρᾶς ποὺς ἀμείβηται χθονός, a situation comparable to Rh., as Odysseus and Diomedes are in an area controlled by the Trojan watchmen. The reference to sound as a criterion of assessing danger reminds the audience that Rh. is set at night, when ‘the ear has become more important than the eye’ (Walton

454

C O M M E N TA RY 5 5 5 – 5 6 7 (2000) 143–4). The stress on the uncertain nature of that sound contributes to the play’s insistence on the difficulty of secure understanding of reality; see 656–9n. For the parenthesis separating a verb from its object, cf. Eur. Cycl. 121, Tro. 299, KG II.602, Diggle (1981) 116; for the intertwining of two questions by means of parenthesis, see, in addition to those two passages, Hipp. 685–6, Hel. 1579–80, Bacch. 649. ἀκούειν is often absolute, so that an object is not immediately wanted at Rh. 565. Vater 216 would eliminate the parenthesis and assume a transitive interpretation of στάζειν (‘nonne audivisti armorum strepitum, an sonus caecus auribus armorum strepitum instillat?’), but this is less stylish. κενὸς ψόφος ‘insubstantial (or ‘senseless’) noise’ is found here and at Plut. Mor. 1010a (‘empty vaunt’ is commoner, with metaphorical κενός: e.g., Alexis, PCG 25.8–9, Phryn. Praep. soph. 83.8 de Borries, Σ Soph. Aj. 168). ψόφος designates a noise which is not a human voice. For the contrast in Aristotle between ψόφος, used of meaningless noises uttered by animals, and φωνή, used of the human voice, cf. Ax (1978). στάζει: the verb usually refers to liquids, in both the intransitive and transitive meanings ‘dripping’ and ‘letting something fall in drips’. The metaphorical use is here parallel to the image of the ‘flowing out’ (ῥεῖν) of the voice, which is already Homeric (Il. 1.249) and Hesiodic (Th. 39–40); a close parallel for the ‘dripping’ of the voice is Pind. Pyth. 4.136–8 πραῢν ... μαλθακᾶι φωνᾶι ποτιστάζων ὄαρον. The verb conveys the idea that there are pauses between one drop and the next, but the dripping does not stop (cf. Méautis (1936) 137 n. 1, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 179), as at Aesch. Ag. 179–80 στάζει ... πρὸ καρδίας / μνησιπήμων πόνος, Soph. Ant. 959–60 τᾶς μανίας δεινὸν ἀποστάζει / ἀνθηρόν τε μένος, Eur. Hipp. 525–6 Ἔρως, ὁ κατ᾽ ὀμμάτων / στάζων πόθον, Supp. 79–82 ἄπληστος ἅδε μ’ ἐξάγει χάρις γόων / πολύπονος, ὡς ἐξ ἁλιβλήτου πέτρας / ὑγρὰ ῥέουσα σταγὼν / ἄπαυστος αἰεὶ †γόων†. δι᾽ ὤτων: see 294–7n. τευχέων … κτύπον: κτύπος most often refers to a dull sound; in Hom., for example, to the sound produced by the feet of men or horses. But cf. Aesch. Sept. 100 ἀκούετ’ ἢ οὐκ ἀκούετ᾽ ἀσπίδων κτύπον, Xen. Cyr. 7.1.35 (ὅπλων), Dion. Hal. AR 8.66.2 (ὅπλων). 567–9 δεσμά and δεσμῶν ἱππικῶν (569) are most probably the chains by which Rhesus’ horses are tethered to the rail of the chariot at night; cf. 616– 17 πῶλοι … ἐξ ἁρμάτων … δέδενται, following Hom. Il. 10.474–5 παρ᾽ αὐτῶι (scil. near Rhesus) δ᾿ ὠκέες ἵπποι / ἐξ ἐπιδιφριάδος πυμάτης ἱμᾶσι δέδεντο. ‘When the chariot is left to itself, it is naturally to the front rail that the reins are fastened to make the horses believe that they are effectively tied up’ (Lorimer (1950) 326); see, e.g., Hom. Il. 5.262 = 322 ἐξ ἄντυγος ἡνία τείνας, quoted above.

455

C O M M E N TA RY 5 6 7 – 5 7 0 πωλικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων is based on Soph. Aj. 1030 (πρισθεὶς) ἱππικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων. The adjective πωλικός, not attested before Aesch. and Soph. (and only once in each), appears 6x in Eur. (4x in the IA). Like ἱππικός at Soph. Aj. 1030 or El. 730 ναυαγίων ... ἱππικῶν, the adjective is here a synecdoche for ‘of the chariot’ (Jebb on Soph. Aj. 1030); but it also hints at the very horses which will be captured by Odysseus and Diomedes. On ἄντυξ, see 116–18n. The phrase may be taken as attibutive with δεσμά as, e.g., at Aesch. Pers. 611 βοός τ᾽ ἀϕ᾽ ἁγνῆς λευκὸν εὔποτον γάλα, Eur. El. 794 λουτροῖσι καθαροῖς ποταμίων ῥείθρων ἄπο, IT 162 παγὰς … οὐρειᾶν ἐκ μόσχων, Or. 984 βῶλον ἐξ Ὀλύμπου; cf. Diggle (1981) 28–9, Fries 340. κλάζει σίδηρον: cf. Aesch. Sept. 385–6 ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος δὲ τῶι / χαλκήλατοι κλάζουσι κώδωνες ϕόβον (cf. Rh. 569 φόβος). As observed by Fries 340, Sept. 245 καὶ μὴν ἀκούω γ᾽ ἱππικῶν ϕρυαγμάτων and 249 δέδοικ᾽, ἀραγμὸς δ᾽ ἐν πύλαις ὀϕέλλεται include other words or phrases that may have been in the background of our passage: ἀραγμός, ἱππικῶν, ἔδυ φόβος. The transmitted σιδήρου might be interpreted as a genitive of material to be taken with δεσμά (Zanetto (ii) 87), but the word order is not in favour of this. It is hazardous to follow Vater 216 and Porter 75 in taking it with κλάζει, by analogy with the genitive used with verbs of apprehension or emission of odours (e.g., ὄζειν, πνεῖν, ὀσφραίνεσθαι; cf. Cooper (1998) I.209–10). But this construction is not attested elsewhere with intransitive verbs that refer to sounds. Such verbs often take an accusative (cf. KG I.309). Hence σίδηρον (internal accusative with κλάζει) of Bothe (i) 296 and Paley 42, accepted by Diggle, Liapis 231, and Fries 340. τοι calls attention to the speaker’s emotional or intellectual participation (Denniston (1954) 541). πρίν + indicative after an affirmative sentence, as at 294; see 294–5n. ἀραγμόν is a tragic word: Aesch. Sept. 249, Soph. OC 1609, Eur. Pho. 1143, TrGF 631.1–2, Lycophr. 940. ἔδυ φόβος is modelled on the Iliadic ἔδυ ... χόλος (9.553, 19.16, 22.94; also Batr. 102), a phrase that describes heroic anger (of Meleager, Achilles, and a snake compared to Hector). The author uses it here for fear not anger, but he may have had in mind the ‘trembling’ which seized the Myrmidons and is mentioned together with the χόλος that entered Achilles at Il. 19.14–16 Μυρμιδόνας δ’ ἄρα πάντας ἕλε τρόμος, οὐδέ τις ἔτλη / ἄντην εἰσιδέειν, ἀλλ’ ἔτρεσαν· αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς / ὡς εἶδ’, ὥς μιν μᾶλλον ἔδυ χόλος. 570–1 Cf. Eur. IT 67–8 (Or.) ὅρα, ϕυλάσσου μή τις ἐν στίβωι βροτῶν. / (Pyl.) ὁρῶ, σκοποῦμαι δ᾽ ὄμμα πανταχῆι στρέϕων, where the dramatic situation is similar (Ritchie (1964) 245 however observes ‘there is some resemblance in vocabulary, but not enough to arouse suspicion of imitation’). ὅρα ... μή + subjunctive, probably an Attic colloquial phrase, is not attested before Soph., Eur., and Pl., and occurs mainly in dialogic contexts.

456

C O M M E N TA RY 5 7 0 – 5 7 3 ὅρα combines the notions of ‘see’ and ‘watch over’ or ‘beware of ’. Here, side by side with κατ᾽ ὄρφνην (ὄρφνη is one of the words most frequently used of the darkness of the night: see 42n.), ὅρα ‘see’ would be almost a paradox, and 570 makes clear that the sense of the verb must be ‘beware of ’ (meeting sentinels). This sense links ὅρα with verbs of fear or caution and thus justifies the subjunctive (Kamerbeek on Soph. Ph. 30), meaning that the encounter with the enemy is a future possibility (the indicative would imply that the encounter was actually happening: Jebb on Soph. Ph. 30, Goodwin (1889) 133). τοι indicates that the speaker accepts the command. This usage is often found with a verb in the future tense (Denniston (1954) 541). κἀν σκότωι = καὶ ἐν σκότωι, with adverbial καί (Liapis 232). Diomedes emphasises that he will be careful in placing his feet, especially since it is dark. τιθεὶς πόδα (also 203) is a favourite periphrasis of Eur., who frequently adds an adjective to πόδα to qualify the pace (Collard on Eur. Supp. 170–1; see 201–3n., 280n.). It appears without an adjective, as here, e.g., at Aesch. Supp. 31–2, Eur. Pho. 1721. 572 ἢν δ᾽ οὖν: εἰ (ἢν) δ’ οὖν, not attested before Aesch., is a transition typical of dialogic style, frequent in the tragedians and Plato. It is used especially when a speaker expresses a thought which he rejects or considers improbable (Denniston (1954) 464–5): ‘but if in reality (which I doubt or do not want) …’. ἐγείρηις ‘you stir up’ (as, e.g., Hom. Il. 15.242) or ‘you wake’. Sentries are not expected to sleep, and the former sense is preferable if the verb is taken to have as its object the Trojan φύλακες mentioned at 570. In the latter sense the verb would have as its object any sleeping enemy soldier. σύνθημα = σύμβολον of 573 and σῆμα of 12. In the night attack against the Syracusans at the Epipolae hill the Athenian soldiers, affected by panic, were obsessively asking one another for the password (Thuc. 7.44.4); likewise the Romans at Jos. BJ 5.295. 573 Increasing anxiety about Dolon’s fate is expressed first by Hector (525–6), and then by the chorus (557–62). The references to Dolon here and at 575 are the only indications, before 591–3, that the two Greeks have encountered him. Hom.’s detailed narration (Il. 10.349–468) is thus mainly presupposed but suppressed by Rhesus. The interrogation of Dolon was a crucial element in Il. 10, as it was he who suggested the idea of killing Rhesus. In Rh., however, this role belongs to Athena and the interrogation of Dolon, who only provides the password and the directions to Hector’s bivouac, could be briefly referred to. Φοῖβον: see 521n. οἶδα … κλυών (again at 858) or κλύων is a tragic phrase (e.g., Soph. Ph. 682, Eur. Andr. 563, Bacch. 462, TrGF 448a.18); but οἶδα ... ἀκούσας is found in Hdt. (see 438–42n.). For aorist κλυών, see 109–10a n.

457

C O M M E N TA RY 5 7 4 – 5 7 5 574–9 Odysseus and Diomedes have come progressively closer to Hector’s bivouac. They first notice that the ‘enemy’ is absent; only at 575–6 does Diomedes make it clear that their target was Hector. A similar gradual shift is found at the beginning of the play: the sentinels of the chorus first try to approach the bodyguard protecting Hector’s bivouac, and then address Hector (see 1–51n., 527–64n.). Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ abortive attempt to kill Hector, which is not part of the Iliadic narrative, was perhaps suggested by an overinterpretation of Odysseus’ question to Dolon at Il. 10.406–7 ποῦ νῦν δεῦρο κιὼν λίπες ῞Εκτορα ποιμένα λαῶν; / ποῦ δέ οἱ ἔντεα κεῖται ἀρήϊα, ποῦ δέ οἱ ἵπποι;. Il. 10.408–11 makes it clear that Odysseus is carrying out broader reconnaissance: he asks about the positions of the sentinels and troops in the Trojan camp, and the Trojans’ intentions. But for Σ exeg. the question of Il. 10.406 suggests that Odysseus thinks of attacking Hector: καλῶς τοῦτο πυνθάνεται, ἵνα ἐγρηγορότος μὲν καὶ διέποντος τὰς ϕυλακὰς ἀπόσχοιντο, εἰ δὲ καθεύδοι, ἐπιχειρήσειαν καὶ αὐτὸν ἀνελεῖν. Aristarchus too thought that Odysseus wished to kill Hector: at Il. 10.281–2 he asks Athena to let him and Diomedes return safely to the Greek camp ῥέξαντας μέγα ἔργον, not further specified, but for Aristarchus the μέγα ἔργον is τὸ ϕονεῦσαι τὸν ῞Εκτορα (Σ A 10.282). 574 ‘I see that these beds here are empty of the enemy’ (taking ἐρήμους as predicative, with the copula οὔσας understood, with Mastronarde (2004) 28, not ‘I see empty beds of the enemy here’, with Kovacs 411; see below). As observed by Fries 341, the situation and some of the wording recall an exchange between Neoptolemus and Odysseus in Soph. Ph., when they discover that Philoctetes’ cave is empty: 31 (Neopt.) ὁρῶ κενὴν οἴκησιν ἀνθρώπων δίχα and 34 (Od.) τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔρημα, κοὐδέν ἐσθ᾽ ὑπόστεγον. The interjection ἔα here stands extra metrum, as in 65 per cent of its occurrences in Eur., where it usually indicates a speaker’s surprise when confronted with something new and often unwelcome (Page on Eur. Med. 1004, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1256f., p. 580 n. 4, Bond on Eur. Her. 514, Collard (2018) 78–9). It may also be meant to direct Diomedes’ attention to the new sight (Nordgren (2015) 218–20). εὐνὰς ἐρήμους = Eur. Alc. 925. ἐρήμους … πολεμίων possibly belongs in technical military language; cf. Xen. Hell. 3.4.21 δι᾽ ἐρημίας πολεμίων πορευόμενος = Ages. 1.29, 7.2.9 ἔρημος τῶν πολεμίων, Cyr. 7.1.17 ἔρημα τῶν πολεμίων. But genitives such as ἀνδρῶν or ἀνθρώπων are frequent with this adjective: e.g., Hdt. 3.149.1, 5.15.2, Soph. OT 57, Xen. Cyr. 4.1.9, 4.4.5, Pl. Leg. 862e. 575–6 καὶ μήν … γε, introduces a new point, here with adversative force, ‘and yet’ (elsewhere often to express agreement), with γε emphasising the most important word: Denniston (1954) 351–2, 357–8, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 589, Parker on Eur. Alc. 713.

458

C O M M E N TA RY 5 7 5 – 5 7 9 τάσδ᾽ ἔφραζεν Ἕκτορος / κοίτας ‘(Dolon) pointed out that this is the bivouac of Hector’, with οὔσας to be understood, as at 574. In Homer active φράζειν (from the root of φρήν) usually means ‘make known’, ‘indicate’ (through signs), and sometimes perhaps ‘say’ (never according to Aristarchus); both meanings are found in post-Homeric authors; cf. Bertolín Cebrián (1996) 115–40. ἐφ᾿ ὧιπερ ἔγχος εἵλκυσται τόδε ‘against whom this sword is drawn’. ἔγχος, usually ‘spear’ (as in 25, 462, 793), here means ‘sword’, as often in Soph. and Eur. (as acknowledged by Σ Soph. Ant. 1236): Soph. Aj. 95, 287, 658, 907, OT 1255, Ant. 1236, Eur. Alc. 76, El. 696, Pho. 1413 (but in Pho. 1192 and 1374 it means ‘spear’). The two Greeks were armed with swords (586 and 669), and neither Rh. nor Il. 10 mentions a spear as part of their equipment. In any case ἕλκειν ‘draw’ is the proper verb for a sword, and not for a spear: cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 1.194 and 210, Pind. F 52.i.103–4 ἐπὶ Θήβας ξίφος ἑλκόμενον, Soph. Ant. 1232. 577 τί δῆτ᾿ ἂν εἴη; ‘what might this mean?’ = Eur. IA 843, Ar. Eccl. 24, 348 (always said by characters who are at a loss). δῆτα, with its strong logical connective force (Denniston (1954) 269), is common in dialogic questions; it is found with ἄν + optative in Eur., Ar., Plato, and particularly Sophocles. μῶν λόχος: for μῶν, see 17a n.; λόχος is here the ‘company’ of Hector (26–7n.). 578 The sequence of thought is clear (574–8): ‘This bivouac is empty. And yet Hector should be here, according to Dolon. So, are (he and) his company somewhere else? Perhaps to arrange an ambush?’. μηχανὴν στήσων: cf. Eur. Andr. 995–6 τοία γὰρ αὐτῶι μηχανὴ πεπλεγμένη / βρόχοις ἀκινήτοισιν ἕστηκεν ϕόνου, El. 983 ὑποστήσων δόλον. At Rh. 92 Hector surmises that the watchmen have come to him to report that a δόλος κρυφαῖος had been set (ἑστάναι). This is in line with this night’s special aura, when Greeks and Trojans organise parallel spying missions against each other. Odysseus is formulaically πολυμήχανος in Hom., and at 512–17 Rhesus had used μηχανᾶσθαι of the deeds which Odysseus had accomplished at Troy when he entered the city disguised as a beggar. 579 θρασὺς ... θρασύς: this type of anaphora, in which the same word is placed at the beginning and end of the line, is common in Eur.: Alc. 722, Hcld. 225, 307, Hipp. 327, Pho. 1446, Bacch. 655, 963, TrGF 414.1; also Soph. TrGF 210.46, 753. θρασύς ‘bold’ is a typical Homeric epithet for Hector: of the eleven Iliadic occurrences, seven refer to Hector, and three to his charioteer. The repeated application of θρασύς to him in Rh. is at the same time apprehensive and scornful: Odysseus presents what in Hom. is a permanent heroic quality of Hector (Homeric epithets designate permanent qualities rather

459

C O M M E N TA RY 5 8 0 – 5 8 4 than temporary states78) as a transitory consequence of his present success and as a result of the divine help that gives him εὐτυχία in the war (582–4). 580–1 Odysseus is named for the first time only now, when his companion consults him about their plan of action. Odysseus addressed Diomedes by name when the two first appeared on stage (565), and at that point Diomedes employed his military nous to relieve Odysseus’ fear. In both cases, then, the naming is connected to actions reflecting the heroes’ typical roles. τί δῆτ᾽ … δρῶμεν, or δράσω (deliberative aorist subjunctives), with or without δῆτα, are the ‘characteristic cry of the tragic hero’ (Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 899), often used in dialogue to introduce the aporia about possible courses of action. It is sometimes followed in the same line by a γάρ-phrase that explains the reason why the speaker is at a loss, in Eur. (Med. 1042, IT 96, Pho. 740; also Or. 551) and in Ar. (Ach. 466, Pax 1252, Eccl. 358). ηὕρομεν (Dindorf (iii) III.2.611, for εὕρομεν) is a necessary correction, as drama does not omit the temporal augment in spoken verse (KB II.18). The mistake, here and at 614, 762, 763, 769, 779, may have been facilitated by the fact that, as is clear from inscriptional evidence, verbs with roots in αυ- and ευ- seem to have had ηυ- when augmented in the classical period, but from the mid-fourth century shortened forms in ευ- became the most frequent for the historic tenses; cf. Lautensach (1899) 49, Threatte (1980-1996) I.384-5, II.482-3, 486, Mastronarde (1989), Fries 343. Poets of the late fourth century may have followed the up-to-date spelling reflected by inscriptions, but the conservatism of traditional tragic language makes it probable that transmitted εὕρομεν of Rh. is a scribal rather then an authorial innovation. ἐλπίδων δ᾿ ἡμάρτομεν = Eur. Med. 498. The phrase is not attested earlier, but is not rare in fourth-century prose and the koine (Plato 1x, Isocr. 3x, [Lys.] 1x, Dion. Hal. 6x, etc.). 582–4 recall Iliadic passages in which a hero (frequently Diomedes) shuns fighting a god or retreats or is invited to retreat before a fighting god or an enemy whom he believes to be supported by divine help. Cf. Il. 5.127–32, 5.440–2, 5.600–6 (Diomedes retreats and asks his men to retreat before Hector, suggesting (cf. Rh. 583–4) that Hector owes his success to divine help: ὦ ϕίλοι οἷον δὴ θαυμάζομεν Ἕκτορα δῖον / αἰχμητήν τ᾽ ἔμεναι καὶ θαρσαλέον πολεμιστήν· / τῶι δ᾽ αἰεὶ πάρ᾽ ἑέις γε θεῶν, ὃς λοιγὸν ἀμύνει· / καὶ νῦν οἱ πάρα κεῖνος Ἄρης βροτῶι ἀνδρὶ ἐοικώς. / ἀλλὰ … / εἴκετε, μηδὲ θεοῖς μενεαινέμεν ἶϕι μάχεσθαι), 6.128–9, 8.139–50 (Nestor asks Diomedes to retreat as Zeus appears to be helping the Trojans and Hector rather than him), 17.98–101 (Menelaus observes that ὁππότ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐθέληι πρὸς δαίμονα ϕωτὶ μάχεσθαι / As Σ A Il. 8.555 observes, the moon is καθόλου and φύσει (‘in general’ and ‘by nature’) λαμπρά, κἂν μὴ πανσέληνος ἦι.

78

460

C O M M E N TA RY 5 8 2 – 5 8 5 ὅν κε θεὸς τιμᾶι, τάχα οἱ μέγα πῆμα κυλίσθη, and decides not to fight Hector, ἐπεὶ ἐκ θεόφιν πολεμίζει), 20.97–102, Andersen (1978) 85–7. στείχωμεν ὡς τάχιστα … πέλας: cf. Soph. Ph. 1219–21 εἰ μὴ πέλας / Ὀδυσσέα στείχοντα … / … ἐλεύσσομεν, TrGF 257.1 ὡς νῦν τάχος στείχωμεν, Eur. Tro. 445 στεῖχ᾽ ὅπως τάχιστ(α), Bacch. 346 στειχέτω τις ὡς τάχος. ‘Mooring places’ are always plural in Rh. (136, 244, 448, 591, 602, 673); ναυστάθμου of Λ is a slip. σώιζει ... / τίθησιν: divine help is responsible for the greatest human successes or failures; cf. Il 1.178 (Agamemnon to Achilles) εἰ μάλα καρτερός ἐσσι, θεός που σοὶ τό γ᾽ ἔδωκεν, where Σ exeg. ad loc. observes εὐτυχίαν, οὐκ ἀρετὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶι μαρτυρεῖ (van der Mije (1987)), Carcin. TrGF 70F5a.3–4 ἐν μιᾶι γὰρ ἡμέραι / τὸν εὐτυχῆ τίθησι δυστυχῆ θεός, quoted by Men. Asp. 417–18. Odysseus’ statement may have a hint of tragic irony, since the audience knows from the Il. that Hector’s good fortune will be fleeting: his fate will be decided a few books later in the Il., when Athena forces Zeus to admit that he can no longer preserve from death one who is πάλαι πεπρωμένον αἴσηι (Il. 22.178–80). The verb εὐτυχεῖν had been a keyword in Hector’s previous admissions that he was aided by a superior divine power: see 56, 319–20. ὅστις … θεῶν perhaps points to Zeus, who supports Hector in the Il. But according to Il. 11.195–209 Hector comes to know from Iris’ message that Zeus is favouring him only on the morning after the events of Il. 10. Odysseus is here probably unaware of the identity of the god who favours Hector. Because of the absence of a god’s name, the phrase may be taken to designate an impersonal divine agent, the unnamed θεός whose protection Hector had mentioned at 64 (~ the impersonal δαίμων ‘fate’ of 56; see 52–75n.). οὐ βιαστέον τύχην: cf. Eur. TrGF 1076.1 πάντων ἄριστον μὴ βιάζεσθαι θεούς, Gnomol. Vat. Epicur. 21.1 Arrighetti oὐ βιαστέον τὴν ϕύσιν, Plut. Mor. 125d οὐ προσβιαστέον ἐστὶ τὴν ϕύσιν. τύχη here is the good fortune that Zeus is currently promoting for Hector. 585–6 Diomedes’ vehement proposal here is consistent with his behaviour in a similar situation at Il. 10. After slaying Rhesus and other Thracians, while Odysseus attends to Rhesus’ horses, Diomedes μερμήριζε μένων, ὅ τι κύντατον ἔρδοι, / ἠ᾽ ὅ γε δίϕρον ἑλών, ὅθι ποικίλα τεύχε᾽ ἔκειτο, / ῥυμοῦ ἐξερύοι ἠ᾽ ἐκϕέροι ὑψόσ’ ἀείρας / ἦ’ ἔτι τῶν πλεόνων Θρηικῶν ἀπὸ θυμὸν ἕλοιτο (10.503– 6). But at 10.509–10 Athena intervenes and urges him to go back to the ships; likewise here at 595. οὔκουν ... χρή: see 161–3n. Αἰνέαν: Aeneas is mentioned as the first target: this may reflect the importance that he seems to have had as a leader after Hector’s death (87–130n.); in that case, his murder would have created difficulties in the Trojan chain of command. But another possibility may be considered. Aeneas had accompanied

461

C O M M E N TA RY 5 8 5 – 5 8 8 Paris on the trip to abduct Helen, according to a tradition attested in the Cypria (Arg. Procli, PEG p. 39: ἡ Ἀφροδίτη Αἰνείαν συμπλεῖν αὐτῶι (scil. with Paris) κελεύει) and on a dozen fifth-century vases and three urns from Volterra of the second century (Ghali-Kahil (1955) 53, 61, 63, 168–9, 177–8, LIMC I.1, 382–3 ‘Aineias’ 11–22). The Greeks may have hated him in particular for that. In his Iliadic aristeia Diomedes had twice almost managed to kill Aeneas, but he was saved by Aphrodite and Apollo (5.239–317, 5.432–48). τὸν ἔχθιστον Φρυγῶν / Πάριν: Paris is reproached by Hector in the Il. for abducting Helen (cf. 3.39–40, 6.326–9, 13.769); he is similarly reviled, mainly by other Trojans, in Attic tragedy (Eur. Andr. 293–308 and Hec. 629– 49, 943–52). For Greeks reviling him, cf., e.g., Alcm. PMGF 77, Aesch. Ag. 362–6, 399–402, Eur. Or. 1364–5, IA 1284–98. On Phrygians = Trojans, see 74–5n. μολόντε: the dual (restored by Canter II.263 for the nominative plural of the MSS) is certain. It begins a series of participles used of the two Greeks in which the dual is attested by some or all MSS (590, 591, 595, 619), in two of which it is guaranteed by metre. χρή, not imperfect χρῆν (Λ), as ‘Diomedes is not considering what they ought to be doing, but what they should do next’ (Fries 344, also Goodwin (1889) 151–4). καρατομεῖν: beheading an enemy was considered a barbarian practice, and beheadings are planned by Trojans at 219–20 and 258–60; but it is sometimes ascribed to Greeks (219–22a n.). The verb is probably first attested at Eur. Alc. 1118 (conjectural); later at Lycophr. 313, Jos. 4x, [Luc.] 82.9, etc.; cf. καρατόμος 606. Diomedes beheads Dolon in the Il. (10.457). In Rh. Dolon had claimed, with tragic irony, that he was going to bring back the head of Odysseus or Diomedes (219–20). 587–8: πῶς οὖν δυνήσ- is a colloquial type of transition: Eur. Alc. 484, Ar. 4x, Xen. An. 4.8.26. ‘The questioner offers a hypothesis which he considers highly improbable, but nonetheless the least improbable that he can think of ’ (Parker on Alc. 484). ἐν ὄρφνηι: see 42n. Darkness makes it difficult to spot Aeneas’ or Paris’ quarters; as usual in Rh., it is a disabling agent that ‘turns motivations, decisions and tactics into a “negative image” of what they would be in the light of the day’: Klyve 104; cf. Parry (1964) 283–8. ἀνὰ στρατόν: a Homeric phrase (Il. 10x, of which 4x in Il. 10), not attested again before it is revived by Q.S., except at Eur. Hec. 1110, Pho. 1275, IA 538. τούσδ(ε): for deictic ὅδε referring to what is not present on stage, see 115n. 589–90 Diomedes’ military ethics recall the principle referred to by Hector at 100–4, which seems to have been widespread (102–4n.): one’s duty in war is to harm as many of the enemy as possible; to avoid doing so is shameful.

462

C O M M E N TA RY 5 8 9 – 5 9 3 αἰσχρόν γε μέντοι = Eur. Or. 106. γε μέντοι is commonly used in drama to introduce an objection in dialogue (Denniston (1954) 412). Cf. Rh. 102. μολεῖν = here ‘have come back’: see 156–7a n. ναῦς ἐπ᾽ Ἀργείων μολεῖν = Rh. 150; see 56–8n., 149–52a n. δράσαντε ... πολεμίους νεώτερον: νέον and (more frequently) νεώτερον are fifth-century idiomatic euphemisms whose meaning shifts from ‘new’ to ‘abnormal’, ‘sinister’, ‘bad’ (38b–40n.). They are often found with δρᾶν or ποιεῖν: e.g., Hdt. 4.127.1, 5.19.2, 8.142.1, Thuc. 1.132.5, 2.6.2, Eur. Bacch. 362–3, Ar. Eccl. 338. Since the object of δρᾶν, when indirect, is never in the dative, but is introduced by περί, εἰς or κατά, and since δρᾶν usually takes a double accusative (about 30x in Eur.: Jacquinod (1989) 162–3), πολεμίοις (O) is certainly wrong. 591–3 πῶς δ᾽ οὐ δέδρακας; is a rhetorical question, ~ ‘surely you did’: cf. KG II.522 n. 9. Other πῶς δ᾽ οὐ replies repeating more or less verbatim the verb of a phrase spoken by A on which B’s reply focuses: Aesch. PV 588–9 κλύεις ϕθέγμα …; / ∷ πῶς δ’ οὐ κλύω …;, Soph. El. 922–3 οὐκ οἶσθ᾽ ὅποι γῆς οὐδ᾽ ὅποι γνώμης ϕέρηι. / ∷ πῶς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ κάτοιδ᾽ ἅ γ᾽ εἶδον ἐμϕανῶς;, Tr. 291–3 ἄνασσα, νῦν σοι τέρψις ἐμϕανὴς κυρεῖ …/ ∷ πῶς δ’ οὐκ ἐγὼ χαίροιμ᾽ ἄν …;, Ph. 249–50 οὐ γὰρ οἶσθά μ᾽ ὅντιν᾽ εἰσορᾶις; / ∷ πῶς γὰρ κάτοιδ᾽ ὅν γ᾽ εἶδον οὐδεπώποτε;, 754 οὐκ οἶδα. ∷ πῶς οὐκ οἶσθα;. οὐ κτανόντε … σκυλεύματ᾿;: the singular δέδρακας is shortly followed by the dual κτανόντε and the plural σώιζομεν. So too in the Il. the slaying of Dolon is presented from two perspectives. Diomedes is twice described as killing Dolon alone, by the narrator (10.455–6) and by Odysseus (10.558–9); but both Odysseus and Diomedes are said thrice, by the narrator (10.526 ἔκταν) or by Odysseus (10.478 ὃν ἐπέφνομεν ἡμεῖς, 10.561 εἵλομεν), to have slain him, as observed by Σ exeg. Il. 10.561 (ἐκοινώνησε γὰρ τῶι φόνωι τοῦ Δόλωνος) and 17.125 (ὡς Ὀδυσσεύς ϕησι ‘σκοπὸν εἵλομεν’ (10.561) κατὰ συνεκδοχήν, οὕτω καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος ἀϕηιρημένου τὸν κοινωνὸν τῶν κατορθωμάτων συναριθμεῖ). Odysseus claims for himself the credit for the killing of Dolon and of Rhesus at Ovid, Met. 13.244–5, 249–50. In Homer as well he plays a crucial part in the capture and interrogation of Dolon (cf. 10.363–4), and certanly is considered an accessory to the killing; this may explain his claims: Stagakis (1987). ναυστάθμων κατάσκοπον: cf. 524 νεῶν κατάσκοπον; also 150 and 221. σώιζομεν is to be taken in a weak sense, ‘we safely hold’; cf. 979 φαρέτρα ... σώιζει βέλος. But a verb meaning most commonly ‘save’ seems an odd one to apply to bloody spoils. It may have been conditioned by the use of σωθήσομαι at the beginning of Dolon’s final speech (219–23), to which our passage would be an allusive cross-reference emphasising the tragic irony of his boast. τάδε σκυλεύματ(α) are the arms stripped from a slain enemy (Bravo (1980) 705–843). Until the end of the fourth century the word appears only 6x in

463

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 3 – 5 9 4 Eur. and 1x in Thuc. As observed by Fries, the use of deictic ὅδε supports the idea that Odysseus is wearing the wolf pelt and perhaps some other item taken from Dolon. By bringing back these spoils the two Greeks reverse Dolon’s promise that he will bring back the head of one of them as a trophy (219–22). In the Il., Odysseus and Diomedes do not take Dolon’s spoils with them in their raid against the Thracians, but Odysseus dedicates to Athena the Spoiler and hangs on a tamarisk bush the marten-hat, wolf-pelt, bow, and spear which he and Diomedes remove from the body (Il. 10.458–61), so that ‘they might not miss them on their way back’ (10.468); after the slaughter of Rhesus they collect them (10.526–9). But in Rh. the spoils are crucial indications of the otherwise undescribed killing of Dolon. Odysseus and Diomedes may have entered carrying all the panoply that Odysseus dedicated in Il. 10, or only the wolf-pelt. When Odysseus meets the watchmen of the chorus at 675ff., he must have got rid of the pelt and any other identifiable item, as the watchmen had been listening to Dolon planning how to accoutre himself, and ‘if the suspected men were to be carrying the skin when they were caught, no degree of cunning would plausibly save them’ (Steadman (1945) 7; cf. Feickert 268). στρατόπεδον: an Attic word, hardly found except in prose writers from Thuc. onwards, but also attested in Aesch. (Sept. 79) and in Eur. (Hcld. 396, Supp. 661). It may mean both ‘camp’ and ‘(encamped) army’, as πέρθειν means both ‘sack’ (with ‘camp’) and ‘slay’ (with ‘army’). But Athena’s speech, in which στρατόπεδον is replaced with ναύσταθμα (601–2n.), favours the former sense. 594 is an ascending tricolon whose studied concision may convey either Odysseus’ definitive conclusion that they should immediately return to camp or, more probably, Diomedes’ definitive acceptance of that option. The line is correctly ascribed by VaQ to Diomedes. As Wilamowitz (1877) 9 remarked, ‘secundum tragoediae consuetudinem, a qua ne hic quidem poeta recedit, Diomedes cedere se Ulixis rationibus diserte debebat pronuntiare’. Wilamowitz consequently emended the initial πείθου, given by all MSS and Christ. pat. 2038, to πείθεις, and was followed by all modern editors with the exception of Zanetto. Analogous lines in which a speaker expresses agreement at the end of a debate, usually followed by plans concerning the action to be taken, are found, e.g., at Aesch. Cho. 781 ἀλλ᾽ εἶμι καὶ σοῖς ταῦτα πείσομαι λόγοις (followed at 782 by the wish γένοιτο δ᾽ ὡς ἄριστα σὺν θεῶν δόσει), Soph. OC 1516 πείθεις με (beginning of the line), Eur. IT 118–19 ἀλλ’ εὖ γὰρ εἶπας, πειστέον· χωρεῖν χρεὼν / ὅποι χθονὸς κρύψαντε λήσομεν δέμας. πείθεις here is absolute, or με is implied, as, e.g., in Ar. Plut. 600; cf. Hector’s νικᾶις at Rh. 137, likewise without object or with implied με, at the end of another debate. In arguing in favour of the paradosis πείθου and of the assignment of the line to Odysseus, Zanetto (ii) 151–2 n. 74 maintains that

464

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 4 – 6 7 4 the dialogue is here interrupted by the arrival of Athena, and that this is why Diomedes’ final assent is not given. πείθου could also make sense following Odysseus’ rhetorical questions at 591–3, as a peroration resuming the advice he gave at 582; the final prayer for the assistance of τύχη would also be in line with the prudent concern for the force of ‘fate’ that Odysseus shows in connection with Hector’s success at 583–4. But this prayer would be plausible only after Diomedes’ concession, and would be overhasty if spoken by Odysseus when Diomedes has not yet conceded. εὖ δοίη τύχη: δοίη (Nauck (i) xxiii; (1862) 176) economically replaces the transmitted δ᾿ εἴη (+ Christ. pat. 2009 and 2038 εὖ δ᾿ εἴη τυχεῖν), which would be unparalleled with τύχη or τυχεῖν. Feickert 269 vainly argued that εὖ δ᾿ εἴη τυχεῖν may be taken as governing τοῦ πάλιν στείχειν understood from the previous phrase, or that εὖ … τυχεῖν should be taken as an equivalent of εὐτυχεῖν, produced by tmesis, but both are odd constructions. διδόναι is found in tragedy with τύχη οr similar divine agents as subject (three times in the optative mood and within a wish, as here) and the object εὖ = ‘the good’, which has to be regarded as ‘a substantival use not of the adverb but of the old adjective, of which the masculine form survives in the Homeric ἐύς’ (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 121): cf. Rh. 995–6, Soph. OT 1080–1 Τύχης ... τῆς εὖ διδούσης, OC 642, Eur. Alc. 1004, Andr. 750 θεοί σοι δοῖεν εὖ, Supp. 463–4, Or. 667 ὅταν δ᾽ ὁ δαίμων εὖ διδῶι, IA 390 θεοῦ σοι τὴν τύχην διδόντος εὖ. 595–674 include the dialogues of Athena with Odysseus and Diomedes and with Alexander. It has long been debated how Athena makes her appearance; similar questions arise concerning her appearance at the beginning of Soph.’s Aj. (on the formal connections between these two epiphanies, cf. Nock (1930) and 608–10n.). The idea that she remains an offstage disembodied voice is attractive, and maintained, e.g., by Taplin (1977a) 366 n. 1 and Burlando (1997) 81–2 (apropos of Soph. Aj. 1–133 Finglass ad loc. (p. 137) observes that Athena’s invisibility is ‘appropriate in a scene where the gap between mortal and immortal vision looms large’). However, the length and form of her dialogues with Odysseus and afterwards with Alexander (the latter including a disguise, which must have been somehow discernible) make it more probable that she is visible, either on stage or on high. As noted most recently by Mastronarde (1990) 274–5, 284 and Bond (1996) 269, it is also difficult to ascertain whether Athena appears on the theologeion (as usual in divine epiphanies of tragedy) or at stage level. If she is at stage level, as observed by Heath (1987) 166, ‘this would facilitate her rather complex interaction with the human characters and express more clearly in terms of theatrical space the controlling presence which enables her to direct the sequence of human movements’. But her higher position on the theologeion would better explain why she sees Alexander approaching before Diomedes does (627–9n., 630n.). If she were at stage level, she would probably have entered

465

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 5 – 6 7 4 through ‘an auxiliary door concealed behind painted shrubbery, as in the prologue of Ion’, and so her divine entrance would have been distinguished from the eisodos entrances of human characters (Mastronarde (1990) 275). If she enters by an eisodos, it may have been the left eisodos, and she will have been imagined as coming from Mt Ida, ‘whence one assumes she would have a vantage view over the Trojan plain’, as Zeus has in Il. 8.47–52 (Liapis 237). The epiphany of Athena is sudden and unexpected (as in Soph.’s Ajax, Athena does not introduce herself), but timely, as it takes place just when Odysseus’ arguments in favour of retreat have been accepted by Diomedes. Indeed, she seems to have been eavesdropping on the Greeks: her words at 595–6 may presuppose Odysseus’ insistence on the necessity of an urgent retreat, as well as Diomedes’ and Odysseus’ previous conversations about attacking Aeneas or Alexander at 585–6. Athena opens her speech by warning Odysseus and Diomedes not to leave the area of the Trojan camp but rather to kill the dangerous Rhesus (595–604); her appearance comes to an end when the slaughter of Rhesus has taken place, and she warns the two Greek raiders to retreat to the Greek camp before the Trojans discover them (670–4), so that they can do what they were planning to do when she intervened. In Il. 10 Athena addresses Diomedes, giving advice about his and Odysseus’ mission (she is apparently only heard and remains unseen: 10.512), when Diomedes is wondering whether they should stay and kill more of the enemy (10.503–8). But unlike Athena in Rh., the Iliadic Athena simply urges a prompt return to the Greek camp (10.509–11), and her overall role there is similar to her brief warning at Rh. 668–74. The audience of Rh. knew from the dialogue of Odysseus and Diomedes that they had not been prompted by Dolon to kill Rhesus, and were returning to the Greek camp. The contents of Athena’s speech confirm in the clearest way that Rhesus meets his death through the machinations of the goddess, as she is worried for the damage Rhesus can cause to the Greek army on the battlefield. She practically provides Diomedes and Odysseus with the information that Dolon does not provide, redirecting the story in an Iliadic direction, and neutralising the risk that Rhesus will perform valorous deeds on the battlefield, as in one version of the myth (see Introduction, pp. 8–9; 595–605a n.). As Easterling (1993) 80–1 observed, direct presentation of the gods on stage is a compelling way of bringing out their power to shape and control the action of the play – the gods, in other words, ‘are usually brought on stage to do a job like that of the dramatist himself ’. Athena’s dialogue with Alexander at 642–74, for which there is no parallel in the Il., is most probably an even more radical invention of the author of Rh. This dialogue has a special dramatic function: as the stage cannot remain empty after Odysseus and Diomedes leave to go and kill Rhesus, it fills the

466

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 5 – 6 7 4 time required for the massacre of the Thracians. In fact, Athena exits only after announcing the re-entrance of the two Greeks at 668–72a (Giuliani (1996) 83). At that point she can regain her Iliadic role of inviting the two Greeks to retreat to their camp, and the Iliadic thread of events is resumed. Consequently, (1) Rhesus dies because of Athena’s instructions, and not, as in Hom., because of the information provided by Dolon; (2a) because of her orders to Odysseus and Diomedes, Paris does not die, and (2b) the two Greek raiders are not discovered by Paris. As she radically changes the course of the action, Athena has a role like that of the divinities who appear, mainly ex machina, at the end, as the Muse in Rh., and sometimes at the beginning of tragedies (cf. Easterling (1993), Sourvinou-Inwood (2003) 459–500). In particular, her intervention is perhaps modelled on the epiphany of Athena at the beginning of Soph. Aj. But she appears on stage not at the beginning or at the end, but in the middle of the play. This is quite exceptional. Furthermore, two gods appear ex machina in Rh., Athena-Aphrodite and the Muse, and both have crucial roles in the plot. This too is exceptional. Gods interfering with the course of the action on the human level were not uncommon in Greek tragedy, and a passage from Aristotle’s Poetics (15.1454a37–b8) explicitly criticises their use as a device to rescue a plot which had reached an impasse. But usually they operated at the margins of the action, at the beginning or at the end, rather than re-directing the course of the plot. The second part of Rh. is introduced as a new beginning (538–41n.), and, as Athena’s intervention takes place within this, it may have been felt less disruptive. However, it is hard to find precise parallels in what survives of Greek tragedy. The epiphany at Eur. Her. 815–74 of Iris and Lyssa, who are most probably deposited by the crane on the roof of the palace, has rightly been compared (e.g., Ritchie (1964) 120–2), since it is the single parallel for a divine intervention that truly moves forward the action of the plot from a point somewhere in the middle; it paves the way for the second part of the tragedy, focusing on Heracles’ catastrophe. But in that play neither goddess converses with the human characters, whereas Athena does engage in dialogue, far more in accordance with epic than with tragic practice, and Odysseus and Diomedes are willing to embark on a course of action recommended or rather imposed by her. Similar epiphanies which, more or less probably, were not at the beginning or at the end are those of Lyssa in Aesch. Xantriai (TrGF 169); Hera (disguised as a priestess) in Semele (TrGF 168; cf. Lloyd-Jones (1957) 566–71, Taplin (1977a) 427–8, Hadjicosti (2006), Sommerstein (2008) 225–70); Apollo, together with Artemis, speaking to her in Soph. Niobe (TrGF 441a; cf. Carden (1974) 184–5, Fries 347); Athena speaking to the chorus in Soph. Aias Lokros (TrGF 10c; cf. Fitzpatrick (2003) 251–2). The case of Aesch. Psychostasia (TrGF III.374–7) is more uncertain. Plut. Mor.

467

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 5 – 6 0 5 16a–17a states that in this play Thetis on one side and on the other Dawn, speaking on behalf of their sons Achilles and Memnon, who were going to fight a duel, pleaded with Zeus, who was weighing the lives of the two on his scales (as at Hom. Il. 22.209–13). It has often been inferred that Zeus, appearing on the theologeion, intervened in the contention between Eos and Thetis and initiated, as a character in the play, the ensuing duel between Achilles and Memnon. But it has also been argued that this episode may have been reported in narrative form, mainly in view of the fact that Zeus never appears as a character in any surviving tragedy (Taplin (1977a) 431–3; contra Sourvinou-Inwood (2003) 463–4). At any rate, there is no evidence that Zeus appeared outside the conventional initial prologue (if he appeared at all). 595–605a and 613–21: Athena’s concern about the danger posed by Rhesus if not neutralised, the relative ease with which he could be attacked, and the richness of the available booty (horses, chariot, armour) overlap in part with the report provided by Dolon at Hom. Il. 10.433–41: εἰ γὰρ δὴ μέματον Τρώων καταδῦναι ὅμιλον / Θρήϊκες οἵδ’ ἀπάνευθε νεήλυδες, ἔσχατοι ἄλλων· / ἐν δέ σϕιν Ῥῆσος βασιλεὺς πάϊς Ἡϊονῆος. / τοῦ δὴ καλλίστους ἵππους ἴδον ἠδὲ μεγίστους· / … ἅρμα δέ οἱ χρυσῶι τε καὶ ἀργύρωι εὖ ἤσκηται· / τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια πελώρια θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι / ἤλυθ᾽ ἔχων. But Athena at Rh. 600–4 emphasises how dangerous Rhesus would be for the Greeks if he were to reach the battlefield, a point not made by Dolon. There is also a suggestion in her words of the versions of the myth that included heroic deeds (the ‘Pindar version’) or at least great military potential (the ‘oracle version’; see Introduction, pp. 8–9). Dolon, a human informant, had more limited knowledge. 595–6 δή gives weight to the preceding ποῖ (Leumann (1949) 86, Denniston (1954) 204). Athena emphasises that the Greeks lack any particular concrete target, now that they have acknowledged that they cannot kill Hector or Alexander; at 871 ποῖ δή stresses that the charioteer despairs of finding a place to live, after the death of his master. λιπόντε: here perhaps absolute = ‘depart’ from the ranks; cf. Soph. El. 513– 14 οὔ τί πω / ἔλειπεν ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ οἴκου (v.l. οἴκους; see Finglass ad loc.), Eur. Her. 133 τὸ δὲ κακοτυχὲς οὐ λέλοιπεν ἐκ τέκνων; also Thuc. 3.10.2 ἀπολιπόντων … ἐκ τοῦ Μηδικοῦ πολέμου, 5.4.4 ἀπολιπόντες ἐκ τῶν Συρακουσῶν. But the verb is easily connected with its logical object τάξεις, prompted by ἐκ τάξεων at the end of the line: cf., e.g., Hom. Od. 14.134 ψυχὴ δὲ λέλοιπεν, where the verb seems intransitive, but ὀστέα of 135 may easily be understood as the implied object. (ἀπο)λείπειν often implies the idea of cowardly ‘flagging’ or ‘deserting’ (e.g., Xen. Cyr. 4.2.3 οἱ δὲ σύμμαχοι ... ὡς ἀθύμως ἔχοιεν καὶ ἀπολείποιεν). Athena may be thought to be charging Odysseus and Diomedes with a sort

468

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 5 – 5 9 9 of ‘desertion’, technically called λιποταξία, from the Trojan τάξεις, among which they should accomplish their raid. In fact, she corrects Odysseus’ rationale, explained in 593: for him, once the possibility of killing Hector is ruled out, the only reason to remain in the Trojan camp after killing Dolon would be to make a senseless attempt to slaughter the entire army (593); Athena intervenes to suggest a new, feasible, and important target. Τρωϊκῶν ἐκ τάξεων: governed apo koinou by both χωρεῖτε and λιπόντε. The night camp of the sleeping Trojan army is designated with the same term at 523. λύπηι καρδίαν δεδηγμένοι ‘biting their heart in pain’, with καρδίαν retained accusative referring to the affected organ and δεδηγμένοι middle reflexive rather than passive (Olson on Ar. Ach. 1); cf. Aesch. Ag. 791 δῆγμα δὲ λύπης,79 PV 437 συννοίαι δὲ δάπτομαι κέαρ, Soph. Ant. 317 ἢ ᾽πὶ τῆι ψυχῆι δάκνηι;, Eur. Alc. 1100 λύπηι καρδίαν δηχθήσομαι, Hcld. 483 προσκείμενόν τι πῆμα σὴν δάκνει ϕρένα, Ar. Ach. 1 δέδηγμαι τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ καρδίαν, Vesp. 374–5 δακεῖν τὴν / καρδίαν, Longus 1.25.2 δάκνει τὸ φίλημα τὴν καρδίαν. The heart, the emotional centre of an individual, experiences the greatest suffering when pierced by pain (Olson on Ar. Ach. 1); cf. Pl. Smp. 218a ἐγὼ οὖν δεδηγμένος τε ὑπὸ ἀλγεινοτέρου καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινότατον ὧν ἄν τις δηχθείη – τὴν καρδίαν γὰρ ἢ ψυχὴν ἢ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸ ὀνομάσαι πληγείς. On δάκνειν ‘cause grief to᾽, cf. Sansone (1975) 11–12, Olson on Ar. Ach. 323–5, Biles and Olson on Ar. Vesp. 253. 597–8a take up the subject-matter of 583–6. But there it was only Hector who was said to be protected by a god; as for Aeneas or Alexander, whom the Greeks had not tried yet to find, Odysseus had stressed only that it would be difficult to find them quickly in the night, and that there was a risk that they would be intercepted. Athena reminds the two Greeks of the relevance of divine control over human action right at the moment she is going to suggest the mission of killing Rhesus. εἰ μὴ ... δίδωσιν is to be taken with λύπηι δεδηγμένοι. The construction with εἰ, which is common with verbs expressing wonder, irritation, or fear, has a sense similar to that of μή‑clauses after verbs of fearing on the one hand and to that of causal sentences with ὅτι on the other: KG II.190–1, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 687–8, Cooper (1998) II.65.1.9. Anonymous θεός is equivalent to ‘destiny’; see 56–8 n., 317–18n., 332n. κτανεῖν ... δίδωσιν ~ Eur. Andr. 442, Tro. 902, TrGF 360.4. 598b–9 During their raid the two Greeks could not know of the arrival of an ally of the Trojans. The goddess emphasises that she is better informed. σύμμαχον Τροίαι μολόντα: cf. Rh. 432–3. Some Stoics called λύπη a δηγμός: Chrys. SVF III.439.

79

469

C O M M E N TA RY 5 9 9 – 6 0 2 οὐ φαύλωι τρόπωι is a dative of accompanying circumstance ~ adverb οὐ φαύλως; cf. Aesch. Pers. 793 τίνι τρόπωι δὲ συμμαχεῖ;, Eur. Pho. 112–13 οὐ γάρ τι ϕαύλως ἦλθε Πολυνείκης χθόνα, / πολλοῖς μὲν ἵπποις, μυρίοις δ’ ὅπλοις βρέμων. Periphrases with τρόπος used to express modes of behaviour which one regulates oneself are a sententious idiom (Bond on Eur. Her. 282), characteristic of Eur.: Med. 751, Her. 282, Hel. 1547, Or. 1040; elsewhere, e.g., at Ar. Th. 961 χορομανεῖ τρόπωι (where the compound adjective ‘parodies highstyle coinages’: Olson and Austin ad loc.) and Eccl. 231. The litotes οὐ φαύλη δύναμις for a ‘significant armed force’ may also have been idiomatic: cf. Xen. Hell. 5.3.8, Arr. An. 1.20.2. 600–4 Athena authoritatively confirms Rhesus’ boastful claim at 447–50 that he could prevail over the Greeks in a single day. Both statements predict what the Pindar version had narrated and provide Rhesus with a sort of virtual epic greatness; see 595–605a n. 600 ὃς εἰ ~ εἰ αὐτός: e.g., Soph. OC 1340, Eur. Hec. 802; Isocr. 12.51 ὃς εἰ τέλος ἐπέθηκεν οἷς διενοήθη πράττειν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἐκώλυεν ἀπολωλέναι τοὺς ῞Ελληνας, Dem. 19.119, 30.16. διοίσει νύκτα τήνδ᾽: for διαφέρειν ‘pass’, of time, cf. Hdt. 3.40.2 διαϕέρειν τὸν αἰῶνα, Eur. Hel. 10 βίον διήνεγκ᾽ εὐγενῆ, Plut. Alex. 52.1 τήν τε νύκτα … διήνεγκε. ἐς αὔριον = 96. The v.l. ἐπαύριον ‘tomorrow’ would make sense if taken as an adverb belonging to the apodosis with σχέθοι, but it is not attested before Polyb.; as it becomes common in the imperial age, it may have been a banalisation of ἐς αὔριον. The pleonastic double time-specification νύκτα τήνδ(ε) and ἐς αὔριον stresses the great danger that Rhesus represents for the Greeks if he lives to see the morning. 601–2 οὔτ᾿ ἄν σφ(ε) must be preferred to οὔτε σφ(ε) of Λ. The doubling of ἄν with οὔτε … οὔτε is regular in Soph., Eur., the historians, and the orators of the fourth century. In the cases where the doubling is not found, ἄν usually accompanies the first οὔτε, not the second: e.g., Soph. Ant. 905, Ph. 115, Eur. Tro. 736, KG I.247–9. The cases with οὔτε ... οὔτ᾿ ἄν are fewer: Soph. TrGF 353.1–2 οὔτε γὰρ γάμον, ὦ φίλαι, / οὔτ᾿ ἂν ὄλβον ἔκμετρον and Xen. Mem. 4.4.7 οὔτε σὺ οὔτ᾿ ἂν ἄλλος οὐδεὶς (not Soph. OC 927, where the first ἄν of the apodosis is placed in 924). Omission of the particle, especially when repeated, is more likely than its interpolation (Finglass on Soph. OT 76–7). Note that Q omits the second ἄν here. The epic enclitic accusatives σφε and νιν, and less often the dative σφι(ν), are used in tragedy for all genders and numbers: KB I.592–3. Ἀχιλλεὺς … Αἴαντος are two paradigmatically strong warriors (461–3n.). μὴ ... πέρσαι ... σχέθοι In fifth- and fourth-century Attic infinitives governed by verbs expressing doubt, concealment, denial, hindrance, etc., are

470

C O M M E N TA RY 6 0 2 – 6 0 4 commonly introduced by the pleonastic negative μή when the verb is in the positive, and by μὴ οὐ when in the negative. Transmitted μή has usually been corrected to μὴ οὐ wherever possible in tragedy (μή is commonly found in synizesis with οὐ in poetry: see 115n.), and Nauck (ii) xxxiv proposed μὴ οὐ here. There are however some certain cases in fifth-century tragedy and Ar. of simple μή not emendable to μὴ οὐ. Modern editors usually adopt μὴ οὐ where the MSS are divided, as it is more liable to corruption, but keep the simple μή when attested by the whole tradition: Moorhouse (1940a), Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 658, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 96. πάντα πέρσαι ναύσταθμ(α): Athena’s alarmed prediction about the Greek camp (ναύσταθμα) is expressed in words nearly identical to those of Odysseus at 593, when he describes the unrealistic goal that Diomedes seems to wish to pursue. Indeed Athena has probably been eavesdropping on the Greek heroes (595–674n.). By re-using Odysseus’ words, Athena suggests that if the two Greeks do not promptly turn their attention to killing Rhesus, it is the Greek, rather than the Trojan camp, that is at risk of destruction and plunder. 603–4 are two circumstantial phrases with participles in agreement with σφ(ε) at 601. Athena uses technical military language: she wishes to be persuasive, and shows off her martial competence as if she were a general addressing soldiers. Feickert 273 takes λόγχη as collective metonymy for ‘soldiers armed with spears’; cf. Eur. Pho. 441–2 μυρίαν ἄγων / λόγχην, TrGF 472e.45 χωρεῖτε, λόγχη[, KG I.13. πλατεῖα would then refer to the large force of Trojan or Thracian attackers commanded by Rhesus. But Athena’s words are more probably concerned with the danger represented specifically by Rhesus’ spear: his attack would ‘cut a wide swath’ (so Kovacs 415) through the Greek defences. He must therefore be slaughtered without delay. Rhesus’ crucial role as an individual was brought out in 447–9, 451–3, and 488–91, where he repeatedly presented himself not as a leader of the joint forces of Trojans and allies, but as the champion who could alone resolve the war. τείχη κατασκάψαντα: the same verb was used by Rhesus when he promised to help Hector overthrow the walls of the Greek camp at 391b–2. πυλῶν ἔσω = Eur. Or. 866, ~ Thuc. 6.57.3. λόγχηι πλατεῖαν is perhaps an echo of Eur. TrGF 495.29–30 λό]γχηι πλατείαι … / παίσ]ας, as suggested by Fries 353. ἐσδρομὴν ποιούμενον: attested nowhere else before the fourth century ad Cyrillus (Comm. Joann. II.216.17 Pusey, PG 68.744.54 and 69.580.47), but such phrases were probably a military idiom in Classical Athens: ποιεῖσθαι καταδρομήν (Thuc. 7.27.5 and Xen. Hell. 5.4.42, Cyr. 3.3.23), ἐπεκδρομήν (Thuc. 4.25.11), προσβολήν (Hdt. 3.158.1, Thuc. 8.31.3, 8.100.4, Polyb. more than 10x), εἰσβολήν (Xen. An. 5.6.7). For ἐσδρομή ‘inroad’, cf. Thuc. 2.25.2; otherwise rare and much later (Ninus col. B.III.26 Stephens-Winkler, Jos. BJ 5.434.2).

471

C O M M E N TA RY 6 0 5 – 6 0 8 605–7 ‘After killing him, you have everything you need. Leave Hector’s camp and your plan of beheading him; death will come to him from a different hand.’ Odysseus had already spoken at 582–4 of Hector’s untouchable τύχη. Athena adopts the strategy advocated by Rhesus at 481 of killing the most harmful and dangerous enemy champions. Rather than pursuing the divinely protected Hector, they should aim to eliminate the highly dangerous Rhesus. The principle invoked by Athena is the one that she follows at Il. 5.669–76, when Odysseus is considering whether to pursue the wounded Sarpedon or continue to slaughter the Lycians: she directs his anger at the host of the Lycians, οὐδ᾽ ἄρ’ Ὀδυσσῆϊ μεγαλήτορι μόρσιμον ἦεν / ἴϕθιμον Διὸς υἱὸν ἀποκτάμεν ὀξέϊ χαλκῶι (5.674–5). τοῦτον κατακτὰς πάντ᾿ ἔχεις: πάντ᾽ ἔχειν, with a circumstantial participle expressing the protasis, may have sounded a colloquial phrase; cf. Soph. Ant. 497–8 (Ant.) θέλεις τι μεῖζον ἢ κατακτεῖναί μ᾽ ἑλών; (Cr.) ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδέν· τοῦτ᾽ ἔχων ἅπαντ’ ἔχω, Eur. Med. 569–70 ὀρθουμένης / εὐνῆς γυναῖκες πάντ᾽ ἔχειν νομίζετε, Pl. Phl. 21b πάντα γὰρ ἔχοιμ᾽ ἄν που τὸ χαίρειν ἔχων, Men. Sam. 387 ὑὸν πεπόησαι· πάντ᾽ ἔχεις. With ἔχεις Athena passes from the second persοn plural to the second singular. At the beginning of her speech, as at 619, she addressed both Greeks, as companions in the mission, but she now addresses the stronger of the two warriors, who will be the killer of Rhesus (605a) and is still to be dissuaded from attacking Hector. τὰς δ᾿ Ἕκτορος εὐνὰς ... καρατόμους σφαγάς: concerning Diomedes’ plans, Athena re-uses some of the words spoken by him at 575–6 (Ἕκτορος κοίτας) and 586 (καρατομεῖν). καράτομος is attested with passive sense = ‘cut from the head’ in Soph. El. 52 and ‘beheaded’ in Eur. Tro. 564 (if we assume the hypallage καράτομος ἐρημία ~ ἐρημία καρατόμων ἀνδρῶν); here it is active = ‘beheading’, as in Eur. TrGF 228a10 and Lycophr. 187 (cf. Σ ad loc. and Herodian. GG III.1.1.234.29–235.7 Lentz); it goes with the objective genitive Ἕκτορος, as in Eur. TrGF 228a10 (Γοργόνος) and Lycophr. 187 (Ἑλλάδος). Athena repeats her warning at 631–2 and 634–5. θάνατος ἐξ ἄλλης χερός: cf. 800–2 τρόπωι δ᾽ ὅτωι / τεθνᾶσιν οἱ θανόντες οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι / οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ὁποίας χειρός, Aesch. Sept. 805 τεθνᾶσιν ἐκ χερῶν αὐτοκτόνων, Soph. Tr. 1133 σϕ’ ἐξ ἐμῆς θανεῖν χερός. 608–10 δέσποιν᾿ Ἀθάνα: the epithet, not common for Athena, suggests Odysseus’ acquiescence and submission. Cf. Ar. Eq. 763–4 τῆι μὲν δεσποίνηι Ἀθηναίηι … / εὔχομαι and Pax 271 ὦ πότνια δέσποιν᾽ Ἀθηναία, where ‘the first title … emphasises the majesty of the goddess, the second … the humility of the worshipper’ (Olson on Ar. Pax 271–3; also Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 88–9), Eur. Supp. 1227 δέσποιν᾿ Ἀθάνα, πείσομαι λόγοισι σοῖς, IT 1475 ἄνασσ᾿ Ἀθάνα (Thoas submits to the authority of Athena, who is speaking ex machina), Eur. TrGF 370.118 δέσποινα (addressed to Athena). Odysseus’ reaction to Athena at Soph.

472

C O M M E N TA RY 6 0 8 Aj. 14–17 ὦ φθέγμ᾿ Ἀθάνας, φιλτάτης ἐμοὶ θεῶν, / ὡς εὐμαθές σου, κἂν ἄποπτος ἦις, ὅμως / φώνημ᾿ ἀκούω καὶ ξυναρπάζω φρενί, / χαλκοστόμου κώδωνος ὡς Tυρσηνικῆς may be the most relevant model for the emphasis on the voice of the goddess (it is probable in Aj. and likely in Rh. that she remains visible only at a distance; see 595–674n.). Odysseus’ retrospective acknowledgement of her guidance at Aj. 34b–5 πάντα γὰρ τά τ᾽ οὖν πάρος / τά τ᾽ εἰσέπειτα σῆι κυβερνῶμαι χερί is probably in the background of Rh. 609b–10. In the light of a few points of contact (Athena’s voice called φθέγμα, Odysseus’ statement that he acknowledges her voice, his statement about her past support), it is reasonable to suppose that at the beginning of the second part of Rh. Odysseus’ first words to an Athena who is soon to dupe Alexander echo those of the Odysseus of Aj., who evokes his epic acquaintance with her at the beginning of a tragedy concerned with her fooling of Ajax. In its turn, the description in Aj. of Athena as ἄποπτος for Odysseus (Pucci (1994) 19) and the emphasis on his ability (εὐμαθές) to infer her presence from her voice may have recalled the Iliadic passages 2.182 = 10.512 ὣς φάθ᾿, ὃ δὲ ξυνέηκε θεᾶς ὄπα φωνησάσης.80 The first of these passages, from Il. 2, is part of the narration of the only epiphany of Athena that Odysseus experiences in the Il. before the night of Il. 10. Then, with Odysseus’ help, she prevents the Greeks from sailing back to their fatherland, thus ensuring, as in Rh., that events will not diverge from the course that they must take if the plot is to be in line with that of the Iliad. The second passage comes in Il. 10 and follows the final piece of advice that Athena gives to Odysseus and Diomedes: she recommends that they go back to the Greek camp. The echo of Aj. in Rh. may allude also to the Homeric models in the background of the Aj.,81 thus evoking extensively the literary tradition of the epiphanies of Athena to Odysseus (see below on συνήθη). φθέγματος ... γῆρυν ‘sound of the voice’; cf. Bacch. 15.48–9 γάρυϊ ... / φθέγξατ(ο), Eur. Hipp. 1074 ὦ δώματ᾿, εἴθε φθέγμα γηρύσαισθέ μοι, Pho. 960 τί σιγᾶις γῆρυν ἄφθογγον σχάσας;, Plut. Mor. 397c οὐ γὰρ ἔστι θεοῦ ἡ γῆρυς οὐδ᾽ ὁ φθόγγος. The periphrasis may be reminiscent of the parallel synonyms φθέγμ(α) and φώνημ(α) in Soph. Aj. 14–16, quoted above. For the verb, cf. Eur. Bacch. 178 σὴν γῆρυν ἠισθόμην κλυών. For γῆρυς, 294–5n. γάρ introduces familiarity as the reason why Odysseus addresses Athena as Athena, although she has not introduced herself: Denniston (1954) 80, Rijksbaron (1991) 29. The speaker recognises the addressee’s voice but cannot see him also, e.g., in Soph. OT 1325–6, OC 891, Eur. Hec. 1114–15. Il. 2.167–82 is one of the passages which Arist. Poet. 1454a27–b8 singled out to exemplify gods’ interventions that resolve plots ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, as here (595–764n.). 81 It would thus function as one of the so-called ‘window allusions’ (for the term, Thomas (1986=1999)). 80

473

C O M M E N TA RY 6 0 9 – 6 1 2 συνήθη: at this point in the Trojan war, Odysseus has not yet undergone most of the πόνοι in which Athena helped him (mainly in the Odyssey). He appears to have been visited by her only at Il. 2.167–82 and 10.512, two passages of which Rh. 608–9 is probably reminiscent (see above on φθέγματος ... γῆρυν). συνήθη ‘familiar’ may intimate the long series of later interventions by which the goddess helps Odysseus. Epithets meaning ‘familiar’ are among the words that Greek and Latin poets often use to mark their learned acquaintance with previous poetry (Hinds (1998) 3–4). ἐν πόνοισι γὰρ ... ἀεί ποτε: at Il. 10.278–82, at the beginning of Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ spy mission, Athena sends a heron as a good omen, and when its cry is heard in the night, Odysseus asks the goddess to help them get back safely to the Greek camp, appealing to the common prayer principle da quia dedisti: ἥ τέ μοι αἰεὶ / ἐν πάντεσσι πόνοισι (cf. Rh. ἐν πόνοισι) παρίστασαι. Here the request for assistance is not expressed, but may be implicit in Odysseus’ question about the mission of killing Rhesus, which follows at 611–12. παροῦσ᾿ ἀμύνεις may be modelled on Eur. El. 331 παρὼν ἀμύνει. Both phrases may presuppose the Homeric παρεστάμεναι καὶ ἀμύνειν of Il. 15.255, 21.231 (referring to divine assistance), and 17.563. τοῖς ἐμοῖς probably goes with ἐν πόνοισι. Feickert 274 takes it as substantival neuter = ‘my interests’, claiming that ἀμύνεις needs an object; but the verb is attested as used absolutely (e.g., Hom. Il. 13.312) or with ἐν + dative (e.g., Polyb. 6.6.8 ὅταν ἀμύνηι μέν τις πρὸ πάντων ἐν τοῖς δεινοῖς). ἀεί ποτε ‘from of old’ is found again at 653 in a similar context with disguised Athena. It is common in Attic prose (Thuc. 11x, Xen. 8x; later, e.g., Polyb. 11x) and dramatic poetry (Critias, TrGF 43F7.10, Soph. 2x, Ar. Av. 1545 ἀεί ποτ᾿ ἀνθρώποις γὰρ εὔνους εἴμ᾿ ἐγώ, Eur. Alc. 569, Ion 1329, IA 870, TrGF 206.6, Henioch. PCG 4.9). With this adverbial phrase the present tense ἀμύνεις expresses a combination of past and present, as usual with πάλαι, πάρος, or ἄρτι (KG I.134–5). 611–12 After his formal opening address, Odysseus now speaks to Athena as if he were an officer asking his superior for details of the mission-target. The two lines may presuppose Hom. Il. 10.464, where, after dedicating to Athena the spoils from Dolon (462–3a), Odysseus asks her to escort him to the ‘horses’ and ‘bivouac’ of the Thracians: πέμψον ἐπὶ Θρηικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἵππους τε καὶ εὐνάς82 (cf. Rh. κατηύνασται). In place of ἵππους Σ A Il. 10.464 presents as a v.l. (ἐν ἄλλωι) the noun ἄγυριν, which should mean here ‘(assembled) group’. It is an attractive variant, and it may seem more correct than ἵππους, as the ‘horses of the Thracians’ must be taken to refer to the private horses of Rhesus, not of the Thracians. The request about the position of the τάξις of the Thracians at Rh. 612 might originate from a Homeric text with ἄγυριν ~ ‘camp’ more easily than from one with ἵππους.

82

474

C O M M E N TA RY 6 1 1 – 6 1 4 τὸν ἄνδρα: for the subject of an indirect question given in the accusative in the clause that introduces it, see, e.g., Soph. Tr. 429–30 ϕράσον ... / ... τόνδε τίς ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν ὁ ξένος, Ph. 573–4 τόνδε μοι ... φράσον / τίς ἐστιν, Gonda (1958), Moorhouse (1982) 47–9. δ(έ) marks the beginning of the main clause, after a parenthetic or anticipatory γάρ-clause: Denniston (1954) 70–1, Rijksbaron (1991) 29. κατηύνασται (Dindorf (iii) III.2.612), for transmitted κατεύνασται, is unavoidable, here as at 614, 762; see 580–1n. The ηυ- reduplication of verbs in ευ- (whether or not this represents the prefix εὖ; cf. Rijksbaron (1991) 133–5, Mastronarde (1989)) is the rule in the classical period, though ευ- spelling is attested from the end of the fourth century (Lautensach (1899) 47–9, 146–9, Threatte (1980/1996) I.486, II.384–5). The verb means ‘put to bed’, or, in the passive, ‘lie down to sleep’ (also said of the sleep of death, or with an erotic meaning), as at Soph. Ant. 833, Tr. 95, Ph. 699, Eur. Hipp. 562, or metaphorically ‘calm’ or ‘give rest’. The passive used in the sense ‘be stationed’ is not attested elsewhere but is easily understandable, as the verb is a denominative from εὐνή, which frequently designates Hector’s bivouac in Rh. (see 1n.). πόθεν varies ποῦ in the previous line. The reference is to the point of the Trojan camp from which Rhesus’ quarters extend and from which the two Greeks will start: cf., e.g., Thuc. 1.64.1 τὸ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἰσθμοῦ [τεῖχος] ... ἀποτειχίσαντες, Soph. Tr. 938–9 πλευρόθεν / πλευρὰν παρείς, OC 505 τοὐκεῖθεν ἄλσος … τοῦδε, Arr. An. 5.15.7 ἑκατέρωθεν δὲ τῶν πεζῶν ἡ ἵππος ... ἐτέτακτο, KG I.545 n. 4. βαρβάρου στρατεύματος: partitive to be taken with πόθεν. The ‘barbarian army’ are here the Trojans, whose non-Greekness is often emphasised in tragedy; however, unlike other foreigners, this barbarian aspect of the Trojans is stressed or ignored according to the poet’s purpose, and in general the opposition between ‘Greek’ and ‘barbarian’ Trojans is less consistent in Tro., Hel., and IT than in other tragedies; see 32n., Hall (1989) 213, Gibert (2011). 613–15 ὅδ᾿ deictically points out that the person referred to by the interlocutor as ὁ ἀνήρ (611) is close by, as at, e.g., Eur. TrGF 223.17 (ὅδ᾿ αὐτός), Ar. Eq. 146 (ὁδί). ἧσται ‘is camped’ (also at Rh. 846), as at, e.g., Hom. Il. 7.61, 15.740, etc., or Eur. Supp. 664. ἐκτὸς ... τάξεων (Λ) is certainly correct, in the light of the plural at 523, 595, 698, 765. The phrase varies the idiomatic singular ἐκτὸς τάξεως, which appears to be a military idiom, attested in Polyb., Diod. Sic., Dion. Hal. AR, etc., and possibly underlies the banalisation of Δ. Hector’s order focused on the same location at 520 νυχεῦσαι τοῦ τεταγμένου δίχα.

475

C O M M E N TA RY 6 1 5 ἕως + ἄν and subjunctive usually refers to the future and depends on verbs which concern the future or present (KG II.448). The two perfect tenses of 613 refer to Rhesus’ current situation and imply that it is going to last until a certain event takes place (pace Feickert 274, the ἀλλά clause of 614–15 is almost parenthetic, and κατηύνασεν is not relevant to the syntax of the ἕως clause). νὺξ ... φάος: for designations of dawn that refer to the disappearance of the night, cf. above all, Aesch. Ag. 264–5 εὐάγγελος μὲν … / ἕως γένοιτο μητρὸς εὐϕρόνης πάρα, Eur. TrGF 773.19–22 ἤ̣δ̣η̣ μὲν ἀρτιϕανὴς / Ἀὼς ἱ̣[ππεύει] κατὰ γᾶν, / ὑπὲρ δ᾽ ἐμᾶς κεϕαλᾶς / Πλειά[δων πέϕευγε χορός]. The sense must be that the night ‘acquires in exchange’ or ‘passes in turn into’ the light of day; ἀμείβεσθαι is not common in this sense, but see Aesch. Sept. 304 ποῖον δ᾿ ἀμείψεσθε γαίας πέδον / τᾶσδ᾿ ἄρειον; and Soph. Tr. 736 λώιους φρένας / τῶν νῦν παρουσῶν τῶνδ᾿ ἀμείψασθαι. The emphasis on reciprocity or exchange in the succession of day and night given by this verb with the accusative (Diggle (1984a=1994) 293–4) finds a parallel in adesp. TrGF 692.14–16 ἵνα τε νὺξ δ̣[ιαμε]ίβεται (Kannicht; other supplements: [ἐσαμε]ίβεται Snell, [ἐπαμε]ίβεται Page, [ἀπαμε]ίβεται Schubart) τὰ[ν φαεσ/ φόρον αἴγλαν ἑῶιον [ἀ]ν᾿ α̣ἰ̣θ̣έρα, φερ.[.. ἁ/μέριον φάος. According to a myth often mentioned in archaic and classical poetry (Athen. 11.469c–70d, Davies and Finglass on Stesich., Introd. to Geryon., pp. 236–8, and on F 7, 253–8), during the night, Helios is carried from the Hesperides in a large cup from the West to the East, where his νεότροφος τροπά (13b–14a) takes place, and thus ‘the night in turn gets the light’, etc., (14b–16); cf. Fantuzzi (2006c). Adesp. TrGF 692 probably dates from the fourth century, although a Hellenistic date or Euripidean authorship have also been suggested. The relative chronology thus remains obscure, and the supplement of the verb (presumably a compound of ἀμείβεσθαι) is uncertain. But the phrase in Rh. may be a simplified, run-of-the-mill imitation of the original imagery of the fragment, intended to lend elegance to the goddess’s language. The result would be slightly awkward, as in TrGF 692 the preverb (whichever reconstruction we accept) points to the sense ‘change into’, whereas ἀμείβεσθαι alone is not attested in this sense and could easily be taken to have a sense that is the opposite of what is needed here: ‘until daylight is succeeded by night’ (Liapis (2011) 84). The nominative νύξ has thus been emended to accusative νύκτ᾽ (Lenting (1821) 75, followed most recently by Diggle (ed.), Kovacs, Jouan, Liapis (2011) 83–4, contra Fries 356). Alternatively, the accusative φάος could be emended to φάους (Diggle, per litteras). With φάους the sense would be – neutrally, with no connotation of requital – ‘night changes places with (i.e., is succeeded by) day-light’. This construction, attested at, e.g., Hom. Il. 11.547 γόνυ γουνὸς ἀμείβων, Eur. Hel. 1533 ἔργου δ᾽ ἔργον ἐξημείβετο, Med. 1266–7 / φόνος ἀμείβεται) would be more perspicuous than the paradosis, which however is acceptable.

476

C O M M E N TA RY 6 1 6 – 6 2 1 616–18 Θρηικίων ἐξ ἁρμάτων ~ 302 Θρηικίοις τ᾽ ὀχήμασι. ἐξ ἁρμάτων ... δέδενται: similar wording is used in the reference to Rhesus’ chariot and foals at Hippon. IEG 72.5–6 ἐπ᾿ ἁρμάτων τε καὶ Θρεϊκίων πώλων / λευκῶν. At Hom. Il. 10.475, the horses of Rhesus ἐξ ἐπιδιφριάδος πυμάτης ἱμᾶσι δέδεντο near where he sleeps. The mention of the chariot comes together with the Thracian horses also at Rh. 302 and 797–8. ἐκ/ἐξ, together with ἀπό, is common elsewhere with δεῖν: e.g., Hdt. 4.72.4 and 9.74.2. λευκαὶ ... διαπρεπεῖς ἐν εὐφρόνηι· / στίλβουσι δ᾽ ὥστε ποταμίου κύκνου πτερόν: cf. Chaerem. TrGF 71F1.2 στίλβοντα λευκῶι †χρώματι διαπρεπῆ (said of the complexion of a woman), Eur. El. 151–2 κύκνος … / ποταμίοις παρὰ χεύμασιν, Hel. 215–16 χιονόχρωι κύκνου πτερῶι / Ζεὺς πρέπων δι᾿ αἰθέρος. Swans are typical river birds from Hom. Il. 15.691–2 and HHom.Ap. (21) 1–2 onwards, qualified as πολιοί in, e.g., Eur. Her. 111, Bacch. 1365, Ar. Vesp. 1064–5. On the shiny whiteness of Rhesus’ horses, see 303–4n. For the horses ‘conspicuous in the night’, cf. Pind. Ol. 1.1–2 ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς αἰθόμενον πῦρ / ἅτε διαπρέπει νυκτί. On εὐφρόνη, see 91–2n. ὥστε here = ὥσπερ; see 301b–2n. 620–2 κάλλιστον οἴκοις σκῦλον ~ 190 κάλλιστον οἴκοις κτῆμ᾿; on σκῦλον, see 591–3n. Athena describes the booty she is envisaging for the two Greeks in almost the same terms as Hector uses to comment on the reward chosen by Dolon, in another telling instance of the parallels between values and actions of Trojans and Greeks on the night of the twin missions (see Fantuzzi (2006a)). Athena’s phrase, however, replaces Hector’s κτῆμα with σκῦλον ‘booty’, with skilful linguistic characterisation. She refers to the profit of booty, which, as Odysseus had made clear (591–3), was a major concern for the two Greeks (she may or may not have been eavesdropping on at least the last part of the dialogue between Odysseus and Diomedes; see 595–674n.). The singular σκῦλον, instead of the common plural ‘spoils’, focuses on a specific item, whose relevance Athena emphasises, as in Aristophon, PCG 11.8–9 τὰς δὲ πτέρυγας ἃς εἶχε τῆι Νίκηι ϕορεῖν / ἔδοσαν, περιϕανὲς σκῦλον ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων (Fries 358). οὺ γὰρ ἔσθ᾿ ὅπου … πωλικόν may presuppose Nestor’s comment when Odysseus and Diomedes return to the Greek camp with Rhesus’ horses: Hom. Il. 10.550 οὔ πω τοίους ἵππους ἴδον οὐδ᾽ ἐνοήσα. ἔσθ᾿ ὅπου is a phrase typical of tragedy, not attested before Aeschylus. It is used in both positive and negative form, and in local or temporal sense (‘in some cases/places’, or ‘in no place/case’): Aesch. Eum. 517, TrGF 302, Soph. Aj. 1069, 1103, OT 448, Eur. Her. 186; it occurs also in Xen. and the orators. ὄχημα πωλικόν ~ Rh. 797–8. Cf. Soph. El. 740 ἱππικῶν ὀχημάτων, Eur. Alc. 66–7 ἵππειον … ὄχημα, Hipp. 1355 ὄχημ᾽ ἵππειον. The reference here is probably to the horses alone, praised at 617–20; likewise ὄχον at 190; see 189–90n., 797–8n.

477

C O M M E N TA RY 6 2 0 – 6 2 3 οὐ … ἔσθ᾽ ὅπου / … χθὼν κέκευθε ‘nowhere the earth has ensconced’: an odd expression, because it re-uses in a different sense a phrase applied specifically to the dead, who are often, and more properly, said to be ‘ensconced’ or ‘covered’ under the earth where they are buried; see, e.g., with subject γαῖα, Hom. Od. 3.16, Hes. Th. 505, Aesch. PV 570; κόνις, Eur. Hec. 325; a funerary mound, Aesch. Pers. 648; also, of a funerary urn, Aesch. Cho. 687, Soph. El. 1120. κεύθεα γαίης is an idiom from Hom. onwards to designate the location of the dead (Diggle (1996b) 198–9). In the funerary sense, χθὼν κέκευθε or κεύθει become especially frequent in the fourth century: at least 4x in Attic metrical funerary inscriptions of the fourth century (CEG II), and 4x in the epigrams ascribed to Simonides (classical age?). The verb is found in a non-sepulchral sense with a series of containing receptacles, mainly buildings, that hide an object from view; cf. Rh. 171 (Ἴλιον), Hom. Il. 22.118 (πτόλις), Od. 6.303 (δόμοι ... καὶ αὐλή), 9.348 (νηῦς), Hes. F 200.6 (δόμος), Eur. Hec. 880 (στέγαι), El. 359 and 870 (δόμος/δόμοι), Hel. 573 (ἄντρα), Soph. OT 1229 (στέγη); cf. Eur. IA 112 κέκευθε δέλτος ἐν πτυχαῖς, where the verb reflects the fact that the tablets consist of leaves which are folded together (cf. Theophr. Char. 6.8) and sealed (IA 38), and so conceal or enclose the writing inside (Diggle, per litteras, and Collard and Morwood on Eur. IA 111–14). Athena may be looking from her detached higher position as a goddess (Olympus or the sky) to the earth as a ‘container’ holding Rhesus’ horses and other beautiful but inferior things. Or the author of Rh. is, here, mishandling language. 622–3 ἢ σὺ κτεῖνε … ἢ ᾽μοὶ πάρες γε, σοὶ δὲ χρὴ πώλους μέλειν rephrase Odysseus’ words to Diomedes in Hom. Il. 10.479–81 οὐδέ τί σε χρή / ἑστάμεναι μέλεον σὺν τεύχεσιν, ἀλλὰ λύ᾿ ἵππους· / ἠὲ σύ γ᾿ ἄνδρας ἔναιρε, μελήσουσιν δ᾿ ἐμοὶ ἵπποι. Both in Rh. and at Il. 10.481, determinative γε reinforces a preferred alternative, as usual with connecting particles of disjunction, opposition, progression, etc. (Denniston (1954) 119). The Odysseus of Rh., to judge from the emphasis established by γε, favours the idea that he should kill the Thracians, while Diomedes takes care of the horses, but Diomedes suggests instead that they should take on the roles which they will in fact have in all the known versions of the myth. In Hom. Diomedes did not reply, and they simply performed the roles that Odysseus suggested at 10.481. λεών: on λεώς, see 408–11a n. Here it is used in its military sense ‘host of soldiers’ or ‘army’, for which cf. Aesch. Pers. 126, 383, 729, Sept. 80, 91, Ag. 189, Soph. Aj. 1100, Eur. IA 295. It parallels the Homeric ἄνδρας of Il. 10.481, quoted above (cf. also 487). ᾿μοὶ ‘to me’ is here emphatic; the accented form is therefore to be preferred to enclitic μοι of OQ. The aphaeresis is frequent after μή and ἤ, especially in the tragedians (KB I.241–2).

478

C O M M E N TA RY 6 2 3 – 6 2 6 γε emphasises μοί rather than πάρες ‘permit’ and is determinative, thus defining more sharply, in the disjunction κτεῖνε … πάρες, the new idea it introduces (Denniston (1954) 119, Diggle (1981) 22). Emendation (παράσχες Reiske (1754) 90, πάρες σφε Dobree (1833) 87) is unnecessary and ‘somewhat too specific’ (Fries 359). σοὶ ... πώλους μέλειν: cf. Il. 10.481 μελήσουσιν δ᾿ ἐμοὶ ἵπποι, quoted above, where most MSS read δέ μοι. As noted by Feickert 276, the Homeric model supports the accusative subject πώλους rather than the impersonal construction given by L’s πώλων (for which cf. Eur. Hcld. 711). 624–5 πωλοδαμνήσεις: the verb commonly means ‘break in’, and in that sense it is used of Poseidon breaking in Achilles’ horses at 187–8. Here it must have the weaker meaning ‘take under control’. In Il. 10.488–93 Odysseus drags away the corpses to ensure that the horses do not get frightened while stepping on the dead bodies. Rh. does not include a parallel scene (we find only a brief mention at 797–8 of the escape of the two Greeks with the horses), but πωλοδαμνεῖν may have led the audience to remember the method by which Odysseus in Il. 10 prevented the horses from being frightened. τρίβων ‘practised’ is a colloquialism (Collard (2018) 112–13) found only in Eur. in tragedy. It often governs a genitive (cf., e.g., Eur. Cycl. 520, Bacch. 717, TrGF 473.3 (ἀτρίβων); here, as in the close parallel Eur. Med. 686 σοφὸς γὰρ ἁνὴρ καὶ τρίβων τὰ τοιάδε, it is construed with the accusative, τὰ κομψά, apo koinou with νοεῖν σοφός. The two predicatives distinguish between the practice and the conception of subtle ploys. κομψός (physically or intellectually) ‘elegant’ or ‘smart’ (‘the urbane equivalent to σοφός’: Burnet on Pl. Phd. 105c); another Euripidean word, often contemptuously ironical in Eur. and Pl. (Chantraine (1945) 94–5, Collard on Eur. Supp. 426, De Vries (1984) 441, Blank (1991) 24–5). Since it can be used in a positive sense (e.g., Eur. Cycl. 315, Ar. Nub. 649, Av. 195, Th. 93, Pl. Phd. 105c, Phdr. 227c, Resp. 404a, 525d), it should not be regarded as an ‘aberration’ in this context of unqualified praise (Liapis 244), nor should it be supposed that Diomedes is using it ironically (‘ironic approval’: Fries 359), as the motif of a competitive animosity between the two never surfaces in Rh. (though it is known from some versions of other joint expeditions of the two men: 501–2n.). νοεῖν σοφός: cf. Soph. TrGF 524.7 εὖ φρονεῖν σοφώτερος, Eur. Med. 580 σοφὸς λέγειν (with Mastronarde ad loc.) ~ Eur. TrGF 189.2. σοφός with infinitive is not common. Perhaps it is a variation of the common δεινός with infinitive. 626 ‘A man should be put where he can do the most good’ is a variation of a general principle concerning the convenient division of duties, which is referred to by Aesch. TrGF 78a.32–3 εἰ δ’ οὖν ἐσώιζου τὴν πάλαι παρο[ιμία]ν̣,  / τοὔρχημα μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν σε.[.....]ε̣ιν and quoted by Ar. Vesp. 1431 ἔρδοι τις

479

C O M M E N TA RY 6 2 6 – 6 4 1 ἣν ἕκαστος εἰδείη τέχνην. The proverbial status of the maxim is confirmed by Cic. Att. 5.10.3; cf. Tusc. 1.41 quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat (translating Ar.), De off. 1.114 ad quas igitur res aptissimi erimus, in eis potissimum elaborabimus, Hor. Epist. 1.14.44 quam scit uterque, libens, censebo, exerceat artem, Prop. 2.1.46 qua pote quisque, in ea conterat arte diem. A similar principle is expressed by Eur. TrGF 184 ἐν τούτωι / λαμπρός θ᾿ ἕκαστος κἀπὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἐπείγεται, / νέμων τὸ πλεῖστον ἡμέρας τούτωι μέρος, / ἵν᾿ αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ τυγχάνει βέλτιστος ὤν, discussed by Pl. Grg. 484e, [Pl.] Alc. II 146a, Arist. Rh. 1371b28–33. A military adaptation, as in Rh., appears in Xen. Cyr. 8.5.15 καὶ τὸ τιθέναι γε τὸ μέρος (here = ‘body’ of the army) ἕκαστον ὅπου μάλιστα ἐν ὠφελείαι ἂν εἴη, καὶ τὸ ταχύνειν δὲ ὅπου φθάσαι δέοι, πάντα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τακτικοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐνόμιζεν εἶναι. Diomedes’ remark apropos of his and Odysseus’ different individual talents explains his choice, thus paralleling the reasoning suggested at Il. 10.479– 81, quoted above in 622–3n., where Odysseus speaks of the roles that each of the pair should have, as is observed by Σ exeg. 10.480: ‘σὺν τεύχεσιν’ δηλοῖ ὡς μᾶλλον ἐπιτηδειότερος ὢν εἰς τὸ φονεύειν τούτου λαβέσθαι ὀφείλει. 627–41 Odysseus does not take part in the conversation between Athena and Diomedes, and she addresses a singular interlocutor, Diomedes, at 634–7. Some modern scholars (e.g., Ritchie (1964) 126–9, with bibliography) have supposed that after 622–3 the actor playing Odysseus moves toward the eisodos leading to the Thracian camp in order to change quickly and re-enter from the other eisodos (leading to the Trojan camp), dressed as Alexander, after 641 and as Odysseus after 674 (Liapis xliii) or before 681. But Battezzato (2000b) has shown that it is difficult to believe that in the short time of less than twenty lines an actor could change costume and cross over to the other side of the theatre (about thirty metres away in the theatre of Dionysus at Athens), as Alexander has to re-enter or exit by the eisodos to the Trojan camp. It is thus better to assume that the role of Alexander was played by a fourth actor, and that Odysseus remains on stage and is silent for narrative reasons: it is Diomedes, not Odysseus, who wished to kill Alexander at 586, and the dialogue between Diomedes and Athena is concerned precisely with the question of killing him. Odysseus does not speak, because he had never supported Diomedes’ suggestion (see his scepticism at 587–8 and 591–3); Hector’s silence at 195–263 would be similarly motivated; see 189–90n. 627–9 καὶ μήν: see 85–6n. καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς: for κατά expressing the direction of a movement, cf., e.g., Hdt. 1.84.5, 9.53.1, Soph. TrGF 898, Ar. Av. 1178, Xen. Cyr. 6.3.12. The phrase points to the theatrical space of the bivouac of Hector, as Alexander is looking for Hector (cf. 631–2, 642–5), not of course for Athena and Diomedes, though from Athena’s location he seems to be moving towards them. That

480

C O M M E N TA RY 6 2 7 – 6 3 3 does not prove that Athena is visible on stage; she simply belongs in the same theatrical space as her interlocutor even if she is only an offstage voice (595–674n.). But the fact that she is able to see Alexander approaching when Diomedes cannot (even at 630) certainly supports the view that she is raised up above the stage platform. τόνδ᾿ Ἀλέξανδρον ... στείχοντα: phrases with a verb of seeing + accusative, usually accompanied by a deictic and governing predicative στείχοντ(α), are frequent in Eur. (about 15x; 1x in Soph., never in Aesch.). In most cases, στείχοντ(α) comes at the beginning of the line and refers to a character who enters the scene (Cycl. 85–7, Alc. 612, Med. 269–70, 1118–19, Hcld. 49–50, Hipp. 51–2, Tro. 707–8, Pho. 696, 1308–9, Or. 725–6, TrGF spur. 1132.61–2; also TrGF 62a.3: cf. Diggle (1997) 98–9); for στείχειν as a typical verb for stage movements, see 85–6n. δόξας ἀσήμους ‘unclear rumours’: δόξα, which fifth-century philosophers and authors frequently contrasted with truth, is here qualified negatively by ἄσημος, to denote information of poor quality relying on uncertain evidence. Alexander will confirm both the vagueness of those rumours and their subject (the infiltration of Greek spies) at 656–9. μεμβλωκότων is a Homerism, not attested between Il. 4.11, 24.73, Od. 17.190 and Rh. (later only in Callim., Ap. Rh., and the grammarians). 630: cf. Pl. Leg. 799cd εἴτε μόνος εἴτε μετ᾿ ἄλλων τύχοι πορευόμενος. Diomedes wants to know whether he and Odysseus can face the men who may be accompanying Alexander: he still hopes to kill him (cf. 585–6) without being outnumbered. Athena can answer Diomedes’ question at 631, and so she must be able to see more than her interlocutor. But as her explanation of the arrival of Alexander at 627–9 seems speculative, and the new account that she produces at 631–2 is certainly conjectural (ὡς ἔοικεν), there is no suggestion that divine omniscience is involved. She can probably see more because she is in an elevated position; see 595–674n. πότερα ... ἢ is not certainly attested before the fifth-century dramatists, but common in Eur. (more than 30x), Soph. (9x), and Ar. (6x); it may have been colloquial Attic (also in Antiph., Pl., Xen., Isocr., and Dem.). 631–2 πρὸς εὐνὰς ... Ἕκτορος ~ 1 and 660. Line 660 is spoken by Alexander, who thus confirms Athena’s conjecture (ὡς ἔοικεν) in our line. κατόπτας ... στρατοῦ: see 125–7n. σημανῶν: see 275n. 633 οὔκουν ὑπάρχειν … κατθανόντα χρή; ‘does he then not have to take the lead in dying?’ Periphrases with ὑπάρχειν plus participle stress the initiative of the agent (Stinton (1965=1990). They are rare in classical Greek but appear to be common in Dem.: 3.7, 4.13, 14.10 and 19, 15.1, 18.95, 228 and 235, 21. 41.

481

C O M M E N TA RY 6 3 4 – 6 3 7 634–5 The superior force of τὸ πεπρωμένον is expressed already in the speech of Hera to Zeus about the destiny of Sarpedon at Il. 16.441–3, and again by Athena in her dialogue with Zeus about the fate of Hector in 22.179–81: ἄνδρα θνητὸν ἐόντα πάλαι πεπρωμένον αἴσηι / ἂψ ἐθέλεις θανάτοιο δυσηχέος ἐξαναλῦσαι;. Athena’s insistence on destiny in Rh. (635 οὐ θέμις and 636 μορσίμους ... σφαγάς) may evoke Hera’s and Athena’s role, in those two passages, as guardians of destiny (cf. above Prol. 2 n.). But Athena does not note here what is destined to occur in order to restrain the heroes from carrying out actions that deviate from the destined course of the myth of the Trojan War. She actually steers events toward their destined course, as it is her intervention that leads to the σφαγαὶ μόρσιμοι. As observed by Burnett (1985) 184, when she tells Odysseus and Diomedes that they cannot kill Hector or Alexander because their deaths are destined to take place in a different way, ‘the natural conclusion is that [Rhesus’] death is not so precisely fixed, and we therefore feel that we are watching divinity as it constructs “what is” by conflating divine will with “what had to be”’. πρὸς σῆς χειρὸς oὐ θέμις θανεῖν: cf. Aesch. Supp. 66 ὤλετο πρὸς χειρὸς ἕθεν, Ag. 1552–3 πρὸς ἡμῶν / κάππεσε, κάτθανε, Soph. OT 376 oὐ γάρ σε μοῖρα πρός γ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεσεῖν, 949 πρὸς τῆς τύχης ὄλωλεν οὐδὲ τοῦδ᾽ ὕπο, Ant. 1175–6 ὄλωλεν … / ⸬ πότερα πατρώιας ἢ πρὸς οἰκείας χερός;, Eur. TrGF 994.1 εἰ δὲ θανεῖν θέμις. 636–7a ‘But make haste towards (the man) for whom your arrival brings fated slaughter.’ It is less natural to construe τάχυνε with φέρων, ‘make haste bringing’, as ταχύνειν is normally absolute or transitive and found it with participle only at Hippocr. Mul. 3.222. The phrase may have been produced by a recollection of Aesch. Cho. 658–60 ἄγγελλε τοῖσι κυρίοισι δωμάτων, / πρὸς οὕσπερ ἥκω καὶ ϕέρω καινοὺς λόγους. / τάχυνε δ᾽ (Fries 361). μορσίμους … σφαγάς Cf. Il. 5.674–6 οὐδ᾿ ἄρ᾿ Ὀδυσσῆϊ ... μόρσιμον ἦεν / ... Διὸς υἱὸν ἀποκτάμεν. ὧιπερ ... τάχυν(ε): the dative is a correction in P (MSS: ὥσπερ), commended by the consistent use in drama of the dative of the recipient with the phrase ἥκειν φέρων: Eur. Hcld. 637, Andr. 60, El. 228, Or. 854, IA 1536, Soph. El. 666, OT 86, OC 357, Ar. Plut. 849. And sigma is a mistake for original iota in all the MSS of Rh. at 138 and 662. The antithesis with τοῦτον in 635 supports the singular here (Mastronarde (2004) 21–2). Fate prescribes Rhesus’ death, not the slaughter of other Thracians. The plural οἷσπερ (Vater 223) and the adverb οἷπερ ‘to the place where’ (Kovacs (2003a) 149) are thus less plausible. After Athena’s order, Diomedes leaves the stage together with Odysseus, or reaches Odysseus at the eisodos leading to the Thracian camp, to which Odysseus may have moved already at 622–3 (see 627–41n.); or they may stand silent near the eisodos while Athena speaks 637b–641 (as maintained by Bates (1916) 10). But they have certainly exited when Alexander appears:

482

C O M M E N TA RY 6 3 7 – 6 3 9 during his dialogue with Athena-Aphrodite (642–74), they are slaughtering Rhesus and the Thracians. Only from 675ff. is it clear that they have reappeared on stage. 637b–9 σύμμαχος ... ἀρωγὸς ἐν πόνοις παραστατεῖν: cf. 609–10. Athena is giving a first taste of the delusively reassuring rhetoric that she will adopt. She is no σύμμαχος to the Trojans, but she wants to become for Alexander the Aphrodite whom Sappho F 1 Voigt invokes to join her (ἔλθε 5, 25) and be her σύμμαχος (28). The deceptive Athena of Soph. Aj. 90, pretending to be disappointed by Ajax’ lack of attention, asks him τί βαιὸν οὕτως ἐντρέπηι τῆς συμμάχου; and he answers (91–2): ὦ χαῖρ᾽, Ἀθάνα, … / ὡς εὖ παρέστης (cf. Rh. παραστατεῖν); cf. also 116–17 τοῦτό σοι δ᾽ ἐϕίεμαι, / τοιάνδ᾽ ἀεί μοι σύμμαχον παρεστάναι. Soph.’s Athena is referring to her role as an ally of the Greeks in the Iliad. In Rh., the irony of the situation is evident, as the Aphrodite whom Athena pretends to be is a passionate defender of the Trojans. Gods are frequently called on in prayers to come close to the person praying who is in need of help (Pulleyn (1997) 136–7). For παραστατεῖν designating divine proximity and assistance to or protection of humans, see 506–7a n. For σύμμαχος said of a divinity helpful to or interacting with humans, cf. Archil. IEG 108.1, Aesch. Sept. 266, Supp. 395, Cho. 2, 19, 497, Soph. OT 274–5, Eur. Hcld. 347–8, 766, Supp. 630, Pho. 936, Or. 583, Bacch. 1343, Critias TrGF 43F10.3. σαθροῖς λόγοισιν: σαθρός, properly ‘unwholesome’ or ‘rotten’, perhaps comes from the technical language of medicine. Not attested before Pind. Nem. 8.34 and Eur., in the fifth century the adjective is used in the metaphorical sense ‘(morally) unsound’ at Eur. Hec. 1190 λόγους ... σαθρούς, Supp. 1064, Bacch. 487 (Ritchie (1964) 209, Collard on Eur. Supp. 1064). This sense suits our passage: the warrior goddess would be expressing her contempt for the honeyed kind of speech which is typical of Aphrodite (e.g., at Hom. Il. 14.216–17) and which Athena is now going to mirror. What is deceitful is often σαθρόν: Eur. Bacch. 487 τοῦτ᾿ ἐς γυναῖκας δόλιόν ἐστι καὶ σαθρόν, Plut. Mor. 64e ἡ κολακεία ... σαθρὸν ... ὑπηχεῖ καὶ ἀγεννές; but it is perhaps not correct to take the epithet in the sense ‘misleading’ here (with Kovacs, Feickert, Jouan; contra Liapis 247). ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἀμείψομαι ‘I shall answer my enemy’ (Feickert 281, comparing Hom. Od. 2.83 Τηλέμαχον μύθοισιν ἀμείψασθαι χαλεποῖσιν; likewise Liapis 247, Fries 362) is not an impossible interpretation, but ‘I will pay my enemy back’ (Kovacs) appears more pointed, in the light of Archil. IEG 126.2 τὸν κακῶς μ᾿ ἔρδοντα δεινοῖς ἀνταμείβεσθαι κακοῖς, Aesch. Sept. 1049 παθὼν κακῶς κακοῖσιν ἀντημείβετο, Cho. 123 τὸν ἐχθρὸν ἀνταμείβεσθαι κακοῖς, and more broadly the traditional ethical principle according to which one should harm one’s enemies, for which cf. 102–4. ἐχθρός here probably means ‘enemy’; but Alexander was also especially ‘hated’ (585–6n.).

483

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 0 – 6 4 1 640–1 These lines may be addressed to Diomedes alone or to him and Odysseus (if Odysseus is not waiting near the eisodos; see 627–41n.). Athena concludes her speech (ταῦτ᾽ … εἶπον highlights that she is finished speaking; cf. Ercolani (2000) 60) and reassures the two Greeks that they need not fear that Alexander, who is approaching, may have overheard her plans at 636–9 (Porter 77). But if Diomedes leaves after τάχυν(ε) 637 (which is also plausible, see 636–7a n.), these lines are a soliloquy. In that case Athena would assume the complicity of the audience – the obvious implied addressee of an actor’s soliloquy – by revealing her plan of action and pointing to Alexander’s dull wit. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ … εἶπον parallels σοὶ μὲν τάδ᾽ εἶπον or σοὶ μὲν τάδ᾽ αὐδῶ of (respectively) Supp. 1213, El. 1276, Pho. 778 and Hel. 1662, Pho. 568, phrases which are found only in Eur. and constitute, as here, formal transitions from one addressee to another (Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 568). If those phrases were the model, then the absence of σοί favours the interpretation of 640–1 as a soliloquy. ὃν δὲ χρὴ παθεῖν: despite Pearson (1924) 14, the ‘one who has to suffer’, but neither knows nor hears, cannot be Rhesus, whom Athena referred to in 636–7, not only because there can be no question of his hearing a speech uttered near Hector’s bivouac, even if his camp is ἐγγύς (613) (Heath (1762) 96–7), but because he must be assumed to be asleep at this moment, as he will be killed while sleeping. Athena is certainly speaking of Alexander, and παθεῖν has to be taken in its weaker sense ‘be affected’ (by Athena’s deception): Athena starts to scoff at her ‘enemy’ (639) Alexander even before the deceit begins. οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδ᾿ ἤκουσεν ‘does not know and has not heard’ stresses not only his obvious ignorance, but also the obtuseness of his perception. The phrase may have been idiomatic in fourth-century Attic: cf. Isae. 6.11 οὐδεὶς τὸ παράπαν οἶδεν οὐδ᾿ ἤκουσε πώποτε, [Pl.] Ep. 348c οὔτ᾿ οἶδα οὔτ᾿ ἤκουον. ἐγγὺς ὢν λόγου ‘although he is near (the place of) my speech’, the speech having been mentioned at 640 ταῦτ᾿ ἐγὼ μὲν εἶπον. The genitive may be taken either with ἤκουσεν (the genitive is commonly used of what is heard, especially in Homer and the Tragedians: KG I.358) or with ἐγγύς, or apo koinou with both. If Athena was visible on an elevated platform, and not just a disembodied voice, she will now be disguised as Aphrodite, as antici­ pated at 637–9 (δοκοῦσ(α)). She probably did not have to exit the stage in order to disguise herself (the text includes no hint of her exit): it would be enough for her to drop her usual spear and helmet (Bates (1916) 10). She may also have changed her voice, adopting Aphrodite’s honeyed tones. The convention of masked acting could make it difficult to identify characters, and tragic actors may or may not have used different voices for different characters. In the fourth century the tragic actor Theodorus was famous

484

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 1 – 6 7 4 inter alia for reproducing the sound of a windlass, and there is ample evidence that comic actors mimicked voices (Csapo (2002) 135–8). Liapis 246 observed that in view of the many comic elements in Rh. and in particular the comic aspects of the scene of Athena in disguise, it is plausible that she changed her voice. 642–74 Gods – in particular, but not only, μῆτις-gods like Hermes and Athena – often appear to mortals in disguise. For example, Hermes appears in the guise of a young boy to Priam at Hom. Il. 24.347–8 and to Odysseus at Od. 10.277–9; Aphrodite appears to Helen as an old woman at Il. 3.385–9; Athena appears to Odysseus cross-dressed at Od. 13.221–4, in the guise of a young shepherd. Likewise, at Il. 5.733–44 Athena puts on the chiton of Zeus, and arms herself as a warrior – whether the τεύχεα (737) she wears are her own or those of Zeus is not clear.83 In tragedy, Dionysus is disguised as a mortal stranger in Eur. Bacch.; Hera as a begging priestess in Aesch. TrGF 168 (from Semele; cf. Hadjicosti (2006)) – in both plays gods transform themselves to manipulate and destroy their human enemies, like Athena in Rh. In comedy, Dionysus is disguised as Alexander, Pericles, and a ram in Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, PCG 39–51. But, apart from our play, gods disguised as different gods are attested only in comedy. So Dionysus dresses as Heracles at Ar. Ran. 495–6; Zeus disguises himself as Artemis and thus enters Callisto’s bed in a comedy by Alcaeus, Callisto (PCG 17–18), and perhaps in another with the same title by Amphis (PCG 46). Athena’s role here could not be more central to the action of this night and, indeed, to the outcome of the war in general: had she not warned the two Greeks to depart immediately in the direction of Rhesus, and had she not then conversed with the approaching Alexander, he might have alarmed Hector with his report about the arrival of spies, and the Trojans might have woken up and discovered Odysseus and Diomedes. In particular, her deceitful encounter with Alexander immediately precedes and takes place during the slaughter of Rhesus, and thus is practically the device that makes it possible for the slaughter of the Thracians to be accomplished before the alarm is raised – had Rhesus lived, as Athena notes, the war would have become much more difficult for the Greeks (598–604). The vengeance that she wreaks on Alexander while disguised as Aphrodite is also especially original and effective because it demolishes his image. In Hom. Il. 6.312–68, a passage that somehow complements the present scene of seductive deception, Hector finds Paris at leisure in his chamber Aristarchus favoured the latter alternative; cf. Σ A and exeg. Il. 5.736. If Aristarchus’ interpretation is correct, Athena anticipated the disguise of Patroclus as Achilles.

83

485

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 2 – 6 4 3 together with Helen and the other Trojan women, and urges him, the man who caused the war (6.328–9 σέο δ᾽ εἵνεκ’ ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε / ἄστυ τόδ᾽ ἀμϕιδέδηε), to go and defend the city. In Rh. Alexander seems to take an active role in the defence of the army. He is looking for Hector and wants to warn him about the Greek spies (628–9). His role in this second beginning of the play parallels that of Aeneas at the beginning (87). Unlike Aeneas, however, Alexander turns out to be completely ineffective. He seems to have been ‘brought in principally as a means of filling the interval required for the murder of Rhesus off stage’ (Ritchie (1964) 125: such intervals are usually filled in tragedy by the chorus, which cannot be present at this point in the play). Alexander’s already bad reputation is made still worse by the present scene: Athena’s deceit highlights his weak-minded credulity. Finally, Athena’s disguise indirectly pokes fun at Aphrodite as an ineffective supporter of the Trojans throughout the Iliad. At Il. 21.428–31, having wounded first Ares and then Aphrodite in battle, Athena focuses precisely on Aphrodite’s humiliation as a helper of the Trojans (τοιοῦτοι νῦν πάντες ὅσοι Τρώεσσιν ἀρωγοὶ / εἶεν, ὅτ’ Ἀργείοισι μαχοίατο θωρηκτῆισιν, / ὧδέ τε θαρσαλέοι καὶ τλήμονες, ὡς Ἀϕροδίτη / ἦλθεν ῎Αρηι ἐπίκουρος ἐμῶι μένει ἀντιόωσα). By disguising herself as Aphrodite, Athena mocks Aphrodite’s attitude to the Trojans again. Her words are full of promises of help, but in reality her conversation with Alexander is going to be ruinous for them. 642–3 The description of the links in both kinship and military hierarchy between Alexander and Hector anticipates the informal and anxious tone of Alexander’s report – but the words are wasted, as Hector is not there. Addresses where the addressee is designated through a pronoun accompanied by a specifying phrase are often harsh and peremptory, and suggest an attitude of superiority: Aesch. Ag. 1035 (Clytemnestra) εἴσω κομίζου καὶ σύ, Κασσάνδραν λέγω, PV 944–6 (Hermes to Prometheus) σὲ τὸν σοφιστήν, τὸν πικρῶς ὑπέρπικρον, / τὸν ἐξαμαρτόντ᾿ … / … τὸν πυρὸς κλέπτην λέγω, Soph. Aj. 71–3 (Athena) οὗτος, σὲ τὸν τὰς αἰχμαλωτίδας χέρας / δεσμοῖς ἀπευθύνοντα προσμολεῖν καλῶ. / Αἴαντα φωνῶ, 1226–8 (Agamemnon to Teucer) σὲ δὴ … / … / σέ τοι, τὸν ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωτίδος λέγω, El. 1445–6 (Aegisthus to Electra) σέ τοι, σὲ κρίνω, ναὶ σὲ τὴν ἐν τῶι πάρος / χρόνωι θρασεῖαν, Ant. 441 (Creon to Antigone) σὲ δή, σὲ τὴν νεύουσαν εἰς πέδον κάρα (καλῶ οr a similar verb is to be understood), Eur. Med. 271–2 σὲ τὴν σκυθρωπὸν καὶ πόσει θυμουμένην, / Μήδει᾽, ἀνεῖπον, Hel. 546–8 (Menelaus to Helen) σὲ τὴν ὄρεγμα δεινὸν ἡμιλλημένην / τύμβου ᾽πὶ κρηπῖδ᾽ ἐμπύρους τ᾽ ὀρθοστάτας, / μεῖνον, Bacch. 912–14 (Dionysos) σὲ τὸν πρόθυμον ὄνθ᾿ ἃ μὴ χρεὼν ὁρᾶν / σπεύδοντά τ᾿ ἀσπούδαστα, Πενθέα λέγω, / ἔξιθι (see Dodds ad loc.), Ar. Ran. 171 (Dionysos) οὗτος, σὲ λέγω μέντοι, σὲ τὸν τεθνηκότα. But this pattern also occurs in cases where, as here, no jussive tone of superiority is present, and the speaker is just vigorously and peremptorily pointing to the

486

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 2 – 6 4 5 addressee and calling for his attention at the beginning of a dialogue as, e.g., at Eur. Hipp. 1283–4 σὲ τὸν εὐπατρίδην Αἰγέως κέλομαι / παῖδ᾿ ἐπακοῦσαι (see Barrett ad loc.), Supp. 110 σὲ τὸν κατήρη χλανιδίοις ἀνιστορῶ, Her. 1214–15 σὲ τὸν θάσσοντα δυστήνους ἕδρας / αὐδῶ) or when the addressee is assumed to be out of sight, as at Soph. Ph. 1261–2 σὺ δ᾿, ὦ Ποίαντος παῖ, Φιλοκτήτην λέγω, / ἔξελθ(ε) and Eur. Hcld. 642–3 ὦ μῆτερ ἐσθλοῦ παιδός, Ἀλκμήνην λέγω, / ἔξελθ(ε). Ἕκτορ, καθεύδεις; οὐκ ἐγείρεσθαι σ᾽ ἐχρῆν; parallels 9–10 λεῖπε χαμεύνας … καιρὸς γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι (addressed to the sleeping Hector). For the focus on a military leader, the warning that he should not sleep too deeply in moments of danger, and the surprised exclamative-interrogative καθεύδεις, 642–3 may have been modelled on the address to Agamemnon by Oneiros at Il. 2.23–5 εὕδεις, Ἀτρέος υἱὲ … ; / οὐ χρὴ παννύχιον εὕδειν βουληφόρον ἄνδρα, / ὧι λαοί τ᾽ ἐπιτετράφαται καὶ τόσσα μέμηλεν (on the exclamative-interrogative nature of εὕδεις, cf. Piettre (1997) 136, Brügger, Stoevesandt, and Visser ad loc., and Fries (2016) 20–1). The paradosis is divided between the imperfect σ᾿ ἐχρῆν and the present σε χρή; σ᾿ ἐχρή possibly reflects an intermediate corruption of the imperfect. The imperfect suits the context better than the present of Λ (adopted by only Zanetto and Feickert among modern editors), which would have a general gnomic value, as it has in Il. 2.24 = 61, quoted above (cf. Lardinois (1997) 215– 16). Alexander wanted to find Hector awake, e.g., standing and arming himself, and regrets to surmise that he is not. Compare the different approach of the watchmen at the beginning of the play, who immediately call on Hector to wake up, because they assume that he is asleep. The use of the imperfect of impersonal verbs denoting necessity suggests a hint of regret that the action expressed in the dependent infinitive has not been realised: ‘χρή simply states the obligation, χρῆν (when used of a present obligation) regrets that it is not fulfilled’ (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 467). With ἐχρῆν, Alexander conveys his disappointment if Hector is not up to his moral obligation to be awake. As for the form, χρῆν, by crasis from χρὴ ἦν, appears to be older than ἐχρῆν, where the syllabic augment ἐ- is probably a development due to the synonymous ἔδει. Both forms were in use in the last two decades of the fifth century and, while Aesch. and Soph. did not use the newer form, Eur. and Men. appear to have used both; cf. Platnauer (1942), Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1072–3. ἡμῖν … στρατεύματι is a σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος; see 471–2n. 645 ἢ κλῶπες ἄνδρες ἢ κατάσκοποί τινες are in apposition to the singular τις in 644; cf., e.g., Hom. Od. 23.135–6 ὥς κέν τις ϕαίη … / ἠ᾽ ἀν’ ὁδὸν στείχων ἠ᾽ οἳ περιναιετάουσι. The construction ad sensum emphasises Alexander’s lack of clear information about the gravity of the hostile incursion, and the shift from singular to plural shows that he is afraid that the enemy are numerous. The

487

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 5 – 6 4 6 combination of robbers and spies is logical, as thievery might include preliminary reconnaissance by spies: see Xen. Laced. resp. 2.7 δῆλον δ᾽ ὅτι τὸν μέλλοντα κλωπεύειν … δεῖ … κατασκόπους δὲ ἑτοιμάζειν τὸν μέλλοντά τι λήψεσθαι. Odysseus and Diomedes were sent as spies by the Greeks, but in the course of the action they became thieves when they stole Rhesus’ horses: cf. 678–9 and 708, where Odysseus is called a ‘thief ’. Nocturnal raids by robbers were a real and not uncommon danger, and citizens were expected to keep careful guard and promptly defend themselves against them: see, e.g., Aen. Tact. 23.7–8. 646–52 There is some sarcasm in 646–7a, as Aphrodite’s help was to prove ineffective. 649–52 are a shameless lie, as Athena had ‘accompanied’ Rhesus to Troy, but just to find the right moment to eliminate him soon after his arrival. Between the two passages in which she feigns benevolence, she expresses her gratitude to Alexander for his favour for her at 647b–8; but Alexander’s favour for Aphrodite will have been understood by the audience as, precisely, the reason for the hatred of Athena. 646 Athena-Aphrodite’s self-identification is appropriate, because Alexander has come to speak with Hector and the presence of the goddess is totally unexpected. φυλάσσω, emended by Naber (1882) 4 from transmitted φυλάσσει, has been accepted by all modern editors. Speakers can sometimes refer to themselves with a deictic or a self-reference by name and use at the same time a first person verb, as in Od. 2.40–1 οὐχ ἑκὰς οὗτος ἀνήρ, τάχα δ᾽ εἴσεαι αὐτός, / ὃς λαὸν ἤγειρα. At Eur. Hipp. 1285 Λητοῦς δὲ κόρη σ᾽ Ἄρτεμις αὐδῶ (v.l. αὐδᾶι) and Or. 1626 Φοῖβός σ᾽ ὁ Λητοῦς παῖς ὅδ᾽ ἐγγὺς ὢν καλῶ (v.l. καλεῖ) the MSS are divided about the person of the verb; at El. 1238–42 δίπτυχοι δέ σε / καλοῦσι μητρὸς σύγγονοι Διόσκοροι, / Κάστωρ κασίγνητός τε Πολυδεύκης ὅδε … ἀϕίγμεθ᾽ Ἄργος, a self-reference by name is accompanied by a third-person verb (guaranteed by the metre); and MSS have the third person unanimously at Soph. Aj. 864 τοῦθ᾽ ὑμὶν Αἴας τοὔπος ὕστατον θροεῖ, Eur. Hel. 1168 Θεοκλύμενος παῖς ὅδε προσεννέπει (προσεννέπω Lenting), Ar. Ach. 406 Δικαιόπολις καλεῖ (καλῶ Cobet) σ᾽ … ἐγώ; cf. also Thuc. 1.128.7 Παυσανίας ὁ ἡγεμὼν τῆς Σπάρτης … ἀποπέμπει καὶ γνώμην ποιοῦμαι. In particular, in Eur., gods sometimes refer to themselves by name with a first-person verb after an unannounced entrance, as at 890–2 ἡ … Μοῦσα … πάρειμι; cf. Andr. 1232 ἥκω Θέτις λιποῦσα Νηρέως δόμους, Ion 1555–6 ἐπώνυμος δὲ σῆς ἀϕικόμην χθονὸς / Παλλάς, Hel. 1643–4 δισσοὶ δέ σε / Διόσκοροι καλοῦμεν, Bacch. 1–2 ἥκω Διὸς παῖς … / Διόνυσος. In Rh. the construction with first person would emphasise the speaker’s presence, conveniently for the reassuring role feigned by Athena-Aphrodite (Liapis 248, Fries 364). But Naber’s emendation is perhaps not unavoidable and the third person is also suitable, as it adds solemnity to her self-presentation (Austin and Olson on Ar. Th. 76–7; ‘as in the incipit of a letter’, observes Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1168).

488

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 6 – 6 4 8 φυλάσσειν most probably has a malicious double meaning, like the concluding lines 665–7. In her disguise as Aphrodite, Athena prides herself on ‘protecting’ Alexander – and in fact she had rescued him at Hom. Il. 3.373–82. But in her real identity as Athena, she may be implying that she is ‘keeping a watch on’ or ‘controlling’ him (for this sense, e.g., Thuc. 3.105.2, 7.25.4, Arist. Pol. 1289a19) in order to prevent him from reporting to Hector that spies have arrived while Odysseus and Diomedes slaughter Rhesus and his Thracians. πρευμενής: a word of uncertain etymology, attested only in Aesch. (13x) and Eur. (7x): cf. Eust. on Hom. Il. 4.2 (437.6) ἐκ τοῦ πρᾶιος καὶ εὐμενὴς ὁ ἐν τῆι τραγωιδίαι πρευμενής. A derivation from πρᾶος/πραΰς was commonly assumed by ancient grammarians (Hesych. Lex. π 3257 Hansen, Suda π 2259 Adler, Etym. magn. 687.1 Gaisf., Zonar. Lex. π 1572.7 Tittm., Σ Eur. Hec. 540, Or. 119, Σ Lycophr. 1055, Eust. loc. cit.). If the author of Rh. perceived the nuance of ‘gentleness’ suggested by that derivation, the word may have suggested the gentle benevolence which the pseudo-goddess of love wanted to ascribe to herself. According to Chantraine (1959), it is more likely that the word is derived from prepositional προ- (expressing propensity, as in πρόθυμος or πρόφρων) and εὐμενής ‘benevolent’. The form προευμενής, found once in an inscription of the second century AD from Cypriot Soloi, SEG XVIII.592 may show that this derivation was not unknown in the ancient world – unless it is a late re-interpretation of what had become a word of opaque origin (Brixhe and Hodot (1988) 147–8, Beekes (2010) 1232). 647–8 μέλει … πόλεμος is attested only at Il. 10.92, where Agamemnon explains to Nestor why he has woken him during the night and tells him of his anxiety about the war. Here the phrase is probably adopted for its neutral ambiguity, like φυλάσσειν of 646. Athena-Aphrodite pretends that she ‘cares about’ obtaining a positive result for Alexander, but Athena has just shown by her actions that she really ‘cares about’ the victory of the Greeks. σός too implies sarcasm. At face value it refers to the war in which Alexander is involved (σός), but it may also point to the fact that he had caused it by abducting Helen (cf. Hom. Il. 6.328–9, quoted in 642–74n.), after he had chosen Aphrodite when judging the beauty contest – the ‘honour’ (τιμή) for which Athena-Aphrodite feigns gratitude immediately afterwards. οὐδ᾿ ἀμνημονῶ / τιμῆς: the same line-ending is found at Aesch. Eum. 24; but this litotes was idiomatic in fourth-century Attic and the koine (Isocr., Dem.; later, e.g., Strabo, Plut., App.). In the now standard interpretation of Fisher (1992), τιμή designates adequate acknowledgement of one’s own merit usually by other people or all of society, and the distinguished honours or rewards through which it is expressed; in the absence of that acknowledgement one can feel mistreated, a victim of ὕβρις.

489

C O M M E N TA RY 6 4 8 – 6 5 1 It is another deliberately ambiguous expression: taken with τιμῆς at face value, it will refer to the sweet memory which Aphrodite has of her victory in the beauty contest, an ‘honour’ from Alexander which makes her well-disposed to him. But for Athena the memory generates a bitter rancour, which justifies her present revenge. ἐπαινῶ ... εὖ παθοῦσα πρὸς σέθεν For ἐπαινῶ ... παθοῦσα, cf. Eur. Cycl. 549 χάριν δὲ τίνα λαβών σ’ ἐπαινέσω; for παθοῦσα πρὸς σέθεν, Eur. Bacch. 788 κακῶς … πρὸς σέθεν πάσχων, TrGF 757.60i.42 εὖ παθόντα πρὸς σέθεν. ἐπαινῶ means ‘I commend (you, or your τιμή)’, practically ‘Thank you!’ (Hewitt (1927) 159; Quincey (1966) 144–58). πρὸς σέθεν is typical of Eur. (7x), occurring elsewhere once in Soph. 649–52 Athena, though pretending to be Aphrodite, focuses on her own martial concern. According to Proclus’ summary of the Cypria, she had promised πολέμου νίκη to Paris in exchange for his vote in the beauty contest (cf. also Eur. Tro. 925–6, IA 1304–5). She returns to the idea of 600–5 that Rhesus was going to have a decisive impact on the result of the war. καὶ νῦν provides evidence of the claim at 646–7. ἐπ᾽ εὐτυχοῦντι ... στρατῶι: here ἐπί may express addition, with εὐτυχοῦντι attributive (Rhesus is added to an already victorious Trojan army), or the goal, with εὐτυχοῦντι predicative (‘for the Trojan army to become victorious’), or, perhaps the best interpretation (Liapis 249, Fries 366), attendant circumstances ‘while the army is victorious’ (KG I.501–2). On the apparent εὐτυχία of Hector and the Trojans, whose reversal is foreshadowed by Rhesus’ death, see 56–8 n. ἥκω πορεύουσ᾽: cf. Eur. El. 353 ἦλθον ... πορεύοντες λόγον;. Finite forms of ἥκειν + participle are typical of Eur., conventionally used to explain a character’s motivation upon his entrance (more than 30x; elsewhere in tragedy at Aesch. Sept. 40, Ag. 258, Soph. El. 666, Ant. 394–5, 988–9, Tr. 1122, Ph. 1413–14); cf. Webster (1933) 118, Bond on Eur. Hyps. 60.39 (= TrGF 757.60i.39). σοι complements πορεύουσα (expressing interest) or φίλον (expressing relation). μέγαν φίλον: Euripidean (Med. 549 σοι μέγας ϕίλος, Her. 1252), not attested elsewhere. τῆς ὑμνοποιοῦ … θεᾶς: cf. 964 τῆς καρποποιοῦ παῖδα Δήμητρος θεᾶς. The adjective ὑμνοποιός is Euripidean (Supp. 180, TrGF 556.1); also μελοποιός Rh. 550, παιδοποιός 980, μουσοποιός Eur. Hipp. 1428, Tro. 1189, χοροποιός Hec. 917, Pho. 788. The Muse, mother of Rhesus, is called ἀοιδός and μελωιδός in the two long and formal descriptions used when Rhesus is first addressed by the chorus (386–7) and by Hector (393–4). Line 652 is identical to 279 (which is indispensable), and was perhaps interpolated, as suggested by Lachmann (1822) 43–4. There is no other example of exact repetition of a line in the play. Line 150 is partially repeated in 155, but that

490

C O M M E N TA RY 6 5 1 – 6 5 5 is a ‘Homeric’ verbatim reply to the previous speech of Hector; see 149–52a n. Line 652 seems to be intended to make 651–2 resemble more closely 386–7 and 393–4, where Rhesus’ mother and father are both mentioned. The specification in 652 may have been considered appropriate by an interpolator who wanted to distinguish Rhesus from, e.g., Orpheus who was also Thracian and the son of a Muse (Feickert 285), or noticed that Alexander could hardly have been expected to identify Rhesus from 651 alone (Cropp, per litteras). Alternatively, Mούσης was perhaps a gloss on τῆς ὑμνοποιοῦ … θεᾶς, after which a scribe interpolated genealogical words from 279 to fill up the line (Fries 366). 653–5 ἀεί ποτ᾽ ... κἀμοί: Odysseus called Athena his consistent defender (610), but now, disguised as Aphrodite, she is praised for her consistent benevolence towards Odysseus’ enemies, Alexander and the Trojans. With a touch of tragicomic irony, the dupe Alexander unwittingly points out how consistently Aphrodite has protected himself and the city by using the same adverbs, ἀεί ποτε, that Odysseus had used at the end of his address to Athena at 608–10. Alexander is a flatterer: in fact Aphrodite had rescued him at Hom. Il. 3.373–82, but proved to be very ineffective when helping the Trojans (642–74n.). He describes her help with the periphrasis τυγχάνειν + participle, which presents the relevant action not as produced by the will of an individual but as the result of the natural course of things (KG II.64). His periphrasis could thus be taken to imply that it is ‘fatal’ that Athena helps Troy. μέγιστον … κειμήλιον / κρίνας σέ … τῆιδε προσθέσθαι πόλει ‘By judging you victorious I claim to have won the greatest treasure (i.e., ‘you’) for the city.’ κειμήλιον means in Hom., etymologically, ‘estate’, as opposed to movable chattels, but can also designate anything stored up as valuable and capable of being given as a gift (LfgrE, s.v.). Alexander uses this term as a metaphor for the grateful favour of Aphrodite towards Troy, which he reasonably believes he has obtained by his vote in the beauty contest. This is hyperbolically flattering, as her help in the war has been and will be ineffective. προστίθεσθαι often means ‘securing someone to someone else as an ally’: cf. Hdt. 1.53.1, 1.69.2, Soph. OC 404, 1332, Eur. Hcld. 157 τῆιδε προσθέσθαι πόλει, Fries 366. ἐν βίωι ‘in (all of my) life’ reinforces the superlative: cf. Hdt. 2.121.ε.2, Pl. Leg. 729e. κρίνας: ‘having decided in favour of ’, a sense not uncommon (LSJ), and used in Eur. Tro. 928 precisely of Paris expressing his decision in the beauty κρίσις (so defined in Eur. Hel. 678, IA 580), and in Ar. Av. 1103, again in a context referring to that contest (paratragedy?). Lines 7–8 of Prol. 2 use the same verb in the same context, but in the commoner general sense ‘judge’, specified by the infinitive Κύπριν ... κάλλει προήκειν.

491

C O M M E N TA RY 6 5 6 – 6 6 4 656–9 ἥκω δ᾽ ἀκούσας: cf. ἥκω πορεύουσ(α) 650. δ᾽ ... δέ: the first is continuative; the second introduces an explicative parenthesis, like γάρ (Denniston (1954) 169–70). οὐ τορῶς: see 76–7n. At 629 Athena noted that Alexander had no clear and reliable news. φήμη ... ἐμπέπτωκεν: ‘falling among’ a group of people, not attested for φήμη before Rh., is found in koine prose (Polyb. 20.6.12, Jos. Vita 379, Plut. Aem. Paul. 31.6, Ant. 10.7), but the verb is used with λόγος at Ar. Lys. 858–9; Pl. Prt. 314c. Rumour ‘runs through’ an army (ταχεῖα γὰρ διῆιξε ϕήμη) at Eur. IA 425–6. χὠ μὲν οὐκ ἰδὼν λέγει, / ὁ δ᾽ εἰσιδὼν μολόντας οὐκ ἔχει φράσαι: the people who maintain that the intruders are Greek spies have not seen them; whereas those who have seen them arriving cannot explain who they are. Distinctions similar to synonymous λέγειν ‘say’ and φράζειν ‘point out’ or ‘explain’ are found at Soph. OT 655 φράζε δή· τί ϕήις;, Ph. 559 ϕράσον δὲ τἄργ᾽ ἅλεξας (also Pl. Leg. 819e λέγ’ ὅτι καὶ ϕήις, Xen. An. 2.1.15). Further confirming the epistemological uncertainty produced by the darkness of the night (cf. Paduano (1973)), Alexander does not limit himself to stating that the news he reports is uncertain, but emphasises the unreliability of the people who have reported it to him. By contrast, the news brought by messengers in tragedy is most commonly trustworthy. 660 ὧν οὕνεκ(α) is a resumptive phrase not attested before fifth-century drama: Soph. Aj. 1062, OT 447, OC 269, Ar. Nub. 526, Pax 221, Crat. PCG 171.9. It is especially frequent in Eur. (about 10x), often with verbs of motion: Andr. 1238, Ion 65, Hel. 144, Or. 611. εὐνὰς ... πρὸς Ἕκτορος ~ 1, 631. ἤλυθον: see 50. 661–2 μηδὲν φοβηθῆις: cf. Aesch. PV 128, Soph. TrGF 128, Eur. Andr. 994, Ar. Av. 654. Alexander will pick this up at 664. οὐδὲν … νέον ‘nothing troublesome is taking place in the camp’. φροῦδος, again at Rh. 743, 814, 865, is a typical word of fifth-century drama: more than 30x in Eur., whose at least two examples of the use of the term in anaphora (Andr. 1078, Hec. 159) were parodied at Ar. Nub. 718–22 (Stevens on Eur. Andr. 1078), 1x in Aesch., 15x in Soph., 16x in Aristophanes. κοιμήσων ‘in order to put to sleep’, as at 138 and 518–20 (where Hector had shown Rhesus and his troops where to stay during the night), and not κοσμήσων, ‘to (re-)establish order’. 663–4, together with 662, articulate a combination of situations similar to that described in Hector’s final reply (137–9) in the debate between him, the chorus, and Aeneas. Hector said that he was persuaded (νικᾶις) that it was a good idea to send a spy rather than to launch a night attack on the Greeks,

492

C O M M E N TA RY 6 6 3 – 6 6 7 and he asked the watchmen to go and ‘put to sleep’ the allies (κοίμα), so that there would be no agitation among them. The author suggests again the cluster of prudent actions (and underlying apprehensions) connected to the risk of disorderly panic which characterised Hector in the parodos and Aeneas at 87–9: avoiding agitation, maintaining one’s position, and preventing φόβος (15–22n.). πιστεύων (causal) and φυλάξων (final) provide the reasons for Alexander’s departure and stand in asyndeton, as is usual in the case of circumstantial participles differently related to the governing verb (see 434–5n.). The variant τε πιστεύω (Λ), coordinated to πείθεις, would be merely repetitive. τάξιν φυλάξων ‘in order to marshal my station’ appears to be a military idiom: cf. Xen. Cyr. 5.3.44 (keeping position in the night is especially crucial), Diod. Sic. 14.104.4, 15.56.2, etc., Dion. Hal. AR 5.44.5, 11.24.3, etc. ἐλεύθερος φόβου also occurs at Eur. Hcld. 867, Hec. 869. 665–7 χώρει· μέλειν γὰρ πάντ᾽ ἐμοὶ δόκει τὰ σά The assurance of benevolence at the end of Athena’s first speech as Aphrodite echoes that at the beginning (646–52): after the initial reassuring imperative (θάρσει 646, likewise χώρει 665), the same or similar terms (μέλειν 647 and 665, πρευμενής 646, προθυμίαν 667) are used of her feigned protection in both passages, and the verb has the same double meaning in both. She seems to be saying that she ‘is concerned’ in ‘whatever regards Alexander’ (647 had specified the war) because she wants to see both Alexander himself, whose σύμμαχος she pretends to be (637; also 647), and the Trojans winning, and that consistent concern should prove her προθυμία. But her words may also mean that she is ‘interested’ in ‘whatever Alexander does’, so that Odysseus and Diomedes slink off undisturbed: she is actually assisting them (Odysseus had mentioned that she is his helper in distress at 609–10). In fact, she is talking to Alexander to distract him from informing Hector about the arrival of spies (631–2). With the triumph of the two Greeks over Rhesus even Alexander (καὶ σύ), in spite of his dull wit, will finally understand the nature of her προθυμία, i.e., to whom she is really displaying goodwill. The words of Athena-Aphrodite are no less disguised than the goddess who utters them. In her last words, she may at the same time be addressing Alexander as he leaves (he has moved in the direction of the Trojan camp and thus towards exodos A or has reached it) and thinking already of the two returning Greeks, with whom she will actually begin to communicate at a distance in 668, and thus speaking aloud in the direction of the opposite exodos B, as they come from the Thracian bivouac. We may suppose that the actor playing Athena keeps looking in the direction of exodos A and Alexander up to 667; but when speaking 666, he may begin to turn his head in the direction of exodos B, which the two Greeks are supposed to be approaching (cf. 668–74).

493

C O M M E N TA RY 6 6 5 – 6 7 4 δόκει (L), an imperative instructing Alexander to rely on Athena’s protection in the future, and thus leave confidently (χώρει), is preferable to the δοκεῖ of the other MSS. The indicative would repeat that there is evidence of divine protection in the recent past, a point made at 646–51. γνώσηι ... τὴν ἐμὴν προθυμίαν: similar language is used to emphasise the strength of a speaker’s goodwill towards his interlocutor after a narrative demonstrating it at, e.g., Pl. Resp. 497e παρὼν δὲ τήν γ’ ἐμὴν προθυμίαν εἴσηι and Dem. 50.10 ἵν᾽ ἐκ τούτων εἰδῆτε τὴν ἐμὴν προθυμίαν. But γνώσηι may involve a hint of bitter hostility, as it ‘appears often in threats and warnings evoking the idea of “late learning”’ (Cropp (2015) 160, Finglass on Soph. OT 613–15, p. 364): e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1425, 1619, 1649, Soph. OT 613, OC 852, 1197– 8, TrGF 314.171, Eur. Med. 1223, Hcld. 65, Hipp. 892, Supp. 580. For προθυμία used of divine set purpose, cf. Eur. Hipp. 1329, 1417, Andr. 1252, Ion 1385, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1328–30. 668–74 When Athena speaks to them, Odysseus and Diomedes must be imagined to have killed Rhesus and the Thracians shortly before in the offstage space behind exodos B. They must be moving now towards the bivouac of Hector, near which they had met Athena (575–6) and where Athena must still be – in fact this is the only itinerary they know, in the darkness of the night. Athena notices them perhaps when she begins to see them emerging from exodos B. She is probably high up; in any case they do not converse with her (they do not answer 668–74), and are not close to her (hence her loud shout: 668–9n.). Athena’s warning that it is time to retreat is perhaps based on the information that she has received from Alexander at 656–8 about the rumour of a possible Greek incursion. She refers to both Greeks (hence the plurals in 668, 672, 673), but Odysseus is at first the main interlocutor (669, Λαερτίου παῖ), as he will be in the epiparodos from 675 onwards, where the chorus address him regularly in the singular, and only once mention that there are plural Greeks on-stage (681). The shift from the plural addressees mentioned in 668 to the vocative singular in 669 is similar to the plural imperatives with a singular vocative which picks out, within the plurality of a group, the person ‘of whom the speaker thinks first, in particular’ (Headlam and Knox on Herond. 3.87, Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) 609, Diggle (1994) 506). Hom. offers a different account. When, after the slaughter of Rhesus, Diomedes is considering whether to carry off the chariot with all the armour of Rhesus or to stay and kill more Thracians, Athena appears to him, not Odysseus, at Il. 10.503–11 and tells him to consider going back to the ships. The logic of her choice is obvious: as Σ exeg. 10.509 comments (cf. also Eust. ad loc. (821.19–23)), she addresses Diomedes because Odysseus was already favourable to the idea of a retreat (10.502). By contrast, Diomedes in Rh. has already been persuaded by Athena

494

C O M M E N TA RY 6 6 8 – 6 7 4 to carry out the last martial task of their raid, which is already over; Odysseus is to be the protagonist of the tricky deceit of the epiparodos. 668–9 δ᾽ ἀυτῶ of most MSS should be preserved. δ(έ), deleted by Wecklein 33, appropriately contrasts Athena’s new interlocutors with Alexander. In Hom. ἀυτή is almost always the ‘battle cry’ or the ‘noise’ or ‘turmoil’ of battle, and ἀυτεῖν/αὔειν mean either ‘speak aloud’, ‘call on, aloud’ (also with accusative, as here: cf. Il. 11.258), or ‘make a noise’ (of objects), in the context of battle. The use of ἀυτεῖν for Athena’s mild order (‘I call on you’) is perhaps aligned with its military specialisation in Homer, which does not apply in many of the tragic and later occurrences of the verb, such as Eur. Hipp. 167, Hec. 1092, El. 757, Ar. Lys. 717). It may be relevant that Athena is the only god in the Il. for whose battle-cry the verb ἀυτεῖν is used (20.50). ἄγαν ἐρρωμένους ‘overly enthusiastic’, as they should pull back at this point, but do not yet do so. ἄγαν suggests that, contrary to their earlier caution, the Achaeans are now beside themselves from blood lust. The original intensive sense of ἄγαν/ἀγα-, akin to the root of μέγας, yields ground from Theogn. onwards to the implication of excess. The word, more or less a synonym of λίαν, is often joined in drama to words with these negative connotations: Thesleff (1954) 135, Fenik (1964) 21–2 n. 4, and Fries 369 compare Virg. Aen. 9.354 sensit enim nimia caede atque cupidine ferri (from the episode of Euryalus and Nisus, whose night raid is reminiscent of the raid of Odysseus and Diomedes). ἐρρωμένος ‘powerful’ is a prose word, sometimes found in comedy. The verb usually means ‘be fired up’ when it occurs in martial contexts (e.g., in Thuc. 2.8.1 ἔρρωντο ἐς πόλεμον and Polyb. 1.24.1 διπλασίως ἐπερρώσθησαν … πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον). Λαερτίου παῖ: after Hom. Od. 24.192, not rare in place of the patronymic in Greek drama (Eur. Hec. 402, Soph. 3x; Cratin. PCG 147.1). Here it may have been reminiscent of the affectionate tone it had at Od. 24.192 in the makarismos of Odysseus by Agamemnon’s ghost. θηκτὰ ... ξίφη: the epithet is a poetic word, not attested before Aesch. Sept. 944, and 6x in Eur.; with ξίφος, at Eur. Ion 1064 and TrGF 448a.55, later at Tymnes, AP 7.433.3 = HE 3622; with σίδηρος, at Aesch. Sept. 944, Eur. Pho. 68, TrGF 453.12; with φάσγανον, at Eur. Med. 40, 379. κοιμίσαι: for κοιμίζειν and κοιμᾶν in the metaphorical sense ‘calm’, cf., e.g., Hom. Od. 12.169, Soph. Aj. 674, Eur. Pho. 184, Nicophon, PCG 15, Finglass on Aj. 674–5. In the concrete meaning ‘put to sleep’, ἐκοίμισ(α) 825 and κοιμα̃ν 138, 439, 662 belong in the nocturnal lexicon of Rh. (see 5n., 9n., 91–2n.). 670–4: two-and-a-half lines for the description of the situation and two-anda-half lines for Athena’s warnings and instructions; the shift to a statement of the action now required is highlighted by ἀλλά at 672 (Denniston (1954) 14–15). Description and warning are balanced: they begin with Odysseus and

495

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 0 – 6 7 3 Diomedes (what they have achieved, 670–1a), and then focus on the enemy (they are coming towards Odysseus and Diomedes, 671b–2a), later to make clear what the two Greeks should do immediately (672b–3a), as the enemies are arriving like a hurricane (673b–4). ἡμῖν: the dative with verbs of ‘dying’, here κεῖται ‘lies dead’, can have various nuances which extend from agency to interest: Finglass (2009b) 342–3. The former clearly applies in our passage; cf. Soph. El. 1152 τέθνηκ᾽ ἐγὼ σοί, Eur. Andr. 334 τέθνηκα τῆι σῆι θυγατρὶ καί μ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν. The first-person plural ἡμῖν, being self-inclusive, expresses the pride of Athena (Jouan 40), who had urged Odysseus and Diomedes to kill Rhesus (605, 619) and suggested seizing his horses (619–20). As remarked by Fenik (1964) 25, ‘Athena identifies herself with the Greek cause to the extent that she is a member, and in fact the leading member, of the patrol itself ’. κεῖται ... ἔχονται: this first presentation to the audience of the death of Rhesus wavers between the personal satisfaction that Athena feels at the success of her instructions and, on the other hand, a detached impersonality (not ‘we have killed’, but ‘he lies dead’; not ‘we have the horses’, but ‘the horses are in our possession’), that highlights the results achieved by the two Greeks with the official tone of a formal report. The same linguistic strategy is used in Thetis’ observation that Achilles’ armour is definitely in enemy hands, so that she must obtain new armour from Hephaestus: Il. 18.130 ἀλλά τοι ἔντεα καλὰ μετὰ Τρώεσσιν ἔχονται. ἠισθημένοι: the Trojans have ‘come to realise’ the two Greeks, by noticing the suspicious movement of people inside the camp or in its vicinity, or hearing rumours about them (for this perfect signifying a ‘continuing state of perception’, cf. Diggle (1994) 462–3), though they did not fully understand who the raiders were. Compare the uncertainty of Alexander concerning the incursion of Achaean ‘thieves’ or ‘spies’ at 627–9, 644–5, 656–9. With no support in the text, Feickert 289–90 suggests that the Trojans may be suspicious because they caught sight of the glow of the white hair of the horses, ‘clear to see in the dark’ (617), which Odysseus and Diomedes were carrying away, or that of the gold decoration of Rhesus’ arms (305–6; 382). ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον τάχιστα χρή = Eur. TrGF 223.131. The v.l. τάχιστ᾽ ἐχρῆν would introduce an obligation which is not or was not fulfilled (585–6n., 642–3n., Goodwin (1889) 151–4). This is absurd here, as Odysseus and Diomedes will actually retreat. ὅσον τάχιστα is also found in tragedy at Eur. Tro. 295; Aesch. 2x; Soph. 2x. ὁλκοὺς ναυστάθμων lies behind ὁλκούς· ναυστάθμους in Synagoge o 116 Cunn., Hesych. Lex. o 590 Latte, Phot. Lex. o 233 Theod., Suda ο 180 Adler according to the lexicographical practice of explaining a word with another word contiguous to it in a literary text; the lemma in the accusative, as in Rh., may be evidence that our passage is the origin of this gloss (see Prol. 1n.). The

496

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 3 – 7 2 7 phrase varies ναύσταθμα or σταθμά alone, these being the commonest terms in Rh. for the Greek camp; see 43n. μέλλετε ... σῶσαι: μέλλειν ‘put off’ is common in tragedy, usually with the present infinitive (Cooper (2002) III.2.53.8). Here the aorist may emphasise the ingressive or the instantaneous aspect of the action. Eur. Pho. 299– 300 τί μέλλεις ... μέλαθρα περᾶν / θιγεῖν τ(ε); and Thuc. 1.124.1 μὴ μέλλετε Ποτειδεάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν … καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μετελθεῖν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν exemplify combinations of present and aorist with μέλλειν according to different aspects of the actions. σκηπτοῦ ᾽πιόντος ‘while a wind storm is approaching’. σκηπτός, also found in tragedy at Aesch. Pers. 715, Soph. Ant. 418, Eur. Andr. 1046, Lycophr. 383, is here a metaphor for a heavily destructive and sudden assault. For the prodelision, see 156–7a n. 675–727 encompass epiparodos and fourth choral song. The previous song at 527–64 had separated the debate between Hector and Rhesus and the acceptance of Rhesus as an ally from the appearance of Odysseus and Diomedes and the catastrophe of Rhesus. When the Greeks and the watchmen run into each other before 675, lines 675–81 set out what the result of this encounter should probably have been: the opposite catastrophe of the Greeks, heavily outnumbered and thus defeated and seized by the watchmen. But thanks to Odysseus’ trick this encounter becomes another non-encounter, like that between Alexander and the disguised Athena. These two scenes of disguise, together with Dolon᾽s and Hector’s ‘guessing-game’, are additions of Rh. to the plot of Il. 10 and do not contribute at all to the action of the play. If in Aesch. and Soph. the exit of the chorus seems to be mainly a result of the change of stage, in Eur. and Rh. the re-entry has broader structural functions. In Alc. the chorus’ exit (or silence behind the scene) marks the transition between the ‘tragic-pathetic first act’ of 1–746, and the ‘comic-satyric second act’ of 747–1163, dominated by Heracles’ rescue of Alcestis (Castellani (1979)), and their re-entry immediately precedes the entrance of Heracles with a veiled woman who will be recognised as Alcestis. In Hel. the chorus re-enter with Theonoe’s response about the survival of Menelaus and just before the recognition scene. As in Alc., in Rh. the exit of the chorus at 564 concludes the first part of the tragedy, in which the Trojans display their confidence about Dolon and Rhesus, and announce the death of Rhesus already at 686. Besides, in both Alc. and Hel. the epiparodos leads to a recognition; in Rh. it follows Athena’s successful deception and includes Odysseus’ disguise. In contents, the epiparodos of Rh. seems closer to Aesch. and Soph. than Eur. In the parodos of Rh. the watchmen enter the stage while looking anxiously for Hector, and in the epiparodos they are hunting Odysseus (and Diomedes) in bustling confusion. The chorus also re-enters in the course of a chase in Aesch. Eum. (Erinyes tracking Orestes) and Soph. Aj. (Salaminians

497

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 7 2 7 tracking Ajax); in. Eum. the Erinyes’ entry at 140 takes place σποράδην (Vita Aesch., TrGF III p. 34), and their re-entry at 244 is also scattered. Similarly, the Salaminian sailors of Soph. Aj. re-enter in an irregular formation (divided into two groups from both eisodoi) in search of their leader. The lively entry of the watchmen in Rh. too appears to be irregular, characterised by excitement, haste and confusion (Taplin (1977a) 380). Despite the net of similarities with the few other tragic epiparodoi, the epiparodos of Rh. remains peculiar in some respects. In tragedy it is not common for the chorus to be physically aggressive towards an actor, or vice versa. Remote tragic parallels are perhaps Aesch. Supp. 836–910, where the Egyptian herald with his guards comes into contact with the chorus of maidens, who abuse him as he threatens to drag them away from the altar where they had sought asylum; Ag. 1650–6, the bickering between Aegisthus and the chorus, with the intervention of Clytemnestra; Soph. OC 856–7, where the chorus of old Athenians get their hands on Creon in an attempt to prevent him from seizing Antigone; Eur. Her. 252–6, where the chorus express their hatred for Lycus. Cf. Kaimio (1988) 75 and n. 85. Rh. finds its most precise parallel outside tragedy, in another astrophic song, Ar. Ach. 280–3, a parodos which includes similar aggressive imperatives (see 1–51n): οὗτος αὐτός ἐστιν, οὗτος· / βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, / παῖε παῖε τὸν μιαρόν. / οὐ βαλεῖς, οὐ βαλεῖς;. Repeated orders of this kind may have been a topos in chasing or stoning scenes of the fifth or fourth century, and on their own, they would not be certain proof of an allusive connection between Rh. and Ach.; cf. Xen. An. 5.7.21 ἐξαίϕνης ἀκούομεν θορύβου πολλοῦ· παῖε παῖε βάλλε βάλλε· καὶ τάχα δὴ ὁρῶμεν πολλοὺς προσθέοντας. But there are more points of contact between the parodos of Ach. and the epiparodos of Rh. In Ach. the chorus is rushing out from a hiding-place to seize Dicaeopolis, in the belief that he is the man they are chasing (the Rh. watchmen have the same belief), although later on Dicaeopolis demonstrates (and Odysseus successfully pretends) that he has not done what the chorus claims. A further telling link is the close analogy in metrical structure (see below ‘Metrical Structure’). And each of these scenes of pursuit follows a scene that focuses on the unreliability of the Thracians as allies and the question whether it is appropriate to accept their alliance, although the pursuit scene in Ach. follows that scene (135–73) immediately, while there is a short gap between the two relevant scenes in Rhesus. The passage of Ach. (dating from 425 BC) has been suspected of being a parody of Rh., and thus used to demonstrate that the tragedy is an early work of Eur. (Bates (1916) 5–8, Goossens (1932) 123–6). But rather than being the source of the Aristophanic parody, Rh. may imitate here a typical comic scene of Ar., which we know from Ach., quoted above, and from Eq. 247–54

498

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 7 2 7 (likewise Rh. borrows the comic ‘guessing game’ scene: see 164–83n.). In particular, this typical comic scene underlying the epiparodos of the Rh. had perhaps already had a mixed comic-tragic life. Eur.’s Telephus, parodied in Ar. Ach., shows the chorus engaging in a search (probably for the protagonist: TrGF 727a1–11); in this context it may have included a seizure-scene that inspired the parody in Ach. (Ritchie (1964) 129–30). Battezzato (2000b) 369 rightly observes that the re-entry of the chorus takes place from the right eisodos (A), the one leading to the camps of the Trojans and the Greeks, where the chorus had gone to alert the Lycian watchmen, whereas Odysseus and Diomedes come by the left eisodos (B), the one leading to the Thracian camp. Liapis 254–5 maintains that all enter by the same eisodos A because the watchmen are in pursuit of Odysseus and Diomedes, and surmises that they had followed the advice of Athena (672–5) and thus retreated toward the Greek camp; hence they would re-enter by the right eisodos A. But if they have left the bivouac of Hector and are on their way to the ships, why should they make a detour and go back to Hector’s bivouac? I assume that the Trojan watchmen run across the two Greeks, at 675, in the space of Hector’s bivouac, and are immediately afraid that they are ‘thieves’ (678–9) – because they are coming from eisodos B, the location of the Thracian camp, with rich available spoils (see 686a n.). The chorus must be composed of the same Trojan watchmen who were on duty in the first part of the play; cf. 820–5. Murray’s idea (1913) 37 that the chorus of 675–727 is a ‘crowd of Thracians’ finds no support in the text. And the assignment Χο. Λυκίων for 675 in some MSS is an error, facilitated by 542–4 and 562–4, where the Trojan watchmen note that the Lycians should have taken over from them. While the watchmen come progressively closer to the two Greeks, it may be a single chorus-member who describes through a series of questions and selfinclusive imperatives the movements that he and the other chorus-­members take in order to seize them (I interpret the commands of 675, 677, 680 as self-inclusive, like βῆθι at 1 in the parodos). This analogy with the parodos is a good reason not to divide the lines between two hemichoria (Bothe (i) 264–8, Badham (1855) 337, Feickert 293, Fries 370–1), or single members in dialogue with one another (Vater 228, Arnoldt (1878) 310–11, Liapis 254), or the chorus-leader and two hemichoria (De Falco (1958) 49), or the chorus-leader and single chorus-members (Murray (1913)). At Rh. 677 Odysseus is to be pursued and at 681 he is captured, but this does not prove that the lines cannot be given to the same chorus-member (pace Liapis 254), as the chorus (and the member who is singing) may be progressively approaching the two Greeks, as in the parodos (see 1–51n.). The chorus converses only with Odysseus, whom the chorus-­members will later declare that they have met after being deceived by his false identity

499

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 7 2 7 (704–22). From 681 we see that they are aware that there is more than one enemy present – it is difficult to accept the view of Liapis 257 that, among all the singulars used of Odysseus, the plural of 681 is an isolated poetic plural used for the singular, and that Diomedes is not in the orchestra during the conversation between the chorus and Odysseus (cf. Burlando (1997) 83). Nor is it necessary to suppose that some utterances at Rh. 682–9 (683 and 685 in part) should be ascribed to Diomedes (Feickert 297, Battezzato (2004) 277–8). I prefer to think that only Odysseus speaks: his peculiar trickery dominates both the encounter between the two Greeks and the chorus and the reflections of the chorus after their safe departure, while Diomedes, the warrior who in his thirst for blood is close to forgetting about making a safe return (Il. 10.502–11, Rh. 580–94, 624–6, 633), chooses to remain silent and lets Odysseus do his job as a trickster (he had acknowledged at Rh. 625–6 that smartness was characteristic of Odysseus, rather than of himself). Diomedes or Odysseus or both may be supposed to appear on stage with the spoils from Rhesus, i.e. his panoply or part of it and, perhaps, his horses. His golden armour and decorated shield are praised at 383–4. The horses are mentioned as the richest of the booty obtained from the king (616–24, 839– 40); Athena and the charioteer explicitly mention at 671 and 797–8 that the two Greeks captured the horses or the horses and chariot. At Il. 10.513–14, 526–30, 541 Diomedes and Odysseus mount the horses (in haste; there seems to be no time to collect other booty, 513–14), and the detail is confirmed for Rh. by the charioteer at 797–8. And, in a dream which represents reality quite closely, the charioteer had seen that Rhesus’ horses were stolen by the two wolves who mounted them (781–6). Are the horses on stage with Odysseus and Diomedes? Bringing horses on the stage would have been easy before the introduction of the raised stage (it seems that only low platforms were in use at the end of the fifth and in the fourth century: K. Joerden in Jens (1971) 407–9), and chariot-borne entries were found in Aesch. Pers. and Ag. and at least in Eur. El., Tro., IA (380–7n., Taplin (1977a) 75–9). The watchmen, however, never refer to the horses, though their presence would have been strong evidence supporting their suspicion that Odysseus is a ‘thief ’, 678; see also 687n. If the animals are on stage (as maintained, e.g., first by Petit (1630) 195–6 and Heath (1762) 97, and most recently by Battezzato (2000b) 371 n. 31), it is as if they were not: their presence is not exploited and they do not take part in the action on any level (as Porter xiv correctly comments, ‘they remain ἔξω τοῦ δράματος’). 678–9 and 686 presuppose that Odysseus or Diomedes are carrying some spoils from Rhesus, but in particular if we believe that 686 belongs to the watchmen alleging Odysseus to have been the killer of Rhesus (the interpretation suggested by the MSS and followed by Diggle), any obvious evidence of the slaughter of Rhesus among the spoils would disprove Odysseus’

500

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 6 9 1 defence. As I follow Diggle’s text at 686, I think that when he met the watchmen, Odysseus was wearing items of the spoil, but these items were not easily identifiable as belonging to Rhesus. Therefore the horses were probably not on the stage. Metrical Analyses of Epiparodos (675–82) and of following trochaic dialogue (683–91) The epiparodos, whose structure mirrors that of the parodos, consists of an astrophic song in prevailingly trochaic rhythms (675–82). With the exception of Eur. Alc. (two pairs of choral strophes alternating with anapaestic systems from Admetus), all the epiparodoi of agitated chase and the epi­parodos of Hel. consist of astrophic lyrics, as in Rh.: where the action hurries to its climax or in situations of urgency, the usual strophic singing is often cut down to astrophic stanzas, as in the last stasima of Hipp., Ion, and Bacch. (Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 1153–64, p. 219, Allan on Eur. Hel. 515–27, p. 205). It is followed by an amoibaion between the chorus and Odysseus in trochaic tetrameters catalectic (683–91), and concluded by a dochmiac-iambic song in two strophes (692–703, 710–21) which are both followed by brief dialogic conversations between members of the chorus in iambics and bacchiacs (703–9, 722–7). Metrical structure 675b ⏑͡⏑⏑⏑͡⏑⏑⏑͡⏑⏑⏑͡⏑⏑ 2 tr 676 ⏑−− ba ~ ia‸ 677 −⏑−⏑−− ith 680 −⏑−⏑− hypodochm 681 −⏑−−⏑−⏑ cr tr 678–9 −⏑−⏑−⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑− || 4 tr cat 682 ⏑͡⏑⏑−⏑͡⏑⏑−⏑͡⏑⏑− ||| 3 cr 683 −⏑−⏑−∷⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑− 4tr cat 684 −⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑− 4tr cat 685 † † 686 −⏑−−−⏑−−∷−⏑−⏑−⏑− || 4tr cat 687 −⏑−⏑∷−⏑−∷−⏑͡⏑⏑−⏑−⏑− 4tr cat 688 −⏑−⏑−⏑∷−⏑∷⏑͡⏑⏑−⏑−⏑− || 4 tr cat 689 −⏑−⏑−⏑−−∷−⏑−⏑−⏑− || 4 tr cat 690 −⏑−⏑−⏑−−−⏑−⏑−⏑− || 4 tr cat 691 −⏑−⏑−⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑− 4 tr cat

501

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 6 9 1 675b: acatal. trochaic dimeter. I accept the interpretation of the line as a trochaic dimeter with all the longa resolved, with Diggle, Liapis 255, and Lourenço (2011) 355, despite the objections of Fries 372 concerning the two divided resolutions (compare Eur. Pho. 1734, 1735, Hel. 176 (with one resolution), Bacch. 578, 592 (with one resolution), 600) and the very rare trochee with short anceps at verse end followed immediately by iambic (Parker (1990) 332– 7). The line can also be interpreted as a dochmius + cret. with first longum resolved; cf. Parker (1968) 267, followed by Fries 372. Lines 675b–6 have often been interpreted as two dochmii; e.g., Dale (1971/1983) III.151, Zanetto (i) 69, Pace (2001) 47; but cf. Parker (1968) 267 n. 3. The interjection ἔα perhaps represents the sound of a sharp intake of breath and is often doubled and extra metrum (Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 644). The double ἔα may belong here to the metrical pattern (scanned as a cretic or an iambic metron (Griffiths (1983) 106), or it may be extra metrum. The latter is here slightly more probable. In the iambic dialogue of tragedy single ἔα is extra metrum in about half of its thirty or so occurrences (data from Page on Eur. Med. 1004), but double ἔα ἔα is always extra metrum, except at Hcld. 73. In lyrics it belongs within the metrical scheme at Aesch. Cho. 870, PV 687 and Soph. OC 1478 and may either belong within the metrical scheme or be extra metrum at Aesch. PV 114, whereas in Eur. it is always extra metrum. 676: baccheus ~ syncopated iambic metron: see below on 695 ~ 713. 677: ithyphallic, familiar in iambo-trochaic contexts (felt as an acephalous iambic dimeter cat. or a trochaic dimeter brachycat.). 680: here (and in Soph. OT 1208–9b ~ 1217–19a, Eur. Pho. 1023–4, Or. 992– 5) probably a trochaic colarion (catalectic ithyphallic). It is called hypodochmius because it frequently occurs in dochmiac contexts, but it also appears in iambo-trochaics without dochmii (Dale (1968) 114–15). Liapis 256 notes the symmetrical movement from 681 cr + tr to the trochaic tetrameter 678–9 and the cretic-paeonic trimeter 682. 681: as Lourenço (2000) 136 and 139 observes, the colon cretic + trochaeus is certainly attested only here and at Eur. IA 233~244, 1288, 1304, whose Euripidean authorship has been doubted. Lourenço (2011) 39–40 discusses and rejects the examples listed by Diggle (1994) 424 n. 19. But tragedy often includes cretics among iambo-trochaics (Dale (1968) 100), and this colon may have been perceived as a syncopated trochaic dimeter. 682: such a series of resolved cretics (= paeons) with word division between them is not commonly found in tragedy, and ‘inevitably suggests the comic manner’: Dale (1968) 101. As observed by Fries 374, the diaeresis after each cretic reinforces the brisk tone of the watchmen. 683–9: the combination of cretic-paeonic and trochaic cola is very common in comedy (White (1912) 82–98, Dale (1968) 88–9, Parker (1997) 38–9);

502

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 6 9 1 here, as at Ar. Ach. 280–3, the paeon may have been felt as a trochaic dipody (White (1912) 76 and 293–4, Prato (1962) 9, Dale (1968) 89). A sequence of (1) two trochaic dimeters, (2) one more trochaic metron, and (3) three cretics (the first in paeonic form) is found in the lines of hectic aggression uttered by the chorus in the parodos of Ar. Ach. 280–3; likewise Ach. 204–33, the choral song preceding the aggression of Ach. 280–3, is in trochaic and cretic-paeonic rhythm, while 284–302, the dialogic continuation of Ach. 280–3, has alternating trochaic tetrameters cat. (by Dicaeopolis) and cretics mainly in paeonic form (by the chorus), and thus parallels the dialogue in trochaic tetrameters between the chorus and Odysseus at 683–91, that follows the aggressive entrance of the chorus at Rh. 675–82 (on the similarity of content between Ar. Ach. 280–302 and Rh. 675–91, see also Introduction, pp. 50–1). Metrical structure of the fourth stasimon (692–703, 710–21) and the dialogic iambo-bacchiac passages 704–9 and 722–7. 692 ~ 710 ⏑−−⏑− do 693 ~ 711 ⏑⏑͡⏑⏑⏑͡⏑⏑−⏑−    2ia 694 ~ 712 ⏑⏑͡⏑−⏑− do 695 ~ 713 ⏑−−⏑−− 2 ba ~ 2 ia‸ ⏑⏑͡ ⏑ ⏑ 696 ~ 714 − − || do 697 ~ 715 ⏒−⏑−−−⏑−−−⏑− || 3ia 698 ~ 716 ⏑⏑͡⏑−⏑−⏒⏑͡⏑−⏑− 2do ⏑⏑ 699 ~ 717 − − ch 700 ~ 718 ⏑⏑͡⏑−⏑−⏑⏓⏓−⏑− || 2do 701 ~ 719 ⏒‒⏑‒⏒⏓⏓⏑‒⏒‒⏑‒ || 3ia ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ 702 ~ 720 ‒ ‒⏒‒ ‒ 2ia 703 ~ 721 ⏒⏑͡⏑‒⏑‒ ⏑⏑͡⏑‒⏑‒ ||   2do 704 ~ 722 ∷ ‒ ‒⏑‒ ‒ ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ || 3ia 705 ~ 723 ‒ ‒⏑‒⏓‒⏑‒⏒‒⏑‒ || 3ia 706 ~ 724 ∷ ⏑‒ ‒ ∷ ⏑‒ ‒   2 ia‸ 707 ~ 725 ∷ ⏑‒ ⏑‒ 2 ia‸ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ 708 ~ 726 ∷ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ∷ ‒ ‒  3 ia‸ 709 ~ 727 ∷ ‒ ‒⏑‒⏒‒⏑ ‒⏑‒⏑‒ ||| 3ia 692–3 ~ 710–11: on the combination of dochmii and iambics, see 131–6 (Metre) n. 695 ~ 713 bacchiac dimeter. One or more bacchiac dimeter in contexts of prevailing iambo-dochmiac metres is well paralleled (e.g., Aesch. Sept. 104–5, Ag. 1080–1, 1103, Eum. 788 ~ 818, PV 115, Soph. El. 1241–2, Ph. 396–7 ~

503

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 6 9 1 511–12, Eur. Ion 1447, Pho. 1290 ~ 1302). The bacchiac dimeter may in fact have been viewed in these contexts as a dochmiac equivalent (Griffith (1977) 22) or as syncopated iambics; it seems to be used mainly for the expression of ‘apprehension or dismay’ (Griffith ibid.). 699 ~ 717: an isolated choriamb in a dochmiac context is strange, but others are attested in Aesch. Eum. 270–1, Eur. Hipp. 1275–6, Med. 1256–7 (on which see Diggle (1984a=1994) 291–4); cf. Medda (1993) 166–7, Willink (1999=2010) 298. 700 ~ 718 is a dochmiac dimeter. Asymmetrical resolutions are avoided in the dochmii of Rh.; therefore Willink (2002/2003=2010) 564, 579–80 (followed by Liapis 268) suggests that ‑ει- in Ἀτρειδᾶν is disyllabic, to match νεμόμενος of 700. The diaeresis appears to be present everywhere in Hom. (Meister (1921) 51; LfrE s.v.), and twice (out of four instances) in Pindar. In tragedy the diaeresis is usually assumed in a similar case of dactylic responsion in Aesch. Ag. 124 (= 105), where, in view of the practice of Pind., the caution of Fraenkel ad loc. seems excessive. The staccato dialogue of 704–9 and 722–7 produces a structure similar to that found at 527–64. It consists of framing iambic trimeters 704–5 and 709, 722–3 and 727, that enclose a string of two bacchiac dimeters and one tri­meter (706–8, 724–6); almost all the bacchiacs are not only separated by diaeresis but also syntactically sharply divided (‘almost to the point of parody’: Parker (1997) 449), as at, e.g., Aesch. Sept. 104, Eum. 788–9, Eur. Tro. 587–8 μόλοις, ὦ πόσις μοι / ∷ βοᾶις τὸν παρ’ ῞Αιδαι, Or. 173 ὑπνώσσει. ∷ λέγεις εὖ, 194 δίκαι μέν. ∷ καλῶς δ’ οὔ, Bacch. 1177 Κιθαιρών ∷ Κιθαιρών;, 1181–2 τίς ἄλλα; ∷ τὰ Κάδμου / ∷ τί Κάδμου; ∷ γένεθλα, 1193 ἐπαινεῖς; ∷ ἐπαινῶ, 1197–8 περισσάν. ∷ περισσῶς. :: ἀγάλληι; ∷ γέγηθα. Isolated exclamations of one or two bacchei sometimes occur in dialogic iambics in Soph.; OT 1468 (with Dawe ad loc.), 1471, 1475, Tr. 865, Ph. 750, 785, 787, 795, 804, Griffith ibid. But here 706–8 and 724–6 are a bacchiac variation of the prevailing initial and final iambic rhythm which seems to mimic 695 and 713, bacchiac variations of the rhythm of the iambo-dochmiac strophe and antistrophe. The two passages of dialogue correspond very closely: note the corresponding examples of antilabe at 706, 708 and 724, 726. Although the Attic vocalism (μήν 705–6, ἀλκήν 708) shows that they are spoken, these two passages imitate the prevailing rhythm of the lyric song that precedes them and the responsion typical of sung strophe and antistrophe in general. Our play thus appears to experiment with the task of reproducing, in passages of spoken dialogue following song, some of the essential features of choral song. The only comparable structure is found in Eur. Alc., where the strophe and antistrophe (86–92 ~ 98–104) of a choral song are each followed by a passage of dialogue between members of the chorus in anapaests (93–7 and 105–11); see Willink (2002/2003=2010) 580. However no imitation of strophic responsion is present in Alc. – the two passages of dialogue there are not even of the same length.

504

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 5 – 6 7 6 675 ἔα ἔα turns the attention of the listener to something new and surprising; see 574n., Nordgren (2015) 218–20. If the text of most MSS is correct (βάλλε 4x L, βάλε 4x OVQ and Tr2/3 in L (Diggle (1994) 512); θένε/θάνε 2x VL), then the two series of 4 + 2 imperatives are identical to Ar. Ach. 281–2 βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, βάλλε, / παῖε παῖε (for the allusive connection between the two passages see above). Diggle prefers to establish a balanced sequence of βάλε 3x, θένε 3x. Repetition of imperatives suggests urgency (Arnott on Alexis, PCG 207.1) and is especially common in comedy (e.g., Ar. Ach. 1054, Eq. 107, Nub. 1508, Vesp. 456, Pax 1119, Eur. Pho. 1280, Alexis, quoted above, Eubul. PCG 14.11). The fourfold repetition of λαβέ at Aesch. Eum. 130 (λαβὲ λαβὲ λαβὲ λαβέ· ϕράζου) comes immediately after some whining (129) by the Erinyes, who have just been woken up by Clytemnestra so that they can go after Orestes (parodos). This rapid repetition of λαβέ (the only fourfold anaphora of the same imperative in Attic drama; cf. Fehling (1969) 172)84 and its anagram βάλε in Ach. and Rh. express in a similar onomatopoeic way the panting of chasing hounds (Sommerstein ad loc.). Eum. 130 thus appears to be the closest parallel to, and possibly the prototype for, the choral scenes of aggressive pursuit in the parodos of Ar. Ach. and the epiparodos of Rhesus. The orders to ‘strike’ Odysseus are probably conventional ‘self-inclusive imperatives’ (1–51n.), and only describe the intention of the watchmen, rather than indicating that they actually strike him, e.g., with their javelins (Kaimio (1970) 131, Liapis 256). For instance, they may brandish their javelins while approaching Odysseus: it is certain that they have encircled or seized him at 681–2 (likewise the chorus seizes Creon at Soph. OC 856). θένε anticipates 685 παῖε πᾶς. The verb is especially frequent in fifth-century drama (at least 10x in Eur.); again at Rh. 687 and 784. While βάλε refers to the throwing of missiles, θείνειν, derived from the same root as πεφνεῖν and φόνος, probably shifts the focus to the impact of the blow. The distinction between the two verbs would then be like that between οὐτάσαι and βαλεῖν at Hom. Il. 14.423–4 οὔ τις ἐδυνήσατο ποιμένα λαῶν / οὐτάσαι οὐδὲ βαλεῖν according to Σ exeg. ad loc. οὐτάσαι ἐγγύς, βαλεῖν πόρρωθεν, Suda β 77, ν 614, τ 1240 Adler; also Eust. on Od. 22.441–73 (1933.51) θεινέμεναι, τουτέστι θείνειν καὶ τύπτειν ξίϕεσιν.

Quadruple anaphoras are also very seldom attested in tragedy; there is quadruple αὐτός at Aesch. TrGF 350.7–8, but quadruple τοῖς μέν … τοῖς δ᾽… τοῖς δέ… τοῖς δ᾽ in Eur. Med. 303–5 is due to the spurious 304, as pointed out by Liapis 148. Triple anaphoras are relatively less rare: e.g., Aesch. Pers. 550–3 (paralleled by 560–1), Eum. 996–7, Soph. OT 1193–5 and 1304–5, Eur. Alc. 259, Tro. 630–1, Bacch. 142–3.

84

505

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 6 , 6 7 7 , 6 8 0 , 6 8 1 676 τίς ἁνήρ (= τίς ὁ ἀνήρ, Murray) or τίς ὅδ᾽ ἀνήρ (Musgrave II. 410): we need either the article or the demonstrative, not the transmitted τίς ἀνήρ, as the chorus speaker is clearly wondering about the identity of the man whom they have tried to strike (KG I.626 n. 1). The former is more economical and presupposes a very easy mistake: ‘in eighteen places in Eur. where edd. read ἁνήρ, the MSS … have ἀνήρ ... But metre proves that ἁνήρ is intended in fifteen of these, and thus it should surely be restored in the rest’ (Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 920). 677 Cf. Aesch. Eum. 255–6 ὅρα ὅρα μάλ’ αὖ· / λεύσσετε τόν πάντα, / μὴ λάθηι ϕύγδα βὰς [ὁ] ματροϕόνος ἀτίτας (West’s text; from the chasing scene of the epiparodos). Diggle’s λεῦσσε introduces an ithyphallic, which goes well with the hypodochmius ~ catalectic ithyphallic of 678 (Liapis 257). The self-references of the chorus, in both first and second person, are consistently in the singular in the epiparodos, and λεύσσετε would be the only plural here, though 527–64 include both singulars and plurals. αὐδῶ ‘I mean’, an uncommon but Euripidean meaning: e.g., Alc. 106, Hipp. 352, Ion 552. 680, 681, 678–9, 682 ‘Over here, over here, everyone! I am holding them, I have seized them – these thieves who disturb the army by night! Which is your company? Where did you come from? To which country do you belong?’ Line 680 was transposed after 677 by Hermann (1828) 306; but Diggle’s transposition of 681 is also unavoidable. Lines 678–9 could in principle be interpreted, with Feickert 296, as a nominal phrase where the ellipsis of εἶναι parallels the hectic pace of the chorus’ movements (the MSS have κλῶπες nominative). But the identification in these lines of Odysseus and Diomedes as ‘thieves’ comes more naturally after the two have been seized by the watchmen (681) and seen from a closer distance. At 644 Alexander had given an uncertain report about an incursion by ‘thieves or spies’. If the watchmen now identify them as ‘thieves’, it will perhaps be because Odysseus and Diomedes are carrying items of the booty from Rhesus (675–727n.), though the watchmen do not immediately identify these as belonging to him. κινοῦσι στρατόν points to the danger of causing panic (see 17c–19n.), something of which Hector and Aeneas (respectively at 18 and 87–8) had already accused the watchmen; the chorus now seem to point to someone actually guilty of the charge. δεῦρο πᾶς ‘(come) here everyone!’ is a comic phrase: Ar. Ach. 239, quoted above (675n.), Pax 301 δεῦρο πᾶς χώρει, Av. 1186–7 χώρει δεῦρο πᾶς ὑπηρέτης· / τόξευε, παῖε. As often elsewhere, the adverb δεῦρο has the force of an imperative verb (Wackernagel (1926=2009) 99, Olson on Ar. Ach. 239– 40). For πᾶς (τις) with second-person imperative, see 685n. ἔχω ... ἔμαρψα: ‘I am holding’, durative, is opposed to the moment of the ‘seizing’, a hendiadys that parallels the common fifth-century Attic idiom λαβόντα ἔχειν.

506

C O M M E N TA RY 6 7 8 – 6 7 9 , 6 8 2 , 6 8 3 – 6 9 1 ὄρφνην: the vocalism ‑ην of most MSS, as against ὄρφναν, should be retained, in the light of 697 ὄρφνης (two MSS) and 701 νησιώτην. Willink (2002/2003=2010) 579 suggests that iambic patterns may have favoured the Attic form, here and in similar cases in choral context (e.g., Alc. 221, 232, Hipp. 837). λόχος: here ‘company’ as in 26, not ‘ambush’ as in 17. The Trojans are marshalled in λόχοι, their allies in national contingents (hence 682b and c): Wilamowitz (1909) 451–2. The watchmen do not know who the intruders are. In fact they ask them for the password at 684 and 688: they would not have done so if they knew that Odysseus was an enemy. And if the watchmen threaten to kill the intruders at 675, it is not necessarily because they are enemies, but because they appear to be ‘thieves’ (678–9). It is true that at 644–5 Alexander believes that the ‘thieves’ or ‘spies’ who have penetrated the Trojan camp are ‘enemies’, and the watchmen at 804–5 will believe the same when they reconsider their experience of the encounter with Odysseus at 692–723. But still later on the charioteer will not hesitate to surmise that Rhesus has been killed by some of his ‘friends’, in particular Hector, who would have wanted his horses (800–3). According to Liapis 258, on the other hand, Odysseus is immediately identified as an enemy, and λόχος here must mean ‘ambush’. πόθεν ἔβας; ποδαπός εἶ; ‘Where did you come from? Where are you native of ?’: the watchmen want to know first which camp (Greek or Trojan or allied) the intruder is coming from, and secondly what his nationality is (especially if he is an ally); cf. Hom. Od. 9.252 τίνες ἐστέ; πόθεν πλεῖθ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευθα; (Odysseus and his companions are asked about their identity and origins, as they are suspected of being robbers). For other sequences of similar questions, cf., e.g., Aesch. Cho. 657 ποδαπὸς ὁ ξένος; πόθεν;, TrGF 61 = Ar. Th. 136 ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις; τίς πάτρα; τίς ἡ στολή;, Eur. Cycl. 275–6 πόθεν ἐπλεύσατ᾽, ὦ ξένοι; / ποδαποί;, Hel. 1206 ποδαπὸς δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἁνὴρ καὶ πόθεν κατέσχε γῆν;. 683–91 are trochaic tetrameters. After its appearances in Aesch. Pers. and Ag., the trochaic tetrameter is used by Eur. with increasing frequency in the last two decades of the fifth century: perhaps he wished to vary the alternation of trimeter episodes and songs (Imhof (1956) 142). With the single possible exception of El. (no exception if El. dates from the early 410s), all the tragedies of Eur. produced after Her. (416 BC?) and Tro. include trochaic tetra­ meters (Krieg (1936), Imhof (1956)). Already in Aesch. Pers., the metre may have conveyed an atmosphere of excitement, perturbation or hasty movement (cf. Drew-Bear (1968) 388–9), as it does for example in the last scene of Aesch. Ag. (1649–73). Those precedents possibly established the idea of haste that the metre conveys in most of the tetrameters of Soph. and Eur. (Maas (1962) 53, Centanni (1995) 114–17). In Eur. ‘acceleration of pace’ is probably the most consistent feature of trochaic tetrameters (Willink on Eur. Or. 729–806), and in Rh. it is a perfect match here for the watchmen’s animated

507

C O M M E N TA RY 6 8 3 – 6 8 4 aggression. Tetrameters are used elsewhere in the play only at 730 as the chorus prepares to attack the charioteer in a hurried movement (Ritchie (1964) 295). In comedy too, ‘running’ trochaics and cretics are often used for the parodoi of choruses who enter at speed, and often in an aggressive mood: Ach. 204–33, 284–301 ~ 335–46, Eq. 247–54, Pax 346–60 ~ 385–99, Av. 313, 317–18, 320–6, Perusino (1968) 43–4, Parker (1997) 36. Ach. 280–301 (cf. metrical analysis of 683–9 and 675–727n.) and Av. 317–26 are the closest parallels for a dialogue in trochaic tetrameters between chorus and actor (Drew-Bear (1968) 397). For the double antilabe in 687 and 688, see 687n. 683–4 ‘(Od.) None of your business! ⸬ (Cho.) You will be dead for your foul deed of today! Won’t you tell me the password, before you get a spear through your chest?’ The MSS assign 683 to Odysseus and 684 to the chorus, but the threat of 683b can be ascribed only to Odysseus, if we assume (with almost all twentieth-century editors) that at 683 he is already accusing the chorus of killing Rhesus, before making his accusation explicit at 686a. But since I believe, with the MSS and Diggle, that 686a is to be assigned to the chorus and not to Odysseus, I also assign (with Diggle) 683b and 684 to the chorus. Cornered by the watchmen, Odysseus bluffs at 683a, giving himself an aura of superiority, and denies that he has to give his credentials to the soldiers; they are consequently irritated. χρὴ εἰδέναι is a harsh synecphonesis, not attested with χρή in tragedy, but not uncommon with the prepositives μή and ἤ in Eur. (Hipp. 1335, IT 1048, Ion 313, Or. 478 (interpolated), TrGF 205.2, 1031.1) and Soph. (4x). Monosyllabic χρή may have been treated as a prepositive here (Fries 375), and there is perhaps no need to emend to εἰδέναι σ᾽ οὐ χρή (Heath (1762) 97), as advocated by Ritchie (1964) 294 n. 2. γάρ here implies dissent (Denniston (1954) 74–5). σήμερον (/τήμ-, /σάμ-), already found in Hom., is very common in comedy (more than 40x in Ar.), but appears only here in tragedy. Tragedy prefers to designate the ‘present day’ with the deictic τόδε/ἥδε and ἦμαρ/ἡμέρα, as at Rh. 464 (more than fifty cases in the three major tragedians), where the deictic usually ‘aims to point at the imminent presence of a decisive moment in the life of an individual’, in a climactic situation which will resolve or has resolved the tragic peripeteia (Herrero De Jáuregui (2013) 59, 73–4). οὐκ ἐρεῖς … is a rhetorical question, equivalent to a positive imperative; cf. Soph. Ant. 244. λόγχην πρὶν διὰ στέρνων μολεῖν: cf. Eur. Ion 524 οὐκ ἀπαλλάξηι, πρὶν εἴσω τόξα πλευμόνων λαβεῖν; (troch. tetrameter, as here), Pho. 1397–8 στέρνα  ... διῆκε λόγχην (but the text of 1397 is probably corrupt). For πρίν with infinitive, see 222b–3n.

508

C O M M E N TA RY 6 8 5 – 6 8 6 685 is unmetrical, and the speaker uncertain. The MSS assign the whole line to the chorus. In its transmitted form, ἴστω ‘let him acknowledge’ can only be assigned to Odysseus, who would then be on the verge of uttering the password (cf. 688 ἔμαθον). If however we take this verb as ἵστω = ἵστασο ‘stop’ (= Ar. Eccl. 737), as suggested already by Σ and later by Portus (1599) 70 (accepted in almost all the nineteenth-century editions; the unnecessary conjecture ἴσχε of Heath (1762) 97 would mean the same), then this order could have been given by the watchmen to Odysseus, in an attempt to corner him, or by Odysseus to the Trojans of the chorus, who are encircling or aiming their javelins at him (see 687 ἴσχε πᾶς τις, again by Odysseus). In any case the encouragement θάρσει hardly makes sense if (with Reiske (1754) 90) we consider it addressed by the choral speaker to his companions, as Odysseus is clearly outnumbered; it is still less likely to be said by the watchmen to Odysseus, as its tone of supportive kindness would not match the aggressiveness that they display elsewhere, as at 686a, and in their threat at 684. The first two words are thus to be assigned to Odysseus, as in all modern editions. The last four words of the line are to be assigned to the watchmen; both πέλας ἴθι and παῖε πᾶς indicate that they are now very close. παίειν will have its usual sense of ‘hitting’ from close by with the hand or a hand-held weapon.85 The line would mark a crescendo in the aggressive action of the chorus, justifying the precise accusation of 686. As the initial ἵστω of 685 is picked up by the initial ἴσχε of 687a, and 686b is concerned with a threat to someone’s life, like 687c, it is possible that both 685 and 686 are interpolations that largely duplicate 687 and elaborate on its comic features. ἵστω is found mainly in Ar. (see above), and phrases consisting of the second-person imperative (685 παῖε) + the third-person subject πᾶς (τις) are very rare in tragedy. These phrases, characteristic of the epiparodos (cf. 687, 688, 690, 730), have plenty of comic parallels: Ach. 204, 238, Pax 301, 458, 510, 512, Av. 1186, 1190, 1196, Th. 372, Ran. 372 and are ‘informal, if not colloquial’ (Collard (2018) 123); in tragedy cf. Aesch. Ag. 1651 πᾶς τις εὐτρεπιζέτω and Eur. IA 1598–9 πᾶς τις θάρσος αἶρε ναυβάτης, / χώρει τε πρὸς ναῦν (from the spurious ending). For the asyndeton of imperatives in the second hemistich, cf., e.g., Soph. Aj. 811 (with Finglass ad loc.), 988, 1414, Tr., 1255, Eur. Or. 1258, Ar. Plut. 255. 686a is usually assigned in modern editions either to the chorus or to Odysseus. If it is assigned to the chorus, they may have noticed some of Rhesus’ spoils that Odysseus and Diomedes were carrying (675–727n.). In

The verb may also occasionally mean ‘strike’ with missiles, e.g., at Ar. Ach. 282 and Av. 1187: cf. Dunbar on Av. and Olson on Ach.

85

509

C O M M E N TA RY 6 8 6 686b Odysseus would deny that the extra arms he is carrying were taken from Rhesus, and state that he has in fact slain someone (a Greek warrior?) who would have killed the chorus, if they had met him. I prefer this interpretation, with Diggle, because it is the simplest in its identification of the characters and in explaining the logic of the situation: 685 indicates that the watchmen have come closer to Odysseus, and 686a and b give different ‘interpretations’ of the spoils that Odysseus will have been carrying, and which have become visible now that the watchmen have come closer to him. Other scenarios have been suggested. If the speaker of 686a is Odysseus, he will be bluffing again and pretending to be a Trojan, as in 683a; faced with the aggression of the chorus, he will be accusing them of the slaughter of which he is afraid that they will accuse him, if they have already discovered that Rhesus is dead (Badham (1855) 337). The chorus would then reply in 686b that they had been hitting him (σε), because he was going to kill Rhesus (so Kovacs 423 and Liapis 259). But σε would more naturally be taken to agree with τὸν κτενοῦντα if it preceded the participle, as at Soph. OC 745 σε τὸν δύστηνον ὄντα … ξένον, Eur. Supp. 1023 σὲ τὸν θανόντ(α), Her. 1214 σὲ τὸν θάσσοντα, Bacch. 912 σὲ τὸν πρόθυμον ὄνθ᾽. But where article + participle is followed by με or σε, the pronoun is most naturally taken as the object of the participle. Musgrave II 410 suggested that Odysseus is pretending to be Rhesus, whose spoils he is carrying. This idea has been revived by Ritchie (1964) 73 and Zanetto (ii) 47. After the obvious physical aggression in 685b (hence 686 δή), the watchman who speaks 686a suspects that the others have killed ‘Rhesus’ with their blows (παῖε 685); the other watchmen would reply in 686b that they had hit a dangerous marauder who was going to kill all the watchmen. Similarly, according to Battezzato’s interpretation ((2004) 282–3), the watchmen of 686a are addressing Diomedes as the killer of Rhesus – Diomedes or Odysseus is carrying Rhesus’ spoils, and the horses of Rhesus would perhaps be on stage – and Odysseus intervenes in 686b, denying what the chorus have guessed. Less plausibly, Feickert 297 and 299 suggested that Odysseus is asking the watchmen, who are striking Diomedes, whether they killed ‘Rhesus’ (i.e., Diomedes with Rhesus’ spoils). δή suggests that something is really and truly the case; with pronouns, especially with σύ and especially in questions, ‘the emphasis is often contemptuous or indignant in tone’ (Denniston (1954) 207–8). κατέκτας, a Homeric athematic aorist, is here used with conative force, as at Soph. Aj. 1126; cf. Eur. Andr. 810 (v.l., but the line is interpolated), IT 992, Ion 1291, 1500, KG I.166–7, Parker on Eur. IT 991–3. The watchmen do not know for sure that Rhesus has been killed, but it was reasonable to surmise that his splendid military equipment could become a tempting new target for robbery (later on in the same night, the charioteer will accuse Hector of

510

C O M M E N TA RY 6 8 7 – 6 8 8 the slaughter of Rhesus as he thinks that Hector wanted the horses (837–41)). When they intercepted the two Greeks, they identified them as ‘thieves’ (678– 9), evidently because of the loot they were carrying. ἀλλά: μή, added by Dindorf (v) 9, is in synecphonesis with ἀλ-, as elsewhere in fifth-century drama, especially comedy (Ar. 7x, and Aesch. Cho. 918). It is a colloquialism, used to contradict a statement or, most often, a question (= μὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλά); cf. Denniston (1954) 4–5, Dunbar on Ar. Av. 109–10. 687 and 688 include double antilabe. Changes of speaker do occur in the trochaic tetrameters of Soph. and Eur., and double antilabe in tetrameters can be found once in Soph. (Ph. 1407) and once in Eur. (Or. 1525). In iambic metre Soph. has double antilabe 7x, Eur. 6x. Cf. Köhler (1913) 41–3, 54–7, Imhof (1956) 130 n. 11, 140 n. 46. Here, at the climax of a scene of comic deceit and disguised identity, the use of double antilabe in successive lines probably evokes animated everyday dialogue, and has comic potential. ἴσχε πᾶς τις is consistent with 685 ἵστω. It is a reaction to παῖε πᾶς, provided that 685–6 are not an interpolation based on the present line. On πᾶς (τις) phrases with second-person imperative, see 685n. οὐ μὲν οὖν is a necessary emendation (Reiske (1754) 90); the οὐ μενῶ of most MSS, defended by Pace (2002) 460, cannot express the opposite of ἴσχε, as the verb μένειν does not mean ‘linger’, but ‘wait till something happens’ or ‘be left behind’ (Liapis (2011) 89 and Battezzato (2004) 284– 7, also on the intolerable hiatus μενῶ ἆ). The emended phrase has been interpreted as an absolute sentence presupposing and replying to 687a: ‘we won’t!’ (Kovacs 425). Alternatively, we may assume, perhaps, that the chorus are beginning a phrase like ‘no, we will not (stop?)’, οὐ μὲν οὖν …, but at the same time start hitting Odysseus, who utters a sudden exclamation (ἆ) that interrupts them before the verb; he then asks them to stop trying to kill a friend. It is not uncommon in tragedy for one speaker to interrupt another in the middle of a sentence (cf. Mastronarde (1979) 52–73), but it is especially common in comedy; such an interruption would thus not be foreign to this scene. ἆ can be a groan of physical or mental pain, equivalent to αἰαῖ (as at Rh. 749, 799), or, like ἔα, an expression of astonishment and disappointment (as at Aesch. Cho. 1048, Eur. Her. 629; Bacch. 586, 596), or, as here and commonly in Eur. of remonstrance (‘stop doing that!᾽), sometimes followed by a μή-prohibition or an indignant question: cf. Aesch. PV 114, Soph. OT 1147, Ph. 1300, Eur. Cycl. 565, Alc. 29, 526, Med. 1056, Her. 1052, Hel. 445, Or. 145, 1598, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 503–4, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 445, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 1076, Biraud (2010) 84–5, Labiano Ilundain (2017). μὴ θένηις picks up 675: the order formulated there should not be carried out.

511

C O M M E N TA RY 6 8 8 – 6 9 0 688 καὶ τί δή, ~ quid tandem? (KG II.129), introduces a question to which a speaker needs an answer before he can accept what the other speaker says, as at e.g., Aesch. Pers. 727. Φοῖβος: see 12n., 573n. ἔμαθον is an immediate aorist; see 281n. ἴσχε πᾶς δόρυ ~ 687 (but the verb is absolute there) indicates full compliance with Odysseus’ request. 689 τῆιδέ πηι: ‘somewhere in this direction’: cf. Eur. Cycl. 685 οὐ τῆιδέ πηι, τῆιδ’ εἶπας; ⸬ οὔ· ταύτηι λέγω. It may have been a colloquial idiom, ­unattested before the end of the fifth century but commonly used metaphorically (at least 12x) in Pl. for the direction of the argument. Odysseus and Diomedes, who had entered by the left eisodos B, continue on their way, and thus exit by the opposite eisodos A, heading to the Greek and Trojan camps. The actors and chorus in this scene may be supposed to be at the centre of the orchestra, and τῆιδε may thus in principle point to either eisodos. But since Rhesus has just been mentioned as dead, it is probable that Odysseus points the watchmen pursuing the ‘thieves’ in the direction of eisodos B and the Thracian camp, so that he and Diomedes can escape to eisodos A and the Greek camp. 690–1: 690a shows that the chorus consider going in the direction indicated by Odysseus to pursue the ‘thieves’. Immediately afterwards, in 690b, they consider whether alternatively (ἤ) they should ask for the army to be mobilised – they had already approached Hector and asked for this in the parodos (23–33). If they are to consult Hector they should stay where they are, near his tent; thus they probably do not move from the orchestra, or they stop before reaching the eisodos (Mastronarde (2004) 29). A single choral speaker may be conversing with Odysseus in the rest of the epiparodos, with ἤ 690 introducing consideration of an alternative suggestion by the same speaker, and ἀλλά 691 being a self-correction of 690b (Denniston (1954) 7–8, Fries 379). The MSS divide 690b from 691 or, alternatively, 690a from 690b + 691, and indicate that they are uttered by different choreutai (ἡμιχ., which precedes 690b in O, is a common indication in the MSS when different members of the chorus speak in the same context: Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 784–5). The antilabe before ἤ, given in all MSS at 690, is especially plausible: it produces a mini-debate between two watchmen that leads to no concrete plan. Similar debates about what to do can be found in other scenes where the chorus ends up doing nothing; cf. Aesch. Ag. 1348–71, Eur. Hipp. 782–5, Dettori (1992) 143. ἕρπε πᾶς: cf. 685. κατ᾽ ἴχνος αὐτῶν = Ezechiel, TrGF 128.231; cf. Eur. Tro. 1002–3 σου / κατ᾽ ἴχνος. ἴχνος is a very common word in Eur. (about 30x); also attested in Soph., Aesch., Aristophanes.

512

C O M M E N TA RY 6 9 0 – 6 9 1 ἢ βοὴν ἐγερτέον;: either ‘or should the battle-cry be raised?’ (i.e., the ‘alarm cry’: e.g., Ebener 99, Jouan (2004) 41) or ‘or should the battle be stirred up?’ In the latter case the phrase is a para-Homeric synthesis of the Iliadic formulas φύλοπιν/Ἄρηα/μάχην ἐγείρειν (respectively at 5.496, 6.105, 11.213; 8.531, 18.304, 19.237; 13.778, 17.261) and the interpretation of Homeric βοή as meaning not only the call to arms before the battle but also the battle itself. This interpretation is widespread in Hellenistic scholarship and possibly defended by Aristarchus.86 The combination in Rh. of the typical Homeric verb for ‘stirring up’ the ‘battle’ and βοή may suggest that the interpretation βοή = μάχη predates the Hellenistic age (see 52–75n., 175n., 710–21n., Fantuzzi (2010). But we cannot rule out the possibility that βοή means ‘battle-cry’, and ἐγείρειν has its common sense ‘emit’ a sound (e.g., a song at Pind. Ol. 9.47, Cratin. PCG 237.1; a noise of lament at Soph. OC 1778, Eur. El. 125; a shout at Or. 1353).87 The impersonal verbal adjective ἐγερτέον may convey the idea that the watchmen would not themselves ‘raise the battle(-cry)’; they are thinking of urging a superior such as Hector to take this initiative, as they had done in the parodos when they asked him to mobilise the army (23–33). ἐκ νυκτῶν ‘at night’, with ἐκ suggesting that the terror comes out of the night, as in Aesch.’s description of the nightmare of Orestes at Cho. 288–9 μάταιος ἐκ νυκτῶν φόβος / κινεῖ ταράσσει, which is the closest verbal parallel to our phrase (but adverbial ἐκ νυκτῶν is a fairly common idiom in Attic: 13–14n.); see Garvie ad loc. φόβωι may be dative of accompanying circumstance or cause, with δεινόν; or instrumental, with τάρασσειν. ‘Nocturnal φόβος’ was a common designation of military panic, from Hdt. 7.43.1 (νυκτὸς ϕόβος) onwards: Thuc. 7.80.3, Xen. An. 2.2.19, Aen. Tact. 27.4, 27.7, Polyaen. Strat. 1.2.1, 2.2.10, Paus. 10.23.7. A major issue in the initial discussions between chorus, Hector, and Aeneas had been the risk of κινεῖν στρατιάν and provoking panic among the sleeping soldiers at 17, 36–8, 87–9, 123–4, 138–9; see 17c–19n. The watchmen have learnt their lesson. They now turn away from their idea of asking for the army to be mobilised and prefer to be cautious (691).

Cf. Lycophr. 440–1, with Rengakos (1994) 115–16, Apion 227.7 Ludwich, Ap. Soph. 52.21 Bekker, Etym. magn. 202.25 Gaisf., Σ A Hom. Il. 17.714; Σ D Il. 2.408 (with Eust. 247.34–5) and 12.277, Lehrs (1882) 149. 87 It is improbable, however, that βοή here refers to the ‘cry for help’ (Burlando (1997) 178 Liapis 261), i.e., the cry that someone wronged lets out in calling on the community to rally round or sometimes to witness an injury (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 884 and Diggle (1994) 480, with further bibliography). This cry would not suit soldiers on duty, who never seem to be afraid of the thieves or raiders whom they are chasing. 86

513

C O M M E N TA RY 6 9 2 – 7 2 7 692–727 conclude the epiparodos with a choral reflection on what has been happening. It comes at the end of the part of the tragedy dominated by Odysseus and Diomedes. Odysseus’ skills are criticised by the chorus in the antistrophe. In the strophe (699–700) the chorus seems still confused and suggests the names of two Greek heroes of unqualified valour: a Thessalian (Achilles) and a Locrian (the Lesser Ajax). Achilles and the Salaminian Ajax had been mentioned at 460–2 in another choral song as the two most valiant enemies that Rhesus could encounter. But after these tentative suggestions, the watchmen linger over Odysseus and the raid which he conducted as a spy in disguise inside the walls of Troy (704–21). The structure resembles that of 497–509, where Hector briefly mentioned Ajax and Diomedes, then lingered over Odysseus and the same treacherous expedition. The chorus emphasise Odysseus’ ability to assume a false identity (719) and disguise (712, 715–16). Thus ‘the man who left (ὁ βάς)’ (692), whose identity they try to determine in the strophe and assume in the antistrophe, must be Odysseus (so e.g., Vater 174). Liapis 262 takes 692 to refer to the unidentified scouts who, according to the watchmen’s information, would have infiltrated the Trojan camp. But as Odysseus is the man who has just left, and was actually cornered and struck by the watchmen before escaping their hands (694), it is hard to imagine that the watchmen are referring to the unknown raiders, with whom they have had no contact. Besides, Odysseus is the person whom they have most often addressed in the singular (the plural is applied to him and Diomedes only at 681 and 678–9), whereas the robbers whom the watchmen were chasing when they met Odysseus and Diomedes are always plural: κλῶπες (678–9), ἄνδρες (689). 692 τίς ἀνδρῶν ὁ βάς;: cf. Soph. Ant. 248 τίς ἀνδρῶν ἦν ὁ τολμήσας τάδε;. For the periphrasis with εἶναι and substantivised participle, cf. Aesch. Supp. 571–2 τίς ἦν ὁ θέλ/ξας . . . ; (with Friis Johansen and Whittle ad loc.), Ag. 1506 τίς ὁ μαρτυρήσων;, Björck (1940) 90–1. The partitive phrase τίς ἀνδρῶν (again at 736) is not attested before classical drama (e.g., Soph. Ant. 248, quoted above, 604–5, Eur. Her. 1195, Or. 493, Ar. Av. 997), but cf. Homeric τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν;. 693–4 ὁ μέγα θρασύς: θρασύς by Madvig (1871) I.271 (transmitted θράσος is syntactically impossible) gives μέγα ~ μάλα an intensifying adverbial sense which is rare in Attic prose but common in epic and tragedy: Aesch. Supp. 141, PV 647, Eur. Alc. 742, 899, Hec. 493, IT 1497; at Ar. Nub. 291 and adesp. PCG 1110.8 in parodies of tragic language (μέγιστον as well is employed in the same adverbial sense, e.g., at Eur. Med. 1323, Hcld. 597, 792, TrGF 332.7). Cf. Thesleff (1954) 168–9, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 141. φυγών is completive with ἐπεύξεται, and gives the reason for the boast. It is used instead of the more common infinitive; cf. Pl. Sph. 235c οὔτε οὗτος

514

C O M M E N TA RY 6 9 4 – 7 0 1 οὔτε ἄλλο γένος οὐδὲν μή ποτε ἐκϕυγὸν ἐπεύξηται τὴν … μέθοδον. As often elsewhere, the preverb ἐπί has the function of pointing to the cause of the proud boasting (Corlu (1966) 143). Kovacs 425 takes ἐπεύξεται to mean ‘claiming to be (called)’, with εἶναι understood, and the participle as circumstantial (‘what name does this brash fellow boastfully claim who escaped my grasp?’). But elsewhere this meaning is usually made clear by contextual specifications such as γένος vel sim.: cf. for epic, e.g. Od. 14.199, 16.62, Muellner (1976) 68–78; for tragedy, e.g., Aesch. Supp. 15–18, 274–5, 314, Eur. IT 508 (quoted in 703n.), Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 872–8. This characterisation of Odysseus as proud of running away is in line with the usual opposition in tragedy between his underhand trickery and the valour and open fighting of the more ‘heroic’ warriors. As observed by Corlu (1966) 139, 149, Homeric warriors often boast when they defeat an enemy in combat, whereas Odysseus is here assumed to be boasting that he has deceived his enemy. They also glory in compelling the enemy to flee: cf. Il. 21.472–3 ϕεύγεις δὴ Ἑκάεργε; Ποσειδάωνι δὲ νίκην / πᾶσαν ἐπέτρεψας, μέλεον δέ οἱ εὖχος ἔδωκας; 2.159–60 ∼ 174–5. The pride in running away here ascribed to Odysseus could not be more anti-Iliadic. 695 πόθεν ‘starting from where?’; see 611–12n. κυρήσω: deliberative aorist subjunctive, signifying that ‘the speaker is not sure whether or not to carry out the state of affairs or that he is uncertain concerning a certain aspect of the state of affairs’ (Rijksbaron (2002) 40). 696 τίνι προσεικάσω: cf. Aesch. Cho. 12 ποίαι ξυμϕορᾶι προσεικάσω; (also deliberative subjunctive), Sept. 430–1, Ag. 163, 1131, Eur. El. 559 ἦ προσεικάζει μέ τωι;, Hel. 69. The verb is used in tragedy for explanatory rather than descriptive comparisons, when a new and unknown thing is likened to something known, so that it can be dealt with (Smith (1980) 8–11, 81–2). 697–8 ὄρφνης: cf. 680/681/678–9/682 n. ἀδειμάντωι ποδί: the suggestion that gait (πούς) shows features of character or action is typical of Eur.’s style (Breitenbach (1934) 199–200, Liapis 263, Cropp on Eur. El. 543). In a spying mission it is appropriate to describe the ‘dauntless’ foot of a warrior, although he had already been described as θρασύς (693). The epithet belongs exclusively to poetic language: cf. Pind. Nem. 10.17, Isthm. 1.12, Aesch. Pers. 162, Cho. 771. διά τε τάξεων: see 519–20n. 699–701 Similar geographical questions, combining an island and dry land, are found in Euripidean choruses: Eur. Hcld. 80–3 σὺ δ᾽ ἐκ τίνος γῆς, ὦ γέρον, τετράπτολιν / ξύνοικον ἦλθες λαόν; ἢ / πέραθεν ἁλίωι πλάται / κατέχετ’ ἐκλιπόντες Εὐβοῖδ’ ἀκτάν;, where Iolaus’ answer in 84, οὐ νησιώτην, ὦ ξένοι, τρίβω βίον, parallels νησιώτην βίον of Rh. 701;Tro.

515

C O M M E N TA RY 6 9 9 – 7 0 2 187–9 τίς μ᾽ Ἀργείων ἢ Φθιωτᾶν / ἢ νησαίαν ἄξει χώραν / δύστανον πόρσω Τροίας;, also Tro. 241–2. Θεσσαλός It seems unlikely that the chorus are suggesting some other minor Thessalian such as Eumelus at Il. 2.714 or Podalirius and Machaon at Il. 2.732 (so Liapis 263). The strong ‘Thessalian’ of whom the watchmen are thinking must be Achilles, mentioned already by the chorus in combination with Ajax at 460–2 (see 692–727n.). At 494–5 Hector had told Rhesus that Achilles, angry with the generals, did not ‘join the army in fighting’; but the watchmen are thinking now of an individual night raid. παραλίαν Λοκρῶν νεμόμενος πόλιν: see 475. The substantivised participle without article is often used when a general category is meant; KG II.68–9. The hero ‘dwelling in a coastal town of the Locrians’ is the Lesser Ajax. At Eur. IA 264 he is said to have ‘left behind the famous city of Thronion’, the port of the city of Naryx/Naryce, the birthplace of Ajax for some of the ancients (Diod. Sic. 14.82.8, Strabo 9.4.2 (425), Ovid, Met. 14.468, Steph. Byz. ν 18 Billerb., Suda ν 40 Adler). νησιώτην ... βίον ∼ Eur. Hcld. 84 (the epithet used instead of the genitive is common in poetry: KG I.261–2). Both Rh. and Hcld. 84 imply the widespread disparagement of islanders: Solon, IEG 2.1 (with Noussia-Fantuzzi ad loc. = F 2.3 Gent.-Prato), Hdt. 8.125.2, Eur. Andr. 14 (with Stevens ad loc.), 210, Ar. PCG 884, Pl. Resp. 329e–330a, Dem. 13.34, 23.211. In late sources Odysseus was sometimes called νησιώτης (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 33.19, Σ exeg. Hom. Il. 10.568, 11.488); likewise Telemachus (Luc. 10.3). σποράδα ‘scattered’ probably suggests a reason for the unfavourable views held about islanders, who were compelled to live isolated from each other and from the mainland. For the isolation of small villages as a feature of a primitive pre-polis culture, see Pl. Prt. 322, Isocr. 10.35, Arist. Pol. 1252b22–30, Liapis 264. κέκτηται βίον: 3x in Eur., 3x in Isocrates, once in Hdt. and Ar. 702 parallels the threefold formula with which a speaker asks another about his identity, found 6x in hospitality scenes of the Od.: τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες;. Similarly Eur. El. 779–80 τίνες / πόθεν πορεύεσθ’ ἔστε τ’ ἐκ ποίας χθονός;, Ion 258–9 τίς δ’ εἶ; πόθεν γῆς ἦλθες; ἐκ ποίας πάτρας / πέϕυκας;, Hel. 83 τίς δ’ εἶ; πόθεν γῆς τῆσδ’ ἐπεστράϕης πέδον; [86] ἀτὰρ τίς εἶ πόθεν; τίνος ἐξαυδᾶν σε χρή;, TrGF 752h.33 τίν]ες μολόντες καὶ χ[θ]ονὸς ποίας ἄπο;, Strattis, PCG 27.1 εἰσὶν δὲ πόθεν αἱ παῖδες αὗται καὶ τίνες;, Ar. Av. 408 τίνες ποθ’ οἵδε καὶ πόθεν;. ποίας πάτρας ∼ Eur. Ion 258, quoted above; cf. Hom. Od. 1.406–7, Pind. Pyth. 4.97–8, Soph. Ph. 222, Eur. IT 495, Pho. 278. The variant τίνος must be a banalisation prompted by preceding τίς, as ποῖος is the interrogative expected in questions concerning a person’s fatherland (cf. Soph. Ph. 222, OC 572, Eur. Hcld. 133, El. 780, IT 495, Pho. 278, TrGF 752h.33, Diggle (1981) 98). πάτρα is

516

C O M M E N TA RY 7 0 2 – 7 0 3 not attested in Attic prose, but is very common in tragedy, and in paratragic passages of comedy (Ar. Th. 136; Ran. 1163, 1427) or puns (Ar. Ach. 147, Alexis, PCG 198.1); cf. Olson on Ar. Ach. 147. 703 ‘Which god does he invoke as supreme?’ The free responsion of the transmitted hypodochmius ποῖον εὔχεται (regular −⏑−⏑−) with 721 πρὶν ἐπὶ γᾶν Φρυγῶν (⏑⏑⏑−⏑−) is defended by Pace (2001) 53, but the only parallel, IA 235 = 246, comes from a passage suspected of interpolation and involves a proper name, Καπανέως, at the beginning of 246 (Liapis (2011) 89). The easy corrections ποῖον δ᾽ εὔχεται (Bothe (i) V.297, (ii) 118, Porson (1820) 205 and on Eur. Pho. 892) or ποῖον ἐπεύχεται (Hermann (1828) 307, accepted by most modern editors), restore the dochmiac responsion. The line might be taken as a final question about the identity of the raider whom the watchmen have met, this time concerned with his religious beliefs. But the idea would be unparalleled in Greek. The jokes of Ar. Nub. 247 and 1233–4 about swearing by a specific god as an indication of a person’s identity are not a good parallel (Liapis 264). Besides, the watchmen seem not to wonder whether the raider is Greek or not (Trojans anyway have the same gods as the Greeks in Greek literature), but from where in Greece he has come to Troy. In Greek religion the standard θεῶν ὕπατος is Zeus (e.g., he is θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος 4x in Hom.; see 455b–7n.). Zeus, like most of the other major gods, was worshipped in various cities with different specialised cults and epithets. Porter (1913) 160 thus suggested that the watchmen are asking about the specific attributes of Zeus in the raider’s native city. But it is difficult to assume that the Trojan watchmen could know by heart the different attributes of Zeus in the various Greek cities and, above all, the question of 703 seems to be about the name = identity of the ‘supreme god’, not about his attributes. In fact, although Zeus was the standard ‘supreme god’ in official religion, in personal invocations individuals could promote even marginal divinities to the rank of ὕπατος, with the obsequious hyperbole typical of personal relationships between humans and gods. See the prayer of Medea to Hypnos before she puts to sleep the snake guarding the Golden Fleece at Ap. Rh. 4.146–7: ῞Υπνον ἀοσσητῆρα, θεῶν ὕπατον, καλέουσα / ἡδείηι ἐνοπῆι, θέλξαι τέρας.88 According to this interpretation, 704 is not concerned with the nationality of the raider. After expressing astonishment at the enemy’s boldness, the watchmen reasonably suspect that his success is backed by divine support and wonder which god he professes to be his ‘supreme god’, or boasts of as his ‘supreme god’, when he thanks

Medea adopts a strategy of hyperbolic praise similar to that of Hera at Il. 14.233 ῞Υπνε, ἄναξ πάντων τε θεῶν πάντων τ’ ἀνθρώπων.

88

517

C O M M E N TA RY 7 0 4 – 7 0 9 or petitions. And the theatre audience will have known the answer, remembering that Odysseus seems permanently backed by Athena, in particular in the ‘Doloneia’. 704–9 and 722–7 are dialogues between the watchmen concerning (1) the identification as Odysseus of the raider who intruded behind the Trojan lines, and (2) the consequences that this raid may have for them, if Hector blames them for not preventing enemy intrusion. The first dialogue introduces the antistrophe on Odysseus’ expedition to Troy in disguise; the second prepares for the discussion of responsibility for the death of Rhesus that is prompted by the arrival of the charioteer at 728. The differences in tone between the various questions and statements in 704–9 suggest that three characters are involved. Lines 704–5, which Diggle ascribes to a single speaker, are better taken as belonging to two different choreutai (cf. Feickert 305 and Liapis 265). Speaker A of 704 seems to be reacting to the brief list of tough Greek warriors suggested at 697–701 when he asks whether Odysseus is the only one who could carry out the bold incursion behind the Trojan lines. Line 705 can hardly be uttered by the same speaker, as it suggests certainty about Odysseus being responsible, and it must be assigned to a speaker B. At 706a, spoken by A, B is asked whether this is a definitive opinion, and B confirms this in 706b with an adaptation of his last words in 705. Line 707 has the thoughtful tone of A, who now temporarily shifts his attention from the identity of the raider to the nature of his activity and the previous verdict of the whole chorus about his θρασύτης (693). At 708a a third speaker, C, begins speaking. Jackson ((2019) 56) suggests that C asks for the identity of the θρασύς mentioned by B. His question and the answer ‘Odysseus’ by A or more probably B would preclude his having taken part in the dialogue of the previous lines, since, if he had, he would already know who was being talked about. But in a play where the treachery of Odysseus is again and again the focus of the Trojans or Rhesus, 708 and 709 may be not just an idle re-confirmation, after 703, of the identity of the  θρασύς for the benefit of the uninformed watchman. 708a and 709 rather seem to correct the statement of 707 and make the general point that the wily ‘bravery’ (ἀλκή) of a deceitful man such as Odysseus should never receive praise (the indignant stance here expressed by C holds the field in the antistrophe, whose narrative of the mission of Odysseus at Troy is tinged with condemnation and concludes with a curse). Two or perhaps three similar characters speak in the paired dialogue at 722–7, and both dialogues exemplify the typical choral voice of Rh., which appears to ‘represent the possibility for a somewhat conversational form of choral communication, closer to ordinary speech and further away from the more familiar tragic intonation’ (Jackson (2019) 59).

518

C O M M E N TA RY 7 0 4 – 7 0 8 704 is a twofold question. But by uttering a precise name, and leaving the alternative indefinite, speaker A shows that he favours the idea of Odysseus’ responsibility. For a similar rhetorical strategy, cf., e.g., Eur. Andr. 1060, Pl. Tht. 184e ‘Do you not (ἆρα οὐ) think that all the organs through which you perceive hot and hard and light and sweet are parts of the body? or are they parts of something else (ἢ ἄλλου τινός)? ⸬ Of nothing else!’, Phl. 61e. 705 ‘If we must judge by his earlier actions, who else indeed?’ Cf. ‘Seven Sages’, VS 10.β20 τὰ ἀφανῆ τοῖς φανεροῖς τεκμαίρου, Soph. OT 916 τὰ καινὰ τοῖς πάλαι τεκμαίρεται, Anaxag. VS 59F21a ὄψις γὰρ τῶν ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα, Eur. Alc. 239–40 τοῖς τε πάροιθεν / τεκμαιρόμενος, TrGF 574 τεκμαιρόμεσθα τοῖς παροῦσι τἀφανῆ, Isocr. 4.141 εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὰ μέλλοντα τοῖς γεγενημένοις τεκμαίρεσθαι, 6.59 εἴπερ χρὴ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων τεκμαίρεσθαι τοῖς ἤδη γεγενημένοις (with the same caution about the method of inference from the past as in Rh.), Diller (1932=1971), Finglass on Soph. OT 915–17. τί μήν; ‘what (else) indeed?’ (with τί ~ τί ἄλλο) complements its negative form τί μὴν οὔ in 706; at 705 the speaker asks why anyone would think that the raid had been accomplished by someone else, while at 706 the speaker wonders why the responsibility of Odysseus should not be taken for granted. Cf. Denniston (1954) 333–4, Garvie (1969) 54–5. 706 γάρ ‘lends the question a surprised and incredulous tone, implying doubt about the justification of the previous speaker’s words’ (Fries 385). τί μὴν οὔ; ‘why not indeed?’, again in response to a question at Soph. El. 1280; cf. Finglass ad loc. For the antilabe, here and at 708, 724, 726, see 538–41n. 707 γοῦν introduces a ‘part proof ’ of the preceding statement (Denniston (1954) 451–2): the boldness (θρασύς) demonstrated by the raider in his encounter with the watchmen shows that he may be Odysseus, who is called θρασύς at 499. A similar combination of ἀλκή, defensive ‘strength’ (cf. 709), and θράσος, aggressive ‘courage’, is used at 250–1, in relation to the spy-mission of Dolon; see 249b–51a. The boldness of Odysseus as a spy is described at 710–19. 708 τίν᾽ ἀλκὴν τίν᾽ αἰνεῖς; The interrogatives may be both adjectival with ἀλκήν, showing indignation through emphatic repetition; cf. Soph. TrGF 314.124 τίν᾽ αὖ τέχνην σὺ τήν[δ᾽ ἄρ’ ἐξ]ῆυρες, τίν’ αὖ …;, Ar. Ran. 460 ἄγε δή, τίνα τρόπον τὴν θύραν κόψω; τίνα;. In that case there should be no punctuation after ἀλκήν (as in Diggle’s, Kovacs’, and Fries’ editions). Then ἀλκή means metonymically ‘bold person’ – abstract for concrete (KG I.10–12): ‘who is the bold person whom you praise? who?’ –, and the answer is the proper name ‘Odysseus’. Alternatively, the first τίν(α) may be an interrogative adjective (‘which boldness are you praising?’), and the second τίν(α) a pronoun

519

C O M M E N TA RY 7 0 8 – 7 1 1 (‘whom?’). Ὀδυσσῆ would then be the answer to the second question. In that case, punctuating with a question mark after ἀλκήν (Zanetto, Jouan, and most modern editors before Diggle) helps to emphasise the syntactical difference between the two instances of τίνα. Ὀδυσσῆ: contracted accusative of the declension in -εύς, occasionally found in Hom. (Il. 4.384 Τυδῆ, 15.339 Μηκιστῆ) and not uncommon in Doric (Pind. Nem. 8.26 Ὀδυσῆ), northwestern dialects, and the koine, but foreign to Attic inscriptions; cf. Threatte (1980/1996) II.234, Rau (2008). It occurs in choral passages of Eur. (El. 439 Ἀχιλῆ, TrGF 781.24 βασιλῆ), and is given by most MSS in the dialogic line Alc. 25 (ἱερῆ), but there the variant ending ‑έα should be preferred (Parker ad loc. and Diggle (1996b) 197). κλωπὸς … φωτός points to the removal of the Palladium as an act of theft and thus a sacrilege; see 501–2n. The epithet suffices to show the chorus’ attitude, and it is not necessary to suppose, with Fries 385, that φώς has the ‘contemptous undertone’ that ἄνθρωπος often has. αἱμύλον was used of Odysseus when he made his first appearance at 498. It suggests his rhetorical ability and capacity for trickery; see 498b–500n. The enallage by which this epithet is used with a military term (δόρυ), together with the description of Odysseus as a thief, suggests an unusual mixture of specialties, since military ability and rhetorical skills are elsewhere often contrasted (see 105n., and the contrast between πρὸς βίαν and αἱμύλας μηχανάς in Aesch. PV 206–8). This complexity had been highlighted as a specific feature of Odysseus at 499–517. 710–21 justify the prohibition of 709 through an account of the πτωχεία of Odysseus, already mentioned by Hector at 503–7. The watchmen were present for the conversation between Hector and Rhesus. There Hector mentioned the enemies whom he considered most dangerous for Troy (Ajax, Diomedes, Odysseus), and spoke at length of the deceitful tricks of Odysseus. The watchmen seem here to adapt Hector’s speech to fit their thoughts after meeting Odysseus, who beguiled them by pretending to be someone else. While Hector described Odysseus’ disguise only briefly at 503–5a, and gave a summary of the πτωχεία at 506–7a, followed by more general information about Odysseus’ behaviour at 507b–9a, the watchmen devote all their attention to Odysseus’ disguise and lies. The mission carried out by Odysseus disguised as a beggar at Troy prefigures here most emphatically the raid which he has just now carried out against Rhesus, but has not yet been revealed. 710–11 καὶ πάρος (also at Soph. OC 1739, Eur. Alc. 222, Med. 595, Andr. 1094) both indicates the fact that it is not the first time Odysseus has infiltrated the Trojans and highlights the parallelism between the disguise that Odysseus wore for his previous raid and the deceit that the watchmen ascribe to the alleged friend whom they had just let go.

520

C O M M E N TA RY 7 1 1 – 7 1 4 ὕπαφρον ὄμμ᾽: according to Σ Rh. 711 ὕπαφρος means ‘“not visible”, a metaphor from things swimming under foam, or from the underwater rocks on top of which foam forms; or the cataplectic, the mad’. In the first sense suggested by Σ (~ Hesych. Lex. υ 264 Hansen-Cunn., Phot. Lex. υ 84 Theod.) the term is a synonym of κρυφαῖος (‘hidden’) or ὕπουλος (‘under the surface of the flesh’, said, e.g., of festering sores). This is perhaps the sense of the word at Soph. TrGF 236.1 and 312 and Hippocr. De arte 16.8 Heiberg, quoted by the third- or second-century physician Heraclides of Tarentum ap. Erotian. Lex. Hipp. υ 10 Nachm., where however the paradosis has ὕποφρον (defended by Diels (1913) 397–8 and Radt on Soph. TrGF 236.1). In this sense ὕπαφρον of Rh. would mean ‘disguised’ (Kovacs 427) or ‘treacherous’ (Liapis 266). The second meaning suggested by Hesychius, ‘having moisture similar to foam’ (τὸ ὑγρασίαν ἔχον ἐμφερῆ ἀφρῶι), would suit a description of Odysseus’ eyes as ‘bleary’ (LSJ) or ‘rheumy’ (Mastronarde (2004) 29). The moisture could be either a symptom of conjunctivitis (a disease frequently affecting people who are always dirty) and thus ‘part of appearing a starving beggar in rags’ (Mastronarde (2004) 29, Fries 386), or a symptom of mental derangement, a sense mentioned by Σ Rh. 711 quoted above; cf. Aesch. Cho. 1058 (Erinyes) κἀξ ὀμμάτων στάζουσι νᾶμα (‘pus’ Burges: αἷμα M) δυσϕιλές, Eum. 54 ἐκ δ᾽ ὀμμάτων λείβουσι δυσφιλῆ λίβα (Burges: δία M, βίαν Tr), Eur. Hec. 240–1 ὀμμάτων τ’ ἄπο / ϕόνου σταλαγμοὶ σὴν κατέσταζον γένυν, Her. 932–4 ἐν στροϕαῖσιν ὀμμάτων ἐϕθαρμένος / ῥίζας τ’ ἐν ὄσσοις αἱματῶπας ἐκβαλὼν  / ἀϕρὸν κατέσταζ’ εὔτριχος γενειάδος, IT 307–8 πίπτει δὲ μανίας πίτυλον ὁ ξένος μεθείς, / στάζων ἀϕρῶι γένειον, Or. 219–20 ἐκ δ’ ὄμορξον ἀθλίου / στόματος ἀϕρώδη πελανὸν ὀμμάτων τ’ ἐμῶν, Bacch. 1122–3 ἡ δ’ ἀϕρὸν ἐξιεῖσα καὶ διαστρόϕους / κόρας ἑλίσσουσ’, οὐ ϕρονοῦσ’ ἃ χρὴ ϕρονεῖν. This sense ‘rheumy’ would parallel the reference to dirty hair at 716 (the parallelism between the two images of physical neglect and sickness would be emphasised by the similar phrasing: ὕπαφρον ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων ~ ψαφαρόχρουν κάρα πολυπινές τ᾽ ἔχων). 712–14a ῥακοδύτωι στολᾶι ‘wrapped in a ragged cloak’ is probably a reminiscence of the beggar disguise worn by Odysseus in his house at Hom. Od. 22.488 ῥάκεσιν πεπυκασμένος εὐρέας ὤμους; cf. Rh. 503. The epithet, one of the ‘composita abundantia’ (see 123–4n.), where the component -δύτωι is practically superfluous before στολᾶι (Breitenbach (1934) 186–94), is attested again only in late authors. It means here simply ‘ragged’. Ragged garments are frequently mentioned in connection with Odysseus’ mission; see 503–4a n. πυκασθείς: cf. 90n., Hdt. 7.197.2 στέμμασι ... πυκασθείς, Eur. Alc. [796], 832 στεϕάνοις πυκασθείς. 713b–14 ξιφήρης / κρύφιος ἐν πέπλοις ‘armed with a sword hidden beneath his cloak’ perhaps varies Eur. Or. 1125 κρύπτ’ ἐν πέπλοισι τοισίδ’ ἕξομεν ξίϕη;

521

C O M M E N TA RY 7 1 4 – 7 1 6 cf. also 1271–2 κεκρυμμένας / θήρας ξιϕήρεις (of Orestes and Pylades). κρύφιος specifies ξιφήρης, further modified by ἐν πέπλοις. κρύφιος, proposed by Bothe (i) 366, and the transmitted κρυφαῖος, are both tragic words. κρυφαῖος has been defended by Pace (2001) 52, who takes the final syllable of τινι before προσεικάσω in 696 as long. But almost all the certain cases of lengthening of the final syllable before muta cum liquida in lyric metres are found in word-groups with prepositions: cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag., Appendix E, pp. 826–7, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 760 with ‘Addendum’ p. 435, Griffith (1977) 50, Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 606–7, Diggle (1989=1994) 344, (1990=1994) 386. 715–16 Odysseus’ light uglification is the only parallel in Rh. to the common version of the πτωχεία that featured his more radical disfigurement: see 503–7a n. βίον δ᾽ ἐπαιτῶν: same phrase at Soph. OC 1364 (ἐπαιτῶ), Eur. Hel. 512 (προσαιτεῖν), 791 (προσήιτεις), TrGF 322.4 (προσαιτῶν). ἀγύρτης τις λάτρις is predicative with εἷρπε: thanks to his perfect disguise Odysseus does not seem but is a beggar (with τις pointing to the whole category of beggars; cf. Vahlen (1907/1908) II.181–2, Finglass on Soph. El. 107 for τις in comparisons). λάτρις ‘(maid)servant’ or ‘minister’ of a god or in general ‘waged servant’ (connected with λάτρον ‘salary’) is attested in Theogn. and Pind. before Soph. (4x) and Eur. (17x). ἀγύρτης ‘beggar’ and λάτρις ‘waged servant’ make the status of Odysseus in disguise unclear between beggar and a (waged) servant. This slight inconsistency is perhaps modelled on the πτωχεία of Od. 4.245–8, where Odysseus is οἰκῆϊ ἐοικώς (οἰκεύς is not a beggar), but clothes himself in the rags of a beggar (δέκτης); cf. Fantuzzi (1996) 184–5. 716 When Athena makes Odysseus into an old beggar on Ithaca so that he will not be recognised by the suitors, Homer’s description concentrates on his head: Od. 13.430–2 κάρψε μέν οἱ χρόα καλὸν ἐνὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσι, / ξανθὰς δ’ ἐκ κεϕαλῆς ὄλεσε τρίχας, ἀμϕὶ δὲ δέρμα / πάντεσσιν μελέεσσι παλαιοῦ θῆκε γέροντος (on ‘dry/withering’ skin as evidence of physical decay, cf. Archil. IEG 188.1–2 οὐκέθ᾽ ὁμῶς θάλλεις ἁπαλὸν χρόα· κάρϕεται γὰρ ἤδη / ὄγμοις, Eur. El. 239). Odysseus’ disguise in Rh. does not include Athena’s magical intervention, but Od. 13 probably paved the way for the reference to the squalid head as a part of his disguise. Cf. Fantuzzi (1996) 182 n. 19. ψαφαρόχρουν: hapax, ‘with dusty skin’; ‘dusty’ because of dirt and perhaps also dryness (cf. Od. 13.430 κάρψε μέν οἱ χρόα). It is less probable that the epithet refers to the ‘grey’ colour of the skin (as in Nic. Th. 262), or that it means ‘bald’ (φαλακρός) or ‘with torn (διερρωγυίας) hair’, as suggested by Σ and a gloss on our line (with reference to hair, the specific ψαφαρόθριξ (HHom.Pan 32) might have been used). But above all it would not be possible

522

C O M M E N TA RY 7 1 6 – 7 1 9 for Odysseus to get grey skin on his head or become bald without Athena’s magic, as described at Od. 13.430–2. πολυπινές points in general to all kinds of head-filth. Hair-styles and hair-treatment (or lack of it) were social symbols in ancient Greece; cf. Agathon, TrGF 39F3.1 κόμας … μάρτυρας τρυϕῆς, Marinatos (1967) B1–3, Ogden (1997a) 77–9, Strenz (2001) 75, 89–90, 97–9, Leitao (2003). By contrast, only ψεδνὴ ... λάχνη (‘thin wisps of down’) sprouted on the head of Thersites (Hom. Il. 2.218–19), the most dishonourable and ugly of the Greeks at Troy. Achilles, to abase himself in mourning for Patroclus, ‘took up the sooty dust in both hands and poured it down over his head’ (Il. 18.23–4), lay in the dust ‘tearing at his hair and defiling it with his hands’ (Il. 18.27), and later cut off his hair (Il. 23.141). An αὐχμώδης/αὐχμηρός (Eur. Or. 223, 387), πινώδης (Eur. Or. 225) or πιναρός (Eur. El. 184, Eup. PCG 280.2–3) head and hair are frequently a symptom of marginalisation or self-abasement in fifth-century drama. 717–19 ‘Many times he reviled the royal hearth of the Atreidae, as if indeed he were an enemy of the generals.’ βασιλίδ᾽ ἑστίαν Ἀτρειδᾶν is an example of enallage, equivalent to ἑστίαν βασιλέων Ἀτρειδᾶν (Liapis 268). Tragedy often makes Agamemnon and Menelaus live in the same house (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 400). Aesch. Ag. 3, 310, 400, 1088–9, Soph. El. 651, and Eur. El. 712, Tro. 461, IT 186, Or. 810–11, 1552 use a small number of synonyms ( Ἀτρειδῶν στέγη/αι, δόμος/ οι, οἶκοι) to designate their palace and their household or family. The specific βασιλὶς ἑστία used in Rh. makes Odysseus’ slander seem more blasphemous. The hearth in the house of a king had greater significance than hearths worshipped in private houses as symbols of the family (ἐπίστιον = ‘family’ at Hdt. 5.72.1). It was the predecessor of the ‘common hearth’, the public symbol of the polis, usually located in a temple or, as in Athens, in the prytaneum (Merkelbach (1980), Gernet (1981) 322–39, Schmitt-Pantel (1992) 93–5, Parker (1996) 26–7, Kajava (2004) 1–6). It is a symbolic sacred location for offences against Agamemnon and his royal power at Aesch. Ag. 1435–6 (cf. Gantz (1977) 32–3), Soph. El. 269–70, 419–20. Odysseus not only slandered the Atreidae but at the same time abused one of the institutions of a Greek community as a whole. βασιλίδ(α) ‘belonging to the king’, as at Eur. IA 1306. Elsewhere adjectival = ‘queenly’ (Med. 1003, Hipp. 778), or substantivised = ‘queen’ (Hipp. 267, Hec. 552). κακῶς ἔβαζε: cf. Aesch. Sept. 571 κακοῖσι βάζει πολλὰ Τυδέως βίαν. This Homeric verb, 4x in Aesch., is here construed with the accusatives of the person and of the internal object, as at Eur. Hipp. 119. Its onomatopoeic derivation from the exclamation of amazement βᾶ/βαβαί may have conveyed a nuance of scorn, which an internal object or an adverb often makes explicit (e.g., ἀνεμώλια, νήπια, ὑπέραυχα, μάταια/μάτην, etc.).

523

C O M M E N TA RY 7 1 9 – 7 2 2 δῆθεν ‘as if ’, going with ἐχθρὸς ὤν, conveys the idea that Odysseus was not really hostile to the Greeks, as he alleged. It is rarely the first word in its phrase, and usually follows the word that it qualifies, but not without exceptions: Aesch. PV 986, Soph. Tr. 382, Eur. Or. 1119 (with Willink ad loc.), Denniston (1954) 265–6. στρατηλάταις: see 173n., 494–5n. It follows and picks up a form of Ἀτρεῖδαι in the previous line at Soph. Aj. 57–8, Ph. 872–3. 720–1 ‘I wish he had perished, perished, as he deserves, before setting foot on the land of the Phrygians.’ ὄλοιτ᾽ ὄλοιτο For the anadiplosis, cf. Archil. IEG 327.8 ὄλοιτο τοίνυν κἀξόλοιτο, Eur. Ion 705 ὄλοιτ’ ὄλοιτο (anadiplosis of other forms of this verb is also found in Eur. at Tro. 630, IT 152, 575, Hel. 384, Or. 200, 1364). Third-person optatives of ὄλλυμαι are common in curses focusing on the present or the immediate future, e.g., in the tablets of the defixiones (Pulleyn (1997) 86, 155) or in tragedy (‘curse on!’): Aesch. Sept. 452, Soph. OT 1349, Tr. 383, Eur. Med. 83, 659, Hipp. 407, Supp. 944, Hel. 162, IA 658, Moorhouse (1982) 232. The frequency of this form of curse may have led to the use of optative aorist ὄλοιτο with greater vagueness than ordinary optatives of wishing, and extends its application to past and counterfactual actions, as at Aesch. Supp. 867, Eur. Hel. 1214–15, Hipp. 407–8 (cf. Platt (1919) 154, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1214–15). This extension is an exception to the normal syntactic rules of classical Attic, which for these wishes requires an imperfect or an aorist indicative with εἴθε or ὤφελε + infinitive. It has sometimes been explained as a Homerism (Pearson (1921) 57; Liapis 268), in the light of, e.g., Il. 13.825–6 and Od. 18.79. πανδίκως: both the adjective and the adverb are tragic words, but neither in Eur. (the adverb 6x, the adjective 1x in Aesch.; 3x the adverb, 1x the adjective in Soph.; nowhere else before Christus pat. 352 and 1441, imitating our passage). ποδὸς ἴχνος βαλεῖν The phrase ποδὸς ἴχνος is a stately periphrasis for ‘foot’, favoured by Eur.: Her. 125, Tro. 3, IT 752, Ion 792, Pho. 105, TrGF 530.7; nowhere else in tragedy. For ἴχνος βάλλειν indicating assault, cf. El. 1344 δεινὸν ... ἴχνος βάλλουσ’ ἐπὶ σοί. Compounds of βάλλειν with πόδα for ‘entering’ a land are found at Eur. Hcld. 661 χώραι τῆιδε προσβαλὼν πόδα and El. 96–7 ἐκβάλω πόδα (Dobree: ποδί L) / ἄλλην ἐπ’ αἶαν. 722–7 ‘(A) Whether it was Odysseus or not, fear possesses me: Hector will find fault with us watchmen — (B) What is he shouting? — (A) Being dismayed … — (B) (Shouting) that he does what? What are you afraid of ? — (A) … that it was by way of us that arrived … — (B) Who? — (A) the men who this night came to the Phrygian army.’

524

C O M M E N TA RY 7 2 2 – 7 2 4 722 and 723 are probably spoken by A(ii), a speaker well informed of Hector’s reactions, but uncertain about their consequences and apprehensive (723 might also be spoken by a different speaker, who gives the reason why the fear of A(ii) is well founded). 724a is spoken by B(ii), who wants to know what was the basis of Hector’s shouting and thus why A(ii) is afraid. 724b is the reply of B(ii), who here and at 726a and 727 continues his report on the reason for Hector’s irritation, interrupted by questions spoken by A(ii) in 725 and 726b. εἴτ᾽ οὖν ... εἴτε μή ~ e.g., Soph. El. 560, Eur. Hcld. 149. εἴτ᾽ οὖν ‘whether, in point of fact’ is rare outside tragedy and Plato; οὖν denotes indifference, ‘the implication being that the fact does not greatly matter for immediate purposes’ (Denniston (1954) 418). Ὀδυσσέως picks up 704. τοὔργον is thus understood with the genitive. φόβος μ᾽ ἔχει ~ Aesch. Supp. 379, Ag. 1243, Soph. TrGF 314.278, Eur. Med. [356], Or. 1255, TrGF 759a.76. But the periphrasis that replaces a verb expressing a sensation with ἔχει + accusative of the affected person and nominative of the abstract noun expressing the sensation is common in tragedy, and in particular in Eur.; cf., e.g., Aesch. Supp. 521 ἔρως, 736 τάρβος, TrGF 132c.12 αἰδώς, Soph. Ph. 686 θαῦμα, OC 1725 ἵμερος, TrGF 953.1 ἔρως, Eur. Hec. 970 αἰδώς (~ Or. 101, 460, Bacch. 828), Her. 515 ἀφασία (~IA 837, Ar. Th. 904), IT 616 προθυμία (~ Ion 1109), Ion 572 πόθος (~ Ar. Ach. 361). λάσκων designates the scream of an animal or a loud utterance or cry of a human being; it was often used of prophecies, probably because the voice of the entranced prophet sounded abnormal (Easterling on Soph. Tr. 824–5). It is common only in fifth-century tragedy (2x in Soph., more than 10x in both Aesch. and Eur.) and comedy, where it appears to be mainly paratragic (Ar. Ach. 410, 1046, Pax 381–4, Ran. 97, Plut. 39). Hector’s furiously excited ‘shout’ (λάσκων) shows his stressed disappointment for the misconduct of the watchmen (724b). δυσοίζων, only here, at 805, and at Aesch. Ag. 1316, means either ‘dismayed at’, ‘distressed at’ and consequently ‘unable to put up with’ (Hesych. Lex. δ 2620 Latte-Cunn. δυσοίζειν· φοβεῖσθαι. ὑποπτεύειν, Σ Aesch. Ag. 1316 δυσοίζω· δυσχεραίνω, Wilamowitz (1926) 289) or ‘crying out in shocked agitation’, with reference to the wailing complaint produced by the stress more than to the feeling itself (thus Apoll. Dysc. GG II.1.1.128.7 Schneider τάχα δὲ καὶ παρὰ τὸ οἰοί τὸ οἴζω ἐστι; gloss on Rh. 724 δυσοίζων· βλασφημῶν. ἢ ὀργιζόμενος καὶ λοιδορῶν, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1316, Liapis 269, Fries 389–90). As λάσκων already expresses the idea of ‘shouting’, and ‘wailing’ is not the kind of sound that we expect from Hector, δυσοίζων probably points to his visible reactions of distress. The same meaning is also probable in the case of the charioteer at 805.

525

C O M M E N TA RY 7 2 5 – 7 2 8 725 τί δρᾶσαι; phrases with τί (χρῆμα) and a form of δρᾶν are used in a common type of colloquial question in Eur. (Stevens (1976) 22, Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 693). The transmitted τί δρᾶς; is metrically unacceptable, and τί δρᾶς δή; (Triclinius) no more than a conjectural supplement. τί δράσας (Wilamowitz (1926) 289) implies that Hector is shouting about something that he has done, which is inappropriate when the watchmen are afraid of his criticism. τί δρᾶσαι (L. Dindorf (i) 492 and Hermann (1828) 306) may be taken with λάσκω: ‘(Hector will reproach the watchmen) shouting … to do what?’. For interruption of the syntax of a speaker by a hasty interlocutor, and later resumption, cf. Eur. Hel. 825–7 ἴσως ἂν ἀναπείσαιμεν ἱκετεύοντέ νιν ... / ⸬ τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι; τίν᾽ ὑπάγεις μ᾽ ἐς ἐλπίδα; / ⸬ παρόντα γαίαι μὴ ϕράσαι σε συγγόνωι and Or. 1582–4 εἰ γὰρ ὤϕελον ... / ⸬ τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι; παρακαλεῖς γὰρ ἐς φόβον. / ⸬ τὴν Ἑλλάδος μιάστορ᾽ εἰς Ἅιδου βαλεῖν. The question of B(ii) on the course of action that Hector ‘shouts’ to endorse against the watchmen remains without answer. Despite the interruptions by B(ii) at 724a, 725, 726b, speaker A(ii), after 722 (and probably 723), continues his report about the annoyance of Hector in syntactically continuous phrases at 724b, 726, and 727. 726 καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς περᾶσαι The infinitive is construed with δυσοίζων, and κατά has either a local or a temporal meaning, ‘(dismayed) that they slipped in by way of us’ (Kovacs 429), or ‘in the duration of our watch’ (Liapis 269). With the local meaning, the verb would parallel, with intransitive sense ‘go through by way of the watchmen’, transitive περᾶν ‘going through the sentinels’ at Hdt. 3.72.1 φυλακὰς ... τέωι τρόπωι περήσομεν;. τίν᾽ ἀνδρῶν; The question is in the same metrical position as the statement Ὀδυσσῆ in the corresponding line of the first dialogic passage 704–9; as observed by Liapis 269, ‘an attentive audience member will have noticed that the question asked here had already received its answer there’. 727, which seems to be an answer to the question of 726b, in fact corrects it. Speaker C asks about a singular τίνα and B replies with a plural subject. This parallels the beginning of the epiparodos, where the chorus state that they have intercepted and seized plural intruders at 681, but later speak only to, and think only of, Odysseus. τῆσδε νυκτὸς ἦλθον: cf. Eur. El. 90 νυκτὸς δὲ τῆσδε πρὸς τάφον μολών. ἐς Φρυγῶν στρατόν: cf. 846 Φρυγῶν στρατός. 728–55 The lament of the charioteer for Rhesus replaces and expands the extremely brief lament over Rhesus’ death by his cousin Hippocoon at Hom. Il. 10.520–4. When Apollo decides to intervene as he sees Diomedes triumphant thanks to Athena’s help, he wakes up Hippocoon. Hippocoon mourns for Rhesus as soon as he sees the slaughter (ὡς ἴδε χῶρον ἐρῆμον, ὅθ’ ἕστασαν ὠκέες ἵπποι / ἄνδράς τ’ ἀσπαίροντας ἐν ἀργαλέηισι ϕονῆισιν, / ὤιμωξέν τ’ ἄρ’

526

C O M M E N TA RY 7 2 8 – 7 5 5 ἔπειτα ϕίλον τ’ ὀνόμηνεν ἑταῖρον), and his groans finally alarm the Trojans (Τρώων δὲ κλαγγή τε καὶ ἄσπετος ὦρτο κυδοιμὸς / θυνόντων ἄμυδις). Rh. 728–55 amplify the mention of οἰμωγή at 10.522, and although the charioteer later has a role of his own as a character, his primary function in our lines is to make clear to the Trojans the undeserved infamy of Rhesus’ death, staging that lament for him, that Il. 10 had not included, as Hellenistic scholars critically observed.89 In fact Il. 10.522 is a formulaic line used again as an introduction to direct speeches at Il. 23.178 and 24.591, and the first hemistich is re-used to introduce speeches at Il. 15.397 and Od. 13.198. Thus Bolling (1925) 128 plausibly suspected that a more detailed pre-Iliadic tradition of the events of Il. 10 might have featured a lament of Hippocoon over the death of Rhesus. Even before the Hellenistic period, some interpreters may have preceded Σ Il. 10.519 and found the marginalisation of the Trojan mourning for Rhesus ‘excessively laconic’ (Hainsworth on Il. 10.532–5) or at least noticed that there was no funeral speech for him, such as might have been expected. The author of Rh. too may have felt that more funerary attention was required for Rhesus and understood that it was appropriate to fill the gap left by Homer. In structure, 728–55 expand the usual brief summary that a messenger gives according to standard Euripidean practice before beginning his detailed report (Rassow (1883) 10–11). The essential information is that there has been a disaster and the disaster is Rhesus’ death, but it is broken up into several fragments expressed in a pathetic and initially uninformative way (728, 732a, 733–5, 741–4, 747–53). The charioteer, who enters unannounced, is so shocked that he does not even tell the chorus his identity, although asked to do so at 736, and even seems to speak to himself and to ignore the chorus down to 755 (Liapis 271). The metrical structure of 728–55 is also broken: after the charioteer’s first line 728, which can be taken as a semi-lyric syncopated trochaic trimeter catalectic (−⏑−⏑−⏑−⏑−−), with Fries 391, or as the beginning of a trochaic tetrameter interrupted by the exclamation extra metrum φεῦ φεῦ by the charioteer in the spasms of pain (Liapis 271), and two choral trochaic tetrameters catalectic (730 by the chorus and 732 shared by charioteer and chorus), the charioteer expresses himself in recitative anapaests (733–5, 738–44, 747–53), and the chorus in iambic trimeters (736–7, 745–6, 754–5). By interspersing the presentation of the news with emotional distress, lines 728–55 transform the messenger’s preliminary report into a brief commatic

Σ exeg. 10.519 comments: οὐ μὴν θρήνους περιτίθησι καίτοι εὐπορῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρωι μέρει τῆς ποιήσεως (sc. 24.720–81) τηρεῖ τοὺς θρήνους ἐπὶ Ἕκτορι τεθνηῶτι· νῦν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶι περὶ τούτων (‘about these events’, e.g. because of the quick pace of the narrative, or ‘about these characters’, i.e. about the marginal Hippocoon and Rhesus, rather than the protagonists Achilles and Hector).

89

527

C O M M E N TA RY 7 2 8 – 7 5 5 dialogue between a shocked unprofessional messenger and the chorus, like Eur. Her. 910–21 (the messenger reporting the slaughter of Heracles’ children and wife speaks in iambic trimeters or trimeter fragments, and the chorus reply in lyric iambics and dochmiacs) or Bacch. 1024–42 (the chorus address the messenger with a trimeter, but the news of Pentheus’ death leads them to shift to joyful dochmiacs, whereas the messenger sticks to trimeters); cf. Bond on Eur. Her. 910–21. Kommoi often use the form of an amoibaion, sometimes with a change of meter, between a character reporting news and the chorus, in order to emphasise the importance of the death or deaths announced (e.g. Aesch. Pers. 249–89; 908–1077, Soph. Aj. 896–924, OT 1297–1366, Ant. 1257–353, Eur. Hipp. 1342–88, Ar. Ach. 1190–1234). Metrical variation may help to suggest the intensity of the charioteer’s emotion and to give his lamentation a semi-lyric tone. With the exception of the monody of the Phrygian in Eur. Or., slaves or characters of low social level do not sing (as observed first by Maas (1962) 53–4), and young male heroes sing only in Soph. and, less frequently, in Eur., whereas females, barbarians, boys and old men express their emotions more freely in lyric form in all three tragedians (Battezzato (2005) 156–7). 728 ἰὼ ἰώ, and φεῦ φεῦ, are frequent exclamations extra metrum in tragedy (for ἰώ, see 380–1n.). Combinations of single ἰώ and double φεῦ or, more seldom, single φεῦ and double ἰώ are not uncommon (Aesch. 3x, Soph. 3x, Eur. 6x, of which 1x conjectural), but the duplication of both with only a few words between them is found only here and at Eur. Tro. 187–90. The extreme intensity of the charioteer’s shock and emotions is also indicated by ἔα ἔα at 729 and ἰὼ ἰώ again at 731 and 733. δαίμονος τύχη Both nouns may mean ‘destiny’, the former defining it as a religious entity (56–8n.), the latter suggesting a more impersonal or profane viewpoint. τύχη is sometimes simply ‘what happens’ (Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 818–20), but may also be either a power that should be naturally inferior to a δαίμων (cf. Eur. Cycl. 604–7), or the process through which the will of a δαίμων is accomplished: Pind. Ol. 8.67 τύχαι μὲν δαίμονος, Aesch. Pers. 345–6 δαίμων τις κατέϕθειρε στρατόν, / τάλαντα βρίσας οὐκ ἰσορρόπωι τύχηι, Eur. Med. 671 ἄπαιδές ἐσμεν δαίμονός τινος τύχηι, Hipp. 831–2, Tro. 1201–2, IT 867, TrGF 37.1, 140.1–2, Dem. 18.208, Dodds (1951) 58 n. 80, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 98. The two terms are often coupled (e.g., Soph. TrGF 314.79, Eur. TrGF 901.2, Ar. Av. 544, Lys. 13.63, Dem. 48.24, Aeschin. 3.115). τύχη βαρεῖα ~ Aesch. Sept. 332, Soph. Aj. 980, Eur. Hipp. 818–19, El. 301, TrGF 773.49–50; also βαρεῖα συμφορά at Rh. 732. The line may well be semi-lyric syncopated trochaic (see above) but in a recitative context its semi-lyric character will hardly have accommodated the Doricising long alpha of lyrics. Thus although τύχα is preserved in all modern editions after Murray, the correction to τύχη (suggested in Kirchhoff

528

C O M M E N TA RY 7 3 0 – 7 3 2 (i) 360 and 560, but not in Kirchhoff (ii) 335; adopted only by Wecklein 36) should be accepted. 730 σῖγα πᾶς ὕφιζ᾽ ‘Everyone settle down in ambush, soundlessly’ finds parallels in phrases from assembly scenes of tragedy and comedy: e.g. Eur. Hec. 532–3 σιγᾶτ᾽, Ἀχαιοί, σῖγα πᾶς ἔστω λεώς, / σίγα σιώπα, Supp. 669 σιγᾶτε, λαοί, σῖγα, Καδμείων στίχες, TrGF 773.75 σῖγ’ ἔστω λεώς, Ar. Ach. 59 κάθησο σῖγα, 123 σίγα (σῖγα v.l.), κάθιζε, 238 σῖγα (σίγα v.l.) πᾶς, Vesp. 905 σίγα, κάθιζε (at Aesch. TrGF 78a.4 ἄκουε δὴ πᾶς σῖγα, from a satyr play, σῖγα probably goes with a verb in the lost second hemistich). Transmitted imperative σίγα with final long alpha is unmetrical. Adverb σῖγα (Dindorf (i) 492) gives perfect syntax, and its corruption to σίγα has many parallels (examples in Fries 392). ὕφιζ(ε) was conjectured by Livineius (cf. Battezzato (2000c) 346), Barnes 129 and Reiske (1754) 91, in place of the unmetrical vox nihili ὕφιζος and absurd ὕβριζ’ of the MSS. The verb ὑφίζειν is found only at Eur. Pho. 1382 ὑφίζανον and at Hdt. 3.126.2 and 6.103.3 ὑπίσας/ὑπίσαντες (Ionic aorists). In Pho. 1382 the verb means ‘crouch’ behind the shield; in Hdt. it has the factitive meaning ‘place (men) in ambush’. The coryphaeus orders the other watchmen to ‘crouch in ambush’, so as not to be seen, and let the enemy approach the trap. Line 730 intimates an ambush scene referring back to 675ff. against the disguised false friend Odysseus, but in this case the charioteer will soon reveal that he really is one of the Trojans’ allies. On imperatives with πᾶς, see 685n. The second-person imperative is one of the self-inclusive imperatives by means of which the chorus-speaker highlights the movements of the chorus (1–51n.). ἐς βόλον τις ἔρχεται ‘somebody is finding his way into our net-cast’. βόλος is attested in archaic and classical Greek poetry only at Hdt. 1.62.4 (oracle) ἔρριπται δ’ ὁ βόλος, τὸ δὲ δίκτυον ἐκπεπέτασται, Eur. El. 582 ἢν δ᾽ ἀνσπάσωμαί γ᾽ ὃν μετέρχομαι βόλον, Bacch. 848 ἐς βόλον καθίσταται, TrGF 62d.29 εἰς βόλον γὰρ ἂν πέσοι; later Herond. 7.75 ἐς βόλον κύρσηι. It means here either the act of casting the net (as at Hdt. 1.62.4, quoted above, and Theocr. 1.40 μέγα δίκτυον ἐς βόλον ἕλκει; cf. Powell (1938) 61, Headlam and Knox on Herond. 7.75–6), or the net itself (as in the passages of Eur. quoted above). 732 συμφορὰ βαρεῖα ~ Aesch. Pers. 1044, Soph. Tr. 746, Eur. Alc. 405, 856, Timoth. PMG 791.187. συμμάχων τις ὁ στένων, with indefinite τις, may echo the pattern of interrogative τίς … ὁ + participle, common in tragedy: e.g. Aesch. Ag. 1506, 1541, PV 771, Soph. OT 1300–1, OC 302, 1166, Eur. Supp. 104 (τίς δ᾽ ὁ στενάζων … ὅδε;), IA 857, TrGF 878. The division of the line before συμμάχων and the identification of the first speaker as the charioteer and of the second as the

529

C O M M E N TA RY 7 3 3 – 7 3 7 chorus were suggested by Hermann (1828) 307 and make good sense. After hearing the charioteer’s first mention of the Thracians, which is sympathetic or self-inclusive, the watchmen no longer think that he may be an enemy (as surmised at 730). They now know more or less as much as they will know at 736, when they ask again the unanswered question: which of the ἄνδρες σύμμαχοι is he? 733 appears to vary the ‘pathetic entrance’, a typical tragic pattern, found especially in anapaestic entries, where the opening words are an exclamation followed by the nominative δύστηνος ἐγώ, then an exposition of the speaker’s trouble; cf. Aesch. Pers. 909–10 ἰὼ ἰώ, δύστηνος ἐγὼ στυγερᾶς μοίρας / τῆσδε κυρήσας, Soph. OT 1307 αἰαῖ, αἰαῖ, δύστανος ἐγώ, Eur. Med. 96 ἰώ, δύστανος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων, Hipp. 1348–9 αἰαῖ αἰαῖ· δύστηνος ἐγώ, Battezzato (1995) 38–9. If the author of Rh. presupposed this tragic pattern, he varied it substantially, as the charioteer does not focus only on himself. He is seriously wounded, like Hippolytus at Hipp. 1348–9, quoted above, but his life does not seem to be really in danger, and from 733 onwards he makes clear that the main subject of his dirge will be Rhesus. δύστηνος ἐγώ/ἐγὼ δύστηνος is also a common phrase in tragedy outside the ‘pathetic entrance’: 6x Eur., Soph. 2x (δυστάλαινα/δυστάλας ἐγώ can be added: Eur. 2x, 1x Soph.). 734 may be reminiscent of Aesch. Pers. 974–6 ἰὼ ἰώ μοι, / τὰς ὠγυγίους † κατιδόντες / στυγνὰς Ἀθάνας (Liapis 272). In both passages στυγνός has perhaps an anticipatory nuance: Athens turns out to be hateful for the Persians, Troy for Rhesus, because of the catastrophe that they suffer as soon as they get to see them (Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 133, Fries 393). Substantivised nominative participles with vocative function are very common in tragedy, and are often the target of comic paratragedy; cf. Wendel (1929) 39–41, Gonda (1956). 735 βίου τέλος εἷλεν parallels the Homeric formula τὸν δὲ κατ’ ὄσσε / ἔλλαβε πορϕύρεος θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα κραταιή of Il. 5.82–3, 16.333–4, 20.476–7; also Il. parva PEG F 21.5. For βίου τέλος, cf. Theogn. IEG 905, Pind. Isthm. 4.5, Soph. OC 1721, Eur. Hipp. 87, El. 956. 736–7 ἀνδρῶν συμμάχων: see 314–16n. κατ᾽ εὐφρόνην … κοὐ … τορῶς could be the motto of the entire play (Strohm (1959) 264 n. 4), populated as it is by figures most often characterised by ignorance and folly often magnified by the darkness of the night in a world dominated by uncertainty (656–9n.). For κατ᾽ εὐφρόνην = 92, see 91–2n. ἀμβλῶπες αὐγαί ‘the light-rays are faint’ (in the darkness). ἀμβλώψ and the more common ἀμβλωπός ‘dimmed’, from ἀμβλύς ‘blunt’, metaphorically ‘faint’, and ὤψ ‘face’, are tragic words, occasionally

530

C O M M E N TA RY 7 3 7 – 7 3 8 in paratragic comedy: Aesch. Eum. 954–5 δακρύων / βίον ἀμβλωπόν, Soph. TrGF 1001, Eur. TrGF 155a ἀμβλωπὸς ὄψις, 386a νυκτὸς ἀμβλωπὸν σέλας, TrGF 397a ἀμβλῶπας αὐγὰς ὀμμάτων ἔχεις σέθεν, Ion, TrGF 19F53a (αμβλύς in a description of the dim light at dawn: 19F53b), Pl. PCG 254. αὐγαί, usually plural, means, like φάος, ‘light’, especially a bright light, like that of sun or stars, or the gleam of metals, or ‘eyesight’ (in which sense it is usually specified by ὀμμάτων/ὄσσων/ὀφθαλμῶν), and, rarely, ‘eyes’. Without specifying genitive the sense ‘eyes’ is certain at least at HHom.Herm. 360–1 πολλὰ δὲ χερσὶν / αὐγὰς ὠμόργαζε; the sense ‘eyesight’ at Aesch. TrGF 99.2 οὐκ ἐν αὐγαῖς ταῖς ἐμαὶς ζόην ἔχει, Eur. Andr. 1179–80 †εἰς τίνα / δὴ ϕίλον αὐγὰς βαλὼν τέρψομαι;†). αὐγαί denotes the ‘rays’ which, according to the ‘emissionist’ theory of vision that was widespread in the ancient world, are cast by the seeing subject upon the external world, thus producing eyesight (Rakoczy (1996) 19–37, Cairns (2005) 138, 148 n. 51): Soph. Aj. 69–70 ἐγὼ γὰρ ὀμμάτων ἀποστρόϕους / αὐγὰς ἀπείρξω σὴν πρόσοψιν εἰσιδεῖν, Eur. Hec. 1103–4 πυρὸς ϕλογέας ἀϕίησιν / ὄσσων αὐγάς, Her. 131–2 ἴδετε πατέρος ὡς γορ/γῶπες αἵδε προσϕερεῖς / ὀμμάτων αὐγαί, Ion 1071–2 ζῶσά ποτ᾽ φαεν/ναῖς ἀνέχοιτ᾽ ἂν αὐγαῖς (but the text is uncertain), Pho. 1564 ὄμματος αὐγαῖς, TrGF 397a, quoted above; also Hom. Od. 4.150 ὀϕθαλμῶν … βολαί, HHom.Herm. 45 ὅτε δινηθῶσιν ἀπ’ ὀϕθαλμῶν ἀμαρυγαί, Pind. F 123.3 τὰς δὲ Θεοξένου ἀκτῖνας πρὸς ὄσσων / μαρμαρυζοίσας. The most common interpretation of αὐγαί in our passage as ‘eyesight’, recently adopted by Fries 393–4, assumes the ellipsis of the usual genitive ὀμμάτων/ὄσσων/ὀφθαλμῶν, which is sure in HHom.Herm. 360–1, Aesch. TrGF 99.2, and Eur. Andr. 1179–80, quoted above. Alternatively, Rh. 534–6 has already drawn attention to the faint light preceding dawn, and αὐγαί may designate here the ‘(light‑)rays’ of the approaching dawn or the moonlight (Liapis 272). It must be admitted that αὐγαί ‘light-rays’ is uncommon without an addition specifying to whom or what they belong (as observed by Denniston and Page on Aesch. Ag. 254 τορὸν γὰρ ἥξει σύνορθρον αὐγαῖς, where αὐγαί refers to the light of the dawn). Furthermore, αὐγή is usually a bright glow, and neither the moon-light nor the light of dawn is bright. But the combination of ἀμβλῶπες and αὐγαί may be here a studied oxymoron (Liapis 272); likewise, νυκτὸς ἀμβλωπὸν σέλας at Eur. TrGF 386a, quoted above, and μηνάδος αἴγλη at Rh. 534 perhaps intimate the especially faint light of the waning moon. κοὔ σε γιγνώσκω τορῶς: see 77. 738: cf. Eur. Ion 1106–7 ποῦ κόρην Ἐρεχθέως / δέσποιναν εὕρω;, another entrance question in the deliberative subjunctive, spoken by a servant-messenger. In the pathetic isolation of his grief, the charioteer does not answer the question asked by the chorus (745–6n., Mastronarde (1979) 77).

531

C O M M E N TA RY 7 3 7 – 7 4 0 Transmitted Τρωϊκῶν would fit the metre only if we admit a shortening of omega by epic correption, which is without certain tragic parallels; cf. Jebb on Soph. Ph. 1099–110. We must restore disyllabic Τρώων (Diggle, ed., after Τρώιων (Hermann (1828) 307)). The correct spelling -ωων is attested by all MSS 7x in Eur. and at Rh. 149, 845. The pattern ἄναξ + genitive of the ethnic is common in tragedy: Rh. 407 Θρηικῶν ἄνακτα, Aesch. Sept. 39 Καδμείων ἄναξ, Supp. 328 ἄναξ Πελασγῶν = 616, Soph. El. 483 Ἑλλάνων ἄναξ, Eur. Alc. 510 Θεσσαλῶν ἄναξ, Hcld. 824 Ἀθηναίων … ἄναξ, Supp. 13 = 105 Ἀργείων ἄναξ, Tro. 358 τῶν Ἀχαιῶν … ἄναξ, 413 τῶν Πανελλήνων ἄναξ, IA 414 Πανελλήνων ἄναξ.90 Therefore Τρώων should be interpreted as a noun (‘one of the chiefs of the Trojans’), with Fries 394, rather than an adjective (‘one of the Trojan chiefs’), with Kovacs 431 and Liapis 273. 739–40 δῆθ᾽: δῆτα has a logical-connective force, pointing out that the question springs from something which another person or, more rarely as here, the same speaker has just said (Denniston (1954) 269). After asking at 738 where he can find any of the leaders, the charioteer spells out that he is looking for the man in command. τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κοῖτον ἰαύει;: The verb means ‘sleep’, sometimes the sleep of death (HHom.Herm. 289 μὴ πύματόν τε καὶ ὕστατον ὕπνον ἰαύσεις, Theocr. 3.49 ὁ τὸν ἄτροπον ὕπνον ἰαύων, Posid. 100.1 Austin-Bast. τὸν ἥσυχον ὕπνον ἰαύειν) or more often a nocturnal sleep (Il. 9.325 = Od. 19.340 ἀΰπνους νύκτας ἴαυον, HHom.Aphr. 177 νήγρετον ὕπνον ἰαύεις, Soph. Aj. 1203–4 ἐννυχίαν τέρψιν ἰαύειν, Callim. Aet. F 75.2 Harder προνύμφιον ὕπνον ἰαῦσαι). The cognate accusative ὑπασπίδιον κοῖτον is used here (as in most occurrences), to specify the quality of the sleep – here to emphasise that Hector sleeps ready for battle, see below.91 κοῖτος, a synonym of ὕπνος, is confined to epic (and Ionic: Hdt.), and goes well with the mainly epic word ἰαύει. ὑπασπίδιον ‘covered by the shield’ specifies the way in which Hector sleeps; cf. 123–4 στρατὸν μὲν ἥσυχον παρ’ ἀσπίδας / εὕδειν. At Hom. Od. 14.474–9 Odysseus and his companions sleep under their shields (probably ‘figure-of-eight’ man-covering shields) to protect themselves from the cold on a wintry night spent outdoors: ὑπὸ τεύχεσι πεπτηῶτες / κείμεθα· νὺξ δ᾽ ἄρ’ ἐπῆλθε κακὴ Βορέαο πεσόντος, / πηγυλίς, αὐτὰρ ὕπερθε χιὼν γένετ᾽ ἠΰτε Cycl. 599 ἄναξ Αἰτναῖε, addressed to Hephaestus, is an exception confirming the rule, as ἄναξ is used there in a non-political but hieratic sense, ‘sire’. 91 As Σ exeg. Hom. Il. 10.152–3 comments apropos of Diomedes, who sleeps with his arms: ἴσως ἐμϕαίνοντος τοῦ ποιητοῦ καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸ ἀνδρεῖον Διομήδους καὶ ἕτοιμον εἰς μάχην· διὸ καὶ τὰ ἐναντία ἑξῆς ϕησι περὶ Θραικῶν ὡς ψέγων ‘ἔντεα δέ σϕιν / καλὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖσιν χθονὶ κέκλιτο εὖ κατὰ κόσμον’ (Il. 10.471–2). 90

532

C O M M E N TA RY 7 4 0 – 7 4 6 πάχνη, / … καὶ σακέεσσι περιτρέϕετο κρύσταλλος. / ἔνθ᾽ ἄλλοι πάντες … / ηὗδον δ᾽ εὔκηλοι, σάκεσιν εἰλυμένοι ὤμους. Before Rh., only the adverbial neuter ὑπασπίδια is attested, in Hom. (Il. 13.158, 807, 16.609), always with the participles προποδίζων or προβιβάς to designate a warrior who approaches enemy ranks under the cover of the shield. The adjective has the same meaning ‘under the shield’ at Asius PEG 13.7, where it qualifies πολεμιστής; at Soph. Aj. 1408 τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κόσμον φερέτω it refers to the body-armour that is worn ‘under the shield’. 741–4 Similarly at 2–6, after mentioning Hector first of all, but before addressing him (perhaps because they cannot see him yet), the watchmen wonder whether they have to approach a subordinate commander. διόπων ‘commanders’ (from δίοπος), was restored by Portus (1599) 71 for transmitted unmetrical διοπτῶν (from διόπτης = διοπτήρ ‘scout’). It is probably a back-formation from διέπειν (cf. Hom. Il. 2.207 ὅ γε κοιρανέων δίεπε στρατόν, 24.247 σκηπανίωι δίεπ᾽ ἀνέρας, Sud. δ 1190 Adler δίοπος· ὁ διέπων), like ἐνοπή from ἐνέπειν (Clay (1960) I.55). It is not attested before tragedy: Aesch. Pers. 44, TrGF 232 (TrGF 269 ἀδίοπον), Eur. TrGF 447. It is also found at Hippocr. Epid. 5.74, 7.36 (of the commander of a ship). οἷά τις ἡμᾶς / δράσας ἀφανῆ … φανερὸν / … πένθος τολυπεύσας: the juxtaposition of ‘unseen’ and ‘obvious’ recalls Eur. Hipp. 1288–9 ψευδέσι μύθοις ἀλόχου πεισθεὶς / ἀϕανῆ; ϕανερὰν δ᾽ ἔσχεθες ἄτην and El. 1190–2 ἰὼ Φοῖβ᾽, ἀνύμνησας δίκαι᾽ / ἄϕαντα, ϕανερὰ δ᾽ ἐξέπρα/ξας ἄχεα. The charioteer reports only what he has seen, but he does not know who is responsible; as observed by Barrett (2002) 189, a messenger who does not know is the most pointed example of the instability of understanding. The verb τολυπεύειν is a Homerism, found in Classical Greek only here and at Aesch. Ag. 1032 (ἐκτολ-) and Ar. Lys. 587. Originally from τολύπη ‘skein of wool’ (but that seems to be forgotten already in the Homeric instances: cf. Wilamowitz on Ar. Lys. 578, the verb means ‘unravel’ or ‘accomplish’ a difficult task (it is often glossed κατεργάζεσθαι by the lexicographers) and usually has an object referring to the task in question (πóλεμον, πόνον, δόλους). The combination of τολυπεύω with πένθος, focusing on the result for the victim, is comparable with Hom. Od. 19.137 ἐγὼ … δόλους (v.l. δόλον) τολυπεύω (Penelope ‘accomplishes tricks’ for the suitors; cf. Müller (1974) 206). φανερὸν πένθος may have sounded Euripidean: Hipp. 1289 and El. 1191, quoted above, Ion 945 σοι ϕανερὰ σημαίνω κακά, Pho. 1513 ἄχεα ϕανερά, 1565 ϕανερὸν κακόν. 745–6 κακὸν κυρεῖν τι Θρηικίωι στρατεύματι / ἔοικεν ‘some mischief seems to be affecting the Thracian army.’ For κυρεῖν ‘affect’, either positively or negatively, cf. Aesch. Sept. 22–3 πυργηρουμένοις / καλῶς τὰ πλείω πόλεμος ἐκ θεῶν κυρεῖ, Cho. 13 δόμοισι πῆμα προσκυρεῖ νέον, Eur. IT 875 τίς τύχα μοι συγκυρήσει;.

533

C O M M E N TA RY 7 4 5 – 7 4 7 Lines 745–6 and 754–5 are not replies to the charioteer (note the demonstrative τοῦδε at 747 and the third-person forms at 754–5), but rather comments of the chorus – asides, which need not to be interpreted as addressed to the audience (cf. Bain (1975)). The pathetic isolation of the charioteer was suggested already at 738, when he failed to reply to the chorus’ question. We should expect an aorist, if the chorus already understood that Rhesus and some Thracians were dead; with the present κυρεῖν we should rather suppose that, at this point in the very lacunose presentation of the facts by the charioteer, who has referred not only to Rhesus (733) but also to the Thracians in general (732, 744), the watchmen cannot tell whether he is referring to some specific disaster that Rhesus had suffered or, for instance, to an ongoing attack on the Thracians. οἷα τοῦδε γιγνώσκω κλύων: cf. Soph. Ant. 998 γνώσηι … κλυών, Ph. 680 οἶδα κλυών, OC 53 πάντ᾽ ἐπιστήσηι κλυών. Differently from οἶδα … κλυών at 573, 858 and from 109, 286 (see 109–10a n.), present κλύων expresses here the continuity of hearing in parallel to governing γιγνώσκω that conveys progressive knowing, and should thus keep the transmitted paroxytone accentuation (cf. West (1984) 176). οἷα has a causal-exclamatory sense, frequent in contexts expressing emotions (here wonder and concern), properly ‘such things I am learning …’. Cf. 896–8, Hom. Il. 24.629–30 Πρίαμος θαύμαζ᾽ Ἀχιλῆα / ὅσσος ἔην οἷός τε, Aesch. PV 908–9 ἔσται ταπεινός, οἷον ἐξαρτύεται / γάμον γαμεῖν, Eur. Hipp. 878–80 ἀπὸ γὰρ ὀλόμενος οἴχομαι, / οἷον οἷον εἶδον γραϕαῖς μέλος /ϕθεγγόμενον, Hel. 74–5 θεοί σ᾽, ὅσον μίμημ᾽ ἔχεις / Ἑλένης, ἀποπτύσειαν, Dion. Hal. AR 13.5.2 ὀλοφυρομένους ... οἵου στέρεσθαι μέλλοιεν ἀνδρός, KG II.370–1, Barrett on Hipp. 877–80, Kannicht on Hel. 74–5. 747–9 ἔρρει στρατιά In Aesch. Pers. 732 Βακτρίων δ᾽ ἔρρει πανώλης δῆμος (also 255 στρατὸς γὰρ πᾶς ὄλωλε βαρβάρων, 278–9 πᾶς δ᾽ ἀπώλλυτο / στρατός) and Eur. Tro. 107 πατρὶς ἔρρει καὶ τέκνα καὶ πόσις the Persian army and Troy are truly annihilated. But in our case, even if στρατιά refers only to the Thracians (Liapis 287), the statement seems hyperbolic: Odysseus and Diomedes had certainly not destroyed the whole Thracian army. Emotional hyperbole is not uncommon in tragedy: Eur. Hel. 73–4 ἥ (scil. Helen) μ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν / πάντας τ᾽ Ἀχαιούς, 598 πᾶσαν πλανηθεὶς τήνδε βάρβαρον χθόνα (with Kannicht ad loc.), Fries 419. But στρατιά here, like στρατός at 810, which also has no determinative article, may have the collective meaning ‘soldiers’, and not point to the whole army. The present ἔρρει is a typical verb of tragedy (Aesch. 5x, Soph. 7x, Eur. more than 20x), especially in the perfective sense ‘is gone to ruin’. δολίωι πληγῆι ‘by a sly blow’, as Rhesus had not been killed in fair fight. Although δόλιος can be (and in Hom., prose, and comedy often is) a three-termination adjective, tragedians never use the feminine terminations for it, and

534

C O M M E N TA RY 7 4 9 – 7 5 3 only adopt them occasionally with other adjectives in ‑ος that could have separate feminines. Thus we find Hom. Od. 4.455 δολίης … τέχνης, but Eur. Alc. 33–4 δολίωι / … τέχνηι, Eur. Hel. 623 ὦ ποθεινὸς ἡμέρα but Ar. Pax 556 ὦ ποθεινὴ … ἡμέρα. This morphologic choice may be rooted in the tradition of choral lyric, as Bacch. 17.116 δόλιος Ἀφροδίτα is the first to attest the two-termination declension ‑ιος/-ιον; cf. Κastner (1967) 97. ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ: The fourfold repetition of ἆ is here used to indicate distress (as at Soph. Ph. 732, 739); cf. Stevens on Eur. Andr. 1076. On other emotional connotations that this exclamation can convey, see 687n. 750–1 οἵα is exclamatory. ὀδύνη τείρει is repeated by the charioteer at 799. Both terms are used in connection with the stabbing pain of wounds. In most of its twenty-five Homeric occurrences ὀδύνη refers to these pains: e.g., Il. 4.190–1, 11.267–8, 16.523–4. The epic τείρειν often conveys post-traumatic physical distress (cf., e.g., Il. 5.352, 391, 8.81, 11.283, 13.251). For the combination of the two terms, e.g., Il. 15.60–1 ὀδυνάων / αἳ νῦν μιν τείρουσι κατὰ ϕρένας, Od. 9.440–1 ὀδύνηισι κακῆισι / τειρόμενος, Ap. Rh. 3.761–2 (of the metaphorical wound of love) ἔνδοθι δ᾽ αἰεί / τεῖρ᾽ ὀδύνη). Cf. Mawet (1979) 37–51, 390–1. φονίου τραύματος: cf. Aesch. Cho. 312–13 ἀντὶ δὲ πληγῆς ϕονίας ϕονίαν / πληγήν, Eur. IT 1374 κάθαιμ᾽ ἔχοντες τραύματ(α). On φόνιος, cf. 546–50n. εἴσω: absolute adverb, ‘well inside’ the body, as at Aesch. Ag. 1343 πέπληγμαι καιρίαν πληγὴν ἔσω and Eur. Hel. 354–6 ξιϕοκτόνον διωγμὸν/ …/ αὐτοσίδαρον ἔσω πελάσω διὰ σαρκὸς ἅμιλλαν. Poetic language also adopts ἔνδοθι for the same idea: cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 1.243, 22.243–4 ἐμὸς ἔνδοθι θυμὸς ἐτείρετο, Od. 8.577. πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμην; ~ Eur. Alc. 864, Med. 97, Supp. 796. Such phrases are tantamount to wishes, and often have a tone of resignation that makes them implicitly unattainable wishes (not the case here, but the charioteer has a second, more specific, death wish at 869). They are sometimes found in kommoi (Collard on Eur. Supp. 794–7). πῶς ἄν + optative is a tragic idiom, very rare in comedy (certainly paratragic at Ar. Th. 22–3); cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 622, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 388–91. 752–3 A rhetorical question, with an implied negative answer. It highlights the deep sorrow that he feels over what has happened; likewise Eur. El. 1044–5 εἶτα τὸν μὲν οὐ θανεῖν / κτείνοντα χρῆν τἄμ᾽, ἐμὲ δὲ πρὸς κείνου παθεῖν…;.The particle γάρ connects the deaths of Rhesus and the charioteer to the wish expressed in the previous line. In the anxiety of that terrible night, the charioteer believes that his wound is mortal (again at 869–70). Τροίαι κέλσαντ᾽ ἐπίκουρον: Τροίαι is construed with ἐπίκουρον as dative of interest, indicating in whose interest the ‘landing’ takes place (cf. 598–9 σύμμαχον / Τροίαι, Hom. Il. 21.431 ἦλθεν Ἄρηι ἐπίκουρος), or it is locatival

535

C O M M E N TA RY 7 5 2 – 7 5 3 dative of the place of arrival. κέλσαι, usually taken as equivalent to κέλσαι νῆα ‘beach a ship’, must here be interpreted as metaphorical for ‘arrive’. The choice of a verb evoking nautical imagery (here and at 898 and 934) is remarkable, as Rhesus did not ‘land’ at Troy: after crossing the Bosporus by ship (436) he made his way through Asia Minor before reaching Troy (437). When the place where someone lands is specified, κέλλειν usually takes a prepositional phrase with, e.g., ἐπί, εἰς, πρός (cf. 898), or the accusative of end of motion (see 934–7n.). Eur. El. 135–9 ἔλθοις … /… λυτήρ, / ὦ Ζεῦ Ζεῦ, πατρί θ᾽ αἱμάτων / αἰσχίστων ἐπίκουρος, Ἄρ/γει κέλσας πόδ᾽ ἀλάταν is a close parallel for the metaphorical use of the verb ‘land the foot’ = ‘arrive’, where πόδ(α) obliterates the original nautical sense, and for the dative Ἄργει. The participle κέλσαντ(α) is usually taken as temporal: ‘after having landed’ (Kovacs 433, Liapis 274, Fries 398). As observed by Feickert 316–17, the phrase would be more pointed if it had a concessive nuance and contrasted with ἀκλεῶς: Rhesus’ initiative of coming to help Troy as an ally should have brought him glory, not the ‘inglorious’ death that he met. A close parallel for the contrast between merit or desire for glory and the reality of inglorious death is found at Aesch. Pers. 441–4 Περσῶν ὅσοιπερ ἦσαν ἀκμαῖοι φύσιν / ψυχήν τ᾽ ἄριστοι κεὐγένειαν ἐκπρεπεῖς, / ... / τεθνᾶσιν αἰσχρῶς δυσκλεεστάτωι μόρωι (compare the different death of Syennesis at Pers. 326–8, a man who could give the enemy a hard time: πρῶτος εἰς εὐψυχίαν, / … εἷς ἀνὴρ πλεῖστον πόνον / ἐχθροῖς παρασχών, εὐκλεῶς ἀπώλετο). At Hdt. 9.72.2 the Greek Callicrates was accidentally wounded by an arrow away from the battlefield at Plataea, and thus he ἐδυσθανάτεέ τε καὶ ἔλεγε … οὐ μέλειν οἱ ὅτι πρὸ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀποθνήισκει, ἀλλ’ ὅτι οὐκ ἐχρήσατο τῆι χειρὶ καὶ ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστί οἱ ἀποδεδεγμένον ἔργον ἑωυτοῦ ἄξιον προθυμεομένου ἀποδέξασθαι. According to a widespread ideology of death and glory, a man suffers an inglorious death when he has not accomplished any great deeds or has chosen not to fight (see, e.g., Agamemnon’s wish at Eur. IA 17–18 ἀκίνδυνον / βίον ἐξεπέρασ᾽ ἀγνὼς ἀκλεής and Lycurg. 91 ἵν᾿ ἐπειδὴ τὸν εὐκλεᾶ κίνδυνον ἔϕυγε, τοῦ ἀκλεοῦς καὶ ἀδόξου θανάτου τύχοι). Glory is the opposite consequence of a death associated with great deeds: Hom. Il. 22.303–5 (last words of Hector in dialogue with Achilles) νῦν αὖτέ με μοῖρα κιχάνει. / μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδεί γε καὶ ἀκλειῶς ἀπολοίμην, / ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξας τι καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι, Hdt. 9.17.4 κρέσσον … ποιεῦντάς τι καὶ ἀμυνομένους τελευτῆσαι τὸν αἰῶνα ἤπερ παρέχοντας διαϕθαρῆναι αἰσχίστωι μόρωι, Isocr. 5.135 ἴδοις δ᾿ ἂν καὶ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τοὺς ἐπιεικεστάτους ὑπὲρ ἄλλου μὲν οὐδενὸς ἂν τὸ ζῆν ἀντικαταλλαξαμένους, ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ τυχεῖν καλῆς δόξης ἀποθνήσκειν ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις ἐθέλοντας. Eur. is the only tragic author to use ἀκλεής/ἀκλεῶς, always in connection with death: Hipp. 1028 ἦ τἄρ᾽ ὀλοίμην ἀκλεὴς ἀνώνυμος (with para­tragic Ar. Lys. 853–4), Hcld. 621–4 εὐδόκιμον γὰρ ἔχει θανάτου μέρος / ἁ μελέα … / οὐδ᾽

536

C O M M E N TA RY 7 5 4 – 8 0 3 ἀκλεής νιν / δόξα πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ὑποδέξεται, Or. 786 ὡς ἄνανδρον ἀκλεῶς κατθανεῖν, IA 17–18, quoted above. This may be influenced by the Homeric usage of ἐυκλειῶς and ἀκλειῶς with ὀλέσθαι (Il. 22.110 ὀλέσθαι ἐϋκλείως, 22.304 ἀσπουδεί γε καὶ ἀκλείως ἀπολοίμην) or in contexts of death (Od. 1.239–42 and 14.369–71, quoted in 758–61n.). 754–5 For similar litotes with words derived from the root αἴνιγ-, see Aesch. Ag. 1178–9 and 1183 καὶ μὴν ὁ χρησμὸς οὐκέτ’ ἐκ καλυμμάτων / ἔσται δεδορκώς … ϕρενώσω δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἐξ αἰνιγμάτων, PV 610 οὐκ ἐμπλέκων αἰνίγματ’, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶι λόγωι, 833–4 λαμπρῶς κοὐδὲν αἰνικτηρίως / προσηγορεύθης, Eur. Tro. 625 Ταλθύβιος αἴνιγμ’ οὐ σαϕῶς εἶπεν σαϕές, IA 1146–7 ἀνακαλύψω … λόγους / κοὐκέτι παρωιδοῖς χρησόμεσθ’ αἰνίγμασιν, Alexis, PCG 242.6–7 ἀεὶ σὺ χαίρεις ὦ γύναι μ᾽ αἰνίγμασι ‒/ ⸬ καὶ μὴν ἁπλᾶ γε καὶ σαϕῆ λέγω μαθεῖν, Anaxilas, PCG 22.23 αἳ λαλοῦσ᾽ ἁπλῶς μὲν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αἰνιγμοῖς τισιν, Aeschin. 3.121 οὐ γὰρ δι’ αἰνιγμῶν, ἀλλ’ ἐναργῶς γέγραπται; also Aesch. Supp. 464 αἰνιγματῶδες τοὔπος· ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ϕράσον. αἴνιγμα is the form that is commonest in tragedy; αἰνιγμός is found only here at Eur. Pho. 1353 (not Euripidean), Ar. Ran. 61, and quite often in prose. σημαίνει κακά ~ Hec. 512, Her. 1230, Ion 945 (the phrase is not attested outside Eur., but cf. Aesch. Pers. 253 ἀγγέλλειν κακά, 330 ἀπαγγέλλω κακά). 756–803 Eur. has double messenger-speeches in various of his later plays: IT, Hel., Pho., Bacch. (in Hcld. the pieces of information reported by the servant at 630–747 are not a formal expanded report). According to a useful distinction offered by Taplin (1977a) 82–3, the most frequent kind of messenger, who may be called the ‘aftermath messenger’, arrives after the departure of the major character, who exits to carry out some crucial action, and before his return. The next most common structural function is that of ‘herald’ or ‘advance messenger’, whose speech usually precedes the arrival of a central character. Of the two messengers in Rh., the shepherd (264–341) is an ‘advance messenger’ of good news, the charioteer an ‘aftermath messenger’ of a catastrophe. After his report, the charioteer does not leave the stage. Instead, for almost a hundred lines, he plays a different role as a bitter accuser of Hector (798– 807, 833–81). Messengers always exit in Eur. after their report, or, if they remain on stage, stay silent (Rassow (1883) 12–13). Soph.’s practice is different. For instance in Soph. El. the paedagogus gives his long messenger-report, exits, and re-enters toward the end. 756–61 The iteration of the motif that inglorious death is especially pitiable (752–3 and 756–61) is in accordance with the practice of double treatment of the same motifs in lyric and recitative verse, although the lament of the charioteer only resembles laments in certain respects. All three tragedians alternate sometimes spoken and sung passages expressing similar

537

C O M M E N TA RY 7 5 6 – 7 6 1 motifs, so as to present them from different emotional viewpoints (‘iambic trimeters encourage a more reflective style, after the plangent lyric passage’: Finglass on Soph. El. 254–309, p. 174; also Schadewaldt (1926) 143–4, Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 479–584). Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1072–330, Cho. 456–509, Soph. Aj. 348–484, El. 129–250 and 254–309, OT 1307–415, Ant. 823–928, Tr. 983–1111, Eur. Alc. 244–392, Med. 96–266, Hipp. 198–430. 756–7 ‘It has been a disaster, and, over and above damages, the worst dishonour, that really makes the damage so bad.’ The idea and the syntax recall 102 αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἡμῖν, καὶ πρὸς αἰσχύνηι κακόν. For a fuller presentation of the idea, cf. Aesch. Sept. 683–5 εἴπερ κακὸν ϕέροι τις, αἰσχύνης ἄτερ / ἔστω· μόνον γὰρ κέρδος ἐν τεθνηκόσιν· / κακῶν δὲ κἀισχρῶν οὔτιν’ εὐκλείαν ἐρεῖς. For the phrase κακῶς πέπρακται, cf. Aesch. Ag. 551 εὖ γὰρ πέπρακται, Eur. Med. 364 κακῶς πέπρακται πανταχῆι, Hec. 1038 πέπρακται καίν’ ἔσω δόμων κακά. πρός adverbial = ‘in addition’ is probably a colloquialism, occurring 4x in Aesch., never in Soph., 12x in Eur. and often in comedy (Collard (2018) 123). It seems pleonastic with ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖσι, but cf. Aesch. TrGF 146a πρὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀμφιλαφῆ πήματ᾽ ἔχων (Fraenkel (1965) 238), Ar. Plut. 1001 καὶ πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις εἶπεν, Anaxilas, PCG 24 καὶ πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις. It is often combined with a phrase expressing what is added to but is absolute at, e.g., Eur. Hcld. 641 καὶ πρός γ᾽ εὐτυχεῖς, Hel. 110 καὶ πρός γ᾽ Ἀχαιοί. δὶς τόσον κακὸν τόδε: cf. Soph. Aj. 277 ἆρ᾽ ἐστὶ ταῦτα δὶς τόσ᾽ ἐξ ἁπλῶν κακά, Eur. Med. 1047 δὶς τόσα κτᾶσθαι κακά. 758–61 ‘A death accompanied by honour, if one has to die, is grievous for the one who dies – how could it not be? – but a source of pride for his living kinsmen and of renown for his house. But we perished foolishly and ingloriously.’ Cf. Aesch. Sept. 683–5, quoted in 756–7n. (where the conditional doubt at the beginning parallels the doubt expressed at Rh. 758), Eur. Cycl. 201 εἰ θανεῖν δεῖ, κατθανούμεθ’ εὐγενῶς, Hcld. 449–50 χρῆν χρῆν ἄρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀνδρὸς εἰς ἐχθροῦ χέρας / πεσόντας αἰσχρῶς καὶ κακῶς λιπεῖν βίον, Bacch. 1307 αἴσχιστα καὶ κάκιστα κατθανόνθ᾽ ὁρῶ. The wish that a person could have died in a less inglorious way than he did (‘the opposite of a makarismos’, Kovacs on Eur. Tro. 1167–72) is not uncommon in Greek ritual laments; cf. Aesch. Cho. 345–53, Andr. 1181–5, Tro. 1167–70, quoted below. It is typical of tragedy for a person doomed to die to be consoled by thoughts of glory or good reputation (Adkins (1960) 154–5). And funerals – mainly in the context of family and fatherland – were intended to function as a symbol of the τιμή of the deceased; cf. Morris (1987) 44–54. For the contrast between dignified death at the hands of an enemy on the battlefield or death honours that one can get from one’s family in one’s

538

C O M M E N TA RY 7 5 8 – 7 6 1 fatherland, and forms of unglorious or unhonoured death, such as Rhesus experienced, cf. Od 1.236–42 (of Odysseus, presumed to have been abducted by the Harpies) οὔ κε θανόντί περ ὧδ᾽ ἀκαχοίμην, / εἰ μετὰ οἷς ἑτάροισι δάμη Τρώων ἐνὶ δήμωι / … / τώ κέν οἱ τύμβον μὲν ἐποίησαν Παναχαιοί, / ἠδέ κε καὶ ὧι παιδὶ μέγα κλέος ἤρετ᾽ ὀπίσσω. / νῦν δέ μιν ἀκλειῶς Ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο· / οἴχετ’ ἄϊστος ἄπυστος (~ 14.369–71), 5.306–12 (Odysseus in a storm caused by Poseidon) τρὶς μάκαρες Δαναοὶ καὶ τετράκις, οἳ τότ᾽ ὄλοντο / Τροίηι ἐν εὐρείηι… / ὡς δὴ ἐγώ γ᾽ ὄϕελον θανέειν καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν / ἤματι τῶι ὅτε μοι πλεῖστοι χαλκήρεα δοῦρα / Τρῶες ἐπέρριψαν περὶ Πηλείωνι θανόντι. / τώ κ᾽ ἔλαχον κτερέων, καί μεο κλέος ἦγον Ἀχαιοί, 24.30–4 (Achilles to Agamemnon in Hades) ὡς ὄϕελες τιμῆς ἀπονήμενος, ἧς περ ἄνασσες, / δήμωι ἔνι Τρώων θάνατον καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν· / τώ κέν τοι τύμβον μὲν ἐποίησαν Παναχαιοί, / ἠδέ κε καὶ σῶι παιδὶ μέγα κλέος ἤρε’ ὀπίσσω· / νῦν δ’ ἄρα σ᾽ οἰκτίστωι θανάτωι εἵμαρτο ἁλῶναι, Tyrt. IEG 12.29–34 καὶ τύμβος καὶ παῖδες ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀρίσημοι / … / οὐδέ ποτε κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἀπόλλυται οὐδ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ αὐτοῦ, / ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ γῆς περ ἐὼν γίνεται ἀθάνατος, / ὅντιν᾽ ἀριστεύοντα μένοντά τε μαρνάμενόν τε / γῆς πέρι καὶ παίδων θοῦρος Ἄρης ὀλέσηι, Aesch. Ag. 503–7 ἰὼ πατρῶιον οὖδας Ἀργείας χθονός, /… / πολλῶν ῥαγεισῶν ἐλπίδων μιᾶς τυχών· / οὐ γάρ ποτ᾿ ηὔχουν τῆιδ᾿ ἐν Ἀργείαι χθονὶ / θανὼν μεθέξειν φιλτάτου τάφου μέρος, Cho. 345–52 εἰ γὰρ ὑπ᾽ Ἰλίωι, / … πάτερ, / δορίτμητος κατηναρίσθης· / λιπὼν ἂν εὔκλειαν ἐν δόμοισιν / τέκνων τ᾽ ἐν κελεύθοις / ἐπιστρεπτὸν αἰῶ / κτίσσας πολύχωστον ἂν εἶχες / τάϕον διαποντίου γᾶς, Soph. El. 1131–7 ὡς ὤφελον πάροιθεν ἐκλιπεῖν βίον, / πρὶν ἐς ξένην σε γαῖαν ἐκπέμψαι χεροῖν / … / ὅπως θανὼν ἔκεισο τῆι τόθ᾿ ἡμέραι, / τύμβου πατρώιου κοινὸν εἰληχὼς μέρος. / νῦν δ᾿ ἐκτὸς οἴκων κἀπὶ γῆς ἄλλης φυγὰς / κακῶς ἀπώλου, Eur. Andr. 1182–5 εἴθε σ᾽ ὑπ᾽ Ἰλίωι ἤναρε δαίμων / Σιμοεντίδα παρ᾽ ἀκτάν. / ⸬ οὕτως ἂν ὡς ἐκ τῶνδ᾽ ἐτιμᾶτ’ ἄν, γέρον, / θανών, τὸ σὸν δ’ ἦν ὧδ᾽ ἂν εὐτυχέστερον, Tro. 1167–70 ὦ ϕίλταθ’, ὥς σοι θάνατος ἦλθε δυστυχής. / εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἔθανες πρὸ πόλεως ἥβης τυχὼν / γάμων τε καὶ τῆς ἰσοθέου τυραννίδος, / μακάριος ἦσθ’ ἄν, εἴ τι τῶνδε μακάριον. The discourse of the charioteer is substantially aligned with the ideology of the ‘beautiful death’, elaborated mainly by Tyrtaeus and adapted in the propagandist epitaphioi delivered in Athens and other poleis to celebrate the fallen in battle, and presupposes the idea that an honoured death may be a ‘pleasure’ for the dead and a reason for happiness for him and his family, which the charioteer intimates at 760. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1304 εὐκλεῶς τοι κατθανεῖν χάρις βροτῶι (the chorus to Cassandra, consolingly), Hyper. 6.24 ἆρ᾽ οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν εὐτυχεῖς μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ζῆν ἀπόλειψιν ἀτυχεῖς νομιστέον; οἵτινες θνητοῦ σώματος ἀθάνατον δόξαν ἐκτήσαντο, Dem. 60.32 οἱ δ᾽ εὐδαίμονες τῶι δικαίωι λογισμῶι. πρῶτον μὲν ἀντὶ μικροῦ χρόνου πολὺν καὶ τὸν ἅπαντ’ εὔκλειαν ἀγήρω καταλείπουσιν, ἐν ἧι καὶ παῖδες οἱ τούτων ὀνομαστοὶ τραϕήσονται καὶ γονεῖς οἱ τούτων περίβλεπτοι γηροτροϕήσονται,

539

C O M M E N TA RY 7 5 8 – 7 6 0 παραψυχὴν τῶι πένθει τὴν τούτων εὔκλειαν ἔχοντες (as Loraux (2006) 164 observes, ‘the aim of consolation in every epitaphios is to transmute the parents’ grief into pride᾽). The charioteer’s notion that death is always unwelcome for the deceased, however, may be a marginal challenge to the ideology of the ‘beautiful death’, and the conditional of 758 and the rhetorical question of 759 imply that death should be avoided anyway. εἰ θανεῖν χρεών: εἰ θανεῖν χρεών or εἰ θανεῖν χρή / δεῖ are typical parentheses of Eur.: Cycl. 201, Hcld. 443, Hipp. 442, Her. 147, Ion 1120, 1401, Pho. 1745, Or. 50 εἰ χρὴ θανεῖν νώ; also cf. Soph. Tr. 798 εἴ σε χρὴ θανόντι συνθανεῖν ἐμοί, OC 1441 εἰ χρή, θανοῦμαι. λυπρὸν μὲν, οἶμαι, τῶι θανόντι – πῶς γὰρ οὔ; – / τοῖς ζῶσι δ᾽ ὄγκος will hardly state the possibility that the dead have actual feelings or perceptions, as supposed by Fries 400. Especially in combination with the question ‘how could it not be?’, emphasising that the maxim expresses the common view, it rather states the banal notion that being deprived of life is anyway grievous, but at least a glorious death confers honour to the parents; cf. for instance the remark ‘death is not painful for me (ἔμοιγε οὐκέτι λυπηρὸς ὁ θάνατός ἐστι) if I can see my enemy dying before me’, ascribed to different speakers (a seafarer or a tuna) at Aesop. 68 and 113 Perry. The initial statement λυπρὸν μὲν, οἶμαι, may be reminiscent of Eur. Alc. 353–4 ψυχρὰν μέν, οἶμαι, τέρψιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως …, on the consolation one may find in mourning. Parenthetical οἶμαι, probably a colloquialism, is especially frequent in Eur. (12x; 3x in Aesch., 3x in Soph; cf. Fries 400–1.). It is sometimes ironical (Parker on Eur. Alc. 353–4), but here it denotes a contrast with certainty, although actually making a confident assertion (Collard (2018) 61–2). The steady pace of iambics allows the charioteer to broaden his picture and consider, after the individual dimension of death at 759, the social dimension of honourable death at 760, in a distich which sounds like an epigram. πῶς γὰρ οὔ; ‘How could it not be?’ is a colloquial question with affirmative force, often parenthetical, which is common in Xen. and Pl. (cf. Finglass on Soph. El. 865, Collard (2018) 89). It appears once in Aesch. (Cho. 754), who also has πῶς δ᾽ οὔ (Pers. 1014, Supp. 918, Cho. 123, Eum. 435), and once in Eur. (Bacch. 612), who also has πῶς δ᾽ οὔ once (Hipp. 275), and is more common in Soph. (Aj. 1010, El. 865, 1307, 1448, TrGF 269a32), who also has πῶς δ᾽ οὔ at OT 567, 1015, TrGF 730e.5. ὄγκος … εὐδοξία are the ‘pride’ of the family or the city in those who have died honourably and the ‘good reputation’ that goes together with it; cf. Chaerem. TrGF 71F36.1–2 πλοῦτος … / οὐκ ἔσχεν ὄγκον ὥστε καὶ δόξης τυχεῖν, Alexis, PCG 265.6 (those who walk in a dignified way receive δόξης τιν᾽ ὄγκον), Plut. Nic. 15.2 διὰ τὴν δόξαν ὁ ὄγκος). On εὐδοξία, see 496n.

540

C O M M E N TA RY 7 6 1 – 7 6 9 ἀβούλως κἀκλεῶς ὀλώλαμεν: cf. Pind. Ol. 10.41–2 κεῖνος ἀβουλίαι … / ... θάνατον / αἰπὺν οὐκ ἐξέϕυγεν, Soph. El. 398 καλόν γε μέντοι μὴ ᾽ξ ἀβουλίας πεσεῖν, 428–9 [σε λίσσομαι ... μηδ᾽ ἀβουλίαι πεσεῖν], Eur. TrGF 1077.3 ὤλοντ᾽ ἐρῶντες μειζόνων ἀβουλίαι. ἀκλεῶς concludes the lament for the ingloriousness of Rhesus’ death (and the charioteer’s near death) on the same note with which it began at 752. ἀβούλως suggests the unwariness that the charioteer believes to have caused the slaughter. The εὐβουλία of military leaders is a central theme in Rh.; see Introduction, pp. 41–2, 60–4, 105n., 109–118n. 762–9 In the Il. Dolon pointed to the contrast between the Trojans, who, although they did not have special detachments of sentries, were awake and told one another to keep watch, and the allies, who were sleeping (10.418– 22; see 519–20n.). Odysseus and Diomedes found the Thracians fast asleep, but with their armour and horses properly set in place: οἳ δ’ ηὗδον καμάτωι ἀδηκότες, ἔντεα δέ σϕιν / καλὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖσι χθονὶ κέκλιτο εὖ κατὰ κόσμον / τριστοιχεί· παρὰ δέ σϕιν ἑκαστῶι δίζυγες ἵπποι. / Ῥῆσος δ᾽ ἐν μέσωι ηὗδε, παρ᾽ αὐτῶι δ᾽ ὠκέες ἵπποι / ἐξ ἐπιδιϕριάδος πυμάτης ἱμᾶσι δέδεντο (10.471–5). The narratives of Il. 10 and Rh. both note that the Thracians were sleeping, prostrated by weariness (Il. 10.418 ~ Rh. 764), but they are otherwise divergent, as 764–9 emphasise the lack of sentinels in the Thracian camp and the tragic mistake of Rhesus’ overconfidence about the war. The author may have had in mind Il. 10.12–13, where the Trojans were described as playing instruments and speaking loudly – ill-timed actions interpreted by Hellenistic and perhaps earlier readers as signs of a tragically delusional confidence in imminent victory (Σ Il. 10.13 τὴν βαρβάρων … ἄγνοιαν κωμωιδεῖ (scil. Hom.) ἐν τοιούτωι καιρῶι μουσικευομένων ἐπὶ τοσούτων πτωμάτων). 762–4a ἐπεὶ γάρ Two-thirds of the messenger-reports of Eur. begin with ἐπεί: Cycl. 382; Alc. 158 (ἐπεὶ γάρ), Med. 1136, Hcld. 800 (ἐπεὶ γάρ), Andr. 1085, El. 774, Her. 923, IT 260, 1327, Ion 1122, Hel. 1526, Pho. 1090, 1359, 1428 (uncertain), Bacch. 1043, IA 1543 (ἐπεὶ γάρ), also Soph. Tr. 900, OC 1590, Rijksbaron (1971) 294, De Jong (1991) 34. After the anticipatory announcement at 756–61, ἐπεί marks the opening of the proper narrative. Rather than adapting the messenger’s narrative to the broader picture of the events, ἐπεὶ γάρ frequently connects, as here, the events to be narrated to events that have already been briefly introduced – it connects the narrative to a point in the plot (Rijksbaron (1971) 294–8). The connection here is between the charioteer’s statement at 761 that Rhesus’ death was inglorious and the implication that it was inglorious because the Thracians fell asleep, affected by a false sense of security, and because he negligently failed to give the order to patrol the camp and to sleep with the arms conveniently close by (764–6). Therefore the sense of ἐπεί here is thus both causal and temporal.

541

C O M M E N TA RY 7 6 2 – 7 6 4 ἡμᾶς picks up ἡμεῖς (761). In both cases the pronoun includes the charioteer as well as Rhesus, making it clear that the charioteer participated in the events that he commented on at 761 and will describe in the report – the first-person plural pronoun at the start of the messengers’ reports often has this function (Rijksbaron (1971) 312–17). ηὔνασ': for the corruption to unaugmented εὔνασ᾽, see 580–1n. The verb picks up κατηύνασε (614). Ἑκτόρεια χείρ (Dindorf (iii) III.2.619 for ἑκτορίᾱ or ἑκτορείᾱ in Λ, which do not scan): cf. Bacch. 13.154 [Ἑκτορ]έας ὑπὸ χει[ρός]. Epithets in ‑ειος from proper names do not normally have separate feminine endings in -εία or -ία (see proverbial Ὀδύσσειος μηχανή, Πατρόκλειος πρόφασις, Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη, Ταντάλειοι δίκαι). And feminines in -ειᾰ are usually nouns (cf. βασίλειᾰ ‘queen’, which however appears to be adjectival in the phrase βασίλεια γύναι at Aesch. Pers. 623 and Eur. El. 988). But there are a few exceptional feminine adjectives in -ειᾰ, among which Ἑκτόρεια may belong: Pind. Ol. 10.15 Κύκνεια (conjectural for Κυκνέα) μάχα, 14.19 Μινύεια (‘land of the Minyai’), Ar. Eccl. 1029 ἀνάγκη … Διομήδεια, Etym. magn. 461.44–5 Gaisf. Πολυδεύκεια χείρ and Ἀγαμεμνόνεια χείρ. Cf. Kastner (1967) 63–4, Meschini (1976) 180–3, Barrett (2007) 187 n. 197. Periphrases with χείρ are commonly used in tragedy to convey the idea of vigorous physical activity (cf. 222b–3), and in a tradition reported by Philostr. Her. 38.2, ἐκάλουν … οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ τὸν … ῞Εκτορα χεῖρα τῶν Τρώων. But Liapis 276 rightly observes that the ‘hand of Hector’ must be here a metonymy for the ‘beckoning’ of Hector, with ‘hand’ to be taken as a kinetic expression of authority – of protection (e.g., χεῖρα ἑὴν ὑπερέσχε, said of Zeus at Hom. Il. 9.420) or control (e.g., ὑπὸ χεῖρα ἐποιεῖτο, Xen. Ages. 1.22) or of power in general (e.g., πρὸς ἐμὴν αἰεὶ χεῖρα προχωρῶν, Soph. Ph. 148; τὸν πρὸς ἄλλης δεσποτούμενον χερός, Aesch. Cho. 104). The beckoning of Hector is that which gives the order to Rhesus to encamp for the night with his Thracians and shows him (519 δείξω) the spot where he should set the Thracian camp (Paley 54, Fries 403). 763b–4a ηὕδομεν πεδοστιβεῖ / κόπωι δαμέντες is reminiscent of typical scenes at Il. 10.2 ηὗδον παννύχιοι, μαλακῶι δεδμημένοι ὕπνωι (said of the Greek leaders), 312 = 399 καμάτωι ἀδηκότες αἰνῶι (the Greeks), 471 οἳ δ᾽ ηὗδον καμάτωι ἀδηκότες (the Thracians) and Od. 6.1–2 καθηῦδε … / ὕπνωι καὶ καμάτωι ἀρημένος, 12.281 ἑτάρους καμάτωι ἁδηκότας ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνωι. The participial phrase of Rh. is perhaps the model of Anacreont. 33.4–5 (μερόπων δὲ ϕῦλα) κέαται κόπωι δαμέντα. πεδοστιβής appears always to preserve the idea of motion in the verbal root. It is used of an army at Aesch. Pers. 127, of a chariot at Eur. Med. 1123, of the foot ‘stepping on the earth’ Eur. Hel. 1516, of sandals at Nonn. Dion. 2.596; see 254–5a n.). It can hardly then refer to sleeping soldiers ‘lying on the plain’ (πεδοστιβεῖς MSS), and we should accept the emendation of Morstadt (1827) 45, πεδοστιβεῖ, to be taken with κόπωι, in the sense of (toil)

542

C O M M E N TA RY 7 6 4 – 7 6 7 ‘resulting from marching on the plain’. This aetiological sense of πεδοστιβής is not certainly paralleled elsewhere.92 ἀρειφάτων (of κόπων) at 124 would be a close parallel, if the sense there is (toils) ‘from slaughtering in battle’; but tragic usage suggests that it may be there an epitheton abundans = ‘warlike’; see 123–4n. 764b–7a ἐφρουρεῖτο … / φυλακαῖσι νυκτέροισιν Synonymous combinations of φρουρεῖν/φρουρά and φυλακή/φυλάσσειν are found elsewhere in Eur.: Cycl. 690 ϕυλακαῖσι ϕρουρῶ, Ion 22 ϕρουρὼ … ϕύλακε σώματος, Or. 760 ϕυλασσόμεσθα ϕρουρίοισι, TrGF 754b.12 ϕυλάσ[σ]ετα[ι] …ϕρου[ρίο]ισιν. They may reflect military usage: cf. Thuc. 8.62.3 καθίστατο ϕρούριον καὶ ϕυλακὴν τοῦ παντὸς Ἑλλησπόντου. φυλακαῖσι νυκτέροισιν picks up 87–8 νύκτεροι φύλακες. The epithet νυκτερινός was probably standard in military language for night watches: cf. Ar. Vesp. 2 ϕυλακὴν … νυκτερινήν, Xen. Hell. 7.1.16, Oec. 20.8, Cyr. 1.6.43, 5.3.44, Arist. Pol. 1308a.29, Polyb. 6.35.1, 6.37.6, 14.3.6, Diod Sic. 18.40.3. The parallel poetic form νύκτερος, used here, is standard in tragedy (also at 53; Aesch. 5x, Eur. 3x, Soph. 3x; an isolated hexametrical example at Arat. 1023). νυκτερινός never appears in tragedy, whereas Ar. uses it 3x, and νύκτερος only at Ran. 342 in a high-flown prayer. οὐδ᾽ ἐν τάξεσιν / ἔκειτο τεύχη, πλῆκτρά τ᾽ οὐκ ἐπὶ ζυγοῖς / ἵππων καθήρμοσθ᾽ ‘Nor were our arms laid out in order, nor had the goads been fitted upon the yokes of the horses.’ To convey the lack of preparation and the wrong expectation of imminent victory, the author of Rh. reverses the indications of care and good order in the Homeric passage on the arms and horses of Rhesus and his Thracians at Il. 10.471–5, quoted in 762–9n. And so ἐν τάξεσιν should be taken in the sense ‘each in its orderly line’, perhaps modelled on ἔντεα … κέκλιτο εὖ κατὰ κόσμον / τριστοιχεί of Il. 10.471–3, where τριστοιχεί ‘in three lines’ may have inspired the mention of the τάξεις of the arms.93 With Liapis 277, I assume that in δοριλυμάντους Δαναῶν μόχθους at Aesch. TrGF 131.2 the epithet means ‘toils that destroy spears’ rather than ‘toils resulting from the destruction of spears’. 93 The combination of κόσμος and τάξις is common in classical Greek, and the meanings military ‘rank’ and non-military ‘order’ easily overlap: cf. Hdt. 8.86.1 σὺν κόσμωι ναυμαχεόντων κατὰ τάξιν, 9.59.2 οὔτε κόσμωι οὐδενὶ κοσμηθέντες οὔτε τάξι, Pl. Grg. 504a τάξεως ἄρα καὶ κόσμου τυχοῦσα οἰκία χρηστὴ ἂν εἴη, ἀταξίας δὲ μοχθηρά, 504d ταῖς δέ γε τῆς ψυχῆς τάξεσι καὶ κοσμήσεσιν νόμιμόν τε καὶ νόμος, 506e τάξει … τεταγμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον, Arist. De cael. 301a9–11 τὴν μὲν ἀταξίαν εἶναι κατὰ ϕύσιν, τὴν δὲ τάξιν καὶ τὸν κόσμον παρὰ ϕύσιν; cf. Hom. Od. 15.218 ἐγκοσμεῖτε τὰ τεύχε(α) (= equipment of the ship), with the gloss at Ap. Soph. 62.3 Bekker ἐγκοσμεῖτε· ἐν τάξει θέτε (= Hesych. Lex. ε 250 Latte), and Σ ad loc. κατὰ κόσμον καὶ ἐν τάξει ποιεῖτε. 92

543

C O M M E N TA RY 7 6 7 – 7 7 2 πλῆκτρα: πλῆκτρον, usually meaning ‘plectrum’ for striking the lyre, or ‘spear point’, is here the ‘goad’, more commonly called κέντρον. This meaning is attested for πλῆκτρον only at Suda κ 1338, 1344 Adler; but πλήξιππος is a frequent epithet in Hom., and πλήσσειν means ‘whip’ horses at least at Il. 16.728. καθήρμοστο is pluperfect, for an action that ought to have been finished (but was not) before the ‘sleeping’ of the imperfects at 763 and 769; the two tenses are similarly used at Hom. Il. 10.151–3 ἀμϕὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι / ηὗδον … ἔγχεα δέ σϕιν / ὄρθ᾽ ἐπὶ σαυρωτῆρος ἐλήλατο. It is improbable that the observation about the lack of orderly arrangement of the arms and goads points to the Thracians’ readiness for battle, as supposed by Paley 54 (‘the shields … were not piled, so as to be ready for use at a moment’s notice’). In fact the goads were not fitted on the yoke, so that they were not going to be ready if the chariot had to be used in a hurry. The yoke was the place where the goad was usually fitted (cf. Hom. Il. 23.510 where Diomedes, after the chariot race, κλῖνε … ἄρα μάστιγα ποτὶ ζυγόν), and not fitting it there was a sign of negligence or of excessive confidence that the chariots would not need to be moved during the night. The disastrous result of the poor arrangement of the arms is presented at 793–5a. 767b–9 The charioteer weakly attempts to defend the negligence of Rhesus, and makes his first veiled accusation of Hector: when Rhesus congratulated Hector for his superiority in the war and had described him as προσήμενον / πύργοισιν ἐχθρῶν (390–1), it was because Hector had led him to believe that the war was almost won. ἐπεύθετο: πεύθεσθαι is the epic form of the verb; the tragedians also use the common Attic πυνθάνεσθαι. κἀφεδρεύοντας = καὶ ἐφεδρεύοντας ‘and sitting in wait to attack’ the Greek camp at the right moment, as in an ambush. The verb, in that sense, is a ‘para­ military’ word (Willink on Eur. Or. 1627) from ἕδρα ‘ambush’, first attested in Thuc. 4.71.1, 8.92.8; elsewhere in tragedy it has the primary sense ‘sit on’ (Eur. El. 55) or the metaphorical sense ‘keep watch over’ (Eur. Or. 1627). νεῶν / πρύμναισι ~ 490. φαύλως … πεπτωκότες; cf. Ar. Vesp. 1012 μὴ πέσηι ϕαύλως χαμᾶζ᾽ εὐλαβεῖσθε (metaphorical: the subject of πέσηι is ‘my good advice’). They fell asleep on the ground ‘carelessly’, instead of devoting serious attention to the orderly arrangement of their equipment. If they had not done so, they would have been ready to fight – but they did not believe that an enemy attack was still a real danger. φαῦλος is an antonym of σπουδαῖος, both words denoting ‘an ethical judgement about those to whom they are applied’ (Held (1984) 171–2). 770–2 The messenger of Soph. Shepherds, who is himself a shepherd, had just woken up to feed his goats when he saw Cycnus’ army arriving (TrGF 502):

544

C O M M E N TA RY 7 7 0 – 7 7 2 ἑωθινὸς γάρ, … / θαλλὸν χιμαίραις προσϕέρων νεοσπάδα, / εἶδον στρατὸν, where ἑωθινός ~ Rh. 771 ἑωθινήν (the word is attested nowhere else in tragedy; on Soph. Shepherds as one of the possible models of Rh., see 264–341n., 314–16n.). Feeding the horses belongs in the list of preparations that Agamemnon advises the other leaders to undertake the evening before a battle, together with having supper, sharpening spears, checking shields and chariots, at Il. 2.383: εὖ δέ τις ἵπποισιν δεῖπνον δότω ὠκυπόδεσσιν. The detail of the feeding of Rhesus’ horses inside the camp may perhaps hint at the oracle’s version announcing that Rhesus would have been invincible at Troy, if his horses could ‘drink from the Scamander and the pasture there’; cf. Introduction, pp. 8–9. μελούσηι καρδίαι is an unconventional phrase. Commonly, personal μέλειν means ‘be the object of care or thought’, not actively ‘be concerned for’. In the active sense ‘be concerned for’, it is mainly constructed impersonally, with the object of care in the genitive or governed by a preposition (most often περί). An active use of personal μέλειν ‘care for’ exists, though it is limited to a few poetic passages: e.g., Hom. Il. 5.708 μέγα πλούτοιο μεμηλώς, 13.297 μέγα πτολέμοιο μεμηλώς = 13.469, Aesch. Ag. 369–70 οὐκ ἔϕα τις / θεοὺς βροτῶν ἀξιοῦσθαι μέλειν, Soph. Aj. 688–9 Τεύκρωι … σημήνατε / μέλειν μὲν ἡμῶν, El. 341–2 δεινόν γέ σ᾽ οὖσαν πατρὸς … / κείνου λελῆσθαι, τῆς δὲ τικτούσης μέλειν. In all these passages, however, the object of concern is expressed, whereas in Rh. μελούσηι is used absolutely. Furthermore, the subject of personal μέλειν ‘be concerned with’ is always the person who has the concern in question. In Rh., differently, the subject of μέλει is καρδία, perhaps from a misinterpretation or faulty memory of Aesch. Sept. 287 μέλει, ϕόβωι δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπνώσσει κέαρ, where κέαρ may be wrongly taken as subject of μέλει (Verrall ad loc., p. 270, Fraenkel (1965) 238; Fries (2010) 350). ἐς ἀλκήν (V) or πρὸς ἀλκήν (Λ)? In tragedy, ἐς ἀλκήν 8x in Eur. and πρὸς Eur. 2x, Aesch. 1x.; Thuc. has only ἐς, Hdt. and Diod. Sic. roughly the same number of both. Certainty here is impossible, but one may suspect that πρός is due to assimilation to προσδοκῶν (Liapis (2011) 91–2). ἀφθόνωι μετρῶ χερί: cf. Pind. Ol. 2.93–4 ἄνδρα μᾶλλον / εὐεργέταν … ἀφθονέστερόν τε χέρα, 7.1 ἀφνειᾶς ἀπὸ χειρός, Soph. El. 457–8 ἀϕνεωτέραις / χερσὶ στέϕωμεν, Eur. Med. 612 ἀϕθόνωι δοῦναι χερί. For μετρεῖν ‘measure out’, cf. Ar. Ach. 548 σιτίων μετρουμένων, Av. 580 αὐτοῖς ἡ Δημήτηρ πυροὺς πεινῶσι μετρείτω. The phrases διδόναι σῖτον τῆι μητρί (Dem. 27.15, 29.33) and μετρεῖν σῖτον τῆι μητρί (Dem. 46.20) seem to have been interchangeable technical phrases in fourth-century Athenian legislation. The specific term χόρτος points to the professional competence of the charioteer in feeding his horses – contrast Hom. Il. 2.383, quoted above, where δεῖπνον (commonly of human meals) and general δoῦναι are used.

545

C O M M E N TA RY 7 7 3 – 7 9 8 773–98 describe what the charioteer has seen that night before falling asleep and has dreamt while sleeping, but fails to continue seeing because of the wound inflicted on him immediately after waking up. The integration of the dream with reality is here perhaps stronger than in any other dream of tragedy. The charioteer sees two men prowling about the Thracian army, and continues dreaming that wolves had mounted the horses and are trying to whip them away; at that point he wakes up to defend the horses, and sees the gory slaughter of his master, but falls on his face, wounded, and his visions stop. The dream thus is here a part of a complex experience of vision, and continues to visualise, metaphorically, events and characters who are operating in reality. This report has peculiar features both as a tragic messenger-speech and as the tragic narrative of a dream. The close parallelism between reality and the content of the dream has led Geffcken (1936) 407 to call this dream ‘untragic’. In fact, the charioteer’s report does give the death of Rhesus tragic pathos, but it is so unconventional that it could seem a ‘virtual mockery’ of a conventional tragic messenger-speech (Barrett (2002) 179–80). The charioteer often focuses on his own sufferings rather than simply glorifying Rhesus’ death, and his self-absorbed laments turn the audience’s attention away from Rhesus and overshadow the pathos of his death (for Fries 393 he ‘is more concerned with his own fate than that of his master’). Besides, his professional concern for his horses makes him focus on them rather than on his master: in the dream, the way the wolves seize the horses is allotted more than seven lines (781–8a), but the murder only two (790–1). The speech does not provide the details which we would expect from an informative report about events, and at 800–2 the charioteer admits that he does not know how Rhesus died or who killed him. His involvement in his own narrative far exceeds what is expected of a tragic messenger: he tries to resist the attack of the two Greeks and is wounded, whereas a tragic messenger is usually a spectator of the scene that he describes. At the same time, he sleeps through most of the slaughter that he is supposed to narrate, and seems to bring confusion to the plot of the play, rather than clarity; cf. Strohm (1959) 271–2, Burnett (1985) 34–5, Barrett (2002) 180–8. Some of the faults commonly ascribed to his report may arise from his function in the plot. If he had been an eyewitness to the entire attack, his report would have been much more authoritative and conventional. The author, however, allows him to be an eyewitness only for a while. The fact that he falls asleep makes his role in the events more credible and his misconception more understandable. If he had seen everything and still remained convinced of Hector’s guilt (see his charges at 800–3, 832–76), he would have appeared foolish, and his misconception would have seemed unrealistic. So he fails to observe some details (the identity of the two marauders, for

546

C O M M E N TA RY 7 7 3 – 7 9 8 instance), which remain subject to his ‘conjectural’ reconstruction or are perceived by him only in his dream. This helps to account for his misconception of reality, which remains until the Muse intervenes, so that the debate about the responsibility of Hector can have a high level of dramatic suspense. The way the charioteer presents his report provides evidence of a sort in support of his accusation. δόξα, meaning both ‘opinion’ and ‘dream’, and the parallel verb δοκεῖν, are key terms in the charioteer’s perception of the events both seen and dreamt. When he encounters two suspicious shadows prowling the Thracian army, just before Rhesus is killed, he holds the ‘opinion’ (δοκήσας) that they must be ‘allied’ soldiers (συμμάχων) and calls out to them to move away from the Thracian camp (776–7). His opinion that these two shadows are soldiers from the same side is so strong that he believes he can stop their thievish activity just by shouting at them, and he feels safe enough to go to sleep immediately afterwards. His idea is perfectly logical, because, as he points out at 844–50, the whole Trojan army is camped between the Thracians and the Greek ships, so that no Greek could cross the whole Trojan camp. In fact, he has no evidence to support his identification of the intruders as allies or, later, his accusation of Hector. For this identification of the shadows he relies on logical inference from the position of the camps. As for his identification of the killer or killers of Rhesus, he builds on both what he had seen before falling asleep and what he ‘sees’ in the dream. It is not coincidental that he calls his dream καθ᾽ ὕπνον δόξα at 780, adopts for this δόξα the verb παρίστασθαι, often used of ‘coming to mind’ in the course of rational reasoning (so also for δόξα = logically based ‘opinion’: Soph. OT 911–12, Pl. Phd. 66b, Dem. 23.96), and speaks of ‘viewing’ through his ‘dream’ at 782 (εἶδον, ὡς ὄναρ δοκῶν), drawing a parallel between the uncontrolled ‘interpretation’ of reality in the dream and the conjecture that he had formed while awake (δοκήσας, 777 ~ εἰκάσαι, 802) on the basis of what he saw (λεύσσω, 773). In ancient literature, dreams are more often believed to be experiences of intensified significance than illusive deformation of reality; as a representation of ‘unseen sights’, they offer to dreamers an outline of events that results from what happened to them, and may thus condition them in future actions (cf., e.g., Calabi (1984), Walde (2001) 417–20). For this reason, dreams are often used in poetry, and likewise in everyday life, as turning-points that take stock of a situation between past and future, and as premonitory preparations for and signal of some crucial decision or action on the part of the dreamer (Latacz (1992=1994) 206–10).94

The phenomenon of dreaming was often explained as a cogitative activity. Aristotle’s On Dreams, in particular, shows that the idea of dreaming as a form of conceiving δόξαι was widespread. The aim of this treatise is to demonstrate

94

547

C O M M E N TA RY 7 7 3 – 7 7 6 Furthermore, the credible continuity between the real present seen by the charioteer and his dream images was also probably strengthened by two widespread views of the ancients about dreams that (1) the soul remains active when the body is asleep and performs all the acts (seeing, hearing, feeling) it would perform within the body and continues the perception of what one had recently seen while the body was awake (cf., e.g., Hippocr. Regim. 4.86, Cambiano (1980) 90–3, Hulskamp (2013) 36–8), and that (2) dreams are elicited by the impact on the sleeper of sounds in the real world, converted by the dreamer into appropriate imagery, in this case sounds from the two Greeks’ attempts to drive away the horses (Arist. Insomn. 462a19–26, De divin. somn. 463a7–16, Devereux (1976) 272–3 and 275). Few dreams could be more of a ‘sign’ of reality than the dream of the charioteer, as it develops and interprets events that its dreamer had started to witness when awake. Those listening to his report are left with the feeling that, while it is true that he falls asleep, he does not stop elaborating upon the objective perception of danger that he had when he saw two unidentified men moving around the Thracian camp. Thus even while dreaming he identifies the danger (the theft of Rhesus’ horses). In fact, he adds the idea conceived in sleep (the correct idea that the intruders targeted horses) to the opinion that he had conceived (the wrong idea that the intruders were Trojans), and can credibly conclude with a final interpretative guess against Hector, which synthesises his visions when awake and when asleep (800–3). 773–4a: cf. Soph. OT 1254 εἰς ἐκεῖνον περιπολοῦντ᾽ ἐλεύσσομεν. περιπολοῦνθ᾽ ἡμῶν στρατόν ‘prowling about our army’, looking for something to plunder, as 777 κλῶπας makes clear. Likewise Odysseus suspected that Dolon was a spy or a plunderer when he saw him: Il. 10.342–4. 774b–5 κἀνεχωρείτην πάλιν ‘and returned back’, slightly pleonastic (ἀναincludes the idea of ‘back’). The expression is common in the historians: Thuc. about 10x (and ἐπαναχωρεῖν πάλιν twice), 1x in Xen. (2x ἐπαναχωρεῖν πάλιν), 3x in Hellen. Oxy. In poetry it is found only at Eur. IT 265 and once in Ar. (also ἐπαναχωρεῖν πάλιν once). 776–7 ἤπυσα δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ‘I called loudly to them.’ The verb is attested in Hom., Pind. and tragedy, where it is found in lyrics, with the single exception of our passage (Fraenkel (1910/1912) I.165). Elsewhere ἠπύειν (Doric ἀπύειν) most often governs the accusative; for the dative of the person who is called to, cf. Hom. Il. 18.502 λαοὶ δ᾽ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἐπήπυον ἀμφὶς ἀρωγοί (where the that dreams do not originate just from cogitative activity or from sensory activity. It argues that dreams do not coincide with δόξα, and only the thoughts which accompany them are the fruit of δόξα, but thoughts do not belong in the dream itself (458b15–25). Cf. Fantuzzi (2011c).

548

C O M M E N TA RY 7 7 6 – 7 8 8 dative is probably construed with the preverb ἐπι-), Soph. Aj. 879–87 μοι … ἀπύοι, Eur. Bacch. 984 μαινάσιν δ᾽ ἀπύσει. πελάζεσθαι … πλάθειν: see 13–14n. κλῶπας συμμάχων τινάς: contrast the different expectation of Alexander at 644–5 (ἐχθρῶν τις … ἢ κλῶπες … ἢ κατάσκοποι) or that of Hector at 809–10 (πολεμίων κατάσκοποι). The charioteer explains his reasons for ruling out the possibility of an enemy infiltration at 802–3 and 844–6. 778–9 οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ‘nor indeed’: cf. Hom. Il. 4.512, Eur. Alc. 89; Denniston (1954) 338–9. τὰ πλείονα, to be taken as the object of an unexpressed verb of saying or questioning, like the preceding οὐδέν. We may think that here, simply, τὰ πλείονα = πλείονα, with, e.g., Beare (1910) 108–10, Davies on Soph. Tr. 731, Mastronarde on Eur. Med. 609, but perhaps it is better to suppose, with Page on Eur. Med. 609, Griffith on Soph. Ant. 313–14, Liapis 280, that the phrase blurs the border between πλείονα without article, ‘further’ (the sense needed here), and τὰ πλείονα, ‘the majority’ (here irrelevant), as in praeteritio-type expressions like, e.g., Soph. Tr. 731 σιγᾶν ἂν ἁρμόζοι σε τὸν πλείω λόγον, Ph. 576 μή νύν μ᾽ ἔρηι τὰ πλείον(α), OC 36 πρὶν νῦν τὰ πλείον᾽ ἱστορεῖν, Eur. Med. 609 οὐ κρινοῦμαι τῶνδέ σοι τὰ πλείονα, Isocr. 5.63 τί δεῖ τὰ πλείω λέγειν;. αὖθις ἐς κοίτην πάλιν = Eur. Alc. 188. 780–8 The form and function of the dream are in line with those of the dream of Rhesus described at Hom. Il. 10.494–7 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ βασιλῆα κιχήσατο Τυδέος υἱός, / τὸν τρεισκαιδέκατον μελιηδέα θυμὸν ἀπηύρα, / ἀσθμαίνοντα· κακὸν γὰρ ὄναρ κεϕαλῆϕιν ἐπέστη / τὴν νύκτ᾽, Οἰνείδαο πάϊς, διὰ μῆτιν Ἀθήνης. The contents of the two dreams are different, as are the characters who report them (while the poet of Il. 10 had described the dream of dying Rhesus, yet, as observed by Barrett (2002) 181, ‘in transferring Rhesos’ dream to the charioteer, the play … acknowledges its own inability to include the dream of a dead man’; also Lennig (1969) 210). But each of the two dreams brings about visions mirroring an event that is taking place in reality. The meaning of Il. 10.496 was debated among Hellenistic scholars, who also often suspected 10.497 of being interpolated (the line was not included in the texts of Zenodotus and Aristophanes of Byzantium, and was athetised by Aristarchus). According to Σ exeg. 10.496 κακὸν γὰρ ὄναρ κεϕαλῆϕιν ἐπέστη did not refer to an actual dream, but was simply an idiom meaning ‘something terrible happened to him’ (= death): ὅταν γάρ τις νυκτὸς κακῶι τωι περιπέσηι ϕαμὲν ‘κακὸν ὄνειρον εἶδεν ὁ δεῖνα’. Or we may surmise (with, e.g., Leaf ad loc.) that 10.496, without 10.497, simply introduced, generically, a bad dream Rhesus was having – but an interpolator wanted specifically the Diomedesnightmare and thus added 10.497. A different interpretation was proposed

549

C O M M E N TA RY 7 8 0 – 7 8 3 in Σ D κακὸς ὄνειρος ὁ Διομήδης ἐπέστη αὐτῶι, ὅτι νυκτὸς καθεύδοντα αὐτὸν ἀνεῖλεν. Diomedes then was the κακὸς ὄνειρος, as he appeared to Rhesus like a bad dream exactly at the moment when the real Diomedes was attacking him in reality. The interpretation of Σ exeg. to 10.496 is plausible if 10.497 is not included in the text. Without it, it is not at all clear that Rhesus’ nightmare consisted of the dream image of Diomedes. But if 10.497 was there, including Οἰνεΐδαο πάϊς as subject of ἐπέστη, with κακὸν … ὄναρ in apposition, then the interpretation of Σ D was the most obvious. It is likely that the author of Rh. read 10.497 together with 10.496 in the vulgata preceding the doubts of the Alexandrian scholars. In fact the metaphor in 10.496–7 of Diomedes jumping ‘(like) a bad dream’ upon the sleeping Rhesus exactly at the moment when he was killing him suggested to him the image of the dream-wolves attacking and stealing the horses just when the two wolf-like Greeks attacked Rhesus and took possession of his horses. Cf. Fantuzzi (2011c) 50–2. 780 The phrases regularly used for describing a dream in Hom., Hdt., and tragedy present it as an image (usually the image of a person, but described as that person in flesh) that visits the dreamer from outside and alights on his head or stands over him. The verbs commonly used are, e.g., φοιτᾶν, ἐπισκοπεῖν, προσελθεῖν, ἐπιστῆναι/στῆναι ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς. Here παρίσταται, used elsewhere for emotional reactions (as in Hdt. 7.187.1 οὐδέν μοι θῶμα παρίσταται) but also for ‘thoughts’ coming to mind (see 773–98n.), bridges the gap between dreaming and conjecturing. 781–3 ‘I saw, as one thinks to see in a dream, the horses I reared and drove in the chariot at Rhesus’ side, mounted by wolves sitting on their backs.’ εἶδον, ὡς ὄναρ δοκῶν (scil. ὁρᾶν), with ὄναρ adverbial = ἐν ὀνείρατι (cf. Eur. IT 44 ἔδοξ᾽ ἐν ὕπνωι … οἰκεῖν, Paley 55, Liapis 281). The phrase brings together the two most common descriptions of the experience of vision or dreaming: δοκεῖν ὁρᾶν, which ‘interiorises’ the dream by referring to its noetic aspect (e.g., Aesch, Pers. 188) and ὄναρ ἰδεῖν, which focuses on the dream as a vision of something external to the dreamer (e.g., Ar. Eq. 1090, Vesp. 13); cf. Björck (1946), Kessels (1978) 203), Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 179. Phrases like δοκεῖν ὁρᾶν or that used here blur the boundary between the visual and cognitive dimensions. ἐδιφρηλάτουν: a rare poeticism, found elsewhere at Soph. Aj. 845, Theod. TrGF 72F17 (in both passages with reference to the god Helios); see comm. Prol. 1 ἐπεμβεβῶτας is another poeticism, sometimes used of ‘mounting’ a chariot instead of the more frequent ἐπιβαίνειν. Cf. [Hes.] Scut. 195 = 324 δίϕρου ἐπεμβεβαώς, Eur. Supp. 585 ἁρμάτων τ᾽ ἐπεμβάτην, Bacch. 782 ἵππων ... ἐπεμβάτας. It goes καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (see 471–2n.) with both accusatives, ἵππους (direct object) and ῥάχιν (accusative of extent). These are studiedly placed one at the beginning and one at the end of the long sentence 781–3.

550

C O M M E N TA RY 7 8 3 – 7 8 6 The object of ἐπεμβαίνειν is elsewhere always in the dative or, most commonly when the sense is ‘mount’, the genitive; the emendations ἵπποις (Reiske (1754) 91) and ἵππων (Wecklein 54) are thus attractive. The accusatives may have been generated through the influence of the surrounding accusatives; or the noun may have been wrongly taken with εἶδον. But they are justifiable as governed by the preverb ἐπ-, as with ἐμβαίνειν (cf. Eur. Cycl. 91–2 γῆν / τήνδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτες, Hec. 921–2 ναύταν … ὁρῶν ὅμιλον / Τροίαν ’Ιλιάδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτα, Fries 408), or as a result of the ‘inverse attraction’ of the antecedent from the relative (Moorhouse (1982) 269–70, Diggle (2002)). ἑδραίαν ῥάχιν: the spines of the horses provide seats for the wolves. For the identification of the ἕδρα of the horse with the ῥάχις, cf. Xen. Eq. 5.5–6 ‘the hair of the ῥάχις should never be touched by any implement at all. It has to be rubbed with the hand … for thus the ἕδρα would be least injured’. 784–6 ‘Striking with their tails the hair of the horses’ hides they drove them forward; the mares snorted, breathing fury from their windpipes, and reared back in terror.’ θείνοντε, dual, parallels the dual participles used of Odysseus and Diomedes at Rh. 586, 590, 591, 595, thus reinforcing the symbolic relevance of the two wolves. Also, the unconventional tail-goading may have recalled Odysseus’ use of his bow at Il. 10.500–1 τόξωι ἐπιπλήσσων, ἐπεὶ οὐ μάστιγα ϕαεινὴν / ποικίλου ἐκ δίϕροιο νοήσατο χερσὶν ἑλέσθαι. ἔρρεγκον is not used elsewhere of horses snorting. In everyday language it means ‘snore’; cf. Ar. Eq. 104, 115, Nub. 5, 11, Eup. PCG 289 (said of the auloi), Hippocr. passim. The example at Aesch. Eum. 53, ῥέγκουσι δ’ οὐ πλατοῖσι ϕυσιάμασιν, describing the Erinyes, occurs in a passage characterised by the highest concentration of comic language in the whole Eum.; cf. Fries 409–10. ἐξ ἀρτηριῶν / θυμὸν πνέουσαι: θυμός is the air breathed into the lungs and exhaled from them, often considered the seat of both vital spirit and emotions. When a person is impelled to action or is angry, his θυμός rushes forward with special impetus; cf. Aesch. Sept. 52–3 σιδηρόϕρων γὰρ θυμὸς ἀνδρείαι ϕλέγων / ἔπνει, Cho. 34 ~ 952 κότον πνέων 952, Eum. 840 = 873 πνέω τοι μένος θ᾽ ἅπαντά τε κότον, Eur. Pho. 454 δεινὸν ὄμμα καὶ θυμοῦ πνοάς, Bacch. 620 θυμὸν ἐκπνέων, Ar. Ran. 1016–17 πνέοντας … θυμοὺς ἑπταβοείους, Onians (1951) 46–50, 53–4, 66–9, Caswell (1990) 52–63, Clarke (1999) 75–83. Rhesus’ horses were a chariot-drawing team (Liapis 281) and thus probably reacted badly to being mounted and spurred by the anomalous goad; cf. Pollux, On. 1.210 Bethe οἱ ... θυμοειδεῖς (scil. ἵπποι) ἀγανακτοῦσι πρὸς τὴν πληγὴν ὡς ὕβριν, καὶ ἐκϕέρονται εἰς δρόμον ὑπὸ ὀργῆς … καὶ ἀποσείονται καὶ ἐκϕέρουσι καὶ ἀναχαιτίζουσιν (see Rh. 786), ἱστάμενοι κατὰ τοὺς οὐραίους πόδας. As Xen. Eq. 9.2 observes, ἐστὶ θυμὸς ἵππωι ὅπερ ὀργὴ ἀνθρώπωι. And the dilation of the nostrils (here probably hinted at through the reference to

551

C O M M E N TA RY 7 8 6 – 7 8 9 the impetus of the horses’ breath) is a symptom of equine anger: Eq. 1.10 μυκτῆρές … οἱ ἀναπεπταμένοι τῶν συμπεπτωκότων εὐπνοώτεροί τε ἅμα εἰσὶ καὶ γοργότερον τὸν ἵππον ἀποδεικνύουσι … ὅταν ὀργίζηται ἵππος ἵππωι ἢ ἐν ἱππασίαι θυμῶται, εὐρύνει μᾶλλον τοὺς μυκτῆρας. The transmitted ἀντηρίδων is hardly supported by the obscure Hesych. Lex. α 2648 Latte-Cunn. ἀντήρεις· … ἀντῆρις δὲ ἀντήριδος καὶ σημαίνει τὴν θυρίδα, when ἀντῆρις = ‘small window’ would have to be taken in the unattested sense ‘nostril’. ἀρτηριῶν ‘windpipe’ or (when plural) ‘bronchial tubes’ is a necessary emendation (Musgrave II.411); cf. Soph. Tr. 1054 πλεύμονος … ἀρτηρίας. κἀνεχαίτιζον properly ‘threw the mane back’, in the sense ‘reared back’, thus throwing off the rider (also, used metaphorically, ‘capsize’, ‘overturn’); transitive at Eur. Hipp. 1232 and Bacch. 1072, Dem. 2.9, Men. Sam. 209, absolute, as here, at Soph. TrGF 179, Plut. Mor. 150a. φόβωι expresses the emotional reaction of the horses to the unfamiliar and unconventional riders. φόβην ‘crest’ (Reiske (1754) 91) is possible, as there are late parallels for ἀναχαιτίζειν with κόμην as an internal accusative (Heliod. 2.35, Philostr. iun. Im. 111, II.392.24 Kayser, Philostr. Her. 31.1), but is unnecessary. 787–8 ‘I wake up in defence of the horses from the beasts; for the nocturnal fear urged me on.’ It is very easy to understand με as object of ἐξώρμα. In fact the absolute sense ‘start’ is not appropriate for the verb, as the nightmare has already been described in detail, so ἐξώρμα does not refer to its outset, but to the effect that it is having on the dreamer: ‘roused me to action’. As Liapis (2011) 92 and Fries 410 observe, the emendation of transmitted γάρ to δέ μ᾽, proposed by Platnauer (1964), is appealing but avoidable. ἔννυχος … φόβος is the fear generated by the nightmare: Aesch. Cho. 288–9 μάταιος ἐκ νυκτῶν ϕόβος / κινεῖ ταράσσει, 523–4 ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνειράτων / καὶ νυκτιπλάγκτων δειμάτων πεπαλμένη, PV 657 νυκτίφοιτ᾽ ὀνείρατα, Eur. Hec. 69–70 τί ποτ᾽ αἴρομαι ἔννυχος οὕτω / δείμασι ϕάσμασιν;, Hel. 1190–1 πότερον ἐννύχοις πεπεισμένη / στένεις ὀνείροις…;, adesp. TrGF 375 εἴ σ᾽ ἔνυπνον ϕάντασμα ϕοβεῖ, 626.37 φόβος τις αὐτὴν δεῖμά τ᾽ ἔννυχον πλανᾶι, Hippocr. Int. 48 (VII.286 Littré) ὁκόταν καθεύδηι, ἀναΐσσει ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου, καὶ ϕοβέεται, ὁκόταν ἐνύπνια ἴδηι ϕοβερά; also Soph. El. 410 ἐκ δείματός του νυκτέρου, adesp. TrGF 626.9, Lycophr. 225, HOrph. 3.12, Dumortier (1935) 34. ἔννυχος used of dreams is typical of Eur.: Hec. 69, quoted above, 72 ἔννυχον ὄψιν, Her. 112–13 δόκημα νυκτερω/πὸν ἐννύχων ὀνείρων, Hel. 1190–1, quoted above; also Aesch. PV 645 ὄψεις ἔννυχοι. 789 The agonies of the dying Thracians are emphasised in the Homeric account of the awakening of Rhesus’ cousin Hippocoon at 10.519–21 ὃ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕπνου ἀνορούσας, / ὡς ἴδε … / ἄνδράς τ᾽ ἀσπαίροντας ἐν ἀργαλέηισι ϕονῆισιν; cf. also 10.483–4 τῶν δὲ στόνος ὄρνυτ᾽ ἀεικὴς / ἄορι θεινομένων.

552

C O M M E N TA RY 7 8 9 – 7 9 0 ἐπάρας κρᾶτα: cf. Aesch. Cho. 496 ἆρ’ ὀρθὸν αἴρεις ϕίλτατον τὸ σὸν κάρα;, Eur. Hcld. 635 ἔπαιρέ νυν σεαυτόν, ὄρθωσον κάρα, Hec. 499–500 μετάρσιον / πλευρὰν ἔπαιρε καὶ τὸ … κάρα, Supp. 289 ἔπαιρε … κρᾶτα, Tro. 98–9 πεδόθεν κεφαλὴν / ἐπάειρε. μυχθισμόν is onomatopoeic for the snorting sound ‘μυ μυ’ produced by forcing air from the mouth into the nostrils (cf. Σ Hom. Od. 24.416 μυχμῶι τε· τῶι διὰ μυκτήρων ἄσθματι; Tichy (1983) 149–50). At Hom. Il. 4.20 = 8.457 the verb ἐπέμυξαν represents Hera’s and Athena’s mumbling of protest and disappointment after a sharp speech from Zeus, or perhaps their annoyed thrusting out their lips as if saying μυ; cf. Stanford (1967) 106. μυχμός at Od. 24.415–16 ὁμῶς ἀϊόντες ἐϕοίτων ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος / μυχμῶι τε στοναχῆι may suggest the resentment that underlies the mourning of the families of the suitors. The verb μύζειν appears to be used of a disappointed grumbling of protest at Ar. Th. 231 Μῦ μῦ ⸬ Τί μύζεις; πάντα πεπόηται καλῶς, and iterated μυ at Ar. Eq. 10 mimics a plaintively threnodic sound (cf. 11 τί κινυρόμεθ᾽ ἄλλως;), perhaps the sound of the aulos; cf. Labiano Ilundain (2000) 243–5. Elsewhere in tragedy only in Aesch.: μυχθίζειν TrGF 461, μύζεσθαι Eum. 118 (the Erinyes’ whining; μυγμός appears at 117, 120, 129 as a stage direction), μύζειν Eum. 189 (piteous groans from impaled men), ἀναμυχθίζειν PV 743 (grief over Io’s disgrace). Here μυχθισμός stands for the ‘laboured breathing’ of the men in their death-agony (Pearson (1917b) 61, Liapis 282–3). This detail may have been modelled on the agony of Rhesus at Il. 10.495–6 (quoted in 780–8n.), but shifts his writhing (ἀσθμαίνοντα) from the kinetic to the acoustic dimension. νεκρῶν: not, as more commonly, ‘dead’, but ‘dying’ – here, as at Antiph. 2.4 (νεκροῖς ἀσπαίρουσι), Thuc. 2.52.2 (νεκροὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις ἀποθνήσκοντες). 790–1 ‘And a warm gush of fresh blood hit me from the slaughter of my master as he was dying in agony.’ Parallels for the murder described in ‘horrifying clinical detail’ (Foley (1985) 43–6) that heighten the macabre atmosphere of especially cruel and morally questionable killings are in tragedy the sacrifice of Polyxena at Eur. Hec. 566–8 (ὁ δ᾽ οὐ θέλων τε καὶ θέλων οἴκτωι κόρης / τέμνει σιδήρωι πνεύματος διαρροάς· / κρουνοὶ (as in Rh.) δ᾽ ἐχώρουν), Clytemnestra hit by the blood from Agamemnon’s dying body at Aesch. Ag. 1389–90 (κἀκϕυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν αἵματος σϕαγὴν (ῥοὴν Nauck) / βάλλει μ᾽ ἐρεμνῆι ψακάδι φοινίας δρόσου), and the death of Agamemnon at Eur. El. 841–3 (ἐς σϕονδύλους ἔπαισε, νωτιαῖα δὲ / ἔρρηξεν ἄρθρα· πᾶν δὲ σῶμ᾽ ἄνω κάτω / ἤσπαιρεν ἠλέλιζε δυσθνήισκων ϕόνωι, sharing with Rh. the rare and anomalous participle δυσθνήισκων). κρουνός, a formation parallel to κρήνη, is a poeticism used in particular to designate the spring-head, i.e., the jet of water at the point where the spring surfaces from the rock or earth. This specialised meaning is clear at Hom. Il. 4.452–4 (χείμαρροι … κρουνῶν ἐκ μεγάλων), 22.147–8 (κρουνὼ … ἔνθα δὲ

553

C O M M E N TA RY 7 9 0 – 7 9 2 πηγαὶ … ἀναΐσσουσι), Pind. Pyth. 1.25 (κρουνοὺς … δεινοτάτους), [Pl.] AP 9.823.2 = FGE 631. The word probably connotes here the impetus of the gushing blood, as ῥοή in Soph. Ant. 1238–9 ϕυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν ἐκβάλλει ῥοὴν / λευκῆι παρειᾶι φοινίου σταλάγματος. It occurs elsewhere in classical Greek only at Soph. Tr. 14 (streams of water) and Eur. Hec. 568 (gush of blood). δεσπότου παρὰ σφαγῆς and δεσπότου πάρα σφαγαῖς are emendations proposed by Musgrave (1778) 411 and Hermann (1828) 30 for the transmitted δεσπότου παρὰ σφαγαῖς. In Musgrave’s text (with σφαγῆς ‘slaughter’ governing the objective genitive δεσπότου) the hemistich explains the provenance of the stream of blood. Hermann’s σφαγαῖς is locatival dative (plural perhaps to designate the place of the slaughter: Judet De La Combe (2001) 629) and governs αἵματος, as at Aesch. Ag. 1389 (cf. Meschini (1975) 224), which however may be corrupt. In the text of the MSS (which the scholia presupposed), as well as in Hermann’s, the focus is on the position of the charioteer ‘beside his master’. But the source of the gushing blood is more relevant than the charioteer’s position, which could be easily deduced from the fact that he is hit (Liapis (2011) 93). Further, this word order would be anomalous: postponed prepositions with anastrophe, while used freely at the end of trimeters, are rarely found in mid-line (Denniston on Eur. El. 574, Diggle ed., app.). δυσθνήισκοντος ‘dying in agony.’ Compound verbs, unless the first component is a preposition, are most often denominative and normally end in -έω (‘Scaligeri praeceptum’ according to Lobeck (1820) 266, 487–9, 616, 629– 31; cf. KB II.260, 336–7). The canonical formation would be δυσθανατεῖν, attested in prose (Pl. Resp. 406b, Plut. Ant. 77.2 πεϕυρμένος γὰρ αἵματι καὶ δυσθανατῶν). δυσθνήισκειν is an isolated anomaly here and Eur. El. 843, quoted above (Fraenkel (1965) 231), unless δυσθνήισκουσα (Enger) is read for transmitted συνθνήισκουσα at Aesch. Ag. 819, which may then have been the model of both our passage and Eur. El. 843 (Fries 412). 792 ὀρθὸς δ᾽ ἀνάισσω is a poetic idiom: Hom. Od. 21.119 ὀρθὸς ἀναΐξας, Eur. Hel. 1600 ὀρθοὶ δ᾽ ἀνῆιξαν πάντες (in both passages the seizing of arms takes place at the same time as the action of standing up, as the arms are meant to be close at hand, unlike those of the charioteer here and of the Thracians in general at Rh. 765–6), Pho. 1460 ἀνῆιξε δ’ ὀρθός, Bacch. 693 ἀνῆιξαν ὀρθαί, Nonn. Dion. 25.513 ὄρθιος ἀίξας. 793–5a Diomedes attacks the charioteer, who cannot defend himself as he is still unarmed (see 792n.). Liapis 284 is right to note that αὐγάζοντα does not mean ‘look around for’, as some have taken it, but ‘see distinctly’ or, better, ‘set one’s eyes on’; it may also have an inchoative nuance (‘I strove to catch sight of my spear’, Porter 82). θηρώμενον may also have an inchoative sense ‘try to catch hold of ’, and not the usual meaning ‘chase’. Alternatively, the phrase may be a hysteron proteron, emphasising the action on which more

554

C O M M E N TA RY 7 9 3 – 7 9 6 stress is laid (see 70–1n.); cf. Hom. Od. 5.264 εἵματά τ᾽ ἀμφιέσασα θυώδεα καὶ λούσασα, 12.134 θρέψασα τεκοῦσά τε, Eur. Hcld. 307–8 δότ᾽… αὐτοῖς χεῖρα δεξιάν, δότε … καὶ πέλας προσέλθετε, Andr. 589 ψαῦσον … καὶ πέλας πρόσελθε, Supp. 919–20 σ᾽ ἔτρεϕον ἔϕερον ὑϕ᾽ ἥπατος / πόνους ἐνεγκοῦσ᾽ ἐν ὠδῖσι, El. 969 ἔθρεψε κἄτεκεν, Or. 814–15 θοινάματα καὶ / σϕάγια γενναίων τεκέων. παίει παραστὰς … ξίφει The Iliadic Diomedes killed the Thracians with his sword, accosting them one after the other: Hom. Il. 10.489 ὅν τινα Τυδεΐδης ἄορι πλήξασκε παραστάς. Cf. also Il. 16.114–15 ἄγχι παραστὰς / πλῆξ᾽ ἄορι μεγάλωι, Philem. PCG 41.5–6 ὁ δ᾽ ἐνήλατ᾽ εὐθύς μοι παραστὰς τῶι σκ[έ]λει / παίει τε λὰξ πύξ. νεῖραν ἐς πλευράν ‘at the lower part of the flank.’ The wound that Deianeira inflicts on herself at Soph. Tr. 930–1 ὁρῶμεν αὐτὴν … ϕασγάνωι / πλευρὰν ὑϕ᾽ ἧπαρ καὶ ϕρένας πεπληγμένην is similarly localised. νεῖραν (Bothe (i: 1803) 299 for unmetrical νέαιραν; νειράν already Musgrave II.411) is a contraction of νέαιραν. For νείαιρα (γαστήρ) ‘abdomen’, cf. Hom. Il. 5.539 = 5.616, 17.519 νειαίρηι δ᾽ ἐν γαστρί, 5.857 νείατον ἐς κενεῶνα, 16.465 νείαιραν κατὰ γαστέρα (always of wounds). In classical Greek νείαιρα γαστήρ appears to have been a technical phrase of medicine, not common in poetry; cf., e.g., Hippocr. De nat. mul. 12, 27, 46, mul. aff. 1.45, 1.46, 2.116, 2.134. νείαιρα alone was used as a substantive in the same sense; cf. Hippocr. Coac. 579; Callim. Aet. F 43.15 Harder. ἀνὴρ ἀκμάζων ‘a man in his prime’, i.e., one who had attained full body maturity (between thirty and thirty-five years old according to, e.g., Arist. Rh. 1390b9–11) and physical strength, as at Aesch. Pers. 441–2 ὅσοιπερ ἦσαν ἀκμαῖοι ϕύσιν, / ψυχήν τ’ ἄριστοι κεὐγένειαν ἐκπρεπεῖς. The expression may have sounded redolent of military terminology; cf. ἄνδρες ἀκμάζοντες ταῖς ἡλικίαις (Polyb. 30.25.3) and τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀκμάζων/οἱ ἀκμάζοντες ταῖς ἡλικίαις, used of youths fully ready for combat 12x in Diod. Siculus. 795b–6 ‘I felt the blow of his sword, when I received a wound’s deep gash.’ φασγάνου … ἠισθόμην / πληγῆς Cf. Hom. Il. 11.532 τοὶ δὲ πληγῆς ἀΐοντες (said of horses stung by the whip), Eur. Andr. 1074 τοιάσδε ϕασγάνων πληγὰς ἔχει. Eur. is fond of φάσγανον (almost 50x; Soph. 4x, Aesch.1x). βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα τραύματος λαβών: ἄλοξ -οκος is the common tragic form of Hesiodic and comic αὖλαξ, of which the Homeric accusative is ὦλκα. Primarily ‘furrow’ in the soil, cut by a plough, it has various metaphorical applications: e.g., in the air (Ar. Av. 1400); in the sea, made by a ship (adesp. PMG 939.16–17); in the brain, generating good counsel (Aesch. Sept. 593); in a wooden tablet, made by a stylus (Ar. Th. 782); or in the flesh, made by a nail, i.e., a gash (Aesch. Cho. 25 ὄνυχος ἄλοκι νεοτόμωι, Eur. Her. 164 δορὸς ταχεῖαν ἄλοκα, whose interpretation is debated, cf. Bond ad loc.). λαβεῖν τραύματα is idiomatic in classical Attic for a serious injury that is often a prelude to death;

555

C O M M E N TA RY 7 9 6 – 8 0 0 cf. Aesch. TrGF 362.1–2 πολλὰ τραύματ᾽ ἐν στέρνοις λαβὼν / θνήισκει, Xen. Hell. 2.4.3 τραύματα δὲ λαβόντες ἀπῆλθον, 6.4.32 πολλὰ τραύματα λαβὼν ἀπέθανεν, An. 4.6.10.5 τραύματα λάβωμεν, [Pl.] Alc. I 115b τραύματα ἔλαβον καὶ ἀπέθανον. 797–8 ‘I fell on my face, and the men seized the equine team of horses and ran off.’ πίπτω δὲ πρηνής is a Homeric phrase, mainly found with the verb (ἐκ-/ κατα-)πίπτειν (about 10x), most often accompanied by the specification ἐν κονίηισι, and always with reference to the last fall ‘face down’ of a dying warrior. The charioteer continues to hint that he nearly died. ὄχημα πωλικόν … ἵππων develops the tragic phrases composed of ‘chariot’ and an epithet ἵππειος/ἱππικός, like παρ᾽ ἱππείοις ὄχοις of 416 or ὄχημα πωλικόν of 621 (see 301b–2), but the genitive ἵππων of 798 is heavily pleonastic after πωλικόν (Fraenkel (1965) 237–8, Fries 414), as πῶλος and ἵππος are sometimes used as synonyms: Hom. Od. 23.244–6, HHom.Sel. 9–10, Eur. Hipp. 1218–19. ὄχημα πωλικόν may designate the horses only and not the chariot; see 620–2n. The Iliadic Odysseus and Diomedes seize only the horses of Rhesus, and appear to have left the chariot behind (10.500–1). And Athena had promised them only the horses at Rh. 616–21. ἵεσαν φυγῆι πόδα: cf. Hom. Il. 10.358–9 λαιψηρὰ δὲ γούνατ᾽ ἐνώμα / ϕευγέμεναι, Soph. OT 468 ϕυγᾶι πόδα νωμᾶν, Eur. Supp. 718 μόλις δέ πως ἔτρεψαν ἐς ϕυγὴν πόδα, Or. 1468–9, Bacch. 436–7, TrGF 495.33. To take πόδα with ἵππων and the verb as transitive ‘send to flight the feet of the horses’ (Paley 56) would be anomalous (Fraenkel (1965) 237–8). Periphrases with πόδα are synecdoches for the person going or coming and thus always designate the motion of their subjects (cf. Smereka (1936/1937) II.1.71–2 for a list of the occurrences in tragedy). 799 ‘Ah, Ah! pain wears me down and I do not stand any longer upright’ ~ 749–51. Cf. Soph. Ph. 820 τὸ γὰρ κακὸν τόδ’ οὐκέτ’ ὀρθοῦσθαί μ’ ἐᾶι. 800–1: cf. Soph. OT 99 τίς ὁ τρόπος τῆς ξυμϕορᾶς; (sometimes emended), Tr. 878 ὀλέθρου τίνι τρόπωι θανεῖν σϕε ϕήις;, Eur. Hipp. 1171–2 πῶς καὶ διώλετ᾽; εἰπέ, τῶι τρόπωι Δίκης / ἔπαισε αὐτὸν ῥόπτρον…;, El. 772–3 ποίωι τρόπωι δὲ καὶ τίνι ῥυθμῶι φόνου / κτείνει…;, IT 256–7 πῶς νιν εἵλετε / τρόπωι θ᾽ ὁποίωι;. In all these passages, as here, τρόπος designates the ‘manner’ in which something happens (Kuiper (1908) 424). Messengers are frequently prompted to describe the ‘how’ of events, rather than the ‘what’, e.g., at Aesch. Pers. 446 ποίωι μόρωι δὲ τούσδε ϕὴις ὀλωλέναι;, Soph. Aj. 747, OC 1585, Eur. Med. 1134, Andr. 1083, Hec. 515, Supp. 647–8, Her. 917–18, Hel. 1523, Pho. 1086–7, 1354, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 597–604; De Jong (1991) 33; Barrett (2002) 184. But the charioteer, who is not a proper messenger and behaves only in part like one, conducts himself like the prologising Deianeira in Soph. Tr. 21–3, another

556

C O M M E N TA RY 8 0 0 – 8 0 5 reporter who has to leave out some of the events that she sets out to narrate: καὶ τρόπον μὲν ἂν πόνων / οὐκ ἂν διείποιμ᾽, οὐ γὰρ οἶδ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις ἦν / θακῶν ἀταρβὴς τῆς θέας, ὅδ᾽ ἂν λέγοι. So too the guard in Soph. Ant., who informs Creon about the symbolic burial of Polynices, is anxious not only because he is reporting bad news, but also because he does not know who was responsible: σοί, κεἰ τὸ μηδὲν ἐξερῶ – ϕράσω δ᾽ ὅμως (234) … τὸ γὰρ / πρᾶγμ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἔδρασ᾽ οὔτ᾽ εἶδον ὅστις ἦν ὁ δρῶν (238–9). ξυμφοράν means simply ‘what happened’ or ‘the event’, as distinct from the way in which it happened; see 317–18n. τεθνᾶσιν οἱ θανόντες is a kind of polyptoton conveying the idea that ‘when someone has (once) died, it is for ever’, with the perfect emphasising the fait accompli. It suggests that one should dismiss the dead, and carry on with life, as in Eur. Alc. 541 τεθνᾶσιν οἱ θανόντες (cf. Parker ad loc.) and TrGF 507.1 τί τοὺς θανόντας οὐκ ἐᾶις τεθνηκέναι; = Eup. PCG 99.102. οὐκ ἔχω φράσαι is a recurring phrase in Hdt. (5x) and drama: Eur. Hcld. 669, Ion. 540, 803, Ar. Ran. 60, Eccl. 333, Men. Peric. 333. 802–3 After concluding with the admission that he could not witness with his own eyes how events took place (801 might have been his conclusion), the charioteer adds his conjecture concerning what he did not see – who the killers were. εἰκάσαι δέ μοι / πάρεστι ~ Aesch. Cho. 976–7, Soph. TrGF 269c.22, Eur. Hel. 421. 804–5 ἡνίοχε gives a first-foot dactyl. Except for proper names (TrGF 696.6, and Ἱππόλυτος 11x in Hipp.), in early Eur. (Alc., Med., Hcld., Hipp.) this is found only at Alc. 802, TrGF 696.10, from Telephus of 438 BC, and 799.3, from Philoctetes of 431. It is also rare in Aesch. and Sophocles. From Andr. onwards, however, it appears more than once in every play of Eur. and becomes more and more frequent. Even if we believe that this play is by Eur., this single instance of first-foot dactyl would not help us to date it, despite the attempt of Ritchie (1964) 265–6, 268 (and already Ceadel (1941) 72–4); cf. Cropp and Fick (1985) 29, 32, 34–5. κακῶς πεπραγότος is an exclusively Euripidean phrase: Alc. 246, 961, Tro. 608, TrGF 81.1, 130.1, 165.1, 908b.1, 957; also Hcld. 499 εὐτυχῶς πεπραγότες, Supp. 329 εὖ πεπραγότα, Her. 707 ἀθλίως πεπραγότα ~ Or. 87; parodied at Ar. Nub. 1269 κακῶς πεπραγότι, Pax 1255 ἀθλίως πεπράγαμεν. μηδὲν δυσοίζου ‘do not distress yourself ’. The verb might also mean ‘cry out in distress’ (see 722–7n.), but the middle is probably more appropriate to express the emotional state of the subject than the physical crying out (KG I.102–3, Fries 417). πολέμιοι ᾽δρασαν τάδε Murray’s emendation (for transmitted πολεμίους δρᾶσαι τάδε) is accepted in all modern editions. δυσοίζειν/-εσθαι is never

557

C O M M E N TA RY 8 0 0 – 8 0 8 attested governing accusative and infinitive as if it were a verb of saying. Prodelision of non-prepositional ε- is very rare in Attic drama, except in the case of ἐγώ preceded by exclamatory οἴ (as observed by Platnauer (1960) 142); cf. however Eur. Hec. 387 ἐγὼ ᾽τεκον = TrGF 266.3. The corruption of ᾽δρασαν to δρᾶσαι may have been facilitated by the other occurrence of the rare verb δυσοίζων at 724–5, which is followed by δρᾶσαι (Fries 417), and ‘once ᾽δρασαν had become δρᾶσαι, πολέμιοι would be altered to πολεμίους to suit the new construction’ (Porter 83). Lenting’s ((1821) 76) emendation πολέμιοι δρῶσιν τάδε would give a similar sense; the registering present for momentous past actions with present impact is not rare in tragedy and Rh. (187, 840, 926, 929), and would fit the context here: ‘this is the work of the enemy’. There is no attraction in μηδὲν δύσοιζ᾽ οὐ πολεμίους δρᾶσαι τάδε (Musgrave II.411). Musgrave interpreted ‘ne suspiceris alios quam hostes hoc fecisse’, but οὐ would rather have to go with the infinitive, improperly. πολέμιοι contests the statement of the charioteer that the slaughter was the work of φίλοι. The two words are commonly antonyms in the historians; cf., e.g., Hdt. 1.87.3, Thuc. 3.65.3, Xen. Mem. 2.2.2, Jos. AJ 15.133.5. 806–7 συμφορᾶς πεπυσμένος The phrase is found in prose from the fourth century onwards, but with the accusative of what is heard (the genitive is commonly used for the source): Isocr. 4.158 πυνθάνεσθαι τὰς … συμφοράς, Lys. 2.32, Dem. 33.20, Diod. Sic. 4.61.1. With verbs of perception, however, the genitive is sometimes used for the object perceived, especially in poetry; cf. Hom. Il. 15.224, Od. 1.281, 2.255–6, Soph. El. 35, KG I.357–9. Thus it is not necessary to emend the genitive to συμφοράς (Lenting (1821) 76) or συμφοράν (Wecklein 39). χωρεῖ ‘is coming’ anticipates the entrance (here the re-entrance) of a character, like στείχει at 86. It is also found with the same function at Soph. El. 1432, Ant. 158, Tr. 870, Eur. Pho. 444. συναλγεῖ δ᾽… σοῖς κακοῖς: cf. Aesch. PV 288 ταῖς σαῖς δὲ τύχαις, ἴσθι, συναλγῶ, Soph. Aj. 283 δήλωσον ἡμῖν τοῖς ξυναλγοῦσιν τύχας, Moschion, TrGF 97F9.10 τύχαις συναλγῶν, Arist. Rh. 1381a4–5 τὸν συνηδόμενον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ συναλγοῦντα τοῖς λυπηροῖς, Dion. Hal. Thuc. 49 συναλγοῦντες τοῖς κακοῖς. The chorus interpret the reason for Hector’s arrival and his thoughts according to popular morality. They believe that he is distressed because of his sorrow at the death of Rhesus. But Hector remains consistently focused on his role as commander, and he is now so concentrated on convicting and punishing the watchmen that he does not utter a single word of sympathy to the mourning charioteer or even mention Rhesus. 808–10 ἐξειργασμένοι at line-end is typically tragic: 2x in Aesch. (also εἰργασμένος 1x), 7x in Soph. (εἰργ- 4x), 7x in Eur. (εἰργ- 6x). For the combination

558

C O M M E N TA RY 8 0 8 – 8 1 1 with πήματα, cf. Aesch. Pers. 786 οὐκ ἂν ϕανεῖμεν πήματ’ ἔρξαντες τόσα, Eur. Hcld. 959–60 χρῆν γὰρ οὐχ ἅπαξ / θνήισκειν σε πολλὰ πήματ᾽ ἐξειργασμένον, Hec. 1168–9 τὸ λοίσθιον δέ, πῆμα πήματος πλέον, / ἐξειργάσαντο δειν(ά). μολόντες … κατάσκοποι λήθουσιν: cf. Soph. El. 1403 μὴ λάθηι μολὼν ἔσω. αἰσχρῶς ‘shamefully’ points proleptically to the shame that their behaviour brought upon them. It is one of the most powerful words for disapproving of an action: Adkins (1972) 113. Both αἰσχρός and the corresponding adverb are mainly used in Hom. in an active sense, of abusive speeches in which some attempt is made to discredit the addressee; but they are also used of unseemly utterances that are discreditable for the speaker. In particular, at Il. 2.119–22, 2.298, 21.436–8, αἰσχρόν is applied to the shame of returning from a military enterprise without having achieved anything of importance, thus ‘describing a situation in which martial prestige is at stake and characterising it as liable to excite the disapproval of others’ (Cairns (1993) 58–60). καὶ κατεσφάγη στρατός: cf. 747 ἔρρει στρατιά. 811–12a ἐξαπώσατε is the aorist of an otherwise unattested ἐξαπωθεῖν; but ἐξαπ- compounds are relatively frequent in Hom. (ἐξαποβαίνειν, ἐξαποδίεσθαι, ἐξαποδύνειν, ἐξαπολλύναι, ἐξαπονέεσθαι, ἐξαπονίζειν, ἐξαποτίνειν) and tragedy (ἐξαποξύνειν, ἐξαπολλύναι, ἐξαπαλλάξαι, ἐξαποφθείρειν, ἐξαπειδέναι). This verbal form does not have the syllabic augment expected in Attic, and it has often been doubted – unaugmented verbs are normally found in tragedy only in messenger-speeches at the beginning of the line; cf. KB II.18–19 and Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 1133–6, with a list of apparent exceptions that have been mainly emended in modern editions. The sense ‘thrust away out’ appears to suit εἰσιόντας ‘entering (the camp)’, but not ἐξιόντας ‘exiting’, and to entail a harsh zeugma. Two of the suggested emendations try to remedy the absence of augment: ἐξαπεώσατε (Paley 57), which assumes synizesis of ‑εώ‑, and ἐξεώσατε (Herwerden (1862) 140), but we would expect a scribe to change the Homeric double-preverb ἐξαπ- (with no augment) to the banal augmented ἐξε‑, not vice versa. The emendation proposed by Naber (1882) 6, ἐξηπύσατε ‘called to’ (cf. ἤπυσα at 776), remedies the zeugma and the lack of augment, and is not far from the paradosis. But the transmitted text should be retained. Uninformed about the detail, Hector is thinking, in general terms, of both the directions in which people may move when they pass over the boundary of a city or a camp under siege and are not caught by watchmen: enemy spies would cross that border first inbound then outbound, and deserters outbound. Aen. Tact., for instance, warns that control of the border between the inside of the camp and space external to it must be exercised in both directions (22.14 ἄριστον δ᾽ ἐν τοιαύταις νυξὶν ἔξω τοῦ τείχεος κύνας προσδεδέσθαι νυκτερεύοντας, οἵπερ ἐκ πλείονος ἐμϕανιοῦσιν τὸν ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων κατάσκοπον ἢ αὐτόμολον προσπελάζοντα τῆι πόλει λαθραίως ἤ πηι ὁρμώμενον αὐτομολοῦντα) and

559

C O M M E N TA RY 8 1 1 – 8 1 5 recommends (28.2) that at the gate in the wall only the small wicket should be left open, ἵνα σώματα μὲν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὴν ἐκτομάδα πυλίδα ἐξίηι καὶ εἰσίηι καθ᾽ ἕνα· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἥκιστά τις λανθάνοι αὐτομολῶν ἢ κατάσκοπος εἰσιών, ἐάνπερ γε ἦι ὁ πυλωρὸς νοερός; cf. also Xen. Cyr. 4.5.5, where Cyrus sent around the camp squads of watchmen and ἐκέλευσε κύκλωι τοῦ στρατοπέδου κρυπτεύειν, νομίζων ἅμα μὲν ϕυλακὴν ἔσεσθαι, ἄν τις ἔξωθεν προσίηι, ἅμα δέ, ἄν τις ἔξω ϕέρων χρήματα ἀποδιδράσκηι, ἁλώσεσθαι αὐτόν. The verb ἐξαπωθεῖν would be ‘illogical’ (as Mastronarde (2004) 22 called it), and the ironic remark of Naber (1882) 6, followed by Liapis (2011) 94, ‘debueruntne Trojanorum custodes ἐξαπῶσαι speculatores ἐξιόντας?’ would be valid, if the verb was used only about the spies from outside the camp. But Hector, behaving like a technically qualified general of the fourth century, is still in the dark as to who is responsible for the Thracians’ slaughter, and thus contemplates both possible violations of the border that may be caused by a lack of adequate patrolling. The duty that he charges the watchmen with disregarding was that of ‘fending off from’ that border both spies trying to intrude into the camp and runaways trying to desert from it; his ἐξαπωθεῖν, by focusing on the border of the camp, the space that the watchmen should have patrolled, applies equally well to those going in and those coming out. 812–13: cf. Aesch. Ag. 553–4 τίς δὲ πλὴν θεῶν / ἅπαντ᾽ ἀπήμων τὸν δι᾽ αἰῶνος χρόνον;. τείσει δίκην: δίκην at line-end, immediately preceded by a form of τίνειν or its compounds, is common in Eur.: Med. 767, 802, 1316, Hcld. 852, 882, Supp. 733, El. 260 (never in Soph. or Aesch.). The vocalism τεί-, here restored by Murray (145 προσμείξω was also restored by Murray), is standard in inscriptions: Threatte (1980/1996) II.536–8. δή ‘verily, I can assure you’ (Denniston (1954) 203–4, Sicking and Ophuijsen (1993) 142) contemptuously reminds the watchmen that guarding the camp was their professional duty. Hector addresses the chorus with a collective singular as a body of guards with a specific responsibility (σοῦ … σέ), as he does at 15, 18, 34, 36–7, 40, 52, 80. 814–15 ‘They got away without being touched, laughing loudly at the cowardice of the Phrygians and at me their general.’ Hector had already expressed the idea that leaving a harmful enemy untouched is especially dishonourable; see 102–4n. Triumphant vaunting over a defeated enemy who has proved ineffectual, and the fear of it by the defeated, are known from the Iliad. At 4.178–81 Agamemnon is afraid that, if he does not prevent Menelaus from being killed, a Trojan may say of him: αἴθ᾽ οὕτως ἐπὶ πᾶσι χόλον τελέσει᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων, / ὡς καὶ νῦν ἅλιον στρατὸν ἤγαγεν ἐνθάδ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν, / καὶ δὴ ἔβη οἶκόνδε ϕίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν / σὺν κεινῆισιν νηυσί, λιπὼν ἀγαθὸν Μενέλαον. But Hector’s

560

C O M M E N TA RY 8 1 4 fear, specifically, of the enemy’s scornful laughter reproduces a typical feeling of Il. 10, and presupposes two scenes in that book. At 10.192–3 Nestor had been recommending that the watchmen should stay alert while on guard, to avoid the risk of ‘giving joy to the enemy’ with their lack of discipline: οὕτω νῦν ϕίλα τέκνα ϕυλάσσετε· μηδέ τιν᾽ ὕπνος / αἱρείτω, μὴ χάρμα γενώμεθα δυσμενέεσσιν. At the conclusion of the book, in dialogue with Nestor, the victorious Odysseus gives an example of what laughing at the enemy could mean. In a brief summary of the expedition, mainly focused on the horses, Odysseus mentions the slaughter of twelve Thracians but lingers on dishonourable Dolon (561–5): ‘…τὸν τρεισκαιδέκατον σκοπὸν εἵλομεν ἐγγύθι νηῶν, / τόν ῥα διοπτῆρα στρατοῦ ἔμμεναι ἡμετέροιο / Ἕκτωρ τε προέηκε καὶ ἄλλοι Τρῶες ἀγαυοί’. / ὣς εἰπὼν τάϕροιο διήλασε μώνυχας ἵππους / καγχαλόων· ἅμα δ᾽ ἄλλοι ἴσαν χαίροντες Ἀχαιοί. The reference to Hector and the ‘illustrious’ Trojans as ineffectually planning a mission for Dolon which fell far short of success (ἀγαυοί may just be formulaic, but, for later readers, as Σ D 10.563 comments, νῦν ἐν εἰρωνείας μέρει κεῖται), together with the participles καγχαλόων (‘an eruption of visceral delight, a noisy cachinnation’: Halliwell (2008) 57) and χαίροντες, suggest a sneering derision similar to the iambic derision of the ἐχθροί in Archilochus; cf. Introduction, pp. 57–8, Lavigne (2008) 134–6. In the fifth and fourth century a malevolent laugh was still perceived as an expression of triumphant contempt and ὕβρις, involving a bitter ‘loss of face’ that increases the despair of the defeated: cf. Hdt. 3.155.2, 7.9.1, 8.100.4, Aesch. Pers. 1034, Ag. 1271–2, PV 156–9, Soph. Aj. 79, 302–4, 367, 382, 454–5, 954–63, 988–9, 1042–3, El. 277, 807, 879–80, 1153, 1295, OT 1422, Ant. 482–3, 647, 838–41, Ph. 257–8, 1023–4, 1125–6, OC 902–3, 1338–9, 1422–3, TrGF 210.47–8, Eur. Med. 381–3, 797, 1049–50, 1355, Hipp. 1000, Her. 285–6, 458, IT 502, TrGF 460, Ar. Ach. 1196–7, Th. 941–2, Eubul. PCG 26.3, Aeschin. 2.182, Men. Epitr. 10, Arnould (1990) 36–42, Dillon (1991), Miralles (2000), Wright (2005) 180–94, Finglass on Soph. El. 277, Halliwell (2008) 25–32. φροῦδοι … ἐγγελῶντες: the safe escape of his enemies and their consequent mocking derision worsen Ajax’s dismay at Soph. Aj. 454–5 κεῖνοι δ᾽ ἐπεγγελῶσιν ἐκπεϕευγότες, / ἐμοῦ μὲν οὐχ ἑκόντος; cf. also El. 807 (Clytemnestra) ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγελῶσα φροῦδος. Laughter, seldom an expression of joy in tragedy, is more often malignant mockery to discomfit an injured enemy. According to the data presented by Arnould (1990) 36 n. 3, out of thirty-four tragic occurrences of γελᾶν and thirty-six of γέλως, twenty-six and nineteen respectively are in mocking contexts; ἐγγελᾶν, ἐπεγγελᾶν, and ἐγγελαστής denote mocking laughter in ten of their eleven occurrences in Eur. and Sophocles. ἄπληκτοι ‘not hit’, and thus ‘uninjured’, as at Eup. PCG 246.3, Pl. Phdr. 253d (of a horse who does not need to be spurred), Theophr. HP 9.14.1

561

C O M M E N TA RY 8 1 5 – 8 1 6 (unharmed, of a plant), Posidipp. 93.3–4 Austin-Bast. (not hit by the waves, of a corpse). κακανδρίαι ‘cowardice’ is paralleled in tragedy at Aesch. TrGF 132a.4.i.2 and Soph. Aj. 1014. 816–19 ‘Be assured of this – I have taken an oath by Father Zeus – that the lash or death by beheading lies in wait for you for doing this, or you may consider Hector a nullity and worthless.’ Beheading was practised more commonly among the barbarians than the Greeks (see 219–22a n.). As for punishment with the lash, the Scythian threatens to lash, and then to decapitate, Eur. at Ar. Th. 1125–7. We know of only a few (and uncertain) cases of lash torture applied to Athenians, as the bodies of free citizens were considered inviolable, but, together with the wheel, it was the most common corporal punishment for slaves and foreigners (Hunter (1994) 154–84), and thus the best documented in comedy. Here it is evidently a familiar part of the military routine of the barbarian Trojans. εὖ νυν τόδ᾽ ἴστε: εὖ (νυν/γὰρ τόδ᾽) ἴσθι/ἴστε/ἐξεπίστασο (ὅτι) is a passionate asseveration widely used in fifth- and fourth-century Ionic and Attic literature. It emphasises the certainty of the ensuing statement and highlights the confidence of the speaker about its truth (López Eire (1996) 105), and sometimes it has an ominous or threatening nuance (Collard (2018) 134–5); cf. Hdt. 7.14.1, 7.39.1, Aesch. Pers. 431, 435, Soph. El. 605, 616, Ant. 1064, Tr. 1107, Ar. Pax 373, Av. 1408, Pl. 889, Men. Dysc. 962, Epitr. 375, Fraenkel (1977) 37, Finglass on Soph. El. 605. For asseveration reinforced by an oath, as here, cf. Soph. Ant. 305 εὖ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπίστασ᾽, ὅρκιος δέ σοι λέγω. Ζεὺς ὀμώμοται πατήρ: cf. Soph. Ph. 1289 ἀπώμοσ᾽ ἁγνοῦ Ζηνὸς ὕψιστον σέβας, Tr. 1185 ὄμνυ Διὸς … κάρα, Eur. Hipp. 1025–6 Zῆνα … ὄμνυμι. Already in Homer verbs of swearing are often constructed with the accusative of the god by whom the oath is taken, which is either accusative in address or internal accusative (Moorhouse (1982) 36). Hector reports in parenthesis that he has previously taken an oath by Zeus (for instance, when he was first informed of the raid and the killing of the Thracians). His oath may have been a brief informal one of the kind νὴ (τὸν) Δία or a more formal one (see above). As observed by Sommerstein (2007; especially 126–7), ‘in all kinds of texts where informal oaths are common, more of them are taken in the name of Zeus than in that of any other divinity’, and the rank of Zeus as supreme god often made even informal oaths by him especially weighty. The perfect passive in the original form without sigma was restored by Buttmann (1819/1827) II.198–9) and Matthiae (1835) I.624 (Matthiae (1825) I.477 still kept the transmitted ὀμώμοσται). The verb is attested without sigma in an Attic inscription of the mid-fourth century BC (Robert (1938) 308, line 49 ὀμωμομένων), Ar. Lys. 1007 ξυνομώμοται, and Aesch. Ag. 1290 ὀμώμοται

562

C O M M E N TA RY 8 1 6 – 8 3 2 (but the line is thought by most modern editors to be interpolated). The MSS of Dem. 20.159 are divided between ὀμώμοται and ὀμώμοσται. Analogy with the common perfect passives in -σμαι/-σται or verbal nouns in ‑στος may have facilitated the faulty replacement of asigmatic forms in the MSS of the tragedians: cf. KB II.131–3, Threatte (1980/1996) II.581, West (1990a) xliv, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 691–2. μάραγνά γ᾽ ἢ καρανιστὴς μόρος is probably a case of allusive ‘mosaic technique’ (cf. Introduction, pp. 24–5), combining the memory of Aesch. Eum. 186 καρανιστῆρες and of Cho. 375 μαράγνης. The peculiar gloss Hesych. Lex. μ 257 Latte μάραγνά γ᾽ ἢ· ταυρεία (where the lemma most probably preserves the γ᾽ ἤ following in Rh.) and Phot. Lex. μ 246 Theod. inform us that μάραγνα designates a lash made of bull hide. The word is attested elsewhere in literary texts only at Aesch. Cho. 375, quoted above, and Pl. PCG 64, which is probably paratragic (Fraenkel (1965) 231). For καρανιστὴς μόρος, cf. 606 καρατόμους σϕαγάς, Aesch. Eum. 186–7 καρανιστῆρες ὀϕθαλμωρύχοι / δίκαι σϕαγαί τε. Phrases with μόρος + adjective indicating the manner of death are a typical tragic mannerism; see 380–1n. Fries 421–2, after Fraenkel (1910/1912) II.8, 23–4, observes that tragic poets use archaic forms in -τήρ only when forms from the modern Ionic-Attic -τής declension do not fit metrically. Although the wish to imitate Aesch. Eum. 186–7, quoted above, may have led the author to adopt also the ending -τήρ, the emendation καρανιστήρ (Blaydes (1901) 10) thus appears to be out of place. τὸ μηδέν: ‘μηδέν is more generalised than οὐδέν, “nullity” as opposed to “a nothing”, and the article further stresses the generality’ (Denniston on Eur. El. 370). Cf. Hdt. 8.106.3, Soph. Aj. 1275, El. 1166, Tr. 1107, OC 918, Eur. Hcld. 167, Hipp. 638, El. 370, Tro. 412, IA 945, Ar. Av. 577, KG II.197–8. Soph. and Eur. frequently preface μηδέν with a neuter singular article; in Pl., e.g., the phrase occurs without the article (Dunbar on Ar. Av. 577). Metrical structure of 820–32: cf. above ‘Metrical Structure of 454–66’, pp. 395–7. 820–32 are the antistrophe of 454–66. In the strophe, the chorus commented on the greatness of Rhesus, in the middle of a debate between Hector, the watchmen and Rhesus about whether he should be accepted as an ally. In the antistrophe they comment on Hector’s charge that they have abandoned their post, again in the middle of a debate, this time between Hector, the watchmen, and the charioteer (the Thracian third voice, replacing Rhesus) on the slaughter of Rhesus. The atmosphere is, however, quite different, as the chorus’ personal joy and military optimism in the strophe is now replaced by fear that they will receive a military sentence from their general. Their spontaneous admiration of Rhesus in the strophe led them to

563

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 1 – 8 2 2 claim that Rhesus, sent by Zeus, had a superhuman invincibility, whereas the antistrophe has a tone of ‘reverent defiance, born out of despair’ (Fries 422), which might be felt to suit a military courtroom. The parallels and differences between the strophe and the antistrophe further highlight the fact that ‘political’ debate and the management of power are key topics of the play, investigated from several angles but with a focus on the military context. 821–3 ‘Ah Ah! O you who are great for me, and a great sustaining power for the city. They came at the time when I set out to announce to you that fires were burning around the ships.’ At 380–2, at the conclusion of their welcoming ‘hymn’ to Rhesus, after initial ἰὼ ἰώ, the watchmen addressed him as μέγας ὦ βασιλεῦ (with postponed ὦ) and as πολίαρχος. At 820–1, after initial ἰὼ ἰώ, they address Hector twice with the epithet μέγας (the anadiplosis is paralleled at 455 φίλα … φίλος, another lyric addressed to Rhesus), with ὦ postponed until after the second example, if we accept the correction by Nauck (ii) xxiii, which is ‘neat and economical’ (Liapis 289; a list of other emendations of 821–2 in Ritchie (1964) 309). Furthermore, he is described as πολίοχον κράτος, where πολίοχος is close in sound and sense to πολίαρχος of 381. The similarity of the two forms of address contributes to the linguistic characterisation of the watchmen as reverent subjects of authority. It may also have led the audience to recall that the greatness of ‘king’ Rhesus and his army, in the shepherd’s description, had almost overshadowed, for a time, the role of ‘king’ Hector in the defence of Troy. But now Rhesus has disappeared from the horizon and the supreme power of Hector is fully re-established. πολίοχον is a metrical emendation of Vater 254, supported by Rh. 166, where πολιόχου is confirmed by the metre. The banalisation πολιοῦχον was easy, as the form πολίοχος is attested elsewhere in poetry only at Pind. F 70d.38, whereas πολιοῦχος is standard in Aesch., Soph., Eur., and Aristophanes. κράτος designates here metonymically the person in power, as more commonly is the case with τιμή; cf. Aesch. Sept. 129, Supp. 526, Ag. 109, 619, Ar. Th. 1140–2 (paratragedy). A parallel for this deferential address, including mention of authority over the city, is Eur. Tro. 1216–17 ὦ μέγας ἐμοί ποτ’ ὢν / ἀνάκτωρ πόλεως. τότ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔμολον ὅτε ‘then they came at that time when’: ἄρα is used when someone understands what happened in the past either at some subsequent moment after the event or, as here, in the present (Denniston (1954) 36, 45, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 1494, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 347). This sense of the particle is made especially clear by the context at Soph. Ant. 1272–4 ἔχω μαθὼν δείλαιος· ἐν δ᾽ ἐμῶι κάραι / θεὸς τότ’ ἄρα τότε μέγα βάρος μ᾽ ἔχων / ἔπαισεν. ἔμολον, despite the textual uncertainty of 821–2, should not be suspected (a list of emendations in Liapis (2011) 96). As observed by Fries 423, ἔμολον points to the Greek raiders who killed the Thracians and stole their horses (εἰσιόντες and ἐξιόντες: 811–12). The subject remains unspecified, as neither

564

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 2 – 8 2 6 the charioteer (cf. 801–2) nor, consequently, the Trojans know how many or who they were. ἄγγελος ἦλθον: see 50n. The watchmen stress that they left their post for a good reason; but the fires in the Greek camp, which seemed a critical issue at the beginning of the play, were soon completely forgotten. πύρ᾽ αἴθειν: here πυρά is the subject in the accusative, and the verb is used intransitively in the active form, as at Pind. Ol. 7.48, Soph. Aj. 285–6 and possibly Aesch. Cho. 536–7, Ar. Pax 612 (cf. Finglass on Soph. Aj. 285–7, Wilson (2007) 107, Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 536–7 for the frequency of misinterpreted intransitive αἴθειν). The addition Ἀργείων στρατόν in the MSS is derived from πύρ᾽ αἴθει στρατὸς Ἀργόλας in 41, where the verb is transitive and στρατός the subject, and from the phrase Ἀργείων στρατός, frequent in Rh. (see 56–8n.). The corresponding passage of the strophe shows that it is metrically superfluous; it was probably a marginal gloss that entered the text (Paley 56). It was excised by Badham (1855) 338 and Kirchhoff (i) I.561. For the word-division of transmitted πυραίθει(ν), see 41n. 824–6a ‘My eyes were wakeful in the night, and I did not put them to sleep, or become drowsy. I swear by the springs of Simoeis.’ ὄμμ᾽ … ἐκοίμισ᾽: cf. Hom. Il. 14.236 κοίμησόν μοι Ζηνὸς ὑπ’ ὀϕρύσιν ὄσσε, Aesch. Sept. 3 βλέϕαρα μὴ κοιμῶν ὕπνωι, Soph. OT 1221 κατεκοίμασα τοὐμὸν ὄμμα, Licymn. PMG 771 ῞Υπνος … ἀναπεπταμένοις ὄσσοις ἐκοίμιζεν κόρον, Mosch. Eur. 57 Ἄργος ἀκοιμήτοισι κεκασμένος ὀϕθαλμοῖσι, Orac. Sibyll. 2.181 ἀκοιμήτοις βλεϕάροισιν. εὐφρόναι … παγάς: choral Doricising long alphas were restored by (respectively) Diggle (ed.) and Badham (1855) 338. οὔτ᾽ ἔβριξ᾽, ingressive aorist, ‘nor became drowsy’, is the alternative to the instantaneous aorist designating the physical action of ‘not closing the eyes’. βρίζειν is attested only in poetry, often compounded with ἀπό (Hom. Il. 4.223, Od. 9.151 = 12.7, always referring to individuals; Aesch. Ag. 275, subject φρήν; Cho. 897 a baby; Eum. 280 blood; later e.g., Theocr. AP 13.3 = HE 3433, Callim. AP 7.459.3 = HE 1217). οὐ τὰς Σιμοεντιάδας παγάς For an oath to be binding, the guarantee of a force more powerful than those swearing is required. Powers of nature such as rivers and the sun may be invoked together with the gods, or without them, as witnesses of the truth of an oath and as punishers of perjury. In particular powerful gods, who could not swear by themselves, swore by the head of the superior power of Zeus or by the river Styx (cf. Hes. Th. 400, 784, 793, Hom. Il. 15.36–7, HHom.Dem. 258, West on Hes. Th. 400, Torrance (2014) 195–6). Humans too swore by rivers and springs, both in ancient Greece and in various Indo-European and Middle-Eastern cultures; cf. West (1997) 21–2 and (2007) 274–5. The oath μὰ γῆν, μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμούς, μὰ νάματα

565

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 6 – 8 2 7 appears to have been especially widespread: Antiph. PCG 288, Timocl. PCG 41, Demosthenes according to Demetr. Phal. F 163 Wehrli ap. Plut. Dem. 9.4 = adesp. TrGF 123a; cf. also Il. 3.277–9 Ἠέλιός θ᾽, ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐϕορᾶις καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις, / καὶ Ποταμοὶ καὶ Γαῖα, καὶ οἳ ὑπένερθε καμόντας / ἀνθρώπους τείνυσθον ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσηι and ICret. IX.1a34 Guard. (about 220 BC), an ‘encyclopaedic’ oath that mentions Hestia, Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Leto, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hermes, Ge, and Ouranos, and concludes with (34–6) καὶ ἥρωας καὶ ἡρωάσσας καὶ κράνας καὶ ποταμοὺς καὶ θεοὺς πάντας καὶ πάσας. For oaths by local rivers, cf. Soph. TrGF 957.1 νὴ τὼ Λαπέρσα, νὴ τὸν Εὐρώταν τρίτον, Eur. Hel. 348–50 σὲ γὰρ ἐκάλεσα, σὲ δὲ κατόμοσα / τὸν … / Εὐρώταν, Callim. Aet. F 7c.15–16 Harder Ἥλιος ἴστω / καὶ Φᾶσις ποταμῶν ἡμετέρων βασιλεύς, Iamb. 194.106 Pf. οὐ μὰ Πακτωλόν, Ovid, Met. 5.316 iurant per flumina Nymphae. Σιμοεντιάδας was proposed in place of the transmitted Σιμοεντίδας, and μά deleted, by Hermann (1828) 309, to restore responsion with the strophe. As the feminine adjective is commonly Σιμοεντίς-ίδος/Σιμουντίς-ίδος (Andr. 1019, 1183, Hec. 641, El. 441, Ar. Th. 110), Σιμοεντιάς was liable to be corrupted to the commoner form Σιμοεντίς, here as again at Eur. Tro. 1116. οὐ μά is common in negative oaths, but they can be introduced simply by οὐ, as at Soph. El. 1063, OT 660/61, Ant. 758–9, Ar. Lys. 986 = 990, 1171 (more parallels in Sommerstein (2018) 82 n. 19), and μά sometimes creeps into the text as a gloss (Soph. El. 1063, 1239, OT 660/61, 1088, Finglass on Soph. OT 660/1–661/3). παγάς: in Hom. only ‘stream’ or ‘brook’, in the plural (plural also, e.g., at Aesch. Pers. 311), elsewhere also artificial ‘fountain’; cf. Stokes (1962) 28–33, Ballabriga (1986) 47n., LfGrE s.v. At Il. 22.147–8 κρουνὼ δ᾽ ἵκανον καλλιρρόω· ἔνθα δὲ πηγαὶ / δοιαὶ ἀναΐσσουσι Σκαμάνδρου δινήεντος the two πηγαί of the Scamander are mentioned together with the relevant ‘springs’ κρουνώ, thus πηγαί may mean there the streams produced by springs, or the springs themselves. There is the same ambiguity in our passage. For πηγή in the plural for a single river, cf. Aesch. Pers. 311 quoted above. 826–7 μή μοι / κότον, ὦ ἄνα, θῆις ‘do not have a grudge, my lord, against me’: the phrase is paralleled in Hom., mainly of a divine grudge: Il. 8.449 τοῖσιν (scil. the Trojans) κότον αἰνὸν ἔθεσθε (subject: Hera and Athena), 16.449 τοῖσιν (scil. the gods) κότον αἰνὸν ἐνήσεις (Zeus), Od. 11.102 ~ 13.342 τοι κότον ἔνθετο θυμῶι / χωόμενος (Poseidon). Homeric, and Pindaric (Pyth. 8.9), κότος is common in Aesch., who uses it more than 20x, but it never appears in Soph. or Eur. (it is, however, conjectured by Diggle at Hel. 679, in a phrase that would resemble this one of Rh.); cf. also Soph. Ph. 1191 ἀλλόκοτος, TrGF 1042 ἐνεκότουν; Eur. TrGF 572.2 παλιγκότως. By adopting the Homeric κότον τίθεσθαι, not attested in Aesch., the present line puts a favourite word of Aesch. back into a Homeric context.

566

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 7 – 8 2 9 ἄνα is a vocative attested mainly in addresses to the gods, whereas ἄναξ can be used of gods and mortals; cf. Hom. Il. 3.351, 16.233, Od. 17.354, HHom.Ap. 179, 526, Callim. HZeus 8, 33, HAp. 79, Aet. F 24.3 Harder and AP 6.351 = HE 1151 (Heracles: according to Harder ad loc. The fact that divine ἄνα is applied to him may be an indication of his special status). It presents Hector as one of the oriental monarchs who were often invoked as though they had a godlike status (Liapis 290 and Björck (1957) 12). Comparing the watchmen’s identification of Rhesus as Zeus in their welcome (cf. Introduction, pp. 28–38; 342–79n.), Porter 85 observes ‘in moments of enthusiasm the chorus have a weakness for exaggerated language’. ἀναίτιος γὰρ †ἔγωγε πάντων†: to restore responsion with 463, Nauck (i) II.xxiii proposed πάντων πάντηι ἔγωγε, where -ηι must be corrected to choral Doricising -ᾱι, with Diggle ed. It appears to be the most economical and elegant solution. As the polyptoton of οὐδείς in 825 expresses negation of guilt in the clearest possible way, so polyptoton of πᾶς here would convey a strong affirmation of the chorus’ innocence (Gygli-Wyss (1966) 43). For ἀναίτιος with genitive (πάντων), cf. Aesch. Cho. 873–4 τῶνδ᾽ ἀναίτιαι κακῶν / εἶναι, Hdt. 1.129.4, 7.233.1. 829–31 ‘If in course of time you learn of something I did or said inopportunely, send me alive underground. I do not complain.’ Hector is challenged to carry out an investigation of the sentries’ conduct during their watch duty. They are so certain of their innocence that, if he finds that they are guilty, they will not beg him to forgive them and save them from the death penalty which he had threatened to impose at 817–18. εἰ … πύθηι is a future conditional with subjunctive without ἄν, which would be standard in classical Attic. This syntax is well attested in tragedy and usually interpreted as a Homerism: Aesch. Pers. 791, Supp. 92, Ag. 1328, Eum. 234, Soph. OT 198, 873–4, Ant. 710, OC 1443, KG II.474, Sideras (1971) 32, Stockert on Eur. IA 1240, Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 790–1. Although the precise nuance added by the modal particle ἄν/κε to the subjunctive in conditionals is still debated (cf. above all Basset (1988); Gerö (2000)), it seems certain that there is a substantial tendency in Hom. to introduce it if the reference is to the future, and a weaker tendency not to include it if the reference is to the present or the past (Howorth (1955)). The watchmen may be expecting that Hector’s investigation is set in the present or immediate future. χρόνωι and τῶι χρόνωι ‘in (due) time’ are common adverbial expressions which, after Solon, IEG 4.6 τῶι δὲ χρόνωι πάντως ἦλθ᾽ (sc. Dike) ἀποτεισομένη, are especially frequent in Attic drama with reference to (A) the slow but unfailing enforcement of justice or her personification Dike, who reveals who is guilty and who is not; or (B) the revelation of truth and the fulfilment of predictions. Cf. (A) Aesch. Supp. 732, Ag. 463, Cho. 935, Soph. Ant. 303, Eur. Hcld. 941, adesp. TrGF 624.5, Ar. Nub. 1242, Noussia-Fantuzzi

567

C O M M E N TA RY 8 2 9 – 8 3 4 on Solon, F 1.15–16 Gent.-Prato = IEG 13.15–16; (B) Aesch. Ag. 126, Eur. Med. 912, TrGF 773.8. In fact Dike comes to be called the daughter of Chronos at Eur. TrGF 222 τήν τοι Δίκην λέγουσι παῖδ᾽ εἶναι Χρόνου, / δείκνυσι δ’ ἡμῶν ὅστις ἐστὶ μὴ κακός, and Chronos the saviour of the just at Pind. F 159 ἀνδρῶν δικαίων Χρόνος σωτὴρ ἄριστος. παρὰ καιρόν is an adverbial phrase common in prose and not rare in poetry (Theogn. IEG 199, Phocyl. 6.2 Gent.-Prato, Pind. 4x, Eur. IA 800). Here it may be attributive to ἔργον ἢ λόγον, with the verbal element to be extracted from them, ‘deed (done)’, ‘word (spoken)’, as δεσμὰ πωλικῶν ἐξ ἀντύγων (see 567–9n.), and points to appropriateness, rather than timeliness, ‘off the mark’ (Collard and Morwood on IA 797b–800). Emendation to the adjectives παράκαιρον (Vater 257) or ποτ᾽ ἄκαιρον (Sansone (2013)), is thus probably not necessary; for discussion, cf. Feickert 336–7, Liapis 290–1, Fries 426. The phrase recalls Hector’s approval of the watchmen’s decision to come to his bivouac and make a report to him about the fires in the Greek camp at 52 ἐς καιρὸν ἥκεις. They remind Hector of what he had said about their ‘opportunieness’. ἔργον ἢ λόγον probably refers to the activity of the sentries during their watch duty and to the report that they were delivering to Hector at the beginning of the play. Differently, Fries 427 suggests that it is a polar expression, ‘where the second member may have been added by pure association’. κατά με γᾶς … πόρευσον: cf. Eur. TrGF 371.1 πέμψεις δ᾽ ἐς Ἅιδου ζῶντα κοὐ τεθνηκότα, Ar. Ran. 1514 (αὐτοὺς) κατὰ γῆς ταχέως ἀποπέμψω. For the hyperbaton of the pronoun, placed between the preposition and its case in line with Wackernagel’s Law (65–7n.), cf. Soph. OC 1689–90 κατά με ϕόνιος / Ἀΐδας ἕλοι, Eur. Supp. 829 κατά με πέδον γᾶς ἕλοι. For κατὰ γᾶς, cf. also, e.g., Mimn. IEG 2.14 (κατὰ γῆς ἔρχεται εἰς Ἀΐδην), Theogn. IEG 1278, Soph. OC 1775, Eur. TrGF 154.1. πορεύειν/πορεύεσθαι was often used of travelling to the world of the dead in connection with the ‘fording’ of Acheron, and the present passage may presuppose this association: cf. Pind. Pyth. 11.20–1 Κασσάνδραν ... πόρευ᾽ Ἀχέροντος ἀκτὰν παρ᾽ εὔσκιον, Eur. Alc. 440–4 γέρων / νεκροπομπὸς … / πολὺ δὴ πολὺ δὴ γυναῖκ᾽ ἀρίσταν / λίμναν Ἀχεροντίαν πορεύσας, Her. 838–9 πορεύσας δι᾽ Ἀχερούσιον πόρον / τὸν καλλίπαιδα στέϕανον αὐθέντηι ϕόνωι. οὐ παραιτοῦμαι: cf. Eur. Hcld. 1026 κτεῖν᾽· οὐ παραιτοῦμαί σε. 833–4 ‘Why do you threaten these people and, by weaving words, undermine my – a barbarian’s – opinion, you a barbarian as well?’ βάρβαρος … βαρβάρου: solidarity between non-Greeks had been an argument of Hector against Rhesus; see 404. The charioteer is unaware to re-use Hector’s ideas again, after 829 παρὰ καιρόν, to highlight their endorsement. γνώμην ὑφαιρῆι By angrily accusing the sentries of being responsible, through their negligent performance of their duties, for the infiltration of the

568

C O M M E N TA RY 8 3 4 – 8 3 5 Thracian camp by the killers of Rhesus, Hector distracted everyone’s attention from the different opinion that the charioteer had just begun to express at 802–3, but had not yet been able to defend. The charioteer’s view that friendly soldiers were responsible for the raid has thus been left unsupported, whereas Hector has been able forcefully to press his own charges against the watchmen. As observed by Feickert 338, ὑϕαιρεῖσθαι belongs to the technical language of oratory in the fourth century and later: a speaker ‘undermines’ another’s speech when he speaks first and purloins his opponent’s arguments (προκατάληψις): cf. Hyper. 1.11 σὲ … προειδότα … ἃ ἔχω ἐγὼ δίκαια λέγειν πρὸς τὰ παρὰ σοῦ ἐψευσμένα ὑϕαιρεῖσθαί μου τὴν ἀπολογίαν, 4.10 ἐν τῶι προτέρωι λόγωι ὑϕελεῖν τῶν ϕευγόντων τὰς ἀπολογίας, Dem. 23.90 τὸ μηδεμίαν κρίσιν ἐν παντὶ ποιῆσαι τῶι ψηϕίσματι τοιαύτης αἰτίας, τοῦθ’ ὑϕαιρεῖσθαι πειράσεται. πλέκων λόγους: ‘weaving’ (ὑφαίνειν), ‘re-sewing’ (ῥάπτειν > ῥαψωιδός), and ‘plaiting’ (πλέκειν) are very common metaphors for the combination of letters in writing or notes in music or in general the structuring of poetic texts, each presupposing the practice of a τέχνη. This metaphorical use of πλέκειν is attested at Pind. Nem. 4.94 ῥήματα πλέκων, Ol. 6.86–7 πλέκων / ποικίλον ὕμνον, Pyth. 12.8 οὔλιον θρῆνον διαπλέξαισ᾽ Ἀθάνα, F 52c.12 ἀοιδαῖς ἐν εὐπλε[κέσσι; cf. Müller (1974) 228–30, Snyder (1981), Scheid and Svenbro (1996), Nünlist (1998) 110–18. The idea of thoughtful composition that is often applied positively to both poetry and music is also often used negatively of deceitful speech. As straightforward directness is a sign of sincerity (see 422–3n.), so ‘weaving’ often functions as a metaphor for (A) machinations or specifically (B) speech that is not straightforward or sincere but intended to deceive an interlocutor. (A) Sapph. F 1.2 Voigt δολόπλοκος Aphrodite, Sapph. F 188 μυθόπλοκος Eros, Theogn. IEG 226 δολοπλοκία, Cratin. PCG 407 αἱμυλοπλόκος, Aesch. Cho. 220 δόλον … πλέκεις, TrGF 373 δεινοὶ πλέκειν τοι μηχανὰς, Eur. Andr. 66 μηχανὰς πλέκουσιν, Ion 826–7 κἄπλεκεν πλοκὰς / τοιάσδ᾽, 1279–80 ἴδεσθε τὴν πανοῦργον, ἐκ τέχνης τέχνην / οἵαν ἔπλεξε, 1410 παῦσαι πλέκουσα … πλοκάς (with Diggle (1981) 115), IA 936–7 οὐ γὰρ ἐμπλέκειν πλοκὰς / ἐγὼ παρέξω σῶι πόσει τοὐμὸν δέμας. (B) Aesch. PV 610 οὐκ ἐμπλέκων αἰνίγματ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶι λόγωι (see 851n.), Eur. Pho. 494–5 περιπλοκὰς / λόγων ἀθροίσας, Antiph. PCG 75.1 περιπλοκὰς / λίαν ἐρωτᾶις, Straton, PCG 1.35 τί οὖν, ἀπόπληκτε, περιπλοκὰς λέγεις; (cf. 1.36–7 οὐχὶ λαικάσει / ἐρεῖς σαϕέστερόν θ᾽ ὃ βούλει μοι λέγειν;), Pl. Hp. Mi. 369b ἀεὶ σύ τινας τοιούτους πλέκεις λόγους. 835–7a σὺ ταῦτ᾽ ἔδρασας ~ 83a. At the beginning of the play Hector’s military action had been considered by the watchmen to be responsible for the victories of the day before. Now, at the beginning of what may seem to be the tragic peripeteia of Hector’s authority, he is charged with being the principal in the Thracians’ slaughter.

569

C O M M E N TA RY 8 3 5 – 8 3 7 οὐδέν᾽ ἂν δεξαίμεθα: first-person optatives with ἄν, expressing consent, are typical of drama. Just as they ‘can denote that the speaker is going to do something that someone else desires, so too the same construction with a negative can denote that the speaker is refusing to follow a course of action urged by another person’ (Finglass on Soph. OT 343–4); cf. Eur. Med. 616–17 οὔτ᾽ ἂν ξένοισι τοῖσι σοῖς χρησαίμεθ᾽ ἂν / οὔτ᾽ ἄν τι δεξαίμεσθα and (all in the first-person singular) Soph. OT 343, Ph. 1302, OC 45, Eur. Alc. 1111, 1114, Hcld. 344, Pho. 926, Ar. Ach. 403, Lys. 129, Ran. 135, 830. οὔθ᾽ οἱ θανόντες οὔτ᾽ ἂν οἱ τετρωμένοι: for the opposition between dead and wounded, cf. Aesch. Sept. 242–3 ἐὰν θνήισκοντας ἢ τετρωμένους / πύθησθε. Double ἄν (see 835) is standard with oὔτε … οὔτε (601–2n.). The expression covers all the possible witnesses of the slaughter of the Thracians; or it is a periphrasis for ‘all’ the Thracian victims of the attack (Jouan 49 n. 250, followed by Fries 428). The mention of the dead is essential to confirm the gravity of the crime; the wounded are most relevant in this specific context, as they can still speak and endorse the impression of the charioteer, who is one of them (cf. 849). Appeals to the opinion of the dead are found at Soph. El. 400 πατὴρ (Agamemnon, dead) τούτων, οἶδα, συγγνώμην ἔχει, 547–8 δοκῶ μέν, εἰ καὶ σῆς δίχα γνώμης λέγω· / ϕαίη δ᾽ ἂν ἡ θανοῦσά γ᾽, εἰ ϕωνὴν λάβοι, OC 998–9 ἐγὼ οὐδὲ τὴν πατρὸς / ψυχὴν ἂν οἶμαι ζῶσαν ἀντειπεῖν ἐμοί, Lycurg. 136 ἡγοῦμαι δ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶι τὸν τετελευτηκότα, εἴ τις ἄρ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις τοῖς ἐκεῖ περὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε γιγνομένων, ἁπάντων ἂν χαλεπώτατον γενέσθαι δικαστήν, Luc. 40.13 πρὸς ἃς ὁ νεκρὸς αὐτὸς ἀποκρίναιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ λάβοι ϕωνήν (other appeals to objects that according to unemotional logic have no voice: Aesch. Ag. 37–8 οἶκος δ᾽ αὐτός, εἰ ϕθογγὴν λάβοι, / σαϕέστατ᾽ ἂν λέξειεν, Eur. Hipp. 1074–5 ὦ δώματ᾽, εἴθε ϕθέγμα γηρύσαισθέ μοι / καὶ μαρτυρήσαιτ᾽ εἰ κακὸς πέϕυκ᾽ ἀνήρ). Cf. Dover (1974) 243, Finglass on El. 400. 837b–40 ‘You need a really long and shrewd speech to persuade me that you did not kill your friends from a desire for the horses – for them you assassinated your allies, whom you many times begged to come.’ μακροῦ γε δεῖ σε … λόγου: emphatic γε gives a sarcastic exclamatory tone to the opening word of the sentence; cf. Eur. Med. 504, 512, Ar. Av. 1401, Pl. 849, Denniston (1954) 126–8, Dunbar on Ar. Av. 1401. The construction of impersonal δεῖ with genitive of the thing and accusative of the person (instead of the commoner construction with dative of the person) is attested at least 11x in Eur., and elsewhere at Aesch. PV 86 αὐτὸν γάρ σε δεῖ προμηθέως (προμηθίας Elmsley) and at adesp. PCG 257 εὐρυχωρίας σε δεῖ; cf. KG I.297, Ritchie (1964) 249. But the extant plays and fragments of Eur. do not attest μακρὸς λόγος in δεῖ phrases, and the closest parallels to our passage are Aesch. PV 870 μακροῦ λόγου δεῖ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπεξελθεῖν τορῶς and 875–6 ταῦτα δεῖ μακροῦ λόγου / εἰπεῖν. Rh. appears to combine the Euripidean construction of δεῖ with genitive and accusative with the parallel phrases with δεῖ and

570

C O M M E N TA RY 8 3 7 – 8 4 2 μακροῦ λόγου, which we find only in PV: it may be an instance of the ‘mosaic technique’ typical of the style of the play (Introduction, pp. 24–5). πείσεις μὴ φίλους κατακτανεῖν While the (accusative and) infinitive construction is common with the passive πείθεσθαι, πείθειν is usually followed by phrases with ὡς and finite verb: KG II.9 and Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 31. For active πείθειν with (accusative and) infinitive, cf. however, Hdt. 3.155.4, 4.154.2, Eur. Pho. 31, Xen. Mem. 1.2.49. The preverb κατα- highlights the idea of completion: ‘utterly killed’. ἵππων ἐρασθείς: the verb, indicating a very strong feeling, was used by Hector about himself and the horses at 184. His desire for the horses is contrasted with his rough treatment of those who, as φίλοι, should have been the object of his affection. ὧν ἕκατι ~ Hcld. 37, Or. 26, Telecl. PCG 44.4. φονεύεις is a registering present, for an action located in the same past perspective as σὺ ταῦτ᾽ ἔδρασας (835). Lenting’s emendation δρῶσιν at 805 would restore a parallel present (see 804–5n.). For other registering presents picking up an aorist (or vice versa), cf., e.g., Eur. Alc. 6–7 κτείνω Κύκλωπας· καί με θητεύειν πατὴρ / … ἠνάγκασεν, Hec. 266 κείνη γὰρ ὤλεσέν νιν ἐς Τροίαν τ’ ἄγει, Ion 774–5 κείνωι … παῖδα Λοξίας / ἔδωκεν and 780–1 νεανίαν / δίδωσιν αὐτῶι Λοξίας and likewise 1560–1 τίκτει σ᾽ ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος πατρός, / δίδωσι δ᾽ οἷς ἔδωκεν. ἐπισκήπτων here has a concessive value. The verb had already been used of Hector’s pressing invitations at 402. 841–2 Hector had accused Rhesus of being a bad φίλος, despite the bond of ξενία connecting him to Troy and Hector in particular (324–6, 395–419). The charioteer brings against Hector a similar but heavier charge of ξενοκτονία. Speaking of the Trojans in general while killing a Trojan but thinking specifically of Paris, the Iliadic Menelaus boasts that they will pay for offending Zeus Xenios (13.622–5): ἄλλης μὲν λώβης τε καὶ αἴσχεος οὐκ ἐπιδευεῖς, / ἣν ἐμὲ λωβήσασθε, κακαὶ κύνες, οὐδέ τι θυμῶι / Ζηνὸς ἐριβρεμέτεω χαλεπὴν ἐδδείσατε μῆνιν / ξεινίου, ὅς τέ ποτ᾽ ὔμμι διαϕθέρσει πόλιν αἰπήν. During his first rendezvous with Paris under the walls of Troy, Menelaus appeals to Zeus as a deceived ξένος who wants his revenge (3.351–4): Ζεῦ ἄνα, δὸς τείσασθαι, ὅ με πρότερος κάκ᾽ ἔοργεν / δῖον Ἀλέξανδρον, καὶ ἐμῆις ὑπὸ χερσὶ δάμασσον, / ὄϕρα τις ἐρρίγηισι καὶ ὀψιγόνων ἀνθρώπων / ξεινοδόκον κακὰ ῥέξαι, ὅ κεν ϕιλότητα παράσχηι. It was because Heracles had killed his guest Iphitus (Od. 21.27–9) that he was afflicted with a sickness which could only be healed when he agreed to become Omphale’s slave. The Euripidean Hecuba, referring to the murder of her son by his host Polymestor, appeals to the ‘right of ξένοι’ (Hec. 708–15): τίς γάρ νιν ἔκτειν᾽ ...; ⸬ ἐμὸς ἐμὸς ξένος, Θρήικιος ἱππότας ... ⸬ ἄρρητ’ ἀνωνόμαστα. … οὐχ ὅσι᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀνεκτά. ποῦ δίκα ξένων;. In the fourth century this view of ξενοκτονία seems not to have disappeared, at least to judge by

571

C O M M E N TA RY 8 4 1 – 8 4 5 accusations made in trials. Aeschin. 3.224 violently attacks Demosthenes for torturing to death one of his ξένοι, and Isocr. 12.121–2 includes the killing of a ξένος among the most nefarious crimes (murders of brothers and fathers, matricide and incest, etc.,) that were common in the cities of old, but had become less frequent in modern times. Cf. Herman (1987) 122–5. ἦλθον, τεθνᾶσιν: the asyndeton highlights the idea that the two events take place in rapid sequence; cf. Liapis 293. The rhetorical effect is the same as in Caesar’s veni vidi vici. εὐπρεπέστερον … κατήισχυν᾽: cf. Aesch. Ag. 399–401 οἷος καὶ Πάρις ἐλθὼν / ἐς δόμον τὸν Ἀτρειδᾶν / ἤισχυνε ξενίαν τράπε/ζαν κλοπαῖσι γυναικός. The verb here means ‘dishonour’, as usually in the active. In combination with εὐπρεπέστερον ‘more suitably’, it creates an oxymoron that graphically reminds the audience that there is a hierarchy of ‘unacceptability’ in defilement, and that Hector’s action has surpassed even the original infringement of the rules of ξενία by Paris. 843–6 For the geography presupposed in the play, cf. Introduction, p. 6. μὴ γάρ τι λέξηις ὡς parallels οὐ γάρ τι λέξεις ὡς of 399. Compare μὴ λέξηις/οὐ λέξεις, found in Attic drama: with μή, Soph. Ph. 1275, TrGF 269d.21, Eur. Hcld. 548, Pho. 925, IA 361. The speaker does not know positively what the other may try to say and γάρ clears the ground by ruling out a possible argument as logically impossible; see 399–403n. ὥς τις Ἀργείων μολών ~ 292. τίς ἂν … ἦλθεν . . . ; With a past indicative and no ἄν, this would be a question about the identity of the intruder, which is certainly not what the charioteer intends. Nauck (i) xxiii and (1862) 182–3 restored ἄν for the transmitted δ’. τίς δ᾽ … ἦλθ᾽ ἄν, proposed by Beck (1780) 12 n. 3, was criticised by Paley 59 and Nauck (1862) 182 in the light of the rule, formulated by Elmsley on Eur. Med. 416, that Attic dramatists avoid eliding the final -ε in the third-person singular before ἄν. But Diggle (1974=1994) 109 n. 61 and 197 has shown that many passages invalidate that supposed rule. Beck’s τίς δ᾽, however, would interrupt the nearly consistent series of asyndeta in the first part of the charioteer’s speech (Fries 430). In favour of Nauck’s text is the early position assigned to ἄν, which can apply both to the main verb and to the participle ὑπερβαλών (Diggle, per litteras). The potential past indicative would thus conveniently present a past act, here the crossing of the Trojan camp, as dependent on past circumstances (ὑπερβαλών). ὥστε καὶ λαθεῖν: especially with a negative or virtually negative main clause, consecutive clauses beginning with ὥστε καί introduce a limitative qualification of the verb of the principal clause (Denniston (1954) 299); cf. Soph. Aj. 1325 τί γάρ σ᾽ ἔδρασεν, ὥστε καὶ βλάβην ἔχειν;, Eur. Hel. 841 πῶς οὖν θανούμεθ᾽ ὥστε καὶ δόξαν λαβεῖν;, Ar. Th. 33–4 οὐχ ἑόρακας πώποτε; / ⸬ μὰ τὸν Δί᾽ οὔτοι γ᾽ ὥστε κἀμέ γ᾽ εἰδέναι.

572

C O M M E N TA RY 8 4 7 – 8 5 0 ἧσο ‘you were camped’; see 613–15n. Φρυγῶν στρατός ~ 727. 847–50 ‘Who of your companions (?) was wounded or died, when the men you call “enemies” arrived? But we were wounded, and those who suffered worse no longer see the light of sun.’ †συμμάχων† τῶν σῶν The Thracians are at this point allies of Troy, but the charioteer appears to exclude the Thracians from the σύμμαχοι and to use the term only for the allies who had been fighting at Troy for a long time, and had been mentioned as such by Hector at 416–18, not for the Thracians who were located in a different camp from the Trojan/allied one. It would be surprising if he reproduces here the unfair distinction between the other long-active allies, whom Hector clearly preferred, and the Thracians. But if he does, σῶν is a possessive of contempt (see 438–42n.) emphasising the charioteer’s grudge against Hector’s discrimination. Battezzato (2000b) 368 n. 9 suggests the translation ‘all (except us) who fight on your side’, thus seeming to take σύμμαχοι not technically as allies but etymologically as comrades in arms; but this meaning is not attested. As Fries 430 rightly observes, of the two attempts by Murray at emending the passage, συγγενῶν τῶν σῶν seems better than ἐν λόχωι τῶι σῶι, as a reference to Hector’s personal unit (mentioned at 26) would be too restrictive, after 844–5 (divisions of the Trojans) and 846 (Trojan army). ὧν (for MSS ὡς) was proposed by Bothe (i) III.366. The rearrangement suggested by Blaydes (1901) 10, μολόντων ὡς λέγεις σὺ πολεμίων, provides a readable text, but the word-break between the first short and the two shorts of the resolved longum in the fifth foot has very few parallels in tragedy, and none in Eur. (Liapis (2011) 97). ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ τετρώμεθ᾽: δέ contrasts the Thracians with the σύμμαχοι, while adverbial καί emphasises that they have suffered more than the other participants in the war (it contrasts the objective reality of their suffering with the unreality of any suffering experienced by any member of this other group: Denniston (1954) 321–2). μειζόνως is a prose word, attested in poetry only at Eur. Hec. 1121. It suits the rhetoric of simplicity that the charioteer favours (851n.), and should not be changed to adverbial neuter μείζονα, the common poetic adverb, suggested by Elmsley on Eur. Hcld. 544. οὐχ ὁρῶσιν ἡλίου φάος ‘are dead’ is the negative version of the metaphor ‘see the light (φῶς/φάος) of the sun’ = ‘be alive’, common in poetry from Hom. onwards (also in the Rigveda: West (1988) 154), both in the form ‘sees the light of the sun’ (Hom. Il. 5.120) and in the form ‘is alive and sees the light of the sun’ (Il. 18.61 = 442; Od. 4.540 ~ 4.833, 10.498, 14.44, 20.207, HHom. Aphr. 105). For ‘see the light’ = ‘be alive’ in tragedy (only occasionally with the specifications ‘is alive’ and ‘of the sun’), cf. Aesch. Pers. 299, 710, Ag. 1646,

573

C O M M E N TA RY 8 5 0 – 8 5 5 Eum. 746, Soph. Ph. 663, Eur. Alc. 82, 272, 283, 691 = Ar. Th. 194, Eur. Hcld. 969, Hipp. 4, 57, 355, 1193, Hec. 248, 668, El. 349, IT 608, 674, Ion 345, 1121, Hel. 60, Pho. 1084, 1547–8, Or. 386, 1523, IA 484, 1218–19, 1394, TrGF 293.2. The phrase is rare in prose, but cf. Andoc. 1.68, Lycurg. F 12.1 Conom. While this metaphor is conventionally used in the positive sense in epic, tragedy, and prose, the negative idea of ‘not see the light’ = ‘be dead’, conveyed here and at 967, is very rare, and different periphrases are used for the status of the dead, such as οὐκ εἰμί, οὐκέτι εἰμί, οὐδέν εἰμί; cf. Aerts (1965) 20. The only passage in tragedy where ‘not to see the light’ means ‘be dead’ is Eur. IT 564 θανοῦσαν οὐχ ὁρᾶν ϕάος; cf. also Soph. El. 1078–9 οὔτε τι τοῦ θανεῖν προμηθὴς / τό τε μὴ βλέπειν ἑτοίμα and Tr. 828–30 πῶς γὰρ ἂν ὁ μὴ λεύσσων / ἔτι ποτ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἐπίπονον / ἔχοι θανὼν λατρείαν;, which lack the specification of ‘light’, and Bacch. 5.160–2, Eur. Alc. 18, Hec. 641–2, where it is not the idea of death that is expressed, but a negation of the status of being alive. 851 ἁπλῶς ‘simply’ ~ ’frankly’ brachylogically presupposes a verb of saying (as at Philem. PCG 114.2–3 ἁπλῶς γάρ, οὐδὲ ἓν … συνίημι). For rhetorical simplicity, cf. Aesch. Supp. 464, PV 610, Anaxilas PCG 22.23, Alexis, PCG 242.6–7, quoted above in 754–5n., Isocr. 4.154 ὡς δ’ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν (~ 15.117, Dem. 20.124), Ep. 9.5 περὶ ὧν μὴ κομψῶς ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς διελθὼν μηδὲ τῆι λέξει κοσμήσας, Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 464. This remark continues to characterise the charioteer as a man who favours direct and straightforward expression (he had already declared his disdain for Hector’s allegedly tortuous rhetoric at 834). Rhesus had also advocated frankness of speech at 422–3. Ἀχαιῶν οὐδέν᾽ αἰτιώμεθα is here probably a technical idiom of the language of the law court: ‘we bring charges against none of the Greeks’. At this point the charioteer indirectly formalises his accusation against Hector. Ἀχαιοὺς οὐδὲν αἰτ- of V is not unacceptable, but Ἀχαιῶν οὐδέν᾽ αἰτ- establishes an appropriate connection with 843 τις Ἀργείων. 852–5 Immediately after excluding the Greeks from his charges, the charioteer formulates an argument from probability (εἰκός), again in negative form, to support his acquittal of the Greeks. This leads immediately to his accusation of the Trojans and in particular Hector, as Hector shows that he has understood in his reaction at 856–8. The argument from probability was a hallmark of rhetorical sophistication, and a feature of the new contemporary Sicilian rhetoric (Lloyd (1992) 28–9). The charioteeer’s reconstruction of events is wrong, but he hits the mark with his comment at 611–21 about divine intervention and information given to Odysseus and Diomedes (Fries 431). The audience, which knows about Athena’s efforts, is thus in suspense: with such good arguments, will the charioteer manage to win his case, after all? Compare the argument from

574

C O M M E N TA RY 8 5 2 – 8 5 7 probability with which at Soph. OT 124–5 Oedipus refutes Creon’s idea that Laius was killed by a robber, and suggests that the robber must have been employed and paid by someone in Thebes: πῶς οὖν ὁ ληιστής, εἴ τι μὴ ξὺν ἀργύρωι / ἐπράσσετ᾽ ἐνθένδ᾽, ἐς τόδ᾽ ἂν τόλμης ἔβη;. χαμεύνας … εὐφρόνην are recurring terms of the play’s lexicon of the night: see, respectively, 9n., 91–2n. μολὼν ἐξηῦρεν is a tragic phrase: Aesch. Ag. 606 εὕροι μολών, Eur. Alc. 834 εὑρήσω μολών, Hipp. 1153–4 μολὼν / εὕροιμ᾽ ἄν. ἔφραζε ‘explained’; see 656–9n. The protasis states a past supposition contrary to fact and the apodosis what the result would have been if that condition had been fulfilled (the Greeks did in fact find Rhesus’ bivouac, and so a god must have pointed the way; cf. Goodwin (1889) 147). οὐδ᾽ ἀφιγμένον / τὸ πάμπαν ἦισαν ‘and they did not know at all that he had come’, with the object ‘Rhesus’ easily understood from 853. ἦισαν is the Attic pluperfect of οἶδα, generated by syncope from ἤιδεσαν (never in prose); here it is construed with accusative and predicative participle of the object, as at Eur. Cycl. 231 οὐκ ἦισαν ὄντα θεόν με. τὸ πάμπαν ‘at all’, adverbial: Eur. TrGF 196.2, Plato 3x, Hippocr. 15x. μηχαναὶ τάδε, a perorational nominal phrase that brings together all Hector’s explanations under a single dismissive category. μηχαναί, already attested by Etym. gen. = Orus, Lex. B 77 Alpers, is a necessary emendation by Musgrave (1762) 95. Transmitted μηχανᾶι (defended by Feickert 343), from μηχανᾶσθαι, should refer to Hector, but we would need an emphatic σύ in this case, which it is impossible to supply from 848 (Liapis 294). 856–8 ‘We have been dealing with allies ever since the Achaean army has been in this land, and I am not aware that I have heard a single outrageous word from them.’ Hector’s memory is defective here. In fact before the night of Il. 10 he had had to cope with the χαλεπὴ ἐνιπή (5.492; cf. also 5.471 μάλα νείκεσεν) of the Lycian Sarpedon, who rebuked him for the contempt that he had shown to the allies. For later attacks on Hector by the Lycian Glaucus, see 251b–2n. χρόνον … ὅσονπερ ‘ever since (the Achaean army has been …)’, as at Eur. Hel. 401–2 τλήμων ἀλῶμαι χρόνον ὅσονπερ Ἰλίου / πύργους ἔπερσα (with Kannicht ad loc.). συμμάχοισι χρώμεθα: cf. Eur. Hcld. 347–8 θεοῖσι δ᾽ οὐ κακίοσιν / χρώμεσθα συμμάχοισιν, Xen. Hell. 4.1.36 ἡμῖν συμμάχοις χρώμενον, Mem. 1.2.24 ἐκείνωι χρωμένω συμμάχωι, Dem. 16.29 τούτοις συμμάχοις ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους ἀεὶ χρῶνται. ὅσονπερ ἐν γῆι τῆιδ᾽ = Eur. Hec. 33.

575

C O M M E N TA RY 8 5 9 – 8 6 1 Ἀχαιικὸς λεώς occurs at Aesch. Ag. 189, Eur. Hec. 510, and is the tragic version of λαὸς Ἀχαιϊκός of Hom. Il. 9.521, 13.349, 15.218 (the standard Iliadic formula is λαὸς Ἀχαιῶν, 24x). On λεως, here ‘army’, as most frequently in the Il., see 408–11a n. οἶδα … κλυών: see 573n. πλημμελές is mainly a prose word, but occurs in tragedy at Eur. Med. 306 μὴ τί πλημμελὲς πάθηις;, Hel. 1085 ἢν γὰρ καί τι πλημμελές σε δρᾶι, and, in the verbal form πλημμελήσας, Pho. 1655. It designates anything ‘immoderate’, etymologically a faulty deviation from the norm of musical rhythm (μέλος), in opposition to ἐμμελής. Here, as certainly in Eur., it may silently point to an attack of the kind Hector actually receives in Il. 5.472–92 from Sarpedon, or later from Glaucus (see 856–8n.). In his reply to one of the rebukes of Glaucus Hector calls it ὑπέροπλον (Il. 17.170), conveying an idea of offence as excess that is similar to that of πλημμελής. 859a ‘We would make a start with you.’ ἐν σοί ‘in connection with you’, as, e.g., at Soph. Aj. 1092 ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστής, 1315 δειλὸς εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ ᾽ν ἐμοὶ θρασύς, OC 1213–14 σκαιοσύναν ϕυλάσ/σων, ἐν ἐμοὶ κατάδηλος ἔσται, Eur. Hipp. 1320 σὺ δ᾽ ἔν τ᾽ ἐκείνωι κἀν ἐμοὶ ϕαίνηι κακός, TrGF 347.3 ἔν γ᾽ ἐμοὶ κρίνοιτ᾽ ἂν οὐ καλῶς ϕρονεῖν, Amphis, PCG 21.3–4 μάταιός ἐστιν ἔν γ᾽ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοϕοῖς / κριταῖς; cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1318–20. ἂν ἀρχοίμεσθα: see 201–3n. The nuance of more or less reluctant consent involved in the optative may suggest the idea that Hector would have preferred not to stand the charioteer’s complaints and accusation, which he presents here as the first episode of tension with the allies (but see 856–8n.). 859b–60 ‘May I never be possessed by such a love for horses that I kill friends.’ μή μ᾽ ἔρως ἕλοι: cf. Aesch. TrGF 44.2 ἔρως δὲ γαῖαν λαμβάνει γάμου τυχεῖν, Eur. TrGF 331.1 μ᾽ ἔρως ἕλοι ποτέ. 861–2 ‘That is Odysseus again. For who else of the Greeks would have accomplished or planned that?’ Hector replies to the argument from probability used by the charioteer (852–4) with his own conjecture based on εἰκός. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς may imply a verb of ‘doing’ (Liapis 296), or ταῦτα may stand in predicative apposition, with ἐστίν understood (Fries 433): ‘also these things are by Odysseus’ (adverbial καί). For such a neuter predicate, cf. Soph. Tr. 1278 κοὐδὲν τούτων ὅτι μὴ Ζεύς, Theocr. 15.8 ταῦθ᾽ ὁ πάραρος τῆνος, and perhaps Soph. OT 1329 Ἀπόλλων τάδ’ ἦν (see Finglass on OT 1329–33). The construction has a negative version, often with a contemptuous connotation: Hom. Od. 1.226 οὐκ ἔρανος τάδε γ᾽ ἐστίν, Eur. Cycl. 63 οὐ τάδε Βρόμιος, οὐ τάδε χοροί, 204–5 οὐχὶ Διόνυσος τάδε, / οὐ κρόταλα, Andr. 168–9 οὐ γάρ ἔσθ᾽ Ἕκτωρ τάδε, / οὐ Πρίαμος οὐδὲ χρυσὸς, ἀλλ᾽ Ἑλλὰς πόλις,

576

C O M M E N TA RY 8 6 1 – 8 6 4 Tro. 99–100 οὐκέτι Τροία / τάδε καὶ βασιλῆς ἐσμεν Τροίας, TrGF 752f.9–10 οὐ τάδε πήνας, οὐ τάδε κερκίδος / ἱστοτόνου παραμύθια Λήμνια, Stevens on Eur. Andr. 168. In the light of these parallels, there is no need to emend Ὀδυσσεύς to the genitive Ὀδυσσέως (with Fix xxxi), although the change would be supported by 704 ἔστ᾽ Ὀδυσσέως τοὔργον. The similarity between the statement of 704 and our passage reminds the audience that Hector shares the opinion that the chorus had voiced at 704, and makes it understandable that the chorus defends Hector against the accusation. ἔδρασεν ἢ ᾽βούλευσεν refers to ‘executing’ and ‘planning’, i.e., the full responsibility for an action, possibly with a tone of solemn formality, as at Soph. Ant. 265–7 θεοὺς ὁρκωμοτεῖν / τὸ … μήτε τωι ξυνειδέναι / τὸ πρᾶγμα βουλεύσαντι μήτ᾽ εἰργασμένωι and the paratragic Ar. Th. 587 ἵν᾽ ἅττα βουλεύοισθε καὶ μέλλοιτε δρᾶν. Hector’s hysteron-proteron may result from the regressive way in which he thinks of the operations of the two Greeks as a continuity starting with the evident effects of action and going back to its planning, thus thwarting the charioteer’s accusation that he was the plotter behind the death of Rhesus. 863–4 From the slaughter of the Thracians Hector’s mind moves to the possible death of Dolon, establishing an implicit connection between the two. At 525 the chorus had already contemplated the possibility that Dolon might not be ‘safe’. δέδοικα δ᾽ αὐτὸν … μὴ καὶ Δόλωνα συντυχὼν κατέκτανεν ‘I have a fear  … that he has run into Dolon and killed him too’: the subject of the subordinate clause is given first in the main clause as the object of δέδοικα, as, e.g., at Soph. OT 767–8 δέδοικ᾽ ἐμαυτόν, ὦ γύναι, μὴ πόλλ᾽ ἄγαν / εἰρημέν᾽ ἦι μοι and Eur. Med. 37 δέδοικα δ’ αὐτὴν μή τι βουλεύσηι νέον. The indicative is the usual mood for a past action with an impact on the present in subordinate clauses attached to verbs of fearing; cf. Soph. Aj. 278–9 δέδοικα μὴ … πληγή τις ἥκει (perfective present), Thuc. 3.53.2 ϕοβούμεθα μὴ … ἡμαρτήκαμεν, Dem. 19.96 δέδοικα μὴ λελήθαμεν, KG II.394–5, Finglass on Soph. El. 581 and Aj. 278–80. κατέκτανεν (Matthiae VIII.38) for transmitted κατακτάνηι is thus unavoidable (the paradosis is also divided between indicative and subjunctive at Soph. Aj. 278–9, quoted above). κατακτάνηι has sometimes been defended as a Homerism. In Hom. as well as in later syntax the prevailing general rule is that the subjunctive is not used in subordinate clauses with reference to the past, but some aorist subjunctives in subordinate clauses introduced by μή and governed by a verb of fearing seem to refer to actions that have already happened (‘the reference to the past cannot come from any past force of the aorist subjunctive itself, but is probably an inference drawn from the context’, as Goodwin (1889) 26–7 puts it). However, in most of the few Homeric ‘exceptions’ the reference of those aorist subjunctives to the past is anything but certain; for instance, at Il. 10.538 (δέδοικα…) μή τι πάθωσι, used

577

C O M M E N TA RY 8 6 5 – 8 6 8 by Pearson (1921) 57 to defend κατακτάνηι in Rh., the reference to the future or the present is certainly more probable (Liapis 298). Besides, in a text where the syntax is consistently Attic, it is difficult to suppose that this specific detail of Homeric syntax could be easily grasped (Fries 434). καί τί μου θράσσει φρένας ‘and some agitation affects my mind’, a parenthetic addition that nuances and intensifies the feeling of fear; cf. Solon, IEG 4a γιγνώσκω, καί μοι ϕρενὸς ἔνδοθεν ἄλγεα κεῖται, / … ἐσορῶν γαῖαν … / κλινομένην, where the same sequence is found of first-person verb of perception and objectified description of an emotion as a disturbance of the mind (for the same sense of the verb, cf. Aesch. PV 628 σὰς δ᾽ ὀκνῶ θράξαι ϕρένας). 865 χρόνον: adverbial accusative without explicit qualification = ‘for a time’. It occurs in Hom. (Od. 4.599, 6.295, 9.138), Hdt. and Thuc. In tragedy it is found only here, but this should not lead us to emend χρόνον to χρόνιος (used at 559), as suggested by Nauck (1862) 184, because Rh. has frequent points of contact with the language of the historians. φροῦδος … οὐ φαίνεται: cf. Ar. Eccl. 311–12 ποῖ ποθ᾿ ἡ γυνὴ ϕρούδη ᾽στί μοι; / ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἕω νῦν γ᾽ ἔστιν, ἡ δ᾽ οὐ ϕαίνεται. 866–7 ‘Your’ Odysseuses is a possessive of mocking contempt, often re-using one of the addressee’s words (438–42n.); cf. Aesch. TrGF 14 κἄγωγε τὰς σὰς βακκάρεις τε καὶ μύρα (context unknown), Soph. El. 1110 οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν κληδόν(α) (with Finglass ad loc.), Ant. 573 ἄγαν γε λυπεῖς καὶ σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν λέχος, Ph. 1251 τὸν σὸν οὐ ταρβῶ στρατόν, TrGF 165.1 οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πεῖραν (context unknown), Eur. Hcld. 284 ϕθείρου· τὸ σὸν γὰρ Ἄργος οὐ δέδοικ᾽ ἐγώ (with Wilkins ad loc.), Hipp. 113 τὴν σὴν δὲ Κύπριν πόλλ’ ἐγὼ χαίρειν λέγω, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 792–3. The charioteer, who declares that he does not know of Odysseus, prefers the generalising plural ‘people like your Odysseus’, as, e.g., at Pl. Tht. 169b μυρίοι γὰρ ἤδη μοι Ἡρακλέες τε καὶ Θησέες ἐντυχόντες καρτεροὶ πρὸς τὸ λέγειν, 180e ἄλλα ὅσα Μέλισσοί τε καὶ Παρμενίδαι ἐναντιούμενοι πᾶσι τούτοις διισχυρίζονται, Mx. 245d οὐ γὰρ Πέλοπες οὐδὲ Κάδμοι οὐδὲ Αἴγυπτοί τε καὶ Δαναοὶ … συνοικοῦσιν ἡμῖν. The humorous potential of duplicating individual characters was often exploited by comedy; cf., e.g., Cratinus’ Archilochuses, Cleoboulinai, Dionysoi, Odysseis, Ploutoi, Cheirones, Teleclides’ Hesiodoi. For the plural conveying animosity or contempt, cf. Aesch. Ag. 1439 Χρυσηίδων μείλιγμα τῶν ὑπ᾽ Ἰλίωι, Soph. OT 1405–7 κἀπεδείξατε / πατέρας, ἀδελφούς, παῖδας, αἷμ᾽ ἐμφύλιον, / νύμφας, γυναῖκας, μητέρας τε, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1438. 868 ‘Go on believing that, as that is your opinion’. Instead of continuing the debate, progressive δ᾽ οὖν, here as at 336, introduces a new concession that may close it. By suggesting that he will leave the charioteer free to stick to

578

C O M M E N TA RY 8 6 9 – 8 7 0 his ideas, Hector indicates that he will not try to persuade him any more (cf. Denniston (1954) 467). 869 comes back to the charioteer’s initial complaint of 758–61. He seems in fact to fear that he cannot have the fine death, with due funerary honours, that dying in one’s own fatherland would guarantee; see 758–61n., Liapis 298–9. ὦ γαῖα πατρίς ~ Eur. TrGF 696.1; cf. Med. 328 ὦ πατρίς = 645, Tro. 458 ὦ φίλη πατρίς, Bacch. 1368–9 ὦ πατρία / πόλις; also Soph. Ph. 1213, quoted below. πῶς ἂν ἐνθάνοιμί σοι; ‘How may I die in you?’: cf. 751 πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμην;, Soph. Ph. 1213–14 ὦ πόλις πόλις πατρία, / πῶς ἂν εἰσίδοιμ’ / ἄθλιός σ᾽ ἀνήρ;. The infinitive ἐνθανεῖν is found at Eur. Hcld. 560 and Hec. 246. Soph. OC 789–90 ἔστιν δὲ παισὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖσι τῆς ἐμῆς / χθονὸς λαχεῖν τοσοῦτον, ἐνθανεῖν μόνον parallels the charioteer’s wish. 870 The present of the imperative, instead of focusing on the single instant of death envisaged by the charioteer (as in his aorist ἐνθάνοιμι), continually forbids the intention implied in the charioteer’s wish (Bakker (1966) 63). Similarly Eur. Alc. 690 μὴ θνῆισχ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦδ᾽ ἀνδρός, Or. 1075 μὴ σύνθνηισκέ μοι, IA 1419 μὴ θνῆισκε δι᾽ ἐμὲ μηδ᾽ ἀποκτείνηις τινά. The line has consistently received disparaging evaluations: from Valckenaer (1767) 110, who defined it Sithonia nive frigidior, to Fraenkel (1965) 238, who compared it to Eur. Hec. 278 μηδὲ κτάνητε· τῶν τεθνηκότων ἅλις, and suggested considering the two passages a paradigmatic instance of ‘poor imitation and excellent model’ – an assessment which is substantially followed by Meschini (1976) 183, Klyve 45, Liapis 299, Fries 436. Meschini tried to justify the banality of the line as an attempt to play down the intense pathos of 869 through a touch of ‘irony’; but the context seems too desperate and pathetic to leave room for irony. Alternatively, this line may be an instance (certainly not the most felicitous) of the frequent attention of Rh. to the practice and psychology of military life: as a good leader of the coalition of Trojans and allies, Hector is concerned with the task of limiting the casualties of war in his ranks as much as he can. ἅλις, adverb, is here used predicatively in a phrase with ἐστι understood. It is relatively common in Eur., where it is used in particular of pain or manifestations of pain: Alc. 673 ἅλις … ἡ παροῦσα συμφορά, Hec. 278, quoted above, 394 ἅλις κόρης σῆς θάνατος, Supp. 818 ἔχεις ἔχεις ... ⸬ πημάτων γ᾽ ἅλις βάρος, 1147–8 ἅλις γόων, / ἅλις ἀλγέων ἐμοὶ πάρεστιν, Her. 1394 δακρύων ἅλις, IT 1008 ἅλις τὸ κείνης αἷμα, Ion 1508 τὰ πάροιθεν ἅλις κακά, Pho. 1748 ἅλις ὀδυρμάτων ἐμῶν, Or. 1039 ἅλις τὸ μητρὸς αἷμ(α); also Soph. Tr. 332 ἅλις γὰρ ἡ παροῦσα (scil. λύπη). τῶν τεθνηκότων ὄχλος: cf. Eur. Supp. 756 ὁ δ᾽ ἄλλος ποῦ κεκμηκότων ὄχλος;.

579

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 1 – 8 7 3 871 The idea that the ruin of the master makes it impossible for the servants to find their way back home is paralleled in Soph. Aj. 900–1 ὤμοι ἐμῶν νόστων· / ὤμοι, κατέπεϕνες, ἄναξ, τόνδε συνναύταν, τάλας. ποῖ δὴ τράπωμαι…;: τραπέσθαι is often used for uncertainties about directions or decisions in tragedy; cf. Aesch. Pers. 458–9 ἀμηχανεῖν / ὅποι τράποιντο, Ag. 1530–2 ἀμηχανῶ /… / ὅπα τράπωμαι, Cho. 408–9 πᾶι / τις τράποιτ᾽ ἄν;, Eur. Cycl. 309 ποῖ τρέψεταί τις;, Med. 502 νῦν ποῖ τράπωμαι;, Hec. 1099 ποῖ τράπωμαι, ποῖ πορευθῶ;, Pho. 722, Or. 635, Bacch. 1366 ποῖ γὰρ τράπωμαι πατρίδος ἐκβεβλημένη;. But the verb seems here to express mainly geographical disorientation, in view of 869 and 871–2. δή (Porson (1812) 227, for transmitted δέ), is metrically necessary, as a group of mute plus nasal or liquid consonants does not usually close (i.e. lengthen) a preceding short-vowel syllable in tragedy, if the vowel and group of consonants are divided between the end of one word and the beginning of another; cf. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 760 and Denniston on Eur. El. 1058. ποῦ δή and ποῖ δή are not uncommon in tragedy (Aesch. 4x, Eur. 4x). The v.l. ποῖ νῦν (Af) is an interesting alternative to Porson’s emendation, as ποῦ νῦν is attested twice in Eur. (Hcld. 662, TrGF 62d.27). But, while it is easy to explain the corruption of ποῖ δή to ποῖ δέ, it is more difficult to see why an original ποῖ νῦν should be replaced by ποῖ δέ;. μονούμενος is found with the genitive of the object of deprivation elsewhere in tragedy: e.g., Eur. Alc. 380, TrGF 393. 872 ‘My house will shelter and heal you.’ Cf. Hom. Od. 6.303 ὁπότ᾽ ἄν σε δόμοι κεκύθωσι καὶ αὐλή, Eur. Hec. 880 στέγαι κεκεύθασ᾽ αἵδε Τρωιάδων ὄχλον. Hector assumes that the charioteer was merely wondering where to go after the death of his master, like for instance Teucer after the death of Ajax at Soph. Aj. 1006–9 ποῖ γὰρ μολεῖν μοι δυνατόν, εἰς ποίους βροτούς / τοῖς σοῖς ἀρήξαντ᾽ ἐν πόνοισι μηδαμοῦ; 873 αὐθεντῶν χέρες: the word αὐθέντης, meaning etymologically ‘murderer’ (Chantraine (1960)), appears in tragedy either in this sense (Soph. El. 272 (in the form αὐτοέντην; v.l. αὐτοφόντην), OT 107 (in the form αὐτοέντας), Eur. Andr. 172, 614) or in the more specific sense ‘murderer of one’s own kin’ (‘literary deformation of the original sense’: Chantraine (2009) 132) at Aesch. Ag. 1573, Eum. 212, Eur. Her. 839, 1359, Tro. 660, IA 1190; in Antiphon and later also ‘one who commits suicide’. Both main tragic meanings suit our passage, but the second is more appealing, as the charioteer would point to Hector and his attendants as people who should have felt connected to Rhesus and the Thracians by an especially close bond of φιλία, instead of killing them; cf. 839–42. The emotion produced in the charioteer by the idea of being assisted by the hands of Hector’s attendants (those who he may suspect would have

580

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 3 – 8 7 5 carried out the theft of Rhesus’ horse and his slaughter) will have been first of all ‘disgust’ (Liapis 300), motivated by the repulsion that one may feel towards the killer of a relative as a polluted person.95 We know from Antiphon 5.11 that the courts judged cases of supposed murderers (αὐθένται) in the open air, in order to make sure that jurors would not have to enter the same building as those whose hands were unclean (τοῖς μὴ καθαροῖς τὰς χεῖρας; Rh. includes a reference to the χεῖρες, the parts of the body that most graphically objectify the pollution) and to make it possible for anyone conducting the prosecution for murder to avoid being under the same roof as the murderer. In particular, Greek morality strictly forbade that the killer polluted the relatives of the victim with his presence. The ideal state of Plato’s Laws (868d–e) prosecutes for impiety a killer and the family of the victim, if they have any form of association with the killer even after he has expiated his guilt in exile. At Dem. 22.2 Androtion appears to have organised an indictment for impiety against the uncle of someone suspected of killing his own father and charged him with having associations with him. Menelaus at Eur. Andr. 654–9 is surprised that Peleus, father of Achilles, enters under the same roof (τῆιδέ γ᾽ εἰσέρχηι σὺ ταὐτὸν ἐς στέγος) as Andromache, ex-wife of Hector, the brother of Paris, who killed Achilles. And if Agamemnon kills Iphigenia (Clytemnestra warns) he will not be able to embrace his other children when he returns home, as that contact would not be θέμις any more for him (Eur. IA 1191–2). Heracles says that he cannot build a tomb for the children he has killed, as ‘law’ prohibits it (Eur. Her. 1360–1). Cf. Gernet (1909), Parker (1983) 122–3. 874 οὐ λήξει λέγων;: cf. Eur. IT 803 οὐ παύσηι λέγων; (an interrogative negation is a common ironic way to express a veiled injunction: KG I.176–7), Ar. PCG 332.14–15 ἄλλα πολλά θ᾽ ὧν / οὐδ᾽ ἂν λέγων λήξαις. αὖ entails impatience (Fries 437) and, as observed by Battezzato (1995) 111 n. 107 and Liapis 300, the use of the third person for an addressee often signifies aloofness; cf. Soph. OT 387–9, Eur. Med. 1406–7, Supp. 426, Tro. 424, Pho. 920, Ar. Ran. 1007–8. 875–6 ‘A curse on the accomplisher! For my tongue is not directed at you, as you claim haughtily. But Dike knows.’ The second hemistich of 875 has been considered corrupt, as (1) there is no reason why the charioteer should decide at this point to step back from his accusation of, specifically, Hector, and (2) there is no statement by Hector in dialogue with the charioteer to which ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς refers (cf. in particular Fries 437). But as regards (1), Hector’s offer of hospitality to the charioteer may have softened his direct attack; after all, Menelaus is called αὐθέντης and μιάστωρ for provoking the death of Achilles at Eur. Andr. 614; Aegisthus αὐτοφόντης (~ αὐθέντης) and μιάστωρ at Soph. El. 272–5; Clytemnestra and Aegistus μιάστορες at Aesch. Cho. 944 and Oedipus at Soph. OT 353.

95

581

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 5 – 8 7 7 the charioteer appears not to refuse the hospitality that Hector offers at 877– 8. The article in ὁ δράσας practically transforms the participle into a nomen actionis (‘the accomplisher’, namely ‘the culprit’), so that the charioteer is right when he says that his curse is no longer aimed at Hector. The situation was different at 874, when Hector complained that the charioteer was only capable of formulating the ‘same story’, i.e., that Hector was responsible for Rhesus’ death. As for (2), I take it that when he points to Hector’s loud or haughty words (κομπεῖς), the charioteer is referring to 874, a line of excited intolerance probably to be pronounced at full voice. ἐς σὲ τείνεται: the phrase presupposes the metaphor equating the tongue with a bow, and words with arrows; cf. Pind. Isthm. 5.46–8 πολλὰ … / γλῶσσά μοι τοξεύματ′ ἔχει περὶ κείνων / κελαδέσαι, Aesch. Supp. 446 γλῶσσα τοξεύσασα μὴ τὰ καίρια, Fries 437. For τείνειν ἐς + accusative in the intransitive sense ‘be concerned with’ or transitive ‘direct towards’, cf. Hdt. 7.135.3, Eur. Hipp. 797, Hippocr. De prisca med. 20.4 τείνει δὲ … ὁ λόγος ἐς ϕιλοσοϕίην, Pl. Phd. 63a μοι δοκεῖ … εἰς σὲ τείνειν τὸν λόγον, Tht. 163a εἰς γὰρ τοῦτό που πᾶς ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ἔτεινεν, Leg. 962c δοκεῖ μοι τείνειν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰς τὸν σύλλογον. The middle is not attested for these meanings, but a middle of interest can conveniently emphasise the eager inclination of the speech towards its goal. ὡς σὺ κομπεῖς = Rh. 438, Eur. Or. 571. Here κομπεῖν probably expresses not a vaunt, but a loud disdainful complaint about another’s failings, with no reference to one’s own merits (Norwood ap. Porter 91–2); see 438–42n. ἡ Δίκη δ᾽ ἐπίσταται: ‘Dike knows’, as she proverbially sees everything: Soph. TrGF 12 τὸ χρύσεον δὲ τᾶς Δίκας / δέδορκεν ὄμμα, τὸν δ᾽ ἄδικον ἀμείβεται, Eur. El. 771 Δίκη τε πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶσ(α), Dion. TrGF 76F5 ὁ τῆς Δίκης ὀϕθαλμὸς ... πάνθ᾽ ὁμῶς ἀεὶ βλέπει, Diph. PCG [136].5 ἔστιν Δίκης ὀϕθαλμὸς ὃς τὰ πάνθ’ ὁρᾶι. 877–8 λάζυσθ(ε): the order is addressed to anonymous silent extras who play the role of attendants (members of Hector’s bodyguard, who may be presupposed in the parodos?). The middle of interest λάζεσθαι/λάζυσθαι = λαμβάνεσθαι is found in Hom., in Eur. (about 20x, including compounds), in Hippocr. and at Ar. Lys. 209. Simple λάζυσθαι is used in Hom. for ‘grabbing’ a variety of objects (stones, arms, whips, persons); in particular in Eur. it occurs in orders to take hold of someone coercively: cf. Pho. 1660 λάζυσθε τήνδε κἀς δόμους κομίζετε (formally close to Rh.), Ion 1402, Bacch. 503, TrGF 472e.46 and perhaps 223.71 (suppl. Page). But coercion is not entailed at IA 621–2 παῖδα τόνδε … / λάζυσθ᾽ Ὀρέστην. Either the charioteer ‘is checked in his outcry and his onset alike, perhaps by the henchmen of the prince, perhaps by sudden weakness due to his wound’ (with λάζυσθ(ε) ‘stop’) or alternatively (with benevolent λάζυσθ(ε) ‘take in your arms’) ‘in the moment of his impetuous

582

C O M M E N TA RY 8 7 9 – 8 8 1 charge he is arrested by his own weakness, and collapses into the arms of the Trojans and possibly of Hector himself ’ (Norwood ap. Porter 91–2). 879–81 ‘You must go and tell those within the wall, Priam and the elders, to bury the dead where the path branches off from the main road.’ As observed by Fries 438, the mention of Priam and the elders cannot avoid evoking the small assembly of Priam and his δημογέροντες (Il. 3.146–53) which was taking place at the Scaean Gates of Troy when the arrival of Helen initiated the Teichoscopy. But here the scenario of an assembly on the top of the city walls seems out of place in the darkness of night, and the sense ‘on the wall’ for ἐν τείχει (Kovacs 443), which would introduce a clearer focus on that scenario, is not paralleled. ἐν τείχει will rather mean here ‘within the wall’, as at Hom. Il. 13.764 and 22.299 (ἐν τῶι τείχει is the common equivalent idiom in classical Attic prose). In ancient Greece (and Rome) it was usual to place important tombs alongside roads, just outside the city precincts. At Athens, for instance, after Cimon’s initiative to bring back the ashes of those who fell at the Eurymedon, most of the Athenians who fell in war were buried at the Demosion Sema on the Outer Ceramicus just outside the Dipylon Gates (Pritchett (1971/1991) IV.122–4). As he orders Priam and the elders to take care of the burial of the Thracians, Hector gives their burial the status of an initiative of the Trojan state; see 959–61n. It is a strong gesture of honourable inclusion, opposite, for example, to the removal from Thebes of the ashes of the Seven. To judge from Eur. Alc. 835–6 ὀρθὴν παρ᾽ οἶμον ἣ ᾽πὶ Λαρίσαν ϕέρει / τύμβον κατόψηι ξεστὸν ἐκ προαστίου and 997–1001 τύμβος σᾶς ἀλόχου, ... / … σέβας ἐμπόρων / … καί τις δοχμίαν κέλευ/θον ἐμβαίνων (BOV; ἐκβαίνων LP) τόδ᾽ ἐρεῖ, these tombs seem to have been built sometimes not at the roadside but a short distance away, on side-paths (Dale on Eur. Alc. 835–6) or on sloping paths (Parker on Alc. 1000–1). Hector may be giving instructions that the tomb of the Thracians is to be built ‘where the path branches off from the main road’. πρός + accusative presupposes the motion of the ἐκφορά towards the tomb and may be a brachylogical version of the request at, e.g., Eur. Andr. 1239–40 τὸν μὲν θανόντα ... / θάψον πορεύσας Πυθικὴν πρὸς ἐσχάραν, Or. 1067 θάψον … πρὸς πατρὸς τύμβον ϕέρων, Dem. 57.70 ἀπόδοτέ μοι θάψαι εἰς τὰ πατρῶια μνήματα. ἐκτροπή, a prose word, attested in classical drama only at Ar. Ran. 113, here means ‘road branching off another’ or ‘junction of roads’. In a list of the points where the military commander should set signals to prevent the straggling of the soldiers, Aen. Tact. 15.6 includes τὰς ἐκτροπὰς τῶν ὁδῶν, ὅπου ἂν τρίοδοι ὦσιν. The interpretation of Kovacs 443 ‘where the highway leaves the city’ presupposes a localisation in the city outskirts, which is not expressed in the text (contrast Eur. Alc. 836, quoted above, which includes the clear ἐκ προαστίου). σημῆναι ‘report’ from Hector. See 275n.

583

C O M M E N TA RY 8 8 1 – 8 8 4 κελεύθου λεωφόρου ‘public road’; cf. Hesych. Lex. λ 298 Latte λαοϕόρον· δημοσίαν ὁδόν, δι᾽ ἧς οἱ λαοὶ ϕέρονται. The Ionic form is required by tragic usage; see 408–11a. It is most often substantivised, but sometimes used attributively with ὁδός (e.g., Hom. Il. 15.682, Diod. Sic. 2.22.3, Arr. An. 3.21.4, App. Ann. 34) or κέλευθος ([Theocr.] 25.155, Nic. Al. 218); therefore κελεύθου (Dobree (1833) 102), is probably correct in place of the repetitive κελεύειν of the MSS, which may stem ‘from an inability to perceive that no other complement for χρεών is necessary beyond σημῆναι’ (Liapis 302). 882–9 The short comment of the chorus in recitative anapaests places the confrontation between Hector and the charioteer in the larger picture of the history of the war. Hector has often spoken of the εὐτυχία that Troy was enjoying in the war (56, 60, 64, 319, 390; Athena confirmed it at 649; even Dolon enjoyed a brief εὐτυχία at 218, as well as Hector’s flocks at 270). The critical risk of a possible impeachment of Hector, and the positive debacle of the slaughter of Rhesus and the Thracians, are misfortunes that disrupt that time of success. So the Trojans feel that they have now returned to the situation of anxiety (πένθη) that they were living in before the phase of Hector’s and Troy’s εὐτυχία. 882–5 ‘Why does some other deity bring Troy from success back to grief ? What is he bringing to pass?’ ἀνάγει (Heath (1762) 97 for the unmetrical ἄγει/ἄγοι, by haplography) here means ‘bring back’, not ‘raise up’; cf. Eur. Hel. 932 πάλιν μ’ ἀνάξουσ’ ἐπὶ τὸ σῶϕρον αὖθις αὖ, Pl. Timae. 19a. The alternative suggested by Liapis (2011) 100, ἂν ἄγοι, is not preferable: the resulting question ‘why would an adverse deity be changing Troy’s fortune?’ would be less apposite here than the negativity of the chorus’ fear before a fait accompli. δαίμων ἄλλος: Hector had already denounced the interference of a δαίμων with his εὐτυχία at 56–8. ἄλλος (Tyrwhitt ap. Musgrave II.411),96 in place of the unmetrical variants ἄλλό τι/ἄλλοτε of the MSS, is a euphemism for ‘bad’, like ἕτερος with δαίμων at Pind. Pyth. 3.34 δαίμων δ᾽ ἕτερος, Callim. Hec. F 51.1–2 Hollis δαίμων (con.) / τῶν ἑτέρων, Iamb. F 191.63 Pf. οὕτερος δαίμων; cf. also Hes. Op. 344 χρῆμ᾽ … ἄλλο ‘misfortune’. τί φυτεύων;: for ‘generating’ evils, cf. Hom. Od. 2.165 φόνον καὶ κῆρα φυτεύει, eleg. adesp. IEG 61.4 πῆμ’ ἐφύτ[ευσε] (Archil.? cf. Henry (1998)), Aesch. Supp. 498 ϕύλαξαι μὴ θράσος τέκηι ϕόβον, Soph. Aj. 952–3 τοιόνδε … / Παλλὰς ϕυτεύει πῆμ(α), OT 346–7 ἴσθι γὰρ δοκῶν ἐμοὶ / καὶ ξυμϕυτεῦσαι τοὔργον (with Finglass ad loc.), Eur. TrGF 732 ῥώμη δέ γ᾽ ἀμαθὴς πολλάκις τίκτει βλάβην.

Tyrwhitt’s suggestion does not appear in his Emendationes in Euripidem published as ‘Appendix’ in Musgrave 1762, nor in his Conjecturae in Aeschylum, Euripidem et Aristophanem, edited by P. Elmsley (1822).

96

584

C O M M E N TA RY 8 8 5 – 8 8 7 885–9 This short introduction of the goddess appearing on high and carrying the body of her son may be reminiscent of the seven anapaests (chanted) with which the chorus describes the procession carrying the body of Neoptolemus, probably on a bier, and setting it before Peleus, at Eur. Andr. 1166–72. Rh. 888 shares with that passage the rare adverb φοράδην, elsewhere in tragedy, with reference to a body on a litter, at Eur. Ino, POxy. 78.5131.ii.5 (discussion of the fragment in Finglass (2014)) and metaphorically at Soph. OT 1310, with reference to a ‘voice’ that circulates by being swept around. It is often used of dead or wounded people carried on a litter: e.g., Dem. 54.20, Plut. Publ. 16.3, Cor. 24.3, Luc. 17.47, 77.12.5. 885 ἔα ἔα connotes surprise, as usual (574n.). It is extra metrum, as at 675, 729 and 885; cf. ‘Metrical Structure’ 675–722, on 675. 886–9 The sequence of surprise and question about the identity of the god, consequent expression of fear, and specification of the aerial path by which the god enters the scene (practically the proof of divinity: Mikalson (1991) 65) is a mannerism of Eur., as observed by Ritchie (1964) 133 and Liapis 304; cf. Andr. 1226–30 ἰὼ ἰώ· / τί κεκίνηται, τίνος αἰσθάνομαι / θείου; … / δαίμων ὅδε τις λευκὴν αἰθέρα / πορθμευόμενος … / … πεδίων ἐπιβαίνει, El. 1233–5 ἀλλ’ οἵδε δόμων ὕπερ ἀκροτάτων / βαίνουσί τινες δαίμονες ἢ θεῶν / τῶν οὐρανίων, Her. 815–17 ἔα ἔα· / ἆρ᾽ ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν πίτυλον ἥκομεν ϕόβου, / γέροντες, οἷον ϕάσμ᾽ ὑπὲρ δόμων ὁρῶ, Ion 1549–51 ἔα· τίς οἴκων θυοδόκων ὑπερτελὴς / ἀντήλιον πρόσωπον ἐκϕαίνει θεῶν; / ϕεύγωμεν. νεόκμητον νεκρόν ‘dead newly murdered’ is a pleonasm paralleled in tragedy: Soph. Ant. 26 τὸν … ἀθλίως θανόντα … νέκυν, 515 ὁ κατθανὼν νέκυς, Eur. Supp. 16–17 νεκροὺς … τοὺς ὀλωλότας, 45 φθιμένων νεκύων, Hel. 1252 τοὺς θανόντας … νεκρούς. There is a precedent for these phrases in the epic νέκυες/νεκροὶ κατατεθνηῶτες of Il. 16.526, 18.540, Od. 10.530. However, all these tragic and epic parallels belong in a figura etymologica, as they include verbs meaning ‘die’, whereas νεόκμητος in Rh. is innovatively derived from the euphemism καμεῖν ‘be tired’ = ‘be dead’, well attested in the terms κεκμηκότες and καμόντες = ‘those whose toil is finished’ (Kovacs on Eur. Tro. 96) = ‘dead’, common in epic and not uncommon in tragedy (Aesch. Supp. 158, 231, Soph. TrGF 284.2, Eur. Supp. 756, Tro. 96). Our phrase appears to be another example of ‘mosaic technique’; for which cf. Introduction, pp. 24–5. The variant νεόδμητον ‘newly tamed’ (accepted by Zanetto and Feickert) gives a plausible sense and is paralleled at Lycophr. 65 νεόδμητον νέκυν, but is unmetrical. There is no parallel for correptio Attica in the group -δμ- before late poetry (West (1982) 16–17). Line 889 is sometimes punctuated with commas after ταρβῶ and τόδε (Verrall ap. Murray, Porter 38, Zanetto (i) 59, Jouan 51, 76); the sense is then: ‘I fear some woe, seeing this’. But this punctuation is unnatural (Fries 443).

585

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 0 Better to interpret: ‘I am afraid seeing this woe’. ταρβεῖν may convey the fear mingled with awe which is due to the divine: e.g. Aesch. Eum. 700, 714. For fear associated with a vision, cf. Aesch. Pers. 684–5 λεύσσων δ᾽ ἄκοιτιν τὴν ἐμὴν τάϕου πέλας / ταρβῶ, Eum. 406–7 καινὴν δ᾽ ὁρῶσα τήνδ᾽ ὁμιλίαν χθονὸς / ταρβῶ μὲν οὐδέν, θαῦμα δ᾽ ὄμμασιν πάρα, PV 898–900 ταρβῶ γὰρ ἀστεργάνορα παρθενίαν / εἰσορῶσ᾽ Ἰοῦς ἀμαλαπτομέναν / … Ἥρας ἀλατείαις ὕπο. 890–949 The Muse enters on the mechane, as is made certain by 886 ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς, and her divinity is thus immediately recognised. She holds in her arms the body of Rhesus, probably represented by a dummy, and delivers a θρῆνος partly in lyric metres, partly in iambic trimeters. The first iambic lines of the Muse (890–5) announce her identity (890–1a), and both introduce and solve preliminarily the issue of the responsibility for Rhesus’ death, which was debated between Hector and the charioteer: she maintains that (A) she is there to mourn her son (891b–3a) and that (B) Odysseus is responsible for his death (893b–4). The strophe (895–903) develops the mourning, which purports to be spontaneous and emotional (cf. αὐθιγενεῖ, 895); in two iambic lines following the strophe (904–5) the chorus expresses their sympathy. The antistrophe (906) develops the issue of the responsibility for Rhesus’ death in a crescendo of rational analysis: Odysseus and Diomedes are mentioned as the apparent killers (893–4 and 906–9), and Helen is added as the original cause of the war. The common story-plot of the short but ill-fated interventions of allies of the Trojans often includes, in tragedy, a funeral lament by the mother. This is the case for Europa mourning Sarpedon and receiving his corpse, transferred from Troy to Caria by Hypnos and Thanatos, in Aesch. Kares (see 28–9n., 915–49n.), Eos mourning Memnon and snatching up his body in Aesch. Psychostasia (TrGF III pp. 374–5), Astyoche mourning Eurypylus in Soph. Eurypylus (TrGF 210.30–46), and, perhaps, Scamandrodice mourning Cycnus in Soph. Shepherds (a suggestion by Sommerstein and Talboy on Soph. Poim., Introd. p. 181). Characters and choruses of Eur. frequently investigate the peculiar nature of the poetry of dirge and its Muse (inspiration) in opposition to other joyful genres of song and dance: e.g., Tro. 115–21, 511–14, 608–9, 1242–5, IT 178–85, Hel. 164–78, Pho. 1498–503, TrGF 752h.5–9; see Fantuzzi (2007). Through the lament of the Muse the author of Rh. materialises and enacts a performance of the ‘Muse of lament’. This reification of the Muse (= inspiration) of lament finds a parallel in the initiative of the choruses of Eur. Phaethon, TrGF 773.19–70 and Rh. 546–50, who describe the song of the nightingale, thus enacting concretely a song that tragedy had frequently quoted as a term of comparison for female lament; see 546–50n.

586

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 0 890a ὁρᾶν πάρεστι ‘you can see’, hence ‘it is clear’ (as at Aesch. Ag. 1354), is a self-introduction prefacing the Muse’s answer to the question of the watchmen, who had asked who was the god appearing on high (886–8). πάρεστι is here equivalent to ἔξεστι, and the phrase may imply that in front of the daunting sight of Rhesus’ body the watchmen had begun to cover their eyes (Zanetto (ii) 158). Or it points to stage-action, and marks out the moment in which the Muse, on the crane, is touching ground (Liapis 305). The same phrase appears in a similar context at Soph. Ant. 1293: ὁρᾶν πάρεστιν· οὐ γὰρ ἐν μυχοῖς ἔτι. Rh. 886–9 indicate that the Muse appears with Rhesus’ body on the theologeion. In Ant. Eurydice’s corpse may have appeared on the ekkyklema (a device usually adopted in order to reveal outdoors the visible consequences of events occurring indoors; cf. Rh. οὐ … ἐν μυχοῖς), or it may have been carried on stage by attendants (Griffin on Soph. Ant. 1293). 890b–4 ἐν σοφοῖς: here probably in the Pindaric sense ‘bards’ or ‘musicians’ (e.g., Ol. 1.9, Pyth. 3.113, Isth. 1.45, F 52s.3). At 924 the mythical musician Thamyris is called σοφιστής. At 949 σοφιστὴν δ᾿ ἄλλον is a poet/singer. Both professional categories were under the protection of the Muses (cf. Saïd (2007) 30–1). συγγόνων μία ‘one of the sisters’ i.e., one of the Muses, as is clear from 941–2 and 947; a similar periphrasis at 393. σύγγονος, properly ‘congenital’ or ‘akin’, is a poetic word, attested in Pind. (about 10x), Aesch. (3x), Soph. (1x). But Eur. has a special liking for it (more than 70x), almost always in the specific sense ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ (cf. van Erp Taalman Kip (1986) 76–7); the same meaning at Rh. 926, 941, 947. πάρειμι ... ὁρῶσ᾿: ὁρῶσα is causal (‘I have come as I saw that my son was pitiably killed by his enemies’), with the construction of accusative and predicative participle which is common with verbs denoting physical perception; cf. KG II.70 n. 1. οἰκτρῶς ... / θανόνθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἐχθρῶν: cf. Od. 11.412 θάνον οἰκτίστωι θανάτωι, Soph. El. 102 αἰκῶς οἰκτρῶς τε θανόντος, adesp. TrGF 8 οἰκτρῶς θανεῖν, Eur. Andr. 1069 παῖδ᾿ Ἀχιλλέως κατθανεῖν ἐχθρῶν ὕπο, Plut. Comp. Demetr. et Ant. 4.3 οἰκτρῶς ἀποθανεῖν. According to Σ Soph. El. 102 ~ Suda α 627 Adler, οἰκτρῶς θανεῖν was said of Agamemnon διὰ τὸ βίαι καὶ ἐπιβουλευθέντα (scil. θανεῖν). Rhesus, like Agamemnon, died οἰκτρῶς because he was killed deceitfully (ἐπιβουλευθέντα), not in a regular face-to-face fight on the battlefield (see 752–3n. and 758–61n.). ὅν ποθ᾿ ... ὁ κτείνας: for the substantival participle ὁ κτείνας ‘the murderer’ with accusative of the victim, cf., e.g., 686 τὸν κτενοῦντα σέ, Od. 3.309 ὁ τὸν κτείνας, Aesch. Cho. 367–8 οἱ κτανόντες / νιν, Soph. OT 139 ἐκεῖνον ὁ κτανών, Eur. IT 992 τῶι κτανόντι με, Pl. Leg. 868a δοῦλον … ὁ κτείνας; also, without object, Soph. El. 197 ἔρος ὁ κτείνας. It was Diomedes who killed Rhesus, but Odysseus is the figure who attracts the animosity of the pro-Thracian Muse.

587

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 0 ποθ᾿ ... χρόνωι: (τῶι) χρόνωι ποτέ ‘at long last’ often occurs in tragedy with imperatives or futures; cf. Soph. Aj. 1082, El. 1013, Ph. 1041–2 (τείσασθε, τείσασθ᾿ ἀλλὰ τῶι χρόνωι ποτὲ / ξύμπαντας αὐτούς). δόλιος: an epithet of Odysseus probably in Aesch. (cf. TrGF p. 353 (§5)), Soph. Ph. 608 (where Housman’s δόλοις could however be right (Diggle (2007) 157–8; for a defence of transmitted δόλιος, cf. Fries (2016) 24–5), Eur. Or. 1404. ἀξίαν ... δίκην is idiomatic in fifth- and fourth-century Attic (not attested before Soph. and Antiph.); with τίνειν at Soph. El. 298 τείσουσά γ᾿ ἀξίαν δίκην. Probably a reference to the long journey home awaiting many Greek leaders (Odysseus and Agamemnon especially) at the end of the war: cf. Jouan 52. Metrical Structure of the Monody 895–903 and 906–14 ⏑D (= prosodiac) 895 ~ 906 ⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− ⏑D (= prosodiac) ⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ 896 ~ 907 − − − ithyph 897 ~ 908 −⏑−⏑−− 898 ~ 909 ⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏒ ||    ⏑D− (= paroem) D2 (contr.) 899 ~ 910 −−−⏑⏑−⏑⏑− ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑ ⏑ 900 ~ 911 − − − −−    teles ba (= enopl sp) 901 ⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑−⏑−− teles ba (= enopl sp) 912 †⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑†−⏑−⏑−− 902 ~ 913 −⏑⏑−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−    D2 903=914 ⏕−⏑⏑−⏑⏑−−     ⏔ D− (= paroemiac) 897=908 For the ithyphallic as internal clausula within a strophe of prevailing enoplian rhythm, cf. Eur. Med. 991, 992= 996, 997, Alc. 441=451. 899=910 as Alc. 89=101, Hipp. 164. 900–1=911–12 On the so-called diomedean enoplian, found elsewhere at 461–2, 531=550, 827, and favoured by Eur. (list in Itsumi (1991/1993) 246; also Soph. Tr. 648=656, Ar. Av. 1411, 1415 (tragic parody)), cf. Diggle (1981) 102 and (1974 = 1994) 112–13. At the end of 911 Kovacs (2003a) 149–50 considered period end necessary (the bacchiac, a catalectic metron concluding 911, has a clausular effect), so objected to the elision in πλαθεῖσ(α), emending ἔπλευσε πλαθεῖσ᾽ to πλέουσ᾽ ἐπλάθη (cautiously approved by Willink (2002/2003=2010) 581). But the pairing of twin cola may have blurred the clausular effect of the bacchiac and made the synartesis legitimate (Parker (1976) 20–5, Fries 445; see also Mastronarde (2004) 22). The choral solo lament of funerary praise in the strophes and antistrophes of Alc. 435–75 provides ‘the closest parallel in extant Greek tragedy to the

588

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 0 metrical technique of the Muse’s monody’ (Ritchie (1964) 318), which has been correctly defined as ‘a variation on the hemiepes’ (Fries 445). Both are studies in aeolo-choriambic cola that also scan as prosodiac-enoplian (Dale (1968) 172–3; Ritchie (1964) 317, Parker on Alc., ‘Metre 435–75’, p. 145), and few other strophes of Greek tragedy are composed almost entirely of elements of this class. The monodic amoibaion consisting of the succession of short monodic strophe and antistrophe performed by the Muse separated by two trimeters uttered by the chorus is not paralleled in the later plays, where Eur. usually constructs his monodies either without having them interrupted by spoken lines, or situating them in the contexts of long and astrophic epirrhematica, such as Hec. 1056–108 or Or. 1369–502. But it is paralleled at Alc. 393–403 and 406–15 (the lament of Alcestis’ son for his mother) and some of Eur.’s early plays: Hipp. 817–33 and 836–51, Andr. 1173–83 and 1186–96, Supp. 990–1008 and 1012–30. The similarities between Alc. 435–75 and Rh. 895–914 can hardly be considered fortuitous. The author of Rh. may well have decided that the lyric structure of the exordium of the Muse’s funerary praise for Rhesus and the choral laments and praises for Alcestis (a dead person who will soon be resurrected) were in tune with each other. The structural and metrical allusion to Eur. Alc. is all the more plausible, as the lament of the Muse in Rh. appears to reflect the theme of the anomalous mousa of tragic dirge, and this theme is also central at Alc. 435–75, certainly one of the most emphatic passages of Eur. dealing with the traditional opposition between dirge and other joyful genres of song and dance: see 890–949n. The positioning of this monody in the exodos and the fact that it is delivered by a dea ex machina are unparalleled in surviving tragic texts; so too is the transition without change of speaker from spoken iambics to lyric at 895 and back again to iambics at 915. Only a very few of these transitions from recitative verse to monody are found in the tragedians, and in at least two cases they are accompanied by a contextual signal or reason: Eur. Andr. 103 (where the gnome of 100–2 on the fragility of human fortune may have had the role of introducing Andromache’s elegiac lament), and IA 1475 (where the ­iambo-trochaic monody of Iphigenia is explicitly presented as a sort of victorious paean by the preceding 1473–4). Cf. Ritchie (1964) 339–40; H. Popp and W. Barner in Jens (1971) 274 and 303–4. It is more difficult to explain the changes of metre in the monologue of Prometheus at PV 88–127, which is articulated in five sections of (respectively) iambic trimeters, anapaests, iambic trimeters, lyric iambics, anapaests. Though these changes may have their internal motivation (they have often been claimed to reflect the change of mood of Prometheus), they are ‘utterly unlike anything in Aesch. or indeed Soph. or Eur.’ (so Griffith (1977) 108–110), and thus constitute the closest

589

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 5 analogy in the surviving tragedies (though a much more complex one) for the double change of metre which takes place in Rh. 895–901 together with 932–7 make clear that the Muse had divine foreknowledge or a maternal premonition of the risk of death that Rhesus was incurring by leaving his country to fight. Rhesus disobeyed and decided to participate in the Trojan war, despite his awareness that he would die. His defiance might potentially intimate his heroism (Liapis 307), and further enhance his parallelism with Achilles. But the viewpoint of the Muse, that prevails in both narratives of Rhesus’ defiance to his parents, excludes mention of the idea of glory as compensation for the risk of death at Troy or the opposition between long safe life at home and, again, death but glory which is overarching in the decisions of Achilles (Il. 1.352–4 and 9.410–16) and in Thetis’ viewpoint about the destiny of her son. In fact, Thetis sent Achilles to fight at Troy (18.58–9 νηυσὶν ἐπιπροέηκα κορωνίσιν ῎Ιλιον εἴσω / Τρωσὶ μαχησόμενον) and never mentions having opposed Achilles’ participation in the war. In the Muse’s report, lacking the idea of glory, the family-group scenes of maternal and paternal worry, filial disobedience and Hector’s tempting invitations make Rhesus seem rather a stubborn character led to his ruin by Hector’s appeals. 895 ἰαλέμωι: Ialemos was the son of a Muse, Calliope according to the majority of sources. Pind. F 128c opposes the paean for Apollo and Artemis to songs for Dionysus and to songs whose names were traced back to the three sons of Calliope: αἴλινος, ὑμέναιος, and ἰάλεμος, the last of which memorialised the name of Ialemos. By calling the dirge ἰάλεμος, and not, e.g., θρῆνος as at 976, and stressing the fact that it is for her son (896–7 τέκνον ... ματρὸς ἄλγος), the Muse may parallel her mourning for Rhesus with the mourning of her sister Calliope for her son Ialemos (a parallel made explicit in Σ to our line); cf. Bagordo (1995/1996) 140–1. αὐθιγενεῖ: glossed as τῶι εὐθὺς γενομένωι θρήνωι by Σ ad loc. αὐθιγενής is also interpreted by modern scholars according to the two possible meanings (local and temporal) of αὖθι, as either ‘born on the spot’ or ‘born straight away’. As in Μοῦσ᾿ αὐθιγενής at Bacch. 2.11, the epithet may thus indicate the Muse of ex tempore poetry (Maehler ad loc.) or the ‘local Muse’ (cf. Hdt. 4.48.4 αὐθιγενεῖς Σκυθικοὶ ποταμοί), with reference to the fact that Bacch. is composing at the site of the games (cf. Gelzer (1985) 95–120); or it may mean the ‘compatriot Muse’, in the case of Bacch., with reference to the Cean birth of Bacch. and the victor. In Rh. the strictly local meaning (‘with lamentation of native strain’ Kovacs 445) is not impossible, but cannot be proved true either by contextual hints or external evidence about a specific ‘Thracian’ way of mourning. In a more broadly local sense, αὐθιγενής might mean

590

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 5 – 8 9 9 ‘indigenous’, i.e., ‘Greek’, in opposition to the Καρικὴ μοῦσα mentioned by Pl. Leg. 800e as the poetry of the ‘hired singers’ (μεμισθωμένους ὠιδούς), the foreign professionals, who often performed at funerals and were banned from Plato’s ideal state. The local-metaphorical meaning ‘domestic’ or ‘familiar’ is also contextually plausible: as the mother of Rhesus, the Muse would sing a ‘domestic dirge’ for her child, unlike, e.g., the members of the chorus, who are not kin (904–5, see below; so Feickert 355). Alternatively, αὐθιγενής in the sense ‘domestic’ may recall that the dirge ἰάλεμος was ‘born’ within the Muse’s family, since the first ἰάλεμος was uttered by her sister Calliope. A further possibility is the temporal meaning ‘not elaborated in advance’: in this case Rhesus’ mother may implicitly contrast her funeral song with the singing of ‘set’ dirges banned by Solon (see below). It is difficult to decide which meaning is intended, but it seems that almost all the plausible meanings are relatable to the restrictions enforced by the legislation of classical Athens and the ‘Solonian’ laws, as well as by other regulations outside Athens. These were intended inter alia to prevent the expensive and ostentatious practice of hiring professional dirge-singers and to check the potentially subversive force of the female lament, thus favouring an extempore γόος inspired by genuine grief and sung by the deceased person’s relations: cf. above all Plut. Sol. 21.4 ‘(Solon) forbade … the use of set lamentations (πεποιημένα θρηνεῖν), and the bewailing of any one at the funeral ceremonies of another’; Dem. 43.62 quoting the ‘Solonian law’ according to which no woman less than sixty years of age may enter the chamber of the deceased or follow the body when it is carried to the tomb, ‘except those who are within the degree of children of cousins’; the Delphic funerary regulations of the phratry of the Labydae (LSCG 77.152–7C Sokolowski), of c. 400, prescribing that at the end of the funeral everyone had to go home, ‘apart from the ones sharing the same hearth (ὁμέστιοι) with the dead, the father’s brothers, the fathers-in-law, the grandsons, and the husbands’; Loraux (1990), Holst-Warhaft (1992), Foley (2001) chap. 1, Patterson (2002), McHardy (2004) 106–7, Fantuzzi (2007), Hame (2008). These limitations are also the background to the chorus’ remark that the intensity of their mourning is the maximum allowed to people who are not kin (904–5). 896–8 ‘I wail for you, my child, cause of grief for your mother: what a journey was it that made you land at Troy!’: οἵαν … ὁδόν is causal-exclamatory, as, e.g., at 746 (see 745–6n.). 899 ἦ δυσδαίμονα καὶ μελέαν: I have printed the line as a parenthesis (an epexegesis of the exclamatory οἵαν ὁδόν; cf. Denniston (1954) 781), so that the syntax of 896–901 may emerge more clearly: πορευθείς in 900 is a circumstantial participle to be taken with ἔκελσας and governing ὁδόν apo koinou

591

C O M M E N TA RY 8 9 9 – 9 0 3 with ἔκελσας. The colon placed by all modern editors at the end of 898 leaves the structure less clear. Both adjectives are familiar in tragedy. δυσδαίμων appears 5x in Aesch., 4x in Soph., more than 20x in Eur.; μέλεος ‘miserable’ is not attested before Aesch. (in Hom. it means ‘useless’), and is frequent in Eur. (about 80x); about 10x each in Soph. and in Aesch. ἦ emphasises the epexegetic function of the phrase; cf. Denniston (1954) 281, Fries 447. ἀπὸ μὲν φαμένας ... ἀπὸ δ᾿ ἀντομένου: the elegant emendation of the transmitted variants ἀπομεμφομένας, ἀπομεμψαμένας, and ἀποπεμψαμένας to ἀπὸ μὲν φαμένας (Dindorf (ii) Praef. xxii) establishes a balance between the two verbs in tmesis, introduces the first particle of the correlative μέν/δέ, and gives a parallel verb to that of 934 Τροίας δ᾿ ἀπηύδων ἄστυ μὴ κέλσαι ποτέ (where, additionally, κέλσαι echoes ἔκελσας here). ἀποπέμψασθαι ‘send off’ is absurd in our context. ἀπομέμφεσθαι, though less absurd, is attested only from the Imperial age, and appears to mean ‘rebuke’ someone retrospectively for something which he/she has already done (as Gow on Theocr. 2.144 remarks, ἀπομέμφεσθαι ‘does not differ perceptibly in meaning from ἐπιμέμφεσθαι’), while the aorist participles lead us to expect that the Muse is recalling here a phase which preceded Rhesus’ departure (πορευθείς), when both parents tried to prevent him from leaving. The verb ἀπόφημι seems fully appropriate both in its most common meaning ‘say no’ (presupposing Rhesus’ preliminary question to his mother about whether it was a good idea to depart for the war), and in the sense ‘refuse’ or ‘forbid’ an action which may be in prospect but has not yet taken place (and should not); cf. Soph. OC 317 καὶ ϕημὶ κἀπόϕημι, Men. PCG 524 (Phot. Lex. α 2382 Theod. = Suda α 3096 Adler = Synagoge (cod. B) α 1737 Cunn. ἀπέφησεν: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀντεῖπεν. Μένανδρος). The use of the middle in this sense is not attested elsewhere; but middle ἀπόφασθε (in a different sense) is found at Il. 9.422, 649. It may have been influenced by the interchangeable epic usage of φάναι and φάσθαι. πορευθείς, ‘having set out’ and ἔκελσας focus on the two polar moments of departure and arrival. 902–3 ὤμοι ἐγὼ σέθεν: cf. Soph. Tr. 971 οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ, Eur. Tro. 795–6 οἲ ᾽γὼ πόλεως, / οἴμοι δὲ σέθεν. For ὤμοι ἐγώ + genitive of cause, Eur. Hipp. 591, 817, Hel. 676, Pho. 373. The simple ὤμοι ἐγώ is also typical of Eur.: Andr. 113, 513, 1173, Hec. 1056, Tro. 265. φιλία κεφαλά: the epithet φίλιος, usually in the passive meaning ‘loved’ or ‘dear to’, sometimes ‘friendly’ = φίλος, is a frequent word in lyrics and anapaests of tragedy (Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Supp. 533). On κεφαλή as an affectionate form of address, see 226–8n.

592

C O M M E N TA RY 9 0 4 – 9 0 7 904–5: cf. Eur. IA 469–70 κἀγὼ κατώικτιρ᾿, ὡς γυναῖκα δεῖ ξένην / ὑπὲρ τυράννων συμφορᾶς καταστένειν (by a chorus). Adverbial ὅσον = καθ᾿ ὅσον governs the partitive λύπης. This construction, with the correction by Kirchhoff (i) 562 of transmitted λύπη(ν) to the genitive, is preferable to emendation to the instrumental dative ὅσηι ... λύπηι by Wecklein 43. For similar cases of ὅσον with partitive, cf. Hdt. 7.223.4, Plut. Mor. 991e μουσικῆς ὅσον ἑκάστωι προσήκει. In principle these lines might simply express the courtesy of the chorus, as suggested by Jouan 52. But for the more particular meaning they may have in connection with the rules on the limitation of mourning, see 895n. γένους κοινωνίαν is a technical Attic phrase first attested in Xen., Pl., and Demosthenes. τὸν σὸν οἰκτίρω γόνον: cf. Eur. El. 673 οἴκτιρε δῆτα σοῦ γε ϕύντας ἐκγόνους. Attic inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries attest only ‑τιρforms of this verb, which are now standard in the editions of Aesch. and Eur., although their MSS fluctuate between ‑τιρ- and ‑τειρ- forms; cf. Threatte (1980/1996) II.648, West (1990a) xlix. 906–14 The Muse’s curse concentrates on the three people whom she considers responsible for the death of her child. She lists them in descending order of culpability and chronological proximity: from Odysseus and Diomedes, the material perpetrators, her anger is widened to include Helen, whose infidelity caused the war in which he and many other warriors were killed. Curses, as observed by Fries 449, are not infrequently found in the dirges of tragedy: Aesch. Cho. 367–71, Soph. El. 126–7, OT 1349–55, Eur. Tro. 766–72, Pho. 350–3. In ten of the surviving tragedies women are represented as taking vengeance themselves: apart from Electra, e.g., the Medea and Hecuba of Eur. and the Procne of Soph. Tereus (cf. McHardy (2004) 110–11). The Muse here does not threaten to take revenge herself, but simply utters a curse. In the real life of classical Athens women were hardly ever capable of such a dynamic action as exacting revenge, and Glotz (1904) 82 even suggested distinguishing, as ‘authentic’, the narratives of women in mourning who limited themselves to cursing or blaming those responsible for deaths from the ‘poetical fictions’ where women took the initiative of exacting revenge. 906–7 are isometric, with the same opening verb and different but rhyming subjects (Liapis 311). Close parallels for the combination of isometry, parallelism, rhyme, and μέν-δέ linking in the first two cola of a stanza are Aesch. Pers. 694–5 σέβομαι μὲν προσιδέσθαι, / σέβομαι δ’ ἀντία λέξαι and 700–1 δίομαι μὲν χαρίσασθαι, / δίομαι δ’ ἀντία ϕάσθαι; cf. also Eur. Cycl. 363–4 χαιρέτω μὲν αὖλις ἅδε, / χαιρέτω δὲ θυμάτων; see Diggle (1981) 55. The use of these rhetorical figures is typical of cult songs and the lyric parts of tragedy that are descended from them; cf. Kranz (1933) 127–37.

593

C O M M E N TA RY 9 0 7 – 9 1 1 ὄλοιτο: on third-person optatives ὄλοι(ν)το in curses, see 720–1n. Οἰνεΐδας ... Λαρτιάδας: the use of a patronymic instead of a proper name may sometimes be a token of respect (see 28–9n.), but here it connotes cold detachment; it also suits the solemnity of the Muse’s curse. Blaming Odysseus and Diomedes for the death of Rhesus is the Muse’s first reaction, but she will later, more thoughtfully, concentrate on Athena’s responsibility (938–49). Οἰνεΐδας, here referring to Diomedes’ grandfather Oineus, is elsewhere used for Tydeus, who was Diomedes’ father and Oineus’ son (Hom. Il. 5.813, 10.497; the common Homeric epithet of Diomedes is Τυδείδης), or for another son of Oineus, Meleager (Minyas, PEG F 7.24; Ap. Rh. 1.190, 1.1046, 3.518); on another possible use of a παππωνυμικόν, see 36–7a n. The contraction Λαρτιάδας, instead of Homeric Λαερτιάδης, is attested with certainty only in epigrams (mainly late adespota and the pseudonymous Alcae. AP 7.1.6 = HE 67), but has also been conjectured at Il. parva, PEG F 32.9 and Bacch. 15.6. Λάρτιος for Λαέρτης, however, occurs (always in the genitive, in patronymic phrases for Odysseus) 4x in Soph., 1x in Eur., and 1x in Ar. 908–9 ἄπαιδα ... ἔθηκεν ~ Eur. Alc. 621, Andr. 33 and (with genitive of separation, as here) 612. ἄπαιδα γέννας ... ἀριστοτόκοιο is doubly redundant. ἄπαιδα γέννας reflects the mainly poetic construction of adjectives with alpha privative governing the genitive of a noun connected to the root of the adjective, which is found in Soph. and Eur. (e.g., ἄπεπλος φαρέων, ἄφιλος φίλων, ἄχαλκος ἀσπίδων); cf. KG I.401–2, Breitenbach (1934) 192. γέννας ἀριστοτόκοιο is equivalent to γέννας ἀρίστας and the τόκ- part of the compound emphatically duplicates γέννα (so also, e.g., Eur. Hel. 154 φοναῖς θηροκτόνοις, Bacch. 167 κῶλον ταχύπουν, IA 421 θηλύπουν βάσιν (cf. Stockert ad loc.), TrGF 540.2 λεοντόπουν βάσιν; cf. Meyer (1923) 90–102). The two pleonasms, with their emphasis on the idea of maternal generation, highlight the Muse’s preoccupation with the loss of her son. The Homeric genitive in ‑οιο is a metrically necessary conjecture of the Aldine edit0r. This form, easily corruptible to ‑ου, as here and at Eur. Bacch. 876, is attested about 12x in lyrics of Eur. (in iambics at TrGF 228.3, certainly spurious), at least 2x in Aesch., 1x in Soph.; cf. KB I.400 n. 1; Page on Eur. Med. 135, Dodds on Bacch. 873–6). For ἀριστοτόκοιο (passive) compare the active in Hom. Il. 18.54 ὤι μοι ἐγὼ δειλή, ὤι μοι δυσαριστοτόκεια (Thetis lamenting for Achilles; see 915–49n.), Theocr. 24.73, and later epic poetry. 910–11 If Odysseus and Diomedes are identified only by their patronymics, with detachment, a similar loathing makes the Muse name Helen only through a derogatory periphrasis. Ἕλλανα is an ethnic accusative construed with δόμον (Ἕλλην is often used as an adjective in Pind., Aesch. and Eur.),

594

C O M M E N TA RY 9 1 2 – 9 1 4 proposed by Badham (1885) 338 for the metrically impossible nominative Ἑλένα of the MSS, perhaps a gloss which later replaced original Ἕλλανα. The form Ἕλλανα may have been chosen because of its partial homophony with Ἑλένη, a woman whose name almost advertised her Greekness, and yet who betrayed her ethnicity for the bed of a Phrygian. Φρυγίων λεχέων ἔπλευσε πλαθεῖσ(α) ‘refers to a bed already shared with Paris, her new sexual partner, not to a bed in Phrygia she has yet to reach’ (Mastronarde (2004) 22). The formal model of λεχέων … πλαθεῖσα may have been Eur. Tro. 202–3 μόχθους ἕξω κρείσσους, / ἢ λέκτροις πλαθεῖσ᾿ Ἑλλάνων … (with the same generalising plural for ‘beds’). 912–14: cf. Eur. Hel. 692–3 τάδε καὶ σὲ διώλεσε μυριάδας τε / χαλκεόπλων Δαναῶν (said of Paris by Helen to Menelaus). Helen enjoys a good ‘press’ in the Homeric epic. She is spoken of derogatorily only by herself (Il. 3.180, 6.344, Od. 4.145), and in the Teichoscopy she appears to be admired by Priam and the Trojan elders. Emphasis on her responsibility for the war and the destruction of Troy is found at Alcae. F 42.15–16 Voigt οἰ δ’ ἀπώλοντ’ ἀμϕ’ Ἐ[λέναι ⏑−⏓] / καὶ πόλις αὔτων. Tragedy is mainly very negative, beginning with Aesch. Ag. 403–26, 687–749 (tellingly, only the criminal Clytemnestra, who is her sister, defends her: 1455–67), and Euripidean characters often depict her as pure evil. She undergoes an ambiguous rehabilitation only in Hel. ὑπ᾿ Ἰλίωι of the MSS belongs to the language of Aesch. and Eur. (about ten occurrences, five of which refer to the deaths of warriors under the walls of Troy), but is metrically unacceptable, and repetitive before ἕκατι Τροίας. An adverb of place, such as ὅπου (Wilamowitz ap. Murray), produces the contextually relevant idea that it was only Helen’s choice of the Trojan bed of Paris that provoked the war. ἕκατι Τροίας reminds us that Helen caused the death of Rhesus for the sake of a city foreign to her. μυριάδας ... ἐκένωσεν: the adjectival use of the noun μυριάς, ‘ten thousand’ or ‘unaccountable number’, is attested at Corinna, PMG 654.i.34 and in the first century AD [Manetho] Apot. 4.66. It need not, however, be considered a vernacular Boeotism in Rh. (though προταινί at 523 probably is), because the artificial language of Corinna includes many features foreign to Boeotian. Ritchie (1964) 177, followed by Jouan 53, suggested that μυριάδας is to be taken with ἀνδρῶν, so that ἐκένωσεν governs two accusatives, μυριάδας  … ἀνδρῶν and πόλεις, but the word order would be strained. For the verb in a similar context, cf. Aesch. Supp. 659–60 μήποτε λοιμὸς ἀνδρῶν / τάνδε (Faehse: τῶνδε M) πόλιν κενώσαι. 915–49 The second iambic part of the Muse’s mourning is a calmer and more measured account of Rhesus’ life. It evokes the conception of Rhesus

595

C O M M E N TA RY 9 1 5 – 9 4 9 from the river-god Strymon, broadening the crucial factors in Rhesus’ life to the secret and indirect operation of Thamyris in relation to his birth and the secret direct intervention of Athena in relation to his death. It also reminds us of the Muse’s opposition to Rhesus’ decision to participate in the war. The maternal mourning of the Muse and her mention of Rhesus’ father, together with her further analysis of the responsibilities underlying the death of Rhesus, try to give his story a complexity and importance which it did not have in the Iliad. On the volute-crater of the Darius Painter too (see 346–8a n.) the addition of the parents distinguishes the scene from what otherwise would be only the depiction of a raid by Odysseus and Diomedes: ‘The presence of Rhesus’ parents gives the picture a different centre of gravity: it is above all about Rhesus’ death. In their role as impotent spectators, Strymon and the Muse embody the future mourners, who will lament and bury the Thracian king after his death’ (Giuliani (1996) 84). The mourning speech of the Muse and Thetis’ prediction of Achilles’ fate in Hom. Il. 18 include several similar elements: both mothers cry out in pain (18.52–4; 895–99); both speak of their sons’ birth and rearing (18.55–9; 917–33) and deaths (18.59–60; 934–5). The Muse even explicitly compares her mourning pain with that of Thetis (974–7). The Cyclic Aethiopis, and after it Aeschylean tragedy, had already developed the motif of the mourning of the mothers of the Trojan allies. In the Aeth. and in Aesch. Psychostasia the pain of Eos mourning for Memnon will have been compared at length with the pain of Thetis; see 28–9n., 974–9n. TrGF 99, probably from Aesch.’s Kares or Europa (see 28–9n.), in spite of its more concentrated narrative pace, has substantial points of contact with Rh. 915–37. In addition to the analogous tone of Europa’s anxious speech and of the Muse’s mourning (both focus on anxieties or suffering caused by children who are defeated and have died in war, as in Aesch. Pers.), there are a number of common details concerned with the protagonists and their circumstances. The son is an ally of Troy. The corpse of the warrior is moved from the Trojan battlefield to his fatherland thanks to a divine intervention. Both mothers evoke the circumstances of the unexpected intercourse with the god through which the child for whom the mother is now mourning or fearing was conceived (Kares, TrGF 99.1–3; Rh. 917–25). Europa is anxious about Sarpedon’s involvement in the risks of the war; the Muse remembers Strymon’s and her own anxious attempts to restrain Rhesus from exposing himself to the risks of the war (Kares 99.16–23; Rh. 934–7).97

The motif of the father’s warnings against Eurypylus’ participation in the war probably also featured in Soph.’s tragedy about this other Trojan ally; cf. TrGF IV p. 195, Ritchie (1964) 80.

97

596

C O M M E N TA RY 9 1 5 – 9 2 5 915–25 The Muse’s accusations move from Helen to the person who involuntarily caused the Muse to be in the place where Rhesus was conceived, and thus from whom her grief for her son is ultimately derived. The hubristic challenge of Thamyris to the Muses is narrated at Hom. Il. 2.594–600: ‘… Dorion, where once the Muses encountering Thamyris, the Thracian, on his way from Oichalia – from visiting Eurytus, the Oichalian – ended his singing. Pride had made him say that he could outsing the very Muses, daughters of Zeus who holds the aegis. In their anger they maimed him, relieved him of his god-given song, and made him forgetful of the art of playing the cithara’. Here the encounter with and punishment by the Muses takes place at Dorion, which we mainly know as a town of the south-western Peloponnese. It is not easy to understand what the Muses were doing in this region, remote from their usual dwelling-places in northern Greece, and the other geographical specification, Οἰχαλίηθεν ἰόντα παρ᾿ Εὐρύτου Οἰχαλιῆος (Il. 2.596), is strange, as the southern Peloponnese is not on the way to any destination for someone who comes from Thessaly, where Oechalia and Eurytus were clearly located by Homer.98 Later sources, however, tried to locate the Oechalia of Il. 2.596 in Messenia or Arcadia, and the geographer Orus, ap. Steph. Byz. δ 151 Billerb., praised Hesiod (F 65) for suggesting the plain of Dotion in Thessaly as an alternative location for the encounter of Thamyris and the Muses. The similarity of the two toponyms leads one to suppose that Hesiod’s Dotion might be his own attempt at solving the geographic oddity of Homeric Dorion. Rh. is silent about the location of the contest. In the absence of a location, the author may have taken for granted that it was set near the Pangaean mountains (922), east of the Chalcidian peninsula, which (apart from being close to the Strymon) suits both the usual habitations of the Muses and Thamyris’ traditional epithet ‘Thracian’. After Hesiod (F 65 τετυφλῶσθαι), it seems certain that Soph. described Thamyris’ punishment as blinding in the tragedy named after him, TrGF 236a–245 (cf. Coo (2016)). The same punishment features at Rh. (924 κἀτυφλώσαμεν). Hom. speaks of an imprecise handicap (Il. 2.599 πηρὸν θέσαν ‘paralysed’, ‘demented’, or ‘maimed’?), combined with or consisting of the termination of his ability to sing or play the cithara.99 As remarked by ΣA Il. 2.599 (cf. also Eust. ad loc. (299.25)), on the basis of the parallel of Demodocus, whom the Muse ‘deprived of his sight, but gave him sweet song’ (Od. 8.64), some of the ancients maintained that Homeric πηρός did not mean Unless we think that Thamyris was a sort of wandering poet: in that case Thessaly and the Peloponnese might have been two sequential performing-places of his. 99 In a red-figure hydria datable to 440–420 (LIMC VII.1, 903 ‘Thamyris’ 16) Thamyris sits down with eyes closed and his cithara lies on the ground close to him (Coo (2016) 239–41, 247). 98

597

C O M M E N TA RY 9 1 5 – 9 1 6 ‘blind’, but (τῆς ὠιδῆς) πηρός ‘disabled (for song)’, because blindness would not have been a real disability for a singer. This is not a cogent argument, as blinding is a punishment not seldom inflicted on mortals, sometimes for hubris, and it affects poets or seers especially often. Teiresias was blinded by gods, or specifically by Athena or Hera, in one version for revealing secrets to men; the half-divine Helen blinded Stesichorus after being slandered by him; the Erinyes blinded Phineus, in one version for more or less the same reason as Teiresias; one of the Naiades, Echenais, blinded Daphnis; a Dryad blinded Rhoicus, and the Muse of Od. 8.64 blinded Demodocus. As Buxton (1980) 29 remarks, ‘poets and seers have in common the power to see and know more than ordinary men … [they] stand in an especially close relationship to the gods. But, precisely for that reason, they blur the distinction between god and man. In order to preserve the distinction intact, special powers possessed by mortals are … balanced by special defects’. 915–16 ζῶν ... εἰς Ἅιδου μολών is another example of ‘mosaic technique’, as it elaborates on the common polarity ζῶν καὶ/ἢ θανών (e.g., Soph. Ant. 209–10, Tr. 73, 1111, Eur. Hcld. 320, TrGF 852.2) by means of a verse-ending modelled on Aesch. PV 236 εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν, Soph. OT 1372 εἰς Ἅιδου μολών, Tr. 4 εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν, Ph. 1349 εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν, Eur. Her. 1102 ἐξ Ἅιδου μολών, 1331 εἰς Ἅιδου μόληις. While living, Thamyris challenged the Muses (925). His challenge, that led to his death, caused the journey on which the Muse was impregnated by the river Strymon (921–3), and thus the birth of the son whose death has now plunged her into the deepest sorrow. Φιλάμμονος παῖ: the patronymic designation is left without the proper name for several lines, again probably because of the hostile detachment of the speaker (see 906–7n.); only at 925 is the name given, tellingly at the point when the Muse mentions the horrible punishment inflicted upon him. Philammon is first mentioned by Hes. F 64.15 as son of Apollo. He was the father of Thamyris in, at least, Soph.’s Thamyras (TrGF 236a), and Conon (see below); the mother was a nymph in most sources, Argiope or Arsinoe, less frequently a Muse, Melpomene or Erato. He was himself a singer, whom the tradition connects to pious activities: songs on the birth of Leto, Artemis, Apollo, organisation of choruses for the Delphic temple (Heracl. Pont. F 157 Wehrli), and the institution of the Lernaean mystery rites for Demeter (Paus. 2.37.2); according to Paus. 9.36.2 he died in battle, fighting to defend the Delphians against the Phlegyans. The mention of such a pious father may evoke an implicit opposition with the arrogance (917) of his son Thamyris. It may also intimate the gravity of the shame entailed for the Muse by the birth of Rhesus, which the Muse will describe at 926–30. Conon, Narr. 7 narrates that when the mother of Thamyris (a nymph according to him) fell in love with Philammon and became pregnant, ‘in her shame (αἰδουμένη: cf. Rh. 925) she left the Peloponnese and having arrived at Acte gave birth to the boy

598

C O M M E N TA RY 9 1 6 – 9 2 0 Thamyris’. The shame of Thamyris’ mother is also intimated by Paus. 4.33.3: ‘Argiope once dwelt on Parnassus, but settled among the Odrysae when pregnant, for Philammon refused to take her into his house’. τῆς ἐμῆς ἥψω φρενός = Eur. TrGF 370.59–60, spoken by Athena, another dea ex machina expressing sadness for the death of Erechtheus, and thus with the same negative connotation of ‘perturbing’ we find here. 917–18 appears to be the only passage in tragedy where a human’s boast or challenge to the gods is clearly called ὕβρις. The term does not usually apply to the pride and punishment pattern between gods and mortals, perhaps because ὕβρις most often involved acts of stronger violence than pride or arrogance, which humans were seldom in a position to commit against gods: cf. Lattimore (1964) 23 and n. 35, Fisher (1992) 414–15 n. 12. 925 may explain why such a grave term as ὕβρις applies to Thamyris’ boast: he not only challenged the Muses to a musical contest, but also insulted their artistry (see 923–5n.).100 The two subjects ὕβρις and ἔρις are construed with a singular verb, because they are deemed to constitute almost a single idea (KG I.79): Thamyris’ ὕβρις and hostile rivalry towards the Muses would hardly have been conceivable without the other. Μουσῶν ἔρις ‘the confrontation with the Muses’, with objective genitive. τεκεῖν μ᾿ ἔθηκε … γόνον: τιθέναι with accusative and infinitive in the sense ‘make someone do so and so’ is not rare in Aesch. and Eur.; cf. especially Eur. Med. 717–18 παίδων γονὰς / σπεῖραί σε θήσω. For τεκεῖν ... γόνον, cf. Pind. Pyth. 2.42, Isthm. 8.33, Eur. Ion 356. For δύστηνον γόνον, cf. Soph. Ant. 1018 (δύσμορος), Eur. TrGF 781.78 (δυστυχής). 919–20: cf. Eur. Tro. 1151 Σκαμανδρίους γὰρ τάσδε διαπερῶν ῥοάς. ῥοαί with a river’s name in the genitive is common (e.g., Eur. Med. 835, Andr. 650, Supp. 890, El. 1, 1273, Her. 1163, Hel. 1, 124, 162, Pho. 101, 574, Bacch. 749, 1044, IA 813, TrGF 929b.3); that favours the emendation by Dindorf (i) I.492 of transmitted διαρροάς ‘by-streams’, unparalleled with the name of the river. The final syllable of διά is lengthened by position in front of initial ῥ-, deriving from the original double consonant sound sr- or wr-. This prosody is consistent in tragic iambics, but there are many examples of the vowel remaing short in lyrics; cf. Diggle (1994) 456–9. γὰρ δή arrests attention at the opening of the narrative: Denniston (1954) 243.

Nicephorus, Prog. 9, Rhetores Gr. 1.437 Walz (or rather his unknown source) perhaps provides support for this interpretation, as he charges Thamyris with ὕβρις, and again cites his verbal abuse of the Muses’ talent (see 923–5n.).

100

599

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 0 – 9 2 5 λέκτροις ... φυταλμίοις must have been the source of Hesych. Lex. φ 1066 Hansen-Cunn. φυταλμίοις· φυτευτικοῖς, γονίμοις, because of the lack of normalisation of the lemma to the nominative, and the explanation, which suits our passage. The epithet is used of a father with the sense ‘begetting’ at Soph. TrGF 788. With reference to λέκτροις, our φυταλμίοις means primarily ‘procreative’ (cf. Nonn. Dion. 25.243 παιδοσπόρον εὐνήν). Fertility and sexual power are often ascribed to river-gods (351b–4n.), and the fertility intrinsic to the γόνιμον ῥεῦμα of the Nile was called τὸ φυτάλμιον by Plut. Mor. 994b. However the Muse’s λέκτρα, which consisted of the Strymon’s waters and thus really were only a metaphorical bed, as she found herself pregnant after innocently crossing a river (περῶσα ... ἐπλάθην), will be here opposed to the literal λέχεα for which Helen intentionally opted in betraying her Greek house (911). That the Muse had been fertilised by these watery λέκτρα (which consisted of the god Strymon himself, appositive genitive) helps to stress the unintended nature and unexpectedness of her pregnancy. The special circumstances of Rhesus’ conception were anticipated at 351–4. 921–2 γῆς is a redundant partitive genitive to be taken with χρυσόβωλον ἐς λέπας. χρυσόβωλον ‘with golden clods’ is hyperbolic, but cf. Strabo 7 F 16b Radt ϕασὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς τὴν Παιονίαν γῆν ἀροῦντας εὑρίσκειν χρυσοῦ τινα μόρια. The Pangaean mountains (also mentioned at 970) were famous for their gold and silver: cf. Hdt. 7.112.1, Xen. Hell. 5.2.17, Strabo 7 F 16b, quoted above. λέπας Πάγγαιον: cf. 287 Ἰδαῖον λέπας, 972 Παγγαίου πέτραν. The word λέπας is first attested 2x in Aesch.’s Ag. (AP 7.496.1 = FGE 976 is probably pseudo-Simonidean and later) and occurs at least 7x in Euripides. ὀργάνοισιν ἐξησκημέναι ‘equipped with musical instruments’: cf. Soph. OC 1602–3 λουτροῖς τέ νιν / ἐσθῆτί τ᾽ ἐξήσκησαν, Phylarch. FGrHist 81F41 ἐσθῆσιν ἐξησκημένοι. 923–5 The Muse speaks clearly of a musical contest between Thamyris and the Muses, which at Hom. Il. 2.594–600 (quoted in 915–25n.) is neither explicit nor necessarily even implied: in Hom. the singer only boasts that he would be able – theoretically – to win a contest with the Muses. By the midfifth century the pitiful outcome of the contest for Thamyris was the subject of one of Polygnotus’ paintings in the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi. According to Pausanias’ description (10.30.8), ‘near Pelias sits Thamyris with his sightless eyes and lowly mien: long are his locks and long, too, his beard: at his feet is flung a lyre, its sides and strings broken’. Compare the despairing look of the mother Argiope and of Thamyris, who has thrown his cithara on the ground, in the hydria mentioned above in n. 99. The iconographical interest of this topic may have been inspired by Thamyras, a juvenile work of Soph., in the first performance of which Soph. himself is said to have

600

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 3 – 9 2 4 played the cithara, if we are to believe the account of the Vita (Froning (1971) 75–7, Brown (2002) 89). Rh. does not mention the sexual wager suggested by Thamyris in connection with the contest according to some versions of the myth, from the Tragodoumena of Asclep. Trag. (FGrHist 12F10, mentioned at Σ Rh. 916 (ed. Rabe (1908) 420) onwards: had he won, he was to have enjoyed the favours of one of the Muses (Σ exeg. Il. 2.595), or of all of them in other versions (Asclep. Trag., quoted above, Apollod. Bibl. 1.17 (1.3.3)). This motif was probably elaborated also by comedy, as suggested by Lesky (1951=1966) 169–70, coll. Antiph. Thamyras, PCG 104. μεγίστην εἰς ἔριν μελωιδίας / κλεινῶι σοφιστῆι Θρηικί ‘to the contest of minstrelsy with the famous Thracian musician.’ μελωιδίας is objective genitive, σοφιστῆι comitative dative. For the former, cf., e.g., Eur. Andr. 279 ἔριδι … εὐμορφίας, Pho. 1460 ἔριν λόγων ~ Bacch. 715, IA 183–4 Ἥραι Παλλάδι τ᾿ ἔριν ἔριν / μορφᾶς ἁ Κύπρις ἔσχεν, 1307–8 ἔριν … καλλονᾶς. For the latter, Cycl. 328 Διὸς βρονταῖσιν εἰς ἔριν κτυπῶν. Transmitted κείνωι, emended to κλεινῶι (Dobree (1833) 88, followed by Diggle and Fries 456) and to δεινῶι (Valckenaer (1823) 279, followed by Liapis (2011a) 105) but kept in the text by Zanetto and Jouan, is perhaps not impossible, especially in the light of Luc. 57.27 ὑπὸ τῶι Ῥοδίωι ἐκείνωι σοφιστῆι, where the name of the character is omitted, as in Rh. Word-order would not be an argument against κείνωι: while usually in prose (ἐ)κεῖνος follows its noun in the absence of the article (as observed by Liapis ibid.), poetry does allow exceptions (e.g., Hom. Il. 13.232, Od. 4.145, 17.243, 21.201, Soph. Aj. 1194, El. 862, Eur. Hec. 1230). But the Muse, who defines Thamyris in positive terms as σοφιστής, would be expected to use an epithet which conveys an appreciation of his qualities. While the demonstrative (ἐ)κεῖνος has sometimes the meaning ‘that well known’ (Ar. Ach. 708, Nub. 534, Th. 161, Eccl. 167, Dem. 18.219, KG I.650), it does not entail the clear sense of ‘famous’ that the Muse’s appreciation requires. With κείνωι she would have to be taken as simply making a reference to the first mention of Thamyris at 916–17 (Fries 456). By contrast, through either κλεινῶι or δεινῶι, she would appropriately and clearly emphasise the fame or greatness of Thamyris as her rival. For σοφιστής ‘musician’, cf. Aesch. TrGF 314 and its source Athen. 14.632c. From Hom. Il. 2.595 onwards, Thamyris was often called ‘Thracian’, possibly owing to his connection with the Muses and Pieria (which belonged to Macedon in the fifth century but was originally inhabited by Thracians), or by analogy with Orpheus, the oldest singer and musician, whose connections with Pieria are well documented. Thamyris is represented in Thracian attire on three vases of 440–430: LIMC VII.1, 903 ‘Thamyris’ 2–4. And according to Rh. the contest took place on the mountains of Thracian Pangaeum (921–2).

601

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 5 – 9 2 7 Θάμυριν was the Homeric form of the name; classical Attic Greek preferred Θαμύρας, as evidenced by the orthography of the titles of the various tragic and comic plays named after this character; cf. Fries 457. πόλλ᾿ ἐδέννασεν τέχνην Apart from Nicephorus, Prog. 9, Rhet.Gr. I.437 Walz, who suggests what Thamyris’ verbal abuse consisted of (ὦ Μοῦσαι ... οὐκ ἄρα Διὸς θυγατέρες ὑμεῖς, οὐδὲ τὴν μουσικὴν Ἀπόλλων ὑμᾶς ἐδιδάξατο, ὅτι μηδὲν μελιχρὸν ὑπηχεῖτε τοῖς ἄισμασιν. ὡς ἔτι ἔγωγε θνητὸς μέν εἰμι, νικῶ δὲ καὶ τὰς Μούσας ὑμᾶς), Rh. is the only surviving text attesting that Thamyris not only challenged the Muses to a musical contest, but also ‘insulted’ (ἐδέννασεν) their artistry. Noun δέννος and δεννάζειν are probably of Ionic origin; cf. δέννος in Archil. IEG 148.2 (suppl.), Hdt. 9.107.1, Herond. 7.104, Lycophr. 777. The verb is found elsewhere only at Theogn. IEG 1211, Soph. Aj. 243 (cf. Finglass ad loc.), Ant. 759, Lycophr. 404; again at Rh. 950. 926–9 τίκτω and δίδωσιν (pointing to the beginning of Rhesus’ education) are historical presents that mark events which constitute important turning-points in a narration and are still relevant at the moment of utterance (Sicking and Stork (1997), Rijksbaron (2002) 22–4). Such presents are frequent with verbs referring to death, birth, and marriage; cf., e.g., Eur. Hel. 6–8 (where τίκτει is surrounded, as here, by historic tenses or aorists), Bacch. 2 (τίκτει), 213 (δίδωμι), Rijksbaron (1991) 1–2, 39. Here the grieving Muse may overlap the past time of the childbirth, when she conceived Rhesus in her womb, with the present moment, when she is carrying his dead body in her arms. συγγόνους αἰδουμένη καὶ παρθενείαν: here the verb governs a personal and a non-personal object, in zeugma. The former designates the persons before whom shame is felt, the latter the status which is ‘the focus of the agent’s respect, disregard of which would be a source of disgrace’ (Cairns (1993) 299 n. 124). Her condition as ‘unwed’ woman (this is the primary and legal meaning of παρθένος: cf. Sissa (1990) 76–9) made her maternity shameful. According to the Phoenicians’ version of Io’s alleged abduction at Hdt. 1.5.2–3, in reality Io slept with the captain of a Phoenician ship anchored in Argos, and ‘when she discovered that she was pregnant, as she could not face her parents (αἰδεομένη τοὺς τοκέας), she sailed willingly with the Phoenicians, to avoid being found out’. According to a law ascribed to Solon, an unwed woman whose father discovered that she was pregnant ceased to be a member of the family, and her father was authorised to sell her as a slave (Plut. Sol. 23.2). The sanctions against girls who experienced sex before marriage were similarly unsparing in other cities (cf. Sissa (1990) 79–86, Ogden (1996) 32–82, 277–88). Hence the crucial need for παρθένοι to keep the pregnancy secret and either abort or get rid of the baby (cf. Ogden (1996) 106–10). In the Muse’s narrative (919–20) her intercourse with Strymon is presented as a sort of rape of which the Muse was unaware. However, as we can see,

602

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 7 – 9 2 9 e.g., from the ‘shame’ admitted by Creousa in Eur.’s Ion, Greek popular morality assumed that a woman would be ashamed even of the experience of being raped, and in Greek law a woman who had been raped might be liable to be treated in the same way as one who had willingly engaged in adultery; cf. Cairns (1993) 307–8, with bibliography in n. 155; Ogden (1997b) 30–2. ἧκ᾿ ἐς ... δίνας ‘I threw you into the eddies’. According to Apollod. Bibl. 3.201 (3.15.4) Chione, who gave birth to Eumolpus by Poseidon unbeknown to her father, flung the child into the deep in order not to be detected; but Poseidon picked him up and conveyed him to Ethiopia, and ‘gave him to bring up’ (δίδωσι ... τρέφειν) to a daughter of his. The text remains silent about the intentions of this initiative of the Muse. The Muse’s decision to entrust her son to Strymon probably relied on her confidence in the intervention and support of Strymon. River-gods were frequently κουροτρόφοι in Greek mythology (cf. Aesch. Sept. 308–9 ὕδωρ τε Διρκαῖον, εὐτραϕέστατον πωμάτων, Cho. 6 πλόκαμον Ἰνάχωι θρεπτήριον, TrGF 155 ῎Ιστρος τοιαύτας παρθένους ἐξεύχεται / τρέϕειν ὅ θ’ ἁγνὸς Φᾶσις, Nonn. Dion. 24.50 Λάμου κουροτρόϕον ὕδωρ, Borthwick (1963) 23–-4, Price Hadzisteliou (1978) 195, Larson (2007) 64–6), and were especially connected with the nymphs of the springs, who were also themselves excellent κουροτρόφοι (see below). Besides, by hastening to carry Rhesus to Strymon the Muse may also have taken thought for the legitimacy of her son, which was guaranteed when he was recognised by his father. This act of recognition and practically adoption (ποίησις) was the necessary condition of legitimacy for an Athenian citizen (Rudhardt (1962)). Recognition might in real life, as here, be accompanied by the father’s decision to educate the child as his own: cf. Dem. 40.26 ἐμὲ δὲ καὶ ἐποιεῖτο καὶ ἐπαίδευεν. εὐύδρου: usually said of a land, but sometimes also of rivers (e.g., Bacch. 11.119, Eur. IT 399, Opp. Hal. 1.601). The meaning of the epithet is in both cases ‘with abundant water’ (as Oppian’s context shows, and as δίνας may imply at Rh. 928) and not ‘with beautiful waters’ (Feickert 361, Jouan 53). τρέφειν δέ σ᾽ οὐ βρότειον ἐς χέρα / Στρυνὼν δίδωσιν ἀλλὰ πηγαίαις κόραις Special connections (of geographical affinity, kinship, or sex) between river-gods and Nymphs are frequent, starting from Hom. Il. 20.7–9: cf. Larson (2001) 98–100. The Nymphs also have a strong link with the Muses in cult (cf. RE XVI.1.692–4). Further, the Nymphs often serve as κουροτρόφοι (Hes. Th. 346–8 θυγατέρων (MSS) ἱερὸν γένος, αἳ κατὰ γαῖαν / ἄνδρας κουρίζουσι σὺν Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι / καὶ ποταμοῖς, Aesch. TrGF 168.16–17 νύμϕα̣ι ναμερτεῖς … / ᾽Ι̣ν̣άχου Ἀργείου ποταμοῦ παισὶν βιοδώροι[ς, and 24–5 παίδων δ’ εὔκαρπον τε[λ]έ̣θει γένος, οἷσ[ / ἵλαοι ἀντιάσουσι, Eur. El. 625–6 Νύμϕαις ἐπόρσυν᾽ ἔροτιν, ὡς ἔδοξέ μοι. / ⸬ τροϕεῖα παίδων ἢ πρὸ μέλλοντος τόκου;, West on Hes. Th. 346, Price Hadzisteliou (1978) 194), and they often nurse divine children who cannot be raised by their parents. Soon after his birth, Dionysus

603

C O M M E N TA RY 9 2 9 – 9 3 0 was entrusted to the Nymphs by Zeus, according to, e.g., Pherecyd. FGrHist 3F90b = EGM F 90b, Diod. Sic. 5.52.2, Luc. 79.12 (in all three passages the phrase διδόναι (ἀνα)τρέφειν occurs). The Nymphs were the temporary nurses of another son of Zeus, probably Minos (Hes. F 145.1–2), and raised the son of Aphrodite and Anchises, Aeneas (HHom. Aphr. 273–5). Achilles is sometimes presented living as a child in the house of the nymph Philyra, mother of Chiron (Pind. Nem. 3.43) or raised by Chariclo, wife of Cheiron, a Naiad nymph (Ap. Rh. 4.813); Chariclo and Philyra also raised Jason according to Pind. Pyth. 4.102–3. βρότειον (Elmsley (1811) 78 and ap. Hermann (1828) III.310) for βροτείαν of the MSS and Christ.pat. 1348, which violates Porson’s Law, is paralleled as a two‑termination adjective at Eur. El. 741, and further supported by Etym. magn. 30.15 Gaisf. (123.27 Lasserre-Livad.) βρότειος χείρ, of which our phrase, attested nowhere else, may have been the source. διδόναι with final infinitive (ἀνα-/ἐκ)τρέφειν and dative is idiomatic for entrusting to someone the custody and feeding of newborn children, and is especially common in Eur.: Hec. 1134, El. 18, Ion 821, Or. 64. On the present tense, see above on τίκτω. The epithet πηγαῖος is not found elsewhere as a designation of the nymphs of the springs, but κόραι is a common designation for the Nymphs; cf. Hom. Od. 6.122–4 κουράων ἀμϕήλυθε θῆλυς ἀϋτὴ / Νυμϕάων, αἳ ἔχουσ’ ὀρέων αἰπεινὰ κάρηνα, Hes. Th. 346–8, quoted above, Pind. Pyth. 3.78–9 Ματρί, τὰν κοῦραι παρ’ ἐμὸν πρόθυρον σὺν Πανὶ μέλπονται θαμὰ / σεμνὰν θεὸν ἐννύχιαι, Eur. Her. 785–9 σύν τ᾽ Ἀσωπιάδες κόραι / πατρὸς ὕδωρ βᾶτε λιποῦσαι συναοιδοὶ / Νύμϕαι τὸν Ἡρακλέους / καλλίνικον ἀγῶνα, Moero, AP 6.189.1 = HE 2679 Νύμφαι Ἁμαδρυάδες, ποταμοῦ κόραι; also Leonidas, AP 9.329.1–3 = HE 1984–6 Νύμφαι ... κόραι. 930–1 ἐκτραφείς: the preverb, often pointing to the completeness of the verbal action, here denotes complete rearing ‘to maturity’ and the child’s attainment of adulthood and education, rather than rearing as a process (unlike the simple τρέφειν); indeed the verb is found mainly in the aorist tense with resultative sense, as here (cf. Moussy (1969) 78–80). κάλλιστα and καλῶς are idiomatic with τρέφειν in the fifth and fourth centuries: e.g., Soph. OT 1380, Pl. Resp. 401d, 410e, Leg. 766a, Hippocr. De aer. 12.34, Aeschin. 1.11, Arist. EN. 1180a15. παρθένων ὕπο: the Nymphs. A poetic tradition (almost exclusively epic) standardised the idea of the Nymphs as a group of chaste maidens, usually escorting the virgin Artemis. It appears already at Hom. Od. 6.102–9, where Nausicaa, παρθένος ἀδμής, is described as standing out from the girls around her in her beauty, and is compared to Artemis among her retinue of Nymphs; the same comparison is offered again by Ap. Rh. for Medea going to meet Jason (Arg. 3.876–84) and by Virgil for Dido going to meet Aeneas (Aen. 1.498–502); and a retinue of very young Nymphs escort Artemis in Callim.

604

C O M M E N TA RY 9 3 0 – 9 3 2 HArt. The connection between Artemis and the Nymphs, however, is not frequent in cult, where on the contrary the Nymphs are usually combined with Pan, Hermes, or river-gods; in fact the Nymphs quite often engage in sexual activity with these male gods, the Silens, and even mortal shepherds (cf. Larson (2001) 107–10). Θρήικης ἀνάσσων πρῶτος ἦσθ᾽ ἀνδρῶν: cf. Soph. Aj. 1102 Σπάρτης ἀνάσσων and Soph. OT 33–4: the citizens of Thebes consider Oedipus, their king, ἀνδρῶν ... πρῶτον. The participle has a temporal sense and enhances the Muse’s claim about Rhesus’ past primacy: when he was king of Thrace (before he went to Troy), he was first in rank among all men, and this should have been a good reason for him not to leave for Troy. 932–3 ἀμφὶ γῆν μὲν πατρίαν opposes Rhesus’ fatherland to Troy (934 Τροίας δ(έ)), defining the area within which the Muse consented that Rhesus could fight, as she knew that otherwise (specifically at Troy, or anyway outside his land?) he was doomed to die (935). ἀμφί means ‘all around in’ or ‘somewhere in’, as at 408 (of the region within which Hector helped Rhesus impose his royal supremacy over the other Thracian leaders). Differently Kovacs 447 ‘in defense of your country’ and Fries 459 ‘for the sake of your country’, which is a less frequent sense of ἀμφί + accusative, but paralleled by Tyrtae. IEG 5.4–6 in a similar context: ἀμϕ᾽ αὐτὴν (i.e., Messene) δ᾽ ἐμάχοντ᾽ ἐννέα καὶ δέκ᾽ ἔτη … πατέρων ἡμετέρων πατέρες). The opposition would then be between fighting on behalf of one’s own land and fighting for the foreign Trojans. The prosody πᾱτρίαν is uncommon in tragic iambics. In this adjective the group muta cum liquida ‑τρ- never closes the preceding syllable in Eur. (and thus the first syllable of πάτριος is short 23x), and only once in Soph. (OT 1304; the first syllable is short 3x). I owe the observation to J. Diggle, per litteras. φιλαιμάτους / ἀλκὰς κορύσσοντ(α) ‘marshalling bloody battles.’ ἀλκή, etymologically defensive ‘strength to avert (danger)’ (see 249b–51a n.), has here the post-epic meaning ‘battle’, as, e.g., at Pind. Ol. 13.55, Eur. Med. 264, Supp. 683. For κορύσσειν ‘fit with arms’ (properly ‘arm the soldiers for the battle’, Trümpy (1950) 49), governing objects whose sense is ‘war’, ‘battle’, cf. Hom. Il. 2.273 (πόλεμον), [Hes.] Scut. 148 (κλόνον ἀνδρῶν) and 198 (μάχην), Ibyc. PMGF 311b (δῆριν), Pind. Isth. 8.52–4 (μάχας ἐναριμβρότου / ἔργον). There is no need to emend φιλαιμάτους to φιλαρμάτους (Badham (1855) 336, followed by Feickert 362), which is attested only as an epithet of Thebes (Pind. Isthm. 8.19–20, Eur. Her. 467). Eust. on Hom. Il. 9.326 (754.5) αἱματόεντα δὲ ἤματα κυρίως τὰ ἐν τῶι φιλαιμάτωι πολέμωι is a late though relevant parallel. The epithet φιλαίματος is applied to Phobos at Aesch. Sept. 45 and to Ares in an epigram ascribed to Anacreon, AP 7.226.3 = FGE 486; αἱματόεις is a common epithet for πόλεμος (Hom. 2x, Mimn. IEG 14.7, Aesch. Supp. 1044).

605

C O M M E N TA RY 9 3 3 – 9 3 8 ἐδείμαινον: the verb, usually with an object or an infinitive, only here governs an object clause with accusative and infinitive. This construction is attested with other verbs of fearing thrice in Eur., in two cases with an object clause including θανεῖν: Ion 1564–5 (δείσας), Hec. 768 (ὀρρωδῶν), Ritchie (1964) 249–50. 934–7 The opposition of the Muse to the departure of Rhesus for Troy, briefly mentioned by the chorus at 348–50, was fully explained at 895–901. Τροίας ... ἄστυ μὴ κέλσαι: for accusative of end of motion without preposition governed by κέλλειν, cf. Aesch. Supp. 15 κέλσαι δ᾿ Ἄργους γαῖαν. εἰδυῖα τὸν σὸν πότμον: the Muse’s inability to restrain her son from precipitating his death parallels the dramatic situation of Achilles and Thetis in the Il., but de-epicises it; see 895–901n. Ἕκτορος πρεσβεύμαθ᾿ … γερουσίαι takes up Hector’s phrase at 401 κῆρυξ ἢ γερουσία Φρυγῶν; likewise, 937 echoes 402. πρεσβεύματα has been taken by LSJ s.v. and Feickert 362 to mean ‘ambassadors’, here and at Eur. Supp. 173. In fact abstract verbal nouns in ‑μα are characteristically used for persons in tragedy (see 498b–500n.). Here the word may, alternatively, mean ‘embassies’ (see 399–403n.). There seems to be no parallel for the sense ‘messages’, suggested by Kovacs 447. Hector’s κῆρυξ and γερουσία are singular in 401. Here the plurals convey Hector’s repeated insistence. ἐλθεῖν κἀπικουρῆσαι φίλοις: cf. 956. The phrase may vary in oratio obliqua a prayer attested twice in Eur.: Andr. 508 μόλε φίλοις ἐπίκουρος, Or. 1300 ἔλθ᾿ ἐπίκουρος ἐμοῖσι φίλοισι; see also Timoth. PMG 791.204–5 ἐμοῖς ἔλθ᾿ ἐπίκουρος ὕμ/νοις ἰήιε Παιάν. These passages appear to reflect the ritual language of prayer (telling a god to come and hear was a common way to begin a prayer: Pulleyn (1997) 136). The Muse’s language may imply that the Trojan appeals had a supplicatory tone. At the same time, however, ἐπικουρῆσαι here preserves the original military meaning ‘be an ally from abroad’, which ἐπίκουρος and ἐπικουρεῖν almost always have in Hom. (ἀπὸ ξένης σύμμαχος: Σ D Il. 3.188; cf. LfgrE s.v.), whereas in Eur. or in most other fifth- or fourth-century texts the military connotation is usually lost for both the noun and the verb, which has the more general meaning ‘helper’ and ‘aid’. 938–42 The Muse had already hinted at Athena as the mastermind of the slaughter of Rhesus (945 and 978), and αἰτία of 938 is the perfect word for the ‘principal’ in a crime. The formal accusation introduces the punishment by the Muse, which in fact consists of the punishment of Athens, the city of Athena. The emendation of Lenting (1821) 77 ἔδρασε – δρῶσα has the advantage of recovering a participle to be construed with λεληθέναι, thus specifying the action for which one does or does not escape attention (as observed by Fries 460–1). λανθάνειν can be found without the participle specifying

606

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 0 – 9 4 5 the action (e.g., Eur. Her. 984–5 ἀμϕὶ βωμίαν / ἔπτηξε κρηπῖδ᾽ ὡς λεληθέναι δοκῶν), and the nature of the action is easily understandable here. But, to strengthen her accusation, the Muse would highlight through the polysemy of δρᾶν the comparable levels of responsibility of the carrying out of the action by the perpetrators Odysseus and Diomedes and of the planning and directing of the action by the mastermind Athena. The transmitted text of 939–40, ἔδρασε δράσας (Athena, not Odysseus and Diomedes, carried out the action, although they performed it) would involve the typical Euripidean paradox of the same state or action being affirmed and negated; cf. Breitenbach (1934) 238, Diggle (1997) 106, Olson on Ar. Ach. 395–6. This is certainly possible, but less pointed. For a discussion of other emendations of 939–40, and a defence of ἔδρασε δράσας, cf. Liapis (2011) 105–6. On parentheses in tragedy that separate the subject from its verb, see 11n. 941–2 The idea that the Muses often visited Athens was a natural consequence of the excellence that the arts had attained there: on the Muses’ visits to Athens, cf. Soph. OC 691–2 οὐδὲ Μου/σᾶν χοροί νιν (scil. Athens) ἀπεστύγησαν, Eur. Med. 831–4 ἔνθα (= in the bright air of Athens) ποθ᾽ ἁγνὰς / ἐννέα Πιερίδας Μούσας λέγουσι / ξανθὰν Ἁρμονίαν ϕυτεῦσαι. 943–5a After briefly hinting at the cultural benefits for Athens from the Muses’ favour, the Muse focuses on the development of the mysteries in the city. The special relevance of the Muses to the mysteries is shown by the etymology of their name ἀπὸ τοῦ μύειν (Diod. Sic. 4.7.4),101 from which also μυστήρια derives, and by the cultural and literary evidence for the overlap between poetic inspiration and mystic initiation; cf., e.g., Ar. Ran. 356 ὄργια Μουσῶν (with Hardie (2004)) and Pl. Resp. 364e, where, in a caricature of the mysteries of the Orpheotelests, Orpheus and Musaeus are presented as pretending to be Σελήνης τε καὶ Μουσῶν ἔγγονοι. This link with the mysteries is relevant to Rhesus’ afterlife existence (963–6 and 972–3) and his kinship to Orpheus (944–5; Orpheus is called the discoverer of mystic τελεταί at Ar. Ran. 1032 and Dem. 25.11, both using the verb καταδεικνύναι ~ Rh. ἔδειξεν). The mention of the φαναί of the mysteries at 943 recalls the mystic aura which the chorus ascribe to Rhesus when they greet him as Zeus Φαναῖος (see 355–6n., 962–6n.). On torches as characterising nocturnal religious rites, often (but not only) the mysteries, cf. also HHom.Dem. 47–8 and 52 (probably aetiological), Graf (1974) 30 n. 37, Sfameni Gasparro (1986) 45–9, Liapis (2007) 385–6.

Hardie (2004) 12 goes so far as to suppose that our passage is a ‘relatively early reference’ to the existence of this etymology.

101

607

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 3 – 9 4 5 In Ar. the term τελεταί, unspecified, designates the whole category of rituals of a personal and secret character; cf. Graf (1974) 31. It is potentially applicable to Eleusinian mysteries, the Thesmophoric rites for Demeter, Dionysiac rituals, Samothracian mysteries, and later Corybantic rituals and those for Cybele, Isis, and Mithras: cf. Burkert (1987) 3–7, Sfameni Gasparro (1987). But for the Athenians the τελεταί were primarily Demeter’s rites (cf. Arist. Rh. 1401a12–15 μῦν, ἀϕ’ οὗ γ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τιμιωτάτη πασῶν τελετή· τὰ γὰρ μυστήρια πασῶν τιμιωτάτη τελετή). The Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239A14, ascribes to Orpheus an Eleusinian poem written in the year before the mysteries of Eleusis were revealed by Eumolpus the son of Musaeus. It became a topos that Athens ‘discovered’ the mysteries, together with many other cultural achievements, and transmitted them to the rest of the world (Hardie (2004) 15 and n. 24). By leaving μυστήρια unspecified the Muse may mean that Orpheus introduced the ‘mysteries’ tout court at Athens, as was maintained by Plut. F 212 Sandbach (so Lobeck (1829) I.239, Burnett (1985) 186–7 n. 107), and not just the Eleusinian rites, as is usually thought (e.g., by Graf (1974) 30 and Liapis (2007) 399 n. 96; contra Zuntz (1978) 528). But since the institution of the mysteries is cited by the Muse as a benefaction to the Athenians, 943 must imply a special emphasis on the Eleusinian mysteries, on which the Athenians set a high value, and which were strongly connected with Athens (cf. Linforth (1941) 63). For the same reason, it is difficult to believe, with Maass (1895) 72–3, that the Muse is referring here to the marginal Lesser Mysteries of Agrae. An Eleusinian emphasis also explains why the Muse considers Eleusinian Persephone her ally in providing Rhesus with a form of survival after death – she is in debt to Rhesus’ cousin, Orpheus (965–6).102 Mystery cults, however, appear to have been syncretistic. For analogies between Orphism and the Eleusinian mysteries, cf. Paus. 1.37.4, Parker (1995) 503–4. On Dionysus-Iacchos and Eleusinian cults, Graf (1974) chap. 2, Sfameni Gasparro (1986) 114–22. Orphic mysteries also had a strong Dionysiac element; cf. Linforth (1941) 207–32, West (1983a) 24–6, Parker (1995) 484, Liapis (2007) 400–1 Edmonds III (2013) 90, 322–5. In the Bassarae (TrGF pp. 138–9) Aesch. presented Orpheus as a worshipper of Apollo-Helios and a renegade of the cult of Dionysus, from whom he had won his fame, Alternative myths on the ‘invention’ of the mysteries existed, but do not seem to have been Athenian: Hecat. Abd. FGrHist 264F25 (= Diod. Sic. 1.29.1–2 and 1.96.4) credits king Erechtheus, born in Egypt, with importing the Eleu­ sinian mysteries to Attica from Egypt, and Orpheus with bringing to Greece τῶν μυστικῶν τελετῶν τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πλάνην ὀργιαζόμενα; Ephor. FGrHist 70F104 states that Orpheus learned the Samothracian mysteries and was the first to introduce τελεταί and μυστήρια to Greece.

102

608

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 3 – 9 4 4 so that Dionysus sent his Maenads to tear him to pieces. And Damagetus, AP 7.9.5 = HE 1383, Diod. Sic. 3.65.3–4, and Apollod. Bibl. 1.15 (1.3.3) called Orpheus the founder of the mysteries of Dionysus. This Orphic-Dionysiac syncretism is especially well attested for Thrace, where a sort of Orphic Dionysus was the focus of the cults worshipped by Olympias the mother of Alexander the Great together with Edonian and Thracian women, which are mentioned at Plut. Alex. 2.5–6; cf. Graf (1987) 86–8, 99–101. The complex religious scenario intimated in the Muse’s lament appears not to be drawn directly or solely from the Eleusinian rites of Athens. In the fourth century Orpheus’ own mysteries were familiar enough in Athens to provoke Plato’s caricature at Resp. 364b–5a of the practitioners of ‘the hubbub of books by Orpheus and Musaeus’ and their eschatologic τελεταί (Eleusinian mysteries may have been among the things Plato had in mind, but those of Orpheus seem to be uppermost; cf. Graf (1974) 97–8, West (1983a) 23–4)). The Muse’s emphasis on Orpheus and Musaeus as prototypal figures in the mysteries that Orpheus revealed to Athens (943–4) intimates that the ‘mysteries’ of 943 included an Orphic component (cf. Liapis (2007) 409–11). A further syncretistic component of the Muse’s ‘mysteries’ is entailed in her final announcement that Rhesus is going to become a ‘prophet of Bacchus’ (972) on the Pangaean rock and the mythical ancestor of Dionysus’ priests, the Bessoi. Rhesus in his afterlife is identified with ‘a prophet of Bacchus’ (972), and is said to be especially revered by ‘those who know’ (973), a phrase implying the secret knowledge of a few initiates, which was typical of the mysteries. μυστηρίων ... τῶν ἀπορρήτων: ἄρρητος is more common in the context of the mysteries (e.g., IG I3.953.1 (450 ?), Hdt. 5.83.3, Eur. Hel. 1307, Bacch. 470–2, TrGF 63, Ar. Nub. 302, Xen. Hell. 6.3.6, Carc. II, TrGF 70F5.1). ἀπόρρητος, however, is used for the Thesmophoric rites at Ar. Eccl. 442; for rules of (Pythagorean?) initiates at Pl. Phd. 62b; for Demeter’s mysteries at Arist. EN 1111a9; later not uncommon in this sense (Dion. Hal. AR 2.19.2, Plut. Pomp. 24.5, IG II–III2.1110.8, etc.). The epithet is usually translated ‘that may not be revealed’, but it could mean ‘impossible to explain’ for humans. ἔδειξεν ‘revealed’ and thus ‘made known’ as, e.g., Hes. Op. 648, Aesch. PV 458. Perhaps a technical term for introducing religious practices (Semenzato (2016) 313). καταδεικνύναι is standard for the dissemination of inventions: for τελεταί and μυστήρια, apart from Ar. Ran. 1032 and Dem. 25.11, mentioned above (see p. 607), cf., e.g., Diod. Sic. 1.20.6 and 29.2–3 (= Hecat. Abd. FGrHist 264F25), 3.64.7, 3.65.2, 3.74.1, Plut. Mor. 10f. αὐτανέψιος: αὐτ- stresses the genuineness of the kinship. Apart from the blood relationship, Orpheus’ birth parallels that of Rhesus. The detailed description of the birth of Rhesus at 919–20 and 927–9 may prompt the audience to remember that Orpheus too is the son of a Muse, Calliope, in almost all versions of the myth, and of the Thracian Oeagrus (Pind. F 128c.11),

609

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 5 – 9 4 7 who according to some was a river god (but the earliest explicit source for this identity is Virg. Georg. 4.524). Orpheus’ ambiguous status between mortality and divinity makes him an especially good parallel for the ambiguous ἀνθρωποδαίμων Rhesus. νεκροῦ / τοῦδ᾿ ὃν κατέκτεινας σύ emphasises once again, after 938–40, the Muse’s view of Athena’s responsibility. Cf. Hom. Il. 24.151 νεκρὸν … τὸν ἔκτανε δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς. 945b–7 ‘And Musaeus, your venerable fellow citizen and a man who attained the heights, it was Phoebus who educated him, and we sisters.’ Musaeus was the son and the pupil/editor or the imitator of Orpheus (e.g., VS 1B15a, of the second century, Paus. 10.7.2, Diod. Sic. 4.25.1). Some iconographic evidence seems to combine them from as early as the fifth century (Graf (1974) 11–12), and they were often associated in later periods. They are named first in the list of authors proving ‘how the noblest of the poets have been beneficial to us’ at Ar. Ran. 1031 (405 BC); c. 400 Herodorus of Heracleia devoted an essay to them (FGrHist 31F12); Pl. Resp. 364e–5a named them as co-authors (as it were) of reference books for practitioners of mystery rites. Athenian interest in Musaeus dates, however, from the age of the Peisistratids, when Onomacritus was commissioned to collect his oracles (and forged some): Hdt. 7.6.3, Paus. 1.22.7. Most often he was presented as Athenian, as here for the first time, or as Eleusinian, though other sources called him Thracian or Theban, and was a hierophant of the Eleusinian mysteries according to Diod. Sic. 4.25.1–4. The Muse’s presentation here probably reflects an early stage of the Athenian appropriation of Musaeus, as it makes no mention of Eumolpus or Eleusis, and the reference to Apollo brings in non-Eleusinian associations (cf. Burnett (1985) 187 n. 108). Musaeus was said to have been born at Athens (Paus. 10.12.11) or buried either there (Paus. 1.25.8) or at Phalerum (Diog. Laert. 1.1.3) and seems to have become a sort of ‘Attic Orpheus’. To some extent he functioned as an aition of the extraordinary quality and popularity of music in classical Athens (LIMC VI.687). ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἄνδρ᾽ ἕνα / ἐλθόντα: cf. Hdt. 6.127.1 ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ ἀπίκετο, Andoc. 2.18 ἐκεῖνος ἂν εἴη πολὺ πλείστου ἄξιος ἀνήρ. The phrase ἀνὴρ εἷς designates someone who accomplishes deeds deemed outstanding for a single individual; see e.g., Hom. Il. 10.48 ἄνδρ᾿ ἕνα τοσσάδε μέρμερ᾿ … μητίσασθαι. For εἷς strengthening a superlative, see 498b–500n. Φοῖβος: PBerol. 44 = VS 1B15a, quoted above, describes Orpheus as inspired by Apollo (called ῶν βασιλεύς) in the composition of his Hymns. There are some iconographic depictions of Musaeus with his lyre in the company of one or more of the Muses, or of Apollo, or of both the Muses and Apollo: LIMC VI.1, 686–7 ‘Mousaios’ 2–9. Cf. Hes. Th. 94–5 ἐκ γάρ τοι Μουσέων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος / ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθόνα

610

C O M M E N TA RY 9 4 8 – 9 4 9 καὶ κιθαρισταί. Μουσηγέτης was an epithet of Apollo from the fifth century onwards. σύγγονοι ‘we sister Muses’, as is made clear by ἠσκήσαμεν; cf. 891. ἠσκήσαμεν ‘trained’, as in, e.g., Ar. Pl. 47, Isae. 7.14, 12.3. 948–9 ‘And in return for that, I am singing a dirge holding my son in my arms. No other poet shall I be calling on for help.’ Reciprocity is a substantial bond between friends or between benefactor and beneficiary; indeed willingness and ability to repay services in full were among the primary considerations in choosing friends (Blundell (1989) 31–4, Millett (1991) 113–28). Violation of the principle that ‘χάρις always gives birth to χάρις’ (Soph. Aj. 522) is one of the most common evils portrayed in the plots of tragedy: cf. Belfiore (1998). Here too, because of the Muses’ χάρις toward Athens, this Muse could expect a μισθός for herself and her sisters from Athena, patron goddess of Athens; instead of enjoying a μισθός, she has had her child killed by Athena. μισθόν: nominatives or accusatives in apposition to a sentence are frequent in Eur.: Alc. 6–7, Hcld. 70–2, Her. 58–9, 323, IT 1439–41b, Hel. 77, Or. 496–8, 842–3 (also, e.g., Hom. Il. 11.27–8, 24.735, Aesch. Pers. 807–8, Ag. 1419–20), KG I.284–5, Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 752–63, Diggle (1978=1994) 191. ἐπάξομαι: in the middle voice the verb means ‘procure’ or ‘adduce’ in one’s own interest, for instance as ally or as witness, or ‘win over’. The Muse might thus mean that she has no need to ‘adduce’ another poet as proof of her benevolence towards Athens (Leaf (1915) 4). But it would seem strange if in the grip of sorrow the Muse considered whether she had produced enough evidence or not of her benevolence. If we had active ἐπάγειν here, we might suppose that the Muse was threatening not to ‘bring’ any other poet to Athens: so, after Hardion (1737) 335–6, Goossens (1962) 291 and 307 n. 197, who consequently adopted Paley’s (65) ἐπάξομεν. Burnett (1985) 187 n. 109 and Liapis 321–2 favour the same interpretation, taking the middle to be the result of confusion between middle and active. But the middle may convey an appropriate nuance here. The Muse ‘will not call in’ another poet for her own sake, either because she does not need assistance in singing her mourning song (so Bothe (i) V.278, Musgrave II.412, Murray (ed.), Porter 89, Kovacs 449, Fries 464), for instance because she is the inspirer of the poets; or because she prefers to mourn alone, as poets do not like to mourn, in the light of the traditional opposition between θρῆνος and all the other genres of non-funerary verse, which is often found in archaic poetry and in Eur. (cf. Fantuzzi (2007)). σοφιστήν here will mean a musician like Thamyris (924), or a sage and musician like Orpheus and Musaeus. In agreement with Vater 275 and Vind. 127, Fries 464 suggests that the word here means ‘seer’; the Muse would anticipate that she does not need to ‘employ’ another ‘seer’ (cf. 952–3), e.g., in order to persuade her audience that Athena is the true author of Rhesus’ death.

611

C O M M E N TA RY 9 5 0 – 9 5 2 Comparable would be Aesch. Ag. 1098–9 κλέος σοῦ μαντικὸν πεπυσμένοι / ἦμεν· προϕήτας δ’ οὔτινας ματεύομεν, Eur. Her. 911 μάντιν οὐχ ἕτερον ἄξομαι, Pl. Smp. 206b μαντείας … δεῖται ὅτι ποτε λέγεις. But a statement of the Muse’s superior prophetic expertise, which has not been challenged, seems unwanted here. And it is unlikely that she promises not to ‘bring down on her head another musician’ like Thamyris, because of all the troubles he has unwittingly caused (so Richards (1916) 196–7). Such a shift towards the Muse’s concern with her own peace and quiet would be an unacceptable dimming of the pathos. 950–61 The chorus react positively to the Muse’s interpretation of events, in so far as it pertains to the main charge of Hector’s responsibility for Rhesus’ death, which had been brought by the charioteer. In fact, the Muse has accused Odysseus, Diomedes, Helen, and above all Athena, and thus the chorus can assume that Hector is discharged. However she has also accused Hector of having involved Rhesus in the war (935–7). For this reason, Hector begins his speech with a tirade, spurning the Muse’s superior knowledge. He later adopts a more conciliatory, apologetic tone, and both defends his own marginal part in Rhesus’ death and promises funerary honours for Rhesus as a demonstration of respect for his dead ally. 950–1 μάτην ‘without reason’, i.e. ‘without proof ’, as in Hdt. 7.103.2 ὅρα μὴ μάτην κόμπος ὁ λόγος … εἰρημένος ἦι, Pl. Tht. 189d μὴ μάτην θαρρήσηις. τροχηλάτης (Valckenaer (1767) 97–8) in place of the transmitted στρατηλάτης is certain; as observed by Diggle (ed., in app.) the same mistake is found in one of the MSS at Eur. Pho. 39. βουλεῦσαι φόνον is a poetical phrase in the fifth century: Pind. F 234.3, Aesch. Ag. 1614, 1627 and 1634 (μόρον), Soph. Aj. 1055, Eur. Hec. 856. 952–3 Hector attacked the army’s seers in one of his earliest speeches, and here, among his final words, he again expresses his scorn for their profession. Polemics against the unreliability or the greed of seers are frequent in tragedy (see 65–9n.). This stance also reflects the characterisation of Hector in the Il., who utters one of the strongest attacks on seers to be found in Hom. (12.231–43), and it fits well with the character of Hector in Rh., who always wants to impose his own opinion on those around him. Hector had already conjectured, in his dialogue with the charioteer, that Odysseus was an accessory before the fact in the killing of Rhesus (861–2), as intimated by the Muse at 907–9 and stated most explicitly at 938–40. Hector can thus conclude that his previous conjecture about Odysseus was correct, with no need of confirmation from seers. His claim that seers have no knowledge superior to that of any other intelligent mortal is in line with other similar statements in tragedy: cf. Soph. OT 397–8 and Eur, TrGF 973; Flower (2008) 135–7. In particular, the situation is

612

C O M M E N TA RY 9 5 4 similar to Eur. Her. 911–12 μάντιν οὐχ ἕτερον ἄξομαι, a passage which may have been the formal model of our passage (cf. Bond ad loc.). Both the chorus in Her. and Hector here scorn the news they are given, because they already know it: the chorus have been told by Iris and Lyssa, and have heard Amphitryon’s cries, and Hector has already guessed Odysseus’ responsibility. Likewise, Aeschin. 1.76, after listing some details of the licentious conduct of the defendant, concludes: ἔτι ταῦτα μαντείας προσδεῖται; οὐκ εὔδηλον ὅτι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη …;. ἤιδη ‘I knew’, contracted from Homeric ἤιδεα, not ἤιδειν, was in all probability the old Attic first-person form used by fifth-century tragic poets (Soph. Ant. 18 and 448, OC 944, Eur. Cycl. 649, Hcld. 987, Hipp. 405, Tro. 655), although ἤιδειν is the only reading at Soph. Ant. 448, Eur. Cycl., Hcld., Tro. and v.l. in Soph. Ant. 18, Eur. Hipp.; cf. Rutherford (1881) 236–7, Schwyzer (1939) 778. οὐδὲν μαντέων ἔδει φράσαι: for the same structure (impersonal δεῖ + genitive, followed by final-consecutive infinitive; cf. Aesch. PV 870 μακροῦ λόγου δεῖ ταῦτ᾿ ἐπεξελθεῖν. Ὀδυσσέως τέχναισι: τέχνη ‘deceiving trick’ appears first at Hom. Od. 8.327 (plural, for Hephaestus’s tricks). Cf. Eur. IT 24 ’Οδυσσέως τέχναις, Hel. 930 τέχναις θεῶν. 954–6 ‘But when I saw the Greek army sitting in wait upon my land, how could I not send heralds to my friends, asking them to come and help our country?’ γῆς ἔφεδρον: the Greek army is encamped in the Trojan land, waiting to conquer it; cf. ἐφεδρεύοντας νεῶν at 768, describing the moment in the war when victorious Trojans sit by the Greek ships, waiting for the right moment to attack. τί μὴν ἔμελλον οὐ πέμψειν . . . ;: a rhetorical question with negative tone, stressing that what might have happened in the past was actually impossible (‘how was I likely not to send heralds’?), owing to the necessity imposed by the siege; cf. Basset (1979) 175–6. μήν adds liveliness to the question (Denniston (1954) 332). οὐ must be taken to negate πέμψειν rather than ἔμελλον (otherwise the sense would be, absurdly, ‘why didn’t I hesitate to send?’). The Muse had accused Hector of repeatedly sending envoys to persuade Rhesus to participate in the war (935–7). With a shrewd rhetorical strategy, Hector says not that it was necessary for him to send envoys, but that it was impossible not to send them – with the implication that he would have preferred not to send the envoys, but had no choice in the matter. ἐλθεῖν κἀπικουρῆσαι (echoing 937) are infinitives of indirect command governed by πέμψειν … κήρυκας; cf. Rh. 26 πέμπε … ἰέναι and, e.g., Eur. IA 99–100, 115–19 and 360–2.

613

C O M M E N TA RY 9 5 8 – 9 6 1 συμπονεῖν is governed by ὀφείλων ‘being obliged to assist me’; not attested before Aesch. 1x, Soph. 4x, Eur. 5x, nor elsewhere before Xenophon. 958 οὐ μήν, here reinforced by γε, emphasises that the contrary of what the interlocutor may suppose or wish is true (Sicking and Ophuijsen (1993) 54). συνήδομαι usually means ‘share pleasure with’ someone else, positively, and sometimes ‘gloat over’, maliciously, as here and, e.g., Eur. Med. 136–8 οὐδὲ συνήδομαι, ὦ γύναι, / ἄλγεσι δώματος, / ἐπεί μοι ϕιλία κέκραται, Hipp. 1286–7 τί τάλας τοῖσδε συνήδηι, / παῖδ’ οὐχ ὁσίως σὸν ἀποκτείνας;, Isocr. 8.87 ἐϕοίτων, οὐ συμπενθήσοντες τοὺς τεθνεῶτας, ἀλλὰ συνησθησόμενοι ταῖς ἡμετέραις συμϕοραῖς. Its double negation (οὐ … οὐδαμῶς) suggests the strong opposite sense συναλγῶ/συλλυποῦμαι (cf. Antiph. 3.2.8 οὐ συνηδομένων μὲν οὐδὲ συνεθελόντων ἡμῶν, συναλγούντων δὲ καὶ συλλυπουμένων). The line is probably phrased by Hector with the hostile charioteer in mind, who might suspect Hector of the kind of feelings that he denies. 959–61 ‘I am now ready both to erect a tomb to him and to burn together with him luxurious garments in plenty. For he came as a friend, and goes away in disaster.’ Allies were sometimes offered burial in the soil of Athens in the classical period. IG I3.1149 and Paus. 1.29.8 inform us that at least the Argives who fought with the Athenians at Tanagra in 458 BC were buried in the public cemetery (Demosion Sema) at the Ceramicus (possibly also the fallen at Cleonae and the Ionians; cf. Pritchett (1971/1991) IV.180–3). Referring to mercenaries or allies who had fallen in battle for Athens, and were buried at the Demosion Sema, the Epitaphios ascribed to Lysias (66) comments: ‘they came to the support of the people, and fought for our salvation … In return the city has not only mourned them but given them a public funeral, and has granted them in perpetuity the same honours as it gives to its own people’. Hector’s promise to ‘burn many luxurious garments together with him’ is in tune with ancient burial practice. Offerings to the dead of valuable goods were common proof of the devotion of the offerer and symbols of the status of the dead, and among them were dedicatory clothes or tapestries, frequently burnt on the pyre or buried in the grave; cf., e.g., Eur. Hec. 577–80, Supp. 982–3 μελάθρων τ’ ἐκτὸς / … ἀναθήματα νεκροῖς, IT 632 πολύν τε γάρ σοι κόσμον ἐνθήσω τάϕωι, Hel. 1060–2, Kurz and Boardman (1971) 200–17, Diggle (1981) 27–8. A comparable promise is expressed (by Andromache, imagining that Hector’s body will be ‘naked’ prey for dogs) at Il. 22.510–14 ἀτάρ τοι εἵματ᾽ ἐνὶ μεγάροισι κέονται / λεπτά τε καὶ χαρίεντα, τετυγμένα χερσὶ γυναικῶν. / ἀλλ᾽ ἤτοι τά γε πάντα καταϕλέξω πυρὶ κηλέωι, / οὐδὲν σοί γ᾽ ὄϕελος, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἐγκείσεαι αὐτοῖς, / ἀλλὰ πρὸς Τρώων καὶ Τρωϊάδων κλέος εἶναι, where the burning of the clothes symbolically replaces the funerary wrapping of the body in a φᾶρος … ταφήϊον (Od. 2.97–9) which Hector would have enjoyed if

614

C O M M E N TA RY 9 5 9 – 9 6 1 his body had been at home; cf. also Od. 24.67–8 καίεο δ᾽ ἔν τ᾽ ἐσθῆτι θεῶν. At Hdt. 5.92.η.2–3 the wife of Periander, tyrant of Corinth, complained from the Underworld that she felt cold because her clothes had not been burnt with her, and Periander obliged her by stripping the women of Corinth and burning their clothes. ἕτοιμος … καὶ τεῦξαι τάφον / … καὶ ξυμπυρῶσαι μυρίαν πέπλων χλιδήν Phrases with ellipsis of the first person of εἶναι are rarer than those with ellipsis of the third, but they are relatively frequent in poetry with ἕτοιμος (Soph. Aj. 813, OT 92, Eur. Med. 612, Hcld. 502, El. 796, Her. 453, Ar. Th. 59, Men. Dysc. 370) and similar adjectives like πρόθυμος and δυνατός; cf. Harry (1904), Denniston (1939) on Eur. El. 37, Mastronarde on Eur. Pho. 968–9, Finglass on Soph. Aj. 813. καί … καί may be taken as a coordinative correlation, with Kovacs 449, Liapis 323. But, with the second καί coordinative, the first may be adverbial (‘also’, ‘even’), making an addition to a preceding statement, here about the regret at 958 (Denniston (1954) 293). Given the polysemy of both τεύχειν and τάφος, the phrase τεῦξαι τάφον might mean ‘accomplish the funeral rites’ or ‘erect the tomb’. But τεύχειν ‘accomplish’ is not attested with τάφον ‘funeral rites’ (cf. the different expression in Hom. Il. 24.660 τελέσαι τάφον Ἕκτορι), whereas the verb is found in the sense ‘erect’ with τάφος ‘tomb’ or σῆμα: Hom. Il. 21.322–3 αὐτοῦ οἱ καὶ σῆμα τετεύξεται … ὅτε μιν θάπτωσιν Ἀχαιοί, [Arist.] Peplos 46 Rose3 Ἕκτορι τόνδε μέγαν Βοιώτιοι ἄνδρες ἔτευξαν / τύμβον ὑπὲρ γαίης, σῆμ᾽ ἐπιγιγνομένοις), Theocr. Chius, FGE 353–4 Ἑρμίου … / σῆμα κενὸν … τεῦξεν Ἀριστοτέλης, Lycophr. 532–3 Γραικῶν ἄριστος, ὧι πάλαι τεύχει τάϕους / ἀκτή … κεκμηκότι. For ξυμπυρῶσαι ‘burn (something) together with (something else)’ cf. Eur. Supp. 1070–1 παρεῖται σῶμα, σοὶ μὲν οὐ ϕίλον, / ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ τῶι συμπυρουμένωι πόσει (cf. 1019–20 σῶμά τ’ αἴθοπι ϕλογμῶι / πόσει συμμείξασα ϕίλωι) or Cycl. 307–8 τοὺς λελειμμένους … συμπυρώσας. μυρίαν (Wecklein 56), construed with πέπλων χλιδήν, is preferable to the transmitted μυρίων, construed with πέπλων, although the mistake was certainly ancient; cf. Christ. pat. 1379 μυρίων μύρων χλιδήν. As observed by Fries 467, in other parallels for χλιδή + adjective, the adjective is construed with χλιδή, not with the genitive of the specific object: Eur. Andr. 2 ἕδνων σὺν πολυχρύσωι χλιδῆι, Pho. 223–4 κόμας … / … παρθένιον χλιδάν. δυστυχῶς ἀπέρχεται: if ἀπέρχεται is a euphemism for ‘is dead’, the present is not the tense one would expect, and perfective ἀποίχεται (Vater 278) or διοίχεται (Nauck (1862) 186) would seem more natural; cf. Soph. Aj. 972–3 ἐμοὶ / λιπὼν ἀνίας καὶ γόους διοίχεται, Tr. 41–2 ἐμοὶ πικρὰς / ὠδῖνας αὐτοῦ προσβαλὼν ἀποίχεται, Ar. Ran. 83–4 ἀπολιπών μ᾽ ἀποίχεται, / ἀγαθὸς ποιητής. But Rhesus’ body has not yet undergone cremation, so that he still

615

C O M M E N TA RY 9 6 2 constitutes an actual presence. According to a widespread belief, only burial or cremation allowed a soul to leave the world of the living and enter the underworld. The ghost of Patroclus, for instance, requests: θάπτε με ὅττι τάχιστα, πύλας Ἀΐδαο περήσω. / τῆλέ μ᾽ ἐέργουσι ψυχαί, εἴδωλα καμόντων, / οὐδέ μέ πω μίσγεσθαι ὑπὲρ ποταμοῖο ἐῶσιν (Il. 23.71–3). The suggested emendations would destroy the ‘studied antithesis’ between ἀπέρχεται and ἐλθών (Liapis (2011) 109), through which Hector stresses that Rhesus is leaving Troy (ἀπέρχεται) in circumstances very different from those of his arrival (ἐλθών), in agreement with the remark of the charioteer at 752–3. 962–6 As Hector promises Rhesus a burial and hints at his cremation (ξυμπυρῶσαι, 960), the Muse intervenes, as Rhesus is destined to a kind of survival underground. The initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries do not appear ever to have been promised a new life of this sort after death. However the fact that Persephone supports the Muse’s plea for a new afterlife for Rhesus as she ‘honours those who are friends of Orpheus’ may parallel the belief that Persephone provides souls with a better afterlife on the intercession of Dionysus, which is found in some golden Orphic tablets (Borgeaud (1991) and Markantonatos (2004) 33 stress the vague parallelism; Fries 469 is sceptical). The idea that Persephone could actually give new life to a dead person, in the context of a periodic reincarnation of the immortal soul, is made clear in Pind. F 133 (quoted with enthusiastic approval by the Platonic Socrates of Meno 81b–c): οἷσι δὲ Φερσεϕόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος / δέξεται, ἐς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτωι ἔτεϊ / ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰς πάλιν, ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοί / καὶ σθένει κραιπνοὶ σοϕίαι τε μέγιστοι / ἄνδρες αὔξοντ(αι); cf. Edmonds III (2013) 236–7, 304–26). However, the Muse does not envisage this kind of eschatology for her son, and Rhesus seems destined to live a dark life under the earth and not to have a glorious new life as hero and king (Plichon (2001) 14). The peculiar form of survival that Rhesus enjoys may have a Thracian cultural flavour. Forms of long-lasting underground life are ascribed to a few immortal cave-dwellers, such as Amphiaraus, Trophonius, and Thracian Zalmoxis, who were endowed with special powers useful to living humans, like prophecy or healing (Ustinova (2002)). According to Hdt. 4.95.3 the rich Thracian Salmoxis (probably = Zalmoxis) was accustomed to invite the most distinguished of his fellow citizens to his symposia, and proclaim that they would not die, but just depart to a place where they would live and enjoy every delight. 962 γαίας … πέδον: see 278n. μελάγχιμον is a poeticism for μέλας ‘black’, typical of Aesch. (Pers. 301, Supp. 719, 745, Cho. 11, TrGF 116.1), found also in Eur. (El. 513, Pho. 372). It is perhaps an Atticism, as μελάγχ(ε)ιμος is found elsewhere only at Xen. Cyn. 8.1 and 8.7, where it designates dark areas of soil where snow has melted.

616

C O M M E N TA RY 9 6 3 – 9 6 9 It reappears at Ap. Rh. 4.1508. The sense of the suffix -χιμ-, also found in mainly Aeschylean δύσχιμος ‘grim’ or ‘wintry’, remains unclear: it may be from χεῖμα (cf. Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 11–12 and Pers. 566–7). 963–6 τοσόνδε … αἰτήσομαι: cf. Eur. Hipp. 711 τοσόνδε μοι … ἐξαιτουμένηι. νύμφην τὴν ἔνερθ(ε) = Kore ‘The Maiden’ of Demeter (calling Persephone, queen of the Dead by name, was considered ominous and thus dangerous, and her name belonged in those ἄρρητα that initiates could not pronounce; cf. Kannicht ad Hel. 1306–7). She is called Ἅιδου νύμφη at Eur. Alc. 746. The attributive use of ἔνερθε is found in Homer: Il. 14.274 οἱ ἔνερθε θεοί (~ Il. 15.225 ἐνέρτεροι … θεοί, and Aesch. Pers. 622, Eur. Alc. 1145, Or. 620 νέρτεροι θεοί), Soph. OC 1548 ἥ … νερτέρα θεός, Eur. Her. 607–8 ἐξ ἀνηλίων μυχῶν / Ἅιδου Κόρης ἔνερθεν, Or. 963–4 ἁ κατὰ χθονὸς / νερτέρων †Περσέϕασσα καλλίπαις θεά†. καρποποιοῦ is a hapax, probably replacing for metrical convenience καρποφόρος, which occurs as epithet of Demeter at Ar. Ran. 384 and Eratosth. Catast. 1.29, and from epigraphic evidence appears to have been widespread in everyday religious language: cf. IG II–III2.4587.3 (fourth century BC), II/ III2.4730.3 (first century AD), Clara Rhodos II.210 48.16 (first century BC), Iscr. di Cos EV248, face A.5 Segre (first century AD), etc. ψυχὴν ἀνεῖναι is perhaps a technical phrase for sending up to life the souls of the dead; cf. Aesch. Pers. 628–30 χθόνιοι δαίμονες … πέμψατ’ ἔνερθεν ψυχὴν ἐς ϕῶς and 650–1 Ἀιδωνεὺς δ’ ἀναπομπὸς ἀνείη … Δαριᾶνα, Cho. 489 ὦ γαῖ᾽ , ἄνες μοι πατέρ᾽ ἐποπτεῦσαι μάχην, TrGF 273a.7–10 Χθόνα δ᾽ ὠγυγίαν ἐπικεκλόμενος / χθόνιόν θ᾽ Ἑρμῆν πομπὸν ϕθιμένων̣ / [αἰ]τοῦ (cf. Rh. 963 αἰτήσομαι) χθόνιον Δία νυκτιπόλων / ἑσμὸν ἀνεῖναι ποταμοῦ στομάτων. Also in general for what is sent up to the living from the Underworld: Ar. Ran. 1462, Phryn. PCG 16, Pl. Cra. 403e. ὀφειλέτις δέ μοι / … φαίνεσθαι φίλους ‘she owes it to me to show that she honours the relatives of Orpheus.’ The construction of the rare ὀφειλέτης/ ὀφειλέτις (the feminine is a hapax) with infinitive and dative is a ‘syntactical echo’ of Soph. Aj. 589–90 θεοῖς / ὡς οὐδὲν ἀρκεῖν εἰμ᾽ ὀϕειλέτης ἔτι (Finglass ad loc., Fries 470). The periphrasis with the nomen actionis connotes the permanent obligation of Persephone more clearly than the simple present of ὀφείλειν. 967–9 θανών τε κοὐ λεύσσων φάος ‘not seeing the light’, ‘being dead’, is an unconventional periphrasis, as at 850; see 847–50n. οὐ γὰρ ἐς ταὐτόν ποτε / ἔτ᾽ εἶσι ‘For he will not move anymore to the same space as me’, understanding κἀμοί. Present εἶσιν has, as usual, the value of a future; see 968 ἔσται, 969 ὄψεται. ἐς ταὐτόν is frequently construed in tragedy with a verb of movement to indicate the commonality of destination with someone else: e.g., Aesch. Cho. 210, Eur. Hec. 966, Hel. 758, 943, Pho.

617

C O M M E N TA RY 9 6 9 – 9 7 1 37–8, 1405. Neuter ταὐτόν is used more often than ταὐτό in tragedy and comedy (metrically assured in most cases), except in the single case of the phrase ταὐτὸ τοῦτο: Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1178–9, Parker on Eur. Alc. 736–7. οὐδὲ μητρὸς ὄψεται δέμας: as the Muse cannot enter the underground abode inhabited by Rhesus, he will no longer have any more visual contact with her. For δέμας plus genitive (or plus adjective) as a periphrasis for the individual, used sometimes to emphasise, as here, the corporeal dimension, cf., e.g., Aesch. Eum. 84, Soph. Tr. 908, TrGF 255.4, Eur. Hec. 724, El. 968, 1341, Her. 1036, with Bond ad loc. 970–3 All the extant tragedies of Eur., with the exception of Alc. and Tro., conclude with a prophecy (cf. Mastronarde on Pho. 1703–7). Usually delivered by a speaker with a superior knowledge of events outside the play, such as a god (in most cases a deus ex machina), this sort of prophetic ending ‘helps to create or reinforce a distinction between the end of the dramatic performance and the continuity of events portrayed’ (Dunn (1996) 66–7). Prophecy and compensatory heroisation are sometimes combined, as here, in an explanation of a cultic aetiology; cf. Eur. Med. 1378–88, Hcld. 1026–36, Hec. 1259–79. τῆς ὑπαργύρου χθονός ‘land containing silver underneath’; cf. 921–2n. Eur. Cycl. 294 (πέτρα), Xen. vect. 1.5 (γῆ), 4.2 (λόφοι). ἀνθρωποδαίμων is a hapax; the copulative juxtaposition of two nouns expresses the balance between the two natures synthesised in Rhesus. Likewise ἰατρόμαντις (Aesch. Ag. 1623) was a word presumably coined to qualify Apollo in a double capacity as physician and prophet (Debrunner (1917) 46, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1623). The compound differentiates the δαίμων Rhesus from δαίμων = (individual) ‘destiny’, which is ubiquitous in tragedy (see 56–8n.). It may have reflected a title used for the Thracian cave-dwellers. Hdt. narrates the legend of the Thracian Salmoxis (probably = Zalmoxis), who lived for four years in a space he had built for himself underground, and concludes with doubt about his nature: εἴτε δὲ ἐγένετό τις Σάλμοξις ἄνθρωπος, εἴτ᾽ ἐστὶ δαίμων τις Γέτηισι οὗτος ἐπιχώριος (4.96.2). Rhesus thus became a δαίμων = cultic hero, one of those outstanding men believed to possess after death the power of influencing events for the good or ill of the community in which they belonged and were buried (Dietrich (1965) 14–58), for instance Darius (Aesch. Pers. 620 and 641; see 963–6n.) or Alcestis (Eur. Alc. 1003). The compensatory role of cultic heroisation as ‘god-given rehabilitation to a seemingly unrecoverable long-lost grandeur’ finds a precise parallel in Soph. OC; cf. Markantonatos (2002) 198–208 and (2007) 199. κείσεται βλέπων φάος expresses the ambiguous status in which Rhesus will survive death, divinely, though with human limitations. The meaning of κεῖσθαι is here ‘lie dead’ or ‘lie buried’, a special application of the general sense ‘lie’ (e.g., Pind. Pyth. 5.93, Aesch. Pers. 325, Soph. El. 1134, TrGF 572.2,

618

C O M M E N TA RY 9 7 1 – 9 7 2 Eur. Or. 366). It is the technical word, e.g., in funerary epitaphs, to designate the posture of the body in the tomb (κεῖται, with the name of the dead and usually the adverb ἔνθαδε, appears in at least seventeen verse inscriptions of the fourth century BC from Attica (CEG II)). But the participle here modifying the verb makes clear that Rhesus will not ‘lie dead’. On the contrary, he will ‘see the light’, i.e., he will be alive, according to the common synecdoche ‘see the light’ = ‘be alive’ (see 847–50n.), which in tragedy is often expressed through the phrase βλέπειν φάος (Aesch. Pers. 299, Ag. 1646, Eum. 746, Eur. Hipp. 56–7, IT 674, Hel. 60, IA, 1250–1, TrGF 370.20) or through βλέπειν alone. But it will not be the light of the sun, as for living humans, but the dim light of the cave in which he will be secluded. Βάκχου προφήτης, ὅς γε Παγγαίου πέτραν / ὤικησε: Bacchus was believed to express his prophecies in his main Thracian oracle through the mouth of a priestess, as Apollo at Delphi (Nock (1926) 186). Diggle (1987=1994) has demonstrated that the conjunction ὥστε (VaL) is wrong, and that the relative ὅς τε (Q) resulted from an easy misinterpretation of an original ὅς γε. Here, in summary, is his argument. While ὥστε introducing a comparison with a finite verb is justifiable as a Homerism, it is attested with certainty only once in extant tragic iambic texts (Soph. TrGF 474.4–5). Further, in Hom., Hes., and the Hymns the conjunction is almost always found at the beginning of its comparison-clause, whereas here it would be preceded by its subject; it is usually correlated with a demonstrative ὥς in the main clause after the comparison; and the verb of the comparative clause expresses the notion of a permanent action, whereas here ὤικησε designates a once-for-all event. Thus the structure and the semantics of the verbal form introduced by ὥστε do not comply with the Homeric model. Also, the identity of the ‘prophet of Bacchus’ would remain unspecified. So we are left with the problem of identifying him.103 With ὅστε or ὅς γε Rhesus himself would be the ‘prophet of Bacchus’, and this would make perfect sense in historical reality. Rhesus had cult status in the Rhodope mountains, where he was a healer capable of warding off an epidemic (cf. Introduction, pp. 9, 12–13). Dionysus/Bacchus was worshipped as a god of trance and prophecy in Thrace, where he probably had various oracles. Hdt. 7.111.2 describes what may have been his main oracle as situated in the mountains where the Satrae lived, a people inhabiting a part of Mt Pangaeum between the rivers Nestus and Strymon. This oracle, which some ancient sources appear to have situated on Pangaeum, others on Haemus (Σ Eur. Hec. 1267; Boteva and Dimova (1997) 293–8), was controlled by priests from the Satrae’s clan of the Suggestions: Thracian Lycurgus (the worshipper of Dionysus who became a prophet and went to live in the cave of Pangaeum, according to Aesch. Lycourgeia), Orpheus, Zalmoxis.

103

619

C O M M E N TA RY 9 7 2 – 9 7 9 Bessoi. Eur. Hec. 1267 calls him ὁ Θρηιξὶ μάντις and Paus. 9.30.9 narrates how an oracle given by Dionysus ‘from Thrace’ to the Libethrians was fulfilled (the oracle, perhaps tellingly, concerned the supposed ‘bones of Orpheus’). ὅστε (Q) is sometimes used by the tragedians in lyric verse, but rarely in spoken verse (only at Aesch. Pers. 297, Sept. 501, Eum. 1024). Preferable is ὅς γε, proposed by Matthiae VIII.42, with γε to be taken in limitative-causal sense to emphasise the force of the relative addition, as in 217b (Denniston (1954) 138). τοῖσιν εἰδόσιν: initiates of the Bacchic or Orphic rites, or the philosophical creeds of Parmenides or of other narrow socio-political circles, are called ‘cognoscenti’, in opposition to those who do not know; cf. Parmen. VS 28B1.3 εἰδότα φῶτα, 28B6.4 βροτοὶ εἰδότες οὐδέν, Pind. Ol. 2.83–5 βέλη … φωνάεντα συνετοῖσιν· ἐς δὲ τὸ πὰν ἑρμανέων / χατίζει, Ar. Nub. 1241 Ζεὺς … ὀμνύμενος τοῖς εἰδόσιν, Eur. Bacch. 472 ἄρρητ᾽ (scil. Bacchic truths) ἀβακχεύτοισιν εἰδέναι βροτῶν, Pl. Smp. 199a (Eros) κάλλιστος καὶ ἄριστος, δῆλον ὅτι τοῖς μὴ γιγνώσκουσιν – οὐ γὰρ δήπου τοῖς γε εἰδόσιν, Alexis, PCG 269.2–3 τοῖς γὰρ ὀρθῶς εἰδόσιν / τὰ θεῖα μείζω μητρὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ποτέ, [Orph.] PEG II.1 F 1 ἀείσω ξυνετοῖσι, θύρας δ᾽ ἐπίθεσθε βέβηλοι, Battisti (1990). 974–9 probably develop archaic epic models or the Psychostasia of Aesch. From the contiguity of the deaths of Memnon and Achilles in Proclus’ summary of the Cyclic Aeth. we can surmise that the obvious parallelism between Eos’ and Thetis’ reactions to the loss of their sons was emphasised in that poem, as well as in the Psychostasia, where we know that Eos and Thetis each pleaded with Zeus for her son’s soul (Plut. Mor. 16f). So in Aeth. and Psychostasia the mourning of a mother of a barbarian ally and of the mother of Achilles were openly or implicitly compared, as in Rh. The slaying of Rhesus occurs long before Achilles’ death, but the Muse does not miss the opportunity to make the comparison between herself and Thetis by anticipating the future. Her first prophecy appears to present the afterlife of Rhesus as a partial compensation for his death. The second prophecy predicts future events surrounding Achilles’ death, which will happen in spite of the protection of Athena, in what appears to be a sort of titfor-tat retribution for the death of Rhesus (975, 978). The feeling motivating the Muse, and the sequence of the two prophecies, find a more explicit parallel in Artemis’ promise to Hippolytus, at Eur. Hipp. 1420–30, that she will take revenge for him on a protégé dear to Aphrodite (perhaps Adonis). A prophecy follows, where a special cultic honour – the gift of virginal locks of hair from the maidens of Troezen – is announced to the dying Hippolytus. ῥᾶιον … οἴσω: adverbial neuter ῥᾶιον is an emendation by Valckenaer in an unpublished collection of notes on Aesch. and Eur. dated 1749 which has been recently discovered by Finglass (2009a) 201 in the University Library of

620

C O M M E N TA RY 9 7 4 – 9 7 7 Leiden; later proposed independently by Musgrave (1762) 96. ῥᾶιον, ῥᾶιστα, or ῥαιδίως are well paralleled with φέρειν: Aesch. PV 104, Eur. Hipp. 205–6, Andr. 744, El. 72, Hel. 254, Bacch. 640, TrGF 62a.13, 297.5. The transmitted accusative of extent of time βαιόν ‘for a short time’, with χρόνον understood, is unparalleled with the same verb, and never appears to mean ‘presently’ or ‘after a short time’, which would be a plausible sense here. The meanings ‘lightly’ or ‘for a short time’, suggested for βαιόν by Paley 66, would introduce a very banal comparison between the expectably different intensity of the mournings for the son and for the non-son. τῆς θαλασσίας θεοῦ: I take this genitive as a term of comparison, with most modern interpreters (so ‘more lightly will I bear the grief than the sea goddess’, implying that Thetis will suffer more). Porter 90 and Fries 474 interpret it as a subjective genitive with πένθος (so ‘more lightly will I bear the grief of the sea goddess’), since the Muse ‘does not really seem to find consolation in Rhesus’ semi-divine afterlife’ (Fries). But despite her grief at separation from her son (968–9), pride for his afterlife surfaces in her statement that he will become ‘a venerable god for those who know’ (973). And in any case, though she will participate in the lamentations for Achilles (976–7), she cannot properly be said to ‘bear’ a grief that belongs to Thetis (Liapis (2011) 110). θαλασσία θεός is specific for Thetis at Eur. TrGF 885 ὦ παῖ τῆς θαλασσίας θεοῦ; (re-used by Ar. Ran. 840) and Andr. 17–18 ἡ θαλασσία / Πηλεῖ ξυνώικει … Θέτις. The adjective θαλάσσιος is applied to other gods at Timoth. PMG 791.50 θ[αλάσ]σ̣ιον θεόν, Ar. Vesp. 1518–19 ὦ μεγαλώνυμα τέκνα τοῦ θαλασσίοιο (= adesp. TrGF 69); cf. also Pl. PCG 143 ὁ Καρκίνου παῖς τοῦ θαλαττίου. 976–7 In the Aeth. the Muses were said to be present at the mourning over Achilles’ corpse, together with Thetis; cf. Proclus’ summary of Aeth., PEG p. 69 καὶ Θέτις ἀφικομένη σὺν Μούσαις καὶ ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς θρηνεῖ τὸν παῖδα. This is confirmed by Hom. Od. 24.60–1 Μοῦσαι δ᾽ ἐννέα πᾶσαι ἀμειβόμεναι ὀπὶ καλῆι / θρήνεον. θρήνοις … σ᾽ ὑμνήσομεν: for Plato (Leg. 700b–d) funereal θρῆνοι were originally distinct from ὕμνοι, celebrative songs in praise of the gods, but the corruption of music in his age had caused them to be contaminated with each other. Here the hymnodic form of the lamentations for Rhesus will perhaps emphasise the extraordinary greatness of the deceased, as in Plut. Mor. 114c οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθὸς ἄξιος θρήνων ἀλλ᾽ ὕμνων καὶ παιάνων, οὐδὲ πένθους ἀλλὰ μνήμης εὐκλεοῦς. Θέτιδος ἐν πένθει ‘in the context of the mourning of Thetis’ defines the occasion in which the Muse and her sisters will play the role of mourners, and has a detached tone. A clearer and more idiomatic word to express sentimental participation would have been, e.g., συμπενθεῖν: Aesch. Cho. 199, Eur. Her. 1390, Isocr. 4.112, 8.87, Charit. 5.6.19.

621

C O M M E N TA RY 9 7 8 – 9 8 0 978–9 The death of Achilles, the protégé of Athena, taking place despite her protection, seems to be seen by the Muse as a sort of retribution balancing the death of Rhesus (cf. 975 καὶ τὸν ἐκ κείνης). While advertising the afterlife of Rhesus, the Muse is silent in relation to the myth according to which Achilles was also granted an afterlife on the White Island in the Euxine Sea. This myth, which is not found in Homer, where Achilles’ body is burned on the pyre (Od. 24.72–84), is mentioned as early as Ibycus and Simonides (cf. Σ Ap. Rh. 4.814), Pind. Ol. 2.78–80, Eur. Andr. 1261–2, Pl. Smp. 179e; already in Aeth., according to Proclus’ summary, Thetis took his body from the pyre and escorted him to the White Island. Cf. Burgess (2009) 98–110. οὐ ῥύσεταί νιν: cf. Eur. Med. 387–8 τίς … ῥύσεται τοὐμὸν δέμας;. Παλλάς, ἥ σ᾽ ἀπέκτανεν: see 938–40. τοῖον … βέλος ‘such a terrible arrow …’ is causal-exclamatory (see 896– 8n.). According to Hom. Il. 22.359–60 Achilles was killed by Paris and Apollo at the Scaean Gates. At Virg. Aen. 6.56–8 Apollo directed the arrow of Paris, but according to Pind. F 52f.75–86 Apollo himself, disguised as Paris, shot the arrow. Thetis accuses Apollo of the killing of Achilles at Aesch. TrGF 350.8–9: Apollo, who sang of Achilles’ happiness and long life at her wedding with Peleus, αὐτὸς τάδ’ εἰπών, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ κτανὼν / τὸν παῖδα τὸν ἐμόν. 980–3 ‘O disasters that derive from procreating children, troubles for mortals! Anyone who takes you properly into account will spend life childless and, by not bringing children to birth, will not bury them.’ The Muse concludes her speech where she began, by going back to the procreation of her troublesome son (915–20) and generalises her troubled experience as a mother into a gnomic paraenesis not to procreate (first topos), presented as the only alternative to the risk that parents may be obliged to bury their children prematurely (second topos). The first topos, attested from Hom. Il. 22.481 μὴ ὤφελλε τεκέσθαι, is typical of Eur.: Alc. 880–8, Med. 1090–115, Andr. 395–6, Supp. 786–93, TrGF 571, 908, 908a. The opposite view, that children are a unique blessing, finds expression in tragedy, e.g., in Danae’s words at Eur. TrGF 316. The second topos is very common in funerary inscriptions and literature, especially from the Hellenistic age onwards; cf. Eur. Med. 1033–7, Supp. 174–5, Her. 322–5, Tro. 1185–6, Lattimore (1942) 187–90. παιδοποιοί: the epithet is found only in Eur. in tragedy: Andr. 4 (δάμαρ), Pho. 338 (ἁδονά), but it also occurs at Hdt. 6.68.3 in combination with σπέρμα. And παιδοποιία and παιδοποιεῖν are widely attested in the orators. πόνοι βροτῶν (= Soph. Ant. 1276). The Muse is a goddess, but Rhesus is (or at least was) mortal, and as his mother she has to share with him the limitations of mortal life. The immortality she has secured for him involves the pain of endless separation (967–9). μὴ κακῶς λογίζεται: cf. Eur. TrGF 575.2 οὐ λογίζεται καλῶς, Thuc. 8.2.4 λογιζόμενοι καλῶς, Ar. Eq. 1275 εὖ λογίζεται, Apollod. PCG 14.1 οὐκ εὖ

622

C O M M E N TA RY 9 8 3 – 9 9 2 λογίζ[η]ι, [Men.] Mon. 528 λογίζεσθαι καλῶς. The cautious tone of the litotes may recall the common opposite view that giving birth to children was a blessing; see above. διοίσει ‘will live’, intransitive, or with implied βίον. In poetry, at Soph. Aj. 511 διοίσεται. κοὐ τεκὼν θάψει: the negation applies to both verb and predicative participle; cf. KG II.199 n. 1. 983–5 For the plot to conclude, the Muse and her dirge have to be interrupted. Soph. Ant. 1334–5 μέλλοντα ταῦτα. τῶν προκειμένων τι χρὴ / πράσσειν. μέλει γὰρ τῶνδ’ ὅτοισι χρὴ μέλειν may have been a model for the sudden severance of the Muse’s performance. Rh. ends at the same time as Book 10 was brought to an end by the scholars who arranged the book divisions of the Iliad (most probably in the Hellenistic age). Line 985b is chronologically consistent with Hom. Il. 11.1–4, where it is at daybreak that Eris, sent by Zeus, visits the main Greek leaders and incites them to fight. κηδεύειν ‘tend’ is commonly used in the sense ‘attend to a corpse’ (a duty usually performed by parents or close relatives); cf., e.g., Soph. El. 1138–41 κοὔτ’ ἐν ϕίλαισι χερσὶν ἡ τάλαιν’ ἐγὼ / λουτροῖς σ’ ἐκόσμησ’, … / ἀλλ’ ἐν ξένησι χερσὶ κηδευθεὶς τάλας, Demad. 9, Arist. F 534.2 Gigon, Polyb. 5x. μέλει: for the rare personal construction of μέλειν with infinitive, instead of the standard impersonal, see 770–2n. 986–92 The two orders concerning preparations for the battle that Hector asks the chorus to issue on his behalf at 986–7 are almost identical to the suggestions about the mobilisation of infantry and horsemen that the chorus had given him at 23–4 and 27 (Hector had later again ordered the mobilisation at 70–1, 84, 90). Likewise, in the Il., the last words of Book 9 describe the Greeks going to their tents to sleep and Book 11 opens with the description of dawn of the day after. It is as if all the events of the night of Il. 10 and of Rh. stood in a long parenthesis between dusk and dawn which does not recast the war agenda. Unlike the allies of the Epic Cycle, Rhesus is an ally who does not have time to affect the action of the war, not even temporarily. Hector’s optimism, which seems excessive and gives ‘the impression that he has not learned anything from the past night’s experience’ (Fries 477), acknowledges that nothing has changed since the watchmen woke him up – Rhesus was never needed for the achievement of the victory which already seemed close to Hector before his arrival (cf. 319–23, 329, 330–1). ἄνωχθε is a rare athematic second-person plural imperative of ἄνωγα, attested elsewhere only in Hom. Od. 22.437 and Eur. Her. 241. Analogy with second-person ἄνωχθι, which is commoner (Hom. 12x, Aesch. 1x, Eur. 3x), may have produced the aspiration of ‑τ‑ in the ending.

623

C O M M E N TA RY 9 8 7 – 9 8 9 πληροῦν τ᾽ αὐχένας ξυνωρίδων ‘fill up the necks of the horse-pairs’ is an odd phrase, as the object expected after πληροῦν is the harness, here not mentioned, not the part of the body which it fits. Eur. Her. 372–3 πεύκαισιν ὅθεν χέρας / πληροῦντες is perhaps the closest parallel that can be adduced (Fries 478), but there the equipment is specified. 988–9a πανούς (Reiske (1754) 93), for πόνους of the MSS, is a rare word, probably of pre-Greek origins (Beekes (2010) 1150), chiefly in tragic and comic authors: Aesch. Ag. 284 (the oldest occurrence of the word for Athen. 15.700e,), Soph. TrGF 184, Eur. Ion. 195, 1294, TrGF 90, Diph. PCG 6, Men. PCG 59.2. Torches are needed to fire the Greek ships, as soon as the wall and ditch are crossed. But their mention also re-enacts the imagery of the many fires lit by the Greeks, which the watchmen had come to inform Hector about. They thus further contribute to the impression that all the events and deaths of the play were irrelevant – nothing has changed. Τυρσηνικῆς / σάλπιγγος αὐδήν may be modelled on Eur. Pho. 1377–8 Τυρσηνικῆς / σάλπιγγος ἠχή, as observed by Liapis 330. The ‘voice of the Etruscan trumpet’ is the sign of attack that allies and horsemen have to wait for. The trumpet was commonly called ‘Etruscan’ in the fifth and fourth centuries; cf. Aesch. Eum. 567–8, Soph. Aj. 17, Eur. Hcld. 830–1, Pho. 1377–8, quoted above, Men. PCG 620. The epithet points to the invention of this instrument by the Lydians or the ex-Lydian Etruscans (an idea widely attested in lexicographers and erudite sources) or defines one variety of trumpet (Σ T Hom. Il. 18.219 lists six types of them). Trumpets, with their various shapes (cf. Krentz (1991) 110–12, Hale (2003) 267–71), were not used for playing music but for signalling – the beginning of races or other contests (as at, e.g., Soph. El. 711, Ar. Ach. 1001–3; IG II–III2.1635.69 (first half of the fourth century ), Virg. Aen. 5.139–40), or military reveille at dawn, night rest, call to arms, retreat, and most often attack, as at, e.g., Bacch. 18.3–4 (with Maehler ad loc.), Aesch. Pers. 395, Eum. 567–8, Eur. Hcld. 830–1, Achae. TrGF 20F37, Ar. Pax 1240–1 (with Olson ad loc.), Ran. 1041–2, Thuc. 6.69.2, Xen. An. 1.2.17, 3.4.4, 4.4.22, 5.2.14, 6.5.27, Andoc. 1.45, Arist. De mundo 399ba35–b10, Men. Asp. 104, Polyb. 12.26.2. Cf. Krentz (1991) 114–17, Petretto (1995), Hale (2003), Finglass on Soph. Aj. 15–17. The military use of the trumpet is mentioned at Hom. Il. 18.219–21, but in a simile, not in a battle narrative. 989b–92 ‘For as soon as I have crossed the ditch and wall of the Achaeans, I am confident that I shall set fire to the ships and that the approaching rays of the sun will bring the Trojans their day of liberation.’ ὑπερβαλὼν τάφρον are certain corrections of the transmitted ὑπερβάλλων στρατόν (ὑπερβαλών Lenting (1821) 79, τάφρον Jacobs (1796) 135). The watchmen had wondered at 844–5 how a Greek could have entered the Thracian camp ὑπερβαλὼν λόχους Τρώων, as the Trojan camp was between the Greeks

624

C O M M E N TA RY 9 9 0 – 9 9 6 and the Thracians. Hector’s mention of the ditch picks up and implicitly criticises the warning of Aeneas at 108–22, and is appropriately combined with a reference at 990 to firing the Greek ships, which Aeneas had declared very risky at 109–16. αἶθον ἐμβαλεῖν: cf. 120 ναυσὶν ἐμβαλεῖν φλόγα. Hector’s wish is accomplished at Hom. Il. 16.122–3; see 119–22n. αἶθον ‘fire’ is probably masculine, as at Eur. Supp. 208 (the only other occurrence of this gender); the neuter αἶθος/-εος occurs at Ap. Rh. 3.1304 and [Orph.] Lith. 174. πέποιθα governs future ἐμβαλεῖν and present φέρειν, the future expressing confidence in the outcome of the action, the present conveying the idea that the prediction is already a matter of fact; cf. Liapis 330. ἡμέραν ἐλευθέραν: cf. Hom. Il. 6.455 ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ (spoken by Hector in relation to Andromache; in opposition to δούλιον ἦμαρ 6.463), 16.831 (Hector in relation to the Trojan women), 20.193 (Achilles in relation to the women of Lyrnessus). In all its Homeric uses, as well as in the oracle on the outcome of Salamis quoted at Hdt. 8.77.2, ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ is the condition of freedom that can last only as long as the fatherland is not occupied by invaders; cf. Cassola (1964) 271. In Eur. Hcld. 868 the phrase points to freedom from fear. ἀκτῖνα τὴν στείχουσαν ἡλίου: cf. 331 τοὐπιὸν σέλας θεοῦ, Eur. Med. 352 ἡ ᾽πιοῦσα λαμπὰς … θεοῦ, TrGF 816.7 τὴν ἐπιστείχουσαν ἡμέραν, Ar. Eccl. 105 τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν. The use of ἀκτίς, concrete ‘ray’, instead of abstract ‘light’, together with the verb στείχειν ‘make one’s way’, depicts the arrival of freedom as a kind of gift from the new light of day. Elsewhere στείχειν personifies abstract ideas by ascribing to them the idea of physical movement: e.g., Soph. Ant. 10 στείχοντα … κακά, 185–6 τὴν ἄτην … στείχουσαν. 993–6 All of the extant plays of Soph. except OT and all of Eur. end with a remark by the chorus in anapaests, never more than five lines in Eur., never more than seven in Soph. Anapaests, with their marching rhythm, must have felt suitable for choral entrances and exits. The ‘curtain effect’ of the parting anapaests often coincides with an actual movement of the chorus to fulfil a commitment offstage (e.g., Hcld., Hec., Her., Supp.), which ‘motivates’ their exit at the end of the play. This is also the case here at 993b–5a. Almost all the parting anapaests are detached from the previous action (unlike the conclusions in the tragedies of Aesch., which are strongly integrated with it) and include a more or less emphatic generalising moral – this gnomic coda ‘presents a view simpler than the complexities the story has given rise to; on the other hand, whereas the story is particular, the coda claims universality’ (Roberts (1987) 59). Here the general moral may be conveyed by πείθου βασιλεῖ of 993, which at the same time sounds like a permanent general principle and functions as a self-address by the whole chorus, after the critical stance of the chorus in dialogue with Hector at 76–84 and 317–39.

625

C O M M E N TA RY 9 9 3 – 9 9 6 In three plays of Eur. the last words by the chorus in the MSS are ‘formulaic’ addresses to Nike for victory in the dramatic competition: IT 1497–9 ὦ μέγα σεμνὴ Νίκη, τὸν ἐμὸν / βίοτον κατέχοις / καὶ μὴ λήγοις στεϕανοῦσα = Pho. 1764–6 = Or. 1691–3 = (but only in some MSS) Hipp. 1466a–c. But unlike these clearly spurious formulaic tags, probably by actors, the mention of νίκη in Rh. comes as the conclusion of a military play from Trojans who believe they are close to victory. Breaking the dramatic illusion is extremely rare in tragedy, but, as observed by Fries 480 (after, e.g., Beck (1780) 14, Jouan 57 n. 295), the frequently para-comic Rh. may parallel the parting appeals that can be found in comedy, where the chorus or an actor can speak celebrating their own professional success and the success of their play (e.g., Ar. Ach. 1227–34, Lys. 1291–4, Th. 1227–31, Eccl. 1180–3, Men. Dysc. 968–9 = Mis. 465–6 = Sic. 422–3). Re-using the standard addresses to Nike with a novel motivation in harmony with the plot, and thus keeping νίκη ambiguous between theatrical success and military success, may have been a clever innovation of our author. Cf. Roberts (1987); Dunn (1996) 14–25. πείθου … στείχωμεν are typical self-inclusive imperatives used by choreutae to indicate their movements (here also the motivation of the movement); see 1n. For self-exhortation to movement in parting words, cf. Soph. Ph. 1469 χωρῶμεν, Eur. Hec. 1293 ἴτε. For στείχειν of movements of characters leaving the scene towards the end of the play, cf. Eur. Med. 1394 στεῖχε and 1395 στείχω, Supp. 1232 στείχωμεν, Ion 1616 στείχωμεν … στείχεθ’, IA 1624 στείχειν. ὅπλοις κοσμησάμενοι ‘dressed in arms’, as if they were clothes, is a periphrasis for ὁπλισθέντες; cf. Hdt. 4.180.4 ὁτέοισι δὲ τὸ πάλαι ἐκόσμεον τὰς παρθένους … οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν, δοκέω δ’ ὦν Αἰγυπτίοισι ὅπλοισι κοσμέεσθαι αὐτάς, Soph. Ph. 1063–4 τοῖς ἐμοῖς / ὅπλοισι κοσμηθείς, Eur. Pho. 861 κοσμηθεὶς ὅπλοις, 1359 χαλκέοις σῶμ᾽ ἐκοσμήσανθ᾽ ὅπλοις; also 797 χαλκῶι κοσμήσας, Xen. Hipparch. 1.25 τοὺς … προδρόμους κοσμήσαις … ὅπλοις ὡς κάλλιστα. ξυμμαχία = σύμμαχοι or τὸ συμμαχικόν, metonymy of the abstract for the concrete, as at Pind. Ol. 10.72–3, F 169.46, Hdt. 8.128.2; Thuc. passim (possibly a military usage). τάχα δ᾽ ἂν … δοίη ‘quickly might give’ = ‘perhaps might give’. The adverb τάχα expresses ‘any contingency from a probability to mere possibility’ (LSJ), and frequently occurs with ἄν and optative to express probability: e.g., Hom. Od. 19.310, Soph. Aj. 1042–3, Eur. Hel. 1623, IA 987–8. δαίμων ὁ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν: cf. 320 Ζεὺς πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν.

626

BIBLIOGRAPHY EDITIONS OF RHESUS quoted in the Commentary* Euripides tragoediae septemdecim apud Aldum Manutium, Venice 1503 (unpaged). Oporinus, J. Euripides tragoediae octodecim per Iohannem Hervagium, Basel 1544 (2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1537, 3rd ed. 1551) (unpaged). Stiblinus, K. Euripides poeta tragicorum princeps in Latinum sermonem conversus, adjecto texto Graeco, Basel 1562, 388–408, 408–12. Canter, W. Euripidis tragoediae XIX (2 vols.), Antwerp 1571, II.231–84. Stephanus, P. Euripides. Tragoediae quae extant, Geneva 1602, ‘Pars altera’, pp. 232–84 (text; at the end of the ‘Pars altera’, Ioannis Brodaei Turonensis in Euripidis Rhesum Annotationes, pp. 30–9). Barnes, J. Euripidis quae extant omnia, II (Euripidis pars secunda), Cambridge 1694, 108–35. Beck, C.D. Euripidis tragoediae fragmenta epistolae (3 vols.), Leipzig 1778–1788, I.605–47, III.444–83. Musgrave, S. Euripidis quae extant omnia (2 vols.), Oxford 1778: II.240–85, 404–12. Schaefer, G.H. (but with no author’s name), Euripidis tragoediae (4 vols.), Leipzig 1810–1811: III(1811) 80–125. Dindorf, L. (i) Euripidis fabulae (2 vols.), Leipzig 1825: I.279–316. Dindorf, W. (ii) Poetae scenici Graeci. Accedunt perditarum fabularum fragmenta, London 1830: xix–xxii, 218–29. Dindorf, W. (iii) Euripides. Tragoediae superstites et deperditarum fragmenta (3 vols.), Oxford 1832–1840: II(1833) 469–502 and 1005–8; III.2(1840) 559–628. Dindorf, W. (iv) Poetarum scenicorum Graecorum: Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis, et Aristophanis fabulae superstites et perditarum fragmenta, Oxford 1851 (2nd ed.), xix–xxii, 178–87. Dindorf, W. (v) Poetarum scenicorum Graecorum Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis et Aristophanis fabulae superstites et perditarum fragmenta, Leipzig 1869 (5th ed.): pars III, 1–12. Matthiae, A. Euripides. Tragoediae et fragmenta (10 vols.), Leipzig 1813–1837, II(1814) 271–318, VIII(1824) 1–43. Boissonade, J.F. Euripides (5 vols. = Id., Poetarum Graecorum sylloge, XVI–XX), Paris 1826, IV.3–56, 285–92.

References to editions, commentaries, and texts with translation do not include the publication date.

*

627

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bothe, F.H. (i) Euripides’ Werke verdeutscht, III (2nd ed.) Mannheim 1824, 317–66 and V, Berlin and Stettin 1803, 282–302. Bothe, F.H. (ii) Poetae scenici Graecorum, Leipzig 1825–1826, II(1826) 79–130. Vater, F. Euripidis Rhesus cum scholiis antiquis, Berlin 1837. Fix, T. Euripidis fabulae, Paris 1843, xxix–xxxi, 340–63. Hartung, J.A. Euripides’ Werke. 17. Rhesos, Leipzig 1852. Kirchhoff, A. (i) Euripidis tragoediae, I, Berlin 1855, 339–67, 549–63. Kirchhoff, A. (ii) Euripidis fabulae, III, Berlin 1868, 307–44. Nauck, A. (i) Euripidis tragoediae (1st ed.), II, Leipzig 1854, xxi–xxiv, 305–42 . Nauck, A. (ii) Euripidis tragoediae (3rd ed.) II, Leipzig 1871, xxxii–xxxv, 305–42. Paley, F.A. Euripides (3 vols., 2nd ed.), London 1872–1880, I. 3–67. Wecklein, N. Euripides Rhesus (vol. III.6 in R. Prinz and N. Wecklein, Euripidis fabulae) Leipzig 1902. Murray, G. Euripidis fabulae, III, Oxford 1909 (unpaged). Porter, W.H. The Rhesus of Euripides (2nd ed.), Cambridge 1929. Ebener, D. Rhesos, Tragödie eines unbekannten Dichters, Berlin 1966. Zanetto, G. (i) Euripides. Rhesus, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1993. Zanetto, G. (ii) Euripides. Ciclope–Reso, Milan 1998. Diggle, J. Euripidis fabulae. III, Oxford 1994, 427–79. Klyve, G.E. A Commentary on Rhesus 1–526, with an Introduction, DPhil diss. Oxford 1995. Kovacs, D. 2002. Euripides: Bacchae, Iphigenia at Aulis, Rhesus, Cambridge, MA and London, 345–455. Feickert, A. 2004. Euripidis Rhesus, Frankfurt. Jouan, F. 2004. Euripide. Tragédies, VIII.2 Rhésos, Paris. Liapis, V. 2012. A Commentary on the Rhesus Attributed to Euripides, Oxford. Fries, A. 2014. Pseudo–Euripides, Rhesus, Berlin and Boston.

C O M M E N TA R I E S A N D E D I T I O N S O F ANCIENT TEXTS Allan, W. 2001. Euripides. The Children of Heracles, Warminster. Allan, W. 2008. Euripides. Helen, Cambridge. Arnott, W.G. 1996. Alexis. The Fragments, Cambridge. Asheri, D. 2006. Erodoto. Le Storie. IX, Milano. Austin, C. and S.D. Olson 2004. Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazousae, Oxford. Barrett, W.S. 1964. Euripides. Hippolytos, Oxford. Biehl, W. 1989. Euripides. Troades, Heidelberg. Blaydes, F.H.M. 1873. The Electra of Sophocles, London and Edinburgh. Biles, Z.P. and S.D. Olson 2015. Aristophanes. Wasps, Oxford. Bond, G.W. 1963. Euripides. Hypsipyle, Oxford. Bond, G.W. 1981. Euripides. Heracles, Oxford.

628

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bosworth, A.B. 1980–1995. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander (2 vols.), Oxford. Bowen, A.J. 2013. Aeschylus. Suppliant Women, Oxford. Braswell, B.K. 1998. A Commentary on Pindar, Nemean Nine, Berlin and New York. Brügger, C., M. Stoevesandt, and E. Visser 2003. Homer. Ilias. GesamtKommentar. II: Zweiter Gesang, Leipzig. Brunck, R.F.P. 1780. Euripidis tragoediae quatuor, Strasburg. Burnet, J. 1911. Plato’s Phaedo, Oxford. Calame, C. 1983. Alcman, Rome. Carden, R. (with a contribution by W.S. Barrett), 1974.The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles, Berlin and New York. Carey, C. 1981. A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2, Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8, New York. Collard, C. 1975. Euripides. Supplices, Groningen. Collard, C., M.J. Cropp, and K.H. Lee 1995. Euripides. Selected Fragmentary Plays. I, Warminster. Collard, C., M.J. Cropp, and J. Gibert 2004. Euripides. Selected Fragmentary Plays. II, Oxford. Collard, C. and J. Morwood 2017. Euripides. Iphigenia at Aulis, Liverpool. Cropp, M. 2013. Euripides. Electra (2nd ed.), Oxford. Dale, A.M. 1954. Euripides. Alcestis, Oxford. Dale, A.M. 1967. Euripides. Helen, Oxford. Davies, M. 1991. Sophocles. Trachiniae, Oxford. Davies, M. and P. Finglass. 2014. Stesichorus. The Poems, Cambridge. Dawe, R.D. 2006. Sophocles. Oedipus Rex (2nd ed.), Cambridge. Denniston, J.D. 1939. Euripides. Electra, Oxford. Denniston, J.D. and D.L. Page 1957. Aeschylus. Agamemnon, Oxford. Diggle. J. 1970. Euripides. Phaethon, Cambridge. Diggle, J. 2004. Theophrastus. Characters, Cambridge. Dodds, E.R. 1960. Euripides. Bacchae (2nd ed.), Oxford. Dover, K.J. 1968. Aristophanes. Clouds, Oxford. Dunbar, N. 1995. Aristophanes. Birds, Oxford. Earle, M.L. 1894. Euripides’ Alcestis, London and New York. Easterling, P.E. 1982. Sophocles. Trachiniae, Cambridge. Elmsley, P. 1818. Euripides. Medea, Oxford. Elmsley, P. 1821a. Euripides. Bacchae, Oxford. Elmsley, P. 1821b. Euripidis Heraclidae, Leipzig. England, E.B. 1891. The Iphigenia at Aulis of Euripides, London and New York. Finglass, P.J. 2007. Sophocles. Electra, Cambridge. Finglass, P.J. 2011. Sophocles. Ajax, Cambridge. Finglass, P.J. 2018. Euripides. Oedipus the King, Cambridge.

629

BIBLIOGRAPHY Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus. Agamemnon, Oxford. Friis Johansen, H. and E.W. Whittle 1980. Aeschylus. The Suppliants (3 vols.), Copenhagen. Garvie, A.F. 1986. Aeschylus. Choephori, Oxford. Garvie, A.F. 2009. Aeschylus. Persae, Oxford. Gomme, A.W. and F.H. Sandbach 1973. Menander: A Commentary, Oxford. Goodwin, W.W. 1901. Demosthenes. On the Crown, Cambridge. Gow, A.S.F. 1952. Theocritus (2nd ed.), Cambridge. Griffith, M. 1983. Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, Cambridge. Griffith, M. 1999. Sophocles. Antigone, Cambridge. Hainsworth, B. 1993. The Iliad. A Commentary. III: Books 9–12, Cambridge. Halleran, M.R. 1995. Euripides. Hippolytus, Warminster. Handley, E.W. 1965. Menander. Dyskolos, London. Headlam, W. and A.D. Knox. 1922. Herodas, Cambridge. Henry, W.B. 2005. Pindar’s Nemeans. A Selection, Leipzig. Hermann, G. 1810. Euripides. Hercules furens, Leipzig. Heubeck, A., S. West, and J.B. Hainsworth. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey (Introduction and Books I–VIII), I, Oxford. Horsfall, N. 2003. Virgil, Aeneid 11: A Commentary, Leiden and Boston. Horsfall, N. 2008. Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary, Leiden and Boston. Horsfall, N. 2013. Virgil, Aeneid 6: A Commentary, Berlin and Boston. Hutchinson, G.O. 1985. Aeschylus. Septem contra Thebas, Oxford. Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad: a Commentary. IV: Books 13–16, Cambridge. Jebb, R.C. 1894. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part VI. The Electra, Cambridge. Jebb, R.C. 1896. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part VII. The Ajax, Cambridge. Jebb, R.C. 1898. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part IV. The Philoctetes (2nd ed.), Cambridge. Jebb, R.C. 1900a. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part III. The Antigone (3rd ed.), Cambridge. Jebb, R.C. 1900b. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments, Part II. The Oedipus Coloneus (3rd ed.), Cambridge. Kamerbeek, J.C. 1980. The Plays of Sophocles. VI The Philoctetes, Leiden. Kamerbeek, J.C. 1984. The Plays of Sophocles. VI The Oedipus Coloneus, Leiden. Kannicht, R. 1969. Euripides. Helena (2 vols.), Heidelberg. Kovacs, D. 2018. Euripides. Troades, Oxford. Kyriakou, P. 2006. A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, Berlin and New York. Leaf, W. 1900–1902. The Iliad (2nd ed., 2 vols.), London. Lee, K.H. 1976. Euripides. Troades, Basingstoke and New York 1976. Livrea, E. 1973. Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon liber quartus, Florence.

630

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lobeck, C.A. 1866. Sophoclis Aiax (3rd. ed.), Berlin Maehler, H. 1982. Die Lieder des Bakchylides I: Die Siegeslieder, Leiden and New York. Maehler, H. 1997. Die Lieder des Bakchylides II: Die Dithyramben und Fragmente, Leiden and New York. Μarkland, J. 1771. Euripidis dramata Iphigenia in Aulide et Iphigenia in Tauris, London. Mastronarde, D.J. 1994. Euripides. Phoenissae, Cambridge. Mastronarde, D.J. 2002. Euripides. Medea, Cambridge. Matthiessen, K. 2010. Euripides. Hekabe, Berlin and New York. Merro, G. 2008. Gli scoli al Reso euripideo, Messina. Norden. E. 1916. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis Buch VI, Leipzig and Berlin. Noussia Fantuzzi, M. 2010. Solon the Athenian. The Poetic Fragments, Leiden. Olson, S.D. 1998. Aristophanes. Peace, Oxford. Olson, S.D. 2002. Aristophanes. Acharnians, Oxford. Page, D.L. 1938. Euripides. Medea, Oxford. Parker, L.P.E. 2007. Euripides. Alcestis, Oxford. Parker, L.P.E. 2016. Euripides. Iphigenia in Tauris, Oxford. Pearson, A.C. 1903. The Helena of Euripides, Cambridge. Pease, A.S. 1935. Aeneidos liber quartus, Cambridge, MA. Porson, R. 1825. Euripidis Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae et Medea, London. Richardson, N.J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. Schein, S. 2013. Sophocles. Philoctetes, Cambridge. Schwartz, E. 1887. Scholia in Euripidem (2 vols.), Berlin. Sommerstein, A.H. 1989. Aeschylus. Eumenides, Cambridge. Sommerstein, A.H., D. Fitzpatrick, and T.H. Talboy 2006. Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays. I, Oxford. Sommerstein, A.H. and T.H. Talboy 2012. Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays. II, Oxford. Stevens, P.T. 1971. Euripides. Andromache, Oxford. Stockert, W. 1992. Euripides. Iphigenie in Aulis (2 vols.), Vienna. Tucker, T.G. 1908. The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus, Cambridge. Verdenius, W.J. 1972. Pindar’s Seventh Olympian Ode: A Commentary, Amsterdam. Vergados, A. 2013. The Homeric Hymn to Hermes, Berlin and Boston. Verrall, A.W. 1887. The Seven against Thebes of Aeschylus, London. West, M.L. 1966. Hesiod. Theogony, Oxford. West, M.L. 1978. Hesiod. Works & Days, Oxford. West, M.L. 1990. Aeschylus. Tragoediae, Stuttgart. West, M.L. 1998/2000. Homerus. Iliad (2 vols.), Stuttgart and Munich. West, M.L. 2017. Homerus. Odyssea, Berlin and Boston. Wilkins, J. 1993. Euripides. Heraclidae, Oxford. Willink, C.W. 1986. Euripides. Orestes, Oxford.

631

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, A.W.H. 1960. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values, Oxford. Adkins, A.W.H. 1972. Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece, London. Aerts, W.J. 1965. Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of ‘einai’ and ‘echein’ as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to Present Day, Amsterdam. Albert, P. 1876. De Rheso tragoedia, PhD diss. Halle. Alexiou, M. 1974. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition, Cambridge. Allen, W.S. 1947. ‘The Name of the Black Sea in Greek’ CQ 41: 86–8. Allen, W.S. 1987. Vox Graeca (3rd ed.), Cambridge. Amandry, P. 1950. La mantique apollinienne à Delphes, Paris. Amigues, S. 1977. Les subordonnées finales par ΟΠΩΣ en attique classique, Paris. Amit, M. 1970. ‘Hostages in Ancient Greece’ RFIC 98: 129–47. Ammann, A.N. 1953. –ΙΚΟΣ bei Platon, PhD diss. Bern, Freiburg. Andersen, Ø. 1978. Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias, Oslo. Anderson, J.K. 1960. ‘Notes on Some Points in Xenophon’s ΠΕΡΙ ΙΠΠΙΚΗΣ’ JHS 80: 1–9. Anderson,  J.K. 1961. Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Anderson,  J.K. 1965. ‘Homeric, British and Cyrenaic Chariots’ AJA 69: 349–52. Anderson, J.K. 1970. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Anderson, J.K. 1975. ‘Greek Chariot–Borne and Mounted Infantry’ AJA 79: 175–87. Andrewes, A. 1981. ‘Addenda’ in A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K.J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. V, Oxford: 454–60. Anson, E.M. 1985. ‘The Hypaspists: Macedonia’s Professional CitizenSoldiers’ Historia 34: 246–8. Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece, Lanham, MD. Archibald, Z.H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked, Oxford. Archibald, Z.H. 1999. ‘Thracian Cult – from Practice to Belief ’ in G.T. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East, Leiden: 427–68. Archibald, Z.H. 2013. Ancient Economies of the Northern Aegean: Fifth to First Centuries BC, Oxford. Arena, R. 1971. Note linguistiche a proposito delle tavole di Eraclea, Rome. Aricò, G. 1987. ‘Analecta scaenica’ in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a F. Della Corte, Urbino: 201–12. Arnoldt, R. 1878. Die chorische Technik des Euripides, Halle. Arnott, P. 1959. ‘Animals in the Greek Theatre’ G&R 6: 177–9.

632

BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnott, P. 1962. Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford. Arnott, W.G. 2002. ‘Some Orthographical Variants in the Papyri of Later Greek Comedy’ in A. Willi, The Language of Comedy, Oxford: 192–218. Arnott, W.G. 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Arnould, D. 1990. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon, Paris. Aston, E. 2011. Mixanthrôpoi: Animal-Human Hybrid Deities in Greek Religion, Liège. Aubriot, D. 1989. ‘Remarques sur l’usage de θάμβος et des mots apparentés dans l’Iliade’ Orpheus 10: 249–60. Aubriot-Sévin, D. 1992. Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle avant J.-C., Paris. Ausfeld, C. 1903. De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones, Leipzig. Ax, W. 1978. ‘Ψόφος, φωνή und διάλεκτος als Grundbegriffe aristotelischer Sprachreflexion’ Glotta 56: 245–71. Bacon, H.H. 1961. Barbarians in Greek Tragedy, New Haven. Badham, C. 1855. ‘Miscellanea critica’ Philologus 10: 336–40. Badian, E. 1981=2012. ‘The Deification of Alexander the Great’ (1981), in Id., Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 244–81. Badian, E. 1982=2012. ‘Greeks and Macedonians’ (1982), in Id., Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 282–310. Bagordo, A. 1995/1996. ‘Μοῦσ’ αὐθιγενής (Bacchyl. 2, 11)’ Glotta 73: 137–41. Bagordo, A. 2003. Reminiszenzen früher Lyrik bei den attischen Tragikern, Munich. Bain, D. 1975. ‘Audience Address in Greek Tragedy’ CQ 25: 13–25. Bain, D. 1977. ‘The Prologues of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’ CQ 27: 10–26. Bakker, W.F. 1966. The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences Between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day, Amsterdam. Ballabriga, A. 1986. Le Soleil et le Tartare: L’image mythique du monde en Grèce archaïque, Paris. Barker, A. 2004. ‘Athenian Musical Discourse in the late Fifth Century’ in P. Murray and P. Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousike’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford: 185–204. Barrett, J. 2002. Staged Narrative: Poetics and the Messenger in Greek Tragedy, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Barrett, W.S. 2007 (ed. by M.L. West). Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism, Oxford. Basset, L. 1979. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec ΜΕΛΛΕΙΝ, Lyon. Basset, L. 1988. ‘Valeurs et emplois de la particule dite modale en grec ancien’ in A. Rijksbaron, H.A. Mulder, and G.C. Wakker (eds.), In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner, Amsterdam: 27–37. Basset, L. 1997. ‘Ἀλλ᾽ ἐξόλοισθ᾽ αὐτῶι κοαξ: Réexamen des emplois de ἀλλά à la lumière de l’énonciation dans Les Grenouilles d’Aristophane’ in A.

633

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rijksbaron (ed.), New approaches to Greek Particles: Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to honour C.J. Ruijgh, Amsterdam: 75–99. Bates, W.N. 1916. ‘Notes on the Rhesus’ TAPhA 47: 5–11. Battezzato, L. 1992. ‘Note critico–testuali alle Coefore di Eschilo’ SCO 42: 63–94. Battezzato, L. 1995. Il monologo nel teatro di Euripide, Pisa. Battezzato, L. 1999/2000. ‘Dorian Dress in Greek Tragedy’ in M. Cropp, K. Lee, and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century = ICS 24–5: 343–62. Battezzato, L. 2000a. ‘Gli aggettivi in –πετης: senso, accento e teorie bizantine nei vocabolari moderni’ Glotta 76: 139–61. Battezzato, L. 2000b. ‘The Thracian Camp and the Fourth Actor at Rhesus 565–691’ CQ 50: 367–73. Battezzato, L. 2000c. ‘Livineius’ Unpublished Euripidean Marginalia’ RHT 30: 323–48. Battezzato, L. 2003. ‘Ospitalità rituale, amicizia e charis nell’Ecuba’ in O. Vox (ed.), Ricerche euripidee, Lecce: 13–45. Battezzato, L. 2004. ‘Parola d’ordine e distribuzione delle battute in [Eur.] Reso 682–89’ Lexis 22: 277–88. Battezzato, L. 2005. ‘Lyric’ in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Malden, MA and Oxford: 150–66. Battezzato, L. 2008. Linguistica e retorica della tragedia greca, Rome. Battisti, D. 1990. ‘Συνετός as Aristocratic Self–Description’ GRBS 31: 5–25. Bauer, W. 1979. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; trans.: Berlin 1949–52, 4th ed.), Chicago and London. Bauslaugh, R.A. 1991. The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Beare, J.I. 1910. ‘Sophoclea’ Hermathena 16.36: 100–15. Beck, Ch.D. 1780. Exercitatio critica de Rheso suppositicio Euripidis dramate, Leipzig. Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols.), Leiden. Belfiore, E. 1998. ‘Harming Friends: Problematic Reciprocity in Greek Tragedy’ in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford: 139–58. Benardete, S. 1965. ‘ΧΡΗ and ΔΕΙ in Plato and Others’ Glotta 43: 285–301. Bentein, K. 2016. Verbal Periphrasis in Ancient Greek: Have- and Be- Constructions, Oxford. Benveniste, É. 1973. Indo-European Language and Society (trans.: Paris 1969), London. Berger, E. 1982, Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig. II. Terrakotten und Bronzen, Basel.

634

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bernacchia, F. 1990. ‘Il Reso: eredità rituali ed elaborazione drammaturgica’ Dioniso 60: 40–53. Bernhardy, G. 1845. Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur. II: Geschichte der griechischen Poesie, Halle. Berrettoni, P. 1970. ‘Il lessico tecnico del 1 e 3 libro delle Epidemie ippocratiche’ ASNP 39: 27–106 and 217–311. Bers, V. 1984. Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven and London. Bertolín Cebrián, R. 1996. Die Verben des Denkens bei Homer, Innsbruck. Best, J.G.P. 1969. Thracian Peltasts and Their Influence on Greek Warfare, Groningen. Bevan, E.R. 1902. ‘Antiochus III and his Title “Great King”’ JHS 22: 241–4. Bianconi. D. 2005. Tessalonica nell’età dei Paleologi, Paris. Billot, M.-F. 1997. ‘Recherches archéologiques récentes à l’Héraion d’Argos’ in Héra, Images, espaces, cultes: Actes du Colloque international de Lille. 29–30 Nov. 1993, Naples: 11–81. Biraud, M. 2010. Les interjections du théâtre grec antique, Leuven and Walpole, MA. Björck, G. 1940. ΗΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΩΝ: Die periphrastischen Konstruktionen im griechischen, Uppsala. Björck, G. 1946. ‘ΟΝΑΡ ΙΔΕΙΝ: De la Perception de rêve chez les anciens’ Eranos 44: 306–14. Björck, G. 1950. Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache, Uppsala. Björck, G. 1957. ‘The Authenticity of Rhesus’ Eranos 55: 7–17. Blank, D. 1991. ‘The Fate of the Ignorant in Plato’s Gorgias’ Hermes 119: 22–36. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. 1976. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (14th ed.), Göttingen. Blaydes, F.H.M. 1901. Adversaria critica in Euripidem, Halle. Bloesch, H. 1943. Agalma: Kleinod, Weihgeschenk, Götterbild, Bern and Bümpliz. Blomart, A. 2004. ‘Transferring the cults of Heroes’ in E. Bradshaw Aitken and J.K. Berenson Maclean, Philostratus’s Heroikos: Religion and Cultural Identity in the Third Century C.E., Atlanta: 85–98. Bluck, R.S. 1961. ‘Euripides, Troades 636–40’ CQ 11: 125–6. Blundell, M.W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies, Cambridge. Boeckh, A. 1808. Graecae tragoediae principum, Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis, num ea quae supersunt et genuina omnia sint et forma primitiva servata…, Heidelberg. Boeke, H. 2007. The Value of Victory in Pindar’s Odes: Gnomai, Cosmology and the Role of the Poet, Leiden. Boisacq, E. 1924. ‘Le nom de la mer Noire en grec ancien’ RBPh 3: 315–17. Bolling, G.M. 1925. The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer, Oxford. Bonanno, D. 2014. ‘She Shuddered on her Throne and Made High Olympus Quake: Causes, Effects and Meanings of the Divine Nemesis in Homer’ Mythos 8: 93–111. Bonanno, M.G. 1980. ‘Nomi e soprannomi archilochei’ MH 37: 65–88. Bonaria, M. 1991. ‘L’antilabé nella tragedia greca antica’ in Studi di filologia classica in onore di G. Monaco, Palermo: I.173–88.

635

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bond, R.S. 1996. ‘Homeric Echoes in Rhesus’ AJPh 117: 255–73. Bonifazi, A. 2009. ‘Inquiring into Nostos and Its Cognates’ AJPh 130: 481–510. Borgeaud, Ph. 1988. The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (trans.: Paris 1979), Chicago. Borgeaud, Ph. 1991. ‘Rhésos et Arganthoné’ in Id. (ed.), Orphisme et Orphée, en l’honneur de J. Rudhardt, Geneva: 51–9. Borthwick, E.K. 1963. ‘The Oxyrhynchus Musical Monody and Some Ancient Fertility Superstitions’ AJPh 84: 225–43. Bossi, F. and R. Tosi. 1979/1980. ‘Strutture lessicografiche greche’ Boll. Istit. Filol. Greca, Padova 5: 7–20. Bosworth, A.B. 1977. ‘Arrian and the Alani’ HSPh 71: 217–55. Bosworth, A.B. 1988. Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge. Boteva, D. and I. Dimova. 1997. ‘St. Athanase d’Etropolé, Sabazios et l’oracle de Dionysos’ DHA 23: 287–98. Bottin, L. 1979. ‘Onore e privilegio nella società omerica’ QS 10: 71–99. Bougia, P. 1996. Ancient Bridges in Greece and Coastal Asia Minor, PhD diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania. Boyancé, P. 1966. ‘L’Apollon solaire’ in Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à J. Carcopino, Paris: 149–70. Bradeen, D.W. 1974. ‘An Athenian Peltast?’ in D.W. Bradeen and M.F. McGregor (eds.), ΦΟΡΟΣ: Tribute to B.D. Meritt, Locust Valley NY: 29–35. Braund, D. 2015. ‘Thracians and Scythians: Tensions, Interactions and Osmosis’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Graninger (eds.) 2015. A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden, MA and Oxford: 352–65. Braunlich, A.F. 1936. ‘“To the Right” in Homer and Attic Greek’ AJPh 57: 245–60. Bravo, B. 1980. ‘Sulân: représailles et justice privée contre des étrangers dans les cités grecques’ ASNP 10: 675–987. Bravo, J. 2004. ‘Heroic Epiphanies: Narrative, Visual, and Cultic Contexts’ ICS 29: 63–84. Breitenbach, W. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Sprache der euripideischen Lyrik, Stuttgart. Breithaupt, M. 1915. De Parmenisco grammatico, Leipzig. Bremer, J.M. 1981. ‘Greek Hymns’ in H.S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship, Leiden: 193–215. Briand, M. 1997. ‘Sur αἵμονα θήρης (Iliade E, 49)’ Mètis 12: 129–60. Brixhe, C. and R. Hodot. 1988. L’Asie Mineure du nord au sud: inscriptions inédites, Nancy. Brixhe, C. and A. Panayotou. 1994. ‘Le Thrace’ in F. Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes, Paris: 180–202. Brown, A.L. 1987. ‘The Dramatic Synopses Attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium’ CQ 37: 427–31.

636

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, M.K. 2002. The Narratives of Konon, Munich. Brown, P.G.McC. 2000. ‘Knocking at the Door in Fifth-Century Greek Tragedy’ in S. Gödde and T. Heinze (eds.), Skenika: Beiträge zum antiken Theater und seiner Rezeption. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von H.-D. Blume, Darmstadt: 1–16. Brown, S.G. 1977. ‘A Contextual Analysis of Tragic Meter: The Anapaest’ in J. Arms and J. Eadie (eds.), Ancient and Modern: Essays in Honor of G.F. Else, Ann Arbor: 45–77. Bruhn, E. 1899. Anhang to Sophokles, erklärt von F.W. Schneidewin und A. Nauck, Berlin. Buck, C.D. 1925. ‘Epigraphical Notes’ CPh 20: 133–44. Buck, C.D. 1955. The Greek Dialects, Chicago. Buck, C.D. and W. Petersen. 1944. A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives, Chicago. Buckler, J. 1980=2008. ‘Plutarch on Leuktra’ (1980), in Id. and H. Beck, Central Greece and the Politics of Power in the Fourth Century BC, Cambridge and New York: 111–26. Budé, A.W.A.M. 1977. De hypotheseis der griekse tragedies en komedies: een onderzoek naar de hypotheseis van Dicaearchus, ‘s-Gravenhage. Budelmann, F. 2000. The Language of Sophocles: Communality, Communication and Involvement, Cambridge. Buijs, J.A.J.M. 1986. ‘Studies in the Lyric Metres of Greek Tragedy. III/IV’ Mnemosyne 39: 42–73. Bulanda, E. 1913. Bogen und Pfeil bei den Völkern des Altertums, Vienna and Leipzig. Bulman, P. 1992. Phthonos in Pindar, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Bundy, E.L. 1962. Studia Pindarica (2 vols.), Berkeley and Los Angeles. Burgess, J.S. 2009. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles, Baltimore. Burkhardt, H. 1906. Die Archaismen des Euripides, PhD diss. Hanover. Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (trans.: Berlin 1972), Berkeley and Los Angeles. Burkert, W. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults, Cambidge, MA and London. Burlando, A. 1997. Reso: i problemi, la scena, Genoa. Burnett, A.P. 1985. ‘Rhesus: Are Smiles Allowed?’ in P. Burian (ed.), Directions in Euripidean Criticism, Durham, NC: 13–51. Buttmann, P.C. 1819/1827. Ausführliche griechische Sprachlehre (2 vols.), Berlin. Buxton, R.G.A. 1980. ‘Blindness and Limits: Sophokles and the Logic of Myth’ JHS 100: 22–37. Buxton, R.G.A. 1987. ‘Wolves and Werewolves in Greek Thought’ in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology, London and Sydney: 60–79. Cairns, D.L. 1993. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford.

637

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cairns, D.L. 1996. ‘Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big’ JHS 116: 1–32. Cairns, D.L. 2003a. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-Cultural Study of Emotion’ in S. Braund and G.W. Most (eds.), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen = YClS 32: 11–49. Cairns, D.L. 2003b. ‘The Politics of Envy: Envy and Equality in Ancient Greece’ in D. Konstan and K. Rutter (eds.), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh: 235–52. Cairns, D.L. 2005. ‘Bullish Looks and Sidelong Glances: Social Interactions and the Eyes in Ancient Greek Culture’ in Id. (ed.), Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Swansea: 123–55. Calabi, F. 1984. ‘Gli occhi del sonno’ MD 13: 23–43. Calderón Dorda, E. 2006. ‘Adivinos y arte adivinatoria en Eurípides’ Prometheus 32: 121–47. Calderone, S. 1964. ΠΙΣΤΙΣ-Fides: Ricerche di storia e diritto internazionale nell’antichità, Messina-Rome. Cambiano, G. 1980. ‘Une interprétation “materialiste” des rêves: Du regime IV, in M.D. Grmek (ed.), Hippocratica: Actes du Colloque hippocratique de Paris, 4–9 septembre 1978, Paris: 87–96. Cambitoglou, A. 1986/1988. ‘Troilus Pursued by Achilles’ in J.H. Betts, J.T. Hooker, J.R. Green (eds.), Studies in Honour of T.B.L. Webster (2 vols.), Bristol: II.1–22. Capone Ciollaro, M. 1987. ‘Relazioni psicofisiche nella tragedia greca’ in ταλαρίσκος: Studia Graeca A. Garzya sexagenario a discipulis oblata, Naples: 7–24. Carey, C. 1989. ‘The Performance of the Victory Ode’ AJPh 110: 545–65. Carlier, P. 1984. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg. Carrara, P. 1992. ‘Dicearco e l’Hypothesis del Reso’ ZPE 90: 35–44. Carter, D.M. 2007. The Politics of Greek Tragedy, Exeter. Casabona, J. 1966. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grec, Aix-enProvence. Casali, S. 2004. ‘Nisus and Euryalus: Exploiting the Contradictions in Virgil’s Doloneia’ HSPh 102: 319–54. Casevitz, M. 1992. ‘Sur le concept de “peuple”’ in F. Létoublon (ed.), La Langue et les textes en grec ancien, Amsterdam: 193–9. Cassola. F. 1964. ‘Ἐλεύθερος – Ereutero’ in A. Guarino and L. Labruna (eds.), Synteleia: Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, Naples: I.269–79. Castellani, V. 1979. ‘Notes on the Structure of Euripides’ Alcestis’ AJPh 100: 487–96. Caswell, C.P. 1990. A Study of Thumos in Early Greek Epic, Leiden. Cavallo, G. 1980. ‘La trasmissione scritta della cultura greca antica in Calabria e in Sicilia tra i secoli X–XV’ S&C 4: 157–245. Ceadel, E.B. 1941. ‘Resolved Feet in the Trimeters of Euripides and the Chronology of the Plays’ CQ 35: 66–89. Centanni, M. 1991. I canti corali infraepisodici nella tragedia greca, Rome.

638

BIBLIOGRAPHY Centanni, M. 1995. Metro, ritmo e parola nella tragedia greca. Le scene in tetrametri trocaici, Lecce. Chadwick, J. 1996. Lexicographica Graeca, Oxford. Chaniotis, A. 1997. ‘Theatricality Beyond the Theater: Staging Public Life in the Hellenistic World’ Pallas 47: 219–59. Chaniotis, A. 2003. ‘The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers’ in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden, MA and Oxford: 431–45. Chaniotis, A. 2011. ‘The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality’ in P.P. Iossif, A.S. Chankowski, and C.C. Lorber (eds.), More than Men, Less than Gods, Leuven: 157–95. Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris. Chantraine, P. 1945. ‘Grec κομψός’ REG 58: 90–6. Chantraine, P. 1949. ‘Les verbes grecs signifiants “tuer”’ Sprache 1: 143–9. Chantraine, P. 1956a. Études sur le vocabulaire grec, Paris. Chantraine, P. 1956b. ‘Les mots designant la gauche en grec ancien’ in ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ: Gedenkschrift P. Kretschmer, Vienna: 61–9. Chantraine, P. 1953/1958. Grammaire homérique (I: 1958, 3rd ed.; II: 1953), Paris. Chantraine, P. 1959. ‘Grec πρευμενής’ Maia 11: 17–22. Chantraine, P. 1960. ‘Encore αὐθέντης’ in Ἀφιέρωμα στὴ μνήμη τοῦ Μ. Τριανταφυλλίδη, Thessaloniki: 89–93. Chantraine, P. 2009 = Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (2nd ed. by J. Taillardat, O. Masson, and J.-L. Perpillou), Paris. Chapman, G.A.H. 1983. ‘Some notes on Dramatic Illusion in Aristophanes’ AJPh 104: 1–23. Chase, G.H. 1902. ‘The Shield Device of the Greeks’ HSPh 13: 61–127. Christopoulos, M. 2010. ‘Dark-Winged Nyx and Bright-Winged Eros in Aristophanes’ “Orphic” Cosmogony’ in Id., E.D. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham, MD: 207–20. Clarke, M.J. 1999. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths, Oxford. Clay, D.M. 1960. A Formal Analysis of the Vocabularies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, PhD diss. Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Cobet, C.G. 1862 ‘Euripidea’ Mnemosyne 11: 435–48. Cobet, C.G. 1873. Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos (2nd ed.), Leiden. Cohen, D. 1983. Theft in Athenian Law, Munich. Collard, C. 1974. ‘J.J. Scaliger’s Euripidean Marginalia’ CQ 24: 242–9. Collard, C. 2007. Tragedy, Euripides, and Euripideans: Selected Papers, Bristol. Collard, C. 2018. Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy: Revised and Enlarged Edition of P.T. Stevens’s Colloquial expressions in Euripides, Stuttgart.

639

BIBLIOGRAPHY Colvin, S. 1999. Dialect in Aristophanes, Oxford. Colvin, S. 2004. ‘Social Dialect in Attica’ in J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of A. Morpurgo Davies, Oxford: 95–108. Conomis, N.C. 1964. ‘The Dochmiacs of Greek Drama’ Hermes 92: 23–50. Coo, L. 2010. ‘The Speech of Onetor (Ovid Met. 11.346–81) and Its Tragic Model (Euripides I.T. 236–339)’ SIFC 8: 86–106. Coo, L. 2016. ‘Sight and Blindness: The Mask of Thamyris’ in M. Squire (ed.), Sight and the Ancient Senses, London: 237–48. Cook, A.B. 1914/1940. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion (3 vols.), Cambridge. Cook, J.M. 1973. The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study, Oxford. Cook, R.M. 1986. ‘A Further Note on Diolkos’ in J.H. Betts, J.T. Hooker, and J.R. Green (eds.) Studies in Honour of T.B.L. Webster, Bristol: I.65–8. Cooper, G.L, III. 1998. Attic Greek Prose Syntax After K.W. Krüger, I–II. Ann Arbor. Cooper, G.L, III. 2002. Greek Syntax (Early Greek Poetic and Herodotean Syntax) After K.W. Krüger, III–IV, Ann Arbor. Cope, E.M. 1867. An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, London. Cope, E.M. and J.E. Sandys. 1877. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. III, Cambridge. Corcella, A. 1984. Erodoto e l’analogia, Palermo. Corlu, A. 1966. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’ Homère aux tragiques, Paris. Corradi, G. 1929. Studi ellenistici, Turin. Cozzo, A. 1988. Kerdos: semantica, ideologie e società nella Grecia antica, Rome. Croally, N.T. 1994. Euripidean Polemic: The Trojan Women and the Function of Tragedy, Cambridge. Crönert, W. 1903. Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, Leipzig. Cropp, M. 2005. ‘Lost tragedies: A Survey’ in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Malden, MA and Oxford: 271–92. Cropp, M. 2015. Review of Liapis (2012) in RFIC 143: 155–61. Cropp. M. 2020. ‘Euripides or Critias, or neither? Reflections on an Unresolved Question’, in B. Zimmermann, A. Rengakos, F. Montanari, A. Novokhatko (eds.), Fragmented Parts, Coherent Entities: Reconsidering Fragmentation on Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin and New York: forthcoming. Cropp, M. and G. Fick. 1985. Resolutions and Chronology in Euripides: The Fragmentary Tragedies, London. Crouwel, J.H. 1981. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece, Amsterdam. Crusius, O. 1894. Die Delphischen Hymnen, Göttingen. Csapo, E. 2002. ‘Kallippides on the Floor-Sweepings: The Limits of Realism in Classical Acting and Performance Styles’ in P. E. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge: 127–47.

640

BIBLIOGRAPHY Csapo, E. 2008. ‘Star Choruses: Eleusis, Orphism, and New Musical Imagery and Dance’ in M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of O. Taplin, Oxford: 262–90. Csapo, E. 2009. ‘New Music’s Gallery of Images: The “Dithyrambic” First Stasimon of Euripides’ Electra’ in J.R.C. Cousland and J.R. Hume (eds.), The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of M. Cropp, Leiden: 95–109. Cuillandre, J. 1944. La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques, Paris. Currie, B. 2002. ‘Euthymos of Locri: A Case Study in Heroization in the Classical Period’ JHS 122: 24–44. Currie, B. 2005. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes, Oxford. Dale, A.M. 1964. Review of G.W. Bond, Euripides. Hypsipyle, Oxford 1963 in JHS 84: 166–7. Dale, A.M. 1968. The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (2nd ed.), Cambridge. Dale, A.M. 1971/1983. Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses (3 vols.), London. D’Alessio, G.B. 2004. ‘Past Future and Present Past: Temporal Deixis in Archaic Greek Lyric’, Arethusa 37: 267–94. D’Alessio, G.B. 2007 ‘Ἢν ἰδοῦ: ecce Satyri (Pratina, PMG 708 = TrGF 4F3): Alcune considerazioni sull’uso della deissi nei testi lirici e teatrali’ in M. Colantonio and F. Perusino (eds.), Dalla lirica corale alla poesia drammatica: Forme e funzioni del canto corale nella tragedia e nella commedia greca, Pisa: 95–128. Danek, G. 1988. Studien zur Dolonie, Vienna. D’Angour, A. 2011. The Greeks and the New: Novelty in Ancient Greek Imagination and Experience, Cambridge. Darbishire, H.D. (ed. by R.S. Conway) 1895. Relliquiae philologicae, Cambridge. Dawe, R.D. 1973/1978. Studies on the Text of Sophocles (3 vols.), Leiden. Deacy, S. 1997. ‘The Vulnerability of Athena: parthenoi and Rape in Greek Myth’ in S. Deacy and K.F. Pierce (eds.), Rape in Antiquity, London: 43–63. De Boel, G. 1988. Goal Accusative and Object Accusative in Homer, Brussels. Debrunner, A. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre, Heidelberg. De Falco, V. 1958. Studi sul teatro greco, Naples. Degani, E. 1991. Hipponactis testimonia et fragmenta (2nd ed.), Stuttgart and Leipzig. Degni, P. 2008. ‘I manoscritti dello scriptorium di Gioannicio’, Segno e Testo 6 : 179–248. De Heer, C. 1969. ΜΑΚΑΡ-ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ-ΟΛΒΙΟΣ-ΕΥΤΥΧΗΣ, Amsterdam. Deichgräber, K. 1933. ‘ΠΡΟΦΑΣΙΣ: Eine terminologische Studie’, Quellen und Studien zur Gesch. der Naturwiss. und Medizin 3: 1–17. De Jong, I.J.F. 1991. Narrative in Drama: The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-Speech, Leiden.

641

BIBLIOGRAPHY De Jong, I.J.F. 1997. ‘ΓΑΡ Introducing Embedded Narratives’ in A. Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles, Amsterdam: 175–85. De Lamberterie, C. 1975. ‘Λάχεια, λαχαίνω, λόχος’ RPh 49: 232–40. De la Villa, J. 2013. ‘Πάλαι / τὸ πάλαι, πρίν / τὸ πρίν, παραχρῆμα / τὸ παραχρῆμα’ Glotta 89: 222–41. Delle Donne, S. 2004/2005. ‘In margine ad una edizione “colometrica” dei cantica del Reso di Euripide’ Rudiae 16–17: 208. Del Rio, M.A. 1593. Syntagma tragoediae Latinae in tres partes distinctum, Antwerp. Denniston, J.D. 1936. ‘Lyric Iambics in Greek Drama’ in Greek Poetry and Life, Essays Presented to G. Murray, Oxford: 121–44. Denniston, J.D. 1952. Greek Prose Style, Oxford. Denniston, J.D. 1954. The Greek Particles (2nd ed. by K.J. Dover), Oxford. De Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (trans.: Paris 1984), Chicago and London. De Roguin, C.-F. 1999. ‘Apollon Lykeios dans la tragédie: dieu, protecteur, dieu tueur, “dieu de l‘initiation”’ Kernos 12: 99–123. De Romilly, J. 1958. La crainte et l’angoisse dans le théâtre d’Eschyle, Paris. De Roos, J. 1976. ‘A New Root *ter- “Speak Clearly”?’ in J.M. Bremer, S.L. Radt, and C.J. Ruijgh (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam: 323–31. Descroix, J. 1931. Le trimètre iambique des iambographes à la comédie nouvelle, PhD diss. Paris, Mâcon. Dettori, E. 1992. L’interlocuzione difficile: Corifeo dialogante nel dramma classico, Pisa. Dettori, E. 2004. ‘Appunti sul “Banchetto di Pollis” (Call. fr. 178 Pf.)’ in R. Pretagostini and E. Dettori (eds.), La cultura ellenistica: l’opera letteraria e l’esegesi antica, Rome: 33–63. Devereux, G. 1976. Dreams in Greek Tragedy: An Ethno-psycho-analytical Study, Oxford. De Vries, G.J. 1984. ‘Four Notes on Platonic Usage’ Mnemosyne 37: 441–2. De Vries, K. 2000. ‘The Nearly Other: The Attic Vision of Phrygians and Lydians’, in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden: 228–63. Dewald, C. 2003. ‘Form and Content: The Question of Tyranny in Herodotus’ in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Austin, TX: 25–58. Di Benedetto, V. 1965. La tradizione manoscritta euripidea, Padua. Di Benedetto, V. and E. Medda. 1997. La tragedia sulla scena: La tragedia greca in quanto spettacolo teatrale, Torino. Dickey, E. 1996. Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford. Dickie, M.W. 2001. Magic and Magicians in the Graeco-Roman World, London and New York. Diels, H. 1913. ‘Hippokratische Forschungen IV’ RhM 48: 378–407.

642

BIBLIOGRAPHY Dietrich. B.C. 1965. Death, Fate, and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer, London. Diggle,    J. 1969=1994. ‘Marginalia Euripidea’ = Euripidea (1994): 5–33. Diggle,  J. 1973=1994. ‘The Supplices of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 59–89. Diggle, J. 1974=1994. ‘On the Heracles and Ion of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 90–136. Diggle, J. 1977=1994. ‘Notes on the Electra of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 152–70. Diggle, J. 1978=1994. ‘On the Helen of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 176–95. Diggle, J. 1981. Studies on the Text of Euripides, Oxford. Diggle, J. 1982=1994. ‘Further Notes on the Heraclidae of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 220–38. Diggle, J. 1984a=1994. ‘On the Manuscripts and Text of Medea. II: The Text’ = Euripidea (1994): 273–97. Diggle, J. 1984b=1994. ‘Review of West, Greek Metre’ = Euripidea (1994): 313–19. Diggle, J. 1987=1994. ‘The Prophet of Bacchus: Rhesus 970–3’ = Euripidea (1994): 320–6. Diggle, J. 1989=1994. ‘Notes on the Phoenissae of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 341–52. Diggle, J. 1990=1994. ‘On the Orestes of Euripides’ = Euripidea (1994): 362–99. Diggle, J. 1991. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’ Orestes, Oxford. Diggle, J. 1991=1994. ‘Eur. Phoen. 504–6’ = Euripidea (1994): 405–6. Diggle, J. 1994. Euripidea, Oxford. Diggle, J. 1996a. ‘Sophocles, Ichneutae (fr. 314 Radt)’ ZPE 112: 3–17. Diggle, J. 1996b. ‘Epilegomena Phaethontea’ AC 65: 189–99. Diggle, J. 1997. ‘Notes on Fragments of Euripides’ CQ 47: 98–108. Diggle, J. 1998. ‘Euripides, Bacchae 1063–9’ Eikasmos 9: 41–52. Diggle, J. 2002. ‘Xenophon, Anabasis 3, 1, 6–8 and the Limits of “inverse attraction”’ SIFC 20: 83–6. Diggle, J. 2005. ‘Rhythmical Prose in the Euripidean Hypotheseis’, in G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds.), Euripide e i papiri, Florence: 27–67. Diggle, J. 2007. ‘Housman’s Greek’ in P.J. Finglass, C. Collard, and N.J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry presented to M.L. West, Oxford: 145–69. Diller, H. 1932=1971. ‘ΟΨΙΣ ΑΔΗΛΩΝ ΤΑ ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ’ = Id., Kleine Schriften zur antiken Literatur, Munich: 119–43. Dillon, M. 1991. ‘Tragic Laughter’ CW 84: 345–55. Dobree, P.P. 1833. Adversaria, II, Cambridge. Dobson, J.F. 1910. ‘Ὡς, ἄν and ὅπως ἄν in the Tragedians’ CR 24: 143–4. Dodds, E.R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley.

643

BIBLIOGRAPHY Domingo Gygax, M. 2016. Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, Cambridge. Donelan, J.L. 2014. ‘Some Remarks Concerning Night Scenes on the Classical Greek Stage’ Mnemosyne 67: 533–53. Dörrie, H. 1956. Lied und Erfahrung: Die Wort‑ und Sinn‑ Verbindung παθεῖν-μαθεῖν im griechischen Denken, Wiesbaden. Dover, K.J. 1973. ‘Some Neglected Aspects of Agamemnon’s Dilemma’ JHS 93: 58–69. Dover, K.J. 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford. Dover, K.J. 1997. The Evolution of Greek Prose, Oxford. Dowden, K. 2010. ‘Trojan Night: Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion’ in M. Christopoulos, E.D. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham, MD: 110–20. Downing, E. 1990. ‘Apatē, Agōn, and Literary Self–Reflexivity in Euripides’ Helena’ in M. Griffith and D.J. Mastronarde (eds.), Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of T.G. Rosenmeyer, Atlanta, GA: 1–16. Drew-Bear, T. 1968. ‘The Trochaic Tetrameter in Greek Tragedy’ AJPh 89: 385–405. Drews, R. 1993. ‘Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe’ Klio 75: 9–26. Drews, R. 1995. The end of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton. Drexler, H. 1943. ‘Zum Herakles des Euripides’ Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Göttingen (Phil.Hist.) Nr. 9: 311–43. Drummen, A. 2009. ‘Turn-Initial ΑΛΛΑ in Greek Drama’ in S.J. Bakker and G.C. Wakker (eds.), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden and Boston: 135–54. Drummen, A. 2013. ‘A Constructionist Approach to the Potential Optative in Classical Greek Drama’ Glotta 89: 78–108. Dubois, L. 1988. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien (3 vols.), Louvain-la-Neuve. Ducrey, P. 1968. Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique, Paris. Dué, C. 2002. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis, Lanham, MD and Boulder, CO. Dué, C. and M. Ebbott. 2010. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush, Cambridge, MA and London. Duhoux, Y. 1992. Le verbe grec ancien: Éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques, Louvain. Dumortier, J. 1935. Le vocabulaire médical d’Eschyle et les écrits hippocratiques, Paris.

644

BIBLIOGRAPHY Duncan, A. 2011. ‘Nothing to Do with Athens?’ in D. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, Oxford: 69–84. Dunkel, G. 1982. ‘σύν, ξύν’ Glotta 60: 55–61. Dunn, F.M. 2018. ‘The Mutilation of Agamemnon (A. Ch. 439 and S. El. 445)’ Mnemosyne 71: 195–208. Durante M. 1958. ‘EPEA PTEROENTA: La parola come “cammino” in immagini greche e vediche’ RAL 8: 3–14. Easterling, P.E. 1985. ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’ JHS 105: 1–10. Easterling, P.E. 1993. ‘Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy’ in J. Dalfen, G. Petersmann, and F.F. Schwarz (eds.), Religio Graeco-Romana: Festschrift für W. Pötscher, Horn: 77–86. Easterling, P.E. 1997. ‘Constructing the heroic’ in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian, Oxford: 21–37. Easterling, P.E. 2002. ‘Actor as Icon’ in Eadem and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge: 327–41. Easton, D.F., J.D. Hawkins, A.G. Sherratt, and E.S. Sherratt 2002. ‘Troy in Recent Perspective’ AS 52: 75–109. Ebener, D. 1963. ‘Textkritisches zum Rhesos’ Wissenschaft. Zeitschr. der Universität Rostock 12: 205–7. Ebert, J. 1995/1996. ‘Aesch. Choeph. 866f.’ MusCrit 30–1: 95–7. Echeverría Rey, F. 2008. Ciudadanos, campesinos y soldados – el nacimiento de la pólis griega y la teoría de la revolución hoplita, Madrid. Edmonds III, R.G. 2013. Redefining Ancient Orphism, Cambridge. Edwards, A.T. 1985. Achilles in the Odyssey: Ideologies of Heroism in the Homeric Epic, Königstein/Ts. Egenolff, P. 1902. ‘Zu Lentz’ Herodian II’ Philologus 61: 77–132. Eichler, F. 1916/1919. ‘Die Skulpturen des Heraions von Argos’ JÖAI 19–20: 15–153. Eidinow, E. 2016. Envy, Poison, and Death: Women on Trial in Classical Athens, Oxford. Ekroth, G. 2007. ‘Heroes and Hero-Cults’ in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Oxford: 100–14. Elderkin, G.W. 1935. ‘Dolon’s Disguise in the Rhesus’ CPh 30: 349–50. Elmsley, P. 1811. Review of R. Porson, Euripidis Hecuba, London 1808, in Edinburgh Review 19: 64–95. Elmsley, P. 1814. Review of G. Hermann, Euripidis Supplices, Leipzig 1811, in Class.Journ. (London) 9.1: 49–64. Elsperger, W. 1907/1910. Reste und Spuren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides, Leipzig. Engels, D.W. 1980. ‘Alexander’s Intelligence System’ CQ 30: 327–40. Erbse, H. 1978. ‘Ettore nell’Iliade’ SCO 28: 13–34. Ercolani, A. 2000. Il passaggio di parola sulla scena tragica: Didascalie interne e struttura delle rheseis, Stuttgart and Weimar. Erskine, A. 2001. Troy Between Greece and Rome, Oxford.

645

BIBLIOGRAPHY Étienne, R. and M. Piérart. 1975. ‘Un décret du koinon des Hellènes à Platées en l’honneur de Glaucon, fils d’Étéoclès, d’Athènes’ BCH 99: 51–75. Évrard, É. 1984. Entry ‘antiquus’ in Enciclopedia virgiliana. I, Rome: 195–6. Eysert, L. 1891. Rhesus im Lichte des euripideischen Sprachgebrauches I–II, Progr. Böhm. Leipa. Fabbri, P. 1920. ‘De nonnullis Rhesi tragoediae locis discrepantibus’ RFIC 48: 192–4. Falkner, T. 2002. ‘Scholars Versus Actors. Text and Performance in the Greek Tragic Scholia’, in P. E. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors, Cambridge: 342–61. Falus, R. 1981. ‘La formation de la notion “symbole”’ AAnt.Hung. 29: 109–31. Fantuzzi, M. 1990. ‘Sulla scenografia dell’ora (e del luogo) nella tragedia greca’ MD 24: 9–30. Fantuzzi, M. 1996. ‘Odisseo mendicante a Troia e a Itaca: su [Eur.] Rh. 498– 507; 710–719 e Hom. Od. 4, 244–58’ MD 36: 175–85. Fantuzzi, M. 2005. ‘Euripides (?), Rhesus 56–58 and Homer, Iliad 8.498–501: Other Possible Clues to Zenodotus’ Reliability’ CPh 100: 268–73. Fantuzzi, M. 2006a. ‘La Dolonia del Reso come luogo dell’ errore e dell’ incertezza’ in M. Vetta and C. Catenacci (eds.), I luoghi e la poesia nella Grecia antica, Alessandria: 241–62. Fantuzzi, M. 2006b. ‘The myths of Dolon and Rhesus, from Homer to the “Homeric/Cyclic” Tragedy Rhesus’ in F. Montanari and A. Rengakos (eds.), Metamorphoses of Greek Epic (Entretiens Hardt 52), VandoeuvresGeneva: 135–76. Fantuzzi, M. 2006c. Review of F. Jouan, Euripide. Tragédies, VIII.2, Paris 2004, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.02.18. Fantuzzi, M. 2007. ‘La mousa del lamento in Euripide, e il lamento della Musa nel Reso ascritto a Euripide’ Eikasmos 18: 173–99. Fantuzzi, M. 2011a. ‘Scholarly Panic: panikos phobos, Homeric Philology and the Beginning of the Rhesus’ in S. Matthaios, F. Montanari, and A. Rengakos (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts, Berlin and New York: 41–54. Fantuzzi, M. 2011b. ‘Hector between ξενία and συμμαχία for Rhesus (on [Eur.] Rh. 246–453)’ in J. Peigney (ed.), Amis et ennemis en Grèce ancienne, Bordeaux: 117–31. Fantuzzi, M. 2011c. ‘The Dream of the Charioteer in the Rhesus ascribed to Euripides (728–803)’ Trends in Classics 3: 38–53. Fantuzzi, M. 2012. Achilles in Love, Oxford. Fantuzzi, M. 2015. ‘Performing and Informing: On the Prologues of the [Euripidean] Rhesus’ Trends in Classics 7.2: 224–36. Fantuzzi, M. 2016a. ‘How to Divinize a Mortal and (Try) not to Offend the Gods (Ps.-Eur. Rh. 342–87)’ in First Drafts@Classics (Harvard Center for

646

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hellenic Studies Online Publications). 26 December, 2016 (Greek trans. in F. P. Manakidou and M. Noussia-Fantuzzi (eds.), Αρχαίοι Ελληνικοί Ύμνοι: 12+1 Μελέτες. Αthens 2018: 243–71). Fantuzzi, M. 2016b. ‘Dolon Euergetes: Ps.-Euripides, Rhesus 149–150 and the Rhetoric of Civic Euergesia’ CQ 65: 514–24. Fantuzzi, M. 2018. ‘On the Alleged Bastardy of Rhesus: Errant Orphan of Unknown Paternity or Child of Many Genres?’ in M. Formisano and C. Shuttleworth Kraus (eds.), Marginality, Canonicity, Passions, Oxford: 177–201. Fantuzzi, M. 2020. ‘Describing Images/Connoting Feelings: Choral Ekphrasis in Euripides’ in A. Chaniotis (ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. III, Stuttgart: 21–48. Fantuzzi, M. and D. Konstan. 2012. ‘From Achilles’ horses to a Cheese-Seller Shop: on the History of the Guessing Game in Greek Drama’ in E. Bakola, L. Prauscello, and M. Telò (eds.), Comic Interactions: Genres in Comedy and Comedy in Genres, Cambridge: 256–74. Faraone, C.A. 1995. ‘The “Performative Future” in Three Hellenistic Incantations and Theocritus’ Second Idyll’ CPh 90: 1–15. Fehling, D. 1969. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias, Berlin. Fenik, B. 1964. Iliad X and the Rhesus: The myth, Brussels-Berchem. Ferguson, J. 1972. A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Austin, TX. Finglass, P.J. 2005. ‘Euripides, Phoenissae 1427–8’ Mnemosyne 58: 561–4. Finglass, P.J. 2007. ‘Miscellanea: νῦν and νυν in Pindar’ Mnemosyne 60: 269–73. Finglass, P.J. 2009a. ‘Unpublished Conjectures at Leiden on the Greek Dramatists’ GRBS 49: 187–221. Finglass, P.J. 2009b. ‘Interpolation and Responsion in Sophocles’ Ajax’ CQ 59: 335–52. Finglass, P.J. 2014. ‘A New Fragment of Euripides’ Ino’ ZPE 189: 65–82. Finglass, P.J. 2016. ‘A New Fragment of Sophocles’ Tereus’ ZPE 200: 61–85. Finglass, P.J. 2017. ‘Euripides’ Oedipus: A Response to Liapis’ TAPhA 147: 1–26. Finkelstein (= Finley), M.I. 1935. ‘Ἔμπορος, ναύκληρος, and κάπηλος: Prolegomena to the Study of Athenian Trade’ CPh 30: 320–36. Fisher, N.R.E. 1992. Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece, Warminster. Fitzpatrick, D. 2001. ‘Sophocles’ Tereus’ CQ 51: 90–101. Fitzpatrick, D. 2003. ‘Sophocles’ Aias Lokros’ in A.H. Sommerstein, Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, Bari: 243–59. Flower, M.A. 2008. The Seer in Ancient Greece, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Fogelmark, S. 1972. Studies in Pindar with Particular Reference to Paean VI and Nemean VII, Lund. Foley, H.P. 1980. ‘The Masque of Dionysus’ TAPhA 110: 107–33.

647

BIBLIOGRAPHY Foley, H.P. 1985. Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides, Ithaca, NY. Foley, H.P. 2001. Female Acts in Greek Tragedy, Princeton. Foley, H.P. 2003. ‘Choral Identity in Greek Tragedy’ CPh 98: 1–30. Forbes Irving, P.M.C. 1990. Metamorphosis in Greek Myths, Oxford. Forssman, B. 1966. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars, Wiesbaden. Foulon, E. 1996. ‘Hypaspistes, peltastes, chrysaspides, argyraspides, chalcaspides’ REA 98: 53–63. Fournier, H. 1946. Les verbes ‘dire’ en grec ancien, Paris. Fowler, D. 2000. ‘Epic in the Middle of the Wood: Mise en Abyme in the Nisus and Euryalus Episode’ in A. Sharrock and H. Morales (eds.), Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations, Oxford: 89–113. Fowler, R.L. 1988. ‘AIΓ- in Early Greek Language and Myth’ Phoenix 42: 95–113. Fowler, R.L. 1998. ‘Genealogical Thinking, Hesiod’s Catalogue, and the Creation of the Hellenes’ PCPhS 44: 1–19. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1963. Zu den Phoenissen des Euripides, Munich. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1965. Review of Ritchie (1964), Gnomon 37: 228–41. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1967. ‘Anreden an nur gedachte Zuhörer’ MH 24: 190–3. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1968. ‘Anreden an nur gedachte Zuhörer (Nachtrag)’ MH 25: 179–80. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1977. Due seminari romani di Eduard Fraenkel: Aiace e Filottete di Sofocle, a cura di alcuni partecipanti, Rome. Fraenkel, Ernst. 1910/1912. Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis auf -τηρ -τωρ -της (2 vols.), Strassburg. Frame, D. 1978. The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic, New Haven and London. Frame, D. 2009. Hippota Nestor, Cambridge, MA and London. François, G. 1957. Le polythéisme et l’emploi au singulier des mots θεός, δαίμων dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon, Paris. Fredricksmeyer, E.A. 1981. ‘On the Background of the Ruler Cult’ in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of C.F. Edson, Thessaloniki: 145–56. Freundlich, R. 1987. Verbalsubstantive als Namen für Satzinhalte in der Sprache des Thukydides: Ein Beitrag zu einer Grammatik der Nominalisierungen im Griechischen, Frankfurt/Main. Friedländer, L. 1849. ‘Doppelte Recensionen in Ilias und Odyssee’ Philologus 4: 577–91. Friedländer, P. 1964. Plato II. The Dialogues (trans.: Berlin 1957), London. Fries, A. 2010. ‘The Poetic Technique of [Euripides]: The Case of Rhesus 118’ CQ 60: 345–51. Fries, A. 2013. Review of Liapis ed. Mnem. 66: 814–21. Fries, A. 2016. ‘Evidence from Rhesus for the Text of Homer and Drama’ Philologus 160: 19–32.

648

BIBLIOGRAPHY Friis Johansen, H. 1959. General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis: A Study of Form, Copenhagen. Frisk, H. 1954/1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (3 vols.), Heidelberg. Froning, H. 1971. Dithyrambos und Vasenmalerei in Athen, Würzburg. Führer, R. 1984. Review of A.M. Bowie, The Poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus, New York 1981, in Gnomon 56: 289–92. Furley, D.J. 1956. ‘The Early History of the Concept of the Soul’ BICS 3: 1–18. Furley, W. 1999/2000. ‘Hymns in Euripidean Tragedy’ in M. Cropp, K. Lee, and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century = ICS 24–5: 183–97. Gabrielsen, V. 2007. ‘Warfare and the State’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. I: Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Cambridge: 248–72. Galinsky, G.K. 1969. Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome, Princeton. Gallavotti, C. 1933. ‘Nuove hypotheseis dei drammi euripidei’ RFIC 11: 177–88. Gantz, T.N. 1977. ‘The Fires of the Oresteia’ JHS 97: 28–38. Gardiner, E.N. 1905. ‘Wrestling’ JHS 25: 14–31. Gardiner, C.P. 1987. The Sophoclean Chorus: A Study of Character and Function, Iowa City. Garvie, A.F. 1969. Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy, Cambridge. Garvie, A.F. 1980. ‘The Opening of the Choephoroi’ BICS 17: 79–91. Garzya, A. 1974. ‘Sul rapporto fra L e P nel testo degli Eraclidi di Euripide’ in J.L. Heller (ed.), Serta Turyniana: Studies in Greek Literature and Paleography in Honour of A. Tyryn, Urbana, IL: 275–90. Gastaldi, S. 1989. ‘Eikos e thaumaston nella Poetica di Aristotele’ in D. Lanza and O. Longo (eds.), Il meraviglioso e il verosimile tra antichità e medioevo, Florence: 85–100. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les Cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.), Paris. Gavrilyuk, N.A. 2007. ‘Social and Economic Issues in Steppe Scythia’ in D. Braund and S.D. Kryzhitskiy (eds.), Classical Olbia and the Scythian World from the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, New York and Oxford: 135–44. Geffcken, J. 1936. ‘Der Rhesos’ Hermes 71: 394–408. Gelzer, T. 1985. ‘Mousa Authigenes: Bemerkungen zu einem Typ Pindarischer und Bacchylideischer Epinikien’, MH 42: 95–120. Gentili, B. 1988. Poetry and Its Public in Ancient Greece (trans.: Rome 1985), Baltimore and London. Gernet, L. 1909. ‘ΑΥΘΕΝΤΗΣ’ REG 22: 13–32. Gernet, L. 1981. The Anthropology of Ancient Greece (trans.: Paris 1968), Baltimore.

649

BIBLIOGRAPHY Gerö, E.-C. 2000. ‘The Usage of ἄν and κε in Ancient Greek’ Glotta 76: 177–91. Gershenson, D.E. 1991. Apollo the Wolf-god, McLean, VA. Ghali-Kahil, L.B. 1955. Les enlèvements et le retour d’Hélène dans les textes et les documents figurés, Paris. Giannakis, G.K. 2001. ‘Light is Life, Dark is Death: An Ancient Greek and Indo-European Metaphor’ Dodone 30: 127–53. Giannopoulou, V. 1999/2000. ‘Divine Agency and Tyche in Euripides’ Ion: Ambiguity and Shifting Perspectives’ in M. Cropp, K. Lee, and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century = ICS 24–5: 257–71. Gibert, J. 1995. Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy, Göttingen. Gibert, J. 2011. ‘Hellenicity in Later Euripidean Tragedy’ in D. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, Oxford: 383–401. Gignac, F.T. 1976/1981. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (2 vols.), Milan. Gildersleeve, B.L. 1900/1911. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (2 vols.), New York. Gilhaus, L. 2019. ‘Laughing at the Enemy: Joy and Schadenfreude in Xenophon’s Hellenica’ Hermes 147: 153–64. Ginouvès, R. 1962. Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Paris. Giuliani, L. 1996. ‘Rhesus between Dream and Death: On the Relation of Image to Literature in Apulian Vase-Painting’ BICS 41: 71–86. Glotz, G. 1904. La solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grèce, Paris. Goff, B. 1999/2000. ‘Try to Make It Real Compared to What? Euripides’ Electra and the Play of Genres’ in M. Cropp, K. Lee, and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century = ICS 24–5: 93–105. Goldhill, S. 1986. Reading Greek Tragedy, Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 2000. ‘Civic Ideology and the Problem of Difference: The Politics of Aeschylean Tragedy, Once Again’ JHS 120: 34–56. Goldhill, S. 2010. ‘Idealism in the Odyssey and the Meaning of mounos in Odyssey 16’, in P. Mitsis and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic and Rhetorical Praxis, Berlin and New York: 115–27. Goldstein, D.M. 2016. Classical Greek Syntax: Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus, Leiden. Gonda, J. 1956. ‘On Nominatives Joining or “Replacing” Vocatives’ Lingua 6: 89–104. Gonda, J. 1958. ‘On the So-Called Proleptic Accusative in Greek’ Mnemosyne 11: 117–22. Goodell, T.D. 1906. ‘Bisected Trimeters in Attic Tragedy’ CPh 1: 145–66.

650

BIBLIOGRAPHY Goodwin, W.W. 1889. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, London. Goossens, R. 1932. ‘La date du Rhèsos’ AC 1: 93–134. Goossens, R. 1962. Euripide et Athènes, Brussels. Gould, J. 1973=2001. ‘Hiketeia’ = Id., Myth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, Oxford: 22–77. Gow, A.S.F. 1912. ‘On the Meaning of the Word ΘΥΜΕΛΗ’ JHS 32: 213–38. Graf, F. 1974. Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenisticher Zeit, Berlin and New York. Graf, F. 1985. Nordionische Kulte, Rome. Graf, F. 1987. ‘Orpheus: A Poet Among Men’ in J. Bremer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology, London and Sydney: 80–106. Gray, D. 1974. Seewesen (Archaeologia Homerica I.G), Göttingen. Greenhalgh, P.A.L. 1973. Early Greek Warfare, Cambridge. Grégoire, H. 1933. ‘L’authenticité du Rhésus d’Euripide’ AC 2: 91–133. Grégoire, H. and R. Goossens. 1934. ‘Sitalkès et Athènes dans le Rhesos d’Euripide’ AC 3: 431–46. Griffith, G.T. 1966. ‘Isegoria in the Assembly at Athens’ in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to V.E. Ehrenberg, Oxford: 115–38. Griffith, G.T. 1981. ‘Peltasts, and the Origins of the Macedonian Phalanx’ in H.J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of C.F. Edson, Thessaloniki: 161–7. Griffith, G.T., N.G.L. Hammond, and F.W. Walbank. 1972/1988. A History of Macedonia (3 vols.), Oxford. Griffith, M. 1978. ‘Euripides Alkestis 636–641’ HSPh 82: 83–6. Griffith, M. 1977. The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound, Cambridge. Griffiths, J.G. 1953. ‘βασιλεὺς βασιλέων: Remarks on the History of a Title’ CPh 48: 144–54. Grilli, A. 1984. ‘Osservazioni su εὐσταθής/εὐστάθεια’ Helmantica 45: 238–50. Grimaldi. W.M.A. 1980. ‘Semeion, Tekmerion, Eikos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric’ AJPh 101: 383–98. Guiraud, C. 1962. La phrase nominale en grec d’Homcre à Euripide, Paris. Güntert, H. 1921. Von der Sprache der Götter und Geister: Bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur homerischen und eddischen der Göttersprache, Halle. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1952. Orpheus and Greek Religion (2nd ed.), London. Gygli-Wyss, B. 1966. Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch, Göttingen. Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (2nd ed.), Munich. Habicht, C. 1997. Athens from Alexander to Antony (trans.: Munich 1995), Cambridge, MA and London. Hadjicosti, I.L. 2006. ‘Hera Transformed on Stage’ Kernos 19: 291–301. Haebler, C. 1967. ‘Kosmos’ ABG 11: 101–18. Hagenbach, F. 1863. De Rheso tragoedia. PhD diss. Basel.

651

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hahn, E.A. 1954. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative’ TAPhA 85: 197–289. Håland, E.J. 2009. ‘“Take, Skamandros, My Virginity”: Ideas of Water in Connection with Rites of Passage in Greece, Modern and Ancient’ in C. Kosso and A. Scott (eds.), The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing, and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance, Leiden: 109–48. Hale, J.R. 2003. ‘Salpinx and Salpinktes: Trumpet and Trumpeter in Ancient Greece’ in A.E. Basson and W.J. Dominik (eds.), Literature, Art, History: Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W.J. Henderson, Frankfurt/Main: 267–73. Hall, E. 1988. ‘When did the Trojans Turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15’ ZPE 73: 15–18. Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, Oxford. Hall, E. 2009. ‘Deianeira Deliberates: Precipitate Decision-making and Trachiniae’ in S. Goldhill and E. Hall (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition, Cambridge: 69–98. Hall, J.M. 2002. Hellenicity Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago and London. Halleran, M.R. 1985. Stagecraft in Euripides, London. Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems, Princeton. Halliwell, S. 2008. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity, Cambridge. Halm-Tisserant, M. 1986. ‘La gorgonéion, emblème d’Athéna’ RA: 245–78. Halm-Tisserant, M. 1998. Réalités et imaginaire des supplices en Grèce ancienne, Paris. Halperin, D.M. 1983. Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven. Hame, H.J. 2008. ‘Female Control of Funeral Rites in Greek Tragedy’ CPh 103: 1–15. Hamilton, R. 1974. ‘Objective Evidence for Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy’, GRBS 15: 387–402. Hamilton, R. 1978. ‘Announced Entrances in Greek Tragedy’ HSPh 82: 63–82. Hammond, N.G.L. 1989. The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History, Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. 1991. ‘The Various Guards of Philip II and Alexander III’ Historia 40: 396–417. Handley, E.W. 1953. ‘-ΣΙΣ Nouns in Aristophanes’ Eranos 51: 129–42. Handley, E.W. 2007. ‘Night Thoughts (Archilochus 23 and 196 West)’ in P.J. Finglass, C. Collard, N.J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry presented to M.L. West on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford: 95–100. Hanink, J. 2014. Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy, Cambridge.

652

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hansen, M.H. 1974. Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals, Odense. Hanson, V.D. 1988. ‘Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.), and the “Revolution” in Greek Battle Tactics’ ClAnt 7: 190–207. Hanson, V.D. 1989. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, Oxford and New York. Hanson, V.D. 1991. ‘Hoplite Technology in Phalanx Battle’ in Id. (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York: 63–84. Hanson, V.D. (ed.). 1991. Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London: 228–49. Hanson, V.D. 1998. Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, Berkeley. Hardie, A. 2004. ‘Muses and Mysteries’ in P. Murray and P. Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousike’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford: 11–37. Hardion, M. 1737. ‘Dissertation sur la tragédie de Rhésus’ Mémoires de literature. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 10: 323–37. Harriott, R.M. 1982. ‘The Elders, the Shepherd, and the Dog’ CQ 32: 9–17. Harrison, E. 1942. ‘Attic ἦ and ἦν, “I was”’ CR 56: 6–9. Harrison, T. 2003. ‘The Cause of Things: Envy and the Emotions in Early Greek Historiography’ in D. Konstan and K. Rutter (eds.), Envy, Spite, Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh: 143–63. Harry, E. 1904. ‘L’omission d’ εἶναι avec ἕτοιμος’ RPh 28: 132–5. Harsh, P.W. 1937. ‘Repetition of Lines in Euripides’ Hermes 72: 435–49. Hartog, F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History (trans.: Paris 1980), Berkeley and Los Angeles. Haslam, M.W. 1975. ‘The Authenticity of Euripides, Phoenissae 1–2 and Sophocles, Electra 1’ GRBS 16: 149–74. Hatzopoulos, M.B. 1996. Macedonian Institutions under the Kings. A Historical and Epigraphic Study (2 vols.), Athens. Haubold, J. 2000. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation, Cambridge. Headlam, W. 1901. ‘Notes on Euripides. ii’ CR 15: 98–108. Headlam, W. 1902a. ‘Ghost-Raising, Magic, and the Underworld’ CR 16: 52–61. Headlam, W. 1902b. ‘Transposition of Words in mss.’ CR 16: 243–56. Headlam, W. and A.D. Knox. 1922. Herodas. The Mimes and Fragments, Cambridge. Heath, B. 1762. Notae sive lectiones ad Tragicorum Graecorum veterum Aeschyli, Sophocli, Euripidis quae superunt dramata deperditorumque relliquias, Oxford (references are to the page numbering of the last section: Notae sive lectiones ad Euripidis quae supersunt dramata).

653

BIBLIOGRAPHY Heath, M. 1987. The Poetics of Greek Tragedy, London. Heckel, W. 1992. The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire, London and New York. Heimsoeth, F. 1872. De Madvigii Hauniensis adversariis criticis commentatio altera (prefaced to an Index scholarum of the Univ. of Bonn for Summer 1872), Bonn. Heisserer, A.J. 1980. Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence, Norman, OK. Held, G.F. 1984. ‘ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΣ and Teleology in the Poetics’, TAPhA 114: 159–76. Helly, B. 1977. ‘Politarques, Poliarques et Politophylaques’ in Ancient Macedonia II (Papers Read at the Second Intern. Symposium held at Thessaloniki, 19–24 Aug. 1973), Thessaloniki: 531–44. Helly, B. 1995. L’État thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les ‘tagoi’, Lyon. Henrichs, A. 1975. ‘Two Doxographical Notes: Democritus and Prodicus on Religion’ HSPh 79: 93–123. Henrichs, A. 1994/1995. ‘“Why Should I Dance?”: Choral Self-Referentiality in Greek Tragedy’ Arion 3: 56–111. Henrichs, A. 1996. ‘Dancing in Athens, Dancing on Delos: Some Patterns of Choral Projection in Euripides’ Philologus 140: 48–62. Henrichs, A. 1999. ‘Demythologizing the Past, Mythicizing the Present: Myth, History, and the Supernatural at the Dawn of the Hellenistic Period’ in R.G.A Buxton (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought, Oxford: 223–48. Henry, R.M. 1905. ‘The Place of the Doloneia in Epic Poetry’ CR 19: 192–7. Henry, W.B. 1998. ‘An Archilochus Papyrus?’ ZPE 121: 94. Herman, G. 1980. ‘The Friends of the Early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?’ Talanta 12–13: 103–49. Herman, G. 1987. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge. Herman, G. 2006. Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens, Cambridge. Hermann, G. 1828. ‘De Rheso tragoedia dissertatio’ in Id., Opuscula. III, Leipzig: 262–310. Herrero De Jáuregui, M. 2013. ‘Emar Tode: Recognizing the Crucial Day in Early Greek Poetry’ ClAnt 32: 35–77. Hershbell, J.P. 1978. ‘The Ancient Telegraph: War and Literacy’ in E.A. Havelock and J.P. Hershbell (eds.), Communication Arts in the Ancient World, New York: 80–92. Hertel, D. and F. Kolb, 2003. ‘Troy in Clearer Perspective’ AS 53: 71–88. Herwerden, H. van. 1862. Exercitationes in poeticis et prosaicis quibusdam Atticorum monumentis, The Hague. Herwerden, H. van. 1878. ‘Novae lectiones Euripideae’ RPh 2: 19–57. Herwerden, H. van. 1894. ‘Novae commentationes Euripideae (Pars posterior)’, RPh 18: 60–98.

654

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hesk, J. 2011. ‘Euripidean euboulia and the Problem of “Tragic Politics”’ in D. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, Oxford: 119–43. Heubeck, A. 1949=1984. ‘Homerica’ = Id. (ed. by B. Forssman, S. Koster, and E. Pöhlmann), Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur, Erlangen: 115–27. Heubeck, A. 1969=1984. ‘Gedanken zu Griech. λαός’ = Id. (ed. by B. Forssman, S. Koster, E. Pöhlmann), Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur, Erlangen: 453–62. Heubeck, A. 1987. ‘Zu den griech. Verbalwurzeln *nes und *neu’ in J.T. Killen, J.L. Melena, and J.-P. Olivier (eds.), Studies in Mycenean and Classical Greek Presented to J. Chadwick (= Minos 20–2), Salamanca: 227–38. Hewitt, J.W. 1927. ‘The Terminology of “Gratitude” in Greek’ CPh 22: 142–61. Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. Hobden, F. 2013. The symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought, Cambridge. Hoffmann, O. 1891. Die griechischen Dialekte. I Die süd-achäische Dialekt, Göttingen. Hoffmann, W. 1862. ‘Schedae criticae ad tragicos Graecos’ Neue Jahrb. class. Philol. 8: 589–601. Hogan, R. 1997. The Dramatic Function of antilabe in Greek Tragedy, MLitt. Thesis Dublin, Trinity College. Holst-Warhaft, G. 1992. Dangerous Voices: Women’s Laments and Greek Literature, London. Holt,  J. 1941. Les noms d’action en -ΣΙΣ (-ΤΙΣ): Études de linguistique grecque (Aarsskrift Aarhus Univ. 13.1), Copenhagen. Hommel, H. 1974. ‘Schicksal und Verantwortung. Aisch. Agam. 1562’ in Id. (ed.) Wege zu Aischylos, Darmstadt, II.232–63. Hornblower, S. 1987. Thucydides, London. Horsfall, N.M. 1987. ‘The Aeneas Legend from Homer to Virgil’ in J.N. Bremmer and N.M. Horsfall (eds.), Roman Myth and Mythography, London: 12–24. Hourmouziades, N.C. 1965. Production and Imagination in Euripides, Athens. Howe, T.P. 1954. ‘The Origins and Function of the Gorgon’s Head’ AJA 58: 209–21. Howorth, R.H. 1955. ‘The Origin of the Use of AN and KE in Indefinite Clauses’ CQ 49: 72–93. Huart, P. 1968. Le vocabulaire de l’analyse psychologique dans l’œuvre de Thucydide, Paris. Hulskamp, M.A.A. 2013. ‘The Value of Dream Diagnosis in the Medical Praxis of the Hippocratics and Galen’, in S.M. Oberhelman (ed.), Dreams, Healing, and Medicine in Greece, from Antiquity to the Present, Farnham: 33–68. Humbach, H. 1967. ‘διιπετής und διοπετής’ Zeitsch. vergleich. Sprachforsch. 81: 276–83.

655

BIBLIOGRAPHY Humphreys, S.C. 1978. Anthropology and the Greeks, London. Hunger, H. 1950/1951. ‘Eine spieltechnische Beobachtung im texte des Euripides’ WS 65: 19–24. Hunter, V.J. 1994. Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 B.C., Princeton. Iliescu, V. 1976. ‘Zeitgeschichtliche Bezüge im Rhesos’ Klio 58: 367–76. Imhof, M. 1956. ‘Tetrameterszene in der Tragödie’ MH 13: 125–43. Irwin, E. 2007. ‘“What’s in a Name?” and Exploring the Comparable: Onomastics, Ethnography, and kratos in Thrace. (5.1–2 and 3–10), in E. Irwin and E. Greenwood (eds.), Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, Cambridge: 41–87. Itsumi, K. 1984. ‘The Glyconic in Tragedy’ CQ 34: 66–82. Itsumi, K. 1991/1993. ‘Enoplian in Tragedy’ BICS 38: 243–61. Jablonka, P. and C.B. Rose Brian. 2004. ‘Late Bronze Age Troy: A Response to Frank Kolb’ AJA 108: 615–30. Jackson, A.H. 1991. ‘Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour’ in V.D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York: 228–49. Jackson, J. 1941. ‘Marginalia scenica. II’ CQ 35: 163–87. Jackson, J. 1955. Marginalia scaenica, Oxford. Jackson, L.C.M.M. 2019. The Chorus of Drama in the Fourth Century BC: Presence and Representation, Oxford. Jacobs, F. 1796. Exercitationes criticae in scriptores veteres. I, Leipzig. Jacobson, E. 1995. Art of the Scythians: The Interpenetration of Cultures at the Edge of the Hellenic World, Leiden. Jacquinod, B. 1989. Le double accusatif en grec d’Homère à la fin du Ve siècle avant J.-C., Leuven. Jahn, T. 1987. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele-Geist’ in der Sprache Homers, Munich. Jakob, D. 1975. ‘Ευριπίδη Ίων 255’, EEThess(philol) 14: 375–84. Jameson, M.H. 1991. ‘Sacrifice Before Battle’ in V.D. Hanson, Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York: 197–227. Jannaris, A.N. 1897. A Historical Greek Grammar, London and New York. Jens, W. (ed.). 1971. Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie, Munich. Jim, T.S.F. 2014. Sharing with the Gods: Aparchai and Dekatai in Ancient Greece, Oxford. Jones, C.P. 2010. New Heroes in Antiquity, from Achilles to Antinoos, Cambridge, MA and London. Jones, H.L. 1910. The Poetic Plural of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Homeric Usage, Ithaca, NY. Jouanna, J. 2004. ‘Sémantique et temporalité tragique: remarques sur les sens de παλαιός et de πάλαι à partir du Philoctète de Sophocle’ REG 117: 21–36.

656

BIBLIOGRAPHY Judet De La Combe, P. 2001. L’Agamemnon d’Eschyle: Commentaire des dialogues, Villeneuve d’ Ascq. Kagan, D. and G.F. Viggiano. 2013. ‘The Hoplite Debate’ in D. Kagan and G.F. Viggiano, Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, Princeton and Oxford: 1–56. Kaimio, M. 1970. The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the Person and Number Used, Helsinki. Kaimio, M. 1988. Physical Contact in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Stage Conventions, Helsinki. Kajava, M. 2004. ‘Hestia: Hearth, Goddess, and Cult’ HSPh 102: 1–20. Kallet, L. 2001. Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and its Aftermath, Berkeley and London. Kamptz, von, H. 1982. Homerische Personennamen: Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation, Göttingen. Kanavou, N. 2011. Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes, Berlin and New York. Kannicht, R. 1995. ‘Zum Corpus Euripideum’, in C. Müller-Goldingen and K. Sier (eds.), ΛΗΝΑΙΚΑ: Festschrift für C.W. Müller zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: 21–31. Kassel, R. 1958. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur, Munich. Kassel, R. 1973=1991. ‘Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten IV’ = Kleine Schriften (1991): 376–91. Kassel, R. 1985=1991. ‘Hypothesis’ = Kleine Schriften (1991): 207–14. Kassel, R. (ed. by H.-G. Nesselrath) 1991. Kleine Schriften, Berlin and New York. Kastner, W. 1967. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ, Heidelberg. Katz, J. 2004. ‘The “Swimming Duck” in Greek and Hittite’ in J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of A.M. Davies, Oxford: 195–216. Kearns, E. 1990. ‘Saving the City’ in O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Oxford: 323–44. Keen, A. 2005. ‘Lycians in the Cares of Aeschylus’ in F. McHardy, J. Robson, and D. Harvey (eds.), Lost Dramas of Classical Athens: Greek Tragic Fragments, Exeter: 63–82. Kemp-Lindemann, D. 1975. Darstellung des Achilleus in griechischer und romanischer Kunst, Bern and Frankfurt. Kessels, A.H.M. 1978. Studies on the Dream in Greek Literature, Utrecht. Keyssner, K. 1932. Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus, Stuttgart. Kidd, S.E. 2017. ‘How to Gamble in Greek: the Meaning of Kubeia’ JHS 137: 119–34.

657

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kiechle, F. 1963. Lakonien und Sparta, Munich. Kirkwood, G.M. 1984. ‘Blame and Envy in the Pindaric Epinician’ in D.E. Gerber (ed.), Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in Honour of L. Woodbury, Chico, CA: 168–83. Kitto, H.D.F. 1977. ‘The Rhesus and Related Matters’ YClS 25: 317–50. Knox, B. 1972. ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulide 1–163 (in that order)’ YClS 22: 239–61. Köhler, W. 1913. Die Versbrechung bei den griechischen Tragikern (PhD diss. Giessen), Darmstadt. Ko͂in, M. 2016. ‘Basileus, tyrannos and polis’ Klio 98: 1–89. Kokolakis, M.M. 1965. Μορφολογία τῆς κυβευτικῆς μεταφορᾶς, Athens. Konstan, D. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World, Cambridge. Konstan, D. 2003. ‘Nemesis and Phthonos’ in G. Bakewell and J. Sickinger (eds.), Gestures: Essays in Greek Literature, History, and Philosophy presented to A.L. Boegehold, Oxford: 74–87. Konstan, D. 2006. The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, Toronto and Buffalo. Konstantakos, I.M. 2016. ‘On the Early History of the Braggart Soldier. II: Aristophanes’ Lamachus and the Politicization of the Comic Type’ Logeion: A Journal of Ancient Theatre 6: 112–63. Korfmann, M. 1996. ‘Troia – Ausgrabungen 1995’ ST 6: 1–64. Kovacs, D. 1987a. ‘Where is Aegisthus’ Head?’ CPh 37: 139–41. Kovacs, D. 1987b. The Heroic Muse: Studies in the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides, Baltimore. Kovacs, D. 1994. Euripides. Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea, Cambridge, MA and London. Kovacs, D. 2002. Kovacs, D. 2003a. Euripidea tertia, Leiden. Kovacs, D. 2003b. ‘Towards a Reconstruction of Iphigenia Aulidensis’ JHS 123: 77–103. Kranz, W. 1910. De forma stasimi, PhD diss. Berlin, Dessau. Köves-Zulauf, T. 1999. ‘Apollo Agyieus: Horaz carmen 4, 6, 28’ AAntHung 39: 171–96. Kranz, W. 1933. Stasimon: Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin. Krause, J. 1976. ΑΛΛΟΤΕ ΑΛΛΟΣ. Untersuchungen zum Motiv des Schicksalswechsels in der griechischen Dichtung bis Euripides, Munich. Krentz, P. 1991. ‘The Salpinx in Greek Warfare’ in V.D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York: 110–20. Krentz, P. 2000. ‘Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek Warfare’ in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, London and Swansea: 167–200.

658

BIBLIOGRAPHY Krentz, P. 2007. ‘War’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. I: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the rise of Rome, Cambridge: 147–85. Kretschmer, E. 1930. ‘Beiträge zur Wortgeographie der altgriechischen Dialekte’ Glotta 18: 67–100. Krieg, W. 1936. ‘Der trochaische Tetrameter bei Euripides’ Philologus 91: 42–51. Kucewicz, C. 2016. ‘Mutilation of the Dead and the Homeric Gods’ CQ 66: 425–36. Kuiper, K. 1908. ‘De vocabuli ΤΡΟΠΟΣ vi atque usu per saecula VI et V’ Mnemosyne 36: 419–34. Kullmann, W. 1960. Die Quellen der Ilias, Wiesbaden. Kunze, E. 1967. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia. 8, Herbst 1958 bis Sommer 1962, Berlin. Kurke, L. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton. Kurz, D.C. and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs, London. Labiano Ilundain, J.M. 2000. Estudio de las interjecciones en las comedias de Aristófanes, Amsterdam. Labiano, Ilundain, J.M. 2017. ‘Greek Interjectional ἆ = “Stop Doing That!” in Euripides’ Glotta 93: 36–47. Lachmann, K. 1819. De choricis systematis tragicorum Graecorum libri quattuor, Berlin. Lachmann, K. 1822. De mensura tragoediarum liber singularis. Lammers, J. 1931. Die Doppel- und Halbchöre in der antiken Tragödie, PhD diss. Münster, Paderborn. Landgraf, G. 1888. ‘Substantivische Parataxen’ Arch. latein. Lexikographie und Gramm. 5: 161–91. Lape, S. 2010. Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy, New York. Lardinois, A. 1997. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad’ CPh 92: 213–34. Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford. Larson, J. 2007. ‘A Land Full of Gods: Nature Deities in Greek Religion’ in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, MA and Oxford: 56–70. Laser, S. 1958. ‘Über das Verhältnis der Dolonie zur Odyssee’ Hermes 86: 385–425. Latacz, J. 1977. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampftwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios, Munich. Latacz, J. 1992=1994. ‘Lesersteuerung durch Träume. Der Traum Penelopes im 19. Gesang der Odyssee’ = Id. (ed. by F. Graf, J. von Ungern-Sternberg,

659

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Schmitt), Erschliessung der Antike. Kleine Schriften zur Literatur der Griechen und Römer, Stuttgart: 205–26. Lattimore, R. 1942. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, Urbana, IL. Lattimore, R. 1964. Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy, London. Lattimore, R. 1979. ‘Optative of Consent or Refusal’ in G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, M.C.J. Putnam (eds.), Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to B.M.W. Knox on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Berlin and New York: 209–16. Laum, B. 1928. Das Alexandrinische Akzentuationssystem unter Zugrundelegung der theoretischen Lehren der Grammatiker und mit Heranziehung der praktischen Verwendung in den Papyri, Paderborn. Lautensach, O. 1896. Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Personalendungen, Progr. Gymn. Gotha. Lautensach, O. 1899. Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation, Hanover and Leipzig. Lavigne, D.E. 2008. ‘Bad Kharma: A “Fragment” of the Iliad and Iambic Laughter’ Aevum(ant) 8: 115–38. Lazarides, D. 1997. Amphipolis, Athens. Lazenby, J.F. and D. Whitehead. 1996. ‘The Myth of the Hoplite’s Hoplon’ CQ 46: 27–33. Leaf, W. 1912. Troy: A Study in Homeric Geography, London. Leaf, W. 1915. ‘Rhesos of Thrace’ JHS 35: 1–11. Lebeck, A. 1971. The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure, Washington and Cambridge, MA. Lehrs, K. 1882. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (3rd ed.), Leipzig. Leitao, D.D. 2003. ‘Adolescent Hair-Growing and Hair-Cutting Rituals in Ancient Greece: A Sociological Approach’ in D.B. Dodd and C.A. Faraone (eds.), Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives. New Critical Perspectives, London: 109–29. Lendon, J.E. 2000. ‘Homeric Vengeance and the Outbreak of Greek Wars’ in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, London: 1–30. Lenfant, D. 1993. ‘Le vocabulaire du pouvoir personel chez Euripide’ Ktema 18: 29–40. Lenfant, D. 1997. ‘Rois et tyrans dans la théâtre d’Aristophane’, Ktema 22: 185–200. Lennig, R. 1969. Traum und Sinnestäuschung bei Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides. PhD diss. Tübingen, Berlin. Lenting, J. 1821. ‘Animadversiones criticae in Euripidem’ Nova acta lit. Soc. Rheno-Trajectina 1: 1–120. Leo, F. 1908. Der Monolog im Drama: Ein Beitrag zur griechisch-römischen Poetik, Berlin. Leo, F. 1910=1960. De tragoedia Romana = Id. (ed. by E. Fraenkel), Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, Rome: I.191–212.

660

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lesky, A. 1951=1966. ‘Die Maske des Thamyris’ = Id., Gesammelte Schriften, Bern and Munich: 169–75. Létoublon, F. 1985. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: Supplétisme et aspect verbal, Paris. Leumann, M. 1949. ‘ΜΕΝ und ΜΗΝ, ΔΕ und ΔΗ’ MH 6: 85–9. Lévêque, P. and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1960. ‘Epaminondas Pythagoricien ou le problème tactique de la droite et de la gauche’ Historia 9: 294–308. Levaniouk, O. 2000. ‘AithÔn, Aithon, and Odysseus’ HSPh 100: 25–52. Lévy, E. 1991. ‘Apparition des notions de Grèce et de Grecs’ in S. Said (ed.), Hellenismos, Leiden: 49–69. Ley, G. 2007. The Theatricality of Greek Tragedy, Chicago and London. Liampi, K. 1998. Der Makedonische Schild, Bonn. Liapis, V. 2001. ‘An Ancient Hypothesis to Rhesus, and Dicaearchus’ Hypotheseis’ GRBS 42: 313–28. Liapis, V. 2007. ‘Zeus, Rhesus, and the Mysteries’ CQ 57: 381–411. Liapis, V. 2009a. ‘Rhesus: Myth and Iconography’, in J.C.R. Cousland and J. Hume 2009b. The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of M. Cropp, Leiden: 273–91. Liapis, V. 2009b. ‘Rhesus Revisited: The Case for a Fourth-Century Macedonian Context’ JHS 129: 71–88. Liapis, V. 2011a. ‘Notes on Rhesus’ Exemplaria Classica 15: 47–111. Liapis, V. 2011b. ‘The Thracian Cult of Rhesus and the Heros Equitans’ Kernos 24: 95–104. Liapis, V. 2014. ‘The Fragments of Euripides’ Oedipus: A Reconsideration’ TAPhA 144: 307–70. Liapis, V. 2015. ‘Διαδρομές του μύθου από την τραγωδία στο μυθιστόρημα: Ρήσος και Λόγγος’ in A.K. Petrides and S. Euthymiades (eds.), Μυθοπλασίες, Peristeri: 71–80. Liapis, V. 2017. ‘Rhesos’ in L.K. McClure (ed.), A Companion to Euripides, Chichester: 334–46. Liapis, V. and T.K. Stephanopoulos. 2019. ‘Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Century: The Fragments’ in V. Liapis (ed.), Greek Tragedy after the Fifth Century, Cambridge: 25–65. Liddel, P. 2007. Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens, Oxford. Lightfoot, J.L. 1999. Parthenius of Nicaea. The Poetical Fragments and the Erōtika Pathēmata, Oxford. Lindemann, F. 1834. Emendationes ad Rhesum, Progr. Zittau. Linforth, I.M. 1941. The Arts of Orpheus, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Lissarrague, F. 1980. ‘Iconographie de Dolon le Loup’ RA: 3–30. Lissarrague, F. 1990. L’ autre guerrier: archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l’imagerie attique, Paris.

661

BIBLIOGRAPHY Littauer, M.A. and J.H. Crouwel. 1983=2002. ‘Chariots in Late Bronze Age Greece’, in Eidem (ed. by P. Raulwing), Selected Writings on Chariots, Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, Leiden: 53–61. Livrea, E. 1990. ‘Un fossile eschileo: χαλκηλάτωι πλάστιγγι (Cho. 290)’ Glotta 68: 203–10. Lloyd, G.E.R. 1966. Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge. Lloyd, M. 1992. The agon in Euripides, Oxford. Lloyd, M. 1999. ‘The Tragic Aorist’ CQ 49: 24–45. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1957. ‘Appendix’ in H.W. Smyth, Aeschylus (repr.), London and Cambridge, MA II.523–603. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1961. Review of R. Keydell, Nonni Panopolitani Dionysiaca, CR 11: 22–4. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1965. ‘A Problem in the Tebtunis Inachus-Fragment’ CR 15: 241–3. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1971. The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1978. ‘Ten Notes on Aeschylus, Agamemnon’ in R.D. Dawe, J.Diggle, and P.E. Easterling (eds.), Dionysiaca: Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Pupils presented to Sir Denys Page, Cambridge: 45–61. Lloyd-Jones, H. and N.G. Wilson. 1990. Sophoclea: Studies on the Text of Sophocles, Oxford. Lobeck, C.A. 1820. Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum, Leipzig. Lobeck, C.A. 1829. Aglaophamus, sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis, Königsberg. Lohmann, J. 1932. Genus und Sexus: Eine morphologische Studie zum Ursprung der indogermanischen nominalen Genus-Unterscheidung, Göttingen. Long, A.A. 1968. Language and Thought in Sophocles: A Study of Abstract Nouns and Poetic Technique, London. Longman, G.A. 1957. ‘Proceedings of the London Classical Society’ BICS 4: 60–1. Longman, G.A. 1959. ‘Gnomologium Vatopedianum: The Euripidean Section’ CQ 9: 129–41. Longo, O. 1996. ‘Le héros, l’armure, le corps’ DHA 22.2: 25–51. Lonis, R. 1977. ‘Les otages dans les relations internationales en Grèce classique’ in Mélanges offerts à L. Senghor, Dakar: 215–34. Lonis, R. 1979. Guerre et religion en Grèce à l’époque classique: Recherches sur les rites, les dieux, l’idéologie de la victoire, Paris. Lonsdale, S.H. 1993. Ritual Play in Greek Religion, Baltimore and London. López Eire, A. 1996. La lengua coloquial de la comedia aristofánica, Murcia. Loraux, N.L. 1990. Les mères en deuil, Paris. Loraux, N.L. 2006. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (trans.: Paris 1986), New York.

662

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lorimer, H.L. 1950. Homer and the Monuments, London. Lossau, M. 1994. ‘Retter-Licht (φόως φάος) bei Homer und den Tragikern’ Eranos 92: 85–92. Lourenço, F. 2000. ‘An Interpolated Song in Euripides? Helen 229–52’ JHS 120: 132–9. Lourenço, F. 2011. The Lyric Metres of Euripidean Drama, Coimbra. Louw, J.P. 1959. ‘On Greek Prohibitions’ AClass. 2: 43–57. Lowenstam, S. 2008. As Witnessed by Images: The Trojan War Tradition in Greek and Etruscan Art, Baltimore. Lucarini, C.M. 2016. ‘Sequenze ioniche ed eolo-coriambiche nella tragedia’ RhM 159: 113–34. Luppe, W. 2002. ‘Σχόλια, ὑπομνήματα and ὑποθέσεις zu griechischen dramen auf Papyri’, in W. Geerlings and C. Schulze (eds.), Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. II. Leiden: 55–77. Luther, W. 1935. 'Wahrheit' und 'Lüge' im ältesten Griechentum, Göttingen. Maas, P. 1962. Greek Metre (trans.: Leipzig and Berlin 1929, 3rd ed.), Oxford. Maas, P. 1912=1973. ‘Zu den neuen Klassikertexten der Oxyrh.-Pap. (vol. IX)’ in Id. (ed. by W. Buchwald), Kleine Schriften, Munich: 44–7. Maass, E. 1895. Orpheus: Untersuchungen zur griechischen, römischen, altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und Religion, Munich. MacDonald, B.R. 1986. ‘The Diolkos’ JHS 106: 191–6. Mackay, E.A. 2010. Tradition and Originality: A Study of Exekias, Oxford. MacLachlan, B. 1993. The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry, Princeton. Macurdy, G.H. 1932. ‘The Grammar of Drinking Healths’ AJPh 53: 168–71. Macurdy, G.H. 1943. ‘The Dawn Songs in Rhesus (527–56) and in the Parodos of Phaethon’ AJPh 64: 408–16. Madvig, J.N. 1871. Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos, Copenhagen. Magnani, M. 2000. La tradizione manoscritta degli Eraclidi di Euripide, Bologna. Magnani, M. 2001. ‘“Mozzi di parapetti”? (Suda α 2660 A. ~ [Eur.] Rhes. 118)’ Paideia 56: 107–11. Magnelli, E. 1999. ‘Miscellanea critica’, Eikasmos 10: 101–17. Magnien, V. Le futur grec (2 vols.), Paris 1912. Mahlow, G.H. 1926. Neue Wege durch die griechische Sprache und Dichtung, Berlin. Mainoldi, C. 1984. L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne: d’Homère à Platon, Paris. Malkin, I. 1987. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden. Malzan, W. 1908. De scholiis Euripideis quae ad res scaenicas et ad histriones spectant, PhD diss. Giessen, Darmstadt. Maniates, Y., I.Y. Fakorelles, D. Malamidou, and C. Koukoule-Chrysanthake. 2010. ‘Radio-Carbon Sequential Dating of the Amphipolis Bridge’ Radiocarbon 52: 41–63.

663

BIBLIOGRAPHY Mannsperger, B. 1995. ‘Die Funktion des Grabens am Schiffslager der Achäer’ ST 5: 343–56. Manousakis, N. 2017. The Extant Rhesus and Its Two Supplementary Prologues: A Question of Affinity’ Skenè 3: 55–78. Mantziou, M. 1985. ‘Notes on the Text of Euripides’, Dodone (Philol.) 14: 91–102. March, J. 1991/1993. ‘Sophocles’ Ajax: The Death and Burial of a Hero’ BICS 38: 1–36. Marcinkowski, A. 2001. “Le loup et les Grecs” AncSoc 31: 1–26. Marenghi, G. 1959. ‘Tra cruces ed emendationes’ Maia 11: 320–5. Mari, M. 2004. ‘Il “culto della personalità” a Samo tra Lisandro e Demetrio Poliorcete’, in E. Cavallini (ed.), Samo: storia, letteratura, scienza, Pisa: 177–96. Marinatos, S. 1967. Archaeologia Homerica. IA–B : Kleidung/Haar- und Barttracht, Göttingen. Markantonatos, A. 2002. Tragic Narrative: A Narratological Study of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, Berlin. Markantonatos, A. 2004. ‘Mystic Filters for Tragedy: Orphism and Euripides’ Rhesus’ Ariadne 10: 15–48. Markantonatos, A. 2007. Oedipus at Colonus: Sophocles, Athens, and the World, Berlin. Markopoulos, T. 2009. The Future in Greek, from Ancient to Medieval, Oxford. Martin, R.P. 2000. ‘Wrapping Homer Up: Cohesion, Discourse, and Deviation in the Iliad’ in A. Sharrock and H. Morales (eds.), Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations, Oxford: 43–65. Martin, R.P. 2009. ‘Gnomes in Poems: Wisdom Performance on the Athenian Stage’ in E. Karamalengou and E. Makrigianni (eds.), Ἀντιφίλησις: Studies on Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature and Culture in Honour of John-Theophanes A. Papademetriou, Stuttgart: 116–27. Martinelli Tempesta, S. 1992. ‘Sul rapporto fra i codici L e P nel Reso’ RIL 125: 227–68. Martínez García, F.J. 1996. Los nombres en -υ del griego, Frankfurt/Main. Mastronarde, D.J. 1979. Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek Tragic Stage, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Mastronarde, D.J. 1989. ‘Lautensach’s Law and the Augment of CompoundVerbs in ΕΥ-’ Glotta 67: 101–5. Mastronarde, D.J. 1990. ‘Actors on High: The Skene Roof, the Crane, and the Gods in Attic Drama’ ClAnt 9: 247–94. Mastronarde, D.J. 2004. Review of D. Kovacs, Euripides VI: Bacchae, Iphigenia in Aulis, Rhesus (2002), in Electronic Antiquity 8.1. Mastronarde, D.J. 2010. The Art of Euripides. Dramatic Technique and Social Context, Cambridge.

664

BIBLIOGRAPHY Mastronarde, D.J. 2016. ‘Text and Transmission’ in L.K. McClure (ed.), A Companion to Euripides, Malden, MA and Oxford: 11–26. Mastronarde, D.J. 2017. Preliminary Studies on the Scholia to Euripides, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Mastronarde, D.J. and J.M. Bremer. 1982. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’ Phoinissai, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Matthiae, A. 1825. Ausführliche griechische Grammatik (1st ed., 2 vols.), Leipzig. Matthiae, A. 1835. Ausführliche griechische Grammatik (3rd. ed., 3 vols.), Leipzig. Matthiessen, K. 1965. ‘Exzerpte aus sieben Tragödien des Euripides im Codex Vaticanus Barberini Graecus 4’ Hermes 93: 148–58. Matthiessen, K. 1966. ‘Ein weiteres Euripidesgnomologium’ Hermes 94: 398–410. Matthiessen, K. 1974. Studien zur Textüberlieferung der Hekabe des Euripides, Heidelberg. Mattison, K.M. 2009. Recasting Troy in Fifth-Century Attic Tragedy, PhD diss. Toronto. Mattison, K.M. 2015. ‘Rhesus and the Evolution of Tragedy’ CW 108: 485–97. Mawet, F. 1979. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire homérique de la douleur, Bruxelles. Mayser, E. 1934. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. II.3: Satzlehre, Berlin and Leipzig. McCauley, B. 1999. ‘Heroes and Power: The Politics of Bone Transferral’ in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult, Stockholm: 85–98. McDevitt, A. 1994. ‘Horses for Courses: A Note on Bacchylides 3.3–4’ Hermes 122: 502–3. McDonald, M. 1978. Terms for Happiness in Euripides, Göttingen. McDonald, M. 1979. ‘Does Euripides Call the Gods μακάριοι?’ ICS 4: 27–33. McHardy, F. 2004. ‘Women’s Influence on Revenge’ in F. McHardy and E. Marshall (eds.), Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization, London and New York. Méautis, G. 1936. Eschyle et la trilogie, Paris. Meccariello, C. 2014. Le hypotheseis narrative dei drammi euripidei: testo, contesto, fortuna, Rome. Medda, E. 1993. ‘Su alcune associazioni del docmio con altri metri in tragedia’ SCO 43: 101–34. Medda, E., M.S. Mirto, M.P. Pattoni (eds.), (2006). Komoidotragoidia: Intersezioni del tragico e del comico nel teatro del V secolo a.C., Pisa. Meier, C. 1993. The Political Art of Greek Tragedy, Oxford. Meier-Brügger, M. 1989. ‘Zu griechisch μαραίνω -ομαι und μόρος’ HSF 102: 62–7. Meineke, A. 1859. ‘Kritische Blätter’ Philologus 14: 1–44.

665

BIBLIOGRAPHY Meissner, B. 2000. ‘Hofmann und Herrscher: Was es bei den Griechen hiess, Freund eines Königs zu sein’ AKG 82: 1–36. Meissner, T. 2006. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European, Oxford. Meisterhans, C. 1900. Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (3rd ed. by E. Schwyzer), Berlin. Menzer, O. 1867. De Rheso tragoedia, PhD diss. Berlin. Merkelbach, R. 1969. Untersuchungen zur Odyssee, Munich. Merkelbach, R. 1980. ‘Der Kult der Hestia im Prytaneion der griechischen Städte’ ZPE 37: 77–92. Merro, G. 2008. Gli scoli al Reso euripideo, Messina. Meschini, A. 1973/1974. ‘Sugli gnomologi bizantini di Euripide’ Helikon 13–14: 349–62. Meschini, A. 1975. ‘Su alcuni luoghi del Reso’ in Scritti in onore di C. Diano, Bologna: 217–26. Meschini, A. 1976. ‘Altre note al Reso’ Ann. Fac. Lett. Padova 1: 177–84. Meyer, G. 1923. Die stilistische Verwendung der Nominalkomposition im Griechischen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der dipla onomata, Leipzig. Michelakis, P. 2002. Achilles in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge. Mierow, H.E. 1928. ‘The Sophoclean Character of the Rhesus’ AJPh 49: 375–7. Mikalson, J.D. 1989. ‘Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy’ JHS 109: 81–98. Mikalson, J.D. 1991. Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy, Chapel Hill and London. Mikalson, J.D. 1998. Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Millett, P. 1991. Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, Cambridge. Millis, B.W. and S.D. Olson. 2012. Inscriptional records for the dramatic festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related texts, Leiden. Milns, R.D. 1967. ‘Philip II and the Hypaspists’ Historia 16: 509–12. Milns, R.D. 1968. Alexander the Great, London. Miralles, C. 2000. ‘Le rire chez Sophocle’ in M.-L. Desclos (ed.), Le rire des Grecs: Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne, Grenoble: 407–24. Mirhady, D.C. 2001. ‘Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion’, in W.W. Fortenbaugh, E. Schütrumpf (eds.), Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities. X, New Brunswick, NJ and London: 1–142. Mitchell, L.G. 1997. Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323 B.C., Cambridge. Moignard, E. 2015. Master of Attic Black-Figure Painting: The Art and Legacy of Exekias, London. Moloney, E.P. 2014. ‘Philippus in acie tutior quam in theatro fuit … (Curtius 9.6.25): The Macedonian Kings and Greek Theatre’ in E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, J.R. Green and P.J. Wilson (eds.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, Berlin and Boston: 231–48.

666

BIBLIOGRAPHY Momigliano, A. 1973. Entry ‘Freedom of Speech in Antiquity’ in Dictionary of the History of Ideas 2, New York: 252–63. Momigliano, A. 1986. ‘How Roman Emperors Became Gods’ The American Scholar 55: 181–93. Momigliano, A. 1987. Filippo il Macedone (2nd ed.), Milan. Monro, D.B. 1891. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, Oxford. Montanari, F. 2009. ‘L’esegesi antica di Eschilo da Aristotele a Didimo’, in J. Jouanna and F. Montanari (eds.), Eschyle à l’aube du théâtre occidental: neuf exposés suivis de discussions (Vandoeuvres-Geneva, 25–29 août 2008: Fondation Hardt), Geneva: 379–422. Monteil, P. 1963. La phrase relative en Grec ancien: Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle A.C., Paris. Montepaone, C. 1990. ‘Bendis tracia ad Atene’ AION(archeol) 12: 103–21. Montiglio, S. 2011. From Villain to Hero: Odysseus in Ancient Thought, Ann Arbor. Moorhouse, A.C. 1940a. ‘The Construction with ΜΗ ΟΥ’ CQ 34: 70–7. Moorhouse, A.C. 1940b. ‘The Name of the Euxine Pontus’ CQ 34: 123–8. Moorhouse, A.C. 1959. Studies in the Greek Negatives, Cardiff. Moorhouse, A.C. 1982. The Syntax of Sophocles, Leiden. Morgan, J.R. 1989. ‘The Story of Knemon in Heliodoros’ Aithiopika’ JHS 109: 99–113. Morris, I., 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State, New York. Morrison, J.S. and R.T. Williams. 1968. Greek Oared Ships 900–322 B.C., Cambridge. Morrison, J.V. 1991. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative Perspective’ Hermes 119: 145–57. Morstadt, R. 1827. Beitrag zur Kritik der dem Euripides zugeschriebenen Tragödie Rhesos, Heidelberg. Mossman, J. 1995. Wild Justice: A Study of Euripides’ Hecuba, Oxford. Moussy, C. 1969. Recherches sur ΤΡΕΦΩ et les verbes grecs signifiant ‘nourrir’, Paris. Muellner, L.C. 1976. The Meaning of Homeric ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ through Its Formulas, Innsbruck. Muellner, L.C. 1996. The Anger of Achilles, Ithaca, NY. Mugler, C. 1964. Dictionnaire historique de la terminologie optique des Grecs, Paris. Müller, D. 1974. Handwerk und Sprache: Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr., Meisenheim/Glan. Muller, Y. 2014. ‘La mutilation de l’ennemi en Grèce classique: pratique barbare ou préjugé grec?’, in A. Allély (ed.), Corps au supplice et violence de guerre dans l’Antiquité, Bordeaux: 41–72. Munn, M.H. 2006. The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia, Berkeley.

667

BIBLIOGRAPHY Murnaghan, S. 2013. ‘The Choral Plot of Euripides’ Helen’ in R. Gagné and M.G. Hopman (eds.), Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge: 155–77. Murray, G. 1913. The Rhesus of Euripides, Translated into English Rhyming Verse with Explanatory Notes, Oxford. Musgrave, S. 1762. Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo, Leiden. Musti, D. 1963. ‘Sull’ idea di συγγένεια in iscrizioni greche’ ASNP 32: 225–39. Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. Πελοπόννησος οἰκητήριον Ποσειδῶνος: Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes, Liège. Naber, S.A. 1882. ‘Euripidea’ Mnemosyne 10: 1–26. Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Acheans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore and London. Nagy, G. 2010. Homer the Preclassic, Berkeley and London. Nagy, G. 2013. The Ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours, Cambridge, MA. Natale, A. 2011. ‘Su alcune testimonianze di dattilo soluto’ RCCM 53: 107–45. Nauck, A. 1848. Aristophanis Byzantii grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta, Halle. Nauck, A. 1862. Euripideische Studien II (Mém.Acad.imp. St.-Pétersbourg 5.6), Saint Petersburg. Nauck, A. 1889. ‘Analecta critica’ Hermes 24: 447–72. Nesselrath, H.-G. 1993. ‘Parody and Later Greek Comedy’ HSPh 95: 181–95. Neumann, P. 1910. Verhältnis des Genitivs zum Adjectiv im Griechischen, PhD diss. Münster. Newton, R.M. 1997/1998. ‘Cloak and Shield in Odyssey 14’ CJ 93: 143–56. Nickau, K. 1977. Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos, Berlin and New York. Nikitas, A.A. 1976. Zur Bedeutung von ΠΡΟΦΑΣΙΣ in der altgriechischen Literatur, Wiesbaden. Nilsson, M.P. 1932=1951. ‘Die Götter des Symposion’ = Id., Opuscula selecta. I, Lund: 428–42. Nilsson, M.P. 1933. Homer and Mycenae, London. Ninck, M. 1921. Die Bedeutung des Wassers im Kult und Leben der Alten: eine symbolgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Leipzig. Nock, A.D. 1926. ‘The End of the Rhesus’ CR 40: 184–6. Nock, A.D. 1930. ‘The Rhesus’ CR 44: 173–4. Norden, E. 1913. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, Leipzig and Berlin. Norden, E. 1939. Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern, Leipzig. Nordgren. L. 2015. Greek Interjections: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, Berlin and Boston. Noussia Fantuzzi, M. 2015. ‘Solon in Tragedy’ in G. Nagy and Ead. (eds.), Solon in the Making: The Early Reception in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries (= Trends in Class. 27): 43–65.

668

BIBLIOGRAPHY Nünlist, R. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung, Stuttgart. O’Brien, J.V. 1993. The Transformations of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad, Lanham, MD. Ogden, D. 1996. Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, Oxford. Ogden, D. 1997a. The Crooked Kings of Ancient Greece, London. Ogden, D. 1997b. ‘Rape, Adultery, and Protection of Bloodlines in Classical Athens’ in S. Deacy and K.F. Pierce (eds.), Rape in Antiquity, London: 25–41. O’Neil, J.L. 1986. ‘The Semantic Usage of tyrannos and Related Words’ Antichthon 20: 26–40. Onians, R.B. 1954. The Origins of European Thought (2nd ed.), Cambridge. Orriens, S.A.J. 2009. ‘Involving the Past in the Present: The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device’ in S.J. Bakker and G.C. Wakker (eds.), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden and Boston: 221–39. Osborne, R. 2000. ‘An Other View: An Essay in Political History’ in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden: 21–42. Østerud, S. 1970. ‘Who Sings the Monody 669–79 in Euripides’ Hippolytus?’ GRBS 11: 307–20. Pace, G. 1998. ‘Nota metrica a [Eur.] Rh. 32–3 = 50–1’ QUCC 89: 133–9. Pace, G. 2001. Euripide, Reso. I canti, Rome. Pace, G. 2002. ‘Note critico-testuali al Reso’ in Scritti in onore di I. Gallo, Naples: 453–61. Pace, G. 2004. ‘Le preghiere del coro nel Reso’ in S.M. Medaglia (ed.), Miscellanea in ricordo di A.R. Sodano, Naples: 246–76. Pace, G. 2009. ‘Congetture di Richard Porson al Reso’ Lexis 27: 181–95. Pace, G. 2010. ‘Tradizione e innovazione nella preghiera di richiesta in Euripide’ in J. Goeken (ed.), La rhétorique de la prière dans l’antiquité grecque, Turnhout: 43–60. Padel, R. 1992. In and Out of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self, Princeton. Paduano, G. 1973. ‘Funzioni drammatiche nella struttura del Reso. I: L’aristia mancata di Dolone e Reso’ Maia 25: 3–30. Page, D.L. 1934. Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, Studied with Special Reference to Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, Oxford. Page, D.L. 1953. Corinna, London. Paleothodoros, D. 2010. ‘Light and Darkness in Dionysiac Rituals as Illustrated on Attic Vase Paintings of the 5th Century BCE’ in M. Christopoulos, E.D. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham, MD: 237–60. Palmer, C.E. 1890. ‘Eur. Rhesus 59, 60, 162, 318, 339, 492’ CR 4: 228–9. Papadopoulou, T. 2005. Heracles and Euripidean Tragedy, Cambridge.

669

BIBLIOGRAPHY Parke, H.W. 1985. The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor, London. Parker. L.P.E. 1968. ‘Split Resolution in Greek Dramatic Lyric’ CQ 18: 241–69. Parker, L.P.E. 1976. ‘Catalexis’ CQ 26: 14–28. Parker, L.P.E. 1990. ‘Trochee to Iamb, Iamb to Trochee’ in E.M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford: 331–48. Parker, L.P.E. 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes, Oxford. Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford. Parker, R. 1995. ‘Early Orphism’ in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek World, London and New York: 483–510. Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion. A History, Oxford. Parker, R. 1997. ‘Gods Cruel and Kind: Tragic and Civic Theology’ in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian, Oxford: 143–60. Parker, R. 1998. ‘Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion’ in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford: 105–25. Parker, R. 2000. ‘Sacrifice and Battle’ in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, London: 299–314. Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Parker, R. 2011. On Greek Religion, Ithaca and London. Parker, V. 1998. ‘Τύραννος. The Semantics of a Political Concept from Archilochus to Aristotle’ Hermes 126: 145–72. Parry, A.A. 1973. Blameless Aegisthus: A study of ‘Amumōn’ and Other Homeric Epithets, Leiden. Parry, H. 1964. ‘The Approach of Dawn in the Rhesus’ Phoenix 18: 283–93. Pasquali, G. 1952. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (2nd ed.), Florence. Patera, I. 2010. ‘Light and Lighting Equipment in the Eleusinian Mysteries: Symbolism and Ritual Use’ in M. Christopoulos, E.D. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham, MD: 261–75. Pattenden, P. 1987. ‘When did Guard Duty End?’ RhM 130: 164–74. Patterson, C. 2002. ‘The Polis and the Corpse’ in D. Cohen (ed.), Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen, Munich: 93–107. Pattoni, M.P. 2004. ‘I Pastoralia di Longo e la contaminazione dei generi: alcune proposte interpretative’ MD 53: 83–123. Pattoni, M.P. 2011. ‘La fastosa entrata del guerriero come modulo teatrale eschileo: il caso di Cicno, Memnone e Reso’ in M. Capasso and S. Pernigotti (eds.), Studium atque urbanitas: Miscellanea in onore di Sergio Daris, Galatina: 311–32. Pearson, A.C. 1917a. The Fragments of Sophocles (3 vols.), Cambridge. Pearson, A.C. 1917b. ‘Some passages of Greek Tragedy’ CQ 11: 57–68.

670

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pearson, A.C. 1921. ‘The Rhesus’ CR 35: 52–61. Pearson, A.C. 1924. ‘ΑΤΑΚΤΑ’ CR 38: 13–14. Pearson, L. 1952. ‘Prophasis and Aitia’ TAPhA 83: 205–23. Pease, A.S. 1904. ‘Notes on Some Uses of Bells among the Greeks and Romans’ HSPh 15: 29–59. Pelliccia, H. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar, Göttingen. Pelling, C. 2000. Literary Texts and the Greek Historian, London and New York. Peppler, C.W. 1910. ‘The Termination -ισος as used by Aristophanes for Comic Effect’ AJPh 31: 428–44. Perilli, L. 1991. ‘Il lessico intellettuale di Ippocrate’ Lexicon philosoph. 5: 153–80. Pernice, E. 1896. Griechisches Pferdegeschirr im Antiquarium der Königlichen Museen, Berlin. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. 2004/2005. ‘L’ accueil officiel des rois et des princes à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique’ BCH 128–9: 351–76. Perris, S. 2012. ‘ Stagecraft and the Stage Building in Rhesus’ G&R 59: 151–64. Perusino, F. 1968. Il tetrametro giambico catalettico nella commedia greca, Rome. Petegorsky, D. 1982. Context and Evocation: Studies in Early Greek and Sanskrit Poetry, PhD diss. Berkeley, CA. Petit, S. 1630. Miscellaneorum libri novem, in quibus varia veterum scriptorum loca quae philologiam, historiam, philosophiam, chronologiam spectant, emendantur, illustrantur, explicantur, Paris. Petretto, M.A. 1995. ‘Musica e guerra: note sulla salpinx’ Sandalion 18: 35–53. Petrides, A. 2014. Menander, New Comedy and the Visual, Cambridge. Petridou, G. 2015. Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture, Oxford. Petropoulou, A. 1986/1987. ‘The Thracian Funerary Rites (Her. 5.8) and Similar Greek Practices’ Talanta 18–19: 29–47. Petrounias, E. 1976. Funktion und Thematik der Bilder bei Aischylos, Göttingen. Petrova, E. 1998. ‘Bryges and Phrygians’ in N. Tuna, Z. Aktüre, and M. Lynch (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism, Ankara: 45–54. Pfaff, C. 2003. The Argive Heraion, I: The Architecture of the Classical Temple of Hera, Princeton. Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. Pfeijffer, I.L. 1999. First Person Futures in Pindar, Stuttgart. Pfister, F. 1909. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, Giessen. Pfister, F. 1924. ‘Epiphanie’ in RE Suppl. 4: 278–323. Philipp, H. 2004. Archaische Silhouettenbleche und Schildzeichen in Olympia, Berlin and New York. Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, (2nd ed., by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis), Oxford. Pickering, P.E. 1999. Verbal Repetition in Greek Tragedy, PhD diss. UCL London. Pierson, J. 1752. Verisimilium libri duo, Leiden.

671

BIBLIOGRAPHY Piettre, R. 1997. ‘Oneiros, le dieu-songe’ Uranie 7: 115–40. Pignani, A. 1995. ‘NOSTOS’ in S. Cerasuolo (ed.), Mathesis e philia: Studi in onore di M. Gigante, Naples: 449–56. Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994. ‘La loutrophorie et la “prêtresse-loutrophore” de Sicyone’ in R. Ginouvès, A.M. Guimier-Sorbets, J. Jouanna, and L. Villard (eds.), L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le monde grec, Paris: 146–55. Pischinger, A. 1901. Der Vogelgesang bei den griechischen Dichtern des klassischen Altertums, Programm Eichstätt. Platnauer, M. 1942. ‘ΧΡΗΝ: ΕΧΡΗΝ’ CR 56: 2–6. Platnauer, M. 1960. ‘Prodelision in Greek Drama’ CQ 10: 140–4. Platnauer, M. 1964. ‘(?) Euripides, Rhesus 787–8’ Eranos 62: 73. Platt, A. 1919. ‘Euripides, Rhesus 720’ CQ 13: 153–4. Platt, V. J. 2011. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion, Cambridge. Plichon, C. 2001. ‘Le Rhésos et l’orphisme’ Kernos 14: 11–21. Poe, J.P. 1989. ‘The Altar in the Fifth-Century Theater’ CA 8: 116–39. Poe, J.P. 1992. ‘Entrance-Announcements and Entrance-Speeches in Greek Tragedy’ HSPh 94: 121–56. Poe, J.P. 1993. ‘The Determination of Episodes in Greek Tragedy’ AJPh 114: 343–96. Poe, J.P. 2004. ‘Unconventional Procedures in Rhesus’ Philologus 148: 21–33. Pohlenz, M. 1933=1965. ‘Τὸ πρέπον: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes’ = Id. (ed. by H. Dörrie), Kleine Schriften, Hildesheim: I.100–39. Pohlsander, H.A. 1964. Metrical Studies in the Lyrics of Sophocles, Leiden. Poliakoff, M. 1980. ‘The Third Fall in the Oresteia’ AJPh 101: 251–9. Porson, R. (ed. by J.H. Monk and C.J. Blomfield) 1812. Adversaria: Notae et emendationes in poetas Graecos, Cambridge. Porson, R. (ed. by P.P. Dobree) 1820. Notae in Aristophanem, Cambridge. Porter, W.H. 1917. ‘On Some Passages in the Rhesus’ CQ 11: 159–60. Portus, A. 1599. Breves notae in omnes Euripidis tragoedias, Heidelberg. Posnansky, H. 1890. Nemesis und Adrasteia: Eine mythologisch-archäologische Abhandlung, Breslau. Powell, J.E. 1938. A Lexicon to Herodotus, Cambridge. Prato, C. 1962. I canti di Aristofane, Rome. Prato, C. 1978=2009. ‘L’oralità della versificazione euripidea’ = Id. (ed. by P. Giannini and S. Delle Donne), Scritti minori, Galatina: 291–309. Preisigke, F. and E. Kiessling. 1925/1927. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (3 vols.), Berlin. Price Hadzisteliou, T. 1978. Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of the Greek Nursing Deities, Leiden. Pritchett, W.K. 1956. ‘The Attic Stelai’ Hesperia 25: 178–317.

672

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pritchett, W.K. 1971/1991. The Greek State at War (5 vols.), Berkeley and Los Angeles. Probert, P. 2006. Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory, Oxford and New York. Pucci, P. 1994. ‘Gods’ Intervention and Epiphany in Sophocles’ AJPh 115: 15–46. Pulleyn, S. 1997. Prayer in Greek Religion, Oxford. Quincey, J.H. 1966. ‘Greek Expressions of Thanks’ JHS 86: 133–58. Raaflaub, K. 2004. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece (trans.: Munich 1985), Chicago. Raaflaub, K. 2005. ‘Homerische Krieger, Protohopliten und die Polis: Schritte zur Lösung alter Probleme’ in B. Meissner, O. Schmitt, M. Sommer (eds.), Krieg, Gesellschaft, Institutionen: Beiträge zu einer vergleichenden Kriegsgeschichte, Berlin: 229–66. Rabe, H. 1908. ‘Euripideum’ RhM 63: 419–22. Rabel, R. 1991. ‘The Theme of Need in Iliad 9–11’ Phoenix 45: 283–95. Race, W.H. 1981. ‘Καιρός in Greek Drama’ TAPhA 111: 197–213. Race, W.H. 1990. Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes, Atlanta, GA. Radt, S.L. 1958. Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian, Amsterdam. Raeck, W. 1981. Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Berlin. Ragone, M. 1969. ‘Contributo alla critica del Reso pseudo-euripideo’ RAAN 44: 71–109. Rakoczy, T. 1996. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter: Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur, Munich. Rassow, J. 1883. Quaestiones selectae de Euripideorum nuntiorum narrationibus, Greifswald. Rau, J. 2008. ‘Δ 384 Tυδῆ, o 339 Μηκιστῆ, and τ 136 Ὀδυσῆ’ HSPh 104: 1–18. Rau, P. 1967. Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes, Munich. Rawlings III, H.R. 1975. A Semantic Study of Prophasis to 400 BC, Wiesbaden. Redard, G. 1953. Recherches sur ΧΡΗ, ΧΡΗΣΘΑΙ: Étude sémantique, Paris. Reed, C.M. 2003. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. Reeve, M.D. 1967. ‘Review Article of G. Zuntz (1965)’ CPh 62: 250–3. Reich, H. 1903. Der Mimus: Ein litterarentwickelungsgeschichtlicher Versuch (2 vols.), Berlin. Reichel, W. 1901. Homerische Waffen, Vienna. Reinesius, T. 1660. Ad viros clarissimos D.C. Hoffmannum, C.A. Rupertum professores Noricos Epistulae, Leipzig. Reinhardt, K. 1961. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, Göttingen. Reiske, J.J. 1754. Ad Euripidam et Aristophanem animadversiones, Leipzig. Rempe, J. 1927. De Rheso Thracum heroe, PhD diss. Münster.

673

BIBLIOGRAPHY Renehan, R., 1972. ‘ΔΙΑΙΠΕΤΕΣ in Alcman’ RhM 115: 93–6. Renehan, R. 1975. Greek Lexicographical Notes: A Critical Supplement to the Greek– English Lexicon of Liddell–Scott–Jones, Göttingen. Renehan, R. 1979. ‘New Evidence for the Variant in Iliad 1.5’ AJPh 100: 473–4. Rengakos, A. 1994. ‘Lykophron als Homererklärer’ ZPE 102: 111–30. Revermann, M. 1999/2000. ‘Euripides, Tragedy and Macedon: Some Conditions of Reception’ in M. Cropp, K. Lee, and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century = ICS 24–5: 451–67. Ribbeck, O. 1875. Die Römische Tragödie im Zeitalter der Republik, Leipzig. Richards, G.C. 1916. ‘The Problem of the Rhesus’ CQ 10: 192–7. Rico, M.G.A. 2013. El campamento militar griego en época clásica, Madrid. Riemer, P. 1991. Sophokles, Antigone. Götterwille und menschliche Freiheit, Mainz and Stuttgart. Rigsby, K.J. 1976. ‘Teiresias as Magus in Oedipus Rex’ GRBS 17: 109–14. Rijksbaron, A. 1971. ‘How Does a Messenger Begin His Speech?’ in J.M. Bremer, S.L. Radt, C.J. Ruijgh (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam: 293–308. Rijksbaron, A. 1991. Grammatical Observations on Euripides’ Bacchae, Amsterdam. Rijksbaron, A. 2002. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (3rd ed.), Amsterdam. Rijksbaron, A. 2006. ‘The Meaning and Word Class of πρότερον and τὸ πρότερον, in E. Crespo, J. de La Villa, and A.R. Revuelta (eds.), Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek, Louvain-la-Neuve: 441–54. Risch, E. 1947. ‘Namensdeutungen und Worterklärungen bei den ältesten griechischen Dichtern’ in Eumusia. Festgabe für E. Howald, Erlenbach and Zurich: 72–91. Ritchie, W. 1964. The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides, Cambridge. Robert, C. 1878. ‘Zur Geschichte der Euripides-Handschriften’ Hermes 13: 133–8. Robert, L. 1937. Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure, Paris. Robert, L. 1938. Études épigraphiques et philologiques, Paris. Roberts, D.H. 1987. ‘Parting Words: Final Lines in Sophocles and Euripides’ CQ 37: 51–64. Roisman, H.M. 1984. Loyalty in Early Greek Epic and Tragedy, Königstein/ Taunus. Roisman, H.M. 2015. ‘Rhesus’ Allusions to the Homeric Hector’ Hermes 143: 1–23. Roisman, H.M. 2018. ‘The Rhesus – a Pro-Satyric Play?’ Hermes 146: 432–46. Ronconi, A. 1931. ‘Per un’onomastica antica dei mari’ SIFC 9: 193–242; 257–331. Rosén, H.B. 1984. Strukturalgrammatische Beiträge zum Verständnis Homers (2nd ed.), Munich.

674

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rosen, R. 2003. ‘Revisiting Sophocles’ Poimenes: Tragedy or Satyr Play?’ in A.H. Sommerstein (ed.), Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, Bari: 374–86. Rosivach, V.J. 1978. ‘Hector in the Rhesus’ Hermes 106: 54–73. Rosivach, V.J. 1983. ‘On Creon, Antigone and Not Burying the Dead’ RhM 126: 194–211. Rosivach, V.J. 1999. ‘Enslaving Barbaroi and the Athenian Ideology of Slavery’ Historia 48: 129–57. Rudhardt, J. 1958. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique, Geneva. Rudhardt, J. 1962. ‘La reconnaissance de la paternité, sa nature et sa portée dans la société athénienne’ MH 19: 39–64. Ruijgh, C.J. 1971. Autour de ‘TE épique’: Études sur la syntaxe grecque, Amsterdam. Ruijgh, C.J. 2006. ‘The Use of the Demonstratives ὅδε, οὗτος and (ἐ)κεῖνος in Sophocles’ in I.J.F. De Jong and A. Rijksbaron (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects of Diction, Syntax and Pragmatics, Leiden: 151–61. Russell, F.S. 1999. Information Gathering in Classical Greece, Ann Arbor. Rusten, J.S. 1982. ‘Dicaearchus and the Tales from Euripides’ GRBS 23: 357–67. Rutherford, R.B. 2012. Greek Tragic Style: Form, Language, and Interpretation, Cambridge. Rutherford, W.G. 1881. The New Phrynichus, being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus, London. Saïd, S. 2002. ‘Greeks and Barbarians in Euripides’ Tragedies: The End of Differences?’ in T. Harrison (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh: 62–100 (trans. of ‘Grecs et barbares dans les tragédies d’Euripide: La fin des différences?’ Ktema 9, 1984: 27–53). Saïd, S. 2007. ‘Les transformations de la Muse dans la tragédie grecque’ in F. Perusino and M. Colantonio (eds.), Dalla lirica corale alla poesia drammatica: Forme e funzioni del canto corale nella tragedia e nella commedia greca, Pisa: 23–48. Sallier, C. 1729. ‘Corrections d’un passage d’Euripide, et d’un autre de Longin’ Hist. Acad. Inscriptions et belles lettres 5: 125–6. Sanders, E. 2014. Envy and Jealousy in Classical Athens: A Socio-Psychological Approach, Oxford and New York. Sanders, L.J. 1991. ‘Dionysius I of Syracuse and the Origins of the Ruler Cult in the Greek World’ Historia 40: 275–87. Sandin, P. 2002. ‘Critical Notes on Aeschylus’ Eranos 100: 146–60. Sansone, D. 1975. Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity, Wiesbaden. Sansone, D. 2013. Review of Liapis 2011, in BMCR 2013.03.15. Scaliger, J.J. 1600. ‘Prolegomena de astrologia veterum Graecorum’ in Id., M. Manilii Astronomicon. 2nd ed., Leiden.

675

BIBLIOGRAPHY Schadewaldt, W. 1926. Monolog und Selbstgespräch: Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin. Schäublin, Ch. 1971. ‘Wieder einmal ΠΡΟΦΑΣΙΣ’ MH 28: 133–44. Scheid, J. and J. Svenbro 1996. The Craft of Zeus (trans.: Paris 1994), Cambridge, MA and London. Scheller, M. 1951. Die Oxytonierung der griechischen Substantiva auf -ιᾱ, PhD diss. Zurich. Schlesier, R. 1983. ‘Daimon und Daimones bei Euripides’ Saeculum 34: 267–79. Schmidt, F.W. 1886. Kritische Studien zu den griechischen Dramatikern, I: Zu Euripides, Berlin. Schmidt, V. 1968. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas, Berlin. Schmitt, R. 1970. Die Nominalbildung in den Dichtungen des Kallimachos von Kyrene: Ein Beitrag zur Stellung seines Wortschatzes innerhalb des Griechischen, Wiesbaden. Schmitt-Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Paris and Rome. Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. 1981. Lions, héros, masques: Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère, Paris. Schofield, M. 1986. ‘Euboulia in the Iliad’ CQ 36: 6–31. Schramm, M. 2010. ‘Hermann und Kant: Philologie als (Kantische) Wissenschaft’ in K. Sier, E. Wöckener-Gade (eds.), Gottfried Hermann (1772–1848), Tübingen: 51–82. Schroeder, O. 1928. Euripidis cantica (2nd ed.), Leipzig. Schubart, A. 1866. ‘Die Wörter ἄγαλμα, εἰκών, ξόανον, ἀνδριάς und verwandte, in ihren verschiedenen Beziehungen, nach Pausanias’ Philologus 24: 561–87. Schwartz, A. 2009. Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece, Stuttgart. Schwartz, A. 2013. ‘Large Weapons, Small Greeks: The Practical Limitations of Hoplite Weapons and Equipment’ in D. Kagan and G.F. Viggiano (eds.), Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, Princeton and Oxford: 157–75. Schwyzer, E. 1939. Griechische Grammatik. I: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion, Munich. Schwyzer, E. and A. Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. II: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, Munich. Seaford, R. 2003a. ‘Tragic Tyranny’ in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Austin, TX: 95–115. Seaford, R. 2003b. ‘Aeschylus and the Unity of Opposites’ JHS 123: 141–63. Seaford, R. 2004. Money and the Early Greek Mind, Cambridge.

676

BIBLIOGRAPHY Seaford, R. 2010. ‘Mystic Light and Near-Death Experience’ in M. Christopoulos, E.D. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham, MD: 201–6. Sears, M.A. 2013. Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Cambridge. Segal, C. 1971. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad, Leiden. Segal, C. 1997. Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides’ Bacchae (2nd ed.), Princeton. Seidensticker, B. 1982. Palintonos harmonia: Studien zu komischen Elementen in der griechischen Tragödie, Göttingen. Seidler, A. 1811/1812. De versibus dochmiacis Tragicorum Graecorum (2 vols.), Leipzig. Sekunda, N. 2007. ‘Land Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds.),  The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. I: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Cambridge: 325–57. Sekunda, N.V. 2010. ‘The Macedonian Army’ in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Chichester: 446–71. Selden, D. 1990. ‘Classics and Contemporary Criticism’ Arion 1: 155–78. Semenzato, C. 2016. ‘Orpheus and mousikē in Greek Tragedy’ in A. Markantonatos (ed.), Orphism and Greek Tragedy (= Trends in Classics 8.2), Berlin: 295–316. Seure, G. 1928. ‘Le roi Rhésos et les héros chasseur’ RPh 54: 106–39. Sfameni Gasparro, G. 1986. Misteri e culti mistici di Demetra, Roma. Sfameni Gasparro, G. 1987. ‘Ancora sul termine ΤΕΛΕΤΗ’ in Filologia e forme letterarie: Studi offerti a F. Della Corte, Urbino: V.137–52. Sheldon, R.M. 2012. Ambush: Surprise Attack in Ancient Greek Warfare, London. Sheppard, J.T. 1914. ‘Note on Euripides, Rhesus, 287 ff.’ CR 28: 87–8. Sherwin-White, S.M. 1978. Ancient Cos: An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period, Göttingen. Shewan, A. 1911. The Lay of Dolon, London. Sicherl, M. 1975. ‘Die editio princeps Aldina des Euripides und ihre Vorlagen’ RhM 118: 205–25. Sicking, C.M.J. and J.M. van Ophuijsen. 1993. Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage: Lysias and Plato, Leiden and New York. Sicking, C.M.J., and P. Stork. 1997. ‘The Grammar of the So-Called Historical Present in Ancient Greek’ in E.J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts, Leiden and New York: 131–68. Sider, D. 1977. ‘Two Stage Directions for Euripides’ AJPh 98: 16–19. Sideras, A. 1971. Aeschylus Homericus: Untersuchungen zu den Homerismen der aischyleischen Sprache, Göttingen. Sieveking, J. 1921/1922. ‘Ein grossgriechisches Tonmodell für toreutische Arbeit’ Münchner Jahrb. bild. Kunst 12: 117–29. Sinko, Th. 1934. ‘De causae Rhesi novissima defensione’ AC 3: 223–9 and 411–29.

677

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sipiora, P. 2002. ‘The Ancient Concept of Kairos’ in Id. and J.S. Baumlin (eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in History, Theory, and Praxis, Albany, NY: 1–22. Sissa, G. 1990. Greek Virginity (trans.: Paris 1987), Cambridge, MA and London. Sissa, G. 2008. Sex and Sensuality in the Ancient World (trans.: Rome and Bari 1996), New Haven and London. Sjövall, H. 1931. Zeus im altgriechischen Hauskult, Lund. Slater, N.W. 2002. Spectator Politics: Metatheatre and Performance in Aristophanes, Philadelphia. Slater, W.J. 1969. Lexicon to Pindar, Berlin. Smereka, I. 1936/1937. Studia Euripidea (2 vols.), Lwów. Smith, C.S. 1990. ‘The Meanings of καιρός in Sophocles’ Electra’ CJ 85: 341–3. Smith, O.L. 1982. ‘On the Scribal Hands in the MS P of Euripides’ Mnemosyne 35: 326–31. Smith, O.L. 1992. ‘Tricliniana II’ C&M 43: 198. Smith, P.M. 1980. On the Hymn to Zeus in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Chico, CA. Smith, P.M. 1981. ‘Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’ HSPh 85: 17–58. Smith, W.D. 1960. ‘Staging in the Central Scene of the Hippolytus’ TAPhA 91: 162–77. Smyth, H.W. 1896. ‘Notes on the Anapaests of Aischylos’ HSPh 7: 139–65. Smyth, H.W. 1956. Greek Grammar (2nd ed., ed. by G.M. Messing), New York. Snell, B. 1964. Supplementum ad A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, continens nova fragmenta Euripidea et adespota, Hildesheim. Sneller, C.B. 1949. De Rheso tragoedia, PhD diss. Amsterdam. Snodgrass, A.M. 1964. Early Greek Armour and Weapons, From the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C., Edinburgh. Snodgrass, A.M. 1967. Arms and Armour of the Greeks, Ithaca, NY and London. Snyder, J.M. 1981. ‘The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets’ Class.Journ. 76: 193–6. Solmsen, F. 1909. Beiträge zur griechischen Wortforschung, Strassburg, Solmsen, F. 1911. ‘Zur Geschichte des Dativs in den indogermanischen Sprachen’ Zeitschr. vergl. Sprachf. 44: 161–223. Sommerstein, A.H. 1977. ‘Notes on Aeschylus’ Suppliants’ BICS 24: 67–82. Sommerstein, A.H. 2007. ‘Cloudy Swearing: When (if Ever) is an Oath not an Oath?’ in Id. and J. Fletcher (eds.), Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society, Bristol: 125–37. Sommerstein. A.H. 2008. Aeschylus. Fragments, Cambridge, MA and London. Sommerstein, A.H. 2010. Aeschylean Tragedy (2nd ed.), London. Sommerstein, A.H. 2014. ‘How Oaths are Expressed’ in Id. and I.C. Torrance (eds.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, Berlin and Boston: 76–85.

678

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sörbom, G. 1966. Mimesis and Art: Studies in the Origin and Early Development of an Aesthetic Vocabulary, Stockholm. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2003. Tragedy and Athenian Religion, Lanham, MD. Spence, I.G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens, Oxford. Spitzbarth, A. 1946. Untersuchungen zur Spieltechnik der griechischen Tragödie, Zurich. Stagakis, G. 1987. ‘Dolon, Odysseus and Diomedes in the Doloneia’ RhM 130: 193–204. Stanford, W.B. 1962/1964. The Odyssey of Homer (2 vols.; 2nd ed.), London. Stanford, W.B. 1967. The Sound of Greek: A Study in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Steadman, S.H. 1945. ‘A Note on the Rhesus’ CR 59: 6–8. Steiner, D.T. 2015. ‘“Wolf ’s Justice”: The Iliadic Doloneia and the Semiotics of Wolves’ ClA 34: 335–69. Stengel, P. 1910. Opferbräuche der Griechen, Berlin. Stephan, G. 1981. Die Ausdruckskraft der caesura media im iambischen Trimeter der attischen Tragödie, Königstein/Ts. Stephani, L. 1866. ‘Erklärung einiger in Jahre 1864 im Südlichen Russland gefundenen Gegenständen’ in Compte-Rendu commiss. imp. arch. St.Pétersbourg 1865: 3–222. Stephanopoulos, T.K. 1988. ‘Tragica’ ZPE 73: 207–47. Stephanus, H. 1568. Annotationes in Sophoclem et Euripidem, Geneva. Stevens, A. 2007. ‘Ion of Chios: Tragedy as Commodity at the Athenian Exchange’ in V. Jennings and A. Katsaros (eds.), The World of Ion of Chios, Leiden and Boston: 243–65. Stevens, P.T. 1976. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden. Stieber, M. 2011. Euripides and the Language of Craft, Leiden and Boston. Stinton T.C.W. 1965=1990. ‘Euripides and the Judgement of Paris’ = Id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, Oxford: 17–75. Stinton, T.C.W. 1975=1990. ‘More Rare Verse-Forms’ = Id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, Oxford: 113–42. Stinton, T.C.W. 1976=1990 ‘“Si credere dignum est”: Some Expressions of Disbelief in Euripides and Others’ = Id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, Oxford: 236–64. Stinton, T.C.W. 1977=1990. ‘Pause and Period in the Lyrics of Greek Tragedy’ = Id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, Oxford: 310–61. Stokes, M.C. 1962. ‘Hesiodic and Milesian Cosmogonies. I’ Phronesis 7: 1–37. Stoyanov, T. 2015. ‘Warfare’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden, MA and Oxford: 426–42. Strenz, J. 2001. Männerfrisuren der Spätarchaik, Mainz.

679

BIBLIOGRAPHY Strohm, H. 1959. ‘Beobachtungen zum Rhesos’ Hermes 87: 257–74. Stronk, J.P. 1995. The Ten Thousand in Thrace: An Archaeological and Historical Commentary on Xenophon’s Anabasis, books VI.iii–vi – VII, Amsterdam. Stubbings, F.H. 1962. ‘Arms and Armour’ in A.B. Wace and Id. (eds.)., A Companion to Homer, London: 504–22. Sturm, J. 1882. Geschichtliche Entwickelung der Constructionen mit ΠΡΙΝ, Würzburg. Suksi, A. 2001. ‘The Poet at Colonus: Nightingales in Sophocles’ Mnemosyne 54: 646–58. Sullivan, S.D. 2000. Euripides’ Use of Psychological Terminology, Montreal and Kingston, ON. Sulzberger, M. 1926. ‘ΟΝΟΜΑ ΕΠΩΝΥΜΟΝ’ REG 39: 381–447. Suter, A. 1993. ‘Paris and Dionysos: Iambos in the Iliad’ Arethusa 26: 1–18. Svennung, J.G.A. 1958. Anredeformen: Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ, Uppsala. Taplin, O. 1972. ‘Aeschylean Silences and Silences in Aeschylus’ HSPh 76: 57–97. Taplin, O. 1976. ‘ΧΟΡΟΥ and the Structure of Post-classical Tragedy’ LCM 1: 47–50. Taplin, O. 1977a. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford. Taplin, O. 1977b. ‘Did Greek Dramatists Write Stage Instructions?’ PCPhS 203: 121–32. Taplin, O. 1992, Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad, Oxford. Taplin, O. 2007. Pots & Plays: Interactions Between Tragedy and Greek Vase-Painting of the Fourth Century B.C., Los Angeles. Tessier, A. 1975. ‘Per un inventario di docmi ripetitivi in Euripide’ Boll. Ist. Filol. Greca, Padova 2: 130–43. Tessier, A. 1993. ‘La responsione tra sequenze docmiache’ in Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’età ellenistica. Scritti in onore di B. Gentili, Rome: 667–78. Thalmann, W.G. 1978. Dramatic Art in Aeschylus’s Seven against Thebes, New Haven and London. Thesleff, H. 1954. Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek, Helsingfors. Thomas, R.F. 1986=1999. ‘Vergil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference’ = Id., Reading Virgil and His Texts, Ann Arbor: 114–41. Thomas, R. 2007. ‘Fame, Memorial, and Choral Poetry: The Origins of Epinikian Poetry – an Historical Study’ in S. Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford: 141–66. Thomson, J.A.K. 1911. ‘Dolon the Wolf ’ CR 25: 238–9. Thornton, A. 1984. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication, Göttingen. Threatte, L. 1980/1996. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. I: Phonology, II: Morphology, Berlin and New York.

680

BIBLIOGRAPHY Tichy, E. 1983. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen, Vienna. Tonkova, M. 2011, ‘Les parures d’harnachement en or de Thrace et l’orfèvrerie de la haute époque hellénistique’ Bollettino di archeologia online (Volume speciale dedicato al Congresso di archeologia, A.I.A.I. 2008): 44–63. Tonkova, M. 2015. ‘Adornments’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden, MA and Oxford: 212–28. Torrance, I.C. 2014. ‘The Oaths of the Gods’ in A.H. Sommerstein and Ead. (eds.) Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, Berlin and Boston: 195–212. Toup, J. 1790. Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium. IV, Oxford. Trédé, M. 1992. KAIROS. L’ à-propos et l’occasion (Le mot et la notion, d’Homère à la fin du IVe siècle avant J.-C.), Paris. Treister, M.Y. 2001. Hammering Techniques in Greek and Roman Jewellery and Toreutics (edited by James Hargrave), Leiden and Boston. Trendelenburg, A. 1867. Grammaticorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum reliquiae, Bonn. Treu, M. 1958. ‘Homerische Flüsse fallen nicht von Himmel’ Glotta 37: 257–78. Troxler, H. 1964. Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods. Zurich. True, M. 1995. ‘The Murder of Rhesos on a Chalcidian Neck-Amphora by the Inscription Painter’ in J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris (eds.), The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to E.T. Vermeule, Austin, TX: 415–29. Trümpy, H. 1950. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos: Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers, Basel. Tsiafakis, D. 2000. ‘The Allure and Repulsion of the Thracians in the Art of Classical Athens’ in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden: 364–89. Tuilier, A. 1968. Recherches critiques sur la tradition du texte d’Euripide, Paris. Tuilier, A. 1969. La passion du Christ, Paris. Tuilier, A. 1983. ‘Nouvelles remarques sur le Rhésos d’Euripide’ Sileno 9: 11–28. Turyn, A. 1957. The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides, Urbana, IL. Turyn, A. 1964, Codices graeci vaticani : saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi. Congessit enarravit eorumque specimina protulit tabulis ccv phototypice, Vatican City. Tyrwhitt, T. 1822. Conjecturae in Aeschylum, Euripidem et Aristophanem, ed. by P. Elmsley, Oxford. Usener, H. 1903. Dreiheit: Ein Versuch mythologischer Zahlenlehre, Bonn. Ussher, R.G. 1973. Aristophanes. Ecclesiazusae, Oxford. Ustinova, Y. 2002. ‘Either a Daimon, or a Hero, or Perhaps a God: Mythical Residents of Subterranean Chambers’ Kernos 15: 267–88. Vahlen, I. 1907/1908. Opuscula academica (2 vols.), Leipzig.

681

BIBLIOGRAPHY Vahtikari, V. 2014. Tragedy Performances Outside Athens in the Late Fifth and the Fourth Centuries BC, Helsinki. Vakonakis, N. 2011. Das griechische Drama auf dem Weg nach Byzanz: Der euripideischen Cento Christos Paschon, Tübingen. Valckenaer, L.C. 1767. Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias, Leiden. Valckenaer, L.C. 1823. Euripidis tragoedia Hippolytus, Leipzig. Valeva, J. 2015. ‘Gold, Silver, and Bronze Vessels’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden, MA and Oxford: 196–211. van Bremen, R. 2010. ‘Adrastos at Aphrodisias’ in R.W.V. Catling and F. Marchand (eds.), Onomatologos: Studies in Greek Personal Names Presented to E. Matthews, Oxford: 440–55. van Brock, N. 1961. Recherches sur le vocabulaire médical du grec ancien: soins et guérison, Paris. van der Mije, S.R. 1987. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength: Iliad A 178 and Gifts from the Gods in Homer’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–67. van der Valk, M.H.A.L.H. 1949. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey, Leiden. van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. 1986. ‘Aeschylus Agamemnon 153: νεικέων τέκτονα σύμφυτον’ Mnemosyne 39: 74–81. van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. 2009. ‘ΚΑI ΜHΝ, ΚΑI ΔH and HΔΗ in Tragedy and Comedy’ in S. Bakker and G. Wakker (eds.), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden and Boston: 111–33. van Hook, Larue. 1949. ‘On the Idiomatic Use of κάρα, κεφαλή, and caput’ in Commemorative Studies in Honor of T.L. Shear = Hesperia, Suppl. 8: 413–14. van Looy, H. 1973. ‘ΠΑΡΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΕΙ Ο ΕYΡΙΠΙΔΗΣ’ in Zetesis: Album amicorum door vrienden en collega’s aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. De Strycker, Antwerp: 345–66. van Nes, D. 1963. Die maritime Bildersprache des Aischylos, Groningen. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1998. Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri, Leiden. van Wees, H. 1988. ‘Kings in Combat: Battles and Heroes in the Iliad’ CQ 38: 1–24. van Wees, H. 1992. Status Warriors: War, Violence, and Society in Homer and History, Amsterdam. van Wees, H. 1994. ‘The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (I)’ G&R 41: 1–18. van Wees, H. 1997. ‘Homeric Warfare’ in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer, Leiden: 668–93. van Wees, H. 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities, London.

682

BIBLIOGRAPHY van Wees, H. 2007. ‘War and Society’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. I: Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Cambridge: 273–300. Vasmer, M. 1921=1971. ‘Osteuropäische Ortsnamen: I. Das Schwarze Meer’ (1921) = Schriften zur slavischen Altertumskunde und Namenkunde, Berlin: I.103–5. Vasmer, M. 1923. Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slawen. I. Die Iranier in Süd-Russland, Leipzig. Vassileva M. 1998. ‘Thracian–Phrygian Cultural Zone’ in N. Tuna, Z. Aktüre and M. Lynch (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism, Ankara: 13–17. Velissaropoulou-Karakosta, J. 1980. Les nauclères grecs: recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Grèce et dans l’Orient hellénisé, Geneva. Verhasselt, G. 2015. ‘The Hypotheses of Euripides and Sophocles by “Dicaearchus”’ GRBS 55: 608–36. Verhasselt, G. 2018. IV. B. History of Literature, Music, Art and Culture. Fascicle 9 Dikaiarchos of Messene, in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued, Leiden and Boston. Vernant, J.-P. 1983. Myth and Thought Among the Greeks (trans.: Paris 1965), London. Vernant, J.-P. 1991. Mortals and Immortals (trans. of selected essays, ed. by F.I. Zeitlin), Princeton. Vernant, J.-P. and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1988. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, (trans.: Paris 1972 and 1986), New York. Versnel, H.S. 1981. ‘Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer’ in Id., Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden: 1–64. Vigneron, P. 1968. Le cheval dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine (des guerres médiques aux grandes invasions). Contribution à l’histoire des techniques, Nancy. Vine, B. 2007. ‘Latin gemō “groan”, Greek γέγωνε “cry out”, and Tocharian A ken “call”’ in A.J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba docenti: Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to J.H. Jasanoff, Ann Arbor: 343–58. Vos, M.F. 1963. Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting, Groningen. Vuillemin-Diem, G. and M. Rashed. 1997. ‘Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscripts grecs d’Aristote: Laur. 87.7 et Laur. 81.18’ Rech. de théol. et philos. médiév. 64: 136–98. Waanders, F.M.J. 1983. The History of ΤΕΛΟΣ and ΤΕΛΕΩ in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam. Wackernagel, J. 1892=1955. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’ = Kleine Schriften (1955/1979): I.1–104. Wackernagel, J. 1902=1955. ‘Über Bedeutungverschiebung in der Verbalkomposition’ = Kleine Schriften (1955/1979): I.127–47. Wackernagel, J. 1907=1955. ‘Hellenistica’ = Kleine Schriften (1955/1979): II.1034–58.

683

BIBLIOGRAPHY Wackernagel, J. 1908=1955. ‘Genetiv und Adjectiv’ = Kleine Schriften (1955/1979): II.1346–73. Wackernagel, J. 1912=1955. ‘Über einige antike Anredeformen’ = Kleine Schriften (1955/1979): II.970–99. Wackernagel, J. 1916. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Göttingen. Wackernagel, J. 1955/1979. Kleine Schriften (3 vols.), Göttingen. Wackernagel, J. 2009. Lectures on Syntax, with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic (trans. and ed. by D. Langslow; Basel 1926/1928, 2nd ed.), New York and Oxford. Wagner-Hasel, B. 2000. Der Stoff der Gaben: Kultur und Politik des Schenkens und Tauschens im archaischen Griechenland, Frankfurt/Main. Wakker, G. 1994. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek, Amsterdam. Wakker, G. 1997. ‘Emphasis and Affirmation. Some Aspects of μέν in Tragedy’ in A. Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles, Amsterdam: 209–31. Walcot, P. 1978. Envy and the Greeks: A Study of Human Behaviour, Warminster. Walde C. 2001. Die Traumdarstellungen in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung, Leipzig. Waldstein, C. 1902. The Argive Heraeum. I, Boston and New York. Walters, H.B. 1898. ‘On Some Black-Figured Vases’ JHS 18: 281–301. Walton, J.M. 2000. ‘Playing in the Dark: Masks and Euripides’ Rhesus’ Helios 27: 137–47. Waters, K.H. 1971. Herodotos on Tyrants and Despots: A study in Objectivity, Wiesbaden. Wathelet, P. 1970. Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque, Rome. Wathelet, P. 1975. ‘L’origine du nom des Héllènes’ LEC 43: 119–29. Wathelet, P. 1977. ‘Études de linguistique homérique: 2. Les formes Ξυν et Συν’ AC 46: 158–64. Wathelet, P. 1988. Dictionnaire des Troyens de l’Iliade, Liège. Wathelet, P. 1989. ‘Rhésos ou la quête de l’immortalité’ Kernos 2: 213–32. Watkins, C. 1986, ‘The language of the Trojans’ in M.J. Mellink (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War (A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984), Bryn Mawr, PA: 45–62. Webb, E.J. 1921. ‘Cleostratus Redivivus’ JHS 41: 70–85. Webster, T.B.L. 1957. ‘Some Psychological Terms in Greek Tragedy’ JHS 77: 149–54. Webster, T.B.L. 1967. The Tragedies of Euripides, London. Wecklein, N. 1873/1875. ‘Studien zu Euripides’ in Jahrb. Class. Philol. Suppl. 7: 305–448. Wecklein, N. 1897. ‘Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides’ Sitzungsb. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. zu München: 445–96.

684

BIBLIOGRAPHY Wecklein, N. 1922. ‘Textkritische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern’, Munich. Wecowski, M. 2014. The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet, Oxford. Wehrli, F. 1967. Die Schule des Aristoteles. I, Dikaiarchos (2nd ed.), Bern. Weinreich, O. 1912. ‘Θεοὶ ἐπήκοοι’ MDAI(A) 37: 1–68. Weiss, M. 1998. ‘Erotica: On the Prehistory of Greek Desire’ HSPh 98: 31–61. Weiss, N. 2018. ‘Hearing the Syrinx in Euripidean Tragedy’ in T. Phillips and A. D’Anglour (eds.), Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece, Oxford: 139–62. Welwei, K.-W. 1974/1988. Unfreie im antiken Kriegdienst (3 vols.), Wiesbaden. Wendel, Th. 1929. Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit, Stuttgart. Wéry, L.-M. 1967. ‘La diplomatie à l’époque homérique’ RIDA 14: 169–205. West, M.L. 1966. ‘Epica’ Glotta 44: 135–48. West, M.L. 1969. ‘Stesichorus redivivus’ ZPE 4: 135–49. West, M.L. 1982. Greek Metre, Oxford. West, M.L. 1983a. The Orphic Poems, Oxford. West, M.L. 1983b. ‘Tragica VI’ BICS 30: 63–82. West, M.L. 1984. ‘Tragica VII’ BICS 31: 171–92. West, M.L. 1988. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic’ JHS 108: 151–72. West, M.L. 1990a. Aeschylus. Tragoediae, Stuttgart. West, M.L. 1990b. Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart. West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music, Oxford. West, M.L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford. West, M.L. 1998/2000. Homerus. Ilias (2 vols.), Stuttgart and Munich. West, M.L. 2000=2013. ‘Iliad and Aethiopis on the Stage: Aeschylus and Son’ = Id., Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. II: Lyric and Drama, Oxford: 227–49. West, M.L. 2001. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, Munich. West, M.L. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth, Oxford. West, M.L. 2013. The Epic Cycle, Oxford. West, S. 1985. ‘Herodotus’ Epigraphical Interests’ CQ 35: 278–305. West, S. 2003. ‘The Most Marvellous of All Seas: The Greek Encounter with Euxine’, G&R 50: 151–67. West, W.C. 1977. ‘Hellenic Homonoia and the New Decree from Plataea’ GRBS 18: 307–19. Wheeler, E.L. 1988. Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery, Leiden. Wheeler, E.L. and B. Strauss. 2007. ‘Battle’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. I: Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Cambridge: 186–247.

685

BIBLIOGRAPHY White, J.W. 1912. The Verse of Greek Comedy, London. Wide, S. 1893. Lakonische Kulte, Leipzig. Wifstrand, A. 1946. ‘Eine Art Transitivierung von Denominativa auf -εω’ Eranos 44: 244–8. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1875. Analecta Euripidea, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1877. De Rhesii scholiis disputatiuncula (Index scholarum 1877, Univ. Greifswald), Greifswald. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1882. ‘Excurse zu Euripides Herakliden’ Hermes 17: 337–64. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1889. Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1893. Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1895. Euripides. Herakles (2nd ed.), Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1907. Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1908. ‘Pindars siebentes nemeisches Gedicht’ Sitzungsb. Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin: 328–52. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1909. ‘Lesefrüchte’ Hermes 44: 445–76. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1918. ‘Dichterfragmente aus der Papyrussammlung der K. Museen’ Sitzungsb. Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin: 728–51. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1921. Griechische Verskunst, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1926. ‘Lesefrüchte’ Hermes 61: 277–303. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1927. Aristophanes. Lysistrate, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1931/1932. Der Glaube der Hellenen (2 vols.), Berlin. Wilcken, U. 1887. ‘Die Achmîn-Papyri in der Bibliothèque Nationale zu Paris’ Sitzungsb. Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin: 807–20. Wiles, D. 1997. Tragedy in Athens: Performance, Space and Theatrical Meaning, Cambridge. Willi, A. 2002. ‘Languages on Stage: Aristophanic Language, Cultural History, and Athenian Identity’ in Id. (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford: 112–250. Willi, A. 2003. The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek, Oxford. Williams, M.F. 2000. ‘Crossing into Enemy Lines: Military Intelligence in Iliad 10 and 24’ Electronic Antiquity 5.3. Willink, C.W. 1971=2010. ‘The Prologue of Iphigenia at Aulis’ = Id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (2010): 50–80. Willink, C.W. 1986. Euripides. Orestes, Oxford. Willink, C.W. 1999. ‘Further Critical Notes on Euripides’ Hippolytus’ = Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (2010): 272–304.

686

BIBLIOGRAPHY Willink, C.W. 2002/2003=2010. ‘Studies in the cantica of Euripides’ Rhesus’ = Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (2010): 560–82. Willink, C.W. 2003=2010. ‘Euripides, Medea 131–213’ = Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (2010): 486–503. Willink, C.W. (ed. by W.B. Henry) 2010. Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, Leiden. Wills, J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion, Oxford. Wilson, J.R. 1980. ‘KAIROS as “Due Measure”’ Glotta 58: 177–204. Wilson, J.R. 1981. ‘Kairos as “Profit”’ CQ 31: 410–20. Wilson, N.G. 1966. Review of Zuntz (1975), in Gnomon 38: 334–42. Wilson, N.G. 1983. ‘A Mysterious Byzantine Scriptorium: Ioannikios and His Colleagues’ S&C 7: 161–76. Wilson, N.G. 1991. ‘Ioannikios and Burgundio: A Survey of the Problem’ in G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio, and M. Maniaci (eds.), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio, Atti del seminario di Erice (18–25 sett. 1988), Spoleto: II.447–56. Wilson, N.G. 2007. Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes, Oxford. Wolff, C. 1979. ‘A Note on Lions and Sophocles’ Philoctetes 1436’ in G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, M.C.J. Putnam (eds.), Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to B.M.W. Knox, Berlin and New York: 144–50. Worley, L. 1994. Hippeis: The Cavalry of Ancient Greece, Boulder, CO. Wright, M. 2005. ‘The Joy of Sophocles’ Electra’ G&R 52: 172–94. Wüst, Ellen 1967. Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter: Interpretationen der 12 vorsizilischen Siegeslieder, des sechsten Paians und der zehnten olympischen Ode, Tübingen. Wyatt, W.F. 1994/1995. ‘Homeric and Mycenean λαός’ Minos 29–30: 159–70. Xanthake-Karamanou, G. 1991. Paralleles exelixeis ste metaklassike (4os p.Ch. AI.) tragodia kai komodia, Athens. Young, D.C. 1968. Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian 2, Pythian 3, and Olympian 7, Leiden. Zeitlin, F.I. 1970. ‘The Argive festival of Hera and Euripides’ Electra’ TAPhA 101: 645–69. Zeitlin, F.I. 1990. ‘Playing the Other: Theater of Self and Society in Athenian Drama’ in J.J. Winkler and F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context, Princeton: 130–67. Ziegler, K. 1905. De precationum apud Graecos formis quaestiones selectae, Breslau. Zuntz, G. 1955. The Political Plays of Euripides, Manchester. Zuntz, G. 1965. An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides, Cambridge. Zuntz, G. 1978. Review of Graf (1974), Gnomon 50: 526–31.

687

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B I B L I O G R A P H I C A B B R E V I AT I O N S CA CAH DGE EGM FrgrHist GVI IEG KB

KG LfgrE LGPN LIMC LSJ MinGrTrag OGIS Paroem. Gr. PCG PEG PMG

J.U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford 1925. Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed., 14 vols.), Cambridge 1970–2005. F.R. Adrados (directed by), Diccionario Griego-Español, Madrid 1980–. R.L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography (2 vols.), Oxford 2000–2013. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923– 1930; Leiden 1940–1958; Leiden 1994–. W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften. I: Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955. M.L. West, Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati (2nd ed., 2 vols.), Oxford 1989–1992. R. Kühner and F. Blass, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Erster Teil: Elementar- und Formenlehre (3rd ed., 2 vols.), Hannover 1890–1892. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre (3rd ed., 2 vols.), Hannover 1898–1904. Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (4 vols.), Göttingen 1955–2010. P.M. Fraser, E. Matthews et alii (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford 1987–. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae (8 vols.), Zurich and Munich 1981–1999. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon (9th ed.), Oxford 1940, with P.G.W. Glare and A.A. Thomson, Revised Supplement, Oxford 1966. M. Cropp, Minor Greek Tragedians. I: The Fifth Century, Liverpool 2019. W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae (2 vols.), Leipzig 1903–1905. E.L. Leutsch and F.G. Schneidewin, Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum (2 vols.), Göttingen 1839–1851. R. Kassel and C.F.L. Austin, Poetae comici Graeci (8 vols. to date), Berlin and New York 1983–. A. Bernabé, Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta. I, Leipzig 1987. D.L. Page, Poetae melici Graeci, Oxford 1962.

688

BIBLIOGRAPHY PMGF RE SH SLG SVF ThGL TrGF TrGFrSel VS

M. Davies, Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta. I, Oxford 1991. G. Wissowa et alii (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (vols. 1–24, 1A–8A, Suppl. 1–15), Stuttgart 1893–1980. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin and New York 1983. D.L. Page, Supplementum lyricis Graecis, Oxford 1974. H.F.A. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (3 vols.), Leipzig 1903–1924. H. Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae linguae (3rd ed. by W. Dindorf, L. Dindorf, G.R.L. de Sinner, T. Fix, C.H. Hase; 8 vols.), Paris 1831–1865. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (5 vols.), Göttingen 1971–2007. J. Diggle, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta selecta, Oxford 1998. H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (6th ed., 4 vols.), Berlin 1951–1952.

689

GENERAL INDEX abstract nouns: 176, 271, 417, 525, 606 accusative absolute: 219 adverbial: 179, 196, 407, 578 internal/cognate: 149, 171, 308, 374, 410, 446, 562 in apposition to a sentence: 611 of end of motion: 155, 179, 271, 361, 536 place entered: 295, 297 time: 412, 578 Achilles: 2–3, 6, 12, 52, 54 n. 175, 63–4, 172, 185, 188–9, 195, 202, 206, 209–10, 217, 222, 226–7, 230–4, 238–43, 245, 259, 261, 266, 274, 283, 302, 306–7, 314–15, 326, 335, 338, 345–6, 348–51, 355, 357–8, 365, 367, 369, 373, 379, 381, 392, 399–400, 406, 411–16, 425, 427, 443, 446, 456, 461, 468, 478–9, 485 n. 83, 496, 514, 516, 523, 527 n. 89, 536, 539, 581–90, 594, 596, 604, 606, 620–2, 625 ambushes of: 425 arms of: 314, 326, 348–50, 357–8, 416, 427, 496 horses of, see horses death of: 589–90 with n. 95, 594, 596, 606, 620–2 embassy to: 188, 217, 222, 230–4, 238, 345, 367 in tragedy: 185, 206, 241, 283, 314, 349, 357–8, 381, 392 quarrel with Agamemnon: 231, 365, 369, 414, 425 relationship to Ajax: 399, 416 withdrawal and return to fighting: 3, 202, 209–10, 261, 314–15, 351, 413–14, 516 see also Rhesus, similarity to Achilles actors costume of: 252, 255, 480

division of roles: 5, 220, 480, 512, 524–5 fourth actor: 5, 25 with n. 68, 480 interpolations: 23, 135–40 with n. 11, 142–3, 353, 377, 626 use of different voices: 484–5 see also stagecraft; Neoptolemus (actor) address affectionate, with κεφαλή: 266–7, 592 by patronymic: 7, 167, 232, 241, 269, 274, 360, 495, 594, 598–9 pronominal: 327, 486–7 of gods: 264, 330, 333, 339, 363, 402, 472–3, 532 n. 90, 562, 567, 626 of the audience: 356–7, 484, 534, 626 adjectives from proper names in -εος/-εία: 542 of exclamation: 354, 534–5, 591, 622 Adrasteia: 36–7 with n. 109, 326, 330–2, 339, 402 cult of: 36–7, 330–1 and Nemesis: 36 with n. 109, 331 and Thracian Bendis: 36–7 with n. 111 Idaean: 36 etymology of: 330 invoked by Chorus: 36–7, 326, 330–1, 339 see also Nemesis; hymn to Rhesus Aeneas: 1, 16, 26, 42–3, 46 n. 141, 61 n. 202, 62, 64, 70–1, 167, 172, 181 n. 28, 194–8, 200, 202–7, 209, 211–12, 215–21, 223, 244, 300, 405, 461–2, 466, 469, 486, 492–3, 506, 513, 604, 625 entrance of: 167, 194–6, 223 exit of: 220–1, 244 foil for Hector: 62, 70, 167, 195–6, 212, 216

690

GENERAL INDEX importance after the death of Hector: 194–5, 461–2 replaces Iliadic Polydamas: 62, 167, 195, 202–4, 208–9 tragic irony of advice: 70–1, 211–12, 215, 221 wise councillor: 16, 62 with n. 209, 70, 194–6, 211, 218, 405 Agamemnon: 6, 56, 142–3, 150, 153, 165, 167, 173, 175, 177, 193, 198, 217–18, 222–3, 230–5, 237–8, 281, 290, 317, 345, 349, 352–4, 361, 365, 367, 369, 414, 425, 451, 461, 486–7, 489, 495, 523, 536, 539, 545, 553, 560, 570, 581, 587–8 in tragedy: 198, 223, 235, 238, 345, 352–4, 361, 486, 523, 536, 553, 560, 581 offer of gifts to Achilles: 230–4, 238 see also Achilles, quarrel with Agamemnon Agamemnon and Menelaus: 235, 290, 345, 349, 354, 414, 523 leadership of the Trojan war: 235, 290, 414 location of respective kingdoms: 345, 349, 523 Ajax Locrian (‘Lesser’): 235–6, 514, 516 Salaminian (‘Greater’): 1 n. 1, 167, 188–9, 193, 241, 261, 277, 306, 309, 399–400, 412–16, 419–20, 426, 442, 473, 483, 498, 520, 561, 580 Alexander (Paris): 3–4, 25, 51–2, 58, 137–8, 141, 234, 250 n. 38, 296, 319, 325, 345, 425, 449, 452, 462, 465–9, 473, 480–97, 506–7, 549 571–2, 582, 595, 622 abduction of Helen: 234, 325, 345, 462 deceived by Athena: 3–4, 51, 465–7, 473, 483–6, 488–94, 506–7, 549, 572 entrance of: 3, 480–2 exit of: 493–4 judgement of: 137–41, 489–91

killer of Achilles: 622 particularly ‘hateful’ to Trojans and Greeks: 462, 483 Alexander III (‘the Great’): 33–4, 43–4, 48, 64, 147, 165–6, 305, 330, 340, 344, 355, 421, 443, 609 divinised: 33–4, 330 reorganisation of Macedonian cavalry: 43–5, 166 allies problem of accepting: 27–8, 42, 60–1, 67, 316–17, 327, 497–8, 563 relations with: 21, 60–1, 67–70, 277–9, 316–17, 385–90, 442, 498, 573, 575–6, 614 Rhesus as an ally: 2, 14, 27–8, 42, 60–1, 69–71, 285, 291, 301, 314, 316–17, 321, 327, 366, 372, 374, 389, 391, 393, 401, 497, 536, 563, 596, 612, 623 terminology for: 69–70 ambush: 45, 55, 64, 157–9, 166, 171, 197–8, 227, 251, 253, 425, 451, 453, 459, 507, 529, 544 Andromache: 60, 353, 443, 581, 589, 614, 625 Aphrodite (Cypris): 3, 30–1, 51, 137–8, 360, 391, 452, 462, 467, 483–6, 488–91, 493, 566, 569, 604, 620 see also Athena, disguised as Aphrodite Apollo: 10, 56, 167, 222, 251, 253, 259, 264–6, 268–72, 288, 307, 324, 337–8, 359–60, 387, 414, 425–6, 432, 453, 462, 467, 526, 566–7, 590, 598, 609–11, 618–19, 622 fails to prevent the killing of Rhesus: 56, 269, 526 favours Troy: 265–6, 268–71, 307, 432, identified with Helios: 268 with n. 41, 338, 609 killer of Achilles: 622 Λύκειος see wolves, Apollo password, used as: 432, 512 Thymbraean shrine of: 265–6, 425–6, 453

691

GENERAL INDEX Archelaus: 38 n. 115, 47–8, 140, 305, 358 court of: 38 n. 115, 47–8 possible military reforms of: 305, 358 Ares: 28, 31, 138, 241, 273, 283 n. 46, 302, 318, 334, 359–60, 413, 486, 566, 605 identifications with: 28 with n. 81, 31, 302, 359–60 metonymy for ‘army’ or ‘war’: 273, 318, 391 Aristarchus: 18 n. 39, 72 n. 236, 219, 270, 282, 313, 404, 422, 426, 433, 443, 451, 458–9, 485 n. 83, 513, 549 aristeia: 9, 16, 138–9, 167, 261, 391, 462 Aristophanes of Byzantium: 134–5, 549 Aristotle: 17 n. 34, 18–9 with n. 41, 28, 39 n. 119, 41 n. 123, 66, 139–40, 156, 184, 199, 227, 285, 455, 467, 547 n. 94 arming scene: 55, 149, 200, 243, 247–56 arms as dedicatory offerings or decorations: 237–8, 340 close by whilst sleeping: 161, 451, 532 n. 91, 541, 543–4, 554 golden: 306, 314, 357, 496 of Achilles see Achilles, arms of personified: 185, 413 article absence of: 185, 229, 384, 516, 534, 549, 563, 601 possessive value of: 258 astronomical phenomena: 17, 72 n. 236, 135–7 with n. 9, 149, 434, 436–40, 446 Athena: 1, 3–6, 8–9, 15, 25–6, 30 n. 88, 47, 50–1, 56, 137–9, 178, 231, 236, 242–3, 257, 269–71, 307–8, 314, 349, 353, 360, 364, 379, 387, 417, 419, 432, 448, 452, 454, 457–8, 461, 464–74, 477–8, 480–6, 488–97, 499–500, 518, 522–3, 526, 553, 556, 566, 574–5, 584, 594, 596, 598–9,

606–7, 610–12, 620, 622 αἰγίς of: 307 disguised as Aphrodite: 3, 26 n.70, 51, 452, 465–7, 483–94, 497 ensures alignment with the Iliadic plot: 466–7, 473, 482 entrance of: 25–6, 465–6 epiphany of: 25–6, 452, 465–8, 473, 480–1 exit of: 467 favours Odysseus: 236, 271, 417, 473–4, 491, 518, 522–3 hostile to Troy: 137–9, 349, 483, 486, 489–91 insistence on destiny: 137–9, 461, 482 ‘mastermind’ of Rhesus’ killing: 3, 5, 8, 47, 50, 56, 138–9, 257, 454, 457, 465–9, 471–2, 485, 496, 526, 594, 596, 606–7, 610–12 see also Palladium, theft of Athens Assembly of: 16, 27 with n. 77, 40 n. 120, 35, 48, 52, 60, 63, 64, 66–70, 217, 316, 377 accepting allies: 316–17 awarding honours to civic benefactors: 27, 34, 51, 64–6, 224 in the polis at war: 16, 60, 64, 67–70, 217 mysteries at: 27, 47, 607–11, 616–17 relationship with Macedon: 27, 34–5, 43 n. 131, 47–9, 68–9, 340 Thrace: 21, 67–9, 317 visited by the Muses: 5, 27, 47, 607–12 Atreidae see Agamemnon; Menelaus; Agamemnon and Menelaus barbarian(s): 46–7, 152, 169, 231, 259–60, 273, 277, 308–10, 368, 373, 428–9, 462, 475, 528, 562, 568, 620 beheading: 259–60, 280–1, 462, 472, 562 booty: 189, 201, 233, 235, 237–8, 245, 298, 316, 320–1, 403, 468, 477, 500, 506

692

GENERAL INDEX burial: 195, 373, 420–1, 428–9, 438 n. 74, 557, 583, 612–16, 622–3 chariot: as status symbol: 243, 346, 352–3 entry, see stagecraft, chariot entry in Homeric warfare: 166, 203–5, 208–9, 243, 346, 348, 545 structure of: 208, 273, 348 Charioteer: 1, 3–4, 9, 13, 18 n. 40, 22, 26, 42, 46, 60–1, 196, 240–1, 279, 294–5, 300, 316, 362, 433, 468, 500, 507–8, 510–11, 518, 525–35, 537, 539–42, 544–9, 554, 556–8, 563, 565, 569–82, 584, 586, 612, 614, 616 accuses Hector for Rhesus’ death: 1, 3–4, 26, 240, 279, 316, 362, 507, 510–11, 544, 547–8, 569, 571–7, 580–2, 612, 614 as second messenger: 4, 26, 527–9, 537, 542, 556–7 entrance of: 1, 26, 518, 527 incomplete knowledge of: 4, 294, 533, 546–9, 557, 565, 570, 578 isolation of: 468, 527, 531, 534 professional focus on his horses of: 545–6 remains on stage: 26, 537 rhetoric of simplicity of: 568–9, 573–4 wish to die of: 535, 579–80 see also dream χάρις, reciprocation of: 228–30, 316–17, 325, 371–2, 374, 611 Chorus (watchmen) accused of provoking confusion and panic: 156–60, 193, 196 characterised as ordinary soldiers: 144, 191–3 division of: 144, 438, 440–1, 450–2, 499, 512, 518, 524–6 entrances of: 4, 20, 26, 51, 144–5, 497–9 exits of: 3, 452–3, 625–6 interludes: 2–4, 212–14, 244–5, 362, 394–7 offer violence to a character: 20, 26, 51, 498, 505–10 optimism of: 28, 258–9, 264–5,

271–2, 274, 277, 279, 341 unusually assertive: 156, 163–4, 513 see also Adresteia, invoked by Chorus; Rhesus, divinised by Chorus; stasima civic benefactors: 27, 64–6, 221, 224, 226–30, 322, 421, 611 clothing, signifies national identity: 49–50, 311–14 confusion and difficulty of establishing a secure reality 139, 144, 153–4, 156–9, : 171, 180, 191, 197–8, 287, 294, 454–5, 462, 481, 487, 492, 496–8, 506, 515, 519, 524–7, 530–1, 533, 546–8, 556–7, 58 see also nighttime corpse, treatment of: 259, 351, 428–9, 586, 596, 621, 623 see also beheading; burial costume see actors crasis: 200, 206, 208, 258, 365, 392, 487 Crates of Mallus: 17, 21, 72 n. 326, 437, 443 cult hero: 5–6 with n. 4, 9–13, 28–36, 168, 333, 421, 442, 618 see also Rhesus, cult of darkness, see ‘nighttime’ dative ethic: 399 of accompanying circumstance: 470, 513 goal of motion: 220 instrument: 183, 256, 513 interest: 361, 535–6 ocatival: 281, 535–6 manner: 156, 297 dawn: 3, 136–7 with n. 9, 149, 177, 181, 187, 219, 268, 322, 342 with n. 60, 434–51, 468, 476, 531, 623–4 marks resumption of human activity: 322, 434, 436, 448–9 song of Chorus: 434–51 debate (agon) Hector and Aeneas: 1, 62–4, 194–218, 492–3

693

GENERAL INDEX debate (agon)  (cont.) Hector and Dolon: 2, 52, 64, 230–40 as ‘rivals in love’: 239–40 ‘guessing game’: 52, 64 with n. 217, 230, 497–9 Hector and Rhesus: 2–3, 15–16, 27–8, 42, 316–28, 361–94, 401–34, 497, 563 Chorus, charioteer, and Rhesus: 518, 546–7, 563–4, 568–77, 586, 606–7, 612 deception and self–deception: 4, 139, 250–3, 301, 418–27, 483–94, 497–512 dialectal forms Aeolic: 146, 194, 347, 381, 389, 347 Arcadian: 388–9 Attic: 148, 156, 161, 184, 186, 192, 194, 199, 231, 235–6, 254, 292, 275, 289, 294, 298, 313, 320–1, 328, 332, 340, 352, 357, 363, 371–2, 389, 391–3, 406, 415–16, 421, 440, 450, 464, 474, 481, 484, 504, 506–7, 513, 524, 555, 559, 562–3, 575, 613 Boeotian: 416, 433, 595 Doric: 145, 246, 267, 270 n. 42, 320, 367, 389, 433, 440, 446, 450, 520, 528, 548, 565, 567 Ionic: 184, 192, 194, 309, 319, 371, 381, 386, 532, 529, 584, 602 non-Attic presented in Attic: 298 Dicaearchus: 133–5 Didymus: 72 n. 236, 341, 437 Diomedes: 1–6, 8, 13–15 with n. 27, 18 n. 40, 20, 48–51, 54–7 with n. 175, 61 n. 204, 64 n. 217, 70, 139, 145, 149–50, 154, 159–60, 169, 196, 233, 236, 250, 253–4, 257, 259, 261, 269, 272, 280, 302, 304, 346, 380, 399, 417–20, 424–5, 431–2, 442, 452–4, 456–8, 460–8, 471–4, 477–82, 484– 5, 488–9, 493–7, 499–500, 506, 509–10, 512, 514, 520, 526, 532 n. 91, 534, 541, 544, 549–51, 554–6, 574, 586–7, 593–4, 596, 607, 612

and Athena: 417, 461, 466, 472, 480–1, 496 bloodthirsty nature of: 460–2, 466, 480–1, 494, 499 Iliadic aristeia of: 261, 462 location of kingdom of: 169 narrative substitute for Achilles: 261 see also Odysseus; Odysseus and Diomedes; Palladium, theft of Dionysodorus of Troezen: 425–6 disguise and recognition: 4, 26, 51–2, 154, 164, 227, 243, 248 n. 37, 249–59, 280–1, 360, 418–20, 422–5, 459, 465, 467, 473, 484–6, 489, 491, 493, 497, 511, 514, 518, 520–2, 586, 529, 603, 622 see also Athena, disguised as Aphrodite; Dolon, disguise of; Odysseus, disguises of Dolon: 1–7, 25–7, 47, 52, 56–7, 61 n. 204, 64–6 with n. 219, 70, 154, 175, 182, 196, 211–12, 220, 222–34, 236–40, 243– 61, 264–8, 271–7, 279–82, 285, 302–3, 348, 394, 418, 431–4, 451–4, 457–9, 462–5, 466–9, 474, 477, 497, 519, 541, 548, 561, 577, 584 aims to kill Odysseus or Diomedes: 259–60, 281, 462, 464 ‘ambushed ambusher’: 227, 258–9 as a foil for Hector: 222, 247–8, 285 awkward language of: 247–8 desire for material reward: 64–5, 221–4, 228 disguise of: 2, 57, 243, 248–59, 266, 280–1 artistic depictions of: 252 entrance of: 25, 196, 222–3 etymology of: 57, 226–8, 256 exit of: 220 fast runner: 236, 239, 451 gives up the password: 4, 70, 154, 212, 277, 457 reward for: 2, 26–7, 52, 64–5, 212, 222, 226–39, 477, 497 similarities to Achilles: 239 Thersites: 57, 222

694

GENERAL INDEX venality of: 52, 57, 64–5, 222, 224, 228–30 see also disguise and recognition; nighttime; wolves; stagecraft, props, spoils of Dolon Doloneia see Homer, Il. 10 dream: 160, 198, 355 n. 61, 500, 546–50, 552

180–1, 191–2, 195–6, 198–9, 205, 215–16, 275, 454, 564–5, 568, 624 Iliadic precedent of: 173 (mis)interpreted by Hector: 144, 177–81, 191–3, 198 friendship, see φιλία (Index of Greek words)

elision: 254, 378, 588 enjambement: 274 enslavement in war: 189–90, 201, 236, 353, 371 Epic Cycle: 7–8 with n. 8, 15, 46 n. 141, 55 n. 182, 146, 167, 224 n. 35, 235–6, 261, 266, 269, 284 n. 46, 309, 344–5, 348, 351, 399, 416, 418–25, 442, 462, 490, 530, 594, 596, 620–3 epiparodos: 4, 19–20, 50–1, 53, 145, 161, 395, 441, 494–5, 497–503, 505–6, 509, 512, 514, 526 comic nature of: 19–20, 50–1, 53, 498–9, 509 interrupted by iambic passage: 161 εὐβουλία of military leaders: 42, 61, 70–1, 202–4, 285, 541 Eurypylus: 67, 355, 366, 586, 596 n. 97 Eustathius: 148 n. 15, 253, 288, 334, 351, 388, 420, 422, 431, 442 n. 76, 489, 494, 505, 513, 597, 605 εὐτυχία of Dolon: 258 of Hector: 182, 185–6, 288, 317–18, 363, 461, 490, 584 of Troy and the Trojans: 490, 584 exodos: 4, 285, 589–90 fear: 139, 152, 156, 158, 171–2, 176–7, 179, 193, 197, 206–7, 276, 285–6, 293, 298, 318, 376, 395, 456–7, 460, 469, 484, 524–5, 552, 560–1, 563, 577–9, 584–6, 625 fires in the Greek camp: 1, 26 n. 70, 42, 50, 144, 149, 173–4, 176–8,

genitive ablatival: 146 appositive: 600 local: 446 of cause: 402, 592 comparison: 245, 621 contempt: 387, 573, 578 exchange: 401–2 origin: 211, 292 price or value: 244 time: 220 Glaucus: 168, 444, 575–6 gods impersonal agent (‘fate’): 181–2, 315–16, 322–3, 351, 461, 465, 469, 482, 528, 584 temples of: 13, 34–5 with n. 100, 168, 237–8, 265–6, 309, 338, 349, 351, 420–1, 428–30, 523, 598 see also hymn; Apollo; Athena; etc. Greeks camp of: 1, 3, 6, 145, 150, 175, 205, 216, 220, 271, 363, 380–1, 392, 410 n. 66, 431, 451, 453–4, 466–7, 471, 473–4, 497, 499, 507, 512, 544 its fortifications: 160, 177–8, 203–6, 208, 217, 256, 363–4, 392, 471, 623–4 supposed flight of: 1, 174, 176–7, 179–81, 186–91, 198, 205, 218–20, 344 Hector: 1–6, 14–20, 25–6, 28, 42–3, 45–7, 50, 52, 54 n. 175, 57, 60–2, 64–6, 69–70, 137–9, 142–9, 150, 152–67, 170–4, 176–83, 185–98, 200–7, 209, 212, 215–47, 256, 259–60, 272–4, 277, 279, 283–93,

695

GENERAL INDEX Hector (cont.) 295, 300–1, 307, 310, 314, 316–27, 337, 340, 356, 361–72, 374, 376–7, 381, 385–7, 389–95, 399, 401–5, 407, 409–14, 416, 418–19, 423, 426–32, 434, 438, 442, 444, 453–4, 456–62, 464–5, 468–9, 471–2, 475, 477, 480, 482, 484–94, 497, 499, 506–7, 510–14, 516, 518, 520, 524–7, 532–3, 536–7, 542, 544, 546–9, 558–64, 567–9, 571–7, 579–84, 586, 590, 605–6, 612–16, 623–5 accepts the verdict of the majority: 2, 61–2, 70–1, 216–17, 317, 405, 492–3 and the problem of power: 1, 42, 70–1, 148, 164, 231–2, 317, 327, 371, 402, 563–4 ideas of φιλία/συμμαχία: 60–1, 69–70 with n. 70, 291, 316–17, 321–5, 334–5, 362, 367–8, 372, 571, 573, 580 as Macedonian ‘king’: 42–4, 147, 165–6 assumes what his interlocutor will say: 285, 289 attitude towards those of lower social status: 60–1, 187, 195–6, 284–9, 395, 612 bivouac of: 6, 144–5, 207, 454, 458–9, 499 devotion to his fatherland: 221–2, 226, 274 entrances of: 145, 558–9 exit of: 3, 25, 243–4 father of Astyanax: 60, 353, 356 fights for Rhesus in Thrace: 317, 369–72, 387, 401 ‘heroic’ ideology of: 52, 64–6, 221–2, 224–8, 238, 243, 247–8, 318 leader of the Trojans: 1, 14, 60, 148, 564, 579 listens to his peers: 60, 70, 195–6, 216, 405, 492–3 ‘politicised’ in Rh.: 16, 60–2 professional military competence

of: 61 with n. 203, 155–6, 159–60, 171, 177, 191–3, 195, 410 with n. 66, 413, 430, 513, 558, 560, 579 protagonist: 1, 317 relationship to Priam: 148, 288, 583 royal titles of: 14, 148, 273, 285, 300–1, 564, 567 rushes initially to assumptions/ decisions: 60–1, 70, 144, 167, 174, 180–1, 191–2, 204, 212, 215, 217, 576, 612–13 Hecuba: 198, 294, 379, 571, 593 Helen: 6, 140, 234, 255, 281, 325–6, 334, 345, 381, 417 n. 68, 419–20, 422, 424–5, 462, 485–6, 489, 534, 583, 586, 593–5, 597–8, 600, 612 see also Alexander (Paris), abduction of Helen; Menelaus Hera: 8, 138–9, 141, 177–8, 270, 348–50, 360, 391, 432, 467, 482, 485, 517 n. 88, 553, 566, 598 Heracles: 33 n. 96, 38 n. 114, 52, 250, 254–5, 266, 283, 311, 336 n. 57, 347, 387, 432, 452–3, 467, 485, 497, 528, 567, 571, 581 herald(s): 233, 238, 367, 441–2, 498, 537, 613 Hermes: 172, 256–8, 268, 345, 420, 448–50, 485–6, 566, 605 associated with nocturnal action: 268 δόλιος: 256–7 hiatus: 157, 397, 511 Hippocoon: 56, 269, 526–7 with n. 89, 552 Homer, Iliad text of, for Rh.: 178, 235–6, 270, 428–9, 451, 474 n. 82, 549–50 Il. 10 (Doloneia) ancient title of: 160 anomalous place in the Iliad: 53–5 assemblies in: 217–18 comic elements in: 53, 56–8, 484–6 iambic elements in: 56–8 with n. 191 intertextual relationship with

696

GENERAL INDEX Rh.: 3–4, 6–8, 42 n. 127, 53–4, 59, 139, 150, 155, 165, 167, 173, 177, 196, 202, 225, 227, 233, 236, 240, 249–50, 252, 254, 264, 269, 271–2, 277, 302, 304, 391, 417, 426, 431–2, 434, 436, 438, 440, 451, 453–4, 457–8, 461, 464, 466, 468, 473–4, 478–9, 494–5, 500, 526–7, 541–2, 548–9, 551, 553, 555, 561, 575, 623 mirroring of Greek and Trojan action: 58, 150, 173 poetics of: 53–5 with nn. 175 and 178 rewards in: 221 Trojans mocked in: 57–8 see also Dolon; nighttime; trickery; wolves Odyssey text of, for Rh.: 422–3 horses in Il.: 7, 26 n. 70, 238, 240–1, 243, 302, 346, 474, 477, 479, 500, 561 of Achilles: 2, 52, 64–5 with n. 217, 222, 226–7, 230, 234, 238–43, 245, 273–4, 338–9, 479 of Memnon: 283, 308–9, 352, 358 of Rhesus: 5, 7–9, 13, 26 n. 70, 49–50, 64 n. 217, 243, 302–4, 306–9, 333, 338–9 with n. 59, 353, 358, 454–6, 461, 468, 477–9, 488, 496, 500, 507, 509–11, 543, 545–6, 548, 550–2, 556, 561, 565, 570–1, 580–1 onstage: 283–4, 353, 500–1, 510 wooden horse (‘Trojan’): 344, 422 hospitality, see ξενία (Index of Greek words) ὑβρις: 326, 339, 489, 561, 597–9 with n. 100 hymn cletic: 264–5, 333, 346–7 in tragedy: 35 n. 108, 330 of the nightingale: 447 to Demetrius Poliorcetes: 29–32 to Rhesus: 2, 28, 31–2, 36, 330–52, 564

iconography: 10, 49–50, 252, 307, 314, 335–6, 349, 358, 425, 600, 610 Iliad see Homer imagery light: 338 nautical: 318–19, 536 racing: 236, 271 sound: 448 surgical: 393 sympotic: 344 interjection: 353–4, 395, 458, 502, 527–8, 585 interstate relations: 42, 69, 153, 291, 317, 367, 384–5 irony, tragic: 64 with n. 217, 212, 221, 227, 234, 237–8, 257–9, 269, 272, 275, 277, 293, 306, 341, 350, 352, 394, 416, 432, 461–3, 483, 491, 579 judgement of Paris: 137–8, 141, 490–1 lament female, compared to nightingale song: 445–6 of the charioteer: 13, 526–41, 546 of the Muse: 5, 168, 446, 586–612, 621–2 regulation of, in Athens: 591–3 language, style, and rhetoric ambiguity: 156, 216, 234, 243, 252, 321, 329–30, 339, 489, 566 amoibaion: 142, 440, 450–1, 501, 528, 589 anadiplosis: 359–60, 365, 440, 524, 564 anaphora: 154, 222, 245, 270, 327, 333, 339, 459, 492, 505 with n. 84 antilabe: 143–4, 157–8, 440–1, 504, 508, 511–12, 519 aphaeresis: 478 apocope: 351 asyndeton: 258, 334, 346, 378, 384, 493, 509, 572 brachylogy: 171, 190, 233, 259, 281, 379, 574, 583 composita abundantia: 210, 521, 543

697

GENERAL INDEX language (cont.) defamiliarisation of language: 292, 357 dialogue, expressions found in: 257, 292, 328, 407, 456–7, 459–60, 463, 486–7 enallage: 152, 280, 357, 520, 523 euphemism: 24, 172, 198, 382, 463, 584–5, 615 figura etymologica: 239, 585 hapax eiremena and rare words: 19 with n. 47, 25, 148, 170, 173–4, 215, 218, 251, 253, 281, 289, 304, 327, 342–3, 388, 390, 433, 522, 617–18, 624 hendiadys: 157, 200–1, 274, 277, 303, 346, 380, 412, 424, 506 hyperbole: 28, 231, 275, 293, 491, 517 with n. 88, 534, 600 hysteron-proteron: 165, 188, 190, 554–5, 577 interruptions: 142, 154, 158, 216, 260, 285, 290, 401, 465, 511, 525–7, 589, 623 litotes: 230–1, 261, 375, 405–6, 470, 489, 537, 623 ‘mosaic’ technique: 24–5, 209–10, 388, 417, 563, 570–1, 585, 598 oxymoron: 351, 531, 573 periphrasis: 136, 151, 155, 176, 197, 205, 243, 249, 260, 280, 282, 292, 309, 322, 335, 337, 394, 403, 457, 470, 473, 481, 491, 514, 524–5, 542, 556, 570, 574, 587, 594, 617–18, 626 personification: 182, 185, 280, 307 pleonasm: 24, 148, 190, 197, 199, 281, 312, 470–1, 538, 548, 556, 585, 594 polyptoton: 203, 214, 240, 311, 324, 327, 362, 368, 390, 411, 557, 567 repetition as confirmation: 214 emphatic: 274, 282, 306, 311, 519 as imitation of Homeric formulaic style: 55, 165, 183, 225, 311, 490–1 in ritual contexts: 265, 359–60,

mechanical: 210 of set words or phrases in Rh.: 55, 156–7, 162, 164–5, 171–2, 218, 316, 398, 490–1 of a complete line: 490–1 as reuse or echo of another speaker’s words: 191, 193, 225, 272, 318, 322, 377, 390, 394, 427, 471–2, 477, 481, 491, 526, 543, 568, 571, 578, 606, 613, 625 stichomythia: 2, 52, 64, 66 n. 219, 230 synecdoche: 7 n. 6, 161, 164, 180, 183, 192–3, 197, 200, 208, 242, 249, 261, 266–7, 273, 277, 282, 296, 335, 364, 366, 390, 393, 398, 404, 412–13, 421, 449–50, 456, 556, 619 technical idioms agricultural: 190–1, 289 hippic: 242, 308 judicial: 383, 420, 580–1 legislative: 545 medical: 483, 555 military: 42, 45, 147, 161, 168, 175, 192, 201, 215, 256, 301, 312, 313, 347, 358, 364, 371, 393, 413, 425, 432, 458, 468–7, 471 musical: 448 oratorical: 569, 574 religious: 607–9, 617, 619 sympotic: 376 tricolon: 265, 367, 464 zeugma: 260, 289, 386, 559, 602 lexicography Rh. as possible locus classicus of lemmata in: 72 with n. 235, 137, 147, 151 with n. 17, 166, 170, 190, 215, 219, 496–7, 563, 600, 604 Lycians: 167, 266, 269, 310, 385, 444 leaders of, Sarpedon and Glaucus: 167, 385, 575 manuscripts: 71–9, see also scribal errors Memnon: 15, 283–4, 308–9, 327–8, 352, 355, 358, 366, 468, 586, 596, 620

698

GENERAL INDEX Menander: 50–9, 182, 299, 325 Menelaus: 6, 56, 141, 165, 167, 196, 210, 235, 237, 250, 281, 290, 325–6, 334, 345, 349, 354, 379, 414, 417 n. 68, 425, 451, 460–1, 486, 497, 523, 560, 571, 581, 595 messenger fear of interlocutor’s reaction: 176–7, 179, 284–6 speeches: 264, 285–6, 290, 301–2, 326–7, 492, 527–8, 537, 541–2, 546, 556–7 double: 537 metaphor Ares as unfavourable wind: 318–20 army as river: 297 beaching a ship as arrival: 536 being ‘carried away’: 156 ‘cleaving’ a path as speech: 377–8 dicing: 225, 239, 390–1 ἡμέρα for a span of time: 362–3 ‘flowing’ voice: 455 light as salvation: 338, 625 ‘path’ of song: 377 seeing the light of the sun as life: 573–4, 617, 619 ship of state: 275–6, 318–20 warrior as lion: 182, 355 with n. 61 weaving as deceitful/poetic speech: 569 ‘windstorm’ as a sudden assault: 497 words as arrows: 582 wound as a ‘furrow’: 555 metatheatricality: 255–6, 280–1, 625–6 metre aeolo-choriambic and iambo-choriambic: 161–2, 263–4, 328–30, 396–7 aristophanean: 263, 329–30 hipponactean: 263, 330 anapaests: 28, 142–5, 156–8, 270, 330, 352–4, 396, 440–1, 625 antilabe in: 143–4, 157, 441, 511 bacchiacs and iambo-bacchiac: 162, 502–4, 588–9 choriamb isolated in dochmiac context 504: 161–2 correption, epic: 532

cretics: 163 with n. 22, 395, 502–3 dactylic tetrameter: 162, 435 dactylo-epitrites: 162–3, 262–4, 270, 328–9, 396–7, 435, 439 diaeresis: 158, 213, 236, 502, 504 dochmiacs and iambo-dochmiac: 212–14, 263, 396–7, 503–4, 517 Kaibelianus: 395–6 enoplians: 263, 396–7, 435, 588–9 glyconic and pherecratean: 162–4, 328–9 hemiepes: 162, 588–9 iambic trimeter: 24, 504, 527–8, 537–8, 586, 589 iambics and iambo-trochaics: 162–3, 212–14, 396, 502, 527–8, 589 hypodochmius: 502, 506, 517 ionics: 329 ithyphallic: 163, 263, 435, 502, 506, 588 lecythion: 213, 396–7 paroemiac: 156–7, 434–5, 588 Porson’s Law: 604 reizianum: 163 responsion: 161, 163, 173, 213–14, 246, 264, 270, 276, 281, 397–8, 400–1, 504, 517, 566–7 split resolution: 163, 213, 248, 396, 502, 504 telesillean: 263–4 trochaic tetrameter: 501–3, 507–8, 511, 527–8 military forces cavalry/chariots: 164, 166, 311, 346 hoplites: 146, 148, 153, 159, 164, 168, 304–5, 310–12, 349, 358, 410–13 light troops: 164, 310–13 organisation of: 163–4, 168–9, 410–11, 413, 430, 433–4, 543 n. 93 see also Rh., Macedonian elements in Musaeus: 27, 47, 607–11 Muse: 1, 4–5, 9, 11, 13–14, 22, 27–8, 35 n. 108, 47, 50, 168, 330, 333–7, 359, 361, 368, 370, 379, 446, 448, 467, 490–1, 547, 586–7, 588, 590–603, 605–13, 616, 618, 620–3

699

GENERAL INDEX Muse (cont.) advocates cultural priority of Northern Greece: 27, 47, 335–6, 587 curse of: 593–5 epiphany of: 1, 4–5, 467, 585–612 lament see lament, of the Muse mother of Rhesus: 5, 11 n. 20, 14, 50, 333–7, 368, 446, 448, 490, 590–2, 594–603, 605–6, 622 Thracian associations of: 5, 47, 587, 597–8, 601 visits to Athens see Athens, visited by the Muses see also Rhesus Mysians: 67 n. 220, 277–9, 299, 355, 386, 443–4 descended from Thracians: 67 n. 220, 443–4 location of: 278, 299, 386, 443–4 worthlessness of: 227, 277–9 mysteries see Athens, mysteries at Nemesis: 36, 331 punisher of overweening pride: 36 with n. 109 relationship to Adrasteia: 36 with n. 109, 331 with n. 54 see also Adrasteia; hymn, to Rhesus Neoptolemus (actor): 27–41 performance for Phillip and witness to Phillip’s assassination: 38–41 possible author / revisor of Rh.: 41 n. 123 Neoptolemus (son of Achilles): 257, 353, 427, 442, 458, 585 Nestor: 54 n. 175, 56–7, 150, 153, 159, 165, 203, 205, 221, 232, 345, 399, 460, 477, 489, 561 nighttime danger of panic during: 26, 153, 156, 159–60, 171–2, 194, 196, 217–18, 457, 492–3, 506, 513 difficulty of seeing during: 139, 149, 153–4, 457, 469, 530–1 importance of aural phenomena during: 154, 300, 444–49, 454–5

lexicon of, in Rh.: 148–9 with n. 16, 152, 173–4, 197–8, 205, 476, 494, 575 setting(s) in the Epic cycle: 55 n. 182, 418–20, 425 in Rh.: 55 with n. 183, 64, 135, 136–7, 139, 149, 150, 152, 155, 173–4, 177–8, 196–8, 217, 432, 434, 454, 456–7, 462, 513 in other tragedies: 55–6 n. 183 watches: 46, 146, 149, 160, 431, 434, 436, 438, 441, 444, 543 see also Homer, Doloneia nightingale: 434, 440, 444–9, 452, 586 nominative instead of vocative: 345, 530 of exclamation: 354, 530 Nymph(s): 333, 336, 566, 598, 603–5 oath: 325, 374, 562, 565–6 Odysseus: 1–6, 8, 18 n. 40, 20, 26, 48–51, 54–7 with nn. 175 and 178, 61 n. 204, 64 n. 217, 70, 139, 145, 149, 154, 160, 170, 172, 189, 196–7, 233, 236–7, 239, 251, 253–4, 257–61, 269, 271–2, 275, 280, 289, 302, 306, 325, 348, 351, 355, 373, 380–1, 394, 399, 415–31, 452–4, 456, 458–69, 471–4, 477–82, 484–5, 488–9, 491, 493–501, 503, 505–12, 514– 16, 518–24, 526, 529, 532, 534, 539, 541, 548, 551, 556, 561, 574, 576, 578, 586–8, 593–4, 596, 607, 612–13 captured by the Chorus: 20, 26, 51, 499–500, 508–11, 526 deceptive language of: 417, 423, 427, 500, 508–10 disguises of: 51, 56 n. 183, 351, 418–25, 459, 497, 514, 518–24, 529 πτωχεία: 56 n. 183, 418–25, 520–4 helmet of: 254, 420 in Il. 10: 54–7 with nn. 175 and 178, 197, 233, 236–7, 239, 254,

700

GENERAL INDEX 271–2, 302, 431, 474, 478–80, 518, 541, 548, 556, 561 main enemy of Troy: 260, 415–26, 520 son of Autolycus: 57, 420 takes on the role of Diomedes in Il. 10: 417 trickery of: 4, 20, 51, 57, 154, 251, 416–26 with n. 68, 459, 479–80, 497, 500, 508–12, 514–15, 518–24, 529, 613 and Diomedes theft of Palladium: 8, 18 n. 40, 20, 48, 50–1, 54–7 with nn. 175 and 178, 61 n. 204, 64 n. 217, 70, 139, 145, 149, 154, 160, 196, 233, 236, 253, 257, 259, 261, 269, 272, 280, 302, 380, 416–20, 424–5, 431, 452–4, 456, 458, 460–74, 477–8, 480–2, 484–5 488–9, 493–500, 506, 509–10, 512, 514, 520, 526, 532, 534, 541, 551, 556, 574, 586–7, 593–4, 596, 607, 612 capturers/killers of Dolon: 154, 233, 236, 253, 257, 272, 302, 431, 463–4, 494, 586 entrances of: 3–4, 453–4, 493, 498–500, 512 exits of: 3–4, 482–4, 512 competition between: 419–20, 479 killers of Rhesus: 139, 261, 280, 467, 489, 496, 586, 593–4, 607 linked by dual participles: 462–3, 550 similarities to Chorus at the beginning of Rh.: 454 special enemies of the Trojans: 259–60, 416–17, 520 see also Athena, favours Odysseus; arms of Achilles oracle concerning Rhesus: 8–11, 15 n. 27, 42 n .127, 468, 545 Orpheus: 12, 27 with n. 76, 47, 334, 491, 601, 607–11, 616–17, 619–20 with n. 103 and Dionysus (Bacchus): 9, 11, 341, 608–9, 616, 619–20

Paeonians: 245, 299, 370, 386–7, 442–3 Palladium, theft of: 56 n. 183, 236, 261, 418–21, 423–4, 428, 430, 520 Pan: 159, 172, 266, 449, 605 Pandarus: 170, 194 paratragedy: 52 with n. 169, 140, 173, 175, 192, 208–9, 215, 230–1, 243, 245, 266, 270, 277, 305, 347, 354–5 with n. 61, 364–6, 374, 390, 412, 425, 446, 491, 517, 525, 530–1, 535–6, 563–4, 577 Paris see Alexander Parmeniscus: 72 n. 236, 433, 437 parodos: 1, 20, 50–1, 53, 135, 142–4, 161–3, 328, 441, 493, 497, 499, 501, 512–13, 582 action of: 1, 142–5 comic nature of: 20, 50–1, 53 opening to Rh.: 135, 141–2 see also epiparodos passwords: 4, 26 n. 70, 153–4, 212, 277, 430, 432, 457, 507–9, 512 Phoibos as password: 432, 512 Patroclus: 167, 185, 208, 259, 277, 326, 355, 359, 373–4, 399, 416, 485 n. 83, 523, 616 Peleus: 240–1, 273–4, 314, 404, 406, 581, 585, 622 peripeteia: 27–41, 64 n. 217, 391, 395, 508, 569 Philip (II), of Macedon: 33–4, 38–41, 43–4, 49, 68, 147, 165–6, 305, 311, 325, 330, 340, 358, 370, 384–5, 404 assassination in the theatre: 39–40 cult of: 34 divinisation of: 34, 39–40, 330 military reforms of: 147, 166, 305, 311, 358 possible terminus post quem for Rh.: 38–41 with n. 123, 49 visited by famous actors: 38 with n. 115 Philoctetes: 257, 261, 421–2, 458 pleonasm: 148, 190, 197, 199, 281, 312, 470–1, 538, 548, 556, 585, 594 Polydamas: 62, 167, 178, 193, 195, 202–4, 208–9 see also Aeneas, replaces Iliadic Polydamas

701

GENERAL INDEX v olymestor: 67, 379, 402, 571 P Polyxena: 148, 235, 360, 425, 553 prayer: 28, 31–2, 37 n. 113, 56 n. 183, 247, 253, 264–7, 269–71, 330, 333, 347, 465, 474, 483, 517, 543, 606 Priam: 14, 67, 148, 185, 195, 230, 232, 269, 288, 366–8, 373, 442, 444, 485, 583, 595 prodelision: 226, 497, 558 prologue: 133–40, 142–3, 177, 353, 466, 468 displaced: 177 pronoun demonstrative: 194, 207, 247, 431, 534, 601 difference between ὅδε and οὗτος: 226, 384 in entrances: 194 indefinite: 418 personal: 141, 200, 221, 327, 361 relative antecedent implied: 146, 150 ‘inverse attraction’ from relative: 551 separated from antecedent: 204 questions anxious: 153, 158, 451 indirect: 301, 475 interrupting: 154, 158, 525 parenthetical: 154, 455, 540 reduplication in: 153 rhetorical: 191, 215, 278–9, 407, 452, 463, 465, 508, 535, 540, 613 sequence of: 158, 367, 499, 507 unanswered: 154, 159, 197, 216, 530–1, 534 reconnaissance: 63–4, 164, 279, 281, 458, 487–8 revenge: 65, 189, 235–6, 270, 395, 490, 571, 593, 620 Rhesus: 1–16, 18 n. 40, 19, 26–8, 32 n. 92, 35–8 with n. 108, 41–2, 46–7, 49–50, 53, 56, 60–1, 64 n. 217, 69–70, 138–9, 154, 158, 164, 204, 212, 221, 225, 241, 243, 261, 264, 266, 269, 279, 284–5, 290–6, 300–10,

702

314–18, 320–7, 330–7, 339, 341, 346–51, 353, 355–72, 374, 377, 379–87, 389–95, 397, 399–404, 406–13, 415, 427–34, 442, 446, 448, 453–5, 457, 459, 461, 463–4, 466–72, 474–7, 482–6, 488– 94, 496–7, 500–1, 506–12, 514, 516, 518, 520, 526–7, 530, 534–6, 539, 541–53, 556, 558, 563–4, 567–9, 571, 574–5, 577, 580–2, 584, 586–7, 589–92, 594–98, 600, 602–3, 605–10, 612–13, 616, 618–20 armour and chariot of: 302–9, 327, 346, 353, 357–8, 477, 496, 500–1 cult of: 5–6, 9–13, 336, 607–9, 616, 618–22 as heros equitans: 10 at Amphipolis: 10–12, 336 bones of: 10–11 in Thrace: 6–7, 10–13, 619–20 on Mt Pangeum: 9, 609, afterlife of: 10, 616–18 see also Muse death of and failure to achieve a ‘beautiful’ death: 535–40 in myth (apart Rh.): 7–9, 12–13, 138–9 in Rh.: 15–16, 488–90, 493–4, 496–7, 500–1, 507–12, 518, 534–6, 539, 541, 549–50, 552–4, 582, 584, 594–8 divine origin of: 291–2, 333–4, 337, 595–603 divinised by the Chorus: 2, 27–38, 41, 264, 302, 330–3, 337–61, 567 entrance of: 352–3 exit of: 3, 432–4 exotic grandeur of: 46–7, 283–4, 304–9, 314, 327, 347, 354–5 horses of see horses, of Rhesus identified with Ares: 302, 359–60 Zeus: 302 in art: 49–50 with n. 157, 333, 596 in Hipponax: 7

GENERAL INDEX in Il.: 6–8, 15–16, 42 n. 127, 138–9, 266, 269, 316, 333, 431, 453–4, 457, 461, 464, 494, 526–7, 541–3, 549–53, 556 in Parthenius: 14 Pindar: 7–9, 15–16, 138–9, 391 invincibility of in myth: 8–9, 545 kinship with Troy: 368, 372, 374 legend of: 6–16 ‘one’ day of: 9, 15–16, 318, 331, 334, 390–3, 402, 470 ‘politicised’ in Rh.: 16, 60–1, 69–70, 291, 316–17, 323–4 journey to Troy: 6, 14 293–6, 366, 381–2, 385–8, 430, 536 royal title of: 300–1, 356, 369, 400, 564 similarities to Achilles: 314–15, 326, 335, 346–9, 357–8, 379–80, 392, 399–400, 406, 411–14, 470, 514, 516, 590, 596, 606, 620–2 Coroebus: 442 Cycnus: 15, 283–4 with n. 41, 314, 354, 544, 586 Memnon: 15, 283–4, 308–9, 596, 620 Xerxes: 291, 381, 388, 403–4 threat to invade Greece: 3, 15, 331, 362, 401–8 ‘virtual’ heroism of: 9, 15–16, 331, 391, 468, 470 war against the Scythians: 2, 379–85 see also Charioteer; Hector; Muse; night raid; Odysseus and Diomedes; Rh. Rhesus Alexandrian edition of: 23, 135, 140, ancient reception of: 16–17 as ‘comico-tragic’ hybrid play: 53–9, 626 as ‘political’ tragedy: 59–71, 362 audience of: 47–9 authorship of: 16–23, 41–2, 47, 54 with n. 177, 133–4, date of: 16, 20–3, 23–50, 58–9, 498–9 fourth-century context(s) of: 5, 16,

23–41, 46–8, 49–50, 58–9 with n. 192, 63–6, 68–9, 143, 149, 153, 159, 165, 181 n. 28, 184, 190, 224, 228, 231–2, 244, 251, 280, 291, 301, 305, 311, 316–17, 333–4, 340–1, 353, 371, 377, 383, 390–1, 401, 410, 415–16, 421, 423, 460, 463–4, 470, 478, 484–5, 489, 498–500, 545, 558, 560, 562–3, 569, 571–2, 609, 619 interest in Northern Greece: 27, 32–49 see also Index of Greek Words: λόχος, πέλτη, ὑπασπισταί, φίλοι/ἑταῖροι: modern evaluations of: 17–23 Sophoclean ‘stamp’ of: 17, two-part structure of: 3, 53, 432–4, 454, 467, 473, 486, 497 un-Iliadic elements accusation of Hector: 3, 42 Aeneas: 62, 195–6 Athena: 138–9, 454, 457, 466–7 debates: 3, 42, 51, 62, 316, 362 disguises of Dolon, Odysseus and Diomedes: 4, 56–7, 497 Hector and Dolon’s ‘guessing game’: 52, 64, 230, 497 password: 153–4 Rhesus’ golden arms: 303 setting: 150–1 scouts: 301 rivers as fathers in myth: 333–4, 336–7 with n. 57, 603 associated with fertility: 336–7, 600 Scamander, drinking from the: 8–9, 15 n. 27, 333, 545 Xanthus: 333 see also Strymon sacrifice before the battle: 164, 168, 187, 340 practice of in cult: 13, 34–5, 272, 320, 345, 359, 383 Sarpedon: 167–8, 245, 327–8, 385, 394, 444, 472, 482, 575, 576, 586, 596 scribal errors Doric alpha in recitative anapaests: 145

703

GENERAL INDEX scribal errors  (cont.) Doric alpha in trochaics: 528–9 vitium Byzantinum: 258 banalisation: 187, 236, 254, 267, 282, 313, 344, 393, 407–9, 421, 433, 447, 451, 470, 475, 516, 559, 564 failure to recognise asyndeton: 378 failure to understand crasis: 206 haplography: 584 innovation: 157 insertion of gloss: 150, 159, 197, 430, 451, 491, 565–6, 595 interpolation: 172, 260, 362, 490–1, 509, 511 simplification of word order: 402–3 word division: 173, 565 variants ἀγρώσταις / ἀγρώταις: 286 Ἀθάνας / Ἀθηνᾶς: 421 αἱροῦσι / αἴρουσι: 321 ἄλλος, τί / ἄλλό τι / ἄλλοτε: 584 ἀποινᾶσθαι / ἀποινᾶσθαι: 237 ἀπὸ μὲν φαμένας / ἀπομεμφομένας / ἀπομεμψαμένας / ἀποπεμψαμένας: 592 Ἀργείων / Ἀργεῖον: 183 Ἄρη / Ἄρην: 391 ἀριστέας / ἀριστεῖς: 406 ἀρίστοις / ἀρίστους: 370 αὐτούς / αὐτάς: 242 γυμνής / γυμνός: 313 δὲ πιστεύων / τε πιστεύω: 493 δέσμιοι / δεσμίοις: 190 δόκει / δοκεῖ: 494 δόρη / δόρυ: 289–90 ̓μοὶ / μοι: 478 ἐν λόγωι / ἐν λόχωι: 222–3 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἄν / ἐπειδάν: 402 ἔπεισαν / ἔφησαν: 187 ἐπὶ γαίας / γαίαι/ γαῖαν: 281 ἐς ἀλκήν / πρὸς ἀλκήν: 545 ἐς αὔριον / ἐπαύριον: 470 εὐτυχεῖν μόνον σε δεῖ / εὐτυχεῖν σὲ δεῖ μόνον: 258 θἠτέραι / θατέραι: 392–3 θοινατήριον / θοιναστήριον: 429

θράσει / χερί: 210 θυοσκόων / θυοσκόπων: 187 Ἰλέως / Οἰλέως: 236 λόγχηι / φόνωι: 383 λόχος / δόλος: 157–9, 197 μεῖζον / μείζον᾽: 378 μεταθέμενος / μετατιθέμενος: 214 μόρωι / πότμωι: 430 νεόκμητον / νεόδημτον: 585 ὁδοῦ / στρατοῦ: 301 οὔτ᾿ ἄν σφ(ε) / οὔτε σφ(ε): 470 παρ᾽ ἀνδρός / πρὸς ἀνδρός: 251 πάσης στρατιᾶς / πόλεως τροίας: 150 ποίας / τίνος: 516 ποῖ δή / ποῖ νῦν: 580 πορθμεύσων / πορθμεῦσαι: 382 πύκαζε / πυκάζου: 197 σ᾿ ἐχρῆν / σε χρή: 487 στρατῶι / στρατόν: 220 τάχιστα χρή / τάχιστ ̓ ἐχρῆν: 496 τὴνδ᾽ ἔχω γνώμην / τήνδ᾽ ἔχω προθυμίαν: 211 τίς δή / τί δαί: 414–15 τόσως / τόσωι σ᾽: 228 ὑμνεῖ / θρηνεῖ: 447 ὕστερος / ὕστερον: 372 φηλητῶν / φιλητῶν: 257–8 χέρα / χέρας: 193, 235 χρυσὸς πάρεστιν / χρυσὸς γάρ ἐστιν: 233 Scythians: associated with Thracians: 309, 313, 375–6, 380 see also Rhesus, war against the Scythians seers: 178–9, 181, 186–7, 318, 419, 598, 611–13 sentries: 149, 252–3, 424, 431–4, 436, 438, 457, 541, 567, 568 Shepherd: 2–3, 60–1, 70, 196, 204, 220, 243, 283–9, 291–4, 295–8, 300–2, 304, 306–7, 314, 317, 323, 326–7, 353, 537, 564 as messenger: 3, 70, 220, 283–4, 287–8, 326–7, 353, 537 bilingual: 297–301 rusticity of: 286–7, 296, 300–2, 306–7, 314 see also messenger

704

GENERAL INDEX ships: 6, 145, 149 n. 16, 152, 174–8, 180–1, 185, 188–9, 193, 198–200, 206–10, 215–17, 220, 225, 234–5, 240, 256, 259–61, 271–2, 282, 295–6, 338, 363–4, 391–2, 398–9, 411–12, 451, 461, 494, 499, 547, 564, 613, 624–5 obsessive focus of Hector: 177–8, 185, 209, 220, 364, 391–2, 412, 624–5 simile: 28 with n. 83, 182, 250, 302, 359–60, 624 stagecraft characters enter in conversation: 453 chariot entry: 352–3, 361, 500 deus/a ex machina: 4, 467, 472, 589, 599, 618 entrances and exits (eisodoi): 1, 3, 6, 220, 222, 453, 466, 480, 482, 484, 499, 512 extras: 582 gesture: 150–1, mechane: 586 offstage characters: 169–70, 438, 465, 481, 494, 625 props absence of: 149 n. 16 animal skins: 55 armour of Hector: 200 body of Rhesus: 585–7, 602 spoils of Dolon: 454, 463–4, 500–1, 506, 509–11 reuse of fifth-century convention: 25–6 silence in exits: 220–1 with n. 33, 243–4 onstage characters in: 25, 221, 223, 243–4, 256, 326, 417, 480, 482, 500, 537, 582 stage-directions in the text: 145, 194, 481, 587 skene: 1 with n. 1, 6, 150–1, 207, 272, 452 theologeion: 465, 468, 587 see also actors stasima connection to preceding scene: 265 entrance of a new character following: 352, 453

stichomythia see language, style, and rhetoric Strymon: 5, 7 with n. 7, 10, 50, 332–6, 359, 370, 388, 596–8, 600, 602–3, 619, 622 see also river symposium: 334–5, 341–4, 368–9, 375–6, 616 synapheia: 157, 163, 165 teichoscopy: 415, 583, 595 Telephus: 67, 189, 266, 373 Teucer: 193, 486, 580 Thamyris: 5, 587, 596–602, 611–12 contest with the Muses: 5, 597–602 Thetis: 241, 335, 364, 468, 496, 590, 594, 596, 606, 620–2 Thrace Amphipolis foundation by Hagnon: 10–11, refoundation by Brasidas: 11–12, 33, 336 focus of Athenian interest: 67–9 Odrysian kingdom: 369–70, 385 see Rhesus, cult of Thracians camp of: 1, 3, 6, 154, 433–4, 474, 480, 482, 493, 499, 512, 541–2, 547–8, 568–9, 624–5 customs and dress of: 303–5, 309, 321, 347, 360, 369, 371, 376, 412, 616, 618 drink to excess: 341, 369, 375–6, 389 famous horsemen: 10, 37 n. 111, 309, 311–12 kinship with Trojans: 298–300 language of: 298–301 πέλτη of: 43 n. 132, 304–5, 347, 358, 411 presentation in tragedy: 46 Sitalces: 67–8, 370 unreliability of: 60, 67–70 with n. 228, 316–17, 362, 498 transcendence of mortal limits, dangers of: 36–8, 326, 330–1, 408 trickery: 51, 149, 158–9, 197–8, 256, 495–515, 518, 520 see also Odysseus

705

GENERAL INDEX Trojans Allies of: 168–9, 220, 269, 266, 269, 298–9, 310, 327, 355, 360, 366, 370, 373, 393, 432–3, 444, 529, 579, 586 speak different languages: 169, 298–9 as Macedonians: 45–9 with n. 141 Phrygians: 169, 277, 462 ‘othered’ barbarians: 19 n. 41, 45–8, 169, 259, 310, 368, 373, 462, 475, 562 temporary bivouac of: 6, 18 n. 40, 145, 150, 152, 155, 175, 207, 430–1, 433–4, 469 Troy foundation of: 269–71, 296–7 sack of: 198, 236, 238, 349–50, 419, 442 walls of: 159, 269–71, 363, 514, 583 trumpet: 219, 624 verbal augment syllabic: 487, 559 temporal: 460 verb imperative addressed to gods: 31, 333 addressed to the audience: 356–7 alternated with optative: 271 asyndeton of: 509 defiant: 324 paraenetic: 356–7 reassuring: 493–4 self-inclusive second person: 144–5, 498–9, 503–5, 529–30, 626 sequence of: 346, 438, 505 with πᾶς: 506, 509, 511, 529 with πρίν: 300, 456 infinitive consecutive-final: 286, 339, 382, 604, epexegetic: 310, 355 with μέλλειν: 180–1 with n. 28, 497 πρίν: 262, 300, 508 σοφός: 479

χρή: 365, 487 πάρος: 319 optative expressing consent: 570, 576 in curses: 524, 594 polite requests: 148, 347 resolution or promise: 248 wish: 271, 465, 524 subjunctive deliberative: 172, 460, 515, 531 prohibitive: 393 with ἕως + ἄν: 476 with ὥς + ἄν: 188 without ἄν: 206, 567 verbal prefixes ἀνα-: 428, 548 ἀπο-: 565 δια: 476 ἐκ/ἐξ-: 190, 199, 265–6, 303–4, 315, 403, 427–8, 439, 604 ἐπι-: 392, 515, 548–9, 551 εὖ: 475 ζα: 347 κατα-: 449, 571 προ-: 301, 368 συν-: 364–5, 412 ὑπο-: 399–400 tenses aorist complexive: 315, 404 immediate: 293, 512 ingressive: 165, 183, 188, 497, 565 instantaneous: 267, 497 resultative: 604 with verbs of saying: 292 future εἶμι: 256, 617 equivalent of a negative imperative: 366 expresses confidence in an outcome: 233, 625 introductory: 332 imperfect durative / iterative: 319 of attempted action: 298 perfect emphasises fait accompli: 322, 557 periphrastic: 394 signifies continuing state of perception: 496

706

GENERAL INDEX used with a future sense: 407–8 present indicative: 180–1 n. 28 continuative: 188, 267, 302, 404 historic: 302 instead of future: 244 registering: 241, 558, 571 vocative anaphora of: 270 in addresses to gods: 265, 567 with nominative adjective: 354, 362 with χαῖρε: 362 Wackernagel’s Law: 187, 568 wolves in Il. 10: 56–7 and Odysseus: 57, 464 and Autolykos (grandfather of Od.) 57, 251 and Diomedes: 4, 500, 546, 550–2 Apollo Λύκειος: 251–3, 266 see also Donlon, disguise of; dream

Zenodotus: 174, 178, 235–6, 400 n. 64, 429, 549, Zeus: 31, 34, 36, 52, 137, 167, 172, 174, 177–8, 186, 202, 240, 247, 265, 267, 269–70, 273, 302, 307, 315, 317–18, 322, 325, 330–2, 334–5 with n. 55, 337–41, 349, 351, 354–6, 387, 397–8, 404, 409, 432, 436–7 n. 73, 444, 460–1, 466, 468, 482, 485, 517, 542, 553, 562, 564–7, 571, 597, 604, 607, 620, 623 asked to ward off φθόνος: 36, 330–1 disguises of: 52, 485 Eleutheros: 338–41 oaths in the name of: 562 Phanaios: 31, 337–8, 340, 607 Philios: 334–5 with n. 55 Philippios: 34 with n. 102 supports Hector: 177–8, 186, 317–18, 460–1

707

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS DISCUSSED ἆ 511, 535 ἄγαμαι 275 ἄγαν 495 ἀγρώστης/ἀγρώτης 286–7 ἀγύρτης 423, 522 ἀδείμαντος 515 ἅδην 407 ἀεί ποτε 474 ἀηδονίς 448 αἰγίς 307 αἴγλη 439 αἴθειν 565 αἴθος 625 αἴθων 209 αἰμύλος 418, 520 Αἰνέας 194 αἰνιγμός 537 αἰσχρός 559 ἀκλεής 536–7 ἀκροθίνια 403 ἅλις 579 ἀλκή/ἄλκιμος 277, 290–1, 357, 519, 606 ἄλοξ 555 ἄλλοι ~ οἱ ἄλλοι 30 n. 86 ἁμαξιτός 294 ἁμαρτῆι 313 ἀμβλώψ 530–1 ἀμείβεσθαι 476, 483 ἄμυστις 375–6 ἄν 187, 188, 205, 244, 248, 278, 402, 470, 476, 568, 625 ἀναπείρειν 428 ἄναξ 147, 300–1, 532, 567 ἀναχαιτίζειν 552 ἀνθρωποδαίμων 28, 618 ἀντερᾶν/ἀντεραστής 239 ἀντίπρωιρος 216 ἄξενος/εὔξεινος 381–2 ἄπαις 594 ἄπλατος 309–10 ἀποινάσθαι/ἄποινα 237 ἀπόφημι 592 ἄρα 564 ἀρείφατος 210 Ἄρης 391 ἄριστος/ἀριστεύς 370, 406 ἀριστότοκος 594

ἄτρακτος 312–13 αὐγή 531 αὐθέντης 580–1 αὐθιγενής 590–1 ἀυτεῖν 495 αὐτόρριζος 296–7 βαλιός 338–9 βασιλεύς 148, 169, 354–5 βάσις 255 βαστάζειν 289 βόλος 529 βρίθειν 565 γάρ 159, 191, 473, 508, 519 γαμβρός 232 γε 246, 295, 570 γεγωνεῖν 288 γέρας 233–4, 238 γερουσία 367, 606 γῆρυς 300, 447 γοργωπός 151–2 γοῦν 519 γυμνής 168–9, 313 δαίμων 182, 274, 322, 528, 584 δάϊος 215 δάπεδον 349–51 Δαρδανίδης 269 δέ 174, 215, 230, 402, 573 δέκτης/Δέκτης 422–3 δεννάζειν 602 δέσμιος 190 δεσπότης 273 δεῦρο 506 δή 414, 440, 510, 560 δήθεν 524 δῆτα 234, 238, 459, 532 δίβαμος 256 δίβολος 348 διιπετής 174 δίοπος 533 δῖος/Δῖος 267 διφρήλατος/διφρηλατεῖν 137 δίψιος 375 δόλιος 534–5

708

I N D E X O F G R E E K WO R D S D I S C U S S E D δόξα 548 δόρυ 289–90, 398 δόχμιος 347 δυσθνήσκειν 554 δυσοίζειν 525, 557 δυσφορεῖν 379 ἔα 458, 505, 585 ἐγγενής 368, 373 ἐγερτί 433 ἕδρα 151, 450 εἷς (with genitive partitive) 364 ἐκκέας 199 ἐκκλησία 218 Ἑκτόρεος/ Ἑκτόρεια 146, 542 ἐλευθέριος 340–1 Ἕλλαν 594–5 ἐμβατεύειν 266 ἔνθα 382–3 έννύχιος 175 ἐξαπωθεῖν 559 ἐξαυγής 304 ἔξοδος 427–8 ἐξώστης 319 ἐπἀγεσθαι 611 ἐπεζάρει 388 ἐπεμβαίνειν 550–1 ἐπεσπεσεῖν 392 ἐπιδέξιος 343–4 ἔρρειν 534 ές αὔριον 199, 470 ἐσδρομή 471 εὔβουλος 202 εὐδοξεῖν/εὐδοξία 415, 540 εὔμορφος/εὐμορφία 141 εὐσέληνος 137 εύσπλαγχνία/εὔσπλαγχνος 244–5 εὐσταθεῖν 315–16 εὐτυχία/εὐτυχεῖν 182, 288, 318, 584 εὔυδρος 603 εὐφρόνη 198 ἔφεδρος 209, 613 ἐφέστιος/ἑστία 248, 272, 523 ἐφίεσθαι 175 ἔφορος 168 ζάχρυσος 347, 387 ἦ (first person imperfect of εἰμί) 186

ἤιδη/ἤιδειν 613 ἢν ἄρα 208 ἠπύειν 548–9 θάρσει/θάρρει 16 θαυμαστόν 39 n. 119 θεός (= Athena) 307 θεός (= Sun) 322 θἠτέραι 392 θίασος 342 θοίνη/θοινατήριον 182–3, 429 θούριος/θοῦρις 241, 413 θράσος/θάρσος/θρασύς 277, 459–60, 519 θροεῖν 397 θυμέλη 272 θυμός 551 ἰά 449 ἰάλεμος 590 ἴδε 357 ἱέναι πόδα 556 Ἰλεύς/ Ὀιλεύς 235–6 ἵλη 43–4 Ἴλιον/ Ἴλιος 234 ἰώ 353–4 καιρός 153, 179, 390, 444, 568 καίτοι 112 κακόγαμβρος 281 καλλιγέφυρος 336 καπφθίμενος 351 καραδοκεῖν 219 καρανιστής 563 καράτομος/καρατομεῖν 462, 472 καρποποιός 617 κάρτα 192 κατάντης 316 κατασκάπτειν 364 κατάστασις 205 κατὰ στόμα 371 καταυλίζεσθαι 430 κατευνάζειν 475 κατ᾽ ὄμμα 377 κατόπτης 215, 451 κέλλειν 535–6 κέλευθος (metaphor) 377–8 κερόδετος 170 κεύθειν 234, 478 κεφαλή-κάρα (synecdoche) 266–7,

709

I N D E X O F G R E E K WO R D S D I S C U S S E D κηρύσσειν 441–2 κινεῖν 159–60 κίνδυνον ῥίπτειν 225 κλάζειν 456 κλωπικὀς 251 κοιμᾶν/κοιμίζειν 217, 492, 495 κόμπος/κομπεῖν 358, 387, 582 κομψός 479 κότος 565–6 κράτος 564 κρίνειν 491 κρότημα 498 κρυσταλλόπηκτος 388 κτύπος 455 λάζυσθαι 582–3 λαμπτήρ 184 λάσκειν 525 λάτρις 522 λάφυρα 237 λεώς 371–2, 478, 576 λῆμα 275 λόχος 43–5, 158–9, 166, 507 λύκειος 253 λύπη 378–9 μακάριος 246 μάραγνα 563 μέγα (adverbial) 514 μελάγχιμος 616–17 μέλλειν + infinitive 180–1, 439 μελωιδός 337 μέν 331 μέρμερος 426 μῆνις/μηνίειν 414 μιμεῖσθαι 255 μίμος 280–1 μόναρχος 168–9 μόνος 275 μόρος 351, 563 μουριάς 595 μυχθισμός/μύζειν 553 μῶν 158, 459 ναυκλήριον 271 νεῖρα 555 νεόκμητος 585 νέος 172, 463 νόστος 380–1 νύκτερος 543 νυκτηγορία/νυκτηγορεῖν 160, 196 νυκτίβρομος 448

νυν/νῦν 408 νυχεύειν 431 ξένος/ξενία 2, 67, 69–70, 316–17, 323–7, 368, 442, 571–2 Ὀδυσσῆ 520 οἰνοπλάνητος 343 ὁμηρεύειν 384 ὀμώμοται 562–3 ὁρᾶν/βλέπειν ἡλίου φάος 573–4 ὅρα μή 456 ὀργάς 293–4 ὀρφνη 173–4 μήν 194, 235, 237, 239, 246, 295, 446, 458, 511, 614 οὔκουν/οὐκοῦν 229 οὐτάζειν 280 οὔτοι 185 ὀφειλέτις 617 ὄχλος 313 ὄχος/ὄχημα 242–3, 303, 556 παγκρατής 270 παιδολέτωρ 447 παλαιός/πάλαι 270–1, 319, 362–3 παναμερεύειν 342 πανός 624 παραστατεῖν 424, 483 πεδοστιβής 279–80, 542–3 πεζός 135–6, 138 πελανός 383 πέλτη 304–5, 411 πίστις 374 πλάθειν/πελάθειν/πελάζειν 155 πλάστιγξ 303 πλημμελής 576 ποδὸς ἴχνος 524 πολίαρχος 356 πολίοχος 231–2 πομπή 268 πορεύειν 568 πορθεῖν 298 πόρπαμα 389 πόρπαξ 358–9 πόρσω/πρόσω 409 πράσσειν 401 πρέσβευμα 606 πρευμενής 489 πρόθυμος 186 προπίνειν 368–9 προπότης/πρόποσις 341–2

710

I N D E X O F G R E E K WO R D S D I S C U S S E D προσαύλειος 289 προς (adverb) 538 πρὸς ἀῶ 450 προσδοκᾶν 219 προσεννέπειν 363 πρόσθιος 255 προστίθεσθαι 491 προταινί 433 πρόφασις 191–2 πυκάζειν 197 πύρ᾽ αἴθειν 173 πυργοῦν 210 πώλος 360 πωλοδαμνεῖν 242, 479 πῶς …; 462–3, 535, 540, 579 ῥακόδυτος 521 ῥέγκειν 551 ῥηγνύναι 371 ῥύμη 186 σαίνειν 181 σαθρός 483 σημεῖον 436 σήμερον 508 σῖγα/σίγα 529 σκύμνος 355 σοφός/σοφιστής 587, 601, 611–12 στάζειν 455 σταθμόν/ναύσταθμον 175, 216 στείχειν 194 στρατεία/στρατιά 282, 534 στρατηλάτης/στρατηλατεῖν 235, 290, 414 σύμβολον 260–1 σύμμαχος 69–70, 291, 317, 573 σύν/ξύν 184 συνήδεσθαι 614 συνήθης 474 συντέμνειν 393 σύρδην 183 σφαγεύς 280 σφάγιον 168 σφαλερός 214–15 σχιστός 348 τάχα 218, 626 τεκμήριον 199 τέλος 312 τετράμοιρος 148–9 τί μήν 519 τί χρῆμα 196

τίς ἀνδρῶν 514 τοι 259, 456 τολθπεύειν 533 τρανής/τορός 172, 191 τρίβων 479 Troΐα/Τροία 270 τρόπος 470 τύραννος/τυραννίς 214, 231, 409 τύχη 528 ὑμνοποιός 490–1 ὑπάρχειν + participle 481 ὑπασπίδιος 532 ὑπασπιστής 42–3, 146–7 ὕπαφρος 521 ὑπομεῖναι 399–400 ὕπατος 398 ὑποπτεύειν/ὕποπτος 176, 192 ὑφαιρεῖσθαι 569 ὑφίζειν 529 φαναῖος 337–8 φηλήτης 257–8 φίλιος 335 φίλοι (of the king) 43–4, 165–6 φίλος/φιλία 69–70, 291 φόνος/φόνιος 189, 383–4, 446 φοράδην 585 φράζειν 492, 575 φροῦδος 492 φρυκτωρία 181 φυλάσσειν 488–9, 493 φύσημα 388 φυτάλμιος 600 χάμευνα 9 χάρις 325 χάσμα 254 χρή/χρήν 229, 239, 462, 487, 496 χρόνιος 451 χρυσόδετος 357 χρυσοκόλλητος 305 χωστός ψάλιον 166–7 ψαλμός 343 ψαφαρόχρους 522 ψόφος 455 ψθχὴν ἀνεῖναι ὡς λέγουσι 242 ὡς τὸ πρίν ποτε 405

711