No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 May 2025
This note presents a new supplement for Euripides, Heracles 767.
I am grateful to CQ’s editors for helping me to improve and clarify the structure of this piece. My thanks go also to Professors Pietro Giannini and Esteban Calderón Dorda for kindly reading a preliminary draft; and to CQ’s reader for suggestions. Translations are mine.
1 The manuscript has been digitised and is available online: for this page, see https://tecabml.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/plutei/id/679008.
2 Triclinius inserted a dicolon (:) before ἐϕέλκων and through a dash connected this word to the following line, where he excised οὔτις by circling it.
3 G. Hermann (ed.), Euripidis Hercules Furens (Leipzig, 1810), 43.
4 The chorus repeatedly highlights the correlation between unjust actions and unfavourable outcomes: e.g. 779–80 νόμον παρέμϵνος, ἀνομία χάριν διδοὺς | ἔθραυσϵν ὄλβου κϵλαινὸν ἅρμα (‘by keeping away from the law, yielding to lawlessness, | he has smashed wealth’s dark chariot’).
5 F.H. Bothe (ed.), Poetae scenici Graecorum (Leipzig, 1825–6), 2.645. Duplication of ἔτϵκον is accepted by J.S. Lasso de la Vega, ‘Cincuenta notas críticas a Eurípides, Heracles furioso’, CFC(G) 24 (1990), 19–75, at 51–2. In his view, ἔτϵκον should be understood as first person singular and μϵταλλαγαί should be corrected to μϵτ ̓ ἀλαλαγαῖς (twice!). The proposal is not convincing and adds another unnecessary correction.
6 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (ed.), Euripides. Herakles (Berlin, 18952), 1.218.
7 G.W. Bond, Euripides. Heracles (Oxford, 1981), 266–7.
8 Repetitions in ritual invocations are common, as noted by Bond (n. 7), 265–6. Euripides makes frequent use of anadiplosis in his later works; for a catalogue, see W. Breitenbach, Untersuchungen zur Sprache der Euripideischen Lyrik (Stuttgart, 1934), 214–21. Aeschylus is depicted as ridiculing Euripides for abusing this device in Ar. Ran. 1351–5.
9 See S.A. Barlow, Euripides. Heracles (Warminster, 1981), 158.
10 See A. Kirchhoff (ed.), Euripidis Tragoediae (Berlin, 1855), 2.350; A. Nauck (ed.), Euripidis Tragoediae (Leipzig, 18713), 1.348; L. Parmentier and H. Grégoire (edd.), Euripide, Héraclès, Les Suppliantes, Ion (Paris, 1923), 50; J. Diggle (ed.), Euripidis fabulae (Oxford, 1981), 2.147; K.H. Lee (ed.), Euripides. Hercules (Leipzig, 1988), 27.
11 Cf. Hom. Il. 22.421 ὅς μιν ἔτικτϵ καὶ ἔτρϵϕϵ; Od. 2.131 ἥ μ ̓ ἔτϵχ’, ἥ μ ̓ ἔθρϵψϵ; Od. 12.134 θρέψασα τϵκοῦσά τϵ … μήτηρ; Pl. Leg. 929a ὃν ἔτϵκέ τϵ καὶ ἐξϵθρέψατο.
12 Reversal is less frequent than logical order, so I propose the ‘standard’ order. On hysteron proteron, see L. Battezzato, ‘Linguistica e figure retoriche: hysteron proteron e pleonasmo da Omero a Sofocle’, in G. Avezzù (ed.), Il dramma sofocleo: testo, lingua, interpretazione (Stuttgart and Weimar, 2003), 17–48.
13 The text is clear, even if the metre is not: E. Kearns (ed.), Euripides. Iphigenia in Tauris (Cambridge, 2023), 138.
14 See J. Diggle, Euripidea. Collected Essays (Oxford, 1994), 99–100.
15 Cf. Soph. El. 1234–5 ἐμόλϵτ’ ἀρτίως, ἐϕηύρϵτ’, ἤλθϵτ’, ϵἴδϵθ’ οὓς ἐχρῄζϵτϵ.
16 For poetic creation expressed in drama through the metaphorical language related to childbirth, cf. Eur. Andr. 476–7 (with Wilamowitz’s τϵκόντοιν) and Crat. fr. 203 K.–A.; see also D.D. Leitao, The Pregnant Male as Myth and Metaphor in Classical Greek Literature (Cambridge, 2012), 120–7.
17 See H. Parry, ‘The second stasimon of Euripides’ Heracles (637–700)’, AJPh 86 (1965), 363–74; R. Rehm, ‘Performing the chorus: choral action, interaction, and absence in Euripides’, Arion 4.1 (1996–7), 45–60; L.A. Swift, The Hidden Chorus. Echoes of Genre in Tragic Lyric (Oxford, 2010), 142–56 (131 on this stasimon); C. Carey, ‘The victory ode in the theatre’, in P. Agócs, C. Carey and R. Rawles (edd.), Receiving the Komos. Ancient and Modern Receptions of the Victory Ode (London, 2012), 17–36; A. Bagordo, ‘Lyric genre interactions in the choruses of Attic tragedy’, Skenè 1 (2015), 37–55, at 43–4; N. Weiss, ‘Generic hybridity in Athenian tragedy’, in M. Foster, L. Kurke and N. Weiss (edd.), Genre in Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry. Theories and Models (Leiden and Boston, 2020), 169–74.
18 Pindar frequently employs the metaphor of the arrow as a metaphor for poetry: D.E. Gerber, Pindar’s Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto, 1982), 170; R. Nünlist, Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Leipzig, 1998), 148.
19 See also Bacchyl. 3.90–2 and 13.60–2.
20 This further argument is owed to CQ’s reader.