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: 11 February 2009
This is James Diggle's OCT (1994), with a modified apparatus. The lacuna at 186 prompted two conjectures by Willink: υτ∊ῖθ∊υ and the ingenious αὐλθ∊υ (‘from the palace’; unknown in extant Greek). I wonder, however, whether an adverb is what we want: the anadiplosis of ἓλακ∊υ (giving a characteristic Euripidean jingle) would not have come amiss to lend a touch of hysterical urgency to the cry of the rapist's victim; but that would not give us the rhythm we need (––). Something approaching the effect of the suggested anadiplosis might be obtained by the supplement πoλλοῖσιυ. Although it lacks the palaeographical plausibility of αὐλθ∊υ, it gives us an expression that is characteristically Euripidean in contexts pertaining to souls in torment: Ale. 185 πoλλυ δακρωυ, 938 πολλυ δ μχθωυ Su. 1119 ἂλγ∊σι πoλλοῖς, Tr. 28 πολλοῖς δ κωκυτοῖσιυ, 38 δκρυα χουσα πολλ, etc. The adjective applied to sound is not unknown:Rh. 290–1 πολλι γᾰρ ἠχι Θρικιοςῥωυ στρατς1ἓστ∊ιχ∊. It can also be used to describe the frequency of sung laments accompanied by hysterical self-mutilation: S. El. 88–90 πολλς μυ θρυωυ ὡιδς, 1 πολλᾰς δ’ υτρ∊ις ισθxυ 1 στρυωυ πλαγᾰς αἱμασσομυωυ.
1 I am deeply grateful to Professors James Diggle and Christopher Collard for constructive criticism and helpful comments.
2 Willink, C., CQ 40 (1990), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 The idea of κλαγγ describing an echoing, repetitive sort of sound is well represented in the examples offerered by LSJ (‘scream of birds, esp. cranes… howling of wolves… baying of dogs’).
4 Diggle gives a list of occurrences of the responsion ‘gl’ ~ ‘wil’ in Ewipidea: Collected Essays (Oxford, 1994), 195 and 473, n. 149, to which I add I.T. 1101~18 and Hel. 1481~98. It might be helpful to offer the following remarks on Diggle's examples: El. 169~92 is ‘ia + gl’ ‘ia + wil’ and I.T. 1092~1109 is ‘ibyc’ ~ ‘wil’ (on which see Parker, L. P. E., The Songs of Aristophanes [Oxford, 1997], 448).Google Scholar In Diggle's edition of Hypsipyle in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta (Oxford, 1998), the lines numbered by Bond ‘fr. I.ii.5–6 ~ I.iii.6–7’ (= 21, 22, 63, 64 TrGFS) are not regarded as being in responsion (cf. Diggle, Eikasmos 6 [1995], 40); Hyps. 63–5 is printed in TrGFS as ionic.
5 Ewipidea (n. 4), 195.
6 τροχυ τρμουα is the necessary accusative that completes the sense of ζαμιλλασᾰμ∊υος. Lest anyone be temped to take ὃυ (the object of καυ∊) ζαμιλλασμ∊υος, we may recall that earlier on in the play Menelaus says ὦ τᾰς τ∊θρππους οἰυομωι πῖσαυ κτα 1 πλοφ μλλας ζαμιλληθ∊ς ποτ∊ (386–7): the dative is used for the person with whom the contest is held (οἰυομωι), not the accusative, which complements the sense of the verb, specifying the nature of the contest in question.
7 But here Diggle's øβου is certainly right: cf. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’ Orestes (Oxford, 1991), 119.
8 At Hel. 181, Triclinius (Tr) was wrong to correct L's λω to λου (as was Stephanus in correcting πυρσι to πυρσο at Here. 361).
9 Diggle's excellent emendation: †π∊ρ βκχι’ ῖργια ματρς τ∊ σς† P.