Pearson - The Fragments of Sophocles - 1 - 1917 PDF

3> 7y o
THE
FRAGMENTS
OF
SOPHOCLES
IN THKKK VOLUMES
VOLUMI 1
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, Manager
Hontion: FETTER LANE, E.C.
fEBinburglj : ioo PRINCES STREET
#fto gorft: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

»ombao, Calcutta ant fHaoraa: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
(Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, Ltd.
aTokno: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
All rights reserved

THE
FRAGMENTS
OF
SOPHOCLES
EDITED
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES FROM THE PAPERS OF
SIR R. C. JEBB AND DR W. G. HEADLAM
BY
A. C. PEARSON, M.A.
FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
VOLUME
Cambridge i
iS
at the University Press
1917
PREFACE
THE book has been delayed by various

productiort of this
causes, which require particular notice
on the occasion of
its appearance. It is well known that Sir Richard Jebb intended
ultimately to include the Fragments in his edition of Sophocles;

and in pursuance of this intention he delivered at Cambridge
in the Michaelmas Term of 1895 a course of lectures on 132
ed fragments. The Ajax, the last to be published of the
seven extant plays, appeared in the autumn of 1896; and it was
anticipated that the publication of the Fragments would be

undertaken in due sequence. But the discovery of the Bacchy-
|lidespapyrus drew the editor's attention in another direction,
and, during the remainder of his life, the time which he could
spare from public duties was mainly devoted to the preparation
comprehensive edition of the Poems and Fragmej
which was published by the Cambridge University
in 1905. Thus it fell out that, when after Sir Richard
Jebb's death the task of completing the edition of Sophocles
devolved upon Dr Walter Headiam, the material available for
ise consisted solely of the notes prepared for the lectures
idy mentioned.
Once again mi-fortune attended the prosecution of the
schen nscquence of the premature death of Dr Headiam
re he was able to put into >hapc the preliminary labour
whi< h for a number of months he had expended upon the
I
end of 1908 I was entrusted by the Syndics of the
University Press with the pa[>crs of both sih-.iars, in order that
the work bo long deferred might be brought to a conch»
1 will frankly admit that, though III of having assumed
vi PREFACE
a serious burden, I did not at first adequately realize either the
magnitude or the difficulty of the task.

I am afraid that, after these preliminary remarks, readers
will be disappointed to find how small a share in the contents
of these volumes has been by my predecessors
contributed
Headlam, according to his wont, set to work thoroughly tc
explore the ground which he was preparing to develop, but hi
left very little evidence of the results at which he had arrived
and hardly anything in such a shape as could be adapted readil)

for publication. Yet even the adversaria of so eminent a scholai
are of considerable interest, and not a few instances will be founc
where his insight has pointed out the way leading to the solutior
of a puzzling problem. Jebb's notes were of an entirely differen
character. Although well fitted to introduce to an undergraduat<
audience the salient features of some of the most interesting
fragments, they were obviously unsuitable for reproduction a;
containing the matured judgement of their author upon th<
critical and exegetical questions which these fragments raise
They were chiefly the record of first impressions drawn up wit!

the skill and taste which we have learnt to expect from such i
source, but made without much exercise of independent research

or a full recognition of the departmental literature bearing upot
the subject, so far asit was at that time accessible. To hav<
printed any considerable portion of these notes would have beei
both misleading and unfair. Indeed, I am doubtful if I have no
gone too far in including so much as will be found below ; anc
it is with the greatest reluctance that
have in several case
I
quoted Jebb's notes, where I felt bound to argue in favour of ;
different conclusion. But my guiding principle has been this

The obscurity of the text of these fragments is so great, and s<
little has been done to dispel it, that we can only hope to arriv<
at the truth by a patient sifting of the clues suggested by com

petent authorities and an editor may often best recommend th<
;
solution which he considers probable by canvassing the views o

other workers in the same field. Anyhow by this method th<
reader is the better enabled to form his own judgement on th<
issues submitted to him securus indicat orbis terrarum.
:
It will now be apparent that not only the responsibility fo

PREFACE vii
everything that appears in these volumes is entirely my own,

but also the bulk of the commentary itself 1
. I must therefore
explain the lines upon which I have worked. The general plan,
modified only so far as was required by difference of subject-
matter, was prescribed by the character of the earlier volumes,
and, although my predecessors had not advanced far in the
appointed track, they had at least made it plain that the chief
feature of the book should be a thorough and searching exegesis.
Translation was less essential than in the complete plays and
often impossible but in some of the longer fragments I am
;
fortunate in being able to quote renderings made by J ebb and

Headlam. In the elucidation of fragmentary and corrupt texts
criticism and interpretation are complementary of each other.
I have therefore endeavoured to present the critical data in as
accurate a form as possible, taking Nauck's edition as my basis,
and verifying, supplementing, and correcting its results so far as
my opportunities permitted. It has not been possible for me to
obtain unpublished information concerning the readings of the
f authors which have not been edited in accordance with
the requirements of modern criticism ; have endeavoured
but I
to make myself acquainted with published results, although

I cannot feel confident of having surveyed every part of so
a field. In this respect not much has been done since the
.1 ranee of Nauck's second edition. It is true that editions
md two of our most important
Plutarch's Moralia,
<s, have been completed by Hense and Bernardakis. But
e's results had been already communicated to Nauck. tad
the character of Bernardakis's edition is such that it is almost
entirely useless for the present purpose. Our knowledge of the
Boost important scholia is still imperfect, although progress has
been made, especially in regard to Aristophanes and Pindar.
WeodeTs edition of the scholia to Theocritus appeared while
passing through the press. Much might be learnt
from a critical edition of KiMathius, which is scarcely to be
at present But the lexicographers are the moat
an<l II. have been attached to the notes of Jchh and Hradlam
now firm printed, and their full names are retained in references to their published
viii PREFACE
promising field of all, and, though a good deal of work has
been done in sifting their records, very little of it has seen the
light. Bethe's Pollux and de Stefani's Etymologicum Gudiamim
are both incomplete. Here too the recovery of fresh material
from unedited sources which may be still preserved in the libraries
of Europe has been shown to be more than a possibility by the
labours of Reitzenstein, Rabe, and others.
The actual increase of material that has accrued in the last
twenty-five years is not completely measured by the fact that
almost exactly ioo more fragments than
this edition contains
were published by Nauck. A considerable proportion of the
accession comes from the recently discovered commencement
of Photius, published by Reitzenstein in 1907. But the most
important addition of all was of course the fragments of the
Ichnentae and Eurypylus contained in the ninth volume of the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The discovery was made at a time when
the greater part of the present commentary was written, and
I am glad to be able now to express my thanks to Prof. A. S. Hunt,
who was kind enough to allow me to inspect the sheets of the
new fragments before publication, and has more than once replied
to my queries concerning the actual readings of the MS in
doubtful cases. must also acknowledge my indebtedness to
I
the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund and the Delegates

of the Clarendon Press for permission to include the Oxyrhynchus
fragments in the pages of this edition.
In the General Introduction I have endeavoured to describe
the literary history of Sophoclean tragedy, to estimate the extent
and variety of its activity, to discover the vestiges of the material
with which it worked, and to show how its monuments were
transmitted to posterity until they passed into oblivion and how
finally its scanty relics were preserved for the instruction of our
own times. In this way I have tried to answer the questions,
why the majority of the plays were lost, and by what means
their fragments survived. It will be evident that the third
section follows in the main the lines which have been sketched
in various writings by Prof, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. In
dealing with the sources of our existing fragments I have entered
at some length into the history of Greek philological literature
PREFACE ix
during the Roman and Byzantine ages, confining myself par-

ticularly to its connexion with the study of Sophocles. This is
an arid region ;
yet I am convinced that those who make them-
selves acquainted with its chief features will return not only with
a clearer understanding of the limits within which the criticism
of the Greek poets must proceed, but also with a deeper respect
for the honest labours of generations of workers who struggled
against the forces of barbarism to keep alive the purity of the
e* speech. So much misconception prevails as to the signi-
ficance of quotations made by these writers that no apology is
needed for the space which has been devoted to them. The
only work of reference in English which touches this branch of
literature is Sir J. E. Sandys's History of Classical Scholarship*
Shortly after the printing had commenced, was decided to it
advantage of the occasion by the preparation of a compre-

hensive index to the whole of the ten volumes. For this purpose
Prof. Jebb'fl seven volumes have been carefully re-read, the old
indexes have been consolidated, corrected, and considerably
enlarged, and the entries so collected have been incorpo:
with tlv.se relating to the three volumes of Fragments. The
work was at first undertaken by Mr G. V. Carey of Gonville and
( aius
(
"ollege, who re-indexed the Ajax and Antigone; but, W hen
he obtained a commission in the Army on the outbreak of the

European War, the responsibility for the remaining portions
passed into my hand-.. It is hoped that the new indexes will
tudentfl not only as a better means of accc
the information which the volu tain, but also as a n
of Sophoclean usage for anyone who may attempt further re-
phere of tragic vocabulary and grammar. At

ame time their users should be warned that they do not
ything more than a record of the maj
comprised in the commentaries; an attempt to provide by
for
of the language would bav<

I an <n.»rm. .us addition to a labour uht< h eady
'y arduous
I have elsewhei ised and tabulated the researches of
modern scholars irho since the close of the cight<
century have laboured directly on the fragments of Sophocles,
«5
x PREFACE
and it is unnecessary to repeat here the nature of my obligations
to them. Most of this literature is scattered in various periodicals
or contained in dissertations which are even more difficult of access.
In this connexion my thanks are due to Prof. R. Reitzenstein Of
Freiburg for supplying me with information respecting the con-
tents of one of his dissertations which I had been unable to
procure. Nor must I forget to mention the singular kindness of
the late Dr Siegfried Mekler of Vienna, the editor of Dindorf's
Sophocles in the Teubner series, who, hearing that I was engaged
on this work, sent me a number of notes bearing on various
points of difficulty. This will explain the occasional references
to Mekler's unpublished views. Dr J. B. Pearson and Mr R. D.
Hicks have kindly permitted me to print extracts from certain
notes formerly communicated to Prof. Jebb in reference to
frs. yj6 and 1128. Notwithstanding the considerable output
of labour directed to the criticism of the fragments, the attention
which they have received is scanty in comparison with the
mass of comment which has accumulated upon the extant
plays. Hence I have been often compelled to rely largely on
my own resources. This is, in fact, the first systematic effort that
has been made to put together a continuous commentary, though
I have the best of reasons for knowing that its imperfections
are not due to that cause alone. I must warn readers that the
printing of the book was seriously delayed by the stress of

recent events and that it went to the press at the beginning of
191 3. Everyone knows the difficulties and inconsistencies that
are apt to occur in such cases, and that they cannot be satis-
factorily cured by the list of corrigenda.
I desire to acknowledge the generous support which I have
throughout received from the Syndics of the Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, although the work has grown to a size which neither
they nor I contemplated at the time of its inception.
A. C. P.
February, 19 16.
c
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
PAGtt
ACE V X
iKdUUCTION
§ i. The number of the plays XU1 — XX11
§ 2. The subjects of the plays .

xxii — xxxit
Ih« tradition of the text xxxii — xlvi
§3.
The sources of the fragments xlvi -xci

§ 4.
Bibliography .
xci—
$ 5.
lkAC.MENTS Of NAMED PLAYS :
Introductions, text and notes 1 — 270

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
§ i. The number of t/ie plays.
The anonymous Life of Sophocles 1 records on the authorh

°
Aristophanes of Byzantium that 130 1 plays were attributed*
Sophocles, but that 17 of these were spurious. The state-
t is coming from Aristophanes; and it
entitled to credit, as
n referred with high probability to his work entitled Trpos
; KaWifxtixou 7uVa*a<? 4 Not much is known of the book in

.
tion, but it may be taken to have contained corrections and
enlargements of the well-known irivaKes of Callimachus, which

not merely a catalogue of the books contained in the
irian library, but included biographical details conccrn-
the various authors, and in the case of the Attic drama the
dates of the production of the several play '
ner
of interest drawn from the SiSaaicaXiai of Aristotle 8 .
Suwlas, however, reports that Sophocles produced 123 pi..
and according to some authorities considerably more. This

rmation may be reconciled with the Life in two
the adoption either of BoeckhV correction of Suidas, which
makes the total 113 (pty in place of picy'), or of Bcrgk
« xi p. hv Ml. f x « ti ipdfiara, ut eî* 'Apurro+drnt, rf«arir r(»&K*m, rrirm «

r«»"S0»iTa( StKaewrd.
> pK' cod. A. Other mss give pi', «Udh il the vulgate. There was clearly *
Confusion of the on Sal* A and A, and the evideno hkIh atcs that the numlwr
I was i.ô rather than 104.
r.ce to an established authority. The valg. typaifa should be
<l.
.rf an.l others. K.. r the w..rk itself see Susemihl. Ml.
-, Ar. Byt. p. MfC
* See schol. Ar. Nub. 533; Susemihl. | 1 Caltim. II 306.
• 7>. Gr. prim, j>. no.
7
In the Preface to his text of Sophocles (1858). p. n
xiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
substitution of 7 for 17 (£' for t£") in the Life. The latter
proposal is palaeographically the easier, and the number 123
agrees better than 1 13 with the remaining data, as will presently
appear.
Number of The number of his victories is also variously recorded.
victories.
According to Suidas, they were twenty-four according to the ;
Life, which followed the authority of Caristius of Pergamum

1
,
twenty and, according to Diodorus, only 2 eighteen. The last-

;
mentioned statement is now confirmed by the evidence of a

recently discovered inscription 3 Further, we are informed by .
the Life 4 that, in addition to the twenty victories, he several

times gained the second prize, but never the third. Cratinus 5
intimates that on one occasion at least Sophocles was refused a
chorus altogether but, even if the statement is literally correct,
;
it is impossible to determine whether the plays written for that
occasion were or were not included in the total number assigned

to Sophocles by Aristophanes. It is conceivable, though not
very probable, that the number of victories recorded by Suidas

included occasions on which Sophocles received the second
prize 6 Others have thought that the inclusion of Lenaean
.
victories is the cause of the discrepancy and a parallel has ;
been found in the case of Cratinus, who, though credited with

only three victories at the Lenaea in the inscription already
quoted, reaches the total attributed to him by Suidas by means
of six others gained at the City festival 7 This view is sufficiently .
plausible, and it would perhaps be unnecessary to look further,

if it were not for the comparative unimportance of the Lenaea
1
He belongs to the second century B.C. The reference is to his treatise irepl
5i5a.(TKa\iu>v (Athen. 235 E : FHG IV 359).
2
13- r °3-
'
J
CIA 11 977 a, where [2o^>o]k\^s AITII was restored by Bergk {Rh. Mits.
xxxiv 298).
4
v p. li Blaydes.
•fir. 15 (1 16 K.).
6
Cf. the use of vikcLv in the fifth Argument to the Nubes (Arist. fr. 621 Rose).
7 The explanation was first put forward by Bergk in Rh. Mits. xxxiv 298. It is
accepted by Haigh, Attic Theatre*, pp. 28, 46 ; but by a curious slip the number oi
the victories won by Cratinus at the two festivals is inverted. The text is thus al
variance with the inscriptions quoted on pp. 363, 364. See also Wilhelm, Urkunden,
p. 106.
THE NUMBER OF THE PLA YS xv
in the history of tragedy 1

. At the same time, where numerals
are concerned, we must not neglect their constant liability to
suffer corruption*. However this may be, eighteen victories at
the City Dionysia, where tetralogies were always produced.
involved the performance of seventy-two plays. Of the remain-
ing fifty-one in the Alexandrian list, it is reasonable to suppose,
even when we bear in mind Sophocles' extraordinary popularity,
that at least nine tetralogies if not more —
consisted of plays —
which obtained the second prize. The calculation leaves little
room for exhibition at the Lenaea, so that, if performances at

that festival are used to account for the twenty-four victories
mentioned by Suidas, it would follow that the titles of many
of the plays which Sophocles produced were unknown to the
mdrians.
Objection has been taken* to the number 123 on the ground
that it cannot be divided into tetralogies. But several explana-
are possible. Thus, since the evidence concerning the
Lena- to establish the fact that tragedies were produced
Jn groups of three rather than of four, the inclusion of such
plays might account for the odd number. Or, again, sine-
that the Oedipus Coloneus was not produced until after
the death of its author, it is possible, a-> Dindorf suggested 4 ,
that he left only three plays ready to be included in his thirty-
Mrst tetralogy, and that Sophocles the younger added the fourth.
Further, it \a almost certain that the Archelaus and Andromache
uripides 1 were not included in the official lists of tetralogies
(BiBaa-KaXiai ) ; and it is quite possible that similar exceptions
known to exist among the authentic works of Sophocles.
1
For the fifth century we have no evidence except the record of Agathon't victory
\: cf. I'lat. Symp. 173 A), and the in 1
19 ami 418
I rofla the latter it i* inferred that each poet »ul>milted three play*.
The Lenaea was perhaps reserved for inexperienced or mediocre playwright* (llaigh,
Jr. ,.. 18).
I'.rr^k thought that «' in the Life might be an error for «l\
aturgnek.* p. .05,, where the •Ulernent of Ariato*
is now accepted.
4
ed. i860, p. \
• Vit. t-Ht. p. 4 I)inl ; •; Ihe latter paaaagc h

I {peculation, which need not detain u« here.
XVI GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Early loss In the next place, it will be observed that, whereas in the
of plays.
case of Euripides we have a definite statement that 78 plays outl
of a total number of 92 were extant at Alexandria no similar 1
,
information is available in relation to Sophocles. Yet the

general probabilities of the case, as well as the analogy of!
the history of the other tragedians, forbid us to believe that

Aristophanes had access to copies of all the plays whose titles
were taken into account in his calculation of the total. The
conclusion is assisted by the fact that losses of certain dramas
are actually recorded in some of the extant Arguments 2 Elmsley .
has shown 3 that satyr-plays in particular often failed to survive,

so that their existence was only known from their appearance
in the 8t,8acr/ca\iai : whether his criticism is applicable to the
Sophoclean tradition will be considered later.
Numbers
assigned
A further question arises in regard to the puzzling statement
to certain in the Argument to the Antigone, that the play is reckoned as
plays.
the thirty-second 4 . The figures recorded for the Alcestis, the
Aves, the Dionysalexandros of Cratinus, and the Imbrians of
Menander, and some figure between 71 and 79 re-
17, 35, 8
spectively, requireexamination in the same connexion 6 but ;
for the present purpose we must confine ourselves to the

Antigone. The extant Aeschylean catalogue suggests that the
figure might refer to the alphabetical order, and some critics
have inclined to this view". Inasmuch, however, as some twenty-
three titles beginning with A are known, in order to satisfy an
alphabetical arrangement we should be obliged to assume that
at least nine others were lost, and to place the Antigone last in
1
For an elucidation of the tradition see Dieterich in Pauly-Wissowa VI H47.
2
See the Arguments to the Medea, the Phoenissae, and the Acharnians.
3
On Eur. Med.'2 p. 239.
4
See Jebb's Introduction, § 22. P'or XeXe^rai as indicating a reference to a cata>
logue see Wilamowitz, Anal. Eur. p. 133.
5
Thereis a discussion of the whole subject by R. C. Flickinger in Class. Phil,
V 1-18. But the data have since been enlarged by the publication of Oxyr. Pap. 123s
(x p. 81 ff.), containing Arguments of Menander's plays. From this it appears thai
the Imbrians was numbered e^8ofii]KO<TT[T]v /ecu
6
So approximately Susemihl, I 33848, who professes to follow Wilamowitz (Anal
Eur. p. 135). The latter, however, thinks that the library arrangement was basec
on a compromise between alphabetical order and similarity of subject (Einleitung it
d. gr. Tr. p. 150).
THE NUMBER OF THE PLAYS xvii
order or nearly so. The improbability of the double assumption

is so great that we must look elsewhere for an explanation of
the numeral. But the chronological solution is also open to
objections of considerable weight. As the plays were produced
it is strange that the Antigone rather than a satyr-
in tetralogies,
play should have been reckoned as the last play of the eighth
tetralogy 1
. Further, if Sophocles only produced thirty-two plays
in the first twenty-seven (or twenty-six) years of his dramatic
career, it is surprising that he should have written as many as
ninety-one in the last thirty-five (or thirty-six). However, the
latter argument is not entirely convincing, since several reasons
are conceivable which might favour an increased productivity
in the poet's later life. Flickinger, who has made the most
recent examination of the problem presented by these dramatic
us to be justified in concluding that their original
function was to record the arrangement of the volumes in some
library. — presumably each play of which
the Alexandrian. If
the library possessed a copy was distinguished by a numeral, it
Is unlikely that their arrangement was arbitrary rather than
ling to For the purpose supposed
some rational system.
a chronological basis becomes the more probable, since se
of the early plays may have been lost; but we should still be
1 to infer that Sophocles increased the rate of his
output subsequently to the date of the Antigone*. It should
i'led that the recently discovered evidence respecting the
ins of Mcnander entirely confirms this conclusion. An

Pphabeti( al solution is absolutely excluded by the remaining
and moreover, since the roll to which the fragment
belonged seems to have contained an alphabetical series of
the fact that the numerical order of the plays
recorded clearly points to some other principle
1
The lenacan hypothec* will wt nerve here, since tragedies were not performed
festival until after 440 (Capps, A.J. A. iv 86). Bergk avoided the difficulty
ling in the Argument to the AtUigomt: fcMaxra* M r* tp&p* nSm rpi«*t#Ts>-
%*&rt/>o% < f)9 > . Jcl>l> has given good reasons for rejecting his proposal.
1
Flickingei is perhaps right in seeking to minimize the importance of (his increase,
tually occurred \ but why <loes he assume (p. ij) that only one hundred of
plays were known to the Alexandrians?
xviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
of arrangement. On the other hand, although the date of the
Imbrians may be open to argument 1 the chronological solution
,
would not involve any serious difficulty.

Number Now that we have examined the external evidence bearing
of extant _ \ .
titles. on the number of the plays, we must enquire how far the numbei
of titles actually known to us from quotations corresponds with
the total of 123 plays said to have been recorded by Aristophanes,
The number of actual or ostensible titles of which we have
information, including those of the seven surviving plays, is al
least 132, hardly any doubt that this total must be

but there is
reduced for the purpose of ascertaining the correct number oi

the plays which the titles represent. Five certain cases ol
double titles have been counted as single plays in the reckoning

adopted above, i.e. 'Arpevs rj MvKTjvatac, Maj/Tet? r) IloXutSo?,
Navcritcda rj HXvvrptai, 'OSutrcreti? dtcavdowXr)^ rj NiTrrpa, Uav-
8a>pa rj These double titles were chiefly, if not
l.^vpotcoiroi.
entirely, a device adopted by the grammarians in order to dis-
tinguish plays bearing the same title but written by different
authors 2 It will be observed that in each case, except 'OSvaaevs
.
aKavOo-rrXr)^ rj Nt7TT/ja, the name of a leading character is
combined with a name taken from the chorus ; and in view oi
the prevalence of the latter among the titles of Aeschylus, it
may be conjectured that the chorus-names MvKrjvalai, NavTeis,

IlXvvTpiai, and Tcpvpo/coTroi,were the original designations chosen
by Sophocles. It sometimes happens that this practice of the
grammarians, instead of tending to precision, is actually a source
of confusion, when quotations are made by means of one or the
other of the alternative titles, so that, unless there is independent
evidence of the combination, two different plays appear to be
cited. Thus it is highly probable that the AlOioire<; should be
identified with the Mepuvwv (i p. 22), the Ka/zt/cot with the Mivw<t
(II p. 4), and the 'HpatcXrjs (but not the 'Hpa/eXetcr/eos) with the
iirl Taivdpo) adrvpoc (i p. 167). The probable identity of the
'l&iriyovot with the 'EpKpvXrj (I p. 129) only differs in so far as
'Eiriyovoi is not a name given to the chorus, but serves, like
'Ettto, eVi ©rjfias, as a succinct description of the subject-matter,
1
Oxyr. Pap. x p. 83.
2
Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 399 f.
;
THE NUMBER OF THE PLA YS xix
— the second expedition against Thebes. The proposed identi-

fications of the AoXo7re<? with the <t>oivtg (I p. I20), of the second
Q>ii>€v<; with the Tv^nraviarai (II p. 3 1
3 f.), and of the <J>0ta>rt8e?
with the 'Epfiioprj (11 p. 306), are much more disputable. A still
more frequent source of error was the substitution for the true
title of the name of one of the principal characters but, though ;
scholars seem sometimes tacitly to approve such combinations

as Oti'o/zaof >5 'iTnroBdfieia 1
, they are not really instances of
double titles deliberately adopted by author or critic, but the
result* of lapse of memory, carelessness of citation, or con-
fusion by a copyist. The matter is of so much importance not
merely to the present investigation, but also to the arrangement
and interpretation of the Fragments themselves, that we must
stablish beyond the possibility of dispute that such errors
are not infrequent. Now, the Orestes of Euripides is sometimes
entitled Elcctra in late MSS (see e.g. C.R. II 172), just as con-
versely Longinus trepl evpeaews (Walz, Rhet. Gr. IX 589) refers
to El. 1 1 22 as spoken by Electra in the Orestes. Similarly, the
•nssae appears as the Oedipus {C.R. II 172), the Baccliae as
\u//ieus*, the Hippolytus as the Phaedra*, and the Troades
as the Hecuba*. Hence we are not surprised to find that the
ii,i us is cited once as the Hippodamia*, the Daedalus once
as the Tales*, the Heracles once as the Cerberus' and the Tyro 7
,
Pelias*. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion

th.itTon wtm an alternative title for the Crcusa p. 23), and m
tlytatmmstra either for the fpkigmiaot the Aegisthus{\ p. 219)
but hesitation is pardonable before we accept the identification
of the Theseus with the Phaedra (or the Aegeus: I p. 184), of
the Acrisiui with the Dawu (I p. 38), of the Aides with the
me 11 p. 1 73 ). of the Andromache with the I (I p. 78),
>eus with the Aides (II p. 268) It happens
ionally, though much less frequently, that a play is cited
by the name not of a character, but of a person who is described
The tide i» »o printed by Dindorf and Nauck [TGF p. »jj>.
So cod L and the codd. of Stob. /lor. 36. 9 and 74 *

So cod. Land Etuuth. //. p. 490. 23.
w.lck.r. Gr. Trag. p. ,
• **i
•
fr. I
7
fr. 114 ' »'• *«••
xx GENERAL INTRODUCTION
or referred to by one or more of the speakers. We do not know
enough about the Licymnins of Euripides to feel sure that the
misquotation of fr. 472 in Bachm. anecd. I p. 412, 7 as coming
from the Heracles is an error of this kind ; but there can be no
doubt in regard to schol. Plat. rep. 361 B, where Aesch. Theb.
$79 ff. AlaxyXov
are cited as e^'A/xcpiapdov. A similar example
is probably to be found in Soph. fr. 731, where, following
Hartung, I have suggested that iv 'la-fifty covers a reference to
the Triptoletnus, and the mysterious title "Boavrjcpopoi (fr. 452)
may perhaps be explained as an allusion to a particular scene
in the Laocoon. An error more easily detected is the ascription
of a play to the wrong author, that is to say, to Aeschylus or
Euripides instead of to Sophocles, or to Sophocles instead of to
Aeschylus or Euripides. In the result there may be occasional
difficulties respecting the genuineness of individual fragments 1
but the discovery of the mistake seldom effects the removal of a

title from one tragedian to another. Relying on the existence
of this source of error, scholars have refused to credit the state-
ment that Sophocles wrote a Prometheus 2 and similarly Welcker ;
conjectured that the titles Ixion and Sisyphus belonged ex-

clusively to Aeschylus and Euripides 3 Important additions to .
the text of Sophocles, which result from the recognition of an

error in the statement of authorship, will be found in frs. 581
and 684. Another cause of disturbance is the doubt which
exists as to the number of plays corresponding to the titles
Atreus and Thyestes, and Phineus and Tympanistae and it is ;
uncertain whether the titles 'EXevrj, 'EXeV^? airaiTTicris, and

r
E\evT)<; aptrayrj, imply the existence of three, two, or only
one play.
When we have made allowance for all these disquieting con-
siderations, we
shall probably be disposed to deduct some twenty
titles from the 132 mentioned above, so that of the 123 known
1
For examples see on frs. 14, 1080, Eur. frs. 474, 515, schol. Horn, r 471 (attri-
buting Aesch. Ag. 282 to Sophocles), Hesych. 1 p. 227 awapOivevra- oil irpiirovTa
irapOtvois.2o<poK\rjs 'l<piyevelqi rrj 4p Av\18i (i.e. Eur. I.A. 993). Hence frs. 583,
769 and 941 have been assigned by some to Euripides.
2
Schol. Pind. Pyth. 5. 35, where however Schroeder suspects that a reference to
the Ko\x«'5es (fr. 340) has fallen out.
8
See 1 p. 213, 11 p. 185.
THE XUMBER OF THE PLA YS xxi
to Aristophanes of Byzantium we are still able to identify about

112. Of all these there is, so far as I can see, only one, the
Iberes\ of which might be thought that it no longer existed in
it
the Alexandrian epoch; and even of it we can only say that

there is no positive indication of its survival. It has already
been remarked that we have no record of the number of

hoclean plays which were preserved in the Alexandrian
library. Now, if Boeckh's hypothesis* were correct, it would
w that we are still able to trace practically all the genuine
plays as having passed into the keeping of the Alexandrians.
But in the highest degree improbable that copies of every
it is
one of them survived throughout the interval between the fifth

and third centuries. On the other hand, if we accept 123 as the
actual total of the genuine titles, we are now in a position to say
that some 1 10 of the plays to which they belonged were known
he students of Alexandria. It is reasonable to infer that
there are very few indeed* of which Alexandria has us no left
e,and the result is a very remarkable testimony t<> the

and comprehensiveness of our sources.
The information available respecting the satyr-plays is n<»t Satyr-
such as to disturb the previous calculation. There ar- ,

Pta y»-
plays in admitted or strictly proved to be satyric 4

. To
these we need not hesitate to add AotoaXov and '
I lpaic\et<ncos.
/The Tj-aôv and Ivvteitrvoi were either formally satyr- plays, or

at least belonged to the same category as the Alcestis, so tl
they might have served as substitute tyr-plays in the last

e of the tetralogy. Of the other titles those which seem
•
suitable for inclusion in a list of satyr-plays are Movant,
Hi<TV(f>o<, and <l>aia*es ; and, since the return <•( I'crseus after hi>
enturet was a favourite subject in this kind of drama'.
1
The relevance to Sophocles of •
now ilt-putctl : Christ-Schmid. c;
(Hi.
powibfa that wc know them we can identify alt tboae of

1
It 10 all, juot a* I
a hirh were preserved : <c i ly-Wiaaowa VI 134M.

4
The names axe as follows: 'Afivfot, 'Aîtf^wi, '.\x>Ww« ifmarmk, A*«rv#<««»«.
'KVkt,? ydnoi. 'Kf*i, 'HpacXrp, Tx""'rat, KtfdaXi**, Kpiaii, Kuôl, Maiwt, lla#&»-pa,
. >t,~TPptt.
b
—
xxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
isperhaps more to be said for Meineke's conjecture concerning
the Aavdi) than the particular evidence relating to it seems to
suggest 1 . It is possible that we should add the Chryscs, for
reasons given in the Introductory Note. Satyr-plays were not
produced at the Lenaea ; but even if we make a liberal allowance
performed at this festival, it
for the inclusion in the list of plays
seems clear that several satyr-plays were lost before the time of
Aristophanes. This is no more than might have been expected,
in view of the scantiness of the information concerning them
which we owe to the Alexandrians 2 .
§ 2. The subjects of the plays.
Classifi- The subjects chosen by Sophocles for the composition of his

cation of
pi a y S we re taken exclusively from ancient legends. When we
seek to analyse and arrange them, various methods of classifica-
tion are possible. Thus the locality to which each particular
story belonged might be adopted as the guiding principle of
division and such a course would be justified, if the dramatic
;
stories rested chieflyupon oral tradition, gathered directly or

indirectly from different quarters of the Hellenic world. But,
except incidentally or when belonging to Attica itself, the
material of tragedy is not drawn from myths of merely local
circulation. was shaped from the ic\ea dvhpwv which rhap-
It
sodes had sung from time immemorial throughout the length

and breadth of Greece tcaO' 'KWaBa fcai fieaov "ApYo<j. Not
that local associations are entirely to be neglected the dramas :
whose scenes were laid in Attica, Boeotia, or Aetolia, tend to be

grouped together, even where some other link has been chosen
for their connexion. Genealogical affinity is a more promising
point of departure. Every noble family could trace its descent,
1
i pp- 3 8 - «$•
2
The effect of schol. Ar. Ran. 1124 seems to be that Aristarchus and Apollonius
disregarded the satyric play in speaking of Aeschylean tetralogies (or trilogies) like
the Orestea. The Proteus itself was familiar ground to the Alexandrians {TGF
p. 70). They knew of only eight of Euripides' satyr-plays, including one of doubtful
authenticity. The marginalia to the Ichneutae are very meagre. See also p. x\i 3 .
,
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS xxii.
rough generations of heroic ancestors, back to Dorus, XuthttS,

ami Aeolus, the sons of Hellen. The cherished unity of race
was maintained by a network of relationships stretching from
dy to Sparta, and from Elis to Orchomenus. It would
be easy, with the information at our command, to distribute
among the chief houses the tales of the sufferings and achieve-
ment s of their successive representatives. To this aspect of the
matter we shall presently return. But the mythical p
not merely treasured in family chronicles ; it supplied the record
of the glorious beginnings of Greek history. '
Pelops' line' was
linked indissolubly with '
the tale of Troy divine.' The orderly
disposition of the early saga, which preserved it as the common
heritage of later ages, was mainly the work of the epic poets.
;
phoclea the legends of Hellas were permanently embedded
in its poetry and the task of cataloguing his plays will only be
;
adequately performed, in so far as we succeed in discovering

their literary sources.
Although the data available for the reconstruction of the influence

" f n,,I,ur
lamentably scanty, we are generally in a position
ze the chief features of the stories which Sophocles
ige. The surviving titles entirely confirm tin
testimony of /.oilus, the speaker in Athenacus 1

, that 'Sophocles
blighted in the epic Cycle to such an extent that throughout
hole of a play he would follow closely the epic narra:
To the same effect the author of the anonymous Life': 'His
follow in the tracks of Homer, and in several of his plays
he produces an exact copy of the Odyssey.' Hut it was not

tructure of his plots that Soph is considered
a follower of Homer. In the delineation of character and in
the artistic expression of his thought the writings of Sophocles

ive the charm of Homer's poetr)'*. Aristotle had
compared the art of Sophocles with that of Homer 4
; and Pole
1
i- isaubon's note on iIh^ ptnage ace f ;.
p. Iiv HI. The word* which precede (no «ri> fti* ©»*r *Opqp««£t wr6p«{t) are
licrgk proposed ofrorojut for Jn>6fia{r : one might aUo tttggot 'Qpnpt
tftf wrondjVro.
:. XIII p. Iv HI. Wovoui 6i «a< wottiWti «ai roil «>t*»V«*« rr\>
(pfjraj, 'OMtyMK^r (KtiarrbfitPot X<ifx*.
* foel. ,\.
I I . .
hi
xxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
the Academic took an equal pleasure in Homer and in Sophocles,
declaring that Homer was an epic Sophocles, Sophocles a tragic
Homer 1
. It was chiefly in respect of his diction that Sophocles
was called '
the most but his most
Homeric ' of Attic poets ;
intimate point of contact with the Homeric spirit was his refusal
to employ his art for the purpose of fostering religious enthu-

siasm, of promoting a purer morality, or of freeing the mind
from conventional shackles, while he laboured to create afresh
the heroic figures of ancient legend, and to present under new
conditions the majesty of the life which Homer had first
portrayed.
The Homeric element in Sophocles' style is easily recog-
nizable, but the evidencewhich establishes his close adherence to*
Homeric models must not be taken to imply that, as a dramatic
poet, he was deficient in inventive power. We infer simply
that, in erecting the framework of his plays, Sophocles selected
Homeric material to a larger extent than his fellow tragedians.
For this purpose no distinction need be drawn between Homer' '
rhe Epic and the poems of the epic Cycle. Down to about 500 B.C.
Cycle
no doubt had arisen that the latter were actually written by
Homer 2 and the popular conception remained unshaken until,
,
a much later date. When Aeschylus said that his tragedies

were slices from Homer's ample feast 3 it is beyond question that ,
he was not referring to the Iliad and Odyssey alone. Indeed, it

is extremely unlikely that the phrase epic Cycle or even the! '
'
notion which it expressed had come into existence during the

lifetime of Sophocles 4 What then precisely was the epic Cycle?
.
The answer is given by certain extracts from the direstomatJiia

of Proclus the Neoplatonist 5 which are preserved partly in the.
,
1
Diog. L. 4. 20, Suid. s.v. HoX^/xwv.
2
See T. W. Allen in C. Q. II 88; the evidence is given by Christ-Schmid, op. cit.
p. 92.
3
Athen. 347 E.
4 Monro, Horn. Od.
p. 346, pointed out that there is no evidence of kvk\os eirCiv,
or any such phrase, having existed before the time of Aristotle. Christ-Schmid, op.
cit. p. 92, now take the same view. The inferiority to Homer of his rivals in the
same field is asserted in Isocr. 12. 263, and the transferred sense of kvk\ik6s at Alex-
andria (Callim. ap. A. P. 12. 43) indicates that the notion of 'cyclic poetry' had been
taken over from the Peripatetics.
5
A considerable controversy has arisen in recent years over these extracts.
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLAYS an
bibliotheca of the patriarch Photius (f. 318 B 21) and partly in
Homer, i.e. chiefly in Ven. A supplemented by the
>f
Kscurial and other less well known copies. What is called the
epic Cycle commenced, according to Proclus, with the fabled
union of Uranus and Gaia, and contained all the myths relating
to the gods as well as such historical facts as emerged in the
course of the description. It was the work of various poets, and
came to an end with the landing of Odysseus on the coast of

Ithaca, when his son Telegonus unwittingly slew him. Proclus
adds that the preservation and currency of the epic Cycle were
to be ascribed not so much to its merit as to the orderly
sequence of events which it contained (tt)i/ dicoXovBLav t«wi> eV
avrtp Trpayfiurtov). The
which are on a larger
later extracts,
scale, relate to the subject-matter of the Cycle, and comprise
what purports to be an abstract, beginning with the Cypria and
ending with the Telegony, of six epics covering the period of
the Trojan war. The character of Proclus's evidence and the
value to be attributed to were materially affected by theit
very of its affinity to the mythographical handbook which,

h known as the bibliotheca of Apollodorus, was certainly not
the work of the famous grammarian of the second century B.C.
MblwtktCOx a^ formerly known from the available mss, broke
bniptly in the course of a description of the adventures of
t>ut the discovery in 1 885 and 1887 of an abbrev;
form of the conclusion in two separate but parallel fragments

i that it originally extended as far as the death of
seus 1 . Now these fragments, so far as they comprise the
[Trojan itory, agree so remarkably both in substance and in
c view* are represented <m the one hand by Bcthc (Unm. \\w «.,.»). who
refuse* to acknowledge that they have any value at all, and on the other by T W
Allen m C. (' 11 64. 81, who »eeim to I* almost alone in holding that th.
epic* arrived until the fifth century l

^Hy admitted that the
grammarian and the NeoptotOBitl were identical. Sec \V\ Schmid in A'k. Mitt. XMX
3pkW 1007. « f.
1
Th. fragment* were published respectiv Wagner from a Vatican M%
'•enth century, and by l'apadopul«»»-Kcrameu» in fit. Mm
I Jerusalem MS. They will I* feud, whether with the extract* of
u.n.r f the Tcubner Mytkogrnphi Crtti (ed. It Wagner).

'
xxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION

language with Proclus's epitome of the six Cyclic epics that
there can be no hesitation in attributing to them a common
origin. The drawn that there lay at the basis of
inference is
the mythographical compendium which was produced, whether

by Dionysius the Cyclograph or another, in late Alexandrian 1
times, and was the common source of the extant mythographical

literature, a composition known as the '
cycle of the events
described by the epic poets rwv eTroiroiaiv laroprr ' (kvk\o<; inrh
tievos). From the inclusion of their works in this cycle the
term Cyclic was transferred from the handbook to the poems
themselves' The Alexandrian kvkXos was not intended to serve
2
.
a literary purpose, that is to say, the provision for readers of

the old epics of detailed information about them, but rather to
supply people of ordinary education with a succinct digest of
mythical history based upon the writings of the ancient poets.
Proclus indicates that the poems themselves were valued chiefly
as authoritative records of the events which they described 3 .
We should not therefore be surprised if the ostensible epitome,

particularly in the form in which it has come down to us, is
found to contain some elements foreign to the original sources,

or even at variance with the other vestiges of our fragmentary
knowledge concerning them 4 . Now, it will be observed that,
1
Diod. 3. 66 is a passage often quoted : Aiovvfltp r<p awTaâaei-w rds 7ra\cuds
ixvdoirodas' oOros 70.^ to. re ireplrlv Auwvcrov Kai rds 'A/xafyvas, 2ti 5e rovs 'Apyovavras,
Kai to, /card tov 'WiaKov irdXe/xov irpaxOivra, Kai 7r6XX' erepa avvrtraKTai, irapandeis to.
iroirifj.a.Ta. tuv apxaioiv, rCiv re fivdoXoyoiv Kai tQiv ttoit)tCov. This quotation however
refers to Dionysius Scytobrachion, the writer (among other works) of a '
romance
Argonautica, who is frequently cited by Diodorus and the scholia on Apollonius, and
is sometimes confused (e.g. by Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 93) with Dionysius the
Cyclograph. See Susemihl, 45, 57; E. Schwartz in
Pauly-Wissowa V 928, 932.
11
There were of course several such kvkXoi, among others that of a certain Theodoras,
whose account was followed in the Tabula Iliaca.
2
This account chiefly follows the
article by E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa 2875?; 1
2886. No apology is needed

prominence given to the subject for some under-
for the ;
standing of the development of mythological literature between Hesiod and Hyginus

is necessary to a correct appreciation of the evidence touching the subject-matter of
the several plays.
The reference must be assumed to be to the time when the iwiicbs kvk\os was put
in circulation, perhaps in the first century B.C.
4
These discrepancies were used by Bethe to assail the trustworthiness of Proclus.
A flagrant instance is the statement in the epitome of the Cyfria that Paris captured
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS xxvii
although we have in Proclus a complete summary of the tale of

Troy, we know nothing whatever about the epics from which
the beginning of the cycle was made up. The analysis of the
poems which covered the period stretching from the marriage
•>f Uranus and Gaia to the opening of the Cypria is entirely lost.
It is unfortunate that the gap cannot be filled up with material
prawn from other quarters for even though we might learn but :
little of their distinctive versions, it would be instructive to

discover the names of those poems which Alexandrian Scholar-
ship regarded as the most authoritative documents concerning
the early myths. The reference in Athenaeus to Sophocles'
fondness for the epic Cycle follows immediately upon a quota-
tion from the Titanomachia, which suggests that that poem was
included in the Cycle. But the first place in order of time is
claimed for a Cyclic Theogony, which is to be distinguished

pom 1 k-siod's work of the same name
The only other poems 1
.
which by general consent are assigned to the epic Cycle are the
Thebti '.-quel the Epigoui, and its precursor the Ocdipodea.
The relation of the \\^<f>idpea) efe'Xao-ic to the other Thcban

:ently to the Cycle, is quite uncertain*. The
•
>rk : some favour the inclusion of the OtôXta?
>'i\tt>vis, of the r/icmis, and of the Danais', but the supposed
antiquity of their origin is the only reason for their selection.
There is a general impression that the Trojan series was the
nd moat important part of the Cycle, but it rests upon
no other evidence than the accidental preservation of I'roclus's
iCt The Ionian epos, it is true, culminated in the '!>.<
but. it th< «u*\ov was such as ur have Mipj>osed, it most
hrut l
taken notice of Heracles and Dionysus, of the Argonauts,

Theseus. Epics, in addition to those named
:
above, on these and other subjects were written by Kumelus,
Sidon after the abduction o( i

;
itwiUHtaadfag ihc cm MM. j. 117.
i wa» preferred for thehandl»ouk here •» In other rate.

nee of the existence of thi» work. See now
\ }».
* t)w KVK\tKip Oij/5oi«a, Athcn. 465*.
Mi.' r. Fkotniititt, p. xix.
hiiu.l. op. ,//. p. 100, treat the»e a* outride the Cycle, owing to their
haracter.
'
xxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Cinaethon, and Asius ; and these, as well as the anonymous
Phoronis, Alcmaeonis, and Naupactia, must have exercised some
influence upon Sophocles and the other tragedians. We may
add the Aegimius, which is sometimes ascribed to Hesiod but ;
in their bearing upon Attic tragedy the most important of the

Hesiodic poems was the yvvat/cwv /caT<i\uyo$.
Classifi- appears from this discussion that, except
it in the case of the
cation of . . _ , .
myths. 1 rojan epics, and of these only in so far as we can rely on the
statements of Proclus, it is impossible to make a list of Sophocles'
literary sources so as to map out under each the plays whose
plots are derived from them. The alternative has been adopted
of arranging the plays according to the '
sequence of events
(d/coXovdlav tgov irpa^fidrayv) as established by the handbook of
pseudo-Apollodorus. It is true that this does not rest either
directly or at all upon a series of abstracts or arguments
(vfrodeaeis) of poetical literature ; and even where it seems to
follow particular tragic authorities, it merely reflects the influence
of tragedy upon the current conception of mythical history 1
.
But the general outline which it presents corresponds in the

main with the order in sequence of the myths as it was appre-
hended in the fifth century and the genealogical framework by
;
which the various episodes were held together must ultimately

be traced to the influence of Hecataeus, of Acusilaus, and above
all of Pherecydes of Leros, the somewhat older contemporary of
Sophocles. The genealogies, again, though fixed and distributed

by these chroniclers, were derived by them from early heroic
poetry, perhaps above all from the /caTaXoyo? of Hesiod 2 .
I. Theogony. In the earliest age of the world/ before the

power of the Olympians was firmly established, was set the scene
of the Pandora, the Cedalion, the Triptolemus, the Thamyras,
and the Ixion.
II. Issue of Deucalion : the Aeolids. The Aetolian princes
traced their origin to Aeolus through several generations de-
scending from his daughter Calyce. The Aetolian plays are
1
The TpaytpSo^/xeva of Asclepiades of Tragilus was just such a handbook of
tragic mythology. The fragments indicate that if it had been preserved it would
have contributed little to our knowledge of the works of the tragedians.
2 Rzach
in Pauly-Wissowa 1213. vm
Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 123, describe the
Ka.T&\oyos as '
a versified text-book of heroic history.'
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS xxix
the Conns, Mc Lager, and Hipponous. Among the sons of

Aeolus were Sisyphus, Cretheus, Athamas, and Salmoneus.
JHere then belong the plays (a) Sisyphus, Iobates (6) Athamas ;
(first and second), Pluixus; and {c) Salmoneus, Tyro (first and
second). Cretheus, the husband of Tyro, was also the father of

Pheres and Aeson, so that we may add (d) the doubtful plays
AJvictus^ and Eumclus\ and (e) the series of plays containing
various episodes of the Argonautic adventure: Lemniae, Amycus,
Phincus (first and second), Tympatiistac, Co/chides, Scythae, and
mi. The Argonautic saga comes next to the Trojan in
variety and extent but, though there are several allusions to
;
the Argonauts and their adventures in Homer, and many more

siod, none of the Hesiodic poems, unless it be the third
book of the KardXo'yo*;*, appears to have contained a complete

narrative of the voyage. Of later epics the Naitpactia, and the
Corintliiaca of Kumelus, clearly related to this subject.
I>sue of Inachus.
Ill In the play entitled hiachus Sopho-
:leshandled the intrigue of Zeus with Io, and the result of the
jealousy of Hera. Epaphus, the son of Io born in Egypt.
tber of Helus and Agenor, who were the ancestors of the
which the Inachidae were subsequently divided.
into
p) Helus was the father of Danaus and AegyptUS, from whom

x-scended Acrisius through Lynceus, the son of Aegyptn>.
fed Hypermnestra, the daughter of Danaus. Here then belong
:he plays containing the Acrisius, D<r
story of Pcrseu-> :
umdfvmtda, LarissacL The grandson of Perseus u.i-> Amphi-

ryon, the putative father of Heracles. The Heraclean plays
>.'/>/tifn<>//, H*radiscus %
II ,>tp oinvpot)*,
tnd I niihiniae. The story of Danae and Perseus is undoubtedly
>ld 4 , but wc cannot identify any epic poem ;b the principal
iocument from which the subsequent tradition started. The
Dat/ais, which has already been mentioned, seems t«> have
I the story of the Danaids. The kernel of the story of
les and his labours is believed to have bet Ined
1
See n. <>n fi. If!.
1
K/.ich in r.iuly-WiMow« Vlli iioj, 1105 f.
* The identification i» by no mean* certain : tec p. 167.

• I loin. E Jiy. '!• :i '
II&
xxx GENERAL INTRODUCTION
in a Dorian epic which disappeared at a very early date and;
consequently exercised no direct influence on Attic tragedy 1 /
Aristotle's slighting reference 2 shows that the poems which
existed in his time were not of much account. An exception
should perhaps be made in favour of the Olâ\ia<; a\a)<ri<;, one
of the chief sources of the Tracliiniae, which was attributed toj
the Ionian Creophylus 3

. (d) Europa, the daughter of Agenor^
became the mother of Minos, with whose story are connected;
the plays Daedalus, Camici, Minos*, and Polyidus (Mdvretn
Cadmus, the brother of Europa, whose journey in search of hi*
sister brought him ultimately to Thebes, was the traditional
ancestor of the Theban dynasty. The following plays are:
connected with the fortunes of- his descendants : Dionysiscus,
Niobe, Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, Ampliiaraus, Anti-
gone, Epigoni (or Eriphyle), Oecles, and Alcmaeon. The Theban
epics have already been mentioned.
IV. Pelasgus, according to some the son of Zeus and Niobe,
but by others reckoned as sprung from the soil, stands at the
head of the Arcadian genealogies. The Arcadian plays are the
Aleadae, Telephus, and Mysi.
V. Arcadia was also the scene of the Ichtieutae, which
however occupies a separate class in view of its relation to the
fortunes of Maia, daughter of Atlas the Titan.
VI. TheAsopids.. We are here concerned with the adventures
of the descendants of Aeacus, the grandson of Asopus. The
'A^tXXe&)<? epa<TTaL belongs here rather than to the Troica, but
there is much doubt respecting the subjects of the Pelcus,
Phthiotides, Do/opes, and Phoenix.
VII. Cecrops the earth-born was the earliest figure in the
mythical sequence of the Athenian kings. The Attic legends
were favourite subjects with Sophocles and Euripides, and here
if anywhere they were indebted to local traditions at least as
much as to literary models. No doubt the outlines of the chief

stories had been fixed by previous writers, but we know scarcely
1
Wilamowitz, Eur. Her.- 2
I 69 f. poet. 8. 1451' 20.
3 See Jebb's Trachiniae, p. xviii. In the previous pages (xv ff.) the literary history
of the Heracles myth is discussed.
4
Perhaps an alternative title : see p. xviii.
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS
anything about the Theseidis {EGF p. 217*. and the Atthis of
sinus is attested by a solitary quotation of Pausanias
(9. 29. 1). The plays in question are the Terms, Preens,
Creusa (Ye//), AegettSy Theseus, and Phaedra. The Oedipus
Co/oneus, which in form belongs to the Theban Cycle, is largely
Attic in substance, and entirely in spirit.
VIII. The Tantalids. Here, as in the case of the Asopids,

it is not possible strictly to separate the legends of the house of
Atreus from the Trojan Cycle, but the Tantalus, Oenomaus
(Hippodamia), Atreus, and Thyestes (first and second) clearly
Belong to the earlier period.
IX. Troica. Thanks to the evidence of Proclus, we are
able to arrange the remaining plays under the titles of the epics
which contain the Trojan cycle, (a) Kvirpta: A/exandir x
,
hris. Crisis, Mounts, 'EXinjs ydfios, 'OSuo-ereu? fiaivofievos,

'Axaiiov ovWoyos, Iphigenia !
C/ytaeuinestni), St/pfenryot, II
. h/drouiaehe), 'EXevns nVaiTj/at? {apirayrj), Troilus, Fata-

unties. (/') Ai#<o7n<?: Aethiopes (Memnon), P/iryges*. (*) *IX«<fo
fiiKpii : ./;/r. P/ii/octetes, Philoctetes at Troy, & unpyius,
11 \\lov TT€p<ri<; : Laoeoou, Siuou, Priaiuus, Ante-
Criati . {/ax, Atj^/taXom'Sec;, Polyxcua. (#) Xoorot : Nar-
icaTaifkeuiv, Nai/7r\to9 irvpicaevs, Aegisthus, F/eetra, Aletes,
Erigonc, Chryses, Ifennione, Tyndarcus, Teueer, Eurys
OSvaaela: Xausieaa, Pfah | g) TijXeyoPia: Furya/us,
7(u,'Tf3pt<i, 'TBpo<p6poi.
If the number 112 is tea ; a probable total <»l
prised in the preceding list, be noticed thai

it will
43 of them, or over 38 per cent., belong to the Trojan Cycle.

A similar calculation applied to the plays of Aeschylus and
Euripides yields percentages of 23 and 21 respectively. These
remarkable fi| tirely confirm the evidence relating to
Sophocles' Homeri and if the limits were enlarged
;
to include the plays whose subjects lie on the borders of
!
I his play should in KricfMM have been associated with class V: cf. ApolUI. fc.
1 ;o liui it would 1* inconvenient to separate it from ihc other Trojan plays.

I t of the play is extremely doubtful : tee II p. |tf.
xxxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
the Homeric domain, the result would be even more striking.
Want of information concerning the character and extent of the
€ttik6<; kvkXos prevents a closer enquiry.
§ 3. The tradition of the text.
Tradition The seven plays which still survive have been handed down
of the
extant to us in a number of MSS ranging from the eleventh to the]
plays. sixteenth century, of which the oldest and best is the well-known
Laurentian, written in the first half of the eleventh century.
But, whereas twelve MSS contain all the seven plays, either
complete or with lacunae, and fifteen others four or more but]
less than seven, no less than seventy are restricted to the Ajax,
Electra, and Oedipus Tyra?inus alone, or to one or two of them 1
.
The preponderance of the three plays is readily explained by

their exclusive use for educational purposes during the Byzantine
period. The existence of this selection may perhaps be traced
as far back as to 500 A.D., if we may judge from the title of a
treatise written by Eugenius, head of the imperial school at
Constantinople under Anastasius I (491 518) and predecessor —
of Stephen of Byzantium in the tenure of that office 2 The work .
was entitled KcoXofierpia roiv fieXiKcov Ala^vXov ôcpo/cXeovs koli
FivpnrlBov cnrb Spa/xdrfDv ie'

3
. That is to say, Eugenius, no
doubt following earlier scholars, published analyses of the lyrical
parts of the three tragedians similar to those which Heliodorus
constructed for Aristophanes, but limited his activity to fifteen
plays, three of Aeschylus, three of Sophocles, and nine of
Euripides 4 . The number chosen corresponds to that of the
plays selected from Aeschylus (Prometheus, Seven, and Persae), as )
well as of those taken later from Euripides (Hecuba, Orestes, and

Phoenissae) and each of these groups consists of the first three
;
plays, according to the order of an earlier and larger collection.

The history of the Euripidean tradition is more complicated, and
does not concern us here, but the earlier collections made from
1
The figures are taken from Jebb's text-edition of Sophocles, p. xm f.
2 3
Steph. Byz. p. 93, 1. Suid. s.v. Evyevios.
4
So Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa VI 987; Christ-Schmid, op. cit. ir' p. 879; Sandys,
Hist. CI. Schol. I 402; and C. H. Moore in C.R. XIX 12. Wilamowitz, Einleitung,
P- I97i52> thinks the statement obscure.
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT xxxiii
the works of Aeschylus and Sophocles undoubtedly comprised

the fourteen plays which still exist. It must be recognized
therefore that the survival of particular plays is due not to the

accidental preservation of this or that MS from which all other
copies were derived, but rather to the educational needs which
prompted scholars to prepare annotated editions of select plays
for the use of schools. Of the circumstances attending the
publication of the earlier collection hardly a trace remains.
An Argument is attached to each of the two plays Oedipus
md Antigone bearing the name of a certain Sallustius,
and in the former he is described as Sallustius Pythagoras. In
all probability therefore there him was a tradition identifying
with Pythagorean the follower of Iamblichus
Sallustius the 1
,
and author of the treatise irepl dtwv teal tcoafiou*, who belonged
to the latter part of the fourth century. This writer is probably
the same man as the friend of the emperor Julian, and has also
been identified with the sophist Sallustius to whom Suidas
km ril>es commentaries on Demosthenes and Herodotus*. Now,
if .Sallustius, the editor of the select plays, lived at so late a date
as the second half of the fourth century, it is unlikely that he
was the first compiler of the selection*. It will be shown later
that the direct quotation of tragedies other than those contained

in the select edition died out at the end of the second century.
Farther, it may be inferred, from the precise correspondence in
subject between the plays chosen from each of the three great
tragedians which contain the stories of Oedipus and Orestes,
that the whole selection was made by a single person. B<
this it is impossible to determine either author or date. Wilamo-
< Argument is given in L as vaXovcriov v *v0ay6pov. Dtl

ired that wv6ay6pov was the blunder of someone who did not perceive that
t'-vMttti, but the view ..f Wikmowta as stated above is
I . Cumont, AV:-. dt Philot. xvi ;.$, rejecting the identification, points oat
i was a Neo-Platonist.
r thin work and its author see Gilbert Murray, Feur Stops 0/ Creek h'tligum,
\tt.
* A grammarian SalluM is quoted in schol. Ar. Plul. 715. Cumont assigns him
sixth century.
4
Wil.unr wit/. <>/. nt. p. 1991 I'm*, a commentator on Sophocles, who is assigned
. cond century (< !. of>. .it. mentioned in schol. Ai. 408.
:
xxxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION

witz, who has once for all laid down the conditions of the problem,
arrived at the conclusion that the selection was first made in the
age of Plutarch, and after the lapse of a century secured universal
acceptance 1
.
We shall now proceed to give some account of the Sophoclean

tradition in antiquity in order to prepare the way for an exami-
nation of the sources from which our knowledge of the lost plays
is derived. The existence of written copies of Attic tragedies
can be traced back to the period of their production, that is to
say, to a date not later than the close of the fifth century B.C.,
as is proved by the well-known passage in Ar. Ran. 52 where
Dionysus speaks of reading to himself the Andromeda of Euri-

pides and the force of v. 11 14 of the same play is very much
;
impaired if we do not understand it as implying that the text

of the tragedians was studied in literary circles. The learning
by heart of tragic pr)<rei,<; is mentioned by Plato 2 and Alexis ,
includes tragedies in a list of books which are recommended

for the improvement of Heracles, who however chooses a cookery-
book in preference to all of them 3 The earliest recognition of; .
the necessity for maintaining the integrity of the tragic texts is
to be found in the law of Lycurgus the orator, which required

that an official copy of the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides should be preserved in the archives, and that in future
performances the actors should adhere to the text of this copy 4 .
It has been suggested that the official text only contained such
plays as still kept the stage in the fourth century, but, as the
plays of Aeschylus were seldom reproduced at that time 5 , it
was probably more comprehensive. In fact, if such an official

copy was ever made, although its primary purpose was not so I
much directly critical as to check the licence of the actors, it
may be presumed that the net was cast as wide as possible, and
that the most authoritative sources were consulted 6 It is .
1
Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 202.
2
hgg- 811 a: cf. Herond. 3. 30.
3
fr. ^5, 11 345 K.
4
Plut. vit. X oral. p. 84 1 F. The documents were no doubt preserved in the
Metroum (Frazer's Pausanias, 11 p. 68).
5
Haigh, Attic Theatre 3 p. 76. ,
6
Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 131, hardly allows so much. But his view that the
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT xxvs
;enerally supposed that this was the copy subsequently borrowed

>y Ptolemy Euergetes, when he left a deposit of fifteen talents
s security for its return. His professed object was to make
transcript for his own use but, when this had been done, he ;
ent back the transcript to Athens in place of the original, and

he Athenians were obliged to content themselves with a forfeit
f the deposit It may be open to doubt whether the reference
1
.
f to Euergetes I (247 221 B.C.) or to Euergetes II Physcon —

146 — 1
17 B.C,)*, although the former is generally preferred ; but
he historical truth of the story is of less importance than
he inferences to which it leads. Thus the acquisition of the
•fficial copy was certainly not regarded as having settled the
ext of the tragedians, for otherwise the conjectures of Aristo-
phanes would not have been recorded in our scholia. A still
lore important fact to which the story testifies is the migration

f tragedy in the third century from Athens to Alexandria*,
>oth as the home of the Alexandrian Pleiad, and as the place
/here the study of the old tragedians was pursued with the
t zeal. It is to Alexandria that we owe our existing
and almost the whole of the information that can be
eenvered concerning the lost pla\
Aesthetic and historical criticism of the tragedians had been 1
''"
lursued almost exclusively by the Peripatetics in pre- Alexandrian
With the former we arc not immediately concerned, but
>n the historical side the publication of Aristotle's SiBaaxaXiat
f considerable importance. This work was a collection of
from the archives giving the dates and circumstances
t9
f production of all the tragedies and comedies recorded in the

lists. The particulars which the archon registered were
-f the competing poets and their plays, >>( the chorcgi,
nd of the leading actors, and the order in which the competitors
laced l»y the judges. The concluding sentences of the
• was probably ineffective is to be preferred to Rutherford** contention that
v it inconsistent with the references to actors' readings in the scholia to
- (Annotation, pp. 57-00).
"/ HiffHxr. tpidtm, lit I (XVII I. 607 K.).
History of ClatiitaJ Scholarship I p. fj. The later date i» advocated
n Susemihl, op. n't. 11 M-. but see ibid. p. 681.
• ilaigh, Tragic Drama, p. 439 AT.
xxxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Argument to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus had been recognized
as a fragment of Aristotle's treatise 3
, and a remarkable confirma-
tion of the accuracy of our tradition came to light in 1886, when
an inscription was discovered on the Acropolis, recording the
production of the Orestea, and agreeing exactly in the facts which
it mentions with the text of the Medicean MS But the stone-
2
.
inscription was not the original record ; for, so far as the contests
listed were earlier than Aristotle's time, the details to be inscribed
were taken from his book or were otherwise due to his researches 3 .
Aristotle also wrote a treatise in one book entitled irepi rpayw-

8i<ov, and another also in one book entitled vl/cai Atovv&iaicai*.
Of the former nothing whatever is known, and there is no pro-

bability in Mueller's view that it was related to the BiSaa/caXlai
5
as a part to the whole or vice versa. We are equally in the

dark regarding the pikcil Aiovvo-caicai, but it is a plausible con-
jecture that it contained lists of winners in the various contests
at the Dionysia, the existence of which, beside the more elaborate
records relating to tragedy and comedy alone, is proved by inscrip-
tions 6 . Dicaearchus of Messene (e. 310 B.C.) displayed no less
interest than his master in the province of dramatic criticism.,
His work virodeaeis twv EvpnriSov ko.\ %o<poK\eov; fivdcov was 7
an investigation into the subject-matter of the plots of the

various plays of Euripides and Sophocles, and especially into
the sources from which they were derived, the extent of their
deviations from the traditional versions, and the reasons which
prompted such individual treatment 8 Traces of the handiwork .
of Dicaearchus are to be seen in the first of the existing Argu-

ments to the Alcestis and the Rhesus. Another of his works,
1
fr. 618 Rose.
- CIA iv 971; first published in 'E<pr)nepls 'Apx<uo\oyiKrf, 1886, p. 267. The in-
scription belongs to the class of victors' lists and is therefore not to be connected with
the 5i5a.<jKa\lcu.
3
Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Auffiihruiigen in Athen, pp. 13 — 15.
4
Diog. L. 5. 26.
5
FHG 11 182.
B
CIA 971 as contrasted with 972,973, 975.
11 See further Haigh, Attic Theatre 3,
p. 47 ; Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa v 398.
7 FHG 11 247.
The result was established by H. Schrader, quaest. Peripatelicae, Hamburg,
8
1884. The work of Dicaearchus was more scientific than the rpayi^SoOpLeva of
Asclepiades, the character of which has already been explained (p. xxviii).
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT xxxvii
the Aiowcr la/coi ay&ve$, probably a subdivision of the more

comprehensive title irepl povcriKwv ijmvttv, contained various
items of information relating to the history of the Attic stage.
less account is Hieronymus of Rhodes (c. 290 230 B.C.), —
another Peripatetic, who
quoted once or twice by Athenaeus
is
as the source of certain anecdotes relating to Sophocles and 1

,
may be compared with Dicaearchus as having been responsible

for the statement that the plot of Euripides' Phoenix was drawn
from the annals of a village community 1 .
ii)L,r to Alexandria, we
an early date (c. 285 H.c.)
find that at Alex-
Kenodotus, the shared with Lycophron and Alex-

first librarian, S"!!
ander Aetolus the task of putting in order the books in the
library, and that to Alexander was assigned the special duty
of ftuperintending the arrangement of the tragedies and satyr-
iimachus, who succeeded Zenodotus, completed the
guc which his predecessor had begun and published it in
books under the title irivaices to>v iv iraag iraiSeia BiaXap.-
tyuvTuiv teal div f-vveypayfrnv. This celebrated work was more
than a catalogue, since it contained biographical and other
of literary history, and, in the case of the dramatic
tices drawn from Aristotle's St&ao-icaXiai* relating to
the production of their plays at the Dionysia. Krat<>>thenes
.) confined his studies in the Attic drama to the pro-
1 of a work on comedy (irtpi apâum *o>/io>£/av), but
•.•bancs of Byzantium, who became chief libianan on the
death 1. was the first critic who laboured
continuously on the text of the tragedians, and by his investiga-
laid a secure foundation for the benefit of later generations.
We have already had occasion to refer to his work irpb<i rovs
KaWtfjuixov irivaicas, which seems to hi rrections
of and additions to the treatise of Callimachus*. Hut his influence
in the sphere of textual criticism was of much greater importance.
no doubt whatever that he edited Euripides, for the
ins to him in the scholia do not admit of any other ex-
FHG 11 450 n. See alto vit, St/k. rl 1 1 1 - liooli w« entitled wtfi »*tr«>.
* Kri.-i.u-k in Pauly-WiMWWi I • *
I Ar. AV-. 551. For the whole *ttl>ject »ce O. Schncxlcr, CW/*«M'A**,
» Aihen. 408 r.
P. s. <
xxxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
planation. There is no similar evidence to prove that he was
also responsible for editions of Aeschylus and Sophocles but, ;
since no other assumption accounts equally well for the existence

of the vTToOeaei^ attributed to him which are attached to plays
of three tragedians 1 recent scholars have been unanimous in
all ,
so concluding 2 It may be added that the discovery of the

.
j
Ichneutae papyrus, with marginal variants attributed to Aristo-

phanes 3 makes strongly in the same direction.
,
Wilamowitz
argued that the virodeae^ were not accompanied by a com-
mentary on the text, and that the edition of Aristophanes was
intended rather for the general reader than for scholars
4
How- .
ever this may be, there is evidence that he wrote a viro/xviifia —

or what we should call lecture-notes on the Orestes, as well
' '
—
as on other plays 5 and much of the aesthetic criticism which is
;
found in the scholia to Sophocles and Euripides has been

attributed to him. We must not forget his lexicographical
studies, plentiful remains of which are to be found in Eustathius,
and less patently in Hesychius, Pollux, and Athenaeus, not to
mention the excerpts still existing in medieval MSS which have
been published by Boissonade and E. Miller 6 These studies .
were entitled Xitjets 7 or yXwaaai, and were divided into two main
classes: (i) collections of dialectical variants, (2) varieties of
subject-matter (e.g. 7reffl 6iofjLaaia<i rfkiKi&v, irepl avyyevuccov
ovofxdrcov). It was probably in this work that Aristophanes
explained iâaxakiadr} in El. 445 s ; unless the reference should
1
His name appears at the head of a virbdeois to the Antigone, and there are good
reasons for referring to him also the anonymous Arguments to the 0. C, EL, and
Phil., or at any rate parts of them.
2
Wilamowitz, p. 145; Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa II 998; Susemihl, 1 44::
Sandys, p. 128 f.
3
His name appears in schol. Ichn. 73, 137, 140, 215.
4 This conclusion is based chiefly on the fact that those plays of Euripides which
have no scholia (e.g. the Supplices) nevertheless show traces of the learning of
Aristophanes.
5
Wilamowitz, p. 151 ff.
6 Boissonade, Herod. Epim. p. 283; Miller, Melanges de lit. gr. p. 427 ff. The
best account of Aristophanes' lexicography is by L. Cohn vajahrb.f. cl. I'hilol. Suppl.
xil 285—374.
7
Schol. Eur. Phoen, 684.
8 Suid. Phot. s.v. /xaffxaXlo-fxara. See on fr. 623.
— —
THE TRADITIOX OF THE TEXT oris
be taken to indicate that he published a vtroyivqua on

the
Electro 1 . a pupil of Aristophanes, followed up
Callistratus,
his master's researches in the dramatic sphere, and, although
his name is better known from its frequent occurrence in the
scholia to Aristophanes and Euripides, there is evidence that he
also wrote commentaries on Sophocles'. Aristarchus (210
144 B.C.), the most renowned of all the Alexandrian critics, wi
a fellow-pupil and rival of Callistratus. The fame of his labour>
on Homer has thrown into the shade his work on other poets;
but Dionysius Thrax* testifies that his familiarity with the tragic
so great that he was able freely to recite them from
mory. We meet with his name here and there as a witness
for a particular fragment 4 and fr. 449 and schol. EL 6 (Hesych.
,
si . Xvkoktovov Ocov) are sufficient to prove his interest in the

interpretation of the text. Nevertheless, as compared with that
of Aristophanes, his influence upon the course of subsequent
With Aristarchus should be named hi>
ilight
chief opponent Crates of Mallus, the most distinguished repre-
sentative of the 1'crgamene school, who wrote upon Aristophanes
aiul Euripides, but is not proved by extant quotations to 1
given attention to Sophocles*.

I10W reached a period in which the politi<
Supremacy of Rome began to exercise an attraction upon tl
intellectual activities of the Hellenistic world. At the time when

rchus was acknowledged to have reached the fullne
his critical powers the glories of the kingdoms of Ptolemy,
id Seleucus had passed Hitherto fa Italy, although
there We amount
of colloquial familiarity with
the Greek speech, the cultivation of Greek letter-* had been
confined to a limited circle.Ennius (239 169 B.C.), who u..s
ek by birth, and earned his living by his skill as a
and writer, came forward as a propagandist of Hellenism.
;
with the ^tipj>ort of Publiua Scipio and other leading nobles.

ily t<» be »uppo»ed that he «u the Author of the anonjrmottt
irinrifua qootod !>> KfeoL I. on fff, 488.
ilt, dt Cotlistrato. p. 314-
55-
ilr<xlucc<l hi- name by emendation in KfaoL 0. C. IOO.
t a
—
xl GENERAL INTRODUCTION
His tragedies were for the most part adaptations of Euripides,
and he was followed by Pacuvius (219 129) and Accius (170—
105), who constructed their plays with greater skill and included
Sophocles among their models. Unfortunately the fragments
of these writers are so scanty that they are very seldom of
service in the reconstruction of the Greek originals 1
. The
Romans were thus familiarized through the stage with the form
and contents of Greek tragedy before they were trained to study
them as literature. But after 146 B.C. the assimilation of Greek
culture spread rapidly. That which was at first the exclusive
possession of the Scipiom'c circle became in the next generation
the common heritage of every educated Roman. The ever-

increasing demand for instruction brought the learning of
Pergamum and Alexandria into contact with the ruling class of
the imperial city. Educational requirements not only gave an
enormous stimulus to the multiplication of copies of the most
famous Greek authors, but grammar and criticism themselves
were internationalized. Alexandria ceased to be the home of
the most learned professors, and gradually lost its supremacy in
the world of letters, although, as the birth-place of Didymus,
Herodian, Harpocration, and many others, it continued for three
centuries to preserve its reputation as the ultimate source of
philological erudition. It is not surprising, in view of these
circumstances, that the name
of Didymus, who, after the lapse
of more than comes next on the list of Sophoclean
a century,
editors, should be associated with a change in method calculated
to adapt his lucubrations to. the requirements of the Roman
world.
Didymus. Didymus is the most important name in our survey, not so
much in consequence of his individual merit, although this has
perhaps been undeservedly belittled, as because we owe to him
more than to any other single person the preservation of such
fragmentary knowledge as we possess respecting the lost plays of
the Greek tragedians. The extraordinary industry of Didymus,
which earned for him the epithet xaXfcevrepos, may be estimated
by his performance in the field of literary criticism alone, in
1
The leading authority on the plots of the Roman tragedians is O. Ribbeck, die
Rdmische Tragodie, Leipzig, 1875.
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT xli
which he undertook the interpretation of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar

and Bacchylides, the tragedians, Aristophanes and other comic
poets, and the Attic orators. The importance of his collections
to modern research becomes apparent when we learn that large
portions of the existing scholia to Pindar, Euripides, and AristO-
phanes are drawn from the commentaries of Didymus, and that
his writings are the ultimate source of the scholia to Sophocles.
It is significant that in these, while the names of the older
Alexandrian grammarians are scarcely mentioned or else are
replaced by such general descriptions as 'the commentators','
that of Didymus occurs at least nine times 8 . These com-
mentaries were not simply virofxvijfiaTa in the sense previously
indicated, but were accompanied by a text*. The older gram-
had lectured to their pupils from a plain text, but
ns
conditions were now very different, and the wider public for
\\ 'Ik -in the editions of Didymus were intended could not dispense
with explanatory notes. The function of Didymus should not

be misconceived. He was neither an original thinker nor an
pendent investigator: his province was to collect the result^
garnered by earlier scholars, and to make them serviceable to
the needs of his contemporaries and his successors. It has been
inferred that these books were the prototypes of the class after-
nted by the medieval MS9* in which the in..
inding the text are occupied with exegetical comment md

critical variants Recent discoveries of papyri, which have been
4
.
sufficiently numerous to familiarize us with the form and aspect

of the papyrus have only partially confirmed this conclusion.
roll,
It ii true that critical and explanatory notes are found in them,
Cohn in I'auly.\Viw>wa v 451. There b a good instance in tchol. Anl. 4 f.
tbowi th.it they were antcn mua.

: I 'ulymus as an interpreter <>f Sophocles aee abo ft. 718. £tym. Gmd. p. 81.
is to be added to the passages in which Didymus it referred 10 by
* This is proved l>y schol. At. 1 1 15. The account given above follow.
v. .Mtz, p, 166, II.- tiii.K in id- .','. to the 0. C, beside* the work of
Dtdymua, traces of a wt6m*»jm« devoted chiefly to the eiplanation of antiquarian and
mythological details. ( inclined to rcfrr this part abo to Dtdyrou*.
4
W ,
!.c. The same opinion is maintained in ' Du jf»«rA. Littrrtur Stt
In Kultur d. Gtgtnwtrt, 1 viii*(i9<>7) p. 96. Soe alao Saaemihl. it 101.

xlii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
and particularly in the Paris fragments of the Partheneion of
Alcman, which are ascribed to the first century A.D., and the
Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the Paeans of Pindar, which belongs
to the early part of the second. But they are very scantily
represented in the Hypsipyle and Ichncutae papyri, and there are
obvious reasons why a continuous commentary was less suitable
for inclusion in the papyrus roll than in the parchment book of
a later age. It follows that the existing scholia, although in
substance based upon the results of Alexandrian learning, are
not formally and directly the completion of an original Alexan-
drian nucleus 1 . The growth of the various collections cannot
be traced in detail, since for the most part the secure support
of names and dates is wanting 2 . A glance at Nauck's Index
of Sources will show that many of the fragments are quoted in
the scholia to the writers enumerated above, but a still greater
number is derived from the lexicographical labours of Didymus.
The prefatory letter to Eulogius, which Hesychius placed in the
forefront of his lexicon, refers to the separate vocabularies of
comic and tragic diction (Xe'fet<?) which Theon and Didymus
had composed. According to recent critics 3 the meaning is not ,
that Theon was the author responsible for a /ccopt/cr) Xe£<5 and 1
Didymus for a rpayt/cr) \e£i<?, but that each of them made a

collection of the idioms and phraseology of both branches. The
scope of Theon's activity is obscure in the absence of further
information, but we shall presently return to him. So far as
Didymus is concerned, there is ample evidence elsewhere to
confirm the statement of the letter that he published a /ca>pi/cr)
Xefi? as well as a rpayiKr) X,e£t<?. The rpayucr} Ae'£t<? was arranged

according to the alphabetical order of the words, and divided
into books, of which Harpocration quotes the twenty-eighth 4 .
Further, it should be noted that the lexicon was closely con-

nected with the separately published commentaries to the tragic
poets. It is a natural assumption that it contained a series
1
The issue involved is fully discussed with the result explained above by J. Williams
White in his Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes, pp. liii lxiv. —
2 The position of Sallustius in regard to Sophocles has already been mentioned
(p. xxxiii).
3 Cohn, 4 fypaXoKpew (Soph.
I.e. 461. p. 134, 2, s.v. fr. 494).
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT xliii
of lexicographical excerpts from the commentaries, and the

identity of treatment is proved by examples of the same matter
expressed in the same words by the lexicographers, who used
only the \e'£ei<?, and the scholia, which derive from the com-
mentaries of Didymus 1 Of course the lexicographical notes
.
of Didymus were largely a compilation from the Xefei? of

Aristophanes, from the 'Arnicai Xe£«<? of Crates of Mallus, and
other authorities too numerous to mention. Hut the rpayuci)
Xef*?, in its turn, became a treasure-house for successive
plunderers to rifle. A lexicon, as Wilamowitz remarks', soon
ceases to be left intact, as befits a private possession : each
succeeding generation reconstructs, abbreviates, or enlarges,
according to Pamphilus of Alexandria, who belonged
its needs. Pamphilu*.
to the middle of the first century a.d., and was the last of the
-tarcheans, incorporated the rpayt/cr} Xc'f*? in his encyclo-
lic treatise entitled Xeifuov or irepi yXcoaawv xal ovopdrtav
in ninety-five books. His object was to collect and enlarge
departmental labours of his predecessors in their vmriow
vinces. The first part of the work (nrepl y\o><r<ra>v) contained
the "lexicons devoted to particular authors, branches of literature,

and dialects* ; and the second (yrepi 6vop,nro>v) was divided
according to varieties of subject-matter (cookery, shipbuilding,
and so forth). In the reign of Hadrian appeared an epitome
\\t)i>iKu oiofuna) by Julius Yestinus, probably in thirty
books'. But for practical purposes even this reduction in bulk

insufficient Shortly afterwards DtOgenlan, native of >»«cniut.
I
Heraclea Pont us, produced another epitome in five books

in
under the title \«f£t<? naôBa-rnj. He reduced the whole collec-

tion to alphabetical order and is the first author of a general
which had the benefit of this arrangement 1 The desired .
;<d by the removal of most of the quotations,
:.|»Ic* %cc the .sources quoted for fr*. n. j6, *j. go* j;j. 4>«. 511.619,
il is n..! pretended that Mrict priM.f ii possible in each case.
*
p.
* Hence 'Att.«o1 \^*n in Athen. 494 r.
ording to the emendation oi <"< I' .t°>. *•"» £»»*» X' for I* in
t.V. 0#l»»Tll>0».
izenstein in Jih. Mm. xiiii 456 tT. In tkJ '>e author divide* the
y <»f lexicography from the Alexandrian* to SukIa* into four periods. Pamphilu*
logenian belong* to the second, and Hesychiu* to the third.
xliv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
and by a severe restriction of the explanatory material. The
work of Diogenian, notwithstanding these deficiences, proved
adequate for its purpose. It was widely used as a handbook of
reference so long as the classical authors continued to be read,
and its existence can be traced in the Byzantine period down to
the twelfth century 1 So completely was Pamphilus superseded
.
by the epitomator that Athenaeus and Herodian are almost the

only writers who made use of the fuller collection. For us
the iravTohairrj X,e£t<y of Diogenian is especially of interest as the
Hesychius. source from which Hesychius drew most of his material ; for
the weight of authority inclines strongly in favour of the identi-
fication with it of the TrepiepyoTrevrjTes which Hesychius ascribes
to Diogenian in the prefatory letter 2 . Thus Hesychius is the
chief extant authority through which we can pass back to the
of Didymus, but the extent of the loss incurred
rpaytfcr) Xeft?
in epitomizing process can only be judged by the rare

the
instances where a complete fragment of Didymus has been
preserved 3 . Reference has already been made to the statement
Theon. of Hesychius that Theon as well asDidymus was the author of
lexicons to the tragic and comic poets. The conjecture of Xaber'
thatTheon was the compiler, and that he put them together
from the material scattered throughout the commentaries of
Didymus, fails to account for the explicit references to the
lexicons of Didymus. But Theon is of importance for other
reasons. His services to Alexandrian literature were similar to
those rendered by Didymus to the earlier poets: he is mentioned
in the subscript™ as one of the sources for the existing scholia to
Apollonius and it is sufficiently established that he devoted
;
considerable attention to the elucidation of Theocritus, Calli-

machus, and Lycophron, and published annotated editions of
their poems 8 Nevertheless, it has come as a surprise to find
.
his name several times mentioned in the margin of the Ichneutae
1
Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa v 781.
" Objections to the identification are stated by H. Schultz in Pauly-Wissowa vm
1320. The strange title irepiepyowivriTes is explained as '
the book tor poor pedants.'
3
e.g. the note on Achelous in Macrob. 5. 18.
4
Phot. lex. 1 p. 9.
5
Wilamovvitz, Texigesch. d. gr. Bukol. p. no; Schneider, Callim. 11 37.
'
THE TRADITIOy OF THE TEXT xlv
papyrus as authority for a variant adopted in his edition For 1

.
there no other evidence except the statement already quoted

is
from Hesychius to connect Theon with the tragic poets*, and

the character of his edition and its relation to Didymus are
equally obscure. It should be added that another grammarian,
whose name may have been Xicanor, is quoted in the same

papyrus but cannot be identified 3 .
After the time of Didymus and Theon there is no further Tin-
1 of editions of the tragedians. In fact, after the lapse of ^

A
f '"
a century, the need for such comprehensive studies in this branch »-
of literature was rapidly disappearing. The age of Hadrian, so

often celebrated as an era of renaissance in literary taste, was
actually that in which the causes of ultimate decay begin to be
bible. The days of creative genius were past. Literature had
me self-conscious, and every literary aspirant, instead of
king to express his own thoughts in his own way. made it
prime object to fashion his style according to the recognized

al models. Rhetorical sophistic, of which Aelius Aristides
and the Philostrati are the most characteristic representative.
flourished exceedingly throughout the reigns of the Antonines.
The vices of this literature were its artificiality, affectation, and
excessive elaboration ; its indifference to reality, and its hollow -
I and its entire sacrifice of matter to form. Quintilian's

maxim pectus est quod discrtus /<«// was forgotten; and the
researches of the Atticists from Aelius Dionysius to Phrynichus
Were directed primarily to the practical end of assisting the art
of public speaking 4 . The last thing they had in view was a
scieutiiK study of the Attic dialect; and, besides the Attic
rs, only those authors were cultivated whose vocabulary
ulapted to rhetorical requirements. In these conditions,
tragedy and lyric poetry were the first to suffer,— not that
cles and Pindar were dethroned from their high place, but
'
Theon i», «f course, a common name, so that »omc other cniic than the too of
\ 'in. BMJf l>c intended.
* The reference! to bis studies on Pindar are also rare : see schol. Mod. 01. \
:i 4 .
4
Die grammatische arlieit des a. jahrhunderts ist im grunde nkhU als #•#***«*
WpoTapaeKtvJ) : Wilamowitz,
xlvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
in a busy world they must submit to exercise their sway chiefly
within the walls of the school-room. Hence arose the nee<
for a selection, since the schoolmaster does not claim to be a
scientific investigator who requires constant access to the whoh
of his material.There is thus good reason for the conclusior
adopted by Wilamowitz that the selection of seven plays came
into being during the course of the second century, althoug
the name of the selector has not been recorded. It does not
course follow that the appearance of the selection led at once t
the loss of the remaining plays. Copies of them were preserve

in the public libraries, which might still have been consulted b
professional students. We know also that the multiplication
transcripts on papyrus rolls still continued in Egypt ,and no doub
J
elsewhere, so that readers must still have been forthcoming ire
certain circles. But, as demonstrating the loss of their influenc

on general culture, the subsequent absence of direct quotation
decisive.
§ 4. The Sources of the Fragments.
Now that we have followed the course of the tradition b

which the plays of Sophocles were transmitted through Alexl
andria to the Roman and Byzantine eras, we are in a better
position to examine the character of the documents in which
the surviving fragments are preserved. These may be classified
according to their origin as follows (1) fragments of Sophoclean:
papyri ;
and (3) indirect quotations. The
(2) direct quotations ;
third class, which is by far the most numerous, includes every

case in which the author of the extant source owes his informa-
tion not directly to Sophocles, but to some intermediate writer.
Papyrus The papyrus fragments are very few in number, and, except
those belonging to the Eurypylus and Ichneutae, not of much
intrinsic importance. Still, the lines recovered from the W-âuov
avWoyos have settled the vexed question relating to the plot of
1
See below. The parchment fragment of the Melanippe of Euripides (fr. 495)
is now assigned to the fifth century : but that is an exceptional case. To the same
effect Wilamowitz, Sappho it. Simonides, p. 288.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS xlvii
that play 1
; the scanty relics of the Niobe have some bearing on
Sophocles' handling of the story* ; and the fragments provision-
ally assigned to the Tantalus in this edition, if they are the work
>ophocles at all, raise a question of considerable interest*.
All these, except the Niobe fragments, which are attributed to
the third century B.C., are believed to have been written in the
second century A.D., so that their date is entirely consistent with
the conclusion reached in the last section 4 .
It is a more
matter to decide which are the latest
difficult
direct quotations from the lost plays, because we cannot always
be certain whether a reference which purports to come direct
from Sophocles has not in fact been borrowed from an earlier
authority whose existence is not acknowledged in the source.
To take a capital instance, no one now believes that the swarms
tions with which Clement of Alexandria certain fills
tions of his writings were due to his immediate acquaintance

with the text of the authors cited. We shall subsequently
explain how he came by them.
The sources which beyond all dispute show a first-hand D
q
acquaintance with the text of Sophocles are a small proportion
of the total. Of those which arc altogether or almost contem-
porary the most numerous and important are the plays of the
comic Aristophanes refers to the Niobe by name and to
poets.
^the Tereus and Tyro in unmistakable terms
8
and at least sixteen ;
»ns to or parodies of the SophodWB text arc war-

ed by the evidence of the scholia*. It is curious th.it five
belong to the Pilau, a play not otherwise much quoted ;
of the same group is further echoed by a comic writer,

who may have been AristOphanea himself, and was at any rate
tary 7 The Old Comedy is also represented In
.
itions of Philonides, Eupolis, and Phrynkhuf*, and
'
i ,, • u p. </>f.
pp. <n(, 109 ff.

4
The papyroa of the HyptifyU (Oxyrh. Pap. no. 851) U considered to be not
mtirh, if at all, anterior t>> joo A.V.
• Ai
. 668, 68 j
f<ll). 7IO. 7 17. H</>.

• fr». 491, Hit, 890.
;
xlviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the Middle by an interesting parody of Antiphanes 1 At .
later date Menander copied a famous trimeter which was ii

everyone's mouth and another imitation of the same lin(
2
;
appears in the collection of monosticha which passes by the sam<

writer's name. This miscellany, which was not put together
until Roman times, while containing much that Menander cer-
tainly did not write, includes a number of lines which appear
to follow the tracks of Sophocles. Here or there may be an
instance where Menander deliberately repeated a tragic verse
but most of them, whether transmitted through his agency or
that of others, had become current as publica materies, having I
long ceased to be recognized as subject to the private dominion
of Sophocles 3 .
We pass to the prose-writers of the fourth century. Two

allusions to Sophoclean fragments have been traced in the
dialogues of Plato, but neither is free from doubt 4 On the .
other hand, by a curious error, which he shared with Aristo-

phanes and Antisthenes, he attributed to Euripides a line which
certainly belonged to the Locrian Aj'ax 5 Demosthenes in a .
well-known passage mentions the appearance of Aeschines in*

the title-role of the Oenomaus. Aristotle in the poetics refers to
the Enrypylus, Lacaenae, Niptra, Peleus, Phthiotides, Tereus, and
Tyro, and perhaps to the Polyxena; while in the rhetoric he cites
the Xvi'Secirvoi,, and Tyro 6 Reasons have also been
Teucer, .
given for supposing that he has wrongly ascribed to Aeschylus

a fragment of considerable length which actually came from the
Tereus 7 . The plot of the Aleadae was detected by means of
indications afforded in the Odysseus attributed to Alcidamas.
1
&. 754-
2
fr. 319. should be added that the alleged quotations by Aristophon (fr. 198),
It
Alexis (fr. and Philemon (fr. 918), are extremely doubtful.

895),
3 Similarly the Greek original which no doubt lies at the back of Plaut. Stick. 522
cannot be proved to have been imitated from fr. 88, 1.
4
frs. 256, 662.
5
See n. on fr. 14. Attention should have been directed to the significant state-
ment in the Aristophanic scholia, that the play of Euripides in which the words
occurred was not preserved.
6 Here, and generally throughout the present section, the reader is referred to
Nauck's Index of Sources for the verification of statements not otherwise vouched.
7
See on fr. 581.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS xlix
rhis work is a sophistic exercise of uncertain date; but, even

f not composed within the limits of the fourth century, it cannot
>e placed much later 1
.
There much to be said of the literature of the following Roman

is not
acnturies untilwe reach the Roman age, since the learning of ,Kr
Alexandria is known to us almost entirely at second hand. An
deception should perhaps be made in favour of the Kara art piafioi
m Eratosthenes, in which the various constellations are enume-
rated connexion with a series of poetical legends.
in The
kitome which has come down to us is a miserably distorted
copy of its original, but the trend of recent criticism favours the
new that some such treatise was actually written by Era
thenes, and that a residuum of his learning is to be found in the
existing text'. In that case the information respecting the plot
of the Andromeda* comes direct from a handbook of the third
century B.C The fragments of a description of Greece wrongly
attributed to Dicaearchus yield a single quotation from So-
phocles*. These interesting extracts have now been identified
as the work of Heracleides 6 tcpiTi/cos, whose name has been
from a quotation by Apollonius, the collector of
wapnhoâ i Nothing further is known of the author, and the
.
imposition of his book has been variously dated between the
limits 289 171 i-'V PolyWus, who makes a vague allusion to

stands on the threshold of the Roman epoch.
In an examination of the Greek and Roman literature of the Indirect
which respectively precede and follow the opening q
of the Christian era, there is no longer a pre umption in favour
immediate derivation of a quotation from its source.
iry production had become a well -organized profession
branches, There was a vigorous demand for

>f all kinds, in the inter- -t of OtmopoHtaa culture .1 I
the mote easily attained. Philosophy, science, and the
1
I'.Uvs Attiuht fhrohamktit, II* p. 3I3.
• A summary of th. cootrovtuy i» Bjfrrta !>y Knaack in his article on EratosihcMf
y-WlMOWa vi 37.
• I
* fr. 773.
• hist. mir. 19 (Wcstcnnann, p. 109).
I
• Sac to I'auly-Wwuowa vni 484 ft"., an«l W. M. Duke In Ettmyt frttmttd

T
to Ki^nviy, p. 1 »8 ff. I p. SS.
1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
art of rhetoric must be distilled to serve the needs of the less
robust intelligences. In addition to the stimulus imparted by

the requirements of the higher education, there arose a spirit
of general curiosity in polite circles, which contributed towards
the literary splendours of the Augustan age. Such considera-
tions will explain that, where dependence upon authority was
universal, its frequent acknowledgement became tedious and
unnecessary a reference or allusion might be borrowed without
:
any sacrifice of literary candour. But the character of the

witness is a most material factor in the valuation of the record,
and it is also essential to remember the particular object which
he had in view. At first sight there is no reason to suspect that
Ovid's reference to the 'A^tAXe&K ipaaTai and Horace's to the 1
,
Peleus 2 were not inspired by their familiarity with the texts of

,
the Greek tragedians. But we cannot so conclude with any

certainty abundant evidence of Ovid's dependence on
: there is
the mythographical tradition, and the Ars Poetica is known to

have been based upon the treatise of Neoptolemus of Parium 3 .
A specimen of the manuals available for the use of the Augustan

poets is preserved in the booklet of Parthenius of Nicaea 7repl.
ipcoTifcoov TraOrjfinTwv. As its title indicates, this was a collection
of love-stories with unhappy endings, each of which is prefaced
with a statement of the literary authority or authorities re-
sponsible for the form of the narrative adopted 4

. The work
was dedicated to Cornelius Gallus, the elegiac poet, and was
written expressly for the purpose of assisting his memory, if
he chose to employ the material in future poems. The Euryalns
of Sophocles 8 is quoted as sole authority for the tale of Odysseus'
love for Euippe and its fatal issue, and to Parthenius, if not to
Cicero and Gallus, the play was probably familiar. Cicero stands on a
sophers. different footing to most of our informants ; for he has admitted
us to the secrets of his workshop. Cicero was undoubtedly a
2
1
I p. 104. A. P. 96.
3 Meineke, Anal. Alex. p. 360. Catull. 70. 3 refers rather to a familiar proverb
than to the text of Sophocles (fr. 811).
4 Hercher in Herm. xn 306 ff. contended that the names were a later addition,
but their trustworthiness in general was maintained by Bethe [ii. xxxvin 608 ff.). It
is possible that they were taken from Pamphilus' Aei/nov.

8
I
P- 145-
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS H
student of the text of Sophocles. In this connexion the allusions

to the Latin versions of the Erigone* and the Ivv&tiirpot' which
Quintus sent to his brother from Gaul are more significant than
the casual quotations in the letters to Atticus'.
Hut when he
Compares the treatment by Pacuvius and Sophocles of the scene
where the wounded Ulysses is carried home to die 4 when he ,
recalls the line of the Epigoni with which Cleanthes rebuked

the apostate Dion) sius 5 and when he offers a Latin rendering
,
of the speech in the Teucer moralizing on the hypocrisies of

consolation*, it is not difficult to guess that the references to
Bophocles were suggested to him by the Greek originals from
which he put together the Tusculan disputations. In the post-
Aristotelian schools there had aiisen a custom which, if not origi-
nated by Chrysippus, found in him its chief representative,— that
of enveloping their arguments with a cloud of poetic witnesses.
To this custom we owe the quotations and allusions of Philo-
the Epicurean, even if he did not borrow all of them
U1 source. No such hesitation is IKreunify in
earlier
regard to Seneca 7 whose maturates quaettumet were hugely drawn
,
I idoniua through the medium of Asclepiodotus. The

name of Philo of Alexandria (c. 39 A.D.) occurs only twice in
the list of ": in one case it is not certain that h
rcferr: opbocles at all; in the other the Stoic colour of
I itext i> SO dearly manifest that the origin of the quotation
ireely doubtful.
The writers on the art of rhetoric are open to a similar Writer* 00
thrforir
it of having borrowed from their Peripatetic pre*
trius in his ,/, elocutume %
—a treatise whose
authorship and date are both uncertain, but which recent ci
mewhere within the limits 100 B.G and 100 A.D.,—quotes

on the authority of Theophrastus*, just as he tai
* it p. »o 1. * fr». 6}6, 66i, 768.

1. 48-50. • Tus<. 1. 00. * fr. 576.
sj. Laarentiai Ljrdu sum Seneca. Fur the hitfory of the doao*
! tradition nTfrfTTTrilH the cause* of the MMM ming of the Nile s*e Diets,
r. p. 116 ff. The Apollonhw khodius are, of course. Ml tn.lcpen-

scholia to
Id W rash to assume that Seneca translated fr. 665 in the HtrtnUt
• fr. 04 Wiromer.
—
Hi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
fr.515 from Praxiphanes. No such declared source is forth-
coming for the allusions of the author of the de sublimitate or
of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the de compositione verborum 1
.
The miscellaneous learning recorded by the last-named author

in the first book of the Antiquitates Romatiae, in connexion with
the Oenotrians, the Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, and the flight of Aeneas
from Troy, was collected by Varro 2 The
in part at any rate .
book irepl rpoirwv, which passes for the work of Tryphon, is

a garbled extract from the grammarian who was a younger
contemporary of Didymus 3 .
—
Strabo (c. 63 B.C. 23 A.D.) owed his geographical informa-
tion more largely to books than to the records of his
own observation. His two chief sources were Artemidorus of!
Ephesus 4 (c. 100 B.C.), the writer of a periplus of the Mediter-
ranean Sea in eleven books, who in his turn compiled from
Agatharchides, Timosthenes, Eratosthenes, and others, and
Apollodorus of Athens, whose commentary on the Homeric
catalogue of ships was not the least remarkable of his critical
labours 5 Thus at least six of the fragments preserved in Strabo
.
may be referred to the authority of Apollodorus 6 one at least ;
appears to go back to Eratosthenes 7 and Demetrius of Scepsis ;
(c. 1 50 B.C.), whose work on the Trojan catalogue (Horn. B 816
877) was used by Strabo as well as the better-known treatise oil

Apollodorus, has been identified as the original source of the
1
frs. 768, 774. See also Introductory Note to the Polyxena (il p. 162). The work
of pseudo-Longinus is now with general consent assigned to the first century A.D.
The later rhetoricians contribute little. Hermogenes (b. 160 A.D.) probably took his
illustration <pi\av5pos (fr. 1111) from an earlier t^x v V'j Menander (c. 270 A.D.) intro-
duces Sophocles into a discussion of hymns called diairoprjTtKol (fr. 809) ; and Phoebam-
mon, a contemporary of Synesius, repeats a familiar example of epanalepsis (fr. 753),
which recurs in John of Sicily (nth cent., according to Krumbacher, p. 191).
2
frs. 598, 270, 373. Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 30614. The appearance of fr. 270, 4
in schol. Ap. Rhod. is significant.
3
See frs. 487, 963. Cocondrius and Polybius of Sardis of course followed the
rhetorical tradition. Suid. s.v. Tpv<pwv assigns the rhetorical book to the grammarian.
4 Susemihl, 1 695.
5
For the particular sections of Strabo attributable to Apollodorus see E. Schwartz
in Pauly-Wissowa I 2867-2870.
6
frs. 24, 41 1, 522, 957, 1086, 1 no.
7 fr-
959- The reference to the Triptohmus (11 p. 243) is also derived ultimately
from Eratosthenes.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS liii
curious information relating to the Idaean Dactyls'. The The elder

naturalis historia of the elder Pliny (23 —69 A.D ) is a work
,l,njr '
which to an even greater extent was made up of excerpts taken

from previous authors. No fewer than 146 Roman and 327
foreign writers were utilized for the purpose and so little was ;
Pliny disposed to conceal his obligations that he prefixed to

each book a list of the chief authorities upon which it depended.
Of the fragments which he cites from Sophocles 1 the first is
inserted in the course of a passage borrowed from Theophrastus,
and the manner of its introduction shows that Pliny had ac
to the tradition of the didascaliae \ the second is a botanical
memorandum, which came immediately from Sextius Niger,
but may have been drawn ultimately from the piûrofiiKou of
Diocles of Carystus, a distinguished physician contemporary
with Plato. Dion of Prusa in Pithynia, or Dion Chrysostom, as DionChry-
tmtom
to the end of the period now
-
he is usually styled, belongs

under discussion. His devotion to the study of the great Attic
tragedians is attested by his well-known essay on the treat-
ment of the story of Philoctetcs by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
uripidefl respectively*. We should not, therefore, expect him
to quote at second hand ; but his testimony consists only of an
allusion to the J/tyestes*, with perhaps another to an important
lent of the Alcadae*. Last of all conns Plutarch (46 — ph*
120 one of our most valuable sources, whose quotations
A.D.),
are those of a first-rate artist steeped in the knowledge of his

literature. Although he sometimes quoted from memory.
ilarly if the line had become somewhat hackneyed*, it is
ly most cases he drew from the originals.

doubtful that in
ne occasional coincidences with Stobaeui and Clement are

7
lental, and are anyhow quite insufficient to prove

Plutarch habitually made use of an anthology. Here and
quotation which he must have found In his
Schwartz in Paoly-Wiaaowa IV 1S09. Otherwise liethe in Hfrm. xxiv 411.
'•oo. B30. 'I. 11 p. 66. A particularly interesting example, which show*
\cly the second-hand character of Pliny's infoimatioo, l» rrfured to by Jebb
= JJ-
(II 104 Am.). For a deacriplion tee Jebb't Pki/<xMt<
» I » fr
• fr*. 66j, 776, 840.
I
r examples »ee fr*. 81, 88, 636, 770, 771. 919.

liv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
source. Fr. 873 is a clear instance, made more conspicuous by
the repetition of Dio Cassius and Appian and one may suspect
;
that in some of the ethical treatises, such as the 7re/3i ri/%J7<? an d

the irepi aperr)? /cal KaKia<;, which by their style betray the
influence of the philosophical schools, the quotations were taken
over together with the text which they served to illustrate 1
.
It is probable also that in the book tt(j)<; Bel rhv vkov iroc^fiaTuv
a/covetv Plutarch borrowed extensively from a work of Chrysippus

similarly entitled 2 although the limits of his obligation cannot
,
be accurately fixed.
Atticism. The second century A.D. owes such importance as it possesses
in the history of Greek literature in large measure to the classical
revival known as Atticism. It was, as has been already pointed
out, the product of an age to which substance had hecome less
essential than style, and whose study of the ancient classics was
limited by the practical object of fostering rhetorical ability.
We shall presently describe the efforts of the lexicographers

to provide the studious with the necessary material for the
cultivation of purity of diction ; the general literature, if we
include under this term the representative sophists, is of minor
importance for the present purpose, and will not detain us long.
The most famous names of the Hellenic renaissance which
started in the reign of Hadrian, and lasted for more than a
century, are Lucian, Aristides, and the Philostrati. Lucian refers
to the Locrian AJax 3 perhaps
,
also to the Cedalion*, and quotes
a fragment from the Meleager without naming the play 5 . Aelius
Aristides shows his acquaintance with the text of the 'EXevrjs
7rtyu.o?
6
, and compares the treacherous beacon of Nauplius with
the work of incendiaries at Eleusis 7 . The Philostrati scarcely
1
The remark applies to frs. 373, 843, 844. It should be observed that the refer-
ence to r]6os as irnyrj, which almost immediately precedes the quotation of fr. 373, wj
borrowed from Zeno 203 Am., fr. 146
(1 P.). The difficulties which Plutarch's tes
involves (see note in loc.) are perhaps the result of a confused epitome.
2 202 Arn. *
II p. j p. IO
4 8
II p. 9. fr. 401.
6 1 Phot. bibl. p. 438 s 6, and Choric. pro mimis 6. 27 (Revue de Philol. I
p. 126.
222), follow Aristides. For fr. 756 see note in loc. The repetition of two familiar
tags (frs. 14, 733) is unimportant.
7 fr. 435-
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lv
come into the account. Philostratus the Athenian quotes only

from Tyranuus, Oedipus Coloneus, and Antigone.
the Oedipus
in the Life of Apollonius, and from the Electra in the Lives of
the sophists,— sufficient evidence surely that in his day tin re-
plays had a certain degree of celebrity above their fellows. In
the heroieus and imagines, which are ascribed to his kinsman
and contemporary known as Philostratus the Lemnian there 1
,
may be many reminiscences of tragedy, such as the passage

quoted by Nauck in illustration of the discoveries of Palamedcs';
but they are seldom acknowledged, and have in consequence
generally ceased to be traceable. The imagines of the younger
Philostratus, who describes himself as grandson of the Lemnian
the mother's side, are separated by an interval of seventy or
ars from the publication of the earlier series. He qtlOti
the Oidipus Coioneus and the Philoctetes, and his allusion to

Sophocles' description of Scyros as wind-swept', and his descrip-
tion of the meeting of Phoenix with Neoptolemu-, suggest that

he was acquainted with the Seyriems. Hut the general character
of his work, apart altogether from his date, makes the inference
extremely questionable 4 Aelian, who survived the death of
. .\elwn.
Caracalla (222 A.D.), was a contemporary of Philostratus the

Athenian. Though in intention a stylist, being at the sat:
pne an industrious collector of unconsidered trifles, he

the preference of his age for spurious learning to independent
The fragments resting on his authority are taken
from the de rtatura anitna/itun, and were derived by Aeh
through his source Alexander of Myndos (before 50 aim from
mtium and others <>f ; Irian
m Aelian we pass t<> Ath- an important Athc

- whom we owe more than [UOtations, I he
the sources from which Ath
,
trati
,
nee J. S. l hillim..ic N rh>l.«ir,,t,a, I pp. \xxiv \i v \
tstribation at the extant works i* recommenced -<-hmiil, 0/.

'
•08 ff.
!> 43J. 1. * tti
'
Wilamowiu, EinUihmgind.gr. Tr. p. joi.
especially nal am. 7. 39 ad fin. The reference to Ari%totle (»
1m the unic direction, since Alexander's chief source w«s Aristophanes' f*ins»$
of Aristotle's zoological teaching.
4%
lvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
abundant supply of quotations is rendered unusually difficult
by the fact that the Dcipnosophists has come down to us in an
abbreviated form, and by the tendency of its author to interrupt
the course of a borrowed extract with material which he had
gathered elsewhere It is admitted that he was not merely
1
.
a compiler. He had studied widely in the ancient texts for the

purpose of illustrating his various topics, and a considerable
proportion of the numerous passages taken from the plays of
the comic poets was undoubtedly due to his own researches.
Tragedy was less likely to provide him with material and he ;
was content to accept its evidence at second hand. At any

rate, a careful scrutiny into the character of his quotations from
Sophocles will confirm the judgement pronounced by Wilamo-
witz 2 that not a single tragedy was quoted directly. Although
the nature of Athenaeus' book, even apart from its tradition, is
such as unduly to favour the impression that it largely consists
of glosses unskilfully strung together, we shall hardly err in
concluding that many of the Sophoclean fragments were derived
from the lexicographers. That the glosses were taken from ai
lexicon is sometimes betrayed by their alphabetical order, as
may be seen from the list of cups given in the eleventh book,
where the name of Pamphilus occurs several times. It has
already been mentioned that Pamphilus, who was perhaps the

chief lexicographical authority of Athenaeus, had incorporated
the results of Didymus' rpayi/cal Aefet?. Athenaeus often dis-
closes the name of his authority, — the ultimate, it may be, rather
than the immediate source. Thus, fr. 718 was derived from the j
commentary of Didymus, fr. 324 from Speusippus irepl ofiolwv 3 , 1
fr. 28 from Cephisodorus the pupil of Isocrates, fr. 1 1 1 from

Tryphon 4 and ,
fr. 12 from Aristoxenus' Life of Archytas. In
1 Clear instances of such interruption will be found in the quotations relating

the polypus and the fiav-qs inserted at 513 c and 487 D respectively.
2
op. cit. p.. 176.
3 This was a survey and classification of natural history. See Zeller's Plato and
the older Academy, p. 56728 E. tr.
4 The statement suggests that he was also the source of frs. 137 and 230. — In
regard to fr. 606 a neat point arises which is not without a bearing on the criticism
of the text. It is clear that Athenaeus and Pollux both used the same source; and,
apart from the evidence of the Philetaerus (of which more presently), irepl fiov. \Q.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS Ivii
other cases the source may be identified by inference or probable

conjecture. Thus fr. 502 isshown to have been derived from
Apollodorus Trepi haiptov by its recurrence in Harpocration,
fr.448 may be referred to Chamaeleon fr. 765 to Satyrus or 1
,
Hermippus, fr. 121 to Clearchus irepi ypi<p(ov, fr. 474 to the same
writer's tpayriicn, fr. 307 to his trepl irapoip.iwv*, and fr. 735 to
Theophrastus trepi /zc'&j?. Sometimes the ownership of the
borrowed material is no longer traceable*, or the quotation
the appearance of having been made independently for
the position which it occupies 4 But an example will show that .
appearances are not always to be trusted. In the course of a

-ion on the use of fivpov and its effect upon the senses,
Athenaeus interpolates as a reason for anointing the breast the
ient that the vital principle (^\fxn) ls situated in the heart*,
awl appeals to the testimony of Soph. 766 amongst other fr.
poetical authorities. The names of two physicians Praxagoras

and Phylotimus are mentioned as holding the same opinion,
and at first sight it might be inferred that Athenaeus either
took his quotations from one or the other of them, or collected
them himself in corroboration of their view. But the dogma
that the principate {jjyepoviKov) of the soul, that is to say, the
mind, resides was strenuously maintained by the
in the heart
hool, and Chrysippus supported it by thousands of
quoting Aesch. fr. 111, suggests that this was HlludiM, Hut there art
19,
good reasons for believing that Athenaeus did not use Herodian see Kaihel on JJ t».
:
i union source must therefore be earlier than his time, and we shall find aubae-
quently that thi* conclusion may l>c recommended on other ground*.
fr. which relates to the same subject, occur* in the neigh bourhood of two
345,
which are repeated in Plut. amat. | p. 75 C. It may 1* inferred
1
1 and Athenaeus were indebted to the same original. IMutarch then pro-
ceeds t i'vth. 1. 41, and illustrates it by the same fragment of
Sappho
v Pindar's scholiast,
r. .)i;a.
• fr*. 760 and 761 come from a rhetorical discussion of tura+opi after
Am
3. 10. 141 1' ff., fr. .i;s fr..m some ur.icr of
1
evpwo«t*<d, frs. J77 and 537 front a dis-
i on the game cottabua, fra. 139. «4i,and 411 perhaps from the
Imrpui J#iV*
111 4H1).
applies especially to such case* as fr* *«d 7J7. «••
M remark
re the quotations belong to the framework of the dialogue.
<e 687 B.
lviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
quotations from the poets 1
. Here then is enough to awaken
suspicion. Now, a good deal of Chrysippus irepl ^rvxv^ nas
been preserved by Galen, and our suspicion is confirmed when
we find that the two separate lines which Athenaeus quotes
from the Odyssey appear at the head of the list of Homeric
quotations which Galen repeats after Chrysippus 2 . If any
doubt remains concerning the source of Athenaeus, it is dis-
sipated by the further discovery that Chrysippus appealed to
the authority of Praxagoras in opposition to those medical
writers who made the head the centre of the nervous system 3 .
The scientific and departmental writers who flourished in

the second and early part of the third century shared the general
failure of independence which characterized their epoch, and
their show of learning is even less to be credited when it falls
outside their proper sphere. It is a rare exception when Aulus

Gellius .testifies to his personal acquaintance with the text of the
Locrian Aj'ax 4 Galen professedly owed his poetical illustrations
.
of the word 7re/j.<f>i<yl; to the ypafifxariKOL 5 from whom also ,
Sextus Empiricus quoted the Phrygian ftaW-nv 6 The same .
source may be confidently assumed for Rufus Ephesius, the

writer on anatomy, from his agreement with Hesychius and
the scholiast on Aristophanes 7 . Achilles, the commentator on
Aratus, drew his material from Posidonius through Diodorus of
Alexandria 8 . Diogenes Laertius quotes two of the fragments 9 :
one of these he derived from Antigonus of Carystus 10 (third
1
E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism, p. 24538.
2
Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. 3. 2 p. 260 M. (11 906 Am.). From id. 3. 4 p. 2 Si M.
(ll 907 Am.) we learn that tragic quotations were included in the collection.
3
Galen id. 1. 7 p. 145 M. (11 897 Am.).
i
fr. 14. Cf. fr. 695. He states that he heard Peregrinus quote fr. 307.
5
frs. 337, 338, 538, 539. Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 176. Note the coincidence
with Photius in regard to Aesch. fr. 170.
6 7
fr. 515. fr. 596.
8
432, 737, 738.
frs. With him goes the anonymous writer who quotes fr. 752.
In regard to all this class of literature I transcribe the caustic judgement of Diels
(Doxogr. p. 19) : 'scilicet turn ea ars, quae vetera furando nova scripta gignebat non
inventa quidem, sed consummata esse videtur. neque frustra Clemens Alexandrinus
ipse fur callidissimus furtorum catalogum congessit sive potius et ipsum descripsit
Strom. VI 2.'
lJ
10
frs. 477, 873. Wilamowitz, Antigonos von Karysios, p. 74.
—
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lix
century B.C.) and the other from Diodes of Magnesia (b. 80

70 i;.< ;.). Artemidorus, who wrote on the interpretation of
dreams, cites fr. 860 without the author's name and obviously at
second hand Porphyrias (233 304 A.D.) quotes fr. 398 in the
1
.
—
stinctttia fr. 879 in the de antro nympharum, and fr. 108 in
the qtuustumts Honurieae. As a Homeric critic he was of course
familiar with grammatical learning, and, though he was skilful
enough to present the appearance of an independent writer,
Bernays showed that the de abstinentia was largely composed
tracts from Theophrastus trepl evae&fias*. Hyginus the
mythographer is of importance rather in relation to the plots <»f
the lost plays than as a witness to the fragments. The date

of the handbook can only be determined in so far as it was
certainly written before 207 A. I)., was translated into when it
Greek*; but the scholarship of its author may be gauged by his

iption of Melanippe as daughter of Desmon, no doubt after
i.uripidean title Me\aj'<7r7TT/ 17 6e<rfiwri<;*. It is beyond
on that he derives from a Greek original belonging to

ime stream of tradition as that which pseudo-Apollodorus
ed*. The sources of the second book of the poetiea astro-
another work passing by the name of Hyginus, have
r,
been examined by Robert": it is sufficient to say that the chief

authority used was the Karaarepiafioi of Kratosthenes, but that
e also to be found of Parmentscus, Aadepiadet of
us, and some others. Servius, the Vergilian comment
to the Laocoon of Sophocles 7 for a mythological d
which no one supposes that he had learnt by an inspection of
iginal; but from what source he derived this and his veiled
allusion to the Lacaenac* we are not in a position to determine.
'. the work of An< miilorus see Susemihl, 1 868.
itophrastM S<hrtj. imi^ktil %
Hcrlin. 1H66. He ha*. I
nionstratcd that the pa»*agc in which the Sophoclean extract occur* is actually
'-
in accordance with the plan acknowledged l>> PorpbyfJOi at theend of
ting the crane of the argument. He identifies the grammarian
p. m whom Porphyriu* got the quotations »nh Amtomenta, who wa» a freed-
man of Hadratn, and whose ra wpbt rat itpovpylai it <|U<>tcd l>y Alhen. 1 15 A.
& hinxlt'H edition ;i| p. I IV. • /•#. 186.
I Of the earliest mythographical handbook see Susemihl, tl 50 and inf. p. »»»i.
r.xf/ienis catasttritmorum relii/uiae, Berlin. I
Mr • fr .:.d Varro were among hia i

be GENERA L INTR OD UCTION
The interpretation of Vergil gives Macrobius occasion to cite a
remarkable fragment from the 'Ptôro/xot of Sophocles, which 1
he supposes Vergil to have copied but it is impossible to ;
allow Macrobius himself the credit of making the comparison.

The same writer reproduces the whole of Athenaeus' note on
Kapxnviov, and, as included in it, the quotation of fr. 660.
The names of Servius and Macrobius have been introduced
by anticipation. Though neither of them wrote in Greek, they
are both representative of the last stage of the Graeco- common
Roman culture which
immediately preceded the centuries of
Byzantine decadence. In its various branches Nonnus, Libanius,
Heliodorus, and Proclus were the chief pillars of the dying
Greek literature. But, except in the mechanical repetitions of
successive generations of grammarians and lexicographers, or in
the traditional quotation of a stock passage by sophists and
rhetoricians 2 the , memory of Attic tragedy was almost entirely
extinct. The partisans of Hellenism were fighting in a losing
cause, and the efforts of the best of them, praiseworthy as they
are, show how narrow and superficial was their acquaintance
with the works of the ancient masters. Julian never quotes
Sophocles by name, and none of the fragments so far as we
know has the support of his authority 3 It would be too much .
to assert that he was not acquainted with a single one of the

plays for phrases occur which are reasonably regarded as echoes
;
of the Antigone and the PkiloctetesK But Homer and Plato, the
1
fr- 534- I' 's clear that he followed one of the ancient commentators on Vergil
both here and in his comparison of Aen. 4. 698 with Eur. Ale. 73. See Nettleship in
4
Conington's Vergil, I p. xlviii f. These Vergilian scholia, as well as those on Lucan
and Statius, go back to Greek sources (Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 167). The point illus-
trated by Macrobius is the ritual sanctity of brass, and Sophocles is the only Greek
author cited.
2
Such is the quotation of fr. 940 by Gregory of Nazianzus. Echoes of frs. 662
and 929 are found in Nicephorus Gregoras and Ioannes Chumnos, who lived as late
as the fourteenth century. A familiar instance is the wearisome recurrence of Eur.
fr. 484, 1 ovk i/j-bs 6 fxv9os d\\d...in Julian and others. Fr. 14 is quoted both by
Libanius and Themistius.
3
The passage quoted by Nauck on fr. 811 is obviously not an allusion (except
indirectly) to Sophocles.
4
132 c d(cris ae\lov (Ant. 100); 447 B rbv <f>l\raTOv, ws 0tjj, dvi/xuv (Phil. 273).
Sandys, Hist. CI. Schol. I p. 359, infers from the fact that O.T. 614 is followed (338 c)
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS fad
study of whose writings was kept alive by the lectures of the

Peoplatonists, are the only ancient authors to whom he freely
refers Libanius (314—393 A.D.), the foremost man of letters
1
.
of his age, is hardly in a better case than his imperial patron,

although his reading was naturally wider*. It is true that his
acquaintance with Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides is
vouched on the authority of his latest editor 1
; but it is not
evident that this implies a wider knowledge of their text than
is open to a scholar of the present day. His reference to the
[] p. 224) does not prove that he knew the play, and his
allusion to the ill treatment of Minos on the stage was derived
Plutarch or the pseudo- Platonic Minos 1 . Though Libanius
1 sole authority for fr. 808, the sentiment there expressed
is of a familiar currency and the appearance of two parallel
;
ês from Kuripides in the immediate context su^

that all three were borrowed from an anthology. Nor is the
character of his other references to tragic fragments such as to
inspire confidence in the extent of his knowledge* Synesius,
and survived
raa born a feu years after the death of Julian
Libanius by some twenty years, is one of the most attractive
figures <.f his age. He is the last representative of the genuine
Hellenic spirit, never ceasing to urge upon his hearers the
importance of literary' and philosophical studies 7 But his own .
ledge was neither deep nor wide, and the preponderating

nee of Homer and Plato is even more clearly marked than
vords wi wapb, rZip luxpoaB** fyrutur, that the name of the author wa» un-
known, and that Sopbodcs was evidently no longer read. Mis quotations from Eur.
(are e.g. 445 b) are confined to the li,u,hat, Fhoeithtat, and Ortstes.
1
He had ami Thcophrastos : Sandys, p. 357
also studied Aristotle
• ThcmUlius (tv
71) mentions Thuc, Isocr., Dem., Plat., and Artst., as the five
classics chiefly studied at Constantinople, and elsewhere (xxilt 350) adds Aristophanes
h. I.ihanius (lii. 438) speaks vaguely of his reading* in the porta.

trr in Rh. Mm. xxxil 87. Unger cleverly emended 4*. 1198 from
1
[I litB, 311 a; Hut. Thts. 16; Iil*n. lit 64. It i» highly probable
that the Caw, was one of the plays
1 illustrating the tragic coootptk w of
aa an overbearing and cruel tyrant.
• lit,. 50/..
• Aesch. fr. 340 and Kur. fr. 934 are among the more favourable 1
7 R. Volkmann, SjrmiiH, pp. 134—136.

lxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
in Julian 1 . He can hardly be cited as a witness for fr. 948, and-
a vague reference to At. 1146 2
is almost the only indication of]
an acquaintance with Sophocles.

The immediate sources of the greater number of the frag
ments are the collections of scholia, the Byzantine lexicons, and
the anthology of Stobaeus. The most important of the scholia
are found in the MSS of the three tragedians, Aristophanes,
Homer, Pindar, Plato, and the Alexandrian poets. The labours
of Didymus in relation to Sophocles and Euripides have already
been mentioned, and his services to Aeschylus, although less
clearly attested, are believed to have been of a similar character 3 .
The remaining scholia, so far as they concern us here, will next

be briefly described.
The scholia of Aristophanes, although for obvious reasons
their evidence more often touches Euripides, are nevertheless,
as we have seen 4
, of considerable importance for Sophocles.
The citations from ancient poets were due almost entirely to
Didymus who here as elsewhere drew upon the learning of his
5
,
predecessors. The extent of his influence is not to be measured,

except comparison with others, by the sixty-four explicit
in
references to his name 6 Phaeinus and Symmachus, who are.
mentioned in the subscriptio of the Venetus to the Nudes and to

the Pax, have been identified as the immediate sources of the
extant collection. Symmachus, whose name occurs some forty
times in the scholia, was an Alexandrian who lived about a
century after Didymus, and shows himself to be capable of
exercising an independent judgement 7 Phaeinus, by some .
regarded as an early Byzantine, is of no importance except as

1
W. S. Crawford, Synesius the Hellene, 1901, has a useful list (pp 522 — 579) of
the literary quotations in Synesius. It must, however, be used with caution.
2
Quoted by Jebb, in loc. For references to Euripides, such as they are, see
frs. 300, 723.
3
Cohn
in Pauly-Wissowa v 451. 4
p. xlvii.
5
His commentary is mentioned by Athen. 67 D AiSv/ios 5' i^TjyoviJ.evo% rb iafxêiov
(Plut. 720) Kri. A good account of it is given by Cohn. I.e. 455.
6 No less than thirty-three are in the scholia to the Aves.
7 treats Symmachus as the first compiler of our collection of scholia.
Wilamowitz
Williams White, however, as we have already seen (p. xlii), holding that such collec-
tions were not anterior to the age of the parchment book, takes a somewhat different
view of the activities of Symmachus.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS Ixiii
mpiler, and may have been responsible for the inclusion of

the colometry of Heliodorus, and of extracts from Herodian and
other authorities later than Symmachus.
\\ e owe twenty-two valuable quotations
to the scholia on Pindaric
MAM
Pindar. These may be assigned without hesitation to Didymus,
wh<; was responsible for practically the whole of the learned
material preserved in these commentaries'. Our collection goes
back to an edition of the Epinicia in the second century A.D.,
which repeated the substance of Didymus' work without adding
much of importance. The date is approximately fixed by a
quotation fn>m Amyntianus*, a writer who dedicated his history
. lexander the Great to the emperor Marcus. In two instances
at least we are able to go beyond Didymus : the illustration of
was taken from the Trepi irapoip,ia>v of Aristides
rpiwp et>
3
Miletus, which is dated in the second half of the second

century r.( \ and the proverb dtp' earias apxwQat was discussed
by Aristocritus, who belonged to the same period*.
The minute study of the Platonic dialogues was not seriously Platonic
undertaken before the age of the Roman empire, and received

hief impulse from the Neoplatonic movement. Our scholia,
however, deal with the explanation of rare words (yXn'uraa
phrases (Xt'£etO, and proverbs (trapoip,iai\ rather than
the exposition of the philosophical argument;
i
and the
which contain quotations from Sophocles are repre-
itivc of the general character of the collection. It is not
•
find coincidences with Hesychius\ since Diogentan,
i^ quoted four times in the scholia, must have been
f both. But the majority of the quotation
introduced to illustrate proverbs which occur in the text of
ltd the scholia derive from the same sources as the
i
ographic corpus, to which we shall presently return.
1
Wilam -v* it/-, o/ <//. ;.. 157; C<>hn, /•• 4*0.
" fr. 908.
Pind. 01. 3. »j.
\n, Crtwfas, Anal. p. 79. Steph. By*, p. U9- »»

i p.
. j3wr«ior xoXxttw) »how* that he w»» later than Polemon, from whom
•«l.
» FH
• frs
U : cf. also it. 408, the MiUtance of which got* back to Aftao.
% of Byzantium.
lxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Thus Didymus is referred to on Cratyl. 384 A in connexion
with the proverb yahzira ra icaXd, and to him rather than to
Tarrhaeus were due most of the quotations
1
in schol. rep. 337 A.
It should be noticed that the explanations of the Platonic scholia

are generally fuller and richer than the text of the corpus.
The scholia to the Alexandrians, of whom Apollonius Rhodius
is for the present purpose the most important, may be taken
together. In all of them Theon 2 occupies a position analogous
to that of Didymus in the criticism of the tragedians and Pindar.
The subscriptio to the Laurentian MS of Apollonius states that
the scholia are taken from Lucillus Tarrhaeus, Sophocles, and
Theon. This is interpreted to mean that Sophocles put together
the collection in the fourth century from the earlier commentaries
of Lucillus and Theon 3
. Irenaeus (also known by the Latinized
name of Minucius Pacatus), mentioned four times in the who is
scholia as the author of a commentary {virofivqixa), seems to

have belonged to the latter part of the first century A.D. Theon
was the sole source of all that is valuable in the scholia to
Theocritus, but our collection belongs to a later date. Wilamo-
witz conjectured that they were edited by Amarantus, an elder
contemporary of Galen, whose name is attached in the Etymo-
logiawi Magnum to the views expressed in the scholia 4 . This
assumption agrees with the fact that the scholia often controvert
the opinions of a certain Munatius, who is identified with
Munatius 6 Kpnucos, a native of Tralles and a member of the
circle of Herodes Atticus 5 In Steph. Byz. p. .
375, 10 we read
that Theon, Plutarch, and Demetrius Phalereus were the names
of the commentators on Nicander. The last-mentioned is un-
questionably an error for Demetrius Chlorus who is referred to
in several notes as supporting views subsequently rejected by
6
Antigonus. Antigonus lived in the early part of the first

century B.C., as is inferred from the position in which his name
1
Cf. fr. 160. According to Cohn, in Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. Suppl. xm at p. 84c
Tarrhaeus was the immediate source of these scholia. See however Crusius, Ana
p. 94 f. Is K\eirapxos an error for KXtapxos (Crusius, Anal. p. 83) in schol. rep. 337.
2 3 Wilamowitz,
See p. xliv. op. cit. p. 187.
4
See Etym. M. p. 273, 41, as compared with schol. Theocr. 7. 154.
5 6
Philostr. vit. soph. 1. 25. 16. Ther. 377, 585, 748.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS bw
occurs in the preface to Erotian 1 so that , in the case of Nicander

we are able to pass back to sources anterior to Theon. On the
other hand, with the exception of Theon, tradition is silent
ecting the names of those who worked on the text of

>phron until the time of Nicetas, the bishop of Serrha, who
copied out the codex Marcianus 476 in the eleventh century.
It is unnecessary for the present purpose to examine in Homeric
detail the history of the Homeric scholia; for it is notorious that

they contain rich stores of Alexandrian learning. Even in the
limited field of Sophoclean quotations the value of Venetus A is
manifest. From the subscriptiones at the end of every book it
appears that the collection, which was perhaps made in the

m\ century A.D., was based upon an amalgamation of ex-
irom Didymus' irepi tt;«? Wpiarapxîov Siopdaxreavi,

tonicus' irepi o-rjfieitov twi> tt)? 'IXtaSo*? teal rrj^ 'O&vtrtreUis*,
Herodian's irepi and Nicanor's vepi

tt)<» ()p,r)piicfj<; irpoatphlat,
'OfiTjpucTJ*; <TTiyp.TJ<i. The works of Didymus, Aristonicus, and

Nicanor belonged to the department of textual criticism and ;
of the ten quotations and allusions which rest upon the authority
of W11. A fivemay be conjectured to owe their survival to
Hcrodian*. The explanation of ykvaaai and \e£«c\ where the
•lia are found to be in agreement with the extant lexicons
largely the work of Aristarchus, whose name is mentioned
r with Apion and Heliodorus in Hesychius' prefatory
Eulogius. The lexicon of ApoHonius, which depended
-ame sources, survives only in an abridged form, so that
it is seldom of value where a fuller version elsewhere*.
In we are referred to the authority of Crates of MalluV.
(hi. idation of mythological details was the principal subject
of Didymus' virofivnfuira\ and many notes of this complexion

in the scholia are attributed to him by name.
connexion with the scholia the Homeric commentaries

1 1 )
E£*
1
p. 3J. 1 1 Klem. Conn in I'auly-Wiaaow* 1 i*
his wm a digest of AmtarchuV explanation of the critical rignt (obelus, ftc)
used by him in hi*, edition.
01, 1036.
|»flii 7 8 5. 793« 9°6.

• ApoHonius t.v. «ard\ .juote* A 414 (fr. H98) for tarimiwl.
*
fr . 1060.
T
Schol. * 4 may be an example (l p. 14')-
lxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION •
(irape/cftdXai e/<? tt)v 'Ofvqpov 'WidZa \^Qhv<T<reiav\) of Eustathius

must be mentioned. They were written at some time before
1 175 A.D., in which year their author was appointed Archbishop
of Thessalonica by the emperor Manuel I. The value of the

books consists enormously rich store of extracts from
in their
philological writings which have now been lost for it is quite ;
certain that the quotations from the ancient classics were all at
second hand, and that the plays of Sophocles outside the selec-
tion had perished long before the time of Eustathius Nor does 1
.
Eustathius seek to conceal his dependence upon earlier sources,

although he often succeeds in hiding their identity by the use of?!
such vague expressions as (paai, Kara iovs TraXaiois, Xeyerai,
and the like 2 But, although this lack of precision and still
.
more the tendency to garble his extracts by abbreviation are to

be regretted, the main channels of tradition which Eustathius
followed are either obvious or have been definitely ascertained 8 .
Thus, he borrowed large blocks of material from the Deipno-

sophists of Athenaeus, and is in no sense an independent witness
for the quotations of the earlier writer 4 . It should also be
noticed that his text of Athenaeus was the epitomized version-
represented in the MSS known
Strabo was copied as C and E 5
.
almost as freely as Athenaeus, but only twice where Sophocles

is concerned
6
Next, it is certain that much of Eustathius is
.
nearly related to the tradition of the Homeric scholia. For the

Iliad he employed a MS containing a collection of scholia which
1
This fact was first clearly recognized by Valckenaer, Opusc. 1 337 f. Jebb on
O. T. 1264 and on Ant. 292 (at p. 250) gives the impression that Eustathius' quota
tions were usually made at first hand. It is clear, also, from the remarks in hi!
Bacchylides (p. 76) that he took the same view of citations by such writers as Stobaeus
and Priscian. Rutherford in his New Phrynichus (p. 84) does not appear to havi
observed that the evidence of the Etym. M. goes back to the older authorities from
which it is derived.
2
<pa<rl :
frs. 166, 237, 702, 791, 794, 1006. Kara, roiis TraXcuovs (<t>a.(riv 01 ira\atoi)
frs. 108, 1046, 1049, 1087. Xdyerat: fr. 1105.
3
In the following account much use has been made of Cohn's article in Pauly
Wissowa VI 1452 — 1489.
4
frs. 19, 28, 111, 127, 154, 181, 314. 275, 318, 329, 378, 395, 565, 718, 760.
For examples see the nn. on frs. 154, 181 (where A has tt4ttov), 318.
5
6
See fr. 1086, I p. 86. Eustathius frequently quotes from an epitome of Stephen
of Byzantium, but there is no such instance in the Sophoclean sources.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxvii
bore the names of Apion and Herodorus 1

, and was derived from
the same sources as the scholia Thus, the in the extant Mss.
t Eustathius sometimes coincides with \'en. A*, sometimes
with Yen. B or Townl., and is sometimes supplementary to both.
As an instance of the last-named alternative we may quote
fr. 458, which one of several examples of TrapaXeiyfns given
is
istathius as well as by the Paris MS 2766 of the thirteenth

century* in addition to those appearing in schol. BT. In the
v Eustathius followed a similar course ; but, since the
exiting scholia to the Odyssey are much and important less full
than those to the Iliad, the value of the tradition represented by

ahius becomes comparatively greater. Fr. 108 was found
istathius in his MS, amongst other illustrations of the word
<\o9, as part of a note of Porphyrius which is also preserved
in the 'Quijpuca ^ryfiara, whereas in our scholia the reference

4
m Archippus' is the only one of the post-Homeric quotations

remaining*. To Porphyrius should probably be referred the
interesting comes from an allegorizing
fr. 790, since it original
which explained Athena as <pp6i>T)<ri$ and Poseidon as vyp6rrf<:
fui/rL'^09 7 . The sometimes
origin of the material in Eustathitll is
sred by the severe curtailment of the Odyssean scholia.

Thus, his allusion to the Euryalus of Sophocles 1 is part of a note
rich in genealogical details attested by references to Hesiod,
Helianicus, and the Cyclic epics. We might well
speculate how Eustathius became possessed of so much inform. 1-
lrawn from ancient authorities, were it not that the bare
ton of the earlier part of the note is preserved by schol. Q*.
thing is known of these person* except their runic*, which are possibly ficti-
tious. Apion cannot be the Alexandrian graoHMriafl of that name.

See frs. 43, 04, 10
• Cramer, a>u<<t. /\i>. Ill J74. Hut I Par. ill 5) was copied from
rnd b consequently worthless : cf. fr. 61 1. 1 1"- Mime remark ap;

>)). See Cohn, I.e. 1483.
Horn. i 319. ,'K t
» fr. 37, I 687 K.
1
• Porphyrias note appears also in Etjrm. .1/. p. 357. ift, with all the Ante quota*
lions except that from Sophocles.
•
1 bt 1 .mi. r 1. Unification was St I t. 11, Cic. n.d. 1. 40.
• !• 1
;
1 »
' Kuotath. Od. p. 1796, 35 lorio* H 6n -jinaXoyovfi AiAi ixi* «ai w

BAp tUi 'A^tti-
ffior- oi'tou ii «ai Xa\Kom6oi'<TJii \a4prifp- rod it «al 'Am«XW«l 'Os W rrfa • of ni
lxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Eustathius seldom referred to the scholia on other authors, so
that it would be wrong to suppose that fr. 895 was borrowed by
him from the scholia to Euripides. An examination of the
context in Eustathius reveals that he has introduced into his
commentary a long extract from the work of Suetonius irepi
tu>v Trap "EWrjcri -naihtcov. The same origin is to be attributed
to frs. 429 and 479. The name of the author is not given by
Eustathius, but is mentioned by Suidas who records the exist- 1
,
ence of another work by him entitled irepl Svacptj/icov Xeêcov

7]tol (3\aa4>7)/juwv Kai iri'dev kKacrrt). To the irepl ftXacrtyrj/jLicov
Eustathius owed his acquaintance with frs. 720 and 885. It is
at first sight surprising that these little-known works, written in

Greek by a Roman historian of the age of Hadrian, should have
survived and continued in use until the late Byzantine era.
No less striking than the survival of Suetonius, who was, of
course, the depositary of earlier learning, is the appearance in
Eustathius of a number of quotations ascribed to Aristophanes of
Byzantium 2 The latter were held by Nauck in his monograph
.
on Aristophanes to have been derived from the Homeric scholia;

but the publication by Emmanuel Miller in 1868 of the contents,
of a remarkable MS formerly at Mt Athos 3 showed that these as
well as the extracts from Suetonius had a peculiar history. For
the MS comprises, besides the collection of proverbs attributec
to Zenobius, short excerpts from Zenodorus irep\ T779 'Oprjpoi
from the Ae£et9 (irepl ovofiacrlas r)\i/ciwv and so forth]
avvr]deLa<;,
of Aristophanes, and from the works of Suetonius ahead]

quoted. Each of them contains passages closely parallel to the
text of Eustathius, although he names Aristophanes alone of
n.r)ve\6irrjs T^Xûax 01 ' ' avrov Si Kai HoXvk&o-ttjs ttjs tticTopos TlepaiirroXiv, us HcrioSo
(fr. ij)...'Api<TTOTe\T)S Si iv 'IdaKijaiuv woXirda (fr. 506) Kai 'EXX&vikos Si {FHG I 64)
TriXtnaxb" <pa<n âvaiKaav yijfiai tt)v 'AXkii>6ov Kai yevvrjcrai tov Hepo-tirroXov rives Si
Kai toioijtois \6yois ivevKaipovaiv. etc KipKtjs viol icad' HaioSov {Theog. 1013) 'OSvcaei
"Aypios Kai Aarlvos, iic Si KaXvtf/ovs HavaLdoos Kai ~Sav<rii>oos. 6 Si tt)v TrfKey6veiav
ypaipas Kvprjvalos (EGF p. 58) iK p.£v KaXv\j/ovs TyXiyovov vibv 'OSvacrei avaypcupet
rj HvXiSafiov •
£k Si IlrjveXdirrjs Trj\i/xaxov Kai ' ApKe<rL\aoi> •
Kara Si Avaip.axov kt£.
Contrast with this schol. Q Horn, it 118 'Ap.veicrios W'pvoSias Kai Ai6s, Aaiprqs
Xa\KOfjieSovo-ris' T-qXeixaxov Kai HoXvk&o-ttjs Ilepo-iirToXis. See also fr. 454.
2
1
s.v. TpayKvXXos. See frs. 792, 793, 1062, 1069.
3 Now Paris, suppl. Gr. 1164. See Miller, AManges de litt. gr. pp. 407 —436
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxix
the three authors, and even in his case sometimes substitutes

<f>aai or Kara tov? ira\atov<:. Thus the nature of the evidence
irresistibly to the conclusion that Eustathius
had before
him a MS similar character to the Athous, but giving the
in
(Detracts in question in a much fuller form.
Among the chief sources of Eustathius must be included the v ,ius
i? .
Atticist lexicons of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias, but, owing and

,, » us*,,i**-
t<> unfortunate methods of reference already described, it
his
has become a question of some difficulty and complexity to

determine the extent of territory to be assigned to one or both
of them, and in a less degree to distinguish the boundaries of
their respective provinces. So far as Sophocles is concerned,
i me of Aelius Dionysius is not given as authority for any
of the fragments, whereas that of Pausanias occurs four times*.
But that is not all ; for it is certain that many concealed refer-
to them are introduced by the formulas Kara touv <f>a<ri,
ev prjropiKU) Xegucto*, ev Kara aroixtlov Xe£<*oj and 4

,
File like. There is a large number of instances in which the

»n of the Atticists is repeated by Hesychius', and various
explanations have been given of their agreement. Thus, it
argued both that Aelius Dionysius borrowed from

Ian. and that Diogenian plundered the Atticists.
i lint
Diogenian and the Atticists were contemporary writers,

more likely explanation that the coincidences result from
having used the same sources'. Eustathius is usually
fuller than Hesychius 7
, and it is deserving of attention that
adduces Didymus .is his authority for the explana-
ly
f where Hesychius is silent'. Herennius Philo, to HrreaahM

dpyffxa,
whom uc shall return in another connexion, is mentioned by
—twice as the author of the work trtpi
lias Dionysius (p. j 54 Schwahe) U considered lo have been the wxirce from
< c get fr. 1087.
1093. * fr. 400.
* The clearest instances ar< ;, 1006, 1046, 1084;
«ut the !i»: i> not intended to lie e»hau*tivc of the potata <.f contact Mwcen Hesychius
Mathius.
11 in Pauly-Wiwowa V 99a
1
See especially fr. ic. "
fr. ijj.
lxx GENERAL INTRODUCTION
8ia<popa>v <rr)fia:vofxev(0v. This book, which survived until the
late Byzantine age, was the source of various lexicons of
synonyms which were current under different names and that ;
such was the history of the extant lexicon of Ammonius irepl

ofjioicov kclI hicupopwv XeEewv is shown by its agreement with the
fragments of Herennius preserved by Eustathius. To Herennius,

therefore, belongs the distinction between ecr-âpa and i3wp.6$
which occasioned the quotation of fr. 730
1
, and the record of
i7Ti<]>aTo<; in fr. 1048. We are not here concerned with the
relation of Eustathius to any of the technical grammarians
except Herodian and the coincidence of his text with the
;
iirtrop.^1 ru)v ovojxaTLKwv Kavovwv i/c twv HpcoBiavov, edited by

'
Hilgard in a Heidelberg program of 1887, supports the view that

such excerpts rather than the complete treatises of Herodian
were alone accessible to him 2 ,
eirc- Before leaving the subject of Homeric exegesis, some reference

fiepifffio
.
mus |-
k. e m ade to the im/jLepiafioi, class-books of grammatical
analysis applied to the text of the Homeric poems. The
analytical process must, of course, have existed from the earliest
days of literary study 3 but in Byzantine times, as the circle of
,
such studies continually narrowed, the professional teacher relied

more and more upon the practical manuals variously assigned
to the most eminent grammarians, and revised according to the
needs of the age by their successors. Examples of such books
have come down to us and some of them were published by
J. A. Cramer in his onccdota. The earlier type was so arranged
that the verbal explanations were made to follow the order of
the text 4 but we are more immediately concerned with the cla
,
in which the lemmas are arranged in alphabetical order. I»
1
From the same source Eustathius derived the excerpt from Alexion quoted on
fr. 564, 2.
2 There is a reference to these excerpts in I p. 168 (Hilgard, p. n, 3). The
epitome was also published by Cramer {anecd. Ox. IV 333). A similar epitome ire,
clkXItuu pijudruv AiXlov 'Hpwdiavov (ibid, iv 338) appears in the same program a
connects Herodian with fr. 164.
3 Emp. math.
Sext. 1. 161 speaks of 6 Kara. ypafifiaTiKrjv /j.epurfxos as requiri
subtraction (to d<paipeiv) and addition (to TrpooTidtvai).
4
An example is cod. Coisl. 387 (tenth century) published in anecd. Paris
294—370.
THE SOURCES Of THE FRAGMENTS lxxi
remarkable representative is the New

College Iffi 298
(XIV cent.) published in vol. i of Cramer's anecdota Oxoni-
znsui which quotes
Sophoclean fragments' and is the
five
sole authority The grammatical sources

for four of them.
frequently named are Herodian and Aristonicus, and
amongst others we find mention of Apollonius, Alexion, Helio-
Seleucus, and Tryphon. The latest in time are Philoponus,
.
Orion, and Charax ; and, since the name of Choeroboscus is

absent, the collection may be assigned to the early part of the
sixth century, between the dates of Charax and Choeroboscus'.
It i> works were based largely on the results
certain that these
of Herodian's labours, and several of them circulated in his
name, although their authenticity is open to question*.
The name of Herodian, known as 6 reî/t/ccv for his eminence Technical
gram
them, introduces us to the technical grammarians, ypap- maiun-.
fiaTiKi'i was a comprehensive term, embracing the various branches
scholarship, ami, although Aristarchus paid much attention to

irpoorrtiaand 6p0oypa<pia, the great Alexandrians lived before
me when specialization had succeeded in cramping the
grammarian's functions. Dionysius Thrax, the pupil of
the father of grammar in the nan use of the
although his activity was not limited within its bounds'.
ire not concerned with the immediate development of the
\pollonii [>l us of Alexandria, who belongs to
tgt of Hadrian. is the earliest of our authorities among the
I lis influence was extraordinary, and
upon posterity
not too much to say that from his writings and those of his
dian the later world derived the whole of it-, grammatical
ledge*. His particular province was the function, of tl e
! of speech, and he was the first writer of a tn
l>ortions of which have been preserved'. He-
, 750. » Kcit/cnMcln, Gack. d. Rtymei. io*.

entx, 1 >mi— xxxiii. I ,74.
h fragment* are quoted in the ncholia t<> ln» rftrf, <">c of wM
'i>. f/>
3) iiroltatily, belong* to the colic. I
harm*. Ilerodkn
"•ccrtaincfl to have been the authority followed in the citation of fi 7*1
n in I'auly-Wisaowa 11
••«i» book U quoted fr. 753. Fr. •'« »en*rate work »#H
Wat.
t 2
lxxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
rodian, who was born at Alexandria, but lived subsequently at
Rome and enjoyed the favour of the emperor Marcus Aurelius,
made himself supreme in the domains of morphology and
accentuation. His reputation, continually enhanced by the
passage of his writings through the centuries, was earned by
the skilful reconstruction and careful elaboration of the results;
which his predecessors had garnered, rather than by his success-
in establishing new principles of general application 1 . Thus the
irepl 6p6o<ypa<f)La<} was derived from Tryphon and his great
2
,
work, the KadoXitcrj irpoo-cpSia in twenty-one books, was founded

on the writings of Aristarchus, Tryphon, and Heracleides o|
Miletus 3 . The book is known to us chiefly through excerpts,
appropriated by Theodosius and Arcadius, and we are similarly
placed in regard to all his other writings 4 with the exception of
,
the small tract irepl pbovrjpous Xe'|to)?, which has survived intact
No fewer than fifteen valuable and independent quotations from
the lost plays of Sophocles are preserved in this little treatise*,
and it is a remarkable fact that it contains no others from any
tragic author, excepting two from Aeschylus and one from
Aristias of Phlius 6 One might not unreasonably infer that
.
he either made own use a collection of these Sophoclean

for his
instances or had access to a list compiled by some one else 7 .
The rhetorical from which is quoted

treatise irepl a^rjpaTcov,
the exceptionally interesting fr. 799, has nothing to do with
Herodian the grammarian, although he is known to have made
use of the same title 8 . There has been some controversy as to
2
1
Reitzenstein, op. cit. 311. ibid. 302. J Sandys, p. 321.
4
His fragments were collected and edited by A. Lentz in 2 vols., Leipzig, 1867-
1870. For the excerpts published by Hilgard after Cramer see p. lxx.
5
See Nauck's Index. In fr. 521 Herodian is, of course, the source of the otl
authorities, and in fr. 46 his tradition is independent of Hesychius and the rest. Two
quotations (frs. 360, 586) are repeated in the irepl dixp^vwv (Cramer, anecd. Ox. ill
282 ft.), perhaps an excerpt from the KadoXiKi] irpoaySia.

6 extremely unlikely that Herodian could have read Aristias, whose memorj
It is
scarcely survived outside the irivaKes. See also on fr. 362.

7
It is worth notice that there is no quotation from any of the extant plays.
8 Christ-Schmid, op. cit. ll B
p. 709; Schultz in Pauly-Wissowa VIII 970; Lehr
Herodiani tria scritta emendatiora, p. 422. The writer clearly borrowed from
learned source he quotes after our passage Eur. fr. 132, and shortly before it Arc!
:
fr. 69 and Anacr. fr. 3.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxxiii
authenticity of the severely curtailed OtXeVaipoc, which is

Ithc
printed at the end of Pierson's edition of Moeris (pp 431—453
of the 1759 edition). The little book is undoubtedly of the
Atticist class, and has much in common with i'hrynichus and
the lexicographical sources of Pollux and Athenaeus. It is
generally considered that Herodian had no affinity with the

Atticists'; and, although the possibility of its genuineness has
been advocated by Reitzenstein*, neither title nor contents
ppear to support his view*.
The edifice constructed by the labours of Herodian and hi^
father was continually patched and repaired, enlarged or allowed
partly to fall into decay, by the various workers who succeeded
them but the plan was never remodelled.
; It is needless to
a list of these worthies, but mention must be made of

who lived in the fifth century at Alexandria or Miletus
or at both 4 since the lexicon Messanense edited by
, Rabe baa
been identified as a fragment of his work -rrepl 6p0oypa<pia$ 9 .
John Philoponus of Alexandria, who belonged to the age of

Justinian and is well known for his commentaries on Aristotle,
old except the <tvht6ckm>.

* Gts<h. J. gr. Etym. pp. 377, .<KS— 396.
1
Lehrs (p. 4 n) thought that here and there might l>e a trace of Herodian. See
I in 400. who i» followed by Schultx, /.<-. 97.1- It should I*
observed that the reference to fr. 606 is undoubtedly an abridgement of the fuller
Account preserved by Pollux and Athenaeus. Now, Aesch. fr. ill, which i* referred
to by Athenaeus and indicated in the 4>tX/ra<pot, is quoted precisely by Herodian
*». iu*. X/{. p. 35, 19. At first sight this appears con ut, when the various
passages are examined with their context, it will l.c found that the surrounding
n the w. ixo¥. M{. are entirely different from those in Pollux ami Athenaeus,
•od that, whereas the lexicographers were dealing with vocabulary, Herodian was
kir«K lc establish a rule of morphology. Cohn's theory, which Keitiemtein com-
bats, that Atticism was derived from the Pcrgamcnc scholars, or more particularly
from Alexander I'olyhUtor, is another matter altogether. In Naock's /W«jr F<mti*m
the »\/><uflot is run together with 4k rfir 'liphdiaroc also printed by Piervm f pp .
480) and m Lobeck's Phtynifknt, p. 451 ff. That also is a work definitely Atticist
in character.
ties put him about two centuries earlier (sec Christ. Schmid, 0/
Mi work *ara +p*txov rare ffr«x«K». sometimes identified

1 Atitiattidft (de Borries. Phryn. frtup. sofh. p. XXX v), of which later. Fee I
^H**e also frs. 69, 333.

' Keitzenstein, of. fit. p. 389 ff. The value of the quotations is dae to the fsct
that Orus adapted an Atticist lexicon to his purpose.

lxxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
quotes fr. But he was himself a
526, apparently from Orus.
representative of the grammatical tradition, and fr. 461 appears
in his extant work irepi rwv 8m(f>6pQ)<; rovovfievoov fcai hintyopa
cnjfiaivovTwv. Five fragments are preserved by Priscian, who

was a contemporary of the emperor Anastasius (491 518). —
Though a Latin grammarian, he depended largely upon Greek
authorities, and acknowledges in his dedication that it was his
intention to translate into Latin the rules of Apollonius Dyscolus
and Herodian. In fact, much of the Institutes proves to be a
reproduction of extant works of Apollonius and of the scholia
to Dionysius Thrax 1
. Fr. 880, which comes from the minor
work de Teretitii metris, is of interest as belonging to another
branch of learning. Priscian's source was Heliodorus the
metrician, now securely dated in the middle of the first cen-
tury A.D., who quoted Sophocles'
from the commentaries line
of Seleucus, the Homeric scholar and contemporary of Tiberius*.
George Choeroboscus, perhaps the latest in date but by no means
the least, distinguished of the classical grammarians, occupied
a professional chair at Constantinople in the early part of the
sixth century. Several fragments of Sophocles are preserved
in his lectures on the elo-ayayyacol icavdves irepl vXiVetu? ovofi/irayv
iced pr)fjL'iT(Dv of Theodosius of Alexandria, which were afterwards
published from the notes of his pupils. There is no doubt that
he depends upon works of Apollonius Dyscolus, Herodian,
lost
and Orus, but he seems to have used them only in intermediate
sources, especially the writings of Philoponus and the grammarian
Zenobius 3 Choeroboscus is also our chief authority for two
.
quotations drawn from his commentary on the Enchiridion

of Hephaestion 4 in which he represents the tradition of the
,
1
Teuffel-Schwabe, tr. Warr, II p. 523. The eighteenth book of the Institutes
corresponds to the third of Apollonius irepl dwrd^ws Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa 11 139.
:
Bekker's third lexicon (anecd. 117 — 180) may be mentioned in this connexion: see
frs. 696, 739. In its present shape it is very late, as the quotations show ; but it
and was originally based on collections made from the

also contains old material
speeches of Demosthenes and Isocrates.
2
Hense in Pauly-Wissowa vm 28, Susemihl, op. cit. II 22621.
:t
Reitzenstein, op. cit. 361.
4
Now published in full in Consbruch's Hephaestion, pp. 177 — 254. Parts of
taken from the inferior codex Saibantianus appeared in Gaisford's posthumous editi
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxxv
ancient metrical learning descended from Aristophanes of

intium.
The influence of the paroemiographical tradition has been Paroemio-
noticed in relationto the scholia on Pindar and Plato and the e^phe". ;
sources employed by these writers will next be described. It is

unfortunate that the proverbial corpus is still accessible only
in the edition of von Leutsch and Schneidewin published at
Gottingen in 1839A For the publication by Emmanuel Miller

of the Athoan Ms mentioned above 2 threw an entirely new light
on the history of these collections. It has been shown by Otto
Crusius 3 that the vulgate MSS used by the editors of the corpus
represent later collections made in alphabetical order, and con-
taining either 552 proverbs attributed to Zenobius or about IOOO
without an editor's name 4 . But, though these MSS still have
their value in supplying the gaps in our knowledge of the
earlier corpu-. it is certain that the Athoan and other Kf
which have since been found to belong to the same group
represent a more primitive attempt to form a corpus in which
the pr<»\erbs of Zenobius were retained in their original order.
In the archetype of these MSS the corpus was divided into five
which the first three contained the proverbs of Zenobin
fourth those passing by the name of Plutarch and entitled
Wcl-avSpevai irapoim'tv and the fifth a collection
',
I l«r*chclmann (A'A. A/us. xxxvi 300) wu the first to recogniie the author-
•oiicus, since confirmed by the heading of cod. K. The two passages
Choeroboscus (frs. 140. 705) are adduced in the same con-
l»y
the Anonynius Aml»rosianus tie rt mttrita edited l-\ SV. Slu mund in l<
icmund's anttdota ?.///./. i

pp. ill—Sf& I am not aware that the
n <if the anonymous writer to < is has l>ccn investigated.
1
This book, which is itself not easy to procure, *upcr»eded fur practical purposes
iKford K)xf..r.!, 1836). In the ptescnt work except where
, for special
has been necessary to refer to MilU-r '» M/langu, the notation of the
iigen corpus ha* l»ecn preserved in preference to the numbers of the Athoan
• p. !
•'.
ad parotm. Gr. (Leipzig. 1883), p. 16 flf.
* The Paris Ms
3070b (xn cent jircscntativc of the former class,
and the Bodkfea (xv csatt.) of the latter. Gafcfostfi cdin.-n i« Mill valuat :•
reproduction •<( the Bodleian; for the gottingen editors transferred to an Aff*n*%M
ibiitrutti (I y — 40;)
t if only Mich proverb* liclonging to the anonymous collection
as were not found in tie 1
'» separately edit -• I«eip«gi 1887.
lxxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
made by an unknown sophist at a late date for use in the
rhetorical schools. A reference to Nauck's Index Pentium will
show that Zenobius — even within the limits of the Gottingen
corpus 1
— most important of the paroemiographers
is by far the
as a source of quotations from tragedy and although Macarius, ;
Gregory of Cyprus, and Apostolius are not entirely valueless as]

witnesses to the tradition, they belong essentially to the same
group, and do not represent an early collection independent of;
Zenobius. The same remark applies to the collection of 776
Zenobian proverbs which passes by the name of Diogenian but
has nothing whatever to do with the lexicographer of that name 2 .
Zenobius, the author of the collection which lies at the base

of all extant records, was a sophist who lived in the reign of
Hadrian, and his work is described by Suidas as liriToyJr] to,v
jrapoifimv AiSvfiov teal Tappalov iv /3<ySX/ot<? <y'. Lucillus
Tarrhaeus we have already encountered as one of those re-
sponsible for the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius but, though ;
materials are lacking to determine the exact date of his literary

labours 3 the character of the two passages where he
, is quoted
verbatim, apart from the fact that, while Didymus wrote in
thirteen books, Tarrhaeus as well as Zenobius wrote in three 4 ,
shows that Tarrhaeus cannot have been the intermediate source

between Didymus and Zenobius 5 We must rather regard .
Didymus, with whose methods we are now familiar, as having

provided Zenobius with the bulk of his material and especially
with his quotations, while additions of moderate length were
made from the stories relating to various localities collected by
Tarrhaeus in the course of his travels. Thus we have seen that
Didymus rather than Tarrhaeus was the source of fr. 160 6 and ,
the same is doubtless true of the remainder of our fragments,
1
It should be remembered that the Appendix proverbiorum is also Zenobian.
2
Their ascription to Diogenian is explained by Crusius, Anal. p. 23. See also
Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa V 783.
3
C. Mueller (FUG iv 440), who has collected all the notices relating to him,
makes him a little older than Didymus or else his contemporary.
4
Helladius ap. Phot. bibl. p. 530* 10.
5
Crusius, op. cit. p. 93 f.
6
See p. lxiv. His name is expressly recorded in connexion with fr. 981. For
fr. 811 see Crusius, p. 78; and for fr. 37 ib. p. 142.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS Ixxvii
although his authority cannot in every case be directly traced.

Didymus, of course, made his collection from the earlier writers
who had occupied themselves with the investigation of proverbs
either current in speech or recorded in literature. Of these the
most important were Aristotle, Theophrastus, Clearchus, Demon,
Chrysippus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Dionysodorus of Tro-
i, and Aristides. But Didymus was not merely a compiler:
while he brought together the explanations previously given, he
exercised his judgement freely in selecting from amongst them,
or in rejectingthem all in favour of another suggested by his
own Hence the fact that Zenobius often records
researches.
of explanatory glosses, although the names of their
-
advocates are seldom preserved Thus Aristophanes of By- 1

.
zantium, whose name is recorded in connexion with fr. 1044*,

and who, according to the reasonable inference of Crusius, «
the source of fr. 198*, was rebuked by Didymus for charging
the old poets with plagiarism 4 Fr. 406 was one of the proverbs
.
explained by Chrysippus 5 and Demon, who belonged to the

;
of the fourth or beginning of the third century, certainly

discussed the proverb 2aprSoi//o9 7e\aK, although he is not the
source to which we owe the reference to the Daedalus*.
\\ V pass to the lexicographers, the most copious, if not the lxx *"
t fruitful source of our information. The supreme im-
|x>rtancc of Hesychius in relation to the tragedians can easily be
by consulting the references to him in Nauck's Index

isurcd ;
but the history of the development which explains the com-

ition of his work has been treated in the preceding section,
and sundry explanations bearing on other lexicographers have

already been given and need not be repeated here. Aristophanes
intium was the founder of Greek lexicography; and his
immediate followers, adhering strictly to his example, confined
iyXoaaai or X«'£««), not
to the compilation of lists
necessarily alphabetical, of the words and phrases current in a

ticular branch of literature or appropriate to a particular art.
1
I »r cxamplei ice Zeiwl. 160), 6. 1 1 (fr. 908).
" Ami p. 150. * iM p I
• Arniin ill p. 101; Ousiu*. op. fit. \
• See p. lxiv.
Ixxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
An early example was the yXuxraai of Nicander, frequently
quoted by Athenaeus, which seems to have been intended to
explain obscure terms of local currency ; another, also familiar
to readers of Athenaeus, was the oyfraprvriKal \e£tt<? of Artemi-
dorus and several collections of dialectical and literary words
;
were made by Tryphon. A favourite subject was, of course,

the explanation of Homeric y\waaai, in which all subsequent
workers drew largely upon the labours of Aristarchus. The
extant lexicon of Apollonius has already been mentioned in
this connexion The awaywyr) rwv Trap 'lirTroKpaTei \e%eu>v

1
.
of Erotian is one of the most valuable remnants of Greek lexico-

graphy, and alone preserves a number of tragic fragments, though
often, unfortunately, in a corrupt form. The author belonged
to the second half of the first century, and his book was dedicated
to Andromachus, the emperor Nero's physician. His chief source
was the Hippocratean glossary of Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 200
B.C.), which is quoted 64 times, and through him he derived
much grammatical learning, including many quotations from

the poets-, from the Xe£et? of Aristophanes of Byzantium 3 .
But Erotian also relied on other authorities, amongst whom

Heracleides of Tarentum (c. 75 B.C.), the author of a grammatical
treatise in three books 7rpo9 BaKêlov Trepl roup 'IrnroKpaTow;
Xegewv 4 deserves special mention.
,
of Hesychius The coincidence
and Erotian 550 due
in to the
fr. fact that
isErotian was amongst
the authorities consulted by Diogenian 5
An explanation of the .
greater fullness of Hesychius is to be found in the condition of our

1
See p. lxv. Although in frs. 729, 1092 Apollonius gives more than Hesychius, a
fuller version is usually preserved by Hesychius and other Byzantines. Fragments of
such a version were published from an Egyptian papyrus by E. W. B. Nicholson in
C.R. xi 390.
2 Erotian p. 31, 12 (of Baccheius) iroWas wapade/nevov et's tovto fxaprvpias ttoiijtQv.
3
His influence can be established in other passages than the seven or eight where
he is cited by name. For the use made of him by Baccheius see Klein's Erotian,
p. xxiv.
4 Erotian, p. 22, 19; 32,2. The date of Heracleides was wrongly given (after autho-
rities now obsolete) in the n. on fr. 236. But Erotian, p. 32, 2, has been strangely
misinterpreted; for, though Klein's statement (p. xxvin) is Wellmann (in
quite clear,
Pauly-Wissowa 11 149, 2790) twice makes Apollonius of Citium the author of the three
books against Baccheius.
5
So Cohn infers from the statement in the introductory letter to Eulogius that
Diogenian collected t&s 7ropd rots larpoh X&feis (Pauly-Wissowa vm 547).
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxxix
text of Erotian, which has been proved by Daremberg's d:

covery of extracts from Erotian among the Vatican scholia to
Hippocrates to be a mangled abridgement of the original work.
1
.Aristophanes' collection of 'Arrttfat \e£e/e was put together

with the object of elucidating the sense in which they were
employed by and we may account in the
classical authors ;
•
way for found amongst the writings
the similar titles
attributed to Crates of Mallus, Demetrius Ixion, Philemon,
and others. Hut the 'AttwcoI \e£e«? of Dorotheus, of which
Athenaeus quotes the 108th book 3 belonged to the class of ,
encyclopaedic compilations which were characteristic of the

century AD, and of which the joint work of Pamphilus
and Zopyrion was the most famous specimen. The earliest a
.....
representative of Atticism in the narrower and stricter sense,
lexicon*. ,
.
i.e. the school which aimed at the maintenance of a pure Attic

style in contemporary literature and conducted its researches
into classical usage with this express purpose in view, was
Irenaeus, the pupil of Heliodorus the metrician*, known also
by the Latinized name Minucius PacatUS. This tendency
appears clearly in fragment of Irenaeus quoted by Socrates,
a
.1 historian of the fifth century, in which the
meaning of vTruaraaa is condemned as ffopftapov,
philosophical
because the word was used by Sophocles as equivalent to
pa*. Aelius Dionysius, in the age of Hadrian, who lived
wrote 'Arnica ovoficna books, and published two editions,
in five
l>)th <.f which were recognized by Eustathius*. The w»rk was

well known to Photius, who giv< ibove particulars in h
btbliotkeca*, and its influence upon Byzantine lexicography was

extensive. Pausanias, a Syrian and a COntempOl
a similar work, which in the time of Photius was
irded as a companion volume t<> the earlier lexuon, and was
md up with it lingly 7 . The difficulty of distinguishing
rm. p. XVII ff.
The tame dale i» indicated by the fact that Erotian quoted him
1
fr. \
• Od. |. i .
'cod
t. hibl. 00d. 153 drtytfrtlhi ti iw ry mirr$ t-
lxxx GENERAL INTRODUCTION
them has been increased, as we have seen, by the carelessness
of Eustathius ; but in general it may be inferred that Aelius
Dionysius was more nearly concerned with questions of form
and expression, whereas Pausanias dealt with the technicalities
relating to public and private antiquities, and especially with
the explanation of proverbs 1
. Though the general line of their
tradition is free from doubt, the identity of the sources actually
followed is often obscure for it is uncertain how much they
;
took direct from Aristophanes of Byzantium, or how much from

Didymus, Pamphilus, and Irenaeus. Their relation to Diogenian
has already been considered 2 . In spite of the difficulty involved
in tracing the influence of lost works, Eustathius has revealed
enough them as one of the chief sources
to enable us to identify
followed by Photius in his lexicon, and to establish their claim
to the ownership of a number of glosses in the sixth lexicon
included in Bekker's anecdota?. Evidence bearing on both these
points will be found in the glosses which contain some of the
Sophoclean fragments The survival of part of his work has
4
.
made Phrynichus the best known of the Atticists to modern

scholars. He lived in the latter half of the second century, and
his great work the ao<piaTiicri irpoTrapao-icevr) was composed in
thirty-seven books. With the exception of the fragments which
can be recovered from other texts, the only part which has come
down to us is the extract («e tcov ^pwiôv rov 'Apafiiov rr)$
ao(f)i<jTi,Kr)<; 7rpo7rapa<T/cevrjs) preserved in the codex Coislinianus

345, and published as the first lexicon in Bekker's anecdota
(pp. i — 74). It has recently been re-edited by J. de Borries 5 ,
together with a collection of the fragments. Much better
1
E. Schwabe in his edition of their fragments (Leipzig, 1890) made no attempt
to distinguishbetween the two writers.
2
p. lxix.
3
pp. 319 — 476. It is entitled crvvaywyij \4i-ewi> XPV^^^" ^K 8ia<p6pwv <ro<f>Qiv re /ecu
p-qropwv ttoWQv. The part published by Bekker only covers the letter a. The name
of Dionysius occurs at p. 362, 3.
4
For Photius see frs. 1087, 1093. The name of Pausanias appears in connexion
with frs. 268, 877, and may perhaps be inferred in relation to fr. 420. p-qropiKov Xeîxdv
is quoted for frs. 138, 748 and oi iraXaioi (fr. 994) is probably Aelius Dionysius.
;
5
Leipzig, 191 1. The book is unfortunately disfigured by numerous errors, and
many of the fragments are assigned to Phrynichus on unconvincing grounds.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS
known, however, owing to the editions of Lobeck and Ruther-
ford, is his earlier and shorter work in two books, which was
entitled ixXoyij pijfui-Tcop teal ovofitircov \\ttikwv. Phrynichu
el his canons
to the severest school of Atticism, and framed
inaccordance with the usage of Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato,
and Demosthenes; so that his appeals to Sophocles were occa-
sional in character, when examples of the poetic style were
introduced by way of illustration The influence of Phrynichus
1
.
upon his successors is recognizable for us chiefly in Bekker's

sixth lexicon, where his name is quoted more frequently than
in any other ancient document*, and in Photius. This relation-
ship has been much more clearly established since the recovery
3
of the early part of Photius, to be mentioned later Phrynichus .
by no means a mere copyist or epitomator he was diligent ;
in collecting material from the sources available to him. and he

exercised an independent judgement in the general .inferences
which he drew from it. His eminence is shown by his rivalry
with Julius Pollux for the favour of the emperor Commodus 4 ,
although he failed in his candidature for the professorial chair

at Athau which was given to Pollux. Hut it is altogether
ible to suppose that he went so far as to gather
of his illustrations directly from the pages of his Attic models 4 ;
e cannot believe that he discarded the labours of his pre-

any more than a modern scholar would refuse to avail
himself of the help of indexes and lexicons. Thus, it is highly
probable that he profited by the work of Irenaens -rrepi t»}*
\\\(%nvhpetav 8ta\(KTov, in which an attempt was made to show

that the Alexandrian usage was the direct descendant of the
Attic". Hut we are not left to rely upon conjectm there
is direct evidence that he used the lexicons of Diogenian and
i iS and 1064, the only two from the U\vy*i, illustrate this pot*.
3
fr« 357 '"> * good example.
.
leu than nineteen of de Homes'* fragment, contain reference* to Sopbock*.
.
UMM lfr». 5 j, 68. IJJ, 134. I46, 144) «« «' uncertain or.
vcral of
4 Scarcely veiled instances of the conti.-virsy will be found in Rutherford'* edition
at pp. 157. ao*. ^11.
4
As de IW.ics seems to suggest on pp. xil, xxiii, though he sul«e*j«ently
the statement (p. XXVI
• Rutlicrfi.ril, |». 47<>; <!c H rr- -. (..
lxxxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Aelius Dionysius 1
. Helladius, the author of a miscellany of
useful information composed in verse, who belongs to the early
part of the fourth century, survives in the prose version preserved
by Photius in his bibliotJieca. He has so many points of contact
with Phrynichus that the ao<piariK7) TrpoTrapaaicevr) has some-
times been regarded as the sole source of his grammatical
information ; but the conclusion is not generally accepted-.
The Antiatticist, the second in order of Bekker's lexicons 3 ,
represents a reaction against the severest school of Atticism,

and was written with the object of showing that numerous
words and phrases which had passed under the ban, were in
fact employed by Attic writers of the best period. The author-
ship is quite uncertain, but it was probably first put together
before the time of Orus, to whom Ritschl and others have
assigned it 4 The author's method was to take illustrations
.
from earlier grammarians of repute, and to quote the reference

to the ancient text. It has been argued that his chief source
was the 'Am/cal Xeêa of Aristophanes of Byzantium 5 and ;
several of our glosses show points of contact with Diogenian'

1
and Herodian 7 There are two cases in our collection 8 showing

.
an unexpected agreement with Phrynichus, but these may be

due to the mutilation of our text. It should be observed that
the Antiatticist quotes twenty-five fragments from Sophocles as
against twelve taken from Euripides and four from Aeschylus.
Just as Euripides was for obvious reasons the favourite of the
anthologists, so Sophocles, not because of any preference based
on literary grounds, but owing to the character of his diction,
was the tragic model selected by the ypafM/xaritcoL
1
Schol. Hermog. ap. Walz, Rhet. Gr. v 486 (praep. soph. p. 115, 23 de B.). For
Aelius Dionysius see also Rutherford, pp. 132, 209.
2
Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa VIII 101. There is a coincidence with Phrynichus
in fr. 811, but not in fr. 734.
3 Bekk. anecd. pp. 75 — 116.
4
Christ-Schmid, op. at. n5 p. 696; de Borries, p. xxxv. Our version is clearlv
an epitome.
s
See L. Cohn in Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. Suppl. xn 292. Observe the agreement of
p. 91, 16 with Ar. Byz. ap. Eustath. Oct. p. 1761, 31.
6 frs.
169, 517, 6 1 6.
7 frs. 280, 518, 612. 8
frs/ 408, 669.
THE SOURCES OF .THE FRAGMEXTS Ixxxiii
The lexicons hitherto discussed were known among the Rhetorical

lex,con *-
uitines as '
rhetorical ' owing to their subservience to prac-
|
tical needs, but there is another class more properly so called
which had for its object the elucidation of the Attic orators.
We are chiefly concerned with Harpocration, whose ultimate
sources were the commentaries of the orators, and Didymus on 1
'
the composed by various historians. He seems to have

Atî'Scc
employed immediately the same onomasticon which was epi-
tomized in Bckker's fifth lexicon*. Harpocration is usually
identified with the teacher of the emperor L. Verus, although
some authorities place him as early as the reign of Tiberius.
The citation of fr. 502 is the occasion of a remarkably puzzling
coincidence between Harpocration and Athenaeus. Both u
have been confused by compression, but in a different way ;
and, according to a recent explanation, it appears that the codex

of Harpocration was interpolated from Athenaeus at a time
when the Deipnosophists existed in a fuller form than is repre-
sented by the Marcianus*. Claudius Casilo, who, according to
ck's conjecture 4 , was a sophist of the fourth century,
nearly related to Harpocration. The fragments published by
er from the Athous* bear a close resemblance to the glosses
In the margin of the Cambridge Harpocration \ and it is possible
•
Claudius Casilo, whoever he was, was also the editor of that
collection.
Julius Pollux, the rival of Phr> nichus, whose ovofiaariKov in Pollux.
!>e new fragments (fr. 510) comes from a papyrus containing a portico
I •• musthene*.
* Mfftt îrropt«ai : Bckk. anetd. pp. 195—318. For an example tee fr. 449, origin*
ally attached to a passage in Lysias.
* See II. Schultz in i'auly-Wissowa vn 1415. The problem is too intricat.
-sion here, since it ha* no bearing on the lest of Sophocles, unless we infer that
.oration's w+rpa* should l>c rejected in v. j. Hut, though it i« hrlil that llarpo-
iOfl was interpolated from Athenaeus, so that the authoriiy of the biter's text
would lie superior, it will he observed that on Schult/'s hypothesis the accidental
substitution of d*pa» for wirpar may have been due to the epitornatnr of the Dtifm-
ists.
I. C&kfl in Pauly-WissowaSuppl. I Ji*.
397 f. , p.
* The Ux. Cant, was first edited by Dobrec, and published as an Appendix to
Porson's Photiut.
lxxxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ten books published between 166 and 176 A.D. is still extant,
was an Atticist of the milder type. He admitted much that
Aelius Dionysius and Phrynichus had rejected ; for it was his
object to construct a complete vocabulary of Attic names

arranged according to subject-matter, But, while following the
precedent set by Telephus 1
in his alphabetical irepl xpr/crea)<;,
ijTOL 6voix('n(ov ecdfjTO*; /cat twv a\\a>v ot<? ^pd>p,€0a, he professes

to aim not so much at comprehensiveness as at purity of
diction 2 . He made use of various sources in the composition
of the different books : in the preface to the seventh book he
speaks of the numerous writings, both verse and prose, which
he has consulted, and in those to the ninth and tenth books he
refers to the disappointing character of the information to be
gathered from the ovoixaa-riKov of Gorgias 3 and the aKevo<f>opiKo<;
of Eratosthenes. Thus in the second book he followed the
anatomical treatise of Rufus Ephesius 4 and his close agreement ,
with Athenaeus in the passage from which fr. 241 is taken pro-
bably indicates that Pollux drew from Juba's dearpiKt) lo-Topia
or from the monograph trepl av\dov ical 6p<ydvwv constituting the
third book of Tryphon's irepl ovoixaaiwv. The fragments of
Sophocles comprise some 36 for which Pollux is our sole
authority, and 15 in which he is supported by Hesychius either
alone or with others. Fr. %jy shows that the quotation ulti-
mately goes back to the common source of Pausanias and
Diogenian in all probability to Didymus, whose influence can
;
be detected in regard to frs. II, 36, and 482. Fr. 89, if not also
fr. 734, goes back to Aristophanes of Byzantium and the same ;
writer's work irepl irpoaooTroiv was probably the source of Pollux

4. 133 —
154, from which we learn interesting details respecting
the masks worn by the actors taking the parts of Thamyras and
Tyro 8 .
It has already been mentioned

6
Stephen of that Eustathius quotes a
work on synonyms by Herennius Philo of Byblus, whose period
of activity was late in the first or early in the second century.
1
Suid. s.v.
2 1. 2 irecftLkoTlfiriTai ov roaovrov ets TcXr/dos biroaov ets KdXXous (K\oyt)v.
3 The identity of this writer is doubtful : Susemihl, II 501181.
4 See 6
p. lviii. 1 p. 177, 11 p. 271. p. lxx.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxxxv
But another of his works, which was entitled irepi -roXetov teal
ofc avTwv ivSogowi ijveyxe in 30 books, is of much

etcria-i)
greater importance, since it was the principal source followed

by Stephanus of Byzantium (c. 530 A.D.), who even in the extant
epitome of mentions Philo's name 33 times. From
his etknica
is mentioned by Stephanus 82 times
the fact that Apollodorus
and Artemidorus about 80 it has been inferred that both were 1
,
extensively used by Herennius. To these authorities we should

at least add Hecataeus and Alexander Polyhistor, whose names
occur 300 and 100 times respectively. The position of Strabo
(cited 200 times) is more doubtful, since Herennius would have
no occasion to follow the copy when he had access to the
originals. Stephanus, of course, did not follow Herennius ex-
clusively ; but in matters of etymology and vpoarohia had
recourse to Herodian (cited 80 times) and Orus (cited 14 times)*.
An examination of the context in which the quotations from
iiocles occur, favours the conclusion that the majority
1 reached Stephanus through Herodian.
A rhetorical lexicon attributed to the Patriarch Cyril of Cyril—
xandria exists in numerous mss exhibiting various recen-
but has never been edited except in extracts arbitrarily
In these circumstances neither the date of its com-
ition nor the sources from which it mi derived have been
ascertained, although admitted to have played an important
it is
in the mi< < r-Mve developm< Byzantine lexicography.

Thus, a Cyril -glossary was the basis of the avvayatyrj \i£(«av
«/• published from cod. Coislin. 345 in Bachmann's <///rv-
glosses beginning with a and taken from the same
Ms hid already appeared as the sixth lexicon comprised in
M authors see p. lii. Ii i> baldly poaribl« to place the Sopboclean

; Imt one might guess that579 came from A[>oll<xiorus. It shouM
fr.
•
irse be rcmemi>cr<-<1 that Stephanus c\ most part only in an epitome.
fuller text see on fr. 460.
above facts are taken n nan's article in Pauly-Wtaiowa vut
a Cramer, ant d. Par. iv 177— »ot (frs. 390, 391 comes from an
5. all the fragment* appear also in !*hotias. Zortarss
• Cyril -glossary with etymological addil
/
— —
lxxxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Bekker's anecdota x
. The earlier condition of the first part of
the avvaywyr) which corresponds to that of the letters /3 w in
Bachmann can be seen in the fragments relating to the letter a

edited by Boysen from cod. Coislin. 347 2 . An enlarged revision
of the original a-vvaycoy/j, which, with abbreviations and inter-
polations, was incorporated by the writer of Bekker's sixth
lexicon, was one of the chief sources of the well-known lexicon
of the Patriarch Photius (c. 820 c. 891) 3 but the main con- ;
stituent has been enriched with numerous additions from other

sources, especially Aelius Dionysius, Phrynichus 4 Harpocration, ,
and the lexicons to Homer and Plato. Photius announced that

his purpose in contrast with Diogenian was the collection of
Aefef<? from prose writers, but in practice his quotations from the
poets are scarcely less numerous. The lexicon of Photius is
preserved only in the Cambridge codex Galeanus (xil cent.),
which is seriously mutilated, especially in the earlier part.
A certain portion of the early gaps has been supplied (a) from
the Athenian MS 1083, which contains two short fragments
published by Fredrich and Wentzel in 1896 5 and {b) from ,
the Berlin MS (cod. Berol. graec. vet. 22) of the late eleventh or
early twelfth century, which contains the commencement of the
lexicon and extends as far as the gloss airapvo^. The latter, so
far as it relates to Photius, was published by R. Reitzenstein in
1907 with the title Der Anfang des Lexicons des Photios. It has
brought to light an extraordinarily rich increment of tragic and
comic fragments, no less than 37 of which belong to Sophocles.
The enlarged o-viaywytj was also incorporated in the lexicon

of Suidas (912 —
959), whose agreement with Photius is explained
by their employment of a common source. Suidas, of course,
1
See p. IXXX3.
Lexici Segtteriani avvayuryij Xiêwv xPV ff L(iwt' inscripti pars prima ex codice
2
Coisliniano 347 edita, Marburg, 1891.

3
L. Cohn in Iwan Mueller's Handbuch, 11 p. 699. Reitzenstein, Photios, p. xlvi.
Observe that the newly recovered opening of Photius is entitled KvplWov Kal Qwriov
4
The recognition of the extent to which Photius was indebted to the <ro<pi<TTtKri
irpoirapaaKevr) was one of the chief surprises of the new Photius (Reitz. p. xxxix)
One of the best instances is the gloss aKovvai 6pyw, in which fr. 25 is quoted.
6 Nachr. d. Kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaftoi, Gottingen, 1896, p. 309 ff. The
glosses comprised are
'
Aftpafjuaios — dydatiei and dyxLarpevei — 'Adpdcrreia.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS Ixxxvii
lamassed much material of a different character, but we are not

concerned with the historical and biographical articles, owing to
which work bears some resemblance to a modem enc)
his
paedia. He also borrowed many of his glosses on points of
grammar and lexicography from the paroemiographers and from
the scholia to Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Thucydides 1
.
A few words must be given to the Etymologica. The etymo- Etymo

°g,ca
logical speculations of the Stoics, especially of Chrysippus. were
contested by the Alexandrian grammarians of the Roman period,
and above all by Philoxenus, a contemporary of Varro*, and
Tryphon, who together developed the formal classification of
as Trapayvyat ranged under their respective vpayrorvtra.
tvmological lexicon known to us was compiled by
Orion in the first half of the fifth century, and is still partially
in an abbreviated form. Besides Philoxenus, to whom
be clearly owed fr. 621, the predecessors to whom he most fre-
quently refers are Heracleides, Herodian, and Soranus*. Several

centuries later the reviving interest in classical literature shown by
inent people, as well as generally by the church, led to the
appearance in successive redactions of encyclopaedic collections
in which etymology was ,1 leading feature. The oldest of these,
known as the Etymologicum gtnuinum in accordance with the
>n of its discoverer Trof. K. Reitzenstein, was completed
in the first half of the ninth century. It rests on the authority

.f the tenth or eleventh century (cod. Vat. j^r. i>
and o.d. I.aur. S. Marci 304 4 ), but has not been published".
-
statement may be illustrated fr->m f^. 15, 165, 508, 596, 8bj. Kr. «o; b
e the gloss appear* to come from PhijaidlU \f*Hf< 'ofh. |>. 43. .1
, u ultimately derived from An.iophanc* of Byzantium, to whom all
..11 Mttffx«W/i4t go back. The fact thai Suida* .
.i Phot. p. J4«y 19 did not completely reproduce Ml Inmdi

source. The same remark applies !> fr. not. It. '/-o perhaps CUM fr.-n. the
: fr. 1 1 14 " "'• * S« (* i</>.
longed to the age of Trajan and Hadrian. The refer*
• -iun\oy iai to>- iTwjiaroi row ifdfnirWOV.

* Ti. . which extract* were published by B. MihVt
1
77.
> hare been separately published by Re
mmunicatcd by him to others. Hence il has partially ousted the Stjrm. .»/• m
such books as Kaibel's Cam md Diels's Vertakniiktr.
lxxxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Among numerous sources may be mentioned Orus, Orion,
its
Herodian rrepl iraOav, and various annotated MSS of classical

authors. The Etymologicum Gudianum, so called after a formt
owner of the MS from which the edition of Sturz (1818) M
printed, was compiled independently of the geuuinum, but froi
similar sources. It appears in three distinct recensions repre
sented by various MSS 1 and has a very complex history whicf

,
cannot be described here 2 . The Etymologicum Magnum, which

was edited by Gaisford in 1848, belongs to the early part of the
twelfth century. The author took as the basis of his work a copy
of the genuinum, which he describes as to fj,iya irv/xoXoyiKov, but
he also made use of the Gudianum {to a\\o eTv/jLoXoyi/cov) and
a number of additional authorities 3 .
The most important of all the sources in regard both to the

number and to the character of the quotations preserved in it is
the Anthology of John Stobaeus. His date can only be ascertained

by reference to the authorities quoted, of whom Iamblichus is
possibly the latest 4 and, since he also shows no sign of Christian
;
influence, it is unlikely "that his collection was put together later

than the fourth century. As known to Photius, the work was
comprised in making two volumes ("rev-^y but
four books ;
owing to disintegrationand confusion of its order in the middle

ages it was treated as two separate works, distinguished as
eclogae and fiorilegium. The eclogae is actually the first two
books, considerably mutilated, of the original avOoXoyiov, while
the third and fourth made up the so-called fiorilegium. The
original form of the work, with the correct order of chapters and
extracts, so far as it can be restored from the best copies, is only
1
See fr. 789 {Eiym. Sorb.), 390 {Etym. Paris.).
fr.
2
For further details respecting the chief Etymologica see Reitzenstein in Pauly-
Wissowa vi 812 ff. It is important to observe that each scribe adds some particulars
and alters others, so that the work is continually in flux. The first part of a new
edition of the Etym. Gud. by Al. de Stefani has recently appeared.
3 The
Etym. Voss. (Voss. gr. 20, xm cent.) occasionally cited by Gaisford con-
tains the so-called fj-eydXtj ypa/j-fiaTiK^, a reconstruction of yet another
Etymologicum
which passed by the name of Symeon (Reitzenstein, I.e. 816).
4
The supposed quotations from Hierocles the Neoplatonist really belong to
Hierocles the Stoic, who lived in the reign of Hadrian (v. Arnim in Pauly-Wissowa
VIII 1479).
5
Bid/, cod. 167.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS lxx\.v
to be found in the recent edition of Wachsmuth and Hense 1

.
ho have followed the present discussion will not need to

>ured that Stobaeus did not gather his select passages in
urse of his own reading, although he may well have been
-îble for the addition of some of the later extracts. He
If often refers to the Tomaria of a certain Aristonymus.
A conclusive proof that Stobaeus made use of earlier anthol<>
iven by Diels some 8
forty years ago from the coincidence
of his quotations with those which appear in the Christian
iddressed to Autolycus by Theophilus, bishop of
Antioch (c. 180A.I1 Exactly the same kind of coincidence
•bserved in the case of Clement of Alexandria. Thu^,
it cannot be due to chance that three quotations on the same
topic which appear in the same chapter of Stobaeus, and in close
in immediate sequence
mity to each other 4 should be cited ,
<
though one of them is attributed to Aeschylus with
!lement,
ignificant addition 4 But, though the existence of such .
anthologies is thus brought back to the second century A.D., and

nable inference to a much earlier date*, and, though Plato
mmended the making of selections from the poets, so that
from their works might be committed to memory as an
to moral instruction 7 there is no express reference to their
,
ition and no record of the names of their authors.

Only within very recent times has evidence come to light Earl? ni-
{ofpe*
ls the tradition represented by Stobaeus as al
current at least 600 years before his time. In the Journal of
use's concluding volume is still unpublished. The reference* to the vulgatc

of the JioriU^mm have been retained in the present edition as being more generally
1
use's pages have also been cited.

' Rk. .1/ .
: ff.
h assign fr. no to Aeschylus as well as to Sophocles. The clearest case is

philus to Aeschylus as a tingle nuoutmn of three distinct
passages which have run together owing to the loss in the anthology of the lem»M
ing to the two latter: m.-c ft \ |>. 5;. 4 ff. *"h Wachsmath's note*.
961.
11. 13, 14
f contact between Stobaeus and Clement will be fonad

ir relation see WiUmowit*, Ri*Uit*ng. p. t;i
W !.(.
At. U&. 8ll A.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Hellenic Studies for 1907 1 F. W. Hasluck published from an
inscription, which was found at Kermasti in the Cyzicus district
and is dated about 300 B.C., a long list of aphorisms, such as
cj>l\oi<; fiorjdet, dv/xov /cpdrei, aSi/ca <J>evye, and so forth, obviously
intended for the moral edification of those who frequented the

immediate neighbourhood. When the list is compared with
the collection of the precepts of the Seven Wise Men attributed
to Sosiades in Stob. flor. abundantly clear that the
3. 80, it is
former, if not the original, is at any rate an early version of the

latter 2 Even more remarkable in their relation to Stobaeus
.
were the fragments of florilegia published in Berl. Klassiker-

texte, V 2 pp. 123 — 130, from two papyri (Berl. 9772 and 9773)
of the second century B.C. Thus 9773 not only contains the
extracts 9 and 69 next to each other though
1 1 of Stob. flor. in
the reverse order, but also the title yfroyo<; yvvcwcwv, which is
prefixed to the same chapter of Stobaeus. Though the text

of Stobaeus may thus be shown to depend upon very ancient
authority, it cannot be considered to possess the same weight as
the text of an extant play which can be traced to the Alex-
andrian edition. In fact, when a comparison is possible between
the two, the differences are often such that they cannot entirely
be explained as the deliberate modifications of the anthologist
made for the purpose of adapting his quotations to their place.
In dealing with the Berlin fragments Wilamowitz suggested that
the text of Euripides might have come from a bad actor's copy,
while at the same time he pointed out the possibility that the
anthology was constituted before the date of Aristophanes'
edition 3 . But, whatever the defects of his text, Stobaeus is so
precious a witness that one would willingly barter much of the
lexicographic material for an increased supply from the antho-
logies. more fortunate, as has
In this respect Euripides was
already been mentioned. Apart from Stobaeus and his copyists
the only extant authority in this department is the dvdoXojiov
yi'VfAwv addressed to the empress Eudocia by the grammarian
1
xxvii 62 f.
2
This was first pointed out by Diels in Sitzungsb. d. k. pr. .4k<ni. 1907, p. 457.
See also Vorsokr. n3 p. 214.

3
See also his Sappho u. Simonides, p. 270.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xci
Orion [c. 440 A.D.), which for three fragments stands entirely
alone 1
.
§ 5. Bibliography.
The scholars of the centuries

immediately following the
revival of learning were occupied with weightier matters than
the collection of the scattered remains of the ancient masters,
which the nature of the texts then available would have made
< of exceptional difficulty. All the more credit is due to
ubon for constructing, by way of excursus to Athen. 277 E',
a catalogue of all the titles of Sophocles' plays of which he could
find a record. Bentley once dreamed of the project of editing
the fragments of all the Greek poets, and the Letter to Mill and
the contributions to Graevius's Callimaclius were foretastes of
he might have accomplished in this sphere. Hut it
itil the latter part of the eighteenth century that attention

n to be directed to those of Sophocles in particular. In
—
Benjamin Heath (1704 1766) published at the Clarendon
cries of notes on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Kuripides,
including (pp. 93 —
112) critical comments on a numb
igments taken from Grotius's excerpts from Stobaeus*.
ntribution of a similar kind was made by the well-known
philologer Jonathan Toup ( 17 1 3 — 1785) in his Epistola C'rifioi
iddressed to Warburton and published in 1767; and in the same

appeared L. ('. Valckcnaer's Dint rib,- in Euripidts /
, dramatutn which incidentally discussed se
reliquias,
Sophocles. Valckenaer had in fact devoted much
ir to these latter, and it is clear from the Preface of Brunck,
tor, that the collection contained in hi^ edits-
(
1786) was largely indebted to the Dutch critic.
acknowledged his obligation to David Ruhnkcn,
iiom a number of quot.u contributed from hitherto
:47, 303. Wli f Orion w only a scanty fragment. »lu.h

<l by Schnciilcwin from ;i Vienna Ms. It i* alv> printed in Mrmcke'i
SUkit us IV 349—466.
Schwcighau»cr'ji Athentnut, IX |>p. 17 — 31.
"*, quae in Eclogi* torn in Florikgio Stolwcu* «<ifrrt. rcccm
i6ij.
xcii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
unedited lexicographical sources. The arrangement of the editio
princeps was somewhat inconvenient. The plays in alphabetica
order with most of the longer fragments attributed to them came
first then more than ioo fragments 'ex incertis tragoediis'; anc
;
lastly a number of glosses from the lexicographers arrangec

alphabetically as Lexicon Sophocleum,' and containing com-
'
plete lines as well as isolated words and phrases. Nevertheless

Brunck's edition, which was reprinted several times, held the
field for more than forty years, during which period little was
done either for the increase of the collection or for the better
understanding of the fragments which had been already printed
Mention should, however, be made of a paper by Blomfield ii
Mus. Crit. Cant. I (1826) 141 —
149, containing addenda t<
Brunck's collection and critical notes on several passages
Blomfield's results were incorporated by W. Dindorf, who, ii
his Poetae Scenici of 1830, was able by recasting Brunck's work
to issue it in a much more convenient form with various correc-
tions and enlargements. Dindorf acknowledged in his Preface
that he had taken slight pains to improve the work by his ow
investigations, and lamented that there was no prospect of a new
edition adequate to the needs of the time. Hasty and superficia
as the book was, it shared the popularity which Dindorf s publi
cations enjoyed for about half a century, and in its latest form
as represented in the fifth and greatly improved issue of the
Poetae Scenici (1869), it is probably still in more general use
than any other edition.
A new epoch in the progress of knowledge concerning the
literary output of the Greek tragedians was opened by the
publication in three volumes of F. G. Welcker's Die grieckisch
Tragbdien mit Riicksicht auf den epischcn Cyclus geordnet, Bonn
1839. This was an exhaustive examination of all the evidence
which could be discovered bearing upon the literary history of
the plays of the three great tragedians, and especially on the
contents of their plots. The plays were arranged according to
the order occupied by the events which they comprised in the
series of the epic Cycle. Welcker's book is as readable to-day
as when it was first printed. He had spared no exertion in
sifting the whole of the data provided by the mythographical
BIBLIOGRAPHY xciu
authorities, and in comparing them with the relevant indications

of the tragic fragments. On the basis of this evidence the plots
were reconstructed with remarkable acuteness and the results, ;
[hough necessarily often conjectural, can be checked, even where

they fail to convince, by the openly displayed material of the
sources quoted. It should be added that the satyric plays had
been separately treated by Welcker in an earlier work entitled

Xcic/itrag zu die Aesch. Trilogic Prometheus, Frankfurt, 1826.
Wclcker's work gave an extraordinary impulse to philological
activity, and the following years witnessed the appearance of
a number of critical papers in the various periodicals by Bergk.
Nauck, Schneidewin, and others, directed to the emen-

eke,
dation and elucidation of the tragic texts. The influence of
Welcker is more directly visible in editions of the tragic frag-
ments which began to appear in the course of the following
decade. This applies to F. H. Bothe's Poetarum sccnicorum
m quorum iutegra opera supersunt Fragment*, Lip
—
1844 1846', to F. W. Wagner's Poetarum tragicorum Graecorum
menta, Vratislaviae, 1844 —
1852, and to E. A. I. Ahrens's
edition of the fragments of Aeschylus and Sophocles in the
Didot scries (1842), which was prepared with the avowed object
of popularizing Wclcker's results. J. A.
Martung's Sophokles
unite (1851) was a more ambitious effort upon the same
but his speculations, though sometimes ingenious, are
seldom such as to command absent.
In 1S56 appeared the first edition of A. Nauck's Tragicorum
w Fragmtnta, which was the earliest systematic attempt
to produce an edition acceptable to the requirements of modern
criticism. His aim was critical rather than explanatory, and
if was the provision of accurate information
his chief merits
concerning the textual data of the sources. Even where these
had not been satisfactorily edited, as was the case with Stobacus,
Nauck succeeded in procuring collations of the material readings
of the l>cst MSS. Nauck's second edition, enlarged and revised
so as to include the lal ailable material, appeared in 1889,
1
In 1806 Bothe published an edition <.f Sophocle* in 1 vol* . in which the fr«c
menu were reproduced from Branck. A second edition appeared in i»i6. Neither
•
work is of much independent value.
xciv GENERAL INTRODUCTION
and has remained the indispensable foundation of all subsequent
work. In the meantime Lewis Campbell had edited the frag-
ments after Nauck in the second volume of his Sophocles (1881),
excluding those which consist of single words or of very short
phrases. Campbell contributed some useful notes, but did little
to elucidate the difficulties which the fragments present and he ;
evidently considered that they did not demand the same measure
of careful criticism which he applied to the text of the extant
plays.
In the course of the twenty-five years which have elapsed
since the appearance of Nauck's second edition a considerable
mass of fresh material has accrued, and the extraordinary
development of the various branches of Classical learning which
has taken place during that period, while it has thrown welcome
light on many obscurities, has enormously increased the difficulty
of focusing its results so far as they bear upon the scattered
texts. There has been no fresh edition of the whole of the
fragments but, since the publication of the papyrus remains of
;
the Ichncutae and Eurypylus in 19 12, a convenient text entitled

Tragicorian Graecorum Fragmenta papyracea nuper reperta has
been edited by A. S. Hunt, and x the additions to Sophocles
brought to light in recent years have been collected and edited
by E. Diehl as Supplementum Sophocleum, Bonn, 191 3. The
Ichneutae has been separately edited by N. Terzaghi, Firenze,
191 3. There is also a German translation by C. Robert, Berlin
[second ed.], 191 3. The following list contains all the occasional
contributions which have been consulted for the purpose of the
present edition, as well assome marked by an asterisk which
I have not had an opportunity of examining.
Bakhuyzen, W. H. van de Sande. De parodia in comoediis Aristo-

phanis. Utrecht, 1877.
Bamberger, F. Conjectaneorum in poetas Graecos capita duo. Braun-
schweig, 1841. [Reprinted in his Opuscula pkilologica see pp. 163-
:
165.]
Benecke, E. F. M. Anthnachus of Colophon. London, 1896. [On the
Phaedra of Sophocles at p. 201.]
BERGK, Th. Commentatio de fragmen (is Sophoclis. Lipsiae, 1833.
De duodecim fragmentis Sophoclis. Marburg, 1843/4.
—
— Nachtrage zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Zeitschrift fur Alter-
!
tumsvvissenschaft, XIII (1855), p. 108.

BIBLIOGRAPHY xcv
BLASS, F. [On the Mode.] Literarisches Zentralblatt, 1897, p. 334.

Rhein. Mus. lv 96-101.
BLAYDBS, F. H. If. Adversaria in Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta.
Halis Saxonum, 1894.
Adversaria in varios ftoetas Graecos et Latinos. Halis, 1898. [On
Soph. frs. at pp. 158-165, 201.]
Spicilcgium Trngicnm. Halis, 1902. [On Soph. frs. pp. 156-163,
243]
[KRKR, F. Zu Sophokles3 Ichneutai. Herl. phil. Woch., 1912, 1107C
It. Coniectanea. Rhein. Mus. xxxix 274.
CAMPBELL, L. [Letter in reply to R. Ellis: v. infra.] American Journal
of Philology, ill 128.
C. Collectanea Critica. [De nonnullis fragment is Tragicorum,
pp. 187-208.] Lugduni Batavorum, 1878.
\, J. Epistola critica de auibusdam Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis
fragmentis. Oxford, 1852. [Reprinted in Miscellaneous Writings^
1872: see 11 pp. 455-457]
Ad
Tragicos Graecos. Hermes, II 142 ff.
JUS, O. Der Sophokleische Dionysiskos. Rhein. Mus. XLVIII 153.
Drome
satyrique sans Satyres.
I.e Revue des Etudes
grecques, xu (1899), pp. 290-299.
kk, \V. Vermischte Aufs&txe. Philologus, xu 188-192.
ke, P. P. Adversaria. Cambridge, 1843. " PP- 51-55-
. H. y.n den FragmeiUen des Sophokles. Philologus, ill 136
13*.
her die Fabel der Aloiden. Zeitschnft f. Alterthumswissen-
it, iv 785-792.
R.. On the fragments of .Sophocles and Euripides. Journal of
Philology, iv 251-271.
On the fragments of Sophocles. American Journal of Philology,
11 411 ff.
lilaydexs rum Fragmenta. Herm-

.ttlicn.i, l\ 144-154.
Some em ^f the Greek 1 IX 105*
maw, R. Archdologische Studien .-« d,n Tntgikem, Hcrlin, 1900.
/-holies [(r. 88]. Rhein. Mus will 537 ff.
A.inolttiones ltd Tragiiorimi i.f.tecorum fragmenta. 1863.

/.um Laokoon des Sophokles. Vcrhandluntfcn der 4<
ikk. K.
sammlung dcutscbei I'hilologcn u. Schulmi rornb 88*; [ pp. 43a- 1
43 x l-
I jo.
n Art\t»phanit fragmenta. Ih ^.pkociis

Kostochi. 1836.
\ TeUgonie und Odyssee. Neue Jahrb. t ± U. Altertum, xv
3 1 3-333-
I h. Zu den gr. Trngikern Khein. Mas. XIII 477 '
schriftstfiler [pp. 4 1 5 J- Wh»,
1875.
DU Br% tragiker und Cobets neuette kritisthe
tinnier. Wien, 1878.
xcvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Gomperz, Th. Nachlese zn den Bruchstiicken der gr. Tragiker [pp. 4-17]-
Wien, 1888.
Harrison, J. E. Athene Ergane. Classical Review, vm 270.
Pandora's Box. Journal of Hellenic Studies, XX 99 flf.
Sophocles Ichneutae Col. IX 1-7 and the hpatfitvov of Kyllene and

the Satyrs. Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway
[pp. 136-152]. Cambridge, 1913.
Haverfield, F. A fragment of Sophocles. Classical Review, 11 324.
Hayman, H. Emendations of Sophocles. Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society, 1882, p. 30.
Headlam, W. G. Various Conjectures I. Journal of Philology, XX 294-
3«-
Various Conjectures III. Journal of Philology, XXIII 260-323.
Critical Notes I. Tragicorum fragmenta ed. Aauck. Classical
Review, xm 3 ff.
Emendations and Explanations. Journal of Philology, XXXI 8-10.

Heimsoeth, Fr. Kritische Studien zu den gr. Tragikern. Bonn, 1865.
Hense, O. Exercitationes Criticae. Halis, 1868.
Herwerden, H. van. Exercitationes Criticae [pp. 10-30]. Hagae Comi-
tum, 1862.
—— Entendatur Sophocles ap. Stob. Flor. 26. I. Mnemosyne, I 312.
Ad poetas scenicos Graecorum. Mnem. VI 280-282.
Epistola Critica ad Nauckium. Mnem. XVII 265-267.
Ad Tragicos. Mnem. XX 432-434.
Lucubrationes Sophocleae [pp. 77-83]. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1887.
Analecta Tragica. Appendix in Eur. Hel. [pp. 101-103]. Lugduni
Batavorum, 1895.
Ad tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Melanges Henri Weil [pp. 179-
191]. Paris, 1898.
Novae Observationes ad Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Rhein.
Mus. LVlli 138.
Varia ad Varios. Mnem. xxvn 390.
HlLLER, E. De Sophoclis Phaedra et de Euripidis Hippolyto priore.
Liber miscell. philol. Bonn, 1864. p. 34 ff.
HlLLER V. GAERTRINGEN, F. De Graecorum fabulis ad Th races per-

tinentibus. Berlin, 1 886.
HOLLAND, R. Die Sage von Daidalos und Ikaros. Progr. der Thomas-
schule in Leipzig, 1902.
HOLZNER, E. Zu den Fiagmenten des Sophokles. Wiener Studien, XVI
324-328.
Zu den Fragmenten der griech. Tragiker. Philologus, LV 566-568.
IMMISCH, 0. Ad Sophoclis Epigonos. Philologus, XLVlll 554.
Klaros [p. 180 ff.]. Jahrb. fur cl. Philologie, Suppl. Bd XVII.
Ein Sophokleischer Vers [fr. 768] und das Urtheil iiber Clitarchs
Stil in der Schrift vom Erhabenen. Rhein. Mus. XLVlll 512-528.
J EBB, R. C. Adversaria in Sophoclis fragmenta [p. 121 f.]. Album Gratu-

latorium in honorem Henrici van Herwerden. Trajecti ad Rhenum,
1902.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xcvii
KaLKMANN, A De Hippolytis Euripidis quaestiones novae. Bono, 1882.

KE1L, H. Sophokles [fir. 432} Phiiologus, 157 ff. I
Kn vack, G. Ckamabon. Neue Jahrb. fur Philologie, cxxxv 318, 800.

KOCK, Th. Verisimilia. Jahrb. fiir cl. Philologie, Suppl. Bd VI.
Kramkr, A. De Pelopis fabula. Diss. Halle, 1886.
Klrkkss, A. De Sophodis Imiagatorum fontibus. Mnem. xu III £
Lidwich, A. Zu Herakleitos Homerischen Allegorieen. Mil einem Anhang
su gr. Dichtcm [Soph. fr. 391]. Rhein. Mus. xxxvn 434 ff.
[On Soph. fr. 812.] Berl. phil. Woch., 1902, 766.
1". Zu den neuen Klassikertexten tier Oxyrhynchos- Papyri (vol. IX).
phil. Woch., 1912, 1075 ff.
1.
Review of Hunt's Tragicorum Gr.tecorum Fragmtnta Papyracea.

Deutsche Literatur-Zeitung, 1912, 2781-2785.
IfADVIG, J. N. Etnendatiotus per saturam. Phiiologus, I 670-677 [Re-
printed in Opusc. acaii. p. 699 ff.].
Fragmtnta aliquot poetarum Graecorum quae apud Athenaeum ex-
;// emendata. Melanges Graux, Paris, 1884, pp. 71-78.
Marx. Fr. Die Zeit der Schrift vom Erhabenen. Wiener Studien, xx
169 ff. at p. 191 ff.
MAYER, M. Mythistorica. iTereus. Hermes, XX vn 489 ff.
inalien. Zeitschrift fiir Alterthumswissenschaft, I 293,

ibid, in 1066, vim 500.
Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Phiiologus, xix 144.
Miscellanea, Neue Jahrb. fur Philologie, lxxxvii 369 ff.
Mist ellen. 1'hilologus, xvii 558.

MEKLER, S. Lectio num Graecarum specimen [fr. 88]. Wicn, 1882.
novmva\m}t [fr. 555]. Phiiologus, I. IV 376.
LncubratioHum capita quinout [fr. 432]. Progr. des Communal-
Obergymn. iin 19. Beztrke, Wicn, 1895.
ExtgetUch-kriHscht Beitrifgt ~u den Fragmenten der griech. Tragi-
ker. jahresb. d. Elisabeth-Gymnasiums in Wien, 1903.
Peri. A/ Uber die die griech. Trogiker bttrt tndt Utmmr mr Jahrc f
1898-1902. Burriaaa Jahresbericht, exxv 180-184, cxxix 29-32.
Pencil t liber die die grid/. Tr.igiker betreffe tide IJteratur der Jakrt
1903-1907. Borstals jahrcstx-ri< lit. i-123, 277 ff.
.7 Sophokles Ichneutae. Rhcin. Mus. i.xix 170-190.
Sophoclea. Mnem. ix pp. 241-244.
Zu den Fragmenten der griech. Trogiker. Phiiologus, iv
543
Zu tien Fragmenten tier griech. 1 Phiiologus, VI 384-401.
Zu Phiiologus, XII 193 i«A
• < urn Grmtcorwm fragments. Progr.
in. Joachim. Berohni, 1855.
1
This is not s complete lut of his published work on the Fragments; bet,
tie foun«l in hi* »co>wl edition, n did not steal worth while
to refer to all the scattered publications, which sre partly saperscded sod often
difficult of access.
xcviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION
NAUCK, A. Zur Kritik griechischer Dichter. Neue Jahrb. fur cl. Philo-
logie, CV 803-807.
Tragicae dictionis index spectans ad Tragicorum Graecorinn frag-
menta. Petropoli, 1892. [The book contains an important supplement
to the edition of the text see especially pp. XI-xiv.J
:
Neumann, W. Die Entwickelung des Philoktet-Mythos mit besonderer

Beriicksichtigung seiner Behandlutig durch Sophokles. Progr. des
Gymn. Coburg, 1893.
PAPABASILEIOS, G. A. Biopdoiais x a P MV 2o(poic\(ovs <re. Tlapvaaaos,
X 513-
,
KpiTiKai tTapaTrjpi)<j(Lv rpayiKU>v. A0rjvd, VI

65-73-
PAPAGEORGIUS, P. N. npiriKa ical epfxrjvtvTiKa els ra an oa n da par a ru>v
'EXXrjviKaiv TpayiKwv TroirjTcav. Lipsiae, 1880.
diopdaxTtis els tci drrocrTvaapara ratv rpayiKoav iroirjTtov. Adfjpaiov, IX
333 ff., 34i ff-
Beilrdge zur Erkldrung und Kritik des Sophokles. Pars I. Jenae.
1883.
*PAUCKER, C. Doppelpalladienraub nach den Laconerinnen des Soph, anf
einer Vase von Armento. Mitau, 185 1.
PEARSON, A. C. Notes on Sophocles, Ichneutae and Eurypylus. Classical
Review, xxvi 209-212.
Alrvdios KcivOapos. Classical Review, xxvm 223 f.
*Peppmueller, R. In poetas Graecos [Soph. fr. 126]. Progr. d. Gymn.
. Seehausen i. A. Halle, 1887.
Petersen, E. Andromeda. Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxiv 104-112.
* Atreus und Thyestes nach Sophocles. Progr. Dorpat, 1877.
*PFLUGK, J. Schedae criticae. [In Sophocles Iphigeniam.] Gedani, 1835.
PILLING, C. Quomodo Telephi fabulam et scriptores et artifices veteres
tractaverint. Halae Saxonum, 1886.
PORSON, R. Adversaria [p. 215 f.].
Cantabrigiae, 1812.
Powell, T. U. On Recent Discoveries. Classical Quarterly, IX 142 f.
Rabe, H. Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto. Rhein. Mus. XLVii 404-413.
Reitzenstein, R. Inedita poetarum Graecorum fragmenta 1, n. Ind.
lect. acad. Rostoch., 1 890/1, 189 1/2.
RlBBECK, O. Die romische TragddU im Zeitalter der Republik. Leipzig,
1875.
RlZZO, G. E. Studi archeologici sulla tragcdia et snl ditirambo. Riv. di
filologia classica, xxx 462 ff.
Theaterdarstellung und Tragbdienszene. Jahreshefte des Osterr.
Archaol. Instituts, vm 824.
Robert, K. Bild und Lied [vol. v of Philologische Untersuckungen \
Kiessling u. Wilamowitz]. Berlin, 1881.

Niobe auf einem pompejanischen Marmorbild. Hermes, xxxvi 368-
387. [Revised and separately published Hallisches Winckelmanns :
programm, 1903.]
Der pergamenische Tries. Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Archaol. Instituts, II
246 ff. ibid. Ill 61 ff.
;
Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles 'ixvevTai Hermes, XLVII 1
536-561.
.
BIBUOGRA PH Y xcix
Robkki, K. Pandora. Hermes, XLIX 17-38.

\CH, 0. liemerkungen zu griechischen Papyri. Fieri, philol. Woch.,
1912, 1460 f.
\ .M. A. UEuripilo di Sopkocle ed un frammento epico adespot<>.

Bollettino di filologia class., SIX 1560".
RlKHi., F. Wrmischte Bemerkungen. Neue Jahrb. fur Philol., cxvu
3'5-
nki., H. Zu den ixrfvrai
lies Sophokles. Hermes, XLvm 153-156.
SCHMIDT, F. W. Kritische Studun zu den grieck. Pramatikern. [Sec
especially I pp. 247-2S2.] Berlin, 1886.
IMIDT, M. Variae Lectiones. Philologus, VII 749.
Vennischtes. Philologus, viu 112.
[From an elaborate review of Nauck's first edition.] Zeitschrift fur
Alterthumswissenschaft, XIV 534-547-
Zu den gr. Dramatikern. Philologus, XII 748 ff.
Kritische liemerkungen. Philologus, XVIII 229 f.
Y'erbesserungsvorschldge zu schwierigen Stellen griech. Schriftstellet

Rhein. Mus. XXVI 207-218.
F. W. Coniectanea Critica. Gottingen, 1839. [Spieii
fragmentorum Sophoeleorum, at p. 98 ff.]
Lanx Sniura. Rhein. Mus., II 296 f.

Sophokles Terms [(r. 583]. Philologus, 11 755.
Ueber Soph. Aietes fr. 241 [fr. 646]. Philologus, 111 89.
Ueber Soph. Tyro. Philologus, ill 168.
O. [On Soph. fr. 567.] Zeitschrift fur d. Alterthumswis-

senschaft, vii 1275 f.
Schkokdkr, P. Zu Sophokles Phaidta. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol., CXXI 408.

ShYf PERT, M. Zu din Fragmenten d. gr. Tragiker Ton A. Nauck. Rhein.
XV 014 ff.
Si ami J M. Zu den 'l X v«vTtu des Sophokles. Rhein. Mus. lxviii 307 ft
.
Thrakmkk. Ed Ptrgasnos. Leipzig, 1888.

tria upon the Fragments of Sophocles. Class. Rev..
xvn 189x191.
Further Adversaria upon the Fragments of Sophocles. Class.
in 245 f.
•VaLOIMIOU, M. [On the 'Ijruvrm of Sophocles.] Athenaeum (I
:. pari 4 1
ties Sophokles. Berlin, 1835.
Miscellaneorum criticorum fasckulus tertius. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol.,

Suppl. Pel xvn pp. 165-209.
, Sopkoti 1 1074 sqq. [Contains several notes on
v.] Classical Quarterly, x 1-6.
\ 1 i [On fr. 679.] Melanges < iraux, p. 99.
[On fr. 85.] Studi Ital. di filolog. class., 1894, P- 298-
Voi-i A. Ad Soph, 'galores. Mnemosyne, Xt.ll 81-90,

'77-
immonis Tetsgonia. Mnemosyne, XXIX 23-58.
c GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Wagener, A. Un vers de Sophocle. Revue de PInstruction publique en
Belgique, xxxn 171 f.
Wagner, F. W. Zu Sophoklcs. Rhein. Mus. vn 149 f.
Kritische Aehrenlese. Zeitschrift fiir d. Alterthumswissenschaft,

X 15 f., 412-414.
Niobe von Sophocles. Ibid. IV (1837), nr 12.
Wagner, R. Epitoma vaticana ex Apollodori Accedunt curae

Bibliotheca.
mythographae de Ap. fonlibus, etc. Lipsiae, 1891.
Wf.CKLEIN, N. Ars Sophoclis emendandi. Wirceburgi, 1869.
[Review of Papageorgius, op. cit.] Philol. Anzeiger, xi i8ff.
Zu gr. Schriftstellern. Rhein. Mus. XXXVI 141.
Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Rhein. Mus. XXXVlll 136 f.
Ueber die Textueberlie/erung d. Aeschylos u. anderer gr. Tragiker.
Sitzungsb. d. Kgl. bayr. Akad. d. Wissensch., 1888, 11-327-374 [pp. 356-
358].
Dramatisches u. kritisches zu den Fragmenten d. gr. Tragiker.
Sitzungsb. 1890, 1 1-57.
Zu Sophokles. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol., CXLV 238.
Ueber die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosrnythus u. iiber die
Dramen 'OoT-oAd-yot, Kd&tpot, 2vv8tnrvoi. Munchen, 1909.
Zu den 'ixvtvrai des Sophokles. Bl. f. bayer. Gymn. 191 3, 437.
Weil, H. Sur quelques fragments de Sophocle. Revue des Etudes grec-
ques, III 339-348.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. De tragicorum Graecorum frag-
mentis. Gottingae, 1893.
Die Spiirhutide des Sophokles. Neue Jahrb. f. d. Klass. Altertum,
XXIX 449-476.
Einleitung in die gr. Tragodie. Berlin, 1907. [Reprint from first
edition of Euripides, Herakles (1889).]
Wolff, G. Kritische Bemerkungen. Philologus, XVI 527.
Zu Sophokles. Philologus, xxvm
543 f.
Wordsworth, Chr. Conjectural emendations. London, 1883.
5O0OKAEOY2
A0AMAZ A AND B
There are two famous stories connected with the name of

Athamas, which are recorded by our authorities with great
variety of detail. One of these, the escape of Phrixus and
Helle. was the starting-point of the Argonautic saga; and,
though the evidence of the tragedians is the earliest to which
we can now appeal, it must have been related in the
Athamas, king of Thebes, by his union with Nephele,
an immortal, had two children, Phrixus and Helle. He subse-
quently married In<>, who bore to him Lcarchus and Melicertes.
too MU jealous of the children of Nephele, and, when a drought
occurred —
produced, according to one version, by the cunning
of Ino herself she bribed the mi — ra who it by
m
Atha as to consult the oracle at Delphi, and persuaded them
to give a false report. They accordingly announced that the
god required the sacrifice of Phrixus as an expiation. Athamas
obliged against his will to consent, but Nephele succeeded
iving her children by means of a ram with a golden fleece,
whirl) Hermes gave to her. This ram, placed among the flocks
•ha mas, was not only endowed with the power of sj>ccch,
so that it was able to warn Phrixus of his impending danger,
but also rescued him and his sister by tak n <>u it-, back,
and flying away with them across the sea. Helle. unal.
her seat, fell into the sea, and gave her name t<> the
espont but Phrixus escaped to lolchis, where he sacrificed
; <
ram and presented its fleece to Aeetes. Such is the ge:

r of the mi \pollod. 1.80 83, —
h. fr. 3; {///(, i;i } 1 >, schol. rec. Aesch. Ptrs. 71,
ind othns and there is some reason for supposing
,
ripides made th< its the basis of his rkt

l\ p. 626), possibly with some of the v. n lati- >u I lUCOfded by
ib. 2.
MTTOtetwo p d although
the I . preserved arc almost entirely insignificant, we
dire, t . .
•
them was omenied with .t
11 <>f the story given above. But the central incident in

2 I0<1>0KAE0YI
Sophocles was not the rescue of Phrixus, but the subsequent

fate of Athamas. This appears from schol. V Ar. Nub. 257
'
(obcnrep fie tov AddfiavO' ott<o<; fir) Ovaere) rovro Trpos top eTepov
'AddfiavTa 2o$o/cXeoi>9 dnroTewofievos Xeyei. 6 yap tov *5.o<poKXr)<;
7r€7roL7)K€ tov AddfiavTa io-T€<pav(0fievov Kal irapeaTOiTa too ftwfiw
tov Ato<? ft>? o-<payiaa0r]o-6fievoi>, Kal fieXXovTov (-t<x cod.) diro-
acpaTTeaOat avrov irapayevofievov 'Wpaickea, Kal \tov\ tovtov
davdrov pvofievov. The recent scholia, partly reproduced in
Apostol. 11. 58 {Paroem. II 529 f.) under the lemma firj Beds
avdpcoirov &>9 Wd/ifias, add (1) that the punishment of Athamas
was brought about by Nephele on account of his conduct to
her children (2) that Heracles saved Athamas by announcing
;
that Phrixus was alive. The latter point is also mentioned in

Suid. s.v. Wddfias, who omits the reference to Sophocles. The
rejoinder of schol. R, to which some critics have attached too
much importance, is merely an ignorant objection eo? dypoiKos
:
,
A0dfxavTa elTrev dvTi <$>pl%ov dvrl tov el-rrelv tov *$>pi%ov tov
'AddfiavTa elirev cu? aypoiKOS dyvooiv t«9 io-Topia<f ov yap
y
A0d/jba<{ i(po<v€vdr)>, dXXa ^/j/ô?. For the tradition that
Athamas was sacrificed does not depend upon this evidence
alone, but recorded as a local legend, which was current at
is
Alos in Thessaly, by Hdt. 7. 197. His narrative is not at all

clear, but so much at least is germane to the present discussion,
that Athamas was sacrificed KaQapfxcv tj}? X^PV? iroievfieimv
'Aâjwy €k deoirpoiTLov, and that Cytissorus the son of Phrixus
arrived from Colchis and rescued him. Several questions will
at once suggest themselves in reference to the dramatic treat-
ment which Sophocles may have applied to this material, but to
most of them no answer is possible. It is, however, a legitimate
observation that the means by which Nephele compassed the
sacrifice of Athamas, together with the arrival of Heracles, the
delivery of his message, and the release of Athamas, were amply
sufficient to occupy the whole of the action. I infer that the
history of the plot against Phrixus, with all its dXoya, although
iv tgh<? Trpdy/xacriv, to use Aristotle's language {poet. 15. I454 b 7),
was nevertheless e£tu 7779 Tpaywhlas. It seems to follow that
Athamas must have supposed Phrixus to be dead, although he
was not slain at the altar and, since Helle actually perished,
;
that she cannot have been included in the design aimed at her
brother. The religious questions connected with the sacrifice of
Athamas, which are discussed by Frazer (Pausan. V p. 172) and
others, do not concern us here. The date of thfs play must
have been than B.C. 423.
earlier
In other story mentioned above Athamas was the
the
apparently innocent victim of the wrath of Hera. She afflicted
:
A0AMAI 3
him with madness, because Hermes by the command of Zeus

had given Dionysus to Ino and Athamas to be reared as a girl
see Hygin. fab. 5, Apollod. I. 84, 3. 28, Pausan. 1. 44. 7. The
was that Athamas, believing that he was hunting on
Cithaeron, mistook his elder son Learchus for a lion (or a stag)
and killed him with his spear and that Ino, distraught with
;
frenzy and grief, took the other child Melicertes in her arms
and threw herself into the sea. Hence the proverb 'Ivow a\r}
in Zenob. 4. 38 and Horace's flebilt s Ino {A. P. 123). The story
can be traced to Phcrecydes (Schol. Horn. 2 486: I 84); FHG
and Seeliger (in Roscher I 670), and more doubtfully Escher
(in Pauly-Wissowa II 193 1), identify it as the subject of the
second play of Sophocles Apart from the general probabilities
1
.
of the case, it 1- possible that frs. 2 and 9 refer to the delusion

of Athamas Ov. Met. 4. 420 elaborates this version of the
flf.
story in his usual manner, but the following touches (512 ff.)
ir to be taken from his Greek models protinus Aeolidts :
1 furibundns in aula clamat to, contites, his re tin tcnditc

\
'
.'
hie modo cum getnina visa est tnihi prole leaena!
I See
and r. (r. adesp.
I /3pva£ovo-r)<i XeaiV*/?, which may ju
1
well belong to Sophocles as to Aeschylus. Cf. Plut. de snperst. 5.

c o o" 'Adafias (i(i£ovi (sc. €\pffTO hv<rrv\ia) ko.1 1) \\7a1 r/
/3\€7roj/T« 5 T€Kva Vil roix; avvtjOtu) 04 \€ovra<: Kai
/
i\a<f>ovs\ I here is nothing to show whether Athamas used

<ow (Stat. Theb. I. 12), or whether the scene was inside the
.as in Ovid, or on the mountain side (Stat. 1 lub. 3. 186),
Iced eiwr\a fr. 8 has any significance. Furth-
cer has observed, fr. 4 suits the final plight <>f Athamas
and realising the extent «>f his losses.
i
would precede his withdrawal to another country. f«>r

which cf. Apollod. 1. 84. But none of these indications are so
strong as that of fr. 5, where we can hardly fail to see an allusion
t<> the miraculous power of Dionysus, Unless then the reference
to the influence of the god is t<< he explained by his nurture in
the palace of Athamas (cf Lucian dial. n/at. <i. it would 1 1.
n tlu\ play, as in the Ino <>! Euripides (Hygin fab. 4), the
>f Athamas had joined the Mai -n. ids to share their mystic
hip on the hills. It rally believed that in that play

Euripides introduced the story ol -to, the third wile of
Athamas who plotted against the children of Ino as cruel!)
as unsuccessfully as Ino had plotted against those of N< pi
is noth ophocles with t! although
iame of Themisto was freely used by later writers as the
n suggests that Cic. h.irusf. rtif. 39 ilia < *hi •
* a reference to tragedies may be an aJfunion to the play of Sophoews.

4 IO0OKAEOYI
cause of the ruin of Athamas' household see Athen. 560 D, :
Westermann Mythogr. p. 345. The evidence which connects

the play with the Dionysus- motive is clear enough, and allusions
to the madness of Athamas and to the final catastrophe may
fairly be inferred but beyond this we cannot go. There is
;
nothing to show that the fragments of Accius' Athamas can be

legitimately used to elucidate the plot of Sophocles 1 .
It should be observed that the progress of the Athamas-

legend shows the gradual combination of at least three stories,
which were originally entirely distinct, and belonged to different
localities. The subject cannot be pursued here but an illustra- ;
tion may be given from the fragment of Philostephanus (Schol.

AD Horn. H 86, cf. Pausan. 1. 44. 7), the pupil of Callimachus,
who omits the Bacchic influence entirely, and attributes the
death of Learchus to the retribution exacted by Athamas for
I no's treachery.
See also Introductory Note to the Phrixus.
Dindorf held that 'A#a/ia? a and /3' were not separate plays,
but different editions of the same play. He applies the same
principle to other similar cases, but in the absence of specific
evidence of revision the presumption is strongly against him.
Karayvoyvai
1 Hesych. p. 421 Karayvwvai eiri-
II ' rpdirovs, 'to find out to another's detri-
yv&vai, p.efx\j/ aadai. Zo<poK\r)s 'A8ap,avTi ment,' with various construction-. A
a'. good example is Thuc.
7. 51 KareyvioKd-
A
few lines before Hesych. has the ruv ijdrj /j.t)k^ti Kpeiaabvwv elvai, where the
gloss KarayivdoffKU) ixip,<pop.ai. einyvibvai
' inf. takes the place of the ace. of the thing,
is added as an explanation, because the It should be observed that KarayiyvwaKu
sense 'to find out' was common in later occasionally appears without the innuendo,
Greek: see e.g. Plut. Philop. 12 iiri- being precisely equivalent to dirty iyvw<rKW :
yvwffOeiaijs 7-77S eiriôvXrjs. Thus tcarayi- Xen. Occ. 2. 18 koX Oolttov ko\ paov koX
yi>w<TKU) is, as observed by Neil on Ar. KepdaXewrepov Kariyvuiv Trpdrrovras.
£q. 46 oCros Karayvovs rod yipovros rovs
epKeat
2 Hesych. 11 p. 192 Zpicevi- 8iktvois. iviv'Sriûin (a confused quotation of Hornmi.
'EocpoKkrjs ' Addfj.ai>Ti gloss
/3'. The same x 468). The same sense occurs in fr. 431,
occurs in Phot. lex. p. 14, 12 without the Ar. Av. 528 Zpur], ve<pe\as, SiKrua, wtiktAs,
name of author or play. Pind. Pyth. 2. 80 <pe\\6s wr virep ipKOt.
Cf. Etym. M. p. 375, lotpKos .ai)p.alvu . . P'or a possible explanation of the allusion
koX to. 8lKTva ws t6 6t€ 8t] irapa \ivov ?/)«et see Introductory Note.
1
The made as to Accius' sources are mutually destruc-
conjectures that have been
tive. It is now
thought (Escher in Pauly-Wissowa II 1933) that his play comprised
the material of Hygin./<?rf. astr. 2. 20, which Sophocles may have used in the Phrixus.
'
AOAMAI
3
i\j/ia
3 Hesych. n p. 249 tyiV yi\m, 31. There wis. however, some wavering
TaiSid, x^ ( vy- (<po6o%~ dro roil (veffdai. as to the breathing; and on this account
OfixXia. -o<poK\i)t 'AOd/xarri S(vrip<p. an alternative derivation from trot was pro-
Outside the lexicographers, the word pounded : schol. Ap. Khod. 1. 459 i$i6~
.iily to occur in Xic. Th unrcu. wapa Hft> iif/iar, t) tart Sid X&ywr
oripn' 6\o6v KPldr/t, iJ0' (\f/iri ftrXcro kov- xaiSid' olo* (rteia nt oiVa" rapd rb trot.
pots, where the schol. explains it by roi- did Kal î\orra». ori Si Saavurat, drri rod
ypiof. The verb ifiaoOat, with its com- a/coXovdoCair. So <fn\iîot was distin-
- ia\- tad- and d<pt\fid<rOai (I: guished as meaning QikoralypM* or 0<\6-
issomewh.it more common. There are also \oyot, according as the second syllable
to be taken into account the gloss arjtiou' was <>r win rmt aspirated (Elym. .>/. p.
ioprai. Adders (Hesych. p. 347) and I 406, H, Suid. s.v. tyla). Some nx*lern
i\(\f/iot (a proper name scholars have favoured the view that 4- is
/'/«/. 177. hoi.), wpoa- •
prottutic, and that the word is to l>e con-
t^td (Hesych.). The history of this nected with îdBSorrt = /«(//////, in A
obeenre and obsolete word was much 1302 this was adopted by Curtius (G. E.
:
led by the grammarians, although 11

P« .594
''•• ""0 wwJ however IbrbON to
i> a general agreement as to its speculate on the derivation. I/>beck\
meaning ('amusement ). The authority (/'a//i. El. 151) notion that tyla was 'a
hiiu follows derived it from game played with f*N>Us' rests on the
tuottai tracing the transition (ttpo&ot) of assumption that ipid was another I
.ining to raiSid '>fu\la I

: aria. Monro on Horn, p 530 takes ail
ense of (<po&oi ( = ///. an 5 entirely different line, holding ihM tyidofuu
tot clearly recognised by I.. 'implies a noun t\pit, from a root ir-,
see Pint. mor. 1055 F, Diog. L. 6. Indog. /'/•,/. seen in tjmt> /.
o»9 Uiv ciTTais re Kayvvai^ jcdfe'crrioc;
,/. p. vaina, tfx\<r>i»-ai»M, rfwyivatxa and the

[=p. like have no nominative in existence, at
1304) to yvvcu$ ovk îvraro dpatmtoD yi- intcd out by LotMek on I'hivn. pp.
Si rp o-vntttatt irnSij yivtrat
>• dvivrio% MM no doiil
dputriKov y'»oii, dca5<x« T «« TV" «'» ««f rowed bom 1. .111. 63 da\pifrmp,it4iu9T9t,
1 I
«ard\ij^"ii>, olo¥ 'iii» ijr arau ..driartot' drio~ri6% iari* (ntlrm, At *o\4nov tparmt
|
wapa 2.«£©« ipxwTi. — dyvvad; irtSvpAov (J»pitWrrot. Our h. »/./,
was
io~roQain)% (fr. idea; for varpipa ictla
ncr.d
I 7.5
or dyvrrpr dyvro", ^pvtn\ot (fr. 19 the sacred centre-point of fusil) lifi
.
.) Si ' rr/XiKovrocl yipur drau dyv- Ak. 7.UI-
una, 6par,i-
olvut nap ^/xi*' aîktyos apa v$.

5 to// II.: ;dp cod. | dx*^^* M &P* '
5 / :. f. iHonq. Utk. Mm. !

for the hm- of $. I do not know
Ivii 405 It I rat <rir rip \ putf irv\\a(trj should hivr %hiunk from
luarri (attdvar. co«l. : COTT. writing d>a. Hut in that case ydp *m»
•Cnm yap kWi* dx«Xw«M dp* ra<. and should probably
8 passage is expressly be replaced by wup' foiir {ifi*}.' The
I04>0KAE0YS
inferential use of apa (for apa) is clearly with the story of Ino Hygin. fab. 4
:
seen in 0. C. 409, 858, and may be taken to postea resciit Inonem in Parnasso esse,
be established see on fr. 931, Eur. Hclid.
: quae (quant Muncker) bacchationis causa
895. Mekler {Eranos Vindob. p. 208) eo pervenisse. Nonn. 9. 247 ff. Cf. tltt
conjectured d5pd vq.. —
The verse refers to Eur. Bacch. 229, Med. 1284. Thus,'Ax«A-
the miraculous draughts of wine provided <pos is used for water, as in Eur. Bacch.
by Dionysus for his votaries: Eur. Bacch. 625 Sfj.u<rii> 'AxeXyov <pipeiv ivvt'iriov, and
\
143 pel 8i ydXaKTi ire'Sov, pel

5' oiv(p. ib. elsewhere.— V(£ for derivatives from
: this
707 Kai Trj8e Kpfyijv iâvijK' otvov 6e6s. root cf. fr. 270 vdrop, fr. 621 vapd.
Such an allusion accords well enough
\evKTjv rjixepav
6 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 106, 33 rical usage, which is found also in Latin :
XevK7]v ijfiipav tt]v dyadi)v. 2o0ok\tjs Catull. 8. ^fulsere quondam candidi tibi
'Add/xavri. Cf. Phot. lex. p. 217, 5 contrasted with Hor. Sat. 1.9. 72
soles, as
huncine soleni tarn nigrum surrexe miAt!
- '
\evK7) ijnipa' ij dyadr). Kai en evrppowuvr).
EiSiroXis K6\a£i (fr. 174 1 306 K.). The There is no need to seek for any artificial
same occurs in Suid. s.v., and in some explanation, such as that which Suidas
MSS H,o<poK\i)s is substituted for EOttoXis (s.vv. XevKri iifiepa, rCiv eh <pap4rpav)
Kd\a£i ; but A i. 672 f. follow immediately. quotes from Philarchus (FUG I
Zenob. 6. 13 (Paroem. I 165) Kai M^- based on an alleged custom of the

vavdpos 84 <prj<riv eu AevKa8i(p (fr. 315 III Scythians to put a white stone into their
90 K. ) tt]v dyadrjf rjp.e'pav XevKyv KaXe?- quiver at night-time for a day spent
<rdai. Herodian. Philel. (in Moeris ed. happily, or a black in the other event.
Pierson, p. 477) XevKrjv rj/j.e'pa.v Siayayelv, Plin. n. h. 7. 40 tells a similar story of
T7]v 7]8e1av Kai iXapdv. the Thracians, and some such practice is
'Xewcr? rffjiipa, lucida (Eur. /. A. 156 alluded to in Hor. C. 1. 36. 10, Pers. 2. 1.
XevKaLvei r68e <pQs rfftr] Xd/x7roi»cr' 'Hws), Catull. 68. 148. Plin. ep. 6. 1 1. Plutarch
\evK6Trw\os, \evK6weir\os, meant properly gives another explanation, relating that
the silvery grey of dawn in contrast to the Pericles during the blockade of Samos
night (Aesch. Ag. 673 ZireiTa 5' di8r)v irov- allowed such of his soldiers as drew by
Tiof irecpevy&res, XevKov kot' rj/xap ktL),
\
lot a white bean to be relieved from
and so might be said metaphorically of discipline and enjoy themselves as they
relief, cheer, comfort, as in Pers. 304 f/uots pleased did Kai <pa<rt toi>5 iv evwadeiais
:
jxev euros dwfxacriv (pdos p-tya, Kai XevKbv j

yiyvopiivovs XevKrjv Tjuipav iKeivrjv dirb
Ttffl
fip.ap vvktos eK fj.€\ayxôv this is how : rov XevKov Kvdfxov trpoaayopeveiv (Per. 27).
Sophocles may haveused it.' (II.) So Is it merely a coincidence that Eupolis in
XevKOv evdp.epov <£dos in Ai. 708. Aeu/crj the K6XaKes referred to this siege (fr. 154
i)V.tpa is used proverbially much as we say I 299 K. )? Horace speaks of Genius
'a red-letter day' in Eunap. fr. 28 Boiss., as albus el ater (Ep. 2. 2. 189), i.e. eiSai-
Aristaen. 1. 12. The purpose of the fiwv or the reverse.
grammarians was to mark the metapho-
ayxypys
7 Hesych. I p. 36 dyxypv* (dyxvPV- irvpyripris,diA<pT)pris and others. The history
cod.) 6 6771''?.
vt)S 2o(poKXrjs 'Add/xavTi. of some of these words is not free from
The correct reading is preserved in Etym. doubt, but the force of -vpvs as an element
M. p. 15. 33 dyxvpv*' iyyA*. of composition seems to have been reduced,
The termination, usually connected with so that in the time of the tragedians it had
dpapiffKu, is the same as that found in become productive as a merely adjectival
rpirjprjs, irodif)pr)s, KarriprjS, irXeiGTriprjs, suffix. See also Wilamowitz on Eur. Her.
fiearjpris, Tvufflpw, Kiffff-qpr)*, reixypys, 243-
AOAMAI
8 U.irpocr. s.v. trirXo* p. 81, 10 ra native derivations from Jviw\ta or ivrarr)

Kara r»jr oiniav attfa) trir\a \4yovci, Trjp x\oi{«T0ai ('to l>c put on hoard'). The
tla* ixiw6\aiov ktt)<jiv koX fttTaxofii- word means moveables ; but it is an elastic
'
t*o8<u Sivanirrjv. ôjtOKXijt AQ&fJMrrt term, and is sometime-, restricted to what
(so Casaabon anapam). Hesych. 11
for we call furniture )( dresses or jewels, as
1 goes more into detail: fn«&«' in Dem. 27. 10. Ktymologically it may
Iftaria. yivaixtia, r) xfii\na.T<k, f) <TKtvr\, tA be connected with 6WXo-t, sim-ples and
yA\ lyytia,d\X' (Ttr6\aia. Suidas who our three-fold: set- BruKinann, Comp. Gr.
has three separate glosses on the word, is 111 p. 50 K. tr. The fullest discussion of
much to the same effect, but gives alter- the word is in Pollux 10. 10 (
€TTLcri.yfiaTa
9 Hetych. It p. 170 ixurrijyuaTa' ilX°* ivtPvfatt- Etym. M. p. 3

^wpwcXtft 'A0d>a»-r.
<ffiara. t*ioiOTW to aiyx'forrat (*orp(**iP roin
masias emended to iwutriynara, and so «i/rat csi ra #/>>tt ir T«f Kimttytaioti i-wi-
must have written, as the atarov xa.Wrai. In /'Ail.
alphalx tii .»! m%\ but that in- conjectured rovrUriyfxa for rot'riaa-îa.
clyfiara was the form used by Sophocles It is suggested that tins rates to the death
red not merely by Moeru p. 196, 34 of Learcnus, hunte<l as a stag by his father
Vrt9t£af ATTinoi' /»urri£ai "KW771 Atham.is ApoBod. ,\- 18 'AMâi pJ* t6»
also by the Cf. wptefivrtpov wai&a Atdpxo* wt /Xa^Vor
/. 704 k$0' tfrar o&rot y' iirierl^ri, Oripfveai imimiPtw. i ictory
the schol. Au^/wr *ai ol wtpi It shouM I* added Hesych.
that
'KparoaOtVT} ri twaipUrai rat *i)ra» iwtai- II p. 107 lias also irleiyfia- /rr-ycAoyui
29 ai{a S' vXanrtir wtr nd ewieiâf /ra^f.i Vrl 6/>mV $
nd rf tvfi. Said, iwialftt' rotd* rt*a iVitfrifat.
10
IO II ycb. 11 p. 148 ixptmarUi^- Tr. fr. adr»p. 275 x/**!** '»**«*' «"*» *t
<r9if. Lo0o«Xijt 'AOdMaj-T
I04X3KAEOYI
AIM AOKPOI
Ajax, 'OtX?}o? raxv<i vios, is introduced in Horn. B 527 as
leader of the Locrians who dwelt opposite to the coast of
Euboea. He is often mentioned in the Iliad in conjunction
with the Telamonian Ajax and, though inferior in strength
;
as compared with his namesake, is nevertheless a distinguished

warrior who comes especially into prominence at the battle round
the wall (N 46). The circumstances of his death are related in
8 499 ff. He was one of the victims of the storm which overtook
the Greeks on their return from Troy, and, when landing on the
rocks at Myconus known as the Gyrae, was hurled back into
the sea by Poseidon and drowned, in punishment for a boastful
speech that he needed no divine aid to escape. Homer says
'
that he was e^66pevo<; 'Adrjvy, without explaining the reason ;
but, if we accept the explanation of Strabo (600), this merely

implies that he was involved in the common fate which befel
the Greeks for abusing their victory in the sack of Troy.
Homer, he says, has not mentioned any outrage committed
against Cassandra, and knows nothing of her violation by Ajax.
Yet, even in Homer, the character of Ajax showed traces of a
cruel and savage disposition, and his arrogant contempt for the
gods led to his destruction. It is clear, however, that an act of
sacrilegious violence committed by him was described in the
Iliupersis^ see Proclus chrestom.
: {EGF
p. 49) Kaaraavhpav
oe A fa? Ot\e&)9 irpos j3iav atroaTroiv auvecpeXKerai to Trjs Wdr)i>as
£oavov e<£' a> irapo^vvdevre^ 01 ''EWê? KaroXevaai /3ov\ovrai
rov AXavra. o 8e €7rl rov t?)<? 'AOrjvd'i ftcopdv Karacpevyet, ical
SiaacoêTai e'/c rov eirncetiMevov /avSvvov. To the latter part of
this corresponds Apollod. epit. 5. 25 o)<? 8e e/xeWov airoirXelv
Tpolav, viro KaX.â^T09 KaTel-ôvro, fitjvUw Wdrjvav
iropOi]cravT€<;
avrois XeyovTOS 81a rrjv Aiavros daeêcav. koX tov p,ev Aiavra
KTeivetv epueWov, (pevyovra Be cttI ficopuov elaaav. Cf. schol.
Horn. 7 135. Welcker (p. 162) rightly observed that the Homeric
story does not seem capable of dramatic treatment but in the ;
extracts just quoted the possibility of a tragic conflict is manifest.

It can hardly be doubted that we have here part of the frame-
1
On the question relating to the overlapping of the Little Iliad and the Iliupersis
and as towhether there were or were not two poems with the latter title, composed
by Arctinus and Lesches respectively, see Frazer, Pausanias, v p. 362 ; T. W. Allen
in CI. Q. 11 84.
AIAI AOKPOZ 9
work of the Sophoclean plot, more especially as the account
bf Apollodorus explains Eur. Tro. 69 71
vfipiodeiadv pe Ka\ vaovs e'/xoi/?;
AH. ovk ola-6* — :
TTO. o*5' rjviic Afa<? dXtee

I
Kaaai'Spav ftiq. AH. Kovhev y | Ajât&v erradev ovS* i]KOV<r

viro. P'urther details are given by Pausanias in his description
of the painting by Polygnotus in the Lesche at Delphi ( 10. 26. 3):
'
Ajax the son of Oilcus stands by the altar with his shit Id.
taking an oath concerning the outrage on Cassandra while ;
mdra is seated on the ground clasping the image of

Athena, as it seems that she overturned it from its pedestal*
when Ajax dragged her from the sanctuary.' Robert (Dit
Iliupersis, p. 63) thinks that Ajax was swearing to atone for
his crime by sending two Locrian maidens annually to the
temple of Athena at Troy. He thus connects the oath with
the temple-story (Toepffer in Pauly-VVissowa I 938) which
to explain the historical custom by reference to a heroic
t
id. The chief authorities for the Locrian tribute, which

until shortly before the time of Plutarch, are Timaeus
i
aj>. Tzeti Lycophr. 1141 (FUG 1 207), and Callimachus ap,

schol. \\) Horn. N 66 (n 126 Schneider). See also Holzinger
on Lycophr. 1153. But Robert's explanation of the oath t
by A .meuh.it far-fetched, and it is simpler to suppose

that there is a reference to the exculpatory oath which is
as a mode of trial by primiti
i ins of juris-
prud W'yse on Isac. 12. 9. In any case, the tn
Ajax before tin- council of elders provided an occasion I
formal debate (\07wv ar/»v) SOCh U

the tragedians loved. It
is SOi: :!er u.s.) that the erotic n

and the violation of the did not belong to the original
;
story, but wen- tin- invention of later writers (r.^r Dfo ( hrys. .
11 153) The conclusion is questionable and it is worth 11 ;
Apollod. */•, KaffitvBpav op&V

rrjr to, gom TOVTO TO '
goapn hich is 1.. tioin |>i< <
cactly in its account of t! ions avei

of the gaze of the image with Lycophr. 361 f. (cf. Strabo 264).
appearance ol the motive is als d by hcogn. 1
Hiatus peya* m\tro 6' Afav 4<*0\os |
ojiotv (w. "Eparof) dra*$a\Uu* M well as by the

timings collected by Furtwai
/w//. Mu nchen </M. p
1
s s. ,1,i
I ' •«
sum ippe in Ihirsuiti J /«////»»/'. <\\WI! |
he effect of
I the above 1
termine the
outlines of tl known to Soph- U !
hi .1- ever from being able to fill in the deta tnc
io I04>0KAE0YI
process by which the tragic irepnreTeia resulted. No doubt the
outrage in the temple was outside the action of the play, and
the two chief moments that fell within the time covered by it
were the acquittal of Ajax by the Achaeans, and his subsequent
death at Gyrae. It was impossible for the latter to be enacted
on the stage, and it must either have been related by a messenger
or foretold by a god. The former alternative is clearly to be
preferred, but involves the assumption that Ajax sailed before
the rest of the Greeks, and that his death was reported at Ilion
before the other characters in the play had started. It is more
difficult to conjecture how the acquittal of Ajax was procured.
A possible suggestion, based on the lawless character of the
accused and the oath mentioned by Pausanias, would be that
he escaped death by a brazen act of perjury, but was required
as being ceremonially unclean to withdraw from the rest of the
army. The retribution of the offended deities was not long in
coming; but even so the shadow of impending disaster hung
over those who had connived at the crime of Ajax. It may be
inferred from Pausan. io. 31. 2 that the chief opponent of Ajax
was Odysseus.
The version of the story adopted by Philostr. heroic. 9
presents certain features which suggest a dramatic origin,
although we have no means of identifying it.
According to this, Ajax dragged Cassandra from the temple,
but offered no violence to her, and kept her in his tent.
Agamemnon saw the girl, fell in love with her, and took her
from Ajax. When the spoils were divided, Ajax claimed her,
but Agamemnon refused to give her up and accused Ajax of
sacrilege. In order to excite odium against Ajax, he also caused
a rumour to be spread through the camp that Athena was
incensed in consequence of the outrage, and would destroy the
army unless Ajax were put to death. But Ajax, fearing injustice
and oppression, if he submitted himself to trial, secretly withdrew
by night in a small boat and was drowned off Gyrae.
From Lucian de salt. 46 icaff" eKacnov yovv twv eVet {i.e. at
Troy) Treaovrayv Spd/xa rfj aKrjvfj TrpoKenac...^ Kara II aXa/xr/ 8 oi/<?
rj NavirXiov opyrj real r) Al'avTos /xavia real rj darepov
€7ri/3ov\r) /cat
ev rat? TreTpais aTrcoXeia, Nauck is justified in inferring an
allusion to the present play. Hygin. fab. 1 16 cannot be used in
support of Hartung's view that the story of Nauplius was com-
bined with that of the Locrian Ajax in a single tragedy.
1
AIAI AOKPOZ 1
II
KOLTaarTlKTOV KVVOS
o~iro\a<; Aiftv<r<ra, Tra.pha\r)<f>6pov 8c'/3oc,
11. 2 (TtoXo oaicivooa K
11 SdloL Ar. Av. 933 rpAi ttji» should read rap&aXiji ctxktop tytor and
y»o\d3o, 5ti SttptHpa owoiaovr. ~o<pOK\ijt eject KaTaarlKTOv kv*6i as a gloss. Hut
Alam \oiep$ ' KaTaariicTov . . .Mpos.' KaX- this is contrary to all analogy, and there
Xi<rrparat W ofor I^hhttop SeppLaTtvor. is bo Bote difficulty in the transference
x iT ^9a Stpe-dTtrov. wap-/)x^V

Et'-tppdvioi ii - of the epithet than e.f. in Kfpae<p6px>n
H law* in tov i-KKpiptoBwi, ovk 4£dr <Pt$G>- <rr6pdvyya% fr. 89, ii<pi)<f>6poii dywrat
a$tu biQdipuw. to Si -cxpOKXaor iwl roe Aesch. Cho. 582 or KieooQbpou ir flaWu
topiiaroi uprfTai tov npiua.pJrov xpot ttj Kur. Hacrii. 384. Much confusion in the
tov 'Airijropot olnlq.. This note appears treatment of compounds would Ik avoided,
in an abridged form in Suit I. s.v. awoXit, if critics would pay more attention to the
and v. i is quoted by Pollux 7. 70 with- simple ami logical methods of the Sanskrit
out the name of the play. grammarians: sec Peile, AofttoH Tali of
a o-iroXas " iy be conveniently ren- Xala p. 3 ff , lirugmann Com/-. I
dered 'jerkin.' 1'ollux (I.e.) speak p. 92 V.. tr.
as a leathern cu tened at the The reference is to the leopard-skin

shoulders, and Photiiis [lex. p. aat, 17) as hung outside the house of Aatenor, m
Stpn&Ttor i<pawT<liOt%, suitable for u-e in order that it might l>e identified and
nietiincs described as \iTi!» t spared when the Greeks cat
h. ; but the iii. 608, a passage to be quoted in
'ion (wap-rix^V^ according to the connexion with the A tit, norid.it. Ilartung
m, lay in the mode of thinks that our fagment actually came
a leather coat could from the las'- named play ami is WlUttlj
not !*• strapped with a girdle. iropSaXr) attributed to the Lterit it the
ôpov &«'pos I.. and S. rive rapiaX^- incident might well ha\c In-cn mentioned
<(>opor and followed by Campbell, who
.ire in a play which was so closer]
'the bide the leopard wore,' as with the circunist. sack of the
ild l>e assumed at will. S city,— perhaps, as Wagner *ugg<-
-iis|>e< ts that we i Cassandra accusing A
12
to xpv<r€Oi> S« Ta? AiVa? SeSopirei'
ofifia, rbv 8* ahitcov d/xeiêrai.
12. 1 rat iUa: \ih. eodd
12 : \\. ten ftntf o+0*\pJ*. iff mUwoti t-
Z04>0*\r)1 \t0JfTi. • t6 xptf*«os-...<UMtp<- 4>po*tlr i*0pw*on irripxorrai (Su>

ro4.' The ppattgC is .1! ««!>! 6+*a\MOl) .1 la r .»
r«f »a<
wontrrri 4<p(H~fiaTo (Kur. fr. <Ko) <5i«a<o attribal 1 iplulu* or Philemon).
aiVot to xfH'Otor wpoaurrof' <a« wdXtr 1 b r»)t Ai«v« *>*aX**» sVf4V
'rA x/H'fffor 6pi.ua to rai Auai,' whrre iftvxov \ Wotfwr wpofu*ov tr*r#" 4>df
nter appears wrongly to assert that
1notations are from the same
<
1 sytf^ff •>• «*ltw»t «re>*» Af*>»»f. I *W«
Airir* s««s^f ra>r« r« >«)*...••
Justice* became proverbial:

'
das fr. 1 to| n i> piiwot •.'* r*« A.««i
iyb. 13. 10. 3 «rara rip wapotpJar s>«aX^t ar«eraA««sfr«4 ; In Eur. Sm/ft.
12 IO<t>OKAEOYI
5"
564 to rfjs AIktjs oip'guv cpdos is doubtful. Similarly Tr. fr. adesp. 500 AlKas
Occasionally it is varied to the eye 'of O-iXafixf/e Oeiov <paos.
Zeus' or 'of the gods': Tr. fr. adesp. 485 The metre cannot be determined exactly,
oi>x evSei Aids 6<p0a\/j.6s, iyyvt 8' iarl
j
but seems probable that two iambic
it
Kaiirep wv irpbau, 491 6£i)s Oe&v 6<p6akp.bs trimetersare comprised in the words
els ret irdv^ ISelv, 499 fitya yap 0fip.a quoted. In that case the second line is
SaifMovwv, oh t'ivovo'' dfioiftds Kaicutv. Zeus defective, and I would suggest that we
is all-seeing: O. C. 704, Ant. 184, El. should read < e £ > a/uei/Jereu, a word
1 75, 659. Tr. fr. adesp. 43, 278. Cf. suspected without any cause in Aesch.
Eur. fr. 555 d\X' T) SIkt] yap Kal 81a o~k6tov Prom. 239 KaKalai ttoij'cus Taiabi p? O-ti-
jlXtirei. The
addition of xpvaeov, still ixelyparo. The trimeter would then be
more boldly applied by Eur. fr. 486, parallel to O. T. 653. Headlam (/./'.
suggests a comparison like that of Pind. xxxi 8) preferred to arrange and read
01. 1. 1 to the searching rays of the sun thus : rd xpv°~ eov 8* T ^ J AUas 8£8opKev |
{Ant. 103, Aesch. Ag. 300, Eur. fr. 771): 6/j.fia, rbv aSiKOf 8' d/xei/3ercu.
cf. 6 iravra Xtuacrwv tjXios O. C. 869. 2 Blaydes conjectured tov t\
13
av9poiiTo^ icrTL nvev/JLa /cat cr/aa fxovov.
13 Stob. Jlor. 98. 48 (IV p. 840, 14 in this connexion, mere breath without
Hense) 2o0okX?)s Alavri (sic MA, Aiavn any substance: cf. Phoenix Coloph. ap.
i
om. S) av0puTr6s...p.6vov.' The line is Athen. 530 V eyu Nieos TrdXcu tot iytvb-
referred to this play, as not being extant p.7)v irvtvfia, vvv 5' ovk £r' oi'84v, dXXd
I
in the Aj'ax; but it is not unlikely, as More familiar is dVeuos of

777 irfTToirj/xai.
Dindorf and van Leeuwen suggested, things variable: Suid. s.v. avt/xov irai8iov,
that the ascription Mavn is an error. Eupolis fr. 376 (1 358 K. ) dvep.os Kal
The thought that Mavn was due to
latter 8\edpos dvOpwiros. — <TKid, of things unsub-
a slip of memory on the part of the stantial, is common : fr. 945. Eur. fr. 509
anthologist, who had in mind Ai. 125, tL 5' d\\o ; <p(j)VT) Kal cr/ad yipuiv dvr\p.
and that the true source of the quotation Ai. 125 bpui yap T)p.ds ovbev ovras dXXo
cannot be ascertained (de Ai. Soph, TrXriv el8w\\ offovirep fa/xev, 77 $ov(pT)v
I
ait t lien tia, p. 119). o-Kidv. Eur. Med. 1224 rd 6vr}Ta 5' ov
The epigram marks by two images the vvv irpwTov Tjyoufjiai o~nidv. Or the notion
emptiness and unreality of human life: is emphasised by some addition fr. 659, :
'Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher.' 6 (n.) el8w\ov aKias, Ant. 11 70 nairvov
In Eccl. 1. 14 the R.V. has 'all is vanity criad. Pind. Pyth. 8. 95 eirdp.epor ri 8e
and a striving after wind ' {irpoaipeo-is irvev- tls ; t'l 6' otfris; <r/ci£s ovap dvdpioiros.
/uaros LXX). But irvevjia is rarely used For con Burney conjectured I0O1.
14
cro(f)ol Tvpavvoi tcov (rofyoiv ^vvovcria.
1 4 The verse is assigned to .Sophocles identical with schol. Plat. rep. ;68 A.
by Libanius epist. 33. A fuller tradition The schol. on Ar. Thesm. 21 adds that
gives the name of the play and discusses Aristophanes in the "Hpwes (fr. 30IS 471 1
Plato's error: Zenob. 5. 98 (Md'er, Me- K.) distinctly attributed the line to
langes, p. 363 ; Crusius, Anal. p. 153) tovto Euripides, and that Antisthenes as well as
1,0(p0K\iovs io-Tiv i% AlavTos tov AoKpov. Plato did the same; he is quite at a loss
UXdTiov 8i <f>r)oiv Evpnridov elvat to lap.- to account for the confusion, but mentions
/Setoj'. Kal ovStv 6avp.ao~Tov avixirlirTovcn the view of some (wcnrep virovoovai Tives)
yap d\\r)\ot$ oi Tron}Tal. This is almost that the two poets by a coincidence hit on
' 1
AIM AOKPOI '3
the same line. See also Aristid.n p. 373 for the facts. Adam (on rep. 568 a),
liind., who treats Plato's view a> an error, while pointing out that such an en
and Aul. (Jell. 13. 10. 1, who adds to the more likely to take place in ancient time-.
confusion by substituting the Thtaetitus for than it would l>e now, thinks that the
the Theages as the dialogue containing the cant use of ao<p6% in Kuripides, made it all
misquotation. On the other hand, Plato's the easier.
attribution to Euripides is accepted by The point of the line is that kings
Stob. Jior. 4 K. 5 (IV p. 151, 10 H profit by the discourse of the wise men
and hesitatingly by Themist. p. 72 Ki- 1 who flock to their courts. The typical in*
pnri8r)i yj ojtii dj wort i<m» 6 ron/pat. stance is that of Simonides, who sojourned
late authorities, references to successively at the courts of lltppias,
which will lie found in Xauck, cite the Scopas, and lliero. Aristotle relates the
line without giving the name of any anecdote that Simonides, questioned by
author. wife whether it is lictter to be
The circumstances detailed above r.u>c r rich, replied in favour of the latter,
a curious literary question, viz. why Plato on the ground that he was accustomed to
(m Tii \ \ 1 assigned see wise men spending
their time at the
a line to Kuripides which was in fact gates of the rich [rhtt. :. tf>. 1391* 8ff.i.
written by Sophocles. may leave out We Poets are often called aofoi in respect of
of account the possibility of coincidence, their technical skill, but Simonides had
although Didymus is thought to have considerable reputation as a moralist, .111.
been responsible for this suggestion in in this capacity he appears as giving advice
criticising Aristophanes "f Byzantium, i" Hi- 10 in Xenophon's dialogue of that
ive this v. as an instance of *Aos-i) name: cf. [Plat) epmt. 1 rtpl l<pu>roi
(Nauck, Arist. Bjrt. p. 2S0). It is possible 6ra» 6ta\4ywrrcu oi drttyxwot kcU Hoi-
but not very likely that one poet was caviov rod A<ur<5a<ôi-.oc, ~r,aipot<cri r«ir
quoting from the other; soth.it an error, ZtfiwviSov tvwovaia* wapa^porrtt dn
rendered still more remarkable from the (rpait Ktti tlwt rpot a gene*
fact that it was common also to A rally A'Aes. .00 aofov rap' ir&pbt XP'I
phanes and Antisthenes, is the only <T(Xp6¥ Ti fUUr$&*tl*.
supposition remaining which will account
15
'
Tt trot 6 \iro\X<iiv KtKiOdpiKtv ;
1 S lira* Macar. |
iuddpurt* Plut.
15 /<i,, >l>. 14 (Miller, Melanges,

6. Hit' 'ArtSXXwr <rot r*$piaKtr
p. .570): '
rl <r« 6 'AriXXu-r KtKiBdpittr; vuck. following him, im^pioLttp
t6 '
KfKi8dfH*'i> inarrtioaro- uit
'
olof 1. it p. which Dindorf
iomi.
<frr)at¥ AurxiAo* iv AiavTt Ao*py. Suid. 1 ol*-l (foil. int. p. 1*7), who
t got 6 AvoWup KtKiOdpiKtr;' d*»Ti says 'nihil horum est Bopfcodl (lignum
roC rl a cm ifuurti/coLJo. To the same effect ai>b" lyyii,' actually proposes to read ti
Pint, fr.ir. 1. 7. and Macar. H. 37, bifO' o Qoifht IHiM J I do not share these
1 recogniicd that Ah-vi'-Xoi was a I

h<- harp and the Imw are
' for lo0on\7)t, as the form fetbei with ih<
not write a pla> War Ao*p6%. function as thcihicf prerogatives of \
ihoald in lb .in. ft, .// 1 ; 1 •.'*, «« *i*+pii r*

rl <roi i' 'Af4\W, which is at least <pl\il «a. KdnTtAa ri^tt, | XP*I*» *' «>***•
more metrical. generally considered
It is trwcri A«6i vitfUftrivL pov\*p. where C-emoll
that «f«i0<i/-<- .;round Callim. h. Ap. 44 +***¥ t*f •••
.icles at Delphi were delivered by rAfsv ivirpdwtrai «oi do ( <H |
«-i»« M
.lliia. wlm ! Uptal *a« Mis -1... U
*iarr«»t.
tup**!* and td\i. and as sacb pi
accompanied by the «<*«#<f, and refcned
.rl of music and snog: seetiruppe.
rwr art/ifidrur ; ! irth. p. ii.m. Thb eonncx

.
|».
'
403) nnjeclored rl( cx|.b..tly ». knowledged by Plutarchi
'4 IO^>OKAEOYI
Pyth. or. 5 p. 396 C tcalroi p.oxKTt)yiT7)% 6 sented art both as KtOapur-ris and
in
0e6s, Kai T77S \eyop.tvr)% XoyidrTjTos ov\ Kidapipftds,should be said KiOapifeii' in his
tjttov avT$ Kakbv 77 rrjs irtpi p.i\r) Kai u>8as mantic capacity. The citharoede is the
ev<pu)vLas /xere'ivai. ib. 6 p. 397 A rdxa interpreter of the citharist, as the irpo^T^s
5tj fj.(/j.\f/6/j.eda tt)v llvdiav, 8ti V\cujkt]s ov interprets the fiavrn. Cf. l'ind. fr. 150 (of
<p6tyyerai ttjs k iO apujoov \iyvpwrepov. the muse of the poet) fiavreveo Motcro,
If the Pythia was KidapipSds, it is not irpxpartvau —
Blaydes conjectured
5' iyib.
surprising that Apollo, who was repre- t'l vw 'A.irbXhwv 001 K€KiddpiKfv viov ;
16
/cat 7re£a /cat c/>op/xt/cra
16 Schol. Eur. Ale: 446 ovpeiav xAw] mon later sense of prose for the passage ;
...Tovricri perd Xi'pas. Kai wapa 2o<£o/cX« of Sophocles was quoted to illustrate the
1
ev Ai'acrt AoKptp '
Kai Trefd Kai (popp.iKTa.' text of Euripides which proceeds pi\ipouai
This is usually regarded as the only extant Kad' iirTaTovbv r bpdav l"'> ^ v T
x^
dXi/pois '
example of the word 7ref6s being applied k\{out€s i)p.voi$, and the critics are no doubt
to rhythmical verse unaccompanied by right in referring the later words to the
music. But the same use actually occurs rhapsodists. ire^d (^jtij) is the same
Thus
in Plat. soph. 237 A dpxbpevos 5e /ecu 5td as Plato's Tropins (Pliaedr. 278 c), or
xf/iX-r]
riXovs tovto avep.apTvpa.TO (\lapptvL5-qs) p-ad-^/xara dXvpa TroiTjTiov xeipeva iv

7r€tV T€ &&€ eK&ffTOTf X^ywe Kai perd ypdp.p.aai,Tois pev ptTa piTp<jjv(legg. 810B),
p.er puV ov yap pA\iroTe tovto daprj, <pt]oiv, and Aristotle's if/iXopeTfia {poet. 2 1448 s
kt€. (fr. 7 d), where the commentators un- 10). The schol. adds a pertinent illus-
necessarily suppose that oral teaching is tration (see also Phot. lex. s.w. irz'$as
referred to. Nor is there any reason why p.6axovs and irefr), and Etym. M. p. 658,
we should interpret otherwise Com. fr. 36), according to which the adjective was
adesp. 60 III 516 K. iravaat. peXipbovcr',
1 jestingly applied to hetaerae: Kai irefai hi
dXXd 7rejSJ poi <ppa<rov, or the gloss of Phot. Tives tTalpai Xiyovrai, at x u P<s bpydvov eis
lex. p. 405, 17 7re£ty ydy &vev avXov 77 to. avpirbaia (ponwaiv.
Xvpas. The meaning here is perfectly Blaydes suggests (poppiyKTa, comparing
clear, though Campbell seems inclined (raXiriyKTrjs but Meisterhans 3 p. 84 shows
:
to think that the word may have its com- that inscriptions always have <7o\tuktt]s.
17
'EXAas
17 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 97, 4 yaiav KaOaipwv yvvi]
iK6p.riv e'Spacre' irw, \
'EXXds* 6 avi\p. ~Zo<pqk\t\$ ktavTi Ao/cpy. H. dt..., where 8.y\u<ro-os is a synonym for
shows that this is an error of the Antiatticist, (3dp(3apos (Pind. Isth. 6. 24 odd' Istw ovtw
in which he does not stand alone. 'EXXds j3dp/3apos ovt€ Tra\iyy\o)<ro-os ttoXis). Here
is a fern, adjective similar to iredias, opyds, it isevident that what is to be understood
Tpifi&s, 'Acrtds, $0ids, 'Attiktj, and so with 'EXXds is yaia, but since the meaning
forth ; and it is difficult to believe without is no i/ihabitant of such a land, the transi-
definite proof that it was used (or"EXXr]v. tion to a person is easy. So in Eur.
The cause of the misunderstanding ap- Phoen. 1509 ris 'EXXds 77 {Hdpfiapos rj twv
,
pears to have been that ovO' 'EXXds ofae 7^po^^dpot0 evyeverdv l-repos irXa...;
fiapfiapos or rfa 'EXXds 17 fiappapos, with or although we pass to erepos, we shall hardly
without 777, were phrases commonly em- doubt that rts EXXds='what Hellene
ployed : Dem. 9. 27 oW 77 'EXXds oHO' 77 land? Yet there the scholiasts vary one
' :
J3dp(3apos tt)v TrXeoveîav X WP6 '- Max. rightly says rts 'EWijuikt] 777, another has
Tyr. 6. 3 et irov Kai yivoiTO rrjs 'EXXdSos fj ris ''EWtjvikt] 77 pdpfiapos, St)\ov6ti yvirq,
tt}s (3ap(3dpov 777s. The transition to the another tfyovv ris tujv dvdpjjwuv, 77* EXXt7»'
,
idea of a person is found in 7'racli. 1060 17 jidpfiapos, yet another, yp. Tts"EXX77J'.
0(50' EXXds oOt ayXuxxo-os oM' 6o-t)v iyu>

j
AIAI AOKPOI— AITEYI «5
18
Sarovfieuos
18SchoL Aeschin. :• :i p. 65, 7 i clearly that Nauck was wrong in conjec-

I kokupop oiaipovfiivot t6p
)ind. ditfiaWt Si turing 6\a\afijidpup in schol. Aeschin.
\byop] oioPti craipux \iywp xal oVru'pi* The annotators there doubted whether
nard 6taLpto ip nai ipapfpCof ff irwofitpifWP Staipoi'fjLti'ot meant accurately defining' or
'
SiafidWuy (5ia\afiftdpvp conj. Nauck)

na'i 'dividing up and so censuring,' and quoted
Wf -(HponXrji Atom <pdo*up SaToi/iMPo*'' ' darovutrot in Soph, in support of the
TO yap ai'To Svparai. latter view. The words of the scholiast,
Schneidewin (Coni. Crit. p. 101) con- as printed in Diadoffl /Wf. .SVrw»</, are
daded that the scholiast had made a unintelligible, owing to a strange dj
Mistake, and that the passage which he lion of their order. There is 1
really had in his mind was Track. 791 to in the Mss, except that cod. F does not
bvaxdptvpop Xiicrpow fpSaroifxtPot <rov rrjt j
contain the t*COM part of the note. J
ra\ai»'Tjs. Dindorf was of the lame LjCOjphr. 155 t6p ufXtPlTifp \bp6pop <»&a-
opinion; but their inference is too hasty. TovfUrt), 'chewing the shoulder m
There is do reason why Sophociei should s to the literal meaning. !
not have used daToiifitPos in the same through the ideas of repetition and in-
as ifiaroOfxtyot and we have no
;
sistence, is developed the metap
t ground for suspecting the scho- sense of 'to dwell upon,' as appliid to
lUe error. The metaphor in s 01 to s|>cech: see \
irSartlatfai is clearly explained l>y the and Tucker on Aesch. Tfuf>. 565. The
»n Troth. I.e. aipoSpuit \oiSopov- notion of hlame is not cvsenlial to the
fuwof yap otpobpCn iaOUur.
tpSartlff $ai figurative meaning of <paartia8ai, and the
\otdopuir, Kara fiipox tup
ntu<pbnivoi, same was probably true of the simple
\tyofUruiv avaKa\u)V ivSartiaBat yap to Uhoegk ti"
fupleoffOai, ii fi.tra<popa awb tuip iatpv-

i) The I. .11 in phrases dij'
':
fUvwp. To the same hut more
effect like "iir
briefly Hesych. 11 p. 89 irfarcirae a»©- in a different way : cf. biaavpw. ( >l»vcrve
Htplfti (1. i'Totupifci) ...IrJarot'pf'Of* fttpt- also that the English 'to mince' acquired
fou»Kot koI oiofti «a*uj| \4yur oipoSpwi. the sense of 'to aepfedate (
t iairdt. [Tbese extracts show yet another coarse of development.
AITEYI
>on to have thought that the
on Athcn. 122 F seems
adventure oi oecen related in 1'lu?
the subject-matter of Sophocles' play. But, as W
4) remarks, the material is only lumcient for the beginning
of a tragedy. Of tin- six fragments which arc cited from the
clearly refer to the journey made by Thcsci.
:
,s for the purpose of discovering his father, and the dai
win. h he encountered before his identity was established.

fact 1 ittle doubt as to the period covered
and : probable that t!
f the action rather than the death «»t
the return from Crete. It is thus impossible to agree frith

licke (m Pauly Wissowa I 954) that the contents of this
16 I04>0KAE0Y1
play are entirely unknown and it rather appears that Ahrens
;
was right supposing that the plot was similar to that of the
in
Euripidean Aegeus, which culminated in the recognition of
Theseus and the discomfiture of Medea (Plut. Thes. 12). But
the new fragment (fr. 25) relating to the capture of the Mara-
thonian bull is of peculiar importance, as showing that in
Sophocles this adventure preceded the recognition, instead of
occurring at a later period according to the account of Plutarch
{Thes. 14). In the Hecale of Callimachus it happened in the
lifetime of Aegeus, but was subsequent (it would seem) to the
recognition see CI. Rev. VII 429 Bô-eix? ov% e«a<? vio<; air
:
evvSpov M.apada)vo<; ^coov dycov tov ravpov, and cf. Diod. 4. 59,
|
where Aegeus receives and sacrifices the bull. But in Apollod.

epit. I. 5 Medea warns Aegeus to beware of Theseus, who is
accordingly sent against the bull on the victorious return of
;
Theseus, the attempted poisoning and the recognition follow.

Ov. Met. 7. 434 gives the same order of events. Thus, Apollo-
dorus confirms the statement of Myth. Vat. 1. 48 that Theseus
was sent against the bull at the direct instigation of Medea, and
we may conjecture that Sophocles adopted this version. The
disappearance of Medea's agency in other accounts is attributed
by Gruppe (p. 58o2 ) to the influence of Euripides, who did not
include the Marathonian adventure The considerations which 1
.
have been mentioned justify us in restoring fr. 24 to the Aegeus,

from which Nauck in his second edition separated it and it is ;
probable that fr. 905 also belongs here.
19
Tavpecov Trcofxa
19 irdua cod. : corr. Nauck

19 Athen. 122 F to 5e THavpeiov vdup inferred that the lemma of Hesych. repre-
Aiyei (ii> yai cod.,
wv6/J.a.<rev...'Zo<poK\fjs sents the text of Sophocles, but irwfia
corrected to iv Aiyei by Casaubon, to (Nauck) should be restored in place of
Aiyei by Schweighauser) onrb rod irepi the later substitute irb/xa: see Cobet,
Ipoi^rjva irora/Mov THavpov, Trap' $ Kai Kptyrq N. L. p. 455, V. L. p. 85. M. Schmidt
tis 'T6e<r<ra /caXetrat. To
the same effect preferred o-rdfia. It should be added that
but without the name of the play Eustath. Athenaeus shortly before (122 a), after
//. p. 881, 22, who copied the epitome of quoting Ar. Eq. 83 f., adds ov yap av
Athenaeus. With the help of Athenaeus etiroipu Tavpeiov v5up Tneiv, 6irep aii oiik
Casaubon corrected the corrupt gloss of oloda Brunck strangely inferred
ri £<ttiv.
Hesych. IV p. 133 Tavpeiov irbp.a- awb that Athen. and Hesych. were really
alyeiravpov iroTap.ou ?L,o<poK\rjs Tpoifrjva quoting fr. 178, which he accordingly
Trapa Kai KT7)vt) 'T6eoaa to SoiôkXjjs Aiyei supposed to have belonged to the Aegeus,
awb Tavpov worafMou <nepi> Tpoiffiva, substituting irwfxa Tatipeiov for alfia rav-
irap' if Kai Kpfyi) 'Tbeaaa. peiov.
From these facts it has rightly been Pausanias (2. 32. 7) mentions that the
1
R. Wagner's theory {Epit. Vat. p. 125) that Euripides was the first to connect
it with Medea is altogether improbable.
.
AITEYI 17
source of the river Hyllicus, which was itthe sandals and sword of Aegeus. This
originally known by the name Taurius, isenough to show that an allusion to the
was to be found on the mountain path river Taurus b appropriate to the subject
leading to Hermione, and that in the of Sophocles' play. Poi the situation of
same neighbourhood was the rock called the Hyllicus ->ee !• ra/er '< /';// imas, III
after Theseus, l>ecause he found beneath p. 279.
20
KtcTTpq (TiSrjpa nk€vpa kou Kara p<JL\t.v
naicov arrqXo^crc
20. 2 waiuy &xr)\6i)Cf scripsi: iiXofjaat vXctor codd., ^Xaw* roiw CasaulHin, •'•»
r/Xorjaa M. Schmidt, 1}0\t)O( (vel ^Xi^ra) ranvv Nauck, ^\«nwe waium Hcrwi rden,
ij\<)T)<Ta (vel -«) Xtioc Mekler
20 I'olluv 10. 160 icai Kiarpa. to jipa\tU ...a<t»pnis Irvwrtr. Similarly

otpipai ri tl6ot eiiripat, wt iv Aiytl ~<xpo- Hygin. Jal-. :S tiniuiihus suppositis tx-
k\t)1 'utarpa.. w\tiof.' llesvch. II p. 470 tenekbat. Schol. Lur. /////
K€0T)>iat ffitqpai no doubt refer to v. 1, hising Sink and Procrustes, says of the
but the explanation has fallen out. Just former: ptra <r<pt pat dwiKorrt roin »6<5at.
he has Kiarpa' apwriipiov 8r\o*. 1 Kara must Ik- taken dro Kowoii
atpC-p*. Ilartung interpreted these words with w\tvpa as well a> with pax*". Cf.
as referring to I'criphetes, called also Alcmau fr. 12 Qoiraii to nai if 6tao»9ir,
whom Theseus overthrew in I'inil. .Win. 10. 3H xaplrteal ri «ai <tvp
not far from Kp • Tvrtotpitotit, Bar. Hclid. 756. PAoen. 184,
dauruv In- view might Ik- supported
1 Soph. O. i: 7,4, fr. Hf M>:-
tpoUod. 3. j 7, where his weapon1
2 The reading is very uncertain (tM
is described as Kopv*r\* aiitjpar but two ; cr. n.); but wXdor is in any case untenable,
of the recently Minorities tad Caaaaboa'i *aiv» has a high
,h lieyund doubt that the allusion of probability. ( In theother hand, i;X7sy«
1. who fitted ( rjaat OOddd is too good to bt <luc to
provided for them •. .iixl die imt rc may be restored
his victims to the l>ed
by rutting ofl the extremi* by an alteration in the ordet of the
r lio were too big, or by hammering and the tnt r< xhu ti- >n
out the Ixxlics of those who were too und iryiXodSriatf. «hu <*d (A
small. Thedupli cor responds 52 j) of the crashing
to the doable function. His weapon, at k hurled at him. M<
e for the beating-out j
assumes that the lines are tn
a bants ; IloXwr^- missing at the beginning
Moroi rt gapTtpa* fffvpar i(ifia\<ir Upo- Imt til • s not seem
«u»rat. Apotlod. tpit. I. 4 roin pA*
21
kXvoj p.kv ovk cycuyc, \0ipiT7)u 8' •>/,<
21 I. K, J*\vontr vulg. j
A M'" d. K.
21 ~ !
X*P* P> "W- '
X*piriji, it dr6 rov ttpa iopirifi, io*ipa

i«T*piTJ)1. linpn-
bpv.' X ttP^ T1f * 'r%> '
but without MpptJ

;
18 I04>0KAE0YI
his arrival. But the emphasis so thrown O.C. 139, 1642, Phil. 1412. Meineke,
on i-ywye seems unnatural, Blaydes pre- however, thought that in reply to a
fers x w pL r V* 3' bpq. (or bpG>). The meaning remark by his interlocutor that he heard
of the text may be 'I do not learn by the sound of shouting, the speaker said
hearsay, but see with my own eyes that that he himself had heard nothing, but
you are a native,' with the same contrast now saw a native approaching.— x^p'-
as in Track. 747, Phil. 681 and elsewhere; Ttjv, a fellow-country titan cf. Aesch. :
or 'though I don't hear your voice, I can Eum. 1035. For the word see on fr. 92.
see' etc., in which case we might compare
22
7T&>5 &7}0' ohovpbv 0109 iêfirjs \a6o)v ;
22 bSovpbv oTos Valckenaer: bSovpwv (bSovpbv CI') 8/xoios codd., bbovpCov crurjvoi
Nauck
22 Schol. Pind. Pyth. 2. 57 ireiparas Staircase' (Eur. Hclid. 860 n.). Other-
Toil's Kara
iriXayos \17crras \4yofi.ev, wise, Nauck's bSovpHv ff/jiTJvos, 'nest of
Kvplus be revs iv 65cp Kanovpyovvras' robbers,' is an attractive conjecture, and
Tta.p' 8 5tj /ecu bbovpovs airrovs "S^yovcnv. bdov or the like might have been the
~Evpiiri5T]S ev 'ApxeX&v (fr- 2 ô) 'firavo-' noun to be supplied with f£^3i?s. Less
bbovpovs \vp.euvas.' /ecu Soc/xj/cXtJs ev Alyei probable conjectures are bbovpQv ofA/xar'
1 '
Truis...\a.dcbv (Wakefield), bdovpwv otfiov (Kock), bSov-
This may be taken to refer to Sciron, pbv 6/xopos (R. Ellis), bbovpwv 5/j.adov
who infested the Scironian cliffs in the (Mekler). — oSovpov, highwayman. Later
neighbourhood of Megara ; and e^^rjs synonyms were bSoidbnos and oSoot&ttis,
(c55' l(3r]s conj. Blaydes) would then ex- but bSovpbs soon became obsolete : cf.
press the successful crossing of the '
Evil ovpos, eirlovpos, <ppovpos.
23
axTirep yo~p £v <f>6WoL(TLu alyeipov fxaKpas,
kolv aKXo ftrjOev, a\\<x rovKeiviqs Kapa
KLpyjcrav avpas KavaKovfyiêi mepov
23. 1 ev (pdWotaiv M
ev<pv\\o«nv
: V 2 rrjs tethnft M 3 Kivfjffav avpas
scripsi : Ktvrjo~r}<: avpats codd. KavaKov<pi$ei
|
Brunck : avaKovtpifei codd.
23 Schol. Oil. 17 106 to. c£f>\\a tijs p-fifiv see n. on fr. 940 el adfia 5ov\ov,
:
alyeipov... eCiKivTjra pabius nal iiwb (ttJs) d\\' 6 vovs e\ev$epos, and Headlam on
rvxovo-qs (the addition of rrjs is Nauck's Aesch. Ag. 357 ff. (2) With Kav must
correction) avpas, ws Zoc/io/cXtjs ev Alyei be supplied Kiv-qo-ri or whatever may l>e
(so Heath for evapyws or ev "Apyei of the the verb in v. 3: cf. Ar. Ach. 102 fut- 1
i
MSS) uairep...wTep6v.'' rprjo-ov elpijvqs ti /lot, koLv irivr' Inj.
1 £f. The last line is certainly corrupt (3) The words cv cpuXXouriv have a
(see cr. n.), and has not hitherto been certain awkwardness; and clearly they
satisfactorily emended. The following do not qualify the clause Kav aWo p.i)bev.
points should be observed: (1) it appears Thus the general sense would be 'even
to be certain that aXXo |rn8tv and Kcipa are if the breeze is so light as to stir nothing
both accusatives, so that the subject is to else, it sways the poplar's head amidst its
be looked for in v. 3. At any rate, the foliage,' — in summer as well as in winter.
order of the words shows that TovKeiv-rjs But it is difficult to see how ev <pv\\oi<riv
Kdpa bears the main emphasis, and is can be made to cohere with irrepov, if the
co-ordinated and contrasted with aWo latter is interpreted leafage (L. and S.).
AITEYI 19
Hence conjectures like F. W. Schmidt's V. W. Schmidt altered vrtpim to p4*o*,

tWaiawyap, and several of Blaydc-. Gomperz to s-dXtr. Hut I do not think
t K&pa is the object of avaKoixplfci that wrtpbv i> likely to lie corrupt, and
-sicd, if not required, by 0.7'. 23 prefer to suppose that it refers to the
(woXti) aa\(i'tt K&ra*ov<pi(Tai K&pa \
[IvdGi* 'Wtagi of tM wind' (see Psalms iX. 10.
It' oi>x <H«i t* ipotyiov <ra\ov. Thus the 104. 3). reading Kivijcar aCpat, and making
-more than the schol. states, aCpat rrtpof the subject to dra»oi-etf<i,
rering of poplar leaves in the breeze which is merely emphasized by coi (TrtuA.
"' >v. Am.
1. 7. 54 /// aim fwf>ui<.: 490, Phil. 380). The metaphor is none
::mi tomas. Her. 14. 40); but their too bold for Sophocles ; wind-gods such BJ
truth to nature, as interpreted above, is Boreas were regularly represented in fifth
within everyone's observation. Dindorf's century art as winged. In I-atin litera-
elegant conjecture /rtrei tu at'po (with ture there are many parallels: cf.
Kopaxovipi^ti, which seems inevitable) is Met. 1. 164 madidis Xotus exolat nits, and
accept- k, bat it does not get see Thesaurus i 1465. 50. It is possible
over the difficulty of vrtp6i>. The same that this was If. Schmidt's view, who in
remark applies to Tucker's Ingenious sup- Phiiol. xvill 319 f. proposed to read
plement to DiodorPiCorrection, reeV atfrin *rep<£ for rr*p6r, but he gives no ex-
Kdpa for roi'KCirip tapa. Hlaydcs, making planation of his conjecture. Wecklcin's
ndpa subject, pro|>osetl Kivyfdif aPpaii wi myri m
aOpa, **d>ra Koiipifai xrtpor
wrtpof Kovipifcrai (or rip thii^r avaxTtpoi), {i.e. 'omnia tolluntur') is condemned
M well as several other alternatives. Her- by the awkwardness of wrtpi*. II.. who
reads xXivrc ru aCpa *draKoi'^tf<t
1 thought that the subj. Kirhaj/i was due
wtob», where *Xir<(, although otherwise to tar in the previous line, suggested
less suited than KtPti to supply Ktrrifftt atpti; but wc cannot do without
a verb to *dr a\\o wii*. See also Boor. aCpa.
• an ,1a tOr rjfiCJf iftfiot A*pa Kirfyr-g.
24
U>pUT(V TTCLTrjp
ifiol p.kv aKTas rrjcrSe -yr}<; < drroiKifTai, >

npeafiela fet'/ia? •
< clr >a \ vku>
24. 1 warrip wf*a<v Strab. 2 iftoi p.iv a. .¥ th d«rdt r$ri* yijt Strab. |
iwot-
«i»ai aibi. II. 8 ffra suppl< \ii Mrineke
24 Strabo 39a of r« o*> tt\p 'AT$lia thecommon opinion, subsequently chugged

evyypaifravTii,roXXd ota^wroirrrf, tovto his mind, and miiIimui giving any reason
y* 6no\oyovoiP, at >« \tryw d{to«, Sri tup noki "i the MripCHM m 'MfnteUt*'
IlariiOfirtvK Ttrrapunr 6Vrwv, Aly4**t rt I cannot see to what play the words are
• 01 Aiôf *a» llaWacrut »a< T#rdproi' appropriate, if not to the Jefnti. especi-
irrucift «tt rOrapa ^r"*" ally now have lwen enlarged
that our data
rot rV M«>afWJa Xdx M in regant to the scope of the play: see
-o« Trjr X ((Tatar. 4>tX6x oput </•//</ Utrodoctorj lefcreoce to
» d»d '\c6p.oi> fi*xP* T<" Pallas jxiinis in ihc same directitw, a»
avroC >p~i)tn Ti\p apx*l*' "Ardpw* may be seen from I'lut. Pht
1
) &i trfXJ* 'BXcivirot *al rot/ direct evidence. 1
1 mm h
6pa/rioi w#.lioi . T^jr o' *»« rirrapa diaco- apart from this passage of BCiaho, MMM9sV
M^", dWurr dXXwi tlpykdrw, &p*ti rarra ing die fourfold diMMon of Attica between
*apd ZoôKX/off \a(ku>- <pjjai &' 6 Aiynt the sons of P.umIi.h. vplicii
tri 'o waTJjp wptotr ifioi n*r a statement lo l* found el»ewhere 1* HhsL m
d«rd» ri)<r6* ^^f Tptlfki* mua% a \i / il SiipntQ y*t »i *' viptUi
1 H
•
.KW IldWat.' »aXaiir Arr..i) llardiW y*p laM*
r>
rmerly assigned lo M»rot r*r K4*por* (ImttXtim*, *p~rr+

with |goi • •
: but *dfi«rof 9i itU rM MiyptU, trmpt r+r
who la bit 1 it edhtaa followed X»Wx" "'* *•*'*' «'« ** M^pw» Ai>W»t>
a—a
— : — —
20 ZO0OKAEOYI
tqv avTL-rrXevpou Krjnou Ev/8ota? v4p.ei-
Ntcrw Be rrjv 6jxav\ov eâtpel ^dova S
iKLpajvos a.KTr}<;' T779 Be yrjs to 7rpb<; votov

6 o~K\rjpb<; ovtos /cat yiyavTas 4kt pe<f)(ov
eLkt)ye LTaXXas.
4 i/ûei Coraes: vipnav vulgo, litteris fiuv in cod. A. m. sec. suppletis 5 8p.av5ov
et 8fia\ov al. 6 ZneLpwvos Strab.
T7)v iraph (1. Trepl) rb acrrv p.ixP l llffliou, cr. nn. (i) Meineke (followed by Xauck)
llaXXavri 8£ tt]v irapaXlav, AvKip 5£ tt)i> gave : £/j.oi p.h Cbpiacv irarijp |
d\rds d?re\-
AiaKpiav, Nt«rif) 8£ tt)v "Aleyapiba. The 8elv Tjjcrdf yrjs... j irptffPeia.vd/xas' tiro...
allusion to the Pythion in the Daphne Avicif). He would fill up the gaps with
pass, where a monastery afterwards stood, irpocreo-iripovs and devrepip. (2) Casaubon
indicates that Philochorus is the ultimate conj. and Brunck edited irarrjp 5' direX- :
source of the scholiast. Briefer but to dtiv wpttr' eis d/crTji' l/iot, irpeffêta veifxaz
|
the same effect, though without the words rijaSe yrjf r1 fiev ought to be kept.
The schol. on Eur. Hipp. 35, who derives (3) J. suggests either £p.oi piv apx^-" [ot
other parts of his note from Philochorus, dpxV) w/>«r' «'s d»crds Trarr/p or £/aoi /n^**
has a garbled account, omitting Lycus, tlpiaa' irarrip |
djcrds avdcrcreii' rijcrbe yrjs
and giving no explanation of the divided K€KT7jniv(f>. (4) Blaydes conjectured
rule. A somewhat different version ap- Tvpcwveiv or epotKeiV for djreXtfeu' and
pears in Apollod. 3. 206, which agrees wished to introduce irapa.KTias. — Lycus
with Pausan. 1. 5, 4. 39, 4. According was subsequently driven out by Aegeus
to this, the four sons divided the country (Pausan. 1. 19. 3).
between themselves after the death of 4 avTiirXtvpov, opposite, c. gen. Strabo
Panel ion, when they had returned to speaks of Attica as a triangle with three
Athens and expelled the Metionidae irXevpai (or ir\evp&) the second which is
;
Apollodorus illustrates Soph, by con- firjvoeid-q^ extends as far as Oropus in

cluding with the words elx« 5e rb irav Boeotia, tovto 5' earl rb bevrepov irXevpbv
Kparos Aiyevs. Upov rrjs 'Attiktjs (p. 391). Ktjirov, 'do- —
'Aegeus speaks: irarrip is Pandion. main,' as in fr. 956, 3.
1. Aegeus obtained the capital, Athens, 5 ofiauXos is similarly applied to per-
with the Athenian plains, and the coast sons in a satyr-playof uncertain authorship
of those plains which was specially called (Ox. Pap. 1083.fr. 1. 8): see also Hesych.
'Aktti (Diet. Geo. 1 p. 322 : cp. Strabo 9 Ill p. 201 has 8p.av\ov 6/j.6koitov, bfj.ov
p. 391), the dcrrv, the webids, and the o.ktt). a.v\i£6/j.ei>oi>, and cf. fr. 717, Aesch. Cho.
2. Lycus got the Aiaicpia, the highland 597 £v£vyovs 5' bfiavXlas. —
c£aip€i the act. :
district in theN.E. of Attica, between is used of the donor, and the middle of the
Parnes, Pentelicus and the sea. 3. Nisus recipient. See Jebbon Track. 245. Hdt.
got Megaris, where he founded Nisaea 4. 161 t<£ fiacriXh Bd.TT(f> reixivta itêXuv.
the sea port. 4. Pallas got to irpbs 6 Sxipcovos Akttjs. The genitive is
vbrov —
i.e. the southern coasts, from governed by 8/j.avXov as = "ye/roj o. ,
For
Sunium to Cape Brauron on one side the Scironian rocks see on fr. 905. The
(the E.) and to C. Zoster on the other route extending for about six miles along
the trapaXia. the cliffs between Megara and the Eleu-
This legendary division must have had sinian plain, and known in modern times
a basis of fact. After the Megarid had as the 'Evil Staircase,' is described in
been reft from Attica, the three other Frazer's Pattsanias, II p. 546 f.— For the
divisions are found corresponding with form l^Kipuiv (not ~Keipwv) cf. Callim. fr.
political parties in the sixth century B.C. 378. That the form with 1 is the older is
— the IleSiets, the IldpaXot, and the attested by inscriptions on stone (CIG
AictKpioi (Hdt. 1. 59: Plut. Solon 13, 7723) and vases (Gruppe, p. 5yo ). to (i
Did. Geo. 11 p. 324).' (J.) irpos votov. Blaydes should not have
1 ff. These lines cannot be restored jectured vbrov, for the accusative is well
with any certainty, more particularly as established: see Kuehner-Gerth 1 515.
the tradition of Strabo is mutilated see : 7 f. The fifty sons of Pallas had
AITEYI— AiniGOS
already plotted against Aegeus before slew a giant of that name: Suid. /..-.
the appearance of Theseus, wishing to IldXXa*, Etym. M. p. 640, s 4 cf. Apollod. ;
secure for themselves the succession to 1. 37. (2) As the Chudak Pallene WM
the throne (Pint. Thts. 3). Subsequently, the scene of the giants' defeat, so Theseus
I'allas and his SODS revolted against destroyed the I'allantidae at the Atti.-
mail. 1. IS. 1), but were I'allenc (Hut. I.e.). (3) Two
fed l>y him (Apollod. ff<it. 1. 11, MM were named Clytus and Butes (Ov.
I'lut. Thes. 13, I'ausan. 1. 18, 10, Kur. 500), two of the giants ( lytius and
—
Hipp. 35). The description of Psllas'a liotes. It is further to be observed that
very remarkable, and Tzetze- M.itranga 11 5S0 calls
the reax>n is not plain. may note, We Aegeus and Hippolytus giants. It may
however, the following coincidences which l>e, however, that the I'allantidae arc
link the legend of the battle lietween the called yiyarret in virtue of their insolent
giants and the gods with the defeat of the QppOM*Uoa to authority; in the case of
I'allantidae (Gruppe, O'r. Myth. \
Capaneus (Aesch. Thtb. 411, quoted by
(1) Athena was called I'allas because she J.) the significance of the name is obvious.
25
K\(ocrTrjp(TL xtipoiv 6pyd(Ta<; Karrjvvcrt

crtipala Secr/xa.
25 Phot ed. Reitz. p. 64, 8 dcoeVat t^p dtpSwoXip i\daai *ai $unt Xtyrrai rp
OfTful' KCL0b\oV ii TOwiXwi XP^"fT(u T V &" ' 0*y. The words "f Sopbo
AUiTi' *ai ybpiwi rov /fy/£at, wt 'Apx'^°X 0, <
the preparation of the cords by which the
AiVx'Xoi hi fri rou Taiorra /{cXarrr ir Kol bull WM
kd. KXtMTTTJpOl X ,l fM* v '"
naXarruv riOtKri, ZoôaXtji 6i iv Alyt't hand- madt twisting* (of wi
• <f>r)oi > top &rfo4a OTpi$o*T9. «ai fxa\dr- Pollux 7. 31 cXwcrrô oCtu rai r»jr
' M
rorra roin Xiryoif woirjecu dtfffjA r$ rat'py. TtpwrpoQi,* tou \Ipov Ei'/xrtfl»jt wr6pa*«r
U ofarun' 'K\ucTij(xn...Stfffid.' (fr. 1001), \irov xXitsrTijpa ntptfifm
Xo-
Theextract cl<arly relates to the adpw*. 7Vo. 537 k\u9tou &' dn4*(U>-
Kur.
venture of the Mar.-1thoni.1n bull, and Xoit \Umo, of the ro[)es used to pull the
that it formed a part of 1 horse into the city. I r dfyatrat •
of the AtgttU'. see Introductory cf. frs. 481, 787 and for ortipoii
did not kill the bull on the spot,
- //>'. toil (TiV ry -)/porTi &*fft& OHpaiwr
but captured it and drove it back to the Ppdxw <Ut>»roM*" *7>dt »iora.
I
here it was subsequently sacrificed keit/enstcin thinks that the Htl

Apollo: of. Pint Thes. 14
r made from a somewhat lengthy discussion
X'ipwtfdufKot 4wti*l(aro (uirra 6id rov of 4p>dfw, and assign* it to I'hrynichu*
dfrioi i\daat, tiro, ry 'Aa-6\Xwri ry A'\- on the strength of Bckk. ant
0*»(y ««t/Oi'it'». r.ui>an 1. :;. •) rbr W and p. i). 31.
Mapalwri ravpo* C-artpop iiv
Aimooi
The evidence conm- ophoclea with •» play bearing t hi^
<l<.tit)ttul that it i^ idle t<>
--i><
n the Homeric venion o(

I mnon'i murder; .»n«l
*
ell as a Ctytatmutrm Ribbeck, / A7- :
Pl>. 1, 161. See also Introductory N«»tc to the tpkigmUu

—
22 IO<t>OKAEOYI
26
r)\iG)TTO<s ovpavos
26 Philodem. depiet. p. 22 G. < Alax'"- Zevs toi wdvra X^7 1 tuv^' inriprepov
t<x
"
Xos> 5' iv 'H\td<(jiv rbv> Ala Kal and the evidence of Philodemus has
ai$4<pa X^yei K>ai yrjv koI <otipavb>v effectually silenced the doubts of those
Kal ra irdv<Ta Kal v>ir£p ra irav <t who thought that Clement was handing
'•
Evpnrl > 5t/s 5' iv Mixffots Kal>rbv Ala down a false tradition. It has now been
Kal <.oipau6> v TjXiuirdv, <Ho<f>oK\r}$> 5' shown that the pantheism of Aeschylus is
Alyl<rd(f} <ovpavbv fx>bvov, iv Olivet 5i due to Orphic influences, and that such a
Kal r>bv
Ala. doctrine flourished in Orphic circles in
Such the restoration of Gomperz as
is the sixth century or even earlier: see
given in his edition and it is evident that
; Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, I p. 97 E. tr.
the latter part of the extract is very doubt- Perhaps then the hinted identification of
ful, and that both the name of Sophocles rfKiwwbs ovpavbs and ijXiwirbs Zei/s is less
and what he said rest upon an uncertain remarkable in Sophocles than it appears
conjecture. Wilamowitz (Anal. Eur. p. at first sight.
1 6 ) also reads < ~Zo<poK > [\]r)s S' iv Mucrots Eor the connexion of Helios with Zeus
1
above. This is the more vexing, as there see on fr. 752. ij\iwir6s does not occur
is no extant passage of Sophocles with a elsewhere, but belongs to a class of ad-
pantheistic import so clearly marked as jectives (Koikuirbt, eupwTris, WKTfpwirbs
the fragment of Aeschylus (fr. 70), or etc.) which is common in tragedy. In
Eur. fr. 877 dXX' aldrip tiktci <re, K6pa, \
many cases the second member of the
Zfus 5s avdpwirois ovofidêrai, fr. 941 6/>£s compound had so weakened that it
tov vxj/ov tov5' Aireipov aWipa ...toutov\
became a mere suffix, as has been shown
vdfJLtfc ViTjva, rbvS' ijyov Oebv cf. frs. 839,
: by Sturtevant in Class. Phil, vti 428 ff.
911. The lines of Aeschylus are pre- In ijXiwirds, however, the meaning 'ap-
served by Clement of Alexandria: Zetfs pearance' can still be recognized (ibid.
iffriv aW-qp, Zei)s Se yfj, Zevs 8' ovpavos, |
p. 422).
27
appvd/xcov
27 Hesych. I p. 293 dpvdnwv do-vp:- rhythm of verse, and is said to be un-

<pwvwv. SoôkXtJs Alyladip (so Musurus limited (dwipavrov); or else kerning bad
corrected the MS, which gives alyl Sw : rhythm, discordant, as when it is cc1
Dindorf conjectured Alyet or Al0lo\f/i, trasted with to eSpvdfiov (Plat. rep. 400 r.
Bergk Aldwvi). It was employed in the latter sense r*
'
appvOfios may be either without rhythm Sophocles, and so metaphorically c
24, where it Eur. Hipp. 529 /j.tjt' Appvdfxos Atfois (
13
as in Arist. rhet. 3. 8. 1408
is contrasted with ifiperpos having the Aphrodite).
AI0I0T7EI
Heyne title should be identified witnP
conjectured that this
the Memnou whichmentioned with other Trojan plays in the
is
Argument to the Ajax (p. 3 J.). He is followed by Welcker

(p. 136), and is probably right, although anything in the nature
of proof is of course impossible. The outline of the plot may
Ainzooi— AioionEi 23
in that case be gathered from Proclus chrestom. (AMioirfc, EGF

p. 33) Mefiviov Be 6 'Hot/<? vio? e\wv lfaaioroTevKTov iravo-rrXiav
trapayiuerai tois Tpaxrl ftotjd/jaa)!" <a\ fteVtc. to> TraiBl rd tcara
top y>\£fivova irpoXeyei. /cat <rvp.fSoXtj<i yevofi(vjj<i Wvt iXoxps Otto
Me'ui'oi'ov eirena \\-îXXev<i Mc/xt'ora mtWmi" ttai
nvaipelrat,
p.tv Hok
Atov aiTrjaafxem) adavaaiav Sibtaari.
irapa
iiylus also wrote a play entitled Memnon (TGF p. 41 and ),
made the death of Memnon the subject of his H'trôo-raota.

Wagner thought that Strabo 728 made a slip in quoting
Aeschylus <fr. 405) as his authority for the statement that
Memnon's mother was a Cissian woman, and that it ought to
have been attributed to Sophocles.
28
TOiaUTCt Toi (TOt 7T/X>5 X**/31 *' TC K °^ ^ l V

Xeyaj- crv 8* avro? aj<nr€p oi ao<f>ol to. ficu
StVat' cVaiVet, roO 8e Kephaivuv fyou.
28 \ "(.
a. 111 c e0/XH Tit 4* Owo tw» a f. <ro4>oi This appears to be a
d\\wf rotifrwr i} xai aotpiarCiv \» rj 6vo reference t<> rontemjMirary Soph ist
yoif worr/pwi tifrqui»a, ola vapa ^.otftotXtt . . its fortaenee on Sophoclea see Nestle
to i* Al6lo\(>iy tifrt)fiiwor 'roiavra fx ov -' . in C/ats. Phil. v. 154. Athenaeus also
V. 1 f <ri ' 0' ai roj ./x<w »'c also quoted refers to El. 61, and quotes from Thco-
tath. //. p. 753, j 1, who drew from -6 KtXwur pit s-X/or fx*'*. 1*Oirtir
the epi Vtbenaeus. H to too*. Ktcoeles expresses a similar
1 toi attached to the DTOOOUB with
is sentiment in Kur. PHmh. 509, where see
determinative force: Me Jchb on .-//. n. II <|ii<'tt> r. fr. adesp. <j rofi iii*
I
Kocboer-Gcitb, | 506. 6. -irpo« itKcuov H)r 4<Wi?<rcr &pr\-eo, t« I fpya r*9

\
X^fHV •
and not 10
(Mi.iile tw dowrrot #ctfa cfooartit, aixl thinks thai
'['.
1 5 1 av s-pot X^P " *•'•' •**
1
1 our passage may belong 10 Ody»M
Va/wf 0' «V*«t, where it is the person whom '
ivaW
iscd wh<> hints at the «4r Kpttidntrot Ktp&aUmr ri ^XXot.
tl 7*
JtwjioTOi trX/owrt* ^ pit* See also on fr. 154, 4. For t» sain
II \6ytf> *ti<rai>Tti dftir, ^ s- pot fog fat *od- larly placed at the end of a II
'iijffftft o*' dreuTff ltJ7 ri flip dX>i<rr*. and for the Mn»
I
»oot x^P1 ' "afat rtrpoi't. Ocm. 8. I in the ute <<( the artidc and ai
'Torrat AVarrat ufa* s*/«ot i.'s nn. on Ant 409, /'*//. |I1
Ix^pa* wottiaOtu \6yop uijdVra >«^r« »pot fa-aim implies what we CKore**
the emphatic tautology cf. damn uilh taint ft
j t« ««/x rf*wr. rV 6\iiv' o«>""r, ntyd\l *' *opr<a M

»'*6i'Ta >' ai'ror, ttXXA S*pot W»*ai. Cf Juv. 1. 7 4 frMtmt Ummtmr
'• ./*o »l.inati..n ifnTi/p imt
rf«wr, w*- 0(a the parpOM not merely
is '
imilnr that the Stoics made
pate an obj
virtur ioo, jo. I'lut. Sf*.
101) thought that Sophocles
rritten 'pot x*f** Tl *"'' and dnrjrstppos employed it >s art
(U*» as '
longe cot Thin is an to deduce therefrom tl "f fate
- are of ,-
p. 110 Be).
24 IO0OKAEOYI
29
TeTpdnrepoL yo.p voirov kv oecr/xw/xacrt^
a(f>r)Kol KeXaLvopives
29. 2 KeXaipopwes Phot., Etym. M. cod. D: ii.t\aivbpivi% vulgo ap. Etym. M.
editur
29 Phot. /&r. p. 22, 15 ea<pt)KU)tJ.ivov was called fivpuvZ- R« Holland in Koscher

i<r<f>iy[iivov, dirb twv ffcpriK&v, ol /card II 2656 sees in fj.vpnr)Kes an allusion to the
p.iaov e<T<pt.yiA{i>oi' (vdev Kai 6 <r<p-r)V 2o#o- Myrmidons.
kXtJs Aidto\f/i toi>s {ff<piyntvovs fivpfxriKas In the absence of the context it is best
rrj aapudxrei'
i
TerpdirTepoi...Ke\ai.vbpivei.' to connect tv Seo-jiw|ia<riv with <r<f)T|Koi,
The same words are found in Etym. Af. 'pinched with strapping': cf. Nonn.
'
p. 385, 3, but without the name of the Dion. 1. 192 84fffiiov Avdpo/xtSriv iripif)
play. Hesych. iv p. 1 14 ffcprjicoi gives the cr<pr\Kwaa.To Seafii^. Poll. 2. 25 ovk
explanation ov Kexv/J-tvot rrj crapuwo-ei, t.a<t>riKU)p.£wr}v, ovk tvSerov. A. P. 16. 195
dXXa avveacptyixivoi. Hence Naber, in his Kai raj djKvfi6\ovs irepiTjyias £a<p-i)Kwot \
edition of Photius, proposed to restore Xti-po.%, inrb S^crd/xevos

OTi/Jap(p k'iovi :
2o0o/cXt?s kidlo\pi <v<f>i)Kov i Ka\el> rovs i

ff<prjK6s appears to be an adjective with
i<x<piyp.4vovs fivp/xriKas < Kaiov Ktx v /M ^ vovi > the sense of <r<p7)Kw5r)> Ar. Plat. 561 :
rrjaapKwffei, and. ingeniously conjectured iax"oi Kai <T<pT)Kwdeis Kai roh ^x^P°' s
that the words formed part of an allusion aviapoi is well illustrated by Heliod. 10.
to the giant Indian 'ants' described by 31, where a wrestler is described as o\ov
Herodotus 3. 102 —
105, as being smaller rb <rwfj.a <T<(>i)KU}<ras, 'with all his body
than dogs but larger than foxes, resembling braced.' Cf. fr. 341. Blaydes suggests
the Greek ant in form, and pursuing with <r<t>7]KToi or <r<piKToi. The tragic rerpd-
exceeding swiftness the Indians who come wrepos is parodied in Ar. Ach. 1082
to gather the gold-bearing sand. These Ttjpvbvri TeTparrriKif) (see on fr. 11 27),
animals, he thinks, were mentioned in a which refers to a locust.
description of Mesopotamia, the home of For allusions in Soph, to Herodotus see
Memnon, to which belonged the epithet JebbonO.C. 337.
dpOo-rrrepos (fr. 33). Nauck, who accepts Dindorf restored KeXaivoppives, but no
Naber's view, would prefer to alter ko.1 6 rule can be laid down for these cases see :
<x(f>^v in Photius to /caXei (t^tjkoi'S. Lobeck e.g. Aesch. fr. 300, 2 XtiXos iwrdpovs.
(Pkryn. p. 674) took an entirely different The epigraphic evidence is also fluctuating:
view of the meaning and found a clue to; Meisterhans 3 , p. 95.
it in the fact that a cestus with metal studs
30
avapKTOv
30 Hesych. 181 HvapKrov avvirb-
I p. avapKTov is given by M
in Aesch. Emm.
raKTOv, <ou> ovdeh fjpi-e (ypt;ai cod. av 529, where most editors substitute dudp-
ap$eie conj. Blaydes). 2o0okXt?s Aidioxf/i. XfTov (Wieseler) for metrical reasons.
ov was added by Musurus.
31
av
ivOofio CTKOV
31 Hesych. I p. 203 dvOofioo-Kbv (cod. of the bee, the compound agrees with the
dvdofibcKov)' dvdoTpb<pov (qu. dvObrpotyov). normal usage of fibcrKv, for which see
2,o<poK\rjs AWio\pi. L. and S. render Neil on Ar. Eq. 255, inf. fir. 140. It is
nourishing, growing flowers; but, apart perhaps superfluous to quote Horn. B 89,
from authority, I should have thought Eur. Hipp. 77. Ahrens, however, finds a
that the word must mean flower-fed, unless reference to Anthemusia in Mesopotamia,
it can be shown that fibaKeiv dvdyj was which he supposes to have been the home
applied to a gardener. But, as an epithet of Memnon.
AlOIOnEI— AIXMAAQTIAEZ *S
32
a7ricrrct
32 Hesych. 1
p. :.|i da-Mrr*?' iveifttt. (Stallhaum on .//v/. 391 I; but is other-
—<xf>OK\j)i Aidioipi {alOio^/ end.). wise unknown to Attic prOM. For dVi»Tot
i-rtaTtlif in the sense of to disobey is see on fr. 617. On the other hand vur-
common inSophocles: see Ant. 219, 381, Tti'tiv for to obty is rare: Jebb on Tra<h.
656 etc. Harpocration quotes Antiphon ui8.
(fr. Jt) as using it, and it occurs in I'lato
33
opdowTepov
33 i ;>. 446. 19 6pd!>irrtpov the meaning is easy: 6. would l>e like
noXwroif
ZtxpoKXffi AiOio-y/iv 6pdoCn Ixo^ra rtplwTtpot an epithet of *a(Jt, signitying
to -yip iit Pôt a^x o>rra *Ttpd IXtyof flankdi with columns. The word wtpl-
koI Ttt xtploTya. Remrch. p. 119 m xrtpot occurs several times in Atben.
explains the word but does not refer to 105 A K. ami m.in interpreted by (asau-
Sophocles as using it 6p06rr«pos' fi*ya- : bon with the help of \ itruv. .?. 3. 6.
Xoit *o\u>»>o:'i {fityaXw. ovt cod.) txovaa- describing tustyli ratio, wrtpbv is properly
TTcpA yip Ttt tl% fof/oi i^x o,rra -
V /"<7*Xttf applied to the projection of the ceiling of
« the colonnade winch stretches out from the
fôiâ vtpiffTifavt (rcraoin cod., vtpiffrv- cella on either side and re-ts upon the
1 oinoioft&i. pillars; it thus follows the analogy of the
The corrupt text H name itrdt, as given to the gable: Gobi
and Koner.p. 21. Q
Inf. jJUduûr/orai
Kllendt mentions without approving it a Mlh, with Jebb'sn. (7) Hut (DC
proposal to substitute J/joi't far Ktk ti mt graphers appear to assert that Sophocles
in Phot., thus giving to the adjective a 0M« to 6p$bwr*pw the meaning. 'with
meaning similar to that of u'fn'artpvoi. lofty hilK.' It is impossible to say what
But there can be little doubt that 6p66 iiion. if any, they had for making
irripos «a> ti~<-.i i.y Sopb.in '.
this statement.
building, (i) In the latter case
AIXMAAQTIAEZ
Welch nicnt of this play (pp. 171
17' cHul —
and unconvincing \l From ipared with Eur. />• n><>
fr.
that the death of Astyanaxwas the central incident

of th N that the Astyamu of A
.1 from S
do not show any point ol

nt9 I with
the / and no other model iu At A<
whi.h Wel< kei thinks was 1
\ uncertain in the extrenu venifout

w tr»<> little <>f his methodj
to be justified — in th<- ab y corroboration ia using
.
of the AstyanoA for the reconstruction <«f the
26 ZO<t>OKAEOYI
At^/xa\o)Tt'5e<?. The title obviously suggests that the plot was

similar to that of the Troades but the fragments are unfortu-
;
nately indecisive, and the only certain fact is the statement in

the Argument to the Ajax that the play belonged to the Tpcoucri
it pay /xare La. There is nothing whatever to support Ahrens's
guess that the plot is to be found in Hygin. fab. 109, which
deals chiefly with the story of Iliona.
On the other hand, A. Schoell and Bergk conjectured that the 1
play was largely concerned with the demand for the restitution
of Chryseis as related in the first book of the Iliad. This view
was mainly based on frs. 40 and 43 but Hartung, who accepted ;
it, unwarrantably assumed that Chryses was an alternative title
for the same play on the ground that frs. 38 and 730 should be
identified.
Brunck strangely thought that the AtÂiaXtwriSe? was a satyr-
play. The reason which moved him is no longer applicable,
since it is now admitted that the line which Harpocration appears
to attribute to Sophocles (fr. 34) is actually a fragment from a
comic poet.
More
recently O. Rizzo 2 endeavoured to reconstruct the play,
with the help of a sepulchral relief discovered near the Porta
Salaria at Rome, and of the fragments of Accius. He concludes
that Odysseus was the chief character on the Greek side, and
that he announced to Andromache the impending execution
of Astyanax. The latter was not a child, as in Euripides, but a
full-grown youth.
34
(rrpaTov KauapTT)<; KaTTop-ayixaroiV 1 S/H5
34 Harpocr. p. 28, 5 awonaTTwv... both technical terms in connexion with
2)o0ok\^s ev Alx/*a.\wTL<n 'orparoO... ceremonies of lustration and purification.
tSpis' Kai iraKiv '
Seivdraros airo.uaKTris re The former, according to the explanation
The second extract
fieydXicv avfifpopHv.' of Wvttenbach (on Plut. de supers'. 3
in Harpocration was printed by the earlier p. 166 A), denotes the smearing of the body
editors as a fragment of Sophocles, but with the magic substance, and the Litter
Nauck is almost certainly right in attri- the wiping off, 'sed utrumque promiscue
buting it to a comic poet. The lexico- de tota lustratione dicitur.' Hence both
grapher's note is attached to Dem. 18. words are sometimes coupled with Kad-
259 (part of the famous description of aipetv cf. Etym. M. p. 573, I.
: airotwry-
Aeschines) nadaipuv robs reXovuevovs fiara is strictly the offscourings (ra &tto-
Kai a.Trofia.TTCx)v rip wrjXip Kai tois ttltv- KaOa.pp.aTa Bekk. anecd. p. 431, 31:
pois. wepi.p.6.TTUv and airopaTTeiv are 7repi0eiw,uara Hesych.), and it is unneces-
1
Alternatively, he argued from schol. Hom. \ 547 that the subject might have
been the oirXwv Kpiats. See Jebb, Ajax, p xvi.
2
O. Jh. viii 824: the article became known to me from Gruppe's summary in
Bursians Jahresb. cxxxvn 157.
.
AIXMAAQTIAEI 27
sary to follow Campbell in making it Hartung, following Schoell's view that

equivalent to 'acts or means of purifica- the subject of the play is the same as that
tion.' Cf. Menand. fr. 530 ill 152 K. of the 1st Imk)W of he Iliad, thinks that this
1
( = Phasma 54 p. 205 Korte) *tpttia(d- line bl part of an appeal for a prophet who
ruxrdf <r' al 7i*euVe» 4» *r/tXy, kqX rtpi- \ shall be COSapctettI to save the army from
fftuxraruaaf. The description woulil fit the plague. Weleker holds that the
reference is to Calchas.
35
atrrri? fitv 17/^77 \1yS09 wc. TrvKuofifianl
35 Tjurf Nauck
\i~,6ot T)ni\ifSot : rodd., ijftlw Xi>oot Leopardus |
rwrouuoro"
ey: Tvurunari AH, rrvKvbr ward ('
35 I'ollux 10. 1 89 aiTO 84 to wfjkipor, are fieniue) is described by Kluemncr

T(pnl\itft* ra xXaadivTa. n-ifpiva, a card Tethnolozie, IV p. j8o. In Phot. lex.
rvpos Tpo<T<poftdy rij«ereu xai wo\\a p. 12$, 6 \iy60s is not clearly distinguished
intiftf) rpvirfmara. 4»axo\tixtrai, \lyiot from the melting-pot or crucible itself:
(fil\iy8oi codd.) *aAetra(* 68tw xal —c»po- Xwrot rprjuaTa lx wr <"' y *XV f4««apa (leg.
*Xijj t<pi) if A/;r>ia\u>r<Mt
'
aarii... tvkp<1>- ry 6) rapax\^jia, it' wr 6 xaXcot tflttrat.
fian.' TO this passage Hesych. i p. 4^4 Hoth meanings appear in the glosses pre-
alludes: y\l8ov x ***11 '
''* °D* ri'-Tott serve<l in EtttatK Otl. p. IOSO,
^
.-
,
rat r6 4» rjj X^"V T ^"f *** T V- Dion. fr. 2i<) Schw.), the last of which
udrwv. T)ua» hi *-rjXo*oi. 2io0o<i\ agrees with I'hotius: fowt 6i 4k rotot'Tov
III t>. 3M \iyhw t.,fo» xoaVrjj, *ai r\ Oina rirbi rpjwov xal My&ot wapd AfX/y ±nmitif
4* t) Xv**voi«rt*. \1y80v x°4*V' °' W rd 6 x^'* *- x 'f* °>' *" 4r4py plTopt*v Xfjtcy
Xioa rii» d/ryi'piujf. ypdip'rai xal 6n \iy801 xurrfta aXot^.
speaker describes )u- shield .is Kai \lytoi' xw' l
'
T 'tif* a - X^ "
1 1 voniapdTut*
'
riddled with holes, like a Xf-y?o». No hiarvwutcit (? *it). 4» dXXy 64, on \ly6ot
Weleker was
right in interpreting gwrot rp-fuxara /x wr av**Xy **a/»»X^*««
referring to the holes made by the ry 3, 8C wr âXxif i/Otlrat. And in the
spears of the enemy and not to eyelet- epics it is the x^" 9 ' "hah 1- v.u<l to l»e
nnd S. take it. lM>rcd with h *«*»<-
XfySoi is traditionally explained by the repot wr r4x*V îr a^f*^ vwi T '»* r ^ ,r*
I
"
chius) as the rot' xoai-oio 8a\^>8tit, Ap«ill. Kh<«l. $.

clay mould covering the wax models whfo h [•90 "t 4' or' rp^rotîf < M
picntly melted and poured Xodroiair ipiijtu xaX«r^w»
I
out through holes made for the a irvKvo(ifvar«iv HI .ues rfrqpa*

\
on the upper surface of the XZ-yoot. In r««^. which occurs in I'.ur. Aniir. ;o«, and
this way room w:i» left for the molten «t-Xi;âr««r in Acsch. fr. to6.
metal to lie poured in. The process (en
36
v<j>-flpcdrj <tov, Kaikafifx; wcrirtpit. Xvpa?
36 <roe Poll.: *-o«schol. V Ar. (aov cd. ALL, fo,\ U. <nx o. Dfakd.) |
«*»/»< I'oll.:
. ichnl. V Ar. , uowip \
36Schol. Ar. Kan. jji cdXaMot There i* a trace of the *>m.

roO xiparox vvtri8tre rg XiJoa.
ii-rl mentar \h. 1 p «»<> *4ra««
»oi 6tA roi'to 4k /Ti-rrjfttlai /raXauor xaXotVi iV»o\i>'or- waXai ykp raQp48tl .
.\rpa<
si 3ora<a 4/ rtca r»oXi5pior nlirs it t.. Aebu.
"« *ww«roi uponafor in ri\ai Arrl t Schw.), the
*rp&Tw ivoTittin'ror rtui Xi'pait' Wf» W AtoMWMt
«a, I,.-;,.,. \.,« ..-,,,«» 'i>4>vp48ii Xepaf.' rtrwr wi *>«< ««< re swaX»V"l> '»*'
28 lOÔKAEOYI
yap iraXaibv dvrl rov tciparosinrerldevro as fixed in the shell to form a framework
Ka.Xa.ixov. i/iifiaivei 5e roiovrbv ti Kal 6 over which oxhide was stretched so as to
Kui/xiKbs iv llarpdxois, uiroXvpiov tiirixiv produce a sounding-board. (Allen and
Sdvana. There can be very little doubt Sikes's reference to the passage of Pollux
that the note with the quotations goes is based on a wrong assumption that icipara
back to the best days of Alexandrian in his text = 7T77xe<*-) And, in spite of the
scholarship, and it would also appear traditional opinion to the contrary, such
that at that time the mention of dbva^ may have been the meaning of KaXanos
(or Ka.\afjLos) in connexion with the lyre both in Soph, and in Aristoph. In either
was an obscure matter. The explanation case, whether /caXawos is the bridge or part
they adopted wis that the bridge over of the sounding-board, the meaning of
which the strings are stretched so as to our line is clear: 'you are like a lyre
keep them from adhering to the sounding- which has lost its reed.' Campbell, who
board was a reed instead of being made reads o-oi, renders: 'a reed, as it were,
of horn, as in later days. (This is entirely has been abstracted from your lyre,' and
distinct from the common use of nepara thinks that it is appropriate to a chieftain,
= 7T77x«s f° r which see on fr. 244.) In perhaps Agamemnon, who has had his
other words, K&\a/j.os was to be understood yipas taken away. Rut it seems more
as the equivalent of fiaydSiov (Lucian likely that the subject to i<<pi)pidri occurred
dial. deor. 7. 4 kox fiaydSiov virodels), and in the previous line, and I have accordingly
the same interpretation was adopted for Ar. placed a comma after aov. The comparison
Ran. 233 irpoaeirLripirerai 5' 6 (popfiiKras is with that which, seemingly intact, is
'AiroXXuv 'ivena dbvaicas, &v viroXvpiov
J ]
yet so maimed as to be deprived of all its
h'vbpov iv Xl/xvais rpi<pm. are not in We virtue. Thus of Cassandra, after the loss
a position to say whether the Alexandrian of her honour, it might have been said:
view is correct; but it is not altogether </co£ to 6eo-rri£eiv o~a<p7J> v<prjpidi}...Xv-
satisfactory, inasmuch as it fails to take pas. Herwerden, reading <roi, thought
account of the description of the primitive that the words referred to a man 'morbo
lyre given in the Homeric hymn to aut senectute aut vitae denique calamita-
Hermes (4. 47 ff.), in which there is no tibus pristino vigore privato. He quoted
'
mention of a bridge and bovaxts KaXafioio wap(^r]v\r)fiivos from Ar. Ach. 682 and
occupy an entirely different position, viz. the well-known Eq. 513 (of Cratinus).
37
iv TravTL yap tol crKopTrio's <f>povpel Xi0a).
37 Schol. Nic. Ther. 18 viroKaru} tQv cographers and paroemiographers apply

XiOuv KpvwrovTai, o>s ^,o<f>OK\rjs
01 o~Kopirioi it iirl rdbv KaKor)du}v: see Phot., Hesych.,
iv Aix/âXwriffiv (aixv-aXuirois A) 'iv... Suid., Zenob. 6. 20, Diogen. 8. 59.

xie v : Nauck thinks that in Zenobius the words
This was an old proverb to enforce the ravri)$ fj.£jAvi)rai. 2o#ok\7js which are at-
warning 'don't trust appearances.' Hence tached to the previous proverb (see on fr.
Ar. Thesm. 528 ti\v irapoi/xiav 8' iiraivw ; 814) should be transposed to follow this.
tt)v iraXaidv virb \i0if) yap iravri irov xpV
•
|
For the similar saying $va Xidov dpas wivd'
\
p.ri daKy p-fjTup ddpetv, where the schol. i'wrjo-av o-Kopwiot see Preller on Polemon
refers to Praxilla (fr. 4) virb iravri Xldtp fr. 151. It has been well remarked by
anopirlov, w eralpe, (pvXdcraeo. It is Weir Smyth {Greek Melic Poels, p. 485)
amplified in the scolion (23 B. 4 ) quoted by that the Greeks did not expect fair dealing
A then. 695 1) virb iravri Xidif) o~Kopirlos, w from strangers.
irdip\ inrobverai. <ppd£eo fir) ae (3a.Xrj' ry
| Blaydes would read virb iravri Kri., as
5' d<pavei iras 'eirerai 56Xoj. Cf. Aelian in the authorities quoted, but the objec-
nat. an. 15. 26 et yap rovro fj.i)yivoiro [i.e. tion to iv as the equivalent of 'under'
ifthe road for the Great King's journey is does not appear to be well founded. Cf.
not thoroughly examined beforehand), 6 Horn. Z 521 50i o-<piav el/ce Xoxv<? aL * v ,
X&pos aj3ar6s iariv virb iravri yap Xttfy irora/j.£. Plat. legg. 625 B dvdiravXai iv
Kai pibXtj) irdarj aKopirios iari. The lexi- rots viprjXois bivbpealv tiai aiuapaL
:
AIXMAAQTIAEI 29
38
/cat fiojfJLialov l<r\apa% Xa/8cur...
38 Stcph. Byx. p. 191, 8 puttol ..Kai poit. The usage of both words fluctuates
.iuavi 6 rowot Tiic divturr, 6 rpot tt,p iax&p* is gem rally the more Specific,
iaX^pap Sidtpopos' * M^* "Y&P oiKodonriTOt, meaning (1) a sacrihcial hearth level with
fj di »arrij. to towim6p fiwfiioi Kai Kara the ground, (1) a movable hrjzier, (3) a
TapaywyT)* fiwiuatoi. —otpo<\fjt A«'xauxXw- hollow on the upper surface of the altar;
riffi "»ai ..Xa/Juw.' but just as /Sw/i6t is sometimes employed
Ileineke supplied \16op as the mitring in the two former of these senses so it-
w >i <J at the end of the line, l>ut Cunpbtlll Xapa takes the place of puii!>s frequently
suggestion of pdOoop is |>erhaps l*Mtcr. in verse (c£ fr. 730) and occasionally in
He remarks that the words may have ap- prose ami inscriptions. Here of
plied to a suppliant taking refuge at the the explanation >>( Stephanus h.
altar, and might have quoted Ear. /. /'. reference to the text of Sophocles, for ttr-
961 ("/to fiiv Qdrtpov \apup fl&ffpop, of — Xa/Mf appears to be a possessive geni ivc,
on his trial lnrfore the Areopgus. and ftufiiaiop relates to the structure : the '
Vater on 913 proposed h X^/*»t

A'/its. ndaed (|>edestal) of the altar.' >>iinilaily
Xa^w»' titb*. fiwiualot docs BOt .ip|)ear to in 1 Air. Ph<xu. 174 (n.) tiwmoi ioxdpai are
occur elsewhere. The distinction made 'the structured altars'; but in ./«</>.
nanus U tween fiwn6$ and /axapa I13K pwfiov KtPibffat itîfiii\oP i<j\apa*
by other ancient authorities the meaning is rather 'the sacrificial slab
M
.
surh as I'hut. Ux p. 13, 3 fox&pa' tj ofthealtar (mound).' for it is unpoi

yip fori* <TTpoyyu\ott8ri\\..d 61 fiwitot to say whether the form <>r the char.i
iarl wpoi (tvoiar oUoiop-rjiia, and
. fiwud* is the more prominent, lor further
Khol. l.ur. Pkettt. 274 icria.6 ixl yfjt information see RoKB in I'auly-Wuiaowa
(i60poi, frtfa irayifovot roit koltu tpxopi- vi 614 ff.
39
/cat I'lycrtwra? /cat /xa/c/sas Evpunias
39 o Ei'punnj, i) For uatpat Broach conjectured iiaKptir,
rov 1 trrti* Kai dti I. lien It fiaKpdt, Hcrgk «d« tiaxpai Camp* :
V.ipuiria wapb ~<xpo*\t; .\^x" a ^^ Ti ,l '* a ' ' bell, however, remarks that the succeeding
may have l»een otaocrrai <i»
quotes also Ettf. fr. 3H1 the like.
CX'ioP wap' ai'Tolt Kpaowtioit Eupvwiat.
40
TavTTjv iyu>, Ki'Mai/ re /cat Xpv<rr)v.
town, to which the temple t lilt W*«

if *6\n rov 'Aw6\\vroi rfvV'i on lite
ôtpogMfi AiîWai; .mi h of xj t LektaR.

•HifP.' hnnus has
< ln\ e) with th< ind
Xpi'Oqp &H<pitM,1->lKai KiMar

•
Vk6 r« lip* ard<r " M ho otlKl
neighbourhood of the gulf f Stephanos indicate
n in 1 lie
»tol thn the MM
It is h"»fwi,
;
3Q SO0OKAEOYI
extremely awkward to conruct Tavrrjv one of the captive women.
TavTrjf refer to
with the place-names; and I think it is In the latter case a participle such as
more likely that Hartung was right in Hartung's iXwv would follow Xpvoi)v he :
placing a comma after i~y<ii, and in making takes the speaker to be Achilles.
41
el jiLKpos a)v ra <f>avka VLKujoras eô>
41 Phot. lex. p. 643, S <pav\ov...rtdeir) ferred that the ^^ya-category was not part
8' dv Kai iiri tov /xeydXov. 2o0o/c\f/s of the original note, that the Sophoclean
kixv-aXuTio iv el..Jx u -'
•
1 ne same words example was probably cited under the
are found as part of what is substantially category named to dadcvis in Bekk. anecd.,
the same article in Etym. A/, p. 789, 43 and that the words iirl rod fieydXov are a
and Suid. s.v. <pav\ov. Nauck adds schol. corruption of iiri tov ivavrlov t£ fxeydXtp
Greg. Naz. in Piccolomini's Studi difilol. or something of the same kind. But, if it
gr. 1 p. 166 and lex. Vindob. p. 187, 8, seems incredible that the line of Sophocles
where the line is quoted without the name was ever seriously quoted to prove that
of the play. (pavXov was a synonym of piya, some
The statement of the lexicons that <pav- other explanation must be sought for the
Xov = p.iya is incredible, even when sup- persistence of the category fiiya in Eustath.
ported by the gloss of Hesych. IV p. 234 //. p. 1356, 64 and schol. Plat. Alcib. II
giving dbpbv and fiiya among the explana- p. 147 L> to <pavXov iiri Tcoodpuv ivvoiQiv
tions of <pavXov. But it does not seem rdcraeTai, /car' ivavTiOT7)Ta irapaXapfia-
possible to account for the error either by vo/mivuv. iiri airXoTriTos Kai evrjffdas A77-
supposing (1) with Campbell, that the poadivriv yap «'
(19. 30, cf. 3. 27) ov
words are used ironically, or (2) with (pavXois vfiels irpooTaTais xpV ff ^ e '
£""' 5e
Ellendt, that the grammarian who made tov irraivov Evpuri8r)s (fr. 473). iiri 8i
the quotation was so stupid as to take p.eyidovs, <f>avkov o~rbp.a dvri tov /^ya.
<pavXa for the antithesis to /xiKpbs. It is iiri be /*i/c/>6rr/Tos ktc. Stephanus under-
much more likely that the words e7ri tov stood (pavXov 0-rbp.a as an ugly mouth
/j.eydXov are the result of a corrupt tradi- but perhaps âOXoy was interpreted power-
tion. In favour of this conclusion it ful as being injurious: cf. Eur. Phoen.
should be observed (1) that in Etym. M., 94, Andr. 870.
though not in l'hot. and Suid., the cata- Ellendt well suggests that the words
logue of meanings and examples is intro- quoted may have been preceded by /xjj
duced by the words <pavXov ariixaivei 8c Ka ;
6avp.d^€T€, 'don't be surprised that I who
(2) that the tenfold division is recognized am naught have won a paltry victory.'
in the abbreviated list without examples They are a particular application of pro-
given in Bekk. anecd. p. 315, 1 to <pavXoi> verbial wisdom: cf. Pind. Pyth. 3. 107
ffrjfxaiveibiKa, iiri tc irpocrilnrov ko.1 irpdy- o-puKpos iv ofjiKf-ois, fiiyas iv peydXois
l*OLTOS Tb KCLKGV, TO /JUKpOV Kai TO CVKaTa- iooofiai. So in another connexion ttjv
<ppbvr)Tov, ko.1 to dodevis, Kai to aSoôv, —
Kara oavrbv ZXa. 1x1 <f>av\a is an internal
A'cu to avbnyrov, Kai to dirXovv, Kal to ace. rather than the direct object cf. Eur. :
Tairuvbv Kal iirl tov 7reVr/ros, Kal iirl tov Air. 1029 t<x fiiv yap Kov<pa rots vikG)ow...
ivavTiov rij) o~irov8a'up, Kal iirl tov cvtc- Toiffi 5' aC to. fxei£ova vikwgi, fr. 1034 to
Xous (3) that the last-quoted list, which vikolv T&vbix' us KaXbv yipas, ra uh
—
; |
contains ten categories but has nothing StKaia 5' ws diravTaxov KaKbv. Wecklein
corresponding to /xiya, agrees generally [Sitzgsb. bayr. Ak. 1890 p. 28) proposed
(though not exactly) with the lists of the to substitute yavpa for <paDXa, but there is
three other lexicons, and that all alike go no ground whatever for suspecting the
back to a common original Boethus, the - text of Sophocles. Blaydes boldly sug-
author of a Platonic lexicon, according to gested to. /xeydXa. —
For the periphrasis
Naber. From these facts it might be in- with ?x w see on fr- 489.
—
AIXMAAQTIAES 3'
42
42 Si bol. So] b. c. /: 750 (00 less as they stand and probably, though
Diiul. p. 41) /i<uuf «'5«wt cU-rl tov rtainly, corrupt. Bergk proposed
<«It> i» \l\fi.a\u'i-}i¥
i
laictio~a....&*v- ukrre StiTtpay with <nror&i)» in the follow-
rtpa.' Suid. t.V. ttaiai. xai fiaijv iSiun ing line |M. Schmidt rejx.rts him as pro-
drri roP *rt ~oô«X^f 'woTtpo*' kt(.(O.T. posing 6tvr4pat), and Bernhardy b% ra
a <V Ai'xMaXwrtirn' 'loTuaa ..itv- btCrrtpa. But Herwetden's elegant tira
ripa.' Here belongs a badly corrupted Stvrlpat is much more attractive, if any
gloss of Hesych. I p. 353 (iai6»- 6\iyor, change is to be made: there must have
fUKpjr. ôôxXijt 3< )t'<5nro5i Tvpdvvip cwri < vli a context a> to make the mean-
rov d</.tfo>ot ral »-oXX6?. (diri toO d in- e, single' at least a possibility for
$4p*iyap'r) roXXotV M. Schmidt) ypdfifia /taidt (e.g. oirti itiTJpa ^»apr)r:>).
Bai&r)\ oI*ot fsaC. fiaiwf (KfiaXuir. »oi Baids is used of >i/e as in 186 0o«f
/V»/7.
uaXurruri tkuov, <r (dai6v fc M.
I
rrji' inrb (rr^yj, Ae»ch. Pers. 451 fifcot
Schmidt). 0a«d. ,)hr. fr. 3 4k fipax<iat
The words ««r« btirrtpa are meaning- Satrit ii /Said M I
43
MVVOV T VjiriCTT po<f>ov T€
43 n ( ,.u-.ford: yt OOdd.
49Schol. A I I. 111. I
» \oi to yoi* Mi'rijf by Achilles when he sacked the Iowa,
i pir wonrrrtt wtp^roavWdfiwi t*\w...o Bod Briseis Iwcame the yipai of the con*
H ~o*t>oK\r)i laoavW&ftwt '
yii'pov r' 'Ewt- jueror. The Homeric passages are B
ffrpifoi ustath. I Ml A vprtfooov oiawoftfrpai «rai
017. 10, who attributes the geni- »dJ A* Mt/njr* tft*\<r *a.
l)r) tir>i,
I
hocles. The name of CTpofo* 4yx*vifui>pon, i-iVai Ki'-vmo \
the play is given in Thtodos. IrXijridJai dra«rot, and T IQJ (lament

p. 1 40, .--p. 158, 13 Ililgard Minjt of Dlioill om 1'atroclus) i»' Mp' ipA*
1
Mi'iriTTof 6 jwr yip 1o0o*\j)i iMAAsti titrmrv , wipct* ii s-dXtr

;
ficXim" «V Ai'xuaXwTKTir (Artie «**ii«o MiVijTot Stral- ^s the

'Mi^roi T ( Kr«rr^0oi/ >«,' 6 & »ot>rrr)t meshus was the i
draXo-yun M r'firrot. 'led as being

Tophus «• i roogbok) of Ectioo. Botb
•OOS of Kuenus an<l CTi ndsOOl of Selepus. ithnf the Tr»»ailon the Adrainyttian
was king I hus- plain.
!'»th brothers were slain
44
irarrfp he xpvahvs a/xr/n'Xti/a Kpoviraka
44 il ych. I p 161 d^\tra Kpoi>- Bcrgk Spt-en* «M**0"4 «w X^TSÎm
ViX>MXwri0i (A/xmaXw- d>t^X<ra. M Shtmdt riTv ^'X^«« fc^t
'irifp «(XK.fa\a.' ('pulling on hi« UmHs
irrupt fragment wari)p &' .
- 'tfjrt DirUi.
• attention Iiell v>ui;ht at the same nwn
• s has been directed elm I
right the prosody nf d>eWXir« hy reading
waTT)p 64 Xp«-<nr* d*«^*X'r»« «^**»»^«. ».«••
'the wim)I rnwrcathed c«lg« of tl»
on lii» weptrr, >efeieOC« IO Hot*. m
: —
32 S04>0KAE0YI
A 14 f. Headlam (J. P. XXX 316), fol- word conceals an allusion to the elabo-
lowed by J. M. Edmonds C. A'. in rately fashioned shoes of the oriental
xxvii 4, endeavours to defend the long 1 monarch with their decoration of gold.
of dfitpiXiva by Antiph. fr. 49 II 30 K. So xP l"r€00"ttj'5oXo»' t\vos of Helen and
( Athen. 455 !•') TfjO<paXi5as re XivoffdpKovs •
of the Muses in Eur. Or. 1468, /. A. 1042.
rvpbv Xeyw and other passages,
jna.vda.vfis ; Pollux 7. 86, 92 mentions advbaXa Tiy-
but the evidence is too weak to count pyviKd as having wooden soles and gilded
against the numerous instances to the straps, and adds that Phidias represented
contrary. However this may be, it is im- Athena as wearing them. Duri> {///(,'
probable that Campbell was right in 11 477) ap. Athen. -535 F, describing the
eliminating the reference to some kind of shoe of Demetrius Poliorcetes tovti^ Si :
shoe: Hesych. II p. 540 has xpovirava- Xpvffov ttoXXtjv e"vtj<f>aivov iroLKiXiav dyrlffu
£6Xt.va inrodri/j.a.Ta, but Kpovirefai is the Kal tfx.it poo dev eVieWes oi rexvirai. Pai -
better-supported term (Cratin. fr. 310 1 rhasius had golden shoe-buckles Athen.:
103 K. ovtol 5' eio~lv gvo$oiu)toL, Kpovireô- 543 F. d/j.(pi\iva would refer to thongs
(pbpov yivos dvdpQv). If this be so, it is of linen, fastening the shoes round the
worth considering the suggestion of M. ankles, and themselves embroidered with
Mayer that the line refeis to Priam, mak- gold. The metre might be patched with
ing an attempt to escape from the Greeks. Xpvaa ira.TT\p bus dfupiXivd < re > Kpov-
But inreicbvs will not account for xpi'c5i5s, iraXa, but the corruption probably lies
and I cannot help thinking that the corrupt deeper.
45
45 Xvdis cod. : corr. Musurus

45 Hesjch. p. 345 dxvrfv
I Avdijs gestion that this use of &x v V arises by
Kepidbos. Zo<poKXrjs Alxf-aXibrois. axvrjv direct transference from the meaning
to &Kpov Kara, ttjv e'pyaaiav anpus ^X 0l '< V spray is unnecessary. &Kpu>s is a common
dirb 777s daXacralas axvr]S eVri yap Xaftirpd
'
word in the scholia to Sophocles see :
Kal 5ta<pavrjS.ypdQerai be /ecu Ix""1)- schol. O. T. ri8, 0. C. 1695. Hippo-

M. Schmidt holds that the last words crates used axvrj for fluff or shreds
have nothing to do with Sophocles at of linen, the substance of lint Erotian
:
all, but refer to the place called "Ixvai p. 50, 1 2 a-xvi) odoviov to trap' rjfuv Xeyb-
in Hdt. 7. 123, of which Steph. Byz. fievov £vff/j.a, t'£ 0$ ylyverai fiords. So
says: "lx v V "irbXis 'MaKeSovias...'EpaTo- axvrj Xtvov Hesych., Etytn. M. Suid., t
ffdivrjs be "A\vas avThjv <py)<n. They do Bekk. anted, p. 474, 29.

not appear in Proverb. Append. 1. 44 Richness and luxuriousness of dress are
6.X vr) Avbrjs KepKidos' to dupov, dwb tov often attributed to the Lydians, whose
ttjv ipyaaiav aKpus Zx €l "> V a 7ro T V* &a ~ - fashions were copied by the Ionians of
XaTTias &.xvt)S. . It is idle to emend txvq Asia Minor at the time when Sardis was
{t)xV v Nauck formerly, dicfn)v Blaydes). the capital of Croesus. Cf. Aesch. fr. 59
The most comprehensive gloss on &x v V bffTis x iT & vas fiaoadpas re Ai/5ias eêi |
is in Elyui. A/, p. 18 r, 50 axvrj rrdaa rrobrjpeis, Xenophanes fr. 3 dfSpoavvas be

XeiTTOTTjs vypov re /ecu ^rjpov. Cf. Suid. fiadbvres dvw<j>eXeas irapa AvbQv...rjeo-av
s. v. Kal &x v V iXbs, T0 XeirrbTaTov tov els dyoprjv wavaXovpye'a <pdpe' ?x°" Tes -
vbaros, b d<ppbs ttjs daXdoorjs. 1 his will There is a double implication, Lydian
explain its use for teardrops ( Track. 849), ornament as well as Lydian harmony,
for dew (O. C. 681), for spray from the in Pind. Nem. 8. 15 Ai'5iai» fiiTpav Kova-
sea (Horn. A 426), for smoke (Aesch. Xaba ireiroiKiXfievav, although it is not
fr. 336), and for chaff (Horn. E 499). recognized by the editors. Hence Ar.
The colloquial use in Ar. Vesp. 92 cor- Ach. 112 (Blaydes) etc. Av8t}s, here for
responds: i,v 5' ovv KaTafivar) ko.v axvyv — Avhias. So conversely Avdia for Avbrj in
'even a wink.' Here the reference is to Track. 432.
the delicacy or glossiness of the material Welcker interpreted the words as re-
'
the fine-spun product of the Lydian ferring to the clothing in which Astyanax
shuttle.' There is no reason to find fault was buried see Introductory Note. Cf.
:
with Hesychius' explanation, but the sug- 'larpiaiiSuv v<prj fr. 210, 67.
AIXMAAQTIAEI 33
46
46 Herodian r. fio*. X<£. p. 9, 10 edon is tx>th a personal and a

—apinjSijj* -apTTjSoroi. ttr€ 6 yjpun, tlrt place name, and Sarpedon, the son of
il virpa, tlrt r\ &.ktx), tlrt i) vrpof wt n, who is to be distinguished
rood ZotponXti t* \l\fia\itrrlatv (cod. from his famous namesake, the son of
•TT/aw) ttfnjTai —apwi)5u)i> oktt). Zeus, was the eponymous hero of the
Other authorities fur the Sarpedon ian Thracian promontory (schol. Eur. A'hts.
promontory an- Ilesych. IV p. n ~*p- 19). He was slain by Heracles on his
irijowr o«ttt)- cwti tov ~apwr)6oi>ia. roxof return from Troy (Apollod. 1. 10* >. 1 he
hi ovrot Qp^xtfi dtl tcMdurai (xw Kai occurrence of the name in these parts has
KvfiaTififuroi, lloetidwvot.
itpdr The been connected with other evidence of
same words occur in Zenob. 5. W>. Phot. the settlement of Cretans on the X. coasts
:02. 3 Said. t.V. -apri>3u>i' &.KTT)' of the Aegean (Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. joo).
dV/xx TTjf Qpqjcrif K-pdrtrt rrp nty&\i)v. Our authorities also mention a rocky
The 1- mean. I sup|>osc, that island Sarpedon in the Ocean si ream,
Crates of Mallus described Sarpe<lonia which was the home of the (iorgons :
as 'the great' promontory. Its powtjoa, see Cyf>r. fr. 31 {EC, I' p. 31).
between the mouth of the Hebrus and further on fr. 637.
the I hracian Chersonese, is fixed by
331 fr. 51. i'i. Hdt. 7. 58.
47
aXyjx.i\tto%
47 a/x/toforot c< Mcincke

47 HeSTCD. I p. No atXMit'Toi the place of a/;rjt6d<rof or a*X>*A" ot. I
,
u'x>ul\wrot. -o<pon\i)S \lxM»^fl<ftf prefer the latter, which is due t' Meincke's>
(a»'x>ia ^<*rT '7 <"*' cod.). conjecture: cf. oooiXijrroi, iopiA-rrjrot, oo-
a<x>io\rrof, which otdWroi. If alxweoVret is ri^ht.
is found in l.tyii. M. p. 41, 3 X/7«ra« very unusual compound, since i':
*eu a»'xu<iV«roi «tai a^wWoi. II' memljcr should express an instrument
MnU well enough (cf. toputartft, Jo-
Ijc rather than a cause. Kllendt seem* to
but could not have been glossed
. be conscious of this when he renders
by aiyjlaXwrot and it is out of place in
; kiista ligattu, but the meaning reputed
I/, where it has probably taken is of course 'MWl m war' (L. and v|.
48
dkirpia
48 Hesych. 1 p. 134 iXtrpoai^yf proposed to restore AAtrplmt in
f
inapria. «ai i\iTpla 2oô«\$f Ai'xjui I, t>ut, a» JeM» remarked, the
XuiTifttir .MxnaKurlair) \iyn.

(1. lengthening of the second syllable
is a rare one, ami only ocean
word permissible. Nell 01
707 iwtp ritfa*or |M.int» out that thecognate «XirV«ot «
AXiTfHai s-oWat s-Wr, -a monkey full <>f word of grave import, and it may I* in
that m A>h. I.e. iXtrpim is mock
heroic ( ttttftd in tin).
iXirpla d»rl tov iiâpr ia '
A ptaro+drrri.
. :
34 IO<pOKAEOYI
49
49 Hesych. I p. 199 dr/icis- drjxov. where, but related to &kos as dira6f)t

is
2o0okXt?s Ai'x/xaXum'crti'. avoids, which to wddos, to p.ivos, dvayr)s to
Sva/jLevr/s
is required by the alphabetical order, 0170$, d<rdevr)s to adivot etc. The long
was restored by Musurus, and dv-f/Kearov vowel, for which see Monro H. G.'1 2; sj 1
(for oltjkov) by Pierson on Moer. p. 78, (8), is due to the influence of dvTjKearov.
who compares ira.va.Kr)s, and the glosses Cf. Moeris p. 191, 2t dvaids di-vrfous
vpoiraK^s and XijdrjKis. This is better 'AttikoL, ws Kal EiVoXij Alîv (fr. 21 I
than M. Schmidt's suggestion dvrjpis' 263 K.), ddepdirevrov "EXX^ês.
avrifiov. dvrjKrjs does not occur else-
50
50 Hesych. I p. 230 direidris- dvvird- in tragedy, though otherwise common

ra/cTos, airiaros (direiaros conj. Nauck enough. Matthiae on Eur. Or. ji ex-
see on fr. 627). SoôkXt)* Ai'xMaXwr/crii' ploded the view that dirt6i)s was the Attic
(-<l}TT)<riv cod.). form. Pindar employed dwei.di)s as an
This word is not extant elsewhere epithet of tvxv (fr. 40).
51
apravq
51 Bekk. anecd. p. 447, 7 dprdvrj hanging. It must not be supposed that
Kvpiws /j.ev t) < Sid > (so Ellendt : ctard in the Aixp-o\(jrlhe% Soph, was referring
Blaydes) twv KaXipdlwv dyxbvrj, ^>o<poKkr)s to a rope used for any other purpose,
5i iv Alx/J-a^wriaiv iirl tov deap.ov. He- although at first sight such an inference
sych. 1 p. 291 dpravrj- i] did KaXipdiwv might appear legitimate. For the arti-
dyxbvy, < SoôkXtJs 5' > iv AlxjiaKwTiaiv character of the note can be tested
ficial
(77 cu'x£"*Xu>T7j<ns cod.) iirlrov decp-ov. To by the scholia. Thus on O. T. 1266
these testimonia should be added Ely 111. X<iX$ Kp€p.affT7]v dprdvrjv we have dpravr/v]
M. p. 150, 2 dprdvrf 7? 4k tGiv KaXifidluf Sea p.6v .tt)v dvapTyyriKijv (i.e. Kpep.a.<TTr)v)
. .
dyx^vr), 1,o<poK\rjs di < iv AixfJ-a-X-uTlfftv > Kvpiuis hi dpravr) \iyerai i] iK rwv KaKifi
iwi 5e<rp.ov, iv 'Avriydvy (v. 54) ' 7rXeK- Slav dyxovrj, but on Ant. 54 wXeKTaicriv
rdlffivdprdvaiciv dyxbvais. The reason
'
dprdvaiffi Xw/Jarai filov the comment is
for the supplement will appear presently. dpTavaiffi] dyxbvais. The annotator se-
apTdvr\ means a rope, noose, and is lects arbitrarily one or the other of the
always applied by Aesch. and Soph, (it fixed synonyms.
does not occur in Eur.) to a death by
52
52 Hesych. I p. 297 daeirrov dffefiis. 890, /. A. 1092. It belongs to the list

^,o(pOK\r)s AlxjJ-o.\b}rl(riv ( at'xMaX wTot s cod .
) of verbals in -tos collected on fr. 210, 8
Cf. Bekk. anecd. p. 451, 19 daetrrov to which have an active, or at any rate not
dcreês. a passive force.
d<r€irros (whence dceirTetv Ant. 1350) Tucker restores dffeirT' for aeirr' (vulg.
occurs also in 0. T. 890 el /xt) twv daiir- &e\irr') in Aesch. Suppl. 920 (876).
tuv ipZerai, and in Eur. Hel. 543, Bacch.
AIXMAAQTIAEI 35
53
ifinXevpov
53 Hesych.
il p. 8o iixir\tvpov t& yaoripa rtix iripdaw toua.% 4ra-
ri)i>
iidWov (tvaXotVit cod.) rdj xXtvpdt.
tit Xtiodai. Hlaydes proposes inxXtvpov, in
—o<Pok\tji kixnaXtirriaiv (-umiaut cod.). place of inxXtvpov. At hr-vt sight this is
is n<> other trace of the existence
•
|)lausil>le. hut it appears that tux\upoC*
of ifixXtvpov*. The meaning would seem follows the analogy of yradovr (Befck.
to be 'dash against his ribs,' 'charge him,' anted, p. 8;, 9 vo&h-
Arri rov njr
if we may judge by the usage of i»6\Xt- yr&ffo* rirrrti. 4>pvnx<x Mororpory.
ff$at, for which cf. Plut. /.urn//, r i tovto
P- 437). ffaXaiovr (Marc.
•'•• '
&r) to \ty6v(»or, tl% -n\» yaaripa traXXo- ev. 1 j. 4), and the Homeric 71101V.
/Urov, non posse sec. Epic, i
54
eVdrrat?
54 hinut COfLl corr. Bentley
54 I II p. 1 11 irurraif cVurriocr.
[aqreb. of earrings by women in Homeric time*
tj} xpoaw&a wi 4*\6wcut. ô<poK\fft Alx- see a 1 82 and I<caf in loe. In the classical
ua\uni<Tir{-wrif<rt)>cn<\.). l:tym. .)/. p. 344, period the practice was extremely
47 f'rovaif roit ivurrlotf ix6 rov <tV>
*
mon, and is attested by a variety of names,
rati rwv Jrrwr 6wai% Kticffat 2o0oxXi;t. such as frwrw (also <Vy&a on i
tvo-iran was restored by Bentley on wMarpa, iXiKrijpti, and (later) /Wdfita.

7. In place of $1X6- See I wan Mueller. Pnvata/ter;nnur % ,
IS conjectured iioxaxt, a word p. 111; /V. A Ant. 1001. I I
al-o meaning farrtHgi an<l found in Ar. MnpOWsdl from o>>). 'hole,' »cc Slurtc-
j 10 (t 474 K). or the wearing I vant in Class. Phil, vn 411.
55
eVi/xacrtrcTai
55 II jrch. II p. 100 inn&aotrai It th.it is »o, Sophocles adopted

at iwl xX4ot>, ds*6 roQ pdaaofoi, 6 the Hoinifi. future •( iwtpmlvuu in the
4"
'on jMKpoTifxiv. ot it i^dif/trat, ^»»Xo- same sense which it hears in A n/OiUoi
Hffri. ov X</utar«i, AXXa nal
f) otor fjrV twtfiitwi W twi0M" I
«*¥««*•.
rpoetxtudoatrai xXtlu. ZotWXfo Ai'x- L, and S., on the other hand, refer it lo
•aXwriffir (jrjfirir cod.).
I Jwin&oou. to knead afain but in A. P. 1
are giv. - 7. 730 Stadtmucllcr returns SO the Ms

was emended by -t I rarifpj
3f(trr^ ««^x |
rt
and wpoct*i(iaai)C*rai.
ijurtffi In nAaatxTo ifwtttilaro Keiske. i*in&*ff*t
Be absence of context we cannot tell Jacobs), and twit*0wm should |>rih*ps
; the «m disappear from the lexicons (fn pimm
'i hi*
dew that the second explanation it alone
36 ZO0OKAEOYI
56
lawa
56 Hesych. n p. 338 "lappa •
eV pAv foreigners as the Persians. Timoth. Pers.
Aixp-o-XwrLffi {-wT7)<n cod.) "LotpoKXtovs 161 'Idopa yXQiooav i£ixvevwv, where the
diridoaav 'EXXt/vikt), iirei (iiri cod.) Tappas curious broken Greek of the Persian is
roll's"EXX^âs Xkyovcriv iv 5e T ptirroKt flip quoted. The prevalence of the archaic
(fr. 617) fVi yvvaiKds, ws ical iv Yl.oip.ioi form indicates an attempt to represent
(fr. 519)- Tivis 8k T7]V 'EXf'PTJP. iTTlflKWS the Persian pronunciation: 'in Persian
Se oi fidpfiapoi tovs "EXX^pas "Iwpas Xe- all Greeks were called Vauna' (Starkie
yovaiv (Xiyovoi p.ev cod.), Kai iv TpwlXtp on Ach. 1. c). The effeminacy of the
(fr. 63 [) fi6.pfia.pov Qpr\vt\p.a rb ial. rj ovop.a Asiatic Ionians prejudiced their kinsmen
yvvaiKds. in Greece against the name Hdt. 1 :
To orientals who came in contact with 143 oi p.iv dXXoi Twpes Kai oi 'Adrjvaloi
them, and especially to the Persians, the £<pvyov to ofivopa, oil fiov\6fievoi "luves
Greeks were known as Twpes, Tdotes, K€K\TJo-dat. In the extract from Hesych.
'laves. Hence Ar. Ach. 104 ov Xr)\pi it stated that Sophocles used "lappa
is
Xpvoo, x a v ''^ 1^ P UKT, 'lo-ovav with the (1) as an adj^'EXXîK^ in the At'x-
schol. 7rdpras tovs "EXX^pos Tdopas oi
: p.aXwri8ts, (2) as a description of a Greek
fidpfiapoi £k&\ovv. Aesch. Pers. 181 woman, or specifically of Helen, in the
'labvuv yrjv otx^rai wipcrai 6iXuv, ib. Triptolemtis and Iloip-ives. In place of
952 'Jdvuv yap dirrjvpa, 'Idpwp vaixppaKTOs "lavvas it seems almost certain that we
"Ap7)s, ib. 1014, 1027. There is the same ought to read 'Iapas with L. Dindorf,
intention in Suppl. 71 'laovloioi vhp.oi.ai, Lobeck, and others (Tdopas Casaubon).
where the schol. has rightly dvri too Similarly, Lobeck {Path. Pro/,
p. 32)
(puvrj 'EWriviK-rj, but the editors have would give 'lavrj as Ellendt
(or 'lappa,
sought for a more subtle explanation, prefers) in place of "lappa in the lemma.
forgetting that the Danaids are as much Blaydes strangely prefers Tatpa.
57
iepdXa?
57 Hesych. 11 p. 347 iepbXas- ioiovs. M. Schmidt combines it with the present

2,ookXt)s AixP'O.XwTois. ws Kai tov yipovra glossthus: iepbXas- twv iepwv iirip.tXovp.evos.
yepoiddv r) yepovvTos Xiyei (Xiyovot conj. '
tepoXas icriavs' 2o<poKXrjs Ai'x/xaXwricrt, 8s
Blaydes). Kai tov yripwvTa yrjp6Xav Xiyei. But what
For tffio-vs Heringa restored Upevs, and is loiovs? iepdXas may be
but it right,
nothing better has been suggested. For belongs to a class of words more appro-
yepoiddv J. Pearson conjectured yepoirav, priate to comedy than tragedy, and, if
altering iepbXas to iepoiras accordingly, used by Sophocles, was probably con-
and this view, so far as concerns ye- temptuous. The best-known of its cognates
poirav, was approved by Lobeck (Path. are patvdXrjs (Sappho), and OK0}irT6Xr]s
Pro/, p. 387). On the other hand, Din- (Ar. Vesp. 788); some are mere vulgarisms,
dorf proposed yrjpbXav to correspond with such as 0^6X17$, oi(p6Xrjt, ffi<f>6Xr)s, Kopv-
the lemma, rj yepovvros baffles the critics iTTdXrji, 6irvi6Xr)s ; koi6Xi)s, said to mean a
altogether, and is rejected by M. Schmidt priest, is obscure. Lobeck (Phrynichus,
as a marginal gloss. Heringa's rj yepov- p. 613; Path. Pro/, p. 129) adds the pro-
riav has no probability. It should be per names Mio-y6Xas, 'ApybXas, $ei86Xas,
added that a few lines before the MS of HvOdXris. The formation, though not
Hesychius gives iepbp.as- tQv iepwv iirijj.e- primitive (Brugmann, Coinp. Gr. II p.
Xovp.evos. Musurus restored iepoKopos, but 211), is not compounded from oXXvpu.
'
AIXMAAQTIAEI 37
58
LKTOp€V<T0IJL€V
58 Hoych. 11 p. 354 'ucrtptvo-ofup is derived from the form brrw/>, which
imp. —o<f>o<\rif At'x/taXwrotr. Is. appears also in the compounds ifltrup

Voss restored iKToptvcofUP. ibid. p. 331 and wpooUrup.
iKtrofKvaontr U< TtOoofi.tr.
•
This verb
59
<TT€pvofxai>Ti<;
59 PoUaa :• 16 J *cd oTtpvbuavTiv tpuvatt x/xi/ww dpydpoit. Aristid. I ;o

Zo$OK\rrt t6k «ca\oiV«»'oi' iyyoArrplnvdop. bind., shaking the inspiration of of
1. II |>. 107 tpoTtpPOfuwrLaif iy- Ih'imsiis, ixpifUtTTtpop EiipvicXloff raV-
yacTpifwOoil. —o<pOK\ijl .KixMaXwriaiy : 5o6tp KaTaXa/jifidpup, indicates, in the
no doubt this i-. rightly corrected by same way as Plutarch, that F.urycles
Xauck to artppottdrriti •
JyyacTpifivBoi. was a generic name given to spirits
iyywTpifivdoi. iyyovrpLpapm
-• temporarily occupying the body
6r pvp rwtt Hi Hwa, ~<xpoK\i)i ii OTtp- man. There is nothing in these passages
pouoptip. Scho!. Plat- Soph. 151 C which is not satisfied by the simple in-
iyyturrplnvBot W
ân* 6 4* yaerpl hop- ference thai Kuryiles alleged his oracles
rtv6fitP0i. tovtop top iyyaffTpi(tai>Tu> to be the voice of a demon lodged in
•% WvduwA. <;>acri, -oô(X^t Si Ins own lini. I. flat. : V.i>pvK\ffl
<TTtpv6uarTir. I 'hot. p. 368
ef>ist. 64 yap Jibuti balfiopd nra
4p rp ywaTfx fatt*,
lo<ô«\vi bi .. UTtpfbfiarrw ptTwrdftao'tr. top 4yKt\tv6fi€Pop avTip w*pl tup h*\\op-
was acquired at tup \4yttp, and s<hol. Aristoph. reivi^ :
'luring the tunc of tin- I'clopon- (taPT*v6(UP0i bid toO ipvwdpxoPToi ainu
ncsian war by a ventriloquist named 6oiftopot. Such
proceeding corresponds
.1
<•», who professed the power of exactly with the method., of savage ma-
by means of a familiar spirit.
lion bj B. Tyloi m I
I
Aristophanes producing his plays Enty<l. Brit? vu 63 -cheating so; :
through others compares himself .r original kind,

V'ttp. 1019 mni)0&fi*vot rr/r V.v whirl) (.is its name implies) is supposed
vavriiav fai didroiar.
; wcr' d\- \
to In- caused l.y the v. .10- of a demon
Xorptat yacripat irii'i Kuifjupdixd woWa. ilic Imdy of the s|>caker, who really
X*»aOat. Plat. 5 ays that the himself talks Icignrd human \>
in .1
end of pr. nvicted in saw hiMliug torn s thought

: their own months: btthn i-*o- suitable to the thin-bodied spirit \
p8ryy6p.*pop ucwtp top &towop V.vpi>K\*a ! mneccssary thrref.>re to suppose
*'(HipiporT<t del woptiorrai. {'(. l'lul. irycles was a vr in any
4 1 4 R tCtjdtt yip ion nal other sense, or to accept Campbell's in

m *ombr) t6 oitattai top OtOP oa>t6p i'lat. /.,.) that 'he made his
waw€f> roi'f iyyaOTptuvBoii, Y*>p%m\i*% outvl M

d bom within the person
-
'
wpoaayoptuQuJHm.
jpo.1 consulting him. r>>t further 11 ( r mat ion
ipbvbfit pop tit to. fib/MTa tup wpo^ftrStP sec (iruppe, </V. .1/rM. p. v >s t
V9O+$4yyto0*i, roit ittipup orofiaai *al

38 IO<t>OKAEOYI
AKPIIIOI
Jacobs identified this play with the Danae, supposing that it
had an alternative title ; 349) was inclined to

and Welcker (p.
agree with him, while reserving the possibility that the same
material was used over again by Sophocles for the production of
a satyr-play. It should be added that Meineke (on 0. C. p. 275)
also held that the Danae was a satyr-play, but there is little
to justify the assumption 1 Alternative titles are not common
.
and should only be accepted where the evidence is quite clear, as

r
in the case of the Qpvyes or 'E«Topo«? \vrpa of Aeschylus ( TGF
p. 84). Besides, it is not likely that a play would be named
alternatively after one or other of the principal characters. It
would be more natural to suppose that the citation of the play as
Danae was a mistake, due to the identity of the subject-matter
with that of Euripides' Danae and the greater celebrity of
the latter. For similar errors see Introduction, § 1. It must,
however, be admitted that the error, if such it was, was more
persistent than is usually the case, and had infected even the
best critical tradition.
Brunck, on the other hand, considered that the Acrisius must
be identified with the Larissaei, and that its subject was the
accidental killing of Acrisius by Perseus when throwing the
discus. The variation of title would be more natural than in the
other case, but Jacobs appears to be justified in arguing that
frs. 64 and 65, at any rate, are more suitable to the story of
Danae. See also Escher in Pauly-Wissowa IV 2086.

If the identification of the Acrisius with the Danae is correct, it
contained the story up to the time of the discovery of the birth of
Perseus, when Acrisius sent mother and child adrift on the Aegean
in a \apva%. Perseus was known to Hesiod as the son of Danae
{Scut. 216), and is mentioned as the son of Zeus and Danae
in Horn. S 319 f. The fullest and best account of the legend
depends on the authority of Pherecydes in schol. Ap. Rhod.
4. 1091, 15 1 5 (FHG I 75). Sophocles refers to the imprisonment
of Danae in the brazen chamber in Ant. 944. There may be
a reference to our play in Menand. Sam. 244 ovk dKi]icoa<;
XeyovTcov, elire p.01, Nt/o/pa-re, ro)v rpaywBayv, a><> yevop-evos ^pfcro?
Zei>? eppvr) Bid reyovs, Kareipypevrjv Be TraiB' eôiêvaev irore
| ;
1
See n. on fr. 165. Meineke also relied on frs. 166, 167.
< . ; ;
AKPIIIOZ 39
60
60 fleVconi. Kllendt | iwi\f/a cod. : corr. Muslims |

/3iii;rra« cod. : cor. Maussacus
60 Hesych. I p. 375 fUSv"
'
tl&ot. wcrtftti I
\f/d\\oi ÂX- (or w» ^wlffrarat |
KpoOfxa. Axp uritf >

1o<Pok\t)i '
wt... .
'
Xrtr), with «i5ot *poi>tarot in the gloss.
iivatMew'- AWotftHtw. Kor the last word, £uvav\iav has various meanings which
which is otherwise unknown, Nauck conj. are not adequately distinguished in the
(ii>&Tfr, comparing ibid. p. 405 fivioi- oi The concerted playing of
(i)
novauoi t) KpoOfid ti. ffo&jjf Kfn\ol» (cor- lyre and flute Athen. 617 v ill : 1.
rected by Fungius to -oô«X^t 'Aicpioiif)). this front Kphippus fr. 7 (ll 154 K.). So
Nauck thinks the second passage un- schol. Ar. Eif. o fivauXia Xeycreu 6V«r
doubtedly Inrlongs here, hut Dindorf, Ki.6a.pa *ai ai'/XAt oinfwrrj, schol. Greg.
while admitting this to l>e pi mil ill
.
prints Naz. II p. 00 \4yofi€P 54 awavXiar «oi
1
under the title Kpitrtt a.s fr. jja of xtldpat dyta avyKpovofUriti a»V\^> *ai
Mauck's view is the more <xvfttpO€yyof^fr}i. (*) symphony of flutes A :
probable. schol. Ar. Ac. fcravXia xaXccrcu ora> 3i-o

Pi8r|v, if that is the right reading, avXirral rd atird X/ywtfir. Hesych. ill
evidently puzzled the COpVtStl as is shown p. 172 ft)* VTO 5l'0 iwiTl\0Vfti¥7f¥ afXlfffl*.
by the variants recorded above. If Pollux 4. 83 'Atr^nî «rai tfwai-Xia th W
Kpovfia is the correct explanation, it means îraX««ro' crvufuuria rif oi'ttj twk «V Ham-
note played on a musical instrument, tfjâioit ffwai'Xwrrwr. (3) The accom-
strictly on the lyre; and iri\f/a\\nv shows paniment of the voice by the flute, differ-
that the lyre is in question here. Hut ing from aiXifttia in this respect, that no
what kind of a note? No answer can be articulate words were sung. Such appear*
given, and it is idle to enquire whether to Ik- llie meaning of the definition given
fiiiijf, pi'drp, l&ffvr or some other form hy Semus ap. Athen. 618 A n* rtt iyi*
should be preferred, since they are all oiHipuviai dfiotfiaici avXov col frv9t*ov
equally obscure. Pvfii* obviously suggests X^plt \6yov rod wpo0fu\tîoOirT9%. To the
itself, but, although it is sometimes ex- same effect hut less precisely 1'olln
plained by icarwt (Hes i A/.), , oi H rii* iriraiXiar ilios wpo<rav\fai**l
there is no trustworthy evidence of its oforrat ii>t Ttjr av\iffSlar . The IkM account
usage otherwise than as = cotifertim. of the word is to be found in I lemsterhuis
i (anting, who supposes that pt'Srir was a 011 l.ucian dial. mar. ». 1. who proceeds
of fivtrp, iscertainly not justified in
1 to show that it is often used ngurnlivrlv
in muffled tones.' iwiîWuf to express conifttt or harmony. So far as
ably only a strengthened form of it is pottlbk to ;
i/^Wmj- 'to play on the lyre,' as in have used the word in the first sense.
I'ollux 4. «8| there is no author] The verse is a trochaic tetrameter with
[m and s.\ translation 'to a company ,tii iambus wanting at the end.
with the lyre.' Bbpdes
6l
NO. finy. n?, to'
olkomt ; 77 fidrqi' vXaKTut

tkxvto. yap tol Ttp rf>o/3ov(j.€i>to \f/o<f)€l.
61. • rdrra SMA: as-arra vulgo
61 Si •''
fbt 8 i (in p. 340. 13 restore two senarii by read
\«/4<riot. fi°9 (Xacrw I, (oning'- <• II
fofrt. >baeu* alone pre- \ »»o.str'
extract the symlK>l of the and < •'•tniK-rx tlamtot'tr' for £' Acitirr'
ami for ^ *«4rifr i'Xo«'w I'orvwt *ub
n aasiiled by many stiiutcd n Xdtf«M nAr^f. Halm 4 *4n»r
U-avoiircd to Nalwr 4 M^'f ««^. Vaterf jmIhw
: ; :
40 IO<t>OKAEOYI
KTvirei,Nauck r\ pdTijv dXvKrQ. Wecklein (schol. \j/o<pober)s <TTpaTu!rrr)i, pijbi \f/6<pov
approved the restoration of /3o£ tis ovk ' ttjs bd<pvq% <pipeiv bwdptvos), "stuffs his
CLKovtr ; fj fidrt)v kXvu ; diravra ktc. Hense ears against the crackling of cinders and
thinks the original may have run clkov€t'' of laurel in the fire with the fringe of his
 ; y\ pdr-qv K76.,and accepts military woollen cloak." Cf. Hesych.
the vulgate diravra. They quote El. 1 406 ptvtKrviros 6 pi) \j/o<pobcrji.
•
Eur. Hee.
flog, rts Hvbov ovk aKover\ u <piXai ; The 1 r 13 (pbflov irapiax' oi> piffwt 8be ktvttos. W
objection taken to \i.drr\v riXaKTw appears Rhes. 565 OA. Aibprjbes, ovk fiKovoas ij —
to be ill-founded, and the connexion is, Ktvos orafci cV urrtav
\J/6(pos I
Tfi'x^wv —
'
Do ye hear ? Or am I but an idle rivd ktvitov ; AI. ovk, d\Xd beo-pd itwXikwv
babbler? For in my fear it may be that e£ dvrvywv xXafet fftbrjpov Kdfxe tol, irpiv
|
'
I hear a sound where there is none.' H., r)O~0bnT)v beo~pu>v dpaypbv IttitikCov, tbv
—
I
who justifies the text, quotes for pdr-i)v <pbfios. In Aesch. Theb. 97 100 the
u\a.KTeiv Aesch. Ag. 1672 paratojv rCivS' panic-stricken maidens are made by the
vXaypdruv (Clytaemnestra of the Chorus). MSS to cry dKovtr' rj ovk dKover' dairibuv
Plat. legg. 967 C robs <pCXooo<povvTas kvo~1 ktvitov ; ... ktvitov bibopKa irdrayos ovx ivb% "
paralais direiKdôvTas xP^nivaiaiv vXaKah. Bopbs, and b^bopKa was accepted by J ebb on
Tryphiod. 421 (of Cassandra) pdrr]v O. T. 186, Phil. 215; but we must
vXdovaa. Dion Cass. 46. 26 7ro\\d yovv /ecu surely read bebotKa cf. 235, iX~, Agam. :
fxdrrjv vXaKrels. So pa\(/vXdKas in Find. 1535, Soph. 0. C. 1462 KTviros, (be, pdX'
New. and paxpvXdKav yXQo~o~av
7. 105, o5' ipeiirerat |
5t6/3oXos d<t>aros (so I read :
in Sappho Observe the appro-

fr. 27. ptyas is a gloss, as may be seen from
priateness of the metaphor from .a dog S ov yap 1
Suid. s.v. &<paToi)- ...biboiKa •
barking at a sound or shadow by night. dXiov... Dr Verrall, comparing Rhes. 784

'To fear a sound' was proverbial (note Xeipt <rvv Kevy bopos, conjectures in Theb.
rot in v. 3) of a nervous or baseless fright 100 irdrayos ov Ktvbs bopos, which is very
cf. fr. 314, 1 39. Hence Eur. Phoen. 269 dii) probable in my opinion, except that I
rls odros; f) ktvitov (frofiovpeda; diravra. would rather punctuate ktvitov beboina —
yap roXpQiai betvd (palverai, which closely
\
irdrayos ov Kevbs —
Similarly in Eur. bopbs.
resembles the present passage. H. Suppl. 179 Tyrwhitt corrected bebopKevai
writes ôtpoberjs was the title of one of
:
' for bebotK^vai of the MSS. In an epigram
Menander's plays, from which, I suspect, quoted by Meineke Anal. Alex, p. 397
was borrowed a detail in A. P. 11. 210 read ripa rbv crepyovra, iraXiarpo<pa b'tpya
(LvdpaKa Kal bd<f>vr}v irapaftveTai b arpa- beboLKUS (for bebopKuis) ireipddijri <ppovdv |
tiwtjjs I
ASXos dirocr<pLyi;as pr/Xiva Xuparia pr/bev inrep to perpov.'
62
dAA' ovSev epireL xjjevhos et? yfjpas ^povov.
62 Stob. Jlor. 12. 2 (in p. 444, 6 an arbitrary proceeding, which destroys a
' characteristic subtlety of diction. Tr.
Hense) 1,o<po S, ~Lo<po. 'A/cpt
A.Kpio-7 (so
cod. Voss. , 'AXevdbais B: the extract is
'
no falsehood lasts through time's decay.'
omitted in MA). 'aXX'.-.x/xôu.'
yrjpas XP 0V0V follows Aesch. Prom. 1013
dXX' iKbibdaKfi irdvd' 6 yrjpdtTKwv xpt> v °Si
The sentiment, that falsehood is a
sickly growth which soon decays, may be
Eum. 286 XP^> V0% Kadaipet irdvra yqpdo-Kbjv
illustrated by Aesch. Ag. 625 ovk taO'

bpov. . W. Schmidt added Tr. fr.
F.
adesp. 508 perd ttjv o~Kiav rdxicrTa yypd-
ottws Xiâipi rd \pevbrj KaXd es tov itoXvv |
o~Kei xpo" ** an d Lucian amor. 1 2 ovb'

(piXoiai Kapirovffdai XP 0V0V - Arist. cth. N.
b avra yipovTos jjbrj xpbvov iroXia Kadijvaivev.
1. 8 1098 II T(p f/.tv yap dXrjdei irdvTa
It might be thought that yijpas should be
cvvabfi rd vwdpxovTa- Ttp-bi \j/evbei Taxv
attributed to i/'eOSos, and that xpt> vov could
biacpuvei TaXT)de$. Theophr. fr. 153 W.
be spared. But the omission would sug-
€K biafioXrjs Kal (pQbvov xpevbos iir' dXiyov
gest the meaning that falsehood is ever
laxvo-av direpapdvdri. Menand. monost.
ovbels Xavddvei iroXvv
young cf. O. C. 954 Ovpov yap otibiv
:
547 \J/evb6ptvos
yrjpds £o~Tiv dXXo irXrjv daveiv, Aesch.
Xpwov. Similarly xP^ voi beiKwaiv dvbpa |
Theb. 669 ovk yrjpas rovbe tov pido--

Hctti
(O. T. 614 etc.). Nauck, objecting to
paTos. For yrjpdaKeiv as implying decay
the phrase yijpas XP^ V0V 'his con- m see Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. 1223.
nexion, altered yrjpas to pfjKos. This is
1 ;
AKPIIIOZ 41
63
OrjXov yap- cV Sccr/i-ouri hpair€TT)<; ari)p
Kwkov Tro&icrdeis trav Trpbs r)&ovr)i> Xe'yct.
63 >:..!>. jtor. 62. 30 (IV p. 4:7, 10 the order of the words is against taking
-<xpoK\4oii 'AKpuTii?. 'iJJXor... 5jj,W as a grammatical qualification of
the clause tV...X«*7«c, a> if it were an
The situation supposed, that of a run- adverb or a parenthetical adjunct (sal.
lave who having been caught says iarlr). He quotes ./». 906 cu/rAt wpit
all he can to win favour, is exactly re- avrov, irj\oi>, fr. 585 a\ytwo, IIp<i*r»j.
produced in Eur. Or. 1498 ff. in the case &ij\oir. So some take O. C. 321 ^6tnf% t6&'
of Orestes and the Phrygian, who says of i<rrl &t)\o* 'Xop-lpri* nip*. Add Theocr.
himself ipairirrjp yap iiiicXtwrw *V 10. 13 «'* vltiw arrXtit irj\of. But, so
56fiv* w6ia. Orestes taunts him (1514) used, Stj\op could not stand at the begin-
i*i\ia y\uaarj X*p'fl7> Ttlrflor ovxo&rw ning of the sentence.
and threatens him (1516) ifioao»,
ftpon*/*, 2 irpdt tjSotrrjv means the same as
ti H kt€*u> at, fiii Xtytir (nil* X*P i¥
fi-fi, - xpbt xoipif (cf. x a PiT °y^ u>a "
''^ with which 1
1 have followed Nauck in putting

1 it i> interchangeable: see Dem. 4.
a colon after SrjXov -yap the asyndeton : Cf. El. 93 1 ov wpdt ifiorii* \tyw rait
in the explanatory clause is usual, I Eur. Med. 773 Mx
ov ** M<> *"/»*« ôrijr
if/Xof it, oiintiov to, and the like (Kueh- \6yovt, fr. 18 (n.). Blaydes needlessly
ner<ierth, <S 4"o. 1). Grottos altered conjectured kwX' (nwohiatiut cf. 0. C. :
ot)\qi> to iovXov, and was followed liy IK3-

Brunck and Diadotf. H. points out that
64
prjcris fipaêia T019 <f>poi>ov(Ti auH^pova.
irpbs tovs TtKovras koX tf>vTtv<Tawa.<; irptnti,
a\Xo>? T€ /cat Koprj t« xapyeicf. ycVos,
64. 8 K6pjj...Kapy*ia Meineke: Kdpij.. *apyt,a rodd.
64 :
4 (iv p. 613, 17 . nsbip. So El. II Wp6t ##t
2,o<po*\4on 'Afptotif). ' pi)Oii ... ifiainov ical Kaaiyv^nn, AeSJCh. ( A
U.jlor. 74. 28 (IV p. -
.
wartpwf rt cod T««6rTwr, Eur. //<
Ilensc) ~<xpot\iri 'AKpifflif, '4 Wart Jwrj.' 6 <p<'<rai \î rtxuir i'uat wart)p, Suffil. 109}
' latter extract. Meineke icnt *>it»i oas tai rt »wr rtana*, /:'
w. 1, j to vv. 3, 4, the two w nn T, p. w rr«owr'. It is unnecessary to
ts licing separate extracts in St<>- the te*t. as some CtitJcj
•
MN
1 hey fit together so exactly sec Nauck. M nj. rs*t
c has a high degree of r««6rrat *«i Xox'i'-ffa'Toi, comfMnng

hi. II 19.
1 Ppa^tio. F. W. S.hmidt. COfO- • aTXXwt r% xa( OOOm bJm in Eh
ri f., need 1314 .uid diWwt 1 14.
proposed [ifia&tia ; for the vena arc more in^s iXXsn r« rarrsn «*U in
hi*
<<g to a speech >• />**». 661 f. **•*
retmkc iddraMd tpyop, let roiVa iVevfysysM x*>r i
<l't roit c^povowri <r«i$pova aXXwt r< »<irrwi <ai «a«(>»^r«4i »«•
wstfryetf. /i>«xvX4ry«a was charsctn
. 1
J5 J . Ant. 7»3, with the Dorian*, of the Argives a* well as
2 TiKOvrai Kal $vr«uo-avTat 4*eti

tologous, but intended to emphasi/e the
—
42 I04>0KAE0YI
cus /cocr/AO? 17 avyr) re kci tol navp eirr).
4 i] 0-4717 re] aealyrtrai M et primitus A

prjcriv ar^pyei 7r6\is, z'<£. 206 f., Soph,
oil (ptpti KO<Tfj.ov ffiuwd. —
als. For the plural
fr. 462. yivos for the ace. of respect see
: see on Eur. Hel. 440 and add Plat. rep.
Jebb on Phil. 239. 554 A Bt)<savpoiroib% dvr)p' oOs ktL 11.,
4 koo-(aos cf. Ai. 293 yvvau£i k6<t/jlov
: who thinks that the speaker is Acrisiu>,
i] aiyr) <pipei. In this and similar phrases renders :
the idea of personal ornament seems to Short speech for those of proper modesty
be conveyed (fr. 846) one suspects that ; Is seemly toward the parents that begat
0-17^ k6<tho$, silence a jewel, was almost them ;
proverbial: cf. Eur. fr. 219 K6o~p.os 5e The more so for a girl and Argive born,
atytj <Tri^>avos (<TTeyavbs Herw.) dvSpbs ov Whose ornament is silence and few words.
kclkov, Bacchvl. 3. 94 irpdl-avTi 5' ev ov
65
Bdpcrei, yvvctv ra 7ro\\<x rotv hewwv, ovap
irvevcravTa vvktos, rjfxepas fxaXdacreTaL.
65 Stob. Jlor. 108. 56 (iv p. 971, 13 k6tov irviwv
I
dwpbvvKTOv dfifibafia,
llense) ZotpoxXiovs 'AKpioiy (so S MA : where the language has several points
omits the name of the play). '
#dp<r«... of similarity, makes this explanation
(jLaXdo-aeTai.' doubtful. Kaibel (on El. I.e.) suggests
(1) The metaphor is generally taken, that the metaphor is taken from the
as by Ellendt and Campbell, to be that breath of the voice a dream is a message
:
of a gale which blows for a time and then heard. It should be added that /xaXdo-o-trai
subsides. A
simile will be required in is not an apt word in relation to a gale ;
English most of the terrors that come

:
'
its usual application is rather to express
in dreams are like a wind that blows by the assuagement of an emotion. Anyhow,
night and sinks in the day-time.' Thus there is no occasion for Blaydes's <pav4vra
irveiv used metaphorically would connote (for Trvevo-avTa). —
The daylight was be-
a certain degree of vigour or violence as lieved to be effective in purging the evil
in Ar. Eq. 437 ovtos r)8r) /cctiKi'as r) ctvko- influence of dreams Eur. /. T. 42 a
:
(pavTias irvti, and would be contrasted Katvd 8' iJKei

wv£ (pepovaa (paffâra, |
Xe'fw
with fia\do-o-erai. Phot. lex. p. 321, 23 irpbs aldip', et ti Srj t65' tar' olkos.
Trvevaas' o~(po8pus 6pyiadeis. Suid. s.v. Ribbeck, A'om. Trag., p. 55, refers
Hesych. II I p. 348 irvevo-as' dpyiffdeis, this fragment to a significant dream of
dirb /xercHpopas tCov dvefiuv. (2) But the Danae or her mother, and compares
association of with dreams in El.
-rrveiv Naevius Danae fr. V ainnis niveo fonte
480 db~virv6wv KXvovaav dpriws dveipdrwv |
lavere me mer/tini tnanum, where he finds
and in Aesch. Cho. 33 ropbs yap 6pft60pi!- an allusion to a dream.
<p6f3os bbfj.uv 6 v e 1 p bfxavTis e£
I
vnvov
66
tov tfiv yap ovSeU w? 6 yrjpdcTKcou ipd.
66 Stob. Jlor. 119. 7 (iv p. 1076, For the sentiment see on fr. 298.
3 Hense) tov clvtov {sc. £o0oK\e'ous) ovScls <is, none so muck as,' is like ovSev
'
'AKpio-iij}. toB^.^!}.' In Stob. for. 115.

'
olou, for which see on fr. 556. The con-
9 (iv ]>. 1022, 8 Hense) the line is verse ws ovSeis, '
more than any,' occurs
attached to a passage from a comic poet in Plat. apol. 35 u.
Cf. Eur. fr. 320
(Antiphanes fr. 238 11 116 K.), and ovk tariv ...b~vo<pvKa.KTov ovbev ws ywr).
appears again in Stob. Jlor. 16. 39 (iv 1 Aesch. Cho. 848 ovdiv d-)yi\u>v o-devos I
p. 1046, 7 Hense) 2o<poic\e'ovs. 'f9r... ws clvt6$.

AKPIIIOZ 43
67
to tyTjv yap, in nal, travTo% rfaiov ye'pae/
Oaveiv yap ovk eêcm toU avTolai 819.
67. 1 fidior Meineke: jjSutto* codd.
67 Stoh. flor. 119. (iv p. 1074, u 1 ij5iov. I have accepted Mcinckc's

:i>e) loônXfout 'Axpurlov correction : for the common confusion of
om. S). ' t6 {$r...tCr.' comparative and superlative terminations
No man can <lic twice ; and that makes see Cobet, N. I., p. 1 19. s-arrot rj&urro*
life all the sweeter, as an experience that cannot be defended either by the anoma-
can never be repeated. The second line lies, mostly corrupt, collected in Kuchner-
is a variation of the saw often remodelled Gerth ji f.I or by s-arrdt fidXiara
,
iliiii. I 40X &v8(6s 8i r^vxh wdVir quoted by Stephanus from Dion. Hal.
1
ikfftir o&rt \rjiffTt) oOff i\(H}, twtl dp K*v J

ant. Rom. 1. 14, 1. 75. 3. 35 and other
ipKo\ 6N>*Twv. f. Aesch. Kum. ( passages, where it takes the place of the
65 araf Qarderot oCrtt tar' dvdoraatt.
1 Platonic rtojrrtn (idWor. Illaydcs pre-
Kur. //</•. :o;. ^/r. 1076. Suf>fl. 771 ferred waair (or wov Vrir) ijoiffTo*.
etc.
68
'\ktltt)<; kidos
68 Hesjrch. I p. to dVruTji (d*r>7f,s 1 'A*t/tou \19ov KaraantvaaBtlaa, tov
rot)
Cod. corr. Musurusj \IH01 dwo rrjt iv Iff
:
• •
UtrrtXiKov (? UttpaifoO). In Tr. fi.
\OTOV*T)OV duTTJf. Z<Ht>OK\T)t 'AtfHtTl^. (f. adrsp 467 from Stcph. Mw. p.
Harpocr. p. 10, 4 'Aktt) 4wi$a\arri^6t 'A/tWrryt, /£ or t6 "AiETsVw wirpa' 4* rjf
m /xoipa tt)% "ATT.«^f "Twtpiiijt 4» rip rpa-ywii^ drrl tov 'AttucoQ Nauck is
wtpl rod Tapi\ovi
6 i*Tinjt ' 50t* Kal probably ri^ht in I
*4rpm.
Xffoi. but without une effect, The s.ine of the Atrium was laid at
the reference to Hypcrides, Hekk. anted. Argos, and this fact confirms the state-
.v. ment of HcsychiuH that Sophocles referred
'Aktxttjs Xt9o$ was the name given to to the l'elo|>onnc*ian Acte ; for tft
the limestone taken from the quarric* also the name given to the east roast of
at At '•. ill-- |>«nm ul.i to the S.
I Algottl lictween Troczcn and Kpidauruv
of the Pcireeus and lying U-twecn it and The alternative is he
to MMON that
the bay of I'halerum. t.'f. CIA 11 1054, was alluding to from
stone imported
'ônr)cti 84 Toit tw'xoi'1 tt» trxttw- tod thai H mistaken. •
#>J«ijt *a« roit Kt'orat 'Ak riroi' Xifof. Sec For the torm dxrinrr, which wool
171. {•city he applied to an inhabitant of Acte,
IOS explains d«reua. sup
I p. sec on :
posed to be a kind of mortar, 1
69
Ma/ncvc. d\ot/xof
69 / , ',. 4j &\oifiM 4
rdi grammarian of uncertain <\>'
• ii rikl iwa\tii{"it dXot/Mvl f\t-)or. 7. S.MoiartAi/> t %ycfc. I

9+ok\t/% '
Ma, i" r d\oiu6i if Jwdfui '
p. 1 \od\*iibtW*M*c<*l.)- x*»m*i*v*>
\»rod 0aXdfiov yariaetwi inttoa 4 to.' So0o«X»)i 'A«0i#<v 'if*, p. !•*.
\8*w<pavi r»raXoKTiT odoa iw orr^v 9 d\<K»iiri rA- r«Lx*» &*»*<
formation n .•, OfML 1 • .
I The reference Is to a method of wall-
' — ;
44 I04>0KAE0YI
decoration by a process of polishing or XCl\k$ irepitXdp.fiavoi> irdvra rovTrepibpofioi',
varnishing, which was connected with olov dXoi<pij irpoaxpiiififvoi ibid. D wdvra
'
the name of the Cyprian town of Marion, 5t ii-wdevirtpi^Xeixpav rbv vtuiv dpyvpy
afterwards known as Arsinoe. It was icri. No doubt such ornamentation was
situated on the N. coast of the island associated by the Greeks with the art of
between the promontory Acamas and the the heroic age, rightly enough as recent
town of Soli (Strabo 683). The site is discoveries have proved see Jebb, In- :
described by Munro and Tubbs \nj. H. S. troduction to Flomer, p. 61. [Arist.] mir.
xi 1 ff. Orus explained the process by ausc. 41 mentions a stone called fiapuvs,
comparing it to veraXuxris, i.e. the laying- which takes fire when water is poured on
on of gold-leaf. See Plato's description it. But in Hesych. ill p. 72 this is named
of the walls of Atlantis Criti. 116 B kox
: /uapifetfs, and not contrary to the alpha-
rod fj.ev irepl rbv O-utcltw rpoxbv relxovs betical order, as L. and S. state.
70
tAActSas yovd<;
70 Hesych. II p. 356 IXXdbas yovas- av<7Tpo<prjv, irXrjdos. p. 29 etXofie'i'wv '
av-
dyeXaias (so Musurus for dyeXeids cod.) o~Tp(<pontvu)P ev iro\ifHfi. p. 356 fXXai-
kcli ras <rv<rTpo(pds. ~EvpnriSy]s <&pli;tp (fr. Ta|eis. av(TTpo<pal. Etym. M. p. 361,
837) Kal 1,o<Pok\t)s 'AKpifflcp. 44 explains the Homeric IXXdbts (H 572)
IXXdSas -yoyos, 'herding produce.' as 01 crvveTTpa/jifidvoL ifj.dvres. It appears,
The adj. is aptly used of the cattle crmod- then, that L. Dindorf (Thes. II p. 711)
ing or pressing together, as they are should not have deleted the words xai
driven. Cf. Horn. 8215. I have very ras o-v<XTpo<pds. He went on to explain
little doubt that this was Hesychius' t'XXctSes 701'ai as referring to plough-oxen,
explanation, and that we ought to read comparing Ant. 341 IXXo^fvwv dpbrpwv.
dyeXaias Kara ras avo~Tpo<pds. For <rv- I presume he took LXXddes as = turning '
<TTpi<petv, avarpo<p-i) are regularly used by to and fro,' but this is hardly conceivable
the lexicographers in glossing lXXuv without the addition of (e.g.) dporpots.
(eiXXuv) and l\r) schol. Ar. Ran. 1066
: For the meaning of IXXtiv Buttmann's
irtpuXXbixevos] dvrl rod irepieiXrjdels r) article (Lexil. § 44) is still worth reading.
avarpoKpds. tXXeiv yap to (rvarpicpeiv. For the concrete use of yovas cf. Aesch.
Suid. s.v. t\as. dyiXas rj rdêis...t\r] fr. 194 'iirirwv ovwv r' oxe«a * a ' raupuv
yap crvcrpocpi). id. s.v. elXadbv. nark yovas. Here the adj. takes the place of
<rv<rTpo<pr)v (so Hesych.). s.v. ti\7]86v. a genitive (dyeXuv), as in Ai. 71 aixp-a-
ffvvecTpa/ifJi^vws. Hesych. II p. 28 ci'X^v \uTi8as x*P as (Jebb).
71
71 Hesych. I p. 47 d5o£cr wapddoâ d86i;a<TTos (fr. 223), deXirros, dvtXirto-TOS.

Kal <&> ovk av ns 486âo-(v. 2o0okX?)s In spite of its rarity, ddotjos must have
'AKpiffiip (dupicriv cod.). Phot. ed. Reitz, been well-established as = improbable '
'
p. 33, 7 (Bekk. anecd. p. 344, 27) &do£a for it is so used several times by Aristotle
ra irapddoâ, & ovk &v tis do^daeiev. in the topica: see (e.g.) 9. 12. 173^ 26
(=Phryn. 79 de B.) In the same
fr. rots de iroXXois &5o£ov to j3a<rtXia fj.i] eudai-
sense Sophocles employs also ddoKrjros, fioveiv.
72
avTCLLav
72 Hesych. 1 p. 209 dvralav '
Iktottov, is discussed on fr. 334. Zktottov mea m
XaXeirrjv. 'SotpoKXijs rio-lw (Musurus re- 'strange,' in the sense of 'startling.'
stored 'AKptoty). The meaning of dvraios Hesych. II p. 54 Zktowov xo-^tov. £e"vov.
1 ;
AKPIIIOI 45
73
arroyhpofiov
73 Efesych. p. 245 dxodponop-
i t<t>vfioi by the Cretans, did to nrjfc wu twp
i\*TToi-nt¥o» twj dp6/JUHt. 7) ra\tv6f)ou.oy. k<hpvp ipdfiup here
utTix«u'. It may
4 M<r' itavubov. dxprfcitf) IcxponXijj I be mentioned that M. Schmidt thought
'AxfHaitf) Musurus). This is 1 ilUlMiJj dtpTiffLy in 1was an error for wapd
lesych.
ol>scure, and l-'.llendt corrects fur iwav- Kprjal. He
does not quote Kustathius
6iov, with the intention, I suppose, of nor would Eustath. throw any light on the
accommodating it to raXifSpofAof. Our obscurity of llesych., even if Schmidt's
only other authority for droSpo/xot it to conjecture were right. It is perhaps
be found in certain passages of Kustathius more probable that Soph, used the word
(//. 717, i\, Otf. p. 1593, 56, ]). [788,
p. in the former of the two senses recorded
u->tathius takes his information in
!
bjf I.tistath. and Hesych.'s iXarrovntPOP
;
[>art from Alcxion, a grammarian in the roit ipdfioit may refer to one who was
atter half of the first ccnturv A. P., who too weak to compete in a race. can We
drew from the best Alexandrian sources. hardly go further, but the alternatives lead
According to Kustathius dr68pofiot was me to suspect that dwoiponot was cm-
nsedin two senses ( ) : 1
cir ijd-ij xtxavufrop ployed metaphorically. Hartung quite
&rd tup 8p6nup. This ribed to unjustifiably interprets 'a runaway
'certain of the ancients' on the analogy and compares fr. 63.
of iw6naxo%. (1) As a name given to the
74
74 i|. vch. I p. a6» &To4>ai>0tif f> <fn-aip avroO XiVot tâ^trift iylrovro. and
rcupov<rai tt\p
75
dpcjfjLara
75 tiecjrch. I p. 195 dpJuara [Ap6- The word it entirelydi-nurt from
ftara cod., against the order of letters: dpu/H'- IMOTO A|mi||. l(X
( .
p. 4 I ,
OM)' dporptdnara (or |>crh. rather nee \WW.ant>J.\K 450, ijapwâra

dpoTfuJuara, as M. Schmidt conjectured). oh ra ffeptdâra o\ 'A meal caXowtfU',
«o« drb (iwl cod. iorr. : 1 a\Xi ra UvaptUp*. With Eupotts wc
dpo< * to d\<fxTa o&ru \lytrat. loô«Xr)t arc not concerned, but it might lie thought
'hMpialif {dtpioi cod. corr. Mu : that croft rather than tilth M the meaning
c to be drawn from this is inferred for s..|.h«»cle». That thi»
phoclcs used d/>w/iara in the sense is not thecav: ibowa bf ucian Isxtph.
is I
U
IiniJ, not for dVtfxra v* In. b l/>wii «•»/*€ X*> r« a^wpa ra. wnhfoH
Would hardly l>c credible. < rt tbpo* 4p avroii wtfimirm, where the
*
woiourrot kui4*\oC>i>toi toO #toC ^ hot has ifitiftmrm Si rh iporpv /{«i/r>«#-
ripi/nara, where the Kbol. makes it tUp* witia, Aelian w. a. 7. K P«i t* ron
that the mention of dXaVra in dpwMa't ^h»oa««»<m. 1 6. 14 t^ rott 0*0t*tr
1. actually refers to a passage of oVwtuwir. For the late form apo#ta, which
• : t4 dporpidtiara, wapd rd dpo- i» to I* rejected. «c« Cobet. ' /
rputi'P. rd TpotipoTptwfiJpa. \tyovfi oV #>tot ûltimate in
cat rd a\^«ro «ai top Xtfkworrop dpwuara. b) illu*iraie-l fr -n» the paprri
wt wap' Ei'w6\i6i (fr. .104 316K.) ' «oi 1 II MoVltOfl 111 (' A'. Will 10H.
J* dftufidrup,' drrt rov TUP dX^t'rurr.
:
46 I04>0KAE0YI
76
acrro/xos
76 Hesych. 1 p. 306 Affrofios' 6 /xr? O. C. 981. In Strabo 70 oi Tovsd.ffr6fx.ovi
8vvdp.evos X^-yeij'. ô<f>OK\rjs 'AKpifficp. re appivas iffTOpouvres and in Lucian
ical
affTOfioi, elsewhere of a hard-mouthed Lexiph. 15 0X07101' ^/uiv e'jurdrTeis u>s

horse (.£7. 724), is here a synonym of dffTofiois ovffi ko.1 direyyXuTTifffitvou the
avavSos, &<p6oyyos, dfiwvos, oli)/6$7)tos etc. meaning is different, '
without a mouth.'
This is possible because ffrdiia had be- But cf. Epict. diss. 2. 24. 26, Achilles
come familiar in the sense of speech ' '
reduces Odysseus and Phoenix to silence
ffov 7' ets t65' ii-e\d6i>Tos dvbffiov ffrdfxa (dffT6p.ovs ireiroiriKt).
AAEAAAI
The mistaken correction of the title to WXcoaSai was due to
Hemsterhuis on Lucian Charon 3 p. 494, and was supported by
an explanation of fr. 89 from Apollod. I. 55, where Artemis
takes the form of a stag, and by a stratagem induces Otus and
Ephialtes to shoot each other. But €kt)\o<; is inconsistent with
this view.
Subsequent investigation has decisively shown that the
subject of the play was the fortunes of Auge and her son
Telephus, and the credit of establishing the truth belongs to
Fr. Vater, who in his dissertation die Aleaden des Sophokles,
Berlin, 1835, first pointed out the significance for the present
purpose of a passage in one of the declamations attributed to
Alcidamas (Odyss. 13 16, p. 187 Bl. 2 ). — It is there related
how Aleos, king of Tegea, went to Delphi and received an
oracle from the god, warning him that, if his daughter bore a
son, his own sons must die by the hand of his grandson.
Accordingly, on his return home, Aleos made his daughter Auge
priestess of Athena, vowing that he would kill her if she ever
became a wife. It so happened that Heracles came to Tegea,
when on his way to Elis to attack Augeas, and was entertained
by Aleos in the temple of Athena. Heracles saw the girl, met
her in secret, and left her pregnant. When Aleos discovered the
state of affairs, he sent for Nauplius, king of Euboea, and handed
over Auge to him, with directions that she should be drowned 1 .
However, on the journey from Tegea, Auge gave birth to

Telephus on Mt Parthenius and Nauplius, disregarding his
;
instructions, sold mother and child to be conveyed across the sea

to King Teuthras in Mysia. Teuthras, who was childless,
married Auge, and adopted her son, to whom he gave the name
1
Cf. the similar story of Aerope, related in the Kpfjffffai. of Euripides: schol. At.
1295, Apollod. 3. 15.
AKPIIIOI— AAEAAAI 47
I elephus.
mportance of the
in
The
story was current in several versions, but the
account preserved by Alcidamas is that he
alone refers to the oracle given to Aleos, and mentions this
as the reason why Auge was entrusted to Nauplius. Tli
once explains the title of Sophocles' play. Confirmation of
Alcidamas is to be found in Proverb. AppttiJ. 2. 87 (Pannm. I
412) as well as in Hygin. fab. 244 Telcphus Herat/is filius Hippo-
thoiim et Neaerat aviae suaefilios (sc. oeeidit) 1 1 will be seen that '.
the name of the other son is lost, and Hippothous is nowhere

else mentioned as a son of Aleos. Apollod. 3. 102 calls the
sons of Aleos and Neaera by the names Cepheus and Lycurgus,
whereas Pausan. 8. 4. 8 and Ap. Rhod. I. 161 ff. make them
three in number, Lycurgus, Cepheus, and Amphidamas.
As contrasted with the account of Alcidamas, that of
Apollodorus (2. 146) mentions temple-defilement and consequent
\o//xck (<>r Xt/Mos, as in 3. 103) as the causes which induced Aleos
to hand over Auge to Nauplius and to expose her child.
Diodorus, however, whose version is more rationalistic, simply
relates (4. 33) that Aleos discovered his daughter to be pregnant,
and sent her away in disgrace, not believing her story that >h<
with child by Heracles. In regard to the circumstances of the
birth of Telephus, Sophocles and Alcidamas followed different
versions for the latter allows no place for the suckling of the
;
infant by a hind, which is clearly referred to in fr. 89. Here,

therefore, the Sophoclean plot approximated to the story as
related in Hiodorus, Apollod.//.*?., Pausan. 8. 4X. 7, 54.6*. It
enable to infer that, according to Sophocles, Telcphus was
by the herdsmen of King Corythus", or by C'orytluis
i
if; and that the question of his birth in some way or other
presented itself to him, when he was grown to manhood.

ding to Apollod. 3. 104 and Diod. I.e. he went to Delphi to
enquire of the oracle, and was sent by the g<xl to Mysia. It will
be observed that the above-mentioned authorities do not give

any information concerning the return of Telephus to the palace
os, or the manner in which he killed his uncles. The gap
can only be filled by conjecture, and there is nothing to help us
that frs. 86, 8; appear to belong to a scene in which
t
tion of doubtful birth was canvassed. Wernicke (in l'auly-

n 2302) inferred that Telcphus was mocked by
'
The text is corrupt, lmt M. S< •hmi.lt it doabtlti rifjhl m trstociag S faentf for
in /A. 143 Sttitra A utolya f.tia froPter Hifpoihoi Jitii martrm (»c. it tfi*
ra (.Ink. Jakrb. in 60 t<> read l\rta for Ntrm

'Uiorum in J4.1.
**» hardly a late invention, an Jahn mippmcd : Kraaer . r**m*.
^>(H4tU in Arcadia (I'auvan. H. 45,

'
48 I04>0KAE0YI
Hippothous and his brother for the obscurity of his origin, and
that he slew them in anger that subsequently Aleos demanded
;
his surrender from Corythus that in consequence of the;
explanation given he recognized his grandson and that he then ;
required him to consult the oracle in order to learn how he should

expiate his blood-guilt. Robert {Arch. Jahrb. Ill 61 ff.) thinks it
more likely that the strife between Telephus and the Aleadae
arose out of some incident similar to the Calydonian hunt in the
legend of Meleager. He points out that in that case fr. 84
suitably describes the overthrow of two princes of the royal
house by a foreign bastard. This carries the story to the period
which is covered by the action of the Mysians. Welcker (p. 413)
preferred to suppose that Heracles appeared as dens ex machina
to clear up the dispute, and ordered Telephus to go to Mysia 1
.
should be observed that an entirely different version of the

It
story was adopted by Euripides, to the effect that mother and
child were cast adrift together in a chest by Aleos, but ultimately
reached the mouth of the Caicus, and were rescued by Teuthras
(Strabo 615). Such at least was the account given in the
prologue to the Telephus for in the later Auge Telephus was
;
separated from his mother and exposed (Wilamowitz, Anal. Enr.

p. 189 f). The simpler story, which is parallel to that of Danae,
was given by Hecataeus (Pausan. 8. 4. 8), and is believed,
although the reasons assigned are hardly convincing, to have
been derived from the Cypria and Little Iliad (Wernicke, u.s.
2300). The Pergamene dynasty established by Attalus traced
their descent from Telephus, and the people claimed to be
Arcadians sprung from the band which crossed with Telephus
to Asia. Thus they were precluded from giving official
recognition to the Xapvag-story, and followed in preference, as
has been shown exhaustively by Robert {Arch. Jahrb. II 244,
Hi 45, 87), the versions of Aeschylus and Sophocles. See also
Frazer, Pausan. II p. j6.
77
ivravda fxei^Tot Travra Tavdpuiriov vocrel,
/ca/col? otolv Bekcocnv laadai /ca/ca.
77 Stob. Jior. 4. 37 (in p. 228,

17 mss known as B, C. For these see Hense
Hense) "2o<poK\4ovs. evTavda...KaKa.
' in HJk. A/us. XLI 59 f.
The extract is omitted in SMA, ed. 1 cvTavOa looks forward to the follow-
Trinc. gives as above, and 'AXeddais is ing clause: cf. Eur. fr. 497 ical yap
added after 2o^>okXôi'S by two of Schow's evrtvOev voael ra twv yvvaiicwv ot /xfr kt£.
|
1
So also Fr. Vater, op. at. p. 25.
AAEAAAI 49
06 i* Tip8( yiip K&fiwovffiv al ToWal where Jebb gives other illustrations.
ridti,
wiiktu, 6ra* rii kt(.
| //el. 581 i*u See also on fr. 854. I'lut. de garrul. 4
roaovjuv, trt id/xapT aWrjy tû, /. T. p. 504 H (art it Bipartite* rijt rovov fia p<-
1018 Ty5t ydp ¥o<rtl ritrrot rpdt oIkovs \ rtpoi (s<: 6 a66\t<rx<n), where the doctor
looks backward. For the use of 6tcw hmiM-lf rather than his drugs is at fault.
l./.P. xxxni 418. Similarly Fur. Batch. 839 «ax«t 9r\pa»
3 Kcucoit Kri. For the proverb k*k6* kukL, Aelian nat. an. 3. 47 (of Oedipus)
icaxip iacdai cf. Aesch. fr. 349 ni) xaxoU IQ p.i) rip oUip Kai rip 7î>(( KaTapJ/fxtPOf tlra
Kcucd, Soph. fr. 589, At. 363 fit) xaitb* nirroi Ktucip dftjKtffTip laatiai *o«4 to IfSif
kolkw 5i5ovt J
aVot w\iw ri Trjfia ttji drijt rapf\06rra.
78
T019 yap Sikcu'oic. dure^LU ov pa&iov.
78 Stob. ftor. 9. 4 (111 p. 346, 14 Suppl. 437 **£ 3' 6 ^tr/wr r&r niy*» tint'
1&po*.\iov\ (Et/ptsrldou A) 'AXed- (\uv. Fur. fr. 584 «ft tcx &Vatot fivpivr
iai (dVatddat If, d\wdSat A). 'r«t... oi'K (vdUwy I
Kparti, rd 0ftor rV M«ijr rr
pi ho*.' in \\a,**ijf. These are variations of the
1 verse of our proverb simple theme in Fur. fr. 343 ddpon' rd
'Might 1- Kiglit." Cf. O.C. 880 Toff rot rot di*cuoi> «'<rxi'«« M^7>- See also fr. 80.
on a on 1 ^w ppax*i '»*? fidyar. Fur.
79
KCLKOV TO K€V0€LV KOV 7T/30? ai>8/X>S CUy€VOV?.
79 co(/Gesner: «ai S
79 Stob. /lor. \i. 3 (ill p. 444, 8 7'raih. 988, Aesch. C*o. 101 n'i\ cW#rr*
( vc. 2.<xpo*\(ovi) 'Wtdii. /rio* Kopiiar ^<V*v rir6t, 'don't practise
'<a«6i' rtyooCi. The extract is con-
I in S only of Hcnse's MSS. With the addition, nohltHt oblige, cf.
Ktvfciv. hide one's true thought.

i.e. t<> (Jhaeremon fr. 17 {7'GFp. 789) f-«**9 M
.12 4x0pbi t^p A">* KtlfOS OflUft roif io<i\oloi» oi> wp4wu \4y*i». ~ wpit :
'Atiaa wi'\r)cir, 61 %' lT*po* W* KM-By

I M 'l»cfiiting' (proccetling from). F«>r dm
iAXo 64 ttwy. ylides I < idi-mi see my n. on Fur. //«•/. 950 awl
48 Irtpor K*v0<nt Kpa&lj) rtor, d\\*
nii&' Klaydes on Ai. 319. So fr. 31-,
iyoptiwr. Sail. Cat. 10. K«>r the absolute gal and «p6 confused Campbell refer* to
use of «»i"fiii in the transitive sense cf. Troth. 10 t
80
mu yap hiKaia yXtoara «\€i Kparos fitya.
so .7, 10 For the tcntiment see »n '
< •{ A\»aii»» (F has /{ referfed to alw> in /'hi/. Iaa| f *' *' »^*
'AX#diw» without the poet's name : Xtft 0wr«it o*rf «>>«ur»<«.i #o^4> | aXX' tl ««««•.
• al >ap.. m^7«-
:
5o ZO<t>OKAEOYI
81
co irai, cricoira' TroW* eêt criyrj Kakd.

81 ovyr; M et PIuL : ciwttt) S
81 Stob. flor. 33. 3 (m
p. 678, 10 the truth must
be avoided. Such at
Hense) M,
1iO<poKXiovs 'AXedSais (cuXeaert least was the ordinary man's morality
but S omits the name of the play, and A see Pind. Nem. 5. 16 otfrot airacra Kcpbloiv I
the whole extract). 'w.../caXd.' Plut. de <palvoi<ra irpbawirov dXd&ei' drpe/frjj' |

Kal
garnil. 2 p. 502 E etnupev irpbs rbv dbb- rb aiyav ttoWcikis iarl <jo<pu> \
rarov dv-
\e<rx ov Arsenius p. 737, 9
'c3.../caXd.' dpwirq) vorjaai, fr. 180 tad' fire 7rt<rrordr<x
-
(=Apostol. xviii 62 a) assigns the line aiyds 656s Kiv\rpov 5e pd\o.% ° Kpart-
to Menander, but Dindorf and Hense crrevuv X670S. Aesch. fr. 188 iroXKols yap
point out that this is due to the fact that i<rn Ke'pSos 7) 0-1777 {jporwv. Ag. 553
Menander is the author of the verse im- TrdXai to aiyav <p6.pp.aK0v /3Xd/3r;s lx u
mediately preceding it in Stobaeus. should be compared with Carcin. fr. 7 wo\-
The verse is not a general recommen- XQv yap dvOpuvoicn <pa.pp.aKov KaK&v
dation of silence; and the context would 0-477). —
iroXXd...KaXd in place of the more
\
probably have shown that silence was usual 7roXXd Kal KaXa: see Jebb on Phil.
enjoined in painful circumstances, where 583.
82
tC ravra ttoWcov prffxarcov er ecrri ctol ;
rd yap irepiacrd iravrayov Xvinqp' enr).
82 Stob. flor. 36. n (m p. 692, 12 dpidprjaai erxoXas. Herodian Philet.

475) 6X1777$ ian
l
Hense) Socpo/cXe'ous 'AXedficus. rl... Zttt).' (Pierson's Moeris, p.
1 'Why should this still need many 8i8a<rKaXlas, dvrl rov, dXiyuv deirai irpbs
words from you?' Herwerden conjectured pa6ri<nv. Euenus fr. 1, 5 rovs j-uverovs...
prjpdruv iira£iois, but eYi is indispensable o'iirep Kal pq.<rri)s elo~l Sidacr KaXirjs.
(better eV aj-iois, as Hense says) and the 2 ir€pi<r<rd is used as in Aesch. Theb.
genitive (descriptive, = requiring many
' 1034 irepi<r<ra KT)pvo-<reiv. Cf. Eur. Suppl.
words') is idiomatic: Plat. Gorg. 461 A 459 irepKTffb. <pwvGiv, Med. 819 trepitTcrol
ravra oSv #71-77 7rore ex«, 0VK bXlyys ffvvov- irdvres ovv p(o~<p X6701. But in 0. T. 841
ffias icrrlv dicrre iKavws biacTKiipaadai. H. irepio-abv Xbyov means 'remarkable, of
quotes Pind. Nevi. 10. 46 paKportpas yap special note.'
83
fjirf rrdvr ipevva' rroXXd Kal \aBelv koKov.
83 Xaddv KaXbv Blomfield : XaXei> KaKbv codd.
83 Stob. flor. 41. 4 (in p. 758, 5 ri>XV< Tavrav (TKOret Kpvirreiv ZoiKev, Eur.
Hense) Ikxpo/cXeous 'AXedSais. 'py... Ka- fr. 460. See on fr. 64, where the phrase
Xbv.' 04777 Kb&pos is discussed it is worth notice :
The verse
is a pendant offr. 81: 'Silence that, in the passages there mentioned,
is good, where there is a skeleton in the Bacchylides takes the conventional view,
house.' On the other hand, good fortune whereas Euripides advocated the dignity
should be proclaimed to all. Cf. Pind. of silence. Blomfield's correction
Pyth. 3. 83 ra KaXa rpiipavres ££«. fr. 42 strongly supported by Eur. Hipp. 465 iv
Ka\uv ptv iv polpav re rep\wvwv is peaov <ro<poi<Ti yap rd8' itrrl Ovrjrwv, XavOdvtiv
[
Xph iravri Xa$ deiKvvvaf et 84 ris avdpib-

|
\
ra py) KaXa. Blaydes thought roi prefer-
iroiai debffdoros drXdra KaKbras wpoa- |
able to Kal; but see on fr. 23.
. a
AAEAAAI 51
84
kovk otS' otl xpr) npos ravra Xeyeii/,
orau ol y ayaOoi irpb<; rutv ayevatv
KaravLKojvTaL.
nolo. 77-0X19 av raS' eWy/coi ;
84. a -/ Valckenaer: t' codd. |

o\ytpQ>p (irotius: dyrrrwr codd.
84 v flor. 43. 6 (iv p. 1, 1 j Hense)

. matic: sec Neil's Equittx p. 190, Kuehner-
ZoftarX/oer (toO aiTov S) AXcddat. 'koi/k. ' . Gerth § 509, 9 (<•), and cl. At. 715, Phil.
i»4yK0i;'Also in <w]0. Par. 716 Elter, 1099. II. points out that a similar ques-
with omitted in v. 1.
x/)J> tion arises in Phil. 45ft, where 7' 1
The non-committal punctuationadopted as a variant for 6' in 1. and is the reading

by Dindorf and Nauck, who, keeping r' of several other MSS. But, indepen-
in v. 7. print commas after Xfyetr and dently of authority, the cav.- for <i' is strong
KarewiKQfTai, leaves the connexion of the there. Robert, retaining r', assumes a
obscure. Hut r* does not seem to lacuna after carwurwrro*. Hense sug-
be in place as a connective, whether or gests ol Xaps-pol or the like.
not a heavier stop is placed after \iytip. 2 f. For the political conditions as-
I have followed Valckenaer in giving y' sumed, the overthrow of the nobles by
for t\ and in joining the 6rat> clause with the masses, see on fr. 191. aytvmv shows
ffldl which precede it. The subor- that in o/yoJoi the political meaning is
Iause then conveys a causal impli- fori-moM. KaraviKavrai the compound :
451 tov xp'l riBtadat does not seem to occur cl>cwhcrc {rii*
raCna, wov &' air up, 6row rd $tV rVairurr |
—
—or wo\6 rurwrra* conj. Blaydcs, pdy*
Tovt Otoin tOpu ttiKoii; For 6ra* so used viKutvrai Herwerden). — trpds: ft. MI,
see my paper in A.J.P. XXXIII 416 ff. 4 rdS«, 'tiling like these.' of what has
appearance of yt, as after Irwin*, been mentioned: cf. Thuc a. 71 tuo« nip
twov, (whM), tbrt and the like, is idio- rifur waripti ol vfUrtpoi tiovar.
85
hoKQ) fUv, ovSeiV aXX* opa fir) Kptlaraov 7}
teal BvcrcrifiovvTa t£)v ivamiwu Kpartlv
i) hovkov avTou ovtol tu)v 7T€\as k\vo,v.
85 St.!.. (lor. 54. ji (IV p. 351 . 5 in other authors are collected by Blaydes
ZoQotXlovi 'AXcadurr (dXeaiwr M,
1
tUp loluatium in
d\foia3wK prnnitus A), 'to* comedy see Stark ie on Vttf. 77; and for
1 receding sentence mu I
rators Wyse on /*«/. 1 1.
« iriinglybeirTeligious?" Im r i\ fl Hot the subjunctive Me

tii \* bit* f\otro 6v0fftfii)l tlrat;' (II.) Jebb on Phil. 30. It« u«c here in prefer-
\y wished to alter ence ti> the indicative shows that the

oiiih aatflhi. —Somi (Uv: an peak" ng forward to the
-
. "f ; for it must not circumstances of the particular case than

weighing the general application of the
ifxx. I
/'.
1051 maxim.
-.ttnguished: in the one case a t. Several critic* have missed an
-dp introduces the antithesis to *V*»»/*»arra which they
anying for frfl X—
/ing *o*w and "thrr verbs cl. airop AVra Cobct suUtitutrd f m* #MW
'
• O.C Wôrr >chmidt f"

Aai*«r«t t.-
ny examples pflrra, Vitelli 1 io. Vor «i* *«-»» 4rra and
4—
'
52 IO0OKAEOYI
Weil rj SoOXov dyvbvbvra; Papageorgius justifies dSiKia, much as here stress is laid
changed SovXov to xP y) <jr ^v anc^ Nauck i
on slavery as the extremity of misfortune.
conjectured beCXbv for SoOXov. But the In Aesch. Ag. 478 the Chorus pray for
presence of ko.1 and avrbv shows that these the middle state nrp-' etttv 7rroXnrbpdr]s,
:
|
corrections are misconceived the thought : ^177-' oiiv ai/Tds dXovs vw' &X Xu> /3ioe xar-
is, It is better to conquer one's foes

'
L5oifj.i. H. compared Trag. fr. adesp. 181
even by foul means than to be so reduced #a fj-e Kepbaivovra KeKXijffOat Koucbv \
KpeTff-
as to be the slave of others.' To a free- <rou yap rj olfiovra robs OeQv vbp.ovs \
W-
born Greek slavery is the worst of all virra valeiv Sbâv r]ij.woXr)KbTa, and with v.
evils hence the arrogant note in avrbv,
; 3 Eur. Hel. 730 Kpetooov yap rb8' {i.e. to
which contrasts as in Phil. 316. For the be a loyal slave with a mind free) rj bvolv
&»' 6vra
<pv<rei 80OX01 the case is different. It is KaKoiv I xPV (r ^ ai i Ta * <ppivat t'
not so much slavery that is contrasted AXXwv t' aKoveiv dovXov
^X eiV KaKai, I
with sovereignty, as degradation with ovra viXas. Add Ant. 479 ootu
tQiv
power once enjoyed. In Eur. Phoen. SovXbs Am rwv xAas. Gomperz, who at
524 f. etrrep ydp dSiKetv XPV* rvpavvidos one time was inclined to follow Cobet in
nipi. KaWiffTov dSiKeiv r&XXa 5' eiioefieiv
I
suspecting the text, subsequently defended
Xpeuv, sovereignty is taken as the supreme it on similar lines to the view taken
limit of happiness, the attainment of which above (Nachlese, p. 5).
86
Travcrai. KarapKel Tovhe K€K\r}<r0ai narpo^,

elirep TrefyvKa y el he pnq, p.eioiv fiXa/Stf.
to toi voixio~6ev rfjs dXyj$eCa<; Kparel.
86. 2 /xelwv Gesner: fieifav SA, fieiôv M 3 toi] ti A piimitus
86 Stob. flor. 76. 9 (iv p. 610, 2 biK-qv. For etirep ye in dialogue see on
Hense) ZoôkX^s 'AXeadais (dXedSes A).
'
Trade ai.. k par el. .
Eur. Phoen.
725, 1652. p.ei(uv (JXaPrj:
i.e., to be called the son of such a father
—
We may perhaps assume that these rather than to learn the truth.
words were spoken by Telephus in refer- 3 to toi vo|iwr6iv xre. Cf. the well-
ence to the supposed parentage of Heracles known conclusion of Gray's ode On a
(or Corythus). distant prospect of Eton College, 'Thought
1 k£k\t}o-0cu iraTpos: cf. fr. 564 (n.). would destroy their Paradise, No more; j
For the gen. cf. Track. 1 105 o rijs dpiarris where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be |
fiyrpos tbvo/xafffj.iyo$. wise.' So Eur. fr. 205 <ppoi>£> 8' 8 rrdcrx^'

2 ciirtp 7r€<j)UKa y' For the meaning . Kai rb8' ov <r/j.iKpov nanby to fir) elbivai yap
of etrrep )( et ye see the exhaustive discus- fivd vooovvra' atpSos 8' iv
r)Sovr]v e"x €i
I
sion by E. S. Thompson in his edition of Kaicoisdyvuola. Apollod. Caryst. fr. 10

the Me no, p. 258 ff. Here etrrep bears its (ill 284 K.) oi yap druxovvres rbv xpbvov
common meaning of si modo (fr. 104 n. ), Kep8aivop.ev brroaov dv dyvowixev rrrvxy-
|
but the addition of 7' changes the tone. Kores. This comes from the Hccyra,
It is impossible to reproduce the nuances which was translated by Terence, and the
of Greek particles in English; but the corresponding lines in his version
speech-stress, which we indicate by the 286 f. nam nos omnes, auibus est alien m;
use of italics in printing, may serve roughly aliqnis obiectus labos, omne quod \
to convey the difference between etrrep interea tempus prius quam id resell it es m
Tri<pvKa, '
If I am his son,' and etrrep rre- lucro est. See also on fr. 583. 5. At. 554
<pvKd y', 'If I am his son.'
Cf. Plat. to p.7] (ppoveiv yap icapr' dvw8vvov Kaicbv
Enthyphr. 8 C toOto yap, ov ToXfj.w<n

oI/mil, Eur. Bacch. 1259 ff. Or. 236 Kpelaaov
Xiyeiv . . .ws oi>xh etrrep dSucovcri ye, 8oriov rb SoKetv, k&v dXr/deias airy.
1
AAEAAAI 53
87
A. oS\ el p66o<s ti<j, yvrjcriois Icrov aOc'vct.
B. anau to \pr)<TTOv ywqoiav €\€i <f>vcrii>.
87. 1 if, " Kripd : 6 8' tl codd., 6 8i) vulgo |

rai% yrrtcioti SM, ru rott ynpioit
A : corr. Nauck | odtvoi A 3 yprâiap Stot>. : t'hp toifp Clem.
87 Stob. yfor. 77. 9 (IV p. 6i 4 , 11 first line should lie read as a question (oi>
'A\td8au (-8<» A,om. S).

Zo4>ok\rft O) pMoi ti%...9$4p*i ; 'surely a mere has-
'6 S'.-ipvair.' The second v. is quoted tard is not the equal of the well-Umi?'
mi. Alex, strom. f> p. 74 2o0o- 1 with ov 817 interrogative as in Track. 668,
cVoi't 8< <£ AXtuaiwr 'arar r6 XPV ffT0 " Phil. 900) throw* an unusual emphasis
1
•Hjr laiji' /x" ^vaiP. on the indefinite pronoun. I have re-
second line (' Tis only verted to the reading of th.
good ') is after the manner of
to l>c 58' for b t' (see cr. n.): 'he, as no other
Kuripides: El. 384 rjj 8' 8/u\ta (iporoii bastard ..." Cf. TraeA.8 Skpop SXyiarop |
KpuHtrt xad roll ff9tai¥ roii tvytPtit. lax "' <f T '» AirwXit yvrh, O. C. 1 664
• 6 (Up yb.p (<jO\bt tvytrrfi tftoty' rta ppoTu>p $ai'fiaarit (sc. ^{*Wm-
j
irrip. fr. 53 oi/K far in «r raxourcr t6- and the well-known attracted ex-
irtro),
y4»tia, Top' d7atfo<ffi 8' dr8pwr. Simi- amples At. 488, 0. C. 734. Sec also
larlywith tpectal reference to the stigma Kuehncr-Gcrth 11 573. iieadlam on
of bastardy: Amir. 038 rM« re woXAoi Aesch. Ag. 119. CampUll, who gives
ypi)oiup ifitlrortt. fr. 1 4 1 tup yprjcluv the lines to a single speaker, re:
yiip oviiy 5pt*i irOttti (sc. p66oi) \ pdfilp ' Hut
he, though in ont war A;
roffoiVif. fr. 108 &p6uo.ti fienrrdp rd copes with the legitimate.' But the
pWop, <pian 3' tV»j.
i) fr. 377 fidnjp ti translation as italicized is hard to justify.
QnjToi Toi'i p60ovi Qu'iyoiv' Apa ra<5at j
K. Kllis. on the same assumption and
îT«i'«ir flf -yip 1* xpt\aTo\ <pv-jf,
•
06 ro0- I
with comma at oS4p<h, proposed oW
ro/i' airrov rijr <f>i>cny b**4>6*pt\. tl for6 8' tl. Hut no satisfactory meaning
l f. ' "gnizc could Ik- elicited from this, unless xpnrrbp
that the verges ibottld be divided helween bore the sense of ivaytpit. Blaydes con-
two speakers, but his suggestion that the jectured (inter alia) ** 8* £ p66«1 r«t.
88
to. -^pijfxaT avBpoittoicnv €itpi<TKtt <f>i\ov$,

avOis 8e Tip-d*;, tha rrj? vTreprdT-qq
88 a «i*i] Nauck coni. tMi

88 i passage is quotcl l>y clear that he inten.lc! /'horn.
iv p, 740. 17 1
439. Nauck refers to Plant. Mi. >>. «n
. >Uo*\io< t Wtddai. Vv. 6 — IO !i i» thought that
>pear in I'ltit. </<• .iu,i. pott. 4 p. 11 H this passage is referred
1 was a well- 7. io> in the word* rati for* 2 <f>sXMt

tag: nee Menander monott. 500, th t&p » Wtqt tipHtliPmi.
9 uv p. 770, 10 H< l ,,>,'»«,, tuggested that
«e
I
Krles with- i ;
;l<rv%, t«ken the
winch lu'i
name of the |'lny. I'lut. •: original i\fdr**, com|«nng

r ol. etc. Hut
5 p. 497 B attr i
,
DC follows with Hvrafiir »\»t<TTn»' n listurbing the «r>

>*dpwwoit t%n* (Photn. 4401. 1061.
—— ' :
54 IO<t>OKAEOYI
TvpavviSos Oclkovciv ayyicTTiqv e&pav.

enetTa 8' ovSel? i)(0pb<; ovre <£verai
77/309 -^pruxaO* 01 re <£iWe<? apvovvrai crTvyeiv. 5
Seii>os yap epweiv 7t\ovtos es re raySara
/ecu 77^00? fiefirfka, yoiiroOev Trivr)*; dvrjp
3 0a«oO<n»' Salmasius : t' dôwd' A, &kov<tiv SM |

dyxicrr]v SM: al<jxi<rrr) v A,
rjdi<TTr)v B, £<rxa rrl v M. Schmidt 4 sq. del. Hense 6 Seivds Plut. : £ôs
SM, 7^j»oj A
£s re Gesner: eVrcu Stobaei codd., tt/j6s re Plut.
|
raâra. (r' d/3ara |
codd. Plut.)] rd /Sard Stobaei codd. 7 0<f£?;\a Vater: rd /Sard Stob. Plut.
3 See cr. n. Other conjectures which bell, rd âid Schwartz, rd \evpd Hense.
have less probability are rayovo-iv Bothe, For the word pifir)\os see on fr. 570.
OdKrjaiv Fr. Vater and Meineke, daKoicriv There can be no reasonable doubt that
Ellendt, deoiatv Weil and Wecklein. The rd /Sard was a gloss on (54pi)\a: see schol.
reading of B looks like a bad conjecture, on O. C. 10 /3e/3^Xo«] (farois, Suid. s.v.
but adopted by Dindorf (and Blaydes,
is dKddapros.
fHfi-rfkos rdiros: 6 /Saros iraai ical
who compares 0. T. 541). For the con- Etym. M. s. rbwos
v. /Se'/ST/Aos : 6 firj lepbs
,
fusion of aferxtCTOs and e <rx ar °s see Cobet, dKddapros Kal /3ar6s. Bekk. anecd. p. 323,
Var. Led. p. 144, where he corrects 13 d/3e'l3r)\a rd dfiara x^R*- - Schol.
Lucian Pise. 27. In support of eax& T7) v Aesch. Suppl. 518 §i$y\\ov d\<ro$] rb
J. refers to
fr. 907 fjSt] yap eSpa Zeus irdci fiarbv Kal fir) lepbv. We might
ev iffxdrri deGiv (n.). Cobet, Coll. Crit. equally well have found rd f3dffi/j.a, an-
p. 188, perhaps rightly, prefers dyxlo-Trjv, other scholiastic word, which Nauck
thinking that rich men whose influence actually wished to put in the text.
is greatest with monarchs are said ri)s Madvig [Adv. Crit. p. 614) depraved
vireprdr-qs rvpavvldos daiceZv dyx^^W it still further by proposing xwirot 8i\ef
H8pav. Mekler conj.
/j.aKapiarr]v and irtv-qs dvrjp.5'It will be observed that
Wecklein dpx^v. Gaisford approved the addition of /3e/3??\a is redundant to the
ix6^T7)v, another word sometimes con- sense, and serves merely to round off the
fused with alaxi-CTriv. expression. The Greek love of antithesis
4 f. are considered by 0. Hense to be was sometimes indulged at the expense of
an intrusion, and Nauck agrees. ivtira logic El. 305 rds ov<ras ri f/.ot Kal rds
:
|
8*, in the next place, distinguishes from dirotjaas iXiridas 8ii<p6opev, Ant. 1109 ' T
'
the general advantages bestowed by Xt 6ir doves, \

o'i r' ovres o'i r' dirovres. See
wealth the particular fact that no one also my note on Eur. Hclid. 182 (with
seeks to oppose its influence. Not only '
which passage Andoc. 4. 7 should be
does no one become the foe of the rich compared), and add Alcman fr. 23, 44
man, but even his former enemies dis- ep.e 5'oSr* eiraivTJv otire fiwur/ffdai viv j
semble their hatred.' Meineke's 01 r' a K\evvd xopaybs ovS' d/xwj ep. J. quotes |
txovres is wide of the mark. <|>v€tcu, Tr. fr. adesp. 436 SovXe, Se<nrorwv &Kove
denoting '
it is no one's nature
to be Kal SiKaia Kadixa, and 437. The subject
(cf. Tr. fr. adesp. 543 oi>K iv yvvai^l is treated exhaustively by E. Kemmer,
<f>tjerai irioTT) xdpis), corresponds to <puvres die polare Ausdrucksweise, 1903.
—those in whom the condition is realized. \toiro0tv ktc. The general sense is
For the strong aor. in this sense (which '
And to such places where the poor man
L. and S. wrongly say is rare) see Ant. could not even obtain access so as to
721 (frvvai rbv &vdpa irdvr' iTno~T-/)fii)s realize his desires.' The rich man alone
ir\iwv ('prove to be'), O. C. 1444 ravra has the entree to influential quarters. We
5' iv T<fJ dai/J-ovi Kal rfjde (pvvai x aT ^P a
|
may illustrate by 0. T. 597 f., where
('to be realized'), and many other in- Creon parades the value of his influence
stances in Sophocles. For re co-ordinated with Oedipus vvv ol aidev xPV$0VTt *
:
with oCre see Jebb on O. C. 1397 f., and iKKa\ovo~l fie- rb yap rvx^tv avrolai \
Eur. Hel. 156, Hclid. 454, Phoen. 891. irav evTavd' ?vi. Either ov8' or fj.r)5'
7 f. See cr. n. Other conjectures are would serve, and J. preferred the generic
ye rd /Sard Blomfield (rd /3ard ye Blaydes), fxr]8\ quoting Track. 800 ivravd' birov
to. j3d<rifj.a Nauck, teal rdvpoffiKta Camp- fie fill tis 6\f/erai fiporiav but it seems ;
— —
::
AAEAAAI 55
ovo ivrv\oiv hvvaiT av <Lv ipa Tvvcif.

kcll yap Suo-eiSes (rw/xa /cat Bvacovvfiov
yXoKTCTY) (TO(f>OU Tl$Tq<TlV €Vfl0p<f>6l> T ihtlV. IO
fx6v(t> ok yjxlpeiv k<xv vocrtov £vvov<rla
irapzcniv avTu> K(i.TnKpxnTT€.o~dai KaKa.

8 ovd' im<xi}v Plut. /iij5' ttirvxCo* ( wr A) Stobaei codd.
: —
9 divutVt xal vCifta
Svjivrvfw: v. con, in. II cdr vixswv (wovaia Meineke xai roatir tfovoia :
codd. 12 K&*iiepirTTt<T0at Klaydes KdriKpi-âadai SM, Kd*tKp6\f*<r$cu A, «**•<>-

:
KpvTTtodcu Nauck
more likely that ov64 would be supplanted Gerth 11 338.— Swwwpov in this con-
by firfSi than vice versa
see Colwt, Var. : text has given rise to much suspicion :
!'• 47. .?»5- ivrvymv is used in the thus Meineke lioldly substituted yijpat
special sense of interviewing, obtaining vio» for ykiwft troîv. coll. Kur. fr. 575 ;
an audience: cf. Dem. 19. 175 atrrdt <5 klein changed yXwaffj) to yrufiifr,
liia t&ptcl top x/x5ror i»rvyxdvw¥ oW with iwTttirj for ivatitot ; Blaydes read
otioCv iwavcaro îXivrip. This sense K&vSpo. SiiTTopo* for Kol Svaum-iio* ;
J.
became very common in later Greek Eiroposed ivaOpov* <rr6na, comparing
<tai
hence trrt v£tt, ivrtvKTiic6t, dvoifTtvirros, 'nid. 63 dvaffpoov <£wrat r
/'. 4.
and even <VT«i£,'eW (a petition).— The speech'— of Barror, the stammerer). But
careless repetition of redes' after irrvxu* I in not convinced that Jtvifrt-por is un-
is excused by the meaning of the latter intelligible, though it cannot mean, as ,
Eur. //<•/. 674 (n.). Meincke's oiS' tv- Brunck suggested, prove loquenttm. The
yToxwf is unnecessary. The negative — description exactly (its the personality
qualifies both the participle and the of Thersites. whom Sophocles may have
main verb, as in Aesch. Ag. 302 I «V had in mind: he too was * hated for his
O0rt pAXwr ovb' dQpaa p&»w% Omxp rurui- | tongue," cf. Mom. H j jj r<j 5' dp' 'Ayatoi i
fut>ot wapfiK(¥ a.;~(i\ou pAptA'. see n. on ikway\ut Koriorro 9tn<o<jr)d<ir r h\ 0t>py.

Kur. //WW. 813. The explanation re-— <>n tins view y\\l>ceft should be connected
,
oded above is confirmed by the with ii<runfiof. which is an epic word

WIlllMM which falls more strongly upon and is employed 111 the ejnr sense
ovh iwTvxv* than spoil tvxuo. ).. how- 'Oiwriôt
Hit Hi
—iveiAmvfUH
4iJt *loi p.'
7 |
X«» to itipot,
interpreting: olxov dwotrxfa" 'that accursed day at is
•And know, how to obtain the objects of hand ....' Note the chiasmus, by which
re in quarters from which the poor iQuj>p<t>o» relates to tivtMt, and oo+6» to
ild not obtain those objects, ever, lNwnp<9<
roe in his way.' In < lit. kAv vivmv {wowuf See cr. n.
« ins its way to places which are
1 There arc several other conjectures («o4
to |K)Verty. Hut even rootlv Klltndt. dâtptlf «ai r6#M» furot--
1 which poverty may chance <ria» < 1 1 1- 1. •
. fiuai/wi - «ai rcW*»» {i*av-
•
access, wealth succeeds where the (riaf llol/ncr, «d>otf«ir /{oicria Bergk, Aro-
other I lex proposed mi^' t* y' tfiwf or td»l>pjU9 iiovci* I W. S< hmidt,
f»»V '1 '». poi, tf&ir r6aoit t(ova, ><U rotfoiVr'
I» (p. 1 liangc i» unncccs- /{oixria I'apabasilcios), but none vi satis-
factory as M which J. u
that after <W<ur' A* something like tbpl~ accepted. II. points out that the Greeks
»i alif olitp is needed. did not say t£oi-ola wdptart but n
79 n.) fa vdptori or jfayr t, or i Lot* la (4*rt) :
•vTDirwr, and to Blaydes (sec cr. n.). fore /(ouria cannot stand. he
v ipa Tvîiv M I sense rnq dbw not xmlfiur «ai r*e«i# Imt
• t. «al yap Svo-«i8*a nri. Observe vai/Hir «ai ro*oi>r«, or, in a synonymoes
aoalihc* the following phrase, «oi »A«y twt*r% -.
0. T. 303 »f#
;h in such cases it is re#e> ##>trro ro«'i »a\«« *•##•
be postponed (cai p to MO#> ftrofc '07y ra*r» f| »*#«!

rati. 9a gal yip {i»wr, /'*;/. 510 »ra» rXê#M r#» W
viripy rby tv wpdoeti* ntplot tn*a\a, ro#ov {i*«i«<«. Wealth can be happy
e also Kuehncr- in spite of sicknes* because it ean aftotd
—
56 KWOKAEOYI
to pay physicians for a cure : Eur. El. 427 He also urged, as against Nauck's
ffKoww to. xP'hpo-P ws ?x et M^7 a oOtvos, \
reading, that iirucpvirreaOai. rather than
£ivois re bovvai aQfxd r is vbaovs ireabv \
&iroKpt!nrTeo-Oat is the vox propria in the
bairdvaiat aQcrai. So in a Comparison of sense of to cloak but the inference is by
:
Wealth and Virtue (Stob. flor. cj\. 33) no means certain. Cf. Eur. fr. 416 (Stob.
Wealth io~ep.v{ivero XP C di'Op&irtov Stop- ^ flor. 4. 9) r<p dpaael ras ffv/icpopds frfrovo-' |
6ovv,...wpiireiv /j.ev elprqvrj, TroXifiois 5e dfiavpovv tcdTrucpinrreeOai (Trine, kclttok.

irapix^v, Oepaireveiv 5' £k vbffwv . . .v6<roi MA, Nauck) /ca/cd. fr. 553 iicp.apTvpelv
5' iv av&pioiroi? elalv, itf a ttAvto. del yap &vbpa ras avrov Ti>x a * \
f k irdvras
XpriP-druiv. —Wecklein's change of x a ^P €lv dfiadis, rb 5' iirucpvirreaOai o~o<f>bv. In
irepicrrelXai /caXws Kpvtrrovra
to x^ €iy unnecessary.
' s fr. 460. 2 XPV |
For the general sense H. quoted Me- /cat fir] Trdcn KTjpvo-ffeiv rdbe, the simple verb
nand. fr. 90 (ill 28 K.) irXovros 5i ttoXX&v is found. Bruno Keil (/Perm,
379) xxm
eirLKaXv/x/j.' ioriv KaKuv, and fr. 485 (ill adduced 42 in support of Nauck's
Isocr. 1.
140 K.) rovro fibvov tiruTKOTei /cat 8v<r- I

reading. For the moral precept which
yevela /cat rpbtvov Trovrjpla, xa.1 iraaiv oh |
enjoined the concealment of misfortune
i<TX rl Kfv tivOpuTros kclkois, rb TroXXd Ke-
|
see on frs. 83, 653.
Krrjadai- ra 5' dW e\£yxcTai.
89
vojxas Se Tt? KepovcrcT (XTr opdioiv irayoiv
xaBeipirev eXa^>o?
apacra [xvâs /cat Kepaa(f>opov<;

(TTopdvyyas elpcf)' e/cr^Xo?
89 Aelian nat. an. 7. 39 ocrot Xeyovai OrjXeia icipara ovk ixei t) el dp-ip-rrrus
drfXvv iXacpov icipara ov (puetv, ovk aldovv- Zypaif/ev, schol. Pind. 01. 3- j2 ejrt-
rai rovs toD ivavrlov /xdprvpas, 2o(poKXia yiteXws ot 7rot7;Tat tt)v dr)Xeiav ZXacpov
p.ev elrrbvra '
vofids...iXa<pos ' /cat irdXiv icipara i'x 01 "™' elvayovaiv, icaOdirep /cat
'
apacra... eKr/Xos.' /cat raOra [lev 6 rod rr\v drjXdôvo-av rbv Tr/Xecpop ypdepovo-t.
Zo</>tXXouiv rots 'AXedSats. V. I is Kal irXdrTovcri. The mistake is generally
partly quoted by Etyni. Gud. p. 317, accounted for by the consideration that
12 (Elym. Paris, p. 1444 e) and Zon. legend loves the miraculous, and is not
lex. s.v. Kepbeis p. n 86 Kepovcraa, olov content to follow the prosaic limits of
'
vb/j.os Si tl Kepovaa'- <'Hpu5iavbs> irepl science ; but Ridgeway in Early Agt
iradQv, and referred to by Pollux 5. 76 of Greece, I p. 360 ff., holds that the
tQ>v 5i iXdcpwv d/ce/)ws p.iv i) OrjXeia, b story of Heracles reflects a knowledge of
8i b\ppi)v Kepucpbpos, /cat xP v<T ° K€P ui ° the existence of the reindeer in northern
virb 'H/>a/c\eoi>s dXcws. /cat 'AvaKpiuv Europe. In that case we must suppose
(fr. 51) fj.iv fftpoXXerai Kepbeo-aav iXa<pov other miraculous does were given antlers
Tpoffenribv, Kepovucrav rrjv
/cat ~o$>o/cXt7S on the analogy of this famous quest.
TrjXicpov rpocpbv. referred to byV. 3 is vojids roaming.
: See Jebb on O. T.
Pollux 2. 72 7rapd 5e 2o0o/c\et /cat ^£ai 1350.—6p9ia>v ird^wv. Dindorf quotes
oi fivKTrjpes KiKXrjvrai. Ant. 985 bpdbirobos inrep irdyov.
1 Aelian continues his evidence from 3 Wagner suggested as a supplement
the poets by citing Eur. fr. 857, fr. 740, TrjXicpov viov rpo<pbs.
Pind. 01. 3. 29, Anacreon fr. -;r dyavws 3 = /j.vKTT)pa$. Cf. Phot. lex.
(i.«£as
old re vefipbv veodrfXia yaXadrfvbv, bs t' \
p. 280, 3 fivâv airrbv rbv p.vKrrjpa /ca-
iv dXrj Kepoiao-qs vTroXeupdels virb pirjrpbs
|
Xovoiv, oi'X' t6 vypbv oOrwj 'Aptcrroâvr/s
iirro-qdri. Add Simonid. fr. 30 ddvarov (fr. 820, 1 580 K.). Similarly Hesych.
Kepoiccra evpipev /xarevuv iXdcfxp, Eur. m p. 128. — Meineke, who would have
Her. 375 rdv xpvw&pa-vov dbpica. The preferred p.v£urrrjpe but for the evidence
zoologists and grammarians were eager of Pollux, fills up the gap by reading
to point out the blunder Arist. h. a. 4. : fit/gas <v\pi>. Blaydes supplied bevpo.
11. 538 b 18, poet. 25. i46o b 31 ZXarrov — KEpao-(f>6pov$ observe the transference
:
ydp (sc. dfidpTrnj.a) el fx-q 7?<5et 8ti fXacpos of the epithet, and see n. on fr. it.
AAEAAAI— AAEEANAPOI 57
90
90 Hc-ych. 11 p. 144 i<pvfi»(U' iwi&tit. fectecl. It is probable that the verb was
SoôkXî 'AXtdSait. used here with the same simple sense as
tyvpvuv is to chant over, and l>oth it in Aesch. Eum. 903 ri oJV p' AWyat rjjo'
and (TQduy may be construed with ace. tyi7x*)7<r«u x0orf;
of the theme and dat. of the person af-
91
<f>pouelv
91 Krotian gloss, //if/wcr. p. 84. 1 statements are made by Elym,

Siniil.ir
KaTt$p6»(€- nartvott. Qpovtiv ybp l\tyov M. 800, 43 <ppovtiv oiâlvtt «rcu to
p.
oi *a\aioi t6 yo* tv, un icai Evpurliijt iv votiv and Hesych. IV p. 259. There are
'Arriowij <fr. 10$) <pdoKtc '<f>povw S" 6 several such passages in Sophocles: Track.
wia\w koX roi' oC> fuicpov kclk6v.' tUprt)- 1 45 <ppovu oil (cô/xit
1
W lorafitv, io.
tou Kod Zo<pOK\rjt iv 'Wfdian (dxaidjt 2M9 ippovti viv in ijforra. Ant, 49, 996,
codd.: curr. Schlcasner) xal iv '
\pupia- O.C. 871, ami others. The examples are
piifi (fr. 119). MM wi.ll arranged in Kllendf.
AAEHANAPOZ
93 confirms the view generally held that the story of the
Fr.
play to be found in Hygin. fab. 91, and is therefore similar
is
to that of the Alexandras of Euripides, which was put on the

with the Troades in 415 B.C. When Hecuba was pregnant
with Paris, >hc dreamed that she gave birth to a flaming torch,
from whit h a number of snakes crawled forth. The diviners held
that the welfare >y depended on the destruction of the child
< 1 1 1
••
to be born. Consequently, when Alexandras was born, he

y to be killed but hi- guards pitied him and ;
content to expose him, with the result that he was discovered by

pherds, who him as their own son, and called
him by the name Paris, Pai to maturity among the
on Mt Ma. and m pedal favourite of one of the
bulls. At length Priam determined to celebrate funeral e,.>
in honour of his child long since lost, and sent some of his
its to choose a bull as prize for the victor in one of the
The bull of Paris was selected, and he was so much

in consequence that down to the 1 I
(I for the coi defeated all his opponents, inch* 1
I ww brothers. Deiphobus 1 in anger at the success of a ,
1
Or Hector, according to Serrloa.
—
58 IO0OKAEOYI
clown, drew his sword upon him but Paris took refuge at the
;
altar of Zet»<? eptceios. Cassandra then declared that the new-

comer was her brother, and Priam recognised his son (by means
of certain crepundia 1 according to Serv. on Verg. Aen. 5. 370),
,
and welcomed him to the palace. Of course there is nothing to

connect Sophocles with any particular details in the above
account and we are not in a position to distinguish the treatment
;
of Euripides from that of Sophocles.

—
Robert (Bild und Lied, pp. 233 239) undertook to show
that the story concerning the dream of Hecuba and the exposure
of Paris, his rescue and ultimate restoration to his home, was
not, as Welcker believed (Ep. Cycl. II 90), contained in the
Cypria, but was the invention of the fifth century, and in all
probability of Sophocles in the Alexandros, in the composition of
which he was largely influenced by the Herodotean account of
the youth of Cyrus (1 108 ft".). He had an easy task in
demolishing the argument by which Welcker attempted to
establish the indispensability of the story to the narrative of the
Cypria, viz. that the circumstances of the judgment of Paris
presuppose his residence on Ida, and that this in its turn implies
his escape from exposure for his adoption of a pastoral life was
;
in no way inconsistent with his recognition as one of the princely

family of Priam. But there is a wide gap between the admission
that the origin of the story cannot be traced to the Cypria
and the conclusion that Sophocles was its author. Even if
Robert is correct from Tro. 919
in his inference and Androm. fif.
293 that in the

fif. passage Euripides followed an older and
latter
simpler version, according to which Hecuba refused to surrender
Paris to death, notwithstanding the vaticinations of Cassandra
a conclusion which is by no means certain —
it helps very little
towards the result which Robert desired to establish. Moreover,

the discovery of the fragments of Pindar's Paeans has destroyed
the foundation of Robert's theory for in 8. 27 ; there is an fif.
unmistakable allusion to Hecuba's dream. But, apart from this,

the onus of strictly proving their case lies on those who seek to
show that any tragic plot was invented by its author if even ;
Euripides, so far as we can tell, never dared to do anything

of the kind, we may be quite sure that Sophocles was far less
likely to make the experiment.
It will be observed that Hyginus states that Alexandros was
the name originally given to the child, and that Paris was
The detail is suggestive of a tragic origin, and is referred by Ahrens to Euripides.

1
On the other hand, there seems to be no reason for tracing to Sophocles the state-
ment of Asclepiades {FUG in 303) that the slave who exposed Paris was called
Archialos (Agelaus, according to Apollod. 3. 149).
—
AAEEANAPOZ 59
substituted by the shepherds. The exact opposite is asserted by

Eur. fr. 64 cf. Enn. trag. fr. 38, Ov. Her. 16. 358, and perhaps
:
Eur. LA. 1293 (Murray). Apollodorus (3. 150) says that the
shepherds who originally found him called him Paris, and that
his exploits subsequently earned for him the name of Alexandros.
Arc we to infer that Hyginus followed Sophocles rather than
Euripides?
92
ov yap tl 0€o~p.a rolaiv aoTirai? 7r/>cVct
92 Steph. Byr. p. 139, 19 6arv...6 doriTcut. The formation is analogous

wo\irr]t curr6% *ai (Uttjj, «a< aorb*. ivo to vwpirijj (fr. 31), at/Xtnjf 50J), a*-
(fr.
rov iuarbt rb «Umrijt. Zo<poK\rii 'AX«(tt*- rinji (fr. 68). The history of these won is
bpy 'ov ydp.xptrti' xcd (fr. 93) '
porijpa is obscure. According to Krctschmcr in
..-,dp; KZ XXXI 343 the long t is original {wo\t-
oi yip n is a favourite combination in rati ToXf-i) and is retained under the in-
tragedy, with n sometimes cjualifying a
fluence of the accent. (Cf. rp**/9vnyt:
kindle word, sometimes the whole clause.
See on
wp4opH-%.) Then • passed to other stems.
Eur. IIt lid. 193, Photn. lit.
Besides 6»X/r>>» and otWnif other examples
Its exact force cannot be determined here:
are ai'finyf, At){rr>7t (Pausan. 8. a6. l),
ft. 1.143- 0.7'. 433. Ant.
durwibirtft, eurTpirrfi, Tw^Wrrjt, bpirrn, ibpi-
450. Wecklein's view that the line is
TTft, iffwtplnft, iffSfdrnt.
interrogative is therefore improbable.
93
fioTrjpa vlkov avhpas dcrriVa?. tl yap ;
93 Quoted by Steph. By/. : see on fr. dvSpas Atrrvras. The addition of Aripat
probably complimentary, although
yntax ambiguous, but the order
is it might l>e the reverse, rmpliasiring, as
!ear:
makes the meaning abso-
-
the emphatic word

it does, either praise or It is
depreciatory in V.T. 1 1 18 tin rojufo a>^>.
MM
/ltnan the and in Ant. 690 irbpi inner*
mil townsmen too!' Cf. Aesch. on Ar. A'</. 159, S
[Asra xaiftip roil r<pV*>«orat Ach. 168. I
Xfyw.^ H. remarks that Tr. fr. adcap. Blaydes >.n Ar. / '. 30M. t< vaf»* when
i
188 w Z«i". yr>o<ro <rara/9aXru>

rir ffOr used in a continuous speech, challenges
tfp4 was quoted by grammarians as an contradiction. What else?* 'What
md adds 'I then?' So in 1134 •***>
Aesch. Ag.
'..
the meaning, he must #or* W ii«j ftvAvoiyifV^r. W >*>; "V
n perfectly acquainte<l In answers it becoo m
porrjpa is Paris, who virtually a formula of assent: see t.g.
was habitually called /fcrtmjt or ftovKb\ot : Plat. ft***, too a. The words art
I'llam on Aesch. Ag. 7 liIff. 1 obviously appropriate to the circumstances
ry see the Introductory Note. '«
victory in the a>ir.
6o lOÔKAEOYI
94
(TT€lô)V 8' ay pO)(TTV)V 6y\ov
94 Schol. A Horn. E 158 to 8e irapd would complete the line with evp-?i<reis
2o0o/c\et iv 'A\ti;&i>8pif) oreixw 5' dypib-
'
fiiyav or the like.
<jtt)v 6y\ov irapuvviAov.
'
The same is found d-ypuicrTqs beside dypbrrjs and &ypu>-
in Eustath. //. p. 533, 40, who omits 5' after ti]s, shows a non-essential a which comes
areixuv and gives 'AXei-dvSpa for 'AXefdi" by analogy from the verbal class. Weck-
5ptf). The word dypwo-T-qs is introduced lein (on Eur. Khes. 287, Her. 377) wishes
as analogous to the Homeric XVP 030"1'^- to restore dypurrjs eve 17 where in tragedy,
There is nothing to indicate that oxXov and Murray adopts aypurrcus as better at-
is related to crrtlxî' as the goal of its tested in A'hes. 266. In Bacch. 564 aypv-
action: 'approaching the rustic crowd.' ras is read by all. There seems no reason
But the construction is quite possible, to doubt that both forms existed, but it is
although less common than when the ace. difficult to choose between them when the
is a place-name: cf. O.T. 713 ws avrbv copies differ. Hesych. 1 p. 31 has dypQ-
fjôi fioipa irpds traiSbs Oaveiv. Jebb on o~rai ipydrai, drjpevral, where the second
•
Phil. 141, 314. 238, Eur. Phoen. 977

fr. interpretation suggests a derivation from
(n.), Hipp. 1 3*7 1 Bacch. 848, Pind. Isth.
, aypuxreru); and this is the meaning in
2. 48. There is in any case no need to Apoll. Rhod. 4. 175. In tragedy however
alter the text {arelxovT Nauck formerly, the word always means 'countryman.'
o-ripyw 5' F. W. Schmidt). Mekler See also on fr. 314, 33.
95
dfAakOeveiv
95 Phot. ed. Reitz. p 86, 9 dp.aX0e6eiv as a nymph in whose possession was the
,..Tp£(peiv. 2o0okXt?s 'A\e^dv5pif>. tvdev horn of plenty, and that the Cretan legend
'
Kal 7/ A/idXdeia. of the goat Amalthea which suckled Zeus
The existence of dfiaXOeveiv was previ- is attested only by later writers. That is
ously known only from Hesych. 1 p. 137 to say, the name Amalthea appears at a
dp.a\8ever irXijOvvet, TrXovrlfci. f) rpecpti. comparatively late date to have been
Etym.M. p. 76, 38 duaXdevaei wX-qdei a#£ ei. transferred to the nameless Af| ovpavla
The authority of the word is considerably (Zenob. j. 26, 2. 48). Further, the fact
strengthened by the new evidence; and that Ktpas d/xaXdeias was an attribute
there is no longer any probability in of various deities (Wernicke in Pauly-
Gruppe's suggestion (p. 341 1) that it Wissowa I 1721) indicates that Amalthea
was formed from the name Amalthea. was not a distinctively conceived perso-
Rather we should suppose that the noun nality. The etymology of Amalthea is
and verb existed side by side, and that uncertain, and the suggestions which have
the idea of abundance or plenty was per- been put forward (collected by Gruppe,
sonified or deified in the various forms p. 8249) are not satisfactory. But the
familiar to Greek legend. It should be meaning points to a connexion with dp.a-
observed that the earliest allusions to Xos and dfidXr] ( =i] Tpixwv ai!|j;<m Etym.
Amalthea (Pind. in schol. Horn. * 194, M.).
Pherecydes fr. y,,FHG I 82) represent her
96
96 Hesych. I p. 542 8v<ravXor 8v(xav- schol. 's note is 8v<rx e P*i T0V eiravXicrfibv
ttoiovvtuv. Aesch. Ag. 560 fibxôvs yap
Xiaros. SoôkX^s AXe£dv8pevyeiv J34X7], where the
perhaps to the shepherds' life on Mt Ida.
'
AAEZANAPOI 61
97
97 Steph. Byz. p. 189, ig"E4>«aot...ri ib. 3345 'Eip4ouot. Cf. B«r»-cjp<not in fr.
idriKOv 'EcWtrtos. evprfTcu xai E<pi<jtia 707'

<5td ii<pd6yyoV o0rw yap iv 'A\($ar&p<p But why did Stephanus reconl the
SoôkXj/j. neut. plural, if it was used merely as an
The form 'E^<re«ot is also found occa- adjective? Did Sophocles by an ana-
sionally on inscriptions : see e.g. Hicks, chronism refer to the Pan-Ionic festival
Manual r.si, 10 arayytiXai rolt 'E#«- of the Ephesia (Thuc. 3. 104)? An allu-
cdott, C/G II 1118 Apr4m8i 'Ejufftlr),
,
sion to the magic letters is unlikely.
98
dr)\dcrTpi.a
98 llesych. II p. 314 t)jj\darpia- rpo- applied to the mother. This fact is

fan A\t£dy- DOtked in Suidas and I'hotius, for whose
W
pi%. hi 'laxif.
9i)\aa-rpia. For the formation of these

Zo<poit\fjs
readers the ancient usage required ex-
planation. Hence PhoUus (p. 90, J4)
feminine nomina aortitis see Brugmann, explains 6i\\a9Tpiar by rp îfXdVenU
(/r. 11 p. 330 K. tr. $^\dcrpia is Tit from the point of view of his own age,
formed from 0»jXafu>, and may be com- and his gloss on tfijXaf*"' sufficiently
pared with tvf^rpia (beside tvvffrtipa for accounts for Hesychius calling 9t(Kaarpia
tinrifTtp-^x) and av\^rpia. The word is an Ionistn rb rpi+tt* rip -yaAacri oi
:
front the comic poets, ami is apxalot warrtr oOrwt jiaXttfTB ol'lurti.
!y n->t exclusively Ionic in usage. Ahrcns suggested that the word was
<r that in the *otnJ the an epithet of the she-bear which
''nXdfw came to mean to sutk, I
although in classical Greek it was regularly
99
fiauvrptav
99 AnHctt. (Bckk. anted.) p. 108, 31 p. j 4 1, 9) shows that the Attic use of
• tar" Aft I roi> naiai. ZoôxXijt >uua for a midwife was well known to
iptp. the grammarian*. For the formation see
The meaning is that Soph, used ftcutt- on fr. 08.
rptap as -nurse, although Photius (ttx.
100
100 Antiatt. i llckk. aneid The word no means unco-

is try
urnar- rt}r nrr)nij¥. ^<xpon\ft% 'AXftd*- and there is no ground for Naack's
•Jpy. The same gloss is assigned to suggestion that 'AXsgaVJ* U a conepUc*
.. p. 171, 17 ami for HXV.r^. U. with a reference lo EL
ithotit the name of a 391 fUovHroi wapiti* oi swsser I
play.
62 IO<t>OKAEOYI
AAHTHI
The only quoted by Stobaeus (floril.\ and by him
title is
always as 'AXeiV?/?. A
tragedy with the title 'AX^t^s is attributed
to Lycophron by Suidas s.v.
It is generally agreed that the title-role belongs to Aletes,
the son of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra, and that Welcker
(p. 215) was right in finding the substance of the plot in Hygin.
fab. 122. The story there related is as follows. Electra received
a false message that Orestes and Pylades had been sacrificed to
Artemis atTauri. Aletes, the son of Aegisthus, on learning that no
survivor of the race of the Atridae was left, usurped the sovereignty
at Mycenae. Electra set out to Delphi to enquire of the
oracle concerning her brother's death. On the same day that
she reached her destination, Iphigenia and Orestes also happened
to arrive ; and the same messenger who had brought the news
about Orestes pointed out Iphigenia as his murderess. Hearing
this, Electra snatched a blazing brand from the altar, and in her
ignorance would have blinded Iphigenia, but for the timely inter-
ference of Orestes. A
recognition followed, and they returned
together to Mycenae. Here Orestes killed Aletes, and would
also have slain his sister Erigone, had not Artemis carried her
away and made her a priestess in Attica. Orestes then married
Hermione, and Pylades Electra.
Welcker conjectured that fr. 646 belongs here, thinking that
Tyndareus appeared as the guardian of Aletes, and held that frs.
104, 105 are part of a dialogue between Aletes and Orestes.
Ribbeck {Rom. Trag. p. 469) finds the same plot in the
Agamemnonidae of Accius. Whereas Welcker saw in Hyginus
two tragedies, Ribbeck preserved the unity
sufficient material for
of place by supposing that Aletes and Erigone went to Delphi
in furtherance of a plot against Orestes and Iphigenia. Com-
paring frs. 101 —
103 with Agamemnonidae fr. II he thinks that
Aletes was represented as a hypocritical and specious talker.
Fr. 107 suits the circumstances of Agamemnon's and Aegisthus'
children.
For the proposed identification with the Erigone see p. 173.
Hense has recently revived a suggestion originally made by
Bergk that the Aletes was a late play. He is thus able to account
for the Euripidean tone of fr. 107. He points out that et'9
eXeyxov Ikvai (fr. 105) is used by Sophocles only in the Philoctetes
and Oedipus Coloneus, and that fr. 104 echoes O.C. 75.
—
AAHTHI 63
101
ipv)(r) yap evvovs /cat (fypouovcra tovv&lkov

Kpeiacroiu cro(f>icrTov ttclvtos £<ttli> ivperis.
101. 3 kp€itto» A |
tvptrin M
101 Stob. flor. 3. 8 (III p. 194, 1 point of view that Thales and the rest
Hensc) Soô/tXij* 'AXdrn. 'rf/vx^-.-tvpt- (ffVPtrol rtret Kal vofioBtriKOi Diog. I.. 1.
rit." The extract is not in S. 40) were called ao^fnaral (Udt. 1. 19)
'A loving heart and an honest purpose Men' rather than 'wise men.'
will learn the truth sooner than any adept.' With the present passage cf. Eur. fr. 905
Ellendt thinks that rarrot is neuter and fuffQi ao<piCTTi>r, writ oi'X curt? <ro*pbt.
dependent on tvptrit ; but the meaning is The thought that character is more
the same in either case, and it seems effective than wisdom may be illustrated
unnatural to sever ff&ptffrov warro*. The iy Mcn.mil. 471, 7 Mi 13; K. rpbwoi
fr.
rhythm is the same as in El. 76. «ro<j>uj-- — to(P b w€l0u>y toC Myorrot, «hJ \670t. Cf.
TTJt has no exact English equivalent. Plut. Phoc 5 Demosthenes called Phocion
. :
>ss T&.1 Ttx'trrti (T'hot. lex. p. «u8, the kowIi of his speeches. dXXA rowro ftfp
<-s the best general interpolation ;
latin vpbt rb %0ot apourritw 4vtl *al pf/na
but the remark of the same lexicographer Kcd rtvfia fibfOf iripbi Ayatiov mpiott
rb bi raXcuor aoipitxrifjt b crcxpdt «'*aX«iro, iwvvfi^fiaffi xal wtfHOboif arrlppoTor tx tl
which I., and S. have adopted without xianw, Demoith. 10, Slob. /lot. 37. 34.
it restriction, must be understood It may lie added thit the parliamentary
t<> apply to trained intellect as distin- influence ascril)cd to the late Delta of
guished from natural ability. At an early diire was of a similar character.
stage of civilization the attainment of a «vprK«. The accentuation is disputed :
h general culture as the see Chandler, | 38, who decides in I
admit wears the aspect of a special- of tvptrti because of the ace. JpflV in
ized branch of learning it is from this : Diod t. 15.
102
fipa\el \6y<*> 8e TroXXa np6<rK€t.Tai txof/xx.
102 Si ro\\a SM : ««1 «-o\XA A
102 5( ft - ; 4 (til p. 688, 8 permanent qualities. The nearest parallel

1143 r^r d/*otW I
J*y
me of the play). 'ppax**-- fU',iaror drbpl Wpbamirtu kom6p. CI
//'//>• <>7° r* *' ***** mfinin ******
I ur. fr. 18 <to<pov wpbx a»lf>6% Sent wpocKtiturov, Kkti. 166 i) rbW dyp*m*i
4f,tpa\'i xoXXw't »a\u>i otot rt avtriu- <r«cudwpbanurtu fp«W, >h. 107 AAA* *'
;
oi't, and Polon !>revity dXXo wp6**uT*t y4(**, *i M*» *dx«»*«*. I
nin bi pov\- hi* u»*ge i» I

90I.
woXXd 0-0+d. as woXXA «oAd (fi md S. Hi)
VoXXd arxpa •
I
In .«///« '• VI i?o St**
proposed 0p*X" ** M«**v. I"" ,hc
«C55r
vhere see Jebb. -»pd«-«c«iTai poncment of W is normal (hut. f/ttid.
issometime* merely a synonym of wp!*-
«ri, btUmgi to; and so is applied to
:
64 I04>0KAE0YI
103
dvrjp yap ooris iJSercu Xeycov del,

Xekrjdev avrov rot? ^vvovo~iv oiv fiapvs.
103. 1 yap SM: 5' A |

Xêiv S
103 Stob. fior. 36. 16 (in p. 694, 6

i
and see Kuehner-Gerth
So Eur.
II
Suppl.
50. — |3apvs,
Hense) 2o0okX?)s 'AXefrr;, dvr]p...papvs.' tiresome. 894 ovS'
1 See cr. n. Although 5^ is constantly £j-€pi<TTT)s tQiu \6yu>i>, 66ev ftapvs |
ndXior'
corrupted to ydp, the converse case rarely av etr] &r]/ji6Trii re ko.1 i-dvot. Plat. Theaet.
occurs: see Porson on Eur. Med. 108} 210 C edv re jUapvt
tcevbs 77 j, t)ttov tirei
rots <rvvov<ri /cat rjnepuiTepos.
(1087).
2 XcXijOtv avrov... wv. In this idiom —
H. rendered: 'The man that will be
the partic. is always nom., never ace: talking still forgets |
That he is tedious to
contrast %woi5a. i/xavrqi, after which either his company.'
the nom. or dat. participle is legitimate,
IO4
dW eiirep el yevvalcx;, a><? avro? Xeyets,

(jrjlLa.iv otov r yJaTrodev to yap /caAais
el
7re<f>VKo<; ovSets av p,idveiev Aoyo?.
104. 2 el birbdev SMA, el x' wirbdev B, el ko.1 irbdev Gesner
104 Stob. flor. 88. 11 (iv p. 722, 1 Thompson on Plato Meno,

p. 258 ff.
Hense) 2o0okXj)s 'AXelrr). l
dXX'...X6- He shows modo
86 n. ) is the
that si (fr.
70s.' principal, but not the only meaning, and

'
If you really are noble, as you say, that there are many instances in which
declare your parentage and your home (as here) elirep assumes the truth of the
for good birth will not be shamed in the supposition it introduces. For the present
telling.' There can be no reason for a passage cf. At. 547 elirep ducaiws tar' i/ibs
—
noble to conceal his identity, rather the to. Tra.Tp6dev, Lach. 197 C <pr/p.i yap
Plat.
contrary: cf. Arist. fr. 91 Rose evyeveias <re Adfiaxbv ye, elwep (cTe
elvai <ro<pbv, Kal
/xev ovv (prjolv (sc. Lycophron) a.<pavh to avSpeloi. Ellendt erroneously gives siqui*
k&Wos, iv Xbyy be to aefx.vbv. The dem as the equivalent of elirep everywhere
meaning is quite simple, and there is no in Sophocles; but the examples readily
need for R. Enger's conjecture \byy in refute him.
v. 3, still less for Wagner's \J/6yos or 2 f. otov t' el \unr69fv: the usual
Holzner's tt6t^.os. The fragment is sup- questions put to a stranger after Horn, a
posed to come from a dialogue between 1 70. Cf. Phil. 56, Eur. Hel.^ 83, Phoen.
Aletes and Orestes :see Introductory 123, El. 779, Ion 258. KaXus ir«f>vKOS: —
Note. cf. EL 989 frjv aiaxpov cuVxpws rots KaXwj
1 ilirtp. The force of this conjunction irecpvKbcriv.
has been exhaustively examined by E. S.
—
AAHTHI 65
105
aXX aûus r]\ey£a<; ouS' r)pli> niKputs'
y4voq yap €19 eXeyôv e£ioi> tcakbp
evKketau av KTrjcraiTo pak\oi> r) \\ioyov.
105. 1 1j\ty$at Bergk: fXrfat codd. |

ovS' ifur Hartung : 01'* (o&ii* A) niw
MA, ovi' ifiol Porson, oii8i nV Hrunck, oiib" aycw Blaydes
105 Stob. flor. 89. 8 (iv p. 738, 1 test,' as in Phil. 98 *v» i' tit Aeyx°*
ZoQoxXfjt 'Wti-rrj.
i
Tôyo*.'
' &W . . i(tun 6pu> *W. And in Kur. Her. 73
s been often remarked that these ot 0" tit (\eyxop 4XXot &Wo0tv rirrur is
verses appear to be a reply to the previous 'one after another questioning me
fragment. This consideration recom- Philem. fr. 03, 3, 11 507 K. The object
the substitution of IfKeyât for to be tested, if expressed, is put in the
A<£atir. v. 1 ('thy questions are justified'): genitive: 0. ('. :<,7 otV tit fXryxor
1
the change is a small one, and the im- Xetpot Oi54' tpyov fxo\w». Her
ment sulrstantial. The correction, conj. y4poit..iiiwf...Kr^ffvuo, but this
which occurred to me independently, was leaves aaXor unexplained (aaJUti Blaydes).
made long ago by Bergk, but has been The strong compound t"^t\4yxu, often
ted by recent critics. Hartung is — 'to lay bare another's weakness,' occurs
wur(seecr. n.),
'it ofot'6' in a similar context Bar. /••• |J iht**')
;
which was independently suggested by wart pur ni» M esiji-oiwr iwo yty£>9i»- |
Knack. Tucker proposed ovtiv ifiTuepdm, oil 8i) tovto y' 4(t\ty\opai, where see
but tli good, apart from the Keene's note. koXov, which is used as
the form. <•.;'. in Kur. /////• 034 /niOftVat raXoit '
3 lis (\«yxov 4£iov, 'when if yauppoio-i xalpun antral Tupar X/yot,

to meet the . Ale. 640 I8ti£at must l>e joined with yirot. HI.
iX°* '4*X0w* At rf, Pint. Phatdr. conjecture \6yuin is unnecessary.

' f ^'yx°" l** rf pl «* typa^t- So thinks that «aX6i> was substituted by the
in Kur. Hipp. 1310 tit IXtyxov ***** is anthologist for to c6».
'to be il the wlirase may • KTTJoTu-ro is like igrtpfy 0i&i | it-
equally well -i^'nify, 'coming to apply the r'ffffar' 6pytiP Ai. 776.
106
ri<? av nor okf&ov ov fieyau Oeirj f&poTiov
r) crfiLKpbu r) ratu fj.rjhap.ov Ti/xo*yxcVo>i/ ;
ov yap nor avToiv ovhku <V ravroy fieWi.
106 1 sV Nfeineke: ftf) codd. |

ov scripsi: t) codd. \
Pporir A: BporoS SM
f) r^. n/wîw Cobct : 1) row . TitxJfitfop codd., *iroA...TKnwntro* Heath
106 s:..b. /ter. 105. 41 (IV p. 040. permanent good, nor, again, as something
>>e) Zo+o*\ioi* 'AXiinjt ( V SO transitory a* to Ik- trifling ; nor, lastly,
can we leave it altogether out
* ho retained *in v. 1 and accepted Such was also substantially the 1
--, a proposal of Cobct, for tiiya.* Gompcr/ (Uru.kitUike, p. 1 >). t.ut I am

•
Who would ept it. For, if i>nH|icrity is
the prosperity of men as a great neither great n.-r small nor of no account,
thing, or as a trifle, or as a thing to lie how are we ll? And in what
utterly daspiaad ' l or good and bad «a the (asti aflain
uially succeeding each establish this negative result? H. »a«
other. We can never regard it as a thoroughly disaati»fir<l with the test, and
P.
' — ;
66 IO<t>OKAEOYI
suggested tentatively in the second line ing the predicate J. quotes Plat. rep.
r) ffp-iKpbv ; t)v twv ktL, or tcrTw...Tip.w- 424 C i/xi...0ts twv ireireio-pivwv, ib. 437 B
p.evov,or t) <ov> twv .np.wp.ivwv . . ; rrdvra to. TotavTa twv ivavriwv dXXTjXots
Blaydes makes several guesses, none of delr/s (&v). —
pnScqiov is not nowhere '
which has any probability. believe I honoured,' but a genitive of price 'held :
that Cobet's attractive piy' ay has led to a in no esteem,' valued at nil.

'
H. quotes
darkening of counsel, and that what Eur. fr. 360, 49 IloXXds 5' ovbapov Tipr)-
,
Sophocles really affirmed was that great ff€Tai, O. T. 908 ovbapov Tifialt AirbXXwv
prosperity is of little or no account be- ip.<pavr)s, Aesch. Eum. 627 pLrrrpbs p.rjb'ap.ov
cause of its instability. This meaning is n/xds vip.eiv, Menand. fr. 405 III 118K.
obtained by substituting ov for the first 17 ttjs fiepiSos wv tt)% ov5a/j.ov TtTayp.ivrys. So
with Meineke's av for br) and Cobet's ovdafiov Xiyeiv (An/. 184), vop.ifciv (Aesch.
alteration in v. 2. The sentiment is then Pers. 498, Eum. 426, Ar. Nub. 1421).
exactly the same as that of fr. 593 ov xpv See also on Eur. Phoen. 1464 oi>8ap.ov
tot' dvdpwir wv p.iyav 6\(3ov awo-
1
j
vIkt) rriXoi. —
In regard to Heath's ijroi J.
jSXêu * Tavv<p\olov yap laapApio% < <pti\- |
observes that r)...r)rot is not found in
Xoiaiv > aiyelpov fiiorav awofiaWei. Cf. tragedy (Lobeck on At. 177), though it
fr. 646, [Isocr.] 1. 42 vbp.ife p.r)8ev elvai twv occurs in Horn, r 599, Pind. Nem. 6.
avQpwirlvwv pipaiov oisrw yap oUt' evrvx&v
•
4 f. On the other hand t)toi...t) is not
id€L TrepixapTjs ovre Svvtvxwv irepiXviros. uncommon: e.g. Ant. 1182, Trach. 150. -
In the same connexion H. refers to Blaydes proposed rj Kai...Tipwp.evov. /
Eur. fr. 618 Tbv okjiov ovSev ovbap.ov 3 avTwv cannot refer to fiporwv but i
Kpivw ftpoToiS, ov 7' iâXelfei pq.ov rj

[
used vaguely in reference to 6X(3ov, as i
ypa<t>r\v 6e6s, fr. 1041, Aesch. Ag. 1326. it were twv toiovtwv. So often in Thucy-
Although everything mundane is fleeting, dides : e.g. 2. 43 tt)v ttjs ttoXcws bvvap.iv...
a peculiar degree of insecurity was pro- ivdvp.ovpivovs on
ToXfiwvTes Kai yiyvw-
verbially ascribed to Wealth cf. Eur. : ckovtcs biovra Kai iv rots Zpyois aiff-
to.
Hel. 905, Phoen. 558 and a full list of Xw6/j.evoi dV5pes avrb. iKT-qaavTo, 6.
illustrations collected by Headlam in 10 cnrovdai icrovrai ovrw yap...av8pes
'
fourn. Phil, xxm

276 f. For the con- firpai-av aura. For the tendency to
fusion of AN and Ah see H. Richards in pluralize see Shilleto on Thuc. 1. 7. For
C. R. vi 338, Bywater in J. P. xxxil similar instances see Adam on Plat.
225. It should be mentioned that Cobet, Crit. 44 c, Starkie on Ar. Ach. 438,
Nov. Led. p. 501, while contending that and Roberts on Dion. Hal. de comp. verb.
8r) has frequently been altered by scribes 14 p. 141. qv%\v iv TavTu |i€V€i Nauck :
to &V, adds etiam contra peccatur sed

' refers to Eur. Ion 969 to. dvriTa roiavd''
rarissime.' —
For 6c(r|...<r|UKp6v, 'regard ovbiv iv ravT$ pAvei. The phrase iv t. p..
as trifling,' cf. El. 1270 daip,bviov avrb occurs also in Eur. Tro. 350, Hel. 1026,
Tidrnj.' iyw. For the partitive gen. form- fr. 201.
107
htivov ye tovs fxeu Sv(rcre/3el<; ko.ko>v oltto
fikacrTovTa^ eTra rovcrSe fjcev irpdcrcreLU /caX&i?,
107. 1 Seiv6v ye Gesner: deivbv S, Setvbv fiiv MA, beivbv 8i B post kokwv
M
|
Bergk r" inseruit 2 pXao-TwvTas
107 Stob. Jlor. 106. 11 (IV p. 951, commonplace, and might as well have
12 Hense) 2o<pot<Xiovs 'AXe/rT/s. 'beivbv... proceeded from Sophocles as from Euri-
7670)$. pides. Theognis had dwelt at length on
It has been conjectured by F. \Y. the injustice of the divine government
Schmidt that this fragment has been see vv. 373—386, 73. 1 752- —
Cf. Eur.
wrongly attributed to Sophocles, and that fr. 293. There is nothing in the language
it really belongs to Euripides. The which points decisively one way or the
moralizing tone is certainly suggestive of other, and the indications, such as they
the latter, but the thought' itself was a are, are perhaps slightly in favour of
AAHTHI 67
row? o ovras icrOkovs £k tc y€i>uaC<oi> dp.a

yeyaira? cira SucrruYct? TT€<f>VK€vat.
ov xpfjv raS' ovrw Oaxpovas dv^qroiv iripi
TTpdarcrf.lv i\prjv yap tovs p.kv curTC/Seic, ftpoTwv
e^cit' ti Kephos ipi<f>av€<; deans irdpa,
tovs o ovtcls aoiKovs toI(to€ ttjv ivaaniav
olktjv KCLKUiv Tifuopbv €fx<f>ainj riveiv
KovSeis av ovT<o<; iqvTvêi k<xko5 yeyax;. 10
• xm* S: xpn M, xph A • Tdaatw Gomperz • roiait A: rovcit S,

M Ilcrwerden
t^»- <xaîaj' IO jjiTt'xet Heath: tiTvxti Trine, n"'rvx«»S,
eirrvxn ti M, ti/rix?; A
Sophocles. See also Introductory Note. ttotfitit k<x£ ti-cipwv (iXaffTOfrai, but it is
l i. 8«iv6v ^c It is highly probable unnecessary to introduce it rovo-Ss re- —
that this is the opening line of a speech, sumes roin fiitr with a certain rhetorical
it 7« has its usual connective force : impressivencss. Cf. Troth. 819 rip to
See Neil t>n A T4pfnw r}r I
riifttfi SiSuffi warpi, ripi* ai>H)
El. 34 5tir6r yi <x* oiVar
ind cf. 1 Xd/fotand Tr. fr. adesp. jH. The exam-
rorpot ov tri wail (Qvt Ktiyov XtXifffOai, j
ples with fir and ainot\ |6>. T. J4N, j;o.
169 towor ft row KTipvKa. rbr Trach. 187) are less emphatic- See also
wapa row 3poTon \ oix^for ti firitowort n. on Eur. Phot*. 4^8, Kuehner -f 660, M.iet/ner <>ti l.ycurg. j;.
runner emphasis on the • £|ia is suspected by Nauck, but I
adjective than in the instances just cited : can see no mote objection to it here than
see Tcbb on Phil. 1215. The addition — e.g. in Ai. 1008 <rdi warrfp i/th 9' ana —
of r (see cr. n.) after *a«wr has met with 4k is used indifferently with dwo in v. 1.
general approval, but I believe it can l>c I-or the ordinary distinction see Jebb on
unnecessary, if not actually Ant. 192.
harmful. Presumably those who accept 6 irpdtrtrnv (see cr. n.) is used of
r reganl SuaatfitU and caarwr iwo p\aa divine action in Jit. 100 tlr' at* oVot
r6rrai as co-ordinate, and the whole phrase tlrt pporQr qr o raOra wpAatum and in
I
by the articular rovt. I tut

I Trach. 167 AiryaXip to ttalt iyrittftotrvrrir
1
|
"sequence, though this has not been tliortt tpfttr rtV wpaoaopirid*. Its oc-
ike lira tolccisti currence in another sense above is not a
though Sophocles frequently cmpl- l\r*\* ( hc augmentedI
after a participle form occurs only here 111 Sophocles: see

V I, heCOOld DOl do so when- Jebb on Phil. 1061.
the participle is Attributive and not circum- 7 Jp+avtf a favourite word in Soph-
:
stantial. I lie fart is that roil utv should v\ho uses it 14 limes as against 8
be taken alone, =»w)( ro&i 6" —others ;
OCCUii impides. I
•nd biwrtfUit coalesces with /JXotfrorrat • roio-8*. I have accepted this read-
to part of the predicate. Cf. A/. 440, ing with Dimlorf. Nauck adopts m*to
iXacrdru is little more than and incline* towar«U 1 1 enrerden's trajUr
re and in the (see cr. "•)•
IjT parallel At. 1304 Aptrroi 4£ • S6c«|v Kaavv r i pmpir. The a<lj. •
tfit0TO, >*,rn as the generally anpliol to |>er»on», but is an
lien of wi< epithet of w«? ia -,(> to* *ir«
warpi* roiato rmttphf 4»«rip, a* well Mm

mi^ht hare l>ecn used, as I'lat. UfX- 716 A, 871 ft.
5— t
:
68 IO<t>OKAEOYI
AAKMEQN
There no doubt that the correct form of the name in
is
classical times was 'AA./e u.e&>i> rather than 'AXtcfialav, as can be

/
proved from the inscriptions both on stone and on vases see :
the evidence quoted by Meisterhans 3 p. 35.

Alcmaeon was one of the stock heroes of tragedy (Arist.
poet. 13. I453 a 20), and is represented as the typical madman :
cf. Timocles fr. 6 (II 453 K.), 8 7-01)9 yap rpaywhov? irpunov, el
fiovXei, (jKoirei j
C09 axpeXovai irdvTa^. . .0 voaSiv 8e p.avi/coi)<; 'Wtcfieaiv'
eatce-ip-ciTo. There are two considerations which enable us to
narrow the enquiry relating to the contents of the plot: (1) the
fact that Sophocles also wrote plays 1 entitled 'Ettljovoi and
'EpicpvXr) (2) fr. 1 08 shows that Alcmaeon had not yet recovered
;
his reason. We may safely infer that the events on which

the play is based were subsequent to the death of Eriphyle,
while her son was still pursued by the Erinyes of his mother, and
before he was finally released from suffering. Welcker (p. 279),
who with high probability refers fr. 880 to the prologue of this
play, builds on it a reconstructed plot with greater confidence
than the facts warrant. Nevertheless, if we examine the legends
with which Alcmaeon is connected, and exclude for the reason
already given his revenge on his mother for his father's death,
and his share in the expedition of the Epigoni, as well as the
Corinthian episode dramatized by Euripides in his 'AX/t/ieW Bia.
Kopivdov (TGF p. 379) as being entirely disconnected from the
healing of the hero's madness, we are forced to conclude that
Sophocles must have utilized either the adventures at Psophis or
those in Acarnania 2 If we admit the relevance of fr. 880, only
.
one answer is possible but, even apart from that, there can
;
be but little doubt as to the higher dramatic value of the Psophis-

story, which Euripides also treated. It is conjectured but not
proved that it was contained in the epic Thebais, or rather in
the Epigoni, which is now regarded not so much as a separate
poem as a subdivision of the Thebais (Bethe, Theb. Heldenlieder,
p. 137). Our principal sources of information are Pausan.
8. 24. 8 ff. and Apollod. 3. 87 ff.
3
From them we learn that
.
1
Or a play entitled Epigoni containing the story of Eriphyle: see Introd. to
Epigoni, p. 129.
2
So also Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. p. 501, for similar reasons.
3
Ovid {Met. 9. 409 ff.) refers briefly to the story, as if the details were familiar
attonitusque malis, exul mentisque domusque, vultibus Eumenidum matrisque
\
AAKMEQN 69
Alcmaeon, pursued by the avenging spirit of his mother, came to

Psophis in Arcadia, where Phegeus the king purified him and
gave him his daughter Alphesiboea (Arsinoe, according to
Apollod.) to wife. Alcmaeon gave to her the famous necklace
and robe of Harmonia. His madness, however, was not allayed,
and Alcmaeon was commanded by the Delphic oracle to settle
in a new land which had been left dry by the sea since the
pollution of the murder. Accordingly he went to the delta
of the Achelous, where new land was continually being formed
by the silting of the river and there he settled and married
;
Callirrhoe, the daughter of the river-god. But his new wife

sighed for the necklace and would not be comforted, until
Alcmaeon promised to return to Psophis and fetch it for her.
Arriving at Psophis, he pretended to Phegeus that the oracle
required the dedication of the necklace at Delphi as a condition
of his release from the madness Phegeus believed the story 1
;
and handed it over. One of Alcmaeon's attendants, how

betrayed the secret about Callirrhoe, with the result that he was
waylaid and killed by the sons of Phegeus at their father's
bidding. To Propertius (1. 15. 15) we owe a dramatic touch
which does not appear in the other authorities, although —
Apollodorus gives a hint of Arsinoe's disagreement with her
brothers A/p/icsibor<i sitos ulta est pro coniuge fratres, sanguinis
: \
'. vincula rupit amor*. Perhaps then, as Welcker

Alcmaeon was given a more creditable rdle than is indicated by
account of Apollodorus. It may be added that fr. 108
•\y fits the situation, if we suppose it spoken by Phegeus or
Alphesiboea in answer to Alcmaeon's request for the 1
when he alleged that it was required for the god. If the right
view has been taken above, it is clear that Valckenaer (Diatr.
p. 150) was wrong in referring Tr. fr. adesp. 358 to this play. If
written by Sophocles at all, the verses belong rather to the

Libbeck (p. 495) thought*.
onbrit, I
dome mmconiunx fataU ppoi.erit aurum, tognatumau* latmt \
goes on to describe the prayer of Callirrhoe thai her

He
sons mi^ht Ik- immediately brought to manh«><id, in <>r«lcr to avenge thctr 1
murder. The se«|ucl is related \>y Apollodorus, l>u; i- hardly relevant to the play of
•dea.
;j r, where the oracle is given.
tber authorities, aa we have *ecn, make Calltrth.K- the avenger of
death. Unfortunately ltttlt- <>r nothing is known M DM At<m«**m and
vertheleaa, Welcker and Ahren* have endeavoured to
Lueonatrurt the plot of Sophocles from his fragments, o.m-ludmg {e.g.) from Aifkt*.
td mmgtutat* imluiam at taxis, u/maitdam that Alphesiboea was imprisoned
from svenging Alcmaeon's death.
» /«/. 1 iff,
70 IO<t>OKAEOYI
108
eW ev (fypovrfcravT eicrihoifxi tt<os <f>peva>v
imj/SoXov Ka\o)v ere.
108 Porphyr. qn. Horn, i to 5e ^X eiv vyfi<rcuvTo ; so (ppovqaas in 0. T.

t?7r?j/3o\os er)p.aivei tov iiriTvxv Kal iyKpaTrj 649 (Jebb's n.). Mekler adds Eur.
dirb rrjs PoKrjs Kal tov fidWeiv .2o0ok\^s . . Bacch. 1259. (2) that iirl\flo\ov (orra.),
'AXK/Aaliovi.
l
eW ,
...ff€.'
1
Eustath. Od. and not ef' <ppovi\o<xvT^ ( orav = ev
p. 1448, 6 tirqfiokos 5t ov ttoitjtikt] (i.e. dependent on elaiioipx for
<ppovT)<rrii), is :
Homeric) A^£u, d\\a 'Attiktj Kara. toi>s the omission of <Zv as a supplementary
TraKatovs, oJ Kal irpocptpovat. 2o<po- participle see Eur. Hclid. 332, Phoen.
Nauck remarks that the 1 163, Her. 516, Goodw.
kXtjs etd'^.o-e.' § 91 1, Starkie on
'
present passage may also be referred to Ar. Vesp. 1526. There is thus no neces-
by Eustath. II. p. 625, 38 ovrui 8e Kal sity for DindorPs Kal in place of ttwj, or
,
'
<ppevu>v i^^7|ô\os. Mekler's t' after (ppevQv. So far as the
'Wouldthat I might see thee, with redundancy of expression is concerned,
thy wits restored, the master of a clear it is hardly more remarkable than in
brain.' The reading has been much Ant. 492 XvcrcrCxrav avrijv ov5' tirqfioXov
canvassed, and Campbell condemns the <ppevG>v. Sophocles may have taken this
'
unmeaning tautology of the text. Thus ' touch from Herodotus see 3. 25 ota 5e :
Cobet ejected e5 (ppovr/ffavr' as a gloss, ep.fw.vqs re euv Kal oil <ppev^pt]S, 35 irapa-
Ribbeck corrected it to evTvxw aVT \ F. W. <ppove"eiv Kal ovk elvai voi)p.ova. See also
Schmidt to ov <ppovf)aavT' Wecklein to 1
, on fr. 28, Jebb on 0- T. 58. For the

a.<f>povr)ffavr'', Gomperz to e5 (ppovrjcrais, word see Jebb on Ant. 1. c. and
e"irrif3o\os
and Nauck (in his earlier edition) to eS Blomfield gloss, to Aesch. Prom. 452
(ppeyibcravr'. It is perhaps presumptuous (460). The form (for iirlf3o\os) is sup-
to ignore such a chorus of suspicion, but posed to be due to metrical lengthening :
the text does not seem to me, if fairly Giles, Manual of Comp. Phil. §220. Cf.
interpreted, to be in any way abnormal. irapal(3o\os, /carcujSarqs, KaTTj{io\7i (Eur.
It should be observed (1) that ev <ppovf]- fr. 614). — For «j>pcva>v koXuv cf. Eur. fr.
aavr' is ingressive,as in Plat. Phaedr. 548 rl rrjs evfj.op<pias |

ocpe\os, orav rtj
231 D 7rws av ev (ppovâavres ravra kclKQs p.i) <ppivas Ka\as <?XT?-
iog
aivoi
109 Hesych. I p. 81 aiVw 1
iraplrfpi, eiraivQ, which is equivalent to the Latin
wapaiTov/xai. Kal iiraivG). 1i0tf>0K\9j% benevocas: tarn gratiast (Plaut. Men. 387).
'AXKpaliavt (corrected by M. Schmidt for In Phil. 889 aivQ> to.8\ w irai, Kal pi'
cod. aXpuxlwvi). Bekk. anecd. p. 358, 28 firaip' wenrep voe?s, as may be the case
and Suid. alvQ>' irapaiTOvpai. So</>ok\^s. with our 'thank you,' the words accom-
Kal iiraivw. Suid. adds to this Kal alvu pany an assent. On that passage Jebb
ae. Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 55, 5 alvw' refers to Hes. Op. 643 (quoted on fr. 28),
TrapaiTovfiat Kal iiraivto. 2o0o(c\^j. It which the scholl. explain by jrapane'io'dai,
is more usual to find iiraivw in the sense as does Plut. poet. aud. 6 p. 22 F.
of a polite refusal : Ar. Pan. 508 k&Wktt',
IIO
apauas
110 Hesych. I p. 269 dpaias' p\a- &peo$, j3\avTiK0v oVtos, dpd i) fiXaflri' Kal
jSe/ods. 2,o<poK\ijs 'A\Kp.aiuvi (so Musurus dpala /St'aia, detvd, xaXeird, 68vvt)pd.
CO dpaios, meaning fraught with a curse,
for dX/fytiaf cod.). has a double aspect like irpoorpoiraios
Cf. Etym. M. p. 134, 14 f) irapa to (see my ed. of Eur. Heraclidae, p. 148),
;
AAKMEQN— AMYKOI 71
aXeurrwp, Ta\a.fivaiot. For the meaning Salmxrt* $porQ>w ytroi, Med. 608 *ai aa*\
us, i.e. bringing a curse upon Apala y' ovaa Tvyx&*w MptM. See also
. c(. 0. T. 291 Ai«fwf 56uou dpatot.
1 on fr. 399. The sinner and his victim
Track. 1:0: koI vipQtv wv ipaiot ttaatl are both dpaloi as implicated in dpa, and
flapvi, Aesch. Ag. 147 <f>06yyor dpalov possible sources of pollution the so-called
:
ofrott, Eur. /. T. 778 rf trots apala 5<juacru> ' active ' and ' passive ' senses of the adj.
ytrnaonai, Hipp. 1415 tW f/v apatov have a common starting-point.
AMYKOI IATYPIKOI
This play related to an incident which happened on the
outward voyage of the Argonauts and is recounted among the
of Polydeuces. Amycus, the inhospitable king of the
Bebrycians In Bithynia, used to forbid all strangers to land on
and fetch water for their ships, until they had fought a
rig-match with him. Hitherto he had always killed his
Opponents, but when the Argonauts arrived he met his conqueror
in Polydeuces (Apollod. I. 119, Hygin. fab. 17). The boxing-
match is described by Apoll. Rhod. 2. 1 97 and Theocr. 22. —
27 — 134. Whether these writers took any hints from Sophocles
it is impossible to say, but one point in which they differ is
vine of notice. According to Apollonius, with whom most

of the other authorities agree, Amycus was killed by Polydeuces
but Theocritus (131 rT.) represents Polydeuces as sparing his life,
and merely requiring him to swear an oath by his father
Poseidon never to maltreat strangers in the future. Similarly.
according to BChoL Ap. Rhod. 2. 98, both Kpicharmus (fr. 7 K \
and Periander Stated that he was put in chain* Such an ending

suitable to a satyr-play. We may conjecture that
atyrs were his slaves, and were liberated after the defeat of
their master 1
.
Ill
yipavoi, ^cAwi/cu, y\avK£<i, IktXvoi, Xayoi

111 n. 400 n tb N
tAt Xa-yir irtKJj \dyoi-ci N #ai 'Arrwoi \Ayt, in Z »*» « Xfr'
ftirwraf d«6Xoi«4i ion* i wap* 2<*©«X«« VfiM^ «tHn< V«Y*-
MifoaTiptKvwXittivvTiidiironaJTtA'; n. limn. p. jiO"Oamer amtrm.
HH...\ayol'.. {c) oOtwi (jr. \ayii) t' far. IV p. la*, M »•
f*»
\*-,6i tC-^trnt
iXpdltaro rî^tutr, «ai 'K*<xaj>0Of (fr. 60 vmpt 2#*«MrX«i* ' >Xa.««i. farrfol
!) KaTHpMow *al 6 rati Kftwrat ««1 amsrd. P.ir.\, Xayî.' ftuUlh. 0£

voiVat. thd 4<rri tA id* 'Ia«or Xa«vA» p. IJ j 4 , 13 quote* from Athenaeiu, gmag
r •
\ayii r*p4fat a* from Sophoclet lh« wontt 'tXafcw,
wlti rAr 0a\d*ffi«r,'Vo ii Xaywf 'Arri«4f. Urirn, \mym.'
•
Se« Introductory Note to the lth*tul*$.
72 ZOÔKAEOYI
Whether KopQvai in the second quotation (Rutherford, New Phryn. p. 173).
of Athenaeus is a mistake for xeXwfas, or Phrynichus says X(ryu>s, 6 'Attik6s. 5ta
:
vice versa, and in what connexion this dt tov 6 "Iwu (p. 186 Lob.)- See Weir
strange list was cited, it does not seem Smyth, Ionic Dialect, § 478, K. Z. XXIX
possible to determine. 109. The nom. \ay6s is evidenced by the
Xavo£ is the plural of the Ionic \a76s, ace. plur. \a76s in Hes. Scut. 302 toI 3'
answering to the Attic Xcryws. The fact £)Kviro$a% Xa-yds ypevv \
avdpts OrjpeiTal.
that it appeared in tragedy does not, of Meineke thought that Sophocles must
course, justify its use in ordinary Attic have written Xcryy.
112
(TLayovas re S77 /xa\#a/cas Ttdrjcn
112 Athen. 94 E criaybvos 8e Kparl- clearly describe the punishment inflicted
Pos...Kal 2o0okXt?s 'A/xi//c<f) ' '
ffiaydvas... by one pugilist upon another. H. quotes
Porson proposed to make an Herond. 8. 8 ft-ixP 1 ffev Tra.pa<rTdi<7a rb
1
ridriai.' \
iambic trimeter by placing 5r) after Tid-ycn ; fipty/xa T<£ (tkIitwvi /u.a\6a.Kbv dQfiai. Com.
and 8rj in this position and with temporal fr. adesp. 125 (ill 432 K.) B.v fiy ttoitjo-w
meaning occurs in Track. 460, Phil. 1065, wiwova p.aCTiydv 6\ov, av /xtj |
Tronjero)
and elsewhere (Eur. Hel. 134 n.). Mekler ff-rroyyias (jLakaKwrepov irpbawwov.
\
to
thought that the metre might be trochaic Plaut. Aul. 422 ita fustibus sum mollior
tetrameter. Blaydes preferred the order magis qtiam ullus cinaedus. Add Plaut.
rldTjai fiaXdaicds, with <rov for 5t). H., Mil. 1424 mitts sum cquidem fustibus,
however, suggests that p.a\0aKa.s Tl6t}<n is Ter. Eun. 1028 utinam tibi commitigari
an ithyphallic following a trimeter, as in videavi sandalio caput. So perhaps
Aesch. Prom. 610 yeyv/xvaKacriv, oi)5' i\ w fj-ahd^ris in Ar. Eq. 389.
/MadeTv 6irji | wrinovas d\i)|w. The words
AM0IAPEQX ZATYPIKOI
Tragedies bearing the title AmpJiiaraus were composed by
Carcinus (TGF p. 797) and Cleophon (Suid.), as well as comedies
by Aristophanes, Plato, Apollodorus of Carystus, and Philippides
(Kock I 396, 604, III 280, 302).
guess which part of Amphiaraus' story was
It is difficult to
suitable for a satyr-play. suggestion has been made in the A
note on fr. 113, but there is no other evidence to confirm or rebut
it, and the words of the fragment itself are exceptionally obscure.
An alternative subject, which has perhaps more claim to con-

sideration on general grounds, would be the part taken by
Amphiaraus in the events which led to the founding of the
Nemean games. In that case the plot would cover the same
ground as the Nemea of Aeschylus {TGF p. 49) and the
Hypsipyle of Euripides {Ox. Pap. VI p. 21 ff.). The story of
the death of the child Opheltes or Archemorus, in whose honour
the games were founded, is told practically in the same form by
—
Apollod. 3. 64 66 and Hygin. fad. 74. The locality, a remote
fountain guarded by a dragon, was especially suitable to a satyr-
play and the subject was clearly capable of lighter handling
;
than the fortunes of Amphiaraus at Argos or at Thebes.

AMYKOI—AM<t>IAPEQI 71
113
6 TTlVOTTJpr)? TOvSc fldvT€(t)^ \Op6$
113 Tirrori)^t cod. : corr. Dindorf | x°P°* Meineke: x°f>°" cod*
113 Schol. V Ar. Vat. 1510 *trro- allusion relevant. Ellendt, who is fol-
TiJp77t...itop*i«'i6r ri tVn ovrvoptov koX del lowed by
Campbell (keeping x°P°£)»
rainy xpoatxbtiLivov (wpoobtx^f* ¥a* cod.). absurdly supposes that a number of
2o#0K\rft A^x^xa/xiy '6 TtMrHipr/i.. .xopov.'
'
ndrrtit appeared in the play, and that
The taluilou-. story of the wuwrâtft is the shortest of them by a ridiculous
several timet referred to, but not always comparison was called ruvoî. So
told in the same way. According to I'lut. L. and S. interpret a tittle parasitical
dt soil, an. 30 p. 980 A it caused Chrysip- fellow. But there is not the slightest
pus to waste a great deal of ink, because — reason to suppose that Aristophanes was
ided him with an excellent illustra- parodying Sophocles, although, when the
tion of xpbroia. His account is preserved comic poet says of the sons of Carcinus
by Allien. Sy D (11 729 a Am.), quoted {tht Crab) here's the wwoHjptri of the
'
from the 5th book <>f the treatise xtpl rov family,' not difficult to infer that
it is
*a\ov teal T$» 7)<5or>;t: tj wlrrr), (f'ljoi, nai the "baby-crab' is meant. There was
i wtrywriip-iji ovtnpyd d\Xi)\<Mf, *ar' lilatf no Carcinus in Sophocles, and, as we
96 ovrdpuva ovfiisJrtw. 17 fxir ot* vlrrri can hardly refer roCSt ixdrrwi to anyone
6fTp*6r ioritt, 6 5i wtrror-tipTji Kapulvot but Amphiaraus, it seems likely that
fMKp&i. nai i) rivrrj iiaarfyxaoa rb Scrpa- Mcineke was right in restoring x°f***
KOt> rtairxd^ttryipovifaTd. iwtiaiorra (gli/dta, for x°P°v-Even then the point of the
6 to wiPwoHifnit Ta.ptaTu.-i, Stop tlot\9rj rt, allusion obscure; but the only situation
is
idty'i uxjrtp o~i)nairu>v, ij to Jtrv.-
airr-fftf, in the story of Amphiaraus, so Car as it
Otloa Hfufivti- teal o&run to dwo\rf<pt)ir is known to us, which might possibly
trior KartaOloiKH kow%. (ic. //. </. 7. ISJ account for it, and would at the same
ibt comes ultimately from ("hrv- time 1* suitable for treatment in 1
and there are other authorities

: play, is the incident related by II
sune But in C'xc.fn

effect. fab. M (cf. Serv. on Vtqg. Acn I
at tlla, i/uar in concha patula pinn dicitur, Myth. Vat. 151). how that Amphiaraus,
1
is(/nf. i/ui mat e concha, qui, i/tioit earn knowing that he would perish at Thebes,
pi not! res Ptcatur, in candemqut
. concealed himself from Adrastu* and (he
cum sc rcccpit, iniluditur, ut t idea fur rest with the connivanc- Ic, ami
mounts /-, ut eaveret...alioruni
1 was subsequently discovered in conse-
cauui qtuudntn /'a. inn/, the pea-crab does quence of the treachery of his wife, who
DOt assist the liivalvc tO olitain nouri-h- was bribed by her brother with agolden
bat warns it against approaching necklace. According to Stat. T%eh. j.
! this is the version given m 570 ff. (cf. 606, 619), Amphiaraus hid
i by Mayor himself in his house, ami refused to tell
(00 m. 1 in the English Cyclic the result ol I
>« sup-
faeaHa, which it of particular int. pose that in such circumstances thr
that in the mi.hllc of \h
rtg chorus was posted outside >
the I-evantine Greeks conl give timely warning to the seer of the
to resale strangers with the same Cable approach of danger? Wcl.-ker {MteAtr.
ceslors had giv. I) also conjecture. on the strength
I
reney more than 1000 years before, of thiv fragment that the satyrs wer.
coognizes the fact that by Amphiaraus into his service as atten-
the pea-crab habitually resides in the dants in the ntc» of divmati >ti Merck
pinna, but d.-cs not coun- thought that a crow. I following at the
tenance the rest of the story. It remains heel* of the ver was meant, and thai
to ascertain how Sophocles made the u was the seer in question.
v
74 I04>0KAE0YI
114
evS* ovte 7re\A.€i5 01 aypavXos /3otos
114 Cramer anecd. Oxon. I p. 344, 8 adopts irfWrjs olbs, leaving the other
iroXiolo ovk dyvoovp.tv ttjv aKpi^r) ypa(pr)v
•
words untouched. /3otos, for which
'
7reXtoro.'...7reXioO oftv irapa rb 7reXXa; Cramer substituted f3orr)p, is anyhow
(TreXX6s Schr.eidewin) 4vd'...f36ro$.' 2o- '
corrupt. Schneidewin preferred ivbvvra
'
<Pok\t}s 4v Afjupiapacp aarvpiKip. For 7r«XX^s pivbv dypavXov /Soos, which Din-
Erotian gloss. Hippocr. p. 109, 7, which dorf approved with the exception that he
appears to quote the word 7reXXos as proposed tvSus re in place of ivbvvra.
occurring in this play, see on fr. 509. For 7reXX6s (or iriXXos) see on fr. 509.
The text is desperately corrupt. Lo- dypavXoio fSobs in Horn, fl 81 (cf. M 2 = 2)
beck elicited from it ivffoQ re niXXrjs olds perhaps lends some support to Schneide-
AypavXov fiorov, and from him Nauck win's correction of the last two words.
"5
er a . . . cocrnep ctXteus TrXrfyels . . . <(f>p>evcov otSctcr/caXo?
115 cppev&v restituit E. A. I. Ahrens
115 Schol. Plat. Symp. 222 B 6 aXuvs rradovra yvCivai, Horn.is referring to
TrXrjyds vovv <pvffu. (pad yap dXte'a 07- P 32 pexêv Hes.
di re vr)irios i-yvu or
KtOTperjovra, iireibdv (nrdcrrj t$ Xlvqi rbv Op. 2 [6 rraduv 84 re vfjmos Zyvu. See
t'xfli/j', rrj XîpX irpocayaybvra Kar£x elv ,
also schol. Aristid. ill 681 Dind. Cf.
iva 4"uyrf rovro 5e o-vvr)dws noiovvra
fir] Aesch. Ag. 186 rbv (ppoveiv pporovs 65u>- |
virb (TKopvLov TrXriyrjvai Kal elirelv (vulgo ffavra, rbv nddei fxddos j
Oivra Kvpiws ex*'*''
ei7re) ' TrXrjyels vovv </>i/<reis,' Kal fir/K^ri Eutn. 524 £vp.(pipei croKppovuv vwb arivtu
npoodyeiv t£ iiceivov ttjc xeipa. KixP r) Tal - Of the attempts which have been made
rrj Trapoifiia 'ZoQokatjs eV Ap.<piapdip o~arv- to supply the missing words, the best is
pwip Xiywv '
er' a5...aj<T7re/) dXieiis irXrjyels Headlam's: eiaavdis [t2<nrep] dXievs <etao-
...evwv 5i5da7caXos.' Zenob. 2. 14 (Miller, fiai > irXyyeU < (ppovelv ' rfnirupla yap \
Milanges de litt. gr. p. 371) aXtevs irXrj- rijov <pp>evwv SiSdffKaXos. Here the se-
ytis vovv ofoei (an <pi>crei?)...p.ipivriraL cond line at any rate fits admirably with
avrrjs 2o<pOKXrjs. the requirements of the case. It is of
This is the Greek equivalent for our course possible that wairep is a gloss, but
'once bit, twice shy,' and is one of the the first line might also run tl<ravdis :
many proverbs which attest the value of aXuvs wcrwepel irXrryth (ppovui. Kock
a hard experience. Plato, whose words suggested : <ni 7' wcrwtp dXiei)s crKopirlov
are Kara rrjv irapoifilav, uxrwep vr)mov w\t)y(h viro I
iroXXoU yevr)o'ei kt£.
Il6
ayi>L<TaL
116 Hesych. I p. 26 dyvicai (ayvrjcrai sacrifice of a victim. The best parallel
-
cod.) dTroOv<rai. Bov<rlpi.5i Eur.
{i.e. is Eur.T. 705 diupl fih>p.bv dyvio-dels
/.
fr. 314). Kal 8ia<pdeTpai. SoôacX^s tv <pbv(p, of Orestes supposed to be sacrificed
'A/M<piapd({). Bekk. anecd. p. 339, 8 at Tauri. Cf. Snppl. 12 1 o-&p.aQr riyviadrj 1
dyvlaar rb Ovcai, 8ia<pdeipai, Kar' dvri- 1
TTVpi. So Headlam explained A. P. 7. 49

<ppaaiv. ovrw 1,o(poKXrjs. To the same (Bianor's epitaph on Euripides) -rjyvio-e
effect Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 19, 17. For rdv dvardv ffdp.aros ioroptr)v, i.e. destroyed
dvrl<ppa<ris, which is sometimes entitled the inscription which described Euripides
(iKprifj.io-p.6s, see Rutherford, Annotation, as mortal (C R. xvi 438). See also
p. 270. Ant. 08 1 kiWs Kadrjyvicrav with J ebb's
1
a-yvfrrtu, 'to consecrate,' may some- n. Blaydes would prefer d>(<rat, and
times involve destruction, as in the Kadrryiffav in Ant. I.e.
2 .
AM<t>IAPEQI 75
117
a\e£a.L0piov
117 Hesych. 1 p. 117 aXttaiOpiov
•
night : cf. fr. 1 49, 3 wdyov âWrrot at-
Btpuoy (TKtwaatxa.. Zo<poic\rji 'Anfrapdy. Bpiov, .-int. 358 oWaiJWr r&yut* i*alBp*ia
The word was doubtless modelled on .../3Ar;, Aesch. Ag. 347 ** vTaiBpiw*
see on fr. 1
ineric d\(^dvtfj.ot : 1 1 r&yu*. Blaydes needlessly conjectured
\tifidnva. The latter part of the com- &\i(<iiBpor.
pound suggests the cold of a clear frosty
Il8
Tpacrui
118 Zonar. lex. p. 174J rpaolai- o quoted who used the word for a threshing-
rtrwot ffffa t4 avica srjpairtTai, wapa t6 floor. The name is suitable, as a dry spot
rtpoaUtw to Zfipairtiy. 6 Si Z<xpoic\fii iv exposed to the wind was selected for
ry oarvpucip (iripio c«xl.) 'Au0«xprf<f> irl threshing Ml the commentators on Verg.
:
rrjt aXw riBunt tV \ii,i». The same ex- Georg. 178.

1. rpttîa is particularly ap-
tract occurs in schol. Ael. nut. an. 3. 10 plied to the drying of figs. Aelian I.e.
with the variants rpaeii (which is right) relates of the hedgehog: iavror ir rmt
wapa rov rpaoalrttr for xapa rS rtpeairtw, Tpaeiaii kv\Ui koI rwr togaowr rat rtp*-
and the omission of ry aarvputy. waptleat, at s-oXXal iitw^ypwrat rait **a»-
rpotria is rightly explained as a drying- Bait, rtovxn KOidfti rri. Suid. 1. 0b alto
pla<e, but Sophocles is the only authority speaks of the drying of cheeses.
119
<f>pOV€LU
110 Kmtian testifies that fpovtU was sense of vtw : see fr. «; 1
used by Sophocles in this play with the
120
wpaKiaa-ai
120 Schol \r. Ran. 481 woa*taoau al*ifn*. The former was the Ale* r
Si M'/trai to inrS $6pov <*xptao*i dw6 • view, as we learn from the scholiast on
<Lpa» o<« • {"»(»-. rovro Si £oô«X$t m, who »av* that Kratosthenes,
'Autptapdy aarvpuif. to u>xp*aaai •ing from Lycophroo, held that
BXtfiouirijt rift tapSlat toC'to it S*oXX«f i^ttiir wa the pallor, but
tly
r>l occurs twice in Aris- the antecedent ducinesa arising from

joi) in the sense fsintness. I hough! that the
scholiast attributed to Sophocles the foam
11 wpamdf Mrrurdf, X'troi/'t'x**'' 'BXXipc- ipault**, which must hare fallen out
•f this obscure w the esplanation «*•* t«$ rV iom»
gave two ex-
Dts *Uitu». He sup|*xU his view by JSeym.
f it :as a by-f-
(1) •
* - '3. JtJ *f**it*. »•*• »* «W|W*»
; and (j) as derived from Cip*» r*jr wpar.

:
76 I04>0KAE0YI
121
[%o(f)OKkr)<; ra y/aa/x/xara napdyet 6pyovyi€vov\

121 Athen. 454 F, after quoting yevofiivr; ri\v 6pxv^ Tllc V'' t£tt.pydcraTo ri\-
certain passages in which an illiterate vi\v %vfnra<rai>. Plutarch (gu. conv. 9. 15)
person is introduced giving a descrip- divides dancing into <popd, irxô, and
tion of the letters composing a parti- 8e?£ts, and says of the second (p. 747 c)
cular word, and amongst them the well- 6rav ...<rxv^ a Siadivres ivl rod ffu)/iarot
known fragment of Euripides (fr. 382), ypa<piKuis rots elSeaiv eirifiivoxn. ibid.
proceeds koX So0ok\^s 8i toi/t^ irapa-
: p. 748 A woirjffiv yap ehai ttjv opxyvi*
ir\-q<nov 4irolr]<Tev 4v ' Afj.<piapay crarvpiKi^ aiuiruxrav, Kai (pdeyyo/j^vrj" °PXW" Ta\w
irapdyuv opxovfxevov.
to, ypdfjL/jiaTa. tt)v Troiyaiv. Lucian de salt. 63, Deme-
The expressive character of Greek trius said to a dancer: d/couw a woids,
dancing is abundantly warranted ; it oi>x opw nbvov, a\\d /xoi SoKeU rats x e P <rLV
was above all the demonstration of an airrcus \a\etv. Athen. 22 A: Telestes,
idea. Lucian de salt. 69 ical yap dia- the dancer of Aeschylus, was so skilful,
volas ra yiyvbfxeva ?x et
4iriSeiîv > Kal t' 13 1
- when dancing the Seven against
'
(TWyitariKTjs a<XK7)(rews evtpyeiav. Plat. legg. Thebes, he expressed the whole plot by
816 A 810 p.i/x7]ixis tCjv \eyofxivuv ax^fJLaffi his art.
AM4>ITPYQN
Euripides wrote an Alcmena, about which we have better
information than has been preserved concerning the Amphitryon
of Sophocles for scholars are agreed that the chief dramatic
;
innovation introduced by Euripides was that Amphitryon

punished Alcmena for her supposed unfaithfulness by burning
her on a funeral-pyre, and that only the timely intervention of
Zeus rescued her from destruction see Nauck, p. 386, : TGF
Wilamowitz, Eur. Herakl- I p. 54. Wernicke (in Pauly-
Wissowa I 1573) infers that Sophocles followed the earlier
version recorded by Apollod. 2. 61, according to which the
deception practised by Zeus and his intercourse with Alcmena
were made known to Amphitryon through the agency of Tiresias.
The old guess that the Amphitryon was a satyr-play (Osann in
Rh. Mns. II 312) has nothing in its favour, unless indeed Porson's
view of fr. 1 127 is adopted. Accius wrote an Amphitryon, which
is thought to have been adapted from Sophocles, principally
because the only other tragedy so entitled was written by the
Alexandrian Aeschylus (TGF p. 824). In any case, the plot
may be taken to have covered the same ground as the well-
known travesty of Plautus. Hartung and Schoell maintained
that both Sophocles and Accius dramatized the story of Euripides'
Heracles under this title, but their view was rightly rejected by
Ribbeck (p. 557).
'
AM<t>IAPEQI— AM<PlTPYQN 77
122
i-irei 8e /3\cl(ttoi, tgjv rpitov fiiau \a$eti>

cvcrotai/ apKti.
122 Scl. •:. Soph. 0. C. 390 tvrolat make no difference, unless apttl is taken
X&P**] i* foh arayKuiorffKHi rCiv &pti- to be a dynamic (prophetic) present.
yp&tfxoy ypatptrai tirttat xdpiv, 6 xai ol Bearing this in mind, I cannot help
inrotL¥ijfiATiaantvoi a£iov<riy tfootav i4 suspecting that the word, may refer to
foai ri)r tvtttrtia* (ticrtiivtiav Suid. s.v. the miraculous growth of the heads of
efoota) KaBawtp kox if \KntfnrpCun>i 'ivtl the Lernaean Hydra (anQlicpaium xal wa-
XinfiXaff-ri)Kvra Kur. //</'. 1 174) 'and,
:
tvaoiat has been restored to the text of whenever grows, it is enough that one
it
C. from the schol., but the word of the three should l* preserved.' The
does not occur elsewhere. The adj. «0- details of the story are variously ret
ffoot is fount! inTheocr. 34. 8. Cf. Hesych. Alcaeus (fr. 1 18) spoke of nine heads,
II p. J33 tCvota- ti>0i)via, aurripla. Simonides (fr. 203) of fifty, and F.uri-
The meaning of this fragment is ob- pides (H,i iNK) of a hundred
. 1 and the
;
scure. Wclcker (p. 372) interpreted: later authorities have the same or similar
'when he is grown, to receive one of rarlltiOMi Thus it would not l>e sur-
these three provides security.' tie sup- prising to find that Sophocles mentioned
poses that Zeus promised to Heracles an outcrop of three heads at a time, one
three safeguards to protect him amidst of which always survived. And there is
the 'Lingers of hi.s life, one of which a further detail in the mythological hand-
be at any time sufficient to keep books which would help to explain the
him unharmed ; and compares the golden text. Besides the ordinary version that
hair of I'terelatis. son of Taphius (Apol- two heads grew for every one cut off,
hxl. 1. 51), and for the triplication of the Ap.illodorus (a. 77) relates that of the
three prayers of Theseus. nine heads eight were mortal, but the
Hartiu . it suffices to find one
•
middle one was immortal {rat fUf 4«rw
of your three roads to safety,' but refrains tfrrrrdt, tt)v 6i /idffrff Hfdfaror) : see also
from explaining his meaning further. if>. Ho, Pcdias. 7. Similarly, Aristonicu*
Neither of these versions takes due ac- of Tarentum (F/fG IV 337), a writer
count of i-wtl p\d<rroi, which must be of uncertain date, said that the middle
'
regarded as a clause of general assump- head ' was golden.

uh. 93 gal yap itrripy r6 7' For the short vowel before /JXeVrm see
«0 wpdffftw, iwti wMotro, xlfiioi i(iro\$
J
Jclil) on Phil. 131 ».— -Memckc thought
1. To substitute pkaarj), as El- that fuap was an error for mat,
lendt and others have proposed, would
123
dftr/are'p/iojc;
123 It- s lot ift+iTJpfU/t the evidence that has been adduced (see
uarutnirwi. lofxxMjl 'A/*- Brugmann Comf. Gr. 11 p. >.
the sulntitution in compound* of «»• »tcm»
k thinks this form incredible, M in *• cf. n(np*rt». 4*ii60*9ar.
:
Ik- Added lhAt the preceding

'her dn<piTtt>ud*vi or <iu<><- It should
to conclude ,, an^tTtppum l-rffsw
cod.)' 4«r#<rt>T*fM«rt#^s»'.
Id l>e rash in view of
'
78 IO0OKAEOYI
124
aTfirjTov
124 Hesych. I p. 315 drpavpLaTLffTov dtiipurrov, drpavnaTiffTov. 2. 'A. The
2,o<poK\r)s 'AfupLTptiuvi.. &T/xr)T0t> •
dpi- gloss dp.ipi<rrov is probably a reference
puxrov. to VXdX.^Phaedr. 277 B. That drpav/id-
Inasmuch as drpav/xdriarov is entirely tkttov was a possible word of explanation
out of place in the alphabetical order, is shown by Etym. M. p. no, 52 dvov-
and has no explanatory gloss, the con- raros- 6 dTpau/idricrTos. Nauck's sug-
clusion seems inevitable that &t/x7)tov gestion that 2o0. Ap.<p. refers to a previous
has dropped out before it, and that gloss dT/xi)<xi<ppuv ovdefuds t6\/*tjs Hvvoiav
Sophocles used this word in the Am- Hx 03 " has very little probability. And
phitryon with the meaning invulnerable. that is actually an error for dr\ri<ri<ppu)v
This was practically the view of Salma- (Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 438).
sius, who arranged the words drp.t\Tov
•
[ANAPOMAXH]
is no other reference to a play of Sophocles bearing
There
this title than that of fr. 125 quoted below. But, as there is
independent evidence that Sophocles employed the word
7rapaad'yyr]<i with the meaning 'messenger' in the Uoifj,ev€<i (see
fr. 520), and as Andromache is a character who may very well
have appeared in that play, Welcker (p. 113) concludes that

there was no such play as the ÂvSpofid^rj, and that fr. 125
really refers to the Tloifieves. For errors due to the citation of a
character in place of the name of a play see p. 38, and the note
on fr. 161.
125
Tra.pacrdyyr)<i
125 Etym. M. p. 652, 13 irapa- Nauck in his first edition conjectured
adyyai ' t& rptaKovra crrddia irapa Uipaais that iv 'AvSpop.iSa should be read, but
Trap' Aiyvirriois 5'
i^-qKovra. irapd Si now rightly inclines to Welcker's opinion
Soô/cXet iv 'AvSpo/xdxv f*"i rod dyyiXov referred to above.
etprjrai. To the same effect Etym. Gud. For the word irapaadyy-qs see on fr. 520,
p. 452, 31 with the reading iv 'Av8po/j.dxv. and cf. fr. 183.
ANAPOMEAA
There is some direct evidence of the events comprised in the
Andromeda.
plot of the See Eratosth. Catasterism. 16 (Wester-
mann, Mythogr. p. 250) Yâaaietreia. tuvttjv icrropei 1o(po/c\rj<; 6
'
Av8pofx,eSa iplcraaav irepl /cdWovs rals

T779 Tpaya)Btadelpai
rrjv yj^pav #77x09 eirnrefxâvra, 81 rjv <alriav> irpbiceiTai to5 fct'/ret
r\ OvyaTrjp ot/ceift)?. €<Tî]fidriaTai 8e iyyvs eirl Btcppov KaOr)p,evij.
lb. 36 K77T09. tovto ear iv o Uoaei8a>i> <eir>e7refMyjre Kr)<pet Sid to
6"
Kao-aiiireiav eplaat irepl icdWovs rals Nijprjicriv. Uep<Tev<i
AM0ITPYQN—ANAPOMEAA 79
avro avetXe, /cat 01a tovto ft? rd darpa eridr) inrofiwjfia tijs
Trpdgetos avrov. taropel Se raira HoôkXi)* 6 rtov rpwytphtiav
TrotT}TT]<i iv t§ Wv&popeda. The same version is followed in two
passages of the scholia to the Aratea of Germanicus Caesar
(p. 138. 9, 21 see R. Ellis in/. P. IV 267, and now E. Maass,
:
Comment, in A ration, pp. 215, 257). Hygin. poet, astron. 2. IO

p. 443 Cassiepeia. de hoc Euripides et Sophocles et alii complures
dixerunt ut gloriata sit se forma Nereidas prae stare, pro quo facto
inter sidera sedeus in seliquastro constituta est. Hut the play
cannot be reconstructed to the same extent as is possible with
the more famous Andromeda of Kuripides. The plot of Euripides
s nothing of a previous betrothal to Agenor (or Pbineus) I
Cepheus refuses the proposal of Perseus on other grounds, and

^position is overcome by the appearance of Athena dim
fir}ât/ij<i. It has been suggested that Sophocles followed the
1
>n of the denouement adopted by Hygin. fad. 64, according

to which Cepheus and Agenor lay in wait for Perseus in order
to slay him, but Perseus by showing them the Gorgon's head
turned them into stone. But it is difficult to understand how the
of Sophocles found its way into the astronomical handbook,
if there was nothing in his play to support the statement that
the chief characters in the story were turned into stars. 1:
should be observed that although the story of Perseus and

—
Andromeda is not old at least there is no trace of it in literature
e the fifth century —
it was already current at the time of the
an wars, if we may lay any weight upon tin- statement

of Herodotus (7. 150) that Xerxes claimed kinship with the
Argives, as the descendant of Penes, the son of Perseus and
Andromeda. It is improbable that I'hrynichus had introduced
Andromeda into one of his plays, as Dobrce inferred from
Ar. Xub. 556. The reference there is to a comedy see schol. :
Starkie's note.
1
Brunck, following Casaubon, considered that Sophocles'

Andromeda was a satyr-play; but his opinion was founded on BO
r
,
er reason than the evidence afforded by fr. 136. Ribbcck,
- the same view A'om. Trag. p. 163,6,), thinks that
(
7 has a comic tone and also refers to fr. 132 but his mam ;
1is that Euripides' play would not have been regarded
as a startling novelty —
as it undoubtedly was if Sopo —
had already treated tin subject in a serious maimer. Hut the
1of Euripides was rather in the romant*
I i
'^sen' endeavoured to reconstruct th meda of
Pauly'Winowa 11*6.
irkc in 1
( in. the
1904) pp. 104 identification had been made by cutter
: sec aUo K. Kuhncrt in Kmchcr Itl
80 IO<t>OKAEOYI
Sophocles from a hydria in the British Museum (E 169) which is

undoubtedly earlier than 412 B.C., the date of Euripides' play,
and is consequently inferred to have been influenced by Sophocles.
The painting shows Perseus arriving on foot, whereas in the
works of art which follow Euripides he descends from the air ;
Cepheus weeping for his daughter's fate posts being fixed into ;
the ground, to which Andromeda is to be lashed and funeral ;
offerings carried by slaves, as if the king's daughter were already

dead. But most stress is laid upon the figure of an effeminate
oriental supported by two attendants, who is identified with
Phineus the plighted lover of Andromeda.
1
, From these
materials Petersen draws the inference that the characters of the
cowardly barbarian who abandoned his betrothed, and of the
heroic Greek who rescued her, were brought into strong contrast
at an early stage of the action, and that the subsequent conflict
between Perseus and the barbarians was due not to the opposition
of Cepheus, but to the renewal of his claim by Phineus after the
rescue of the heroine. Petersen further contends that Accius
followed Sophocles in his Andromeda, whereas Ennius had as
usual copied Euripides but even if he is right, the Latin ;
fragments are. too ambiguous to assist his general argument.

The value of the archaeological evidence must be left for others
to determine 2 but the attempts by means of it to establish a
;
connexion with Eur. Ale. 611 ff., and to interpret fr. 130 as
referring to funeral vases, and fr. 133 as a description of Phineus
yoked to his attendants cannot be approved.
126
SrjfjLLotfvTov Kovpeiov rjpidiq noXei'
tois fiapfidpoLS yap icmv dp^qdev vofxos
yepas /SpoTetov to Kpovco Ovrj-rroXelv.
126. 1 Tifiiovrbv cod. : corr. Tucker |
Kotipeiov Musurus : xbpiov codd. 3 sq. ordi-
nem verborum in hunc modum disposui vbfios yap iari rois /3apj3dpois
: 0wr)Tro\eii'
fipbretov apxy&c yipos t£ Kpovtji cod. 3 ytpas Buttmann ytpos cod. :
126 Hesych. n p. 526 Kovplov. anticipated by M. Schmidt's iepjdvrov,

Zo0okXt?s 'Avdpo/xiSq. thuuovt6v .Kpovy.' '
. . Diels's aXLdvrov 77 and Mekler's fitaiffvTov.
1 The best correction of the corrupt Less probable conjectures are alixbppvrov
qfiiovTov is Tucker's5r)p.i66vTov (C. R. Scaliger, iviatiotov O. Hense, ypuv di<rbv
xvil 190), which H. was inclined to Campbell (perhaps better rj 5' (kOvtov),
prefer to his own TipL^dvrov or ti/ju66vtov rjuiv T68' ovv J. On the assumption
(C. R. xiv 113 n.). Both were partly that Kbpiov could stand, which is most
1
So the name is given by Ovid and Apollodorus {7. 44): Hyginus (fab. 64) calls
him Agenor. Others consider that the figure represents Andromeda.
2
See the contrary view taken by Engelmann in Arch. Jb. xix 143; but his
conclusion is criticized unfavourably by Gruppe in Bursians Jahresb. cxxxvn 394
' —
ANAPOMEAA 81
improbable, Herwerden proposed dftwov first. Tucker, who regards d^\ri$tP as

('culpa vacans ^ to k6(».ow. For the Attic — corrupt and thinks that the articles were
Kovpciov, an offering made in connexion Iditiont, proposed: »6pM% ydp i«n
with the ceremony of introduction to the pappdpois tfiirroXctr <.60ot> (tpdrtior, |
phratries lee Pollux 8. 107 ko.1 tis i}\iKiai> auptOir ytpat Kp6*<p. dpxtj9«v for the — :
TpOiXOvVTUV tV TJj KaXoifxdfJ) KOVptWTldl history Of this word see the admirable
rjtupa Owip fiiv Tu)f dppivw t6 KovptLO* account of 1 .0 beck, Phryn. p. 93, who
tffvof, vrip d* tw* (hfXtwv tt)i> yap.rjXiaf. KBOWI that it and other -dtv forms, after
For the difficulties of detail which have failing to establish themselves 11
to l>e overcome in reconciling the con- became fairly common in late Greek.
flicting statements of our authorit The only objection to the word, apart from
- Isaeus, p. 358, Toepffer in I'auly- its position in the sentence, is the state-
The word has been ment in Bekk. atutd. p. 411, 5 oi>k ten
eitheri from adpw, as signifying
( 1 ) wapd rots 'AmiccSt stXt)* rap' Aiex^V
no offering made on cutting the hair, or (fr. 416 N.). rap' 'Upoi&np 8i ten *oi
m ko/xw (Kovpot). Both dern Tolj'ltaxri. Hut it would be dangcious to
appear to have been put forward in refuse the word 10 Sophocles on this
antiquity (Suid. s.v., Etym. M. p. 533, ground alone. yip*i is the certain cor-
51): for the latter Wyse refers to the rection of lUittinann (7^>o» Scaliger, Bipot
bclphic rcuWiia. In the absence of more Gonqx M nine as a ytpat of the
i
evidence it is idle to speculate god cl. Aesch. Cho. 256, Achacus fr. I,
what Kf
ring this passage has on the Tr. fr. adesp. 118.- In spite of the
significance of the Kouptto* in primitive frequent occurrence of human sacrifice in
md whether the animal-victim wis ck legcixls, it is always Spokefl of
•
the surrogate for a human sacrifice. in literature as something abhorrent to

a f. [t ia fairly certain that these lines Greek feeling and only suitalile to
have suffered confusion owing to B dislo- barbarians: cf. Eur. /. /'. 464 AV(at
cation of the original order, and that the Ovelai, At 6 Tap' tyur »6p.o% ov\ oetas
I
ement was caused by the df drcupa.i> •

Stengel, A
ribe to arrange the words according p. 1
1
4 tl. The t irccks idem
to their grammatical constructs: with Moloch to whom the Pho< >
H. in C. K. XVI : 4 .- Obct, Ifrit. CM sacrificed children: I)io«lor. 13. 86, ao.

But their rcarrangment is not so 14 [Plat ) Mm. 315 c Gtupj
simple a matter, and there are several Myth. p. 'ces of
iii its
: from which have chosen 1 humai D festivals of Kpona and
what seems to au Saturnalia see < iruppe in lUnsians fakr-
The <.i \ roiffi papfid-
;. 1 IXXVII 544 •'• I '" "
pott Kpbvif OuifwoXtir ftp&rtio* dpxv^t"
I
147 ff.
7#>©t, apart from the introduction of II p. 30*. 1 here is an an
yiroi, arc (1) the position of dpx^c ; present writer on Humai

(J) the distribution of emphasis, win. I. in the £ntyth/Httd$it of Rtligivn and
makes it unlikely that $>6pu>t ydp ian came Ethi
127
liriTOKTiv tj Ku/x/8ai<rt vavo-ToktU xOova ;
127 Aihen. 48a K in 6i tai rXoior the banquet which wmic of the authorities
Io^©*X^t if 'AiropofUia ^n/s\»
:. e a» part of the sequel, cannot
determined sec Iiitr.-oi:
'Iwwotm* x"'j¥a EttSttlh. /A p. H05, lie :
50 tihovto* «a< l<xpon\ioii ro 'twrotew... n attribute* the line (0 I'hlMM,

•
X^<Wa.' Tovrivrw l«Trorift ^**ti n 8«A who, he think*, might well have u
..
, 3 icOrpn
w\o.o. t'Mf loô«Xî. is correctly given by Ivusuuhiu*,
taken to hav.
)>e g the passage for another puri»«»*«,
in<lr|Ttid(-nt of AfhefUMrttS.
but hardly by
rseua,
nola. who must have seen him ugnw. »imc r«i*-
not twwotair cf. BOf.
whether the occasion was fit :
•
6
82 I04>0KAE0YI
Bacch. 687 yvuixivas Kparijpt Kal Xwtov belonging to Gades) tovtuv yap tovs fJ-ev
Tpotpip, Aesch. Prom. 21 &>' otire <f>wvr)v ifiirbpovi puiyaXa ffre'XXeiv w\ola, tovs be
oOre tov ixop<f>i)v (JpoTwv |
ox//j), Cope on irivr\Tas paKpd, a KaXeiv lirirovs curb twv
Arist. rhet. 1. 4. 6. — KV(J.pai<ri
probably is iv rais irpippais iiriarinui', and refers to
not a native Greek word. Athenaeus Horn. A
708 and other passages where
here adds that Kvppa for a «// was said ships are compared to horses. But this
by Apollodorus to be a Paphian word. ingenious interpretation is hardly con-
Cf. Plin. n. h. 7. 208 ctimbatn Phoenices vincing. —
x^° vtt i s of course, ace. termini,
and
<
(invenerunt). Torr, Ancient Ships, p. not, as L. S. strangely sugg'

H2 f., not only holds that the use of space traversed: cf. Eur. Med. 682. It
kvij.$i) indicates that a Phoenician vessel is is surprising that E. Mueller, quoted by

meant, but also that iirirot was the name Hartung, should have taken the use of
given to Phoenician merchant-ships bear- vavoroXelv to be evidence of the satyric
ing a horse as figure-head. He quotes character of the play.
Strabo 99 (a figure-head recognized as
128
fxrjhev (frofieicrdaL TrpocrcfxxTOw; eVtcrroAa?
128 Phryn. epit. p. 374 Lob. (cccl phorical sense, which, as Lobeck points
Ruth.) irpb<r<pa.Tov •
Kal irepl tovtov out, is fairly common. should, how-
It
ttoXXt)v 5tar/)i|8r)j' eirot.riadfj.7)v , etriiTKOiroiJ- ever, be observed that the metaphor is
'
fievos el fibvov Xiyerai '
TTpbcHparos veKpbs vigorous in Aesch. Cho. 800 Xvaao-6'
(Hdt. 2. 89 etc.) Kal /jlt] '
Trp6cr(pa.Tov alfia TTpoacpdroLS biKais, and in find.
irpayfjia. '
evpiffKero bt SocôkXtjs iv ry Pyth. 4. 299 evpe w a y b v dfi^poclwv iiriuv \
'Aubpofiedq. ridels ovtw '

fj.ribkv...iTn<7- it poffeparov Qrifia £ei>w0els, of fresh
ToXds.' water, where all the editors take irpba-
Rutherford preferred the variant qbo- <pa.Tov as an adverb, although Lobeck had
§el<xOe, and there is nothing to decide for indicated the true view. So in Dem. 21.
one as against the other. Naber plausibly 112 irp6cr<f>aTOS is contrasted with ?w\a
suggested that the words fi-qbkv <pof$el<rdcu Kal ipvxpd, but in Lys. 18. 19 in tt}s
are part of Phrynichus' statement, and do bpyqs oSo-qs Ttpo<T<t>drov the metaphor is
not belong to Sophocles at all ; but in full-grown. Even to Zeno and the Stoics,
that case some alteration of the text who defined Xbirri as 5o£<x irp6o<pa.Tos KaKov
would be necessary. irapovalas (fr. 14$ of myed., I 212 Am.),
It is curious that Phrynichus should the metaphor was probably still living.
have had so much difficulty in finding In later Greek it became worn-out see :
an example of irpoo-Qaros in the meta- Holden on Plut. Them. 24.
129
lOOV ok (f)OLVLOV
[xdcrdXrjTa hiyovov
129 Ibov be (polviov Brunck: Ibov be <f>oivbv Etym. A/., blbov ba<poivbv lex.
Sabbait.
129 Etym. AI. p. 272, 5 blyovos bvffl x/>W/ua<" Kexpipe'vos (Kexp^^vos cod.,
fj.dff6\T)s '
bt-irXovs Ifjids' f) 8ti ov fj.6vov icard xexpupe'vos Musurus) Campbell had
: if
tt)v fia<pr\v tjv toiovtos, dXXd Kal dirb tov referred to Etym. M., he would not have
a'ipLaros iK^xP ucrT0 - 2o^>o/c\^s 'Avbpo/xe'bq. proposed l/xao~i Kexp^fJ-evos in Hesych.
'
lbob...5lyo^>ol'.
,
tov ptjTopiKOv
eic 6 bbo '
Hesych. m p. 73 fido-dXi] Kal fido-OXtjs'
Xpu>ixaoi Kexpo)/J^yos. An abbreviated bipfia Kal virobrifxa (poiviKovv. Kal 7]via.
form of this note appears in Hesych. I bupOtpa. fj.d<T0XrjTas (fxaadXT) rdy cod.)
p. 503 blyovos ndadXrjs 6 biwXovs, 7) ' TOfAovras (rofxovs' ras Wecklein) yjvlas.
;
ANAPOMEAA 83
«al yap if (idadXri [ifiduj$\r} Bruno Keil). task, and that Leaf (on + 387) is mistaken
-cxpo/cXr/i'AfSpontSa *ai —tvda tv<m. For in extending the inference which he draws
•he last extract see Ir. 571. The quotation, from Homeric usage to the language 0/
without lemma or explanation, U found in igedian-.. On the other hand, it
:hfhlit. p. 50, IX. will be observed that these passages do
|ui<r4Xt]Ta 5ivovov had received two not relate to the driving of chariots, and
nal explanations, (1) a_s a double it i> goads (El. 71H, Eum.
certain that
lash, (1) as a lash stained with Mood in A. uo. Phot*.
ir. /lift. 1194, /.
addition to its original colour. We need i«j, Utt. 881, 949) with a double point
it.Uc to prefer the formet. which (0. T. 809) were employed for that pur-
lisned by At. 141 ftdya* iwwoSirrtv pose. The only passage in tragedy where
ftvrijpa \a0wr
raiet \tyvp<f puaartyt dir\jj.
|
it nu^lit plausibly be urged that tidart^ =
It appears from the epithet X«7»pp that Kt*rpo¥ is At. 1153; and there
J ebb
oderstood the HomericitdVrtj i > it whip. Herwcrdcn \Mnem. xvu
as a whip rather than a goad see I :
765) proposed hirorw, not without reason
ttStaadtog the contrary opinions of for there is nothing in the use of blytmot,
Verrall and Tucker (on Theb. 595), it Tpiymoi, 3t0nj», etc. which supports ihcir
impossible to avoid the conclusion extension to other than natural multipli-
that <5«r\j; pAaityt in Ag. 647, and ofw\ifl cation.
napayrrp in Cho. 374, refer to a double
130
avro^ctXc'crt krjKvdoi?
130 Polio* 10. no £o**o«\>ji 5' ir But the practice was as old as II
'AfipouiSa aCTox'Hiei \t)kv8<hs (XlOott <5 1 1
1 oJwu rot Kpnrfipa Ttrvypulto*.
t<pij, SijXuw d\afid<rTovi pwoXWon. dpyi'ptot oi \torirarat, xpvov&'l*- ,
H-n^'trluu conjectured airroM&oari Kttpaarrat, ti>. 131. Thus ihe compound

XyjtvOoti, and Wakefield ai/To*<JXXott means with ' natural rims,' ami th<
Xi>«itfo«t ; but there is no ground for these phrase is exactly parallel to utrUnrw*
avrox«X*Vi indicates that weapons whose
fU\ij in Aesch. Cho. 163,
the rim of the flask or pot was of the hilt one piece with the blade,
is in
same material as the rest of the v e ssel . similar are ovto*tItoui 6<Wvt fr. g£I (
It was the custom to gild the edges of ai-roTlrpov /irjuarot O. C. 1 93, *frr6it>\6*
silver cup, or to cover horn with silver: 7' Uwu>na Phtl. 35, and other instances
^ch. fr. 1H5 dpyvpriXdroii |

tipaot in the n. on Kur. Htl.
:
Xp< co or6pua wpotrptfiXruUfoii, (|Uoted by avrox'iMet i* the regular accentual 1
Allien .
Blaydcs poitttl -ui «•<• ( h.mdler, 1 608 ft. 1
ttvripa QiXtTTiKuir /•'// I Athcn. HOI and Dindorf print tti'roxefWs,

ays that the kings of the Baconians following, I suppose, the ttadilion in
Twr /Sow* ruir Tap' adroit ywofiiwwv fuydSa I'ollux.
tipara <h«)ctui', wt x^P* 1 " rpt'tt tal rir- hat the wonts form an or-
rap-it x oai itwufiara Tottif ii arrwc ra
> .
dinaiy gljooak line.
TtptapyvpoCrrai tat xPvao*" Ta% -
131
dfuftLirpvfivov rrXoiov
131 rlesych. 1 p. 104 ampi'pi tu>o* aV+lwpvpvov. 1
» Voior -
itaripwrtr, wpvn*a\ lx°"- 2o*>o- to vessels which for various reasons wave
KftpofUia. tal ra iwi oumipla so constructed that I hey coold be propelled
ihe last clause m in either direction without turning. I>i»
Cass. 74. n. dcacrilitng the siege of

Totura nor M Schmidt's ft 'i\y MksMM By*antium by Scptimha Severn
gbt on the mystery. I.uebeck T,ra a»TiSr («-\W«*r) Uar4p*4*r tat it t^%
thinks that boats wppiunfl tml U
rfc rptppmt s-f4sX/«it
|
us arc meant. V«ir« Ivwt wit* i**l itrntrp i ftnt t f

6— >
:
84 IO0OKAEOYI
Kal iwiirXiwcn Kal dva%u<pCxn, Kal tovs the explanations still given in some books,
ivavriovs Kal iv t$ Trp6o-irXtf> Kal iv ry that the meaning of dp.<pr)pts dopv in Eur.
airdirXif) <r<pu>i> <r(pdXXw<n. Germanicus Cycl. 15 and aKariov dp.<f>r)piKop in Thuc.
built such boats for his campaign Tac. : 4. 67 is fixed by the schol. on the latter
Ann. 4. d plui es adpositis id) iniquc guber- passage (iv $ tu>v iXavvovrwv
liraoTos
naeu/is, converso ut repente remigio hinc diKwiria ipirTfi)they were sculling-boats,
;
vel Mine adpellerent. They were also and were named dn(pVPV because each
used by the Germans (Tac. Germ. 44) one of the crew propelled the vessel on
and by the inhabitants of the coasts of both sides. See also Blaydes on Ar.
the Euxine (Hist. 3. 47). Athen. 204 A, E Ecel. 1 09 1. Is it possible that the kijtos
mentions certain vessels of Ptolemy Philo- was compared to an dp.<plirpv/xvov irXoiov,
pator, one of these a state barge, which because he could so readily shift himself
he describes as Siirpypoi and diirpvixvot ;
to meet an attack from any quarter? He
and it is inferred that they also were is compared to a ship rushing through
of this kind, although Schweighauser the waves in Ov. Met. 4. 706. [I have
thought otherwise (vol. xi p. 232 on since learnt that the suggestion has been
489 B, where a dijrpippos is compared to a anticipated for the same reason by Peter-
cup irapaKeifiivws e'x 0VTa T<* wra). I take sen see Introductory Note.]
:
this opportunity of remarking, in view of
132
dix/3\v<rK€L
132 Hesych. I p. 141 dp.f3XvcrKei' conclusion. All we can

say is that
iâtijiXoi (iâirXoi cod. : corr. Salmasius) dfnj3Xl<TKU) and are the best-
iâp.f3Xovv
Kvpius di iirl dp-wiXov. Kal iKTirpdiffKei. attested forms, and that iKTirpwcKeiv is
Ionic and Hellenistic. Both Lobeck and
2o$ok\t?s 'AvSpofxeda (dvdpo cod.). Rutherford (p. 289) make the strange
M. Schmidt maintained that the form mistake of assigning iKTirpdioKeiv to
ap.fBX6<TKw was an error, and that either Sophocles on the strength of the above
anfiXia KW (Plat.) or d/i^Xuxr/cw (Suid.) passage of Hesychius. But it is obviously
should be substituted. Lobeck, Phryn. part of the explanation attached to
p. 210, refused to condemn d,u/3Xi)avcw as d/x(!Xij<rK€t (or d/ifiXlffKet). Cf. Hesych. II
a possible derivative from dp-fiXO? ; and p. 115 iâva^Xovp.ev (?) iKTiTpd><TKop.(v.
the evidence does not warrant a dogmatic Suid. iâpf3Xl<r KeiV iKTirpuMTKUV.
133
133 Hesych. II p. 256 fei>|iXew5

•
Isocr. 4. 151 tAs Si ij/vxds Bid rds p.ovap-
feiMrds Xaos (feiTcrfys Xaov Ellendt), r\ $ Xi'as raireivas Kal irepideth(x 0VT€i - Plat.
virefevyfx.fr 01 elffl Xaol. 2o<poKXrjs (<ro<pws Menex. 240 a al de yvwp.ai BeSovXw iievai.
cod.) Av8pop.ida. Cf. Phot. lex. p. 53, 8 dirdvTWv dvOpunrwv r,oav, ibid. C 'Adrjvaiovs
(=Suid. s.v. feu£iXews) fevîXews $ ' iv 7-f)
avrrj Tai/7-77 dvdyKy fetii-avTas
vire£evyp.evoi eltrlv 01 Xaol. Eustath. //. ''EperpievffLv dyeiv. Aesch. Pers. 594
p. 401, 11 £ev£lXeii)s etprqrai irapd rots fied' ov8' ?tiyXCxraa fiporolaiv iv <(>vXaKah' j
'
Oixypov 6 fiaoiXev's. XiXvrai yap Xabs iXetdepa /Safety,
\
ws |
The description refers to an oriental eXvdr) £vybv For the metaphor

dX/cds.'
despotism, where the subjects were in general see Jebb on Ai. 24.
crushed beneath the yoke of slavery
1
ANAPOMEAA 85
134
otT^ra?
134 I'imt. lex. p. <i;, 7 ot'i)ra»- It corresponds to the Laconian «i/3d, a
roit *wâj. ôiôkXtjj 'Ardpo^da. local division of the country (Gilbert,
Hcsvch. 181 00770*- KwurjTuiif
Ill p. Staalsalt.'1 p. 45), in which appears
(oiara*- xoM^rwf cod.) ofat (oi coti.) yap to represent F. See Curtius, Gr. El. 11
a, *a.uai. ihid. p. 183 olrjrap KUfiTfrQf '
p. 214 EL tr. :hut the connexion with
(KOflf)TUf CO(i.). iavui is inadmissible. Oe* was the name
The word oo; for a village occurs 111 of an Attic deme (O. C. 1061, with Jebb's
A poll. Rhod. 1. 138 vipdorro ybp ^/xir n.), and also a place-name in Thera.
dXciMii J
j?o" olai Tr\fjJo% h-yip vwb Sovpi Avkoho.
135
craprjTou
135 ! I -ych. iv p. 6 (raXirrdv Zotpo- 515 C ffapdrttt p.T)\u>oi icai TofHpvpoi «ai
k\tji .Kfbpopjiiif.. 'Arrirarpoi (dvrl rarpbl XckkoI, oi d* bXovpytU.
\ grammarian <>f this name is Such n tunic was part of the royal
ned in schol. Ar. Av. 1403) 0ap- apparel of the Persian king : Xen. Cyr.
tfapthOf x 1 ™**. at bi koX p.iob\tvKov 8. 3. 13 bp6i)* ?x wr T 'V Tidpap coi .
aCrbf «h»ax tpaal. See however ibid. p. 1 irvptpvpovr nta6\tvK<*, —

dXXy 4* ode '{«m
aiprjTof '
6 teal adpawtt, x tT ^"°^-
tlbot M'troXri'xor fx ,tr ' (
- was adopted by
And tl. rted by Phot lex. Alexander when he assumed tin- Persian
p. JOI, J 4 odpJirof papfkifHKbl XiTwr. dress: Athen. 537 k, Plut. Alex, si
Ct. I\ p. 10 adpaw llf/xrotdr
Hetjcn. (where omWitot is used for tuai>\
Xir^r n*<r6\tvK0i, wt Krrftrlai. Poll. 7. 61 IN, where we find it worn by upstarts
o bi adparii, M^wf rA <p6prft*a, wofxpvpoOi and importers, such as Lysia* the
lu*6\tiKoi x lT ^"- Phot. /fx. p. 500, 7 Epicurean philosopher who became tyrant
tfdparu x iT <** H'peiicbi ft*o~b\tvicot.
"
of T.irsus (Allien, lift C), or Alexander
the false prophet in I.ucian Alex. II,
I36
1 1 arts"
1 36 : roin <r*rb- isquoted, as other evidence shows, for

-
in koI TOOT ZciAipoiW
^tlovt <pr\uir. ins. Hut he sub-
*oi 1 1 drat, wt Aiaxi'ôt pAv i» I sequently admitted (Indtx, p. xi) that the
\rbpofrf&<f. hit ion bad *>een found by W<
N.iuck, with- {SittUHgib. d. A*. B. A bad. 18901 ;
and that we ought to read rot* II

the opening words as robi tarbptvi oi carbpovi, as printed in Ahrens's nod
w\tlo*4% ifmaty, an Ziegicr* r. In ions. The psunagv in
Ktd aartpio-Kon robi lloVaf oi w\tia*i Theocritus runs : rb rot ybvt i Zmrvpi-
&vriir, tit «ai rotVf 2etXiroOT «roi rcbl iyyblfp «! Il4r«##i fMomHttmtiP
'in'l'iil print, roin irarrooit <piab*i. So soon as wo oonaider what
>/t <pa<Jtf. where the comment is likely to Hot* been mado
.
on these words requiring the

parallels, it becomes clear that Mm
possibly Theon him«elf. was defend
Md ithority of Aev:hylu« use of llaVrr in the plural by Tbeocrttaa.
86 IO0OKAEOYI
The alternative offered by Casaubon's the parallel conception of the Italian
restoration would be inconsistent with Faunas : see Warde Fowler, Roman
the quotation from Aeschylus, l'an was Festivals, p. 260. For other early
acknowledged by Herodotus (2. 145) evidence of the plural cf. Ar. Eccl. 1069
to be one of the youngest of the Greek u Ylavts, Plat. fogy. 815 c "So/upas re ical
gods, and his name hardly appears in Ilavas ical 'ZiXrjvovs ko.1 'Zarvpovs iirovc-
literature before the fifth century B.C. fidôvres. The Panisci, parallel to
It seems highly probable that the generic crarvpicrKOi, are not mentioned before
use of the name is actually the earlier, Cicero («. d. 3. 43), but this is probably
and that Pan the god is developed and accidental. See also A. P. 6. 108 bfrjXGiv
individualized from the class of demonic dpewv t<popot, Ktpaol, xopovdiKTOn, Ildves, |
beings with whom the rustic fancy popu- fiovxiXov Kpavropes 'Apica5ir?s. Plop. 3.
lated the hills and forests of Arcadia. 17. 34. Pausan. 8. 37. 2.
The same history has been deduced for
ANTHNOPIAAI
The following extract from Strabo (608) is usually referred
to the Antenoridae. 'Sophocles says that at the capture of
Troy a leopard's skin was placed in front of the door of Antenor,
to serve as a warning that the house was to remain unscathed.
Accordingly, Antenor and his sons, together with the Eneti who
had joined them, found their way in safety to Thrace, and thence
escaped to the country called Enetica on the Adriatic. Then
also Aeneas, together with his father Anchises and his son
Ascanius, collected his followers and set sail 1 .' The leopard's
skin was also mentioned in the Locrian Ajax (fr. 1 1). Pausanias
(10. 27. 3), describing the picture of Polygnotus in the Lesche at
Delphi, which set forth the incidents belonging to the capture of
Troy, referred to the house of Antenor, with its leopard's skin
over the entrance in front of it were represented Antenor and
;
his wife Theano (Horn. Z 298), with their sons Glaucus and
Eurymachus, and their daughter Crino and her infant The
leopard's skin is mentioned in the same connexion by schol.
Pind. Pyth. 5. no.
In the same account (10. 26. 7, 8) Pausanias states that
Lesches in the Little Iliad (fr. 13 K.) related the rescue by
Odysseus of Helicaon, another of Antenor's sons, when wounded
in the night-battle and gives reasons for concluding that his
;
wife Laodice was exempted from the fate of the other Trojan
women. Apollodorus {epit. 5. 21) similarly recounts that Odysseus
and Menelaus, recognizing Glaucus the son of Antenor, as he
was fleeing to his house, saved him by force of arms. Pindar
{Pyth. 5. 83) followed the tradition that the Antenoridae settled at
'
Cyrene : tyovTirav âXKo^n p îat £evoi |

T pcoes AvravoplSac •
crvv
1
Strabo is extracted by Eustath. //. p. 405, 29.
ANAPOMEAA—ANTHNOPIAAI 87
a yip fioXov, \
Ka-rrvaidtlaav trdrpav Art) XBov. The family
numerous that its migrations might well have been in
10
than one direction. Bacchylides spoke of them as fifty: schol.
Hom. 12 496 triOavov fiiav tckciv iff, ov% ok BaK^vXtBrj^ v T»)y
'"'t'""' ( i-iroypa<p€i iralSa^. Homer names eleven: besides Coon,
Demoleon, Iphidamas, Laodamas, and Pedaeus, who were killed,
Acan ior,Archelochus,Helicaon, Laodtxrus, and Polybus 1
and Verg, Am. 6. 483 has Glaiicuviquc Mcdotitaque Tlhtsi-

locluumjuc, Antenoridas, though these three are not so
tris
specified in 216. Homer P
few other names besides those A
which have been already mentioned appear in later writ
The reasons which induced the Greeks to accord a special pro-
tection to Antenor are recorded in Qu. 13. 291 and more briefly fif.
in ryphiod. 656 ff. rticva Be teat yet'trjv AvTqvopns dvriditno

1 '
ArpelBrff €<pv\a£e, (piXogiivoio yepovruf, p.€t\iX'V irpoTiprjs rivaiv

. rfhk rpwrre^rff; \ Keiptfi, >} pnv <eB(kto yvv>) Trptjeia Beaixu. Cf.
1 /.ctz. Posthom. 741 ff. oiriv p.tv 'Aprt'jvopo? cipvaamo yfPfOXrjv ,
Apyeloi £ei/tV> p.vi')ni)v <f>op€ovT€<; exelvov, |

TrapBaXxrjv irpoBvpois
'otov <ri)p.a daXovres. He had entertained Menelaus and
( klysseus, when they came to Troy to demand the restoration of
(Horn. T 207), and protected them from injury (schol.
ad An.). He was the leader of the peace-party among the
ins,and had recommended the surrender of Helen ami bet
ire H 347 ft. cf. Hor. Ep. \. 2. 9); and his honied sj>ecch
<
;
ompared to that of N< StOf ef p.01 to Xearopctov tvyXvxrcov :
\vTijvop6* t« rov <bpvybs Bolt) Ot&i (Kur. fr. 899).

The tradition that Troy fell in consequence of the tnachery
has not been traced to any early writer* and there
1 ;
evidence to show that Sophocles s/ai m quainted with it.

It i
illy admitted that the in Stimbo contains •
Summary in brie? of the plot of the Attitmridai* j
for otherwise
annot be traced r iree. I: to be
red to the Locrian A/ax; for the incidents related by Strabo,
in the action, would have been incompatible with the
luded
development of the fate of Ajax. There is. moreover,
a pl.t with the same title and it is unreasonable to ;
doubt thai it was adapted from Sophocles (Ribbeck, A*.

he Latin fragments arc mora plentiful than the
1
I.. Inuihyl. |>. Ml, Who mentions oiil> trn, has •

«lama» (<> «
l»lir. 340, where »cc llol/tnjjcr. WsSJBSi I'Mly-

Wuaow.i 1 IS51 thinks, thai inwi.
it was a bU
early work on ihr Fragment* (dr /r*g. S»f*. \
I. holding that the Mibatance of StJ rence waa drawn from th«
hut he failed t<> give * aatiafaciory accou. luttmnfrf,
which, ngth of the bag he guc»cd in contain lh« arrival
.
of khesu*.
;
::
88 I04>0KAE0YI
Greek, and in at least one important particular they assist in
enlarging our conception of the plot. From the story as
outlined above we receive no impression of a dramatic conflict.
Anterior was saved by the Greeks in consideration of his past
services, and that is all. But Accius has ad populum intellego
:
referundum, quoniam horum aequiter sententiae \fuere (fr. i).

From this it was inferred by Welcker that the Greek view in
favour of Antenor was by no means unanimous, and that he was
saved from destruction only after a protracted conflict What 1
.
may have been the arguments on the one side or the other we
have no means of ascertaining but the association of Antenor
;
with the Eneti is a circumstance which perhaps bore nearly on

the issue. In Homer this people are a Paphlagonian tribe
(B 852) under the leadership of Pylaemenes, and are reckoned
among the Trojan allies but the fragments of Accius led
;
Welcker to conclude (p. 169) that a new leader had arrived with
a fresh contingent of Eneti just before the capture of the city
namque hue em venio ut mea ope opes Troiae integrem (fr. IV); qui
ant illornm copias fundam in campo, aut navis uram, aut castra
\
mactabo in mare (fr. V.).

It will be noticed that, according to Strabo, Sophocles
recognised the connexion of Antenor with the settlement of
Eneti (Veneti) in the north of Italy. We thus get an interesting
link with the Latin authorities Li v. 1. 1 iam primuvi omnium
:
satis constat, Troia capta, in ceteros saevitum esse Troianos

duobus, Aenea Antenoreque, et vetusti iure hospitii et quia pads
reddendaeque Helenae semper auctores fuerunt, omne ins belli
Achivos abstinuisse, casibns deinde variis Antenorem cum multi-
tudine Henetum, qui, seditione ex Paphlagonia pulsi, et sedes et
ducem, rege Pylaemene ad Troiam amisso, quaerebant, venissc
in intimutn maris Hadriatici sinum, Euganeisque qui inter mare
Alpesque incolebant pulsis, He?ietos Troianosque eas tenuisse terras
et in quern prhman egressi sunt locum Troia vocatur, pagoque inde
Troiano nomen est, gens tmiversa Veneti adpellati. Cf. Verg. A en.
1. 242 ff. Further confirmation of Strabo's evidence is to be
found in Polyb. 2. 17. 6, who asserts that the tragic playwrights
told strange stories respecting the settlement of the Veneti (irepl
(ov 01 Tpay(p$ioypd<f)oi ttoXvv tivcl 7T€7roiT)VTai \6yov teal iroWrjv
1
Ribbeck (p. 408) interprets differently. According to him, the reference is to a
decision of the Trojan people, after the council had been equally divided on the
question whether a last attempt should be made to secure a friendly arrangement
by the surrender of Helen after the death of Paris; and here Antenor, as on earlier
occasions, was the advocate of peace. This seems less likely. Ahrens thought that,
though Antenor's life was spared, his treachery was condemned, and he was refused
permission to settle in the Troad. Therefore he was sent away with the Eneti, who,
owing to the lateness of their arrival, would feel no resentment against him.
ANTHNOPIAAI 89
Biartdevrai reparelav) in customs and dress, according to him,

:
these people closely resemble the Celts, but differ from them
in language. Strabo elsewhere (48, 150, 543) mentions the
settlement of Antenor and the Eneti as a common tradition, and
in 212 appeals in support of it to the fact that Dionysius of
Syracuse recruited his racing stable from Venetia, recalling
the line in Homer (I.e.) which connected the Paphlagonian Eneti
with rjfjLiovtov yevos dyporepdayv (cf. Eur. Hipp. 23 1 ). For the
trade route between the Black Sea and the Adriatic see
\ Early Age in Greece, I p. 366.
. According to
him, the Veneti were Illyrians, i.c. Pelasgians belonging to
the melanochrous dolichocephalous race indigenous in the
iterranean (ib. p. 377).
The omission of the Laocoon and the inclusion of the Antc-
noridae in the list of Trojan plays given in the Argument to the
p. 3, ed. Jebb) suggested to Robert (Bild und Lied, p, 201)
the identification of the two titles but he recognized that there
;
:iuch to be said on the other side. Fr. 373, as compared

with Strabo 608, indicates that the departure of Aeneas may
en mentioned in both plays.
The fourteenth poem of Bacchylides is entitled WvrrjvnpiSai
Theano opens the door of Athena's temple
'i7raiTr)<Ti<;.
in "nlcr to receive Menelaus and Od\ 1their emba

and it is evident, in spite of a lacuna, that they are conducted by
I >na "t Antenor, who goes himself to inform Priam. The
ins are summoned to the agora, and pray to the gods
for a cessation of their sufferings. The debate is opened by
uis with a brief warning that Zeus is not th<- author of
^; hUij lies within the choice of all, while Sj&Mf, her
and destruction. At this point the ode
to ruin
abruptly ends. Jebb (p. 220) remarks: Blass and Wilamowiu
'
d the double title of the Bacchylidean poem as making

bable that the \vrifvopiBai of Sophocles was only another
'
for his <nraiTT)<ri<i. Such a second title for the

ly is intelligible, however, only if the sons of Antenor
the chorus; hut, in the case of such a drama, is that
I
It may b that, if this identification were

I
it would be necessary to find another solution for the

I.
ray>) mentioned in the Argument to the AM* In

ice of the current hypothesis that it is an error for'EX^K
90 204>0KAE0YI
137
OpVlVa
ida KOLl Kt)pVKa KCU OLOLKOVOV
137 Athen. 373 C, r> iwl hi rod dpcrevi- that Aesch. fr. 95 is quoted by Athenaeus
kov ov fiovov opviv dXXd ko.1 opvida... koL directly afterwards. (2) Ellendt holds
'Eo&okXtjs AvTr/vopldais
'
'
opvida. .didicovov
.
.'
that opvida is the eagle. He is presum-
The
reference underlying this quotation ably thinking of the rape of Ganymede,
is obscure. (1) Hartung suggests that and of such passages as Pind. Islh. 6. 50.
6pvi6a = om£n, as in O. T. 52 ([ebb): see So apparently Blaydes, who render- ko.1
also on Eur. Hel. 1051. Some slight KrjpuKa 'both as herald.'
confirmation may be drawn from the fact
138
dêxfjiaa-djxrjv
1 38 Hesych. I p. 334 dipupiacrcrdfiriv ever prints i<f>€\l'ia<jdfjiriv without com-

'
a<f>wpil\7)(ra. 2o0okXt?s AvTTjvoptdais (dv- ment).
rivopidais cod.). Bekk. anecd. p. 470, 13 For this word and
its cognates see on
d<f>e\piaifirjv' d(p(i}fii\r)<Ta. outu 2o0okX^s. fr. 3. occurs in Horn,
i<p€-^/idadai r 331,
Eustath. Od. p. 1831, 3 d<peipiaad/xr)v ijrot 370, Kade\f/iaadat ib. 372, and the simple
dcpuniXrjcra,ws iv prjropiKip /curat Xe£tK<p verb in p 530 and the Alexandrian poets.
(Ael. et Paus. fr. 389 Schwabe, who how-
139
iKfia/3pd£au
139 e/c/Sa^dfcu cod.: corr. H
139 Hesych. p. 40 e*|Sa/9d£ar
11 brav dipos r 77 K-fjx^Tai f$aj3pd£u<criv of chir-,
eiccraXevcrai. 2o^>o/cX^s 'AvrrjuopLdais (iv ruping crickets.

rrj vopldes cod. ). H., however, thought that iico-aXevcrai
There appears to be something wrong was sound, and restored eK(laftpd%ai with
with the tradition: M. Schmidt conj. e/cd- the sense to toss up as the sea does, or
'
fia%e' ecrdXevire, but a simpler and more boiling water.' He relied on the use of
attractive remedy was Pearson's eKXaXrjaai (Ipdacru, ppdfa and fipvfa, and held that
for eiccraXeucrai. Hesych. I p. 349 has fiajipdfa was related to ftptifw as ira<f>Xdfo
§a(id£eiv to </lo?> di7]pdpu}fiiva Xi-yeiv. to <pXv£w, KaxXdfw to /cXi'fw. The asso-
Zvioi 8e /3oa«', and several scholars support ciation with sound (ppvxdo/Mi etc. ) is
el fir) (ja(3d£ei 7' in Ar. Av. 1681. Cf. paralleled by irepi,S/)i>x'os (schol. An,
â/3dKT7js (Cralinus) and £d/3a£ (Archi- 336). For eicoaXevcrat to shake= ' i
lochus). But Hesych. I.e. has also /9a/3pd- see Suid. eKcrdXeucrov avr6. (^4ve-yK0v,
£wv KCKpayus gvvtovws, and this is sup- Lys. 1028 (where iKcricdXevcrov is 1
ported by Ananias (fr. 5) ap. Athen. 282 B read), and iKaaXdtroa in A. P. 5. 23,-.
ANTHNOPIAAl— ATPEYI 91
ATPEYI H MYKHNAIAI
This play cannot be considered apart from the title Thyestes
(p. 185). There is surprisingly little evidence for the existence
of an Atreus-. Hesychius quotes \A.T/>et »; Mu*>/ rats, and a scholiast
011 Euripides refers to
Mwetfpmlatf. The 'Thyestes is quoted
twenty-two times, most part simply under that title; but
for the
chius refers four times to fWo-n;? £i*ua>i/to?, once to HueoTijs
6 iv ^.iKvoyn, and twice to &v€>jtt)<; Scvrepos, and Orion cites
4k tov a Hvtarov. On these facts it has generally been held
that Sophocles wrote three plays dealing with the gruesome
Is concerning the two brothers that the famous incidents
;
of the golden lamb and the Thyestes-feast occurred in the

Atreus and that the plays entitled Thyestes related to the
;
unnatural intercourse of Thyestes with his daughter, and the

fatal issue by which Aegisthus became the appointed a\
•her (Welcker, pp. 357 —
370). The problem is unusually
intricate, and it is hardly possible from the existing data t<>
tain which parts of the traditional material were selected by
Sophocles for treatment. The fragments themselves, with the
\ception of fr. 247, which seems to refer to the StcyOfl-
do not give any assistance towards the unravelling of the
plots, and it is scarcely legitimate to draw any inference from
more numerous fragments of Accius, whote Atreus (AuL
Gell. 13.2.2) has been supposed to be an adaptation of Sophoi
aee especially the by Cic. //. d.
1 ; <»/«//.
it must be remembered that Knnius had

written a ih),
;;. while it is likely that both thc>c
1,
Roman tragedies dealt rather with the central motive of the

than with its outlying incidents, we cannot believe that
content simply to reproduce the treatment of
Sophocles. Indeed, his known attitude towards his n*
forbids such a conclusion: it is certain that in his Autigotu
he departed widely from Sophocles, and his /*hi/>H fetes depended
on more than one original (Schanz, Rom. I.itt. p. J(
Hitherto it has not been convincingly shown that Sophocles
more than two playi upon the story of the brothen
ning th<- events which occurred at Mycenae, and the other
the Sicyon Since everyone hearing the name Thyestes
alls the banquet, the other part of his story when
to would naturally lx: distinguished as happening in
1
ianquet-play were known by thr- 1
d, on the other hand.it would not !*• unnatural

nquet-play, what- traditional title may have beet
92 IO0OKAEOYI
be referred to either as Thyestes or as A /reus. This may be
illustrated by Epict. diss. 32 tcai iroia TpaymBia aXXrjv
I. 28.
apyrjv %X €C > A.Tpev<; RvpnriBov rl earn ; to cpan6p,evov, which is
'
admitted to be a reference to the Thyestes of Euripides. For the

present, however, we may put aside the question of the contents
of the play (or plays) entitled Thyestes, except in so far as that
title may have been an alternative for Atreus. No one denies
that Sophocles wrote a play covering much the same ground
as Seneca's Thyestes, whatever its exact title may have been.
The general ambit of these plays may be gathered from Dio
Chrys. 66. 6 (II p. 162 Arn.) oti p,ev <ydp Bid ^pvaovv irpofiarov
dvnaraTov <Tvve/3r) yeveadai Tr)\itcavTT]v ol/ciav T-qv TH\otto<; 01
TpayoiBoi (paaiv. real tcaT€K07rr) p,ev rd rov ®veo~Tov Te/cva, tij
UeXoTria Be iraTrjp ifii^dr) icai tov AiyicrOov ecnreipev. ..tovtois
Be ovk dîov diriaTeiv, d yeypainai p,ev ov% virb twv rvyovrwv
dvBpoiv, Eivpi7rlBov icai ^LoQoicXeovs, Xeyerai Be iv p.ecrot<i roif
dedrpois. We may also infer that the golden lamb was the
initial cause of the trouble between the brothers, according to
both tragedians, and in this respect they appear to have followed
the author of the Alcmaeonis (schol. Eur. Or. 997). Is it possible
to obtain a better estimate of the scope of the banquet-play?
The answer will depend upon the weight to be assigned to schol.
rec. Eur. Or. 812 (Atreus and Thyestes, contending for the
throne, agreed that whichever could produce some divine sign
should prevail) iv tois iroip.vioi<i Be tov 'Ai-pew? e'vprjrai ^pvcrovv
dpviov prjvtBi 'Etp/uov...tcal p.eXXovTo<; 'ATpeo)? Belâi to repas rots
'
St-Kacrrai^, icai Xafielv Trjv apyr\v, AepoTTt) rj tovtov yvvrj p,oiêv-

op,kvr\ %veo-Ty ra> dvBpaSeXcfxp, KXe^jraaa tovto irapeBcoKev avra).
©ye<7T?;9 Be Xaftoov tovto icai Bellas toi9 BitaaTais, t?}<> dp^r}?
e/cpuTrjcre. /j,t) dvao~-%6p,evo$ovv ATpeiis tj]v crvfupopdv, dX\a
Bvo-%epaiva>v, oti ioTepi]Tai t^<? dp^r}?, opov Te tt/v yvvalica
dBi/ca><;
'AepoTrrjv Tip,copeiTai kcit dpcpw, icai oti ipboi\eueTO ®ve&Tr), kcu
'6ti iceicXocpe to dpviov icai BeBcotcev avTu), piyjras avTt)v et'9 ddXaa'aav,
&)? <f>T]cri HocpotcXfjs, icai toi>9 Tpeis viovs tov Sveo~Tov, AyXaov,
Ôpôpevov, teal KdXeov, drroKTeivas 7rapedr]/cev et'9 Tpdneâv tcS
iraTpi, Kal avTov vo~Tepov dire/cTeivev. Bi a 6 r)Xio$ p.r) crTepâs to
Trapdvopov, pbiav rjpbepav e'/c Bvo~p.5)v Trpos eco Bicppevei kt€. The
notion of Atreus and Thyestes submitting their claims to a panel
of jurymen is certainly not old, but that the lamb was a mark of
divine favour and that its possessor was entitled to claim the
succession are propositions so well supported that they are much
more likely to belong to the original legend than the variant
recorded by Apollod. epit. 2. 10. Cf. Eur. El. 722 Tepas eiacopLfei
7rpo9 Bwp.aTa' veopevos B' et9 dyopovs dvTel
|
tclv Kepoeaaav e\eiv
\
Xpvcre6p,aXXov kcito, Bcopa irolpivav. Ace. fr. VIII quod mihi

—
ATPEYI 93
>rtctit« caelestum pater |

prodigium misit, regni stabilimen
iei. Sen. Thycst. 2ô possessor hnius rcgnat, /tunc cutntae downs
fortuua scquitur. The purport of the reference to Sophocles has
been variously estimated. If it is intended for the At re:,
Dindorf and other scholars thought, we obtain a valuable clue to
the construction of that play; but it may be merely .in inaccurate
reminiscence of Ai. 1295, 'tf indeed the vulgate text of that
s not corrupt (see Jebb's n.). Nauck evidently attached
no value to the scholium, which he omitted from his edition
of the Fragments. There is, however, a further indication in the
which can almost with certainty be assigned to Sophocles,
and which increases the probability that we have here a rough
outline of his plot. That is the statement that the alteration of
mi's course was due to the sun-god's horror at the impious
For this very thing is mentioned by Statyllius Klaccus in
epigram in honour of Sophocles (A. P. 9. 98) OiSiTroSes :
<< ut Kai 'WXetcrpT) /3api>fj.T)i'i<i I

/cat SetVi/ot? i\a$€i<{ 'A-rpe'os
<k kt€ The same version was generally adopted by the

x
.
Latin poets (see, besides Sen. Thyest. 785 AT., Ov. Her. 16. 205,
Am. 3. 12. 39 aversumque diem mensis furialibus A tret) but it is \
important to observe that it also occurs in llygin. fab. 88,

which is connected with Sophocles for other reasons (see p. 1S5 >.
and in fab. 258. For another tale was current according to

after hyestes by his treacherous and shameful plot had
1
temporarily obtained recognition as monarch, ZeiU promised to

Atreus that the course of nature should be changed in I
and that he might promise this marvel to th<- people as a t
that he was the rightful heir (Apollod. epit. 2. 12). Tin

)ted by Euripides (fr. 861 8«£<k yap aarptov rrju ivavriav
hhov hrfpov<; T etTftxra Ka\ rvpavvos iô^tjv), and is apparently
I
ly Sophocles in fr. 738, where see note. Hence

ker (p. 361) was undoubtedly mistaken in referring it to
later tragedian. To later rationalists Atreus was an early
onomer : Strabo 23, Lucian de astral. 12.
It seems clear that Aristotle's allusions to hyestes in poet. 13. 1
10 etc., whether they relate to Soph to Kuripides,

ni the banquet-play and not the story of Pelopia,
Icker thought thai Mi ^rjvaloi should be restored as the
altei 1 -I he e> idence is very slight, but, if the feminine
t, it would follow that Aerope was one of the most
prominent ch
this tttuage w.i tctt "til l.y (>. (ni»iu« in J'kiUt.

rtooked by Etchct In I
•
that the cpiKT*mmaii»t *w wmply alluding to the Mcrf
of Atrcm in the f'irni mm! familiar l<> him.
:
94 ZO0OKAEOYI
140
fia TYjV €K€LVOV SdAUXV, Tj /SoCTKeTai,
drjkvs [xev clvtos, apaevas 8' fydpovs f^wf.
140. 2 appevas (&p<revas N) codd.
140
elpwvev6/j.€voi
Schol. Eur. Hipp. 307 elwdacrtv
Kara
iyBpQiv 6/j.vvvai,
tGiv
abandoned'...
plies a certain
—degree
p6<rK€Tai, as usual,
of contempt.
im-
Cf.
ws Kal "Lo<pok\t\% iv MvKTjvalais (MuKijâis fr. 591 ftooKei Si rovs nlv fidtpa dvffafie-
AB) l
fj.a..Jx u»'-' picts. R. A. Neil, who examined the
Not so
'
by the cowardice that is
! history of this word in an excellent note
his daily portion, —
that man whose heart on Ar. Eq. 255, pointed out that it is
is a woman's, with men for his foes.' It generally metaphorical in tragedy. See
is important to observe that v. 2 is also Cobet, V. L. p. 67. —
OrjXvs, of a man
subordinate to /36cr/ceTcu, for the main cf. 7'rach. 1075, Aesch. Cho. 304 Or)\eia
clause (express or implied) to which fid is yap <ppw (of Aegisthus, who is addressed
attached must be negative. In Hipp. I.e. as ywr) in Ag. 162=,). The taunt is well
the negative clause is firj fj.e6ôvras 56/xu)i> illustrated by Eur. Hclid. 700 aiffxpb"
which depends directly upon foOi know :
'
yap oikov prifj-a ylyverai r65e. roes p.lv|
that, —
however stubbornly you contest it /j-dxeffdat, rovs 5t 5ei\ia fiivuv. The
— if you die and abandon your children, parallel to Aegisthus so close, that one
is
they will never receive their inheritance, may suspect that his father Thyestes is
no! I swear by the Amazon' &c. The referred to. Ribbeck (p. 200) compared
construction was correctly explained by this fr. with Ennius Thyest. fr. v, where
Paley, but several editors strangely make he supposes Thyestes to repudiate the
irpoSovcra supplementary to laBi,which charge of cowardice.
could only mean 'know that you have
I4I
erncnracreL
141 Hesych. p. 168 ewiffirdffef iirt-
II fr. 210. 40. Jebb's apology for the use
revêrat. 2o0o/c\^s 'ArpeZ •}) 'MvK'qvais iirl of the active, that it is prompted bymetrical
{dirb Nauck) twv tois Xfi'Ois Xap.fiav6vTuv. considerations, is surely unnecessary.
The use illustrated is the same as that Though the middle naturally tended to
found in Ai. 769 iriiroida tovt' £iri<rird<reiu assert itself, as the metaphorical mean-
k\(os, where see Jebb. The meaning is ing became increasingly familiar (see
to draw in, as a fisherman secures his Wyttenbach on Plut. mor. p. 39 a), no
catch cf.: A. P. 6. 109 Kal icpvcplov objection can be taken to the active, at
Tpi/cXtocrrof eiriairaaTripa /36Xoio. Solon least so long as its original force remains
ap. Plut. Sol. 14 TrepifiaXwv 5' (Lypav dya- prominent. The use of <pipeiv (e.g. El.
ffOeh ovk etrto-iraaev M^ya 51ktvov. Soph.
| 692) is exactly similar.
AXAIQN ZYAAOTOI
Until quite recently it was generally held that ^XâiSiv
avWoyos and Ivv&enrvoi were alternative titles of the same
play but the reasons which appeared to support that conclusior
;
will be more conveniently considered in connexion with the

Svv&enrvot. The discovery of fr. 142 has entirely altered the
conditions of the problem. The internal evidence of the
fragment clearly indicates the story of the play to which it
.
ATPEYI—AXAIfiN lYAAOrOI 95
iged and, since the language appears to be that of Sophocles,

;
pointed out in the notes, the inference drawn by Wilamowitz

that it comes from theWyaimv 0-1/W0709 can hardly be resisted'.
Not only does no other title seem to fit the data, but the words
in col. ii 2 ttov 'ort avWoyos <pi\<ov ; are a strong confirmation
1
of the proposed identification. Also k^rdêrat in v. 17 may be

compared with fr. 144.
The chief interest of the plot lay in the relations of Achilles
with Telephus. When the Greeks first sailed to Troy, through
ranee of its real situation they landeJ in Mysia. Here
bus, who was king of the country, came out to meet them,
and killed Thersander the son of Polynices. But, fleeing before
Achilles, he became entangled in a vine-plant, and was wounded
by Achilles' spear. The Greeks retired, and were scattered by a
storm Achilles reached Scyros, where he ultimately married
;
Deidamia. At length the confederates assembled for a second

s. Meanwhile Telephus, whose wound refused to
had visited Delphi and learnt from the oracle that he could
only be cured by the hand which had inflicted the wound (6 rpoHTcm
Ar. Nub. 919). The sequel is described in I
(EGF p. Kara p.avr(iav rrapayevm-

19) eireira 'Vrj\«poi>
\fjyo>< iitrat 'A^tWeii? a>? qy€fiova yfW)<r6(J.evov rov WW "\\tov
trXov and more fully in Apollod. </>//. 3. 19, 20 crwtXBovrtov &«
:
ftt ai>0i<; /xera rr)v pr)$tlcrav oteraeriav, iv diropia rov

iroWj) Ka0€<TT7]K€<rav, *a0T]y€fi6va fir) e\ovr€<t, ov ffV Ovvarbs
Bflâi tt)i> k'v Wvtrin
Ypoiav. 99 ro
Tf/A.e<£oe fit e* t»"/v
'a e%a>i', enrovTos avroj rov .-WoXXon/oc rore rev^taBtu '
orav 6 rpwaas larpos yivt/rai, rpv\ect,v t}p.<pi*o ft

,
u<piK6To, xal StrjSeU 'A^tWcoK ml vtrtar-^rffiivos rov

,
ir\ovv &€il-at 6eparrei€rai >i-jro^vaavro<i 'Av»\\tnK t»)v

'809 neXius rot lov. 0€pa7r€v0ei<: oiv I8«£e rov irXovv, ri
~rinrovp.ivov rov Kn\\avTO^ Sta rfjs eavrov
II. of the healing of Telephus lormed the subject

of the famous play written by Euripides' under this title and
in 438
1
ords rpi'X taiV r}p4n*0p*to< m

Apollodorus appear to be due to Kuripidcan influence (cf. fr. 697,
and N >i The ingenuity of the p lit, in
axed to solve the dramatic difficult) of

lephus, a declared foe, into a trustworthy friend.
///. /. !</>;. 1310) did not altogether approve of the p tfc • the W
>e«l by
— w
I .nit that UM divergence of nunc wa* iwolmbljr t
iyle la cooaistenl »nh a ungk tourcc.

v from the c» iîng material »ee Wilain
p, <«, f , and siarkie on Ar. Ath. p. I
—
g6 IO0OKAEOYI
According to one account (Hygin. fab. 101), Telephus, in concert
with Clytaemnestra, seized the child Orestes from his cradle
before taking refuge at the altar, and threatened to kill him
unless his prayer was granted. When the Berlin papyrus was
first deciphered, Wilamowitz inferred from the reading \)pecrTa
in col. i 2 that the incident formed part of Sophocles' design,
but, now that Schubart has restored Trapiara, the inference falls
to the ground. It had already been argued by L. Pollak (Zwel
Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierons, Leipzig, 1900) from a vase-
painting, which he refers to a date earlier than 470 B.C., that the
Orestes-episode did not belong to the original version of the
story given in the Cypria. On the vase Telephus has taken
refuge at the altar his right hand covers his wounded foot, and
:
his left hand is stretched out in the direction of a warrior

(Achilles) who has drawn his sword against him, while he looks
for protection to a seer (Calchas) who is approaching on the
right. Pollak's conclusion is entirely consistent with the
statement of the schol. Ar. Ach. 332, attributing the Orestes-
episode to Aeschylus. Nauck {TGF p. j6) regards the insertion
of Aeschylus' name as a mere blunder, but, whereas most writers
have agreed in supposing that the seizure of the child was
introduced — if not for the first time — by Euripides, Wecklein
{Die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosmythus, MiAnchen, 1909,
p. 16) has gone so far as to deny that it was mentioned by him
at all, except possibly by way of criticizing Aeschylus. However
this may be, there is no evidence connecting it with Sophocles,
and it is more agreeable to his usual procedure to suppose that
he adhered as closely as possible to the narrative of the /ci/c\o<;
(Athen. 277 d). It is a fair inference that the action of the
play took place at Argos, and the new fragment indicates
that the reconciliation with the Greeks had already been
achieved. The words ere yap Teye«Tt<?...a\iW iper/icav (col. ii
7— 10) may be taken to show that the Greek origin of Telephus
had been established, and that the Greeks had accepted him
as their destined pilot to the Trojan coast in accordance with an
oracle imparted to them by Calchas. We may compare Hyginus
{I.e.)
: Achivis autem quod responsum erat, sine Telephi ductu
Troiani eapi non posse, facile cum eo in gratiam redierunt et ab
Achille petierunt, ut eum sanaret. It remained only to satisfy the
requirements of the oracle given to Telephus (6 Tpcoaa iral Il^Xe'to?. Odysseus was
chosen for his discretion to negotiate with Achilles, who had not
arrived at the beginning of the play (cf. fr. 144). We cannot tell
how he gained his point, but it seems unlikely that the discover)
:
AXAIQN IYAAOTOZ 97
Telephus' origin was the chief factor in persuading Achilles to
i\c his assistance. The course of the subsequent denouement
is perhaps to be traced, as Wecklein (p. 20) suggests, in [yginua I
quibus Achilles respondit se orient medicam non tiosse. tunc I 'lixcs

ait : non te dixit Apollo, scd auctorcm vulncris hastam nominal,
quam cum rasissent, rcmediatus est.
The title was well known in antiquity, as appears from schol.
BT on Horn. B 519 \€â<T0ai...o0€V teal \oy(iSe<: <al avWoyo?
\\acwv. Wilamowitz argues that the date of composition
must have been earlier than the production of Euripides' more
complex play.
142
col. i
desunt duo versus
: : :
>
\l(TKOV 10
desunt cetera
col. ii
^ vor\ov r)] [€<f>vp[o]u> StVa

7rc/x[t/>ci Tj/JwaSa? aKTac.
142 1 3«>a Murray: Sura pap.
142 Btrlim Kka iJbrU \tt v 1 p. 64.

• some such word as mCpa mutt have gone
bore fragments are taken from the . suggested rft> ykf
Wiiajnowiti
part of a roll 14 cm. high an<t ar 6\o¥ He points out that
a/ior tt\\a.
:. broad. The writing tends to the genitive in was not previously
<mo
••
a cursive form, and is stated to f<<r Sophocles, although +pvyimm
1
the second century A.t>. The had l«cn conjectured in At. 110. lint it
•lumn was entirely occupied with it probable that Murray's correction lira
* it concluded in OoL
lit* Ii n. should Ik- ndoptrd: the same error was
I 1 vaplara was restored by detected l>> Hermann in Actch. /'en.
it- \N il.mu.wii/. read
at first '•it that U*m should
'O^VffTo, deducing therefrom an important mean an trying wind is not maintain
ng the development of er than circular motion
u baeq uently abandoned. might have l>een expressed by r
i //.. 143 ttfiv M l H
Craw *»*A«m
II On the assumption that iponmiov.
Pi
;
98 I04>0KAE0YI
crv T€ ir[r)h]a\L<oL Trapehpev\a)v]
(f>pd(re\LS t&>] /caret Trpa> < t > />a[i>]
evdvs *l[kio]v TTopov
*A.Tpei[hav t]Secr#at.
ere yap Tefjyjeans r\pxv,
'EXXag, ov[j(]t Mvcria, tikt€.l
vavrav crvv tlvl Sir) deoiv
/cat Trep.TTTrjp aXiojv ipeT/xcou.
AXIAAE p,a>v /cat cri) /cawos ttovticls drrb ^dovb<;

r)KeL<s, 'OSvcrcrev; nov Vrt (rvXkoyos <f>L\<DV
tl /xeXXer'; ov XP1 U rjcrvyov KelaOcu 7r[d]8a.
OA So/cet (rrpareveLv /cat /xe'Xet rots ep re'Xet
raS'- eV hiovri S' fades, co 7rat II^Xea>5.
6 'Ar/jeto'Sp scripsi : 'Arpeldq. Wilamowitz
3 If. If the restoration of Wilamowitz an objective genitive with the possessive:

is adopted, it is remarkable that, in a see O.C. 729, Eur. Phoen. 934 (n.). For
passage where the functions of irpypevs lbia6ai =
to look out for, cf. Ai. 1165
and KvfiepvqTT)s are so sharply distinguished, airevaov KoiXrfv KaireTbv tiv' Ibelv. Phil.
Agamemnon should be identified with the 467 irXovv /jlt) '£ airbwTov fj.ai.XXov r) 'yyvdiv
former and described as subject to the o-Koweiv. Eur. Hec. 901 fjivew avayKi}
orders of Telephus. Cf. Plut. Agis 1 01 irXovv bpQvTas rjavxov. Plat. legg. 866 D
irpqipeis to. ifxwpoaOev it poopwfievoi twv o-K7jvijaa.fj.evoi iv da.Xa.TTT) riyywv Tovt
KV$Stpvt)TQ}v dtpopQcn Trpbs inelvovs xai rb irbdas ttXovv eViî/XaTTeYw.
irpoaTaaaoixevov vir' eKeivwv iroiovaiv. The 7 TeycaTis. Sophocles also employed
look-out man was specially charged to the form Te7eas (fr. 1100).
watch for a change in the wind Ar. Eq. : 9 <rvv tivi 81} 6«5v: cf. Aesch. Pers.
S^SirptfipaTevffai KaiTovs avifiovs diadprjaai. 167 oXftov, 8v Aapeios rjpev ovk &vev deuiv
Was it likely that Agamemnon would tivos. Eur. Phoen. 16 14 (afore) dveo
undertake such a task? Nor do I think dewv tov raOr' efiTixo.vriaa.fj.Tjv.
that the text is justified by the metapho- 10 ir«nirHjp is a new word.
rical use of irp{j}pa.TT)s in fr. 524, 1, where 11 •n-ovTtas...x0°v6s, his island home
see n. I hesitate therefore to accept of Ithaca. Wilamowitz points out that
'Arpudq. in v. 6, and should prefer to this use of irbvrios does not occur in
substitute 'Arpetoav. It is worth notice Aesch. or Eur. and quotes Phil. 269 irov-
that, although 'Arpeidcu etc. occur in Tias Xpvar/s. Pind. Netn. 8. 18 irovTiq.
Sophocles more than 30 times, the KvTTpip.
singular is only found in Ai. 1349. 12 o-vWcryos <j>iX«v helps to identify
For the metre, bacchiac dipody in place the play. Cf. Eur. I. A. 1545 'AxatGiv
of Reizianum, see e.g. Eur. Tro. 321. avXXoyos arparevfjaTos.
I am also unable to agree with Wilamo- 13 •fj<rux. ov ---',n'8a occurs also in Eur.
witz in joining ei)0i>s 'lXLov, which he Bacch. 647 OTTfaov irbb\ bpy-rj 5' virbdet
compares with the isolated Eur. Hipp. ijavxov TrbSa, where however it has been
1 157. It is simpler to give evQvs its usual much suspected, and in Med. 217 ot 5'
meaning, and to treat 'IXlov as an ob- &<p' ijavxov 7ro5os j
bvavoiav iKTf}aavro koI
jective genitive: cf. Eur. Cycl. 108 iropd- pq.6vfj.iav.
fxbv ovk rjbeiada irarpipas xôvbt /. T. 1066
; 14 toIs cv riXtx. is another slight indi-
777s irarpqias vogtos. Horn, e 344 vbarov \
cation of Sophocles' authorship, since thi;
yaiijs QanfiKuv. So perhaps 'IXiov <tt6- phrase occurs four times in the extant
Xov Eur. I. A. 816 (England). There is plays, but nowhere in Euripides.
no difficulty in the combination of such
7 a a
AXAIQN lYAAOTOZ 99
AXIAA ov fj.rfu eV d/a-ais y io-rl KOJTnjpr)? ot/nxtos,
ovt ovv onXiTT)^ eêrd^crai irapcov.
OA aXX atrtKa* cnrevheLv yap iv Kaipto -vptotv.
AXIAAK atet ttot iorre vcjêkel^ /cat /xeXXcre,

prj(T€L<; 0' e/cao-ro? p.vpCa<; Kadijfieuos JO
Xe'yci, ro 8' epyov [ov]8a/xou 7ro^>cvcrat.
K[dy]&j /i,eV, ax? o/aajVJe, Spaf €toi/*o9 oV
7)[k]<u, oT/aard? re M[vpJ/Lu8cot>, /cat 7rX€v<r[ouai]
[Xi7r]a>i/ 'Ar/jei'Safti/ /cat crrpaTov] /xc[X]X7j/i[ara].
33 opai[ . ]< pap.
1© ov u.tJv. .%/ is adversative, (yet... 10 viox«\«i»: also in Kur. Or. 800

never follows p.^ immediately
-,< rXefpd »uxt\i) *6a<f>. VVilamowitz calls
and sometimes the intervening word or it an Ionisin.
words alone are emphasized cf. 0. V. : 30prjo-<i«,hereotdeliherativespecches;

8io ov tkJ\» toy* y' truatp. See also on but the word never developed this as a
Kur. Phoftt. iftzj. Wccltlein objects to — technical sense. Cf. Aadk Suf>pl. 613
KtnrrjpTp o-Tparos, re(|iiiring <rro\ot as in rotdfi' iwtiOtr pffffip dp<p' r/fiutp \iywp.
ind would read inKiKu- Achilles is the typical man of action, who
Ttvrai arparos from fr. 1 45. The objec- finds debate trivial, and pi/atit Xiytw has
hy|>ercritical, and the proposed the same slightly contemptuous force as
•ti would make bxXlnjt in v. 1 the common \6youi Xtytip (Wilamowitz).
unintelligible. Ko.Orju.tvo*. m.ictive: so I)cm.
17 ovt' ovv. ^mcc
the time of Klm-ley d\V ohuu natfijurtf' oviip wmovpt
scholars have generally agreed in con- 34 to. 8' vfUrtp' airrCtP ds-oXcA«cor<t »ri
demning 06. o0re in |>arall<l daOTCT, where
. 6r\u6>. 4. 9 pJWorrai rinax «al tooy-
It is given by the Mss of Attic. frfpovt reoMrroijriftTcu.
(Kachner-Getth n jH. Jebb on Troth. 31

ovoajiov wopivertu. 'in 110 degree
is received less -nUiii (quarter) is forwarded.' The local sense
lent: see Leaf on X 165. of odianov is transferred to the moral
argues that oOr' should be sphere (fr. 106 n.), but it has not become
.-• ground that where equivalent to oOtapMti. So in I ur. llrr.
I negative
strengthened, as here
is *4 <; fitol flip oio*MoC> and elsewhere, but
1
or by rit, toi or ti, rt may stand in the /'. •*>* the ordinary meaning is
lie. The suggested rule is he passive sense of wptuttHi
I
but, when he says that <*'•&'

,
It. :; 4
I. fr,
1
314, 314.
.
t
.in possible with ovp I 2 printed in the e,u/i.<

..
mdoubtedly goes too far cf. O.C. : r, but Schubert has since reported
II 34 oon lywyi at. ovh" orV ii.au. In ill it 1 be pace is insufficient for that
if the many instances where o*W seems to follow that the
-. It
has bee to oi'ti I should pre- i . was an error, and that hpArt
1
read ov9' here.— should In- adopted, as proposed by Hunt.

esrXinp < arparoi.
: .
is dkkd. introducing an obj<

Mfa echoed in Kur. I. A. 818 ra r.i»
'Arp«i6wr hi )Upi*p mW^ftMra. TWi fa
th II lMX not u> mui h limiatioii 4^ involantarv
• scus replies with I e. and there are several »imi-
t tag, not ! .1 our b a» *./. Kur. AM. «i|
worse speed.'
. f. Phil. 017 < AW lien root hop* 4m*MTpb+mP after
4 ro< (dipiof arovdij topov parrot j
trwmr «d»-a»riiXar ijyaytp. al**oaTp6+oi. For other esample* •••

//«/. 718 awtviup tawtvi' ov&ir ttx*
d' it' Hugh, / ragit Drmma, p. 135*.
is equivalent to awtvtup inaipwi.
7—
— )
IOO IO<t>OKAEOYI
The metres of the choral ode present ba. ba.
hardly any difficulty: enhopl. Archil,
—
«-<«- ~ — —
Alcaic, quatern.
•< cr. ia. sp. (cf. At.
w__~~_
-— (enhopl.)
pherecr.
paroem. (enhopl.)
197, 400)
glycon.
Alcaic, quatern.
•
_ ^ _ ——~
-
_
pherecr.
lecyth.
(enhopl.
col. iii
restant tantum personarum nominum hie illic ves-

tigia, ita tamen ut cmyppvdiav a versu undecimo usque
ad vicesimum et fortasse latius pertinuisse ostendant
143
o>5 vao<f>v\a.K€<; WKTepov vavK\r)pia<;
7rXi]KTpoL<; airevOvvovcTiv ovpiav rpoiriv.
143 Pollux 10. 143 vavTiKa be a/ceOr) 7/ yap vbl- aKpifieoTtpa rrjs rjnepas rots
K&Xoi...TT7)baXia irXrJKTpa, tbs 1,o<f>OK\rjs Iv Tre\ayo5po/j.ov<n, 5ta ras twv darpuv arjfxei.-
, l '
A.xaiQ>v avXXbyip <j>s...Tp6iriv. tlxreis. 6 be Xpticwnros d<j>eXwv tt)v 'oi)'
,
It a mistake to suppose that the

is aw6<paot.v
i
vvKT^^Xoeh etwev (Stoic, vet.
Greeks did not sail by night, seeing that fr. Ill p. 202). Strabo 757 the Sidonians :
the use of the stars for the purpose of became skilled astronomers largely in con-
navigation was attributed to Palamedes sequence of their enterprise in nocturnal
(fr. 432). But if the sky was clouded it navigation.
was necessary to lay to, and the sailor's 1 vavicXripCas. Campbell is probably
dread of night became proverbial. Aesch. right in concluding that the word is used
fr. 193 (Cicero's tr.) navem ut horrisono here for a ship: see n. on Eur. Hel. 15 19
freto noctem paventes timidi adnec-
I
rts bi viv vavKXi\pia (k Trjab' dirrjpe X^°"
\
tunt navitae. Suppl. 111 <piXei wbXva |

v6s; But we must not lose sight of the
TLKTtiv vii£ KV$iepvr)Tr) cro<p$. Theogn. possible alternative: 'pilots of a voyage
'375 o\(2ios 8<ttis...ovk otbe ddXaaaav ovbe |
by night.' There is in any case a
oi 4v ir6vT(f) vi>i- iiriodaa. fiiXei. Here the pleonasm in the combination of vao<pv-
point of the comparison is lost, but we Xa/ces and vavKXrjpias see n. on Eur. :
may guess that stress was laid upon the Phoen. 1549 Troda Tv<pX6irovv.
risk run by every sailor at night, even 2 ir\i]KTp<nsis a synonym for the
when wind (ovpiav) and weather were ordinary They quote Hdt. 1.
Trrj5aXlots.
in his favour. Or it may
be that the skill J 94 vw6
idtiverai be re bvo itXt)ktp<jiv, koi
of the nocturnal pilot, and not the danger bvo dvbpuv bpdwv eareuTuv' icai 6 fuv Zo~w
of his enterprise, was the chief motive of fXicei to wXriKTpov, 6 be £fw u>$4ei. Cf. Sil.
the simile. See Zenob. 5. 32 oil vvkti- Ital. 14 401 resident is puppe magistri |
irXoeis iirl tGiv fir) aKpiûis ti toiovvtwv

: .
affix it plectro dextram.
144
cru 8' ev dpovoicri ypappdraju nTV)â<; k\a>v
vip et Tt5 ov ndpecTTiv 09 ^vvcopocreu.
144. 1 irrvxas Toup: tttv'x'1 * codd. 2 vip! et ris Bergk : dwoveifiov v4p.ei tis
codd. j
iraptOTiv 5s Bergk : irdpeaTi tU codd.
144 Schol. Pind. Isth. 2. 68 to dpovoiai ypauâTuv irT^x a ^ ?X UV dirbveifio
yap aw6vet.1j.0v dvH tov avdyv wdi. vinei tis 011 irdpeaTi tIs ^wibfioaev'
"ZoQokXtjs ev 'Axatwv avXXdytf)' '<ri> 5' 4v HapSe" vtos ev ttj 'Apr/Ty rd &vei(j.e (dvvep.e
AXAIQN IYAAOTOI 101
Valckenacr) di»r« rod irdyvwdi teat artip.r) In Theocritus /.<•. the meaning — 'to read'
iuipurri < 6 > ftou*6\ot [referring to Theocr. to oneself (strictly, perhaps, 'to con
1 8. 47 f. ypdnpara 8' i» <p\oap ytypa- or 'speil out')-- is certain, and we may
if/tTcu, u>j vapuli* rtt j
arptiuT) ûptori' believe that Parthenius (first century B.C.),
'oifiov n'' 'EXfVai <pvrb» tipu'\. a learned poet, is following some such
The fragment relates to a muster of the authority. In i'indar most editors have
Achaean chiefs held immediately before refused to follow the scholiast, l>ut Bury is
their departure for Troy. The number inclined to adopt awtifio* with Tyrrell,
is to be ascertained by reference
I who suggests for our line aravd/MW ff rtt
of the suitors of Helen, who had
^t ov rap ot (ivwMOffrr. But they have
joined in taking an oath to Tyndareus : omitted to point out that the Greek for
»<rj yiwoi.ro Tvr&apii Koprj,
I roiVry \
recitare or reeensert is &pap4p.*o~$cu 11 dt. :
oi-pauvptir, tl tii 4k doftwv \a,1up \ofxotro I. 173 tipopirov Ht.Mt 4o~rt, *araM£«i
(Eur. I. A. 6i). Cf. At. in j, Phil. ;j, iuirrdf p.r)Tpo$tP col rift p-irrpbt dpaptpjtrtu
Thuc. i. o. ties, fr. </>, 40 ff. K/. II. rat nijripat. The schol. on Ar. v. 1 389 A
suggests that probably Achilles was found held that dwtrinopro glanced at the mean-
ing dptyipuo-Kop. To this should cor-
1 «v epovowri. Welcker thought that respond rimodai answering to
citare,
the words were spoken by Odysseus to pi/jLtur 'to mark put down, register,'
off,
Agamemnon. However this may be, the which we find in the phrase rlntw woo-
ullressed appears to be seated on •rrdrar: cf. Polyb. 6. 47. H rwr d$\wrQp
a high chair for the purpose of taking the roi>t ni) rtPtfiTitrfvon, unlicensed athletes.'
'
\âmemnon v/as primus inter pares, So Kararinw in Aeschin. 1. ffj Ira i'M««t
r treated as monarch of t he- KaraMtlnirrt tit rip t pour)* 010 op rd£tr
ns, so that a reference to his Tifiapxo". if>. 159. It is possible th>
royalty would be out of place. For the that we should read repp, and make the
Homeric Oporos see Ameis-Hense on sentence interrogative ('won't you call
o 13a. Herwerden, thinking of a docu- over...?'). But, on the whole, Bergk's
ment kept in a place of security, pro rift' cf ni accounts better for the facts, and
to 66fUHOi wrvx/U here metre — : particularly for the interpolation of &*6-
'
accentuation which is now ptifiop (see cr. n.). We should render
generally adopted. See Sandys on Kur. .ngly: 'mark off on vour list any
Batch. 02. f. Fur. fr. 506, 1 4p d4\rov
( who are not present.' Madvig, who
wvxa.li ypatptw tip' at'-rd.
j
interpreted it similarly
3 v<|i' «l Ti«. The text of I'indars ('dinu ays of
-l is unfortunately corrupt, and the p4(u, 'it is simply "gi>< let us
value of his testimony has been variously hear."' So also I
cstim.itcd. There is no doubt that some o* wde*€mv.

bell's rendering 'ol>servc.' —
of the uso, of rinw and its compomsdi These words are suggestive of a n
;>a*srd into current Ar roll: sec Tucker 00 Aesch. Cko. 695
wards became obsolete. The m -holiast vapovfOP 4yypa<pn and Headlam in ( K
'hat &wopup.or in I'indar means xvii 246.—it (see cr. n.) seems to l>e a
.ipparently on the ground that p4/u* necessary correction, unless the corrupt i< >n
147 p4fui' ipaytfiiffKti.

ill p. eper. Tucker (C.A*. vmi 1 «/o>
MM' arayw<ixrKtu. p4puo' ifaytpuxruu) proposed eveVcpr, tit waptm; rlt (wn*-
and irarimii (cf. Fpioharm. fr. 714 K.)are lAootp; But that surely would be too
used in the same sense by other poeU. abrupt.
145
eKKCKurrrexrrat
145 4 itttKurrnrai 6 4wl Kitnrqi and proposed 4(ôrvrm
4KKtKQTirrai) '
4&tprvnu < *«tm > to complete the (loss. Nsuck
Zo+onMfi ZvMoy* thought that the simple verb i«>tfvtvnu
cr ov\X6yio Muwfus). Mcincke ought to be substituted, but the fondness
restored rc^ccurs-ci/rat, referring to . for verbs compounded w.th
i. II p. 400 Kttijvtvrsn orparot. Ar and with slightly intensive force make*
'
102 IO0OKAEOYI
the suggestion unnecessary see on fr. : cf.Timoth. Pert. 155 aiSapoKuirot' EXXdv.
524. Meineke thought that KeiabirevTcu But of course the other meaning, which
a-rpards was taken from a tragic poet, Hesych. recognizes (11 p. 460 K€Kwirr)T<u'
and so Wecklein. The question re- 7) vavs), is perfectly legitimate, if required
mains whether ^KKeKdowevrai meant ' is by the context. See also Boeckh, Ur-
provided with oars,' or 'is equipped with kunden, p. 291, who gives from an
weapons.' In favour of the latter, see inscription twv $vyG>v KfKunrrjvTai P.
on Eur. Hel. 1128 p-ovbicuiros dv-qp and
I46
€TTlC€VOV(TUaL
146 Hesych. II p. 162 eiriêvovcdaf i-eivobbicos and êivoboKelv are

0a.vovp.iv7).
/xapTvpeffdcu, iropeveadai. 2,ocpoKXr)s 'Ax- said to have been used for tidprvs and
atuv o-vXXbyu Kai AiVx^Xos Kp-qacrats (fr. puprvpeiv by Simonides or Pindar see :
120). Apollon. lex. Horn. s.v. and Etym. M.

The inference to be drawn is that in p. 610, 42. The other meaning is ap-
one of the passages cited itriêvovcdai was parently to be on one's travels, or to
equivalent to /xaprvpeadai, and in the sojourn abroad. It occurs in Isocr. ep.
other to TopevtoOai. For the first ( = to 6 rb fir] irpitreiv eiri£evovo~dai. rots ttjXi-
demand good offices), which arises from the koitols, Arist. pol. 4 (7). 6. 1327 s 13,
host becoming bail (so to speak) for his Etym. M. p. 470, 47, and is based upon
guest to fellow-countrymen,
his cf. the phrase iiti îvr/s elvat, for which see
Aesch. Ag. 1319 iiriêvovp.ai ravra 8' u>s 0. C. 184, 563, Eur. Andr. 135.
147
€7TLaeiOvcrr)vla$ iwi.- /. A. 151 irdXw elabpp.a, oelt x a ^ vovi -
XO-Xwvtwv (iirLxaXevTwv cod. : corr. The transition from iiriaeiciv i/vias to

Musurus, xo-ûvtwv Naber). 2,o<pOK\r}s iirio-eUw rivd is illustrated by Eur. Or.
'Axaiwv crvXXbyit). 2 55 f-V 'tiVci^ fioi I
rds alp-arurrovi kcu
The action of a driver encouraging his 5pa.KovTw8eis Kopas, ib. 613. The coinci-
team by slackening the reins and shaking dence of the latter with (irio-lytiv is
them over the horses' backs is familiar accidental.
to everyone : see El. 711 of 5" dp.a lirirois
I48
148 Hesych. in p. 172 f vp.fibXovs olwvbs in the wider sense, was the name
tovs did twv iTTappMv oiwviapiovs IXeyov. given to anything capable of significance
dverldcvTO 8t oStoi Ar)p.r)Tpi. tiv£$ 5e rds as an omen which a man might encounter
8td tt)s ytvopivas fiavrelat, as 4>iX<5-
<pr)p.r)S in moving from place to place. Aesch.
Xop6s <pT]<n (EZ/G
I 416) AT)p.rrrpa evpeiv. Prom. 502 KXrjdovas re 8vckoItovs j
Xo(poK\r)$ 'AxattDv avXXbyw (avXXoyov ,

iyv^l)plo^ avroh fvobiovs Tt o~vp.fibXovi. Ar.
cod.). The first part of the gloss recurs Av. 719 opviv re vonlfere irdvO' Sirairtp
in Phot. lex. p. 311, i, Suid. s.v. £v/jl- irepi fmvTeias biaicplvei <pi)pr\ y vpuv'
|
fibXovs. opvis €0~tI, WTa.pp.bv t opvida KaXeiTe, j
IvppoXos, properly an adjective to £vp.f3oXov opviv, <puvrjv opviv, OtpdvovT''

AXAIQN ZYAAOrOI— AXIAAEQI EPAITAI 103
Spfip, wov bp»i». There the schol. gives be observed that liesych. and the schol.
a definition : £i'nfio\or 6<>vir <pi)aii>, »>« iirj Ar. call wrapfii» a case of vvufto\ot,
ffvpfioXoii iwoiovy rmn xpdra (waPTutrat, although Aristophanes keeps them apart,
Kal 4( dwtwT-fatut Ti Tpocrinalromat, and and thai Hcsych. seems to identify &IM
then proceed! in words identical with the and a&npo\ot, although all the ancient
first part of Hesychius' note. In Xen. authorities distinguish them. The ex-
num. 1. |.j it is implied that <rvpjio\oi planation is that the classes into which
are derived from oi avavTwrrtt. Several omens are divided are not mutually
cea are given in Hor. Carm. 3. 17. exclusive. A speech («>i}mv> might he at
So, to Humble on leaving the house once ominous in itself, and also avn$o\o%
was ill-omened: Tibull. 1. J. 19, The if addressed to or heard by the person
eagles and the hare are called Mtor ripat whose fortunes are affected.
ufioXot in Acsch. Ag. 104. It will
AXIAAEQI EPAITAI
This was a satyr-play, as fr. 153 proves. It is probable
that the satyrs were themselves represented as unsuccessful
lovers of Achilles, and as filled with indignation in consequence.
Wilamowitz thinks that Achilles was the pattern of the
Athenian 7ratc xa\dc, and that Phoenix (see fr. 153) was his
trai hayoyyos Another character appearing was Peleus (fr. 50),
1
.
1
wlv> may have warned Achilles that the sports of his boyhood
must soon be exchanged for the life of warrior (fr. 156). .1
scr inferred that the scene of the play was laid in the home
of Peleus at Phthia, but the cave of Chiron on Mt Pelfon is
a much more likely haunt of satyrs, and is clearly indicated by
the language of fr. 154. It was moreover in the cave of Chiron
that Herat les met Achilles and fell a victim to his beauty. The
was related by Antistbenes in his well-known w »rk entitled
m. 40 p. 264 West, Prod. in. Plat
AU p. 98 Cr.), and was doubtless taken by him from older
I
Fast. 5. 381ft*. It may therefore be conjectured

with -...me confident e that the arrival of Heracles was an episode
iphocles. There is some authority for reckoning Chiron
bimsell as B lover of Achilles (Dio Chrys. 58. 4 !1 p. 130 Arn.),
but that tradition is !.ss likely to be early. The case of Patroclus
must be doubtful. A«
left :n the P 44) M
Achilles as the ipa<rrtj<, and is followed by many
•d
fist. S. Martial .\\. IO) Hut Plat<» I I
»if>. 18OA rebukes Aeschylus as guilty of a perverse

-
on the ground that Hom< troclus the etdei \ 7S7), I
and diK-s not hesitate to call Patroclus the *paart)< so also •.
Arist.irchus ip. 1
•
> No inference should be drawn from
Phil 434.
• i.tcrvc that, according t" ApoOed 11 .1
' ol hi* hliodnca*
l>y ( suggests that thismay have Iwen the motive <A the
— —:
104 IO<J>OKAEOYI
generally admitted that the play of Sophocles is referred

It is
to by Ov.
Trist, 2. 409 est et in obscenos commixta tragoedia risus,
I
mnltaque praeteriti verba pudoris habet. nee nocet auctori, mollem \
qui fecit Achillem, infregisse suis fortia facta modis.

\
149
to yap uoarjixa tovt icfiLfxepou ko.kov
€)(OLfx av clvto (XT) KaK(os dneLKoicrat,.
aWpiov yepoiv
otolv trdyov fyavevTos
KpvcTTaXkov dpTrdcrcoori 7ratSes evirayrj,
rd irpoiT eôvauv rjhovas TroTaiviov<;' 5
Tekoq 8' 6 ^v/ao? ov#' oVa>9 d<f>y deXeu,
ovt iv yepoiv to Trrjyfxa avjX(f>opou fxeuecv.
149. vbo-rj/xa Dobree*. fyxoros yap voa-rjua SMA, vbarfp! t-pwros cod. Paris.
1 rb yap
1985 Arsenius: £<t>r)fx.epov codd. [quod tamen Hense silentio negare videtur]
4<pi/x.epot>
SMA
I
3 x 6 30 "' cod. Paris. 1985 x*P°~ lv

/
4 iraibes einrayi) Campbell: iraibiaiffayrj S,
:
iraibiais ayt) (dyg A) MA, 7rat5es affrayrj Salmasius, iraiSias x°-P lv Blaydes, iraiSes
evayyj Elter 5 iroratvlovs cod. Paris. 1985: ttot iviovs 6 sq. corrupta SMA
v. infra Stws |
M
7 ir7jyfj.a Gomperz: KTrj/xa S, KTrjp.' d(rvp.<f>opov fort. liAvei MA |
149 Stob. flor. 64. 13 (iv p. 460, explanation (Kuehner-Gerth II 344) is
7 Hense) SoôkXtJs ev 'AxiXX^ws epacrrais. natural. \li\ Kaxus go together, like

p.r)
'
tpwTos yap...irpoteTat.' There is an KaKT) in Track. 722.
allusion to the passage in Zenob. 5. 58 3 alOpCov see on fr. 1 1 7. Blaydes
:
(Paroem. I p. 1 44) 6 7rats rbv KpucrraXXov

:
'
would import x v ^^ VTOi from Phil. 293.
iiri Tibv jUTjre Kar^x* 1 " bvvapîvuiv pvqre 4 'not trickling,' hard-
do-rayi), i.e.,
fiedeivai fiovkofxivuv i) irapotfxia etp-qrai.. frozen. '
The only
objection to this
/x^pLinjTat ai/TTJs 2,o<poK\rj$ 'Ax^XXdus epa<r- reading arises from the ordinary use of
Tots. Cf. Plut. de garrul. 12 p. 508 D daraKTos, etc., as = "not merefytnckling"
wffirep ol 7rcu5« rbv KpixTraXXov ofire — "gushing" or "streaming." Eur. /. T.
KaTix eiv ofa"' a<f>i£vai dlXovai. 1242 dardKTWv p-drrip vbdruv. 0. C. 1646
1 The reading of the MSS (see cr. n.) avraKTl (Plat. Phaed. 117 c). Ap. Rh. 3.
appears to be due to the intrusion of a 804 rd 8' (tears) ippeev, do~rayes uOrtttJ
gloss. The cod. Paris. (Gaisford's B) is (J.)
With Hense I accept Campbell's
as usual interpolated. —
Nauck retains einrayr), which was independently pro-
£<pTrj/j.epov, which is flat he formerly pro-
: posed by Nauck.
posed av-f) p.epov from Mosch. 1. 10. J. 5 rd irpftrra adv., as in fr. 966.
thought i<pip.epov clearly right 'an at- — iroTaiviovs. novas, as in Ant. 849, Aesch.
tractive evil, but an evil still.' There is Prom. 102.
probably an allusion to Sappho's descrip- 6 f. It is generally recognized that
tion of Love as yXvKvwtKpov
dfidxavov these lines are corrupt, although no satis-
6pireTov (fr. 40) cf. Anth. Pal. 5. 133,
: factory remedy has been produced. J.
Plut. qu. conv. 5. 7. 2 p. 681 B rjdovrj^ was inclined to accept Meineke's Kpvubs
dXyrjbbvi fj.ep.iyfiivrjs, r)v avroi yXvKtnriKpov for x v P-bs, comparing fr. 507 and Eur. fr.
bvop-dôvaiv, Theogn. 1353 Trttcpbs icai 682, 3, but in other respects to defend
y\vKvs £o~ti Kal apwaXtos Kal aTr-qwqs (Hpios). the text. He construed ot50'...0e\n as
2 The asyndeton
is unusual and has 'will not consent to one's letting it go,'
provoked suspicion. Blaydes conjectured with an ellipse of ns as in El. 697 (n.).
?X 01m' &" &vto 5' ov KaKws (or ^x 01 ^1 b' But, even if 7rcus were the subject, ottws
aCr' av fir) KaKws). This is better than d<prj in place of d<pievai after 8£\ei would
Nauck's £x 0LP &' &"< adopted by Meineke. be quite impossible Greek there is no
:
In the next line the asyndeton of the analogy to the examples collected in
AXIAAEQI EPAITAI 105
ovroi Se tow? £po)vra.0(7t<rcu Mcineke : wpotrrai
codd.
Goodw. § 571, or more fully by Hale in rpayp aovpupofiov uparuv.

Tram. Am. Phil. Ass. xxiv 158. For 9 8pov irpocKerai. ' And thus desire
this reason Meineke suggested o0r' *<plt- often pleads with lovers at once to go on
r$*i WX«i an> Kock t4\oi bi icpunoit 0W
1
I loving and to abandon their love. So
6 rait atpitrai ofir' ...avp^tiptu> 0A«. J., who remarks that &pa» = ipa», as
Similar suggestions are Apelt's oOr' are- iputrrat indicates (Martin conj. ipa* fi
vrpdiptiai 6d\ti, Hense's o6t' aruxr&^fai Kai nil so Kock with roin fySuVrat i\yot
:
ind iomperz's o&r' aroo~r*o&ax

< Iprfpov preceding). For the use of Spar
irgued that Zenobius' in place of a repetition of the lending
futftirai tiov\otu¥U¥ pointed to 000' orur verb see on Eur. Phosn. 516. rpoalrrai,
tudrjt iif. or o6t' i$ fuOiirat. Herwerden when used in the sense of 'attrn
t that some words must have fallen '
wins over,' does not appear elsewhere to
out : 6 xpvftM <oiV ara<rx*T6t r4\ti be accompanied by an infinitive, but
6v<in d' a-aifkv >• «r^. II. (in C. /?. follows the analogy of such verbs as
xvii 193) preferred that the first line rtlOu and rporptru. For the use of the
should run rtXas 4" fêt fu> oM' mit articular infinitive as complement (Spa*
orun aipr), or T<\of 3' d>uw d^j f«r oil^' 6 Kai rt p\^f ipav Meineke), where the
wan ^x". holding rightly that fx<* ' s simple infinitive would lie expected, an
led by the construction. He points idiom characteristic of Sophocles, cf.
out that the indirect deliberative and Troth. 545 to 6' aC (ivoimu' rjjd" A/mm* rit
the tnfinitivc after fx<« arc combined by 4» yifi) ivvaiTo; Ant. 7H to Si fiia »oXitwt j
n At. 41H. .////. 271. There Spar l<pv¥ ifiifx<xPot, tf>. I 106 ft6\tt ftdr,
are two objections to this view (1) that Kapiiat 6' /(iarafuu to Spa*, Phil. 1)51
|
the change to the singular (6 wait) is aAX' ovbi rot <rp X* l P^ s*W0oâ< to dp*v.
awkward, and (11 that fx'i ,| - not fit " bt co-ordination of the simple
With Dobrce's ffvuii infinitive with the articular in th<-
Ol 'lIcMl clausc rf. El. 165 k*\ tC*v&4 not \afUif 0' |
nuc oW orut duprj ff^' f"x"» bpoiun k*1 to Tifraadat w4\n, inf. fr.
7 as a separate clause («i/. 1K8 n. For the adverbial use of avrot
Hut it has also occurred to me (zBOtotut) cf. Ph B II. con-
that the corruption may have l>cc' jeetured Toi< y' ipu*Tot in v | (/. /'.
rAof o" X"/* * oi'-x Arm XXIII 171), and, if that were accepted, the
dî'rai, o«'a' vri. It is true that in use of wpoaiirai would be parallel to
prose, where the idiom chiefly occurs,
1 the second following rendennj; t- tak< ;
x Srun, and with pain I
' early is no l»ad image of it ;— when the frost
•sage - )( oi>64 was hath come in bright weather, and children

indupcnsahlc the apodosi*.
in seize a solid lump of ice. at first they feel
rtftfopo* «.. tar I but I cannot help
: delight but at last the melting
;
hat at'nQopot here meant mass cannot be dropped, and vet their
I oi'S' treasure will not rest packed firmly in
evufopnv* yap rip
7 M*>» '
. . ! I thu« dr»ire often
ven
X«6r« a0a»i'i>i [/.#. to. fx^]. I'isides ap. perseve re ami to
ufop* r» riji ipdrpov <nn- : e, J. adds, is
the piece of tee,
f)a*at ru» tf iptidtur vrpi ifi/jroti and in ; Ml at first sight, which clr<
that case jiVm would l»e required. The the soul that baa one* admitted it \ ami
posed at the same lime causes such pain that
and adopted by NM er often wishes that be were freed
n this com
Blayde .-tided
; ;:
io6 I04>0KAE0YI
150
tU yap fie fxoÔo^ ovk e7recrTaret kewu
hpOLKCHV T€, 7TVp, vh(i)p.
1 iireâpei coni. Herwerden 3 vhoip <re> coni. Mekler
150 Schol. Pind. Nem. 3. 60 5iu>- werden's iirefdpei (Eur. Phoen. 45 n.)
KOfxivt) yap ujt' avrov (i.e. Thetis by but, as the metre is not entirely satis-
Peleus) fieriflaXXe rat fj.op<pas ori p.iv ek factory, Nauck, who formerly proposed
vvp, bri hi els 6r]pia 6 he Kapreprfffas '
iirear paretic™, suggests rls yap pn < ris
irepiyiyove. irepl hi rrjs fiera/JLOptpwcrews fie> .iirefdpei
. . Xt'wv kt4. —
For the
avrijs Kal "SiCxpoKXrjs <p7)alv iv TptaiXip (fr. metamorphoses of Thetis in her struggle
618) Kal iv 'AxiXXius ipacrrais '
ris to escape from Peleus see on fr. 618.
ydp...vhu>p.' The particulars here given correspond
If. t£s. ..ovtc = 7ras: see on fr. 959. to Pind. Nem. 4. 62 irvp hi irayKparis
4. — £ircoraTci. If the reading is correct, ftpa<rv/j.a\xdvo)v re Xebvrwv ovvxos b£v-
\
we are obliged to assume that iwiararetv t&tovs dKfidv I

Kal heivoTaruv ffxdffais
is used in a sense otherwise unexampled dhbvruv â/uey Kri., and to Apollod.
I
3.
(=to beset, but corresponding to
visit), 1 70 yivofiif7)v 8i bri fiiv irvp bri di i'hwp
that of iirta-Trjvai ( Track. 1 1 70 fj.bx6uv bri 5i Oripiov. Jebb on Track. 10 remarks
tQv i<peaTwTwv ifJioi, 0. 7\ 777 irpiv fioL that similar powers of transformation are
tvxv roidh' iiriuT-q) and that it is followed
; ascribed to other sea-gods, such as Nereus
by an accusative of the person attacked and Proteus and that they must be taken
;
on the analogy of such cases as O. C. to symbolue the unstable character of the

942 ovhels 7T07-' airrovs.. dv ifiiriaoi. ffiXos. element.
Otherwise the best correction is Her-
151
[17 ©ens vnb UrjXeo)^ XoihopiqOeicra KaTeXirrev avrov.]
151 Schol. Ap. Rh. 4. 816 2o<poKXr)s fire, not thrown into the water ; and this
di iv 'AxtXXiuis ipaarais <f>y)<rlv virb IlrjXiws is the usual version. Other authorities
XoihopijOelaav tt\v Qiriv KaraXiirelv avrbv. say nothing about the elder children
The extract is repeated in schol. Ar. Nub. Apollod. 3. 171 us 8i iyivvijae Oins iic
1068. llrjXius fipi<f)os, dddvarov 0i\ov<ra iroir/irai
Dindorf should not have combined this tovto, Kpv<j>a \li)Xiws els rb irvp eyupvjiovaa
notice with fr. 150. It is interesting to tt)s vvktos i(pdeipev 8 rjv avrif dvyrbv
find the story of the quarrel between irarptpov, fied' r\p.ipav hi ixp liv dfifipoala.
Peleus and Thetis vouched for by Sopho- YlrjXevs he iirir-qprjaas Kai airaipovra toy
cles ; but he is not the oldest authority, iralha Ihwv eirl rod irvpbs ij3bi)(re Kal Bins "
as it is said to have been described in the Kw\v0ei<ra rrjv irpoalpeaiv reXeiUxrai, vrjiriov
epic Aegimius (fr. 1 K. : see Bethe in t'ov iralba airoXiirovffa ir/ibs "Sriprjidas <£x* T 0-
Pauly-\Vissowa I 963). The schol. on In Apoll. Rhod. 4. 783 ff. Hera pleads
Apoll. Rhod. u.s., giving the epic version, with Thetis to afford good passage for
says that Thetis used to test whether the Argo she had given Thetis the best
:
Peleus's children were immortal by plung- of mortals for a husband, and held up the
ing them into a cauldron of water and ; wedding-torch with her own hand more- ;
that this proved fatal several times. When over, it is fated that in the Elysian plain
it was the turn of Achilles, Peleus stopped Medea shall be wedded to Achilles, -who
her. So Lycophr. 178, who makes is now being tended by Naiads in the
Achilles the seventh child, d<t>' ivTa home of Chiron, though he longeth for
iralhwv <pe\//dX(p <rirohovfxivwv /jlovvov <j>Xi- \
thy milk help, then, thy future daughter,
:
yovaav iâXvâvra oiroSbv. Here it will and Peleus himself; why is thy wrath
be observed that the child is burnt in the so firmly rooted ? Thetis accordingly'
I'elcus, ami gives him bipai. t)i't' orttpot, 0ij p" Ituv in ptydpoto
I
certain directions, but warns him not to 0oC>t,Kal<iH)\aTow6pTOf xwauiry **' r * j
> her presence to his companions. 3' o0t« raXiffairrot Urr' druriru. There
lx*, A"j M< XoXwffip w\tiOf tr f) rb
rjxfi b' are two or three touches here, which show
vdpoidtv drrr-Xryûrt IxiXctxras (863 f.). that AjMillonius and Apollodnrus are
Then she leaves him in great distress, for following the same original. The schol.
he had never seen her since she left his on Ar. X'ud. 1068 seems to be confining
wedded couch anger, when Achilles in two different stories. It is obvious that
I ill an infant, rj tuv yap pporiat the burning of Achilles in the fin
altl xtpi adpxai (bauv nvKra Sia piaaif* \ doublet of the better-known legend of
4>\oyp.^> Tipof fffiara b' avrt dnjiptxrit) |
Deineter and Dcmophon, the bro:
Xpi*(TK( rtptr bipat, cuppa WXotro d$d- |
Triptolenius sec Horn. h. Dem. 331 ff.,
:
rorot, Kai oi arvytpbw xpot y>?pat dXdX«x. ]

with Allen and Sikes's n. on 139. These
aCrrapby' !£ (irvijs d»ard\pA»ot €lotv6t)9tv \
stories have recently been explained as
wa'tbi <pi\of ffwaipotrra 3<a <p\oy6f fjKt 0' recording a rite of infant initiation,
ivrtpf I
ffu€p&a\4r}vi<nbwv, pJya rfywiof whereby the child's hold on life is supposed
if b' diovaa rbr put* dp' dp-wdyitiv x a M<J5i«
\
to be strengthens k. Ilaltiday
fid\r KfKXrjyCrra, atrH) &i woti; UlXrj
j
in C. R. xxv 8 ff.
152
rj hopbs hi\6crTOfxov nXaxTpov
Sltttvôl yap oSvvai ptu rjpiKOV
*AîXXi^tov Ooparo*;.
152. 3 s<|. nr fjptiKw 'Ax-XXtfoc Bcrgk [f)ptnov iam La DfadOff)
152 SchoL Pind. Mem. 6. 85 ovk bv the scholiast. \i/. Acsch. fr. 131 and
4k wapadpoprji b( (dKorof tlwt rb bbpv the Utile Iliad \l fib »
Iii\\Jun...d\\' Srt IStairfpof wapd 1 wXdxTpov, any striking instrument,

tA £\\a *or«ir»«i'a«TTo. bUpovw yap uxrri whether pointed a
bto eux a <-« 'X"" a ' "'? flo\ri [uxrrt] burod
* Ale. 128 3«<i0o\or T\t)KTpo* wvpbt
uara dwtpydfcaffat. koI ALfX"^>* riov. (Fur the form of the ihundrrbdt
t* Srjpftci (fr. 151) ' ndpMMOt tloti ndfuucoi see th< given in C. A*.
y\^nai)uxx birXdatof.' cat Loô»X»/t iv xvii j;fi.l Ar. ./;. Jgf alp* ».\»>rrpor,
.<a*rait 77 bbparoi.' '
. tl M^X". of the cock's spur.
generally admittr tli.it something i 2 Sihtvôi 'Iocs not occur el~
g with the tradition, and that the in SoplMKlci s<-e on Kur. Pkotn.
I
1
conflation of two fragments,

1 piv is banished from tragedy by most
1 of which ends at r\a*Tpor critics, at «ny rate fr.>m dUogl
at firstobserved by Heath, Troth
'
\. as alone l>cionging to
1 I still maintain it m I
Sophocles. Dobree, however (according 010. Tktb. 44O.

.innot trace the source urxloulKed,
nt), denied that any part of holars arc divided on ihr juration <
n was Sophodean. whether ww ahouhl be re|>iace<l every*

came to the same corn in liiulai. he papyrus of the
I
-tight that vv. j, 1 did not (at* 6 1151 Onus* that the doubt
such as the existed at an early dale. Itarrh yhdr » ha*
so the reference to Telephus
for tuv only at 10. tit. 4|pu(ev 1* intr»n»itive
might suggest but del lyric — in lloni p |f| fan i' U#«*a>»»a ««V*«
kdy he prints thnn as wpi botpdt d«t#«f, and ha» misr.pirritly •
/W<; {PLC HI JJOI. been altered to «J>i«or (see cr. n.), nerhaaa
/ /'. no was rightly. Itut ttifium' is II
tame opinion a* I tobrec. Eupborion 40 s-Xtippa rt «aJ #daasra

•radition 1ri.1t, M •• '),. douhlr k4}tun» l»U» ixt»*' "' Xr, °'-
spear does not seem to 3ta pi* ««IU» Vu»
in the passages quoted rinn
—
io8 I04>0KAE0YS
153
Trarrou, ra Traihi^, o>5 opas, oTTtoAecras.
153 opui a anecd. Bachm., bp&a anecd. Par. \
dirwXecrav anecd. Bachm.
153 Schol. Ar. Vesp. 1021= Phot. When the satyrs inclined towards the
lex. p. 369, 4 iraiSiKd ' iwl dijXetojv Kai love of women, Phoenix taunted them
apptvoiv ipoipAvwv TCLTrerai rj Xi£is...Kal with treating their necessity as if it were
iv rots 'AxiW^ws 5' ipaarais brjXov us —
a matter of choice. iraireu here expresses
oCtws t&v appivoiv) i£eiXr)TTTai.
(scil. iirl scorn more often it is used for simple
:
iiribbvrwv yap tl twv aarvpwv eh rr\v astonishment, as in Plat. legg. 704 C irairdi
yvvaiKeiav iwiOvfiiav <pT)o~iv 6 Qoivii; olov \^yets='you don't say so!' Eur.
i
irawal...dirw\ecras.' See also Suid. s.v., Cycl. 572 irairai, <ro<p6v ye rb £vXov ttjs
Bachm. anecd. I p. 324, 16, Cramer anecd. dfiiriXov. —
Blaydes conjectured uvipas for
Par. iv p. 173, 9. cos opas.
154
crv S', d> 'Evaype, Ilrj\iO)TLKbv rpefyos
1 54 (ipicpos Athenaei C, Eustath.
154
Athen. 401 D 2o0o/c\^s /xev yap curious coincidence with the account in
iv 'AxiXXius ipacrrah iirl Kvvbs t-Tatje Apollodorus (3. 171) may be noted 6 : &
rotfvofia (set/,avaypoi) dirb rod <rvs dypeveiv, (scil. JLelpwv) Xaflwv avrbv ?rpe<pe crirXdy-
Xiywv ' ffii b'^.Tpiôs.' Eustath. Od. <>i s Xebvruv tcai (tv G>v ay pLusv Kai ApKruv
Xv
p.. 1872, t2 2o0ok\tjs crv 8'...f3pe<pos.' '
p.veXoh Kai wvbp-acrev 'Ax'XXea are. In
From Athen. also are drawn the state- the well-known description of Pindar
ments in Gramm. Herm. p. 320 and anecd.
Par. iv p. 245, 20 (A. Kopp, Beitr.
—
(Nem. 3. 43 52) we find Kairpovs r'
Zvaipe, but also that the speed of Achilles
zur gr. Excerpten-Litt. p. 159). was such that he slew stags dvev kvvwv.
IlT|\i.a)TiK6v. In fr. 1069 Achilles is Nauck thinks that Steph. Byz. p. 521, 10
referred to as hunting on Mt Pelion, and \iyerai Kai kttjtikov ll-qXiUTLKbv refers to
it is highly probable that the allusion is this fragment. Cf. Stat. Achill. 2. 410.
to this play. It was in his cave on Mt For rpicpos: 6 pe~u.ua, like bipos (fr. ri):
Pelion that Achilles was reared by Chiron bipp.a, jSX^ros : pXifina, see Blaydes on
after he was abandoned by his mother Ar. Nub. 1 1 76.
(fr. 151): see Eratosth. catast. 40. A
155
yAwcr 0-179 jxeXicrcrrj tcu KaTeppvrjKOTL
155 /j.e\i(T<rri Ellendt : /xeXicr a r) s codd.
155 Schol. Soph. 0. C. 481 Metros, dative (or less commonly the ace.) of the
/j.e\l<T(T7is] vbaros Kai ptAtros dirb yap rod Eur. 16
-
flowing liquid : Tro. tpbvtp
W01OVVT0S TO TTOlOVfieVOV Kai iv 'EpCKTTCUS '
Karappei, Bacch. 142, Horn. 149 etc. X
' y\ibo~(T7)s. . .KaTeppv-riKbTi.' The corruption of p.eXicro-77 to fieXicrcnis is
Nauck says 'versus corrupti medelam hardly to be wondered at. The correction
desidero. But for the silence or hesitation
' occurred to me independently, before I
of previous editors, I should have thought found that it had been made by Ellendt
that the remedy was obvious. Campbell, and Blaydes. Wecklein also (Berlin,
who half-heartedly suggests yXGxrcrav or philol. Woch. 1890 p. 656) proposed
y\u<T(Trj, thinks that the text may be yXuxrcrav fieXiffcrrj, comparing Ai. 9 ndpa \
construed, 'with honey from his tongue.' crrdfav ibpurri. Herwerden's remedy
But yXwcrcnjs depends on the verb, and y\(b<T<ri)s jU.eXiffO'' 5<tt? ris ippvrjKi <roi, after-
it is strange he should not have observed wards improved to p-iXicraa <ri}$ Kareppvyx'
that pelv and its compounds require the bo-t\, is unnecessarily violent. The same
remark applies to Gomperz's yXuxrai)t Jebb on Hacchyl. 9. 10. Theocr. 1. 146

niXtoaa rdybpot ippvr\ Kara. The meta- xXrjpii to* i»A«rof rb «aXor trro/xa, Ovpai,
phor was familiar cf. fieXiyripvt, fttXi- : yinHTo. Sophocles himself was called
-yXtixrcrot. In Homer of Nestur (A 148 the Attic bee (Suid. t.?. c£ kImL Ar. 1
\tyii llv\iun>
dyopyrr^s, tov *ai \ drb Vesp. 460), and it was said of him
yXwxffiji frfXtros yXviclwr frit* avdj), who 2<x£oK\loif ToOfUXtrt rb <rr6p.a K*xj*<rn4rov
may be the person described here Kur. : (tit. § 1 3). Xenophon, whose speech was
fr. 899 ef pah. rb 'Sfarbptiow tCyXwcaov melle dulcior (Cic. or. 31), earned the
I^Xi (Barnes for /ilXot) .. Soiij Otbt. Poets same appellation (Suid. ;.;.). For
are constantly compared to bees see : pAXioaa - fUXi see on fr. 1064 Xifiar or.
156
6 be Ivff o7r\ot9 appwîu 'H<f>a.L<TTov Teyyjj
1 56 dppw£u> Bergk : dpuiîv vel apu>£tr Choerob. | r^x'V Dindorf : rtxîrou
Choerob. <ro<pou \
dtur post 'UtpaUrrov aild. Mekler
156 Choerob.
Thtod. p. 463, 39 m tingon the armour forged by 1 lephaestus;
= Be]<k. atucd. p. 1167
.
4 H\\^.m\) but i»K<vai is regularly followed by the
Par. j p. 396, 18) ai p.i»roi
. cd. ace, and Lobeck can produce no better
p.tTar€T\aon(yai SvrtKai TXjj6Vrrotai wpo- parallel than <,)uint. 9. 68 Svoar i» |tm<
Tapo£v*€ffOai BiXovow olot> wpoftdroit *pb- Mekler suggests 6Xoi*9'. dppiifr y. The —
âaif...i-r€OTa\fi/yov tov dppHi^w, dewtp adj., which occurs also in Ant. 151, is
Topd ~o<poK\€t if 'Ax«XX^vi ipaaraU' b l
not well suited to the neut. 6*Xon but ;
cV trO' ...rtx*iTov' tovto yap Kara pAja~ to speak of 'metaplasm' is beside the
wXaapJb* dxo tov dpprjKToii yivbp.tvov, tov maik. See on Eur. Hcl. 1301 bpofiib\
if rpawirrot tit rb ci, Tportptawarai nal nwXip, J'hoen. 1014. Jebb on Trmtk. 930
cv wapoîVcrcu. Part of the quotation is 04i<f>i*Xr)yt <paoydr<p.
also found in Choerob. m Theod. p. 367, Tixyn abstract for concrete, of a
'•
3 1 (P- M9< '7 Hilgard)

tov 'dppw£ii> i-rl \\<>ri. of art. So 0. C. 471 Kparrip4\
iwXon to appwîr apatwebr ov rtp brXots
'
ticif, arbpbt tOxtipot rYxTi and in Latin
rip ov&tripip cvftrdyrf. bit. farm. 4. x. < divitt me tcilutl
6 Si M
h.is been naturally suspected.
Bcrgk conjectured
I
artium, quas out J'arrhasius protulii out

\
b o" l* 9', and Lobeck Scopasvna other exx. quoted in Thesaurus

{/'uralip. p. 387) irov*0\ The latter view, II 673, 9 ff. This use of r*x»7f probably
—an alternative would be 6 tvtin W |
— always prevailed in artistic circles, as it is
is attractive, as applied to Achilles pat- common in later Greek.
157
o/x/xaTa>y drro
koyxas l-qcriv.
157 bfifidruf d#o | Xbyxai (^saubon: bnnarowdXoyx* cod. |

lêur Nauck: e^ru-
od.. d&rtotr vel dipt'ii Dindorf
157 HesTch. 111 p. 103 *al i* fUXrf TtrpQeBu avrbr <}tiiv. Arsen./fwe.
• uft ipacraii ' bfj^tarowdXoyxa vau6% buna nit «^{»w" prf\»f.
#^»t>.' For the remainder of the gloss Aristaen. ^/. 1 »iWr»x»*i fair efete
I from rwr tti^Twr /SoXoir. MttMCttS 95 «*
the eyes which inflict the wotted .f love oâXmmo &»X<U» «*XX« dW»«ir.. .a. I
are fully illustrated on fr. 4;. /s-i p-'rai «V*fiof •*»«... Dm

passages there quoted add Xea. mrm. B.) by the phrase \ *>(•»*
laun 64 »a< ol tpwrti rnfarai did

< >
rwTo *oX« fTot, 6rt gal wpbavtitr ol taXoi preferred b*n*T** rttf J X.
TiTpu>o~K0f<ru>. I'lat. syt»p. 119 » (entirely ll*ur, m«»rlific«l I7 Blayrle* to
mitJDIerpreird by StalllMtim) a't^flt unrwrp XtVyxat.
'
no IO0OKAEOYI
AAIAAAOI
The plot of the play is entirely unknown except in so far as
a conjecture may be founded on the references to Talos
1
see :
the nn. on frs. 160 and 161. I believe that fr. 162, which Nauck
hesitates to attribute to Sophocles, was also an allusion to the

brazen giant.
The only mythical incident connected with the name of
Talos is that which relates to the home-coming of the Argonauts
—
and is described in Apoll. Rhod. 4. 1638 1688: cf. Apollod.
1. 140 f. When Jason and his comrades desired to land in Crete,
they were prevented by Talos, the brazen warder, who according
to certain authorities had been given by Hephaestus to Minos,
and whose duty it was to make a circuit of the island three
times a day for the purpose of protecting it from strangers.
Talos pelted the ship with rocks, and the Argo was obliged to
sheer off. But Medea undertook to remove the obstacle, and,
after invoking the destructive Keres, swift hounds of Death, to
visit his eyes with destruction, made use of all her magical skill
against the enemy. The result was that Talos struck his ankle
against a pointed rock, and burst the avpiy% which contained his
—
supply of vital energy e/c 8e oi lx ^P Trj/cojieva) t/ceXo? fw\i(3a)
r
I
peev (1679 f.). Fr. 1 61 suggests that this narrative may have
been the central incident of the Sophoclean play. Talos is
rationalized in [Plat.] Minos 320 C.
The evidence that Daedalus was a representative title of
Hephaestus is slight but, though it is not universally admitted,
;
there are insufficient grounds for contesting the identification :
see C. Robert in Pauly-Wissowa IV 1995, Malten ib. vin 360,

and Bury on Pind. Nem. 4. 59. In Eur. Her. 471, where
Kirchhoff, Dindorf, and Nauck retained AaiBdXov, Wilamowitz
accepted Hermann's BaiBaXov. If we assume that Daedalus-
Hephaestus, as the artificer of Talos, was a prominent personage
in the play, there is the more reason for admitting the suitability
of a satyr-chorus in view of the cult-fellowship of Hephaestus
with Dionysus, and of his association with the donkey and the
phallus (Malten u.s. 356, Gruppe, pp. 245, 1306, 131 1).
1
Robert merely says that the Daedalus auf Kreta gespielt zu haben scheint
'
{Pauly-Wissowa IV 2006). Wagner suggested that the plot was similar to that of
Euripides' Cretans.
— 1 1
AAIAAAOZ 1 1
158
1 Met fj.€v €i<TO) r6i>h' d\akK€VT(t) nedy

158 f\X« /tip (tlWti flip vel tlXXufttp Diets) tlau van Leeuwen: iXX^fUPâv
i«l., IWoiftep tlau Xauck, tiXrpofidp ct Nicole t6p i" la xaXxeiry cod., rjj' a\aX- |
- :cole
158 SchoL Gen. Hum. * 1H1 Hro\<- follow a good grammatical tradition
fiaiot 6 'AaxaXupirtji 4px04pra baaiun' awb in distinguishing IXXu to wraf
yap rip lp<ri)i. Kpdnjj (i\6tPT ip tttyd- ttXXw to drive: see Simplic on Arist. Jt
Xip- r.Wfif UaXtip cod.) yap <pr)oip etrai caelo 13 i b 11 t6 3* [XXopJpifp ttrt Sia rtt
rb ttp;€iy, uxrrt riip tt)i KuXvoiw dUrjy t ypdtpoiTo to 6*StfUpi)P iriXot ttrt Sta —
4to0\rji *a\<i<r0a<...6 -o&okXtji ip AatddXy rtji tl Oitptioyyov ypdfotro, koI oCrut tipyo-
'
tW-qtuptfaw t6p b" fa x^kcwv w46^.' fUn\p Sr)Xoi, wt *ai Aiff\vXot 4p Bacad-
tXX«i. The question between the pan (fr. is). I nfortunately, this does
forms t\Xu and itXXw, for tlXui (tiXXui) not help us here; for although the mean-
and the aspirated forms are to be rejected ing is clear —
'he confines him with fetters
given by kutherford, Nexv no Mnith has forged' , we cannot tell —
1>. So f. is not easy to decide. , whether the verb shoul :tten as
:
1
is no epigraphic evidence, and that to conform to the literal sense of wY&ut

of the mss is 1 for even the best ; or not. 1 write fXXet, but without much
vacillate, and Jebb's inference (Ant., p. confidence. axaXtuvry it<8tj. The same
•51) in favour of IXXut is weakened by the oxymoron (dxaAcfi)r«t Wdcut) is applied
fact that K does not support fXXe in Ar. by Aesch. Cho. 491 to the d/xflpX rprpop
< 'obct was emphatic in in which Agamemnon was ensnared by
eating iXXu, brashing aside all the in- unestra, and l»y Bar. fr. iyt. to the
ere blunders of the COtUaJBl imposed by alturt.
Crit. p. 177, where he K. Holland interpreted CWrirot ;
sums up his earlier discussions. Kuther- an entrance into the island guarded hy
H that the HIW r(.rat (for ! diould rather have guessed that
I
favoured the genuineness of cfXAw. the Imr ra fcnad to the labjrrtath, which
n verse error is equally I it- prisoners with a new kind of
hcd. Kuchncr-Blass (II 413) compulsion.
159
TeKTovapxos fiovcra
159 Pollux 7. 117 /t«1 64 «oi roi/t wvpyJxrai p^nara atprd, refciring to
oi*»d(>novt rixropat "Ofii)pot ('/. Jus. implies magniloquence. Mil-
(iT(«rw» ttprrrai wapa HXarurt 11)' build the lofty rhyme'
\folit. 159 V.y fitaia yap i) ip ry lo<po has familiarixed the metaphor Kngh-h. m
(Xûi't Aa<4d\y '
riKTOPapxoi p-ovaa.' In Latin <on«Urt carmun ami the like
licales that I'ollux only were common »cc 1'kttamrui
: 1
ion adopt- : cw Holland that feed a us

of k. I I
I, and £H«uoiasa gi e words was invoking the a«»i»lance

Hearts very little (kutherford, of the-, ..-• building "i Ins fl)ing-
p, 3 1 •/ ) . I'hc MM machinc MMM improlailc

Icrs of verse: necessarily suggests rttropovpyit on the
/>M. 3. 1 1 j 4( 4t4i*p mXadtPPu/p, |
r/«- strength of Hesyth. IV p. ij» rr*rors«f
>a aoipoi apuoaap,
I
yi-fpwaô^tf. 7OI' a>xirf«rwr. Kllendt rerxlei
. mXiyapintr *Jp.wp arti fabrdi praecst'; but the Muse could
ptanai (of the singers) \r. / /. 530 not be described as the pabtmaas of
r4*T0Ptt tfaraXifuop OfirttP. Ar. Kan. 1004 carpenters.
—
I 12 IO0OKAEOYI
1 60
[crapSdvLOS yeXcus]
1 6O Schol. Plat. rep. 337 a dveKdyxo-ai Xifiwvlbrjs be rbv TdXwv rbv ij<paiOTorevKTov
re fidXa aapbdviov]...1,ifiwvlbris be (fr. Zapboviovs ov fiovXontvovs wepaiGioai nobs.
202 A, PLG
III 524) dirb TdXw tov Mivwa eis irvp xadaXXbfievov, ws b\v x a ^'
Xa\/coO, 8e "H</>cu<xtos ibr) 1x1.0(1 pyr)o~e Mlvip kovv, irpooTepvi£bp.evov (1. Tpooorepvi{6pie-
(pijXaKa rrjs vrjcrov TroirjffaffOai, <8v> vov) dvaipelv eirixdoKOvras. The words
ifxtj/vxov ovto. rovs weXdôvrds <pt\ai Kara- oil PovXo/xevovs and the introduction of
Kaiovra dvaipeiv. odev airb tov aearipivai Zapboviovs are unintelligible. Bernhardy
bid T7jv <pX6ya. rbv aupbdvibv <prj<ri (on Suid.), who records other conjectures,
XexOyvcu ytXuyra. 6/uoiws /tat 2o0o/cX?)s suggests the omission of ov: I would
ev AaibdXip. rather omit Hapboviovs altogether as the
It is a legitimate inference from this blundering addition of someone who
passage that Sophocles introduced Talos wanted to bring in Sardinia at all hazards,
as preventing intruders from entering as if ewixdoKovras were not enough, and
Crete by consuming them with fiery read tovs (lovXone'vovs for ov ftovXonevovs.
heat, and also that the phrase oapbdvios The result would tally with the text, but
yeXws occurred in connexion with the it is impossible to regard the account of
grimaces of the scorched victims. Being Zenob. 5. 85 as anything but a delil>erate

constructed entirely of bronze he was attempt to conflate the two etymologies:
able to make himself red-hot in the fire, î/xuvibys bi <pr)o-i rbv TdXw irpb ttjs eis
so that he could destroy with his embrace KprjTtjv d<pL%tws oiKrjoai tt\v 2ap5w /cat
anyone who came near him. For the iroXXovs tGiv ev ravrr] biatpdeipai, ofls
isolated and obscure phrase aapbdvios (or TeXevTwvras oeoypivai, kcli £k tovtov 6
oapbdvios) 7AWS, which occurs first in "Sapbbvios yAws. The matter is of some
Horn, v 302 fjLelbriae be 6vp.Q aapbdviov \
importance not only because Bergk rests
/xdXa toIov, two derivations were current the version of Simonides upon the state-
in antiquity. One of these referred it to ments of Phot. -Suid. and Zenob., and
the island of Sardinia, where a plant was neglects altogether the more trustworthy
said to grow so bitter that, when tasted, it evidence of the schol. Plat., but also as
caused convulsive spasms and involuntary affecting our estimate of the credit due to
laughter (cf. Pausan. 10. 17. 13, Tzetz. these authorities, —
and more particularly
Lycophr. 796, Serv. Verg. Eel. 7. 41 etc.): to the source of Zenobius. Although
the other simply connected the adjective Sophocles is mentioned only by the schol.
with ceaypivai. The first derivation, Plat., the natural inference is that his ac-
although it has influenced the spelling, is count of Talos was similar to that of
clearly fictitious but the second may
; Simonides. It should be added that
contain an element of truth (Adam on Apollod. 1. 140 says of Talos, who is
Plat. I.e.), although Monro considered introduced in the course of the story of
that the phrase must be traced either to the Argonauts: ol be vtto "H.<paiorov Mi-
a proper name, or to some foreign vici bodyvai, 5s rjv âX/coOs dvqp.
Egyptian or Phoenician word, which — It is worth while to notice that the
had become proverbial. It is further to explanations already quoted by no means
be noticed that the phrase is not always exhaust the ingenuity devoted to the
employed in the same sense; for it is elucidation of oapbdvios yeXws. Thus the
applied not only to the sinister smile of schol. on v 302 also explains it by refer-
vindictive triumph (Horn., Plat.), but ence to Talos, whom he describes as the
also to the forced smile of the sufferer watchman made by Hephaestus and given
(cf. Cic. Fatn. 7. 25. 1: the distinction by Zeus to Europa to punish anyone
made in Tyrrell's note cannot be main- landing in Crete. TrrjbQvra yap els irvp
tained). It appears from the text that kcu depfiaivovra rb orrjOos irepnrTvooeoffai
the latter was the sense in Simonides and '
avrovf wv Kaiop^vuv, eneivov oeot)pi-
Sophocles. But the other evidence affect- vai. As in the text of Homer, the
ing Simonides does not agree entirely laughter is that of the avenger. Sardinia
with the schol. Plat. Thus Phot. lex. was brought in by Timaeus (FHG I 199),
p. 500, 24 = Suid. s.v. oapbdvios yiXws.... who tells a strange story of the old men
M
AAIAAAOS «I3
being buried alive and laughing at their Anal. trit. partem, p. 148.] Clitarchus
prospective happiness; and by Demon preferred the derivation from <rt<ryfpirai,
3X0), who speaks of the most
i explaining that it was the custom of
me captives and the old men over the Carthaginians, when sacrificing their
70 being sacrificed to Cronos, and laugh- children to Cronos, to place them in the
ing at their own courage. Another frag- arms of a brazen idol, with a heati
1 Timaeus (schol. Lycophr. 796, burning beneath (schol. Plat. . 1
FUG 199), describing the sacrifice of

1 There is a special treatise by L. Merck -
the old men, makes their sacriticers laugh, lin, entitledDie Talossagt u. das sardo-
while they beat them with "clubs and nische fuithen, Petersb. 1851, which I
thrust them over the precipice. [For the have not been able to see. For the
reference of this story to Aeschylus' wepi '
assumed identity of Hephaestus and
wapoifudif in Zenob. 5. 85 see Crusius, Daedalus see Introductory Note.
I6l
[TctXoj et/xa/aro TcXci/nrjcrai]
161 Schol. Apoll. Khod. 4. 1638 6 For ifTaXy Brunck substituted i* Acu-
TdXuit «>« rod fftpi'pov avpiyya flx tP vftivi HXifi, but this is probably one of the
wtpifxofM'v t'- avpty£ to \iytrai t] report), cases where the name of a leading
tot hi (IfiiapTo at/Tiji r«Xei/rij<rcu \4yti "Lo<po- character was substituted for the title of
k\ti% iv TdXcf. tov to TaXwr rdv </><'\a*a the play : see fr. 1 35.
•u> rpli pjv iv ilfUpq. wcuraf wtpi.- It has Inrcn suggested in the Intro-
Wo\uf TT)¥ KpT^TTJI' Tt)\lKa.l'TTI* OVffCW, TlfV ductory Note that the story of the death
&i (wi)* n6*ov rQip in\j&X!u* r <*>Tov i» r£ of Talos as told in the Argonatttica may
9$i-fHf> KtKTrjffOat. have been a leading incident in the play.
The scholia were edited from the Apollod. I 140 describes the o~0p<yi thus:
Laurentianus by 11. Keil in the second ttx* ti <p\ip* fdar ds*o ai'xlrot lararn-
volume of Mcrkel's Apollonius |
*oiv(w axi* apvpuw, card to to hippo, rift
ire stated in the tubscriptw to be q>\»ftdi nXot toiip€urro xaXcoOt. He gives
derived from I-ucillus Tarrhaeus, Sopho- three differenl versions of the death of
cles, and Thcon for the course of tradi-
: Talos, none of which agrees with that of
tion see Wilamowitz, Emitittm* x \
Apollonius: (1 he became mad through
)
The t< n i" Wrllauer's 1 the magi'- p ledea; (1) Medea

from the c«xl«l. Flor. ami Paris, often promised to make hmi immortal and drew
•hews differences of language, but not out the nail, so that all his vital fluid
much important divergence. Dfadori (<Xuy>) escaped; (3) Poeas wounded him
quotes the alx>vc extract from Iirunck. in the ankle with an arrow.
l62
aXX' ov&€ fieu 8t) Kavdapos
182. 1 adtoV: 06 cett. a y* addidi
162 Schol. Ar. Pat. 73 pJyaXot Xiyop- suppose that it was a comment on the
TBi tlrtu. «ard rV Afrrijc *d*0apot, naprv- i.incc of
Airraid! iwl »w\*i- frf&tVf
—
Tslos himself. J ebb on
fovtfir to ol (TixupiOi.. lo<po*\v AaioaXy (II |
wirrui,' \iyti to »drr«t »i'«afwr think* thatthe A/rroioi tUy\*r«* «•»#•

was m>t a mere
sense may l>e rendered: 'well, it the Aetnaean breed of horses, bat an
n't a beetle, —
not one from flankM 10 a species of beetle actually
found there. 1
mark was made by Talos of Daeda- ,t the opposite direction, awl
in
lus s* he flew away; I should rather als.. U) indicate that the joke in the tunc
». 8
—
U4 IO0OKAEOYI
of Aristophanes was a somewhat musty also on fr. 672. The starting-point of
one. If not, it is odd that the four illus- comparison was probably k6»0uv: Greg.
trations quoted by the scholiast are all Cypr. 2. 24 Alruaiov Kdvduiva. rbv fidyav. '
—
of a comic character; that, if everyone aXX' ovSi \iiv Stj rejects an alternative,
knew that there really was an Aetnaean as in El. 913, Ai. 877, Track. 1 128 d\\'
beetle, Plato the comic poet should have oOSe /lev drj tois y' i(p' i)p.ipav ipets. I have
thought it worth while to say that it added ye partly for obvious metrical rea-
was reported to be bigger than a man sons, and partly because it gives to Alr-
(fr. 37, I 610 K.); and also that the valuv exactly that slight stress which
Sicilian Epicharmus (fr. 76 6 IIiry/«i/}iu»' seems to be required: see Track. I.e., Ar.
\o\a-ybs iK tGiv Kavdapuv twv fiefrbvuv oi/j\
Nub. 126 d\\' oi)5' eylo nivroi Trecrwv ye
<f>avTi tom AItvclv fx 6 '") should mention a Keiffonat, Plat. Sytnp. 197 A *cai p.ev Hi)
report that were big beetles on

there r-qv ye tCiv fywv iroir/ffiv. —The penulti-
Aetna. The remaining passage is Aesch. mate syllable of AItvoIuv was probably
fr.233 Alrvaios i<xri icdvdapos (3ia trbvuv shortened: cf. fr. 956 n. -irdvTws more
(or tcovGiv), from the satyric 2icri>$os often precedes the negative, 'certainly —
ir€TpoK\i\iffT7)s. In any case, there is not' rather than 'not anyhow': but cf.
nothing to justify Nauck in questioning Ar. Pac. 1 147 oi yap o16p r iari irdvTws
the authenticity of the fragment. On oivapLêiv rrifiepov. Herwerden deleted
the other hand, I see no reason to dis- the word, thinking that its proper place
believe the repeated statement (Hesych. is only with A^yei (dicit omnino). Dindorf
I p. 88 etc.) that the Aetnaean horses conjectured d\\' ov p.ev 877 K&vdapos ovtos,
were a big, as well as a good breed see : coll. El. 103.
I63
yopyaooiv
163 Hesych.
p. 442 I yopydduv d\id- who dwelt on the shore of the western sea
duv. Aa.i5d\(p 2o(pOK\rjs. ibid, yopyibts' (Roscher, Lex. 11 1694); but it is suf-
ai diiceavLdes. Zonar. p. 448 yopydbes- ficient to say that the epithet is naturally
ai de'cnrotvai. applied to the miraculous beings of sailor's
The adj. yopybs appears originally to stories. Gruppe (p. 12092) suggests a
have meant
'flashing' (Eur. Phoen. comparison with the Haliae, who fought
146 but the transition to 'fierce,
n.), with Dionysus against Perseus (Pausan. 2.
terrible (to look at)' is easy: cf. Yopy&, 11. 1). In Lycophr. 1349 t\ ira\ifj.<ppwv
yopyuiris. Some modern scholars have Yopyds is supposed to be Hera. It should
used this evidence in support of their be added that Gorgo is often mated with
theory that the Gorgons were originally Poseidon.
sea-nymphs (Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. i86 4 )
164
icr€<f)6r)P
164 Hesych. II p. 201 e<ti<pdi\v absolutely in Plat. Pkaedr. =in adoration

e<refJd<r0T]v, i)(xvxa.ffa, -âxÔ^v. 2i0<fx>- (cf. Porph. vit. Plot. 12). similarly A
kXtjs Acu5d\q> (Palmer for TraioaXy). isolated form ioefilodi\v occurs in O.C.
Phot. lex. p. 19. rb itre^d-
7 iffitpdriv 636 dy{>3 <rePi<r0els. The later i<refid<xdr)v,
ffdrjv. 1,o<pOKk7)s. Choerob.
in Theod. recognized above by the grammarians, is
p. 489, 2r (p. 20, 23 Hilgard) fftjueiov- attested by A. P. 7. 122 n.vffay6pr)s ri
fieda irapa Soô/cXet Kal irapd HXarwvi Tbaov Kvdfiovs iae^dadrj; The use of the
(Pkaedr. 254 b) rb iai<pdt)v (cat t6 <re- so-called 'passive' form with an active
(pdelcra. effep8r]i> iserroneously adduced meaning is actually a survival from the
from Sophocles in Cramer, anecd. Oxon. time when this aorist form was associated
IV p. 338, 17. with the active voice see Brugmann, Gr.
:
This is the aor. of the deponent otfio- Gramm. § 150. For other illustration
p.0.1, and so is <xe<pdelaa, which is used see on fr. 837, 2 bepxdivres.
a
AAIAAAOI— AANAH "5
AANAH
On the question raised by this title and its relation to the
Arrisius see the Introductory Note to that play (p. 38). Of the
tents attributed to the Danae fr. 165 alone is significant,
and that, while agreeing well enough with Jacobs's assumption,
seems to be decisive against a solution which otherwise might
have deserved consideration, that the Danae was parallel in
construction to the Dictys of Euripides, and was concerned with
the events in Seriphos. For Wagner, who adopted the last-named
hypothesis, failed to show that the words of fr. 165 have any
appropriateness in the mouth of Polydectes, to whom he would
1 them.
165
ovk oI8a tj)v crrju nelpav ei> 8' eVi'ora/xcu,
tov 7rcu8o9 6vto$ Tov&* iyoi SioWvfiai.

165 SchoL Soph. At. xtipa ydp rj 1 avyovaia' Mi*ar8poi. Moeris p. 107, 1
(JXdfiii, Aardp cv *... ii6\\vpai.'
in «rai iv ' reipajr H)* ralda 'AttikoI, srtipdfurr o«a-
The same word-, occur in Suid. s.v. rtipa, tftfftlpw* "KWrifn. So the noun in A. P.
who has ovo" in place of #» o\ I]. 151 vp6ff$t fih arrivpoaunra 0tXi)fiara
extract may be taken to come ko.1 ra wpd vtlpat *(xw
rCi ttjv
|
iron a scene between Acrisiaj and Danae, oijv cf. El. 1 10 oi>K olia rJ)» «"V tkifa*''
1
after the discovery of the birth of Perseus, dXXd tun yipntp «><ir' rri., Ai. 791 oi*
I
inwhich Danae had pleaded that she had olia rtir atpr wpd$ir, Attwroi 6" Srt...ov
been the victim of forcible usage. Acri- Oafxru) wlpt. , rb o6i>
ul«l then reply: 'I know nothing yap'Apyot ou 0V6W
Rhtt. 866 4yw (n.),
of the attempt you tell me of, but only ovk olia roit tout oOf \4yut 'Oivwffai
thai, if this child lives. I am in. ifttii 0' ix0p*p e^w** rtw\^yf«0a,
iff'
In Ar. Av. 583 rout 6$9*\n*>in iictofar- Aesch. g&yuyt rat <rat pa**ipnt r«
fr. 14
rwv 1*1 wtifuf. the schol. gives the same «al M</pa. Mcineke (Aiutf. S«f<M. a. 174)
cxj>l.in.iti..[i iwl (i\d(iij. The verb wtipa* conjee turo r>jt ratMt owrmi râi
I
is used c. ace. of forcible attempts upon posing that Zeus was speaking of his
women: Ar. Eq. 517. Phot. lex. p. 405. passion for Danae.
><*» •
to wtipdftw iwl <(>dopa *ai
166
yovoKTi fMijkcav Ka<j>pohi.(riav aypav

166 -,6ro«rt scrij.si : y6»oto* cotl., ybpof rt Musurus, ywip r* coni. Nauck
166 dfpo&tala iy pa- «as-/>d> v «d s-pawa* d»o rasVw
rot cai
W
;. (
\<f
Zoa Xryt Att»ag '

y opotof Ay par.' ot pir (/.*•. they are derived from cara|)i^di:
(ptucai, ot it) (dV cod. : corr. .>rh 11 f 4<>9)- Wv*'* •* *•*
-
->t Tor Ka0apfi6» appUttovaw, rg it Hjr rdr mty& >»rV *i»X»»V. ««i >«# «ai
-u\" orrrf alpouair abrot'n. <ra«u* rot>ra r* fy«» W«» iwrtornu vpi% r* d^>»
4V '
x°*PV >*P «aOoipci>»« «oi apviif, dXX' 4<<rt«' J*rc «ai «/t ^«vr« ifolf** I'm-
•6 »«pî«i. \/-y« *fr rV riir o-wSr 8*4 rd phrase d^>o4i#<« d>^« is rrfr>
«aro^«p^f flVai ro fyo* «*p6t crwovffittJ'. l.ut without any light being thrown
8—
n6 IO0OKAEOY2
on the obscurities of Hesych. : Bekk. implied in this statement that the context
anecd. 472, 22 d<ppohiaia ay pa- oi
p. in Sophocles was concerned with a sacri-
iripdiKes, 5ia rb robs OrjpQvras ry 07j\ela fice of purification, although the words
eirifiovXevovTas aipeiv avrofo. Eustath. //. relating to it are not quoted. The sexual
p. 1 183, 19 Xtyerai be", tpairt, Kai atppo- propensities of the partridge are men-
Siaia &ypa xada irtpbij-, ovtw Kal <rvs Kal ' tioned in Arist. hist. an. 1. 1. 13, 9. 9. 2;
yap Kai 6 x°'P 0S Karu}<pepi}s eh a<ppo5l<na. and in Ael. nat. an. 3. 5, 16; 4. 1; 7.
Macar. 2. 70 a<ppo8c<ria &ypa' eiri twv 19. Cf. Plin. n. h. 10. 33. 100 102.—
tp(l)Tl a\l<7K0fxif0)V. The pig was the victim most commonly
The proper inference to be drawn from selected in purificatory rites cf. Aesch.
:
the difficult text of Hesychius is that Eum. 283 Kadap/xois ifXadr) (scil. jAaayua)
Sophocles used the phrase a<ppobiola XoipoKrdvois, ibid. 453, and see Stengel,
aypa without clearly specifying in the Kultusaltertumer*, p. 145. At Tanagra
context to what class of animal it applied. Hermes freed the town from a plague
Some commentators held that partridges, by carrying a ram round the walls on his
'which of course (5i) appears to be used shoulder (Pausan. 9. 22. 1).
ironically) are suitable for purification,' yovouri. I prefer this to y6vov re (see
must be meant, because their uxoriousness cr. n.) asmore likely to have been cor-
is made a snare to entrap them. But rupted to ybvoiov, especially with firjXwv
Diogenianus, if he was Hesychius' ori- following. I cannot follow M. Schmidt's
ginal, argued that the partridge must be argument that the words ybvoiov pvrfXuv
excluded, because, though a pig or a ought to be rejected altogether; and his
sheep might be sacrificed for the purpose transposition of the words ot 5e...ap/i6-
of Kadapfids, a partridge could not. He foucrt so as to follow aipovatv avroOs does
concludes that the pig (or possibly the not yield a satisfactory sense. R. Ellis
goat) is the animal intended. It is surely conjectured yoveia.
167
£77, nlve, <f)epfiov
167 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 97, 32 of Sardanapallus: iffffie, wive, waife' ws

£ij avrl rod £rj6i...'2i0<p0K\ rjs Aavdy ' fij,
:
raXXa tovtov ovk a|«x. Hor. Carm. 1. 9.
irive, <pip(iov.' 13. Sen. controv. 2. 6. 3 convivae certe
No doubt the sentiment was Let us '
tuidicunt: bih amies, moriendum est.
eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.' It So often in the Anthology: see A. P. 11.
was a commonplace of proverbial philo- 56, 57, 62. —For the imperative £r) see
sophy. Theogn. 1047 vvv /xev irivovres Jebb on Ant. 1169 Kai fri) rvpawov o~xyn'
Tepwu/xeda, KaXa Xeyovres' \
aoaa 5' fireir' exw, and cf.Eur. fr. 826 5i' ("Xvlbos £rj.
iarat, ravra deoicri (itXei. Eur. Ale. 788 Cobet points out (N.L. p. 524) that tffii
efi<j>paive aavrbv, irive, rbv Ka6' rj/jLipav \
is a late barbarism due to the false analogy
filov Xoylfrov ffbv, to. 5' &XXa tt;s tvxv^- of arrjdi.
fr. 196. Athen. 530 B, from the epitaph
168
avdrjjxepov
168 Hesych. 1 p. 203 av0rip.epov it is implied in the alphabetical order.
<rr)>o-i)fiepov ynipa. SoôacX^j Aavdrj. avOynepbv occurs also in Aesch. Pers.
Brunck restored atiOrifiepbv (avdr/fj-epov 459-
Schrevel). The error is an early one, as
AANAH— AIONYIIZKOI »7
169
ftpd)(i<rTov
169 Antiatt. (Bekk. anted.) p. 85, 18 1115. Tin. I. Isthm. 5. M has «V fipaxl-
Ppdx^Tof /Spoxi'Toroi'. Zo0ok\t)t Sturdy. <tto«j, and Kur. 478 ^* ppaxiorw.
.Su/>/>/.
'
P- 396 ppdxi<TToi>' iX&xioror. The usual prose form is, of course,
ppdxteroi is used by Sophocles also in /Spa^t/raTo*.
Ant. 13»7i and the adv. /Spdxurra in O.C.
170
8eSa LflOVMTfltVOV
170 Antiatt, (Bekk. anted.) p. 90, 31 with the conception of Saifiu* avyytrin or
ri'xn avyytirjit ry ounan (id. fr. to. II
vutpivo* cwri rod TtOfuiuifoy. 481 K.). It is impossible to say how
6ainovi{t<T0at is elsewhere /? & /w- Sophocles employed the participle, but
stised: cf. Plut. ^«. w ar, 7. 5. 4 p. 706 D the explanation dei/itd is prohabi.
wartp yi.p ol ftayot roil dat/xortfoûroi* leading, if it is intended to apply to such
xeXfvoixn rd 'Ktfx'cria ypd^fiara -rpdi av- a cue as the translation of Heracles.
•araXey«t*'. Nor i> it-, meaning Blaydes conjectured that t*0*i**(Upo*
essentially different in Philemon fr. 191 ('dedicated') should be restored for rtdt-
ill 530 K.) dXXot xar' dXXi;* iaifiofiftrcu
which must be read in connexion
AIONYZIIKOI ZATYPIKOZ
•in the title and the three extant fragments it i^ clear that
the Dionysiscus represented the god as an infant in his cradle,

then providing for his worshippers the miraculous gift of
It was a satyr-play; and the scene was perhaps laid in
land of Nysa, the home of the nymphs who were the
the god, on the shore of the Ocean stream: see note
59.
In view of the recent data, which were unknown to Welcker,
er necessary to recall his guesses concerning
story of the play. The infancy of Dionysus as the nursling of
mphs described in Horn. //. 26. The subject was often
is
in works of art
1 see Gruppe, p. 1435 ,. In Ap. Khod.4.
:
U3] H. tVfaeria, the daughter of Aristaeus, received the child

mes at her home in Euboea and gave him honey to eat.
is, who was probably the speaker in fr. 171, appears a
of the young god also in Pind. fr. 156 6 fapxvfc $ •
lian
Xopoirviros, hv MaXet'ryovos idpebt Nat&o? a/coira*
I
SaXr/*»oc J
(see how- biod. 4. 4 describes him as

;
u8 I04>0KAE0YI
TraiSayayyos and rpocpevs of Dionysus. The title, now correctly
restored for Awvv<riatc6<;, is parallel to the 'Hpa/cXia/cos of Theocr.
24: see Crusius in Rh. Mus. XLVin 153.
171
otolv yap avTO) npocrêpa) fipcocrLV Sioou?,

Tr\v plvd p.' evdvs xprjXacjxx, Kavoi (pepev
ttjv
X € ^P a W/JCfS <to> (paXafcpov r)$i> $Laye\cjv.
171. 2 r-qv pivav ev$us \pi\a<pai cod. 3 to add. Blaydes
171 Lex. Messan. f. 283 r. \j/r)Xa<pai \f/u>aa and Athen. 507 C Boiceiv yap i<p-r\ tov
(\j/i\a</>ai cod.) fftiv t<$ I SoôkXtJs Attwwri- \Vka.Twva Kopcbvrjv ytvbp.evov ewi ttjv Ketpa-
,
(TKif)
'
6Tal'...5laye\u)v. Xt]v dvaTr7)5rjo-avTa to (paXaKpbv KaTaatcapi-
Silenus is probably the speaker: see <pav. Add fr. 314, 3.59 iravov rb Xelov (paXa-
Introductory Note. Kpbv rjSovri iriTvas. It would hardly be
1 -rrpoo-cJMfpco, of offering food, as in satisfactory to take irpbs <paXaKpov as ace.
fr ' 5 ° 2 sing. masc. with diayeXwv, although irpos
;
2 ri]v pivot for the double accusa-
p.* : often follows verbs expressing emotion
tive see Phil. 1301 fi46es fie, irpbs dewv, {Track. 1211, Kaibel on El. p. 198).
X«/»a (with Jebb's n.). For the ridicule attaching to baldness cf.
3 Blaydes's addition of the article is no Ar. ATub. 540 and the passages collected
doubt correct, for usage indicates that the by Jacobs Anth. IX p. 423, and Mayor
neuter is used substantially. H., who on Juv. 4. 38, 5. 171. Blaydes's further
made the same correction independently, conjecture ijdiws yeXQv is altogether need-
quoted Herond. 6. 76 to (paXaupbv Kara- less.
172
TTodeV TTOT akvTTOV d)S'
rjvpov avdos avias
1 72. 1 sq. ude evpov vulgo
172 Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 82, 18 = Campbell joins aXvirov dvlas, leaving
Bekk. anecd. p. 385, 23 aXvirov avdos &V0os isolated and in defiance of the order
avlas el 0Aots earth ivi (Nauck conj.
1
of the words. He accounts for the latter
irepl unnecessarily) tivos irpd.yfj.aTos 8 XOitijs by strangely interpreting the grammarian
awaXXdTTfi, olhus av x/"? 1110 ws ical "
as imputing to the poet 'an inebriate
2,o<pOKX7}$ iv r(f> Aiovvo-tanip aarvpiKq (t£ looseness of expression,' whereas he
aaTvpiKQ Phot. ) iwl otvov irp&rov yevo~a- actually says that the style is abrupt,
'
/j^vuv tGiv Kara tov x°P0V cardpwv •

though clear : see e.g. Demetr. de eloc.
'
4
ir60ev...avlas' ; bXov 5e rb fieXOdptov 193 5td tovto 5e Kai tAivavSpov viroKplvovTac
ttoXitikov dyav yiyove. /uera yap Trjs XeXv/xevov iv rots jrXet'oTots. The purpose
aXXrjs ivapydas XeXvuivriv Ixet T V" W"? - of the note is mainly to illustrate the
velav Kai fitdvovo-iv app.bTTovoav. Set 5e transferred sense of aXviros, which a few
rds Xdffeis ttjs ipnijvelas apfioTTuv tols lines above had been glossed by 6 fify
vorifiaffi (cat p.T] <r<plyyeiv, Kai p.t)5ap.ov The words of Soph, are not
Xvirovp-evos.
wapaTidivai, &XX' d.K7jpaTov ttjv
fftivbecrfiov easy, and Nauck thinks avOos corrupt,
Xvcnv According to Reitzen-
<f>vXa.TT€iv. proposing &kos, but the resulting sense
stein, the extract
is ultimately derived is weak. Tucker conjectured &X8os
from Phrynichus (fr. 162 de B.). ( = <papnaicov), which is approved by
AIONYIIIKOI— AOAOfTEI 119
r, ;m<l Weil droiat. I would render is adapted from Baechyl. fr.

16J. y\vKtV
'this sorrow-healing crown of pain,' with Ar Ay k a atvofitrar kvXikup 0AXwTfat 8vfti».
rmoron
like ifrntpov kok6» (fr. 149) For the commonplace to which dAi-ror
or Juliet's Patting in >uch sweet sorrow ':
'
points sec on fr. 758. There is not
intiot Awla.% is thus exactly parallel to necessarily any reference to the result of
licwiat A»0o% in Troth. 999. ( Valckenaer excessive wine-drinking, as in Panyassu
and Blaydes introduce fiaviat here for fr. 4 K. xdffai 8' (k KpaSiat Ariat AropC*
1
Aflat.) One may suppose that thi AXawAû rivbfitvQi KarA iiirpof ' vwip
I
di<l not appreciate the flavour of the wine, pirpor ii x'/xrw*-, and often in the comic
until thev perceived its effect.
:
the passages collected
see in
But, even apart from this, the potency At hen. 36 A foil. The metre
of the winecup may be described as acephalous Glyconic (Telesilleum) fol-
evading: I'ind. fr. 218 d^w-rat <pp{*at lowed by a Pherecratean :
ifirtMfMs r6(oit Safilvrtt. Or it affords

I mixture of joy and sorrow : Alcae fr. 47
uutw fjLtXidStoi, AWora 6'
1 A^vripu | mlar acephalous cola in Sophocles
rpifi6\wv apvrfintvoi. We have in fact see J. W. White in CI. Q. til 300.
exactly the same oxymoron as here in Schroeder docs not always agree in the
i tu lette tormtntum details (see Soph. cant. p. 83), but the
inferno admoves \
pUrumque dure, which principle may be taken to be established.
173
dwÔeU
173 !!-ych. 11 p. 335 0ux0*i%' the origin of this word and its relation to
OwpijxOrii, ntffivttfli. 2,<xpOK\iji Atorv- Oilxrdai (Ktym. .»/. p. 461, 0w<r0at 1
ffiaicy. ("f. Phot, ttx. p. 99, 13 0u%0*if Xiyovoiw oi Awpuii to (i'ux'io$«u, Aesch.
fr. 49) arc alike ohacnn harm,
mi liar use of 66pa(, 0wpfaau
fa fr. 136 K. 8wot>n<0a 6 Z*i't <lrappi*i.
•
(At. Vetp. if.y;. A,h. ii.?4, Anacrcon Alcman fr. 24. 81 0wHif*A 6' an' iwairti:
fr. 147, Theognu 884 etc.), which w.is (f. Mcsyth. II p. ajj flefOrtlfxa »l*w)tn- •
the ancients as Otpuairtir

v r-fipta. See also Ilcsych. s.11: 0&rrat,
seems to arise from a sufficiently 0uxraa0tu, 0u0rât, 0ov0tii, 0vt*-
ftîiai,
>lf metaphor.
I
0<*>\0tti was con- 0»tf.[In the last twoglosses M. Schmidt
'»y Ahrens (Dor. 181) with 0a$ai would restore 0^x0* it, but there may have
from 0h*)V rf. Hesych. 11 p. 300 0aiai-
: been also a form Iw&it.] Ktym. M.
pn90ni. ih. p. 301 OaxOr)^'*' 0upiX^V" ai - p. 460. II. Etym. Gud. p, joH. 11 t&
lutpuh. s.vv. rtOay^foi, «ar0a£ai. Hut t6 *i''wx«""m«'-
AOAOnEI
The Dolors were a Thessalian tribe, whom PdOQl put
Under the leadership of Phoenix: Horn. I 484 valov B' âx nTl ^ v
I
\o7reo-crt avactrtov.
. Pindar mentions him as the leader
of the Dolopians in war (fr. 1 84), although, as Str.il*> (431 points )
out in quoting the passage, their presence at Troy is not

the Iliad,
ited Another link with the A- In'
in
nd
the fact that the inhabitants of Scyi
in also
Dolopians (Thuc So Tj \nitktm» 175 #t Xripi*,
-mr ri'/rrov. .\vtcofjLi)&<o<; aertv. Building on this very slei
foundation, Welcker (p. 140 fT held that the /'.-/.'/v. and the )
120 I04>0KAE0YI
Phoenix are alternative titles that the subject of the play was ;
the fetching from Scyros by Phoenix of the young Neoptolemus,

against the wishes of Lycomedes and Deidamia and that the ;
first elK(i>v of the younger Philostratus follows the Sophoclean

tradition. R. Wagner (Epit. Vat. p. 224) agreed with Welcker,
without giving any fresh reasons. Inasmuch, however, as there
is now good cause to believe that the mission of Odysseus and
Phoenix to Scyros was the subject of the Scyrians, Welcker's
guess concerning the character of the plot of the Dolopes has
no longer any probability. The Dolopians have no place in
heroic legends, except as explained above, and only two
possibilities seem to be open. Either Dolopes was, as Welcker
thought, a secondary title to the Phoenix, but with a plot relating
to the earlier adventures of that hero or, if an independent 1
;
play, it may have been concerned with the concealment of

Achilles in the palace of Lycomedes, and his discovery by the
Greek envoys. Fr. 174 is too insecure a prop to support the
latter alternative.
174
ewaios elr) BpaneTLv cniyr\v eyoiv
1 74 Phot. lex. p. 36, 1 2 evvaios ' eyice- context may just as well have required
Kpvfifiivos. '2o<poK\rjs A6Xo\f/iv 'evvaios... the third person. —
SpaireTiv <rriyi]v, 'a
exw.' So also Etym. M. 393, 44, p. run-away home,' is one from which the
where D alone has hpairinv, the others occupant is continually shifting. For the
8pawiTTjv. Cf. Hesych.
11 p. 227 evvaios' transference of the epithet cf. Phil. 208
Xayus. 2o0ok\?7S
AdXofi. KaTrTr/xys avda rpvoavup, ib. 695, O. C. 1463 ktvitos
(KaTeirT-rix&s Nauck), I p. 507 8po/j.aios SiopoXos, Ai. 611 x e P 07r ^ aKT01 Soviroi, ib.
Xaywds' 6 iv opbfiois aXiVKd/jievos' evvaios 55 iroXvKepuv <(>6vov, Eur. Phoen. 660,
de 6 iv Koirri. x 35° (nn.). A. P. 10. 87 av fiij yeXQjfj.ev
evvaios was applied to the hare in rbv piov rbv Spairtrrjv is not parallel, since
her form )( dpofxaios, with which cf. there life is supposed itself to be changing.
Aesch. Ag. 123. So irrCoKa Xaywbv in Ahrens suggested that the fragment
Horn X 3 1 o etc. Valckenaer conjectured
. described the outcast condition of Phoenix
that Xa7wj immediately preceded ewaios. when an exile.
Naber proposed etrjv for etrj, but the
175
1 75 Cyrill. lex. ap. Schow. in Hesych. 28 x a ^ e," va "raireivri kclI evreXris icXivr],
^
'
p. 781 x alxevv ^' V "W* KaTatcXiais. <V> ical o-Tifids. The word had
already
Kal to raireivbv KXivldiov x a fJLe ^ vrl- ~ô<po- been used by Aeschylus (Ag. 1541) in the
kXtjs A6Xo\j/i. Bachm. anecd. I p. 412, figurative sense.
1
See Introductory Note to the Phoenix.
i :
AOAOfTES— EAENHI AriAITHIlI 121
EAENHI AnAITHIlI
The subject of this play is indicated by the title and was 1
,
derived from the narrative of the Cjpria, as appears from the

epitome of Proclus (EGF p. 19): tcai hicnrpea&cvovrai 7rpo<?
Tovi Tpwas ri)v 'llXevrjv koX ra KTrjpara ('nratTovvTe*;' ax? &€
ov\ wnY)Kov<iav e/ceivoi, ivraida Srj retô^wiôiVn/. According to
Proclus, the embassy was subsequent to the landing on the
coast of the Troad, and to the deaths of Protesilaus and Cycnus ;
but Apollodorus {epit. 3. 28) and the scholiast on the Iliad

ntly to be quoted make it precede the departure from
dos. R. Wagner {Epit. Vat. p. 197) conjectured that the
hitter was an innovation upon the version of the Cypria made by
Sophocles himself. The embassy of Odysseus and Menelaus
has already been mentioned in the Introductory Note to the
AnUncridae (p. 87). They were entertained by Antenor on
that occasion, as he himself explained to Helen (Horn. T 205 flf.)
rjdij yap koX Bevpo iroT tj\vde &2o<% '08i/<r<rei aev eve* dyye\ir)<{, <?, |
ipT)i<pi\(p MereXaa>* rovs 8' iyw ifcivuraa teat ev p&ydpoHTi

|
4>i\iiva. In spite of the support of Antenor, the mission was a

failure. Paris actually bribed Antimachus to recommend that
should be put to death but from this danger ;
Antenor succeeded in rescuing them (A 139 ft): \rTtpaxos)

iroT ei'i Tpumv ay opf/ WepeXaov nvtoyev, dyye\it)v ektiovra WW
&
\
ih>Ttt>,ro l)8vafji, I
avBi Karatcrelvai fiijS' (fcfptvityfr 'Agatovf.
The occasion is A on Honi. P 206: irpd rov
identified by SchoL
revcai rov<i"lL\\iivas Tpoiav f}\6ov 7ro€<r$«v; '05i/<r<T€i/9
ei?
airairovvTti 'E\ivti* bf oh (o» conj. Nauck) r&v t
nkXtov avTOV? p*$' v/3p<Eto<; hi<o%(ivT<iiv /ifirov \\vri]vmp £epi£t(

<f>i\o<pp6vu)<;. '6t€ yap etc TeveBou (Trpeaftcvomo oi irtpi MrviXaov,
\iTrjva>p 6 \k*tuovo$ vrreSefjaro avrovs xai &o\o<f>oviia0«u

'
voi/Tav eaa>aev. The scholiast's words need not be taken to

refer ret assassination they may simply point to the
;
ing an envoy. Such also appears to be the

tion of Ovid's <// Paris ct fratres et qui sub Wo vix \
indas {Met. 13. 202 f.). Accordii

(Ante/torn. 154 ff), who includes Palamcdes,
and l)i in the number of the envoys, these
event ii red before the gathering at Aulis. In the ration.
h Herod from the Kg) ptian pi
I
Menelaus and his colleagues arrived at Troy on their

with the same liilc was written l.y I nnesithctM, who it only kmi»n from
122 I04>0KAE0YI
mission, they received the answer that Helen was not there
(2. 1 18). For the poem of Bacchylides see p. 89.
Engelmann (Arc/idol. Stud., Berlin 1900, p. 16) found a
representation of certain characters in this play on a vase
belonging to the Vatican Museum (Arm. 294), and identified
them as Helen and two of her attendants listening to an
interview between Odysseus and Antenor, which took place at
a temple close to the sea-shore. He concluded from fr. 177 that
the embassy arrived after Helen had reached Troy, and referred
fr. 176 to Helen or one of her women overhearing the Laconian
speech of Menelaus Welcker had previously inferred from

;
1
frs. 176 and 178 that a meeting took place between Helen and
Menelaus and that Helen, when her surrender was refused,

;
being now desirous of returning to Greece, contemplated suicide

as her last resource.
fr. 180 and the events outlined above
The connexion between
is not at obvious
all and it does not seem possible that the
;
strife between Calchas and Mopsus, and the former's death after
his defeat, were narrated in the play as having already occurred.
We must rather infer from Strabo's statements that the prediction
of his death was either mentioned by Calchas himself, or used
against him to counteract the effect of his own prophecies 2 .
The tradition ran that, after the capture of Troy, Calchas,

who had accurate foreknowledge of the disaster impending for
the Greek fleet, refused to return home, and, accompanied by
Amphilochus, the son of Amphiaraus, who was himself possessed
of prophetic powers ^Cic. de div. 1. 88, Pausan. 1. 34. 3), after a
period of wandering, settled with his followers in Asia Minor.
The details of the contest with Mopsus are variously recorded,
but all accounts agree that Calchas died from chagrin at his
defeat. The preponderance of authority names as the place
where the two seers came into conflict the Ionian city of
Colophon, which contained the precinct and oracular shrine of
the Clarian Apollo such was the version of the epic Nosti\ of
:
Hesiod (fr. 188), and of Pherecydes (FHG I. 94) 4 A variant, .
recorded by Servius on Verg. Eel. 6. 72 on the authority of

Euphorion, the Alexandrian poet, locates the contest at the
shrine of the Grynean Apollo near Myrina in Aeolis. Herodotus,
however, in agreement with Sophocles, preserves the tradition of
1
In Nachtr. p. 293 he referred frs. 176 and 177 to the threatening speech of the
Achaean envoy.
2 Similarly Welcker, p. 123, and Wagner, Epit. Vat. p. 259. The story has
been fully discussed by Immisch in Jhi-b.f. Phil. Suppl. xvn 160.
3 The mention of Tiresias by Proclus is an error (EGF\>. 53).
4
The two latter are quoted by Strabo 642: see also Apollod. epit. 6. 2 — 4,
Lycophr. 424 ff., Conon 6.
EAENHS ArTAITHIlI 123
ttlement in Pamphylia (7. 91 so Pausan. 7. 3. 7, Quint. 14. :
Callinus (ap. Strabo 668) endeavoured to reconcile the

Conflicting statements by the supposition that Calchas died at
Claros, but that his followers in company with Moptm CTJ
the Taurus, and either remained in Pamphylia or scattered in
other directions. It would seem that these are the aetiological
•read by rival sanctuaries, which attest the successive
immigrations of Greek settlers.
The Argument to the Ajax (p. 3, ed. Jebb) mentions a play
entitled 'YXkvt]^ ap-Trayrj, as belonging, together with the
Antt>ioriiiiu\ AechmalotuUs, and Mt-mnon, to the Tpm/crf trpay-
a. On the assumption that this play is meant, N'auck
that it had been confused with the 'E\ivr)<; dpTrayr} of
i
the poet of the Middle Comedy (II 320 K.). On the

other hand, Welcker (p. 158 ff.) had no hesitation in supposing
that the subject was the recovery of Helen by Menelaus from
the house of Deiphobus during the sack of Troy Whether 1
.
'
Helen's rape was a loose mode of referring to'EXhnft dTranrjai?
'
is not easy to decide but, if a play so entitled had an ind< ;
dent existence, I cannot believe that it dealt with any other

matter than the seizure of Helen by Paris 5 Ahrens and Wagner .
nought that the 'V.Xcvw aprraytj described the conflict which

after the return of Paris from Sparta, when Al-
and his part\ vainly advocated the surrender of Helen. But it
is improbable that Sophocles wrote a second play so similar
in its scope to the 'EX&vtfi uirairTjafi.
I
[ermann's view (Comm. soc. phil. Lips. 247) that this was a 1
satyr-play proceeded on the assumption that Aristidex, in the

iê quoted in the Introductory Note to the 'EXfoff 7"/*"'.
ferring to the 'BXcyip ntraLriiais.
176
Kai yap âpaKTrjp avro? iv yXata'arj ri /A€
naprjyoptl Aafau'o? 6<Tfiaa0ai \6yov.

176 1 a*HH T, rb* A 9 wp<xrityop*i AMT | ipnM**u CT, ***>« A,
ipaadsu M |
Xiyy A
WO ,r. PJmti. 301 u ytp rit+vrHt. Jt XtffwrXfr'BX/iff intrant
iWr (st. al foivioaai), '*ai ftp \by*v.'
oiV y* riff vdrpto* factor &Tt)xi«w h «>» '
locu* nomlum <
\'a<htr. \>. 2<y4 he made another

gucv», founded on ihe al»traci of ihc I 1
p. ioi. that, Trojan* to surrender llrl<

after the rcfiuaJ of the
thai Aphrodite <om*ytd her fr-.m tlic («.wn i.> him l»y th«
exercise of her magic power, and al (he rctiue»t of Thetia.
f. f-x- I I'll . i. 1 r
h, .in. 1 11. ..n I- hi. //<•/. »o-
: —
I2 4 I04XDKAE0YX
and various attempts have been made to intended to suggest Kartiyopel, which
improve the text: (i) Herwerden, who belongs to the vocabulary of the Physiog-
formerly proposed bacpptaQai for da/naudai, nomists : see his n. on Aesch. Ag. 283.
now also with Gennadius restores avrbOev He adds that in Horn. V 213 Antenor
yXua-o-qs in v. i ; (2) Hermann conjectured describes Menelaus' manner of speech on
aurbs, Gomperz rpavXbs, Mekler &<pa- this occasion ijroi p.kv MevAoos iirirpo-
:
tos, and Blaydes aXXos (with u>v yXdxrorjs) Xo-Sriv aybpeuev wavpa fiev dXXa, fidXa.
|
for avrbs. The words are not altogether Xty4ws, iirel ov iroMfivdos, a<panap- |
oW
clear, but are defensible, if iv yXwcro-g is TOfirrjs in contrast with Odysseus, NrhoM
taken after 6<r/j.a<rdcu * the very ring (of
: words were like a shower of snow.
his words) persuades me to scent a trace Tucker on Cho. 561 uses this passage
of the Laconian speech in his talk.' For in support of his view that differences of
\apaKTrjp cf. Hdt. 1. 142 x a P aKT VP^ dialect were actually reproduced on the
y\wff(TT)s ricrffapes, Ar. Pac. 220 6 yovv stage: see however on Phoen. 301.
Xa-piKTrjp ijfj.eda.irbs t&v ptjudruv, and for R. Engelmann, Archaologische Studien,
the metaphorical use of bop.a.o6ai Ar. p. 17, infers that Helen or one of her
Lys. 619 kcu /tdXtor' 6a<ppaivofji.ai rrjs attendants hears Menelaus speak, and
Tvpavvlbos, Nub. 398 Kpoviuv
'Itttt'lov recognizes him as a Laconian from his
ofav. H. thinks that the choice of the accent. See also Introductory Note.
word iraprj-yopei was suggested by and —
177
yvvaiKa 8' eêXo^re? rj Opdcr<T€L yivvv
re o)<? tov [A€v ecokov ypa<f>ioL<; ivrj/xfjievoLS.
177. 2 iuXof] iwXov C, alwXov F, atoXov O
177 Erotian gloss. Hippocr. p. 77, 3 ypa{3Loisby J. G. Schneider. H. modified
6pdcr(rei...e'<TTi 8e bxXeL ws /cat "ZofioKXrjs this proposal by reading rpiarov rather
ev 'EXivyji aVatTTJcrei (prjcri '
yvvaiKa... than Tpurov (J. P. xxin 272). For the
'
evrjiipjvon 'craven' Menelaus see his note on Aesch.
1 M. Schmidt proposed yvvaiKa de Ag- 125. Blaydes's tt)v tov ^leveXiu y'
fyTovvres (or 5' ffan-oDires), comparing apriws 7]pTra<7Li4vr)v is far from the original
Ar. fr. 451 I 507 K. yvvaiKa 87) frrrovvTes and weak in sense. Helen is described
evdaS' r)Ko/j.ev. For flpdcrcretcf. fr. 1055 (n.). as threatening or attempting to burn out
2 This corrupt passage has been Menelaus' eyes with a lighted torch H. :
emended in various ways, but the true compares Hygin. fab. 122 Electra uti
reading to be beyond recall,
appears audivit id, truncum ardentem ex ara
(r) Hermann (praef. Eur. Hel. p. xix) : sustulit, voluitque itiscia sorori Iphigeniae
X/NjJfowr' fuXov ypacpiSlois ivrjfifxivqv, oculos eruere. Prop. 3. 8. 7 tu minitare
muliere potiti, quae pingendo vexat mar- oculos subiecta exurere Jlamma ! For the
cidam genam penicillis incensam, i.e. word ypdfiiov see Athen. 699 E, where
rubentem ope penicillorum. But evr)fi- Seleucus is quoted as giving the following
,u4vr)v in the sense of inflamed is very explanation ypdfiiov ecrnv rb irpivivov 77
:
harsh the usual word would be kvierpip.-

; dpvivov l-tiXov, 6 TTepie&Xao~ixivov koX Hare-
jxivt\v. Welcker, agreeing generally, ax ia p.ivov i^dTTTecrdai Kai (paiveiv rots
preferred to keep yp. ivyj/x/xivois, and held bSoiiropovaiv. The phrase ypafiiois evrj/x-
that 'ewXov must not be pressed too much. fj.evois has high probability, but the
Hartung extracts the same sense but meaning given to the context is less
reads iyy pd<poiaiv ai/xacriv ('mit ange- attractive. Helen with a lighted torch
maltem Blut'), comparing Ant. 528 recalls Verg. Aen. 6. 518 flammam media
ai/j-arbev piOos. Ahrens, following Her- ipsa tenebat ingentem, et sitmma Danaos
\
mann's explanation, thinks that the ex arce vocabat ; but it would not be easy
couplet came from Antenor's speech to work that idea into the traditional
'shall we retain a woman like this?' text. (3) R. Ellis in C. R. ix ro=;
(2) Nauck conjectures rpwrov MeviXeia proposed 6o~tovv 0' SioXov ypacpidlois ivtip-
ypaftiois ivij/xfxevois; M-eviXeuv had pre- as a description of a
ixevois, woman
viously been suggested by Bergk, and picking her teeth with a stylus.
' , '
EAENHZ AnAITHIlI 125
178
ifiol he XcoCTTOv af/xa ravpeiov trulv
kcu fxr) VI n\eloi> tgji/8' eyeiv Sutxt^/xia?.
178. 1 ravpaor wtmw SakLi Ar.: ravpov y tfr*MU> schol. Ar. 9 M^ 's"i
Wccklein olim: /x'fr' (M 1^ * 8) codd., /mJ n Dintlorf, pi) fri Cobct rXtJw 6: t\«w
-
|
eeteri codd., tXmovj Cobet
178 Ar. F.tf. 84 Itrri yovw

Schol. 171 suggests that atpa ravpov = menstrua,
dro K\(vnt ' 4poi...b'vo4>r)piai.'
-o4>OK\<oi>t' on the strength of ravpor" rb yvwaiKttow
rirft 8< ipaai* on -<xf>OKXijl X(pl Qtfuoro- aiSolov Phot.
i\/oi-j tout6 tprjffi. \pev5ovrai 64 0C1 yip '
3 yt (see would be impossible
cr. n.)
fori riOayoy. Suid. s.<: rfiu> : (after and, although rXtiu might
in this context,
quoting the text of Aristophanes) vtpl be adverbial (J. quotes I'lat. PhiUb. 45 <:
H«Ul(TTO«.X/oi J OlV ôôaXtjs <pT)ab> 'tfj.01... d rXeiu xalpovaiv ol oQoipa rooovrrti rw>
The words of Aristophanes (£y. vyiaiy^fTwp, rep. 417 B wo\i< rX«iw «rai
83 f. ) are (UXriaror rjpip atpa ravptio* paXXov 6f6t6rti rovt trior f) roil liw6<t>
6 BtpxoroicXlovi yip ddwaroi xoXtpiovt), the combination of n wXtiu is
olptTUTtpoi, and the authority followed hardly to l>e tolerate*!. Blaydes recom-
by SaidJU -imply drew an inference from mends Kalp.il V» r\iiw...&i-<T<t>T)niar. I
>f Aristophanes.
• The origin of prefer to read iwl wXttor in the sense of
ry about Themistocles has now any more, making ruiri' masculine with
been traced to the misinterpretation of a probable reference to the Trojans. 0. C.
m the market-place of Magnesia: 1
777 firfi' iwl wXtlu 0>rp>o» iytiptrt is now
HerNumismatica
in Corolla explained as a case of tmesis no doubt :
(in honour of Barclay V. Head) at p. 109, rightly, unless there too we should read
and in C. K. XM 11 ff. wXuop. (This orrei tion has been
(
1 print",fragment among
this pated by Wccklein, who suggested 'wl
those of doubtful origin, although he irXctor rdoS' (or rt)*o".. .6 voûtpiar), but
- that it seems to belong to the finally preferred wXtlu XpJ»o* on the
'flfl
'BXVrjjt dwaiT7f<ji\. Bat I )in<l<>rf is justified ground that wXtto* is not tragic (cf. fr. 774
avsigning it to this play
.itcly the : and AchIi. /'<'.. 70.11. II Mrl
e is <|uiu- a* good as we have in arrived at the same conclusion, points out

most cases, and the words are entirely that 4wl wX4op is frequent in Thu< •.
The play e.g. 1. 65 bwm 4wl *X4o» 6 oirot arri«xv

out of the question. •may hold out longer'; so Hdt.
1 alfia ravp«tov. For the belief that (obet (Coil. Crti. p. joot »ill
bull's blood was poisonous, and the remarks: 'dvo&Hilai rx««* dicitur mom
Me explanations of its origin see passivo, ut atria* tx ,tlf * 6*opa, />at»ar,
n Ar. /.*., Frazcr's Pausanias, IV fbyo* 'X"*. omplura.'
•> simili.i Ins alia 1
, and Groppe.p. 877,! According . For the ambiguity of such expitstiodl

on of the story, Aeson the nln+i* 1
t // lid. 974
a.-udriven by I'clias to with pop+d* lx*** in Soph. 4i> tHo, and
in this way (Apollod. 1. 143, see the comm. on I'ind. hlh. 3,
Diod. 4. 50). H. Johnson in C. A'. XXV
179
(IV (l
179 Hetycb. 1p. 186 arax**Tl{iu>

•
Bekk. mtued. p. jaj, 10 i^x^t**
drax«Xir«iV, draKpofarat d*a*o&l{<i, 4**6wr« (I. /7«6*
drawo&t\ri. Kvplm dt iw't rwr I»»wr. ol. Rcit/. p. 1 14. 18 a*ax«i«f« *»«»••
Soô»X»jf 'V.Mvrix dwair+pti. It seems Ut", iranowr,,. Zcfot\vi** i*««#« ««J
clear that the lemma has dropped oat ,n SuhI. *w*xatri(*t •«»•
before dra*pot'<ra<, i e. d'OX*47 '^** c^ :
a*mx-Ti['» Z«^MXs}f
126 IO<t>OKAEOYI
rb direiOeiv Kai dvrirelveiv. The evidence a good example in Plut. Demetr. 34
of Photius and Suidas leads to the con- us fii) irdXiv dvaxairiaavra rbv Srjp.ov
clusion that Sophocles used dvaxourifriv acrxoXtas .ira/>a<rx«*
. . Cf. Ant. 291
'•
in the sense of avtidelv, and that there is Kpv(prj K&f>a atiovres, ovb" irrb fvyy |
\6<pov
some confusion in the order of the words Sucalws tlx ov The explanations dvairo-
-
as given by Hesychius. The words 8l£ei and iyKbirrei no doubt refer to the
Kvplus...tirwuv (cf. Dion. H. ant. Rom. usage found in Lucian LexipA. 1 5 avaxai-
5.150! tiriroi. . .iiri rots dirurdiois dvlaravrat rifoi rod Spofiov to p60tov, of checking the
iroffl ical rovs tirifSdras dvaxa-iriaavres way of a boat. In late Greek dvaxatriêw
air o<rtiovr at) indicate that Soph, recognized is often the equivalent of refrenare (Phryn.
the metaphorical sense of which there is praep. soph. p. 32, 8 de B.).
180
[rbv da.va.Tov tov Kd\)(avTo<s els HapL<pv\iav yxercuêpei]
180 Strabo 643 ol de rbv KdXxaj'Td on a certain tree, and his calculation
<pao~iv arcodavelv inrb \uirr]s Kai Kara tl of the number proved to be absolutely
\6yiov. Xiyet 5' airrd Soô/cXtJs iv 'EX^^y correct. Pherecydes (FHG 1 95) reported
diraiTT)<r€i, us ei/xapfie'vov etr; dirodaveiv, the problem as concerning the size of the
8rav Kpelrrovi eavrov fjiavrei TeptrvxV- litter of a pregnant sow. Other accounts
ovtos be KiXiKtav fxeraipe'pei rr\v
Kai els (see Strabo 643) mentioned both problems,
tpiv (scil. of Calchas and Mopsus) Kai rbv stating that Calchas propounded the latter
Odvarov rod KdXxo-vros. Cf. ibid. 675 to Mopsus, and that it was answered
ijpiffav irepl tt)s fjtavriKrjs 6 re KdXxas Kai correctly ; but that, when Mopsus sub-
6 Mbipos' ravrrjv re yap rr\v tpiv fiera- mitted the former to him, Calchas failed
<pepovo~tv <tvioi, Kaddirep Kai 2o<poK\i)S, els in his reply, and died of grief, as the
rrjv ~K.i\iKlav, Ka\iaas eKelvos airrriv Hap- oracle had foretold. Further variations
(pvXlav rpayiKus, Kaddirep Kai rrjv AvKiav on the same theme will be found in
Kaplav Kai rr\v Tpoiav Kai Avdlav QpvyLav. schol. Lycophr. 427 and 980 ; but it is
Kai rbv ddvarov 8e rod KdXxavros tvravda impossible to trace the particular version
irapa8i56ao~iv dXXoc re Kai Ho<j>ok\t}s. adopted by Sophocles. Pausanias (7. 3. 7)
The various versions of the story states that the Pamphylians were of Greek
relating to the death of Calchas have origin, being descended from the com-
already been discussed in the Introductory panions of Calchas who arrived there in
Note. We
learn that the distinctive that country after the fall of Troy. For
point introduced by Sophocles was the the geographical laxity, by which Pam-
change of scene for the prophetic contest phylia and Cilicia are confused or identi-
from Claros to Cilicia. On the other fied, we may perhaps compare Aesch.
hand, in schol. Dionys. Perieg. 850 Supp. 560 (530) Kai Si opuiv KiXIkuv
{GGM 11 454) Mopsus leads the emigra- Hafj.<f»j\wv re Siopvv/j.e'va, with Tucker's
tion to Cilicia after the death of Calchas. note. For the common identification of
According to Hesiod (fr. 188 Rz.) Calchas the Trojans with the Phrygians see J ebb
propounded to Mopsus for his solution on Ai. 1054.
the question how many figs were growing
EAENHX TAMOI IATYPIKOI

The character of the play is clearly illustrated by Aristid.
11 P- 399 Dind., where he is speaking of hypocritical rhetoricians.
et oe tis avTdv irepl tt}? ey/cpaTelas SiaXeyo/xevoov diravrtfcpv o-tolt)
Kai <TTp€7TTov<i, i/c/3dX\ovai ttjv yXwTrav aioirep
€%&>*> evOpviTTci
to £i$09 (alluding to Eur. Andr. 629: cf. schol. Ar.
Mei/eX.eo><?
Lys. I55)- avTqv fiep yap idv iScoai ttjv 'JL\evr)v, EAevrjv Xey(o — ;
'
EAENHI AnAITHIlI—EAENHI TAMOI 127
depdiraivav fiev ovv oiroiav €7roirt <T€ MevavBp&t rrfv <t>pirfiap, tcG
ovri Trathuiv aTro<paipov<ri rov< crarvpous rov —o<pofc\£ov<i. The
then, were excited with passionate desire at the sight
<>f"Helen's beauty.
According to the version of the Cypria (EGF p. 18), after
landing at Sidon (Horn. Z 290) and taking the city, Alexander
at length sailed to Troy, where he completed the celebration of
hi> nuptials '. Hut, as Welcker remarks, the scene of the satyr-
play was much less likely to be at Troy than before a shady cave
or near a babbling brook. I should conjecture, therefore, that
iction of the play took place at Cranae, of which Homer
Speaks as the first resting-place of the lovers :
ore (re irpdoTov AaKehaifiovo^ €% ipareivt}^

eirXeop dpiraâ^ iv TrovT<rrr6poi<ri veeaaip,
vr)<T(p S' iv Kpavdy ifliyq* (ptXoTrjrt icai evpp ^443 AT.).
Pausan.3. 22. identifies Cranae with a small island off Gythium

1
in theLaconian gulf; but Strabo 399 and Lycophr. no under-

stand Homer as shaking of Helena, the rocky island stretching
along the E. coast of Attica (Kur. Hel. 1673 n.).
Welcker suggests that the dance <tkott6^ (rmv (iTroa-KOTrovprtop
n (j^'ip-a) Ml
suitable to the occasion see Aesch. frs. 79, 339. :
181
TTtTTOiV tptl'OS aX/3€«>9 OiV

€5 fipu>(rii> aXXou? i^tpivdî*; \6yip.
;
181 Athcn. 76 c, speaking of «>ra '
await* trot wr a*wt &* iripovt wautove*tai
<ri«a, figs of an inferior quality, says that '
Hcing uninstructed, how can y
Sophocles in a metaphor applied dpw&t, struct others?' He took it therefore to
y the tree's name, to the (tint i mean ' Since you are yourself worthless,
ioô»\»7t i' b'KXdrifi ydfiift rpowneun ry those instructed by your conversation
Spov 6*6u.a.Ti ror kapwdr itdXtttP, tthless too.'
cfrwr* • t/tuw \6yty. ' r/rw 6" ipwin The
explanation of Euslalhius is
ifTt rov w4wo0 ipwof. Alexis, he accepted l>y Brunck, Sch weight user and
goes on to say, speaks of the ng- sellers l.llciidt ; ami M c nuke's version ( Tkttcr.*
putting ra <r«Xitfd «oi âxtfrjpd riir ovkui* p. vti) is practically to the same effect :
at the the Itaskct, ami ripe ami '

tu ignavac et inutilis caprihei instar alii*
tea on the top, and so ipi* avt&oro, m ii. m
ignavos et inutiles se praestent
- j\tlr 6fu>vwr (fr. 11H. II x,
i
oratione persuade <tc«l a%piii
ih. //. p. i jo ng avowedly Jr 4t Pp**w as an interpolation. On the

\thcnacus, says: tn ixttB** *al other hand, Casaubon renders: 'tu cum
fava ipirdftw wapa IsxfxuXn, tr$m to* it grossna mhili et insipidus, ad come*
KApmbr r<? rov Ufdpov inaXiotv tri/tan, dendum inutilis. alios verbis incivpas,
'7<f.' wapotfuaMOf to
•
tanquam ignavo* et insipidos'; ami (Ml
avro [<ju. airrov] rd worffUk, OMotw ry is also the view of Cobet {V. /.. p. 189),
1
See n. on fr. itg.
128 Z04>0KAE0YI
who, deleting dxpeios, explains by the though useless in themselves, they were
paraphrase <pavXos wv blXXovs iK<pavXi£eis, useful for impregnating the cultivated :
'
you make out others
worthless yourself, see the Dictt. s.w. epivdfa, (pyjXt)Kb6'parrot,
to be worthless, speak disparagingly of or Stein on Hdt. 1. 193. The proverb
others.' dveplvaffros el in Zenob. 2. 23 is differently
however, shows that the true
H., explained.
meaning has been perceived by Stephanus The reading in the first line is either
alone of previous writers :
'
nam 6 epivbs defective or interpolated. Porson, holding
quod ipse non habet, aliis tribuit,' i.e. the former view, conjectured iritrwv
fnngeris vice cotis, exsors ipse secandi, ipivbs <wj> dxpeios <a.vrbs> dv.
you fertilize others by precept like some Casaubon's avrbs wv dxpyios is impossible.
Nestor see Isocrates ap. Plut. tnor.
: Scaliger inserted vavreXtos after ipivbs as
838 E. Similar is a proverbial line of an a stop-gap. On the other hand, Cobet
old man marrying (Paroem. I p. 390) ejected dxpeios as a gloss, and Meineke,
yiptov ipivbs ev<ppave1s rovs yelrovas, i.e. as we have seen, suspected the whole
airros dxpeios dSv,dXXovs toipeXijaeis. For phrase dxpeios tov is fipQeiv. So far as
wild figs were proverbially useless (hence the language goes, neither dxpeios nor
Spohn restored ipivol in Theocr. 15. 50 ppGxris is open to suspicion in tragedy,
for the ipiol or ipeioi of the mss). But, and is is quite normal.
182
VeVOJTdL
182 Etytn. M. p. 601, 23 vivurat (so written in Sophocles and Anacreon but, ;
FMV : vivurai vulg. ) 17 Kara (rvyKoiryv as Nauck says, vivop.a.1 is an incredible

tov rj dirb rod vevbi>)Tcu...rj dirb tov vivuiTai form. For the Ionic contraction of 017 to
Kara, o~vffToXr)v. fffTi yap vto pijua Tpirrjs to see Weir Smyth's Ionic Dialect, pp. 190,
av^vylas ws (kcu f, which Nauck prefers) 267. In the verbs it is limited to /Sodw
irapd "Lo<pOK.Xel, olov'JZXivijs ydpito vivtoTcu. and voito. There is no other certain
Hesych. Ill p. 148 vivurai' iv v$ £x et - example of this contraction in tragedy,
Cf. Anacreon fr. 10 6 5' v^rfXb. vevu/xivos. but Dindorf read udm/Hto for Kdiriftba in
Lobeck (Path. El. 11 p. 114) hesitated Aesch. Pers. 1055. See also Jebb on
whether vivoucu or vivtop.au should be El. 882.
183
opocrayyai
1 83 Claudius Casilo 7rapd rots 'Atti- (Eur. Tro. 102 1). See Dissen on Pind.
koIs p-qropo-i fyroijueva in Miller's Melanges Pyth. 11. 33. H. inferred from this
de litt. gr. p. 397 6poo~dyyai p.ev oi
: fragment that the scene of the play was
crtofiaTO<j>vXa.Kes, tos SoôkXijs J&Xivi] < s >'
at Troy, and that the wedding of Helen
ydp.to kou TptoiXto (fr. 634). The same to Paris was celebrated after her arrival
appears in Phot. lex. appendix p. 674, 21, there. He quoted Proclus's epitome of the
with the omission of 2,o<poKXijs. Cypria (p. 18 Kinkel) : koX irpoaevexQeis
Sophocles does not appear to have SiStovt 6 'AXiâvbpos alpei ttjv wbXiV kcu
used the name correctly, as according to diroTrXaj<ras els "IXtov ydfiovs rrjs 'EXivijs
Hdt. 8. 85 it was the title given to the iireriXe<rev. Aesch. Ag. 707 to vvu<pbTi\-
King's benefactors cf. fr. 125. Priam
: p:ov fiiXos iKipdrtos tLovtcls, |
vpiivcuov, 6s
appears in tragedy as an oriental despot rbr' iirippewev |
yapifipolo'iv deideiv. See,
(Aesch. Ag. 926), and the customs at his however, Introductory Note.
court are those of the later Persian empire
EAENH2 TAMOI — EniTONOI 129
184
rravov
184 I'hot. lex. p. 377, rayov'
32 rtadtit, <paai, /cord awto/SoXtji' tov ip, ofo*
&wo rod wdyra <f>aivtiv axv^^Tiadivra xafovxof ilairrtt ^\&ya.' (Tr. adesp,
Kara /i<ra/}o\V
{<tX^^<iria6(v Nalicr),
lo<>o*\î 'EVrijt ydfjiv- The same
^ '
160.)
rti,
Mcineke corrected d£arr«t to i\j>at>-
but was scarcely justified in his con -
fr.
0.
derivation is given by Eustath. //. p. elusion that Kustathius and 1'hotius were
.'4 tropin awb roC <paivti» <rxvn&- referring to the same passage of Sophocles.
EniroNoi
EPI0YAH
The Epigoni of Sophocles was one of his most famous plays ;
and there is consequently a presumption that, when the title

lone is quoted without the name of an author, the play
1
of Sophocles and not that of Aeschylus is meant. The inference

l>e strengthened by the following considerations. It was
Customary in the fourth century, when the tragic art was
declining, and the age of the actors had succeeded to tin
of the poets, to reproduce the plays of the famous dramatists
of the earlier period but it is well known that the practice was
;
for the most part confined to the plays of Sophocles and

Euripides, whereas those of Aeschylus were considered too
old-fashioned and obscure for the purpose laigh, Tragic Drama, < 1
p. 99). Hence, when we read of the actor Andronicus, with

whoi .
tudied elocution, having scored | success
in the Epigoni Athen. 5.S4 I>), we are justified in concluding that
1
the line quoted from that play

6\6fi*ve iraihtov, iroiov eiprjtcai} \6yov ; (Tr. fr. adesp. 2)
belongs to Sophocles. W at the same result from Cic. dt
rat. 18 idemAndriam it .\yn,phebos nee minus Terentmm
net/ mm (jitatit Mtiiamiritm Ugunt, mc Andromacham nut
Atiti.pain ant I'.pigotios Lotmas r.iiiunt: i/nmo linmum tt
on p<>t ins quam Buripidtm et Sophoelent
Ugunt.
kn<»w that the Euripides was adapted
Andromachi <>f
ntwpe by Pacuvius, the u is almost
igoni of Sophocles was adapted by Accius,

Similarly, when Cicero ( Tusc. 2. 60) reports: Cleanthem (I 607
Arn p. 328 1'
,
mn /><</. t, tram p,r, USStSA
I, < » tx Epi&
: dixisu, audisn* //</o. Amp/tiarae, sub terram abti
'
fr. adesp. 3), we understand at once that the referee

to th< l.pigoni of Sophocles'.
WUamowitz, <//- tr.iûarum

1
Gratterum fragmtntts, Gottingen i8yj, p. 16,
argues briefly lo the »ame .
130 IO0OKAEOYI
The direct evidence bearing on the plot of the Epigoni, scanty
as it is, is show that the central incident was the
sufficient to
murder of Eriphyle, followed by the first beginnings of Alcmaeon's
madness. All the authorities lay stress on the command given
to his sons by Amphiaraus, when forced by Eriphyle's treachery
to join the expedition of the Seven, that when grown to manhood
they should exact retribution from their mother: see Apollod.
3. 62, Diod. 4. 66, Hygin. fab. 73. But Asclepiades (Schol. 1
V
Horn. X 326, FHG
III 305) reports this in the form that Alcmaeon
was forbidden to join the expedition of the Epigoni until he had
put his mother to death and Alcmaeon was said to have fulfilled
;
the behest. Apollodorus, on the other hand (3. 86), makes the
death of Eriphyle subsequent to the return of the Epigoni, stating
that Alcmaeon was moved by the discovery of his mother's second
act of treachery in accepting the peplos from Thersander, the son
of Polynices, as a bribe for persuading her sons to join the
expedition, and was also instigated by the oracular command of
Apollo. From these facts Bethe inferred the existence of two
epic versions in the Epigoni and the Alcmaeonis in the former the ;
murder occurred after, and in the latter before the expedition

(T/ieb. Heldenlieder, pp. 129, 130 ff., 135 ff. see also Gruppe,
:
P- 537)- Welcker (p. 272) had no hesitation in holding that

in Sophocles the murder of Eriphyle preceded the expedition of
the Epigoni and treated the account of Apollodorus, which he
;
regarded as damaging to the character of Alcmaeon, as the

work of some later tragedian. This is as may be but it would ;
be idle to suppose that, if we see reason to place the expedition

before the matricide, we are thereby compelled to accept all the
details in Apollodorus. Indeed, his story (3. 81) is intrinsically
absurd and dramatically impossible. If Alcmaeon was already
convinced of the binding force of his father's command, how could
he possibly postpone its execution to await the doubtful issue of
the siege ? If I return safe, I will kill my mother
'
And was ' !
Eriphyle so favourably placed as to be worth bribing ? What

inducements had she to offer which could have the slightest effect
upon a determined enemy ? Or, if she could persuade him to
— —
spare her life if only for a season surely she needed no bribe
to make her undertake the task. The whole account is nonsense,
unless we suppose that Alcmaeon was not yet aware of his father s
command*. On the other hand, Welcker's view has to meet the
1
The work of Asclepiades bore the title rpayii)8ovfitva, and it might seem natural
to ascribe his version to Sophocles without more ado. But the character of his book
does not warrant the inference that he abstracted existing plays: see Wenzel in
Pauly-Wissowa n 1628.
2
Immisch, however, contends that Apollodorus followed the Alcmaeon of Euripides,
and fr. 70 a trace of the discussion between Eriphyle and her son.
finds in
: —
EFTirONOI 131
difficulty that, if the Erinyes assailed Alcmaeon at once, he must

become incapable of taking the supreme command. After
the death of Eriphyle his first object would have been to procure
expiation and, if any weight may be given to the fragments
;
of Accius' Epigoni, it appears that after the matricide Alcmaeon

sought to appease the offended powers by lustration and sacrifice:
see fr. IX upud abundantan antiquam et rapidas undas ammm
Inachi, x nunc pergam nt suppliciis placans caelitum aras expleam.
Since the Argives are described as eager for war (fr. Ill), it might
be thought that the siege and capture of Thebes took place
during the course of the play a possibility not lightly to be —
rejected, for which the Supplices of Euripides provides an
adequate parallel. Nevertheless, Ahrens and Ribbeck (p. 496)
agree with Welcker as to the time of Eriphyle's murder, and
the latter suggests that the Furies postponed the execution of
their vengeance until their victim should have finished his
appointed task. We
do not elsewhere find them so obliging 1
.
Immisch (Jahrb. Philol. Suppl. XVII 180 flf.), who takes the
same view, is not justified in supporting it by postea as used by
w.fab. 71 {Alcmaeon memor patris praecepti Eriphylen matrem
suam mterfecit. quern postea furiae exagitarunt). Equally un-
convincing is his suggestion that Alcmaeon was healed of his
madness by Apollo forthwith, but that it subsequently broke out
h.
highly probable that a dialogue between Alcmaeon and

It is
Adrastus, the brother of Enphyle, took place after the catastrophe,

and that the incipient signs of frenzy showed themselves at this
point. Since it has been shown that the Epigotti of Sophocles
cnown tragedy dealing with the story of Alcmaeon
and Kriphyle, a peculiar significance attaches to the inclusion of
Alcmaeon by Antiphanes (fir. 191, II 90 K.) in a list of famous
characters
&P TTiiXlV
eliri) to, A \KfjL€(oi>a, icai rn nrathia
ttuvt ev&vs etprjx " Tl âv(l ^ t'nrefcrovt
r fiTfrep", ayavatcTMV 6* "A&paaros cvtfeto*
vfei irdXiv r atrtiai.
I here tore good reason for following Ribbeck in
ning I r. fr. adesp. 358 to this play: see p. 69.
tic to tiK Accius in rcconntructini; S..j.lu>cle» and in thfa
cue Cicero's statement lend* tome justification to the attempt— there arc »evcral
fragment- which night be significant, particularly those relating to the appearance
of Amphilochiu (tr. IV: cf. Apollod. %. 86, I'ausan. i. .u .0 and Deroonasaa (fr. IX:
.» brilliant conjecture in fr. xvi Hcrj;k introduced
.
scene of the decisive buttle fought between the Epigoni mad

•
ins (I'ausan. 9. 9. 4).
9-a
i
32 I04>0KAE0YI
A and important question remains
difficult was Welcker :
right in identifying the titles Epigoni and Eriphyle} Or, in

other words, is this a case where the name of a leading character
— for we cannot say that Eriphyle was more important than
—
Alcmaeon has been substituted for the original title ? A prima
facie case may be made in favour of separation : there are seven
unambiguous references to the Eriphyle there is no evidence of;
an alternative title; and the familiarity of the title Epigoni'would

have been against its displacement. On the other hand, there is
much force in Welcker's contention that the tragic death of
Eriphyle must have been described in the tragedy which bears
her name, and there are several undisputed examples of a mistake
arising in the course of the tradition through the substitution for
the title of a name taken from the text On the general 1
.
question see Introduction, § I ; but this is not a case of

isolated Rather we should have to suppose that the
error.
double title was introduced originally by the grammarians to
distinguish the play of Sophocles from the less familiar and
differently constructed work of Aeschylus and that subsequently ;
the anthologists cited only one of the two titles 2 Fr. 198 might .
seem to be decisive in Welcker's favour, but, as it is not quoted

from the Eriphyle*, there is no reason why, if the occasion
required, it should not be transferred to the Epigoni. Therefore
we can only say that no other solution of the difficulty seems so
probable as Welcker's and his identification has been accordingly
;
accepted in this edition. Jacobs preferred to suppose that the

Eriphyle related to the earlier expedition of the Seven, that it
comprised the quarrel of Amphiaraus and Adrastus and the
intervention of Polynices, and that the death of Amphiaraus
(cf. fr. 958) was described at the end of the play. This theory
cannot be disproved; but is it likely that such a play would have
been entitled Eriphylel
There is an obscure reference to the play in Philodem.
y
de mus. p. 87 to 6° etc twv E,Triy6va>v fie\o<> (v7roypd<po/xev ovtc
(nridavooripav aWrjv Bidvoiav, a\V edo/xev &><? ovros eXa perd Trjs
€7ricn]/jLa<rias rov Ka>p.<p8oypd(pov) [LvdiKov eartv. Cf. ibid. p. 18
UivSdpai ye ypcKpev (y typd<pero Usener) to.koivov Tt? aardov ev '
evSia Tt0et<?.' teal to ^.ofyotcXeovs ev toIs 'JL7riy6voi<;...The context

shows that the opponent against whom Philodemus was arguing
brought forward certain instances in which music exercised a
soothing influence. The object therefore of the ode in the Epigoni
The problem is none the less puzzling, when we find the titles Epigoni and
1
Eriphyle also ascribed to Accius. Ribbeck (p. 489) takes the same view as Welcker.
2
See Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 399.
3
This point is overlooked by Bethe in Pauly-Wissowa vi 462.
' ;
EniroNOi »33
was t<>compose the strife which had arisen between certain of the
characters, and probably, as Immisch has pointed out (Philol.
xi. \ in 554), the reference is to the altercation between Alcmaeon
and Adrastus after the matricide.
185
6\6fiei>€ Trai&ojv, iroiov elprjKas \6yov
185 Athen. 584 n Aviporiicov Si tov
rpaytpbou dw' dyQvds twos, iv <£ rovi
'
same way as the epic ov\6furoi. It b n
inversion of the historical development to
ovi ItoTi Kriydroit Dobree, vwoxpi- i, as some have done, that the
rbp**oi add. Meineke) finffit pi)*«, -wlvtiv participle bore an active meaning. The
pdWovroi Tap' atTjJ (sc. Tradaip^) «col rod usage noes not recur in Sophocles (subject
vaibot KtXtvorrot rr)p Y»4.6au>a* wpoara- to a possible reservation in regard to -
\woat, ' dXofurt walduf (a\q ' woior tlpijKai '

.-////. 840), but is found in Aesch. Prom.
\6yo* ;
413, Supfl. 855, and several tn
Thereasons for attributing this frag- Euripides: cf. //if/. 13J, 385, Photn.
ment adesp. 1 N.) to Sophocles have
(fr. 1019, Or. 1364, Med. 1153, Her. 1061
îven in the Introductory Note. (Wilamowitz). —For the partitive genitive
6X6p.«v«. ;.,//;.,/, -a retched, correspond- ralSw* see on Eur. Htlid, 567.
ing to 6\<ho, a used adjectivally, in the
186
\audism haec. Amphiarae, sub terram iMitef]
186 Cic. Tusc. a. Clean them
60 especially at Oropus (Kra/cr, Pausan. ti
(I 007 An mm pmU . i. , lerram /vnussisset, 466 ff.), was well k 836 ff.
'igonis/erunt dixit se, 'attditm ol&a yap Iraicr' 'ApfiAptwr x/>MTo4/r<Mf |
«ral rOr vw6

'
sub lerram ahdite t . Ipttffi Kpv<p$i»Ta yvvaiKwr '
also the authorship of Sophocles ',aiat...wdp\fn-xot dwdoati

(with Jebb's
is generally admitted ; see Nauck. an.). Oam ihc appeal to a
suggests that the original was ChthotMC power is illustrated by the fact
db'. Ap.<pidpa>, y»jt K*60t*r xdrw; i'-anthes struek the ground with Ml
</>H, but Kf>v$tiu\ i> ju>t ;i> foot : see e.g. Tucker on Aesch. Cho. 31 4,
likely). The chthonic cult of Amplr Headlam in C. A', xvi 53.
187
AAKM. avopOKTovov yvvaiKos ofioyiirqs €<f>v$.
AA1\ orv 8* avro\€Lp yc fjLTfTpbs rj <r iytlva to.
187 de and. poet. 13 p. 35 E
Plut. Efligvni see Introductory Nute.
rpayiKOt 'A&paoroi rov 'AW/ wot 1 drftpoKTOvov, husband- staying \ cf.
' 1
w6rr<>\ Vpil aiVir 'drtpOKTOVOV ..tpvt Plod />M. 4. ijj AoAWidr r *f<.
iytlraro.' de
l'lut. rcKKwr dr8po+6*t*r.
Mr 'd»bp»- S •*t<x«'(' rente to ntfrpbt :
'd*o» . . . tfvi ' wpbi row ' AApattro* 6 see J<

nrpds ^ r*
Ti oi'riKt'troi | «/« d\X^Tp4«f
IX' Wiof oc'-ry wpo4nfpw» orriboi, 'tfv r... 61 ff' />«roro. Kur. (>». 19, ^/. 964,
rfb-aro
— ;
:
134 I04>0KAE0YI
188
<f)i\eL yap y) BvcncXeua toZs <J>0ovovia€vol<;

vlkolv in alcr^pols rj irl toIs KaXots tt\4ov.
1 88. 2 ^
T iro (sic) A, *) Vi yp. A2
188 Stob. flor. 38. 27 (in p. 713, II envy, disgrace is wont to prevail, if their
Hense) tov
~Lo<$>OK\tovs 'Eirlyovoi (so M : deeds are evil and not good.' tois
avrov iirLirovoL A, S omits the name of the <+j0ovo\j|i€vois is thus the dative of the
play). ' 0i\et. ..irXôi".' person interested, and with vikolv used
This fragment awaits elucida-
difficult absolutely does not differ essentially from
tion. Campbell, who remarks that the the dativus iudicavtis (of mental interest
words are unmeaning in the absence of only) in Ar. Av. 445 irdcn vikclv toU
their context, adds that the general sense KpiTcus I
Kai tois Oea.Ta.is iracriv. Tucker
seems to be represented by He who ' wished to substitute vtLKelv for vinav and
acts honestly is better able to live down Wecklein for duaicXua, but in
bOcrvoia
calumny.' This may well be the right either case the interpretation of the lines
track for envy is said to be powerless
; is hardly less obscure, and in the former
against a good man Eur. fr. 814 <j>66vov

: there is the additional objection that
ov <r^3w, (pOovdaOai be 0Aoi,u' av ew' veiKtlv does not occur in tragedy. Blaydes
icrOXois,
j
Democrit. fr. 48 Diels fj.up.eo/j.ivu}!' proposed r)K€iv for vik&v. For the omis- —
<pXai'>pwv 6 dyaffbs ov iroiHTai \6yov. The sion of the article with aiaxpoh, which
meaning of our passage will then be the has the effect of emphasising kclXois by-
same as that of an anonymous writer way of contrast, cf. Eur. Phoen. 495 dXXa
quoted by Stob. Jlor. 38. 39 <pBbvo% 6 Kara Kai crocpois |

Kai rdicn (pavXois ivbi\\ ws
tu>v 'evboKi/xebvTtav iirl rols KaXXlcrrois i/j.ol 8ok€l (n.), ib. 1258 vIkijs tc o'TJ/ma Kai
apy&v Kai aTTpaKTWu tuiv be ayad&v Kai '
rb twv r]ffff(i}/j.dvuv, £1. 135 1 otoiv b' baiov
o'luv re reneev tl nap ecovTuv xP 7 <rT0v ov\ l
Kai to biKaiov <piXov iv ftioTip. See also
a,irT€Tai, 'When men are attacked by on fr. 149, 9.
I89
(h irav crv ToXjjLijaacra Kai nepa yvvrj,
kolkiov aAA' ovk ecrTLV ovS' ecrrcu ttot€
yvvaLKOS, el tl 7rrjixa yiyverai fipoTols.
189. 1 yvv/j MA : ytvcu S 3 7) d {fjei M) rt codd.
189 Stob. flor. 73, 51 (iv p. 557, 7 7rdiToX/uoj, a very strong word, see
Hense) ZoôkXIous 'lUiriyovoi. (iiriyovoi Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 228. There is
om. S) '
a5 ir ai>... ft por oh.' a similar but less patent hyperbole in Eur.
1 I think that Campbell was right in £1. 1187 aXacrra fxtXea Kai iripa iradovcra \
preferring yvvr) to yCvai (see cr. n.), but ctlov t£kvu)v viral. So Jebb takes 0. C.
I do not print a comma after iripa as he 1745 T0T f fLtv airopa, rore 5' vrrepBev. For
does. The nom. is used because the irav roX/xav cf. fr. 567 n. The words
words are an exclamation rather than an have unnaturally been suspected
not
address: cf. Horn. A 231 5r)p.ofibpos (1) Meineke conjectured yvvrjs, treating
fiaaiXevs, ijrel ovribavoicriv avdcraeis, and vv. 2 and 3 as a separate fragment
see Monro H. G. 2 § 163. Kai ircpa is a (2) Nauck required something like w beivd
frigid hyperbole, but is perhaps excusable T<JXfj.T)aao~a Kai bcivwv iripa (cf. Dem. 45.
on the ground that <Z iron crv ToX/xriffacra 73, Ar. Av. 416, Thesm. 705); (3) Stadt-
is virtually identical with w irdvToX/j.os, mueller proposed irepa Xbyov. But the
1
O thou who hast been wicked beyond text is probably sound.
all measure.' For the connotation of 3 ft ti Kri., 'among all the sorrows
:
EniroNOi 135
irfitia lexically belongs yrji $tovs iriffrarat | rifieui ai^l(ti», ijiV

to the principal clause, hut i« attracted to t£o" vrtfxfHfxi. Track. 8 rvn<ptiutv flwor |
the protasis. The common

reading is AVyurror (txor, it t« \irut\h "ywij. Jebb's
:ic and effective than Tucker's objection to the superlative ignores the
17 'wi II II I
1 to HITI» rriixa ylyvtrai development of the idiom, which has
ftporois, which is an anticlimax. Blaydes outstripped its logic. See also on fr. 87.
conjectured rfnj. Cf. 0. C. 1006 it rn
190
to koIXou Apyoc. ov KaToiK-qaovr crt
190 KaroiK^roPT Blaydes: uarouriârT' L (icaroiKâarTa m. pr.)
190 Scfa Soph. 0. C. y,sico\\axov

. this scholium requires correction.—
t6 ' Apyot «otX6V (pacri, KaBivip xai 4v KaroiKô-ovT*. The aorist (see cr. n.) is
'TO KOi\»¥...(ri.'
>-(Mt unsuitable to tn, and I have very little
koiXov. A glance at the map of Argolis doubt that the future should l>c sub-
will satisfy anyone of the appropriateness stituted cf. Kur. //el. 57 to tcXrcror p.'
:
of the epithet as a description of the In KaToiKJettr w48op Zwdpriji, t/>. U44,

hill-girt Arrive valley within the limit- •>( Andr. 858. Supfl. rtSI. This conjecture
-ituated the ancient towns of has been anticipated by Blaydes. For
ie, Orneae, Midea, ami Ttrym the critical difficulties affecting the
C« 378. 1387 with Jebb's n. on the quotations of the scholiast see the n. on
earlier passage, where the reference to fr. 341.
191
y\o)(TCT iv Ktvolcriv avhpd<TLV rifirjv €\€i,

oirov \6yoL crOcvovcri ratu cpyutv n\tov.
191. 1 4p wold* Jacobs: 4v olaw L |

iftpdai L |
t\*i Brunck : #x«ti L
191 - ••; .til. II 15. 17 p. iHy. 21 W. 1} V r/ottfi*, Kvicala). Wecklein.rc
»pot\4ovt ' Y.(H<pi>\T). ' y\dca\..w\4o¥.' fX««». read -yXuWffB 90 rotei' 4».
1 Iv Kivoiacv. I have adopted 9 6-rov. On
the assumption that 4*
icons'* conjecture as l>eing on the whole oUrtr is retained in the DfeviotU line,
of the defective text.
• Hlomheld prODOStd to tost
substitute
also to have licen made inde- But it 1 necessary to read «r*»
v 1>y < oIk-i i
/'. /. p. 15), and (Wagner) or «ro«t (F. W. Schmidt
l>y Wachsmuth. Nauck 1 a peisonsl
lorfs <iJ> y\waff'. but antecedent: sec Pktl. 456 (rw #*
^^Kf enough disregards his 4* oTxi X'tfHsr T&ya#ov ntl{b* «94vn roi-rovt iydt .
necessary com piemen roi't iricat ob rripW vot4. Il-i-

•
is extremely unlikely that two r< 6iov ii 4ndcrort yipotro, rrtf¥t **p*\ah
Mses are quoted by the anth< /!«•. fr. 314. 3J4 ff. (».) K-.r the sent!-
the main sentence is OtPttted.
' ment. -imciently common, cf.
yip X*>«#i rtor fU~ ewov
otf
lUfoptp \anvpo* wmtittat it&Mo* 4 roff

1
itl y\£nr« 4r 4»9oiaip,

'
ipmpjpon, Kur. .Yw/»/>/. 007 fiUrtfum ifim
mo' 4' p4m<h*, and w\of<riop, 4>p4*nin* W [ 4*
tWi* tpyoti,
t) V /«M>oit lyMJca' •*xi rtit x*y«t, fx*» («»•«' codd. Ear.).
136 IO<t>OKAEOYI
192
ottov he /xrj to. y^prjcrT ikevQepws \eyeiv
eêcrTL, viko. S' iv TroXeu to. )(e(,poua,
ajxapTiai cnfxiWovcrL tt)u crcoTrjpiCLV.
192. 1 ra xpv a"r '
Reisig: rd patera vel rd pdara codcl., rapier Wyttenbach, rd
\$<rr Blomfield 3 dfiaprlat. S : d/xaprlais MA
192Stob. Jlor. 43. 7 (iv p. 2, 17 a"<tos dydirys, Kal (x^P - </>'Xfas. Theodor.
Ilense) rod avrov ([following fr. 84] Metoch. »«k 58 p. 341 Kairoi rl \iyw,
SA, 2o0ok\&>i/s M) 'EpuptiXr]. '&irov... e/ rd x e 'P w âTo
i
fOP XiS-ycw, dei piKp, Ard»>
aior-qpiav .' Traffy Kpdaei rwv ivavrlwv rwv dviuvruv
1 f. Reisig's conjecture (see cr. n.) fiaXKov alcrOavb/xeda ; XPV<TT ar>d X fL P U3V ^
appears most appropriate to the context. are both employed in the political or
Cf. Phil. 456 btrov d' 6 x € Lp wv rdyadov social sense to express the opposition 01
p-eiôv ffdivei Kdiro<pdivei ra xPV°~ Ta X *3
\
1 the conservative and democratic parties,
5eiXos Kparei, rotirovs iyib robs avdpas ov
\
and the neuter plural might be applied to
<n£pi;<j} irorL Observe, however, that their respective policies Eur. Or. 773 :
here the neuter rd x €l P ova is not used for dXX' orav XPVTTOvs Xd/Saxri (sc. Trpoordras
,
the masculine, as rd xPV <TTa is there. 01 TroWoi), xp 7l°"ra ôv\€tJovo^ del. See
The schol. on that passage refers to Horn. Grote, Hist, iii p. 45, Neil's Equites,
A 576 eirel rd x eP e ^ ova VLK 9- an d to Hes. p. 202 ff. But here the meaning may be
Op. 193 (3\d\j/ei 5' 6 Ka>cds rbv dpelova quite general. —
Herwerden unnecessarily
<p£>ra, and the former of these quotations suspects iv ir6\ei on the ground that after
is certainly echoed here. Homer's phrase 8ttov it is tautologous, and proposes b>
became proverbial at a later date Niceph. : X6701S. But the paratactic redundancy
Chumn. ap. Boisson. anecd. nov. p. 68 is idiomatic see Jebb's Appendix on
:
irXeoveKrel 5' 6/xws iv rovrip rd X e fy> w * a ' » O. C. 434.
193
yqpa. TrpocrrJKov crcoê tyju evOvfiiav.
193 irpocrrjicov Gaisford : irpoo-qKbirrois A, wpoabvrm M, irpocrbvTos vulgo, irpeirbv-
tws Nauck I
evdvfilav Dindorf : ev<pTj/j.lav codd.
193 Stob. Jlor. 117. 3 (iv p. 1055, (2) eixprjfiiav cannot mean 'silence'; the
4 Hense) *Zo<p'oK\iovs 'Bpi^Xij. 'yr/pa... last thing that was expected from the old
€u<prjfj.iav.' was to refrain from speech. If, on the
This a difficult fragment and involves
is other hand, we translate 'good name,'
the questions, (1) how the second word there is not much point in urging an old
is to be read, and (2) whether ev(prjfj.lav man to be careful of his reputation and ;
is sound. (1) Brunck printed yijpus there would be no inducement for the
irpoabvTos, but Dindorf reports him as anthologist to include the line under the
favouring irpoarjKuv, which was adopted title on rb yrjpas dvewaxOis Kal 7toXXt)s
by Hartung. But 717/50 irpoo-tiKuv can alSovs dîov 17 o~t!rveo~is dwepydfcrat.. We
hardly mean 'having reached' or 'ap- expect something that is relevant to the
proached old age.' Bergk proposed general defence of old age. F. \Y.
irpofiKuv. Recently Nauck's irpeirovrus Schmidt's evfiovXlav and evpvdfiiav have
has won some acceptance, but, although very little probability; and I think
irpeirbvTws and wpocrriKbvTm were synony- Dindorf's evdv/j.lav is far better, both for
mous words, it is improbable that at any palaeographical reasons and in point of
period the former would have been ex- sense. Old age is not burdensome, if it
plained by the latter. The indications is borne with composure cf. Plat. rep. :
are rather the other way see Elym. M. :

329 D dv /.lev yap Kbcr/xtoi Kal efaoXoi waiv
p. 690, 21 wpoffTJKOv to irpiirov, Suid.
•
(sal. oi&vdpwicoi), Kal rbyr/pas /xerpim earlv
irpoariKei. irpiirei. Blaydes's irapoiK&v has iiriirovov el Si fir), Kal yijpas Kal vebrrjs
no probability. For these reasons I prefer XaXcirij rip roiotjTip avpiftaLvei. Anaxandr.
Gaisford's Trpoo-rJKov as an ace. abs. for : fr. 53, II 159 K.
its use in tragedy cf. Eur. Suppl. 472.
1
ETTirONOI »37
194
apeT-qq fieftaiai, 8' elcrlv al KTijcrtts (jl6vy)<;.
1 94 fi6vrp Naber : fibvai M

194 Stab. flor. 1. 1 (in n. i. Eur. El. 941 17 yap <pvai% fUfiatos, ov ra
2 <pOK\i)% ('» 'E,)i<pi\r}. 'AptTTJi... XptfiaTa. Sophocles, one may think,
fiora.' The extract is omitted I would have been on the side of Pindar
appearing only in M. with his contempt for Siiaxrai dptrai
The contract is between the permanence [01. 9. 101) rather than on that of
of aptrii as a natural endowment, and Socrates contrast Critias fr. Q 1
:
lability of wealth. It i> explicit fit\<T7Ji xXtlovs rj pi'fftwt dya$oi. In later

in Theogn. 317 tt/j dperijt tov it\ovtov, times the Stoics discussed the question
1
ivti t6 (uTtSor aid,
p.iv xpr/fiara S whether virtue once acquired could be
#W
\
&*0punrtM>r iWort d\\ot The pos-

n of d/HTjj is a gift of $601% : see on
lost. —
pVPcuai. The only other in
in tragedy of the fein. termination ap|>ears
fr. 808 and the illustrations quoted by to I* Eur. El. 1 163. Blaydes proposed
Headlam in/. P. xxill 176, especially to substitute $ifi<u.o<..
195
avhpiw yap e<r6\<oi> crrepvov ov fiakdaaeTat.
195 Stob. /' >. 7. 7 (in p. 309, 13 The present passage is more akin to Or.
) ZcupQKXrjt V.pitpi'Xr). 'arSp^y... 100 (referring to the cowardly Meiulaus)
1
fta\dv<rtrai.' Kai fif ioKu>...xp6*nt pa\dZ<i)> aw\dyx*o».

nilar line is quoted from Menand. ovrt yip Opaai'1 ovt' dXaupor wj<pi*.t.
|
monost. 31 drdpdi womjpov av\ayxrot> ov I cannot therefore agree with Nauck,

fxdXdoatrcu, but theapplicat ion is different. who would restore ovk dWdffcrtrai after
The good man is unshaken in courage, and K. \V. Schmidt. If any
bad man is impervious to pity.
-•
change were necessary, it would be Utter
\x rememl>ere<l that 0vp.6i
•uld to adopt Wecklein's suggestion that the
comprehends both anger and courage line was interrogative; but the tradition
no's Ovp.ortMf). so that in common indirati s tli.it the subject was courage.
speech the separating line was not clearly The figurative use of rrtpmow, as applied
drawn. For the softening of anger cf. ii.ir to Sophocles:
' //<. 771 6pyai p.a\Aeaov<j' d*6p6i. see Trath. 4K1, 0. C. .
I96
wcu? ovv fj.d^(ofxaL uv r/ro5 utv dtia TVXV>
rov to heLvbv ikiris ov&€v <L<f)e\tl ;
196 Stob 0m 90. jo (iv p. vcntion Aesch. .S'«/»/A 101 idrru i' [tc.
:
) L<x;"/» \/o< ; Y.tn<pv\i). \wi6urv df" v^ttvpyv* *

aporovt. Hut the l>cst Dtastradoo of thr
is the common «o*u-nance of dl be found in ; &** ti
!
men (fr. 94^. and their solan- in ti rovt dyafioii dropat iyx*tp*i* ni* iwaaiw
103 A»if mp&vrt? wapa *a\on, TTjf dyad rjf wpo,ia\\o-
<
hvOhw oiVa is in exact parallel to ni*ov% i\rlta, +4p*i* &' <U 6 «to%
g as the iss , hope itS<^ ytrraiui. Kil.U thinks
'
ipfifif that these ate llx words of \'i maeon
7 a it If' draytmwt f\*h ^f &' I

:
himself to Ins fate; and
1\*lo" ov xpn rQt rigai k/Umi* wdpot) ;
mpanng Acciu* ft.VI <fui,
but it is powerless against di niii gtnitorem mho, tutUttm mtit Smt
—
138 lOÔKAEOYS
finetn miseriis, infers that in this play supposed to require a personal objec ;
Alcmaeon was acting according to the but Tucker has well shown (C. P. xvm
direction of the oracle, and not merely 197) that this is not the case by quoting
in execution of his father's behest. The Eur. fr. 274 rb yap emends uxpeXei rat
sense is grievously marred by Nauck's £v/j.<popds and fr. 714 ttXovtos uxpeXei
punctuation (adopted by Dindorf and vbcrov.
Campbell), who makes the question end 1 8fia tvxj], 'heaven-sent doom.'
at t^xVi P u ts a comma after beivbv, and a Sophocles is fond of this use of Oelos,
full-stop after <b<peXei. Hence, inasmuch which is illustrated on fr. 650. The
as v. 2 then becomes contrary to fact meaning of Oeov irXr)yq (fr. 961 n.) is
for hope is often serviceable in danger similar. For the general sense, the
Bergk and Kock conjectured birov rb necessity of submitting to the divine
Oeiov, and F. W. Schmidt ottov rb SeLvbv ordinance, see on fr. 585.
eve'wecr', ovdev <b<peXei. The reason for 2 tA 8ctv6v is used as in fr. 351, O. T.
this mistaken criticism is that wcpeXelv is 1 22 to deivbv ov<poj3eiTO.
197
airekde- /ctvet? vttvov iarpov vocrov.
197 dweXd' eKeiv7)s codd. : corr. Nauck |
br)Tpbv codd.
197 Clem. Alex, sfrom. 6 p. 741 the ground, I suppose, that to particularize
Xdfiois 5' av eK TrapaXXrjXov...l&vpnrldov is beside the mark. For sleep as a
ixiv 4ktov 'Opeo-rov (211) iZ <piXov vttvov '
soother of pain cf. Phil. 827 "TVy' bovvas
diXyrjTpov, iirlKOvpov vbcrov,' HocpoKXeovs 8e ddarjs, "Tttvs 5' d\7^wi>. Orph. h. 85. 5
en tt)$ 'EpicpiXr/s '
drreXd' eKelvr/s vttvov Abel Xvo~ip.epiy.ve, kottuv rjSetav exwv
Ir/rpov vbcrov.' avdiravcriv, |
Kai Trdcnjs Xvir-is iepbv irapa-
The
text is corrupt, but it is not easy p.v6iov ipSujv (al. fpirwv). Wilamowitz
to decide between Valckenaer's direXd' (Eur. Her. 2 1 p. 138) plausibly infers that
tKeivris i)wvos larpbs vbcrov, and Nauck's the reference is to Alcmaeon asleep on
direX9e- KiveTs virvo« iarpov vbcrov. The the stage, and that here, as in the Orestes
latter quotes Eur. Bacch. 690 £! vttvov and Heracles of Euripides, sleep was
Kiveiv 54/j.as, and objects to eKelvrjs —on introduced as succeeding a fit of madness.
198
/cat yap 'Apyetou? opaj
198 Prov. cod. Athoi in Miller, Crusius (Analecta Critica, p. 151) ex-
Melanges de lift. gr. p. 363 (n 46) Kal yap plains that the comic poet quoted the
'Apyelovs bpQ) •
Kal avrt) ~Lo<poK\elov icrrlv words of Sophocles with the addition
la/x(3elov /j.epos '
Treirol-nTai yap 4Kel'l£pi(pvXT] irapd irpoaboKlav of rovs (puipas or some-
(irepctp'vXTJ cod.) irpbs 'AXK/xaiuva Xeyovcra thing of the kind, so that apyelos bears
'
Kal yap 'Apyelovs bpQ.' ixip,vT)Tat ravri-s the meaning of cpavepbs (cf. dp-ybs). He
A\e£is iv MvXwdpui (fr. 153, II 353 K. ). points out that Aristophanes had also
Proverb. Append. 3. 35 (Paroem. I 423) spoken of 'Argive thieves' with the same
Kal -)ap 'Apyelovs opas avrt) 1,o<pbKXeios.-
intention :Suid. s.v. 'Apyeioi -bcbpes 4irl '
TreTrolT]Tai yap 'EpicfrvXij irpbs 'AXK/xaluva tGiv tt poSrjXus TTOvrjp&V ol 'Apyeloi eirl
Xeyovcra ' Kal...bpw. etprjrai 64 4ttI twv
' KXoirrJ Koj/xuSovvrai.. Apicrrocpdv-qs 'Ava-
'
eKTev&s irpbs bnovv ^XeirbvTuv Kal Kara- yvpy (fr. 57, 1 406 K.). The verbal play
irXriKTiKbv ri Dokovvtccv bpdv. oJ 84 eirl isofthesamekindaSj9o0sKi''rrptoy(»c6x/>iojj,
t2>v els kXotttjv virovoovtxiviov '
K0}p.Ct)8ovvTai KaK&v 'IXids {iXtj), dalnwv Alveios (aivbs),
yap 'Apyetoi 4irl KXoTrfj, wcnrep Kal ~Zo<po- and a number of others: ibid. p. 55.
kXtjs (amanifest error for"A\e|iy, accord- That this use of dpyos was possible is
ing to Crusius) ixpycraTo. Hesych. I shown by one of the derivations given to
p. 272 'Apyelovs bpu' irapoi/xiCoSes. Suid. i.e. rpavws
'Apyei<t>6vTi)s, diro<paivb/j.evos
s.v. 'Apyelovs bpa~s. wapot/xla 4irl twv (Hesych. 1 p. 273). Thus, the two
drevQs Kal KaTaTrXrjKTiKQs bpibvTwv. explanations in Prov. Append. 3. 35
EmroNoi— epii 139
(ttpvTcu ii...ot H...) are adapted respec- tragic emotion. Eriphyle was conscious
to the <|uotations from Sophocles of having betrayed the expedition of
txis. The same critic \Philol. Adrastus. and the appearance real t.r —
xi. vi 616) refers to this passage Aristo- —
imagined of the Argives was calculated
phon fr. 4, II 277 K. vaXaurrrir vbmeov to fill her with terror. Rihl>eck, p. 494.
\K1rft16r /*' &(>**• Blaydes compares Ar. thought that Eriphyle implored Alcmaeon
'<z$ IrWat hpu), put forward to to stay his hand, declaring that she could
explain a cry of pain. see an Argive army hurrying forward to
The words were »poken by Eriphyle to intervene in her favour; but this inter-
Alcmaeon. and were famous as having pretation is excluded by the words rdv
occurred at the culminating point of a Karar\yfKTiK6w n Iokwvtw* opar.
scene marked by the most intense form of
EPII
The reading *Ip«? in Athen. 6460, preferred by Casaubon,
Brunck, and Bocckh as the title of this play, is now exploded.
Welcker (Nacktr. p. 313), quoting Plat. rep. 379 E $tmv tptv Ti
teatKpiaiv bin He/iiTo'c re kcu Atoc, conjectured that the subject
he contention between Zeus and Poseidon for the hand of
Themis. Thi blunder is reproduced by Dindorf without
any intimation that Welcker had confuted Themis and Thetis !
cf. Ptnd fstk. 8. 27 Zct)f ftV rifMpi ftcrios nyXai's t tptaav

toav yafitp.
would rather suppose that the "Iv>k wa
I ipanion-
play to the KptW, and that its subject was the strife
the three goddesses at the marriage of Peleus and

Thetis. See Proclus's abstrad of the Cyfria {EGF p 17):
i< evwyn %
TO?5 lIr/X.eaK
T7i)ni] \(h)v't \\,)(i Mil \<f>pOOlTtf,
a2 irpo<i\\\cl~ai'8poi' ti'"\&i) Kara Afo s irpncna'/nv i'd> \'\pfiOV 1TpO<
The golden apple which Eria dn>|
fovrat mi.
on the table with its inscription 'A gift to the fairest is
mentioned by a number of the later authoril iected by
Pauly-Wissowa vi 4051, and several hum- have
ed that it was an addition to the original story. Though
omitted by Proclus, the apple appean in the very much
ibbn riat< ml in A poll od, tpit. \. 2, and there is nothing to
not have been mentioned in
ild Ml
obvious that the marriage of Peleus and
It is
j was an occasion on which a chorus of satyrs mi^ht

well I-n present, and
support the idea ot .1 banquet Tw nsiderationi which 1
in favoui of this conjecture deserve to be stated (!) the

frequency with which «/>*?, especially in conjunction with *pt'<m,
1
See Gruppe, p. 665.
1
i
4o Z0<t>0KAE0Y2
appears as a fixed term for the quarrel of the three goddesses, as

in the Argument to Colluthus, npirayri 'E\ev7)<; rrjv t^? "EpiBos :
avy\vcriv /cat epivrrepl tov firfkov. Cf. Eur. Hec. 644 iicpt,0r) 8' epis
av iv \\Ba /cpivei rptcraa<i pbaKapiov iralBas dvrjp jSovtcls. Andr. 276 \
rpLTTcoXov appua 8aip,6v(ov ay gov (sc. Hermes) to /caWi^vyis, epiBi

j
crTvyepa Keic.opv0fj.evov evpiopcpias. Hel. 708 Oetov rpicrcrwv epis.

LA. 183 'Hpa UaWdSi r epiv epiv p,op<pc7? a Kvirpt? ea-êv. \
ib. 1307 Kpicriv iirl crrvyvav epiv re /caWovas. Isocr. IO. 4

yevop,tvrjs iv 0eoi<; irepl /caWovs e piBo<;, 179 WXeâvBpos lipid fxov
Kareo-TT) icpirrjs. There is very little doubt that to this list should
be added the passage of Plato quoted by Welcker, seeing that
Themis is mentioned in the abstract of Proclus as taking counsel
with Zeus see Adam's note. (2) If "Ept? is to be taken as a
:
personification, the incident in question is much the most famous

affair in which she was engaged 1 .
199
iyco he neivcocr av irpbs irpia ySXeVw.
1 99 ireivucrayav A : corr. Musurus
199 Athen. 646 D trpiov irffifi6.Ti.ov ttotI koItov bpyev. So perhaps Ant. 30
Xrwrbv Sid cryo-dfiov kcli fitXiros yivbfievov. daopGxn irpbs X° P LV
L fiopas. For Trpto
fj,vrjfioi>e6et ai'Tod...'2,o<poK\i)s''Epi5i
l,
iyw... cf. Anacreon 17 rjplo-rifo-a fiev Irplov

fr.
fSXiiru.' Xeirrov fiiKpbv diroKXas. —

Kaibel questions
irp6$ trpia pXtVto, 'cast a longing eye whether the generally accepted correction
on the cakes,' is a less contemptuous form of Musurus (see cr. n.) is sound. It is
of the Aristophanic irpbs ravra icexyv&s certainly not convincing, but nothing
(Nttb. 997). Cf. Plat. symp. 181 B irpbs better has been suggested.— Ahrens
rb Stairpdâo-dat. fibvov pXiirovres. Blaydes thought that Aphrodite was the speaker,
on Ar. Lys. 427 quotes Eur. fr. 162 and that she was bored with Athena's
dvdpbs 5' bpQivros els Kvirpiv veaviov, sage counsel.
Theocr. 13. 12 o$0' 67t6k' oprdXixoi fiivvpol
200
evcopos ydpiov
200 ydfios cod. : corr. Nauck
200 Hesych. II p. 237 etiwpos ydfios. Euphor. fr. 102 ovdi rot evupoi dviuv.
"Zo<poK\r)s "EptSt. tfroi upios (upalos Hesych. also mentions eSwpos as an
Nauck) 7) oXtyiopos. oCrw yap Xtyovai epithet of 777, i.e. 77 rd ubpaia txovffa.
Kara avruppao-iv, ws 6 avrbs ev 2Ki'p/at$ For the genitive depending on the adj.
(fr. 561) XPVT"- 1 T V evupidfciv. cf. Eur. Hel. 12 ewel 5' is yftriv rjXOev
Nauck pointed out that the interpreta- ibpalav ydfuav (n.), and for further illus-
tion dXlyupos, although wrong in itself, trations of similar genitives Kuehner-
shows that ydfiov and not ydfios is the Gerth 1 371. Pierson on Moeris p. 426.
correct reading. An example of evwpos For ko.t avrtypao-w see on fr. 116.
in the sense of neglectful is quoted from
'
'
When the above was written, I was unaware that the same view of the contents
1
of the "Epts had been advocated by Bergk {tie frag. Soph. p. 10). as well as by
Ahrens, who threw out the suggestion that possibly "Epis was an alternative title to
the play known as Kpiais. The latter identification, for which there is little to be
said, was also approved by Wagner.
EPIZ— EPMIONH 141
201
201 Antiatt. (Hekk. anted.) p. 108, p« <nca<f>oi, and see Phot. lex. p. 144, It.
o (day uiav avTi rov Kara uiav.

'
'Etxpo- Ar. Nub. 1188 ie\io» t\iov ripyvptor itl
V'.mSi. ylyrtrat. Antiph. fr. 10, II 15K. utifov
It must be assumed that this was a lutfo*. Catull. 64. 275 majp's magis mere-
Colloquialism for 'one by one,' or 'one brescunt. Kxamples from modern
and then another.' Hrunck compares are adduced in the authorities quoted by
p. 213 ri ovk aTacoifiJidijfuy foov Thumb, die gr. Spr. in Heitalter d. Hel-
ieo* ariXriv So n&Wov fiaWo* in Kur.
; Umstnus, p. 118.
/. T. 1406 fiaWor 5i fidWo* wpbt Wrpat
EPMIONH
The plot of this play proceeds on parallel lines to that of
Euripides' Andromache. Our authorities for the contents are as
follow^ :Kustath. Od. p. 1479, IO £o$o«\r}c Be, <f>a<riv, fa 'Epniovt)
iaroptZ ev Tpoia ovros en WeveXdov eieSoBrjvai ri)v Kppuomjv vtto
'
to") 'Opiorrf elra vcrepov dtpaipeOelcrav avrov

•
iicho6r)vai -m'SeoTrToXefj.fii Karri ttjv ev'Ypoia VTmayea-iw airov Be

1 1vtfoi tnaipedevros vtto Maâtpewv, ore rov \rroXX(o rivvp.ev<^
rov trarpoi tgeBiKei <f>6i>op, diroKaraarrjvai avdis at rijv rril 'Qpeorn'
*£ (>)i> yei'taffai Tor T laafxevov faptavvums ovto) KXrjBevra rrap
uevovs riaiv, eirei 6 trarrip 'Ope'o-T»;c ericraro Toy? 4>ov€i< rov
\ya i. uroi 0?. The schol. on B 4 is identical in substance, though
f
inguage Ifl somewhat different, and the clause oie...<p<'»>ov

ill that follows Yiaap.tv6v are omitted. But vtto TvvBdpeto
is given in the MS8 in place of Otto MagoiptW, which is restored
ndorf. The only other allusion to Sophtt les in relation to

abject occurs in' scboL Eur. Or, 1655 which, after some
ks concerning Euripides alone, proceeds as follows:
<hrpe*t'r5r/<? <^/t/ (hi Id 94) rnj rraiBtov XPrl fffxov alrovvra rov
I
XeomoXefiov dvaipeO^vai' eirei NcoTrroXfjtov 'Epptavriv yapei rijv

n epx^Tai tk &eX<poi/v Kara ro yjpr)art)piov tcpea
8iapTrdty)vra<; rovi d<paipelrai rd xpea avrovs, eavrov Bit

AeXcpcW
1 fuiynipa. 6 Be ruvrtov ieptvs (avrov Be Kreivei Waâtp«VK
u rwrt&v l<)>n< Ka't conj. Leopardi] Karopvatret a » rhv
v rov vew. ravra ycveaXoyel koI
vhatmeaning should be given to th
utterance in the last sentence; but I cannot agree with Wclckcr
that w<- are entitled to assume that Sophocles
followed unt of l'lurccydcs in-rcspect either (i) to the
1 42 IO0OKAEOYI
motive of Neoptolemus in visiting Delphi or (2) to the origin
1
,
of the brawl with the priests. Welcker makes several other

assumptions which cannot be justified that Orestes plotted
:
against the life of Neoptolemus, as in Euripides that the scene ;
of the play was laid at Delphi that Hermione was forcibly

;
carried off by Neoptolemus, and sighed for her former lover

Orestes, as in Ovid {Her. 8); that Pylades assisted Orestes in
attacking Neoptolemus and that Neoptolemus in a dying speech
;
directed that Andromache should be sent to Helenus. There is

not a scrap of evidence to support these inferences and it is far ;
better to adhere strictly to the statement of Eustathius, who

is our only explicit authority. A tragedy upon this subject was
also written by Philocles 2 who is known to us from several
,
allusions in Aristophanes see schol. on Eur. Andr. 32. The title

:
Hermione is also found among the works of Livius Andronicus

and Pacuvius and several fragments of the latter's play are
;
preserved, and are used by Welcker for the purpose of recon-

structing the play of Sophocles 3 The objections to this method
.
have been pointed out in several other cases.

The principal facts which emerge from the statement of
Eustathius are: (1) the betrothal of Hermione by Tyndareus,
during the absence of Menelaus at Troy. For this cf. Serv. on
Verg. Aen. 3. 328 hanc Hermionam quidam dicunt, cum Oresti
esset desponsata, post a Menelao apud Troiam admirante virtlitem
Pyrrhi esse promissam : alii dicunt a Menelao quidem apud Ilium
Pyrrho desponsatam ; sed a Tyndareo Oresti morante apud Troiam
Pyrrho, ut quidam promissam, ut quidam coniunctam tradunt.
Ov. Her. 8. 31 me tibi Tyndareus, vita gravis auctor et annis 1
tradidit : arbitrium ueptis habebat avus ; at pater Aeacidae \
promiserat inscius acti, etc. To the same effect Hygin. fab. 123.
(2) Neoptolemus was slain by Machaereus at Delphi. This is
related by several authorities, from whom we learn that
Machaereus was one of the priests of Apollo: cf. Strabo 421
Ma%atpea>$ Ae\(f>ov avSpos dveXovTos ainov, a>? jxev 6 fivdos, Si/cas
alrovvra rov 0e6v rov irarpwov (j>6vov, &><? 8e to el/cos, eiridepevov
1
Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. p. 262, agrees with Welcker, and actually attributes the
introduction of the words ravra (or tclvto.) yevtaXoyei to the operation of this motive.
More to the point is his reference to Diog. L. J. 119, where Pherecydes himself is
called yeveaXoyos. Wagner (Epit. Vat. p. 2762) was perhaps right in referring the
words to the genealogy of Tisamenus, as related at the end of the play.
2 See TGF p. 760, where it is hinted that the name of Philocles may have been
substituted in error for that of Sophocles.
3 Wagner and Ribbeck make much of Pacuv. fr. 1 quo tandem ipsa orbitas
\
grandaevitasque Pelei penuriam stirpis subauxit, as confirming the view of Welcker

\
that in Sophocles Neoptolemus went to Delphi to enquire how he might become a

father. It is manifest that the words quoted do not warrant the inference that has
been drawn from them.
—
EPMIONH 143
tepdi. Pausan. IO. 24. 4 NeOTrr6Xep,op...6 !epev<; diretcTeive rov

TToXXtovos. Tryphiod. 642 âdeov hrfKrfp.ova iijov AeXtpot j
dvt)p eXdaas lepfj KaTiirtfyve fiaxaipy. It is important to observe

that the schol. on Pind Mm. 7. 62, quotes Asclepiades'
Tpaya)Soi'p.€ia (FHG III 303) in support of his remark that
all the poets agree in naming Machaereus as responsible for the
death of Neoptolemus. Pindar, in his Paean to the Delphians
(6. 118, Oxyrh. Pap. v 47), had given offence to the Aegim
by the words <ip.(pnroXoi<; Be \
p,oipiiiv irepi Tip.ni* |
Br}pia%op,tvov
KTcivtv I
trap 6p.<pa\6v evpvv, which seemed
Iv reptvei <piXo> y/i<i |
to them to suggest that Neoptolemus was guilty of sacrilege.

The cause of the quarrel was clearly not so well-known as to
leave Pindar's expression free from doubt and the newly ;
discovered scholia give various explanations: rjrot rtav xpetov 17

Ziapirafy>vT<t)v <rvvi)d* twp dXXa>i> eBvaêpave /cat erctoXve 816 teal
dvr}pT)Tat ij twv a Biaptrd^tov els etchiicLav tov irarpos
\pi)p.('irwv
dvypetfr). In .Vent. 7. 42 Pindar explains that he meant the first,
iva Kpewv viv virep /za'âv eXaaev dvrnv\6vr dvrjp payaipa: but
|
iccount of Eustathius, so far as it goes, suggests that in

Sophocles Neoptolemus was the aggressor. (3) The subsequent
birth of Tisamenus to Hermione and Orestes, and the deriva-
tion oi his name. It is impossible to feel sure that these
come from Sophocles: in any case, they can only have been
mentioned incidentally. For the fact cf. Pausan. 2. 18. 6.
Wagner llpit. Vat. p. 274 ff.) throws doubt on the account of
<
quite inadequate reasons, and prefers to follow the

;
s of Wclcker and Ribbcck to the plain statement 01
only direct authority. He treats Sophocles as the source of

Apollod. epit. 6. 14, and would accordingly restore viro 'Opitrrov
rather than faro Maâ/pewv for the corrupt imo TwSdpea* in
schol. Horn. 84. Schwartz, on the Other hand, rightly COflsii
that the fpitome is drawn in the main from Kuripides, but
contains a single motive taken from the HtfWtk
\ 1 ested that, if fr. 872 belongs to this play, tin- plot
may have been similar to the conclusion of Kuiipides' Orestes.
Hut, in view of the evidence already discussed, it is clear that
1 belongs elsewhere.
.-.ily-Wittowa 1 1879.
;
144 IO0OKAEOYI
202
aW a> Trarptyas yrjq ayvicuov neoov

f&
202 Steph. Byz. p. 22, 4 dy via' t6ttos iri8ov. But no rigid rule can be laid
8t)\wv tt]v iv ry ir6\ei iropevrr^v 686i>... clown: Ai. 135 tt?s dp.<f>ipvTov 2aXa-
cf.
ri> tottikov dyvtaios. 2o^>okX^s 'Ep/j.i6vri fiivos ix wv fiddpov dyxidXov, where

' dXX' ...iriSou.
1
to 8k dyvialos ws dpov- Bothe's dyxiaXov has not won acceptance.
palos. See also Elmsley on Eur. Hclid. 7 50. —
Meineke conjectured ayvicuov, which L. and S. strangely connect this adjective
would be in accordance with At. 859 w with Apollo 'A7W£i;s. There is no reason
yfjs iepdv oUelas ir£8ov ZaXayuiVos and to doubt that it simply means provided '
Eur. fr. 558 (J yrjs Trarpyas x a 'P € <pi-X.Ta.Tov with streets,' as a town settlement.
203
yVOMTTOS
203 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 87, 25 discussed at length by Curtius, Greek
yvwarbs ' olvtI rod yvibpifjios. 2o<pokXt)s Verb, pp. 519
are now out of date.
—
526, but his conclusions
The form in -aros,
'Epfjuovg.
Nauck contends that yvwr6s ought to where not phonetically justified, must be
be written as in fr. 282; but see Jebb on attributed to the working of analogy yvu- ;
O. T. 361 and the Appendix. He also <tt6s is thus necessarily later than yvwrds,
retains /cXawrd in O.C. 1360. The ques- although the contrary view was formerly
tion of the origin of this intrusive 0- was held (Blomfield on Aesch. Pers. 403).
EYMHAOI
Eumelus, as Welcker remarks (p. 66), is not a tragic hero
and nothing is known of any person bearing this name which
appears suitable for the subject of a tragedy 1 Moreover, it .
is only in Harpocration that the title appears for in fr. 204 ;
RvfirjXG) is an emendation for afirjXw. The best-known Eumelus

is the son of Admetus and Alcestis. who actually appears in the
Alcestis of Euripides. He commanded a contingent in the
Trojan war (B 711 ff.) was famous for his horses {ib. 763 ff.)
;
appeared as a competitor in the chariot race at the funeral

games of Patroclus ("^ 288 ff.), when he received some-
thing in the nature of a consolation prize and won the
'
' ;
first prize at the games held for Achilles (Apollod. epit. 5. 5).
Later he was one of the heroes in the wooden horse (Quint.
12. 324). Hence Meineke, concluding that he probably survived
the war, referred fr. 911 to this play. Blomfield's conjecture
'A/AU/C&) for EvfMrj\(p is improbable.
1
Wagner's extraordinary identification of the hero of this tragedy with the
Eumelus of Anton. Lib. 18, Ov. Met. 7. 390, requires no refutation.
EYMHAOI— EYPYAAOZ '45
204
204 Hcsych. I p. 79 aXfiarotcaoat they have driven out the conclusion of the
Aprfat alfiarot Kopicrai rb 56pv. 7) atfiari clause iv 5 kt4., leaving a gap. It might
fioXOvai rat xP^ffcu ai'Td* a<r»7 *ydp ^ he possible to account for ivtopti by read-
pwapla. S0tv *ai d&dfiftia. iv y tt)v Acrrjv ing ifiivi-Qov oi dpxaiot, or even ftivv0tu>
fJLT)v60OVTt (ffOfXl. —0<pOK\Tft dfX^\if>. ivtxwptt. So R. Kllis conjectured furv-
Kvi*il\tf> was restored \>y Musurus; and 0wv m
avatpti. But, for reasons already
the corruption of tv to a is frequent in given, it can hardly be doubted that the
Hesychius, Blomfield conjectural 'A/wJ- gloss of Hesychius has been mutilated,
and Blaydes approved. The gloss
«if>, and that it was originally identical with
has been further restored so as to read that of Suid as. See also Suid. s.v. dad-
'
alfiarot curat Apija...50(v kcU aoa.fj.iv- pivOot. i] rv(\ot, if OKd<prf iv alt oi
dot, iv jj rr)» &oijv...(uvv0ovTft iXovovro. dpxatoi fKovovro. ovk fjaav yip paXartia.
For that is the form in which the lemma wapd to ti\v Aorjv pxvvOtiv. Similarly
and gloss occur in Suid. s.v., and Bekk. Etym. Af. p. 151, 51. Etym. Cud. p. 8a,
anted, 358, $1, with the addition of the
p.
words ion
ttj* ptirapiav utiovprtt after For the derivation of dadfuvOot cf.
tkoOovro. Sui<l. omits t6 S6pv after Kopi- Apollon. lex. p. 45, 6 aadmvtiot. wvtXot.
<rat, and neither has avr6 after xputaai, or drd rod Hjr Aatv fuvvdttv, 6 io~riv i\arroOv.
any trace of ivtopti or of the reference to Schol. Horn. 450 dadiuvSot Xiytrai 3«d
•cles. t6 fuvvOttv xal ©for d<parl{'<iv tt)v Aoyv
Afew lines below Hesychius has oi- ijroi top pvvov. To the same effect ylml.
fiarutoai- (povivoai. fj (potvil-ai. Conse- I
quently, M. Schmidt conjectured that There is no reason why SojphodM

the words following ni)vv0ovrt l>elonged should not have introduced the Homeric
properly to this gloss, and should l>e doafuvOot, although liergk {/'/.(,' Ill
emended Xoirrapilv 2. K. This conjecture i i.O is hardly justified in attributing to
is supported by fr. 987. On the other him the words fptHfiavdrw 6i rn eurd-
hand, Schmidt is obliged to assume not tiwOov quoted without an author's name
merely that the words in question have by Etym. M. p. 797, 7
been accidentally shifted, but also that
205
KaOeXatu
205 II 11 poor. n. 04, 18 nadtXiJv ...
1 fU droKTiivij iv AOXchi d«wr 1) iv doy
drri rov dvtXvv 17 awotrtlvat. ixjrfa a* T0 «a0f \uiv, and no inference should be drawn
H oflrw ry 6v6fian naX aXXot, u» *ai from it for the usage of Attic prone. In
lnt«ixopot iv IXioi- ripaiSi (fr. 13) *ol the wider sense of to overthrow |]
XcôcX^t iv KvfijXu. Phot lex. p. 113, amples are more numerous: v. Ic« 1
I naBtXJjv Arfnoa0ilvitt (13. 53) arrl roi> Sophocles Troth. 1063 p&ni p* *if
cf.
dvtXiov (fr* dwoKTtlvat, xal TLrtfolxopot *a0tl\t <pa*ydvov 6*xa. At, |fj (tuifm)
*ai "LtxpotXrit. KodttXtv \toov ftavaoiuoit oin^TOpat. O.C
The passage quoted from Derm*: 1689 vara fit ^driat '
AMai t\o* war pi (i»-
is actually from the text of a law: idv fiartiv yipaiy.
EYPYAAOZ
The play of Sophocles is cited by ElMtath. Od. p 1796, 52
Karri hk \vaifiax ov (^ No^TO'f) vio? avr<~; »£ BÂmy« B«o"rpoirwo^
n^patv, hv aWoi A6pu«Xoi/ â<ri. So^kmcXt)^ ^* t^v a W
•! In ryalus
The story
IffTopcl, hv dtrtttTeiv* TrjXcpax *'
is told by Parthmius, u<nr,it. ,im. % After the slaying Ot the

D IO
5
146 IO0OKAEOYI
suitors, Odysseus crossed over to Epirus on account of an
oracular command; and, while hospitably entertained by Ty-
rimmas, became intimate with his daughter Euippe, and by her
the father of a son Euryalus. When the latter had arrived at
full age, his mother sent him to Ithaca, with certain tokens
proving his identity. Odysseus happened to be away from
home when he arrived and Penelope, who had previously learnt
;
something of her husband's passion for Euippe, found an

opportunity to satisfy herself of the whole truth. Accordingly,
when Odysseus returned, without informing him of the real
position, she persuaded him that Euryalus was plotting against
his life, and should be put to death. Odysseus was thus induced
to slay his own child, not very long before he was himself killed
by Telegonus. It will be observed that Eustathius speaks of
Telemachus and not of Odysseus himself as the actual slayer.
In the concluding words of Parthenius Meineke found a
senarius Tpeodels dicdvdr) Tpvyovos OaXaaaia^, for which see
the Introductory Note to the 'OBvaaevs aKavdoirXri^. Wila-
mowitz, Horn. Utiters, p. 191, holds that Parthenius is an entirely
untrustworthy source for the reconstruction of Sophocles' play,
and that we must not accept his authority for the line re-
covered by Meineke, or believe that Tyrimmas was the name
given by Sophocles to Euippe's father. But his scepticism has
not found favour with subsequent critics: see the authorities cited
by Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 62 10 Gruppe himself holds that the
.
story belongs to a stratum of Thesprotian and Epirote legend

which was older than the Ionian epos. Recently, Viirtheim
(Mnem. XXIX 57) has given reasons for preferring the statement
of Parthenius that Odysseus rather than Telemachus was the
slayer of Euryalus :he urges that the homicide was used by
Sophocles as preparatory for the Niptra, in order to vindicate
the poetic justice of the sequel, and that Penelope's vengeance
would have been incompletely executed unless the father had
been induced to become the slayer of his son.
EYPYTTYAOI
The story of Eurypylus, —of
his alliance with the Trojans,
and his death in battle, — within the period covered by the
fell
Little Iliad. He was the son and successor of the Mysian
Telephus, and his mother was Astyoche, the sister of Priam.
Homer (A. 519 fif.), in referring to the exploits of Neoptolemus,
selects as the greatest of his achievements his victory over the
hero Eurypylus, the son of Telephus, who was slain, together
with many of his Cetean followers, by reason of the gifts sent
'
EYPYAAOI— EYPYnYAOI 147
to a woman.' The allusion implies a further knowledge of the

history of Eurypylus, and is variously elucidated in the scholia.
the present purpose it is sufficient to take account of the
explanation attributed to Acusilaus I 103). According{FHG
to this. hearing of the power of Eurypylus, sent a
Priam,
message to him asking for his assistance. Eurypylus replied
that his mother would not permit him to render it whereupon ;
Priam sent as a gift to Astyoche the golden vine which Zeus had
to Laomedon (or Tros ) as compensation for the seizure
1
1
of Ganymede, and which he himself had received as an heir-

loom. That this version was ultimately derived from the Little
Iliad is made almost a certainty by the mention in one of the
fragments (fr. 6 K.) of the golden vine as the gift of Hephaestus
to Zeus, and as subsequently passing to Laomedon as the price
of Ganymede. Proclus* merely states that Eurypylus came to
the assistance of the Trojans, and, after heroically serving their
was slain by Neoptolemus. Pausanias (3. 26. 9) gives the
.
Little Iliad (fr. 7 K.) as his authority for the statement that
iaon was one of the Greeks who were killed by Eurypylus.
Another notable victim who fell by his sword was Nireus
;in. fab. 113, Quint. 6. 372).
1 he arrival of Eurypylus, his entertainment by the Trojans.
hire for the field of battle, and his immediate successes

are the principal subjects of the sixth book of Quintus and ;
uts are related in such a spirit as leaves upon the reader

the impression that the fame of Eurypylus as the last hope of a
cause (Soph. fr. 210, 76 f.) must have been widely celebrated
;
rlier poets whose works are now lost. It should be added

Quintus, although he mentions Astyoche (6. 136) as -
<>t l'nam and mother of Telephus, says nothing whatever about
the gift to her of the golden vine. On the other hand, it is
kal)le that Strabo (615 f.) dismisses the story of Eurypylus
and i ins. and the allusion in the words yvvaltov tiimta
Swpvv, as riddles in the text of Homer the solution of which is
>very. Nevertheless, he adds, the grammarians give
a supply of talcs in their commentaries which arc tedious rather
than convincing.
Among the writings which Quintus may have utilized was
agedy entitled Eurypylus, known until recently only
1 I
ataloguc given by Aristotle {poet, 23. I459b 6X of plays

> is the father of Ganymede and receives the immortal hones
1
In 1
in payment. Schol. X 511 .ucmdingly names Trot as recipient ..f (he golden
Acusilaus is not cited for these details, hut there is no douhl that Laomedon was
—do ti' .y the author of the l.ittlt lltad (»upr.|. The bribe 01*
the golden m: 1. 480 transferred to I it bonus, the father of
Mmirion. Aj)ollo<l. tfti. 5. 11 adds nothing of impor um .
i 48 IO0OKAEOYI
drawn from the Little Iliad, and classed by Nauck (p. 838)
among those of uncertain authorship. The fact that Aristotle
does not name the author is no reason for refusing to attribute
it to one of the great tragedians, since the Adxaivai of Sophocles
and the"OTr\a>v /cpiais of Aeschylus appear in the same list and ;
Tyrwhitt, in his commentary on the poetics, inferred from Plut.

cohib. ir. 16 p. 463 D that the Eurypylus was written by Sophocles.
This conjecture has now been completely confirmed by the
papyrus fragments published as no. 1175 of the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri (ix 86 ff.). The circumstances of their discovery 1 no ,
less than the internal evidence afforded by their contents, suffice

to show that a play whose subject-matter comprised the death
of Eurypylus was composed by Sophocles and, if Eurypylus;
was not the title, at least we know of no other which could be

so fitly applied to it.
The papyrus is terribly mutilated, and does not permit any
conclusion to be formed in regard to the development of the
plot. The only part which is continuously legible comprises
a dialogue between a woman lamenting the death of a Trojan
partisan and the chorus who sympathize with her. The former,
who reproaches herself as justly punished by the disaster, must
apparently be identified with Astyoche 2 The dialogue is
.
succeeded by the concluding portion of a messenger's speech,

which detailed the scene enacted over the dead body of Eurypylus
after the Greeks had retired, and the despair of Priam at the
failure of his last hope. In the column which precedes the
dialogue above referred to, only the concluding letters of each
line are decipherable but it is manifest that it originally con-
;
tained the earlier narrative of the messenger, describing the duel

between Neoptolemus and Eurypylus and its result. The frag-
ment preserved by Plutarch (fr. 768 N. s ), which we have already
mentioned, portrayed the stern self-restraint of the two heroes
as they advanced to the conflict, and the words yahickwv ottXcov,
with which that fragment ended, are still legible in the papyrus.
The identification, which was made by Wilamowitz, appears to
be certain for, although the remnants are insufficient in them-
;
selves to clinch the argument, the appearance of these particular
1
See the details given by the editor at pp. 30, 86, of their relation to the papyrus
containing the Ichneutae. It is worth remarking that Weil {Rev. des £.t. gr. ill 343)
had drawn a correct inference from Plutarch's fragment 'II resultc.que Sophocle
:
traita dans une de ses tragedies le sujet qu'Aristote designe du nom d'EvpvirvXos en
enumerant les drames tires de la Petite Iliade. La mere d'Eurypyle, Astyoche, cette
autre Eriphyle, etait sans doute un des principaux personnages de cette tragedie.'
2 The appearance of Astyoche at Troy is consistent with the legend that she and
her sisters together with others of the Trojan women were taken to Italy after the
sack of the city (Tzetz. Lycophr. 921, 1075).
c
EYPYFTYAOI 149
words at the very point where we should have expected to find

Plutarch's quotation, is a coincidence too remarkable to be
ignored.
The position of the remaining fragments is quite uncertain,
and none of them yields any consecutive sense without the
addition of hazardous restorations A few conjectures con- 1
.
cerning their order and contents will be mentioned below, and

need not be repeated here. It should, however, be stated that
on the Tabula Ilt'aca, immediately before the representation of
the death of Eurypylus, there is an unidentified scene in which
two men stand before an altar and it has been conjectured by
;
Wilamowitz 8 that one of them is Eurypylus, who is promising

deliverance to the Trojans. Even if he is right, it does not
follow that a similar scene occurred in Sophocles, but it is highly
probable that the earlier part of the play was occupied with the
arrival of Kurypylus and his welcome by Priam.
The younger Philostratus (imag. 11) describes a painting
which represented the duel of Eurypylus and Neoptolemus. The
greater part of his sketch is taken up with an elaborate account
of the shield of Neoptolemus, based upon the famous description
in the eighteenth Iliad; and there is scarcely anything which can
be supposed to illustrate Sophocles, unless it be the opening words
'puTrvXov teal NeoirroXefiov trotij-rlov vfivfl vopos trarp<p-
%€iv re avTovs ajjupa) Kat tt)v
X € *P a cv&otcinovs Kar kt^vv tli •<
The new papyrus, as well as that of the Ichnetitae, is dated as

belonging t<> the latter part of the second century.
206
A. at
Xa\i[i>o
4\06i{t
avrd? of R
206. 6 po%t tit (quod ut <HpYr

M quoqoe legi potest) littcrae w» in pap. dcletac Mint
1
In the tditio frinttpt of the papyrus as many as 107 fragment* were published.
* consul of isolate- 1 letters and parts of words belonging to three or fear
or occasionally more successive lines, so that, even where the restoration of a particular
Ijf certain,
ll .;nincant. In such OMM, tad »!»•>
word legiMr, bat that word is so common that its attribui
is
Sophocles has no feature of not thought it nccc»«ary to reiwmt the
•Stating vestiges. It is possible, though not. it would seem, very probable, thai some
M fragments by combination with other parts of the t»|>yr unetely
ticance ; but that result would not be promoted by their reappearance
in this volume. * fifths, p. alls.
150
I04>0KAE0YI
B. Troia 8e
^KVpOV) 7\_
A. T0(T0t[
7To\[
B. d\X[
A.
B.
i5
A. \et7re[t
B. eX0oir[
A. povov [
B. Xoyois jx.[
coniectura satis probabili hue

relata
14 -18 a prioribus discissa
speaker
might have been made by another
206 Wilamowitz conjectured that this Neoptolemus. On the
belonged as well as by
and the two following fragments other hand, there are obvious
difficulties
Eurypylus and
to a dialogue between involved in the supposition that
the two
Neoptolemus, which, accordance with
in it is abun-
preceded their heroes met on the stage, since
the usage of epic poetry, represented as
dantly clear that Troy was
encounter. The reference to Scyros in
this view, but the scene of the action.
v 8 is thought to favour
207
^vfxrjv yivo\_
Tr)\e](f>ov Sct/c^t
Tf>\6TT0V KaKo[
] rt rovro v[ ;
]
]eyw
>a
207. 4 tovtI supra scr. pap.
In v. 2 4»v may be <f>tv, and

uncertain whether this frag- the doubt.
207 It is
in any case T^Xôu is
not certain.
the Ich-
ment does not rather belong to
n.) enhances
ntutcu. The variant tovti (cr.
6
EYPYT1YA0I 151
208
AS. a/i,c[
<frwv y*p «[
BT.
Kopat; cVaS[
AS. apuTTos, <o hvo\rr)ve
ET. tl 8* oui/ 6 aais 8[

epyov tl SetXo [ .
AS. d[X]V ou rt fir) <rvX[

[<TSi]Xa>i> djajSJ^Jc; .
[
10
208 Mnmjf'i view, that the speakers the raven, but his croak was not neces-
rypyloa and Astyoche, is probably sarily inauspicious. Cf. Aelian not. an.
. and his restorations in vv. 3 — I. 48 ravrd rot *al narrmoit 9Vfi(i6\ott
are at' \'.<'<p. ibt$aur)p rd pr\Qiv dyaOdf oôXoyovai rd* arret* (si. KOpa»a),
wt ttp«TTot wr *6pa£ iwqiti parru...'A<rr.
j
Kal orrnWral yt wpot rijr ixtlwov $qt\»
&(HtjToi, w bvGTy)»t; ivotpi\fio¥ fiiv off |
o< av*iipTti 6 f>v id w Kai (Spat nal K\ayyAt
Hvrikip "Aptot tin 6\w\6ruv. That xal TT^fftit aC'Tuir 17 xard \atav x<<pa 4
!u- protests against the arguments Kara t*$i&p. —
firci6«i, <ut in it. Here ap-
iade him from entering into parently of an encouraging or victorious
the contest may be gathered from tt*$a- strain, as in Kur. El. 864.
l»ypy to faQi», tpyof 8ti\6v, K6pa£ IrpoVt 5 f. In the conjunction of xdpai with
<>n the one hand, and cÂ"?. «p*f««. <pl\wr OitjXj) Wilamowitz found an allusion to
&«r)Hli on the other. the rapacity of the raven, which would
a ^T)|iT| : a prophetic voice. This filch the offerings from the altai
meaning is illustrated by Hlaydes on Ar. Aesch. Suppl. 759, schol. Ar. Nub. 51
o. S..iiniiiiifs tp^tiri in the nar- Twrot fvorrot Kopaxa ipwdaat *w\qr. See
en.se of an oracular utterance seems however Murray's restoration quoted
i-tinguished from xXgowr,— a casual fcbOVA
speech to which a warning significance is ov Tl urj: 0.C
4*0, /rath. 6»l.
r. llfl. Hio n.l. IO an addition to the tragic
ciKT)6rjt is
S tiMffllu.il v: El. 668. vocabulary, but dnfcW Ant.
4 Kopcu;. r Miliar importance was 414, Aescn. Prom. 514.
diviners to the utterances of
i
52
IO<pOKAEOYS
]etva/u,[
JOovcrrf
ayy]ek\ei /x[
209. 11 t supra 5 scr. pap. 2
209 Hunt conjectured from v. i i f. naries of the contest,

that this fragment dealt with the prelimi-
210
Col. i. AITEAOS
>a[ ]
[aKOfXTT dXotSop^Ta &]iaf3e/3\.r)ix[ev

21 0. 1 adscr. pap. 2 et infra ]s
T7;]\e«/>o( ) 6 ir]ri;vai in marg. adscr. pap. 2
et infra 6]r)pa<jip.o( )
8 &ko/j.it aXotddprtra ex Plutarchi loco infra allato hue
revocavi (aKopnr' iXotdoprfrd re Badham itcd/juraa' dXoiSdprjra codd.):
21 0.8 f. See cr. nn. Plut.afe cohib. a/co/xir' dXoi56pr)rd re after oirXuv, but
ir. io p. 458 E kox rbv N eoirrdXefiov 6 admitted the difficulty of joining it with
ZocpoKXrjs /cad rov J&vpvirvXov birXiaas iubp.- '
the remaining traces of v. 10. Hence I
iraa' dXoiSopT/ra,' <f>Tj<xl, '€pprj^dTi)v...oir- was originally inclined to keep the old
Xwj/.' The
verses are quoted by Plutarch fragment separate from the new papyrus,
as an instance of angry men refraining relying on the fact that xaX*a 07rXa is not
from the idle fury of words. rare in tragedy (Eur. Suppl. 1152, Tro.
It is not obvious at first sight how the 573, Phoen. 1359, LA. 1260, Hypsip. fr.
words taken from Plutarch can be satis- 1 col. ii 30). But this solution is excluded,
factorily combined with the vestiges of when we consider that Plutarch's quota-
this column, although Wilamowitz identi- tion must have come from the messenger's
fied x] a ^ K ^ wv HirXwv with the conclusion speech describing the duel ; for that is
of Plutarch's citation. Hunt placed clearly just the part of the play to which
: : t
EYPYnYAOI 153
10 <r . [. Bâripov 10
• ippjfidTT)* it kvk\o. ex Plut. 1. 1. (Soph. fr. 768 N. 1

) hue referenda intellexit
Wilamowitz (it xpina Weil, fort, it encOXa)
this column of the papyrus belonged. Under kvk\oi they explain k. x- &• as
Accordingly, since re is not an essential = "a'rcles of armed men"].' (J.) The
part of Badham's restoration (for the asyn- intransitive use of b^typi'tu, although in
deton cf. Ear, Ale. 173 d/tXaixrroj, dart- accordance with the general tendency
row-rot), I have placed cLko/xv' d\oiS6pnrra affecting verbs of motion (fr. 94 1 , 11, fr.
before 6]ia(i<(i\T)tx[(voi, understanding 973, V.ur. Hel. 133511.), is not well attested,
'whose enmity is declared without vaunt and the best parallel is perhaps At. 775
or chiding.' 5\a(id\\u, which is very un- Ka$' Tjjixii oOwor' (xprj^tt ndxv< which
satisfactorily treated in the lexicon-, is Dobree was the to explain. But it
first
exactly our to set by the ears. The word seems doubtful whether bytai it can
does not occur in Horn. Aesch. Pind. or signify dash at: it should rather mean
Bacchyl., and Herodotus is the first writer burst into or rushed forth to, and neither
:>es it freely. In the following Of these meanings will tit *r«\a x- &• On
instances, which are confined to the the other hand, the circumstances seem
passive, there is no question (I think) to shew that the vv. describe the opening
thai 5iapd\\t<rticu is simply invisum or of the duel, and that xOgXa bwXwr cannot
urn peri: Kur. ffet. 863, Hclid. mean 'groups of armed men.' nwcXa,
411 (n.), ildt. 1. 118, 5. y?, 07, 6. 64, which occurs nowhere in tragedy, if not
Thuc. 8. 81, 83. The original meaning here, is applied in Homer to a set of
must have been to be placed opposite to wheels (Monro, H.G. § 99*); and it is
{apart from), although our evidence only unlikely that Sophocles would have
to an opposition which has pasted employed it in a nun- Homeric sense.
tUity. he dative, of the person
1 I am forced to the conclusion that
:y has been con- at any rate is corrupt. So far as the

tracted, is usually expressed ; but, if dXX»)- sense goes, Weil's tpina is unexception-
Xou was absent from the present passage, able, but Kpiew would rather be expected,
it was easily to be supplied from the and the corruption is improbable
context. unfortunate that the idea
It is less attractive is Wecklein's ippirjrdrm-
become so closely
evil has Kvfkvfia. I propose oxvXa (.CCCKyA*
associated with 6\a(td\\v. It has nothing passing to cckykXa). giving to it the
whatever to do with the usage now sense o( for (with a view to). aXos8d-
under discussion, but has led the critics pnra is active, like many other verbals in
astray in several
instances. Thus, in
1372 cUo/}\i70jrt is perfectly
•rot: cf. x a *JC » ,r *arrof 4 S 4- s"dr#«p*
rot ib. Iff, wicrbt O.C. 1031, abrbyrwrm
^
'take care that you don't get into Ant. 875 (with J.'s notes), and t tkt M
with the army." .similarly, Thuc. prrrot, prone to abn ,, in I'lut. amat. 13.
|
boald not be rendered 'lest they p. 757 A, fr. 941. 9. {r </»". fr M. fr 34V- - - -
should lose 1 he case might be

i rhese transitive verbals are discussed by
.trengthened from the orators,
• 1 II'.tshop in A.J.P. xiit 339ft
but here it must suffice to quote one of the II. wrote (C. A', xvii j88): 'The natural
nstances: Andoc. 1. J4 ovbip ofor meaning of «i/*X« xaA«4vr bm\u* 11
-<u dry do noi AiKcuwT StmSt- "round shields," as dawlbot tvtXet, ifoXa
fl\yo0*, 'there is no reason left entitling rpoowwoi'.KVt\awapiiittlSnnnu\]. There-
harbosjr resentment against M fore think we are reduced to two min
pretations
I
) they broke th4 boasts (t<f. is-

Pint nor. 37 B Still (
1
:
KOfiwaara Kotbopnra) of their enemies a-

r as I'lui 'ion is con- gaimt their braun shields; or {D they drat
cerned, Hadham's emendation bfonght unvaunting, un reviling blows (eê. dvojts*'.
light intodarknevs, but has not solved the OMbuwaar', aV<««o>*-arr'l upon their eat*
•
ipprftdTr\v must be in- mies' round braun shields. In (
lashed at the orbs of (each would be a play u|>on the phrase k#m or
( I., ami iim+ri(mt swiir, blows and wounds, not
idi.'* comparing bât vaunt*, were all they uttered
aXayva &c: but this will not serve. Pindar, contrasting Ajax, the man of acts
154 I04>0KAE0YI
] avvu Sophs
7Ta]XaicrixacrLv
]/u.arr
]v npbs ovpav[bv~]
15 ]
8' i(TT€vd£€TO 15
o\pyavo)v o~t4v€l
7r]a\A.ei X €P 0<S
Jy/xaros <f)vy<ov
]s So/909
20
] . trat Trpocro)
^\vpr)cra<; k<xt(o
6ixp?\droiv <f>dos
2
SO ?7X°s v -l- ex aha editione depromptum adscr. pap.
(&yXwo~<rov /xli* Tjrop 5' aXxtîoj'), with the lead in fighting against one another;
Odysseus, the man of words, says of them thus winning the congratulations of their
7) pkv avo/jLotd ye ddoiffiv iv 6epp.ip xp°t several sides, Neoptolemus as another
?Xi(ea prjgav. To do that you have Achilles, Eurypylus as another Hector.
to break down the defence, dt' ao-irLSos In viii they meet, Eurypylus challenging,
Oeivew Eur. Heracl. 685, 737, fr. 282, 138:
20: Theocr. 22. 193 woWa p.ev is ad/cos Tts irbdev elXijXovOas ivavrlov d/u/u
evpi> leal lirirdKOfioP Tpv<f>dXetav |
Kdarwp, ixaxecrdai >'
iroXXd 5' Hvvêv aKpifiris 6p.pLa<Ti AvyKevs |

77 ae wpds "AiSa Kijpes dpxiXiKToi
roio <rd*cos.' He also suggested ippaJ-a- <popiovaiv
ri\v. — Herwerden conjectured p.e<ro/j.(f>a- ov yap rls p.' inrdXvêv iv dpyaXir)
Xots S6pr) J
4ppr]£a.TT]v k6kXoio~i x- &•> i- e- vff/xivr],
fregerunt hastas copti-a clypeos. Campbell d\\d ftoi Sacrot (varna X1Xa.16p.evot
proposed kvkXu/jlo. (adding ovvvopqs x e P^ fiaxevaodai
in the previous line) for ^s kvkXo., think- devpo k'iov, ndvreaai (f>6vov arovbevr^
ing that Eurypylus and Neoptolemus e<ph)Ka
met the reviling words of their enemies kt£., and there is an heroic duel, 187 roi
with blows that crashed through their 5' ovk diriXriyov 6/jlokXt}s, dXXd o~(f>ias e'5d-
|
shields. ifov is da-irldas, 198 p.4ya 5' Zfipaxov d/n-

H. points out that in the narrative of (poripwdev deivofxevai peXLycn tot'' dffirides,
'
Quintus neither Eurypylus nor Neoptole- until Neoptolemus, having gained the
mus refrain from arrogant boasting of victory, exults over his fallen foe, hardly
their own prowess. 'In vi 384 after more modest than the other, 210 t<j3 6'
killing Nireus he vaunts over him, r$ 5' imicayxaXduiv p.eydX' e0x eTO -'
dp' iv' EvpijirvXos fxeydX' e8x eT0 otjutiivn' 11 avcv Sopos : fr. 94 1, 15.
li
vw, having met a better man."
K€i(x6 14 ovpav6v, probably of cries
irpos
Then he wounds Machaon, rants in the reaching to heaven, as in Aesch. Theb.
same strain (413), koX evx6fJ.euos p.iy' 429 (of Capaneus) dvrjrbs wv is ovpavbv !
avrec "d iuv fiiy'

5eiX',...6s oiri5av6s irep irip.irei 7e yw»'d
,
7rr\vl KvpLaivovr' tvr).
afxeivovi (porri dvra Kies" ktc., continues
\
24 ff. The reference is to the spear
triumphing when he is dead, and wounds of Achilles, which, as Hunt remarks, had
him again in vii 479 he is repulsed by
: healed Telephus, and now, in the hands
:
Neoptolemus and others, but vainglori- of Neoptolemus.slew Eurypylus,Telephus
ously threatens, 512 —
522 ws icpar" aKpd-
1
son. Cf. infr. fr. 211, 10 — 12.

avrov lets ^ttos, and these two then take
EYPYT7YA0I 155
]ou? 8' igj/acVt? 25

T^t)\e<f>ov Xeyoj-
][l)d<raT[oy
]#c . vovs Ta^v?
Col. ii. KadeiX' €<ro) ra [Trk]evpa[
AS. 0I0L0Z. 30
SnrXovs ai/€(TT€ua^[a 30
J/ ^*
• • •]
XO. 7raT/)o[5 ]
* pai/' €7r[ ri/3ta]^.09 tSc T€KVO)U.
AS. rpiTTjv 8' eV €/x[c ] XO. *c[cu] yd/3 ovp
npocrdy[aJy a>8i[.] . iy[ . .
.Jv 8iatVei9, 35
tVel ktt)(tL<i}v <f>ptv<t>v i£chvs.
AS. to Sai/zoi^, c3 Svo'Sai/Liot', c3 Keipas [i]p-€.
W XO. ayôu 7T poa tin as, ov yap e/cros cotojs
crvpei Sr) <f>vphav.
A~. €7n(T7rd(T€t hiKa p.€. 40
30 <xr«*Ta{. }»ji'p pap. 1

. e supra o et t supra i» add. pap.*
: 83 xj. pxipap vel
o\H<pofw coni. Hunt 84 rpiyi}r pap. deest paragraphia 86 o^t/ com.
|
Hunt, tii' &»' vel w...fm> Wilamowitz &]a*pvt[tt ct infra ffv ybp «i't[ in inarg. adscr.
|
pap. 1 30 ftpiar ex (pvpraw factum pap. <pi>prat> v.l. ex alia editionc rettulit m
loorg. pap.»
32 irarpot: "i.e. Telephus (Hunt).

' metaphor is enforced by the use of words
34 Tp(Trjv apparently rdotCi t<> &t*- expressing local Reparation, when mental
\*6t, bat it is not clear whether Astyoche perturbation is described: so tprrwr it-
speoks of herself as successor in misfortune orijreu (Kur. Or. ion), l(*6poi (ffif>/>.
and Kurypylus.— The lint 935) and many more. Add El. 1316
most be divided between the two speakers. Op*!-*** nrrwfupot, Tr. fr. adesp. 175 t*>
no paragraphus in the ^xrwr /{jp' dVw.
papyrus. The scribe usually allots a fresh 37 Saifiov 6wrScupov: cf. Kur. /. 7.
line to a new speaker, but >ap orV must 103 Ji«6aiMwr Aaipwr, and ace nn. on
3J f.
rOtf. Si*rdcu>*»
36 Seecr.n. With Hoot'ssMSj tanadi.,pra ntto'croel.'
v***p *l titalmt. It is F<»r Ktlpat cf. A- 713.
•
bat on Aeacb. Part. 1039 33 I ayx°* wpo^stwat.
j4a«i-» s-ûo scboi M comments iatpvi t6 Hunt 'thou speak est face to face,' implies
rather 'thy words are near the truth."
80 'Now thAt thy wits have strayed Cf. fr. 3141 301 »«V iyyin ty*m. Am/. 933
The metaphor which Ocwarov roOr' iyyvtirm rctfrot aOtrrtu. |
treats 0*w»«f as a material possession is Aesch. Theh. 960 ctxfW raiwr vdl fy^rf-
to be rendered exactly, hut there 9**. Kur. //'//. 1070 s*p*t frrup &*mp\<v*
roaoo for DBdentandmg KvneUv r' rfyyiH r«J*«. For rvpss t-f. I'lut. M. 4
'
irray) a<. rt/«r. 8 p. || roXfjioi x"^W*v Ist^S-
We should rather vorro <rip%*» «al raVra wmpm+/pm.
'
pDMBOTC **rfrat (roGr) KtKrijffiau 11 40 «>i«-ira<r«i n« •will ..»/, A mr

01. Or. tj04.fr. <yo<;. So too **• Thr m< i.ij.li.r u from a nsherman hauling
fimiklm and aittadta are called ktjiuit* in in his line: see on fr. 141-
Ant. 1050. rrve how the
;
156 IO0OKAEOYI
xo. StKci vol
AS. dW w? raptor apicrra.
15 XO.
tl <f>T](TOfxev, rt \etjofxev
AS. rt? ou^t Tovfxbv iv Slky) fiaXei Kapa; 45
XO. Saifxajv eKetpev ov Slko. ere Soll/mov.
AS. rj /cd/u,/3e/3dcri top \y~\expbv irpbs tw /ca[/c]w
20 yekarr e^[o]vT€? d[8/9]oi> 'Apyeiot /8ta;
Ar. ov/c e? toctovtov rj\6ov (D<TT e7r€yxai>[e]u>,
€7rel Trdkaiar/xa kolv[o^v ^ycu^t[tr]ju.€iô]t 5o
e/cet^rjo veKpol Tv\r~\6bv [a^Xrfkov o\_tt\o,
41 St/ecu pap. 42 17 Taxi-crrtj apiffrrj in marg. adscr. pap. 2 46 8iKai pap.,

Sued" Hunt 47 Kd/i/3e/3a(rt scripsi : »ca2 fiefiaoi pap. 48 d5p6»< scripsi, 0^6^
Wilamowitz 51 sq. 5d/c?; ro<r' scripsi, 5okt)t6s Hunt |
cetera supplevi, nisi quod
TjKtfffjJpos in fine v. 52 coniecerat Hunt
42 ^ TaxLoTr} apiarr) (cr. n.) was evi- the position of 'Apyetoi, recurring to the
dently proverbial, 'the sooner the better.' verb, justifies that of pia. The order of —
46 8£k<j: see cr. n. Wilamowitz the words is against the connexion of avrbv
assumed the existence of a present dtKav, with rbv veicpbv, and it must therefore be
so that the meaning would be 'Fortune rejected. Mekler suggests d/xbv, but I
judges thee not.' But the antithesis so which cf. Antiphan. fr.
prefer ab'pbv, for
presented is far from being clear, and it is 144 70 K.) adpbv ytXaaat 'to laugh
(II
simpler to accept biica. Hunt objects loudly.' It is unnecessary to alter rbv
that there is an inconsistency with 41, vexpbv to rip vtKpip, for the accusative may
but, since Slica is there 'punishment,' the well be governed by ytXtjrr' tx ei " after
inconsistency is at most a verbal one. the pattern of O.C. 223 5ôs lo-x eTe W?^
The rhetorical repetition of 8a.ifj.wv is &r' av8G> (J ebb's n.) or Eur. Or. 1069 lv
Sophoclean: cf. fr. 753 (n.). fj.ofi(pav ?x«. Observe that we must not
47 f. See cr. nn. The messenger's make vexpbv the direct object of ^x "7 65 "
reply shows that the purpose of Astyoche's with yiXwra as predicate for (1) there is :
question was not to enquire whether the no evidence that yiXoir'' $xeiv nvd could
Argives had departed. But the chief be used for ytXwra iroieiffdai (or ridfcrSai)
reason for doubting the integrity of (3e[33.ai Tiva — 'to make a mock of another';
is the difficulty of combining f3ia either (2) ytXwT ix eiv should follow the analogy
with it or with ytX.wr' ?x 0VT *S- The latter of ahxvvtjv ix eiV otKTov £x e "'> bpyr^v
<
alternative would suggest ayfXaffra irpba- £x«"» and many other Sophoclean ex-
wira ftiafonevoi sooner than 'laughing in amples collected by Ellendt, s.v. ?x w
another's despite.' On the other hand, p. 293 b, thus becoming merely a^substi-
ip.fiefia.<n...fila ('have trampled violently') tute for 7eXa»'. —
For irpos to> kclkw, insult
is peculiarly appropriate to the context. added to injury, cf. Eur. fr. 1063, 15 koi
Though a Greek might laugh at his npbs KaKOiffL touto St) /j.eyas yeXws.
enemy's misfortunes (At. 79), he would 49 tirevxetvciv. The simple verb (x<x-
hesitate to spurn his corpse. Hence, in veiv) occurs in At. 1227, but e^x '""'' i-s
answer to Agamemnon's ov yap davovrt. exclusively comic = to put out the tongue
'
Kai Trpoaefj.^rjvai <re XPV>' Odysseus replies at' (Starkie on Ar. Vesp. 343). Cf. fr. 3 14,
fxr\ X a 'p'> 'ArpdSr], Kipbeoiv Toh nrj KaXols 344-
(At. 1348 f.). The proverbiaW7rf/ct/Jah'ei»' 51 tvt06v, not elsewhere in Sophocles
Keifuvw iscopiously illustrated by Blaydes or Euripides. In Aeschylus the adjective
on Ar. Nub. 550. For the simple verb occurs twice (Ag. 1606, fr. 337), and tvt-
cf. Menand. men. 356 fir) V/Scuee 8i«ttv- 06. as adv. in Pers. 367.
Xovvtl' koivt] yap tvxv- Observe how

;
EYPYTIYAOS 157
o pets 8[a]ft>7 to<t\ o hk [to] trav [d]<r[v^/i,d»']o)5,

[XJu/u-tji/ 'A)(at[aii/ S19 t]oot/[i/ ^Ki<r/i€ji/o?.
ok 8' €K re Tr\r)[ya>i/ Aea]l Kd[7ra>»> K€*/xr;ic]dYa[c.
avlp-ovs 8ta[crT€tôPTa9 eiSo/xe" 7nJXa]c. 55
dfJe[rj/)7ro/Li[et'
'ol. iii. 24 litterae
26
25
few 60
26
24 ] rjflOLTl-
[ M- . . . dyJKvpatv ert
. e]ppr)^€i/ votos. 65
to Jiavra rroXXcI>[i/ Xuypoji' ep/>[d]#€i ord/ia,
7r]oXX^ 8e (Tit/SoW [7roX]Xa 8' 'IaT/îJaw'Stoi/
54 ,. supplevil Wibunowiu 66 Xv7©6r supplevit Wilamowit* 67 <nVcW
ex <rwiw» factum pap.
62 Neither cWirrcW nor ctt/rT/roi has pylus lived, our city was like a ship
Mainly it is difficult to securely moored; but now a fierce gale
tee now wtxpin cWirro't could mean 'a has broken the cable.' Cf. Tr. fr. adesp.
dead man who seemed to be stilt alive.' -o. XvypoV. lunt suggests s-tcpor
I
Hunt concluded that the two corpses as an alternative he points out that oin-
:
were those of Kurynylus and one of his rob* would be too long for the gap.
victims, perhaps Nircus or Machaon 67 ff. It was usual to wrap the corpse
and th iv inference open to us of a chieftain in fine linen. Cf. Hoc*. 1
in the circumstances.But in that case it • I Patroclus) iv \t\itaai hi Q4rrt%
should be observed that 6 pi* must be the itwf Xirl KdXiâf |
it wobat i* *»<>«Xfjt,
and 6 64 Eurypylus, although Kaeowtpet a *o>i hmmf. a 580 ««a a
1
cms to be of the contrary opinion. IXivop it* frifx' ivptnfrt* rt xiT<J»a, \
ad. l'\th. 1. aj <pvyti* o<(>pa *4kv* Tindoat boiti oitor&i <pipi*0tu.

*a*ot diif6r Kaxa-jopiar, but of course I'cnclope is weaving a +dpoi as
there the metaphor may be taken from a Aaiprgrip** racôr. Changes of clothing
sling or a t however, a fair were frequently provided, either at the
ch. Thtb. 386 Xôt hi funeral or subsequently Kur. Or. 1436, :
asttW r' oil oa«roixr' drtv bopin, and Cko. Hhes. 960, Thuc. 3. 58, Tac. <»»/<
841 ry wpbaStw i\KAiro*Ti ecu o>c1>r»<'»v linen s,-.- Mudnicaka,
that texot could be used for a spear- igt, p. 83; Hermann- Bluemner,
wound. Tic — '• of rtoos ('just 'IcrrptavCeW 6^t) were costly
recognised bvihescbol. on 7'rtuk. robes. Two successive glosses of Hcsy-
-<>» cirri Tov bXiyo*. Cf. II chius 0> P. 374) attest that 'I#r««in«Vi
o" f) rot roWor niv tx°* rrfXof and Irrpidii were names given to the
ill bin finished ') X 311 rov wrappings themselves («i Z«t4urni rrsXtU
<W gal AXXo toco* pi» >x" XP°* X*X" a rit ruii oOrw \ty6mriu). Wila- —
rs#x«a. I)cm. 14. 24 to <V (Ti n»»» ««<.a-
:
mown/, calls attention to ihc anachronis m
Xstar >t-,r«Teu rcWor «cd rAtror. —TO wa» is of introducing work from Istrtan looms
1009. Kombach sug- into the Hi.. seeing that Istros .
gests to »o* 4+0mppi*n. was a colony Miletus. d

It should be
06 rovairra The purport of the pre- observed that the corrector (see cr. n.) has
ceding words was perhaps, *whil- placed a second accent over efraV >
158 IO0OKAEOYI
v(f>r) yvvaiKOiv dvS[/3o]<? ippLTTT^djêTO
veKpai StSeWes o[_v8]ei> a><êX[o]v)aeVoj.

o 8' djxcjil TrXevpdis /cat rrâyatcrt [/cjetêi/os, 70
15 7rar[^/)] //ii' ov, naTpcoa 8* e£av8[<a]i> €7717,
II/3t[a/Aos] e/cXate r6f t4kv(ov 6p.[aC]ixova,

tov [7r]at8a /cat yipovra /cat ^cai^ta]^,
toi> ovre Mva'oi' oure TrjXecftov [/cajXaV
dXX cas cf>vT€vcra iXTTLSajv <rcoT[r)pia]i>.
Xpouov êvojdels ov /AOLKpov ir[ok]ko>v [kclXojp
Post v. 68 lacunam notavi 76 irfovbwKas Wilamowitz 77 p.tyiaruv coni.
Wilamowitz r addidi | 78 KaXQv supplevi: irCiv et postea 5' irwv Wilamowitz
the intention of substituting Zivduw (StV- 70 ff. o 8'...np(a(ios: Eur. Hel. 1025,
doi was the name of a Pontic tribe) for Phoen. 1 1 28. —irXcvpais
kcu o-â-yaio-i,
(TLvduiy. But 7ro\X?7 shows that ffivbdiv is 'his wounded side,' is a fair instance
of
right. —
The text can hardly be defended as hendiadys, for which see Lobeck on At.
it stands, although Hunt supports dvdpbs 1 45. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 247 irpb% alfxa
ippLwrdêTo in the sense of were cast '
Kai <XTa\ayfj.6v tKix.ao-Tevop.ev. For <r<f>a-
upon the man,' and thinks that the gram- yal in the concrete sense of 'wounds,' cf.
matical irregularity of diSovres is parallel Rhes. 790 dep/xos 5e Kpovvbs beairoTov icapd
to Ant. 259 f. and other similar examples. ffepayais |
i3d\Xet p.e. — iraTp(»»a...?'TrTj re-
But the genitive suggests an indignity, as sembles warp^cjv bpKiuv in Track. 1223.
if the wrappings were hurled at Eurypylus, 73 would probably have been less
and the harshness of this particular obscure, if we had recovered the earlier
anacoluthon is due to the fact that the part of the play. Since iraida, in contrast
logical subject with which Sidovres ought with yipovra. and veaviav, must, as Hunt
to agree is not expressed or even indicated has observed, mean 'boy' rather than
in the two preceding lines: contrast the 'son,' we may guess that Eurypylus was
examples in Kuehner-Gerth § 493. Ant. represented as (iovTais, avriirais like —
I.e., as a case of distributive apposition, is Achilles in fr. 564 or dvdpbirats —
like —
much easier. Wilamowitz regards 69 as Troilus in fr. 619, and Parthenopaeus in
an interpolation ; but, as this only in part Aesch. Theb. 520. Thus, the meaning
removes the difficulty, I should prefer would be one who, while a boy in years,
:
'
to suppose that a line has been lost after was both counsellor and warrior.' Cf.
eppiTTTdêro such as yipas OavbvTos, ota Eur. fr. 508, Paroem. I 436. The topic
Trpoae<pepoi> (Eur. Hel. 1262) <£piryts. of the virtues characteristic of the various
This is better than to read 5i56vros and ages has recently been handled by
understand dvfpbs of Priam, as I formerly F. M. Cornford in Class. Q. vi 252 ff.,
suggested, although the apparent contrast and it is of course possible that xcus
of yvvaiK&v with dvdpbs is somewhat covers an allusion to (ruxppoffvvr). For
artificial. —
The thought that the dead veavias = invents Wilamowitz quotes Hdt.
receive no benefit from funeral offer- 7. 99. Cf. fr. 314, 357 n.
ings is a commonplace. Cf. Aesch. fr. 75 cKxaXovpevos seems to mean 'in-
266. Eur. Hel. 142 tA t&v davovruv
1 voking,' as contrasted with kclXQv in the
oiibev, dXX' a\Xo»j ttopos. Tro. 1248 doxO) previous line. The meaning is the same
8k rots davovai 5ia<pepei.i> fipaxv, |
«' irXou- in Track. 1206, where a subordinate in-
fflujV Tit TtV&Tdl KTeptfffjidTWl'. fr. 64O finitive is added : old fj.' eKKa\ei, icdrep, |
dv6pwTru>v 5£ /xaivovrai (fypives, dairdvas \

<povea yeviffdai Kai ira\apj>alov aidev.
OTav davovcrt irkniruoiv nevds. Verg. Aen. 76 ff. See cr. n. In his smaller
6. 213 cineri ingrato suprema ferebant. edition Hunt adopted Wilamowitz's irpov-
—
EYPYTTYAOZ »59
fivrjfirju Traptêts rot? X[cXei/z/xeV ]ois *A[pco>9,

6(T ovre Me/x.i^cujf ovt€ 'Ha^pirrjScou ttot€ 80
7rdXX' r^ynv ]o[

d»9 ccrva[ Jk[
!cJ7rct ok p\_
7ro]XXot<rt[ 85
7© VXti/iMôtt supplevit Wilamowitz, "A/xwi Hunt SO sq. supplevit Wilamowit/.
twnat, which requires that the full stop rpoi'5a»co a', which has the support of the
after should be removed and
ourrtipia* papyrus and, since Ant. 1160 wouM not
that 6' should be introduced after toXXw*. justify the rendering 'I have lost you,'
rpot>i5u;»ot, 'thou hxst abandoned us' (cf. I'riainmust be supposed to reproach him-
Eur. Hipp. 1454 etc.), would be good self with having betrayed Kurypylus by
enough but the words lx u " AtMciw
• inviting him to Troy. 4Xir{$wv <r«*TT)piav
ournpiar are somewhat more suitable to is exactly like i\wiiu>* dpwyal, which is
1'ii.mi than to Kurypylus, and the clause applied to Orestes in El. 858. Since rt
Xp&*or...n*Kpi* should certainly qualify easily drops out —
an error which may Ik-
firfl.uTfr -rapiia.%, whereas in the 1 illustrated from the same passage we —
text most be attached to wpoi>8wKai...
it should probably read tuyimp r' here.
awrrjf>iaf, with which it has no logical koXwv is supported by frs. 81, 102, *«yi,
connexion. For these reasons I retain 93»-
211
AS. -/xi'Sas xal to[v
'IScuoj/ )8arjt\( rja
Upia(Moi>, 05 /x[
Tracr^. Karapf[
€7T€LO-€U afioi^ Xl£
c[pyo]i> Zpgai^ [
XO. fivafioo^vvav
TTpo\l\TTOiU
oviror\
AS. lot hopv Tt/X[«<£ 10
7rai8i <jvvk(\ p<rav

at \6y)(a o~<ot\ €i/>a
[.] ouovo~ap\
[ rt
211 The divisions between the 4 Perhaps *aroparor. Astynchc re-

ipeakcrs, marked by the coronis in the proaches herself for yielding to the bnlw
Oven according to Hunt's of the golden vine.
lowit*, however, attributes 7 ft. Hunt well suggests that
!c fragment to the Cfl lines contmnr.1 a thought similar to that
1 p{8a« is doubtless, WihunowitxM IIS, 4.
Nggestcd, the end of ll/naîni. 13 o-MTupa 0KAE0YI
i6o
212
]
] , r
]o-at Aios
6av(ov
1 . [.> €vr[vY]eZ
.
8' [ajirwXero
TraWXaw
Oelaôv ihpvadai to vx\y
]<xi
]
KOLVodaKd Xa£oa
T^]Xe<J>ov gwovaiav
S]ei7n>a irXrjo-iaiTaTOS
8' avai
]t T w8e, £i| [
IO
]Tl TtKTOUO-17 T€[.] .
[
ti'Xô-iv o[v 7r]a>os L
irpo crr)h[
] bpâvrj
~]hpOTTOV TrXoKOV [
']7r«[. .]vaX-
XO. .
15
]eu>[. . . -] av
]vov
already lay.
com- rock-tomb, where Telephus
2126 Koiv69aKa is a new 13 Spoirov is probably the remnant
of
known
pound/and Xa?6o S was htoertO fr. i a passive compound such
as „e65po7ro„
sense (Timon s have described a
'only in the active the The words seem to
The allusion seems to be to Eur. El. 7 7« 8^t«f
DieU '
We J>ay chaplet of flowers : cf.
S'of Eurypylus' (Hunt

nfer that the body
ot Tepdvris (ivpaivvs K&P9
*™ K0V '-
£ P further
nerhaDS
y p ylus
was to be buried in an
ancestral
213
AX. .
[
ecro[
€(TO-[
if<rr[
aira
Spo|i[- s ^XXo[ts
f"
ea>9 av €ii /cpvx/n7[r€

XO. eplw T ° 7ra \-
213 columnae prions omisi

lacinias
was not the original.
wntten in a-,
the error
•
Kpiyv
error, icoM-wre
213 8 The iota is
was an
unless there
papyrus, so that,
,
EYPYFIYAOI 161
214
'
} r\_r
]vy[.]pc • . . M kai
]o> . a /cat T/3tVou[
cU']oi£a9 8€(T7roTat9 [
ci]t€ -rrdvdos citc r»;[
]<ra> 8e XP[°] ,' t0,' t
]St7 7roXX\ cf
M
add. pap. • i supra I. add. pap- 1
214. 6 (ito pap. : » MfC*
215
]
nao-av £v<j>p\oi>
]
i/w 8' 6 par I
Tq |Xe'<£ov Kapa X[
i/oo" ]r;Xcucra9 €/xc |
]ay/xeVo9 0o[
|«Xos f c[
}y€ 7ra»4
ôtfi>X«i>«roi Mipi-lcv.t \N ilaniowit/

215. 6
2l6
Jar[. . .J<rov8[
Jap0| . • • \o<twt\
216. 6 fti^ Miprm «cr. pap.*

1 1
IO<t>OKAEOYI
l62
] Oavoiv aTrav [
]o-ey Uvaa fta[
1 fxeyav Soj/aciL
]
appvff\jL
10
] ^P"* •
[
juucras corr. pap.

7 /iwai ex
217
~\kOT7)\_
]o ixvpioiv [
1 TO </>WS €/)[
/xot 7r/30ore[
]
cr\vvakyova\
]crato"€[
283.
217. ffvvaXyelv occurs in At. 253,
2l8
J
- r
]l 7TOTfX09'
]Xe'r[
Those who desire to examine

thei
small .07
After this fragment several
21 8 naturally consult the editio
princeps
will*
containiiig be*e nothing to
pieces of papyrus, «£ Inasmuch as they contribute
in addition to play, and the words
there a complete word our knowledge of the
the most part only slight .uteres as
other vestiges, but for which are legible are of
transcribed in
portions of words, are illustrating the
vocabulary of Sophocle ,
Ox Pap. IX 101 — 114. and numbered

been thought better to
has
omit them.
frs. 16-46, 48—82, 84-90. 9 2 > 93. 95— it
EYPYT1YA0Z 163
2ig
iC€voa{
w
]ir' aVTLCDV [
]
TTpOL^LU €/a[
. a? vvv ova. .
[
t 7jy)a£i9 178c .
(
]i Zcv9 yap 6[
Jf aXXa /cat [
10
219 2 a> x'w OT ot>x erfo? elsewhere so used by Soph.

3 dvTi«»v. perhaps of'foes, though not
220
VTOiV X .
(
£cVoi hva-qKoa \
220 8vo-iJKoa. probably in ihe same to hear. ' The passive meaning is vouched
use as ar>)<roivro in EL 1407, 'terrible by Pollux 2. 117 <fKj»f)f Sk^koo*.
Ill
vv ai\
J. £Xt^/x[ a
tos yap a<r[
aX X* ei nrceve j
£i<r . . €wo[
221 nes seem 1 was waiting in the dtafrac* (v. ji) for the
ami, if th trochaics .<• return of a spy who had ju»t ileparted
• most have been placed nearer (i.in Iroy (v. it).
4 fwttyf. For the I
Irawn a* to tkm. In v. the an 1 1 ti i.
1 Ik- aiMresaed. Pkmm, 11K0. Cf. Soph. El. lajf.

Mggetted that Agamemnon h. lip. 1 <9 tTityt' w*f*6mt% twtMt.
11— a
1
64 IO<t>OKAEOYI
(B) 8/aJacrw raS' &>[
]as /xdXadpa v[
(Xo.) ]i>a KLueladaL t[
«>] y^pova) /u.aAx[<7Ta
8]w/xaro)^ cty^t 7jy>o[
dvS]/305 ywcu \ayer[a]

<ô]o£>So9 e<x#' 6 £eVos
] . /a' 'A^cuolcrii' atcrta»r[ar
] . 77 TerpaTTTai tov[ 15
]£a>i> V7r' ar]7 tt7\[

]a /u.77 (Tv^ kolk(o <f>de[ip
ôvoTr\r)£ evvis art[
]^[.]i7 davojv aêrat /car[

ovSJa/xcos eôt/w,' a^ et7retv t[
0)9] aVa£ avhpo)v 'At/sciSt^?

] . crot T17X0V SoKaêt r>^[
~\vo(rrj y8a#eia[
]acr . . [.]ira .
[
221. 8 Keiveiffdai pap. 22 w? supplevit Wilamowitz
18 The «/. /r. gave -ov tirX-ri^, but e 20antral is more likely than fiferai in
is said be unsatisfactory, and the
to a tragic text, although Hunt thinks that
neighbourhood of eCm does not favour the latter might have been applied to a
the verb. A compound with -tt\ti^ would corpse exposed to the sun. [By an over-
be preferable, but, since o is certain before sight the words are inverted in the ed.pr\
v, I can suggest nothing better than Sai- 23 Sokolî, a rare word, explained by
fjLovoirXriZ, for which cf. dalfiovos TrXrjyri Hesych. I p. 526 as equivalent to nivei,
(fr.961 n.), Aesch. Ag. 1660 daifiovos eiriTrjpeT, Soicd, irpocr5oKa, is quoted from
XV^V P&pd-Q 5v<ttvx&s ireirXriy/jL^voi. Sophron fr. 52 K. ir\6ov doKafav.
222
] . [. .]ra Syoacre[re
] aAAa tclvt iyco .
[
]EVpOU OvheTTO)TTOT\j.
]raf TTavXa /cat kolkmv [
222 appears to contain reflections on yap fi^ylcrruv t\ tvxV M€0j<x[raTat <ppovi | t
the instability of human fortune. Wila- p.6.Tw\v ra.xi.ffTa tov \6yov [Si rhv t |
mowitz restored ravr' ^yw Tr[a\ai \

to. ttigtov e]i SeiTj/u.ej', ti Opaovv t[iv<i. In v.
dv-bfi adprtaas] etipov oi/deiruiiroTe \
[ypuv Hunt thinks irXeiffruv more suitable thar
7&oi]t' av iravXa nal kclk&v [\vcrts j
tCov fxeyiffruv to the traces in the papyrus.
EYPYFTYAOI— EYPYIAKHI 165
] . MTTbiv Y) Tvxrf /xc^tofraTat 5

!v Ta\L<TTa- tov \6yov [
1
§' €L7)fxeu el dpacrvv t\
] Trjs TV\r)<; ava<TTai[
]vmjfiep[ J{€Ta[t
7 ilr\\uv (or tiSdijuev) is clearly irwli- not been convincingly emended, and 8ol-
ilthou^h the shorter forms are ipa* seems certain in Damoxenus fr. a, 67
normal in Attic, as metre shows. Hut (Athen. 103 B).
rd's ri^'itl ostracism (Nno Phryn. 8 rr{% "rir^vfi was perhaps governed by
>f the longer forms in the plural waararo» (?). C'f. Tr. fr. adcsp. 304
by the evidence. The three
I
TTwxb* ytvioticu xal S6nwr drdcraro^.
în Kuripides (Cyct. 13a Spyrjutv,
•
'Cast from his high estate.'
1 o o aStKoiijfit* Ion 94 3 ^xtirffup) have
1 ,
EYPYIAKHI
Welcker (p. 197 ff.) proposed to reconstruct the plot of the
from Justin 44. 3 Gallaeci Graecam sibi originem
unt : siquidem post finem Troiani belli Teuerum morte Aiaeis
<i invisutn patri Telamoui cum non reetperetur, in regnant
tin eoneessisse atque ibi urban nomine antii/uae patriae
minam condutisse. inde, aeeepta opinion* patemae mortis,
pat ria m repetissc. sed, cum ab Eurysaee Aiaeis filio a<
frohiberetur, Hispanieu littoribus appulsum loea ubi nunc est

Carthago nova oeeupasse ; inde Galuuciam transissc et positis
mti nomen dedisse. It is of course unlikely that
Sophocles knew of Teucer's settlement in Spain, for which
•o (p. 157) is our earliest authority; but Welcker uses tin-
oi Acorns' Hurysaees, which was probably adapted
Sophocles, in order to fill the gaps in Justin's account.
not however successful in establishing that the story was
>le of such dramatic development as lii^ theory requires.
given to the question: why did Kurysaces refuse
Teucer, who rather deserved his gratitude 1 \
1 li nts of Accius are in themselves so inconclusive
thai Ribbeck {Rom, frag. 419 ff.) is able to give them quite a
ent application. According to him, Telamon in hi
1 out of Salami's, and was discovered by
and Eur)
r >\y in Aegina. By then 1
and that of the citizens he was restored to 1»:
who accept » view, thinks that tlic iwoXoyia of Tcuccr tr

1
may have been deliver*] mi tin* uccaaion rathrr than al h»»

îrn ; //;'. /..»/. 7. 3 lru..r
r qui sit ii^Hiftatu), but admits that wc cannot connect the »tatemcn( with
I
166 lOÔKAEOYI
Ribbeck's reconstruction of Accius rests upon an extremely
fanciful and improbable interpretation of the famous passage in
—
Cic. pro Sest. 120 123. The difficulties involved are well-known,
and we do not possess the material necessary for their complete
solution ; but Madvig's admirable note, reproduced in Halm's
edition (1845), shows the true way of escaping from the chief of
—
them, the apparent inconsistency of the words in eadem fabula
(121) with the statement of the schol. Bob. that Aesopus imported
a reference to contemporary politics into his performance in the
Eurysaces of Accius. For it is certain that the quotations
pater and hacc omnia vidi inflammari belong to the Andromache
of Ennius. In view of the currency which Ribbeck's views have
obtained, the following remarks may be added : (1) It is a
desperate expedient to suggest that Aesopus interpolated into
the Eurysaces a canticnm from the Andromache in order to do
honour to Cicero. (2) The reference to poetae in 123 and the
quotation from the Brutus show that Cicero intended to recall
more than one representation. (3) Since pater in 121 is taken
from a lament for Eetion, who was killed, it is plain that patron
pulsum in the following sentence applies only to the circumstances
of Cicero, and not to the fate of his prototype. There is no
ground therefore for inferring that the Eurysaces mentioned the
exile of a father, and the reference to Tusc. 3. 39, which concerns
the banishment of Telamon after the death of Phocus, is beside
the mark. (4) The two quotations in 122 must be assigned
to the Eurysaces, but there is nothing to prevent us from
supposing that Teucer was the exile there mentioned towards
whom the Greeks are charged with ingratitude. (5) There is no
serious objection to Madvig's conclusion that the quotations in
120 and the beginning of 121 are taken from the Andromache,
and refer to a Greek hero whose identity cannot be ascertained.
Pseudo-Serv. on Verg. Aen. 1. 619 points in another direction:
according to him, Teucer and Eurysaces returned from Troy
in different ships; and, as Teucer arrived first without Eurysaces,
Telamon, believing that his grandson was lost, refused to receive
Teucer.
It is at least in favour of Welcker's view that the events
which he introduces were subsequent to the withdrawal of
Teucer to Cyprus. It does not seem probable that in this play
Sophocles gave a different account of the home-coming of Teucer,
with or without Eurysaces, from that which he made famous in
the Teucer.
:
EYPYIAKHI— HPAKAHI 167
223
dhoâarov
223 Hesycfa. 1 p. 47 a&6£a<TTof Cf. &5o£a fr. 71 (n.). Iâter d&jfeurros
« became a philosophical word, being
ari\v«rTo*. ZoipoxXfn Y.vpvo&KU {tvpvoi. employed to express the certainty of
cod. 1. To the mum effect Phot. ed. knowledge as contrasted with the un-
Keit/. [). 13, 8= BeUt. anted, p. 344, 18, trust worthiness of opinion in this sense :
where the name of the play is omitted the Stoic w i»e man was d64(a<rrot (Diog.
hryn. fr. 80 de B.). L. 7. 161).
HPAKAHI
Eni TAINAPQI IATYPOI
HPAKAEIIKOI
Of the eleven fragments collected under these titles three are
Cited from 'Hpa*\r/c. (with or without o-arvpiKos), two from
EmtraivdfHOi, three from fir) 'Xaivuptp (alone or with oarvpiicos
iiul two from 'H pax Xehr/coc. I have added the
solitary reference to the Cerberus, which, in view of the subject of
the // / Tatnarum, can hardly belong to any other play.
Heracles was a very common character in At) r-plays,

is Welcker (p. 319) showed, although it is generally believed
Ghat the Heracles of Euripides was the earliest treatment of his

a subject for the tragic stage*. It ii quite possible,
>re, Sophocles wrote more than one satyr-play of
that
Rrhit h lera< les was the hero
1 and, since the proper reference of
;
Xeto-Kos is to the mfant Heracles (see on Aiofi/<7i'a*ov,

p. 1171, I with Wilamowitz* in thinking that the play
mown by that title did not contain the descent at Taenamm,
>re probably th<- legend n lated In the twenty-fourth Idyll
eocritus and the firsl Nemean odeof Pindar. On th< otnei
land, the prevalent opinion that the I la to be identified
'Ti'tTvpoi tor that is the most correct of the

ry well l>e right. It is, however, molt in
;th analogy to regard 'Hpeuck^f t) hn 'Ymvap^
r. //rr.U.fi, 1
p. 98,
liainic in u
wm. who first |>ui.lislieil the Anthology ct rid ihai tl><
rguing against Ihi I IM* -'/"'• v " '*>>
thai 'll/««\*6r*v was an err.T foi ll,*i«r\«< f»u* (iV. amr I the
ilî«X«ftf»ot: llî«Xi«r«ot SO I' lit.
1 68 IO<t>OKAEOYI
trdrvpoi as alternative titles adopted by the grammarians, than

(with Nauck) to speak of 'Ylpa/cXr}? eVt Taivdpo) a-arvpi/cos.
Taenarum was situated at the southern point of the pro-
montory which lay to the west of the gulf of Laconia and a ;
cavern close to the sea-shore was the legendary scene of the

final labour of Heracles, his descent into Hades to carry off
Cerberus from the under-world. This famous story was known
to Homer (® 367, X 623), who, however, does not mention the
name Cerberus but whether it was in the execution of this
;
task that Heracles is said to have fought with Hades at Pylos

(E 395) is by no means certain. Taenarum is mentioned as the
entrance to the under-world through which Heracles descended
by Eur. Her. 23 and Apollod. 2. 123. The incidents of the
adventure are most fully described by the latter (122 126), but —
we have no means of connecting Sophocles with any of the
particulars. It should, however, be noticed that Heracles is said
to have returned by way of Troezen (Apollod. 126, Pausan.
2. 31. 2: cf. Eur. Her. 615)
—
probably in consequence of the
rescue of Theseus having been effected on the same occasion.
But the conditions of the satyr-play seem to require that the
successful issue of the labour should be declared by the re-
appearance of Heracles with Cerberus 1 and it is therefore
;
satisfactory to find evidence of a tradition which brought him

back to Taenarum (Pausan. 3. 25. 5).
From Eustath. //. p. 297, 37 iv yovv tois U pa)8cai>ov eiprjrai
'
on EiXcores oi eVt Taivapw adrvpot Nauck and Dindorf drew the

inference that the chorus in this play consisted of Helots. This
is an error, as has been pointed out by Decharme
2
Crusius 3 and , ,
Wecklein 4 the intention of Herodian was to state that the

:
satyrs described themselves as Helots, and served in that

capacity, just as in the Cyclops they were SovXot, of Polyphemus,
and in other plays appeared as smiths (^(pvpoKoiroi), reapers
(®epi<TTaL), and acolytes (Krjpv/ces). See also p. 71.
Nauck W.
Hippenstiel {de Gr. trag.
refers to the opinion of
princ. fab. nom. diss. Marpurg. 1887, p. 17) that the play was
produced in the last few years of Sophocles' life, but does not
explain his reasons.
1
Wagner thought that the whole action of the play was subsequent to the return
of Heracles.
2
Rev. £t. gr. xii (1899) 296.
3
Paroemiographica, Munchen, 1910, p. 100.
4
Telephosmythus, Munchen, 1909, p. 6.
HPAKAHZ 169
224
aW ol dauovres ipvâyayyovirraL p.6voi.
224 drXoi codd. : corr. Kahe
224 - tool, x in Aphthon. ed. Rabe isnot the title of a play hitherto unknown,
1. xii 570) if KtpiUpy 8< but merely an alternative name for the
2!oc&o»\jjt dXXwi tj \^£<« (jr. \f>vxo-~t<*y*i*) Heracles at Taenarum, in which we know
iXfi^tcaro- <prj<ri yap 'AW oi (so Rabe that the carrying off of Cerl>erus was a
for drW <»1 ydp tup
codd.)...pdyo(.' prominent incident. The words may
&ia.Top0ntvou.ii/wi> \nrb rov Xrfpwvot \fnrx_Qf have l>een spoken by Hermes (of Charon)
The scholium on î'xaycirye«»' in answer to a request of Heracles for
-ina much shorter form in gudttlCfc Cf. Verg. Aen. 6. 391 corpora
Doxapatres (Rhet. Gr. 11 p. .$47 Wak, zi-a mefiu Stygia restore carina, net j
11 p. .?o, Sp.). :ero A let Je n me sum laetatus eunttm

I have very little doubt that Cerberus accepisse lacu.
225
. . avveXeyou rd £v\\ cos iKKavfidrcou
firj fioL fiera^v wpocrheTjcreup
225. 1 iKnavftara Pollux 10. 1 10
225 Pollux 10. 110 rpoo0triop &i Cf. /'<*//. J97 ff. elr ««...{«'.Xor rt
r<p Ha'/fipy kcu feXa Kaixri/ia * ai ri\i}uari5at tipavoai. rvpi occurs in Ml.
iKKaittP to. I
«rai ixnavfiara, tlwdrrot L'oôkX/oi'* if 4. 134, 135. Kuripides uses tuxavfia

'ilpa»\«« caTrpmji ovpi\tyop...wpoo-
' metaphorically (cf. vwimai'Ha) fr. 1031 :
ill. 7 110 <fHTpoi't 6i roi'Toxt tKKavua rdX/np Ikopop ion nal 0pd-
twj/tiktj tpun>T) ( X 2o> iKnavunra v proposed Tpoadttit iUp. which is
H lo<K)<X^t <V Ilpa«rX«« oo.T\pny 'avri- DO improvement. lilaydcs fdls up the

it itxKavu,drup fiij not lirst line with <»IW> $i*i)Uyw.
226
Tpe<f>ov<rt Kprjvrjs <f>vXaKa yâtpirrftf o<f>w.
226 arpifovoi codd. : corr. Jacobs |
p6W* ««i COdd whitl
226 >•• pfa i

,.11 x u P* ,*-nt guarded the fountain •
X<4pirr)t IsxpotXfii A ('>«. *oi i* at Tli' 01. if. 10. : for the
I)
Hpa*\n 'irrpiipovai 6<fnr.' I
popular Iwliel connecting serpent* with
tl that we shou' springs see OS fr. ./>»• We may COO-
r. {i.e. crarvpuifi rpiiporot. thai this fountain sh<iuhl Ik-
tvpirift »ec on fr. 91, identified with the magic spring at

X<*pinfl *pd««r Acsch. fr. ij.t- Taenarum referred to by Pausan. j
227
KVKkutmov rpo\6v
227 Hi V'h. 11 p. 550 »i'«\oi* noA So wr might sj>cak of th<
••Jfoif rd rtixif. rpoxt" ti r6 t«x«. !U : if.M.aksp. Ktnc J*A»
r 2©0<>' II a«\#i |r»po»X/o
•
!ic roundurr of your ..Id-faced
.r instance of rpo%tn i»
170 I04>0KAE0Y1
quoted from literature and toixoi is now only the walls of Mycenae and TirytM
read for rpoxol in schol. Plat Ugg. 681 A. are mentioned as having been erected by
Cf. Hesych. IV p. 181 rpoxte' irepi- them, although Argos as the name of the
f$6\aiov, In Etym. Af. p. 455,
reixoi. district is sometimes introduced (Ear.
52 OpiyKip explained ry rpox^P-aTi, i.e.
is /. A. 534). See Wilamowitz on Eur.
6 ireptrpixw kvk\60(v otov ariifravos. — Her. 15, 945. Here it may lie assumed
Jebb on Bacchyl. 10. 77 points out that that Mycenae isreferred to, as the home
the legend of the Cyclopes as builders is of Eurystheus : cf Pind. fr. 169.
post-Homeric. So far as I have observed,
228
Kpeiacrov deols yap rj fipoTols yapiv (ftepetv.
228 Orion Jlor. 5. 9 p. 47, 24 4k xdpis X^P LV y°-P 4o~tiv V tiktoi'ct' del, Kur.
tov 'Hpa.K\ei(TKOV ffarovp'iKTjs. Kpeicrffov...
'
Hel. 1234. And the gods may be trusted
<p4peiv.' Dindorf, in agreement with to fulfil their obligations, whereas you
Wagner (p. 107.2), held that 'HpaKXeio-xov can never be sure of a man (Aesch. fr.
here and in the source of the next fr.
was a corruption of 'HpaKXe'ovs aaTvpiKov.
399, Soph. fr. 667). —
x*P lv 4>€ P« IV l>k*
ambiguous
'
and
Xaptv ?x e '"> is i;i itself,
The same line without the mention of may mean to get a boon, as in 0. T. 764.
author or play is quoted in Jlor. Alonac. Hence there must be some doubt as to
102, with detp for deois. the exact force of 0. C. 779 8t ovSev 7?
xdpis, a favour once conferred, becomes Xe£/H5 X&P 11' 4*P 01 -
a debt due from the recipient At. 522 :
229
tov hpwvTa yap tl /cat iradeiv 6<£ei\€Tcu.
229 T(f dpwvri coni. Blaydes |

yap Orion: irov schol. Pind.
229 Onori Jlor. 6. 6 p. 49, 13 4k tov cited above add Aesch. Ag. 1562 /xifivei
'HpcLKXe'taicov 2o</>okX&>uj. 'tov 8p£)VTa... 84 /xlfjivovTos ev dpovip Aioy |

wadeiv tov
dipelXeTai.' Pind. Nem. 4. 51
Schol. tpâvTa, Sopli. Ant. 927 pr) wXeiw KaKa
7rapd tovto 6 rpayiicSs ' rbv dpQvrd trot ti wddoiev 1) Kal Spuxriv 4k8Iku)S e/ne, Antiph.
Kal iradelv dtpeiXerai.' Arrian anab. 6. fr. 58 Diels octis 84 Spdaeiv p.ev oierai
13. 5 Kai ti Kal la/xêiov eireiirelv tov 84 '

tovs w4\as KaKus, welaeadai 8' of', ov
vovv elvai tov la/j-fieiov, 8ti Tip ti dpuivTi aui(ppovei. See also fr. 962.
Kai wadeiv 4<jtiv 6<peiX6p.evov. very A Blaydes has good cause for proposing
similar line is attributed to Aeschylus r<p dpQvTi, for which he quotes Eur. fr.
(fr. 456) by Stob. eel. 1. 3. 24 p. 56, 22 W. 10, besides Aesch. fr. 456. He might
and Theoph. ad Auto/. 2. 37 8pd<ravTi : have made his case much stronger, for
yap toi Kal wadeiv dQe'iXerai. It is not the usage appears to be invariable see :
unlikely that the ascription to Aeschylus Phil. 1421, El. 1 173, Eur. Ale. 419. 782,
is due to recollection of and confusion with Andr. 1271 f., Or. 1245, Lys. 25. 11. In
Cho. 312 dpdo-avTi iradeiv, rpiyipuv p.vdo% other words, ocpelXerai does not seem to
rdSe (piovet. have become impersonal, like wp4wei,
The oldest statement of the primitive wpoa-qKei, and the rest. For the shifting
lex talionis in Greek appears to be the usage of these verbs see Kuehner-Gerth
line (sometimes ascribed to Hesiod) which II 27, and it is of course arguable that
Arist. eth. N. 5. 5. ii32 b 25 calls rb 6<pelXeTat here may have suffered extension
'Fa8ap.dvdvos dlmiov : ef Ke irdOoi Ta 1* after their analogy.
fpet-e diKT] k idela yivoiTo. To the passages
HPAKAHI 171
230
roiyap Cojhr) <f>vkd£ai ypipov gjcttc Seafiiav
230 xoipov.. Statua* CasauUin: x<Mfot ttaftiuy AC

230
»o\oi<ri
Athen. 375 D x<*P°* *' oi *l**n Dimlorf gave roiyap 'Iw bit, an easy —
ri/r B-fiKtuw, iln '
lTTu>ya£...gai remedy, 11 it were poailblc to see any
2o0ocX>)f 'EriTafaploit. '
rcuyip . . . 5e- ground for connecting [o with this play.
Gflivr.' 1 is much more likely that Bergk was
1
I fragment has not yet been Hi

'hi-, right in making CerUrus the object of
fully restored, bat Casauboa's x o V°" 0i'\d£a«, hut his reading rb* yap Iwdif
ivi Oiafiiar i* made all hut certain by (venomous) is not altogether convincing,
hoi. on Ar. I.ys. 1073, which although the epithet might !*• supported
mi cited to 8i x o 'P * M<< :ft>«« »' r. Carw. 3. 11. 10 mnittfm wumd
3rX«roi' d>7«or tZrai, «> <j5 rot't iôm I

ore trilingui, and more particular!)- hy
Irpttpo* x°*P° v * Ttpid^cayrtt. *vr bi the rationalized version of llecataeus
-Of rdTTaXof, to <p 5to/xt vova 1 (/•//(/* 1 17) in 1'ausan. .1. 15. 4 dXXd
uxwi xai Tpi(poixrw. [The confusion Etcarcuot fit* 6 MiXiîor \oyo* tip**
note indicated hy Rutherford docs €ue(na, 6<fn* <pt)ca* <»« lai»apip Tpa<t>rj*ai
present quest ion. 1 Further, bti*i>*, »-XtjO ijrot bi " Atbov gvpa, Srt iiti to*
Boat scholars have attempted lo extract brixtitora Tt0*A*ai wapaxrrlga vwb toi" lov'
in the opening words in order to gal Toirro* fpri top S^hp i-wd 'HpacXt'oi-r
a support for <pv\a£ai, although &Xdrp>ai wap' Kiipvattta. 11. c>>n). rip iti
we cannot feel suieth.it A thenaeus quoted î-Xatat. ignoring roty&p, which he re
I'lcte sentence. Casaubon c<litcd garded as a marginal gloss. Her
TotyapoOr f&ct, which was adopted by
I preferred rl yi.pi 0* iti 4>v\d£ai, \
and
lirunck in his edition of the Fragment*. Itlaydes rotyap avrif* bti.
231
ay a vov £v\ov
231 I
ed. Keit/. |.. it, ix 1. p. 14 Ayapof to gartaybi aw6
1
ayawo* «aXor, ifi6. ApurTo<pd*i)i Auoi-

' dXXov. Suid. i.f. iyapo*. Tpowapo£t-
rrp&Tr, ual yip adrri gal rturripa t6puh ri gariayin fi'Xor, ^ to +pvy*w£i*t
KayawJrrtpo* -, trijadat gal tTotac* wpoi rb gartayiffai. at di TO
lo4*>*\w
Tair&pip oi Kwi IJTO*.
iyaror tpr) £6\o* papirrb*h>i to *ar«a><it, hr that iyaro* was particularly
< rb iwtXdKirro*. ( f. Kustath. //. p. 100, employcl lo dwOnbl fire-wood* and waa
pfrropuiip XtfiKif.' uisan. l« u*ol Mbatandvally like +pt-ya*o*.
w.) ',fa>f>'Tai TaOra' ayarbw ! <piite clear whether
rb ga\6* koi ifbv gal wpncif*4%. wort oi in Soohodai or U part
gar'arrlfpaaw rb jr.aX#»-<W- b*", to i*ipy M ih' 11. I he hmil.f
drt tart gat &ya*o* Tpow*po$tnb*i*% gal ng distinguuha d^-aôf from it-
> gartayof Tpayigurrtpo* bi, &!*>, a*b%, onyaPQt, and fi'-i»4t, whith arc
rb iroua r.uner, ON
I ( III p. .ill OOrytOM I
<i. 0Tr+a*oi, which was
Bekk. ,i» ,5. 10 originally adjectival. For the breaking
ayaro* .» i) wpuiTT) 6i mo. gal of wood to make a fire cf. All .
tovto Tpayigiirrtpov rA Smopua ( II. -. 9p*G*at. coincidence

'
p. It, 10, I'hrv B.). \»ith fr. xj...

172 X04>0KAE0YI
232
akaXuav
232 Ilesych. I p. 113 dXaXiav a\a\aya?), explained as irovr/pia </cai>
wovriplav, araîav. 2o0o/cA?/s 'ETriraiva- draîa < tou XaXeiv > . dXaX?) was a
piois (iiri iraievdpois cod. : corr. Casaubon). wild tumultuous cry: cf. 208 Pind. fr.
Dindorf infers that this play was called fxaviat r dXaXai r dpivofiivuv pi\f/ai'xci
'Eirtrau'dpiotby the grammarians, who abv K\6v(f>, Eur. Phoen. 335. Now see
assumed that such was the name of the Etym. M. p. 55, 48 dXaXi}, 6 6bpvfio<, koX
satyrs. Nauck quotes Cramer, anecd. r\ avapdpos <puivr\...KaX dXaXTrros, 6 Oopvpos,
Oxon. I p. 59, 8 iiri Taivaptp F,iriTat.vdpios. '

wapa tt\v dXa-Xfy, r\ Kara, ariprrjaiv tov
L.and S. prudently omit this mysterious XaXdv (i.e. inarticulate), 17 tear' iirWixciv,
word, and Ellendt's remark 'dictum olov 6 iroXvXaXos oxXos. On the other
quasi KaKoXaXia' is not very helpful. hand, dXaXos seems to mean tumultuous
One might guess that there is some rather than dumb in Plut. def. or. 51
confusion with dXaXd (or dXaXai, p. 438 B.
233
apyejxoiv
233 Hesych. 1 p. 272 dpyifxuv t&v dvdpuwos irrdpyefios. It seems that
iv rots 6<p0a\fioh XevKW/j-druiv ' ol Si dpye/uLos was the name of the disease, and
6(f>da.\fuGiv (o<pda\fxu)i> cod.). 2o^>o/cX^s apyepov of the part affected ; and, as
€ttI Taivdpip aarvpiK(p. Cf. Etym. M. Ellendt remarks, a doubt was raised to
p. 135, 36 apyefiov, to Kara irddos yevo- which of the two the word in Sophocles
fievov XevKUifxa ii> rip 6<pda.X/jup irapd rd '
should be referred. The view taken by
dpybv to XevKov. Erotian gloss. Hippocr. Didymus is to be preferred. Pollux 2.
p. 47, 10. Eustath. Od. p. 1430, 60 146 says that the upper part of the nails
attributes the explanation of the word to was called dpytfxot. In Latin argema is
Didymus. Pollux 2. 65 has the form used as a neut. sing. see Thesaurus s.v.
:
apye/xos (cf. Etym. Gud.

p. 73, 6) dpyep-os : Albugo and Leucoma are still technical
to Ka.Xovp.evov AetMWjUa, /cat 6 tout' ix 01 " terms in modern medicine.
234
OV KCO(b€L
234 Phot. lex. p. 359, 25 ovk w<piêv "

The original meaning of Kwcpos was
ov pXdwrei. Zck/hwcXtjs iv iiri Tcuvdpip probably 'blunt, dull,' as in Horn. A 390
(repdpwi cod. ) craTvpots. The right reading Kui(p6v yap dvdpbs dvdXiaSos oirn-
(iiXos
was recovered from Hesych. p. 237 m davoio. O. T. 290 Kuxpd nai iraXai'
Cf.
oil Kwcpel' oil (iX&irTei, oil irrjpot. Cf. II eiri). The common use for 'deaf' or
p. 566 Kw<pel' KOLKOvpyei, j3Xd7rret, KoXovei '
dumb was a special application, but
'
(koXvo. cod.), irrjpoi, with KuxprjTios the ancient grammarians, and even Porson
pXairTios , and Kunjyqais ' KdXovais. on Eur. Or. 1279, reversed the history of
Wagner and M. Schmidt suggested that the word. For the wider meaning of the
the error of Photius might be explained verb cf. Anacr. fr. 81 al dt /xev (ppivei
by supposing Sophocles to have written 01) €KKfKw<piaTai. : Etym. M. p. 322, 22,
KUxpfT $-ivov (or irtvovs). H. thought that quoting the passage, gives irapaê^Xau-
the original form of the entry might have fiivcu eiaiv as a paraphrase.
been < oil Kw<pei: 5> oil Koxplfei oil fiXdirTei. '
:
HPAKAHI— HPITONH 173
HPITONH
ides that of Sophocles, we have a record of plays
composed with this title by Phrynichus 1
Philoclcs, and Cleophon.
,
ius also wrote an Erigona, as we shall see. There is nothing

in the three references to it in his brother's correspondence to
v the character of the Erigona composed or translated by
Q. Cicero (Cic. Q.fr. 3. 1,6, 9).
Wclcker (p. 215) identified this play with the AUtes* (see
p. 62), on the ground that, inasmuch as Aletes and Krigone
wen- brother and sister, the son and daughter of Aegisthus and
taemnestra, and Orestes was the opponent of both, a divided
action is not to be thought of. There is nothing in the fragments
ribed to cither title which assists <>r hinders the identification;
but, though Welcker is probably right in his view of the Al,
it by no means follows that the Erigone refers to the same series
The name of Krigone was familiar to the Athenians in

connexion with the curious festival known as aiatpa (for whu h
the commentators on Verg. Georg. 2. 389), at which was sung
tin song known as a\r]Ti<{. Several aetiological legends arose
to account for the obsolete and unintelligible titles, of which
<ed only refer to two.
In the first of these Krigone it still the daughter of
>
gisthus, but she is brought to Athens as the accuser Of I
before the Areopagus. The most explicit account is preserved

in Etym. M. p. 42, 3 Xeyerai yap "Hptyov^v -rr)r \iyla$uu I
tiTiiifivt')<Trpa>i OvyaTepa, avv TvvBdptip t£ irn-mrtp tXtfeiv

'.\0>)va£e, Karijyopr}<rovaav 'Opiarov airo\v6ivra (? -oc) 8t,
uprtjaaaav eavrrjv irpoarpoiraiou rots' \\0i)vai<>is ytvtafiai.
it in ably auuTcXeladai rrjv kopit^v. To the same
xpj/afioi/ 8e
Maim
Par FHG
546, where Ore--1 aid to have
been tried for the death of Aegisthus, and this no doubt accounts
the appearance of his nearest surviving relative,
1
accuser. Cf. Dictys bell. Troi. 6. 4. In Apollod. cfiif. 6. 25

said, according to different accounts, to have been
ither by the Erinyes or by Tyndarcus or
by is doubtless appears in two of these
passages as claiming retribution for the death of his daughter
bftbty iidi the pupil >•( Thcspia: aee lfai|;h, Tragic Drama, \
I dtMbk tnle'AX^n»f «ol Wfxy^n (p- fy). bal the parallel* wVefc
he adduce* are quite uncertain.
174 IO<t>OKAEOYI
Clytaemnestra According to others, Orestes married Erigone

1
.
(Tzetz. Lycophr. 1374), and Cinaethon (fr. 4, p. EGF

197)
mentioned Penthilus, their son.
(2) Another legend made Erigone the daughter of Icarius,
by whom Dionysus was hospitably entertained, and to whom he
gave a wine-skin, with instructions to spread abroad the
knowledge of the newly bestowed blessing. Icarius, with his
daughter Erigone and his dog Maera, came to Attica in the
course of his mission, and freely bestowed his wine upon the
rustics. The intoxicating results which followed convinced the
shepherds that they had been poisoned, and they straightway
cudgelled Icarius to death. The dog Maera by her howls guided
Erigone to her father's unburied body and Erigone, distraught
;
with sorrow, hanged herself on a neighbouring tree. The

punishment of heaven fell upon the guilty Athenians, who at
length appeased the divine resentment by the institution of a
festival (alwpa, oscilla) in honour of Erigone. See Hygin.
fab. 130, Ov. Ibis 611 ff., Aelian nat. an. 7. 28, Nonn. Dionys.
47. 34 —264. The literary sources of this story have not been
traced to any earlier writer than Eratosthenes, who wrote an
elegy entitled Erigone (E. Maass, Anal. Eratostk. p. 132).
Ribbeck (Row. 7 rag. p. 621) develops the view that the Erigone
of Sophocles was the daughter of Icarius, correcting ev a/j.r)piy6vr]
or cr/xvpiyovr) the reading of the MSS in Erotian (fr. 236) to
iv 'Hpiyovy.
craTvpi/cr} He points out that the reception of
Dionysus with his chorus of satyrs by the Attic peasants offered
suitable opportunities for comic episodes.
On the whole, though the evidence is insufficient to determine
the contents of the Erigone, the balance of probability is against
Welcker's identification. Against Ribbeck's view must be set
the fact that the fragments of Accius' play undoubtedly relate to
the story of Orestes, and he himself inclines to the identification
of the Erigona with the Agamemnonidae. The frequent
occurrence of the title suggests that it was suitable to a tragedy
rather than to a satyr-play. Maass {op. cit. p. I33 1]5 ) adds that
before Ribbeck's conjecture is approved we must satisfy ourselves
that the Icarian Erigone was known as early as Sophocles'2 .
1
Wagner suggested that Tyndareus appeared in the character of the legal repre-
sentative of Erigone, who could not have conducted the accusation in person owing to
her juristic incapacity. On the other hand, if Aletes was adult, there was no reason
for the introduction of Tyndareus into the Aletes, and consequently fr. 646 belonged
rather to the Erigone.
2 The same remark applies
to Haigh's classification of the plays of Phrynichus,
Philocles, and Cleophon (p. 477 ff.).
. ;
HPITONH 175
235
8c
&6£r] Toiralfi}, tolvt l&elv cra<f><os dekco.
235 I'lv >t. lex. p. 595, 9 Tordfeu"- Aoch. Ag. 1368 rd yap Tordfeii' roi; »d^'
do* OTOxattodai, irdvutioOat. inrwotif . . tibirax Similarly Soph. 7Vwi.
&x«-
Kai rapa —o<poi<\ti iv Wptyovrj 'A U... 415 ravrb 3'
ovî yfysvrw, donrjiri* tiwtlr |
the same effect Etym. M. xa£aK(Hfi£xjpo<; i£ avTuiu cw?
236. 1 vwo<ppot codd.
236 I rotian. gloss. Hippocr. \

tucoi, i riarurfa. The passage in Kur.
;<por OrraQpo*)' Kpitpato*, wr
(leg. I.e.descnt>es the entrance of Odysseus
<>»;<7(r 6 Topairjrot (this refers to the into Troy disguised as a beggar : ijia «ol
leides of Tareiitum, a wdpot Kara wo\i* (*ra<ppo* 6pyi f"x wr
;
I
itshed mrdical writer lielonging to paKoii'Tia crro.Xo KTt. The following

.1 century B.C., whose explanations have liecn given (l) :
Galea specially commends).

ss the face of an idiot, (3) ble.u
yap 6 Z.o<p<n\T)i iv 'Upiyofrj (so
. rheumy, fj) tear-stained. 4 treacherous { \
Casaubon fur a p.r\pty6*r) lor Rjbbeck'i : /'?). The first three assume
¥v* V -,ItawuXtro.'
uji» '
. . . that the origin "t the word h to l>e traced
(Upjnfrai i avrin Kai l»'l<ptyt**ia (fr. 312). either to &<ppwv or to aftpot, ami the only
rwotpdrrfi (ck arte 10. VI 18 l.iltr.) ancient evidence in their favour, apart
hi oaaMt woui \lywv ' oitiiv brt koI from the scholium, is an alternative gloss
bwofpo* (oi'x Orratppo* Hippocr.) nai tx°* in llesychius vy pacta* /jjor *'p.<ptp'i
:
•6 t>a\dnai.' The evidence of the dipp^.. The balai "),''>' '"> ( ' )(
*
. of the lexicographers, <id«-of the rendering »pi>*«uof, and there

and of Euripides and bii is so CMUO is nothing against it except that we do
strong in favour of the form C>xa<ppvi (hat not know IM hist- »ry of the word.
only consider Orofpot to l>e an Whether it has anything t.» do with
ti.m. The meaning, as/, suggests, 'having
a<t>pli%,
Tiih tac meaning of foam beneath' (cf. 0»ovXot), must rtm.iiii

rd which was obsolete and un- uncertain. The restorations proposed,
'In.ui time*. I *i>w tiipti i\» (llerwcrden), *V9 6 tlpf'
th.it the authoril forop+woi (KllendO, ami <rw^f» 4^xr
stands hi^h b [>orted C-wa<ppo*, ti at-rJ* fwt I M Si luiiidt), arc
« testimony of Hera* iMiieing. J. conjecture* I
n"r i' tip*'
le that the interpretation 'Aafri Pwa+poi, 'In
Kt*ftu 9t> rest mud tradition of what is to l>e made of *'£ BfrtV? I crhaps
scholarly writers. As Sophocles is quoted *\>¥ V tlpwt fyV (•va+001 i( ai-T
Bg reason is insensibly their consciousness tcli thnn.

1 preta- The M i«»s-.| from one p to
t tolltlllll, the other, and the loss of » *
•o. 19 and Mrrkteo above tl.
IV p. joo explain l>y f'Woi/Xor, p. 5.J0I. k. Kllis (» a: iv 10*1 .
KpvOMo* and pf) tpawtp'j* ini) om. Phot.); thought thai Preeyot wa» a mistake M
ami the mIi .1. i
Rka, 711 Baa vrtt+opot (cf. es*o*w/>d a hollow passage)
traaSpoi i p.i) fartp&t, U purajxtp lint this vie* h.u>ll> gives »>ifh. irnt weight
far' afpbr rrix°n4****, 1 T ** i'«*dX*»r >.e that Cw+poi existed with
aft iwarUrt iuppn '
ij Kara* V,,. Ham tenia-
—
176 I04X3KAEOYI
tively suggested *Ipts ws...i£ avyGip (C. R. 774. Nauck, comparing Eur. Htl. 106,
XIII 3). Blaydes : vvv 8' £pis vircuppos / 7'. was inclined to substitute dvr-
715,
< Jjv tis or iyiiuer'' > e£ ktc. oirtiXero for ^£a7rw\«To. ^£a*-u>\ero, how-
2 Headlam on Aesch. ^. 352 otf Tap ever, illustrates the Sophoclean tendency
e\6vres audit av0a\6iei> Av quotes many to use compounds with i£, for which see
similar phrases for 'the biter bit.' So fr. on fr. 524, 4.
OAMYPAI
The scene of the play was the neighbourhood of Mt Athos. as
appears from fr. 237. For the connexion of Thamyras with this
district cf. Eustath. 77. p. 299, 5 kcu oti Iv ry 'Akttj rfj irepl rov
"AOcov ®dpvpi<; 6 ©/?«£ e/3acri\evae. Conon 7 «9 ttjv Akttjv irapa- '
yevopevrj riKiet (sc. vuptprf) Kovpov (H)dp,vpiv 09 i)(3r)cra<; eirl roaovrov

r)K€ KL6apa>8ta<;,d)<; icai fiacriXea crepwv /calirep iinfK.VTr)v ovra *E/cv0a<i
iroirjaaa-dai. The object of such stories was to account for the
prevalence of the legend of Thamyras in various parts of the
country. Strabo fr. 35 p. 331 ev Be rfj d/crf) ravTrj (i.e. the coast
at the foot of Mt Athos) ®dfivpi<; 6 ®pa£ e/3aai\evcre, rwv avrdSv
1
iTrtTTjSevp.aTwv 'yeyovcos wv ical 'Opcpcix; .
In Homer, as Leaf has pointed out, Thamyras is a travelling

rhapsode, and, whether by Oechalia is meant the Thessalian
or the Messenian town —
a point about which even the Alexan-
drian critics were divided (Waser in Pauly-Wissowa VI 1360)
the scene of his punishment is Dorium in Messene 2 (Strabo 350,
Pausan. 4. 33. 7). See B 594 —600
Acopcov, hvOa re Movaai
dvTOfievat tydpvpiv top ®p7)i/ca iravaav doi8f}<i,
OiâXiridev lovra Trap' JLvpvrov OtâXtô?*
cttcvto <yap ev-ôpevo^ viKT)aep,ev, elirep dv avral
MoOcrat deihoiev, Kovpai Ato<? aiyioôio'
al Be ô\a>adp,evai irrjpov deaav, avrdp doi8i]i>
6ea7re(rir)v a<$>e\ovro K.a\ eic\eka6ov KidapicrTvv.
The critics are not agreed whether ir'qpdv means blind,' or is to '
be explained by the loss of the power of minstrelsy. It will also

be observed that Homer does not speak of a formal contest
between Thamyras and the Muses and his account might ;
be taken to imply nothing more than that Thamyras was

1
Riese in Jahrb. f. Philol. xxm
233 thinks the inference as to the scene of
Sophocles' play doubtful.
2
Statius follows Homer: Theb. 4. 18 r Getico...Jlebile va/i Dorion; hie fretus |
dodas anteire canendo Aonidas mutos Thamyris damtiattis in annos ore simul
\ \
citharaque (quis obvia numina iemnat?) conticuit praeceps. \

0AMYPAI 177
punished for his insolent boast In [Eur.] Khss. 916 925 the
1
.
—
iming (I suppose) from Parnassus or Pieria, ha
the Strymon to meet the Thracian Thamyras in the
neighbourhood of Mt Pangaeum :
(
l'(\'/'/x/ioi/o<? irai, TT) n-^rtu <ppev6<f
vftpis ynp, "1 o-' €<r<j)7)\€, teat Wovamv epts
Toeelv fi eBrjKe rovSe Svarrjvoi' yivov.
irepaiaa yap Bij irorapdovs Sid po<i<;
Xe/erpoi*; €Tr\o0i)v ~rpv/jiovo<; <f>vTa\p.ioi<; t
or r\\Qop*v 7>)v "Xfiva6^<o\ov e? Xeirat

lluyyaiov opydvoitriv €^T)<TKrfp.ii'ai
MoOaat p,eyiarT7)v et<? epip /xeXo)8ta<?
teXeivai co^narfj ftpytci, KuTv<f>\(t><Tap€V
fivpev, 0? i)p.<Jov ttoXX ihivvaaev re^viji'.
Euripides mentions a regular contest, and the punishment of

blindness, but does not state that Thamyras was also dep;
of his musical skill. There can hardly be any doubt that both
punishments belonged to the Sophoclean story (cf. frs.
I see Both are recorded by Aj>ollod. 1. 17, who gives
r particulars of the conditions ol the contest it was agreed, :
he says, that if Thamyras was successful, the Muse-, would a<

suitor; but that if he failed, be should lose whaf
ro ill une effect ll««in B y<; *4pa£ i.
(art ^(Xri^/ioj'ov €avrq> 8f &piac tt)v p.ev ?/ rT1?? ttjv trrfpanrtv

w'os'-
Trp6oTcp.ov, t/)v Be viKT)>i ynpLov /u«v twc MovatHv. <f>aal Be a

v rov fikv yXavKov tytw, tov Be fie'Xava. Tore Be
,>ov dird>\eaev. The scholiast means that
Thamyras lost the black eye. Although guilty of a ludicrous
confusion, the writer of this scholium derived his information
from the histrionic tradition. If, therefore, the sources which be
- other
dealt with the dramatic aspect of the r, in
Is, with the play ol Sophocles, it is perhaps legirJmafl

ditions which he mentions go back t<> the
nal. The allusion ol is explained
the by thescholiast
ription <»f the mask ol Thamyras
Pollux 4, 141 as n in
ye cf. the use of yKavxtafut, y\av*
:
/\avK(oois; in medical writers. L« the I
conventional method <>t depicting blindness,

1
which was made effective by the actor turnin le <>r the

I : th.it .
I
'
.11. .w Ihr HOOM I
-I rijpAr a»~'lilin<!.' P« « »t »» i.liixling a» ihc |>ui>i»h-
iooj.i. Ilciur, mui. 1 |i. mji H.

BOOrdil I" I'liii. -it
.1 posed a poem on the war of ihc Titan* agaiuM (be Rod*.

—
i 78 IO<t>OKAEOYI
the blinding of Thamyras, the actor, whose mask could not be

changed, took care to present to the audience the grey eye only.
He quoted Quintil. II, 3. 74 in comoediis...pater tile, cuius
praecipuae partes sunt, quia interim concitatus interim lenis est,
altero erecto altero composite est supercilio : atque id ostendere
maxime latus actoribus moris est, quod cum iis quas agunt partibus
congruat.
We have no indication of the manner in which the plot
was developed. This only is certain, that Thamyras passed
from supreme good fortune to utter misery as the result of
vfipis. One scene seems to have attained universal celebrity
that in which the wretched hero, blind and what was even —
—
worse deprived in his blindness of the art which might have
been his solace, in anger snaps the strings of his lyre and
shatters the frame then, desolate and inconsolable, sits surrounded
;
by the broken fragments. Such at least is a fair inference from

the works of art described by Pausanias 9. 30. 2 and especially
IO. 30. 8 Safivpi&i 8e €771)9 /cadc£op>eva> rod UeXla 8ie<p0app,€i>ai
:
al 6'\/re49 teal rarreivov e'<? dirav ayr)p,(i iari, teal 77 K.6p,r) ttoWt) /xev
eVi tt}<? Ke<paXr]<i, rroWrj Be avra> /cat, iv rocs •yeveiow
8e Xvpa
eppirrrai rrpbs rots rroai, tcareayores avrrj<i ol 7n;êt? /cat al ôphal
/cciTeppayyviai.
A circumstance in the Homeric account of Thamyras which
has hardly received any attention is his connexion with Eurytus,
from whose home at Oechalia Thamyras is said to have started
on his way to Dorium. Now, Eurytus is the counterpart of
Thamyras in another sphere taught the use of the bow by
:
Apollo, he challenged his master and was slain in punishment

(Horn. 6 224 ff.). These kindred spirits are coupled by Lucian
piscat. 6 ecrO o<tti<; ovv ravra ev 7reiTovdc0<; nrap vpSav tca/cdus av
elirelv iiriêiprja-eiev evepyerw; avSpas, dtp' obv elvai rt<; khoêv ;
€KTO>> Tai<;
Movcrcu? dvTaheiv, trap dov el/vrjcpe rrjv (pBrjv, rj tw 'AttoWcovl
iptSalveiv, evavrla roêvcov, tcai ravra Sorfjpi ovrc rfj? roîKi]^.
This is probably an instance where the heroes of two similar
stories have been brought into association with each other, just
as Heracles and Eurytus, the rival bowmen, are for different
reasons variously connected.
In Athen. 20 F and vit. Soph. 4 (p. Blaydes) it is said that
1
Sophocles himself played the harp at the representation of

the play. It is unnecessary to adopt Welcker's view that
Sophocles appeared in the character of Thamyras in fact, :
the writer of the Life negatives this assumption by stating

that Sophocles differed from the older tragedians in that he
relinquished the position of an actor owing to his p,iicpo(pa>vla.
OAMYPAI 179
For the votive tablet supposed to have been painted by

Polygnotus for Sophocles after the production of this play see
Hauser in O. Jh. 8. 35 ff. There is no literary evidence of
\istence.
The name Thamyras belongs properly to the eponymous
hero of festal gatherings (Hesych. II p. 300). In regard to its
form, Hanvpas is said to be the Attic for Ba/xupi<? (C'yrill. I,x. apt
Cramer, anecd. Par. iv p. 183, 14), and is attested for Sophocles
by the majority of our authorities. See also Adam on Plat
rep.620 A.
y
The proverb Ba/ii/pic (or A/zi/ptc) fiaivtrat applied to those
whose conduct bears the aspect of folly, but is really prompted
by far-seeing wisdom, has nothing to do with the minstrel
isan. fr. 201 Schw. ).
237
)(Tcra.v (TKOiriav Zrjvbs '\0toov
237 1 lath. //. p. 358, 40 6rt Si [Grappa, Gr. Myth. p. 1104,), was
pq.Ktit.6t nai 6 "A0wt, of fxvfla rapa r<ji honoured as a san cus : Aesch.
Z ::<j), SijXoi, fpaai, -o<p<n\r)% iv Ag' '97 'AtfyoK oorot /.ijfot. Il<
IfffCW tlwulf OKOTlti* 7jt)fbt p. 66, possibly, as Nauck thinks, with
reference to this passage, has 'A0yw o
In the passage of the Iliad which is iwl toO'AOu tov 6(>ovi i6fnniroi driptdt, 6
leaves Olympus, an<l iks of the summit
leeds across the snowy mountain-tops of Athos as always rising far above the
hunt touching the lower clouds, so that the altar of Zeus remained
irth. *'£ 'A06w 5' iwl worm* (fiâtro untouched l>y r.iin. For the connexion
*n*i*o*Ta. Athos Thracian
is 1. nc "I the of Thamyras with this district sec Intro
I lorn. h. Apoll.
33 Op7)ori6» r' ductory Note.
Liwrt. Athos, like other high j
238
nrjKTal 8e Xvpai Kai /xayaSiScc,

TO.
238 Aili.n. f>\- quoting Apollo-

\, case of a foreign II IIUlMl!
• * rj *p6t 'AfnaroK\iovt iwt-
T7)» l»ccn occasionally lengthened, than that
iixupy with reference to the kc was right in reading ttayaitift.
tt&yaiii, lo«;.««\;j, Si /•> OatwpQ 'r^rai . It should, ha Ik- noticed that though
the last s)i; In- ace. sing. ii^>tw

1
< <f>a\rt*6» 6prya»<n>. o&ru ~o<pois short in Diogcn
x wrjKTal Xvpai ii a periphn |H \na;a&T)* itcrgk I he material aiaii

« Inch *cc on frs. 141 and able is insufficient for the pwpOM
naY<iStS««: the first syllable of this HfWrlng bet ween rtarfc and ndyhi;
it hut it appears ; but both belong to the < Ismi of foreign,
whole more likely that in the rteged instruments, as
13
i8o ZO0OKAEOYZ
contrasted with the lyre (or tp6pp.iy£) cover both the Xvpa. and the xiddpa.
and the later iciddpa. Both TrrjKTis and Ellendt refers to Hesych. til p. 171
ixdyadis were Lydian see Pind. fr. 125,
: £6ava' ...Kvpiws 5e t& it £uXwv i£«jp.iva
Telestes fr. 5. 4, Diogenes fr. 1. 6, Athen. rj XLdwv. The lyre was the oldest stringed
634 F. As such they are opposed to the instrument and was in general use, whereat
native Greek instruments mentioned in the cithara was for the most part employed
the next line. They were alike also in by professional musicians. See Guhl and
being played by the hand without the Koner, p. 201 ff. Susemihl-Hicks on
;
plectrum (x<<7>'S wXrjKrpov 81a \paXp.ov Arist. fol. p. 601. There was also a
Aristox. ap. Athen. 635 b). Hence difference of material : the sounding-box
Hesych. Ill p. 61 p.aya8i5et opyava '
of the lyre was made of tortoise shell, and
xpakTiKa, and Phot. supr. that of the cithara with wood or metal.
2 fjdava is not elsewhere applied to But it would be wrong to restrict the
musical instruments, but it seems to be meaning of i-oava so as to make it apply
the intention to give a generic descrip- solely to the wood-work of the cithara.
tion of stringed instruments, which would
239
239 Athen. 183 E p.vrip.ovtvei 5e tov Mvaoh (fr. 412) .../fat iv Qa/xvpa. 1 :
Tpiywvov to&tov Kai 2,o<poKXrjs iv p.iv the rpiyuvos see on fr. 412.
240
npoiroSa fxeXea ra8' ocra K\eop.ev
Tpoîxa /3acrt/xa yjipeai Trohecri
240. 1 irpocrwda Ambr. rddi ae Ambr. icXionev

| |
Herwerden: KXaiop.ev vel
K\tiop.ev Choer., K\aLop.ai Ambr. 2 x eP <7 1 Trodarinv
'
Ambr.
240 Choeroboscus in Hephaest. jro8as (-xovres. Nauck suggested irpoaooa.
cnchir. p. 60, 17 ( — 217, 9 Consbr.) from the reading of the cod. Ambr., so
rpox^'os 5^ [sc. Xiyerat 6 xopeios), itrfidr] that 7rp6ao5a piXea should = irpoa68ia :
6 2o0o/c\7)s iv rip Qafivpq, (Qap.vp U, but there is no evidence for an adj.

Bap.vpi8iK) (prjffl Trp67ro5a...7r65ecri.'' Trp6<rodos, and there are other objections.
Anon. Ambros. ap. Studemund anecd. I — KXe'ofiev (see cr. n.) seems to pro-
p. 226, 18 5i6 koX ovtu)S Kii<\r)Tai ws dirb vide the required sense, and kXvovocli is
tGiv xopQ)v -xppeios TrapaywyQs. 6 yovv given for KXiovaai by the codd. in Eur.
^.o<poK\rjs iv Tip Qafivpg. (cro<poK\rjs ra I. A. 1046. The conjecture, which
dd/xvpa cod.) (prjcrt '7r/w(rw5a...7r65e<r(ni'.' occurred to me independently, has been
1 irpoiroSa has not been explained ;
anticipated by Herwerden, Headlam and
but Campbell, who compares irpoiroSiffif, Tucker. Ilerw. wrote irpdiroXe fitydXe,
not unreasonably suggests that it may rdde at KXio/xev. But the break in the
mean "giving forwardness to the feet,"
' synaphea is objectionable can rdSe :
i.e. "inciting to motion."' That is to nXeop-tva be right? Headlam (C. R.

say, the strict sense is 'moving forward.' XIII 3) formerly proposed TavvcriKvdfiova,
Schneidewin Mus. II 297) supposed
(K/i. thinking that the corruption was caused
that the chorus, followers of Thamyras, by the compound epithet, a tendency —
are contrasting the slow processional illustrated in C. A'. XV 17 and in his no.
chant of the Muses (irpoiroda) with the on Aesch. Ag. 50, 1480. But the passage
vigorous and passionate strains which of Arctinus on which he relies (p. jr K.)
they have heard (to. 5' ocra kXvo/j.(v) from describes the attitude to be adopted in
their master. No help is given by the hurling a spear, and is not relevant ; nor
gloss in Phot. Suid. irp6iro5e$- /AeydXovs is the metre satisfactory. Subsequently
.
0AMYPAI i8i
have changed his mind for ; if sound, but are related to x'pw<n
in C xvi 434 n. he proposed rd b" 5<ra
A', Theog. 519) and vb&teoi as \tip*<n to
K\*oper or K\tvp.tr, or as an alternative, X*ipt(roi. So the ordinary form-, fU\toi,
id. l-rtat are reduced from u<Xf(r<ri, fwtoot:
2 • With r.ipid movement of arm and iro, //. (/'.-'
«j 101. N.uuk at one
The reference is to the rhythmical time proposed to sul»stitute x«P* r < **«*«
ients in which the
of the dance, re, hut trie traditional forms are perhaps
re as important
the leys. Cf. :is defensible. The metre consists of rex>l\ed
Xcn. symfi. 2. 16 oviiv cbryor rov awnarot trochaic tetrapodies, such as are occasion-
tw Ttj 6p\1p*i y», d\\' dfui noi rpaxvôt ally found in Kuripides (Phoen. I0i,o, He!.
kcu ffKiXtf icai x*'/** iyvurdfovTo, and KC 348) and Aristophanes [Lyt. 1:79); but
r's Charities, K. tr. p. ioj b . — not, 1 believe, elsewhere in Sophocles.
rms xiptoi and wtetai are unique,
241
oj^wkc yap KpoTrjTa TrrjKTihcou fiiXrj,
vaos (TTeprjfia Kco/xatxaoTjc;.
241. 1 vx u K * Herwerden: '

otxomt codd.
241 Athen. 175 rod it fiurauXov

f Hi/it avyicpoTtioQcu LtijU ovLiwtctir airrcii.
yirrin ^.oiffouMji piv iv Oap.vpa oflrwt •
See also on f. 463. The yijktCs was a . —
KU/lOffdffrjt.' 1'oilux 4 Lydiau species of harp, which is asso*
I'Xot tOprffta lUp ion* Aiyi-rriuf, dated with the rpiyutroir (or -or), a
ipvrjrai <H avrov 2)o</>on.\ijt iv tiatit-piti. Phrygiaa triasgahu harp (/>/./. .////.
cr thought that the fragment II IO0 b). Cf. fi. 412. 1 I
tided to describe the sii|»erscssion rol 6' ^'i^wroit TijrrioW

4
instruments men- âX/toit Kpinof I
Ai'Oior tiuvon. It IM
ioned in but it
it ; is much more likely. played without the plectrum : see note
it formed part of the
pposed, that on fr.
bamyras. I 3p.ovav\oif ihc avpty( tuwondXaxtot, :
X <j>X
WK< f" r the form lee Jebb on
: or Mute, as distinguished frotn the avpxyi
KpoTTVTtt 'songs resounding To\vKd\auo< i|M- {/)i,t. .int. II
from the harp as it is struck* (|.) *ponrra 840 a). Sec also Suscmihl-llicks on
u*\»» may be taken to imply the c\i pot. 3. 6. 1
if Kportir lUXo% in the sense of to beat \ord\ winch follow are hoi»el
uce a melody by stnk- oorrapt mini displcio'
1
*
fUXoi as ace. of result

i> The following conjectures may
! ton 168 (Ufxdii it tobdl. be recorded k: \vpa nonvkoi
-•less the phrase, though 1
9' oil ix**pont» Htm. ( ampljell adds for
ide easier l>y the attachment v. 3 orlpyin' inai - i)6v - Koinqflt r'
hi TTHTiiur, to which upor^ruu' might do 111. This attractive suggestion recalls
have been accommodated (hypallagc). fr- JM. J « 7- (>) Uriw ulen: Mpm fiiomvXot
Minus
160 <ri6S)f*6i rt pat- b* oto rt'X>», XtlLt*" &**** I
*•** r1f»n*<*.
trtipv, KTtrwot (cited by H. in / (
'. KUfutoao' d»i)pT*<np ; but, as J. points
III 1. 1. ~ \X
t
KIIWOV UpOTTfTUJlr either rtptttpa nor *«yt*«a#' is
ipuATu-f 1, the n<is<- of the bumping cars, ig Xs>a
ilWCIg- ftoravXoi 9 , savs: 'I had thought of
•ird .is
x' ofMn" r '*«. I •*•#•
tin m. tpiffio* lotftltsaa' - &t* • ... or (») •••
Comparing 10. 164 P m'X»7 ritf>arXa (irffX^Mf •of STO^t fr>VI*or «...,n<fai
Tâ Ai'ji/faXa lit. I*. .! It- ;
thought thai mot cone—led
flMM fd^Xo ipabasildos,
I p. 107 with \epot >«.»oi'Xoi «iX#>aw attdr rsvsi
Mptrfra -
vo\i'»^M>rirra ytrbntPa. iter* in v. >. (5) Jacolw (an. Schwetghtaser)
:
I 82 SOÔKAEOYI
conjectured x a P/X0P ^"' tX^ws, and for vaos Conington, finding ix6vavX6t Tt...fia.vrlm
crripri/xa something like 56volkos riKvov or in v. 2, proceeds olvwfiivois (sit) <jTip-r\p.a.
<f>{iTev/j.a. (6) H. wrote The instrument
:
'
Kw/jias days. (9) Blaydes vabt 6" tprrjuot
:
used in the KUfios was commonly the oiibi kui/xos tar'' Uti. (10) G. Wolff: Xvpa
avX6s : but vaos looks more like 5p56s, fxdvavXos. Trot rixvai T€ fJ-avrius \
vdos t'
which was also its accompaniment. There fpifixa Ko/xirdffat; Something like x ei M-^ 1'
are however other possibilities, as 5aX6s 8ttus vabs (jnpi\aa.% rjpwaoev Kwn-qXdras
I
or dXaos, or a compound in -(rrepijs.' In might give the required sense, but the
J. P. xxxi 8 he suggested SaS6s r' ip^p-ri corruption is too deep to be healed with-
iroXXd Kuixaaaaa x^P- (?) R« Ellis out fresh evidence.
eaoi'<s t' tprjfioi TriaaoKuvLas "Aprjs. (8)
242
koIXov Apyos
242 Schol. Soph. O. C. 378 TroXXaxoO unsuitable to that play, whereas it fits
to " Apyos koIX6v (pa<ri Kaddtrep Kal iv naturally with the plot of the Epigoni.
'Etnydvots (fr. 190) 'to koIXov " Apyos ov It is probable, therefore, that if the citation
Ka.T0LK7]<ravT' tri Kal iv Qa/xvpa (Qafivpia
'
of the Thamyras was more than a mere
reference, the words quoted have dropped
,
L) {k /xlv 'Epix0oi>LOu iroTip.dffTiof &rxe#e

'
Kovpov Avt6Xvkov, iroXiwv KTtdvwv alviv

I
out of the text. Nauck lakes exception
"Apye'i KolXtf} ' "Op.r)pos(d 1) '
ol 8'ti-ov koIXtjv to the contracted /cotXos in a cyclic poem,
AaKeSalfiova.' but he should at least have referred to
No modern critic (with the exception Mom. x 385. We
are not concerned with
of Hartung and Immisch, who thought the hexameters, but it should be men-
that the verses formed part of the poetic tioned that Wilamowitz conjectured i<
display) has credited the statement that p.ev dpa xôvlov to make them agree with
the two hexameter lines really belonged the tradition that Autolycus was the son
to the Thamyras. To avoid the difficulty of Hermes (ii; ipiovviov rj, Weil). Others
Kirchhoff suggested the transposition of prefer to suppose that Erichthonius had
the words ^myovois and Qa/j.6pa, holding a son of this name (Dummler in I'auly-
that by the Epigoni was meant the cyclic Wissowa 11 2601). O. Immisch m/ahrh.
poem bearing that title and his solution ;
f. Philol. Suppl. xvil 155 holds that
was accepted by Nauck in his first the hexameters are correctly quoted from
edition, hy Dindorf, by J ebb (on O. C. the play, and that they were part of the
378), and by Papageorgius in his edition agon which must have been represented
of the scholia. But it has been completely somehow or other in the course of the
refuted by Bergk for the following reasons. action. He points out that Philonis,
(1) The words iv 'E-n-iyovots in this context who is the subject to ?<rxe#e was mother
ought prima facie to refer to the play of of Philammon, the father of Thamyras,
Sophocles, and it is highly improbable as well as of Autolycus, and that this
that, if the scholiast had intended to genealogy appeared as early as Hesiod
quote the epic, he would have introduced (see fr. in Rz. y\ riKev Avt6Xvk6v re
it in this way. (2) The line which îXdfifxovd re kXvtov avSrjv). For ko'i\ov
Kirchhoff would attribute to the Thamyras "Apyos see on fr. 190.
(fr. 190) is, so far as we can tell, entirely
243
KavvafiLS
243 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 105, Hdt. 4. 74 e£ avrrjs OpriiKes fiiv Kal
27 Kavvafiis. ^.ocpoKXrjs Qa/xvpa, 'Hpddoros ei'juara iroituvTat Toiai Xiveoiaiv ofioioraTa,
TerdpTip. The allusion to hemp,— prob- Hesych. 11 p. 406. Bluemner, Techno-
ably to hempen garments, fits the — logie, 1 p. 293.
Thracian atmosphere of the play cf. :
0AMYPAI i«3
244
prjyuvq ^pvcroherov Kepas,
prjyvvs apfioviav -ôphoTovov \vpas
244 Plut. de (ohib. ira 5 p. 455 I) M on
Cicero also (*.</. 1.
fr. 36.
6fr,ii''fu0a xai xoXtpion »ai <pi\ois «rai 144 ttstudine resonatur ant
in fidibus
Ttr.rwi kcu yortvci xai Otoii vr) Sia «roi eornu) speaks as if the sounding-board
th)f<iM gal i\f/i'xots OKfixaiv, in 6 Bdfivpii itself were made of hom, unless (ornu
,
'(nrl ^'vi...\vpa1. Brunck was the first is to l>e taken to refer to the •wb.\ti\.
signed the passage to Sophocles. 11
1
p. 158 equates fV>a with
in. 9. 30 mentions among statues
: ti)x«»», but this, if correct at all, cannot
. Mt Helicon Bdfivow pJf refer to the lyre.
t( fj&ij Tv<p\6y koI Xvpai xart- 3 Herwerilcn reads /jjr>»it V see on :
a; 1 iat l<parr6u(voi'. Hi lid. 491. 874, Phoen. ib},. But for

1
1 xpwro&trov means 'overlaid with the anaphora with asyndeton II. <|UOtes
Ormted with gold,' as explained by Eur. /. /'. 1096 To$ov<r"EXXdruir dybpoit,
Tucker (in Aesch. Theb. 43. Cf. Tibull. toOoiV 'ApT(fiii> Xox«or, fr. s
|> 4 37 (<»f Apollo) arth opus rarae, Bnrrovx, | rUm fiorawtf QvXa rt BifpQr,
ttstudine et auro ptitdebat larva Bacchyl. 3. 15 fipiti ul* Upi (tovtHna
/>artc Irra. — tclpas. The state- toprvut, I
(Sot'-ovai <fn\o£€i>iau dyiia.
ancient authorities relating to
"I the stringing of the lyre cf. DloChl
roctore of the lyre are very con- irioT€ ixiy ov¥ «>/rfiMr aiVAr, iriort H
hut anyone who will refer to the trt.fiaro driVrat, uoxtp oi \"pioo t pJ<poi
Mins figured in (iuhl and Koner tA ftvpa rtlrovci, wpoeixovnt pi bayj}.
at ]). :o: will Dot hesitate to understand Hence ivrirowox lui. /. /'. 1129 etc.
«fpai as referring to the s*i)x«t or arms of The metre is logaocdic (aeolicl.
which w<re fixed to the sounding-
. being a glyconic. and v. 2 an asclcpiad
ted by the JVyA*. L. trimeter
translate the In '
king nipax -fiayd8ioy, a view See J. W. Whit, in C. Q. Ill

>n the authority of Pollux 4. Schrocder, Soph. cant. p. 83.
245
fiovcrofiautl 8' e\dp,<f>0T)v 8' &t> kcu to ttotX hupav,
i"\"/iai 8' Ik t€ \vpa<; «/c tc vop.iov
ous Hafivpas
tripiaWa fiovcroiroul.
248 1 .\ai,Hfjf cod. Pal., iOdX+ev coni. Brunrk, 4u.dp+ew M. Sdwi

l.dl. Af
dt . rtf
AWry Brunck 9 #x**"»' " • x "' Pal. V*,
tpxofMt rcll. • oft I'orv.n: oi' codd. 4 «r*^l d\A« ante I'orM.num
24 S Plot. «"'/ /v novoo* *y\ A/* BM«|«t «si

"/ Ipi.tiritm it p. 1095 |i, de- 'Apitfracxof «ai \p\xnî\% '
;
pure delight of H., MModag acuttfr^ awl reading
ai A" dr6 txouxa ttx***' aut ( X°*tmi
><at xai derpoXoyiai «ai ap/tont^t, \\U\i\. n and comment* a»

optfiv rot/tAw /ôiorcu rd M\<ap,
cat I wit < seised > tn the
•MfVOI rii» &;urr ittw dwotoovati', i\*oi-aat throat by a mrWIy n -nake ;
ta$dwtp tiyii roil iiaypd+ifttHTir wr 6 ' by the lyre po»»c» am
I
•
•kck, drwtp ffiwtipoi 9, tA loô the *train» that Thamjrrat make* mu»k
WtpittOtP ibww tioiootiarti • ' With Mjrpa*Mngly "-~«^. «»W ft mfy
:
1
84 IO<t>OKAEOYI
Thamyras but Eudoxus and Aristarchus Karix eTac '
T0 $4 eari irapairXi)ciov'
and Archimedes —
who, as Plutarch goes Ixerat ydp. 4k 84 roijrwv rwv irpdrruv
on to illustrate with well-known stories, SaKrvXiiov, rwv irovr\rCiv, d\\oi e£ dXXov
were themselves possessed with ecstasy av T)pT7)fi4voi eio~l Kal evdovcridfrovffiv, oi
inspired by their discoveries in science : fxiv 4i~'Op<p4w~~-, 01 8e 4k Mouo'cuoi; '

oi 84
Archimedes, for example (1094 c), iroXXol 0; Ofirjpov Karlxovrai re Kal
ivvorjcras rrjv rod cre<f>dvov fierpijo-iv olov 2k fxovrai. ^ v eh el Kal Karix il
cri ') w'lwi',
,
tivos Karoxys V ewiirvoias eS-rfXaro fSowv 4£ '0^xr|pov. #x°/"- a is probably correct,
'
" tvpriKa," Kal tovto iroXXaKis (pdeyydfievos and completes the restoration initiated by
dfidBifev. The melodies
of Thamyras Porson (on Med. 284) of the latter part
have had an upon the speaker such
effect of the fragment. But the first line is
as those of the musician Alexander had desperately corrupt and I cannot feel
;
upon the Romans he created such a

: satisfied that Brunck's 8aK4rw, though
furore, says Athenaeus (183 e), oCrws diplomatically excellent, is suitable to the
iiroirjo'e irdvras 'Pwfxaiovs fj-ovcrofiaveiv wj present context. It has not been observed
robs iroXXovs Kal diro[x.vrnJ.di>eijet.u avrov ra. that fiovcro/jLavei may be a verb and I in- ;
Kpova-fiara. Whatever the verb was, cline to this solution, with irorl Seipdv =
xoti Seipdv is to be constructed with it, towards the throat, as in Aesch. Ag. 3 40
"/was stricken at the throat" (the part ovk4t' f£ 4Xev94pou S4prjs airoip.tl}C~ovo~i
|
which is the instrument of singing), as (piXrdrwv fxopov. The sense of the inter-
in Aesch. Etim. 595, where Orestes says vening words, which must then contain
/ sleiu my mother S-Mpov\K$ x ec P L irpbs the subject, might be given by reading
S2pi)v reixwv. The critics, except Bernar- p.ovffo/j.ai'ei 8' dvacpffev (or possibly even
dakis, who accepts etixo/J-ai and supplies 84 \a/j.<p64v) Xijfi' dveKas irorl Seipdv, or —
for it an inf. iXS.i' from his conjecture as the accent of cod. Pal. suggests, /noixro-
in the previous line (see cr. n.), reading fiavei 8' £Xa<ppi]v qfffi' dverov irorl Seipdv.
have taken irorl Seipdv with it,
ZpXOfJ.a.1, Herwerden conjectured in v. 1 f. irorl 5'
" and I come to the mountain-ridge " and ; ovpavbv atpofiai (so also Wyttenbach) Ik
since 8eipdv in that sense has no authority, re Xvpas kt4. Wyttenbach's view that
Brunck (approved by Ellendt s.v. Seipds) Kal r6 are simply the words of Plutarch
altered it to irorl Sei/jdSa i-pxofj-ai Camp- : linking together two quotations deserves
bell too translates "and make my way to passing mention. Mekler conjectured
the ridge" but doubts, conjecturing irorl after daKe'rcp, irorl 5' Ipav epxop-ai Salr' 2k
5' elpav Zpxofiou "and I go to the public Kre., i.e. to the banquet of the Muses.
place." ^x.o|xai is used for KarexofJ-ai, as The metre is of the Icnic (choriambic)
e.g.£x w appears for irpoae'x 03 PhiL 305. m type, but for obvious reasons the analysis
The usual phrases were ov yap ix Movcrwv, is doubtful. It should be added that H.
d\X' €K Kopvftdvrwi' tivwv Kartxecrde Dio was led partly by metrical considerations
Chrys. I 682, Kardvxeros e/c Ni>fj.(p(bv to his conjecture ex.op.ai. The anaclo-
Pausan. 10. 12. ir, Karoxos eK Novcrwv menos -rreplaXXa [xovaoiroiei is a common
Lucian 11 5. Cf. Plat. Jon 536 a Kal 6 clausula in Ionics see e.g. Aesch. Snppl.
:
tQ>v ttoii)twv dXXijs MoiVt/s, 6 5'

fiev ii- 1043.
4% aWrjs iîjprrjrai. dvop.dc~oft.ev 5e avro
OHIEYI
Welcker (p. 402) holds that the solitary reference to this play-
is error, and that the Phaedra was the play intended.
an There is
no reason why Sophocles should not have written a play entitled
Theseus, just as Euripides did, who dramatized the Cretan
adventure under that title. The evidence in its favour is very
slender, and may be untrustworthy but we ought not to refuse ;
to credit it without some stronger reason than Welcker is able to

adduce. The subject must in any case be uncertain Welcker :
OAMYPAI— OYEITHI 1X5
Gruppe that it comprised the death of

records a baseless guess by
Theseus in Scyros (Plut Cim. 8 etc.). If the title is an error,
the most probable solution is to ascribe the quotation to the
us (p. 1
246
OfJLTTVLOV V€<f>OV<;
246 Phot. 34?, ir and Sui<l.

U.x. p. original force of the adjective (cf. alma
ti-iw (flwuo* Phot.) Kt'0o* filya. •
Certs); and there does MM -com to be
fTjuirof. ?.o<pok\T)i Ojj<r«<. Suid. any close parallel to the Sophoclean
•ai ofiTviot x*ipy V ""Xotvia, a gloss phrase, which was preserved as a curiosity
les 6utviov *J<poi in I'hot. at a time when the word had Income
Cf. I'hot. Ux. p. 335, y onirwiov vifovf ol>solcte. opTnos X''p> a lavish hand.'
*
. Ill p. 206 SurrtLov is much marer to the original. 0|irnor

rôtt •
ToXXor,
m<7*X<"'> yt^rinivov. tpyov in Callim. fr. l8j is interpreted as
97 Sfirinot x fi P- V wXovaia.
6. agrieulhtrt. M.i\ R not l>e that the
k vi<po%, ft4)a. ro\i\ ifvîffUfof. epithet was attached to r<<po<, because
The title Demeter inrvia (schol. Nic. the rain-cloud fertili/.e> the p :
I, 1 1 shows the earth?
OYEITHI EN IIKYQNI
the possible connexion of the title Thyestcs with the
r
Atreu 91. We
have there pointed out that, while it is
tble that Sophocl- two plays entitled Tkyisi
as the Atreus, all we can affirm with certainty is that two
of Sophocles dealt with the banquet story and the later
spectively, and that to the latter was
The chief authority now extant fbi
the lal >ry of the two brothers is \\y^\n./ab. 88, which by
.1! consent is admitted t<> have been derived from the play
The confused narrative of HygMIUS divides into
rice t<> the turning back of the Sun's
in horror at the impious banquet
•t In the first pari
lid to have fled to King Thesprotus, wl untrv
lake Avernus, and theno on where his daughter
pia had been I le found h
thena, an pollute the sanctity of the site by his
hid himsell in the ncij^l b 11 ing grove ft 1
ined hei tun's blood, and with-

it the nver. Thye m ering Ins head, rushed
rid violated her. PelopfS drew his sword
returning to the temple hid it beneath the
1
tatue of the goddess On the next day Thy

I the km >re him to Lydia, Ins native land There
mention here oi tl .en to I that the
— a
:
1 86 IO<t>OKAEOYI
son born to him by his daughter Pelopia was destined to be

the avenger of his brother's crime. This essential part of the
legend appears, however, in the brief and mutilated chapter
which precedes {fab. 87), as well as in the imperfect account of
Apollodorus (epit. 2. 14). Cf. Lactant. on Stat. Theb. 1. 694 cum
responsum accepisset Thyestes aliter malorum remediinn inveniri
non posse, nisi cum Pelopea filia concubuisset, paruissctque re-
sponsis, etc. The last quotation should not lead us to suppose
that in the original form of the story Thyestes recognized his
daughter, although the account of Hyginus is far from explicit
on this point. Anyhow, so far as Sophocles is concerned, it is
hardly necessary to appeal to the testimony of Aristotle (poet. 13.
:
453 a 9 ri ),m order to refute such an inference being drawn
concerning his version. The confusion in Hyginus between
Thesprotus and the king of Sicyon becomes still more puzzling
in the second division of the chapter : in consequence of a
drought at Mycenae, Atreus was ordered by the oracle to bring
back Thyestes. He accordingly journeyed to the court of
Thesprotus, thinking that Thyestes was there, saw Pelopia,
whom he believed to be the daughter of Thesprotus, and asked for
her hand in marriage. Thesprotus, to avoid any suspicion,'
'
—
—
mysterious comment consented. But Pelopia was already preg-
nant by Thyestes, and exposed the child when born. The
shepherds, however, gave him to a she-goat to suckle (Aegisthus).
and Atreus had a search made for him, and brought him up as
his own son. The concluding section in Hyginus is so closely
compressed that it may as well be given in his own words
interim Atreus mittit Agamemnonem et Menelaum filios ad
quaerendum Thyestem : qui Delphos petiernnt sciscitatum. cast*
Thyestes eo venerat ad sortes tollendas de ultione fratris. compre-
hensus ab eis ad Atrenm perdncitur. quern Atreus in custodian/
coniici iussit Aegisthumque vocat, existimans suutn filium esse, ct
mittit eum ad Thyestem interficieudum. Thyestes cum vidissct
Aegisthum et gladium quern Aegisthus gerebat et cognovisset qucm
in compressione perdiderat, interrogat Aegisthum, nude ilium
haberet. ille respondit matrem sibi Pelopiam dedissc : quam iubet
accersiri. cui respondit se in compressione nocturua nescio cui
eduxisse et ex ea compressione Aegisthum concepisse. tunc Pelopia
gladium arripuit simulans se agnoscerc (?) et in pectus sibi detrusit:
quern Aegisthus e pectore matris omentum tenens ad Atrenm
attulit. ille existimans Thyestem interfectum laetabatur : quern
Aegisthus in littore sacrificantem occidit et cum patre Thyeste in

regnum avitum redit.
Brunck inferred that the material for two plays was to be
found in the chapter of Hyginus, and that the scene of the
0YEITHI \%7
earlier was to be placed at Sicyon, that of the later at Mycenae.

Curtailed and abbreviated as the text of Hyginus obviously is,
an scarcely fail to recognize the influence of a tragedian in
the concluding portion, more particularly in the avayvwptans and
the suicide of Pelopia. But the earlier events are inconclusive, and
not well suited, so far as we can judge, to dramatic representa-
Agreeing, therefore, with Brunck that Sophocles' play
kvo)vi was the ultimate source of Hyginus, I think
it more likely that the earlier incidents, so far as they were
material to the issue, were made known to the spectators either
in the prologue or in the course of the action, and did not form
abject of a separate drama. It can hardly be doubted that
\7 alludes to the oracle given to Thyestes, but the words
quite well have been spoken after its prediction had been
fulfilled. Rossbach (Pkilol. Abhandl, M. Hertz dargebrael/t,
;) inferred from Hygin. fab. 254 Pelopia Tl/yestts filia in
patron (sc. piissima ///it) ut earn vindiearet that Pelopia knew of
trade and recognized her father, but nevertheless submitted
:^race in order to secure his revenge. Welcker p. 369) takes <
a different view, thinking that the subject of the second Tli

and of the I'elopidae of Accius is to he found in Hygin. fab. 86,
Thyestes I'elopis et Hippodamiae filii/s quod earn Aeropa A tret
concubuit a frat re Atreo de regno est eieeti/s. At is At/e/
filium riistltene/n, anew pro sua educaverat, ad Atrenm int<
endnm misit : quern At tens eredens tratris filinn/ esse itnpmdens
filtnni sni/ni oeeidit. This is a pure gtieSS, prompted by the
itv of finding a plot for the second V'l/yestes, and it is
much more likely that Hygin 86 is based on the l'le/stl/e>,
Euripjdes TGF p. $$6). Dindorf solves the problem by his
<
device of a second edition (see p. 4).

It should be added that the it* - alluded to
tragic subject by Plat. legg. 838 C. See also riedlaendcr I
on Juv. 7. 92.
247
tro<pb<; yap 0V0V19 tt\t)V o*> av Ti/uqi $tos.
aXX* €15 0€ov oputvra, Kav €^to 00075
yatpdv xtXevj), Ktla' 68onrop€ii> \p€<av'
\f>'>r yij) ovScV <OV V(f>T)yOVITai. 0i
247. 2 ,r' tf&, sryffcrt

247 lewin I H nl Jt 1» rinf
•
<jtov. *f«J», an<l Nrack, while condemning Urn
It f6 l . fit ol. V. 1 without lhc MUM "f leinckrinlhi
.U<m» <|u<>ted in /or. ih.n tin- Hat oaght i" Ml •<
103. the mm of lhc (m^d I M inclined

—
1 88 I04>0KAE0YI
to think that v. 4 had no connexion with attitude of the two poets towards ni< >ra!ity
vv. 2, 3. Similarly F. W. Schmidt and religion. Sophocles

serenely con-
is
(Krit. Slttd. 1 254), who rewrites the fident that no reconciliation of their
passage in order to avoid the supposed claims is necessary if morality
;
incompatibility of ££« SIktjs with aiaxP°" to conflict with the will of the gods, M
ovdti>. But all the lines appear to be much the worse for it. But for Euripides.
part of an answer to an objection (of if the gods seem to enjoin an immoral
Thyestes?) that, if the oracle pointed to action, they become untrue to their
incest, its injunction must be disregarded: nature and are no longer trustworthy.
see Introductory Note. The reply is that See Nestle's article on Sophoklts mid
such considerations cannot be allowed, die Sophistik in Class. Philol. v 29 ft. 1
since human wisdom is of no avail unless The present lines would accurately de-
it is blessed by heaven. The attitude scribe the position of Orestes in the
towards ffo<pla is similar to that of Eur. Electra, who has no hesitation in obeying
Baeeh. 200 ff. and other passages in the the command of Apollo, even though it
same play ; in Sophocles it does not involves matricide: see v. 1424 tolp
surprise us. For Beds riixq. cf. Aesch fr. ddfJLOMTi (lev /caXais, 'AiroXXwc el xaXiLs
I
302, Theb. 703, Eur. Her. 1338 Oeoi 5' iOiairurev, and Jebb's Introd. p. xli.
8rav Tifiuxriv ovdlv Set (piXuv. F. W. oSoi-rropetv is used 10 times by Sophocles,
Schmidt adds Hes. Theog. 81, Theogn. but not at all by Aeschylus or Euripides.
169. For '4%i>> bitcns cf. Eur. Andr. 786, Bacch.
2 ff. These lines have been cleared 10 10 ra 5' eô; vofiifia 8Uas ixfia.Xbi'Ta.
|
up by Wecklein's proposal to insert <r' Tip.av deovs. The context here limits SUt]
and treat iceXevr) as second pers. sing, of to the sphere of established or conven-
the pass, subjunctive. The same sugges- tional morality. The conception of fii<cij
tion was made independently by Tucker as a human institution was as old as
(C. R. xvii 190) and by Blaydes, who, Hesiod (Op. 279): cf. Plat. Prot. 32:1 .
however, inclined to els Oebv er' bpdv re The word is so applied in accordance with
Kri. The insertion of <r' appears to have its original meaning of custom or order,
been proposed first by Seyffert (Rh. Mus. for which see F. M. Cornford, From
xv 615), but he wished to substitute Bebv Religion to Philosophy, p. 172 ff. For —
for deoOs, in order to provide KeXevrj with the ace. after u<pr)yel<rdat, involved in the
a subject. It is natural to compare the attracted £>v (' where the gods take the
passage with Euripides' famous line (fr. lead, prompt ') cf. Lys. 33. 3 e/cetros p,ev
292, 7) el deol ri dpiocnv alcrxpbv, ovk elalv oiV raW v<pr}yri<ra.To, —
such was the lead
deol, and the contrast is significant of the given by Heracles.
248
airoTrXrjKTa) iroSi
248 Hesych. I p. 254 dTrojrX-qKTip aTrbwXrjKTos eyw. 34. 16 ovrus ait6ir\r)KT0v
iroSL •
p.avi<J}8ei. HocpoKXijs QvecrTri 2t- /ecu TravreXQs fiaivbiievov. There is a
similar transference of the adjective in
For the word cf. Phil. 731 rl drj... O. T. 479 p-eXi^ iroU, ibid. 877 irodl
mwirq.s KdirbirXrjKTos w5' eêi ; Ant. 1189 Xpyo-l/J-ip, Eur. Phoen. 834 rv<pX(p irooi,
Kairoir\ri<jaop.ai, i.e. 'I faint away.' Dem. Aesch. Eum. 545 dQey irodi, Tr. fr. adesp.
21. 143 oi'»x oiirws ei/x &<ppwv ov8' 227 Xaiddpyy nodi. See also on fr. 790.
249
a(JLOp(f)(L)TOV
249 Hesych. 1 p. 151 dubpipurov d)j.dp4>toTOS, formless, reappears

a8ia.TvwwTov. ~o<poKX?js Ovearr) Tig ev epithet of iiXrj in the pseudo- Pythagorean
"ZikvGivi. Cf. Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 94, 15 treatise published under the name of
ap.6p<pu}Tos dSibpduros, drrXaaros, dcrxv-
"
Timaeus Locrus, 94 A (vulg. a/iopfiov).
fidncrTos. It is not a genuine verbal, — for we
.
OYEITHI 189
r leave out of account the scholiastic KaWurvpywTot ftatih. 19 l>eside »a\\i-

P<Pjw, —
but an amplified substitute for wpyoi, afiapTvprrrot Her. 290 l>esi<le
p4>o% such as the tragedians were dpApripot, arfivWvTot fr. 299 l>eside
ne to coin. Similar instances are a0i'\\ot. See the excellent note of
faro* 0. T. 885 beside &<popos, arip- WiUunowitz oa Kur. //.r. I.e., and
beside drap/ify, XP vao ' further oa fr. 101 4.
\jitos Kur. Photn. 7 beside x/>r"ro*oXXot,
250
avrd/xoi/jos
250 avrdftotpos Casaubon : cu'>r6p.a.pot cod.
J50 Hesyeh. 1 p. 327 aMnoipos to a person means 'having a single share.'
• t cod.) •
pLoydfxoipos. ~o<pOK\rj$ 'Sharing alone' is an illogical but em-
OTtj —iKvuviy |BiV<ttij oiKi-uvia cod. : phatic term to express M .le pOSS
r. MuMrttt). The traditional inter- (oxymoron) cf. the use of fiofofup^t.
:
D, followed by Kiddell and Scott, aiToa-d/xwi', if that word is really the

h sftiia/ d nonsense. source of the Hesychian avrowona •
ng the analogy of Sifwipot, we trUXripw, would l>e the nearest parallel.

include that pLo»6fxoipot as applied
251
avTo<PopTOL
251 ii'sych. I |>. 329 avr6<poproi' the other with the merchant who ventured
Ul'ToiidlCOHH. KlplWI it 01 if roil l&ioti his goods in another's bottom. In
Z.O>f,0<\T)t kU-iitTrj ll/U'W'tlfl ( ho. (>- t (TTtixorro 5' avroipopTov
ffiKvwia co<f. : corr. Muslim*). on* 19 (rayy the speaker describes himself
.artrot r> Xupwn (fr. 24K, S8 K.)
I as a travelling merchant, contrasted with
a «ou»d ipopTifouJroil i<prj. a carrier. Cratinus, however, s<
avToôpros is properly and strictly have used the word for those who cm
:!ie vai-K\iipoi who voyages 1. 11!. in
:
monies. >u< h si least is
cargo on board In
aii huh Kock adopts hut ;
touted on the one hand with the latter thinks that the word k<k*os>op-
the seaman who carried for hire, and on roi/t may have fallen out before tyiy.
252
252 vch. 11 p. 132 ival*ov%' rdt

II Sparta adhered (<> tin >f the
ietit *oi rdf oi'Ufloi'Mai *ai rat a, . age: cf. Hob. I'
+
( n wt tfar'
11 (dpx'<riai COd.). LoôsXijt OiVurj 'Arpttiift, 4*1 0' 3 rt ot> dWoi 'A\aioi,
Kur. //<//</. Mm arpar6% i' iw^y
sal dX«/ot rait ircumjTa air Dr. 901 4wtpp60rtCOP 4" of (Jr wt
\J*/0*, ol 6' ot'n iwt)*OI l\\r ..n< hid >
Is 'decisiorui, re- nig words were 110 doubt rightly t
pport )•> Alcaeu* (fr. u*i by Maussac and

» n.n !)' may be taken You. Nauck wbstfcfl roil for rait
to the approval of an assembly only seems
tnd elected its officers:by .McaeMvsed rs>air/nrt of a
Such was the Spartan 10 that rait
.foi-tfi yap &t% «
,
»a<H ,
rai<ru> l» C01 k's altrrn.V
. ifgOjtiom that Sophocles wi
•ndbook 0/ > 'it/ut- dX«d£« roil /»oiWrai«ir or ton ^»a«r»-
'i. p. 100. In this respod ii" iliMil.t Taitfir alone are very unlikely.
' ;
190 IO<pOKAEOYI
253
a<f)a)<T lco /xeuat
253 Hesych. I p. 338 d<po<riwnivai' a 0op/xa/c6s would properly Ije described

avoffiai, dirodevtov baiov yeyevrjpiivai. as dtpwaiwuivos. Cf. Hipponax fr. ri
Socpo/cXTjs QvioTji ft. Cf. ibid, p. 341 ws ol fiiv dyei Bovird\(f) KarripQvro. In
d((>ii}cri(i}/j.4ve dirodev tov balov dtyupianive.
' this sense d<poo~iovi> is equivalent to
The important word d<poo~iovv, more ivaylfciv, and is contrasted with dcpayvt-
common in the middle, cannot be fully £eiv, to remove from the tabu or to dis-
treated here. The meaning attested by enchant, for which cf. Eur. Ale. 11 44.
Hesych. arises from the double sense of and d<ptepovv, which has the same meaning
dedication, seen in such words as devotits, in Aesch. Eum. 454 (of Orestes, as
soar, dyos, which has been well compared d<payvi$eiv in Pausan. 2. 31. 8). Hence
by Miss Harrison (Prolegomena, pp. 59, d<poffiov<rdai commonly = to abominate
108) with the condition of the savage (aversari) : see Holden on Plut. Suit. 22.
tabu. Thus &<f>oo- iovv, to separate from 4, and Wyttenbach's list of examples in
the offia, is to make an 0170s or tabu and ; his n. on mor. 63 B.
254
rjyojxrjv
254 Hesych. 11 p. 264 rry6/j.r)V does not deserve credit. Yet rjyofiijv,
Sirjyov. 2oq>oa-\7?s BviaTri SevTeptp. The 'I lived,' seems to be justified by the
same interpretation was traditionally- corresponding use of the active in Dem. 9.
given to O. T. 77=; rjyop.7]v 5' dvrjp |
aoTwv 36 y\v ri. T6re...5 i\evdipav rjye ttjv' EXXd5a :
txiyiaros twv €ku, irpiv fj.01 T^XV I

TOidb' see also on Eur. Hclid. 788. Cf. El.
iiriarr) : see the schol. iTpe<p6p.i)v, irvy- 782, where Musgrave quoted Philostr.
Xavov, and Suid. s.v. rjybixrjv. Modern vit. Apoll. 5.42 fj-cXiTTourais dir/yeTO Kai
editors prefer the rendering 'I was
all apron kt€. Several other examples from
considered ; but there is no gain to the
' Philostratus are quoted by W. Schmid,
sense in its adoption, and, if the editors Atticismits, IV p. 346.
are right, the present gloss of Hesychius
255
ecTTL yap tl<s evakia
Evfious alcr rfjhe /3a/cêt09 fiorpvs
255. 2 Ei'/3ous ala L. Dindorf: evfioTjoaaa codd. plerique, EtifioiU aKTJ Meineke j
pdKxtos Blaydes
255 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 227 ^,o<po- di ttjv fieo-rjpLfipLcu' 5fi<paKas, irpvyaro Si
k\tjs Si iv Qvio~Tr) iaropet Kai 7rap' ireiravdeiaa irepi ttjv iairipav. Steph.
]Lvf3oitvo~Lv 6/xoiav dp.ire\ov elvai rijs iv Byz. p. 479 'Svo-ai... Senary iv Evpoia,
Uapvafftp, \iy10v oiirws • '
e'o~Ti...iroTbv. tvda 81a /u<ds rj/Aipas ttjv a/j.ire\6v tpaaiv
The miraculous growth of the vine is dvOeiv nai rov j36rpvv irenaiveaOai. Schol.
one of the portents which attest the Townl. Horn. N 21 iv Aiyatt 7-77S Evfioias
piesence of Dionysus (Horn. //. 7. 35 ft.) irapdSoâ iroWa ytverai. Kara yap rds
and this accounts for its appearance at irijaiovs tov Aiovvaov reXerds 6pyia£ovo~Q)v
Delphi and at Nysa. For the facts cf. tCov /j.vo~t18wv yvvaiK&v jiXaordvovoiv at
schol. Soph. Ant. 1133 v to iv "Evfiola naXovnevai i(pTjp.epoi dpure\oi, a'iTives Zudtv
(pricriv dXcosto iv llapvaatp' iv dfupoTi-
17 p.ev rds tGjv KapirQv t/c/JoXds iroiovvTai,
pots yap t67tois 17 d/x7reXos ij Kad' iKacrTrjv (It av irdXiv jHoTpvas /SapirraTOKS, Kai
i)p.ipav irepi nev ttjv £w ftdrpvas <f>ipet, irepi tovtovs irpb p.eo-ripL(3pias ireiraivovffi, irpbs
— : —
OYEITHI 191
tV irpuiTa p.kv \afnrpas £<d

rjfiap eptret.
^Kcjpbv oivdvdrjs heâs'
K£K\r)fjidTa)Tau
€LT T]pa.p aV^€L fJL€(r<TOV Op.<f>CLKO<; TVTTOV,
Kal KkiveTai re KanonepKovTaL ySdr/au?*
• \anwpat tun B, Xafipaaew A, Xa,9paj II, \afipa8tw MT, \uipdt fu M. Schmidt
4 ^\a>p6»- Bergk Xuipor AMI', X^^ * Ml olrdrOrjt Barne-: ti>drdr)% I, (i'wOijj B,
MT 6 17^0^ ai"i«i I'alnt. 343. fitiap &$ti TAB, qnapd$tt M ^«ror |
• *ai KXlrtral rt B «ai xXiVfra/ yt vulgo

}r iawipatr SfxTofjuvai anparor \oprf- M. Schmidt's Xippai (cr. n.) is based on
1 oaiîXr; ro«»dro rav X°P°u *apdiroi*. Xifipbr a(\as ( Tr. fr. MODa 232).
ath. //. p 882, 3.S Ai-ydt 1} rdt ** 4 K<KXr)|iarwTai '
the green vine-
:
ta X^y«t, f>0a ftvVtvtrai to «arA rat dMMM puts forth its tendril.' The early
duWXoif. at, ipaair, iwOtr growth of the vine is described distrihu-
rat, root fitffrififipiap vewairovcrt tively in respect of each twig. The
*t, iaripo.% hi dxparo* x°("iy°*-' ai proper meaning of oirdrdij is given by
^ TV X°PV Tl*"' TfXoVflJrtjjr T</> schol. Ar. .-/«'. 588 as i) irpomj tK<pvou
»v »t<. From >uch evidence it has TJ/t <TTa<pv\iji so Hesych., Suid., schol.
:
rred with reason that Nvtt wa^ Ar. Ann. 13:0. It should be observed
the immediate neighbourhood of that in OOM Of the passages quoted bv

town on the west coast of I., ind S. for that meaning is oirirffrf
m Si rali. 405 we learn that lad fin the trine itself. There 1
ae was opposite to Anthedon at a se<|uently the less reason for following

J.,
met of 20 stades across the Karipna,
1 who, taking oirdrffrji oV/Mxr as the vine-
similar vine on Ml PlIIMsstll is de- stiK.k, treated gAwpo? as prolcptic 'the :
I 29 olra 0\ & tatia- stock of the vine has put forth green
or top woXvxapwor oirdrffat
or<n~iii The |>erfect is gnomic as in
1 see on tr. o=<y. EL 64 tW Stop 56novt f\8w<rir aMit,
|
Puk\«Co«: >ee cr. n. Our M (KTtrifirirTat wXior. See Glkkl

tinguishing lictween ftdux 10 * S 257, Good
as i> shown by Ami 154.
., 6 fiicraov is
ih. 219, 510, 704, in alt of which dialogue also at .Int. 1223, 1236. Bar.
cs they give form* of fiaKX'tot against only employs the form in lyrics. In this
The only certain instance of respect the looJam of Sophocles 1
*«<* in Ji
/'.
105. 1 In known: see on fr. 794;, 4. 4p4MUCOt —
ipides fi" 1
rtain in // tvitov. Ih, t'-rm c/ ///(• i/nri/* frafif.
and Elmslcy on 1057 ; 9 Kal icXivrrcU t« is undoubtedly
held that Furipidcs avoided nV|ht< Such eonjcctuics as wtwalrcrai T€
fciot, except as the name of the god. (Nauck) and yXvualrrral ft (Mcincke)
*e facts arc hardly sufficient to warrant arc (juite IktskIc the mark, as was recog-
adoption <>f ,1a*xiot, although it may nite«i by GoBtpef! an«l mile|KMulcntly by
right. For ih.- ucentua- I Icadhun. And, as it wane*, the cluster
*
» rather than (Mux* 101 KC

• isempurpled.' For the use of rt «ai in
381. place of 6rt of contempofancous events
4V rj(*op ffurw, grows for a day— see Kuehncr (ierth, g 516, H (11 231 1,
We should not rcmler and II. on Aesch. Mf. 180. The credit
7 day («a0' itiipar) : there is a dis- of IunI .idwtcating the clam.
C*. 1364 iWoit 11 Ant, 11^4 (1186).
»a0' ifUpar (iior — 'my d.nly NawowtpKovrsvi expresses ih<- lin.d change
429 tî 3' i$>' MI when the grape is ri|>e: sat n.
lm on Fur. I'hocH. ii'kj a good
tar
ttara) — 'wealth omufHtr
(iopai J
/f
hath unall part
•
in the illustration in A. bill. Tat. J
'• needs. the a\ <fa gemmvd cup: •{ M

r -,» nafifayur roitp' iifUpar liorpv*\ warrg wrptgptiUtuHH 6nfi >Ur '
I<lt. 1.32 oi' I Uatrot tear qr ««r©t 6 tparfo' jar

<ya w\<n<cu>i rov 4*' iuipqr '"
hx*D* ob*, card puMpbr t fiirpvi
tro% 6\ftnartf>h ion, Fur. /'// i'wow »p«df* rat «ai #r»fi'\^» r^r
nuap fix**' ft*' ofa ««X°* **• «M*o*a void. For this sense of
192 I04>0KAE0YZ
8et\]7 oe nacra re^verai /^kaaTovfievrj
OTrcopa kol\co<; Kava.Kipva.Tai ttotov.
7 (iXaarovpAwq vix sanutn 8 kclKws dirdipa Barnes |

KaKKipvarai A
<TTa<pv\r) cf. A. P. 5. 303 6p.<pa£ ovk stands: neither Campbell's
fi\a.<TTovp.4vr)
1
iir4vevo~as '
or 77s OTa<pv\r), TrapeTre'p.\fu)
'
attaining a perfect growth,'' nor I.
kt€. There does not seem to be any itsfull growth' —
lit. 'growing perfectly*
reason for preferring KaiwrepKovrai, as can be maintained. Even if the form is

suggested by Nauck in A. P. 11. 36 : legitimate, )9X. dirwpa ( = the ripe fruit
(quoted on Phoen. I.e.) the conditions are growing) is an odd phrase. The existence
different. In Chaeremon fr. 12 iroWr\v of a transitive pXaorew is proved bj Aj>.
oirupav KvirpiSos tiaopdv irapriv \ anpaiai Rhod. 1. 1 131, and that of the j
irepKCLôvoav oivdvdais xpovov {ytvvv conj. by Philo's fiios p\a<TT-qdels (1 667 M.)
j
Kaibel) the text is corrupt, but the refe- but the present tense is in any case out
rence is clearly to early maturity. of place here. Bergk's ep\a<rTrjp.(vrj
7 f. p\ao-TOv|i€VT] is generally con- avoided this difficulty. 7'rae/i. 703
sidered to be corrupt, but no satisfactory yXavKrjs 6 ir ib pas ware iriovos ttotov
emendation has been proposed. Meineke's Xvdtvros els yrjv BaKX'as <*"' dpire\ov
Kkaarov x ept (' K\a(TTov/x^vT) would be shows that ttot6v is the juice of the grape,
better' H. [cf. C. A', 243]: alter- xvm and we should expect to find some
natives are t^x v V or P-ivei, the latter allusion not merely to the gathering of
suggested but not approved by Her- the vintage, but to the pouring of the
werden), which he subsequently gave up fruit into the vat or its treading by the
in favour of fiXaarov yovij dirupoKXdcrTr] \
vintagers. The first requirement would
Kq.ro., is put out of court by the considera- be satisfied by TpvywpMvrj, the second by
tion that an allusion to the vine-dresser's Tpairov/xiuri or TraTovp-evrj or even by —
art is irrelevant not trimming the leaves
: word
fio.Tovp.ivq (cf. \rjvop&TT]s), the last a
to let the fruit but gathering it
ripen, which might possibly have given place to
when ripe is the process to which a fi\ao~TovpAvT), but like Tpa.irovp.tvri and
reference is required. Barnes's alteration waTovpJvT) cannot be combined with
in the order of the words /caXws ondipa — — Tipverai. Perhaps riftverai, fiaTovpevrjs
is probably right, and the error may be 8irws OTrobpas KavaKtpvrjTai ttotov. Observe
due, as H. thought, to what he called how easily 8-irws would have been lust,
'simple order' (C. A. xvi 245). On the which would lead to subsequent patching.
other hand R. Ellis conjectured dwwpiaios Herwerden proposed fidicxats for /caXws
for oirwpa Ka\ws. But /caXws itself is not on the strength of schol. Horn. N 21
satisfactory, at any rate so long as quoted above.
256
77y)c>s T7]v dvdyKTjv ovh' *Apr)<; avdiaraTai.

256 Stob. eel. 1 4. 5, p. 71, 20 W. Kai p.r)
XP e 'P TroXep.wp.ev, Ant. 1 1 06 dvdyKy
ovxl 8vo-p.axyTeov see also on fr. 757, 3.
K
~o<f>OK\rjs Qvio-Tji. TTpbs...av6iaTaTai' 5' :
(the lemma omitted from the proper

is The theme is varied here by the introduc-
place by codd. FP of Stobaeus, but given tion of Ares, the embodiment of physical
alter the conclusion of the following strength Bacchyl. fr. 36 (20 J.) aKapirTos
:
extract). The line is also quoted but "Apijs, Homer's ireXwpios, Aesch. fr. 74,
with the corruption ovSels ov8' for 068' Tr. fr. adesp. 129 woXipois 8' '
A pews
"Apys, in a Pans MS. described by Wilh. Kpelo-aov' ^x uv 8vvap.1v. prob-Nauck is
Meyer Sits. d. philol.-philos. hist. CI. d. ably justified in thinking that this passage
k. b. Akad. 1890 2, p. 370.
11 is alluded to in Plat. Symp. 196 c Kai
The sentiment follows Simon, fr. 5, 16 p.r)v els ye dvoptiav "Epwri ov8' "Aprjs
dvajKa. 5' oi'de deol p.dxovTai, O. C. 191 dvdio-TaTai.
'
0YEITHI I9S
257
ws vvv Tctô? crT€Lô)fX€V' ov yap ecrd' OTTO)?
tnrovorjs SiKcuae; /xcj/xoc, axj/eTal ttotc.
257. 1 wj rw Dindorf: us rfcV SMA 3 antral rort Valckenaer: arrtral

s-ot> SMA
257 Si '
/. ;,,. i (HI p. 6l6, 6 brings fame, or that idleness begets dis-
,
'
~<Xp0K\(0V1 Qi^ffTT). ' <ln...TOTt. grace, may be seen in several fragments
I m% wv, independently suggested of Euripides 1 fr. 134 t OicXtuw fKapw w)«
npbell, seems to l>e necessary, wi &*€v roXXwr rbvij)*. fr. 138 oAk ten*
rdx»t occurs frequently in Sophocles (cf. oant r)5tu)i fyrwv fkodp tOicXuar tlait- \
Phil. o: 4 0. I. 945t "54* 0. C. 1398,

, Trpar', dXXA XPV WW»Vi fr. 237 ovtols yap
;S, 593), Imt could not l>e
- wr po:0vk*ot ti'K\(i)t dri}p, dXX' ol wbroi |
I by vvr. On the other hand, 6s tLktoikh tt\v fi'6o£iair, fr. 474 t6vos
t>c a final conjunction, since rdxos yap, cii \4yov9tr, (vxXtias wart/p, Cf.
ng alone is not used adverbially Theodect. fr. 1 1 ro\\4 8ti ftox^tf top |
by Sophocles. The arguments for the v£opt' tit twaifof eMUflt' paOvpia to |
are similar to those which have KTt. Herw., who proposed Sixaiot or
led to its adoption in El. 418, 0. C. 465, SiKcdvt, was subsequently inclined to
and elsewhere.
3 1or SiKcuas W. Schmidt con- I .
accept the text.
future is
—tycrai: see cr. n.
more idiomatic than the present
The
! itfialai ; but, though at first sight after ovk (90' 6wus, unless another nega-
c, this alteration really ol tive qualifies the subordinate
the character of the allusion. The pro- Kllcndt, s.v. 6wi, p. 535 a.
verb here paraphrased, that hard work
258
eêi fiev aXyetV, oiSa- irzipaadat. 8' < o/xoj? >
[a*? pq.(TTa TavayKoLa tov ftiov <f>tipeii>
j
€K TtOU TOlOVTUiV ^pTj TIV lCL(rU> \af${lV.

258. 1 fxtn Itali '
d\-,tira M, a\ytu> a" A ! J' 6i*un exempli causa scripsi: to

3 iure delet Bad ham ut ex Kuripidc ortum • XPV T *l' MA, Hi r*»
taaif M
ISB 5t( b. /for. 108. 11 (IV p. 963, lao~0ai 0{Kt*. Hut the thought of the
<£o*X>;t dv4ffrT). ' I > present fragment —
that trouble must !*•
The extract is omitted in faced, and if possible a remedy discovered
in the archetype of Stoliaei — is entirch '»*.
308
tome older anthology from whic h k Xi'»i; na\i*TA y' ri oia00tlpoiva m* MB. '
|
has been a conf ottri) yap ^ 0*6%, «XX' Sfttn /AVtpot.

.1* further The two passages arc not consccn'
i^'inal text. were so placed by Gaisfbrd.
'
Meineke's In Mriis«\ t. \t they are separatol l>v a

tabic interval. ,S. wlinh nmltl the
d\yt l*\ otto* quot.v has yp. wu-

M+epow to 90* wi pqara raraytala rod
I
(Ar9*u to xri written over «&n4top*> 94
v +ipti*. The sentiment expressed by to* in I ucntly thi
'
be cured must dental similarity of the oj>enin^
in many form* see : tempted someone to combine the two
ralicl wor<! and fragments without regard to then
1. J 9*0*0* ri ri
tii xh^ a % »u>\. in order to c<"
.
9*9 0a* p*\ti, j

0tibp drd-yxat farrit 90a* with the following line, he MiUtiiutcd
. —
194 IO0OKAEOYI
5e xP~h f° r ^' fy""** or Si ffe or whatever the jectured eVXwrt? xp-i\OTi)v for Tlv XM '
original ending may have been (Blaydes ta<rit>, thinking that ttcXveiv was glo«C|
makes the same suggestion). I think it is by taatv. but see Eur. Or. 399 quoted
more likely that xprf arose in this way in above. 2k\v<tii> was introduced in order to
v. than that Bad ham's 5tJ tip' should be
i provide a support for ix rGiv toiovtwv,
accepted in v. 3. F. W. Schmidt followed but the latter is perfectly good Greek for
Badham, and also without necessity gave 'in such a case. Cf. Track. 1109 rrjv
£\k£)v for in: tCjv. Hense thinks that ye bpdaaaav rdSe x fl P *, <rop.ai kolk rCovSe,
i
v. 3 alone belongs to Sophocles, and that 'even as I am.' Ai. 537 rl brf^ av air
its context is lost. He formerly con- iic tQvS' av w<peXo7p.i ae;
259
eVeort yap T19 kolL \6yoicriv rjSovTJ,
\rj07)V OTCLV TTOIQHTI TGJV OVTOiV KO.K01V.
259
Stob. Jlor. 1x3. 12 (iv p. 1015, was regarded as a formal duty, and the
5 Hense) 2o0o/cXeous Qviarrj.
'
eVeort . . rules to be observed became a branch of
'
kolkwv. casuistry : see n. on Cleanth. fr. 93.
1 f. These lines refer to the consola- ko.1 Xoyoio-iv. Nauck approves Naber's
tion Aesch. Prom. 394
of friends : cf. Kdv Xbyoi<nv (O. C. 116), a correction
opyijs vocrovays eiaiv larpol Xbyoi, Eur. anticipated by Wagner ; but the text may
fr. 1079 ovk iari Xinrr/s dXXo <pdpp.aKov well be right cf. El. 369 ws rots XcVyots
:
—
]
^Sporots I
dis dvdpbs iffOXov /cat <piXov tvtoTiv dp.(poiv Kepdos. Xtjfrnv cf. Eur. :
irapatveffis, fr. 1065 \6yoi yap e<rd\ol Or. 213 u> iroTvia Xr/di) tQiv KaiiQiv, ws el
(papnaKov <t>6/3ov /3porois, fr. 962 &W eV ao<p7). —
ovtwv is equivalent to vapbvTwv :
aXX-g <pdpp.a.KOV Kelrai vbacf) '

|
\virovp.î'(p Track. 330 p.r]5e wpbs KaKois rots ovaiv \
/Ail/ p.08os evp.evr)s cpiXiov, Tr. tr. adesp. &XXt}v irpbs 7' ipiov \vir7]v Xd^rj, El. 1498
317 Xbyip /it' eVeto-as <pappt.dK^ aoKpuirdr^, rd r' ovra Kai pLeXXovra IIeXoiradG>i> Kafcd,
Menand. 559, III 170 K. Xvirr)s iarpbs
fr. O. T. 781 tt)v p.ev owav ripApav /xbXis \
iffriv dvOpwirots Xbyos ifsvxys yap ovros ' | Kariaxov, Oaripq 5' iiiv kt£.
p.bvos ?x et 6e\KT-f)pi.a. ktL Consolation
260
Kaiuep yepoov cow ctWrx t<o yrfpa <f)tXel
â) vovs ofAapTeiv /cat to fiov\eveiv a Set.
260 Stob. Jlor. 115. 16 (ivp. 1023, €<p7] XPV ff ^ al T V

. Se (ppovqaei y-qpdcrKOVTas
1 1 Hense) "Lo<poKXiovs Qvicrrrj (the name aKp-dfeiv, Ant. 1353, infr. fr. 664, Antiph.
of the play omitted byS). /coin- e/>... Set.'
is ' fr. 3 (TGF p. 793), Eur. fr. 619, Pkoen.
Hyperides
(fr. 57 K.) is said to have 529 7]fiireipla ix el Tl Xiâc tQv viuu
I
attributed to Hesiod the line Ipya viwv, <ro<j>d)repov (n.). Hence the rebuke ad-
/SouXal be p.io'div, ei>xai be yepbvrojv. But dressed to Creon O. C. 930 ical <r' 6
:
more often action and counsel are opposed irXriOvwv xpb * vo fipovd' bfiov ridrjai Kai
i
as the respective provinces of young and tov vov Kevbv. Contrast fr. 949.— Weck-
old Faroe m. I 436 yeou p.h Zpya,
: lein conjectured Kacrriv ytpuiv nev, but for
/3ouX&s 5e yepaiftpois, Pind. fr. 199 Zvda the irap-lixv 1 * see Neil on Ar. Eq. 533,
'
j3onXat yepbvrwv Kai vtwv dvSpwv

p.ev |
Lobeck on Ai. 384. Ellendt rightly
dpi<rT(voicnv alxfJ-ai, Eur. fr. 508 waXaibs objected to the comma placed by Dindorf
alvos ipya pitv vewripwv, fiovXal 8'
'
|
after uv, as if the participle were structu-
fxovcrt. tG>v yepairtpwv updros. Cf. Horn. rally related to the following words rather
A 323. Generally, age has a riper intel- than to the preceding clause. Hense
ligence and a wider experience Diog. : thinks that something like ovk drip.b$ e<rr'
L. 4. 50 (Bion) T77 p.kv dvbpeia viovs 6rras dv-fjp may have gone before.
GYEITHZ »95
261
aKrjpvKTOv
261 Hesych. 1 p. 97 iKiipvKToo •
XpifOf yap oi'xl /3euor...d* tywrTot (U*€i
iyvuxTTor. dtpartt Si Zo^wcXtt Qviary. the meaning is 'without having sent any
yni. Gud. p. 25, 51 Aktipvkto*, menage' (d<n}uot, «/ p.i)¥vop.tvt» 6xov w6r'
&yvv<TToi>, &<(>wror, Kal /jufya koI eitfidX- tan* schol.) and the neuter MCI ;
XaxTor dStdWaicror).
(I. The gloss have been applied similarly to something
'unknown' fits Kur. Helid. 89 oi> yip which had vanished from human ken.
ff£>n' aK-fipvKTof rdit. In Track. 45
262
a\oya
262 Hesyi h. p. t$o&\oya' ipprjra.1
contrasted with ovWafiiu yrwordi r« real
ZoQotXijt Qviar-r). Phot. ed. Keitz. p. 80, jtJirai, the translation imirthutate per-
• 3=Bekk.
•
anted, p. 385, 16 dXcry'a haps comes nearest and throughout ;
dppirra. ZoôxXip. that passage I'lato twktl d\oyot to serve

There no other example of dX<ryot in
is his purpose, hut without affording .1
rue, In Plat '/'heart. 701 H, when parallel to Sophocles. Cf. d*0«-yrrot,
the ffT<xjr/'"a, as dXo-ya and dyruxTTa, are
263
dXwTrds
263 Hesych. t p. 136 dAws-fe- Whatever be theright restoration of

nipt text of Mcsycluus, it seems
1
'If<»XV ot H a<payw (<x<p**tU certain that in the Thytsltt a\vw6t sp-

ydes) nard ri)¥ Tpixioîf peered as an adjective with the meaning
{wpiew+ty cod.). 'crafty.' There is hardly any reputable
dWr4» ' d\u»(«iiii)i koI waroi'pyoi. ot authority for the word either as noun or
d« &<pt\i)i (1. dôi-tjf) nara vpboo^w (-o ive. Uit the accent is recorded l>v
»al awp6<ro\fit). M. Arcad. p. 67, 13. Cobol lA*. /. p, 170)
Od. p. that i\utr6xpoi-i in Bckk. mtutd.
I
-11 «> faroptKif X»{«»(p (Acl. I

for &\<fHT±xpoii'
,48 Schw. ) dXawrot <? The same mistake
* dâ*^ r) o ri^Xii, showed that the p. 196M, 30. he form I .!.«•« MM appear
M dôrip open to objection on philological
*Tf\ relate to the lost
?.
to lie
<>«'
aXauarr&i. The giots seetn> M *ce the li-t of COgnat

:
have been wrongly brou;; I. I»u ;!i !•, ft

1 I ' . |>. 91.
The corres|K»nding fern
ind finally trim- Hesych. a» dXt*rd" A; dv.
cuiiniii. lbs was proverbial ever
ice to uiv f*a<rroi
1o+o*\in 6W#rf <md> 'Irdxy: for M a\wvf«»t t%p9«t /w*»<
'
ig6 I04>0KAE0YI
264
avocnjXevTov
264 Phot.
ed. Reitz. p. 144, 9 But for the fluctuating sense of voo-rj\(ia
dvoff^Xevrov Soô/cXtJs QviaTrj.
' see Jebb on Phil. 39. For the verb cf.
Presumably the word means 'untended' fr. 215.

rather than 'not tainted with disease.'
265
avraipovcriv
265 Hesych.I p. 209 avrepouaiv Hesychius, although I have been unable
avriXtyovci. SoôkXtJs Qviffr-g. dvrai- to any instance where dvTaipw is

find
powtv was restored by I. Voss, and its used of verbal opposition. But Suid. has
correctness is proved by the alphabetical avraipui. hoTiK-Q <pi\oveiKU, and Plut. em-
'
order in Hesychius. dvralpw, which H. ploys the word metaphorically with con-
once proposed to read in Aesch. Ag. 543 siderable freedom Cat. ma. 3 ZicqiriWt
:
(J. P. xx 299), does not occur in the wpbs TT)v 4><x/3(ou bvvafuv dvraipovri,
extant remains of tragedy and is severely Pyrrh. 15 rbXfiri koX pw/^5 rrjs ^VXHS
limited in its Attic usage. Still there is dvralpovra irpbs rrp> diropiav, aud. poet. 9
no reason to discredit the statement of p. 28 D dvTa.ipuv TTji Tvxy.
266
aneipovas
266 Hesych. I p. 231 direipovas ' regularly means
'inexperienced,' and
dwetpdrovs. 2o(poK\i)$ Qv^ctttj. direlpuv so used in O. T. 1088 ov rbv
is
Ellendt strangely remarks that Hesy- "OXvfiirov direipuiv, w KiOaipibv, ovk
chius 'haud dubie dnepdvrovs intellexit,' kt£.
and refers to fr. 526. But dirtlpaTos
267
anouea
267 Hesych. I p. 246 dirbOea' ddta, for ddea. Cf. aTrdvOpbjiros,= inhuman,
4ktos dewv. So0o/cX^s QviffTT). fr. 1020, and Hesych. dirbdpit;' dvrjjlos.
diroOca, godless deeds, was a synonym &dpi$-. See also on fr. 558.
268
a.Te\r}
268 Hesych. p. 312 dreXrj- dbdwava,
I irapotvlav (Plut. Alum. 15 bdwvov evreXis
ovk e'x 0VTa TeXefffiara. ~o(pOKXr)s Qvearr]. irdvv). should be added that eirreX-q
It
Cf. Pausan. (fr. 305 Schw.) ap. Eustath. and dreXijs are sometimes confused (so
II. p. 881, 26 ( = Bekk. anecd. p. 458, 26) Reiske restored ei/reXiDs in Plut. mor.
dreXr} rd dbdirava, lis nai TroXvTeXij r& 472 f), and the earlier editors of Athenaeus
iroXvddirava. Suid. s.v. (421 a) gave evreXts in the text of Amphis
dTcXrfs thus becomes the equivalent of on inferior authority. Headlam (J. P.
evreXifis,by which a schol. on Phil. 842 xxxi 9) remarked that Horace was ren-
wrongly interprets it. Cf. Amphis (fr. 29, m
dering are Xr/s in his i munis aram si
II 244 K.) bilirvov yap dreXes ov iroiei teligit manns {Carm. 3. 23. 17).
OYEZTHI— IBHPEZ— INAXOZ 197
269
eVrc'XXco
569 Ant, nt. Bddc anted. p. 94, 8
( ) Pind. 01. 7. 40 pAXor IrrtiXtr <f>v\d{a<r0ai
•\\w dVri rov iyriWofxai. So^wkXî xpetot. Sophocles also employs the rare
f/3- active forms utix***' M»- 1037) and
he active only occurs elsewhere in Anna* (ibid. 11 19).
IBHPEI
This title is known from an inscription published by Kaibel in
mfgrm. xxm283 (from the papers of Ph. Bonnarot), which records
the performance at Rhodes in the third or fourth century B.C.
of four Sophoclean plays... ea ô<poK\€ou< xal '08u<T<re<a *>ai
'I/Srjpa? teal aarvptKov Ti)\e«pov>. The fact of the performance
at that place and time is an important record see Introduction, :
§ 3. The legend of Geryon is the only subject suggested by

the title /Serums, but seems more suitable to a satyr-play than
a tragedy. For the Geryones of Nicomachus see TGF, p. 762.
in Iberia, where Heracles overcame Glaucus, the
Old Man of the Sea (schol. Ap. Rhod. 2. 767), is still less likely.
INAXOI
>ry of Io was contained in two epics attributed t<»
Hesiod, the A^ptmus and /caraXoyoi, but the information relat-
ing to them is so scanty that it is impossible to reconstruct
ttther version in detail'. The other literary evidence anterior to
Sophocles consists of the incidents recorded in the Suppliers and
schylus, to which there is now to be added the
dithyramb of Bacchylides (18). In Apollod 2. 5 ff. we find a
>n of the story which in several respects iroin
ivlus. and appears to be founded on Hesiod. Thu
that Hesiod made Io the daughter of Pcircn, not of —
ius, i> many tragic writers had d ;rther, whereas in
mppl. 30 rmed Io into a cow to
the pa
rt ding to Hesiod / r his
detected, himself effected the change, and Hera,

having asked cow as a present ;us to watch over
it. 11< accordingly tethered Io to an olive-tree in the a\ao0KAE0YI
accounts given of the death of Argus. In the Prometheus (707) I
Aeschylus speaks vaguely of his sudden and unexpected end, and
in the Supplices (309) merely states that he was killed by Hermes.
According to Apollodorus (2. 7), who appears to be following
Hesiod (fr. 189 Rz.), Hermes was bidden by Zeus to steal the
cow, and, failing to elude Argus, killed him with a stone. But
Ovid's account {Met. 1 668 ff.) is different Hermes disguised
:
himself as a shepherd, excited the curiosity of Argus by playing

on the pipe, and, when he had eventually succeeded in lulling
him to sleep, slew him with the aptrr). The antiquity of the
latter version is proved by Bacchylides (18. 29 36), who, in—
refusing to pronounce definitely on the manner of Argus's death,
mentions, as an alternative, that he may have been lulled to rest '
by the sweet melody of the Pierian sisters (see Jebb in loc).

'
The inference that the Inachus was a satyr-play was first

drawn by Hemsterhuis 1 and the general tone of the fragments
,
has convinced the majority of subsequent critics that he was

right, although Bergk 2 and Wilamowitz 3 were of a different
opinion. The latter considered that the play was technically
a tragedy in spite of its jovial character, and compared it to
the Alcestis of Euripides. I doubt if the analogy will hold.
The comic element in the Alcestis is slight enough yet the ;
ancient critics thought it a-arvpiKwrepov, and the general opinion

is summarized by Demetr. de eloc. 169 rpaywBia Be yapna<i fjuev
7rapa\ap,/3avei ev 7roXAot<?, 6 Be <yeXey? eÔpo? rpaytpBias' ovBe yap

iTTivorjcreiev av T19 rpaycoBiav iraiôvaav, enrel adrvpov ypdyfret
dvrl rpaywBias. So much was this the case that Rhinthon of
Tarentum, a specimen of whose art is perhaps preserved in the
Amphitryo of Plautus, was regarded as the inventor of a new
type of drama known as IXaporpaywBia. Wilamowitz has a for-
midable argument in the fact that twenty-six quotations from the
play have come down to us without any hint that it was satyric
and it is perhaps not an adequate answer to point out that the
same remark applies to the nine fragments belonging to the
'A^tXXeeo? epaa-rai But the more famous the play the less need
was there to cite it with a title distinctive of its character and ;
it is common ground that the InacJius was much more popular
than any of the plays of Sophocles which are definitely known

as satyric 4 It should be added that the death of Argus is a
.
1
On Ar. Pint. p. 248. 2
Griech. Literaiurgesch. Ill p. 441.
3
Einleitung in d.Trag. p. 8853. Decharme {Rev. des Et. gr. XII 298),
gr.
arguing rightly that a chorus of satyrs was indispensable in a satyr-play, thinks that
the Inachus perhaps did not belong to this category.
4 I do not feel the force
of the argument that frs. 270 1 —
are unsuitable to a
satyr-chorus. Consider, on the other hand, the cumulative force of frs. 272. 277,
279, 284, 285, 288, 291, 295.
INAXOI 199
favourite subject in vase-paintings, and on one of these Hermes

roted as trying to kill Argus, who is asleep on the
ground, but as being held back by satyrs'. Even if this does
not refer directly to the Inachus, it is sufficient to show that the
subject was suitable for satyric treatment.
mething may be gathered from the fragments themselves
the scope of the play. Inachus. the river-god, was the
father of lo (frs. 270, 271, 284); but there is nothing to show
what part he took in the action. It may be assumed that the
scene of the play was the flowery vale of Argos, rich with
pasture, where lo ranged before her wanderings began cf. EL 5 :
ii]s ol(TTporr\ijyo<; aXaos 'Ivriôy fcopijs. Aesch. Su/>/>/. 538 avOo-

pm/tovi eVro7Trt?, \€i/xa)i>a ôvî\ov, evdev 'I to tcre.
j
This descrip-
of the Argive plain (TroXvSiyJriov see generally Frazer
:
///. in p. 96) might well excite surprise; but Headlam has

ted out that it refers to the particular circumstances of the
legend, by quoting Severus in Walz, Rhet. Gr. I p. 537 rifiaxra
9 7') r *1 v T °v Ato? ipcofiimjv avdos dinJKe rff ffot pe/xeadai. It
is perhaps not altogether fanciful to connect the allusion of the
rician with the account given in the Inachus of the blessings

wed on the inhabitants of Argos when Zeus came to visit
10 (frs. 273, 275, 27J, 286). To Inachus in particular, as the
•
nourishment for all the dwellers on his bank
S, Tucker on Aesch. Cho. 6), the increase of fertility brought
enlarged honours. Hermes and Iris appeared as the agents of

and Hera (fr. 2~2). themselves too august personages for
representation. The transformation of Io'took placeduring
OUrse of the action fr. 279), but whether as a direct result
(
of Hera's interference must he left doubtful. Wilamowitz argues

frs. 278, 284, and 286 that Hera effected a counter-stroke
by n :he land to poverty as a punishment f<>r the com-

plicity of its inhabitants in the wrong done t<> her. A
introduced blowing the •-: jxn. and this refe- fi
taken in onjunction with A<

:, < />and the allusion
LCChylides to the fatal issue of his musical tastes, favours the
that his death was brought about somewli.it in the
mam, ted by Ovid. The play probably dosed with the «
rture of I<> on her wanderin Wilamou i1 .

the play
•.
of the Archidamian war, presumably on the strength

i
hoi. Ar. Av. 1203.
scribed by O. Jahn in Btrkktt J. tit If. Gmtl* h 4 ffZmM 196.
not show whether she VM completely tnuufoinwd| but. if »hc

M /ta/«rfwt w&pStroi (Kngclmann in Kotchcr
— —
200 IO<t>OKAEOYI
270
"ivaê varop, TTOU TOV Kpy)V(t)V
TraTpos 'flKeavov, fxeya Trpeafievoiv
Apyovs re yucu<? "Hpas re Trayois
/cat Tvpcrrjvolcn, Ylekacryois.
2 70. 1 varop Meineke: yewdrop A, vdrop B 4 Tvpvrjvoiai schol. Ap

Rhod. : TvppTjvois codd. Dion. Hal.
270 These lines are adduced by race, with pride, as sprung from the
Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1. 25 2o</>oAr\et ancient stock of the Pelasgi. Cp. Thuc.
5' ^ 'Ii/dx<f> 5pd.fj.art. dvdiraiCTTov virb rod 4. 109, who traces a Pelasgic element in
Xopov Xeybixevov TreiroirjTai ude '"Ivaxe.- the Athos peninsula, descended from t&v
lleXaayois' in support of the proposition Kai Aijfivdv wore Kai 'A^tjvos Tvpo-qvQv
that the name of Tyrrhenia was in former olKijffdvTwv. In the fifth century the view
times distributed over different parts of prevailed that the Hvpo-rjvoi and Pela>gi
Greece. V. 4 is quoted by schol. Ap. were identical. [In Hdt. 1. 57 tolul vvv
Rhod. 1 . 580 on
avroi oi 'Apyeioi
5i /cat Zti HeXaayGiv tCjv viripTvpcrivuiv KpriarGiva
t.âXovvro 2o0ok\t}s iv 'lvdxifi
IIeXatr7oi iroXtv olKebvToiv, Kpbrwva, i.e. Cortona
<pt)<xl leal T. UeXacryoh.'
'
with KpoTwvtrJTai for KpTjcrTwvtrJTai below
1 f. "Iva\€ for the course of the
: — should perhaps be substituted see:
river Inachus see on fr. 271. v&Top: in — Stein.] Hellanicus (fr. 1, FHG 1
45)
support of his correction Meineke (on says that the Pelasgi acquired the name
Caljimachus, p. 250) quotes Hesych. ill of Tvp<rwol after their arrival in Italy.
p. 137 vairup piuv, iroXvppovs, and p. 141
'
The Etruscans were believed to have come
varrapiov iroXippovv (i.e. vdrwp' piuiv, originally from Lydia (Hdt. 1. 94).
TroXOppovi). Empedocles fr. 6 introduces Herodotus (8. 73) regards the people of
N?7<rm as the representative of Water in Cynuria in the S. of Argolis as having
his list of the four elements. Cf. vq. been originally Pelasgic. So the inhabi-
fr. 5. tow Kprjvwv irarpos. Cf. Horn. 4> tants of Achaia, he says, were originally
196 '(i/ceapoib, ii; ovirep wdvres irorap.ol
|
called Pelasgi, and acquired the name
Kai TrcLffo. OdXaaaa \
Kai Traaai Kprjvai... of Ionians only after they left it. In
vdoveiv. Ar. Nub. 271. The rationaliz- Arcadia the first king was Pelasgus
ing version is given by Apollod. 2. 1 (Pausan. 8. 1. 4).' The evidence which
'ilKeavov Kai T7)#i;os ylverai irais "Ivaxos, connects the Pelasgian name with Argos
d<f>' ov woTafibs iv "Apyei "lvaxos KaXei- is particularly strong, and is difficult to
rat. — irptcrpevwv (At.

1389), followed by account for as due merely to a mistaken
Homeric (perhaps locative) dative (Monro, interpretation of Homer's HeXaffyiKdv
ff. G.% 145, 7)- "Apyos (B 681) see nn. on Eur. Hclid.
:
3 "Hpas t« ird-yois : 'alluding to the 316, Phoen. 107. Aeschylus in the

Argive Heraeum, which stood on a rocky Danaides (fr. 46) traces the Pelasgians to
eminence under Mt Euboea, one of the the neighbourhood of Mycenae, and in
heights which bound the Argive plain on the Supplices (257 ff.) Pelasgus is the king
the E. (El. 8 n.) J. But, as Hera was' of Argos after whom the inhabitants are
the patron goddess of all Argos (Eur. named Pelasgi. See Ridgeway, Early
Hclid. 349, Phoen. 1365 etc.), it is Age of Greece, pp. 90, 94. It is impossible
perhaps unnecessary so to restrict the within the limits of a note to summarize
plural 7rd7otr. Poseidon sent a drought, recent speculation concerning the Pelas-
being angry with Inachus, 5i6ti ti)v x^pav gians and Tyrrhenians, and the relations
"Upas i/xapTupT}o~ev elvai (Apollod. 2. 13). of both to the Etruscans. Those who
See also Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 1829. identify Pelasgi and Tyrseni explain the
4 Tvpo-T]voiori neXao-yois- J writes : latter name as a descriptive epithet
'As we know from Dionysius, it is the referring to the towers with which they
Chorus who speak. They would be protected their settlements (Murray,
Argives, and here speak of their own Rise of Greek Epic, p. 41). Ridgeway,
" ' ' 1
:
INAXOI 20
on the other hand, regards Tyrrhenian who accepts the view that the importance
ians as those Pelasgians who having of the Pelasgians has l>een much exag-
lived with the Tyrrhenians (Ktr; gerated, and that their influence was
had been more or less influenced by confined to Kpirus and Thcssaly. J. L.
c. p. 146).
'.
Skutsch (in Pauly- lijra in IIS xxvn 115 traces the
J
a vi 730 AT. ) considers the identity application of the name Pelasgian to
of the Tyrseni and Ktrusci to l>e estab- Peloponuesian Argos to a misinterpreta-
lished beyond dispute, and that the latter tion of the Il«Xaff7t*d»'*Ap7ot of Homer.
reached Italy from the Kast by sea; but Further, inasmuch as the names Pelasgian
denies that they have any con- and Tyrrhenian were recognized in the fifth
nexion with the Pelasgians, holding that century as somehow or other connected
they were a non-Greek seafaring folk, (Thuc. I.e.), the latter in close associa-
cupicd settlements on the island-, tion with the former acquired a general
and the coasts of the mainland. See also connotative sense of pre- Hellenic in the '
Grttk Hiitory, Eng. tr. 1 p. 60 f., Aegean.
271
pd yap an aKpas
Ilivhov Aa.Kp.ov T airb Wtppaifiiov
€15 \\ p<f>ik6ypv<i Kal 'AKapvavas,
271 Stnbo 171, after speaking of of Argos, and then, near the NK. Iiorder
the legend which identified the Syracosan of Atarnania, it flows into the Achelous,
Arethusa with the AJpbeaa, continues; which, rising, like the Inaclr
ri yi TpottprtuJra adrrara Kal t$ rtpi rov A car nan ia on tin- W.
'IrrfYov nvdy rapaw\T)Oia pti.. .UlvBov ' '
'
from Actofia on the K., and flows mto
tyrw* AcUuot ..'Ax'XfA01 1! tl><- >\V. extremity of Aiarnania,
'
-(x£o«r.\>/t •
(tai iroji&i ,
Mtw...AvpKtlov.' ptXriw* near Oeniadae. [For Achelous. see on
-alot (fr. 71, hilt', i), &$ iôi rb* 1 Tr. ,,.)
4p rott \\fi<fn\6xoit'lfaxoy i* rov Adxftov The Argivc Inachus rises in the

(2)
p4ovra, <( 06 Kal 6 Aflat ptl, frtpov thai highlands between Argolis and Arcadia,
\pyo\tKOu. one part of which was called ArtaaaUoo,
rite* : 'The river Inacb and an eion. It flows through
N fabled to Ik: identical with the district bdoagbij to the town of
\ og connected \rgos),
with it by a mean) winch is fittingly named in the text as
I nachus rise* l>eing '
ICC of note in Algotia
the (northern) extremity of Pindus, traversed by the 1
•nd tacmos." Mt /.;."/•, a dird docs

Rtflei anaslrnphc
not
d of northern Greece, IIippoiB-v;- .irtitire
-1 link genitive after Ait/tmn 'and from I
in mountains on m th<- Perrluebi.' In prote the

• Location, would *ith Uf ppaifKir
ng akin lo \rf«cot, Kuchner-Gcrth 1
Uuif, "a r< • 'ApîAtixovt. ' '"' "'

alleys which to Amphtlochoa, son of Am|
cleave the rai brothei
ion ; and its lion of tin* W(
>uth, roughly p.irallt-l with
gh the highland
tebi— an I siiid that it w.
of
nd
— :' ;'
202 IO0OKAEOYI
/xicryet 8' vhacriv rot? AêXwou
evdev es "Apyos Sia KVjaa reficov

rjKei Srjfxov tov AvpKeiov.
271. 5 o/flô" els (is) codd. 6 Avpneiov Tyrwhitt: Avpxiov codd. et

Hesych. in p. 57
4 (i£a~Y€i is intransitive, for it is very Lynceus (Hesych. s.v. Avpiclov drjfiov).

improbable that pods or the like occurred There is another Lyrcus also connected
in the following verse, which Strabo with Argos, and mentioned in Parthen. 1,
omits. It is, then, another instance of where he is called son of Phoroneus.
the tendency shown by Greek verbs Pausanias I.e. calls the place Lyrceia,
expressing motion to become intransitive and says that it was deserted as early as
see n. on Eur. Hel. 1325 pLirrei 8' iv the time of the Trojan expedition ; hence
irivOei I
irirpiva. /card, dpia iroXwupia. Add J. would prefer the adjective AvpKtiov
7rd\Xw (Eur. EL 435 etc.), i/j.f}dXXw, here. But the name AvpKtiov is supported
idirrw (Aesch. Suppl. 556); and for Latin by Hesychius and Strabo (376), both of
examples see Munro on Lucr. 3. 502. whom state that the township and the
Blomfield, reading koX <yr\v> inroads, mountain were called by the same name.
made the quotation from Soph, continuous, No doubt AvpKtiov was strictly the name
but inroads clearly belongs to Strabo. of the mountain, and the site of the
5 81a KV|Aa rt\u»v for the tmesis see village having no separate name was
on fr. .799, 6.
:
known as 8r)p.os AvpKeiov or i) Avptceia. —

6 AvpiccCou. The hero's name was J. quotes Aesch. fr. 196 r)êis 8i)p.ov
Lyrcus, and he is described either as a evdiKibrcLTov . . . YafiLovs.

son of Abas (Pausan. 2. 25. 5), or of
272
yvvrj rts rjhe crvk'iqvas 'A/D/caoos kvptJ
272 o-vXrjvas (o-vXrjvds VN)R, kv\t)vo.s Aid., alii alia |

kvvtjs Toup
272 Schol. Ar. Av. 1203 kvvt) 8i otl (1) KVKXds may be substantival with the
rbv iriraaov ws 6
ireptKe<pa\aiav sense of brim (so Toup) there's a round '
#X« ' ' :
'E/3/ix^s dyyeXos
wv irapk HocpoKKtZ ev Arcadian hat.' (2) KVKXds may be an
'Ivdxy irt ttjs "IptSos (so R as reported adjective, = encompassed or ' covered.
' '
by Rutherford, but other edd. attribute Neither supposition is quite satisfactory.

the addition of iirl to Aldus) ywT)... 1 i
Nauck prints yvvii tis i}8e yv/j.vds ; 'ApKddos
kvvt).' (R is illegible after 'ApKddos.) It kvvt) from his own conjecture, which I do
is evident that this is the passage referred not understand but there is something;
to by Hesych. I p. 282 'Apxds kvvt)' to be said for his remark that 'ApKddos
'
'Ap/cadiKOs ttTXos. as
~Lo<PokXt)s 'Ivdxy, kvvt) ought rather to be ApKas i) kvvt).
restored by Scaliger for dpKaaKvvT) F. \Y. Schmidt proposed yvvrj rls i)b"
dpKadiKos irivbs from Eustath. //. p. 302, oi'x 'EXXds; or ywr) tis rid' ovx 'EXXds;
27 iv rots Ilavo-aviov (fr. 72 Schwabe) against the evidence of the scholiast. R.
(piperai 8tl 'ApKas kvvt) eXiyerd tis rjroi Ellis conjectured ywr) tis; r) KvXXtjvIs
'ApKadiKos irtXos, 5id to eêu* ws etV6s 'ApKddos kvvt); KvXXrjvis is an attractive
ti 8id(popov irpbs rd bfioetdr). Hence suggestion, but no reading will be satis-
Soping corrected Hesych. 1 p. 270 factory which does not put 'Ap/cds (or
dpaavv-q' irtieXos to 'Ap/cds kvvtj 7riXos. '
'ApKaSos) in agreement with kvvt) (or
It is to be feared that this cryptic kwt)s). That is demanded by the gloss
utterance cannot be restored in the of Hesychius, and is an essential condition
present state of the evidence. Brunck of the problem. Blaydes conj. ffreyavos
and Dindorf accept Toup's KVKXds' ApKddos 'ApKddos kwjjs. Further, it may be in-
Kvvrjs, which may be taken in two ways : ferred from Ar. Av. 1205 6vofj.a di <roi ti
INAXOI 203
ten; r\oioy j} Kivij; and from the inter- he goes farther, and supposes that 'Iptiot
pretation of the scholiast that both in was an error for 'loft, and that Hermes
vies and in Aristophanes Iris ap- alluded to the horns growing fr<>m Io's
peared on the stage in a broad -brim mo i head so lie wnuld introduce <reXi>»ij or
:
nilar to that worn by Ismene in otXrfvit, but biled to tit it to the \ei-<-.
0. C. 313 Kparl 9' riXioffrtpijt nvrij \
Rutherford emended as follows >w»j fit :
wpdau-wa, Otcodkl* rv apx<\tt. Such a f/Se; < rt't «I> <rv; \r)vit 'Ap»ai $
hc.id gear, a travelling hat for a journey, Kvrrj; 'who are you? An Arcadian
w.iuld be appropriate to Iris in her Bacchante or a sun hat?' He held that
capacity of messenger, being a variety of yvrrj Tit f/St belonged to a separate line,
the *Vrcwot which was worn I and that the note originally referral to
see Guhl and Koner, p. 171. If we vv. 1 99- 103.1
For XijWt he quotes
1
might assume that ywti was no part of Suid. paxxv »aptt rdr
Xrjyli, \ijyi8ot. i)
il would be possible to Xijr6*. Hcs\ch.

3* \r)*al' pdicxai.Ill p.
lead u 'Apudiot nrfi ;
Tit rj5( ffv\r/craad 'ApKaStt. Ktym. M. p. 564, 4 fcswft'
'lermes resented the appropriation crjuaivft riff {JokxW' He is thus able to
of his own emblem. For the connexion take 'Ap«rd» with l>oth substantives. XtjWi
mes with Arcadia see Horn. h. is certainly ingenious, but the supposed
: etc. M. Mayer in Roscher 11 lacuna and the explanatory addition of
346 thinks that the schol. was altogether the adjective are less satisfactory. It
in referring to the viraaot, and is also difficult to appreciate the resem-
that a high-crowned hat with side-flaps blance supposed 10 exist l*.tween Xi»W»
is meant (Hesych.'s wl\os is right). But and nvyfj.
273
Y\\ovt(ouo<; rjh* cVctcroSos
273 iji' Porson: 0' codd.
273 & I Ar. Pint. 727 top HXoiror mained Ar. Ii. 4881
( 51 7 K. Kal nJjv rottty 1
»a ' Ixt vaifay f) 6ri xal HXoi/ruwa

' IIXoitwi" >' Ov u.'yond\t to, tlfitiTiifM\Ti<rr' 1
roKopiffTucut iK&Xtffir (N'auck conj. l\axc). Whether th< ice was

•, but the scholiastk f) on is simply made view of the wealth stored beneath
in
attache! to HWruwa, and the subject to the earth (Cic. «.</ J. 66 ferrwM auttm
i*d\t<jty U the speaker), wi l.cHpo*\rjt vis omnit atque initura />iti f\Uri dtdutUa
'1*&XV '
llXoJ/rwros b" iwtiffoios *'
Kcd w&\ir at, qui /)nts, lit a / 11 J U ratios IIXot'Twr,
' roi6t>b" . . .xdpt* '
(fr. j- 1/111,1 it 1 tt criuntiir
I'luton is here introduced simply as the t tr>i 11. I'lat. 1. 1. rd ii IlXoirruMtn, roero
bestower of wealth (a by-form of IIXo£rot), fiiy tard ttj» >u iuaiy. 6n 4k rî
and the allusion is to the coming 1

yf/t Kdrwdtydyurat 6 II Xoi>roi, 1wun>ondatiti.
• form see >nimm, I.ucian I mi. 21, where 'hit us is speaking: I
pares Zor : Zrt>t and nm dr<xrrAX«t fit rap aorofa, arc

lloa*iow¥ lloTiidt. : Zona, is thus the giver w\ovToo6rif% nat n*ya\oiu>poi «aJ ai* rbt £*•
of wealth: cf. Sd I t Krifciot' *# brjKoi -foi>y «rai r^! oriiwan I, or Îwiliri it
*t wKoirroti- :m illy ISpUed to the g'«l who, not-
rify. Plui. be regarded rather as
.11 is t.j inding the extent of hi*
ndant minister of Zeus, than a u It .s »a< \\\<*ru>y if Aid to f«X^
to turn. The tult of i'lutUv raVrwr aâpr^y 6*tw fiTfUy tlrat 6 m»?
was particularly associated with avroy KaraTdTTtTto «ai ai'rov
n*r<H to orotxa [u. "A»*>ji] \l\oirrwra i>m irXsv-r un>, 'the place of iki
caXwvir aiTor), and comparatively late y,' i» nnproliable. Hut I'lutu*
(00 earlier instance than Ant. 1 100 i» became oomp
utoii noon
ami even when
1
1 ; 0KAE0YI
independent personification. The earlier that in the Attic mines men work so
freedom is illustrated by Aesch. Prom. zealously, tlis dv vpocrSoKuivTuv avrbv dvd-
83' ot xP <} bpP vrov oUoOfftv dfi<pl vdua
X)
I
£etv rbv UXouruva to bring the —
IlXovTuvoi irbpov. It is in relation to the wealth-god himself to the surface.
gold-mines of Spain that Strabo 147 quotes H. quotes from the lines on the elpeanlivri
a remarkable passage of Posidonius oti : attributed to Homer (v. 3) aiiral ipaicXlvtaOt
wXovcrla fibvov dXXct /ecu vwbirXovros i)v, Oupcu- irXovros yap ?<rei<rtv iroXXcij (Suid. |
tprjcriv, i] x^P a Ka-i wa P iKelvois tl)s dXrjO&s

'
s.v. "Ofirjpos, [Hdt.] nit. Horn. 33).
rbv vvoxObviov rbrrov oi>x "Ai8r)S dXX' 6 Blaydes would prefer r)8' tar e'uroSos,
HXotiruv KaroiKil. And he goes on to say comparing fr. 275.
274
7ra^Sd/co9 £ev6crTacri,s
274 Pollux 9. 50 fUp-q Si irbXeus Kal is noteworthy. Cf. Aesch. Cho. 657 wpa
wavSoKeiov Kal %evwv Kal ws iv 'Iv&xv *&o<po- 8' i/j-rrbpovs fieditpcu dyKvpav iv obuoiin
|
kXt)s, iravbbKos £ev5crracns. TravdbKois %ivuv, ib. 708 ay' avrbv els dvdpu>-
These words are simply the tragic peri- vets evîvovs bb/xwv. In O.C. 90 êvboraais
phrasis for an inn, and the anachronism = shelter.
275
\jov A109 eiaekOovTos Travra. /xecrra dyadoiv eyeVero.]
275 Ar. Pint. 807 aunsr) i)
Schol. Prom. 7, comparing Horn. I 212), as
ravra be irapd ra (wpbs Tcji [t6]V)
apTodrjKT)' when two longer passages are compared
iv 'lv&xv 1iO<poK\iovs, ore (Sri V) rov Aids (schol. Soph. El. 95, comparing Horn.
elffeXdbvTos Travra fieara dyaOCiv iyivero. X408 Here there is a comparison of
ff.).
Ar. Pint. 806 f. are as follows : i) p.ev the whole description in the two plays
ffiTnjrj ueirrri 'an XevKwv dX<pirwv, |
ol 8'
(cf. fr. 273) but we need not infer that
;
duipoprjs otvov uiXavos dvOoofilov. Aristophanes was closely imitating or

The word irapd is used in scholia much parodying the language of Sophocles.
in the same way as a modern commentator Blaydes conj. UXoOrov for Aibs referring
would say 'compare (confer)." Thus it is 1
to fr. 273, but Pluton was introduced in

employed as well when it is desired to the course of the description of the wealth
illustrate a single phrase (schol. Aesch. which followed the coming of Zeus.
276
(TLpol KpiQoiV
lie Schol. Demosth. p. 182, 17 (on the island of Ceos see also Sandys on
:
8. 45) <rtpo?s~\ ra Kccrdyeia, Qejiro/xTros Kal Dem. I.e. ap. Etym. M.

Ammonius
3Zo<t>OK\r)s iv 'Ivdx<f> '
cripol KptOu/v.' p. 714, 20 testifies that the t was short in
underground pits used for the
cripoi, Attic and his statement is confirmed by
;
storage of grain and fodder (bpuyuara, iv Eur. fr. 827 Kal ur)v dvol£ai piv cripoi/s ovk
ols Karerldero ra cnripfiara Phot., Suid. ). t)£Iov, and by Anaxandrides fr. 40, 27
Hence Spanish silo (through Lat. sirus) (II 152 K.) Kipxwv re xi'Tpais |
fioXfiibv re
and our ensilage. Bent, Cyclades, p. 454 f. ffLpbv SwSeKdirrjxvv, \
/cat irovXvTrbbuv f/ca-
refers to the practice as still prevailing in rbuîjv.

— .
INAXOI 205
277
'
tjavOr) 8' A(f)pohicria \dra$

wacriv cVc/ctuttci hoi
)0/xoi5.
277. 3 rcuaiy ^s-«ti/itt« codd. cnrr. Heath (-ratrir) et Nauck', Iwrowel

Meineke
277 Athen. 668 B rwr ipwpivur i/Ufi- conrrulerl with white; still less could the
J
ffyro, a<t>Uvrt% ix oitou toi'j XeyoAili'Oi't word signify a light-coloured (yellow)
Kocadfiovi. Sid (cat ô^>o*\J}* 'Ivdxy ^ wine, in comparison with a darker shade.
'Afpoiuruw tlprtfKt tt)v \draya.' l £a*6ri... That £0*061 in certain respects answers to
our use of red may be deduced not only
The chief authorities for the game from Antipater of Sidon'l £ai>0&r iptt'-Otrai
cottabus are Athen. 665 E— 668 F, schol. (A. P. 13. 97) of a handsome boy, but
Lcxiph. 3, schol. Ar. Par. 343 also from its application to horses, Item,
( =
Su'das s.v . KOTTafUfftir), schol. Ar. and oxen, and especially to fire (this is
J41, 144. From these it appears
1 the point of Pindar fr. 111 afrc rot x^wpat
that the members of the aipurtxrio* were \i t1avov (an6d Saxpua $vfu&rt, and fr. \
med to regard the game as a love- b

79 aitiofUira Si iat i-»o $<w0aifft ntfnuffk
oracle, and
that the successful player, When Simonides applies it to honey
whether mccess was measured by the
his (fr. 47), he is thinking rather of the
of the sound proceediiu
>s brightness than of the actual colour of
ash of the falling wine itself, or the liquid.- Jwiktwu sec cr. n. II :
from the clatter of the vXatrriyt descend- points out that a similar error 9W Wt* W M
ing upon the head of the n&njt (fr for H» Krvwy occurs in Aesch. Cko. 23.
by the retention of all the wine in the Meineke inferred that the passage
wXwTTtyt, or by the sinking of the largest formed part of a description of general
r of 6£<;1a<pa. was secure in the festivity, and of the joys consequent upm
affections of his ipwuiri). Hence the a state of peace. His leading rmcrwrst
epithet \<Ppo$iaia. —
Xdred; is obviously was intended to balance (lpl6u in t
used of the drops of wine thrown by the which he l>elieved to belong to the
as L. and S. appear to imply, context. He well points out that the
of the gam- \thenaeus d converse case — the abandonment of t he-
the same connexion Ear. fr. 631 wo\it Si on an outbreak of war— is

sport
KOffffifiwr dpaynoi Ki'*jnSot vpoaipSdf
|
described in a fragment of Hermippus
'\ot if ihfLOKJiy, and Callim. fr. 101 (fr. 47, 237 K.) $Mor t ty u rV norra-
I :
»oXXoi ted <t»\io*Tti 'A«6»rior 1)k<l» tpa{* fimn* |

if roil dxi'pOi<r« nvXinSofiir^P,
-ii 2u««Xdt in Kv\Uttf XaTo>af. fiarijt S' oMi* Xarayv* Uti ttri. — For the
|
£av$n. describes the red glow of the metre of the first line see At. 399, O.C
wine, as it sparkles in the light. Hut 310.
el was no! thinking of red wine, as
278
€vhaifioi'€<; ot Tore ycVfas

dtfrdirov Ac^dite? [0«i'ot/]
278. 1 yirpat Bcrgk : 7»r*ot codd. 9 Mow del. Her K id—

278 i)o*>. < rift hr >
1 Kperof {W - fft t\< - od<«M>rr« rd-
Kiovtm'Xw*'] on rflia ra fUXif 2o+o <rft o0»>*t, ut typ*** •» IIW»«l»t -
l/ow wtfxipyun Si rtrit tit ra if ry «al 6 rip <'A\*n 'tvriSa wo1-**i

foxy wtpi rov &px*lou fiiof *al r$t ri-Sat-
War '
ti-Satftorn.. 0*lov.' The firM line -. yitrat - tiwJr.
looted l>y 1'hilodem. d. n a C.oWen
206 IO0OKAEOYI
Age, when mankind lived in a state of ing that an ithyphallic occurs after an
primitive simplicity and happiness under enhoplius, except at the conclusion of a
the rule of Cronos: see Plat, polit. 269 A, system, he was in error, as appears from
O.T. 196 f., where the scansion is: - -^
Cratin. UXovroi fr. 165 (1. 64 K.) ols 5tj
âo-iXevs Kpbvos rjv rb jraXaioi', 8re rots J
*~ ! —'A|-' — . See Nauck
Aprois rio-rpaydXi'ôv are., whence Vergil's in Jahrb. f. Philol. CV 803 ff. The
redtunt Saturnia regna. The chief rhythm of Track. 960 f. is similar, but
literary authority for the fable was lies. those lines form the close of a strophe.
Op. in —
122, from which it appears that Tucker (C.J?, xvm 245) suggested d<pOi-
o.4>0Ctou does not imply immortality, but tov Xaxbvres alovs, taking -yî/va* as a
freedom from pain and decay ol p.ev iirl : causal genitive with ev8a.lp.oves. This is
Kpbvov T](ja.v,OT oiipavo) epfiaaLXevev ware j
metrically unexceptionable, and is exactly
$eol5' afaovd.Krjdta.Oufj.di' txovres, vbo~<piv j
parallel to Track. 822 f., but it is somewhat
&rep re irbvwv nal 6'ifuos' ov84 ri deiXbv |
hazardous to introduce the unexampled
yr\pa s iirfji' ...Ovfjanov d' tlis virvw 5edp.r)p4- alovs by way of conjecture. On the
voi (116), and after death they became whole, it seems safest simply to delete
Salp.oues iffOXoi, guardians of mortal men delov with Herwerden ; for, though it can
(122). hardly have been a gloss, the word may
If.yivvas for the gen. after Xayxdvu
: have been attached to the quotation acci-
cf. O.C. 450 dXX' oti ri p.7) Xdxwcrt rovbe dentally. It is perhaps worth mentioning
avfA.fx6.xov. Blaydes would read rvxbvres. — that the scholiast continues with Otaaai.
It is clear that something is wrong with If Xoxoires is retained, Blaydes suggests
delov, not merely in respect of its gender, ataav for Belov. —
The language resembles
but also because the metre unaccountably Ar. Nub. 1028 evbalp.oves 5' fjaav &p' 01 \
halts. Bergk read d<pdirov delas Xaxbvres £Givres tot' iiri rQv itporipwv.
withdactylo-epitritic rhythm; but in deny-
279
Tp<xyy<$ yek(j)vt)<$ Kepyyos eâvtorarat.
279 rpaxvs <£ codd. : corr. Elmsley
279Erotian. gloss. Hippocr. p. 81, 16 same suggestion (J. P. XXXI 9), quotes
trapd tois 'Attikocs Kepxvwdj] dyyeia Xeye- examples of <bs from schol. Aesch. Eton.
rai ra rpaxeias dvoipiaXlas e'x 0VTa > &s Kal 159, Theb. 820.]
IjoQokXtjs irepl rrjs diroravpovpevrjs (prjaiv Kepxvos is any kind of hard excrescence
'lovs (so Elmsley for lx&us) '
rpaxvs... rising from a smooth surface. Phot. s.v.
e£aei(TTaTai.' explains rpaxv n ev tois evwriois ('qu.
For x«Xwvtjs M. Schmidt conjectured p-eTw-rrots H.).
' See Hesych. II p. 470
and Wecklein xeXw^s and Her-
Kopwvr/s, ; s.w. KepxvCocraL and K^pxi'up.a: for do-iribwv
werden recast the line as rpaxvs 8e tpuvTJs Kepxvwpaaiv in Eur. Phoen. 1386 see note
Kepxvos eâvlerai. Mekler understands : in loc. So Kepxvurd (Hesych.) are cups
1
a harsh croaking resounds from the lyre.' with embossed lips, cymbia...aspera signis
For this sense of K^pxvos cf. fr. 31 4, 128. (Verg. Aen. 5. 267), inaequales berullo
But the text aptly describes the growth pliialas (Juv. 5. 38). Add Hesych. 11
of the cow's horns on the maiden's p. 469 Kipxava rj Kepxdvea 6ffr4a, Kai pifai
'
brow, and the suspicion directed against oSbvrwv ('stumps'). The horns of Io are
XeXtifr/s appears to be unwarranted. Cf. always a prominent feature in the legend :
Philostr. vit. Apoll. 1. 19. The genitive Aesch. Prom. 613 rds ftovnepw irapOivov,
is descriptive —rough
as a tortoise cf. : Prop. 1. 3. 20 ignolis coniibus Inachidos,
Ant. 1 14 XevKijsirrdpvyi oreyavbs,
X'ôs Ov. Met. 1. 652. R. Ellis (Hermath. IX
where is Xelirei 5^ to ws 'iv' 17
the schol. :
153) also defends x e v V*> ^
which he
Cos x c ^" os This explains the origin of
- understands as a reference to the roughness
the MS reading : $ was actually ws, an of the tortoise's corrugated and puckered
explanatory adscript, and ws is itself found skin. But the cow's hide would not have
as a correction in cod. D
(Paris. 2177). been described as nipxvos, and x^"" 7 5 ?
For the confusion of <j3 and ws cf. e.g. must have suggested the shell rather than
Pollux 2. 172. [Headlam, making the the skin of the tortoise cf. Ar. Vesp. 1292.
:
NAXOI 207
280
ft ov
280 Antiatt, (Bekk. anted.) p. 84, Bov is formed directly on the analogy
dfri rod poos. ~o<poK\T)t 'ly&x<?. of fov, for /Sour and rovt (from root) were
ib. in Theod. p. 137, 8 [= 134, 36 pronounced with the same vowel sound
Hilgard] tupi$rj rov Pov* ii yei'irJj ov ft6for («) in the fifth century. See Brug-
(fobs, d\\a Kai rov pov xapa 2oô*Xet if inann, Gr. Gramm* p. 52 ; G. Meyer,
'lr&X<? kvU rapa r<ji A«rx i'*V (fr. 4:11. Gr. Gramm.* § 311; Lobeck, Paraltp.
The same extract occurs in Herod ian II
281
i
'.\py09 TravoirTTqs ahiov fiovKoXel ttjv Ioj.]
281 Schol. Ar. Bui. 80 roC to-jos-toi/] appeared to attend Io in the Iiuukus. In
roi' riijf "Iw 0i>XdrTorror oWneTat hi un Aesch. Prom. 596 Io fancies she still hears
6*to% airrov (sc. rov Jiauiov) dWfio0r\a*oj' the pipe <>f Argus i/wo ii Ki)p6w\a<jros
:
&ra<ptfxi ii Toirro* irl rov wapd 1o<pon\(i orofifi 56ra£ dx^ror vxroivraf fiftof, and
iw 'Irdxv'Apyor. The lines of Aristo- the schol. remarks: £oô«Xip i» '\vd\y
phanes are : "V to* Aia rdf ourrip' 4xi~ kcu adofTa avTbr tiffdytf riwuif Si avrof
rtfitibt y turfy r/j» rov wavorrov itpffipar
I
'fiouTar 590) irifuift r$ rporg' at'XoiVt
' (v.
irrjuaiwox, ttwtp T(» dXXor, fiovKo\tiy t6
\
yap ixifttfoi roll Toifxfiott ol povtiXoi.
Oltuof (tt)i> î)fuu> coni. von Velsen). On Thus Argus chanted an ode in Sopl
hoi. continues SovKoXtif ii : but in Ov. Met. 1. 676 ff. it was Hermes
wt ri)y 'Iuj 6' Apyot if 'Irdxv — o0o*X/o»/f. who with his shepherd's pipe lulled Argus
:his we should infer that Algus to sleep.
in thi- distinctive dress of a herdsman
282
1
in-flueo- '
ladt. 8\ wa-irep 17 rrapoi/ua,
ck KapTa fiaiutv yvu>rb<; h.v yivoir dwjp.
282 Stob. ft" .
46 13 liv |>.199, 6 Xanrpoii <k wtf^ruf ii wXovfflon, it ratti-
Zo#oK\io*n if 'I»dxv iTJfftv... fu>f ii voXXi^r X*^Pat Ka ' «"6X*wr itavorait.
5, but Dein. 18. 131 i\tvdtpo% 4k bui-\ov »al
b) MA. The second Hi w\o6<ttoi 4k wtuxov &** rotfowl 7*70*^.
tpostol. 6. H8f.
that patuf was ma.se.
no doubt that it
i
Hut there can be

from small
V 261 dwo auiKpov 0' if do«af lieginm I'hil. 710 risooipw* 4u>v-
3omo*>, or A -IV /( ovo* , ati *al fUyai 4k mlfuf. - lo-#v b fol|i>wnl
;a\a wpdrru. The foil pendent dnoM wiihout tfn.
- are applied to th> ndfTot tcr*, wdaar
Diogen. i. 94 dwd ppadvan\d>f AVwr ifuf ripi dX^tioi' ^m}. A Collection of
ovcf : ixi t** dm\ ti'Tr\u>f fUf, siinil.ir rxunplr by Jacobs,
Mifw H ytP0fi4fi*f intlfuf Aitim I \tktH. (suppliiii'
,*5 iwi Kunri)i iwi (Hjpa :
• d] |Ho< ;
d»6 x"P°* w '' ''* *p*lrrofa, M«-r«p ^ wapoifiia
Ul. Oti 276, I -i.T,. diryina
>lm T)f 6 r* dwb the oil; si «ai ^hm^S
'it droTrou woal nard rip wapotftlcw *d^r' ifrlv, 4pym*8iptT<u, but •
•
;ua WFjo^.rai Aû-i^rit in the other e -en by
5. 89 a\fiwt<j<f ii ddo'wf pif ytrjfiat ll Yv«rret: lr. 103.
,'
. — :
208 S04>0KAE0Yz
283
toiovS' ifAOV TVkovTwv dfji€ix<f)eia<s yapiv

283 dfjLefMpias codd.
283 Schol. Ar. Plut. "ji-j is quoted a word would (like d/iadia, tvTvxla, or
on fr. 273. Trpofirjdia) follow the -0-stems. That the
In the absence of the context it does forms in -1a are due to Ionic influence
not seem worth while to throw suspicion is an error see Weir Smyth, Ionic Dialect,
:
on the text, although several scholars §§ 1 45, 215. d(i€|x<f>«ias X*P IV ma > ' Je
have condemned Toi6f5' or ifidv or both. rendered provisionally as 'meed of praise,'

Thus Hemsterhuis conjectured Toidvb' although it is equally possible that x<*P l "
ifiol, Fritzsche Toidvb' £x w and Bergk
>
is a preposition. The use of dfiefupuas,
Toiavb' ifiol UXotfrwe— the last to the where a word of positive import might
detriment of the caesura. But with such have been expected, is characteristically
an addition as yeywr' diratTeiv the tra- Greek. Thus Menelaus, transported with
ditional words might stand. I have, joy at the recovery of Helen (Eur. Hel.
however, restored djiefupelas for dfiefi<pLas 636): c3 (pi\T&TT]irp6(To\l/is, ovk ifiifi<p6r)v.
which is a questionable form, dfieficpela Other examples are quoted in the n. on

is required by the metre in Aesch. Theb. Eur. Phoen. 425.
893, and it is improbable that so rare
284
y
\va\o^
iraTrjp Se TTOTa/Moq
tov avTinXacTTOv vofxov €X et KeKfxrjKOTCJV.
284. 2 ^x €L vbfiov cod.: corr. Porson, vofibv ?x ft Ellendt
284 Hesych. I p. 214 dvTiw\ao-Tov sequence of Hera's wrath (' Inachos selbst
Zo0OkX?)s 'IvaXV i
TraT7]p...KfK(X7]K6TUl',' ward fast zu einer trocknen Mumie') see :
avri tov lebi\\a.<rTov, Sfioiov. Introductory Note. Tucker (C.A'. xvn

J. writes: '(1) Ellendt (s.v. Kafivw) 190) proposed to read Tbb' avTiTrXaarov
understands, similem inferis sedem (vofibv) bvo/jL ?x et '*•*•
)
nas tn s name (peculiarly)
'
'
habere. "Inachus has a province (or constructed to signify weariness' as if the —

realm) similar to that of the dead." name were derived from Ivts and dxos.
avTiirKauTov (r&v) KeKfirfKOTwv = tov tuiv In reference to this conjecture it should be
kck/jl. with gen.). This might
(like 8/xoios observed that Inachus was traditionally
refer to thepassage of Inachus under the connected with the proverbial 'Ivovs &xv>
earth from Acarnania to Argolis (fr. 271). a view which is favoured by some modern
(2) With vbfiov we might explain "Ina- : authorities (Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 15471s).
chus has a customary tribute like that Fick connected the word with the He>y-
paid to the dead": cp. Aesch. Cho. 6 chian gloss Ivdaai /caraxât, and x fw
' >
wXbKafiov 'Icdxv GpeirTrjpiov, [rbv bevrepov and others have thought that it contained
be Tbvbe TrevOrfT^piov —
where the same the root of aqua (cf. Achelous, Acheron)
comparison between the mourning lock so Waser in Pauly-Wissowa vi 2791.
and the nurture lock is involved, as also avTiirXao-ros resembles in its formation
in //. ^ 141 f. ;] and for offerings of dvriypacpos, dvTafioi(36s, and dvTlfUfios
hair to the dead, see on At. 11 73 ff. (explained as = ofioios by the schol. on
Wilamowitz understands a reference to Ar. Thesi/t. 17).
the parched condition of Inachus in con-
INAXOI 209
285
vapas xyrpiuajv e/c/ooas eircofiocra.
285 k<xI rrao-x i/t/>i>«»» c od. '•

con L^hrs ' ("apis) et Stadtmueller {xvrpbwir)
285 Herodian irepl aw*. M& P- 35. 9 The term x VT (^WOi was applied sometimes
(M 940 Lenta) ra yap tU pot diai'\\a$a,
p. to pot-like cavities in which spring
rntvov t6 d, tffapdt, Xapdf l*9iv s.vv. xyrpirot and Xt6W x<xt/, Antig. mirab.
$j)\vk6v Topd Z<xpOK\ti iv 'Iv&xV *a« \-<t, Arrian p. 291 Mueller, which are
i
awiXVTpifov* Egenolff report

(so all quoted at full length in the Thesaurus.
a<rxiTf>b>w) Xdpot «0rar' tfiri Hut we cannot read *ai ads xiTpirwr
Kvfia in pods iiruipjoca. Xdpot dffjp. tvdtv 4k pods (xwuoaa, because
it does not illus-
'
rd oi)oVt« pof, ' Xapoe T€TVKoip.eOa Sdprof leiodian's point. There was, how-
jSopwo/ura it, ei ical dpatrtitd ever, this word, as well as the adjective
vrdpxot rj tf»j\i»ra, oro-TrWi* 6VX« rd a, xOrpuros, to account for a scribe writing
' Xdpip 6p*i8i (cuxuif ' I
< XvrpU/w by error ; and the error would
puzzle i-. to extract from this the be easy if, as I suggest, he found
phocles. Dindorf conjectured XYTPAINCON or XYTPYNCON,
that *ol oaaxvrpii'u:!' Was a COITU] i-t- X vyp*i**** or x' i'ypvW' My
<rarepi*<p, and this was accepted by Lehrs, suggestion is that we have here two frag-
altering Xapot after âpo! .-oii.-.KAICAPXYrPAINLU\.
held that Xapot was not in trod d until that adpx' vypaifun Xapor (4
is. ical
nls Xdpot a"W', ed the , just meets the case, gMflg

which
Xapot &nr)%.
' ' vcning both the long a and the feminine, and —
toaa form the OtSfioo another one which does the same. Vapour
•clcs; and wci-
• red i»y r'xpoAt iwwpuoca Wh- .
IT! as vapdt Tt irarpot *i>/tdr«i» iwippoat ine litiUhus, or only one, and if so,
will approve Schneider'! which, I shall not attempt to decide but ;
on (Callim. 11 756) :'Iw to perhaps the first may have bc«a t!

wapois <lr itrl nvpuxoiv pods j
('rwutxro. of a later hand.' It will be olnenred
are a long way
res 1
that this Mentation hud I-
traditional text, hut the mtrodoci nui Her, who, as
of rapds (see on fr. 621) is an attra>
I. writes: 'The proposition
"porting is that xuktnI nao** Xopoi'f df r)(., i.e. omutsfora-

I
ipoi are accented oxytonc, t.xttii! 1 dulti OJMOJ safer*,

Limit rii
reas, when they are ,: out th<- w«.r"U tOrar' iwl ni'tia as
usually sh interpolated boat H ><». a {I. He ex-
the liomerk examples bear tbil (Ml xif/x^w by reference t<> the under-
I
the one case the complete line is r^v ground course of the lnach
h dtufxpvrj) \a.pdi> TtTVKoim6a. ibpwo* ; d, I he lOfMOtei that «iVar' .*
whereas the complete line in the other is an interpolation deserves ace ,
case is <m'>ar* Iwur' iwl KVfia Xdpy 6pn9i and with it mi^bt go Xdpoi (before «rV «t ).
c that the Xopot dri^p (after iwiiftoaa) probably has

\apoatvrn -1 is nothing to do with S»ph«Hlcs. I'
twur' ill 1 1 assume that i-apot has

by some reader li (•re irtw 0^\^m6* and
.tie ropdi for «•! ##..., iht
10 l>c so, which, however
text, dotilrtful,
are left with wapd I- i>dx«p yicUl* an appropriate sense.

iai '1i'>' *.' i'WI' \apo. . inpods (rw^lMB.
> 1
:'
2IO IO0OKAEOYI
286
TravTa 8' epWuiV apayvcLV /3pida..
286 Suid. s.v. dpdxvt] (Bekk. anecd. Prop. 3. 6. 33 pntris et in vacuo texetur
p. 442, 5) .etprjrai de dpdxvrjs Kai lra P
. . aranea lecto. Indeed, if we connect the
"HcrUdip {Op. 777) ko1 irapd Ilivddpy (fr. line with frs. 273, 275, 276, the words
168) Kai napa KaXXLq. (II 694 K. KaXXiois are entirely in point as describing the
in Bekk. anecd.: 'debebat 7rapd &XXois' emptiness of the storehouses, which the
Nauck)...0?;Xi'KuJs 8i 2o0okX 775 'IvdxV sudden advent of Wealth will fill again :
i
irdi'Ta...l3pLdei.' so Hes. Op. 475 ex d' dyyiuv iXdaeias
When the gear of war is covered with dpdxvia, Afran. 410 tamne arcula tua
cobwebs, it is a sign of profound peace plena est aranearuin, Plaut. Aid. 84 ita
the earliest extant expression of this senti- inaniis sunt oppletae (sc. aedes) at,/ue
ment is in Bacchyl. fr. 3, 6 J. ev de ffida- araneis, Catull. 13-7 tui Catulli plenus
podfrots w6pTra!;u> aiddv dpaxvdv Icrrol \
saccnlus est aranearuin. Cratinus makes
irtXovrai. Cf. Eur. fr. 369 Keicrdw S6pv a ludicrous application of the idea: fr.
fj.01
iiXjov diuptirXe'Keiv dpdxvacs.
I
Theocr. 190 (n 71 K.) dpaxviw ne<rTT\v £x e ! T V V '
16. 96 dpdxvta 5' els SttX' dpdxvai X4irra \

yaaripa. It appears again in an elaborate
5ta.<rrr)<Tcui>T0, Nonn. 38. 13 (quoted by description by Philostratus of a painting
Smyth) ZiceiTO de rrjXbdi x&PPVS Ba*xtas
\
of a spider's web {itnag. 2. 28. 1): oUias
eâirijpos dpaxvi6uaa Cf. Tibull. fioel-q. fj.ev oi'K ev irpaTrovo'rjs wpoirvXaia ravra,
r. 10. 50 occupat in tenebris militis arma <f>rjo~eis avrr)v xVP evfiv detriroruiv.. .dXX'
situs. For English imitations see Smyth t-<TTiv oUrjTOS dpdxvais fj.6va.is' <piXel yap to
on Bacchyl. I.e., Headlam, Book of Greek fe'ov ev 77<rux'a diaicXtKeiv. And in the
Verse, p. 276. Meineke, accordingly, same passage is an imitation of Sophocles
substituted WXra for irdvra, and is fol- ai &' 2p<-9oi 81 avrCov padifovai
lowed by Nauck. surelyBut this is
(§ 3) :
reivovaai roiis Kexo.Xaap.evovs twv ixItuv. —

hazardous ; for even granting that the Blaydes calls attention to the fact that
reference is to warlike instruments, irdvra Ppidw is usually accompanied by the
may have been explained by the pre- dative. But he should not have con-
ceding words. And the presence of the jectured ppuet: for Homer's authority
spiders' webs may equally well be a sign (1 219, etc.) is sufficient justification,
of decay in general. Cf. Horn, w 34 apart from the analogy of the verbs with
'OdvaffTjos 54 ttov evvr] x^ Tel evevvaiwv |
similar meaning.
kcLk' dpdxvia Keirai £xov<ra, imitated by
287
inLKpovpa xdovbs 'Apyeias
287 Hesych. 11 p. 158 eirltepovp.a- that eiriKpov/xa is a new formation from
iirlirXr}yp.a rj emxdpay/xa. did rb irapojvo- eiracpovu, intended to express the action
p.dadai T<fJ Zpyy' '
iTriKpov/xa...'Apyeias. of striking. The words of S. mean there-
1,o<poK\rjs 'Ivdxy. fore the beating of Argive earth
'
or '
irapovo/xdêiv form a new

means 'to possibly ' the solid ground that is struck.'
word from one already existing.' This Cf. Aesch. Ag. 202 x^ ova ftdnTpois eiri- -
appears clearly from Dem. de eloc. 97 KpoutravTas' Arpei5as. This is substantially

irapd rd iceineva irapovofxdôvra avrbv, the same as Ellendt's view, who thinks
olov (is rbv <TKa(pLTT]v ris f<prj rbv ttjv oicd- the reference is to striking with a stick
<pr)V iptaaovTa., Kai 'ApurToriX^s rbv avriTTjv ot to dancing. Tucker, who takes the
olov rbv nbvov avrbv 6vra see also Ruther- : view that eiriKpovixa means reproach,
ford, Annotation, p. 23973. For the prefers r£ dpy$ i.e. "Apyos is supposed
:
dative cf. Plut. defort. Rom 5 p. 3 1 8 F rfj . to be derived from dpybs 'idle.' Bergk
rvxv ttjv dvdpeiav irapuv6/j.ao-ev, schol. Ar. restored the text of Sophocles as eirlKpovp.'
Plut. 590 6 de dveXevOepos KaKia trapuvb- "Apyov x0° v °s Apyeias, understanding
'
(muttou rrj dveXevdepibrTjTi. Hesych. asserts iiriKpovfia as the impression of a coin.

1
INAX01 21 I
He accepted Toup's"Ap7<f> for tpy<p (also 110 Aorw rt Kpovftard r" 'AtrtdSot roil
approve<l by M. Schmidt) and supposed irapdpvffp.' tOpvdita <Ppfyiu* Swttifiara |
that the words Jtd Tb.."Apy<p originally Xapirur correct.

is If KpoOnar* are the
followed the quotation as an explanation beats of the foot in dancing, A<rid8ot '
of Apytlat.
'
would naturally mean the land of Asia ;
In view of Kur. El. 180 iXucrbv and the interpretaiion of the scholia
icpoucu wW
iyJ>*, /.A. 1041 xpwtoaip- might have been due to iciBapt* in the
6a\or tx*o$ iv 79 xpovovaai, and perhaps
of Her. 1304, it is open to doubt whether
the traditional explanation of Ar. Tkesni.
m
response of the chorus, which however
the usual accompaniment of the
dancers. Cf. Pollux 7. 88.
288
KVafx6/3okoV hlKadTTfU
288 KvafiofiiXun iiKurrljr cod.: corr. Masons, Kfapo/SoXor (pro Kvap.ofJ6\or)
nick
288 II -vrh. it p, 544 Kvd/up warplip' to have l>een the case with the nXifpurral
2o<>o«X^f MtXt&yptf) (fr. 4O4), wt *al tQv dpxal (Gilbert, Stoatsalt. 1 I p. 142.).
AitwKuiv rd» dp\ds «ci'o wfi'if r«K. 5tfK\-f)poi'y In order to check the increasing evil of
Si ai'rdt Kvi.fup «oi 6 rb* (Srav cod.) XtVKbr bribery, the method of appointment was
Xa^wr Adyxajei*. dra7«i 3* roi'-s x/xifoft, changed from time to time, and we know
'
lift Kttl </iv 'Ird^V '

Ki'a^*o/3iXwf iSiKJO-rT)* littleor nothing about the system in vogue
(cva/uV36X<f> JtAaarj Schow, KvanofioXCj at during the middle of the fifth century;
iiKaarrjv, conj. Nauck). thus the evidence of Ar. /'////. 177 as (0
meaning of the words is not balloting for a particular court only affects
entirely free from doubt owing to the the period subsequent to Kuclidcs.
less of our informal ion respecting Ath. pol. 37. 4 seems to show that a
the method of appointing dicasts in the yearly ballot was held for admission t<> 'he
fifth century. It seems certain, however, list of 6000. but by what method
that xva/io^dXot cannot refer to the voting those who succeeded were afterwards
of the dicasts, as there it nothing! subdivided Into separate panels cannot l*r
able statement in the determined (Gilbert, p. $4 if. ; I.ipsius,
to indicate that they
. ; Thalhcim in I'auly-W
ded their votes by using V 567). Ar. ho. 41 KcoMorputt
Sijfiot
beans; and the positive information alludes to the use of beans in elect
ing (Ar. Vesp. 333,
xo*pii>cu office, but its point is said to have
against any such liyoo
iiti-ly partly derived from the (act that the 1
th' •-;-. We
mil therefore assume that chewed beans when silting in court in
MVOfiijioXoi is right an to the order to ward <>lf sleep and keep their
of dicasts by lot and that at
•
; \r. l.ys. 537, 6yo with the
tome time or other beans were used for scholia). For the anachronism see At.
the necessary balloting, as is well known (lebb's nn.).
-
289
Xci/xojfi <tvv 7raXtftr*ctoj
289 rlarpoCTi p. 1 .*,. o. raX/r<T*ior... grapher* in how that s-dXir in
compo
drrl roO (<nptp<p. I'hol.
flip' rot (Hcsiych. 111 ;
Suid. raXiftfuior.. *a< IoV>o*\>;t tf«r«ot* gi-CKtoi, CKortwbi, t*4*^f' ** >V

PMiwri wa\ir<T*t* s-dXir h%a%oO iwlrmtw »n\oi). >
)i\. wa\i*<T*l<p' <t*0Tnry. iickk. refers to raXi>«ds*»jX«t ami »*aXVsytT#e
•aXietior' rd vwoetia- as parallel but there the idea
;
iUfOf ITT* dXXoi'. t, as also in *a\>»M*m.~

The I
>
212 I04>0KAE0YI
290
290 Philodem. de piet. p. 23 Kal 2o- is assigned to the fifth century : cf. Strabo
<t>OK\ijs t<v 'Ivd XV T h v IV" V- < yri > pa 469'PâJ' fx.lv Kal avroi rifiCxri Kal 6pyidfov(Ti
tuv deCov <f>7)
< <jlv > , iv TptirroXtfi 5£ > fnjrepa KaXovvres
TaijTTj, dtCov. In Eur.
Kal"E<rrlav 615) eli»<ai>.
(fr. Hel. 1302 Demeter is called the mother
According to the Hesiodic Theogony of the gods, and is clearly, as the sequel
(v. 45) Gaia and Uranus are the parents shows, identified with Cybele. On the
of the gods, and this tradition is carried other hand, Demeter has many affinities
on in Horn. h. 30. 17 x a 'P e Ge ^ v P-^VP, <
with Ge: for the evidence see Gruppe,
&\ox Ovpavov dffTepotvros, Solon fr. 36. 2 Gr. Myth. p. 1166. It should be added
fi7jT7]p fityiffT-q Sai/xdvuv '0\vfj.irluv. Cf. that, although the identification of the
Orph. h. 26. 1 Tata ded, p-drep /xaicdpwv, Mother of the Gods with Rhea-Cybele
dvriTwv t In spite of some
dvOp&irojv. is extremely common, there is reason to
development of her cult at Athens, Ge believe that there was also an indigenous
never became a divine personality so Greek cult, recognized in the title given
distinct as to sway the hearts or imagi- to the Metroon at Athens, of a goddess
nations of the Greeks see Eitrem in : known simply as p.ri T VP Qe&v (Horn. h.
Pauly-Wissowa vii 478. In Phil. 391 14). But there is nothing to connect her
dpearipa 7ra/x/3uJTi Yd, /xdrep avroO At6s, directly with Ge. Whether Sophocles
her identification with Rhea, who in Hes. here followed the Hesiodic tradition, or,
Thcog. 470 is her daughter, is implied. as in the Philoctttes, meant to describe
Cf. Chrysipp. II 1084, 1085 Arn. The Rhea-Cybele, it is impossible to de-
introduction into Greece of the Phrygian termine.
cult of Rhea-Cybele, Mother of the Gods,
291
cu'cuSeta? <f>dpo<$
291 Hesych. 173 dvaideias tpdpos

I p. Sophocles see on fr. 360. The mysterious
iriwv 2o0okXt?s 'Ivdxv' âpa t6 (Horn. word iriwv has not been elucidated Junius :
B 262) x^ a ' ,,{i«' t 7j8i x lT &va, Ta T ai'Sw '

conj. x iT &v, Salmasius troidv (to be taken
dfX(piKaKinrTei. with (pdpos), M. Schmidt iraifav or 7rap&
<{>apos may signify any covering, as in "lam. One might suppose that the dvai-
Track. 916, where it is applied to bed- Seia which required a cloak was that of
wrappings. For the shortening of the a in the satyrs (cf. fr. 360).
292
aeW60pi£
292 Hesych. I p. 54 deWddpii-' ttoiki- Hesych. toirapT)6povs (Palmerius and Toup)
X60pi|. Trvpeupovs Kal ffvi>ex& Hx ov<TCl
77 Kal <oi)> trvvtxets, 'straggling and not
ras rplxas, irapa ttjv fieXXa)>. ZoôkXtjs closely braided ' cf. Plut. qu. conv. 4. 2.
:
'Ivdxv- 4 p. 666 a evrovov yiyove Kal ffvvex^

It is not possible to believe that <x«XX6- ai)T$ Kal TrvKvbv rb fipov. [I have since
0pi£ meant ' with hair floating in the found that this suggestion has been an-
wind,' as in O.C. 1261 K6p.ij Si arpas ticipated by Herwerden in Melanges Weil,
aKTivHTTos gcrfferat. I should rather p. 182, who rightly prefers the form
suppose that it affords an instance of irapewpovs. Similarly R. Ellis, who pro-
comic hyperbole, in the sense of ' with disposed aVwexets.]
ordered hair'; in that case we might correct
' '
INAXOZ— IHIQN 2*3
293
dXw7T05
293 See on fr. 363. As the undoubtedly disappeared, was taken from
us stands, it would seem that the fnack tu, and that t! '\awr6t
aXunrdt occurred both in the Thytstes and Zo<poK\rjt have been omitted after Oi^ffrj.
in the Itiachus. It is, however, not un- See also on fr. 410.
likely that the lemma a\auTi>s, which has
294
avaiTa
294 II ~v :. ; 1 7 B avuvTa- iroHptpr), there: Eustath. //. p. 11 01. 45..
cf.
(rri\d. ririt bi ra f.rj fitfiptyuira. ~otpo- The
rare verb abetr a known princi-
Kijt di'lfixv Ta f-'1) xtKOfLfiiva \KtKv\vfiiva.
- pally as occurring in the proverb fxoXybr
xl. : corr. Salmasius). wapa to alum aUtip, of an impowibflity. The reference
d*ti* cod.), ion KaraKorrofra xrlaati* here is perhaps to grain which did not re-
riptv cod.). I'hot. ed. Reit/. p. 1 16, quire winnowing cf. frs. 17 :
ie same gloss with the addition of place of Salmasius's KtKoufUva Tucker

"Xtfl ami with (KKtKOfiuJra
after i-f tjXcl, would prefer ionokvnniva, comparing
>r KtKoti.fi.4wa. The lemma of course re- Hut the text is clearly right
ltd primarily to lloin. ^ Il6, and cf. Hesych. I p. 335 d<pf)»a- Uoâ, It
adds that Aristarchus read aVara p. 38l fi»*r tKO\l>at.
295
KTjfXOS
295 150 ki)u6i 6 irl ftiutwoy (Arist. Ath. 36, 8). pel. col.
>v taiioKOf, tit bv rat 4/rj<po\t Kaditecw There some doubt whether
is the shape
kt biKaoTijpioit. Kparirot Si ai/rbw i» of the »jju6* was intended to secure
'
SfUHt 1
K <t\oun.*o* 1)9 no* ; 1
'
secrecy, since in the fifth century the
ofrot yap tylrrro «ai rp> wapofioiot voting may have l*cn open see Stark ie :
lit cal ~o<Pok \>ji to 'Ivdxy. />. 0K7, and on the other >u\c
irely implies th. <;ilU-rt, Suutsmlt.* 1 461. But, apart
•he Ki)nbt as runnel-ahaped ban there weie obvious advantages
this,
3. 113 acaAor, <+> Ki)nb% irJKtiTO, Si in the IkhiIc necked opening. The word
) nMrro J) \l>f)<fnt. In the later day* of occurs in another sense in fr. 504. The
M and Atvpot auQoptvt. the allusion to the ballot-box n
ig part was called irl&yna St* opt- in the neighbourhood of fr.
'
IEIQN
only evidence of th-
.«: ceoftbfopiaj notation
>i<l from it i>> two icholiasti not ultimately m<i
As Aeschylus undoubt< :<• umier

thi-^ title, Welcket (p 402) suggest-, not unreasonably th.it the
nee to Sophocles maybe an error (.sec Introduction
is a favourite one; tnd pi*y» bei
(xion were composed also by Muni tlUttrttUi
15). ami I uiKMtheus (Suid. s
214 I04>0KAE0YI
296
296 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4. J4 irapa be a suitable gloss for it. Thus in Aesch.
rb t\f/ai SliJ/iov <f>-q<rl rb
'ZoôkXtjs iv 'J^lovi Cho. 184 ii; ofxn&ruv 8e 8l\j/ioi iriirrovffi
fieft\aiJ.nivov. Schol. Horn. A 171 in I-1.01 I

<rTayove$ atppaKTOi, whether trans-
Cramer, anecd. Par. Ill p. 162, 25 r) lated '
scant' or '
thirsty,' the reference
fi\a(3epbv dirb rod tipiov rj irapa rb t\j/ai. seems to be to the tears which refuse
1,o(poK\r}s iv 'I£Lovi (iv leplqyi cod. Par.) to flow in measure corresponding to the
Sl\piov Kara ir\eovao fibv rod 8 b~l\piov &rrjcn inner emotion (see Verrall) ; and the schol.
PepoXrifjiivov. Nauck at one time thought has rrodeival fioi- irpt^-qv dpevaroi. He-
that the last three words were a quotation sych. I p. 523 has Stxpaf fi\d\(/ai, which
from some epic poet, but afterwards re- M. Schmidt supposes to be a fiction of
cognized that Papageorgius had rightly the Alexandrian poets, biipiov fiXdirriKov,
proposed to substitute for them 8i\[/iov possibly with reference to the present
(pri<rl rb /3e[3\a/xnivov, omitting the former fragment, and b"i\j/iov "Apyos...rj virb Aioy
occurrence of 8i\f/iov. (ie($\aniJ.ivov l\f/ai yap to f}\dipai.
•
Cf.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of the Etym. M. p. 279, 55 diij/a- irapa. rb tirrui
etymology, it is quite conceivable that to f$\arrru>, fipa Kal Si\f/a, r) f$\dirTov<ra rb
8'i.ypiov may have been so used that /3e- ffu>/xa. Etym. Cud. p. 148, :,-.
(3\anp.ivov, i.e. 'checked,' appeared to
IOBATHI
story of Bellerophon appears first in Horn. Z
The famous
155 — 202, where,
however, Iobates is not mentioned by name.
—
Welcker (pp. 416 418) identified the plot with part of the
narrative extracted from Asclepiades (FHG ill 303) by the
schol. on Horn. Z 155 $e TlpolTOS avroyeip p,ev ovk e/3ov\i]6r]
rov BeXXe pocpovrrjv cnroKTelvai, TrefiTret Be avrov et<? Av/ciav 7rpo?
rov rrevOepov To/3aT??i>, dBoK^rcos tcaO* eavrov KOfxlôvra ypd/xfiara.
b Be 7roA.\ot9 avrov eyyvp,vdaa<; adXois, eo? ovk eojpa (pOetpofievov,
vrrerorrrjae rrjv /car avrov crrparrfyrjOeio-av Beivr)v Karafiov\i]v •
roaovrov yap Kaicwv 6")(\ov rrj Bvvd/xei Karr\yayvLo~aro. eBco/ce Be

avrw 7rpo? ydfiov rr)v IBiav Ovyarepa KaadvBpav Kal rfjS /3aai\eias
p.olpdv riva. This is a plausible enough guess, but has no other
foundation than the presumption afforded by the title that the
action of the drama took place in Lycia. When Welcker
proceeds to assume that the play opened with the return of
Bellerophon from the last of his trials, i.e. the Xo^;o9 of Z 189, he
is on very insecure ground. Euripides wrote two plays on
the subject, the Stheneboea {TGF p. 567) and the Bellerophon
(ib. p. 443). The scene of the former must have been Tiryns,
and in the latter the attempt to ascend to Olympus and the
subsequent misfortunes of the hero were described. The
adventures in Lycia are related without any variation of
substance by Apollod. 2. 30—33, Hygin. fab. 57, and several
!
IEIQN— IOBATHI 215
other authorities; but it is worthy of mention that Hyginufl

makes the betrothal of Bellerophon to the daughter of Iobates
quent to the fall from Pegasus. are certainly not We
compelled to assume that the treatment of Sophocles was so
distinct from that of Euripides as to ignore the vj3pi$ of
Bellerophon. which Pindar discreetly veiled in 01. 13. 91, but
condemned unhesitatingly in Isth. 7. 44 ff. to Be Trap Bttcar :
yXvKV TTlKpOTUTa fl€l'€l TeXfVTd.
297
Kal vu>v n crrjpa Xapurpov cVSctât ySt'ou
297 sail. f. 281 r. fuiir (rvi incredible). '*a<l>

ruir ..piov.'
r. Kabe) lx ft T0 * w* *°1 T0 Nauck doubts the text is sound, and
if
ff^wtv.. 1otpoK\fp 'lofidr-g (far. <rrr\ cod., the meaning is not clear. Blaydes well
as deciphered by kabe.
tragedy by A conjectures <rxvn* for ai)na cf. Ant. :
Sophocles entitled foeasta is of course 1 169 kcu f^ "rvparro* ffxw 'X<«w'-
298
tov *\ihav yap ovhk yrjpas 018c (pi\elv.
298 —Ai.flor. 110. 6 (IV p. 1076, »«'., but the change is much too violent,
e) 1 2o£o*X/oif loffdrov. 'rbr... even if it is ncccs-arv to alter the text at
!
hi extract ap|>ears in A only all.
I by SM. The thought that the old cling to life
II thought that yip was due to an more than trie young
i-% a commonplace:
to make an iambic line out of sec fr. 66. Eur. Ale. 669 pdnp ip' ol
an apparently unmctrical quotation: see y4porr*% tCx "™ 1 9ainl», y%pai yjAywrit
\
\<schylus, p. 111. Hence he *a« fta*por xpo*©r filov ijr 8" fyyi'i f\9f)
I
Mggested rAr < J*> AtSar oirii yrjpai \ 0dVaroi, oi'dtii 0oi>\trtu QwQffKtw, to yij-
|
ofoc^tX'tr. with glyennic rhythm (cf. J. \V. pat 6' ovkIt' tar' ai'roir flapi:
111 193] Uc that some- fr. ••§, II 383 K. rim yip rVraror rp4-
r
w
. : •
|
at after ro* 'Attar yip x u' 'wiAw ôi', i>^n \«jiai. ;

\
VY. Schmidt defends his rdr fable of the old man and the bundle of
'Atiifp yip oW 6 yr)p*il\ <p<\tl by quoting faggots it to the same effect {Attop.fab.
90 Halm).
1
Kur. fi Sophoclci baa DO other Ariot. rhtt. 1. 13. i^Kiy

le of 'AM 171 in iambics. Hence $t.\o{Wo< *ai fidXicra iwl rjf rt\<vraia
riir fiiw yip iiirf hf^P9-
299
atpvWtoTou rrcrpav
299 ll-vch. 1 p. 341 iQi'Wvro* a peak rising above the snow lit'
irpaw iwofxm {&<popop Toup, iowopo* A .v»//A8oa <JW«ata/'yAiiM»p*V.

d4>r&W, ofar XfhoTtrâr.
.
h«j«to* oibppu* *p*nii V»i4t wirpM.
|
I'irg. Hrr. 790 i '«**«

A bar' out any *ign of vege- w4rp*,-~ of the pfaM I'amtMM.
ition may be either a sheer precipice or For i+titovrvt see on fr
1
216 Z04>0KAE0YI
innONOYI
Hipponous, King of Olenus in Achaia finding his daughter 1
,
Periboea to be with child, sent her across the straits to Oeneus at

Calydon in Aetolia, bearing a secret message that she is to
be made away with. Such was the account of Hesiod (fr. 97 Rz ),
who makes her ravisher Hippostratus son of Amarynceus. It
will be noticed that here Oeneus —
apparently as dwelling in
a remote and uncivilized corner of Greece takes the place —
assigned to Nauplius in the stories of Aerope and Auge.
According to others, Oeneus himself was the father of the child
to whom Periboea afterwards gave birth, and Hipponous was
aware of this when he sent his daughter to Calydon (Apollod.
1. 75). The Thebais (fr. 6 K.) simply related that Oeneus sacked
Olenus and took away Periboea as his ykpas. But in Diodorus
(4. 35) Periboea alleges that she is with child by Ares and her ;
father sent her to Oeneus to be destroyed. Oeneus, who had

recently lost his wife Althaea and his son Meleager, had not the
heart to kill Periboea, but married her and so became the father
of Tydeus. Yet another variant is indicated by the proverb
Tv8ev<i i/c avcf)op/3iov (Plut. prov. I. 5 \_Paroem. I 322]), which is
explained by the story that Hipponous handed over his daughter
Periboea, together with her infant child Tydeus, to the custody of
swineherds. It is hardly possible to pick out the version of
Sophocles from this medley but Welcker was perhaps right
;
(p. 428) in conjecturing that Oeneus himself was the father

of the child, and that a recognition occurred in the course of
the play.
There is an important reference to the play in Pollux 4. 1 1
rpayiicov 8' ovk eariv (sc. 77 7rapd/3aat<>) ' d\V Ei5pt7r/S^? avro
ireTTOirjKev ev 7roAAot<? hpdfxaacv. ev fxev ye rfj Aavdy rov X°P° v
rds yvvaiKas inrep avrov ri irotrjaa^ irapdhetv, eic\ad6p.evo<; &)9
dvSpas Xeyeiv eTroirjae rw a^fiaTL r/79 Xeêtw? rd<; yuval/ca<>. ical
ô(pOKXrj<i S' avro e'/c T/79 777309 eicelvov d/iiWr]*; ttolci airavidKL<i,
axnrep iv 'lirirovw. Nauck and others have drawn from this
passage the inference that the chorus in the Hipponous consisted
of women, who in a particular passage spoke of themselves in
the masculine gender. But an examination of the context makes
it clear that avro iroiel refers back to the opening of the section,
defining Trapdftacris as the occasion when the chorus expressed

the real opinions of the poet.
Pacuvius wrote a play entitled Periboea, but there is no
particular indication that he followed Sophocles.
1
See n. on fr. 300, from which I infer that Calydon was the scene of the play.
; j —
innoNOYi 217
300
c£ 'flXevov yfjs <f>opfid&o<; ko/lu£o/xcu.
300 Steph. \iyz. p. 707. 14 "OXevor vour of Achaea are much strongei
Axafaf *a< Ai'rwXt'at 0r;Xi'*wj X<7<>- only did Hesiod <fr. 97 Rz.) mention Hip-
(itrr) ..SoôKXijt ^» 'lTT6f(^ (so MeiU'MW Eonous the father of l'eriboea as sending
for Irdry or {riVy or Ih-tuh of the codd.) er to Oeiieus from hi- home at Olcnus
in Achaea. but Di<xloru- 14. ja), who tells
have been the words
l>ose these to the -tory in a form which may well have
of iVriboea on her arrival at Calvdon been that of Sophocles, al-o implies that
from her native (Menu-. The Aetolian Olenus was in Achaea. It should be
Olcnus is mentioned by Homer (B 639) added that the Achaean Olenus was also
together with other Aetolian town-. It the scene of an adventure of Heracles, in
Ml Aracynthus in the neigh- which he avenged an insult offered to the
«1 of I'leuron, and was desi daughter of Dexamenus by the centaur
by the Aeolian- I.strain) 451,460 Eurytion (Pausan ifc 1, Apol-
cr hand Homer did not mention lod. 7. 5. 5). Bacchylides, hov
'mean (Menus (Strabo 386). It placed the incident in Klis (fr. 48 J.),
might be thought that Sophocles would ROB which the existence of a third Me- <
tic geography, and in nu- has ben inferred. yi\t dwpBa&os

l>ais (fr. 6 Kinkel), where aiat <t>op,id6oi
intended. But the considerations in fa- 1- rather 'the bounteous earth.'
301
npbs ravra Kpvnre /xt^ScV, o»? 6 irdvff opuiv

Acai ttolut olkoxkov ttolvt di>aiTTv<r<T€(. \p6vo$.
301. 1 6 wdr$' Clem., Stobaei F: ava»0' Gclliu-. StOM 2 xpbmn

id. I. ( i, mentis
301 1 . n. Alex, strotn. (t p. 74 wptt« ravro u rrgul.-wly COmbtOI

O0o«\«ot'f ti i£ \ww6rov rp6t x/>^ro* '
. a the impcraii* ejebb
lines are also quoted by St- .l>. etl. on At 1
17, p. </., I VY.. with the lem

\\ .. wilh I n.— 6 •
wrfv** ipmv %p6*o%
ICM in in the margin op 1 M>
I
,
,
" /'.
ISI* 4+*i>pi a' &k*9'6t4p9'
mil v. of id and ipur Xl**"- *W "W »<*"' *««
WTime b
.
to il ! the next Xpbro%. Tr. fr. adesp. 510 fi\4ru yip

achsmuih, no doubt rightly, i xpt" *- ** r * wdrtt' ipf. the
i.ma bcMMJod t.» iln- diuaturtr or retraUr Mho brings (t
10. 5J 6 r
it*\4yX** fUtroi j
dXt^nar ir^rvno* Xp6
.
///// 1051 oi-M fkt)»vrrtr Xffiiror
adesp. 500 N bill)*a*" ifwr; fr. 44 1 Xf**"* Mpmv
1. 11. b profttert wdrr' iXiftvur 4*\>i. Wo. klcin would
hiîli, prudrntt p\Htatunt. -•"/> read wi» drarrrfVtff.. which i» ill I
hiibtndos duebat: wpo%...xpl»ot. but hardly necessary. C(. El. 639.

218 IO<J>OKAEOYI
302
(TCJTrjpLas yap (fxxpjxaK ou^t Travrayov
/3\e\jjai ndpecTTLV, Iv he ry TTpoyi-qOia...
302 Orion flor. 4. 2, p. 46, io« roO wpopLTfdla (' is the better part of
discretion
'l7nr6»'ou '2ook\£ovs.
i
<r(drr)plas...Tri trpo- valour'). 'A
saving remedy is not to be
firidelq..' had for the asking ' for the genitive of
:
It seems probable (though the assump- description <ra>TT]pias <jxxp|iaKa cf. Eur.
tion is not necessary) that the sentence is /A/. 1055 cruTTjpias Si tout' <?x« t ' v V"
incomplete, and that something like idp- &kos ; Phoen. 893 <pa.ppua.Kov cuTTjpias.
dos n^ytffrov followed the words quoted. Cobet (V. L. p. 60), commenting on
There is moreover clearly some dislocation <p\vapias cpdppaKov in Alciphron, remarks:
in the text of Orion, as Schneidewin 'usitatius cpa.pp.aKov dicitur id quo quid
pointed out. For the profit to be earned
often mentioned
efficitur quam — p\o|/ai, to catch
contra.'
suspected by Blaydes, who
from foresight is : fr. 950. sight of, is
3, Eur. Andr. 690 ipol 5^ K^pdos ij irpopvr]- requires ei/pelv or bpav. See also on fr.
dia, Sttppl. 510 koX tovt6 rot ravSpeiov, ij 583. a.
303
dnaXeâcrdaL
303 Hesych. I p. 225 diraXâadar present dX^xw rather than dX^£o>, appear
diro<pv\di;ao~dai. Xo<poK\TJs'lTnr6vif}. The in Horn. Hdt. Hippocr. Xen., as well as
same form occurs in Ai. 165 xpfis ov5iv in Aesch. Suppl. 1063 6 pJyas Zev? d7ra-
cdivopev irpbs dira\££ao~0ai aov
tciOt' |
\iâi kt€. See also Jebb on 0. T. 539.
Xwpts, Aval;. Similar forms, requiring a
304
ajrapdevevTos
304 Hesych. I p. 227 dirapdivevros- tov, oiiri rats wdpos Kexp^P-lvav cpdairriv,
|
d.K4paios,Kadapd. ô<poK\rjs'linrbvip. Cf. d\\' aK-fiparov Kardpxop-ev tov i'p.vov

\
Bekk. anecd. p. 418, dirapffivevTos'n Smyth is undoubtedly right in rendering

aKepaios, KaOapbs (Kadapd conj. Blaydes). '
virgin.' Wecklein refers to the use of
dirap6€v€vros in Eur. /. A. 993, Phoen. KOpeOeiv (usually diaKopeveiv) for devir-
1739, means unmaidenly, but in carm. gmart, but nothing similar is recorded
pop. 8 (PLG III 657) <roL, Bd*xe, rdvde of irapdevevu.
p.ovo'av dyXatfopLcv |
...Kaivdv, dirap8iv<iv-
I4HTENEIA
The character of the plot is indicated by two of the fragments.
The authorities who quote fr. 305 refer to the betrothal of
Iphigenia to Achilles, making it plain that the progress of the
action was similar to that of the Iphigenia at Aulis of Euripides.
It is also known that Clytaemnestra accompanied her daughter
to Aulis, and that Odysseus was one of those who were privy to
innONOYI— I0ITENEIA 219
the plot. The latter circumstance probably shows, as we shall

see, that Sophocles followed the version of the Cypria more
closely than Euripides. Welcker (p. 107 ff.) suggests that the
relations between Odysseus and Achilles were of the same kind
as the dealings of the former with Neoptolemus in the Pliiloctctis.
This evidence is confirmed by fr. 308, which may reasonably be
rred to the delay of the expedition at Aulis.
The version of the Cypria, according to the epitome of
Proclus (EGFp. 19), was as follows /eat to Bevrepov -qOpoiapevov
:
rov (tto\ov ev \v\181 \\yapepvcov ctti drjpas (SaXoav e\a<f>ov

inrepfidWeiv etfrijae Ka\ ti)v" \prep.iv pi)viaacra Be rj deo? erreaêv
x
•
ovtovs rov ttXov %€ifM<ova<; errnrepTrova-a Kd\-vavro<; Be elirovro'i

•
deov prjpiu Kal 'lcpiyeveiav KeXevo-amos aveiv rfj 'ApreptBi,

ft>9 eirl ydpov aim)v 'A^tWet peTcnrep-tydpevoi Bveiv eiriêipovaiv
"ApTe/xt? Be avrrjv eâpirdaaaa eifTavpovs peraicopL&i Kal dddvarov

irotet, e\a<pov 6*t dim t>)? fcoprj*; irapio~TT)0~i toj (StoprZ. Apollod.
epit. 3. 21, 22 reproduces this with hardly any addition, except
the statement that Odysseus and Talthybius were sent to
te with Clytaemnestra, with the plea that Iphigenia
should be given in marriage to Achilles as the price for obtaining
his participation in the war. Hygin. fab. 98, which Xauck and
suggest to have been derived from Soph tly
ept that Diomedes takes the place of Talthybius. We
shall hardly go wrong in inferring that these extracts give us
•ugh outline oi the Sophoclean play.
the Iphigenia of Aeschylus TGF p. 31 hardly anything is
< )
known. Knnius, in his play hearing this title, is believed to have

Kuripides (Ribbeck, p. 94 f.) but from a considerable
I ;
fragment quoted by Gellius (N.A. 19. 10. 12) it appears that the
of Argive warriors.
i Hence Hergk, followed by
Wekker. conjectured that this feature was l>orro\ved by Knnius
from Sophocles. It should be added that the substance of I
inent fr. Ill

( otio qui ncscit uti plus negoti habit quan: \
mis animus in nrgo/ro) resembles the thou

o.X; but th<- oincidencc hard
( ishcs Bergk's infercn'
njectured tl title Clyt(temn,stra, known
to 11. from a ingle quotation (fr. ;
illusion
to tin in cm
1 Iv but it is perhaps more
•tice to the .lrgis//tus, if such a play
In-- Agamemnon ol :is to have
(p. 21).
n unapproachable model, and. if Sop
aibject at all, he probabl) reverted to the Homeric
'Ipoint.
ambiance to St. 5A9 (J«W»'» "•)•

220 IO<t>OKAEOYI
305
av 8' d) fxeyicTTCov Tvyx&vovcra irevdepoiv
305 Phot. lex. p. 410, 13 (Suid. s.v.) loosely for marriage-connexions. In Ear.
irevdepd- ti$ vvpicplqi ij tt)s xdprjs p.r)Trjp. El. 1286 tov Xbyy <t6v irevdepbv, addre»e<l
Kai wevOepbs, 6 ira.T-qp. T&vpiiri8r)S Si 70/11- to Orestes concerning the avrovpybs, ir.
fipbv olvtov irapa Ta£iv \iyei [quoting Eur. = brother-in-law. So yanfipbs must be
frs. 72» 647]...2o</>o/c\^s Si rb ifiiraXiv rendered father-in-law in Eur. Andr.
elne yap irevdepbv tov ya.fi/3p6i' iv 'I(piye- 641 an:l yafifipol 'parents-in-law" in Hipp.
vela. 'OSvacrevs <pr)<rl npbs K\vraifirj(TTpav 635. —
Notice that ir«v0€pwv is an allusive
irepl 'Ax'XX^wy. '
crv 5' ...TrevOepQv.' dvrl plural, if we can trust the statement that
tov yanj3pQi>. Cf. Bekk. anecd. p. 229, 1 it refers to Achilles so 0. T. r 1 76 KTeveiv
:
and Elyvi. M. p. 220, 40 ~Zo<poK\?is Si rbv viv tovs TeubvTas (i.e. his father) \byos. r/v
irevdepbv dvrl tov yap.j3pov Ti&eiKev (Xiyei See Kuehner-Gerth the im-
1 18. — For
Etym. M.). portance of this passage in relation to the
Both irevdepbs and ya/xfipbs are used plot see Introductory Note.
306
6£r)pbv ayyos ov ixekicTcrova-Oai TrpeneL.
306 fieXiTTovo'dai codd.
306 Proverb, append. 4. 27 (Parocm. fieXirovcrOai appears elsewhere with this

I 440) 6î]pbv...irpiirei. eW tov dvaîov. meaning: Plut. qn. conv. 1. 10. 2,
2o<poic\fjs 'Ifayevela. p. 628 D, Democritus enquired the reason
The significance of the proverb is why a cucumber tasted sweet, and the
similar to Matth. evang. 9. 17 ovSi waiting-woman replied, iyu yap dyvoi)-
fidX\ovo~t.v olvov vebv els do~Kovs iraXaiovs : o~acra tS aUvov els dyyeiov iOifxrjv
the vinegar-pot is not fit afterwards to IxefieXtTUfxivov. Hence Nauck (Index
contain honey. In the same manner is p. xii) proposed oi>x' p-eXiTovo-dai. But,
fr. 61 1. as Sophocles uses fiiXiosa in the sense
d£qpov d'yyos so o^pov Kepa.fj.10v in Ar.
: of fieXi (0. C. 481), there is no reason
fr.723 (i 566 K.)i Kwvuip 6i;r]p$ Tepirbfie- why he should not have adopted fieXic-
vos Kepd/jU)) A. P. 12. 108. There is a aovo-dai for p.eXiTovadai. The formation
similar reference to a homely proverb in is as legitimate in one case as in the
Aesch. Ag. 334 f. o|os t a\ei<pd r' iyxias other (cf. ye<pvpovadai) and the ; -out
"
Tavrif KijTei 5tx o0 raTO ^'' r &" ov </>lXw '
suffixbecame enormously productive with
— p.c\io~crovcr9ai
I
irpoaevviirois. is written causative function (Brugmann, Comp. Gr.

fieXiTTovo'dai in the text of the source. iv p. 297 E. tr.).
The form has been suspected, since
307
voei rrpbs dvhpl -^pco/xa ttovXviTOvs ottojs
nerpa rpamecrdai yvqcriov fypovrjixciTOS.
307. 1 vdei codd. : vovv del Porson irap' dvopl Reiske, irpbs dvSpa Gomperz
!
|
x/>w/ua
Reiske: aCifia codd. 2 irirpav Gomperz yvrjaiov £k <ppovr)/j,aTos C. Keil
|
307 Athen. 513 D bp.oiws (prjcrl Kai its prey is often mentioned Aelian v. h.:
2o</>o/cA??s iv 'l<piyevela * vbei ... eppovf)- I x iWoywai. Si oi iroXtiiroSes Kai tous

fiaTOS.' ixOvs Tbv Tpbirov tovtov. virb Tais irirpais
The trick of the polypus in concealing KddrjvTai, Kai eavrovs is ttjv etceivwv /uera-
itself from its foes or in lying in wait for /j.op<povo~i xP oav Kai tovto
y
elvai Sokovviv
. 1 .
I4>ITEN EIA 221
Ihrtp otV nai Tttfivnaoiv a< vtrpai. AriM. thought is what the ToXi'-rpoiroi dc
A. a. Q. 37. 6 22* 8, adding rd 5' avro tovto conceal from hi^ fellow men. irpos avSpi —
toiu nai QopTjdtit, 1'lin. //. h. 9. means a> you approach another,' 'when
'
colore m
mittat ad similitudinem loci et close to him'; for which cf. rpot roit
maximc in nut it, [Arist.] mir. a 11 unit. roXt/uoit elyai Thuc. 3. 22, 77, and wpoi
dan dial. mar. 4. 3 oiroip dv aitip 7' tl/xi rip 6ew$ Xiytm i>. I
wirpif. TpootXOLiw dpfiotrrj rat jtoriAat ... J., whose view is somewhat different,
tKtirri Hpxnov dwtpy djerat iavrif, Kai pit- lfio.rpai lyxot tv wpb%
TOfJttWd TTJf XP 0a *'> P*p.Ovpt¥0* TT)V 'Apyriuv ffrpaTip. — irovXvwovs : for the
w4rpat>, wt A* Xa0g rorH d.Wat »rr^., Ionism see Snivth. limit Dimhtt, § 154,
./. /'. 9. IO. 3 O0TW Tirpri 7*cXot
0* ^»> and Jebb on Ant. 96. wfrp^ might be a —
XP oa (*"• wovXiTot). In this connexion lOCJtthre dative [Phil. 144), but it in BjMN
ncc of the : likely that we should
carry on the influ-
wra/SoXai, rpoxal, and th ence of wp6s from the main clau-e.
ling verbs: Plut. <w/. //': Cobet, I'm: I,,/, p. 163 fl"., laid down
/<* sollert. ant 111. 27 p. the important distinction that, when the
auomodo adtil. a/> am. intern. S p. 52 K, clause of comparison precedes, no pre-
df am. mult, o p. c/> K. Hence the potition accompanies the noun of the
1 Miation^ of the poly] mam -entence (t.i,'. l'lat. nf>. 4I4 E 6*1
1. 23 woXvwoiot
1. Wt W€pl p.T)Tp6t *oi TpOipOV Tr}l X^'P01 *
ro\i xpoov hoop lex*, Zenob. 1. 74 ifiVPtir); but that, when the com,
1. 1 pp. 8, 1X4]!, and were applied follows, the preposition must appear in
rily man's adaptability to hi> -ur- eoad done. juently
1
roundings (to roXr/rpos-or), either with emended the fragment of Antipham

heie and in Theogn. >Ap to -fTJpat wanp ipyaarlipio* awarra \
II j I. roi \"Tou 6pyrp text toXutXqkov, Tanttpwirtia. wpo<r<poiTo\ naxa. by writing wt

At xorl xirpT), rj -rooooni\t)<rr), roiot
I
rpbt ipyao-riiptof. No doiil.t the <lis-
lit'ip i<p<\vT), 1'ind. fr. 43 w rinvop, tow- \
tinction i> Knerally obeervod, but K<>ck
riov Orfpot wtrpaiov XP WT * ndXiffra r6or !
(ll Il6) an<l <i"inperz (Narhl. p. 7) seem
rportpifiuiv wdoaif voMtooiv 6puX> right in denying its un There
vaptdm d" <Tai*t)eaii itw* AXXor' dXXoia \ is no need fbf violent
alterations like
<t>poirn. Ah [FHG 11 Blaydes's aotpoii wpot drdpoi, or I'dugk's
.417 A (cf. Antig. hist, StwoC wpbi drSpdt f¥wpjx »ot'Xi>roi' rplrto.i |
mtr. 29) toiXitoWi fiot, t4kpop, tx u " waptKTparlaHai yvr)alov $po*r)i*aTo%. I ' » -
roof, 'AfifiXox' Vpun, {

Toictn (<papp.o{ov son's 90V9 iu makes the
structure more
—
- Kark> oTJuor Imjoi, <»r the re-
verse, as in Ion fr. 36 nai r6r rtrpaior
**X«rrdraif d»alnooi» arirydi p.traXXa*- {
Nyiiiiiictiical by providing an accusative
to balance x/h^MO. but hstrod tl
awkwardness of leaving xp**'M« to repre-

w
ri^pa TovXi'wovp XP° '' an< ' '" I'lutarch. sent 1h>i1i *ow and ippotrrjuaTot, which are
These passages abundant off- r • apparently distinguished. Since rp4wia8*i
in sapporl Ketske's xP**P a «f ,n, "> *'"
'I < is used in the required sense as well al>-
not also, as j. thinks, completely justify I) M wi:h a limiting accusative, it
wpit ifdpi. 1 •uitln-r, I infer that rpa- may be QjO Obtod whether any change is
wiaffeu means 'to change.' Iieing followed necessary. Ikrgk's uxW" Cor *£j«a)
by fpovt)naroi as an aid. gen. of separa- would avoid this particular difficulty.
the words were spoken by
—J.
tion: sec Theogn. 118 Kplaau* rot ootpit) that
aTpowirf%. J. however ret Odysseus, who was the agent of Agamem-
'Be mindful to adapt the hue 1 non's fraud. Hcrgk, who undci
real thought to your man, as the polypus dripi as 'husband,' thought that ( ly-
>' to the rock' —but surely his real tacmncstra was addressing her daughter.
308
TtKTCi yap ovhkv iadkov eocat'a (T\okrj.
308 ...aia «rx»M S: tl «ai da*o\r) (<Urx»X<) A) M I
308 30 6 (ill p. f/) 4 11 . not hesitate (wit > refer

lVi>wi«t. 'rUrti...
I this line to the | I
axoXt).' 8,6% ii roit dpyofoi* oi> wapiara- when the (Week fleet was kept hock by
rai (Tt I 517). contrary winds or a calm (Jebb on
: —
222 ZO0OKAEOYI
564). See also on fr. 479, 4, repirvbv dpyias A'/t/i. 44 pios...tiKrj Kflfxtvos. Hense how-
&kos. F.W.Schmidthadnojustificationfor ever thinks that et'/ccua is probably due to
proposing TlKTtiv..,elKaia #iXei <nrov5ri, |
some philosopher (as Chrysippus) who
which recalls Seyffert's oirov5rj fipabvs only approved leisure as the result of
in Ant. 231. Nauck fell foul of tUaia, deliberate choice. He quotes Sen. de
and conjectured 17 \lav <rx°^V (misprinted otio 3, 3. 8, 1.
<r<po\r)). But eixala <rx°^-V seems an en- The line which follows inStobaeus as
tirely suitable phrase to distinguish an if belonged to the same extract was
it
aimless inactivity (cf. Aesch. Ag. 203 first separated from it by Wagner. It
. irvoal KaKoaxo\oi, with the schol. iirl is found, with the reading dpyoloiv, in
KaKifi rroiovaai ffxo\d£eiv) from that <rx°^V Menand. monost. 242. For the senti-
which is the indispensable condition of ment see on fr. 407. An error of a
true freedom see Eur. Ion 633 f., Arist.
: precisely similar kind was made by
pol. 4 (7). 15. I334 a 20 Kara yap ttt\v wa- Apostolius in quoting At. 1252 (see
poi/j.iai', ov crxoXr/ SouXois. The rarity of Jebb's ed. p. 237).
et'/couos is probably accidental. Cf. Ar.
309
aKpovyei
309 Hesych. I p. 107 anpovxe?' mis. unnecessary to suppose that
It is
dKpov £x €l - "A.Kpov Si opos (opovs cod.) there allusion to the daughters of
was any
Tt}s 'A/ryeias,ifi od 'Aprifudos iepbv iSpti- Proetus in the text of Sophocles. The
ffaro MeXdfiirovs Kaddpas rds IlpoirtSas, story of their madness and its healing is
ijyovv rats Xdpio~iv. ZoôkXtjs 'Icpiyeveia. most fully given in Apollod. 2. 24 29. —
•From this obscure but interesting pas- In the account of Bacchylides (10. 40
sage we are justified in inferring that 112) there isno reference to Melampus.
Sophocles used the word dxpovxeT for Hesych. is the only authority who men-
dwells on the heights, and probably that tions the mountain Acrum in connexion
Artemis was the subject to the verb. with this story; the scene of their healing
Her connexion with the plot needs no is given either as Sicyon (Apollod., Pau-
remark, and there is sufficient evidence san. 2. 7. 8), the river Anigrus in Elis
to prove that her cult was often established (Pausan. 5. 5. 10, Strabo 346), or l.usi
on the summit of a mountain. Hence in Arcadia (Bacchyl., Pausan. 8. iS. 8
1
Eur. /. T. 126 w ttcu rds Aarovs ALktwi* |
etc.). The last-mentioned alternative in-
ovpeia, and the similar epithets dpeifidris, duced Jacobs (on A. P. [append. 420] XI
6peal(po(.Tos, dptcrrids, opeids (Gruppe, Gr. p. 406) to make the violent and impos-
Myth. p. 12843). *n Argos she was sible conjecture iv Aovaoh iv 'Ap/cdtm' in
worshipped under the title of 'Aicpia place of the words -fjyoiw rah Xdpiaiv.
Hesych. I p. 104 'AtcpLa- ...(an Si Kai i) Unger's^yow rats x°/>e ' ais {Theb. Parad.
"Hpa Kai "Aprefiis Kai 'A^poSirrj Trpoaayo- p. 459) rests on Apollod. 2. 29, where
pevofiivr] iv "Apyet, Kara, to o/jlolou eir' Melampus is said to have cured the Proe-
&Kp(p iSpvp-ivai. At Epidaurus she bore tides by the employment of magic dancing
the title Kopv<paia from her sanctuary on (fj-er' d\a\ayfJ.ov Kai vivos ivdiov xopdas).
the top of Mt Coryphum (Pausan. 2. 28. But the text of Hesych. has been so muti-
2). On the top of Mt Lycone close to lated that the words may very well be
the border of Argos and Arcadia was a sound, recording an alternative or joint
temple of Artemis Orthia (Pausan. 2. 24. cult of the Charites established by Me-
5). On Mt Crathis in Arcadia was a lampus at the time of the healing. For
sanctuary of the Pyronian Artemis, where the common worship of Artemis and the
a fire of peculiar sanctity was kept Charites see Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa
burning (Pausan. 8. 15. 9). She also II 1363. Wagner wished to substitute
had a sanctuary on Mt Artemisius above dicpovxc dxpov (xovaa, and M. Schmidt,
Oenoe (Pausan. 2. 25. 3). The rest of who observed that the alphabetical order
the gloss in Hesych. is a learned aetio- is slightly disturbed at this point, strangely
logical note intended to explain the origin suggested *A/c/)' ^x^»
of the word dtcpovxe? as applied to Arte-
•
1 4> I rEN E A t
223
310
J3a.cri\r]
310 Hen h. I p. j6l pacrtXr)- fiaai- Utt% § 177, refers to Herodian I I
Xtia (fiaoiX, i) (iafflXaa cod.). ôôa-Xtjj Lent/. Cf. Up** on Attic inscriptions
raff. (Meisterhans 3 , p. 40). It is worth men-
In I'ind. Afar, r. 39 d\\d 9tu>p (iaaiXra, tioning that fiaaiXtia was a of Arte-
title
(to Schroeder: (lael\tia codd.) the word mis in Thrace (IMt. 4. 31); but of course
iabic, however written. The form there is nothing to show that Sophocles
fiaoiXrj is al>o attotcl by Stepli. By*. used padXr) as a divine title. For the
.Kyip4t.ua.- Xiytrai 5i *ai Ayap.p.t}, form see also Usener, Gotlernamen,
wi wpdapfia xpia^Tf, kcu t6 3acri\fia Kara |.. :2i,.2 .
owa\o«pT)» ftaaiXri. Smyth, Ionic Dia-
311
irvi>8a£
311 HeSTCh. I |>. 267 axvrSaKWTOi Similarly wvdpi* may be used for the
at, loipo/kXijiTpfrToX^fUf) (fr.554). tttm or trunk of a tree, considered apart
Mytvtia Tvv&ax* {vtri&Ka cod.) from the foliage : so Aesch. 5m///. i i i
»C £l$ovf rijr Xaffiji' lip-n. Eustath. //. 01* rtd£u Tv0p.ii* 61' auor ya.por rt0a-
|
^-<><pQiiXiji Si *ai ri\v Xatir]v Xui dvcrapafiouXouri <pptoi», Cho. 203

I
w ti<ôn Ti'»-i5a«a tlpTjKtv, urt <pi\o\ llav- cptKpov y4»Mr' a* axipptarot piyn% xv$-
wiaj 111. 2Hij Schw.). P-V*.
312
vira<f>poi>
312 l tun. glott. /////< phocles in the Ipkigtnia. See on t
that this word wax used b where the source is <)u
313
\\7r6\X(ov napa tov Ato? Xa/i$cu'ei tov? \p"q<rp.ov<;. \
13 ,i 3o*»r I .111. A. .7/. 131 xpi°v i' if-

'
\wr rapd tov Ai<w XcMi/jdrnr Bpuiwotci Atbi trfpipTJ* poi'Xijr, Aesch.
rjMtff. wt *ai i* 'lîicXtia ('Itfxyt- A«"/. 19 Ai6i rfxxprtriri 3' ^»t! Aoftat
srarpfo. fr. 86 ravra I
&*» -/*»> rarsy
conjecture.
's *!<• i7«sW«i Ac(i« #«<r»i*M«ra, S>ph. 0, C,
probably rtuhl. as 'I<*x«X«i ft 7.* i>\ \* AiOf oiôt *a0f»«-
;kh. We|< ker. MM
I IippeiUtiel) U an Hence la which has
cly title: see Introductory N just l>eenannounced from Delphi is ad*
I'mdorf suggests OUXii as dressed as i Atit dJus-Vt **n: cf. iW.
>*siblc alternative; but this is less 498. In I'm I. Ot. 8. 43 A|>ollo inter-
fto have been corrupted to '1+utXtlf . preU a portent : Jt tfjts. ***>«« Xrf>«4
kjIIo, as ijunu, is the ni.iiithpiece Kpori4« wip+Hw fimftrjiotnrm bit.
J
;
224 IO0OKAEOYZ
IXNEYTAI IATYPOI
The three fragments which before 191 1 were alone associated
with this title were not of such a character as to reveal the
subject-matter and the guess of Welcker that the Trackers
;
were engaged upon the search for Europa, when she was carried
off by Zeus, and that of Ahrens that they were the prophets
invited by Minos to search for Glaucus remained equally
unverifiable. The obscurity has now been dispelled by the
discovery, among the documents which have been recovered
from the dust-heaps of Oxyrhynchus, of a large portion of a
papyrus roll which contained the Ichnentae. The constituent
fragments of the roll were successfully fitted together by
Prof. A. S. Hunt, and in the result he was able to publish in
vol. IX of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (no. 1 174 at p. 30 ff.) the more
or less complete remains of fifteen successive columns starting
from the opening of the play and containing about 400 lines,
some two-thirds of which are substantially intact. A number of
smaller fragments which could not be located 1 adds little or
nothing to the sum of our knowledge.
The MS, which is carefully written, is assigned to the closing
decades of the second century A.D. A number of corrections,
including marks of punctuation, has been added by a second
hand, and various readings recorded in the margin proceed from
the same source. These variants are sometimes quoted from
specified authorities —
particularly from the edition of Theon-
4
besides him, Aristophanes 3 and possibly Nicander (or Nicanor)
are cited. Another notable feature is the appearance of sticho-
metric figures, giving the numeration of each hundredth line,
which however do not agree exactly with the requirements
of the text. From these circumstances it may be inferred that
we have a critically revised text descended from a grammarian's
copy. The MS is a less elaborate example of the type which is
characteristically represented by the papyrus containing the
Paeans of Pindar {Ox. Pap. v, no. 841).
1
These are not included in the present edition, with the exception of fr. 317.
2
Possibly the well-known grammarian, who lived in the age of Augustus and
worked on the text of the Alexandrian poets. See Susemihl, Al. Lit. 11 215 ff.
Theon is also mentioned in a scholium on Pind. Paean. 2. 37. Wilamowitz (Neue
Jahrb. xxix 450) declines to speculate on the identity of this Theon.
3 There is a possibility that some of the abbreviated references may be intended
for Aristonicus or Aristarchus; see Hunt on ill 20.

4
By the abbreviation Ni in v. 102 the same authority is quoted on fr. 84 (Ox.
:
Pap. IX p. 113) of the Eurypylus.

IXNEYTAI 225
The subject of the play proves to be identical with that

of the Homeric hymn to Hermes, although the development
of the story proceeds upon somewhat different lines. The play
ojxmis with the appearance of Apollo, who relates the loss of his
cattle and describes his hitherto unsuccessful attempts to discover
the thief during his progress from Northern Greece to Mt Cyllene
in Arcadia. He accordingly issues a proclamation to all whom
it may concern, promising a definite reward to anyone who
shall
enable him to recover his property. Silenus enters in answer to
immons, and offers the assistance of his sons the satyrs,
but stipulates that a reward of gold shall be paid over, and that
id his sons shall be released from slavery. Apollo leaves
the chorus of satyrs advances. They are ready
at once to start in pursuit, and Silenus in a short speech invokes
divine and human aid. Then the chorus, bending on all-fours
and imitating the actions of keen-scented hounds, discover the
confu ks of cattle pointing in different directions. Hut,
before the quarry can be run to earth, the pursuers are alarmed
strange sound entirely unlike to any which they have
to known
1 It seems to issue from the cave towards which
1
.
base has brought them. Silenus upbraids them for their

irdice, and contrasts their degenerate attitude with his own
ngtiished bravery in the days of old. The hunt is then
ed. and Silenus undertakes to support and protect his
children by accompanying them to the point of danger. The
e noise is again heard, and for a second time the ardour of
pursuit is damped. Hut the actual issue of the combined
nndertaking is not altogether clear. I have suggested that
Silenus, just nou bo valiant, proves himself rather more of a
coward than his followers, and by refu continue the
nture and abruptly leaving the stage, abandons the chorus
fate. However this may be, it seems certain that M
qiu ntlv the coryphaeus assumed the position previously occupied
lenus as representative spokesman for his cotm but it
tbable that afterwards reappeared, or, if he u.is
it throughout, resumed the prominence which he had
temporal il) aband< n
by the chorus to accomplish

lectual efforts
their task, the situation suddenly changed by the arrival of
is
ne, the mouutain-nymph. who comes forth trom her cave*.

rs as '
beasts ' (0»}p««), she angrily enquires
irpose of their new labours, and why the silence of
1
I have avMimctl that j>oifi&ot (n. on 107) identical with 1>6+«t of ijH.
it The
•cession, becsoae the wumi i* indistinctly h<
Miss llsrrivn mfcti from stiff, that (
^Twwu/csve-d welling: Etiays prtttnttd to IV. /H4gnr*jr, p. 136 IT.
P. «5
226 IO<t>OKAEOYI
the glens has been disturbed by their shouts, and the hue and
cry raised for the arrest of a thief. The chorus replies in humble
tones, and asks for an explanation of the marvellous sound which
comes echoing from the upland hollows. Cyllene, somewhat
mollified, would have preferred to know their business first but ;
finally, after warning them of the serious consequences which

would follow a disclosure of the secret to others, she consents to
explain what has astonished them. Zeus, it appears, having
secretly visited the daughter of Atlas without the knowledge
of Hera, had begotten a son by her. During the mother's illness,
Cyllene has been nursing the newly-born infant. But he proved
to be no ordinary child for, though born less than a week ago,
;
his growth has been so rapid that he has already passed from
childhood to maturity. As his father's command required that
he should be kept concealed within the cave, he had occupied
his time with the construction from a dead beast of a mysterious
toy, which produces the strange melodies now in question. In
answer to further requests for an explanation of the riddle,
Cyllene describes the making of the lyre from the shell of the
tortoise. There are some serious gaps in the papyrus at this
point, but, since the chorus immediately proceeds to denounce
the divine child as the thief of whom they are in search, it is
clear that Cyllene must have referred to the ox-hide which had
been stretched over the shell. She waxes indignant at their
audacity: to charge the son of such parents with larceny is
a monstrous piece of insolence, which betrays the childish
ineptitude of the accusers. Let them beware lest their foolish
gibes are not exchanged for cries of pain. Nevertheless, the
satyrs persist, and apparently challenge Cyllene to produce the
cows, so that their identity may be established.
Here unfortunately the papyrus ends, and we can only guess
at the sequel. It is certain that Apollo returned, and that
in consequence of the recovery of the cattle he rewarded Silenus
according to his promise. The reconciliation with Hermes must
have followed, and no doubt the gift of the lyre placated Apollo
for the outrage which had been committed against his property.
Such is the story of the play so far as we are permitted
to trace it, and it is apparent that it differs in several respects
from the Homeric version, (i) The theft of the cows here
precedes, but in Homer follows the invention of the lyre.
(2) The cows are concealed on Mt Cyllene itself and not in the
neighbourhood of Triphylian Pylos. (3) Cyllene and not Maia 1
has charge of the infant. (4) The informer, to whom later writers
gave the name of Battus, is displaced by the satyrs, an essential —
1
For other traces of this tradition see n. on 266.
IXNEYTAI 227
modification in view of the dramatic requirements. We know

little or nothing of the intermediate literature and, so far as 1
,
we can tell, the only innovation for which Sophocles was

responsible may have been the introduction of the satyrs, The
details of the cattle-stealing are less complex than in the hymn,
and the choice of Mt Cyllene as the hiding-place of the herd
is at least as likely to have been a reversion to the primitive
legend as a necessary outcome of the dramatic situation 5 .
ApollodortlS in the mythographical handbook (3. 112 flf.) follows

generally the narrative of the hymn but, though he differs ;
widely from Sophocles, he nevertheless agrees with him in making

the theft of the cattle prior to the invention of the lyre, and also
•nnecting the two incidents together as part of the same
tion. According to Apollodorus, Hermes made strings for
his lyre from the guts of the slain cattle we cannot say whether ;
this point was mentioned by Sophocles, but he certainly alluded

to the skins of the cows having been used in the construction of
part of the instrument (307 n., 337, 366). The latter
a reminiscence of the hymn but the ox-hide ;
mentioned did not belong to Apollo's cattle, which Hermes

had not yet stolen, Similarly, the hymn-writer, as contrasted
with Apollodorus, mentions sheep-gut as the material out of
which 11- ishioned the strings. Although Apollodorus
iuch in common with the hymn, it is idle to suppose that be
OUrce, and that his deviations from it were tin
fruit of his own invention*.
The most striking result of the comparison of Sophocles with
the hymn is the combination by the former of two <li
achievem that the invention of the lyre not only provides
neans of appeasing the indignatioa of Apollo, but also
appears to have been directly prompted by the theft of the cows.
•gethcr of these separate threads was .1 dramatic
hich Sophocles observed and appropriated,
if it originated, as may well have been the case, with one of
1
\ lOlitarj fi / "i front thr h\mn of AlcMH Jfr. 5): x a V» K«&
\drai 6 nihil*, ai ydp not j £17*01 tfunpr riw Kopifaio' ir dyrait |
Maia >/w*ro Kpori'a?
1'jus.ui. 7. 10. 4. Hor. Carm. 1. 10.
ihnt the intimate connexion
ubr tradition U-twccn the cattle- dealing and the
>t he lyre wa*
1 \ Wtod
un dodbt, a< will presently he shown.
md hy the hymn-writer. But thi> 1% open
Allen ai p. tji. "

fact, the sou: ire much I the ditCttad
! flf.the following sentence i» relevant.
K nut I U-rkommenem wirt*chaftet un.l -lie
bemkfcffl
hi li ordnet. twidern excerpirr
ml' See ibo [auodactioo, 1 1.
15-a
228 I04>0KAE0YI
his literary predecessors. It is more likely that this arrangement,
which involved an alteration in the order of the events described
in the hymn, was the deliberate invention of conscious art, than
that popular tradition had always combined what the hymn-
writer chose from a motive not easily discernible to separate
1
.
Both in method and in spirit the treatment of Sophocles is

far removed from the work of the hymn-writer, but the extent of
the debt which the tragedian must have acknowledged cannot
be accurately measured owing to the loss of the second half
of the play. It would have been particularly illuminating to
discover what were the Attic traits added by Sophocles to the
portrait of Hermes, whose precocious trickery is so cleverly
delineated in the hymn. There are enough resemblances in
detail to show that Sophocles was well acquainted with the
Homeric text, as may be seen from the following instances :
oarpaKov h. 33 and S. 305 h. 38 rju 8e ddvys, totc k€v p.d\a

;
koXov aelhovi compared with S. 292 f. <^rfkr]rri vaiovaa

;
TraXivKiov answers to S. 265) rd ^prjp,ara in h. 400 may have

;
suggested S. 44 07ra><? to xpfjp.a tovto croi Kvvrjyeaco //. 407 f. ;
dav/xaiva) and deêadai recall S. 271 f., although the application

is different (the same considerations apply to dirovoaîâdai
and hovelv in h. 562 f. as compared with S. 131 and 282);
ftrip,aTa dvria h. 345 and S. 96, 112 the description of Cyllene
;
in //. 228 answers to S. 215.

The other literary allusions to the story need not detain
us long. Philostratus (imag. 1. 25, entitled 'Epp,ov <yovai) makes
Olympus the birthplace, and except in one small detail- is
entirely remote from Sophocles. Antoninus Liberalise (23)
relates the story of Battus for the purpose of recording the
punishment inflicted upon him for his treachery the theft of the ;
Cows was of secondary importance to him, and the only part

of his narrative which concerns us is the itinerary of the cattle-
drive, which may be used to illustrate tlie mutilated lines
following v. 13. Ovid {Met. 2. 676-707) confines himself even
more strictly to the subject of the transformation of Battus. The
anonymous scholiast on Antoninus, who drew his information
from the Aeip,oiv of Pamphilus, prefaces this chapter with the
1
The hymn to Hermes is considered to be the latest in date of the longer hymns,
but must be at least as early as the sixth century B.C. Robert (Herm. xli 3890°.)
argues that the entire incident of the invention of the lyre was a subsequent inter-
polation in the original form of the hymn, and that signs of the inconsistency thereby
produced are still visible. See also Herwerden, Mum. xxxv 181 ff., Kuiper, iff.
xxxvin 1 ff. ' See n. on 354.
3 He is usually assigned to the age of the Antonines.
IXNEYTAI 229
citation of several authorities who had previously written on the

subject. Nicander, Didymarchus, Antigonus, and Apollonius
Khodius belong to a later age and it is improbable that Hesiod's ;
fr.
J
I
K/.) had any bearing upon the subsequent treat-
i
ment of Sophocles. The gift of the Ktjpvxeiov by Apollo to

Hermes is indicated in the hymn (529) and expressly recorded
ter authorities If the tradition was known to Sophocles,
1
.
ms unlikely that he would pass it over in silence.

However interesting the discovery of the new fragments may
be, they will scarcely enhance the reputation of the poet. The
dramatic value of the play is insignificant, and the comic relief
not greatly exhilarating. It is fair to admit that the more
ing scenes probably occurred in the latter part of the play,
when Hermes displayed his cunning and his wit in tricking and
conciliating his accuser*. Hut the part which is preserved is less
and entertaining than the Cyclops, which has hitherto been
tuple of the satyric drama.
>
Vet, although it is
isible to rate highly the importance of the play as we
know it, we must beware of pronouncing a final judgment on
uh.it is actually a torso, more particularly as the recovered
lent has merits of its own which may be pleaded in miti-
gation of an adverse verdict. Chief among these are direc:
of purpose and clearness of outline, which, allied in general to
a plainness of diction suitable to the simplicity of the action*,
an impression of natural grace and exhibit in a less familiar
I) specimen of Attic versatility.
By a curioul accident the lyrical parti of the Ichncutac have

mutilated to an extent much exceeding the losses of the
tie; but enough of them rem -how that th<
of the Cyclops in being far less elaborate than
dy. it seems that Sophocles, perhaps w 1
(•than Euripides, avoided any attempt ateleva

•
le in com posit ion-, of this character. he lyrical metres, also, 1
tlv vai the iambic type 1
with some admixture of dochmiacs and anapaests In ^<

vie of writing is less colloquial than in the Cyclops. If the
left out of account, the only obvious colloqui-
alisms arc Tom-t ( 1 i.ii and vat pa Aia (1 12)*. There is also
Ifj H Iff fallow the hymn in tin- mp* I
the i»60«<r«i
•
>•
'loabt
larrtrtt | risit Apollo. . Philortr. m«£.
I
Ml inf.
/»;,«;
marks that 'die hafmlcnc lautigkeit crfreulicher »irU
•
Sec ! HW - ' ;v Ifllfl
230 IO<t>OKAEOYZ
freedom in the metre of the iambics Porson's canon is violated

:
in 333, as against several more serious infringements in the

Cyclops; and whereas eighteen instances of the licence admitting
the introduction of the anapaest into other feet than the first
have been counted in the Cyclops\ there is only one and that —
doubtful — in the Ichnentae (122). It is rather in the nature
of the thoughts expressed than in respect to vocabulary or
structure that the style deviates from the normal character of
Sophoclean tragedy.
The appearance of fr. 294 N. 2 as v. 275 f. is conclusive evidence
on the question of authorship. Wilamowitz specifies as marks
of Sophoclean origin the use of okfMCpiv in 210, of dirovoafyL^w in
131, and of evSetv in 159; and to these should at least be added
vecoprjs in 1 50, and fiovvov in 49. General impressions are less to
be trusted, but I think that few will hesitate on consideration to
acquiesce in the judgment of Wilamowitz, that the play reflects
Sophocles' earlier manner, and that the occasional harshness and
want of polish must be set down to to ttlkpov koX Karateyyov
which he himself recognized as a blemish of immaturity 2 Some .
might go further and contend that there is here and there a

tendency towards bombast which shows that he has not yet
shaken himself free from the influence of Aeschylean 07/co? and ;
it will be readily admitted that the harmonious blend of mellow-
ness and lucidity to which he ultimately attained is hardly

perceptible in these fragments. But Wilamowitz finds unmis-
takable signs of an early date in certain definite peculiarities
of technique ;
that is to say, (1) there is no occasion for the
presence of three actors on the stage at the same time (2) no ;
verse of the dialogue is broken between two speakers 3 (3) the ;
absence of strophic responsion from the opening chorus is

comparable with similar features in the Septan and the Eumenides ;
(4) the alternation of lyrics with ordinary dialogue and sticho-

mythia in the scene between Cyllene and the chorus finds
its nearest parallel in the ultimately successful attempts of Athena
to placate the Eumenides in the Aeschylean play*.
It may be remarked in passing that the date of the Cyclops is
1
llaigh, Tragic Drama, p. 3913.
2
Plut. de virt. prof. 7 p. 79 B.
3
But see vv. 99, 99.
1
4
If it is rightly inferred from Pacuvius (293 n.) that Euripides imitated this play
in the Antiope, that circumstance would not assist the determination of the date,
since it is certain that the Antiope was one of the latest plays (perhaps 408: Dieterich
in Pauly-Wissowa vi 1266). Equally inconclusive is the argument which Wilamowitz
deduces from the statement that Sophocles himself played the lyre in the Thamyras
(p. 178), namely, that Sophocles took the part of Hermes, and that consequently the
play must have belonged to his youth. Robert prefers to suppose for similar reasons
that the poet represented Apollo.
IXNEYTAI 231
quite uncertain, and has been fixed by some critics earlier than
438 1
. If that view were correct, the date of the Uhncutae would
be put still further back for the priority of the latter play is
:
assured, apart from general considerations pointing the same

way, by the freedom exercised by Euripides both in the division
of his lines between two speakers, and in the employment of
three actors during the same scene.
The action takes place on the barren slopes of Mt Cyllene,
and the entrance to the cave of Maia was the central point
to which the attention of the spectators was directed. Robert 1
uggested that, since the early part of the play seems to
indicate that no hut or cave was visible amid the mountain
solitudes, Cyllene must be supposed to have suddenly appeared
from an underground cavern J by means of the stage device
known as Xaptoviot *\ifia*€<>. The same critic holds that there
was no back-scene, and that the irdfo<i was represented in the
middle of the orchestra, as is supposed to have been the case
with the Suppliers of Aeschylus. But the scene of satyr-plays
tor obvious reasons not infrequently located in the open
country, and nothing is discernible with regard to the scenery of
the lilnuutac which either supports or tells against the hypothesis
early date.
in the technical point of view the discovery of a dialogue
ie length composed iti iambic tetrameter acatalectic metre
ft) is remarkable. Nothing of the same kind is found

k drama, but the iambic octonarii of Roman
dy furnish an exact parallel. In botfa e diaere
of the first dimeter is sometimes observed and sometimes
id
the former type is the more frequent in IMautus, the
;
worthy of DOtioe th.it both van

occur in the- Greek lyric fragments: contrast Alcm. fir. 9 with
Alcae. fr. 56.
convenient at thil point to call attention to an obscurity
It is
in the --tory of the play which awaits explanation, i'art of
reward promised by Apollo id the sa: t
ration of their freedom (57, 158), and it appears that

in the sequel the proi fulfilled (445). What then mm
tfM nature of their slaver) in this connexion
to the ob* ure passage (21 which Cyllene mentions their
rmerly wont to follow in the train ivsus,
the fawn-skin and wielding the thyrsus. He declines
to guess at his identity, but conjectures that it was disclosed
1
Kattwl in thrm. XXX Tiff. » Hern, vivii |ff C
iff, .ln-l |.il! .p. 139.
4
I*- 454-
232 2O0OKAEOYI
on the occasion when the slaves were liberated. Nevertheless, he
candidly admits that the audience do not seem to have required
any explanation to be given concerning the slavery in question.
Now it is true that, as in the Cyclops of Euripides, it was not
uncommon for dramatic purposes to represent the satyrs as
in the thrall of some ogre or demonic being, and it was obviously
a useful expedient to account for their presence at the scene
of action. Examples of such bondage are mentioned in the
Introductory Notes to the Amycus, the Heracles at Taenarum.
the Cedalion, and the Pando7'a. But it is scarcely credible that
this kind of durance would have been employed as an element
of the plot without a single word of explanation. Apollo
expects to find the satyrs among the inhabitants of the coun-
tryside (35), and their slavery is apparently assumed as a
matter of course. In such circumstances the natural infer-
ence would be that the satyrs here as elsewhere (Cycl. 709)
are the slaves of Dionysus. This is the inference which
Robert actually adopts and he is obliged in consequence
;
to assume that a line has been lost after 220. The hypothesis
also involves the necessity of explaining why Silenus and the
satyrs desired to be released from the joyous service of Dionysus.
Robert recognizes the difficulty, and meets it by suggesting that
the liberation of the chorus was a constant element in the
denouement of a satyr-play, and that, by an encroachment of the
actual conditions of stage-management upon the story of the
events enacted on the stage, the chorus were released at the end
of the day's acting, i.e. after the production of the satyr-play,
from their engagement to the Choregus or the Archon. That is
the irovo<i from which Silenus and the satyrs are here set free.
In course of time, he thinks, the device staled, or the public
became too fastidious to be satisfied with it but, in order to
;
sustain the custom, a mythological servitude (as in the Cyclops)

was invented for each occasion. Whether this bold guess will
meet with general acceptance, time will show but it is by
;
no means free from objection. One might be willing not to

lay stress upon the fact that, if the text of 218 ft. is sound,
the Seo-n-oTijs is distinguished from the god, but it is surely
pertinent to enquire how Apollo could have promised to set free
the bondsmen of Dionysus. He had received, so far as we know,
no commission to that end, and it is idle to think of him as using
his influence, unless indeed he represented Dionysus in some
fuller sense than is usually recognized. But the relations of the
satyrs with Apollo rather suggest that he himself is the master to
whom their obedience must be rendered. Nor would it be
altogether surprising that among the wooded hills of Arcadia
I
IXNEYTAI 233
the satyrs should temporarily transfer their allegiance from

the wine-god to the huntsman's patron deity We need not 1
.
dwell on the fact that Apollo Nomios, the protector of flocks and
herds, was known in Arcadia as the son of Silenus 1 except ,
a< evidence that in his rural aspect he did not disdain an

ation with the satyrs. That the satyrs should, at the
bidding of the Hunter, assume the functions of keen-scented
hounds*, is in accordance with their constant fellowship with the
huntsman Pan, as well as with their own proclivities 4 None the .
•light they be expected to welcome the prospect of release

from the obligation of service, which is held out as the reward of
success on the present occasion 5 Lastly, it may be observed .
that the subjection to Apollo is not necessarily inconsistent with

the devotion which they owe to Dionysus. Besides the numerous
|K>ints of contact between their worship 8 the gods themselves ,
ientified by Euripides in the Licymnius (fr, 477): hkairora

<bi\6oa<f)i>t HaKê, waiuv * \troWov ev\vpe. And, if we are
prepared to admit that Apollo was the Bearrorr}^ of v. 218, it
is not incredible that the god whom Aeschylus (fr. 341)
'
addressed as 6 Ki<ra€vi>, i Wax yew, 6 fuivris, should
the fawn-skin and wield the thyrsus at the head of the
other members of the Bacchic rout 7 .
314
[ \v d-yyc'AAco [
/8 j/aorof 19
S<op* vttl<t ]\vovfiai tcAcIJ v

314. 1 *f~ft\u> in ayyrWw corr. pap.*
314 l fl. II1111 sappttti via* 0««i not necessary to suppose that the MM
*»6-
as the opening words of Apollo1
<ai *-d<ru» illo appeared in I
speech, tonip.nnn^ v\. 10 and 14: w.im- r podtr rather requires s. ipplc
rthat less abrupt would be &koi*t' ffitf ment M
Mcklcr * Xf*** «Xa»»i#tvr m«
riaw. she COadittotM to MMI (ioJ». Kosshach, accepting v. 1 ft* re-
Jemand that the new clause, oJ whuh stored in the td. />r.. supplies roi' Ipy**
•wtax'oiâi is the principal verb, should 4** '• n '. al "' * lr +YYM*' r «» «'<l«r ,,r
'
'
commence .vl the iHîmnti^ of %. j (rty r* in }. Hut the result is unsatiO

likely that It is not aUolutely certain that v
, , . iiairbf fkvQvm or the first of the play (see cr. n. on v. 94);

Ukd its place in v. 1. The but Hunt gives good rautoi
tig of the AUeslis shows that it is sideling it probable.
I Apollo Ayptvrtit see O.C. loo', Homd |

WoXXor •>*<). Jebb on
-
ucx. protr. 1. it, p. .'4 I' , PofphjT. . //. Pylh. 18, (ic tt.,i
lux R. 10. « Anth. I ,4 * 6»ff-

r.iuly- Wiftsowft 11 ,t«.
I r further discussion of the various pointl involved see n. on 118 ft
':
234 I04>0KAE0YI
[ d]iroTrpoOeu'
[. . . .]o*>[ hvcr^Kofyov <f>pevl
5 [. . . .]ra[ fio]vs d/xoXyaSas
[tido-Jôu? [ ]a nopTLOcjv
[...]. Ta<j>p[ ~\u iyVOCTKOTTli)
[Xad^pau I6v\r fiov^crTadixov KaTrrjs
[a<j>a]va>sT€^â[ ^\y^ °^ k °- v <o6p.r)v
10 [ovr a]v decou tw[* ovr e(j>r)fx\4p(DV fipoTa>i> io
[S/3ao"]<n rdS' epy[ov c5Se] 777909 ToXjxav TTecrelv.
[ravr]' ow eTTeiirep \eyLa\0ov, €/<7rXa,yeis d/cva>
5 a[ in marg. add. pap. 2 7 5iaa[ in marg. add. pap. 2 8 in marg. adscripta \a[
supra o v rjv[ \
idvra rfj\e Hunt: fort. 16vtwv 9 Tix vo -<- aiV '
ws Hunt: fort. re\t>d<T-
fiar •
dXX' 1 1 T6\p.rjv pap.
4ff. 'Something like deivbv yap ôV Eur. Hel. 1619. In Lys. 31. 1 &v clearly
(firj dt 5v<r\o<pov may have
stood in 1. 4 goes with the infinitive and O. C. 748,;
(Hunt). But the connexion with the Antiph. 3 7 1, id. 5.69, Thuc. 8. 66, Xen.
following line is doubtful, and the ace. num. 3. 4. 7, Dem. 9. 68, Plat. Theaet.
/SoOs seems to require for its government r44 A, as well as Eur. Her. 1355, seem to
a verb of stealing or losing. The latter require a similar explanation. But I
is perhaps the easier to work in e.g. : would again put forward the suggestion
Seivdv yap 6X705 r}8e dv<r\o<pov (ppevi (so that in such cases the influence of ay
Mekler) frreo-7-' arpaipeOivri.
|
Hunt is may extend to both verbs ; and this must
probably right in supposing that the be so in Plat. rep. 443 e ei 54oi rjfxat
cattle are divided as milch-kine,' calves, '
dvopoXoyeiadai.-.Tiv av otei ol-qdijvat. rovro
and heifers, but the restoration of v. 6 is avrov 8pa<rai; and in Xen. mem. 1.5. 1,
not easy. The conjectures of Wilamowitz unless we are prepared to admit that
Tt xai viuv vd/xevpa (perhaps too long) and otop.ai may befollowed by an aorist in-
veavltvp.a are condemned by their halting finitive representing future time,
metre, and Mekler's re widv t' dy\dt<rpia 11 toXjmiv: see cr. n. The evidence
is not convincing. of our mss is strongly in favour of the
7 ft. are restored by Wilamowitz thus forms r6\p.a and r6\fiav in tragedy, and
airavTa (ppovda Kalfj.dT7}v... \adpa? Ldvra j
they are confirmed by metre. On the
TTjXe. Murray suggests rd<ppwv- virepde other hand rb\p\t)v is unsupported, al-
vvv in v. 7. I should prefer Ztt€it' though it was recognized by Phrynichus
d<ppovpuv apirayTjv (cf. Ovid's incusto- (p. 114, 20 de B. = Bekk. anted, p. 66.
ditae). Hunt supplies Texvaunv &s in 23).— ir«r€iv. The nearest parallel in
v. 9, but the dative is somewhat harsh Sophocles is Track. 705 uar ovk e\u
without any previous mention of the rd\aiva iroi yvw/Jiris ir£o~w. Euripides
agents. Perhaps we should read \a6paV uses weaeiv is c. ace. more freely, gener-
ic tow... TexvdoTtar' dXX', and render: -
ally as a periphrasis expressing somewhat
'the stealthy artifices of men who have more forcibly what might have been
travelled unseen far from the byre.' dWd rendered by the aor. inf. of the verb
is more suitable than ws to the sequence corresponding to the abstract noun (to\-
of thought. —
av (uoprrv ovr' av...ir£<rciv. |
p.T}<rai, epauOijvai, etc.). So th tpwra
It may be that the first av belongs to irlirrftv (='tofall in love') Eur. fr. 138,
ip6p.T)v, and the second to ircativ, but it and c. gen. /. T. 1 1 72, Batch. 812 ey ;
is certain that both do not belong to tpbfiov -wtaovre Phoen. 69 «'s tpiv iriirruv
;
ybp-vv, although both may belong to fr. 578. Occasionally it may be held that
ireaeiv. Cf. Ar. Thesm. 524 rdSe yap irtoeiv retains the sense of to yield or give
elirelv wavovpyov...o{iK av <p6p.r]v iv
ttjv way, as in Eur. El. 982 ds dvav Spiav
y)p.lv ro\p.rj<rai wot' av.
I
oi)6e See the ireaelv or Or. 696 e/s opyrjv ttotuv (con-
discussion of this question in the n. on trast Tr. fr. adesp. 80).
'
IXNEYTAI 235
[
£j)T ]<w fiaTivoj, 7rai>Te\€<; KTjpvyfi eVwf
[^cot]? fiporols re firjheu ayuoeiu raSc-
\v0Ca yap e/x/xafrjc; KVVTjytTio. 15
[ M
jaw S' cV^X^[o]i/ t£[v]Xa r[ou 7raiToc; <rr/)aT[ov
•
)
] •
[
M |kio[
I.....H _
€J7TCtTa [8c
[t]ci Htcraakwv \
c JTreo-o-vflfryf
Botam'a? re y\ rjs .]? [tTo]X[€15,
f
eVci jra 8[
desunt versus fere quattuor

ii
f js Acj/hko[
yci jrof', €v6\eu
18 tyrd) Wilamowitz : artixv Hunt nartvu ex ^larri/wr corr. pap. j

14 rdit: o
(i.e. r6tt) suprascr. pap.- 15 (ftfiarit ex tfifiiwtii corr. pap. 16 marg.
]tov in
add. pap.' 18 nq, cum ex duolms fragmenlis oonfects Stat, de singulorum sede
minu.s constat 23 o" (i.e. ox-rut) babd in marg. pap. post v. 13 desunt fere
<juatti
13 Jt|T«i partvw: for the rhetorical Hunt's note. The hcnlsoi the god which
asyndeton see on Kur. Pho.n. I10§. Hermes phi:
quoting 0. C. III, thini :ng to h. J. HSfl ApoBott
liUT(vu>tr (cr. n. may be right. wa«rr«X<«
) — a, mi. At any Thcssaly was the
rate,
is perhaps rather authoritative than uui- tiaditumal scene, ami Anton. Lib. J3
that is to say, it may be compared describes them as bsaaj in the same
wuli .-////. 1163 Xa£wr T€ xw/x" warreX)) pastures as the herds of Admetus. There-
M<M'a(<x«o»'. Ki\p\jyy.' l\»v *l)pva«V* : see nick unlikely that Sophocles
onfr. 110. 4H. As a rerb of commanding put them anywhere else. If so, there
it is followed by the inf. with^: the form does 11 1 be any good reason for
proclamation wa* /MfJrit iyvotlru. rice or of the
01 fT. ins into these lines, ami I hesitate
15 Wflamowiti rngeaioaaiy fBfiplfcd to accept Wilamowiu's 6pe«w* id m
(UoXoftfta from (r. 990, as if &*o\ov6la with dXX* o0Tit in 17. or Hunt's alterna-
he use i tive tytycio- in 10 with ff*fi-6wr in 16.
of the word in hunting may be inl In any case, the combination OmcsV
fr.im Xcn. (>««•.,. 10 ov r. arpa tribal of the
tation are a il. So whole host of Thrsciatt*,' is a chnn»y
one, and I should prefer to begin with
suggested:
1 might also
by 1
dpwr (or ,1por*») and to take
arparov with what follows, adopt-
ro»rAt m
be 'distracted
rumours.' - fwrd*' r '»- fw trrpurhi
16 30 nbed A|x>11o'» journey Xrwi sec Jebb on Troth
lias preserved the Ml Hunt printed
the supplements
geographical nan •*aX«r r' tynmjwm, v<M'
ami little or nothing beyond. The rem- and yî roXwir^rott.
—
w. 18 13 are contained in two
1 36 AwfMCs- no doubt marks the
separate fragments for their position sec
: passage to the I'eloponncsc. Similarly
— —
236 I04>0KAE0YI
[ ] TJKco fw[.]a.[ .30
[ Kvk\kijvr)<s T€ ov^crfiaTov
5 re -^copou es 8' v[
[ ]
[a>9 etre 7roi]/x7)v eir' dypwcr^pa)!' rt? 17
[/xayatXoKavJrw^ iu Xoyco 7rap[uxTarai

[77 yevovs
to>v dpêi(ov vviM(f)oy€^vt][rov 35
[#7ôai]i> dyy€\[\&> TaSe,
rt? eori, 77-acriv
10 k . .^(opa tov Uai(ovo<; ootis a\y \dfir),

.
[....]. to -^prj/xa fALados eoS* 6 Ke[Lp.€vo<;.

33 ]d[ in marg. add. pap. 2 34 /xapiXoKavrQu suppl. Wilamowitz ]v in marg. |
add. pap. 2 37 tov 0w/>a t&v (twv Wilamowitz) Hunt fort. to. eXwpa :
38 t<$8 avrbxpyy-a- Hunt

Anton. Lib. 23, after making Hermes iraiSes Si vvfupwv, Baxxtov 6" vwypircu.
pass through Boeotia (v. 22) and Megaris, Silenus, the lover of the nymphs (////.
brings him directly to the Peloponnese 149), is their father. Yet satyrs are
by way of Corinth. For the adjective sometimes themselves joined in wedlock
cf. O. C. 695 if to ixeyaXq. AwpiSi vaay with nymphs (Ov. Fast. 3. 409) while ;
IIAojros. The schol. on O. T. 775 in- the Sileni are children of the Naiads
terprets Aw/w's as Ht\owowriaio.Kri. (Xen. symp. 5. 7). In Norm. 14. 113
30 Alekler plausibly suggests £iV the satyrs are the sons of Hermes and
•nix". Iphthime, the daughter of Dorus. See
32 f. Wilamowitz was scarcely justi- further on 218 ff.
fied in altering is to et: tl 5' v\n](3a.Tir)$ 37 The obvious supplement rbv (pwpa
ivravda Unless, however, 5' is
iroi(J.T)v. does not fit tov IlatQvos, and Wilamowitz
an error which the marginal com-
for 6', substituted tG>v for tov in consequence,
ment (cr. n.) by no means proves, a new But it is not satisfactory to alter the text
sentence must begin here, which it is not in order to justify even so plausible a
easy to adjust agreeably with the context. restoration of the lost letters. Hunt
Some case or compound of v\t) seems suggests to, dupa...&pvvTai as an alterna-
inevitable, but would require a qualiflca- tive, .but admits that to. dupa. scarcely
tion. There does not seem to be enough fills the gap. It is perhaps possible that
room in 33 for ^s 5' i)\r]i> (io\ui> T-fjvS" daXupa (written to. eXupa.) might stand
—
\
«"re /ere. unnecessary to omit the

It is here cf. Horn. 2 93.
: llanbv as well as
ff of d.ypw<TTT)p(j)i>, although there is no llcuav (O. T. 154) is a familiar iirii(\r)o~is
other example of the form. For aypw- of Apollo for an attempt to connect it
:
0-7-175 : on fr. 94.

aypdiTTis see with Paeonia see C. A', xxvi 249. It is
34 papiXoKavTwv, a brilliant con- worth remarking that Usener {Goth'rna-
jecture of Wilamowitz from fr. 1067. men, p. 154) found in Sophocles the
€v Xo-yw irapCoTaTai, is at hand to hear '
earliest identification of Paion and Apollo,
my words,' supports the soundness of the But it is curious that Apollo should refer
MS reading in Phil. 319 roiffSe y.dpTvs iv to himself by this title, especially as the
\6yois, which has been the object of some circumstances have no connexion with
suspicion. his functions as the Healer.
35 vv|j.<f>0Y€VVTJT0v. For the rela- 38 avToxpypo- was restored by
t<jJ5'
tionship between nymphs and satyrs see Hunt, but avToxpyno. does not mean
Hes. fr. 44 Rz. e£ wv (sc. the daughters 'forthwith,' and is not obviously appro-
of Hekateros [?] and the daughter of priate to the context. For its special use
Phoroneus) otiptiai Xi)/U0at deal iêyi- to mark a pun (like irv/Mws etc) see Neil
vovto, yivos ovTi5avu>i> 'SarOpuv kolI
I
Acot on Ar. Eq. 78. Probably then we should
Here satyrs and nymphs
d.fj.Tixo.voepyuv. recognize another instance of to xp^m«,
are children of the same parents, but the used vaguely as in 44 and 136, and pre-
anonymous satyr-play published in Ox. ceded by a participle such as ivfoat or
Pap. VIII 63 (fr. I, 7) agrees with the even eupwv.
present passage, describing the satyrs as
. :
IXNEYTAI 217
^lAHNOS
1
j
ecr to] <tov (jxovrjfxaB eus (.tt€k\vov
[
/3oo>]»/tos opdioMTi <tvv K7) pvy[IdOî, 40
[cr}n-ov8y raS' 17 napecm Trpeo-fivrj] [fj.adan>,
[trjoi, ôlfi* 'XnoWou, npo(r<f)L\r)<; cve[ pydrr)^
6t\(i)V y€V€(T0aL T<t>S' ilTi(T(Tv6r)V hp\ OfJLQ), ]
av 7r&>5 to -^prjfia tovto trot, Kvv^yf e']cra>.

t[o] yap yc[ pa]?, /not KCt/xei'oi/ X/:>[ l; ] <roL cr }r€ ^*M **5
fia[ Xi jor' €V[icrToX]aur[t. 7r]potT0€o-v9[ai xpeat \v,

7raI8a5 8* €/x[ou]? otTtroicri [. . .]auc[.]^8a[. • ]•[••••]
. r.
.J[.]
I/ €i7rcp cktcLXJcis aVep Xc'yct?.
39 'a
-
to, suppl. Mekler 46 sq. supplcvi 47 oaaoioi ex oatuct corr. pap. 1
30 la- to. I have accepted Mekler's •fiffour as well as the newer formal i<.n
ipplemcnt (see cr. n.), since w 4>oi/"t« of xi'riry«T«if (./*'. 5), which in its turn gave
le «/. /r. is admittedly too long, and is way to Ktvyytiv.
r>t required so shortly I* fore at. 46 iT. The seepience of thought ap-
le unusual position of the pronoun see pears to be, '
I am ready to assist ; for
uehner'ieith § 464, 4 anin. :. 1 expect nn tewardod.
rell
41 <rrrov&TJ With iis relative clause And my MMH shall aid ... it only you will
(longs to <jr«<r<n'('Tji',aivl the hypcrlxiton •ur luomise.' The speaker'
vhich of course goes with na&u*, is to briflg ApoUo to business. In this
eed CM tticulty. There is a I have mdeanmred to restocc 45 f.;
inilar cast- in ( 7'.
'. uji xuhrwr f^" to >dp -ytpai was admitted hy Hunt to !*•
t' oU' iwdWvrcu: see also a possible reading, but was rejected .is
//<!. 717. unsuitable. orthepalacogra; 1-
44 KwrpftVw : i 7* (KKVinryJocn.
I. If his note must be consulted. 47 f. are a
)cse forms come from Kurriytiv, a verb puzzling problem it the elision p :
in any text earlier than ightly deciphered, an optative (e.g.

itle, t!>
1
ry remaikahle, arttXaiu' Ar) i> |iossil)lc. 'Above all, —

ml they must be added to the list which your behests must Ik: enlarged by the
aiyiau, »a\/<rw, vodicu), woriau! secure reward for me of a golden > 1
k«iu4VOV the word must 7>c ondd

:
-aiV drari rjjo* stiff* rat

nit Dtalttt, Kpdrti (Jebb's n). The pri/.c was fixed
p. 480 ft*., Brugmann, ' iv pp. or secured for the winner Pind. Isth. I. :
tier suggestion, how- 16 dXX' «>' iitdoTy Ipy/tart kuto r/Xet,

.' forward where rrWot is equivalent to yipa-
/»'. 101 J, 10751 on the strength the Ms xA-\'. I- •l r '*« (and
. which the possibility that another l<
< rcdit. perhaps represents an original xp v0 '°
9Tt^4t, as xt>K *' oaTf i *<** appears in &
seems, some mss of Pind. OL 8. 1. In thai
Kuttmann)' passage x/>i«o- is figurative
Ita Juotr tt X+yoiviv. Theognost. ap. presses .-rne worth of the not
u 20 ra 4id
1 1 < Here XP***-
ally valuable prizes.
rev tV«w /.ijnara. wvpitau, ipiaau, d v -
and the second member
is literal,
$4aau>, nvnryjaou. Maas points out In- t o>m|Hiuud figurative: the satyrs looked
exact parallelism between »/*<ra< (Mom. >re solid than a wreath. •
tlptalif : jploour ami ronlcal application ol the compound

Kvrtryiaai *vnry4n)%, : kivrfyiaio* is well suited to he passage : 1 :
yioatif. V. nrlude •
. 101.—*#' MeAauu i« MM
1 the Oldff «W T - possil >« A. 1 1 «.i
238 IO<t>OKAEOYI
All. [ ] . [.]<«>• [lovvov e/x7r[e'Sov T]aS[e.

%\. ra[? ySovs dnd£a) orôi •
crv 8' e/x7re'Sov [SdVi ]i>. 5°
An. [c£ci o"<£' 6 y' €.xi]puiv ocrns ecr#' •
€r[ot]/i,[a] 8c.
25 SI.
An. [
[ V • [• «^[
\e<ro .
[
Col. iii tL [ ]
An. [...]. a[
Si. rt rovro; 7ro[t Xeyjcts;
An. ikevdepos crv [irdv re yivos ecrrai t4k]v(ov.
XOPOS SATTPOX
5 W dye .
[
7ro8a y8a[<rii> re ~\v
d7ra7ra7r[at 6o
]
a* a», o"e rot [ J
eirtOi /cXw7r[ ]
10 virovofxa. k[ ]
SiavvTOJP d[ ]
irarpiKav yap[yv J 65
7TW9 7ra ra Aa#/3i[a vvyj.a
52 d\X]6Tpta r[ in marg. add. pap. 2 59 ra ix"(v) hi marg. add. pap.*J

65 pap.
yr)f>[vv 66 5]tavux(ta) a Theone primitus scriptum in marg. add. pap.'-
49 crirov5i)v inaivQ might give the and that they heard his concluding direc-
sense required. — Observe the Sophoclean tions see on 102.
:
fiovvov (fr. 852 n.). 61 <rc toi is a common combination
50 H. Richards conjectures
86criv: in addresses, with \<?yw or the like fob
\6yov, which would correspond to Spxov lowing: At. 359, 1228, EL 1445, O. C.
efnrtdw<roiJ.ei> in T. 790.
/. Some less r 578-
.
The governing verb is omitted
obvious restoration is then required in Ar. Av. 274.
jn
,
l
63 virovop-a seems to be used meta-
phorically (=™«/«//-). The transference
51 krol^, without definite reference
« attested by Hesych. iv p. 2 r 5 inrovo/ta.
('everythingi* prepared '), is idiomatic.
kXo ™ °^ tol
!•«»»
[
See Thuc. 2. 3, 10, 98 etc.
'
-
. - « , .
••' 65 -rraTpiKav vapwv. 'our fathers

f ,
56 iroutv dwpeau a \K V p is suppliedj voice> , corres ponds to irarptKOs Uyos in

by Hunt (ed. mm.).
57 For the servitude of the chorus
piat soph
menides).— The MS has
^
A (the argurnent of Par .
yrtpvv here and
see Introductory Note. i„ but ey&pwe in 244.
29<>, Several
58 ff. The remains of the choral ode other instances of ij where a might have
are too slight to reveal the general been expected occur (237, 283, 321), and
character of the metre, but dochmiacs I have followed Hunt (ed. mitt.) in re-
are clearly recognizable in 68, 69 and 72. storing the Doric form. The difficult
There is a certain degree of similarity to question relating to the trustworthiness
Eur. Cycl. 656 ff. Robert holds that of our mss in this respect is thoroughly
the chorus entered ffiropdSrjv before the discussed by Tucker on Aesch. Clio.
dialogue with Apollo was completed, pp. 246—250.
IXNEYTAI 239
KXep.fj.aTa nocral [ J
1"> €i av Tvyot, no
7ra>5, .
[ ]
narpi r ikevOepou /$[ . .j . . /xct^.J

£vv a/xa #eo?. 6 <f>i\o<; dueroj 70
Trot'ovs 7rpo<f>TJva<;
dpi^rjka ^pvcrov Trapaheiypara.
- -I. Oeol T 1/^17 /cjat Scu/xof WvurrjpLe,
[
rv x[ c J"' M 6 Tpdyovs ov hpdpr)p cVetycrat,

68 pott liunc v. paragraphum hal>et pap. HttKM oofrXoaarrrw add. pap.1 70
et (fr ex <rw corr. 7a dptfrXa in tine v. 71 pap. 73 <[. .]imjp«« apr in
irg. add. pap.* 74 Tpdyoft ex xpayot corr. pap.*
©7 trovcri \» lc^> remarkable than 1080 iyii ifxavrbf xaiia ttji Tt'^ft
8'
rMnri (fr. —
140 n.). The supplement vifku* t& Si&oiwnt.
I
rfjt Fortune
I may have been (/jr. ^r.) <titx- here invoked as blind chance contrasted
with foresight, although the first be-
60 > to Ix.- restored (see ginnings of that sense are to be found
1
n.), more
particularly as it is not in Attic poetry (O. T. 977. Am.
net her the words arc connected Rather, she is the divine power to which
with the following lines, which are them- all human action is subservient, daughter
MM altogether intelligible, and of I'mmetheia, as Alcman calls her (fr.
nay be corrupt, a- Wilamowitz thinks 62), mightiest of the fates according ro
— fiioi-f fiira, I'ichl. l'imlar (fr. 41). C£ TV. Ir. adesp. 500
70 ff.
Taking the b \in<U. wdrruv rvparvot i) rt'Xif 'en ru» $tQr
[ would interpret follow-,: U
Now that *re. Thus the vague itu/tor Wvpt^/hi
>ur god has displayed WllfOdM prizes of should not l>e understood as refel 1
{old. let him therewithal at om Apollo, bat as a further description ol

our labours.
••
The gold i- ' ne guiding In) - <
lecure, —a fitnext, let the rj 63. 7 ol 6i TT)da\ioi> liwKar uparth

t. I write £vp iua (rather to H
tt;W\iw di)\oi Sri tufa pry
vina, which belongs to the He!- top Tu» avSpurrwv ftto* if Try,*/- id
age) as the room breathing of Observe also that the worship of dya0bt
:he papyrus seems to indicate, although iaiuwf was 111 it r 1-d.it Allien-
1 t
course, be an instance of with that of d->atffj rt% 1

aspiration (fir. (81 a.), £0* is Myth. p. io*s. M .11. I'htmis, I I . :
then adverbial, as elsewhere it tsan. 9. 39. «• for tin

•
. and in* f T~~i|"nfcii Um ni.int tea .1 11 I bajitn
Mfticipud clause, as in Xtu.anal>. g. 1. that Aristophanes wrote fi#wri)/>««
^- mJ ana raOr' tiwuif ariartj and other than *l9i>¥T^pit, as restored in the nt. fr.
!>y Kueluur-<»crth II For the constant confusion of nW-rw and
Hi. —df((T|Xa. used in the Inn i&v*w ami of their cognate*. Mt Kur.
I
clear, DOl //iff. 1 j 17, Btonfield on A
ipicuous or striking. 9*viiaaTi\ &;ar is Keci-ut .1
MM on aptftXri (I p. J80), fr. joo) have inclined lo 1
lp<fi)Xwrot I was 74 Tv^ji* : tit the CXcUl

influenced by ftXst, although 1 finhivi idw. K 7?««.
Kuehner-Gerth 19 ti rucker on 11 .
wapaS^Yô.ra. Aesch. TMtti. 139.—ol: ihr

here simply things MOOTi preases the object at which an
distinguish the ! directed or towards which desire moires.
n The connexion with (9*lyt9$*t
mcric a 300 iruyofurto »»p Meio. Ti»i
:
7« T4x»i i*ttybtur&i wtp'Apijoi.

:
240 I04>0KAE0YI
\eiav dypav crv\r}\_<r~]iv iKKvvqyeaaL 75
3>[o]i/8ou /c\[o]7rata5 /3ovs dTrecrTepy)p.4vo\y.
\t\u)v et Tt? ottttJp £<jTi\y] 77 kclttJkoos,
25 [f\fiot t \_a]v [e]t>7 Trpo<T(f>L\r)<; (ftpdcras roSe,
[3>oi)8gj t]' dvaKTL TravTekr)*; euepy[Y]TT)9.
[ ]a[. .]r[. .]? row \o[yo]u 0' a/xa[
Col. iv p.rjvv\rpa
xo. io) cr[
V7T0[
8' ovS[
21. (f>r)(TlV T19, 77 [ 85
€OLK€V 7]Br) /c[
ay' efa St) 7ras o-[

pivr)\oLT(ov 6ayx[cucri
avpas idv tttj irp\_
10 olttXovs 6/c\a{w[^ ]y 90
77 X[ in marg. add. pap. 2 78 r ...<ppa<ras Wilamowitz :

7' . . dp&aas pap. |
roSe
a (i.e. rd.Se) suprascr. pap. 2 70 Trai>Te\T)s scripsi : irpoareXris pap., awrt\r,$
Hunt
75 XeCav kt€. The asyndeton is no 80 f. The purport of these lines was

doubt intended to emphasize the climax to promise the informer a share of the
(Kuehner-Gerth 11 341). It may be — reward.
questioned whether <rt)\r)<riv is here con- 85
f. are well restored by Hunt <pr\<j[v :
crete, or whether XeLav and dypav are to Tis, ovdds (prjcriv eidtvai rdde ; Hoikcv ijdij
t) |
be taken, as is quite possible, as no/nina Kai irpbs tzpy' opp-av p.e belv. He quotes
actionis. On the whole, the idea of dis- Eur. /. 7\ 1072.
covering the stolen cattle seems to be
more prominent than that of punishing
87 a-y tla supports the reading of
the mss in Ar. Ran. 394, where several
the theft. In fact, an abstract noun is
editors adopt Bentley's dXX' da, as well
sometimes employed, where we should
require a concrete see on Eur. Hel. 50,
:
as V's reading in Plut. 316. For the —
aspiration, which is said to be Attic, see
1675.
77 twv is demonstrative. Cf. 0. T.
schol. A on Horn. I 262 tt?s 5a<r«as 'Ar-
rows irpoGt\6ovcrT)S. Cf. 168, fr. 221,
200 T6v...uirb ffip (pdiaov Kepavixp.
4-
78 4>pdcras (see cr. n.) seems to be
a necessary correction. 89 avpas, evidently with the meaning
79 TrpoffTeXr/s (see cr. n. ) does not scent. Cf. Antiph. fr. 217, 22 (11 10: K.i
occur and has no obvious
elsewhere, ZavOcuaiv atfpcus oQip.a irdv dydWerai, i.e.
meaning. seems probable, therefore,

It with the savour of roasting.
that the preposition has been copied by 90 SiirXous okXcL^wv I should in-
mistake from the previous line. Hunt terpret as 'bent double.' Terzaghi sup-
substitutes <rwTe\r)s, 'contributory,' which plies irddas with SiirXoOy, but the chorus
may well be right, unless we should pre- are not exhorted merely to bend their Ugs.
fer the more complimentary iravreXris Silenus encourages them to bend over the
('all-effective'). It may be observed track, but it seems from 1 19 that they ex-
that Aeschylus and Sophocles (if we in- aggerated his command by moving along
clude each use the word navreXris
v. 13) the trail on all-fours. For 5i7rXo0s in this
four times, but it is never employed by sense cf. Eur. El. 492 dnrXrjv duavOav /cat
Euripides or by Pindar. waKippoirov ydvv. Verg. Aen. 11. 645
;
IXNEYTAI 241
vnocrfios iu xpio [ .
]
ovtcjs tpevvav Kal tt\_ ]
anavra xprjoTa *<x[l reJXetJ/.
HMIX. 0eo5 0eb<; 0eoc fled?- ea [ea-
10
€X €LU coiyfi€v icrxe- fxr) .
p[. . . .]rci. 95
HMIX. tclvt ear' iictLva twu fi[ou)]v r[a] ^/xara.
HMIX. crt'yfa]* #€09 n? tt)i/ a7roi[iaa]i/ ayet.
HMIX. ri Spcj/xev, <L rav ; rj to 8eW [a/a'] rjvofiev
tl ; Tolo\i] ravr-Q 7rais Sokci ;
00 xPV*#<u Theonc scriptum in marg. add. pap. a 04 d in marg. centesimo

upturn alterum fa add. YVilamowit/. |
06 jHinara V. Maas: o-hfiara
olim Hunt (littera prima in pap. evanida) 07 oiy ad<i. pap. 1 et paragraphum infra
del :. ©8 -j<j. secundum Wilamowiuium distrihuti, nisi quod iile choruni
D divisit. paragraphos post vv. 98, 99 (Ins). 103, 104 habet pap.
m
in | mi
turn t delcvit {tTitp [. .]n* in marg. add. pap. 1 )
, dp' tyou** Murray: |
4(1)romt> Wilamowitz
transfixa dolorc (sc. But imlva. ('here are those steps') is

kasta). 1 tttmt
j. ingens ad926 mridtl |
more forcible, and would not be pre-
ttrram duplicato poplite Tumus. dxAajcir eluded even if it were certain that (Hinara
signifies to crouch, although no doubt it is or lx prl Iiacl not previously been nirn-
often applied specifically to squatting on
the haunches. Wilamowitz, who reads
tioned.
e<x<pl%
Cf. £/. I III tout' JmV
vpoxitpo* &x#oi ..iipnoum,
| ib.
^
diroi j, thinks that AxXafwr should refer 1178 rM' (cr' inuro. I have followed —
ng ; but how could he then Hunt in the distribution of these lines:
Wilamowitz divides the chorus into three
•1 imoo-jtos Iv xp<j». scenting closely, sections, for reasons which will be dis-
i th their noses close to the ground. cussed in the n. cm 168. Robert, who
1
4*1*11 Kal yap divides into ûÂpto, discovers three
roi'Tuv (via (i.e. some u.ttcr animals) separate speakers in oaflk section, and
Toppv9ti> avarr? wp6% ttip rpoiptjf vwoona so finds an argument in favour of the
ywop-tva,— guided by the smell, vrhnooi view that the satyric chorus always eon*
is exactly parallel. The glos sisted of 11 members. The tradi:
-Tnoi- ie+paip6pAro% is sub- against these sulxli visions, but the correct
rect, and may very well, as apportionment of the s|>eeches is ncces-
thinks, refer to this passage. sarily doubtful.
6 30, 14 Ihrocfitt' o fare- 07 The exact allusion which is m
row* rt Kal vv9wt. sV xpip cf. tended probably irrecoverable.
is
I 1. 84 *» XPV **' "ttâw.Worrff [drrl thing in the attitude of the chorus seems
<!.). to have suggested to their minds the
©4 9*6% is ropOstad to mark the ex 1<-rii>.ilitie» observed on the occas:
lamowitz '
r. Hit. 1 the departure of a new colony. Or, as

560 w tfeoi 9t6t yap koI to ytyvtbtKu*
'
V- suggests, they may have
0i\o. t, a passage which shows that even DON thinking oi CmVmm following the
rsooai a conception as the articular cow, or the Theracan* enuring Cyrene
t can be described as 0t6t. So behind the raven. In any case, t*4%
here 0tb* is equivalent to 9t'Uur rt tort* must refer t-. Apollo a» the god ..f
''a. colonisation, particularly und« 1
06 .. .; vpfitTv »ar«. whirl I epx^ycrirt. '

'' ,,|n, l-
fr** .*• ^°-
suggestetl, is found to I* too long for the I
gap. Robert has made the same correc- ©O

Sec cr. n. (> I. 157 docs oof
tly. nd iiôtup which i» mi unusual that
00 Hunt (cd. mm.) accept eri BnpAvm Murray's reading » to l>e preferred. The
is: sec cr. n. Maas also letter before r is doubtful, but there does
d ittlntv for iiciiva, \> in na not appear to be room for i s *- A N
.. 16
— :
242 ICXpOKAEOYI
HMIX. SoKel irdvv.

21 <ra<f)r} [y]a>p avO* e/cacrra crr)fxaiveL raSe. i
HMIX. ISov, ISov'

/cat TOviTLO"r)fAOP avrb to)v ouXcju ird\i[V].
HMIX. adpet fxdka'
25 avr icrrl tovto fierpov [€]/c/A€[/u,ay]/ui[y]i>oi>.
HMIX. xC^]/361 ^Po^V KCLL Ta [ .~\. v c\ov l
[. . .]07T .
[ ] .
[ ]/xei/o?
Col. v poifiSrjfji' idv tl raiv [cctgj irpo]^ ovq [/A0A.17.
poTBAoc
HMIX. ovk elcraKovo) wo) [ropa>]s tov <£#[ey]/AaTog,

d\X aura jxyjv fy[vv) re] ô) (ttl/3o<s rdhe
102 exi<rifj.w/j.°v
i
in marg. add. pap. 2
104 i kfie /xay fievov scripsi iKp-erpov^vov :
Hunt 105 SpofjLwi suprascr. pap. 2 x?l[ ]•' P a P- : Ka Kai corr. pap. 2
I
m
107 poi/3dy)fi ecu? ns 2
ex poifideiavn corr. pap. :' poifidoi primitus pap. ?<ru wpos... uoXy |
scripsi: /Sowy 8i'...\aj3ri Hunt 109 <m/J ex <rriX£ corr. pap.
99 8oK«i irdvv : 'I'm quite sure of it.' 106 Perhaps aKpodi/xei/os, if 107 fol-
Cf. Plat. Enthyd. 305 C irpos 8e rip dvai lowed immediately, as was probably,
Kai SoKeiv tr&vv irapa ttoWois, where it though not certainly, the case. The
may be doubted if Stallbaum was right lower margin is broken off, so that the
in connecting irdvv with 7roXXo?s. end of the column cannot be fixed.
100 ' For each actual mark, as we 107 See cr. n. Hunt's restoration is
see them (rdde), is a clear proof.' For open to two objections. (1) po£f$STip,a
av8' ?Ka<rra see on Eur. Phoen. 494. is unsuitable, as applied to the lowing
o"r](icuvet is used absolutely as in Track. of cattle. It is true that Monk read iv
345 X& X670S <n)fj.ouviT(j). poi^d^crei fiovKoXiwv in Eur. /. A. 1086
102 The occurrence of avros in 100 with this meaning, but none of the sub-
and 104 favours the adoption of avTO sequent critics, except Paley, has agreed
rather than av to. '
Here is the very with him. poi^Si}<n$ there expresses the
imprint of their hoofs.' iirio-rjfiov, eiri- whistling of the herdsmen, just as polios
<rr)fia are used of the devices stamped on isattributed to shepherds in Horn. 1 315.
coins. On the other hand, it seems Following the clue which these passages
hardly possible that iwio-iixov, if that suggest, I have provisionally restored as
word is to be discerned in the marginal above. (2) The usage of tragedy in-
note, could express the rolling gait of variably requires it' utuv (ut6s) in the
oxen. Robert, accepting o-^/xara in 96, proposed context: see Aesch. Che. ^4,
supposes that both lines refer to the 449. Soph. O. T. 1387, ^«/.*n88, El.
mark of ownership which Apollo had 737> x 439> fr- 858. Eur. Med. 1139,
branded on the hoofs of his cattle, and Rhcs. 294, 566. pdiftdos is irapeinypa<pr),
that this mark had been disclosed, pro- and appears to refer to the sound of the
bably in 52 f. lyre which the semi-chorus fails to recog-
104 €Kfjt«p.tt7(i£vov : see cr. n. The nize. Wilamowitz thinks the word could
tense a serious objection to the reading
is not be so applied but see on 255. Robert
:
iKfieTpovfievov : contrast Eur. fr. 382, 3, also explains pciifidos as the bellowing of
where the present expresses customary the cattle, but objects to Hunt's restora-
action (~ds iKfierpeirat). Tr. 'here is : tion on the ground that, though the ?rap-
a moulding of the very size.' fw'rpov
implies that the chorus measured the
— ewiypcHpri follows 107, the sound had
already been heard and correctly inter-
track with their eyes, and observed its preted by the first speaker.
correspondence cf. Ai. 5 fierpovnevov
:
|
109 f. The construction is as follows
iX v V T(* xeivov veox^paxO' ottws kt€. avrd re tx vrl Kai 6 (rrt/Sos [i.e. the indi-
» — 1
IXNEYTAI 243
5 Ktlvuiv ivapyr\ tu>v /8[o]o>i/ fiadew rrdpa. no

IIM1X. ea fidka.
7ra\iv(TTpa(f>r} rot ual fid Ata rd fSrjfiara
cs TovfinaXiv hehoptcew aura 8° €i<tl&€.
f* ecrri touti ; ri9 6 Tponos tov ray/naTô?, ;]
l *
e[s] Toviricroi rd irpoadtv rjXkaKTaL, rd 8' av 115
ivavrC dWrjKoLCTi o~v/x7r[€7r\€yJ/xcVa.
Sciôc. KVKrjo-fjLos €tx[ c T° I/ jSoT/JXarr/f.
SI, nV au T€)(yr)v arv Ty)i\h^ dp* i£}t]vpe<;, t'iv av,
IIS tit pap. ct sacpius |

av pap., undo hibopntv av' rdi' Hunt 114 tovtI: a
(1.*. Towri) suprascr. pap. s \
wpdyftarot in marg. add. pap. 2 118 tvptt pap.
idual mark- and the entire trail] Kthnm laced facing in Opposite directions to
•uw /3owr s-dpa [ = raptiai] to5< Ivapyrj each other. They reach a point where
tadtiv. Wilainowit/
(MM time placed at the general direction of the trail appears
n but sulisequently
after orifiot, to lie reversed, so that the forward marks
1 full -top before audit*.
I The are now turned the wrong way besides :
of the two, tins, manv of the hoof-marks are half

nit there in no reason why the passage obliterated by others going in the reverse
.hould not lit- contina direction. The language follows !,. Iferm.
nar. val \ui Ala ocean also in 77 atria Totijuoi iwXdt, rat wp6a0tf vtic-
Cur. (.></. We may 8tr, I
rat b" 6wi0t* wp6o$a> Kara 6' fa-1
: 'nav, verily, the footprints are xa\if airrbt Ipawt (Hermes diives the
i and face in the opp cows backwards, while he himself walks
i-ai, at ShQleto remarked (Dem. forwards). Cacus carried out the same
'/y. p. 185). m.tvis not SO much trick differently: Vcrg. Ant. s. :iora«i/ii
rpose of affirming the preceding in sptlutuam (ratios vers is,jut via rum |
11 the subsequent I bint supports o-vuiriirXiYîvo.

ibjection.' Cf. Xen. Cyrof. 1. 6. 29 ov 'ing Xen. cyn. j. 6 ra l%rr) 6p6a
pt7ruxr*«u 6r< KaKOi'/ryioi rV eiVi KM.., ...rov 6' rjpot ovu*rw\tyu4pa. One might
r\«oi"£tai ; Koi ua A/', fîj, Hrjplw y*. also conjecture ovuTtfvpfUr*. Robert
2. 2. II roi >id Aia
. takes an entirely different vie* of this
n, why, "i course I '
paaaage. According (0 him the cunning
>.'
I lor the sense cf. //. H<rm. 344 ues was much more complicated :
rjff ir j«Vr yip fiovair it &<t<po$t\6i> \nnwva lie of the cows were driven back-
Ulnar' l\ov<sa k6»h A»ltpawt at- wards [111]; (2) others had their front
\aiva. Hunt puts a lull stop after pr)fiara, hoots I rolnriatt... 1
ind adopts the circumflex accent of the ^XXaxrui); (3) others again had their
by reading «•*• rii' (see cr. n.). back hoofs hoisted outwards [from'
But the arrangement in the text is h mm dx.\f,X<H<ri]. Since, how e ver till- ,
i^ltsh the emphasis would !>e ing cannot be extr the parallel
npre»si look at them. t paaaage in the hjmn, Robtfl n
lion of ai'.rot ( 1 that Sophocles was a dcttberaft
1 4*
tixdoai j
rdptori rait The ilifhculty arises from a refusal to be-
•i'» dnwitrxonat. lieve that arTta s-oo^rat 6w\dt in 1
114 toi •
ami roiwitu ra wpooQtr ^Wanrai 111
It
Doaunon in .\ristoph.m<s. dors not occur Sophocles, can Inith |je appl ied simply
elsewhere in the text of the tragedians. to the reversal of the ! tin
MMMWI
e. Hutit does not seem right liar. Hunt, reading irtVi^fror
fir more usual and vaguer the mark of interrogation at tl>
wpdy par ot. reqoim wpftywatov .. itri) 1 to be
lift » >nt marks have n the seaae of #a»'/aaer«r, nhcrras
to the back, and some again are inter- wptorwaun U rather mtw than itmmgr.
-t
.
244 I04>0KAE0YI
Trp6(TTT(U0V (SSc K€/cXt/x[eVos] KVU7)y€T€LV

15 777)05 yrj ; rt? vp.G>v 6 T/ooVos ; ovy\ /xaudduo). 120
[e]Îvos ws t[i]s ei/ koxfxr) KeZcrou 7r€<T(oi>,
[tj] rtq 7ri#i7[/co]s ku/38' dTrodvfxaivei^ tlpl.

t[i] ravra ; 7r[ov] y^? ifxdder ; iv 7r[oi]a> roVa) ;
[(r^/râr', o[v y]a/> tS/3i<? €t/xt rou rpoirov.

20 XO. v [5] v 5. 125
21. t[i tovt' tvêis ;] Tuva <f>ofirj ; rlv elcropaq ;
t[i Set//,' 07ra>7r]a5 ; tl irore ySa/cêvet? eâji^ ;
d[XX' ov rts T7X 6 ] 1 K ^PX V0<i tf-et/oci[s] fxaOelv ;
r\l hfJTa cny]a#', 01 7r/3[o tov XaXurrjaroi ;
119 k(k\ih^vov Hunt, interrogatione intra v. 118 terminata 122 KvftSa dvfiaivus
olim Hunt 123 rpoiruH pap.: corr. Wilamowitz 128 vid. comm. eip.eipei[.] |
pap., primum e del. pap.

2
129 <nyad' oi Theonem legisse testatur pap. 2 : [aiy]ar
u pap.
For the adverb ('so newly bowed to the analogy of ipurofiavfi^, but would now
earth
') cf. Nic. Tlier. 689 el Se av ye prefer irbdov eveis (Eur. Bacch. 851), as a
aKv\aKa$ yaKtris rj ^ripa \aiSpr\v \
dypetj- somewhat easier change and as accounting
<tcus it pociraiov better for rivl.
121 Just as the proverb pla \6\^v 123 rl ravra; see on Eur. Hel. 991,
ov rp4<pet dvo ipidaKovs (Zenob. 5. n) and Gildersleeve, Synt. § 132.
implies that a bush offers only limited 125 v i, which recurs at 170, is an
accommodation, so here the satyrs are exclamation of alarm ; not of admiration,
doubled up as completely as the hedge- as in Ar. Pint. 895, where schol. R re-
hog, when he tucked into a space just
is marks : iiripprifj.a 6avp.ao~Tt.Kbv, Sirep iv rfj
large enough him. The ex'" os cun-
for crvvrjOeia \eyop.ev.
ningly conceals himself for purposes of 127 ?x wv is colloquial. It is ex-
self-defence cf. Ion Chius fr. 38, 4 ffrpb-
: plained by Kuehner-Gerth 11 62 (followed
/3(\os ap.<pa.Kai>Oov (Salmasius for d/j.(p' by Starkie on At. Nub. 131) as originally
aKavdav) eiXiôs difias Kelrat Oiyelv re
\
transitive (i.e. lx uv governs rt). Subse-
Kai 5a.Keii> dfjiTjxavos. quently it became intransitive, as em-
122 The exact intention of the allusion ployed in Ar. Pan. 202 ov fir) <p\vapri<reis
isobscure. diro8vfia£v€is, which, if sound, £x w "> *b. 512 XijpeZs ix uv It follows
-
provides the only instance in the text of that in the fifth century #x w " wa s no
an irregular anapaest (see p. 230), is an longer considered to be transitive.
unknown compound, and it is difficult to 128 f. The supplement of Wilamowitz
perceive the relevance of any derivative dyxov tis ijxei Kipxvof was adopted by
of Ovuaivu. Wilamowitz suggested that Hunt in both his editions. In that case,
airodvp.a.iveii> was used for dirodv/xidv, and it would seem necessary also to accept
that the latter was a synonym of dirowtp- ipielpu from the same critic for, as he ;
5e<r6cu. But the double assumption is says, the chorus have not shown any
unwarrantable. Hunt, in order to secure desire to investigate the sound. But we
the same meaning, conjectured dtrid/xaivets may very well read dXX' ov rls...i(ielpeis
from Hesych. 11 pp. 350, 371 s.vz\ 16/j.alvwv IxaOeXv; as in the text, with tI drjra (Hunt)
—
and ifffj-aivei, evidence which fails to in place of tI yv ; rl in the following line.
prove that Wâlveiv could be used for &XXd is idiomatic in introducing a fresh
irepbeffdai. The associations of Kv^Sa are question, as explained by Maetzner on
different, if we may judge by Ar. Eq. 365, Lycurg. 144. —
For K^pxyos see on fr. 279.
Pac. 897, Thesm. 489 (with Blaydes'sn.'): — The reading of Theon (o-iyad' ol) is
in other words, it alludes to trxwta aKo- very much more forcible, as marking the
\aarov Kai iraipiKdv (schol. Ar. Lys. 231). contrast with their former loquacity.
Hence I formerly suggested Trodofiavr/s on
IXNEYTAI
XO. tx[iya p.ev ovk] 130

2il. t[Lv ear eKeWe]i> dTrot/oof^t^jct? €\iov ;
XO. o[kov€ 877. J

'ol. vi II. kou 7rw5 a*ot;cr[cti /xiiSez/Joc, <f><t>vr)u k\vcjv ;
XO. 6/LtOt 7TL0OV.

21. f/x[o*'] Sta>[y/xa y' ov8a]/xa)9 oi^Vcre. 1 .;.-,
XO. aKovcroi/ av r[o]v XPl llJia ] TL ] XP° V0V Twd,

1 <:
6 [ojtiw WfXjayeVrc? etâS'] iêvia-ficOa

\j/6<fxo rbv ovSe[iJ<; 7r( aj7ro]r' ^KOLKrcf fipoTu>i>.
XL ri fxoL \§6]<f>ov ôy8[cio-^c] *a[i] Sci/iouVerc,
fxd\0r)<; avayva (rco[fi.aJT eKp.tp.ayp.ivoi, 140
KctKicrra O-qpatu orr[c?, cji/ [Trjacr^ cnaa
10 <f>6fiov /3A.€7rojTe<?, 7ra^raJ Sei/xarou/xcvoi,
avevpa KaKopi<TT[a] Kav€\ke]vd€pa
137 \vXa7(/rrct) Aristophaoem, ty$ao' 4£tvio futia. Theonem legissc te.statur pap.*:
r[\]ay€PTtt *£(.] yurfitda (iiwpyioixtOa}) pap.
. . . 130 post f60o» intcrpunxit
pap. 140 (K fit nay fit ya Aristuphanem legisse te.statur pap.*
181 Qirovo<r4>iius. an ingeni which is placed after \pb<pot> in the papyrus

ii .if Wiiamowitz, after O. T. must be an 1
480 rd ^«(T()M0a\a >dt awofoc<t>ii,w» par- 140 uaX0t)s. The substance

intended,
rtia,where the verb is glossed by tpvyur. which compressible cha-
for its
186 Wot the palaeographii .d data racter, is described as typos n<pa\aypi*os
The
received supple- (Bekk. .78, .3 : cf. Ael. et I'aus.
Tiviucing. and the retort 1
I Schw.). See 1*60
suggests the repetition of inol {e.g. iiuA b" I)cm. 1 ti» be it appears
•') necessary to admit &--»• in 141. I have
186 t. aicovorov tri. SO the
thing for a bit, and hear what a noise....'
'
UM retained 4ku4uay|Uvoi here (see cr. n.)
rather than in.n'payp4ra, which is pre
r ordinate clause introduced by oty> ferred by Hunt.
takes tl 1 'nch is 14 if. KoinwrTo is difficult, unless
normally combined with the genitive of Arra kck I formerly proposed.
is read, as
the personal object following &*ovi* Hunt states, however, that there is not
tx alitjuo I f. e.g. Phil. I >r this reading in the lacuna.
1
•f\ofiai *V 90V *Xi'*tr WuTrpa W- Contrast 147 nbrurra 6yplu* and for t
6o*rai. For av rov Maas conjectured the grammatical principle see Kuehner-
a£r6t. but surely the article is n (lerth I 361. We can hardly CSfl
with x'ffJMarot. The latter word is used rupara, and must suppose that camera
colloquially, ju-t as we say 'the thing.' h noininalixed like ra srpvra in Ar. A'a*.
•
lit rnipt . 1
'
411. There is a formal parallel in Thuc.
I 4. 76 frrt M
^ Xatpwr-ia Io\*top rijt
• ^lvi<T(«6a table to the Hotwriat. I do not add 1. ijt /Msyr
1 'twpyi<fn*8a, if that * yap To\foir6r*To* rsV r4rrt »b-o.
the papyrus f but the ; Aa>fa«oti. for there rilr rArt may be
meaning required ('to l>c asloundt-d '), neuter. »v>
which M 608MMM in I'olybius, has hither- haltsp. J/. A u r>,
regarded as post classical. M. Ant. /n the nifkl, imtafimimg umu femr% | htm
8. 15 alcxP * 1° Ti t**l{<e9oA, tl «y • !«>? taty is a iuth inpfttdl ttmrf
148 avtvfm
180 +6+OV +o0«i04« l>r the pro*
<^pô4r^f see on fr. 61. The stop «orat"i ano|iim' *|u\<
— —
246 I04>0KAE0YI
SiaKovovvres, [a"]w[/u.]ar' et[cr]tS[e]tv p,6vov

Ka[l y]X&j(Tcra fca[t] <f>âk]rjre<s, el Se nov 8er), — 14;
ttmjtoL XoyoLcrLv ovres epya (frevyere —

15 roto0[8]e 7J"<xt/3os, (o /ca*aaTa drjpicov,
ov 7toAA €oi(Ti TOiv opeiTpofyatv (3ot(ov

20 [TTJT-qcrcrovTos, a.AA' a[l)(][xoucrii> eêi\^p]yacrp.4vov
144 ffxVfia T -
'
malim 150 5ei\ov/j.ivov in marg. Ni(candro) adscriptum: dov\ov-
/xivovpap. 152 alxp-atcriv scripsi: d.KfjLa?cni> Hunt j
iêipyaa/ie vov ex iêipyatrfxiva
2
corr. pap.
144 cro)|xaTa does not seem to be 7ros 'Apyei<p6vT7]s |

fiicryovr' iv <pi\6tt]ti
used alone in the contemptuous sense of pt-i'XV (Tireiwv ipoivrwv.
hulks or carcases. If, therefore, the con- 150 cs 4>vyiiv kXivovtos, giving way
ditions permitted, I should have preferred to flight. For the use of kXIvw cf. Polyb.
to substitute (rxVM- aT \ —
mere shapes with- 1. 27. 8 tQiv ire pi to. ixiaa KapxySoviw £k
out substance. Cf. Eur. fr. 25 yipovres trapayyiXuaros k\lv6.ptu)v wpbs (jtvyrjv.
ovbtv icrfiev aXKo ir\r]v \j/6(pot /ecu <rxvi*'. Aristid. I p. 178 iirei 5' ?K\ive ra irpay-
id. fr. 360, 27 aXXcos iv voKet
fir) ffx^lfJ-o.T' fiara. In Eur. Suppl. 704 ^cXive yap
irecpvKbTa. I am
glad to find that Robert K^pas rb \aibv r]/j.wv the verb might be
I
also is dissatisfied with caviar', but his intransitive, although the editors are pro-
conjecture opi/iar' is no improvement. bably right in making icipas the object.
145 (j>a\f|T€S. Satyric choruses wore S(i\ov|i€vov (see cr. n.) is rather more
the phallus: cf. Eur. Cycl. 439, and see pointed than SovXovfj.ivov, which requires
Haigh, Attic Theatre 3 , p. 294. For the to be defined
(e.g. by t% yvufirj). Wila-
comic stage see schol. Ar. Nub. 538. mowitz compares dypiovadai, yavpiovcrdat,
et. St'r), at a pinch.
. For the subjunctive etc.
with el cf. O. C. 1443, Ant. 710, Ar. Eq. 152 alxfiaio-iv. The plural indicates
698. It is not easy to recover the nuance different occasions, and by the use of the
of the construction, or to understand word the speaker does not so much refer
why it was occasionally preferred to the to a definite weapon as to martial achieve-
normal uses. Neil (on Eq. I.e.) seems ments in general. Thus the meaning is
to think that it was paratragoedic in equivalent to vi et armis, or practically
Aristophanes, but it may rather have to •
in battle.' Cf. Eur. 16 Xap-wpoi
fr.
been the literary survival of an almost 5' ef at'xM "* "Apeoj (» re avWbyois.
extinct colloquialism, like our an V please Phocn. 1273 alxv-W is /uae KaOeararov.
you. For other examples see Kuehner- Soph. Phil. 1307 kclkovs cWas irpbt I
Gerth 11
474. atxnv"- See also Wilamowitz on Eur.
147 TOiovSe iraTpds is isolated. In Her. 158. —
Hunt gives a.Kp.ai<nv with a
order to show that it is a continuation of colon after €£€ipYao-(i€vov, though I do
the address from (paXrjres, I have printed not understand how his reading admits of
el...(pevyeT€ as a parenthesis. the translation but did deeds of strength.'
'
148 The exploits of Silenus, his But it is surely far more natural to suppose
wanderings with Dionysus, and his share that the object of eêipyaa/j-ivov is the
in the battle with the giants, are recorded antecedent to a (i.e. deeds which) in 153,
in Eur. Cycl. 2 9. —
Wilamowitz (p. 455)
thinks that the present passage refers
than that the relative looks back to fivr)-
p.ara in 148. Nevertheless, Wilamowitz
rather to hunting adventures (Tagdaben- also takes /Jivr/para to be the immediate
teuer): see on 152. antecedent of a. Both he and Robert
149 oI'kois vvfitjnKois: i.e. in the infer from the text that Silenus is boasting
caves of the nymphs. Cf. Horn. h. not of his martial exploits, but of his
Aphr. 262 Trjffi 5e 1<i\y]voi re kg.1 eiViro- prowess as a hunter, i.e. (I suppose) the
, ;
IXNEYTAI 247
[a] vvu v<f> vpow \dp\np a\rropp\maivvrai.

[
\\i\6cjxo vecLpei /coXa/cj t ]
TroLfX€i>(ov Tt\o]0€v
[rt] hr) <f>ofi€i(T0€ 7rat8€9 oSe, npiv cio-iSctz/, 155
ttXovtov 8e )([p]vcr6<f>auTov i£a<f>i[e}r€
ov <t>ot,fio<; vp.lv enre Kâ^vehcfjctTO
/cat 7171/ iktvddpioaiv rjv KarflV€<T€v
Col. vii vplv re Kapoi raOr' a<f>£VT€<; evBere. ;
el py) vavo(TTyjo~avT€<; cî^fcucrcfTC 160

rac, ^8ou5 07777 ySe/Satri /ecu roy $oi>Kd\o[i>,
153 p£p ex wxu* corr. pap. s vToppirrairtrai praetulit Hunt post hunc v. lacunam
|
>
|
Wilamowitz 15* risiipplevi: WssMPOw Ul 169 d&prtt c\ atparrts

a p.*
object of ii*ipryaofxivo\ '

having des- 551 ijSrf Si »ip.ovct car' '\Sav \
Toipana'
.iora. of theThe removal rvKTtftpifiov ovpiyyot lap KaraKOvv. Soph.
nakes this assumption unnecessary, Phil. 213 ov noXxar ovptyyoi 'xw, wt
ami in my opinion clears up the whole Totjiap iypofiirrat. Eur. Hel. 1483 ovptyyi
passage. It follows, of course, that I wtt$6p.tpai TOifUroi, — transferred to
inception of the cranes. What else than the strains
as standing on a
i of the pipe can be the 'shepherds 1
much loftier plane of morality than the The shepherd pipes to his flock which
in the Cyclops. See obeys him #>. the sound is intended to
:
sooth* the flock. Observe how this de-

153 f. dnoppvnalvrrax is more em- scription of the sound confirms the inter-
thani'woppnreU- •
r pretation given of 107. Hunt places a
n.). Wilamowiu holds that
:. comma at the end of 154. and accepts flr
I lacuna after this line, on the from Wilamowitz in if j hut the multi- ;
ground that the dative ^tyy is otl nMcorioo of relative clauses is rather to
ibly harsh, unless supported «y 1 be avoi
a participle like t*r\ayiprup. Hut this 155 The child's fear of the unknown
is unduly to limit the sphere of the causal may be from Plat. Phaed. 77 K
illustrated
(instruni'i.:.i! dative, which is not in-
i
loan in rsj «oi 4p ifpup rati 6% ra nxaera
frequently applied to the influence of 00/ifcrai. To be afraid l>cfore you have
external circumstances in the place of cause is like crying out before you are
Sid c. ace. 1117, hurt U'hil. 917, Ar. Pint. 477).
ith Jobb'l nn. Kur. ////. 160 xP wr< avTO »' ,s a ncw ^ com-
474 n. Andr. 157 arvytO- pound, (f. 45.
fiat 6' Ar&pl fapftdKOiat 00U. ib. 147 167 dv«6«(aTo is I formal PM
fuaoir -,« warpiSa ar)v Ax«Wwi ^Spio- to undertake, acknowledge, become re-
El. 40 */pa S* xpdr iwl noi'fufior n8t-
1
| sponsible for. Cf. Isae. 3. 18. Dem. 33.
utra Qardrio oif. I dwell u|»>n this 7. 4& 7.
m
the more, beca e the examples given by 150 Mm: yeff art idle. Theappli-
Cicrth l 430 »re not rcpreseota- cation metaphorical
. in the
t (his aspect of the idiom. - kcSXqki is Sophoclean : 65 &0~r' sag 0.7'.
Ml, if Hunt is right in 0*-ry 7* (Morra m' iityilptrt. 0. C. 307
cc (ipaioi
i*
I
<Mn.
'
ire supposed to delude. l OO ((vavorTômrrsa, not to pursue

(Hunt) but to return to the pat* It
should be remembered that the simple

verb does not primarily or chiefly mean
at. Ale. 577 (toorbtan to return > the min
inatory condition
•
J
woifirlrai vntpalott. likes. •M Goodwin, f447
248 IO<t>OKAEOYI
kXcuovtcs avTrj SeiXia \po<f>rj[ar]eT€.
5 XO. 7ra.Tep, irapcov clvtos fxe criyiTroSryyerc^,

iv ev KOLT€LOr)<; et rts ecrrt oeiAia.
yvaxry yap avro? ai> Traprjs ovhev \eyco[v. 165
SI. iyo) Tra[p]a)v aurds ere Trpocrfiifiu) Xoyat
KvuopTLKOv avptyfjia StaKaXov/xev[o5].
JO dXX' et' [d]^>to"TOJ Tpi^vyrjs oifxov fidcriv,
165 \67wf, ut videtur, pap. 2 168 let in eV corr. pap. |

&<pl<rrw scripsi: i<pi<rru
Hunt o'ifiov pap.
I
162 Hunt's 'you shall

rendering 168 (<pL<TTu was adopted by Hunt
make a noise in lamentation your very for and Wilamowitz, and compared with
cowardice is not quite clear. Rather
'
: Track. 339 rod p£ tt/vS' i<pL<rTa<rai §d<nv,
'
your very cowardice shall end in noisy which would then be interpreted why '
whimpering.' olvtq i.e. so far from : dost thou approach me thus?' The
escaping from pain by your cowardice, present passage is rendered take your '
it will be the cause of your chastise- stand at the cross-ways ; and, since the '
ment. Wecklein's aiirol is unnecessary. relevance of the remark to the situation

I suppose i|/<>4>TJa-€T€ to have been deis not apparent, Wilamowitz constructs
liberately chosen instead of fioTjo-ecrde in an elaborate tnise en scene in justification
reference to the disturbing \pb<pos of 154, of the text. Three paths are represented
just as conversely fioav is sometimes on the stage, converging at the cave of
ironically applied to inanimate objects Cyllene, and possibly rising towards it.
{e.g. Ar. Han. 859). It is difficult to say The chorus in the orchestra divide them-
whether the dative is rather causal or selves into three bodies, each of which
circumstantial, but the character of the follows one of the paths indicated. He
noun distinguishes this example from points out that the wooden stage-buildings
the familiar type of fr. 958. Maas, how- provided for each performance allowed
ever, thinks that \po<pr)<reTe is a vulgarism
for airoXe'iade, on the ground that it is
considerable freedom to the poet for the
arrangement of his stage. In conformity
^
used with that sense in Byzantine and with the supposed conditions, he divides *X
modern Greek. Wilamowitz calls atten- the chorus into three rather than two ^
tion to the similar development of diatpw- sections in the passage beginning at-r
-
vetv (Agatharchides ap. Phot. bibl. 457, 25). v. 94. This is ingenious rather than I
^
163 «rv|Mro8iTY€T€t this is a new : convincing, and Tpijvyrjs oi'|xov i> too
word beside <rv/jLiro8r]yeiv, corresponding slender a foundation to support the
to iroSrjyereiv iroSrjye'iv. Cf. KvvrjyeTeiv
: : superstructure. I have proposed to re-
Kvvriyeiv. store d<}>CorT», which yields a simple and
165 avTos appears to belong to ira- appropriate meaning. To stand at the
prjs, as well as to irap&v in 163 and 166. cross-roads, i.e. at a point where the
In each case it bears a considerable road bifurcates (as explained by Gilder-
emphasis 'Father, do come yourself...'
: sleeve on Pind. Pyih. 1 1. 38 *car' afxtvat-
and so forth. irbpovs rpibSovs iSLv-qdrfv, bpddv niXevOov \
166 irpo<r|3ipw Xoy<»>, not '

I will iuv to irpiv), was a proverbial image typical
urge you on by my voice (Hunt) but I '
'
of hesitation Theogn. 911 iv rpibbcp 5'
:
will win you over by argument.' The £(TTT)Ka.' 86' eiairbirpbadfv 6801 fioc <f>pov- |
phrase is used ironically of a persuasion rt'fw tovtwv

1
t)vtiv' fw irporiprjv. Oppian

that will not derive its force from logical Halieut. 3. 501 eiVeXos dvSpl êivifi, 5s iv \
superiority. Cf. Ar. Av. 425 irpoaî^q. Tpi68oi<Ti iroXi'TpLirToiffi Kvp-qaas \

i<rr7)
\iyuv. Eq. 35 «8 irpocrfiipdfas p,'. i<popfiaivuv KpaSirj re 01 aWore \atrjv, |
Aeschin. 3. 93 ry Xbyy irpofffiifidfav aXXore 8e%iT€pT)v iirtpdWerai drpairbv

i'fxas. . cL's KT€. i\6eiv' Trairraiva 8' i/cdrepde, vbos Si
j
167 Kvvopnicov o-vpi-yfia may be illus- oi i)VTe Kvpia. I

et'Xetrai, fuxXa 8' bipi nirjs
trated from the note on fr. 9 iiriaiyp-aTa. wpiâro fiovXrjs. Hesych. 11 p. no.
— 8ia.KaXovp.tvos the encouragement
: Zenob. 3. 78. Suid. s.v. iv rpibSy elpil
will be given in various (5ta-) quarters. \oyi<Tfj.£iv. wapoipua. iirl twv dSrjXaiv xal
IXNEYTAI 249
iyoj S' eV [cjpyois irapfxticjv <t airevdwC).

XO. v v v, xp xfj, a
\ey o ti 7roi>€t5.
a. 170
II fia.T7)P vTrexXayes xmeKpiyes
vtto fx iSee. ; cêrou
cV irpa>T(t) tic. o$e Tp6ir[, tic o8e .[....]. 7179
6 S/jaKi?, 6 ypdms [ ]
173 rir6 w '
fi«i ex wr' /^ f*€i corr. pap. 1 178
iv ex i corr. pap 1 174 <\e\itf«*
ap. : corr. pap.* 176 dtvrt u> in marg. pap.*: fcirrcpy pap
d^t/MXwf xpo7/tdTu;»'. It is evident, probably a glyconic. Hi: see on 125.

then, that 'to leave the cross-road is the '
«|»without a vowel sound recalls the
same as 'to go straight on,' or, in other I'lautine st. It is not recorded else-
ite no longer ' ; and it where, but is apparently a drover's cry
will be observed how well that agrees like f6 fr. get. Wilamowit/ iejw.ll the
with the appearance of iwtvtivrw in the arrangement vvfy \f>aa, forms which arc
ng line. Here of course we have equally devoid of authority.
nothing but a figure of speech directed 171 1 'Why dost idly groan -and
against the trembling satyrs there was : gibber and look askance at me?' wro-
-toad on the stage. It may be — »p<j"w is used by Aelian tuit. <;//
assumed that d$io~ru m intransitive in of the noise made by the locust. *^fw,
ince with its usage, and that to squeak or crcaJk, is used also of the
&d<rw is parallel to Ai. 42 ttji>3' iwt^ri- sound of foreign speech (Ar. .•/:. 15 jo)
wru ftdaw, and less closely to Kur. //did. and of the chirping of a bird
801 At/Jdi wbio. (n.). For the compound — B 314). i'*-o«\dfw does not ocm
h three terminations see on
;iralion of otfiov 173 iv wporry TfxViry : does this
witz qaol iian 1 546 mean '
in the first lap (turn) '
? So rpowoi
1
Lent/ ri otfsot, oifiw daatrtrai : cf. 4>poi- 'direction in rierod., tf, i. 189
fUOf. Si wpvxat 6yo\t»Koma *al (Karor rrrpaft- . .
170ff. ["he Chonil bustle to and fro fUrai rdrra rp6wof. Robert however
in a scries of spasmodic attempts to rp6wo%, referring to no.
up the trail. Apparently they 174 t\i\. \ ue caught.
of each other in their clumsy
! 17ft avayov: 'off with you
and blundering movement*; and there eoaaUci yourself a prisoner, ipiyttr,
was an opportunity lor a certain amount » 1 1
> to arrest, is illustrated by
of pantoiiiiinlrbutli>->iirry. heodrshould 1 Hotdea oa riut. 71mm. is.
HO doubt be divided between difl 17C Robert restores btvrio^ rii 6it
speakers, but U
too much mutilated to rpdwot fnft rrV..
; and is prol«al>!\
justify an attempt to distribute the con* in supposing that at this point 5
Mitueir here is a high I addresses individual satyrs by
degree of probability in Robert's view friri 6 ApdMti. i Vpdwtt, Oi/Wat, MMwm
the lyrics are a Commos
t (or M cMur), Irpdr.ot. KpoMat d (. irif*(af),
Silenus and the chorus, ami that
•
and IWgif, which is to be com-
lastly
the greater part of litem came from the Kred with A^cWi on the Brjgee vase and
lips of Silenus. Thus the virion k&i (lleydcmann. Satyr- av tUskfken-
mandsand appeals agree with his pi namtn, |n
and the
I . the chorus i 177 fya«i% . an unknown WOfda but
in 197 is unnatural, if supposed to refer its correctness i» rendered probablr by
ick as 30 lines. The metre com* the presence of >/pas-n. W,b,
pnses raaolvod (procclrus
ana)«ae»ls l ±/y*n. which is il
; Ar. Av. 317. / ft. <Mo. I'ratimu • satyr on more than one imm
fr. 1 1 combined with ;.t is i Wissowa I For -r*l»««
:
250 IO<t>OKAEOYZ
20 [o]vpCa<s ovpias <xS[ Jkcis

napefirjS' p.e$v[ ]
otl TTore <f>epe[ ] . i[.]i> 180
ewoyov eyei ti[ J
crri/Jos 6$eveo-[ ]
25 (TTpGLTLOS CTT/3ar[t05 ]u[. .]
hevp* eirov r[.] Sp[ ]
Col. viii evi j3\_o]vs evi 7roVo[ 185
jxrj jxeSfj /c/a[o]/aa[s
(TV tl /caX[o]i> eVlS[
ode y ayaObs 6 r/oefjî?
5 Kara vop.ov €7r€Ta[i
€<f>€Trov icftenov p\_ 190
ottttottoI' a jjuape, ye[_
rj ra^ ottotolv anLr)[<s
aireXevdepos cov 6X .
[
10 dXXa /u.17 7raâ7r\a/c[
eV[i]0' [e]7rex' etcrt^' i#i [ 195
T [o] Se TrXdyiov eôfx[ev
7r[a]re/3, rt cr[i]ya9 ; pv dXiês eiTrop.ev ;
ov[k e]tcraKo[ve]t,9, 17 K€K<o[<f>r}craL, xjj6(f)ov ;
15 XL o~i[ya.
180 vo/ios Theonem

legisse testatur pap. 2
i<6/ioi/ 186 fj.e ex 5e corr. pap. 2
192 r): 17 pap. 2
supra « 193 o\/3 legi posse negat Hunt
scr. 197 J3 in
marg. ducentesimo versui adscriptum
see Hesych. 445 yp&irtw yrjpas t£tti-

I p. irapawXaKros. But TrXayKrbs itself is
70s, rj Kai tuiv ixdvofitvow.
8<pews, /ecu sometimes written irXaKrot in our MSS
tldos opviov. Kai pvaadv, airb rod ypa/xfias see Aesch. Pers. 280, Ag. 598.
?X €lv fas pvrldas, odev /ecu i) ypavs r)rv 197 p.»v is used ironically: 'can it
[xo\6yr)Tai. Here one suspects
the mean- be that we spoke the truth after all?'
ing wrinkled, which is attested also by For examples see Kuehner-Gerth 11
Etym. M. p. 239, 31 ypdins' 6 ippvriSu- 525.
fj-tvos. Similar are Aristoph.'s (rrp6<pis 198 »J/6<J>ov was restored by Wilamo-
(N11I). 450), y&ffrpis (Av. 1604). witz. The hyperbaton is not uncommon
179 nedvets, airopeh, Rossbach. But in tragedy: cf. Eur. Cycl. 121 aireipovvi
see on 176. 5', 77 ry ££b<ri, Ar)p.r)Tpos oraxw ; Jihes.
182 (ttcjSos ode vios, Rossbach. 565 Aidfxrjdes, ovk rjKovffas, 17 Kevbs \j/6<pos \
192 The meaning

perhaps again is ffrdêi6Y utuv Tevxtwv riva ktijitov ; Hel.
,
discernible: 'I expect you will soon 719 n. Hclid. 132 n. Soph. fr. 764.
regain your freedom...,' spoken with Kaibel on El. 1358.
irony. However, rj rdxa is not ironical 199 ff. The proper arrangement of
in Horn, a 73, 338, 399, but expresses these lines has been the subject of some
a solemn warning or foreboding. discussion. The speeches are divided by
194 We should expect TrapawXayxO^s paragraphi in the papyrus, exactly as
or napairXayKTos IffOi (yevr)) rather than they are printed in the text, except that
—
IXNEYTAI 251
XO. TL €<TTLU
ov fievo).
XO. /xeV, el dekeis.
Si. OVK €<TTll>, dXX' CLVTOS (TV Tdvd' \oTTJ) 06Aci9 200
100 rl tart*; etiam Sileno, ov wcw choro, ntv tl Bvro: (ijikm) ex 200 eiccto 0A«»
v.
hue tran->tulit Wilamowitz) Sileno tribuit Hunt SOOv^. chofO tril>uit Hunt
1 scriptum fuisse, sed /3Ar«oi- esse Srjj 0Aw in marg. testatur pap. 8
a paragraph us appears after 210, which senariiand in any case errors in its
;
is unnecessary and unusual if the speech employment are frequent (cf. 6s). We
which follows is to bt attributed to the Wppcot, then, that SfleOW hears the
coryphaeus. Hunt, however, con*idcr- the first time at v. 198,
'.early for
ing it obvious that 200 203 l>elong to — Uld so terrified that he resolves to
is
the chorus, and 204 206 to SUenns, — depart at once and dooj SO, although the
the division of 199 by combining
- chorus apparently attempt to keep him.
rl loriir with olya. as a remark of Silenus, On that assumption, the ironical tone of
tinning accordingly. Being also \Uv «l fk'Xus. do //a; •
hat nh\
unsuitable tl 0A«t is 70a stay? is exactly suitable to the occa-
'
as addressed by Silenus to the cboraa, sion, if the chorus are now aware that
and that the repetition of 8i\tn i- awk- Silenus is rather more frightened than the
ward if 8>wt) 0Aeu is adopted in 200 rest of them. Cf. Phil. 730 tp*\ tl
though the latter contention can hardly OAm (' 1 pray thee, come on'), and Rl.
I nitted — he accepts Wilamowitz s -,dp 0Ae«t, hi.ha.i.09 (where the tone
proposal to transfer ivro. from 200 to is ironical, as here: see Jebb's n.). In
199, and attributes/^/ d BOy? to Silenu-. }oo. so far as the sense is concerned, it is
ing 911 —
214 to Silenus, he allows indifferent whether we read 6wy #>
paragraphus after 210 its usual 6*tj tvff (sec cr. n.), but the KcMM
If that view is correct, the be preferred for the reason that &6raa6*i
upshot of the dialogue will be that the union glos- 1 .on
are again alarmed by hearing the dstfoM similar to the present. Se<
and propose to withdraw h. Pert. 177 tfAjj" d»W rot* bi<rr\-
rch altogether in favour of their rai. Schol. Ar. Ar. 5X1 o»'« i(tt\^m-
bat that, after three lines spoken d»r« rov ov dvrfatrai. Schol. A
I
the? forthwith resume their t$t\*] ifiv»o.To. Sehoi Hom.
cannot help thinking
I > 1 2 1 . Apollon. to . Horn. p. 86,
1 was the purpose of
1 llesych. 11
hi* dramatic instinct was temporarily in pp. Hi |0g, Suid. t.W. i$t\^rtt, 0A«r,
e. As
against Wilamowita, how- ol> 0*\^ctt. I'hot. tor.
1 1 vint attributes
151 tl. as well as grotesque cowardice of Silenus after \»-
(be subx-'jiient dialogue with < yllenc vapnunngs in 147 ff. may be illustrated
to the chorus and not |o Silenus; and >r in the Cyekt>t
liiently di ippose (21HH. ), as well a« by the general de-
in alarm directly In of the satyrs in N
1
«ars. See further in (his con- 121): (* hi *<6<Hnoit w&rrti dr«X«r%Mt j
A$l<fnt>yot>Tti 'V.fiti. I
roafr nMotoMorrtt
•
only irixToMfioiiH \ayuoi. I have according y I
propo- JOl f. by reading

ributing in tnoi flo«». m*j rKtittTOf #r« tt4*o»r* Jul-
1 '.owing speeches in acc<> rpifku' xP°*o*. which is consistent «nh
V K«>l»ert's
x.ictlv in keeping with 1 »bc character of Silensa »« 'him-
Iavoid the melweil foots tlir |x.firait
given les ha* already been
disappearan. difficulty »f the mentioned 111 the
paragraphus after 210 I cannot regard as far as to claim that the speech beginning
seriou- W. !, not know enough to •rthy of Ajas or any other
l it it miglr
divide tl> >m the
:
252 I04>0KAE0YI
CtfreL re Ka£i)(veve /cat 7rXou[Tet XaySa/i'

tols y8ov? re *a[t] roy \pvarov [ ]e[.]
/at) 7rXetcrT[. .] . tl . [. .]i>[
] xpovov.
20 XO. dXX' ov tl J ] fjf: ]
ouS' €^virek\6eZ\v r[ ]<£<£? 205
elSa>fxev ov[. . .] .
[ ]
«» y
•,[•, •, ]
<f)6eyfji' d<£uo-[e]ts[ ]ov
25 [•>? S [- • • • • /a«t-]
Col. ix 6o\y K\6jxol(tiv 6kfiicrr)<;. 10
o[S' o]v <£a^[etr]at tolo~lw dXX' eyw Taâ

(f>[ep~\(ov ktv\tt~\ov neSoprov iâvayKaao)
TT^rj^&TjjjLao-Lv KpaiTTVolcri /cat XaKTiafxacrtv
cu[ct~\t etcra/coucrat /cet Xtav K(o<f>6s rt? et.
204 sqq. Sileno tribuit Hunt 208 <f>6eyyfia a<pv<r[e]is in marg. add. pap. 2
211 6 5' Hunt qui hunc et sequentes versus Sileno tribuit 214 el pap. 77 Hunt :
204 is
:
restored by Hunt aW 0$ ti 212 <j>€pwv, bringing into play,
fir) vol ix ikknreiv e<j>r)<To/jLa.L. For ov rt applying to the case. Cf. Eur. Tro. 333
|xi] cf. O.C. 450 dXX' otf ti /utj Xdxwcri To05e eXiffffe rq.5 '
eKeiae fier' i/u-idev iroSuiv
av/xudxov. <p4pov<ra (piXrarav (id<Tiv. "ircSop-rov is —
205 e'|virtX9€iv is a hitherto unknown a new word, but appears to be a suitable
compound, but see on fr. 524. The epithet for the sound produced by feet
following words are restored thus by striking against the ground. Robert
Hunt (partly after Murray) rod wdvov : however prefers Leo's <pwpQiv (for <p4piav) :
wpiv y' hv cra</>dJ5 elSQ/uev ovtiv' £v8ov 77S'
j
i.e. tracking out the sound rising from
?X fi ffriyij. the ground. But it is surely unnatural

208 S. (^•yji.' a<J>ucret.s is restored by to dissociate ktvwov from tiaaKovaai.
Hunt from the margin, since the text is 213 irn8ii|Aa<riv. Cf. Vergil's sal-
mutilated. He gives reasons against tantes Satyros (Eel. 73). Comut. 30.
5.
accepting d <pvaas (Wilamowitz) and p. 59 oi IZnipToi dird rod oKaiptLv. Robert
suggests that d<pvîs may have been the seems to be right in rejecting Leo's view,
reading in the text. No parallel is based on Ter. Euti. 285 and other pas-
quoted for the phrase <pdiy^ d<pv<rativ, sages, that XaKTi<T(ia<riv refers to kicks
but it may be illustrated by yXuxraap delivered against the door.
(Kxâs in fr. 929 (n.): the papyrus gives 2 14 wo-t' is actually redundant after
<f>d4yy/xa here, as well as in 254, 278, 292, eiâvayKaaw, but is often so employed in
and 320, and that form was approved by order to emphasize the result ( Eur. HeL
Herodian (Crdnert, Mem. Gr. Hercul. 1040 Jebb on Soph. 0. C. 270). Hunt
n., —
p. 69). — |u<r66v
'produce rich pay,' would be' parallel to
6\p£o~ns, if joined as substitutes rj for d on the ground that the
third person is required. But it would
Tv<f>\ovv 2\kos (Ant. 973) and the rest. not be unnatural that after rotcnu in 211
211 o8'...a\X' he won't show him- :
'
the speaker should turn to address directly
self for that well, then....'
: Hunt, who the unseen occupant of the cave. For
prefers 6 5', makes Silenus the speaker, similarly abrupt transitions cf. O.T. 1198,
and treats roiaiv as masculine. But, in Bacchyl. 9. 13. Robert also questions
holding that rotaiv cannot be instrumental the necessity for Hunt's alteration, but
(causal), he undoubtedly goes too far thinks that the text is a conflation of two
see the passages quoted on 154 and esp. readings, one of which was uar eioa-
Antiph. 5. 3 amo-Tot yfvd/jievoi. rots d\r)- Kovvr) . . el.
die iv avrols to&tois dirwKovro.

1 M
IXNEYTAI 253
KTAAHXH
Orjpes, tl [rolyhe x\o€/>ot> vkcoSr) ndyov 215
€v\0\ipov wpfirjOrjTe crvv noWj} fiojj ;
ric, r)he T€\mr), T19 /xeTaoTarric, noviov
215 > \wpo¥ legisse Aristophanem testatur pap. a17 fierd/rrcunt ex (irrafftt corr.
pap. 5 218 d\t% Wilaiuowii/. htm pap.iui :
316 For the description uf the scenery for Dionysus (e.g. ?yfi>o) and the subject
see Introductory Note. Hunt's sugges- — of fi'tdfcro (i.e. Silenus). (4) It has
tion that the reading of Aristophanes already Inren suggested that the &**wbmix
<cr. n.) was not x&po* but x^ u f^>" s ' must hive l>een Apollo, since the satyrs
almost certainly correct. expected to receive their release at his
210 I- or the preposition
<rvv..pVrj. hands ; and it has l»een shown that there
cf. El. 64 <p66vy rt tai xoXvyXLteoi?
1 pr) <rvv is nothing surprising in the introduction
fiorj (which also illustrates the doable of Apollo into the Bacchic thiasus. What
application of oinr in ill), il<. 283. 1 is then to be made of o'w 4yy6roi% vvnQai-
217 pjraVraa'is weVwv, change from <r«? In answer it may be remarked that
lalx>uii : see on fr. 174, Fof wt>»uv Apollo is often associated with the
I to the rites of Dionysus Robert Nymphs, and that he bote the
i well quotes Kur. Batch. 66 s-Arw title of X vtiTty4TT)i at Thasos and at
rfiv* ttduaTOf r' iVKCLnarov, but his further Somas (Wernicke in I'auly-Wissowa It
i>n that rArot was a technical 61). That title, however, must be inti-
lance of the mately related to. if it is doI
tragic chorus is not established by the a substitute for, the Inrtter-known Moivij
nee which he cites. •/Vnjt (I'ausan. 1. 1. 5, I'ind. fr. 116).
218 ff. i| the most pa respectable au- I
passage in the text so far as it has )>cen re- el.fr. 17K.) f..r thest.r
that Apollo mi
the father of tin
'
tster whose proceedings it is not extravagant to suppose that he
rbc general <\ might also have been described par- —

has been discussed the Introductory
in ticularly in a passage to which his function
.•rtain j>oints of detail which <<£ij->/r»;t is entirely relevant —
il require notice, (t) Hunt father Of the Nymphs. (In ('A'. v\vi
suggested (p. 70) that Silenus might lie j 10 I enumerated the difficult
the 6*0w6ttii : an<l, partly no doubt for n. s, and threw out
to accept waidur
1 suggestions for their removal. But
I in 1 n. Apart from \r<ko 11. SimoHuks, p. yij) ha*
1 conclusi shown #>->©hh does not
that exist, and
well as his that />-,orot is always n~,o*oi. Besides,
•iMttide to some master '
as a last resource, we 01
(1) The theo: I in disturbing the text.]
the master' identity «*X«s intclli
led in the I I the gible meaning, and Wibuno*
day. has h< UM& It his
inevitable I»I4*i 11.
does an error) v^pir^. a now word, corrc-
Iain how hit emendation of ijj poodhsj to ^>i»oi. Xdiroi, and many
to put
orwarrl arts the m.1111 nip. Or. 1
1
KA&t)IHl4VO% ill. r- 1, .
ntii at
ig acros* the body
nMrrw rather than ivf»
iata line has been may be «een by coo

igthc verb 11 the examples which I., .m.l S. <
(
254 IO<t>OKAEOYI
10 vfxlu os atet vefipivy Kadr)p,fX€u[o]l top deov
avv iyyovois vvix<f>ai<ri /cat irohaiv o^Xw ;
vvv 8'
ayvoai to xpfjfjia' iroi crrpo(f>al ve[&j]»>
15 fxavLwv (TTpe<j>ovcrL ; davfxa yap Ka,Te/<\[u]oi>,
6p,ov wpfarov KeXevfid wcos /c[v]i^yeT[oi>]v 22 5
iyyvq p,okovT(jiv drjpbs eu*>at[ov] Tpo[<j>~\rj<s,
ofjiov 8' av avrt[s .] at ••]••[••]

. . .
(f>(x)p[.
219 vfieiv pap. 221 tvidfcr pap.: eMafes pap. f^(ret) in marg. add. pap. 2
2
|
222 Wilamowitz
Traidwis 223
viov coni. Hunt, quia viwv spatium vix continet
224 post yap interpunxit Hunt |
KarrfKvdev legisse Theonem testatur pap. 2
that sense. Cf. Eur. fr. 752 dvpaoici kclI may be urged that ifKvdov is not used
vefip&v dopais Kadairrbs. Nonn. 11. 233 elsewhere by Sophocles in dialogue, and
v\j/68ev (Sfxov veppida kcu ^vxpoiaiv iwi
\
that the meaning of the compound is
oripvoHTi xaddxj/as. Lucian Bacch. x far from clear. understandBut I fail to
ywaiKts . . .ve/3pL8as ivrjfifiivai., Strabo 719 why Hunt's punctuation (cr. n. should be )
(quoted by Hunt) KaOrffiixivovs vt8plSas considered essential to the adoption of

77 5opK&5uv dopds, Eur. Bacch. 24 veQpLS' KdW/cXuOJ'.
i^dipas xpoos. —
tviraXrj, habilem. A chief 225 irpt'irov, of sound clearly heard.
characteristic of the thyrsus was itsslender- Cf. Aesch. Ag. 333 olixai 8otjv ap.a.Krov
ness ava Ovpoov re rivdaauv Eur. Bacch.
: iv ir6\ei There is a .similar
irpiireiv.
80. Cf. Lucian I.e. bbpard riva fxiKpd transference from sight to sound in 322 f.
Zx ov<Tai- C* v Met. 6. 593 umero levis
- and in O. T. 186 Trend? 5e Xafxirei.
incubat hasta. Stat. Theb. 2. 664 ncbri- 226 Gtipos evvatou Tpo<J>TJs the brood :
f
das et vagi lis thyrsos portare. tviajt-r' — of a beast in its lair. For evvaios cf. fr.
appears to be a Sophoclean middle, for 1 74, and for the concrete sense of rpo<p^
which see on fr. 941, 16. See cr. n., O.T. 1 w
KdS/xov rod irdXeu via,
rinva,
from which it appears that some critic rpoiptf. Eur.
189 p.y)Kdbwv dpvuiv
Cycl.
thought that the verb was or ought to be rpo<pal. Wilamowitz, however, reading
in the second person, and substituted the evvaias, thinks that den, or lair, is the
singular eviafes as more appropriate. meaning required and conjectures <rrpo<pijs
The presence of vfxiv may have caused (coll. tirurrpcxpal, dvaarpo<pai).
him to add £777-. — iroSwv o\X<»>, dancing 227 f. are not easy to restore. The
rout (concourse of feet). Cf. Eur. sentence appears to be constructed .simi-
fr. 322 <pi\t]ndTwi> 6xty. The phrase larly to Rhes. 875 oi yap is <ri reivtrat
appears to me quite suitable to a de- j
y\wcr<r', ws o~i> KOfiweis. Hence I was
scription of the diaaos cf. Eur. Bacch. : inclined to read atrial <pupwv Kara 7X0x7- |
165 rj5ofj.iva 5' &pa...Kw\op ayei raxtiirovv cttis ireivovr' is k\oitt]v rfviyfiivai (or
(TKiprrjaaat Bdxxa. Robert thinks iroSwv Terpafj.fji.ivai), but atrial fs impossible and
impossible, and is inclined to acquiesce irdvo[vr'] is is barely consistent with
in iralduv,though he would prefer kcli the traces. Hunt thought that the letter
&x^-V or MawdSwi' oxXui.
6r)pG>v before ai was k (i.e. icai), but could not
223 f. I have altered the punctuation: find a suitable word to precede it which
Hunt prints a comma after xPVM- a with > might be the subject of ireiver'. He
colons following <rrpi<pov<ri and ydp. He also believed that evai was the remnant
remarks that there is scarcely enough of a perfect infinitive ; but it would be
room for viwv, but no other supplement difficult to accommodate one to the
seems to be possible. <rrp6J>ov<ri, of — context, av appears to be iterative,
mental agitation, as in Plat. rep. 330 D avris, which the recurrence in 229 makes
(the stories about Hades) orpicpovaiv almost certain (av' av\-qv, Murray), is
avTov rrjv xj/vxh" f-V d\r]deis liffiv.— Kari- proved to be Attic by the new Menander
kXvov see cr. n. Against KarrjXvdev it
: (Epitr. 362, Sam. 281, 292). See Wila-
'
IXNEYTAI 255
y\a><ro"q<; iretu^. c]t? kXotttji/ [ . cVar

J
20 auric. 8* a[. 7}r[. . . fxivotv [ . . . . ]a
.J
K7)pvi<[. .] . . t [ ] . K7jpvyfia[. . . 230
kcu TfaJOr* a<f>ei<ra. trui/ 7roSojf Xa^TtV/xacrt
[kJAtjooji/ 6fxov ndfi<f>vp{ r]* eyciri^ta crreyQ. j
ffcatj ravr* a.v dUu? ^ *M/] /*[

<f><ov Jav aKOvcaa gjSc irapaireiT<u.<Tp.€i\jiiV
...[.. .]<£ .
[.Jiyf .] .... voiv v/xas foo'ctJ' 235
Vo[. . . Tt VVfl<f>7)jV €TL TTOtlT avaiTiaV ;
Col. 1 XO. v\)\l<\>o. fSadv^cjve tt\ aucrat ôXov

toOS', ovre yap V€tKO? i^/cgj <f>€pcju
8a[o]v /xaâs ov8' a£et>d[ 5 7roi> credev
238 -.upplcvit Diefal I

9 inseruit pap.' 339 s.|. supple**! Murray j fvfapT} pap.
mowit/ in umgtb. k. Pr. .-/&*</., 1007

>/.' (cretic). The ithyphallic clausula may be
Hitherto it has been treated as illustrated i .
1089.
Ionic l>y the authorities (Weir Smyth, The ends of the lines have been admi-
p. 30M).
.', I. gives aim* rably ras tottd bjf held, Murray. Hunt, I
in 0. C. J.u and elsewhere, and the and Wilamowit/.

cditoi-. have |>erhaps been too hasty in vvu.$a see mi fit.
: â0v(wv« the :
ng it. See alio h. - now

generally distinguished lr.«m
331 The description evidently passes [taOrito\wot, but its original (Homeric)
to the conduct initiated at in.— e**V, meaning is uncertain. Ilclhig, who
restored by Murray where the papyrus formerly explained it as * l>uig-wai>ted
is Bled issdered l>y Hunt not |}I, has since changed Ins mind
and now agrees with Sludnic/ka that the
333 irdp^vpT » • > s ( he ad> meaning i* 'slender, with Miiall
vrrbial aci-. commonly found with (I wan Mueller, Priva/a/t.* p. 8,vi fkiK-
[ebb on .//. ></• i'wvot does not occur in Fair,
1, rhoni. 31 1 in.). in Soph., and in Aescli. the commentators
333 be oil ni])4 tr.i\ •
are not agreed whether it is merely an
than in the actual circumstances' (t.g. 1*
ntal cpith.t
I
applicable to any
i
«Xi>oi^' indrtiaro*). woman, or carries with it an impl
334 waf>air«irawrpiv»v. mad, foolish of luxury and delicate nurture
-apawaiu, which is also used abso- and Tinker on TM. N50 and ('<'..'
rian his/. In Pfndai it i» applied at una.
1 Aarror y&p a* roino wapivaio*. ices, anM the Miise> i<
Hesych. in pp. 171, 175 ;:. wapdwataita I
a. |»), and it is a fair inference
{wapalwatfia), vapdraurroi. 'phix'les iis<c| il as u complin:

33ft f. Hunt states that «W»p dV is epithet to sunnily Iw-auti'ul proportion-"
more suitable (he conditions than />»;*
t<> and elegant apparel.
if, and suggests some test as 33S tjkw Ûpw!
airaioi Qpirwr (dai^tSrwr ). r<*i<><\. a y cannot Ixith • s r)hti o4 ret (cf. for the
be read. In lj6 the first five Icttc: «>4)-
the gap are doubtful, and fn Si 339 eve'. If the text is right) oi'*V
is intended lOCOStTSBH the second clause
ip, is said to l»e inn.ii instead '••»ay,
remains. it would iiui
337 tt. 1 intrndeil, we o(irn )u\ .
«'4' at*,
as appears from (he nuinl«cr of it -

oCM >• ith It 190.
and the cr|uivalcn See also Bui .1 In
wim -h it quite simple, h Iambic II4I Icbb accepted Klmsley's •»>»,
;
256 I04>0KAE0YI
yX^Jrxo"' av /Ltdratds r[* d(£' -qfxojv diyoi. 240

5 p.rj fxe fir) 7r/)OT//aX[a^)79 /ca/cots,
dXX' [evlTrertus /xot Try)[d<£ai>or> to Trpdy-

fx\ iv [tJottois toIo-\J)€ rts vepOe yds c58' dya-
crrais iydpvae Bicnrtv avhd[v
KT, t<xvt' eoV iKeivoiv vvv [rpoiraiv nenaLTtpa, 245
10 /cat TotcrSe drjpcjv e/C7rv[#oto /xdXXoi> di/
dX/cacr/idT[(u]v SîXt)]? [re Treipariqpioiv
vvfx^rjs- ip.oi ya^p ov]/c [dpto-rov ear eptv
6pdo\jjd\a.KTov iv [X]dyo[t<r]ti> [icrrdvai.
dXX' r)o~v)(o<; npocficuve /cat /a[t7Ji'u[c p.01 250
15 drov /xdXtcrTa irpdyixaTO<s ^petav £X€t<?.
XO. T07raj^ dvacrcra Taiv[8]e, KvXXî^s o~0evos,
otov fxev ovveK r)\6[o]v varTepov <f)pdo~<o-
241 /«} pap. 2 : m7 ^ pap. 243 sq. supplevit

245 — 249
Wilamowitz 244 in textu
omissum, in marg. superiore add. pap. 2 suppleverunt Murray et Hunt
24 7 XaKCKT (X.6.TU3V coni. Wilamowitz
and it is not clear that ov8' is justified 247 dXKo.o-p.dTwv might signify
here. — a|€vos, uncivil, as in Plat. soph. '
attacks,' since dXicdfeiv' /J.dxe-
violent
217 E rb Se ad <roi /lit; x a P'L ie<r ^ aL ---^ €V o" ffdai appears in Etytn. M. p. 56, 10;
ti Kara<paipfTai /xoi /cat ayptov. 66, 10. But XaKaff/xdruv (cr. n.), howl- '
240 jiaTcnos, expressing the pre- ings,'would be much more to the point.
sumption of rash folly, as (in another For the gen. (=17 aXxdcr fiaatv) cf. Ant.
sphere) in Track. 565 \f/avet ixaraiais 74 6Tre£ irXeiuv xpbvos \
bv dei fj.' dpioKeiv
X^pffiv. Such recklessness of speech was toIs Ka.ru) twv ivddbe, O.C. 567 tj)$ is
exhibited by Lycurgus Ant. 961 xpavwv : atipiov I
ovdtv irXiov fioi arou fiireffriv
rbv 6tbv iv KeprofJLiois yXibcrcrais. i]fj.ipas. Kuehner-Gerth 11 308.
241 irpoi|/aXd£T|s : see on fr. 550. 249 6p0o«|/d\aKTOv is interpreted by
Here the meaning is :
'
don't assail me Hunt as 'shrill-sounding' (as if for
too soon with taunts.' opdio ). —
The point is obscure owing
242 €vtt€tios : readily. So Eur. Cycl. to the rarity of xpaXdaffu, but it might be
526 dirov Tidrj tis, ivOad' early evirer-/i$ suggested that the force of dpdbs is the
('contented'). same as in fr. 1077. Then the whole
243 vtp0« "yds is of course only a compound would mean ' violently roused ';
guess, although it suits the context very but it must be admitted that this meaning
well. If the sound of the lyre was repre- would not suit 321, where see n.
sented as coming from under the ground, 252 This speech is given by Hunt
it would agree with koltw dovei (282). to the coryphaeus (see on 199 ff.), but by
Robert thinks that is why the chorus Wilamowitz and Robert to Silenus.
went on all fours (noff. ): see also Reasons have already been given for
on 212. agreeing with the former view, and I
244 0t'o-7riv av8dv sounds like a cannot assent to Robert's argument that
travesty of Homer's Oicririv doib-qv (d 498), in that case should have been
rjXdov
\\ hich, by a curious coincidence, is applied 7jX0o/j.ev. — For the periphrasis,
aGt'vos.
by Euripides to the music of the lyre which is also Homeric, cf. Track. 507
{Med. 42.-). 5 fj.ev f\v iroTduov vdivos.
245 ff. The restorations of these lines 254 See cr. n. Theon's variant is
clearly satisfy the sense, even if they do clearly inferior, however we interpret the
not represent the actual words of the text. Hunt rendered '
tell us of this
original. voice which resounds ' ; but, if that is
IXNEYTAI 257
to (f>6eyfia 8' r)filv tox^S''] onep <f>oivei <f>pdo~ov

kol rt? ttot avT(o SifaJâpacrcrerat fiporoyv. 255
20 KT. vfjiaq ftev aurov? xprj ra8' ciSeVcu <ra<f>u><;
a>9 €i (fxtveire top X^Jyof tov ££ ifiov,
avToicriv v/x[u> ^Jrj/xia iropitjerat.

Kal yap K€Kpvn\rai rovpyov iv [^JefGjJf ) ehpais,
"Hpav 07TW5 /x[^ 7rv]or[ij9 t^€T<x[t Xjoyov. 260
-''«
Z[«^]? yt^/3 ] xpv4{aCau cs crrcjyr/i/ 'ArXaiîSo?
[ Jcutraro
Ju .
[.] ^t'Xa?
Col. xi [ ] \i]0r) Trjs fiaBvtfltvov deas.
[Kara crne]o<; Be 7rat8' i<f>iTV<Tev p.6vov.
[tovtou Be j X €P <ri Ta * 9 cV a ' s ^y^
' Tp€<f><0*
354 ro&ro »wi 0wr«( lcgissc Theonem testatur pap. 5 , rovd' 6 wtpt^vwu II. Richards
ming, he was well advised in the i you, in case you rev

1
<d. min. to accept A wtfH^turu, the in- The apodosis to tt fart'trr i> contained in
u correction of II. Richai-U. The f^lfia, and ropiftrai is unconditional,
objection to this course is that $p&$i> is Cf. l*0Cr. 4. 157 dpat woioOrrcu, tt nt
not used by Soph, with an accusative of iwtKTfpvKtvtrai llipoati, quoted by Good-
the direct object in the sense of 'to win g490.
in.' It is simpler therefore to regard 30O oirwf pi), .tfjercu. For the fu-
07r«p 4xgv«i as an laes 'tell us ture indicative with 6wut pr) in a pure
bit sound mean-..' Cf. Phil. 550 linal clause see Goodwin §
Qpaao* 6" awtp y' i\t(at. O. I ->phoc!e* is quoted Phil. icioM n*i rtpoo-
ippdt* ii ri tfrfis. iat...r)nww owui fi)) rt)r r&xv 6\a$$t-
355 aiTu Staâpao-o-iTai Another instance is El. 954 tit
nt 'expre* therewith.' I <ri to) fi\4wu, 6wut to* ai-r6x' >pa pi)
j .
But that is hard ind I should

t <caro*ri^x<it Kraptif, where however Jehli
prefer to suppose that ti ilusion prefers to regard tit oi p\iru as equivalent
>und of the w\ijKTpot> as it tcraitt to a verb of entreaty, ami as followed by
• >f the lyre. Cf. Plat. an object clause accordingly.
dt toll.an. 10 p. 974 B 6 64 d/xuwr ry 292 tt. Hunt supplies rh-6' ij*«, «d
fiapi fifty rim 6$0a\ni>0 ittfiXviirrropra (iwpa^tw iftovXn'-aaro, after Murray.
j* aroi 6iax<ipdrT(jiv. We might Rossi *ch preferred &riyifm, 'ArWnoci
'
who in the World is setting our otturrn Ipunot tin iwmf iytifan, \J*pf+tr
teeth on edge with
it?' Compare the atrip... irij\fit XrJ*p ni
Hut Terughi
use of tatgut-uraper ami
is h perhaps right in Mquirine lh.it
the lik h; for the humour of name should lie mentioned
was enhanced by the satyrs' might guess for 163 nVîft U4*9tu wo6t
lack of musical appreciaimn. WOa -
X^' *»«•'*•»•' ^*ai, r^rî rr, m which
|
. rcrogrii/r case #«&i would as is

. dem sie IMusik) durck suggested by k. //rrm. 6— 9.
rht (p. 4.(1,1.
' but 36* plvov cannot Iw
with taken
Imit
1 that the wafXTiypa+i awloi in the sense of tpmta*. but appa-
'
{pviflhot 107) can used for the soond

l>e fiiilv hclongs to wat6*,~- 'an only rhifd
lecture a^rA Cf. fcur. Mmfr. 10H3 (IVIeus refer* lo
ttax*(*t'T** is mistake Neoptolemu*) rtii n6rov wmtii pint.
367 tov If; Iôv, an emphatic variation 366 The association of Cyllerw
for ror iiU*, occurs al as his nur«e is n
•
rA» *60oi> tor rff ipoi. Jul. 95 rip if, I'hilostcphanu* (

ifiov 6nT0ov\la*. "Pi KfXX4nri (///(/ Ml jo).
3 56 (njila wop^^Toi 'punishment Festu* r.r-. CrlUmm. Robert (y
P. 17
' — — .
258 20<t>0KAE0YZ
[Kahecr/xja /ecu TrorrJTa /ecu /cot/u-ryyxara
[7rpos cni\aLpyavoi<; /xeVoucra Xi/ci/iru' Tpo(f>r)v

[e£ev#]eTi£to iû/era Kai. /ca#' rjfxepau. 270
[6 8' a]v£erat /car rjfAap ovk eireiKora
[a7rau]crT09, <wcrre 0avfxa /cat (f>6fio<; fx ej(€i.
10 [ov7rce> y]<i/5 €KTOv TJ/xap e/C7re<£ao"/u,eV[o]9
[rv7rov]9 ipeihei 7raiSo9 €19 17/8179 olkjxtJv,
[/cd£o/)]a«u£ei kovketi crôkdêrai 27 =
268 K#5ecr/U.a Bucherer: /cdSecrrd Wilamowitz 272 airavaTos supplevi : fityioros

Hunt 273 marg. add. pap.-
7)fi4pas Tre<pa<T/xti>os in 274 ti/ttovs supplevi 7iu«s :
Wilamowitz 275 e7rt<rxoXdferai Athenaei et Eustathii codd. correxerat Meineke :
is probably right in inferring that Sopho- to which Hermes, after inventing the
cles was the ultimate authority for the lyre in the morning, stole the cattle on
statement, and that his object was to the evening of the day of his birth.
avoid the necessity of making Maia For a possible ritual significance see 1- M. .
confess to her intrigue with Zeus. Cornford, Origin of Attic Comedy, p. 87.
267 x €l At*?> €T<u * s often applied to
l
The marginal variant (see cr. n. ), in
physical pain Phil. 1459 'Epnalov opos
: Robert's opinion, implies that the alter-
trap^Tremf/ev i/jiol arbvov clvtItvitov x €L fxa ~
\
native reading was ivvi' ij/jJpas irt<pa-
£on£>>q>. At. 206 Atas OoXeptf \
/cetrai cr/xtvos, since no other numeral is adapt-
Xtip-wvi vo<nt)<ras. The metaphor, though able to it. iKtr($a<r\i£vos, brought forth,
strange to us, was quite familiar to the as in Horn. T 104 arjfxepov fa/Spa. ipbuade
Greeks, so that x^'A"**, x € 'Mfeff # at etc. >
/xoyoarbKos elXdOvia iK<pavei.
|
became technical in medical circles. For 274 See cr. n. The objection to
examples see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 387. yvlois is not that it cannot be combined
Epicur. fr. 452 Us. tt)v a&pica to irapov with iraiSds (which then follows 17/3775),
ixbvov x«M *fc"'-
c but that the instrumental dative, though
268 Ka8eo-(ia (cr. n. ), as co-ordinate grammatically possible, involves an unna-
with the other substantives, is preferable tural harshness of expression. I formerly
which Hunt accepted.
to iSeo-rd, conjectu red txtrpois, but now prefer mow,
260 The word XIkvov
Xikvitiv. which simplifies the construction by pro-
comes from h. Herm. 21. 150, etc. Miss viding ipeihei with an object. With r^fwi
J. E.
Harrison in J. H. S. xxm 294 n-aidbs, ' his childish mould,' cf. Eur.
gives reproductions from art of the XLkvov Hclid. 857 viwv fipaxibvuv . 77/J77T77J' tvttov.
.
used as a cradle, in one of which Hermes Aesch. Suppl. 288 yvuaiKeion tvitois.
is represented sitting up, and looking Soph. Track. 12 (according to the MSS)
at the stolen cows. The liknon-cradle
'
dvbpeitp
tvtt({). So also Aesch. Theb.tf?,
is a wickerwork shoe-shaped basket with Eur. Bacch. 133 1
two handles. 275 f. Athen. 62 F 'Arrt/coi 5' el<rlv
270 !£ev0€Ti£a> is a plausible restora- oi Xtyovres op/xevov rbv dirb tt}s KpaLifirjs
tion, although the compound is new. i^TjvdrjKbra. K&£op-

^.oôkXtjs 'IxveiTais '
vvKTa Kai KaO' T||icpav, night and day fxevifti kovk f7rt(7xo\df«rat jUXdaTT) (fr. '
2 The same quotation occurs in

alike. Cf. El. 259 /car' rump Kai /car' 294 N. ).
ev<ppbv7]v del, and for the absence of the Eustath. //. p. 899, 17, but without the
prep, with the first noun ib. 780 ovre name of the play, and with the variant
vvkt6s .ofir' e£ i/fxipas.
. Eur. Bacch. Kdi-opLievlfeiv oi)/c. Meineke corrected
1009 ij/xap tte vilKro. re. €7ricrxoXdfeTat to in axoXdêrai, and his
272 airawrros: I have adopted view is now confirmed by the papyrus.
this supplement in preference to ^yia-ros, For the remarkable use of the middle
as being more suitable to a#£er<u. see sitpr. 221. —
«|opp.€v££«i. The mean-
273 Kktov rjp.ap. This is a deviation, ing of the word is made clear by the
prompted by dramatic conditions, from following evidence. Phryn. praep. soph.
the version of the hymn (17 f.), according p. 67, 16 (Bekk. anecd. p. 38, 17) i£optxev-
a :
IXNEYTAI 259
fftkaiom)'] rotovBe TralBa drjcravpbs oTeyei.

AcaTacrxc}ro5 [8* cr]' coti tov Trar/)09 flc'trct.
U a<£[ <f>]6eyp.a pr)X airD fiP*lA. ov
Kal 7r[o\]X' £66{jif$ti<;, aurojs rjp-epa. /ii£
€rf u7TTia9 k[ c/x77x]ou>7;cra.TO •
280
rotdvSc ^[/309 cVc rftafdtrjoc, 17801/779
e/ifiecTTou d[ *]al /carou oô^ci].
20 XO. d<f>paa\ro J nous /Joa? (ai/ricrrp.)
7rat8o[ J/xa^€tcr[
07jp€VfxJ[a J- Xeyet[c, 285
(fxomjfjâ \<T€do\J[_
tovo a<f>[ Toj/[
25 TO>9 cfe^f
J
poin <X7ra[
J *![*
tfardf-
Coi xii tos tropi^LV Toidphe yapvv. 290
KT. p.rj wv a7rtcrT€[iJ- ttktjol. yap <rc TrpocryeXj. Oeas cttti.
376 ortyti ex rryn corr., ctiam rpiipti in marg. add. pap.* 377 «aTd<rx<Toi
supplcvi: Jwt«/»*to» Murray 278 iptiryyn pap- 388 /Soift pap. 888 rwf pap.
30O -,j)/h» pap.
ifcir to ol *o\\oi tKpdWti*
<*f0«ijr, ortp on a separate fragment, should be |
Xtyovffw- yip KaXttrai vwb rQv

iiputra a line lower down. In 17H Hunt's d<p**ti
'Arnxurr rd Twr Xaxdrwr i£ai>(H)tiaTa. ol S' 6 **vtt p tfHypA appears to suit the ton-
'ui *cu aftaOtit ravra donapdyoii text for, although QtHyna ^>«j^<u-i)tforo
;
*aXoi-/ic. Hesych. u p. 127 <£op/afWf<tt' is an odd phrase, it is justified by 310.

fcavealAnrst, <»a«x<'<7<»*- I'ollux & J4 In iKoV<1Xa,r1i ron seems inevitable, but
war S< to 1 »f^*^»j»07;«<jt,a»«^ #'»»«» .0 \tjkm h is ditticiilt to find a suitable supplement
Ktôvcwtipntvopuipbuaiop' Kolrbi>w4pupbf for, as Hunt remarks, 'neither nUntt,

<fcu. iiof>ni*i<so.i. In. m die last *c\irj;t (Muriay), nor *6j\vt >-
rtage it seems that tiopfufiiti* might vincing.' On the other hand, 9ipot 4k
used fur JV rw« /o **•<•</, but here we •avdrrot attd Sovti. winch were pro|>osed
should render -imply 'tffimfl forth.' by WU re highly probable, and
fr. 34 111 11H K.) MfTQfxi
1 «{«p- I the same critic's dyyot tvpt (or n*/* •') «<*i
lAt»nor<\,bi<i\'p'i\ Ta\uHxlp*TOi. t
— sSjo-av isan attractive conjecture.— Kdrst i.«\ in :
po«: i m, as a place securely the Câi^.i n. For iw s>»

:itru>ion. .Similarly in M make a vibrating sound, see Bury on
fiiaavpom is applied I'ind. Ntm. 7. 80.
to t! 1 apancus (iparov). 388 f. Kossbach proposes impact or
Miss II says to A'idgrway, p. h* +*iym /mm, but that does not fit thr
cave- following words. The lines arc too much
dwelling was an under -ground storehouse mutilated to be capable of rest or a
or granary like the ctfo. 301 Foi the incur of this and the
277 KaTdVx.rrat has bc< following lines »ee Introductory Note,—
t" but' 1 ground that word vw. long before a * I
— wurra «t.
lira occur wherewith a .
probably rather vpoe-ysAf implies tfaej >l has

lie emotions of the chorus.
378 8. I 1 ; he palaeographicai data Aesch. /V,»«. 861 rt*JW vpMtmipn H
W Ink ecting n Asjiw. 153 6*n+\ flponittw mlfUttf pu
;
lei a possibility that ihc Ik- wpocyi\^. Soph. Ant. 1114 »«iA*i «m
ginning* of the lines 378-180, which are #aiwi «^*ryei. Bar. //»//* 801 rsSrsi >«
17—
; — ;
26o IO0OKAEOYI
XO. kcll 7TW5 nWaiixai rov d<xv6vro% <f>6eyfJL<x tqlovtov
fipeixecv;
KT. ttlOov' 0av(ou yap ecrê (fxovyjv, ôiv 8' aVauSos r? v 6
5 XO. 770105 TtS TfV eTSoS; TTp[o]fJLT]Kr)<S, Yj 'iTLKVpTOS, 7) fipaycVS ;
KT. /3pa^(v<s ûr/awS^? 7ro[i]/a\i7 Sopa KareppiKvo)p.ivo<;.

XO. a)? alekovpos eiKacrai irefyvxev yj t<os Trop&aXcs 296 ;
KT. TrXeto-ro^ /u,€[T]a£ir yoyyuXov yap eo-ri /cat /3pa-

ûo"/ceXe5.
XO. ouS' c!)9 lyvevrfj npcxrcfrepes ire<f)VKev ovS' ok KapKivo)
10 KT. ovS' au toiovt\_6]v icrTtv, dXX' dXkov riv iêvpov
rpoirov.
XO. dXX' ws Kepdar\i)\i Kavdapos StJt iarlv Atrâtos
cf)V7j v 3°°
KT. vvv iyyvs eyv\_(o<;] w /x,dXio~ra tt po<T(j)epe<; to kvcoooXov.
XO. t[i S' av to] (£a)i>[oi)]i' icniv avrov, rotWo? ^ tov^co,
<f>pdcro\v.
292 7 marg. trecentesimo versui adscriptum
in 293 tQiv 5' dvavbos pap., ftD? 5£
»^j[05os?] in marg. add. pap.
2
295 x VTP 01 pap., Tpoxot8r)[s] in marg. pap.
298 ixvev/i[o]vi pap. secundum ed. pr. corr. Zielinski, ixvevrrj in pap. iam invenit
:
^2
Hunt
a<p€v56vijs XP vcr V^ TOV ---'n'P oa ffa ^ vovcr ^
'
M- e - piKvbv I
(Tvcpap ep.bv. Hunt renders it
Rhes. 55 calvei p.' Hvvvxos <f>pvKTupla (of 'curved,' but see Suid. s.t: KareppLKvoipt-
something which demands notice). The vov. <rvve<TTpap.p.ivov Kafivvkov ytvbpuvov,
,
fact that the hearer sometimes experi- ippvriSwixivov, where the last gloss ap-
ences pleasure is accidental the essential : plies to the present passage. Fr. 316
point is that the signs are presented in should not be taken to be a reference to
a form which compels attention. this line.
292 toO 6avdvTos 4>0t'"Yp.a For the : 296 aUXovpos- The form is estab-
retention of the article— 'that such a lished as Sophoclean by fr. 986. t«s here
sound can come from the dead see on '
— clearly = ws. This may also be the case
fr. 870. in Aesch. Theb. 624, where the edd.
293 See cr. n. The riddle is taken strive to construe it as thus. See also Ar.
from h. Herm. 38 ?)v 8i ddvys, rbre nev Ach. 762, where the Megarian is speaking.
fid\a koKov ddbois. Cf. Nic. Al. 560 Stahl however corrects to x&s-
(xeXuvrjv) avdrjeaffav HOr)Kev, dvavbrjrbv 298 See cr. n. The recovery of the
rrep iovaav. Pacuv. Autiop. fr. IV quad- true reading makes it unnecessary to
rupes tardigrada agrestis humilis aspera, consider Wilamowitz's lxve6/j.wi> and
I
brevi capite, cervice anguina, aspectu KapKivos, which were adopted in both of
truci, I
eviscerata inanima cum aniviali Hunt's editions for the fact that ws
:
sotio. For the bearing of the last passage follows iri<pvK€v (iffTiv .<pv7)v) in 296 and
. .
on the question of the date of this play 300 shows that here also it is employed
see Introductory Note, p. 230. in the same way is he not then the
:
'
294 îrCKvp-ros arched. : very image of an ichneumon ? I now '
295 \VTp(o8rjs pot-shaped.

: Cf. think ( with Maas) that ixvevrfy = Ixwup^wv.
schol. Theocr. 5. 58 7au\oi dyyeta x vT P°- Certainly /UpaxvaiceXes suits the ichneu-
ti8ij ya\a.KTo86xcL- But it is difficult to mon, and yoyyv\ov might be explained by
say whether this word or rpoxwSrjs was Aelian's iyicvXlcras iavrbv (nal. an. 3. 22).
the gloss (see cr. n. ). —
KaTtppiKvcojAtvos : 300 f. This is the climax of absurdity,
shrivelled. Cf. Callim. fr. 49 vai fid rb and is fresh evidence (fr. 162 n.) that
IXNEYTAI 261
KT. J^ [« • .Jo/hitj <rvyyovo<; tuxu 6 > <r-

TfHXKOiV.
15 XO. [nolov &€ rovvofx ev ]t/c[7ret]? ; tropcrvvov, ct ti 7rA.[Y]oi>
KT. [roi/ #77/30, /xei/

x € ^ v,/ > r ° t^wôJOf 8' au \vpau 6
ir[ar? jcJaAci. 305
XO. J
. Kriavov tictv[. . .] . tlvl;
Bepfia k[. .]<tt .
[
]ot> <S8[c] K\ayya\veL
\6pu>0KAE0YI
24 "tt, /cot]XaSo9 /c[
21 ,, /cdX]Xo7re<? Se[
24 ,, ]a/x/xaroj[
25 >> ]<>v[
desunt versus unus vel duo

Col. xiii /cat tovto Xv7ny[s] ecrr aKecrrpov /cat TrapaxjjvK[j]r]-
p[to^\v
K€LV(p fJLOVOV, X a [C/0ei ^' ttXvtoV /Cat Tt TT pO(T^)0)v\JjilV
fxeXos
£vix(f>covov e£a[t]/oet yap avTov atoXtcr/u.a ttjs X[v]/3as.
outcu? 6 7rats davovri Orfpi (^dey/x' ifirjâuijcraTô. 3 20
5 XO. 6 < /o#o > i//aXa/cro? rts 6jx(f>d /carotYêt ro7rov,
(°" r/>-)
311 KoiXdSos supplevit Mekler 313 o supra primum a add. pap. 2

318 dXviusv
pap. 321 6pdo\pdXaKTos Murray: o\paXaKTos pap., dirpo^f/dXaKTos Wilamowitz |
6fi<pi) pap.
311 KoiXdSos was restored by Mekler, ^>/)î' wpbs Kijivv XaKilv avXbv.
iâlpoifxt
— aloXicrjia
\
as the tortoise-shell sounding-board (rjxei- Xvpas, the lyres varied

TTjs '
ov). He cited Bekk. anecd. p. 752, 11 notes' rather than 'the cunning device of
'Epftijs ev 'ApKaSia dvao-rpe<pbfj.ei>os evpe the lyre (Hunt).
' Cf. Eur. Ion 498
y
XeXwv.rjv ko.1 8ia.K6\f/as iiroL-qve KoiXiav crvpiyywv vir albXas iaxds vfivwv. Carm.
Xvpas. Gemoll on h. Hertn. 416. This pop. 8 (PIG p. 657) awXovv pvdfwv
seems better than Schenkl's neXabos. Xôvres aid\(f> fidXei. Oppian Hal. 728
312 KoXXoires were the pegs by aydovos aloXo<pwvov. For the description
means of which the strings were fastened as especially suitable to the lyre see Find.
to the $vybv. Cf. Horn. <p 407 pijtSiws 01. 3. 8 <pbp/uyyd re iroiKiXbyapvv. 4. 2
iravvaae vtip irepl k6XXotti x°P^V v - virb iroiiaXcxpbp/xiyyos doibas. i\'c»i. 4.
313
See cr. n. Schenkl suggests 14 iroiKiXov Kidaplfav. Plat. legg. 812 D
Kadafj./xdTwvfrom Poll. 4. 60. rr\v 5' eT€po<pd3vlav ko.1 iroiKiXiav rrjs Xvpas.
317 f. For the general sense cf. 321 The short ode which begins
Shakesp. Henry Fill m. 1. 12 In sweet here corresponds metrically to 362 ff.
music is such art, killing care and grief The metre is similar to 237 ff. —
op6o\J/d-
\
of heart fall asleep, or, hearing, die. — XaKTos, loud

'
cf. '249.
: otJ/clXclktos
\
—
aK€«TTpov: fr. 480.- irapa\|n>KTi]piov is (see cr. n.) is meaningless, and 362 indi-
a word hitherto unrecorded. dXvwv. — cates that one extra syllable is required,
The unfamiliar sound is regarded as so that I follow Hunt in adopting Murray's
a sign of distraction. For the fact see conjecture, but without much confidence
h. Herm. 53 irXrjKTpip iireip r)Tiê /
Kardfj-ipos, that it is right. Wilamowitz does not
rj d' virb x el P^ s crp-epbaXfov
I
Kovdfiyae' explain his dirpoipdXanTos, which, though
debs 5' virb KaXbv aeidev |
e£ avToaxeSltjs presumably based on irpoxp aXdffixu (241),
ireipufxevos. Observe that p.6 vo v. '
he has is by no means perspicuous. Since \paX-
nothing else to comfort him,' prepares d<r<ru was unquestionably used for
the way for dXvwv ('he is crazy with twanging the lyre (Lycophr. 139 roiyap
delight which in its turn is justified
'), \f/aXd£eis els Kevbv vevpds ktvttov, dinra \
by Cf. Bekk. anecd. p. 380, 20,

c£a(pci. KddwprjTa (pop/jilfuv /jUXti), this meaning
giving iiralpeadai sal x al pe<- v as a gloss on must surely have been the chief element
Horn. f333. There is thus no need for in the compound (perhaps diroxf/dXaKTos
Bucherer's ddvpwv. after Philostr. vit. soph. 2. 1. 14 ij yXuirra
319 cgatpci, elates. Cf. El. 1460 ei tt)v aKpav 'Ardida diroipdXXei). Karoi)^- —
Tis avrOiv iXirlffiv Kepais irdpos e^r/per' \
V€i rdirov. The genitive resembles
dvdpbs rovSe. But a still closer parallel iredlojv iirivlcrceTai O.C. 689. It is de-
is to be found in Eur. Ale. 346 otfr' av scended from the old (partitive) genitive
IXNEYTAI 265
TrpeuTa < o av > Sia tovov <J>d(rp.aT ey-
to trpayp.a 8' olirep Troptva) fiaZrjv,

1<T0L TOV 8a[lJ/iOI/' 00"Tt<» 7TO0* O? 335
10 tclvt €T€\mj(raT ovk dMoc. icnlu AcXfWcve, ,
OUT €K€LUOV, yVVQ.1, <T<X<f> Icrdl.

\ &> yC* S \ v *»
o~v O auTL Tojioe fxrj âAc-
4>0XI% ifiol < fxrj > 8c Svcr<f>opr)6j}<;.

333 wptrra a? Hunt: wpirra (sic) pap., sed rp reformavit pap. 1
6' 833 /ra*-
-at legisse Theoncm in marg. tcstatur pap.' 334 olvtp coni. Hunt: oi*»f,>
pap. sed Iitteram v seclusit pap.' 330 ifiol firfii coni. Hunt: tpoi 6* pap., p.r<6i
VYtlamowitJ
of place which sutvives in the Homeric Kur. lid. 1070. dace ovwtp would Ik-
tiutKtcdai xtSioio. But in both cases the scarcely intelligible. Where the verb is
preposition assists the construction see : in the perfect tense, as in 7'riuA. 40, the
rth 4O4. I ay be different. (1) I und<
333 t. See cr. nn. wporrd in agree- olrtp as having a personal refercn
ment ^do-uAra is supported l>y
wirh to TOf bailor' in the following clOM
1. Ill p. 369 wp€TT&' (parTOLffuara, on fr. 191 and cf. Hdt. 9. t okov Si Ik da
tU6**i, wh. unowits suggests, rort yiroiro, tovtovi wapt\dpLftaft Phil. ,
may relate to this particular passage. 456 ff., and for the relative clause put first
Hunt gives two \ Kuehner-Cierth tl 4J0 Anm. j. I"he ex-
plucks local images.' with frav- <>r (:) traordinary' circumlocutions are due to the
8«fi^€i intr.i mtasics flit over chorus Iwing afraid to OCMM 10 tl'
the scene,' like a bird or l>cc from flower (cf. .uS f.). iy tov Saipow' is .m antici-
to flower. I prefer the latter alternative pated accusative, but instead of being re-
ke Theon's variant, which is sumed as the subject (or object of a sub- 1
•
the metre, to be ail acknow- ordinate clause, hulvov takes its place.
nt of the intransitive use of nilar looseness of
i-ra.ytHtiu.sti. But I should prefer to connexions^. iotn. 101. (4) In-
render : bv the straining
'visions revealed stead of the which
chords are spread around us {lyx uP** we are looking, there follow* what now
like a carpet of tl ea the main sentence, as if tVOi
Similarly in Aesch. Lko. 150, where « hich precedes were as much parent hctit
iwa*9l{tip ' to make to blossom ' is trail- as o-d>" to-fli win ion.
here is the same comparison of
1 1117. fr. i8j n.). (5) oVts« trot'©* is
ooad to flowers. The variegated rot*t\la strangely substituted for Sam vor' h* ot.
of the lyre (319) is expressed as d>0»â. an unusual amplification if
If
rbrot of the lyre {iwrirotun) cf. ©Vrit. InC. /. ,u9 &\oi# Sart% ip St kt4.
1
'ihl. who thinks that Hermann cut out >•' 0* /'• y,}, ovStlt At
-
iwa*9tfti[tt mus\\, makes o/t<0rf •'. dXXo« dvr' <Jk«ivov for the
the subject, and ads fyxop&a for f>xvpa.
1 « pleonasm sc> ^tarktc
3 24 S. On the as. ihe t
.otind 111 lie character of a thief

of style and clumsiness of structure are tiut. 'S-rsv
«|uite unlik* let> WibunowiU arrdr wapiSwsar
'.
kmisi vii ;
A fUTtpx^fttu, Translnte rather this is :

'
>K Mf ttwpi WpQ^tfW, Willi
the point to which I am gradually con- in for «t and raiV' for rsuV, ma.
ducting my search (to wp&ytta to wpiypm the anticipated object uf 4t*x
Xpvn* »n MS) whoever l>e the god who
: r^raro, with wi following 1*0%.
devised this trick, the thief i* none 820 BOB CT. n \N hinks
other than he. lady, you may 1st sure.' that this and the preceding line arc not
(1) otwtp seems indispensable here, as in part of the strophe, but form • tetrameter
4 7
264 I04>0KAE0YI
KT. [rt9 exct ir\a]vr) ere ; Tiva kXotttjv wêtSicr[as ; 330
15 XO. [ov fxd Ata cr\ c5 npea-^/SeLpa, êt/xaêtf [cVXcu.
KT. [tcw 8' e'/c Ato<? ySXacrrdJt'ra (frrjkiJTrjv /caX[ei<? ;
XO. [ ] av avrfj rfj /cXo[7n?.

KT. [ e]i ye Tct[X]7?#i7 Xe[y€t<?.
XO. [ TâXr)0rj k€y[<o. 335
20 [ KeKko]<f)€vaL crao/)[
[ J
Be fiovs iravv
[ ]a /ca^T7/3[/x]o[cr€
[ ^XOV T6/XCOV [
[ ]<f>o . 8[o]/oa 340

desunt versus duo vel tres
Col. xiv KT. [ ] a pre fiav0dp(o ^povoi
[ eyx]a<TKOj>Ta rfj '/at} jKopia.
[. . oJuSeV, ctXXa, yapiv.
7raiStct9 345
cru o ow to Aot77ojt' et? evoiav e^cov,
efJL
5 [et (tol <j)epeL -^dp]/^ r\ tl KepSaiveLv So/cets,

[oVeus #e'Xet9 /cajâê /cat re'pnov <j>piva'
332 supplevit Mekler |

<pi\r)Ti]v pap. 336 quatenus processerit stichomythia
non liquet 340 5opa[ pap. : corr. Robert
catalectic closing the preceding acatalectic we cannot feel certain that the statement
series. The text is unfortunately defec- really goes back to the supposed original,
tive at 369, where it might have decided For a similar error see 358 and fr. 171
the question. —
8vcr<{>opT|8fjs implies 8v<r- (xj/ikcHpif. for \j/rfKa<f>q.). The word was
<j>opeladai, of which there is no trace particularly associated with Hermes from
except as a variant in Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 5. the Homeric hymn (292, 446) onwards.
For the passive form of the aorist see on Besides Hellanicus, see Eur. Rhes. 1 1
frs. 164, 837. ye <py)\7)Tuv &va$.

"Epfirjs, 8s CIG 2299
331 annoy, vex, distress,
\ei\i.6X,t\.v, to (Kaibel, ep. n
88) 'Epp.7}v rov KKiirrTjv rls
—in a less severe sense than in 267 (n.). ixpelXero; 6epp.bs 6 KXtwrris |
8s twv <prj\r}-
The use seems to have been colloquial (cf. riwv (px^ &vaKra <p4puv.
Ant. 391), and is glossed with evoxêiv 333 KXoirfj. Hunt thinks this is
by Amnion, p. 146, quoting Menander iv concrete as in Eur. Hel. 1675 (= thing
'Hw6xv (fr. 208, III 60 K.). Cf. fr. 404, stolen), and suggests ov 7' evrvx^v Xafioifi
6 (ill 117 K.) dXV iv aKa\vTTT(fj /ecu raXai- &v. But we might as well have ical yap
TTibp(p fU<p I x eL/xa t8p-evos £rj. fr. 970 doicei XaOeiv av —
for all his thievery (cf.
(ill 248 K.). Philem. fr. 28, 10 (11 162). For the metre see p. 230.
485 K.). 344 f. The gaps are well filled by
332 Mekler's supplement is slightly Mekler with irovr)pi <r' eyxdfftcovra and
preferable to Hunt's fiuv tov Atos iralb" Spas 8' vytes oiide'v. He supposes that
8vra. — >T
lM TTl v see cr n anc^ fr* 933 n
: - - * a new sentence begins with &pn in 343.
Maas (B. ph. IV. 191 2, 1076) reverts to 346 els ty evSiav e^wv at your ease :
the form îXtJttjs, on the ground that it so far as I am concerned, i.e. I shan't
is also supported by the wooden tablet of interfere with you. Cf. Protag. fr. 9
the Hecate, and by the papyrus of Hella- (Diels, Vorsokr? p. 540, 3) evSi-rjs yap
nicus (Ox. Pap. 1084. 3). It is certainly etxero he =
remained
'
undisturbed.'
remarkable that the text of Hellanicus by For eh cf. O.C. 1121 r^vSe tt)v es rdcrde
affirming the derivation from <piXeiv seems p.01 |
r4p\f/tv. Jebb on O. T. 706.
to indicate that he employed <pCXi\Ti)s, but 348 Kd\a£e: At. 199.
- 1
IXNEYTAI 26:
tov nalBa 8' o]vra tov A109 (ra<f>el Xoycj

fi.7) ftXaTrre klv\(ov £v v€(p viov \6yov. 35o
ovto? yap ovre] irpbs narpos KXeVrq? €<f>v
ovt eyyevr)<; fx^JTpojcnv rj kXo7tt) Kparei.
crv 8' aXXotr' ei tJic. cVti, tov kXctttt/i/ (TKOntt
Acat yrjiv a]/ca/37rof tov&€ 8\ ov nXavq. hofxovs,
au/Jei yeVo?, irpocraTm ttju Trovrjpiav .5.",.",
7T/3o]9 OJ/Tl»/ T^KCl* TGjSc 8' OUY OVTCO TTDcVct.

16 a[AAJ ai€i> ci crv 7rai9 #
yeoc. yap utv airqp
360 >upplevi 862 Mj.j. inilia supplevi 854 5' ov wXcwp 5<J/iott scripsi: roii-arcu
iofun pap., & pra r et spiritum aspenim supra ov add. pap. 1 , 8' ov s-<o»7J S6fiot
Wil&mowitz 355
i66 A0pti Wilamowit/ 866 3' ex r corr. pap.'
pap. 867 ettfi pap.
350 ar) pXaiTTi kivwv. I have pn- Philostr. imag. 1 15. 1 ofl rt ru ravra
ferred this to Hunl\ m»? «iir« *-ot£v, xtrla bpwp 6 $tbt may l»e quoted in favour
because to accuse a god of theft is fitly of wtipy.
described as an injurious slander, and 365 aim; see cr. n. I formerly
somewhat more apt (see Blaydcs
ki*C>* is suggested 6kph, but afV« 'respect' is
on Ar. Sub. 1397) than Totu*. 'Stirring much better, and may Ik- recommended
up a new charge against a new-born independently of the reading adopted in
child.' Note the careless repetition of the last line. Cf. Eur. fr. 395 tV iUp
\6yor in a somewhat different sense, and yap tvyiruap airovai* (iporoL Theodect.
see Jebb on O.C i* (= in re- 'N'auck, p. 806) iyw pi* oOror'
lation ;<>i d At. tvyivtia* ijy<o-a. Aesch. fr. 300 -yVrot utr
1092 p.y\...i* $apovo~u> v/Jpiffrr)i yip\). ib. alvuv innaOwr iwlaraîai \i8towiiot yift. '
» inoi ffpao-vt. Eur. Mtd. 106 866 t)K««. ( - wpotrt)Kti). comes fit-
•to* ip \+x tl vpo&orap. tingly, as in O.C. 738 oOt»«x' >M ***
861 irpo\ irarp6%. So rpoi alparot yi*u ra tovS* wtrOti* vfoar' i% r\tl-
I
oj. crow vo\tvt, where, as Ellendt has

868 iyytv^s follows AY. 1328. poi nted out. the passages usually motad
Wil.inv.wiu supplied oOr' afrit ip.— in illustr.ition are not really parall<
xparti fm-ai/s, i.e. maintains itself.
.
Ar. I'lut. 919 (quoted by Hunt) ^c«t
Cf. Thuc. 1.71 draytri 6i dewtp ri\PVi \olves upon.' wpfrst: te. wpot- —
dtl ro iwiyiyirbntra KpartiP. awrti* rip worqplar.
353 II d tv «Xon) •
rlt 4<rn 867 f. The connexion of thought
leave* the sentence incomplete. dXAoc-i appears to lie as follows. ' But, instead
wu suggest' 1
474 p-rprr' dXW« of l>i<l«!i»K you t-
u this rnliculou» charge is
864 Ka'i yVjv Anapmv: or perhaps never cease
Aypop r' &*ap*oi>. Hunt reads Awopop your childish ways though a full-grown :
AtapTof, but Atapmop can scarcely U- the man' (*> *ta»ia* in fr. 310, -y
;K.-rw>n. and the grammatical a thick band' \>.e. no longer jtfipi»H>r .<
ayi*tio%) '
yon are a» a goat
tovS« kti'.: Ml or. 8, If the disappear surfeited with
I hist k
•vas due to haplography, reading xnpy

understands * vou swagger
.
;;ivcn in tl •
.*er to >llow goat-beard '
; 1
Ighsii than the < I Wil- talk a with fr. N4N rt

11 Mm
I unt adopts. The rough 6i a+a&o\t,t s-wXot tv+oppia, and the A
breathi oarse, have been
.
comparison of wanton conduct to thr
r. bat th-it M Ism likely to have skittishnrss «.f an o\ d was •
where smooth breathings

l text •ly familiar. Cf. Ar. Vtif. 1305
lastly. -yVrof, whether dri|XX«/, i«*ipra, 'w.w6pi*t *ayt\a At- |
preceded by ABptt or by n>- wip laxf*'*** opiitof ii'wxW"'- Thcogn.

1
149 t«i', *i> pvtp atnn r»rot, ivtl
than if isolated. On tpiBi* tKoplatifl, I
«M«f rfel rratpmi
;
266 ZO<pOKAEOYI
[^y] a>ia ÂAcoi/ &>? rpayos kvtJkw ÂiBas.

7r
travov to \eiov (f>akaKpbu r)hovfj TTLTvds.

[o]vk ck decjv tcl jJLwpa /cat yekoia -^prj 360
[x]ou>eWa KXaieii' vcrrep , a>? < cr > eyw yeka>
20 XO. arp€(f)ov \vyitpv re p.v$oi<s, birol- (avTMTTp.)
av OeXecs fidîv evpio~K <xtt6-
xJjyjktov ov yap jxe ravra Treuxeis
< o > it cos to XPyt* °vtos eipyacrfJLevos 365
pivoKoW-qTOV a\\(j)v eKXexjjev fSoojv
25 ttov hopa\s f]~\ Vo TOiv Ao£iov.
fxrj fxe ra[crS' e]£ 6Sov fii/3a£e.
desunt versus fere quattuor

358 kvikwl pap. 360
eis Oeovs Wilamowitz \oia XPV in ras P a P« 2 |
- 991 vcrre-
puiTeyaryeKo) pap., r supra prius 7 et varepucreyw in marg. add. pap. 2 , \jo~rep ; tSs
^7w \4yu Hunt, voTipuis, £yu X^yw Wilamowitz 362 sq. /ii/0ots |
biroiav pap.
363 0Aeis ex di\ois corr. pap. 2 365 forws Wilamowitz et Murray: irws
pap I XPVP - ovtos legisse Theonem testatur pap. 2 : xp7lllaT0VT * ~ P a P-
rjXvdes rjiieripovs. The correction el <ru and is scarcely a ponderable alteration.

seems inevitable but Wilamowitz, who
; Hunt, putting a question after (/<rrep',
insists that Silenus is still on the stage reads cSs iyui \eyu, and suggests that
and must be the person addressed, makes <t' should be added after icXaUiv. Wila-
the violent alteration of veos to 7rd\cu. mowitz alters ^*c deQv to els deovs, and
Hunt has shown that the young satyrs ends the sentence with vcrrepus, €70) \£yw
are often represented as bald-headed and (coll. Eur. fr. 499). For the adverbial
that the taunt may be quite well addressed ace. vcrrepa see Kuehner-Gerth 1 310.
to the chorus. Cf. Eur. Cycl. 434 veavias 362 crTp£<J>ov, shuffle, recalls Ar.
ykp el. Ach. 385 (Starkie's n.).
359 Hunt renders 'cease courting 363 f. diro\|rr|KTOv : wiped clean, and
pleasure with your bald pate,' but does so, keen-scented, sharp, acute. The best
not explain the peculiarity of the language. illustration of the metaphor is Hor. Sat.
No satisfactory result can be deduced 1. 4. 8 emunctae naris (of Lucilius). Cf.
from the interpretation of iri-rvds either Lucian navig. 45 kgu'toi evbs rod avayxaio-
as spreadi?ig ox strewing (Hes. Scut. 291). t&tov wpoadei, 6$ irepide'p.evbv ere iravcrei
It is suggested, therefore, that -K'nvr\p.<. is p.wpaivovra, tt\v TroWr/v TavTt)v icbpvfav
used here in the figurative sense of to flut- airoi-vo-as. 343 A Kopvfwvra
Plat. rep.
ter or excite, a meaning which is perhaps wepiopq. diro/iVTrei deb/ievov.
Kal ovk
justified by Horn. cr 160 §7rws irerdcreie Hunt, however, prefers to understand
fidXiara \
8vp.6i> pLvrjcmfipuv , and by <ppiva.s the word, which does not occur else-
eKireireTacr/xe'vos if that is read ib. 327. where, as equivalent to well-groomed,' '
360f. See cr. n. 'Take care that i.e.elaborate; and Wilamowitz gives it
the gods don't punish your foolish jests, —
an active sense removing suspicion, ex-
and give me cause to laugh at the tears culpatory. —
For the redundance of rawTa
that will follow.' The order of the words cf. O.T. 1058 ovk b\v yevotro tov6\ Situs
shows that considerable stress is laid on £yu}...ov (fxuvui tov/jlov yivos.
ck Occov, for which see 11. on fr. 326. The
final clause ws &y<o yekv ironically repre-
365 to xpô. cf. 136. ptvoKo'X.-
ff.
Xtjtov is not complementary to the verb

•"
—
sents the natural result of an action as (proleptic), but is employed in accordance
the purpose of the agent. Cf. e.g. Horn. with the common Greek idiom, which
B 359, atrrtadw 77s V7j6s...6(ppa ttpbaff' used to be known as the tertiary predi-
aWiov 66.vo.tov koX tt6t/xov iirlawrj. The cate. Translate now, since the thing
:
'
addition of <r' improves the antithesis, that he made was of glued hides, he could
IXNEYTAI 267
X(). 6 Zjcuc. yap [

KT. 6] irals k\o[it
XO. ci] toi novq[pa Spa, novrfpos wv Kvp€i. 375
KT. kJcucgj? d*ou[eii> ov npentL A105 ydi/<w.
I XO. e]t 8' ecrr' aXrjÔrj, y^prj fie /cat Xe'ycii' ra8e.
KT. o]u /i.77 rarS* [citt^?.
KT.
XO. 380
KT.
JOXO.
KT.
XO.
KT. 385
XO y.[. ...]a
1:. KT. 7ro[v] #cai y8da<>
v [
ve/iovac t[
XO. 7r[X]«ioi;5 8c y' tJSt; i/v»/
[
KT. Ittt <*> 7TOVrjp\ €\€L ; TL 7rX[
XO. 6 7rai9 09 tuhov icrriv iyKtK\rj\p.ivo<;. 390
KT. [to]»> 7rai8a 7ravo"cu toO Ato? [*<!*<£<» Xe'ycui>.
n xo. wfajvot/i' [a]i/ [ei] ra? /J0O5 ti? e[

KT. 77017 pc 7r»{ijy€i5 *al <rv â[ t fto€<; ariQtv.
80O 8? Wilamowiu ct Murray: to3 pap., nap W 901 oi'
supra Tauffaj (i.t. wai-ou) add. pap.* |

rbf ±161 Wilamou 083 6 in marg.
qoadringentt li adscriptum 80S wft[ . }y«tf pap.
not have »to!cn them from any other with the general rule, if it is. desired
cattle than Apollo's. Don't try t<> turn to lay the chief ItNBI 00 the genitive.
me from this track.' —
For the pre-
tfl
'wi. Iiut there are many example*, where the
position accompanying the second noun attributive genitive follows the governing
r. IId. 863 Ipoiat ffwOrlt M noun without a re|>ctition of its article.
*aw6 (iapftdpov x for 61 and see on fr. 20.
, Sec Kuchner-Gerth I 464, Amu. 1. 1
— 68ow the metaphor of the trail is re*

: 303 impleted the line
\\
newe<l froa with »'$*\ar 04\ot, which i» Nloptl
37ft If the sense is correctly restored, Hunt. Hut wavoip' 4v catmot Ik- intran-
it may be illustrated by Eur. fr. 336 sitive i 1 ,;ht of
• pi* y&p iffK&i t6*y«ri>f 'fw/' irfo rrV. Xw0*rt 9* y/r*) in .»gr),
ick, p. 780) yipoii t' and take wai-cai as aor. inf. art. Iiut
tTati>6i fori* dtrâA/crraroi | *ar' Ar6p' the variant trai'-ov shows that waiaat was
imawti* 5<rrit ft> ii*ann j | rp6wo\i r regarded a* an imperm: this 1
dpi <r tot. rouror ««/>«» n «a\- nt i» improbable.

• Probably then
380 HOMfcftdi "inplctcs
> the imc we should supply rf V£<»., tr... m
with ri trXfiorat Xryt" Mekler suggested
•' \vyof) \nvhow il*\i* as
W tr\a-yidf«tf trdXir (' what new trick is present infinitive i» Iwttcr avoided.
80S .'•»/. 573 Ifr 1*
801 Bm Cf. n. rAr .fcAt, proposed with the , 1.
amowitz, would l>e in accordance comic tone indicated by the use of * •

268 Z04>0KAE0YZ
XO. [. . .]Xeto-e7r/3[. . .]v[ . i]$€\avi^_
desunt versus fere undeviginti
Col. xvi TreXedoLS fiotov [ 414
desunt versus fere duodecim
Col. xvii
430
5 XO. LOV LOV I
v » v I
t]VT €(p7) •[
OVT05 OV <£[
21. gj A[o£ia
tw 8[ 435
10 XO. cS Ao£ia Se[
/ecu 7ra/o^[
T6JV [j6]o6j[l>
An. [.>« .
[
e[.]et[ 440
15 /3o[
07T0[
jXLcrdbs [
eA.ev#e/)o[ 445
20 21. rov ey[
394 a7ro\et <re coni. Murray 414 columna omnino periit, nisi quod verba
ir]e\tdois (ioQiv Theonem legisse in marg. testatur pap. 2 431 post lov lov litterae
ir[.]7. deletae sunt 432 t ex 5 corr. pap. a
For word see Blaydes on Ar. Nub.

this had learnt from the chorus of the success
1036, who shows that it is commonly of their search. Consequently he tells
used in the New Comedy as well as in them that they have earned their rewards.
Lucian. L. and S.'s account is incom- Probably Silenus also reappeared at this
plete. — For the contemptuous pronoun point, whereas Cyllene had retired dis-
(X<u /36es aidev) see on fr. 165. comfited. We might suggest that the
394 Murray's cnroXei <re is plausible, suspicions of the chorus had been con-
but it is difficult to complete the line, firmed by some visual evidence, which
unless the speech of the chorus extended prepared the way for their triumph.
beyond a single verse. Hunt concludes that a single column has
414 For the palaeographical data been lost between 394 and 431, and so
bearing on the position of this column much space at least seems to be required.
see Hunt's note. 445 (Xeijdepoi 5' <-<re<r6e rbv iravra
431 ff. The remains of Col. xvii Xpbvov (Rossbach), but \oiir6v should at
appear to belong to a scene in which any rate be substituted for the unmetrical
Apollo had returned to the stage, and TrdvTa.
1
IXNEYTAI 269
315
imjXara £v\a
TpCyoji<f>a Staro/acvcrat ere Seirat
315 Pollux 10. 34 nipt) Si /rX/njt appOM that it means 'firmly-bolted,'
-.}\ara iced iwWKurrpo*, rh \U* ft iwl- and that rpi- has the same force as in t/m-
<iwrpor vwo ' ApurrtHpdrovi (fr. 44, 1 yipvr, rpfdocXot, TptrdXat, rpivcwoGpyot,
33 K.) tlprjtUfof Lo^xuYip 3' «> 'X-^ytv- rpiffi$\ioi and many others. (.) dcaro-
iTf (Tarvpoti t(p7j 'iw^\ara...dtiTai.' ptC-ffaiis not to bort through, but to
Rutherford (New Phryn.
167) pro- p. engrave, chase; and, although it may be
\ nounces these words to be 'too corrupt an error for biaropfjoai or tmropth fft,
to convey any meaning.' The conjec- the corruption |g not likely. ( )n the other
tures hitherto recorded assume that the hand, the context does not sugge-t an
sense required is ' the posts must be allusion to To/xt-run) for, although the
;
Ewith thuis)
nails.'
conjectured
Thus Pauw (after
Tp<y6ti.<poii
bedstead of Odysseus was adorned with
gold, silver and ivory (Hon. ^ 200), the
StaroptCffu d«i\ and Yalckcnaer on Phoen. virh required here must have been appro-
Il86 (ll 79) trhXara rpiyofx<pa oiaroptiv priate to (v\a. Put ropti'tif and its
fft 6<i, omitting {</\a. Lobeck (Phryn. cognates are constantly confused with
J) gave as alternatives <m}Xara ropftvtir etc. and ot&ropvtiti*, to finish
;
|iA < ovpyi > y6n<pott Staroptu> fft 6u, and off with the lathe, is exactly what we
ivrfXara if,~f ofi<f>a biarpffjal fft tti, with want I
I suggest, there-
the obscure comment spondas prius ad '
fore, that we should read something like
eum finem perforates ffvyyofxftiaai.' Hut (t/Xa itrtfXdrup Tpiyofx<pa SiaropftOotui
I
none of these suggestions is satisfactory. ttirat, or pei haps -.imply biaropfti-fftrai.

iv^Xara are the four posts or bars ' bed- — In Aclian NT.
hist. 14. 7 perhaps diarop-
which, when jointed together, form ptv$ivrt% would be an improvcm
the framework of the «X/#i» they are ; StaroptvdirTtt (cf. iworopm-wi. I find
supported by the feet, which are screwed that iilaydcs has suggested irhXar' orr
into tti' 1. 1 p. 103 tpfura- rptyofjupa ropftOcal fft dti, besides alter-
witba cXirr/r arb roO ittlptodat t<# rrr/Xdri^. natives and llerwerdcn rViJXara
;
Phryn: states that upeurHipia

i
.) rwr> rplyofiâ < roXXd - ropptvffai fft
is the correct Attic term for /rtjXara, but im. R. Kllis conjectured biarbpti-r' iwo-
there is no material to test his authority, (Offal fft tti. It should !«• added that
i
>aning is placed beyond doubt by Robert guesses that Hermes pad
cealed the lyre in his mother's bed, and
in Pauly-Wissowa til 370. The interpre- that we should read Sti rpiyofiQ' «V*}\ara
tation of rp.Yoâ and Staropoe-tu is I <rOr> iiaroptOffai (? ttaropifffat) 9'.
doubtful mt I think it is possible to

; I the facts were as supposed, the
if
get nearer to the truth. (1) The sense method proposed for discovering the lost
usually given to rplyoufa, 'fastened with would be a very strain.
three nails,' is absurd. I should rather -—For Schenkl'i view see on fr. 31 4. 309.
316
piKvovcrdai
316 I'hot. far, p. 4H0, 1 d/TX'?Md«'«*t. Mori .: ,mooi>f»ar
pucpouff0tu' rd &t4\Kiff0ai cai warrodat-wt rd a>x*>Mdr«^t «i»t<Vt>a. There
oiaffTp4$4O0«n tar' tltoi. \4yrrat cal H was alv> the iom|>ound diafy«-r<H *tfa4
piKrorortcu (htyroOffvai Phot.) rd -<m»*iXo» I
ylyvtff$ai do-giMidi-Wf ««• *«rd ofrovffla* of dances and defined a> rd r^v defdr
koI SpX 1 ^' 1 **M*'rorra r*>r deffe'v. Zo- ôon-wt wtptayit*. T<> the effect HUM
0o*\î 'Ixrrvrcui. . 170. 5. vlsOqtMNi Kêrtff
;>i*rovff$af d<f\««tftfcu «ai rcu-To (1. Kpanrot) Tp o+wbf (fr. 1
darwt &iaffTpi<f>tff9ut (iut^ptffvtn cod.) ff^t^f
lemma
<ai eeddif* ««i fca i«>» ^
«ar' (Idol. p. 431 p«xroi«-0a.- «n>((«r0O4 is not a r efer ence to fr II .
270 IO0OKAEOYI IXNEYTAI
317
31 7 This scrap is taken from Ox. case of which presumably occurred in

Pap. IX 1174 fr. 26, and is reproduced the Ichneutae, isa new word.
here, because ^pdêv/xa, an award, some
318
/3ovK\exjj
318 fiovicXtTp Dindorf : fiooiicXexp A, /3o<k\e^ C Eustath., poln\e\(/ Musurus
31 8 Athen. 409 C r^rpififiai oiKdrpiij/, 16 de B. (= Bekk. anecd. p. 11, 33).

Kiic\ep.nat (C : KticXafifiat A) j3ovic\e\l/ The discovery of the Ichneutae papyrus
napa Zo0ok\« Eustath. Od.
'Epfj.r)s. makes it all but certain that 0ovK\tf
p. 1401, 15 to the same effect, but without occurred in that play. The fragment
the last three words. DindorPs conjecture was formerly numbered as incertae sedis
2
is confirmed by Phryn. praep. soph. p. 17, (932 N. ).
End of Volume I
Cambridge: printed by j. b. peace, m.a., at the university press.

I
APR 8 w3
BINDING SECT,
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SUPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO UBRARY
PA Sophocles
U13 Fragment*
Y9
1917
v.l
7*

Pearson - The Fragments of Sophocles - 1 - 1917 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pearson - The Fragments of Sophocles - 1 - 1917 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3> 7y o

#fto gorft: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

All rights reserved

THE book has been delayed by various

ultimately to include the Fragments in his edition of Sophocles;

anticipated that the publication of the Fragments would be

magnitude or the difficulty of the task.

and hardly anything in such a shape as could be adapted readil)

They were chiefly the record of first impressions drawn up wit!

source, but made without much exercise of independent research

quoted Jebb's notes, where I felt bound to argue in favour of ;

different conclusion. But my guiding principle has been this

at the truth by a patient sifting of the clues suggested by com

solution which he considers probable by canvassing the views o

It will now be apparent that not only the responsibility fo

everything that appears in these volumes is entirely my own,

fortunate in being able to quote renderings made by J ebb and

to make myself acquainted with published results, although

the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund and the Delegates

during the Roman and Byzantine ages, confining myself par-

advantage of the occasion by the preparation of a compre-

he obtained a commission in the Army on the outbreak of the

phere of tragic vocabulary and grammar. At

of the language would bav<

printing of the book was seriously delayed by the stress of

throughout received from the Syndics of the Cambridge Univer-

§ i. The number of the plays XU1 — XX11

§ 2. The subjects of the plays .

The sources of the fragments xlvi -xci

lkAC.MENTS Of NAMED PLAYS :

Introductions, text and notes 1 — 270

The anonymous Life of Sophocles 1 records on the authorh

; KaWifxtixou 7uVa*a<? 4 Not much is known of the book in

tion, but it may be taken to have contained corrections and

enlargements of the well-known irivaKes of Callimachus, which

of interest drawn from the SiSaaicaXiai of Aristotle 8 .

Suwlas, however, reports that Sophocles produced 123 pi..

and according to some authorities considerably more. This

« xi p. hv Ml. f x « ti ipdfiara, ut e^i* 'Apurro+drnt, rf«arir r(»&K*m, rrirm «

Life, which followed the authority of Caristius of Pergamum

twenty and, according to Diodorus, only 2 eighteen. The last-

mentioned statement is now confirmed by the evidence of a

the Life 4 that, in addition to the twenty victories, he several

it is impossible to determine whether the plays written for that

occasion were or were not included in the total number assigned

very probable, that the number of victories recorded by Suidas

victories is the cause of the discrepancy and a parallel has ;

been found in the case of Cratinus, who, though credited with

plausible, and it would perhaps be unnecessary to look further,

in the history of tragedy 1

room for exhibition at the Lenaea, so that, if performances at

that he left only three plays ready to be included in his thirty-

• Vit. t-Ht. p. 4 I)inl ; •; Ihe latter paaaagc h

information is available in relation to Sophocles. Yet the

the history of the other tragedians, forbid us to believe that

has shown 3 that satyr-plays in particular often failed to survive,

for the present purpose we must confine ourselves to the

order or nearly so. The improbability of the double assumption

ins of Mcnander entirely confirms this conclusion. An

would not involve any serious difficulty.

least 132, hardly any doubt that this total must be

reduced for the purpose of ascertaining the correct number oi

double titles have been counted as single plays in the reckoning