EURIPIDES

HELEN

EDITED WITH

INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY

BY

A. M. DALE

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1967
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W.1
GLASGOW NEW YORH TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON

CAPE TOWN SALISEURY IBADAN NAIRGHI LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA

BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LARORE DACCA

KUALA LUMPUR HONG KONG TOKYO

© Oxford University Press 1967

PREINTED iN GREAT BRITAIN

 PREFACE

In preparing a commentary on the Helen I have tried first

and last to interpret. This may seema statement of the
obvious, but is intended as an apology for many short-
comings. The book is not an ‘edition’, properly speaking,
since I accept the aim of the Press in reprinting Murray's
text and so, among other advantages, keeping the price
within undergraduate reach. It depends on no new examina-
tion of manuscripts—for careful correction of some points
in the apparatus criticus the new Teubner edition (1964) of
K. Alt may be consulted, and testimonia are easily accessible
in this or in Grégoire’s edition in the Bude series. But the
most important task of any interpretation is to try to deter-
mine as best one can what Euripides wrote. This is inevitably
a wide-open question in a play which like the Helen has so
limited a manuscript transmission, and the commentary
therefore, which is aimed mainly at undergraduate level,
may seem disproportionately occupied with textual questions
and in places awkwardly out of relation to the given text
(though often a defence of it against other prevalent
versions). But it would after all be impossible to ‘interpret’
a text in which one did not believe. I have wasted little time
over cruces that seem to me insoluble. For the sake of
clarity I have indicated (Appendix IT) those lines of dialogue
where I should have actually ventured on revision if I had
been reconstituting the text; most of these are, naturally,
an eclectic gleaning from the labours of other scholars, to
whom I make acknowledgement in the commentary. A few
record my own suggestions or rejections. For the lyrics a
complete text by strophe and antistrophe is given with
metrical analysis in the course of the commentary.
These analyses are naturally not intended for beginners
in metric, nor did this seem the place for lengthy explana-
tions of the terms used. The relevant sections of the com-
lv PREFACE
mentary are reasonably self-contained, and all the essentials
will, I hope, be found in my Lyric Metres of Greek Drama
(C.U.P.), which should before long be available in a revised
second edition; this contains in particular an expanded
section on aeolo-choriambic metres.
My warm thanks are due to Professor G. Zuntz for making
available to me, before its publication, the text of his in-
valuable Inguiry into the Transmission of the Plays of
Euripides. 1 make no apology for having lingered in more
detail, in Commentary and Appendix I, over the questions
raised by that section of his book which deals with P.Oxy.
2330 and the new light it has shed on the text of the Heien,
since his discussions, here and elsewhere, have made this a
problem of particular interest to scholars. | am also grateful
to Mr. W. S. Barrett for a stimulating discussion by corre-
spondence of the Recognition Duo, and for sending me,
with annotations, an unpublished paper (pre-P.Oxy. 2336)
which ilustrated how far an exact and sensitive analysis of
our old texts can take us in a proper understanding of the
spirit of this passage.
I am as ever deeply indebted to my husband for many
hours of reading, discussion, and criticism, and also for
indispensable help in many tedious tasks at the final stages.
I should like also to make special acknowledgement to the
infinite patience and vigilance of the staff of the Clarendon
Press.
A. M.D.
Loudon
day 1966
 CONTENTS
Vi
ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION
1, Euripides and the figure of Helen
τι, The Legend of the Phantom-Helen
til. The Place of the Helen in the Sequence of
Euripidean Tragedies.
iv. The Text

TEAT

COMMENTARY
APPENDIXES
1. Papyrus and Manuscript
11, Suggestions for a Revised Text of the Dialogue

INDEXES
 ABBREVIATIONS
LS Liddell-Scott—Jones, Greeh-English Lexicon,
ed. ὁ.
Roscher GRM W.H. Roscher, Griechische u. rémische Mytho-
logte.
Goodwin MT W. W, Goodwin, Syntax of Greek Moods and
Lenses. ]
Denn. GP J. D. Denniston, Greek Particles, ed. 2.
Jackson J. Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica, 1955.
Page PMG Denys Page, Poetae Melict Graeci, 1962.
Wilam. GV ΤΠ. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische
Verskunst
Wilam. SS U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Sappho und
Simonides.

METRICAL NOTATION
— vx long, short, anceps
xo τ

τ long anceps, short anceps (the latter rarely marked).

wie resolved long
brevis in longo δὲ line-end
long contracted from double short
Ϊ period-close
For the symbois d and s used occasionally in the First Stasi-
mon rro7 ff. seeCQNn.s.1, p. 21. Briefly, d= —vuv—, 5 = ὦ.
ds = Ne, sd TM ee A dds TS eee
vim, ddd = —vu--uu--uvu-—, They are here simply as
a suppiementary notation for the convenience of readers accus-
tomed to this way of defining vague terms like ‘enoplian’, ‘aeolic
hexasyliable’.
 INTRODUCTION
I. Auvepides and the Figure of Helen
WHAT are we to make of this play? Helen is one of the
supreme figures of Greek mythology, daughter of Zeus and
radiant exemplar of the power of Aphrodite, the living
symbol of all men’s desires for beauty, married to men of
a little less than herotc stature, sinning and bringing destruc-
tion to a city and death to thousands yet herself curiously
unscathed and undimmed by it all. Neither Homer nor
any of his heroes sits in judgement on her, and we last see
her in the Odyssey restored to domestic tranquillity. Even
when, by a later generation of poets, she is execrated as
a traitor and adulteress, she is half-recognized as no ordinary
human sinner but a scourge used by the gods to work the
havoc they have planned among men. Later legend (Paus.
3. 19. 11), dreaming the ideally appropriate, unites her on
a kind of Blessed Isle to Achilles—the fairest to the bravest.
Tragedy, recognizing the impossible, did not dramatize
the central incidents of Helen’s story, but took it up
obliquely. For Aeschylus, who assumes the straightforward
Homeric story, Helen was daemonic: the Chorus of the
Agamemnon, meditating on her destructive power, tell the
parable of the man who kept a lion-cub that was bright-
eyed and appealing, until one day its wild nature broke out.
One does not blame a lion-cub, nor even an ‘Exinys, bride of
woe’. In Euripides she descends to human level, and behind
her move on occasion the puppet figures of the Judgement
of Paris, that naive accretion of folk-tale which had at:
tached itself in Cyclic epic to the figure of the shepherd-son
of Priam, and was available thenceforward for exculpation
or accusing rationalization. From Andromache, Hecuba,
Electra, Iphigeneia in Tauris to Iphigeneia ai Aulis, where-
ever the subject touches the Trojan War, Helen is never
spoken of by actor or sung of by Chorus without a passing
vill INTRODUCTION
curse of hatred and ill will, venomous or hopeless according
to mood. In Troades and Orestes she is a subordinate actor
in the play, in the former false, fluent, and self-righteous,
engaging with Hecuba in the debate which makes rhetori-
cally articulate all the ambivalence of her actions and moral
responsibility, in the latter a lightweight, almost a trivial
character whose deliverance and apotheosis make as it were
a casual mockery of the realities of human desperation
around her. And in between the Helen of Troades and the
Helen of Ovestes comes the Helen of the play named after
her, a faithful innocent wife, victim of a diabolical plot of
the gods and the total misjudgement of men, The Judge-
ment of Paris was a lamentable fact, and the origin of her
misfortunes. She has no vanity even—-when she has to
feign mourning she cuts off the locks that in Orestes her
namesake will so artfully spare, and wishes without in-
sincerity she had a plainer face. She is sce to Menelaus,
careful to play down her superior cleverness and to build up
his heroic part in their coming escape. If we still feel her
eventual apotheosis, foretold by the Dioscuri, a shade in-
congruous it is because she has such perfect wifely charm
and tact.. ἢ
One thing is quite clear: this is no ‘rehabilitation’ of the
Helen of Homer and tragedy. That task had been under-
taken (in prose argument) by Gorgias the Sicilian rhetor and
sophist, just to show that it could be done if you were clever
enough with words. But Euripides’ heroine is quite simply
a different woman, with a different life-history. All the
hatred and the execration, like the actions which called
them forth, are there, current in the world about, but at-
tached to the Phantom. When Euripides in later plays
reverted to the Trojan War or its consequences, all he had
to do was to re-embody the εἴδωλον, and the Helen of this
play became the disappearing phantom.
Is the whole of it then just a light-hearted interlude,
a romantic play where the sun shines and the sea is a
sparkling blue and the characters are bathed in a golden
 INTRODUCTION 1x
brightness and their sufferings need not trouble us since we
know all the time that they are only a foil to the happy end-
ing? Helen has been seen as romance, or romantic comedy,
or melodrama, or romance-coated anti-war manifesto. But
none of these is a satisfactory description; they are either
too loose and encumbered with modern associations or too
narrow. For Euripides and his audience the Helen was
a ‘tragedy’, and that concept is a hospitable one, embracing,
for instance, within no great numberof years this play, the
Oedipus Tyrannus, the Philoctetes, and the Bacchae. All are
composed and presented within certain established conven-
tions, all are about figures taken from the national heritage
of legend, moving in that world, and treated with funda-
mental seriousness. Within these limits the tragedy may be
grave, terrible, exciting, witty, inventive; it may end
happily (though only after troubling vicissitudes) or in catas-
trophe ; the issues may vary greatly in profundity but there
must be issues at stake, and something must emerge, how-
ever darkly, fitfully, or enigmatically, about the dealings of
gods with men.
Helen, then, though not tragic in our sense, is a Greek
tragedy. But within the source-matrix of inherited myth
there are some stories sprung originally from folk-tales
moulded on age-old story-patterns ; 5 when these are adopted
as the basis of tragedy they impose inescapably something
of their own development and outcome, and the expectation
of spectators or readers is geared accordingly. Whatever
the briluance, the diversity of a poet’s individual adapta-
tions of stories of this type, the audience know as well as
he does that if the situation involves a recognition of two
people, a male and a female, long lost to each other, of whom
the latter is in some sort of durance or distress, then either
the recognition will of itself bring about deliverance (as with
Ion and Creusa, Hypsipyle and her sons), or a further
stratagem will achieve rescue.. The leading characters are
1 Cf. especially Ἐς Lattimore’s excellent Story Patterns in Greek
tragedy, Athlone Press, 1964.
x INTRODUCTION

so represented that the audience is enlisted on their side;

and then success is assured, opponents overcome. Ii the
main object is escape, the planning and carrying out of the
scheme will absorb much of the interest of the drama; if it
is revenge and the overthrow of usurpers (as in the Odyssey,
the literary prototype of such stories), there may be at
times a grimmer note, but all will depend upon the por-
trayal of the victims—the killing of a cardboard tyrant or
wicked stepmother can hardly affect a ‘happy ending’. it is
not quite safe to guess what the ‘tone’ was of such plays as
the Cresphontes or the Antiope or Sophocles’ second I'yro,
even though we may suspect them of being no more ‘tragic’
in the modern sense than the Helen or the Iphigeneia in
Tauris. On the other hand, no one could have guessed from
a summary of the incidents of the Jon what curious, bitter
cross-currents would trouble its romantic flow. The story
of Orestes’ revenge can in terms of a structure of incidents
be made to sound rather like the Cresphontes, with the son
of the house growing to manhood in exile, returning and
finding by ‘recognition’ a female accomplice, and slaying
the evil-doers and usurpers; but the identity of one of the
victims transforms the story’s nature. The position of the
Choephoroe in the grand design of the Oresteva trilogy makes
the recognition-and-stratagem category wholly irrelevant.
Euripides in his Electya turns aside to mock the naivety of
his predecessor’s contrivance for ‘recognition’, but annthi-
lates no less thoroughly than Aeschylus any possibility of
considering the outcome in terms of ‘successful stratagem’.
It is Sophocles, strangely, who gives us a play’ which from
summary description, and in its excitements, might seem to
qualify as a play of untragic, rewarded endeavour. Indeed
Orestes himself is shown in no other relation to Clytaem-
nestra than as her successful murderer, but that is because
the inwardness of the drama is concentrated in Electra, in
showing how she has become a woman passionate im loves
t His Electra was probably produced in 413 B.C., a year before the
Helen; see commentary on rose if,
 INTRODUCTION ΧΙ
and hates, whose nature can only be fulfilled in reunion with
Orestes and the long-awaited vengeance on her father’s
murderers.
Helen has no such tragic notes, and in the Prologue we are
given a strong hint, in the promise of Hermes quoted in
lines 57~-59, that the ending will be happy. One would expect
the audience, knowing the tranquil end of her story in
Homer, and perhaps recalling the novelty a year or two
before of the [phigenera, to settle down to enjoy vicissitudes
and excitements rather than a purging of pity and fear,
especially as the legend of an innocent Helen in Egypt was
certainly known to some. The Prologue in fact brings
Helen’s fortunes to their lowest point; she describes her
years of exile suffered under the world’s hatred, with now
the new threat of forced marriage; then Teucer brings her
up to date in disasters of which she had been ignorant-—
above all, that Menelaus is missing, believed dead. She has
indeed much to lament to the Chorus. Perhaps the Greek
audience had a capacity greater than ours of immersing
itself sympathetically in griefs eloquently expressed, so that
it was less conscious of a distinction between pathos and
tragedy. But Eurrpides does go further here than in any
other extant play in distracting us as it were in the midst of
gloom by nicely pointed ironies of situation, flashes of wit
in the dialogue, even by a half-comic tone in the depiction
of Menelaus’ bewilderment. These, which for Greek taste
wouid be out of place in a ‘tragic’ tragedy,' contribute much
to the equilibrium of the play as a whole. Thus Helen
enumerating her sorrows (255-305) can start with her birth
from an egg; Menelaus has his delightful dialogue with the
Portress and is worried about his clothes and the necessity
of begging. But the comic aspect of Menelaus should not be
pressed too far; he is no ‘parody of a hero’, but merely
a hero in a predicament where no amount of courage or
resource could possibly have availed him; so Euripides has
1 The familiar instances of the Nurse in Cho, and the Guard in Ant.
are quite different, involving only anonymous minor figures.
xii INTRODUCTION

chosen to extract amusement instead of pathos from what is

in effect a second Prologue (386-—s14). The variety is pleas-
ing; more pathos would have been monotonous. In the
Recognition and its after-lyric Menelaus is treated as
seriously as Helen, and if in the planning of the Siratagem
Helen’s wits are quicker than his, it is common Euripidean
form that it takes a woman to devise a clever μηχάνημα.
There are one or two perilous moments in the sequel—in
1204-5 the manner of his emergence from hiding, and pos-
sibly Helen’s speech in 1369 ff., if he comes out of the palace
then rather than at 1390 (but the text is ambiguous}.* But
in general, and especially in the escape, his portrait 1s now
given full heroic stature, and his ultimate translation to
bliss (foretold at 1676) is made to sound better earned than
in Odyssey 4. 561 Τί. :
The plotting and carrying out of the escape take up most
of the second half of the play, and the elaboration of the
details shows a theatre revelling in the excitements of the
new fashion in plots. There is, however, a compensating
factor here in the opposite sense; the Chorus, having had
little to do since the parodos which it shared with Helen,
now in the last 6co lines of the play sings three stasima, of
which the first two are quite detached from the μηχάνημα mn
progress. The First Stasimon (1107 ff.) broods heavily on
the sadness and waste of Helen’s story, taking no account of
the upward turn of her fortunes. In one stanza it laments
the folly of war; and here one might expect the moral of this
strange tale to be at least hinted, Ten years of war, the
destruction of a great city, and heavy slaughter on both
sides—and all for a phantom: a dour reflection for Athens in
412 B.C. But no; there is no word of the Phantom. It might
be any ordinary war, taking the sword for arbiter ‘when your
quarrel, Helen, could have been settled by negotiation’.
There is only one line in the play which is explicit of this
irony; 707, where the Old Servant, hearing from Menelaus
that the gods had cheated them with a νεφέλης ἄγαλμα asks
τ See commentary on 1359.
 INTRODUCTION xiii
τί φής; | νεφέλης ἄρ᾽ ἄλλως εἴχομεν πόνους πέρι; But the
point is not elaborated ; the lesson the old man proceeds to
draw from it is the apparent futility of all πόνοι, since
᾿ Menelaus’ efforts brought him nothing; it was only after he
had given up trying that everything fell mto his lap—so
capricious (though ultimately justified) are the gods. Later,
the Servant has a tirade, not against the cruelty of the gods
or the folly of men, but against μαντικὴ (why had not
Calchas told them that they were dying for a phantom?
Better to pray to the gods for blessings, not put your trust
in mantic arts.). If this play was meant as anti-war propa-
ganda the point is not very well driven home.
The Second Stasimon turns aside from the mmtrigue at its
height to sing a dithyrambic interlude on the Great Mother,
with scarcely a pretence of relevance to the events on stage.’
Only the Third Stasimon looks forward to the happy end of
the escaped exiles’ voyage, and prays for the help of the
Dioscuri who are presently to appear on the machine.
But the most serious note in the play is struck not by the
. Chorus but by Theonoe. Like her brother Theoclymenus she
is essentially an invention of Euripides, though re-created
from Eidothea, daughter of Proteus the Old Man of the
Sea in Odyssey 4. Eidothea was an immortal like her father,
but now that Proteus had faded from a god to a mortal
king (though married to a Nereid) his daughter had to be
mortal too, though gifted with divine knowledge inherited
from Nereus: like the Homeric Proteus she knows the

t It is true that the last stanza is defective at the end and the
beginning, where it appears to be saying that Helen had incurred the
Mother’s wrath, but there is no space for any significant point to be
made. Various more or less far-fetched attempts have been made to
devise some subtle connexion, e.g. that Helen, ike Persephone, was
carried off while picking flowers (so was Creusa!}—not that the flowers
are mentioned in this ode; or that Euripides is composing this play as
a solace of galety in the years of war disaster just as the Mother laughed
with pleasure at the rumbling din of her new instruments even im the
midst of her grief. Perhaps Euripides was conscious of such a thought,
but is the audience supposed to have taken the point?
 χὶν INTRODUCTION
counsels of the gods and can foretell the future. She
dominates all the central scene of the play, and Euripides
prepares for this very carefully by introducing her near. the
beginning of Helen’s Prologue speech, by making her reputa-
tion the cause of Teucer’s arrival, and sending Helen and
the Chorus off stage to consult her about Menelaus’ present
fate just as he arrives in person. Nor are we allowed to for-
get. her at the end of the play, when the furious king ts
storming off to kill the sister who has traitorously joined
with the abominable Greeks in making a mock of him; only
the intervention of the Dioscuri calms him down.
The central scene intervenes drastically between Recogni-
tion and Stratagem, and one cannot help wondering whether
the Greek audience felt a baffled impatience at the long hold-
up in the action (this isa very long play). Or did they relish
perhaps more than we do the eloquent forensic-sounding
appeals of Helen and Menelaus in a kind of uncontested
agon before this austere judge? One thing seems clear: it
mattered to Euripides that this play should be seen to be
more than a melodramatic piece of intrigue, rich m paradox
and excitement but somewhat blunt morally. Before we
settle down to the fooling of the stupid barbarian by sharper
Greek wits (with an ample bonus of gifts tricked out of him).
we are made to realize how wrong his cause is, not so much
in terms of the will of the gods, who are still divided in
counsel, but as a crime against justice and his father’s good
name.. Theonoe examines both the Greeks, as it were, to
make them declare their claims and their creed, and then
declares her own, which makes her side with them against
her brother, The decision comes at a crucial moment, on
the day when the gods themselves are to hold a council
under the presidencyof Zeus, in which Hera and Aphrodite
will argue out the quarrel which started with the Judgement
of Paris ; Hera now wishes the return of Menelaus to Sparta,
so as to expose her rival's failure to make good her bribe,
while Aphrodite would destroy him, to avoid exposure. Mean-
while Theonoe has to decide whether or not to denounce.
 INTRODUCTION Ἂν

Menelaus to her brother. It is her own decision, which

she would have had to take anyway, and her knowledge
of the conflicting desires of the goddesses is merely an
added burden of responsibility to choose aright. The larger
question of how to reconcile such mortal free will with the
overriding power of the gods (or Zeus)—or for that matter
with Theonoe’s own knowledge of the future—is naturally
left untouched. Euripides is writing a play, and for dramatic
purposes Theonoe’s mind must be still open, and only made
up in the course of this scene. So her first impulse (892-3) is
to think of her own safety, and Euripides takes the trouble
to justify this in the last scene of the play, where Theo-
clymenus’ first thought after learning the truth is to kill his
sister. But her sense of justice prevails, and if on this
occasion it means taking sides with Hera against Aphrodite
that is appropriate too, since the Cyprian (may she be
gracious!) has played no part in her life. The contrast
between the frivolous divine motives and the seriousness of
human is clear enough, but Theonoe is incapable of ir-
reverence and the point is left without emphasis, like the
whole discreditable origin of the Trojan War; this is not an
angry play. And Theonoe is careful to advise the escaping
pair (1024), whom she is leaving to devise their own plan, to
‘begin with the gods’, that is, to seek to propitiate them by
prayer; Theonoe’s ‘decision’ {τέλος 8387) has merely given
things a push when the even balance of the divine ἔρις had
left them stuck; it cannot guarantee future success but
merely promises that hope shall not be extinguished at the
outset. Such prayer they duly make, Helen at 1093 ff,
Menelaus at 1441 ff., not too subserviently but in the some-
what rallying tone with which Euripides’ heroes and heroines
in later tragedy admonish the gods when fortune seems at
last to be going their way. |
Taking one part with another, then, the Helen is an en-
joyable variation on an old lost-and-found theme, exciting,
witty, and sometimes half-comic, yet not devoid of moral
issues, wryly critical of the gods of legend without raising
814172 b
xvi INTRODUCTION
its voice louder than innuendo or breaking a discreet con-
tinuity of tone. The singularity of the situation leading to
Recognition in this version is that neither party has grown
irom infancy to adulthood in the gap of years, so that each
is capable of recognizing the other at first sight. Menelaus,
like Teucer before him, does in fact so recognize Helen, but
rejects the evidence of his eyes because it is against common
sense—Helen’s story of the Phantom 15 so fantastic that
he cannot take it sericusly—-until he sees how the Old
Servant, who so recently watched the Phantom disappear
and heard its words, falls into the same error in reverse and
greets the living Helen as the Phantom which had somehow
cheated him by pretending to vanish. This situation adds
a twist of paradox to the Recognition-theme, and the last
pang to Helen’s despair when the husband she has waited so
long for sees her but cannot see the truth, and turns back to
the Phantom. But it ts surely hardly justified to claim as
critics sometimes do that the Helen gains in profundity, or
qualifies as ‘tragic’ (in our sense), because it concerns the
interplay of illusion and reality. This is to allow oneself to
be mesmerized by abstract nouns. There is much play with
such antitheses as σῶμα { ὄνομα, and flashes of irony from
this source point the dialogue ; but there is no metaphysical
or psychological depth here, nor would anything of the kind
be either conceivable or appropriate. The Menelaus who has
been living with the Phantom for the past seven years and
left it an hour ago! needs just a little more time than Helen,
a few more words of reassurance, before accepting whole-
heartedly the substitute the gods now offer him, but the
situation has as little to do with ‘reality’ as when in Twelfth
Night Olivia, having given her heart to a shadow, happily
accepts Sebastian in the place of Viola,
I The timing of the Phantom’s disappearance, so dramatically apt,
was probably Euripides’ own innovation ; see below, p. xxiti, n. 1.
 INTRODUCTION XV

ul. The Legend of the Phantom-Heten

The Byzantine scholar who wrote the Hypothesis to the
Helen into the ms. P contrasts the Euripidean version of the
story with that of Herodotus, which he attempts to bracket
with Homer’s in a confused and misleading statement: both
of them, he says, brought Helen to Egypt with Menelaus
after the sack of Troy, whereas Euripides claimed the real
Helen was never in Troy, but only an image in her shape, It
sounds as if he were unaware of any literary predecessor of
Euripides in the legend of the Phantom that went to Troy.
Yet when Plato (Rep. 9. 586c) speaks of the unreal
pleasures, mere εἴδωλα of true pleasure, which men fight
each other to possess, he illustrates these by the εἴδωλον of
Helen ‘which Stesichorus says men fought for at Troy, in
ignorance of the true’. This then was a well-known story,
needing only a brief allusion ; Euripides himself had so used
it (El, 1280-3) some years before the Helen’ in the speech
from the machine where the Dioscuri order the immediate
departure from Argos of the three accomplices m murder,
leaving their victims for others to bury, Aegisthus to the
Argives, Clytaemnestra to the newly arrived Menelaus and
Helen: |
Πρωτέως γὰρ ἐκ δόμων
yet λιποῦσ «Αἴγυπτον οὐδ᾽ ἦλθεν Φρύγας"
Ζεὺς δ᾽, ὡς ἔρις γένοιτο καὶ φόνος βροτῶν,
εἴδωλον ᾿Βλένης ἐξέπεμψ᾽ ἐς "ΐλιον.
Having briefly admitted the guilt of Clytaemnestra (1244),
the Dioscuri take the opportunity to exculpate their other
sister, who thus becomes fit to perform her task reverently.
since Helen is with Menelaus at Nauplia and the sack of
Troy is m the past (1279), he must have picked up Helen
in Egypt on the way back (the Dioscuri need not explain in
such detail), This much would be consistent with the version
of Herodotus (2. 112 ff.), who, however, says nothing of an
* Not in 413 B.c,: Zuntz, The Political Plays of Euripides, τοῖς,
pp. 66 ff, :
B14172 b2
xvii INTRODUCTION

εἴδωλον. Finding himself in-a temple ‘to the foreign Aphro-

dite’ in the precinct of King Proteus at Memphis, he sus-
pected that this was a memory of Tyndarid Helen who, the
story said, once lived under Proteus’ guardianship; so he
asked the priests to tell him what they knew of Helen's
coming to Proteus. They spun him a circumstantial tale
(one would dearly like to know in what language and im
response to what leading questions), redounding greatly to
Egyptian credit, of how the eloping couple with their
treasure looted from Sparta were blown out of their course
and eventually brought to Memphis; Proteus in high moral
indignation detained Helen and the treasure, spared Paris’
life, and let him go alone to Troy. The rest was told to the
Egyptians by Menelaus when he arrived years later ; he had
gone to Troy, he said, with a great Greek army and de-
manded back wife and treasure, but the Trojans had denied
having either, saying they were in Egypt with Proteus.
Believing this to be a lie, the Greeks had besieged and sacked
Troy but found no Helen, so now Menelaus came to Proteus
for her. Proteus gave him wife and treasure and hospitality,
which Menélaus requited ill by sacrificing two Egyptian
children to propitiate adverse winds, finally eluding Egyp-
tian pursuit in the direction of Libya. That was ali the
priests knew. The version commended itself to the rationalist
Herodotus, since the orthodox story (as in Homer) was hard
to believe ; what people.in their senses would have sacrificed
their best warriors one by one and their city in such a cause?
Homer chose the orthodox legend as more entertaining
matter for poetry, but his references to Helen in Egypt at
one time or another show him to have been aware of
this one also. ΝΣ |
Herodotus makes no mention of Stesichorus. This is not
surprising, since undoubtedly the most memorable thing in
that story was the εἴδωλον, and it is not in Herodotus’
manner to argue against fantastications of that sort. Given
the historical reality of Paris, Helen, and Menelaus, which
Herodotus, like all Greeks, assumed, his version would
 INTRODUCTION ΧΙΧ

out miracles
make a reasonably consistent account, cutting
e of Trojan
and magic, whatever one thinks of his rational
ic Hero-
behaviour. This latter is an exquisitely characterist
ibutes to
dotean comment, but the story as a whole he attr
know just
the Egyptian priests at Memphis. It is difficult to
cumstantial
what to make of this, but certainly the cir
pt which.
detail of the account of Paris’ adventures in Egy
ngly
led to his appearance before the king at Memphis stro
suggests a local tradition. If so, the Egyptians must have
of a current Greek version leaving Helen in
been aware
and
Proteus’ guardianship all through the Trojan War,
be-
worked this over into the edifying story of Proteus’
eks
haviour in contrast with the immorality of ali the Gre
rus?
concerned, Was the version the famous one of Stesicho
And if so, who suppressed the εἴδωλον, the priests or Hero-
dotus?
Without the εἴδωλον the story is prosaic and rather in-
en
effective, and it is difficult to see how it could have aris
(as a story) except aS an attempted rationalization of an
earlier supernatural version. In later antiquity there are
traces of a version which ascribed to Proteus himself the
manufacture of the εἴδωλον, which he gave to Paris: the
Byzantine scholar Tzetzes, annotating the Alexandya of
Lycophron, a preposterously obscure Hellenistic poem in
iambic trimeters purporting to give the various prophecies
uttered by Cassandra (Alexandra), states on 1. 113: λέγουσιν
ὅτι διερχομένῳ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ὁ Πρωτεὺς ᾿Βλένην ἀφελόμενος εἴδω-
λον Ἑλένης αὐτῷ “δέδωκεν, καὶ οὕτως ἔπλευσεν ἐς Τροΐαν, ὡς
φησὶ Στησίχορος Τρῶες γὰρ οἱ τότ᾽ ἦσαν ᾿Ελένης εἴδωλον
ἔσχον. This might possibly be interpreted as a loose aim-
biguity of expression referring only the part about the
εἴδωλον to Stesichorus, but this scholion appears to be sup-
ported by one on Aristides (a rhetor of the second-century
neo-sophistic) Orationes 13.131 :€is Στησέχορον aly (TT ETAL
λέγει γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ὅτε ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς νῆσον τοῦ Φάρου
ἀφῃρέθη παρὰ τοῦ Πρωτέως τὴν ᾿Ελένην καὶ εἴδωλον αὐτῆς
ἐδέξατο. (Another scholiast makes this into ἃ painted
xX INTRODUCTION
portrait—ev πίνακι τὸ εἴδωλον αὐτῆς veypoppevov—tfor the
bereaved lover to console himself with!} Here there is no
ambiguity, but Aristides himself, of course, makes no such
reference to Stesichorus, and the source could either be
simply Lycophron’s own version (110-38), which looks like
a conflation (his own or another’s) of Euripides and Hero-
dotus, ot possibly a misunderstanding of Stesichorus (v.
infr. p. xxii).1 Not that there would be anything inap-
propriate in a Proteus with enough magic art to fashion an
εἴδωλον, but it is difficult to fit such a version into the older
tradition: it would be incompatible in the priests’ story
with the moral indignation of Proteus’ address to Paris,
and—the assertion of the two scholia notwithstanding-—
impossible in Stesichorus. .
For the one thing that is certain about Stesichorus’ story
is that it was intended as a rehabilitation of Helen’s charac-
ter; it was a παλινῳδέα, a recantation of the orthodox ac-
count of Helen’s experiences which his earlier poetry had
described or implied. Whatever one makes of the legend of
the blindness which struck him and his recovery of sight
after the Palinode, no immortal could have regarded her
character as cleared by a version which had her eloping
with Paris and the treasure as far as Egypt and then being
detained by force from following him further.
The form which the Palinode took, and the offending
poetry which preceded it, are matters of unresolved con-
troversy which need not be discussed here. Some of this
has become irrelevant since the publication in 1963 of
a papyrus fragment (P.Oxy. 2506, fr. 26 1) of a commentary
on lyric poems quoting the Peripatetic Chamaeleon for a
statement that there were ‘wo. palinodes of Stesichorus,
one beginning Aetp’ αὖτε, θεὰ φιλόμολπε and the other
Χρυσόπτερε παρθένε, the first finding fault with Homer for
sending Helen instead of her εἴδωλον to Troy, the second
1 Virgil’s commentator Servius also (on Aen, 1, 651) knows ‘regem
Proteum ... eam subtraxisse et nescio quibus disciplinis phantasma in
similitudinem Helenae formatum Paridi dedisse’,
 INTRODUCTION xxi
with Hesiod (reason unexplained). This comes as a com-
plete surprise, since all ancient authorities speak of ‘the
Palinode’ ; the most famous of them, Plato in the Phaedrus
(243 a, b), after quoting the lines that became proverbial:
οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἔτυμος λόγος οὗτος"
+ μὴ 3.νυ ? +

οὐδ᾽O37 ἔβας
OW
ἐν3 νηυσὶν1 εὐσέλμοις
1 ἢ {

οὐδ᾽ txeo Πέργαμα Tpoias

adds καὶ ποιήσας δὴ πᾶσαν τὴν καλουμένην Παλινῳδίαν
παραχρῆμα ἀνέβλεψεν. One may reasonably guess that this
was the earlier, the grand Recantation, directed full-tilt
against Homer and the tradition, and that Chamaeleon was
rather proud of his acumen in elevating to the status of
a second palinode another poem upholding the same view
and objecting to a reference of Hesiod’s on the old lines. It
was in the first poem that Stesichorus announced with
a flourish of trumpets his conversion to a new and truer
inspiration and round this that the legends of his blindness
and recovery collected. These are sometimes regarded as
apocryphal later embroideries, or they may have started
from no more than a metaphorically meant allusion of his
own, but it is perfectly possible that he felt the launching of
so revolutionary a notion required a special claim to re-
vealed truth, and made it memorable in this form. The
opening invocation to the Muse quoted by Chamaeleon has
the same metre as the first line of Plato’s quotation; so,
though the metrical shape is quite uncertain, a legitimate
guess might give a first stanza asking help to tell a true tale
which may redeem him from blindness, while the second
stanza then crashed in with its ringing challenge.?
The new Commentator puts an end to speculation on an-
other point by continuing : αὐτὸς δὲ φησὶν 6 Στησίχορος τὸ μὲν
εἴδωλον ἐλθεῖν és Τροίαν τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Ελένην παρὰ τῷ Πἰρωτεῖ κατα-
μεῖναι. The commonest view hitherto was that Stesichorus
I Probably iin the original, as Blomfield, ἐυσσέλμοις,
2 T agree whole-heartedly with those scholars who insist that in
terms of style οὗτος must refer forward to the following words.
XXL INTRODUCTION

made the real Helen stay behind in Sparta, or at least

in Greece, while her phantom went in the benched ships
to Troy, this being presumably a version current in Sparta
where Helen was worshipped as a goddess. Plato's quotation
can easily be interpreted this way, and Dio Chrysostom
Orvationes 11. 182 appears to support this when he says
that according to Stesichorus Helen never sailed anywhere
at all, though ‘others’ [Herodotus] claim she was abducted
by Paris as far as Egypt. Probably, as Wilamowitz sug-
gested,! Dio was simply recalling the famous quotation.
Now, however, we know that Stesichorus before Herodotus
and Euripides used the refuge with Proteus. But this can-
not mean that the version of Tzetzes and the scholiast on
Aristides (supr. p. xix; the one doubtless derives from the
other) is now. triumphantly vindicated; by the time Helen
got to Egypt with Paris her reputation would be irretriev-
ably gone, and she would merely be cleared of her later
marriage to Deiphobus. We do not know how Stesichorus
transported her to Proteus.2, Nor do we know nearly enough.
about.his narrative habits to assume that he raised the
point at all. There is a strong probability that, hke other
lyric poets, he often avoided anything like a straight narra-
tive of events with all the connexions filled in, and rather
picked out salient points for decorative elaboration, HidwaAev
and Proteus are the two keys to his version : as the Commen-
tator of P.Oxy. 2506 says, αὐτὸς δὲ φησὶν ὁ Στησίχορος τὸ μὲν
εἴδωλον ἐλθεῖν ἐς Τροίαν, τὴν δ᾽ ᾿“Ελένην παρὰ [Πρωτεῖ κατα-
μεῖναι, καταμεῖναι. Means, not ‘remained behind’—behind
Paris—but ‘lodged’, ‘resided with’, simply.* It wouid be
easy enough for prosaic commentators—or for Lycophron
either, for that matter—to fill this out, or confuse it, with
the Herodotean version. |
τ Sappho und Stmomides, p. 241.
2 As Wilamowitz (loc. cit.) points out, lines 2 and 3 of the Platonic
quotation can be taken closely together, so that the meaning is simply
‘You never sailed to Troy’, though the easier sense would imply ὃsome-
thing like air-portage with Mermes, as m Euripides.
3 Cf. Eubulus 2t Kock.
 INTRODUCTION xxill

Euripides, then, took from Stesichorus both the phantom-

Helen and the stay with the virtuous Proteus ;' it was-a
famous version, and though naturally it never displaced the
Homeric story it was well enough known for him to be able
to refer to it quite briefly in the exodos of the Atectva—
together with the depopulation-motive of Zeus, whether this
was: taken from Stesichorus or from the epic Cypria. It
appears in Helen’s Prologue-speech as a piece of supple-
mentary ‘over-causation’, since for this play Euripides
needed the Judgement of Paris as central cause,
There can be no serious doubt that, as all antiquity
believed, the «iwAov-story was the bold invention of Stesi-
chorus, a volte-face in mid-career, possibly the outcome
of a visit to’ Sparta. One solitary voice, a scholiast para-
phrasing the Alexandra of Lycophron, confused the issue by
ascribing it to Hesiod: πρῶτος ‘Hatodos περὶ τῆς ᾿Ελένης τὸ
εἴδωλον παρήγαγε: καὶ ᾿Ηρόδοτος δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι ἡ ἀληθινὴ ᾿Ελένη
ἔμεινεν παρὰ Πρωτεῖ, τὸ δὲ εἴδωλον αὐτῆς συνέπλευσεν ἤλεξάν-
Spm ἐπὶ τὴν Τροίαν. ΤΊ is difficult to understand why this
obiter dictum should so often be taken as unarguable fact, in
view of the nonsense about Herodotus in the next sentence.
It is unsupported by any surviving word in Hesiod and in-
consistent with the comment on the ‘second Palinode’ of
Stesichorus in the new papyrus. Marckscheffel, the editor of
Hesiod, was, in default of further evidence, quite justified in
treating ‘Hesiod’ as a mere blunder for “stestchorus’.
Servius on Aeneid 11. 592, referring to the ‘phantasma in
similitudinem Helenae Paridi datum’ records “quod’ etiam
Homerum volunt tetigisse subtiliter, ubi Aeneas a Neptuno
opposita nube liberatur: ἀμφὶ δ᾽ dp’ εἰδώλῳ Τρῶες καὶ δῖοι
ι With, it seems, a significant modification πὶ timing ; Lycophron 822
puts the disappearance of the Phantom immediately after the capture
of Troy, and Menelaus’ years of wandering are a long search for her
over the Mediterranean. This, which makes a more organic whole of
the story, probably comes from Stesichorus; Menclaus’ seven years of
sailing (with the Phantom on board) in a continually frustrated effort
to reach Greece is an awkwardness which Euripides swallows for the
sake of his dramatic Recognition.
Xx1V INTRODUCTION
Ayator’ (E 451). So subtle an allusion is hardly in Homer's
manner, but one wonders whether. the line gave Stesichorus
his idea.

111. The Place of the Helen in the Sequence of Eurtpidean

Tragedtes
The Helen is one of the mercifully fixed points in our
chronology of Euripides. An intersection of Aristophanean
scholia places it in the year 412: (1) it was the same year as
the Andromeda (X Thesm. 1012); (2) the Andromeda was in
the eighth year before the Frogs of 405 (2 Ran. 53). Also
(3) Thesmophoriazusae (Dionysia 411) τούο-τ refers to the
performance of the Andyomeda in ‘last year’s’ competition
(répvow), and at Thesm. 850 Mnesilochus proposes to act the
part of τὴν καινὴν ᾿Ελένην (new-fangled as well as newly
created} to induce Euripides-Menelaus to come and set
him free.
The relative chronology of the Helen and other plays of
this period, however, Is not thus fixed by external evidence ;
ee Le ad

close. ‘similarity οἱ: plot and sequence of incidents when

reduced to formula.t Comparative analysis of structure and
motifs has left honours fairly even, and judicial summing-up
seems now content to pronounce the problem insoluble. This
is to reckon without Zielinski’s Tragodoumenon If, De Trt-
meirt Euripider Evolutione (1925). This brilliant work would
have had more of the influence it deserved if its author had
been ready to trust his own demonstrations more com-
pletely. Unfortunately, by taking the date::413 ‘for the
Electva as given, he was forced to blur the ordering of his

1 See Platnauer’s commentary on J7, Introd. XV-XV1, A closer

analysis could multiply the parallel details.
2 VY. supr. p. XVil ἢ.
 INTRODUCTION XXV

third chronological group of ‘liberi stili’ (415-409! B.c.) and

to introduce complicated extraneous reasons for reversing
some of the conclusions of his metrical analyses. These, as
he was the first to perceive, exhibit after the first deliberate
movement towards a freer, more resolved trimeter (in the
middle twenties) a steadily progressive infringement of
various ‘laws’—-prevailing observances—in the different
parts of the trimeter. So steady, in fact, is the progression
that it can only be explained as (in detail) half-conscious
and uncalculated, a willing habituation of the poet’s ear to
various phenomena, so that they become each year a little
commoner, Not that every separate one of these infringe-
ments Increases in a rigidly parallel order, but added up and
taken together with the relative order of the plays according
to total percentage of resolutions in each they give a re-
markably sensitive criterion for chronological placing, as
tested by the plays of known date and the space of years
between them. Thus Zielinski sums wp his column for the
extant plays of ber: stilt as follows: ‘Longe primum locum
occupat δέ, (22 puncta), sequuntur Tyo. (38), tum HF (40),
11 (43), Lom (51), Hel. (56), Phoen. (58).’ But he goes on:
‘Num igitur hic ordo pro vero chronologico habendus est?
Mimime: neque enim loco moveri possunt El. vel Hel. cer-
tissimis criterlis a. 413 et 412 indicatae.’ On the contrary,
now we know that Elecitva may be back-dated some six
years as required by these figures, there is nothing against
identifying Zielinski’s with the chronological order.
The great merit of Zielinski’s work is that, unlike the
attempted refinements subsequently published (e.g. Ceadel
in CQ 35, 1941, 66), it starts, for its formulation of ‘laws’, not
from ‘feet’ (‘tribrach’ in the second foot, ‘dactyl’ in the
third, etc.), but from word-shapes in the trimeter. No one
could possibly suspect from later statistics that anything
mattered seriously for chronological placing or distinctions
1 Or possibly 411 or 410 for Phoen., in spite of Z Ar. Ran. 53. But it
may be that extensive interpolation has slightly falsified our statistics
of this play. Its figures are fairly consistently closer to Hel. than to Or.
ἈΧΥῚ INTRODUCTION

of authorship except mere frequency of resolution stated m

terms of ‘feet’, and reduced to percentages, with careful
subtraction of proper names.. Yet Zielinski had shown
again and again that the really crucial patterns mostly
start in the middie of the ‘foot’ and cross the bar into the
following one—naturally, since the words with which the
dramatist operates are in overwhelming majority so dis-
tributed (in terms of the habits of Greek metric). The most
sensitive, perhaps, of all criteria are the two shapes Vv —-
and wvw—. Euripides was the first tragedian to cultivate
the use of the anapaestic word 1n the pre-caesural position
(ὡς κεῖνος ἀφανὴς τ τον ὥ τ ἢ instead of confining it to
the opening of the line (δέχομαι, φίλον ye yuu vif}.
Thus, while in Medea pre-caesural © x occurs only 3 times
—twice in γονάτων and once in Πελίου (there is no reason to
disregard proper names in this connexion, except for cases
like ‘EXévy in her own play)—in [phigeneta im Tauris there
are 17 instances, the equivalent of 1 in 63 lmes; in Helen
(excluding ᾿Ελένη, etc.) 24, or τ in 52 lines; and in the last
three plays (liberrims stili), Orestes 1 in 38, Bacchae 1 τι 35,
Iphigencia at Aulis {excluding the spurious end) 1 in 31.
Contrast Sophocles with one in Ajax, one in Antigone, one
in Trachiniae, two in Oedipus Tyrannus, none in Liecira, four
in Philoctetes, six in Oedipus Coloneus {the last two, in this
as in all metrical aspects, are. the only plays to betray some
Euripidean influence). Aeschylus has only ots πρόσθε Ma pa-
Gav (Pers. 475). |
The paeonic vu — is even more significant. vv τ can
only be fitted into two places in the trimeter, so that, since
no tragedian wants too many initial licences of this form,
to add it in pre-caesural position meant a real extension of
range of vocabulary. But συ — is easily accommodated
in the form τὸ ὦ -- or UY ὦ — (post-penthemimeral or
post-hephthemimeral position), and these are in fact the
I The numbers subscript imdicate first long, second long, etc., of the
trimeter. Long anceps.is marked ;, resolution ou, caesura (where
relevant) //.
 INTRODUCTION xxvil
commonest of the sparse resolutions admitted by Aeschylus
(μάντις κεκευθὼς πολ εμίας ὑπὸ χθονός) and Sophocles (ἔνθ᾽ ἐσ-
πεσὼν ἔκειρεπολυκέρων φόνον). The effect is smooth because
the resolution falls at the beginning of the word, a basic ‘law’
of iambic and trochaic metres (high style}. To his innumer-
able examples of these two resolutions Euripides adds συ —
in his later plays, this being the only form of resolved fifth
long which he admits. elem contains eight of these,
Iphigeneta τῷ Tauris only two, ἀναφέρων (23) {if LP give
the form correctly ; in Phoentssae 1410 only V has ἀμφέρει,
the other MSS. ἀναφέρε!) and καὶ τὰ [Πελοπιδῶν (985), But the
most striking of his innovations is-the paeonic word in
pre-caesural position
Vv ς᾽ -- és γῆν ἐναλίέαν, 8. deliberate
roughening of texture much more noticeable than pre-
caesural GO > because it breaks the ‘law’ that in tragedy
{except of course in the first long of a trimeter) resolution
should be confined to the first two syllables of a word. This
rhythm is frequent in comedy (there are 12 1n the first soo
lines of Acharntans), but if Euripides was here discreetly
edging the tragic trimeter towards comic freedom he still
left the two styles, even in his latest plays, utterly distinct.
The use of: this paeonic ὦ ὥς > is by itself an extra-
ordinarily accurate criterion for dating. No play before 415
has one ;! from then on we have, /voades 2, Hercules Furens
3, Lpmgeneia in Tauris o, fon 4 (one split, τίνα λόγον 931),
Helen 5, Phoenissae 7, Orestes 16, Bacchae το, [phigenera at
Aults 18 (of which 4 are in tetrameters before the diaeresis,
aS 1354 οἵ pe τὸν γάμων ἀπεκάλουν, corresponding precisely
to. pre-caesural position in the trimeter). The only one out
of step 1s Lpiigenera in Tauris, but it has two proceleus-
matics in a similar rhythm, Ἀτρέως ἐλέγετο δή τις
(545), and in a tetrameter ἐσόμεθα (1232). This is also a

ῖ Unless HF, which is. very close to Tro. in metrical statistics, 15

dated to 416, but the total count brimgs tts number of ‘points’ shghtly
higher (40:38 on Zielinski’s reckoning) and 1 would not hesitate myself
to assign it to 414, assuming it to have been written nearer to Tra:
than.to /7.
ΧΧΥΊΙ INTRODUCTION

late-appearing phenomenon, rarer than the form with long

anceps, but more erratic in progression (one ΠῚ Helen 976,
nine in Bacchae, five in Iphigeneita at Aulis). The tetra-
meter-resolution should also weigh a little more heavily
than in trimeters, so that ἴογὺ ὦ ὦ and ὦ ὥφο ~ together
Iphigeneia in Tauyis is only lagging slightly behind its
averaged score in Zielinski’s table, which takes no account
of tetrameters.
It is qualitative distinctions such as these—-there are
others too, always giving the same result, but space forbids
further analysis here, and I have selected these as the most
frequently neglected phenomena—which cumulatively con-
sidered seem to me to make it impossible either to date
Iphigeneia in Tauris down to 411 to follow Helen or to sit
on the fence. Add the figures for trimeters with more than
one resolution, r7 in Iphigeneta in Tauris or the equivalent
of x in 63, 26 in Helew or 1 in 48, and we find every metrical
test giving the same relative position for the two plays.
However small the statistics in each case, it is the accumula-
tion that counts, and the final distance between the two
suggests 414 as the most likely date for [phigeneta in Taurts.
There is no need then to try to weigh the arguments from
motif-analysis against each other, a procedure from which
apreement will never be reached. Some points are raised in
the commentary ; see on 1388, 1451-1511, 1619, 1673.
The question of the relationship of Helen to fon in the
didascalic lists is an interesting one but incapable of exact
answer. Statistics put fon between [phigenera in Tauris and
Helen, and rather nearer the latter. This is borne out by the
striking and repeated echoes of elaborate metrical phrasing
in the lyrics of the Recognition duos of the two plays (see
the commentary on 642~5, 664, and 686-7), a parallelism
difficult to imagine except between plays composed close
together. But whether this means that fon appeared in
ἃ 413 group or that it made a third with Helen and
Andromeda in 412 is impossible to say. The process of
trimeter-loosening went on apace regardless of year-ends!
 INTRODUCTION xXXIX

iv. The Fext

The Helen is one of the nine plays, forming an alphabetical
group from E to K, which have reached us, complete but
without scholia, only in a single medieval manuscript L,
with its copy P.! L was much corrected by the hand which
appears in our apparatus criticus as / and was securely
identified by A. Turyn, The Byzantine Tradition of Eurtpides,
1957, as that of the well-known fourteenth-century Byzan-
tine scholar Demetrius Triclinius. His corrections were
heavily entered, with much erasure of the previous text, and
it is fortunate for us that P was copied from L at a stage
when only the first working-over had been completed. This
first-aid is mostly ascribed to L? in our app. crit., not being
earlier recognized as 1 because of its different-coloured ink.
The later revision was more detailed, and included altera-
tions in colon-division in the lyrics and marginal notes
on metres. For Triclinius, almost uniquely among scholars
of that period, was interested in metric and even (relatively)
to some degree knowledgeable about it, though his litle
learning was certainly a dangerous thing for our textual’
tradition. |
Triclinius’s work seems to have been partly the competent
correction of slips made by the copyists, partly his own con-
jectural emendation ; and in a small number of cases (e.g. 74,
185, 1212, 1675) emendation of so much higher quality and so
unobvious that we must suspect collation from a different
source. What that source could have been Is an unanswer-
able question, since we have no idea whence or in what form
this wonderful cache of long-lost Euripidean plays came into
the possession of Triclinius’s scriptorium. Zuntz inclines to
the view that they once belonged to Eustathius, archbishop
of Thessalonica in the twelfth century and the outstanding

t This relationship of L and P in the nine alphabetical plays has Deen

settied once for all by G. Zuntz’s Inquiry into the Transmission of ihe
Plays of Euripides, C.U.P. 1965. The followmg brief summary {on
this page and the next) is based on the relevant part of his book.
XXX INTRODUCTION

scholar of his day; if so, they may at some stage have had
authoritative variants recorded in the margin. -
With the other ‘alphabetical’ plays, the Helen was copied
from L by P, in a much clearer hand but with an additional
crop of mistakes, unrevised by Triclinius. It enables us, as
explained above, to recover some of the original L before
Triclinius got to work on it in his later revisions. It also
contains a Hypothesis to the play added by a different hand
and possibly an original composition, referring with rather
inaccurate brevity to the authority of Herodotus, and
Homer before him, for an Egyptian visit of Helen, and
stressing the difference in Euripides’ version based on the
Phantom; a short summary of the plot follows.
In addition to LP we have for the Helen a papyrus-
fragment of the first century B.c., containing parts of IL.
630-74, This was edited in r9s4 by C. H. Roberts as P.Oxy.
2336, and since then much the most important contribution
to our understanding of the text and its significance has
been made.by G. Zuntz, op. cit. With some of his conclusions
I have felt unable to agree, but now that he has put us all
im his debt by demonstrating the problems that have to be
faced in confronting our LP text with this papyrus, it can
do no harm to state the case for a more reactionary attitude.
One other bonus available is the scene between the cap-
tive Mnesilochus—Helen and Euripides—Menelaus, her would-
be rescuer, in Thesmophoriazusae 849-919, of unique interest
for the study of Aristophanes’ manner as a parodist but also
a useful check on some bits of our text—it supplies a missing
line of stichomythia, for instance, at 561, a copy-book illus-
tration of the ease with which a line can drop out in the
transmission of this kind of dialogue and of one simple
reason for it (see commentary).
LP, like all other medieval manuscripts of Euripides,
must be descended from the great edition made about
200 B.C. by Aristophanes of Byzantium for the library at
Alexandria. The overwhelming dominance of this was first
adequately stressed by Wilamowitz in his Ernlettung in dte
 INTRODUCTION _ ΧΧΧῚ
eviechische Tragédie (1889), but W. 5. Barrett argues cogently
in the Introduction to his edition of the Hifpolytus, pp.
45 if., against the view that the Alexandrian edition must
have been the sole and exclusive source of the whole
medieval tradition ; it is unlikely that all ancient scholarship
outside, or supplementary to, this work disappeared without
a trace from textual history.
We can form some notion of how much the text of the
‘alphabetical’ plays has suffered from its limitation to one
line of manuscript tradition and from the absence of schoha
by comparing the L texts of the annotated plays with the
versions arrived at with the help of other manuscripts. But
ail the surviving plays undoubtedly suffered much damage
in the two centuries before Alexandrian scholarship began
its work of rescue. The edict of Lycurgus (c. 330 B.c.)
declaring ar official text of the three tragedians, to which
all performances must thenceforward conform, suggests a
considerable scandal of unofficial liberties taken by actors,
and it is likely that this was an attempt to check further
deterioration rather than a retrospective cleaning-up of the
newly established text. About a century later this official
text was decoyed to the library at Alexandria and may be
supposed to have subsequently formed the basis of Aristo-
phanes’ edition. In these circumstances Euripides’ plays,
the most frequently performed among old tragedies, must
have offered the largest variety of texts in circulation; the
wilder ones could easily be discarded, but inevitably much
that was spurious must have filtered through. Difficult and
even presumptuous as the task of overhaul must seem at
this stage, modern editors cannot ignore the problem of
interpolation set by our existing texts.
i have considered the possibility of interpolation with
some care at the relevant places in the commentary on this
play. No play is quite free from it, but its extent, and its
causes, differ a good deal from one play to another. Ed.
Fraenkel (Θεέ, Bayer. Ak. 1963) has argued a -case ‘for
massive interpolation in Phoenissae, and Iphigeneza at Aulis
xxxii INTRODUCTION
has a spurious end and a contaminated beginning, but in
most cases, fortunately, the damage 1s, on internal evidence,
less serious. The plays with scholia help us out by oc-
casional comment, especially the welcome precision of ‘some
versions omit this line [these lines]’ ; where they give merely
an expression of opinion it is not more to be taken on trust
than any modern scholar’s—witness the havoc created by
the scholiast who inferred on wholly mistaken grounds that
Orestes 1366-8 had been interpolated by actors. But, at
least where actors’ interpolations are concerned, much of
the damage was done before the ancient commentators got
to work on the texts, and went unsuspected, or at least un-
mentioned. Left to their own judgement, modern editors
have naturally differed a good deal in their application of
square brackets. There was a time when excision became
a fashionable mania, but in general our texts are probably
over-conservative, and a great deal of ingenuity has been
wasted in emending passages that should simply be re-
moved. For there is no doubt that what may be termed the
casual interpolation is most easily betrayed by its clumsi-
ness. The styleof Euripides’ dialogue is characteristically
clear, graceful, and pointed; his interpolators, even when
they can manage the metre, achieve none of these qualities.
It may of course be hard to decide, particularly in the
‘alphabetical’ plays, where corruption rather than interpola-
tion is the cause of our difficulties; what should be decisive
is the combination of clumsy expression or doubtful gram-
mar or limping metre with expendability in sense, especially
where the join-up after excision is neat or even restores a lost
train of thought. (Cf. 297 ff., where the sense of 297 remains
unclear until the meditations on suicide (298-302), borrowed
for extra ‘pathos’ from the next ode, are removed and τὸ
σῶμα is seen from the sequel to mean, naturally enough on
Helen’s lips, τὸ τοῦ σώματος κάλλος.)
Conversely, where no clumsiness or obscurity is in ques-
tion we should scrutinize very carefully any impulse to be
rid of an offending passage: Our ideas of taste, or logic, or
 INTRODUCTION XXXHI
relevance may not always coincide with the poet’s. In
257-9, for instance, it 1s clearly dishke of what is felt to be
a grotesque note that has led to excision; the objection to
‘two unconnected senses of répas’ (but the Greek word is the
same) 15 only a secondary excuse, and the run-on, whether
from 256 to 260 or from 255, is defective. And are we to
credit an interpolator with. the tresistible ‘white chick-
contamer’? In her thorough analysis of her predicament
Helen starts at the very beginning. The speech is over-
long—true, but removal of the intrusive 287-02 and 298—302
restores its proportions.
One kind of interpolation, however, is less easy to spot
from these criteria. The sententious reflection was certainly
more popular with the Athenian audience than with us,
and in a speech that contains several of these we may feel
suspicious that someone, actor or another, has been in-
dulging his hearers or readers with an extra one ortwo. Such
γνῶμαι are by their nature detachable from a context, so
they can be lifted from one play to another, or added
(through association of ideas) to existing ones on the prin-
ciple that two are more impressive than one. The speeches
of the Old Servant (711-57) illustrate a variety of prob-
lems here.
Lo the question who interpolated, and why, there is no
satisfactory answer. Actors certainly are accountable for
some Οἱ it, and in such matters as the expansion of a pro-
tagonist’s part by extra declamatory touches it is easy to see
why. They may also have added those lines intended to
clear up grammar or meaning—and invariably obscuring it
(see, for instance, on 324-6, 388-9, 416, 742, 764)—in the hope
of getting pomts across to their audience more effectively.
‘Associated parallels’, limes apparently incorporated from
elsewhere into the text because of some similarity of vocabu-
lary or sentiment, are a much more doubtful case. The
phenomenon 1s undeniable (in Helen infrequent, but see, for
example, on 755-7, 780), but on the source and the process
we are reduced to guessing. Perhaps they varied, some
XXXIV INTRODUCTION

being oral in origin, others committed by pen on paper.

Sometimes we seem to have a mere muddled conflation of
two different versions, as here 121-2 looks like the wreck of
a doublet (in reverse order) of 118-19. Where the process
was set going by the loss of a line or lines 1t seems more
natural to suppose an editor rather than an actor re-
sponsible: 86-88 are characteristic in their tags picked out
for repetition from the surrounding context (cf. 324-6), and
in their untidy break-up of stichomythia; 1512, perhaps
hardly to be classed as an ‘interpolation’, is presumably
a product of Byzantine scansion.

The editions and commentaries I have found most helpful

are:
G. Hermann, 1837.
Ἐν A. Paley, 1874.
H. van Herwerden, 1895.
N. Wecklein, Text 1898, Commentary 1907.
A. C. Pearson, 1903 (my debt to this scholar is ubiquitous,
and frequently acknowledged).
G. Italie, 1949 (a brief Dutch commentary, full of good
sense). ,
A. Y. Campbell, 1950 (for its occasional brilliant flashes).
 ἘἘΛΕΝΗ

ὙΠΌΘΕΣΙΣ ἘΛΕΝΗΣ

Ἡρόδοτος ἱστορεῖ περὶ Ἔλένης καί φησιν ἐλθεῖν μὲν αὐτὴν εἰς
Αἴγυπτον, καὶ τοῦτο φάσκειν καὶ τὸν Ὅμηρον ποιοῦντα τὴν Ἑλένην
παρέχειν τῷ Τηλεμάχῳ ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ τὸ λαθικηδὲς φάρμακον τύ οἱ
πόρε Πολυδάμνα Θόωνος παράκοιτεφ,οὐ μὴν δὲ οὕτως ὡς Bupt-
πίδης φησίν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ πλανωμένην φασὶν αὐτὴν μετὰ τοῦ Μενελάου
μετὰ τὴν τῆς Ἰλίον πόρθησιν καὶ eis Αἴγυπτον παραγενέσθαι κάκεῖ-
θεν πεπορίσθαι τὰ appara’ ὃ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἀληθῶς ᾿Ελένην φησὶ
μηδ᾽ ὁπωσοῦν ἐλθεῖν εἰς Τροίαν, τὸ εἴδωλον δὲ αὐτῆς. κλέψας
yap αὐτὴν ὁ Ἕρμης" ‘Hpas βουλῇ Ilpwret τῷ βασιλεῖ τῆς Αἰγύπτον
φυλάττειν παρέδωκε' τούτου δὲ θανόντος 6 υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Θεοκλύμενος ic

ἐπειρᾶτο γαμεῖν αὐτήν, ἡ δὲ ἱκέτις παρεκάθητο τῷ τοῦ Πρωτέως

μνήματι. ὅθεν αὐτῇ ἐπιφαίνεται Μενέλεως, τὰς μὲν ναῦς ἐν τῇ
ϑαλάσσῃ ἀπολέσας, ὀλίγους δέ τινας τῶν ἑταιρῶν ἐν ἄντρῳ καθειργμέ-
vous σώζων. eis Adyous δὲ ἐλθόντες καὶ μηχανορραφήσαντες ἀπα-
τῶσι μὲν τὸν Θεοκλύμενον, αὐτοὶ δὲ νηὶ ἐμβάντες os δὴ τῷ Μενέλεῳ
θανόντι κατὰ θάλατταν θύσοντες, εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν διασώζονται,
Argumentum om. L, habet P ab alia manu postmodo additum
1 Cf. Hdt. ii. rr3-11r9 ' 9 Cf. § 2et—-2go: cf. X 83 (λαθικηδέα)
4 ob phy ye Kirchhoift

EUR. ΤΠ. ΝΕ i
 TA TOT ΔΡΆΜΑΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠᾺ

EAENH ΑΤΤΈΛΟΞ
ΤΕΥΚΡΟΣ ΘΕΟΝΟΗ.
ΧΌΡΟΞ MEOKAYMENOS
MENEAERS KTEPOS ΑΓΙΈΛΟΣ
Pears AIOZKOPO!I

Personarum indicem ex P descripsi; om. L

Acta anno A.c. 412: cf. Schol, Ar. Thesm. 1o12, todo, Ran. 53.
Codices LP: Scholia nulla
 EAENH

EAENH
Νείλου μὲν alde καλλιπάρθενοι foal,
ὃς ἀντὶ δίας ψακάδος Αἰγύπτου πέδον
λευκῆς τακείσης χιόνος ὑγραίνει yas.
Πρωτεὺς 8 ὅτ᾽ ἔζη τῆσδε γῆς τύραννος ἢν,
Φάρον μὲν οἰκῷν νῆσον, Αἰγύπτου δ᾽ ἄναξ, 5
ὃς τῶν κατ᾽ oldya παρθένων μίαν γαμεῖ,
Ψαμάθην, ἐπειδὴ λέκτρ᾽ ἀφῆκεν Αἰακοῦ.
τίκτει δὲ τέκνα δισσὰ τοῖσδε δώμασι,
Θεοκλύμενον ἄρσεν [ὅτι δὴ θεοὺς σέβων
βίον διήνεγκἾ εὐγενῆ τε παρθένον 10
Eide, τὸ μητρὸς ἀγλάισμ᾽, ὅτ᾽ ἦν βρέφος"
ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐς ἥβην ἦλθεν ὡραίαν γάμων,
καλοῦσιν αὐτὴν Θεονόῃν" τὰ θεῖα yap
τά τ᾽ ὄντα καὶ μέλλοντα πάντ᾽ ἠπίστατο,
προγόνου λαβοῦσα Νηρέως τιμὰς πάρα. 15
ἡμῖν δὲ γῆ μὲν πατρὶς οὐκ ἀνώνυμος
Σπάρτη, πατὴρ δὲ Τυνδάρεως" ἔστιν δὲ δὴ
λόγος τις ὥς Ζεὺς μητέρ᾽ ἔπτατ᾽ εἰς ἐμὴν
Λήδαν κύκνου μορφώματ᾽ ὄρνιθος λαβών,
ὃς δύλιον εὐνὴν ἐξέπραξ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αἰετοῦ 20
1~3 ef, scriptor. de incr. NiliI. p. τὸς, Schol, Apoll. Rhed.
269 fortasse αἵδε (leg. οἵδε, cf. 89) καλλιπάρθενοι γύαι, et ὑγραίνει
ῥοαῖς 8 Ψψακάδος Ar. Thesm. 856, Aristides il. DP. 334: Ψεκάδος
LP ἃ ὑγραίνει) ἀρδεύει Aristides yiias L vel L? (suprascripto
ut videtur κοινή : γύην Schol. Apoll, 6 παρθένον P 1 Αἰακὸν
Musgrave, cl. Hes. Theog, 1003 sq., Apollod. iii, rz, 6: αἰόλον LP
8 δισσὰ τοῖσδε δώμασιν τέκνα Nauck 9 verba uncis inclusa elecit
Nauck : (οὔτι 8)... διήνεγκ᾽.) Heel Il Εἰδώ Matthiae: εἶδος L P
12 ὡραίων LP: corr. Reiske 15 Ἀαβοῦσᾳε sequenti spatio vacuo
primitus D6 ἡμῖν] ἐμοὶ Ar, Thesm. 859 τῇ ἔστι L: corr. L?P
-
4 EYTPITIGTAOT

δίωγμα φεύγων, εἰ σαφὴς οὗτος λόγος"

“Ἑλένη δ᾽ ἐκλήθην. ἃ δὲ πεπόνθαμεν κακὰ
λέγοιμ᾽ ἄν. ἦλθον τρεῖς θεαὶ κάλλους πέρι
Ἴδαῖον ἐς κευθμῷν᾽ ᾿Αλέξανδρον πᾶρα,
Ἥρα Κύπρις τε διογενής τε παρθένος, 15
μορφῆς θέλουσαι διαπεράνασθαι κρίσιν.
'τοὐμὸν δὲ κάλλος, εἰ καλὸν τὸ δυστυχές,
Κύπρις προτείνασ᾽ ὡς ᾿Αλέξανδρος γαμεῖ,
mika. λιπὼν δὲ βούσταθμ᾽ ᾽Ιδαῖος [lapis
Σπάρτην ἀφίκεθ᾽ ὡς ἐμὸν σχήσων λέχον. 30
“Hoa δὲ μεμφθεῖσ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ οὐ νικᾷ θεάς,
ἐξηνέμωσε τἄμ᾽ ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ λέχη,
δίδωσι δ᾽ οὐκ ἔμ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοιώσασ᾽ ἐμοὶ
εἴδωλον ἔμπνουν οὐρανοῦ ξυνθεῖσ᾽ ἄπο,
Πριάμου τυράννου παιδί" καὶ δοκεῖ μ᾽ éxew— 35
κενὴν δόκησιν, οὐκ ἔχων. τὰ δ᾽ αὖ Διὸς
βουλεύματ᾽ ἄλλα τοῖσδε συμβαίνει κακοῖς"
πόλεμον γὰρ εἰσήνεγκεν “Ἑλλήνων χθονὶ
καὶ Φρυξὶ δυστήνοισιΨ, as ὄχλον βροτῶν
πλήθους τε κουφίσειε μητέρα χθόνα 40
γνωτὸν τε θείη τὸν κράτιστον “Ελλάδος,
Φρυγῶν δ᾽ ἐς ἀλκὴν προυτέθην ἐγὼ μὲν οὔ,
τὸ δ᾽ ὄνομα τοὐμόν, ἄθλον “Ελλησιν δορός.
λαβὼν δέ μ᾽ ἙἭ μῆς ἐν πτυχαῖσιν αἰθέρος
νεφέλῃ καλύψας.--
-οὐ γὰρ ἠμέλησέ μου 45
Ζεύς---τόνδ᾽ ἐς οἶκον Πρωτέως ἱδρύσατο,
πάντων προκρίνας σωφρονέστατο; βροτῶν,
ἀκέραιον ὡς σῴσαιμι Μενέλεῳ λέχος.
κἀγὼ μὲν ἐνθάδ᾽ εἴμ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ ἄθλιος πόσις
στράτευμ᾽ ἀθροίσας τὰς ἐμὰς ἀναρπαγὰς 50
26 θέλουσι primitus L 28 προτείνασ᾽ + ex o facto P 34 οὖρα-
vot] cf. 584, Bac. 293, unde αἰθέρος Wecklein ἄπο Reiske: tro LP
35 τυράννῳ Hermann, cl, Ale, 1150 42 προυθέμην ut videtur LP;
carr, Musgrave 48 μενέλεω LP
 EAENH 5

θηρᾷ πορευθεὶς ᾽Ιλίου πυργώματα.

ψυχαὶ δὲ πολλαὶ δι’ ἔμ᾽ ἐπὶ Σκαμανδρίοις
poatow ἔθανον" ἢ δὲ πάντα TAGG ἐγὼ
t τι af © *, me Ἄ 9 ΚΑ

κατάρατός εἶμι καὶ δοκῷ προδοῦσ᾽ ἐμὸν

πόσιν συνάψαι πόλεμον “Ἕλλησιν μέγαν. 55
τί δῆτ᾽ ἔτι ζῶ; θεοῦ τόδ᾽ εἰσήκουσ' ἔπος
ἤ τιν ra) σι γι Ἰ ἢ "ἢ

t
Ἑρμοῦ, τὸ κλεινὸν ἔτι κατοικήσειν πέδον
σι Ν 4 af f f

Σπάρτης σὺν ἀνδρί, γνόντος ὡς ἐς "TArov

οὐκ ἤλθον, ἵνα μὴ AEKTP
3 > of Ἂ ? +
VTOCTPACW TWh.
κε f i

ἕως μὲν οὖν φῶς ἡλίου τόδ᾽ ἔβλεπεν 60

Πρωτεύς, ἄσυλος ἢ γάμων" ἐπεὶ δὲ γῆς
σκότῳ κέκρυπται, παῖς O τοῦ τεθνηκότος
θηρᾷ γαμεῖν με. τὸν πάλαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ πόσιν
τιμῶσα ΤΙρωτέως μνῆμα προσπίτνω τόδε
ἱκέτις, ty apopl Taya διασῷῴσῃ AEX,
« f δ Ἅ ἡ 4 7% f f
65
ὡς, εἰ καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδ᾽ ὄνομα δυσκλεὲς φέρω,
μή μοι TO σῶμά γ᾽ ἐνθὰδ αἰσχύνην opay.
f 4 Fa] f 3067 fad 5 f i

ΤΡΥΚΡΟΣ
τίς τῶνδ᾽
, rt 3
ἐρυμνῶν δωμάτων ἔχει κρᾶτος;
4 τι f τὶ f

Πλούτου γὰρ οἶκος ἄξιος προσεικάσαι,

βασίλειά τ᾽ ἀμφιβλήματ᾽ εὔθριγκοί θ᾽ ἕδραι. 70
ἔα" β
ὦ θεοί, τίν᾽ εἶδον ὄψιν; ἐχθίστην ὁρῷ
4 7% ¥ τὲ 2. 3 f
γυναικὸς εἰκὼ φόνιον, ἢ fs ἀπώλεσεν
δ΄ 2ὶ
πάντας tT Ἀχαιοῦς. θεοί σ΄, ὅσον μίμημ
r
ἔχεις
f +3 ᾽ f 3 id

ἐ
Ελένης, ἀποπτύσειαν. εἰ3 ὃὲμ᾿ μὴ* ᾽ν ξένῃ
i
75
4 i Pa
yale πόδ᾽ εἶχον, τῷδ᾽ ἂν εὐστύχῳ πτερῷ
ia Fmd bi ae ἧς

st ἡλίου P: corr. ipse 52 Σκαμανδρίαις Ar. Thesm, 864

56 tl οὖν ἔτι Ar. Thesm, 868 fortasse recte 57 KAewdy μ' Her-
mann 58 γνόντι μ᾽ p (et Badham) 59 λέκτρ᾽) λέχος Eustath.
ll. p. 30 Go ἔβλεπε LP: corr. ὦ δι ἤν LP 62 παῖς L:
πῶς P 65 ἐγὼ Dobree: ἐμὸν LP 64 προσπιτνῶ ut solent LP
63 μή τοι Kirchhoff 69 πλούτῳ Nauck 18 ἐχθίστης Dingelstadt
14. 3α. θεοῖς ὅσον μίσημ᾽ ἔχεις ἑλένη α΄ LP: οοττ. ἀποπτύσαιεν LP:
corr. Ludy. Dindorf 95 56. μὴ ξένην γαίαν (sic) ΡΤ vel p 90
πόδ᾽ Fan, Faber: ποτ LP πτερῷ Elmsley : πέτρω 1,
6 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

ἀπόλαυσιν elxods ἔθανες ἂν Διὸς κόρης.

EA. τί δ᾽, ὦ ταλαύπωρ᾽---ὅστις ὧν μ᾽ ἀπεστράφης
καὶ ταῖς ἐκείνης συμφοραῖς ἐμὲ στυγεῖς;
ΜΝ ΒΞ...
Te. ἥμαρτον" ὀργῇ “᾿Ξ δ᾽ ὩΣ εἶξα μᾶλλον
ΝΕ
ἢaf με χρῆνnm 80
μισεῖ γὰρ Βιλλὰς πᾶσα τὴν Διὸς κόρην.
-- ™ e ms “ Ἀ ἤ

, 4 t om n ἢ ,
σύγγνωθι ὃ ἡμῖν τοῖς λελεγμένοις, γύναι.
EA, τίς δ᾽ ef; πόθεν γῆς τῆσδ᾽ ἐπεστράφης πέδον;
Te, εἷς τῶν ᾿Αχαιῶν, ὦ γύναι, τῶν ἀθλίων.
EA. οὗ τἄρα σ᾽ “Ἑλένην εἰ στυγεῖς θαυμαστέον. 85
ἀτὰρ τίς εἰ πόθεν; τίνος δ᾽ αὐδᾶν σε Χρη;
Ξ κι ¥ πὰ ω fa 3 Ἄ τὰ κα f

Te. ὄνομα μὲν ἡμῖν Τεῦκρος, ὁ δὲ φύσας πατὴρ

Τελαμών, Σαλαμὶς δὲ πατρὶς ἡ θρέψασά με.
; aS κα f ἘΝ
Ex. τί foam
δῆτα Νείλου τοὐσδ᾽ ἐπιστρεέφη γύας;
Τε. φυγὰς πατρῴας ἐξελήλαμαι χθονός, 00
EA. τλήμων ἂν eins: τίς δέ σ᾽ ἐκβάλλει πάτρας;
Te. Τελαμὼν 6 φύσας. τίν᾽ ἂν ἔχοις μᾶλλον φίλον;
EA. ἐκ τοῦ; τὸ γάρ τοι πρᾶγμα συμφορὰν ἔχει,
Te. Αἴας μ᾽ ἀδελφὸς ὦλεσ᾽ ἐν Τροίᾳ θανών.
EX. πῶς; οὔ τί που σῷ φασγάνῳ βίον στερείς; ὃ. 95
Te. οἰκεῖον αὐτὸν ὥλεσ᾽ ἅλμ᾽ ἐπὶ ξίφος.
EA. μανέντ᾽; ἐπεὶ τίς σωφρονῶν τλαίη τάδ᾽ ἄν;
Te. τὸν Τ]ηλέως τιν᾽ οἷσθ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλέα γόνον;
EA. vat
μνηστήρ ποθ᾽ “Ἑλένης ἦλθεν, ὡς ἀκούομεν.
Te. θανὼν 68 ὅπλων ἔριν ἔθηκε συμμάχοις. 100
EA. καὶ δὴ τί τοῦτ᾽ Αἴαντι γίγνεται κακόν;
Te. ἄλλου λαβόντος ὅπλ᾽ ἀπηλλάχθη βίου.
EX. σὺ τοῖς ἐκείνου δῆτα πήμασιν νοσεῖς;
11 ἀπόλαυσιν Reiske: ἀπώλλυσ᾽, ἵν LP: ἀπώλεσ᾽ iy p post
78 versum excidisse putabat Usener 79 ἐμὲ L?P: ἐμαῖς L
8ο μ᾽ ἐχρῆν LP 85 οὔτ᾽ ἄρα LP: οὐκ ἄρα] 86 δ᾽ αὐδᾶν
Schneidewin : ἐξαυδᾶν LP: ἀτὰρ σὲ χρὴ ᾿ξαυδᾶν, τίς εἴ πόθεν τίνος;
Dobree 80 τούσδ᾽ Elmsley: τάσδ᾽ LP vv. go-142in P, gt-142 in
L paragraphi pro personarum notis praefixi 98 ναί hic L?P:
post γόνον habuisse videtur L ᾿Αχιλλέα τιν οἶσθα, Πηλέως γόνον 5
Cobet roo ὅδ᾽ Portus:® LP ~ 103 νυσαῖς LP: corr, ἢ
 EAENH 7

Te. ὁθούνεκ᾽ αὐτῷ γ᾽ οὐ ξυνωλόμην ὁμοῦ,

EA. ἦλθες γάρ, ὦ ἐέν᾽, Ἰλίου κλεινὴν πόλι; 108
Te. καὶ ξύν ye πέρσας αὐτὸς ἀνταπωλόμην.
EA. ἤδη γὰρ ἧπται καὶ κατείργασται πυρί;
Te. ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἴχνος γε τειχέων εἶναι σαφές,
EX. ᾧ τλῆμον λένη, διὰ σ᾽ ἀπόλλυνται Φρύγες.
Te. καὶ πρός γ᾽ "Ayatot μεγάλα δ᾽ εἴργασται κακά, 11Ό
EA. πόσον χρόνον γὰρ διαπεπόρθηται πόλις;
Te. ἑπτὰ σχεδόν τι καρπίμους ἐτῶν κύκλους.
EA. χρόνον δ᾽ ἐμείνατ᾽ ἄλλον ἐν 'Τροίᾳ πόσον;
Τε. πολλὰς σελήνας, δέκα διελθούσας ἔτη.
EA. ἢ καὶ γυναῖκα Σπαρτιᾶτιν εἵλετε; 115
Te. Μενέλαος αὐτὴν» ay ἐπισπάσας κόμης.
EA. εἶδες σὺ τὴν δύστηνον; ἢ κλύων λέγεις;
Te. ὥσπερ γε σέ, οὐδὲν ἧσσον, ὀφθαλμοῖς ops.
EX. σκοπεῖτε μὴ δόκησιν εἴχετ᾽ ἐκ θεῶν.
Te. ἄλλον λόγου μέμνησο, μὴ κείνης ἔτι, 120
EA. οὕτω δοκεῖτε. τὴν δόκησιν ἀσφαλῆ;
Te. αὐτὸς γὰρ ὄσσοις εἰδόμην" καὶ νοῦς δρᾷ,
EA. ἤδη δ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις σὺν δάμαρτι Μενέλεως;
Te. οὔκουν ἐν "Αργει {γ) οὐδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Edpdra ῥοαῖς.
EA. aiat κακὸν τόδ᾽ εἶπας οἷς κακὸν λέγεις. 125
Te. ὡς κεῖνος ἀφανὴς σὺν δάμαρτι κλήζεται.
Ελ. οὐ πᾶσι πορθμὸς αὑτὸς ᾿Αργείοισιν ἣν;
Te. ἦν, ἀλλὰ χειμὼν ἄλλοσ᾽ ἄλλον ὥρισεν.
EX. ποίοισιν ἐν νώτοισι ποντίας ἁλός;
Te. μέσον περῶσι πέλαγος Αἰγαίου πόρου. 130
104 αὑτῷ γ᾽ Lf: αὐτῷ LP, nisi forte αὐτῶ τ΄ habuit LD 105 ξέν"
ἰ: ξεῖν᾽ Pet sine dubio L Ἰλίου L? Ps: ἴλιον L τοῦ ἀπώλλννται L:
ἀπώλυνταε (sic) corr, in ἀπώλοντο P E12 καμπίμους Nauck 113 δ᾽
om. P 114 ἔτι P 115 σπαρτιάτην LP: corr. P* 118 ὥσπερ
σέγ'᾽ i 121 ᾿δοκεῖτε Badham 1:95 ‘Nam ipse vidi, ef in visu
opevatur intellectus’: cf. fr. 909, 6: εἶδον ἢ» καὶ νοῦς ὁμᾷ Reiske
124 y add. Musgrave 157 αὐτὸς LP το eve τοισὶ P 130 πε-
ρῶντας Reiske
8 EYTPITITAOY

BA. κἀκ τοῦδε MeveAar οὔτις εἴδ᾽ ἀφιγμένον;

- r

Te, οὐδείς" θανὼν δὲ κλήζεται καθ᾽ “Ἑλλάδα.

EX. ἀπωλόμεσθα' Θεστιὰς δ᾽ ἔστιν κόρη;
Te. Λήδαν ἔλεξας; οἴχεται θανοῦσα δή. 7 a

EX. οὔ πού νιν “Edevns αἰσχρὸν ὥλεσεν κλέος; 135

i

Te. φασίν, βρόχῳ γ᾽ ἅψασαν εὐγενῆ δέρην.

ΕἾ
EA. of Τυνδάρειοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἢ οὐκ εἰσὶν κόροι;
Τε. τεθνᾶσι καὶ οὐ τεθνᾶσι' δύο δ᾽ ἐστὸν λόγω,
EA. πότερος 6 κρείσσων; ὦ τάλαιν᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν.
Te. ἄστροις σφ᾽ ὁμοιωθέντε hao’ εἶναι θεώ. 140
BA. καλῶς ἔλεξας τοῦτο θάτερον δὲ τί;
al a i

Te. σφαγαῖς ἀδελφῆς οὕνεκ᾽ ἐκπνεῦσαι βίον.

ἅλις δὲ μύθων: ‘, fa
οὐ διπλᾶ χρήζω στένειν.
3 ~ f δ

ὧν δ᾽ οὔνεκ᾽ ἦλθον τούσδε βασιλείους δόμους,

3 ? δ f

τὴν θεσπιῳδὸν Θεονόην χρήζων ἰδεῖν, 145

é ral

σὺν προξένησον, ὡς τύχω μαντευμάτων

Ὁ % ᾿ ΠῚ ¥ &
πὴ νεὼς στείλαιμ ἂν οὔριον πτερὸν
ἐς γῆν ἐναλίαν Κύπρον, οὗ μ᾽ ἐθέσπισεν
οἰκεῖ» Απολλων, ὄνομα νησιωτικὸν»
7 * 3 f » "

Σαλαμῖνα θέμενον τῆς ἐκεῖ χάριν πάτρας. 150

EA. πλοῦς, ὦ ξέν᾽, αὐτὸς σημανεῖ" σὺ δ᾽ ἐκλιπὼν
γῆν Tyvde φεῦγε πρίν ce παῖδα Uparews
ω f m Fa ~ Ll

ἰδεῖν, ὃς ἄρχει τῆσδε γῆς" ἄπεστι δὲ

+ Pa) εἰ Μ Pa) a“ -ἰ ΄»ο

κυσὶν πεποιθὼς ἐν φοναῖς θηροκτόνοις"

.Ἶ ΄ + ™ ἔ

κτείνει γὰρ “EAAnv’ évtw’ ἂν λάβῃ ξένον,

? μὴ tf + # 1°38 ft fa
155
του ὃ ἕκατι, μήτε σὺ ζήτει μαθεῖν
af > of f ‘, i “

eyo TE σιγὼ" τί yap ἂν ὠφελοῖμί ce;

7 fa κι ¥ μ᾿ a 4 an

Te. καλῶς ἔλεξας, ὦ γύναι" θεοὶ δέ σοι

ἐσθλῶν ἀμοιβὰς ἀντιδωρησαίατο,
131 Μενέλαν Paley: μενέλαον LP kate τοῦ Μενέλεων Radermacher
off’ Musurus 135 οὔ που Seidler et, ut videtur, primitus L: οὕπω
nunc L: ποῦ P: ἢ ποὺ suprascr. ἐ 138 λόγω Schaefer: Adyo: L P
148 σφαγαῖς LP: φασὶν ἘΞ 144 βασιλικοὺς Wunder 146 συμ-
προξένησον LP: corr, Jacebs τύχω ex ἴδω factum videtur in L
I5I se. ipsum fluit mare hincusque Cyprunt: οἵ, Bac. 406 151 ἐγὼ
δὲ Ρ 158 Τε,7 paragraphum L
 ΕΛΈΝΗ 9

“Ἑλένῃ δ᾽ ὅμοιον σῶμ᾽ ἔχουσ᾽ οὐ τὰς φρένας 160

ἔχεις ὁμοίας, ἀλλὰ διαφόρους πολύ.
κακῶς δ᾽ ὄλοιτο μηδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἐρώτα ῥοὰς
ἔλθοι" σὺ δ᾽ εἴης εὐτυχὴς ἀεί, γύναι.
EX. ὦ, μεγάλων ἀχέων καταβαλλομένα μέγαν οἶκτον
ποῖον ἁμιλλαθῶ γόον; ἢ τίνα μοῦσαν ἐπέλθω 165
δάκρυσιν ἢ θρήνοις ἢ wévOeow; αἰαῖ,
πτεροφύροι νεάνιδες, 'στρ.
παρθένοι Κθονὸς κόραι
Σειρῆνες, εἴθ᾽ ἐμοῖς γόοις
μόλοιτ᾽ ἔχουσαι AiSup ἡ 170
* f i,
λωτὸν ἢ σύριγγας ἢ
φόρμιγγας, αἰλίνοις κακοῖς
τοῖς ἐμοῖσι σύνοχα δάκρυα'
πάθεσι πάθεα, μέλεσι μέλεα,
μονυσεῖα θρηνήμα-
᾿ ;.
σι ξυνῳδὰ πέμψειε
Φερσέφασσα : 175
φόνια, χάριτας ἵν᾽ ἐπὶ δάκρυσι
παρ᾽ ἐμέθεν ὑπὸ μέλαθρα νύχια
παιᾶνα
vexvow ὀλομένοις λάβῃ.
ΧΟΡΟΣ
κυανοειδὲς ἀμφ᾽ ὕδωρ [ἀντ΄
ἔτυχον ἕλικά T ἀνὰ χλύαν 180
φοίνικας ἁλίου πέπλους
ε΄ € Υ͂ i

avyatow ἐν χρυσέαϊς
162 δ᾽ del. Wilamowitz 164 €A. P?: paragraphum L @ LP
αἶκτον ἐ (vel L*): οἶκον LP 165 γόον γόνον primitus P 166 αἰαὶ
hic sceripsi: € ἔ hic 7: @ ἕ initiov. 167 LP 170 τὸν λίβυν £ 111 αἵ
αἴνοις κακοῖς LP (in margine yp. αἰλίνοις κακοῖς ΤΙ}: ἢ φόρμιγγας del, ὦ
et afAivois in textu scripsit 114 μουσειαὰ τε f 1974 5qq. μαυσεῖα,
ut θρηνήμα- πέμψειε παιᾶνα, ditrochaeum valet,cf. ad 186 =. τῇ περ-
σέφασσα p rasura 146-178 φόνια φάνια εἴ παιᾶνας 2: unde φόνια
ive’, ἀχάριτας .... παιᾶνας νέκυσι μελομένους Lobeck 177 ἐμέθεν
Seidler: ἐμέθ᾽ LP 181 ἁλίου 2: ἁλίω LP 182 αὐγαῖσιν ἐν
ταῖς χρυσέαις ἦ: ταῖς del, Hermann: χρυσέασισιν αὐγαῖς 1, P
ΤΟ ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

ἀμφὶ δόνακος ἔρνεσιν

4 * ld ΕΝ

+ a
θάλπουσα" {ποτνίας δ᾽ ἐμᾶς)
ἔνθεν οἴκτρον» ἀνεβόοάᾶσεν,
af 3 x 5 ᾿

ὕμαδον ἔκλυον, ἄλυρον ἔλεγον, 185

τῇ 3. ἡ of
OTL TOT ἔλακὲν αἰαγμα-
a, στένουσα, Nipda τις
οἷα Nats
ὄρεσι φυγάδα νόμον tetra
γοερόν, ὑπὸ O€ πέτρινα γύαλα
i ᾿Ξ κα - f f

κλαγγαῖσι
μ ἡ m an
Πανὸς ἀναβοᾷ γάμους. 190

EA. ἰὼ ἰώ" στρ.

θήραμα βαρβάρου πλάτας,
᾿λλανίδες κόραι,
ναύτας ᾿Αχαιῶν
fa 3 ra

ris ἔμολεν ἔμολε δάκρυα δάκρυσί μοι φέρων. 195

2
λον
f
KaracKkadat 4

πυρὶ μέλουσι date

ὃ ἐμὲ τὰν πολυκτόνον,
δι’ ἐμὸν ὄνομα πολύπονον.
Λήδα δ᾽ ἐν ἀγχόναις 200
θάνατον ἔλαβεν αἰσχύ-
νας ἐμᾶς ὑπ᾽ ἀλγέων,
ὁ δ᾽ ἐμὸς ἐν ἁλὶ πολυπλανὴς
πόσις ὀλόμενος οἴχεται,
Κάστορός τε συγγόνου τε 205
183 θάλπουσ᾽ aud) (ἀμφί τ᾽ ἐν 2) δόνακος ἕρνεσιν LP: traieci et
hiatum ex. gr. supplevi 184 ἀνεβόασεν delevit Badham, cf. ad
qt 185 ἔλεγον yp. L: θρῆνον in textu LP (ἔλεγον in textu é)
186 ὅτι πόδ᾽ ὦ ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἔλακεν ditrochaeum valet, cf. ad 174 = 188 νό-
μὸν Matthiae: γάμον ἐ τ γάμων LP 189 ante γύαλα habet μύαλα
L: μύχαλα 1. P, dittographia ut videtur, sed cf. fr. Niobae, Grenf.
Pap. IL. p. 14, Blass in Rh. M. LV 96: μύχατα Canter FQQ κλαγ-
γαῖσιν (sic) Hermann: κλαγγὰς L: κλαγκὰς Ps del. ὦ τοῦ κατα-
σκαφὰ πυρὶ μέλουσ᾽ ἰδαίω LP: (κατασκαφὰν et μέλλονσαν 2): correxi
202 αἰσχύνας
+ +
ἐμᾶς
a om
ὑπ᾿
ς ἢ
Muretus: . αἰσχύνασ᾽
1 " 7
ἡμᾶς
fo”
ἐπ᾽
1 1
LP
 EAENH XI

διδυμογενὲς ἄγαλμα πατρίδος ᾿

ἀφανὲς apaves ὑππόκροτα Aé-

J %, + s ξ i

λοιπε δάπεδα
f
γυμνάσιά τε
δονακόεντος Evpa- 210
τα, VEAVLAY πύνον.

Xo. | aiat αἰαῖ" [ἀντ.

a ᾿ ,
ὦ δαίμονος πολυστόμουν
μοίρας τε σᾶς, γύναι.
αἰὼν» δυσαίων
ἜΝ α΄

τις ἔλαχεν ἔλαχεν, OTE o ETEKETO ματρόθεν

ν᾿ 3 μὴ 3 3? f

χιονύχρως κύκνου πτερῷ 215

Ζεὺς πρέπων δι aidépos:
τί γὰρ ἄπεστί σοι κακῶν;
τίνα δὲ βίοτον οὐκ ἔτλας;
μάτηρ μὲν οἴχεται,
δίδυμά τε Διὸς οὐκ εὖ- 220
δαιμονεῖ Téxea φίλα,
fi * f + ¢ o™
χθόνα ὃὲ πάτριον οὐχ ὁρᾷς,
διὰ δὲ πόλεας ἔρχεται
βάξις, ἃ σε βαρβάροισι,
, ? f
πότνια, παραδίδωσι λέχεσιν, 228
ὁ δὲ σὸς ἐν GAL κύμασί τε λέ-
᾿ i

λοιπε βίοτον, οὐδέ mor ἔτι

t

πάτρια μέλαθρα καὶ τὰν

- Χαλκίοικον ὀλβιεῖς.
EA. φεῦ φεῦ, τίς ἡ Φρυγῶν
ἢ τίς “Βλλανίας ἀπὸ χθονὸς 230
207 ἱππόκρατα P 210 veavlay LP 211 atalatat df: αἱ ai
LP 214 ris| τίς σ᾽ P et ut videtur primitus L 215, 216 in-
verso ordine collocat é, et inde editores 218 τί δ᾽ ἀνὰ Bloroy Bruhn
βίοτον L?P (et 2): βίον L ἔτλης LP: corr. ἐ gal τέκεα i: τέκνα
LP 229 πόλεας L?P: πόλιας L 225 Ἀέχεσι πότνια παραδίδωσι
LP: trai. Nauck,cl.206 226 ἐν] éprimitus P 228 ὀλβιοῖς LP:
corr. P! 250 personae notam om, L ἢ Dindorf: ἦν LP
12 EYTPIHIAOT

ἔτεμε τὰν δακρνόεσσαν

iy ΄ Fa

Ἴ ᾿ F
λίῳ πευκανὶ
ἔνθεν ὀλόμενον σκάφος
συναρμύσας ὃ ΤΠριαμίδας
ἔπλευσε βαρβάρῳ TAaTE
i

τὰν ἐμὰν ἐφ᾽ ἑστίαν, 235

ἐπὶ τὸ δυστυχέστατον
κάλλος, ὡς ἕλοι, γάμων
4 ml εἰ f
Guay ἃ τε δόλιος
ἃ πολυκτόνος Κύπρις
Δαναΐδαις ἄγουσα θάνατον (Tpraptdats],
f
.

ὦ τάλαινα συμφορᾶς. 240

f f
ἃμ δὲ*. χρυσέξοις θρόνοις
Διὸς ὑπαγκάλισμα σεμνὺν
, i

Ἢ
pa TOYμ᾿ ὠκύπουν
3 fal

ἔπεμψε Μαιάδος γόνον".

ὅς με χλοερὰ δρεπομέναν
ἔσω πέπλων ῥόδεα πέταλα,
Χαλκίοικον ὡς [Αθάναν) μόλοιμ᾽, 245
ἀναρπάσας bs αἰθερος
3 4 4?

τάνδε γαῖαν εἰς ἄνολβον

ἔριν ἔριν τάλαιναν ἔθετο
Ls uf f a

ΙΤριαμίδαισιν “Ελλάδος,
τὸ ὃ ἐμὸν ὁγρόμα
Ἄ 2. 5 *, Pal

παρὰ Σιμουντίοις ῥοαῖσι 250

μαψίδιον ἔχεν φάτιν.

Xo. ἔχεις μὲν ἀλγείν᾽, οἶδα: σύμφορον δέ τοι

554 πλεῦσε P 236, 237 del. Dindorf, cl 27: fortasse 6 Πρια-
μίδας (v.234) post 237 (γάμων ἁμῶν) traiciendus 236 Suotuxes? 298
ἐμῶν LP: correxi ob metrum (γάμον ἐμὸν ἐ) & τε Matthiae:
LP ἀπολύκτονος L: ἀπολύκτονοΣ P 289 Savaides P πρια-
& δὲ
μίδαις LP: πριαμίδαις τε 2: del, Nauck 240 paragraphum
praef. L eat ἃ Dindorf: ef Li εἰ P: nd 243 peddos P
248 πέτλα LP: corr, L* P’ Αθάναν seclusi: verba XaAxio ior...
μόλσοιμ᾽ del, Dindort 253 συμφέρον f τοι Ludv. Dindorf: σοι
LP
 ΒΛΈΝΗ 13

ὡς ῥᾷστα τἀναγκαῖα Tov βίου φέρειν.

[1 en 4 τ᾿ ἰ᾿ ¥ f

EX. φίλαι γυναῖκες, τίνει πότμῳ συνεζύγην;

i ν᾿ i ‘ δ
255
ap ἡ τεκοῦσά μ᾽ ἔτεκεν ἀνθρώποις τέρας;
σι f

[γυνὴ γὰρ οὔθ᾽ “Ελληνὶς οὔτε βάρβαρος

τεῦχος νεοσσῶν λευκὸν ἐκλοχεύεται,
ἐν4 ᾧμὰ μὲ ' Λήδαν φασὶν% ἐκ3 ΔιὸςἊ τεκεῖν]
Ll τι

τέρας γὰρ ὁ βίος καὶ τὰ πράγματ᾽

i ~ [ἡ v 4, ™~ f ἘΝ.
ἐστὶ POV, 260 ‘a

ra μὲν δι Ἥραν, τὰ δὲ τὸ κάλλος αἴτιον.

εἴθ᾽ ἐξαλειφθεῖσ᾽ ὡς ἄγαλμ᾽ αὖθις πάλιν
αἴσχιον εἶδος ἔλαβον ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ,
καὶ τὰς τύχας μὲν τὰς κακὰς ἂς νῦν ἔχω
ef
Ελληνες ἐπελάθοντο, Tas δὲ μὴ κακὰς
᾿
265
ἔσῳζον
ar are
ὥσπερ
fed
τὰς᾿ κακὰς-Φ σῳ(ζουσί
ne ?
μοῦ,
ὅστις μὲν οὗν ἐς μίαν ἀποβλέπων ᾿ς τύχην
¢ *, * 3 ᾿ ᾿

f ᾿ i *
πρὸς4 θεῶν κακοῦται, βαρὺ μέν, οἰστέον ὃ onase
Fal κι ha

ἡμεῖς δὲ πολλαῖς συμφοραῖς ἐγκείμεθα.

πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ οὖσ᾽ ἄδικος, εἰμὶ δυσκλεῆ"
m Ἂς 3 > oF “ἃ f
270
καὶ τοῦτο μεῖζον τῆς ἀληθείας κακὸν,
" Fal faa ma 4 ra f

ὅστις τὰ μὴ προσόντα κέκτηται κακά,

ἔπειτα πατρίδος θεοὶ μ' ἀφιδρύσαντο γῆς
¥ a i 7 4 Ea -

ἐς βάρβαρ᾽ ἤθη, καὶ φίλων τητωμέρη

δούλη καθέστηκ᾽ οὖσ᾽ ἐλευθέρων ἄπο" 275
τὰ βαρβάρων yap δοῦλα πάντα πλὴν Eves.
ἄγκυρα δ᾽ ἢ μου τὰς τύχας ὦχει μονὴ,
πόσιν ποθ᾽ ἥξει; καί μ᾽ ἀπαλλάξειν κακῶν ----
ἔστι δὴ.
μ
οὗτος οὐκέτ᾽
* > Ff 43 καὶ
οὗτος τέθνηκεν,
τῶν f

μήτηρ δ᾽ ὄλωλε, καὶ φονεὺς αὐτῆς ἐγώ, 2380

ἀδίκως μέν, ἀλλὰ τἄδικον τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐμὸν"
f 3 μὴ ΕΝ -— 3 a a δ
Ἂ ¥

ὃ δ᾽ ἀγλάεσμα δωμάτων ἐμοῦ τ᾽ ἔφυ,

a59-259 del. Wieland 260 καὶ τὰ ἰδ: κάρτα LP μου] por f
263 ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ λαβεῖν LP: λάβω 2 et in marg. yp. λάβω L*:
ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ “AaBoy-Porson : trai, Wilamowitz 464. et 265 κακὰς
apogr. Paris.: καλὰς LP 276 πλὴν L: πρὶν P 297 δ᾽ ἢ
Scaliger: 84 LP ὥχει Musgrave : ὀχεῖ L P 279 ἐπεὶ τέθνηκεν
οὗτος Wilamowitz 281 τοῦτ᾽] τόδ᾽ Elmsley ἔστ᾽ om. P
282 ἐμοῦ] ἐμόν Cobet |
r
 T4 EY PUHLAOYT

θυγάτηρ ἄνανδρος πολιὰ παρθενεύεται'

τὼ τοῦ Διὸς δὲ λεγομένω Διοσκόρω
οὐκ ἐστόν. ἀλλὰ πάντ᾽ ἔχουσα δυστυχῆ 285
τοῖς πράγμασιν τέθνηκα, τοῖς δ᾽ ἔργοισιν ov.
τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον τοῦτ᾽, εἰ μόλοιμεν ἐς πάτραν,
κλήθροις ἂν εἰργοίμεσθα----τὴμ ὑπ᾿ Ἰλίῳ
δοκοῦντες “EXévyy Μενέλεω μ᾽ ἐλθεῖν μέτα.
4 x % 3 i Ἴ ῇ μὴ
εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἔζη πόσις, ἀνεγνώσθημεν ἂν 200
ἐλθόντες, ἃ φανέρ᾽ ἣν» μόνοις, ἐς ξύμβολα.
νῦν δ᾽ οὔτε τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ οὔτε μὴ σωθῇ wore.
™ ? af om 3s yf 3 af * =

τί δῆτ᾽ ἔτι ζῶ; τίν᾽ ὑπολείπομαι τύχην;

γάμους ἑλομένη τῶν κακῶν ὑπαλλαγάς,
per’ ἀνδρὸς οἰκεῖν βαρβάρου πρὸς πλουσίαν 205
τράπεζαν ἵζουσ᾽; ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν πόσις πικρὸς
ξυνῇ γυναικί, καὶ τὸ σῶμ᾽ ἐστιν πικρόν.
θανεῖν κράτιστον" πῶς θάνοιμ᾽ ἂν οὗ καλῶς;
[ἀσχήμονες μὲν ἀγχόναι μετάρσιοι,
κἂν τοῖσι δούλοις δυσπρεπὲς νομίζεται" 300
σφαγαὶ δ΄ ἔχουσιν evyeves τι καὶ καλὸν,
Ν ΠΣ": 4 f Ν᾿ f

σμικρὸν δ᾽ ὁ καιρὸς σάρκ᾽ ἀπαλλάξαι βίου.

és yap τοσοῦτον ἤλθομεν βάθος κακῶν"
4 * ΤᾺ ιν f a

αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι διὰ τὸ κάλλος εὐτυχεῖς

~ coo 5 > ma + 4% f .
γυναῖκες, ἡμᾶς O αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν. 395
Xo. ‘EAévn, τὸν ἐλθόνθ᾽, ὅστις ἐστὶν ὃ ξένος,
μὴ πάντ᾽ ἀληθῆ δοξάσῃς εἰρηκέναι.
΄ f 3,03 aiid f 4 a

EX. καὶ μὴν σαφῶς γ᾽ ἔλεξ᾽ ὀλωλέναι πόσιν.

283 πουλιὰ lL P 284 Διὸς πατρὸς Ribbeck Αἰοσκόρω] δισσὼ κόρω
F, Gu. Schmidt 287 ἐς hicP 288 κλείθροιςLP «88, 289 εἴργοιέν
με Badham : mavult dexotow Wecklein, δοκοῦντος Scaliger μ᾽ ἐλθεῖν]
θανεῖν F. Gu. Schmidt: lacunam post 288 statuit Kayser: versus
fortasse sani 301 és ἐὐμβολ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἃ φανερὰ μόνοις ἂν ἣν LP
(ἐλθόνϑ᾽ ἃ φανερ' ἂν Porson : ἀμφανῆ Camper; tum μόνοιν Herwerden);
correxi 294 ἀπαλλαγάς ῥ 297 τὸ σῶμ᾽ sanum videtur:
τὸ δῶμ᾽ Scaliger: τὸ σῶν Seidler 299-302 delevit Hartung
298 πῶς θάνοιμ᾽ ἂν οὖν Stephanus: προθάνοιμ᾽ ἂν ob LP οὐ Testi-
tuit Wilamowitz, cl. vv. 303-305 302 σμικρὸς Stephanus
σάρκ᾽ Hermann: pr’ LP 306 ἐλθόντ᾽ LP 308 ἔλεξεν LP
 EAENH T5
Xo. πόλλ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο καὶ διὰ ψευδῶν» ἔπη.
EX. καὶ τἄμπαλίν γε τῶνδ᾽ ἀληθείᾳ σαφῆ. 310
Xo. ἐς ξυμφορὰν γὰρ ἀντὶ τἀγαθοῦ φέρῃ.
HA, φόβος γὰρ ἐς τὸ δεῖμα περιβαλών μ᾽ ἄγει.
Xo. πῶς δ᾽ εὐμενείας τοισίδ᾽ ἐν δόμοις ἔχεις;
EA. πάντες φίλοι μοι πλὴν 6 θηρεύων γάμους.
Xo. ota οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον; μνήματος λιποῦσ᾽ ἕδραν--τ͵. 115
EA. ἐς ποῖον ἕρπεις μῦθον ἢ παραίνεσιν;
Χο. ἐλθοῦσ᾽ ἐς οἴκους, ἢ τὰ πάντ᾽ ἐπίσταται,
τῆς ποντίας ΝΝηρῇδος éxydvou κόρης,
ray F
πυθοῦ πόσιν σὸν Oeovons, εἴτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἔτι
1 ᾿ ¥ 3 # > oy

εἴτ᾽ ἐκλέλοιπε φέγγος" ἐκμαθοῦσα δ᾽ εὖ 330

πρὸς τὰς τύχας τὸ χάρμα τοὺς γόους τ᾽ ἔχε.
πρὶν δ᾽ οὐδὲν ὀρθῶς εἰδέναι, τί σοι πλέον
λυπουμένῃ γένοιτ᾽ ἂν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ mood
τάφον λιποῦσα τόνδε σύμμειξον κόρῃ"
fe a i # f

ὕθενπερ εἴσῃ πάντα τἀληθῆ φράσαι 325

ἔχουσ ἐν οἴκοις τοῖσδε, TL βλέπεις προσω;
Ἅ + 3 M a # f

θέλω δὲ κἀγὼ σοὶ συνεισελθεῖν δόμους

καὶ συμπυθέσθαι παρθένου θεσπίσματα"
Ἀ f f a

γυναῖκα γὰρ δὴ συμπονεῖν γυναικὶ χρή.

EA, φίλαι, λόγους ἐδεξάμαν' 230
βᾶτε βᾶτε δ᾽ ἐς δόμους,
ἀγῶνας ἐντὸς οἴκων
ὡς πύθησθε τοὺς ἐμοὺς.
« # ΄ ε *

Χο, θέλουσαν οὐ μόλις καλεῖς,

EA, ἰὼ μέλεος ἁμέρα. 335
τίν 3. ἄρα
οἱ
τάλαινα
i
τίνα
,
daxpvo-i
309 ἔπη] σαφῆ Hermann 910 ἀληθείᾳ Kirchhoff: ἀληθείας
LP ἀληθείας ἔπη Hermann: ἀλήθε ἀσφαλής Wilamowitz 510--
317 paragraphi praefixi in P, 313-347 in L gi2 φόβος L: φόνος P
περιλαβών ῥ 313 τοισίδ᾽ LP: τοῖσιν p (et Cobet}: τοῖσί γ᾽ 1
324-326 delevit Goguel 325 φράσαι) μαθεῖν Badham 330 ἐδε-
ἐάμαν L?P : ἐδεξάμκαε L 552 οἴκων LP: δόμων suprascr. 2 aut 1.3:
tel. Badham 855, 349, 346, 948 paragraphos praef. L: personas
hic illic addidit ? , |
16 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

evra λόγον ἀκούσομαι;

Xo. μὴ πρόμαντις ἀλγέων
προλάμβαν᾽, ὦ φίλα, γόους.
EA. τί μοι πόσις μέλεος ETAG; 340
πότερα δέρκεται aos
f f tf

τέθριππά θ᾽ ἁλίου κέλευθά τ᾽ ἀστέρων,

ἢ ᾽ν νέκυσι κατὰ χθονὸς
τὰν χρόνιον ἔχει τύχαν; 345
Xo. és τὸ φέρτερον τίθει
f af f
ὃ TL γενήσεται.
μ᾿
TO μέλλον,
Ελ. σὲ γὰρ ἐκάλεσα, σὲ δὲ κατόμοσα,
τὸν ὑδρόεντὶ δόνακι χλωρὸν
4 ε - ἔ Ἂ

Εὐρώταν, θανόντος 350

εἰ Batis ἔτυμος avdpos
4 f LW εἰ *

ἅδε μοι---τί TAS

cf i Far
ἀσύνετα;---:
4 f

φόνιον αἰώρημα
διὰ δέρης ὀρέξομαι,
ἢ ξιφοκτόνον δίωγμα
λαιμορρύτου σφαγᾶς 355
αὐτοσίδαρον ἔσω πελάσω διᾶ σαρκὸς ἅμιλλαν,
θῦμα τριζύγοις θεαῖσι
τῷ τε σήραγγας ᾿Ιδαί-
as ἐνίζοντι Lpiapi-
+ oF r

Sq ποτ᾽ ἀμφὶ βουστάθμους.

Xo. ἄλλοσ᾽ ἀποτροπὰ κακῶν 360
γένοιτο, τὸ δὲ σὸν εὐτυχές.
2342 τ΄ ἀολίου LP: corr. Badham 243 fortasse ἄστρων ob
_ metrum, cf. 632 sqq. κέλευθά LP: és κέλευθά é 344 ἢ ᾽ν
Jacobs; ἢ ΚΕ νέκυσι 2+. νέκυσιν LP 345 χρόνιον Orelll :
χθόνιον LP: ef. 1, Ἔν, 481 348 σέ γ᾽ ἀνεκάλεσα Badham κατώ-
LP: corr. Elmsley 349 ὑδράεντι Reiske: ὑδρόεντα LP
μοσα
χλωρὸν Stephanus: χῶρον LP 552 verba τί τάδ᾽ ἀσύνετα Choro
vulgo tributa post correctorem apogr. Paris. 353 ἐρέξομαι P
355 δαϊγμὸν aigoptrov post Hartung Wecklein λαιμορυτοῦ L
cpayas P 456 &uArkaL P: corr. Musgrave 258 sq. σήραγγας
‘thalas ἐνίζωντι. Badham : σύραγγ᾽ ἀοιδαὶ σεβίζον LP: συρίγγων aodais
σεβίζαντι Wilamowitz πριαμίδα LP: πριαμίδας ἰ
 EAENH 17

EA. ἰὼ Τροία τάλαινα,

δι᾿ ἔογ᾽ ἄνεργ᾽ ὄλλυσαι
μέλεά τ᾽ ἔτλας" τὰ δ᾽ ἐμὰ δῶρα
Κύπριδος ἔτεκε πολὺ μὲν αἷμα,
TOAD δὲ δάκρυον" ἄχεά T ἄχεσι, 365
δάκρυα δάκρυσιν ἔλαβε, πάθεα...
ματέρες τε παῖδας ὄλεσαν,
ἀπὸ ὃὲ παρθένοι κόμας
Ἂ ᾿ »Ἶ F . F

ἔθεντο σύγγονοι νεκρῶν Σκαμάνδριον

it ¥ a f

ἀμφὶ Φρύγιον οἷδμα.

βοὰν βοὰν & Ἑλλὰς. 370
κελάδησε κἀνοτότυξεν,
ἐπὶ S€ κρατὶ χέρας ἔθηκεν,
ἈΞ ΑΝ “ μ᾽ Ll μὴ

ὕνυχι δ᾽ ἁπαλύχροα γένυν

δεῦσε φονίαισι πλαγαῖς.
ὦ μάκαρ ᾿Αρκαδίᾳ ποτὲ παρθένε Καλλιστοῖ, Aus 375
ἃ λεχέων ἐπέβας τετραβάμοσι yviots,
ὡς πολὺ ματρὸς ἐμᾶς ἔλαχες πλέον,
ἃ popde θηρῶν λαχνογυίων.---
Ad 38 cad κι “ὋΝ
ὕμματι ὃ ἁβρῷ σχῆμα Acatvers—
ἐξαλλάξασ᾽ ἄχθεα λύπης" 380
iy τέ ποτ᾽ "Ἄρτεμις ἐξεχορεύσατο
χρυσοκέρατ᾽ ἔλαφον Μέροπος Τυτανίδα κούραν
καλλοσύνας ἕνεκεν" τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν δέμας
ὥλεσεν ὥλεσε πέργαμα Δαρδανίας
ὐὑλομένους τ᾽ ᾿Αχαιούς. 385
364 Κύπριδος Ludy, Dindorf: Κύπρις LP 366 varie tentati:
fortasse sani lacuna post πάθεα posita 367 ὥλεσαν LP 379,
571 ἑλλὰς a? ἐκελάδησ᾽ ἀνωτότυξεν Paley (κἀνωτότνξεν p) 374 ἔδευσε
LP 375 Καλλιστοῖ del. Nauck, Aiwy pro Aids scribens 516 γύοις
LP: corr. ἢ 371 βῥος LP . 378 λάχνα γυίων LP: corr.
Reiske 979 sic nos: ὁ sed wiulinu delicato formam wmuiligas’: ὄμματι
λάβρῳ σχῆμα λεαίνης LP: versum del. Dingelstadt 380 ἔχϑεα
Hermann: ἄχεα LP 3&1 ἐξεκαρεύσατο Verrall 382 χρυσόκερω
(voluit χρυσόκερων) ἱ 354 ὥλεσεν ὥλεσεν LP
4

EUR, III, 2
18 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ
MENEAEQS
ᾧ τὰς τεθρίππους Οἰνομάῳ ΤΙῖσαν xara
ἔχιν

Πέλοψ ἁμίλλας ἐξαμιλληθεῖς ποτε,

εἴθ᾽ ὥφελες τόθ᾽, ἡνίκ᾽ ἔρανον eis θεοὺς
πεισθεὶς ἐποίεις, ἐν θεοῖς λιπεῖν βίον,
πρὶν τὸν ἐμὸν ᾿Ατρέα πατέρα γεννῆσαΐ ποτε, 399
ὃς ἐξέφυσεν ᾿Δερόπης λέκτρων ὥπο
᾿Αγαμέμνον᾽ ἐμέ τε Μενέλεων, κλεινὸν ζυγόν'
πλεῖστον γὰρ οἶμαι----καὶ τόδ᾽ οὐ κόμπῳ ACyO—~
μ᾿ f

στράτευμα κώπῃ διορίσαι Τροίαν ἔπι,

τύραννος οὐδὲν πρὸς βίῳ» oTparyAaror,
ra
395
i 374% 4 a

ἑκοῦσι δ᾽ ἄρξας “Ἑλλάδος veaviats,

καὶ 4 τοὺςhy μὲν- οὐκέτ᾽
> fs
ὄντας
»
ἀριθμῆσαι
μ᾿ τὴ
Tapa,
i

τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκ θαλάσσης ἀσμένους πεφευγότας,

ὀνόματ᾽ εἰς οἴκους πάλιν.
~ fF > # 3 + A f
νεκρῶν φέροντας
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ οἴδμα πόντιον γλαυκῆς ἁλὸς 400
τλήμων ἀλῶμαι χρόνον ὅσονπερ ᾽Ιλίου
πύργους ἔπερσα, Kas πάτραν χρήζων μολεῖν
f f Fat

οὐκ ἀξιοῦμαι τοῦδε πρὸς θεῶν τυχεῖν.

Λιβύης τ᾽ ἐρήμους ἀξένους τ΄ ἐπιδρομὰς
πέπλευκα πάσας" χὥῶταν ἐγγὺς ὦ πάτρας, 405
f + 4 τι κι af 3 ¥
πάλιν μ' ἀπωϑεῖ πνεῦμα, KOUTOT οὐριίον
ἐσῆλθε λαῖφος ὥστε μ᾽ ἐς πάτραν μολεῖν.
καὶ voy τάλας ναναγὸς ἀπολέσας φίλους
ἐξέπεσον ἐς γῆν τήνδε"
5 a 4 om f
ναῦς δὲ πρὸς πέτρας
mn - “ f

πολλοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἄγνυται ναναγίων. 410

τρόπις δ᾽ ἐλείφθη ποικίλων ἁρμοσμάτων,
£ ἢ

ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἐσώθην μόλις ἀνελπίστῳ τύχῃ

. f ἢ a ε f #
EAevy τε, Τροίας ἣν ἀποσπάσας ἔχω,
388-9 suspecti 8305 μενέλεω LP: corr. ἢ 402 καὶ els
P 404 Λιβύης 3° Hermann 406 καὶ οὔποτ᾽ L: κοὔποτ᾽
ΤΡ 408 ἀπώλεσας P 4ττ ἐλήφθη LP: corr, Stephanus
412 hs apogr. Flor. (Laur. xxxi, τὴ: οἷς LP, sed im rasura ser. L
vel 1. a .
 EAENH © 19

ὄνομα δὲ χώρας ἥτις de Kal λεὼς

οὐκ oda: ὄχλον γὰρ ἐσπεσεῖν σχυνομὴν 4185
μι Ξ- it Ἀ Ἂ - δ ».

acd ἱστορῆσαι, τὰς ἐμὰς δυσχλαινίας

tf ak ca x 7% ¥

κρύπτων ὑπ αἰδοῦς τῆς τύχης. ὅταν ὃ ἀνὴρ

¥ "4 F 7 τὴ μὴ or 7.3 004%

πράξῃ κακῶς ὑψηλός, εἰς ἀηθίαν

πίπτει κακίω τοῦ πάλαι δυσδαίμονος.
μ" i 3 ΒΗ μ᾿ ἊΝ f 5
χρεία δὲ τείρει μ᾽. οὔτε yap σιτὸς Tapa 130
οὔτ᾽ ἀμφὶ ypar ἐσθῆτες" αὐτὰ δ᾽ εἰκάσαι
F . Fan κα . f

πάρεστι ναὸς ἐκβόλοις ἃ ἀμπίσχομαι.,

f % 3 ᾿ a ἢ i

πέπλους δὲ τοὺς πρὶν λαμπρά τ᾽ ἀμφιβλήματα

f i .

χλιδάς; Te πόντος
, fo
ἥρπασ'">
ἐν4 ὃ᾽ > ἄντρου
¥
μυχοῖςm
¥ al ‘, τ᾿ f 4 μ᾽
κρύψας γυναῖκα τὴν κακῶν πάντων ἐμοὶ 425
ἄρξασαν ἥκω τοὺς τε περιλελειμμένους
φίλων φυλάσσειν τἄμ᾽ ἀναγκάσας λέχη.
μόνος δὲ νοστῷ, τοῖς ἐκεῖ ζητῶν φίλοις
τὰ πρόσφορ᾽ ἦν mas ἐξερευνήσας λάβω,
ἰδὼν δὲ δῶμα περιφερὲς θριγκοῖς τόδε 430
πύλας τε σεμνὰς ἀνδρὸς ὀλβίου τινός,
προσῆλθον" ἐλπὶς δ᾽ ἔκ γε πλουσίων δόμων
λαβεῖν τι ναύταις" ἐκ δὲ μὴ ἐχόντων Blov—
οὐδ᾽ εἰ θέλοιεν, ὠφελεῖν ἔχοιεν ἄν.
ay τίς ἂν πυλωρὸς ἐκ δόμων μόλοι, 435
ὅστις διαγγείλεις τἄμ᾽ ἔσω κακά;
Lad ra 7 ws f

ΓΡΑΥ͂Σ

τίς πρὸς πύλαισιν; οὐκ ἀπαλλάξη δόμων

. 4 ‘ Ν 5 ¥ ε Ἂς ta
καὶ μὴ πρὸς αὐλείοισιν ἐστηκῶς πύλαις
_o¥
ὄχλον» παρέξεις
i
δεσπόταις;
i
ἢ κατθανῇ.
μὰ ra

“Ἕλλην πεφυκώς, οἷσιν οὐκ ἐπιστροφαΐί. 440

414 λεὼ Nauck 415 οἶδα LP 416 del. Dindorf 417 τῆς
τύχης Arnim : τὰς τύχας LP: maluit Nauck ris ἐμῆς v. 426 scribere
420 χρεία f: χεῖρα P et sine dubio L σῖτος Musgrave: στα LP:
orové 6. 4a αὐτὸ Badham 422 ἃ ἀμπίσχομαι Herwerden :
ἀμπίσχομαι LP 426 τε Hermann: ye LP 430 iim P: tw p
432 ye Reiske: re.L P 433 of δὲ μὴ ἔχοντες Wecklein 434
virgulam post ὠφελεῖν habent LP: ὠφελεῖν, ἔχοιμεν Paley 436 εἴσω
LP 498 θύραις Blaydes .
2
20 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

Me. ὦ γραῖα, ταῦτα, ταῦτ᾽ ἐπεὶ καλῶς λέγεις.

᾿ ἔξεστι, πείτομαι γάρ' ἀλλ᾽ ἄνες λόγον.
Tp. ἄπελθ᾽- ἐμοὶ γὰρ τοῦτο πρόσκειται, ξένε,
μηδένα πελάζειν τοισίδ᾽ “Ελλήνων δόμοις,
Me. & μὴ προσείλει χεῖρα μηδ᾽ ὦθει βίᾳ. 445
Vp. πείθῃ γὰρ οὐδὲν ὧν λέγω, σὺ δ᾽ αἴτιος,
Με. ἄγγειλον εἴσω δεσπόταισι τοῖσι σοῖς. ....
Γρ. πικρῶς ἄρ᾽ οἶμαί γ᾽ ἀγγελεῖν τοὺς σοὺς Adyous.
Me. ναυαγὸς ἥκω ξένος, ἀσύλητον γένος.
Γρ. οἶκον πρὸς ἄλλον νύν τιν᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦδ᾽ ἴθι. 450
Με, οὔκ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσω πάρειμι" καὶ ov μοι πιθοῦ.
καὶ μ Tax ὠσθήσῃ βίᾳ.
3 i ?
ὦν'
fos
Tp. ὀχληρὸς
5 ‘,
ἴσθ᾽
a 1

Me. αἰαῖ: τὰ κλεινὰ ποῦ “ort μοὶ στρατεύματα;

Γρ. οὐκοῦν ἐκεῖ που σεμνὸς ἦσθ᾽, οὐκ ἐνθάδε.
Me. ᾧ δαῖμον, ὡς ἀνάξι᾽ ἠτιμώμεθα. 455
Tp. τί βλέφαρα τέγγεις δάκρυσι; πρὸς τίν᾽ οἰκτρὸς εἶ;
Me. πρὸς τὰς πάροιθεν συμφορὰς εὐδαίμονας.
lp. οὔκουν» ἀπελθὼν δάκρυα σοῖς δώσεις φίλοις;
Me. τίς δ᾽ ἥδε χώρα; τοῦ δὲ βασίλειοι δόμοι;
Ip, Πρωτεὺς τάδ᾽. οἰκεῖ δώματ᾽, Αἴγυπτος δὲ γῆ. 460
Me. Αἴγυπτος; ὦ δύστηνος, of πέπλευκ᾽ ἄρα.
Γρ. τί δὴ τὸ Νείλον μεμπτόν ἐστί σοι γάνος;
Με. οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ἐμέμφθην' τὰς ἐμὰς στένω τύχας.,
Γρ. πολλοὶ κακῶς πράσσουσιν, ov σὺ δὴ μόνος,
Με. ἔστ᾽ οὖν ἐν οἴκοις ὅντιν᾽ ὀνομάζεις ἄναξ; 465
440 ἐπεὶ scripsi: ἔπη LP κἄλλως λέγειν ἔξεστι Herwerden
444 τοῖσι P: τοῖσιν p 445 sq. post 452 trai, Schenkl
445 προσείλει L (et rescripsit 2) P: yp. πρόσαγε in marg. p: πρόσειξ
Matthiae, cl. Her. rar18 446 σὺ δ᾽ αἴτιος" πείθῃ γὰρ οὐδὲν ὧν λέγω
Dobree 447-483 paragraphi praef. in L: 447-476 in P 448
ἄρ᾽ Hermann: ἂν LP: versus varie tentatus: ἂν ᾧμην Weckletn :
cobs ἀπαγγεῖλαι λόγους Nauck . 450 viv LP. 452 ἴσθ᾽] οἶσθ'
ἴῃ τᾶϑ. ἡ' 458 σώσεις Bruhn 460 Πρωτέως τάδ᾽ ἐστὶ μέλαθρα Ar.
Thesm. 874 τ Πρωτέως 748" ἐστὶ δώματ᾽ Kirchhoff 46L of πεπλώκαμεν
Ar, Thesm. 878, unde πέπλωκ᾽ hic Paley; cf. 532 462 μεμπτὸν P:
μεπτόν L. γάνος] γένος Musurus ex apogr. Paris. .
Γρ. τόδ᾽ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ μνῆμα, παῖς δ᾽ ἄρχει χθονός.
aA Sn I oh " , 3 » ΔῸΣ ἢ
Me. ποῦ δῆτ᾽. ἂν εἴη; πότερον» ἐκτὸς ἢ ν δόμοις;
Τρ. οὐκ ἔνδον: “Ἕλλησιν δὲ πολεμιώτατος.
Me. τίν᾽ αἰτίαν σχὼν ἧς ἐπηυρόμην ἐγώ;
Γρ. Ἑλένη κατ᾽ οἴκους ἐστὶ τούσδ᾽ ἣ τοῦ Atos. 470
Me, πῶς φῇς; τίν elmas μῦθον; avdis μοι φράσον.
fi] ? 75 ἐν ~ τῆν ἢ ὦ Li
7

Tp. ἡ Τυνδαρὶς παῖς, ἢ κατὰ Σπάρτην ποτ᾽ ἦν.

Me. πόθεν μολοῦσα; τίνα τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἔχει λόγον;
Tp. Λακεδαίμονος γῆς δεῦρο νοστήσασ᾽ ἄπο.
Me. πότε; οὔ τί που λελήσμεθ᾽ ἐξ ἄντρων λέχος; 475
Γρ. πρὶν τοὺς ᾿Αχαιούς, ὦ ξέν᾽, és Tpotar μολεῖν.
dn’ οἴκων" ἔστι yap Tis ἐν δόμοις
f

Eon
*

ἀλλ᾽
3 + κεἰ 4 " hy y af fr

τύχη, τύραννος ἢ ταράσσεται δύμος.

* ᾿ id
καιρὸν4 yap οὐδέν᾽ ἦλθες" ἣν dé δεσπότης
bey inf 3 F

λάβῃ σε, θάνατος ξένιά σοι γενήσεται. 480

%
εὔνους γάρ εἰμ “EAAqow, οὐχ ὅσον πικροὺς
Ψ i τ 3 εἰ ’ ig

λόγους ἔδωκα δεσπότην φοβουμένη.

Με. τί φῶ; τί λέξω; συμφορὰς γὰρ ἀθλίας
ἐκ τῶν πάροιθεν τὰς παρεστώσας κλύω,
εἰ τὴν μὲν αἱρεθεῖσαν ἐκ Τροίας ἄγων
3 ΄ ‘, Ls ba 5 ¥ af
485
ἥκω δάμαρτα καὶ κατ᾽ ἄντρα σῴζεται,
ὄνομα δὲ ταὐτὸν τῆς ἐμῆς ἔχουσά τις
δάμαρτος ἄλλη τοισίδ᾽ ἐνναίει δόμοις.
Διὸς δ᾽ ἔλεξε παῖδά νιν πεφυκέναι.
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τις ἔστι Ζηνὸς ὄνομ᾽ ἔχων ἀνὴρ 499
Νείλου παρ᾽ ὄχθας; εἷς γὰρ 6 ye κατ᾽ οὐρανόν.
* δ € .
Σπάρτηδὲ ποῦ γῆς ἐστι πλὴν
Ff εν ΤᾺ ms +
wa poat
τοῦ καλλιδόνακός elow Evpoita μόνον;
466. μνῆμα] σῆμα Ar. Thesm. 886 474 γῆν " et Victorius :
τοῖς L P sed ἧς supraser. L* 475 πότε LP ἄντρω P λέχος
Heath: λέχους LP 477 ἐν δόμοιεἾ ἐμποδὼν Wecklemn : ἐνθάδε
Herwerden ob vy. sequente m 479 οὐδὲν LP: corr, Musgrave
484 τὰς LAP: τὼ L 488 δάμαρ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἄλλῃ versti 487 deleto Vitelli
τοῖσιν ῥ 491 ὅτε in 8 γε mut. ut videtur L F 492
roid
ondprys P ἵνα Matthiae: ἵν᾽ αἱ LP
22 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

ἁπλοῦν δὲ Τυνδάρειον ὄνομα κλήζεται.

Λακεδαΐμονος δὲ γαῖα τίς ξυνώνυμος 495
Τροίας τε; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἔχω τί χρὴ λέγειν.
πολλοὶ γάρ, ὡς εἴξασιν, ἐν πολλῇ χθονὶ
OVOLATA Τοῦτ᾽ ἐχουσι καὶ πόλις πόλει
δὶ ¥ ¥ 4 ov u f ¥

Ἂς 5 ss e i
γυνὴ γυναικί Τ΄" οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστέον.
οὐδ᾽ αὖ τὸ δεινὸν προσπόλου φευξούμεθα' 500
ἀνὴρ γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὧδε βάρβαρος φρένας,
ὃς OVO ἀκούσας ToUsOY οὐ δώσει βορᾶν.
πὶ, i * 4 ¥ 3 + 3 ? r

κλεινὸν τὸ Τροίας πῦρ ἐγώ θ᾽ ὃς ἧψά νιν,

Μενέλαος, οὐκ ἄγνωστος ἐν πάσῃ χθονί.
δόμων ἄνακτα προσμενῷῶ: δισσὰς δέ μοι 505
at “ Ae ‘, 5 fd _ κ
ἔχει φυλάξεις" ἣν μὲν ὠμόφρων τις 7)
κρύψας ἐμαυτὸν εἶμι πρὸς ναυάγια'
ἣν δ᾽ ἐνδιδῷ τι μαλθακόν, τὰ πρόσφορα
τῆς νῦν παρούσης συμφορᾶς αἰτήσομαι.
κακῶν μὲν ἡμῖν ἔσχατον τοῖς ἀθλίοις, 510
™ ΄- tf κα », ἔμ 4 fa

ἄλλους τυράννους αὑτὸν ὄντα βασιλέα

Εὰ f . 3% Bg . i .

βίον προσαιτεῖν" ἀλλ΄ ἀναγκαίως ἔχει.

# Pa 3 3.3 a af

λύγος yap ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμὸς, σοφὸν 8 ἔπος,

ἐ “ Ἄ 2 3 f 4 + so

δεινῆς ἀνάγκης οὐδὲν ἰσχύειν πλέον.

ΧΟΡΟΣ
ἤκουσα Tas θεσπιῳδοῦ κόρας, 515
ἌΡ ra ἥν, ῥ

&a χρήζουσ᾽'
f 7 94 ft
ἐφάνη f
τυράννοις ᾿

δόμοις, ὡς Μενέλαος οὖ-

TW μελαμφαὲς οἴχεται
dt ἔρεβος χθονὶ κρυφθεῖς,
404. διπλοῦν... κλβζεται; Nauck 496 Τροίας τ LP 498 ταῦτ᾽
LP 504. seclusit Cobet 505-506 δισσὰς... ἔχει Musgrave :
ἔχει... δισσὰς LP 507 κρύψων Badham 509 ταῖς νῦν παρούσαις
συμφοραῖς Reiske: τῇ νῦν παρούσῃ συμφορᾷ σφ᾽ Hermann 510 κακὸν 6
μὲν Paley: δέ 61, Ῥ: δ᾽ ἔθ᾽ Hartung: δέ γ᾽ Lenting τοῖς) τόδ᾽
Wilamowitz = 5513 σοφὸν LP: σοφῶν ἱ 514 ἰσχύειν f vel L?;
ἰσχύει LP 516 χρήσασ᾽ Dindorf: Cavaco’) ἃ χρήζουσ᾽ Wilamowitz
ἐφάνην ἰ, unde ἐφάνη ᾽ν Badham
 EAENH 23

ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι κατ᾽ οἷδμ᾽ ἅλιον Bao

τρυχόμενος οὔπω λιμένων
ψαύσειεν πατρίας γᾶς,
ἀλατείᾳ βιότου
ταλαίφρων, ἄφελος φίλων,
παντοδαπᾶς Τἐπὶ γᾶς πόδα 525
χριμπτόμενος εἰναλίῳ
cata Τρῳάδος ἐκ yas. | -

EA. ἥδ᾽ αὖ τάφου τοῦδ᾽ εἰς ἕδρας ἐγὼ πάλιν

στείχω, μαθοῦσα Θεονόης φίλους λόγους,
ἢ πάντ᾽ ἀληθῶς cider φησὶ δ᾽ ἐν φάει - 510
πύσιν τὸν ἁμὸν ζῶντα φέγγος εἰσορᾶν,
πορθμοὺς δ᾽ ἀλᾶσθαι μυρίους πεπλωκότα
ἐκεῖσε κἀκεῖσ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀγύμναστον πλάνοις,
ἥξειν (3) ὅταν δὴ πημάτων λάβῃ τέλος,
ἐν 8 οὐκ ἔλεξεν, εἰ μολὼν σωθήσεται. 535
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀπέστην τοῦτ᾽ ἐρωτῆσαι σαφῶς,
ἡσθεῖσ᾽ ἐπεί νιν εἶπέ μοι σεσῳσμένον. #
εἶναι χθονὸς,
w 2 τ᾿
ἐγγὺς δέ viv mov τῆσδ᾽ ἔφασκ᾽
4 bh) i Fa - +

ναυαγὸν ἐκπεσόντα σὺν παύροις φίλοι.

ὦμοι, πόθ᾽ ἥξεις; ὡς ποθεινὸς ἂν μόλοις. 540
ἔα, τίς οὗτος; οὔ τί που κρυπτεύομαι.
Πρωτέως ἀσέπτου παιδὸς ἐκ βουλευμάτων;
θεοῦ
a
δρομαία πῶλος ἢ Baxyn
ral "ἃ, F
ὡς
#
οὐχ
3 ξ

τάφῳ ξυνάψω κῶλον; ἄγριος δέ τις

μορφὴν ὅδ᾽ ἐστίν, ὅς με θηρᾶται λαβεῖν. 545
Me. σὲ τὴ; ὄρεγμα δειψνὸν ἡμιλλημένην
a ‘, Ψ’: 1 ε fF

τύμβου ‘at κρηπῖδ᾽ ἐμπύρους τ᾽ ὀρθοστάτας,

525 sq. nondum emendati 526 ἐναλίω LP 555 πεπλευκότα
Matthiae, sed cf, ad 461 533 ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἐκεῖσε L: ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἐκεῖσ᾽ δ᾿ corr.
Canter -ς 584 δ᾽ add. Wilamowitz ἡ 540 ὥμοι Dobree: ὥς woz
LP. | 542 πρωτέως L?'P: πρωτέος L544 ἄγριόΞ γέ τις
‘Kirchho ff . ΝΣ
24 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ
μεῖνον" τί φεύγεις; ὡς δέμας δείξασα σὸν
ἔκπληξι» ἡμῖν ἀφασίαν τε προστίθης
EA. ἀδικούμεθ᾽, ὦ γυναῖκες" εἰργόμεσθα γὰρ 550
τάφου πρὸς ἀνδρὸς τοθὸς, καί μ᾽ ἑλὼν θέλει
δοῦναι τυράννοις ὧν ἐφεύγομεν γάμους.
Me. οὐ κλῷπές ἐσμεν, οὐχ ὑπηρέται κακῶν,
EA. καὶ μὴν στολήν γ᾽ ἄμορφον ἀμφὶ σῶμ᾽ ἔχεις.
Με. στῆσον, φόβου μεθεῖσα, λαυψηρὸν πόδα. 5585
EX. ἵστημ᾽, ἐπεί ye τοῦδ᾽ ἐφάπτομαι τόπου.
Me. τίς ef; τίν᾽ ὄψιν σήν, γύναι, προσδέρκομαι;
Ex. σὺ δ᾽ ef τίς; αὑτὸς γὰρ σὲ κἄμ᾽ ἔχει λόγος.
Me. οὐπώποτ᾽ εἶδον προσφερέστερον δέμας."
EA. ὦ θεοί’ θεὸς γὰρ καὶ τὸ γιγνώσκειν φίλους. ᾿ς 5ὅο
(Με. Ἑλληνὶς εἶ τις ἢ ἐπιχωρία γυνή")
Ελ. Ἑλληνίς" ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σὸν θέλω μαθεῖν.
Με. Ἑλένῃ o° ὁμοίαν δὴ μάλιστ᾽ εἶδον, γύναι.
EX. ἐγὼ δὲ Μενέλεῳ γε σέ" οὐδ᾽ ἔχῳ τί bd.
Με. ἔγνως γὰρ ὀρθῶς ἄνδρα δυστυχέστατον. 565
EX. ὦ χρόνιος ἐλθὼν σῆς δάμαρτος és χέρας.
Με. ποίας δάμαρτος; μὴ Olyns ἐμῶν πέπλων.
EX. ἦν σοι δίδωσι Τυνδάρεως, ἐμὸς πατήρ.
Με. ὦ φωσφόρ᾽ Ἕκάτη, πέμπε φάσματ᾽ εὐμενῆ.
EA. οὐ νυκτίφαντον πρόπολον ᾿Εἰνοδίας μ᾽ δρᾷς. 570
Με. οὐ μὴν γυναικῶν γ᾽ εἷς δυοῖν ἔφυν πόσις.
EA. ποίων δὲ λέκτρων δεσπότης ἄλλων ἔφυς;
Me. ἣν ἄντρα κεύθει κἀκ Φρυγῶν κομίῶρμαι.
EA. οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλη σή τις ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ γυνή.
549 πρυπτιθεῖς fere codd. 553-594 paragraphi praef, in LP
555 φόβον Vaickenaer 556 τάφου Elmsley 557 ᾧ θεαί, τίν᾽ ὄψιν
εἰσορῶ 3 tis εἶ, γύναι; Ar. Thesm, go5 550 αὐτὸ: LP Adyos L
} Ar. Thesmi, 906: λόγου P 5601 om. LP: restituitex Ar. Thesm.
go7 Markland 564 Meveaege Dindotf: μενελάω L P et codd. Ar. _
Thesm, 9ta océLP: g’ p οὐδ᾽ L: ob P 565 yop LP:
ἄρ᾽ codd, Ar, Thesm, ΤΙ 566 és hic LP 570-589 versiuum
ordinem alii aliter mutaverunt ut 572 sq. post 58x sequerentur
570 πρόσπολον LP: corr. Canter 571 δυοῖν L: δυῖεν L* P
 ΕΛΕΝΗ 25
Me. οὔ που φρονῶ μὲν εὖ, τὸ δ᾽ ὄμμα μοῦ
νοσεῖ; 575
EA. οὐ γάρ με λεύσσων σὴν δάμαρθ᾽ ὁρᾶν δοκεῖς;
Με. τὸ σῶμ᾽ ὅμοιον, τὸ δὲ σαφές μ᾽ ἀποστερεῖ.
Ev. σκέψαι" τί σοὐνδεῖ; τίς δὲ σοῦ δοφώτερος;
Με. ἔοικας" οὔτοι τοῦτό γ᾽ ἐξαρνήσομαι.
EA. τίς οὖν διδάξει σ᾽ ἄλλος ἢ τὰ σ᾽ ὄμματα;
6 88ο
Με, ἐκεῖ νοσοῦμεν, ὅτι δάμαρτ’ ἄλλην ἔχω.
EX. οὐκ ἦλθον ἐς γῆν Τρῳάδ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ εἴδωλον ἦν.
Με. καὶ τίς βλέποντα σώματ᾽ ἐξεργάξται;
EA, αἰθήρ, ὅθεν σὺ θεοπόνητ᾽ ἔχεις λέχη.
Με. τίνος πλάσαντος θεῶν; ἄελπτα γὰρ λέγεις,
585
EA."Hpas, διάλλαγμ᾽,. ὡς Πάρις με μὴ λάβοι.
Me. πῶς οὖν ἂν ἐνθάδ᾽ ἧσθά (τ ἐν Τροίᾳ θ᾽ ἅμα;
EA. τοὔνομα γένοιτ᾽dy πολλαχοῦ, τὸ σῶμα δ᾽ οὔ,
Με. μέθες με, λύπης ἅλις ἔχων ἐλήλυθα,
EA. λείψεις γὰρ ἡμᾶς, τὰ δὲ κέν᾽ ἐξάξεις λέχη
; 590
Me. καὶ χαῖρέ γ᾽, Ἑλένῃ προσφερὴς ὁθούνεκ᾽ εἶ,
Ex. ἀπωλόμην: λαβοῦσά σ᾽ οὐχ ἕξω πόσιν.
Me. τοὐκεϊ με μέγεθος τῶν πόνων πείθει, σὺ δ᾽ of,
EA, οἱ ἐγώ" τίς ἡμῶν ἐγένετ᾽ ἀθλιωτέρα;
οἱ φίλτατοι λείπουσί μ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀφίξομαι
503
Ἕλληνας οὐδὲ πατρίδα τὴν ἐμήν ποτε.

ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ
Μενέλαε, μαστενων σε κιγχάνω μόλις
πᾶσαν πλανηθεὶς τήνδε βάρβαρον χθόνα,
πεμφθεὶς ἑταίρων τῶν λελειμμένων ὕπο.
515 οὕπου LP: 4 πὸν lp 578 σούνδεῖ Seidler: σὸν Ser LP
δὲ Fix: ἔστι LP: τὰ σ᾽ οὐδείς ἐστι Elmsley
vi σοὶ δεῖ πίστεως
σαφεστέρας : Badham 580 τὰ σ᾽ p rasura post o facta: στὰ σὰ a
L (sic) 581 ἐκεῖνο σοῦ μὲν LP: corr. Sealiger 585 &eArra L:
εἴελπτα P 586 “Ἥρας Scaliger: foa LP λάβοι! λάβη primitus P
587 ἂν} ἅμ᾽ anonymus 400d τ᾿ Barnes: ἦσθ᾽ LP: σθας Nauck ;
cf, Menand. Discept. τεῦ, Her. τὸ 589 Αὐπης Elmsley : λύπας LP
592 ἀπολόμη Po @ L2P: ge L 595 λείπουσί μ᾽ Musgrave ;:
λείπουσιν LP 507 κιχάνῳ LP: corr. Matthiae
26 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

Με. τί δ᾽ ἔστιν; οὔ που βαρβάρων συλᾶσθ' ὕπο; 600

Ay. dais ἔστ᾽, ἔλασσον τοὔνομ Ἢ τὸ πρᾶγμ, EXOV-
hd x ἡ 4 om - 3 ἡ
mo 3 " 1 ¥ .

ὡς φέρεις τι τῇδε TH σπουδῇ νέον.

ms os fa f
f
Me. rey
fo3 κ

Ay. λέγω πόνους σε μυρίους τλῆναι ματῊΡ.

Ν ¥ ΤᾺ

Με. παλαιὰ θρηνεῖς πήματ᾽" ἀγγέλλεις δὲ τί;

Αγ. βέβηκεν ἄλοχος σὴ πρὸς αἰθέρος πτυχὰς 605
ἀρθεῖσ᾽ ἄφαντος" οὐρανῷ δὲ κρύπτεται
λιποῦσα σεμνὸν ἄντρον οὗ σφ᾽ ἐσῴζομεν,
τοσόνδε λέξασ᾽. Ὦ, τἀλαίπωροι Φρύγες
πάντες τ᾽ ᾿Αχαιοί, δι’ ἔμ᾽ ἐπὶ Σκαμανδρίοις
ἀκταῖσιν ρας μηχαναῖς ἐθνήσκετε, ὅτο
δοκοῦντες “EXépny οὐκ ἔχοντ᾽ ἔχειν Τ|ἀριν.
4 dl x x r
ΤᾺ t if

΄᾿

ἐγὼ δ᾽, ἐπειδὴ χρόνον eye σον μὲ ΧΡΉ,

* ? wf +
4 ‘, } 4

τὸ μόρσιμον σῴσασα, πατέρ᾽ ἐς οὐρανὸν

ἄπειμι: φήμας δ᾽ ἡ τάλαινα Τυνδαρὶς
ἄλλως κακὰς ἤκουσεν οὐδὲν αἰτία. 615
ὦ χαῖρε, Λήδας θύγατερ, ἐνθάδ᾽ ἦσθ' apa;
ἐγὼ δέ σ’ ἄστρων ὡς PeByxviay μυχοὺς
Ξ “ hs
40% f > #

ἤγγελλον εἰδὼς οὐδὲν ὡς ὑπόπτερον

τὰ ας Ἄ τὰκ € f Fa
3!

δέμας φοροίης. οὐκ ἐῶ σε κερτομεῖν

ἡμᾶς τόδ᾽ αὖθις, ὡς ἄδην ἐν ᾿Ιλίῳ 620
πόνους παρεῖχες σῷ πόσει καὶ συμμάχοις,
Me. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐκεῖνο" ξυμβεβᾶσιν οἱ λόγοι
ὦ ποθεινὸς Ἡμέρα,
f

ἀληθεῖς.
Ν ξ

οἱ τῆσδ᾽
-ι 2. md fy
ξ

iio εἰς ἐμὰς ἔδωκεν ὠλένας λαβεῖν.

EA. ὦ φίλτατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν Μενέλεως, 6 μὲν χρόνος 625

> ;
παλαιός, ἡ δὲ τέρψις ἀρτίως πάρα.
; - gy fF

ἔλαβον ἀσμένα πόσιν ἐμόν, φίλαι,

600 οὔπαυ LP: ἢ ποὺ Z Gor date’ ἔστ᾽ Scaliger: θαυμά στιν:
θαυμάστ᾽ P ἔχον Pp: ἔχων LP = 602-605 paragraphi praef, in L P
605 πτύχα LP 601 λιποῦσ᾽ ἐρεμνὸν Schnecidewin
Goz φέρης P 7 ut videtur - δαὶ σῷ
612 μ᾽ ἐχρὴν LP 617 βεβηκυΐης
ἀληθῶς Herwerden 624 ἢ σ'
Milton: ΦΕΡ 623 τοῖς τῆσδ᾽
Canter: és LP
 EAENH 27

περί τ΄ ἐπέτασα χέρα

f ἃ ἡ ? f

φίλιον ἐν μακρᾷ φλογὶ φαεσφόρῳ.

# 3 ral 4 ld

Me. κἀγὼ σέ' πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ λόγους ἔχων 630

οὐκ> οἱδ΄ΣΕ ὁποίου
"
πρῶτον
oF
ἄρξωμαι
μ
τὰ- νῦν.
κι

Ex. γέγηθα, κρατὶ δ᾽ ἀρθίους ἐθείρας

ἀνεπτέρωκα καὶ δάκρν σταλάσσω,
περὶ δὲ γυῖα χέρας ἔβαλον, ἡδονάν,
ὦ πόσις, ὡς λάβω. 635
Me. ὦ φιλτάτη πρόσοψις, οὐκ ἐμέμφθην"
ἔχω τὰ τῆς Διός τε λέκτρα Λήδας ϑ',
ἂν ὑπὸ λαμπόδων κόροι λεύκιπποι
ξυνομαίμονες ὥλβισαν ὥλβισαν 640
τὸ πρόσθεν, ἐκ δόμων δὲ νοσφίσας σ᾽ ἐμοῦ
Ἄ F μι Ld μ f 3 4 γα

πρὸς ἄλλαν ἐλαύνει

θεὸς συμφορὰν τᾶσδε κρείσσω.
τὸ κακὸν δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν σέ τε κἀμὲ συνάγαγε, πόσιν
4 7 1. ἢ " ἔ 3 + fA a

χρόνιον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὀναίμαν τύχας. 645

Xo, ὅναιο δῆτα.
al
ταὐτὰ δὴ ξυνεύχομαι"
ΤᾺ 5.4, * ¥

δυοῖν yap ὄντοιν

» ra) + μὴ
οὐχ ὃ μὲν τλήμων,
εἰ, ΄ς f a
ὃ δ᾽ οὔ.
} af

FA, φίλαι φίλαι, τὰ πάρος οὐκέτι,

στένομεν OVO ἀλγῶ,
f Δ 4 Pat

moow
#
ἐμὸν
+ 4
ἔχομεν
af
[éxouer,|
x
ὃν [ἔμενον
iA af

628 περί τ᾽ ἐπέτασα Hermann: περιπετάσασα Ρ χέρα L vel 1,",

sed αἱ ΒΌΡΕΥ ταβυγατη scripto 630-683 paragraphi pro per-
sonarum notis in L, excepto 656 EA. 63t ἄρξομαι LP: corr.
Hermann 633 δάκρυ] δάρυ P 634 χεῖρα LP 635 ὡς λάβω ᾧ
πόσις LP, trai. Elmsley 626 verba ᾧὦ φιλτάτη πρόσοψις Helenae
continuant LP: corr. Reisig 637 τῆς Schaefer: τοῦ L P Ards
re Reisig: διὸς LP λήδος τε LP: τὰ τῆς Λήδας Διός τε λέκτρα
Wilamowitz, ne in catalectico elideretur O41 δὲ νοσφίσας
Etmsley: δ᾽ ἐνόσφισαν θεοί LP, ef. v. sequentem σ᾽ ἐμοῦ Portus :
σ᾽ ὁμοῦ LP G42 ἄλλαν Elmsley: %AAavy δ᾽ LP 644 Helenae
tribuit Hermann συνάγαγε πόσιν LP: συνάγωγεν, & πόσι Dindorf
646 Xo, Wilamowitz: Me. Tyrwhitt : Helenae tribuunt L P ταῦτὰ
(sic) ut videturL: ταῦγα P 647 δυοῖν fp (vel L? P*): δυεῖν LP
648 EA. notam erasam in L om. P 650 aut uncis inclusa dele aut
ἐμὸν cui Seidlero duplica : χρόνον post Τροίαν addebat Blass ex Bacch.
Introd. Mus. p. 25 ἔνατος δὲ δόχμιος . .«. οἷον ἔμμεν ἐκ Tpolas
χρύνον 4
28 EYPIHLAOT

ἔμενον ἐκ Τροίας πολυετῇ μολεῖν. 651

Με. ἔχεις, ἐγώ τε σέ" ἡλίους δὲ μυρίους
μόλις διελθὼν σθόμην τὰ τῆς θεοῦ. i
ἐμὰ δὲ χαρμονὰ baxpva πλέον ἔχει
af

6:
χάριτ
i
ος ἢ AvTas.
κω fd
55
EX. τί φῶ; τίς ἂν τάδ᾽ ἤλπισεν βροτῶν TOTES
ἀδόκητον ἔχω σε πρὸς στέρνοις.
Με. κἀγὼ σὲ τὴν δοκοῦσαν ᾿Ιδαία» πόλιν
μολεῖν Ἰλίου τε μελέους πύργους.
πρὸς θεῶν, δόμων
a
πῶς τῶν ἐμῶν ἀπεστάλης;
rm Fan -" ἐ
660
FA. 2 & πικρὰς és ἀρχὰς Batvets,
ἐ ἔ' πικρὰν ὃ ἐρευνᾷς φάτιν.
a oy x. 4 = f

Me. λέγ᾽: ὡς ἀκουστὰ πάντα δῶρα δαιμόνων.

FA. ἀπέπτυσα μὲν λόγον, οἷον οἷον ἐσοίσομαι.
Με. ὅμως δὲ λέξον" ἡδύ Tor μόχθων κλύειν. 665
FA. οὐκ ἐπὶ βαρβάρου λέκτρα νεανία
πετομένας KOTAS,
πετομένου δ᾽ ἔρωτος ἀδίκων YALU . .
f 1. af th f

¥oP σε δαίμω
Me. . τίς (γάρ) TOOTH. συλῇ Ι πάτρα
μῶν ν ἢἢ πότμος ς;
ΡΣ;
Ελ. ὁ Διὸς ὁ Διός, ὦ πόσι, παῖς μ᾽... ὕγο
ἐπέλασεν Νείλῳ.
Me. θαυμαστά τοῦ πέμψαντος; ὦ δεινοὶ λόγοι.
EA. κατεδάκρυσα καὶ βλέφαρον typaivw
δάκρυσιν" & Διός μ᾽ ἄλοχος ὥλεσεν.
Με. Ἥρα; τί νῷν χρήζουσα προσθεῖναι κακόν; 675
EA. ὦμοι ἐμῶν δεινῶν, λουτρῶν καὶ κρηνῶν,
ἵνα θεοὶ μορφὰν
652 ἔχεις μ᾽ Jacobs Ge] δὴ ἐ 654 δάκρυα χαρμονὰ LP
656 τί φῶ οὔ. P
(χαρμονὰν {γ τ tral. Eimsley ἰχαρμονᾶν legens)
ἤλπισεν Ls ἤλπισε ἷ 661 πικρὰς ἐς ἀρχὰς yp. L: πικρὰν és ἀρχὰν
LP in textu 6653 ro ἐ: 711 LP 666 βαρβάρου λέκτρα post L.
Dindorfium Kluge: λέμτρου βαρβάρου LP 667 werouevas ἐξ.
6jo παῖς p |
weranévas LP | 669 ydp.om. LP: add. Barnes
671 ἐπέλασε L
ue παῖς Ἑρμᾶς vel μὲ παῖς Matas τ’ Hermann
673 φλέφαρον 1.: corr. L? = 675 Με. Ἥρα L P (para graph um L) : Ἥρα.
Μεν. ἐ τί νῷν Hermann: τίνων LP = 676 duo Ἰδαίων Wilamowitz
 EAENH 29

ἐφαίδρυναν, ἔνθεν ἔμολεν κρίσις.

i 3

Me. τὰ δ᾽ ἐς κρίσιν σοι τῶνδ᾽ ἔθηχ᾽ “Hpa κακῶν .. .;

EA. Πάριν ὡς ἀφέλοιτο... . Me. πῶς; αὔδα. ὅδο
EA. Κύπρις ᾧ μ᾽ ἐπένευσεν. . . Me. ὦ τλᾶμον.
EBA. τλάμων, τλάμων' ὧδ᾽ ἐπέλασ᾽ Αἰγύπτῳ.
Me. εἶτ᾽ ἀντέδωκ᾽ εἴδωλον, as σέθεν κλύω.
Ελ. τὰ δὲ (σὰν κατὰ μέλαθρα πάθεα πάθεα, μᾶ-
rep, οἱ yd. Με. τί φής; 685
EA. οὐκ ἔστι μάτηρ’ ἀγχόνιον δὲ βρόχον
δι᾿ ἐμὰν κατεδήσατο δύσγαμος αἰσχύναν..
Me, ὦμοι' θυγατρὸς δ᾽ Ἑ» ρμιόνης ἔστιν βίος;
EA. ἄγαμος ἄτεκνος, ὦ πόσι, καταστένει
γάμον ἄγαμον (ἐμόν). ὅρο
Με. ᾧὦ πᾶν κατ᾽ ἄκρας δῶμ᾽ ἐμὸν πέρσας Πάρις,
τάδε καὶ σὲ διώλεσε μυριάδας τε
χαλκεόπλων Δαναῶν.
EA. ἐμὲ δὲ πατρίδος ἄπο κακύποτμον ἀραίαν
ἔβαλε θεὸς ἀπό (re) πόλεος ἀπό τε σέθεν, 695
ὅτε μέλαθρα λέχεά τ᾽ ἔλιπον----οὐ λιποῦσ᾽
ἐπ᾽ αἰσχροῖς γάμοις.

Xo. εἰ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς τύχης εὐδαίμονος

τύχοιτε, πρὸς τὰ πρόσθεν ἀρκέσειεν ἄν.
Αγ. Μενέλαε, κἀμοὶ πρόσδοτον τῆς ἡδονῆς, Joo
678 ἔμολε LP 6499 τάδ LP s1 lectio sana fractus est
sermo : supple αὐτίαν : τήνδ᾽ et κακά Wilamowitz 680-681 Tape...
Κύπρις Reiske: κύπριν. . . πάριν LP: κύπρις » - . πάρι» apogr.
Par, fortasse recte 681 éréveva’l τλῆμον LP: corr. Musurus
682 τλάμονα τλαμόνως Kirchholf 684 σὰ add. Hermann 685
Me. P: paragraphum L 687 ἐμὰν Duport: ἐμὲ 1, P: ἐμὲ et αἰσχύνᾳ
Hermann 688 feriwi: ἔστι LP 689 &rexvos semel ἢ: bis L P
πόσι Musurus: πόσις: LP 690 ἐμόν Hermann: αἰσχύνα Τὶ
(αἰσχύναν ἢ) ex 687 694 Helenae notam om. LP: hie add. 4,
ν. 692 male praef. Pi vel p ἢ 695 ἔβαλλε LP: corr, apogr. Flor.
(Laur, xxxi,- 1) τε wédcos Matthiae: πόλεος LP 696 ἅτε
Dobree: ὅτε LP 700 πρόσϑοτον Cobet: πρόσδοτε LP: πρὸσ-
δοτέα Elmsley
30 ETPITEIAOT

ἣν pavddve μὲν καὐτός, οὐ σαφῶς δ᾽ ἔχω.

Me. ἀλλ΄, ὦ yepate, καὶ σὺ κοινώνει λόγων.
Ἂ 3 ὧν μ Ἂ "Ἶ f f

Ay. οὐχ ἥδε μόχθων τῶν ἐν Ἰλίῳ βραβεύς;

Me. οὐχ
Ἵ
ἧδε,
e
πρὸς4 θεῶν
a
ὃ 1. ἦμεν
αὶ
ἠπατημένοι,
3 F

νεφέλης ἄγαλμ᾽ ἔχοντες ἐν χεροῖν [λυγρόν»]. 708

Ay. τί φής;
νεφέλης ap ἄλλως εἴχομεν πόνους πέρι;
Με. Ἥρας τάδ᾽ ἔργα καὶ θεῶν τρισσῶν ἔρις.
Ay. ἢ δ᾽ οὖσ᾽ ἀληθῶς ἐστιν Foe σὴ δάμαρ;
Με. αὕτη" λόγοις [δ᾽] ἐμοῖσε πίστευσον τάδε. 710
Ay. ὦ θύγατερ, ὁ θεὸς ws ἔφυ τι ποικίλον
καὶ δυστέκμαρτον. εὖ d€ Tas πάντα στρέφει
μ" i bid f f f

ἐκεῖσε κἀκεῖσ᾽ ἀναφέρων" ὃ μὲν Tovel,

ὃ ὃ᾽ οὐ πογρήσας αὖθις ὄλλυται κακῶς,
βέβαιον οὐδὲν τῆς ἀεὶ τύχης ἔχων. 715
f τῳ ἧς mn 7% f δὲ

σὺ yap πόσις τε σὸς πόνων μετέσχετε,

av μὲν λόγοισιν, ὃ δὲ δορὸς προθυμίᾳ.
μ x f Lat - Ἂ ¥

σπεύδων δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἔσπευδ᾽ οὐδὲν εἶχε' νῦν δ᾽ ἔχει

αὐτόματα πράξας τἀγάθ᾽ εὐτυχέστατα.
οὐκ ἄρα γέροντα πατέρα καὶ Διοσκόβω 720
ἤσχυνας, οὐδ᾽ ἔδρασας οἷα κλήζεται.
¥ am7 of a f

νὮν ἀνανεοῦμαι τὸν σὸν ὑμέναιον πάλιν

καὶ λαμπάδων μεμνήμεθ᾽ ἂς τετραόροις
ἵπποις τροχάζων παρέφερον' σὺ δ᾽ ἐν δίφροις
ξὺν τῷδε νύμφη δῶμ᾽ ἔλειπες ὄλβιον. 725
κακὸς γὰρ ὅστις μὴ σέβει τὰ δεσποτῶν
καὶ ξυγγέγηθε καὶ συνωδίνει κακοῖς,
Ν f x ¥ "ι

ΠῸΤ μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς Li: δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς P 404-11 paragraphi

praefixi in L: joq4 Nuntio, 7o5 Menelao tribuit P- = 7o§ Avypéy
seclusit Badham 4o6 ante τί φής deest paragraphus in L : +i φῇς
del, Matthiae τὸ δ᾽ seclusit Herwerden GEL σκέψαι γὰρ
ὁ θεὸς ὃς ἔχει τι ποικίλον Stob, Ecl, 1... 6 Ὁ ἼἸ wes πάντα
στρέφει Herwerden: πὼς ἀναστρέφει LP: πάντ᾽ ἀναστρέφει Schenkl
413 χὼ μὲν WHamowitz 11τΏ δορὺς τρικυμίᾳ Beuhn 925 σὺν
LP ἔλιπε LP :
 EAENH 31

ἐγὼ μὲν εἴην, κεὶ πέφυχ᾽ ὅμως λάτρις,

ἐν τοῖσι γενναίοισιν ἠριθμημένος
΄- i

δούλοισι, τοὔνομ᾽ οὐκ ἔχων ἐλεύθερον, 730

τὸν νοῦντι δέ' κρεῖσσον
; δὰ
yap τόδ᾽ ἡ᾿ς δυοῖ»ra κακοῖν~
ἕν᾽ ὄντα χρῆσθαι, τὰς φρένας T ἔχειν κακὰς
a + » ἐπ μ᾿ f 3 ἊςΦ

ἄλλων τ᾽ ἀκούειν δοῦλον ὄντα τῶν πέλας,

Me. dy, ὦ γεραιέ, πολλὰ μὲν παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα
7 Fa

μοχθήματ᾽ ἐξέπλησας ἐκπονῶν ἐμοῖ, 715

καὶ νῦν μετασχὼν τῆς ἐμῆς εὐπραξίας
ἄγγειλον ἐλθὼν τοῖς λελειμμένοις φίλοις
mn f

τάδ᾽ ὡς ἔχονθ᾽ ηὕρηκας οἵ τ΄ ἐσμὲν τύχης,

fu? ¢ sf 4 ef τῷι 4 ~ f

μένειν T ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖς τούς τ᾽ ἐμοὺς καραδοκεῖν -ι 5 ra

ἀγῶνας οἱ μένουσί μ᾽, ὡς ἐλπίζομεν, 740

| ,
kel τήνδε πως δυναίμεθ᾽ ἐκκλέψαι χθονός,
φρουρεῖν ὅπως ἂν εἰς ἔν ἐλθόντες τύχης
τι af ὡς a ag F δ

ex βαρβάρων σωθῶμεν, ἣν δυνώμεθα.

᾿ γι ail

Αγ. ἔσται τάδ᾽, ὦναξ. ἀλλά τοι τὰ μάντεων

ἐσεῖδον ὡς φαῦλ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ψευδῷν πλέα. 743
οὐδ᾽ ἦν ἄρ᾽ ὑγιὲς οὐδὲν ἐμπύρου φλογὸς
οὐδὲ
Mas
πτερωτῶνmn φθέγματ᾽.
f 3
εὔηθες
#
de f τοι
τὸ καὶ δοκεῖν ὄρνιθας ὠφελεῖν βροτούς.
Κάλχας
f
γὰρ΄ οὐκ3 et<r οὐδ᾽Le ἐσήμηνε
e ed
στρατῷκι
νεφέλης ὑπερθνήσκοντας εἰσορῷν φίλους 750
i σ᾿

οὐδ᾽ “Ἕλενος, ἀλλὰ πόλις ἀνηρπάσθη μάτην.

f

εἴποις ἄν: Οὔνεχ᾽ 6 θεὸς οὐκ ἠβούλετο;

. Ἂ

τί δῆτα μαντευόμεθα; τοῖς θεοῖσι χρὴ

θύοντας αἰτεῖν ἀγαθά, μαντείας δ᾽ ear
928 «el Musgrave: καὶ LP: ef Stob. fl. 62, 2 73r ὃνοῖν i:
δυεῖν LP 1855 ἕν᾽ Is & LP 134 ἄγ᾽] ἀλλ᾽ p 135 ἐκ
πόνων ἐμῶν LP: corr. Barnes 438 ἔχονθ᾽ Stephanus: ἔχων L
εὕρηκας LP ot | of Tyrwhitt 740 μένουσί μ᾽ ὡς Musgrave:
μένουσιν» οὖς Τὶ τ μέλλονσιν οὖς P 441 Kel τήνδε was Ludv, Dindorf:
καὶ τήνδε was LP ἐκκλέψαι ps ἐκπλέξαι LP 445 ἐσεῖδον hic
LP 749 οὐδὲ Kirchhoff: οὔτε LP 51 οὐδ᾽ “Ἕλενος Porson :
οὐδέν ye L οὐδέν y P 952 εἴποι P v. del, Cobet 753
μαντευόμεσθα LP
32 EYTPITITAOY

βίου yap ἄλλως δέλεαρ ηὐρέθη Tobe, ᾿ς 58

κοὐδεὶς ἐπλούτησ᾽ ἐμπύροισιν ἀργὸς av
γνώμῃ ὃ ἀρίστη μάντις ἢ τ΄ εὐβουλία,
id 7 4 κ(ὶ f ef 3 4 r

Χο, ἐς ταὐτὸ κἀμοὶ δόξα μαντειῶν πέρι

χωρεῖ γέροντι" τοὺς θεοὺς ἔχων τις ἂν
φίλους ἀρίστην μαντικὴν ἔχοι δόμοις. ος 780
EA, εἶεν" τὰ μὲν δὴ δεῦρ᾽ ἀεὶ καλῶς ἔχει,
ὅπως δ᾽ ἐσώθης, ὦ τάλας, Τροίας ἄπο,
κέρδος μὲ» οὐδὲν εἰδέναι, πόθος δὲ τις
f ἝΝ 7a am ἢ ‘id i

τὰ τῶν φίλων φίλοισιν αἰσθέσθαι κακά.

Me. ἡ πόλλ᾽ ἀνήρου μ᾽ ἑνὶ λόγῳ μιᾷ θ᾽ ὁδῷ, 765
τί σοι λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν τὰς ἐν Αἰγαίῳ φθορὰς
, τὰ Ναυπλίου τ᾽ Εὐβοικὰ πυρπολήματα
Κρήτην τε Λιβύης @ as ἐπεστράφην πόλεις,
σκοπιάς τε Περσέως;
f i
οὐ γὰρ ἐμπλήσαιμί σ᾽ (ἂν)
3 ™ 4 ¥ ¥ 3 +,

μύθων, λέγων τ᾽ ἄν σοι κάκ᾽ ἀλγοίην ἔτι, 770

πάσχων τ᾽ ἔκαμνον" dis δὲ λυπηθεῖμεν ἄν.
EA. κάλλιον εἶπας ἢ σ᾽ ἀνηρόμην ἐγώ.
ἕν ὃ + εἰπὲ
eh tO
TAVTA
f
παραλιπῶν,
f
πόσον
id
χρῦνον
f

πόντου Ti νώτοις ἅλιον ἐφθείρου πλάνον;

Me, ἐν ναυσὶν ὧν πρὸς τοῖσιν ἐν Τροίᾳ δέκα - 715
ἔτεσι διῆλθον ἑπτὰ περιδρομᾶς. ἐτῶν.
wt ~ c “ * 1A

EX. φεῦ φεῦ: μακρόν γ᾽ ἔλεξας, ὦ τάλας, χρόνον

σωθεὶς δ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδ᾽ ἦλθες ἐς σφαγάς.
Me. πῶς φής; τί λέξεις; ὥς μ᾽ ἀπώλεσας, γύναι.
EX. φεῦγ᾽ ὡς τάχιστα τῆσδ᾽ ἀπαλλαχθεὶς χθονός. 780
155 εὑρέθη LP 158 μαντειῶν Wilamowitz: μάντεων LP
759 γέρον τί LP: corr. ὦ ἤδο ἔχει 1, et suprascr. P: ἔχοι P et
suprascer, L 765, ἐνὶ λόγῳ Pierson : ἐν ὀλίγῳ L P 767 ebBotxa L P
768 Κρήτη Kirchhoff. AiBins Reiske : λιβύην LP 769 σ᾽ ἂν
Dindorf: σε LP ob γὰρ ἂν παυσαίμεθα Nerwerden FIO λέγων
v ἂν Lp: λέγοντα P 941 πάσχον Pi corr p ἔκαμνον ἦ:
ἔκαμον LP 775 ἐν ναυσὶν ὧν Apelt: ἐνιαύσιον LP: ἐνταυσίους
Boissonade, cf. érav ἐνιαυτούς 776 διῆλθονP: διῆλθον δ᾽ L
80 =Phoen, 972: delevit Valckenaer
 EAENH | 33

θανῇ πρὸς ἀνδρὸς οὗ τάδ᾽ ἐστὶ δώματα.

Με. τί χρῆμα δράσας ἄξιον τῆς συμφορᾶς;
EA. ἥκεις ἄελπτος ἐμποδὼν ἐμοῖς γάμοις.
Me. 4 γὰρ γαμεῖν τις τἄμ᾽ ἐβουλήθη λέχη;
Ex. ὕβριν θ᾽ ὑβρίζειν εἰς ἔμ᾽, ἣν ἔτλην ἐγώ. 785
Me, ἰδίᾳ σθένων ris ἢ τυραννεύων χθονός;
EA. ὃς γῆς ἀνάσσει τῆσδε Πρωτέως γόνος.
Με. τόδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐκεῖν᾽ αἴνιγμ᾽ ὃ προσπόλου κλύω,
EX. ποίοις ἐπιστὰς βαρβάροις πυλώμασιν;
Με. τοῖσδ᾽, ἔνθεν ὥσπερ πτωχὸς ἐξηλαυνόμην. ος ἦθο
EA. οὔ που προσήτεις βίοτον; ὦ τάλαιν᾽ ἐγώ.
Me. τοὔργον μὲν ἦν τοῦτ᾽, ὄνομα δ᾽ οὐκ εἶχεν τόδε.
EA. πάντ᾽ οἷσθ᾽ ἄρ᾽, ὡς ἔοικας, ἀμφ᾽ ἐμῶν γάμων.
Me. οἶδ᾽» εἰ δὲ λέκτρα διέφυγες τάδ᾽ οὐκ ἔχω.
EX, ἄθικτον εὐνὴν ἴσθι σοι σεσῳσμένην. 795
Με. τίς τοῦδε πειθώ; φίλα γάρ, εἰ σαφῆ λέγεις.
EX. ὁρᾷς τάφου τοῦδ᾽ ἀθλίους ἕδρας ἐμάς;
Με. ὁρῶ, τάλαινα, στιβάδας, ὧν τί σοὶ μέτα;
EA. ἐνταῦθα λέκτρων ἱκετεύομεν φυγάς.
Με. βωμοῦ σπανίζουσ᾽ ἣ νόμοισι βαρβάροις; 800
EA. ἐρρύεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τοῦτ᾽ ἴσον ναοῖς θεῶν.
Με. οὐδ᾽ ἄρα πρὸς οἴκους ναυστολεῖν (σ᾽) ἔξεστί μοι;
EA. ξίφος μένει σε μᾶλλον ἢ τοὐμὸν λέχος.
Με, οὕτως ἂν εἴην ἀθλιώτατος βροτῶν.
EA. μή νυν καταιδοῦ, φεῦγε δ᾽ ἐκ τῆσδε χθονός. 805
Με, λιπών σε; Τροίαν ἐξέπερσα ony χάριν.
Ελ. κρεῖσσον γὰρ ἢ σε τἄμ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι λέχη.
482-842 paragraphi praefixl in LP 783 ἐμποδὼν Badham :
ἐμποδών τ LP 185 els ἐμὴν εὐνὴν ἔτλη F. Gu. Schmidt 786 σθέ-
νων Μυβαγαβ θένων LP 787 wporéws P: corr.p . 788
elveyn Canter: afayp’ LP 790 τοῖσδ᾽ Scaliger: trois LP
791 ἧπον ip 702 ὄνομ᾽ οὐκ P: corr.p εἶχεν Wecktein : εἶχον
LP 4998 ταλαΐίνας ἢ 800 βωμὸν P: corr. 2 802 σ᾽
add. Musgrave 805 μένει σε Musgrave: μὲν εἶσε L P 805 νῦν
LP :
EUR, HI, 3
34 EYPINIAOY
Me. dvavipd γ᾽ εἶπας ᾿Ιλίου τ᾽ οὐκ ἄξια.
EA. οὐκ ἂν κτάνοις τύραννον, ὃ σπεύδεις ἴσως.
Με. οὕτω σιδήρῳ τρωτὸν οὐκ ἔχει δέμας; 810
EA. εἴσῃ. τὸ τολμᾶν δ᾽ ἀδύνατ᾽ ἀνδρὸς οὐ σοφοῦ.
Με. σιγῇ παράσχω δῆτ᾽ ἐμὰς δῆσαι χέρας;
EA, ἐς ἄπορον ἧκεις" δεῖ δὲ μηχανῆς τινος.
Me. δρῶντας γὰρ ἢ μὴ δρῶντας ἥδιον θανεῖν.
EA. pl ἔστιν ἐλπίς, ἢ μόνῃ σωθεῖμεν ἄν. 815
Με. ὠνητὸς ἢ τολμητὸς ἢ λόγων ὕπο;
EA. εἰ μὴ τύραννός (0°) ἐκπύθοιτ᾽ ἀφιγμένον.
Me. ἐρεῖ δὲ τίς μ᾽; οὐ γνώσεταί γ᾽ ὅς εἰμ’ ἐγώ.
EA. ξύμμαχ θεοῖς toy.ἢ
ἔστ᾽ ἔνδον αὐτῷὺ ξύμμαχος
Με. φήμη τις οἴκων ἐν μυχοῖς ἱδρυμένη; 820
EA. οὔκ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀδελφή" Θεονόην καλοῦσί νιν.
Me. χρηστήριον μὲν τοὔνομ" 6 τι δὲ ὁρᾷ φράσον.
i ‘ ΕΝ Lan ey * - i
τ

EA. πάντ᾽ οἵδ᾽, ἐρεῖ τε συγγόνῳ παρόντα σε.

λαθεῖν yap οὐχ οἷόν TE μοι.
ὯΝ ἃ i
Me. θνήσκοιμεν ἄν"
i ΕΝ τι Ἂς Ἂ

EA. ἴσως ἂν ἀναπείσαιμεν ἱκετεύοντέ νιν---- 825

Me. τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι; τίν᾽ ὑπάγεις μ᾽ ἐς ἐλπίδα;
EX. παρόντα yala μὴ φράσαι σε συγγόνῳ,
Me. πείσαντε δ᾽ ἐκ γῆς διορίσαιμεν ἂν πόδα;
EA. κοινῇ γ᾽ ἐκείνῃ ῥᾳδίως, λάθρᾳ δ᾽ ἂν οὗ,
Me. σὸν ἔργον, ὡς γυναικὶ πρόσφορον γυνή. 830
EA. ὡς otk dypwora γόνατ᾽ ἐμῶν ἕξει χερῶν.
Με. φέρ᾽, ἣν δὲ δὴ νῷν μὴ ἀποδέξηται λόγου")
EX, βανῇ;
Fal
γαμοῦμαι
cas
ὃ Ἶ τάλαιν
2. κα f 33
ἐγὼ- βίᾳ.
?

Me. προδότις ἂν εἴης" τὴν βίαν σκήψασ᾽ ἔχει,

8ο8 ἄνανδρά γ᾽ Cobet: ἄνανδρ᾽ ἄρ᾽ LP ὅορ κτάνης LP ὃ Seidler: bv
LP 811 dddvar’ pet Stob. ἢ. 54. 50: ἀδύνατον LP 616 &ro| ἅπο Wila-
mowitz, ef Andr. gar, Cycl.358 8117 σ᾽ κα, Schaefer 818 ob γνώσεταί
Ὑ ὃς L?P (me indice: aliishoc 4, οὐ γνώσεται $s P habere videtur) : οὐ
yeorer ὃς Ls ἢ γνώσεταί γ᾽ bs Ps lectio incerta 825 ἴσως Kirch-
hoff: εἴ πω: L P 829 παρόντα ἢ: τὸ παρόντα P et sine dubio L
829 γ᾽ Reiske: τ LP λάθρᾳ δ᾽ ἂν οὗ Ludy, Dindorf: λάθρα δ᾽ ὅμοῦ
LP: yp. οὐδαμοῦ suprascr, ἐ 850 γυνή ex Plut. Mor. p. 51 E Bro-
deau:yiva: LP 834 προδότης LP: corr.2 τὴν Scaliger: τὴν δὲ LP
 ΠΕΛΕΝΗ 35

EA. ἀλλ᾽ ἁγνὸν ὅρκον σὸν κάρα κατώμοσα.. .. 835

Με. τί φής; θανεῖσθαι; κοὔποτ᾽ ἀλλάξεις λέχη;
EA. ταὐτῷ
ἘΞ σι
ξίφει
᾿
yer Ά κείσομαι
fa
δὲ* σοῦFal πέλας.
᾿

Me. ἐπὶ τοῖσδε τοίνυν δεξιᾶς ἐμῆς Olye.

EX. ψαύω, θανόντος σοῦ τόδ᾽ ἐκλείψειν φάος.
Me. κἀγὼ στερηθεὶς σοῦ τελευτήσειν βίον. 840
EA. πῶς οὖν θανούμεθ᾽ ὥστε καὶ δόξαν λαβεῖν;
Me, τύμβου ᾽πὶ νώτῳ σὲ κτανὼν ἐμὲ κτενῶ.
πρῶτον δ᾽ ἀγῶνα μέγαν ἀγωνιούμεθα
λέκτρων ὑπὲρ σῶν. 6 δὲ θέλων ἴτω πέλακ'
τὸ Τρωικὸν yap οὐ καταισχυνῷ κλέος 845
“ Ἄ Ν 3 ΤᾺ i

οὐδ᾽ “Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐλθὼν λήψομαι πολὺν Ψόγον,

ὅστις Θέτι» μὲν ἐστέρησ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλέως,
Τελαμωνίου δ᾽ Αἴαντος εἰσεῖδον σφαγάς,
τὸν Νηλέως τ΄ ἄπαιδα" διὰ δὲ τὴν ἐμὴν
οὐκ ἀξιώσω κατθανεῖν δάμαρτ᾽ ἐγώ; 850
μάλιστά γε" εἰ γάρ εἶσιν οἱ θεοὶ σοφοῖ,
εὔψυχον ἄνδρα πολεμίων θανόνθ᾽ ὕπο
Kovpy καταμπίσχουσιν ἐν τύμβῳ χθονί,
Ν “ 1 * ¥

κακοὺς δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἕρμα στερεὸν ἐκβάλλουσι γῆς.

Xo. ὦ θεοί, γενέσθω δὴ ποτ᾽ εὐτυχὲς γένος 855
τὸ Ταντόλειον καὶ μεταστήτω κακῶν.
EA. οἱ ἐγὼ τάλαινα' τῆς τύχης γὰρ ὧδ᾽ ἔχω,
Μενέλαε, διαπεπράγμεθ᾽. ἐκβαίνει δόμων
ἢ θεσπιῳδὸς Qeovon κτυπεῖ δόμος
᾿ μι , ΤᾺ ‘

i f “3 7 8 f f
κλήθρων» λυθέντων. φεῦγ᾽" ἀτὰρ τί φευκτέον; 860
ἀποῦσα γάρ σε καὶ παροῦσ᾽ ἀφιγμένον
856 ἀλλάξεις LP: εἰν suprascriptum in L 838 τοῖσδε L:
rade P valyuy Canter: τοῖς νῦν L: τῆς νῦν P S40 τελεὺυ-
τήσειν Musgrave: τελευτήσω LP 841 AdBy P: corr. ἢ
842 νώτοις Herwerden κτενῷ post Heathium Matthiae: κτανεῖ
LP 845 κλέος Scaliger: λέχος LP 849 Νηλέως τ᾽ Arada
Lenting : θησέωξς τε παῖδα LP 851 ve L 852 εὔψυχον /:
ἔμψυχον LP 854 ἐκβαλλοῦσι LP; accentum corr, fp 855 Xo.
notam om, L
3*
36 ἘΥΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ
δεῦρ᾽ οἷδεν- ὦ δύστηνος, ὡς ἀπωλόμην.
Τροίας δὲ σωθεὶς. κἀπὸ βαρβάρου χθονὸς
ἐς βάρβαρ᾽ ἐλθὼν φάσγαν᾽ αὖθις ἐμπεσῃ.
OEONOH
ἡγοῦ ov pot φέρουσα λαμπτήρων σέλας 865
θεῖόν τε, σεμνοῦ θεσμὸν αἰθέρος, μυχῶν,
ὡς πνεῦμα καθαρὸν οὐρανοῦ δεξώμεθα"
σὺ δ᾽ αὖ κέλευθον εἴ τις ἔβλαψεν ποδὶ
στείβων ἀνοσίῳ, δὸς καθαρσίῳ φλογί,
κροῦσον δὲ πεύκην, ἵνα διεξέλθω, πυρὸς. τς 870
νόμον δὲ τὸν ἐμὸν θεοῖσιν ἀποδοῦσαι πάλιν
ἐφέστιον φλόγ᾽ ἐς δύμους κομίζετε.
Ἑλένη, τί τἀμὰ.-- πῶς ἔχει----βεσπίσματα;
ἥκει πόσις σοι Μενέλεως ὅδ᾽ ἐμφανής,
νεῶν στερηθεὶς τοῦ τε σοῦ μιμήματος. 875
ὦ τλῆμον, οἵους διαφυγὼν ἦλθες πόνους,
οὐδ᾽ οἶσθα νόστον οἴκαδ᾽ εἴτ᾽ αὑτοῦ prevets*
ἘΝ] " _¥ nf 3 y ἢ Ἂ Pa rm

ἔρις γὰρ ἐν θεοῖς σὐλλογὸς TE σοῦ πέρι

# *, 4 μα] ? δ δι. i

ἔσται πάρεδρος Ζηνὶ τῷδ ἐν ἤματι.

at r " aR? 4 ᾿Ξ

Ἥρα μέν, } σοι δυσμενὴς πάροιθεν ἢν, 880

voy ἔστω εὔνους κἂς πάτραν σῷσαι θέλει
ξὺν τῇδ᾽, ἵν᾽ Ἑλλὰς τοὺς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου γάμους,
δώρημα Κύπριδος, ψευδονυμφεύτους μάθῃ
f i . f f :

Κύπρις 6& νόστον σὸν διαφθεῖραι θέλει,

ὡς μὴ ᾿ξελεγχθῇ μηδὲ πριαμένη φανῇ ᾿ 888
862 οἶδεν L: ἦλθεν Ρ 864 φάσγαν᾽ αὖθις L: βάρβαρ᾽ αὖθις P
866 θείονῤῥ rescripsi: δὲ LP:lectioincerta εἰς σεμνοῦ ἐ͵ Belov
δὲ σεμνὸν θεσμὸν αἰθέρος μυχούς Wecklein: σεμνοῦ pro σέμνυνε accipit
Wilamowitz : θεῖον σύμβολον αἰθέρος διὰ τὸ ταχὺ ἐξάπτον dicit [2 scho-
lion scribens 867 δεξαίμεθα LP: corr. Schaefer 810 -aupds |
πάρος Reiske 871 πόνον δὲ νόμιμον Kirchhoff 875 μιμῆ-
ματος Stephanus: τιμήματος LP 878 θεοῖς Barnes: θεοῖσι
ἘΡ̓Ῥ: ϑεοῖς re ut videtur L B81 κεῖς LP 883 ψευδο-
νυμφεύτου LP: carr, ὦ 885 μὴ ᾿ξελέγχθῃ Ludv. Dindort: paz’
ἐλεγχθῇ LP
 EAENH 37
TO κάλλος, “EXevns οὕνεκ᾽, ἀνονήτοις γάμοις.
τέλος δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, εἴθ᾽, ἃ βούλεται Κύπρις,
λέξασ᾽ ἀδελφῷ σ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ὄντα διολέσω,
εἴτ᾽ ad μεθ Ἥρας στᾶσα σὸν σώσω βίον, 3 ™

" 3g
κρύψασ' f
ὑμαίμον᾽,7 ὅς
ow
με προστάσσ
f
ει τάἀδε
f
8go
εἰπεῖν, Gray γῆν τήνδε νοστήσας τύχῃς. ««..
τίς ς εἰσ
εἴσ᾽ ἀδελφῷ
ἀδελφῷ τόνδ
rovde σημανῶνὃν ἐμῷ
ἐμῷ
παρόνθ᾽, ὅπως ἂν τοὐμὸν ἀσφαλῶς ἔχῃ;
f , ἐν μὴ ry 3 κι Hf

EA. ὦτῶν παρθέν᾽, ἱκέτις ἀμφὶ

᾿
σὸν πίτνω γόνυ
"

καὶ προσκαθίζω θᾶκον οὐκ εὐδαίμονα 805

ὑπὲρ T ἐμαυτὴς τοῦδε θ᾽, ὃν μόλις ποτὲ
ς f a’ 4 - am ἢ Ἐκ ᾿ μ᾿

λαβοῦσ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀκμῆς εἶμι κατθανόντ᾽ ἰδεῖν"

μή μου κατείπῃς σῷ κασιγνήτῳ πόσιν
TOvO εἰς ἐμᾶς ἥκοντα φιλτάτας χέρας,
id 7 3 1% ef Γ ἤ

σῷσον δέ, λίσσομαϊΐ ce συγγόνῳ δὲ σῷ 900

THY εὐσέβειαν μὴ προδῷς τὴν σήν ποτε,
χάριτας πονηρὰς κἀδίκους ὠνουμένη.
μισεῖ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὴν βίαν, τὰ κτητὰ δὲ
κτᾶσθαι κελεύει πάντας οὐκ ἐς ἁρπαγάς.
[ἐατέος δ᾽ 6 πλοῦτος ἄδικός τις dy] 005
κοινὸς γάρ ἐστιν οὐρανὸς πᾶσιν βροτοῖς
Kal yar’, ἐν ἧχη χρὴ δώματ᾽
ΓᾺΡ μι
ἀναπληρουμένους
μ f , ἡ f

τἀλλότρια μὴ σχεῖν μηδ᾽ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι βίᾳ.

ἡμᾶς δὲ μακαρίως μέν, ἀθλίως δ᾽ ἐμοί,
Ε μὴ ᾿ # f 4 ra i 3 ca

Ἑρμῆς ἔδωκε πατρὶ σῷ σῴζειν πόσει οτο

τῷδ᾽ ὃς πάρεστι κἀπολάζσθαι θέλει,
πῶς οὖν θανὼν ἂν ἀπολάβοι; κεῖνος δὲ πῶς
886 ἀνονήτοις Pierson (non fruendis, cf. A 924): ὥνητοῖς LP: οὐκ
ἄρ᾽ ὠνητοῖς Herwerden 888 o” Reiske: γ᾽ P: in Ly’ ant add,
Liautrescr,? 890 ὁμαίμονε L (fuit puto éuafpovay 892 σὴη-
μανῶν Scaliger: onuava y LP 893 παρόντ᾽ L (eraso a) et P
B96 τοῦδέ 7 LP S98 μή μοι Seidler B99 φίλτατον Cobet
go2 καὶ ἀδίκους L 903 Blas P: corr. ἢ 905 damnavit
Hermann: go3-908 del, Dindorf go8 σχεῖν Headiam: *xew LP
909 μακαρίῳ: καιρίως: Badham .
38 ΒΥΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ
va ζῶντα τοῖς Gavotaw ἀποδοίη ToT ἂν;
μι a 4 , 7 oo
΄, aed

ἤδη τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς σκόπει'

πότερον & δαίμων xd θανὼν τὰ τῶν πέλας ΟἹ5
βούλοιντ᾽ ἂν ἢ οὐ βούλοιντ᾽ ἂν ἀποδοῦναι πᾶλψ;
δοκῷ μέν. οὔκουν χρή σε συγγόνῳ πλέον
νέμειν ματαίῳ μᾶλλον ἢ χρηστῷ πατρί.
; om a ~

εἶ δ᾽ οὖσα μάντις καὶ τὰ θεῖ; ἡγουμένη

f x ΄«Ν ei of i
Ἔ Ἰ δ μ

τὸ μὲν δίκαιον τοῦ πατρὺς διαφθερεῖς, 930

τῷ δ᾽ οὐ δικαίῳ συγγόνῳ σώσεις δίκην
t i YY t Ἴ 3

ἐξειδέγαι,
+ 34 f

σε θεῖα πάντ᾽
Fa f
Ta μὲν
μ ἐ
αἰσχρὸν
3 μ

τά τ᾽ ὄντα καὶ μέλλοντα, τὰ SE δίκαια μῆ.

™ + ‘ fa
Ff so 4 i

τήν T ἀθλίαν ἔμ᾽, οἷσιν ἔγκειμαι KAKOLS,

ΕἾΝ Pa
q 7 # v4 mn
A

fora, πάρεργον δοῦσα τοῦτο τῆς τύχητ' 025

Ἑλένην γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ στυγεῖ βροτῶν"
ε “1 - --
ε i * + A ef

ἢ κλήζομαι καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδ᾽ ὡς προδοῦσ᾽ ἐμὸν

πόσιν Φρυγῶν ᾧκησα πολυχρύσους δόμους.
ἣν δ᾽ “Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἔλθω κἀπιβῶ Σπάρτης ἐπάλιν),
κλύοντες εἰσιδόντες ὡς τέχναις θεῶν 930
ὥλοντ᾽, ἐγὼ δὲ προδότις οὐκ ἄρ᾽ ἡ φίλων,
πάλιν μ᾽ ἀνάξουσ᾽ ἐς τὸ σῶφρον αὖθις αὖ,
ἑδνώσομαί τε θυγατέρ, ἣν οὐδεὶς γάμει,
# 3 a * Ν -
μ f #

τὴν δ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐκλιποῦσ᾽ ἀλητείαν πικρὰν

ὄντων ἐν οἴκοις χρημάτων ὀνήσομαι. 935
Ket μὲν θανὼν ὅδ᾽ ἐν πυρᾳ KaTerpayys
+ Ls ᾿ τι ἃ ~~ F

πρόσω op ἀπόντα δακρύοις ἂν ἡγάπων

+ ἡ f ¥ a 4 f
fd

915 ἀποδοίη ποτ᾽ ἂν Porson: ἂν ἀποδοίη ποτέ LP org ἢ δ LP:

ἢ δὴ 1: corr. Barnes 915 καὶ ὁ L 916 ἢ οὐ Canter: ἢ LP
921 σώσεις Bruhn: δώσεις LP (δώσεις χάριν Reiske) 923 μέλ-
Aovra, τὰ δὲ δίκαια μή W. G. Clark: μή, τὰ δὲ δίκαια μὴ εἰδέναι LP
post 923 lacunam indicavit Hermann: sed sensus est ‘ fustitiant cole
erga deos et mortuos —et quidem, dum id facis, me serva ᾿ 924 ἐμέ
Ι, g29 πάλιν οἵ, LP: add. apogr. Paris. 931 προδότης P
Av LP: οὐκ ἤμην τέκνον (voluit τέκνων) citat Choerob. can. ii. p. 882,
9. 932 αὖ Canter: ἂν LP 933 ἑδνώσομαί Hermann (et voluit
puto Musurus): ἐδώσομαί 1 Ῥ : exddoopat p 935 ὀνήσομαι Musurus ;
ὠνήσομαι LP 936 κατεστάλη Reiske
 EAENH 39

viv & ὄντα καὶ σωθέντ᾽ ἀφαιρεθήσομαι;

μὴ δῆτα, παρθέν᾽, ἀλλά σ᾽ ἱκετεύω τόδε"
δὸς THY χάριν pot τήνδε καὶ μιμοῦ τρόπους 940
πατρὸς δικαίου" παισὶ γὰρ κλέος τόδε
κάλλιστον, ὅστις ἐκ πατρὸς χρηστοῦ γεγὼς.
ἐς ταὐτὸν ἦλθε τοῖς τεκοῦσι τοὺς τρόπους.
Χο, οἰκτρὸν μὲν οἱ παρόντες ἐν μέσῳ Δλύγοι,
οἰκτρὰ δὲ καὶ ot. τοὺς δὲ Μενέλεω ποθῶ 945
λόγους ἀκοῦσαι τίνας ἐρεῖ ψυχῆς πέρι,
Με. ἐγὼ σὸν οὔτ᾽ ἂν προσπεσεῖν τλαίην γόνυ
οὔτ᾽ ἂν δακρῦσαι βλέφαρα: τὴν Τροίαν γὰρ ἂν
δειλοὶ γενόμενοι πλεῖστον αἰσχύνοιμεν ἄν.
καίτοι λέγουσιν ᾧὡς πρὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐγενοῦς 050
ἐν ξυμφοραῖσι δάκρυ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ὀφθαλμῶν βαλεῖν.
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τοῦτο τὸ καλόν, εἰ καλὸν τόδε,
3 εἰ Ἐ 4, ἔμ x f μΙ Ν ᾿

αἱρήσομαι ᾽γὼ πρόσθε τῆς εὐψυχίας.

ἀλλ᾽, εἰ μὲν ἄνδρα cot δοκεῖ σῷσαι ξένον
ζητοῦντά γ᾽ ὀρθῶς ἀπολαβεῖν δάμαρτ᾽ ἐμήν, 955
ἀπόδος τε Kal πρὸς σῷσον" εἰ δὲ μὴ δοκεῖ,
ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ vip πρῶτον ἀλλὰ πολλάκις
ἄθλιος ἂν εἴην, σὺ δὲ γυνὴ κακὴ φανῇ.
ἃ δ᾽ ἄξι᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ δίκαι’ ἡγούμεθα
Ps >) 6M δ €£ - + ra , #8 ¥

καὶ σῆς μάλιστα καρδίας ἀνθάψεται, g6o

λέξω τάδ᾽ ἀμφὶ μνῆμα σοῦ πατρὸς πόθῳ"
ὮὮ γέρον, ὃς οἰκεῖς τόνδε λάϊνον τάφον,
ἀπόδος, ἀπαιτῷ τὴν ἐμὴν» δάμαρτά σε,
ἣν Ζεὺς ἔπεμψε δεῦρό σοι σώζειν ἐμοί.
oid’ οὕνεκ᾽ ἡμῖν οὔποτ᾽ ἀποδώσεις θανών' 965
941 παισὶ Stob. fl.89.2: wadi bP ogg τῶν τρόπων Reiske g44-
946 Theonoae tribuunt L P: Choro Ludv. Dindorf 944. οἰκ-
τροὶ ῥ 945 τοὺς Hermann: roi L P 053 ‘yo Porson: τὸ LP
εὐψυχίας Tyrwhitt: εὐδαιμονίας LP (giossema fortasse corruptae 1.
εὐτυχίαν.) τ εὐανδρίας p 957 Cf. Med. 446: iniuria suspectus
Θὲ τάδ᾽] τόδ᾽ Tyrwhitt πόθῳ] πεσών Badham οὔκ os 1 P:
ὧς L λαΐον Τὸν corr.ῥ 965 ἀποδώσεις Stephanus: ἀπολέσεις
LP; ὀφλήσεις Nauck αὐτὸς οὕποτ᾽ ἀποδώσεις Kirchhoff
40 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂
ἀλλ᾽ We πατέρα νέρθεν ἀνακαλούμενον
οὐκ ἀξιώσει τὸν πρὶν εὐκλεέστατον
μ᾿ μ᾿ F μ᾽ ‘ 4 f

κακῶς ἀκοῦσαι" κυρία γάρ ἐστι νῦν.

Μὰ
“Atdn, καὶ σὲ σύμμαχον καλῶ,
Ὧν i‘ 3 εὖ " "ς Fi
ὦ νέρτερ᾽
ὃς πόλλ᾽ ἐδέξω τῆσδ᾽ ἕκατι σώματα 970
πεσόντα τὠμῷ φασγάνῳ,
μῷ φασγάν μισθὸν δ᾽ὃ ἔχεις"
ῳ, μισθὸν ἐχ
ἢ νῦν ἐκείνους ἀπόδος ἐμψύχους πάλιν,
| f 7 f f
κι > 4 ᾿

ἢ τήνδε πατρὸς εὐσεβοῦς ἀνάγκασον

Ἄ “πὰ 7

κρείσσω φανεῖσαν Tapa γ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι λέχη.

ἮΝ 4 } +4 a f

εἰ δ᾽ ἐμὲ γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμὴν TVANCETE,

Ἔ i κ ol με Ss ἃ f
975
& σοι παρέλιπεν ἥδε τῶν λόγων, φράσω.
ὡς- μάθῃς, ὦ Tapleve,
θέ
θ᾽,
8 μὰ
ὅρκοις κεκλήμε
μὴ aH a

πρῶτον μὲν ἐλθεῖν διὰ μάχης σῷ συγγόνῳ"

amAcvs λόγος,
f
κἀκεῖνον ἢ μὲ Bet θανεῖν"
5 * a a a r ~

ἣν
μι
8 ἐς μὲν ἀλκὴν μὴ πόδ᾽ ἀντιθῇ ποδί,
- τὰ
ο 980
λιμῷ δὲ θηρᾷ τύμβον ἱκετεύοντε νώ,
ΠΝ f , ¥ y 9 8
κτανεῖν» δέδοκται τήνδε μοι κἄπειτ᾽ ἐμὸν
πρὸς ἧπαρ ὦσαι δίστομον ξίφος τόδε
Ν i p> ἢ δ '

τύμβου ᾽πὶ νώτοις τοῦδ᾽, ἵν᾽ αἵματος ῥοαὶ

τάφου καταστάζωσι κεισόμεσθα δὲ 985
vexpa δύ᾽ ἑξῆς τῷδ᾽ ἐπὶ ξεστῷ τάφῳ,
᾿ fi γα κι, ἃ. Ἀ “Ἂ f

ἀθάνατον ἄλγος σοὶ, ψόγος δὲ σῷ πατρί,

"» f μὰ ¥ r % mn a

Es
οὐ yap γαμεῖ τήνδ᾽ οὔτε σύγγονος σέθεν
4 Ἂς σι f ? a ,

οὔτ᾽ ἄλλος οὐδείς" ἀλλ᾽ ἐγώ σφ᾽ ἀπάξομαι,

εἰ μὴ πρὸς οἴκους δυνάμεθ᾽, ἀλλὰ πρὸς νεκοούς.
. /
990
τί ταῦτα; δακρύοις ἐς τὸ θῆλυ τρεπόμενος
rl .
ἐλεινὸς ἦν ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ δραστήριος.
973 seq. ἢ τήνδ᾽ ἀνάγκασάν γε εὐσεβοῦς πατρὸς κρείσσω φανεῖσαν τἄμ᾽
ἀποδοῦναι λέχη LP: traieci: μὴ εὐσεβοῦς πατρὸς ἥσσω Hermann:
tum τἄμ᾽ ἐμοὶ δοῦναι Pflugk O77 κεκλήιμεθ᾽ πὲ videtur primitus L :
κεκλήμεθ᾽ L*P g8o0 ἐς hic LP πόδ᾽ Brodeau: πότ᾽ ΤΡ
gBI λιμὸν P θηρᾷ Canter: θηρᾶν LP 082 τήνδ᾽ ἐμοὶ LP
984 τοῦδε, 985 καταστάζωσι 1.5 P?: καταστάζουσι ΤΡ ante
901 Theonoae ante 992 Menelai nota in P, et δακρύεις. pro δακρύδις ῥ
ΟΘΙ τερπόμενος ἘΠῚ corr. p 992 ἐλεεινὸς LP
 EAENH 41

xreiy, εἰ δοκεῖ σοι" ὃδυσκλεᾶς yap ov. κτενεῖς".

ΩΝ ΄ ἡ . ~*~
ma 3 4 γι

μᾶλλον γε μέντοι τοῖς ἐμοῖς πείθου λόγοις,

ῳ fa Pal “ ω Pa ‘ ᾿

vy ἢ ; F τ᾿ κ f ΝΕ
ἵν᾽ ἧς δικαία καὶ δάμαρτ᾽ ἐγὼ λάβω, 995
Xo.
r
ἐν σοὶ 4 βραβεύειν, ὦὧν νεᾶνι,
~
TousἊ Aoyous*
f

οὕτω δὲ κρῖνον, ὡς dmaciv avoavys.

[τὴ κι t . δῇ ε f

Θέ. ἐγὼ πέφυκά τ᾽ εὐσεβεῖν. καὶ βούλομαι,

φιλῷ τ᾽ ἐμαυτήν, καὶ κλέος τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς
m 3.4 # i + ™ μ᾿

οὐκ ἂν μιάναιμ᾽, οὐδὲ συγγόνῳ χάριν 1000

i

δοίην ἂν ἐξ ἧς δυσκλεὴς φανήσομαι.

a r

ἔνεστι δ᾽ ἵερον τῆς δίκης ἐμοὶ μέγα

ΕΝ 3.κ{ Ν ad f 3 Ἀ f

ἐν5 THΤὰ φύσει"

?
καὶ 4 τοῦτο
γι
Νηρέως
F
πάρα
i

MeveAcws, πειράσομαι.
aw f i f
ἔχουσα σῴζει»,
Ἥρᾳ δ᾽, ἐπείπερ Bovacrat σ᾽ εὐεργετεῖν, 1005
és ταὐτὸν οἴσω ψῆφον" ἡ Χάρις δ᾽ ἐμοὶ
ἵλεως μὲν εἴη, ξυμβέβηκε δ᾽ οὐδαμοῦ"
πειράσομαι δὲ παρθένος μένειν del. f

ἃ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ τύμβῳ τῷδ᾽ ὀνειδίζεις πατρὶ,

ἡμῖν ὅδ᾽ αὑτὸς μῦθος. ἀδικοίημεν ἄν, ἴοτο
el μὴ ἀποδώσω" καὶ γὰρ ἂν κεῖνος βλέπων
ἀπέδωκεν ἂν σοὶ THVO ἔχειν, ταύτῃ δὲ σέ.
Ἂ f + 4 ἔ 3 δ Ἀν καὶ

καὶ γὰρ τίσις τῶνδ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῖς τε νερτέροις

καὶ τοῖς ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις" ὁ νοῦς
τῶν κατθανόντων (ἢἮΜ μὲν οὔ, » γρῶμη
γνώμην δ᾽ ἔχει
x ΙΟΙ5
ἀθάνατον εἰς ἀθάνατον αἰθέρ ἐμπεσῶν.
at 3 2 ἢ ἢ asaf 434 f

ὡς οὖν παραινῶ μὴ μακράν, σιγήσομαι

ἃ μου καθικετεύσατ᾽,
tf f εἰ
οὐδὲ
ἼΩΝ
μωρίᾳ
ξύμβουλος ἔσομαι τῇ κασιγνήτου ποτε.
, x ΄ Fal a

εὐεργετῷ
ΤῊ 4 =" 7 κῃ
1020
3 -" ΄ω
yap κεῖψον ov δοκοῦσ᾽ ὅμως,
993 δυσκλεᾶς Wilamowitz: δυσκλεῶς LP: dvexAea Barnes . 994
πιθοῦ Dindorf 997 κρῖνον L P?: κρίνειν P IOOl φανήσεται
Badham _ Foo? ἱρὸν P τοῦς σῴζειν MevéAcwy Brodeau
1005 Ἥρα LP 1006 ἡ Κύπρις Canter perperam δέ μοὶ vulgo
1007 συμβέβηκε LP: ξυμβέβηκα Herwerden Iolo αὐτὸς LP
ἀδικοίην νιν ἂν Porson 1012 τήνδ᾽ Reiske: τήν γ LP org τίσεις
P: eorr, αὶ 1017 wepaive Stephanus τοῖῷ τῇ Dobree ;
τοῦ LP
42 ΕὙΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ
ἐκ δυσσεβείας ὅσιον εἰ τίθημί νιν.
αὐτοὶ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸν Tw’ ἐξευρίσκετε,
hi © hn δι εξ ᾿ Ἔκ La

ἐγὼ ὃ amooTac ἐκποδὼν σιγήσομαι.

Ἴ ‘s , 3 ae ee. % fa

ἐκ τῶν θεῶν ὃ ἄρχεσθε yixerevere

5 _ Fn 9 F x μ᾿ #

τὴν μέν σ᾽ ἐᾶσαι πατρίδα νοστῆσαι Κύπριν, 1025

“Ἢ
pas δὲ%, τὴνΝ ἔννοιαν
tf
ἐν5 ταὐτῷ
7 κα
μένειν
f

ἣνa és σὲ καὶ σὸν πόσιν ἔχει 1

σωτηρίας.
σὺ δ᾽, ὦ θανών μοι πάτερ, ὅσον y ἐγὼ σθένω,
he + μὴ f rf a Ἅ ἡ ν“ f

οὔποτε κεκλήσῃἤσῃ δυσσεβὴςHs ἀντ᾽ἀν εὐσεβοῦς

Xo. ;
οὐδείς ποτ᾽ εὐτύχησεν ἔκδικος γεγώς, 3 + i wv
1030
ἐν τῷ δικαίῳ δ᾽ ἐλπίδες σωτηρίας. a
EA. Μενέλαε, πρὸς μὲν παρθένου σεσῴσμεθα'
τοὐνθένδε δὴ σὲ τοὺς Adyous φέροντα ΧΡΤ]
7 ἔ * ΄- 4, F f Ν

κοινὴν ξυνάπτειν μηχανὴν σωτηρίας.

Με. ἄκουες δή νυν. χρόνιος εἶ κατὰ στέγας 1035
καὶ συντέθραψαι προσπόλοισι βασιλέως,
EA. τί τοῦτ᾽ ἔλεξας; ἐσφέρεις γὰρ ἐλπίδας
ὡς δή τι δράσων χρηστὸν ἐς κοινόν γε νῶν.
Me. πείσειας ἄν τιν᾽ οἵτινες τετραζύγων
ὄχων ἀνάσσουσ᾽, ὥστε νῷν δοῦναι δίφρους; 1040
EA. πείσαιμ᾽ (av) ἀλλὰ τίνα φυγὴν φευξούμεθα
πεδίων ἄπειροι βαρβάρου tT ὄντες χθονὸς;
μά f > Ἂν’ f

Me. ἀδύνατον εἶπας. φέρε, τί δ᾽, εἰ κρυφθεὶς δόμοις

i ‘

κτάνοιμ᾽μ ἄνακτα τῷδε

Ἷ διστόμῳ
με ξίφει; ,
EA. otk ἄν σ᾽ ἀνάσχοιτ᾽ οὐδὲ σιγήσειεν ἂν 1045
μέλλοντ᾽ ἀδελφὴ σύγγονον κατακτενεῖν.
Me. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μὴ» ναῦς ἔστι» ἣ σωθεῖμεν ἂν
φεύγοντες"
᾿
ἣν γὰρ εἴχομεν θάλασσ᾽
a μὴ Li f +)
ἔχει.
ow

ro2t ἐκ δυσσεβείας . . . νιν Brodeau: ἐξ εὐσεβείας... νῦν LP

τορο ὁδόν τιν᾽ ἐξευρίσκετε Nauck : τὴν ἔξοδόν γ᾽ εὑρίσκετε LP: εὑρίσκετ
ἔξοδόν τινα Hermann 1024 καὶ ἱκετεύετε L τοῦ εὔνοιαν ut vid,
P: corr. p 1093 προσφέροντα χρὴ λόγους Vitel 1035 δὴ νῦν
LP to4t ἂν add, Canter 1042 ὄντος P 1043 notam
Menelai post ἀδύνατον εἶπας habent LP, ante versum trai. Matthiae
1045 ἄν σ᾽ Portus: ἂν LP 1046 κατακτανεῖν LP: corr. Dindorf
 EAENH 43

EA. ἄκουσον, ἢν τι καὶ γυνὴ λέξη σοφόν.

nt af 4 Ἂ / i

.
βούλῃ λέγεσθαι, μὴ θανών, λόγῳ Gavety;
΄- ‘ *
1050
Me. κακὸς μὲν ὄρνις" εἰ δὲ κερδανῷ, λέγειν
ἕτοιμός εἶμι μὴ θανὼν λόγῳ θανεῖν,
ef F Ἴ ‘ Ἄ ¥ »

EA. καὶ μὴν γυναικείοις o ἂν οἰκτισαίμεθα

᾿ " fa Ἅ ὦ 7 rd

κουραῖσι καὶ θρήνοισι πρὸς τὸν ἀνόσιον,

Me. σωτηρίας δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει τί νῷν ἄκος; 1055
ιότης
παλαιότης γὰρyap τῷτῷ AO λόγῳγ᾽ > ἔνεστί τις
€veoti τις.
EA. ὡς δὴ θανόντα σ᾽ ἐνάλιον κενῷ τάφῳ
é ΄

θάψαι τύραννον τῆσδε γῆς αἰτήσομαι.

Me. καὶ δὴ παρεῖκεν" εἶτα πῶς ἄνευ νεὼς
σωθησόμεσθα κενοταφοῦντ᾽ ἐμὸν δέμας; 1060
EX. δοῦναι κελεύσω πορθμίδ᾽, ἡ καθήσομαι
=

κόσμο» τάφῳ σῷ πελαγίους ἐς4 ἀγκάλας.

fg f 43 f ra) ¥

. t = 3 κ᾿ ᾿ ΓΝ 4 ᾿ “-
Me. ws εὖ τόδ᾽ εἶπας πλὴν ἕν" εἰ χέρσῳ Tapas
θεῖναι κελεύσει σ᾽, οὐδὲν ἡ σκῆψις φέρει.
EX. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ νομίζειν φήσομεν» καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδα 1065
7 f
χέρσῳ καλύπτειν Tous* θανόντας evadiovs.
F # f

Me. τοῦτ᾽ αὖ κατορθοῖς'" εἶτ᾽ ἐγὼ συμπλεύσομαι

καὶ συγκαθήσω κόσμον ἐν ταὐτῷ σκάφει.
EA. σὲ καὶ παρεῖναι δεῖ μάλιστα τούς τε σοὺς
πλωτῆρας οἵπερ ἔφυγον ἐκ ναυαγίας. ΤΟΊ
Me. καὶ μὴν ἐάνπερ ναῦν ἐπ᾽ ἀγκύρας λάβω,
ἀνὴρ παρ᾽ ἄνδρα στήσεται ξιφηφύρος.
EA. σὲ χρὴ βραβεύειν πάντα' πόμπιμοι μόνον
1049-1085 paragraphos pro personarum notis praef. L 1049 καὶ
om. P 1050 θανών, τεθνηκέναι Cobet, sed cf sequentia ΤΟΒ5Ὲ κερδανῶ,
λέγε: Seidler: leniter inridens, ni fallor, iterat vir quae illa nimis
timide dixit 1053 γυναικείου P σ᾽ ἂν Hermann: ἂν LP 1056
Menelao continuat P: Helenae tribuit / potius quam L, idem para-
graphum ante 1057 videtur delevisse ἀπαιόλη yap Hermann
1059 παρεῖκεν Musurus : παρῆκεν LP 1060 supra xevora-
φοῦντ᾽ scr. δυικῶς in L τοῦι καθήσομεν Heath 1062 πελαγίους
Fritzsche, cl, 1496: πελαγίας L P és hic LP 1064 κελεύσει
Ludv. Dindorf: κελεύει LP o L?P: ce L; és Markland 1067
τοῦτ᾽ αὖ L?P: ταῦτ' οὖν ut videtur L 1069 καὶ] γὰρ Dobree 1073
τόμποιμι P : |
44 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

λαίφει πνοαὶ γένοιντο καὶ vews δρόμος. 4 ᾿

. ἔσται" πόνους γὰρ δαίμονες. παύσουσί μοῦ. - 1075

ἀτὰρ θανύντα τοῦ μ᾽ ἐρεῖς πεπυσμένη;
cod καὶ μόνος γε φάσκε διαφυγεῖν μόρον
Ατρέως πλέων σὺν παιδὲ καὶ θανονθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
3 fj a

καὶ μὴν Tad) Ἀ Ἂ ἐπ Ὁ

ἀμφίβληστρα
ἡ ἢ
σώματος ράκῃ f ef

ξυμμαρτυρήσει ναυτικῶν ἐρειπίων. 1080

és καιρὸν ἦλθε, τότε δ᾽ ἄκαιρ᾽ ἀπώλλυτο"
τὸ ὃ ἄθλιον κεῖν εὐτυχὲς TAX ἂν Teco.
μἾ + w# om 4 3 μ f 3 & f

. πότερα δ᾽ Ἄ ἐςἢ οἴκους σοὶ 4, συνεισελθεῖν μὲ χρὴ

a Fa "
ῥ

ἢ πρὸς τάφῳ τῷδ᾽ ἥσυχοι καθώμεθα;

a fa δ

EA. αὐτοῦ μέν᾽- ἣν γὰρ καί τι πλημμελές oe δρᾷ,

Fat id .
ὠ ἁἵτοδ5
r F ᾿ -
τάφος
f
σ᾽ 7 δὸ od ἂν
ἢ
ρύσαιτο
c?
φάσγανον τε σὸν.
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐς οἴκους βᾶσα βοστρύχους τεμῶ
4 + 6 ve o ? γι

πέπλων Te λευκῶν μέλανας ἀνταλλάξομαι

παρῇδί T ὄνυχα Φύνιον ἐμβακλῷ χροός.
mam ἢ 1. #4 ἑἐ Ἴ ΤᾺ ᾿

᾿μέγας γὰρ ἀγών, καὶ βλέπω δύο ῥοπάς" : Togo

ἢ yap θανεῖν Set μ᾽, ἣν ἁλῷ τεχνωμένη,
* - γι Pat , , Ε ἤιε f

ἢ πατρίδα T ἐλθεῖν καὶ σὸν ἐκσῷσαι δέμας.

* Fa ἌἍ ἡ Pad 4 \ F Fa F

ὦ πότνι. ἢ Atotow ἐν λέκτροις πίτνεις

ων f + of ? 4 f Fa

Ἥρα, δύ᾽ οἰκτρὼ φῶτ᾽ ἀνάψυξον πόνων,

αἰτούμεθ᾽ ἀρθὰς ὠλένας πρὸς οὐρανὸν 1095
nf
ῥίπτονθ᾽,
t ef
ty οἰκεῖς
4 αι 4
ἀστέρων
f ᾿
ποικίλματα.
fa

σὺ θ΄, ἢ πὶ τὠμῷ KGAAOS ἐκτήσω YAY,

¥ θ᾽ a + +. 4 a ΤᾺΣ 4 Li f

᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ? + 5 F
κόρη Διώνης Κύπρι, μὴ μ ἐξεργάσῃ.
ὅλις δὲ λύμης ἣν μ᾽ ἐλυμήνω πάρος
ἢ Ρ

EL βαρβάροις. L090
» ss 3 + A - 3 + i
τοῦνομα παρασχοῦσ', οὗ τὸ OM",
θανεῖν δ᾽ ἔασόν μ᾽, εἰ κατακτεῖναι θέλεις,
τὰν ry
εἰ κακῶν,
i Ἵ κ'
τὶ TOT ἄπληστος
f
ey yy πατρῷα.
4 be

1080 συμμάρτυρές σοι Δ, Ὁ. Pearson το εὐτυχῶς Blaydes 1083 δ᾽

in ras. in L: fuit fortasse πότερον χρὴ P: χρὴν suprascripto OL
1085 πλημελὲς L: πληξμελὲς eraso a vel y P 1089 παρηΐδι
LP χερός Jacobs τοῦ ἀγὼ LP Φδύω LP: fortasse
δυοῖν ΤΟΙ Befom. Ρ. τοῦῦ ὀργὰς Pi curr. p τορῦ ῥι-
πτοῦνθ᾽ 1. (corr, Elmsley): ῥιπτοῦσ᾽ P 1097 γάμῳ] κακῷ Nauck
τοῦθ κούρη ΠΡ 1069 μ᾽ om.
 ἘΛΕΝΗ 45

ἔρωτας ἀπάτας δόλιά τ᾽ ἐξευρήματα

Ld 5 ‘ ld fr 3, ? .

ες 4 σι ᾿ 4 t * ἐ
ἀσκοῦσα φίλτρα θ᾽ αἱματηρὰ δωμάτων;
εἰ δ᾽ ἦσθα μετρία, τἄλλα γ᾽ ἡδίστη θεῶν 1105
πέφυκας ἀνθρώποισιν" οὐκ ἄλλως λέγω.
Χο. σὲ τὰν ἐναύλοις ὑπὸ δενδροκόμοις [στρ. α'
μουσεῖα καὶ θάκους ἐνί-
ζουσαν ἀναβοάσω,
σὲ τὰν ἀοιδοτόταν ὄρνιθα μελῳδὸν
ἀηδόνα δακρυόεσσαν, ΤΊΙΟ
ἔλθ᾽ ὦ διὰ ξουθᾶν
γενύων ἐλελιζομένα
θρήνων ἐμοὶ ξυνεργός,
᾿ Ἑλένας μελέας πόνους
τὸν ᾿Ιλιάδων τ᾽ ἀει-
δούσᾳ δακρυόεντα, πόνον 1118
᾿Αχαιῶν ὑπὸ λόγχαις"
ὅτ᾽ ἔδραμε ῥόθια πεδία βαρβάρῳ. πλάτᾳ
ὅτ᾽ ἔμολεν ἔμολε, μέλεα ΤΠΡριαμίδαις ἄγων
Λακεδαίμονος ἄπο λέχεα
σέθεν, ὦ “Ἑλένα, Πάρις αἰνόγαμος 1120
πομπαῖσιν ᾿Αφροδίτας.
πολλοὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αχαιῶν δορὶ καὶ πετρίναις [ἀντ΄ a
ῥιπαῖσιν ἐκπνεύσαντες “At-
day μέλεον ἔχουσιν,
i104 φίλτα LP: corr, L? P? 1107 évatAas Scaliger: dvavAelors
LP ~ rro8 μουσίᾳ P: corr. p θάκους θάμνους Herwerden, sed
cf. Ar, Ran. raig IIIO δακρυόεσαν P 11:1 ἔλθ᾽ ὦ Musgrave:
ἔλθε ΟΡ 1112 θρήνων ἐμοὶ Wilamowiltz: θρήνοις ἐμῶν LP (ἐμοῖς ἢ
1118 wévovs suspectum: cf. Σ1Ὶ5 T114 ἀείδουσα LP: corr. Lach-
mann πόνον) πότμον Badham: cf. 1130 LIT, 1118 (+) ὃς ἔδραμε
ῥόθια μέλεα | πριαμίδαις ἄγων | (αὐ ὃς ἔμολεν ἔμολε πεδία | (β) βαρβάρῳ
πλάτα LP sed litteras transpositionem significantes praescripsit ἐς
ofa in rasura est in Ps ὅτ᾽ pro ὃς Lenting : cetera corr. O. Schultze:
ὃς ἔδραμε ῥόθια Μάλεα Bm ὃς ἔμολεν ἔμολε πεδία, Π. ἀ, Wilamowitz
1120 @ ‘EAdva Seidler: ὡς εἷλε LP ἐνόὄγαμος[Ὁ corr. IAI wop-
πᾶσι» P: corr. p 1i22 δορὶ] ἐν δορὶ 7 ob metrum
48 ΕὙΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

ταλαινᾶν ἀλόχων κείραντες ἔθειραν"

ἄνυμφα δὲ μέλαθρα, κεῦται" 1125
πολλοὺς O€ πυρσεύσας
4, μ

φλογερὸν σέλας ἀμφιρύταν

Εὔβοιαν cf’ ᾿Αχαιῶν
μονόκωπος ἀνήρ, πέτραις
Καφηρίσιν ἐμβαλὼν
Αἰγαίαις τ᾽ ἐνάλοις δόλιον 1130
ἀκταῖς ἀστέρα λάμψας.
rm
ἀλίμενα & ὄρεα Madea χειμάτων rod,
¥ + ἂν r Γ

ὅτ᾽ ἔσυτο πατρίδος ἀποπρό, βαρβάρον στολᾶς

γέρας, ov γέρας GAA ἐριν,
f + f 4 * #

Δαναῶν νεφέλαν ἐπὶ ναυσὶν ἄγων, 1135

εἴδωλον ἱερὸν “ρας.
& τι θεὸς ἢ μὴ θεὸς ἢ τὸ μέσον, στρ. β
τὰ Ἀ a he + oh 4 # f

F 7 4 i" κι
τίς φησ ἐρευνήσας βροτῶν
μακρότατον πέρας εὑρεῖν
ὃς τὰ θεῶν ἐσορᾷ F140
δεῦρο καὶ αὖθις ἐκεῖσε
καὶ πάλιν
i
ἀντιλόγοις
πηδῶντ᾽ ἀνελπίστοις τύχαις;
γι ἍὮ. " ra a

σὺ Διὸς ἔφυς, ὦ Ἑλένα, θυγάτηρ'

πτανὸς yap ἐν κόλποις σε Δὴ-
‘a
[148
1134 ταλαινᾶν Wilamowitz, ἀσιδοτάταν v. ττοῦ choriambum fa-
ciens: τάλαιναν LP: τάλαιναν τῶν ἰ: τάλαιναν ὧν Matthiae, sed ὃς de
eo quod plurium est vix Attice dicitur 1125 μέλαθρα δὲ Dindorf
1126 πολλοὺς LP: πολλὰ ὦ ἀμφὶ ῥυτὰν LP: ἀμφιρύγαν Matthiae:
tum ptcp. quale est περιπλέων pro ᾿Αχαιῶν desiderat Wilamowitz
1127 ef’ 2: efkes P et ut videtur L τῷ Καφηρίσιν Heath:
καφηρίαι LP 1130 ἐναλίοις ἀκταῖς δόλιον LP: corr. Hermann
1131 dorép’ ἀνάψας Verrall τη5, 1133 Μόλεα Hermann, cf.
y 287: μέλεα LP ἅτ᾽ ἔσυτο Musgrave: ὅτε σὺ τὸ LP: ὅδ᾽
ἔσντα Wilamowitz χειμάτων Heath: χαυμάτων LP βαρβάρου
στολᾶς post μέλεα (1132) χαυμάτων πνοᾷ post ἀποπρὸ (17393) LP: trans-
posui 11394 γέρας eb γέρας Badham: τέρας οὗ τέρας LP ττ85 νεφέ-
λαν LP: νεφέλας /: Μενέλας Wilamowitz 1138 τί die LP: corr.
Bamberger: τίς φύσιν et v. sequenti ηὗρεν Hermann: βροτῶν; et
ηὗρεν Wilamowitz 1141 δεῦρο Dobrec: δεινὰ LP
 ἘΛΕΝΗ͂ 47
das ἐτέκνωσε πατήρ.
Kat ἰαχήθης καθ᾽ ᾿Ελλανίαν
προδότις ἄπιστος ἄδικος ἄθεος" οὐδ᾽ ἔχω
Ld w A 2 tus τ

τί τὸ4 σαφὲςἈ ἔτι

af
ποτ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖς"
703 “

τὸ τῶν θεῶν (δ᾽) ἔπος ἀλαθὲς ηὗρον. 1180

ἄφρονες ὅσοι τὰς ἀρετὰς πολέμῳ [ἀντ, β΄
λόγχαισί τ᾽ ἀλκαίου δορὸς
κτᾶσθε, πόνους ἀμαθῶς θνα-
ms f μ᾿ πὰ

τῶν καταπαυόμενοι"
εἰ γὰρ ἅμιλλα κρινεῖ νιν 1Γ55
αἵματας, οὕποτ᾽ ἔρις
λείψει κατ΄ ἀνθρώπων πύλεις"
ᾧ ἸΠριαμίδος γᾶς ἔλαχον θαλάμους,
ἐξὸν διορθῶσαι λόγοις
σὰν ἔριν, ὦ ᾿λένα. e lite
viy δ᾽ ot μὲν “Aida μέλονται κάτω,
τείχεα δὲ φλογερός, ὥστε Διός, ἐπέσυτο φλύξ,
ἐπὶ δὲ πάθεα πάθεσι φέρεις
Τἀθλίοις συμφοραῖς αἰλίνοις.
GEOKAYMENOS
ὦ> χαῖρε,
-
πατρὸς4 μνῆμ᾽"
=~ 4
ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοισι γὰρ
- Ἐ πϑρῃς ᾿
1165
ἔϑαψα,
1
Τἱρωτεῦ,
Pal
σ᾽
3
ἕνεκ᾽
°0Ci#f# 7
ἐμῆς προσρήσεως"
4 al #

1147 κατ᾿ ἰαχήθης Hermann: καὶ ἰαχὴ oh Lp: καὶ Ιαχὴ σὺ ΡΟ [οτίαββο
καθ' Ἕλλαδ᾽ olay: ch 1161 ti48 ἀδίκως προδότης (προδύτις 1.2 P®)
ἄπιστος ἄδικος LP: ἀδίκως in ἄδικος mutavit, ἄδικος (post ἔπιστος)
delevit 7: corr. Hermann tt49 sq. locus difficilis: ἔτι Musgrave :
érzL P som, LP: add. Barnes, cf. El. 399 sq.: ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖς
ἀμφὶ θεῶν Kirchhoff τῶν delevit Z 1151 &poves P: corr. ὁ
Ε152 56, Kkraabe δορός τ΄ ἀλκαίον λόγχαισι καταπαυόδμενοι πόνους θνατῶν
ἀπαθῶς LP, nullo metro: transpesui, cf. vv. 1158 sq. 1153 ἀμαθῶς
Musgrave; ἀπαθῶς LP, quod si sanum, ob (Wecklein) vel μὴ κατα-
παυάμενοι legendum 1155 εἰ ἢ P κρινεῖ Heath: κρίνει L P
1158 alai L P ἔλαχον Pflugk: ἔλιπον L P rr61 fortasse κάτω
μέλονται : cf. 1147 1162 aut φλογερός aut φλόξ corruptum : φόνιον
Herwerden : φλογμὸς apogr. Paris. ἐπέσσυτο LP: corr.d 1164
ἀθλίοις LP: tum neotam τι λείπει L?: notam del. et ἐν ἀθλίαις scr, ἢ
᾿αἰλίνοις L? P : laivois primitus L : yp. ἰλίοις supraser. ἢ: ἔλεινοῖς Nauck :
Possis ἄεθλα (vel θλα) δὲ ξύμφορ᾽ αἰλίνοισι»ν 1166 ἔθραψα Ρ : corr. p
48 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ
ἀεὶ δέ σ᾽ ἐξιών τε κἀσιὼν δόμους
ne . f j .
(Θεοκλύμενος παῖς ὅδε προσεννέπει, πάτερ.
ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν κύνας τε καὶ θηρῶν βρόχους,
dudes, : ούς"
κομίζετ᾽ ἐς δόμους τυραννικ “ 1170
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν πόλλ᾽ ἐλοιδόρησα δῆ"
οὗ γάρ τι θανάτῳ τοὺς κακοὺς Koda Coper;
3 f i με Ν i

καὶ viv πέπυσμαι φανερὸν “Εἰλλήνων τινὰ

ἐς γῆν ἀφῖχθαι καὶ λεληθέναι σκοπούς,
ἦτοι κατόπτην ἢ κλοπαῖς θηρώμενον 1175
Ελένην' θανεῖται δ᾽, ἣν ye δὴ ληφθῇ μόνον.
ι: f mn 3 δὴ ‘ ΓᾺ if

ἔα"
᾿ ,
ἀλλ᾽, ws ἔοικε, πάντα διαπεπραγμένα
m3 af
ηὕὔρηκα'
fe
τύμβου
“
γὰρ
ae ᾿ Ἂς
Kevas λιποῦσ᾽ edpas
ἢ Tupdapis παῖς ἐκπεπόρθμευται χθονός.
μ᾿ ἔμ 7 f f
ι

ὠή, χαλᾶτε κλῇθρα: λύεθ᾽ ἱππικὰ 1180

φάτνης, dmadol, κἀκκομίζεθ᾽ ἅρματα,
f 3 ra 4 ral 1 τῇ

πόνου
ὡς ἂνἂν πόνου Ὑ γ᾽ ἕκατι μὴμὴ λάθῃλάθῃ με με γῆγῆς
τῆσδ᾽ ἐκκομισθεῖσ᾽ ἄλοχος, ἧς ἐφίεμαι.,----
a ? 4 = 7 wf * 7 “

ἐπίσχετ᾽" εἰσορῶ γὰρ obs διώκομεν

παρόντας ἐν δόμοισι Kou πεφευγότας. 1185
αὕτη, τί πέπλους μέλανας ἐξήψω χροὸς
a ἄς ἢ > 9 ᾿ ᾿ a
λευκῶν ἀμείψασ᾽ ἐκ τε κρατὸς εὐγενοῦς
κόμας σίδηρον ἐμβαλοῦσ᾽ ἀπέθρισας
χλωροῖς τε τέγγεις δάκρυσι σὴν παρηΐδα
a i

κλαίουσα;
f
πότερον ἐννύχοις
id 4 ν᾿
TETELT LEV?
?
1100
στένεις ὀνείροις, ἢ φάτιν τιν᾽ οἴκοθεν “ἂς

κλύουσα λύπη
fa
σὰς διέφθαρσ
i
αι φρενας;
ἐ

EA. ὦ δέσποτ᾽ ---ἤδη γὰρ τόδ᾽ ὀνομάζω σ᾽ ἔποξ----

ὄλωλα’ φροῦδα τἀμὰ κοὐδέν εἰμ᾽ ἔτι. |
Oc. ἐν τῷ δὲ κεῖσαι συμφορᾶς; τίς ἡ τύχη;
3 “ἊἉ
τς - ᾿ m :
1105
‘TI67 μεϊσιὼν LP L168 προσεννέπω Lenting 1172 interrogative
scripsimus 11978 εὕρηκα LP L179 ἐκπεπόρθευνται P 1180 sa.
ἱππικὰ φάτνη» Cron: ἱππικὰς φάτνας LP 1182 ἂν} of Barthoid
1183 ἐκκομισθεὶς L P 1186 χροὺς L: χθονὸς P ττοῦ φρένας)
fortasse γένυς 1194 ey’ LP
 EAENH 49

EX. Μενέλαος---οἴμοι, πῶς φράσω;.----τέθνηκέ μοι.

Oe. οὐδέν τι χαίρω σοῖς λόγοις, τὰ δ᾽ εὐτυχῶ:
πῶς (ὃ) οἶσθα; μῶν σοι Θεονόη λέγει τάδε;
EX. κείνη τε φησὶν» 6 τε παρὼν ὅτ᾽ @AAVTO, -
Θε. ἥκει γὰρ ὅστις καὶ τάδ᾽ ἀγγέλλει σαφῆ; 6ὃΟ 1200
EA, ἥκει", μόλοι yap of σφ᾽ ἐγὼ χρήἠζὼω μολεῖν,
Oc. τίς ἐστι; ποῦ ᾽στιν»; ἵνα σαφέστερον μάθω,
EA. 60° ὃς κάθηται τῷδ᾽ ὑποπτήξας τάφῳ.
Oc. "Απολλον, ὡς ἐσθῆτι δυσμόρφῳ πρέπει.
EX. οἴμοι, δοκῷ μὲν κἀμὸ» ὧδ᾽ ἔχειν πόσιν. 1205
Oc. ποδαπὸς δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἁνὴρ καὶ πόθεν κατέσχε γῆν;
EA. Ἕλλην», ᾿Αχαιῶν εἷς ἐμῷ σύμπλους πόσει.
Oc. θανάτῳ δὲ ποίῳ φησὶ Μενέλεων θανεῖν;
EA. οἰκτρόταθ᾽, typoicw ἐν κλυδωνίοις ἁλός,
Oc. ποῦ βαρβάροισι πελάγεσιν ναυσθλούμενον; tana
EA. Λιβύης ἀλιμένοις ἐκπεσόντα πρὸς πέτραις.
ε. καὶ πῶς ὅδ᾽ οὐκ ὄλωλε κοινωνῶν πλάτης;
EA. ἐσθλῶν κακίους ἐνίοτ᾽ εὐτυχέστεροι.
Qe. λιπὼν b€ ναὸς ποῦ πάρεστιν ἔκβολα;
KA. ὅπου κακῶς ὄλοιτο, Μενέλεως δὲ μή. «12s
Oc, ὄλωλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος. - ἦλθε δ᾽ ἐν ποίῳ σκάφει;.
EA. vadrat σφ᾽ ἀνείλοντ᾽ ἐντυχόντες, ὡς λέγει,
Oe. ποῦ δὴ τὸ πεμφθὲν ἀντὶ god Τροίᾳ κακόν;
BA. νεφέλης λέγεις ἄγαλμα; ἐς αἰθέρ᾽ οἴχεται.
Oe, ὦ Πρίαμε καὶ γῆ Tpwds, (os) ἔρρεις μάτην. 1220
EA. κἀγὼ μετέσχον ΤΠριαμίδαις δυσπραξίας.
Oc. πόσιν» δ᾽ ἄθαπτον ἔλιπεν ἢ κρύπτει χθονί;
1161 τάδ᾽ LP τάδ᾽ εὐτυχῶν Wilamowitz 1198 δ᾽ add. Hermann
1z0I-1298 paragraphi pro personarum notis in P: item in L praeter
I25I, 1252 t2o0r μόλει P: corr.p ai ob’ Lenting: ὡς LP
1206 ἀνὴρ LP 1209 οἰκτρύταθ᾽ ὕγροῖσιν ἐν Hermann: οἰκτρότατον
ὕγροῖσι LP: οἰκτρότατον ὕγροῖς ἐν et supra θάνατονδὲ ποῖον Scaliger
1212 κοινωνῶν πλάτης ἐ (vel L*): κοινωνῶν πλάταις (sic) P: κοινῶν
πλάταις L I2aig ἐσθλῶ Ὁ : corr.p 1217 ἀνείλοντ᾽ Cobet : ἀνεῖλον LP
1518 δὴ Sealiger: δὲ LLP aig ἄγαλμα LP τῶϑο ὡς add, Scaliger
EUR. IIL 4
50 EYPINILAQY

EA. ἄθαπτον" οἱ ἐγὼ τῶν ἐμῶν τλήμων κακῶν.

Θε. τῶνδ᾽ οὔνεκ᾽ ἔταμες βοστρύχους ξανθῆς κόμης"
EX. φίλος γάρ ἔστιν, ὃς ποτ᾽ ἐστίν, ἐνθάδ᾽ ὧν. 1225
Qc. ὀρθῶς μὲν de συμφορὰ δακρύεται, . -.
EA. ἐν εὐμαρεῖ γοῦν σὴν κασιγνήτην λαθεῖν.
Θε. οὐ δῆτα. πῶς οὖν; τόνδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ οἰκήσεις τάφον;
EA. τί κερτομεῖς με, τὸν θανόντα δ᾽ οὐκ eds;
Θε. πιστὴ γὰρ εἶ σὺ σῷ πόσει φεύγουσά με. 1230
EA. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽. ἤδη δ᾽ ἄρχε τῶν ἐμῶν γάμων.
Oc. χρόνια μὲν. ἦλθεν, GAN’ ὅμως αἰνῶ τάδε,
Ελ. οἷσθ᾽ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον; τῶν πάρος λαθώμεθα.
Oe. ἐπὶ τῷ; χάρις γὰρ ἀντὶ χάριτος ἐλθέτω.
EA. σπονδὰς τέμωμεν καὶ διαλλάχθητί μοι. 1235
Ge. μεθίημι νεῖκος τὸ σόν, ἴτω δ᾽ ὑπόπτερον.
EX. μρός νύν σε γονάτων τῶνδ᾽, ἐπείπερ εἰ φίλος----
Qe. τί χρῆμα θηρῶσ᾽ ἱκέτις ὠρέχθης ἐμοῦ;
Ελ. τὸν κατθανόντα πόσιν ἐμὸν θάψαι θέλω.
Oc τί δ᾽; ἔστ᾽ ἀπόντων τύμβος; ἢ θάψεις σκιάν; ΟΤ240
EA. Ἕλλησίν ἐστι νόμος, ὃς ἂν πόντῳ θάνῃ:---
Θε. τί δρᾶν; σοφοί τοι ΠΠελοπίδαι τὰ τοιάδε.
BA. κενοῖσι θάπτειν ἐν πέπλων ὑφάσμασιν.
Qe. κτέριζ ἀνίστη τύμβον οὗ χρήζεις χθονὸς.
EA. οὐχ ὧδε ναύτας ὀλομένους τυμβεύομεν. 1245
Oc. πῶς dal; λέλειμμαι τῶν ἐν “EAAnow νόμων.
EA. ἐς πόντον ὅσα χρὴ νέκυσιν ἐξορμίζομεν.
Θε, τί σοι παράσχω δῆτα τῷ τεθνηκότι;
EA. ὅδ᾽ οἵδ᾽, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἄπειρος, εὐτυχοῦσα πρίν.
1223 οἱ ἐγὼ LP: ot ᾽γὼ 2 1525 ἐστί, καὶ θανών Herwerden:
possis traicere ἔστιν γὰρ ἔστιν, ὥς ποτ᾽ ἐνθάδ' dy, pikos 1227 λαθεῖν
Jacobs: θανεῖν LP 1230 ef σὺ Elmsley: ἔσσι LP γὰρ οὖσα σῷ
ἐμέ Paley 1235 ἦλθεν Musgrave: ἦλθες (sed χρόνια) LP
πόσει φεύγεις
1233 λαθώμεθα Schaefer: λαθοίμεθα LP 1296 μεϑῆκα Cobet
νῦν L P 1243 πέπλων Sealiger ; πέπλοις LP 1246 sq.
1237 πρὸς
om. P 1246 was δαί L: εἴ, Med. ror2 (339), lon 275, El. 244,
1448 1949 ἐξορίζμεν Elis 1249 85°
rr16, 1, A. 1444,
Hartung: οὐκ LP
 EAENH 5!

Oe. & ξένε, λόγων μὲν κληδόν᾽ ἤνεγκας φίλην. L250

Me, οὔκουν ἐμαυτῷ γ᾽ οὐδὲ τῷ τεθνηκότι.
Oc. πῶς τοὺς θανόντας θάπτετ᾽ ἐν πόντῳ νεκρούς;
Me. ὡς ἂν παρούσης οὐσίας ἕκαστος ἧ.
Oe. πλούτου λέγ᾽ οὔνεχ᾽ ὅ τι θέλεις ταύτης χάριν.
Me. προσφάζεται μὲν αἷμα πρῶτα νερτέροις. ΟΠ 1358
Qe. τίνος; σύ μοι σήμαινε, πείσομαι δ᾽ ἐγώ.
Me, αὐτὸς σὺ γίχνωσκ᾽» ἀρκέσει γὰρ ἂν διδῷς,
Θε. ἐν βαρβάροις μὲν ἵππον ἢ ταῦρον νόμον.
Me. διδούς γε μὲν δὴ δυσγενὲς μηδὲν δίδου.
Oe. οὐ τῶνδ᾽ ἐν ἀγέλαις ὀλβίαις σπανίζομεν. 1260
Με, καὶ στρωτὰ φέρεται λέκτρα σώματος κενά.
Θε, ἔσται" τί δ᾽ ἄλλο προσφέρειν νομίζεται;
Me. χαλκήηλαθ᾽ ὅπλα: καὶ γὰρ ἦν φίλος δορί,
Oc. ἄξια τάδ᾽ ἔσται Πελοπιδῶν ἃ δώσομεν,
Me. καὶ τἄλλ᾽ ὅσα χθὼν καλὰ φέρει βλαστήματα. 1265
Oc. πῶς οὖν; ἐς οἷδμα τίνι τρόπῳ καθίετε;
Me, ναῦν δεῖ παρεῖναι κἀρετμῶν ἐπιστάτας.
Θε, πόσον δ᾽ ἀπείργει μῆκος ἐκ γαίας δόρυ;
Me. ὥστ᾽ ἐξορᾶσθαι ῥόθια χερσόθεν μόλις,
Oe τί δή; τόδ᾽ “Ἑλλὰς νόμιμον ἐκ τίνος σέβει; 1270
Me. ὡς μὴ πάλιν γῇ λύματ᾽ ἐκβάλῃ κλύδων,
Oc. Φοίνισσα κώπη ταχύπορος γενήσεται.
Me, καλῶς ἂν εἴη Μενέλεῳ τε πρὸς χάριν.
Oe. οὔκουν σὺ χωρὶς τῆσδε δρῶν ἀρκεῖς τάδε;
Me. μητρὸς τόδ᾽ ἔργον ἢ γυναικὸς ἢ τέκνων, 1275
Oc. ταύτης 6 μόχθος, ὡς λέγεις, θάπτειν πόσιν.
T2531 Menelai, r24a2 Theoclyment notas praef. L, non ut solet
paragraphos: οὗ, δα reat 1255 προσφάξεται P 1251 ἀρκέσει...
διδῷς Barnes: ἀρκέσειε. , δίδως LP: dpxeces.. . 880s »Υ 1258 ἵπ-
πὼν ἢ ταύρων P: corr, p T259 γε μέντοι Nauck 1260 οὐχ ὧδ᾽
Bruhn r26I φέρεται Canter: φέρετε L P 1263 yadnhAata LP
1267 ναῦν Canter: piv LP Sef 1.1 δὴ P καὶ ἐρετμῶν L: καὶ perpar
[2p 1268 πόσον 1.1: πόσιν P ἀπείργεις Wecklein 127)
ταχυπόρος LP = 5293 re Reiske:. ye L P 1276 μόχος P: corr. ὁ
4
52 ΕὙΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

Με. ἐν εὐσεβεῖ γοῦν νόμιμα μὴ κλέπτειν νεκρῶν.

Oc. ἴτω" πρὸς ἡμῶν ἄλοχον εὐσεβῆ τρέφειν.
4 Ἄ t " ¥ 1 ™ fy.

ἐλθὼν δ᾽ ἐς οἴκους ἐξελοῦ κόσμον νεκρῷ"

2f8o
καὶ σὲ οὐ κεναῖσι χερσὶ γῆς ἀποστελῶ, 120)
Ἀ εἾ 3 m 4 mo 3 fad

7 ἃ ‘
δράσαντα
f
τῇδε
a }
πρὸςμ xapur
i
φήμας ὃ ἐμοὶ
ἐσθλὰς ἐνεγκὼν ἀντὶ τῆς axAawias |
3 μ᾿ Ἂ Ν Ἂ " on 4 ?

ἐσθῆτα λήψῃ οἴτά θ᾽, ὥστε σ᾽ ἐς πάτραν

ἐλθεῖν, ἐπεὶ νῦν γ᾽ ἀθλίως ἔχονθ᾽ ὁρῶ.
"αὐ ᾿ ν 3 4 m4 f 28
σὺ ὃ, ὦ τάλαιψα, μὴ πὲ τοῖς aPNVUTOLS 1255
τρύχουσα σαυτὴν... Mevédews δ᾽ ἔχει πότμον,
¥

κοὐκ ἂν δύναιτο ζῆν ὁ κατθανὼν Tocts.

Ἄ ᾿ Lie ξ ᾿ f

Me. σὸν ἔργον, ἃ νεᾶνι" τὸν παρόντα μὲν

στέργει» πόσιν χρὴ, τὸν ὃὲ μήκετ
if fr ω Ν το Ν foi
OVT
¥ ἡ
ἐᾶν"...
“ἃ

ἄριστα yap σοι ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ τυγχάνον. 1200

κι 4 f

ἢν δ᾽ “EAAGS ἔλθω καὶ τύχω σωτηρίας,

ΕἸ

παύσω ψόγου
¥ ply, ἪΡἣν γυνὴ
σε € τοῦ πρίν, γένῃ
γυνὴ ὙΕΡῚ 1293
οἵαν γενέσθαι χρή σε σῷ ξυνευνέτῃ. ¥ τι
β 1292
EA, ἔσται τάδ᾽» οὐδὲ μέμψεται πόσις ποτὲ
ἡμῖν" σὺ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐγγὺς ὧν εἴσῃ τάδε. τς 1295
ἀλλ᾽, ὦ τάλας, εἴσελθε καὶ λουτρῶν τύχε
ἐσθῆτά τ᾽ ἐξάλλαξον, οὐκ ἐς ἀμβολὰς
εὐεργετήσω σ᾽: εὐμενέστερον γὰρ ἂν
τῷ φιλτάτῳ μοι Μενέλεῳ τὰ πρόσφορα
δρῴης ἄν, ἡμῶν τυγχάνων οἵων σε χρή. ος 1300

Χο. ᾿Ὀρεία ποτὲ ὃδρομάδι κώ- δ΄ στρ. ἃ

Ao μάτηρ θεῶν ἐσύθη ἂν
f oo + f + 5

ὑλάεντα νάπη :
-y248 ἴτω yp. #rw in margine L* vel ὦ: merus error 1279 ἐξελοῦ
Badham: ἐξελῶ L P 1282 post ἐνεγκῶών habet γ᾽ L: ety P: delet
Hermann . τῆς] τῆσδ᾽ Hartung r283 θ΄ LP T286 τρύχου
geavThy, quasi a τρυχύω, Scaliger; lacunam indicavit Matthiae
5’ fortass e delend um 1287 wdeis| πάλιν Reiske 1505,
1293 transposuit Canter ‘1293 ψόγον P 1297 és hic LP
1300 χρὴ Matthiae : χρῆν LP 1303 videtur dvd et prodelisionem
et elisionem pati, cf. antistr. : ay’ ὑλᾶντα Dindorf
 ΕΛΕΝΗ. 53
TOTALLY TE χεῦμ, ὑδάτων
. f F π᾿ er J i

βαρύβρομὸν Te κῦμ᾽ ἅλιον

f f m 2 τ
1305
πόθῳ Tas ἀποιχομένας
ἀρρήτου κούρας.
κρόταλα δὲ βρόμια διαπρύσιον
tevTa κέλαδον ἀνεβόα,
τε} f 7 fa

θηρῶν ὅτε ζυγίους. 1310

Cevfaog θεᾷ carivas f ~ Fal

Tay ἁρπασθεῖσαν κυκλίων

* ε ἕω bl

χορῶνμ᾿ ἔξω
ΠῚ
παρθενίων»
᾿ ᾿

bel fad | f
μετὰ κούραν, ἀελλόποδες,
ἃ μὲν τόξοις ΓΆρτεμις, ἃ δ᾽ 1318
" ΗΜ f
ἔγχει Γοργῶώπις πάνοπλος,
{ζσυνείποντο. Ζεὺς δ᾽ ἑδράνων
αὐγάζων ἐξ οὐρανίων
ἡ ἑ 3 3 ἢ

af a ba
ἄλλαν μοῖραν ἔκραινε.

dponatoy δ᾽ ὅτε πολυπλάνη- [άντ. of

τὸν μάτηρ ἔπαυσε πόνον, 1320
μαστεύουσα πόνους F
θυγατρὸς ἁρπαγὰς δολίους,
χιονοθρέμμονάς γ᾽ ἐπέρασ᾽
᾿δαιᾶν Νυμφῶν σκοπιάς"
ῥίπτει δ᾽ ἐν πένθει 1335
πέτρινα κατὰ Spla πολυνιφέα'
1307 κούρας L?P: κόρας L, et v deletum in P IZIO 56. θηρῶντο
τε (vryious ζεύξασαι θεαὶ σατίνας post Badhamum Wecklein 1311 (ev-
ξάσᾳ θεᾷ Hermann: ζεύξασα θεὰ ΠΡ σατίνας Musgrave : σατίναν LP
1514 μετὰ κουρᾶν δ᾽ LP: δ᾽ delevit Pilugk: μεταθῦσαν Wilamowitz
1316 Τυργῶπις Heath: γοργὼ LP: καὶ γοργοῖ Seidler post 1316
lacunam indicavit Hermann (post 1317 Dindorf}: eius monitu ex, gr.
supplevi 1517 αὐγάζων Hermann: αὐλάζων δ᾽ P: αὐλάζων δ᾽ vel
αὐγάζων δ᾽ dificili discrimine 1, 1319 sq. δρομαίων .. . πολυπλανήτων
...adévwy LP: correxi: (ἐπαύσοατ᾽ daar F. Gu. Schmidt : πόδα πλανή-
τῶν Herwerden) 1321 ματεύουσο, Hermann πόνους corruptum :
ἀπόνους (demens) Verrall 1323 χιονιθρέμονάς P: corr.ὁ y LP:
δ᾽ ἐν fortasse χιονοθρέμμον᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐπέρασ᾽ ... σκοπιάν, cf. το. 1069
1324 ἰδαίαν LP, fortasse recte 1326 Gpiovs ut videtur P: dpda ἢ
“4 EYPIMIAOY
βροτοῖσι δ᾽ ἄχλοα πεδία γᾶς
γι 3 ᾿ ων

οὐ καρπίζουσ᾽ ἀρότοις
λαῶν [δὲ] φθείρει γενεὰν"
ποίμναις δ᾽ οὐχ ἵει θαλερὰς 1330
βοσκὰς εὐφύλλων ἑλίκων,
πόλεων δ᾽ ἀπέλειπε βίος"
οὐδ᾽ ἦσαν θεῶν θυσίαι,
βωμοῖς δ᾽ ἄφλεκτοι πέλανον"
τὰ ΄᾿ .
᾿ ᾿ 4 ;
πηγὰς ὃ ἀμπαύει δροσερὰς 1335
λευκῶν ἐκβάλλειν ὑδάτων
πένϑει παιδὸς ἀλάστωρ.
F μ 4 ?

lorp. 8
f

ἐπεὶ 0° ἔπανσ᾽ εἰλαπίνας

+

θεοῖς βροτείῳ τε γένει,

ΤᾺ ᾿ ς

Ζεὺς μειλίσσων στυγίους

Marpos ὀργὰς ἐνέπει' 1340
Βᾶτε, σεμναὶ Χάριτες,
ἴτε, τῷ περὶ παρθένῳ
Δηοῖ θυμωσαμένᾳ 4
+ -
λύπαν ἐξαλλάξατ᾽ ἀλαλᾷ,
Modcai θ᾽ ὕμνοισι χορῶν. 1345
χαλκοῦ δ᾽ αὐδὰν χθονίαν
τύπανά ? T ἔλαβε βυρσοτεμη
-

καλλίστα τότε πρῶτα 'μακά-

ρων» Kimpiss γέλασέν τε θεὸ
7 id

1320 λαῶν Barnes: λαῶν δὲ LP γενεάν Seidler: -yervay LP

1330 ποίμναις Canter: ποίμνας L Ὁ 1992 πολέων ἐ ἀπέλειπε
i: ἀπέλιπε LP: fortasse ἐξέλεεπε, cl. 1314 1334 et 1335 8 post
Hartungum scripsi: 7+ LP 13349 ἀλάστωρ! ἀλάστῳ Τὰν. Dindort:
sed cf. Nicoch. incert. 4 (Mein.) de Sphinge νεῦβαὶ περισσόν SUprascr.
veteres edd.
/, cam iam In stropha versus pertisset : itaque omittebant
1839 μειλίσαιωP 1340 ἐννέπει LP 1342 τᾷ Musgrave: τὰν
LP 1343 Δηοῖ Canter: δηίω LP. dy in ras. P 1944 v. 1360
r ἀλαλξ :
non respondet : ἐξαλλάξατ᾽ ἀλᾷν Bothe, sed sanum videtu 1347
134% χυρῶν Matthiae: χορόν LP.
ἀλλάξαιτ᾽ Fritzsche
7 ἔλαβε Hermann: τὲ λάβετε LP
τύμπανα LP: corr. Heath
Ὁ 1348 κάλλι στα LP: cf. 1304
βυρσυτενῆ Canter: πνρασογενῆ LP
1249 γέλασε LP τεὶ δὲ Wecklein
 EAENH 55
δέξατό τ᾽ ἐς χέρας τ 180
βαρύβρομον αὐλὸν
τερφθεῖσ᾽ ἀλαλαγμῷ.
ὧν οὐ θέμις Co’) otf ὁσία [ἀντι β΄
᾿πύρωσας ἐν {θεῶν θαλάμοις,
μῆνιν δ᾽ ἔσχες μεγάλας 1358
ματρός, @ παῖ, θυσίας
οὐ σεβίζυσα θεᾶς.
μέγα τοι δύναται νεβρῶν
παμποίκιλοι στολίδες
κισσοῦ τε στεφθεῖσα yrACa 1360
vapOnkas εἰς ἱερούς,
ῥόμβου θ᾽ εἱλιασσομένα
κύκλιος ἔνοσις; αἰθερία,
βακχεύουσά τ᾽ ἔθειρα Βρομί-
ῳ καὶ παννυχίδες θεᾶς. 1365
ted δέ vey dparw
ὑπέρβαλε cehavat
μορφᾷ μόνον aiyets.
EX τὰ μὲν κατ᾽ οἴκους εὐτυχοῦμεν, ὦ φίλαι
ἢ γὰρ συνεκκλέπτουσα Πρωτέως κύρη 1370
πόσιν παρόντα τὸν ἐμὸν ἱστορουμένη
γὺκ εἶπ᾽ ἀδελφῷ: κατθανόντα δ᾽ ἐν χθονὶ
wv φησιν αὐγὰς εἰσορᾶν ἐμὴν yap.
A a 4 a 1 0% f

κάλλιστα ONT ἀνήρπασ ἐν τύχῃ πόσις"

f a ee μ . } τ + #

1350 χέρα Hermann 1353 σ᾽ post multos addidi 1354 θεῶν ex,
gv.addidi ἐπύρωσας 1, P 1355 ἔσχες Hermann: éyeis LP 1357 θεᾶς
Heath: @eoits LP 1358 δύναται Musgrave: δύνανται LP το κισ-
σοῦ Musgrave: κισσῷ LP 1360 els} ἐς LP 1362 ῥόμβου Heath;
ῥόμβω LP ἑλισσομένα LP 1369 κύκλιος Scaliger : κυκλίοις
LP T3606 sq. locus conclamatus 1366 εὖ ye P 13492 ἐν
χθονὶ suspectum ante 1974 lacunam indicavit Hermann, ex. gr.
ἔπειτα τεύχη τῶν ἔσω φρουρουμένων τ δὴ τάδ᾽ ἥρπασ᾽ sine lacuna Fix
1374 ἀνήρπασεν ἐν LP
56 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

& yap καθήσειν ὅπλ᾽ ἔμελλεν εἰς ἅλα,

ne a
1375
ταῦτ᾽ ἐμβαλὼν πόρπακι γενναίαν "χέρα
αὐτὸς κομίζει δόρυ τε δεξιᾷ λαβών,
ἈΞ" f F Fal f

ὡς τῷ θανόντι χάριτα δὴ συνεκπονῶν.

ὅπλοις Ἡσκήσατο,
rd , 5 4 ‘ mm 3 τ : f
προύργου δ᾽ ἐς ἀλκὴν» σῶμ᾽
ὡς βαρβάρων τρόπαια μυρίων χερὶ 1380
f δ ἕω: +. ΄ι ἕ ;
θήσων, ὅταν κωπῆρες ἐσβῶμεν σκαφος,
πέπλους δ᾽ ἀμείψασ᾽ ἀντὶ ναυφθόρου στολῆς
ἐγώ νιν ἐξήσκησα, καὶ λουτροῖς χρόα
ἔδωκα, χρόνια νίπτρα ποταμίας δρόσου.
ἀλλ᾽, ἐκπερῇᾷ γὰρ δωμάτων 6 τοὺς ἐμοὺς 1385
γάμους ἑτοίμους ἐν χεροῖν ἔχειν δοκῶν,
ms uf fat

σιγητέον μοι" καὶ σὲ προσποιούμεθα

εὔνουν κρατεῖν Te στόματος, ἢν δυνώμεθα
- a

σωθέντες αὐτοὶ καὶ σὲ συνσὥῶσαΐ ποτε.

Θε. χωρεῖτ᾽ ἐφεξῆς, ὡς ἔταξεν ὁ ξένος, 1300
dudes, φέροντες ἐνάλια κτερίσματα.
Ἑλένη, σὺ δ᾽, ἦν σοι μὴ κακῶς δόξω λέγειν,
πείθου, μέν᾽ αὐτοθ' ταὐτὰ yap παροῦσά τε
πράξεις τὸν ἄνδρα Tov σὸν ἣν τε μὴ παρῇς.
δέδοικα γάρ σε μή Tis ἐμπεσὼν πόθος 1305
πείσῃ μεθεῖναι σῶμ᾽ ἐς οἰδμα πόντιον
ra Ca = 7 καὶ an ¥

τοῦ πρόσθεν ἀνδρὸς χάρισιν ἐκπεπληγμένην'

™ F Ἂ i id

ἄγαν γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐ παρόνθ᾽ ὅμως στένεις.

EA, ὦ καινὸς ἡμῖν πόσις, ἀναγκθίως EXEL
= 4 tom ‘ 4 cd vf

τὰ πρῶτα λέκτρα νυμφικάς θ᾽ ὁμιλίας 1400

τιμᾶν" ἐγὼ δὲ διὰ TO μὲν στέργειν πόσιν
γ᾿ 4 hed Ἂς ΄- 4, x ἔξ F

τ576 πόρπακι Victorius : ὅρπακι L: ὕρπακι P 1378 δῆθεν ἐκ πονῶν

χάριν Herwerden 1381 orfewr ancnymus εἰσβῶμεν τὲ: σκά-
mos P: εἰσβῶμεν εἰς σκάφος L 1982 Sq. duelbas . . . aya LP:
corr, Pierson: 1389 sq. fortasse προσποιούμεθ᾽ εὖ | νοεῖν : cf.
Xen. Cyr. i. 18 κρατῆσαι στόματος eimsocth 1393 πιθοῦ
Dindorf μὲν P: corr. p 1304 πράξης ὉΠ: corr, p 1301] ἐκ-
πεπληγμένου P 1398. παροῦσ᾽ Vitelli _ 1899 καινὰς Beck:
κλεινὸς LP | : ,
 EAENH 57
καὶ ξυνθάνοιμ᾽ ἄν" ἀλλὰ τίς κείνῳ χάρις
* ft oe

ξὺν κατθανόντι κατθανεῖν; ἔα δέ με ~ ἐ

αὐτὴν μολοῦσαν ἐντάφια δοῦναι νεκρῷ.

» Κ᾿ -ὉἮηΛἉ + f a - fae

θεοὶ δὲ σοί τε δοῖεν of ἐγὼ θέλω, 1405

καὶ τῷ ξένῳ τῷδ᾽, ὅτι συνεκπονεῖ τάδε.
4, -ι ? τι τὸ ἢ ar ‘ τι f

ἕξεις δέ μ᾽ οἵαν χρή σ᾽ ἔχειν ἐν δώμασι

rf i 1 tf a , sf 5 f

γυναῖκ, ἐπειδὴ Μενέλεων εὐεργετεῖς

m4 " ‘ f 4 “-

KQjL* ἔρχεται yap δὴ τι» és τύχην τάδε.

τ᾿ ἃ # - f + 4 fad f

ὅστις δὲ δώσει ναῦν ἐν ἢ Tad’ ἄξομεν, 1410

πρόσταξον, ὡς ἂν τὴν χάριν πλήρη λάβω.
f e am, Ἂς f f f ,

Oe, χώρει σὺ καὶ ναῦν τοῖσδε πεντηκόντορον..

ἰδωνίαν
. »ν ἣ ,
δὸςὟΝ κἀρετμῶν
+ γι
ἐπιστάτας,
+ ?

EX. οὔκουν ὅδ᾽ ἄρξει ναὸς ὃς κοσμεῖ τάφον;

᾿ εἰ ΤᾺ

Oc. μάλιστ᾽ ἀκούειν τοῦδε χρὴ ναύτας ἐμούς. 1415

EA. αὖθις κέλευσον, ἵνα σαφῶς μάθωσί σου.
Oe. αὖθις κελεύω καὶ τρίτον γ᾽, εἴ σοι φίλον,
EA. ὄναιο"' κἀγὼ τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων.
Oe. μή νυν ἄγαν σὸν δάκρυσιν ἐκτήξῃς χρόα,
1 a

EA. ἥδ᾽ ἡμέρα σοι τὴν ἐμὴν δείξει χάρι». 1420

Ge. τὰ τῶν. θανόντων οὐδέν, GAN ἄλλως πόνος,
EA. ἔστι» τι κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ᾽ ay. ἐγὼ λέγω.
@e. οὐδὲν κακίω Μενέλεώ μ᾽ ἕξεις πόσιν.
EA, οὐδὲν σὺ μεμπτός" τῆς τύχης με δεῖ μόνον.
Oc. ἐν σοὶ τόδ᾽, ἣν σὴν εἰς ἔμ᾽ εὔνοιαν διδῷς. 1425
EA. οὐ νῦν διδαξόμεσθα τοὺς φίλους φιλεῖν.
Oe. βούλῃ ξυνεργῶν αὐτὸς ἐκπέμψω στόλον;
δ Fal 3.4 + f ¥

EA. ἥκιστα" μὴ δούλευε cots δούλοις, ἄναξ.

'“ 7

το ξυγκατθανόντι L Ῥ κατθανεῖν μ Lenting 1406 rad

L?P: ab 1407 χρή σ᾽ Matthiae: χρῆν LP Τ41 καὶ ᾿ρετμῶν
ΤῈΡ : καὶ ἐρετμῶν L 1415 χρὴ Reiske: χρῆν LP 14146-14209 para-
eraphos pro perscnarum notis praef, L P τ41τ|Ί y¥ 7: om. LP
Τά τῷ ἐκτήξεις P: corr. p 14πτ ἅλως P: ὅλως 1452, 1429 in-
verso ordine habet L sed numeris appictis rectum ordinem restituit
T1422 ἔστιν ἦι ἔστι LP kaner τὰ ἐνθάδ, ὧς Herwerden
1424 om, P μὲ δεῖ Musgrave: uwérves L
58 ᾿ς ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ
Θε. ἀλλ᾽ ela τοὺς μὲν Πελοπιδῶν ἐῶ νόμουϑ'
καθαρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν δώματ᾽. οὐ γὰρ ἐνθάδε Τ430
ψυχὴν ἀφῆκε Μενέλεως" ἴτω δέ tes
φράσων ὑπάρχοις τοῖς ἐμοῖς φέρειν γάμων
f r - ‘ Pa

ἀγάλματ᾽ οἴκους εἰς7 ἐμούς: πᾶσαν δὲ χρὴ

4 i } » a f os * ‘

γαῖαν βοᾶσθαι μακαρίαις ὑμνῳδίαις

ὑμέναιον Ἑλένης κἂμόν, ὡς ζγλωτὸς ἢ. 1435
σὺ δ᾽, ὦ ξέν᾽, ἐλθών, πελαγίους ἐς ἀγκάλας
to τῆσδε πρίν ποτ᾽ ὄντι δοὺς πόσει τάδε,
* Γ᾿ Ἄ ἊΨ; . τ rf

πάλιν πρὸς οἴκους σπεθὸ ἐμὴν δάμαρτ᾽ ἔχων,

fF ‘ W κι πκ δ 7 #

ὡς τοὺς γάμους τοὺς τῆσδε συνδαΐσας ἐμοὶ

4 =
στέλλῃ
f 4
πρὸςΝ οἴκους ἢ μένων εὐδαιμονῇξ.
af ,
ες ἴ440
#
KAnGy Geos,
ἃ ‘
copos
ες
Me. ὦ Zed, πατὴρ Te καὶ
> “a f

βλέψον πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ μετάστησον κακῶν.

--
ἕλκουσι δ᾽ ἡμῖν πρὸς λέπας τὰς συμφορᾶς
5 tft ™ 4 id *
ef

σπουδῇ cuvayrary κἂν ἄκρῳ BLYNS χερὶ,

An # . ἧς it Ain a.

ἥξομεν ἵν᾽ ἐλθεῖν βουλόμεσθα τῆς τύχης. L445

ἅλις δὲ μόχθων ots ἐμοχθοῦμεν tapos.
- μ f εἰ * ” ?

᾿ς κέκλησθέ μοι, θεοί, πολλά, χρήσθ᾽ ὁμοῦ κλύει»

i σι

καὶ λύπρ᾽" ὀφείλω δ᾽ οὐκ ἀεὶ πράσσειν κακῶς,

ὀρθῷ δὲ βῆναι mobs μίαν δὲ pot χάριν
ἧ΄ς τι ¥ f Fa
5 ΤᾺ

δόντες τὸ λοιπὸν εὐτυχῆ με θήσετε. 1450

Xo. — Φοΐισσα Σιδωνιὰς ὦ [στρ. α΄

ταχεῖα κώπα ῥοθίοισι, μάτηρ
εἰρεσίας φίλα,
+ f #

χοραγὲ Tov καλλιχόρων

δελφίνων, ὅταν αὔραις 1455
πέλαγος ἀνήνεμον ἢ»
1453 χρὴ Matthiac: χρῆν ΤΡ 1435 ἢ] ὦ Wecklein 1441 τεὶ
γὰρ Kirchhoff 1443 λέπας Musgrave: λύπας LP 1447 χρήστ'
ἐμοῦ LP: corr. Nauck [448 λυπρά" Liavrpay L?P 1482 ῥοθίοισι
Canter: ῥύθοισι LP μάτηρ Matthiae: μήτηρ LP: Νηρέως Bad-
ham 1453 εἰρεσίας Fritzsche : εἰρεσία ἦτ ἐρεσία LP 1456 ἀνή-
γεμὸν SCripsi : νήνεμον
 EAENH 50
γλαυκὰ δὲ Πόντον θυγάτηρ
Γαλάνεια ταδ᾽ εἴπη)"
Κατὰ μὲν ἱστία πετάσατ' ad-
pois λιπόντες εἰναλίαις, 1460
λάβετε δ᾽ εἰλατίνας πλάτας,
ὦ ναῦται, ναῦται,
πέμποντες εὐλιμένους
Περσείων οἴκων “Ἑλέναν ἐπ ἀκτᾶς.
ἢ ποὺ κόρας ἂν ποταμοῦ [ἀντι a
᾿ fal i?

παρ᾽ οἷδμα Λευκιππίδας ἢ πρὸ ναοῦ

Fs a fae
1466
ΤΙαλλάδος ἂν λάβοις
χρύνῳ ξυνελθοῦσα χοροῖς
‘ " ᾿ - , ἔμ

i) “ ς ""
ἢ κώμοις Τακίνθου
νύχιον ἐς εὐφροσύναν, 1470
ὃν ἐξαμιλλησάμενος
ε td

τροχῷ τέρμονα δίσκου

ἔκανε Φοῖβος, τῷ Λακαί-
va [1 ¥
γᾷ βούθυτον ἁμέραν'
L μ Ρ

ὁ Διὸς δ᾽ εἶπε σέβειν γόνος" 1475

᾿ 1 A. ν»
μόσχον θ᾽, ἂν οἴκοις
{ζἔέλειπες, ᾿Ερμιόναν,)
as οὕπω πεῦκαι πρὸ γάμων cAapfray.
-- τῇ - Ν, f f

δι ἀέρος εἴθε ποτανοὶ [orp. β

Qt

γενοίμεσθ᾽ ἃ Λιβύας [

Ἢ T45Q Sq. λείποντες Seidler’ εἰναλίαις Seidler: ἐναλίαις LP

λιπόντες ἐναύλια Kirchhoff: possis etiam αὐλοῖς ἄδοντες εἰναλίοις, cf
Tro. 126.simin. 146i εἰλαπίνα: P πλᾶτας om. P 1462 ἰὼ ante
alterum ναῦται add. ἦτ cf. 1476 1466 προνάου LP: corr. Canter
1476 és LP: eis?) εὐφρυσύναν Matthiae: εὐφρόναν LP 1472
τέρμονα Matthiae : repuom LP 1473 τᾷ] τῷ δὲ Wilamowitz : ὅθεν
Hermann: puncta mutavi T4974 ἡμέραν LP 1475 δ᾽ seclusit
Musgrave 14976 ἂν Alwar’ οἴκοις LP: Abroir delevi: cf. 1462: post
h, v. lacunam indicavit Heath: ex. gr. explevi (fy Aciweis οἴκοισιν
Wilamowitz> «14.777 πρὸ Canter: πρὸς L P 1478 εἴθε Barnes: εἰ
LP 1479 γενοίκεσθ' & Musgrave: γενοίμεθα LP AiBtas
scripsi: Atfues LP
60 EYPLIIAOY

οἷωνοὶ, στοχάδες 1480

ὄμβρον λιποῦσαι χειμέριον
af [π᾿ f

vigovTa. πρεσβυτάτᾳ
ad “

σύριγγι πειθόμεναι
¥ f

ποιμένος, ὃς ἄβροχα πεδία καρποφόρα τε yas τ485

i i ms

ἐπιπετόμενος ἰοχεῖ.
Ὦ πταναὶ δολιχαύχενες,
σύννομοι νεφέων» Spopov,
fd f rd

Bare Πλειάδας ὑπὸ μέσας

Fad [ 4

᾽ἾΩρίωνά τ᾽ ἐρνύχιον" 1490

Kapvcar ἀγγελίαν,
: ad 1 #4 f

Εὐρώταν éebeCopevar, -
Mevérews ὅτε Δαρδάνου
πόλιν ἑλὼν δόμον ἥξει.

μόλοιτέ ποθ᾽ ἵππιον οἶμον [ἀντ. β΄

δι’ αἰθέρος ἱέμενοι 1496
παῖδες Τυνδαρίδαι,
λαμπρῶν ἄστρων ὑπ᾽ ἀέλλαισιν"
οἱ ναίετ᾽ οὐράνιοι,
σωτῆρες τὰς “Edevas, 1500
γλαυκὸν ἔπιτ᾽ οἶδμα κυανόχροά τὲ κυμάτων
ῥόθια πολιὰ θαλάσσας,
ναύταις εὐαεῖς ἀνέμων
1486 στοχάδες L* (vel LY P: στολάδες primitus L: de synaphea
fracta cf. antistr. 1497 1482 νίσονται (sic} L πρεσβυτάτου Paley
1484 cf. 1501 1487 ᾧ wravat Canter (6 woraval Stephanus}:
ὁπόταν ai LP T48Q βᾶσαι Llerwerden τιλειάδας Stephanus:
πελειάδες ΤΡ 1490 ᾿᾽Οαρίωνα Nauck 1492 Elpdéray Victorius :
εὑρώπαν LP 1493 MevéAass LP: corr, Matthiae . 1495 linea
circumscripsit et περισσόν add. 2 ofwoy scripsi et metri causa et usus
Euripidei: ofaa L: οἶδμα L2P: yp. ὅρμα in margine ἐ 1497
ruySapides LP, corr. ἐ 1498 ἀέλαισιν P: corr. ἢ 1500 cw-
Tipe Musgrave τοὶ ἔπιτ᾽ οἶδμα Wilamowitz: ἐπ᾽ οἷδμ'
ἅλιον (glossema ad γλαυκὸν) LP: quo servato possis ἄβροχά θ᾽ ὃς
ν. 1484 ”
 ἘΛΕΝΗ 61.

πέμποντες Διόθεν tvods* 1505

δύσκλειαν δ᾽ ἀπὸ συγγόνου
βάλετε βαρβάρων λεχέων,
ἂν ᾿Ιδαίων ἐρίδων
ποιραθεῖσ᾽ ἐκτήσατο, γᾶν
οὐκ ἐλθοῦσά {ποτ ᾽Ιλίου T5Ie
Φοιβείους ἐπὶ πύργους.

Αγ. Tavaé, τὰ κἀκιστ᾽ ἐν δόμοις εὑρήκαμεν"

ὡς καί» ἀκούσῃ πήματ᾽ ἐξ ἐμοῦ τάχα.
ι ἢ + ᾿ # 74 4 cab i

Θε.. τί δ᾽ ἔστιν; Ay. ἄλλης ἐκπόνει μνηστεύματα

γυναικός" “Ελένη γὰρ βέβηκ᾽ ἔξω χθονός. 1515
Θε. πτεροῖσιν ἀρθεῖσ᾽ ἢ πεδοστιβεῖ ποδί;
ms "- a ry

Ay. Μερέλάος αὐτὴν ἐκπεπόρθμενται χθονός,

ὃς αὑτὸς αὐτὸν ἦλθεν ἀγγέλλων θανεῖν.
ΓΗ 7 A t o% “πὶ 4 i πε

Qe. ὦ δεινὰ λέξας" τίς δέ νιν ναυκληρία

ἐκ τῆσδ᾽ ἀπῆρε χθονός; ἄπιστα γὰρ λέγεις. 1520
Αγ. ¥: WYἣν γε ξένῳi δίδως σύ" τούς τε σοὺς ἔχων
Xx
ναῦτας βέβηκεν, ὡς ἂν ἐν βραχεῖ μάθῃς.
f a f

Oc. πῶς; εἰδέναι πρόθυμος" οὐ γὰρ ἐλπίδων

ἔσω βέβηκα μίαν ὑπερδραμεῖν χέρα
¥ Ff , Ε “ f

f , π᾿ 5 i f
τοσοῦσδε ναύτας, ὧν ἀπεστάλῃης μέτα, 1525

Αγ. ἐπεὶ λιποῦσα τούσδε βασιλείους δόμους

ἢ τοῦ Atos παῖς πρὸς θάλασσαν ἐστάλη
ι ΤᾺ + cal μ᾿ i 4 f

σοφώταθ᾽ ἁβρὸν πόδα τιθεῖσ᾽ ἀνέστενε

πόσιν πέλας παρόντα Kou τεθνηκότα.
1509 πονηθεῖσ᾽ J: πονηθήσ᾽ P: corr. Scaliger Hermann γᾶν
Musgrave: ray L P I510 ἐλθυῦσά wor’ Bothe {περ Fix): ἐλθοῦσαν
és LP: ἐς del. ὦ 1511: porBiovs P E512 corruptus: for-
tasse totusad lacunam explendam fictus _ 1514 ante ἄλλης
et vv, 1516, 1517, 1526 paragraphos pro personarum notis praef.
L T5197 ἐκπεπόρθευται P: corr. p E520 ἀπῆρεν L: corr, L*
1520 ye] τῷ Wilamowitz τε] δὲ Kirchhoff ἔχων ἐλὼν Schenk
1524 εἴσω LP fortasse βέβηκε 1528 σοφώτατ᾽ L: corr. 1.3
1529 καὶ οὗ L
62 ΕΥὙΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

ὡς δ᾽ ἤλθομεν σῶν περίβολον νεωρίων, 1530

Σιδωνίαν ναῦν πρωτόπλουν καθείλκομεν
γῶν τε πεντήκοντα κἀρετμῶν μέτρα
ἔχουσαν. ἔργου δ᾽ ἔργον ἐξημείβετο"
ὃ μὲν γὰρ ἱστόν, ὃ δὲ πλάτην καθίσατο
~ £ ld a ", F δ
ΑΔ ἢ

ταρσόν τε χειρί, λευκά θ᾽ tari’ els Ev av,

τ a ic
1535
πηδάλιά te ζύγλαισι παρακαθίετο.
κἂν τῷδε μόχθῳ, τοῦτ᾽ dpa σκοπούμενοι,
7 γι κι f

“EAAnves ἄνδρες Μενέλεῳ ξυνέμποροι

προσῆλθον ἀκταῖς ναυφθόροις ἠσθημένοι
ιν my # Ἂ f
π΄

πέπλοισιν, εὐειδεῖς μέν, αὐχμηροὶ δ᾽ ὁρᾶν. | 1540

? id ,
ἰδὼν δέ νι» παρόντας Δτρέως γόνος
ay 4 f ? 3

* _f ;
προσεῖπε δύλιον οἶκτον» ES μέσον φέρων"
A iy a

Q τλήμονες, πῶς ἐκ τίνος νεώς πότε

> i τι

θραύσαντες ἥκετε σκάφος;

a ea F
Ayatisos
3, FA

ap’ ᾿Ατρέως παῖδ᾽ dAcuevoy συνθάπτετε, 1545

ὃν Τυνδαρὶς παῖς ἥδ᾽ ἀπόντα κενοταφεῖ;
οἱ δ᾽ ἐκβαλόντες δάκρυα ποιητῷ τρόπῳ Ρ̓ i ty “o£ p i i bi

és ναῦν ἐχώρουν Μενέλεῳ ποντίσμοτα

om F f

ἡμῖν δ᾽ qv μὲν ἠδ᾽ Ὁποψία

sO * rad of r
φέροντες.
f to »

λόγος τ᾽ ἐν ἀλλήλοισι, τῶν ἐπεσ βατῶν 1550

ὡς πλῆθος εἴη" διεσιωπῶμεν δ᾽ ὅμως
μ᾿ *
ἄρχειν yap vEws
w
τοὺς σοὺς λόγους σῴζοντες"
‘ Ἀ fo. ἤ

ξένον κελεύσας πάντα συνέχεας τάδε.

καὶ τἄλλα μὲν δὴ ῥᾳδίως ἔσω νεὼς
ἐθέμεθα xovpiCovra ταύρειος δὲ ποὺς
f
1555
οὐκ ἤθελ᾽ ὀρθὸς σανίδα προσβῆναι κάτα,
1530 περιβόλων P: corr. p 1532 καὶ ἐρετμῶν L μέτρα ip:
μέσα LP 1534 καθίστατο Barnes 1535 Te χειρί] τ΄ ἐνεῖρε
Badham : fortasse τ΄ ἐνήρη far? L? Ps ἱστία L εἰς ἐν Hl εἰσένει
olim Herwerden : lectio totius v. dubia 1537 μόχθου Kirchhoff :
ef. Ion r1g6, Phoen, 1396 1538 συνέμποροι P 1539 ἀκτὰς
Heiland ἠσκημένοι Blomfield τα εὐηδεῖς Pi corr ρ΄ 1545 ὁλού-
μενον LP: corr. Stephanus συνθάψετ ε Badham 1546 ἀπόντα
Brodeau: ἥκοντα LP τὸ 7 παν. Dindorf: δ᾽ LP 1554 τἄλλα
Canter: ταῦτα LP εἴσω LP 1555 ἐβθέμεσϑα LP = 1556 ὀρθῶς P
 ἘἘΛΕΝΗ͂ 63

ἀλλ᾽ ἐξεβρυχυτ᾽ ὄμμ᾽ ἀναστρέφων κύκλῳ

κυρτῶν τε νῶτα κἂς κέρας παρεμβλέπων
μὴby θιγγάνειν
Ρ
ἀπεῖργεν.
4 a
ὁ δ᾽
eo oo? αὶ f
“Ἑλένης πόσις
F

ἐκάλεσεν" Ὦ πέρσαντες Ἰλίου πόλι», 1560

OUK εἰ
+ a+
ἀναρπάσαντες
45 f ξ
Ἑλλήνων vow
ta F

νεανίαις ὦμοισι ταύρειον δέμας

ἐς πρῷραν ἐμβαλεῖτε, φάσγανόν θ᾽ ἅμα
πρόχειρον ὥσει σφάγια τῷ τεθνηκότι ;
# ΤᾺ

οἱ δ᾽ ἐς κέλευσμ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἐξανήρπασαν 1565

Ταῦρον φεροντὲς τ᾽ εἰσέθεντο σέλματα.
Dia ul f 3 + ᾿ f

μονάμπυκον δὲ ΝΙενέλεως Ψήχων δέρην

f ͵

μέτωπά τ᾽ ἐξέπεισεν ἐσ βῆναι δόρυ.

f Ff π᾿ a ae αὶ ‘al

τέλος δ΄, ἐπειδὴ vats τὰ πάντ᾽ ἐδέξατο,

f 3 + eS cal μ f 764 f

πλήσασα κλιμακτῆρας εὐσφύρου ποδὸς 1570

᾿Βλένη καθέζετ᾽ ἐν μέσοις ἐδωλίοις,
ὅ τ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ὧν λόγοισι Μενέλεως πέλας"
ΕἸ

ἄλλοι δὲ τοίχους δεξιοὺς λαιούς τ᾽ ἴσοι

ἀνὴρ παρ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἕζονθ᾽, ὑφ᾽ εἵμασι ξίφη
λαθραΐ ἔχοντες, ῥόθιά τ᾽ ἐξεπίμπλατο 1575
βοῆς κελευστοῦ φθέγμαθ᾽ ὡς ἠκούσαμεν.
ἐπεὶ ὃὲ γαίας
4 “ - #
yuev οὔτ᾽
κὴ Lo Ἀν}
ἄγαν πρόσω
‘4

οὔτ᾽ ἐγγύς, οὕτως ἤρετ᾽ οἰάκων φύλαξ'

Ἔτ᾽,
τ, ὦὦ &év,
ξέν᾽, ἐςὁ τὸx πρόσθεν---
‘rf
ἢδ καλῶς
NO Fs
ἔχει--.
πλεύσωμεν; apyal γὰρ νεὼς μέλουσι col. 1580
ὃ δ᾽ εἶφ᾽.
δι μὶ ef
“Adis μοι, δεξιᾷω δ᾽ ἑλὼν
ξ
ξίφος
,

ἐς πρῷραν εἰρπε Kami ταυρείῳ σφαγῇ

4 χὰ "τ 4 4 ν᾿ Fact

1558 κείς L P 1560 ἐκέλευσεν Cobet 1561 obt ef | οὔκουν

suprascr. L? 1964 (pdoyavdv. .. ὠθεῖ) Bothe 1565 post ἐξανήρπασαν
deletum réAwin L 1566 7’ Musgrave: # LP 1567 μονάμπυκοςι
Schenkl: sed vide Ox. Pap. VIII. 1087 1567 sq. delevit W. G.
Clark 1579 κλιμαντῆρας L P: corr. Hervagiana altera 1571
ἐδωλίων primitus L 1574 εζοντο L: ἔζοντ᾽ P εἵμασιν I. P:
» delevit ὦ 1595 λαθραῖ ¢: λάθρε 1, (fuit Αάθρα): Adép’ L?P ut
videtur | ῥόθια Pierson : ὕρθρια L : ὄρθια P 1576 κελευστοῦ
Pierson: κελεύθου L P 1580 σοι Eimsley: wo: L P 1581 εἶπεν
LP ἑλὼν} ἔχων Cobet, cl. 1564
δ4 ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

σταθεὶς νεκρῶν μὲν ovdevos μνήμην ἔχων,

Ἄ Ἀ fl
iad

τέμνων δὲ λαιμὸν ηὔχετ᾽" Ὦ ναίων ἅλα

πόντιε ΤΙὀσειδον Νηρέως θ᾽ ἁγναὶ κόραι,f 1585
yo gs
σώσt ατέ μ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀκτὰς Ναυπλίας Oayapta τε
. fo o39 9 9 Fs

αἵματος δ᾽ ἀπορροαὶ
7 3
ἄσυλον ἐκ γῆς.
uf 1 cm δ,

és οἷδμ᾽μ᾽ ἐσηκ ἐση όντιζον. οὔριρ οι ξένῳ>.

καί τις τόδ᾽ εἶπε' Δόλιος ἢ ναυκληρία,
*
fad

πάλιν πλέωμεν' δεξιὰν κέλευε σύ, 1500

ἐκ δὲ ταυρείου Povo
“2

σὺ δὲ στρέφ᾽ οἴακ'.
᾿Ατρέως σταθεὶς παῖς ἀνεβόησε συμμάχους"
Τί μέλλετ᾽, ὦ γῆς “Ἑλλάδος λωτίσματα,
σφάζειν φονεύειν βαρβάρους νεώς 7 ἄπο
ῥίπτει! ἐς οἶδμα; ναυβάταις δὲ τοῖσι σοῖς 1595
βοᾷ κελευστὴς τὴν ἐναντίαν ὅπα'
Οὐκ @& ὃ μέν τις λοῖσθον ἀρεῖται δόρυ,
ὃ δὲ Gy ἄξας, ὃ δ᾽ ἀφελὼν σκαλμοῦ πλάτην
καθαιματώσει κρᾶτα πολεμίων ξένων;
ὀρθοὶ δ᾽ ἀνῇῆξαν πάντες, οἱ μὲν ἐν χεροῖν. 1600
κορμοὺς ἔχοντες ναυτικούς, οἱ δὲ ξίφη"
φόνῳ δὲ ναῦς ἐρρεῖτο. παρακέλευσμα δ ἢν
πρύμνηθεν Ἑλένης" Ποῦ τὸ Τρωικὸν, κλέος;
δείξατε πρὸς ἄνδρας βαρβάρους" σπουδῆς 0” ὕπο
ἔπιπτον, οἱ δ᾽ ὠρθοῦντο, τοὺς δὲ κειμένους 1605
νεκροὺς ἂν εἶδες, - Μενέλεως δ᾽ ἔχων ὅπλα,
ὅποι νοσοῖεν ξύμμαχοι κατασκοπῶν,
ταύτῃ προσῆγε χειρὶ δεξιᾷ ξίφος,
1589 ἔχων fortasse ἔχει 1584 λαιμὸν Stephanus : δαίμον᾽ LP
1586 Ναυπλίους Wecklein | 1587 ἐκ ys suspectum: nisi sensus est
1588 és hic LP οὔριοι
‘cum Terra eam incolumem praestiterit’ ἀξίαν" LP: super
Elmsley: οὔρια LP 1590 "δεξιὰν Baynes:
2: ἀντίαν᾽ Badham 1592 συμμάχοις Nauck
& va scripsit
1495 ναυβάταις pi ναυάταις LP rs96 ἐναντίαν 1: ἐναντίον LP
1597 οὖκ εἴ yp. οὔκουν L? λοῖσθον suspectum: fortasse θᾶσσον
1598 πλάταν P 1604 dei
ἀρεῖται Elmsley : αἱρεῖται P: αἰρεῦται L 1607 vooeiey P
tare L: δείξαντες P: κλέος δείξετε Hartung
1608 δεξιᾷ fortasse δεξιὸν
 EAENH δὲ
ὥστ ἐκκολυμβᾶν ναός" ἠρήμωσε δὲ
σῶν ναυβατῷν ἐρετμά. ἐπ᾽ oldxwy δὲ βὰς 610
ἄνακτ᾽ ἐς “Ἑλλάδ᾽ εὗπεν εὐθύνειν δόρυ.
uf

οἱ δ᾽ ἱστὸν por, ovp

ἦρον, οὔριαι δ᾽ ἧκον
ἧκο πνοαΐ.
oat
βεβᾶσι & ἐκ γῆς. διαφυγὼν δ᾽ ἐγὼ φόνον
[αὐ a τι 4

καθῆκ ἐμαυτὸν εἰς GA

mo 4 4, 4 cy. >
ἄγκυραν πάρα"
ow fr

ἤδη δὲ κάμγονθ᾽ ὁρμιατόνων μέ τις 1615

ἀνείλετ᾽, ἐς δὲ γαῖαν ἐξέβησέ σοι
ταῦ ἀγγελοῦντα, σώφρονος § ἀπιστίας
Fo 7 ἔμ f 7 4 fa

οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν χρησιμώτερον βροτοῖς,

Χο, οὐκ> ἂν
ΚΜ
ποτ᾽ > κα
ηὔχουν Ν-
οὔτε σ᾽ 7 οὔθ᾽
ΜΑΣ ton
ἡμᾶς λαθεῖνδι
Μενέλαον, ὦναξ, ὡς ἐλάνθανεν παρών, τό2ο
Ge. ὦ γυναικείαις τέχναισιν αἱρεθεὶς ἐγὼ τάλας"
ἐν

ἐκπεφεύγασιν γάμοι pe.

4 #
Kel μὲν ἣν ἁλώσιμος 4 τ > t i

ναῦς διώγμασιν, πονήσας εἷλον ἂν τάχα ξένους"

* a

viv δὲ τὴν προδοῦσαν ἡμᾶς τεισόμεσθα σύγγονον,

ἥτις ἐν δόμοις ὁρῶσα Μενέλεων οὐκ εἶπέ μοι. 1628
τοιγὰρ οὕποτ ἄλλον avdpa ψεύσεται μαντεύμασιν.
- Ed Ἄν af fd ᾿

ΘΕΡΆΠΩΝ

οὗτος ὦ, ποῖ σὸν πόδ᾽ αἴρεις, δέσποτ᾽, ἐς ποῖον φόνον;

Oe. οἴπερ ἢ δίκη κελεύει με' ἀλλ᾽ ἀφίστασ᾽ ἐκποδών.
Ocp.ovx ἀφήσομαι πέπλων σῶν" μεγάλα (yap) σπεύδεις
κακά.
Oc. ἀλλὰ δεσποτῶν κρατήσεις δοῦλος Gv; Θερ. φρονῶ
yap εὖ.μ᾿ μευ
1630
1610 ἐρετμὰ LP I61I ἄνακτ᾽ Emper: ἄναξ LP εἰς
EP 1612 fori? ἦρον Emper οὔριοι Elmsley 1615 κάμνοντ᾽
ΤῸ κάμνοντα L ὁρμιατόνων LP, sed in ras. scripsit α Ῥῆ; γρ.
ὁρμιὰ» τίνων μέ τις ἱ 1618 χρησιμώτερον Li: σωφρονέστερον
162% γυναικείοις. Hermann 1627 @EPAIION] Xe. LP: 1629-1639
paragraphos habent pro personarum notis: has partes mulieris non
esse sed viri arguit v. 1630, cf. ad Hipp. rroe sq.: igitur vel
Nuntio vel potius post Clarkium @epdrove: Theonoae tribuendae, qui
regi in regiam inrumpenti obvius fiat ᾧ ποῖ L (nescio an in rasura):
ὅποι P τόσο yapom. LP: add, ἦ
EUR. 11. 5
66 ΒΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

Oc. οὐκ ἔμοιγ᾽, εἰ μή μ᾽ ἐάσεις---- Θερ. ov μὲν οὖν σ᾽

ἐάσομεν.
ὥς, σύγγονον κτανεῖν κακίστην---- Θερ, εὐσεβεστάτην
μὲν οὖν,
Oe. ἦ με προύδωκεν---- Θερ. καλήν γε προδοσίαν, δίκαια
ὁρᾶν.
Θε. τἀμὰ λέκτρ᾽ ἄλλῳ διδοῦσα, Θερ. τοῖς γε κυριωτέροις.
Oc. κύριος δὲ τῶν ἐμῶν Tis; Θερ. ὃς ἔλαβεν πατρὸς
πάρα. : 1635
Θε. ἀλλ᾽ ἔδωκεν ἡ τύχη pot. θερ, τὸ δὲ χρεὼν ἀφείλετο.
Oe. οὐ σὲ τἀμὰ χρὴ δικάζειν. Θερ. ἤν γε βελτίω λέγω.
Oc. ἀργόμεσθ᾽ ἄρ᾽, οὗ κρατοῦμεν. Θερ. ὅσια δρᾶν, τὰ
δ᾽ ἔκδικ᾽ ov.
Θε. κατθανεῖν ἐρᾶν ἔοικας. Θερ. κτεῖνε' σύγγονον δὲ σὴ»
οὐ κτενεῖς ἡμῶν ἑκόντων, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμε' (as) πρὸ δεσποτῶν
τοῖσι γενναίοισι δούλοις εὐκλεέστατον θανεῖν. 1641

ATOZSKOPGOL

ἐπίσχες ὀργὰς alow οὐκ ὀρθῶς φέρῃ;

Θεοκλύμενε, γαίας τῆσδ᾽ ἄναξ' δισσοὶ δέ σε
Διόσκοροι καλοῦμεν, οὖς Λήδα ποτὲ
ἔτικτεν “λένην θ΄, ἢ πέφευγε σοὺς δόμους" 1645
οὗ yap πεπρωμένοισιν ὀργίζῃ γάμοις,
οὐδ᾽ ἡ θεᾶς Νηρῇδος ἔκγονος Kopy
amd ἢ ia τ᾿ δὲ fa

ἀδικεῖ σ᾽ ἀδελφὴ Θεονόη, τὰ τῶν θεῶν

τιμῶσα πατρός T ἐνδίκους ἐπιστολάς.
ἐς μὲν γὰρ αἰεὶ τὸν παρόντα νῦν χρύνον 1850
κείνην κατοικεῖν σοῖσιν ἐν δόμοις ἐχρῆν'
1633 προύδωκε LP 1635 ἔλαβε LP 1638 ἀρχόμεθ᾽ LP:
corr. é τὰ δ' ἔκδικ᾽ οὔ Porson: τάνδ᾽ ἐκδικῶ EP 1639 κτεῖναι P
1640 paragraphus praefixa et deleta in L: 1640 et 1641 paragraphos
praef, P tu ws Porson: ἐμὲ LP 1641 γενναίοις LP: corr. ἢ
1643 γαίας Nauck: yas LP: τῆσδε γῆς Mekier 1647 ἔκγονος
Matthiae: ἐκγόνῃ LP: εὐγενὴς Nauck 1650 és] es Stephanus : ef
LP ae LP
 EAENH 67
ἐπεὶ δὲ Τροίας ἐξανεστάθη βάθρα,
καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς παρέσχε τοὔνομ᾽, οὐκέτι"
ἐν τοῖσι δ᾽ αὑτῆς δεῖ νιν ἐζεῦχθαι γάμοις
ἐλθεῖν τ᾽ ἐς οἴκους καὶ συνοικῆσαι πόσει. 1655
ἀλλ᾽ ἴσχε μὲν σῆς συγγόνου μέλαν ξίφος,
fd
νόμιζε δ᾽ 3 αὐτὴν
7%
σωφρόνως
i
πράσσε
?
ιν τάδε.
f

πάλαι δ᾽ ἀδελφὴν κἂν πρὶν ἐξεσώσαμεν,

ἐπείπερ ἡμᾶς Ζεὺς ἐποίησεν θεούς"
ἀλλ᾽ ἥσσον᾽ ἦμεν τοῦ πεπρωμένου θ᾽ ἅμα 1660
καὶ τῶν θεῶν, οἷς ταῦτ᾽
μ a om μὰ ~ 3
ἔδοξεν ὧδ᾽
καὶ ema
ἔχειν.
4}

4 ᾿ς ἔτ ἢ
σοι μὲν TAO lar
αὐδῶ, συγγόνῳ δ᾽
F > 43
ἐμῇ λέγω'
ws f

πλεῖ ξὺν πόσει σῷ" t

πνεῦμα δ᾽ ἔξετ᾽ οὔριον"
σωτῆρε δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ow κασιγνήτω διπλῶ
πόντον παριππεύοντε πέμψομεν πάτραν, 1665
ὅταν δὲ κάμψῃς καὶ τελευτήσῃς Biov,
oF 4 ? 4 ¥ *

θεὸς κεκλήσῃ καὶ Διοσκόρων μέτα

σπονδῶν μεθέξεις ξένιά τ᾿ ἀνθρώπων πάρα
ΤᾺ “ i f + 4 ἤ f

ἕξεις μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν" Ζεὺς γὰρ ὧδε βούλεται.

ov δ᾽ ὥρισέν cot πρῶτα Μαιάδος τόκος, 1670
ὥπάρτη
/
ς ἀπάρας
4 f
, τὸν4 κατ᾽ 3
οὐρανὸν δρόμον,
% Ἀ ἜΝ,

κλέψας δέμας σὸν μὴ Πάρις γήμειέ σε,

—ppoupoy παρ᾽ ᾿Ακτὴν τεταμένην νῆσον λέγω---
Ἑλένη τὸ λοιπὸν ἐν βροτοῖς κεκλήσεται,
ἐπεὶ κλοπαΐία» o ἐκ δόμων ἐδέξατο. 1675
1654 τοῖσι δ᾽ Bothe: τοῖσιν LP, quo servato del. v. 1653
Nauck αὑτῇ: Nauck: αὐτοῖς LP 1655 7 Hermann: @ LP
συνηκῆσα Β΄. 1656 ἴσχε ἐ: ἔσχε LP 1657 πράττειν LP
1658 κἂν πρὶν Heath: καὶ πρὶν L teste Vitellio, nam καὶ suprascr
,
Lt: πρίν y ut videtur Ps ἂν Ἑλένην καὶ πρὶν Badham 1659 del.
Nauck 1050 ἥσσον᾽ Pierson: ἥσσονες LP T6063 πλεῖ
Cobet: πλεῖν LP σὺν 1664 δ᾽ L: θ P 1666 κάμψεις
.+. τελεντήσεις P: corr, p 1667 sq. verba témd .. . ἡμῶν
delebat Herwerden 1670 ὥρμισέν σὲ Madvig (σε apogr. Paris.)
ΤΟῚῚ τὸν Petsuprascr, [1 vel 1.3: γῶν, δρόμον Wilamowittz : δόμων
LP: δρόμων Paley 1673 φρουρὸν Hermann : φρουροῦ LP
τεταμένην νῆσον Reiske: τεταγμένη μνῆσον LP: yp. νῆσον [1 in
marg.: μνῆσοι p 1675 κλυπαίαν σ᾽ Herwerden: κλοπὰς LP:
κλυπὰς σὰς ὦ
τ
68 EYPIDIAOYT ΒΛΕΝΗ
kal τῷ πλανήτη MevéAew θεῶν πάρα
- γι f

μακάρων κατοικεῖν νῆσόν ἐστι μόρσιμον"

τοὺς εὐγενεῖς γὰρ οὐ στυγοῦσι δαίμονες,
τῶν δ᾽ ἀναριθμήτων μᾶλλόν εἶσιν οἵ πόνοι.
Oc, ὦ παῖδε Λήδας καὶ Διός, τὰ μὲν πάρος 1680
νείκη μεθήσω σφῶν κασιγνήτης πέρι"
3 ,
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀδελφὴν οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν κτάνοιμ᾽ ἐμήν.
κείνη ὃ ἴτω πρὸς οἴκον, εἰ θεοῖς δοκεῖ,
i toy 4 μὰ 4 mm ral

torov δ᾽ ἀρίστης σωφρονεστάτης θ᾽ ἅμα

?

γεγῶτ᾽ ἀδελφῆς ὁμογενοῦς ἀφ᾽ αἵματος. 1685

καὶ xalpe?
* # 2
Βλένης i
obvex’
tf 3
evyeveorariys
+ f

γνώμης, Ὁ πολλαῖς ἐν γυναιξὶν οὐκ ἔνι.

¥ rh τι 3 μ 7 nw

Χο. πολλαὶ μορφαὶ τῶν δαιμονίων,

πολλὰ δ᾽ ἀέλπτως κραίνουσι θεοί"
καὶ τὰ δοκηθέντ᾽ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη, 1690
τῶν δ᾽ ἀδοκήτων πόρον ηὗρε θεός,
τοιόνδ᾽ ἀπέβη τόδε πρᾶγμα.
1670 v. multum sollicitatus 1685 ἀδελφοῦ ut vid. P: corr, ,
ὁμογενοῦς Canter: μονογενοῦς LP 1686 καὶ om, P 1687
γνώμην Wilamowitz 1691 εὗρεν P Subser. xene εὐριπίδου ἑλένη
(erasum videtur τέλος) Ls τέλος εὐριπίδον ἑλένης P
 COMMENTARY
THE Prologue is of the type Eur. uses most: an explanatory monologue
addressed to the audience, followed by a scene in dialogue. The σκηνή
represents a palace-front with central double-doors, and somewhere
on the stage is the Tomb of Proteus, where Helen has to spend much
of her time sitting or standing. This, with its ‘base and uprights’ (547),
needs a little more than the ordinary stele on a raised mound and step,
but cannot be a free-standing affair or (in spite of 1165) in front of the
door, where it would impede movement and visibility. The situation
recalls the opening of the Andramache, where the heroine has taken
refuge at a shrine of Thetis which is δόμων πάροικον, and it is reasonable
to suppose a regular stage-property which could be set up against the
back wall to one side or the other of the central door, with step or
steps where Helen can sit and pilasters beside which Menelaus could be
half-concealed (507, 1203). If this were on the audience’s left, the king
would pass it on his return from hunting, and Helen would be well
placed to confront those of her interlocutors who arrive from the sea.
Helen probably speaks most of her monologue standing centre-stage
and moves over to sit at the tomb about 1. 63. The αἵδε of the first
line may imply a painted panel set in the wall to the right of the σκηνή.
1. καλλιπάρθενοι foal: probably ‘fair virgin streams’ as Hermann
takes it, the Nile receiving its flow only from the melting snows, not
(it was thought) from the mingling of tributaries. There is no close
parallel: καλλιπαρθένου δέρης 1A 1574 is literal: Bacch, 520 εὐπάρθενε
Aipxais a straightforward personification ; A. Pers. 613 παρθένου πηγῆς
is pure spring-water for libations, Others take it as ‘the stream of
Nile with its fair nymphs’, and Pearson as ‘streams of Nile’s fair
daughters’, with reference to the ‘hundred mouths’ (Bacch. 406) of
the Delta, each with its presiding nymph. Perhaps Eur. did not think
very closely about it.
3. Anaxagoras’ view of this disputed phenomenon, to which Eur.
defiantly returns in the prologue of Aychelaus, fr. 228N2. Hdt. 2. 22
thought differently.
There is an embarrassment of objects for vypaive. here, which
Hartung would resolve by reading πέδου in 2. But the double gen,
is not very attractive, and πέδον is defended by the parody in Ar.
Lhesm. 855-7, which then repeats the dilemma by continuing λευκῆς
νοτίξει μελανοσυρμαῖον λεών. Curious as the coincidence is, it is hardly
to be reckoned a defence of this inexplicable double object ; perhaps
γύας and πέδον were just variants. written one above the other in 2,
and 3 ended in some word like Heiland’s δρόσῳ,
$14172 Ε
70 COMMENTARY
5. The detail seems to be added simply to’come into line with Od. 4. 355.
But in Homer Proteus is the Old Man of the Sea, though in Hat.
he has become a king. Here his prophetic powers are given to his
daughter Theonoe and inherited from her mother’s father Nereus.
1. More adjustment to tradition, cf. Hes. Theag. 1003-5.
9-10. The interpolation is unmetrical, and senseless without, e.g.,
καλούμενον, Presumably it was intended to balance 13-14, though
the etymology does not work very well, nor is the description suit-
able to the age or the conduct of the new king.
OcoxAdpevov: this character of Eur.’s invention doubtiess owes his
name to the seer in the Odyssey; there is a kind of prophetic aura
about the family of Proteus, though only Theonve has the mystical
powers of the Homeric γέρων ἅλιος νημερτής. The name, in Homer
v—uv-, is unhandy in the trimeter; there is more than one way of
scanning it, and of its three stances two are complicated by textual
uncertainties. H. D. Broadhead points out to me that one would
expect ὦ Wuu— on the analogy of Περικλύμενος Phoen. 1157, but
only 1168 fits that (it could also, with less probability, take the
Homeric form). 9, on this text, requires — OY ὦ with synizesis, and
1643 would follow suit if with Nauck we emend to yaitas—but I con-
fess to a perhaps irrational preference for γῆς τῆσδε in that quite
unemphatic phrase (Hipp. 973 and Or. 1644 are of very different
effect, and τῆσδε γῆς gives a weak caesura-rhythm). Since nothing
will reduce the three instances to a single form, one might as well
take τῷ SL (the form doubtless intended im 9 also by the inter-
polator!) in 1643, and note that it was of no importance for a trage-
dian to reduce the same name to a single scansion throughout (cf.
Νεοπτόλεμος).
16. Helen at length introduces herselfi—as the Tyndarid, ‘though
there is of course a story that...’. This hint of scepticism returns
in 289, though elsewhere in the play-——by the Dioscurl, for nstance—
the parentage of Zeus is taken for granted. Doubt of the swan-story
is more strongly expressed in [44 793-800, but here from Helen’s
own lips the effect of ambivalence is curious and a little upsettmg.
The same sort of ambiguity of parentage appears more starkly in ΠΕ
290-21. in’ αἰετοῦ δίωγμα φεύγων: usually explained as retention of
its verbal construction in the noun δίωγμα, Or perhaps φεύγων
δίωγμα = ‘put to flight’, ‘made to flee’. σαφὴς: ‘true’ (as often).
22. δ᾽: resumes from πατὴρ δὲ T.
23 ff. The Judgement of Paris, as the beginning of all the troubles, is
accepted as literal truth in this play, with no hint of scepticism or
rationalizing interpretation. It 1s, the starting-point of the εἰδωλον-
legend on which the play is based. :
28. προτείνασ᾽ : ‘offering as a lure.’ The construction is a mixture of
προτείνασα τὸ κάλλος and προτείνασα ὡς γαμεῖ τὸ κάλλος,
 LINES 5--88 ΤΙ
82, ἐξηνέμωσε: ‘turned to thin air’, an appropriate word since the
‘breathing image’ was made of οὐρανοῦ, the air of heaven, == αἰθήρ 584.
33. δίδωσι: for an abiding gift the present tense is regular, cf. 568,
1521. δοκεῖ 35 15 probably ‘fancies’ [still]; Helen knows nothing
of his death.
36. κενὴν δόκησιν; with this punctuation accus. in apposition to the
sentence, like ἀπόλαυσιν 77, or τέρψιν Alc. 353. But here it is easier to
take it as internal object to δοκεῖ, ‘idly fancies’ he possesses me.
838-41. “Again the plans of Zeus in their turn (ἄλλα = “besides”,
“separately”) work in with these afflictions.’ The oldest known
source ior Zeus’ desire to relieve Mother Earth of surplus human
population by means of the Trojan War is the Cypria, fr. 1, quoted in
a schohon on Ji, 1. 5. The glorification of Achilles {τὸν κράτιστον
᾿Ελλάδος) is a third motive, either deduced from the Jad or taken
from some other epic source. How Helen came to know of this un-
edifying conjunction of separate divine wills is not explained; per-
haps Hermes told her on their flight. The Dioscuri (Ei. 1282-3) and
Apollo (Or. 1639-42), as gods from the machine, are more naturally
informative, though less specific.
42-43, Φρυγῶν és ἀλκὴν = the Trojan War, simply; ἀλκή has become
a generalized word for ‘fight’, whether individual or collective.
eyo... ὄνομα: Helen’s most characteristic antithesis for the con-
fusion wrought by the εἴδωλον.
44. mruyaiow: easier to understand when of mountains. Eur, likes it
in this periphrasis, perhaps for the suggestion of vast stretches be-
hind the clouds. |
00. ἀναρπαγὰς: went to Troy to hunt down ‘my ravishing’, me his
ravished wife, abstract for concrete as in 1675 κλοπὰς ads. The dr.
Aey. seems to be comed from ἀναρπάξω.
56. ti δῆτ᾽ (cf. 203} = the τί οὖν of Ar.’s parody Thesm. 868. The answer
follows in asyndeton.
o7-59, κλεινόν (p> Hermann, whom most edd. follow. γνόντος for
-yvavros αὐτοῦ gen. abs., although the noun of reference, dv8pé, is avail-
able in the dative, is defended by Pearson (app., with good examples)
and Page on Med. 910. The new point emerges more clearly than
with, e.g., the old conjecture γνόντε μ᾽, ὑποστρώσω: subj. not
opt. 15 usually explained with Goodwin, MT 318, as giving the agent’s
motive at the time of the action—only Helen’s motives were not
then in question. I should prefer to take it not with οὐκ ἦλθον but
with εἰσήκουο᾽ ἔπος “Ἑρμοῦ, implying ‘he said it so that I should
think chastity worth while’, She still thinks so, therefore subj.
63, ἐγὼ; the emphatic ἐμόν of LP is quite superfluous after τὸν πάλαι,
Η. ἢ. Broadhead suggests δέ μου, certainly an easier corruption.
65. The inelegant change from iva to ὡς in a double final clause ieads
some edd. to delete the line with Schenk]; but the active protection
72 COMMENTARY
(διασώσῃ) of Proteus at his tomb does seem to require eniphasis,
since this is to be Helen’s constant posture for so long.
69. γὰρ explains Teucer’s wonder at the imposing scale of the palace
(represented, of course, by the ordinary σκηνή), ‘its royal circuit and
corniced mass’. Of the many ways in which this line has been taken,
with or without emendation, Hermann’s is perhaps simplest:
Πλούτου sc. οἴκῳ, ‘a house worthy to compare with Plutus” own’.
But Eur. may have been moved by reminiscence οἱ Od. 4. 74 Ζηνός
nov τοιήδε γ᾽ ᾿᾽Ολυμπίου ἔνδοθεν αὐλή to put the comparison the other,
less obvious, way round : ‘Plutus’ house makes a worthy comparison.’
Here Teucer’s inquiries are diverted by the sight of Helen, and it is
not till 144 that we learn he knows it to belong to the King of Egypt
and is seeking the Princess ‘Theonoe.
72. ἐχθίστης is perhaps an improvement.
74, ὅσον in a kind of subordinated exclamatory construction: ‘so like
are you to H.’ Ci. Hipp. 879, with Barrett’s note.
16. 7a’... wrep@: Teucer the Archer carries his bow and arrows.
ΤΊ. ἀπόλαυσιν: appositional accus. For the corruption and its at-
tempted correction v. inir. on 1660,
78. Murray’s punctuation is right: this is anacoluthon, and no lacuna:
or emendation is necessary. Instead of ὅστις εἶ, ὅστις ὧν has been
assimilated to the following construction, and καί is the ordinary
copula, not, as Pearson and others take it, ‘indeed’. None of the
examples cited (εἰ καὶ, ποῦ καὶ, etc.) is remotely parallel to this
position between two clauses.
79. ἐκείνης συμφοραῖς = her misfortunes simply, not those she
- caused.
82, ἡμῖν τοῖς: double dative, for the more usual revi τε,
83-88. This clumsy and repetitious exchange, breaking up the sticho-
mythia just getting under way, must be drastically cut. The be-
traying lime is 86: ἀτὰρ ais ef; πόθεν; τίνος; ἐξαυδᾶν σε χρή. Name—
country—father (the classic triple question): then a fill-wp, ‘you
must speak out’, not evasively hike 84. ‘Repetition, metrical solecisms
and all, it-cries aloud interpolator; and emendation (a dozen to
choose from, none tempting) is a waste of time. Even Jackson
(p. 181) fails through equating ἐξαυδῶν with αὐδᾶν and (ἐξγονομάξζω,
though the example he gives, Hipp. 590, 1s clearly nothing of the
kind. Of deleters, Badham would remove 85-88, which would leave
Teucer unnamed throughout the scene; Page (Actors’ Interpolations,
70), 84-86, with suspicions further extended. Both of these cut out
va pointed line—Helen throughout this scene brings the talk round
to her own name at every opportunity—and elegantly expressed,
with its ce proleptic of ‘EA. εἰ στυγεῖς τ 85 and 86 were never written
by the same hand. 87-88, intended as a smart reply to the three
questions, and anticipating the words of 92, must follow 86 into
 LINES 69-99 73
oblivion; presumably Teucer’s real reply to 83, a smgle lime com-
pleting his statement begun in 84, fell out of the text and started all
the trouble; then the interpolator, not realizmg the provisional
nature of 84, with Helen’s swift intervention, began all over again.
If someone should object that this could be conversational realism,
the answer is ‘Not in Euripidean stichomythia’.
Putting a dash then after 84, with 85 as an interposed comment,
I would mark a lacuna of one line [something like Ζαλαμῖνα δ᾽ ἥκω
narpid’ ἐμὴν Τεῦκρος λιπών. Or, perhaps better, with Herwerden,
εἷς ὧν at the beginning of 84, and then, e.g., Sadapiva Τεῦκρος
πατρίδ᾽ ἐμὴν ἥκω λιπών.] Line 92, clearly the first mention of Telamon,
completes his statement of identity.
91. τλήμων ἂν εἴης: ‘how wretched for you!’ The potential optative
in these short sentences has an exclamatory force which has not
been adequately recognized. Cf, 824 θνήσκοιμεν ἂν (N.B. not θάνοιμεν
dv): ‘that’s the end of me!’; 834. προδότις ἂν εἴης" τὴν βίαν σκήψαο᾽
ἔχεις: ‘False woman! that “force” is Just an exctise’; see also Oy,
435,764, The negative is more familiar : Phoen. 926 οὐ σιωπήσαιμεν ἄν :
‘T will wot keep it quiet!’ ; 1.4 310 οὐκ ἂν μεθείμην : ‘I will wot let go’ (cf.
Ar. Raw. 830). There 15 also the impatient question : JA 843 ri δῆτ᾽ ἂν
εἴη: ‘What can it mean?’; Ar. Thesm. 847 τί δῆτ᾽ ἄν ety τοὐμποδών;
‘What cax be holding him up?’ and πῶς ἄν in abrupt, ironical dis-
belief: Zon 543 πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴην ods; Andy. 1165 πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴη σοφός;
‘And then people call him wise!’
92. μᾶλλον φίλον = more of an Intimate than a father is (there. is an
awkward absence of simple English equivalents for the concept of
φίλος as one ‘near and dear’). Pearson compares A. Cho, 210 μὴ μάστευ᾽
ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον φίλον, Teucer’s meaning is ‘the last person you would
expect’.
93. ‘herein lies some calamity.’ Oo
95. οὔ τί wou: of something you hope is not true, cf. 135 οὔ πον (better
than.# που, which Tricl. regularly substitutes, cf. 975, 600). Biov:
βίου (Burges) is so easy a correction (cf. 282, 866) that it seems better
to bring this into line with Eur.’s regular gen. with this verb.
96. οἰκεῖον: not simply with ξέφος but with ἄλμα-
ἐπὶ ξίφος, his own act
and his own weapon. ἐπὲ construed with the verbal notion in dApe
is less ordinary than in English. τς
98, τὸν Π.. τιν᾽: ‘you have heard of one Achilles, the son οἱ P.?’ The
combination is quite natural, though the order in Greek is a little
more wrapped up. | ΝΕ
99. This detail, inconsistent with prevailing versions of the legend,
brings Helen into the picture. The name and fame of all! the heroes
and great deeds of Troy must be supposed (when Eur. 15 bemg care-
ful, οἵ, 47!) unknown to her in her Egyptian isolation, except for such
—as she could have known in her young days m Greece,
74 COMMENTARY
100. ὅδ᾽: 2 certain emendation. Such a use of the pronoun, where the
person is not on the stage or to be indicated by a gesture toward the
σκηνή, is rare but has a close parallel Oy. 1189 τήνδε, where again
the person has been explicitly summoned into the speakers’ thoughts
by the formula ‘you know ...?’
104. γ᾽ in assent; «ai... ye τοῦ and 110, ‘yes, and...’, 108 088’... ye
‘yes, not even...’.
105. γάρ: ‘does that mean you went to Troy?’ Cf. 107.
109. ἀπόλλυνται: one of the verbs in which the present can be used as
a periect in sense, Goodwin, MT 24.
111. yap: in a request for supplementary information, Denn. GP. 83.
112. καρπίμους: i.e, seven revolving years have borne their harvest.
Nauck’s καμπίμους is unnecessary, cf. Hi. 1152 with Denniston’s
note.
119. σκοπεῖτε: the plural makes no sense, σκοπεῖ 5€ A. Y. Campbell:
‘you're sure it wasn’t something the gods made all of you imagine?’
121-2, καὶ νοῦς ὁρᾷ is supposed to be an allusion to the famous line
of Epicharmus νοῦς op} καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει, τἄλλα κωῴφα καὶ τυφλά, But
the suddenness of the quotation, its allusiveness and brevity in the
middle of plain dialogue, and the obscurity of the point here (Ὁ ‘Isaw
with my eyes, and seeing involves the use of the mind’) make it
improbable to the point of absurdity. εἰδόμην Js common in late
prose, but in Eur. is rare, and confined to lyric; hence such emenda-
tions as εἶδον, εἰ καὶ νῦν o ὁρῶ. But their only effect is to emphasize
the redundancy of the whole couplet after 118-19. In any case
Teucer has peremptorily requested her to drop the hated subject, and
Ilelen’s manners would not have allowed her to maunder on with
the same question once more, nor would Teucer have repeated his
answer so patiently. 120 closes the point irretrievably, and 121-2
should (as by W. Ribbeck) be deleted.
125. An obscure line. Pearson accepts the redundancy of expression,
comparing fo# 1561 δίδωσι δ᾽ οἷς ἔδωκεν, and translates, ‘Sad news
for whom the sad news touches’, i.e. (privately) for me, who am
more affected than you know. ‘This is probably better than to make
a deliberate ambiguity of οἷς κακὸν λέγεις as (1) for those whose
risfortune you are describing, (2) for those whom you are abusing.
The audience would have to work very hard for an unrewardmg
point. Helen is passing off her unguarded αἰαξ, which might have
surprised Teucer: such sad news for those concerned.
126. as: ‘know that...’ in emphatic further confirmation, cf. infr.
831, μάν, 255.
128. ἄλλον: sc. πορθμόν, given dat. περῶσι 130.
181. The MSS. have Μενέλαον, MevéAas, etc., is elsewhere only lyric,
Μενέλεων as a trisyllable only at the beginning of the ne Gn Ar,
Thesm. 901 it is Bentley’s emendation) ; the latter seems more likely.
 LINES 100--168 75
133. ἀπωλόμεσθα must be spoken aside, like half 139 below, and most
of 475. The device is not common in tragedy; the most striking
instance is Hekabe in Hee. 736~51, introduced with much more cir-
cumstance. Thestios, Leda’s father, was king of Aetolia.
134. δή: probably not temporal (= ἤδη) but for emotional emphasis,
Denn. GP 214 (8).
135. οὔ wou: ν, ad 95.
136. γ᾽: after φασίν ‘adding detail to assent already expressed’ (Denn.),
The suicide of Leda seems to be Eur.’s own invention.
138. Eur.’s favourite kind of riddle, cf. Ar. Ach. 396. It seems better
to write κοὐ as Triclinius rather than sertpito plena καὶ ov.
139. κρείσσων : ‘truer.’
140, ἄστροις : apparently a familiar post-Homeric legend, cf. Tre. Toor.
The Chorus in 1498 already know of it, with pardonable lack of logic.
442, A version not found elsewhere—naturally, since it is invented ad
hoc by Eur.,asan unfounded rumour to add to Helen’s load of misery.
143, οὐ διπλᾶ χρήζω στένειν: by first suffering and then recounting
troubles; enough of a commonplace by now to be thus elliptically
expressed. Cf. Hec. 518, and infr. 770-1.
4144-50. Teucer’s long wanderings and quest were well enough known
to make this explanation of his coming seem natural to the audience,
and Theonoe is credited with international fame to make his motive
more precise. He hopes the friendly unknown woman will act as his
πρόξενος (146), the intermediary usual for an oracle-seeker. Helen,
belatedly aware of his urgent danger, hurries him away.
151. To Teucer’s request for prophetic guidance on how to steer a
favourable course to Cyprus, Helen replies, ‘The voyage will show
you how, without help.’ There is no need to apply to Bacch. 406
for the sense (the audience might have been at a loss if so); Teucer
wants to know where im Cyprus to make for rather than where
Cyprus is, and Helen implies, ‘you will find the city where your ship
comes ashore’—Apollo will see to the fulfilment of his oracle.
456. ὅτου δ᾽ ἕκατι: the king’s reason, as we can guess from Helen’s
monologue and as he clearly implies in 1173-6, is the fear of someones
spying on and even carrying off Helen.
162-3. The effect of the bad omen is carefully undone. κακῶς δ᾽:
Wilamewitz is probably right in throwing out the particle, which is
often fussily added in our MSS.
The Parodos proper does not begin till 179, but the whole lyric
takes the form of a κομμός, a lyric interchange between stage and
orchestra, and Helen sings the first stanza before the Chorus arrives
—it arrives in fact because jt hears her plaintive notes (antist.).
After a second strophe and antistrophe, Helen 229-51 sings a long
epode. As prelude to the whole, Helen chants three dactylic lines,
two hexameters and a pentameter (Murray’s conversion of é € into
70 COMMENTARY
αἰαῖ makes clearer the continuity of the last line; 2 ἔ can either be
extra metrum or take whatever metrical quantity the context re-
quires). |
164. καταβαλλομένα: lit. Jaying the foundations of’, hence ‘beginning’,
cf. Callim. fr. 392 Pf. γάμον καταβάλλομ᾽ ἀείδειν, in fact very little
different from the more technical ἀναβάλλομαι, ‘strike up’.
165. ἁμιλλαθῶ; cf. Hee. 271, as it were ‘enter as my contribution to the
contest’; the word comes from the notion of outdoing rival perfor-
mances on a public occasion, but here means littie more than ‘con-
tribute’, ‘utter’. μοῦσαν: I supply the words (γόον); where shall
I go for musical inspiration? and the answer is: The Sirens with
their musical instruments could give it; if Persephone would send
them I could make her the gift of a paean for the acceptance of the
dead in her chambers of night. (for in her mood of despair, she
thinks all she cares for must be among the shades.) |
For the Sirens, bird-women connected in popular réligion with
souls and the underworld, see Roscher, GRA, with the Louvre
amphora F486, or B,M. B6s1. As gentle, sorrowing companions of
the dead they appear on the white lekythos Hampe-Simon 38.
Were they perhaps a motif painted on the tomb of Proteus? |
167-252. Like many of the songs in Hel. this is an operatic aria whose
words must not be expected to bear too close a scrutiny of their
meaning. This aggravates the problems of a sketchily transmitted
text with defective responsion. Metre often gives a firmer lead than
verbal expression ; the whole of the lyric down to 374 is in a peculiarly
Euripidean style of iambo-trochaic (mostly trochaic, but easily pass-
mg from the one to the other in a continuous flow). There is much
resolution, not always in strict responsion, and some syncopation
(always in responsion), usually of palimbacchiac type ~--—v but
occasionally double —---; anceps is mostly short. The smooth,
light movement might suggest the conventional Greek description
(as in Aristotle) of trochaic as a ‘running’ or dancing rhythm; per-
haps it is the smoothness of one rocking herself with grief. The cola
are dimeters with occasional trimeters, and no aberrations such as
odd ‘feet’ or double-short or ‘irrational long’ can be tolerated.
167-78 =179-90.
πτεροφόροι νεάνιδες, - BU UR Uo lek.
Kvavoades dud ὕδωρ
παρθένοι Χθονὸς κόραι ς WUE oO lek.
ἔτυχον ἕλικα T ἀνὰ χλόαν
Σειρῆνες, εἴθ᾽ ἐμοῖς γόοις wore i. dim,
φοίνικας ἁλίου πέπλους
170 μόλοιτ᾽ ἔχουσαι AiBuv | woeWwom ve syne. i, dim.
182 adyatow ἐν χρυσέαις | :
 LINES 164-167 77
λωτὸν ἢ σύριγγας ἢ —-UUGT-u- τ dim. cat.
ἀμφὶ δόνακος ἔρνεσιν
3 4 i at

172 φόρμιγγας, αἰλίμοισι Te hee A

sync. tr. dim,
183 θάλπουσα' {τᾶς “ακαίνας 5’,>
τοῖς ἐμοῖσι σύνοχα δάκρνα, tr. dim,
ἔνθεν οἰκτρὸν ἀνεβόασεν,
εἰ Ἐ 4 + i

πάθεσι πάθεα, μέλεσι μέλεα: WU

ry
er
ΓῚ
ote, dim,
"

ὅμαδον ἔκλυον, ἄλυρον ἔλεγον,

[ἡ a ἢ μὴ

ἘΠΕ ree ne eee θρηνήμασι ξυνῳδὰ

186 ort ποτ᾽ ἔλακεν αἰάγμασι στένουσα, syne, tr. trim,
πέμψειε (δερσέφασσα meeee sync, tr. dim,
Niuda τις ofa Nats
via, χάριτας ty’ ἐπὶ δάκρυσι
da # woe Ἀ καὶ ὃ ¥ om ry mr my
WU ew tr, dim.
ὄρεσε φυγάδα νόμον ἱεῖσα
Ἰ1.ϑ
map 4,
ἐμέθεν ἐ ἔ κι
ὑπὸ μέλαθρα
f
νύχια
Η my
We
mo ry
eer
mo
ofr, dim,
.

γοερὸν, ὑπὸ δὲ πέτρινα γύαλα

178 watave. νέκυσιν ὁλομένοις λάβῃ.
~ i 3 fy i
oe
ra
Rot
eh
a ee La .-
τοῦ κλαγγαῖσι Πανὸς ἀναβοᾷ γάμους. syne. tr. trim. cat.
An alternative version of the last lines which has found much
favour, is:
17} φόνια dove’ dydpiras ἕν᾽ ἐπὶ Woe Crd tr, dim.
mrt ει Γ ζὶ *

188 ὄρεσι φυγάδα νόμον ἱεῖσα

δάκρυσι
f :
παρ᾽ ne ἐμέθεν
ἡ
ὑπὸ
|
μέλαθρα
i
ὅσ
ἊΝ
Suu
ΤᾺ
δι
mo
τς,
mo

γοερόν, ὑπὸ δὲ πέτρινα μύχαλα =~ tr. dim.

νύχια παιᾶνας GU U meena syne. tr. dim.
γύαλα κλαγγαῖσιν
179 νέκυσι μελομένους λάβῃ. ῳφῳ ώστε -- lek,
Τοῦ Πανὸς ἀναβοᾷ γάμους.
Alf turns on the acceptability of Triclinius’s modifications φόνια dovig
and παιᾶνας. He is apt, especially in lyric, to introduce his own con-
jectures metri gratia, but he clearly sometimes had access to other
evidence besides L, the traditional value of which is often hard to
assess. Here the total resultof his work on strophe and antistrophe
is neither coherent nor intelligible, and some of it therefore may
come. from collation. If so, it is easier to account for the dropping
of one φόνια than for the insertion of an extra one, and in ant.
μύχαλα seems to be a genuine word, presumably much the same as
μύχατα ‘Inmost’, which some would prefer here. πέτρινα μύχαλα
γύαλα might seem excessivein any other style, and μύχαλα or μύαλα
may be simply a dittographia as Murray suggests. Metrically
the double syncopated metron in the penultimate place matches
the next pair of stanzas; on the other hand it loses much of the
28 COMMENTARY
inconclusive cases
neat coincidence of phrasing and cola. In such
prefer the earlier
preferences are likely to be personal; I greatly
version. that
‘Feathered maidens, virgin daughters of Earth, would
4167-78.
lyres to accompany
you might come bearing Libyan flute or pipes or
sorrow answering
my lament, with tears to match my cries of grief, d send me
ephone woul
sorrow, strain answering strain; Q that Pers
songs of blood, so that
[your music, songs} to chime with my lament, k-
down in het cham bers of night she may receive from me as than
dead and gone.’
offering a paean accompanied by tears for the
Triclinius’s down-
472. The lyre is cleared away from many texts, frora
phe. If the dele-
wards, in an effort to accommodate to the antistro
of responsion here
tion of ἢ φόρμιγγας solved the awkward problem
on vases the normal
one might acquiesce, even though the lyre is
think λωτὸν ἢ σύριγγας
instrument of the Sirens; but no one could
ἔρνεσιν Very satistactory
αἰλίνοις in responsion to βάλπαυσ᾽ ἀμφὶ δόνακος
(presumably ~-v--—- YoY πὸ TT Uue-v-), There 15
on m syn-
responsi
no adequate evidence for any licence of irregular
in ant. toa position
copated cola, Murray’s transposition of θάλπουσα
solution; then, since
corresponding to φόρμιγγας is a much better
owing sentence in
a feminine subject in some form is needed in the foll
Murray’s supple-
ant., the rest of the line after θάλπουσα is available.
ment assumes φόρ-, θάλ- to be long anceps τσ πο πὸ τ: preferring
ing a palimbacchiac
a different supplement, I have taken it as start
afAwov 15 more
and deleted κακοῖς with Hartung and others, since
often substantival than adjectival.
preceding, sc. σύνοχα, |
474. Punctuation can connect this lime with the
or with the following, sc. ξυνῳδα,
lit. or met., and the
175-7. μουσεῖα is always local: ‘halls of song’,
illegitimate, even
ambiguous translation ‘chorus’ or ‘concerts’ is
good evidence
with the magic word ‘metonymy’. This line is not.
s’ or ‘choirs’, since
by itself for an extension of the meaning to ‘songinser tion of re to get
the word is also out of responsion, and Triclinius’s
music ξυνῳδὰ and
an extra syllable is useless. Persephone can send
no alternative
φόνια only through her intermediaries the Sirens, and
suggestion worth
conjectured on these lines is acceptable. The only
mann), reversing
recording is Fix’s pote’ fetoa, with Φεροεφάσσᾳ (Her
must be taken, 85
the direction of the traffic: χάριτας in that case
dead’, cf. A. Cho,
Pearson, with νέκυσιν, ‘an offering welcome to the
320-5 with 2.
kind of oxymoron,
118. παιᾶνα: applicable to θρηνήματα only by a
cf. Ale. 424. νέκυσιν ὀλομένοις: the same tautology appears in
of 177-9 quoted
Phoen. 1295. Lobeck, who takes the second version
οἱ, {1 183 and
above, prefers ἀχάριτας παιᾶνας νέκυσι μελομένους,
Phoen. 3303.
 LINES 167-190 70
179-90. The Parodos recalls the ‘washing-scene’ of Hipp, 121-30. “By
the deep dark poo! I chanced, and on the young curling grass, to be
brightening in the sun’s gold rays my purple robes, near the young
bulrushes.”’ Triclinius and Hermann having disposed neatly of the
unmetrical 182, the next problem is to fit ina subject for ἀνεβόασεν and
ἔλακεν, (1) Those who got rid of ἢ φόρμιγγας 171 now have to delete
the blameless ἀνεβόασεν ‘as a gloss’, move up the next three metra
and make a lacuna before αἰάγμασι corresponding to the problematic
μουσεῖα ΟἹ μουσεῖα τε. (Grégoire’s a “άκαιν᾽ ἐν is sensible but his
stanzas do not correspond.) ἔρνεσιν m 183 then ends brevis m longo—
there is another at 230—and ἔνθεν means ‘from there’, my washing-
place. (2) Murray, by transposing θάλπουσα and adding a gen. con-
strued with ὅμαδον and ἔλεγον, makes ἔνθεν “from where’ she raised
her pitiful cry. This, unlike (1), makes responsion possible. ποτνέας,
however, suggested perhaps by δεσποίνας Πἰ ipp. 130, seems the wrong
word for Helen; there is nowhere any suggestion that the Chorus
were Helen’s servants, {πότνια voc., of course, as In 225, has no such
implication.) τᾶς daxaivas δ᾽ needs ᾿αἰλίνοισι Ini str.; with atAlvers one
might have τᾶς φίλας δ᾽.
185. ἄλυρον ἔλεγον: ‘a song of grief not meet for the lyre’ need not
be taken as an argument against φόρμιγγας in str.; 1t has become
a conventional description.
190. For Pan and the Nymphs, cf. P. Maas, Epid. Mynt., Ὁ. 130.
191-210 = 211-228.
ἘΟΙ ie ἐώ"
34°35 F

211 αἰαῖ atat

θήραμα βαρβάρου πλάτας, go vee 1. dun.
ὦ δαίμονος πολυστόνου
᾿Ελλανέδες κόραι, —--w—-v—|] sync. tr. dim.
μοΐρας re ods, γύναι,
104 ναύτας Ayasdiy τις a te sync, tr, dim.
213 αἰὼν δυσαέων res
ἔμολεν ἔμολε δάκρυα δάκρυσί μοι φέρων. tr. trim, cat.
ἔλαχεν ἔλαχεν, ὅτε σ᾽ ἐτέκετο parpoder
᾽Ιλίου κατασκαφαὶ Ou Ue lek.
χιονόχριωος κύκνου πτερῷ
105 πυρί μέλουσι δαΐῳ wine ere lek,
216 Ζεὺς πρέπων δι᾽ αἰθέρος’
δι᾽ ἐμὲ τὰν πολύκτονον, GU το lek.
τί yap ἅπεατί σοι κακῶν;
δι᾽ ἐμὸν ὄνομα πολύπονον, WU BU τ lek.
viva δὲ βίοτον οὐκ ἔτλας;
80 COMMENTARY

Ada δ᾽ ἐν dyydvats See sync. tr. dim.

μάτηρ μὲν οἴχεται,
201 θάνατον ἔλαβεν αἰσχύ- Suu OU eee syne, tr, dim.
220 δίδυμα τε Aids οὐκ εὖ-
-νας ἐμᾶς ὑπ᾽ ἀλγέων. Se πὰ το Tek.
~Satovel τέκεα φίλα,
a δ᾽ ἐμὸς ἐν ἁλὶ πολυπλανὴς BU Bue sa lek.
χθόνα δὲ πάτριον οὐχ ὁρᾷς,
πόσις ὁλόμενος οἴχεται, VR ὄσψῳ τῷ τα lek,

διὰ δὲ πόλιας ἔρχεται

205 Kdoropes τε συγγόνου τε vee tr. dim.
424 βάξις, d σε βαρβάροισι
διδυμογενὲς ἄγαλμα πατρίδος ῴσυ ὌΝ ω Ὁ ὦ κτλ ὦ tr, dim,
λέχεσι, πότνια, παραδίδωσιν '
ἄφανες ἄφανες ἱππόκροτα λέλοιπε δάπεδα tr. trim.
6 δὲ ads ἐν GAl κύμασί τε λέλοιπε βιότον
γυμνάσιά τε δονακόεντος -οὦὐψω συ συ. tr, dim.
οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἔτε πάτρια μέλαθρα
τὸ Εὐρώτα, νεανιᾶν πόνον, eee πὸ τ
228 καὶ τὰν Καλκίοικον ὀλβιεῖς, sync. tr. trim. cat.

The trochaic metre continues, with only the first line iambic. The
first clear pause of the ode comes after the second line (hiatus ant.).
There is some very close responsion of words and resolution, as
a glance will show, but as this cannot be carried through quite con-
sistently it is doubtful whether we should help it out by trans-
position, as Nauck at 225 (v. app. crit.) ; certainly not by transposing
215 and 216, a conjecture of Triclinius for misguided metrical ends
(v. Zuntz, p. 42).
491-228. Helen summarizes Teucer’s information, and the Chorus then
repeats it back to her with sympathy.
192. θήραμα: ‘catch’, abstract for concrete = those hunted down and
taken captive. This serves as the introduction to the audience which
the Chorus has failed to give of ttself.
196~7. Murray’s κατασκαφαὶ is simpler and better than Triclinius’s
acc. and participle κατασκαφὰν péa(A)ovaay, which whatever its origin
introduces a mid-verse long anceps, which would be unique in this
pair. μέλουσι, lit. ‘are the business of’, is an odd, affected word here,
since the dative is usually personal (but cf. 77 645). It is a word
Eur. affects, more often in the middle, cf. 1161. Pearson compares
Ar. Lys. 1306 τᾷ σίων χόροι μέλοντι. The present tense in effect means
‘Troy is a smoking ruin’; the fires of Troy are almost timeless,
499 as it were corrects 198,
 LINES 191-229 81
0 .-11. ‘their country’s twin glory, Castor and his brother, is vanished,
vanished, leaving the plains that rang beneath their horses’ hoofs
and reedy Eurotas’ wrestling-grounds, the exercise of youth’ (= scene
of youthful exercise; the phrase cannot possibly mean leaving
Sparta’s youth to mourn for them, as the Budé translation takes it).
211-12. Cf. φεῦ τῆς ἀνοίας Ὁ, El. 920. In tragedy an introductory ex-
clamation, as ὦ here, is usually necessary to carry this gen., v. Alc.
822 with my note.
214, ἔλαχεν: ce is to be supplied back from the following clause. This
inversion—the lot gets you, rather than you the lot—recalls the old
Homeric notion of original forces in the universe {κήρ 11. 23. 79)
that seize upon the unformed soul at birth.
216. πρέπων δι᾽ αἰθέρος: the flash of white as the swan descends
through the upper air,
221. οὐκ εὐδαιμονεῖ: If this is sound, the Chorus must be deducing
that wherever they are the D. no longer enjoy the εὐδαιμονέα, the
untroubled bliss, which the favourite sons of Zeus might expect.
But Herwerden’s οὐκ ἐν γᾷ μένει (ddaves 208, no longer in Sparta)
is ingenious, and perhaps right. réxea (prob. a dissyllable, cf.
‘Hipp. 126): Trickmius for the unmetrical τέκνα. |
223. πόλτας : lonic as Andy. 484; πόλεας 15 unparalleled. (Zuntz, p. 44.)
226. ὁ δὲ σὸς ἐν ἁλὶ: an echo of ὁ δ᾽ ἐμὸς ἐν ἁλὶ 203 but without πόσις,
which has to be supplied out of βαρβάροις λέχεσιν above.
e218: ‘never again will you make glad your father’s halls and the
Bronze-Housed Goddess.’ The Spartan Athena was regularly given
this epithet from her famous bronze- -plated temple.
229-52. Epode.
φεῦ φεῦ.
τίς ἢ Φρυγῶν ἢ τίς “Ελ- wow πω νο syne. i, dim.
-Aavias amo χθονὸς —U HU τ || + lek.
ἔτεμε τὰν δακρυόεσ- UUs Guu- syne. i. dim.
αν “JAiw πεύκαν; πων ee
+sync. i, dim.
ἔνθεν ὀλόμενον σκάφος πὸ GU =m lek.
συναρμόσας 6 Πριαμίδας {τὴ Vee GU i, dim.
ἔπλευσε βαρβάρῳ πλάτα ποτε τω .- i, dim.
235 τὰν ἐμὰν ἐφ᾽ ἑστίαν eee eae lek.
ἐπὶ τὸ δυστυχέστατον ὠωπω πως lek.
κάλλος, ὡς ἕλοι γαμῶν, UR ee lek.
2238 ἅτε δόλιος, ἃ πολυκτόνος Kimps 9 — Vy SU yee :
tr, trim. cat.
Aavaisass ἄγουσα θάνατον. φυω--πτ ῴυ τ, dim.
ὦ τάλαινα συμφορᾷς, Moe lek.
ἃ δὲ χρυσέους θρόνοις mo lek,
Aids ὑπαγκάλισμοα σεμνὸν Queue tr. dim.
52 COMMENTARY
242 “ρα τὸν ὠκύπουν ἐ- -πὐπώπῳ tr. dim.
-πεμῴε Μαιάδος γόνον" —woueRv || ΕἸ εἰς,
ὅς μὲ χλοερὰ δρεπομέναν ἔσω eu yu ὠωπως-ω-
πέπλων tr. trim. cat.
245 ῥόδεα πέταλα, Χαλκίοικον ἀπ σπτῳ tr, dim.
as Afdvav μόλοιμ᾽, av- πως syne, tr. dim.
-apTacas δι΄ αἰθέρος ae ee Oe - -- lek,
τάνδε γαῖαν ets ἄνολβον ~uevew ov tr. dim.
ἔριν ἔριν τάλαιναν ἔθετο GU Re δ tr. dim,
250 Πρίαμίδαισιν ᾿Ελλάδος. Gu Se -' lek.
τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν ὄνομα παρὰ Σιμουντίοις OU φυω ἁωυ- πώ στ
ῥοαῖσι tr. trim.
μαψέδιον ἔχει φάτιν. KUO UR lek.

Period-end is audible twice (brevis in longo). All down to 237 could

be taken as iambic, since the lekythion is an ambiguous colon; all
beyond that is trochaic. This colometry 244-5 keeps each resolution
at the beginning of a word, with much advantage in smoothness.
230. A Greek hand cutting down the pine for Paris’ ship seems an
unlikely thought; this is an extreme instance of ‘polar expression’
for ‘Who, of all men, was it...?” Cf. Med. 3-4.
233 ff. Since the only construction available for Cypris 238 is as a fellow
traveller with Paris, the τ΄ here might prepare the hearer for it. Even
so the hyperbaton, with zeugma, is considerable; the meaning 15, In
effect, συνέπλευσε δὲ καὶ ἡ Κύπρις. It would be easier 1f we cut out
the unmetrical 236-7, ἐπὶ τὸ δυστυχέστατον | κάλλος ὡς ἔλοι γάμων
ἐμῶν, which Dindorf believed to be scrambled together out of 27-28
and 30. Triclinius dealt with this by the conjecture γάμον ἐμάν,
which with a metrical harshness unparalleled in this parodes pro-
duces a resolution across the two words | ὦ ὕω v. Zuntz, (Ὁ 5, 1955,
68-69, incorporates this in more acceptable form: ἐπὶ τὸ δυστυχές τ᾽
ἐμὸν | κάλλος, ws ἕλοι γάμον, 1 feel, however, that the τε hnking two
different senses of ἐπέ, ἐφ᾽ ἑστίαν and ἐπὶ τὸ κάλλος, rather adds to the
awkwardness of the whole. Murray puts ἀμῶν into the next line,
put the gen. makes an awkward construction anyway. If the hnes
are to be kept I should prefer the version given here: τὸ duc, κάλ,
that [promised] ill-fated beauty (no need for ἐμὸν after ἐμὰν éatiav),
that he might win it in the bed of love.
241. Tlomer’s χρυσόθρονος “Hpn.
242, ‘august bedfellow of Zeus’: da, poetic abstract for concrete, used
also for babe-in-arms, Tro. 757.
243. Hermes’ mother 15 Masds, -d8os, or Mata, Μαίας.
244. δρεπομέναν ἔσω πέπλων = ἐς πέπλους : the usual occupation of
the abducted, like Persephone, Creusa (fon 888), Europa,
945 etc. podom’: 1.8, meaning to visit the temple. Weak enough to
 LINES 230-262 83
make Dindorf delete the line. If A@dvav were cut out, the article
τὰν Χαλκίοικον would be necessary.
247. Probably ἀναρπάσας carries through to dvoABor, with ἔθετο govern-
ing ἔριν, rather than ‘set me down here to be a source of strife’.
251. μαψίδιον: empty talk because it is about her empty name without
herseif.
252 ff. The Chorus administers a conventional exhortation to patience.
Lyric lament is, here as often, followed by a rhetorical demonstration
of the speaker’s peculiar and unexampled misery.
255. συνεξύγην: one’s fate, πότμος, δαίμων (Andry. 98) 15 one’s uneasy
yokefellow.
256 ff. Are these words from Helen—a “white vessel for chicks’ and the
-rest—tastelessly grotesque? Even so, that would not in itself justify
deletion; since the lines are technically irreproachabie, we should
have to demonstrate that they spoil the train of thought, which
emerges better without them. The argument that γὰρ 257 awkwardly
anticipates yap 260 because someone Is contriving to interpolate an
irrelevant explanation of τέρας 1s hardly fair. Teratogenesis is indeed
‘a somewhat different issue fromm the general ‘prodigiousness’ of
Helen’s life and misfortunes, but, after all, the word is the same, and
she could easily pass from the one sense to the other. 260 [‘And
indeed it seems as if it (256) must be so,} fer [not only was I born
a τέρας but} my life in general and my fortunes are thus extra-
ordinary.’ Both yap 257 and γὰρ 260 have the same reference,
-cf.
477/479, Denn, GP 64. And it is difficult to see how the phrasing of
256 with its emphasis on τεκεῖν could avoid the association of ideas
expressed in 257~9. Nor is the repetition of τέρας in 260 immediately
after the end of 256 very attractive. Denniston in fact (GP 581) 1s
undoubtedly right in saying that if 257~9 are rejected 256 had better
go too; 255/260 is a neater join. But then where does the idea of
τέρας come from? In this applied sense it is a far from familiar
concept in tragic diction, or in poetry at all. 1 cannot share Dennis-
ton’s misgivings about ἄρα 256. It is the rhetorical appeal to look
at the evidence and judge how good the proof is, as in Alc. 241.
257-9 then must be left as a half-parenthetical lteral explanation
of τέρας 256, followed by the wider and more general application of
the idea. And the grotesque element is something we have to take
into account as a given aspect of this play (see Introd., pp. x1, xxxii}).
This is the earliest hterary reference we have to the egg as laid
by Leda (see Roscher, GRA).
262 ff. ἄγαλμα: here ‘painting’, not as more usually a figure in the
round, since ἐξαλείψω must mean obliterate, not wipe clean. ‘Oh if
only I could be expunged like a painted picture and start again
with a plainer appearance in place of this beauty, and then the
Greeks could have forgotten the ill fate which now is mine and
84 COMMENTARY
remembered what was not ill as well as they now remember what is
ill.” The translation fits better the Ms. reading ἀντὲ τοῦ καλοῦ λαβεῖν,
an infinitive which in two passages of the Odyssey, 7. 310 and 24. 380,
and nowhere else, is used with at yap to express'a wish for the present
time (Ὁ to be...’). This is slender support for the construction
with εἴθε here, and if we find it msufficient Porson’s “AaPov 15 easy
though not very elegant. For the prodelision at the end of the line
compare Auge fr. 266 Ν2 εἰ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ὕτεκον, but there the clause is very
short and there is ne choice of position; here one wonders why not
as Wilamowitz~Murray—only then the corruption would have been
inexplicable. λάβω isa desperate attempt to construe with ὡς = tra.)
With ἔλαβον, wherever placed, Helen’s wish is neither clear nor
logical: if she kad been ordinary Instead of beautiful none of this
would have happened and the Greeks would not have needed to for-
getit. Yet the underlying thought is quite natural : it is this accursed
beauty which makes her notorious and execrated; the plainer are
' more fairly judged. The language (αὖθις πάλιν) suggests rather a wish
‘to make a fresh start, now in mid-career, as an ordinary woman.
Either Eur, did here use the rare Homeric construction, with ὡς for
καὶ In 264—‘that so the Greeks might...’, continuing with past
indicatives because of the inherent impossibility of such a wish; or
the illogicality must be accepted (so Porson) as a piece of naturalism,
267-8. ‘When a man sets his hopes on one thing and is cheated of
that by the gods, it is hard, but must be borne.’ For ὅστις = εἴ τις
or the infin. with τὸ (267, 272), see Platnauer on {1 606.
The absence of normal caesura in 267 is softened by the proclitic
és, which is better than no word-end at all, and also by the resolution
- in és μίαν =“ which slides smoothly into the next. word, unlike
= — |. The loose technique could only belong to Eur.’s latest period.
269 ff. This is the orator’s style, accumulating proofs that one is
peculiarly hard hit. They are numbered off helpfully : 270 πρῶτον μὲν,
. 243 ἔπειτα, 277 ἄγκυρα δ᾽ { Menelaus), 2830—there should be no new
paragraph—7tnp δ᾽ (Leda), 282 6 δ᾽ (Hermione), 284 Τῷ τοῦ Διὸς δὲ
(Dicscuri), 285 summing up: “All this, and still I do not die.’
276, ἑνός : Helen had no appeal in Egypt from Theoclymenus’ wishes,
and this dependence on arbitrary royal whim.was what shocked a
Greek most. |
277—9. The ‘sole anchor’ at which her fortunes rode was ‘the hope
that my hushand . . .’, There would be nothing against the anaco-
louthon here, with its substitution of ‘he’ {πόσις as subject; but the
repetition in οὗτος τέθνηκεν, οὗτος οὐκέτ᾽ ἔστι δή 15 rather feeble, and
εἴπερ (Hermann; ἐπεὶ, εἴ που, ἀφ᾽ οὗ al.) τέθνηκεν οὗτος, οὐκέτ᾽ ἔστι
δή leaves ἄγκυρα as subject.
281. Variously rendered: (1) unjustly indeed, but such injustice is
my portion; (2) oui, sa mort est un crime, et ce crime est le mien.
 LINES 267-292 ὃς
It must surely be intended as an epigram: ‘the guilt is,. though
suiltlessly, mine.’ . |
282-3, Grégoire assumes a lacuna in the stichomythia after 136, giving
news of Hermione, but as Helen did not mention her in the lyric she
is probably making the deduction here, just to complete the recital.
ἐμοῦ: if, as seems probable, the genitives are possessive, Cobet’s
ἐμόν should be read. πολιὰ neut. plur, adverbial, as it were ‘is
greyingly a virgin’.
284. One would like to think Eur. wrote πατρὸς, with Ribbeck.
285-6. The contrast of πράγματα and ἔργα is not between fortunes
and deeds, since τέθνηκα cannot be used for ὅλωλα, and she cannot
need to say again that she is not to blame for any ofthis, ἔργοισιν
plur. = ἔργῳ, as 8, OC 782; though she οὕτω κακῶς πράσσει that she
is as good as dead (cf. Hec. 431), she is ἐμ fact alive.
237-92. The last two lines had an air of finality, but now we find an
addition : ‘last and worst of all’, in apposition to the following sen-
tence. And what is this fate worse than death? ‘If I reached home
I should find the gates barred against me’, because she could not
establish her identity, If Menelaus had been there she could have
persuaded him by tokens of proof known only to the two of them,
‘but now this cannot be and he can never return safe home’.
Lost identity as the ἔσχατον xaxév? I suspect the idea of being
a post-Kaika nightmare rather than a natural rhetorical climax in
Greek literature.- And Helen has just seen the effect of her appearance
on Teucer; one would suppose she would fear a traitor’s death by
stoning rather than being refused admission to Sparta. But if we
take this as simply the rhetorician’s tiresome trick of concentrating
on one aspect of τὸ εἰκός to the temporary exclusion of all others, how
can the text be translated? ‘Thinking me to be Trojan Helen return-
ing with Menelaus’ (who might be coming along presently)? Then
why keep her out? “Thinking that if I were Trojan Helen I should
be returning with Menelaus’? But that would need ἄν. Emendations
- are numerous, eg. (1) Zuntz, Lc., S(ya for μέτα, ‘thinking me to be
the Trojan Helen returning without Menelaus’, But the trouble she
is anticipating is of not being able to prove herself Helen at all,
(2) Grégoire, μ᾽ ἔρρειν for μ᾽ ἐλθεῖν ; but they could not simultaneously
think she was Trojan Helen and that she had perished with Menelaus.
(3) Ε, W. Schmidt, θανεῖν for μ᾽ ἐλθεῖν : ‘thinking Trojan Helen had
perished with Menelaus.’ Sense at last, but drastic; how would the
corruption have arisen?
For the construction, δοκοῦντες ‘probably makes the harshest
anacolouthon in Eur.’—Zuntz, who would nevertheless accept It.
Only one cannot imagine why Eur. did not write "Ελένην δοκούντων,
thus avoiding the confusion of a nom. part. which at first appears
to refer to the subject of efpy.—‘seeming’, especially with ἐλθόντες
814172 G
δ6 COMMENTARY
who is
' just below, which could be a similar masculine for a woman
speaking of herself in the plural (cf. Ale. 383) though it could also
mean herself and Menelaus—the ambiguity is total. Further, a
minor worry, in’ ᾿Ιλίῳ has everywhere else in Eur, its proper
s
meaning of the plains of Troy, where the fighting and the Greek
in
were. Next, line 291 has to be completely rewritten (though
terms of longs and shorts it would scan!—cf. on 9) and in all its
various transformations it is difficult to construe—is it ἐλθόντες “when
(our)
[had come’, and dvey, ἂν és ξύμβολα, “ (we) could have put my
recognition to the test of tokens’, or ἐλθόντες ἐς ἐύμβολα ‘coming to
and
tokens’ = having recourse to them? Either is dubious Greek,
to
dvay. in this sense is a dw. Aey. in tragedy. Does 202 return
᾿
Menelaus’ fate, or should one read σωθῷ with Orelli?
If we find this accumulation of troubles too much, and (with
up
Goguel) reject 287-92 as a typically clumsy mterpolation, 286 joins
smoothly with 293 (no new paragraph): what then have I to live for?
I
598. ὑπολείπομαι τύχην: pass. with retained object, what fate am
left?
of
997. τὸ σῶμ᾽: if we try to derive this from what precedes—a life
plenty with a barbarian husband—the sentiment is certainly obscure
tures:
enough to have given rise to a number of desperate conjec
of
τὸ δῶμ᾽, τὸ πῶμ᾽, τὸ βρῶμ᾽, xagiop’, τὸ σῶν, even τὸ ζῆν in defiance
metre, according to whether the life or the plenty was taken up.
Of these only τὸ δῶμ᾽ is worth considering because of the frequent
is flat
confusion of ὃ and σ in these MSS; the sentiment, however,
and Jumpish, But the point is explained in what follows—that 1s,
in 303 és γὰρ τοσοῦτον, That 299-302 should be seriously defended is
surprising ; apart from their silliness and their awkward Greek, the
sentiment of 300 is shockingly out of place when she has just heard of
the manner of her mother’s death, nor is it any defence that a lyric
review of methods of suicide occurs 352 ff. A reasoned exposition
in jambics following a lyric lament is one thing; a lyric rehash of
sentiments already expounded in iambics to the same audience is
another. Besides, the situation at 352 is different. Here, after re-
counting her griefs, she wonders what she has left to live for; there,
she has agreed to appeal to Theonoe’s second sight but hardly dares
to use this last xesource—if the prophetess takes away the last re-
maining doubt of Menelaus’ death, she warns them that she will kill
herself, That is the climax. But the interpolator who put together
ng
209-302 must also have been responsible for the lead-in 298 (readi
οὖν) which is the question he solemnly sets himself to answer. For
298, however emended, is betrayed by its stupidity: with οὖν it can-
not possibly be taken as a wish (Pearson); one can say i exiremts
πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμαν; ‘O that I could die!’—but not with the addition of οὖν
and καλῶς, in a rhetorical analysis. And with ot—‘how would it
 LINES 293-330 89
not be well far me to die?’—not only is the negative in a very awk-
ward position, after the verb and separated from πῶς, but also the
line causes a limping peroration, almost a von sequitur, with 303-5.
The reference to her beauty at the end must be led up to, and the
Jead-in 15 297, in which σῶμα now acquires a meaning; it is Helen’s
own lovely person that would become hateful to her, ‘for ...’,
304, μὲν yap: the two lines define τοσοῦτον, instead of a ὥστε clause.
3806-29. But is it all true? say the Chorus; let us at least go and ask
Theonoe if your husband is really dead. (This will leave the stage
empty for Menelaus’ arrival.)
308-10. As they stand, with Kirchhoff’s not altogether satisfactory
ἀληθείᾳ σαφῆ 310, these lines appear to mean:
He was quite explicit about my husband’s death anyway.
Many communications might be lyingly made.
And the opposite kmd are explicit because true.
It is not a very sparklmg exchange, and would be tightened up con-
siderably by Hermann’s transposition of σαφῇ to 309, with ἀληθείας
ἔπη 310: “There could well be such a thing as an explicit He.’—‘Yes,
and its opposite kind of truth’, i.e. an inexplicit truth. The brachy-
logy of the last lme certainly demands a little goodwill for its
interpretation, and it is not the position Helen started from in 308—
though Teucer had not in fact been se very explicit; he had said (132)
θανὼν κλήξεται καθ᾽ ᾿Ελλάδα, Many emendations have been proposed,
but none very attractive.
311. φέρῃ: like a chariot veering off the straight course to one side or
the other,
312. φόβος: the emotion; τὸ δεῖμα: the thing dreaded.
313. εὐμενείας: gen. of “held of reference’, with ἔχειν and an adverb
such as πῶς, ὡς, εὖ, ‘How do you stand for sympathy in the palace?’
315: ef. 1233; the common Euripidean idiom, v. Platnauer on 17 79,
$16. epmeis: a word much affected by tragedians. Helen is inclined
to be horrified at so dangerous a course.
317-29. This is a long speech for a Chorus; and certainly three lines
. longer than it was meant to be, 324-6 are impossible to construe and
wholly superfluous. The interpolator seems to have been misled by
ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ πιθοῦ (the word πιθοῦ often, e.g. Hec. 842, sums up an appeal
already made: “please do this’), and felt impelled to start all over
again, with ideas collected from the immediate context.
821. πρὸς : in accordance with, cf. Hipp. For.
300-74.
φέλαι, λόγους ἐδεξάμαν" Wow ae i, dim.
Bare Pare δ᾽ és δόμους πωσπωώππῳωυ-. lek,
333 ἀγῶνας ἐντὸς ws πύθησθε τοὺς i, trim,
4 i
ἐμούς.
88 COMMENTARY
᾿βέλουσαν ov με δὶς καλεῖς. ον τὼ το Ὁ idim.
id, μέλεος ἀμέρα.
ΕΣ : μ ia νοι πο syne. 1. dim.
vi’ dpa τάλαινα τίνα λόγον
, oH r __f ia wR a eRe eres 1, dim.
330
δακρυόεντ᾽ ἀκούσομαι; τσ - lek.

μὴ πρόμαντις ἀλγέων a πω -αῖ lek.

προλάμβαν᾽, ὦ φίλα, γόους. ee ee - i, dim.

τί pot πόσις μέλεος ἔτλα; woe BU — i. dim.

πότερα δέρκεται φάος ὠς στ -π jek.

342 γέθριππά θ᾽ ἁλίου κέλευθα τ' i. trim.
ἀστέρων,
-
ἢ ᾽ν νέκυσι κατὰ χθονὸς
αἴ F “f ᾿ ἡ MEUIUlCneE=Ler— lek.

τὰν χρόνιον ἔχει τύχαν; ICR ener ὦ jek.

ἐς τὸ φέρτερον τίθει
2 4 ? “ eee lek.
τὸ μέλλον, ὁ τι γενήσεται.
4 f f wee Ue -ς 1, dim.
σὲ γὰρ ἐκάλεσα, σέ τε κατόμοσᾳ uu άν νι, — tr. dim.
348
τὸνι ὑδρόεντι
ε é f
δόνακι χλωρὸν1 σ᾽ αν tr. dim.

Εὐρώταν, θανόντας ee LL SYNC, tr. dim.

ei βάξις ἔτυμος ἀνδρὸς ade μοι

my
mee πο te

sync, tr. trim. cat.

at Γι
τί τάδ᾽ ἀσύνετα;
r for ἃ δ wo

φοινίοισι
Γι . '
μέλεον αἰωρήμα» ALS A eae sync. tr. dim.
El i + .

«σιν δέρην ἐνέξομαι, fal 1 f

τως υς- ! lek.
ἢ ξιφοκτόνον δίωγμα
A r # ar ay ee καίων tr. cm.

λαιμορρύτου σφαγᾶς —-—-uw-u- syne. tr. dim. cat.

αὐτοσίδαρον ἔσω πελάσω δια
a ? 4

356
7 Fa

σαρκὸς ἅμιλλαν, dact, hexam,

θῦμα τριξζύγοις θεαῖσι weve wu tr. dim.
τῷ Te σύριγγος αὖ- — oe δ πι syne. tr. dim.
wun we ee aire sync. tr. dim.
εδᾷ σεβίξοντι Πριαμί-
-Sa ποτ᾽ ἀμφὶ βουστάθμους, rr 2 - lek.

ἄλλοσ᾽ ἀποτροπὰ κακῶν EC κύν eS ener lek.

νέρμοιτο, τὸ δὲ σὸν εὐτυχές. we ee le dim.

iw τάλαινα Tpote,
ry + fy
Wee i, dim. cat.
mo
δι᾽ ἔργ᾽ ἄνεργ᾽ ὄλλυσαι μέλεά τ
1 κ᾿ 4 3, » # iq f 5»
Se et πα ΠῺΣ τῷ

eTAGS” sync. i. trim.

τὰ δ᾽ ἐμὰ δῶρα Κύπριδος ἔτεκε whe. a wie at Sey ww Y. dim.

πολὺ μὲν αἷμα, πολὺ Se δάκρυον, σ᾽ uw tr, dim.

1 4 εν ᾿ 1 a

365 dyed τ᾽ ἄχεσι, πάθεα πάθεσι"

" ¥ a0CUH a i
Rae Seo Sooo tr. dim.

ματέρες τε παῖδας ὄλεσαν, mee ὅτῳ tr. dim.

ἀπὸ δὲ παρθένοι κόμας πων -- lek,
(ἔγϑεντο σύγγονοι νεκρῶν (4 aia
1, dim. or lek,
ἀμφὶ Φρύγιον οἷδμα. τω! mm .
ithyph.
37° βοὰν βοὰν δὲ κελάδησ᾽ Woe eer ϑ
ἐΓῚ
LL "πα sync. 1. dim.
 LINES 330-352 80
ἀνοτότυξέ θ᾽ "Ἑλλάς WU a || ithyph.
Ἶ κι 1 ᾿ ᾿ “ ΓῚ mm ‘
ἐπὶ δὲ κρατὶ χέρας ἔθηκεν. ως oe tr. dim.
3, τς i ᾿ Γι nn Γι
ὖνυχι ὃ ἁπαλόύχροα γένυν IRS OLS Ree ee lek,
374 ἔδευσεν φοινέαισι πλαγαῖς. Vr Use sync. 1, trim.

This κομμός or lyric dialogue continues in lambo-trochaic, which

breaks out at one passionate moment (356) into a striking hexameter
(antic: spating 375 ff.). Helen’s solo 361-74 has some new modifica-
tions, dropping the palimbacchiac syncopation and introducing ,
ithyphalhics (with pericd-close) and an iambic clausula pickmg up in
syncopated form the trimeter 363.
330. ἐδεξάμαν!: the common aor. of a decision just now
n taken, “1 accept’;
_ cf, 348 ‘I swear’.
$32. [οἴκων}: the δόμων noted (as a variant?) by Triclinius doubtless
shows the earlier stage of this superfluous addition. The same
metrical pattern, dim., lek., trim., recurs 340-2. ἀγῶνας : learn
[the truth about] my trials.
334. οὐ podis: (7) non parum, Le. ‘willing and eager, Hermann, approved
by Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1082 ;.(2) haud aegre, ‘easily’, Page—Denniston
ad loc. Either way the. phrase is curiously off-colour, and unlike
the Aeschyiean examples. It-is tempting to read Elmsley’ S ov pe
bis καλεῖς (as A. Pers. £73), adopted by A, 'Y. Campbell and palaeo-
graphically easy. καλεῖς is then future.
335 ff. Helen is so afraid of what. she will hear that she cannot bring
herself to enter for so lines,
336. The metre limps suspiciously. As printed by edd., it gives a
dubious resolution before a syncopated iong syllable 8axpud-evra
WU feo... ., which destroys 1ambo- trochaic continuity. The
oniy alternative is to divide the cola τίν᾽ dpa τάλαινα τίνα δακρυ-
ἰόεντα λόγον κτλ. YOU «ὅσ SU [ὦ τὺ Ou, with resolution
across two words. Hither is harshly against the grain of these smooth
iambo-trochaics, and Hermann’s simple transposition is a great
improvement.
338-9 and 346-7: the same moral : aS 211.
345. χθόνιον alter χθονὸς seems weakly redundant, though χρόνιον
τύχαν of long time spent among the dead is not so ready a cliché in
a. pre- -Christian era.
348. yap: not sc. “Hear my words] for...’ as some take it, for which
a, preceding vocative would be necessary. Helen carries on ‘unheeding
fromm her former words. Is my husband alive or dead? for I swear
that if he is dead I will kill myself.
352, douvera: ‘not sensible’ in the sense of ‘not to be understood’. Is
this a parenthesis of Helen’s or an interjection of the Chorus, as con-
- jectured by the correcting hand in a late copy? If Helen’s, τάδε would
seem to refer to ἄδε Bdééis—-what do these obscure tidings signify ?
go COMMENTARY
This would be an echo of her attitude at 310 rather than at 308, when
she was irrationally certain. The words are more natural coming
from the Chorus, anxious for what she is leading up to: ‘I don’t
understand you; what are you saying?’ and she continues, ‘I will
hang or stab myself’. The interruption comes more easily at the
beginning of a colon, and even then must have needed some deft
timing in performance.
353 is a locus conclamatus, where we can only make guesses. The
metre is blameless, the words untranslatable. διὰ δέρης cannot mean
that the rope will cut into her neck, nor that it will pass by way of
her neck, nor can ὀρέξομαι be anything to do with ‘stretching ja
noose] tight for myself’ on the analogy of stretching out the hand;
the recurrence of ‘stretching’ here is an accident of modern idiom.
Jackson, p. 55, thinks διὰ δέρης implies a lacuna in which the classic
third alternative for suicides, poison, was put forward; cf. Or. 41
οὔτε atra διὰ δέρης ἐδέξατο, he hasn’t eaten anything. But ὀρέξομαι
is by no means as appropriate with διὰ δέρης as δέξομαι [‘yearn after
poison through the throat’?], and indeed 1 suspect that it is just
an adscript of the Oresies passage which has bedevilled our text. On
the whole, ‘neck’ connects more easily with ‘noose’ than with poison ;
moreover, to be held up by the addition of a third alternative would
be a little tiresome. If one decides on rewriting, A. Y. Campbell’s
version, quoted here exempli gratia, gives the sort of sense one wants.
354-6. In so highly poeticized a piece of diction the foreigner’s sense
of what is possible in Greek is unreliable, and it 15 better fo accept
the text without tinkering. Lit. (or nearly so!) ‘T shall drive with
me a sword in murderous pursuit of throat-streaming slaughter,
a swift thrust of cold steel through the flesh’. avr. ἅμιλλαν appears to
be in apposition to the ‘internal’ acc. δίωγμα πελάσω. The manner
of the suicide is appropriate to the sacrificial victim (θῦμα 357) she
feels herself to be.
358-9. LP otpayy’ ἀοιδαὶ σεβίζον are a nonsensical group of words,
and the line of restoration will depend on the treatment of the first :
a corruption of σύριγγ᾽ or σήραγγ᾽ ἡ The syrinx is clearly appropriate
to Paris (cf. [A 576); ofpayé is a tragic word (S. fr. 549), but both
there and in Phaedo tro appears to be a cave hollowed out by the
sea, and there is no evidence to show whether it could be extended to
‘cave’ in general, A cave is not part of one’s normal picture of Paris
on Ida, unless taken as a synonym for νάπος or xevopeov— hollow
cleft! smooths it over unduly ; but certainly σύραγγ᾽ 15 an easier COr-
ruption from σήραγγ᾽ than from σύριγγ᾽. ἀοιδαὶ might conceal Ida
in some form, or with the syrinx might be ‘song’. The ‘song of the
pipes’ (see Wilamowitz in app. crit.) is a doubtful metaphor for
musical instruments (but cf. Timotheus 238); ‘song to the pipes’,
however, a singing and playing in alternate phrases, is hard to get
 LINES 353-375 ΟΙ
out of the Greek. σεβέξον can hardly conceal anything else than a dat.
part., but it is difficult to see what meaning 15 intended by those
(Hermann, Bothe, Pearson, Grégoire) who make ἀεβίξοντε govern
σύριγγα ΟΥ̓ συρίγγων ἀοιδὸν (* cultivate’, 1,6, ‘practise om’ ?). Badham’s
suggestion, adopted by Wecklein and Murray, 1s ingenious, but
éviCovrt with the plur. σήραγγας is an unpictorial and inappropriate
phrase for ‘sittmg in a cave’, and the word cannot be used for ‘dwell
in’, ‘haunt’, other than metaphorically. Perhaps with cfpayé one
might try τῷ te σήραγγ᾽ av’ ᾿Ιδαΐίαν σεβίζοντι, or, with σϑριγξ, τῷ re
σύριγγος αὐδᾷ σεβίξοντι, In either case the object to be supphed with
σεβίέξοντι must be ‘them’, the team of three goddesses. I incline to
the second because it would accord with Helen’s vision, a scene of
sacrifice complete with its accompanying musician,
360. A formula to deflect such ill-omened words,
362-85. A lament for her beauty and the death and sorrow it has
caused both Troy and Greece. Perhaps the Chorus should have got
themselves into the palace by 374, leaving Helen to sing her dactylic
coda by the door before she too withdraws.
362. The line as it stands seems metrically unsatisfactory. Tpota
would be indefensible, ‘and the rhythm ὦ —-— ττ — ~ does not occur
in dramatic lyric and mm any case would bring anceps iuxta anceps
with the next colon. Hermann’s transposition restores the rhythm.
363. ἔργ᾽ dvepy’: as “deeds of il-doing’ the formula would be ordinary ;
but perhaps it should here be taken as “deeds never committed’, as
Pearson suggests.
364. ἐμὰ δῶρα Κύπριδος: a combination of subjective and objective.
365-6. The repetitions are intolerable, and the ‘cumulative’ construc:
tion, as in 195, so loose that the passage is here left with rough-and-
ready first aid.
368. [Σκαμάνδριον with fina! brevis in longo is unwanted with Φρύγιον,
another local adjective of the same form. 416... ἔθεντο tmesis.
Perhaps we should read θέντο to match ὄλεσαν, where LP ὥλεσαν
shows the common tendency to fill in the augment.
$71 is as it stands hopelessly unmetrical. The worst thing to do with
it is to read κελάδησεν with the idea of making a paroemiac (of im-
possible form, by its word-division). Aliz alta; this is my suggestion,
with the ithyphallic repeating from above.
373. yeviv as ΕἾ, 1214 (v. Denniston’s note).
374. The tinal clausula marks a variation from the earlier ones, which
were all lekythia. I slightly prefer the ordinary sync. trim. to dim.
with opening -- UY v— as given in the Oxford text.
375-85.
ὦ μάκαρ Ἀρκαδίᾳ ποτὲ παρθένε 4 dact. --Ἦὐὐ
Καλλιστοῖ, Διὸς ἃ λεχέων ἐπέ- ΝΣ
-Bas τετραβάμοσι γυίοις, 7 dact. -- --
92 COMMENTARY
ὡς πολὺ ματρὸς ἐμᾶς ἔλαχες πλέον, 4 dact. -vv
a μορφᾷ θηρῶν λαχνογυΐων ἃ dact. -- --
ὄμματι λαβρῷ σχῆμα λεαίνης 4 dact. ——
380 ἐξαλλάξασ᾽ dybea Adans 4 dact. -- --
ἂν τέ wor’ Ἄρτεμις ἐξεχορεύσατο 4 ἀδοῖ, τ
χρυσοκέρατ᾽ ἔλαφον Μέροπος Τιτανίδᾳ κούραν hexam.
καλλοσύνας ἕνεκεν" τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν δέμας 4 dact. του,
(ὥλεσεν ὥλεσε πέργαμα Δαρδανίας 5 dact. cat.
ὁλομένους τ΄ χαίους, ithyph.
375-85. A complex stanza. By a deliberate paradox, two fair women
whose sufferings from divine resentment might be thought the ex-
treme possible are apostrophized as ‘blessed’: ‘O fortunate Callisto
who..., and [81 sc. μάκαρ] she too whomi Artemis... because of
her beauty.’ Callisto is compared with Leda, who hke her had an
unnatural mating with Zeus, but ended in suicide and shame, whereas
_ Callisto, changed into a-bear, ‘lifted from her the burden of grief’
(380), The second, daughter of Titan-born Merops (nothing else is
known of the legend), was for her beauty’s sake chased by Artemis
out of her attendant band in the shape of a golden hind (and there-
fore also forgot her griefs), while Hlelen’s beauty brought down not
her alone but Troy and the Greeks who died there,
376. τετραβάμοσι yuiors: in performance it would be impossible to
indicate that this was to be a ‘dat. of cause with μάκαρ᾽, and it could
only convey ‘ascended Zeus’ bed with four paws’, Then Zeus, one
would suppose, must have had four paws too, and this would make
a better parallel with Leda; in the ordinary version the transforma-
tion came later as a punishment. But perhaps the line is only meant
to convey vaguely ‘Zeus-beloved and four-footed’ as a summary of
her destiny ; the dithyrambic style eludes our analysis. More worry-
ing is the confusion of animals. Callisto should be changed into a
bear, not a lioness, and the adjective Aayvoyviwy (a certain restoration)
inescapably implies bear here, not the smooth feline. Murray’s
apostrophe to the bear with the ‘gentle look’ that mitigates her
fierceness is a touch of pathetic realism not wanted here, Since the
construction is also not very obvious (σχῆμα in apposition to ἃ and
ὄμματι sociative or descriptive, ‘with fierce expression’?), much the
easiest solution is to cut out 379. But (1) the reason for its intrusion
is obscure; (2) the metre, with two lines, 379-80, hovering towards
anapaestic rhythm in the middle of a dactylic passage, is Euripidean
(cf. Phoen. 1575-6, Or. 1006-8); (3) 5. Inachus, P.Oxy. 2369 fr, 1,
col. ii. 14, appears once more to offer us a γυνὴ λέαινα where Io. has
just been transformed into a cow. It seems just possible that λέαινα
can be used of a ‘beast-woman’ ina generalized sense. ‘You who in
your guise of one of the shaggy-limbed creaturesof the wild, a herce-
eyed beast-shape, put off your burden of sorrow.’ |
 LINES 375-390 93
In all these strange legends of metamorphosis, particularly those
of Io, Callisto, Leda, and all the animal amours of Zeus, any hint of
too close or too visual an approach slides perilously towards: bathos
or the grotesque. Open burlesque, as mm comedy, 15 quite easy to
take, but a blend of sophistication, acceptance, and artistic serious-
ness leaves us somewhat baffled : witness now our difficulties over the
fragments of the fmachus of Sophocles, where we find ourselves un-
certain of the prevailmg tone, and even whether the play must be
satyric or not. How was the subject treated by Sophocles in the
Tereus? One note that often recurs in this later Greek thinking,
with a sort of puzzled tenderness, is the uncertain hope that the
sharpness of human suffering is somehow mitigated and made
tolerable by the change to the animal or vegetable or astronomical
world, even 1f the πάθος is thereby in a sense perpetuated and eter-
nally renewed. (Ci. A. dg. 1146-8.) Certamly Eur. intends no bur-
lesque here. |
386. On to the empty scene, from the sea-coast to the spectator’s right,
comes Menelaus, giving the necessary information sans fagons direct
to the audience, as in a prologue. He does not open, however, in the
very. baldest prologue-style; the genealogy is touched up by apos-
trophe and indirect allusion. Ὁ Pelops, who once with Oenomaus
raced the famous {τὰς} chariot-race’ in Elis, and thus came to found
the dynasty in Greece,
388-90: would that you had died before you ever got so far, the ob-
vious chance being when he was served up by his father Tantalos
to-the gods at a feast, to test their omniscience. But the text is, to
say the least, uncertain. The phrase ἔρανον ἐποίεις, for the un-
fortunate boy who was the main dish, is odd, still more so with εἰς
᾿ θεοὺς instead of θεοῖς, and πεισθεὶς would imply a version otherwise
unknown to us: did he consent to the experiment, or was he ‘per-
-suaded to make a banquet’ In a more innocuous sense, as he supposed,
_ by a diabolical father? ἐν θεοῖς atter εἰς θεοὺς could only be defended
as a deliberate echo: ... ‘left his life there inside them.’ πατὴρ
ἐποίει a” OF προθεὶς σ᾽ ἐποίει Τάνταλος, or the like, fall down on the
habits of these genealogies: once-a start is made at Pelops there can
be no going back a step to Tantalos. As for the general probability
of Menelaus’ reference to the episode, it is not relevant that a year
or two earher, JT 387-8 Iphigeneia had said ἀγὼ μὲν οὖν | τὰ Ταντάλου
- θεοῖσιν ἐστιάματα ἄπιστα κρίνω, παιδὸς ἡσθῆναι βορᾷ, unmistakably
_Eur,’s own conviction though an appropriate part of Iphigeneia’s
argument in the context. There is no reason why Menelaus should
not believe the story. The difficulty lies in the tone and phrasing,
possible in comedy but not here unless he is being deliberately droll,
and nothing else in the context suggests that; and also in the un-
natural recited order of events: Pelops could still have died in the
94 COMMENTARY
chariot-race ‘before begetting Atreus’. Nauck’s excision of the two
half-lines, giving εἴθ᾽ ὥφελες τότ᾽ εὐθέως λιπεῖν βίον, is to be recom-
mended; if the interpolator read τότ᾽ ἐν θεοῖς, it would be enough
to make him dislocate the context in an effort to explam.
390: probably dissyllabic Arpéa — x.
393. yap: explaining not κλεινὸν but why he wishes he had never been
born, It carries through in effect to 407, a miserable sequel to so
much glory.
394. διορίσαι: trans., ‘took over’ m ships.
395. τύραννος: inside the neg. statement, ‘no despot leading troops
by force’.
307. ἀριθμῆσαι: ‘count up’, ‘call the roll of’. The roll can be calied
of some because they are dead, and of others because they returned
home after being given up for dead (νεκρῶν φέρ. ov. This phrase could
alternatively mean ‘with a list of their drowned comrades’), Some
died at Troy or at sea; others ran into storms and were despaired of
but returned eventually; only I wander on andon....
401. χρόνον ὅσονπερ: ‘ever since’, normally only with. continuing
actions or states, not with past events as ἔπερσα here: as if τὸν πάντα
χρόνον ἐξ ov.
404, δέ and τε are constantly mixed, and the δ᾽ (Hermann) seems essen-
tial here after the οὐκ ἀξιοῦμαι clause. ἐπιδρομὰς: ‘approaches.’
406. οὔριον: sc. πνεῦμα,
410. ἀριϑμοὺς: except for the keel, quantitative rather than usetuily
qualitative pieces of wrecked ship, cf. Dodds’s note on Bacch. 209.
441. ἐλείφθη (a certain emendation): of the skilfully jointed whole
which had been the ship only the keel remained intact. Not, as
Pearson, gen. of separation ‘parted from’: such a construction Is
found only of human beings, with a pathetic overtone, ‘forsaken of’,
as Al, 1310 σοῦ δὲ λειπόμενος,
412. This was the classic shipwreck escape, but somewhat srmpirhed
from Od. 12. 420-5. It is more effective for a solitary survivor than
for a tandem, and we presently find others of the crew also 426, the
wreck being close inshore,
443. ἀποσπάσας ἔχω: ‘whom I dragged out of Troy and have with
me’; the degree of difference between this idiom and the plain aor.
varies considerably with the context.
444, λεὼς: sc. ὅστις, The construction is indirect interrog., the sen-
tence as a whole being an illogical but perfectly intelligible mixture
of ὄνομα δὲ χώρας οὐκ οἶδα and ἥτις ἡ χώρα ἦδε οὐκ οἶδα. Nauck takes
fois as rel. ‘whatever it is’, and so emends to gen. λεὼ.
416-17. τὰς ἐμὰς... [τὰς τύχας] LP: (1) This can only be construed
by deleting the comma after ἱστορῆσαι, ‘and so get questions asked
about my shabby clothes’; then κρύπτων τὰς τύχας together. This
is the normal use of ὥστε but leaves an’awkward lack of subject to
 LINES 3890-433 05
ἱστορῆσαι and an tnexpected plural δυσχλαινίας, (2) leg. τῆς τύχης,
dependent on ὑπ᾽ αἰδοῦς, ἱἱστορῆσαι 56, ὄνομα: Ἴ was ashamed to £0
up to people and so make Inquiries’, with ὥστε almost = iva. Still
δυσχ. plur. (3) leg. τῆς ἐμῆς δυσχ., ΕἸ ἦν dependent on τὰς τύχας, ‘con-
cealing in shame the misfortunes which had produced this shabbi-
ness’, er double gen. with ὑπ᾽ αἰδοῦς, “concealing my misfortunes in
shame at my shabbiness’. Still ὥστε = iva. There is not much to
choose on balance between these three. But the main objection to
all is the premature reference to dvoyAatvias, which is brought in as
a new and important aspect of the situation 421. 416 should there-
fore be deleted with Dindorf, as the kind of mterpolation intended
to make a pomt.clearer and instead of that mtroducing an element
of muddle. The thought in 418, πράξῃ κακῶς, goes on simply from
ras τύχας (to be retained from LP}, his misfortunes, not his shabbi-
ness,
418-19, εἰς ἀηθίαν (for the usual form ἀήθειαν) καὶ, must mean ‘into
an unfamiliar state which is worse than thai of [abbreviated com-
parison] a man long used to trouble’, i.e. into a state which because
of its unfamiliarity is worse.... Although doubly elliptical it is not
difficult to understand at a first hearing.
422. LP have ἐκβόλοις ἀμπίσχομαι. Τῇ this conceals ἐκβόλοις ἀμπίσχομαι
there is a dubious crasis and a dubious sense (in this position of the
word) of αὐτὰ - τοῦτο, unemphatic ‘this’ or ‘it’: ‘you can mfer it
[the fact that I have no clothes] from the bits of wreckage 1 am
wearmg. Also, ἃ would normally become ots by attraction. Reiske’s
ἔκβολ᾽ οἷς is preferable, with εἰκάσαι = judge from the look of a thing
that itis...: ‘...no clothes for my back; you can guess from the
look of them that these are just (αὐτὰ) cast-ups from the wreck that
I am wearing.’ ναὸς ExBoAa: one would like to know just what
the audience saw Menelaus wearmg. Aristophanes at least (Thesm.
935 ἀνὴρ ἱστιάρραφος) took it as cobbled-up bits of sail, but the costume
of his Eur.-Men. was doubtless much more striking, and we do not
know how far a tragic actor could go m this respect. The emphasis
on Menelaus’ odd appearance (554, 1204) may have been needed to
keep the matter sufficiently before the audience’s attention.
425-6. κρύψας only with γυναῖκα: before coming here I hid her and
made them keep guard,
428. voorG: simply ‘come’, as 474.
430. περιφερὲς θριγκοῖς: of, "ο, ‘with its walls surmounted by coping
all round’—no roughly made house but a piece of solid, finished
stone-work,
433. The anacolouthon is not attractive. It would be better to delete
the comma after θέλοιεν, and with ἔχοιεν ἄν sc. λαβεῖν and subject
ναῦται, taking ναύταις 432 with ἐλπὶς, hope for [shipwrecked] sailors
luke us, not ‘hope to get for my crew’. ‘From a rich house sailors
gO COMMENTARY
can hope to get something, but from those who have not enough to
support life they could not get anything even if there were willing-
ness to help.’ If the change of subject from θέλοιεν to ἔχοιεν 15 ποῖ
obvious enough from the sense, one could with Paley read ἔχοιμεν,
435, tis dv μόλοι: A request to someone unspecified of the servant class,
from among those present, may conveniently be put τὰ imterrog.
form with τίς, cf. 802 τίς εἶσι; ‘will one of you gor’, or in the optative
| Bacch, 1257 tis dv καλέσειεν; “would one of you call . .?’ Here it is
combined with a knock on the door and the query whether there is
someone available: ‘is there some porter who would come and take
a message for me...?’ When the further request 1s defined as here
by a ὅστις clause, or by ἵνα or ὅπως, the verb of this 1s optative too
by a kind of attraction.
437. Portress rather than porter, to make the dialogue more amusing,
and to underline Menelaus’ plight, bandying words helplessly with
an old woman. It is also more plausible that she should refrain from
reporting him to the master.
437-8. The common idiom in tragedy by which ot-+ fut. nterrog. ts
used for a sharp command: ‘you'd better .. .’ (threateningly). A
prohibition of this kind needs οὐ μή, while command followed by
prohibition, the pos. and neg. aspects of the same desired line of
conduct (go away and stop bothering us), has first ἃ single οὗ, then
καὶ μὴ OF μηδὲ ἢin the following clause.
438. αὔλειοι or ἕρκειοι πύλαι, originally outer gates leadmg into the
‘courtyard, then just ‘cuter door’ in general. Proteus’ palace 1180 ἢ,
is conceived as a heroic-age house, with an αὐλή through which
a chariot can drive.
439. δεσπόταις: the ‘servant’s plural’.
440, How does she know him to bea Greek? οἷσιν plur. after a generic
sing. antecedent: editors compare Cr. 920 αὐτουργός, οἵπερ καὶ μόνοι
σῴζουσι γῆν.
441-2. ὦ γραῖα, ταῦτα ταῦτ᾽ ἔπη καλῶς Ἀέγεις.
ἔξεστι, πείσομαι γάρ. ἀλλ᾽ ἄνες Αόγον.
Murray’s attempt to give sense to ταῦτα ταῦτ᾽ --ἴπετε, there!—
is amusing but unsupported by Greek usage. “ταῦτα πᾶντ᾽ ἔπη
(Stephanus) is accepted by Pearson and others, surprisingly, since
the line sounds like a schoolboy’s exercise and the sense is manifestly
not what Menelaus means; moreover, ἔξεστι by itself in the next line
is meaningless. To call it a ‘formula, of acquiescence’ explains
nothing; Pearson quotes Hee. 238, where it confirms εἰ δ᾽ ἔστι 234,
and Bacch. 844, where it is Dionysus’ permission for Pentheus’ pro-
posal 843. In every case where it occurs in isolation it is an invitation
to proceed, in response to some recuest or statement of tention.
Herwerden’s ταὐτὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπη κἄλλως λέγειν ἔξεστι, 15 neat, and gives
a possible sense : ‘those same words can be spoken in a different tone,
 LINES 435-460 97
for I shall be amenable; only, not so cross, please.’ Startled by the
' outburst, Menelaus has noticed the abusive tone rather than the
content, and returns a soft answer. ἄνες λόγον is suspect, since it
ought to mean not ‘mitioribus verbis utere’ (Matthiae) but ‘verba
remitte’, and ἀνέημι needs an object that admits of degrees of-inten-
sity. χόλον (Heimsoeth) is a reasonable guess. .
445. προσείλει χεῖρα: εἰλέω, an epic and later prose form, might be
used here for iAAw, but the meaning is obscure. (Paley’s ‘don’t
squeeze my arm in the door’ is not right, and in any case should be
your arm.) It can mean ‘round up towards’ a confined space, or, in
the simple verb, ‘send circling round’ a limited area, like Soph.’s
ploughs Ax. 340, but that is still a long way from ‘laying hands on’
me (p records an unmetrical variant πρόσαγε). Perhaps it could
mean ‘close up your hand’, clench your fist. Matthiae suggests
πρόσειε x, aS a gesture discouraging nearer approach, as HF 1218,
but that goes badly with μηδ᾽ ὥθει βίᾳ.
446: ‘your fault for not taking notice...’; for the anticipatory ydp-
clause Wecklem compares IT 646. : :
447. ἄγγειλον εἴσω = εἰσαγγέλλειν, go in and announce [mel], not
᾿ς necessarily with aposiopesis. |
448. LP cannot be accepted here, since dy with the fut. is hardly de-
fensible in Eur., and γ᾽ has no meaning where it stands. πικρούς has
won much favour, but should mean ‘your message would be un-
welcome to them’, cf. ΕἾ, 418; but surely it is the consequences of
trying to deliver it that would be unpleasant, to the sender or the
intermediary ; πικρῶς as Andr. 1002, πικρῶς ἂν οἶμαι σούς γ᾽ ἐσαγγέλλειν
λάγους would give the right emphasis. ΕΝ
449. As a stranger and a castaway Menelaus would have a religious
claim to protection im a civilized community.
454, οὐκοῦν ἐκεῖ trou: ‘somewhere, evidently, you were a great figure;
here you aren't.” The retort has the devastating completeness of the
best stichomythia. | |
455-8. The four lines must be taken together. The plur. ἤτιμ. ‘you
"and I’ is addressed to his δαίμων, the inescapable personal destiny
which accompanies each man like his own shadow. The Old Woman,
impatient rather than pitying or curious, asks to whom (πρὸς τέν᾽,
not to be emended) he 15 addressing his complaint. His reply, ‘Only
to my former fortunes, which were so happy’, switches to the more
᾿ς impersonal, plural, sense of δαίμων, but her retort brings it back to
_ the personal, ‘then go and present them (your intimate connexions)
_ with the tears’. Menelaus can only change the subject.
460. “XX lives in this house’ for ‘This is X’s house’ would normally
be a distmction without a difference, but here X is dead, and there
seems ho particular pot in misleading Menelaus, though Premer-
stein thinks Ar. Thesm, 874~8 is ridiculing Eur, for doing just that.
98 COMMENTARY
Even Kirchhoff’s adaptation from Ar. {v. app. crit.) is consistent
with 5 in the prologue, not that that would matter much. Posstbly
the Old Woman makes a gesture towards the tomb, Proteus being for
her still the Master,
461. The Ionic πεπλώκαμεν of Thesm. 878 defends πεπλωκότα 532, but
does not oblige us to introduce it here; Ar, simply transfers the
affectation to the finite form.
462-3. τὸ Νείλου γάνος: a type of periphrasis of which Eur. is fond,
for water or wine. ἐμέμφθην: pres. sense, ‘I have no complaint’.
464: ‘the familiar consolation’ edd., but the point is that it 15 not
meant as a consolation here.
465. ὅντιν᾽ ὀνομάζεις ἄναξ: King what's-his-name. Menelaus has never
heard of him.
467. See on gt. “Then where zs he?’
469. ἐπηυρόμην: ‘I get the benefit’, ironical.
470-2. ἢ τοῦ Διός... ἡ TuvSapis wats: no ambiguity ; her official title
is merely additional confirmation of identity.
475, οὔ τί wou cf. gs. The rest isanaside. λέχος: the usual retamed
acc. with a verb which im the act. has two.
477-8. tom... τύχη: “for things have taken a turn [the wooing of
Helen by the king} within there....’ δόμοις... δόμος: as the
plur. and the sing. have rather different meanings one probably
need not emend the first to ἔνδοθεν as Broadhead suggests. γάρ 477
and γὰρ 479 have the same reference, cf. 257/260.
470. καιρὸν οὐδέν᾽: adverbial acc., cf. S. Aj. 34 καιρὸν δ᾽ ἐφήκεις, Ar.
Ach, 23 ἀωρίαν “ἥκοντες.
481-2. οὐχ ὅσον: ‘for all the bitterness of my words’; ht, ‘to an extent
not to be measured by...’. Exit γραῦς, shutting the door agaist
Menelaus.
484, ἐκ: in succession to: the new thing ‘takes over from’ the last.
ἀθλίας predic. after κλύω.
485. εἰ: if, as seems to be the case... , like εἴπερ.
487-8. τῆς ἐμῆς δάμαρτος does not strictly go with ταὐτὸν (which
would need a dat.) but with ὄνομα, and is then reinforced by ταὐτὸν---
my wife’s name, exactly the same. Pearson compares Hf 31. The
idiom is the line’s defence against Vitelli (app. crit.). 480 must con-
tinue in the εἰ construction from 485, with only a comma after δόμοις.
Tt would not be so awful to find another woman called Helen,
but a Helen said to be daughter of Zeus—ihai was alarming indeed.
492. iva ῥοαὶ: Matthiae’s emendation for af foat is necessary if the
following gen. is not to be out of order; the lengthening of short
vowel before initial ¢ (cf. rogo), which tragedy retained from Homer,
disappeared later.
497. The personal construction of parenthetic ὡς ἔοικία), etc., is con-
fined to poetry, cf. 793.
 LINES 461-513 99
Menelaus’ endeavour to analyse his bewildering predicament. has
often been found unsatisfactory, and Imes have been excised or
transposed to make it more logical, but all remedies introduce fresh
difficulties. The main point to grasp 15 that a Greek hero must not.
be expected to calculate the odds against a string of coincidences
as opposed to one, or two, For him, Helen, Zeus, Sparta, Tyndareos,
Troy add up to five curious points; they do not multiply. Thus even
after 406 he can go on to say, Well, the world ’s a big place, so all this
is not really surprismg. yap 497 is all right, cf. Denn. GP 58r:
[I suppose I must accept it], for.... From this relatively optimistic
conclusion he goes on valiantly (500) οὐδ᾽ at... +: nor am I to be
frightened off .... The impression of some degree of naivety and m-
capacity for hard reasoning is not out of place in Menelaus, like his
later failure to devise a plan of escape. The audience would enjoy
his bewilderment, but his simphcity must not be exaggerated; after
all, he could not be expected to see through, or even begin to imagine,
so preposterous a trick of fate as the Phantom.
500. τὸ δεινὸν προσπόλου: Pearson has some good parallels for the
generic force of the gen, προσπόλου without article, ‘a servant’s
bogy-tales’: Bacch, 29 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν λέχους, Ei. 368 αἱ φύσεις βροτῶν,
S. Ant. 365 τὸ μηχανόεν τέχνας.
501. ὧδε... ds: like “Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who
never to himself hath said...’
503 and 505. Two asyndeta.
506. ἔχει for παρέχει, subj. ἄναξ,
5807. κρύψας ἐμαυτὸν: usually κρύπτειν δέμας or σῶμα, but the reflexive
pronoun is surely reasonable. To take it as ‘conceal my identity’, as
Italie, is unnatural, He plans to observe from concealment what
the king locks like and how he behaves before approaching him or
retreating to the wreck. The aor. indicates “stay m concealment’,
and he probably suits the action to the word here (perhaps by a
pilaster of the tomb) since the Chorus and Helen do not at first see
him, There is no point m κρύψων, since once he was seen it would
be too late to conceal himself on the seashore.
508. ἐνδιδῷ τι μαλθακόν one would have expected to mean ‘give
way to compassion’, but comparison with dudr. 225 indicates ‘show
signs of .. .’ simply. τὰ πρόσφορα: the adj. takes a dat., but here
its substantival sense (cf. 429) predominates and so has the gen,
510. [δέ 6 LP: the combination is epic, not tragic. μὲν... ἀλλὰ is
common.
513: ‘not my saying, but a wise word’ is periectly appropriate, and
λόγος and ἔπος are all but synonyms, though ἔπος is commoner for
the epigrams of authority. Trichnius’s σοφῶν, wherever it came from,
is πὸ waprovement, and σοφῶν δέ του (Dobree) stil! less ; Menelaus is
not being so humble.
Τοῦ COMMENTARY
515-27. |
ἤκουσα τᾶς θεαπιῳδοῦ κόραξ, yoo τῷ -ἰ 5..1, trim,
ἃ γρήξουσ᾽ ἐφάνη τυράννοις -ττστ πὸ ]}
δόμοις, ὡς MevéAaos οὔ- Were
“Tid μελαμῴαες οἴχεται awe ee
δι᾽ ἔρεβος χθονὶ κρυφϑεΐς, στον |
520 ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι κατ᾽ oldu ἅλιον yuo
: τρυχόμενος οὔπω λιμένων KUN go UU
ψαύσειεν πατρίας γᾶς, -s-vy-g]|
ἀλατείᾳ βιότου πττεπι τ
᾿ταλαίῴφρων, ἄφιλος φίλων, Ὁ τηνε πτ -
525 παοντοδαπᾶς ἐπὶ γᾶς eR eee -- hemiepes
7 πόδα χριμπτόμενος εἰνμαλίῳ Su τς Wieser teres
came Τρῳάδος ex γᾶς, ere re
After the iambic mtroduction this is all, except for hemiepes 525,
aeolo-choriambic in various lengths (resolution counting as one syl-
lable), heptasyll, octasyll., and one enneasyll. 516 (hipponactean).
The Chorus re-enters first, briefly conveying to the audience the
news of Theonoe’s pronouncement. Menelaus in half-concealment
has to be forgotten; at least he does not take.in the mention of his
name and his fortunes. Naturally this is no moment for a full-dress
stasimon.
516. afem.sing. τυρ. δόμοις ἐφάνην
: local dat. of poetry ; Triclinius’s
should not be taken as indicating ἐφάνη ᾽ν (Herwerden), which would
be hard to hear, but as due to a misunderstanding of χρήζουσ᾽, with
ἃ as neut. plur; ‘what I clearly desired’. χρήξω = χράω, give an
oracle, though a dz. Aey. here, is recognized by ancient grammarians.
χρήζουσ᾽ ἐφάνη = φανερῶς ἔχρῃζε, ‘clearly announced’, without ora-
cular ambiguity, cf. 8. OT 790 προυφάνη λέγων, often emended to
-mpotdnvev, but the two instances defend each other. :
518, μελαμφαὲς: Wecklein well recalls the same oxymoron in Ar.’s
skit on Euripidean monody Raz. 1331 νυκτὸς κελαινοφαὴς ὄρφνα.
οἴχεται indic. combined with ψαύσειεν opt. 522.
523. ἀλατείᾳ βιότου: a wanderer’s life.
525-6. The reading is uncertain. χρίμπτομαι is usually intrans. with
dat. of the place skirted; so act. also A, PV 712 πόδας χρίμπτονσα
βαχίαισιν, ‘keeping close to the shore’, If he were walking, there
would be nothing unusual in retaining πόδα with the mtrans. form
(see Denniston on El. 94), but he is sailing. The instramental dat.
κώπᾳ might cause a prepositional phrase for the locality, but
the prep. ἐπί has to have a highly ‘pregnant’ sense—coming close fo
the shore to set foot on it. Wecklein’s ποτιχριμπτόμενος would get
rid of πόδα, but ἐπί would then be less appropriate, and Weckiein
emends that line too. Nor has Euripidean lyric any attested com-
pound of werd. On the whole the text is better left.
 LINES 515-553 ΤΟΊ

528-89: addressed, with very little. pretence, to the audience. She

remains, meanwhile, by the door,
530—1. The redundancy is a little feeble, but it 15 impossible to take
ἐν φάει with φησὲ as ‘says openly’, which would need Jacobs’s ἐμφανῶς.
The phrases are so automatic for ‘alive’ that the different sound of
φάει and φέγγος is enough to support repetition.
532-40. Interpretations are varied, but the lines make the best sense
as they stand i LP, with comma deleted after πλάνοις and without
δ᾽ 534. She says that he is alive, ‘and wanders hither and thither
sailing countless straits [πορϑμοὺς mternal acc.], and will be coming
all worn out [not untried, litotes} by his rovings, when he reaches
the end of his troubles’. ἥξειν means come ere, as 540 makes clear;
hence her anxiety over what will happen when he reaches this place
with its hostile king. She has refrained from putting this question,
m her relief at hearing he was alive up to now—after all, it is the
subject of the rest of the play! Thus πημάτων τέλος 534 is relative
to his trials as a wanderer only.
At 540 she turns to go to the tomb, and Menelaus steps forward
to mtercept and speak to her. She tries to dodge him with little runs,
till her accusation 550-2 makes him step back haughtily; then she
skips round him and reaches her goal at 556. The juxtaposition of
540 and 541 makes a good dramatic moment.
541, κρυπτεύομαι pass.: ‘I am being ambushed.’
544. συνάπτειν πόδα teri as for 528 = link one’s step to someone, hence
‘meet’, and by a further twist of artificiality Ink one’s limb to a
place = move over to it, reach it. |
546, σὲ τὴν: exclamatory acc. of reference, cf. S. Ant. 441 σὲ δή, σὲ τὴν
νεύουσαν.
547. For the appearance of the tomb see p. δ. - ὀρθοστάται elsewhere in
Eur. always means ‘uprights’, whether of masonry or wood, and it is
a mere red-herring that Pollux and Porphyrius quote ὀρθοστάτης
from the lexicographers as a ‘sacrificial cake’. Since ἔμπυρα = burnt-
offermgs (though at 5, Εἰ, 405 1t seems to be ‘offerings for the dead’ in
general), it was thought that ἐμηύρους ép8. might be ‘cakes for burnt
offerme’, ranged on the tomb as on an altar. But for Menelaus to
describe her as “racing for the base and sacrificial cakes of the tomb’
would be curious, whereas ‘base and uprights’ (= pilasters) gives the
horizontal and the vertical aspects of the asylum where the suppliant
sits and clasps. The exact meaning of ἐμπύρους is uncertain——‘where
burnt-offerings are made’, or perhaps ‘smoke-burnt’,
553. οὐχ: There is little doubt that οὐδ᾽ (Dindorf} is required here.
It is no use objecting that ‘repeated οὐ 1s common’; it needs the ex-
cuse of lyric (27 173-4), or of combmation with οὐδέ or οὔτε (Hee,
1234), or of built-up accumulation (Bacch. 757) or of passion or pathos
(Phoen. 919, a pure repetition, Tyo, 403-4). The only possible parallel
814172 Η
102 COMMENTARY
is [1 486, where also Hermann emends to οὐδ᾽, since ody or od and
οὐδ᾽ are liable to be confused, cf: app. crit. on 564 here.
554. στολήν γ᾽ : ‘the clothes you wear are villamous enough’ (Warner).
She notices his clothes before him, which staves off a premature
recognition.
555. φόβου: the only reason for gen. rather than as everywhere else
acc. with act. μεθέημε would be the avoidance of momentary ambi-
guity in the construction. . :
556, τόπου; τάφον (Elmsiey) would give better sense for a very slight
change, ᾿
558, λόγος ἔχει pe: the unusual inversion is protected by Ar. Lhesit. οοῦ,
which also gives αὑτὸς for αὐτός,
560. Ail other cases of the apotheosis of abstracts in Eur. are at least
substantives—aiddés, ἐλπίς, πλοῦτος, etc., and even in Or, 213 it is
πότνια A}On τῶν κακῶν that.is a εὐκταία θεός, NOt τὰ τῶν κακῶν
, ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι. This seerns to be a whimsical by-product of the ex-
clamation ὦ θεοί.
561. The missing line is conveniently supphed by Ar. Thesm. 907, and
is a neat illustration of the havec caused by a repetition of the same
word at the beginning of consecutive lines, Neither scribe nor
corrector noticed the obvious gap in the sense, since change οἱ
speaker was only mdicated by the paragraphos.
567, ποίας: ‘how do you mean, wife?’ ποῖος with a noun in scornful
questions is like.sé or ποῦ with a verb, cf, τέ ζῶσιν; Alc, B07, ποῦ δέ μοι
πατὴρ σύ; fon 428. But ποΐων 572 15 literal.
568. Cf. on 33. .
569. φωσφόρ᾽; ‘torch-bearing’, as Goddess of the Crossways, ‘Evodia
570, attended by πρόπολοι, ghostly apparitions.
571. οὐ phy... ye of firm rejection, whatever else may or may not be
possible. ᾿
572-8, The various complicated manceuvres for transferring these lines
to follow 581, so as to make 581 the first statement of the dilemma,
are not worth while; the sequence of thought is natural enough as
it stands.
575. οὔ wou (cf. 135) carries both μέν and δέ clauses; “can it be that
though I am in my right mind my eyes are at fault?’
577-8. Can 577 be given a meaning? And how should the unmetrical
578 axébas τί σου δεῖ; τίς ἔστι σον σοφώτερος; be emended? ott:
. "You look like her, but what I kvow for certain deprives me of you'—
‘privat me te uxore’ Hermann. Or (feebly) ‘but certainty fails me’,
which in any case would need F. W. Schmidt’s γ᾽ ἄπεστ᾽ ἔτι, “But
you withhold certainty from me’ (with daoorepe?s)—Pearson, τὸ
δ᾽ ἄσαφές μ᾽ ἀποστρέφει, ‘the unclearness of it turns me away’—
A. Y. Campbell. Little encouragement here. 578: Seidler’s τί
σούνδεξ (= σοι ἐνδεῖν ‘Look at me: what more do you want?’ makes
 LINES 554..598 103
a splendid moment on an English or French stage, but would a Greek
have said it (and with that crasis)? And the follow-up, ris δὲ σοῦ ood.
to be mterpreted as ‘who knows me better than you do?’ savours of
editorial desperation. Nothing short of Badham’s elegant rewriting
(v. app. crit.) will save the line, and if anyone could produce a
tolerable rendering or revision of 577 one might acquiesce in this.
But it is evident that the clumsy obscurity of expression, the
bungled metre, and the mingled redundancy and irrelevance of the
point have all the marks of the interpolator. (Perhaps the poor man
Meant σκέψαι" τί σ᾽ οὐ δεῖ; ἔστι σου σοφώτερος; “Think it out; why
should you not? is there anyone better qualified?’) 579 follows 576
without a ripple.
081. νοσοῦμεν: not as 575 but quite general: ‘my trouble is that....’
O84. αἰθήρ, called οὐρανός 34, is the material of which phantoms are
made by a god (θεοπόνητο).
585. deAnza! not here ‘too good to be true’ but simply ‘beyond belief’,
as in Archilochus on the eclipse χρημάτων ἄελπτον οὐδέν.
086. A terse construction, διάλλαγμ᾽: ‘as a changeling.’
o87. There are two problems here: (1) is ἂν ἦσθα sensible? (2) how to
make up the missing syllable. (1) év+ past indic. must, as Pearson
says, imply a suppressed condition: ‘how, if this were true, would
you have been m two places at once?’ ‘This is absurd’: true, but
Menelaus is in a state of total bewilderment and might not have
thought it out. But the double ἅμα (v. app. crit.), as in Ὁ, Aut. 436, is
an easy enough emendation and usually adopted—how did you
manage to be....’ (2) Barnes’s τ᾽ is rather awkwardly misplaced.
ἦσθας is a Menandrian form, not attested for the fifth century (Nauck
beheved 587-8 to be a later interpolation). A. Y, Campbell πῶς οὖν;
ἅμ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ἦσθ᾽ ἄρ᾽ 1s neat by itself, but the next line looks like an
answer to πῶς; and would really need a γάρ for his version. Mekler
ἐν ᾿Ϊλίῳ for ἐν Τροίᾳ, Jackson ἅμ᾽ ἐν Τροίᾳ τε κἀνθάδ᾽ ἦσθ᾽ dia ;—elther
blameless, but less easy to account for,
591. καὶ χαῖρέ γ᾽: I do leave you—with my blessing, for your likeness
to Helen. Menelaus has to reject her finally, in order to get the full
dramatic effect of the Old Servant’s report the next minute,
98. ἐκεῖ; he knows his sufferings at Troy were concrete enough—as
though he felt the airiness of the Phantom would envelop all in a
mist of unreality.
597. fhe Old Servant mtercepts him as he strides off. ‘Messenger’ is
not quite the appropriate title, since in tragedy ἄγγελος is a technical
term for a special kind of ‘reporter’ who receives the barest minimum
of characterization and leaves the scene after discharging his function
of reporting. Anonymous titles in general are often very loosely
assigned in the “dramatis personae’ of MSS. and papyri.
598. χθόνα: γῇ and χθών are words particularly susceptible of this ‘acc.
104 COMMENTARY
of space travelled over’. μαστεύων ..., πλανηθεὶς... πεμφθεὶς:
the pile-up of parts. is considerable, but in their different functions
quite clear.
601: ‘A miracle, though miracle is too weak a word.’
602: ‘Such emphasis declares your news strange indeed.’
604, παλαιὰ; Menelaus does not perceive the force of μάτην.
607. σεμνὸν: the epithet seems idle because unexplamed, unless the
cave is meant to be self-evidently ‘hallowed’ by having sheltered
the disappearing Phantom, or as being, like many caves, sacred
to the Nymphs.
609. πάντες τ᾽ Ἀχαιοί = Panachaean host; Pearson. compares xa
Πανελλήνων στρατός [A πο. ταλαίπωροι of course embraces them.
616. Helen must here move somehow into his line of vision. A very
neat confirmation of the total identity of appearance between real
and phantom Helen.
618. He is forced to regard the ascent into upper air as a delusion, since
she is clearly earth-bound now, though apparently ‘winged’ (sar-
castic; he is annoyed). |
619. οὐκ ἐῶ: he steps forward to grasp her by the arm. ἡμᾶς is object
of κερτομεῖν and τόδ᾽ internal acc.: play this vanishing-trick on us,
‘delude us like this’. Cf. TA 849 and xéprouos χαρά ‘delusive joy’
Ale. 1128. ‘This sense of κερτομεῖν has eluded most editors, with
strange results. ὡς is not to be taken with τόδε (taunt us with this,
that ...), but is simply ‘smce’.
899, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐκεῖνο: like τοῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνο, a colloquialism, as it were “So
this is what that was; now J understand’. ξυμβεβᾶσιν ἀληθεῖς:
prove te have been true, by cohering with some new piece ot evidence.
This is implied by the compound, and there is no need for Herwerden’s
τοῖς τῆσδ᾽,
624. ἢ σ᾽: ὡς LP, ὧς ο᾽ Hermann, ὡς εἰς ἐμάς σ᾽ Pearson, defended by
the latter as — ὅτι οὕτως. But, as his examples show, such a ὡς
means either ‘for the degree to which...’ or ‘for the manner In
which...’, cf. on 862. Here one needs simply ‘the day which’, and
it is hardly conceivable that Eur. should have obscured the pomt.
Duo 625-87.
625 BA. & φίλτατ' ἀνδρῶν Mevédews, ὁ μὲν χρόνος |
παλαιάς, ἡ δὲ τέρψυς ἀρτίως πάρα. Ι] 2 trim.
ἔλαβον ἀσμένα πόσιν ἐμόν, φίλαι, ;
περί τ᾿ ἐπέτασα χέρα
φίλιον ἐν μακρᾷ φλογὶ φαεσφόρῳ. 5 doch.
630 Mev. κἀγὼ a€ πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ λόγους ἔχων
od οἶδ᾽ ὁποίου πρῶτον ἄρξωμαν τανῦν, 2 trim.
Ex, ψέγηθα, κρατὶ δ᾽ ὀρθίους ἐθείρας
ἀνεπτέρωσα καὶ δάκρυ στάλασσω, 2 trim. cat.
περὶ δὲ γυῖα χέρας ἔβαλον, ἡδονὰν
 LINES 601-677 105
635 ὦ πόσις ὡς λάβω. | 3 doch,
Mev. & φιλτάτη πρόσοψις, οὐκ ἐμέμφθην"
ἔχω τὰ τοῦ Διός {τεῦ λέκτρα “ήδας @’,. 2 trim. cat.
EA. ἂν ὑπὸ λαμπάδων κόροι λεύκιπποι 2 doch,
640 ξυνομαίμονες ὥλβισαν ὠλβισαν--- enop.
Mev. τὸ πρόσθεν, ἐκ δόμων δ᾽ ἐνόσφισαν θεοί. trim,
EA. πρὸς ἄλλαν γ᾽ ἐλαύνει
θεὸς συμφορὰν τᾶσδε κρείσσω. 5 bacch,
τὸ κακὸν δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν σέ τε κἀμὲ συνάγαγεν,
πόσι, enop.
645 χρόνιον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὀναέμαν τύχας. 2 doch,
Mev. dvaca δῆτα" ταὐτὰ δὲ ξυνεύχομαι"
δυοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν οὐχ ὁ μὲν τλήμων, ὁ δ᾽ οὔ, 2 trim.
EX, φίλαι φίλαι, jamb. met,
τὰ πάρος οὐκέτι στένομεν οὐδ᾽ ἀλγῷ.
650 πόσιν ἐμὸν ζἐμὸν) ἔχο- μὲν ἔχομεν ὃν ἔμενον
ἔμενον ἐκ Τροΐας πολυετῆ μολεῖν, 6 doch.
Mev. ἔχεις, ἐγώ re a’: ἡλίους δὲ μυρίους
μόλις διελθὼν ἠσθάμην τὰ τῆς θεοῦ. 2 trim.
EX, ἐμὰ δὲ χαρμονᾷ δάκρυα πλέον ἔχει
655 χάριτος ἢ λυπᾶς. 3 doch,
Mev......lacunam Zuntz......-
EA. τί φῶ; τίς ἂν τάδ᾽ ἤλπισεν βροτῶν ποτε; j| trim,
ἀδόκητον ἔχω σὲ πρὸς oTépvots, enop.
Mev. κἀγὼ σὲ τὴν δοκοῦσαν ᾿ἰδαίαν πόλιν trim,
μολεῖν *LAvou τε μελέους πύργους. 2 doch,
660 πρὸς θεῶν, δόμων πῶς τῶν ἐμῶν ἀπεοτά-
λης; trim.
EA, ἔ ἔ: πικρὰς ἐς ἀρχὰς βαΐνεις, res, cret.--doch,
é ἔ' πικρὰν δ᾽ ἐρευνᾷς φάτιν. res. cret.- doch.
Mev. λέγ᾽" ὡς ἀκουστὰ πάντα δῶρα δαιμόνων. trim,
Ba, ἀπέπτυσα μὲν λόγον οἷον οἷον ἐσοίσομαι. paroem.-+ doch.
665 Mev. ὅμως δὲ λέξον" ἡδύ τοὶ μόχθων κλύειν. trim,
Ea. ot« ἐπὶ βαρβάρου λέκτρα veavia
πετομένας κώπας
πετομένου δ᾽ ἔρωτος ἀδίκων γάμων 5 doch.
Mev. ris Cydp> σε δαίμων ἢ πότμος συλᾷ warpas; trim.
670 EA. 6 dios ὁ Aids ὦ πόσι ὦ --ὦὁ--
ἐπέλασεν Νείλῳ. 3 doch.
Mev. θαυμαστά" τοῦ τρέμψαντος; ὦ δεινοὶ λόγοι. trim.
Ein, κατεδάκρυσα καὶ βλέφαρον ὑγραίνω
δάκρυσιν" ἃ Aids μ΄ ἄλοχος ὥλεσεν, | 4 doch,
675 Mev. “ρα; τί νῷν χρήζουσα προσθεῖναι κακόν; trim,
BA, ὦ μου ἐγὼ κείνων λουτρῶν καὶ κρηνῶν
ive, θεαὶ μορφὰν
τοῦ COMMENTARY
ebauidpuvay, ev- fev ἔμολεν κρίσις, 5 doch.
Mev. τί δὴ κρίσιν σοὶ τῶνδ᾽ ἔθηχ᾽ Εἶρα κακὸν; trim.
680 fA, Πάριν ὡς ἀφέλοιτο Mev. πῶς; αὖδα,
EA, ἐζύπρις ᾧ μ᾽ ἐπένευσεν Mev. ὦ τλήμων. 2 enop.
Ἐλ, τλάμων τλάμων ὧδ᾽ ἐπέλασ᾽ Αἰγύπτῳ, [2 doch.
Mev, εἶτ᾽ ἀντέδωκ᾽ εἴδιολον, ὡς σέθεν κλύω. trim,
BA, τὰ δὲ <od> κατὰ μέλαθρα
685 πάθεα πάθεα pa- rep, οἱ ye, Mev. τί dns; 3 doch.
EA. οὐκ ἔστι μάτηρ' ἀγχόνιον δὲ βρόχον lamvel,
δι΄ ἐμὰν κατεδήσατο δυσγάμου αἰσχύναν. enop.
Mev. ris μοι θυγατρὸς δ᾽ “Ἑρμιόνης ἐστὶν βίος; trim.
EX, ἄγαμος ἄτεκνος ὦ πόσι καταστένει
Ggo . γάμον ἄγαμον ἐμόν. | 4 doch.
Mev. ὦ πᾶν κατ᾽ ἄκρας δῶμ᾽ ἐμὸν πέρσας Πάρις, trim.
τάδε καὶ σὲ διώλεσε μυριάδας τε enop.
χαλκεόπλων Ζαναῶν. Ἔ hemiep.
EA, ἐμὲ δὲ πατρίδος dro κακόποτμον ἀραΐαν
605 ἔβαλε θεὸς ἀπό {τε πύλεος ἀπὸ τε σέθεν,
ὅτε μέλαθρα λέχεα τ᾽ ἔλιπον οὐ λιποῦο᾽
ἐπ᾽ αἰσχροῖς γάμοις, + doch.
625-97. This Recognition Duo, like those of {1 827-99, fon 1437-1599,
Hyps. fr, 64. 7O-I1E (Incomplete), is astrophic (ἀπολελυμένα in Greek
terminology), composed in a mixture of trimeters and ‘associable’
metres (cf. Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, p. 198) of the types which ἡ
could easily pass into a half-spoken delivery: chiefly dochmuiacs,
bacchiacs, cretics, enoplians, hemiepe. Aecolo-choriambic and ionic
are rigidly excluded, dactylo-epitrite restricted’ to an occasional
lambelegos. In all these plays the male character performs wholly
er mainly in trims., the more emotional female wholly or mamly m
lyric. Menelaus (not elsewhere in the play a singing character) recites
catalectic trims. 636-7, and syllables which could form. segments
of iambic 681-2 and 685. He also has two more ambitious lyrical
salhes: one (659) to mark the end of the first part of the Duo, the
Kecognition proper, and a dicolon (692-3) to end his Interrogation.
Dochmiacs are of the usual type, the commonest being vuv—v—-
neveral are dragped UY τος τα or ge τοττ τ ποῦ others have the first
two, or the first and third, or all three longs resolved. 694 κακό-
πότμον dpaiay presents an awkward ambiguity: ezther it has a ‘dragged’
penult with preceding resolution instead of enclosed between longs

TI mark the first syllable of this form anceps, but not that of
—vu-w-, since the latter seems sometimes to behave.as a full long,
as In 664 οἷον ἐσοίσομαι, where it follows a short anceps at the end of the
first member of the dicolon v-ve-vu-y -vu-vu-, Anceps
luxta anceps 15 Impossible.
 LINES 625-629 107
(not securely attested elsewhere in any metre) oy the -ai- is short as
sometimes in δέκαιος, γεραιός, Πειραιᾶ, etc. Whether (apart from - οἱ τ)
the correption can occur in an accented syllable is uncertam; cer-
tainly it could not with a circumflex, but ὀρείαν 15 perhaps vv — In
Alc, 446, and I prefer this explanation to the former alternative.
Nearly all the dochmiacs are either separated by diaeresis or overlap
by one short syllable, and are easy to read, an exception being
perhaps 6so with Seidler’s necessary emendation; Helen’s emotion
15 here a rising flood. Enoplians vary in size from three to six longs,
and open with single- (664) or double-short (692). These two end
᾿ς pendant, but the majority bhint, like the dochmiac itself. In most
the movement changes from double-short to single-short at the end:
Yue eu Ue UU vue, or the last twa short elements
may be single UV —-v uv —v-v—, but in this form the colon is in this
passage always ‘dragged’: 657 ἀδόκητον ἔχω σε πρὸς στέρνοις ey —
~w—-o-,as again 680 and 681 (cf. Zon. 1494). 687 1s a form with five
longs and dragged close υὐττυω--οὐ πω τς -ς repeated fon
1442. 644 with six longs vu ~ vu τωυυπυσττυ του -- 15 again an
echo of Jon 1466, followed here by two dochmiaes. .

The textual problems of this scene have become acute since the
recovery of a papyrus fragment (P.Oxy. 2336, published 1954) datmg
from the first century B.C., with parts of lines 630-91 and a few letters
from the beginnings of lines 663-74. A reconstruction of this with
the help of LP’s text was given by G. Zuntz in Munem, 1961, now re-
vised with full and careful discussion in chaps. 4 and 5 of his indis-
pensable Inguiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides,
C.U.P., 1965. To repeat or analyse these results at length would be
beyond the scope of this commentary ; some more detailed discussion
of the difficult middle part will be found in the Appendix.
Attribution to the right speaker is of course crucial for a proper
understanding of this duo, LP are quite inadequate in this respect,
and editors vary considerably in their solutions. Unfortunately the
first parts of the lines in 7 (the papyrus) with the informative ‘para-
graphos’ (the dash under the begmning of a hne when change of
speaker is to follow) are missing in all the doubtful part; 663-74
where the paragraphos duly appears present no problems. Intermal
evidence, of both form and content, has to be carefully considered.
625. The time [of waiting] kas been long, but the joy zs here and now.
Greek (cf. Fr. depuis longtemps) uses present tenses with words like
πάλαι, παλαιός, Where English has the perfect.
628. Hermann’s correction is universally accepted ; the syllables must
all be short. —
629. ἐν for our ‘after’ is idiomatic in such phrases, cf.. Jebb on 5, OC
88 ἐν χρόνῳ μακρῷ, The sun’s course is thought of as a continuum,
τοῦ COMMENTARY

hence the sing. dAcy!, although φαεσφόρῳ implies the sequence of

dawns which mark the passage of time.
630. Menelaus, who has a far more bewildering adjustment to make
than Helen, feels there is still so much to be sazd between them before
the situation can become real.
632-3. The shiver of joy as in S. «47. 693 ἐφριξ᾽ ἔρωτι. ἀνεπτέρωσα IT
or -xa LP are equally possible.
634-6. A most uncomfortable crux, which HZ does nothing to solve.
LP has here περὶ δὲ γυῖα χεῖρας ἔβαλον ἡδονὰν ws AdBw, | & πόσις
ὦ φιλτάτη πρόσοψις" | οὐκ ἐμέμφθην. This would scan after a fashion:
troch. dim. | two cret. {πο τοττ πω ττυ 0Ε Supp. 1131, 1ambo-
_ chor, trim. cat.|] troch. metron. Menelaus then presumably takes
over with οὐκ ἐμ. Elmsley’s correction, however, making (with
xépas) two dochmiacs down to ἡδονὰν and a third by transferring
ὦ πόσις before ὡς λάβω, seemed self-evidently night. Menelaus then
picks up at & φιλ., and (with Διός <ve> in the next line) has two trim.
cat. to match Helen’s 632-3. But now J7 shows the main trouble to
be already there fourteen centuries before, and even adds to it by |
ending the second dochmaic in #$evy and starting the third with
.¢ ὡς λάβω. This was at first taken to confirm Elmsley, but
Zuntz is quite clear that there is room only for three or at most four
letters; moreover the next line has a gap of six letters foilowed by
ὦ φιλτάτα πρόσοψις, which strongly suggests ὦ πόσις here as in LP,
The isolated trochaic there follows m the next line here too.
For Zuntz’s solution see the Appendix. I find myself unable, for
reasons there given, to accept it, and feel compelled to start from
the wholly appropriate two trim. cat. given to Menelaus in our old
standard texts. This throws back ὦ πόσις to the end of Helen’s
words, and since she cannot be allowed the horrible dochmiac ὡς
λάβῶ ὦ πόσις we return gratefully to Elmsley. 1 admit to bemg
totally baffled by ’s jSery ....c, and this must leave the whole
passage shadowed by a doubt which hardly existed before, The
vagueness and inconsistency throughout over the “Doric a’ in both
texts is quite usual, and need not trouble us. (1 have chosen to
systematize by giving Helen a and Menelaus 9, as indicating a slightly
different style of delivery.)
636~7. ‘O dearest vision,’ cries Menelaus, ‘I have no fault to find: |
hold my wife, child of Zeus and Leda,’ ἐμέμφϑην im pres. sense, as
often in these impulsive judgements, cf. 463. For the absolute sense
of οὐκ ἐμέμφθην cf. A. Supp. 137 οὐδὲ μέμφομαι, The reference 15
forward, to the next line, as the asyndeton shows. Pearson’s transla-
tion ‘my heart is full’ goes too far, but is right in principle, nor does
the litotes seem to me offensive, as Zuntz finds it; on the contrary, “ἢ
am not blaming you’ (for whatever it may be, v. App.) would be an
insufferable remark,
 LINES 630-638 τοῦ

637 has the same form ἔχω τὰ τοῦ Διὸς λέκτρα ήδας τε in IT as in
LP, Here Zuntz says we must accept τοῦ, and I agree, but not with
his translation, He argues that λέκτρα = ‘daughter’, and defends it
by Jed. 594; the two together are to prove that λέκτρα can mean
either ‘marriage-bed’ or ‘fruit of marriage-bed’, 1.6. if personal either
‘wife’ or ‘offspring’. This seems to me both a priori improbable and
in fact a mismterpretation of both passages, It is hardly conceivable
that in Medea, a play in which λέχος and λέκτρον are constantly re-
curring keywords, the latter could suddenly change its meaning to
one never found m any extant play, common though the word is.
504 γῆμαΐ με λέκτρα βασίλεως ἃ νῦν ἔχω Cannot mean ‘marry the king’s
daughter whom I now possess’ (for one thing, this should on the
analogy of Hel. 573 and 639 be ἣν νῦν ἔχω. Elmsley’s βασιλέων must
be right, though not for his wrong reasons or in his wrong sense (as
a masc. plur. used with fem. sing. reference), but sumply—=Aéxrpa
τυράννων 149, royal bride or royal marriage: the word fluctuates
between the personal and the impersonal sense. ‘Make this royal
marriage (marry into the bed of kings) which is now within my
grasp.’ So here, Menelaus is saying in effect, not ‘I hold the daugh-
ter of Zeus and Leda’, as though pluming himself on his aristo-
cratic connexions, but “I hold my Zeus-and-Leda-born wife’, my
own wife, the real Helen. ἔχω τὰ λέκτρα really cannot be spoken
by Menelaus at this supreme moment of realization in any other
sense than ‘my own wedded wife’. In terms of ordinary grammar
ἔχω τὰ λέκτρα implies τἀμὰ λέκτρα, a phrase which Helen could use
of herself (cf. Phoen. 14) or Menelaus could use of Helen (cf. 1634). In
full the expression would be ἔχω τὰ ἐμὰ λέκτρα, τὴν τοῦ τε Aids Kal τῆς
Axjdsas, but here τὰ ἐμὰ and τὴν have been telescoped into τὰ and the
order artificially Involved. Since ἔχω τὰ τοῦ Auds λέκτρα would be
a highly misleading way to begin the sentence, as though = ‘I hold
Hera’, Διός <re> 15 needed, to keep both meaning and metre straight.
ἔχω Ta THs Aids λέκτρα with the double gen. would be of no help;
Menelaus is not saying ‘I am married to Helen’, nor could one
supply ‘I hold my wife consisting of Helen’.
638 fi. The next passage holds both the worst discrepancy between
ΠῚ and LP and a complicated problem of attribution. To begin. with,
Zuntz argues trefutably that ἂν ὑπὸ A... . must have been given to
Heien in the Alexandrian edition because (p.-234) ‘an elided syllable
at the end of a verse-lme is written in full if it is followed by a change
of speaker, and only then ; where there is no such change, the syllable
is apostrophized and prefixed to the following verse’. Of this he gives
ample demonstration, the practice having descended to our MSS.,
though we have adopted different conventions of print. Helen then
picks up at 638 after an elision and on a relative pronoun ἂν (for
λέκτρα... ἂν Pearson compares 573), and changing to dochmiac
ΤΟ COMMENTARY
utterance; this we must reckon with as acceptable duo-style. The
next clear change of speaker is between 641, where the subject of
ἐνόσφισαν is θεοί, and 642-3, where it becomes θεὸς, (Elmsley’s emen-
dations 641-2 followed by edd. are attempts at tidying up rather than
probable conjecture.) J7’s ‘assenting’ γ᾽ 642 emphasizes the change.
But the metre and the tone of hope in κρείσσω 643 and ἀγαθὸν 044
mark 642-5 as all Helen’s, with Menelaus taking over τὰ the two ©
following trimeters (neither Helen, as LP, nox Chor., as Wilamowitz,
has any probability). This means that somewhere between 638 and
642 Menclaus must have intervened, and it is here that the text 15 at
its most problematical.
I have explained in the Appendix why I feel unable simply to
- discard the text of LP here and adopt Π as reconstituted by Zuntz.
It is, I think, clear that there are two discrepant traditions m these
lines; LP is too coherent, m sense and metre, to be the product
simply. of wild corruption which has somehow aiter all omissions
and intrusions closed up and left (with the deletion of the last
word) a satisfactory text. So we are left with two alternative ver-
sions, and I confess that of the two I find LP the easier to believe.
_ Zuntz restores Π as dAPoov: (Men.) ὄλβισαν ἐμὲ σέ re μάταν | θεοὶ
δόμων [δ᾽ ἐνόσφισαν. (1) LP: ‘whom .. . my brothers hailed as happy,
happy—’ <Menelaus> ‘once, but the gods took [you] from home.’
ἂν carries through from 639. (2) Π ap. Z: ‘whom... my brothers
hailed as happy.’ Menelaus: “They hailed as happy me and you~
in vain, and the gods took [us] from home.’ ὥλβισαν . .. μάταν as ἴῃ
Andy. 1218 μάτην δέ 0° ἐν γάμοισιν ὥλβισαν θεοί. For the strange re-
petition of ὥλβισαν by a different speaker, the order of words, and
the formidable metrical problem, v. App. ,
642-5. ‘Ves, god is driving us on to a different lot, better than this;
it was a fortunate misfortune that brought you and me together, my
- husband—after a long time indeed, but still may I live to enjoy my
- Tot’ ἐλαύνει; pres.; the process is still going on. συμφορὰν LP,
giving an unbroken line of bacchiacs, cf. fon. 1446, is clearly superior
to τύχαν, which is all ΠῚ has room for, συνάγαγεν, woot: 1 take it
that this is implied in the text of JZ. Zuntz gives συνάγαγεν ᾧ woo(e):,
but the w is denied by other experts, and πόσει; as he says, 15 prob-
ably! the common misspelling of πόσι. The whole of 644-5 is thus
metrically an exact echo of Jen 1466-7, down to Pause at the end
of the penultimate line before the two-dochmiac clausula. )
646-7. ‘May you indeed ; and I join you m the same prayer’ —ée¢ as ff,
rather than δὴ after δῆτα, since Menelaus means ὀναίμην καὶ eya—
‘for of us two the one is not unhappy without the other’. The phrase

τ ΤΊ could also be dative, but the zeugma of ‘jomed you [to a wife]
and -me to a husband’ seems an ineffective complication.
 LINES 642-668 III
is normally uséd of a number of people, meaning ‘all alike’, with no
exceptions; here it is more pointed.
648-51. Helen is resolved to repine no more over the past, though from
661 to the end of the duo her will fails her. 7 anticipates LP in an
unmetrical 650; the second ἐμὸν (restored by Seidler) has already
dropped out. Possibly Hermann’s πόσιν ἔχομεν ἔχομεν ἐμὸν ἐμὸν
ὃν ἔμενον should beadoptedas more in tune with the other dochmiacs
In this passage. The threefold repetition almost matches Aristopha-
nes’ parody Ran. 1351-5. |
653. i.e. I now understand the part played by Hera (the Phantom),
654-5. LP divide ἐμὰ δὲ δάκρυα χαρμονὰ πλέον ἔχει x. HAL,ἃ colometry
which is probably Alexandrian, carrying on to the first word-end
that makes a familiar colon (lekythion). Elmsley’s transposition
gives three dochmiacs separated by diaeresis, and a better word order.
With Murray’s punctuation the text could then stand, but the causal
dat. (Hermann) makes it less. disjomted. χάριτος; opposed to
λύπας, χάρις being sometimes almost interchangeable with χαρά, cf.
Bond on Hyps. 64. 61. , :
656. This trim. follows badly on the previous line, and Zuntz’s calcula-
tion from the length of adjacent papyrus-columns that LP are two
Nines or so shorter in this part probably means as he suggests that
an utterance of Menelaus has dropped out here. τάδ᾽: referring to
the next line. | ΣΝ
659. lind of Recognition proper. ΝΞ τ
660. Menelaus here begins to ask the things he needs to know. Helen
answers reluctantly and with distress. Twice she fails to bring her-
self to start, though gently encouraged, and the third time gives
negative answer, before coming to the direct reply 670.
661. Of the alternatives given by LP the plural πικρὰς ἀρχὰς is stylis-
tically preferable, ΕΣ ᾿
663. ‘All that the gods give is fit to heat’, or ‘we must bear to hear’.
664, οἷον οἷον as fou 1471 οἷον οἷον ἀνελέγχομαι, where the verb is passive.
One might wonder whether the echo of this line in Eur.’s ear pro-
duced the middle voice here, since εἰσφέρω in this sense (‘come out
with’) is elsewhere always active. Lenting ἐσοέσομεν, but there are
so many verbs that sooner or later drop into a rare middle, especially
in the future, cf. on τοῦτ.
665. rou: the phrase has a proverbial sound, and is rather elliptically
‘phrased—past troubles, he means, told as a tale by the survivor.
666-8. A thoroughly unsatisfactory bit of lyric. λέκτρα for λέκτρου
is essential, and the transposition of λέκτρα and βαρβάρον gives better
dochmiacs than οὐκ ἐπὶ λέκτρα βαρ- βάρου veavia, but what is the
construction? The double gen. abs. has no pied ἃ terre; Wecklein
refers them back to ἀπεστάλης across all intervening obstacles ; Most
take them as the beginning of the sentence 67o-z, but Menelaus’
112 COMMENTARY

trimeter, especially with <ydp>, has anything but the air of an

interruption; moreover 67o-r are much more natural as a self-
contained answer to 669. Nor is iteasy to believe in two gen. abs. left
in vacuo, to express Helen’s agitation. The repetition πετομένας ...
πετομένου in different kinds and degrees of metaphor—on the wmgs
of the oar and the wings of desire of sinful marriage—seems to me
a strange conflation rather than ‘elegant’ (Pearson). Worst of all,
although we are told (without parallels) that οὐκ 666 ‘carries through’
to the end of the sentence, the easier sense of the Greek as it stands
seems to be not ‘not A nor B’, but ‘not A bud B’ (cf., e.g., 5. Phil. 971),
and it is difficult to resist Reiske’s suggestion that πετομένου δ᾽ ἔρωτος
conceals the missing finite verb and οὐδέ, His κέλομεν οὐδ᾽ ἐρῶντες
is good save for the unsatisfactory main verb, for which it is dithcult
to find a substitute; possibly something like εἰπόμεθ᾽.
669. συλᾷ σε πάτρας: apparently ‘bore you off as spoil from .. εὖ
670. IZ, which here vouchsafes a few line-openings, has O04... | | Mf.
-Zuntz reasonably interprets this as ὁ Aids ὁ Διὸς ὦ πόσι | Maias re
mats | μ᾽ ἐπέλασεν Νείλῳ, This was Elmsley’s conjecture for the
obviously defective LP (Hermes cannot be identified from ‘the son
of Zeus’), but he meant πόσι Μαίας τε παῖς μ᾽ asa dochmiac, naturally.
It would be interesting to know whether the original of H’s colo-
metry did not recognize wu -—-v— asa perinissible dochmiac, or
whether it was the supposed form πόσ(ενι (cf. on 644) which gave the
scansion lekythion | lambic metron | dochmiac for 670-1. There
must be three dochmiacs here, but the form of the middle one is
very perplexing. v v—— — is very poorly attested ; see Barrett on
Hipp. 670, p. 434. Hermann’s πόσι pe παῖς Matas 7° would have been
such a simple way to compose a regular dochmiac, but now it
postulates a tangled little process of corruption.
673. κατεδάκρυσα: again the ‘emotional’ aor. ‘I burst into tears and
my eyelids are wet with tears’: Eur. does at times compose lyric
with this kind of indifference to redundancy.
675. τί νῷν: Hermann ingeniously supplies the essential dat. after
προσθεῖναι. :
676-7. LP’s reading, though widely accepted, would be unintelligible
in dochmiac utterance, and even with punctuation in print is pitiable
Greek. As Wilamowitz says (GV 565), the sudden reference to “baths
and springs’ would be easier if they were localized ‘on Ida’, but
ὦμοι ᾿Ιδαίων with hiatus instead of correption is unpleasing, and τῶν
"Ἴδᾳ too far from the text. Perhaps ὦμοι ἐγὼ κείνων might serve the
same kind of purpose. ἵνα = ‘where’.
679. The sense needed is clear: why should the Judgement of the
Cioddesses have made Hera afflict you? Murray’s attempt to keep
the text as an unfinished sentence, sc. αἰτίαν, is unlike the style
Wilamowiltz: τάδ᾽ εἰς κρίσιν σοι τήνδ᾽ ἔθηχ᾽
of Menelaus’ trimeters,
 LINES 669-691 «£33
“Hpa κακά; but Helen answers the question “Why? not “Did she?’
and neither ἐς κρίσιν. τήνδ᾽ = ‘with reference to this judgement’ nor
ἔθηκέ cot κακά == “caused you trouble’ is quite idiomatic. The really
clinching conjecture eludes us; perhaps Herwerden’s, adopted here,
is as good as any: ‘Why did Helen make a calamity for you of their
judgement (= the judgement on them)?” To Menelaus the judge-
ment of Paris 1s a familiar story ; it is only the subsequent turn given
to it by Hera’s resentment that is new.
680-2. Helen’s words are a continuous sentence with pe the object of
all three verbs: ‘It was in order to withhold me from Paris, to whom
Cypris had promised me, that she—cruel, cruel—brought me thus to
Egypt.’ Simce τλάμων must mean ‘cruel’ in 682 it is better to take
it the same way for Menelaus 681 ὦ τλήμων (as Hermann) apostro-
phizing Hera rather than pitying Helen. Πάριν... Κύπρις (Reiske)
is essential for the sense. Kirchhoff’s elaborate emendation of 682
(app. crit.), on the other hand, though surprisingly adopted by
many, seems due to the idea that τλήμων must mean ‘miserable’,
whereas it has the same range as the verb τλάω, cf., e.g., Med. 865
and my note on Ale, τ,
686-7. Many edd. make four dochmiacs of these lines : οὐκ ἔστιν μάτηρ" |
ἀγχόνιον βρόχον δι᾽ ἐμὲ κατεδήσατο δύσγαμον αἰσχύνᾳ. LP end
δύσγαμος αἰσχύναν, but δύσμαμος must be wrong, since it is Helen’s
adjective, not Leda’s; αἰσχύναν is inconsistent with ἐμὲ, and one or
the other must be emended, I have no doubt that Murray is right
in choosing δι᾽ ἐμὰν... αἰσχύναν, thus making the line a dragged
enoplon, and preceding it by the iambelegos as given by LP, since
exactly the same couplet is found fon 1441-2. (Cf. supr. on 642~5§.)
| Moreover the form of δι’ ἐμὲ κατεδήσατο as a dochmiac weve
x vv, with “drag’ between two resolutions, is (even if possible) too
outlandish. for this conventional context. I would, however, read
δυσγάμου αἰσχύναν,
689. There is no parallel for LP’s unhkely way of saying ‘Is our
daughter Hermione alive?’ and Badham's τίς pot θυγατρὸς δ᾽ is well
calculated to receive Helen’s answer {βέος = manner of hfe). For
postponed δέ see Denn. GP 187-8,
690. Hermann’s ἐμόν completes both sense and metre. αἰσχύνα LP is
an Intrusion from 68%.
691 ff. Does Menelaus here break loose and follow his trimeter with
lyric? Triclinius prefixed A. to 694, P seems to have found it at 692.
On general grounds one might have supposed that Helen would sing
this more unorthodox rhythm, but καὶ σὲ, ‘you ie’, would have no
meaning, and διώλεσε is too strong a word. So as the final strand in
the pattern Menelaus must speak and sing of the wreck of his house
and the devastation of the war, and Helen adds mm agitated doch-
miacs, steadying at the close, a summary of her own misfortunes,
114 COMMENTARY
692-3. Wilamowitz proposes τάδε {πόλιν τε σὰν καὶ σὲ διώλεσεν two
dechmiaes, as a better balance of retribution than the smgle death
_ against so many thousands of Greeks. That 1s undeniable, but
Menelaus may have left his hearers to include Troy im the ruin that
_ overwhelmed Paris. If the whole made four dochmiacs as Wilamo-
witz intended, it would be much more probable, but μυριάδας τε
χαλ- κεόπλων Δαναῶν cannot be two dochmiacs, whether the syHable
-or- be long or short. The anapaestic vy — vv — is not a form of
dochmiac};.it can in certain circumstances be associated with doch-
miacs, but only if self-contained, We should have to read (with
δικύλεσεὶ) νά πτ-ῳ -- Kee] — We my which 15

inferior to the enopl. + hemiepes given by LP.

696. ἔλιπον of λιποῦσ᾽: as Pearson says, not to be separated, i.e. not
‘when I left..., though not for a base love’, but ‘when I left-
without-leaving my home and bed for a base love’. It was not true,
but the consequences happened as if it had been. The fact that she
really did go has been given by ἔβαλε.
698. εἰ kai: ‘if indeed’, if it should prove that... ; mdicating ‘cautious
reserve rather than scepticism’, Denn. GP 303.
699. They would be enough m relation to the past, ‘they would make
up for the past’.
700, πρόσδοτον isi the simplest and best emendation of πρόσδοτε, The |
dual is a constant source of trouble. προσδίδωμι + gen, ‘give a share
_ of” is not unusual, ef. γε, 531, Supp. 351.
701: ‘I see without properly understanding.’
702. The ἀλλά of comphance,. falling in with a request.
703. βραβεύς: lit. ‘arbitrator’, a curious application of the word. (The
_ yneaning ‘author’ given for this one reference in LS would be quite
disconnected from all other uses of the word.) The nearest approach
to this passage seems to be Or. 106s, where Orestes asks Pylades to
act as βραβεύς of his and Electra’s seif-slaughter, decreed by the
Argives; is Pylades to be merely, as it were, presiding officer to see
that both carry out the deed properly, ‘overseer’ ? Conceivably some
kind of rivalry in nobility (1064) could be the subject of a ‘judgement
between two parties’ such as the word seems to require. Here,
- however, Helen would more naturally be the βράβευμα (Soph. fr.
317P), the judge’s award to the winning side, and it is only by a kind
of shorthand that she is herself seen as actually ‘arbitratmg’, in
default of any human judge. The word, masculine in form but used
of a woman, 15 a nomen agentis of the same kind as φονεύς 280,
διαφθορεὺς Hipp, 682.
705-6. νεφέλης ἄγαλμ᾽; the Phantom is agaim described as a ‘cloud-
image’ 1219. λυγρόν was deleted by Badham to make room for τί φής;
ας but ἀντιλαβή so late in the line would be as unusual as τέ φής; extra
metrum, and if ἃ word had been inserted as a stop-gap one would
 LINES 692-711 115
perhaps expect a perfunctory κακόν rather than the more exact
Avypov, There is no close parallel to τέ das; extra metrum in Eur.,
but it is in effect as exclamatory as da (cf. τί φῶ; 5. OC 315). The next
line is thus thrown into high relief, and its content is indeed the
central irony of the play, but the Servant, though apparently once
_a hghtmg man (734-5), does not elaborate upon the theme as one
might expect,
lo delete yos and τί dys; with Kirchhoff and Wecklem, just to
preserve the short stichomythia, is nmmpossible; the old man ob-
viously picks up νεφέλης ἄγαλμα with νεφέλης dp’ ἄλλως, and would
not have made that step in the deduction unprompted.
708. ‘Tie fudgement of Paris is assumed to be common knowledge,
though not of course Hera’s reaction to it (cf. on 679). The ex-
pression 15 abbreviated: this 15 Hera’s doing, the outcome of the
contest. :
709-10, “And your real wife is this woman here?’—‘She and no other—
take my word for it.” The δ᾽ is a typical unwanted intrusion.
711 fi. The Servant’s first comments on this shattering revelation are
‘limited to the lessons he can draw from his own circle of relation-
ships—master, mistress, loyal servant. Menelaus suffered and toiled
for years and got nothing for it ; now a curious turn of fortune throws
-evyerything into his lap, so capricious is the power that controls our
destinies. ‘Helen had suffered too, from scandal, but now he 15
happy to find her iinocent and can renew the sentiments of his
bridal song at her wedding. For though a slave he is capable of the
virtues of loyalty and sympathy with his masters.
The first part of this is cast.m the common rhetorical form:
generalization, followed by its particular application in the present
case. The generalization (711-15) found its way into Stobaeus’
selection in a form beginning σκέψαι γὰρ d θεὸς ὃς ἔχει τι ποικίλον, but
that is unlikely to be anything more than a little clipping and
grooming (plus a corruption és for ὡς) for its place in an anthology,
After that, however, it continues as our text does, with a hardly
tolerable obscurity ; perhaps it had already been garbled in an earlier
collection of gnomic excerpts. God (says the Servant piously, using
the sort of language more often applied to τύχη) is many-sided and
hard to mterpret, εὖ δέ πῶς ἀναστρέφει | ἐκεῖσε κἀκεῖσ᾽ ἀναφέρων.
ἀναστρέφει “turns upside down’ (cf. Supp. 331 ὁ γὰρ βεὸς πάντ᾽ ἀνα-
στρέφει πάλιν) and ἀναφέρων disposing ? adjusting ? without any object
are of a baffling vagueness. εὖ͵ δέ πως, ‘rather ingeniously’, ‘with a
curious sort of skill’, is too idiomatic to lose (cf., e.g., Phoen. 1466,
ZA 66), and Herwerden’s πάντα στρέφει would supply an object for
both verbs; perhaps it is best left at that: he turns things this way
and that and changes ali their dispositions. Now comes the generali-
zation, expressed ag an antithesis. There was an old Greek adage
116 COMMENTARY

which said (cf. Eur. frag. 7orN? μοχθεῖν ἀνάγκη τοὺς θέλοντας εὐτυχεῖν)
‘Success is the reward of effort’. One man makes the effort, another
makes none. The consequences for the latter are put first (714-1 5):
‘and then another day comes to a bad end, finding no stability m
fortune as it stands at any given time.’ We now expect to be told
that the former gains the reward of his toils, but this is where the
capriciousness of the gods comes in. The general point the Servant
wants to make seems to be: He who does make the effort may even
appear to fail and yet later win his desire, when he has ceased trying.
But instead of completing the generalization the Servant hurries
on to his particular instance: So you, Helen, [Helen, whose πόνοι
were of the passive, not the active kind, is included for form's sake|
and your husband had your share of trouble. He strove eamestly,
and so long as he strove got nothing for it, but now winning the
highest good fortune he finds blessings unsought.
Undoubtedly this would have been much clearer and more im
line with Eur.’s normal patterns of rhetoric if the generalization
had been completed first, and perhaps it is not fanciful to see in this
utterance a degree of artlessness deliberately intended to characterize
the speaker. Eur. is not in general much given to mixing what Anis-
totle would call his διάνοια with ἦϑος, but it can perhaps be claimed
that he has a way of letting his plebeian figures (the unnamed ones,
excluding Messengers) dilate at some length on minor aspects of
no great relevance to the immediate situation; cf. the Nurse in
Med. 119-30. It is certainly curious that the speeches of this par-
ticular Old Servant should so persistently raise the question of
how much awkwardness and doddering irrelevance we must accept.
726-4 just below, for instance, would make an acceptable couplet
of gnomic self-satisfaction to close this speech, and to pursue the
point for six lmes more verges on the silly. 744-57 sets an even harder
problem, v. intr,
724, ἵπποις: dat. after the παρά in the verb, not, as LS oddly suggests,
with tpoxdfwv, of a charioteer. He ran on foot. The only other
occurrence of τροχάξω in poetry is lyric, Eur. Hyps. 64. 59 ἐτρόχασεν,
probably also to be taken, with Bond, as intrans. = τρέχω.
725. ἔλειπες: the correction is from the Aldine. The gaiety and
ceremony of the wedding procession of Helen and Menelaus had been
described by Stesichorus; Athenaeus gives us an extract “from the
Helen’ (187PMG), and since here 720-5 also recalls the lyrics of the
ἀναγνώρισις 639-41 the whole is quite likely to be a deliberate reminis-
cence of Stesichorus.
729, That a slave can be γενναῖος is a favourite oxymoron of Eur., cf.
infr. 1641, and for similar sentiments Jom 854, frr. 495, 511, 831; fre-
quent repetition does not make it less a personal conviction.
731-2. δυοῖν... ἕν᾽: ‘a single person.,.a double misfortune’; the
 LINES 724-744 117
formal antithesis is a peculiarly Greek way of emphasizing the lack
of essential connexion between the two κακά. ἃ
839. ἀκούειν: ‘obey’ = ὑπακούειν in Eur. only here and infr. 141s.
734, ἄγ᾽ with ἄγγειλον 737. πολλὰ μὲν, καὶ νῦν : cf. 9, A}. 1-3 ἀεὶ
ev... καὶ νῦν.
738. of τ᾽ ἐσμὲν τύχης: of (ποῖ, ὅποι), and οὗ, ἧ, etc., are easily mixed,
and it is often difficult to decide whether the ‘directional’ form can
stand, Where the verb itself implies previous motion, like καθέσταμεν
in OC 23, there need be no hesitation, but with εἰμέ the problem is
harder, In the famous passage of Dem. on the Athenians’ reactions
to Philip’s. tactics (4. 40) which Pearson quotes, κἂν ἑτέρωσε πατάξῃ τις,
ἐκεῖσε εἰσὶν at χεῖρες, érépwoe prepares for ἐκεῖσε, and the whole point
hes in the immediacy of the picture. A complete parallel would be
Ax. Av. g ποῖ γῆς ἐσμὲν with good MS. authority, and these two
passages must stand or fail together. In both the sense of the con-
text implies movement, there literal, here metaphorical—their for-
tunes have changed considerabiy since he last saw his companions.
Infr. 1607 is different again: in ὅποι vécoey ... ταύτῃ προσῆγε: χεῖρα
the ὅποι and the ταύτῃ seems as it were to have changed places and
produce a kind of balance which supports the traditional reading.
740, οἵ μένουσιν οὖς ἐλπίζομεν LP could only mean ‘which await those
I am expecting them to await’, and I cannot understand the Budé
translation “en perspective des combats que j’appréhende’.
741-3. LP καὶ τήνδε πῶς δυναίμεθ᾽ ἐκπλέξαι χθονός; where P’s corrector
substitutes ἐκκλέψαι. It is usual to adopt this, with L. Dindorf’s xe
τήνδε πως and a comma either after χθονός or after φρουρεῖν, But
neither φρουρεῖν ὅπως ἂν + subj. nor φρουρεῖν εἰ + opt. is at all reassur-
ing, and εἰ δυναίμεθα followed within the same sentence by the correct
ἣν δυνώμεθα is strange and clumsy. Herwerden, with ef for καὶ 741,
deletes 742-3, but the notion of combining their own escape with
Helen’s deliverance is surely essential. Jackson (p. 240) makes ex-
cellent sense by cutting out πῶς... ; φρουρεῖν, leaving ἀγῶνας of
pévovai pe... καὶ τήνδ᾽, The intrusive words, meant to supply a verb
ior καὶ τήνδε, are not more of a muddle than such interpolations tend
to be. |
744-60. If Eur.-had wanted to bring home to his hearers the futility
of war, or the frivolous cruelty and irresponsibility of the gods in
their dealings with men, here would have been the moment, but the
Qld Servant would hardly be the person. Instead he manages to
retain his piety, and singles out human μαντεκή for his attack : why
had not the seers warned them that the sack of Troy was all for
nothing? The way to approach the gods is by sacrifice and prayer,
letting be divination. The Chorus applauds this: to have the gods as
your friends is the best home-mantic. How sacrifice and prayer would
have helped in this situation is not explained, and concentration
814172 I
ττϑ COMMENTARY
at such length on a minor side-issue is undoubtedly a typical
reaction of the limited mind and outlook (as of the Servant); it is
nevertheless not surprising that Eur. has often been credited here
with a desire to lash out at contemporary divination and the recent
part it had played before the Sicilian Expedition (cf. Thuc. vin. 1),
but cf. El. τοῦ 400, {7 70-1, Phoen. 954-9, Bacch. 255~7, 1A 955-9,
in ali of which, whatever the prejudices of the speaker, the tone of
hostility and contempt 15 unvarying.
For an assessment of this speech in comparison with others the
reader may be referred to Holger Friis Johansen, General Reflection
in Tragic Rhesis (Copenhagen, 1959), pp. 92-99, and particularly to
his arguments for rejecting sections of the speech of Orestes Εἰ, 367 ff.,
which contrast with his more conservative attitude here. Some
editors let the whole through as it stands, alia alii excidunt aut
transponunt, and Hartung once threw out 744-60 at one sweep.
Suspicion centres on 746-8, 752, and 755~7, which are discussed as
they arise in the following.
745. ἐσεῖδον: ‘I do now see’, the aor. expressing the flashof realiza-
tion just after it has occurred.
746-8. Mantic is subdivided into the observation of (a) sacrificial
flames, (6) the cries of birds, with a further note that the mere idea
of deriving help from birds is manifestly silly. There 1is nothing to
abject to here, but the connexion of the sentence and the grammar
are doubtful. At 746 one would expect asyndeton, with elther ed«...
οὐδὲ OF ovr’... οὔτε, φθέγματα 747 has no construction : the common
colloquialism ὑγιὲς οὐδέν can be worked into the construction erther
as an acc, (οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς λέγων, etc.) or more elaborately with a (parti-
tive) gen. dependent on οὐδέν, as 746 here, Bacch. 262, Cyc. 259. No
plausible ermendation has been suggested, and I am mclined to sus-
pect an intrusion from another passage which had the connexion
οὐδ᾽ In 746 and in 747 a further sentence beginning οὐδὲ πτερωτῶν
φθέγματα. .. (lacuna of one line) εὔηθες δέ ror κτλ, the lengthier
second subdivision being followed by the contemptuous comment,
Κάλχας γὰρ 749 fits on easily to 745 as its concrete illustration.
151. Porson’s οὐδ᾽ “Ἕλενος ingeniously adds the most famous Trojan seer.
752. Most edd. delete, because of the awkward reference right back
to οὐκ εἶπε and the late, untragic imperf, ἠβούλετο, Cobet conjectured,
in deleting it, the handiwork οὐ some pious defender of μαντική.
753. μαντευόμεβθα is only found as a correction of LP μαντευόμεσθα in
a late copy, and self-evident though this seems, it.is worth noting
that the word-rhythm -- -- Uv is almost unexampled in tragedy,
even in late Hur. The only parallels I have found are the extremely
dubious εἰλισσόμεθα Or. 444, and Crates fr. 4N? ἐργαζόμενας. I am
aware, however, that this wil seem insufficient grounds for extendmg
suspicion from the preceding lines.
 LINES 745-771 t19
755-7 have a degree of irrelevance to this context, and in particular
to the rest of the speech, which few readers find themselves able to
take, and the Chorus’s agreement 758 is with the sentiments of 753-4,
not at all with 755-7, for all the close echo in ἀρίστη μάντις...
aptorny μαντικήν, an echo which is itself no doubt responsible for the
intrusion of this ‘associated parallel’ here.
The whole speech, if reduced to the seven lines 744~5, 749~51,
753-4, acquires much greater clarity and ends in the approved
manner with two gnomic lines. In this form it has just enough
irrelevance to the main issue and relevance to the character of the
Servant to be conceivable as a deliberate touch of Euripidean irony,
761. εἶξν; the formula for dismissing one subject or one aspect of a
question and taking up another. δεῦρ᾽ ἀεὶ go together (δεῦρο in the
sense of ‘up to now’), a phrase found several times in Eur. but also
in A, Hum. 596.
168 171. Eur. neatly avoids holding up the action by unwanted narrative,
while yet not leaving Helen indifferent to her husband’s past troubles.
764, αἰσθέσθαι: apparently ‘to hear of’, ‘be informed’, for which
Pearson quotes Or. 1550 as the nearest parallel, but it strikes strangely
here as used of the sufferer’s own narration of his story, especially
with the word κακά: ‘those who love long to be told of their loved
ones’ misfortunes’—one would at least rather expect τύχας, There is
much to be said for Schenki’s deletion of 764 as one of those lines
mistakenly added (perhaps suggested by ἡδύ rou μόχθων κλύειν 665)
to complete the sense of an elliptical phrase. The balance of κέρδος
μὲν οὐδὲν--- πόθος δέ τις makes it easy to sc. εἰδέναι with the second too.
765. évi λόγῳ Pierson for ἐν ὀλίγῳ, which is always used in a spatial
sense, ‘In small compass’, not metaphorically. μιᾷ ὁδῷ is a curious
phrase, presumably a colloquialism (Pearson quotes Herondas δ. 66
μυῇ δεῖ σ᾽ ὁδῷ γενέσθαι ποικίλον, of the effect of tattooing}; and the
jingly repetition is clearly deliberate—‘in one word and at one go’.
466. φθορὰς; ‘shipwrecks’ of his companions, cf. /T 276, vauTiAous
ἐφθαρμένους,
767; “the Euboean beacons of Nauplius.’ In 4τ5 Eur. had made the
treacherous murder of Palamedes the subject of a play which must
have brought in in some form the misleading beacons lit in revenge on
©. Euboea by his father Nauplius to lure the Greek ships to destruc-
tion, Cf. also Poseidon’s prophecy Tye. go-or. There is a further
reference to this in the Chorus 1126 ff.
769. Hdt. i. τὸ places the ‘look-out place of Perseus’ at the western
extremity of the Nile Delta; here Andromeda was chained to her
rock, and the play Andromeda may have put the landmark into
Eur.’s mind here,
763-71. Pearson’s substitution of ef for οὐ (for the confusion he cites
fro. 356, Ei. 538) 15 much the most economica! way of giving shape
{20 COMMENTARY
to this sentence; if οὐ is left, the string of four paratactic clauses
<dv>, ἀλγοίην ἂν, ἔκαμνον, λυπηθεῖμεν ἄν, connected by
ἐμπλήσαιμι
re... TE... δὲ, Quite obscures the close connexion of the two middle
way
ones, λέγων τ΄ ἂν ἀλγοίην, πάσχων τ᾽ ἔκαμνον, an idiomatic Greek
mn
of saying paratactically ‘I should sufier in the telling as J did
the actual experience’. εἰ γὰρ ἐμπλήσαιμέ σε μύθων: ‘it 1 were to
give you your fillof words.’ ἔτι: not ‘once more’, but ‘I should σα
be feeling the pangs’. δὲς: cf. 143.
7712. κάλλιον: adv., lit. ‘you have spoken better than I asked’, your
answer is better than my question was.
ἐνιαυσίων.
W15-6. Undoubtedly the simplest correction of ἐνιαύσιον 15
but the
The hyperbaton from here to the end of 776 is ἃ long one,
There
initial statement of the unit of calculation is well placed.
by
is, however, no instance of ἐνεαύσιον Eros, which is hardly saved
Ar, Ran. 347 xpovious τ΄ ἐτῶν παλαιῶν ἐνιαυτούς, and Mekler’s κύκλων
for ἐπῶν would be an improvement. Apelt’s ἐν ναυσὶν ὧν is a slightly
phrase for ναυστολῶν or ναυσθλούμενος, and Jackson’s
off-Greek
ἐνταθθ᾽ ἰὼν, ‘on my way here’, though palaeographically neat, seems
a slightly improbable phrase for seven years of erratic drifting
about the eastern Mediterranean.
780 = Phoen. 972, besides which, (1) it 1s a hysteron proteron with
l
“81, which is the abvious answer to τέ λέξεις; (2) 779 is the natura
place for stichomythia to begin, (3) it anticipates 805. If it were
not for these other objections the defence might be made that the
verse is an ordinary one which could easily recur in the same words
in a similar situation. But it is ne answer to say that ‘there seems no
conceivable reason for interpolating it here’. These things happen,
for whatever reason.
783. Badham is of course right (see app. crit.): “your unexpected
710.
arrival’ is the obstacle. τ᾿ is another unwanted connector as m
784-5. As they stand, these lines would mean: ‘Did someone conceive
the desire to marry my wife?’ “Yes, and to oifer me violence, which
I had to endure in my person.’ In such a context Menelaus could
interpret this in only one way, and it Is a mere evasion to say that
some ‘scene’ is implied’ which forced Helen to take refuge at the
tomb. F. W. Schmidt’s suggestion (app. crit.) assuming ἐγώ to be
a stop-gap added when εὐνὴν ἔτλη had coalesced, though m accor-
dance with the best critical principles, is open to the same obj ection
even more strongly with the word εὐνήν. ἐβουλήθη must at all costs
be left in command of both lines. No satisfactory emendation 1s
recorded for ἣν ἔτλην ἐγώ. εἰς ἐμὴν εὐνήν, πόσι would fill the gap harm-
lessly, as 8 gentle reminder. that she too had regarded herself as
the wife of Menelaus.
788. At 477 f.
789. Wecklein’s βαρβάρων would be an improvement.
 LINES 772-816 } 121
790. ἐξηλαυνόμην: not, as Pearson, ‘I was like to be driven’, but “I was
[at the time the hint was given] being chased away’.
791. Helen feels the social disgrace no less keenly than Menelaus 510 ff,
792. Eur. seems obsessed with the antithesis ἔργον ὄνομα in this play.
εἶχεν is smoother, but εἶχον gives good sense: ‘that is what it came to,
though I did not call myself such’ πτωχὸς, a mendicant),
793, ἔοικας: νι On 401.
794. τάδ᾽: best taken not with λέκτρα, but as object of ἔχω, summing
up the et-clause, οὐκ ἔχω εἰ 15 difficult to parallel.
796: ‘What assurance have I of this? It would be welcome news if
true.’
798. Why τάλαινα when he has still to ask what it has to do with her?
~’s correction radaivas is probably right: “I see a miserable couch
of leaves’, though τάλας is not used so freely as ἄθλιος (707) ἴὰ a
depreciatory sense of inanimate objects. Cf., however, 5. Pil. 1088
αὐλίον τάλαν.
799. txerebopev imperf. The verb, normally used only with acc. of
the person, takes here the construction of afréw—supplicating an
escape from this’ marriage.
802. ναυστολεῖν can be either trans. or mtrans.; here the next line
shows the addition of ce to be essential to the sense.
805. καταιδοῦ sc. φεύγει» ἐκ τι χ.
808. do’ (LP) would be meaningless here, whereas ‘exclamatory’ ye
(Denn. GP 126) 1s exactly nght.
810. Many commentators, from Cobet to Jackson, have rejected οὕτω
here, Pearson says roundly * οὕτω is indefensible’, and Jackson
agrees with Hermann on ‘the irregularity and clumsiness of the
verse’. The point is not really arguable; there is no exact parallel,
and the only answer is a counter-assertion that as a variation on the
more prosaic ‘so vulnerable’ this οὕτω with a neg. clause is blameless,
and that the lme read im its context is infinitely preferable to any
proposed emendation,
811. εἴσῃ: ‘you will know soon enough’, cf. 4 675. The second-sight
of his sister Theonoe.would be sufficient guarantee of the king’s
personal safety (1044-6). It is not quite time to introduce her name.
$12. σιγῇ: ‘quietly’, tamely. δῆτα as so often the equivalent of οὖν
in a question. παράσχω δῆσαι: ‘am I to hold out my hands for
binding?’
813. ἄπορον: the point where there is no way out of the dilemma.
μηχανή: ike Euripidean formula according to the comic poets:
now for some clever ruse.
$16. Bribes, daring, eloquence—three ways of getting out of a predica-
ment, The form of expression recalls Cyc. 358 (app. crit.}—boiled,
roasted, or off the charcoal—and, with only two alternatives, Hipp.
514. In both of these the prep. is dro, but the likeness is formal
I22 COMMENTARY

only and need not extend to the particular preposition. Pearson

quotes Andr. 321 in defence of to.
818. 8s as often for dors. The reading and sense are uncertain here,
As it stands the dubious pomts are μ᾽, for ‘who will tell him I have
[arrived]?’ and γ᾽ where we seem to need γάρ, ‘he won’t know who I
am [without being told]’. (It is hardly possible to interpret γνώσεται
in some special sense such as ‘know from looking at me’.) Italie
would supply τίς as the subject of γνώσεται, but it is more natural
in a quick reading or hearing to make ‘he’ = the king, and it 1s for
this reason that Herwerden and Vitelli suggest ἐρεῖ δὲ ris; ris γνώσεται
δ᾽ ds εἰμ᾽ ἐγώ; An alternative, perhaps better, would be Pearson’s
ἐρεῖ δὲ τίς; τοῦ γνώσεταί μ᾽ ὅς εἰμ᾽ ἐγώ; P’s later corrector gives
a version—perhaps only a conjecture but a reasonable one—epet δὲ
τίς μ᾽ ἢ γνώσεταί γ᾽ ὅς εἰμ’ ἐγώ; who will tell him, or even so much as
know, who I am? which relieves the μ' and perhaps does not over-
press the γ᾽.
820. A private oracle? φήμη is an inspired voice,
$22: ‘An oracular name; tell me what she dees’, cf. on 792.
824. θνήσκοιμεν ἄν: v. on ΟἹ, |
825. εἴ πως ἂν LP would need some rather forced grammatical acro-
batics to carry on from 824 (‘you can remain undiscovered if there is
a chance to...’), and the construction with ἄν in the protasis is a pro-
saic one (see Goodwin, MT 506-7}. But the independent potential
clause given by Kirchhoff’s tows seems an over-simplification, Was
vv perhaps repeated with both verbs? εἴ πώς νιν ἀναπείσαιμεν
ixereviovTe νιν.
$30. σὸν ἔργον: ‘your job’, m this brief form a colloquialism fairly
common in Ar. πρόσφορον: something like “woman to woman
is a suitable line of approach’; the exact construction of πρόσφορον
is elusive, and it remains so in Adesp. 364N? γέρων yéports γλῶσσαν
ἠδίστην ἔχει | παῖς παιδί, καὶ γυναικὶ πρόσφορον γυνή, It is clearly an
elliptical proverbial expression. |
831. ὡς = ‘be sure that’, cf. 126; here with fut. as Med. 609. χερῶν
gen, after a-privative. The devious expression has something of the
oedema of tragic diction.
834: v. on gi. Not ‘that would be to betray me’, but ‘False woman!’
an explosion of jealousy.
835, κατώμοσα; impulsive aor., ‘I swear’, cf. 348.
$36. ἀλλάξεις need not be changed to dAddfew even if κοὔποτ᾽ 15 gram:
matically possible with the infin.
838. ἐπὶ τοῖσδε: the regular formula in ratification of a solemn pledge,
cf, Ale. 375.
844. Their death rust be a clear gesture of their noble resolve, so that
the world may understand, and applaud. The form of the sentence
may have encouraged the interpolation 298 ff,
 LINES 818-861 123
842. νώτῳ: elsewhere, as Herwerden points out, the metaphorical
sense always has plur. νῶτα, and probably we should emend here.
Cf. 984.
844, ‘Let any who will come near’, a general warning challenge. (Not,
as the Budé edition, ‘Celui qui veut ravir ma femme, qu'il approche’ !)
847-50. This is the usual idiom by which ceris introduces a clause
which is both relative and explanatory (here of the ψόγον of 846).
Cf. 11 381 ff., which also has a μὲν... δὲ subdivision, the pomt
being the irrational combination of the two. Here, however, the
Sequence of thought is more elliptical: fully expressed it would
be ‘, .. expose myself to reproach, as I should do tf 1, who caused the
death of ..., and saw..., were not now ready to die for my wife’.
The 8é-clause (840). which answers is temporarily forestalled by an
earlier one (848), and then breaks loose from ὅστις into an independent
question; the sense, however, is perfectly clear.
848-9, ‘Saw Telamonian Ajax’s corpse and Nestor childiess’: the
zeugma. is slightly mitigated by the concrete sense of σφαγάς, for
which οἷ, ΕἸ, 1227. Lenting derived his correction of the senseless τὸν
Θησέως τε παῖδα from the conjunction of names in Od. 3. 113. Anti-
lochus’ death im saving his father from Memnon, alluded to in Od. 4.
187, was an episode in the Cyclic Atthiopis, followed by Pindar, Pyth,
6. 28 ff. Evidently Thetis, Telamon, and Nestor (cf. 5. Phi. 424-5)
were the three great Sorrowers on the Greek side, im whose name
the Greeks would have best right to reproach Menelaus for cowardly
survival,
851-4. The contrast, adapted by Menelaus to his own circumstances,
is between a hero’s death facing his enemies (though πολεμίων ὕπο
would be more appropriate for death in battle) and a coward’s
attempt to escape by sea. The former has a tomb, a covering of earth
which lies lightly upon him (cf. Alc. 463), the latter is cast up un-
buried on a hard reef. There is a twofold verbal antithesis, between
κούφῃ and στερεὸν and between καταμπίσχουσιν and ἐκβάλλουσι.
The attempt to emend 854 to make it mean a heavy weight of solid
earth on top of a coward is misguided.
857 ff. The Chorus’s prayer is followed dramatically by a new peril.
τῆς τύχης: the gen. with ἔχω like εὐμενείας 313. ὧδ᾽ ‘like that’,
referring to of ἐγὼ τάλαινα,
858-61: an odd little hysteron proteron, but presumably no one εἶδε
of importance is at home. The same kind of formula for an emerging
actor, in the more natural order, occurs fo 515-16 (δοῦπος), and
again with κτυπέω Or. 1366-8, where the scholiast’s athetesis 15 mis-
taken. It later became stereotyped in New Comedy round the words
ψόφος, ψοφέω for the noise of unfastening bolts.
861. Theonoe’s knowledge does not depend on her coming out and
secing Menelaus there.
124 COMMENTARY
862. δύστηνος of course fem., cf. the same phrase with exclamatory
nom. Andy, 71..This is the ὡς that follows an exclamation, cf. Alc.
727, 1060, Bacch. 358, Cye. 665, and 15 probably best taken as itself
exclamatory.
863-4. A prep. with the second only of two nouns connected by Καί
or ἢ though in sense required with both is not uncommon in the
tragedians, but here that construction would leave ἐλθὼν rather
awkwardly stranded. It seems better to take Τροίας as gen. ‘of
separation’ with σωθεὶς, cf, σωθῆναι κακῶν Or. 779, and then ἀπὸ p.
xf. ἐλθὼν.
865 ff. Enter Theonoe preceded by two handmaids, one of whom
carries a θυμεατήριον (probably an open bowl in which the flame
could be seen, set on a stem which made it portable), the other
a torch. One is to purity the air Theonoe breathes, the other the
ground she walks on; then they are both (xopifere 572) to take the
flares back to the hearth-flame from which they were lit. Thus
Theonoe’s hearing of the supplication is unwitnessed and she can
make her decision privately.
866. “Bringing flame and sulphur from the mner chamber’—but an
imperative telling her to burn it seems more wanted than a state-
ment of where it came from, and
μυχῶν as ‘gen. of separation’ 15
improbably isolated. The δὲ of LP also points to a new clause, and
flermann’s θείου; from θειόω “fumigate’, is an easy correction, to
which αἰθέρος μυχόν (or better μυχούς Wecklein) provides an object;
then σεμνόν for cezvod. Triclinius’s note of explanation (v. app. crit.),
‘sulphur= a sywbel of ether. because it 15 so inflammable’, can only
be a desperate attempt to make sense of θεῖον which he had before
him. ‘The difficulty of σεμνὸν θεσμὸν as a sort of internal accus. 15
small in comparison. ‘And fumigate in holy ordinance the recesses
of the air.’ Plut. Mor. 3838 speaks of Egyptian priests burning
resin and myrrh to rarefy the air.
870. πυρός, especially at this distance from πεύκην, 15 pontless and awk-
ward, and πάρος (Reiske, later accepted by Murray, cf. A. Ag. 1057
app. crit.) ‘in front of me’ seems likely. Unhallowed footprints are to
be burnt off the ground, apparently by dashing the torch upon them,
so that the priestess may tread her path safely through.
871. νόμον... ἀποδοῦσαι; apparently ‘when you have paid to the gods
my prescribed dues of service’, |
872. ἐφέστιον: proleptic with κομέξετε,
873. Taken as a parenthetic question inside another question this is
considerably harsher than the parallels usually cited, e.g. Hipp. 685,
Tro, 299, Bacch. 649, and it has of course no connexion with the τίς
πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν; type with a double interrog. like 1543. 1979 15
different agai, since there each question is syntactically separate.
The peculiarity of the present instance lies in the form of the outer
 LINES 862-887 125
question τί τἀμὰ Peon. ; ‘what of my oracles?’ (probably a colloquialism).
1 believe Wecklein to be right in printing the line without marks of
parenthesis, as it were ‘What of how my oracles stand?’, and in
quoting as a near parallel Cic. Off. 2. 7. 25 ‘quid censemus...
Dionysium quo cruciatu timoris angi solitum?’ though there is still
no equivalent of the τί; = what of? } |
BY 5. Nota very accurate summary of the ‘divinations’ as quoted 531 ff.,
especially as the εἴδωλον- μίμημα was only removed subsequently,
but Theonoe’s knowledge extends to these later developments.
87 7. “Know of your return home or whether you will stay here’ (pre-
sumably a euphemism for death or dungeon) is a strange sentence,
less for the change of construction than for the phrase οἶσθα νόστον
in the sense of ‘be sure of returning’. Pearson quotes Hee. 1266 πῶς
οἶσθα μορφῆς τῆς ἐμῆς μετάστασιν of a future event; but to have
foreknowledge of an apparently preposterous phenomenon is not the
same as to fecl sureof the fulfilment of an ordinary one. If the line
is to stand I should prefer to take it as an omission of the first
εὖτε of two (5, OT 517 λόγοισιν εἴτ᾽ ἔργοισιν et al. saep.) anda zeugma
in peveis-—whether you. will [achieve] a home-coming or stay here.
Herwerden’s εἴ σ᾽ αὐτοῦ μένει is tempting, in the ‘I know thee who
thou art’ construction, with a deliberate suggestion of oxymoron
In νόστον οἴκαδε and αὐτοῦ μένει, But the statement of two alter-
native possibilities is more closely in keeping with the sense of the
following,
87 8-9. Theonce’s mside knowledge of the gods’ counsels and motives
is startling ; here epic, of course, would transfer the scene to Olympus
and describe the council, with the speeches of the two goddesses
before the President.
88 5-6. With the MS, reading ᾿Ελένης odvex’ is meaningless, and Cypris
would be afraid of being found out purchasing the beauty-prize
(τὸ κάλλος) by the bargain of a. marriage—but of course what Helen’s
return from Egypt would expose was that the bargain had never
been honoured. Pierson’s ἀνονήτοις gives this sense: ‘with a marriage
that so far as Helen was concerned proved idle’, though “Ἑλένης
οὕνεκ᾽ 15 still a feeble phrase. Pearson, taking his cue froma Her-
werden, would read ᾿Ελένης οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ὠνητοῖς γάμοις ‘by Helen’s hand
which could not be bought’ (was not available for bargain), Jackson,
Pp. 208, proposes μηδὲ πριαμένῃ φάνῃ τὸ κάλλος ᾿Ελένης οὐκ ἐν ὠνητοῖς
γάμος, ‘lest it be seen that to her who purchased the prize of beauty
the hand of Helen was one of things not to be bought’—ingenious
but somewhat tortuous, especially in the divorce of πριαμένῃ from
᾿ φάνῃ in the construction. No very satisfactory solution is available,
and it may be best to acquiesce in the Oxford text as it βἴαπάς,.
58 Ἴ. τέλος δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν: ‘The decision rests with me whether to...
speak out and destroy you or...save you by keeping silence.’
126 COMMENTARY
Perhaps, in English-style punctuation, better without a comma after
ἡμῖν! See Introd., pp. xii—xill.
890-1. κρύψασ᾽ ὁμαίμον᾽, sc. σ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ὄντα from 888, προστάσσει pres.
because she is under standing orders to tell him whenever it occurs.
τάδε is defined by ὅταν κτλ. A short pause follows the sentence.
892-3. As her attendants (872) were dismissed and the order would
be unintelligible to anyone inside the palace, she must be requestmg
(v. on 435) one of the Chorus, who are after all im the palace service
(τοι), to act as messenger. It is natural therefore that no one 1S
anxious to move, and with Helen’s dramatic intervention the request
lapses. Italie refers to Jon 1266 for an ignored command. There 15
no obiective justification for Wilamowitz’s rejection of these faultiess
lines (Anal. Eur., Ὁ. 243, followed by Zuntz, Pond. Hardt, Entretiens,
vol. vi, pp. 206 ff.) as an actor’s interpolation aimed at titillating the
spectators’ emotions. Theonoe’s first impulse is to think of the
danger her silence would put her in (no idle fear, as the sequel shows),
and these words add urgency to Helen’s supplication. It is less likely
that we should suppose her deliberately inviting by these words
(never seriously meant) the pleading of the two whose lives depend
upon her decision. In any case the dramatic impact is considerable,
and if the lines were deleted something else would have to be put
in their place ; but it would be a dubious principle of textual criticism
to make such a lacuna just in order to save our preconceived notion
of Theonoe’s psychology or Eur.’s way of registering moral serious-
ness. See Introd., pp. xiv—xv.
804 ff. We are now launched upon a scene which has the external form
of an agon before a presiding arbiter, but actually presents two con-
vergent pleas for the same decision, while the main interest lies in the
decision itself and the arbiter’s own analysis of her reasons.
897. ἐπ’ ἀκμῆς + infin. = in acute danger of... , ἀκμή being, by the
original metaphor ἐπὶ ξυροῦ ἀκμῆς Il. το. 173, the edge on which such
an issue is balanced, then the verge of castastrophe without mention
of an alternative.
898: leg. μοι with Seidler, ‘do not, I beg’; the gen. is hard to construe
and the corruption easy.
901. προδῷς: ‘sacrifice.’
902. χάριτας: ‘tokens of gratitude’ which he would pay for the favour
of her information. .
903-8. The question of how much to delete here is variously answered.
Not, surely, the whole passage, because ἡμᾶς δὲ 000 follows the regular
formula: general truth, particular application. But how much
general truth? gos must obviously go; apart from its form, it merely
makes the argument unintelligible. 909 could follow directly on 904,
but τἀλλότρια μὴ "yew (better than σχεῖν) is appropriate to the present
situation—to ‘hold on to what belongs to others’ or try to take it
 LINES 890-925 127
from them by force. The deduction from a rather more grandiose
general maxim than the situation seems to warrant is common form
in these rhetorical displays.
904. ἐς ἁρπαγάς: adverbial, ‘by way of unlawful seizure’, cf. és ἀμβολάς
1297.
909. μακαρίως seems an odd exaggeration: ‘by blessed intervention’?
Badham’s καιρίως is often accepted.
914-15. ἤδη with mper. conveys ‘wait no longer to...’, sometimes
with the implication ‘it is time you did’. The practical application
ends as often with a final twist towards generalization of the moral
(τὰ τῶν πέλας O15).
917-18. δοκῶ μέν: assenting to the positive alternative. The formula
15. only used when the speaker is so certain of his case that he can
afford to be ostentatiously fair-minded and throw in that provisional
μέν. πλέον νέμειν; ‘defer to’ (Pearson); thus μᾶλλον is not redun-
dant.
919. ἡγουμένη; “believing in’ (the gods) (s.v. LS IIT. 3), like νομέζω.
920-1. Reading uncertain. δώσεις δίκην LP, as corr. by Triclinius,
means ‘make amends’, which will not do. σώσεις δέκην (which is what
L originally wrote) contrasts with τὸ Sixasov... διαφθερεῖς, Where
διαφθείρειν 18 set against σῴξειν with such abstracts it is normally
a question of ‘losing’ or ‘keeping intact’ one’s ew convictions or
nature or qualities, cf. Hipp. 389, Hee. 598, A. Ag. 932, infr. rood.
Theonoe then might ‘lose’ her father’s sense of justice as a precious
inheritance, but she can only ‘keep intact’ her brother’s δίκη by
straining the analogy. Reiske’s δώσεις χάριν, ‘indulge’, is suggested
by 999-Ioor, where Theonoe is clearly recalling this plea.
922-8. Clark’s emendation of 923 (cf. supr. 14) restores sense and
shape to the line. μὲν... δὲ: ‘while... yet not’: it is the δέ-
clause which is αἰσχρόν when considered in the light of the μέν.
924 ff. After all this we need a practical recapitulation : Then save my
husband’s life so that his wife can be restored to him (cf. 912-13),
and incidentally bring to an end my troubles here.
924. The τ᾽ is altogether inadequate, after a full stop and in a changed
construction, to bear the weight that Murray’s interpretation (app.
crit.) would put upon it. Nor can δ᾽ be substituted: ‘non enim hic
δέ, sed ἀλλὰ dicendum erat’—Hermann. His lacuna, in which Mene-
laus’ safety and recovery of Helen are requested, is essential. οἷσιν
ἔγκειμαι κακοῖς : best taken with ἀθλίαν, ‘wretched, such miseries am
Lin’. The plain relative is here subordinate exclamatory, like ὅσος
and οἷος, cf. on 74.
925. πάρεργον: so long as τῆς τύχης is taken as Helen’s fortunes it is
very difficult to give the word any appropriate meaning: ‘granting
this interlude in my sad lot’-Pearson; ‘a trifling set-off to my
fortunes’—L3, But the word always implies something incidental to
128 COMMENTARY

the main issue—and the clue to the main issue, τῆς rUxqs, here must
lie in the lacuna before 924, the salvation of Menelaus and his re-
covery of Helen. In assuring this Theonoe would also be ‘oranting
an extra grace of fortune’ by delivering Helen from her present
troubles, of undeserved odium and dependence on Egyptian charity
(927-35). :
980. κλύοντες εἰσιδόντες : the asyndeton requires the same tense m
both parts., and this is one of several instances where κλύων and
κλύειν have aor. force, cf. κλύειν, ἀκοῦσαι, A. Cho. 5.
931. φίλων: 1.6, of my husband.
982. ‘They will restore me to virtue’ for the more obvious ‘they will
give me back my good name’. |
933. ἐδνώσομαι Hermann, ‘betroth’, provide with ἕδνα in the post-
Homeric sense, for ἐδώσομαι LP, corrected by the later hand in P to
ἐκδώσομαι ‘vive in marriage’. Both words are normally used of the
father.
984. ἀλητείαν: here as Jon 576 ‘beggary’ in the sense of dependence on
the charity of others, with no implication of ‘wandering’.
935; ὄντων χρημάτων: the suggestion is of rich possessions stored on
the spot, as in the Homeric great houses. In Hdt.’s version these
treasures had been carried off by the eloping pair, and their sate
custody (in Egypt) was an important part of the story.
988, κατεσφάγη, especially after θανὼν, cannotbe right, but there is
no need to assume grave corruption ora lacuna. ἀγαπάω and ἀγαπάξω
are used by Eur. only in the sense of rendering service to a loved
corpse, So that either careordAy (Reiske), or better κατεστάθη (H. 39.
Broadhead) would be possible: ‘dead and 1616 [out] upon the bier.’
But either word is rather ordinary to have been replaced by κατε-
oddyn, and Schenkl’s κατεφθάρῃ, adopted by Italie, gives more pomt
here. ‘If, dead, he had been consumed upon the pyre {i.e. if he had
died at Troy], I should have rendered the service of tears to one far
away; shall I, now that he is alive and safely back, have him taken
from me?’ The antithesis is dead body reduced to ashes far away/
living man whole-and-sound present. _
941-2, κλέος κάλλιστον ὅστις: cf. on 267, 271. The παιδὲ of LP is due
to a misunderstanding of this construction; Stobaeus preserves the
_ correct generalizing plural. |
943. τοὺς τρόπους acc. of respect need not be emended, The gen.
(τρόπων or tpdwov) taken with ἐς ταὐτὸν as ‘field of reference’ would
be an alternative construction, cf. 770. 1036.
944-6. 1,. Dindorf’s attribution of these words to the Chorus is one of
those superficially ‘obvious’ corrections which prevent further con-
sideration of the tradition. (Cf. A. Ag. 489 ff.) LP are perfectly
right: only Theonoe can speak these words. Both her silence and
the Chorus’s speech (at least in these terms) would be impossibly
 LINES 980-961 120
bad-mannered. The formal resemblance of this to the conventional
‘law-court scene’ of tragedy, with the brief choral comment to round
off each of the two speeches, has led all editors to overlook the
special conditions here. In other Euripidean scenes where two
characters plead their cause before an authoritative third, the pre-
siding arbiter opens the case by an official invitation to both to
speak, cf. Hec. 1129, Tre. 911, Phoen. 452. In Held. 132 ff. the situa-
tion is rather different: Demophon demands from the Herald an
explanation of his violent conduct towards suppliants and the
Herald after a blustering close is reminded by the Chorus that there
are two sides to every dispute and only one has been heard, where-
upon Jolaus claims the right to speak in his turn. But there the
Chorus has been taking an active part, before Demophon’s arrival,
in restraining the Herald and protecting Iolaus, and even then it
does not itself request the second speech. In the present scene of
the Helen there has been no formal opening of the case; Helen flings
herself in to prevent the threatened action of Theonoe, and for the
august prophetess to stand silent at the end and leave the Chorus to |
comment with a judicious air: “Very moving, Helen, but I want to
hear how Menelaus will plead for his life’ would make a scene whose
absurdity would be at once apparent on the stage. It is a mistake to
foist these rigid conformities upon the poets.
944. οἰκτρὸν: ‘a pitiful thing’. ἐν μέσῳ λόγοι is a phrase used in
a variety of meanings, which should not be lumped together : Med. 819
‘words that intervene before the deed’, supr. 630 and 5, ἘΠ. 1364 ‘the
story of the intervening time’, and here ‘words put forth for considera-
tion’, the dative counterpart of ἐς μέσον φέρειν.
947-8. tAainv: ‘bring myself to.’ δακρῦσαι: an unexpected use of
the trans., for which Hermann suggests {/, 22, 491 δεδάκρυνταί τε
παρειαί as the model. dy four times in three lines in the emphasis of
his rejection, :
950-1. Σ 77. 1. 349, quoting a proverb: ἀριδάκρυες avepes ἐσθλοΐ,
953. εὐδαιμονίας LP, εὐψυχίας Tyrwhitt, assuming εὐτυχίας as a middle
link in the process of corruption, εὐανδρίας p, read by Wecklein,
Grégoire on the grounds that εὐτυχίας could not possibly require
a ‘gloss’ «t8. That is probably true, but it is difficult to see how ed8.
could displace a word with the required sense except through evr,
from et. Possibly it was a misguided attempt to make the line
scan. evavd. is likely to be itself a conjecture, especially since there
seems too little distinction between πρὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐγενοῦς and evavdpias.
957, of viv... πολλάκις; not for the first time by a long way, cf.
Med. 292 with ‘Page’s note. : |
961. πόθῳ is as difficult to account for as to emend, and should perhaps
be obelized. Both μνῆμα and πόθῳ require the definition σοῦ πατρὸς,
but to take this ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (‘at the tomb of your father, whom I miss
130 COMMENTARY
so much’, or ‘in default of your father, at his tomb’) is awkward.
γόδ᾽ ἀμ. μν. would remove this, but τάδ᾽, referrmg both back to ἃ and
forward, ‘as follows’, is too idiomatic to sacrifice. A part. with dade
= ‘at’ is not, gace Pearson, essential grammatically; ἀμφὶ μνῆμα
Λέξω 1s a variant on, e.g, ἀμφὶ βωμοὺς εὔχου Jon 422. πεσών, πέτνων
are inappropriate to the tone of the speech; τόδε (Dindorf) would be
better.
965-8 are an explanation of the sense in which the appeal ἀπόδος 18
meant : itis his daughter who now ‘has power to act’ (κυρία). οὔποτε
Ὁ fut.: ‘you never will’ because it is an impossibility, cf. Ale. 300.
970—4. To ΚΙ] Trojan warriors for Helen’s sake was to enrich Hades
_ by the gift of young bodies before their time (cf. Alc. 55), so that as
an honest merchant Hades should either return the price (μισθὸν)
he had been paid in full (the warriors alive), or at least ensure that
Menelaus retained possession of Helen.
973-4: v. app. crit. The ye is really better placed as in LP than in the
next line, since one does not want it too far separated from ἢ, ‘or
at leasf...’; one could read ἀνάγκασόν ye πατρὸς εὐσεβοῦς and then
τἄμ᾽ ἐμοὶ δοῦναι Pflugk in 974 (which the Budé text leaves un-
metrical). The sense of κρείσσω must be ‘gomg one better than...’,
‘more effective’, because Proteus had not after all been able to
restore Menelaus to Helen. Hermann proposes ἀνάγκασον ye μὴ εὖ-
σεβοῦς πατρὸς { ἥσσω, certainly a more usual form of exhortation
and an intelligible corruption, but the special twist given here by
κρείσσω Should perhaps not be sacrificed.
975. συλήσετε; you and your brother.
977. κεκλήμεθϑα; ‘Tam held fast’, for the more prosaic κατείλημμαι,
985. τάφου Kart.: ‘drip down the tomb.’
991-2. Grammatically there are two ways of taking this, but only
one makes sense. δραστήριος, in spite of the absence of a part.,
must be opposed to δακρύοις... τρεπόμενος, not to ἐλεινὸς, “What
taik 15 this? I should have won more pity by taking to tears like a
woman than by this forceful line.’ τί ταῦτα; 15 not a request for n-
formation which is then given by himself in the next words (Why
this stern resoive ?’—Jerram) ; 1t imphes “This 15 useless’. Cl. Phoen.
382. And Sacer. cannot be contrasted with ἐλ. as ‘effective’ with
‘pitiful’; to be pitiful in the circumstances was to be effective; in
any case this sense of ὅραστ, belongs to inanimate objects ike
φάρμακον oY μηχανή, something which works; with human beings
it is rather ‘active’, ‘energetic’. ἦν before a vowel in Eur., especially
late Eur., is not enough to make a line suspect, though indeed it
can often be easily | emended, cf. Ale. 655 n., Ja# 280 (οὖσ᾽ 15 neater
erammar), here ἢ τῶν,
993. δυσκλεῶς LP would have to mean ‘in a manner to bring dis-
honour upon ime’, which m strict grammar is not unparalleled
 LINES 965-1002 151
(v. Jebb on 5. OC 586), but the ambiguity would not be very happy
when δυσκλεᾶ could so easily have avoided it. δυσκλεῶς γὰρ οὖν
(Reiske) however, referring in the normal manner to the subject,
would make good sense and sum up the whole argument better.
These lines, gg1-5, have often been suspected of interpolation, and
sometimes all, sometimes 991-2, deleted. They seem to me necessary
to keep the balance of the whole speech. In dividing the arguments
between Helen and Menelaus so as to make them complementary
and a contrast im style, Eur. has made Helen’s an appeal, Menelaus’
a demand, for justice. The effect is to give Menelaus’ a somewhat
unattractive truculence, which should not be held against his
‘character’; it 1s masculine rather. But to end the speech at ogo
would be altogether too harshly defiant, as he half admits himself.
Nor incidentally do I believe an imterpclator would have ventured
on that final paeonic rhythm in τρεπόμενος 001, which Eur. first
allows to become almost a habit in this play (eight instances). See
Introd., p. xxv,
996. βραβεύειν in the peculiar circumstances of this scene 15 not to
give a decision between two opposing speeches but to resolve her
own dilemma and so pass judgement on the rightness or wrongness
of both speeches.
997. ἅπασιν: Le. all of us present here.
998-1008. [566 no reason to change the MS. reading, kept by Murray,
anywhere in this passage with the exception of Κύπρις for Χάρις
tc06 ; whatever view be taken of the problemof the wife of Hephaestus
in if. 18 and Od. 8, such a syncretism was not one ordinarily accepted
in the fifth century. φανήσομαι and φανήσεται 1001 would merely be
slightly different ways of developing the argument. σῴζειν Μενέλεων
1004 should not have found favour; that sense would require σῶσαι
(cf. 954, Im contrast to 964) and 1005 must be referred to Menelaus
since he 15 the subject of ὀνειδίζεις roo. Here σῴζειν as well as
ἔχουσα goes with τοῦτο, οἵ, on 920-1. ξυμβέβηκε 1007 seems to mean
has ‘never come to terms with’, ‘never made close accord with’ (the
hint of aloof distaste is kept carefully clear of the sort of ὕβρις with
which Hippolytus challenged the goddess}, and is more effective
fitting syntactically into ἡ Κύπρις δ᾽ ἐμοί than with a change of subject
ξυμβέβηκα, The sense in which Cypris can συμβαίνειν with a mortal
is then made explicit by the following line, which has often been
laughed out of the text. It is seldom an easy matter to mark the
point beyond which simplicity turns to comic naivety; one kind of
audience, or one individual, will draw it differently from another.
Probably the unfortunate πειράσομαι is meant as no more than
a modestly expressed personal choice. Certainly the sense is much
clearer if the line is kept.
1002. For the shrine of Justice in the heart edd. compare the famous
1..2 COMMENTARY
frag. 170 from Eur, Antigone οὐκ ἔστι Πειθοῦς ἱερὸν ἄλλο πλὴν λόγος, |
καὶ βωμὸς αὐτῆς ἔστ᾽ ἐν ἀνθρώπου φύσει. It was from Nereus that
Theonoe inherited her gift of prophecy (15), though one might have
expected her sense of justice to come from the father’s side.
1009. ὀνειδίζεις warpi: this is so strong a way of describing 965 ff. that
Wecklein-Pearson would read πατρός (with τύμβῳ). But the text is
probably night, cf. tiocs and τοῖς τε νερτέροις 1013.
1010. 68°: the following words (ἀδικοέημεν ἂν w7A.); hence the absence
of connecting particle.
1011. βλέπων: “if he had been alive.’
1013-46. τίσις: ‘sanction’, requital, τῶνδ᾽ : moral obligations and
the failure to discharge them. It applies to the dead no less than to
the livmg because though there is no [individual?] survival the
mind retains everlasting consciousness after death by merging with
immortal ether. Dindort’s rejection of these Imes has found some
favour, but their connexion with the context (Proteus is affected as
well as Theonoe) is not difficult to see; 1 is their internal coherence
as a statement of philosophy that is madequate: how does a τίσις
apply to a piece of consciousness floating im the ether? This 15 not
quite the ordinary cliché of fifth-century Athenian philosophy, cf.
the famous Potidaea mscription /G 12,945. 6 αἰθὴρ μὲν ψυχὰς ὑπεδέξατο,
σώματα δὲ γϑών which is echoed Supp. 532-6 and fr. 839. Nor does it
go far as an anticipation of the Platonic doctrime of rewards and
punishments after death and of the immortality of the soul (ci. ζῇ
μὲν οὔ). Grégoire’s view of it as ‘la piéce essentielle de la tragédie’
is an extravagance. It is a piece of high-toned but vague mysticism
appropriate to Theonoe, who reasonably excuses herself from further
elaboration by ws οὖν παραινῶ μὴ μακράν (1017) ‘to keep my lecture
short’. παραινέω of a superior being giving guidance or admonish-
ment (iipp. 1435, Andry, 1234, Hi 847, 854) 1s usually more precisely
advisory in sense, often with an infin., but this is near enough to
need no emendation to περαίνω.
1021. ἐκ δυσσεβείας ὅσιον, The normal idiom would be ἐκ δυσσεβοῦς
ὅσιον, Cf. τνφλὸς ἐκ δεδορκάτος Ὁ. OT 454, and I can find no other
instance of the abstract with ἐκ instead of the personal. It was un-
familiar enough ta send someone gropme after sense with εὐσεβείας LP.
1022. Ciearly much the simplest correction of the faulty rhythm of
LP τὴν ἔξοδόν γ᾽ εὑρίσκετε would be ze’ for τὴν, accepted by several
edd,, and there seems no cogent objection to the order of words, the
type of caesura, or the use of ye for emphasis. ‘For a way of escape
you must find something yourselves. ’
1024. ἄρχεσθε: ‘begin with the gods.’ The gods still need propitiating;
there is no question of Theonoe’s decision’s having pre-ordaimed the
course of events. The gods determine, m harmony or im dissonance,
and mortals make their choices by their own ethical standards: but
 LINES 1009-1650 133
for the granting of their aims are still dependent upon the favour of
heaven; if their course 15 just (τῷ δικαίῳ neut.) there is ‘hope of
salvation’ Io3r.
-Theonoe withdraws into the palace, and the new scene is intro-
duced by Helen in three lines before it settles down to a long
distichomythia. Thus the effect is of Menelaus asking questions
or making tentative suggestions while the decisive answers come
from Helen,
1033. Jackson, p. 154, neatly suggests τοὐνθένδε δ' εἰς ἐν τοὺς λόγους
dépovre χρὴ, thus supplying a δέ for the μὲν 1032 and making κοινὴν
more clearly a ‘jomt plan’ of escape. But Helen is yielding prece-
dence to Menelaus, which he accepts in ἄκονε δή νυν, 1035, and the
following exchange down to 1049 shows her leaving him to flounder
on with his own suggestions. As for the μὲν, probably the whole
sentence 1032-4 15 a single complex, with μὲν as if μὲν γὰρ, cf. τη ἔτ,
ΟΠ T44i-z. κοινὴν ξυνάπτειν could mean simply they will both have
parts to play and both escape.
1088. συντέθραψαι; ‘have grown familiar with.’
1038. ὡς δή with fut. part. is as Denniston says (GP 230) ‘almost
always ironical, sceptical, or indignant in tone’. Here if there is any
scepticism it is politely held in check. |
1089. oftives ... ἀνάσσουσ᾽ is substituted for τῶν ἀνασσόντων, cf. S.. Aj.
1050 ὃς κραΐνει for τῷ κραΐνοντι. ἀνάσσω ‘be in charge of’ the four-horse
teams, a slightly less metaphorical use than κώπης ἄναξ, πέλτης ἄναξ.
1042, πεδίων βαρβάρου τε χθονός; hendiadys for the Egyptian plains.
1043. ἀδύνατον εἶπας: given to Helen by LP, but it means ‘put like
that it 1s clearly impossible’.
1044: cf. on 811.
1045-6: to be construed as if οὐ σιγῶσ᾽ ἂν ἀνάσχοιτό ce μέλλοντα...
1046. κτανεῖν and κτενεῖν being metrically indifferent sometimes ap-
pear as MS. variants. It seems reasonable then to make OT 967 con-
form to the otherwise strict Sophoclean usage, but Eur. has so many
undoubted cases of μέλλω +- aor. infin., in all senses of μέλλω, that
it is hardiy worth while to emend a few easy ones.
1050 ἢ, λέγεσθαι λόγῳ θανεῖν is unattractive, and spoils the effect of
λόγῳ θανεῖν just below as a more pointed summary of the proposal.
Murray’s idea of a slightly teasing echo in 1052, with four words, as it
were, in inverted commas, hardly does justice to the seriousness of the
dilemma. Cobet’s τεθνηκέναι is exactly appropriate m rose. λέγειν
ἕτοιμός εἶμι LOFI~2 is an impossible anticipation of Helen’s idea soon
to be disclosed. εἰ δὲ xepSavd λέγων (Barnes) could easily be taken
in. the sense ‘if there is anything to gain by the story’, as if λόγῳ or
Acyomeros.
The Greek reluctance to risk ill-omened words is similarly illus-
trated by the careful bravado of Orestes over the device of λάγῳ
14172 K
£34 COMMENTARY
θανεῖν S. El. 56-64. He too justifies the risk by κέρδος ὅτ, It seems
scarcely possible that these two passages should be independent of
each other, and if not, then a close time-sequence is required, (CT.
Bruhn’s Einleitung to the Electra, 1912, and J. fiir kl. Phil, Suppbd.
xv. 306 ff.) Comparison of the two shows unmistakably the priority
of the Electya, which elaborates and illustrates the idea as something
new and interesting, whereas the Helen picks it up fleetingly as one
might a notion already familiar to the audience. Helen (1053) then
adds the idea {καὶ μὴν) of a female lament to move the listener.
Whether any recent play had used the motif of a feigned lament
we do not know, but for us the obvious reference is to Electra’s urn-
speech. Menelaus’ comment 1055-6 refers to the whole idea, λόγος
and θρῆνος, and is less Menelaus than a rather mischievous interpola-
tion of Eur.: “The idea isn’t a very origmal one.’ Other evidence,
mostly of a formal nature, shows that the Electra is to be grouped
with Soph.’s late plays, and 413 (now that Zuntz, Pol. Plays of Eur.,
64 ff., has restored the Euripidean Elecira to its proper place in the
metrical chronology) is a quite possible date for it; it can scarcely
be earlier. |
1054. πρὸς: the laments would be directed ‘at’ him.
4059-60. καὶ δὴ: ‘suppose he agrees’, m Eur. a not uncommon form
of graphic parataxis instead of an if-clause, often with a pert., cf.
Med. 386 καὶ δὴ τεθνᾶσι. κενοταφοῦντ᾽ : dual.
1061. καθήσομαι: the middle is unparalleled, cf. 1068, 1375, and Heath’s
καθήσομεν (in the sing. sense) would be an easy emendation. But
since Helen is obviously going to ‘have it done’ rather than do it
herself the middie is appropriate, and could easily be uncommon.
Cf, on 664.
1064. οὐδὲν φέρει: ‘brings no gain’, as if οὐδὲν συμφέρει, This is probably
the right reading at Supp. 596, and there is no need to interpret σ᾽
after κελεύει as és with prodelision.
1069. καὶ with de? μάλιστα, adding emphasis to the whole.
1071-2: i.e. if you can arrange a ship at anchor I will embark my men
in disciplined hoplite rows. ,
1074. καὶ νεὼς δρόμος seems to have no construction ; one cannot satis-
factorily supply either πόμπεμος γένοιτο or γένοιτο (may there be
a running of the ship = may the ship run fast). xodpeos (Prinz)
would supply the missing predicate; y’Aews (Maas) would be simple
palaeographically but there is no parallel for ἵλεως = οὔριος, and
νεὼς could have arisen as an intrusive gloss to explain δρόμος.
1076. πεπυσμένη with rod: ‘from whom will you claim to have heard ?’,
the perf. part. with a verb of saying as 537.
1077. σοῦ comes the answer in a flash; Helen enjoys her neat
pomt.
1079. ναυτικῶν ἐρειπίων: the gen. is hard to place. Not with ῥάκη,
 LINES 1054-1106 135
since τάδ᾽ ἀμφίβληστρα σώματος ῥάκη is an indivisible phrase; Pearson
compares Telephus fr. 697 πτώχ᾽ ἀμφίβληστερα σώματος paxy. Nor is
ῥάκη ἐρειπέων a likely phrase; one can say ‘tatters of reputation’
(met.), but not so well ‘tatters of wreckage’. Pearson’s συμμάρτυρές
σοι would pick up the gen. in more orthodox grammar, but the fut, is
better, and I suspect the phrase must be accepted as it stands—these
rags will be confirmatory witness of shipwreck—even if any such
explanation as ‘sc. paprupiav’ is slightly unreal.
1081. ἐς καιρὸν ἦλθε; met., as Tro. 744. ῥάκη is the subject of this and
of ἀπώλλυτο, though if he is wearing sailcloth (v. on 422) the sense
must be "your clothes’ rather than what he actually has on. The
mpi. of ‘past danger or likelihood’ (Goodwin, MT 38) would then
refer more to the inopportuneness (ἄκαιρα adv.) of the loss rather
than its actual occurrence: ‘at the time it seemed mopportune loss.’
1087-9. Shorn locks, to be laid on the corpse if avallable, and black
clothes are for male and female alike the prescribed ritual of mourn-
ing, cf. Alc. 215-17. Only women tore the cheeks, as the male cheek
would be a tougher proposition. χροός; the only possible con-
struction is gen. after φόνιον, making bloody the skin. Andr. 1194
has τοξοσύνᾳ φονίῳ warpds, ‘the bowmanship that killed your father’,
which is easier to relate to such phrases as ὀλέθριοι φίλων (A. Ag,
1156), οἵ, αἱματηρὰ δωμάτων infr. 1104. The text had better be left,
since emendation is unrewarding : χερός (with dvuya) is a mere make-
shift. Bacch. 768 has another slightly redundant. χρούς at the end of
a sentence, oddly enough again in conjunction with παρηίδων.
1090. μέγας γὰρ: for Helen so to deform herself a vitally important
issue is required. (In Or, 128-9 we are back with the old familiar
Heien of tragedy.) The effect would be correspondingly apt to pro-
duce belief m Theoclymenus, ῥοπάς; possible ways the scale
could tip. Hence we get, in roo2 ff., a special prayer and reminder
to the gods—in accordance too with Theonoe’s advice ro24—at this
decisive moment in the action, cf. infr. on 1446 ff.
1093, wirvers with évas Alc, 1059, a ‘pregnant’ use of the prep., moving
on to the next stage beyond the action expressed by the vérb.
1100. tapacyodo": ‘making available’, as in παρέχειν ἑαυτόν,
1104: vy. supr. on 1080.
4105. μετρία: cf. Med. 630 εἰ δ᾽ ἅλις ἔλθοι Κύπρις, οὐκ ἄλλα θεὸς εὔχαρις
ὌΜΤΟΩΝ,

1106. οὐκ ἄλλως λέγω; ‘T don’t deny it’ (Denniston on ΕἸ. ΤΟΣ), cf,
Hee. 302, Or. 709.
otasimon 1107-64, the first proper stasimon of the play.
Eur. cannot here let the Chorus comment on the intrigue which is
just beginning to take shape, so, ignoring the more hopeful turn οἵ
events on the stage, they summon the nightingale to heip them sing
a threnody for the woes of Helen and the women of Troy, though
136 COMMENTARY
this is then deflected into the woes brought by the Phantom-Helen,
first upon the Trojans and still more the Greeks, and then upon
Helen herself in the execration she suffered from her countrymen.
The first stanza ends with the picture of Paris sailing with (the sup-
posed) Helen to Troy, the second with Menelaus sailing back with
her and blown out of his course. The third reflects upon the unpre-
dictability of mortal lot, but the illustration is not the ἀνέλπεστον
τύχαι of recent events but simply the strange eclipse of Helen’s good
name, daughter of Zeus as she was. The fourth assails the useless folly
of using war to settle disputes when negotiation could have served,
_ with the result that many are dead, Troy burnt, and Helen suffering.
(a) 1107-36,
1107 σὲ τὰν ἐναύλοις ὑπὸ δενδροκόμοις τ wm
= Ce
1122 πολλοὶ δ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν δορὶ καὶ πετρίναις
go
᾿

μουσεῖα καὶ θάκους evi-

* 1 ? 3, oF
yom
puratow ἐκπνεύσαντες At-
t Pa

-ξουσαν ἀναβοάσω, -οὐὐῷ --- }

dav μέλεον ἔχουσιν,
σὲ τὰν ἀοιδοτάταν , ὠς στιψ --
ταλαιφρόνων ἀλόχων
jaune ὄρνιθα μελῳδὸν ἀηδόνα ϑακρνόεσσαν xm VY UY

1134 κείροντες ἔθειραν, dvuppa δὲ μέλαθρα

κεῖται"
EXP & διὰ ξουθᾶν γενύων ἐλελιζο-
2. TM TT πιὰ τ
μένα

πολλοὺς δὲ πυρσεύσας φλογερὸν σέλας

ἀμφιρύταν
θρήνων ἐμοὶ ξυνεργύς, τ πο ἘΞ}
Εὔβοιαν εἷλ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν
“Ελένας μελέας πόνους 4 ων τον -
᾿μονόκωπος ἀνήρ, πέτραις
τὸν ᾿Ιλιάδων τ᾿ de πώ πω -
Καφηρίσιν ἐμβαλὼν
ΤΙΙ5 -δούσᾳ δακρυόεντα πότμον mg RU
1131 Alyatas τ΄ ἐνάλοις δόλιον
Ἀχαιῶν ὑπὸ λόγχαις, we mul
ἀκταῖς ἀστέρα λάμψας.
ὅτ᾽ ἔδραμε βῥόθια πεδία βαρβάρῳ
πλάτᾳ, πῃ NR eR oe A oe το

ἀλίμενα δ᾽ ὄρεα Μάλεα βαρβάρου

στολῆς
 LINES 1107-1111 137
ὅτ᾽ ἔμολεν ἔμολε μέλεα Πριαμίδαις
ΓῚ nm mo my
ἄγων a ὰ ἀκα ἐμ “πω --

ὅτ᾽ ἔσυτο πατρίδος ἀποπρὸ χειμάτων

VO,
“ακεδαίμονος dia λέχεα δ. υω-πω νιΤᾺ --
γέρας ov γέρας ἀλλ᾽ ἔριν
ἔν r! La 3 + or

120 σέθεν ὦ ᾿Ελένα Πάρις αἰνόγαμος WU Ue ee

1136 “αναῶν Μενέλας ἐπὶ ναυσὶν ἄγων
ἴω f 3 4 4 δι

πομπαῖσιν Adpodiras. yo TU
εἴδωλον iepav “Hpas.
1107-36. The stanza is composed with much metrical art. Period-ends
are not always certain; as given here 5 and 6 are unverifiable. The
first three are in a kind of near-dactylo-epitrite:
x. amb. + hemiepes d d, as it were lambelegus with lmk-anceps
omitted. Sophocles uses the same opening for a dact.-epit. stanza
Lv. 94 ὅν αἰόλᾳ νὺξ ἐναριξομένα.
iamb. dim. -++ ithyphallic with resolved second long.
2, enoplian uv 8 d, link-anceps, praxillean (like ἀντιτύπᾳ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γᾷ
πέσε τανταλωθείς) with the fourth long resolved so that the close
echoes that of period 1. (On no account should this effect be lost by
emending to ἄνυμφα μέλαθρα δέ to keep the rhythm dactylic.)
3. iamb., link-anceps, d dd, a prolongation of the tambelegus.
lamb. dim. cat., ie. ithyph. preceded by link-anceps. The re-
lation of period 3 to period 1 1s obvious.
4. enoplian A αὶ d s,
telesillean ++ glyc. with resolved final long, pher.
5. two jamb, trims. much resolved.
6. enoplian Λ dds = opening of 4, resolved in the strophe only,
enoplian in form of anap. dim.
iamb. dim. cat, = close of 2.
All periods take off in rising metre.
1108-10. μουσεῖα καὶ θάκους : hendiadys= halls of the muse where
you sit, 1.6. your sitting and singing there turns the leafy coverts
into’halls of song. We might have supposed Ar, m eési@uAAides..
χελιδόνων μουσεῖα Kan. 92-93 to be parodying this passage but for 2’s
quotation from Alcmene (fr. 88 corr. Meineke) in which Eur, calls
thick ivy ἀηδόνων μουσεῖα. The close similarity of phrasing in this
half-stanza to Av, 2τὸ ff., two years before, shows how much of
a cliché this kmd of description had become.
1111. ξουθᾶν: the strange ambiguity of this attribute between colour,
sound, and movement haunts the word from its first appearance in
Mycenaean as the name of one of a yoke of oxen on a tablet from
Knossos (KN Ch goo), At first a brown ox might seem to us self-
evident, contrasted with a κελαινύός and an οὗνοῴ, black and red,
138 COMMENTARY
until we also find an αἰόλος and a πόδαργος and wonder if lt was
‘nimble’, since the same sort of ambiguity affects a// these words
and cannot even be shown to determine itself chronologically (v.
Denniston—Page on A. Ag. 1142). We formulate our colour-percep-
tions as on ἃ matt colour-card, whereas the Greeks ‘saw’ their
coloured world in terms of light-vibrations which could also pass
over into sound-vibrations and quick movement. When it is ἃ ques-
tion of translation, however,it must be said that whereas there is no
context which demands for ξουθός the sense of a colour-attribute,
the choice of objects te which it is applied—the nightingale, the
nightingale’s throat, the bee, the wings of a bee, of an eagle, of the
Diosecuri, the winds—is. almost unintelligible unless the common
attribute is felt primarily as the quick, throbbing vibrato of sound,
for which we have no single apposite word. So here: ‘come trilling
through your vibrant throat to join with me m lament.’
1113 πόνους and 1115 πόνον both as objects of ἀειδούσᾳ make a scarcely
tolerable repetition, though it is uncertain which, if either, should
be emended. Badham’s πότμον for πόνον is acceptable if scanned in
the same way, as a glyconic ending in resolution ; but it was intended,
and adopted, to make the line a hipponactean ending »—w, with
antistrophe ἐνάλοισιν ἀκταῖς δόλιον dar. λαμ. As the pherecratean
i116 begins Aya:dy, this would give anceps tuxta anceps and there-
fore period-end between the two cola, with the pherecratean then
forming a single period by itself instead of a catalectic clausula in
the usual way. The arrangement given here (with πόνον or πότμον
and Hermann’s adjustment of antistrophe) 1s much to be preferred.
1117-18. LP (v. app. crit.) wrote out these two trimeters in four lines,
with és at the beginning of each pair. Since obviously Πρ. ἄγων
must lead into 1119, Triclinius transposed the second two before
the first two. But ‘who came to the plains’ unqualified is meaning-
less; also at least the first és must be replaced by ὅτ᾽ to give some
construction. Jedd. have followed two main lines of restoration: {1)
adjustment of Triclinius’s version by punctuation: ὅτ᾽ ἔμολεν nore,
πέδια βαρβάρῳ πλάτᾳ ds ἔδραμε ῥόθια, μέλεα Hp. ἄγων κτλ., “when he
came, who sped over the surging plams, brmging...’. But doubts
arise over an involved piece of word-order which at two points
depends for its intelligibility upon punctuation somehow made
audible in sung verse full of rapid resolution. Herwerden’s [7 OAIA
for ΠΕΔΊΑ, leaving ῥόθια as the substantive (grey surge’ “Instead
of ‘surging plains’) would make things slightly easier. (2) The
Schultze—Murray version, later (GV 454) adopted by Wilamowitz too,
which assumes that only the first three words of each trimeter
needed transposing, this displacement having occurred earlier than
the splitting up into four cola; ὃς then becomes ὅτε πὶ both. The
second is much more likely, perhaps with a comma after πλάτα
 LINES 1113-1136 139
instead of after ἔμολε, so that the second ὅτε 15 simply anaphora
rather than subordinate to the first. So: ‘when there sped on bar-
barian oar over the surging plains, when there came, came bring-
ing from Lacedaemon you, O Helen, as a bride baneful to the sons of
Priam, Paris of fatal marriage, under Aphrodite’s escort.’
1122 ff. After the Trojans, the Greeks: many perished at Troy, and
many (1126) did Nauplius drown off Euboea. The second Ayatay
112} would be an otiose repetition if taken with πολλοὺς as edd. recom-
mend. It must go with povdxwros ἀνήρ, a solitary rower, one of
the Greeks themselves—it is this that adds bitterness to the tragedy.
1123. πετρίναις ῥιπαῖσιν: the occasional rock lofted by a Homeric
hero is oddly generalized.
1424. The Dorian gen, plur. (so rare in drama) ταλαινᾶν might seem
a temptingly easy escape from the unmetrical τάλαιναν but for the
necessity it imposes of pronouncing ἀοιδοτάταν choriambic (ὠδοτάταν)
1109. While the 8% of ordinary Attic is used fairly freely by Soph.
and Eur. alongside ἀοιδά, ᾧδός for ἀοιδός occurs only once in tragedy
(Held. 488 in dialogue}, and the form is very improbable in this
highly poetic use of the superlative of ἀοιδός adjectival, Triclinitus’s
τάλαιναν τῶν gives a rather improbable transferred epithet, and
though metrically possible as an aeolochoriambic heptasyll. v-=—v
wv —is an obvious makeshift fill-up. <dv> would import an extremely
rare use of the possessive ὅς, éés referring to a plural subject, for which
the grammarian Apollonius in the second century A.D. censured
Hesiod (7g. 58) and Callimachus (cf. fr. 471Pf.). ταλαντάτων (Weck-
lein) or ταλαιφρόνων would fill the gap. |
1126. For the Nauplius episode see on 767. The later use of a lighthouse
to warn off from a dangerous coast is liable to confuse our picture
here; to a Greek such a shore-beacon meant a harbour. Apparently
in this version Nauplius rowed out alone (the distances are formi-
dable), and when he saw the Greek ships approaching lit his prepared
beacon on a rocky headland of S. Euboea, The construction of
πυρσεύσας with both an internal (φλογ. σέλας) and a direct (dud.
Ep.) object recalls the troubles of 866. Italie compares Lom 495
χοροὺς στεΐίβουσι στάδια. With the punctuation here given it is most
natural to take Aly. τ᾽ ἐν. ἀκταῖς as well as πέτραις Καφηρίσιν as dat.
after ἐμβαλών, ‘dashing them on the Capherean rocks and the head-
lands of the Aegean sea by the light of his treacherous star’; 11 18 15
a local dat. with λάμψας as Pearson takes it the τ᾽ would be better
deleted (s0 Herwerden}, ‘making to shine over the headlands’, δόλιον
ἀστέρα λάμψας= ‘flashing his treacherous stay’ is again an unexpected
acc, with a verb which is usually intrans.; Verrall’s ἀνάψας, ‘kindling
his treacherous star’, would be less repetitive of the earlier phrase.
1183-6 are unintelligible without a subject, Of the Greeks who did
not die at Troy, some were drowned off Euboea, another group,
140 COMMENTARY
the followers of Menelaus, were driven off course by a storm which
swept them away from Greece and sent them wandering along
harbourless coasts unable to land. With this group we return to
the figure of Helen, whose phantom they carried. Wilamowitz’s
Μενέλας for νεφέλαν 1135 is the simplest solution, with commas de-
leted; the position of MevéAas then balances the similar late-placed
Πάρις of the strophe. Hermann’s MaAea for the unsuitable μέλεα re-
calls the stormy cape of Od. 3. 287. βαρβάρου στολᾶς must be taken
with γέρας, and the hyperbaton and involved order of the MSS. may
be defended as part of the elaborate responsion of strophe and
antistrophe (see the metrical scheme) with βαρβάρῳ πλάτᾳ } βαρβάρου
στολᾶς, ὅτ᾽ ἔμολεν | ὅτ᾽ ἔσυτο, ‘Eddva | Mevéhas, Ἀφροδίτας / Ἥρας.
‘And inhospitable were the cliffs of Malea when there ran before the
storm-gusts away from his own country Menelaus carrymg on his
ships the prize of a barbarian’s foray that was no prize but a quarrel
with the Greeks, Hera’s sacred Phantom.’
(δὴ) 1137-64.
112] ὅ τι θεὸς ἢ μὴ θεὸς ἢ τὸ μέσον τ. YOUU HURL.
re ἢ .

LISI ἄφρονες ὅσοι τὰς ἀρετὰς πολέμῳ

τίς φησ᾽ ἐρευνήσας βροτῶν - ὠς πυπ
λόγχαισί 7 ἀλκαίου δορὸς
4 f 1 .

ἯΤ40 μακρότατον πέρας εὑρεῖν ὃς τὰ θεῶν π᾿ ου-τ τ τ YEU

ἐσορᾷ
1154 κτᾶσθε, πόνους ἀμαθῶς θνατῶν κατα-
~ Li 5 μ΄ Fa]

παυόμενοι" "
δεῦρο καὶ αὖθις ἐκεῖσε καὶ πᾶλν πωυπυυπωπυυπος
ἀντιλόγοις
εἰ γὰρ ἅμιλλα κρινεῖ viv αἵματος,
4 1 a “- μὰ

οὕποτ᾽ ἔρις
πηδῶντ᾽ ἀνελπίστοις τύχαις; τοπύπῳπυ-π
λείψει κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπων πόλεις"
σὺ Aids ἔφυς, ὦ ᾿Ελένα, θυγάτηρ' 2. uu HU ee
& Πριαμίδος γᾶς ἔλαχον θαλάμους,
ΤΙ45 πτανὸς γὰρ ἐν κόλποις σε “1ἡ- τι ππῳπῃυ-
150 ἐξὸν διορβῶσαι λόγοις
τδας ἐγτέκνωσε πατήρ. mo
σὸν ἔριν ὦ ᾿Ελένα.
Kar’ ἰαχήθης καθ᾽ ᾿Ελλανέαν 3. gro mem
νῦν δ᾽ of μὲν Aida μέλονται κάτω,
ἄδικος ἄπιστος ἄθεος' οὐδ᾽ ἔγνω μαθεῖν Wore Ue ut TOU .-
τείχεα δέ, φλαγμὸς ὥστε Διός, ἐπέσυ-
id μ κι πὶ f i f

τὸ φλόξ, '
 LINES 1137-1150 141
τί τὸ σαφές, 6 τι ποτ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖςἈ VOUAA συ -Ξ
ἐπὶ δὲ πάθεα πάθεσι φέρεις
an
TI50 τῶν θεῶν ἔπος ἀλαθὲς ηὗρον, --Ἧὠὐὧ-- ἀνέτως τος
*~ om

τιθάᾷ ἀθλία συμφοραῖς ἐλειναῖς.

4137-64. Though without any verifiable period-close, this pair falls
clearly into three major periods, of which the first two are dactyla-
epitrite with units of dd (hemiepes) and iambic (epitrite) metra
and dimeters, and the third pure iambic with more resolution and
syncopation. Both 1 and 2 open with the same colon as the first pair
(1107) but with resolved first long. 1140 and 1141 are both ‘choeri-
leans’, dactylo-epitrite compounds ἃ dvd d. | |
1137 ff. “As for what is god, or not god, or something in between,
which of mortals after searching can claim to have found the distant
end of this quest, when he sees the things of the gods leaping hither
and thither and back again in contradictory unexpected turns of
_fortume?’ The thought seems to be that in so vast and apparently
chaotic a field as human fortunes one might have expected to find
signs of divine ordering there, if anywhere, where the gods’ own
being was involved; but Helen, a daughter of Zeus, has been exe-
crated throughout all Greece, and the Chorus has given up hope of
determining [where certainty lies in these matters?]. Here text,
sense required, and metre are all uncertain.
1137. This dubiety seems to me more limited to a particular issue than
edd. would have it. The Chorus is not asking ‘what god is or what
he is not’ (Pearson) with τὸ μέσον added to round off the concept
(everything about god’), which would be a large and singularly
_urelevant question here. They are wondering about the distinction
between divine, mortal, and mixed, θεόσυτος ἢ βρότειος ἢ κεκραμένη
A. PV 116. Helen as the offspring of Zeus and Leda seems a dis-
tinguished example of the third category but has been quite peculiarly
subject to extreme vicissitudes. |
1147-50: v. app. crit. Hermann’s restoration of 1147 is deservedly
accepted by most edd., ‘and then you were cried out upon in Greek
lands for a wicked woman... ’, but after that I have no idea what
Eur. really said here, and the text as given merely rejects what I
feel to be two impossibilities: (1) the construction οὐδ᾽ 2yw τί τὸ
σαφὲς ὅ τι ποτ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖς (? ‘I do not grasp what the truth [is], what-
ever {it is] among mortals’); one can say οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν, or οὐκ ἔχω
τί χρὴ λέγειν, Or οὐκ ἔχω τί φῶ, but not; I should have thought, οὐκ
ἔχω τί τὸ σαφές, even if the further 6 τι ποτ᾽ could be explained as in
74 supr., nor even with the mitigating ἔτι for 6 τι, (2) τὸ τῶν θεῶν
ἔπος as ‘the word of the gods’ or ‘the Word of God’, If ἔπος simply
means ‘pronouncement’, a sudden burst of confidence in, e.g., oracles
as against mantic would still be surprising here. There seems in fact
142 COMMENTARY
very little.to encourage the «(δ᾽ which isolates this line m contrast |
to the previous one.
The text here given is Herwerden’s extraction from the tangle
1148 ἀδίκως προδότης ἄπιστος ἄδικος ἄθεος οὐδ᾽ ἔχω, and then along
Kirchhoff’s lines for 1149-50, assuming (for want of better evidence)
that the beginning of 1164 gives a true lead metrically. His ἀμφὶ
θεῶν would certainly be easier, but possibly τῶν ϑεῶν might be kept
as objective gen. ‘pronouncement about the gods’. ‘I cannot deter-
mine where certainty lies as to what word current among mortals
about the gods I have ever found true.’ But the whole of 1147-50
is locus difficillimus necdum expeditus.
4151-84. The text of this stanza is also full of uncertainties. The
words of LP rss2-4 are very neatly transposed by Murray into the
required iambic dimeter and choerilean, and the only trouble is to
account for the strange behaviour of the tradition in rearranging
this so drastically in what is still not an obvious prose-order. Of
attempts to adjust the words by minor modifications, only Wilamo-
witz’s (GY 456) need be considered (Wecklem, Pearson, and Italie all
print unmetrical versions): κτᾶσθε δορὸς ἀλκαίου τε λόγιχαις κατα-
παυόμενοι πόνους θνατῶν ἀμαθῶς - Bou τ-τὐὐπ͵]πσυσπωπῳ
_——uvu-~, The division of λόγχαις between two cola and the con-
traction in θνα. are not serious objections. More troublesome is the
sense: should ἀπαθῶς ‘painlessly’ be kept, or emended (very easily)
to ἀμαθῶς ‘ignorantly’? If the former, οὐ or μή ταῦθ be fitted in
somehow, ‘instead of ending mortal troubles by painless means’;
I can see no metrical solution to this. With duafds, καταπαυόμενοι
must mean ‘clumsily irying to end the troubles of men’, and the
preceding re might be better removed (easily in Murray's version with
λόγχαισιν so that λόγχαις can be taken with καταπαυόμενοι imstead
of with κτᾶσθε, :
1155. νιν: generally explained as ‘them’ = πόνους, but A. Y. Campbell
gets a more natural phrase by making it anticipate ἔριν: ‘if the con-
test of blood is to settle it, never will strife cease among the cities of
men,”
4158: no further emendation is required, certainly not, as most edd.,
Πριαμίδαι, since the Greek dead are as much or more in mind here.
The subject (men who so foolishly insist on fighting out their quarrels)
is perfectly intelligible from the context. ‘By strife they won as
their lot chambers of Trojan earth’ (probably a direct reminiscence of
the unforgettable θήκας ᾿Ιλιάδος γᾶς A. Ag. 453) “when they might
have settled by argument the strife over you, O Helen.’
1162. (app. crit.) φλογμὸς ὥστε Aids ‘like the bolt of Zeus’ 15 usually
accepted here.
1163. φέρεις : ‘the personal pronoun is often omitted in Greek, though
emphasis appears to require it, cf. A, Hum, 84’—Pearson,
 LINES 1151-1180 143
1164. Nauck’s ἐλεινοῖς (better cAewais) gives metrical correspondence
at the end of the clausula; the earlier dat. adjective then becomes
hopelessly redundant.
For the sentiment of this stanza cf. Supp. 748-9. The date 412
must not be over-pressed, nor can the stanza be made into the moral
of this play. See Introd. p. xii. |
1165 ff. Enter from the left Theoclymenus and attendants carrying
hunting-gear with hounds on the leash (cf. 153-4). This clutter is
quickly got out of the way by sending them through the doors (1169—
70). The king greets his father’s tomb, explaining with slightly
naive effect why it is to be found so near the palace-front. It takes
the place, for dramaturgical reasons, of the usual statues of the θεοὶ
πατρῷοι Which are often greeted by stage-characters,
1168. wpocevverer: is this the only instance in drama of ὅδε in the nom.
used of himself by the speaker with a third person of the verb? MSS.
sometimes vacillate: v. Phoen. 1760 and El. 44, where the variant re-
corded in L ἤσχυνί(α) ἐν εὐνῇ should probably be adopted. Pearson
refers to 5. A/. 864, which is, however, different, since there is no ὅδε
and all the pride of Ajax is concentrated in the line. Possibly Eur.
intends Theoclymenus to be pompous here, but the remark is really
no more than a device for mtroducing himself to the spectators, and
Lenting may be right in demanding zpocevéaw—aunless Nauck’s
ὧδε παῖς 15 adopted (cf. on g), in which case the third person is appro-
priate.
1171-3. πόλλ᾽ In effect = πολλάκις, contrasted with καὶ νῦν 1173. δή
emphatic, at the end of the lme, cf. 134, Denn. GP 224. Murray’s
question-mark 1172 would make this line a direct quotation from the
λοιδορία he has addressed to himself. But a question hardly seems
compatible with od ...7:,a very strong form of neg. : ‘we are utterly
faiimg to punish wrongdoers with death.’ The γάρ instead of the
hypotactic ὡς adds a touch of staccato emphasis. φανερόν almost ‘as
large as life’. :
1177, διαπεπραγμένα; fait accompli.
1180 ff. χαλᾶτε κλῆθρα; the king bangs imperiously on the door of
the σκηνή, which flies open, and to the ὀπαδοί who appear he gives
orders to open the stables {ἱππικὰς φάτνας) and bring out his chariot-
team. The visible stage-doors are to be imagined as opening on to
a palace-courtyard, somewhere within which (as in Bacch.) are the
stables. As the servants disappear to do his bidding, Theoclymenus
sees Helen (ods 1184 ceremonial! plur.} coming to the doorway, and
calls after them to cancel his order. Once the simplicity of the
Stage-setting is grasped, the need for emendation in 1180 disappears.
(Ci. Bacch. 509 ὑππικαῖς φάτναις.) λύειν ‘unfasten’ is used for ‘open’
by an easy transference, cf. frag. 1003 Ade πηκτὰ δωμάτων, with
Pollux’s comment τῷ ἀνοίγειν ταὐτὸν τὸ λύειν,
144 COMMENTARY
1182. πόνου γ᾽ ἕκατι: it will not be for want of effort on his part if she
escapes.
1192. ‘is your heart broken ?’, a middle use of the transitive ψυχὴν
διέφθαρκε Med. 226, Helen has startlingly changed her mask and
cress.
1198. Cf. Andy. 56 and 64. Ar.’s sharp ear caught the turn of speech as
a tragic (probably Euripidean) cliché, cf. Vesp. 1297, Thesmt, 582.
4195. συμφορᾶς: partitive after mterrog. τῷ;
1196. πῶς φράσω; her feigned sorrow and her real reluctance to speak
the ill-omened words coincide. This immensely long stichomythia
gives the maximum opportunity for such double play, with the
audience on the alert to pick up the points.
4197-8. Either of these lines separately is a possible response to 1196.
Together, they are less happy, and not much improved by the mser-
tion of δ᾽, That 1x97 is spoken aside, or even ‘half aside’ (Pearson), 15
excluded by σοῖς, It also spoils the reaction of surprise In πῶς
οἶσθα; 1198 is essential for the sequel, but a lacuna before it could
only be filled by a pointless repetition of the news in 1196. ‘The break
in stichomythia, added to the slightly uncomfortable shape of 1197
(either yaipev or εὐτυχῶν, with τάδ᾽, would made it easier), suggests
that Hartung’s excision of this line is the best solution. Ifso, it must
have been interpolated by someone (presumably an actor} anxious
to work in an expression of ambivalent feeling.
1199. The lie direct 1s faintly shocking where it involves Theonce, but in
1370-3 we find the priestess herself preferring it to mere prevarication.
1201. ἐς κόρακας---ἐς τὴν πατρίδα (Οὐ ΘΟ 610}. Lenting’s of of’ supplies
. the missing object. The γὰρ here is difficult to pin down—Denniston,
GP 94-95» must be pondered, but I cannot agree with his conclusion
that δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ (Dobree, Pearson) should be accepted here. This example
comes nearest to supporting Cyc. 261 as a use of γάρ with opt. almost
as = εἰ γάρ, Weckletn suggests that γὰρ ‘explains’ the tone of voice
in ἥκει, but the tone ought to be ambiguous, and in any case whether
a mere tone would be so treated, when the word itself was quite
neutral, seems doubtful. Perhaps γὰρ mainly reinforces the assent
given by ἥκει.
1203-4. The nadir of Menelaus’ fortunes as a tragic hero!
41209: the normal Greek feeling about drowning at sea, which left the
victim without a tomb for the receipt of honour. .
1214. ποῦ λιπὼν: the participle is the focus of the question. “Where
did he leave the wreckage of his ship before coming here ῥ᾽
1215. The curse is a convenient way of evading an answer. The sub-
ject of ὄλοιτο is ‘the wreck’, but since as it stands the phrase is am-
biguous she exempts Menelaus as a precaution.
1216. ‘Menelaus fas perished!’-—a mild rebuke for the inappropriate
future bearing ot ὅὄλοιτο,
 LINES 1182-1236 148
41225. Many emendations have been proposed for this meaningless line.
The neatest 15 perhaps A. ¥. Campbell’s φέλος γάρ dar’ £6 ὄσπερ ἦν
ποτ᾽ ἐμθα ° ay. ᾿ ᾿

1226. This is generally punctuated as a question: ‘I take it you are

genuinely weeping for this calamity?’ but ὀρθῶς varies In meaning
according to its construction, and the sense ‘really’, ‘sincerely’ is
confined to cases with adjectives or nouns (of ὀρθῶς φίλοι, etc., or
with a copula ὀρθῶς ἦσθα πατήρ Alc. 636). Used with a verb it means
‘properly’ (supr. 322), or ‘rightly’ (ὀρθῶς ἔλεξας, etc.), or ‘naturally’
(== εἰκότως), and it is this last sense it must have here: ‘you are
quite right to weep...’, cf. JT 542 (the μὲν implies reservations
about other pomts unspecified). The response of Helen is thus
a complete misfit, and two lines must have fallen out here; 1226a
could be many thigs—for instance something like ‘with such feel-
ings as I shall never forget’, 1227 answers—perhaps by way of
another question—some more direct objection, on the lines of ‘How
am I to know that this man’s tale is true?—It’s so easy, isn’t it, to
fool your sister?—-No indeed’. γοῦν is sarcastic: ‘quasi facile sit’,
Hermann. λαθεῖν is a fairly certain emendation; it is impossible to
imagine any form of 1226b which would have made sense of θανεῖν..
1228. πῶς οὖν: cf. 1266, passing on to a new point.
1229-30. After all the efforts of editors and translators to paper over
the senselessness of these remarks, it took the keen eye of J. Jackson
(pp. 25-27) to observe the simple truth that 122g must be said by
the king to Helen. 1230 was then originally her reply : πιστὴ γάρ εἰμι
τῷ πόσει φεύγουσά σε, and when the two lines were transposed suf-
fered ‘correction’ to mor} γὰρ ἔασι σῷ... we, The whole exchange
thus falls imto place:
“Well, now——will you be continuing to make this tomb your home ?’
‘Ah, you see, In avoiding you 1 am being faithful to my husband.’
"Why do you tantalize me instead of letting the dead be?’
‘I won’t tantalize you any more. Begin the wedding arrangements.’
The use of ‘detached’ ἀλλ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽, with punctuation following, is
found at Εἰ. 577, Or. 1109, and (again with κερτομεῖν, as Jackson
observes) Cyc, 688, Each time it is a fiite verb which is negatived,
not—as might seem easier in English idiom—an adjective or par-
ticiple. Mr. E. W. Handley points out to me that Ar. Ach. 471 ἀλλ᾽
οὐκέτ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἄπειμι (i.e. οὐκέτ᾽ ἀπολῶ oe) suggests that Dicaeopolis
was echoing a favourite Euripidean turn. :
1232. τάδε first subject of ἦλθεν, then object of alvé. The attempt to
keep ἦλθες by emending χρόνια to xpovia, as Barnes, is misguided.
1233. The familiar idiom is turned off from second to first person
plural, -
1236. With μεθίημι Pearson compares IT 298, Hee. 338, 1A rot, Ar.
Av. 946 codd, νεῖκος τὸ σόν; my quarrel with you,
τ46 COMMENTARY
1242. The particular expertise of the Pelopid house is left un-
explained.
1248. πῶς Sat; “Then how de you bury them?’ The colloquial particle
dai, used after interrogatives, should not be banished from Eur.,
though it is often confused with δή and δ᾽ αὖ,
1247, ἐξορμίζομεν: ‘take out to sea.’
1249. 68 for οὐκ is confirmed by the king’s change of address in the
next line.
1250. μὲν; so fax so good.
1252. θανόντας ἐν πόντῳ together.
1253. ὡς ἂν ἔχῃ with a partitive gen. would be common enough;
as ἂν ἦ 15 more surprising, especially with the part. παρούσης.
1254. ταύτης χάριν goes with an implied ‘I do not grudge it’. ,
£259. ye μὲν δὴ: the particles, as Denniston says, grammatically pick
up from 1257.
1260. τῶνδ᾽ if right must mean ‘such as you umply’, such as are not
δυσγενῆ, Bruhn’s ὧδ᾽ is tempting.
1264, τάδ᾽ refers back to ὅπλα, not to be taken with ἃ as = ‘what’.
1265. βλαστήματα: fruit and flowers.
1267. Oar-masters = ‘rowers’ sunply, as again in 1413, Cf. on 1039,
1274. The only relevant sense for λύματ᾽ would be the blood from the
victim, and ‘pollution’ seems too strong a word for that. θύματ᾽, ‘the
sacrifices’ (Hermann), surely makes the logical sense required.
1272. γενήσεται: ‘shall be provided’, like ἔσται 1262.
1276. ὡς λέγεις : ‘from what you say.’ :
1277. ἐν εὐσεβεῖ — εὐσεβές, cl. 1227 ἐν εὐμαρεῖ. κἀέπτειν : ‘to cheat
the dead of their due.’
1278. ἴτω in a self-contained sentence always = ‘be it so’, ‘very well,
then’. πρὸς ἡμῶν ἱ ἐστίν].
1282. ἀχλαινίας : In effect = δυσχλαινέίας (Hlec. 240, cf, on 416 supr,)
rather than ‘nakedness’.
1286-7. Pearson suggests τρύχου (med.)} τοσοῦτον, but the following δ᾽
must then also be excised; it cannot be pushed through on the plea
that δὲ = γάρ. .[t seems more probabie that (as Badham) there is
a lacuna. from the caesura of one line to that of the next. Possibly
1286 ended in πόσιν and gave rise to the intolerably weak πόσις of
1287. πάλιν (Reiske) or ποτε (Dobree} would leave the required
generalization,
1288. σὸν ἔργον: different from 830, since here the reference is to
the words which follow, as the asyndeton shows. The commonest
construction in such cases is to complete the sense with an infin,
but cf. the independent sentence, Bacch. 849, Aidvuce, viv adv ἔργον...
τεισώμεθ᾽ αὐτόν. ‘Now you know your task, young lady: you must
be content with the husband you have here...’ (all the words are
loaded with double meaning).
 LINES 1242-1301 147
1207. οὐκ ἐς ἀμβολὰς: v. on go4. ‘I shall not keep you waiting for
kindnesses.’
1300. οἵων: agreeing with ἡμῶν, not neuter. Exeunt all three.
1301-68. Second Stasimon.
After the long-drawn-out, dangerous, and successful setting of the
trap, this pause in the action is dramatically appropriate before it is
finally sprung in a triumphant demonstration of Greek wits and
barbarian foolishness. Any lyrical comment by the Chorus on the
situation would be an enfeebling anti-climax. Instead it launches
upon a strange ode, perhaps reflecting something of the style of
contemporary dithyramb, about Demeter sorrowmg for her ravished
daughter and making the earth, and thus men and gods, suffer for
her loss. The last stanza is particularly corrupt, but there can be
no doubt that it proposed a tenuous link between this story and
Helen’s (ὦ παῖ 1356), who is held to have incurred the wrath of the
goddess by some offence no longer decipherable. Zeus had devised
an appeasement by offering to the goddess the instruments of her
cult, but Helen had ignored the power of this cult—and to this owed
her sufferings? There is no room for more than a hint, and indeed
more would only have emphasized the complete irrelevance of this
motif to all the rest of the play, and more particularly to the impending
triumph of Helen now. The ode is in fact introduced for its own sake.
This is the most explicit indication we have in hterature of the
process of syncretism at work in fifth-century Greece, but there is
of course no reason to credit Eur, himself with any deliberate in-
novation other than of detail. (Cf. Nilsson, Gesch. gr. Rel. i. 687-8.)
Demeter, the corn-goddess, the mother of life, and mother of Kore,
is one form of the Mediterranean Mother-goddess who appears
im more orgiastic cults as Cybele, as Rhea, as the Great Mother,
the Mountain (or Idaean) Mother, the Mother of the Gods, or of
all gods and all men (Hom. Hymn xiv). Here the wildness of the
Phrygian cults and the dm of their ecstatic dances is grafted on
to the myth of the sorrowing Demeter; the different elements
fuse perhaps less easily im poetry thanin worship. P. Maas, Epidau-
rische Hymnen ΤΠ, 3, draws attention to some similarities in subject
and phrasing in the hymn to the Mother of the Gods inscribed
(faultily) on stone JG iv. 12, 131 and attributed by him to Telesilla,
who lived im the first half of the fifth century. Page, however
PMG 935), puts this ‘not earlier than the fourth century’ B.c., while
Koster, Ned. Ak, Letterkunde 25. 4 (1962), has good arguments for the
time of Hadrian; he assumes an older poem as the source for both
Eur. and this later hymn.
1301--68.
1301] dpeia ποτὲ Spopadt κώ- woe eu UU
[419 Spopatuy δ᾽ ore πολυπλαρή-
148 COMMENTARY
τλῳ μάτηρ θεῶν ἐσύθη eeu rs
ual
“τῶν μάτηρ ἔπαυσε πόνων
dv’ ὑλάεντα νά eeee Γ-

ματεύουσ᾽ ἁπόνους a i oF ne

ποτάμιον τε χεῦμ᾽ ὑδάτων

ry
A oe a ae

θυγατρὺς ἁρπαγὰς δολίους,

mo
1305 βαρύβρομόν τε κῦμ ἁλιον St Ad ee Lo τ

1323 χιονοθρέμμον᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐπέρασ᾽

πόθῳ TAS ἀποιχομένας Woe -
μα, > f

᾿Ιδαιᾶν Nupddy σκοπιᾶν'"

ἀρρήτου κούρας.
ῥίπτει δ᾽ ἐν πένθει,
τῇ 2 3 ἔ

κρόταλα δὲ βρόμια διαπρύσιον a Ψ σ Ψ ΨΨ ΨΩ

πέτρινα κατὰ δρία πολυνιφέα"

tév7a κέλαδον ἀνεβόα,
— ᾿ ry

Try ve yu τα

βροτοῖσι δ᾽ ἄχλοα media γᾶς

“π᾿ 3. oy # Ea

1310 θηρῶν ὅτε Cuyiovs

13278
ξεύξασα θεὰ σατίνας
fa 4 f

οὐ καρπίζουο᾽ ἀρότοις,
τὰν ἁρπασθεῖσαν κυκλίᾳμν
hl ε -- I

λαῶν δὲ φθείρει γενεάν.

χορῶν ἔξω παρθενίωντ μ᾿ ᾿

ποΐμναις 8 aby ἵει θαλερὰς

13138
1331 βοσκὰς εὐφύλλων ἐλίκων,
mo
peters ταν ἀελλύόποδες ee
κ πο ἐμ

πόλεων δ᾽ ἀπέλειπε βίος,

a μὲν τόξοις Ἄρτεμις, ἃ δ᾽
+
1315
οὐδ᾽ ἦσαν θεῶν θυσίαι
La Φ᾿ -- ᾿
1333
ἔγχει Dopydims πάνοπλος.
a ¥F

βωμοῖς τ᾽ ἄφλεκτοι πέλανοι,

- 3. τ i

αὐγάξων δ᾽ ἐξ οὐρανίων
πηγὰς 8° ἀμπαύει δροσερὰς
L3i7a «Ζεὺς ὁ παντάρχας ἑδράνων» =e
ΜΞ τ΄ ee |
1330 ἀευκῶν ἐκβάλλειν ὑδάτων
ἄλλαν μοῖραν ἔκραινε.
¥ - δ
Se eee
-- --
*
πένθει παιδὸς ἀλάστῳ.
i ἡ 3 i
 LINES 1337-1368 149
1337 ἐπεὶ
4 1
δ᾽ ἔπαυσ᾽ εἰλαπίνας
3 oy 5 4 f
el

£353 ὧν οὐ θέμις <a> οὐδ᾽ ὅσία

θεοῖς βροτείῳ τε γένει, Mat ee A mee μ -
Βπ"»Ὕ ee " ὶ αὶ ἡ -“ πν κ" κα

Ζεὺς μειλίσσων στυγίους ORTONYS

μῆνιν δ᾽ εἶχες μεγάλας
“ 3 ny) r

1340 Πατρὸς ὀργὰς ἐνέπει' Ne te

1356 Μίατρὸς ὦ παῖ θυσίας
Bére σεμναὶ Χάριτες,
ov o¢filovan θεᾶς.
Ἴ 4 Lay

iTE Tay περὶ παρθένῳ

w ᾿ 4 f
τον πρὶ, πὶ

μέγα ro. δύναται νεβρῶν

Ana θυμωσαμένμαν
παμποΐκιλοι στολέδεςi i

κισσοῦ τε στεφθεῖσα χλόα

1345 Modcai θ᾽ ὕμνοισι χορῶν.

1361 νάρθηκας εἰς ἱερούς,
χαλκοῦ δ᾽ αὐδὰν χθονίαν
βῥόμβου θ᾽ εἰλισσομένα
ev t Ε f

τύπανά τ᾿ ἔλαβε βυρσοτενῇ

κύκλιος ἕνοσις αἰθεριά,
καλλίστα
f
τότεf
πρῶτα μακά-
* ro

βακχεύουσά
ω f
τ᾽ 7 ἔθειρα
4
Βρομί-
f

-ρων Κύπρις" γέλασεν δὲ θεὰ

τῷ καὶ παννιυχίϑες Feds, q rm “-ν —

T350 δέξατό τ᾽ ἐς χέρας el

1366

τερφθεῖσ᾽ ἀλαλαγμῷ
μορφᾷ μόνον ηὔχεις,
The dominant rhythm in both pairs is the ‘choriambic
dimeter’ (a loose name fot an indivisibie aeolic colon akin to the
glyconic and like it an octasyllable, ie. the equivalent of dimeter-
length), of the form cultivated by Eur. above all, In this the
choriamb ends the phrase, being preceded by four syllables of which
two are long and two anceps, most commonly in the form -- x — x —
vv τὸ (anceps is never iuxta anceps). Anceps is more often long than
short. The first long (1304-5 = 1322-3) may be resolved, or both the
814172 L
150 COMMENTARY
first and the second, in which case anceps is normally also short,
giving six short syllables as in 1347= 1363. Sometimes there is an
inversion of the first two syllables, x — instead of —x, as in 1313
χορῶν = 1330 ποίμναις. Much rarer is the double inversion found in
1337-8 = 1353 x —~—, where the first four syllables are in fact
treated as an iambic metron. (Mixed iambo-choriambic is familar
from Anacreon.) These choriambic dimeters are varied as usual
by an occasional glyconic, as in 1348-9 = 1364-5, of which the first
has the final resolution, in quick synaphea with the following colon,
which is so often found in later Eur. I have shown the opening
colon 1301 == 1319 as glyconic too, since Eur. 15 more apt to play
with resolution of the frame of the choriamb in glyconics than im
choriambic dimeters. In 13089 = 1326-7 I have deliberately leit
the resolutions ambiguous, since it is uncertain whether these two
lines are iarabic dimeters, as they are generally taken to be, or whether
the aeolic rhythm continued throughout and they should be shown
as resolved glyconics. (The manner of the dance- “steps could quite
well distinguish the two if required.) Similarly ἀρρήτου κούρας is
often ‘dochmiac’, but x ~~ x — would be unrelated to anything m
the context, while if the middle syllable were a contracted double-
short we should have a reizianum like the final double clausula
1351-2 == 1368. Among the dimeters Eur. characteristically mter-
snersed some shorter lengths, especially the heptasyllable x —x —
vw, a headless version of the commonest form of dimeter, and m
1340-1 = 1356-7 —v —— vv — as a headless echo of the octasyllables
at the opening of the stanza; there are also hexasyllables x ——vv —
1303= 1320 and -vw—w— 31350, Finally, there is the (nameless)
colon vv — Uv — vu — 1342, and, with final resolution, 1332. This ts
not a variant of the glyconic, for the Athenian poets never use the
two short syllables in responsion with other forms of ‘aeolic base’, as
the Lesbians do.
Periods are peculiarly difficult to determine in this type of metre,
and I have merely indicated where pause, and where synaphea, is
unmistakable.
For the text and interpretation of this ode I am deeply indebted
to P. Maas, Eptdaurische Hymnen II, 3 Anh. The sequence of
thought—or of pictures—is unintelligible if we try to take it as
a chronological sequence of events in a narrative. Lyric has its own
way of decorating or interpreting a story, and always ‘takes for
granted that its hearers know the story already. Eur. is not here
concerned with Persephone in the underworld, or with her seasonal
release, but with the grief and wrath of Demeter and the potency of
the rites (of the Great Mother) which could bring reef and distrac-
tion even in the frenzy of that search. At the begmning of the first
stanza and the beginning of the second the goddess is running on
 LINES 1301-1808 151
foot, but in between, at 1308 ff., she is carrying on the search from
her car drawn by lions, to the ear-splitting din of those noisy instru-
ments which we find her accept
froming
Cypris and the Graces at
the end of the third stanza. As a further complication, the interven-
tion of Artemis and Athena 1315~16 belongs to the time of the Rape
itself, !
Maas’s reconstruction of the text starts from the assumption that
ζεύξασα θεὰ of codd. 1311 is to be kept. The dative so frequently
accepted from Hermann has to wait for its verb for five lines and
then take it across densely packed constructions. Moreover, it is
clear from L’s reading 1317 αὐγάζων δ᾽ ἐξ οὐρανίων that the lacuna
should follow, not precede, that line. θεᾷ is then left stranded » unless
we emend the unmetrical μετὰ κούραν to a verb: Wilarnowitz
μεταθῦσαν (‘stormed after’), but the picture of Artemis and Athena
m full armour as outriders beside the Mother's chariot is unfamiliar
and unwelcome, and the whole construction with acc. sarivas and
dat. θεᾷ is dubious. A quite different approach (Wecklein, Pearson)
Is to create a verb in 1310, θηρῶντό τε, with subject ζεύξασαι θεαὶ (or
θεᾷ) xodpai ἀελλόποδες, leaving μέτα as a preposition in anastrophe or
adverbially in tmesis. But apart from the general awkwardness of
the maiden goddesses (superfluously deAAdwoSes) in a car with the
mother goddess on foot, or else. acting as harnessing attendants,
the word ζυγίους has after ζεύξασαι πὸ meaning at all without βηρῶν.
We are left with fevéaca θεὰ, the Mother at the centre of the picture,
yoking lions to her car ; and to supply her with a verb (sought ? called
upon?) we need a further lacuna after 1313, at the end of which pera
κούραν has survived as a corrupt backwash. This also leaves room
for explanation of the activities of Artemis and Athena (see below),
In the antistrophe the placing of the lacuna enables us to keep λαῶν
δὲ 1329 to stylistic advantage.
1801. ὀρεία μάτηρ θεῶν must be taken together, the ‘Mountain Mother
of the Gods’, ὀρεία μάτηρ is far too common a title (cf. Hipp. 144)
to allow the adj. to be taken predicatively, as if ‘over the mountains
the goddess rushed through the glens’ could mean ‘rushed over
hill and dale’.
1307. ἀρρήτου; Kodpa or Κόρη was her usual appellation, to avoid the
᾿ Ul-omened name Sepad¢acoa—spoken by Helen 175!
1308, xporada: the ‘noisy cymbals’ were of bronze, cf. Cyc. 205 κρόταλα
χαλκοῦ τυμπάνων τ᾽ ἀράγματα, There can be no question of giving’
κρόταλα precedénce over the rest of the orchestra, as if the Mother
had been limited to this instrument at first and only acquired the
kettledrums and flute later, All belong together, as in Hom. Hymn
X1V, 3 ἦ κροτάλων τυπάνων τ᾽ ἰαχὴ σύν τε βρόμος αὐλῶν, and any hearer
accustomed to lyric technique would know that the mention of
one imphed the rest ; so in the third stanza Cypris takes the ‘rumbling
152 COMMENTARY |
voice of bronze [the κρόταλα] and the drums stretched with hide’,
and the Mother laughs and receives in her hands ‘the deep-sounding
flute, being delighted with the throbbing din’. In 1362 it 1s the
ῥόμβος, the bull-roarer, which is whirled aloft; each time a different
element in the whole 15 picked out.
1314-16. The stress laid upon the weapons of Artemis and Athena shows |
that Eur. is alluding to a version of the Rape in which these two were
playing with Kore and the Oceanids (Hom. Hymn Dem. 424, even
if the line is spurious there) and at first rushed to the help of the
maiden, threatening her ravisher, but were prevented from fighting
by Zeus, who aimed a thunderbolt between the combatants. Such
a version appears in Claudian’s De Rapiu Proserpinae i. 205 ἢ, and
only by assuming general knowledge of the story in the fifth century
can we make sense of the allusions here; for instance, the ‘different’
outcome devised by Zeus would have no meaning if ail the goddesses
were doing was to ‘hunt’ Kore or accompany the Mother. Whatever
preceded ἀελλόποδες must have developed from ἁρπασθεῖσαν in 1312,
perhaps by way of a relative (‘whom they rushed to defend’ ?).
1317a. Wilamowitz GV 215, exempli gratza.
41819 ff. Variously emended. Maas points out that Hom, Hymn Dem.
351 uses παύω Intransitively, and Allen—Halliday defend it by other
examples. ἀπόνους is an ingenious coinage of Verrail’s, adapted
to the epithets (amens, ete.) of Latin versions of the story ; Wecklein’s
φίλας is innocuous if dull. γ᾽ has no meaning ; no one has done better
than Murray’s suggestion in app. crit.
1325. ῥίπτει intrans. as Alc. 897, where this passage should have been
added to my note.
1827a-8. [she makes ...]: the exact sense and the construction of
ἀρότοις cannot be determined.
4330 ff. ‘For the flocks she made to grow no fresh green sustenance of
leafy tendrils, and cities were dying out; there were no sacrifices to.
the gods nor burnt offerings at the altars.’ πόλεων rather than πολέων
(Triclinius, possibly from a collated source). ‘The life of many [sheep,
to be supplied out of ποέμναις] was failing’ would be a curious phrase
to use of beasts, and ‘many’ is debilitating, The devastation of the
countryside has its effect on the towns, and on the gods. Maas
objects that cities were not yet founded, but such a thought would
have troubled Eur. no more than it did the author of the Hymn te
Demeter 93 ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων πόλιας καὶ πέονᾳ ἔργα.
1336. ἐκβάλλειν intrans., with ἄμπαύει ‘stops from flowing’.
1387. πένθει ἀλάστῳ (L. Dindorf). Even though ἀλάστωρ can be used
of a female, the Homeric expression {|| 24. 105, Od. τι 342) is much
more probable,
1844 ff. Aphrodite, the Graces, and the Muses are to be the first minis-
trants of the ἀλαλά or ἀλαλαγμάς, the wild clamour of voice and
 LINES 1314-1374 © 153
instrument which accompanied the progresses of the Phrygian
goddess. The assertion is deliberate, as a part of the assimilation
of the Mountain Mother to Demeter, and on no account to be
weakened by emending ἀλαλᾷ 1344 to make room for ἐξαλλάξατ', The
line of emendation in 1342-4 is uncertain, though the τὰν of codd.
is certainly neater than the double dat.; we then need an imper.
_vo-,
1353 ff. Helen’s offence is lost beyond recovery. Jt appears in the first
two lines to be 8 sin of commission over a sacrifice, then in the next
three one of omission; probably the second of these—wegleci of the
Mother’s ceremonies—is right. Then at the end, after two lines of
gibberish, she ‘gloried only in beauty’. (Hipp. 144-7, compared by
edd., is simple both in itself and in its relevance to Phaedra’s sick,
unhappy state.) ἔχεις 1355 is in no need of correction metrically,
but the tense of Musgrave’s εἶχες would at least put the Mother's
wrath into the past, with less apparent irrelevance to the present
situation, and tally better than ἔσχες (a less easy corruption) with
ηὔχεις 1368.
1358 ff. The cult as here described is distinguishable from that of the
βάκχαι: the same assimilation appears in Bacch. 78 ἢ, 1358
δύναται must be right for the unmetrical δύνανται. It is the simplest
form of σχῆμα Πιυδαρικόν, I which a singular verb (most often ἦν
Ol γίγνεται) precedes a fem. plur. subject.
1369. Does Menelaus enter here with Helen? If not, he must appear
with the δμῶες in the wake of the king 1390, introduced, by implica-
tion only, in ὁ ξένος, There is no clear indication either way, since
of course the first person plurals in this speech prove nothing at all.
Quite possibly the answer was given in the lacuna after 1373, where
a ὅδε or ὡς ὁρᾶτε, or a ‘you will see when he arrives’ would be con-
clusive. Itis a great pity that we cannot be certaim, since the answer
must affect our judgement of the degree of comic effect mtended in
this play. It is a poor start to the heroic phase of Menelaus’ actions
if he has to be dumbly present while Helen pomts out at some
length his improved appearance, his clean clothes, his armour, and
his high hopes.
1370 ff. συνεκκλέπτουσα : ‘helping to conceal’ my husband’s presence
by deceiving Theoclymenus, cf. BZ. 364 ‘heips to conceal the truth
about’ [your marriage}, and ἐκκλέπτειν Lon 40, S. Phil, 58 with
Jebb's note. πόσιν παρόντα does duty twice over. ἵστορου-
μένη passive : ‘being questioned.’
1372. ἐν χθονὶ suspectum, as Murray says, and should perhaps be
obelized. It cannot be taken with αὐγὰς εἰσορᾶν as if it were ἐπὶ
χθονί, on the surface of the earth, but could only mean ‘inside the
earth’, dead and & Ἅιδου.
1574:.-Ὁ The yao of 1375 obviously explains a preceding statement, but
154 COMMENTARY
ho emendation of 1374, with or without lacuna, has produced a
satisfactory one. ἐν τύχῃ is meaningless and δῆτα quite out of Ime
with its normal use (Denn. GP 249); ἀνήρπασε if literal implies an
act of which the ydp-sentence is a redundant repetition (still more
so with τεύχη for τύχῃ), and if metaphorical (Wecklein κάλλιστα δ᾽
ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ ἥρπασεν réynv) is dubious Greek, however natural ‘snatched
the chance’ may sound in English or German. I suspect the truth
is to be found in ‘versum ut lacunae explendae causa fictum delet
Dindorf?: κάλλιστα (== fine things) δῆτ᾽ ἀνήρπασεν ἐν τύνῃ πόσις,
absence of caesura, intrusive doubie-short and all, is about the level
of the average interpolator (cf. on 1512).
1375. ἔμελλεν: ‘was supposed to’ according to Theoclymenus’ mtentions.
Ὁ The ‘arms’ are dealt with in two stages: (1) those which he carries,
shield and spear, on left arm and im right hand, (2) those which he
wears as defensive armour {προύργου ἐς dAxiv)}—corselet, greaves,
helmet. ὡς δή with pres. part. 1378 of the pretence, ws with fut. part.
1380-1 of his own confident intention. ,
1376. πόρπαξ, as Miss Lorimer explains BSA 42 (1047), 76 and 130, is
αἱ this date the same as ὄχανον or éydvy, the band through which the
arm was thrust to hold the shield. Fhe sense here makes this quite
clear. :
1878. συνεκπονῶν:; together with Helen, as in r4o6.
1381. θήσων; στήσων would of course be more usual, but In view of
A. Sept, 277 need not be substituted here.
1382 ff. In the Ms. text (v. app. crit.) the part. ἀμείψας tails very
awkwardly after the main sentence and requires δ᾽, Helen here
turns to her own contribution. χρόνια: so long waited for.
1387-8. προσποιούμεθα does not fit ideally with σε εὔνουν (claim you
as a well-wisher?) and still less with the acc. and inf. connected by
ve {and that you should keep a curb on your lips); the zeugma 15
hardly tolerable. Probably the termination of the next line has been
contagious. Rauchenstein’s προσπίτνω μένειν is a possibility.
This perfunctory appeal to the Chorus, with its mere hint of win-
ning their goodwill by holding out the prospect of their own freedom,
contrasts with the long development of the same theme mn {1 1056-77.
It is dropped completely in the sequel.
1399. Enter Theoclymenus witha rowof slaves bearing gifts [and Mene-
laus in full panoply ἢ}. The slaves ‘file off (ἐφεξῆς) stage to the right.
1904-5. te... ve where we should use a disjunctive; Italie compares
221.
1397. χάρισιν ἐκπεπληγμένην: ‘distraught by fond memories’—
ες Pearson. .
1398. οὐ παρόνθ᾽ : though he is missing. It has been objected that the
dead are always ‘absent’, and οὐ παροῦσ᾽ is proposed with reference
to 1204, But it is of course the corpse that is missing ; the assumption
 LINES 1375-1435 185
that its presence would have led to yet heavier lamentation would
not seem strange to a Greek. In any case od παρόνθ᾽ is essential for
the rather simple irony that the audience is meant to enjoy.
1400. πρῶτα carries through to νυμφικὰς ὁμιλίας ‘my first marriage,
when J was a maiden bride’.
1409. δή τιν᾽ ἐς τύχην: all this is leading somewhere. τύχην, ostensibly
non-committal, is meant to be understood by Theaclymenus politely,
by the others exultingly, as “good fortune’.
1412, ot: to an attendant.
1416~—17. The pot of this precaution is seen in the Messenger’s speech
1550 if,
14148. ‘Biessings on you-—and on my plans!’ ovato, ‘may you profit’,
can be used either with a gen. (profit from) or absolutely, as an ex-
pression of gratitude. Here it is the second—and out of it sc. ὀναίμην
in the first sense with τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων.
1419. χρόα: ‘cheeks’, as Andy. 111.
1421-2. It is difficult to get any double meaning out of 1422, or any
meaning at all out of the last three words. No suggested emendation
helps much, and 1420 connects perfectly with 1422. It looks as
though an interpolator had decided that a conventional piece of
unpiety should be added, and countered, not very successfully.
1424. τῆς τύχης: all I need is for it to turn out well—for Helen ‘my
plan’, for Theoclymenus ‘this marriage’,
1426. “To love my friends is not a thing I have waited till now to
learn,’
1427. The last thing Helen wants! βούλῃ ἐκπέμψω:; the parataxis 15
a slightly colloquial form of offer, to just about the same extent as
‘would you like me to...?’.
1429, eia: the imperative required with this hortatory exclamation
appears im ἔτω τις 1431, but because of the long parenthesis is given
a new start with δέ, e@: 1 need think no more about....
1433-5. πᾶσαν δὲ «rA.: superficially the sentence looks easier with
βοᾶσθαι med. in act. sense, and ὑμέναιον its object. But the ‘shoutey’
is not the ‘land’ as in JA 437 λωτὸς βοάσθω the lute, or in Ar. Vesp.
1228 βοώμενος Philocleon ; the land has a passive role and must be
made full of clamour, ‘ring with the joyful songs’ (wax. Juv.) of the
men init, Pearson compares the passives in JT 367, Held. 401, El. 691,
fon 463, which, however, are ail bolder and simpler, with no dat.;
' Pind. OF. to. “6, which he also quotes, ἀείδετο δὲ πᾶν τέμενος τερπναῖσι
ϑαλίαις, sounds a nearer parallel, but the dat, sits looser to the verb,
im a local sense. Here with ὑμνῳδέαις there is no room for ὑμέναιον
as ‘internal acc.’, and if it is explained as ‘appositional’ to the whole
sentence the final addition as ζηλωτὸς F comes feebly. Paley’s
ὑμέναιος ᾿Ελένης Kaos ὡς... With the comma transferred to the
end of the preceding line, restores shape and sense,
 156 COMMENTARY
1440. I’xit Theoclymenus into the palace.
1441. Cf. 1032-4, a similar compound sentence containing an asyndeton ;
γὰρ 15 an unnecessary correction. (See IT 65 with Platnauer’s note.)
1442. μετάστησον κακῶν: ‘grant us 8 change from troubles.’
1443: like a mule-team dragging a cart uphill (λέπας a beautiful
emendation of Musgrave’s).
1445, τύχης; partitive with ἕνα = ‘where’.
1446 ff. The respectful appeal to Zeus changes to a more admonitory
note for the gods in general: I have bad, says Menelaus, an unbroken
run of misfortune for too long, and a change is overdue: ὀρθῷ βῆναι
ποδί instead of bent beneath a load of misery. 1447 is in need of no
emendation, merely of the appropriate punctuation: κέκλησθέ μοι,
Geot, πολλὰ χρήστ᾽ ἐμοῦ κλύειν, καὶ Averp’: and πολλὰ is not adverbial
(= πολλάκις) but (with χρηστά) predicative: you have been called
by me many names good to hear from me—and many offensive.
κέκλησθε like κλήξζῃ above, not absolutely in the sense of ‘appeal to’;
ἐμοῦ 15 in this sense not redundant, but either ‘from me, mortal as
I am’, or ‘from me, Menelaus’, while pot is quite unemphatic.
xpjor ἐμοῦ κλύειν καὶ λυπρά cannot mean to hear about my good
experiences and my bad, since he is just emphasizing that he has had
nothmeg but bad. Nauck’s ὁμοῦ would mean not ‘both good and
bad’, but ‘things at once good and bad’. ‘Agreeable and disagree-
able’—the gods cannot have liked the tone of some of his addresses,
but have only themselves to thank, having persecuted him so un-
endingly.
This is in fact one of the ‘nouthetetic’ addresses to the gods such
as Eur. likes to make the close of a scene before the speaker goes
off for decisive action, like that spoken by Helen earlier to Cypris
1097-1106. For a fuller discussion see Maia N.S. 15. 3 (1963), 310 ff.
1451-1511. Third stasimon.
The thoughts of the Chorus follow Helen—and in the third stanza
Menelaus-—-on the voyage to Greece. The first stanza apostrophizes
the ship; the second, addressed to Helen, runs ahead as Helen's own
thoughts might, to wonder what she will find on arrival, one of the
loved familiar festivals, perhaps, and her own daughter now grown
up. In the third the migrating cranes are bidden to give news as
they land by Eurotas that Menelaus will be coming from the capture
ot Troy, and the fourth prays the immortalized Dioscuri to bring
fine weather for the ship and clear the fair name of Helen. The Chorus
do not intrude any nostalgia of their own, unless it may be a sigh
In the passing wish to join the flight of the cranes. Perhaps 7T
τοῦ fi, was too recently composed for a repetition of the theme
here.
1451 Φοίνισσα Σιδωνιὰς ὦ I wove
1465 4 wow κόρας ἂν ποταμοῦ
 LINES 1451-1511 157
. Ταχεῖα κώπα, βοθέοισι Νήρεως Ὡπυππωωπως-ς
παρ᾽ οἶδμα “ευκιππίδας ἢ πρὸ ναοῦ
eipecia φίλα,
ΠἊαλλάδος ἂν λάβοις
χοραγὲ τῶν καλλιχόρων πω
τι me

χρόνῳ ξυνελβοῦσα χοροῖς

1455 δελφίνων ὅταν αὔραις a A του
1469 ἢ κώμοις "“Ῥακίνθου
πέλαγος
!
εὐήνεμον
+ +
ἦ,
a
πων ee ie
νύχιον εἰς εὐφροσύναν
γλαυκὰ ὃὲ Πόντον θυγάτηρ πω
π ππς;.-
év ἐξπμιλλησάμενος
a εἰ ‘

Γαλάνεια τάδ᾽ εἴπῃ" ὡππυ--

τρυχῷ τέρμονα δίσκου
Kara μὲν torla πετάσατ᾽ αὖ- my τι

ἔκανε Φοῖβος, 7a δὲ Aaxal- UU τττεπ

1460 “pats λιπόντες εἰναλίαις ee

nee ee
1474 “Pa γᾷ βούθυτον ἁμέραν —_ τῇ -- Ll Kt — i

λάβετε δ᾽ εἰλατίνας πλάτας, a

Γὶ
ἢ πὶ ee Ly

ὃ Διὸς εἶχε σέβειν γόνος"

τ 4 7 ω i

ω ναῦτοι ναῦται,
νκ εἴν, wh,

μόσχον θ᾽ ἂν οἴκοις να ur

πέμποντες
δ -
εὐλιμένους
Ld #
Or.

La
«κατέλιπες ‘Eoutdvay,> f ¢ ἤ
af LF

Περσείων i
οἴκων ᾿Ελέναν én’
Ε , 5 3%
ἀκτάς.
5 ia
a Wet ee
Fa ~~
as οὕπω πεῦκαι πρὸ γάμων ἔλαμψαν.
μὴ " - 4 f "

σπνυπον ||
ὃ 7°58 "
1479 ει ἀέρος εἴθε ποτανα
Ν
ὶ\
1495 μόλοιτέ ποθ᾽ ἵππιον ἅρμα
γενοίμεσθ᾽ ἃ Λίβυες We OO UU ||
ὃ
εἰ αἰθέρος ἑέμενοι
3 37 αὶ ef

οἰωνοὶ στολάδες
παῖδες Τυνδαρίδαι,
πῆπυυ ἘΠῚ
E482 ὄμβρον λιποῦσαι χειμέριον
Tq4g8 λαμπρῶν ἄστρων ὑπ᾽ ἀέλλαισιν δε af Ε Ld Le

vigovras πρευβυτάτα
OL valeT οὐράνιοι,
u i 1 ia

σύριγγι πειθόμεναι
σωτῆρες tas ᾿Βλένας
E58 COMMENTARY
E485 ποιμένος ἄβροχά θ᾽ ὃς MUU RU
T501 γλαυκὸν ἐπ᾽ οἶδμ᾽ dAcov ᾿ "» " δὰ 5 τ΄

᾿ δ = ra) —_ Γι
πεδία καρποφόρα τε γᾶς ὦ τὰν ὦ τὸ
κυανύχροά τε κυμάτων
ETLITETOPLEVOS LYEL.
» Fr ἡ ΓΗ mo 4

I om ome [I
βάθια πολιὰ θαλάσσας,
ΦἊᾳ 4 f

1487 ὦ πταναὶ δολιχαύχενες, π-τ τ ὐσπὸυ-

1504 vadrats εὐαεῖς ἀνέμων τω τ RCM
σύννομοι νεφέων δρόμου, me
πέμποντες Ζιόθεν wvaas”
Bare Πλειάδας ὑπὸ μέσας me --
- rm

ὑσκλειαν & ἀπὸ ovyyoveu

Py a x 30h 4 ᾿ Ld

L490 ’ Doiwra τ᾽ ἐννόχεον, δ a ee

1507 βάλετε βαρβάρων λεχέων
καρυξατ᾽ ἀγγελίαν -τ--τ σι -
f * 3 f

av ᾿Ιδαίων ἐρίδων
Εὐρώταν ἐφεξόμεναι
t ῥ 7 i
~y eye
ποιναθεῖσ᾽ ἐκτήσατο, yay
Mevédews ὅτι Δαρδάνου ee ete
, 7 = oF 3 ᾿
οὐκ ἐλθοῦσα περ *IAtov
πόλιν ἑλὼν δόμον ἥξει. στ τον
Φοιβεΐίους ἐπὶ πύργο Us.

The metre is again aeolo-choriambic, with ingredients similar to

the preceding stasimon, but with some different variations. In the
first pair a hendecasyllable (the length of a catalectic trim.) appears
as the second colon, a prolongation of the preceding line by a bacchiac
——; this 15 echoed at the end of the stanza by a similar clausula.
In 1459-60 = 1473~4 there is a shift of the choriamb in responsion,
so that glyc. = chor. dim. as often, especially in later Eur., and it is
characteristic to repeat the effect: here glyc.-+ chor. dim. is in
responsion to chor. dim. -+ glyc. The pentamakron 1462 = 1476 is
ambiguous; it might be a contracted and dragged form of the aeolic
hexasyll. —~vuv—wv— 1452, or a contracted hemiepes anticipating
the next strophe, but I have chosen to make it a contracted reizianum
like ἀρρήτου κούρας 1307, a headless form of the pherecratean clausulae
above 1455 and 1458. | |
Periodic structure is more elusive in the second pair of stanzas,
which opens with a remarkable series of four single cola each followed
by Pause (discernible by anceps/anceps or brevis in longo}. The
hemiepes (x}-U Vv —vv— (x) here mingles with aeolic (1481 == 1497
is actually ambiguous) and in 1485-6 = τοοῖ- 2 makes a group with
 LINES 1451-1466 159
lamb, dim. + dim. cat. For the form of 1456 = 1470 see 1340-1;
again it comes in the proximity of several x —u—— Uw — of
which
it is the headless modification. The biggest problem is 1482 == 1498.
These enneasyllables are explicable metrically as they stand:
take
away Initial anceps and we are left with chor. dim. in respo
nsion to
glyc., like 1487 = το below. But the penultimate long
anceps in
1498, in this free responsion, is an unwelcome added compl
ication.
Hermann simplifies the metrical problem by assuming a doubl
e dis-
placement, in strophe and antistrophe :
ὄμβρον χειμέριον λιποῦ- alyc.
“Oat vidovrat πρεσβυτάτᾳ chor. dim.
λαμπρῶν ott’ ἄστρων ὑπ᾽ déA- chor. μιν}
τλαισιν vaier’ οὐράνιοι chor. dim.
. In which some edd. follow him, perhaps rightly; but I feel
reluctant
to smooth away the less orthodox enneasyllables, which
are not
without elegance. (For the punctuation of the antistrophe,
which
in Murray’s text demands their retention, v. infr.)
1451-8. Text, punctuation, and interpretation are all
problematical.
In ‘ship swift upon the surges, dear mother of the oarbe
at’, the
Oxford text does seem to make unnecessary difficulties; to
put the
comm a after κώπα gives more sense to φίλα: ‘dear to the
Surge s as
mother of the oarbeat.’ μάτηρ (nom. for voc.) requires
Fritzsche’s
gen. εἰρεσίας, a strange expression which Italie defends by
Tre, 1222
where Hector’s shield is called μυρίων μῆτερ τροπαίων,
is but that
after all a clear metaphor; the trouble with μάτηρ εἰρεσίας
is that it
15. not metaphorical exough. Badham’s Ingenious Nypéws—p
alaeo-
graphically not a far cry from abbreviated paTnp-—was sugge
sted by
iT 425 én’ Apditpiras ῥοθίῳ, and leaves εἰρεσίᾳ In apposition
to
κώπα τ ‘swift oar, whose beat is dear to the surges of Nereu
s.’
1454-8. The ‘floating apostrophe’ (cf. Alc. 1, H. ΤΡ. 752 with
Barrett’s
note), lacking a second person verb of its own, normally
diverts
the construction on to a rel. clause; here we have a tempo
ral rel,
érav: the oarbeat is ‘dance-leader of the dolphins when the
sea-winds
are set fair and the grey-green Calm-goddess speaks’.
. (Musgrave) for the metrically impossible νήνεμον, since εὐήνεμον
there was
not a dead calm, and with ἀνήνεμον one would expect αὐρῶν
rather
than adpas. Galeneia (personified as here or not) is a form confined
to Eur., perhaps his invention.
1460. λιπόντες: the idiomatic aor. part., ‘coincident’ with
the aor.
imper. πετάσατ᾽, is on no account to be emended as most
edd. do;
see Barrett’s note on Hipp. 289~90. , :
1464. Περσείων οἴκων: Perseus was founder of Mycenae
; no more than
a general direction here. .
1466. Acuxinnidas: Leucippus’ daughters, wives of the Diosc
uri.
160 COMMENTARY
4487. ἂν λάβοις: the verb carries right through the stanza, with
objects κόρας... μόσχον τε (1476).
4463~75.° The Spartan festival of the Hyacinthia was in memory of the
youth ‘whom Phoebus killed with the round discus, having chal-
ienged him to the farthest throw with it’ (to see who could throw it
farthest), τέρμονα internal acc. with ἐξαμ. Wilamowitz’s transposal
of δὲ is the most likely adjustment in the next clause; it leaves twa
consecutive cola in the same kind of free responsion.
4476-7. Murray’s treatment of these lines is surely right; λέποιτ᾽ Is to
be deleted, not emended (as, variously, other scholars do). Evidently
the following line was early lost; then, since obviously the sense
required ‘left’ in some form and the governing verb ἂν λάβοις was
a long way off, someone not very brightly tried ἂν Aémoer’ here
(though the association of Menelaus is not very appropriate in. the
circumstances). Triclinius, finding this in a half-‘corrected’ form
ἂν λίποιτ᾽, inserted ἰὼ before the second ναῦται in 1462, which some
edd. have taken seriously. But that musical pentasyllable must of
course be left untouched. 1477 supplied exemplz gratia.
4479 ff. ‘Would that we might find ourselves winging through the
air where the Libyan bird-squadrons go, they who left the storms of
winter, obeying the piping of their eldest, the shepherd who shrills
as he flies over rainless ancl fruitful plains of earth. Ὁ winging long-
necks, pattners of the racing clouds, pass beneath the Pleiads at the
zenith and Orion in the night, deliver the news as you settle on the
banks of Eurotas that Menelaus having taken Dardanus’ city will
be returning home.’
The migrating cranes (ἡ έβυες οἰωνοὶ here) and their cry were a
favourite of the poets from Homer onwards, and ever since Homer
they had fled from winter and its rainstorms (11, 3. 3; Hes. Op. 448);
so they do here too, to establish their habits and identity, flying
in line over deserts and fertile plains, a flock obedient to the odprys
of their shepherding leader. The description is so far quite general ;
it seems mistaken to identify the land beneath as Egypt, ‘railess
yet fertile’, But the second half of the stanza pictures their reverse
flight from south to north in early spring (the time of the play’s
performance); since only so would they be in a position to tell the
Spartans of Menelaus’ approach. It is this flight that the Chorus
long to join, though the Homeric echoes of the general description
really belong to the north-south migration.
4479-87. The traditional text shows a gap, in metre and grammar,
_ where a rel. of some kind is needed to get from the wish-optative
γενοίμεθα 1480 to νίσονται 1433. Hence it bundled together εἰ ποτανοὶ
οἰωνοὶ (masc.) as if in some sort of protasis, and presumably began
the main clause with στολάδες or στοχάδες (‘formations’ or πὶ for-
mation’ adjectival: the word is uncertain). Barnes restored metre
 LINES 1467-1498 . 161
and sense to 1479 with ei<#e>, and the rel. has been variously sup-
plied: Wilamowitz for instance (GV 220) gives ποταναὶ | γενοέμεθ᾽
ἄνω, Διβύας | οἷον af στολάδες (aeolic hexasyll.). The ‘ranks of Libya’,
however, even though the context shows them to be winged, seems
less ΠΟΙ than AiBues οἰωνοὶ στολάδες (adj.), and though οἰωνός Is
not elsewhere fem. it is not the sort of word whose gender need be
immutable; here Eur. chose to make them feminine behind their
(masculine) leader. Musgrave’s solution for the missing rel. 1s the
neatest and most economical, and the gradual contraction of the
hemiepes in the first three cola is quite pretty. ποτανοὲ 1479 15
possible if the word is substantival, ‘winged creatures’, but as δι᾽
ἀέρος has to be fitted to the verbal notion in it the adjectival sense
is easier, and then ποταναὶ as Wilamowitz seems essential. πρεσβυ-
τάτᾳ 1483 transferred epithet. ἀβροχά θ᾽ ὃς 15 Murray’s neat suggestion
(app. crit. ad 1s0z) for adapting the strophe to the metre of the
antistrophe (v. infr.).
1487 ff. The rest of the stanza is of course addressed by the Chorus on
the ground to the flying cranes, not, as Wilamowitz oddly takes it
(followed by Barrett on Hipp. 979), by the leader to his flock, as if
ἰαχεῖ 1486 meant τάδε ἰαχεῖ. His ἰαχή is his σθριγξ, the long ca!l which
sustains them on their flight. [If he had felt so garrulous in mid-atr,
why should he say ‘ga and tell...’ and not rather “come let us
τε]... ἦν And why should he address them as awravai?
1488, σύννομοι νεφέων Spdpou: double gen., lit. ‘partners in the racing
of the clouds’. Blomfield wanted to read δρόμῳ, but the implication
is rather νέφεσιν out of νεφέων : ‘consorting [with the clouds] in the
cloud-race’ } δρόμου gen. of the field of activity shared by the partners.
In plain prose ‘keeping up with the swift clouds’.
1495. ἵππιον ofua and ἕππιον ἅρμα were old variants here, and the
choice is not easy. ofa is a rare epic woxd for a lion’s spring or (in
plur.} an eagle’s swoop: οἶμα λέοντος ἔχων, αἰετοῦ οἴματ᾽ ἔχων, of a
quick-footed hero, Can one get from there to fmmov οἶμα ἱέμενοι
(mternal acc.}, as it were ‘making horse-swoop haste’ = rushing on
horseback? How should we judge? Triclmius’s correction to οἶδμα
is an effort to be rid somehow of an outlandish word. Murray’s
οἶμον would be a horse-track cut through the heavens by the hooves
of the riders’ mounts ; dpa, quoted by Trichnius, might be possible
if ἅρμα can mean simply ‘team’ or ‘pair’, since ἕππεος = ‘of horsemen’
as well as ‘of horses’; the phrase would then be appositional nomina-
tive. But it must be admitted that ‘horseman-pai’ is less im-
mediately appealing than the more complete metaphor of τρίπωλον
ἅρμα δαιμόνων... τὸ καλλιζυγές, the team of goddesses brought up
by Hermes, Andr. 277.
1498. ἀέλλαισιν: under the whirling of the bright stars’ (the revolution
of the firmament in which the stars are fixed) must with Murray’s
162 COMMENTARY
punctuation further define the harsemen’s course ; usually it is taken
with the following rel. clause ‘who dwell in the heavens under...’.
The second is preferable, since as an Imtroductory apostrophe this
rel., ‘you who dwell...’, is rather awkward, and it requires Wilamo-
witz’s rewriting of 1501 as an iambic trim.? with the imperative ézere.
But γλαυκὸν ἐπ᾽ ofSy’ ἅλιον, ‘over the green salt swell’ is a blameless
phrase echoing the earlier rhythms, and 1t seems better to adapt the
strophe to this. The long straggling construction, with μόλοιτε carry-
ing through to mveds, is ordinary lyric form.
1509. ποιναθεῖσ᾽ : punished for the strife on Ida.
1512. It is hardly possible to devise a satisfactory emendation of this
line by itself. Since the Messenger comes from the sea, the only
thing he could have ‘found in the house’ would be the king; but such
simple remedies as κάλλιστά σ᾽ ὦναξ will not do: ‘a very good thing
i have found you at home, sir, smce you are going to hear some
startling news from me’ is not a messengerly greeting. Pearson’s
more sophisticated ἐς καιρὸν ὦναξ ἐν δόμοις σ᾽ edp. would need a verb
of arriving to pick up ἐς, and m any case there 15 no parallel for ἐν
δόμοις = outside the house as distinct from ranging the countryside.
But more serious is the unmotived and unmentioned emergence of
the king, Dindorf’s assumption of a stop-gap line mvented to fill
a lacuna seems unavoidable, Could we perhaps suppose the mes-
senger banging on the door and shouting something lke ὦ δέσποτ᾽
οὐκέτ᾽ ἐν δόμοις μέλλειν ἀκμή, ὡς xaiv’... followed by the king’s in-
stantaneous appearance? It is all rather excessively abrupt, and
the sheer idiocy of the stop-gap Ime is perhaps more than would be
expected fromm unaided invention. Conceivably there has been some
incorporation of a half-obliterated longer exchange, such as:
Ay. ἄρ᾽ ἐν δόμοισι δεσπότην εὑρήκαμεν,
γυναῖκες Σ oY 15 he elsewhere?
Xe. Here he is, Just coming out.
Ay. ἄναξ, [you will scarcely believe your ears](?)
ὡς Kav oe,
1513. ὡς καίν᾽ : subordmate exclamatory, cf. on 74: ‘such strange news
are you to hear... .’
In this preliminary exchange the king’s reaction 15 kept down to
incredulity, with time even for a little irony (did she fly or did she
walk?). His outburst of rage is reserved for the end, nearly τοῦ lines
later.

1 Miss L. P. E. Parker informs me that a split resolution following

long anceps, xv |v as in γλαυκὸν ἐπ-, is found nowhere im Eur, or
Aesch., and only once in Soph., Phil. 201, where 11 is softened by
elision,
 LINES 1509-1568 163
1621. ‘has gone off with your sailors too’ is enough information for the
moment; the story of their fate comes later. :
1524. OwepSpapetv: that a ‘single hand’ should ‘outrun’ so many is
a measure of the deadness of the metaphor.
1528. dvéoreve impf.: ‘most skilfully proceeded to raise a lament,
steppmg delicately to it, for the husband not dead but there by her
side.’ Helen provides a Greek processional performance.
1531. πρωτόπλουν: the penteconter is brand-new.
1034-6. Mast——oars—sails—rudder: the order of jobs (€pya) is clear,
but the intractable 1535 can only be left obelized. καθέστατο is needed
in 1534 to keep the row of imperfects; ἱστία and wySdAta should be
taken as nom., with παρακαθίετο pass. (not med. as LS), ‘the rudders
were lowered’ by the stern by means of their ζεῦγλαι, the ropes which
lashed them together and adjusted their position.
1537. Gpa: as we later realized, cf. Denn. GP 36 (2). They had been
mstructed by the Old Servant, in a general way (739), to ‘watch
for this’.
1542, ἐς μέσον φέρων: ‘producing for our benefit a display’ of pity.
1543: a straightforward double question sharing the same verb (un-
bike 873), cf. Hyps. 64. ii. 83 with Bond’s note, p. 130. ]
1945. G, Zuntz, (Ὁ 1955, p. 70, objects to the question dpa συνθάπτετε
as grammatically dubious for ‘do you wish to bury ?’, and unsuitable
to the context since Menelaus must not give the impression that
they knew of the situation beforehand. He proposes ἀλλ᾽ for dp’,
thus making suvé, imperative, For all its logic, 1 can only say ab-
stinately that the imper. sounds to me off-key and the question
exactly right, in its courtesy, its hint of invitation, and its faint
suggestion of accepting that fate has brought them there at this sad
and crucial moment; it is just the tone of our ‘Are you joining with
- usin burying Menelaus?’ There are admittedly no quotable parallels ;
the situation is unique. The whole of this Messenger-speech is a
masterpiece of rapid, economical, idiomatic narrative. |
1548, Μενέλεῳ with ποντίσματα.
1549. ἥδ᾽ by attraction for τάδε.
1550. τῶν ἐπέσβατῶν: ‘of these extra passengers.’
1555-8. κουφίξοντα: being manageably light. The intrans, use is rare:
Hes. Op. 463 uses ἔτι κουφίξουσαν ἄρουραν of the soil before rain has
made it heavy, 5. Phil. 735 has κουφέζειν in a medical sense, ‘to feel
relief’. Taupstos ποὺς: the baulking, slithering hooves take the
centre of the picture, out of which ταῦρος is supplied for the rest.
κυρτῶν ...: ‘humping his. shoulders and squinting along’ his
horns.’
1561-2, “Ελλήνων νόμῳ; a tall story, unless it was a very small beast,
cf, Denniston on Fi, 8123.
1563-8. φάσγανον... doe is unintelligible, since there is no evidence
164 COMMENTARY
of an intrans. ὠθέω: “the drawn sword shall thrust’, nor is the
bull to be killed just then (ἅμα). Bothe’s parenthesis (app. crit.) 15
no improvement, for wef cannot mean ‘he draws’. Even with εἶχε
or αἴρει, or Pearson’s easier οἴσω, the gesture is absurdly premature
(cf. 1981 when they are well out at sea}. The sudden appearance of
a superfluous horse (presumably from 1258), even if the dubious acc.
μονάμπνυκον can be emended to gen, μονάμπνυκος, makes an unwelcome
anticimax, and the animal disappears for good. It iooks as if this
passage had suffered some ‘writing up’.
1570-1. πίμπλημι or (ἐκ) πληρόω are used of covering a whole area
piece by piece, and m this sense cannot take a genitive, ‘hilmg with’
something, Jackson, p. 239, is surely right in reading edodvpw ποδί
(cf, the dat. wAdrn Or. 54}; Helen with damty foot mounts each rung
to the top. ἐδωλίοις : apparently they sit on the edge of the stern
quarter-deck, cf. 1382 and 1603; Jebb on 5. Aj. 1277.
1573-4, The Greeks line up equally to nght and left, sitting in close
formation man by man. ‘The alternative “Greek markmg Egyptian’
is not likely, since the phrase is a regular military one familiar to all
hoplites, ci. 1072 and Ar. Vesp. 1083.
1575-6: ‘the surge was filled with our shouting as we took up the
Doatswain’s cry.’
1579. See on 873.
1583: ‘with no mention of anyone among the dead.’
1587, ἐκ γῆς for ἐκ γῆς τῆδε, the immediate problem.
1588. οὔριοι: from οὖρος a favouring wind. Not a freely transferable
metaphor, but in Meld. 822 it appears again as ‘favourable’ of
omens at the sacrifice of a victim; perhaps this is an unconscious
reminiscence. |
1590. δεξιὰν is the best suggestion for ἀξίαν here. Jackson objects
that there is no evidence for δεξιάν = ‘to the right’ or ἀριστεράν (or
Aady) ‘to the left’; no, but why not sc, xdaqv? If they are to put
about {πάλιν} quickly, the rowers and the steersman must know
whether to starboard or to port, and the speaker tries to save time
by making the decision. Or possibly the starboard turn was regular
in the open sea,
1591. ἐκ: ‘after’, leaving σταθεὶς by itself, ‘from where he stood’,
1597. λοῖσθον δόρυ: LS quote, from a fourth-century inscription,
a noun λοῖσθος = beam, and therefore give ‘boom, gaff, spat’ here,
but this is not Greek for ‘pick up a spar as weapon’, Failing a
plausible emendation, λοῖσθον must be the adj., a rare varlant of
λοίσθιον, and must particularize δόρυ, to match ‘seat’ and ‘oar’. An
‘end timber’ might as Italie suggests mean one of the two πηδάλια
at the stern.
1602. éppetvo: passive (cf. on 1434). In this unequal fight the bar-
barlans have suitably primitive weapons. |
 LINES 1570.--1627 165
1603-4. “Where is your Trojan reputation? Show these barbarians’ |
sounds natural enough in English, but Hartung (v. app. crit.) is
᾿ probably right in recalling the idiomatic ποῦ δείξεις of Hec. 828
in
8, similar exhortation : ‘When are you going to show these barbarians
the meaning of your Trojan reputation?’
1605: ‘men fell down or kept their feet’; the ellipse of of μέν
is of a
common type.
1606. ἔχων ὅπλα: a full suit (1379).
1607. ὅποι: see on 738. ]
1608-9, As the text stands, the only source for a subject of ἐκκολυμβᾶν
would be ξύμμαχοι, but rather than make room for one at the @X-
pense of the harmless bit of padding χειρὶ δεξιᾷ (e.g. προσῆγ᾽ ἐχθροῖσι
δεξιᾷ Pearson) we could put a comma instead of a colon after vads
to make an anticipatory zeugma: ‘till your sailors dived off the
ship
and he cleared the benches of them,’
1610. ἐπ᾽ οἰάκων ἄνακτα together = to the helmsman ; not
a metaphor
like κώπης ἄναξ, A, Pers. 378, E. Cyc, 86.
1612. ἱστὸν: mast and sails together, which strictly speaking would
hardly have been required for the ship’s ostensible purpose at 1524
ff.
There should only be a comma at the end of the line: ‘favouring
breezes sprang up, and now they are clear away.’
1615. ὁρμιατόνων: ‘fishermen’, a ἄπ. Aey.; hence presumably
the
variant recorded by Triclinius ὁρμιὰν τ(ελίνων μέ τις, but the angler’s
line would hardly have taken the strain of so big a fish.
1617. A brief tag of popular wisdom is the normal end of
a long
Messenger-speech, ‘Keep sober and don’t believe all you hear’ was
attributed to Epicharmus. Exit Messenger.
1619. Pearson in a long and carefully argued note gives reason
s for
taking ἂν λαθεῖν together, with dv as so often put as early as possibl
e
in the sentence, cf. HF 1355. The effect of that position, however,
was to spread its meaning over the whole sentence; anglice ‘I would
never have believed that he could have...as he did’.
᾿ς The Chorus are naturally anxious not to be suspected of complicity,
but the king is too angry to notice the dismgenuous remark. This
looks like a deliberate departure from the pattern of [7 1420,
1431.
1621-44. The short interlude of tetrameters marks the
headlong
violence of the onset of the king’s anger, and gives the opportunity
tor one of those balancing interchanges (for which the trimeter had
less room and less symmetry) as the struggle sways evenly backw
ard
and forward. Cf. Jon 530-62, IT 1203-20,
1625. ἥτις : the form of relative which gives a reason.
1627 ff. The only defensible reason for rejecting LP’s attrib
ution of
these verses to the Chorus (the Coryphaeus) is δοῦλος
ὧν 1630.
ἡμῶν ἑκόντων 1640 is the normal masc. form for any woman speaki
ng
of herself in the first person plural (cf., e.g., Alc. 383),
since when
814172
M
166 COMMENTARY
the Coryphaeus speaks for the whole Chorus it is always open to
him or her to use the collective singular. It might perhaps be sug-
gested that in δοῦλος ὧν the king is generalizing their status, so that
the masc. has the same depersonalizing effect as the plur. δεσποτῶν
(and δούλοις 1641). But the neatest solution is Wecklein’s later
suggestion (in his Addenda) that we should read δοῦλος; Xo, οὐ
dpove yap εὖ; The generalizing δοῦλος without ὧν presents no
difficulty.
In any case the strongest argument for leaving the Chorus m
possession is the much greater improbability involved in allotting
the scene to any other speaker. No attendant appearing (unheralded
and unidentified) like a jack-in-the-box from within to bar the king’s
entry could possibly be so well up in ali that had happened and was
happening; and for one of a king’s habitual silent escort suddenly
to turn out to be one of the actors and assert a vigorous mdependent
existence would be an outlandish incident. Nor can the Messenger
stay on, after a speech of zoo lines, to carry on further dialogue;
it is part of the Messenger-concept that after delivering his grand
set piece he goes offstage. Besides, the Messenger’s sentiments here,
afier his recent experiences, would in effect characterize him to
a distracting and quite unparalleled extent.
1628, ἀφίστασ᾽ is Porson’s necessary correction for ἀφίστασθ᾽, where
the long syllable ending a word before the final cretic would violate
‘Porson’s Law’, observed by the tetrameter just as much as the
trimeter.
1680-1. εὖ φρονεῖν = be in one’s right mind; εὖ φρονεῖν τινί = be
well disposed to someone. The king switches over to the second
meaning by adding οὐκ ἔμοιγε, all the more easily smce the previous
line ended with εὖ.
The whole of this exchange is a perfect study of Greek potn? and
economy in repartee, through the telling use of particles or of
asyndeton. Note that in 1631-4 the king’s grammar is continuous,
ignoring the interpolations of the Chorus.
1638. ‘In fact we are subject, not ruler’, cf. Med. 120 ὀλίγ᾽ ἀρχόμενοι,
πολλὰ κρατοῦντες. So used, the verbs are properly absolute, and the
infin. δρᾶν is loosely attached to the sense: [yours is a power] ‘to do
good, not to do wrong’.
1642: epiphany of the Twins as at the end of Ei., and for the same
reason, brotherly interest in a female character in the play. The
manner of their appearance is quite uncertam. They may have
been swung in (on dummy horses, 1665?) from behind the σκηνή,
but our knowledge of the μηχανή is pitifully Inadequate. In El, the
preceding anapaests 1233-7 give time for the device to get into
position; here they intervene peremptorily. They cosld of course
simply walk on to the roof of the σκηνή from the back, Castor the
 LINES 1628..-1671 167
speaker leading; but to an audience by now accustomed to theo-
phanies that would perhaps have looked too tame.
1648. See on 9.
1646. οὐ with πεπρωμένοισι.
1650: a longer form of δεῦρ᾽ ἀεί (761), with elaborated word-order.
1653-5. It is difficult to determine the extent of corruption here, but
the Oxford text has surely been too conservative. If otxér: (sc.
ἐχρῆν «7X.) is the whole of the apodosis of 1652-3, what is the meaning
of καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς παρέσχε todvon’—but when Troy was sacked and
she lent her name to the gods’? Her name had been ‘made available”
(1100) ten years before that, and the sack of Troy was rather the
beginning of the end of that chapter, when her name ceased to be
available (the Dioscuri seem to pass over the seven years of Menelaus’
wanderings). LP do not punctuate after οὐκέτι, which would there-
fore go with ἐν τοῖσιν adrois..., γάμοις, ἐλθεῖν δ᾽ κτὰ. Since Helen
had not been married to anyone in Egypt, this is clearly nonsense,
and Nauck therefore, followed by several edd., deleted 1653 and
substituted αὐτῆς for αὐτοῖς in 1654, with Hermann’s τ᾿ for δ᾽ in the
next line; ‘but when Troy was sacked she must be coupled m her own
marriage and go home and live with her husband,’ The expression Is
so clumsy and unnatural, even supposing that the pert. mfin. ἐζεῦχθαιν
can be rendered ‘stay coupled’, that it is difficult to credit Eur, with It,,
and I would rather cut out both 1653-4 and let ἐλθεῖν (deleting 8°) and
συνοικῆσαι be picked up by the now reasonably adjacent ἐχρῆν, ‘she
was meant to...’, Failure to see this could have Jed to the inter-
polation,
1656. μέλαν whether literal or psychological is probably proleptic :
‘de.
not blacken your sword with a sister’s blood,’
1660. ἥσσον᾽: dual. Our texts of Eur. abound in these false so-calle
d:
‘split anapaests’ (ἥσσονες ἦμεν οὖ | —) which accumulated in periods
of rudimentary metrical knowledge and can be removed by the
simplest of corrections (cf. 77 app. crit.). The recent campaign to:
retain them indiscriminately is a sad reflection on the present state
of metrical studies.
1663. πλεῖν could be retained as infin. for imper.
1664: ‘your two Saviour brothers’-—the title of the Dioscuri.
1666, κάμψῃς : the metaphor, originally of ‘rounding’ the post in a
race-
of more than one lap, has here as often shrunk to 2 mere ‘reach
the
end of the course’. Cf. Hipp. 87, ΕἸ. 956.
1668. ξένια : the Xenia or ξενισμός was a cult-feast associated with
the worship of the Dioscuri. Pindar’s third Olympian claims Tov-
δαρίδαις τε φιλοξείνοις ἁδεῖν καλλιπλοκάμῳ θ᾽ ᾿'Ελένᾳ, probably im
obhque reference to this joint cult.
1670-1. Murray’s text, following Wilamowitz, is much the most
satis-
factory solution of this passage. Tt would be idle to waste words
here
168 COMMENTARY
on Hermes’ ‘leaving his abode in heaven’ (ἀπάρας τῶν.. .. δόμων);
what is needed is a teference to Helen's air-journey im his escort.
δόμος and δρόμος are apt to be confused, and once δρόμον 15 fixed -
the rest falls into place ; δρόμον is the object of ὥρισεν : where Hermes
‘frst put a limit to that flight of yours (σοι) through the air’. ἀπάρας
could be either trans., ‘lifting’ [you], or mtrans., “taking off’ from
Sparta. Madvig’s ὥρμισέν σε (app. crit.), keepmg up the nautical
metaphor of intrans. ἀπάρας, was a reasonable conjecture; what 15
not reasonable is to keep the oe with ὥρισεν and say with Hermann,
as some edd. do, that dpiZew = iSpvew as in 5, Trach. 237 and 754.
You can set up an altar by ‘delimitmg’ the consecrated area; you
cannot set down (or establish?) a lady by the same process.
4673. The long low island guarding the coast of Acte (old form of Attica)
ig Makronnisi, off Sunium. It brings Hermes widely off course for
Egypt, and Eur. has here deflected the more usual legend which
makes Helene a stage-post on the way to or from Troy. In fact the
piece of concluding cult-aetiology which in IT 1450 if. forms an or-
ganic part of the story has shrunk here to a mere perfunctory inser-
tion, and the philology, if indeed ἐλ- is to be connected with κλέψας,
κλοπὰς, ‘taking’ by stealth, is more than usually far-fetched.
46875. κλοπὰς ods (Triclinius) as a sort of abstract for concrete recalls
τὰς ἐμὰς ἀναρπαγὰς 50, and does not need emendation.
4678-9. It would be an extraordinary reversal of the content and
spirit of the whole body of Greek legend if such a sentiment really
rounded off the speech of the god from the machine. The idea of edd.
that this is in character with the ‘haughty Spartan aristocracy’ of
the speaker is stranger still; why should he gratuitously add that
it is rather the anonymous proletariat who get the hardships?
And was not Heracles (also promoted at death after a life of πόνοι)
the epitome of Dorian aristocracy? The only explanation would
be that Eur. was aiming a sly kick at accepted standards of divine
reward, but it would be an unsuitable moment and a highly unsuit-
able speaker to choose for such a sudden manifesto. In any case,
the epithet ‘Wanderer’ here applied to Menelaus shows that it is
precisely for his long-endured πόνοι that he is to be compensated in
this ultimate destiny (like a minor Heracles). ‘For it is not that the
gods hate the nobly-bom, but these have more trials to undergo
than men of no account.’
Many of course have seen the required meaning, but the clinching
emendation has yet to be made. Madvig’s εἰσιν ἐν πόνοις Is easiest,
but a poor phrase, and neither ἔμπονοι (a prose word) nor ἐπέπονοι
{a poor rhythm at this point) gives quite the right meaning, ‘af-
flicted by πόνοι᾽. ἄσκοῦσιν πόνοις ἢ or with change of subject ἀντλοῦσιν
πόνους The sentence as it stands has the air of a weak garble such as
collectors of γνῶμαι tend to come up with,
 LINES 1673-1692 169
1680-4, His ‘quarrels hitherto’ (cf. 1236) have been over his right to
marry Helen; the Immediate situation arising from them is the
threat to kill Theonoe and the escape of Helen, and his submission
is divided between ἐγὼ and κείνη. The tribute which follows is the
second part of what he has to say to the Twins, so that the δέ of
1684 15 strictly the answer to τὰ μὲν πάρος,
1685. The double gen., apparently γεγῶτ᾽ ad’ αἵματος ὁμογενοῦς
ἀδελφῆς, is clumsy and difficult to explam. Hermann takes ὁμογενοῦς
as active—sprung from the ‘same blood as begot’ Helen (1.6, Zeus’),
quoting ὁμογενὴς Ὁ. OT ταῦτ which he takes as ‘begetting children
from the same blood’ as produced me (in effect = ὁμόσπορος τοῦ
πατρὸς 460). Jebb declares this impossible (but did Soph. realize
this 2), and takes it as ‘sharing a broed with’ my own parents ; here in
ifel., however, the active sense seems the only way of accommodat-
ing the further gen, ἀδελφῆς. Even so, ‘sprung from the same blood
as produced a sister’ who is the best . . . is to say the least a circuitous
way of saying ‘blood-brothers of .. .’. The μονογενοῦς of cadd. should
surely mean ‘only child’, and must be wrong. I have no suggestion
to make.
1686. χκαίρεθ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ : ‘go rejoicing In.... ?
1687. ὃ: ‘a thing which’; Pearson compares 8, OT 542, τυραννίδα... δ.
1688-92: the anapaestic finale of Ale., Andy., and Bacch., and, with
a varlation m the first lme, Med. Closely considered, it is fully
appropriate only to Alc, (though passable here), but it was obviously
not closely considered in its later occurrences, which may not be
due to Eur, at all, Cf. Barrett’s note on the end of Hzpp.
 APPENDIX ΕΣ

PAPYRUS AND MANUSCRIPTS

IT has long been held that one of the chief arguments for the descent
of ail our medieval MSS. from an authoritative Alexandrian edition,
the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium, is their general agreement in
lynic colometry ; in such a daunting complexity of material, the key to
which was for so long completely lost, the influence of this first great
systematic ordering must have been paramount. LP show little more
divergence from Jf in this respect than they do (when Trriclinius’s
alterations are removed) from MABYV in the Select Plays; that is to
say, colometry is, on the whole, the same, with a few minor Giscrep-
ancies. Since, then, {7 and LP are in the same general tradition, and
iT is fourteen centuries nearer the source, and clearly no slovenly copy,
it might seem that all we had to do was to choose JZ in preference to
LP wherever they diverged. But the matter is not so simple. On this
principle we can accept dvemrépwea 633 (as lectio difficilior), γ᾽ for δ᾽
642, and δὲ for δὴ 646. χέρας 634 (LP χεῖρας) confirms the universally
accepted correction and the dochmiac colometry that goes with it.
if has the same faults as LP in 637 (omitted re), in 638-9 (wrong colo-
metry: glyconics are utterly alien to the metrical style, and are be-
trayed by the ugly Pause at brevis in longo λεύκυπποι ξυνομαίμονες ||
ὥλβιςαν), and in 650 (unmetrical by the omission of two short syllables),
In 642a LP are the better, since {7 has no room for the εὐμφορὰν which
keeps bacchiac metre, and τύχαν must be supplied, the colometry being
altered to ft it (L kept the wrong colometry but was corrected by
Triclinius, as Zuntz notes). This could be accounted for by the occur-
rence of réyav as a gloss or variant on ευὐμφορὰν at some stage previous
to Hf. In 670-1 LP are defective, but disappointingly the fragments of
iI seem to indicate a metrically doubtful supplement.
With these rather modest gains in mind we come to the two worst
problems im these lines, the text of 634-6 and 6go-1. Zuntz has most
usefully reconstructed the lines of 7 with exact calculations of the
number of letters which each gap will hold; in an uncial text without
spaces between words or punctuation this can be done with a high
degree of accuracy. So we get:
634 περι] Se puta yepac «Bl αλλον] ηδονη
635 3-4]e ὡς λαβὼ
636 wocic]
ὦ ὦ φίλτατα mpocoyle
636a οὐκ ἐμεμῴθην
 APPENDIX I 171
εβαλλον, for which there is space, could have been a slip (though I sus-
pect it of being an attempt to keep trochaic metre!). As for qéovy
—as a slip for the accus.? easier for the dat.-without the first word
of 635 we cannot judge the phrase, Certainly those missing 3-4 letters
at the beginning of 635 suggest nothing obvious. (Could the ς be for ¢’,
ce? Only as a garble, probably, but how do we know this was not a
garble?) The sense of LP is complete in itself: ‘that I may feel the
pleasure of it’; and the setting-out in 8 self-contained metre (v. p. 108)
does not look like the careless omission of a word after ἡδονάν. In fact
the possibility of a second version, mostly identical with H but with
one ot two divergences, current at a time when scholars still had some
conception of the habits of Euripidean lyric metre, should perhaps
be borne in mind, especially in connexion with 640-1, Could one
suppose a later Alexandrian scholar with a reasonably good text of his
own for collation working over the Aristophanean edition?
The muddle over 636 and 636a is common to both versions. For
muddle it seems to me indubitably to be. Zuntz, starting from the
view that we must (for the most part) take what we are given in H,
finds virtue in it; for instance, that the tenderness in line 636 is suitable
only for Helen. I do not think so ill of Menelaus; ὦ φιλτάτα mpdcoyuc,
especially to a radiant Helen, seems to me quite in place. And Zuntz
himself cannot accept the strange, abrupt trochaic οὐκ ἐμέμφθην, but
is constrained to fill it out with x τυ τ τῷ οὐκ ἐμέμφθην, assuming
that at some stage a phrase exactly equivalent metrically to ὦ φιλτάτα
πρόςοψις had somehow disappeared. The required sense he supplies in
‘e.9. τὸ céy, γύναι, πρόθυμον οὐκ ἐμέμφθην᾽ (no unmanly tenderness
there!). I do not find the sequence of thought (with asyndeton) in ‘I
do not blame you for your display of feeling; I hold the daughter of
Zeus and Leda’ in any way persuasive. But the metre seems to me
decisive. The triple dochmiac, ending blunt, for Helen after her two
catalectic trimeters seems to my ear admirably in tune with the style
of the whole piece, and the long trailing address after it, followed by
two cat. trims. all ending in the same cadence, is lame; moreover—
again a stylistic fault—the choriamb at the beginning of the syncopated
trim. 636 is elsewhere only used by Eur. as a clausular motif (giving
anaclasis) to iambic stanzas, never in these mixed duos. Since ὦ wécec
is not a likely marginal intrusion, it is driven back where Elmsley put it,
and I prefer it to the unknown - - -< of H, since Helen has in this part
of the duo no contribution of this length without a vocative address.
I am well aware that appeals to the ear and to metrical style will
seem here arbitary and subjective, but im these matters what to one
man has the categorical imperative of conviction is to another over-
confident prejudice.
In 640-1 JT and LP look quite irreconcilable, and the possibility
of two early discrepant versions should at least be considered, The
 172 APPENDIX I
appearance in Π of ἐμὲ cé re μάταν and two short lines following
was not only disturbing for its implications of deep corruption in our
existing text, but threw a spanner into the construction of the whole
sentence from 639 onwards, which had seemed so straightforward.
There were now two grammatical objects, ἂν and ἐμὲ εξ τε, both of
which must go with dAficap if the new phrase was to be related to
Andr. 1218 μάτην δέ 2 ἐν γάμοιειν BABicav Geol which seemed its best
justification. The only solution is to separate the two ὥλβιςαν and allot
one to each object; thus ὥλβιταν ὥλβιςαν are removed from the ‘ecstatic’
class of repetitions (cf, 649-«1) and the second becomes a sad and re-
flective comment on the first. Zuntz, having demonstrated that Mene-
laus must take over somewhere between 638 and 642 (supr. p. Ito),
chooses this point for his intervention, and indeed the tone is quite
Inconsistent with Helen’s all through this section of the duo. Since the
unfortunate glyconics preceding made H begin his colon with ὠλβ,
ὥλβ, we should have to suppose his arrangement
ὥλβιςαν : a lAPicav ἐμὲ cé τε μάταν
8]ν
9)»
EA. πρὸς ἄλλα]ν γ᾽ ἐλαύνει θεὸς
the two dots {1} accompanied by paragraphos being the convention for
change of speaker within a line. But what kind of line is it meant for?
As it stands it would seem to be an ‘alcaic decasyllable’ with a mon-
strous resolution in the last long syllable before final anceps —v vu —
“ὥστε, As no metre can have resolution in such 2 position
we might assume the new phrase to be a slip for ἐμέ <re> cé τε μάταν
(Kamerbeek) in dochmiac rhythm. (Is it perhaps a theory of the
original metrician that a series of dochmiacs may each show Pause
with brevis in longo at the end—daficav: ὠλβιεαν Π ἐμέ ve cé re μάταν, and
would this account for 650 too: πόειν ἐμὸν ἔχομεν | ἔχομεν ὃν ἔμενον || ?)
But whether we choose one or the other of these or restore the orthodox
colometry from 639 onwards, giving ξυνομαέμονες ὥλβιςαν : dABicay ἐμὲ
cé τε μάταν, a long enop. with unparalleled resolutions at the end
Vu mVvUm EHV uu GUY -, it is equally difficult in all of them to
Imagine Menelaus picking up his cue between a double-short and the
following long—or to imagine an Alexandrian original indicating by
punctuation that he was expected to do so. Certainly nothing remotely
like such ἀντιλαβή occurs elsewhere in Greek poetry. The only possi-
bility I can see is
ξυνομαίμονες ὥλβιαν = YU UU ~ |! enop.

but resolved iambo-trochaics do not belong to the ‘associable metres’ of

the half-spoken type (supr. p. 106); only dochmiacs resolve like this.
 APPENDIX I 173
Apart from the metrical question, what are we to make of the word
ὥλβιςαν repeated (without any help from a particle) by a different
speaker? None of Zuntz’s parallels (p. 235) is in the least like this;
they are question and answer, or different parts of speech, or assisted
by ye, wdAicra, δῆτα, or the like, or part of an elaborate responding
strophic pattern (S. OC 1677 = 1704) instead of an argumentative σοὺς
rection, I have absolutely no solution to offer to this puzzle, partly
because I do not know what words followed m those two short lines
each ending in ν, and without knowing I cannot judge this diagnosis
of the situation. :
Zuntz finds the answer by selecting from line 641 as given in LP τὸ
πρόςθεν, ἐκ δόμων δ᾽ evdcdicav θεοί ς᾽ ὁμοῦ the words most éssential to
the sense : ‘and (but?) the gods parted us from home’, and if this could
have been δόμων δ᾽ ἐνόςφιταν θεοί, iamb. dim, or dim. cat., one might
have acquiesced. But to fit the repeated -ν he has to make it θεοὶ
δόμων | δ’ ἐνόεφιεαν, I find it difficult to believe either that Eur.
would have composed such an awkward little sentence to make this
statement—especially as without a visible comma after μάταν it would
be easier to take θεοί as the subject of dAficay than of ἐνόσφισαν---ΟΥὐ
that it would occur to an Alexandrian editor to atrange an tambic
dimeter as two separate monometers. Zuntz explams LP’s line as
an evident case of copying out a verbose gloss amplifying the short
statement of ΠῚ, and suggests this may have run: «ὥλβιεαν wer> τὸ
πρόεθεν" ἐκ δόμων δ᾽ ἐνόεῴφιςαν θεοί ς᾽ ὁμοῦ ζκαὶ ἐμὲ ὕστερον». To me it
seems simpler to assume a trimeter, spoken by Menelaus intervening
at this point. (c* ὅμοῦ, perhaps originally ς᾽ ἐμοῦ, is intrusive, the result
of ἃ failure to realize that ἂν carries through as the object of ἐνόσφισαν.)
Zuntz’s objection that τὸ πρόεθεν is prosaic would of course apply only
to lyric. As for the two short lines in 17, we should at least note the
point that if ΠῚ were for some reason defective here and its original
{mutilated at some stage) had the same words in the same colometry
as LP:
τὸ mpocleN ἐκ δόμων
δ᾽ ἐνόεφιεαΝ᾽ θεοί ¢ ὁμοῦ
the two N’s would fall in the right place.
 APPENDIX II

SUGGESTIONS FOR A REVISED TEAT

OF THE DIALOGUE

84. Te, εἷς dv Ἀχαιῶν, ὦ γύναι, τῶν ἀθλίων---

85. EA. οὐ τἄρα o° ᾿Ελένην εἰ στυγεῖς θαυμαστέον.
Q6. Te, wees aca vccucceees
[86-83]
95. βίον] βίου
[τ2τ-]
τῶι. Μενέλαν] Μενέλεων
254-9 non delenda
279. οὗτος τέθνηκεν, οὗτοςἾἿ εἴπερ τέθνηκεν οὗτος,
282. ἐμοῦ] ἐμόν

[324-6}
388-9. εἴθ᾽ ὥφελες τότ᾽ εὐθέως λιπεῖν βίον, del. ἥνικ᾽ ---ἐποίεις
404. ABdns τ ͵] Διβύης &
[416]
41). τῆς τύχης] τὰς τύχας
422. ἐκβόλοις ἃ] ἐκβολ᾽ οἷς
433-4. βίον | οὐδ᾽ εἰ θέλοιεν ὠφελεῖν,
44τ, @ γραῖα, ταὐτὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπη κἄλλως λέγειν
448. πικρῶς ἂν οἶμαι σούς γ᾽ ἐσαγγέλλειν Αόγους,
488. δόμοις. δόμοις,
533-4. πλάνοις, | ἥξειν (δ}} πλάνοις | ἥξειν
553. οὐχ] οὐδ᾽
[577-8]
705. λυγρὸν non delendum
HAT~2, καὶ τήνδ᾽, ὅπως ἂν Cel. πως---φρουρεῖν
[745-8]
[752]
[755-7]
[764]
469. oD γὰρ ἐμπλήσαιμί σ᾽ ζἄν))] εἰ yap ἐμπλήσαιμί σε
w7c, ἐν ναυσὶν ὧν] ἐνιαυσίων
"18. ἐτῶν] κύκλων
[780]
785, Τὴν ἔτλην éyad.t
789. βαρβάροις] βαρβάρων
 APPENDIX II 175
818. ἐρεῖ δὲ τίς μ᾽; od] ἐρεῖ δὲ τίς μ᾽ ἢ
866. θείου δὲ σεμνὸν θεσμὸν αἰθέρος μυχούς,
870. πυρός] πάρος
898. pou] μοὲ
οοῦ, μὴ σχεῖν] μὴ ἔχειν»
post 923 lacuna indicanda
936. κατεσφάγη] κατεφθάρη
044. Xo] Θεέ,
993. δυσκλεᾶς γὰρ οὐΪ δυσκλεῶς γὰρ οὖν
1006. Χάρις] Κύπρις
1022, ὁδόν τιν᾽ ἐξευρίσκετε] τιν᾽ ἔξοδόν γ᾽ εὑρίσκετε
τόσο, Adyw θανεῖν] τεθνηκέναι
τοῦτ, κερδανῶ, λέγειν] κερδανῶ λέγων,
1074. καὶ νεὼς] κοὔριος
1172, κολάξομεν;) κολάξομεν.
LIdo-1, ἑππικὰ | φάτνης] ἱππικὰς | φάτνας
[1197]
1198. {δ᾽ del.
1225. TPidAos—cay. T
1226. post hunc v. duorum v. lacuna indicanda
1229 and 1230 transponenda
Ed. πιστὴ γάρ εἶμι τῷ πόσει dedyovad σε,
Θε. τί κερτομεῖς με, τὸν θανόντα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐᾷς;
1271. λύματ᾽] θύματ'
[1374]
[1421-2]
1434-5. ὑμνῳδίαις | ὑμέναιον ᾿Ελένης κἀμόν,] ὑμνῳδίαις, | ὑμέναιος "“Ελένης
κἄμος
1447. πολλά, χρήσθ᾽ ὁμοῦ] πολλὰ χρήστ᾽ ἐμοῦ
1534. καθίσατο] καθίστατο
FE535T
1570, εὐσφύρου ποδὸς] εὐσφύρῳ ποδὲ
1603-4. κλέος; δείξατε w. a. βαρβάρους. κλέος | δείξετε π. a. βαρβάρους;
τοῦ. ναός"]} ναός,
1627. G@EPAITQN] Xo. et sic usque ad 1639
1630. δοῦλος ὦν; Θερ, φρονῷ γὰρ εὖ.] δοῦλος; Xo. οὗ φρονῶ γὰρ εὖ;
1643. γαίας] γῆς
[1653-4]
1655. 7° del.
1675. KAotratay a’| κλοπὰς σὰς
1679. Telos οὗ πόνοι.
 INDEXES
(Roman figures refer to pages; italic figures to lines}

1 GENERAL
abstract for concrete 71, 80, 82, 132, masculine for woman &6
168 messenger 103
accusative, internal and external toa, metamorphoses 02 f.
124, 139, 160 middle voice for active 111, 134
of space travelled over 104
Anaxagoras 69 nomen agentis 114
aorist In present sense 94 463, τοῦ nouthetetic prayer 136, 156
636, 118 745, 122 835
apostrophe 159 optative, exclamatory potential 73 gr,
augment, omission of gt G8 467, 122 824 834

Callisto 92 papyrus 107 ff., r7o ff,

colour-words 138 parocdos 75
commentaries XXxiv passive of intransitive verbs 155, 164
costume 05, I44, 151 periphrasis 94, 98
Phantom xvul ff.
debates 128 f, polar expression 82
Demeter 147 pregnant preposition 135
doors 123, 143 present in perfect sense 74
prologue 69, 93
Euripides, chronology of Electra xvi,
prophets 117 ff.
HAF xxvii, Jon xxvii, [1 xxyi
Helen, tone of xi ff., 83, 143
questions 124, 163 f.
text, xxix ff., 170 ΠῚ
genitive of exclamation 81 requests to unspecified persons 96,
of field of reference 87, 123, 128, E26
τότ
generic 99 500 scenery and staging 69, 72, 93, 95;
of separation 124 TOI, 743, 153 1., 166
Gorgias viii scepticism 70
slaves 116
Helen, legend, viii ff., xvii ff. Sophocles, Hiecira x, 133 £.
in Euripides vii ff. fnachus 92 f.
Hermione 85, 113, 756 OT 133
Herodotus xvui if, Pereus 93
Stesichorus xvi ff.
imperfect of past danger 13 5 stichomythia 72, £33, 144
infinitive of wish 34 subordinate exclamatory 72 74, 127
interpolation xxx1 if., 70, 72, 74, 83, 924
ὃς ff., 93 Ἐν, 103, 117 ff., 120, 126,
_ 131, 144, 154 1, 164, 167 Telesilla 147
interrogative request 96, 126 Theonoe 124 ff.
 178 INDEX

2. METRE
aeolo-choriambic iv, τοῦ, 149, 158 f, hendecasylable 158
hipponactean 100
bacchiac 106, 158
iambelegus 106, 137
choerilean τάς £, lambic trimeter xxiv f,, 70 ὃ, 74 121,
choriambic dimeter 149 ff., 158 ἢ, 84 263 267, 94 390, 98 403, 118,
corteption £07 T31, 143, 166 ἢ,
cretic 106 lambo-trochaic 76, 79 f£., 81 f., 87 f.,
ICO, 104, 141, 159
dactylic 75, 88 £., or £., τοῦ
dactylo-epitrite 137, 141 notation vi
dochmiac 104 ff,, 170
pentamakron 158
enophan 106, 137 praxillean 137 Ὁ
glyconic 137, 150, 158 telesillean 137
trochaic, syncopated 76 f., 79 f., 88
hemiepes 100, 106, 137, 141, 158 trochaic tetrameter xxvii f., 165

3. GREEK
ἄγαλμα 83 κουφίξειν 163
ἀγαπᾶν, ἀγαπάξζειν 128 κρείσσων 130
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκέτι 145
dy 120 λαγχάνειν 81
ἄναξ 165 Τότο, ἀνάσσω 133 1039
βοᾶσθαι 155 μέλειν 80
βραβεύς 114 μέλλειν 1.33
μέσῳ, ἐν 129
μουσεῖᾳα 78, 137
γάρ 74,97 #., 144
ye 74, 121
yotr 145 ξουθόὸς 137

dai 146 60¢ 74, 143

διαφθείρειν 127 of 1147, 165
ὀρθοστάται τὸ
εἶέν 119 ὀρθῶς 145
ἔξεστι οὔ ὀρίξειν 168
εὖ δέ πως Tis ὄστις 84, 122 f,, 128, 141
θεός apotheosis of abstract τος, 560 ov γάρ τι 143
οὐ py... YE 102
ἐκετεύξιν 121 av μόλις 89
ov νῦν 129
Καὶ δή 134 οὕποτε 130
καιρόν adverbial accusative 98
κερτομεῖν τὸς παραινεῖν 132
κλύειν 128 πάρεργον 127
 INDEX T79
πικρῶς ΟἹ τί ταῦτα 130
πόρπαξ 154 τλήμων 113

ῥίπτειν 152 φήμη 122

σήραγξ go ὡς 74, 104, 124, τ}, 154, 162
τί δῆτα 1
 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, GXFORD
BY VIVIAN RIDLER
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY