FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPHIGENEIA IN AULIS

'I<}). piév', co 7tdxep, Kax' OÌKOV èrci xéKvotc céGev. 656 'Ay. 9é?ico ye- xò 9éÀ,eiv 8' OÒK èxcov d?iyòvo|Ltai.

OUK èxcov xò 9éÀ.eiv should, if anything, mean / do not have the wish ', obviously nonsensical in this context. In general è/etv is translated here to be able to, but I doubt whether the articulated infinitive is admissible with è^eiv in this sense 2; and even granted this / want, because I cannot want I suffer is more than weak. Emendations are numerous, and those which deal with 9éÀ.eiv 3 mostly rather violent. xò 9éÀ.etv does not look here like purely mechanical corruption. Perhaps the originai reading was 9éÀxo ye- xooxo 8' OÒK è/cov dÀ.yòvou.ai4. xò 9eA.eiv could have its origin in an interlinear scholion wrongly explaining xoó'xo 5.

KX. f||!eic 8è 0oivr|v KOV yovaicji 9rjco[iev; 722 'Ay. èv9dSe 7tap' eÒ7tpòu.voiciv 'Apyeicov nXdxaic. KX. KaÀ.coc dvayKaicoc xe- covevéyKoi 8' ò|icoc. Ay. oìc9' oòv ò Spacov, co yòvai; 7ti9o\) 8é |ÌOI.

724 covéveyKat L: corr. L. Dindorf

This paper continues my contribution to the 'FestschrifV for O. Szemerényi (Some Remarks on Textual Problems in Euripides' Iphigeneia in Aulis).

' Cf. xd/topei'v èxw (- d/topiav é/w) S. Tr. 1243. " I cannot find any example for articulated infinite with è^eiv to be able to in archaic or

classical Greek literature, and there is certainly none in tragedy. This seems to indicate that the infinitive is purely final-consecutive and never felt to be equal to an accusative. Another observation might lend some support to this view. èxw in the sense concerned either is con-nected with an infinitive and an accusative which likewise can be taken with both the infini­tive and èxeiv, or, if there is no object, we always find OÒK è%co. Expressions like noXXd è/to eÌ7ieiv appear to be equal to noXXd è^w (cbcxe) eircei'v aòxd or OÒK èxco rcpofirjvai = oòòèv exa> (dkxe) 7tpo(3f|vai (cf. also examples like OÒK èxco xi <j)to).

Some conjectures remove only ye, see below n. 5. 4 Cf. Gémete xi pei^ov r\ KaxaKxeivai p ' èXwv;/ - èycò pèv oòòév xoòx' èxwv drcavx'

èxco (S. Ant. 497f.). 5 ye is sometimes removed or changed to pèv. It is perfectly in place here, at least in my

version of the line, cf. e.g. S. EL 319, E. Andr. 239, see also Denniston, Greek Particles2 141 (II).

124 GUNTHER

Palmer's ingenious KÓÀCOIC èv dyKÒpaic xe 6 for KaÀcoc dvayKaicoc xe in 724 has been favoured by many editors, and in so far as 724 only is concerned it seems to be satisfactory. But there is a further problem in these lines as printed above apart from the apparently meaningless text in 724. 723, as it stands, is not an appropriate answer to Klytaimestra's question in 722. Asking where she should prepare the women's banquet Klytaimestra can only mean: 'Where shall there be a place for the women participating in the wedding banquet7 here in the soldiers' camp at Aulis?'. Thus the reply 'here among the ships of the Achaeans' totally misses the point. One could also be a bit surprised that Agamemnon here should quasi-invite Klytaimestra to stay, if he intends to remove her from Aulis, as he tries to do two lines below (725ff.). There is only one way to make sense of 723 in its transmitted place: we have to put a question mark at the end of the line. Then 724 can perhaps be emended to dXX' oòv dvayKaicoc (or rather dvayKai'óv h) ye covevéyKoi 8' òucoc. But even when taken as a question one cannot feel quite comfortable about 723. We would expect Agamemnon to be somewhat more explicit in rejecting Klytaimestra's intention to arrange the women's banquet in the camp than simply to ask: 'What? Here among the ships?'. I therefore suggest deleting both 723 and 724. A text where 725 follows immediately after 722 could have suggested to someone that the answer to Klytaimestra's question in 722 is missing. 723 thus would appear to be a rather inadequate attempt to fili the gap and 724 (perhaps with Nauck's ópcoc) a somewhat meaningless line which restores the stichomythia.

Ttépcac Kax' aKpac nóXw 9rjcei KÓpac KOX\)KXOI\)-

xouc SdLtapxd xe npiduou. 780 a 8è Aiòc 'EAÌVO KÓpa 7roÀ.òKÀ,auxoc ècetxai jióciv Ttpo^utoóca.

Although suspicion about the authenticity of 773-783 as a whole (del. Hartung. England) is not justified, reasons for deleting 781 (or perhaps 780) - 783 are by no means negligible 4. The very appearance of Helen among the victims of the war

«CR» II ( 1888) 252; he proposed dv' instead of èv as an alternative. 'Ava + dat. is rare in tragedy and occurs in lyrics only, nor is it admissible in sense, but dv' dyKÒpaic is easily corrupt from èv ò.yKÒpaic (cf. A. PV 366 èv aKpaic] dv' d- F).

Cf. Lue. Conv. 8, Men. Som. 2871'., Euang. fr. 1, lf. K.-A. In tragedy the adverb dva.YKaicoc is only attested in the phrase dvayKaicoc èxei (e.g.

E. Hel. 512, Ba. 1351 ); it is hard to assume ellipsis of èxei here. This ellipsis is possible with KOACÒC (for examples see P.T. Stevens, Colloquiai Exprcssions in Euripides, Wiesbaden 1976. 54f.). But KOAWC then always stands alone.

See D.L. Page, Actor's Interpolations, Oxford 1934, 170; but he rightly rejects Hartung's

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPHICENE1A IN AULIS 1 2 5

is somewhat surprising; moreover the meaning of 781-783 is anything but clear. Is 7r.óciv (783) really Paris, and is Helen reluctant to leave him '", or is it Menelaus, and is this some very obscure allusion to a possible punishment of Helen by the Greek conquerors? The highly obtrusive repetition KÓpac Tto^OKÀaòxooc/KÒpa jroÀ.ÒKA.a'uxoc strikes one as un-Euripidean, and èceixai is a non-existent form ". 784 fits very weil after 780 or even better after Orjcei KÓpac 7tOA/UK?iaóxooc I:. Nevertheless corruption seems, on closer inspection, more likely than interpola-tion in lyric metre. As to èceixai, it is hard to credit even an interpolator with this monstrous form. The repetition KÓpac 7ioÀ.'UKAm>xo'uc/KÓpa 7uoÀÓK^auxoc could weil be due to intrusion of the latter from above. 'Èceixai then perhaps is corrupt from an intrusive interlinear ècxai, if it is not a very unhappy attempt to mend the metre of the latter. If KÓpa HOA.ÒKA.a'oxoc èceixai (or at least TtoÀ.ÒKÀ.a'oxoc èceixai ) has to be expelled something must have been lost between 781 and 783; and the originai text cannot be restored with much probability. What we need is, I think, something like Helen by leaving her husband has caused ali these woes. a(ixia) be Atòc 'EÀiva 13 (or Aiòc KÓpa u) Ttòciv 7r.poA.i7toóca is perhaps a reasonable guess.

Xpucéoiciv d^ucce ?ioi(3dv 1051 èv Kpaxrjpcov yudX.oic

à(tróccco/à(t>òccofiai is epic vocabulary; in Vth century tragedy it is attested only here, E. Med. 83 and Ion, TrGF 19 FIO, always in lyrics l5. d())òccco èv elsewhere is to draw in i.e. with (a cup) and is also found with the instrumentai dative l6. It

deletion of 773ff. (approved by Wilamowitz, Griechische Verskunst, Berlin 1921. 261 and recently by West, «BICS» XXVIII [1981] 71).

"' See England ad l. " It is amusing to read in commentaries that èceixai is an untragic or doric (!) form; on

ècceixai see O. Szemerényi, Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of the Indo-European Accent, Naples 1964, 162f.; E. Risch, Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Ber­lin-New York 1974, 351.

12 ©ricei KÓpac 7ioA.OKÀaòxooc prix' èpoì would be cho di+ia. We thus would get rid of the cretic prjx' èpoi before the glyconic in 784 (but cf. 1089f.) and of the prosody xe" tip- in 780 (perhaps admissible in lyrics, see Barrett (Oxford 1964) on E. Hipp. 760; D.L. Page, A New Chapter in the History of Greek Tragedy, Cambridge 1951, 43 n. 22), but 780 can also be taken as a lecythion.

13 Cf. Aiòc "Apxepic S. Ai. 172, E. Ion 1619. 14 For interpolated proper names see K. Sier, Die lyrischen Partien der Choephoren des

Aischylos, Wiesbaden 1988, 209; cf. also E. Hipp. 71 (KaXXicxa xwv Kax' òA.opTCOV Odt; K-xóiv Kax' ò- (Gecov) Pv Hn Ox: K- xwv KOX' Ò - (napGévcov dpxepi) cett.).

15 In satyr play S. fr. 314, 214; in later tragedy Ezek. TrGF 128 Ex. 250. Ih Cf. e.g. Hom. Od. II 349, 379; IX 204.

126 GUNTHER

is not very plausible that here only d(()\)cce ... èv should mean he draw from within; Wecklein's èK Kpaxrjpcov y\)dXo\c (easily corrupt through haplography) seems unavoidable. TòaXov is not elsewhere attested in Greek literature either in the sense of hollow vessel or hollow of a vessel 17. But there is a gloss in Hesychius (y 967 L.) which is to be restored as yóaÀa- Ttoxfjpia 18. Athen. XI 467c reports yod^ac (or perhaps yvdXa 14) as a dialectal expression for cup which Philitas (presumably in his "AxaKXOi y^coccai 2<l) regarded as Megarian, whereas the his-torian Marsyas 2I used it to denote some special sort of cup in Macedonia. Wecklein in fact has further suggested changing yudÀ,oic here to yx>dXa\c. If the IA was written in Macedonia, a Macedonian word would not be unthinkable 22. But it appears that the derivatives of yóaÀ- have been in use in various Greek dialects for cup (or a special sort of cup) and given the evidence of Hesychius we have no cogent reason to go beyond yod^oic here.

uiya 8' dvéK^ayov co Nriptfi KÓpa, 1062 TiaiSec ai 0eccaA.a\ u.éya cpcoc Ltdvxic ó <t)oi(3d(Sa) uioiiaav eìScòc yevvdceic Xeipcov èc^ovòjia^ev. 1066

1062 vripnei L' (P): corr. Tr 1064 ó <t>oipd5a poòcav Hermann: 8' ó 0oìPa poòcav L : 5' ó (t>oipoc ó poòcav x' Tr3 yevv]r][ceic Ls

1066 è^covópacev L: corr. Monk

Weil's 7tai8a ce Oecca~Aiat uéya (j>coc (1063) ... yevvdcetv (1065)23 has found unanimous favour with ali subsequent editors. It is certainly unnecessary to point out the apparent merits of Weil's solution. So strong was its attraction that many were willing to intervene right off in the corresponding verse (1041) in order to achieve corresponsion with this text. One certainly can write fltepiSec èrcì (Monk)

17 For E. Andr. 1093f. cf. Stevens (Oxford 1971) ad l. IK See Latte's (Hauniae 1953) apparatus and his praefatio pp. Xllf.

Thus O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen. ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Gòttingen 1906, 7 1 ; the transmission presents various forms: the mss. of Athenaeus (see below) have both the nominative yvdXa (or yóaXal) and yud^ac, the Epitome offers also a dative yvdXovc (cf. EM 243,13) and a genetive yòÀ.r|c. Hesychius (y 990) has yoÀAdc (nominative); for the variation yùaX-lyùXX- see Chantraine, DELG s.v. yòn. yòX.X.oc.

:" Fr. 31 Kuchenmùller. : i FGrH II 741 fr. 21 (for his identi ty cf. Jacoby ad /. ). 2 The evidence about Euripides' stay in Macedonia has been questioned by M.R. Lefkowitz,

The Lives of the Greek Poets, London 1981, 103, but cf. also A. Harder, Euripides' Cresphontes and Archelaos, Leiden 1985, 125 n. 1.

1 Kirchhoff had already proposed Jiai5a co ©ecca^iai: the first to restore a dative from eeccaAai was Hermann (0eccaÀi5i rcdxpai pèya <\>wc).

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPH1GENEIA IN AULIS 1 2 7

or 7tapd (Kirchhoff) Saixì Gecov there for the transmitted Ti- ev 8- 6-24. But is it really adequate to change the text of this otherwise faultless verse for the benefit of a restored version of 1063? One can further ask whether the metre of Weil's restoration does not present considerable metrical disadvantages in comparison with the transmission in 1041. The metrical context of 1041-1063 is unusual. The respective verse is preceded by pherecrateus+choriambus 25 (òx' dvd. nfj^iov ai KaM-urAÓKapoi [1040] - péya 8' àvéK?tayov co Nripifi KÓpa [1062] and is fol-lowed by - u u - u u - u . According to the colometry printed in ali common editions (of course with Weil's text in 1063) this seems to be interpreted as DuD. But fully contracted hemiepes is found only E. Phoen. 797b (in response with

u u - [815]!). There it concludes a series of acatalectic dactylic tetrameters. Elsewhere Euripides like Aeschylus admits only contraction of the first biceps 26, and there is no contraction of blunt hemiepes in Sophocles 27. Fully contracted hemiepes, especially after a short link syllable, is extremely dubious. We cannot but interpret 1042f.-1064f. as glyconeus+2sp 2X. In this purely aeolic context a single dactylic colon TtaiSa ce Oecca^iai uiya (J>coc (4 da) could cause some surprise 29, whereas there is nothing wrong with the choriambic dimeter - u u u -- u u - ° transmitted in 1041. Emendation of 1064f. therefore should try to achieve corresponsion with the transmission in 1041. We must of course start from Kirchhoff s 7tai8a for 7tai'8ec and OeccaÀiai for 0ecca?iai. The basic TtaiSa OeccaiUai jiéya <})còc ?1 can only be made corresponding to 1041 by transposing it to rcaiSa jiéya <J)C0c Oecca^iai 32. Then we seem to be deprived of an important advantage of Weil's solution. We cannot read yevvdcetv in 1065 and thus are left with the impossibly interlaced duplicated direct speech. The advantage of yevvdcetv can be regained by changing yevvdceic to yevvdcOai ? \ Moreover some other minor

24 Cf. E. Med. 192f.; as to Murray's 5aixi Gecov evi n- cf. E. Fraenkel. Aeschylus. Agamemnon, II, Oxford 1950, 48; J. Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides, Oxford 1981, 46.

25 Cf. E. Hipp. 740-750 (tel+cho), S. Ai. 605-618 (gl+cho). 2h Cf. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1481.

7 The second biceps is contracted once in pendant hemiepes (S. EL 129). :K Thus already Wilamowitz (n. 9) 259f.; gl+sp is too common to cali for illustration; E.

Ion. 1237 we find gl+mol, and two spondiacs stand before a glyconeus in / 7 404. The analysis ph//5 longa (cf. e.g. E. Hel. 1307-1325, 1462-1476) is not advisable, since period end after poòcav resp. i%voc (1042) is unwanted.

There is nothing comparable in Euripides; S. OC 676 4da+2ia is found among aeolic cola.

30 Cf. E. Hel. 321, Or. 814-826, 836; see Itsumi, «CQ» n.s. XXXII (1982) 72. 31 - u - u u - u u - is attested E. El. 439-449 (corrupt E. Suppl. 1021), but responsion with

-uuu- -uu - is hardly possible. 32 See Headlam, «CR» XV ( 1907) 1061.

3 For the present with future sense see KG I 138a, 19 n. 7; Bruhn, Anhang zu Sophokles, Berlin 1899, 8; cf. also J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen iiber Syntax, I, Basel 1926, 161 f.; present

128 GUNTHER

offence is removed. England has justly drawn attention to the naming of Thetis in the third person as the child's mother in 1075 in a speech addressed to Thetis herself. The naming of the mother is perfectly in place if with TtaiSa ... ècjovòpia^ev ... yevvdcGai the identity of the mother is concealed so far and only revealed explicitly in 1075. The sparing of the mother's name for some ten lines fits very weil for the cryptic style of a prophecy ?4.

ce 8' ETCÌ KÓpa cxéij/ouci Ka?\AtKÒ|iav 1080 KXÓKOL\AOV 'Apyeiot y' dXidv cocxe Ttexpaicov dn:' dvxpcov eXQoiicav òpécov uóc/ov àKrjpaxov, (3póxeiov 1085 aijidccovxec Xa\\xóv.

Hermann's co KÓpa is an obvious emendation of the impossible È7Ù Kdpa and so is Scaliger's pa^idv for y' d?itdv. Most editors have further intervened in the text by deleting the pleonastic òpécov (first suggested by Dindorf), and Wilamowitz even cut out dvxpcov è^Goócav. Both these deletions certainly achieve easy metre and one may feel that èX0oòcav is indeed suspiciously superfluous. However, the metre of the transmitted text may weil be defended with the colometry printed above 35, and for dvxpcov òpécov cf. 'évavX' òpécov (E. fr. 740 N.2).

eie èu' 'E^Uiàc r\ ueyicxr| naca vu'v àTtopÀéTiei, 1378 Kàv éuoi Ttop0uòc xe vacov Kai Opuycov KaxacKa<J)ai, xdc xe ue^Àoòcac yuvai'Kac, fjv xi Spcoci pdppapoi, 1380 ur|Ké0' dprcd^etv èdv xdc òXpiac è£ 'EXXdòoc, xòv 'EÀévric xetcavxec òta0pov, fjv (dv)fipTtacev ndptc.

1382 xeicavxec Weil: -xac L

fjv xi Spaici pdppapoi is not weak, as England comments, it simply makes non-sense of the whole phrase. Iphigeneia's sacrifice and the Greek expedition may warn future generation not to kidnap Greek women but it can hardly have any

infinitive with future sense after a verbum dicendi is attested S. Tr. 169f. ( 170 has been deleted by Bergk [approved by Dawe], Kamerbeek's [Leiden 1970 ad I.} defence of the line is con-vincing, see also H. Lloyd-Jones - N.G. Wilson, Sophoclea, Oxford 1990, 156); for aorist infinitive instead of future cf. E. Ph. 1598L; present and aorist infinitive is common with èXnic èexi. cf. e.g. E. Ale. 146, A. Sept. 367; for present indicative for future in oratio obliquo cf. A. PV9AX. Ar. Eq. 127.

On postponement of proper names see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 681 ff., for examples in Euripides cf. Bond (Oxford 1963), E. Hyps. p. 70.

For the period end without sense pause after the adoneus cf. S. Ant. 81 1-813.

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPHIGENEIA IN AULIS 1 2 9

effect on actual wrongdoers in the future. Heath 36 was the first to restore a mini­mum sense to 1380 by writing fjv xi Spcoct f3appdpoi(c). But in the phrase èv èfioi (ècxi) xdc u.eM.oócac yovai'Kac pir|Ké0' àprca^eiv èdv, fjv xi Spcoct (3ap[3dpotc (se. oi 'EAAr|viKoi vaóxai, from vacov in 1379) the conditional clause is stili awkward. Conington in his important review of Monk's Iphigeneia 37 suspected interpolation. He proposed xdc xe jneÀ.^o'ùcac yuvai'Kac u.T)Ké0' àpTtd^eiv èdv (ceteris deletis), which on the whole is stili the best solution suggested yet. Other proposals involving wholesale rewriting of 1381 are as violent as they are unsat-isfactory. But if we restrict our view for a moment to 1380 alone, Weil's |irj for the transmitted fjv turns the sense of the line exactly in the right direction. An insurmountable obstacle seems to frustrate this promising start and indeed has deprived Weil of any credit from his successors: 1381 can only with extremely violent means be adjusted to become a final clause 38. Given the dose coherence in content of 1380-1382 a lacuna before 1381 39 is not very at tract ive. 1381 - quite apart from not fitting with u.rj in 1380 - is faulty metre, and the awkward xdc is not yet plausibly emended 40. I therefore suggest delet ing 1381 as a whole . If this verse is e l iminated a blameless text can be restored in 1380-1382 with few minor changes. In 1380 beside W e i l ' s uf) we must read ye for xe. If we want to keep 1382 - and I see no cogent reason to excise the line as proposed by Monk and others -we certainly need Vitel l i ' s fjv (àv)rjpTr.acev, and we must further write xeicavxec for xe icavxac . In a text where |ifi has already been replaced by fjv the motive for the interpolation of 1381 is obvious. The interpolator tried to mend the incomplete construction resulting from the corruption by supplying an infini t ive4 1 .

'I((). u.iìxep, xi ciyfji SaKp-uoic xéyyeic KÓpac; 1433 KÀ,. é/co x d X a i v a Ttpó^aciv còcx' d/\,yeiv (|)péva. 'I(J). Ttaijcai (ie \ir\ KaKtc^e- xdSe 8' èfioi TUI0OO. 1435 KX. Xéy'- eòe Ttap' r\\x(òv oùSèv dStKrjcr|i , xéKvov. 'Io- u.rjx' oov ye xòv còv Ti?iÓKa|iov èKxéur|ic xp i^óc ,

|irjx' àu.(|)i ccofia | i éXavac dfiTtic%r|i KÉKXOVC.

KX xi òr\ xó8 ' eiTtac, [co] xéKvov; ÒTto^écacd ce;

36 Notae sive lectiones ad tragicorum veterum / . . ./ dramata, Oxford 1762, 82 (not in Wecklein's appendix).

37 «Classical Museum» II (1845) 108. 38 Weil writes prjx' è6' àpna^oociv eòvàc, KXX. 3<* Suggested - independently from Weil's prj - by Kirchhoff. 40 èav xdc8' (Porson), èàv xiv' (Hermann), èav xoócS' (Murray), édcai (Paley). 41 Cf. «WJbb» XIII (1987) 6 n. 34. Among the examples cited there E. Andr. 1 and Or.

87 interpolation starts from a corrupt text, cf. also Jachmann, Binneninterpolation II, «NGG» N.F. 1/9 (1936) 185f. (= Textgeschichtlìche Studien, Kònigstein 1982, 550L).

30 GUNTHER

'I(J). o ò có ye- céccouat , Kax' èuè 5 ' eÒK^efic ècr | i . 1440 KX. Ttcoc eiTiac; c u 7tev0etv |ie cfjv \ |/oxr|v xpecóv;

KX. xi Sf) Kac iyvr jxa ic iv dyyeÀco cé0ev; 1447 'I((>. u r | 5 ' du<|)i Ke iva ic ué taxvac è^d\j/rii JCÉTIÀ.O'UC.

KÀ.. eiTtco 8è Ttapà coti <J)i>.ov ènoc xi Ttap0évoic; 'I<t>. x a i p e i v y'. 'Opécxiiv x' eKXpe<|)' d v S p a xóvSe po i . 1450

1439 5fjxa xóò' L: corr. Barnes u> del. Markland 1447 8f| Gaisford: 8è Lac(P): Sai Tr 3

The text of 1435, defended by Wackernagel - and subsequently by Barrett , has rightly been rejected by Dover44. Editors used to accept Porson's 'uè; how­ever, there is no reason for the strong form of the pronoun except the awkward word order. I doubt whether emendation is the right treatment for this line. Two lines below (1437) we meet with a further offence: (jirjx') oòv ye 45 has been emended to (p:fjx') oòv co by Elmsley and to u.rjxe co ye by West46. The latter version one could readily accept, if 1437 is considered in isolation. What turns one's mind in another direction is the sequence of thought in 1439f. However glorious Iphigeneia's death may be, and whatever consolation she may think her mother should draw from that, she hardly can deny that Klytaimestra will lose her. But as the text stands, oò co ye ( 1440) can answer nothing other than drco^écacd ce (1439). oò co ye would do very weil after 1434, and I suggest deleting 1435-1438. This verses seem to be an amplifying interpolation; they elaborate a point which someone might have regarded as introduced too abruptly in 1441 in the originai. I should like to point out here that the whole second half of this last epeisodion (1402ff.) is heavily interpolated. The most obvious interpolations are the 'Doppelfassungen' 1425 and 1430-1432; the latter passage has already been deleted by Hermann 47. In view of this one should rather be inclined to delete 1408f. (del. Monk) and perhaps 1412-1415 (del. Hartung) and 1423 48 than to

42

43

u

«IF» I (1892) 357f., 397 (= Kleine Schriften, I, Gòttingen 1953 25f., 65). On E. Hipp. 503f. The ms. text of E. IA 1435 7iaócai pe ph, lediate might be tolerable if the context

permitted (as it does not) the translation 'stop abusing me' (Greek Word Order, Cambridge 1968, 15 n. I ). This is only half the truth. The examples adduced by Wackernagel and Barrett for the position of the enclitic are not fully comparable with our case. A full verb like rcaòcai is not quite the same as 5eopo or dye etc.

4' See Denniston (n. 5), 52, 420; cf. also Page (n. 9), 190. 4h «BICS» XXVIII (1981) 71. 47 1427-1432 del. Hermann, 1430-1432 del. Monk. 4K See Page (n. 9), 189, but it is not true that «it drags 1421-2 down with it».

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPH/GENEIA IN AULIS 1 3 1

suspect the whole passage 1402ff.49. Probably there is even a further interpolation in the stichomythia Iphigeneia - Klytaimestra (1434ff.). 1449 is not only no an­swer to 1448, the line is modelled after the interpolated line 1438 blended with E. Hel. 1186 (xi nénXovc uéAxxvac è f̂jij/co xpoòc) awkwardly repeating the mid­dle et]d\\fT\i from the latter, appropriate only there 50. Probably 1448f. have been interpolated in combination with or even after 1435-1439.

tco ico. ÌSec0e xàv 'RiOD 1510 Kai Opuycòv eXénxoXiv cxeixoocav, èrci Kapa cxé<t>r| $aXXou_évav /epvipcov xe Tiayaic, Pcojióv ye Saipiovoc 0edc pavictv aiuaxoppòxoic 1515 0avoòcav eò^off xe ccó(iaxoc 8épr|v c(|)ayeicav. eòSpocoi Ttayai Ttaxpcoiai Liévooci ce xépvipéc xe cxpaxóc x' 'A^aicov 0éÀcov 'Rioo TtòÀav LioÀ,eiv. 1520 dXXd xàv Aiòc KÓpav KÀrjiccouev "Apxeuiv, 0ecov dvaccav, eòe iti' eòxo%ei' Ttóxu,coi.

1513 Ttayldc Trls

There are serious doubts about the authenticity of the whole choral ode 1510-1531 ', but even if the passage should be spurious the text cannot be sound; the question can only be how far emendation of these lines should go, and the inter-locking of our judgement about genuineness and the degree of corruption makes every decision very difficult. As to 1524-1531 (not printed here), these verses are certainly too corrupt to allow any conclusion about their authenticity, neither can I offer a substantial contribution to the restoration of the wording, so that the end of the ode is left apart here 52. An argument for the spuriousness of 151 Off. which is at least partially independent from considerations of possible corruption has been built on the extremely numerous verbal repetitions from the preceding monody of Iphigeneia:

Cf. Page, Le 50 However one has to admit that it could easily be changed to Reiske's èlqdynic. 51 See Page 19lf.; Kirchhoff was the first to delete the passage. 2 In 1527 perhaps one can write Kai Tpoiac 8oXóevi' èc è8r| (I suspect that something

has been lost with 'Ayapépvovd xe ̂ òyxaic); 1530 is hopelessly corrupt, KAÌOC deipvrictov may be a gloss on KÀeivóxaxov cté<}>avov.

132 GUNTHER

1475/1510 xdv 'iXiov 1476/1511 Kai Opoycov zXénxoXw 1477/1512 cxé(|)ea / cxéòti 1479/1513 %epvipcov xe Ttaydc 1481/1514 pcouòv 1481/1522 "Apxeu.iv xàv/0ecov dvaccav 1485/1524 0òuaci(v) 1488/1524 co Ttòxvta nóxvia 1504/1531 K>.éoc ... oò ce ufi ?iÌTrr|i / KAÌOC àeiuA/T]cxov

This is Page's impressive list. Dependence to this extent from an immediately preceding passage both in vocabulary/ phrasing and in contents is indeed unique in tragedy. However, in regard to some of the repetitions listed above the text of one of the two lines in question is not beyond suspicion. %epvipcov xe Ttaydc 53 in 1513 fits ili as a second object of pdÀAec0ai; interpolation according to the parallel in 1479 may weil be considered. However, the reading of L Ttayaic rather points in another direction. Tcayaic is universally disregarded in favour of the varia lectio naydc, but corruption of -aie to -àc is much more likely than vice versa'4 . Thus West's 55 lacuna before xepvipcov which would allow us to keep Ttayaic gains in likelihood. On the other hand the addition of a further item to this long series of parallel participles is not very attractive 56, and since xépviftec reappears in 1517f. we should be grateful to get rid of %epvipcov xe Ttaydc here. A confident decision between the two alternatives is not possible but I am inclined somewhat in favour of deletion.

In 1481 Pcouòv and "Apxeuiv xdv dvaccav are part of a very suspicious text (è^iceex' djKpì vaòv àucjù pcouòv "Apxeuiv, xàv dvaccav "Apxeuiv, xàv j iàmipav KXX. 1480-1484). Metre, if nothing else, tells strongly in favour of excision of either duòi vaòv or àuf i P«uòv and of the first "Apxeuiv 57. As to the choice

54 According to the varia lectio written above the line by Tr1; as to L's 7iayaìc see below. However, it is remarkable that in 1479 too a dative is transmitted in L (rcaydc Reiske:

Ttayaici L almost certainly; Tr erased -ci and prefixed -ci(v) to the following line; he later restored the division of L keeping -civ). One could meditate whether x- xe 7iayaìc in 1513 goes back to a emarginai) note of someone who already read the corrupt dative in 1479. But intentional interpolation is, I think, more likely. This means of course that naydc is the originai text in 1513. 7rayaici(v) in 1479 and 1513 may be due to the Ptolemaic practice of writing ai for a, cf. E. Mayser. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der PtolemderzeiL I / I , Ber l in 1970, 97f.

55 Ci. West, «BICS» XXXVIII (1981) 73. There is much more to say in favour of West's lacuna if Gavoócav - c^ayeicav is

deleted (see below). Period end between àpòi vaòv and dp<J>i peopòv is extremely unlikely, and it is suspect

also between é^iccei' dp<J>i Peopòv and "Apiepiv. Excision of either dp<))i vaòv or dpfjn Peopòv and "Apiepiv leads to éÀiccei' d.p0i Peopòv (or vaòv)/ xàv dvaccav "Apiepiv KXX.

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPHIGENEIA IN AULIS 133

whether to delete Pcopiòv or vaòv, the repetition of Pcofiòv in 1514 perhaps rather counts in favour of keeping it in 1481 5X. The parallelism between 1481 and 1522 further lends some support to Dain's xdv dvaccav 5y for 0ecov dvaccav (for Artemis!) in 1522. 0ecov could go back to a gloss 0edv which expelled xàv and was changed to 0ecov in order to go with dvaccav. But it is better to read "Apxeuiv 0edv, xdv dvaccav 60, xàv might easily have been lost by haplography. In any case with "ApxeuAV eliminated in 1481 the repetition in 1522 loses something of its obtru-siveness.

Finally the text (àifiaci 0ò|iaci xe) has been suspected in 1485. Wilamowitz 61, on metrical grounds, excises aiutaci xe as a gloss on 0ò|iaci. The juxtaposition diuaci/0ò|iaci connected by xe is displeasing. If one word is deleted I would rather vote in favour of keeping a'ipaci which fits è£,aÀei\}/co better, and one could see an intended reminiscence of it in aipaxoppòxotc in 1515 (a repetition not listed by Page). But it is just metre which warns us not to intervene in 1485. The very form of the dochmiac - u u - u u u recurs twice in the immediate vicinity in 1489 (Scócopev duixepa) 6 2 and 1494 (Xa^KiSoc dvxiTtopov). This strongly sup-ports the transmission in both these lines.

These minor modifications are certainly by no means utterly destructive of Page's argument, nevertheless the above considerations might have hinted at a somewhat refined approach to 151 Off. One should be cautious of regarding this passage simply as a clumsy cento. Whoever is the author of these verses, they are built intentionally and not wholly without art on reminiscences of the preceding section. Intentional repetitions, especially in antistrophic systems, are a weil known feature of the style of Euripidean lyrics 6 \ IT 144ff. 64 we have a non-responding system of two anapaestic sections, monody and choral ode, balancing each other; in the choral part (179ff.) we meet with a considerable number of verbal repeti­tions and reminiscences from the preceding solo aria of Iphigeneia. On compari-son the concentration of repetitions and the wholesale import of so long a phrase as dyexe/ i5ec0e (|ie) xdv 'IXiov Kai Opoycov eXénxoXiv are stili unique in the IA; however, one could argue that the M-passage is an example of the extreme devel-

58 Cf. v. 676 (but vaòv also is found in similar contexts, cf. E. Ion 495-498); for vaòv as a gloss to Peopòv see schol. Mosch. S. OT. 16d Longo (Padova 1971), cf. also Phot. Lex. P 324 Th., Suda p 1388 A., Et. Gen. (5 265 Berger, EM 217, 48.

59 Reported in Jouan's apparatus. 60 "Aprepiv 0edv dvaccav had already been proposed by Hennig. 61 O.c. 576. 62 Wilamowitz writes Scócopev dpd. 63 Cf. Hadley (Cambridge 1889) on E. Hipp. 563, Dale (Oxford 1954) on E. Ale. 455ff.,

Bond (Oxford 1981) on E. HF 348-441 (Metre), 678 and 763ff.; see also W. Kranz, Stasimon, Berlin 1933, 116.

64 Adduced by Hooker, «StudCIas» XXIII lOlf.

134 GUNTHER

opment of tendencies inherent in the style of late Euripidean lyrics. To contest Euripides' authorship of our passage merely because of its repetitiveness is not really cogent. As to the poetical value of this ode as weil as other Euripidean lyrics censured because of lack of content and repetitive style, such passages may create an unfavourable impression considered as 'Lesedichtung', but this tells us nothing about their effect as musical settings.

But by evaluating the piece as a whole we have anticipated. As to the indi­viduai problems of the wording, in the text as printed above at least two changes are necessary in order to endow 1510-1517 with some syntactical construction. We have to accept Ttaydc in 1513 and to restore from Oavoòcav (1516) a transi­tive verb to govern Pcou.òv ( 1514). Monk's xpotvoòcav and Markland's pavoòcav are both equally likely candidates. If a transitive future is restored from 0avoòcav three further minor changes are very likely, whatever one may think about the authenticity of these lines: a) Pa^oonévav for p a ^ o u i v a v in 1513 (Hartung), b) xe for ye in 1514 (Reiske) and e) ye for xe in 1516 (Markland). An alternative to this line of emendation is West's lacuna before /epvipcov in 1513. Thus we could not only keep Ttayaic in 1513 but also dispense with changing 0avoòcav to a transitivum. If we accept Reiske's xe in 1514 Pcouòv xe 8aiu.ovoc 0edc paviciv aijLtaxoppòxoic could be governed by the same verb as %epviPcov xe Ttayaic. However, Oavoòcav is highly suspect in itself; it is the wrong tense and also somewhat superfluous beside ccj)ayeicav, but it might be not simply a corruption but a gloss on c())ayeicav which crept into the text. With this consideration we have already gone beyond minimum conjecture and we should now try to test whether or at what price 1510-1517 can be emended to a text acceptable as the work of Euripides. A point already mentioned is that xepviPcov xe Ttayàc is un-suitable as an object of pd^.À.ec0ai. The alternatives are excision of x^pviPcov xe Ttaydc or a lacuna before it. I come back to this only because not only the lacuna but also the first solution perhaps dispenses us from emending 0avoòcav. One could meditate whether èrci KÓpa cxé(pr| Pa^oo|iévav PCOLIÒV xe (or perhaps 8è)... paviciv aipaxoppòxotc may not be tolerable as a zeugma 6 \ Secondly Saipovoc 0eàc is a strange combination. Monk's elimination of 0edc as a gloss is obvious enough. 0avoòcav has been discussed above; it should either be changed into a transitive future or deleted as a gloss. The last problem is presented by eòòutì TE co)|aaxoc 8épr|v c^ayetcav. ccó|iaxoc Séptyv is an odd phrase, unlikely to be Euripidean, and Sépiiv ccj)ayeicav is suspicious too 6h. Here one can see the only

I cannot produce an example where both an active is to be supplied from a middle (cf. KG II 565 h) and is to be differently construed (KG II 571).

h c4>d^eiv 5épr|v is attested E. Or. 1 199. c<t>ayaiciv (Griffith) gets rid of the internai accusative but the couple Peopòv 5aipovoc 5épr)v xe ceópaxoc (xpavoócav) is odd. Nothing has been suggested yet for ceópa-coc 5épr|v.

FURTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IPHIGENEIA IN AULIS 1 3 5

serious obstacle to ascribing these lines to Euripides. Emendation of the wording proves to be useless, and we have to make a difficult choice between regarding just this phrase as an amplifying interpolation or suspecting the whole passage. It is not possible to arrive at a certain conclusion, but I wish to underline that in regard to ali other offences discussed so far corruption is likely, and there are plausible remedies.

Before I try to make a synthesis of the alternatives discussed above it is necessary to cast an eye on 1517b-1518. Seidler's Ttaxpcoiai uivooci ^épvipéc xé ce for L's unmetrical n- u- ce %- xe is the text universally accepted in 1518. West further removes the impure iambus eò]8pocoi Ttayai in 1517 and replaces Tiayai by poai. But it is not easier to arrange the text so that Ttayai would occupy the anceps position? The text of 1517f. could be transposed to eòSpocoi Ttayai Ttaxpcoiai xé ce uévooci xépviPec. Thus we would gain the further advantage that Ttaxpcoiai now goes with /épvipec which fits much better than Ttayai.

Starting from this arrangement in 1517f. we now have to test the various alternatives for the text in 1510-1517 with regard to a possible colometry. If we want to attribute the passage to Euripides we have to eliminate in any case 0edc (1514) and eòejruri - ccj)ayeicav. If %epvipcov xe Ttaydc (1513) is also deleted the text can be arranged as follows:

a) PaTioou-évav Pco|Ltòv xe 8aiu.ovoc paviciv aiu.axoppòxoic xpavoòcav eòSpocoi KX?I.

or, if we want to avoid the trochaics, we could write aiu.axopòxoic 67. Thus we would arrive at:

b) Pa^oi>|iévav Pcouòv xe 8aiu.ovoc paviciv aiu,axopòxoic xpavoòcav.

or (with 0avoòcav deleted):

e) PaXoDuivav Pco|ióv xe Sai-fiovoc pavictv ai|iaxopòxoic.

If we accept West's lacuna and keep %epvipcov xe 7tayaic,the alternatives

are:

d) Pa^iooiiévav < ) ^epvipcov xe Ttayai e Pcou-óv ye 8aip.ovoc paviciv aip.axopòxoic %pavoòcav.

or

7 aipaxópoToc IGXU [5] 310. For-poxoc in tragedy cf. dyvòpoxoc A. PVA3A, xpocópoxoc S. Ant. 950 (xpocòppoxoc A. Pers. 805, and corrupt in S. Ant. Le).

36 GUNTHER

e) paÀoouévav < ) Xepvipcov xe Ttayai e PcoLtòv xe Saiuovoc paviciv aipaxoppòxoic.

I am inclined to b) or e).

Freiburg im Breisgau H A N S - C H R I S T I A N G U N T H E R