Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:31:56.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euripides, Supplices 71–86 and the Chorus of ‘Attendants’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. W. Willink
C. W. Willink
Affiliation:
Highgate, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first choral ode of Euripides' Supplices, or the Parodos if that term can be used for an ode which is not an ‘entry’, ends with two stanzas of lyric-iambic threnody, following four stanzas of supplication in ionic metre (42–70)

As Collard comments, this structure is broadly similar to, and very possibly modelled upon, A. Pers. 65–114, 115–39. But there is an important difference here: prima facie, the ‘further∕different concerted lament’ in 71ff. is sung and performed by the πρ⋯сπολοι mentioned in 72, ‘taking over’ in a kind of antiphon to the Seven Mothers'lamenting ἱκεс⋯α

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 340 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article fulfils, in part, a hope expressed in my commentary on Or. 961–2, where I offered a different tentative conjecture for Supp. 77; but it is also complementary to my discussion earlier this year of a stanza-pair in the Parodos, of Helen (CQ 40 (1990), 77ff.Google Scholar), referred to below as ‘above, p….’, the numerous points of contact having forced me to a reappraisal. To the works cited there (p. 77 n. 1), add Collard, C., Euripides Supplices (Groningen, 1975Google Scholar; see also his Teubner edn., 1984). I am gratefully indebted to the helpful criticisms and suggestions of the CQ referee, none other than Dr J. Diggle, whom I have hitherto always consulted at an earlier stage.

2 Collard, ii.116. Pers. 1115ff. is essentially trochaic (beginning lk lk…lk . like Hel. 167–78/179–90; cf. p. 84 with n. 34), whereas here we have 2ia 2ia…ith . But all three patterns have partly syncopated rhythm with no long ancipitia (p. 83), and the corresponding exclamations in the middle of the stanza are a particular feature consistent with imitation (see below with n. 19).

3 δι⋯δοϰοϲ cf. Andr. 1201, where Peleus responds to the Chorus. Threnodic antiphons more typically respond to a single ἔξαρϰοϲ (as I.T. 179ff., etc.; conn, on Or. 960–1012, cf. Broadhead, , Persae, pp. 310ff.)Google Scholar. For Collard, the πρ⋯ϲ7pi;ολι are mere ‘stage-extras’ and there is no ‘taking over’; a view surely inconsistent, if not directly with the Greek, at least with the conventions of choral lyric. The actively-lamenting persons thus prominently identified must be the performers of the lament.

4 For μονϲεῖα (‘halls of song’) there metonymic for ‘musicians’, see above, p. 89 with n. 56.

5 Diggle rightly rejects κ⋯ποι (Nicklin, Collard) and κτ⋯ποι (Wilamowitz) in his Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford, 1981), 4–5Google Scholar, but is ‘driven back’ to κακοῖϲ (apogr. Par.; L. κακο⋯) with ⋯μο⋯ understood. ‘My’ is expressed in the parallels cited; and here it is not required, if the singers are the πρ⋯ϲπολοι.

6 This use of the 2nd pi. imperative may derive from exhortations sung by an ἔξαρϰοϲ; but not all the exx. can be given to the Chorus-leader (cf. comm. Or. pp. 105, 302). If the ‘self-address' in unison is artificial, it is no more so than Electra's lamenting use of the 2nd pers. sing, at El. 112f. and 127f. ϲ⋯ντειν’… ὦ ἔμβα ἔμβα κατακλα⋯αυϲα, 125 ἴθι, τ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν ἔγειρε γ⋯ον 140 (lect. dub.), 150 δρ⋯πτε κ⋯ρα (for which see Dennison, who cites Schadewaldt, , Monolog und Selbstgespräch, 215–16)Google Scholar.

7 Or ‘caused by dead offspring’. The gen. phrase can be understood as ‘absolute’; but for the causal gen. in contexts of grief, denoting also the object of the grief, cf. comm. on Or. 456–8.

8 Cf. Alexiou, M., The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge, 1974), 28Google Scholar. The ritualized violence could alternatively give an outlet to desires for vendetta-killing (ibid. 22). For the ϲπαραγμ⋯ϲ-topos, cf. also above, p. 89 with n. 55. We do not know how far the hyperbolically ‘mortal’ self-mutilation was curbed by Solon's legislation. In real life it may have become largely symbolic; but tragedy is not real life.

9 In Dionysiaca…studies…presented to Sir Denys Page… (Cambridge, 1978), 175 n. 11Google Scholar. My interpretation here differs from Diggle's only in clarifying the force of ⋯π⋯πονον, which he renders ‘wearisome’, and in giving a corresponding ambivalence to ⋯ϲ: ‘with regard to’ as well as ‘so as to cause’, cf. El. 37 λαμπρο⋯…⋯ϲ γ⋯νοϲ Cyc.522 μ⋯γιϲτοϲ…⋯ϲ τ⋯ρΨιν β⋯ου, Ba. 1162 ⋯ϲ γ⋯ον ⋯ϲ δ⋯κρυα (s.v.l.), etc.

10 Cf. El. 1226 δειν⋯τατον παθ⋯ων ἔρεξα (comm. on Or. 3), also the similarly active threnodic π⋯θεα in Hel. 173 (above, pp. 88–9 with n. 55). ‘Weeping’, like other modes of grieving, can be ‘actively’ performed in rhythmical π⋯τυλοι (Hipp. 1464, Tro. 1235–6).

11 Cf. my discussion of the ambivalent π⋯νοϲ-theme in H.F. in CQ 38 (1988), 86ffGoogle Scholar. Here ⋯π⋯πονον follows on the heels of the oxymoron ϰ⋯ριϲ…πολ⋯πονοϲ in 80 (cf. Ba. 67 κ⋯ματον µὐκ⋯ματον). Note that ϰ⋯ριϲ, a richer word than ⋯δον⋯ in El. 126, is appropriate to the vicarious π⋯νοϲ here.

12 The τι simply serves, pace Collard, to make the neuter adjective a substantival complement (cf. LA. 568 μ⋯γα τι θηρε⋯ειν ⋯ρετ⋯ν, etc.); a favourite idiom (comm. on Or. 231–2), not otherwise clear when the subject is neuter (unless ϰρ⋯7mu;α or κτ⋯μα is used with similar effect). For the ‘inserted’ complement, cf. Or. 981 βροτ⋯νδ' ⋯ π⋯ϲ ⋯ϲτ⋯θμητοϲ, where I compare H.F. 290 οὑμ⋯ϲ δ' ⋯μαρτ⋯ρητοϲ εὐκλε⋯ϲ π⋯ϲιϲ. For the disyllabic keyword at the end, cf. also Or. 10 ν⋯ϲον (comm. p. 82).

13 For the idiomatic emphasis on the participle θανο⋯ϲα cf. comm. on Or. 1149–50.

14 The transposition was proposed by Zuntz, (Inquiry, 65–7)Google Scholar; Dale (LM 2 75 n. 1) created the trimeter, as accepted by Collard and Diggle (the latter previously in GRBS 14 (1973), 247Google Scholar n. 19). A similarly appended αἰαῖ for ἔ ἔ at Hel. 166a (clausular to dactyls), accepted by edd., is rejected on pp. 79f. above.

15 A fair test of that is to try the effect of writing ⋯ϲτ⋯ at the end of H.F. 290 or Or. 981 (n. 12 above).

16 Cf. Andr. 281–2 βοτ⋯ρ⋯ τ' ⋯μϕ⋯ μον⋯τροπον ⁄ νεαν⋯αν⃒ ἔρημ⋯ν⃒ θ'⋯ϲτιο⋯ϰον αὐλ⋯ν ∼ 291–2 πικρ⋯ν δ⋯ ϲ⋯γϰυϲιν β⋯ου ⁄ϕρυγ⋯ν π⋯λει⃒ ταλα⋯να⋯ναι⁄ περγ⋯μοιϲ τε Tρο⋯αϲ (not two trimeters, since 291 lacks diaeresis after the fifth or seventh position). Or. 842–3 is similar (comm. pp. 221f.), but with ar clausula: ϲϕ⋯γιον ἔατ⋯ρα, πατρώι-⁄ ων παθ⋯ων⋯μοιβ⋯ν. Cf. also Andr. 484–5 (next n.), and the recurrently clausular sequence…. (with word-overlap) in Hel. 171/183, 201/220, 209/228 (above, p. 84).

17 For the metron at verse-end before punctuation, cf. Ba. 414 ⋯κεῖ δ⋯ π⋯θοϲ, ibid. 584, Hipp. 1144(7), I.T. 864, Hel. 1326, (Parker, L. P. E., CQ 18 (1968), 255)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Ph. 294, where I am grateful to Dr Diggle for advance notice of his proposal ϲ⋯βουϲα ν⋯μον (for ν⋯μον ϲ⋯βουϲ(a)). Terminal in the glyconic, as in Ba. 109 (δρυ⋯ϲ) ∼ 124 (τ⋯δε), is similar in principle. Note that 84–5 are not 2tr ⃒ Ik. The pattern with trochaic cross-rhythm in an iambic context is like Andr. 483–5 (∼ 491–3) ⋯ν⋯ϲ ἄρ' ἄνUpsi;- ‘ϲνϲ ⋯ν⋯ τε μ⋯λα-⁄θρα κατ⋯ τε π⋯λι-’ αϲ, ὅποταν εὑ-⁄ρεῖν θ⋯λωϲι καιρ⋯ν (surely ∧ 4ia + ith: ⋯ποταν ε⋯- cannot be ‘catalectic’ (Stevens) or a resolved ba (Dale): anything else gives somewhere).

18 For ἔἔ (s.v.l.) preceded and followed by other words within the period, cf. A. Supp. 142/152.

19 Perhaps we should write ⋯⋯ 〈⋯⋯〉 cf. ibid. 977, where Broadhead writes ⋯⋯ ⋯⋯ (Page ⋯ἓ ⋯ἓ; ἔ ἔ ἔ fere codd.), andS.c. T. 327/39 ἔἔ (s.v.l.) ⃒ ith (327 ἔ ter vel quater plurimi), which is probably a trimeter. But 6d occurs nowhere else, and there is more than one way in which exclamatory o (or ω) + a can be articulated as a full metron. Broadhead suggests ‘extra-metric’ interpretation, but that seems less likely in the middle of a patterned stanza.

20 Cf. Barrett on Hipp. 208, 591–5, and Mastronarde's apparatus at Ph. 1284.

21 The value may be indeterminate when an exclamation occupies a whole verse, but that may not make it ‘extra-metric’; e.g. a verse αἰαῖ αἰαῖ in anapaestic contexts is naturally regarded as amonometer, and many whole-verse exclams. form part of a responsive pattern. Sometimes also the colometry needs reconsideration, e.g. at Ale. 872–6/888–92 (n. 26 below). I did not assign a value to the verse ἔἔ (sic L) at Hel. 166a (above, pp. 77ff.); nor can I now. It could well be indeterminate (‘ad lib’); but either αἰαῖ bis or ⋯⋯ bis would yield an appropriately metrical pair of αἰ⋯γματα between the dactylic hexameters and the trochaic strophe.

22 As to the firstε if ἔἔ can have the value (Diggle, , CR 32 (1982), 130Google Scholar, Garvie, , Choephori p. 362)Google Scholar, that implies the interpretation ἔ.ἔ. (sic). That may be theoretically possible (cf. single at); but we should probably always write αἰαῖ for that value. If ⋯- exclamations could begin with a long, we should expect to find more attestations in dactylic and anapaestic contexts. In fact such attestations are few, except as obviously inferior variants (as at Ph. 1284), and generally rejected by edd. (as by Garvie himself at Ch. 1009, 1019). (ii) As to the last e, the value (a fortiori ) is nowhere, I think, required by the metre, even in combinations like ἔἔ,ἰώ (which Eur. seems to have eschewed). In S. El. 827/40 the natural value of ἔἔ ἰώ αἰαῖ and ἔἔ is, at Tra. 1026 Dawe gives ἔἔ ἰώ (recc.) δαῖμον as a dochmius, but the truth could well be ἔἔ ⁄ ἰώ ἰώ, δαῖμον. At A. Ag. 1114/25 divide ἔἔ⁄ παπαῖ παπαῖ…

23 So, e.g., Broadhead at A. Pers. 977 (n. 19 above) and Dawe at S. O.C. 149.

24 A value is plausible at the beginning of dochmiac sentences, like αἰαιαιαῖ (s.v.l.) at Hipp. 830, but nowhere necessary. Modifying what I wrote about Hel. 661,662 in CQ 39 (1989), 62Google Scholar, I should now say that the choice there lies between⋯⋯ () and ⋯εε⋯.() and similarly in Tro. 1216 which may be ⋯εε⋯. ρενώ ⃒ δ ⃒ 2δ. supp. 1074 may, but need not, be ⋯εε⋯. ϲϰ⋯τλια δ⋯ παθών (‘dochmiac compound’, cr δ or δ cr; comm. Or. p. 106), followed by 2δ.

25 ‘Enoplian tricolon’, as usual with short ancipitia; cf. comm. Or. p. 113. This one combines the dicola 2ia : D (as Bacchyl. 19.1–2) and D : ith (as Archil. 168.1–2 West). Here I would mention also H.F. 1025–7, which I suspect should be restored as ⋯⋯. ⋯⋯, (⋯ϲ L, ἔἔ Kirchhoff) τ⋯να ϲεναγ-/μ⋯ν ἤ γ⋯ον ἤ ϕθιμ⋯νων (L ϕθιτ⋯ν)/ὠιδ⋯ν ἥτ⋯ν' “Aιδα ヰορ⋯ ⋯ϰ⋯ϲω; (2ia /: D / 2δ). For confusion of ϕθιτ⋯ν and ϕθιμ⋯νων, cf. Alc. 100.

26 πιτ⋯λουϲ, cf. Hipp. 1464 (n. 10 above). The usual division after κρ⋯τα gives both an unwelcome catalectic period-end, with brevis in longo, in the middle of the short sentence and an ionic verse alien to the iambo-dochmiac context. Fo r the ‘resolution before syncopation’, cf. Diggle, , Studies, 18–21Google Scholar. Finally in this connection I would mention Alc. 873–4 ∼ 889–90, which I analyse as three verses: Aδ. αἰαῖ. Xo. π⋯πονθαϲ ἓξι' αἰαγμ⋯των. (2ia cr)/ Aδ, ⋯⋯ ⋯⋯. Xo. δι' ⋯δ⋯ναϲ (ia cr) / ἔβαϲ, ϲ⋯ϕ' οἶδα Aδ.ϕε⋯ (2ia), and similarly in ant.; for the ⋯ντιλαβ⋯, cf. H. F. 1051f., 1064ff. (CQ 1988, 95–6).

27 It is surprising that Diggle accepts ⋯λιβλ⋯του in the new Oxford Text: his discussion in Studies, 4, left it at best doubtfully deserving a place in the apparatus. As to the long anceps, not mentioned by Diggle, this should certainly not be introduced by conjecture in a context with otherwise only short ancipitia (cf. nn. 2 and 42, and p. 83 above).

28 Choriambs feature in otherwise iambic contexts at 604/14, 619/27, 836(?), 1126/33, 1130/37 (cf. Collard, ii. 265). It is conceivable, but much less likely, that the epithet was accommodated by correption (e.g. ⋯λιβ⋯του ⋯κ π⋯τραϲ as 2cr, or ⋯- / λιβ⋯του ὥϲ 〈τιϲ⌫ ⋯κ π⋯τραϲ); correption is very rare in iambics, but cf. S. Tra. 846–7 (twice, in the verse ).

29 For τιϲ in the simile, cf. Hec. 20 ὥϲ τιϲ πτ⋯ρθοϲ, El. 151 οἷα δ⋯ τιϲ κ⋯κνοϲ ⋯ϰ⋯ταϲ, eta. The corruption began, perhaps, with omission of τιϲ ⋯κ then the preposition was restored in the wrong place (cf. Diggle, , CQ 33 (1983), 352fGoogle Scholar.). The preferred suggestions here and in 72 I owe in part to Dr Diggle.

30 Philologus 124 (1980), 179ffGoogle Scholar. Acheron's ϰοα⋯ are ‘streams’ associated with loud γ⋯οι S. fr. 523 Radt; and cf. O.C. 1598–9 ῥυτ⋯ν ὑδ⋯των…λουτρ⋯ κα⋯ ϰο⋯ϲ.

31 Cf. also Garvie on A. Ch. 449 ϰ⋯ουϲα πολ⋯δακρυν γ⋯ον.

32 ὑγρ⋯ <ν> meets Dr Diggle's objections to χο⋯ν (which he also pointed out should be χο⋯ν) As he says, ἄπαυcτο + gen. is not attested, and ἄπαυcτοc…χο⋯ν ‘is an odd adjunct for cταγών’. His own preference is (or was) for <λιβ⋯c>, cf. Andr. 118, 533–6, I.T. 1106; and it is indeed possible that γóων 82 came in from the line above (as the verses are set out in L). But see further in n. 34 below.

33 See above with nn. 28–9.

34 The three-verse pattern here is like Hec. 59–60 ἄγετ ὦ παῖδεc τ⋯ν γρα⋯ν πρò δóμων / ἄγετ' ⋯ρθο⋯cαι τ⋯ν ⋯μóδουλον, / ⋯ρωι⋯δεc, ὑμῖν πρócθε δ' ἄναccαν (punctuation can often be lightened with advantage). Such epanalepsis (especially common in isometric units: comm. on Or. 142–3, etc.) is intermediate between anadiplosis and anaphora. We no more need completely symmetrical syntax here (pace Collard) than we do at Or. 142–3 ⋯ποπρò β⋯τ' ⋯κεῖc' | ⋯ποπρó μοι κοίταc; nor (see n. 32) do we need ὑγρ⋯…cταγὼν / ἄπαυcτοc… <λιβ⋯c> as correspondingly balanced phrases in 81–2.

35 See also on pp. 77–6 above, with nn. 4–6. For ὦ with the imperative, add Hel. 1111 ἔλθ' ὦ…ξυνεργóc (clearly predicative nom., not voc.), Alc. 234, Tro. 335, ὦ ἶτε Hec. 1093, etc. (Fraenkel on A. Ag. 22).

36 Collard considers both interpretations, and cites Od. 18.194 εὖτ' ἄν ἶηι (SC. κυθ⋯ρεια) Χαρίτων χορòν ἱμερóεντα in support of ‘to the dance’. But ‘to’ is less apposite here. Rather similar is H.F. 783ff.⋯νοχορε⋯cατε…βᾰτε cυναοιδο⋯…τòν Ἡρακλ⋯ουc καλλίνικον ⋯γ⋯να (the ⋯γών there at once the ‘Labour’ and the choric victory-ritual celebrating it). For ἶτε equivalent to χορε⋯ετε, cf. also Tro. 338 (where I should remove the comma between ἶτ' and ὦ; cf. nn. 34–5)).

37 For the topos and the colour-contrast, cf. comm. on Or. 961–2. For the φòνοc as hyperbolically ‘mortal’, see above with n. 8. For the double point, cf. also Or. 992–4 (with comm.).

38 Cf. the similarly hyperbolic and terminal phrase αἱματηρòν ἄταν in Or. 962 (see comm.); there, with δι⋯ παρηίδων, defining the action τιθεῖcα λευκòν ⋯νυχα.

39 An int. ace. of the ‘integral’ rather than ‘non-integral’ (appositive) type; cf. the discussions by Barrett and Diggle cited on p. 82 above (n. 23).

40 Correctly attributed to Blaydes in the new OCT; previously in GRBS art. cit. attributed to Page, and considered ‘attractive’ by Collard. Its sole virtue was to remove one of the epithets with χρ⋯τα.

41 For the force of δι⋯, see comm. on Or. 961–2. In all the relevant parallels the noun with δι⋯ is epithetless. Similar considerations, including metrical ones, exclude Hartung's λευκ⋯ν λευκóν Or. 961 (there with ⋯νυχα)For λευκóc with χρών here, cf. λευκóχροα Ph. 322 (with κóμαν), χιονóχρωc Hel. 215, κυανóχροα ibid. 1502, μελ⋯γχρωτεc Or. 321, etc.

42 Cf. nn. 2 and 27 above. There are indeed remarkably few long ancipitia in the lyric iambics of this play. Caution is the more necessary in respect of long anceps followed by diaeresis.

43 Not, as Diggle, ‘For that is the proper honour for the dead in the eyes of the living’ (Studies, 5–6).τοῖc ⋯ρ⋯cι then has little if any point, as the adduced parallel τò γ⋯ρ γ⋯ραc ⋯cτ⋯ θανóντων shows. He too cites H.F. 357–8, but without drawing the inference that… τοῖc ⋯ρ⋯cι κócμοc | should be interpreted syntactically like…τοῖc θανο⋯cιν ἄγαλμα | κócμοc is not, in fact, a natural word for the ‘honour’ done to the dead by ritual lamentation, except indirectly. To κοcμεῖν a corpse (Tro. 1147) is to wash and dress it properly; to κοcμεῖν a tomb (Or. 611) is to ‘adorn’ it with the appropriate offerings. It is surely certain that the primary function of κócμοc here is to make a paradoxical point about ‘adornment’ in a context of ‘facial disfigurement’. Note too that the associated πóνοc of ‘weeping’ (79ff.) is a χ⋯ριc for he living in more than one sense (cf. n. 11) though also no doubt (indirectly) a χ⋯ριc for the dead. κφϲμοφ here is to make a paradoxical point about ‘adornment’ in a context of ‘facial disfigurement’. Note too that the associated óνοϲ of ‘weeping’ (79ff.) is a χ⋯πιϲ for the living in more than one sense (cf. n. 11) though also no doubt (indirectly) a χ⋯πιϲ for the dead.

44 For the cheeks as the prime seat of beauty, cf. Kells, J. H., CQ 16 (1966), 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Note that there are thus two ⋯μφíπολοι available to support each γπα⋯. It may be suggested that the Chorus-Leader could still be one of the Mothers; but that works less well at 71ff., and (I think) elsewhere.

46 For Eur.'s use of κωφ⋯ ππóϲωπα in general, see Stanley-Porter, D. P., BICS 20 (1973) 68–93Google Scholar. Important persons appear thus inOr. (comm. p. xxxv).

47 By the same token they can also sing for the ‘chorus of πκιδεϲ’ at 1122ff., since there are two masked χοπενταí adjacent to each γπα⋯ϲ (n. 45 above).

48 Note that ἒπχεται 71 thus comes into its own as a verb of motion.

49 A t the same time the ‘highlighting’ of the artificial stagecraft (notably at 963ff.) is characteristic of Eur.; cf. above, p. 78 n. 11.

50 There are also many places where the sentiments expressed by the Chorus are ambivalent as to persona, no doubt deliberately; but there is no room here for a detailed study of that.

51 Note that the temple-ππóϲπολοι are feminine in A, . Eum. 1024Google Scholar (cited by Collard). Here, as there, they are servants of a goddess.

52 See especially 373–4, 1176–9 (and n. 11 above).