No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2020
In the anapaestic sequences of Eur. Alc. 93–7 and 105–11, a fast-paced exchange takes place between two choreuts (or two groups of choreuts) eager to learn about Alcestis’ fate. The two passages pose several metrical and textual problems. The most serious is the presence at lines 94 and 106 of the ᴗ ᴗ – – sequence (a ‘catalectic monometer’), which finds no parallel in anapaestic poetry from any age or literary genre. The same sequence occurs at the beginning of the short anapaestic coda of lines 132–5, which, whether authentic or not, from a metrical point of view presents certain affinities with the two previous sequences.
I am especially grateful to Luigi Battezzato, Marco Catrambone, Glenn W. Most and the anonymous CQ referee for their insightful comments.
1 I will refer to the discussion in Parker, L., Euripides Alcestis (Oxford, 2007), 69–70Google Scholar (on lines 77–135). For a different arrangement of the sequences, see Willink, C.W., ‘Notes on the parodos-scene in Euripides’ Heraclidae, 73–117’, CQ 41 (1991), 525–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 528 n. 17 = id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (ed. W.B. Henry) (Leiden and Boston, 2010), 241–7, at 246 n. 17 (cf. ‘Critical notes on the cantica of Euripides’ Alcestis’, in id., Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy [Leiden and Boston, 2010], 786–801, at 786–8), followed by Kovacs, D., Euripides (Cambridge, MA, 1994–2002)Google Scholar, vol. 1. The present discussion sets out from the assumption of the lyrical character of lines 93–7 and 105–11.
2 Cf. Parker (n. 1), 70 (on Alc. 77–135). In his discussion on lyrical anapaests, West, M.L., Greek Metre (Oxford, 1982), 121–4Google Scholar usually refers to ‘catalectic dimeters’. The hypothesis of a catalectic monometer, however, is not ruled out a priori: West (this note), 121 notes ‘even a catalectic monometer at Alc. 93 [sic]’. Cf. West, M.L., ‘Tragica I’, BICS 24 (1977), 89–103Google Scholar, at 92 (on catalexis in recitative anapaests). The admissibility of the sequence, however, is far from being proved.
3 The athetesis of lines 132–5 (Wheeler) is accepted, for example, by Diggle, J., Euripidis fabulae (Oxford, 1981–94)Google Scholar, vol. 1 and Kovacs (n. 1). Good arguments in support of the authenticity of the text are adduced by Conacher, D.J., Euripides Alcestis (Warminster, 1988), 162Google Scholar and, especially, Parker (n. 1), 82 (on lines 132–5).
4 See the Appendix in R. Prinz and N. Wecklein, Euripidis fabulae, vol. 1.2 (Leipzig, 1883–1902), 51. As regards line 94, Willink (n. 1 [1991], 528 n. 17 = [2010], 246 n. 17) proposes: οὐ γὰρ δή<που> | φροῦδός γ̓ {ἐξ} οἴκων (or γε δόμων: ‘glossed as a slightly abnormal prepositionless genitive’) νέκυς ἤδη. This suggestion, accepted by Kovacs (n. 1), has been persuasively rejected by Parker (n. 1), 70–1 (on Alc. 77–135): δήπου/δή που, attested in tragedy only at PV 1064, would introduce ‘an unwanted touch of doubt’ into the passage. To this we should add the fact that the syntagm ‘φροῦδος + genitive’ is not attested elsewhere: the adjective is used absolutely or with a preposition (see LSJ s.v.).
5 The two deletions are combined in A. Garzya, Euripides Alcestis (Leipzig, 19832). The deletion of νέκυς ἤδη (94) is taken into serious consideration by A.M. Dale, Euripides Alcestis (Oxford, 1954), 61 (on line 91) and recorded in Diggle's apparatus criticus (n. 3). As regards βασιλεῦσιν (132), Parker (n. 1), 70 (on Alc. 77–135) holds the word to be ‘dispensable’ and, at 81 (on lines 132–5), suspects that it may be an interpolation.
6 Schol. (AB) Alc. 94 (οὐ δὴ πρὸ τῶν οἴκων ἔλαθεν ἡμᾶς προκομισθεῖσα) would seem to ignore the word νέκυς: cf. schol. (MAB) Phoen. 1327 (νέκυν is rendered as τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα) and 1489 (νεκύων rendered as νεκρῶν).
7 See Parker (n. 1), 81 (on Alc. 132–5).
8 Naturally, if lines 132–5 are inauthentic, the problematic metre could be due to the interpolator.
9 The identification of the monometers depends on the criterion used to scan the anapaestic sequences: see e.g. West (n. 2 [1977]), 89–94. A monometer following a catalectic dimeter within a sequence of lyrical anapaests is certainly found at Hec. 83 (the breuis in longo proves the autonomy of line 83 from the dimeter at line 84): see the metrical analysis in L. Battezzato, Euripides Hecuba (Cambridge, 2018), 79–82 (on lines 59–97).
10 G. Hermann (Euripidis Alcestis cum delectis adnotationibus I.H. Monkii; accedunt emendationes G. Hermanni [Leipzig, 1824], 16) traces the corrupted form back to the dropping of the abbreviation for -εις. The conjecture, printed by Garzya (n. 5) and Kovacs (n. 1), is recorded by Diggle (n. 3) in his apparatus criticus (cf. Willink [n. 1 (2010)], 788). Contra, Parker (n. 1), 71 (on Alc. 77–135).
11 Hermann (n. 10), 16.
12 D.J. Mastronarde, Euripides Phoenissae (Cambridge, 1994), 503 (on line 1274). Cf. W.S. Barrett, Euripides Hippolytos (Oxford, 1964), 224 (on line 353), who also quotes Med. 1310; Hel. 779; Hec. 511, 712, 1124; and Ion 1113.
13 See H. Friis Johansen and E.W. Whittle, Aeschylus: The Suppliants, 3 vols. (Copenhagen, 1980), 2.364–5 (on line 460).
14 e.g. Eur. Tro. 269 (τί τόδ̓ ἔλακες), Phoen. 1560 (τί τόδε καταστένεις), Hipp. 232; Aesch. Pers. 1021, Ag. 1162. I have checked all the instances collected in J. Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford, 1981), 42–3 (thirty-eight in Euripides alone; instances from comedy are also included).
15 At Hec. 187 some manuscripts (MOFZc) read ἀγγέλεις [sic], which Hermann reinterpreted as a future (ἀγγελεῖς); hence the need for an integration metri causa: τί <δὲ> τόδ̓ ἀγγελεῖς; (another dochmiac occurs at line 185). This suggestion, recorded in Diggle's apparatus criticus (n. 3), should be rejected for the following reasons: i) all the other manuscripts transmit a text that is already metrically coherent as well as linguistically plausible; ii) the accentuation of ἀγγέλεις suggests a derivation from ἀγγέλλεις via degemination; iii) here we would expect a question in asyndeton, as in the examples previously quoted (we find no other examples in Attic drama of interrogative clauses introduced by the sequence τί δὲ τόδε).
16 At Or. 790, only one manuscript (X) records the variant ἀγγελεῖς, which looks like a banalization of αὖ λέγεις; for the pleonastic αὖ, see Mastronarde (n. 12), 266 (on Phoen. 417).
17 To the passages quoted below add Hipp. 590, 1239; IT 181, 1162; Hel. [86].
18 See J.T. Allen and G. Italie, A Concordance to Euripides (Berkeley and London, 1954) and C. Collard, Supplement to the Allen & Italie Concordance to Euripides (Groningen, 1971) s.vv.
19 Cf. C. Collard, ‘Antiope’, in id., Cropp, M.J. and Gibert, J., Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. 2 (Oxford, 2004), 259–333Google Scholar, at 315 (on fr. 223.10) and Kambitsis, J., L'Antiope d'Euripide (Athens, 1972), 102–3Google Scholar (on fr. 48.10).
20 This is the text printed by Kannicht, R., Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta 5.1 (Göttingen, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Possible integrations at lines 8 and 9 would be, respectively, ὥστ̓ ἢ (Ellis, Blass) and ἢ καὶ (Wilamowitz), both printed by Collard (n. 19); at line 10 καὶ σοὶ μ]ὲν (Blass), πᾶσιν μ]ὲν (Diggle) or ἡμῖν μ]ὲν (Cropp). τάδε (10) refers to what has been stated at lines 7–9; in the following lines, Amphion turns to address Zeus: for the structure of the speech, cf. Eur. Supp. 1213 and Hel. 1662 (quoted by Collard [n. 19], on lines 11–13).