This difficult passage has been much discussed and the text of L emended usually by rearrangement of the verses. The work of commentators before Wilamowitz is practically valueless, for their inexact knowledge of Theban topography, with which Euripides' account of this battle shows a good acquaintance, was based largely upon the unsatisfactory description of Pausanias: despite the good sense of Markland, they misunderstood 653.
page 178 note 2 Analecta Euripidea (Berlin, 1875), pp.106f.
page 178 note 3 ‘Die Sieben Thore Thebens’, Hermes xxvi (1891), 191–242 (esp. 233–4).
page 178 note 4 Euripides iii, Collection des Universités de France (Budé) (Paris, 1923): Les Suppliantes, p. 126 n. 1. I refer to this and the following editions by the name of the editor only: Markland J., Euripidis Supplices Mulieres, 2nd ed. (London, 1775); Weck-lein N., Euripides Fabulae II. ii; Supplices (Leipzig, 1898): Wecklein's smaller ‘Schulausgabe’ (Die Schutzftehenden, erklärt von Wecklein N. [Leipzig, 1912]) is cited as Wecklein (ed. min.); Murray G., Euripidis Fabulae ii, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1913); Italie G., Euripides' Smekende Vrouwen (Groningen, 1951); Ammendola G., Euripide: Supplici, ‘a cura di Agostino V.’ (Turin 1956).
page 178 note 5 ‘Der Schlachtbericht in den Hiketiden des Euripides’, Wiener Studien lv (1937, 48–54. See also McCracken G., ‘Topographica in Euripides’, Mnem. 3° Série ix (1941), 164–7, wno bases his analysis on Nauck's text, not on L.
page 179 note 1 ‘Thebai (Boiotien)’, in Pauly-Wissowa, R.-E. v A.2, 1423–52 (published in 1934).
page 179 note 2 Bacc. 780 ff.; Paus. 9. 8. 7; Ziehen 1430.
page 179 note 3 seems to have no tribal or racial implication, despite thoughts of are the 654, the 660, and the 662—as Markland established long ago.
page 179 note 4 Paus. 9. 10. 2; Ziehen 1441.
page 179 note 5 Cf. Mesk , op. cit., p. 52 n. 4.
page 179 note 6 Op. cit., p. 234.
page 179 note 7 Ares' fount was guarded by his dragon: Schol. ad A. Sept. 102 ff.; E. Phoen. 657 ff., 931 f., 1009 ff.; Wilamowitz , op. cit., p. 198; Ziehen 1426.
page 179 note 8 9. 10. 5.
page 179 note 9 The Ismenion and Paraporti are about 500 metres apart. Commentators protest at this length for an infantry line: ‘das ist viel’, Mesk , op. cit., p. 52. Euripides was a poet first, not a military historian, despite the intricate construction of this narrative: he states just the general direction of the Adienian positions only (it is important to note that though he stood upon the walls of Thebes, the Messenger reports the battle as an Athenian: 694 f. he is content to put the Thebans in defence of their walls, without further detail (664–7). Euripides' sense of realism allows an excited slave, liberated against his hope, a little in accuracy in his account.
page 179 note 10 L made only a small slip: of the word as Tr1 left it, the letters are by the original scribe.
page 180 note 1 Cf. E. Fragm. 381
page 181 note 2 A. Sept. 527 f.: Topographical and archaeological evidence conflict with Pausanias (9. 17. 4), who locates the tomb only vaguely in the neighbourhood of the north-east gate of Proteus: cf. Ziehen 1446. Wilamowitz , op. cit., p. 234, thought Amphion's tomb a ‘movable’ monument inherited from Epic.
page 181 note 3 694–702 are sound: 697 (deleted by Dindorf) follows well on 696, particularly after 694: Creon only suspected, vas not sure the Athenians were gaining. His arrival at once endangered the soldiers of Theseus (697), so he himself entered die ray (698), and on both sides the battle raged 699 f.). 702 represents the opposing cries of he two armies: (so Jackson J., Marginalia scaenica [Oxford, 1955], p. 190, who compares Her. 838 f.).
page 181 note 1 It was reached independently: Mesk , op. cit., p. 50.
page 181 note 2 Murray too wrote but transferred 662 to precede 659, joining Also, he moved 663 to follow 665.
page 181 note 3 It was adopted by Nauck, Wilamowitz, Wecklein, Paley, and Italic.
page 181 note 4 Against as ace. masc. (sc. ): are surprisingly rare in the sense ‘on the right’, ‘on the left’ when used of people. I know no example in Tragedy; in Theogn. 944 and Il. 24. 320 is already ambiguous in sense.
page 181 note 5 Examples in Kühner-Gerth , Gr. Gram- matik i. 14; Schwyzer E., Gr. Grammatik ii (München, 1950), 41.
page 181 note 6 Kühner-Gerth i. 13.
page 182 note 1 So Kayser, who conjectured 659 662, 663, 660, 661, 664; or Wilamowitz , op. cit., p. 233 n. 1, who suggested 659 662, 660, 661, 663; or Murray (above, p. 181 n. 2).
page 182 note 2 For the confusion, cf. I.A. 599 Canter: L.
page 182 note 3 Kühner-Gerth i. 53 f. give no analogy, except, for example, etc., always with plural participles.
page 182 note 4 Op. cit., p. 234.
page 182 note 5 See, for example, the disputed readings of L and P at Cyc. 498 (Wecklein N., Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides V, Sitzungsberichle … [München 1899], ii 299;Lloyd-Jones H., Gnomon xxx , 506, a review of A. Turyn's Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of Euripides).
page 182 note 6 Norwood G., Essays in Euripidean Drama (London, 1954), pp. 156f., calls 714–17 ‘wild nonsense out of the question for Euripides’. He compares the extravagant picture of Theseus' prowess with Phoen. 1183–5 , verses deleted by Nauck and most editors—but see the Commentaries of A. C. Pearson (Cambridge, 1909) and J. U. Powell (Cambridge, 1911), who sensibly defend what only modern attitudes feel to be ‘lack of taste’. Cf. Supp. 692, where is used of men hurled from chariots.
page 183 note 1 It was retained by Murray, Grégoire, Ammendola, and Italie, the four most recent editors.
page 183 note 2 For cf. Phoen. 1183 (p. 182 n. 6 above), where Capaneus' limbs ‘whirl’ in his spinning fall, and a remarkable use of the world in Axionicus Comicus (fourth century B.C.) apud Athen. 95 c: (a fish recipe). Compare Euripides' description of the circular swinging of a Hel. 1361 f. (quoted by Gow on Theocr. 2. 30); ‘whirl round’, of the action of the thrower: Il. 19. 131; Od. 8. 189.
page 183 note 3 caused L difficulty elsewhere: 827 Kapa L: P: (recte) Schilling; 831 L and P: (recte) nescioquis.
page 183 note 4 e.g. Luc. , ‘with wooden pegs’. Kühner-Gerth i. 237 Anm. 7 accept the use for fifth-century Greek on the analogy of (likewise late Greek, except for Herod. I. 171. 4 where the accusative has to be supplied to the personal participle). Paley compared Ar. Pax 542
page 183 note 5 Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc., Michaelmas Term 1897, p. 16.
page 183 note 6 is rare, but cf. Thuc. 2. 76. 4 a cogent parallel.7 Compare the imagery of 448–9
page 183 note 7 Compare the imagery of 448–9 ὃταν τις ὡς λειμ⋯νος ἠρινο⋯ στ⋯χυν τ⋯λμας ⋯φαιρῇ κ⋯πολωτ⋯ζῃ ν⋯ους
page 183 note 8 It was printed by Paley, Wecklein (both editions), Murray, Grégoire, Ammendola , Allen in the Concordance to Euripides (Cambridge, 1954) and, with some hesitation, by Nicklin T. (The Suppliant Women of Euripides [Oxford, 1936]).
page 184 note 1 Cf. Hel. 654
page 184 note 2 Herod. 9. 102. 2; Thuc. 2. 22. 2, 7. 5. 4, 7. 36. 3, 8. 61. 3 (in these examples, with instrumental dative, or e.g. Thuc. 8. 61. 3); Dem. de Cor. 124, in Steph. 77; Xen. Hell. 3. 4. 8; with a comparative genitive of person at Dem. in Mid. 187.
page 184 note 3 Or, apparently, in Aristophanes or Menander; for later poetry, see Theoc. 8. 36, 11. 42. The converse, appears however absolutely in E. Fragm. 425. 1, with comparative in Theogn. 606 and Herod. 9. 70. 2 , see Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 18, Gow on Theoc. 8. 17.
page 184 note 4 Oxford, 1939.
page 184 note 5 L.S.J, s.v. A.I.8: II. 3. 412; Il. 5. 895; II. 13. 2; Od. 20. 83.
page 184 note 6 Essays in Euripidean Drama (London, 1954). P. 149 n. 6.
page 184 note 7 Walbank F. W., A Commentary on Polyrius i (Oxford, 1957), ad loc, accepts the oeading of L; he records the discovery at ifannina recently of a similar verse inscribed on a marble relief: : see J.H.S. lxvi (1946), 112.
page 184 note 8 See the Commentary of E. R. Dodds, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1960).
page 184 note 9 See the Commentary of M. Platnauer Oxford, 1938).
page 184 note 10 He had great wealth (861), but used it moderately (862); his disposition was that of a poor man, shunning the lavish tables of the ostentatious (862–4) moderation was for him the chief virtue (864–6); a true and honest friend, he upheld his promise without fail (867–71).1 This is Murray's text, followed by E. R. Dodds; Plutarch, Solon 1, has
page 185 note 1 This is Murray's text, followed by E. R. Dodds; Plutarch, Solon I, has τυφομ⋯ν ⋯δροῡ
page 185 note 2 Musgrave S., Exercitationum in Euripidem Libri Duo, (Lugd. Batavorum, 1762), pp. 133–7, ‘emendationes in Euripidem viri mihi amicissimi’.
page 185 note 3 On the meaning (and accentuation) of see Wilamowitz's Com mentary on H.F. 253.
page 185 note 4 See Zuntz G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester, 1955), p. 11.
page 185 note 5 Cf. the notorious passage Hipp. 1102–25, where masc. participles (singular) occur in the strophes, fern, in the antistrophes. Some editors accept the masc. forms from the female Chorus (cf. Kühner-Gerth i. 83), others follow Verrall in arguing the appearance of a second Chorus of huntsmen (i.e. from w. 61–73)—or yet other explanations are found. There is no defence for the masc. in Supp. 967: 969, 970.
page 185 note 6 Gr. Grammatik i–iii (München, 1939–53).
page 185 note 7 Sophoclis Fabulae (Oxford, 1924).
page 185 note 8 Sophocle (Collection Budé) iii (Paris, 1960).
page 185 note 9 ‘Sivera lectio’: L.S.J. The form does not occur in the remains of Isocrates: see Preuss S., Index Isocrateus, Leipzig 1904. Cf. Isoc. Epist. 4 (Antipater). 13 (obelized by Blass F., Isocrates, 2nd ed. [Leipzig, 1904], and by Mathieu G., Philippe et Lettres à Philippe [Paris, 1924]): has Pollux's citation of in this passage become corrupted?
page 186 note 1 Pearson A. C., Heraclidae (Cambridge, 1907), ad loc, also doubted the superlative in —but in his Sophocles of 1924 he accepted it in O.C. 1579.
page 186 note 2 It was admitted by Bechtel F., Die griechischen Dialekte, iii (Berlin, 1924), pp. 222–4.
page 186 note 3 Oedipus Coloneus (Cambridge, 1885).
page 186 note 4 His remedy was proposed with typical bluntness in Griechische Verskunst (Berlin, 1920, p. 550.
page 186 note 5 In Analecta, Wilamowitz proposed in his translation of the play, Der Mütter Bittgang (Berlin, 1899), Fritzsche's conjecture was from Hel. 213
page 186 note 6 Nomenclator Metricus (Heidelberg, 1929), p. 22.
page 186 note 7 Dale A. M., The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (Cambridge, 1948), p. 134.
page 186 note 8 Forms of (Schwyzer , Gr. Grammatik i. 297, 358) were restored by Elmsley in Bacc. 15 and Arnaldus in A. Pers. 567.
page 186 note 9 Od. 17. 115; Pindar.
page 186 note 10 Cf. 1000 = 1023, H.F. 676 = 690, Ion 210 = 223; Denniston J., Euripides' Electro (Oxford, 1939), p. 215.
page 186 note 11 In 94, Tr3 wanted to write for L's at the end of the verse. I discount the conjectures of Paley () and Murray () in 969: neither word is Tragic. Similarly, Headlam's in 970, integral to his general reconstruction of 968–70 (he deleted 960 in the strophe: C.R. xvi , 254–5), deserves no place in the apparatus of Murray's Oxford Text.
page 187 note 1 Single seems never to stand intra metrum: I.T. 845 L ante corr. (trim. iamb.: Schroeder O., Euripidis Cantica, 2nd ed. [Leipzig, 1928]): L post corr. (Tr1?) = P: Hermann: the lyric context (monostrophic) is mixed iambic and dochmiac.
page 187 note 2 Denniston J., Greek Particles, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1954), p. 251, and Kühner-Gerth ii. 125, exemplify postponed (usually in Comedy or prose), but never with preceding in the same clause ( here goes closely with the pronoun : cf. 980 , on the entry of a new character (Evadne); Or. 348; Denniston , op. cit., p. 208).
page 187 note 3 Fix T., Euripides (Paris 1844).
page 187 note 4 C.Q. x (1916), 123.
page 187 note 5 Scaliger corrected L's : perhaps the error was unconscious (from ), or scriptural (confusion of and ∈: cf. 139 L: L (though Tr rewrote ∈): P).
page 187 note 6 Kühner-Gerth i. 346 accept the active in the sense ‘take hold of’ for poetry, comparing e.g. Od. 5. 428 , II. 23. 711; cf. 348 Anm. 5. Compare the analogous use of the active for the normal middle in Hel. 116 ; Tro. 882, And. 710.
page 187 note 7 is usual: Tro. 193, S. Aj. 890 in Tragedy; Homer
1 The identification of ‘1’, the notorious manus correctrix of the manuscript L (Bibl. Laurenziana, plut. 32. 2), with the Byzantine textual scholar Demetrius Triclinius was made by A. Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides (Urbana, 1957), pp. 224–5, 242–58. Independent examination of L by myself and Dr. G. Zuntz of Manchester University shows that Triclinius made three separate revisions of the manuscript, the first as official diorthotes (symbol here: Tr1), the second and third as private student of Euripides (symbols: Tr2, Tr3). I follow the view of Dr. Zuntz, to be published in a comprehensive study of the problematic relationship between L and P (Bibl. Vaticana, Palatinus graec. 287 + Bibl. Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 172), that in the ‘alphabetical’ or ‘unselected’ plays of Euripides, of which the Supplices is one, P was copied from L after Triclinius' first official revision, but before his subsequent handling of the MS. I owe to Dr. Zuntz's kindness many helpful discussions of the L: P relationship problem and of textual difficulties in the Supplices.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.