CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

EURIPIDES, ANDROMACHE 103–125: AND TEXT*

(Αν.) Ἰλίωι αἰπεινᾶι Πάριϲ οὐ γάµον ἀλλά τιν’ ἄταν ἀγάγετ’ εὐναίαν ἐϲ θαλάµουϲ ῾Єλέναν· · · · · · · · · · · πρὸϲ τόδ’ ἄγαλµα θεᾶϲ ἱκέτιϲ περὶ χεῖρε βαλοῦϲα 115 τάκοµαι ὡϲ πετρίνα πιδακόεϲϲα λιβάϲ. ΧΟΡΟΣ ὦ γύναι, ἃ Θέτιδοϲ δάπεδον καὶ ἀνάκτορα θάϲϲειϲ δαρὸν oὐδὲ λείπειϲ, Φθιὰϲ ὅµωϲ ἔµολον ποτὶ ϲὰν Ἀϲιήτιδα γένναν, εἴ τί ϲοι δυναί µ 120αν ἄκοϲ τῶν δυϲλύτων πόνων τεµεῖν, οἵ ϲε καὶ ῾Єρµιόναν ἔριδι ϲτυγερᾶι ϲυνέκληιϲαν τλάµον’ ἀµφὶ λέκτρων διδύµων ἐπίκοινον †ἐοῦϲαν† ἀµφὶ παῖδ’ Ἀχιλλέωϲ· 125 104 ἀγάγετ’ Dindorf: ἠγ- codd. 121 rectius ταµεῖν? 123 τλάµον’ P: -µων L, -µονα cett.; τλᾶµον Ald. Andromache has spoken the prologue (1–55), followed by dialogue with a maidservant (56–90) and further soliloquy (91–102), from which she proceeds to sing an unusual elegiac lament (103–16).1 This in turn serves as a proem to the Parodos,2, whose first stanza contains ——— * Mnemosyne 54 (2001), 724–30. 1 The transition from speech to song without speaker-change is already unusual. There are no other elegiacs in tragedy; but the words ἐλεγεῖον (the earliest attestations referring to epitaphs) and ἔλεγοϲ (first attested of elegiacs in Calli- machus) are certainly cognate. A hypothesis of precedents in 7th–6th century N. Peloponnesian poetry (D. L. Page in Greek Poetry and Life (Oxford, 1938), 206–30) is plausible, but does little to account for the form here. More certainly relevant are the elevated quality of dactylic metre (with epic colour) on Andromache’s lips; the appropriateness of repetition in threnody (here ‘epodic’); and (last but not least) the juxtaposition of 103–16 with 117 ff. in related metre. Important throughout is the heritage. 2 Other instances of monody immediately preceding choral entry (not counting anapaestic solos, as in Hec., Tro., I. T., I. A.) are in El., Ion and Helen. The last of these, discussed in CQ 1990 [ch. 10 above], uniquely bonds monody with choral entry as strophe and antistrophe. 332 CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN [724/725] a textual crux at 124–5 (~ 133–4 τὸ κρατοῦν δέ ϲ’ ἔπειϲι· τί µόχθον | οὐδὲν οὖϲα µοχθεῖϲ;).3 First we need a clear view of the metrical context, beginning at 103.4 The ‘elegiac distich’ (West, GM 44–6) is a ‘strophic form’ which ‘enjoyed more popularity and diffusion than all the rest put together’, already in use on both sides of the Aegean a century before it became fashionable for epitaphs at Athens. Whether or not the form was invented by ,5 it is akin to the numerous other strophic forms occurring first in Archilochus and/or Hipponax which ‘consist of either two or three periods, of which the first is in most cases either a hexameter or an and the others shorter dactylic or iambic cola’ (West, 43). The strophic form hex ‖ D ⁝ D — (or hex ‖ D | D —) is obviously related to the form hex ‖ D — also known to have been used (invented?) by Archilochus.6 Andromache’s ἔλεγοϲ is thus in ‘epodic strophes’ with an ancient, if imperfectly traceable, heritage. Naturally, but perhaps as a novel feature in elegiacs, it employs the Doric vocalization proper to tragic cantica.7 The seven distichs are also strikingly uniform, apart from the second dactyl in each verse and one instance of contraction in the first dactyl.8 ‡ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏕ – ⁝ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – × ‖ ——— 3 The principal recent discussions are: Jackson 29; P. T. Stevens ad loc. (ed. Oxford, 1971); J. Diggle, ICS 6 (1981), 88–92 = Euripidea 204–8. It is common ground that ἐοῦϲαν is suspect on grounds both of form and of sense. Suspicion has extended more widely, but (as I shall argue) with insufficient justification. The conjecture ἔχουϲαν | ἄνδρα is considered and rejected below. 4 For the references to Dale, Itsumi, Parker, Stinton and West see the Abbreviations at p. xvi above. 5 On the credibly attested primacy of Archilochus (‘that supremely inventive genius’) in several metrical genres, see especially Dale, CP 173–9 (‘Stichos and Stanza’). 6 Archil. 198 W. West (GM 44) gives the elegiac pattern as hex ‖ D | D —, viewing the combination of the ‘two short verses’ uno versu as a secondary development in writing ‘to make a line of matching length’ ⟦GM 43, not applied to the pentameter⟧. But D ⁝ D satisfies the definition of an ἐπωιδὸϲ ϲτίχοϲ as shorter than the opening verse, and Archil. 14. 2 W. already has elision at the D ⁝ D . 7 Diggle rightly accepts Dindorf’s ἀγάγετ’ in 104 (as also Lautensach’s ἀγάγετ’ at Or. 183); cf. Tro. 808, I. T. 138, Ion 895, Or. 1365, Hypsipyle 104 D (fr. 752h. 1). It is not likely that inconsistently preferred ἠγ- in this context for more epic colour, though such a motive may well have affected the tradition (as in the variant ἐγγενέτηιϲι at 128). 8 The single instance of – – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⁝ … at 109 αὐτὰ δ’ ἐκ θαλάµων … aptly emphasizes Andromache herself. The more frequent – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⁝ … occurs four or five times, depending on the scansion of Τροία or Τροΐα in 104.