The Invocations of Epaphus in Aeschylus, Supplices 40-57 and Euripides, Phoenissae 676-89

MISCELLANEA 711

1)B. Gentili, Stesich. fr. 192 P.-D. , Museum Criticum 32-35 (1997-2000), 25-8. 2)The manuscripts consistently divide 2-3 three syllables later, with the e Vect and so presumably the intention of isolating the paroemiac in 3. The superior colometry is proved by the consistent word-end after , twice with brevis in longo and thrice with hiatus; whereas there are four instances of word-over- lap after . A good instance of how inherited colometry can, quite simply, be wrong. There is too prevalent a tendency in some quarters to regard inferrably ancient lineation as sacrosanct. 3)A colon frequent especially in Sophocles: Aj. 193, Tra. 827-8/837-8 (repeated), OT 1097/1109, 1333/1353, El. 512, etc. 4) Sic, not . . . g‹mvn mÇn, as misprinted in G.’s article. 5)See Kannicht. Long ancipites are eschewed in this genre (see my discussion in CQ 40 (1990), 83 V.), so that ¤pÜtò du!tux¡ !taton k‹llo! can be analysed only as 2tr (or 2ia) plus spondee (presumably or ), constituting an anomalous trimeter with three syncopations. The brevis in longo without sense-pause is a further unwelcome feature. 6)236-7 del. Dindorf, Diggle; but the phrase ‘ my du!tux¡!taton k‹llo! ’ has a ring of authenticity. Kannicht accepts. ..| k‹llo! É !§loig‹ mvi [¤mÇn] (Wilamowitz). Nauck had proposed . . .| k‹llo! É !§loigƒ [-‹mvn] ¤mñn (¤mon Triclinius), which might be improved by writing §loitƒ ¤mñn (cf. Alcestis 464). tò du!tux¡!taton | k‹llo! . . . ¤mñn (in the text as thus emended) is equivalent to k‹llo! ¤ mòn tòdu!tux¡ !taton , apart from the emphasis given to tòdu!tux¡ !taton by advancement before the colon-division. 7)For my use of ‘enoplian’ (adj.) in this sense, see my commentary on Orestes, p. xx, and further in my article Euripides, Andromache 103-125: metre and text (Mnemosyne 54 (2001), 724-30), also my Studies on the cantica of Sophocles. i. Antigone (CQ 51 (2001), 65-89), 68 n. 13. 8)Scansion of Kæprido!: keÛna d¢ Tundar¡ v (-¡ou Schneidewin) kñrai! as e e e (with ‘biceps-anceps’) is less probable; for the synecphonesis, cf. West, Greek Metre 12. 9)And more anciently still from Archilochus as the probable inventor of ‘enoplian metre’ , the debt to him being seen especially in the ithyphallic cadences favoured in tragedy (unlike the D/e of Pindar); cf. Mnemosyne art. cit. (esp. p. 729 nn. 12 and 13), which includes a discussion of the archetypal dicolon paroemiac ( D ) | ithyphallic . 10) oék, oédƒ and oëtƒ are not seldom confused, cf. my discussion of S. Ant. 4-5 in Mnemosyne 53 (2000), 249 V. In this case the asyndeton is in itself a corruptible feature (cf. Barrett on Hipp. 40), the more so in conjunction with the following oédƒ.

THE INVOCATIONS OF EPAPHUS IN AESCHYLUS, SUPPLICES 40-57 AND EURIPIDES, PHOENISSAE 676-89

There are interesting textual and metrical issues in both these passages. 1) In the Parodos of Aeschylus’ Supplices the chorus of Danaids proceed directly from their play-opening anapaests (1-39) into a lyric invocation of their divine ancestor Epaphus, son of Zeus and Io; appropriately invoked (as they go on to explain, and will elaborate further in the stasimon 524- 99) in the ancestral land from which his cow-mother was driven by the gad y.

40-8 ~ 49-57 nèn dƒ ¤ pikeklom¡na 40 DÝon pñrtin êperpñntion tim‹orƒ , ~änÛ n tƒ nyonñmou t! progñnou boò! ¤j ¤pipnoÛa! Zhnò! ¦facin ¤pvnumÛai dƒ ¤pekraÛneto mñr!imo! aÞÆ n 45 e`élñgv!~, …Epafon dƒ ¤ g¡nna!en: ÷n tƒ ¤pilejam¡na nèn ¤n poionñmoi! matrò! rxaÛa! tñpoi! tÇn prñ!ye pñnvn 50 mna!am¡na t‹ te nèn ¤pideÛjv pi!tŒ tekm® ria , gaionñmoi!i dƒ elpt‹ per önta faneÝtai: 55 gnÅ!etai d¢ lñ gou ti! ¤n m‹kei: 40 ¤pikeklom¡na Turnebus: -ñmenai M 42-3 tƒ] gƒ Page nyonñmou{!} M; -nñmon Tucker 44 ¤pipnoÛa! S , Robortello: - Ûai! M 45 ¤pvnumÛan (del. dƒ) post Auratum Burges 48-9 ¤g¡nna!(e) (¤)ñntƒ M, corr. Porson ¤fÛtu!en ex Hesychio M. Schmidt 53 t‹de nèn Page 54 gaionñmoi!i dƒ Hermann: t‹ tƒ nñmoia oädƒ M 56 lñgou Martin: -ou! M The metre is essentially “enoplian”, 2 ) in a stanza most naturally lineated in ve verses,3) of lengths ranging from seven to twenty syllables but without any clearcut period-divisions: 4) 1. D | 2. De – e – d | 3. D 2 – (= 4da ) | 4. D 5 – (= 7da = D 2 D –) | 5. gl sp (= hi –) ||| The opening D colon is like the opening of a dactylic hexameter, followed by a shift to D/ e with long ancipites. Then two double-short verses of increasing length, both with the epic cadence . .. ,5) lead into an apparently alien clausular verse. 6) The chorus have already referred to their Argive cow-ancestress, “touched” and “breathed upon” by Zeus, at 15-8 in the opening anapaests:

k¡l!ai dƒ … Argo! gaÝan , ÷yen d¯ 15 g¡no! ²m¡teron t°! oÞ!trodñnou boò! ¤j ¤paf°! kj ¤pipnoÛa! Diò! eéxñ menon tet¡le!tai: The ¤paf®/… Epafo! point is merely allusive there (looking forward to 44-5). The more certainly famous name of the ancestress will appear rst at line 162. What now of the textual problems in 42-7, as obelized above? 7) In 42-3 West rightly rejects the widely favoured emendation nyonomoæ!a! (Porson, accepted by Johansen-Whittle), arguing persuasively for a break (“verse-end”) between the sequences D e – e – d (already “quite a long verse for Aeschylus”) and 4da | 7da |...; and showing also (after Tucker) that the present participle is anomalous on idiomatic grounds. Less convincing are his unexplained acceptance of Hermann’s deletion