Notes on Sophocles, Ichneutae, and Eurypylus

The Review

NOVEMBER, 1912

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS NOTES ON SOPHOCLES, ICHNEUTAE, AND EURYPYLUS. Ichneutae. 26 Perhaps rather TrameXi]?, a word I. 7 ff. rexva[i(nv is somewhat awk- used four times by Sophocles (includ- wardly isolated, if it means ' owing to ing I. 13), but never by Euripides. the devices (of the thieves).' The run of IV. 10 SnrXovs, with o/cXdfov follow- the sentence would be improved by the ing, seems to me preferable to the sug- substitution of I6v[ra>v . . . T€xvd[a-/j.ar', gested substitute Biirov<;. a>8e >ceic\t[ievo<: and in the preceding line I should in V. 14 and the following lines show prefer eirejir' dp\ovpa>v apTra^rj]vthat the chorus were on all-fours, ixyoatcoirS). After Te-^vda-fiuT' perhaps and apparently they exaggerated the aX\' is better than •frapicFTcnai is correct, the track. For SnrXovs in this sense as seems probable, it supports rola&e cf. Eur. El. 492. fidprvi; ev \6yois in Phil. 319, which has IV. 15 Perhaps fir) [Tr]p[p(jio ird^rei. been the object of some suspicion. 18 Presumably there is not room for 11 avToxpvfia does not mean forth- [e\a]vpofj.ev. with, and is unsuitable to the context. V. 1 It is incredible to me that Probably TO XPVIJM> used vaguely as in polfiSjjfi' was applied to the lowing of 17, V. 14, etc., should be restored, with cattle, as the text of the editio princeps a participle such as irpdât or avvaa<; requires. The clue is given by the preceding and governing it. employment elsewhere of pottos and 14 ] v. ftovKoXi&v, but he has failed to persuade 1 Above all, you must see that to your subsequent critics, with the exception behests is added the golden prize as of Paley. Here we might substitute T&V my secure reward.' xpvaeoareQis may [eo-ai] for T&V [fio&v]; or, of course, the have been written, just as some MSS. text might be otherwise modified. give xpvcreoa-Te next line does not so much matter. dpaa-eii. See also Wilamowitz on Her. The grotesque cowardice of Silenus 158. after his vapourings in VI. 16 ff. may be VII. 7 The triple repetition of airo? illustrated by what Nonnus (14. 121) with irapelvai points to the punctuation says of the satyrs in general: iv 8e yvcoaei yap, auro? av Trapfj? me. icvBoifjLOis I irdvret; d.7reikr}Tfjpe<; del ev- 8 TrpocrftifiSi \6yq> is not ' I will urge yovres 'EVIKO, | voat /MOOOIO XeovTes, you on by my voice,' but ' I will win ivl irroXefwiurrco, which at once explains theexpedient than the alterations advo- genitive OV/JLOV, and gives an improvedcated by Wilamowitz. In IX. 2 perhaps sense: don't turn aside. The difficult rather 08', with TOIO-IV instrumental: Trach. 339 does not help here, except as ' he won't come out for that: well, illustrating the use of fido-iv, for which then . . .' The speaker turns to cf. also A i. 42 rtfvB' inre/nrOirTei ftdo-iv and address the occupant of the cave, and Eur. Hclid. 802 eV/Sa? ir68a. But there there is no need to alter el to y in IX. 5. is another consideration which to my Why roicnv should not be instrumental mind is decisive. To stand at the I do not know: there are several ex- cross-roads, i.e. at a point where the amples in tragedy like El. 549 iya> p.ev road bifurcates (as explained by Gilder- ovv OVK elfil TOX? ireirpaypAvoi'i \ Bvcrdvfw<; sleeve on Pind. Pyth. 11. 38 icar' or Eur. Suppl. 1042 vXaica<; dvfj/ca TOJv rb irpiv), was a proverbial Antiph. 5. 3 anriGTOi yevop.evot Tot? image typical of hesitation: Theogn. dXr)6e 8' ecnriKa' 8v' eltrl. TO IX. 9 ff. is a most puzzling passage. •rrpoaOev dSot pMi' | povTl£ irpoTepriv. Oppian. halieut. text as printed: (1) It is unusual for 3. 501 eiKeXoi dvBpl \ êiva>, 09 iv rpcoSoien,Silenus to be described as 8eair6rrj<; of TroKvrpi'irToi.o-i Kvprjcra<; | ecrrt) iopfiaivmv,the Satyrs: 1. 12 precludes a reference KpaSir) re ol aXXori Tuzitjv, | aWore to Dionysus. (2) What were the toils 8eljt,Tepr)v iniftdWeTai drpairbv iXffeiv ' | undergone by the Satyrs in order to TraTTTaCvei 8' eKarepOe, voos 8e ol rjiregratify Silenus ? If the service of KVfia I elXeirai, fidXa 8'oijre fiufj<> iya> ye\& from that some doubt was felt concerning the margin : ' will not the gods punish the soundness of the text, and its your foolish jests and give me cause for restoration is perhaps impossible. Still, laughter ?' She reverts to the thought it may be worth while to remark that if of 1. 13. For iic dewv cf. fr. 303. we adopt eitages, read 09 for ou?, and omit the words from «%es—vfiiv o?, all Eurypylus. difficulty disappears. Though eyyovo<; Fr. 3 This fragment seems to belong and eicyovos are now identified, there to a dialogue between Eurypylus and was probably also an eyyovos (evyovos) someone (Astyoche ?) who is urging with the sense of iyyevi]<;, and the him not to go into battle under un- relationship of nymphs and satyrs is favourable auspices. The indications attested by Hesiod (fr. 129 Goettl.) in are (firf/Ai), Kpdû, aXXcov a.Kt]8r)<; on the Strabo 471. iro8&p 6xK.(p is a goodone side, and iSetjafiT/v, eirdhei and enough phrase for the dancing rout of epyov SeiXov on the other. the followers of Dionysus. Whether 1 Fr. 5 I. 8 aKOfiir' aXoiBopTjra cannot the words e^re? SeaTrorrj j(dptv 4pcovsatisfactorily be combined with the were introduced as an alternative to vestiges of 1. 10, and I was at one time euiafe? d/upl rbv Oebv, or referred to a inclined to think that fr. 768 belonged description by Silenus of his own to another place in the play. But exploits, it would be hazardous to since Plutarch's quotation must have speculate. come from the messenger's speech de- XL 9 [a-rravja-To^ might be suggested scribing the duel, and the very same part in place of [/teyiJo-TOs. of his narrative was comprised in this 11 [rv7rov]<;, as the object of epelSei,column, the coincidence is too remark- would give the required sense. With able to be ignored, re is not essential TV7roi/9 irai8b<;, ' his childish mould,' to Badham's correction (for the asyn- we might compare Eur. Hclid. 857 deton cf. Eur. Ale. 173); and I suggest viatv fipayibixav . . . ^^rjTrjP rvnrov, that aKo/jm-' akoiBopyra should be placed Aesch. Suppl. 288 yvvacxeioi? rvirot.<;,before S] ia/3e/3\t)[fievot, in 1. 8, under- Soph. Track. 12 dv8pe(,a> TVTrq> (so standinthe g ' whose enmity was declared MSS). So also Aesch. Theb. 475, Eur. without vaunt or boasting.' 8ia@d\\a> Bacch. 1331. ' to set at variance '—i.e. to set opposite 14 Instead of Svcrevpero? we should or apart—is inadequately treated in the expect a word expressing intentional lexicons, but cannot be discussed here. concealment. Since eyK\gvijv) in 11. 7, altereII d in Eur. LA. 1372. 8uiâK\ofM(, makes it at least arguable that it also is not unlike our ' to come to logger- follows ire veicpq>, for the accusative value; and fr. 686 shows that it is may well be governed by yeXwr' exeiv Sophoclean. after the pattern of O.C. 223 8eo? tcêTe 19 f. These lines are unsatisfactory fiijSev o is decisive against its connexion with should be read involved some such TOI> veicpbv as cadaver ipsum. (2) There restoration of the following words as is no evidence that yeXtor ey,eiv iivd o Be TO trav dcrxrjfiovux; | Xvfirjv "lA.%ai&v could be used for yeXcora iroveiaQai (or Si? rocrrju T]crxv/JLMVO'>- The deictic use ndeadai) -rivd —' to make a mock of of rocra, recognised by the schol. on another.' Rather, following the analogy Track. 53, does not need defence, but of altTYvvrjv eveiv, Oadfia e)(eiv, OLKTOV that Soi Be KWBCOV T' OV Ellendt s.v. e^w p. 293b, we may feel BaKvova' dvev Bop6Achilles in this conjunction, the emphasis thrown fr. 139—or dvBpoirai'i—like Troilus in upon fiefiao-i, as if the departure of the fr. 562 and Parthenopaeus in Aesch. Argives were the important point, is Theb. 520. Thus the meaning would unnatural. The answer shows the be: ' one who, while a boy in years, object of Astyoche's question. Now, was both counsellor and warrior.1 Cf. the Greek thought it fair enough to Eur. fr. 508, Paroem. I. 436. laugh at his enemy's misfortunes 21 eXiriBwv Odys- a should probably read p.eyi. seus replies fir) x V '> 'AT/>6I8T/, xepBeaiv rot? fir] KaXois (At. 1348 f.). Hence the A. C. PEARSON.