CHAPTER FORTY-FOUR

HECUBA 444–6/455–7, 1465–77, BACCHAE 565–751

1. The First Stasimon of begins as follows (as lineated in the manuscripts), with issues meriting discussion in both strophe and antistrophe: 444–6 αὔρα, †ποντιὰϲ† αὔρα, ἅτε ποντοπόρουϲ κοµίζειϲ 445 θοὰϲ ἀκάτουϲ ἐπ’ οἶδµα λίµναϲ, … ~ 455–7 ἢ νάϲων, ἁλιήρει 455 κώπαι †πεµποµέναν τάλαιναν οἰκτρὰν βιοτὰν ἔχουϲαν οἴκοιϲ†, … 444. ποντιάϲ ‘explained’ by ποντοπόρουϲ … is somewhat frigid, 2 and otherwise surprising, inviting the question, why ποντιάϲ rather than πόντιοϲ? ποντιάϲ (-άδοϲ) occurs here only in , whereas there are upwards of forty-five occurrences of πόντιοϲ in , including two-termination use at Alc. 595. The answer may be that ποντ- here is a corruption (occasioned by the following ποντ-) of ποτν-; cf. the address πότνι’ αὔρα at Phaethon (fr. 773) 82 D. ποτνιάϲ here will be equivalent to πότνια, but more ‡ recherché and perhaps more strongly meriting capital letters ( Αὔρα, ποτνιὰϲ Αὔρα), in line with the ‘“hymnic” style’ of the address, rightly identified by Collard in the ‘double appellation with adj.’ and the continuation with ἅτε …; cf. the address to the Eumenides as ποτνιάδεϲ θεαί at Or. 318, similarly at the beginning of a stasimon, and similarly with αἵτε … following.3 The apostrophized Wind is appropriately thus quasi-deified for its potency in determining the ——— 1 Mnemosyne 58 (2005) 499–509. Cf. chs. 35–7 above (with p. 504 n. 1). The present note on Ba. 565–75 supersedes the note on 571–5 mentioned in ch. 1 above. 2 The frigidity is not in the explanation as such, but in the epexegesis using a cognate word. Cf. my n. on Hel . 673–4 †κατεδάκρυϲα† καὶ βλέφαρον ὑγραίνω | δάκρυϲιν (p. 160 above), with the conjecture κατὰ δ’ ἔκλαυϲα. 3 On this ‘hymnic’ use of ὅϲτε cf. my n. on Hipp . 67–71 on p. 273 above, mentioning (as well as Hec. 445), 882, 908, Or. 321 and S. El. 151 as typical instances. To these I have added Ba. 573 (see below). 630 CHAPTER FORTY-FOUR [500/501] singers’ future(s). This ποτνιάϲ (as distinct from Ποτνιάϲ ‘of Potniae’) is indeed rare, but securely attested in Euripides at Ba. 664 as well as Or. 318.4 444/455 may or may not constitute a metrical ‘period’. The hiatus at αὔρα, | ἅτε is not probative, since hiatus following a vocative is con- sistent with synapheia (cf. Ba. 83); and there is no pause at ἁλιήρει | κώπαι in the corresponding place. But the inceptive pherecratean is a traditional song-unit, and (though hiatus and brevis in longo are generally eschewed at the end of it) probably always to be recognized as a short period, with or without sense-pause.5 445–6/456–7. In the strophe we then have exactly the same dicolon hi ⁝ tl ba as S. O. C. 668–9 εὐίππου, ξένε, τᾶϲδε χώ-/ραϲ ⁝ ἵκου τὰ κράτιϲτα γᾶϲ ἔπαυλα ~ 681–2 θάλλει δ’ οὐρανίαϲ ὑπ’ ἄ-/χναϲ ⁝ ὁ καλλίβοτρυϲ κατ’ ἦµαρ αἰεί (p. 459 above), customarily (since Wilamowitz) analysed and lineated as gl ∫ gl ba with one-syllable overlap.6 ‡ There is a metrical issue here, considered below, in the corre- spondence (with that overlap) between - ζεῑϲ θ‘ᾱϲ … and - νᾰν οῑκτρᾱν … Of more pressing concern are the syntax and sense of 456– 7. (i) The accusative participles are questionable, prima facie, though they do not appear to have been challenged hitherto. As things stand we are required to understand πεµποµέναν and ἔχουϲαν as agreeing with µε to be understood from the question ποῖ µε τὰν µελέαν πορεύϲειϲ; at 447 in the strophe. But the opening of the antistrophe is properly intelligible only as continuing the syntax of 448–54, i. e. with ⟨ὅρµον ἀφίξοµαι⟩ to be understood with ἢ νάϲων, as previously with ἢ Φθιάδοϲ (sc. αἴαϲ) … in 451, following ἦ (sic) ∆ωρίδοϲ ὅρµον αἴαϲ

——— 4 Against Hesychius and Sch. Or. 318 (led astray by the irrelevant madness of Glaukos’ Potnian mares), there is no reason to look beyond kinship with πότνια (see LSJ) for the meaning of ποτνιάδεϲ in both Or. (with θεαί) and Ba. (with βάκχαι). In the latter, the messenger is about to describe to the king the remarkable behaviour (by no means all ‘crazy’) of ladies who include the king’s mother and aunts. 5 Cf. my n. on Herc . 359–60 πρῶτον µὲν ∆ιὸϲ ἄλϲοϲ ‖ ἠρήµωϲε λέοντοϲ (p. 606 with n. 20 above), in which the first verse might, but probably should not, be interpreted as ending with link-anceps. But it may be inferred ( ex silentio) that Stinton recognized synapheia both here and at Herc. 359–60 (passages not included in his list of ‘period-ends without pause’, CP 338–9). 6 Here as there the tradition divides at word-end, without ‘dovetailing’ overlap. On the familiar colometric issue (whether to overlap) in such places, cf. p. 505 above (also p. 359 with n. 37 and p. 492 with n. 21), where I argue that indentation suffices to show that the end of a pendent colon is not in fact a pendent ‘close’.