CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE

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 (i) 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 gadfly. ‡ 40–8 νῦν δ’ ἐπικεκλο µένα 40 ∆ῖον πόρτιν ὑπερπόντιον τιµάορ’, † ἶνίν τ’ ἀνθονόµου τᾶϲ προγόνου βοὸϲ ἐξ ἐπιπνοίαϲ Ζηνὸϲ ἔφαψιν ἐπωνυµίαι δ’ ἐπεκραίνετο µόρϲιµοϲ αἰὼν 45 εὐλόγωϲ †, ῎Єπαφον δ’ ἐγένναϲεν· ~ 49–57 ὅντ’ ἐπιλεξαµένα νῦν ἐν ποιονόµοιϲ µατρὸϲ ἀρχαίαϲ τόποιϲ τῶν πρόϲθε πόνων 50 µναϲαµένα τά τε νῦν ἐπιδείξω πιϲτὰ τεκµήρια, γαιονόµοιϲι δ’ ἄελπτά περ ὄντα φανεῖται 55 · γνώϲεται δὲ λόγου τιϲ ἐν µάκει· 40 ἐπικεκλοµένα Τurnebus: -όµεναι M 42–3 τ ’] γ’ Page ἀνθονόµου{ϲ} M; -νόµον Tucker 44 ἐπιπνοίαϲ Σ, Robortello: -οίαιϲ M 45 ἐπωνυµίαν (del. δ’) post Auratum Burges 48–9 ἐγένναϲ(ε) (ἐ)όντ’ M, corr. Porson ἐφίτυϲεν ex Hesychio M. Schmidt 53 τάδε νῦν Page 54 γαιονόµοιϲι δ’ Hermann: τά τ’ ἀνόµοια oἶδ’ M 56 λόγου Martin: -ουϲ Μ

——— * Mnemosyne 55 (2002), 711–19. 1 Name-only or short references are used for West ( AT and Studies), Diggle (OCT and Euripidea), Mastronarde (Phoen.), Denniston (GP), Stinton, Parker, Itsumi, Wilamowitz (GV) and some others; see the Abbreviations at p. xvi above. [712] INVOCATIONS OF EPAPHUS 477

The metre is essentially ‘enoplian’, 2 in a stanza most naturally lineated in five verses, 3 of lengths ranging from seven to twenty syllables but without any clearcut period-divisions: 4 1. D | 2. D | e – e – d | 3. D2 – (= 4da‘) | 4. D5 – (= 7da‘ = D2 ⏖ 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, ——— 2 As explained in comm. Or., p. xx (cf. also p. 351 n. 13 above), I use ‘enoplian’ only as an adjective, to denote the metrical genre which combines single-short and dactylic elements, with or without initial, linking or appended ancipites, in aϲύνθετοϲ ῥυθµόϲ. Notation of enoplian sequences will most conveniently use the Maasian symbols e (– ⏑ –) and D (– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –) augmented with some others (including d , E, D2, ba, sp, ith = e ba). So called ‘dactylo-epitritic’ metre is a subspecies of enoplian metre, characterized by mostly long ancipites. 3 West’s colometry differs only in that he splits my second verse as D / e – e – d. M divides before and after ἀνθονόµου{ϲ} τᾶϲ προγόνου, and similarly before and after πρόϲθε πόνων µναϲαµένα in 52. This may well reflect the Alexandrian colometry, but we do not have to accept it as the truth (see now L. P. E. Parker, CQ 51 (2001), 23– 52). 2ch is plainly out of place here between D | D e – e – and ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –. For the sequence … e – e – d, cf. S. Ant. 1116–17/1127–8 (× e ⏑ e ⏑ d), 1142/1151 (⏑ e ⏑ d e), O. T. 870/880 (⏑ e ⏑ d –), E. Alc. 573/583 (⏑ e ⏑ d), and similarly × d × e at S. Aj. 399/416 and Tra. 637/644. 4 My ‘verses’, against the usage of some metricians, are not by definition ‘periods’, as explained in p. 333 n. 11 above. Here it is arguable that the pendent syllables of 3 and 4 are long ancipites (not ‘catalectic’), as in D/e. On the issue whether the sixth foot of the dactylic hexameter is correctly analysed as – ×, cf. p. 333 above, with n. 9. 5 For the ‘heptameter’ length, cf. Pers. 865–6/873–4, 869–70/876–7, 897–9, 903–5, Ag. 147–8, 149–50. (Pers. 852–4/858–60 is a still longer expansion of the dactylic hexa- meter to D ⁝ ⏖ D5 – (or D 5 ⁝ ⏖ D –); cf. S. O. T. 155–8/163–7 (D11 ⁝ ⏖ D –), E. Hcld. 615–18/626–9 (D6 ⁝ ⏖ D –), Tro. 604–7, Pho. 1485–8, Ba. 164–9.) The verse πιϲτὰ … φανεῖται here is remarkable for the absence of any strong caesurae, with no less than four word-ends after – ⏑; but the pattern D2 ⏑ ⁝ ⏑ D – (as Pers. 872–4, 897–9, 903–5) is in itself analogous to the weak-caesura pattern (relatively uncommon in tragedy) D ⏑ ⁝ ⏑ D – in the dactylic hexameter. 6 I have discussed the typically clausular verse – × – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – – in ch. 19 above (on S. El. 137–9), there favouring the interpretation gl plus sp (cf. Itsumi (1984) 78–9). This is its only occurrence in Aeschylus, and it might perhaps be better regarded here as a hypercatalectic hipponactean. For apparent glyconics elsewhere in enoplian context (telesilleans occur thus more often), cf. the sequence D | ia sp (⏑ e sp) ‖ gl ia | gl | tl sp … at S. Aj. 192 ff.