ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPA1GN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign library
Brittle Books Project, 2014.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2014THE UNIVERSITY

OF ILLINOIS

LIBRARY
881
H 8®..h
cap.z.



Ht UBHAs.! .

• tlJN 2 7 1924

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISTHE

Aloestis of Eukibides

fl - -

EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL AND
EXEGETICAL NOTES

BY

HERMAN WADSWORTH HAYLEY, PH.D. (HARVARD)

INSTRUCTOR IN LATIN AT WESLBYAN UNIVERSITY

" JSTobilissima fabula, Euripidis Alcestis "
— MACROBIUS

THE LIBHAR? OF Hit
JUN 2 7 1924

UNIVERSITY Of ILLINOIS
GINN & COMPANY

BOSTON • NEW YORK • CHICAGO • LONDONCopyright, 1898, by
HERMAN WADSWORTH HAYLEY

all rights reserved

910.9

gtftewiettw $re**

ginn & company • pro-
prietors • boston • u.s.A.zsi

E.%a.,h

MEMORIAE
GEORGI • MARTINI* LANE
ET

FRIDERICI-DEFOREST-ALLEN
PRAECEPTORVM-CARISSIMORVM

551343PREFACE.

The object with which this little book has been prepared is
twofold, — to provide a convenient text-book for the use of stu-
dents who are just beginning the critical study of the Greek
drama, and to contribute something toward the constitution of
a sound text of the Alcestis.

The play in question is often said to be an "easy" one; yet
it abounds in critical difficulties and presents many interesting
problems. These are thrown into stronger relief by the very
simplicity and clearness of many portions of the play, and so
can more easily be noted and discussed by the beginner in the
critical art, who would be completely baffled by the manifold
and complex difficulties, of such a drama as the Agamemnon or
the Trachiniae. Hence the Alcestis seems peculiarly adapted
for the use of our classical "seminaries" and "pro-seminaries,"
and is often selected as a subject for their labors. In writing
the present work, and especially in preparing the introduction
and apparatus criticus, I have had in view the needs of students
in these seminaries.

This, however, is not the sole object of the book. Some five
years since, when looking over a large collection of works relat-
ing to the Greek drama, I was impressed by the fact that since
the edition of Professor Monk no edition of the Alcestis which
had for its chief purpose the critical constitution of the textvi

PREFACE.

had appeared in English. This seemed alF the more strange
because the play is one of the best known and most popular of
all the Euripidean dramas. There appeared, therefore, to be
neecTof a new edition which should gather up the scattered
critical -material which has appeared during this century —
which should, in other words, "bring Monk up to date." To
do this adequately would require a much larger and more elab-
orate work than the present one; but I have tried to make at
least a beginning in this direction.

In the treatment and constitution of the text I have been, on
the whole, conservative. I have no sympathy with what some
one has called "the yelping chorus of those who carp at con-
jectural criticism"; but the need of caution in the exercise of
the art can scarcely be too strongly emphasized. Nothing is
easier than to make conjectures; nothing is harder than to
make a certain one. Still, I have received not a few conjectures
into the text, especially from those suggested by Wecklein,
F. W. Schmidt, Herwerden, Wilamowitz, Earle, and the early
editors and critics. Variations in the text from the reading of
the MSS. have been indicated by using bold-face type in the
words where the change occurs.

The apparatus criticus is necessarily based upon that of Prinz;
but I have made many changes and additions, and have omitted
those testimonia which show no variant from the reading of the
Euripidean MSS. Through the kindness of Professor U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, a few readings from d (Cod. Laurent.
31,15)have been added. Underthe heading "SelectConjectures"
have been collected a number of emendations which for one reason
or another seemed worthy of mention, but which I did not ven-PREFACE.

vii

ture to receive into the text. These have been very carefully-
sifted from the great mass of conjectures upon the Aleestis,
which could not have been reprinted as a whole without pre-
serving a great deal of rubbish. In the critical notes-, which
form the larger part of the book, I have tried to discuss, or at
least to point out, most of the difficulties which confront the
student of the play. Many of the problems are still unsolved;
some, perhaps, are incapable of solution, but I have honestly
striven to blink none of them. At the end a brief "Metrical
Appendix" has been added to help the student in dealing with
the lyric metres of the play.

Though I have been under constant obligation to the labors
of my predecessors, this edition is not "based" on that of any
previous commentator, German or otherwise, and I have tried
in all cases to exercise an independent judgment. I have aimed
to make due acknowledgment for whatever is not the common
property of scholars, though in so small a book it is not always
possible "suum cuique reddere." I wish to express my special
obligation to the following: to former editions of the play (par-
ticularly that of Monk), especially for "parallel passages"; to
Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, of Gottingen, for valu-
able information and advice; to Professor M. L. Earle, of Bryn
Mawr, who very kindly communicated to me a number of un-
published readings and conjectures, with permission to make
use of them; to Professors C. L. Smith, M. H. Morgan and
A. A. Howard, of Harvard, for advice and encouragement, and
above all to the late Professor F. D, Allen, of the same univer-
sity, without whose kindly counsel this book would probably
never have been written. I am much indebted, also, to myyiii

PREFACE.

colleague, Dr. J. M. Paton, of Wesleyan University, for the
valuable chapter (on the works of art in which scenes from
the Aleestiz are represented) which he has contributed to the
introduction.

It may appear to some that I have been too cautious in
many of my statements, and that "probably," "perhaps," "it
would seem," etc., recur too often in these pages; but I have
thought it best to run the risk of erring in this direction rather
than in that of over-confidence and "cocksureness." It be-
hooves the classical scholar to be very cautious in his assertions
in these days, when the very next discovery in Egypt may
prove him to be in the wrong. I may perhaps be permitted to
add that this is (if I mistake not) the first mainly critical edi-
tion of a Greek play that has been published by an American
scholar. Sit venia tironi!

H. W. Hayley.

Middletown, Conn., September 1, 1897.LIST OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

Introduction..........xi

Text and Apparatus Criticus............3

Select Conjectures ......... 53

Critical and Exegetical Notes......61

Metrical Appendix .........169INTRODUCTION.

A. The Myth of Alcestis.

Its History and Literary Treatment.

Few Greek myths have become more celebrated or have fur-
nished a greater stimulus to literary effort than that of Admetus
and Alcestis. It would be both interesting and profitable to trace
the evolution of the story from its origin down to the time of
Euripides ; but, unfortunately, so many links in the chain are
wanting that much must be left to conjecture. With the various
"solar-myth" theories that have been suggested to account for the
legend I will not weary the reader; they have long since been
"gathered to their fathers." They may be found stated at length
in the dissertation by Karl Dissel, " Der My thus von Admetos und
Alkestis " (Brandenburg, 1882) pp. 6 ff. The Euhemeristic explana-
tion of the myth which was proposed by Gottfried Hermann (see
the dissertation prefixed to his Alcestis pp. xiii. ff.) may also be
dismissed as quite untenable.

That keen-sighted scholar, K. O. Mueller, in his - Prolegomena zu
einer wiss. Mythologie pp. 300-306 (cf. his Dorier, Eng. trans. I.
p. 340 f.), advanced a different and much more probable theory.
Noting that "AS^tos, "the unconquered," is a common title of
Pluto, and that 'ASfxrjTov Koprj (see Hesychius s. v.) was a name of
Hecate, he made the suggestion that Admetus was originally not
the hero of later legend, but the king of the under-world himself.
After slaying the Python, Apollo was obliged to atone for the
blood-guilt thus incurred by descending into Hades and serving
*A§firjTos (i.e. Pluto) for a time. That form of the legend which-
connects Apollo's servitude with the killing of the Cyclopes is, as
we shall see, of later origin (see also Pauly, ReaUEncyclop.2 s. v.xii

INTRODUCTION.

Apollon III. 12 and IV. 2). This view of Mueller's is extremely-
plausible, and is probably correct,* though it cannot, with our
present data, be absolutely proved. As he points out (Dorier l.s.c.),
it is confirmed by the obscure traditions which represent Apollo
as actually dying and descending into the lower world (Euhemerus
in Minucius Felix c. 21, 2, etc.). If Mueller is right, it becomes
probable that "AXkyjo-tis (cf. dA/07, VAAki/jios, 'AA/ceras, 'AXKfjLrjvrj, etc.)
was originally a name of Persephone, Pherrhephatta, or Core, the
queen of Hades. In what manner the story became localized and
Pluto was transformed to a Thessalian monarch we can only guess.
Possibly the fact that the name Admetus was not uncommon
among the chieftains of northern Greece may have had something
to do with the change. The Molossian king with whom Themis-
tocles took refuge was an Admetus, and there were several distin-
guished Macedonians of that name.

In the Homeric poems we find but little about Admetus or
Alcestis, but enough to show that the myth had already obtained
a " local habitation." Admetus, the son of Pheres (&rjprjTidSao E.
II. 763, XXIII. 376) and grandson of Cretheus and Tyro (Od. XI.
257-8), rules over four Thessalian cities, Pherae, Boebe, Glaphyra
and Iolcus (II. II. 711 f.). His wife Alcestis is mentioned (II. l.s.c.)
as "the fairest of the daughters of Pelias," who (as we learn from
Od. XI. 253 f.) was the son of Poseidon and Tyro and dwelt in
Iolcus. Eumelus, son of Admetus and Alcestis (II. II. 713), com-
mands twelve ships at Troy, and possesses mares famed for their
Speed, ras iv ILiepir) Opeif/ apyvporoios 'AttoAAwv (II. II. 766). Etl-
melus appears among the contestants in the chariot race (II. XXIII.
287 f£.); but he does not play a conspicuous part in the Eiad. His
wife is Iphthime, daughter of Icarius (Od. IY. 797-8). It is clear,
I think, that, though the Eiad and Odyssey contain no detailed
statement of the myth, the story was known to the authors of the
parts of the Homeric poems above cited, and had already passed
through a long process of development. It will be noted, also,
that Admetus, Alcestis, and Eumelus are mentioned only in portions

* See, however, Schreiber, Apollon Pythoktonos pp. 11, 12, who opposes
Mueller's theory.INTRODUCTION.

xiii

of the Iliad which are now generally believed to be of compara-
tively late origin (viz. the Catalogue of Ships and Book XXIII.).

The poet who did most to give the myth form and coloring
seems, however, to have been Hesiod, or, rather, the unknown
author of that curious work, the Eoeae. In one of the divisions
of this poem the story of Admetus and Alcestis was told with
considerable fullness; and, though the work itself is lost, Wilamo-
witz with extraordinary acuteness has succeeded in making out
the plot of this particular Eoee (see his Isyllos pp. 57 ff.). This
he has accomplished by piecing together bits of information from
various ancient writers (the fragments of the poem, Pindar Pyth.
III. and the schol., Apollod. Bibl. III. 10, 3 and I. #9, 15, Hy-
ginus Fab. 49 and 51, etc.). Not all the details of his combi-
nations are certain; but, taken as a whole, his conclusions seem
well assured. According to him (I. s. c. p. 70 f.), the tale as told
by the Hesiodic poet ran about as follows (omitting the earlier
portion, in which were narrated the loves of Apollo and Coronis
and the fate of the latter) : Asclepius, son of Apollo and Coronis,
grew up to manhood under the care of the centaur Chiron, and
learned to know the medicinal powers of the herbs and the spells
that stay disease. He became a physician without peer, and healed
many of their ills ; but when he presumed so far as to bring back
the dead to life Zeus smote him with the thunderbolt and slew
him at Delphi, where was his father's sanctuary. Then Apollo,
in anger at his son's death and not being able to take vengeance
upon Zeus, slew the Cyclopes who had forged the bolt which caused
the death of Asclepius. At Leto's intercession Apollo was spared
expulsion into Tartarus, but was condemned by Zeus to spend a
" great year" in servitude to a mortal. So he entered the service
of Admetus, king of Pherae, and pastured his master's flocks near
Lake Boebeis. Being kindly treated by Admetus, he caused the
latter's herds to thrive and multiply (cf. Ale. 588 f.). He also
aided the king to yoke together to his chariot a lion and a boar,
in order to win Alcestis, whose father, Pelias, would grant her
hand only to the suitor who should accomplish this feat. Admetus
won his bride and brought her home amid rejoicing, but he forgotxiv

INTRODUCTION.

to sacrifice to Apollo's sister, the cruel Artemis Bpt/xw of Pherae;
and, as a token of her wrath, he found a coil of snakes in his bridal
chamber. Apollo interpreted to the king the will of the goddess ;
she demanded the life of the bridegroom, and would spare it only
on condition that the life of another be voluntarily offered as a
substitute. Friends and kindred all refused to make the sacrifice;
only the young wife would consent to give her life for that of her
husband. But when the sacrifice had been consummated, Per-
sephone (who is Artemis Bpifua under another aspect) had mercy
on her and sent her back to the upper world. Thus, or nearly
thus, the author of the Eoeae (see esp. Apollodorus and Hyginus
11. s. c.). Though both Apollodorus and Hyginus mention the in-
terference of Heracles, the former speaks of it only as another
form of the legend (cos S£ evcot Xeyovaiv, 4 HpaKXrjg /xa^eo-ct/xevos *Ai8r) •
cf. the third schol. on Aristoph. Vesp. 1239). The date of the Eoeae
is not exactly known, but probably is not far from the latter part of
the seventh century b.c. ; hence we may assume that as the time
when the legend takes on a definite literary form. As we have seen,
the poet assigns as the cause of Apollo's OryrtCa not the slaying of
the Python but the killing of the Cyclopes; but whether he was
the first who introduced this change into the story we cannot say.

Another step in the development of the myth was taken by the
tragic poet Phrynichus. Among his tragedies Suidas (s. v. $pwx°s)
mentions an "AXkyjcttls, and one line of this play (fr. 2 Nauck) has
been preserved to us by Hesychius (5. v. a$a: cr&fm 8* aOafifih
yvioSovYjTov (so Hermann 5 yvioSovL&rov MS.) | rct/aei. If, as seems
highly probable, this refers to the struggle between Heracles and
Thanatos,* it is clear that Phrynichus, or the source from which he
drew, introduced Heracles into the story and ascribed the restora-
tion of Alcestis to his intervention. Robert (Thanatos p. 30) holds
that this form of the myth is the older one, on the ground that " die
Losung eines Konfiikts durch physische Kraft ist in aller Sagenent-
wickelung alter und ursprtinglicher als die Yersohnung durch das
Eingreifen ethischer Motive." But, though this is undoubtedly true
as a general principle, it is hardly a safe criterion in individual cases.

* Cf. Fahlenberg, De Hercule Tragico p. 37 and note 4.INTRODUCTION.

xv

We learn further from Servius (on Aen. IV. 694) that Phrynichus
brought Thanatos (" Orcus "; some hold that Hades is meant) upon
the stage, bearing a sword with which to cut off a lock of hair from
the head of Alcestis ; a feature which was borrowed by Euripides.
Aeschylus (Eum. 713 ff.) says (the Erinnyes are addressing Apollo)

TOiavr* IS/oacras Kal &€pr)TOS iv Sofiois • | Moipas hrcwras aucjiOiTOVS Oewai
fipoTOVS. . . . (tv tol TraAatas Siavofxas Kara <£#6 era? | olvqj 7raprj7rdTrj(ras

a/j^atas 0ea? : cf. Eum. 171 f. irapa vojxov 6c£)V (3porta pkv r<W, | iraXai-
yeveis &e Motpas <£06<ras. As the schol. on Ale. 12 points out, this obvi-
ously refers to the same incident as Ale. 11 ff. ttcuSos ^iprjros, ov Oavetv
ippvadfjLrjV) | Mot/oas 8oAd>o-as k.t.A. That form of the legend accord-
ing to which Apollo made the Moerae intoxicated and then obtained
from them permission for Admetus to offer a substitute is therefore
older than the Euripidean Alcestis, and probably goes back to the
play of Phrynichus, if not farther (cf. Apollod. Bibl. I. 9, 15, 2).

In the Aristophanic hypothesis to the Alcestis is the statement :
irap* ov$€T€p<a (i.e. neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles) #ccirca rj pvOoTroua.
This is not quite correct: for, though Aeschylus seems not to have
written on this subject, Plutarch (De defect, orac. c. 15 p. 417 F)
has preserved a line of Sophocles in which Admetus says, ovpos
8* dAcKrwp avrov rjye irpos fivXrjv. As G. Hermann long ago pointed
out, this looks like a passage from a satyric drama, and Aristoph-
anes may have neglected to mention the play because it was of that
character. What form of the legend Sophocles adopted we have no
means of knowing.

Pherecydes (doubtless the Lerian, who flourished about b.c. 450)
seems to have related the myth, or a part of it, in his 'lo-ropCou.
He asserted that not the Cyclopes themselves, but their sons, were
slain by Apollo (schol. on Ale. 1 = Mueller F. H. G. fr. 76), doubt-
less because the Cyclopes were commonly believed to be immortal.
What other innovations he may have tried to introduce into the
legend we do not know, but he seems to have followed Hesiod
pretty closely (cf. the schol. on Pindar Pyth. III. 59 = F. H. G.
fr. 8 ; Wilamowitz I. s. c. p. 62).

The story of Admetus seems to have been very popular about
this time : the famous skolionxvi

INTRODUCTION.

'A$jJLrjTov \oyov w 'raipe fm6(x)v rovs ayaflovs
rwv SetAoiv 8' a7ri)(ov, yvovs ore 8a\ois oXtyrj X^PL<S

was probably written by Praxilla of Sicyon, a contemporary of
Pherecydes, though some attributed it to Alcaeus, others to Sappho
(schol. on Aristoph. Vesp. 1240; Pausanias in Eustath. on 17. II.
711, p. 326, 36). This song is mentioned by Cratinus (fr. 236
Kock) and twice by Aristophanes (Vesp. 1239, fr. 430 K.), and
was so much in vogue that 'ASfxyrov /ac'Aos passed into a proverb
(Hesych. and Suidas s. v. ; see also Hesych. s. v. 'ASfxyrov Xoyov,•
Athenaeus XV. p. 695 C). Even in antiquity its precise applica-
tion seems to have been disputed (see Eustath. I. s. c. and the schol.
on the Vespae 1239). Aristophanes puts it into the mouth of the
flatterer and parasite Theorus, and it probably reflects on the
courage of Admetus; though some (schol. on the Vespae I. s. c.)
took it as referring merely to the refuge which the Thessalian king,
when driven into exile, was said to have taken with Theseus.

This brings us to the time of Euripides. He seems to have
followed the Hesiodic form of the myth, with those modifications
which were shown in the Phrynichean play. It is not clear that
he introduced any important change, except, possibly, that he makes
Admetus king of all Thessaly (Ale. 590 ff.). Euripides seems, also,
to have laid greater stress upon the hospitality of Admetus, as
shown to Heracles in the midst of the mourning for Alcestis, than
did the earlier poets; though whether he invented that part of the
story which represents Heracles as entertained at that time in the
house of the Thessalian monarch, we cannot say. Probably, how-
ever, he borrowed this, too, from Phrynichus.

Two poets of the Old (or early Middle) Comedy, Aristomenes
and Theopompus, each wrote an "AS/ivjtos (see the fourth hypoth.
to Aristoph. Plutus, and Athenaeus XV. 690 A), but of the contents
of these plays we know little or nothing.

Better known is the VAof the comic poet Antiphanes,
from which two (perhaps three) fragments have been preserved.
The first df these (Athenaeus III. 122 D = fr. 29 K.),INTRODUCTION.

xvii

€7TL to KCLLVOVpytlV cfalpOV

ovtcos, €kew(*)s, tovto yuyvmtkoiv otl
£v KCLivov iyxeLprjfAa, kclv ToXfJiTjpbv r}9
ttoAAwv 7raXatcuv eori xpYjcnfJLtoTepov,

looks like a piece of advice given by Admetus to Heracles (or by
some one to Admetus) as to the way to recover Alcestis.

Athenaeus says (XII. 553 C = fr. 30 K.) : 'AvTL<j>dvrjs iv ^AXki^o-tlSl
cAatcp tip a 7roi€L xpiofxevov tovs 7roSas. Apparently Heracles had his
feet anointed with oil to relieve them after the long journey down
to Hades.* A third fragment (Ath. II. 47B = fr. 276 Kock) may
belong to the same play: £v voo-rjfia tovt* e^ei • | del ydp S^vTreivos
i(tti. B. ©crraXov Aeyets | KOfJLiSrj tov avSpa.

In accordance with the erotic taste of the time, the poet E-hianus
(second half of the third century b.c.) ascribed (in his ©eo-o-aAifca ?)
the servitude of Apollo to his love for Admetus, whose servant he
voluntarily became (schol. on Ale. 1). This form of the story was,
as might be expected, popular with later writers. The Delphian
periegete Anaxandrides, on the other hand, retained the older,
Delphian version which represented Apollo as undergoing the
OrjTeCa to atone for his slaying the Python (schol. on Ale. I. s. c.).

The Atthidographer Phanodemus (schol. on the Vespae I. s. e. —
F. H. G. fr. 9) related that Admetus, being driven out of Pherae,
came with his wife Alcestis and his youngest son Hippasus to
Theseus at Athens, and settled there. This addition to the legend
may have been suggested by Ale. 954 f., which clearly implies that
some of Admetus7 subjects were disaffected toward him. (For
other minor features and variations of the legend, see Wentzel's
admirable article " Admetos " in Pauly's Real-Eneyelopaedie2.)

Fulgentius (Expos. Serm. Ant. 5. v. friguttire) gives what purports
to be a quotation from an Alcestis of the Horn an poet Ennius; but
as no such play of Ennius is mentioned elsewhere, and Fulgentius
is known to have forged many quotations, his statement is now
generally disbelieved.

* That a form of the legend existed in which Heracles brought Alcestis up
from Hades is shown by the works of art. See p. lii ff.xviii

INTRODUCTION.

The tragic poet L. Accius, however, wrote an Alcestis, of which
one line — cum striderat retracta rursus infer is — has been preserved
to us by Priscian (IX. p. 867 P., X. p. 893 P.). What version of
the myth he followed is quite unknown (see Bibbeck, Romische
Tragodie p. 551; Frag. Scaen. Rom. Po. I. p. 143).

We have also a fragment (Gellius XIX. 7, 3 ; Nonius s. v. obesum ;
Baehrens Po. Lat. Min. VI. p. 288) from an Alcestis of the poet
Laevius, which, however, was probably not a play,* but a part of
his Erotopaegnia (see Weichert, De Laevio poeta pp. 55 ff. in his
Poet. Lat. Reliq.). The fragment runs (the text is somewhat un-
certain) : corpore pectoreque imdique obeso ac | mente exsensa tardige-
nucb | senio obpressum. It may be a description of Pheres.

It would appear from Lucian De Saltu 52 (cf. Juvenal Sat. VI.
652) that under the empire the myth of Alcestis was often made
the subject of mimetic performances.

It is clear, both from this brief sketch and from the number and
character of the allusions to the legend in classical writers, that
it never occupied a commanding position in Greek mythology or
literature, such a position, for instance, as was held by the story
of the Atridae or of the house of Laius. The reason for this is
twofold: the scene of the legend is in northern Greece, removed
from the great centres of life and civilization, and the family in-
volved is not one which played a very conspicuous part in the
mythical history of the heroic age; and secondly, the conception
of conjugal love and fidelity which the story reveals is so elevated
that it could scarcely be appreciated by the great mass of the
Greeks of classical times. But later, when the romantic element
in the relation between the sexes begaii to appear more promi-
nently, the myth came at once into vogue. The influence of Christi-
anity was favorable rather than unfavorable to its popularity; it
was often referred to by the fathers of the church, to whom the
servitude of Apollo and the self-sacrifice of Alcestis offered conven-
ient illustrations; and, in one way or another, it has exercised no
slight influence upon modern literature, t

* Menozzi (Rivista di filol. class. 185 pp. 191 ff.) holds that it was a tragedy.

t See Ellinger, Alceste in der modernen Litteratur, Halle, 1885; Patin, Tra-
giques Grecs,3 Euripide vol. I. pp. 221 ff.INTRODUCTION.

xix

B. The Euripidean Plat.

The Alcestis is the earliest of the plays which are known* to
have been written by Euripides that has come down to us. Its
date was long uncertain, for that part of the Aristophanic hypothe-
sis which contained information as to this point had been lost. It
was known, however, from internal evidence, such as the severity
of the metrical treatment, the friendly mention of Sparta (1. 448 f.),
and the fact that vv. 367-8 are parodied in the Acharnians (which
appeared b.c. 425), that the play was an early one. In 1834 W.
Dindorf published in his edition of the Alcestis a new fragment of
the hypothesis, which he had found in the Vatican MS. (B). This
fragment contained (in addition to other matter previously known)
the following words : to Spa/ia kiroiffif) if. i$L$d)(6r] C7rt TAavKtvov ap^ov-
ros to A. 7rpa)tos (irp&Tov MS.) TjV So<^0/cA^5, Sevrepos (Scvrepov MS.)
Efy>i7rt8?7s Kpiyo-crats 'AAtf/neWi (oAk/acu'ovi MS.) tw Sia ^ax^tSos (8ta^a>-
<£iAcd MS.) T?;Ae<£(t) 'AA/dycrnSi. to Sc Spafia KCdpuKwrtpav rrjv Kara-
crTpotjyqv. As we know from other sources (see Diodor. XII. 30,
who gives the name as Glaucides; schol. on Aristoph. Achar. 67;
Clinton, Fasti Hellen. II. p. 62-3), G-laucinus or Glaucines was
archon in the second year of the 85th Olympiad; hence Dindorf
substituted for the meaningless to A of the MS. (which is cer-
tainly corrupt) 6Av/x7rta8o5 ttc erei Scvtc/oo) (or /?'). The fragment
gives us the following facts: the play was the seventeenth in
order of composition. As Earle has pointed out (p. 4 f. of his
edition),f this probably means that it belonged to the seven-
teenth group of plays brought out by the poet. We know from
the Vita that Euripides presented his first drama in 455; hence
either "if is a mistake for 07, or (more probably) the poet let one
year pass without exhibiting. The Alcestis was presented in the
year of Glaucinus, i.e. 439-8, and hence must have been performed
(if, as is probable, it appeared at the Greater Dionysia) in the

* The Rhesus is, of course, disputed.

t Cf., however, Teuffel in the Rheinisches Museum 1866, p. 471.XX

INTRODUCTION.

spring of 438. It was the fourth member of a tetralogy (the other
plays being the Cretan Women, the Alcmeon in Psophis and the
Telephus), thus occupying the place usually held by a satyric drama.
Euripides gained only the second prize, Sophocles being first.

The Alcestis, then, is the work of no prentice hand. It appeared
when Euripides was in at least the forty-second year of his life
(probably several years older; the statement of the Parian Marble
that he was born in 01. 72, 4 is much more likely to be right than
the other version, which makes his birth occur in the year, and
even on the day, of the battle of Salamis) and the eighteenth of
his career as a dramatist. It belonged to the same tetralogy as
two of his most famous plays, — the Alcmeon in Psophis and the
Telephus. Whatever imperfections the play may contain cannot,
therefore, be ascribed to the poet's youth or inexperience. The
period at which the drama was presented was that when the great-
ness of Athens was at its height, seven years before the outbreak
of the Peloponnesian War and while the Parthenon was still in
process of building.

The Alcestis, like the first play of Euripides (the Peliades) and
the Medea, has to do with the fortunes of the royal family of
Iolcus. As Wilamowitz has pointed out, during the earlier part of
his dramatic career Euripides tried to please the Athenians by
treating new subjects with which they were not already familiar.
It may be suspected, also, that there was some strong tie which
bound Euripides himself to northern Greece. We know that later
in life he went to Macedonia to the court of Archelaus ; and doubt-
less some other attraction beside the liberality and literary taste
of the king drew him thither. It is possible that he had kinsfolk
in Thessaly or Macedonia.

The question arises, in what relation did the Alcestis stand to
the other three dramas of the tetralogy? Were the four plays
connected in plot or by some other internal bond, or was the con-
nection between them merely external ? That they were not linked
together in plot seems clear; their subjects are too different and
the myths of which they treat cover too wide a range for this to
be possible. It has been suggested, however, by Bernhardy (art.INTRODUCTION.

xxi

"Euripides" in Ersch and Gruber's Encycl.) and Gr. A. Schoell
(Tetral. d. Att. Theaters pp. 52-9) that the poet's object in select-
ing the subjects of these plays was to show different types of
woman, the lascivious adulteress Aerope being opposed to the trust-
ful and faithful Alphesiboea (or Arsinoe), and the masculine Cly-
taemestra to the womanly Alcestis. Schoell notes, also, that in
all four dramas the sanctity of the household hearth and the duties
of hospitality are important elements. But, ingenious as this
theory is, at best the verdict must be " not proven." We do not
know enough of the three lost tragedies to enable us to establish
such a connection.

The contents of the Euripidean play are, in brief, as follows :
vv. 1-76. Prologue. Apollo makes the introductory speech, in-
forming the spectators of the situation. The day appointed for
the death of Alcestis has arrived, and hence he must leave the
palace of Admetus to avoid pollution (1-27). Thanatos enters:
seeing Apollo before the door, he reproaches him in a short ana-
paestic system. A dialogue between the two follows : Apollo entreats
Thanatos to spare the queen's life, but in vain, and leaves in anger.
Thanatos enters the palace (28-76). 77-135. Parodos. The chorus
enters, full of anxiety to find out whether Alcestis is still alive or
not. Their opinions differ; but they know that her end is near;
no one can save her now that Asclepius is dead. 136-434. First
Episode. An attendant comes out of the palace and is questioned
by the coryphaeus. She relates the preparations made by Alcestis
against her death, her prayers in behalf of her children, and her
farewell to her marriage-bed and her domestics. The servant tells
also of the grief of Admetus, and the dying queen's desire to see
once more the light of the sun (141-212). A lyric dialogue between
the two semi-choruses follows. They doubt whether there is still
hope, but pray Zeus and Apollo for aid; express their sympathy
for Admetus, and praise Alcestis as she is brought out of the palace
(213-243). Alcestis says farewell to the sun and to her home.
She believes that she sees Charon, who is impatient for her depart-
ure, and that a spectre from the under-world is trying to drag her
away. Admetus entreats her to stay with-him (244-279). Alcestisxxii

INTRODUCTION.

then makes a long and affecting speech, setting forth his obliga-
tions to her and begging him to love and care for her children and
not to marry again. In a long speech he promises to comply with
her wishes, and she solemnly commits the children to his care.
She then says farewell and expires (280-392). The child Eumelus
sings a monody lamenting his mother's death (393-415). The
chorus comforts Admetus, who gives orders as to the mourning
for his wife (416-434). 435-475. First Stasimon. The chorus
lauds Alcestis for her devotion and prophesies that her name will
live in song, expresses the wish that it could bring her back to
life, and contrasts her conduct with that of the king's parents.
476-567. Second Episode. Heracles, on his way to Thrace to
bring the horses of Diomedes, comes to Pherae. He explains the
object of his journey and receives information from the coryphaeus
as to the dangerous nature of the undertaking (476-506). Admetus,
clad in the garb of mourning, comes out of the palace. Heracles
questions him as to the reason for his attire, but he evades the
question, presses the visitor to remain and gives orders for his
entertainment. The chorus remonstrate, but Admetus persists
(507-567). 568-605. Second Stasimon. The chorus recall the
time when Apollo served the king, and the manner in which the
god charmed the wild beasts with his music. They then extol
the wealth and power of the king, and express their confidence
that his hospitality will be rewarded. 606-961. Third Episode.
Pheres enters and tries to condole with Admetus, but is indig-
nantly rejected. An angry dialogue between father and son fol-
lows, and Pheres departs in wrath. Admetus renounces him. The
king and chorus pass out to the burial (606-746). A servant comes
out of the palace and complains of the greediness of Heracles and
his lack of regard for the proprieties of the occasion. Heracles
follows him and gives him a serio-comic lecture on the duties of a
servant to his master's guests and the true philosophy of life; but
soon discovers the truth and goes off to the tomb to rescue Alcestis
(747-860). Admetus and the chorus return (cTrtTrapoSos), and Ad-
metus laments his loss while the chorus sympathize with him and
try to comfort him (861-934). Admetus then paints the wretched-INTRODUCTION.

xxiii

ness of his situation in a short speech in trimeters (935-961).
962-1005. Third Stasimon. The chorus sing the power of Neces-
sity, and predicts the honours which await Alcestis as heroine.
1006-end. Exodus. Heracles enters, leading a veiled woman,
whom, he says, he has won as a prize in certain games in which he
has contested. He asks Admetus to take charge of her until his
return from Thrace. The king at first refuses; but at last yields,
though very reluctantly and after a long dialogue. Heracles then
unveils her, and Admetus recognizes his wife. He inquires how
she was rescued, and Heracles tells him. Admetus thanks his
benefactor, and presses him to remain; but Heracles is in haste and
cannot stay. The king then orders a general thanksgiving. The
chorus march out to the closing anapaests.

Such, in brief, is the action of the play. This brings us to that
most perplexed and difficult question: is the Alcestis a tragedy,
and if not, what is it? On this subject volumes (I had almost
said libraries) have been written, and the question is still far from
being settled. It seems to have been disputed even in ancient
times. We read in the last paragraph of the hypothesis : to 8c

Spaifld i(TTL (TOLTVpLKlDTtpOV OTL CIS )(apOLV Kal TjSoV7]V KCLT(X(rTp€<f>€l (Kal) €K~
fSaWeTai cos avoiKeia rrjs TpayiKrjs iroirjo-ews o re 'Opccmys Kal rj ^AA/ojotis,
cos €K crvfJL<f)opas fx\v ap^o/ieva, el? evSaLjjLOvcav <Se> Kal \apav A^favra, <a>

ecrrt fiaWov Kco/xwStas c^o/xcva* and on the other hand in the treatise
irepl Kco/xcoStas published by Duebner (see his ed. of the scholia to
Aristophanes p. xix.) from the Codex Parisinus 2677 we read:
(raTvpiKrjs Se ov to airo irivQovs cis \apas airavrav, cos o Evpi7ri'8ou 'OpcoT^s
Kal "AXkyjcttls Kal fj ^ocfyoKXeovs 'hacktpa, £k /xepovs, uxnrcp tivcs <j>a<rw,
aAA' afxtyrj Kal \apUvra Kal OvfieXiKov fyd yeAcora k.t.X. Aristophanes
of Byzantium seems to have contented himself with the cautious
remark: to Se Spa/xa KoyfiiKtoripav l^ct rrjv Kara<rTpo<l>rjv (the last
clause of the Vatican fragment), which was amplified by later
grammarians (see Trendelenburg, Gramm. Graec. d. art. trag. jud.
relig. p. 36 f.). He makes a similar observation in the hypothesis
to the Orestes.

The modern literature of the subject is, as I have said, very
large. The best survey of it is to be found in the very sane andxxiv

INTRODUCTION.

careful essay by G. Bissinger,. " Ueber die Dichtungsgattung u. d.
Grundgedanken d. Alcestis d. Euripides (Erlangen 1869-71), to
which I am indebted for many points.

The theories which have been advanced respecting the nature of
the Alcestis may be divided into seven classes : —

I.	Many authorities regard the play as a tragedy in the strict
s^nse. So Sponheim, Buhl, Wieland, Firnhaber, Preller, G. Her-
mann, Goethe, Kolanowski, Wilken, Sittl, Cucuel, etc. (For refer-
ences see list at the end of this section.) Steinberger regards the
drama as a " distorted tragedy " (verzerrtes Trauerspiel), the poet
having at first intended to write a comic play, but having found
the subject unsuitable for that purpose.

II.	Few writers, if any, have openly expressed the view that
the Alcestis is a comedy. The Frenchman Brumoy, however, seems
to have held nearly this opinion, and (as Bissinger points out)
Kochly's view (see below) involves nearly this conception of the
play. Schone believes that the Alcestis is a parody on the play of
Phrynichus.

III.	Others have held that the Alcestis is a satyr-drama. So
Hedelin, d'Aubignac, Danina, Lessing, Glum, Hartung, Klein.

IV.	Others, still, have seen in the play a tragi-comedy (or hilaro-
tragoedia) with an intentional admixture of tragic and comic ele-
ments. So 0. Mueller, Buchholz, Duentzer.

Y. Others believe the Alcestis to be neither a tragedy nor a
comedy nor a mere combination of the two, but rather what the
Germans call a " Schauspiel," a " play " in the modern sense, with
varying moods and situations, not falling wholly within the limits
either of comedy or tragedy. So Eichstadt, Wagner, Bauchen-
stein, Bitter.

VI. Others still, while holding that Euripides was endeavoring,
by producing the Alcestis, to strike out a new path in the drama,
do not attempt to classify the play under any one of these heads.
So Kochly, whose view is so peculiar that I quote him more at
length : " An die Stelle der Satyrn und Silene setzte er aus dem
eigenen Kreise des gewohnlichen Alltagslebens die fadesten Perso-
nen, mit denen er einen tragischen Charakter umgab, in BeriihrungINTRODUCTION.

XXY

und Wechselwirkung brachte. Das Wesentliche dieser neuen Gat-
tung nun wurde der Conflict eines tragischen Charakters mit der
Philisterwelt der Gegenwart, der Gegensatz einer idealen Weltan-
schauung zu der kahlen, niichternen Prosa des wirklichen Lebens."
The humor of the piece lies in the fact that in this conflict the
idealist is saved by the materialist, the tragic heroine by the
" Philistine." Bernhardy expresses a similar view, and so Johring.

VII. Lastly, Mr. Verrall holds that the play is what the Ger-
mans would call a " Tendenz-Schrift," a covert attack on the popu-
lar religion, bearing one meaning to the multitude and another to
the " advanced thinkers " of the day.

The theory that the Alcestis is a comedy does not, I think, require
any extended refutation. Neither the subject of the play, nor its
arrangement, nor the position which it occupied in a tetralogy is
consistent with the Greek conception of a comedy. Whatever we
may pronounce the play to be, the tragic element in it clearly pre-
penderates over the comic.

Nor is it easy to believe that the Alcestis was a satyric drama.
True, it occupied the place of one ; but the characteristic features
of the satyric drama, the chorus of satyrs, the rude jests and unre-
strained merriment, are conspicuously absent. The Alcestis differs
less widely from the Agamemnon than from the Cyclops.

It is clear, however, that the drama is not an ordinary tragedy.
The fact that it held the place usually occupied by a satyr-play is
proof positive of this; and the comic tinge of certain portions of it,
though slight, is unmistakable. In what, then, does the difference
consist ? Not in the fortunate ending; for this criterion, if strictly
applied, would exclude many plays the tragic nature of which has
never been questioned. True, Aristotle preferred that in a tragedy
the change of fortune should be from prosperity to adversity
(Poet. 1453 b 12) ; but he also knew and recognized as tragedies
plays in which the change was in the opposite direction (1453 a 25,,
1455 b 29). Nor yet does it lie in the nature of the characters
who appear in the play. True, the Alcestis is a drama of domestic
life, and the personages who take part in it are very much lij^e
ordinary men and women ; but who could be more ordinary (I hadxxvi

INTRODUCTION.

almost said vulgar) than the characters who rail and wrangle
through so many lines of the Andromache or the Orestes? Nor
does the difference consist wholly in the more subdued nature of
the action. It is true that the characters move in a calmer atmo-
sphere than in many of the Euripidean plays ; but surely the spec-
tacle of a young and lovely woman snatched away in her prime by
a merciless and irresistible power is sufficient to excite both terror
and pity.

It has seemed, and still seems, to the present writer that, after
all, the main difference between the Alcestis and an ordinary tragedy
is in the comic element which appears in the play; and even this
difference is one of degree rather than of kind. It has often been
noted that occasional comic touches are found even in Aeschylean
and Sophoclean tragedies, (e.g. the nurse's speech in Choeph. 715 ff.,
esp. 1. 735 f.); and they are much more frequent in Euripides.
What is more natural, then, than for the poet, having to provide a
substitute for a satyric drama, to offer a tragedy in which these
occasional comic features have been slightly intensified? I say
slightly; for the comic element in the Alcestis is in reality much
less prominent than some have claimed.

Wherein does this comic element appear ? Some have thought
that it may be traced in the scene between Apollo and Thanatos
(vv. 28-76). That there may be a slight touch of humor here I
will not deny; but, taken as a whole, the scene is merely an angry
dialogue of the kind so common in Greek tragedies. Almost the
same may be said of the scene between Pheres and Admetus, which
is simply an dywv of the kind so dear to Athenian audiences.
Neither contains anything which is inconsistent with the idea of a
tragedy; and the Apollo-Thanatos scene cannot weigh very heavily
in any case, as it lies under grave suspicion (see below). Nor is
the comic element prominent in the closing scene (1006 ff.). Some
have thought that the long hesitation and timid consent of Admetus
to receive the woman were intended to amuse the audience. They
have, I think, missed to a large extent the real purport of this
scene. Why does Heracles tantalize Admetus with a feigned tale
and press him to receive a (supposed) stranger woman into hisINTRODUCTION.

xxvii

house, instead of restoring Alcestis to him at once ? Partly, no
doubt, to test his faithfulness to his wife's memory; partly, too,
because Euripides wished by the suspense to heighten the interest
of the spectators; but there is a stronger reason. The poet's atti-
tude toward the conduct of Admetus (and this it is the great merit
of Mr. Verrall to have pointed out) is by no means one of unmixed
praise. The first words which Heracles speaks on his return are
words of censure (1008 f.). Admetus has deceived him, though with
kindly intent; has evaded his questions and dealt in language of
double meaning. The king is now requited in full measure for this
deception. Every evasion, every double-entendre is repaid to him
with interest. Not until he has atoned for his deceit is Alcestis
restored to him. In this scene, then, there is nothing inconsistent
with the conception of a tragedy. There remains the scene between
Heracles and the servant. This is undeniably tinged with comic
humor. The poet lets us see for an instant the gluttonous, riotous
Heracles of the popular conception; though even here, when we
consider in what light the hero was represented in the comedy of
the day, we see that Euripides has confined himself within rela-
tively narrow bounds. In this scene, then, the difference between
the Alcestis and an ordinary tragedy mainly lies.

Did this comic element belong to the original plan of the play ?
At the close of "Balaustion's Adventure" Robert Browning has
sketched a plot which in his judgment (and surely he was no mean
judge) would have been preferable to that of the Euripidean Al-
cestis. Curiously enough this plot follows very nearly the story
as (according to Wilamowitz) it was told in the Hesiodic Eoeae.
Why should Euripides, when he had this form of the myth ready
to his hand, have preferred the Phrynichean version ?

The late Prof. F. D. Allen long entertained doubts as to the authen-
ticity of the Apollo-Thanatos scene in the prologue. He kindly per-
mitted me to use the following brief abstract of his arguments: —

" 1. If Thanatos goes into the house (at 76), how and when does
he leave it? He is next heard of at the tomb (845,1140 ff.). Does
he depart by a postern gate, or does he become all at once invisible
to the spectators ?xxviii

INTRODUCTION.

2.	After the announcement of Thanatos at 74 ff. (cf. 47, 48), it
is strange that Alcestis dies quietly on the stage, in the absence of
Thanatos, then is carried into the house, and presently carried out
again and actually buried. (In 253 ff. she does indeed see 'AtSa?
and Charon, but this is, of course, only in her mind's eye.)

3.	Alcestis is in the death-throe (20) before the arrival of
Thanatos.

4.	Altogether there is confusion between two notions, (a) In
the Thanatos scene the notion is that Thanatos comes to despatch
Alcestis in person, goes into the house for the purpose, and is to
carry her off bodily to Hades (47, 49, 73, etc.). (/?) In the rest of
the play, the notion is that Alcestis dies quietly in the ordinary
way, is buried, and that then Thanatos comes to the tomb to fetch
her, and is overcome by Heracles, who is awaiting him in ambush
(1142).

5.	If Apollo knows that Alcestis is to be released by Heracles
(64-69), why his distress in the earlier part of the prologue, and
his effort to dissuade Thanatos from his purpose ?

6.	A notion runs through the Thanatos scene (32, 34 [aS], 43, 45)
that Admetus' death-day is already past, a separate death-day being
set for Alcestis (the present day). But the conception of the play
itself (12 ff., 523 f., especially 694-700) is that Alcestis dies on
Admetus' appointed day."

These are certainly weighty reasons, and show, I think, conclu-
sively that the Thanatos scene is an insertion. Whether it was
put into the text long after the time of Euripides or not is hard to
say. The cruces and ineptitudes which occur in it favor this view.
Another possibility that has presented itself to me is : that Euripi-
des may have originally intended to make of the Alcestis a pure
tragedy of the ordinary type, perhaps taking as its groundwork
that form of the myth found in the Eoeae. Then, finding that he
had no satyric play on hand to complete a tetralogy, he may have
taken the unfinished drama and worked it over, using the other
form of the legend, which was better adapted to a comic treatment.
If this view be correct, vv. 24-76, 476-605, 747-860, 1006-end
will be later additions by the poet, which did not belong to theINTRODUCTION.

xxix

original plan of the play. Except in these portions there is no
allusion whatever to Heracles. When we remember that Euripides
is believed to have written over ninety plays and that he seems to
have exhibited in at least seventeen of the first eighteen years of
his dramatic career, we cannot wonder if he was forced to resort
to such an expedient. The defects and incongruities which have
so often been noted in the play could be easily explained on this
hypothesis ; and Professor Allen's arguments against the authen-
ticity of the prologue would not lose their force, but simply point
in a new direction. I make this merely as a suggestion; a demon-
stration of the theory from our present data would be difficult,
perhaps impossible.

Be this as it may, I believe the Alcestis to be a tragedy, with
only so much of the comic element as was absolutely necessary in
a play which was to replace a satyric drama. The ancient writers,
though they speak of it as a-arvpLKfarepov or as having a kcd/ukcdtc-
pav Kara(TTpo<l>rjv, regularly call it a Spafm or a tragedy, not a comedy,
a satyr-play or a hilaro-tragoedia. By their judgment we must
abide.

This subject must not be dismissed without a few words as to
the theory lately propounded by Dr. Verrall. Ingenious and in-
structive as his essay is, the present writer, for one, must wholly
dissent from his main position; and this for the following reasons.

(1)	Euripides (especially during the earlier part of his career)
was a poet first and foremost, and only secondarily a moral teacher.
It is not probable that he would have sacrificed a fine play in order
to covertly disseminate his opinions.

(2)	No ancient writer, so far as I know, gives us even a hint of
the secret meaning which Dr. Verrall has discovered in the Alcestis.
Not even that most keen-eyed and merciless of critics, Aristophanes,
betrays a suspicion of it. If Euripides really was concealing a
rationalistic doctrine under the garb of a drama, he hid it "not
wisely but too well," so that for more than two thousand years no
one was able to penetrate the disguise.

(3)	It appears to me that, from the Greek point of view, Dr. Ver-
rall has unduly depreciated the characters both of Admetus andXXX

INTRODUCTION.

Heracles. That the former cuts a contemptible figure it would be
vain to deny; but we must not forget that (in spite of some brilliant
exceptions) the Greek sense of personal honor and personal respon-
sibility was less keen than that of modern people. What person
ever reads the story of the typical Greek hero, Odysseus, without
partly despising the " man of many wiles " ? Macaulay has pointed
out that an Italian audience of Machiavelli's day would have felt
more sympathy for Iago than for Othello. I will not say that an
Athenian audience of the time of Euripides would have been in full
sympathy with Admetus; but it would certainly have felt much
less repugnance for him than modern readers of the play necessarily
feel. There is force, also, in the hackneyed argument that in the
eyes of the Greeks a king was of more importance than any woman,
even though she were a queen. — Heracles, too, has suffered at
Dr. VerralFs hands. The rescuer of Alcestis is no mere " athlete-
adventurer"*: the true idea of him is as far from Dr. YerralPs
materialized notion on the one hand as it is from Browning's ideal-
ized conception on the other. The complaints of the domestic
(v. 747 f.), like the grumblings of discontented servants in every
age of the world, should not be taken too literally. Heracles is
slightly flushed with wine,f it is true; but the clearness and coher-
ence of his speech show that he is not by any means intoxicated.
The philosophy which it expresses is not a very lofty one; but
such as it is, it is set forth consistently enough. The reason why
Heracles pretends to bring a stranger woman and quarter her upon
Admetus (a piece of seeming discourtesy of which Dr. Verrall
makes a great deal) has been already stated. Deceit must be repaid
with deceit; the punishment, though a kindly one, is none the less
a punishment. In short, I believe that instead of lowering the
popular conception of Admetus and Heracles, Euripides has dis-
tinctly raised it.

* Note the extreme brevity and modesty of his replies in 11. 1140 ff., without
a particle of self-praise or braggadocio.

t "Non ebrius est, sed paulurn incaluit vino," as Hermann rightly observes;
but Dr. Y err all repeatedly (pp. 8, 26) says or implies that Heracles "got very
drunkINTRODUCTION.

xxxi

(4) The strongest point of Dr. Verrall's argument, and one to
which he was the first to call attention, is "the haste and precipi-
tancy, irregular and indecent in any case, and in this particular
case nothing less than outrageous, with which the corpse of the
noble heroine is conveyed to the grave" (p. 44). This is a real and
serious difficulty. Dr. Verrall has, I think, somewhat overstated
the amount of repugnance which a Greek would feel toward the
hasty burial'of a corpse.* Still, it must be admitted that such a
proceeding was contrary both to Attic law and Attic custom. In
our play something had, no doubt, to be conceded to dramatic con-
venience, in order to bring the action within a comparatively short
space of time. But this is clearly not a sufficient reason for so
marked a violation of Greek usage. As Dr. Verrall says (p. 45),
"it would have been perfectly easy to present a story like that of
Alcestis, a story of death and revival, without introducing any
funeral at all,f and so that a day or a few hours should naturally
cover events from first to last." Moreover, the poet has emphasized
the haste of the burial in the most striking way. The chorus actu-
ally speak of the funeral before they know that Alcestis is dead
(v. 96). " Scarce a minute (says Dr. Verrall, p. 48) has passed
since her last < Farewell!9 was spoken, the wail of her frightened
child has scarcely sunk into sobbing, and the friend who stands by
has barely proffered his first word of condolence, when Admetus
. . . runs on, as it were in one sentence, to invite the immediate
assistance of his visitors in conveying 4 this corpse} to the cemetery."

But is there no reason for all this ? The circumstances are most
exceptional; the Moerae have been cheated of their destined victim
by a disgraceful trick, and there is every reason to believe that the
payment of the debt will be enforced with the utmost rigour. The

* Cf. Eustathius on II. VIII. 410 (p. 688, 7) : veicpov fieiXiy/Ma jxkv ij oiKeia ra<f>^
. . . fur/vipa rb /at) rax0dirT€<r0ai. The sooner the burial took place, the
sooner the soul would pass through the " gates of Hades."

t But if, as I believe, the A Icestis was worked over by the author and the
plot changed, the funeral certainly belonged to the original plan of the drama
(according to which Alcestis probably died, was buried, went down to Hades
and was sent back by Persephone, as in the Eoeae), and hence could not be cut
out without destroying too much of the whole framework of the play.xxxii

INTRODUCTION.

appointed day has come, and the substitute is ready; the offering
must be promptly made, and the chthonian powers receive their
yepa?. If there is one moment's delay beyond the time which has
been set, all will be lost. But the payment is not complete, and Ad-
metus is not safe, until the funeral with its attendant offerings has
taken place ; hence Alcestis must be buried on the very day of her
death. The preparations made by the queen before her decease
(158 f.), the promptness with which the chorus appear at the pal-
ace on the appointed day, the arrangements which are made for the
funeral immediately after Alcestis dies, all point in this direction;
and surely the proclamation of Admetus to all the Thessalians
(425 ff.) does not look as though the proceedings were "clandestine"
(Dr. Verrall, p. 56) !

I append a partial list of the essays and articles dealing with the
nature of the Alcestis. For the older literature, see the essays of
Buchholz and Bissinger, mentioned below. I include only works
that have appeared in this century. Much additional matter may be
found in the different editions of the play, the histories of Greek
literature (esp. Bernhardy,3 vol. III. pp. 458 ff.), and special works
on Euripides (see esp. Hartung, Euripides restitutus I. pp. 229 ff.).

Glum, De Euripidis Alcestide commentatio. Berlin, 1836.

Firnhaber, review of Glum in Zeitschr. f Alterthumswiss. 1837.
pp. 411-421 (esp. 414 ff,).

Duentzer, De Euripidis Alcestide, N. Jahrb. f Philol. Suppl.-Bd.
V. (1839) pp. 192 ff.

Koechly, Die Alcestis des Euripides, Literarhistor. Taschenbuch
von Prutz. 1847. pp. 359-390.

Rauchenstein, Die Alcestis des Euripides als besondere Gattung
des griechischen Dramas. Aarau, 1847.

Bendixen, De Alcestide Euripidis commentatio. Altona, 1851.

Buchholz, Commentatio de Alcestide Euripidea. Osnabriick, 1864.

Kolanowski, De natura atque indole fabulae Eurip. quae Alcestis
inscribitur. Ostrowo, 1868.

Bissinger, Ueber die Dichtungsgattung u. d. Grundgedanken d.
Alcestis. Erlangen. Th. I. 1869, Th. II. 1871. (This is by far
the best treatise on this subject.)INTRODUCTION.

xxxiii

Hitter, De Euripidis Alcestide. Jena, 1875.

Wilken, De Alcestide Euripidea. Berlin, 1876.

Humphreys, The fourth Play in the Tetralogy, Am. Jour. Philol.
I. (1880) pp. 191 ff.

Cucuel, Pheres, Admete et Hercule dans VAlceste, Revue de Philol.
1887. pp. 17 ff.

Steinberger, Goethe u. d. Alkestisfrage, Blatter f. d. Bayer. Gymn-
Wesen XXV. (1889) pp. 24 f£.

Johring, 1st die Alkestis des Euripides eine Tragoedie? Feldkirch,
1894.

Schoene, TJeber die Alkestis des Euripides. Kiel, 1895.

Yerrall, Euripides the Rationalist. Cambridge, 1895. (The Al-
cestis is treated in pp. 1-128 of the book.)

The short article by Bremi (in the Allgemeine Schulzeitung, 1829
no. 48, pp. 393-7), and the dissertation of Bendixen and article of
Koechly mentioned above I have been unable to consult at first
hand.

C. The Critical Basis for the Text.

The Manuscripts, Scholia, Editions, etc.

As every scholar knows, the MSS. of Euripides are compara-
tively late and poor. Fortunately, however, the Alcestis was a
favorite drama in post-classical times, and was included in the
Byzantine edition of ten* selected plays (the Hecuba, Orestes,
Phoenissae, Hippolytus, Medea, Alcestis, Andromache, Rhesus, Troa-
des and Bacchae; see Wilamowitz, Herakles pp. 195 ff.) as well as
in the larger one of nineteen plays. Hence we have the advantage
of two f recensions of the play, each of which acts as a check upon
the other. I have followed Prinz in designating the MSS.; for his
nomenclature, though not entirely satisfactory, is more widely

* On the question as to whether there were nine (so Kirchhoff) or ten see
Wilamowitz, Analecta p. 51, Herakles I. p. 207 and note.

t I ought strictly to say three; for a c d probably represent a recension dif-
fering somewhat from B, though much less widely than from L P. But the
exact relation of a to c d is not yet known.xxxiv

INTRODUCTION.

used than any other. To introduce a new nomenclature would be
almost a crime.

Unfortunately for us, the best of the Euripidean MSS., the Mar-
cianus 471, does not contain the Alcestis. It formerly did include
the play; but the part which contained it had been torn out of the
codex even before the latter was brought to Italy (Wilamowitz,
Herakles I. p. 206 note). The text of the Alcestis rests mainly
upon four MSS. These are : —

(1)	The codex Vaticanus 909 (B Prinz = B Kirchhoff = V Din-
dorf and Wilamowitz = A Schwartz = Rom. A Elmsley). This is
a paper (bombycine) MS. of the twelfth (Kirchhoff) or thirteenth
(Prinz) century, containing the Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Medea,
Hippolytus, Alcestis, Andromache, Tirades and Rhesus, with scholia
and glosses. It has been corrected in many places by the first
hand (marked B1 by Prinz); and many corrections and variant
readings were added by later hands (marked b by Prinz). Kirch-
hoff ranked this MS. next to the Marcianus. Later critics have,
for the most part, held it in somewhat lower esteem (see esp.
Wilamowitz, Herakles p. 206). The extreme carelessness with
which it is written greatly diminishes its value, and it is some-
times hard to tell whether its readings are mere blunders of the
copyist or really represent what stood in its source. Still, for
the Alcestis I should be inclined to rank it higher than any other
single MS., though when it stands alone it is inferior to L and P
conjoined.

(2)	The codex Parisinus 2713 (a Prinz = a Kirchhoff = (Par.) B
Wilamowitz, Schwartz and the older edd.). This is a fine vellum
MS. of the thirteenth century, written in an elegant hand and con-
taining the Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Hippolytus, Medea, Alcestis
and Andromache, with glosses and very copious scholia, mostly
written by the first hand. Beside the first hand (a1 Prinz), a sec-
ond hand (a2 Prinz) and several later ones (a3 Prinz) have corrected
the MS. In the Alcestis this codex has suffered much from inter-
polation ; but, on the whole, it is not to be despised, particularly
when it confirms the testimony of B. When it stands alone, how-
ever, it is to be used with extreme caution, as the scribe (or theINTRODUCTION.

XXXV

maker of the recension which he followed) was a man of some
learning and prone to arbitrary emendation. Good examples of
his conjectures are 289 (where by leaving out $(5py and retaining
the gloss or interpolation eyw he has contrived to make a tolerable
trimeter), 329 ipov ywrj for ifxrj ywrj (to avoid the rhyme), 426 OeXo>
for Aeyw, 434 Xtav, 531 ywaLKos 8' (8' inserted to remove asynde-
ton), 794 (otfiai fxcv given to the servant), 811 Ovpaios for oikcTos
(the most successful of his emendations, though I do not believe
that Euripides wrote Ovpatos), 837 ij/vxn r (from Orestes 466) for
Kal \eLpy 1038 SlOXlovs for aOXtov (not a bad emendation), 1048 o-v/jk^o-
pals for (rvfjLtjiopa, 1085 (r vvv (an impossible elision to avoid the
extra syllable), 1111 crots for tyjv. On the other hand, in minutiae
this codex is often in the right against the other MSS., as the
greater care or scholarship of the scribe has preserved him from
many errors. In particular, L a together are very often right in
small points (such as accent, the use of v movable, etc.). In gen-
eral, however, a agrees so closely with B in our play that editors
are fully justified in speaking of them as belonging to one "family."
a shows occasional signs of contamination with a MS. of the other
class, e.g. 259 ayet fJL ayet tis ayet fxe rt?, 1045 fxrj /xe /MfJLvqcrrjS. It
has preserved one excellent reading, 1140 Kvpiv, which, however,
was also known to the scholiast.

(Codices Florent. 31,10 (c Prinz, c Kirchhoff) and 31,15 (d Prinz,
d Kirchhoff) agree very closely with a. They deserve, however, a
new examination, especially d, which (as Professor von Wilamo-
witz, who has kindly communicated to me a number of readings
from it, assures me) is not without importance for the Alcestis. I
much regret that I have been unable to collate it.)

(3) The codex Laurentianus (or Florentinus) 32, 2 (L Prinz = B
Kirchhoff = C Dindorf, Wilamowitz = Fl., Flor. (2) or Laurenti-
anus older edd.). This is a paper (chartaceus) MS. of the fourteenth
century, written by several hands. It contains (beside six plays
of Sophocles, three of Aeschylus and the Works and Days of
Hesiod) eighteen of the Euripidean plays, the Troades and part
of the Bacchae being wanting. The text has been corrected by the
first hand, or rather hands (Ll Prinz), and then many correctionsxxxvi

INTRODUCTION.

and alterations have been made by a later hand (I Prinz). For
a more minute description, see Wilamowitz, Analecta Euripidea
pp. 4 ff.

(4) By the side of L stands the codex Palatinus 287 (P Prinz =
C Kirchhoff = P Dindorf, Wilamowitz = P, Pal., Palat. or Eom. C
older edd.). This codex (now in the Vatican) is a vellum MS. of
the fourteenth century. It contains the Antigone, Oedipus Col.,
Trachiniae and Philoctetes of Sophocles, the Andromache, Medea,
Supplices, Rhesus, Ion, Iph. Taur., Iph. Aul., the spurious prologue
to the Danae, the Hippolytus, Alcestis, Troades, Bacchae, Cyclops,
Heraclidae as far as 1.1002, and the Prometheus, Septem and Persae
of Aeschylus. The rest of the Heraclidae, the Helena, Heracles,
Electra, Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, and the Ajax, Electra and
Oedipus Rex of Sophocles (with the hypothesis and list of charac-
ters of the Antigone) once formed part of this codex, but were torn
off not long after the year 1400, and are now preserved as a separ-
ate MS., the Laurentianus 172 (6r Prinz = r Wilamowitz). That
P and T belong together was first pointed out by Robert (jHermes
XIII. pp. 133 ff.). P has been corrected by the first hand (P1 Prinz)
and by a later hand or hands (jt> Prinz).

The exact relation in which P stands to L and their comparative
value have been, and still are, matters of high dispute. In his
Analecta Euripidea (pp. 3 ff.) Wilamowitz expressed the belief that
both MSS. were copied from a lost codex which was written in
minuscule letters not earlier than the twelfth century. This lost
MS. he designated by <£. From this L was copied near the begin-
ning of the fourteenth century, and P toward the end of the same
century. Prinz held substantially the same view, and indicated
the lost archetype of L and P by the letter S. Wilamowitz, how-
ever, has now changed his opinion, and holds (.Herakles11, pp. 208 ff.)
that in P the nine dramas which are without scholia were copied
from the same MS. as was L (though much more carelessly) ; while
in the other plays the scribe of P has constituted a text of his own,
partly from the MS. which he had used for the nine dramas, partly
from an unimportant manuscript akin to Ba. He adds: " das
mischungsverhaltnis ist verschieden; in den drei ersten sttickenINTRODUCTION.

xxxvii

und Andromache folgt er melir dem vulgaren, in Bhesos und Al-
kestis stimmt er mehr zu C (i.e. L) : es leuchtet ein, dass P fur
diese dramen ganz wertlos ist; es sei denn, er hilft einmal eine
tibersehmierte lesart von C erkennen." Prof. Vitelli, on the
other hand (see the pref. to van Herwerden's Helena p. vii.), has
long maintained that Laurent. 172 (and consequently P) is a copy
of a copy of L. Though I hesitate to express an opinion contrary
to such high authority, as regards the Alcestis at least I cannot
agree either with Yitelli or with the later view of Wilamowitz.
Much more probable to me seems the view of Bruhn, that in the
Alcestis L and P go back to a common source, but the scribe of X,
being a man of considerable learning, has allowed himself changes
and interpolations, while the more ignorant but more faithful copy-
ist of P adhered more closely to his original (Lucubrationes Euri-
pideae p. 255 f.).

I do not, however, believe that L and P were derived directly
from the same MS. The number of different readings which they
contain (about 160 in the Alcestis alone, if I may trust a very care-
fully made list of mine) is much too great for this to be possible.
Many of these differences, to be sure, are slight (matters of accent,
etc.), but still the sum total is considerable.' Space will not allow
me to give a complete list, but the following are the variants for
the first 300 lines : —

v. 22 k^xo ^

26	0"f/A/X€T/30)5 2/,

27	Zr,

28	ff. Oav. pref. L,

31 is in L,

33 $ia.K<i)\vo'cu L,

40 aUl Z/,

45	/cara) X,

46	(JitTa L,

47	vepripaiv L,

57	TIOyjs L,

58	tj L,

Kix) P.

a-vfifierpos P.

rj/mp P.

Xj3 P (so too 43, 45 ff., but 39, 72 0a).

is not in P.

SlOLKUiXvCTOLl P.

act P.

Kara P.

/ULCTOL P.

vepripav P.

Ti0eis P.

vP.xxxviii

INTRODUCTION.

58	\4\r]6as X,	iXyXvOas P.
59	OJVOLVT X,	wvoivt' -P.
73	V 8' L,	1J8' P.
74	KaTap^OfiaL X,	Kardp^wfiaL P.
80	CL7TOL X,	iw€7TOL jP.
82	Acvcnm X,	Xevo-ei P.
88	yoov Xj	yocov -P.
91	WlX- Pref- L>	omitted in P.
94	V€KV$ r/8y X,	77S17 v€k1>s P.
103	veoXaia X,	veoXaia P.
105	rjfiap X,	rjfxap P.
106	Xop. pref. X,	W'X- p-
107	XPV A	Xf"?" P-
108	fjfux. not in X,	rjfux- before the 2d c&ycs
118	air6**fjiOS X,	cwtot/xos P.
120	€}((D Vt X,	€71*1 P.
129	irXrjKTpov X,	TrXaKTpov P.
136	07raSos X,	07ra8a)v P.
140	fiovXoLfjLeO* av X,	f3ovXotfJie0a P.
141	fiXllTOL X,	j&vctt* P.
145	irddoi X,	7ra0>7 P.
148	OVKOVV X,	3 T T>  ovk ow -t .
151	irapdypa<f>os pref. in X,	Oep. in P.
152	if a a a	Tpo<f>. in P.
157	OaVfld(T€L<S X,	OavfidcrcL P.
173	aKXavros X,	a#cA.avoTos P.
184	d<f>0aX[JLOT€KT(j> X,	d<j>0aXfJLOT€yKT(t) P.
188	avt^v X,	avrrjv P.
197	8' €^ct X,	r' l^et P.
198	OV7TOT OV X,	ovirore P (sic).
198	X^o-crai X,	XcX^o-crai P.
211	7ra**oTav<u X,	ircLpicrrdvai P.

INTRODUCTION.

213-17 to x°p' )

218-25 to 6cp. > X,	213-43 to Xop. P.
226—43 to xop. J

213 av 7tcjd5 ** X,	av 7T(pS ttoZ* P.

213-17 to x°p' )

218-25 to 6cp. > X,	213-43 to Xop. P.
226—43 to xop. J

213 av 7tcjd5 ** X,	av 7T(pS ttoZ* P.INTRODUCTION.

xxxix

219		evxpfieOa P.
227	rrji <rrjs L,	OTj^ P.
228	>N T  at OLL 1j,	» t D  at at Jr.
234	poaaov Lj	13oy)(tov P.
239	TrapoiOev L,	irapoiOc P.
241	o(ttls (ns deleted) X,	otrrts P.
247	OaV€LV L,	Oavrj P.
259	ayei *ayei fxc tis L,	ayet ayu fie rts P.
260	€ts	is P.
261	aSrjs Lj	5Sas P.
263	SctAai** Ly	SiXatorara P.
267	7TOCTL L,	TT6(tl P.
269	ocraoLcnv Ly	OOXTOKTl P.
270	T€KV L,	t€KVa P.
271	€<TTLV L)	€(TT t P.
289	S&pov Lf	Stop9 P.
295	i$}v L,	liyv p.
299	Sy fLoi L,	8' yjjxiv P.

INTRODUCTION.

From this partial list (and still more from the complete one
which I have before me) we may draw, I think, the following
inferences:

(1)	The two MSS. were not copied directly from the same arche-
type. The differences are too numerous, and in the aggregate too
considerable.

(2)	On the other hand, these differences are just what we should
expect in two MSS. descended from a common and not very remote
ancestor. Most of them are slight, and very few are what we may
call characteristic variants.

(3)	L is, on the whole, distinctly superior to P. This superi-
ority, however, shows itself mainly in small matters. The scribe
of L was evidently a man of some learning, and avoided many
errors into which the more ignorant copyist of P stumbled. Prob-
ably he also corrected many small mistakes in his original, while
the scribe of P seems to have merely copied what lay before him.

(4)	On the other hand, P occasionally shows superiority to L,xl

INTRODUCTION.

e.g. 67ra8(oi/ in 136 against o7raSos, \e\rjo-eTcu in 198 against Xyo-eraL,
Swp' in 289 against Swpov, etc. Cases like these may be ascribed to
contamination with a MS. of the other family; but what shall be
said of instances like o-v/x/xcr/oo? in 26, the omission of 31 (rejected
by Nauck), vepripav in 47, Kara/ofw/xat in 74, 7raOrj in 145, where P
alone, or virtually alone, offers readings worthy of careful considera-
tion and even of acceptance ? Though I consider L the better MS.,
I cannot for an instant agree with Wilamowitz that P is almost
worthless in the Alcestis.

It may be noted, also, that L, like a, occasionally indulges in
daring emendations. Examples are 401 o-e yap (<r eycb P) to avoid
asyndeton, 487 yH rjv 7rovov<s (7rovovs P) to fill a lacuna, 825 povov for
fiovr} to avoid the rhyme, etc. If P is a copy of a copy of L, why
do not these changes reappear in P? (See also the Classical Review
X. [1896] pp. 258-9, where England has pointed out some of the
difficulties which stand in the way of Vitelli's view.)

In order not to do injustice to the opinion of Wilamowitz, I in-
tentionally selected the first 300 lines, where the differences between
L and P happen to be more marked than in the rest of the play.
The number of cases, however, in which L P agree (or substan-
tially agree) against the whole or a part of Prinz's other MSS. is
large (well over 220, rejecting doubtful cases), and of the readings
offered by L P in common a very large proportion are character-
istic, e.g. kXcos against ye'pas in 55, the inversion of 106 and 107,
the omission of Itl in 130, the interpolated interjections in 226,
the omission of l8ov ISov in 233, the order in 234, the omission of
fxeOes fi€ in 262 and of /Jirj—-op^)avtet5 in 276, crown, Oapcrvvu T€kvov
against roto-i o-otcn Oapo-vvet in 318, the omission of 376, /x,€Aap,7rc7rAa>
a-roXrj in 427, irepi against In in 520, the omission of Sto-o-ot — r}8e in
760-61, and scores of others. These show conclusively that L P
are derived from a common source.

Nor do I find any proof that in the Alcestis P shows the influence
of the other family more strongly than L. Any one who will take
the trouble to make a list will find that L agrees with B or a or
B a about as often as P does. L and a in particular frequently show
agreement, which I attribute not to contamination but to the factINTRODUCTION.

xli

that the scribes of these two MSS., being men of learning, often
both went right in small matters where other copyists erred.

To sum up then, I believe that, in the Alcestis at least, L P
spring from a common ancestor lying not very far (perhaps two or
three removes) back; that, though L is on the whole the better
MS., P sometimes better represents the common original, and is
by no means to be despised; and that from the agreement of LP
we can generally deduce the reading of that original, which with
Prinz I have denoted by S.

The codex Harleianus 5743 (A Kirchhoff = H Earle = Harl. older
edd.) is a late MS., containing (beside two plays of Sophocles) the
Alcestis from v. 1029 to the end, the Rhesus and the Troades. It is
said by Earle and others who have collated it to be of little value
in the Alcestis, except in v. 1037, where it offers the reading dri£a>v
(see note ad loc.).

The codex Havniensis 417 (C Prinz = C Kirchhoff = Havn. older
edd.) is a paper (chartaceus) MS. of the fifteenth century, contain-
ing the Medea, Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Hippolytus, Alcestis,
Andromache, Troades and Rhesus. Kirchhoff ranked it compara-
tively high, placing it in his first class; but Prinz held it to be of
less importance, and Wilamowitz believes it to be of little value.
In the Alcestis it is certainly almost worthless. Of the readings
from it given by Prinz fieyiarra in 219 (so also a and d), yXtKTpvovos
in 839 (which may be wrong, as Wilamowitz's conjecture is very
tempting; see note ad loc.), pa) 'Aa/fo in 1102 and Kvurav in 1156
are easy changes; kch kcukvtov re peeOptov in 458 I do not believe to
be right, though it has the much stronger authority of B a (k<u at
all events must be rejected), while fxrjSy It in 18 (see note) and
OiXois in 1079 (see Apparat. Crit.) are almost certainly wrong.

We come now to the much-vexed question as to the comparative
value of the two families B a and L P. Kirchhoff, as is well known,
attributed very much greater importance to the MSS. of his first
class than to those of his other two classes; and hence in the
Alcestis he has pretty consistently followed B, rejecting for the
most part the readings of L P. Most recent editors of Euripides,
on the other hand (including Nauck, Prinz, Wilamowitz, Barthold,xlii

INTRODUCTION.

Weil, Wecklein, England, Earle and others), rate L P higher than
did Kirchhoff. Wilamowitz in particular, as some one has re-
marked, " has constituted himself the champion of L." The gen-
eral trend of critical opinion seems to be toward the verdict of
Prinz (pref. to his Medea p. ix.) : " pretium duarum classium non
prorsus par est, cum numerus vitiorum et interpolationum primae
classis minor sit, sed secunda classis non multo deterior ac nequa-
quam hercle contemnenda est." This is substantially my own
view ; though in the Alcestis I should be inclined to rate LP a
little higher than does even Prinz. While I believe B to be on
the whole superior to any other single MS. of the play, I hold
the authority of L P combined to be very nearly, if not quite, equal
to that of B a. For the grounds of this opinion I must refer the
reader to the notes passim, as space will not permit an adequate
discussion of the subject here. Useful material (which, however,
must be used with caution) may be found in the essay of Kraut-
hausen, Der Werth der Handschrift " S" der Alcestis (Saarlouis,
1895). I would gladly have given here a complete list of the
passages in the Alcestis where L P agree against B a; but Kirch-
hoff: and Prinz have not given the readings of a with sufficient
fullness to make this possible. A list of those where L P agree
against B would be of comparatively little value; for B is written
so carelessly that it is often unsafe to trust it unless supported by a.

What I have said above applies only to the Alcestis. The gen-
eral question of the value of the two families cannot be really
decided until we have full and accurate collations of the principal
Euripidean MSS. Scholars are eagerly awaiting from the compe-
tent hands of Wecklein the completion of the work begun by
Prinz. Then, and not till then, shall we really know just what
the testimony of L P is worth, and whether any of the less known
MSS. are of value. — See also the preface to KirchhofFs larger
edition; the prefaces to Prinz's Medea, Alcestis and Hecuba; Wil-
amowitz's Herakles1 I. pp. 205 ff. and Analecta passim; Wecklein
in iV. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1878 pp. 226-7. The article by Prinz in the
Rhein. Mas. n. f. XXX. (1875) pp. 129 ff. (on the cod. Havniensis)
should also be consulted.INTRODUCTION.

xliii

The Alcestis. being one of the ten plays of the Byzantine delectus,
possesses tolerably copious scholia, which are preserved chiefly in
the MSS. B and a (A and B of Schwartz). These scholia are, of
course, of a very composite character. They contain some valuable
bits of Alexandrian learning, such as the Aristophanic portion of
the hypothesis, the scholarly notes on vv. 1, 968, etc.; but taken
as a whole they are not of great value. The best account of the
origin and history of the Euripidean scholia is given by Wilamo-
witz, Herakles11, pp. 144 ff.* The scholia themselves may be found
to best advantage in the editions of Dindorf (Oxford, 1863; schol.
to the Alcestis vol. IV. pp. 85 ff.) and Schwartz (Berlin, 1887-91;
schol. to Alcestis vol. II. pp. 214 ff.). In making quotations from
them I have followed the text of Schwartz.

The editions of the Alcestis are very numerous. I give a partial
list, including especially those valuable for the history and criti-
cism of the text. To those which are of prime importance an
asterisk is prefixed.

A. Editions of Euripides which are of critical value for the
Alcestis, but include other plays as well.

1.	Editio princeps, Florence, 1496. Contains Medea, Hippo-
lytus, Alcestis, Andromache. Edited by Janus Lascaris, who
followed cod. Parisinus 2818 (a copy of a).

2.	Aldine edition, Venice, 1503. Contains all the plays but
the Electra. Edited by Marcus Musurus, who followed P
(except in the Helena. Hercules Fur., Cyclops, Heraclidae and
Ion, where he used Parisinus 2817 (a copy of L), and in the
Hecuba, Phoenissae and Orestes, where he used some late MS.).
Musurus made numerous emendations, some of value, many
worthless.

3.	Hervagian editions, Basle, 1537, 1544, 1551.

4.	5. Canter's edition, Antwerp, 1571, and that of Portus,
Heidelberg, 1598, are occasionally useful.

6. Barnes' edition, Cambridge, 1694, with scholia and notes.
Barnes' comments may still be consulted with profit in a few

* See also Barthold, De Scholiorum in Eur. vett. fontibus, Bonn, 1864.xliv

INTRODUCTION.

passages. This edition was reprinted, revised by Beck, Leip-
zig, 1778.

7.	Musgrave's edition, Oxford, 1778. Musgrave laid a firmer
foundation for the text, using a in addition to the MSS. em-
ployed by the earlier edd. His original edition, which is very
rare, I have been unable to consult.

8.	Matthiae's edition, Leipzig, 1813-29, with scholia and
notes. (Notes on the Alcestis vol. VII. pp. 113 ff.) Matthiae
used more MSS. than any of his predecessors, including X, c,
d, C. He erred in the opposite direction from Kirchhoff, show-
ing partiality toward the readings of the second family (P L).

9.	The Glasgow edition of 1821, with scholia, notes and
Beck's index. (This is the best edition to consult for the
notes of Barnes, Musgrave, Markland and the older edd. and
critics.* Alcestis vol. IV. pp. 409 ff.)

10.	W. Dindorf's Poetarum Scenicorum fabulae, London and
Leipzig, 1830, etc.; fifth ed. Leipzig, 1869. (Contains the
Alcestis among other plays, with brief critical apparatus.)

11.	W. Dindorfs edition, Oxford, 1832-9, with copious
notes. (Notes on Alcestis vol. III. pp. 325 ff.)

12.	Nauck's edition in the Teubner series, Leipzig, 1854,
second ed. 1866, third ed. 1869-71. (Important for the con-
stitution of the text.)

*13. KirchhofFs large edition, Berlin, 1855. (This laid the
foundation for the critical study of the text. The editor was
too partial to the MSS. of his first class, and the collations
which he used were often incomplete and inaccurate. Never-
theless the edition was an epoch-making one, and is still indis-
pensable.)

14.	KirchhofPs smaller edition (Berlin, 1867-9, with brief
critical apparatus) shows less unfairness toward L P.

15.	Paley's edition, London, 1857 (new ed. of vol. I. 1872,
of vol. II. 1875), with notes. (Not of great critical value;
but the exegetical notes are sometimes useful.)

* (Trollope's) Notae philol. et grammat. in Euripidis tragoedias, London,
1828, is also a useful collection. (Notes on Alcestis vol. I. pp. 281 ff.)INTRODUCTION.

xlv

B. Special editions of the Alcestis (including those which
form separate, volumes of larger editions).

1.	The Alcestis from Barnes' edition, revised by Kalt-
wasser, with preface by Geissler, Gotha, 1776. (Contains
the scholia to the play, Barnes' notes and Buchanan's Latin
version.)

2.	Kuinoel's edition, Leipzig, 1779 (also 1811). (Of little
value.)

3.	Wagner's edition, Leipzig, 1800. (Diffuse, and of little
critical value. Introductory dissertation on the play.)

4.	Gaisford's edition, Oxford, 1806, with various readings.
(School edition, for the use of Westminster students.)

*5. Monk's edition, Cambridge, 1816 (second ed. 1823), with
notes and Buchanan's version. (The first really critical edition
of the play. Monk, who was Fellow of Trinity and Regius
Professor of Greek at Cambridge, was a fine scholar and a
worthy contemporary of Porson, Elmsley and G. Hermann.
His edition is stilt extremely valuable.)

6. Wuestemann's edition, Gotha, 1823. (This is a reprint
of the second edition of Monk, with a preface and additional
notes by Wuestemann. The additions are not of great value.)

*7. G. Hermann's edition, Leipzig, 1824. (This has selec-
tions from the notes of Monk and Wuestemann, and a valu-
able introductory dissertation and short additional notes by
G. Hermann. The editor's notes, though curt and arbitrary
in tone, are often of great value.)

8. Woolsey's edition, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1834, etc.
— Hartford, 1875. (This is a school edition; but Woolsey
was a sound scholar, and his exegetical notes are occasionally
of service.)

#9. Pflugk's edition, Gotha, 1834. (Vol. II. sect. II. of
his annotated edition of Euripides. Second ed. rev. by Klotz,
Leipzig, 1858. Conservative treatment of the text; valuable
for parallels and for defense of the MS. readings.)

10. Dindorf's edition, Oxford, 1834. (In this the famous
Vatican fragment of the hypothesis was first published.)xlvi

INTRODUCTION.

11. Bauer's edition, Munich, 1871. Second ed. by Weck-
lein, 1888. (Important for Wecklein's constitution of the
text, though it is a school edition.)

*12. Prinz's edition, Leipzig, 1879. (Text with critical
apparatus. Full and careful collations of the leading MSS.
enabled the editor to lay a firm basis for the constitution of
the text. This work is indispensable for critical students of
the play.)

13. Jerram's edition, Oxford, 1880,1884,1890,1896. (School
edition, but with some useful material.)

*14. Weil's critical edition, Paris, 1891. (Short introductory
essay, critical apparatus, and explanatory notes. Valuable.)

*15. Earle's edition, London, 1894. (School edition, but
with brief apparatus criticus and useful introduction and ex-
planatory notes. Also short critical and metrical appendices.)

The following editions I will merely mention: Major's, Lon-
don, 1838 ; Witschel's, Jena, 1845 (vol. JII. of his edition of
selected plays); the Oxford ed. of 1870, "by a First-Class man
of Balliol" (the edition itself is not first-class), often reprinted;
Paley's school ed., London, 1875; the London ed. of 1876 (in
the " Analytical Series of Greek and Latin Classics") ; the Ox-
ford ed. of 1876 (in "Oxford Pocket Classics"); Milner's ed.,
London, 1879; the editions of Pessonneaux (Paris, 1880), Weil
(school eds. Paris, 1881, 1883,1887,1891, 1896), Groussard (Paris,
1881), Huit (Paris, 1883), Desfosses (Paris, 1883), Quentier (Paris,
1883 ; third ed. by Ragon, 1896), Richardot (Paris, 1884), Par-
najon (Paris, 1888) and Fix (Paris, 1893); the London ed. of 1886
(" with translation, notes and descriptive list of proper names ");
Bayfield's ed., London, 1890 ; Reynolds' ed., London, 1893 ; Hay-
don's, Cambridge, 1896, and Hadley's, Cambridge, 1896. Many of
these I have not seen; but I believe them to be all, or nearly all,
school editions.

Of English translations I will mention the following: those
of Potter (in his translation of Euripides, London, 1781; also in
Morley's Universal Library, vol. 54); Buckley, London, 1850 (inINTRODUCTION.

xlvii

his translation of Euripides in Bohn's series) ; Rice, Dublin, 1879;
Coleridge (in his Plays of Euripides, London, 1891) ; Lawton (in
his Three Dramas of Euripides, Boston, 1892) and Way, London,
1894. Browning's Balaustion's Adventure deserves special mention
as a spirited version in a charming setting; but even in the part
of it which is translated it is sometimes Browning, not Euripides,
who speaks. It was published in 1871 (in London and New York).
— The elegant Latin version of Buchanan (written about 1540)
also deserves mention; it may be found appended to the editions
of Monk and Wuestemann.

The essays, articles, etc., of a critical nature dealing with the
text of the Alcestis are so numerous that only a small part of
them can be mentioned here. Of special importance are the
following: —

^auck, Euripideische Studien, Th. II. pp. 49 f£. (St. Petersburg,
1862),reprinted from the Memoirs of the Imp. Acad, of Sciences,
series VII. vol. 5, No. 6 (with additions * in his Kritische Bemerh-
ungen, Nos. V. and VII., in vols. XII. and XXII. of the Academy's
Bulletin) ; Kviqala, Studien zu Euripides, Th. II. pp. 1 ff. (Vienna,
1879) ; F. W. Schmidt, Kritische Studien zu d. Griech. Dramatikern,
vol. II. pp. 1 ff. (Berlin, 1886) ; Von Holzinger, Exeget. u. krit.
Bemerkungen zu Euripides' Alhestis, Sitzungsber. d. Alcad. d. Wiss.
zu Wien, Philol.-histor. Classe, vol. 124, X. (1891); Lenting,
Epistula critica in Eur. Alcest. (Zutphen, 1821) ; the review of
Monk's edition in the Quarterly Review for April, 1816 ; Weck-
lein's review of Prinz's edition in N. Jahrb. /. Philol., 1879, pp.
657 f£.; Mekler, Euripidea, pp. 14, 21, 42 ff. (Vienna, 1879); Bauer
in Blatter f Bayer. Gymn. VII. pp. Ill ff. ; Van Herwerden in
Verslagen en Mededeelingen d. Koninkl. Akad. van Wetensch., 2d
series vol. IV. pp. 82 ff., 158 ff. Of less importance are Silber,
Lectiones Euripideae (Oels, 1856) ; Kolanowski, Quaestiones criticae
in Eur. Alcest. (Posen, 1857) ; Wheeler, De Alcestidis et Hippolyti
interpolationibus (Bonn, 1879) ; Rassow, De Interpolationibus Alces-
tidis (Greifswald, 1888) ; Nindel, Kritische Bemerkungen zu Euri-

* These are to be found also in the Melanges Gr£co-Romains III. pp. 31, 39
and IV. p. 214.xlviii

INTRODUCTION.

pides (Bernburg, 1893) ; Holthoefer, Animadversiones in Euripidis
Herculem et Alcestin (Bonn, 1881). — Numerous conjectures may
be found collected in SchenkPs and Wecklein's reports on the
Greek tragedians, Philologus vol. XX., Bur slants Jahresberichte
vols. I., III., IV., IX., XIII., XVII., XXVI., XXX., XXXVIII.,
XLVI., LVIII., LXXI. See also Van Herwerden in Mnemosyne

IV.	(1855) p. 372 f., ib. n. s. V. (1877) p. 43 f., Revue de Philol.,
n. s. II. (1878) p. 54, Mnemos. n. s. VIII. (1880) p. 110, ib. n. s.
XIV. (1886) p. 62, Melanges Graux, p. 202 f., Revue de Philol. n. s.
XVII. (1893) p. 215 f., Stud. crit. in poet, scaen. Graee. (Amsterdam,
1872) p. 17, and his Oedipus Rex p. 203 ; Cobet, Variae Lectiones in
script. Graec. p. 73, pp. 579 ff., Novae Lectiones p. 109, Mnemosyne

V.	(1856) p. 247 ; Wecklein, Analecta Euripidea in his Ars Sopho-
clis emendandi p. 179, and Studien zu Euripides, Jahrb. f. Philol.
Supplements VII. p. 363 f.; Naber, Mnemosyne n. s. X. (1882)
p. 6f.; Usener, Jahrb. f. Philol CXXXIX. (1889) pp. 369, 371;
von Wilamowitz, Hermes XIV. (1879) pp. 178, 460, ib. XVII. (1882)
p. 364, Analecta p. 246, Herakles2 II. p. 214; Zacher, Philologus
LI. p. 540; Stadtmueller, Jahrb. f. Philol. CXIX. (1879) p. 529;
Mekler ib. p. 662; Radermacher ib. 1895, p. 235; Leutsch, Philo-
logus XXIII. p. 27; Goram, Rhein. Museum XVIII. (1863) p. 616;
Weil, Revue de Philol. n. s. XI. (1887) p. 10; Sarreiter, Blatter f.
Bayer. Gymn. XIV. p. 419 f.; Dobree, Adversaria Critica, Berlin
ed. IV. p. 70 f., etc.

D. Questions concerning the Scenic Bepresentation of

the Play.

I. The Alcestis and the Stage-question.

In view of the battle-royal now going on between the "old-
stagers " and the " no-stagers " (as Prof. Gildersleeve has wittily
called them) it behooves us to speak with extreme caution as to
this point. We do not absolutely know how plays were represented
in the fifth century b.c., but it must be admitted that the proba-
bilities now seem to be very strongly in favor of the view advo-INTRODUCTION.

xlix

cated by Dr. Doerpfeld and his followers. Hoepken (Be theatro
attico saec. a. Chr. quinti, 1884), White (Harv. Stud, in Class.
Philol. II. pp. 159 ff.), Capps (Trans, of Am. Philol. Assoc. 1891)
and Pickard (Am. Jour. Philol. XIV. Nos. 1-3), but above all Doerp-
feld and Reisch (Das Griechische Theater, 1896), have shown that
the extant plays could never have been acted on the Yitrurian
stage. The theory that there was a low, temporary stage is also
liable to grave objections; and the architectural evidence against
it seems conclusive.

The evidence supplied by the Alcestis, while not in itself decisive,
strongly favors the no-stage theory. As Capps (1. s. c. p. 14) points
out, the withdrawal of the chorus with Admetus at v. 740 f., and
their return together at 860 f. would be decidedly easier if the
actors and choreutae were on the same level. Moreover, the scene
in 77 f. is much more effective if the chorus are on the same level
as the palace than if they peer up at it from below. So, too, the
words of Admetus to the chorus at 423 f. are more natural if he
is standing at the same elevation as they are. — We may also infer
that the front of the a-Krjvrj, or the 7rpo<TKrjvLov (if one was used so
early; see Doerpfeld and Reisch l.s.c. p. 372), had at least two
doors in it, one the main door of the palace and the other the side-
entrance through which Heracles retires at v. 552.

II. The Withdrawal of the Chorus.

As has been said above, there is a withdrawal (/xerao-Taor?; see
Pollux IY. 108) and re-entry (€7rt7ra/ooSos) of the chorus in this play.
The reason is obvious. The chorus must withdraw at 740 f., or
they will learn of Heracles' resolve to rescue Alcestis and the
surprise of the last scene cannot be motived properly. If, as I
believe, the play has been worked over and the plot changed, the
lxe.Ta(TTa(Ti<s may, or may not, have belonged to the original plan;
but in the former case the reason for it must have been a different
one. There are four other instances of //.erao-rao-is in the extant
tragedies,* viz., in the Eumenides, Ajax, Helena and Rhesus (though

* There is also a case in the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes.1

INTRODUCTION.

some of these are disputed). See further A. Mueller, Scenische
Fragen zur Alkestis des Eur. (Hannover, 1860) p. 10 f.; A. Mueller,
Buhnenalterthumer p. 212 and note ; Haigh, Attic Theatre p. 276.

III. Distribution of the Roles.

As to the way in which the parts were distributed among the
actors in the Alcestis there has been considerable dispute, and a
decision is by no means easy. As Elmsley long ago pointed out,
the silence of Alcestis in the last scene of the play is due in all
probability to the poet's unwillingness to bring more than two
speaking actors upon the scene at once. Why he was unwilling
is not so clear; for three speaking actors appeared at once in the
Oresteia of Aeschylus (458 b.c.) and probably earlier. It is notice-
able, also, that (as O. Mueller pointed out in his History of Greek
Literature *) the play can be performed with only two actors. Put-
ting these two facts together, it seems probable that the play was
intended to be performed by two speaking actors, perhaps to save
the choregus the expense of providing a third. With two actors
the parts may be divided as follows (Mueller, Scenische Fragen
p. 5 f.) : protagonist Admetus, Thanatos, man-servant; deutera-
gonist Alcestis, Apollo, Heracles, Pheres, maid-servant. The part
of the boy Eumelus (393 f.) was probably sung ad manum by some
one behind the scenes, the actor merely going through the appro-
priate motions; while his sister Perimele, Alcestis from 1007 on
and the servants at 546, 1110 are mutae personae. Another pos-
sible division is: protagonist Apollo, Alcestis, Pheres, Heracles;
deuteragonist Thanatos, Admetus, maid-servant, man-servant; mutae
personae as before. This is inferior to the first, as it gives the
role of Admetus, which is clearly the most exacting, to the second
actor. The main objection to both is that the same actor takes
the parts of both Alcestis and Heracles, which are so very different.
But there are other instances of this kind; e.g. in the Prometheus
one actor took the parts of Kratos and Io. With three actors the
distribution would be easy, e.g. (with Wecklein) protagonist Apollo,
* Vol. I. p. 603 of the fourth German edition.INTRODUCTION.

li

Alcestis, Heracles; deuteragonist Admetus, Thanatos ; tritagonist
servant-maid, Eumelus, Pheres, man-servant; mutae personae: or,
better I think (with K. F. Hermann, De distributione personarum
in trag. Graec. [Marburg, 1840] p. 49), protagonist Admetus;
deuteragonist Alcestis, Heracles, Pheres, Thanatos; tritagonist
Apollo, man-servant, maid-servant; mutae personae.* Which of
these arrangements was actually adopted in ancient times we have
no means of determining. — See further A. Mueller, Lehrbuch d.
Griech. Buhnenalterthumer p. 173, note 3; A. Mueller, Scenische
Frag en zur Alkestis d. Euripides pp. 4-8.

E. The Myth of Alcestis in Ancient Art.

By james m. paton, ph.d.

The works of ancient art containing scenes which may be
referred to the story of Alcestis have been collected and dis-
cussed by Petersen (Arch. Zeit. 21, 1863, pp. 105 ff.), Dissel (Der
Mythos von Admetos und Alkestis), Engelmann (E-oscher, Lexikon
I. 235) and Escher (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyc. I. 1513), but none
of these have aimed at completeness. In this chapter I have
endeavored to bring together all known representations of this
story, although, as I have been compelled to rely on published
material, it is scarcely possible that none have escaped notice.
The necessary limits of this introduction have prevented an
exhaustive discussion of these works, but the following pages con-
tain an outline which may serve as the basis for a more detailed
study. The collection is confined to those works which are directly
concerned with the story of Admetus and Alcestis, and therefore
all representations of Alcestis among the daughters of Pelias,
Admetus as a participant in the Calydonian Hunt, and similar
scenes, have been omitted.

I., II. The statement of Pausanias (III. 18, 8), that Admetus was
represented on the throne of Apollo at Amyclae yoking a lion and

* Hermann did not decide whether the part of Eumelus was taken by the
tritagonist or was a irapaxop^yn^ ; but see above.lii

INTRODUCTION.

a boar, has led Petersen to find the wooing of Admetus on an Etrus-
can ring (Abeken, Mittelitalien Taf. VII., 6 a). A lion and boar are
driven by a man in a chariot, while in front marches a winged male *
figure. The winged figure belongs to a distinctly oriental type, and
only the lion and the boar suggest the story of Admetus. A similar
union of these animals occurs on the bl. fig. amphora from Rhegium
in a representation of the marriage of Cadmus and Harmonia (Benn-
dorf, Vorlegebl. Ser. (7., Taf. VII. 3). It seems better to see in this
ring one of those general types which the Greek artists adapted
to the representation of particular scenes. An Apollo of the type
of this winged figure can scarcely be accepted, unless some other
representations of the god in this form are cited.

III. If the connection of this ring with our story is more than
doubtful, the reference is clear in a stucco relief, which forms part of
the interior decoration of a tomb on the Via Latina. It was briefly
described by Brunn {Bull. d. Inst. 1858, p. 81), and published by
Petersen (Ann. d. Inst. 33, 1861, p. 227; cf. Mon. Ined. VI. Tav.
52, 3). On the right a bearded man is seated on a throne, and
beside him stands a woman. In front of this group, and with his
left foot planted on the platform on which the throne stands, is a
young man, who, while looking at the king, points with his out-
stretched right arm to a marvellous sight. Through the open gate
of the court comes a chariot drawn by a lion and a boar, beside
whom walks a man crowned with laurel and probably carrying a
bow. In the chariot stands a female figure in a short chiton, and
with a quiver on her back. Brunn referred this scene to an other-
wise unknown form of the myth in which Apollo and Artemis
went to the lower world to rescue Alcestis. Petersen, however, is
certainly right in interpreting it as a representation of the wooing of
Admetus, who appears before King Pelias and his daughter to show
how easily with divine assistance the required task has been ful-
filled. The presence of Artemis in the chariot may point to a form
of the story in which she also helped Admetus, whose later neglect
thus appears in a stronger light, but her connection with wild beasts
renders it natural that she should act as charioteer, when artistic

* Surely not female, as Dissel says, I. c. p. 10.INTRODUCTION.

liii

requirements made it necessary that Admetus should occupy another
position.

This part of the legend, however, did not attract the ancient
artists. As in literature, so in art, the story turned rather to the
representation of Alcestis as the type of wifely devotion, and its
popularity is of comparatively late development. Apparently no
extant work of Greek art belonging to the fifth or fourth cen-
turies contains any reference to this myth, with the single
exception of the sculptured drum from Ephesus, of which the
interpretation is by no means certain. It is found on Etruscan
works of a somewhat later date, though were it not for inscriptions,
which leave no doubt as to the intent of the artist, it is scarcely
likely that his meaning would have been recognized.

IV. The first is an amphora from Vulci formerly in the collec-
tion of the Due de Luynes (Arch. Zeit. 8, 213*). It is published
by Dennis (Cities and Cemeteries of Mruria2!!. front., cf. I. ci., and
437 ; also Arch. Zeit. 21, 1863, Taf. 180, 3). The centre of the pic-
ture is occupied by the husband and wife. Alcestis (Alcsti) has
thrown her arms about the neck of Admetus (Atmite), but the time
of their separation is at hand, for on either side there hastens for-
ward a demon of death, behind Alcestis the Etruscan Charon
with wolf's ears, huge tusks, and a great hammer in his hand,
behind Admetus a winged figure with hideous face, and holding a
snake in each hand. It seems needless to try to read into this
picture the story of the self-sacrifice of Alcestis, who throws herself
between death and her husband. The positions of the two figures
are practically the same, while the snakes of the demon on the
right are no more threatening to Admetus than is the hammer of
Charon to Alcestis. A parting scene* specialized by the addition
of legendary names, that and nothing more, in my opinion, is shown
on this vase.

* A similar scene, though much ruder in conception, is published in the
Annali d. Inst 1866 Tav. W. An unpublished red-figured Etruscan vase of late
date, now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, shows a man and woman part-
ing, while a bearded and winged demon hovers over them. The addition of
names could turn the scene into a representation of Admetus and Alcestis.liv

INTRODUCTION.

V. The second occurrence of this legend in Etruria is on a
mirror from Civita Castellana, published*by Korte (Gerhard, Etrus-
kische Spiegel V. p. 217 Nachtrage No. 9), and now in the Metropoli-
tan Museum of New York. In the centre stand Admetus (Atmite)
and Alcestis (Alcestei). He is clad in an himation which covers the
left shoulder and the lower part of the body, while Alcestis is fully
draped. They embrace one another, and a large necklace encircles
both, a symbol of union found also on a mirror representing Venus
and Adonis (Gerhard, I. c. V. Taf. XXIII.). On the right a maid
seems to be smoothing the hair of Alcestis with a small rod, which
has doubtless been dipped in the alabastron in her left hand. On
the left is a youth in the act of leaving; in his left hand he carries
a pair of shoes, and in his right an object which Professor Korte
thinks may be a 7re//.7r<o/?oAoi/. As is pointed out by the editor, this
scene, so far as the chief figures are concerned, is simply a trans-
ference of the type used for the Aphrodite-Adonis series. There is
no reference to the death of Alcestis, and apart from the inscrip-
tions, there is nothing to separate this group from the many simi-
lar love scenes on Etruscan mirrors.*

YI. The same lack of any sharply defined characterization renders
the meaning of the artist somewhat uncertain in the class of monu-
ments now to be discussed. Among the Etruscan urns there are
a number which show a composition that has been thought to rep-
resent the death of Alcestis. This interpretation was first sug-
gested by C. N. Grauerf in connection with an urn now in Berlin.
A better example is the one published by Inghirami (Mon. Etr. Ser.
I. Tav. 74) from Yolterra. In the centre on a couch reclines a
fully draped woman. She rests her left arm on the cushions and
stretches her right toward a man who approaches from the left.
He is closely wrapped in a large himation, which covers the
back of the head and is drawn closely under the chin. His left
foot rests on a footstool in front of the couch. On this stool
sits a boy, who rests his chin on his right hand, while he looks

* Cf. Gerhard, I. c. V. p. 35 and the plates there cited, also plates CXLYII.
1 and CL.

t Ann. d. Inst. 1842, p. 40 ff. Cf. Mon. Ined. III. Tav. 40, B.INTRODUCTION.

lv

up at the woman on the couch. From the right there hastens
to the head of the couch a young girl, whose right hand seems to
rest on the pillow, while in her left she holds a ring on which hang
some indeterminate objects. Back of this girl hovers a winged
female figure with a torch. The ends of the relief are occupied by
symmetrically grouped women, who start back from the central
scene and raise a hand to the forehead in a gesture of surprise.
That this is a representation of the death of a mother is very proba-
ble, and the presence of the children makes it quite possible that
the artist had in mind the parting of Alcestis and Admetus. At
the same time this is the only urn where the children are present,
unless the grown youth at the head of the couch, and the maiden
who seems to receive tablets from the dying woman on the urn in
Inghirami, I. c. Tav. 75, are intended to take the place of the boy
and girl. In the great majority of cases,* while the central group
remains substantially the same, the figure at the head of the couch
is a youth whose right hand seems to rest on the dying woman's
shoulder, while in the left is the ring with the indistinct pendants.

These scenes were interpreted by Inghirami as Eriphyle and
Amphiaraus, a view which now scarcely calls for discussion.
Grauer's explanation was adopted by Dissel (Admetos und Alkestis
p. 16) and at first by Dtitschke (I. c. I. 8), though in a later volume
(II. 381) he left the question of interpretation open. K. 0. Miiller
(Ancient Art § 413, 2) saw in them a representation of the return
of Protesilaus to Laodamia. In favor of this view of the meaning
of some of the urns are the absence of the children, and the close
veiling of the head of the figure, though the face is not covered.
On the other hand, any such view seems impossible for the urn first
described. Both interpretations, however, can fairly claim some
consideration. The Protesilaus and Alcestis sarcophagi in spite of

* Cf. Inghirami, I. c. Taw. 19 and 77. In Tav. 76 Admetus (?) is just enter-
ing the door. In Tav. 75 this figure has been crowded away from the couch by
the interposition of the maiden. Cf. also Gori, Mus. Etr. I. 133; Dtitschke,
Antike Bildwerke Ober- und Mittelitaliens I. Nos. 8, 91, 99 ; II. 320, 381; IV. 602;
V. 407 ; Mus. Gregor. II. Tav. 103, 6. This latter omits the figure at the head
of the couch. Instead there seems to be a partition, behind which is a female
figure, starting back from the scene on the other side.Ivi

INTRODUCTION.

many divergencies in detail have still a common source for the
central group, and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the
use by an Etruscan artist of the same general arrangement for both
myths. In one relief (Inghirami, I. c. I. Tav. 20) a reclining figure
much like " Alcestis" occupies the right half, while the left is
filled by two standing figures clasping hands. Scenes of parting
are too frequent on the urns to make it necessary to seek in all of
them a mythological meaning. Whence the artist drew his inspira-
tion is made clear by such a Greek relief as the stele of Plangon in
the National Museum at Athens.* If a conclusion may be drawn
from silence, Professor Korte may also be cited against a mytho-
logical interpretation for these urns, as they are not found in
I Rilievi delle Time Etrusche vol. II.

To sum up, — it seems not impossible that the death of Alcestis
was in the mind of the maker of the urn (Inghir. I.e. I. Tav. 74), but
if the same thought governed the other workmen, they gave no
certain clue to its expression. In any case the motif is not one
invented for the expression of this thought, nor even sharply and
precisely differentiated for it, a sure proof in my opinion that the
myth did not occupy the attention of Greek artists, at least not
before the Hellenistic period.

In the Roman period scenes from the myth of Alcestis become
more frequent and at the same time more clearly defined. With
the exception of some Pompeian paintings these representations
are on funeral monuments, either in the form of mural paintings,
or as decorations of sarcophagi and other sepulchral reliefs.

VII. In Herculaneum and Pompeii seven pictures t have been
found, manifestly representations of the same scene, though differ-
ing in the grouping of the persons concerned. The two types
are published by Petersen in Arch. Zeit. 21, 1863, Taf. 180, 1
(= Helbig 1157) and 2 (= Helbig 1158). I abridge the descrip-
tion of Helbig.

*Le Bas, Voy. Arch., Mon. Fig. PI. 71; Kawadias, rXv7rr& toO 'EBv. Mover.
749; Conze, Att. Grabreliefs p. 70.

t Helbig, Wandg. Campan. Nos. 1157-1161, Sogliano, Le pitture murale
Campane, No. 506 (this book I have not seen), Bull. d. Inst. 1877, p. 27.INTRODUCTION.

Ivii

A.	At the left sits Admetus, who is represented as youthful and
vigorous. He is wrapped in a mantle and rests his bowed head on
his left hand. On his left and a little behind him sits Alcestis,
fully draped and with a veil over the back of her head. Her right
arm is passed around the shoulders of Admetus, and her left hand
rests on his arm. Both are listening to a young man, who, seated
on a stool in front of them, is reading from a scroll. At the right
an old woman leans forward in close attention to the reader and
behind her stands a bearded old man. The centre of the back-
ground is occupied by Apollo, plainly distinguished by his quiver,
and in front of him stands a fully draped female figure, with a veil
over her head, who raises the right hand as if in astonishment.

B.	The other type contains the same groups but differs in their
arrangement. Admetus and Alcestis occupy an ornamental throne
at the left with the youthful reader before them. The upper part
of Admetus' body is nude and he leans forward with his right arm
outstretched toward the reader. Alcestis, who here wears a diadem,
rests her chin on her left hand and gazes into vacancy, evidently
sunk in deep thought. The old man and woman stand behind the
throne, and on the extreme right, leaning on a high balustrade is
Apollo. On his right a little behind him, and apparently in con-
versation with him is the female figure with upraised right hand.
The other paintings are merely variations on these types, though
one (Helbig 1159) adds to type A two beardless figures behind
Admetus, probably attendants.

These pictures were at first explained as the recognition of
Orestes and Iphigenia, and though Petersen's reference to the
story of Alcestis was adopted by Helbig, it has been doubted by
Dissel (7. c. p. 13 and Anm.), mainly because of the unexplained
female figure with Apollo and the absence of any reference to an
oracle in the literary versions of the myth. The interpretation
seems to have been settled by Mau (Bull. d. Inst. 1879, p. 69) in a
paper which must have escaped Dissel's notice. In a discussion
of Pompeian inscriptions referable to mural paintings Mau com-
municated an unpublished graffito from the house Eeg. V., Ins. 1,
No. 18, consisting of two words PELIAS [ ALCESTIS. On theIviii

INTRODUCTION.

wall to the right are found the chief groups of our first type
arranged among fantastic architectural decorations, and we obvi-
ously have here the interpretation which some member of the
household put upon the painting. The introduction of Pelias is well
explained by Mau as due to the ignorance of the scribbler, who con-
fused him with Pheres. We have here, therefore, the reading of
the message which announces the impending death of Admetus
unless he can provide a substitute, and it is easy to see that the
artist has endeavored to show Alcestis as already contemplating
her self-sacrifice. The old couple are of course the parents of
Admetus, and the presence of Apollo requires no comment. The
female figure near Apollo has hitherto baffled satisfactory explana-
tion. Petersen calls her the Nympheutria in the first type, who has
been elevated to a marriage-goddess in the second, but such a view
must be supported by other examples before it can be accepted as
certain.

The other paintings which contain references to this myth are
concerned chiefly with the intervention of Heracles and the restora-
tion of Alcestis.

VIII. A drawing in the Codex Pighianus of a ceiling, which
was probably in a columbarium in Kome.* Two panels are
connected with this story. In one, a young man, his chlamys
floating over his left shoulder, hastens toward Heracles, who
stands at the right with lion's skin over his left arm, and club
in hand, and stretches his right hand toward his welcomer. The
sarcophagi show that these two figures are taken ^from a scene
which has usually been interpreted as the reception of Heracles,
but is regarded by Robert, following Dissel, as representing Admetus
entreating his rescuer to remain with him. As the interpretation
must depend on the sarcophagi, it will be considered later. As to
the other panel there can be no doubt, f Out of an arched door-

* Jahn, Deckengem. d. Cod. Pigh. in Ber. d. s. k. Ges. d. Wiss. 1869, pp.
12-14, Taf. I., II. 2, 3. Robert, Sark.-Rel III. 1, p. 27, calls this a stucco relief,
which certainly seems more probable.

t Cf. Beger, Ale. pro mar. mor. p. 24; Michaelis, Bom. Mitth. viii. 174, B',
who wrongly cite# this as the end of a sarcophagus. Cf. Robert, Sark.-Bel.
III. 1, p. 26f

)
1INTRODUCTION.

lix

way at the left, Heracles is leading a veiled woman, certainly
Alcestis. His right hand is laid encouragingly on her shoulder,
while her left hand rests on his arm. This rescue of Alcestis from
the lower world is also found on the sarcophagi, and it seems clear
that the painter of the ceiling had the same copy-book which
furnished the stone-cutters with their designs.

IX.	The same scene of the rescue of Alcestis forms the subject
of a painting from Antium at Dresden.* In this example the
doorway is omitted, and Heracles leads Alcestis, holding her right
hand with his left, toward the left.

X.	In the tomb of the Nasones f is a painting which has been
referred to this myth, though its interpretation is far from certain.
At the left is seated on a rock (?) a bearded man with his mantle
covering the lower part of the body, and thrown over the right
shoulder, leaving the upper part of the body bare. His right hand
rests on the rock, and his left elbow on what looks like the unorna-
mented arm of a throne, while the left hand supports his chin.
At his left stands a female figure in Doric chiton with girdle, on
her left arm an arm-ring and in her left hand a spear, though the
copyist has made it a sceptre. On her right arm is a shield.
Opposite this group stand Heracles and a woman. His club is in
his right hand, and on his right side hang his bow and quiver.
His left hand is laid on the shoulder of the woman, who wears the
veil over her head in such a way as to leave the face exposed.
The irregularities in the position of the shield and bow and quiver
show that in the process of engraving the figures have been
reversed, and Bartoli's accuracy as an artist is never above sus-
picion. If Athena is really present the scene can scarcely be the
release of Alcestis by Hades, and to assume that the copyist has
transformed Persephone into Athena seems rather violent. Petersen
suggests that it represents Heracles with Alcmena or Hebe before
Zeus and Athena. No exactly similar representation of Hebe is

* Hettner, Bildw. d. konigl. Antikensamml. 44-Od.; W. G. Becker, Angus-
teum, Taf. 92. The circumstances under which the picture was discovered are
unknown.

f Bartoli, Pict. Vet. in Sep. Nas. Tab. X. Cf. Parker, Arch, of Rome ix.
p. 31.lx

INTRODUCTION.

cited, and though we hear of Heracles leading his mother before
Rhadamanthus (cf. Furtwangler in Roscher, Lexikon I. 2248),
I do not know of any authority for Alcmena's reception into
Olympus. Robert (Sark.-Rel. III. 1, p. 33) compares with this a
Pompeian painting (Helbig 1149),* and considers it the restoration
of Alcestis to Admetus. Athena has been created by Bartoli out
of the doryphorus of Admetus. This may be correct, though as
it rests on a mutilated painting and a conjectural emendation it
cannot be regarded as conclusive.

XI.	This painting can scarcely be called a scene from the story
of Alcestis, but is interesting as showing the typical character
which her self-sacrifice came to assume in later times. In the
Catacomb of S. Praetextatus at Rome is the burial-vault of Vin-
centius, priest of Sabazius. It is decorated in part with paint-
ings f representing the mystical reception of his wife Vibia into
the future life. The only picture which need be mentioned here
is in the first chamber. In the centre Dispater and Aeracura
(Abracura Cumont) are enthroned on a high platform ; on the
left are the three Fata Divina ; on the right Mercurius introduces
Vibia attended by Alcestis. It is clear that the latter is present to
vouch for the dead Vibia as a faithful and devoted wife.

XII.	One more painting calls for mention, though it has com-
monly been referred to the sacrifice of Iphigenia. It is the
Pompeian picture No. 1305 in Helbig, published by Zahn {Die
schonsten Ornamente u. s. w. II. 61) and discussed by Jahn {Arch.
Beitr. p. 378). In the centre, facing the right, is a female figure
in a long chiton and wearing a wreath on her head, but with
loosely flowing hair. Next to her stands a bearded man in a short
chiton, girt up at the waist, and likewise wearing a wreath.
With his left hand he draws forward a long lock of the woman's

* On the right a man in a chlamys and hunting boots sits on a rock ; his left
hand holds two spears and his right is raised to his head. Before him stands
Heracles, behind whom advances a female figure in chiton and mantle. The
upper part of all the figures is missing.

t First published by Garrucci and Marchi, Tre sepolcri etc., Naples, 1852.
This book I have not seen. Cf. Cumont, Culte de Mithras II. p. 412, and the
literature there cited.INTRODUCTION.

Ixi

hair, and in his right he holds the sword with which he is about to
sever this lock and thus consecrate his victim to the gods of the
nether world. Behind the woman, with his back to this scene,
sits a man wrapped in his mantle, and evidently sunk in deep
grief.

The application to the story of Iphigenia is clear, and seems
rendered certain by the close resemblance to the so-called altar of
Cleomenes at Florence. Robert,* however, prefers to see in it
Thanatos in the act of cutting off the lock of Alcestis' hair, as
mentioned in the prologue of this play. A full discussion of this
question can hardly find space here, but it may be said that Robert
himself cites no similar representation of Thanatos. On the Attic
lecythi he is always winged, and the sword and costume alone
can scarcely be considered sufficient to differentiate him from a
priest.

It remains to consider the most important group of scenes from
this myth, — the Sarcophagi.t

Four complete Roman sarcophagi contain this story on the front;
in two instances it furnishes scenes for the ends, once it decorated
a cover, while several fragments show that it occupied a prominent
place on lost works.

XIII. The complete Sarcophagi.—I give these with the num-
bering of Robert, which is the same in the text and on the
plates.

22. [Mich. A., B.; Dissel D.] Sarcophagus at the Villa Faustina
near Cannes, belonging to M. de Courcel. It was formerly in Rome
and is mentioned by Zoega (Bassiril. I. 205) and Gerhard (Hyperb.-
rom. Stud. I. 154). Robert seems to have proved that it is the

* Arch. Zeit. xxxviii. p. 42, in Ber. d. arch. Gesellsch., 2 Marz, 1880. Cf.
Arch. Marchen, pp. 175 ff.

t Cf. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs III. 1, pp. 24-38, Taf. VI., VII.;
Michaelis, Bom. Mitth. VIII. 174 ff. Robert's work was not accessible until
this chapter was completed, though I have endeavored to incorporate all the
new information which it brings. As there was no time for a careful review of
his interpretations, I have thought it best to make few changes in the treatment
of disputed points, and to be content in general with a simple statement of his
views.Ixii

INTRODUCTION.

original of the drawing in the Cod. Coburg. 44, 208 and Cod. Pigh.
f. 265, No. 205,* published by Beger (Alcestis pro marito moriens,
p. 3). It belongs to the first half of the second century.

23.	[Mich. C.; Dissel C.] Front of a sarcophagus in the Villa
Albani-Torlonia, No. 140. Published by Winckelmann (Mon. Ined.
Tav. 86), Zoega (Bassiril. I. Tav. 43), Millin (Gall. Myth. pi. 108,
No. 428), and G-uignaut (Relig. d. Ant. IV. pi. 228, No. 175). It
belongs to the first half of the second century.

24.	[Mich. D.; Dissel B.] Bobert says it was found near Bome
in the time of Ficoroni,f who sent a copy of the inscription to Gori
in 1732. It was bought in 1734 by the Due de St. Aignan,
and is now at the Chateau St. Aignan in France. It is careful
work of the early second century. It bears a Greek inscription in
memory of Ulpia Cirilla. Published by Boulez (Gaz. Arch. 1875,
p. 105, pi. 27).

26. . [Mich. F. ; Dissel A. and plate.] Sarcophagus of C. Iunius
Euhodus and Metilia Acte, his wife, from Ostia, now in the Vati-
can. (Mus. Chiaram. III. Tav. 10 ; Helbig, Guide to the Antiquities
in Bome, 74; Gerhard, Ant. Bildw. Taf. 28, Prodromos, pp. 273 f£.)
Its date is between 161 and 170 a.d.

The variations in the sarcophagi have been pointed out by
Michaelis, and I have used his account freely in the description,
checking it with the text of Bobert and the various plates.
Through the kindness of Professor C. L. Smith of Harvard Uni-
versity and Professor Petersen of the German Archaeological
Institute in Bome I have been able to use photographs of 22
and 26, which seem to me much better than the published draw-
ings. Twenty-two and 23 are very closely connected, and 24,
though by no means identical, evidently belongs in the same group.
Twenty-six also follows similar models, but treats the whole
material with such freedom that it requires a separate discussion.
For 22 and 23 I use the lettering of Michaelis, and have kept the
same notation for 24, so far as possible.

* Matz, Monatsb. d. Berl. Ak. 1871, p. 492; Jahn, Sitzb. d. k. s. Ges. d. TFiss.
1868, p. 223.

t Cf. Jahn, Sitzb. d. k. s. Ges. d. Wiss. 1869, p. 14 Anm. 44.INTRODUCTION.

Ixiil

22, 23 a b c d e f g

i m

h 7 6 o
# %

24. tuvwxihlo

k n

p q r s.
p q r y s.

In 22 a and b are female figures, who raise the left hand to the
face in a gesture of grief. While b leans forward toward the other
figures, a stands with bowed head, as if in thought. In 23 the ges-
tures are different; b faces the left, her right hand raised to her
head, while a seems to be trying to dry her tears, though the ges-
ture is uncertain, as at least the right forearm of a has been
restored. c is a doryphorus, who stands in full front, but looks
toward the right, d is a male figure in profile to the right. His
chlamys is gathered over the left shoulder and arm, so as to leave
the greater part of the body nude. In 22 he seems unarmed, but
in 23 he has a sword at his side, and the point of a spear appears
over the left shoulder. He is in animated converse with the next
two figures, of which e occupies the background, and in 22 is a woman,
apparently old, fully draped and with a veil over the back of the
head. In 23, owing evidently to the thoughtlessness of the artist,
this figure has become a youth in a long chlamys. / is a bent old
man who faces the left, leaning on a staff, g is a youthful do-
ryphorus, who also faces the left. The meaning of this group can
scarcely be doubtful. Admetus (d) having heard the terms on which
he can survive, entreats his parents (e and /) to come to his rescue.
The doryphori are probably attendants on Admetus and Pheres.
At such a scene it seems as if Alcestis should be present, as in the
Pompeian paintings, and Petersen has already suggested that in 23
she must be the second figure (b), who is momentarily overwhelmed
by the evil news; in 22, on the other hand, she must be the first
(a), who with hand to face meditates on the deed.

In 24 the place of these figures is taken by a group which for
the most part is connected with the central scene, though the first
two figures may perhaps be regarded separately. At the left is a
young man (t), facing the right, naked save for the chlamys on his
left shoulder, bearing a spear in his left hand, and in his right aIxiv

INTRODUCTION.

sheathed sword. In the background in very low relief a youth (u)
in girded chiton advances toward t. The third figure (v), which
faces the right, is an older man, bearded, a lagobolon (?) in his
right hand, while his left is concealed in his chlamys, which is
tightly wound about the arm. In the background is another youth
(w) in girded chiton, facing the right and plainly an attendant of
x. This is a young man, who stands with his back to the spectator,
his right hand raised to his mouth and his head turned to the right
in contemplation of the central scene. He wears a sword, and
carries two spears in his left hand. It is possible that the scene
represents the return of Admetus (x) and his followers, who on
their arrival at the house find that the fatal day has come. The
artist does not seem to have had the skill to bring Admetus into
closer connection with the central scene, and so has placed him on
the edge, differing but little from a mere spectator. Eobert's
interpretation of this scene is entirely different. He calls attention
to the unanimity of the literary sources in representing the fatal
day as well known, so that a return of Admetus from the hunt is
scarcely justified. At the left is Admetus, clearly marked as in
the other scenes, accompanied by his servant, sorrowing at his fate.
The other figures belong to the death scene. The chief difficulty
is the bearded man (v), who shows no sign of sorrow but seems
almost a 'pendant to the figure of Heracles at the other end. The
object in his hand is not properly carried for a lagobolon; other-
wise he might be regarded as a representative of the chorus. He
is in the proper place for Thanatos, but is a figure more suited to
the Roman belief, and if the object he holds can be a key, he is
probably Ianitor Orel.

The central scene on 22 and 23 shows no important variation,
and on 24 the differences are not such as to affect the meaning.
At the left is a somewhat bent old man ([h) in chiton and himation,
who stands at the foot of a couch on which lies a woman (Z). She
supports her body on her left elbow, her head sinks on her shoulder,
and her whole attitude is that of extreme weakness. Her right
hand is extended and clasps the hand of the old man. In the
background is an old woman 0, who bends forward to the rightINTRODUCTION.

1XY

over the dying woman. At the head of the couch is a woman (o)
who in her dishevelled hair and bared breast exhibits the usual
signs of mourning, and in 22 the head of another woman (m)
turned toward the right appears just above the head of the figure
on the couch. In the foreground are two children. A girl (&),
whose garment has fallen about her waist, rests her right knee on a
footstool in front of the couch and stretches both hands upward
toward her dying mother. At the other end of the footstool stands
a boy (n). He faces the left, his right foot on the stool, his right
elbow on his knee, leaning his bowed head on his right hand in an
attitude of deep sorrow. In 24 the same figures occur, with the
exception of m, but the grouping is somewhat different. The old
woman (i) is at the foot of the couch, and holds in her right hand
the right hand of the reclining figure, who has fallen farther back
and seems already dead. The old man (h) is farther forward,
between the couch and the little girl, and kneels beside the dead
woman whose left hand he holds in his right. The mourner (o)
is also placed somewhat farther from the couch, and is tearing her
hair with both hands.

The meaning of this scene is evident. It is the death of
Alcestis, surrounded by her children and attendants. The only
question concerns the identity of the aged man and woman who
are placed in such prominent positions. Petersen is inclined to
call them the father and mother of Admetus, while Dissel sees
in them the paedagogus and nurse, urging that Pheres cannot be
present at this scene, and that the costume, so far as it is visible,
favors this view. It must be remembered that this entire scene is
in its origin simply the death of a mother, and that in their first
significance these figures have nothing to do with Alcestis. Further-
more, the consideration of the person for whom the sarcophagus is
intended is seldom wholly disregarded by the maker, and therefore
Robert's view (JSa/rk.-Rel. III. 1, p. 25) seems very probable that in
the thought of the artist these figures are the parents of the dying
woman; not Pelias and Anaxibia, but simply the father and mother
who belong at the bedside of their daughter. While it must be
admitted that on 22 and 23 the old woman (i) wears the headdressIxvi

INTRODUCTION.

of the nurse, the old man (K) does not wear the costume of the
paedagogus, and his position seems too prominent for even a
trusted servant. Robert emphasizes his view by the greater
prominence of the woman on 24, which is shown by the inscription
to have been ordered by a mother.

In the third scene 22 and 23 agree, while 24 again shows diver-
gencies. From the left hastens a young man (j>), the chlamys over
his left shoulder, a sheathed sword in his left hand, his arms out-
stretched toward Heracles (r) who, easily recognized by club and
lion's skin, stands with the body in full front, his head turned
toward the left and his right arm extended toward this youth.
Behind Heracles stands a doryphorus, his right hand raised to his
mouth, looking with interest at the scene to his right. In general
appearance he forms an excellent pendant to the figure (c), near
the left end. Evidently we have here a meeting between Heracles
and Admetus ; but at what point in the story does it belong ? The
answer to this question depends upon the fourth figure (q), and
unfortunately just at this point the evidence is most unsatisfactory.
On 23 only the body of Admetus (^?) and traces of this figure (q)
have been preserved, though the restorer has endeavored to supply
this lack. On 22 the space between the heads of the mourning
servant (o) and of Heracles (r) has been broken out, destroying
the upper part of the head of Admetus and the face of the all-
important figure. The drawing in the Coburgensis shows this
figure complete, but, as will be seen, its testimony is not wholly
clear. The figure is that of a woman in a long chiton and mantle,
the body in full front, who stands in the background between
Admetus and Heracles. The right foot is firmly planted and
pointed directly toward the front. The left leg is slightly bent
and only the toe touches the ground. This is plain both in the
drawing and in the photograph, where the position of the feet
indicates a pose almost identical with that of Heracles.* In the
drawing the upper part of this figure is slightly twisted, so that in

* Schenck's drawing in Robert does not give the position of Heracles quite
as in my copy of the photograph.INTRODUCTION.

lxvii

spite of the position of the feet, the. woman stands at the side of
Admetus, with head turned toward Heracles. In the photograph
of 22, this distortion of the upper part of the body does not appear,
while both shoulders are concealed, owing to the narrow space
between Admetus and Heracles. Michaelis describes this figure as
"accanto ad Admeto," and interprets the scene as the reception
of Heracles by Admetus, where this woman and the doryphorus
must be servants. As this is the opinion of one who has seen the
Courcel sarcophagus, it is with great hesitation that I express a
doubt as to its correctness. After a somewhat protracted search
I have failed to find any figure with the lower limbs in the position
shown by the photograph, and the upper part of the body as
represented in the drawing. So far as my examination goes, a
figure standing thus always has a tendency toward the direction
indicated by the advanced and firmly planted foot. She may have
halted, may even be looking backward, but the arrested motion
was in the direction of the foot on which she rests. If this theory
is correct, the figure on 22 is coming from the same direction as
Heracles, and the position of the missing head is of less account.*
The scene then represents the restoration of Alcestis to Admetus
by Heracles. Against this view can be urged, apart from the
drawing, the attitude of Admetus, strikingly unlike his dignified
pose at this moment on 26, and very like the ceiling-painting
already described; and especially the corresponding scene on 24.
Here Admetus (p) bends still more toward his visitor, whose hand
he grasps and whose pose and general form suggest very strongly
the reveller to whose presence the servanjb of Admetus takes such
exception in the play. The position of the woman (<?) is here open
to no dispute. She stands at the side of Admetus, and slightly in
front of him, clad in a chiton and mantle, her right hand raised to
her chin, her gaze directed toward Heracles, whose great size is
made more prominent by the stooping posture of Admetus, and by

* I regard the figure as much in the position of the figure e but in the
opposite direction. In the Coburgensis the drawing of the hair of q is so like
that of e that it seems not unlikely that q also had the mantle over the back
of the head.lxviii

INTRODUCTION.

the decidedly short stature of the woman.* The figure behind
Heracles no longer carries a spear, but rests his right hand on his
breast, and in the left clasps what Eoulez calls a scroll, but in the
drawing of Eichler (Sark.-Rel. III. 1, Taf. vi. 24) is plainly a sheathed
sword. In the background between Heracles and this youth is
visible another figure (y) in profile to the left, but in very low
relief, who is possibly the servant of Admetus already seen on the
sarcophagus at u and w. In that case the figure with the sword
may be a representative of the people (so Eobert). As has been
said, this scene can scarcely be the return of Alcestis. The small
stature, the absence of any veil, the whole costume, and the posi-
tion by Admetus combine to make any such view as that of Eoulez
more than doubtful. But does not this settle the meaning of the
scene of 22 and 23 ? Possibly ; but in view of what seems to
me the position of the figure (<?), I am inclined to see in 24 only
another instance of the freedom which its sculptor has used in
the other scenes, though the presence of a maid-servant at the
reception of Heracles is certainly hard to explain.

Here again Eobert offers a different explanation. He sees in this
scene on all three sarcophagi an illustration of the closing lines of
the play. Alcestis is restored to life and hence no longer wears the
veil which enwraps her in the rescue scenes ; hence, too, she stands
beside her husband, and almost seems to join him in his earnest
entreaty to Heracles to remain as their guest. This had also been
suggested by Dissel, but in spite of its ingenuity I cannot feel con-
vinced that it is beyond question. The chief difficulty in 24 is the
small size, which is appropriate for a young girl or a servant, but
scarcely seems to belong to Alcestis. Moreover, in the symmetry,
which Eobert shows is so marked in this work, this figure corre-
sponds to the servant ('w). The heavy figure of Heracles also, in
spite of the poplar wreath f in which Eobert sees the sign of his
return from the lower world, is in marked contrast to his dignity

* Roulez's drawing gives the position and costume of the woman somewhat
differently. It may be noted that the position is the reverse of that on the
other sarcophagus, and is similar to that of the figure e.

t This wreath is not very clear even in Eichler's drawing.INTRODUCTION.

Ixix

in the other scenes. The attitude of Admetus in all cases suggests
hasty movement, appropriate in welcoming his guest or his new-
found wife, but not quite fitting in an endeavor to detain his friend.
In 22 the position of Alcestis, as has been said, seems to connect
her more closely with Heracles than Admetus.

The ends of the Courcel sarcophagus 22 and of a Florentine
sarcophagus (Mich. E.) containing the rape of Persephone on its
front, show further scenes from our story.* The left end of E
shows Hermes conducting a veiled woman (Alcestis) to the lower
world, the entrance to which is indicated by the arch at the left.
The right end of 22 evidently represents a later moment in
the story. At the right Hades from his throne stretches out his
right hand toward the veiled Alcestis who has passed through the
portal, which is shown behind her. In the background is another
veiled head in low relief, probably that of Persephone. The
left end of 22 presents a scene very similar to that on the ceiling
already described (cf. supra, p. lviii). In addition the character of
the gate is marked by the appearance behind Alcestis of the triple-
headed Cerberus. The right end of E offers simply a variation of
this scene. Cerberus is omitted, and Heracles seems to be drawing
the veil of Alcestis across her face. Dissel regards the action as
an unveiling, but surely any violence on the part of Heracles is
excluded by all the terms of the myth.

It remains to consider the important sarcophagus from Ostia (26),
whose maker has in most cases known how to express his meaning
with great clearness, though he cannot be acquitted of a tendency
to unite separate incidents into single scenes.

At the left is an arch in which stands a bearded man who seems
distinctly larger and heavier than the other figures. He wears
a chlamys over his left shoulder and carries a spear, point down-
ward, in his left hand, while in his right he holds the leash of
a dog, which is sitting just inside the arch with its head thrown
back as if howling. Next to him is a bearded man, wrapped
in his chlamys, who appears to turn away from the group to his
left toward the figure at the door. His head is bowed, and his

* Drawings in Robert, Sark.-Rel. III. 1, pp. 28 and 35, under 31, 1.Ixx

INTRODUCTION.

right hand is raised to his face. In his left hand, which hangs at
his side, he carries a sheathed sword, the hilt of which is visible,
while the sheath is concealed behind the arm. Next to this man
in the foreground is a tripod, around which coils a serpent, while in
the background in profile to the right is another man, who holds
in his right hand what Robert thinks may be a broken rod, though
it is too indistinct in the photograph and drawings to warrant a
positive opinion. As to the next figure there can be no doubt.
Apollo, chlamys over left shoulder and bow in left hand, is hasten-
ing forward toward the left, though he looks back toward the
central scene.

This is the death of Alcestis, in many particulars showing a
close resemblance to the other sarcophagi. Alcestis on the couch,
the children in the foreground, the attendant at the head, and
the woman in the background are much the same, though the
position of Alcestis is less indicative of immediate death, and
the grief of the attendants is not so strongly marked. The place
of the old man at the foot of the couch is taken by Admetus, who
hastens forward, much in the attitude of the welcomer of Heracles #
(jp) ; his chlamys is thrown back over the left shoulder, his right
hand is extended to meet the hand which Alcestis reaches toward
him. In his left hand we see the hilt of the sheathed sword,
though the rest of the weapon is invisible. The old man is visible
in the background between Apollo and Admetus, leaning on a
crooked staff.

The rest of this relief is occupied by a new combination of
figures. At the extreme right sits Hades enthroned, much as on
the right end of 22 (Mich. I. c. 177). Next to him in the back-
ground stands Persephone, the torch in her right hand, while her
left rests on the shoulder of her husband, and her gaze is bent
upon his face. Next comes Alcestis, a veil over her head, her face
bowed, and her right hand raised to her mouth. She moves slowly
toward the left, following Heracles, who with the club on his left
shoulder, and the lion's skin hanging over his arm, extends his

* The chief difference is that the body above the hips is erect instead of bent
forward. The position of the legs seems identical.INTRODUCTION.

Ixxi

right hand to grasp the hand of Admetus, who stands facing the
right, his chlamys covering his body, and again in the sunken left
hand the hilt of the sword, which he carried in the central group.
Beneath the clasped hands of Heracles and Admetus is the opening
of a cavern in which sits the three-headed Cerberus. In the back-
ground, filling the vacant space between Admetus, Heracles, and
Alcestis, are three female figures, evidently the Moirai. In this
scene we have a combination of two distinct episodes, — the rescue
of Alcestis from the lower world by Heracles, probably through the
mediation of Persephone, and the restoration to Admetus. With
the omission of Admetus, Cerberus is quite in place as marking
the entrance to the region, whence Alcestis and her guide are to
withdraw. In his present position he is meaningless, for it is
scarcely possible to suppose with Eoulez that Admetus has accom-
panied Heracles to the entrance to the world of shades. Besides,
even on this theory, Admetus and Heracles are on opposite sides of
the gate.

I have purposely left till the last the interpretation of the
scene at the left. Three interpretations have been proposed, so far
as I am aware. Koulez, followed by Dissel, sees in it Admetus
returning from the hunt and met at his entrance into the palace by a
sorrowing servant with the news of his wife's impending death. To
this there seem to me serious objections. In both the other scenes
Admetus is clearly marked, and carries the sheathed sword with
the hilt projecting from the left hand. This sword is carried by
the sorrowing man, and in my opinion gives strong grounds for
believing that the artist meant to designate him as Admetus. More-
over, the returning hunter shows no likeness to Admetus in the other
scenes, and is also much larger. Petersen interprets the scene as
Admetus turning in sorrow from an inquiry of the Delphic oracle,
indicated by the tripod and the presence of Apollo. The figure in
the archway is a retainer. Against this view it may be urged that
Apollo is manifestly interested in the central scene, not in Admetus,
with whom his figure has no association whatever, and that the
tripod does not necessarily indicate Delphi, but simply adds dis-
tinctness to Apollo, although it must be admitted that the bowlxxii

INTRODUCTION.

would have been a sufficient attribute.* Moreover, the other
figure seems much too large and occupies too prominent a place
(his spear is across Admetus' right leg) to be a mere attendant.
The third explanation has been given by Robert, f In spite of
the sword the sorrowing man is not Admetus, for he has not the
portrait features, doubtless those of Euhodus, by which the sculptor
has elsewhere marked the husband. The figure in the door is a
representative of the lower world, a Roman substitute for the
Thanatos of Euripides, and may be compared with Hades and the
dog on the cover of the San Lorenzo sarcophagus. $ This certainly
makes a marked parallelism between the ends of this relief. At
the left the hunter enters for his prey, and at the right the rulers
of the dead release their victim. It seems to me that this view
gains if the husband appears helpless and weeping before the
impending blow, as well as receiving his lost wife from the grave.
Nor does the absence of the portrait features seem a fatal objec-
tion, though it is certainly not without weight, for, so far as I can
judge from the photograph, Alcestis has the features of Metilia
only in the death scene.

XIY. The Fragments of Sarcophagi.

25. The right end of the front of a sarcophagus in the Louvre
(Clarac, II. pi. 194, No. 758, 214; Reinach, p. 82) shows Heracles
followed by a doryphorus, with traces of another figure in the back-
ground, much as at the end of 22. Clarac calls this fragment
Heracles and Iolaus, but in the opinion of Robert it may be part
of the missing end of 23.

27.	[Matz-Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, 2889.] A fragment in
the Villa Pamfili shows part of the central scene in a somewhat dif-
ferent type. There are more figures in the background, the old
man sets his left foot on the stool, and the little girl no longer
kneels but is hastening toward the couch.

28.	[Diitschke, Ant. Bildw. II. p. 161.] A Florentine fragment-
of the death scene, preserved in the Palazzo Antinori.

*Cf. on this point Robert, Sark.-Rel. III. 1, p. 32.

f West-Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Gesch. u. Kunst, 1885, 231. Cf. Arch. March. 177;
Sark.-Rel. III. 1, p. 32. The first article I know only from the later references.

X Matz-Duhn, 3090; Wien. Vorlegebl. 1888, Taf. ix. 4a.INTRODUCTION.

lxxiii

29.	[Matz-Duhn, 2890.] This fragment shows the children from
the death scene in the usual type, and traces of the couch and the
figure of the old man.

30.	[Matz-Duhn, 2892.] This is a fragment of a left corner, and
shows three male figures, which do not agree with any of the other
reliefs ; though it has been proposed to see in it Admetus hastening
to meet Heracles, to which view the position at the left seems fatal,
or Admetus and Pheres, which seems possible. On the corner of
the left end traces of a caduceus perhaps indicate a scene like that
on the Uffizi sarcophagus, but the connection of this fragment with
the story is more than doubtful.

30.1 [Matz-Duhn, 2891.] A lost fragment which seems to have
contained only the figure of Admetus (d) from the first scene of
22 or 23.

31.	[Matz-Duhn, 3385.] This fragment is also lost, and its con-
nection with the Alcestis monuments must remain very doubtful,
as the description shows no marked likeness to the other reliefs.
It is possible that it belonged to a variation of the scene between
Admetus and his parents.

31.1 This is a fragment in the Villa Albani, which once formed
the left end of a sarcophagus. Heracles leads Alcestis into the
upper world from an opening in the rock, while at the left is a
figure emerging from the earth, and raising the right hand in
astonishment. Eobert calls him the Ianitor Orci, who appears in
a similar position on the Persephone sarcophagi, and on one with
scenes from the life of Heracles (Sark.-Rel. III. 120). He suggests
to me the Hermes on the Rinuceini relief, though the mutilation is
too great for any exact comparison.

XV. [Sark.-Rel. 32.] Another relief, which very probably formed
part of the cover of a sarcophagus,* is now preserved in the Palazzo
Einuccini in Florence in a badly mutilated condition, and more
completely in a drawing in the Cod. Pighianus. It was first pub-
lished from the drawing by Petersen (Arch. Zeit. 21, 1863, Taf.
179, 1, 2), and later was discovered by Diitschke (Ant Bildw. in

* Robert suggests it might have belonged to 23, could it be shown that this
sarcophagus was known in the sixteenth century.lxxiv

INTRODUCTION.

Oberital. II. 314), and published from the original by him (Arch,
Zeit. 33,1875, pp. 72 f£. Taf. 9, cf. also Baumeister, Denkmaler I. 46).
The fragment is only 0.55 M. long and 0.21 M. high, according to
Dutschke, and is broken at both ends.

At the left stands Heracles, the lion's skin over his left arm;
the head and much of the right side have been restored, but even
in the Pighianus the right leg and lower right arm are missing.
It seems probable that the right hand rested on the club. He
looks toward the right after a woman (Alcestis) in long chiton, and
mantle which covers her head and is drawn around the face with-
out covering it. She seems to be moving slowly and with bowed
head toward the right. In the drawing the scene is completed by
the addition on the left of Hermes,* who stands in the entrance to a
cavern, and by his gesture seems to dismiss Heracles and Alcestis.

The next scene to the right is clearly separated by a column,
which stands in front of the veiled Alcestis. Here we have a
group of five figures. On the right a woman in long chiton and
with the mantle over her head is gently urged toward the left by
another woman. This group is evidently that of a bride supported
by the nympheutria. The husband in this scene is a youthful
figure, nude but for the chlamys over his back, who while moving
toward the bride, turns away his face and grasps her right hand
with his left. In the background, between the husband and wife,
is a youthful figure clad in a long chlamys and holding an inverted
torch, who is turning his back on the newly wedded pair, but looks
over his shoulder toward the fifth figure. This is a young man, of
much the same size and general appearance as the husband. He
stands with his back to the spectator, his left elbow resting on the
top of the pillar, and his right arm partly extended, while with the
hand he seems to beckon to one of the figures at the right. His
chlamys is gathered over the right arm at the elbow.

Petersen (Arch. Zeit. 21, 116) explained this scene as the mar-
riage of Admetus and Alcestis, the unhappy issue of which is sug-

* Dutschke claims that all to the left of the figure of Heracles is due to the
combination by the artist of Pighius of two distinct reliefs. In opposition to
this, cf. Robert, Arch. March. p. 1741, who speaks with authority on this point.INTRODUCTION.

Ixxv

gested by Hymenaeus, who turns away and reverses his torch. To
this Dilthey (Annali d. Inst. 1869, p. 24) added the ill-omened use
of the left hand by Admetus. The fifth figure according to Peter-
sen is the nymphagogus, who brings to Admetus the tidings of the
evil omen sent by Artemis. Diitschke accepts this view in most
particulars, but calls the figure to the left Hermes, and sees in his
gesture a sign to Hymenaeus to return, as with the left hand the
god points to the rescue of Alcestis in token of the ultimate happi-
ness of the newly wedded pair. Against this last interpretation
may be urged the uncertainty as to the exact direction and inten-
tion of the gestures of this so-called Hermes, whose relation to his
fellow god is by no means distinct in the reproductions; but the
most serious objection is the total absence of an attribute, which
seems to me to exclude at once this identification. Robert also
accepts the view that this scene is the marriage, and his interpre-
tation of the other figures has much to commend it. The evil fate
is indicated by the ill-omened use of the left hand, from which
Admetus, suddenly aware of his mistake, turns his face in terror,
while his nymphagogus by his gesture expresses his horror. The
same emotion is shown by the turning away of the torch-bearer,
who is not necessarily Hymenaeus, and this act is accompanied by a
further sign of the ill-will of the gods in the inverted torch. These
signs have been substituted by the artist for the traditional coil of
snakes. DissePs interpretation of this scene is entirely different.
He sees in it a free imitation of the last part of Euripides' play.*
The youth is Hermes, who has brought Heracles and Alcestis from
the lower world. Alcestis is conducted by some maid-servant to
Admetus, who unwillingly extends to her his left hand, while in
the background Thanatos turns away. Apart from the difficulty in
finding a Hermes Psychopompos without the customary attribute,
and the exceedingly doubtful type assumed for Thanatos, this view
makes Heracles belong to both scenes, or else absent at th# all-
important moment of the return of Alcestis to Admetus. The first
alternative requires us to admit Alcestis twice in a scene, where
Heracles occurs only once, and the second is surely impossible.

* This idea is due to von Duhn. Cf. Dissel, I. c. 1819,lxxvi

INTRODUCTION.

The extreme right of the relief was broken away in the time of
Pighius, though his drawing shows part of a figure turned toward
the right. The rest of this figure and an additional one have since
been very badly restored, but we only know that there must have
been still another scene, perhaps connected with the miraculous
wooing, as the remains of the first figure suggest the possibility of
Artemis, as on the stucco relief from the Via Latina, but behind
the chariot.

The left end of the relief, in the drawing, is occupied by a scene
which still waits for a satisfactory explanation. The whole style
is totally unlike the rest of the sculpture ; a fact which led Dtitschke
to his theory of contamination, though it is explained by Robert as
due to the variety in the sources used by the artist. Back of the
grotto in which Hermes appears, there sits on a rock a young man
wearing a chlamys. He faces the left and rests his left hand on
the rock and the end of a short shepherd's crook ; beside the rock,
looking up at the hand of his master, is a dog. Beside this man, in
the background, is a young girl, her back to the spectator, and look-
ing back at the man, while with her right hand she seems to make
a gesture of dismissal. He pays no attention to her, but extends
his right hand toward a boy wearing a chlamys over his back, who
stands before him, holding in his left hand a bow. The boy does
not look toward the man, but down over his right shoulder, toward
an old woman, who stands at the extreme left and by her gestures
seems to be encouraging the lad.

Petersen interpreted the scene as Admetus, who in grief at
the loss of his wife has retired to his flocks, and his children,
accompanied by the nurse. This does not seem very natural.
The group as a whole shows no sign of sorrow, and a retirement of
Admetus to the fields is a rather long step from his reluctance to
enter the palace (Ale. 911 ff.). Dilthey (Ann. d. Inst 1869, 25 s),
whilt admitting that the man is Admetus, insists that the two
children are Apollo and Artemis. This view has been adopted by
Robert, who interprets the scene as the entrance of Apollo into the
service of Admetus. The reluctant Apollo, who, according to the
Delphic version, has been condemned to servitude for slaying theINTRODUCTION.

lxxvii

Python, and is therefore still a mere child, is urged forward by
Leto, and kindly welcomed by Admetus, from whom his sister turns
away in the first manifestation of that anger which was to have
such a fatal termination. This explanation accounts for the repre-
sentation of the divinities as children, but it must be admitted that
the figure of Leto does not suggest the goddess, nor does the Del-
phic version seem to have enjoyed such prominence as to make its
choice by an artist of a late date easily intelligible. It is probably
the best interpretation yet suggested, but it certainly is by no means
free from difficulties, nor can it be regarded as the final decision of
a still perplexing question.

XYI. Another monument in Rome has been brought into con-
nection with the story of Alcestis. It is an oblong basis,* which sup-
ported a column, from Porto d'Anzio, now in the Villa Albani, and
published by Francke (.Annali, 1879, pp. 53-58, Tav. E. 1). One
side and the two ends contain a continuous scene. The front shows
a woman on a bed, resting on her left elbow, in an attitude not
unlike that of the dying Alcestis. In front of the couch, with her
arms about the other, kneels an apparently aged woman. Behind
the couch stand five mourning women, the upper part of the body
nude, some tearing their hair, others with hands crossed on the
breast. The two ends are said to show the ends of the couch, and
at each a mourner of the same type as those on the front. Thus
far there is nothing to show that the relief is more than a repre-
sentation of the mourning of a mother (for so we might interpret
the kneeling woman) for her daughter, or of a family for its
mistress. Neither Admetus nor the children nor any other of the
characters especially concerned in the death of Alcestis are even
hinted at. The supposed connection with the myth is found on the
fourth side. Here we see on the left Heracles en face, his right
hand resting on his club, his left arm, over which hangs the lion's
skin, stretched out toward a woman, on whom his gaze is directed.
This woman wears a chiton and mantle, which perhaps covers the
back of her head, though her entire face and neck are uncovered.
With her left hand she grasps the left hand of the hero, and her

* Size 0.22 M. by 0.14 M. The height of the fragment is 0.39 M.lxxviii

INTRODUCTION.

right seems to be touching his face. Francke thought that the
original artist had here represented Admetus, but that the copyist
had changed the scene for his own purpose, which was to show the
love felt for the dead woman, under the types used for a well-known
myth. Dissel objects to this, and sees in the last scene Alcestis
resisting and rebuking Heracles for an attempt to unveil her. Con-
sidering the deference shown by Heracles toward his prize in the
other representations, such an interpretation of this relief and of
the end of the Florentine sarcophagus (E) seems scarcely warranted.
The gestures of the woman are rather those of earnest entreaty, and
the group looks as if it belonged in some other story of Heracles^
While it is possible that the scenes owe their suggestion to the
Alcestis monuments, I can see no reason for believing that the
sculptor was endeavoring to portray that story on this occasion.

There are several representations of Heracles and a veiled
woman, which seem to be taken from this legend, though the
emphasis seems rather on Heracles than on Alcestis.

XVII.	Near Salona in Dalmatia in a grotto is a rock-cut tomb
in the form of a sarcophagus. The front is divided into three
compartments in which are represented various labors of Heracles.*
On the left is the capture of Cerberus, in the centre Heracles hurries
to the right, the lion's skin around his shoulders, the club in his
left hand, while with his right he grasps the left wrist of a
veiled woman, who seems to walk slowly after him. The attitude
of Heracles is very like that in the Cerberus relief. The third
relief represents a combination of the shooting of the Stymphalian
birds and the plucking of the apples of the Hesperides, which the
artist has accomplished by putting the birds in the tree which bears
the apples.

XVIII.	Walled into a tower near Smederevo in Servia is a
funeral relief, which seems to me very closely related to the Alces-
tis representations. It is published by Kanitz (Denkschr. d. Wieru

* Literature. Steinbticher, Wiener Jahrbiicher der Litter atur, 1820, Anz.
Taf. I. Fig. 3; Denkschr. d. Wiener Akad. II., Carrara, Dey scavi di Salona
nel 1848, p. 11, Tav. VI. 17; lb. VII., Lanza, Monumenti Salonitani inediti,
p. 7, Tav. II. 1.INTRODUCTION.

lxxix

Akad. XLI. Bom, Stud. in Serbien p. 11, Fig. 6), who describes it
as "eiii an einigen Stellen beschadigtes oblonges Belief mit
zwischen zwei korinthischen Saulen trefflich angeordneter und gut
ausgefuhrter Trauerscene." The wood-cut shows on the left a
veiled woman (though the face seems uncovered) who is led toward
the right by Heracles, who grasps her wrist in his right hand.
He is represented nearly en face ; in his left hand he holds the club,
which rests on his shoulder, while the lion's skin, or possibly a
chlamys, hangs over the left arm. The rest of the relief is some-
what badly damaged, but seems to represent a couch, at the head of
which (the extreme right) is a stool, on which sits a figure with
the head bowed on the right hand. The right elbow and the left
hand rest on the head of the couch. On the couch seems to be
another figure, and there was possibly a footstool before it.* This
relief in my opinion is derived from the representations of the
death and return of Alcestis, though the absence of Admetus and
the' children would indicate that it was not so much the myth
which occupied the thought of the artist, as the idea of a death and
rescue of the departed.

XIX. In the following monument the relation to Alcestis is
somewhat clearer. It was discovered in Tripoli, at a place called
El-Amrouni about halfway between Douirat and Nalout, near the
border of Tunis. Here a mausoleum was unearthed by M. Lecoy
de la Marche, and a short description published by M. Philippe
Berger (Rev. Arch. 1895, 1, pp. 71-83). Two inscriptions, one
Latin, the other Neo-punic, show that it was erected to Q. Apuleius
Maximus Rideus (?) by his wife and three sons. It was decorated
on the outside with two rows of reliefs, of which only one is of
immediate interest. In the lower row, the west side represented
Orpheus charming the wild beasts, the south side Orpheus and
Eurydice, including a view of Sisyphus, Ixion, and Tantalus, while
the north side furnished a new form of the rescue of Alcestis (Ber-
ger, I. c. p. 79, Fig. 3). This relief is broken longitudinally a little

* The relief is badly damaged near the centre, and the couch is very indis-
tinct in the drawing. I consider it as like the relief from Servia, Arch.-Epigr.
Mitth. aus Oester. X. 214, Eig. 6.lxxx

INTRODUCTION.

below the middle, but the general character of the representation
is clear. On the left is Charon, pushing his boat to shore. On the
end of the boat is seated a fully draped female figure (Alcestis).
In front of her, on the shore, stands Heracles, the club in his left
hand, and the lion's skin over his shoulder. His right hand is
extended, apparently in the act of helping the woman to descend
from the boat. On the right is the lower part of the gate of the
lower world, and beyond this Heracles pushing Alcestis forward, up
the steep incline to the world of life. The style of the reliefs is the
only means of fixing the date,* and as this can scarcely be deter-
mined from the drawings published, it is not possible to give any
exact statement, further than that the work evidently belongs to
the late Roman time.

* XX. Another relief, whose connection with this story is only
known through the inscription, is now in Aquileia, where it was
found in 1863. I have not seen any illustration of the relief,
though a description was published by Diitschke from a sketch by
Conze (Arch. Zeit. 33, p. 78).f On the left is a bearded man,
perhaps with the chlamys over his left shoulder, and a staff in his
left hand, who raises his right hand as if in conversation with a
veiled woman at the right, who rests her bowed head on her right
hand. The lower part of the relief is broken away. Apparently
across the top of the stone is the inscription ADMETVS ET ALC
(estis). It does not seem necessary to see in this, with Diitschke,
Admetus communicating his fate to Alcestis, who is meditating her
sacrifice. It rather belongs with such scenes as those on the
Etruscan vases, and Admetus and Alcestis are simply typical
figures to express the conjugal devotion of the pair in whose honor
this funeral monument was erected.

XXI. Preller (Ber. d. Sachs Gesellsch. 1850, 241) mentions a
terra-cotta relief in Weimar, brought from Rome, about the size of
those of the Campanari collection, as representing the return of

* The inscription is not published in facsimile, nor does the editor assign any
date.

t For the inscription, cf C. I. L. V. 2, 8265, where is cited Gregorutti, Le
antiche lapidi di Aquileja, which I have not seen.INTRODUCTION.

lxxxi

Alcestis to Admetus. He gives no further description, and I do
not know of any other mention of it.

XXII.	It is barely possible that there may be some remote con-
nection between this story and a sardonyx of the British Museum,
representing a youthful Heracles seated in weariness on a rock,
while from behind him hastens away a bearded and winged man,
somewhat in the type of Thanatos. (Cf. Furtwangler in Roscher,
Lexikon, s.v. Herakles, I. 2141-42.) I do not believe this can be
Thanatos flying from his conqueror, but include it for the sake of
completeness.

XXIII.	It now remains to consider the most difficult of the monu-
ments which have been referred to the story of Alcestis, — the
columna caelata from the temple of Artemis at Ephesus.* Of the
figures (probably about eight in number) which originally filled
this relief only four have been preserved with any approach to
completeness, though there are fragments of two more. On the
right is the lower part of a seated figure, probably male. In front
of him is a standing female, fully draped, and holding a somewhat
indefinite object, which may possibly be a necklace or taenia; the
head is missing, but seems to have been turned toward the left.
The third figure is the best preserved of the group, and by the kery-
keion is easily recognizable as Hermes, who, with head thrown back
and glance directed upward, is moving toward the left. Before him,
apparently just starting, is a woman, fully draped, who is in the act
of fastening her mantle on the left shoulder; the head is lacking,
but probably was turned to the right. The next figure is also
well preserved, except for a break on the right side. It represents
a youth with great wings, extending even above the head, and a
great sword suspended by a band over the right shoulder. He
stands with the body turned very slightly toward the left, his right
hand at his side, while with the left he seems to beckon to the
woman behind him, toward whom he turns a somewhat sad and
thoughtful face. Beyond this figure there can be distinguished

* Rayet, Mon. de VArt antique II. PI. 50 ; Curtius, Arch. Zeit. 1872, Taf. 65,
66; Overbeck, Gesch. d. griech. Plast. II4. p. 131. Less complete reproduc-
tions in other publications.lxxxii

INTRODUCTION.

traces of a naked shoulder and a left arm wrapped in a chlamys, so
that it can fairly be inferred that here stood a man, who rested his
left elbow on his side. It does not seem to me that the traces are
sufficient to show whether he stood in the attitude of Heracles on
the Einuccini relief, as Eobert thinks, or in a position more like
that of Hermes on this column. If Smith is correct (see below),
the position would be unlike either. Space will not permit a full
account of all the attempts to interpret this scene, on which the
last word, in my opinion, has not yet been spoken. Ernst Curtius
(Arch. Zeit. 31, 1873, p. 72) in a notice of the newly discovered
relief, suggested that it might be connected with a contest of the
Muses before Apollo, under the leadership of Hermes, and that the
youth with the sword was Agon — a view which seems to have
found no adherents. Later Engelmann (Arch. Zeit. 37, p. 115)
brought this scene into connection with the story of Phineus, inter-
preting the figure with the sword as a Boread. This view also labors
under serious difficulties and has not met with any acceptance.

The view which has supplanted earlier theories, and has not as
yet been driven from the field, was first published by C. Robert in
" Thanatos. 39tes Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste," Berlin, 1879.
Here was maintained very skilfully the thesis that the relief rep-
resented the return of Alcestis. Heracles having conquered Thana-
tos has descended to the lower world and prevailed on the deities
to reward his victory. On the right are Hades and Persephone,
who have consented to the return, then Hermes ready to conduct
Alcestis, who stands next to him, to the upper world, while Thanatos*
by his gesture indicates the release of his victim. At the extreme
left must have been Heracles quietly waiting for his prize. As to
the missing figures Robert refused to make any conjecture. The
view was at once denied by Kekule (Deutsche Litteratur-Zeitung,
1880, 382), and later by Wolters (Gipsabgiisse ant. Bildw. 1242),
but has been accepted by many scholars, notably Rayet, Overbeck,
and Collignon. Benndorf (Bull, delta Comm. Arch. 1886, p. 54)
endeavored to establish the view that the Judgment of Paris was

* The interpretation of this figure as Thanatos had been suggested in Sat. Rev.
1873, 35, p. 51.INTRODUCTION.

lxxxiii

here represented. Zeus and Hera, Eros and Aphrodite, Hermes as
conductor of the goddesses, and apparently Paris waiting at the
left, — such was his interpretation, which was refuted by Eobert
(Arch. March, pp. 160-175), who also endeavored to overthrow the
criticism of Wolters. The last explanation with which I am
acquainted is that of A. H. Smith (Jour. Hell. Stud. XI. pp. 278 if.),
who sees here the sending of Pandora. From the right we have
Zeus, Hera, who holds a necklace or diadem, Hermes with slightly
opened mouth in the act of imparting the gift of speech to Pandora,
who already fastens her mantle for departure, Eros, who here in
his gloomy aspect presages the unhappy result of this gift of the
gods, and finally Hephaestus, his left hand on his hip, while he leans
on his stick thrust under the right shoulder. The discovery of a
part of the original surface showing part of a staff is very important,
but the traces are evidently too faint to be entirely conclusive.
Without discussing this theory in detail, it may be said that Eros
with a sword still awaits an analogy in Greek art, and that all other
Greek representations of this scene show Pandora as a very stiff
doll-like figure, in no way like the graceful woman of the column.

Robert's theory, however, requires a brief examination. Wolters
brings against it three arguments: (1) Thanatos on representations
of this time ought to be a bearded man, (2) Heracles cannot wear the
simple chlamys, (3) the scene here represented does not correspond
with any literary version; to which Benndorf adds (4) that the neck-
lace in the hands of Persephone is unexplained, and Furtwangler
(Roscher, Lexikon I. 2248) (5) that the presence of Heracles is
due to a conjecture. Robert (Arch. March. I. c.) has answered the
first four objections. (1) In the fourth century the idea of Thana-
tos was changing from the type of the fifth century toward that
conception which later led to Erotes as symbols of death; moreover,
Thanatos is certainly beardless on the cylix of Pamphaios and an
altar from the Esquiline (Monum. d. Inst. XI. Tav. X. 3). It is certainly
not improbable that the beginnings of a tendency, which developed
during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, should be found in the
later fourth century, although the fact that Thanatos is beardless
on the vases more than a century earlier can scarcely weigh verylxxxiv

INTRODUCTION.

heavily, in view of the prominence of the bearded type on the Attic
lecythi of the late fifth and earlier fourth centuries. That the
dank and matted hair and sad expression are very appropriate to
the later conception of Thanatos cannot be denied, but Robert's
interpretation of this scene requires that this Thanatos be a rival
of Heracles, and it seems to me very hard to imagine this youth in
contest with a Heracles of the type belonging to this period. As
Robert has urged in answering objection (3), the artist has com-
bined two versions which the literature kept separate, and the sar-
cophagi have already made it clear that the art recognized a journey
of the hero to the lower world in this connection; but the only
justification for Thanatos in the Alcestis legend is that he may be
conquered by Heracles, and for that purpose the type of the time of
Euripides is in my opinion a necessity. As to the costume of
Heracles, Robert has shown that he does appear in a chlamys on
several works, but a comparison with the citations of Furtwangler
(Roscher, Lexikon I. 2183) would indicate that this is confined to
special occasions, where he is not engaged in any of his heroic labors.
The object in the hand of "Persephone " is too indistinct to make
argument (4) very weighty, though Robert's suggestion that it is a
thank-offering of Alcestis seems to call for some analogy to justify
it. The last objection (5) is of course enough to prevent certainty,
and if the traces which Smith regards as proving the presence of a
staff, cannot be reconciled with the theory that the hero leaned on
his club, they alone would suffice to make the connection with
Alcestis still more doubtful.

A modification of Robert's view has been suggested by Edward
Robinson (Catalogue of Casts in Boston Mus. III. 526), who inter-
prets the scene as the departure of Alcestis to the lower world with
Thanatos and Hermes. Apart from the fact that this fails to
explain the calm attitude of the figures at the right, whom Mr.
Robinson calls the parents of Admetus, it seems difficult to account
for the presence of both Thanatos and Hermes, one of whom would
seem sufficient, and for the position of Hermes, who as (/rv^o7ro/x7rds
regularly precedes the soul on its descent to the lower world.*
* Cf. Robert, Thanatos, 40.INTRODUCTION.

lxxxv

For these reasons I am unable to believe that the connection of
the Ephesus column with the story of Alcestis has been proved,
though it must be granted that there are perhaps fewer difficulties
in this interpretation than in any other. Nor is it easy to see how
certainty can be reached, unless some work of art should come to
light of obvious dependence on this column, and containing some
clue to the missing figures.

F. Hypotheses of the Play.

The following are the hypotheses of the Alcestis which have come
down to us. The text is that of Schwartz in his edition of the
scholia, with one slight change.

TIIO0E2I2 AAKH2TIA02

'AttoXXojv yrrfcraLTo irapa twv Motp&v oirais o *A$firjTos, reXevrav fieAAa>v,
irapd<r)(Y] tov virep kavrov ckovtcl reOvrj^Ofievov, iva torov tw 7773orepa) ^povov
£rjcrr). kclI $rj ^AXktjcttis rj yvvrj tov 'AS/a^tou eireStoKev lavrrjv, ovfteripov
tG>v yoveu>v OeXrjaavTOs virep tov irai0o$ GzroOav&v. jict ov 7ro\v 8e Tavrrjs
Trjs (TVfjLcfaopas yevofievrjs 'HpaKXrjs irapayevofievos Kai fiaOcov irapa twos
OcpaTTOVTOS tol 7T€pl T7)V * AXKr)<JTlV eWOpevOrj €7Tt TOV TCL<£oV kclt TOV ©aVaTOV
a/7ro(rTrjvai 7roirjaas, ecrOrjTL KaXwrei Trjv yvvaiKa * tov 8e "ASfirjTOV rj£iov
\a/3ovTa clvttjv Trjpeiv elXr)<f>evai yap avrrjv iraXrjs aOXov eXeye. /xrj /3ov-
Xofievov §€ €k€lvovy iSct^CV YjV €7t€v9cl.

"AXky}(ttls, rj HeXtov Ovyarrjp, vtrofxelvacra vnep tov IBlov avSpos TeXev-
Trjaat, 'Hpa/cAeovs eirihrfixrjdavTO^ ev Trj ©erraA/a Stao-cuferat, /&acra/A€i/ov
<avrov>1 tovs \0ovlovs Oeovs Kal a<j>eXofievov ttjv yvvcuKa. Trap ouSeTepa)
KCtTat rj fivOorroda.

to Spa/xa iiroirjOrj if. iSi8d)(0r} eiri rXavKtVov apxovros 6X(vfnrLd8os 7rc
cTct /3>. 7rpa)Tos rjv %0<f>0KXrjs, Sevrcpos Evp^n'Siys Kp^o"<rais 'AAk/acwvi
tw 81a *a)<j!>i8os TrjXe<jxa 'AAki^otiSi. eunS * eyoprjyei. to 8c Spa/xa Koo/xt-
KiDTtpaV |^€t T7]V KaTa(TTpO<f)rjv.

1 (avrov) was inserted by the ed.lxxxvi

INTRODUCTION.

ff filv (TKvjvq rov SpdfJLaTOs V7roKeiT(u iv <$cpats, fJiia 7roAct rrjs ©erraAtas •
o Se x°P°s (rvvia-TYjKcv ck tivcdv TrptafivTwv ivTOiTLWVf 01 [/cat] Trapaywovrai
o-vfiwaOycrovTes rats 'AXk^cttlSos <n;/A<£opats. irpoXoyi^ei Se 'AtroAAwv.

to 8c 8pa/xa €(ttl <rarvpLK(ot€pov oti cts \apav /cat rjSovrjv Karacrpi^u
[Vapa rots rpayt/cois] (/cat) cKjftaAAcrat <os avotKcta ti}s rpayLKrjs Troirjo'euis
o t€ Op€<rTrjs /cat y "AXktjo'tis, cos ck crv/*</>opas /xcv ap^ofieva, cts cvSat/ao-
vtav (8c) /cat \apav A^avra, (a) ccrrt fxaWov Ka)/xa>8tas c^o/xeva. <7roAAa
8c TOiavTa irapa tois rpaytKots.)INTRODUCTION.

lxxxvii

Critical Signs and Abbreviations.

B = Codex Yaticanus 909.

B1 = the first hand, b — the second hand.

L — Codex Laurentianus 32, 2.

L1 = the first hand, I = the second and third hands.

P = Codex Palatinus 287.

P1 = the first hand, p — a later hand.

a — Codex Parisinus 2713.

a1 = the first hand, a2 =the second hand, a8 = several later hands.

C—Codex Havniensis 417.

c = Codex Laurentianus 31, 10.

d = Codex Laurentianus 31, 15.

S indicates a reading which is common to both L and P, and hence

was found in their common source.

r stands for reliqui libri.

* denotes the erasure of a letter or an accent.ETPiniAOT AAKHSTI2.TA TOT APAMATOS IIPOSQIIA

AIIOAAON

©ANATOS

XOPOS

©EPAIIAINA

AAKHSTIS

AAMHTOS

EYMHAOS

HPAKAHS

4>EPHS

©EPAIIQNAAKHSTI2.

AnOAAflN.

^ /	> > l O / >3 ^	\	J \

12 oa)[xaT AofirjTei, ev ots erXrjv eyo)

drjcrcav Tpdwe^av alvecrai deos irep aiv.

Zevs yap fcarafcra? 7ratSa tov ifiov amos
'A(TKXrjTTLoit, (TTepvoicTLv ifi/SaXdiv (j)X6ya•

ov sr) xoxcodels t€ktovol<; alov 7rvpos
KTetvco KvK\a)7ra5 • feat //,€ drjTeveiv TraTr/p
OvriTq) itap avSpl rcovS' airoiv r/vdyKacrcv.

iXdcJv Se yatav TijvS' if3ov(j)6p/3ovv £ev(p,

\ / O) * y	9	)	« /

kcll tovo catoQov oiKov eg rod rfiiepas.

oaiov yap avSpos ocrtos Sv irvyxavov
7rat8og &€pr)Tos, ov davetv ippvcrd[X7]v
MoCpas SoXaxras • yvecrav Se ftoi 0€ax
"adfjlrjtov q.8rjv tov irapavTLK iK<f>vye2v,

aXXov hiaXXaijavra rots koltu) veicpov.

iravras 8* dXey£as Kal SteieXffcov <f>iXov$,

\jrarepa yepaiav 69 rj aft eriKre /i/tyrepa,]

ovx yvpe, irXr/v yvvaucbs, Sotis rjdeXe
8avd>v 7Tpo keivov /iTjKer elaopav <j>aos •

3 kclt duras B. 8 yaiav] ft is alav Athenagoras Legat. pro Christ.
c. 21 (p. 25 Steph.). 9 is t68 a] i<rrl d* B (with is rbtf added by b) els r65' 8.
11 ippvtrdfiyv S] ipvadpyv r. 12 drjXcbaas B. 13 irap clvtIk B. 15 e\e£as
B (but with an acute accent and y written above the Xe by B1). 16 rejected
as spurious by W. Dindorf. 17 Bans Reiske] is MSS. 18 Oavuv
Keiske] daveiv MSS. I /x^5' ex C.

10

1K4

EYPIHIAOY

77 vvv kclt olkovs iy ytpow fiacTTal^erab
xfru^oppayovcra • TrjSe yap <r<f> iv rjixepa
Oaveiv Trinpayrai /cat iieraaTrjvai /3Cov.

iyco ,Se', /ult) /xtacr/xa fi iv So/lois
XeCira) fieXadpa)v to)vSe (friXrdTrjv (xriyqv*

(17877 Se rovSe %dvarov eicropS> TreXas,

icpea <|)0lv6vt(ov, os viv et? 'AlSov 86/jlovs
/u,eXXei Kara^eiv crvfifierpo^ S' a^t/cero,

<j>povp<ov toS' rjfiap & Oaveiv avTrjv ^pecov*

0ANAT02.

a a*

tl (rv 7rpos fieXadpois ; tl ctv TjjSe 7roXei9,
<&oI/69; aSt/cet? aS TLfias ivepcov	30

[a<£oyoi£dju,ei>os #cai /cara7ravcoj>.]

ov/c rjpKecre croi fxopov *ASfxijTOv
StaKcoXvcraL, Moipas SoXlco

I /\	/	A	\	^

(TfprjkavTL T€)(yrj; wv o zttl Tyo av

X^Pa To^rjpr) <fyp>ovpel<; 07rXicra5,	35

77 ToS* V7T€(TTr) TTOCTLV efcXucraO"'

avo) rrpodavelv IleXtov 7ral9.

All. dapcrei • Slktjv tol Kal Xoyovs KeSvovs e^co.
©A. rt StJto, to£(ov epyov, et SiKrjv e^eis;

22 /ax?7	23 Xforw 5 | rCUvdc <f>i\T&T7)v Schol. on Hippol. 1437] rQvdc

(frikT&Twv B a r^vbe tpiXrdTTfp S. 25 with ep^a written above the ep^ L
iepij r. lepta Monk. 26 <r6fj.fieTpos P (and Nauck ex conj.)~\ av/ifitTpus r. \
<j>0iv6vTO)v Wecklein] davbvrtav MSS. 27 fj/iap L] rjfxap r. 28 0ANATO2]
P has xp {==x&p<>>v) here, and the same abbreviation prefixed to 43, 45, etc. ;
but the same MS. has 0a (= Odvaros) prefixed to 39 and 72. aaLaaaal.
29 <ri> irpds] <roi wpbs B. 31 is not in P, and was rejected by Nauck without
knowledge of that fact. 33 5iaKto\0<rai PI a] diaK(tiX6<rai r. 37 avrij a]
afarty r. 38 rot] re 8.

20

25AAKHSTIS.	5

All.	ovvqdes alel ravra fSacrTaQe.iv ijJLdi '	40

©A.	Kal TolcrSe y olkois €k§lk(o<; trpoaw^eXetv.

All.	yap avSpos crv[i(f>opaL<s /3apvvo[iaL.

©A.	Kal vo(r<j)i€LS rov$e 8evrepov vCKpov;

All.	aXX* ov8 \ iKeivov irpos fiiavcf d^>ei\op/r)v.

®A.	7T<S5 ovv irnep yrj<z ecrrt kov Kara) \dov6<z;	45

An.	Safiapr afJLeujjas, rjv <rv vvv rjiceis pera.

®A.	kaira^ofxai ye veprepav viro xGova.

An.	Xafiwv W' - ov yap otS' av ei 7T€tcrat/xt a*€.

©A.	Kreiveiv y ov av XPTI / jovro yap rerayixeda.

An.	ovfc, aXXa Tots /jteXXoucrt ddvarov dfipaXetv.	60

@A.	e)((D Xoyov St) Kal Trpodvfiiav credev.

An.	ear ovv ottq)<; *A\kt)(ttl<; is yrfpas jjloXol;

®A.	ovk €<ttl - tlfiats kafie repmadai So/cet.

An.	ovtol 7rXeW y av rj fitav ^fv^v Xa/Jots.

@A.	veojv (j)0Lv6vr(ov fiei^ov apvvp*at yepas.	65

An.	Kav ypavs oXtjtat, 7rXovo"ta)9 Ta^crerat.

©A.	7rpos 7W iyovtoiv, <E>ot/3e, rov vo[jlov rt^ets.

An.	7Tft>5 €t7ras; aXX' >7 /cat cro^os XeXrjdas <*v;

©A.	(ovolvr av ot? irapeori yqpaioi daveiv.

An.	ovkovv Sofcet crot TrjvSe fioc Sovvai yapiv;	60

©A.	ou $t)t* • iiTLcrTacraL Se rov? ifiovs rponovs.

An.	€)(dpov5 ye ovtjtols Kal deols crrvyovfievovs-

40 afei i] dei r. 41 iicdliajs S] ivdUus r. 44 (Slav BaV\ ftta S. 45 e<rttjk
oti B (corrected by b). | Kara x^ov6s P. 46 fi4ra La] /nerd r. 47 veprlpav
P I] vepriptav r. 48 irelaoifiL B. 49 7' op B~\ ov r \ XPV Schaefer] XP^I MSS.
50 AXXa B \ aiipaXeiv Bursian] ififiaXeiv MSS. 51 577] ye 8. 52 is $] els r.
53 doKei B. 54 ourot B (corrected by 6). 55 Y^pas] k\4os S. 57 ritfeis]
ridels P tI$tis r.	58 PV\ q r, \ \4\i}0as L~\ \i\rjdas B (with iri<pvKas

written above by B1) i\-fj\v0as P irtyvnas a (with \4\r)0as written above by a1).
59 wvoivt L (with w rewritten, and 0 written over the w and at over the 01 by I)]
ujvoivt Pa tvoivr B 6vclivt I. | ots S] ovs B a. | yrjpaiol W. Dindorf] yrjpaioi)*
MSS. 60 oiK odv a.EYPiniAOY

®A. ovk av Svvafio irapr €)(eiv a fxyj ere Sel.

An. rj fitjv <ry KXavcrxi Kalirep cofios (op ayap.

rotog <I>€/07jT05 etcri 7rpos So/jlovs apijp,	65

TbvpvcrOecos irefixfjaPTo^? linreiop jiera
o^qyia ®pyk7)<z 4k tottcop svor^elfiepcov^

05 Sr) £evo)del<; tolctS9 iv *AS/it]tov So/iois
fiCa yvvaiKa rr/vhe cr e^aiprjcrerai.

\kov6 7) irap' r)fi<op aoi yeprjcrerai X^P1*	70

§pa<r€L<; 9' ofioico^ ravr, aire)(OrjcreL r e/xot.]
®A. 7roXX' av <ri> Xefas ovSep ap irkeop Xdfiois •
7) o5i> yvpr) Kareicrip eis *Al$ov Sofiovs.

are'iyo) §' €7r' avrrjp, cos KaTap£a)fiai £i<f>eL•

lepo? yap ouros t<Sj> Kara \6°po^ Oe&p	76

otov to8* eyxos Kparos aypicrr) rpi^a.

XOPOS.

ti tto9* 170*19(10- irpd<r0€V fie\ddpot)p;

TL crea'LyY]TaL 8o/xo? 'AS[XTJTOV;

aXX' ovSe <j>i\(tip 7rcXas <?<tt > ovSeis,

ootis ap eliTOL TTOTtpop (fydifieprfp	80

X,pil (JcurfXciav ir€v0€tv, 77 £<So"'

64 jc\atf<rfl Earle] iratf<ri7 MSS. 70, 71 were rejected as spurious by W.
Dindorf. 73 17 5' I a] ^5' r (with Z). 74 Kardpfafuu P (with Macrobius
Sat. V. 19, 4)] kat&pZofMi r. 75 r(av de&v] r$ 6ef Macrobius i. I. 76 Stou
t65'] 0 tovto d' B 8r(p t68' Macrobius I. I. | ayvLcret S. XOPOS] x°P' was pre-
fixed in S, TjfiLX' r. | irpdadev Blomfield] irp6<rde MSS. 79 rjp.tx* ig prefixed
in the MSS., but was rejected by Kirchhoff. | vi\as 0<rr) ovdeLs Monk] w4\as
ovdeLs MSS. (in L ns has been inserted after <pl\<op by I). 80 etiroi B a] etiroi
(with ivi written above the ef by i) L hvvhvol P. 81 XPI pa<rl\eiav wevdeiv
Blomfield] (3a<rl\eiap wevdeiv xprf MSS. (in L a has been written above xp^ and §
above wevdetv by I).

>AAKHSTI2.

7

en Xtvvati TLeXiov to8€ irais
*AXktjcttls, i/Jiol iraai r api&rr)

8o£acra yvvr)

ttoctlv els civttjs yeyevrjcrdat.	* 85

HMIX. Kkvei Tt? rj crrevay/xov rj	«"Tp.

X€ipa>v ktvttov Kara areyas
rj yoov (os wenpayfievcov;

HMIX. ov fxav ovSe ns afufynroXcov

o"TaTi^€Tai ap,<f)l 7rvXas-	90

el yap fieraKVfjLios aras,

<§ Hauav^ (fyavetrfs•

HMIX. o\> Tav <()0l|X€VT|S y ecruoirtov.

<HMIX.> vcKus *tl8r|.

HMIX. ov 8r) <f>pov§os y e£ olkcov.

HMIX. 7ToOev; ovk qlv^cH. rL ae dapcrvvei;	95

HMIX. 7t<ds av epr^iov ...

ra<f)ov *ASfJL7]ros
KeSvrjs av eirpa^e yvvalkos;

HMIX. 7TVX(0V 7Tapoide 8' OV^ OpS)	avrwrrp.

rnqyalov cos vo/xi^eraL

yepvifi' C7Tt cfydurcov 7rvXai<;.	100

<HMIX.> ^atra r' oiJrt? €7U irpoOvpois
rofiaios, a 8^ veKvwv

82 XeiWei IleX/ou r65e Bothe] r65e Xei5<ro*ci (XeiJtrei 5 P) ire\lov MSS. 85 aur^s
Schaefer] aur^s MSS. 87 xeLP&v Nauck] xeP&v MSS. 88 y6ov X] y6wv r.
90 (rrar/ferat G. Hermann] o-rar^er' MSS. 91 ijfiix- is prefixed in B a £,
but not in P. | d &] et B el a. 92 w Matthiae] id) MSS. 93 ov rav Matthiae]
ovt hv MSS. | (pelfjlivrjs Monk] (pdifiivas MSS. 94 In the MSS. the words v£kvs
tjdrj (i)57) v£kvs P, tjdr] deleted in l by i) come directly after otkwv. Kirchhoff trans-
posed them as in the text, and prefixed to them HMIX. | oi5 yap drj MSS. yhp
was rejected from the text by Kirchhoff. 96 Earle conjectured that the la-
cuna is after iprjfiov. 99 irrjyai' I. 100 (pQiruiv $] (pOijitvov r. 101 HMIX.,
which is not in the MSS., was added by Hartung. | xcuVa r S a] xa^Trl B-8

EYPIIIIAOY

HMIX.
HMIX.
HMIX.
HMIX.
HMIX.

XO.

Trevdei iriTvei * o-u veoXaia
Sovirel x^P yvvaiKcov.

KaX jirfv toSe Kvpiov rjpap,

/ /OJ » O ^

tl too avoas ;

(o xpV [JLoXeiv Kara yatas.
e9iyes \jru)(as, eOiyes Se (frpevcov.

Xprj to)v ayaO&v SiaKvaLOfievcov
irevOeiv octtls

Xpy]O"T0s air apX*)* pci/o/uotcu.
aXk' ovSe vavKXrjpiav

¥ n> <•/	¥

ecu ottol rig aias

ot€tXa? rj Avidav

elr €<J>' e'Spas avvSpovs

9A/jLfuovLaSas

Svcrravov irapakvcrcu

ijw)(av [lopos yap cnr6Tq|io$

7r\d0€L' Oecov 8' €7r €<rx&Pav

0VK6T ?)(© TLVa (ITjXodvTaV TTOpevOi>.

/	*	> i ^	9

fJLOVOS O ai>, €L <pa)S TOO rjv
6|i|iacrLV SeSo/o/ccos
4>ot)8ov 7rats, irpoXnrovcf
rj\0ev eSpas (Tkotlovs

105

110

orp.

115

aVTUTTp.

120

125

103 irivdeai S | irLrvei Elmsley] irirveT MSS. | ov Aldine] ovdi MSS. | before
o&84 B and a have ijfuwhich is not found in L and P. | veoXala B P I] veoXaia r.
105 fjfiap L] vjfmp r. 107 stands before 106 in L and P. 106 HMIX.]
xop. L. 107 rjfux* B (and a3)] not in r. | XPVV -P*	HMIX.] x°P &

P has ijfjLix. before the second iBiyes. 109 yfux- <*> (?)] X°P• & B has no sign.
112 x°P• B and a. S has no designation of the part. 114 AvKiav Monk]
Avklcls MSS. 115 etr i<f> £8pas dmsdpovs 'afi/jLwviddas Nauck] efr iwl ras avtidpovs
'anijlujvi&das Zdpas MSS. 117 TrapcLkOvai B (and a2)] irapaXvcraL r. 118 tyvx&v $]
ipvxys B \f/vxds a (but a3 has changed the grave to the circumflex and written V
above). I airbroixos Blomfield] aird **/jlos L dir&r/jLos B Airorfios r (with I). 119 ff. 5'
iir' iaxdpav ovk£t e%a> rlva Hartling] 5' iir' i<rxdpcus otic 6%w iirl riva (e%cu Vi L) MSS.
See Critical Notes. 123 Bufuuriv Barnes]	MSS. 125 (tkotLols B.AAKH2TI2:

9

*AtSa T€ irvXas •

hpadevras yap aviarr],

irplv avrov elXe AlofioXov
Tr\f}KTpov irvpbs KepavvLov.

i/5v §€ ptov tiv €T ikirtSa irpo<r8€x<o|iai;	130

-tt&vtol yap tjSt] rereXecrTai

fiacnXevcnv,

7rdvT(ov Se Oecov <€i<r > iirl ficopoLS
aipoppavroL OvaLai 7rA^pets,

ovS' €crrt KaKcov a/co? ovSev.	135

aAA rjo oirabtov etc oo/jlcov rts ep^erai
haKpvppoov&a • Tti>a rv^qv aKovaopat;

Trevdeiv piv, €t rt Sea-TroraLcn rvyyavei,
crvyyvaxjTov • et S' cr' iarlv epxfjv^o^ yvvrj
elr ovv oXcoXev eihivai fiovXoiped' av.	140

0EPAIIAINA.

kcli t^cocrav ehreiv Kal davovcrav ecrn crot.
XO. Kal 7T(os av avTos KarOavoi re Kal fiXeiroi;
©E. 7j8t) 7rpovG)7rijs icrn Kal xjjv^oppayeu^	143

XO. iX7rl<s pkv ovket ecrrt crw^ecrOat (3iov;	146

©E. TreirpcopevY] yap rjpepa /6ta£erat.

XO. cukodv €7r' avrfj Trpacrcrerai ra 7rp6<T<f)opa;

126 &8a S dtda r. 129 tr\aKTpov P (with I). 130 (ittov riv er Hartung]
tLv cti filov B rlv iirl filov a rlva (3lov S. 131 Tr/ootrS^xco/xat Musgrave] irpoa-
5^X°/xcu MSS. 132 PacriXevcnv L a\ fiaaCkevcn B P. 133 ela* was inserted
by Mekler. 135 oiV £] d\V otf5' r. 136 %°P• is prefixed in B. | diradQv P Z]
6ira56s L oiradcop r. 140 /SovXofyte#' &v L a] (3ov\oLfieOa r. ^ 141 is omitted in
B, but has been added by a later hand. 142 7ru)s] ttG> B. | avrbs Kirchhoff (?)
airrbs MSS. (afirbs Gaisford, cj^t6s Aldine.) | (3\£ttoi lap] (3\&ret B /3\4ir* P.
146 a&traaOai S. 148 ovkovp Elmsley] ovkovv B L ovk odv r. | avroTs S.10

EYPIIIIAOY

©E.* koc/jlo5 y erot/los, q> crc^e crvvddxjjeL 7rocrts.

XO. (o rXrjfxov, ota? otos aiLapraveis.	144

©E. ou7raj roS' olSe Secnrorrjs 7rpti/ ai> 7rd0r).	145

XO. terra* eu/cXe^s ye KardavovfiivY]	150

yw>7 t' dpicTTT] rcov iff)' t/Xlco fiaKpco.

®E. 7rco9 8s ouk dptorry]; rts 8' ivavTLcoaeTai

to |xr| ov yeveaOai TrjvS' v7repl3e^Xr)fji€vrjv

yvvaiKa; ncos 8' ai> /xaXXov ei>8et£atTO tls

ttociv ttpotlfjlcoa rj OeXova virepOaveiv;	155

KCLl TOLVTa /JL€V Srj TTOLCT eTTLCTTaTaL 7roXts •

a o) J o /	vo	n	/	\/

a o ev oo/jtots eopacre uavfjiacrr) kKvcov.

iiret yap rjadeO9 rjfiipav rr\v KvpCav

rfKovaav, vSacri 7rora/x,tots XevKov XP®a

iXovcrar, €K 8' eXovcra KeSpivcov S6fjb(ov	160

iadrjra Koa-fiov r ev7r/0€7r<S? r/crKijcraTO,

feat crracra rrpocrdev ecrrtas Karrjv^aro •

8ecnroiv\ eyco yap ep^o/xat Kara ^Oovos,

TravvcTTarov ere it poem ltv over amfcro/xat,

reic^9 op^avevaai Tafia • #cat r<£ /xez/ <f)iXr)v 165

crv^ev^ov aXo^ov, rfj Se yevvaiov 7rocrtz>.

fJLrjS* wairep avrcov rj reKovcr* airoXXvpiai

Oavelv acopovs 7ratSa9, dXX' evSatftoj/as

ei> irarpcpa repirvov eKirXrjcrai (itov.

Ttavras 8e fico/iovs ot Kar 'ASfjajrov Sofiovs 170

irpoorrjXOe Kd^e&rexjje Kal 7rpoo"Y)v£aTC>,

144 w] w 2?. 145 7r<i%] 7rddrj P irtidoi r. The insertion of 144-5 after
149 was suggested by II. Mueller. 150 Z<rr<£ 1? | pup Z] w)v r. In L the 7rapd-
ypa<j>o$ is prefixed to 151 and 152, so that 152 ft. are assigned to the chorus. In
P dep. (= depdiraiva) is prefixed to 151 and rpo0. (= rpo(f>6s) to 152. | 151 fia-
KpG>v B. 153 rb fjlij oti — tif)pd' Lenting] ti xpfy — t^v MSS. 157 day/ido-fl]
0avfid<rr) B (with ei written above tj by b) davfidcreis L (with 17 written above the
eis by I). 164 TrpoGTrirvovcf a] irpocnriTvov'a' r (and a3). 167 airdWvTcu S.AAKHSTI2.

11

7rropOcov dirocx^Covca fivpo-Lvrjs <f)6(3r)v,

aKXaucrros aarevaktos> ovSe tovttiov
kclkov [xeOtaTT] xparrbs eveiSrj <f>vcnv.

Kaireira Oaka/iov icrirecrovcra Kal Xe^os,	175

ivravda Srj ' SaKpvcre Kal Xeyei raSe •

o) keKTpov, ez>C7a irapuevei eKvcr eyco
[Kopev/xar' €#c rov8' avSpoSy ov OvrjaKa) irepi,]
X°2p - ov yap i^datpo) a • a,7rwXecras Se /xe
[jlovov: irpoSovvai yap cr OKvovcra Kal ttoctlv	180

OvrjCKaj. ere 8' aWrj tls yw?) KeKTrjcreraL,

craxfrpcop fiev ovk dp /xaXXoi>, evrv^qs 8' ureas.

Kwei Se TrpocnriTvovcra^ Trap Se 8efxviov
Q<f)0akiJLOT€yKT(p Several ttX^/x/av/hSi •

CTreLSe *7ToXX<Sz/ SaKpvCOV €<T)(€V Kopov,

crrei^et 7rpopa)7rrjs eKireorovcra 8efxpioip,

Kal 7roXXa OaXa/xop i&ovcr inter pa^rf-
Kappixjjev avrrjp avOis eg koltt)p Trakiv.

iralSes Se treirxoip fjoqrpos i^y]pty]fxevoi
€K\atov ' 77 Se Xayb^avovcT is ayKaXas
r)(T7rdtseT aXXor aXXoz>, a5g Oapovfjueprj,

irdpres 8' eKkaiov oik4t at /cara err eyas
hiairoivav olKripopres- 77 Se he^idv
7rpovreiv €KacrT(py kovtls fjv ovtco KaKos
ov ov Trpoo-elire Kal TrpocrepprfOr) iraXip.

172 irbpOwv B (with r written above the 71- by &). | fivpatvuv S. 173 fixXau-
ros i. 176 'SdKpvtre Heath] daupvae 'MSS. 178 rejected as spurious by
Nauck. 180 /a6w>j> Blomfield] phviqv MSS. 182 otfx* Suidas s. v. kX^ttttis.
183 /ciJm $. | irpo<rirlTvov<ra Elmsley] irpo<nriTvov<ra B S (in L ttltt was written
at first, but has been altered to wit by L1) irpoo-TrlirTovora a. 184 6<f>0a\-
fioTtyKTQ P (and a3)] d^daXfwr^KTip r. | devero S (with an erasure in P
above the 0). 185 €<rx*v Earle] elxev S e?xe r. 186 irvovuvfy B (with
irpo written above wvo by b). 188 avrrjv L~] a$tt)v r. 190 4p ayicdXais S.
194 7rpdreiv B.

19012

EYPIIIIAOY

Toiavr iv olkols iarlv 'A$jjl7]tov kclka.

\	/)	/	* *	>	3 /	>	.y

/cat Karuavcov y av coKer * eKcpvycov o €)(€L
toctovtov aXyos oviroff oS XeXrjcrerai.

XO. rj ttov areva^et tolctlS' *AS/a^tos /cafcois,

icrffXrjs yvvatKos el areprjOrjvai ccfye ^prj;	200

®E. /cXaiei y' olkoitiv iv ^(epoiv <f>iXr)v e)(a)v,

kclI fir) irpoSovvat Xi0"0"€T(H, rapltj^av.a
Zjf)TO)v (f)0LV€i yap Kal jiapaiverai vocrco.
Trapeifxevy) Se, xeLpbs adXtov fiapos,

o/Aws Se, KaCnep crfiLKpov, ifxirviovcr en,	205

/SXeipau npbs avyas fiovXerai ras rjXtov.

[oJs ovttot avdis, aXXa vvv rravvcrTarov
aKrlva kvkXov 0* rjXcov trpo(r6\\fetai.]

aXX' elfjii Kal crrjv ayyeXw irapovaiav
• ov yap n iravres ev <f>povov(Ti KOLpavoLS,	210

coctt iv KaKOLcriv evfjL€v€L<? irapecTTavai'

ctv 8' el 7raXato9 SecnroTats ifiols <£iXog.

HMIX. tci Zev, ri's az> 770)9 7Ta 7topos kakwv	<rrp.

yevoiro Kal Xucris	a irapecTTi Koipavois;

HMIX. e^eicri ns; 17 T€|KO Tpt^a,	215

feat fieXava crroX/jibv TriirXoiv
a/jKfyifiaXco/ied' 7]Sr);

HMIX. StjXo, fxdvy <f>LXoi, SrjXa y\ aXX' 6fia)<;

197 Kardavibv y second Hervagian edition] KarOavAv r MSS. | r 2x€t
198 ovirod' ov Nauck] ovttot 01) L a ou ttot ob B L ov ttot ov a2 ovttote P. j X^tre-
rat L. 199 roicr/5'] ro?<rt5' J5 a to1<tlv S. 200 et $] 97s B (and a2) rji a | a<f>e
S a] ye B. 205 The punctuation in the text was suggested by F. D. Allen.
207, 208 That these lines are an interpolation from Hecuba 411, 412 was pointed
out by Valckenaer. 211 irapto-T^vai P ira**<TTdvai L irapeffT&vai I. B a P
assign 213-43 to the chorus; L assigns 213-17 to the chorus, 218-25 to the
depairaiva, and 226-43 to the chorus. The assignment in the text follows Weck-
lein. 213 &1> irws ira B] &v ttcos Trai * P &v tto>s * * L ft,v ira a. 215 t^/xu)
G. Hermann] reaw MSS. 218 7'] 5 B.AAKHSTIS.

13

OeolcTLv ev^aifiecrda' dew yap Svva/i19 /xeytcrrTj.

XO. a>va£ Uaiav,	220

e£evpe fjarj^avdi/ riv ^AhfJLrjro) kclkcdv,

7TopL^e Srj 7ropL^e' Kal rrapos yap '

tovt i<f>r)vp€<z, [feat *w]

\vT7]pio<; 4k davdrov yevov,

<j)ovLov 8' diroTravg'ov "AiSav.	225

HMIX. Trairal................avno-Tp.

co 7rai ^eprjToSy ota Trpa§as Sdfiapros eras o"T€p€is.
HMIX. dp' afia /cat cr^ayas raSe
kcu tt\4ov rj ^po^co Seprjv

t ovpavico ircXdcrcraL;	230

HMIX. rav yap ov (friXav aXXa (fyiXrdrav

yvvaiKa Kardavovcrav €iv yfoj,aTL t<SS9 iit6{/j€l.
XO. i8ov iSov,

4k 8ofmov St) Kal TTocris iropeverai.

{ioacrov <3 crreva^ov, co QepaCa

X0(x)v, [t<xi>] apicrrav	235

yvvaiKa iiapaivofxevav voaco
}(0oviov K&Ta yds Trap9 "AiSav.

219 €tix^^<rda a d (Flor. 31, 15) Z] evx&jJAda L etfx6jue0a P ^%t6/ie0a B |

fiis J5] a dtiva/jLLs r | fieyleTr) B L P] /xcywra a /xeyteTa C d. 220 c3ra£
221 /j.Tjx&vd'v tip /S] fi"qxav^iv Tlv' a fJ'VXav^v VVTLV* B. 223 tovt Monk] ro05*
MSS. | [/cat vvv] was bracketed by Monk as an interpolation. 225 5'] r S. |
"Aidav Heath] atdav MSS. 226 irawai <x> B a] iraT irai <f>ev <J>ev t& id) S. The
lacuna after irairai was first marked by W. Dindorf. 227 ota irpd&is Jacobs]
of €7r/oa£as MSS. | <ras] <rrjs P ttjs o-rjs L | orrepels Monk] a-Teprjdels MSS. 228 ap
G. Hermann] al at P at at L al at at at B al al at at a. 229 Kal is omitted in
a | 7rXeTov S. 230 t ovpavlq] see Critical Notes. | 7re\d<r<rai Erfurdt] ire\6.<rai
MSS. 231 <pi\TdTr)v 8. 232 civ W. Dindorf] iv MSS. | ijfiaTL B L P]
dfiart d as dfiaTi a. [ rCode y' 6\fcei S. 233 Idou Idoti was not in S. 234 <tt£-
va^ov w pbaaov (j36r}aov P) c3 S. 235 \rav] rejected as an interpolation by
Erfurdt. 237 xObviov /card yas Weil] Kara yav x^vlov MSS. (but yds B).
"Aidav] &dav S atdav r.14

EYPiniAOY

-ovnore (f)7]or(o ydjjiov ev^paiveiv

7rXeov rj Xvirelv, rols re irdpoidev

TeKfjLaipoiLevos teal racrSe	240

Xevcracov ^SacriXews, ocrns a/oicmjs
&ir\aic&v aXoyov ttJctS' a/3lcotov
top eireira \povov fiiorevcrei*

AAKH2TI2.

*AXie kcu <f>ao<; d/aepas,	<rrp.

ovpaviai re Su>ai z/e^e'Xas Spo/xaiov.	245

AAMHTOS.

opa ere Ka/xe, Svo kolkcos TreTrpayoras,

ovSev 0eov<; Spdcravras avd' orov Oavfj.

AA. yaia re /cat {AekdOpcov creyai	avnerrp.

vv/jl^lSlol re Kotrai irarpcpas 'iwXfcov.

AA. eiraipe eravrrfv, d raXaiva, fjurj 7rpoSa>5*	250

Xicraov Se rows Kparovvras oiKrlpai deovs.

AA. op<S Slkcottov opco (tkacfros \_ev \l[lvo],	o-rp.

veicvcov Se 7TopOfievs

e)(G)v x^p' e7rt Kovrco Xapcov jjLrjSr) KaXel' ri/xe'XXeis;
eiretyov • cru Kareipyeus. rdSe rot fie	255

cnrepxpiievos rayyvei.

239 irdpoidev L~\ irdpoiBe r. 241 Xdkrawp] XeiVw? ical S (but in L Kal has
been deleted by I). | 6'o-ns] in L the ns has been deleted. 242 dir\aKibv
Wakefield] dfxwXaKdjv S dfjiirXaKuv r (in B X is a correction by B1 from some
other letter). 244 rj^pas S. 247 Oaveiv L. *249 vv/jL^ldiai S. | 252 opto
before <r/cd0os has been erased in L. | [h Xlfivqt] omitted in the Aldine ed.,
bracketed by Prinz. 254 %^P Aldine] x€V MSS. 256 r&de rot jue B a]
rdd* 2roifJLa S.AAKHSTIS.

15

AA. ot/xot, TTLKpav ye rrjvSe [jlol vavkxrjplav
eXe^as. <3 SvaSalyiov, ota iracrxPiLev.

AA. ayet /jl ayet fie rts, ovk opas;	dvT«rrp.

v€kv(ov is av\av	260

V7r' ocfypvcTL KvavavyeaL ^Xeircov, vTepcDTOs *AtSas.

/ e //•	* i	<? e e> \ c\ O

rt pegeLs; a (pes- oiav ooov a oei-
Xatorara irpofiawQ).

AA. oiKrpav (fyikoLcnv, e/c Se tcov /xaXtcrr' i/Jiol

kcll ttcllctlv, Ot? 8?) ttevoo<$ €v kolvcp to Se.	265

AA. fjL€0€Te fiedere fi 17817,

/c\t^aT>, ou crOevco irooriv
ttXtjclov ^atsas.

cTKOTLa S' e7r' ocrcrot? vi>£ i(f>epTrei.

roc^a, t€/cj?s ov/cert S77	270

ovk€tl fJidrrjp &<j>qiv ecrriv.

XaipovTeSy <3 t€kvcl, toSe V^aos opwTov.

AA. OLfAOL • TO8' €7709 \vTTpbv (XKOVQ) .

KCLL 7TCLVTOS ifJLol daVClTOV fieL^OV.

fir/ 7rpos <crc> 0e£)v,T\fj<; pe irpoSovvaL,	275

/i/r) 7rpo5 7tcll8cov ovs op<£ai>tets,

aXX' ai>a ToXfia'

orov yap (j)0L/JL€vr)<; ovk€T av elrjv
ev crot 8s T||iiv /cat /cat ^17 •

o"7)i> ya/> <£tXtaz> aefiofxecrda.

259 dtyei /it dtyei /-te rts Z] dtyei * dtyec /*e ris X #7ei #7ei ^ tis P #7€i /u,* dtyei rts i?
d7ct /a' dtyei rls Ayet tls a. 260 P] et's r (and so corrected in P, whether
by P1 or not is uncertain). 261 <£5as P #5175 L dtdas r. 262 r* pt&is 8]
/u&?es /xe r/ /^£ets (irpd&is B) r. 263 SeiXat * * L deiKala I. 266 fiidere fx£-
dere /x $] fiedere /ne fiidere /jl r. 267 /cX^ar'] k\Ij>clt£ fi S | iroatv Hermann] iroal
L Tr6<ri r. 268 &das S atdas r. 269 6(rcroi<ri P 6<r<roi(nv L. 270 i]
t^kvo. r. 271 o$k4ti 5t) S | <r<f>(av $] <r(pCoiv r. \ i(mv L £<rrl r. 273 w/aoi
P X1. 275 wp6s (re deCjv Porson] wpbs Oeuv MSS. 276 not in S. 277 Ava
r6\fia Z] ava Tb\fia B avaTbXjxa r. 278 Viuv Wecklein] iafj^y MSS. 279 <rc-
186/A€0a S (corrected in L by I).16

EYPIIIIAOY

AA. *ASix7)6\ opas yap ra/ia TrpayfxaO* <09	280

\e£ai OeXco aoi irplv Oavelv a fiovkofiaL.

iya> ae irpeafievovaa kolvtl rrjs ifjirjs
\fr°xv^ Karaarrjaaaa <£<3? roS' elaopav
Ovr/atca>, 7rapov fioi firj davelv virep aeOev,

aXX* avSpa re cr^eiv &eaaa\S>v ov rj6e\ov	285

feat 8<3/>ta vaieiv oXfiiov rvpavvtSt.

ovk tfdeXrjaa £771/ airoairaadeiaa aov
avv iraialv optyavoicriv, ov8' i^eLadfirjv,

€)(ovcra 8(3p5, eV of? iTepTrofJLrjv.

kclltol or' o (f)vaa<z XV TtKovaa irpovhoaav^	290

KaXws /iev avTois f KarOavelv rjKov f$iovy
AcaXcSs 8e acoaat 7raiSa KevKXews Oavelv.

fiovos yap avroIs rjaOa, kovtls eXms
o*ou KarOavovTos aXXa (f>Lrvaeiv reicva.

Kayco t av e^cov Kal ai) tov Xolttov ^povov,	295

kovk cu/ iJiovoodels arjs Sa//,apros ecrrez/es
Kat 7raiSa9 (op<j)dveve*?, aXXa ravra fjiev
6eS)v re? i^ewpa^ev wad* ovtcos e^eiv.

elev • av vvv fioi rcovS* arro/JLvrjcrai yapiv'

alrrjcrofxai yap cr a^iav fiev ovirore •	300

i/jyXys y^P ovSev ean TtfiLcorepov •

Swcaia 8', oSs (jyrjcreLS av • rovaSe yap (friXeLS
oi>x fjaaov rj 'ya) 7ratSa9, efarep ev <f>povei<;'

tovtovs avaaxpv 8ea7roras Tpccjxov So/ulcov,

285 deacraXCov a 0e<r<ra\bv r. 288 in L above o£5' Z has written 7/). d\\\
289 €X<>v<ra 5Qp (so P, 5u>pov L) iv oh irepirSfiTjv $] exovcra	ofr irefyirS/JLrjv

iyd) B (but with £yc6 deleted, by what hand is uncertain) exow' ^ ofs iTepird/xrjv
iyu a. 291 see Critical Notes. 294 0iriJ<r«? B (and a in the margin by
the first hand) (pvrevaeLv r. 295 efav B] efyv r (but in L the first hand has
written w above the rj) with Etymol. Mag. p. 413, 9. 298 i&irpa&v S]
trrpa&v B (but with written pyer the kit by BL) eicrtirpafrv a. 299 vvv p.01
JB] fwi vvv a dii /xol L 5* y/xiv P. 304 rptffxav Wecklein] ifiiav MSS.AAKH2TIS.

17

Kal jx77 Vtyiy/x^s roLcrSe firjTpvLdv T€Kvoisy	305

tjtls KOLKiMv over ifiov yvvrj (fyOovco
tols (Toiai fta/Aois 7ratcrt X€^Pa trpocrfiaXei.

/jltj Srjra Spacrrjs ravra y\ atrov/xat cr iyd>.

yap rj Vtovcra firfrpvia t€kvol<s
rots TTp6(T0\ e^tS^s ovSev r/Tncorepa.	310

Kal 7rats fxkv apaiqv irarep" e^et 7rvpyov \iiyavy
[oV Kal TrpocreZire Kal 7TpoarepprjOy) Trakw~\

crv S', c3 t4kvov fxot, 7ra>9 Kopevdrjcrei KaXcos,

TOias rv^ovcra avtpyov rco crco iraTpl;

[irj ctol tip' ala\pav irpoafiaXovcra KXrjSova 315
rj/Srjs iv aKfirj (rovs Sua(j)0eLprj yd/iovs.

ov yap ere fjojrrjp ovre vv/japevereL irore
out' iv tokolctl eroteri dapcrvvet, t4kvov,

irapovcr, iV ovSe^ fjLrjrpos evfievecrTepov.

Set yap davetv /xe, /cat roS* ovk is avpiov	320

OvS* €? TpiTTjV fjlol Vt]X€S €p)(€Tat KaKOV,

aW avrcK iv rols pjf]Ker ova Xe^o/xat.

yaipovres ev<f)paLvoLer0e- Kal crol /xeV, 7rocrt,

yvvaiK apLCTTrjv eern KOjiirderai Xaf3e2vy
vjjliv Se, 7ratS€?, firjrpos ikire^vkeval. .	325

XO. daporei • 7rpo tovtov yap Xeyeiv ov^ a£o/xat#

Spaceu raS', elirep fir/ <f>pev(ov d/jLapTavei.

AA. Icrrat raS\ ecrrat, /xt) rpeerrjs • €7T€t cr' eyci
/cat £<o(rav el^ov Kal davover ifir) yvvrj
[xovrj KeKXrjcrei, kovtis avrl erov 1totc	330

310 2?1 has written 5' above the s of ix^V^- 312 rejected first by Pierson ;
cf. 195 and see Critical Notes. 314 ro/as Reiske] 7ro£as MSS. 318 <ro?<ri
dap<rvv€L t£kvov S] rotai <roi<ri dapcrvvet r. 320 i] e/s r. 321-22 are
omitted in the text of Z, but have been added by L1 in the margin. 321 vrjXts
Hoefer] fiTjvbs MSS. 322 oitziT o&<ri S. 326 oi>x &fojj.ai B, and a1] oft
Xafrfxai S (and a2 and a3). 327 rjvirep and dfiaprdvy S. 329 i/xij'] ifwv a.18

EYPIIIIAOY

rov8' avSpa vvfJL<f)r) ©eorcraXis TTpoa^)9ey^eTai.

ovk ecrnv ovtcos ovt€ narpos evyevovs

ovt* elSos aXXcws €virp€iTT]s ovto yvvrj.

aXis Se iraiScov tcqvS' oviqcriv ev^o/xat

deois yeveadai' crov yap ovk covyjixeda.	335

olcrco Se irevffos ovk irrjcriov to crov,

aXX' ear av a ia>v ou/xos a vre^rf, yvvai,

(TTvycov fiev rj fi eriKTev, i^daipaiv 8 s ifiov

irarepa • Xoyco yap rjcrav ovk epyco <f)i\oL.

av 8# avrihovaa tt)s inrjs ra <^i\rara	340

&"a>(ras. dpa [aol orTeveiv irdpa
rotacrS' dfiaprdvovTi crv^vyov creOev;

iravcro) Se kco[jlov<? ctviattotgjv 0' o/uXias
<rTe<f)dvov<; re fiovadv 977 Karel^ ifiovs 8o/xous-
ov yap ttot ovt av fiapftiTov OLyoip! en	345

out' a*/ (frpev i^aipoifiL 7rpo<; Al/3vp \aKeiv
avXov - av yap /jlov Tepxjjtv e^etXov fiiov.

[ao^fj Se X€t7°^ t€kt6vcov Se/^as to o"oj>

elKaaOev ev XeKTpoiaiv eKjadrjaeTai,
<5 npoaireaovfiai koX ireparTvaacov X^Pa^	360

ovofia KaX(ov crop tt/v (jyiXr/v ev ay/caXais
Sofa> yvvaiKa Kaiirep ovk e)(0)v e^et^,

\fjvxpdv fiev, oT/xat, Tepxfjtv, aXX' o/jlcos fiapos
faXV* diravT\oiy]v av. iv S' oveipaai
(fyoLTcocrd fi ev<f>paLVOLS dv • rjSv yap <f)CXov<;	355

Kav vvktl Xevaaeiv x^vtiv' a*/ 7raprj Tpoirov.]
el 8' 'Opcfreais fioi yXcoaaa Kal [ieXo<; iraprjvy

333 ciirpetrfy ovrw Wecklein] efarp€Te<rT&Tri B a iKirpeireo-T&Tr) S (in P iic is
written over an erasion). Perhaps iktr.feirrjs ovt a is to be preferred. See Critical
Notes. 337 otifiSs B. 344 Kareix^v IfAobs B. 346 apoifii S. 348-56 I have
bracketed as an interpolation. 354 dwavTXelrjv B. 355 <pl\ovs B] <pl\ois r.
356 x^VTLV* Kvi^ala] 6vtiv' MSS. | rpbirov Prinz] XP^V0V MSS. 357 yXwrra S.AAKHSTIS.

19

5<tt Koprjv Aij^Tpos rj Kelvins ttoclv
vfxvoiari KTjXrjaavTa cr *Al§ov Xafi&v,

KarrjXOov av, Kal p? ov6' o UXovtcovos kvcov	360

ovd' ovttI KOiTrrj xjjv^07r0fi7rbs av Xapwv
%<yyev, irplv €? crov Karao'Trjcrai fiiov.

aXX* ovv e/cetcre 7rpocrSoKa p\ orcu> Oavco,

Kal S<£/x' eTotjuta^9, ws crvvoiKrjcrovad poi.

€*/ Taicriv avrais yap fi iirKrKijxjja) KeSpois	365

a*ol rovaSe detvai irXevpa r eKrelvai 7re\as
TrXevpolcri rots 0*019* /u/JjSe yap Oavcov irore
crov	efyv Tvjs povrjs moTTjs epoL

XO. #cal prjv eya> 0*01 iriv6o<z cos (f)iXo<; <£iX(u

Xvirpov crvvoiao) rrj&he • Kal yap afia.	370

A A. <5 7ratS€9, avrot 8?) raS' elarjKovcraTC

iraTpos Xeyovros prj yapeiv aXXrjv riva
yvvoLiK i(j> vfJLiv /x^S' ouripacreiv i(l€.

AA. feat zw ye	Kal reXevrrjcroi ra8c.

AA. €77i ToicrSe 7ralSas x€iP°s c/atjs Se^ou.	375

AA. 8exofiaty <f)iXov ye hcopov 4k <j)LXr)<$ X6/°°s*

AA. o"v iw yevov tolctS* avr epov pt]Trjp T€Kvoi$.
AA. iroXXyj |jl' avayKrj, o"oC y' aTreaTeprjpevoLS.
AA. c3 t4kv*y ore tjjv XPW /*'» airepxopai Karco.
AA. OL/JiOLy tl Spaa00 8777a o"o9 povovpevos ;	380

AA. xpo^o? paXa^ei cr • ovSev ecrd9 o KarOavcov.
AA. ayov pe o*w o"ot 7rpos 0€<s*/ ayou koto.

358 wvt' 17 Reiske] <Js MSS. 362 ecrx^ Lenting] €<rxov MSS.
372 nvA] 7tot£ £. 376 This verse is not in P, and in X is not in the text,
but has been added in the margin by I. Hence in P 375 and 377 are given to
Alcestis, and in L the lines which belong to Alcestis are assigned to Admetus
and those of Admetus to her all the way down to 391. 378 /a' Monk] 7 MSS.
379 xpvv fi C1 XP'h fi Barf ixpvv L (in P /*' kxpfy has been written by P1 over
an-erasure above dirtpxofiat).20

EYPIIIIAOY

AA.	apKov/xev rifiels ol 7rpo9pycrKQPTe<; aidep.

AA.	<5 8al/iov, ota? cvlpyov fi anocrTepeLS.

AA.	Kal firfv (TKoreivov ofifjia fiov fiapvpeTau.	385

AA.	dTroiXofJirjv ap', et /jue St) XeLxfjeus, yvvai.

a A	e	>/>'?	s ^ \ * \ /	3/

AA. ovk€t ovcrap ovoev av keyois e/xe.

AA. opdov Trp6(TG)TTOV, /it) Xt7777s 7raiSa9 (redev.

AA. ov 877#' eKovcrd y. aXXa iper\ c3 T€Kpa.
AA. fiXfyop 7rpos avrovs fSXetyop. AA. ouSa> elfi en. 390
AA. rt Spa?; 7rpoXe[iT€Ls; AA.	^A. a7r<y\o-

fiiqv TaXas.

XO. fiefirjKep, ovk4t hrriv ^ASfiyjrov yvvrj.

\

etmhao2.

t<u /x.ot ru^a?. fi.aia Srj Kara)	<rrp.

n/n	> / > *	T

pepaK€V, OVKCT €CTTU>, 0)

7rarep, v<f)y a\[q).	396

irpoXiirovaa 8* dfiop fiiov

<5>p<|>avicr€v rXd/jicop.

TSe yap iSe fiXecfyapop

Kal Traparovovs \epas.

VTraKovcrov aKov<rovy at /ttarcp, apriatfl) cr* •	400

eyw o"', eya>, /xarep,

. . . /caXov/xat o

or OS 7TOTI (TOLO'L 7T LTV COP <TT6(JLa<TlV PeOCTCTOS.

386 Ap'] av B. 389 %atP^rw 391 TpoXelireis L] TrpoXelweis fie r | xaV
i] xa'Pc r* 393 fioi (mi L. 395 a\£y S] ijX/y r. 397 wp<j>&vi<rev
Monk] wp(f>dvi<T€ MSS. 399 x^Pas a~\ XeP^s B X€?Pas 400 dvTi&fa <f Monk]
avridfo) MSS. 401 £yc& <r £ycb fiar-rip P i] £yc6 <re 7&p fiarrip L, (r* ^yc£, fiarep,
iy& B a. 402 0 S] <r* o r. 403 ttLtvwv a] ttitv&v r j <rt6jxa<nv Barnes] ot6-
ILiadri MSS..AAKH2TI2.

21

AA. ttjv ov kXvovctclv ovS' opGxrav wot' ey<o

Kal cr(j)a) fiapeta (Tv/i^opa 7T€7TXi/jy/xeda.	405

ET. veos iyd>, irarep, Xeiiro/jiaL (f>iXas	Avrurrp.

fiovoaroXos re fiarpos' <2
a^erXia 8rj Tradcjv
iycl) e/oya . . . crv re

crvyKaai [xoi Kovpa	410

. . . awerXas*

... <3 7rar€p,

avovar avovar ivufi^evcra^ ou8e yrjpo)%

efias tcXos avv ra8'-
€(J>0lto yap irdposy

oi^o/xe^a? Se <rov, /xaTcp, oXcuXei/ ot/cos.	415

XO. "ASfirjT, avayicr] racrSe avfuftopas <j>€peLv •

ov ya/o <ri> irpforos ovSe Xoi<rdio<z ftpora\v
yvvaiKos i&OXrjs rjfjLTrXaKes • yiyvw&Ke 8c
0S5 Ttacriv Tj/XLV Kardaveiv ofyeiXerai.

AA. €7rtcrTajLiat ye acovac a<fivco kolkov. roSe	420

TrpocriiTTaT • etSws 8* avr' eTeipo^v iraXcu.
aXX* iK(f)opav yap tovSe Orjaofiai veKpov,

Trdpeare Kal fievovres avTrj^rjaare
7raiava t<S Karwdev do"7rdi>S<w deep.

iracrCv Se ®ec(TaXoicnv cov iya) Kparco	425

7revOos yvvaiKos rrjcSe KowovcrOai Xeya)

Kovpa ^vpyjicei Kal /uteXa/x7re7rX<w cTToXfj •

406 ir&rep \elirofiai £] XeLwofiai ir&rep r. 407 re $] not in r. 409 ff. the
lacunas were indicated as in the text by G. Hermann, who also transposed <n>y-
Ka<rt, which in the MSS. follows juoi. $ has r <riJ7Ka<rt, r re ^uot atiyKaai.
412 &vbvar avbvar Matthiae] avbvara avbvara B a avbvrfr avdvrjT S. 417 tri)
F. W. Schmidt] rt MSS. 420 7c] tc r. 421 irpoaiirar B (with r written
over the Ta by b). 425 ira<ru> a V] ira<ri r. 426 irivdovs B a | \£yc«>] a.
427 neXa/MiriirXo) <tto\t} S fieXayxfaois iriirXois c fieXayxeinois iriirXois B. In a and
d Kovpdi £vp has been written by the first hand, but the rest of the line is wanting.22	EYPiniAOY

redpnnra 0' ot £evyvvade Kal lAovafiirvKas

itcoXovs, crtS^pw Tefjiver avyivoiv <f)6/3r)v.

avkcov Se fir/ kolt aarv, ju/i) \vpas ktvttos	430

eoTco (reXijvas ScoSeK iKirX^pov/Jieva^ •

ov yap tip* aXkov <£>i krepov daxfjco veKpov

/-V O 5	>	/	J 5 V )	5/-/ O /

touo ovo ajxeivov et? e/x • agta oe p,oi
TLfxavr iirel T€tXt]K€V avr ifiov Bavciv.

XO. <S IIeXtov Ovyarep,	<rrp. 435

yaipovaa [jlol elv #A£8a Sofjuoicnv
rov avakiov olkov olk€T€voi<;.

*	S1' 5 A	c	\	/	/) \ <? » s >	/

terra) o Aioas o p,€AayxcuTas "eo? 09 r eirc KG>7ra

TrrjSaXico re yepcov	440

veKpoTTOfjLirbs ?£ci,

7roXv St) tto\v Srj yvvaiK dpicrrav

Xijjivav sKyepovrlav 7ropeucra9 iXara 8LKconq).

7T0\\d ere fl0V(T07r6\0L	Avrurrp. 445

IX€\\f)OV(TL KCL09 eTTTOLTOVOV T dp€LCLV

yi\vv ev r akvpois kXcovtcs v/jlvols,

%tt&pra kvk\o<z aviKa Kapveiov irepivLco'eTai cSpa?

ifjiiivbs a€Lpo[i€va<;	450

Ttavvvypv creXdvaSj

Xnrapaicri r iv oXfiia19 'A0ai/ai9.

rotav eXi7T€9 davovaa fioXirdv fiekecjv aoiSocs.

428 6' ot] re S. 432 tip'] rt B. 434 TL/xrjs S \ t£t\t)K€p Nauck] rkBvt\-
kev MSS. | daveiv Nauck] yMvn S /xSvtjv B \lav a. 435 w l~\ id) r (with L).

436	eiv] ii> S. | 'AIda Lascaris] aid8 Lada P dtdao r. | dd/noiaiv Z] S6/wisr (with_L).

437	ohceretiois P ci\ olk€t€IJ€is L Ikctcijois B. 438 atdas B a] dtdyjs L &5r)s P.
439 Kdirq, £] *(£71-77 r. 443 axepovrelav S (but in l i has written i above the
ei). 446 6pelav <S] ofipetav r. 447 kmovtcs Elmsley] kxcIovtcs MSS. 449 kv-
k\o*s a | irepivl<r<T€Tai BL] Trepivio-erai a TrepLvelaerat {aeron written over an erasure)
P irepLv^creTai p. | wpas Hesychius S. Y. 7re/u<v)/<r<reTai wpas] wp* L 1opa Pla wpq. B.
-450 I have marked mvbs with a dagger as suspicious. 451 Traw6xov a I]
trapv^xovs T I (reXifivas S (but <re\dvas V). 452 adrjvais S (but ad&vais I).AAKH2TI2.

23

y/1) J » J \ \ *	icc

€LU €7T 6/JLOL fXev €L7)y	<TTp. 455

hwaifxav Se cre 7re/jL\fjaL

<f)do<; 'Ai'Sa repdfjivcop

Kcjkvtolo T€ peidpcov

troTa/Ata veprepa re Kama,

<tv yap, (o <o"ii> /zoz/a, <£iXa yvvaiKcov,	460

<rv toj> avTas

erXag ttociv avrl eras dfielxfjai

"Ai8a. kov(J)a croi
){0a)v €irdva)0€ 7recroi, yvvai. el Se n
Kaivov eXoLTO Xe^os 7rdcris,77 fiaX' a*/ eyioiy av eh)
(TTvyrjdels reKvois re tols aols.	465

fiarepos ov 0e\ovcra<;	avno-rp.

7Tpo 7raiS05 )^0ovl Kpvxfjat
Sefias, ovSe ttarpos yepaiov,

c> V	J V \	f / /]

oj> ereKov o ovk erkav pvecruat,

cr^erXwy, irokiav <t)(ovre ^airav.	470

crv S* ei> 77/80,

yea TTpoOavovca <f>ajtos ot)(r}.

Toiavras eurj [jlol Kvpcrai
owSvaSos <£t,Xias aXo^ov • t6 yap

457 *A£5a] #5ou S. 458 Kw/cvrot6 tc pelOpwv] Kal jcwkvtois peldpwv L (kujkv-
toXo Ij who has also written above Kal the word Trepicrcrbs) Kal kojkvtols petdpwv P
Kal kwkvtov re pddpuv B a. Kal was omitted by Matthiae as an interpolation.
(KamvToib re pddpov Earle.) 459 kujit^ S (but Kibira I). 460 <ri> ydp, u <<n>)
pjbva, <pi\a yvvaiK&v Wilamowitz] <ri) ydp, w fibva w <f>l\a yvvaiKup MSS. 461 au-
ras Erfurdt] iavras L (<ravTa$ Z, who has also inserted ye before rbv) eavrijs P
cavTas r. | afielxpaadaL S (dfietyai I). 462 "Ai5a Lascaris] dtda B a dSao S. |
Kovcpa /S] Kov<pa r. 463 iiravvOe Erfurdt] iirdvwdev B a P iwdifco L. | irfooi]
irfoeie I. 464 irb<ri$ \4x°* & I V B I &"] S. 465 t^kvokti P t£kvoi<t* L.
469 5' oik] KoifK P o$k L | pfoacrdai 8. 470 exovres S (but exovre I). 471 vi$\
viq. vtov S. 472 fioi L (with e written over the oi by L1) fioi is wanting in P. |
Kvpffai Musgrave] Kvprj<rai MSS. 473 rb Erfurdt] touto MSS.24

EYPiniAOY

iv /3l6t(o (nraviov fjuepos • rj yap av e/xoiy akvir05
hi aicovos av tjvveLrj.	475

HPAKAHS.

£evoi, Qepauas rrjcrSe Kco/jLrjrai ^0ov6sy
^KhjirjTOv iv So/jlolctlv apa Kiy^dvo);

XO. ear iv Sofioiav irals &epr)TO<;y 'HpaicXeis.

aXX' elire XP€^a T^ °"€ ®^o"aa\S)v xdova
7T6/x7T€t, Qepaiov acrTv irpocrfirjvaL to8e.	480

HP. Tipvvdico 7rpd(t(t(o tlv ^ipvaOel 7rovov.

XO. /cat 7tol 7Topevy; ra> avve^ev^ai irXava);
HP. ®pr)Ko<; rerpcopov apfjua Aio/x/^Sous /xera.

XO. 7t5s ovi> Swrjay; ficov dnetpos el £evov;
HP. aireipos • ovttco Btcrrovcov rjXOov ydova*	485

XO. ovk ecrTii> i7nr(ov Secnrocrcu a avev fxaj(r]S-
HP. aXX' ovS' aTrenreLv rovs ttovovs olov t ipoi.
XO. KTavwv dp* rj£ei<z rj davcov avrov [levels.

HP. ov tov?)' aywva irpSirov av SpdfioL/M iyco.

XO. ti S* av Kparrj<ra<; he(T7r6rr)v irXeov XafioLs;	490

HP. 7tcoXovs aira^o) Koipavw Tipwdtco.

XO. ovk evfjiapes ^aXivov ifi/3aXeiv yvadois.

HP. el fLTj ye rrvp irveovai fivKTijpcov airo.

XO. aXX* avSpas aprayiovcri XauxfjrjpaLS yvadois.
HP. Orjpcov opetcov xoprov, ov\ lttttcov Xeyeis.	495

XO. <f>arvas lSols av aluacriv 1Te<f)vpfJLeva<;.

474 /3i6rw B (with the or written over an erasure) plw S (in L a ye has been
inserted by I before jSlw). | av has been erased in L. | e/xoiy L] ifiol y P e/Moiye r.
477 klyx^voj L a] klx^vw r- 479 x^va]	480 <f>epal(av S (in L I

has written ov over wv). 481 irdvco B. 482 o-vvtfcvi-ai S] Trpoa^ev^ai r.
483 OprjiKos B. 487 rods irbvovs Monk] irSvovs P fi fj v ttSpovs L, roU ir6vois
B a | t ifxol B a] rt fwi L ri^ei P, 488 /x^ms B. 492 evjxadh S (ev/iaph I),
496 atfAcuriv a p] ai>acrt r.AAKHSTI2.

25

HP, tlvos 8' o Opexfjas trals rrarpos /co/x7ra£eTat;

XO. VApeos, £axpvcrov ®pr]KLa<; 7tcXtt/? avafj.

HP. /cat rovSe rovfxov Sat/xcwos ttovov Xeyeis'

crK\r)pb<z yap atet /cat 7rpos cuttos ep^erai •	600

€t x/07? iraciv ov5 *Apr)s iyeivaro

p*d>Xf)v vvvdxjjai, TTpcora p>kvAv/caoz>t,

a Wis Se Kv/c*><w, roi>Se 8' ep\ofiai rpvrov

ayaiva ttcoXols SeairoTrj re av/JifHaXcov.

aXX' ovris ecrTLV os 7w 'AXKfjLijvrjs yovov	505

rpecravTa yeipa. TroXefitav ttot oxjjerai.

XO. /cat fjLrjv 08' avrog rrjcrSe Kolpavos ^(Oovos
vA8/xtjto5 e£co ScofiaTcov Tropeverai.

AA.	& Ato? 7rat ne/xrew? r' a<f>' at/xaros.

HP. vAS^7jt€, /cat cru \aipe, ©ecrcra\<w avaJ*.	510

AA. OeXoifi av • zvvovv 8' oz>Ta cr* e^eTrtcrra/Aai.

HP. rt XPVI1 a Kovpa rrjSe 7rev0L[Jico itpetreis;

AA. ddiTTeiv riv Iv ttJS' rjfiepa /xeXXco vetcpov.

HP. a7T* ow t4kv(x)v ct(xiv Trrifiovrjv ecpyoi 0eos.

AA. tficriv kolt olkovs 7ratSe5 ovs e(j>v(T iy(o.	615

HP. TTarrjp ye [ir/v wpatos, eiirep ot^erat.

AA. KaKeivos ecrn reKovcra /a, 'Hpa/cXets.

HP. ov firjv yvvrj y oXcoXev *AXkt)(tti<; <t4Bev;

AA. 8t7rXov5 or* avrg fiv0o<; ccttl [jlol Xeyeiv.

HP. 7Torepa davovayjs et7ra5 17 ^0*075 7re/ot;	620

AA. €<ttiv t€ KovKer tariv, aXyvveL Se fie.

497 5* 6 Z] 0* o P 5£ r. 498 tfpeos 5 5 (and a3) tfpews a1 Z. | Oprjiclas (P 0pa-
Kt&as i) faxpfoov S | wiWrjs B. 500 afci 5 X] aei r | a?7ros a (with the a cor-
rected from an e) tiros P. 501 ira<riv Wecklein] iraio-lv MSS. | ovs] oh S.
504 (TVfji.pa\Qv L (with the circumflex rewritten by I) a2] avfjLpa\vv r. 505 76-
vov] t6kov L. 506 woXe/jLlav B a] ttoXc/jlI** L iro\efilu)v P I. 509 r was
omitted in S. 511 5' omitted in S. 512 rpiireis B. 514 Air" B a.
515 fcD<ri B. 519 airrty S. 520 irtpi <S] r. , 521 iariv re] %<tti r«
B, | $4 fte] T£ ft* L T* P.26

EYPiniAOY

HP.	ouSeV tl /jlolXXov oTS'- aarj/ia yap Xeyeis.

AA.	ovk olada fioipas 779 rv^etv avrr/v ^pewv;

HP.	oIS', avt\ crov ye Kardavelv v(f)eifjLevr)v.

AA.	ttgJs ovv er eariv^ elirep fjveaev raSe;	625

HP.	a, fjitj irpokkac clkoitiv, eg toS' dfiPaXov.

AA.	reOvr)X o fieXXcov, Kal davwv ovk ecrr en.

HP.	X<y/°t5 T° T'	KCU TO /X,?) vofjll^etcll.

AA.	cru TgSe Kpu>€i5, 'HpafcXei?, Keivrj S' eyc5.

HP.	Tt 8^ra fcXatas/ rts (faiXcov o kcltOclvcov;	630

AA.	yvvrj- yvvaucbs apTLcos fiefjivijfieOa.

HP.	odvelos rj crol avyyevrjs yeycocrd ti<z;

AA.	ddi/elo*;, aXXa)? 8' 77^ avayKaia 8o/ulois.

HP.	7T<Ss O3J> €1/ olkols ctolclv g)xe(rev fiiov;

AA.	irarpbs Qav6vjo% ivdaS' (op(f>avevero.	635

HP.	<£eS.

ei#' rjvpojJLev cr, *AS/xtjtc, /xt) Xvirov/ievov.

AA.	o5? St) rt Spaccov rovS* viroppaTTTeis Xoyov;

HP.	£ev(x)v 7rpos aXXojp ecrrtav Tropevaoiiai.

AA.	ovac eaTw, £va£' fir) rocrovS' eXdot KaKov.

HP.	XvttovjjjIZpois 6xXr)p6s, €i jjloXol, tjevos.	640

AA.	redvacriv ol davovres • aXX' i#' €? Sofiovs.

HP.	aicr\pbv irapa KXalovai Ooivaadai (^lXols.

AA.	£ev(x)ves eiaiv ot <r icra^oyiev.

524 Slv tI B. 525 T/petre 5. 526 a .L] a P a a r. /*7)] omitted in P. |
afxfiaXov Nauck] ava(3a\ov MSS. 527 riOvrjx o B a] TidprjKe L (but with x' o
written over the /ce by Z1) Ttdvrjicev o P I /cat dav&v o$k e<rr' ere Sehwarz] /cai o
davfjiv o$k£t 4<ttiv P x&> Oav&v o&k e<rr' ert L. ko$k{t' ecrd' (%<ttiv B) o koltOclv&v
B a. 530 </>{Xwp] o&p P fjv L (but X1 has deleted ^ and written in the
margin). 531 yvvaucbs 5' a. 533, 534 are wanting in the text of £, but
have been added in the margin by Z1. 534 wXetre a P w\e/3e B. 536 </>€u
was omitted in X, but has been supplied by 1. 537 5?) r£ a] rt r.
538	a i1] %£vov P Z ^elvwv B | AWyv S | ear Lav B. 539 t6<t6v8' B.

541 is aS] els r. 542 </>£Xois] i-£vovs S. 543 icrd^ofiev PI] eiad^ofiev r.AAKHSTIS.	27

HP. pe0es pe, /cat crot fxvpiav e£a) yapiv.

AA. ovk ecrnv aXXov cr avSpos ecrrtav [io\eiv.	645

rjyov aif repSe Sojfidrcov itjcoTrlovs
£ev£>va<; oZ£as, tols t €<|>€aTcoo'iv (ppdcrov
ciTtov irapeivai 7rXfjOos • €$ 8e KXyq'are
dvpas fJLeravXovs • ov Trpeirei Ooivcofjuevovs
tcXveiv arevayiLQiv ov8e \v7retcT0ai £evov<;.	650

XO. Tt Spa?/ tokxvtyjs (tvfjlcjyopas trpogrk€lfl.€vt]$,

VASfirjte, roXfias ^evo8oKelv ; tl poopos et;

AA. aXX' el Sopcov (T(j>e /cat iroXeaj? a7n?X.acra
£evov poXovTa, paXXov av p eTrrjvecras;

ov 8 rjr\ eirei poL crvp<f)opd pev ov Sep av	655

peicov eytyver, atjevcorepos S' eyw.

/cat 7T/30S kclkolctlp dXXo tovt av tjv kolkovy
8opovs Ka\elcr0aL tovs epovs e^0po^evov<;.

avros S' dpiarov Tov8e Tvyyavio £evov
orav 7TOT *Apyovs Suf/Lav eX0co x0ova.	560

XO. 7r<S? ow ^kpvirres tov rrapovra Satpova,

<j>iXov poXovTos av8po<;, cos avrbs XeyeLs;

AA. ovk av 7tot r/0e\r)(rev el<jeX0eiv 86povs>

el t(ov ipS)v tl inqpaTow iyvcopLae.

/cat t(s /lev, ot/^at, Spcov raS' ov 86|co <|>pov€Xv, 665
ov8' alvecrei fie- tap,a S' ovk €7TtcrraTat
peXa0p' (X7r(o0eiv ovS' aTLpat^Lv £evov$.

546 rySe d] rcDde a rtivde r. 547 ifacrQcriv Gaisford] ^>eo"rw<ri MSS.
548 ev England] MSS. (^Se/cX^trare .B). 549 jnerai/Xovs Ussing] /jL€<ra6\ovs
MSS. 551 Toa-a^Trjs S | irpo<TK€ifx£v7)s Wakefield] TrpoKeijxtvris MSS. 552 l-evo-
8ok€?v Stephanus] %evobox&v MSS. | jiCopos 0] /icapbs r. 558 KaXeiadai l (but ica
has been changed to kck by i) | ix^po^vovs $] kclko&vovs r. 560 8rav 7ror']
Bray irep S. 563 after ^Xrja-ev the writer of B repeated by mistake the let-
ters ws avrbs X from the preceding verse, but they have been cancelled with red-
lead. „ 564 iyvdbpiae B~\ iyv&piaev r. 565 ov 56£a> <f>poveTv Herwerden] o&
<ppoveiv SokCj MSS.	/28	EYPiniAOY

XO. <3 tto\v^€lvo<; Kal cXcuOcpoD avSpos aei 1tot oT/cos, <"?•

ere rot Kal o Hvdios evXvpas 5AnoWajv	670

rj^CcDcre vaieiv,

erXa Se coiai fJbrjXovoixas
iv v6|jlols yeveadai,

ho^fiiav Sia KXLTVCOV	675

)S0(TK7][ia(rL COLCTL crvpL^cov
ttolfjlvltols UjU€I>CUOl>5.

crvv 8' iiroLixaivovro XaP$ fttXtwv /SakiaC re
Xvy/ce?,	dvTKTTp.

e/Ja Se Xt7roS(r5 *O0pvos vairav Xeovroiv	680

a &a<f)OLvb<z iXa *

)(op€i)cr€ 8* dju,<£i craz/ KiOapavy

<3>oIj8e, noiKikoOpii;

vefipos vxfjLKOfJicov irepav	685

fiatvova ekarav (T(f>vp(p Kovcfxo,

^aipova evefypovi fiokira.

roiyap TTokviirikordrav	<rrp.

i&rCav oiK€t Trapa KaWlvaov

Bot/Sta^ Xi/Jbvav * apoTotg Se yuaz>	690

#cai TreStojv Sa7re'Sot,s

opew afufn fikv aeXiov Kvefyaiav

urnro&T aviv aWepa rav MoXocrcrw . . . ri^erai,

7tovtiov 8' Klyaicov iir aKrav	595

dXt)ievov HtjXlov Kparvvei.

569 w Z] id> r | TToXti&Lvos Kal i\ev04pov Wecklein (ttoXv&Lpov Kal £\ev0£pov Pur-
gold)] Tro\rj£eivos Kal iXetiOepos MSS. 570 Kal o] L. 572 erXa Matthiae]
€T\rj MSS. 574 vdfiois Pierson] 56/xois MSS. (56/jloktl B). 577 iroinvfjtas S.
579 paXial L] (3a\lai r, 580 ddpvos X] ddptios r. 582 x^v<rG Monk]

pevtre MSS. 588 roiy&p tol B. 589 owe? Purgold] oikcis MSS. 590 yvav
B] yviav a (with the circumflex over v deleted by a1) ytiav L yvlav P. 594 birb-
(rraciv B (with f (= ttjv) written over the v by JB1). 595 5'] r S | Myaltav
schol. ] aiyatov MSS.AAKHSTI2.

29

Kal vvv 8ofiov d/x7reracra5	Avno-rp.

Se^aro |€ivov vorepqJ fiXecfaapo),

ra? 4>iXas kXcllcdv aXo^ov vzkvv iv
Sco/JLactv apTidavf} '

to yap evyeves eK^eperai npos aiSa>.

ev 7*019 dyadotai Se 7rai/r> €v€0"uv <ro<f)Las.

7rpos S5 €jita a Oapcros rjcrrac
deocrefir} <£<Sto, K€Bva 7rpai;eiv.

AA. avhpSiv QepaCcov evfjievrjs irapovcria,

pe/aw [lev r}8r] iravT fyovTa TrpocnroXoi
tyipovav apSr/v is Ta<f>ov re Kal irvpav
vfjbeis Se tt/v Oavovcrav, 0J9 vo/xt^erat,

TTpoaeiTrar i^iovcrav vardnqv oSov.

XO. fcal fJLrjv opco crop irarepa yrjpcuq) 7roSl

GTeiypvT, diraSovs r iv \epolv Sa/xapr/ cry
Koafiov <f>€povTas, veprepoiv dyaX/Mara.

<£EPH2.

7)K(0 KOLKOlcri colcl (TvyKajxpcov, tIkvov

icrOXrjs yap, ovbels avrepet, /cat craxfrpovos	615

yvvaiKos r)fidpT7)Ka^. aXXa ravra fiev

(frepeiv dvayKrf Kaiirep ovra Svcrcfropa.

Se^ou Se koct/aov topSc, Kal Kara *)(dovbs

itco - to Tavrrjs cw/xa TifLacrdai xpecov,

rjrts ye rfjs cfjs 7Tpovdave tyvxVS) t4kvov^	620

Kai fi ovk aTraih' edr\kcv ovS' etaae crov

(TTepevra ytfpa TrevO^a* KaTa<|>0iV€iv,

598 Aldine] ^wj» MSS. 599 <j>l\as Aldine] <f>i\las MSS. 603 ivetrrip
Barnes] epe<m MSS. | in L dya/xai has been deleted by I. 604 rjarai S] IjtrTai r.
608 &] Trpbs S. 617 dtia<t>opa S (and a3)] dvafievrj r d. 622 KaraQdlveip Mat-
thiae] KarcKpdiveiv MSS.

* 600
dyafiai •

60530	EYPiniAOY

7rcurai5 8' eOrjicev evKXeearepov fitov
yvvai&v, epyov rXacra yevvaiov to Se.

c5 tovSe fiev c^(W(rac^,, avaaTTjcraaa Se	625

i7/x,as ttitvovtols, xaWei K^v ^AiSou So/iois
eu croi yevoLTO. (pyj/Jil tolovtovs ya/iovs
Xveiv fipoToicriv, 17 ya^elv ovk a£iov.

AA. oiJr' rjXdes es rovh* i/xov kXt)0€l<; Ta<f)ovf

ovt iv cj)iXoL(TL (TTjV irapovaiav Xeyco.	630

Kocrfiov Se tO'utov ov7rod9 ^S* ei>Sucrerai,

ov yap rt rw craii/ ivSerjs rafyrjcreTai.

Tore ijvvaXyeiv XPVV or' (oXXv/jltjv iyco.

cv S* €K7roS(oi/ crras /cat Trapels aXX<p Oaveiv

ve<o yepcov a>v> tovS* dTroi|xco§T| veKpov;	636

[ov/c tjct#' ap* op9£)<z tov Se crcofiaTOS iraTrjpj

OlfS9 ^ T€K€LV (frdo'KOVO'a KCLl K€K\r)fl€Vr)

firjTrjp fx €TLKTC' SovXlov S' a<£' ai/zaros

/xacrraJ yvvaiKos o"T)<; VTre^XrjOiqv Xa0pa.]

eSei^as eig eXeyyov i^eXdwv 05 ct,	640

#cat ov vofjiC^ci) 7ratSa troi' 7r€<f>vK€vaL.

rj Tapa wavTcov Sta7T/3€7rets ai/a»^ta,

c\	\ /	*	i \ / » V	o /

05 TTT)klKO(TO HiV KaWL T€p/JL T)K(OV piOV

ovk rjdeXrjcras ov$* eroX/xTjcras daveiv

tov crov 1Tpo 7ratSos, aXXa TTjvh9 etacrarc	645

yvvaiK odveiav, rjv iyc!) Kal fxrjTepa

TraTepa t av ej>Sifccas ai> y^yolp/qv [Lovrjv.

kclltol KaXov y av tovS* dyS)v r)y<t)vi(TG)

•623 etoXeforepov b] evK\d<TTarov r. 625 t6j>5' 5 | (twa-ao-'] <r(6<r' j5.
626 wlrvovras a] iriTvdvras B iriTvovvras S | icdv 8 (written over an erasure inX)]
Keiv r. 631 tovtov Earle] rbv abv MSS. 635 airoifx&%rf\ airoifjubfr} a airoi-
fju&fas S &woifjL<S>{€is B. (&iroifid)^€i Matthiae). 636-39 rejected by Earle. See
Critical Notes. 643 tt)\ik6o-8' B a] ttjXIkos L t tjXLkos P. 647 r Slv Elms-
ley] r B a, re y S. | yJbirqv S a] B.AAKHSTIS.	31

rov aov irpo TratSos Kardavcov, fipaxvs 8e crot
7TavT(o<z o Xoaros rjv ^Lcoaifio^ xpovos.

[/caycS t av e^cjv \V^e T°v ^-oiirov xpovov,

kovk av /Aovcodels earevov kclkols e/xotg.]

Kal iirjv 6(r avhpa xpr/ iradetv cuSat)xova
irenovdas • ^/fycras fiev ev rvpavviSi,

7rat9 8' rjv eya> aou ra>vSe StaSo^os Sofuov,

a>ar' ovk areKvos Kardav&v aXXots 8ofiov
XetyeLv efxeXXes 6p<f)avbv hiapiraaai.

ov fxr/v ipeis ye fi <os dn/Jid^ovTa aov
yfjpas daveiv 7rpov§a)Ka<?, Sans al8o<f)pot)v
7T/30? cr rj fiaXiara, kolvtl rcovSe /xot X^PLV
TOiavhe /cat av XV reKova' rjWaijaTrjv.

roiyap (frvrevcov 7ratSas ovKer av <f>davoLS,
ot yiqpofioaKrjaovai Kal davovra ae
irepiareXovai Kal irpoOrjaovTat veKpov.

ov yap cr eyojye TrjSc |ir| daxpo) XePl •

//}	\ ON	J / >	>	V\\	N

T€uvr)Ka yap orj tovttl a • eu o akkov rvyvv

(T(x)Trjpo$ avyas elaopco, Kelvov Xeyco

Kal 7rat8a fi elvai Kal (frCXov yrjpoTpoffrov.

fiaT7)v apy ot yepovres evyovTai daveiv,

yrjpa<; ijjeyovres Kal fiaKpov xp®v0v /3lov	670

rjv 89 eyyvs eXdy davaros, ovSets fiovXerai

Ovrj&Keiv, to yfjpas 8* ovket ear avrols (Sapv.

XO.	aXts yap rj irapovaa avix,<f>opa>

nawai, irarpos 8e fjirj Trapo^vvys <f)peva?.

651-2 rejected by Lenting. efrjv a. 657 SiapirdadCl S diapirdcreiv r I.
658 arifidfovTa $] drifidfav t6 r. 659 irpovdioicas /S] irpovSwicd a' r. 665 rrjde
/XT? Weil] rj5' MSS. 671 %\0oi B. 672 6v^ctk€iv] daveiv a. 673 *A5-
117)0* Mekler] irati<ra<rd' MSS. 674 7rai/<rat Mekler] w ttcu MSS. (Elmsley
pointed out that <3 7rat in 674 was probably a mistake of the copyist due to w iral
just below in 675). | <pptva S.

650

655

660

66532

EYPiniAOY

<M5. (o 7rat, riv av^ets, irorepa Av8ov rj Qpvya	675

KaKOLS ekavveiv dpyvpcov7)Tov creOev;

ovk olada QeacaXov fie Kairo ©ecrcraXov
irarpos yeywroL yvrjcrto)^ iXevdepov;

ayav vfip&is, Kal veavias Xoyovs
piiTT(x)v e? rjfias ov f3a\a>v ovtcos airet.	680

iya) Se cr oikcov hecnrorrfv eyeivdfir\v
Ka0pe\jj\ o(f>€i\co 89 ovx vTrepdvrjcrKeiv aeOev
ov yap 7rarptoov rov8' e8e^dfiy]v vofiov,

iraihaiv irpoOvrjCKeiv 7raTepas, ov8' 'EXX^j/tfcw.
cravT(p yap etre Suorir^s etr' curves	685

€<£vs* a 8' f/ficop XPVV °"€ Tvy^aveiv exets.

iroWSiv jxev ap^et?, iroXvirXeO povs Se crot yvas
Xeti/fo> - irarpbs yap ravr i8e£dfir)v irapa.

rt S^Ta o"5 rjSiKrjKa; rov a dirocrTepco;

firj Ovfjo-x vTrep tov8' av8pos, ovS' eyco 7rpo crov. 690
^aipeis op<S*/ <£<3s* irarepa 8' ov ^aipeiv Sonets;
17 /irjv irokvv ye rov Karco Xoyt^ofiai
Xpovovy to Se Ifiv fJUKpov, aXX' o/xg)9 yXvKv.

crv yovv avai8<3 9 Siefia^ov to Oaveiv,

/cat £195 TrapeXdwv rrjv ireirpoifievyyv rv^yiv^	695

Tavrrjv KaraKras • elr efirfv dtyvyiav
XeyeLS, yvvaiKos, <2 KaKicrdrjacrrj/JLevos,

77 rov Kakov (rov irpovOavev veaviov;

o"o<^5? 8' e<f>r)vpe<; d>crre firj daveiv 7rore,

€t ttjv Trapovcav Kardaveiv Trelaeis del	700

yvval^ junep crov• Kar oi/et8t£ets (J)lXols

679 // L. 680 a7re? 682 60et\w 5' J5 a] 6<f>el\u>v S. 686 XP^1'
687 7i)as Z] 7i)ias I? 7u£as r. 689 ^81kt)o-a S. 690 0vij<rx <S] OvrjorK r.
692 ^ $ (with a2)] 17 r. 693 GiiiKpbv a P. 694 <ri> 7ovv B L~] <rti y ovv r.
698 y B. 699 5' £<f>evpes Bad' evpes S (but 64 y evpes I). 700 irelaeias &v S.
701 Karoveidlfas B.AAKHSTIS.	33

rots fir) OeXovai Spav raS', avro? cov kcikos/

crtya* vo/Mt^e 8\ el air tt/v eravtov (fruXeLS
\jjv)(7]v, ifyiXeiv airavTas' el S' r/fia^ kclkgjs
ipeis, akovcrf iroXXa kov xf/evSfj fca/ca.	705

•XO. irXeia) XeXeKTai vvv re Kal to irplv /ca/ca-

iravcxai Se, irpeafiv, 7ratSa o*oz> KaKoppodcov.
AA. Xey5, a5s e/xou Xe^avto^- et S' aXyels kXvcov

TaXrjOes, ov XPVV & e/x,' e^afiaprdveiv.

<1>E. crov 8' av irpoOvrjcKcov fiaXXov e^fiaptavov. 710
AA. tovtov yap r)fi<ovT dvSpa Kal irpecrfivv davelv;
3>E. xf/v\rj fjua £v}v, ov Svolv, 6(f>eiXofiev.

AA. Kal [irjv Aids ye fxei^ov av ^(prjs ^povov.	713

4>E. fivrjcTTeve 7roX\as, cos davcocri irXeioves.	720

AA. (fyev-

eWJ avSpos eXdots rovSe y es ^peiav irore.	719

4>E. apa yovevcriv ovSev ckSlkov 7ra0cov;	714

AA. fiaKpov (3lov yap rjcrOoixiqv epcovTa ere.	715

<&E. aXX* ov aif vetcpov avrl cov tovS* eKcjyepeis;	716

AA. oTTj/xeta rrjs err}? y , <3 KaKio'T, ai/ar^ias.	717

<3>E. ovtol 77/oos rjixcov y atXer- ovk epels toSc.	718

AA. crot rovr oveiSos • ov yap rjdeXes davelv.	721

<ME. <f>iXov to (freyyos tovto tov 6eov, fyLXov.

AA. KaKov to Xyjfxa kovk iv avSpaaiv to crov.

<I>E. ovk eyyeXas yepovTa ftaaTa^oov veKpov.

A A. Oavfj ye fievToi SvcoTaz/ Oavrjs.	725

<I>E. kakcos aKoveiv ov peXei davovtl /x,oi.

706 r6 Wakefield] rA MSS. 709 xM" 711	L (with b and a2)

TjfjL&v t r. 713 ff. the arrangement in the text is that of Wecklein. See
Critical Notes. 714 apa B | iraOQv B P (corrected by p). 716 vvipbv y B.

717	rijs (ttjs y Herwerden] rrjs arjs B a. try/icia y w k&ki<tt€ ravr &\j/vxla-s S.

718	ovti S | y omitted in S. 723 \rjixfia B | avdpd<riv a L1 p] av<$p&<ri r.
725 davrj S 0&v7) B Odvrji a | Odvrjs S 6dvrji a davij B. 12& /itXet S fdWei r.34

EYPiniAOY

AA. <j>ev <f>ev - to yrjpas cos avaiSetas rrXecov.

4>E. rj$' ovk avaihrjs' njvS* i(j)7]vpes a<j>popa.

AA. aireXffe /cape rovS' ia 0d\pcu veKpov.

<I>E. a7T€t^t* daxfjeis S' avros &v avrrjs (fyovevs,	730

Swcas T€ Secret? aoicri KrjSecrrais en.

<5» V J * 1	} / > * J J > o /

t) rap Afcaoros ovKer ecrr avopaaiv,

ci /177 cr' dSeXc^s al/xa rifx^prjaerai.

AA. eppoiv vvv auros XV tjvvoucijaao'd crot

anaiSe 7ratS05 o^ros, atcnrep a£loi>	735

yrjpdaKer- ov yap tc38' ?t es ravrov areyos
veicrO'- el 8* aireiTrelv XPVV I16 K7)pvK0)v vito
rr/v arjv 7Tarpcoav earlav, arrexirov av.

r)fA€LS Se — rovv iroalv yap olareov KaKov —
crret^oojLLe^, cos ai> ei/ rrvpa dcofxev veicpov.	740

XO. ia> tea. cr^erXta rdX/x/yj?,

<3 yevvaia Kal pey apiary/,

\aipe' TTp6(j>pjcop ere \0ovi05 0' 'E/o/x/iys

o. /	» » o. /	> A

Aiorjs re devoir, et oe ri tcaicei

irXeov ear ayaOols, rovrcov j&ere^ovcr*	745

*Ai8oi> vvfjL<f>r) TrapebpevoLS.

729 kclL /jl€ 8. 731 re] 5£ $. | <rot<ri $ a] rottri <rot<rt 5 (but J51 has deleted
<roi<ri). 732 ^ Tfy>'] ^ r dp' P ay r ap L rj r &p B | &K\av<rros o$k ear 4v
avdpacriv %tl B (b has written in the margin oik^r' tar iv dvdpdcriv). 734 c/jpwv
schol. (riv^s ippwv ypd<f>ov(TL aifv t$ i>)] eppois B a eppov L p eppo* P. | w? Lasca-
ris] vvv MSS. 735 dvros $] 6vres r (with I). 736 t<£5* %t Elmsley] rw5e
y B a raid' It S. | ravrb S. 737 XPVV -B] XPt L (with v added by X1) xp^l r•
739 roiv irovlv L J?] roO iroal P Tdvfiiroaip a Tovfiiroai B. 741 l<b l<b B a Z] id) S. |
(rxerXlri B. 742 &pi<rTa 8. 743-44 ddrjs epfxijs re dtxyQ*	745 aya-

0oi<ri B | /jL€T^xovcr' a M€t4xov** L fi€T^xova'a P /j£t4x<>v B- 746 v^fMprj B]

v&H<f>a r. | irpoaedpeiJOLS 8.AAKH2TIS.

35

0EPAIION.

iroWovs fiev yjSrj koltto iravroias ^6ovo\?

£evov<z fJLoXovras olS* eg 'AS/x/^rov So/xous,

of? Selirva TrpovdrjK * aXXa tov8' ov7rco |cvov

KaKiov €5 rifi/S5 icrriav ihetjafirjv.	750

05 irpcora fxkv irtvOovvra Seo-iroTrjv op(ov

io"fj\Oe KaroXfirja a/ieitf/acr^ai 7ruXas.

€7ret/ra 8' oiJrt cra)(f)p6v(os cSe^aro

ra irpoarv^ovra £evia, crvfi(f)opdv fxa0(ov,

aXX* el n firj <£epoi/xei>, ajrpvvev (frepeiv.	755

iroTrjpa 8' iv ^eipecrcri klctctlvov Xafiwv

7nvei fieXaivrjs fjLrjrpbs ev^copov [JLtOv,

cods idep/MT]v avrov dfi(f)L^aaa (j>\o£

olvov OT€<jf>ei Se Kpara jtvpaiviis fcXaSois

a/jiova vXclktcdv, [8to"cra 8' 77*/ jLteXij kXvzlv	760

o /xei> yap ySe,] tojv iv 'ASfiTjrov KaKcov

ovSev TrpoTLfMcov, oIk€tcli 8' efcXaio/xez/

he&iroivav ojifia 8' ouk iSeLKvvfiev ££v(p

Teyyovres' *AS/jltjtos yap <SS' e^>tero.

/cat iya) fiev iv SofAoicrLv eoria)	765

tjevov, iravovpyov k\S)7ra /cat Xrjo-rrjv nva,

77 8' CfC So/jlcov /Se/SrjKev, ov8' ifeo-voiJLrjv

ovS' i^ereiva Xe^P> diroLfKo^cov ifJLrjv

hecnroivav, i] '(jloI iracri r oiKeraicriv rjv

l^yjrrjp • KaK(ov yap fxvpLcov ippvero,	770

748 ek	749 Dobree] £^voi/ MSS. 750 & 5] e/s r. 755 #£-

pote? J5. | djrpvve B P. 756 xe'LPecr<TL a] XeLP€(Ti r- 759 fivpcrLvrjs Canter]
fivp<rLvois MSS. 760 Sttro-d, — #5e not in S (in I i has supplied 760 in the
margin, and 761 in the text over an erasure). I have bracketed the words as
an interpolation. 761 ride B. 765 e<rrtw B a. 767 ifatrdfiriv B. 769 77
'/xoi Wakefield] 77 ilol MSS. 770 eppvero S] ipfero r.36

EYPiniAOY

opya9 /zaXaaraova avSpos. apa top £4vov
cTTvyS) 8tKatft)9, iv kclkols a^Lyfievov;

HP. ovtos, rt ae/jupop /cat TreffrpovTiKos fSkeireis;

ov xprj ctkv0pconbv rot? £eVois top TrpocnroXop
elvcu, heyeaOai 8' eviTpoayyopco (fypepi	775

o"v §' apSp' iraipov SeairoTov irapopd* opwp,

(TTvyvcp 7Tp0(T(07r(0 Kal crvv(t)(f)pvo)[iev(o
Se^ei, dvpaiov irrffiaTo5 cnrovSr/p €\(ov.

8evp' e\6\ o7T(os ap Kal crofjxorepos yevy.

ra dvrjTOL 7rpdy[iaT olSas rjv e^et <f>vcnv;	780

ol/xat pep ov- iroOep yap; aXX' clkov ifiov.

fipoTols ana <xi Kardavelv o^eiXerax,

KOVK €CTL QvTjTCOP OCTTl? i^€TTL(TTaTaL

ttjp avpiov fieWovcrav ei /Jig5o*€t<u-

to T779 ti/^s yap a<f>ap^ 0* ^po^rjcerai^	785

Kacrr ov StSaKTOP ovS9 aXicr/cerai Te^py.

ravT ovv aKovaas Kal /xadcop ifiov 7rapa,

€v(f)paLV€ cravTOP, m*>€, top Kad' rjfjiepav

fiiop \oyiipv crop, ra S5 aXXa tt/s

tlfia Se Kal rr/v irXelaTov 7)8l(TT7)p deatv	790

Kv7rpiz> (HpOTOi<riv evfiepTjg yap rj Oeos,

ra 8' aXX' eaaop ravra Kal iriGov Xoyois

i[JLOL(TiP, €LTT€p Opdd (TOL SoKCO XeyeLP'

otfiai (lev. ovkovv ttjp ayap \v7t7]p a<f)€i$

irvrj [led* r/fiaip [rctcrS' virepjSakcop ri^as,	796

771 &pa B P (corrected by P1). 781 0?fiai] 8ok& Plutarch Consol. ad
Apollon. 11, p. 104. 782 iLiraaiv airodavetv Menander Monostich. 69. 783 ea-riv
avT&v Plutarch I. s. c. 785 ot] ov S rj C. 787 tovt Orion Anth. viii. 4
p. 53. 788 TTive L p] irlve r. 792 iridov Monk] tridov P irddov r. 794 ol/xai
ydv] these words are assigned to the servant in a. 795 rtfxas] 7P- v^\as a1 in
the margin. The schol. mentions both readings. The words rd<rd' — irvicaadelt
were rejected by Herwerden as interpolated from 829 and 832.AAKHSTI2.

37

<rT€<f)dvoLS TrvKacrdei*;^; Kal cdfi otS* odovveKa

tov vvv (TKV0pCt)ttov Kal £w€CHWOS f <f)p€V(OV
jxeOopynei cre mTiAos ifnreaojv (TKv<f)ov.

ovra<z Se dvrjrovs dvrjTa Kal (frpovelv xpewv
(os tols ye (renvois Kal crvvaxfrpvcofievoLS	800

diracTLV icTLv, cog y i/iol xprjaO ai KpLrfj,

ov /3ios aXrjdcos o /3lo<z aWa (Tv/A^opd.
©E. €7rto"ra/x€cr0a ravra * vvv 8e irpdcro-ofJLev

ov\ ota Kco/Mov Kal yeXarros afta.

HP. yvvr) dvpalos r/ davovcra • fir} \iav	805

TrevOei • SofJLcov yap ££crt rcovSe Secr7rdTai.
©E. Tt tpviv ; ov Karoiada rav So/xots /ca/ca;

HP. €6 jLL^ Tt CT05 fJL€ SeaTTOTTJS i\jj€V(TaTO.

©E. ayav €k€lvos icrr ayav <f)i\6ijevos.	809

HP. /jlcov ^vfi(f>opdv tlv ovcrav ovk e<f>pa£e /jlol;	812

©E. ipa)v id'- y^fLiv Seanoriov fieXei /ca/ca.

HP. 58# ov Ovpaitov Tr^fxaTcov dpXei Xoyos.

©E. ov yap Tt Kcjfjid^ovr av y]yQ6pjrjv cr opcov.	815

HP. aW* 17 ireirovOa Setz/ vito £evcov i/i<ov;	816

©E. ovk rjXOes ev heovri Se^aadaL So/jlols.	817

HP. ov XPVV H* oOveuov y ovveK ev Trd&xeiv veKpov; 810
©E. 77 Kapra \l£vtoi Kal \iav olk€lo<z rjv.	811

\tt£v0o<z yap r^iiv eort • Kal Kovpav jSkeireis 818
/LteXa/i7re7rXov5 oroX/iovs re. HP. Tts S' o Kar-
9avdt)v;]	819

797 (ppevCov s~\ kclkov r. 803 iirlffrd/xeaOa L a] &ri<rrd;ue0a r. 807 k&Toi<r0a
L a2] KaToi<r0a r. 809 ff. The arrangement in the text follows Wecklein.
See Critical Notes. 809 &yav y S. 812 e<f>pa^e B. 813 fifKXet B.
815 tl — <r opuv~] <re — opGbv S (in P there is an erasure before op&v). 817 56-
fiovs 8. 810 otf XPVV m] ovkovp S. 811 OvpaTos a. 818-19 I have fol-
lowed Kvi£ala and Wecklein in rejecting these two verses and retaining 820.
See Critical Notes.38	EYPiniAOY

HP. [ICOV rj T€KVO)V 7X9 <j>pOV§OS rj jip(i)V Trarrjp;	820

©E. yvvrj /lev ovv oXcoXev 'AS[Mijrov, £eve.

HP. ti ^5; eireira Srjra fx i^evi^ere;

©E. ySelro yap ere ra>vS' andjcrao'daL 86{jlcot/.

HP. co cr^erXt', otas ^/xTrXafce? £vvaopov.

©E. aTrojXofJLecrda 7ravres, ov Ketviq {lovr).	825

HP. aXX' ^crOofJiTjv fxkv ofifji IScop SaKpvppoovv
Kovpav re kglI t Trpoaoiirov • aXX' eireidi fie
Xeycov dvpaiov KrjSos es rdefrov (fyepeu/.

/3ta $€ 0vfiov rdcrS' virepfiakcov 7rvXas
eirivov avSpos ev ^>i\o^evov So/iois,	830

irpd<j(T0VT0S ovtq). Kara K0)[xd^(0 Kapa
(TTecfrdvoLS irvKaadeis; aXXa crov to fir/ <f>pd(rai,
KaKOV TOCTOVTOV S(0[iacrLV 7rp0(TK€L|i€V0l).

ttov Kai o"(f>€ 9aitt€l; 7rov viv evprjaca fio\(ov;

©E. opdrjv irap' olfiov 77 VI Aapiaav <f>epe 1	835

rvfifiov KaroxjjeL £earov 4k TrpoacrrCov.

HP. <3 7roXXa rXacra KapSta Kal XeLP fyrf*

vvv Se i^ov olov 7ratSa cr' ^ TupwdCa
'HXck rpvovos eycivaT 'A XK/njvr) A a.

Set yap p,e acocraL rrjv Oavovcrav dpriois	840

yvvcuKa K€L<; rovS* avdus ISpvcrat Sopov
*LP, 'ASixyjrco 69 tmovpyfjaqi ydptv.

820 t2s <f>pov8os rj S (rls r/ (ppovdos rj P] ri (ppovdov ytvos fj B (but J51 has deleted
yivos) ti <ppovdov r) a. 825 /x6voz> L. 827 irpbawirov is probably corrupt. |
dXX'] dXX' B (but -B1 has deleted fyxws). 829 rvxas 7rv\as a (but a3 has
erased irvXas and altered rvxas to 7rtfXas). 831 Kara (Kara a2) icco/idfa a kcltcl-
KWfJidfa B Kar iKcbfia^ov L K&ireKibfjLafav P. 833 dw/jLaaiv a] dcb/mai S ddfmros B |
7T po<r Kcifi^vov Scaliger] irpoKci^vov MSS. 834 fwXQv B. 835 oT/jlov B | A dpi-
<rav Nauck] \dpur<rav MSS. 836 irpoacrrlov L p] irpoaa-relov r. 837 Kal
X^lp~] t a (cf. Orest. 466). 839 ifheKTpvbvos G ('HXeicrptiovos Blomfield)]
ifkeKTptovos r | iyelpar Blomfield] yelvar MSS. 841 Idpvaac P] Idptitrat r.
842 6'] 6 8.AAKH2TIS.	39

iX0a>p Sv avatcra top n^Xaji/irTcpov veicpcop
©avarov <f)v\d£(o, Kat pip evprjaeip Sokco
7tlvovtcl TVflfioV 7rXr)(tl0p Trpoa^ayfiatcop.	845

Kapirep Xo^aias avrop eSpas crvOels
fiapi^G), kvkXop §€ TTcptpaXo) ^epoip ifiaipy
ovk ecrnv octtls avrov atpyjaerat
fjLoyovvra irXevpa, irpXv yvvaiK ifiol p<£0y-
Tjp 8 * ovp dfiapro) rrjaS9 aypas, /cat /jltj /jloXt) 850
7rpos alfJLarrjpbv ireXapop, el/JLL rS>v Kara)

Kopr/s avaKTos r etg aprjXuovs 8ofiovs
alrrjcrofial re • tea I TreiroiO* a^eiv apco
¥A\kt)o-tlv, (ocrre yepalv ivdelvai £epovy
os fi es 86fMOv<; i8e£ar ovS5 a7njXa<T€y	855

Kairrep fiapeia avfi(j>opa TTe7rXr)yfi€PO<s,

€Kpv7TT€ 8' <3i/ yeppalos, alSecrdels c/ac.

rts TovSe /jlolXXop (decrcraXtop fyiXo^epos,

Tts 'EXXaS* oIkcop; Toiyap ovk ipel KaKop
evepyerrjcraL (f>S)ra yeppaios yeycos.	860

AA. l(o,

(TTvyvaX'Trpoaohoi, crrvyval 8' oxjjei?

yrjpo)v fieXaOpcov. ico fiot [jlol. atai.

7rot /3<S; ira orco; Tt Xeyco; ri Se jut?;
7rw9 a*> oXoL/jiav;

rj jSapvSaifJLOva fiyjr^p /jl £t€K€p.	865

£77X0i cfyOi/Jiepov9, Keipcop epa/xat,

843 fie\dfji,irT€pov Musgrave (from the schol.)] fieXd/jLTreirXov MSS. 846 Xo-
xa/as Etym. Mag. (the Cod. Florentinus of that work has k&p irep Xoxata <ravrbv
i^dpas). The schol. says ypdfperai Xo%£as (probably a mistake for Xoxafas.)]
XoxfocLS MSS. 847 irepi(3d\(a Monk] 7repi/3aXw 8 irepifiaXibv r (with i). | tyb a
ifi&v a2 ifMuvaP. 852 avrjXiov B. 859 iXdd' B. 862 In X i has added
a second l(b. | /wl hoi] jjlol B | alat] al al P at a L e € B 2 2 a. 863 irq. Porson]
wijl iroir. 864 6\otfx &v B. 865 yj fiapdalfMova B | €T€K€P I/\€T€K€ P erucrev r.40

EYPIIIIAOY

kclv i.TTidvfX(x) Sco/iara vaieiv.

ovre yap avyas \aipco irpocropGiv
ovt iirl yatas iroSa irel^evcov •

toiov ofirjpov fju a7rocrv\rj(Tas	870

*Al§7) SdvCLTOS 7Tap€§(OK€V.

XO. TTpofia irpofia- /3ol0l K€V0OS OLKGJV.	<rTp.

AA. aiai.

XO. Treirovdas <x£l alay/xdraiP. AA. e e.

XO. Si' oSwas e/?as,

cra<£' olSa, AA. (f>ev <j)ev. XO. Ta^ vep0€ 8* ovSev
aj^eXeis.	875

AA. la> [jlol fioi. XO. to fxijiroT eicrL8eiv	aXd^01'

7Tpocrcottov <cr' €V>avra \virp6v.

AA. €jjLvr)cra<; o /jlov (f>pevas rfKKoyaev

tl yap avSpl KaKov jxel^ov dfiapreiv

incrTrjs akoyov; parj irore yjf/xas	880

co^eXoz/ oiKetv jxera ryjaSe 8o/jlovs.

(jjXS) h* ay&tiov<z aretcvovs re f3poT(ov •

fxta yap ipvxV> TV? ^ircp dX^CLV

/lerpiov ayOos •

7ratSa)^ Se. v6<rov<z /cat vvfJL(f)L§LOvs	885

ewa? Oavarois K€pai^ojJi€va<;

ov t\t)tov opav, areKvois

871 waptdcjKe B. 872-77 are given to the chorus in while in P 872-76
(through /W hoi) are assigned to the chorus and the rest from in 876 through
5ia iravrbs in 888 is given to Admetus. 873 aiai] a? at B a at at L (omitted
in P) | && $] #£ta r. 875 vtpde 5' Hermann] vtpdev MSS. 877 <f evavra
Hartung] &vra MSS. For other conjectures see Critical Notes. 878 &d.
omitted in L (but it has been added by 1). | o /jlov (f>p£v' TjXKOJcre B. 880 ttktttjs
S a (With Stobaeus Flor^ 69, 12)] <f>i\ias B. 883 pia yap tyvxh B a] fiia yap
$vxv L i^vxv yap Mta P ipvxy & A"£ I- I TV^ Stobaeus Flor. 68, 13. virep ahyeiv
Ed.] virepaXyeiv MSS. 887 sq. artuvois and ayd/wis $] articvovs and aydptovs
B a.AAKH2TIS.

41

aya/jLOLS r elvau Sua iravros.

XO. tv)(a rv\a SvcnrdXaurros rjtcei.	avrio-Tp.

AA. aiai.

XO. irepas Se y ov&ev aXyecov nOels. AA. I e.	890

XO. fiapea /xev (frepew,

o/Aaj? Se AA. <f>€v (f>ev. XO. 7*Xa0' • ov cru
77po)To<; cSXecras
AA. toj fiot /xoi. XO. yvvatKa • av[i(j>opa 8' erepovs
ere pa

me^ct (fyaveicra 6varS)v.

AA. <w fxaKpa irivdrj Xvnai re (jyiXcov	895

t<Sj> vtto ycuav.

tl [jl ekcoxvcras pu|/ai rvufiov
Tatjypov is KotXr/v kclI per itceivv)<$

rrjs fiey apiorrr/s Keicrdai <j>0kfLevov;

Svo S9 avr\ fiLas 'AiSrjs xjjv^as	900

ras trmttotaras <rvv av €<r)(€v, o/jlov
XOoviav Xt)ULvrjv hiafiavTe.

XO. i/JLOL TIS yjV	<rrp.

iv yevei, a> Kopos a^Lodprjvos

aiXer' So/xotcrtz^,	905

fJLOVOTTOLLS ' dAA' efJLTTCLS

€<f)€p€ kolkov a\i9, arekvos a>j>,

889 ff. The verses are assigned in the text according to a. I? gives aT a?
(sic) to the chorus, irtyas — rideis to Admetus, and the following words through
tf/xws 5t to the chorus. L and P give 889-94 to the chorus. 889 al at] al a I
MSS. (L has at at). 890 5£ y a] 5' ey B 5' S. | d\yku>v rideis B S oCKyiiov ri-
drjs a. In LI has written a over riOeis and £ over akyewv. 892 rAd0' B.
894 Qvar&v L] dvnjrCov r. 895 \virai L] \tiirat r. 896 yalav B, 897 pixpai
Hermann] pbf/ai MSS. 898 /cat fier] tear' P. In L three letters (doubtless
fear') have been erased here, and I has supplied Kal per'. 901 <ri>v hv i<rx*v
Lenting] crvvaviaxev B P ****vi(rx€v L ye <rvvi<rx^v I crvvix€v & (with a written
above the ex by a1). 902 \lfivav S. 904 Kbpos I] Kovpos L r. 905 (Sx€T*

€V dbfJLOKTl S.42	EYPiniAOY

7roXias C7TL ^atras
97877 1Tp01T€Tr)5 cbv

fitOTOV TC iropao).	910

AA. ca cr^/xa Sofxcov, 7rai? elaeXOcj;

7r<Ss 8' olKTjcrco ^tclttiittovto^

Scll/jlovos; ol/jlol. ttoXv yap to fjuecrov
Tore /xev rrevKais avv HrjXiaaLv

ctvv 9' vfjievcllols €cttcl)(ov lb"ct>,

<f>iXias aXoyov X^Pa fioLOmTdt>(op,

7ro\vd)(y)To$ 8' eiTrero k<3/xos,

T77^ T€ davovaav /ca/x' oXfiL^cov,

ct>g evTrarpihai /cat a7r' dfJL^orepcov
ovres apicrT€cov av^vyes €i(i€V
iw 8' vfxevaicov yoos avrirraXo5
XevKOJv tc TreTrXcov fJLtXaves crroXfiol

7r€fJi7TOV(Tl fJL €(7(0
XeKTpO)V KOlTaS €5 iptfflOVS.

XO. 7ra/)' evrv)(r)

orol iroTfiov rjXOev direipoKaKco toS*

aXyos - aXX' ecrcacras
/Slotov Kal \jjv)(dv.

Wave Sd/Jiap, eXnre fyiXlav •

Tt viov toSc; ttoWoxis
77877 irapeXxxrcv
davaros SajaapTOS.

AA. (fyiXoij yvvaiKos 8atfiov €VTV)(€(TT€pov	935

910 irbpvw Gaisford] 7rp6<rw MSS. 913 5* £] not in r. 916 €<rw X]
eftrw r Z. 917 0iMas] schol. ypdcperai ttktttjs : cf. 876, 880. 920 /caTr J,.
921 apLG-riuju Dobree] aplcrrcov MSS. | el^e? Heath] a P 9\ 924 /*
eo-w 8] // eftrw r. 626 XO. omitted in B. 929 After ypvxdv B has added
AdfirjT. e e x°P- w &5nr)T€, and a has added <f 2. 932 iroWotis Canter] woWoTs
MSS. 933 iraptXvcrev Matthiae] irap£\v<re MSS. 934 ddjj.apras B.

915

920

925

930AAKH2TI2.

43

TOV/JLOV VO/AL^O), KCLLTTep OV §OKOVV0* O/ACQS'

rrjs fxev yap ovSev aXyos at/zerai 7Tore,

7toXXcov Se [xo)(do)v evKXerjs inavaaro.

iycj 8\ ov ov xp^v ^rjv, irapels to [Aopcnfiov

Xvirpov Stafa) fiCoTov apn fiavdavo).	940

TTfti? yap 8o[acov tcqvS* elaoSovs ave^ojxai;

tiv av irpocrenrcQV, rod Se irpocrpiqOels uVo,

Teptrvfjs rv^oiyL av elcroSov; irol rpexfjofxai;

rj (lev yap evSov i£eXa fx ep^/xia,

yvvalkos evvas evr av etcrtSa) kcvas	945

dpovovs T iv olclv Ifc Kal Kara crriyas

a vxwpov ov Sag, reKva 8' d/x<£t yovvacri

TTlTTTOVTa KXaiTj jXr]T€p\ ol Se SeOTlTOTLV

crrevcocnv olav etc Sofxcov aircoXecrav.

ra fiev Kar oXkov toiaS'- e^a)6ev Se fxe	950

ydfioi t iXwau ©ecrcraXcov Kal £vXXoyou
yvvaiKOTr\y)dels * ov yap efarefo/xat
Xevcrcrcov Safiapros rrjs ifirjs ofnjXLKas-

S^C>/5</	'/IV *	^ / O

epet oe /x octtls eyypos cov KvpeL raoe •

tSoO roi^ alcrxp^s C<*>v0\ 05 ov/c ctXt^ Oavciv,	955

aU' 77V eyy/iev avruSovs atffvyia
7T€(f)€vyev 'AlStjv • Kar9 avrjp etvai SoKel;

(TTvyei Si rovs reKovras, avto$ oti ffeXcov
Oavelv. roiavhe irpos KaKolai KXrjSova
e^co. tl fxoL irjv Srjra kvSlov, <£i\oi,	960

KaKcos kXvovtl Kal KaKcos Treirpayori;

XO. iyd) Kal Sia {jlovct as	o*Tp.

936 Tovjxov B~\ TdtifjLov L a rod juoG P. 939 XPVV Elmsley] xp^l MSS.
940 fMvO&vcov S. 944 £1feXet P e£e\* L e£e\a Z], 946 l£e $] 1'fe B ?£e a p.
948 K\alrj S icXalei r. | fiTjT^pa B. 950 ofaovs S. 951 r Wakefield] 7' MSS.
953 Xeifour B. 955 idov L idoti r. 957 Kq.r $] elr r. 960 L b a3]
r.44

EYPiniAOY

Kal [jLerdpo-Los y£a, Kal
TrXetcrrcov d\\fdp,evo^ Xoycov

Kpetcrcrov ov8ev 9AvayKas	965

rjvpov, ovSe tl (fyapfiaKOv
©pycrcrais eV aavuriv, ra?

9Op<f)€La KaTeypa\|/€v

yrjpvSi ov8' ocra Qoifios 'AoTcX^maSais c'Scdkc 970
(fiapfxaKa TrokvTrovois
avrireyicov fipoToi(Tiv.

jxovas 8' ovr inl ft(ofiovs	■ Avrurrp.

€<TTLV OVT6 fipeTCLS 0€CLS

l\0€iv, ov (r<f)ayia)v /cXuei.	975

fjaj fioiy irorvia,

e\0OL<; rj to irplv Iv (3lo).

Kal yap Zeus o rt vevcrrj,

crw croi rovro reXeura.

/cat toi> Xakvftois Sa/xa£eis crv j8ia criBapov, 980

Ov8e TIS Ct7TOTOflOV
X^/xaro? i(TTLV aiSak.

/cat a*' ei> a(f)VKTOLcrL ^epS)v elXe Oeau SeafjLols. <nrp.
toX/x,a 8'* ov yap dvd^eus itot evepdev	985

K\aLO)V TOVS <f>0LfJL€VOV<? f aj>G>.

feat 0eaii> aKOTioi (frdivovcri

rraiSes davdra).	990

964 apZ&nevos Stobaeus 2i7c?. I. 4, 3. 967 0prit<r<rai$ L a | <ravl<riv Matthiae]
aavl<Ti MSS. 968 Kariypaxj/ev Monk] Kariypa^j/e MSS. 970 eSw/ce Musgrave]
iraptdwice MSS. 972 pporoiaiv P a] fipoToicn r. 974 ff. eXOeiv — idTiv MSS.
W. A. Wagner made the transposition. 978 veixit) S vetiaei r. 980 xa^-
(3oicri S. 981 ov filq. P. In LI has written above yp. ov plq.. | <rl5apov L a]
<rldr}pov r. 984 a<pijKTois S. 985 r6\/xa 5' S (I has written rb or t& above
the a 5', but has deleted it afterwards)] r6X/xa t&8' B rdXfia t68' a. 986 <f>divo-
ptvovs B. | dvco is perhaps corrupt. See Critical Notes. 989 <j>0ivov<ri £]
<t>6ivtidov<n r (with I).AAKHSTIS.	45

(f)i\a fiev or rjv fieO' rjficov,

<j>i\a 8* €<ti> Kal davovcray
yevvaiorarav Se iracrav
i^ev^a> /cXicrtais clkoitiv.

jiiTjSe vetcpSiv (o<z (frOifievcov ^(ofxa vofiL^ecrOct) avno-Tp. 995
Tv/x^So? crag aXo^ov, stolen 8' o/jlolcos
TL[xd(T0a)) (reftas ifJLiropoov.

Kai ns So^fitav KeXevdov	1000

efxfiaivaiv to8' epet*

avra 7rore irpo-uOav cu>8pos,

iw 8' earl fxaKaipa Scll/aw

Xa^p\ & ttotvl\ ev 8e 801175.

tchou zw TrpocrepovcTi <|>a|Jiai.	1005

/cat [ir/v 08', 0J5 eoLKev, 'AXK/jajpr/s yovos,

*A$[jLr)T€, 7rpos <jy)v eaTiav iropeverai.

HP. <f>i\ov Trpos avhpa XPV Xeyeiv ikevOepcos,

*A8/jLr}T€, /jlofxcfras 8' ou^ v7ro (TirXayxyois e)(ew

criycovT. iyoj Se o"oi5 KaKolaiv t)£lovv	1010

iyyvs irapecrTMs i^era^ecrOaL <f)L\os.

(TV 8' ovk e<^pa^€5 en}5 TrpoKeLfievov vetcvv

yvvaiKos, aXXa /x' i^evil^es Iv 8o/x,oi?

[0S5 S77 Ovpaiov Trrjixaros (nrovSrjv

KacrTexjja Kpara Kal Oeols iXeLxjjdixrjv	1015

CT7rOI>Sa5 olkols svcttv^ovctl tolctl ctols.

Kal jJL€fi(f)oiMaL fxev fJue/Aefyofiat 7ra0a>v raSe,

992 5' ert fcai Aaj>ov<ra Portns (the Aldine has 5^ rt, probably a misprint for
5' en) 5£ Kal Oavova' e<rtoll B 5£ davova €<TTai a bk Kal davovcra iarlv P 52 Kal davova
£(ttIv L. See Critical Notes. 993 iracrav $] iracrav r. 998 Sfioios B.
1001 iKfialvwv S.	1002 irpotidav Monk] irpotidavev a P I irpovdavev r.

1004 irbrvL /S] ir&rvia r. 1005 (j>a/j,ai Monk] (pTjfiai MSS. 1006 x°P• is
prefixed inlPa. 1009 as L a] fwp<f>as r. 1014 was rejected by
Lachmann. Cf. 778.46	EYPiniAOY

ov nrfv crc Xvireiv iv KaKotcri fiovXofiai.

Sv S' ovve)£ TjKO) Sevp' vTrocrTp4\\fa<z iraXiv

Xe^o). yvvaiKa rrjv8e p,oi aSxrov Xaficov,	1020

lews Ittttovs 8evpo SprjKias aycov

eXdoiy rvpavvov Blcttovgjv KaraKTavcjv.

irpatjas 8' o jUTj tv\ol[il— ^ocrr^crat/xt yap —

SlSoj/il rrjvSe crown TrpocTroXeiv So/zois.

7toXX<5 Se fi6^(6o} ^eipas rjXdev €ts e/x,as •	1025

ayS>va yap Travh^fiov evpicKO) nvas

TiQivras, aOXy]Tai<TLv a^iov itqvov,

60€V KOfJLL^(O TljvSe VLK7]t7]pLa

Xa/3(ov • ra fiev yap Kovcf)a rot? vlkSxtiv rjv

Ittttovs ayeadai, roicri S* aS Ta fiei^ova	1030

viK&cri, TTvyfirfv Kal 7raXr)v, fiovcfyopfiLa-

yWT) O €77 avrots €17T€T * eVTV^OVTL 06

alcrxpov TTapeivai AcepSog 771/ toS' cvkXcc?.
aXX', Mcnrep ehrov, crol fieXeiv yvvaiKa XPV*

ov yap KiXoTralav, aXXa, crvv nova) Xa/3cjv	1035

TjK(x) - XP°V(? ^ KaL V" aweceis tcr<ws.

AA. ovtol cr atl^aiv ovS' iv i^dpoiaiv nOels
eKpv^f ijjifjs yvvaucos aOXiov rv\a^ •

aXX' aXyos aXyei rovr av rjv TrpoaKeiiievoVy
el rov 7rpos aXXov SdjfjLad' (op/jLTjOr)*; £evov	1040

aXis 8e icXaieiv rovpibv rjv ifiol KaKov.

yvvaiKa S5, et 7ra)S €OTiz>, alrovfiaC cry ava£,

*\ \	> V	\	/	/)	J N

akkov nv octtls prj Treirovuev oi eyco

1017 /x^ J5 a] Si) L 5£ P. 1021 dprji'Kas S (I has written Lovs above the as).
1022 eX0w] evda B. | fiiffrovGov B. 1024 aoi<rt] <roi B | irp6<riro\ov S. 1025 iro\-
\Qv 8£ fjJbxQuv 9}\de x^t/oas els ifids S. 1027 irbvovB'] irbvuv a irbvov S. 1030 av
rA $] aircL r. 1034 jitWeiv B. 1036 /a'] y S. 1037 drtfap cod. Har-
leianus 5743] ari/jLafav r. | ixOpoi<riv a] ^x^poicrt B al<rxpoi<riv L alaxpoiai P.
1038 aOXtovs a. 1039 wpoKeLfxepov B P. 1040 et roO B etirep S.AAKH2TI2.	47

crw^eiv ava)j(di ©ecrcraXw, ttoXXoI Si ctol

frivol- Qepaicav • firf fi avafwrjcrys KCLKOJV.	1045

ovk av Swau/xriv Trjvh' opcov iv ScofJiacLV

aSa/cpvs elvai * /jltj voctovvtl fxoi vocrov

TTpoadrjs • cl\l<z yap (rv/i^opa {Sapvvojiai.

7tov Kal rp€(f)OLT av Sco/Jbdrcov via yvvrj;

via yap a>s, iaOrjrL Kal koo'/jlco irpinei.	1050

irorepa |i€T avSpojv 8t}t evoiKrjaeL crriyyjv;

Kal 770)5 aKpai(f)vr)S iv vious arpco^xofjiivy]

ecrrat; tov r)fi(ov0\ 'Hpa/cXeis, ov paSuov

elpyeiv iyco Se crov TrpopLiqdidv e^o).

rj rfjs davovcrrjs OaXa/xov eicrfirjcras Tpi<f)(o;	1055

Kal 7ra)9 inecr^pG) rrjv8e to) k€lvt)<; Xi^ei;

SiTrXrjv <f)ofioviJLaL fiifixfjiv, eK re Sr/fiorajVy

firf tls [jl iXiy^y rrjv ifirjv evepyinv

irpoSovr iv aXXrjs SefivLous irirvtiv vias,

Kai rfjs Oavovcriqs' a£ia hi pot crifieiv •	1060

TToXXrjv irpovoiav 8el fi fyeiv. av S\ co yvvai,

7)tl<; 7tot el (tv, TGLVT* e^ovct 'kxktjcttlhl

floppy)*; fiirp lctOl, Kal irpos iii|ai Se/xas.

OLjJLOL. KOfiL^e 7rpog 0eoij/ oix/jLarcov

yvvatKa TrjvSe, [xij /jl eXr/s yprj/iivov.	1065

Sofc<S yap avrrjv eicropcov yvvax)£ opav

1045 fi-fj p! avafxvqarrjs S~\ ytd) fie fiL*fip^<n]S a fitfj fie fiifiv/i<rrjs d fir} fie /iifivfjvKeis B.
See Critical Notes. 1048 irpo<r0els S (corrected in X by I). | <rvfi<f>opaTs a.
1051 fier G. Hermann] /car' MSS. | drj tlv ohcrjcrei a. 1052 (Trpuj^wfiivri (with
e written above the first w and o above the second by B1). 1054 etpyeip in B
is written at the end of v. 1053 by a blunder of the scribe. | 84 <rov MSS.
1055 rj B 1} B1. | O&Xafwv ela^aas a] els ddXa/nov (3-/)<ras r. 1058 4\4yxv
1059 &Wr}s $] AXXots r. | irlrveiv Elmsley] ttitvcTv r. 1060 84 fioi /S] S* 4/xol r.

1062	ravr Portus] ravr MSS. (L1 has written in the margin of L ra aura).

1063	irpbs rji^ai England] irpoaB a wpoarjoL^aL L (with i written over the ot
by I) irpoafyi-e P. 1064 #] dir' S. 1066 dpwv B.

/48

EYPiniAOY

ljLr\v 0o\ol Se KapSlaPj 4k S' ofifxarcop
TTTjyai Kareppcoyacnv - <3 TXij/xcov eyd>,

ojs apn irevdovs TovSe yevofjiai iriKpov.

XO. iyd) fiev ovk e^oufx av ev \eyeiv rv^qv •	1070

XPV ^ » $TlS €l11> Kaprepelv deov Socnv.

HP. ei yap rocavTrjv hvvafxiv elyov cocrre crrji/

€5 <j)<x)9 TTopevcrai veprepcov eK Scofxarcov
yvvaiKa KaL croi rrjv8e iropcrvvai \apiv.

AA. cra<£5 oT8a fiovkeadal cr av. aUa ttov roSe; 1075
ovk ecTTi tovs Oavovras es <£ao<? fioXelv.

HP. p/rj vvv xnrcppaXX', aXX' epaicri/xajs (f>epe.

AA.	irapaivelv rj iradovra Kaprepeiv.

HP. Tt 85 a*/ TrpoKoiTTois el 0e\eus del areveuv;

AA. eyvcoKa Kavros, aXX' tis e^ayei.	1080

HP. * to yap (f)L\rj(raL rov Oavovr ayei SaKpv.

AA. aiTcokeorev fie, Kan fxaWov rj Xeyco.

HP. yvvalkos iaOXrjs rjfnrXaKes • tis avrepel;

AA. wcrr' avSpa roVSe [irjKeO' rjSeo'OaL /3l(o.

HP. xpov°<z /xaXafet, iw 8' e0* rjfiacrKeL, KaKov.	1085

AA. xpovov Xeyots av, et xpovos to KarOavelv.

HP. ywif ere iravcrei /cat V€oi y&|Juh iroOov.

1068 t\^/j,cjv Lab] rXijfjLov B P. 1071 ^ris Monk] &rrts MSS. | etfj Hay-
ley] el <rtf MSS. (crtf is omitted in X). 1072 wtrre <rV omitted in S. (In _L
X1 has written Xetrr in the margin, but I has supplied t5<rre <ri]v. In P another
hand has supplied £k deov to fill the lacuna.) 1074 iropavvai $] wopa^vai r.
1077 p.i\ vvv Monk] fir] vvv MSS. | vir£p(3a\W Monk] vir£p(3aX a virtpPaiv r \ ivai-
trlfjLws $] eiveo-lfjLws r. 1079 0£\eis MSS., with the Codex Hamiltonianus
of Galen Be Plac. Hipp, et Plat. V. p. 413 (p. 388 of Iwan Mueller's ed.)]
04\ols (7, with the inferior MSS. of Galen. | o-rtveiv del Galen I. c. 1080 tls
Galen] rls fi MSS. 1082 air&keue B \ k&ti L | ical en r. 1083 avratpei B.
1085 vvv /S] <re vvv B <r vvv a : cf. y-. 381 | 7)p&<rKei Galen op. tit. p. 419 (p. 394
Mueller) : cf. Photius s. v. ^3d<r/cet] i)Pq. <roi MSS. The comma after ypdcrKei was
inserted by Bruhn. 1087 vtoi ydfioi irSdov F. W. Schmidt (vtos ydfios irbdov
Guttentag)] viov ydfwv wddoi MSS. (L irbOos).AAKH2TI2.	49

AA.	criyrjcrov • oTov eliras. ovk av (pojjltjv.

HP.	tl 8 s; ov ya/juels yap, aXXa ^qpevcrei Xe^os;

AA.	ovk eanv rjtis rqjSe (rvyKXtOrjcreraL. #	1090

HP.	/ulcov tyjv davovcrav co^eXelv tl irpocrSoKas;

AA.	Keiviqv oirovirep ecttl TifxacrOai yjpttov.

HP.	alvco fiev alvco- [icopLav 8' oc^Xwr/cams.

AA.	Co? firjirot avSpa tovSe vvfL<f)LOv kclXojv.

HP.	eirrjvecr aXo^w ttlcttos ovveK el <£1X09.	1095

AA.	ddvoifx ekeivrjv Kavnep ovk ovcrav wpohovs.

HP.	Se^ov vvv eicrco rrjvSe yewaloiv 8o/mov.

AA.	/XT], 7rpo5 ere tov crrreipavTOS avTOfiai A cos.

HP.	Kal /xr/v a/jiapTijcreL ye fir) Spaeras raSe.

AA.	Kal Spcov ye Xvirr) Kaphlav hr)^6rjaroixai,	1100

HP.	7n0ov - to)£ &v yap €5 8eov ireaoL yapis.

AA.	<j>ev.

etO' e£ aycovos TijvSe |xt| "XaPes ttotc.

HP.	vlkojvtl fxevTOi Kal crv ervvvLKas e/ioL

AA.	AcaXaig eXefas* rj yvvrj 8' aireXdeTG).

HP.	aneKTLVy el XPV' TtptoTa 8' el ^pea)v adpei.	1105

AA.	XPV' °"0^ 7e PV peXXovTos opyaiveiv e/ioi.

HP.	elScos tl Kayct) tt]v& e^o) 7rpodv[iLav.

AA.	vLKa vvv.. ov /jltjv avhavovTa jjlol ttocis.

HP.	aXX' la*#' od' rj/jias alveaeLS' ttl6ov [aovov.

1089 XVP€^V ^Xos B XTj/oe&rei \^xos a XVP€^€L^ fJ&vos S. 1090 r<£5e] t$8*
dvdpL B. 1093 fivplav B (b has written fico over the fiv). 1094 In L t<r$i
has been written above cJs by L1 | kcl\6v B koXciv I (with ov written above by
another hand). 1097 vvv L] vvv r. \ yevvaluiv] yevvalav S. 1098 &vTop,ai
$] airovfiaL r. 1101 iridov S] ireldov r. | t&%a y&p B. 1102 fii] '\a(3es Tyr-
whitt] '\a(3es C /jltj \a(3es B /jltj \af3es a (fiiJ XajSes a3) fxi) \d(3rjs P fir) \dpois L (I
has written in the margin yp. p! rjXafiev.) 1105 ddpei] 8pa S. 1108 omitted
in the text of B, but added in the margin by B1 | vvv i] vvv r. iroeh Wecklein]
Trotets MSS. In B from 1109 to 1113 the scribe has given the lines of Hercules
to Admetus and vice versa. He prefixed to 1114 the sign indicating that the
verse belonged to Admetus, but afterwards deleted, it*50

EYPiniAOY

AA. kofal^er, el xpV TTjvSe Se^aadat So/jlols.	1110

HP. ovk av iiedeirjv tt/v yvvaiKa TrpocnroXoi*;.

AA. a\f 8* avtos avrrju elcray, el SoKel, 8ojulOvs.

HP. C9 o*as jmev ovv eycoye OijaofiaL ^epa?.

AA. ovk av diyotfiL • StS/xa 8' elaeXOetv irapa.

HP. rfj cTTj Treiroida xeLPL	VX!•	1115

AA. ava£, (Hiatfl fx ov OeXovra Spav ra8c.

HP. rokfia TTporeivai yeipa Kal Giyctv £evrjs

AA. Kal St) irpoTeiva), Topyov cJs KapaTO|xcov.

HP. e^etg; AA. e^co. HP. vai, crco^e vvv, /cat toi> Ato?

<f>yjcreL<s ttot elvai TralSa yevvaiov tjevov.	1120

fSketyov 7Tpos avrrjv, ei rt <rrj So/cet Trpeireiv
yvvaiKi* \v7tt)<s 8' ewvyfiv ixedLcrracro.

AA. <2 0€Oi, rt \e£a); 0avfi aveXnLCTTov roSc*

yvvatKa Xevcaoy rrjv ejxr]v

?? Kepro/ios |i €K ^eov tis eKTrXrjcraei \apa; 1125
HP. ovac ecrnv aXXt| * Tijv&' opas Sa/iapra arfv.

AA. opa ye firf n <f)d<rfJLa veprepcov toSc.

HP. ov xjru)(ayQ)ybv rov8' eiroirja'a) (jevov.

AA. aXX' t)V edairrov elo-opco Safiapr ifiijv;

HP. <ra(f)' lad*. aTTMTTeiv 8' ou ere Oavfiatfi} Tv^rjv* 1130
AA. diyco, TTpocreLTro) Ificrav cJs ha/iapr ep/rjv;

1111 fi€0elfiiejv (rot yvvaiKa a. 1112 efodyay B | sokci s] (3o6\€l r. | 86/jlovs
Cod. Marc. IX. 10] 86fiois L r. 1114 8G>fia 8' $] dib/iar r. 1117 irporetvai
B~\ irporeiveiv s irpSreive a. | diyeiv Elmsley] dlyeiv B s OLye a. 1118 $77] fij)v s |
kapcltofiwu Lobeck] kapatd/xcp MSS. 1119 val is given to Admetus in the
MSS. Wakefield was the first who gave val to Heracles, but he altered it to
Kal. Monk restored the true reading. | wv] vvv MSS. 1120 iraWa was omitted
in B, but Bl has written above \dwei rbv waida. 1121 irpbs B] S' is r. | (rj
Musgrave] <roi MSS. 1122 5' is omitted in B. | cfrrvxdv B P. 1123
/S] Xefooj B \eb<r<T(ti d. 1124 Xei5<rcra? a] Xei'htu B \e6<T(rcjv P \ei'tdtav L. | ttjvJ
t-fivd' s. 1125 v) a] ^ r. | fi £k Buecheler] /xe MSS. | ifnr\^<r(r€l p. 1126 AXX97
Radermacher] aXXd MSS. 1127 rdde Herwerden] t68' el<ropQ b (7p. t6s' fj
has been written above by Bl when writing the scholia) t68' 1j r.AAKH2TI2.	51

HP. irpocrenf.	yap irav ocrovirep rjdeXes.

AA. c3 (f>L\T(XTY)s yvvaiKos oppa Kal Se/x-as,

e\Oi (T OL€\tTTG)S) OV7TOT 6xJj€CT0aL SOKCOV.
HP.	• (f)06vos 8e prj yevoiro rt? decov.	1135

AA. co rov peyicTov Zyvos evyeves t4kvov>

evSai/iovoCrjs, /cat cr o <f)LTvcra<; 7rarr/p
(Tco^ol - ait yap 8rj Tap? avwpffoocras povos.

7rai? TTjvh' enepxfjas vepOev e? <£aos roSe;
HP. pa^qv (Tvi/axf/as 8aipovcov r<S Kvpia).	1140

AA. 7ro0 rovhe ®avaT(p <f>rjs aycova avp^a\eiv;
HP. rvpfiov 7ra/)s avrov e/c Xo^ov papx^as xeP°w-
AA. Tt yap ttoQ' 07S' avavS09 ecrrrjKev yvvrj;

HP. ov7ro> 0e/us o"ot TrjaSe 7rpo(r(f)a)vr)pdT(t)v

K\veivy TTpXv av deoicri rotai veprepois	1145

d(j)aypL(rr}TaL Kal rpirov poXrj <f)do<;.

aXX* etcray evcco TijvSe' Kal St/catos <5j>

to \oL7rov, ^AS/jwjt,' evcrefiei irepl £4vovs.

Kal Xa^py' *7™ T°v trpoKeipevov ttovov
^OeveXov rvpavvco 7ratSt iropavvco poXwv.	1150

AA. petvov Trap* r/plv Kal fjvvecttlos yevov.

HP. avOis to8* carat, zw 8' iireiyeaOai pe Set.
AA. aXX* evTvxoCr)5, vodTipov 8' eXOois 8p6p.ov.

acrrot? Se Trdcry t Ivveito) Terpap^La
^opovs €7r* ccr^Xats crvp(j>opaleriv iaTavai	1155

fiwpovs T€ Kviaav fiovdvToicri TTpoaTpoiraHs.

1132 Trap#' &ra7re/) $. 1134 ou7ro0' J5. 1137 0ir&ras J3] <t>vT€&<ras r.
1138 0"# 7<x/> dpOajaas S (ai> ydp 8^j rafid y (apduxras I). 1140 Kvplq) a d,
with the schol.] Koipavu) B S. 1143 etrrrfKe B. 1150 rvpdvvif BPL1] rvpdv-
vov a L. J iropavvG) L~\ iropaivoj r | fio\&v $] fioXQv r. 1151 Zvvtarioi <SJ <rvvi-
artos r. 1153 dpdfiov Wilamowitz] 56/jlov S ir68a a (a1 has written in the
margin yp. 56/xov yp. Kal o86p) d o86v B. 1154 irdtrri r a iraci t r (traaiv I).
1155 <rv/Mf>opais (rvvurrdvai a. 1156 kvlctolv C] Kvitrcrav r J irpoaTpoTrais L a]
TrpoTpoirais r.52	EYPiniAOY

vvv yap fjle0r)p[x6(Tii€(r0a fiekTLco (3lov
tov rrpocrdev • ov yap evrv\s)v apvrjcroiiai.
XO. ttoWoX fiop<j>al tS>v 8al/jlovlcov,

7ro\\a 8* aeXirrcu? Kpalvovai Oeoi*	1160

koX ra sokrjoevt ovk ireXecrOrjy
t(ov $' ahoKT)TQ)v 7TOpOV 7)Vp€ 0€O$.

toiovS* airifiv) ToSe irpayfia.

1157 /JLednipfido-fieada I] fJiedrjpfxdfjLecrda B fiedrjpfido-fieOa r. 1163 r6<5e] r6de rb B.
At the end stands in B a P ri\os evpiwLSov d\k^<ttidosy in L eipmldov &\ktjo-tis.SELECT CONJECTURES.

The conjectures which have been made as to readings in the
text of the Alcestis number more than four thousand. From this
great mass I have selected the following as worthy of mention,
either from their plausibility and ingenuity or from the influence
which they have exerted upon the history of the text. Among
them will be found nearly all* of Nauck's and Wecklein's, and
many of those made by F. W. Schmidt and Kvi^ala.

Verse 16 irarepa re ypaidv 0' Monk, /cat 7rarepa ypalav 6* Nauck.
17 ov% evpe' 7rXrjv ywaiKos ovtls rfOeke (rejecting v. 16) Kvi^ala.
19—20 rjv vvv K.o.ejSacrra^crat | if/vyoppayovo-av Usener. Kirchhoff
thinks a line has been lost after v. 19. , 23 Earle suggests fieXd-
Opoyv T^vSe (^iArartov areyrjv. 30 rt/xcov ivepovs Maass. 31 vocr<£i£d-
!xcvos Wecklein. 34 Monk suggested o-^vjXavTa. 36 toS' : roO'
Elmsley. 44 /3iav or': /3tav y Earle. 45 yOovos #car<o Matthiae.
49 Yon Holzinger would punctuate with a colon after ^prj. 51 koI
irpoOvfiiav : Wecklein suggests rrjs irpoBvixias. 63 a: Herwerden.
64 7rei'cm Schmidt {navvy the MSS). 66-7 Perhaps these two
lines should be rejected as an interpolation. 70 k$t ov for kovO'
f) Steup. 71 Spdo-eL G. Hermann, Spacrw Weil. Zacher would in-
sert 70 and 71 after 62, giving 70 to Thanatos (with a period after
xapis) and reading 8' for 0' in 71. 79 </>tX(ov <toi> 7r€\as Dobree,
(ov) 7T€\as Nauck (formerly),	(jrov) 7rcAas Heiland.

81 flacrlXeiav xprj 7rev0eiv rj fwo-' Lascaris (with £), /3a<rl\eLav irevQtiv
yp-q fx rj £a>cr' Kirchhoff. 83 Tracrt r : 7r\ctarTov Naber. act 7ra(riv for
ifioi 7racrt r Schmidt. 85 IleAiou Ovyarrjp (omitting roSe) Dilldorf.

* Except, of course, such as have been received into the text.54

SELECT CONJECTURES.

91 fjLCTCLKvfjiiov Kviqala (with one schol.) /xeTaKot/xtos Zacher. Hart-
UDg conjectured that an anapaestic dipody has been lost after 96.
Kirchhoff sets the lacuna before tj-ws. 99 ws: y Tournier. 101
€7rl: ivl Tournier. 103 veoXata: veaXrjs Dindorf. 116 'A/x/xom'Sas
Musgrave. 117 irapaXvo-u Wakefield. 119 Oe&v 8c y icxapav
Reiske, Oetov 8* It* ccrp(apas Ribbeck. 120 In for c7rl Weil. 122 fiov-
vw5 8* Wakefield. 125 rjXO* av Monk. 126 vAi8a: "Ai8ao Monk.
7rvAas: iruXwrns Hermann, wvXas <#cat> Dindorf. Kirchhoff marks
a lacuna after *Ai8a re. 132 ff. Mekler restores thus:

8rj rcreAccrrat

iravra yap f)
fta(Tl\€V<Tl
7ravra)v 8e Oea>v

XpV*
reXrj

ei(r

iirl fieofiois, k. r. A.., supposing a

tear in the archetype. Nauck brackets rereAco-rat /foo-iAcvo-i. Kirch-
hoff marks lacunas after rjSrj, rcrcAeo-rat, fiaaiXtvori, Oc&v, (3u)/iol<tl9
supposing that these words began five lines the ends of which
have been lost. 134 Dindorf conjectures that six anapaests have
fallen out either before or after trxiy/tfeis. 136 c/c 8o/xcov: yap 8o/x<dv
Usener. 148,149 Tournier would insert these two lines after 143.
153 ov firj yevicrOaL Reiske, n's, fxrj ycvi&Oai Matthiae. 160 8o-
fio)v: Sokwv Herwerden, 8ox^v Lenz. 180 oXyv for (MSS.) fxovrjv
Schmidt. 187 OaXafiuv Nauck. Earle transposes 204 and 205.
208 Lachmann would reject this line only, retaining 207. 213
r« av w&s Aldine, ns av 7ra Lascaris, 6 alii aliter.' Nauck reads
bacchiacs, thus : io> Zcv, ns av 7rws Tropos ira yevoir av rv^as a Trapccrnv
rvpavvois and 227 7ra7rai <£cv, ta> 7rat Qeprjros, 7ra7rat, ot' ZirpaJzas Sa/xap-
ros orepvjOck. 215 Ir* ctcrt ns Herwerden. 223 rovS* icfyevpes
(MSS.) : raJS* itfrrjvpes (tovto) Hermann, tovt i<f>Y)vpes (rtoSe) Had-
ley, tov8' i<f>povpeis Schmidt. Dindorf regards tov8' icfrevpes as
an interpolation; tolootSc (sc. rjcrOa), /cat vvv Wecklein, tov8* rjo-Oa
(sc. Xvr-qpios), Kal vvv Weil. 227 <ras : as Weil. 230 ovpavLto: ovpa-
vtav Lenting, apravLU) Herwerden, ay\ovlu) Wecklein, oyXofxevto Hay-
ley. 231 €7roij/€L: Ir* 6\j/ei Schmidt. 243 filov: \povov Schmidt.
245 ovpaviai: ovpavioi Earle. 247 avO' olov Oav€iv Wecklein. 252 f.
Allen restores the text of this and the antistrophic passage thus:SELECT CONJECTURES.

55

Opto &LK(i)7TOV 6pU> (TKd<j>0<Sj
V€KVO)V 8e 7TOpOfJLtVS €X«V

€7Tt KOVTto [JL€ &Y] KaXe?

" tL [LtWtis; av Karetpyeis"

rase tol /xe (nrep)(6[xevos Ta^yvei.

ayet (jl ayei fit rts, opas;
v€Kvo>v is avXav, pX£iro>v
V7r 6cf>pv(nv Kvavavyiaiv •
tC pefjcis/ ac^es. otai/

oSov a SeiAaioraTa 7T/oo/ftuva>.

254 •' X€/°a9 Paley* (omitting //,' 97877). 249 irarpCas the Aldine.
254-5 Earle reads kaxei fx iweiyw \ tl fxeweis; <rv karecpyeis. 260
Kirchhoff marks a lacuna before ve/cvwv. cts avAav vzkv<dv Nauck.
261 Kvavavyes Kirchhoff.* aiSav Wilamowitz. aSas 7tt€pois. fJLtOes
/jl€ Kirchhoff. 262 tl pe^eis; p.£0es Nauck. 272 opwrov: op^rrjv
Elmsley. 273 aKoveiv (or aKovaat) Monk. 274 fxei^ov: yeipov Stadt-
mueller. 278 iv <roi 8' lo-rtv Schmidt. 282—3 Nauck rejects kolvtX
— KaTa(TTr}(Ta(ra. 284 ff. Earle would read Ovyo-Ka), irapov fxoi pJq
Oavdv, v7T€p <r£0ev. | a A. A.' avSpa re cr^eiv ©ecrcr aAtov ov rjOcXov | Kal Sw/xa
vaUiv oX/3lov Tvpavvihi | ovk rjOeXrjo-a fwo-' a7ro(r7ra(r6eT<ra (rov | £vv iraurlv
op<t>avoi(Tiv • ov8* i<j>eicrdfJLY)V | rjfirjs, €^ov<r iv ots iTep7r6pLrjv iyto (289
with a). 287 ovk : kovk Lenting. aAA' ov yap rjoexyjcr (omitting t/rjv)
Gomperz. Heiland rejects 287-9. 291 yjkov €/c\t7rctv ($iov Hartung.
KaraXnr&v rjKOv /3lov Bauer, KaraXveiv rjKov filov Weil. KaTa<f>povctv fjKOV
/3lov Mekler. rjKov iKcrrrjvai fiiov ? 304 cpv: ve/xcov Mekler, o-€/3<j)v
Earle, pot tw Kvi^ala, ovras Tournier. StaSo^ovs for SecnroTas
Schmidt. 308-10 are rejected by Hirzel. 313 Hermann and
Kirchhoff: put the comma after tckvov, Nauck and most edd. after
fjioi. 314 iriKpas rvypvera av£vyov Hartung. Kvi^ala rejects 314—16.
318 tokolo-l toiai crois o*c Nauck. 321 is rejected by Mekler. rpl-
Trjvi tvrjv Weil, firjvos: <j>eyyos (and rpirov for Tpirrjv) Herwerden,
fitXXov Kviqala, who also suggested /jltjv io-ep^erat. ovS* els Tpiraiov
rjfiap Wecklein. afxrjvos epxerai KaKtov Naber. - crot fiYjTpos for fiol firjvos
Schneider. 325 7rat8€s : Prinz conjectures ktsvrjs. 330 7rorc: tt6<tlv
Mekler. 332-3 Nauck believes to be an interpolation. 333 aXXrj
crov 'KirpejrearTtpa Bothe. aXXrj *<tt (Schmidt) zvirpeirevripa (Lenting)
is suggested by Prinz. aAAws <t'> Weil. 340 p Icrwcras Herwerden.
346 iiapaifiL Wakefield. 353 ot/xat: oT8a Elmsley. 355 <f>tXovs:

* Cf. Monk's note on 262 of his edition (=254 Prinz) where he suggested
X^af and Kvavavyts (though apparently he had given them up).56

SELECT CONJECTURES.

Musgrave. 360 KarrjSov av Weidner. 361 Xajoa)v: yepwv
Cobet. 362 fiiov : 8e//,as Nauck. 363 eKeto-e: €kcl av Prinz, eKet ye
Wecklein. 372 lo^ov (MSS.) : eT^ov Nauck, upyov Schmidt. 373
vfjuv: c<^>' vj/jliv ^Nauck. 374 ye': Si Nauck. Lenting would give
393—403 to Perimele. 394 ovk£t9: ovk Wecklein. 401 <r' eywy' w
fxarep, eya> and 413 efias crvv raSc reAos are suggested by ISTauck.
Wilamowitz would read eyw a e'yto fxarep (jos 7tot\ (tolctl (omitting
402 KaXovfJLdi o), and omit 414 e<£0tTO yap irapos. 403 yovaaiv for
o-TOfxao-iv Herwerden. 404 ryv ov : ty/v y ov Hermann. 407 Weck-
lein omits re. 409 Hermann conjectured that TXapaav is to be
supplied after epya. 423 fievovTes : ixiXirovTes Schmidt. 433 tovS*:
Monk suggests T^o-S'. 434 e7ret y eOvr)(TKev avt ifxov [xovrj Usener,
rifxav XCav €7rel TtOvrjKev a vt ifiov Kvi^ala. 448 kvkXos : kvkXols Sca-
liger (with wpa), kvkXov Hadley. 450 pirjvbs : <£e'yyos Wecklein. 452
7ravvv\ov: iravwyov Wecklein. 458 Kojkvtot) tc peiOpmv Matthiae,
K.o)kvtol6 re peCOpov Earle. 461 avras Wecklein. 464 e/xoty* : IfxoiT
Hermann. 473 Nauck considers o-wSmSos corrupt. He is inclined
to reject dAox<>v, and yvvai in 463 above. 474 rj p,6X av Tournier.
476 ^ovos : 7roA.€a)s Nauck. 487 tol ttovovs Nauck, firjv 7rovovs Weil
(ju,' rjv 7rovovs l). 505 os tov : o(ttl<s Koster. 514 ow: Earle sug-
gests cot. 526 tot Wakefield. 527 kov Oavcov ovk eW ert Weil, kov-
k£t 2ot' ov katqavtov Bruhn. 528 to t elvat: to y etvat Earle. 531
fjL€fLvtfne0a: TrjTWfxeOa Wecklein, AeAet/Xjuefla Schmidt, fieOci/xeOa Metz-
ger. 533 aAAcos: a^ots Schmidt. 537 viroppurrTas Tournier. 540
et fxoXoL: av [JloXoi Schmidt, rjv fxoXrj Heiland. 542 ala\pov irapa
kXollov(tl : aicrypov <Tt> ir. k. Elmsley, alaxpov (to) ir. k. Erfurdt, ai-
axpov <Se) 7r. k. Porson, ala^pov yap iv KXatovai Weidner. alaxpov
itapa 7TTaiovcri Mekler, a. 7T. cnreyowt Mueller, alaxpov <f>iXois k.XaLOV<ti
QoivavQai irapa Tate. 552 tl : rj Heiske. 555 e7ret fxoi: e7retrot
Naber. 557-8 Herwerden rejects. 565 /cat tw : *at to> Heath,
KavTw Schmidt, /cat crot Earle. 566 atveo-ets Earle. 576 7rot/mras
<Ttvas) vjjlvovs Herwerden. 580 Se: tc Musgrave. 585 7r£pav: iripa
Herwerden. 594 Bauer conjectured that Spew should be supplied
after MoAocnroiv to fill the lacuna. 596 aXlfievov: aXifxivov Reiske.
624 SvafjLtvrj: Sw7reT?} Schmidt, Sv&xepvj Nauck, SvarTv^yj Kirchhoff,
Svacfyeprj KviQala. SvcrXocfra (for 8w<^>opa) Mekler. 630 Aeya): V€/JL(0SELECT CONJECTURES.

57

Schmidt. 632 Nauck thinks spurious. He suggests Swpwv for
tu)v ow, and Mekler Tt/xon'. <f>avtfcreTai for ra^rjo-eraL Weil. 635 ye-
p(j>v <Zv: yepaios Earle. Badham rejects 636-41, Nauck 638-9,
Weil 637-41, Schenkl 637-42. 641 Wagner and Dobree reject
(and Nauck is inclined to do so). 644 ydiXrjaas : ^c'A^o-as Weil.
646 oovtldv: oOvclov is suggested by Earle. 645-7 Badham re-
jects. 647 Kal iraripa 7rav8tKO)S av Schmidt, Kal izarkp av ivbiKus
av Weil. (;Kal Trarepa was suggested by Hartung.) fiovrjv: ifxoi
Nauck (ifiov B), vifunv Kviqala, o/jlov Schmidt, Oaveiv Kirchhoff.
Wecklein suggests iraripa t av Y/yoifxrjV av evSiKtoraTa. 655 rjv 8*
eyco crot: rj yeyais <rot Nauck. Sofxoiv: Opovwv Schmidt. 668 Nauck
rejects, and in 667 would read kelvov Acya>, kelvov roSe or kclvov
aif3o): kelvov y iyta Kvi^ala, kc'lvov y ip(o or kzlvov fieXa) Schmidt,
k€lvov fx ipw Weil. Badham rejects 666-8, Hartung 669-72. 674
co ttol (MSS.) : covaf Monk, aAts KviQala, 7raXaiov Hense. 679 Kal:
7rai Weil (who puts a colon after fjnas in 680). 680 ov: kov
Wecklein. Nauck would strike out 688 and read in 687 TToXvwXe-
Opovs 8* c^ets yvas. Schmidt conjectures that 690 should be put
after 691. 697 Ae'yets : i/^'yets second Hervagian ed. 708 Acfavros :
Xeiovros Reiske, 'Aeyfovros Hermann. 711 Bauer would punctuate
with a period, not a sign of interrogation. 713 fxacraov for /ie££ov
Schmidt. fxe%ova (omitting oiv) Schaefer. 714 and 715 Nauck
places after 719. 716 aXX' ov veKpov o-v y avrl dov Nauck. 717-18
Wecklein rejects. 719 rovSe y : rovh9 It' Kirchhoff. 724 yipovra:
yipovTL Weil. 732 rj : rj Kvi^ala. 739 Tovpareo-bv for rovv 7too-lv
Weil. 756 irorypiov 8' iv X€P°"' Musgrave, irorrjpa 8* evOvs x€P°"'
Nauck, TTorrjpa 8' iv rats XCP°^ Cobet, 7rorrjpa 8* e(ypv)v X6/30"* Weil.
7Torrjpa 8' €lt' iv x€p°"^ ^ ^0 ot8as : oto*0as Nauck. 785 y Vo^cre-
rat Lenting, ot Vo^o-cTat Wecklein. 792 ravra: Travra Markland.
797 cf>p€v(0v: rpoirov Nauck. 798 crKvcj>ov: gtkv</>o> Heiland. 807
Tt: TTws Tournier. ov KaroiaOa: ovk ap olaOa Cobet. 808 ri: ye
Elmsley. 810 ev ira<rxeLv: vrpao-o-eiv Nauck. Prinz thinks 810
and 811 spurious. Nauck removes them and inserts them after
813. Nauck rejects 816-19, Kirchhoff 818-20, Kvigala 818-19.
Hannemueller rejects 817-20 (reading irtTrovQe Setvd rts in 816).
Mekler rejects 820, and the words Kal Kovpav — o-roV^-y; r- in 818-58

SELECT CONJECTURES.

19, reading vpXv for fftuv in 818. 820 tc/cvcov: yci/ovs Kirchhoff.
yep(Dv TrcLTrjp : 7rarrjp ycpwv Hermann. 822 8^ra fie £cvtfcT€ Heiland.
827 7rpoo"a)7rov : irpoo-wOev Weil, 7re7rX<tifJLaT Stadtmueller. 7rpo(ro\l/LV ?
Kovpdv rc Sv<T7rp6ao)7rov Herwerden, Kovpav t a^et 7rpocr(x>$6v Schmidt.
832 p,r): fioi Matthiae. to8' rjv for to pJrj Schmidt, tovto for ctov
to Kvi^ala. 834 irov : ttoi Monk. 836 fecrrov : xtoorov Nauck. 838
jul' for <t Tournier. 839 'HAcKTpvwvi? 'yetVaT* Wilamowitz. 845 irc-
vovra: ireivwTa Schmidt. 847 8c: tc Nauck. He suspects cftatv;
and Wecklein suggests irepiPaXuv x^poiv rvx<o. 851 rrjv Kara) Aldine.
852 Sofxovs: fjivxovs Nauck. 857 Schmidt believes to be an inter-
polation. 862 Hermann doubles alai, Wecklein omits it. 873
7r€7rov0as: 7r€7rov0(i)s Hermann (reading iripas 8* ovScv TiOrjs dA/ycW in
890). 876 paqiroT : fjLrjKer* Metzger. 879 tl yap : TtVos Tournier. 877
(p? ev)avTa Hermann, (jiv)avTa Musgrave. (ae 7r)dvra Hadley. Din-
dorf rejects avra Xvirpov and marks a lacuna; o-' av yv aXvirov Weck-
lein. 885 voctovs : fiopovs Naber. 890 Perhaps 8* It* for 8c y\
901 ij/v)(a to) TTMTTOTaTa Wecklein. 907 areKVOs wv: a7roT€Kvo<; Weil.
921 apMTT&v Hermann. 930 eXnre, <l>iXia a writer in the Quarterly
Review XV. p. 123, IXnri o-c <$>LXa Schmidt. 934 Sapuapra Dindorf
(reading iroXXoTs 931). 943 elaoSov : i£6Sov Lenting, etcrSo^? Earle.
Nauck thinks the verse an interpolation. 948 ttltttovtol : irCrvovra
Wecklein. 960 kvBlov: KepSiov Purgold. 971 avTirejuLoiv: olvtlto/jlov
Kvigala. 975 fiiXeu for kXvcl Wecklein. 984 Nauck prefers koll
ai y a<j>vKTOL<ri. 986 avo) : fipoT&v Earle. aval; ? 992 <f>[Xa 8c 0a-
voxxt ct* co-Tat Prinz, <£. 8. Oavov&a Keirai Wecklein, cf>. 8. Oavova cs
act Nauck, <f>. 8. Kal iv Oavovaiv Weil. 1005 ^>a/xai: <fnavaC Schmidt.
1009 *XUV: o-Tcyctv Schmidt. 1015 iXenJ/dfJLYjv: £cr7reicrdfJLrjv Aldine.
1018 Xvwetv <y'> Monk. 1036 ISTauck suspects icws. 1045
pLifjLvr}(TKeis kclk&v Kirchhoff (following .2?). 1055 OdXafXOV c/x^yo-as
Schmidt. 1060—61 afiws 8c viv cref3ctv | 7roXXr)v 7rpovotav 8ct fx c^ctv
Eassow. 1062 c^ow' : c^cts (with comma before and after ZaOi)
Weil. 1063 Nauck rejects Trpoarrji^ai and conjectures Kal 8c/*as
7rpo(re)Lt^>e/oes (irpoa-etKao-Tov Schmidt). Prinz suggests that 1062 and
1063 should be combined, so as to read /xop^s fxirp9 1<t0l ravr c^ow'
'AXk^cttiSi. 1070 ov Xeyoip* av ev a €X€LV T^XV'S Schmidt. 1071 rjTis
co-Tt Monk(?),# o<ttls cto-t Hermann; Wecklein suggests ^Tts c?cr4.SELECT CONJECTURES.

59

ocrios ci (rv Schmidt. Bauer would put a comma after Aeyw, not a
period. 1086 XP°V0V: °pQ«>s is suggested by Nauck. 1090 tjtls : fj
Kirchhoff (reading twS' avSpi). 1093 alSto pkv alvo) Prinz. 1094 lo-Q*
ov7roT* — KaXCiv Wakefield, ws ovitot —KaAets Herwerden, ov fLrjiror
— KaActs Kvigala, ws fx^wor i<tOi rovSc wfx<plov kolXwi/ Weidner (re-
jecting avSpa). Kirchhoff conjectures that two verses have fallen
out before this line. 1097 yewaiW: yewaiajs Lenting, y ivvaUiv
Schmidt. 1101 csScov: Nauck suggests els kclXov. 1107-8 Nauck
considers spurious. Prinz suspects ei8<os ™. 1115 novrj: jjlovov
Nauck. 1118 Weil gives the second half of the line to Heracles.
1119 vvv: vlv Monk. 1123 OavpH : cfrdar/ji Nauck. 1124 Xevacra):
Acfa) Earle (reading <j>d<rpL and Xeva-cro) in 1123). 1125 xaP®:
Kvi^ala. Nauck suspects iK7rXrj<T<T€.L yp-pd. rj Kepropno fxe 6ca>v tis
iK7rXrj(T(rei XaP? Wheeler. 1126 ovk eo-TLV aXXuis • tt/vS* Nauck.
1127 aXX' r) tl <j>d<rfJLa vepripuiv toS' elaopu); Kirchhoff. 1129 Mek-
ler proposes £wdopov for Sdfxapr ifirjv. 1130 tvxo Reiske. 1131
cos (irrjTvfjuds> Earle. 1134 oviroQ' aif/ecrOaL Stadtmueller. 1141
: Prinz suggests "tXyjs. 1143 <oS* for ^8' Earle. 1154 rcrpap-
^la: TtTpairToXei Nuuck. 1157 /xe^^p/xocryixecr^a : /xe^cop/xt(r/xecr^a Wake-
held.

* Prinz ascribes this conjecture to Monk, but it is not in Monk's edition.
Tyrwhitt suggested 8<ttls earl.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

[ In citing from the dramatists Kirchlioff's edition of Aeschylus (Berlin, 1880), Mekler's
Sophocles (Leipzig, 1889), Kirchhoif's smaller edition of Euripides (Berlin, 1867), and for the
fragments Nauck's Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (second ed. Leipzig, 1889) have been
used.]

Verse 1. Scene Pherae in Thessaly, in front of the palace of King Admetus.
Apollo, armed with how and quiver (vv. 35, 39-40), conies out of the palace-
door and speaks the prologue. 5t6/xar' 'Ad^rei : the address serves at once
to fix the locality and to lend impressiveness to the opening of the play. The
Andromache and Electra open with a similar apostrophe. — The use of the
adjective derived from a proper noun instead of the possessive genitive is too
common in the tragedians to need illustration.

2. Ofjorcrav Tpdire^av: so El. 205 drjaa-av earlav. atv&rai: Schol. etiapetrTTjffai,

KOLTddtiiacrdai.

4. <|>X67a: here unqualified by an adjective ; although when the flame meant
is the lightning (as here) the usual phrase is <p\b£ Kepawta or ovpavla.

8.	Wakefield and Earle read 5' is alav with Athenagoras. But (1) it is a
well-known principle of criticism that variant readings found only in quota-
tions made by one classical writer from another should be regarded with great
suspicion, as the ancients so often quoted from memory : (2) as has been
repeatedly pointed out (recently by Wecklein Berliner Woch. f. klass. Phil.
1895, No. 40, p. 1255), the tragedians do not use the form aia where yaia is
metrically possible.

9.	Cf. Phoen. 425 oti fiefivrbs rjfuv o ydfios els t65* jjfiipas: Hippol. 1003, Soph.
O. C. 1138. €<r<a£ov : as to the evidence for the iota subscript, see note on 292.

10.	This line has given some difficulty. Wuestemann objects that Apollo
would not call himself 6'o-ios, especially when he was still laden with blood-guilt
from the slaughter of the Cyclopes. Wheeler (Be Alcest. et Hippol. interp.
p. 11) goes so far as to say of the verse : 1 spurium esse certis argumentis docuit
me vir illustrissimus mihi hoc loco non nominandus. Menda non sanabilia duo
sunt.* Nevertheless, I cannot help believing the line to be perfectly sound. If
otrios means 1 outwardly pure,' there is a real difficulty; for according to the
prevailing Delphian form of the legend (symbolized by the festival called Step-
teria) Apollo was not purified until his servitude was over, though there was
another form of the story according to which he was purified in Crete before62

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

he went to Thessaly (see the 3d. hypoth. to Pindar Pyth., vol. II. p. 298
Boeckh). I do not believe, however, that the objection occurred to Euripides
at all. Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 204 ayvbv r 'AirbWoj <pvydd' air ovpavov Oebv, where
Apollo is called ayvbs, though his punishment is mentioned in the same breath.
Besides, 8<tios usually denotes inward piety rather than ceremonial purity
(Schmidt Synonymik s. v. lepbs). Apollo merely means that being himself
pious by nature he found a congenial spirit in his master. The fact that there
are two resolved feet in the line does not militate against its genuineness ; see
note on v. 802. The verse cannot be detached from its context without injur-
ing the connection ; the play on words in bo-lov ydp avdpbs 3xrios wv is character-
istic * ; indeed, it would be hard to find a more Euripidean line.

12.	MoCpas 8o\co<ras : cf. Aesch. Eum. 713 ff. roiavr edpatras Kal ptjros iv
dbfiois ' | Molpas eirenras a<pdlTov$ Oeivai fiporofc . . . <n/ rot 7raXaias diavofias Kara-
<p0l<ras | otvip iraprjwdryads- apx^las Beds. Wilamowitz (Isyllos p. 66) with great
plausibility conjectures that Aeschylus and Euripides are here following Phry-
nichus (see Introd. p. xv). -[ivccrav: cf. cuV<rai in v. 2. In both uses there is
the underlying idea of concession or acquiescence.

13.	qtSTjv : here a common noun, 'death,' as often ; e.g. Hippol. 1047 rax^s
ydp a'idrjs pq.<TTOs avdpl 5v(r<rejSet, Aesch. Ag. 667 g.dr)v ttovtiov irefavybres. It is
very difficult to determine at what point the personal element in such words
ceases to be felt.

16. This line was rejected by Dindorf, and is bracketed by Prinz and Nauck.
Earle rejects it altogether. As it stands in the MSS. (irartpa yepaidv 6' ij a(f>'
€tikt€ fjLTjripa), Nauck's objection (Euripideische Studien II. p. 49) : " Die Worte
irar^pa yepaidv re wrtpa konnen nach dem Zusammenhange nur als Apposition
zu iravras (plXovs genommen werden ; dass es aber vollkoinmen sinnlos ist irdv-
ras <f>l\ovs durch irartpa Kal firfripa zu erlautern, wird jeder zugeben miissen " is
unanswerable. Hermann, with his usual positiveness, observes: "Non tria,
amici, et pater, et mater commemorantur, sed omnes comprehenduntur amico-
rum nomine, quorum deinde exempla afferuntur"; but this is unsatisfactory.
We should in that case at least have an intensive particle, " even his own father
and mother." Dr. Yerrall has recently argued (Euripides the Rationalist pp. 27 ff.)
that the MSS. reading is sound because " according to the bargain none was ad-
missible except the family of Admetus," so that the wdvres <pl\oi are necessarily
the father, mother and wife of Admetus (the children being too young to be
accepted as substitutes). This position seems quite untenable. (1) The writer in
the Bibliotheca of Apollodorus, I. 9, 15, 2 Hercher {probably following the Hesi-
odic account; see Wilamowitz Isyllos pp. 57 ff.) says: lir^caro irapd M oip&v Xv a,
8rav"A8/JL7fTos fitWei reXevrav, airoXvOrj rod Oavdrov, hv eKOva-'im tis irirkp afrrov Ovyaiceiv
H\r)Tai. The words irar^p fj fi^fnp r) ywfj, which follow in the MSS., have ever since
Heyne's time been justly regarded as ' interpretamentum miselli grammaticV:

* See Weber's article (in Comment. Wolfflinianae, p. 99 f.) on " Nominalparataxen " in
the tragedians.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

63

Hercher omits them in his text. Hyginus (Fab. 51), who probably drew from the
same source (Wilamowitz I. s. c., p. 68), says u et illud ab Apolline accepit utpro se
alius voluntarie moreretur. The schol. on v. 12 observes : otvy yhp raijras, <f>a<ri,
twv \oyi<Tfj.u>v awayaycbv ii-rfrirjaaro " A8f/.7]rov, ovrco jitvroi axrre avriSovvai eavrov
€T€pov ry "Aidrj. The schol. on v. 34 says : (jLeOiJcas yap auras firy<re irap adrwv
avrl 'AdfnfjTov aXXov awodaveiv. So too the first hypothesis to the play : 'Att6X-
Xcjv rjt'f)<tato irapk ru>v Moipujv Sttws o "AdfirjTos reXevrav fitXX(av irapd&xy tov
vir€p kavTov €kovta t€0vt]|ojjl€vov. In none of these cases is any restriction
spoken of such as Dr. Yerrall assumes to have existed (if we except the worth-
less gloss in Apollodorus mentioned above). And if Euripides meant to restrict
the substitution to the family of Admetus, why did he use such phrases as AXXov
veKpdv and iravras <f>iXovs, which, taken apart from v. 16, would certainly be un-
derstood otherwise ? (2) Again, Dr. Yerrall, understanding rots kAtcj (v. 14)
as meaning the dead of Admetus's family, observes : u The death of a person of
another family, who would be buried with his 4 loved ones,' in a different bury-
ing-place, and worshipped with other and alien rites, would be no compensation
at all." But surely it is more natural to take rots k&tw (sc. Oeois) as meaning
the deities of the underworld (cf. v. 75, v. 851 ff.). According to the Eoeae
(Wilamowitz I. s. c.) the deity whose wrath made the sacrifice necessary was
the Pheraean Artemis BpipuJb (cf. Apollod. Bibl. I. 9, 15,2); and this very Bpi/xti
was identified with the chthonian Hecate (Lycoph. Alex. 1176, Apollon. Rhod.
III. 860) or Persephone (Lycoph. Alex. 698 and schol.), the queen of the under-
world. Euripides doubtless was familiar with this fact. Hence Dr. Yerrall's
argument loses much of its force. (3) Again, could there be a more glaring
instance of bathos than after the fine line iravras 8' i\ty%as ical 5ie£eX0<f>l\ovs
(with its emphatic wdvras) to suddenly inform the reader that these ir&vres <f>l\oi
were only three in number ? The question then arises whether the line should
be emended or rejected as an interpolation. Nauck's ical irarlpa ypat&v 0' 17 a<t>'
eriKre fxrjT^pa is probably the best emendation that has yet been suggested ; but
he himself was inclined in his later years to reject the line. The omission of
the verse restores a clear and simple connection, and leaves to wdvras <f>l\ovs its
proper and natural sense. I believe the line to be an interpolation, made by
some one who wished, like Dr. Yerrall, to restrict the substitution to the family
of Admetus.

17, 18. 8crns, Reiske's certain and necessary emendation for is ac-
cepted by almost all modern editors of the play. KviQala's 01k yvpe • ttXtjv yv-
vaucbs ovtls tjdexe is elegant, but not convincing. With regard to 17, however,
there is a wide difference of opinion. One class of editors (Dindorf, Kirchhoff,
Prinz, Weil, Nauck) reads OaveTv and (with C) ixtjd' ex'. Another (Monk,
Wecklein, Earle, with Wilamowitz Hermes XVII. p. 364) reads Oav&v (with
Reiske) and	(with all the best MSS.). To read daveiv and retain fiijictr

is out of the question, as the asyndeton is too harsh. In behalf of the reading
OaveTv . . . 1X7)8' er' may be urged the frequent parallelism in such expressions,64

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

e.g. v. 21, Heracl. 969 XPVV rbvde ^ $rjv fjLrjb' opav (f>Aos en, El. 349 av^p e<rn ical
X&Lfaa-eL 0aos; etc. But the arguments of Wilamowitz in favor of 6av. . .
nrjKtr seem conclusive (see Hermes I. s. c.). iit)k£tl has the support of the best
MSS. of both classes, while /Mrjd* er* is attested only by the comparatively worth-
less Codex Havniensis. Moreover, if 8av<hv . . .	was the original reading,
when some 4 intelligent reader' changed Arris in 17 to tjtls, thinking that yvvai-
k6s should be its antecedent, dav<hv in 18 could not be changed to davova-a for
metrical reasons, and hence would naturally be altered to daveiv. This would
leave exactly that form of the two lines which is found in the best MSS. Then
some one, thinking to better matters, would change firjK^r' to firjd' er' to avoid
the asyndeton, exactly as we find in C. But if davetv . . . firjb' er was the
original reading, the change of firjd* er to ' was quite uncalled-for. Be-
sides, the expression dav&v . . . ii7)k4t* elaopav <pdos can easily be paralleled, e.g.
Ion 853 airodods Oavelv re £!av re (piyyos elvopav, Hel. 530 <pv]<ri 8' ii> (pdei | ir6<riv
rbv dfxbv {covtcl <f>4yyos eicopav, etc. — kcCvov : the use of the demonstrative in-
stead of the indirect reflexive changes the point of view from that of Admetus
to that of Apollo and the audience, as Earle well puts it. Besides, irpb ov or
airrov would have given hiatus. For a still bolder use of the demonstrative in-
stead of the reflexive, see Xen. Hellen. I. 6,14 iavrov ye dpxovros — els Tofiicelvov
bvvarbv.

19.	Usener (FleckeiserCs Jahrb. vol. 139 [1889] p. 364) says of this line:
" quoniam quis tandem mulierem moribundam sustentet plane obscurum est,
ferri nequit." He would therefore emend (see Select Conjectures). But £v
xcpoiv is purposely left indeterminate, the poet not caring to specify whether
Alcestis is being carried by Admetus himself, or the attendants, or both. Cf.
v. 201 Akoltlv 4v x€P°w	(but 266 fi^dere, fitOere . . . kXIvclt*). The dual
(xepoTv) is, of course, no proof that Admetus alone is meant.

20.	\|n»x°PPa'Y0^<ra : v- 141, and Here. F. 324. The schol. explains by
iyyds rod airodaveiv oftcra. Hesychius has \f/vxop(p)ay€i • airo6vf](rK€i, and the schol.
on Apoll. Rhod. II. 835 explains xf/vxoppayiovra by airo\pvxovvTa (sic). The word
is not uncommon in late writers. The edd. from Monk down point out the
analogy with a-TrjfjLoppayeiv (Aesch. Pers. 827).

22.	Cf. Hippol. 1437 ff., where Artemis withdraws to avoid pollution from
the dying Hippolytus. The Greeks thought not only that a person was polluted
by touching, seeing, or being under the same roof with a corpse, but also that
the house in which there was a dead body was itself rendered impure : a belief
which is attested not only by numerous passages in ancient writers, but also
by inscriptions (e.g. Dittenberger Sylloge nos. 379, 468, 469) and by the cus-
tom of placing the 6<rrpaK0P or apd&viov at the door (see note on vv. 98 ff.).

23.	The question arises whether Apollo is conceived as just quitting the
service of Admetus, or whether his servitude has ceased some time before and
he has merely been revisiting his former master. The language of the text is
not in itself decisive (cf. vv. 8-9), but on the whole favors the former alter-CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

65

native, whfch I am strongly inclined to accept. The tone of lingering affection
in which Apollo speaks in v. 23 is certainly appropriate to one leaving a kind
master after a long term of service. t&vSc ((hXtcittiv : so the schol. on Hippol.
1437. This is probably right: r&vde 0i\TaTwv, the reading of one class of MSS.,
and <j>i\Ta,T7)v, that of the other, are both due to that tendency to assimi-
late the constructions and forms of adjacent words which has been so perni-
cious to our classical texts.*

24.	As to the genuineness of w. 24-76, see Introd. p. xxxvii f. If the
passage is an interpolation, it is at least an early one. — Enter Thanatos. He
carries a sword (v. 76), and we may perhaps infer from v. 843 that he has
black wings (or black garments if we read fieXdjjLireirXov). On the conception
of Thanatos in this play, see notes on 261 and 845.

25.	Upla: the MSS. have lepij (though in L the first hand has written epta
above the eprj). The question whether the acc. sing, in 17 from nouns in evs is
allowable in the tragedians is disputed. The evidence seems to be as follows.
In Homer the forms Tvdrj (A 384, cf. Herodian, vol. II. pp. 676-7 Lenz) and
MTjKia-Tij (0 339) are found in the most and best of the MSS.; though in both
passages there are some variants, and in both emendation is easy. The form
'08v<tt) is said by the schol. to have been read by Aristarchus in r 136, though
the MSS. have odvaa-ija or 68vaija. Whether these forms in rj should be retained
or not is matter of high dispute, and editors are very evenly divided. The
present writer is inclined, with Nauck (Bulletin de VAcademie imp. de St.
P4tersbourg 17 pp. 190 ff.), Christ, Van Leeuwen and others, to reject them.
See Menrad De contractionis usu Homerico, pp. 60 ff. Hesiod has no instance
of the form in 9j. In Pindar, too, it is surprisingly rare; I have noted but,
three cases, 'AXkvovt} Isth. V. (VI.) 33 and Nem. IV. 27, and 'Odvaaij Nem.
VIII. 26. In the other lyric poets there seems to be no instance of the form
in i) (Eperprj Crates fr. 5 is Bergk's emendation, the MSS. having 'Epirp-qv). In
Herod. VII. 220 in an oracle the form {3a<ri\rj occurs (so most MSS., /SatnXet C,
^acikrja dz). Aeschylus seems not to have the form in 97, and I have found no
instance in Sophocles.. In Euripides I have noted four cases, El. 439 'A^iX^,
Rh. 708 *0dv<r<Trj, fr. 781, 24 Nauck j8aa-i\rj (/3a<rtXet M. Schmidt), all lyric, and
the one in our text. Aristophanes has %vyypaQrj in a chorus, Achar. 1150 (but
there the soundness of the text is doubtful on other grounds, and many editors
read rbv fitXeov tCov	with Elmsley). The Attic inscriptions do not have
the form in ij (Meisterhans p. 109, Wecklein Cur. Epigr. p. 21), though it is
not rare in the kolvt) and common in the later Doric (Kiihner-Blass I. p. 451, 3).
In view of these facts I doubt whether Euripides ever used the contracted form
in 9j in trimeters, and am inclined to read iepta with Monk. For the synizesis
cf. Tfipvovta Hesiod Th. 982 (so Rzach with M), II17XS Soph. fr. 447, 1, 'Odva-
aka Soph. Aj. 104, Mevoacia Eur. Phoen. 913, 'AxtXxS Rhes. 977, I. A. 1341,

* On the frequent interchange of pronominal forms in the MSS., see Wecklein Beitrdge
zur Kritik des Euripides p. 479 f.66

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

Ilrj\4a Aristoph. Ran. 863, etc. <j>0iv6vra>v : so Wecklein for davbvruv of the
MSS. Thanatos is the lepetfs of the dying (ef. 74 ff.), not of those already dead;
hence the emendation seems necessary. The resemblance both in form and
meaning between <f>divbvruv and davbvrujv would facilitate the change. Weil
thinks that davbvrtav is used by a kind of prolepsis: but Here. F. 454 dyd/ueda
frvyos ov ka\bv veicpQv, which he quotes, is scarcely a parallel to this
passage.

26.	(rti/jL/jLeTpos, which Nauck conjectured to be the true reading (the adjec-
tive, not the adverb, being regularly used in such cases), is actually found in
P, the other MSS. having crv iip.tr pm. Nauck compares Soph. Antig. 387 woiq.
%vfafa€tpos Trpov(3r)v tijxv

27.	fypovpwv t68' t)jaap: the figure is that of one watching a prisoner who
is liable to escape him. I know of no other instance of Qpovpeiv Tjjiap or i) fit pap
in Euripides, Aeschylus or Sophocles.

29. iroXcts : cf. Or. 1269 rls 65' &p dfxcpl fitXadpov iroXei <rbv dypbras dvi\p;

30-31. This passage has given rise to much discussion. Nauck (Eur. Stud.
II. p. 50) rejected v. 31 as a useless and inappropriate addition. He pointed
out that v. 30 adiiceis afl rt/xds htpwv makes complete sense by itself (cf. Phoen.
958 aducei tol tCov deCov), and thought that 31 was added by some one who did
not understand the construction ddaceis Tt/xds. The line has a very Byzantine
look, and is actually wanting in P. Nauck's objections to d<f>opi£bfjL€vos do not,
however, appear conclusive. The verb aQoplfriv signifies "to mark off with
bounds" (fy>ot), and hence uto circumscribe, limit, define," the usual meaning
of the word; and in the middle it may mean 44to mark off for oneself" as
one's own property, and hence to "appropriate," as in the passage from our
text and Isocr. Phil. 120 x&Pav &TL irXdo-TTjv a<t>opl<ra(r0ai. Another way of
explaining the latter usage is to assume that acpopifav sometimes meant "to
remove the bounds," and in the middle "to appropriate by removing the
bounds"; cf. the Scriptural injunction not to move a neighbor's landmark.
But I know of no passage where aQoplfav is used with the meaning " to remove
the bounds" from a piece of property. On bplfriv and its compounds, see
Pollux IX. 8. But though d<popi^b/M€vos may be defended, its juxtaposition with
KarairaOwv ("appropriating and suppressing") is certainly harsh, and I am
inclined to think that Nauck's critical insight guided him aright in rejecting
the line.

33-4. MoCpas 8o\(a> | <r<|>^\avTk : see note on v. 12.

35.	TO^prj: proleptic. Cf. Ion. 980 <pv)<f>bpovs <rovs bw\l<ras dirdovas for the
construction, and for the word Rhes. 226 "AttoWov . . . fxbXe ro^rjprjs, Here. F.
188 To^prj <rdyriv1 ib. 1062 ro^-qpei \pa\n$ ro£ei$<ras.

36.	t68' : i.e. irbviv iK\vaaa avrr] irpodaveiv. The rbde is used because
Thanatos wishes to make his statement just as explicit as possible, and remind
Apollo of the exact terms of the agreement. Hence it is needless to read rb$*
with Elmsley.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

67

38.	Odpo-ci: the form in pa is commonly said to be early Attic, but this has
not thus far been confirmed by the inscriptions. See Meisterhans2 p. 76, 5.
\6*yovs kcSvovs : cf. Rhes. 272 kcSvovs \6yovs.

39.	tL . . . t6|o>v cpyov: cf. Hippol. 911 <riwirrjs d' ovd&p ipyov, and the Latin
opus est.

40.	Monk aptly compares Hor. Odes III. 4, 60 numquam humero positurus
arcum . . . Apollo. aUC: so L. Porson, relying upon insufficient evidence,
denied that the tragedians used this form ; but in the words of Mr. Rutherford
(New Phrynichus p. 112), "no one would now venture to dispute that in the
old Attic of Tragedy forms like /catw, /cAa/w, aicrds, aid, i\aiay were retained
when /cdco, /cXdw, ad i\da had replaced them in ordinary speech." Cf. Weck-
lein Cur. Epigr. p. 64: " Nulla causa est cur formam aid ubi prior longa
requiritur a diverbio tragicorum abiudicemus: comprobatur ilia titulis, libris,
testimonio Marcellini" (vit. Thucyd. 52). The Medicean MS. of Sophocles and
Aeschylus generally has aid where the metre requires a long penult. The Attic
inscriptions show ad and aid side by side down to about 360 B.C., after which
(except in the decrees of diaa-Qrai) &d is the form in regular use. Hence the
statements of the grammarians (see Voemel Bern. Contr. pp. 28 ff., Wecklein
I. s. c. pp. 63 ff.) that ad was the Attic form are correct as to the later Attic
usage, but should not be understood as excluding aid from the tragedians. See
also Ellendt's Lex. to Sophocles s. v. ad, Meisterhans2 pp. 24-5, Kuhner-Blass
I. p. 137. In the passage from our text the penult is long and has the ictus,
and besides aid, as being the older and rarer form, is more likely to be right
than the later and more familiar ad. A copyist might easily change aid to
&d, but would scarcely have changed ad to aid. Hence I have followed the
reading of L.

43.	vo<r<|>i€ts: cf. Suppl. 153 ^ irotf <r<f>' abe\<pbs XP7!I^twv vo<r<f>l£eTai; ib. 539.
Euripides seems not to have used the double-accusative construction with this verb.

44.	irpos ptav <r : Earle's conjecture, y for <j , is very plausible, and may
well be right; but it does not seem necessary to alter the reading of the MSS.

45.	Kdrw x0°v6s: so the best MSS. (except P, which has /card %^o^6s).
Matthiae read x0evbs xdrw, and so Hermann, Dindorf and Earle (see his pref.
p. VI note). It is true, as Hermann observes, that the chiastic order {yirtp yrjs
. . . xQovte kAtw) is more effective ; and the inferior MSS. c, d, (also a ?) are
said to have that reading; but Euripides did not always put things in the most
effective way, and it seems most prudent to follow the best MSS. Cf. Troad.
1243 d d* rfjxai debs | etrrpe^e r&vu irepi(3a\&j> kAtoj x^ov^- kat&	*n -P is
doubtless due to icard. xOovbs in 75 (cf. 163). Cf. Heraclid. 592, where Stobaeus
read k<£tw x0°p6s, but our MSS. have Kard. xOovbs.

47. WpTcpav: this reading (that of P and I) is certainly right, and is
accepted by all the edd. Cf. Here. F. 335 vcprtyq. . . . x^ov^ &nd from the
Cresphontes (fr. 450 Nauck) d p,kv yap oikcl vepripas irrrb x^ovdi. Weil compares
Aesch. P&K8, 839 &7t€i{u yrjs irrrb fi<fx>v kAtw.68

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

48. Cf. Med. 941 ovk old' Slv el Treia-alfii, ireipavdcu XPV- It is curious that
the Greek ovk old' el so often indicates a leaning toward the negative side of
a question, while the Latin nescio an usually implies a leaning toward an
affirmative view. On the position of &r see Goodwin M. and T. 220, 2.

50.	This is a very troublesome line. Two principal questions arise: (1)
what does tois fitWovo-i mean, and (2) whether we should read ifi(3a\eiv with the
MSS. or afipaXeiv with Bursian. Tois ^\\ov<tl (sc. dvrjaKeiv) might mean (a)
"those who are destined to die." But all are destined to die, and Alcestis
with the rest; hence this interpretation seems impossible here, particularly if
we read inpaXeiv. Some editors (Jerrarn, and Earle if I rightly understand his
note) explain the phrase as meaning (/3) "those who in the natural course of
things will die," i.e. the old, and retain ififiaXeiv. But this is surely very
forced, and would be liable to be misunderstood, as Alcestis herself fitWei
Ovrjaiceiv in another sense. The words may also mean (y) "those who are
delaying," or "hesitating to die," i.e. the aged, who are ripe for death but
fain would linger, possibly with special reference to the father and mother of
Admetus. Cf. the schol. : tois yeyripaK&cri, toijtois yhp Xtyei <r<£) p,£XXov<ri. ftpa-
dtivovai yap ev rrj farj. In this case we must obviously read ifxpaXeiv. Lastly
(d) the words may mean "those who are about to die," "are at the point of
death," with special reference to Alcestis. Bursian's emendation will then be
necessary. The choice clearly lies between (7) and (5). Both interpretations
are supported by eminent authorities, but a question of this kind cannot be
settled by " counting heads." Explanation (7) has the support of the schol.,
and requires no change of text; but (5), to which I strongly incline, gives to
tois fjl^wovo-i a simpler and more natural sense, while an unusual form like
anfiaXeiv would be extremely liable to be altered to a more familiar one. Cf.
Hec. 1263 d/u/3??<m, where aL G have app^ari but ABE	Bauer thought
that the line contained an intentional " double entendre," rots /itXXovai being
capable of meaning either "the aged" or "those who are about to die," i.e.
Alcestis (retaining i^aXeiv); but this would have given Thanatos a chance to
make a very effective retort, taking the words in the latter sense, and Apollo
would have no object in thus "laying himself open" to his adversary. Than-
atos is here said Qdvarov anfiaXeiv, just as Lyssa Here. F. 866 (quoted by Monk)
says irplv Slv ip,as XtWas a(prj, and as the chorus say of Ares Iph. Aul. 775
(quoted <by Jerram) kvkXJhtas "Apet <povl(p. For other ancient and modern par-
allels see Monk and Jerram ad h. loc.

51.	This line, too, has occasioned much discussion. The plain and simple
meaning is, "I understand, of course, your meaning and your zeal," €%w
being used in its colloquial meaning of "comprehend," "grasp," like the Lat.
teneo, the Elizabethan "take" ("D'ye take me") and the "catch on" of
modern slang. Cf. Orest. 1120 toctovtovj TairiXoLira 5' o$k Hippol. 1436
ex^is 7hp fioipav rj die</>0dp7}s, etc., and the ex«s tl ; of comedy. Apollo has
expressed his wish somewhat vaguely, and Thanatos, who has an uneasy con-CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

69

sciousness of his own mental inferiority, wishes to show that he is aware what
the former is aiming at. The 5-/) gives at the same time a sneering tone to
the remark. Some think that the line has a double sense, (1) that given above,
and (2) "I understand you and am ready " (atdev in the second case being
taken with \6yov only) or "I cherish regard for you (exo> \6yov aidev) and good-
will toward you," and that Thanatos means (1) while Apollo pretends to
understand him as meaning (2). But the order shows that atdev is to be taken
with both \6yov and irpodviiiav. If irpodvfilav <r£dev could really mean 441 am
eager to serve your interests," "feel good-will toward you," this objection
would be obviated ; but what evidence is there of such a usage ? Cf. Herael.
410 exw • • • Trpodvfxiav | too"ifivd' h vjjlcis. IIpodvfiiav exeiv tlv6s, 44 to desire a
thing," is, of course, a common construction. Weil boldly alters to e/cxei,
on the ground that if Thanatos perfectly understood Apollo's words he would
immediately protest. But the sneer is protest enough.

52. €ctt ovv oircos . • . p,6Xoi : On the omission of &v after €<ttlv rcos see
Goodwin M. and T. 241. V. 51 is so worded that though Thanatos does not
mean to spare Alcestis, Apollo can draw from it the opposite inference, or at
least pretend to do so. The sneer he purposely overlooks.

55.	apvu|iai -ycpas: cf. Hec. 40 cure? 8' d8c\</>^v ttjv ifi^jv HoXv&vtjv | ttj/jlpy
<f>L\oi> irp&(T(j>(iyfjLa Kai ytpas \afieiv. The reading of L and P, acX^os, is either a
gloss on ytpas which has crept into the text, or possibly a slip of some early
copyist who was thinking of the Homeric kX^os aptaQai. Mistakes of the latter
sort are especially common at the end of a line ; and, as Bruhn has ably shown
in his " Lucubrationes Euripideae," this is due, at least in part, to the fact that
the scribe in copying first fixed a number of words in his mind and then wrote
them out, and as he did so the grasp of his memory became weaker as he
neared the end ; so that he often would get the last word wrong, or substitute
for it some other of kindred meaning which happened to be in his mind. The
scholiast read yipas.

56.	Schol. : o 5Z 'Air6W(ov kclItoi vo^cas rb XexOZv irapaXoytfrTai rbv 0dvarov,
(pacTKcov 8ti kSlv ypavs tXrjraL ij "AXktjjtis a%lm ra^crerai, rb fietfov yipas X4y(ov iiri
iro\vT€\ov$ ra<j>7js.

57.	irpos twv €x<5vtcov: "in the interest of the rich." For this use of irpbs
cf. Soph. 0. T. 1434 irpbs (rod ^y&p^ dW ifiov, <f>pd<ru), Herod. VIII. 60, 2 rb iv
<tt€v§ vo.vfxa.x^eiv irpbs tj/jl^wv iarl, Thuc. II. 86, 5 vofxl^ovres irpbs iicelvuv elvat ttjv
iv dXLyy vavfjLax^av, etc. The use of irpbs in expressions like irpbs tivos ehai, 4 4 to
side with one," is analogous. Euripides often employs o exwi/, ex0VTes=°
irXofoios, oi TrXo&not, e.g. Suppl. 240 ff. oi 8' otic exovres Kai <riravlfovT€s jQlov . . .
cis rods exovras Kivrp a<f>ia<riv /ca/cd, fr. 326, 8 /caicbs 5* o fity exwf, oi 5' exovres
dXpioL, fr. 462, 2 tCjv ix^vrcav irdvres dvOpuiroi (plXoi, etc.; and many examples
might be cited from other writers. tCOcis : P has tMs, and hence Prinz,
Bauer-Wecklein and Weil read rtOeis. The question as to whether Ti0e?s is
good Attic cannot be said to be settled as yet. Porson condemned the form,70

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

and Brunck defended it. It has more recently found vigorous champions in
Cobet (Misc. Grit. pp. 282 ff.) and Mr. Rutherford (New Phrynichus pp. 316-17),
though Kiihner-Blass (II. p. 193) seem inclined to decide against it. Wecklein-
Bauer go so far as to say u nOeh ist die attische Form der 2. Pers. Prasens "
(see their note ad loc.). The Attic inscriptions unfortunately are silent on this
point, but the evidence of the MSS. is very strong in favor of the Atticity of
tl$€is (see for the evidence Yon Bamberg in Ztsch. f. Gymn. W. XXVIII. pp.
27-8, Ktihner-Blass l.s.c.). I have noted the following cases from Euripides:
Ale. 57 (rideh P, tIOtjs r), 890 (nOeh B L P, rWris a), Androm. 210 (tLOtjls A,
riOeis B, tL6t}s F, rideis with tj written over the ei P, tWtjis a), Cycl. 545 (ndeh P,
rideis with rj written above ei _L), Hel. 550 (irpoarideh), Herael. 690 (irpoo-Tideis P,
irpoarldeLs with r) written above ei X), Here. Fur. 710 (ir po<r rideis), Ion 741 (ridels
P, rideis L), 1525 (irpoaridels P, wpoarideh L), Orest. 1187 (virorideh A, birorldeis
J5, viroTideio-a 2£, birorldeis F, virorldrjs L e).

When the inscriptions are silent, the testimony of the best MSS. becomes
doubly important. The cod. Laurentianus of Sophocles, the Ravennas and
Yenetus of Aristophanes and the Clarkianus of Plato all have instances of the
form in question. Hence, while I should not dare (like Cobet, and apparently
Wecklein) to assert that riOeh is the Attic form, it seems probable that it was
in good use. A change from rideis to rLdrfs would be far more apt to be made
by copyists than one in the other direction ; hence I have followed P (except
as to accent) in this passage. Cf. 890.

59. An extremely troublesome line. L has wvotvr (o> rewritten), P and a
u>volvt\ B 6volvt , I dvalvt. L and P have oh, the rest apparently ovs. All have
yrjpaioits. The passage clearly puzzled the scholiasts ; one says: irapa twv iro\v-
Xpovluv ayop&creiav Slv oi irXofoiot rbv inelvcjv xp^ov were avrotis (3pa5itos airodaveiv ;
another has (perversely) dyopdaeiav hv yqpaiovs oh irdpea-ri rb davetv, £av tovto
(rvyxupfow' The reading 6volvto we may dismiss at once, as it gives no appro-
priate sense and 6vofiai does not occur in the tragedians. The editors fall into
two great classes, (I) those who read u>voivr and (II) those who prefer 6vaivr\
and these again have their subdivisions.

I. Those who read wvoivt.

(a)	Lascaris, Monk, Hermann, Woolsey, Jerram and others read (with X,
and P except as to the accent of covoTvt) (avoivt' Slv oh ir&peari yripaiobs daveiv.
The sense will then be, as Hermann puts it: "emerent, quibus opes suppetunt,
grandaevos mori quos vivere cupiunt, sive semet ipsos, sive quos amant alios."
This reading, taken as a whole, has better MSS. authority than any of the
others.

(b)	Dindorf and Earle, feeling that the exemption of the rich themselves
from death is what should be especially emphasized, read wvotvr hv oh irdpeari
yripaiol daveiv. This gives a clear sense, and one suited to the context, and I
believe it to be the true reading. The nom. yripaiol might very easily be changedCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

71

yripaiofc by some copyist or reader who did not understand the construction
and thought that an accus. was needed with the infinitive, or wished to make
the adjective the object of wvqivt (as one of the scholiasts seems to have done).

II. Those who read 6vaivr.

(a) Kirchhoff, Nauck, Prinz, Bauer-Wecklein, Weil and others read 6vaivr
civ ovs irdp€(TTL yrjpaiotis Oavetv. This is usually rendered: " those would be bene-
fited who could afford to purchase long life" ("die wegen ihres Reichthums
in der Lage waren etc." Bauer-Wecklein). But (1) the " waren " begs the ques-
tion. The true rendering would be " those whose living to old age is (now)
possible," not "those who (in that case) would be able to live to old age." Weil
saw this; but even his version, "les riches auraient un avantage, puisqu'ils
ont le moyen de mourir vieux (si des funerailles somptueuses peuvent procurer
une longue vie)," does not meet the difficulty. If 6v<llvt is a "less vivid
future " apodosis, it does not harmonize with the pres. ind. irdpeariv. If, how-
ever, dvcuvr av be regarded as " potential optative," " those can obtain advan-
tage who (under your new v6/jlos) have the power to reach old age" (cf. vdfiov
ridels in 57), the construction becomes at least a possible one. But (2) the
reading 6vollvt has only the authority of Z. The reading of B, 6volvt , is prob-
ably a mistake for covoivt , not for 6vclivt\ as a has ujvolvt. (3) The reading
tvaivT, as Earle points out, could easily arise through the influence of irpos
tlov exbvtcav.

((3) It would also be grammatically possible to read tvaivr' Slv ots wapeo-ri
yrjpatovs Oavetv (or y-qpaiois davetv with Heiland), with the same meaning as (a)
but a somewhat easier construction. These readings are liable to the same
objections as (a), and yrjpaiois has no MSS. authority.

On the whole, the choice seems to lie between I (a) and I (b), and of these
the second is the clearer and simpler, ols irapeo-TL will then = 01 irXofoioi (not,
as Matthiae understood it, ots ir&peaTi sc. r6 wveicr0ai).

62.	The sigmatism of the line expresses anger and contempt; cf. Ion 386
(ri> 5' ovt ecuxras rbv cbv ov <riucrai a expVv-

63.	irdvT : Prinz's conjecture ravr' is quite needless; Thanatos means,
"You cannot have everything to which you have no right, though you have
defrauded me in one case" (cf. v. 43).

64.	KXavcrt]: so Earle, who suggests that irwuvrj of the MSS. is due to con-
tamination of KXatJo-y with a gloss ireLo-rj. wateri clearly will not do (stop doing
what?); irel<T€L (better irela|?), F. W. Schmidt's emendation, makes good sense,
but is rather weak, while KAaiAr# seems admirably suited to the tone of the
dialogue. Apollo begins in a tone of studied though ironical courtesy ; as the
conversation goes on he begins to lose patience, and finally answers Thanatos
in his own rough way (cf. 62). Wecklein calls K\ati<rr} an " unpassender Aus-
druck" (Woch.f. klass. Philol. 1895 p. 1255), but Euripides uses the verb in
this sense some fifteen times, chiefly in angry dialogues of just this character.72

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES*

It is noticeable that here the MSS. all have the form in -77, which is now recog-
nized to be preferable to that in -ei. The latter is probably a mere 4' graphic
variant," due to the confusion between rji and ei which began in the fourth
century b.c., and the grammarians of the Roman period preferred it (see
Yoemel Dem. Cont. p. 84) because it enabled them to distinguish the subjunc-
tive in -rj from the indicative in -ei. See Meisterhans p. 131, Kiihner-Blass II.
p. 60, Blass Aussprache des Griech.3 p. 47, etc. Earle takes dyav as modifying
/cXai^r#, comparing Hel. 1398 dyav yap avrbv ov irapbvd* 8fiws <tt4v€ls : but there
no one would think of taking dyav with irapbvd', while in the passage from the
text it is surely more natural to take it with	uyou will certainly come

to grief (' catch it'), very savage though you are."

66-7. I formerly suspected these lines to be an interpolation, as they are
not essential to the construction, and the addition of the detail seems at first
sight to weaken rather than strengthen the statement. But Euripides often
errs in this direction, and, as Earle points out, the lines have a certain 67*05
which may help to lend impressiveness to the prediction. It is hard in study-
ing a work of this kind to avoid contracting what some one has wittily called
the delirium delens. Wheeler {Be Ale. et Hipp. Interp. pp. 12 ff.) rejects in
this one scene w. 30-31, 58-9, 66-71, 73-6! iirirciov ox-q|ia: so 6xvf* tvireiov
Hippol. 1355, vd'Cov 8xVfJia' Iph. T. 410, 8xvfJLa ito>\ik6v Rhes. 621, 797, liririKCbv
dxyp<&To>v Soph. El. 740, etc. Cf. v. 483 OprjKbs Ttrpupov dpfxa Alofi-fjdovs /lira.
"Apfia is a less pretentious word. ji£ra: a case of so-called tmesis (Tifixpavros
. . . fj^Ta — iJ£TaTr4fi\f/avTos). So most edd. Weil and Wecklein read fiera u hav-
ing sent (him) to fetch the team from," etc., the addition of 4 k 8v<rxei^puv
t6ttq)v being possible because of " the verbal idea contained in />terd." Weil
compares 483 and Phoen. 1317 fxera | . . . dBeX^v: but these are not par-
allel to such a construction as	(tlvcl) yuerd tl 4k t6ttov tlv6s. On the
other hand, cf. for the 11 tmesis" Hec. 504 ' Ayafi4fivovos Trifixf/avros, <*> ytivai,
/^ra, and for the construction Arist. Vesp. 679 irap Evxap^ov rpets dyXidas
/ACT^re/x^a, Thuc. IV. 30 (rrparidv re per air 4fiir uv 4k ru>r 4yytis t-vfjLfjL&x<*>v* The
active is, of course, less common than the middle, but is perfectly classical and
Euripidean.

71-2. Kirchhoff, Nauck and Prinz follow Dindorf in rejecting these two
lines, rightly as it seems to me. The MSS. show no variant, but the schol.,
who says Kal ovre Tjfiets ofi4v croL(€XOfi4v MSS.) X&PLVi «-XXa /cat 0 (3ov\6jj.€da irpa-
£ofjuev, appears to have read dpdew (Weil suggests that he read -irpd^co 6' o/moLoos
r&fx, which seems improbable). As the lines stand ravr is not clear, 8pd<reis
is strange (as Thanatos is to take a passive rather than an active part in the
transaction), and dfiolws is suspicious. Hermann's 8pd<rei (sc. Heracles) does
not help matters; for, as Dindorf observes, "hoc si voluisset poeta, dixisset
saltern 8pd<rei r 4kcivos raOra, quo pronomine multo magis opus erat quam illo
ofiolus: ne quid de verbis airex0r}<rei r 4/jloI dicam, ubi potius <rv r anrexOfoet
4/xol dici debebat." This last objection remains if we read Spacrw, whichCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

73

besides emphasizes Apollo's share in the transaction too much. Nowhere else
in the play are we told that Heracles is merely his instrument. Zacher's
suggestion (see Select Conjectures) is ingenious but not convincing; in short
the lines have never been satisfactorily emended. I am inclined to hold,
with Dindorf, that they were composed and added to the text by some gram-
marian who thought the close of Apollo's speech too abrupt.

72.	The first &i> points out the participle as conditional (Goodwin M. and T.
224), and at the same time helps to emphasize ir6\\' (ib. 223).

73.	-q 8* ovv *yvvt| : cf. Soph. Avtig. 769 5' odv icbpa rdd ' ovk airaXkdZet
fidpov.

74.	<rT€£x« 8' 4ir avWjv: it is not quite right, I think, to say that iirl
here — yuerd of 46. True, ewL with the accus. is often so used, as in Androm.
73, 81 (which Earle cites), Bhes. 28, etc. But why should Thanatos "go after
her" (to fetch her) in order to cut off the lock of hair? To do that he need
only enter the room where she is lying. Probably bf here means merely "to "
(cf. Orest. 88 TjKerov i<f> tj/j, as ad\l<as weir pay bras). In Ion 1043 ixfybv 8' iir'
Avdpa <rretxe, iw clearly means "against," and in our passage there may be a
slight implication of hostility. us KaTdpgcapai : from Homer down icardp-
Xe<r0ai is the technical word for performing the rites preliminary to a sacrifice,
and particularly for the operation of cutting off hair from the victim's head
and placing it on the fire. Hesychius says Kardp^aadai rod lepelov • tCjv Tpix&v
&Tro<nrd<raL (Photius has Kardp%a<rdai tG>v Tpix&v airdp^aadat roO lepelov). For
the literature on KardpxwBai, see Mr. Blaydes's very elaborate note on Aristoph.
Aves 959, and for Greek offerings of hair and their significance, see Wieseler
Philologus IX. 711 ff., esp. 714-15.

75.	Upos. . . 0««v: Monk compares Aristoph. Tint. 937 ^ 8ij0\ lepbv ydp
£<ttl tov nXotfrov itd\ai. So Plat. Leges Y. 741 C yrjs lepas ovjtjs t&v irdvTiav
OeQv, etc. The dative with lepbs is less frequent.

76.	€yx°s • = in v. 74. Euripides uses the word in the same way in
Elect. 696 and Phoen. 1413 (cf. 1404); cf. Soph. Aj. 287, Antig. 1236, etc. Some
of the ancient critics, misunderstanding Homer II. VII. 255 rw 5' iwirawafitvu)
8o\lx' eyx€a x€P(T^v	| vtv p €ire<rov, thought that eyx^a there meant
swords, an opinion which was refuted by Aristarchus (see the Scholl. Aristonic.
on II. VII. 255, 273). Whether the loose tragic use of eyxos is due to the same
misunderstanding (so Blass in Mueller's Handhuch d. Alt.-Wiss. I.2 p. 151) or
is merely a poetic inexactness (cf. the use of "blade," "glaive," etc. in Eng-
lish poetry) I will not undertake to say. ayvl<rj\: the "relative general con-
dition" without &v (or k£) in the protasis is more common in Homer than the
regular form (Goodwin M. and T. 538), and is doubtless older. On the use of
the form without &v in later poets see Goodwin 540. In this passage Euripides
is following Phrynichus; Servius on Virg. Aen. IV. 694 says: " Alii dicunt
Euripidem Orcum in scenam ducere gladium ferentem, quo crinem Alcesti
abscindat, Euripidem hoc a Phrynicho (so Q. Jahn; poenia F, phenico T) antiquo74

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

tragico mutuatum." Euripides in his turn was imitated by Yirgil Aen. IV.
698-9 " nondum illi Jlavum Proserpina vertice crinem | abstulerat Stygioque
caput damnaverat Oreo," as is pointed out at length by Macrobius Y. 19,
1-5, q. v. There is a similar allusion in Hor. Carm. I. 28, 19, " nullum | saeva
caput Proserpina fugit," where see the edd.—With this line closes the pro-
logue, in the ancient sense of that word. Apollo probably withdraws at v. 69,
Thanatos enters the main door of the palace at 76.

77-140. The irdpodos. We are told in the hypothesis o	a-vvijTrjKev

ek tlvojv irpecrfivTCbv ivToiritav, and the schol. on v. 77 says £k yepbvrwv Qepalav o
xopfc. It has been pointed out by Bendixen (Be Alcest. Eur. Comment., cited
by Hitter Be Eur. Alcest. p. 32) and Arnoldt (Chorische Technik des Eur.
pp. 52 ff.) that several things in the play seem inconsistent with this view.
The wish in vv. 473 ff. certainly would sound strangely in the mouth of gray-
haired men; and the chorus make no allusion to, or complaint of, their own
old age. But the statement in the hypothesis probably goes back to Aristo-
phanes of Byzantium, who lived less than two centuries after Euripides, and
who doubtless had seen the Alcestis performed ; it scarcely seems probable,
therefore, that he would have made a mistake in the matter. Moreover, the
wish in 473 ff. must not be taken too strictly as applying to the chorus them-
selves; it may be the poet who is speaking (cf. 962 ff.). Y. 212, too, though
it does not necessarily imply that the coryphaeus is an old man, is certainly
more natural if the person addressed is a man of age and position. On the
whole, I strongly incline to the traditional view. There is great danger that,
in analyzing the information which has come down to us from antiquity, we
may prune away the true together with the false.

As to the division of this irdpodos and the distribution of the parts there has
been great difference of opinion. All recent editors accept the statement of
the schol. on v. 77 (which is confirmed by the MSS.) that the chorus is divided
into two semi-choruses. They disagree, however, as to the amount sung by
these semi-choruses, some (e.g. Kirchhoff, Nauck, Weil, Wecklein) assigning
them only 93-7 and 105-111, while others (Arnoldt, Prinz, Earle, etc.) extend
the division into semi-choruses through nearly the whole of the irdpodos. In a
matter of this kind, where we have so little evidence, the MSS. are the safest
guide, as the division which they offer, us may well go back to early acting-
copies of the play. Hence in the text I have followed them as closely as prac-
ticable. The introductory anapaestic system has x°P• prefixed to it in L and
P, and I have assigned it (with most edd.) to the chorus. Whether it was sung
by the whole chorus or by the coryphaeus I will not undertake to decide, as
in the present state of our knowledge it is useless to dogmatise on such points.
The other MSS. have yfiix-, but it does not seem probable that the division
into semi-choruses took place at the very beginning of the irdpodos. At 86 and
89 I have prefixed ijfiix* with all the MSS. At 89 the sudden change from a
question to a direct statement points clearly to a change of speakers. As toCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

75

93-7 there is now substantial agreement among editors, and I have followed
the usual arrangement. The same is true of 105-111. At 98 I have prefixed
rifjux- with the MSS., and at 101 have added it, following Hartung. A com-
parison with 89 shows that symmetry requires the addition. At 112 I have
prefixed x°P• with B and a (L and P have no sign, doubtless through a copyist's
error). At 132 I have added a Trapdypa<f>osj to show that (as I believe) the
following lines were delivered by the coryphaeus. 132-5 may have been sung
by the whole chorus, but 136-40 were clearly spoken by the coryphaeus, and
it seems most natural to suppose that he also sang the preceding anapaests.
See for other arrangements Arnoldt Chorische Technik des Eur. pp. 153 ff.,
and the edd. ad loc. Cf. also Schmidt Kunstformen d. griech. Poesie III. p. 11
and Westphal-Rossbach Griechische Metrik3 pp. 165, 149, 494 for the metrical
treatment.

77.	irpoo-0€v : irpbvde the MSS., but the metre requires a spondee.

78.	owCyrjTcu : Wecklein compares Iph. T. 367 avXeirou fxtXadpov. The
use of the perfect (" lies hushed in silence ") is very picturesque.

79.	This dimeter as it stands in the MSS. has lost a long syllable either
before or after v£kas. The tls of I is a mere guess of the scribe. For some of
the conjectures which have been made see Select Conj. The best suggestion
that has yet been offered is probably that of Monk, *-Aas <e<rr'> ovdds, as the
copula so frequently falls out. This line has ypux- prefixed to it in the MSS.
But it seems very improbable that the division into semi-choruses took place
at or near the beginning of the ir&podos. The natural place for that division
is at 86, at the close of the anapaestic system, where both the construction and
metre change. Hence I have followed Kirchhoff in striking out the rifiix- The
only recent editor, so far as I know, who retains it is Mr. Jerram,

80.	oo-tis av ti'iroi: so B a L ; 8<ttis Slv eveiroi (so I; cvvewoi P) is incorrect
because an anapaest cannot immediately follow a dactyl, as four shorts must
not come together unless they belong to the same foot. See Christ, Metrik2
p. 242 (§ 282). The variant probably arose thus: evenroi was written by mis-
take for hv etiroi, and then changed to eveiroi to give sense. Then &v was inserted
because the construction required it, thus giving the reading of I and (with
a slight change in the spelling) P. The letters a and c are very often confused
in the MSS.

81.	(3a<rC\€tav irevGciv A the reading of the MSS., is certainly
wrong, as the hiatus is objectionable and there is not the customary caesura
after the second foot. Kirchhoff would insert fx after x?"h> which obviates the
first difficulty but not the second (cf. Nauck Eur. Stud. II. p. 51). Probably
a transposition is necessary. Two different arrangements of the line have
been proposed : (1) (3a(ri\€iav XP% vevd&v rj fcoa (so Z), (2) XP^ pa<rl\eiav irevBeiv
fj $Cb<f (so Blomfield and Nauck). (1) has the (slight) authority of Z, and re-
quires merely the transposition of xP'h and irevdeiv: but (2), though the change
is slightly bolder, certainly sounds much better to the ear, and is probably76

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

right. Nauck remarks: " Die iiberlieferte falsche Wortstellung ist dadurch
veranlasst dass man paalXeiav an <f>difj.tvrjv heranrtickte, zu dem es dem Sinne
nach gehort. Ganz ahnlich im folgenden Verse, wo ebenfalls die Caesur fehlt,
weil man r65e unrichtig zu <pQs zog." Weil retains the MSS. reading both
here and in 79 and 82 by dividing the cola differently, thus: a XX' ov5£ <pl\wv
rriXas ovdels, | Scttls Slv ettroL | irbrepov (pOiiAtvyv j3a<TlXeiav \ irevdeiv xP^h \ V «Tt
(pus rbde Xefoaei \ IleXlov irais | "AX/ojtrrts, ifioi iraal r &pl<TTT) | 56£a<ra 71/W7 | irbaiv
els avrrjs yeyevrjcrdai. He thus obtains in 79-82 three catalectic dimeters, the
first followed by an acataleetic monometer, the other two each by a catalectic
monometer. But a system of eleven lines of which four are paroemiacs and
four monometers is surely an almost unparalleled anomaly.

82.	The MSS. have the order ert <pujs rbde Xefoo-ei IleXlov irais, which lacks
the customary caesura after the second foot. Here again a transposition is
probably necessary. Blomfield's irais IleXlov \e6<r<rei rdde <f>G>s is too violent;
words are not to be shuffled in this way like cards. The reading en <pCos Xetjtraei
r6Se irais IleXlov will not do on account of the hiatus. Bothe's ert 0<2$ Xefoaei
IleXlov r68e irais is the best that has hitherto been suggested, and is probably
right; though the position of r6de is certainly hard. Some editors (e.g. Wueste-
mann, Dindorf) follow the Aldine in omitting r65e. This leaves a paroemiac,
which seems out of place here. Earle, following a hint of Dindorf's, drops
rdde and reads IIe\foi> Ovydrrjp (thinking that IleXtou 7rats owes its origin to v. 37).
But he seems inclined to over-estimate the influence which similar passages
have had upon the text of each other; and in the absence of all MSS. evidence
for dvy&TTjp Bothe's transposition is on the whole more likely to be right.

83.	irao-C t has been suspected, without adequate reason. See Select Conj.

86.	I believe that Arnoldt and Prinz are right in making the dialogue
between the semi-choruses begin here. Probably it was carried on by the
leaders only, not by the semi-choruses each as a whole. As to the arrangement
of the semi-choruses and the evolutions which they went through speculation
is worse than useless ; for we have absolutely no evidence.

87.	x€lP«v : so Nauck for x€P&i>, as the corresponding verse of the anti-
strophe (98) has a long first syllable (71-17-).

88.	r\ -yoov: so jC, rightly, as the antistrophe (v. 99) has a dactyl (xtpvi(3'
i-); ybujv, the reading of the other MSS., is either due to the wish to have the
usual genitive construction after Mew, or (more probably, as two accusatives
precede it) is a simple mistake of some early scribe. The letters w and 0 are
constantly confused in Greek MSS., as every scholar knows. It is not many
years since such cases as the one in the text were explained on the theory that
the tragedians wrote in the old Attic alphabet, in which 0 stood for both
omicron and omega; but the researches of Kohler and others have made it
probable that Euripides, at any rate, used the Ionic alphabet. See Meisterhans
pp. 3 ff. In our passage the mistake must have been made quite early, as B a
P all have ybwv ; and ybov of L is probably a correction of the scribe (who wasCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

77

evidently a man of some learning, as is clear from his corrections and emenda-
tions in other places) rather than an independent variant. ir€irpa,yjilva>v :
on the omission of the noun see Goodwin M. and T. 848.	-

90.	<rTaTC^€Tal: so Hermann for o-rar^er'. The elision of arin the Island
3d pers. sing, was probably not allowed by the tragedians, as the" exaTnples
are few and suspicions (see Kiihner-Blass I. p. 238); and comparison: with the
antistrophe (to/jlclios a v. 102) shows that another syllable is needed. On the
shortening of the final diphthong before an initial vowel see Seidler Be Dochm.
pp. 95 ff., Christ Metrik2 p. 26 and Kiihner-Blass I. p. 197, 5. For the word
itself cf. El. 315 irpos 5* £dpataip "Acides [ dfiwal crar/fova\ where the active is
used intransitively in the same sense.

91.	|x€TdKV|jiio$ a/ras: a troublesome phrase. The four scholia on the pas-
sage show that it occasioned difficulty even in ancient times. Four explana-
tions may be distinguished : (1) most editors and the third schol. take the word
netakij(uo$ to mean "among" or "between the waves" (cf. jueraSi^uos, /jlctclL-
XA"os, iAeTaKb<jfj.ios, fierafid^LOS, iieTOLirbvTLOS, /zeracrT^flios, etc.). The sense will
then be : "Would that thou wouldst appear amid the waves of tfr?;" to still
them. This I believe to be the true meaning; the language would almost
inevitably call up to the mind of a Greek the image of Poseidon amid the waves
of the sea, quelling their fury. (2) Earle, taking ^uera/ctfyuos in the same sense
as above, thinks that the figure is that of a beacon-light appearing amid the
waves. This is ingenious, but would be much less likely to occur to a Greek
hearer than to a modern one, as lighthouses, though not unknown in antiquity,
were far from common. (3) Some hold, with one of the scholiasts, that the
word means " after the waves," bringing calm after the storm. Analogies for
this meaning of ^erd in the compound are hard to find. MeraUpirios apparently
sometimes means "after supper" (see L. & S. s. v.), though this is disputed.
Cf. also fjLeraxpbvios. (4) The fourth scholiast says : (Scrirep Xiyo/iev fAeralxfuov rb
fjl€ra^i> dijo (TTparevfxdrojv, ovtojs fieTaKtifJuov rb	86o kv/jl&tojv (cf. Hesych. s. v.
IigtuKVfXLov). Hence, as Kvi§ala (Studien zu Eur. II. p. 6) points out, he prob-
ably readjieraktifuov &tcls, i.e. (as Kvigala explains it), "the respite from mis-
fortune." But surely to call a person "die Ruhepause des Ungliicks" is a
strange mode of expression. On the whole it seems much the wiser course to
adopt explanation (1) and take &ras as dependent upon the substantive (/ct/juara)
implied in fieTcuaj/jaos.

93-7. It is disputed whether these lines metrically correspond to 105-11.
Westphal-Rossbach observe (Gr. Metrik2, p. 165): " Dreimal beginnen die Ana-
paeste nach Vollendung der Strophen mit zwei Paroemiaci und einer dazwischen
stehenden katalektischen Dipodie, welche metrisch mit einem Ionicus a minore
tibereinkommt. . . Eine antistrophische Responsion aber, die bereits Seidler
dochm. p. 81 versucht hat, findet nicht statt." On the other hand Kirchhoff
and most recent editors hold that the lines in question do respond, and (as it
appears to the present writer) with good reason. True, the verses as they78

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

stand in the MSS. do not accurately respond (see Apparatus Criticus); but
Kirchhoff's elegant restoration of v. 94 is necessary to the sense. Vv. 93-7
are a_ dialogue-between two parties in opposite states of mind, the expressions
of hope alternating with those of despondency. Hence v. 93, which has a
hopeful tene ^should be followed by an utterance of the opposite kind, not by
one of the sqrne character. The words v£kvs tjStj (sc. £<jtIv) should therefore
precede,"not follow, ov 8rj <ppov§6s y o'Ckwv. The transposition was due to
some scribe or grammarian who wished to make vckvs the subject of (ppovdos
(io-TLv); and the yap which the MSS. have after ov was inserted to connect 93
with 94, the latter being thus made a reason for the statement in 93. But as
soon as vckvs ydr) was restored to its proper place the ydp became not only need-
less but objectionable, and Kirchhoff struck it out. Again in 96 the very bald-
ness of the language shows that something is gone, whether the lacuna is after
"Adfirjros (as Hartung conjectured) or after eprjfMov (as Earle thinks). "Eprj/iov of
what ? But these very changes, which are necessary to .the sense, restore the
responsion ; and the chances are a hundred to one that this coincidence is not
accidental. Seeing that a responsion was intended, some early scholar (after
the transposition in 94 had been made) tried to restore it by transposing 106
and 107 (as in L and P), thus making a bad matter worse. There can be little
question that Kirchhoff has restored the true reading. Christ (Metrik2 p. 263)
says : " Strophische Kesponsion sclieint den anapaestischen Systemen von Hause
aus fremd gewesen zu sein und kann namentlich in den Einzugsliedern schon
desshalb nicht erwartet werden, weil hier der Chor beim Vortrag der Anapaeste
sich weder in Halbchore theilte noch in zuriicklaufenden Linien bewegte."
But as in our passage (which he seems to have overlooked) there is a division
into semi-choruses, this objection clearly will not apply.

93.	otf Tav : i.e. ov rot &v. The scribes who wrote our MSS. (or their sources)
did not understand the crasis, and divided wrongly, ovr hv. <{>0ip.€vT)s : so Monk
for (pdifxtvas. The Doric forms should probably be excluded from the anapaests.

94.	4>pov8os: feminine, as in Iph. T. 154, Soph. Elect. 807. The fem. in
-rj is more common.

95.	iroGcv: sc. roOr' olaOa, or the like. Cf. 781, and Phoen. 1620. ovk
avx& : the verb ai>xe<*> from its regular meaning of "to boast" readily passes
into that of "feel confident," as here and Aesch. Prom. 338 ai>x& yap avx&
rr}vbe Scopeav i/iol \ SdaeLv At'. It then becomes still weaker, = "think" or
u expect," as in 675, Heracl. 931 ov ydp ttot tjvx€L X€^Pas W;&r0ai (rtdev, Tro. 770
ov ydp ttot avx& 'Lrivd y iKfpvcrai <r iyd), etc.

96.	ep-qpov : this word was probably followed by two words in the genitive
(Wecklein suggests twv dprivotivrav), which have fallen out. To be sure, it
might be used absolutely, as in ip-riM Mxy (so Earle); but this seems very bald,
and it is probable that the two lost words made the meaning of iptjixov more
explicit.

98 ff. On the custom of placing the do-rpaicov or apddviov full of water beforeCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

79

the door of the house in which there was a dead body, cf. the schol. : oirbre
tls airodavoi, irpb t&v ttvXCov tarpaKa ir\r)povvTes vdaros eridearav Kai k\&5ovs 5d<f>vr)s,
Xva oi £%Lovt€s wepippaivoLVTo. The water had to be brought from ^another house
(Pollux VIII. 65, Hesych. s. v. bvrpaKov). Cf. Aristoph. Eccles. TD33_(and
Blaydes ad loc.), and see Bekker-Goll Charikles I. p. 252; Hermanii-Bliknner
Griech. Privatalterthumer p. 365; Rohde Psyche p. 203 (with nof£ 2).

100. <j>0iT<J>v (so L and P) is clearly the true reading, as the responsion
shows ; <j>dijA€vuv, the reading of the other family of MSS., is a gloss on
which has crept into the text. It is singular that (pdirbs is never used with the
article. irvXais: Prinz reads <f>v\ais, doubtless a misprint. Wecklein con-
jectured that we should read eiri (frdirCop (popq,. But does Euripides ever use
<popa in this way ? I believe the text to be perfectly sound ; the expression cJs
vofjil^eraL eiri (pdirQp 7rtf\cus, "as is customary at the portals of the dead," is not
quite logical here, as ws vomeral does not refer to opQ but to the placing of
the water at the door, and Tournier's 77 vonlfrraL would be easier; but the sense
is clear, and there does not seem to be sufficient ground for any change.

101-2. Apparently clipped hair was placed at the entrance of a house in
which there had been a death, just as we tie up the door-handle with crape.
But (like previous editors) I have not been able to find another allusion to this
custom in any Greek classical writer (though references to offerings of hair at
tombs are, of course, very frequent). Cypress-twigs, however, were used for
a similar purpose; cf. Servius on Aen. III. 681: apud Atticos funestae domus
huius (i.e. cupressi) fronde velantur. To escape the difficulty Lascaris read
Xcutcis t ovtls . . . to/xcuos, " no one with shorn hair," and one scholiast seems
to have found xa^Tav or xat'ras in his f°r he paraphrases by ovbeis 8£ iv toTs
irpodtipois &vOpcoiros TeTfnjfi^vos i<rri ttjv Tpix<*> '• but Aesch. Cho. 160 opQ rofxalov
rbvde fibvrpvxov supports the reading of the MSS. Weil ingeniously reads
Xaira r ovtls tiri irpodtipOLS | Tojxalos, a br) v€k6(ov | wtvdr) (sc. iatIv), wItvcl, thus
making xa'LTa the subject of ttLtvel. But is it probable that the cutting of
the hair was done in front of the house rather than within it? Passers-by
should certainly have been spared such a barbarous spectacle ! As the strophe
has a short syllable, a must be neuter pleural, not a Doric feminine singular.
If the text is sound, the plur. is generic. Weil compares Or est. 920 avrovp-
y6s, otirep Kai fibvoL <h$$ov<tl 7rjv: add Hel. 440, Suppl. 868. For this use, see
Hadley-Allen 629 a, and for the neuter after a feminine antecedent Hadley-
Allen 630, Goodwin 1022. But it must be confessed that the combination
of the two irregularities is hard; and though I have not ventured to change
the text, I am much inclined to read irtvOrj ("signs of mourning") with Weil,
in which case & would be "attracted" into the gender of irtvOrj. irtvdevL
and Trtvdei, the readings of the MSS., would then be conjectures by persons
who wished to make & fem. sing., and tt4v0€<tl seems to point to an original
plural. (irhdeL might also be due to iotacism.) Still, the text may be sound,
though I know of no exact parallel in, Euripides. The nearest seems to be80

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

Androm.^271-2 a ear ix^vVs KaI irvpbs irepavrtpw, | ovdels yvvaacbs <f>dpfxaK 4^r)ij-
pTjict ir 1*3) but there the poet has just been speaking of epirera tiypia and the neuter
plural is still in his mind.

103. irLryn.: " falls," i.e. "is cut off." So in English the phrase " his head
felUL isused-of persons executed by the axe or guillotine. Some (e.g. Mus-
grave anti: Jerram) take the word as meaning " happens" ; but though ttIttto},
ttLtvu) may be used of a chance occurrence ("to turn out," "befall"), they are
rarely if ever used of what customarily or regularly takes place. For the
shortened ultima of trirvei, see the note on (rrar^ercu in v. 90. ov: so the
Aldine. The MSS. have ovdt, which gives one short syllable too many if we
retain veoXaia. The question therefore is, whether to keep veoXaia and read ov
or to emend veoXaia and retain ovdL All the MSS. have ovdt: B P I have veo-
Xaia, the rest veoXaia. The schol. says : veoXaia • tj v£a, Kvplws St o e/c tQv vtuv
8xX°s. Hesychius says : veoXaia • vtoov (Ldpoiafjia. rj vedrrjs. rj vtos Xa6s. Photius
has: veoXaiav (veoX£at> cod.) ; rijv vebrrjra TeTpacrvXXd^ws oi 'attikol• BafivXwviois
(Aristoph. fr. 67 Kock); *12 Zed rb xp^a TVS veoXaias 6<rov. Add Pollux II. 11,
rb toijtojv (sc. veavlcricuv) ttXtjOos veoXaia, and Bekker's Aneed. 52, 25, veoXaia •
fWfc vios Xabs rj (leg. rj) vebrrjs, Trap' 0 yiyovev rj veoXaia. The lexicographers,
therefore, clearly knew the word only as a noun; and (with the possible ex-
ception of our passage) it is always so used by classic writers. See Aesch.
Pers. 663, Suppl. 655; Theocrit. XVIII. 24; Lucian Anachar. 38, Phal. 1, 3,
in all of which passages the word clearly means " youth" or "young people."
Hence in the place in our text various changes have been suggested to avoid
taking veoXaia as an adjective, e.g. veoXaiq., veoXaias, veaXrjs (W. Dindorf). Of
these the last is the best, as it gives an adjective to agree with x€^Pi makes good
sense and renders it unnecessary to alter o$8£: and veaX^s may well be right.
But veoXaia may be the fem. of an adj. veoXaios (Doric ?) from a noun vebXaos
(cf. dicpdiroXis, etc.). Photius has veoXtos- e<f>rjpos: and this veoXtos (mistake for
veoXaios ?) looks like the masculine of the said adjective. Like so many other
adjectives, these words have become nouns through the omission of the nouns
with which they once agreed. It is possible, not to say probable, that in the
passage from our text there is a survival of the early adjectival use.* More-
over, ov would be extremely apt to be changed to ov8£ by some one who wished
to remove the asyndeton. Hence it seems, on the whole, wisest to read oi>
veoXaia with Matthiae. NeoXaia x^P yvvaucQv = x^P vitav yvvaucQv by Enallage.
Cf. Hippol. 394 dvpaia . . . <f>povfjjiaT avdpQv, Here. Fur. 450 ypaias 6<r<ru)v ert
mjyds, ib. 468 tredia rdjud yrjs, Phoen. 1351 XevKoir^x€LS kt^ttovs x€P°ivi an(l the
like.

105. Kvpiov T)|iap : cf. Or. 1035 r6d' fjfiap tj/mv ictipiov, also ib. 48, Ale. 158.

109. SiaKvau>|i€va>v : cf. Med. 164. The word is a very expressive one.

111. air apx^s: "from the first," as in Phoen. 1595. Wecklein is wrong,
I think, in rendering it " iiberhaupt," which would be apx^v.

* See also Zacher D# fiominibus ity -(uos p. 73 (in Dissert, philol. Halenses vol. III.).CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

81

112 f£. A very involved passage. The construction is : a\X' ouSi tariv 8-iroi
atas tis <TTel\as vavic\r)plav 97 AvkIclv etre iiri ras avi8povs 'AfJLfKovL&das %8pasHvardvou
ypvxav irapa\6<rai.

112. vauicXTjpCav: this word seems to mean here "expedition" ; cf. Med.
527 Kvirpty vofjilfa rrjs i/xijs vavK\rjplas | adreipav eivai. In Hel. 1619 ris 8f~~viv
vavKXtjpla | iK Trjcrd' airrjpe xOovds; it almost = ravs. In Ale. 257 it means sirfiply
" voyage."

114. AvicCav: the MSS. have AvkLcls, which many edd. retain, some re-
garding it as a noun, others as an adjective. So far as the form goes, it might
be either. By those who retain Avidas the following explanations of its con-
struction have been suggested: (1) that it is an adjective agreeing with atas
(so apparently Woolsey); but the order of the words is strongly against this,
and it is much more forcible to take atas = uthe world"; (2) that it is the
genitive of the noun and is in a kind of " partitive apposition " with atas (so
Jerram); but the sudden change of construction to i(f> 28pas is then very harsh;
(3) that it is an adjective agreeing with atas understood, which is in apposition
with afas (so Bauer-Wecklein); an explanation which is liable to the same
objection as the preceding; (4) that it is an adjective agreeing with £8pas under-
stood, the preposition being expressed with the second member only; which is
possible but hard; (5) that it is the genitive of the noun and depends on 28pas
understood (so Wuestemann); which is still harsher, as one 25pas will then be
modified by a genitive and the other by an adjective, thus destroying still
further the parallelism of the construction. Another alternative is to read
Avdav with Monk (though this has no MSS. authority). Avdav may then be
" accus. of limit of motion," followed by a change of construction to the accus.
with iirl: or we may regard the preposition as expressed with one member and
understood with the other (so Monk, who compares Phoen. 284, Heracl. 755,
Soph. 0. T. 734, 761, etc.). Avdav could very easily have been altered to Avdas
through the influence of atas just above it, and certainly gives a clearer and
simpler construction. On the whole, I incline to Monk's view, though expla-
nation (3) may be right after all. This instance shows how many possibilities
the critic is obliged to weigh against each other even in fairly plain passages.
And yet the Alcestis is called an " easy " play ! For rj . . . etre = vj ... y, cf.
Soph. Aj. 177 rj pa kXvtujv ivapwv xf/evcdeiffa Supois etr i\a<f>a(3o\lais;

115-16. The text follows Nauck, whose elegant restoration of these lines
is one of his finest critical achievements. See his Eur. Stud. II. pp. 51 ff. The
order of the words in the MSS. looks like the work of some schoolmaster who
wished to make the construction plain to his pupils; and the same may be said
of vv. 81-2. avvSpous: the Libyan desert in which the temple and oasis of
Jupiter Ammon were situated was without water, though in the oasis itself
there is a fountain. Cf. JEl. 734 f. i-rjpal r 'AfifMavldes %8pai \ <f>6lvov<f dwetpd-
dpoaoi, and see Herodot. IY. 81 with Rawlinson's note. Arrian (Ancib. III. 4)
says : o 8k X&P0s 'hairep rod "Afifiujpos rb iepbv tan rd pkv /ctf/cXy irdvra €pr)/xa Kal82

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

xf/dfM/xov rb irav ex€l Ka'- dvvbpov. The temple of Apollo at Patara in Lycia and
that of Jupiter Ammon in Libya are mentioned both as famous oracular
shrines and us widely distant from Greece and from each other (cf. 6Vot alas
in-413). ~

iragaXvom: so B, the other MSS. having irapaXvo-ai. The optative is
perfectly correct (see Goodwin M. and T. 241), and Wakefield's 7rapaXtf<rei, which
many editors have adopted, is a quite unnecessary change. Cf. v. 52. The
origin of this curious use of the optative without dp is doubtful. I cannot,
however, agree with Earle that the optative was originally one of desire (see
his note on 52). It seems much more probable that it is a survival of the
early potential use of the optative without dp (Goodwin M. and T. 240; cf. 13).
Suppose, for example, the paratactic construction ear o$p; 6ttojs "A\icri<rTis is
yijpas ixb\oi; "Is it possible then? How (6ttus in its old interrogative use)
can Alcestis reach old age ? " From a construction of this kind the hypotactic
one might easily arise. But the origin of the usage is very uncertain, and
Goodwin is wise in not attempting an explanation.

118.	dir<Srop,o5: so Blomfield. The change is necessary, as the antistrophe
has AidfioXov (128): and diroTfios (the reading of the MSS« except £), though a
good Euripidean word (Hippol. 1144), is weaker and less appropriate than
a-rrdTofios. Moreover, it looks as though L once had awdrofios (see Critical
Apparatus), and the double accent of dirdrfios in B points in the same direction.
Cf. 981, Soph. O. T. 877 aw6to/xop wpovcrev els avdyicav, and the Homeric alwijs
6\e0pos. So in English the expression "a rugged fate," i.e. a harsh, inexorable
one, is sometimes heard.

119.	irXdOci: this rare poetic word is used with the accus. (Rhes. 13-14
rives . . . rds dfieripas \ Kolras ir\d0ov<r';) and with the dat. (Soph. Phil. 726 tv
6 dv^p deoTs | irXddei iratriv). It is commonly said to be a by-form of
7re\c£fw, but is really a distinct formation in 0o/e from the root irXa-. Cf. ireXddw.
0€«v ff. : a difficult sentence. Yv. 120-21 read thus in the MSS. : ovk

rlva | fjLrjXodtiTav tropevdCb, and the antistrophic lines 130-31 thus: vvv rlv ert
(3lov | eXirida 7rpo<rd<?xo/>wu. All editors agree that for 7r/oo<r5<fxo/Kcu we should
read (with Musgrave) irpoa-dix^^h as both sense and metre require. When
this change is made, the metrical correspondence becomes pretty close. Vv. 130-
31 give perfectly good sense as they stand ; but with 119-21 the case is other-
wise. As Monk long ago pointed out, eir iaxdpais followed so closely by iwl
rlva /uLTjXodiJTav is very harsh. Moreover	in the sense of a "sacrificer,"

upriest," is attested only by this passage; and the analogy of Iph. T. 1116
ftwiLotis re fxrjXodtfras and of phrases like /3otf0uros ea-rla or i<rx6pa> (see for the
passages Nauck Eur. Stud. II. pp. 52-3) favors Reiske's emendation i<rxd>pa>v.
M.T]XodiJTav will then be an adjective agreeing with i<rxdpav. Reiske, Nauck
and Earle would also change fxrjXodiJTav to nrfXbdvTov; but in the passage from
Iph. T. quoted above all the MSS. have fi-qXodiJTas (though a noun in -ovs pre-
cedes), and it is audacious (to say the least) to alter the word in both of theCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

83

two passages where it occurs in classical Greek.	may perfectly well

have been used as an adjective, like so many other nouns of agency in -rrjs.
Suidas (s. v. povrtiros) and perhaps Athenaeus (XIV. 660 A) have pov&trrrjs (as
a noun). What now is to be done with vv. 120 and 130? Weil and Wecklein-
Bauer change the iiri in 120 to en, which palaeographically is almost no chaiige
at all, and retain the order of words found in the MSS. "En will-then corre-
spond in position with the in in 130. (A still closer correspondence might be
obtained by striking out M in 130 and reading vvv plov en rlva, but the -asynde-
ton is too harsh, to say nothing of other objections.) But if Weil's reading is
correct, we have syllaba anceps, and in 130 hiatus, at the end of the colon (to
say nothing of the shortening e'xw en in 120, which, to be sure, is possible
enough). These difficulties would not be insuperable if taken singly, but
occurring as they do together they militate strongly against the soundness of
the text. Moreover plov in 130 is suspicious and could well be spared. It may
be an interpolation or gloss which has crowded out some other word. If so,
the true reading is probably lost past recovery. The best of the emendations
that have been suggested is that of Hartung, which I have adopted in the text.
It involves, however, the changing of both strophe and antistrophe, which is
always a serious objection; and besides if in 120 the original reading was o^k4ti
it is hard to see why ovk and en should ever have been separated.* I doubt
if any really satisfactory restoration of the text can be made with the evidence
now at our command.

122.	povos: this word is, I think, sound, though it has been suspected by
Nauck and others. It is put first because strongly emphatic, and &v has, as
so often, attached itself to the emphatic word. Hence fidvos need not be taken
as belonging to the apodosis, and there is no real anacoluthon. The thought
is clear: 4 4 the son of Phoebus, if he were now alive, is the only person who
could restore Alcestis" ; but this is expressed a trifle loosely: 44 if the son of
Phoebus, and he alone, were now alive, Alcestis would return to the upper
world." The position of &v, as Weil observes, is no more strange than in the
familiar idiom ofa old* hv el (cf. v. 48). That the poet started to write jibvos 5'
&v dvrjyayev (or cowe?) airrrjv and then deliberately changed the construction,
leaving fx6vos hanging, as it were, is to my mind incredible. The first syllable
of fxdvos does not correspond with d\\' of 112; but in the anacrusis this inaccu-
rate responsion is allowed. Wakefield conjectured /-lotWs, but there is no cer-
tain instance of fiovvos or fiotivws in Euripides, though Sophocles uses novvos.
rjv . . . 8c8opK(&9: as the perfect of dtpKOfxai has a present sense, the periphrastic
form is nearly equivalent to a true imperfect, though giving still greater promi-
nence to the state or condition.

123.	opiicuriv: the v movable was added by Barnes to restore the corre-
spondence with €(T0' Sttol (113).

125. rj\0€v: as in long sentences &v is so often repeated, Monk's fj\6' &v

* Cf. however the reading of B in 1. 732.84

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

has much in its favor. In the absence of MSS. testimony for it, I have not
ventured to introduce it into the text; but it may well be right, particularly as
a and e are so often confused in the MSS. The use of the aorist here is very
singular (see-Goodwin M. and T. 414). Cf. the condition el . . . iraprjv . . .
Ka.%^Kdov &v m 357 ff. In both cases the protasis is clearly contrary to fact in
present time"J but what is the time of the apodosis ? It is clearly not past, nor
even, strictly^ speaking, present, for Alcestis is not yet dead. We may perhaps
state the usage thus: a contrary-to-fact protasis in present time may have an
apodosis referring to the immediate future, which apodosis then takes the aorist
indicative with &v. (The optative with &v could not be used, or the contrary-
to-fact implication would at once be lost.) For other examples of this usage
of the aorist, see Goodwin I. s. c. (add to his list I. A. 1214). The only other
alternative to this view that I can see is to suppose that in the apodoses of
these conditions the speaker or writer by a kind of " mental prolepsis " projects
himself into the future and looks back from that stand-point, so that the aorist
really refers to the past; as one might say in English, u were the son of Phoebus
alive, he would have rescued her; but as it is, no one can save her." This,
however, seems less probable. o-kotCovs : B has a aortas, but Euripides has a
well-known predilection for the two-ending declension, and uses with two
endings many adjectives which in other writers commonly have three. The
parallelism of tivtidpovs in 115, to which Earle calls attention, is also in favor
of the form in -ous.

126.	This line has been emended in various ways (see Select Conjectures)
by those who read 'A wuavi&8as (or with Musgrave * Afx/xtavldas) 2d pas in 116 ; but
Nauck's arrangement of the strophe (see note on 115) renders change unneces-
sary here.

127.	SpaOlvrcs: i.e. those overcome by death. Cf. Troad. 175 Kal tyvres
Kal dfiaOtvres, Iph. T. 199 tujv irp6<r0ev 8jm0£vt(ov j TatraXidav, etc.

128.	irplv avTov etXc: on the indicative after irpiv in the Attic poets (seven
cases only in Euripides) see Goodwin M. and T. 633. AioftoXov | irXfjicTpov:
this seems to be the only passage where irX^Krpov is used of the thunder-bolt.
For the epithet Monk compares Soph. 0. G. 1464 ktijitos dcparos 85e SibpoXos.

130-31. See the note on 119 ff. If the text is sound, rlva filov iXwlda must
mean " what hope of her living" ; but the expression seems vague and forced,
and piov may be an unskillful addition by some one who wished to define i\irl8a,
or a mere gloss which has crept into the text.

132 ff. This is indeed a " locus desperatissimus," and has long been a
battle-ground of critics. The MSS. show no variants, except that L a have
/3a<ri\e0<rtj> for the form without v in 132, and all the MSS. but L P have an
(obviously interpolated) d\X' before ovd' in 135. The schol. has merely the
following note on 132 : a edei iroieTv TertXeffTai 'AtL d£; rb eu£a<r0at
{Kal) rb 0virat rots deois.

The principal objections made by Nauck and others to the soundness of theCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

85

text as it stands in the MSS. are the following: (1) the first line violates the
rules of anapaestic verse ; (2) the words irdvra yap r/drj rer4\earai /3a<rtXeu<n are
too vague ; (3) the paroemiac itdvruv 84 Oe&v 4irl fa/Mis is out of place; (4) Ova-Lai
has no verb; (5) itX^pets seems an unsuitable epithet to apply to Overlap and its
meaning, too, is not clear. Let us examine these one by one.

The first objection is easily obviated by making irdvra yap ijSrj rer4\earat the
first line, and fiaaChevaLv (adopting the reading of L and a) the second. The
system will then begin with a paroemiac followed by a monometer, like the
two systems in 93 ft and 105 f£. As to the vagueness of 132, it is not so great
as has been represented, for rA t£\t) is easily supplied with iravra, being implied
in rer^Xeo-rat. The paroemiac 133 is perhaps sufficiently defended by those in
the two preceding systems (93 ff. and 105 ff.) already mentioned; but as a verb
seems needed with Ovalai and the copula can so easily fall out, I have followed
Mekler in inserting dcr after de&v, thus forming an acatalectic dimeter. The
main difficulty is with trxrjpeis, which, however, can fairly be rendered "full,"
14 abundant" ; cf. fr. 912, 5 (Nauck) <ri> 84 px>i Ova-lav Airvpov irayicapirelas 841-ai,
ir\fjpri wpoxvOeicrav,* and Hel. 1411 cos av ttjv x&Plv T^ypyv Xd/to. It would also
be possible to render it "in full tale," so that no altar lacks its sacrifice;
cf. the analogous use in passages like Hec. 521-2 iraprjv p.4v 6xXos iras 'Axcu-
kov arparov | TrX^prjs irpbrvfAftov, Aristoph. Eccl. 95 el irXrjprjs ti/xoi J o dij/xos (av.
I see no sufficient reason, therefore, for assuming a series of lacunas with
Kirchhoff and others, or for making any violent alteration of the text. The
scholiast's explanation of 132 (see above) is no proof that his text con-
tained anything which is not in our MSS.; his a edet iroieTv is merely an
attempt to supply the ellipsis after irdvra.

132. fkuriXcvo-iv: the so-called "pluralis maiestatis." The scholiast's note
shows that he understood it as meaning Admetus alone.

134. aLfjioppavroi: for the formation the edd. compare Kvfiodtyfiovos Hippol.
1173. So, too, ai/jLoftacprj Soph. Aj. 219, etc. Cf. a-irep/mToXdyos and <nrep/jLo\6yos,
alfiardppvTos and aifidppvros. See for a list of similar formations Kiihner-Blass
II. p. 331 n. 4. In Bekker's Anecdota III. p. 1308 the words alfxarbppavroi, (sic)
Ovalai are said to be found in the Oxford Codex Baroccius of Choeroboscus;
but I have been unable to find the passage in Hilgard's edition of Choeroboscus.

136-434, first iTreiaSdiov.

136. Usener (Jahrb. /. Phil. vol. 139 p. 369) would read yap for 4k. Prob-
ably, however, no change should be made. The Alcestis abounds in asyndeta,
which are not to be emended away but are due to the desire to produce a
rhetorical effect by the very abruptness thus secured. Weil compares for the
omission of ydp Phoen. 99-100 aXX' ovtls aarCov roiade xp^7rrerat 56/jlois, | ic4dpov
7raXatdv kxi/mk 4Kir4pa wobl, which is still more daring.

138-9. The sense of these lines seems clear enough: uYour weeping is
excusable, to be sure; but I wish you would (stop and) tell me whether Alcestis
* The order is against taking nayKapneias with irKfori, as do some.86

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

is alive or not," or as Bauer-Wecklein put it: " Das Weinen ist dir zwar nicht
zu verargen; ich mochte aber, dass du jetzt nieine Frage beantwortetest."
What there is obscure or difficult about this I confess myself unable to see.
Weil, however, reads irivdei (lev, als ri de(nr6rai(ri rvyxdvei, evyvuxrrov k.t.X., and
observes: " J'ai corrig^ la le<jon irevdeiv pkv, et (juste au-dessus de el au vers
suivant) n . . . <rvyyv(a<rr6v, dont le sens ne s'accorde ni avec les sentiments du
chceur ni avec la suite des id£es" ! In this, as in some other cases, the bril-
liant French critic has been led astray by his own over-acuteness. The words
are merely a courteous request to the domestic to stop weeping and give the
desired information.

141. Even in her grief the servant cannot resist the temptation to quibble.
What Johnson says of Shakespeare is peculiarly true of Euripides : " His per-
sons, however distressed, have a conceit left them in their misery, a miserable
conceit.''

144-5. I have followed H. Mueller in placing these two lines after 149.
As they stand in the MSS. the sudden apostrophe to Admetus is needlessly
abrupt, but when 144 follows 149 the address is adequately motived by the
mention of him in $ <r</>e <rvi>0d\f/ei	Any one who has copied out a long

cTTixonvdia will realize how easy it is to get the lines transposed by mistake.
Tournier (followed'by Weil) would place 148-9 after 143, less happily as it
seems to me. ird0r|: here P has preserved the true reading at the end of the
line, while at the end of 142 and 140 L a have the correct form of the text.
These, like hundreds of other instances, show how extremely liable the last part
of a line is to suffer change.

146. \k\v: Weil reads viv, which seems a needless alteration. For the use
of fiiv) cf. Hippol. 316 ayvbs fitv, w irai, x€^Pas cLiparos <f>ipeis ; The particle
serves both to lend emphasis to the preceding word and to indicate that the
asker of the question expects an affirmative answer. It may be well rendered
by our "I suppose." trw^trGai: a(b<raa0ai L P; but, as Earle points out, the
present is preferable as denoting continuance, "be kept in safety," "pre-
served," piov being subject, not object. All recent edd. read vyfcaOai.

148. 4ir avrg : eir' avrois, the reading of L P, was known to the schol., who
observes : iirl tois elfxap/JL^Pois o avrjp t& irpoarffKovra 7rotet, 7) eir avrrj rrj *A\Kr/j(TTidi.
'Eir' avrois, "in view of the circumstances," gives fairly good sense, and Her-
mann (who daringly read ifKirurpiv for i\irls ptv in 146) preferred it; but iir
avrri is clearer and more probable. The variant avrois may have come from
avTs —afa-rj being mistaken for avrs — avrois, or possibly the last letters of the
word had been lost in the archetype and were variously supplied from con-
jecture by early scholars or copyists. irpa<r<r€T<u: not an "old-Attic" form,
for the Attic inscriptions show rr from the earliest times (Meisterhans p. 75).
The use of <j<r in the tragedians and Thucydides is probably an Ionism (Cauer
in Curtius1 Studien VIII. pp. 283 ff.). Aristophanes and the Attic prose writers
have regularly rr.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

87

153. The reading of the MSS., which Monk and Earle retain, would be
satisfactory if it really admitted of the former's rendering "what must the
woman be that has surpassed her ? " ; but unfortunately, as Hermann pointed
out, the true version would be "what must become of the woman who has
surpassed her" (or, if the article is generic, "of the supremely excellent
woman"). Cf. e.g. Aesch. Sept. 297 tL ytvupai; Thuc. II. 52, 3 oik	#

rt ytpwvTdi. Hence some emendation is necessary, and I have adopted that of
Lenting. The reading in the MSS. looks like a clumsy attempt at emendation
by some one who was puzzled by the construction rb /jltj ov yevMai after the
verb of denial (see Goodwin M. and T. 811). For other suggestions see Select
Conjectures.

159.	Earle's notion that \cvk6v is proleptic appears to me, I must confess,
horribly prosaic, though defended by the analogy of Hel. 676 ff. But perhaps
I am biased by our modern prejudices. England, who is a high authority,
seems inclined to agree with Earle.

160.	S6|m»v, which had been suspected (see Select Conjectures), has re-
cently been ably defended by Radermacher (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1895 p. 235),
who accepts the old explanation of Graevius, that 56/m>l here == cista, and com-
pares El. 870 old Stj Ka^ 56/xot KeOOoval /wv | k6jxt)s aydX/jLar i&vtyKw/xai,
Soph. Track. 578 86/xols yap fjv (sc. o xlt^v) • • • ^yiceKXyfiivov Ka\(os. Add
Hesiod. Op. 96 ff. /jloijvt) 8* avrddt 'EXttIs iv &pp7)KT0icri bbfjuoiaiv | iv8ov ifj.in.ve (cited
by Earle). A6jml (86fws being properly " anything built," from S^w) can be
applied as well to the compartments of a chest or wardrobe as to the apart-
ments of a house. Lenz's conjecture 5o%wv, which Bauer-Wecklein accept,
seems to me distinctly bad, as Hesychius has Soxovs, Soxeia, Xovrypas, imply-
ing that the word was commonly used of vessels to contain liquids.

162.	KarqvJaTo : this, not /care^aro, is the regular Attic form. The state-
ment of Moeris p. 161:	8t& rod rj 'Atti/cws, 8i& 8i tou e 'EWtjpucws is
confirmed by the Attic inscriptions. See Meisterhans p. 136, 14.

163.	S&rirotv : it is not certain what goddess is here meant, irpbadev ear Las
is not decisive, as the statues of various deities (deol ecrnoOxoi) were placed near
the hearth. The epithet Sfoiroiva is often applied to Persephone and some-
times to Hecate; and the Pheraean Artemis also might be thus addressed by
Alcestis. But it seems far more probable that the deity here meant was Hestia
than that she was one of the chthonian divinities. The grim Pheraean Artemis
BpifjLib in particular was scarcely a goddess to whom such a prayer would be
offered by an anxious mother.

165. op<|>av€v<rai: this rare word is used at least five times by Euripides,
here and v. 297 in the active in the sense of "to rear" or "care for orphans,"
and 538, Hippol. 847, Suppl. 1132 in the middle with the meaning of " to live
in orphanhood." It is a distinctively Euripidean word. t§ jj.Iv : the boy was
Eumelus who afterward led his father's forces in the Trojan war (II. II. 712).
The schol. on Aristoph. Vesp. 1239 mentions another son, Hippasus.88

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

166.	Tfj 81: the daughter's name was Perimele. She married Argus and
bore him Magnes, after whom Magnesia in Thessaly was named (Antonin.
Liberal. 23).

167.	dir6\Xv^ai: this reading is more elegant and idiomatic than airdWvTai,
and is clearly right. Some one wished to have a yerb in the third person, of
which i) T€Kov<ra could be directly the subject, and so altered aTr6\\v/iai to air6\-
Xvtcu, the reading of L and P.

168.	Oaveiv: precative infinitive (Goodwin M. and T. 785). This seems a
more probable explanation than that of Jerram, who holds that the clause ical
rip nkv . . . 7evvcuov ir6<riv forms a parenthesi.s, after which the infinitive con-
struction dependent on alr^ffofiaL in 164 is resumed.

170. oi kclt 'ASjjl^tov So^ovs : a good example of something which is very
rare indeed — the omission of the copula in a relative clause. Bauer-Wecklein
compare Odyssey XX. 298, dfidbajv, oi Kara ddfiar 'Odvcrcrijos OcLolo.

173. (ivpo-Cvrjs: this is preferable to ixvp<tlvQv, the reading of L P, as the
adjective jivpvivbs or fxvppa>6s is very rare (though Callimachus ad Dian. 202 has
fivppivbs 6£os). Cf. 757 and note. A purifying power was attributed to the
myrtle; hence it was used in lustrations and funeral solemnities, and was
consecrated to the deities of the lower world.

173.	aKXavcrros: &k\clvtos L. About the true orthography of this word
there is much uncertainty. In Homer the form without <r seems best attested,
and is adopted by nearly all recent editors, though in all the four passages
where it occurs (II. XXII. 386; Odyss. IV. 494; XI. 54 and 72) there is con-
siderable MS. authority for the sigmatic form. In Aeschylus (Septem 683 and
Eum. 564) the Laurentian has the form with <r (but k\clvt6v Septem 320). In
Sophocles the Laurentian has the sigmatic form once (El. 912; cf. k\av<rrd
O. C. 1360), the non-sigmatic four times (Ant. 29, 847, 876, O. C. 1708). In
Euripides, besides the passage from our text, we have Androm. 1235, where
all the MSS. have the form without <r, Phoen. 1634, where the MSS. except
Lb c have the sigmatic spelling, and Sec. 30, where all the MSS. but L have
the non-sigmatic form. In view of these facts I see no reason why the state-
ment of Eustathius (1673, 17), t6 5k &k\o.vtov oi fxed' "Ofirjpov ical &k\o.v<ttov,
should not be true of Euripides. Probably both forms existed side by side,
and the poet used now one, now the other, as he saw fit. Hence I have fol-
lowed the majority of the MSS. in reading &k\clv<ttos. The fact that both B
and P have this form is much in its favor. It is noticeable that &K\av(rTos
is here coupled with another adjective beginning with a privative. Cf. the
Homeric d/cXavros dra<pos (II. XXII. 386 ; Odyss. XI. 54 and 72), and Hec. 30,
Phoen. 1634, Soph. Ant. 29, 876, Aesch. Eum. 555. For the active sense, cf.
Odyss. IV. 494 <r£ (prffudrjv &K\avTov etTeadai, Aesch. Sept. 683 aic\ati<rTOis6fiiuia<riv.

174.	<J>vcriv : here= " complexion." 3>tW, being in itself a colorless word,
requires "to be filled with meaning from the context to the requisite amount,1'
as some one has well put it.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

89

175 ff. Sophocles probably had this passage in mind when he wrote Track.
912 ff. : iirel dt rQvd' eXyi-eV) i%ai<f)vr)S (j<j> opQ | rbv ' HpaicXeiov OdXafiov eiaopfiojii^vrfv
| . . . Kadi^er iv /jl^ctolo-lv etivarriplois, | Kai daKptiwv p^aaa depixb, pdfiara \ eXe&p,
<a X^XV T€ Kai w/upci' e/xa, | rb Xolttov ijdr} xa£/>e<r0', us €/jl ovttotc \ d£i-€<r$' er' kv
koItcluti raiad' evv^rplav. No Sophoclean play shows so strong an affinity in
style with the Alcestis as the Trachiniae.

176. '8aKpvo-€: the copyists, who doubtless did not find the aphaeresis
indicated in their sources save by the omission of the augment, have written
8dicpv<re: but the unaugmented form is not admissible in trimeters. In such
cases as this it is now the fashion not to mark the aphaeresis at all, but to
write 8t] iddicpvtre and the like. But convenience certainly requires that it be
indicated ; and though the ancients often did not mark it, I see no reason why
we should not.*

177-8. There can be no doubt that Nauck is right in rejecting 178. The
use of kopedfmt, £k and irtpi is alone enough to condemn it, and a more clumsy
"Anhangsel" it would be hard to find. Two plausible reasons maybe sug-
gested, either of which would account for the interpolation: (1) the interpo-
lator may have inserted a line in order to supply a substantive with which
irapdtvei could agree, or (2) Kop&jfiara may be a gloss on irapdtvei, which was
subsequently filled out so as to make a complete trimeter. The instances in
which glosses, irapewiypafpat and the like have led to wholesale interpolations
are not rare; how great their influence upon the text has been is ably
shown by Mr. Rutherford in his editions of Thucydides and the scholia to
Aristophanes. The question next arises, whether irapOtvel e\u<r' iydo in 177 is
sound. The use of the active form e\va as Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. 54) pointed
out, is defended by Tro. 501 oiais eXvaas <rvfi<i>opai$ &yvev/ia <r6v, and Pindar
Isthm. VII. 94 (VIII. 45) Xtioi kcv xa^LV^v ^0* VP001 irapdevlas, both of the woman.
For Trapdiveia in the sense of "virginity" I know no parallel from classical
writers, though the Septuagint has ra irapOtveia for the tokens of virginity.
Still, the expression seems possible enough, and the text probably needs no
further change ; though it would be easy to read irapdivevjA with Hannemueller
(cf. Ion 1472).

179-80. A much disputed passage. The question turns on the first word
in 180. We may distinguish the following views :

A. Those who retain the MSS. reading fxbvyjv.

(1) Some editors retain nbvyv and take awuXeGas in the sense of 11 destroy."
The rendering will then be : " Farewell; for I do not hate thee ; but thou hast
destroyed me only ; for because I shrink from betraying thee and my spouse
I am about to die." This makes fairly good sense, but the exact force of fibvqv
is not clear. Woolsey says: " fibvTjv^e only, i.e. no other woman has perished
in a similar manner, destroyed by marriage in this way." But Alcestis is
addressing her own particular Xi%0h not speaking of marriage in general.

* For inscriptional cases of aphaeresis, see Lucius in Diss. phil. Argentor. IX. p. 396.90

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

Jerram says: " ' you have destroyed me, but you will destroy no other woman,'
for no one will do for a husband what I have done for him." Weil explains:
"c'est moi seule que tu fais mourir (mon £poux vivra)." These different
explanations show how vague the sense is if we read fi6vr}v. And 'what is the
force of after awtiXetras ? To render it by nam,, as Hermann does, is surely
bold.

(2) Earle and others render dwibXeaas by "lost," a meaning which the word
not infrequently has. The sense will then be: "thou hast lost me only (but
not Admetus)." But in that case why ? We can scarcely suppose that the
particle here = yap, though it sometimes has nearly the same force.

B.	Reiske wished to put the stop after /xe and read p.bvi\ wpodovvai ydp <r
dKvovcra k.t.X. This gives very good sense, and the position of 7dp can, of
course, be easily paralleled. Still, though the change is slight, I prefer Blom-
field's emendation.

C.	Others read fibvov with Blomfield. The sense will then be clear : u Fare-
well ; for I do not hate thee; but thou, and thou alone, hast destroyed me;
for it is because I shrink from betraying thee and my spouse that I am about
to die." To one who believes that in Greek, as in Latin, the emphatic position
is usually at or near the beginning of the sentence or clause, the order of the
words (especially the position of irpodovvaL a) is, I think, decisive in favor of
this view. The 5e, too, thus receives its proper force. If this view is the right
one, we should read 54 fie (with the MSS.) in 179 ; those who prefer fi6v7jv
should, of course, read 5' itf.

181-2. These lines are wittily parodied by Aristophanes in the well-known
passage of the Equites: w o-rtyave, xa^P0JV AviOi, Kal cr (Lkuv £y<b | \etiru) • at 5'
dXXos tis \a/5cbv kekt^aeral, | kX^tttyjs p.kv o$k hv fiaXKov, e^rux^s d* tarn. For the
elliptic use of &p (sc. odaa) see Goodwin M. and T. 227 and 483.

183.	irpoo-iuTvovcra: the long controversy as to the correct accentuation
of this by-form of ttltttu may, I think, be said to have been pretty definitely
decided in favor of Elmsley and against Hermann; and nearly all recent
editors prefer itItvu to ttltvCj. The MSS. waver between the two spellings;
even the Medicean of Aeschylus and Sophocles is not consistent.

184.	6<|>6a\|j.oT£yKT<!>: this word is apparently of Euripidean coinage; at
all events it seems to occur nowhere else in classic Greek. ir\T||x|i.vp£8i: the
edd. from Monk down point out that Euripides is here following Aeschylus,
who says (Choeph. 177-8): dfifidrcov dt dtyioi irLirroval iwi | <TTay6ve$ &<j>apKTOi
8v<rxfaov irXrjfx/jLvptdos. The grandiloquence of the description contrasted with
the simple language of Alcestis herself is very effective. Aetfercu, which Porson
restored ex conj., is confirmed by the MSS. of the first class; the early edd.
had Setkro (with L and P), and /ctfm above in 182 (with the same MSS.).

185.	Saicpvwv : I cannot agree with Professor Earle that this is genitive of
source or cause. iroWQv is not decisive against the ordinary view: '4when
she had had her fill of many tears" is certainly a possible and natural poeticCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

91

expression. Cf. Phoen. 1750 nbpov exovtT'	ko-k&v, and expressions like

fieiTTbs iroWQv dya6Cou, etc., where the iroWQv is seemingly pleonastic.

187.	Two questions arise in regard to this line — what does iwKrrpdtpri mean,
and should we read 0d\afiov with the MSS. or OaXdfuap with Nauck ?

(1)	Many editors, including Monk, render iirearpd^Tj u returned." There
seems, however, to be no passage where it is certain that iiriarp^ofiai has this
meaning, either in Euripides or elsewhere. The alleged instances of this use
are all susceptible of a different interpretation..

(2)	Others (with Liddell and Scott s.v.) render the verb "turned round" (to
look back). This meaning of iiriarp^ofiai is well attested, e.g. Xen. Sympos.
9, 1 Kai o Ai)ku3v 6 iraTrjp avT(p <rvve%i<bv iiriarpanels elire, Herod. I. 88, etc. Cf.
also the figurative use in Bhes. 400 ovk f}\0es otid' rj/xvvas o&5' £tr€<rtpd<j>r)$ and
similar passages. But this translation seems weak; for the next line shows
that Alcestis not only looked back but actually went and threw herself upon
the bed again. We should expect a verb of going rather than one of mere
turning about.

(3)	Euripides himself has Hel. 83 ir&0ev yrjs rijad' iireaTpdipvjs ir&ov; ib. 89 tI
di}Ta NeLXov roi5<r5' e7r«rrp^0et ytias; ib. 768 Kp^rrfs tc AijSifys 0' as ixeatpdtprjv
ir6\eis. In these cases the meaning of the verb seems to be 41 wander to,"
" visit." Cf. Andr. 1031 0eov viv KiXevjfi iirea-Tpdfprj. The closest parallel to
our passage, however, is Ion 352 kclLtoi ir6W' iweatpd^ irtdov, where iireo-rpdipr}
(though it may be rendered 44 returned to," 44 visited ") probably means 44 roamed
over," 44 wandered through " (in the search for traces of the child), as in the
Hesiodic yaiav iino-TptyeTai. In all these instances the notion of roaming or
wandering seems to lie in the word. Hence in our passage, as the participle
££iov<ra may have a future sense, I am inclined to render: 44 and oft she wan-
dered through the chamber about (or intending) to go out," i.e. went about to
take a last look before leaving. If this view is correct, 0d\afiov requires no
change. Those, however, who accept (1) or (2) must read 0a\dfi(av with Nauck,
as the word for 44 chamber" is naturally expected with the verb of leaving,
which logically comes first, not with that of returning or looking round. The
order of the words and the frequent use of the plural of 0d\a/w$ by Euripides
favor Nauck's emendation (Eur. Stud. II. 54); but on the whole I think no
change is necessary. The order may be due to metrical reasons.

188.	avOis . . . iraXiv: a common pleonasm. Sophocles even goes so far
as to end a line (Oed. Col. 364) with a$0is ird\iv. Cf. also Hel. 932 tt&Klv . . .
a$0is ad.

190. 4s ayicdXas: iv ayKd\ais L P, which is perfectly possible, and may be
right*; cf. Hippol. 1431 Xa/3£ | crbv iraid' 4u dyicdXauri. With XajSetV sometimes
the idea of motion predominates, sometimes that of rest.

193. oIktCpovtcs: the Attic inscriptions show that oUrlpuj, not obcTelpw, is
the correct spelling. See Meisterhans p. 142 ; Ktihner-Blass II. p. 498.

* Wecklein prefers it; see his Beitrdge zur Kritik des Euripides p. 539.92

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

195. This line is here in place; but in 312 (where see note) it appears in
a distorted form and is inappropriate to the context. From op, v<p' od is to be
understood with irpoaeppifiOrj.

197.	-y : so the second Hervagian edition. The r of the MSS. is probably
due to confusion between T and r. The intensive particle 4'seems demanded
by the sense," as Earle justly observes. wXct : $xeT\ E. W. Schmidt's emen-
dation, is quite needless, and was subsequently withdrawn by Schmidt himself.
8*: tV the reading of P, which Prinz and Weil accept, is probably due to some
grammarian who, after y had become corrupted to r, was offended by r . . .
5', and wished to have a second r coordinate with the first one. This constant
effort to plane away all that seemed irregular and reduce everything to one
"dead level" of monotony was one of the worst failings of the Byzantine
scholars, as it is of some modern critics.

198.	oviroO' ov: Nauck's brilliant and certain emendation. The various-
readings of the MSS. (see Critical App.) show that the scribes were misled by
the unusual position of the negative. This position is due to the desire to give
it special emphasis, and perhaps also to metrical reasons.

199.	roio-CS*: the emphatic form is clearly preferable to toT<tiv of L P.

200.	ct: here, on the other hand, L and P are almost certainly right. ■Js
of B perhaps came from a carelessly written (C for a crooked iota) or it may
have been a deliberate emendation; and rjL (so a) in its turn is doubtless a
mistake for et, due to iotacism. It would be possible, but much less elegant,
to read rjs and take yvpaacbs as gen. of cause. <r<|>€: that this reading is correct
is shown by the agreement of L P a; ye, the reading of B, is either a perverse
emendation or a blunder of the scribe.

201.	oucoinv : a formal word, "consort," like &\oxos.

204. x€lP°s a0Xiov fSapos: (1) Some take fidpos as accus. of specification
with irapeiiitvT), and understand by x€iph the hand of Alcestis. So the schol.,
who paraphrases by ttjp igx^v ttjs x€lpbs trapa\e\vfiip7j.

(2) Others (better, I think) make /3dpos refer to Alcestis herself, "a hapless
burden of the hand," helpless and unable to move.

Elmsley, Kirchhoff, Prinz, Weil, Bauer-Wecklein, Earle and others hold
that a line has been lost after 204. This is quite needless. There is no lacuna,
and with the punctuation given in the text the sense is perfectly clear: — " and
all relaxed, a piteous burden for the hand, but yet with life still left in her,
albeit but little, she wishes," etc. The true punctuation and meaning were
first pointed out by F. D. Allen.

207-8. These two lines (with irpo<rb\f/on(u instead of irpo<r6\J/€Tai) occur also
in Hec. 411-12. In our passage they are unnecessary, and &ktipo. kOk\op 0'
ij\Lov is displeasing after irpbs avyas . . . ras ijXlov. Valekenaer rejected them,
and nearly all modern editors have followed his example. Probably some early
reader wrote the parallel passage from the Hecuba in the margin of his MS. and
it was then copied into the text of the Alcestis by mistake.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

93

212.	Exit maid-servant. The choral dialogue which follows is differently
divided by different editors. The MSS. give very little guidance. The arrange-
ment in the text is substantially that of Prinz, except that I have assigned
220-25 and 232-7 to the whole chorus, and have prefixed a irapdypcKpos to 238
to indicate that 238-43 were delivered by the coryphaeus. But the details of
the distribution are, and probably always will be, uncertain.

213.	The text of this line is extremely uncertain; tujs tt? is suspected, and
some editors omit ttws, others tt£, while Musgrave would strike out both words.
But B and P have btfth words, and L seems to have once had thgm, though the
second has been erased. In the face of this evidence the fact that a omits ir&s
is of little weight, as that MS. is full of arbitrary changes. Hence I have re-
tained both.* The accumulated questions mark the extreme excitement of the
chorus. Nauck's restoration of bacchiacs (see Sel. Conj.) is elegant but daring,
and the changes which it requires are too sweeping. Unfortunately the anti-
strophic line 226 is lacunose, and gives little help. In 214 the MSS. show no
variant, and as the sense of the two lines 213-14 is clear, there does not seem
to be good reason for change.

215.	cgeurC tis: i.e. 41 will any one come out of the palace to give us
directions, or shall we put on mourning at once on our own responsibility?"
Herwerden's ir dai rts seems unnecessary. As the servant has gone in to
inform her master of the presence of the chorus, they have good reason to
expect that some one will come out and tell them what to do. The words are
doubtless spoken after a short pause, t^jjlco : the deliberative subjunctive was
restored by Hermann. The copyists, who perhaps did not know erefwis, took
the form to be future and accented it re/^w. "Etc/aov, not ira/xov, is the Attic
form of the aorist; see Meisterhans p. 146, and the authorities there cited.

216.	o*toX|I>ov ir£irXcov : so Andr. 148 GTohfibv re x/owrds rbpde ttoikLXoov irtirXwv,
Aesch. Choeph. 29 irpbarepvoi (ttoX/jloI

218.	8fj\a jiiv: i.e. that Alcestis is dead and the mourning should be put
on ; or we may understand 6ti o$k hv ytvoiro irbpos kolkCov (so Earle). It is hard
to tell whether 218-19 is an answer to 215-17, or a continuation of 213-14
without regard to the intervening words of the other semi-chorus.

219.	€v\(o|X€<rOa: here the scribe of a, who was evidently a man of some
learning, has the right form; L is next in point of accuracy, then P, while B,
which has <?x^e0a, is farthest from the truth. The correspondence is not
perfect, as the antistrophe has Karddvova-av (232), but -fieada is required to =
-vod(rai>. "yap Svvajxis: so B. The other MSS. have y&p a dtiva/jus, and it is
possible that not a but ydp should be omitted, thus giving another of the
asyndeta so common in this play. Hermann omitted both yap and a, scanning
OeCiv without synizesis. jwyurrii: so the best MSS. C d a have fieylara, but these
are comparatively untrustworthy. The agreement of B L P makes it probable
that the archetype had neytarrj. Many edd., however, prefer the Doric form.

* Possibly, however, we should read i'w Zev ris av irbpos irq. kcuc&v, a dochmiac dimeter.94

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

223.	A very difficult place. The strophe has — w----, the anti-

strophe (235)--w--, and it is clear that some change is necessary to

restore the responsion. The principal MSS. show no variant in either the
strophic or antistrophic line. Editors have treated this passage in the most
various ways. They may be roughly divided into three groups:

A.	Those who with W. Dindorf reject ro05' etprjvpes. To fill the lacuna
thus left various substitutes, Tot6<r5e, iraprjada, etc. have been suggested; see
Sel. Conj.

B.	Those who with Erfurdt and Monk reject /cat vvv, and rdv in the anti-
strophic line. These I believe to be in the right.

C.	Those who adopt other measures: e.g. Hermann, who read t<J5' for
ToOd' with Heath, inserted tovto after e<f>i/Opes, and in 235 ariva^ov after xQ&v\
and so Earle. Weil proposed rovd' fjada (sc. Xut^/chos), ical vvv. See also
Sel. Conj.

On examining 223 the first thing which appears suspicious is rod5'. If it is
genitive after irdpos the construction is clearly very unusual, as irdpos with the
genitive is very rarely used of time (though there is an instance in Andr. 1208).
If, on the other hand, it depends on firixavdv understood, " (a means of escape)
from this (evil)," the ellipsis seems harsh in the extreme. We feel that e^rjvpes
needs an object that is expressed. Moreover rovd' is not found in all MSS.,
for (according to Hermann, Kirchhoff and Dindorf: Prinz does not mention
the reading) C, the Copenhagen MS., has tout , and the Florentinus of Voss
had tCov 8'. These are probably conjectures, not independent variants; but
they show that toGS' was felt to be wrong quite early. We note also that
i<p7)dpes, if its ultima is long by position, corresponds in the number and quan-
tity of its syllables with aplarav. 'Ecpevphriao is a favorite word with Euripides,
occurring at least ten times in the plays (and again v. 699 of the Alcestis). It
seems to me, also (though here opinions differ), that ical vvv, occurring as it
does at the end of the line and being clearly implied in the context, looks very
like an interpolation, and can well be dispensed with. If so, by striking out
t&v in 235 (which may easily have been inserted by some later hand) the
complete responsion is restored, as Erfurdt long ago pointed out. Cf. West-
phal-Rossbach Gr. Metrik p. 286 note. Hence I am strongly inclined to read
tovt (i.e. rb Xvr^piov ik Oavdrov clvai) with C and Monk, and to reject Kai vvv
and rdv with Erfurdt. Hermann, to be sure, says in his curt way "parum
norunt morem tragicorum, qui ical vvv putant abesse posse" : but to say this
is one thing, to prove it another.

224.	4k : \vrhpios is usually followed by the gen. of separation without a
preposition, as in Aesch. Sum. 294, Soph. El. 635, etc. Euripides probably
used the preposition here for metrical convenience. See note on 983.

226. The lacuna in this line was first marked by W. Dindorf. The reading
of L and P is obviously a mere attempt to fill up the gap in the line with inter-
jections. What the original reading was it is quite impossible to say.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	95

227.	Z irat: this does not accurately correspond to ytvot- of 214; but in
the anacrusis a short may answer to a long, and hence no change is necessary.
See Metrical Appendix, ola irpdjjcis : I have accepted Jacob's emendation, as
Alcestis is not yet dead, and in 232 (which was probably spoken by the same
semi-chorus) we have the future iir6\f/ei. It may be urged that in 218 the death
of Alcestis is assumed; but it is not certain to what dij\a refers (see note ad
loc.). Sdpapros: as the ultima is long by position, this does not correspond
to irdpecTTL of the strophe (214). Perfect responsion may be restored by reading
irdpecTTiv in the strophic line, or as for <ras (with Weil) in the antistrophe; but
probably no change should be made. Responsion in logaoedic strophes is
usually pretty strict, but exceptions certainly sometimes occur. o-TcpcCs: so

Monk for areprjOds, as the strophic line has w —, not w--. The conjecture

is supported by Bacch. 1363 (<TTepeiaa Barnes, arepriOeio-a P), Suppl. 793 ((rrepeicra
Markland, <TTepei<rdai MSS.), Iph. T. 474 (<rrepeiaa Scaliger, <TT€pr)6ei<ra MSS.).

228.	ap*: so Hermann. The letters t and p are often extremely alike in
Greek MSS., both in literary and cursive writing; hence ap was mistaken for
at Then, as the interjection usually occurs twice or four times, it was doubled
as in L P or quadrupled as in B a. —For the sentiment cf. Bacch. 246, Heracl.
246, Soph. 0. T. 1373, Aristoph. Achar. 125, etc. (cited by Monk).

229.	irXfov: this is the classical form of the neut. sing.; see Meisterhans
pp. 119-20, Wecklein Cur. Epigr. p. 27.

230.	ovpavty: the epithet seems unduly extravagant, and the word has
been suspected by Lenting, Prinz, Wecklein and others. The soundness of
the text has been defended by Earle, who compares Hipp. 1207 kv/jl' ovpavip
atrjplfov) Andr. 830 ipp* aidipiov irXoKd/xuv tfj.Qv Airo, | \€ttt6/mitov <f>dpos. Add
El. 860 cJs ve(3pbs otipdviov ir^drjfjLa KOv<plfov<ra, ib. 1158 oipdvia reix^a, Tro. 1087
relx^a . . . ofipdvia, ib. 325 irdWe ir68* aldtpiov, Bacch. 1064 iXdrrjs ofipdviov
Aicpov kMSov, etc. Euripides even goes so far as to say of a horse Tro. 519
tirwop ovpdvia | pp4p.ovra. But these uses, bold as they are, do not seem to me
to justify the expression in the text, and I have marked the word as corrupt.
For some of the emendations that have been proposed see Sel. Conj.; but the
"inevitable word" has not yet been suggested. ircXdo-o-ai: Erfurdt's emen-
dation is necessary, as the strophic line ends with rjdrj. The tragedians some-
times allow themselves the Epic license of doubling the a of the first aorist
after a short vowel; cf. Iph. A. 1051 &<pv<r<T€, Soph. Phil. 1163 ir£\a<r<rov, etc.

232. civ : so Dindorf, the MSS. having kv. A long syllable is required, as
the strophe (219) has deQv. The Epic and Boric form civ is found also in 436
civ 'Alda 56/jLoicriv, and in Soph. Antig. 1241 elv "Aidov ddpois (in an iambic tri-
meter; Heath and Jebb read ivy'). Jerram objects that these are not parallel
to our passage, as both are imitations of the Homeric elv 'AtSao 56/jloktiv II.
XXIII. 19, 179 ; but elv yuan r<?5' is probably also an Epic reminiscence. Cf.
also Aesch. Suppl. 839 etipelais elv avpais, where, however, the soundness of the
text is very doubtful. It is possible to retain iv by rejecting both ydp and a96

CRITICAL A ND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

in 219 with Hermann ; but yap stands in all the MSS. r^an: that this form
stood in the archetype is made probable by the agreement of B L P ; the
authority of d and a is slight in comparison. The limits of Dorism in the
tragic choruses are not well defined, and in cases like the present the wisest
course is to follow the best MSS. rSS* €iro\|/€i: L and P have rw5e y 6\f/ei, a
reading obviously due to a n mistaken for r. The two are often extremely
alike in the MSS., particularly when (as often) the n has its second leg shorter
than the first.

233.	The dying Alcestis is slowly borne upon the stage. Admetus and the
two children accompany her. £5ov idov, which is not in L and P, had probably
been omitted in their common source by a mere error of the copyist. The
imperatives are, at all events, appropriate, though it is to be noted that the
correspondence with 220 is not exact (----= w — w —).

234.	L and P have ar^va^ov w fibaaov w (P fidrjcrov), but ariva^ov as the more
explicit word should probably come second.

235.	[rav]: see note on 223.

236.	papaivoijivav: pregnant, " wasting away (and going)." Cf. 363 eKeiae
irpoabbKa fi. Woolsey aptly compares the words of the Scotch song "I am
wearing &wa' to the land of the leal."

237.	\Qoviov: I have followed Weil in transposing this word, as it is clear
that x0t>viov • • • "Atdav was meant to answer <p6viov . . . "Aidap of 225. The
Greek dramatists delighted in subtle correspondences of this sort; see for
numerous instances Christ Metrik2 pp. 642 if. yds, which Monk restored ex
conj., is found in B, the other MSS. having yav. When /card means "under,"
"down beneath" (either of motion or rest), the genitive is the regular con-
struction. Cf. 107, El. 144, Ion 1441, Hippol. 836, 1366, Suppl. 1024, Rhes.
831, An. 503, Iph. T. 170, etc.; and on the other hand for the use of /card
yav Or. 832, 1398, Bacch. 371, Hippol. 194, etc.

238 f£. This anapaestic system was in all probability sung by the coryphaeus.

241.	\€v<ro>v Kal L P. The insertion of /ca/, which disturbs the metre, was
evidently due to some one who read ra<r5e for rao-Se in 240.

242.	airXaiccGv: the MSS. here and in Iph. A. 124 Xiicrpuv airXaK^v have
dfjLir\aK<bp, but the metre requires a short first syllable. Cf. Aesch. Bum. 915
(dirXaK^fiara Pauw, dfMir\aKr)fj.aTa MSS.). In these cases some would retain
the spelling of the MSS. (e.g. Clemm Rhein. Mus. 32 pp. 466 ff.; Klihner-Blass
I. p. 286, II. p. 307 note 3), supposing the n to have been so faintly sounded
as not to count toward "making position." But we have one clear case of
aw\ Soph. O. R. 472, where the Laurentian by the first hand, Triclinius, the
schol., Zonaras and Suidas all support the reading dvair\dK7)Toi. (Kuhner-
Blass l.s.c. are wrong in saying " dvafiirXdKrjTos codd., dvair\. die Neueren
Soph. O. R. 472" ; the jx in L has been added above the word by a later hand.)
Hence I have preferred, with most edd., to spell with air\ where the metre
requires a short syllable. The formation of dfx(3\aiceip, d/x7rXa/cetV, dir\aK€iv isCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

97

very doubtful. Curtius and Jebb hold the ir to be original, the verb being
cognate with ir\dfa; while Kiihner-Blass hold the ir to be an euphonic inser-
tion, 7r being used instead of /S because /3\ commonly makes position, so that
aupXaKdv could not= w w—• Cf. d/x^poros, dfiporos, (/i)p\lrru) etc. —Note the
alliteration in dpt<rrijs dir\aK<bv a\6%ov . . . djQitarov . . . jStore&ret. aPiwTOv . . .
ptoT€vcr€t: a favorite oxymoron. Cf. Hippol. 821, 868, Aristoph. Plutus 969,
Demos. XXI. 132 dj3L(orov <£er' cow0ai rbv (Slop eavr$, etc. F. W. Schmidt's
suggestion to read.filov for xp^vov is tempting, and may be right; but I suspect
that Euripides thought that afilwrov filov piorefoei would be "too much of a
good thing."

245. Some, absurdly enough, have seen in this line an allusion to the
theory of Anaxagoras respecting the revolution of the heavens. It has often
been noted that Euripides is especially fond of references to the sky, clouds,
upper air, etc., and his references to the sea and figures drawn from it are also
very numerous (see E. Schwartz Be metaphoris e mari et re navali petitis quaest.
Eurip.). Probably no ancient poet had a keener eye for natural phenomena.

246 ff. The alternation of the iambic trimeters with the more impetuous
lyric metres is very effective.

247. 0avfj: here all the MSS. but L have the better form in y.

249. w)i.<|>£Sioi: this seems preferable to wfjL<j>ldtai, the reading of L and P;
see note on 125 <tkotLovs. ira/rpwas : I have retained the reading of the MSS.,
though most edd. follow the Aldine in reading irarpias. Musgrave, Matthiae,
Wuestemann, Kirchhoff and Jerram retain irarpias. If we may trust the
MSS., Euripides often shortens the second syllable of irarpipos in lyric and
anapaestic passages; so Bacch. 1368, El. 1315, Hec. 82 (most MSS.), Me. 431,
Tro. 162; cf. Soph. Phil. 724, Pind. Nem. IX. 14, etc. Many editors follow
Porson in substituting irdrpios in such cases ; but the number of instances is
against the change. The distinction in meaning between irdrpios and irarp^os
which Hermann and others have striven to establish certainly was very fre-
quently neglected, if indeed it really existed. Porson's words " Attici irdrpios
et irarpyos promiscue usurpant" are abundantly borne out by the usage of
Euripides; thus, for example, he constantly uses irarpla and irarpya yd with-
out any perceptible difference of meaning. See Beck's index for abundant
examples. — The mention of the wfjufrldiot Kolrai in Iolcus, as the schol. and
Weil point out, does not agree with vv. 177 and 911 ff., which represent the
marriage as having taken place in Pherae. This is probably a mere piece of
carelessness on the part of the poet.

252 ff. With this passage the edd. compare Aristoph. Ran. 181 ff. (which
is not, I think, an intentional parody of this scene), Lysist. 605 ff. (which is
clearly a real parody of our passage), and Athenaeus VIII. 341 C, where
Machon uses for comic purposes part of the Niobe, a dithyramb of Timo-
theus, which was apparently very similar in tone to this passage from the
Alcestis.98

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

252. SCkwitov <ricd<|>os: Wuestemann compares Lucian Charon 1 iy& ryjif
8ikwirLav ipirrfa txbvos: and the boat which Dionysus rows in the Ranae seems
to have been two-oared. For antique representations of Charon and his boat,
see Roscher Lex. d. Mtfthologie p. 886, Baumeister Derikmaler des klass. Alt
s. v. Charon. [cv	: these words disturb the responsion, add little to the

sense, and are almost certainly a gloss (perhaps suggested by the mention of
the \lfjivri in Aristoph. Ban. 137 and 181). They were omitted in the Aldine,
and are rejected by most editors.

254. This line, with the antistrophic line 261, forms one of the worst cruces
of the play. Th,e two cannot well be treated separately. Editors have dis-
agreed widely as to the constitution of the text, the kind of metre, and the
division into cola. We may roughly distinguish the following classes :

(1)	Those who retain the reading of the MSS. except as to xeV in 264,
which they change to xfy' (with the Aldine), as the antistrophic line has a
short syllable. So Monk, Hermann, Dindorf, Pflugk, Nauck, Prinz, Woolsey,
Jerram. With this reading H. Schmidt (Kunstformen vol. III.) gives the
following scheme of the lines (logaoedic-trochaic):

| — | w v ^ | — w | — w II — | — w | i— | — A

But the apparent anapaest in the second foot of 254 is awkward, and it is
very doubtful whether Euripides ever admits an anapaest in logaoedic verse
(see Groeppel Be Eurip. versibus logaoedis, p. 84). It is much better to scan
as iambic, thus:

—-| \j \y | — | v-/ — II ^ — | w — | l— | —

The lines give good sense as they stand, and I believe no further change to
be necessary. The strophe and antistrophe will then be " iambo-logaoedic " *
(see Westphal-Rossbach Metrik3 p. 720).

(2)	Others, following a suggestion of Paley, omit fjdr) in 254, and read
Kvavavyh with Kirchhoff in 261. Of these some, e.g. Bauer-Wecklein, read
X^p* in 254; in which case the first syllable of 6<ppv<n will be short (€%&>?,

- = VTT 60/OV-,	\J): others read x^oas (suggested by Paley), thus

restoring exact responsion,

w | — ^ | v w | L- | — \ — A || w | — w | i— | — A

But rjSrj cannot well be spared, for we miss the personal object with /caXet:
and surely the epithet Kvavavyfis suits the hair of the eyebrows better than it
does the eyes or the look. I know of no other place in any classic writer where
the phrase icvavavyts pXtrreiv occurs ; while the Homeric Kvavtyaiv hr 6<j>pv<ri and
Kvavoxairt]s are familiar to every reader, and were probably in the mind of
Euripides.

* I.e. logaoedic with iambic elements.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

99

(3) Others still resort to bolder expedients. For example, Weil reads in
261 (with xty' in 254) vir' 6<ppv<n Kvavavyks fiktirwv, irTepcords. (a) fiides fie, drop-
ping "AtSas and bringing up fitdes fie from the next line. This reading does not
seem likely to meet with much acceptance. Earle has in the strophe ex03*
X^pas iirl kovtQ | Xdptav icaXei fi iirelywv • | tL fitXXeis; (ri> Karelpyeis. rdde rol fie |
crirepxbfievos rax^vei, and in the antistrophe vir 6<ppv<ri Kvavavyis | (3X£ir(»)v irrepw-
rbs "Aidas. \ tI p^eis ; fiides. o'iav o86p d dei- | Xaiordra itpofialvu), thus estab-
lishing a very elegant parallelism. But the changes, are, I fear, too sweeping.
Still neater is F. D. Allen's restoration (see " Select Conjectures ").

256. TaS' iroipa, the reading of L P, makes good sense if rdd' is taken
as the object of Kardpyeis; but in that case the clause a-irepx^pos raxtfm is left
with nothing to connect it with what precedes, and rax^ei (which must be
transitive or it would be awkwardly tautological with <rirepx6fievos) is deprived
of an object. Hermann, who accepted rdd* froi/ia, changed airepx^/ievos to
(TTrepxofdvois, putting a colon after the latter word, and altered rax^i to rdxwe.
But rdde toL fie, the reading of the other class of MSS., calls for no alteration
of the text, and is clearly preferable. Ta'5' £roifia is probably an emendation
of some early scholar who divided the words wrongly. Elmsley and Monk
read rdde • rota ex, conj. Tdde and fie are probably both objects of raxtvei =
Xtyiov rax^vei: Klotz and Jerram compare Soph. Aj. 1107 rd a4fiv eirrj /c6\af'
iicelvovs. Cf. also Soph. Aj. 1404 d\V ot fitv KoLXrjv Kairerov X€P(r*L fax^vare for
the transitive use. It is possible to take rdde as "accus. of inner content"
with <nrepx6fievos: but it is more probable that awepx^fievos is used absolutely,
" in haste," as it so often is in Homer.

259.	a-yci p.' a-yet pi tis : the repetition has led to haplography, most MSS.
omitting the first fie, while B omits the second. The reading of a (dya fl Ayei
tis dyei fit tis) looks like a conflation: see note on 1045. The fi is clearly
necessary, as without it there would be hiatus or shortening, neither being
possible here.

260.	v€kvo>v = vekvwv of 253. Note the subtle parallelism that runs through
strophe and antistrophe.	:

261.	Kvavcwy&ri: see note on 254. Kvavavyis, which KirchhofE and others
receive into the text, was first suggested by Monk (see his note on 262). irrcpo)-
tos "AiSas: these words have given much trouble. The main difficulties are
two: (1) it was not Hades but Hermes or Thanatos whose function it was to
conduct the dead down to the lower world, and in this play (cf. v. 24 f£.) it is
Thanatos who comes to fetch Alcestis; (2) Thanatos is represented as having
wings, but neither on the monuments nor in the literature is Hades so repre-
sented, save in very few instances (one in Kaibel Epigr. Ghraec. 89; see Robert
Thanatps pp. 34 ff., where our passage is discussed at length). Several ways
of escaping these difficulties have been suggested:

A. Some scholars alter the text. Weil, as we have seen, omits "Aidas alto-
gether: but the knife of the critic, like that of the surgeon, should be used100	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

only as a last resort. Wilamowitz would read aidav, which Robert (l.s.c.)
accepts; but, elegant as the emendation is, the position of irTepwrds is distinctly
against it.

B.	Some hold that here and elsewhere in the play Hades and Thanatos are
treated as identical. So Rohde, who says (Psyche p. 540 note): "Eigentlich
ist er (Thanatos) nur ein Diener des Hades; aber da doch 9517s schon ganz
gewohnlich = ^d»'aTos gebraucht wurde, so wird Thanatos auch selbst geradezu
"Aidrjs genannt (271: so oben p. 491, 3); nur als identisch mit Hades kann er
&va£ vcKpCbv heissen 855 (baifibvwv Koipavos 1143)." But the whole conception of
Thanatos in this play, his coming to fetch the souls of the dying, his lurking
about the tomb and drinking of the sacrificial blood (843 ff.), appears so incon-
sistent with the Greek idea of the god Hades that this explanation seems
impossible. The words &va.KTa veicpCjv (843) are too general to be decisive,
especially as the &va% veKp&v seems to be distinguished from tQv k&tw | KbpTjs
&vaicT6s t (851-2) ; and as if to make us sure of the distinction Euripides says
in 870-71 toiov Bfiypdv fi airoavXifjo-as | "AtSy Qdvaros iraptdwicev: while in 1140
Kvply, not Kotpdvy, is probably the true reading (see note ad loc.).

C.	Others still hold that the word "Aidas is here used loosely, so that xrepw-
rbs "Ai8as means merely "a winged shape from the under-world." Hermann
observes: rh "Aidas est nescio quis Orcus, i.e. nescio quod simulacrum Orci."
(He makes ™s agree directly with "Aidas: but it is also possible to take ns as
subject of &yei, and "Aidas as in apposition with rts, and the distance between
the words favors the latter view; hence I have put a comma after fSktiruv.)
Though decision is hard, I strongly incline to this view. A dying woman in
her agony does not speak by the card. Moreover, words like " Death," "the
grave," etc. may be loosely used in almost all languages; and Euripides need
not mean by "Ai5r)s the god Hades any more than, for example, Mr. Kipling
when he speaks of a cobra as 41 the hooded Death" means to identify the
animal with the unseen power.

262. In a and B the words fitdes fie stand before tI pt&is. These words are
not found in L P, disturb the responsion-, and are probably a gloss on &<f>es
which has crept into the text. Nauck omits fiides />ie, but reads ^des for &<£es.
But which is the rarer word in this sense and is found in all the MSS.,
is more likely to be the true reading. Upa^eis of B is a gloss on p<f£eis: cf.
Hesych. tL ptfas • tL irpdrteis, which may refer to this passage, though the
difference of tense makes it doubtful.

264. twv : the article has here its old demonstrative force; see Hadley-
Allen 653 a.

266.	B and a have utOere fie fiidere ju, L P omit fie. Either reading is pos-
sible, but the repetition of both fiidere and fie seems wooden, and probably L P
are right. A dittography would be all the easier as fi^dere begins with fie.
Kirchhoff, as usual, follows the reading of the first class.

267.	iro<r£v: Hermann's certain emendation. Z, which has iroc/, is hereCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

101

nearer right than the other MSS., which read ir6<ri. The scribes evidently took
the word to be vocative of irdo-is.

271.	ovk^ti: this time L P have the dittography, reading o&k4tl Stj. co-tiv:
cf. Hel. 279 ovtos TtdvqKev, ovtos o&k£t €<ttl Stf. It is quite possible, however,
to read £<ttLv with Weil, taking <r<f>Qv as "dative of possessor." He compares
Soph. 0. G. 1612 oi)K €<tt id* vpuv tyd' £i> rj/xtpg. irar^p. The MSS. favor Weil's
reading, as all but L have fori (L has £<ttu>) ; but in matters of accent they are
very untrustworthy.

272.	op«Tov: so all the MSS. Elmsley wished to read dpiprrjv, in accordance
with the principle which he laid down (see his notes on Med. 1041 and Aristoph.
Ach. 733) that in the 2d person dual of the historical tenses and the optative
-ttjv, not -tov, is the true ending, the form in -top being an invention of the
Alexandrian grammarians. But, though some scholars still hold Elmsley's
view, the weight of evidence is distinctly against him; and few critics now
uphold the sweeping changes which he made in order to carry out his theory.
In the optative, in particular, there is not a single well-attested instance of the
form in -ttjp (Kuhner-Blass II. p. 69). See Fritsche on Aristoph. Thesm. 1159,
Yon Bamberg in Zeitschr. f. Gymn.-W. 1874 p. 622 f., Kuhner-Blass I. s. c., and
on the other side Wecklein Cur. Epigr. p. 18.

273.	aicovco: as Monk points out, one would rather expect &kofew; but
probably no change should be made.

275.	0-6 : this word was inserted by Porson, in accordance with the regular
idiom; cf. 1098, Hippol. 607, Med. 324 irpbs <re yov&rwv, Soph. Phil. 468 irphs vtiv
<re warpds, etc., and in Latin Terence Andria 538 per te deos oro, Hor. Od. I. 8,1
per te deos oro. The metre shows that the addition of a short syllable was
necessary to complete the anapaest.

276.	dxv ava: cf. II. XVIII. 178 <*x\' &va, m5* %ti /ceico, Od. XVIII. 13,
and the like ; and Soph. Aj. 194 d\X' &va £% £8pdvcov. All the MSS. but B have
dvar6\fia, and so the edd. before Porson ; but the verb avaroXfidoj is found only
in late writers. See Porson's note on Med. 325.

279. A very troublesome line. Either £<rnkv (so the MSS.; the text follows
Wecklein, who reads ijfiiv) is corrupt, or there is a very daring admixture of
two idioms, £v <rol ia-fiev and £v <rol £<rn icai Ifiv tJ/aSs kclI fiti £rjv. Such an
admixture seems possible enough, but I have not been able to find a real
parallel in Euripides or in other classic writers-; though cases like Soph. 0. T.
314 £v <roi 7dp io-fiev and Phil. 963 £p <rol icai rb ir\eTv rjfias, \ rj8r) '<rri ical
tois rovde TTpovxupeiv \6yois (cited by Valckenaer and Monk) are not very rare.
Hence I am on the whole inclined to regard tafikv as corrupt, and have accepted
Wecklein's emendation. F. W. Schmidt's sgtiv would be an easy change, but
does not bring out so well the personal interest of Admetus in his wife's
recovery.

282. <r€ irp€<rf3€vowra : u putting you first," deeming your welfare of more
importance than my own. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 1. From this signification the102	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

verb easily passed into the more common one of "to honor," "worship."
This use bears striking indirect testimony to the respect which the Greeks
paid to old age.

283. KaTacrrtjcrewra <j>cos to8' claopav: KaTaarrjcraa-a here = woirjaaaa. Kvigala
compares Thuc. II. 84, 3 Kai Kariarriaav is olXk^v /xku fivjdiva Tpiiretrdai airCov airb
tt)s rapaxys > ib. VI. 16, 6 AaKedai/xovlovs . . . /car^r^tra iv Mavrivelq. irepi tQ>v
dwdvTiav ay(ovl£€<rdai: Herod. V. 25 Karaa-r^aas rbv adeXfebv virapxov dvai.

285. 0€<ro*aX»v, the reading of a, is clearly right; the partitive construction
is the more elegant, and the jingle 0e<r<ra\ov ov ijdeXov would be intolerable.
The reading Qeaa-aXdv is due to the influence of the following 6v.

287.	ovk t|0&/q<ra: the attempts which have been made to remove the
asyndeton are, in my opinion, one and all futile. The asyndeta which abound
in this play are not to be emended away, but in the words of Professor von
Wilamowitz u revocanda sunt a parum culta arte rhetorica."

288.	ovS' 4<|>€Mrd|i.T)v : sc. tcov dibpcjv yprjs.

291. A " locus desperatissimus." The case is very similar to that of 1. 278.
The idiom e& (icaXQs) ijK<a piov, " I am well situated, well off, in respect to life,"
is perfectly good^cf. Elect. 751 ttG>s ayQvos qico/iev, Heracl. 213 yivovs ixiv ijiceis
<2de Toi<rde, Herod. I. 30 rod (3lov eft tjkovti, ib. V. 62 xPV^t^ c$ yKovres, etc.
(I have not been able to find an instance of this idiom with koXCos instead of
e«5, if we except the passage in the text; but one can scarcely doubt that the
two adverbs might be used interchangeably.) The expression yicei /xoi daveiv,
"it beseems me to die," is also possible; cf. Soph. O. C. 738 ovvex ^
yivei | ra rovde irevdeiv irrj/xaT els ir\elarov irdXecos. (I do not. find any instance of
€& or KaXCis used with this impersonal construction, though there seems to be
no reason why they should not have been so employed; Herod. I. 30 ir6\ios ed
TjKoforjs and the like are, of course, different.) The question now arises, whether
in our passage there is an admixture of the two constructions #ca\ws avr&v
7}k6vtu)v filov and rjKov afoots KarOaveiv, or the text is corrupt.

A. Many editors, including Monk, Hermann, Kirchhoff, Christ, Nauck,
Weil, Earle, Woolsey, Jerram, retain the MSS. reading. The schol. says avri
tov tjkovtos ' 6 iariv - Kaipov afirois tjkovtos ds rb airodaveiv airoyey^paKbaiv. Woolsey
renders the line while it was highly proper for them in point of age to die" ;
Jerram "though they had reached a fit time of life for dying gloriously" or
"with credit to themselves" ; Earle "though they are come to a point of life
at which it were a fitting thing for them to die," and Weil "quand ils sont
arrives dans la vie & un point oil il serait opportun d'en sortir." These are
all attempts to "attain the unattainable" by combining two conflicting forms
of expression. "Hkov cannot mean at the same time "though they had arrived "
— t)k6vtu)v and "though it became them" —KadijKov or irpoa-TjKov, and any ren-
dering which gives it both senses, however skilfully disguised, simply begs the
question. Even Woolsey, whose rendering is the most justifiable of the number,
though he translates koKCos fjicov "while it was highly proper," goes on to speakCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	103

of the use of tjkciv with an adverb and the genitive in a way which shows the
same confusion of ideas.

B. Some critics, with whom I must agree, hold that Kardavetp is either
corrupt or a gloss which has displaced some verb governing plov. The latter
alternative seems extremely probable; but as we cannot restore the lost verb
with certainty I have marked Kardaveiv with a dagger. For some of the read-
ings that have been suggested, see Select Conjectures. The sense doubtless
was " though it was highly fitting (/caXws fjicov) for them to depart from life."
The chief objection to this is the use of Ka\Cbs with fjicov; but as yKei itself is
very rare in this sense, it is not strange that no other example of the use of
KaXuis with it happens to occur.

292. crwo-ai: that in the present ay fa is the correct orthography is now
generally agreed; see Meisterhans p. 142 note and the authorities there cited,
and Usener in Fleckeisen's Jahrb. f. Philol. 1865 pp. 238 ft. The question as
to the first aorist is much more difficult; see Kiihner-Blass II. p. 544, Usener
l.s.c., Meisterhans p. 145 note (with the references there given). Doubtless
Iowa from <ra6(a and	from cry fa existed side by side. The verb <ra 6w

being epic and poetic, we ought probably in prose of the classical period to
write eayaa. The Attic inscriptions show the form with i: so C. I. A. 1675, 4
(4th cent.) e(^qxrev, 605, 6 (early part of 2d cent.) <e)(ry<rep. Cf. also Ditten-
berger's Sylloge 330, 15 (Cos, 3d cent.) 5ie<ry<re, ib. 316, 10 (Dyme, 3d cent.)
<Tvv8ia(r(p<TavT€s, Tabl. Heracl. I. 51 KaTeaipo-afxes, ib. II. 31 KaTetr^a/ies, and
the Laconian form Karto-oiZa mentioned by Hesychius (cited by Blass I.e.).
The MSS., as might be expected, favor eowa (though in Soph. Philoct. 919 the
Laurentian has <rG>i<rai: see Usener l.s.c.). The testimony of the inscriptions,
however, is clearly much more reliable; and were our passage prose I should
be strongly inclined to write <r$<rcu. But as it is verse, the form may come
from <ra6(a; hence I have not ventured to add an i against the MSS. The
question of the forms of the perfect middle and passive space will not permit
me to discuss here.

294.	<|>iTv<r€iv: this must be the true reading, as the metre requires that
the antepenult be long and <pvre6(a has if.

295.	c£g>v : so B. The other MSS. have efyv (but inlw has been written
over the tj by the first hand), and so the Etymol. Magnum 413, 9. But iftv
(as if from (%u) was formed after the analogy of e^s, €^>7, and is probably a
late word (though the MSS. have it in Demos. XXIV. 7). Cf. Thomas Magister
S. V. efav: efavj ovk efyv, (as otovral Ttves . . . efys 5£ icai efy: and Herodian II.
315, 6 Lenz. Moeris says 'Attikws. %$u)v f EWrfvucQs: but efyv and efwv
should undoubtedly be transposed in his text.

301. This line passed into a proverb, and is found also among the Menan-
drian monosticha (552).

304. €ji»v: this word seems inappropriate here; Alcestis would not have
been likely to emphasize her ownership so strongly, especially when making104

CRITICAL AND EXEGET1CAL NOTES.

such a request of her husband. Hence ifiwv has been suspected by Prinz and
others. L and P have t&v ifiuv, which might be a mistake for tGjv <rC>v,
especially as C and € are so easily confused in the MSS. But tQv is far more
probably a mere interpolation, the article having been inserted as in 227,
318, 731. 'Av&axov, too, gives trouble; the schol. explains it by dvdyaye,
d?r65ei£oj>, probably with the underlying idea of holding up a torch; cf. I. A.
732, Med. 482, etc. But one almost instinctively wishes to take the word in
the usual sense of the middle, "suffer," "allow," with a participle; and it
is highly probable that a participle, e.g. 6vras (Tournier), has dropped out and
i/xCjv been inserted to fill the lacuna, or that ifi&v is itself a corruption of the
participle. For the suggestions that have been made see Select Conj. ; none
of them is entirely satisfactory, but Wecklein's Tpt<f><aj>, which I have received
into the text, gives far the best sense.

305. 'iri/yrfjiiTis • for the force of in I, cf. i<f> v/uv 373. Weil compares Herod.
IV. 154 iiri dvyarpi afi^TopL . . . ey77/xe	yvvaiica. Orest. 589 ov yap iweydfiei

ir6(rei tt6(tlv and Andoc. 1, 128 iiriyqfx^ tt} dvyarpi r^v fi^ripa are different, iniya-
fieiv there meaning "to take a second spouse in addition to the first"; but
Plutarch Compar. ^Aristid. et Cat. 6 and Cat. Maj. 24 has the verb in the same
sense in which it is used in our passage.

310.	IxtSvTjs: with the Greeks, as with us, the viper was an emblem of
malice and cruelty. Cf. Aesch. Choeph. 249, Soph. Ant. 531, etc.

311.	irvp-yov jxeyav: so Od. XI. 556 of Ajax, roios yap <r<pip irtipyos a7rt6\eo:
Med. 390 i\v fitv ris tj/mv irtipyos d<r<pa\t)s Qavr), Soph. O. T. 1201 Oavdruv 5' |
X&pq. ic&pyos ay£<TTa.

312.	This line, which is clearly out of place here, == 195 with the change
of Kal for oi). The question as to the way in which it came to be inserted here
is very interesting. Probably (cf. Earle's edition pp. 65 ff.) v. 195 began a
page and 311 ended one in the archetype, so that the scribe, mistaking the
page, copied 195 instead of 313. If so, we have 312 — 195 = 117 = three pages
of 39 lines each. Now curiously enough Wilamowitz (Analecta p. 51) had
noted that the end of Troad. 193, 194, 195 and the beginning of 232, 233, 234
were mutilated, and hence he inferred that the archetype had 38 or 39 lines
oil a page, a conclusion which our passage strikingly verifies. Hence Mekler's
defense of 312 is quite needless (see his Euripidea pp. 21 if.).

313.	t^kvov jaoi: this, not t£kvov /xou, is the regular idiom. icop€u0^o-€i:
Trapdev€rj<rri schol., " wie wird dein Tochterloos sein ? " Kvi§ala. The word prob-
ably means, not "grow up to maidenhood" (Liddell and Scott), but (with
K'x\u)s) "pass your maidenhood in good repute." Some would render it "be
wedded" (cf. SiaKopetiofMai).

314.	ToCas : so Reiske and Herwerden. Many edd. retain irolas, the MSS.
reading, regarding the second question as a kind of explanation of irCbs in 313.
But the difference between r and -tr is very slight, and the sentence gains
immensely in force and clearness by the change. Tolas means of course "suchCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

105

as I have described," exldvys ovdtv r)irtioTipa. Kvigala thinks 314-16 interpo-
lated, as Alcestis has already urged Admetus in the most pressing way (305 ff.)
not to marry again. But nothing can be more natural than for the mother,
who knows the weak nature of Admetus, to hark back in her anxiety to the
point about which she feels special uneasiness. Indeed, this passage alone
would show that Euripides was a close student of the workings of the
female mind.

315-16. p/fj. . . Sia^OcCpr): a beautiful example of the independent sub-
junctive with fAT) expressing " apprehension coupled with a desire to avert the
object of fear" (Goodwin M. and T. 261 ft'., esp. 264).

317.	w^4>€V(T€i: the active is here used as m l.-A. 885 tv aydyois xafy>°wr'
'Axt^Xei ir aid a vv/Mpefoovaa aifjv.

318.	Here the two families of MSS. diverge widely, the first having toT<tl
aoi<TL 6ap<rvi>ei, the second	dapawel rinvov. Kirchhoff observes 4'our' iv
t6kolctl aoicri dapcrvpei, rttzvov [5] C manifesta interpolatione." But why may
not toio-l be an interpolation just as well as t£kvov ? Nothing is more common
than the insertion of the article where it does not belong, as every scholar
knows. Moreover the reading t6kokti toigi <roi<n is far from euphonious, and
Nauck makes the matter even worse by reading aols <re for <roi<ri. On the other
hand t£kvov is distinctly fine; one can easily imagine the tone of fond affection
with which the mother lingers on the word.

320-22. A famous crux. The MSS. show no variant, except that L and P
have ovk£t instead of ht)k£t . In L 321-2 are omitted from the text, but have
been added by the first hand on the lower margin. The schol. says only: oik
els tt]v avpiov tov fxyvds tovtov ovdi els ttjv /xeTatipiov.

The difficulty centres around nyvds in 321. The older commentators tried
in vain to explain it. "Musgrave says that he can find no reason why /lyvds
should be used. Monk supposes an allusion in these words to a custom at
Athens, of making those who were to be capitally punished drink the hemlock
within three days. But this had nothing to do with the third day of the month,
nor does such a custom seem to have existed. The reviewer of Monk in the
Quarterly thinks that the appointed day for the death of Alcestis was the first
of the month. The scholiast's paraphrase . . . makes nyvbs idle. Some find a
reference to days of grace granted by the creditor to the debtor, and to the
payment of monthly interest, the time for which may have been the day of the
new moon. But for all this, there is, so far as I know, no evidence of facts'11
(Woolsey). If fjLrjvds is retained, the only possible explanation seems to be that
of the reviewer of Monk, that the Kijpiov 9}p.ap on which Alcestis was to die was
the vovfirjvla, on which (as well as on the Zurj Kai via) debts were customarily
paid. The Tplrr) firjv6s will then be mentioned simply to strengthen the state-
ment (cf. Kai irpdyv, x^s KaI TplTrjv ijfiipav). But though is Tplrrjv fxyvds,
"on (or rather "against") the third of the month," may be a possible poetic
expression, I know no example of it; the usual phrase is, of course, els rpLr-qv106

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

larafiipov. Hesychius s. v. <f>0ivas a/xipa (Heracl. 779) says ttjv iara/nivov Tplryv
rpifi^viov \iyet, which, if it refers to Euripides, might suggest the reading ovd'
is TpifArjviaiov epxerai kcuc6v (but TpifjrijvLov seems not to occur, and rpifiyviaios
is late).

It seems more probable, therefore, that 321 is corrupt. For some of the
emendations that have been proposed, see Select Conj. Herwerden would read
is rplrov fioL <f>4yyos; and it is noteworthy that in 450, where /irjvbs again gives
trouble, Wecklein would read Qiyyos. But paleographically the two words are
not very much alike. Weil conjectured evtjv for rpiTrjv; but, as I have pointed
out (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. VII. p. 221), uTplrv)v might well be a gloss
on evrjv: but if evrjv =Tptr7)v the difficulty with /jlt)v6s remains ; while if it = 2vrjv
Kal viav, the Hesiodic es r avpiov es r €wt)4>lv (Works and Bays 410) and phrases
like avpiov Kal ry 2vrj (Antiphon 143, 44) and eis ^vrfv (Aristoph. Achar. 172) are
distinctly against the conjecture." NrjXis (i.e. NHAGC for MHNOC), which
I had supposed to be my own conjecture (see Harvard Studies I. s. c.), I find to
have been anticipated in a dissertation by Hoefer, which, however, I have been
unable to consult at first hand. It seems as probable as any; but certainty
is impossible.

Another alternative is to reject 321 with Mekler and Earle, or 321-2, which
two lines, as we have seen, are omitted in the text of X, it is uncertain for what
reason. But emendation seems preferable to excision. — |ujk€t : otiKir of L
and P is probably due to the influence of the following ov in ovo-iv. Xigopai:
passive in sense, as in Hec. 906, Here. F. 582, I. T. 1047, and Soph. O. G. 1180;
see Goodwin Gr. Gram. 1248 n., Hadley-Allen 496.

325.	pTjrpos: sc. dpLarrjs. The ellipsis seems harsh ; 7rat8e* may be a gloss
on v/juv which has displaced some adjective agreeing with fir)tp6s.

326.	ov\ &£o|acu : schol. oi>K etfXajQov/jlcu, o$k dirix0^1" K(d "Oivqpos' fxrjd*
&£eo Oovpov "Aprja (II. V. 830). Cf. Hesych. s. v. oi>x &£o/j.ai: oi5 <r^3o/««, o$k
ivrpiirofiai, and Heracl. 600 dv<r<t>r]fjL€iv yap &$ofiai de&v, Orest. 1116 dls daveTv o$x
ttfonai (ov xaf&Awu MSS.).

327.	€tir€p . . . dpaprdvci: this is preferable to the reading of the other
class, rjvirep . . . afiapravrj, though the apodosis is future. The indicative is
more courteous to Admetus, implying that the condition is merely a pro forma
one, " if he is in his right senses " (as of course he is).

331. tovS" av8pa = ^, as usual. Some take Mpa as the second accus.
with Trpoa-fpOiy^eTaLj "shall call me husband"; but Euripides never elsewhere
uses irpo<r<f>0iyyonai with two accusatives, and surely the words "no Thessalian
bride shall ever greet me in your stead " are explicit enough. Or, with Her-
mann, we may take vtiiufrr} as in apposition with 0e<r<raA/s, u no Thessalian
woman shall ever address me as bride in your stead." Earle takes tivdpa with
both rdvde and irpoa^diy^eTai; while Mekler quite needlessly alters irore to trbaiv.

332-3. These lines have given much trouble, and Nauck and Kirchhoff
regard them as an interpolation.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

107

332.	Cf. Heracl. 409 tjtis ia-rl irarpos evyevovs, 513 irarpbs ofoav etiyevovs (cited
by Earle).

333.	The first class of MSS. have eiirpeireaTdTi) (.L and P iKKpeTrevrdTrj),
which is certainly wrong. Such a use of the superlative cannot be justified by
any amount of argument. Wecklein's evwpeir^s ovtu seems to me very brilliant
and convincing. For other emendations, see Sel. Conj. It is hard to deter-
mine whether we should read eiirpeir^s or impe-nr'/is, as both give good sense
and each is favored by the reading of one family of MSS. 'EKirpew/is may
be right, and in Hec. 269 the Cod. Marcianus has eldos iKTrpeireo-rdrr): but it
is impossible to be certain, as the two words are perpetually confused in the
MSS. For the position of ovtu see L. and S. s. v. B, and cf. Heracl. 413 /ca/cws
ovtoj. The exact force of tfXXws is well brought out by Bauer-Wecklein: " eT5os
dXXws, sonst, in anderer Hinsicht, namlich in Hinsicht auf Schonheit." A
good parallel is Herod. I. 60 yvvy . . . fiiyedos airb reaa-ipiav irt)x^v diroXelirovaa
Tpeis 5aKTij\ovs Kal &\\ws (i.e. in other respects, as well as in her height) evades.
The statement so often made that &\\a>s in such cases = " besides " is not
quite accurate.

340.	tcL <|>C\TaTa not merely = tV tyvxov but includes the ties that bind
husband and wife together. Cf. Med. 16 were? rd (plXrara. These ties will be
in part severed by her death.

341.	€<r<o<ras: Herwerden's \x eawas is very plausible, though the object
can easily be supplied from the context, apa — nonne, as in 228.

344.	Kareix*: Monk compares Tro. 555 </>oma 5* ai>& 7tt6\lp jSo A, #caretxe
Uepya/jiojv Zdpas, and Aesch. Pers. 424 olfiwyij 8* ofiov | kojk^fiaalv kcltcixg ireXa-
ylav &\a.

345.	j3appCTov: the fidpftiros was an instrument resembling the lyre, but
longer and narrower. See K. von Jan Die griech. Saiteninstrumente pp. 20 ff.

346.	IgaCpoiju: i£dpoi[ii L P. Wakefield conjectured i^dpatfu, which the
schol. seems to have read, and which Wecklein (Beitrage zur Kritik des Eur.
p. 528) prefers. I have followed B a with most edd., as the verb seems to
denote a process rather than the mere occurrence of an act.

O&L AC|3vv . . . avXov: "We find Mfivs atikbs in H. F. 684 : AtyJvs Xarr6s in
Hel. 170 sq., Troad. 544, I. A. 1036" (Earle). The flute was called Libyan
because flutes were made from the wood of the lotus, a tree which grew in
Libya; cf. Theophrastus Ilepi 0i>tG>v IV. 3, 1. See on the av\6s the very
thorough and careful article by Howard Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. IV.
Iff. XaAcet? here = u sing." The word is generally used of harsher sounds.
Aristophanes makes Euripides himself say tI XtXaicas (Achar. 410).

348-56. These lines could well be sparedr and are probably an interpo-
lation. They are offensive to modern taste ; but this is of itself a very unsafe
criterion ; for, as Paley pertinently observes, " the Greeks had a deeper feeling
for sculptured forms than we can pretend to realize." But they are awkwardly
expressed (especially 355-6), and, as was pointed out to me years ago by Prof.108

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

F. D. Allen, they are both preceded and followed by a reference to music, so
that the context gains very much in continuity by their excision.

353.	\|n>xpav: \pvxpbs, like the Lat. frigidus, often means " empty," "in-
sipid," "unsatisfactory." Hermann wickedly observes on 348 dfyas to <rbv.
" \pvxpbv napayKaXio-fjia (Soph. Ant. 650), nec minus frigidum poetae inventum."
Some one has even gone so far as to suggest that the poet in using \f/vxpdv rtpyj/Lv
is hinting at the xf/vxpbrr)s of the lines! He might have adduced oJ/jlcu (taking
it as ironical) in support of his notion, otjjiai: " no doubt," "to be sure,"
without ironical force. 0Ida has been suggested for ol/ncu both here and in 565;
but probably no change should be made, although the paleographical difference
between the two words is not so very great.

354.	diravT\o£T]v, a very expressive word, u draw off," as one draws off the
bilge-water from a ship's hold. Cf. Ion 927, Or. 1641, Aesch. Prom. 84. Euri-
pides is exceedingly fond of such metaphors ; see note on 245.

355-6. A very awkward passage; if we retain xpbvov, the sudden change
from the dative with iv to the accusative (which seems quite out of place here)
is very harsh, and the asyndeton is also troublesome. But though in the text
I have adopted Wecklein's x<*>vtiv and Prinz's rpbirov, I suspect the trouble is
due to the unskilfulness of the interpolator rather than to textual corruption.
Render: " for 'tis a pleasant thing to see one's friends, both at night and in
whatever way one may come" (lit. "be present"). The change from the
plural <f>L\ovs to the sing, iraprj is rather abrupt, and Musgrave's <pl\os would be
easier; but the constructio ad sensum is possible enough. I doubt, however, if
the lines are worth the trouble that commentators have taken about them.

357 ff. Cf. I. A. 1211 ff. el fxkv rbv 'OpQitas elxov, w irdrep, \byov . . . ivravO'
Slv ?j\dov (cited by Monk), both for the sense and for the use of the aorist 1)\0ov
(as to which see note on fj\dev 125). Kar^\6ov has been emended in various
ways (see Sel. Conj.), but no change is needed.

361.	Xdpwv: Cobet's emendation y£p<av is very plausible, as X&pwv might
so easily be a gloss on ovttI Kibirri ^/vxoTrofnrbs ytpwv, and the substitution would
be facilitated by the resemblance between the words Xapcov and yipajv. Glosses
which resemble in outward form the words which they explain (e.g. irpd%eis for
p^ets 262) are especially liable to oust the true reading. But as Xdpav may be
right, I have not ventured to alter the text.

362.	€o-x€v : so Earle, in accordance with the regular usage. Porson
defended the MSS. reading ecrxov, and many editors have followed him; but,
as Earle points out, Hec. 88 f. irov -wore Oeiav ' E\4vov \f/vxdv \ Kai Kaadvdpav 4(rLda},
Tpipades, cos fioi Kplvwaiv ovelpovs, which Porson urged in favor of	is not
really parallel. Such a constructio ad sensum * is very different from a case like
the present, in which two subjects in the singular separated by ovre . . . ovre
are supposed to be used with a plural verb. Besides £ and 0 are constantly
confused in MSS. p£ov: di/ias Cobet and Nauck; but plov is supported by
Bacch. 1339 jxaKdptav r is ala? <rov KadidptiaeL filov (cited by Pflugk).

* Porson read rj instead of ical in Hec. 88, with some MSS.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

109

363. €K€ur€ irpocrSoKa p : constructio praegnans; see note on /xapaivojitvav
wap "Aidau 236. Neither Prinz's iKei oi) nor Wecklein's £k€i ye seems necessary.
The verb of motion is expressed with irpoadoKyv in Aesch. Ag. 653 Me^Xewp . . .

irpo<rd6KCL fjLo\eiv.

365. K&pois: the wood of the cedar was much used for coffins because it
preserved the bodies of the dead from decay. Cf. Orest. 1053, Tro. 1141. On
the coffins of the Greeks see Becker-Goll Charikles III. pp. 139 ff. That in
the historical period the custom of burning the bodies of the dead and that
of burying them existed side by side among the Greeks is now generally
admitted: see Becker-Goll 1. s. c. pp. 132-41; Eohde Psyche p. 208 and note.
The Homeric poems speak only of burning the dead; but recent excavations
at Mycenae and elsewhere have shown that (as one might expect on a priori
grounds) the practice of burying the bodies of the deceased is older than that
of burning them. — It has been repeatedly asserted that this passage is incon-
sistent with other places in the play which imply that the body of Alcestis was
to be burned; but (1) Admetus is speaking under great excitement, and his
words must not be taken too literally; and (2) there is no passage in the play
which necessarily implies that the body itself was to be burned (see note on
v. 608).

367-8. The ridiculous parody in Aristoph. Achar. 893-4, where Dicaeopolis
says to the eel ydp dav&v irore | aov	€^VV £vT€TevT\av<tiix4vt)s, will occur

to every reader.

372.	-yapcCv: the regular Attic form; ya^a-eiv is late, nva: L and P
have 7rore, which is doubtless due to ttotc in 367, the eye of the copyist having
caught the wrong line. The mistake must have been already made in their
common source.

373.	44>' v|xtv : see note on iniyr/firis, 305. Nauck would read rj/up, com-
paring Med. 694 yvvatic £<f> tj/jup deairdrlv dd/nuv exei: but no change is necessary.

374 ff. A (TTLxofivdla follows, broken at the end by the short, gasping utter-
ances of the dying woman and the cries and entreaties of her despairing
husband. The sudden change in 390 from the even flow of the monostich is
very effective.

381. This line is omitted in L and P (though in L it has been added by a
later hand), and the omission has caused confusion in the assignment of the
lines. Note that both 380 and 381 commence with an anapaest. In the case
of proper names the tragedians admit the anapaest not only in the first foot of
the trimeter, but sometimes, though less frequently, in the second, third, fourth
and fifth. A word which is not a proper name can stand as an anapaest only
in the first foot. In Aeschylus (with two exceptions) and the earlier plays of
Sophocles an anapaest which begins a line must always be a word, or a part
of a word, which is anapaestic according to its natural prosody, e.g. KopvtpaiSj
ddafiav | rlvwv; in the later tragedy we also find initial anapaests that consist
of two words (usually a particle and substantive or preposition and its object110	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

(e.g. M roTa\8e), or of a word which is naturally a tribrach but has beeome an
anapaest by position), as enarbv | irpoaijye. See C. Fr. Mueller De pedibus solutis
in dialog, senariis Aesch. Soph. Eurip., and Christ Metrik2 p. 325 f., Westphal-
Rossbach Metrik3 pp. 225-6. Mr. Jerram says in his note on 375 that the
anapaest in the first foot of an iambic line is freely employed by Euripides
but never by Sophocles or Aeschylus, except when the foot consists of a single
word. But cf. Soph. Phil. 795 rbv foov | XP^V0V Tpt<t>0lte t^vde ttjv v6<rov.

383.	iroMfj ji dva-yiai: sc. fjLrjrtpa yevfodai: fi is Monk's certain emendation
for y. Some of the forms of y and /x look much alike, and they are not infre-
quently confused in the MSS. Here the mistake may have been facilitated by
the fact that there is a y just beyond in the same line.

384.	XP^V F»": this* reading of one MS. (c) is certainly right ;* fi ixpvv
of L and P does not suit the metre, and xpt M °f B and a, though more nearly
right in form, has not the necessary contrary-to-fact implication. "Av is not
used, as the chief stress falls on the infinitive (Goodwin M. and T. p. 407);
and the antithesis between tfv and airtyxofj-ai is thus emphasized still more.
The combination Ifiv xpvvi cacophonous as it seems, recurs in v. 939, and $?}v
ixPVv Or est. 1030. Euripides often offends in this way; he even has yw% ytvy
Hel. 1293.

381. paXagci: cf. 744, 1085, Or. 1201, Soph. Aj. 594. The meaning of
"soften" easily passes into those of "soothe," "assuage," 4' appease," "alle-
viate."

383. irpoOvgcKovTcs: masculine, though referring to Alcestis, on account of
the generalizing plural	See Hadley-Allen 639.

385.	<tkot€iv6v : proleptic.

386.*	&ira>\6|j.T]v: " anticipating aorist," referring vividly to the future. See
Goodwin M. and T. 61.

388. opOov xpocrcoTrov: cf. Ileracl. 635 exaipi vvv aeavrdv, 6p6oocrov k&pa.

393 ft. A monody avb cricnvTjs, supposed to be sung by the child Eumelus.
In reality the words were sung by some one behind the scenes, while the
person taking the r61e of the child merely acted out the song. Cf. the Latin
cantare ad manum. Young children appear and speak in several of the plays
of Euripides: see Androm. 504 ff. ; Suppl. 1122 ff. This was only in accord-
ance with the practice criticised by Aristophanes Ran. 949-50 dXX' e\eyev rj
yvvi) t£ fioi x& doOXos ofidtv yTTov, | x& SeairdTrjs xh Tfdpdevos xh TpaOs &v. pata:
usually u nurse," here " mother," as in Aesch. Cho. 41 yata fxaia.

394. Cf. Suppl. 1139 fePao-iv, ovk<=t elaL /xot, irarep, | pepao-iv, Or est. 971

8clk€ yap (3£(3clk€v, otx6tal t4kvojv J Trp6ira<ra ytvva. Wecklein reads owe for
o&k£t\ and omits re (which is found only in L P) in 407.

399. irapaTdvovs: "stretched at her side," "hanging at her side." The
word seems not to occur elsewhere in writers of the classical period.

* See on the frequent interchange of xpti an<* XPVV i*1 the MSS. Wecklein Beitrage zur
Kritik des Euripides p. 531, and cf. his Studien zu Eur, p. 366 f.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	Ill

401.	A very difficult place. The responsion shows that £yc6 <f fxarep
of P is preferable to a £yc6, /xarep, of B a ; but the hiatus avriafa — £yu is
awkward. It may, however, be easily removed by reading in 400 amafw a'
with Monk. If dvndfa <r- | £yd> J iydo, fidrep is the true reading, we can
account for the text of B a thus: in this source <t was omitted before the
second £yu by an easy haplography; then to obviate the hiatus thus left fxarep
was transposed, and the remaining <r was removed from its place after aw-id fa
and put in 401 before the first iyw to furnish KaXov/xai with an object. Kirch-
hoff, to be sure, with his usual prejudice against L P, says of the reading of P
"nescio an non correctori metrico debeantur" ; but it is most unfair to point
out all the mistakes of a class of MSS. and then whenever they offer a really
plausible reading to attribute it to a Byzantine grammarian or a u corrector
metricus." L has £yu <re yap juarep, which is clearly an arbitrary attempt at
emendation. Nauck would read <r' eywy' 6 ixarep, 4y& and in 413 ej3as a-i/v t$8e
t£\os : but why alter both strophe and antistrophe when (with so slight a
change in 400) the reading of P gives good sense and accurate responsion ?

402.	If KaXovfxcu 6 is sound, a trochee has been lost before it corresponding
to %<p0i- in 414; vvv ye (so the Aldine), vvv <re, <re, J5e, etc. have been sug-
gested to fill the lacuna. Wilamowitz (accepting the reading of P in 401)
would omit 402 altogether, and strike out €</>0ito yap irdpos in 414. This is very
plausible, and may be right; the true reading is far from certain. In B and a
a <r stands before o, but the antistrophic line shows that the ultima of KaXov/xai
must be shortened.

403.	o-Tojicuriv: the v is required by the responsion. Herwerden's ybvaaiv
is worse than needless; Alcestis is dead and her corpse is lying, not sitting or
standing up; and hence there is no reason for the child to clasp his mother's
knees. He would naturally kneel at her head and clasp her about the neck
and try to rouse her with his kisses, as young children will in such cases. Even
were this otherwise, <rTbp.a<riv might still be defended; cf. Here. F. 1208 dp.<t>l
<rav yeveidda . . . Trpoairlrvtov, Hec. 274. veo<r<r6s: Euripides has this word in
the sense of u child " some half a dozen times. Cf. Aesch. Cho&ph. 488, etc.
The way in which this use arose may be seen from the similes in Here. F. 71-2,
Troad. 750-51.

406. Xctirofxai. . . jjlovoo-toXos : with XeLireadai and similar verbs a seemingly
pleonastic p.6pos is often joined, e.g. Med. 51 ir&s <rov nbvy Mrfdeia Xelireadai
etc.; and fjuovda-roXos is here used in the same way. The word properly means
"without convoy," of vessels; schol. airb (xeracpopas tuv p.bv<av <rreXXo/ut^wp
ir\ol(av' fiov6<rTo\os ovv avTl rov eprjfws. Cf. Phoen. 742 /j.opo<tt6\ov dopds.

409 ff. The lacunas were first marked as in the text by Hermann, who also
transposed pot in 410, which in the MSS. stands just before avyKavi. In 409
a spondee (rXdjuov ?) has been lost after cpya corresponding to dfxbv in 396.

410. otvykcwtC jxoi Kovpa: cf. I. T. 800 w ^vyKaaiyv^TT]. The schol. explains
by (rw6/j.aifj,€i <rvvade\<p4.112	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

412.	In this line five short syllables are wanting to complete the responsion,
and in 413 a long and three shorts are lacking. The lacuna is probably due to
a tear in the archetype.

413.	avovaT avovaT : adverbial accusative. Cf. Hec. 766 avbvqra (sc.
%tgkov) . . . t6v8' op eiaopq.s: Her. F. 716 dpbprjrd y iKeretiovcrap &c<rw<r<u (Hop:
Hippol. 1145 €T€K€$ avbvqra. yripus t&os: the "period" or "term of old
age"; cf. fiiov r«f\os, davdrov t£\os. "End" or "goal" would be a more
literal rendering; cf. the Scriptural phrase "fullness of years."

417. XohrOios: a poetic word.

419. Cf. 782, Orest. 1245 ^ %rjp &ira<rip rf Oaveiv <5</>e£Xercu, Andr. 1272 and
fr. 10 Kardaveiv d^efXerat, etc. Euripides is very fond of certain cadences, and
repeats them again and again almost ad nauseam.*

421.	irpoo-lirrar : irpoairiteaoai is used of the swift and sudden coming of
evils, as here and Aesch. Prom. 643, Soph. Aj. 282. "The metaphor was
apparently originally derived from the swooping of birds, particularly carrion-
birds, upon their prey " (Earle).

422.	€K<|>opdv: on the iK<popd, see Becker-Goll Charikles III. pp. 128 ff.;
Hermann-Blumner Gr. Privatalt. pp. 367 ff.

423.	ji€vovt€s : F. W. Schmidt's ixfKirovres is very plausible, and may be
right; but fitvopres, "while you are waiting" (before the procession starts),
makes good sense, and probably no change should be made. dvTt]x^o-aT6:
Jerram suggests that the dvrl refers to the answering of strophe by antistrophe
in the following chorus.

424.	iraidva: the word iraidv may be used of any solemn song or chant,
even of one in honor of the gods of the lower world: cf. Troad. 578 ti waiav'
£fj&v (TTevdfeis; ib. 126 atik&v waicivi cttvyp$, Aesch. Choeph. 145 iraiava rod davbv-
tos i^avdcofJL^pas, Sept. 847 'AL8a r ix^pbv iraidp' iirlfiixirclpy Ag. 623 trptTcei \£yeiv
waiava top8' 'Epiidxav (Monk).

424. do*ir6v8u: the schol. read &<rirop8op (which is clearly inferior), for he
says Opijvov £<p' $ ofi <ririp8ov<rip wvirep iv tois iraiatnv. Monk and others compare
the well-known fragment of the Niobe of Aeschylus (161 Nauck) /ibpos de&v ydp
Odvaros oit dwpiop ipq,, | ofid' &v tl Otiwv otid* iiri(Tir^p8(ap &pois, | ovd' ecrri (3u>fibs
ov8t traiuvifrtai' | fibvov 8& ILeidd) 8aLfxbpoop dnwraret, and II. IX. 158 'ALSrjs toi
dfielxixos.

425 ff. Rohde (Psyche p. 541 note 1) observes: " Diese ausschweifenden
Trauerkundgebungen wohl nach dem in thessalischen Dynastengeschlechtern
Ueblichen."

426. ir^v0os Koivov<r0ai: so LP; irhdovs the other family of MSS. The
accus. is preferable as the " difficilior lectio"; Matthiae pointed out that
Euripides has two other cases of the accus. with Koivov<r6ai, Ion 608 kolpov^ptj
ras <rvfi<f>opds <roi, ib. 857 <rvfi<f)Opdp . . . Koipov/itpr} r^pSe. Add Troad. 61 Koipibcrj
Xbyovs, Xen. Vect. 4, 32 Koipovfihovs ttjp t6xvv> Thuc. 8, 8, 1 o fitp o$p KaWlyei-

* See Schroeder De iteratis apud. trag. Graec. p. 8f. (in Diss.phil. Argent, vol. VI.).CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	113

tos Kai Ti/xayopas . . . ovk £koipovpto tt]p <tto\ov, lb. 8, 82, 3 iva 8^} doKrj irdvTa /act
iicdvov KOLvovadai. In these cases icoivovo-dai means "to make common to one's
self," and so "share," the transitive force predominating; while in Koipovadal
tivos the genitive-construction of koiv6s predominates. It is possible, of course,
that irivdos is merely a copyist's blunder for wtvdovs: but the probabilities seem
to me to lie in the other direction.

427.	As to signs of mourning among the Greeks, see Becker-Goll Charikles
III. pp. 156 ff., and cf. 215-17, Hel. 1087 f., I. A. 1347-8, Phoen. 322-6, etc.
The text of the line is extremely doubtful, B and L P diverging widely. It is
clear (see Critical Apparatus) that in the common source of a and d stood only
Kovpai £vp, followed by a lacuna. If this lacuna goes back to the common
ancestor of all our MSS., as seems probable, the readings of B and L P are
merely different attempts to fill out the gap, and the disagreement between
them is accounted for. MeXa/*7r<?7rX<f; croXj was then probably suggested by 216
(cf. the suspected line 819, and Orest. 457-8), and fieXayx^ots ir^TrXots by some
Aeschylean passage (cf. Eustath. p. 1254 ourw AtVxtfXos iriirXovs /leXayxfaovs
(prjaip), perhaps Cho. 11 </>dp€<rip fMcXayx^oLs. (It is quite possible, however, that
the lacuna in the source of a d was due merely to inability or unwillingness to
decide between two readings of nearly equal authority.) In the Phoenissae
(1. 372) we have the interpolated line icdpa %vprjKes Kai irtirXovs fieXayxfaovs, prob-
ably suggested by our passage and El. 335 icdpa t i/ri>p zvprjues. This, so far as
it goes, supports fieXayx^p-ots tt^ttXols : but though Phoen. 372 is at least as old
as the time of the schol. ad loc., its source may perfectly well have been merely
a MS. of the same family as J3, and hence it is not at all decisive. Hesychius
has ne\dfjLTreir\os • irevdrjpys, which may or may not refer to our passage. I
incline, on the whole, to follow L P, simply as a matter of taste; that Euripides
wrote either fieXa/jLTr^irXip crroX^ or fieXayx^ois ireirXois we have no certain means
of proving.

428.	povapirvicas : the &[xirv% was a band passing horizontally across the
horse's forehead; see Daremberg and Saglio Diet, des Antiquites s. v. Ampyx.
Movd/jLirvl; is properly "having a single head-band," hence "single," not hitched
to a chariot. Schol. a&yovs. KtXrjTas.

429.	Monk compares Plutarch Vit. Alex. 72 eidfc ntv iirirovs re iceipai irdv-
tcls ewl 7rtvdei kai tj/jllSpovs e/c^Xeutre, and Pelop. 33. The Persians had the same
custom; see Herod. IX. 24.

434. Tifjtav : tl/xt}s, the reading of L P, gives equally good sense and metre;
but the infinitive construction is the less common-place one. t^tXt^kcv &vt Ijjlov
0av€tv: Nauck's very plausible conjecture. The MSS. have rtdptjKev, and as
the last word h6pi), ndvrjv or Xlav, variants which seem to point to a lacuna in
the archetype at the end of the line. The true reading is far from certain.

435-75. First Stasimon.

435-6. A reminiscence of II. XXIII. 179 /*0l» « HdTpQKfa} Kai eiv 'ALdao
86/jLouriv.114

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

437. oIk€T€voi$ : ttirai- elprjixivov in classic Greek. Hesychius has oiKereverai •
o-vvoucei. Though so rare, the word is regularly formed, arid there seems to be
no ground for questioning the soundness of the text.

442. iroXv Srj iroXv 8Vj: "the present (or a similar) passage seems to be
parodied in Aristoph. A v. 539 7roXi> 8tj ttoX t> 8% xaXe7r urdrovs Xbyovs11 (Earle).

444. X£jxvav . . . iropcvcras : a daring construction after the analogy of irbpov
or o8bv TTopefeiv. Cf. Soph. Track. 559 os rbv fiadvppovv iroTa.fj.bv Evyvov ftporods |
fjLtcdov 'w6peve xepvhi on which Mr. Jebb observes: u Here the second acc.
denotes the space traversed; it would more usually denote the place to which,
as in Eur. Tro. 1085 . . . <ricd<pos | . . . iropebaei | . . . *Apyos." Uop&jcas prop-
erly applies only to Charon, the more remote subject 'AL8as being lost sight of.
iXdrg. Sucd-irq): iXdry, properly the fir, often means '4 oar,'' but is here used
in the sense of " boat " : cf. Phoen. 208 'Ioviov kcitcl irbvrov iXdrg. irXefoava. So
in Latin abies and pinus often = navis.

446.	opctav x^Xvv, because the shell of the land-tortoise, which loves the
high ground, was used for this purpose.

447.	kXcovt€s : the tragedians probably do not use the form jtXe/w, though
the MSS. have it here. Cf. i. a. 1046 (icXtovo-ai Monk, k\6ov<tcu MSS.), fr. 369,
7 (Stob. Flor. 55, 4 ; k\£ovtcli Gaisford, kX£uvtai SM, KaXtaovrai A), Soph. Track.
639 (k\£ovtcli Musgrave ; KaXtovrai MSS.).

448-51. An extremely troublesome passage. The difficulty centres about
<apas in 449 and fxrjvbs in 450. The MSS. vary between upa (PI a) and upq. (B);
L has up with an erasure after p. All have nyvbsj and all but a I (iravrixov)
have iravvtixovs' Hesychius has irepi. lo-aerat (leg. irepivl<r<reTai) upas • irepUpxc-
rai ras upas, which shows that the author of the gloss read upas and took it
as acc. plural. We may distinguish four principal ways of dealing with the
passage:

A. Barnes, Musgrave and others accept Scaliger's kvk\&s for kvkXos. Kap-
velov will then agree with firjvbs, and deipofidvas will be intransitive ; so that the
rendering will be: "at Sparta when the circling season (kvkXcls—upa) of the
Carnean month comes round, when the moon is on high all night long." This
gives good sense ; but we have no proof that Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides
ever used kvkXAs ; nor do I find any instance in which they use adpeo-dai in this
way of heavenly bodies, though, to be sure, the scholiast takes it as intransi-
tive. Sophocles has the active atpy of the sun, Phil. 1331.

B.	Monk reads wpq., and puts a comma after Zirdprg. and one after aeXdvas.
He observes " editum defendit Iph. A. 717 "Orav treXi^s evrvx^s eXOoi k6kXos" :
whence it would appear that he made ceXdvas depend on k6kXos, and Kapvelov
. . . fjlrjvbs on upq.. But this makes the construction (k6kXos . . . aeipo^vas iravri-
xov creXdvas) very clumsy, and aeXdvas is too far from kijkXos.

C.	Earle and others (with Hesychius) read upas and take it as acc. with
irepii>l(r<r€Tai. The rendering will then be: "at Sparta when the circle of the
Carnean month conies tbe round of the seasons, when the moon hangs high inCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	115

the heavens all night long." This may well be right; ef. Ion 1486 Sefcdry wrbs
kv k6k\<$. But the intransitive use of aeipofihas is still an objection. I cannot
find an instance of <re\r)vr) aelperai or the like in the tragedians.

D. Wecklein and others take upas as gen. sing., and Kapvelov as agreeing
with it. To this view I strongly incline, believing /j.r)v6s to be a gloss on Kap-
velov wpas, which gloss has ousted from the text some noun which was the object
of aeipofjikvas. This noun may have been (ptyyos (Wecklein), or some other
word of like meaning. That iultjp6s is itself a corruption of <f>4770s I do not
believe; though in 321 Herwerden suggests <f>£yyos for /jltjvSs. But the two
words are not very much alike, and <f> preserves its characteristics pretty
stubbornly.

452. Xiirapauri: the epithet which so pleased the Athenians when applied
to their city (see Aristoph. Achar. 639 and Blaydes' learned note, where the
examples of this use of the adjective are given at length). Pindar (Nem. IV.
29, Isthm. II. 30, fr. 76 Bergk) seems to have inaugurated the practice of calling
Athens \ivapal, and even Aristophanes himself follows suit in no less than
three passages (Nub. 299, Eq. 1329, fr. 110 Kock) ! Does Euripides hint in
Troad. 801-3 at the reason why the term was especially appropriate to Athens ?

457.	<|>dos: poetic accus. of the limit of motion. T€pd|ivav: a favorite
word with Euripides, who always uses it in the plural. It is not found in
Sophocles or Aeschylus. The spelling varies in the MSS. between rtpauva and
T^pe/iva ; but on the whole the weight of authority is on the side of rtpa/xva. It
is noteworthy that in two passages (Phoen. 333, Orest. 1371) the Marcianus has
the form with a while most of the other MSS. have that with e. Hesychius
has Ttpefiva' oiK^/jLara.

458.	Some (e.g. Bothe and Wecklein) regard this line as spurious, as there
is no corresponding line in the antistrophe. But an examination of the anti-
strophe shows that something has been lost after 468, unless we assume a
violent anacoluthon. The text of 458 is in doubt; I have given Ko>kvtoi6 re
(with Earle) peLdpuv. Kiokijtois of LP points to kojkvtolo (C for O), and L actu-
ally has kwkvtoio by a later hand and peLOpwv. Earle reads peldpov ; but Sophocles,
except perhaps in Ant. 1124 (ptedpov L, peldpiov Hermann), and Euripides always
use the plural. Kojkvtov re petdpwv (so B and a) also is possible. All the MSS.
have before ku)k6tov (or kukijtols) an interpolated kal, which was struck out
by Matthiae.

459.	aroTajity vcprlpq, t€ kcottcj : the adjectives take the place of adverbial
phrases. For the expression, cf. Rel. 526 dvaXly kAttqj Heracl. 82 aXLy irXdrp,
I. T. 140 K\eivq. <ri>v K&irq. x^LOvaTjrq., Rhes. 53 WKTipy wXdTrj, etc.

460.	I have accepted Wilamowitz's excellent emendation of this line; (3
<f>i\a 7vvaucQv occurs Hippol. 848, but (o fibva yvvaucQv is not, I think,
Euripidean.

462. avr&s: Erfurdt's emendation, which the antistrophic line (471) shows
to be necessary. For the use of the reflexive of the third person, where we116

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

should expect the second, see Goodwin Gr. Gram. 995 note, Hadley-Allen
686 a. Eor the sentiment, cf. Kaibel Epigr. Graec. 551, 4 Ko6<f>rj <roi k6vls ^5e
tt£\oi : Tibullus II. 4, 50 terraque securae sit super ossa levis ; the Latin formula
frequent on tomb-stones, S. T. T. L., i.e. sit tibi terra levis ; and especially the
last two lines of that most dainty and pathetic epigram, Martial V. 34, mollia
non rigidus cespes tegat ossa, nec Mi | Terra, gravis fueris: non fuit ilia tibi.
Such prayers can be traced back to the primitive belief that the earth did
actually discommode the dead by its pressure.

469. Some, e.g. Wecklein, believe that no verse has been lost here and
assume an anacoluthon, regarding ov ereKov— xa'LTCLV as parenthetic, and <ri> 8'
iv ypq. k.t.X. as following just as though the parenthesis were an" independent
clause preceding. But this is difficult for several reasons. The transition from
468 to 469 is singularly abrupt; moreover if Wecklein is right we must reject
459, which is at least as old as the time of the scholiast of J5, and for the
insertion of which (supposing it to be spurious) no adequate reason has been
suggested.

472.	v6j,: so B a; L and P have via viov, which the responsion will not
allow. The way in which the reading via viov arose is doubtful. It may be
a conflation of two readings viq. and viov (i subscript is often omitted in the
MSS.), or perhaps viov was written beside vig. (or vice versa) as a variant lection
and then was copied into the text by mistake, or possibly the common source
of L and P may have had viov, and via be a gloss on iv	is probably
right; it is the youthfulness of Alcestis, not that of Admetus, that the poet
wishes to emphasize.

473.	Kvparai: Kvprj<rat MSS., but the strophic line shows Musgrave's cor-
rection to be necessary. Euripides has both cKvpaa (cf. Ion 1105) and i^prjaa
(cf. Hec. 215). Ktipu and Kvpiu are said not to occur either in classic Attic
prose or in comedy.

474.	oruvSvaSos: dwa£ eiprffjuivov. It is probably a noun, though many lexx.
give it as an adjective. Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. 62) regards the word as corrupt.
He thinks that in its place should stand some word meaning " wife," to which
a\6xov was added as a gloss. Hence he would strike out d\6%ou, and yuvat in
464. But crwSuddos has been ably defended by Zacher (Philologus L. I. p. 542).
He points out that o-vv8v&£e<70ai presupposes awdvds, and that the word is a
regular formation from atvdvo after the analogy of 7re/t7rds, 5e/cds, etc. It differs
from Svds because the two members of the pair belong together as a whole.
Render u such union with a loving consort."

476-567. Second Epeisodion. Heracles enters from the left, doubtless
Wearing the lion-skin and carrying his club. His costume enables the chorus
and spectators to recognize him at once; hence no introductory words are
necessary.

476. ko>|uit<u : the word tcd/ty was often used of a neighborhood or district ;
cf. Aristotle Poet. 3, 6 ovtoi fikv (sc. oi He\oirovirf)<rioi) Kibfias rds Trepioucidas KaXeivCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

117

(paffiVy'K9i)vai0L 8£ b^pjovs. Hence as Suidas says (s. V. kco/k^tcu), kw/^ras oi iraXatol
rots iK rod avrov dfx(p6dov ical tSttov e\eyov. The word is peculiarly appropriate
here, as Thessaly contained few large towns, and these were mostly indepen-
dent of each other, each being surrounded by its own group of dependent
villages. x®ov^: Nauck would read 7r6Xea>s, as the repetition x^ov^s—
(479) — x06va (485) is suspicious. He might have adduced in favor of his view
Hippol. 34, 36, in one of which lines x^va- has probably displaced	But

Nauck's conjecture seems far from certain.

479.	x®°va: here L P have tt6\iv, but x^va seems preferable on account
of &(ttv in the following line.	may be a conjecture, or a slip of the kind
described in the note on v. 55.

480.	irpoorpffvai: see Goodwin M. and T. 772 a.

481.	Eurystheus was king of Tiryns as well as of Argos and Mycenae.

482.	Here L and P have awifrvizai: cf. Ion 243 el 0e$ Gweftbyq, Hel. 255
tIvl itdrfKp avvefr&yrjv, Andr. 98 areppbv dalpov' w <jvve$vyr\v, and Hippol. 1389 o'iais
<rvfjL(f>opcus <rvve£fryr)s (where the Aldine has irpoae^vy-qs). B a have in our passage
irpo<ri£ev£ai: but, as Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. p. 63) pointed out, the verb irpo<r-
£etiywp,i does not occur in the early literature; though in late Greek it is not
uncommon.

487. tovs irdvovs: so Monk; P has only ttSpovs, the article having fallen
out in the source of L and P. L has fi fjv irbvovs, an obvious attempt to fill out
the lacuna ex conj. B a have rots irbvois, which many edd. adopt; dwenrelv will
then mean "say no to," and the irbvoi be personified (so Earle). Cf. Hec. 942
diretirov ti\yei. But it seems simpler and more natural to take direLireTp in its
usual sense, "renounce," and read irbvovs: cf. Here. F. 1354 £v (sc. irbvujv)
ovt diretirov ofidiv ovt air' 6p.ix6.tiov k.t.X.

489. &7<ov has here, as often, the double sense of 41 athletic contest,"
"race," and "danger," "peril." Cf. Herod. VIII. 102 ttoXXoi>s iroWdicis ayG>-
vas 8pap.4ovTai irepl (T(f)i(av ai'jtGjv oi "JZWyves : also I. A. 1456 8eivoi>s ay&vas 8ib ak
8eT Ketvov Spapeiv, Or. 878 ay Cava davdtnpov Spa/JLoti/jievov, El. 883 f}K€i s yap otic
axpciov HiCTrXedpov dpapubv | ayCov is oTkovs.

491.	airagw : the fut. indie, (as compared with Slv Xafiois in 494) shows the
confidence with which Heracles looks forward to the result.

492.	€V|xap€s: cf. fr. 176, 2 N. p.a0eiv 8i iracrtv icrTiv evp.apis: also I. A. 519,
969, Hel. 1227, fr. 382, 10, fr. adesp. 11. Sophocles has the word once (El.
179), Aeschylus twice (Ag. 1280, Suppl. 325), Pindar thrice (.Ne. XI. 33, Py.
III. 105, Ne. III. 21). The schol. on II. XV. 137 says: p.dpt} yap ij %ei/o /card
HLvSapov, 60ev icai eiiiapis. If he is correct, the word closely resembles etixepfa
both in origin and meaning. Hesychius says ev/mpis • evxepis. vyiis. pq.8iov.
d<r<f>a\is, and Suidas evp.api)s eu/coXos, evxep^s.

494. apTapovori: a rare word. Cf. El. 816 8<ttls Tavpov apra/ie? /caXws. It
properly means "to cut in pieces like a butcher" (dprafios). The schol.
explains by jxayeipetiovariv. &pra/xos yap Xiyerai 6 jxdyeipos.118	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

496.	ctfjtcuriv: uclots" or 44gouts of blood.'1 Cf. for this use of the plural
El. 1172, I. T. 73, Aesch. Ag. 1247 (al/idTw —44 streams of blood"), Soph.
Ant. 120, etc.

497.	Cf. Here. F. 64 os ovvck' 6\pov jjl£yas iicofjlirdo-dt] ttotL

498.	£axpv<rov: probably a reference to the celebrated gold-mines near
Scapte Hyle, which were leased by the historian Thucydides.	the

was a small, light shield of wood, often covered with goat-skin and shod
with iron. The word is here used collectively = 7reXra<7ru)v: cf. Bhes. 410
€ppr)%a 7t£\t7)v. 44 In Greek the weapon often stands for the person armed with
it" (Wecklein). Others, with Monk, regard WXr^s &va£ as = 7re\ra<mfc, and
compare Aesch. Pers. 376 Kiainjs £pa£: a view which to me seems less probable.
The Thracian targeteers enjoyed a reputation similar to that of the Rhodian
and Balearic slingers and the Cretan bowmen.

499.	8ai|i.6vos : here, as often = 44 fortune," 44 destiny." But to the mind
of the Greek hearer of the play was present the idea of a personal dal/iav.

500.	o-icX/qprfs: 44 a metaphor from a hard and stony road, as -rrpos ahros from
a steep one. There is doubtless a reference here to the words of Hesiod (Op.
287-292) about the rugged path of virtue, — words that formed, as it were, the
text of Prodicus' apologue of Heracles at the cross-ways (Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 21-
34), which was doubtless familiar to Euripides" (Earle).

501.	iracriv (irauriv MSS.) is Wecklein's brilliant emendation, which cer-
tainly adds greatly to the force of the sentence.

502.	Auicaovi: this seems to be the only passage where a son of Ares named
Lycaon is mentioned.

503.	Kvkv<p : according to Apollodorus (Bibl. 2, 5, 11, 3 and 2, 7, 74 Hercher)
Heracles fought with two different Cycni, one the son of Ares by Pelopeia and
the other the son of the same god by Pyrene. The contest with the former,
which took place near Iton in Thessaly, was the more celebrated, and is doubt-
less the one referred to here. Cf. Here. F. 389 ff. and Hesiod Scut. Her. 345 ft.
cpxopai <n>p.f3a\ftv: see for the construction Goodwin M. and T. 895. This is
better than to take epxo/JLcu literally, 44 am on my way," as do some editors.
The phrase is nearly equivalent to a fut. indie., or /itWo) with the infin.

506.	Tp&ravTa: see for the tense M. and T. 148. iroXcjiCav, which Dobree
had conjectured for iroXefilwp, is actually found in B and a, and is almost cer-
tainly right. Nauck compares Med. 1322, Hec. 1153, Orest. 271, fr. 705, 2.
Add Bhes. 286.

507.	Kal |i^v, as often, marks the entrance of a character.

508.	irop€u£rai, like Lat. incedere, the appropriate word for the stately
advance of the monarch.

509.	IIep(r€«s r al'p.a.Tos: Alcmene,. mother of Heracles, was the
daughter of Electryon, one of the sons of Perseus and Andromeda. See the
scliol., and Hesiod Scut. Her. 3, etc.

511. OcXoip.' av: sc. xa^PCLV-> a double-entendre. IfeirCo-Tapiu: 441 am well
assured," stronger than iirlo-ranai.Critical and exegetical notes.

119

512.	t£ xP%a :	simple tL : see L. and S. s. v. XPVH* H- 2 for
parallels.

513.	4v Tfj8*	: nouns denoting day, night, month and year generally
are put in the dative of time without a preposition if an adjective word is
joined with them; but exceptions sometimes occur, especially when the time
within which an action takes place is to be indicated. See Hadley-Allen 782 a.

514 ff. Note the order in which Heracles mentions the members of his
host's family (children, father, wife); cf. Hippol. 794 ff. (father, children, wife).

516. apatos, " ripe in age," ready for the grave. Cf. Phoen. 968 avrbs 5',
ev cSpal(p yap ecrTa/xev /3i'y \ 6v^(tk€lv £'toi/xos, Aristoph. Vesp. 1365 topalas aopov.

520. ircpt: all the MSS. save L and P have ert. For the simple genitive
with the meaning of "concerning," "in respect of which" see Hadley-Allen
733 a, Sonnenschein 413 and the examples there cited ; but the present writer,
for one, cannot believe that Euripides used that rare and difficult construction
in a passage like the one in the text. Nauck is quite wrong, however, when
he alleges that in is " tiberflussig und storend." On the contrary, the use of
en with ^rjv is almost stereotyped ; cf. Bacch. 8,1. T. 771, Or. 1147, Suppl. 454,
Hel. 56, 293, etc.

523.	poCpas: a striking instance of "attraction." The verse would not
allow the order ys fioipas.

524.	v<|>€1|j.€vt|v, like inr&rr?;, v. 36. "Perhaps the figure is here that of a
victim bowing to receive the death-stroke " (Earle).

526.	€ts to8*, i.e. until she dies, a euphemism. Wakefield's r6r is tempting,
but not, I think, necessary. apfkiXov: so Nauck for avafiaXov, to avoid the
tribrach in the fifth foot. Euripides sometimes admits three shorts in the fifth,
but very rarely in his earlier plays. There is no certain instance in the Alcestis.
Hence it seems better to substitute the apocopated form in this place. See note
on afjLpoLXeiv, 1. 50, and cf. Hec. 1281 (a/ifitvei I,	L dva/xevei A ava/jitvei r),
Andr. 444 (avafihei MSS., ajx^vei Nauck), Soph. El. 1397 (afifiheL MSS.). See
Nauck's learned note in his Eur. Stud. II. p. 64 f.

527.	A troublesome line, and one about which there probably will always
be difference of opinion. I conceive the history of the text to have been this:
in 521 Admetus has made about Alcestis the ambiguous statement eo-riv re
kovk£t €<ttiv. This Heracles naturally does not understand. Admetus tries to
explain (523, 525), but his visitor still fails to comprehend. Finally the king
states his meaning in words which are seemingly most explicit, though chosen
so as to conceal the fact of the queen's death: t46vtik o /itwwv, Kai dav&v ovk
€<tt ert, i.e. "the person who is soon to die is (to all intents and purposes)
already dead, and, being dead, no longer exists." But this sentence, simple
as it seems, had two peculiarities which led to corruption of the text, viz. the
separation of ovk and ert and the use of the two participles side by side in
different constructions. Some scholar reconstructed the verse in the form
t46vtjx & ^XXwp kovk^t €<r0' o Kardav&v, thus removing both peculiarities and120	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

producing a very tolerable trimeter. This version has come down to us in
B a. In Z, on the other hand, Ttdvyice (and in P TdffvrjKev) has been written for
riOvijx (probably their common source had rtdvyKe, the y in P having been
added to remove hiatus), and the article inserted before 6av<bv. In P a further
change has been made, the clumsy and unmetrical transposition ovk4t iariv.
Thus in P has been accomplished, though in a very awkward way, precisely
the same result which in B and a has been attained by a clever reconstruction.
Many edd. prefer to follow B a; but the most obvious course is hot necessarily
the right one. For other readings, see Sel. Conj. The one in the text is due
to Schwartz, the editor of the scholia.

528. r : y Earle; but cf. Aesch. Prom. 926 6<rov rb t Apxew *ai rb dov\etieiv
5/xa> Soph. 0. c. 808 x^p^ t& T' clireiv ttoXXcl kcli t& Katpia, Plato Protag. 336 B
$iai)v elvai rd avveivaL re d ia\ey ofiivovs Kal rb drjfirjyopeiv.

531.	7vWj, -yvvcuKos: intentionally ambiguous, "the woman" or 11 my
wife."

532.	oOveios : this word (from 166vos, old by-form of edvos ?) was the Athe-
nian term for aWbrpios (Bekker's Anecd. p. 1095). Hesychius has 66veto. • pAraia.
d\\6r/ota, dWoeOvrj, ij^a, aWoyevrj. Cf. Plato Legg. 629 E, Bep. 470 B. Suidas
says: ddveios ovx o £k ttjs dWodairijs a<f>iyn£vos <Ss rives air48ocrav, a\\oedvf)s, a\\'
o awb 7r6Xeo?s ttjs airrjs wv Kal &\\(as ^iririjbeios^ oi> jitvtoi Kara ytvos irpoa^Kcav,
which looks as though he were misled by the use of the word in our passage.
'OOveios does not occur in Aeschylus or Sophocles, and Euripides has it only
in the Alcestis (cf. 646, 810).

533.	aXXcos: in a double sense, " otherwise " and " notwithstanding." See
L. and S. s.v. 1 and 2, b. avcuyicaCa: cf. Latin necessaria. Admetus, while
his words are literally true, contrives to give a false impression through-
out.

536.	€f0" t]vpo|i>€v: a typical instance of an unfulfilled wish referring to a
past object. See M. and T. 732.

537.	viroppcwrms: very rare in classic Greek, though it occurs not infre-
quently in late writers. It is properly a tailor's term, " to stitch underneath,"
"patch up." Here it is used figuratively, like pairreiv, vtpalveiv and Lat. suere,
consuere. It is not found in Aeschylus or Sophocles, and occurs only here
in Euripides.

540. €t \i6\oi: see M. and T. 501 c. irapa icXaCouou: if the text is sound
-pa is here lengthened before k\. Usually in trimeters a short final syllable
ending in a vowel is not lengthened before a mute and liquid, except in the
case of yfj., yv, fye, dv, and sometimes /3X and 7X. But cf. El. 1058 apa Movaav,
Aesch. Pers. 773 via <t>povei. Cases of this kind of lengthening in lyric passages
are much more frequent. The truth seems to be, that while the rule as laid
down by Porson (see his note on Or est. 64) generally holds good, exceptions
sometimes occur. Almost all such rules of usage, e.g. the "Canon Davesi-
anus" and " Porson's rule of the fifth foot," are subject to some exceptions,CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	121

which should not be emended or explained away. Elmsley and Earle insert
tl after alaxpthus obtaining a tribrach instead of the suspicious iambus.
See Christ Metrik2 p. 14; Kiihner-Blass I. p. 306; Goebel De Correptione
Attica, pp. 19 if. and Kopp Rhein. Mus. 1886 p. 256.

544. jjivptav x&piv: as we might say " I will be infinitely obliged to you."

546.	8to|j.dra)v : for the gen. with i^irios and other adjs. of separation, see
G. 1140, II. 753 g. 'E£tu7rios (<?£ and aty>) is properly *'out of sight of," and
hence "apart from," " away from." Cf. Suppl. 1038 y dSfiav £%d>irios ptpyice,
Med. 628 xpovlfav dw/mdrojv ^ib-rios, and the line parodied by Aristoph. TJiesm.
881 avrbs 8£ Upsets eudov ear, fj 'Zibirios; (cf. Eel. 468). The word is not used
by Aeschylus and Sophocles.

547.	|€v»vas: guests were usually lodged under the same roof as their
hosts, the upper story (virepyov) being often used for this purpose. But large
and luxurious dwellings sometimes had separate apartments for guests, at a
little distance from the main building and connected with it by a passage-way,
in which was a door (dtipai ^ravXoi 549). See Bekker-Goll Charikles II. p. 140;
Hermann-Bliimner Privatalt. d. Griech. p. 495 note 3. As Earle has pointed
out (see the introd. to his ed. p. xl.), Heracles must have gone in at a side-door
of the back-scene, for he and the servant can scarcely have retired through one
of the T&podoi. But the presence of two doors occasions no difficulty; for
though the permanent stone irpoaK^via of Hellenistic times often show only one
door (sometimes none at all), the theaters of the fifth and fourth centuries
probably had irpoaK-qvia with three doors. See Doerpfeld Gr. Theater, pp. 67,
377-8, 552.

548.	€-5: so England for tv of the MSS. Those who retain ev either take
it with KXrjaaTe as a case of so-called "tmesis," or as equivalent to evdov (so
-Earle).

549.	Gvpas p-eravXovs: here not of the door between the andronitis and
gynaeconitis, but of a door in the passage between the £evuves and the palace
proper. 0oivo>jx4vovs: a poetic word.

551.	irpo<ric€ifi,€VTis: the MSS. have irpoKeifxtw}*: but as the calamity has
already come, Wakefield's emendation is necessary.

552.	$€vo|Sokciv: in the iambic trimeter "resolutions are by far most fre-
quent in the third foot. This fact stands in connection with the fact that
in that part of the line, after the caesura, begins a new trochaic series, with
the first thesis strongly accentuated. For in trochaic verse it is the first long
that is most frequently resolved" (Christ).

553.	Admetus, stung by the censure of the chorus, retorts with an impas-
sioned speech. <r<|>€: the tragedians sometimes use this form as singular; see
Goodwin Gr. Gram. 394, Hadley-Allen 261 D, a.

558. The MSS. except L and P (ixOpo&vovs) have kclko&povs. The sense is
much the same with either reading; but ixOpo&vovs, as* the rarer and stronger
word, is more likely to be right than the more colorless kclko&vovs, especially122	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

as KaKbv stands at the end of the preceding line. Aeschylus has £x6p°&vo5
repeatedly (Prom. 725, Sept. 589, 604).

560.	8u|r(av : the commentators compare II. IV. 171 Kal kcv 4\£yxio"ros iro\v-
dtyiov "Apyos IkoIjult)v. But the epithet is by no means a mere epic reminiscence;
for the plain of Argos is very dry and dusty still. Jerram aptly quotes Words-
worth (Hist, of Greece), who says: 44 The higher parts of this plain suffer from
want of water, whence the epithet applied to it by Homer (iroXudtyiop), indica-
tive of the thinness of the soil."

561.	tov irapovTa SaCjiova: cf. Andr. 974.

565-6. I keep r<£ and aivhret with the MSS.; Heracles is clearly meant.
Schmidt's kclvt$ would give the same sense. Some editors read Kal ry (the
indefinite) with Heath. This might be a more polite form of expression than
the direct address, or it might be sarcastic, like (popciral ns Aesch. Cho. 52,
and the like. But the emphatic position of rip is against this reading. Earle
has the conjectures /cat <rol and cuVo-ets: but the fact that the chorus do at once
proceed to praise Admetus is a fatal objection. The difficulty lies, I think, in
<t>povetv doK&: I have given in the text Herwerden's 86%a> <t>poveiv. If <f>pove?v
were once written by mistake, might easily have been changed to 8okQ for
metrical reasons, as the last foot cannot be a spondee. Moreover when this
idiom occurs at or near the end of a trimeter SokCj usually comes first: cf. fr.
188, 3 N. 56£eis Qpoveiv, Soph. Aj. 594 doKeis <f>poveip, 0. C. 1666 and El. 550 SokQ
<t>povetv, Critias fr. 4 Soicrj <f>poveTv, etc. ; though this is not a very safe criterion
(Aesch. Prom. 389 Qpoveiv boKeiv).

566.	c-irta-TciTai: the meaning 44 to know how " to do a thing readily passes
into that of 44 to be able n to do it. Cf. II. XXL 320 ovdt oi dart* iiricrT^aovTaL
'Axcuoi | aW^ai, Soph. Track. 543 84 dv/iovadai fx4v o$k iirla-rafiai | votrovvri.
So in French 44 il ne saurait faire ce que vous voulez."

567.	Admetus now enters the palace, and the chorus sing the second
Stasimon (568-605).

568.	iro\vg€ivos Kal cXeuOlpou: Wecklein for irdX^eivos Kal e\evdepot (see his
Studien zu Euripides p. 364). Purgold had already proposed ttoXv&Lvov Kal
iXevdipov : but the epithet iro\\j£eivos suits the house, while iXeMepos (here = i\ev-
Otpios, Lat. liberalis) is better adapted to the man.

570. 44 In thee did Pythian Apollo, lord of the tuneful lyre, deign to dwell."
cvXvpas: cf. Aristoph. Thesm. 969, where the epithet, as here, is applied to
Apollo. The word is very rare.

573.	p.T)Xov6|xas : Doric for firjXovdfxrfs. The word is very rare, if not indeed
&tta£ eiprjjuL^vov.

574.	vojiois : so Pierson for 86fiois. Those edd. who retain 86fxois either
hold that in aoi<ri there is a sudden transition of the address from the house
to Admetus (so Monk, Woolsey, Jerram, Earle), or that there is no such tran-
sition, but that 56/mols refers to the different apartments of the palace. But
vdfiois agrees far better with the following lines. We need not suppose thatCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

123

in <roT<n Admetus is addressed, for the pastures and herds attached to the
palace are meant. In the heroic age the home of a king (e.g. that of Odysseus)
had its own pastures, stalls and cattle.

575.	So\|uav: 44 slanting," 44 sloping." Schol. tQv irXaytwv icai avaKeic\i-
fxtvuv opQv. k\itviav: /cXiriJs is from k\tvca: cf. Lat. cli-vus. <rup(£<ov : i.e.
44 playing on the shepherd's pipe " (avpiy£). See as to the avpiy% Howard in
Harvard Stud, in Class. Phil. IV. pp. 18 ff. — This passage shows very clearly
the poet's power of sketching a charming picture in a few words. Earle aptly
compares I. A. 573 ff.

576.	iroijivCTas: Pollux 7, 185 has Troi/AjuTtu ictives. The word seems to be
always used as an adjective, though a noun in its formation. So i7T7r6r^s,
irpvfMvrjTif)s, etc., are sometimes used as adjs., e.g. Suppl. 660 linrdTrjv 6x^ov.
Cf. victor exercitus and the like in Latin. vpcvaCovs, properly 44 marriage-
songs," is doubtless used here in a general sense, 44 strains " ; though the schol.
somewhat coarsely explains it by iroL/xeviKas <#das di (Sv Ijyev tcl ^oaK^fiara els
t6 aW^XoLs fxlyvvaOai, and so Aelian H. A. 12, 44.

579.	<rvv. . . liroipaivovTo, a case of so-called 44 tmesis." It is really, of
course, a survival of the early adverbial use of the preposition. paXiaC: 4 4 dap-
pled" ; cf. Vergil's lynces variae, Georg. III. 264.

580.	"O0pvos: this important mountain-range of Thessaly forms the water-
shed between the Peneius and Spercheius. It rises at its highest point to a
height of about 5500 feet, and is still covered with forests to a large extent.
\c6vtcdv : Herodotus (VII. 126) asserts, and Aristotle (H. A. VI. 31) confirms
the statement, that in Europe lions were found only between the .Nestus and
the Achelous; but Dio Chrysostom (Orat. XXI. p. 269 C, cited by Rawlinson
in his note on Herod. I. s. c.) says that in his time they were extinct in Europe.
The story of the attack made by lions upon the baggage-camels of Xerxes
(Her. VII. 125) is well known. Cf. the graphic representation of a lion-hunt
on one of the Mycenaean swords.

581.	Sa<|>oiv6s: 44 tawny," of the color of the hide. So also II. X. 23 5a</>oi-
vbv . . . dtp/ia \e6vros: cf. II. XI. 474, where the epithet is applied to jackals;
II. II. 308, where it is used of a snake ; Aesch. Prom. 1022 of an eagle, and
Horn. Hymn 19, 23 of the skin of a lynx. In all these cases the animal to
which the term is applied is a beast of prey. Was this because with the mean-
ing of 44red" or 44tawny" was associated to some extent the other meaning
of 44 blood-thirsty " or 4 4 cruel"? Both significations arose logically enough
from the original one of 44 all bloody," 44 wholly blood-red." Sophocles does
not use the word.

582.	\®P€v<r€: so Monk for exbpevae, to restore correspondence with erXa
5<? of the strophe (573). For the omission of the augment, see Goodwin 549,
Hadley-Allen 354 D.

585. vc^pos: for ve/rp&s, from the root vep; cf. Skt. navas, Lat. novus, Eng.
44 new." The word must originally have been applied to any young animal.124

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

v\J/iKOfjuov irlpav cXa/rav: i.e. beyond the limits of the forest. For the use of
ir£pav = 7r£pa, cf. Hippol. 1053, Pindar Nem. V. 21. Herwerden would read
iripa. v\(/ik6(j.cov : so Tertullian (Jud. Bom. 8) uses the epithet alticomae of
cypresses.

586. <n|>up$: properly the ankle; here by "synecdoche" for the foot
in general.

588.	iroXvp/qXoTaTav: a Homeric epithet, applied to Orchomenos (II. II. 605)
and to persons (e.g. II. II. 705). Earle compares Pindar 01. I. 16 ff., to which
may be added Pyth. IX. 11 (cited by Monk). The neighborhood of Pherae
still abounds in flocks.

589.	oIkci : the necessary emendation of Purgold and Markland for oikcls.
The third person is required both because Phoebus, not Admetus, has just been
addressed and because of rldcrai, /cpartfm, which follow. The subject of oikcl
is, of course, a pronoun understood referring to Admetus. irapd . . . XCpvav:
so II. II. 711 o? dt $tpas ivifiovro irapai Boifiytda Xi/ivrjv k.t.X. Cf. Strabo c. 436
Meineke. The lake was called BoiprjLs or Boifiia Xlfivrj from the - town of Boebe
which was situated upon it. The epithet KaXXivaov is puzzling, especially as the
lake is said to have no outlet, though several streams flow into it. When
applied to a river or fountain (e.g. Med. 835 KaWivaov . . . K7j<f>l<rov) the term
is appropriate enough; but why use it of a lake? Woolsey suggests that it
refers to the water moved to and fro by the wind, but probably the poet is not
speaking by the card.

590ff. We may render: " And for his tilth and the level stretches of his
fields he sets as limit on the side toward the sun's evening resting-place the
clime of the Molossian mountains " ; apdrois yvav refers to the rich arable lands
as distinguished from the ire5l<av 8air^5ots, the upland pastures with their broad
expanses. iirirdo-Tcuriv: properly the stable where the Sun puts up his steeds
at night. For the expression, cf. fr. 771, 5 N. %(a <f>aevvas 'HXi'ou 6* iwTro<TT&<rei$,
and Pollux I. 184. After MoXotrow two shorts and a long are needed to corre-
spond to <ro(f>Las of 602. Probably some anapaestic word has dropped out; Bauer
and Earle suggest 6/><W, which may well be right. The responsion might also
be restored by striking out dyafxai in 602, and so I actually reads ; but this would
spoil the antithesis in 602-3.

595. At-yaCttv : the schol. takes this word as an adj. agreeing with 6.kt7}v1
for he paraphrases: Kparet Kal iirl tt\v AiyaLuva aKTrjv tt)v tt6vtlov Kal akLfxevov.
He is probably right; though some edd. regard the word as a noun. There are
at least three possibilities: (A) MyaLujv maybe an adj. —Aiyaiov; (B) it may
be the name of the sea-giant put for the sea itself by u metonymy " (so Jerram,
Earle), or (C) it may be a substantive meaning u the Aegean sea " ; cf. Hesych.
S. v. Alyai&v • ivdXios 0e6s. Kal rb irepl t&s KvK\d5as iriXayos. If it is a noun,
it is the object of Kpartivei: but if, as seems more probable, it is an adjective,
Kparijvei is used absolutely, " he rules as far as the harbourless Aegean sea-
strand of Pelion." The MSS. have aiyaiov; but the schol. certainly readCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

125

Aiyalwv', and the antistrophe (604) has---. For the phrase Monk com-
pares Troad. 1 tjkcj \lttOjv Alyaiov a\fivpbv fiddos | irbvrov.

596.	Reiske would read dXifxivov for aXl/xevov, which is an easy change and
may be right. ITqXCov: the mention of Pelion would naturally recall to a
Greek the fearful shipwreck of the Persians on the Magnesian coast in 480 b.c.
The name "Ittvol or "Ovens" was given to a part of the II^Xi&s either
because of the seething of the waters there (so Earle) or more probably because
of the oven-like caves in the cliffs which may still be seen there. Cf. Herod.
VII. 128 and Strabo IX. p. 443 M.

597.	Sopiov dpircTdo-as: short-hand expression for 7nJ\as 8b/wv a fjLTrer da as.

598.	voTcpu p\€<f>dpw: i.e. "in spite of his grief." gtfvov: the correspon-
dence requires this form; the MSS. have %hov.

599.	<|>C\as: so the Aldine. The MSS. have <f>i\la$, but the strophic line
(589) has ^ —.

600.	apnOavf): an extremely rare word.

601.	Render: "for natural nobility of soul is impelled too far toward
respect for others' rights": iK^iperat strictly means 44is carried out of the
proper course," the figure being that of a race-horse or runner who swerves
out of the bounds of the race-course. Hence it implies a mild censure of the
excessive hospitality of Admetus. Cf. Soph. El. 628 opq.s; vpbs dpyrjv iic<p£pei.
Alddbs is a word almost as untranslatable as the rb tL fjv ehai of Aristotle.

602.	irdvra o-ocjnas = ivaa-a <ro<f>ia. €v€<rnv: so Barnes for evecm, to restore
the responsion. fryapai: "I am filled with awe and wonder." The word
is not in Z, and many editors omit it (see note on 594). But without it the
antithesis between 602 and 603 is lost, and 8' of 603 becomes merely
connective.

604.	Many edd. compare Aesch. Ag. 945 6apaos evreidte tfa (ppevbs <f>l\ov
dpbvov. The sense then is: "Confidence sits (enthroned) at my heart." This
seems better than to render rjarai " lurks " with Liddell and Scott.

605.	<|>c»Ta: here, as in 472, without contemptuous force. reSvd irpd(j€iv=
kclx&s irpd^eiv. As Monk acutely observes, " ea vox (k€5i>6s) usum habet non
minus late patentem quam ayadbs vel &r0X6s." He compares Troad. 683 vpd&iv
tl kedvbv, and for the idiomatic use of the neut. plu. of the adj. with wpda-a-eiv
Orest. 538 Ovydrrjp 8' ifiij 0avov<r sirpa&v evSaca, I. A. 346 irpda-frovra fieydXa,
El. 1359 €v8alfiova irpavaei. To these may be added Heracl. 438 (rdSe irpd<r-
(reiv = ovtcos wpd(t<t€lv, a nearly similar case), Aesch. Ag. 1397 dnjua 8' ovk
€irpa%dtt)v, etc.

606-962. Third Epeisodion. The king comes out of the palace, followed
by his attendants carrying the bier on which lies the body of Alcestis. See
note on 1. 422.

606.	dvSpwv <&€paCa>v €V|i€VT)S irapovcrCa = tivdpes <1>epcuoi ev/ievCjs irdpovres, but
the use of the abstract gives the address a certain dignity and formality.

607.	irdvT : sc. rh. xpba<popa.126	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

608.	apSTjv : for the testimonies of the ancient grammarians as to this
word, see Ellendt Lex. Soph. s. v. It is used once by Aeschylus, three times
by Sophocles, and at least half a dozen times by Euripides, h Ta<|>ov t€ Kal
irvpav: cf. Suppl. 1058	/cat Trvpq, <palv€L iriXas. Monk and others long
ago pointed out that this passage of our play and 740 seems to imply that the
body of Alcestis was to be burned, and are therefore inconsistent with 365 f.
and 897 f., which clearly imply that it was to be buried. Hence they have
reproached the poet for carelessness. Dr. Verrall, on the other hand (see his
Euripides the Rationalist pip. 122 ff.), holds that "the sort of pyra which he
(i.e. Admetus) has in view is a grave-pyre, in which, as he says, not on which,
the corpse would be placed. It is a mortuary kiln, a chamber in the royal
tomb, opening from the floor of it. Here the body would be laid; here that
of Alcestis was laid and left by the performers of the funeral. Afterwards —
at night we should probably suppose, since one object of the whole arrange-
ment was to achieve a sanitary purpose without insulting the majesty of the
dead or affronting the eyes of the living — fire would be put to the fuel with
which the chamber had been provided, and the chamber closed." He then
compares the so-called " grave of Agamemnon" discovered by Schliemann at
Mycenae, and the "fiery rock-chamber" of I. T. 626 (irvp lepov evdov x&<tim
t evptairbv irirpas). But this solution, ingenious as it is, is not, I fear, wholly
correct. Dr. Dorpfeld, probably the highest living authority, holds (cf. Schuch-
hardt Schliemann's Ausgrabungen2 p. 194) that there is no trace of cremation
in the "shaft-graves" at Mycenae; the ashes found in them (and in other
tombs at Volo, etc.) have probably come from burnt-offerings. In the words
of Rohde (Psyche p. 31), " Den Eiirsten ist reicher Vorrath an kostbarem
Gerath und Schmuck mitgegeben, unverbrannt, wie ihre eigenen Leichen nicht
verbrannt worden sind; sie ruhen auf Kieseln, und sind mit einer Lehmschicht
und Kiesellage bedeckt; Spuren von Rauch, Reste von Asche und Kohlen
weisen darauf hin, dass man die Korper gebettet hat auf die Brandstelle der
Todtenopfer, die man in dem Grabraume vorher dargebracht hatte." If this
"Brandstelle der Todtenopfer" is the irvpd of the Alcestis, the difficulty is in
great part removed ; the body is laid upon it (cf. 740), but not burned. I find
no proof in the Alcestis that the queen's corpse was to be cremated. The case
of Capaneus in the Supplices'980 ff. is quite different; there the body is burned
on a pyre in the open air. As to the passage from the Iphigenia, that refers
to a barbarian country; and the custom there spoken of was felt to be so
un-Greek that Diodorus (XX. 14) actually suggests that Euripides had in mind
the human burnt-offerings of the Carthaginians ! — Instead of is L P have irpbs,
which Wecklein (Beitrage zur Kritik des Eur. p. 538) prefers. Either reading
gives good sense; but is is peculiarly appropriate if the tomb and irvpd were
of the character just described, as the body would be carried to and into the
burial-chamber.

609.	It was a religious duty to take a last, solemn farewell of the deceasedCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	127

before the body was burned or buried. This was commonly done by exclaim-
ing xa?/>e (among the Romans vale), adding the name of the dead person. See
Hermann-Bltimner Privatalt. d. Griech. p. 370 note 3. The chorus are pre-
vented from at once complying with the king's command by the coming of
Pheres; but they take their farewell in vv. 741 f. after the old man's departure.

610.	Cf. the English u to take the last journey," to the grave.

611.	Enter the aged Pheres, followed by attendants bearing rich ornaments
for the dead. yqpaCcp iro8C: cf. Hec. 64 yrjpaias x€LP^si Soph. 0. C. 200 yepaibv
a&fia, and the like.

613. vcpTcpcov d^aXjiaTa: ayaxfia may be used here as often in Homer, =
irav e<f> (f tis dydWerai) the idea being that the dead actually rejoiced in the
offerings and honors bestowed upon them. This belief is a very wide-spread
one among primitive peoples, and survives even at the present day to a much
greater extent than most persons probably imagine. The word may, however,
mean simply u ornaments."

617.	Sv<r<|>opa: dw/jLevr}, the reading of all the MSS. but L P, has been
defended as being the u difficilior lectio''''; but I fear that it is "difficilior " in
another sense of the Latin comparative. As Jerram and others observe, dvo--
fi*j/^s,is very rarely used of things; and the (rxvfJLa eTv/jboXoyiicdv ((ptyeiv . . . dvafiopa)
is too Euripidean to be lost. As Earle points out, dvepuevrj may be due to the
iih just above at the end of 616 ; or it may be merely an unskilful attempt to
fill out a lacuna by some one who found only dv<r . . . legible in his MSS. For
some of the numerous emendations that have been suggested, see Sel. Conj.

618.	Kara x®ovos tTa>: i.e. be buried with her.

620. tjns -ye : causal relative. 41 It is to be observed that either 8<ttis or 3s ye
generally represents this causal sense (expressed in Latin by the subjunctive),
but that we sometimes find both combined, precisely in the same way " (Paley).

623.	€vk\€€o"T€pov: so B. The other MSS. have the superlative, which
would be too extravagant, especially as the tone of the speech is a trifle cold
and perfunctory.

624.	cp^ov tXcutci : cf. Med. 796 rXatr epyov avoanbraTov: ib. 1328, etc. It
is hard in such cases to decide whether the verb is really transitive or whether
there is an ellipsis of dpav or iroieTv: but instances like Hec. 1251 rd ^ /caXA |
irpd<r<T€iv MXfias, etc. seem to point in the latter direction.

627-8. The edd. compare a proverb quoted by the rhetor Aristides, y Toiati-
ttjv xp^l yafieiv V MT/ yap-civ. \v€iv : avrl rod \v<riT€\eii> Schol. Cf. Med. 566 ijwl
re XiJei Toivi fxPKkovo-iv t^kvois | r& fu)vt dvijcai, ib. 1112, 1362.

629. rjXOes: uthe aorist, expressing simply a past occurrence, is sometimes
used where we should expect a perfect" (Goodwin M. and T. 58). 4J cjxov:
source passing into agency. This use of e£ is especially common with verbs
of giving, and perhaps originated with them; though even in Homer occur
such cases as II. II. 33 ifprjirrai iic Ai6s, ib. 669 i<j>i\7]dev iic Ai6s, etc. In Attic
prose the preposition is rarely used to denote agency.128	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

630.	<|>C\oio-i: probably masculine (cf. 1037), though some take it as neuter.
<n|v irapov<r£av = at irapbvra. Cf. 606.

631.	tovtov : so Earle. The MSS. have rbv <rbv, which is highly suspicious,
as we have <rf\v in 630 and tQjv <rQv in 632. The change from rbv <rbv to tovtov
is really very slight.

632.	Nauck would reject this line as an interpolation; he says (Eur. Stud.
II. p. 65 f.): "Die im zweiten Verse gegebene Begriindung fur das Zuriick-
weisen der Schmucksachen ist unpassend schon an sich und zumal in dieser
Situation; kein Todter bedarf des Schmuckes, und nicht darum weil Alcestis
schon hinlanglich versorgt ist, sondern weil Pheres sein Leben mehr geliebt als
seinen Sohn und weil er somit den Tod der Alcestis verschuldet, werden seine
Gaben verschmaht. Es scheint daher unzweifelhaft das v. 632 dem Dichter fremd
ist; vermuthlich haben wir in den Worten tGjv <tQv ivde^s einen Doppelganger
zu rbv crbv kvbxjo-erai." But according to the Greek conception the dead did
need the clothes, etc. that were buried with them; had Nauck forgotten the
story of Periander and his wife Melissa (Herod. V. 92), the money that was
put in the mouth of the corpse, etc. ? It is clear from his words that he has
lost the point of the taunt; Admetus means u When I bury her she will have
enough ornaments from me, and will not be at all in need of gifts from such
as you." One can easily imagine what a world of scorn a good actor would
infuse into the words tu>v crQv. 'Evdeys is saved from ambiguity by the context;
otherwise the sense might be "she will have plenty of your possessions when
she is buried." Cf. Troad. 906 ^ davy roud' ivdc/js.

633.	t6t€ : the asyndeton and emphatic position are very effective. w\\v-
(mjv : a fine example of the imperf. denoting likelihood or danger. Cf. Here.
F. 537.

635.	*y^p«v wv is certainly awkward, and Earle's conjecture yepaibs is very
plausible. He compares Phoen. 103 yepaiav vtq. x&P k.t.X. Still Euripides
may have written ytpwv harsh as it sounds. See note on Ifiv xpV"i 379.

636 ff. These lines have been suspected by many commentators, and with
good reason. Admetus has far too strong a sense of "the divinity that doth
hedge a king" to make such a damaging admission in regard to himself. The
only question is how many lines are to be rejected. G. A. Wagner wished
to reject 641, and Nauck 638 and 639. Badham and Prinz regard 636-41 as
spurious. For other opinions see Sel. Conj. Earle retains 640-41, and sug«
gests that 634-9 is a parallel passage (from an Oedipus?) which was written
in the margin and has crept into the text. This seems, on the whole, the most
probable view. Admetus would never have admitted that he was the son of
a slave, but might very well in his anger go so far as to say that Pheres was
not his father.

636.	TjcrG' apa: "the imperfect fjv (generally with Apa) may express a fact
which is just recognized as such by the speaker or writer, having previously
been denied, overlooked, or not understood " (Goodwin M. and T. 39).CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

129

639.	v«TT€p\^0T|v : this passage shows how viro^aWeiv came to be the technical
word for substituting a child, like Lat. supponere, subdere. Cf. viro^oXifxaTos.

640.	els €\€"YX0v tfjeXGwv:	like /caTepxecrflcu, is used of one who
engages in a task, trial or conflict. Cf. Hec. 226 /m$t es xeP&v d/JiiXXav i^Xdris
i/jLoi. Woolsey compares Soph. Phil. 98 els eXeyxov i^nbv, which, however, is
not quite parallel, os : not 4 4 who you are " (which would be rls or Hans ef),
but *' what sort of man you are " (= olos el). So in Latin in indirect questions
qui sis = qualis sis.

642. Tapa = rot &pa. aravrwv: diairptweiv here is followed by the gen.
after the analogy of verbs of superiority and comparison: some, however,
regard tt&vtwv as partitive genitive. The genitive-construction with this verb
is very rare.

644.	r)0&T)cra$: in Attic prose idtXco, not 0<*\w, is the usual form, and in
Attic inscriptions does not appear until about 250 b.c. In the tragedians
both forms occur in lyric passages, while in trimeters the pres. idtXw is excluded
for metrical reasons. The aorists ^Xrjcra and rjdeXov, according to Yeitch,
belong only to idtXw.

645.	€ta<ra,T€: because the mother is included, the plur. is used.

646.	o0v€Cav : see note on 532.

647.	The Kal is probably intensive, not correlative with r. Good writers
never, or almost never,* employ icaL. . . re like re . . . icai: and in passages like
fr. 328, 3, Aesch. Suppl. 708, Septern 558-9, Eum. 75-7, etc. which some have
regarded as exceptions to this rule, a close examination shows that Kal and
re are not correlative. Hermann regards the Kal. . . re in our passage as a
kind of anacoluthon instead of Kal nyrtpa Kal wartya, and renders quam ego
et matrem, —patremque adeo duco solam, the use of re for Kal thus giving greater
emphasis to iraripa.

647. The &v was inserted by Elmsley, B and a having only r ivdUw. L
and P have re 7', the 7' being clearly "metricorum supplementum." |&6vi)v:
so L P a. B has ip,6v, whence Nauck conjectured ifxol. Probably in the MS.
from which B was derived fxbv-qv had lost the last two letters, and ifxdv was an
attempt of the scribe to restore the text by filling out the word. 434 (see note)
is not a parallel case, as there B, L P and a disagree; while in our passage
the agreement of a with the other family makes it probable that nbvyv stood
in the archetype.

648-9. Note the emphatic position of Ka\bv and roO <rov irpb 7rat56s. Earle
would read Kardaveiv, quite needlessly. The participle is conditional.

650. irdvTWs: to be taken with ftpaxvs-

651-2. These lines, which are obviously an imitation of 295-6, are rejected
by Lenting, Nauck, Paley, Prinz, Weil, Weeklein and Earle. They are very
weak and inept, and are certainly an interpolation. €£»v: see note on 295.

* Cf. however, Andr. 59 evvovs 8k Kal <rol £GjptI t' fjv t$ cf irbaei.130

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

653. Kal jjl^v : "and what is more," introducing a new point of special
importance.

655. irats 8* t|v 4*yw <roi: Nauck's conjecture fj yey&s col is ingenious but not
convincing. The emphatic pronoun of the first person is quite in keeping with
the self-esteem which belongs to the character of Admetus. SidSoxos: u per-
haps a substantive, as in Aesch. Prom. 1027 " (Earle). This view is probably
correct, though Euripides generally uses diddoxos as an adj. Cf. Andr. 743,
803, Hec. 588, Suppl. 72. Sopwv is suspicious, as the next line ends with Sbfiov.
F. W. Schmidt's Opbvwv for d6jj.<av is very plausible, though I have not ventured
to receive it into the text.

657.	\€h|/€iv cpcWcs: for the periphrasis see Goodwin M. and T. 428 (a).
efjLeWes: in the indie, with wor to express actual result (M. and T. 601). 8iap-
irdo-ai may be inf. of purpose, but is better taken as inf. limiting the meaning
of 6p(f>av6v (M. and T. 763). The order distinctly favors the latter view. All
MSS. but L P have 5iapTrd<reii>, which reading is clearly due to the influence
of \etyeiv just before.

658,	659. &Ti^&£ovTa, irpovSwKas (sic) L P. With this reading the sense
will be: 44 You will not say, either, that you gave me up to death because I did
not pay respect to your old age." The rest of the MSS. have an/idrb <rbv
and wpovdojKd <r\ which gives the meaning: " You won't say, either, that it was
from disrespect for your old age that I gave you up to death." The former
reading is clearly better suited to the connection. Admetus is arguing that his
father has no reasonable excuse for being unwilling to die in his stead. Pheres
has enjoyed sovereign power ; he has a son to take his place, and that son has
always shown him due respect, so that the old man cannot plead ill-conduct
on the part of Admetus as a pretext for unwillingness to make the sacrifice.
This is clear and consistent. On the other hand, the other reading makes an
abrupt transition to the defense of Admetus himself against a possible accu-
sation from his father. The schol. must have had irpotibuKas and dri/idfav rb
abv in his text; for he observes, oddly enough : ob /jltjv ipeis ye <Js daveiv fie irpoti-
ScoKas arifid^ovra rb <rbv yrjpas. rb ydp arifiafav avri tov arifid^ovra. Or is the
last clause of the scholium a later addition by one who had arifidfav in his text
and was trying to reconcile it with the scholiast's explanation ? ov ji.t)v €p€is:
cf. Aristoph. Nub. 53 oti /jltjv 4p(a y <as apybs 9) v. For the proleptic fi Monk
compares Soph. El. 552 ipeis fikv ovxl vvv y£ fi ufs tipZaad ri | \virripbi> eJra <rov
rdS' e^Kova viro. at86<t>p«v: only here in Euripides. Sophocles has it once
(O. C. 237 w &voi alM<t>poves), Aeschylus not at all. It seems not to occur
elsewhere.

660-61. X®^Plv *iXXaJdn|v : c^*	<t>bvov <j>ovev<ri irarpbs dWdt-wit i/iov.

662.	ovk£t dv <|>0dvois: for this use of <pddv<o with a participle see M. and
T. 894.

663.	yupoPoo-K^jo-ovcrt: cf. Med. 1032 ff. eX%ov iXirldas | iroWds iv v/mv yrjpo-
^oaK^(reLV r efik \ Kal KaT0avov<rav xePff^v €® Trepi<TTe\eiv.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

131

664. ircpurrcXowri, irpo0r|<rovTaL: technical words; see Hermann-Bliimner
Griech. Privatalt. pp. 362 ff.

666-68. These three lines were rejected by Badham; Nauck, too, rejects
668 as absurd, and proposes to read r65e instead of \4y<a. But it is not neces-
sary to reject or change anything. It is perfectly true that Admetus cannot
logically call himself the yrjporp6(pos of his dead wife. But who is strictly logical
under such circumstances? Almost every impassioned speech of this kind,
when closely analyzed, shows inconsistencies and absurdities. Admetus means:
44 I will not cherish you in your old age nor bury you; those duties I owe to
the one who has preserved my life, and who is therefore my real parent." The
fact that Alcestis is dead is for the moment left out of sight, rovirl <r : &<rov
rb Kara <r4 schol. So Hec. 514. ijfieis 8' Atckvoi tovttI <t\ and Rhes. 397. avyas:
sc. vjXiov. So 868 avyas wpocropQv, and Hel. 1373 avyas eiaropav.

669 ff. Euripides loves to close a long speech with a maxim or moral
apophthegm. jiaTTjv: note the emphatic position.

671. The edd. call attention to the fact that this line violates the so-called
Urule of Porson." This celebrated rule, as stated by Porson himself (Suppl.
ad Praef. ad Hecubam), is as follows: 4 Nempe hanc regulam plerumque in
senariis observabant Tragici, ut, si voce quae Creticum pedem efficeret termi-
naretur versus, eamque vocem hypermonosyllabon praecederet, quintus pes
iambus vel tribrachys esse deberet. . . . Res eadem est, si Creticus in trochaeum
et syllabam dissolvitur, vel si, Cretico in syllabam longam et iambum dissoluto,
syllaba longa est aut articuius, aut praepositio, aut quaevis longa denique vox,
quae ad sequentia potius quam praecedentia pertineat.' It is clear that in the
first sentence quoted Porson has either made an error or is using 4 Creticum
pedem' in its wider sense, to include the Fourth Paeon (www —); otherwise,
if the fifth foot were a tribrach, the line could not end in a true Cretic (—w —).
Just below he is evidently using 4 Creticus' in the narrower sense. Porson's
rule has been frequently misstated by grammarians. The principle is perhaps
best expressed thus (cf. Hadley-Allen 1091, 5): 44 if the fifth foot of a tragic
trimeter is divided by a caesura, the syllable immediately preceding that caesura
must be short or a monosyllable." To this there are two principal exceptions.
One is thus stated by Porson himself: 4 Verum si secunda quinti pedis pars
ejus sit generis, ut praecedenti verbo adhaereat (i.e. an enclitic or &v after an
elision), et ambo quasi unam vocem simul efficiant, non jam amplius necesse
erit, ut verbum praecedens brevi syllaba terminetur.' For a list of cases of
this kind, see Wecklein Studien zu Aeschylus p. 130. The other exception
is when the main caesura falls in the fourth foot (see Wecklein I. s. c., who
gives a list of cases; cf. Hermann El. Doct. Met. p. 22), as in the line in
the text.

673-4. "AS|U)0a, iravcrai: so Mekler for Tratio-aaO' and w irai. irafoaaQ* is

clearly wrong, as Pheres has thus far taken no part in the dispute, and the
ging. Tra/wfifrfls immediately follows. <3 irai was doubtless written by mistake132

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

under the influence of the J wai just below, and has probably displaced an
imperative. Then some one, seeing the need of an imperative, inserted irati-
<ra<rd' in place of the first word of 673. "A5/^0' is supported by the analogy
of 416, 552, 1007, and irav<rai by the parallelism with 707. Mekler, however,
(Euripidea pp. 14 ff.) gives a more artificial explanation of the origin of the
corruption. He suggests that a strip containing the first four letters of 673
and 674 had been torn out, and that some one in filling up the lacuna from
another copy made a mistake of a line and filled up the gap in 673 with the
first six letters of 674 and that in 674 with the first two letters of 675, thus:

[IIATCAC]e.

[o n]Ai

(But if his restoration of the text is right, the sixth letter of 674 would have
been I, not C, and we should have had in 673 not [IIATCAC]0 but [IIAT-
CAI]0.) c|>p€vcts:	I P, "under the influence of Qptiya" (Earle).

675.	avxcts: here, as usual, in a bad sense. AuSov rj ^pv-ya: cf. Aristoph.
Aves 1244 <f>£p' irbrepa. Avddv r) $pfrya | ravrl \£yov<ra ixopixokOrreadaL doKets;
The proverb marks the contempt of the free Greeks for the servile Asiatics
very forcibly.

676.	xaicois IXavveiv: cf. Androm. 31 kclkois irpbs airr}* (rxerX/ois iXativo/jLai,
Ion 1619 Stw d' eXativerai | (rvfupopais oIkos (which is slightly different). apYvpco-
vtyrov: a rare word ; cf. Aesch. Ag. 913 apyvpojv^Tovs v(f>ds.

677-8. These two lines are an echo of a favorite formula of Attic law.
yey&r* yvho-Cws: really a figura etymologica, as yvyaius is from the root
yev-, yvt]-.

679.	vcavCas: adj. as in Hel. 209, 1562, Here. F. 1095 and often. It has
here a bad sense, "insolent." Jerram well observes: "This use of the word
would be familiar at Athens, where the fashionable young men of the day
were in the habit of committing assaults upon respectable citizens."

680.	A difficult place. Most editors since the time of Elmsley take ob with
ovrws, and render "not so easily " or "not with impunity," comparing Heracl.
374 otix ovtus a SokcTs kvptf<reis. They either take fiak&v absolutely, "having
fired your shot," or supply with it \6yovs, kclkois or the like. Probably this is
right; but it is at least possible to take ov with /SaXo^, "without hitting (your
mark) " ; cf. Bacch. 1179 rls a (3a\od<ra irp&Ta; This use of j3d\Xw is by no
means rare from Homer down. Oirrws would then mean " as you came," i.e.
without accomplishing your object. The order of the words seems to me to
favor this interpretation; but it is undeniably less effective than the direct
threat. Weil would read irai for kclI in 679, and Wecklein would change ov
in 680 to /coi), thus bringing plirrwv into agreement with the subject of vfiplfas.
The conjunction of the two participles is certainly awkward, and the emenda-
tions are tempting; but I have not ventured to receive them into the text.
Render "and since you keep flinging at me words full of the insolence of
youth, you shall not get away with impunity after firing your shot."CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

133

687-8. Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. 69ff.) says of this passage: "Der begrtin-
dende Satz irarpbs — irdpa ist hochst ntichtern und nicht einmal passend fur den
Zweck des Pheres, der zeigen will dass er fur seinen Sohn genug gethan habe.
Das Futurum Xctyu scheint sich mit iroXXCbv dpx^s nicht zu vertragen; wenn
Admetus Konig ist, so hat er nicht auf den Tod des Vaters zu warten, um in
den Besitz der iroXtiirXedpoi ytiai zu gelangen. Die Stelle wiirde somit gewinnen,
wenn V. 688 fehlte, d. h. wenn man vorher schriebe iroXXQv fikv	iroXv-

irXtdpovs 8' exets yvas." This reasoning is most sophistical. I quite agree with
Kvigala (Stud, zu Eur. p. 80), who points out that the words irarpbs — irdpa
were intended to stand in strong contrast with 683 ov yap irarpQov rbv8' £8e£d/n)i>
v6ijlov, and that the future Xetyw shows that Pheres, while giving up the sover-
eignty, had reserved for life the use of the royal estates. And what could be
more "ntichtern" than Nauck's proposed reading?

691. This line is quoted by Aristoph. Thesm. 194, and amusingly parodied
in Nub. 1415. Cf also Hec. 1256 (a similar cadence).

697. Xfyeis: "talk about," "tell of," probably a colloquial use; \ptyeis is
an old conjecture which was revived by Cobet, and which Earle adopts; but
no change is necessary. Cf. Xen. Cyropaed. I. 3, 10 Xiycov 8k UKaaros vfiQv r^v
eavroC p&fjLijv, and the like; also the Latin use of narro, e.g. vigilantiam tuam
tu mihi narrasf Terence Adelphoe 398. This use of X£yw may have been
developed from the poetic use in the sense of 14sing of," "celebrate."

700 f. ct tt]v irapovcav ... yvval\ : a most biting taunt, rots |xrj 0&ou<ri, u any
who are unwilling " ; the pAi, of course, gives the participle a conditional force.

704-5. Monk aptly compares Terence Andria 920 si mihi per get quae volt
dicere, ea quae non volt audiet.

706-7. Note the parallelism with 673-4. to : Wakefield for ra of the MSS.
irXcCa) will then mean " more (than is fitting) " as often. The reading ra prob-
ably arose because some early copyist was thinking of the construction irXeLw
tf tcl irplv icaicd. KCiKoppo0d>v : so Hippol. 340 t-vyySvovs Kaicoppodeis.

708. X&javTos: so the MSS. With this reading the sense will be : " Speak
on, assuming that I have spoken (ill of you). But if you don't like to hear
the truth (about yourself), you ought not (on that account) to wrong me."
Admetus means to imply that he did not abuse Pheres but merely told the
truth about him, though the latter chooses to assume that the case is otherwise.
There is no need of changing X^avros to X4£ovros with Reiske or to 'Xey£ovros
with Hermann. The latter based his emendation on the schol., which says:
Xiye oJs Kal ifwv KaicGjs Xti-avros, 8t <Sv ovk rjd^Xrjcras virkp ifiov diro&aveiv (where for
XQclvtos a has iXeytjavros and B £X4yt-ovros). Hermann thought that the schol.
wrote KaXQs iXtyfcvros, i eoque certe vestigium verae scripturae servavit1; but
it is more probable that the true reading in the scholium is KaicQs Xifcvros
(Schwartz) or KaKCos <re X^avros (Dindorf). In the line from our text Dindorf,
Nauck and Earle retain X^avros: Prinz and Weil follow Hermann, and Weck-
lein accepts Reiske's emendation.134	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

713 ff. A difficult passage. It is clear from 714 that some kind of an
imprecation immediately preceded. In the MSS. 714 immediately follows 713 ;
hence the question at once arises: "Is 713 an imprecation?" Many edd.
follow Schaefer in omitting av and reading Kal /jltjv Ai6s ye fielfrva x?^vovt
rendering " May you live longer than Zeus at least," or the like. To this there
is the twofold objection that the MSS. have av and that such an imprecation
would surely have seemed impious to an Athenian audience. Such language
is not at all consistent with the character of the pious Admetus. Others (so
Hermann, Paley) retain &v and render, "You had better live longer than Zeus,"
av ^rjs being used like xa^P0LS &v an(* the like. But this converts the line into
an ironical recommendation, not a curse. On the other hand, 719 is an unmis-
takable wish that misfortune of some kind may befall Pheres. Hence Nauck
is probably right in placing 714 immediately after it. 713 will then be a mere
"potential optative-clause," "And yet you fain would live longer than Zeus
himself." The schol. oddly observes : Kal fyaeias fxeL£ova irapb. (jbv) tov A ids
Xpbvov. o yhp fi^v Kal av iraptXicci, which looks as though he wanted to take the
line as a wish, but found ^v and &v in his way. Another schol. is: efytras
Tocrovrov xpbwv foov ° Zel^, which (if extras be not corrupt) looks as though
some read an indicative in place of av fays. On the form fays (so L P rightly;
f(6ois the other MSS.) see Nauck Eur. Stud. II. p. 70. That critic would put
714 and 715 after 719 and not transpose any of the other lines; but the arrange-
ment in the text, which is that of Wecklein, seems better, though it involves
more changes.

717. Van Herwerden wished to insert y after o-rjs. The particle seems to
be needed, "Yes, a proof of your cowardice " ; this use of ye in answers is too
familiar to need illustration. L and P have the variant a-rjfieia y J k&kkttc
Tavr &yf/vxlas, which is weaker, as the emphatic ttjs <rrjs is lost. Wecklein
brackets 717-18 as an interpolation, on the ground that 717 and 721 are too
much alike; but this seems hardly necessary. Admetus reiterates his charge
in spite of the old man's denial.

719. <j>€v is followed by a wish in the same way I. A. 666.

722 ff. Note the triple rhyme (f>i\ov, r6 veKpbv. Was this intentional,
to give a mocking, sneering effect to the lines ? 4v avSpaouv: so 732, I. A. 945
iy(b rd fjt,7)d^v, Mevfaews 8' iv avdp&aiv. Orest. 1528 ovre yhp yvvirtyvKas ovt
kv &v8pd(rtv <rti y el is, of course, different. Androm. 591 <ro0 ttov	ws iv

avdpdaiv \6yov ; illustrates the origin of the idiom.

725.	Oavrj: here all the best MSS. show the form in y. Cf. 247.

726.	kcikos dkoveiv: so male audire in Latin. p&ii: so i p, rightly,
the other MSS. having /uAXet. These two verbs are often confused in MSS. —
The line is one of those immoral sentiments which drew down on Euripides the
censure of Aristophanes and other men of the old school. Of course Euripides
himself should not be taxed with upholding the opinion here expressed.

731. re: L P have 51, doubtless a copyist's error. croicri: so L P a. BCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

135

has TolffL <tot(Ti (with aolai cancelled by the first hand). The variant is interest-
ing as showing how easily the article may creep into the text where it does not
belong; see note on 318.

732.	"Akcuttos: B has &K\av<rros, a curious instance of text-corruption.

733.	For the construction, cf. Cycl. 691 ei ^ <y eraipuv Qbvov iTificoprjadfxrjv
and fr. 559.

734.	i'ppcov: B a have eppois, L eppov, P eppo (with an erasure of one letter
after the o). The schol. observes : eppois vvv avrds : <t>6elpov* elra ££ eripas apxvs *
ical clutos Kai i] £vvoiKodad aoi yt)pd<jKere &ttaides, ws eark d^ioi, Kai ravra e/Mov £Qvtos.
rivks dt eppcjv ypdfpovori abv r<J v, iva y fierox^l dvri p^fxaros tov eppe. "Eppov we
may dismiss at once, as eppo p. cu is never used by classic writers. There remain
eppois and eppwv. Of these eppwv is clearly the more idiomatic and elegant;
eppois is too weak, as an imperative is needed rather than the milder optative,
and the asyndeton eppois — y-qpaaKere is also an objection. See Nauck Eur.
Stud. II. p. 71. vvv: so Lascaris; the MSS. have vvv. It is, of course, the
intensive vvv which is required. ^voncfjo-acrd <roi: Admetus uses this formal
phrase to avoid calling her /jnf}T7)p.

735.	aircuSe irouSos ovros: a fine oxymoron.

736.	tSS' €t : so Elmsley; rude y B a, r<35' tr L P. Cf. 719, where Kirch-
hoff would read rovd'er for tovB4 y\

737.	veio-0*: the pres. of v^o/xat, like that of e?/a, is generally used with a
future sense. The word is poetic.

739.	tovv iroo-Cv k.t.A. : a common proverbial expression. Cf. Andr. 397,
J. T. 1312, 938, and esp. Soph. Antig. 1327 fip&xL(TTa y^P Kpdriara t&v iroalv
kolkol. Jebb ad loc. compares Pindar Pyth. 8, 32 r6 5' iv iro<ri /moi rpdxov. a has
rdvpLTToaiv, B rov/iwocri, which may well be relics of the original spelling. See
Meisterhans p. 85.

740.	«s av: on final clauses with ws &v in Euripides, see Schanz Beitrage II.
pp. 100, 104, where Weber has collected the statistics. See also M. and T.
325 ff. and Gildersleeve in Am. Jowr. Phil. IV. p. 422. — Pheres passes out at,
or soon after, 730, and at the command of Admetus (739) the procession starts
again and moves off from the scene to the left. The chorus joins the procession,
and takes a solemn farewell of Alcestis, as Admetus had directed (609-10). At
746 it probably vanishes through the left-hand parodos. The anapaestic system
741-6 is, of course, sung during the march.

741. o*X€rXia toX|it]s: KaprepiKT) rrjs rSXfjiTjs x^-PLV the schol., who therefore
felt the gen. to be causal. The original meaning of ctx^t\ios (from ex&>) seems
to have been u clinging to a thing," hence "persistent," ''steadfast," "stub-
born." The genitive may be really, as Earle suggests, a "gen. of part taken
hold of," like the gen. with e'xe<r0at.

743-4. x^VL^s 0' epfirjs re B^xvO' B. But Hermes x#6j>ios (=ipvxa~
yuySs or \pvxoironir6s) is properly mentioned first, as Alcestis would meet him
first and be guided by him down into the realm of Hades. Hence the other136	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

reading is preferable. irapcSpcvois: the appropriate word, " be the chosen
attendant" ; trpoo-edpeijois, the reading of L P, is obviously less apposite, though
Trpoaedpetiw is an Euripidean word (Orest. 403).

747. The servant comes out of the door of the %evdov (i.e. probably the side-
door to the right of the main entrance to the palace). The semi-comic nature
of the following scene has often been remarked upon. Heracles is here the
gluttonous hero of comedy; cf. Aristoph. Pax 741. airo iravroCas \Qov6s: a
very unusual expression, to which I have found no parallel elsewhere in the
tragedians, 41 from every possible country." Aeschylus does not use iravroTos:
Sophocles has three cases, Euripides at least four.

749. £4vov: so Dobree for &vov. The genitive would be a not impossible
construction; but the prevailing usage favors the emendation, and the change
is really very slight.

752.	&p€£t|ra<r0<u irvXas: "The proper meaning of the middle probably is,
4 to have the position of the door changed with respect to oneself,' i.e. to have
it behind, whereas it was just now in front" (Paley). d/neLj3ea0ai rt may mean
" to pass beyond a thing" either inwards or outwards, and so either to enter
or to leave it, according to the connection. Cf. the Homeric d/Aetyercu fy/tos
656vtu>j>, and Hesiod Theog. 749 f.

753.	ovti: one is tempted to read otidt, uhe did not even receive the
proffered cheer with proper moderation"; but the change is not absolutely
necessary.

755.	B has <ptpoiev which is clearly a blunder. The speaker is himself one
of the slaves in question.

756.	4v x€^P€<r<ri • so a (xeipeai the other MSS»). Cobet and others long
ago asserted that this epic form is out of place here in a trimeter and in a comic
portion of the play. See Sel. Conj. for some of the emendations that have
been suggested. But the epic form,, as Jebb points out in his note on Antig.
1297, was probably used intentionally, to give a mock-heroic tone to the pas-
sage. Cf. ejjLoio-iv in 793, yetvaai 947 (also in trimeters). kC<t<tivov : ivy wood
was a favorite material for drinking-cups. Monk compares fr. 135, Gycl. 390,
Horn. Od. IX. 34&, Add Theoc. I. 26 ff., where there is an elaborate descrip-
tion of such a cup (jci<r<r6(3iov). See also Athenaeus XI. p. 476 f., 477 a, b.

757.	pcX.a(vT)s p/qTp6s: i.e. tt}$	fitxawa is a common epithet of the
Earth, perhaps not so much from her color as from her position among the
dark, mysterious chthonian divinities, cvgupov: "pure," " unmixed," Lat.
meracus. Hesychius wrongly defines the word by emtpaarov; but Photius has
rightly etifapSrepov, aKparbrepov. Suidas has both definitions. The derivation
from (eff, s) and use of the word are both in favor of the signification
"unmixed." It is a rare term. |i€0u: originally honey-wine, as the cognate
words show, but used of wine in general from Homer down. See Brugmann,
Vergl. Gram. II. p. 295. (Has the word any connection with Hebrew meseq f
The resemblance of olvos and yayin has often been noted.)CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	137

759.	fivpc-CvTjs: so Canter for ixvpaivois. See note on 172. On the use of
the myrtle at symposia, see Guhl and Koner Leben d. Griech. u. Bom.6 p. 310.
Myrtle chaplets were so much in demand at Athens that the flower-market was
called at fivppLvai (see Aristoph. Thesm. 448).

760.	apovo-': " cognate " accus., like aefivbv in 773. —The words 8t<rad . . .
yde are not in L P (in L a later hand, has added them in the margin). They
are not essential to the sense, and may well be an interpolation. I have
bracketed them as suspicious.

761.	£v AS^tou : sc. 56^, as often.

764. TfyyovTcs: best taken with ideiKw/jiev, "we did not let the guest see
that we were shedding tears. Others take 6fj.fxa as direct object of tdeUw/xev
and also to be understood with rtyyovres, u we did not show our faces (eyes)
to the guest while we were weeping."

768. ov8' 4££r€iva x€V : 011 gestures of mourning see Sittl Gebarden d.
Griech. u. Bom. pp. 65 if., where this passage should have been cited. The
schol. compares Aesch. Choeph. 8 ovd' e^reiva %et]p' iir £ic<popq. vacpod. Monk
cites Eur. Suppl. 772 aXX' cI/jl £irapQ> x^P diravrrjaas venpoh.

769 ff. A pleasing and characteristic touch. Such a state of things must
have existed in many Greek households.

771. op-yas.' Euripides is fond of the plural of fy>7^, using it nearly twenty
times. Compare in English " whenever he falls into one of his rages."

773. ovros: used here in unceremonious address, as. often. So Hec. 1127,
1280, Hel. 1627, Or. 1567, etc. itc<|>povtik6$ : this use of the perf. participle
with verbs of looking is very rare in Attic, though not uncommon in late writers.
See Jacobs' ed. of Philostratus p. 590 and Lobeck's Phrynichus p. 119 for ex-
amples. There seems to be no other case of the construction in Euripides.

775.	cvirpcxrifyopo): a favorite Euripidean word; cf. Hippol. 95, Here. F.
1284, Suppl. 869, fr. 1132, 45. It means properly ueasy of address"; cf.
Latin adfabilis, our " affable."

776.	avSp' craipov: so eraipos avrjp in II. XVII. 466, Od. VIII. 584. The
presence of an apparently pleonastic av/jp in such cases is probably due to the
fact that the other substantive was once an adjective. So iraTpos (for irdpios)
probably originally meant u following" ; see Bezzeriberger's Beitrage IV. p. 327.
Traces of the adj. use of iraipos may still be seen in classic Greek, e.g. Plat.
Gorg. 487 D rots aavrov eTaipoTdroLS.

777.	<rvvco<|>pva>|a€va>: Nauck would read (rvvuxppvujfjLtvos, which would be
more idiomatic; but the change is unnecessary. If authors always used the
most idiomatic constructions, their works would be u like plum-puddings made
only of plums," as some one has well put it.

778.	OvpaCou . . . €\wv: these words recur in 1012, which is probably an
interpolation from this line, or is due to a mistake of the same kind as gave
us 312 (1012 — 778 = 234 = 6 pages of 39 lines each — a singular coincidence
if accidental. See note on 312).138

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

779.	Kal <ro<t>a>T€pos: a sly hit. Heracles, though somewhat exhilarated, is
not by any means drunk; and his speech is consistent enough from one point
of view.

780.	otSas: Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. p. 71) argues at great length that we
should read otadas: but in this passage, Athenaeus IV. 175 d. (a fragment of
Philemon, 44 Kock), and Xen. Mem. IV. 6, 6 the MSS. all have oUas. See also
Rutherford New Phryn. pp. 227-8, who cites the testimony of the gramma-
rians. He observes*. "Nauck is rash in the extreme to alter oldas to 6l<r0as in
Ale. 780. .. . There is, in fine, not one assured instance of the form ohdas
in Attic of any period.'*

781.	otpcu |A€v ov: note the colloquial tone. Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll.
107 B and C) has SokQ for oT/acu, doubtless quoting from memory. — This scene
where Heracles expounds his easy philosophy is delicious. Wecklein calls
attention to the rhymes 782-5, which heighten the humorous effect.

782.	Proverbial; cf. Soph. El. 1173 (cited by Jerram), Menand. Mono-
stick. 69.

783.	A favorite Euripidean cadence; cf. 848. Plutarch has ea-nv avruv,
probably through confusion with some other line which was also m his mind.

784.	ttjv (rj|x^pav) avpiov pcXXouo-av elvai: cf. Soph. Track. 945 oi yhp e<r0'
% y avpiov, Alexis fr. 241 K. Through this ellipsis of	avpiov was fairly
on the way to become a true feminine substantive. In the line in our text
it would be easy (though, I think, needless) to read ttjv wtpav fitWovaav and
take avpiov as a gloss which has displaced the true reading.

785.	to rfjs tvxtis • an intentionally vague expression. Elmsley proposed
rd for t6 : the plural is more common, but that is not a decisive reason for the
change, irpop'fjo-crai: cf. Med. 907 Kal /jltj Trpopaht} fiei^ov fj rb vvv kclk6v, Orest. 511
iripas drj iroi kclkwv TrpoftrjaeTai; and esp. Med. 1117 KapadoKu) T&iceWev oT irpofirj-
<terai. Hippol. 342 no? Trpofirjaerai \6yos; ib. 936 <pev tt)$ (Sporelas • iroi irpofii)-
aerai ; <f>pev6s may also be compared. The sense must be : " for it is uncertain
how far fortune will proceed," i.e. what will be its outcome. Wecklein would
read 'iroprjo-eTai: but the emendation, though undeniably elegant, is not, I think,
necessary.

786.	dX.(<TK€T<u	: cf. fr. 811 raQavrj | reKiirjploiviv eUdrus dXlffKerai.
Pflugk cites Soph. 0. T. 110 rb dt ^ijro^fievov | aXarr6*>, Phil. 863 rb 8' aAwcrt/xov
ifiq. <Ppoprldi, irai, w6vos o fxij <f>ofiG>v kp&tkttos.

790. ttjv irXeio-rov f|8C<TTqv: cf. Soph. Phil. 631 rrjs ttXcicttov	ifiol

. . . ix^vr)s-> 0- C. 743 el /xij itXei&rov avdpdi)ir(av e<f>vv | /cdUtcros, and from Eur.
himself Med. 1323 6 fiiyiarov	l^vai, Hippol. 1421 ndXurra <f>L\Taros.

792. ravra: as Hermann pointed out, Markland's conjecture iravra is quite
needless; ravra = u these of yours."

795. irCfl: irlei MSS. irvXas: the MSS. have ri?xas, except that in a the
first hand has written in the margin yp. irtXas. The schol. says: ypd<f>erai irtXas
%v y • uTT€p(3(is rds irtiXas • el 8&	Kara(ppov^<ras, I should be inclined to readCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

139

riJxas were it not for the fact that the words rdo-5' . . . irvKa<r0ds are almost
certainly an interpolation from 829 and 832. The interpolator wrote 7rtfXas,
as in 829. Then some one, wishing to avoid a repetition and obtain a more
appropriate meaning, emended irv\as to rtfxas. The change then reacted in
turn on 829, where a has Tt/xas 7ri)Xas by the first hand. The expression mrep-
fiaxwv tijxcls can hardly be paralleled, and I believe that Wecklein is right in
bracketing rdo-5' . . . irvKaedds.

796.	oOovvcKa : = ws or 6Vi, as not infrequently in the tragedians.

797.	<{>p6v&v: so lp; the other MSS. have kclkov. Of the two readings
(ppevuv is clearly the better; but neither is satisfactory, though Jerram com-
pares Hippol. 983 i-ti<tta<ris QpevQv. The view of Ivirchhoff, that there was a
lacuna in the archetype at the end of 795, which was filled out in different ways
by grammarians or copyists, is extremely probable. The true reading cannot
be restored with certainty ; Nauck's rpdwov is very plausible, though I have not
ventured to receive it into the text.

798.	A bold nautical metaphor; pcOopixU^iv, 44 to shift (a vessel) from one
anchorage to another," is repeatedly used by Eur. in this figurative way'
(Bacch. 931 Zdpas fjL€0ibpfxi<ra [rbv irX6/ca/u,oi>], cf. Med. 258, 443). ttCtvXos : the
plash of wine poured into the cup ; but when used in connection with fiedopiiiel
the nautical meaning of the term would instantly occur to an Athenian hearer.
Hence I must agree with Earle in regarding <tk1j<Pov as an dirpo<rd6krjtov added
at the last moment by way of joke, though Mr. England (Class. Rev. IX. p. 52)
seems to hold a different opinion. Euripides uses ttLtvXos of the plashing of oars
(I. T. 1050, 1346, cf. Troad. 1123), of the sound of falling tears (Hippol. 1464),
of the noise of beating with the hands (Tro. 1236), of the crash of spears strik-
ing in the onset (Heracl. 834), of the sudden and violent impulses of madness
(I. T. 307, Her. F. 1189) or panic (Her. F. 816). Difficult is Troad. 817, where
Svoiv witijXoiv is generally taken as meaning "two encounters" or the like; cf.
Heracl. 834.

799.	Some English poet has the line 44 For mortal thoughts beseem a
mortal mind " ; but I have been unable to find the source of the quotation.

800.	Earle calls attention to the sigmatism of this line. Note also the
repetition of avvuHppvuixtvois (cf. 777). The effect is to give the words a highly
contemptuous tone.

801.	<os . . . KpiTfj: quoted by the schol. on Soph. Aj. 395 to explain the
use of ws ifjLol in that passage.

802.	This line has two substituted dactyls, showing how far Euripides
deviated from the metrical usage of Sophocles and Aeschylus. 44 Quid quod
Alcestis, quae inter fabulas est summa metri severitate compositas, versum
continet, qualis 802 . . . quo loco ne id quidem excusationi est quod vocabula,
quae initium efficiant versus, arete inter se cohaereant ? Sed ne cui suspicio
incidat, opus esse corrigi ilium versum, tenendum est, Herculem ilia pronuntiare
verba paullo liberiore utentem metro" (Mueller Deped. sol. p. 98). That the140

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

line is not corrupt is sufficiently shown by the other cases of resolution cited
by Mueller I. s. c. See also Rumpel Die Auflosungen im Trimeter d. Euripides
Philol. XXIV. pp. 407-21.

803. lirurrdpccrOa: so L a, rightly, as the metre shows. The other MSS.
have £iri<TTd/jLeda.

807 ff. The (mxonvdla which follows has given a great deal of trouble. As
far as 809 everything seems to be clear; but with 810 the difficulty begins.
Prinz regards 810-11 as spurious, without assigning any adequate ground for
doing so. They are probably genuine; but it cannot be denied that when
they follow 809 (as in the MSS.) they occasion difficulty. As Nauck points
out (Eur. Stud. II. p. 75), Euripides would never have been so careless as to
let 811 immediately precede 812, leaving it to the reader to divine that obceios
Ijv refers to the dead person and ovk e<ppa£e to Admetus. By removing 810 and
811 a perfect connection is restored at 809-12. But what is to be done with
810-11 ? Nauck would insert them immediately after 813. But 813 and 814
give an excellent connection as they stand. It is the ominous phrase Seo-Trorwf
kcucd that makes Heracles observe 88' ov dvpaluv irrffxdtuyv &px€<- X^yos. (Cf. Her.
F. 537-8.) On the other hand, where can the indignant question 810 come
in so fittingly as after the broad hint in 817 that the guest's presence is unde-
sirable? I am therefore strongly in favor of the arrangement in the text,
which is due to Wecklein — all the more because I had come to the same
conclusion quite independently after long and careful study of the passage.

812.	€<j>pa£e : for the use of the imperf. (almost == ovk ipothero 0pa£*eip), see
Goodwin M. and T. 38.

813.	xa^Pa>v W : a polite intimation that the conversation is to be dropped.

815.	ti . . . <r' op«v: <re . . . opdov L P, a much inferior reading, as it loses
the force of the expressive ti. —The implication is, " (Yes), for had they been
dvpaia, I should not have been displeased," etc.

816.	aXK* fj ireirovOa 8«Cv : a stereotyped phrase expressing surprise and
vexation at an unpleasant discovery. So I. A. 847 (cited by Earle); cf. Bacch.
642, Or. 1616. Sclvcl ird<rx€LV seems to have been almost a slang expression;
cf. Aristoph. Ran. 252, Eccl. 650, etc. Euripides is excessively fond of the
adj. deivbs.

817.	4v Slovri: cf. Hippol. 923, Med. 1277, Or. 212.

810. ovv€K : ovveKCL is the only form found in Sophocles, and is the prepon-
derating form in Aesch. and Eur. (see Kiihner-Blass II. p. 251, 10). Moreover
it (I am speaking of the preposition) is attested by at least one Attic inscription
(C. I. A. IY. b, 491, 8) of the fifth century. (C. I. A. IV. b, 422 No. 4 is doubt-
ful, as there Kirchhoff believes the word to be a conjunction and the lacuna
makes it impossible to decide the question. See Meisterhans p. 177, 25 and
note.) Hence those who would change it to elVe/ca (as Prinz does in this
instance) are probably in the wrong, ev ird<rx€tv: "be hospitably treated."
Nauck would read eS irpdaaeLv: but his objection, that irdax^ cannot referCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

141

to "das innere Behagen," amounts to nothing; for it is not " das innere
Behagen " that Euripides means.

811. This line is a most conspicuous example of the power of the Greek
particles, a power which so often may be felt but cannot be expressed in trans-
lation. oIkcios : dvpatos (so a) is in my opinion a mere guess, though Lascaris,
Matthiae, Hermann, Woolsey,* Yerrall and others prefer it. The sarcasm
would undeniably be more forcible with that reading; but the authority of a
cannot stand for an instant against B LP. The schol. says ovk fjv dXXA
irdw oi'/ceta, which may look either way. — The place which in the text is occu-
pied by 810-11 is filled in the MSS. by the two bracketed lines which follow
(818-19). These are open to two objections: they break the (ynxofivdla, and
the schol. has on 820 the note: ravra. 8£ tol Tpia^lafLpeia) iv tktiv oitK eyiceiTai.
Hence Kirchhoff rejects 818-20 as an interpolation; while Nauck would reject
816-19, reading Tteaapa instead of rpla in the scholium. The whole trouble
is, I think, due to 818-19. Wilamowitz and Klotz defend them; but surely
it is not accident that almost at the very place where the a-TLxofivdia is inter-
rupted the schol. remarks that three lines are not found in some copies. Either
the lines are an interpolation, or they were arbitrarily rejected by some ancient
scholars. I firmly believe them to be spurious. 820, on the other hand, makes
a good connection with 811, and should probably be retained. I conceive the
history of the passage to have been about as follows: 810-11 originally stood
after 817. By a copyist's blunder they were torn from their proper context
and inserted after 809. Then, observing the lacuna thus left, some one com-
posed 818-19 and inserted them in the gap; and, being either careless or
ignorant, he interrupted the o-tlxohvOLcl. In composing the two lines he prob-
ably had in mind 215-17, 427 or 923, or all of them. The rpla of the schol.
is then a mistake for 5tio. Hannemueller's proposal to reject 817-20 and read
iriirovde 8eivd tls in 816 is ingenious but futile, as the corrective fit? odv in 821
is fatal to it.

820. The text is that of L P; a has tl <f>pov8ov vj, B tl <ppov8ov yivos rj (yivos
deleted by the first hand). The reading of L P, with its constructio ad sermon,
is bolder and more characteristic; and tl <ppov8ov is probably due to some
grammarian who wished to bring the gender of tls in accord with that of
t£kvojv. The ytvos of B (whence Earle conjectures fiCov y yivovs tl <f>povdov) is,
if I mistake not, the remnant of a grammatical gloss on the gender (yivos)
of <f>povdos (or <f>pov8ov). The schol. says: apa, 07/cr^, a<f>av^s iyheTd tls tQv
TraLSCjv 77 o ykpw iraT^p awtdavev. (Note that he says ytpuv iraT^p, not iraT^p
ytpwv with Wecklein; though he may have transposed.)

826. -no-Oojiiiv . . . I8wv: "I noticed that I saw." So England; this is,
I think, better than to take yo-Obfiyv and ISdov separately, with Earle.

* Woolsey's objection to ot'/cetos, that " it supersedes all further inquiry," is obviated
by Wecklein's arrangement of the lines, as Heracles at once infers (820) from the servant's
words that Admetus has lost a near relative.142

CRITICAL AND EXEGETlC.v. AOTES.

827.	irpoo-wirov: probably corrupt (Prinz). Those who retain it explain
it as referring to the expression of the face, like Latin vultus (so Earle, who
compares Ion 925, and others). But surely the order — eyes, hair, expression
— is very odd; though cf. Med. 1071 f. (xe£p, Kdpa, orxv^i Trpfowirov). In place
of irpbaunrov we should expect either (1) an adjective qualifying Kovpdv, e.g.
Herwerden's dvairpdaojirov, which Wecklein accepts, or (2) a noun denoting
dress or general appearance, e.g. Stadtmiiller and Mekler's irewXibfiaT. None
of the conjectures that have been made seems really satisfactory (see Sel.
Conj.), irp6(TQ\pLv (cf. Or. 388) among the rest.

828.	k^Sos : euphemistic for veicpbv.

829.	pia 8c Oupov: "against my inclination," like pig. <f>pevwv. ra<r§' . . .
irvXas: here these words appear in their proper connection. See note on 795.

831.	Kf^Tci Kcojxdtw : so a (except for the i subscript); B has Kara/cw/xd^w,
L tear' iKu)juLa^ov, P KCLireKibfxa^ov. "The preceding imperfects seem to have
caused the alteration of M/idfa — which is properly used as denoting an action
not fully ended — into £K(bna{ov, and the other reading(s) then easily arose"
(Woolsey). The source of L P probably had iKtifxafrv: the reading of P
is due to the common mistake of w for r.

832.	iruKa<r0€is: note the contemptuous force, "loaded with garlands."
See note on 796. <rofl to <|>pd<rai: there is much doubt about the construction
of these words. At least three possibilities arise: (1) a\\d may be corrupt
for some verb of blaming or wondering; (2) <ro0 may be "exclamatory geni-
tive" and t6 /ultj <ppd<raL the articular inf. used in exclamations (M. and T. 805),
as is held by Monk, Paley, Weil, Wecklein, Earle and others, probably with
reason (cf. Med. 10511) ; (3) maybe understood, "it was your fault not
to tell," as the schol. and Woolsey explain it. F. W. Schmidt's r65' ^v for
r6 \jJ) and Matthiae's /xoi for ^ are ingenious but not convincing.

833.	irpoaK6ijjL€vov: Scaliger's certain emendation for irpoKCL^vov. See 551
and note.

834.	irov viv: ttoi viv Monk; but	not fioXdv, predominates in the
writer's mind.* In Hippol. 1153 irol (7rod A, 7rrj Christus patiens 1863) 7ijs dvaKra
TTjaSe Brjcria /ulo\<bv | evpoifi &v and Soph. Aj. 403 wot /noX&v ixevGj the participle,
011 the other hand, stands nearer to the adverb than the verb does, and so
predominates. The order is significant.

835.	Aapurav: \dpi<raav the MSS.; but the grammarians and inscriptions
show conclusively that the form with one <r is the correct one. See Nauck
Eur. Stud. II. pp. 77 ff.; Meisterhans p. 75, 12. |€<tt6v : i.e. made of polished
stone. Cf. Hel. 986 tQ8' M £e<rr$ rdQip. Such monuments must have been
familiar to every spectator, common as they were in Athens. Nauck's xiaarbv
for &<jt6v is quite unnecessary. As Earle well observes, "the objection that
any proper monument could hardly be set up at such short notice is of little
moment; for the poet intended his audience to think of the lovely sculptures

* See on the other side Wecklein Beitrage zur Kritik des Euripides p. 540.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

143

of the Ceramicus, situate 4ttI tou koWIo-tov Trpoaarelov rrjs 7r6\ews (Thuc. II. 34,
6).11 Besides, when a monarch commands, work is done quickly. 4k irpoa-
o*t£ov : the metre requires the form without e in this place, Pindar fr. 129,
2, Soph. El. 1431 (cf. Soph. fr. 647 yijs irpoacrrlas) and Polemo Anth. Pal.
XI. 38 (see Nauck Eur. Stud. II. p. 77). Nauck regards trpodvTiov as the
correct form of the word, and Trpodo-reiov as an erroneous form which was
perhaps introduced under the influence of dareios. There seems to be no
passage where the metre requires the form with e; but Suidas (s.v.) and
Choeroboscus (Cramer's Anecd. II. p. 250) speak of irpodvTeiov as the regular
form, and Suidas mentions the Sophoclean usage as exceptional. This may
mean merely that the grammarians in introducing the form 7rpodareiov found
that the passages from Sophocles would not fall into line, and so one of them
wrote the note in question. The change from i to ei is much less natural than
that from ei to i, but the analogy of aarelos may be sufficient to account for it.
The question must for the present remain sub judice. See Lobeck Paralip.
p. 253, where the grammarians are cited. The metrical inscriptions give no
help in this case. The force of the phrase iic irpoacrrlov is also in doubt. What
relation does £k here express ? (A) Some connect ck irpoavrlov with /car6^et,
" You will see the tomb from the suburb(B) Others still take e/c = e£w or
itcrSs (so the schol. and Jerram). Others (C) take it in the sense of " next to,"
"adjoining" (so Bauer-Wecklein). Others again (D) suppose an ellipsis of
l&v els rbv aypbv or the like (so Paley). The true explanation is, if I mistake
not, that of England (E), who says: " Is it not better to take it as = kv
irpoaaTly, as it were 'looking at you from the suburb'" ? As so often, the
Greek prefers the point of view of motion to that of rest. The speaker thinks
of the image as coming (as it were) from the suburb to meet the eye of Heracles.
See for an excellent statement of this and allied uses of in Matthiae Greek Gr.
(Eng. trans.5) § 596. Euripides even uses the £k construction with verbs of
standing and sitting; see Jebb's elaborate note on Antig. 411, and cf. Donkin
in the Classical Rev. IX. p. 350. The tomb would naturally be in the suburb,
like those in the Ceramicus, which the poet doubtless had in mind. As far
as sense and metre go, Euripides might have written here iv 7rpoa<rT^, though
it is not probable that he did so.

837. Exit Servant, ical x€*p': a ^as ^vxh r , an inferior reading probably
due to the influence of Or. 466 w rdXaiva KapSia tyvxh t i/n^.

839. 'HXcKTpvdvos €7€CvaT : -rfkeKTptiovos C (which, however, is of slight
authority), iyelvar Blomfield. a has ^XefcrptWos, the other MSS. ^XeKrpvQvos:
all have yeivar. The epic form ydvar can scarcely be right, as in trimeters
the omission of the augment occurs very rarely, and then only in the beginning
of the verse. Hence it seems necessary to read iyelvar , and this in turn neces-
sitates reading fH\eKTpv6vos. The usual form of the gen. is that in w (cf.
Here. F. 17 'HXeKTptiwpa); but in Apollod. Bibl. 2, 4, 5, 6 the MSS. have the
form with o. See also Nauck Eur. Stud. II. p. 78, Kuhner-Blass L p. 476 (with144

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

the 44 Nachtrage" ad loc.). Wilamowitz has proposed the very ingenious and
elegant conjecture 'H.\eKrpvuvr) 'yelvar', which may be the true reading; but
the probabilities seem to me to favor 'H.\eKTpv6vos.

841.	k&s tovS' ISpvom Srffiov: els because of the motion implied in idpvaai,
" (bring and) set down." Cf. Ion 1573, Hel. 46.

842.	viroupyfjo-cu xdpiv: Monk compares Aesch. Prom. 635 crbv epyov, 'lot,
rated* inrovpyrjaai x^PLVi Soph. fr. 315 ^ <f>r)s iirojivifs avdvirovpyrjo-ai x^Plv'

843.	|X€Xd)iirT€pov: the MSS. have fieXdfjLireirXov, but, as Musgrave long ago
pointed out, the schol. seems to have fxeXdixwrepov, for he says: elBuXoTroieirai fieXalvas
irrtpvyas ex<*>v o Qdvaros. MeXdfnreirXov is appropriate enough ; but fxe\dp.irr€pov
is the finer and more poetic term. Cf. Hec. 71, 705, Hor. Sat. II. 1, 58. Besides,
as neXdfjnreirXos occurs in this play (according to one reading) in 427 and in the
interpolated line 819, it might easily have displaced the other word.

845. About this line much critical controversy has raged. The older edd.
retained the MSS. reading ir Ivovra, and took irpovtpayndruv as 1 'partitive geni-
tive " with it. Then arose the question why Heracles expects to find Thanatos
drinking of the blood-offerings. To this various answers have been given.
Koechly (Litt.-hist. Taschenb. von Prutz 1847 p. 381) suggested that the poet
merely intended to produce a comic effect, adding that the guess of Heracles
is ''eine kostliche Yermuthung fur einen Trinker von Profession" ! Much
more plausible is the view of J. Lessing (Be Mortis apud veteres figura p. 25
note 5) that the poet had in mind the passage of the Homeric NVfctna (Od. XI.
23 ff.) where the shades taste the blood of the victim. The habit thus attributed
to the shades might well be extended to the &va% veicpQv, Thanatos (cf. Rohde
Psyche p. 540 note 1). F. W. Schmidt (Sat Grit. p. 29; cf. his Krit. Stud. II.
p. 24) objects that xIvovra. would assume that the burning of the body was
already in progress. But Heracles has just learned that Alcestis is dead; he
has not seen Admetus for some time, and knows that the funeral-rites are
going on (iBdirreL 834). Why then should he not suppose that "der Akt der
Leichenverbrennung schon im Gange war1' ? Besides, even if the objection
were just, a poet does not always speak by the card. Schmidt conjectures
ireivwi>tcl, uhungry for" the offerings, which is accepted by Prinz and Bauer-
Wecklein. Nauck, Weil and Earle retain wivovra : Dindorf conjectured tfrvTa,
Hartung irirvovTa (!). The schol. read irIvovra, which I believe to be sound.
vpo0*4>aYiiaT6>v: for the part. gen. after irlvw Weil compares Od. XXII. 11 6<ppa
irloi otvoLo. So also Od. XV. 373, XI. 96 (in the very passage which, according
to Lessing, Euripides had in mind). The force of irpo in irp6<r<f>ayfia is much
disputed. Some think it refers to the offering of the blood-sacrifice in front of
the tomb, others that a irp6<r<f>ay/jLa was so called because offered in behalf of
some one, others still that the sacrifice was given this name because it preceded
the offerings of milk, honey and wine which were made to the dead. I have
little doubt that the term originally denoted a preliminary sacrifice of some
kind and then was gradually jjiade to include other kinds of blood-offerings.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.*

145

846.	XoxaCas: this reading was recovered from the schol. (ypdcperai Xo-
x(a)las) and the cod. Flor. of the Etymol. Mag., where the line is cited thus
(with wrong division of words): K&virep Aoxcua aavrbv i&dpas. The MSS. have
Xox^o-as. Cf. fr. 727 b, where oXtov \o\oXov is used of grain in which one can
lie in wait (iv <f €<tti \oxv<rai, Etym. Mag. I. s. c.).

847.	mpipdXw: so Monk; weptjSaXw of L P is due to some one who took
both this verb and n&p\f/(a to be fut. indie. The other MSS. have TreptpaXuv,
which is clearly wrong, as the preceding shows. Nauck would read re for
84: but in such cases 84 has a slight climactic rather than adversative force,
almost = " and what is more," though weaker. Ipatv: Nauck suspects this
word to be corrupt, a has ifxa by the first hand, which the second has cor-
rected to e/jLCLv and the third to ipatv. There is probably not sufficient ground
for emendation.

849. irplv . . . p,€0jj : M, and T. 648.

851.	al|&aTT)pov ir&avov: here not of a sacrificial cake, but of the clotted
blood of the offering. Cf. I. T. 300, Bhes. 430, Or. 220, etc. r&v k&tg> :
explained by Kdprjs and dvaKros, which are in 44partitive apposition" with
it; Tjjv KaTco (sc. 656i>), the reading of- the Aldine, is a neat but needless
emendation.

852.	B has avrjXlov : but avrfKlovs, the reading of the other MSS., is shown
by the position and sense to be right. Cf. Here. F. 607.

854. Wecklein compares II. I. 441 trarpi iv xe/ocri rldei.

856.	ireirXiTYiiivos: TrewXey/jLevos has been conjectured, but lacks MS. author-
ity. Cf. 405 and Here. F. 1393.

857.	F. W. Schmidt thinks this line is spurious, and calls attention to the
repetition of yewaios three lines below. But Greek writers were less sensitive
to blemishes of this sort than we are.

859. eActS' obviously a mere " copyist's blunder." The Attic inscrip-
tions show that during the classical period the gemination of consonants was
pretty carefully observed.

860 f. Exit Heracles, to the left. Admetus and the chorus return by the
same way by which they left the scene at 740 ff. Admetus sings a short
anapaestic lament, followed by a responsive song between him and the chorus.
The whole scene from 861-934 is a ko/jl/iSs : see Aristotle Poet. 12, 3.

862.	H-€^®PWV : cf- in English uher widowed couch." atat: as to
the number and form of the interjections there is much difference in the MSS.
Thus in 860 I has added a second £c6, and so Hermann and Earle read. In 862
B has fxoL only once; at the end of the line, too, there is disagreement (see
Critical Apparatus). The reading in the text is that of Prinz and Nauck;
Wecklein omits aiat altogether, Hermann and Earle double it. The arrange-
ment of the anapaests, too, differs in different editions; the text follows Prinz.

863.	ir<j: restored by Porson (see his note on Hec. 1062). I has 77-77, the
other MSS. wo?. The adverb of rest, not that of motion, is required; and 71-77146

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

would be quite out of place in a lyrical passage and surrounded by Doric forms
(cf. dXol/xav just below).

864.	The same question occurs in Med. 97, Suppl. 796, Rhes. 751. On the
construction (originally a deliberative question, implying a wish, " how can
I" = " would that I could") see M. and T. 728.

865.	€T€K€v : this, the reading of L P, is confirmed by the metre.

866.	kcCvcdv €pajiai: to restore the symmetry of the clauses F. W. Schmidt
would read rc/ctW dyapai. There seems, however, not to be sufficient reason
for any change. The repetition Kdvwv . . . kcTv expresses very forcibly the
speaker's yearning, and iceivwv (euphemistic) is no more vague or weak than
Kane? in 744. Cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 751 kcLvojv epa/iai, kcWl yevolfiav, which looks
like a parody, or at least a reminiscence, of this passage.

868.	avyas : see note on 667.

869.	iroSa ircj^vcov: a striking example of the 4 ' cognate'' accusative. I have
not been able to find another instance of ir65a irefeveiv.

870-71. A difficult passage. The schol. gives two explanations: tolovtov
iv^XvPov toty ifiov, tva Kaytb airo0dv<a. Xvirotifievos yap di avrTjv djrdWv/xai, and
6/j.rjpov : ivixvpov- t°v ^ tv? <f>7}<tt'v	avrv yeyovivai r^v "AXkijo-tiv • ami yhp

a&rov Sudoral t$ "Aidy. The former is, I think, the correct- one, as awoavXifiaas
shows. Admetus regards Alcestis as his pledge or security for living. But
Thanatos has robbed him of this security and has delivered it to Hades; so
that Admetus has now no guarantee that his life will continue to be spared.
This is, of course, illogical, as it is the death of Alcestis which is the real
security. Admetus, like most weak characters, would fain uhave his cake
and eat it too." If the other explanation were correct, aTroavXtfiaas would be
out of place, for Thanatos would only be doing his duty in taking away Alcestis
and handing her over to Hades. diroavX-Zja'as implies violence or fraud, and
hence could not be used of a mere legal transfer. The figure is that of stealing
hostages from an enemy.

872.	K€vOos: except in fr. 781, 63 this word seems not to occur elsewhere
in Euripides. Sophocles has it once (Antig. 818), Aeschylus twice (Eum. 1013,
Suppl. 744).

873.	Hermann read here ireirovOds, in agreement with the subject of padi,
while Musgrave read irtirovd&s y'. These changes they found necessary because
they read in 890 irtyas 5' otidtv with L P. But if we accept there wtpas

y (so a, and B except for the division of 7'), there is no need of changing
irtirovdas. (aXytwv in 890 is to be scanned with synizesis.)

874.	8t oSvvas «Pas: cf. El. 1210, Phoen. 1561, cited by Monk. So in
English uto pass through suffering," with a similar underlying material
conception.

877. This line is certainly corrupt, as we have only -irov to correspond to
-fee <pav- of 894. The difficulty lies, in all probability, in &vra (so the MSS.).
Hartung conjectured <f evavra, which is probably right. See Sel. Conj. forCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	147

other emendations. Cf. Or. 1478 ivavra d* IfKdev, Soph. Antig. 1299 t6p 8*

evavra irpofrfihtiru veKpbv.

878. TjXKttMTcv: a very strong word. Cf. Suppl. 223 (which, however, is
not quite a parallel case). B has here o/aov <f>p4p yXicoxre, with wrong division
of words and loss of a syllable and a p. The value of that MS. is greatly
diminished by the extreme carelessness with which it was written.

879-80. The construction of dfiapreip and d\6xou has been much disputed.
At least seven views have been advanced: (1) we may punctuate e/xvrjaas o /jlov
<f>p4vas rjXKtixrev (rl yap avdpl kclk6p fieifyv;), afiapreip THTTrjs a\6xov (so Schaefer) •
(2) we may suppose an ellipsis of ; (3) we may take dfiapreip as = rov afiapreip
(so Wuestemann and Earle); (4) we may suppose an ellipsis of rofrrov, with
which dfiapreiv is in u explanatory apposition1' (so Wecklein); (5) we may
assume an inversion of the clause for afiapreip iriaTijs a\6xov— rl fieifap kolk6p;
(so Hermann and Paley); (6) we may render '''-quid enim tristius est ad amit-
tendum quam Jida uxor"? taking d\6xov as gen. after fieifrp (so Hermann
formerly); (7) we may take rl directly with afiapreip, 44 What loss is greater
than (the loss of) a faithful wife " ? (so Bauer). Explanation (1) is flat in the
extreme; (2) and (3) are, I believe, impossible. I have not been able to find
any instance of a simple infinitive after a comparative without ij or rod. Verse
11 op dapetp ippvcrdfx-qp, is different, as there is no comparative and daveip is not
for toO davelp (see M. and T. 807). (4) and (5) are harsh, and the same may
be said of (7). I believe that (6), which Hermann proposed and then retracted,
is substantially correct. Render: "What is worse (lit. 4 a greater evil') for
a man to lose (afiapreip epexegetical inf., 4 as to losing it') than a trusty wife?"
Cf. in English 44 A good wife is a bad thing to lose." The only alternative that
I can see is to boldly emend tL y&p to tIpos and render 44 What is there the loss
of which (lit. 4losing what') is a greater evil than (to lose) a faithful wife?"
iri(tttjs dXSxov being for rov trkrrijs a\6%ou a/xapreip (comparatio compendiaria).
But probably the change is needless. mo-Tfjs : so L P a, and Stobaeus Flor.
69, 12. This is clearly better than <pi\las of B,' which comes from 876 <pi\ias
d\6xov. itot€ . . . otycxov: the view that in this construction u ^ originally
belonged to the inf. and afterward came to negative the whole expression"
(M. and T. 736) seems improbable. The position of ix^ is against it, and
besides does a case like w^eXe roCro iroieip, 44 he ought not to be doing this,"
ever occur in classic Greek? Cf. II. XVIII. 367. Of course, cases like eid'
w0e\e p.}] yeptfrdai (where yJj and yeptadai form one idea) do occur (e.g. Med. 1).
The other alternative, that jmy was prefixed after the original meaning of u<t>e\ov
was obscured and it came to be looked upon as a real wish-construction, has
the analogy of etde and el ydp with <a<f>e\op in its favor, and is probably the
correct view.

883. |xCa -yap \|/vx^: this order of the words (so B a L) is certainly right;
if/vxy ydp pud (sic), the reading of P, does not suit the metre, and xj/vxrj St /uGL
(sic) f that of Z, is wrong, as the explanatory ydp is needed, and besides has148	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

too slight MSS. authority, t^s W«p d\*y€iv : '' The use of the verb inrepaXyiu
with a genitive, 4 to grieve for or because of a thing,' is attested by the Greek
lexicons from Stephanus down. Only four passages, however, are cited as
examples of this usage until we come down to late writers. These are : Alcestis
883, ffippol. 260 tt}<t8' irn-epaXyQ, Antig. 630 an arris Xexiw virepaXy&v, Aristoph.
Aves 466 ovrtos vfi(av wrepaXyQ. It is clear at a glance that in all these cases
the verb follows the genitive, so that it is perfectly possible to read virep with
anastrophe. Hence they by no means prove that the compound verb virepaXyeiv
was .used by classical writers with a genitive in this sense. While I will not
venture to assert that it was never so used by them, I have not been able to
find a certain instance " (Ed. in Harvard Studies VII. p. 221). There is cer-
tainly none in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar or the tragedians and comedians.

885-6. Blomfield compared II. X. 63 Kal OaXdp&vs Kepai£op.ivovs. OavdTOis:
Seidler long ago pointed out that Euripides often uses the plural of ddvaros
when speaking of a violent or premature death.

887-8. &tIkvois d-ydpois r : it is hard to decide between the dative, which
is the reading of L P, and the accus., which is that of the other family. The
accus. is grammatically the difficilior lectio, and as it is supported by the schol.,
I should be inclined to accept it were it not for the fact that we have dyd/uovs
ariKvovs re in 882, which might so easily have affected the reading in 887-8.
Most edd. accept the accusative.

889.	Svo-irdXaic-TOS: so Suppl. 1108 J dvairdXaiarov yrjpas, Aesch. Choeph.
673, SUppl. 451.

890.	L P have 8' otiStv: see note on 873. 8i y ov8h is probably right;
"setzest du doch deinen Thranen keine Grenze " (Wecklein). 8' er' ov84v has
occurred to me as a possible reading. nOcts: see note on ridels in 57. With
the whole line cf. Andr. 1217 o&k ixwv kclkuv.

892-3. Cf. 416 f., where the chorus use the same hackneyed means of
consolation.

894.	: cf. Suppl. 249 iri^eiv t^v	VP-ds Xiav. Ovcitwv: so L; the

other MSS. have 0vt}tQv. Cf. rtfxa in 889.

896.	twv vtto "yaiav: sc. olxo^v(ov. Monk wished to read yalas against the
MSS., but the accus. is more idiomatic. The idea of motion was present in
the poet's mind. Cf. Hec. 147 rotfs 0' wrb yaiav (so the MSS., yalas Porson).

897.	pii|rai: for this intransitive use, cf. Cycl. 166 ptyei r is tiX/jLrjv Xevicd8os
irirpas Hiro (cited by Monk); also Hel. 1325, Theognis 176, Xen. Cyneg. 9, 20
ad Jin. Jerram compares Milton's u out of doors he flung."

898.	Tvjif3ov . . . rd<}>pov 4s koCXtjv : see note on 607 is rd<f>ov re ical irvpdv.
The poet evidently has a deep grave in mind.

901. <rvv av €<r\€v: written as one word in B L P. I has ye <rvvi<Tx*v, a
trvvixw, with <r written above by the first hand. Lenting first divided the
words as they stand in the text. The difficulty came, of course, from the
"tmesis."CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

149

903.	Jacobs has suggested, not without some degree of plausibility, that
Anaxagoras is here referred to. This conjecture is based on Cicero's Tusc.
Disp. III. 14, 29-30, where he translates a passage from Euripides (iy& Si
(Tavra) irapb <ro<f>ov tivos fiaddov, etc. fr. 964 N.) and observes: u quod Theseus
a doctis se audisse dicit, id de se ipso loquitur Euripides; fuerat enim auditor
Anaxagorae, quern ferunt nuntiata morte Jilii dixisse 1 sciebam me genuisse
mortalem.' " The view of Jacobs is, however, opposed by Hermann (see his
note) and by Decharme (Revue des Etudes grecques 1889 p. 236, cited by Earle).
If it is correct, the words iv yivei are probably a "blind," as there is no evi-
dence that Anaxagoras was akin to Euripides. We know, too, that the
philosopher had more than one son (Diog, Laert. II. 3, 9). On the relations
between Euripides and Anaxagoras, see for the ancient sources Schaubach
Anaxagorae Fragmenta pp. 20-21, and for the modern Zeller Gesch. d. Griech.
Phil. I.4 p. 975 n. 2. The dissertation of Kohler Lie Philoscphie des Eur.,
Th, L Anaxagoras u. Euripides, I have been unable to consult.*

904.	cv yiv€i: so Soph. 0. T. 1016 odotiveic 9jv col TLb\v(3o$ otidiv iv yivei,
[Dem.] XLVII. 70 oi ydp io-nv iv yivei <roi (cited by Jebb ad loc.). icopos : so I;
Kovpos the other MSS., but a dactyl is required by the responsion (y icbpos =
fj\dcv a- of 927). Liddell and Scott are incorrect in stating that the form Kovpos
is always used in the lyric passages of the tragedians.

905.	»\€T : (}x€T\ the reading of L P, would give the same sense, but is
less appropriate with iv bbpLoiaiv.

906.	povdirais: most edd., following the schol., have taken this word as
here = fi6vos or jxovoyevqs, so that icbpos fiovbirais will = icbpos fibvos irais <av. So
Or. 964 Hepatyaaffa KaWiirais 0ed, where KaWiirais probably means not ica\oi>s
iraWas exovaa but /caXrj irais otiaa. See as to this usage Lobeck Paralip. pp.
371-2, Kiihner-Blass II. p. 314 ad Jin. This may be the correct view; but I
suspect that we should punctuate after 8bfwi<riv and take fiovbirais as a possessive
compound in agreement with ns, the adj. being used resumptively, as so often
in Pindar— " I had a kinsman whose son, a youth worthy to be lamented, died
in his home — and yet but one son had he." cpiras: cf. Cycl. 535 epuras 8*
ovtls hv ^pa^xreii puov, Aesch. Prom. 190 d\X* ifxiras fiaXaKoyvib/uov carat. On the
forms of the word, cf. the schol. on Soph. Aj. 122 "luves efnrrjs <pa<rlv, AttikoI
Si e/x7ras kal e/x7ra. This statement is confirmed by the facts. Homer knows
only efjLiTTjs: while Aeschylus has only e/nras (four cases) ; Sophocles has intras
(three times) and e/xira (once, Aj. 563; cf. Pind. Ne. IV. 36); Euripides has
only efiiras (two cases). The word here =	Its derivation has never been
satisfactorily explained. If from iv irao-i, how account for epurris and ifiird (to
say nothing of the Pindaric epurav) ?

907.	&X.IS : idiojs rb &\is rirax^v iirl rod fierplus • fxerploos ecpepe rb Kcucbv, icalirep
&t€kvos <av schol. Hesychius says s.v. &\is: hcavtas, irXijpecrTdTujs, avrapKes. etrri

* See also Parmentier Euripide et Anaxagore, in Memoires courronnis de Vacademic
de Belgique, vol. XLVII. (1892).150

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

5t Kal (j,€TpL(os, cJs E&piirldrjs 'AXjc^orrft. The edd. compare Med. 629 el 8* &Xis
cXdoi K6wpis K.T.X.

909.	xpoir€T^s: cf. Hec. 152 rj 5ei a eirideiv TV/j.j3ov irpoireTrj . . . irapdevov,
and better Plato Legg. VII. p. 792 D atirbv irpoireTTj irpbs ras ydovas yiyvbfievoPj
though neither is an exact parallel. The sense here is clearly "verging upon
old age," just slipping down into it, as it were.

910.	irop<r<i>: so Gaisford for irpbaw. The responsion (cf. 934) requires
a long penult. The Doric form wbpau occurs in Pindar and the tragedians, bat
not in Homer. U6p<rco is probably not "old Attic"; at least the inscriptions
do not favor pa (see Meisterlians p. 76). For irbpata with the gen. of part,
cf. Plato Apol. 38 C opare yap di] tt)v ifkiKlav otl irbppoy ijdr) iarl rod (3lov, and
the like.

911.	8o(jlo)v: "not a mere periphrasis for 56/aoi, but giving a picture
of the old, familiarformoi the house, as it strikes his eye" (so Jerram, who
compares Andr. 1 'AcianSos yijs <rxv^a-> Hee- 619 w (rx^ar' otKojv). Add Soph.
Phil. 952 u> (TXHl1 a irtrpas SLttvXop (cited by Monk).

912.	fWTairCirrovTos : as in English " when the luck is changing " ; but the
underlying figure is that of the fall of dice.

914. to pccov: rb bid(f>opop rrjs vvv rtixys Kal rrjs irdXai scliol. ; rb fiiaov in
this sense is Herodotean (I. 126 oi 5£ €<f>a<rav iroXXbv elvai rb fxiaop, IX. 82 ttjs
$olvr]s iroivjddarjs 9jp iroXXbv rb fifoov), but rare in other writers.

915 f. Cf. the description of the nuptials of Peleus I. A. 1036 ff. <rvv:
" Im Ganzen steht <rtiv bei Euripides etwa 65 mal bei sachlichen Begriffen, eine
geringe Frequenz, wenn man bedenkt, dass Aeschylos und Sophokles bei weit
kleinerem Umfange je 44 und 56 Beispiele dieser Art darbieten" (Mommsen
Beitr. z. d. Lehre d. Griech. Prap. p. 135).

917.	<|>iXCas: so the MSS. The schol. says ypdferai irip-Trjs, a variant which
is due to 880, where see note. A comparison of 876, 880 and 917, with their
variants, is most instructive, as showing the way in which the readings of our
text have been influenced.

918.	troXvaxtiTos: a very rare word, probably aira£ Xey6/xevov in classic
writers.

920-21: an echo of a legal phrase like oi e£ dfitpor^poop yeyopbres aar&v,
Aristotle Const. Ath. 42, 1 or /mt} fierixeLV TVS irbXews os dp /jltj it; d/i<poip aaroip
y yeyopus, ib. 26, 4; cf. Politics 1278 a 34. One is almost tempted to propose
aarCov 6vres <rti$vyes elfiev. dpio-T€a>v: Dobree for apicrroiv. The emendation is
supported by Soph. Aj. 1304 ap u>5' dpia-reifs O; apicTioip dvoip j fiXaar&v dp ai(rx6-
voifii Tobs irpbs a'tfiaTos, as well as by the analogy of ii; dficporipcop da-r(op. A noun,
not an adj., is required, ical air : Kan L, but the metre allows Kal air', which
is supported by the other MSS. ctpev: so Heath {elfikv P a). The other MSS.
have fjnev, which is defended by Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. p. 79). The form eifiev
is rare in tragedy, but seems well assured in Hippol. 349 (dp ei/xev A L P ad,
dp IfrjLev B C E c, Ap* fjfiev Nauck), a trimeter. There the potential optativeCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

151

("probably I have experienced," etc.) well suits the connection, as Phaedra
has just admitted that she is a novice in such matters. Homer has elr' Od.
XXI. 195, and Soph. 0. T. 1046 the analogous form eldeTr for ddelrjre (Jebb
on Antig. 215). See for other examples Kuhner-Blass II. p. 221, 3. Nauck's
objection to elfiev, then, will not hold. The question is simply which is the
better reading; neither is impossible. The MSS. are pretty evenly divided
P a against B L), though fjfiev has, on the whole, slightly better authority.
If cJs is causal, either fjfiep or elfiep may be used (cf. M. and T. 713-14); if,
on the other hand, it merely introduces indirect discourse (dXpifopres implying
a verb of saying), elfiep is certainly right, as in sufch cases the Greek retains
the original tense, though after secondary tenses the mood may change. The
scholiast's paraphrase ical ifiaicdpifrop ijfias «s tafikv evyepeis favors elfiep, which
I have adopted with most edd. Cf. Troad. 1253 fitya d' 6Xpi<r0eis cJs £k irari-
pojv | ay ad up iytpov. fj/iep of B L may be due to iotacism; but the passage is
one where it is almost impossible to feel sure of the true reading.

923. p&avcs trro\\kol: sc. aprlwaXoi, a somewhat bold ellipsis.

925.	XcKTpcov koCtcis : so Med. 435 f. ras apdpdpov Koiras 6X£<ra<ra Xiicrpop (if
the text be sound).

926.	irap': here the preposition has the force of 44 during" or 44in the
midst of" ; see L. and S. s.v. irapd II. Some (so Earle) render it more liter-
ally, 44 alongside of," implying contrast. Heracl. 611, cited by Paley, is dif-
ferent, as there irapd denotes alternation rather than succession. The use in
our passage, whether local, or, as I am inclined to think, temporal, is a rare
one, and I know of no exact parallel in Euripides.

927.	aircipoicdicfp: cf. Thuc. Y. 105 jiaicapl<raPTes itfiQp rb aweipbuaKOP oft
frXodfiep rb &<ppop. The word comes to the surface again in late writers.
Cf. direipbicaXos.

929.	PCotov Kal \J/uxav : not a mere pleonasm. (31otos denotes the physical
side of life, \pvxv the emotional and intellectual. See Schmidt Synonymik
§ 75, 2.

930.	<|>i\£av: so the MSS. A writer in the Quarterly Rev. XV. p. 123
proposed the reading eXnre, <piXla, 44 she has left you, the dear one," <piXla
being a semi-substantive in apposition with 3d pap (so Earle). But cf. 282
<rr)p yap (pCXlav <re£6/ze<r0a, where <piXla refers to conjugal love, as here.

931 ff. A troublesome passage. The MSS. have 7ro\\o?s, and all but B
(ddfiapras) read ddfiapTos. The schol. paraphrases by tL #vop; iroXXol rhs yvpai-
Kas dir6Xe<rav, which looks, (though of this we cannot be certain) as though
he read ddfiapras. (A) Hermann retains both 7roXXots and ddfiapros, and under-
stands (piXiap, to be supplied from 930 as the object of irapiXvo-ep : 44 multis iam
solvit mutuum amorem mors uxoris." This is hard indeed, and can scarcely
be right. (B) Others retain iroXXois and read dd/xapra (so Prinz) or ddfiapras
(with B and Reiske). But waptXwep will then be ambiguous = abstulit or vires
resolvit. If it = abstulit, iroXXoh will be 4 dative of disadvantage' where we152	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

should expect a 'genitive of separation.1 Another possibility (C) would be to
read ttoXX&p and dd/iapra or dafiapras: the sense would then be good, "from
many men already has death taken away (unyoked) their spouse " or 44 wives."
On the whole, however, I incline to the view of Canter and most recent editors
(D), that we should read 7roXXot>s and ddfiapros. The change from 7roXXois to
ttoXXoi>s is very slight, and ddfiapros has the authority of all the MSS. but B.
The rendering will then be, "many a man already has death separated from
his spouse." napaMaei, with the accus. only, occurs in 117 in the sense of
uset free," "release" ; but ddfxapros in our passage is best taken as gen. of
separation with iraptXvaev&iot as depending on Odvaros. It must be admitted,
however, that the reading in the text is ambiguous, and might perfectly well
be translated, 44 many a man already has the death of a wife unnerved." But
both (B) and (C) are liable to a similar ambiguity, owing.to the double meaning
of TrapaXveiv. irap&ixrcv: Matthiae for irap^Xvcre, as the strophe (909) has a long
syllable and syllaba anceps is not permissible here.

936.	cf. in English 44 though it doesn't look so, I think so all the

same" which at the same time shows how fyxws came to mean 44neverthe-
less."

939. XP*1V: Elmsley for xp^J- The harshness of the combination is palli-
ated in some measure by the metrical ictus. See note on 379.

943. This line was rejected by Nauck (Eur. Stud. II. p. 80), who observes:
44 Im dritten Verse erscheint repwvrjs als unpassend ; wenn Admet vorher gesagt
hat, sein verodetes Haus sei ihm unertraglich, so kann er nicht fuglich fort-
fahren dass keine Anrede die er an jemand richte oder die an ihn gerichtet
werde, sein Eingehen in das Haus zu einem ergotzlichem machen werde." He
conjectures that the line was interpolated in order to supply a finite verb to
go with the participles irpoa-enrdjv and irpoo-pydds. Not conclusive: Admetus is
thinking of the cheerful welcome which he used to receive from Alcestis, which
might well be said to make his home-coming delightful. Nauck, great scholar
though he was, was sometimes led by his love of verbal accuracy to sacrifice
literary effect.

947.	-yovveuri: the epic form of the plural occurs in trimeters also in Hec.
752, 889, Andr. 893, being required by the metre in all four places.

948.	irCirrovTa: so the MSS. Wecklein (Jahrb. f. Tel. Phil. Suppl. IX. p.
171) would read irlrvovra. He lays it down as a principle that the 44 forma
irlrveLv aut metri causa poetae tragici eadem qua irlirTeiv usi sunt aut temperata
cadendi significatione ut vel tarditatem vel decorum vel mollitiem depingat."
This rule is in general borne out by the usage; but he does not make it entirely
clear that irlirreiv is not sometimes employed 44 temperata cadendi significa-
tione." To enforce the rule strictly he has to emend some ten passages.
Hence I have not ventured to read irbvovTa here against all the MSS. Sccrird-
tiv : this rare word (= dfoiroipa) occurs also in Med. 17, 694, 970; fr. 1132, 53.
Sophocles has it twice, Aeschylus and Pindar not at all.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

153

951.	ydpoi: " nuptials," u wedding-feasts." The rendering of some editors,
"wzores," is absurd, as Woolsey points out. fjvXXo-yoi "yvvaiKoirXridcis: the
edd. from Monk down remark that this is a reminiscence of Aesch. Pers. 122
yvpaiKOTrXydris 8fxi\os. yvvaiKOTrXyOrfs seems to be Sis eiprjfjL^pop.

952.	l|av€|o|xai,: cf. Med. 74 raura iraidas i^av^ojxai tt da xovt as ; Heracl. 967,
Andr. 201. The word is a very strong one.

954. Kvpct: Monk would read Kvpr), which would require forts &v (M. and
T. 529). Hippol. 427 flry 7rapfj, which Monk compares, is different, being a
''general relative condition with omitted (M. and T. 540); and the same
is true of 5tl vetiarj in 978 of our play. In the p^age in the text Admetus has
particular enemies in mind, and so uses the indicative. — It is with profound
knowledge of human nature that the poet represents Admetus as lamenting,
not his own selfishness and cowardice, but the consequences to which it has led
and will lead.

960. kvSiov : so the MSS. If the comparative is right, roO TeOvdvai must
be understood. Cf. Andr. 639 f. Ktidtop (so L P and Stobaeus; k68i<ttop A,
K^pdiov Wecklein *) (3p0T0ts | iriprjTa XP7)(TT^V V xaKbp Kal irXofotop | yafifipbp 7r«ra-
<r6ai, and Hesych. Kvdtov • Kpelrrop, aiper&Tepop. Purgold conjectured Kipdtop,
which Wecklein approves; but there seems to be no certain example of Kepdiwp,
ictpdiov in the tragedians. Perhaps we should read ictpdos; w </>£Xot, or icdpdos
9ju with Blomfield (cf. Med. 798, Aesch. Prom. 745); but, on the whole, I am
inclined to believe that the MSS. are in the right.

962 ff. From the time of the schol. down these words have been taken as
a personal statement of the poet's own experience. The schol. observes on
fjL€T&p<rios Ijt-a : Kal irepl fieredopujp £<f>p6vTi<ra, olov a<rTpo\byr)(ra Kal opfx^p iwi tovto
€<rxov. As was noted by the ancient grammarians, these addresses of the poet
to the audience correspond in a manner to the parabasis of the comedy. Cf.
Pollux IV. Ill TpayiKbv 8£ ovk ecrrtp (sc. 77 irapd^aats) • aXX' 'Evptirtdrjs avrb iretrot-
7jk€p £p iroWots dp&fjLaaip k.t.X.

965-6. Kpeia-a-op and r)vpop (— w) do not correspond exactly with pafj fioi and
e\0ois (--) of the antistrophic lines 976, 977. But no emendation is neces-
sary, as Glyconics and Pherecrateans allow this imperfect responsion in the
first foot (see Christ Metrik2 p. 521 f.). It is noteworthy that 962, a Phere-
cratean, introduces a Glyconic system; which is unusual.

967.	<ravC<riv: here, like Lat. tabulae, of the wooden tablets which were
covered with wax for writing. <rapls occurs in other senses in Or. 1221 and
Hel. 1572. The ancient belief that the inhabitants of Thrace and Thessaly were
skilled in magic incantations shows itself over and over again in the literature.

968.	Ka.T£ypcu|;€v: Monk added the p because the ultima must be long to
correspond with that of reXeur? in 979. The schol. quotes Heraclitus, who
says: rb 8k Atopti<rov (sc. iepbv) KarevKebaGTat [^7rt] ttjs Opq.Ki7s iirl rod Ka\ovfi4pov
Aifxov, 6irov difj rivas £p <ravl<rip &paypa<f>&s efoal <pa<rip (0p<p£(as). Among the

* See his Beitrdge zur Kritik des Euripides p. 541 f.154	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

pseudo-Orphic works current in later times was a treatise ircpl (papfidKiov; see
Lobeck Aglaophamus p. 748 f. Note that the chorus here mention the Thracian
Orpheus, and the Asclepiads, who probably had their origin in Thessaly (see
Walton Cult of Asklepios pp. 18 ff.) and would naturally be familiar to the
Thessalians of Pherae. The poet is true to the local coloring.

971. dvTiT€jjL»v: uDer Ausdruck ist hergenommen von den pl£ot6/m>i, welche
durch Einschneiden besonderer Wurzel und Pflanzen Arzneimittel bereiteten
(Bauer-Wecklein). Cf. Andr. 120 et tL croi 8vvaip.ap | &kos twp 8vaX6T(ap it6pojp
TCjieiv, Aesch. Ag. 17 apTlfioXirop ivri/ivuiv Akos, and the word avrlTopjos.

972 ff. For the sentiment* cf. the famous lines of Aeschylus quoted in the
note on 424. In the MSS. iXOeip of 975 and co-tip of 974 have exchanged
places, thus disturbing the responsion. The true reading was restored by
G. A. Wagner.

975.	k\v€i> : Wecklein reads /u<?Xet, on the ground that KXteiv cannot be used
of sacrifices. But the sacrifices were accompanied by prayers, and kXiW, like
the English u hearken to," may be loosely used. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1064 KaK&v
Mei <t>pevG>v, which is nearly as bold an usage.

976.	pctgcov: Wuestemann compares Med. 630 el 8' dXis eXdoi Kti-rrpis, 627
epwres inrkp p.kv &yav iXddpres.

978. o tx v€t»(r^| : touto dvayKaffTiK&Tara irpdrTei. olop Kal o "OfnjpLKbs Zet>s
vwdKetraL rip rrjs 'Avdyicrjs	a<f> ov (hp) iirive^try rtvL' 'ov ydp ipjbv rraXi-

vdyperov oti8' diraTrjXbp ov8* dreXe^trjtov 8 ti kcp KetpaXrj katavetiau) schol. For
the omission of &p, see note on /cupet, v. 954.

980.	Xa\v|3oi$: L P have XaXt5/3o«ri, but the responsion requires the shorter
form. Cf. fr. 472, 5 rfirfdeTaa 8ok6s . . . XaXtfjSy ireXticei, Aesch. Prom. 712 Xatas
8k x€lpfc oi ffiSvfporiKTovcs | oIkovgi XdXvfies, Sept. 711 f., etc. Hence the names
X<£Xu/3os and	f°r iron. See Xen. Anab. V. 5, 1 and Strabo XII. 19
(549 M.). <ru ££$: P has ov pIq. (0 for C). <r£8apov: so La; the other MSS.
have <rl8r)pov.

981.	tttTOTOjAOv : this word seems to be diraZ elp'qp.ivov in this sense in classic
Greek, but is not uncommon in late writers, esp. Diodorus. Earle compares
Aesch. Prom. 18 ttjs dpdofiotiXov Q4/jll8os airrvfiTjTa irai, and Jerram Tacitus
Ann. XVI. 17 animo praeruptus. fxSpos dwdTo/jLos in 1. 118 is slightly different,
being more like the Homeric alirbs 6Xe0pos.

983. icaC cr «v: Nauck proposed Kal <t4 y : but the preposition is often used
with verbs of binding and loosing where it might be omitted. So Bacch. 444
K&8rj(Tas iv Sea/wio-i vavS^fiov ariyrjs (cf. Heracl. 861), Hippol. 1244 e/c 8eo-fiu)i>
Xvdels (cf. fr. 128, 2). There may also be here the notion of catching one in
a noose or net; cf. Here. F. 153 ov iv ppdxois Acbp k.t.X. Hence there is not
sufficient ground for altering the text. The schol. probably read ip, for he
says : Kal aov o&p irepiyfyopep ij 'kvdyKri, w "Afywjre, ip dtpfarois 8e<rfiois.

986. avo): this word seems pleonastic with d?d£ets, and its position, too,
is strange, as one would naturally take it with <f>dtnhovs. Earle proposes toCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

155

read pporQv, taking as part of a gloss on avd£eis. But why make a gloss
on such a simple word ? Possibly we should read in 985 ov yhp <ti'> y &£eis and
retain &v(a : cf. 853. The sense will then be : "for you, at least will not bring
up the dead," whatever Orpheus may have done, dvd&is may then be a note
on d£eis. . . &vuj which has crept into the text. But, on the whole, I am inclined
to believe dvca corrupt. Perhaps we should read &yau (with kXclLw), or &va£,
with a comma after <J>0ifji.ivovs (cf. Soph. Phil. 150 /xi\ov ird\ai /U\rip& pot \iyeis,
and the like).

989. o-k6tuh : proleptic = els <tk6tov. The schol. absurdly takes it = v60oi z
cf. Hesycli. s. v. <jk6tios and ii. VI. 24. Earle is probably right in holding that
the figure is taken from the setting (or waning) of a heavenly body. The
use of av^etv and <f>0lveiv in this figurative sense is very common. <|>0£vou<ri:
so LP; <t>0ivtidov<ri, the reading of the other MSS., is forbidden by the respon-
sion (ictXevdov 1000).

982. The MSS. have Oavova Harai, which in all but a is preceded by a Kal.
The old conjecture of Portus, <f>i\a 5' en Kal Oavovaa seems to me preferable
to the more modern emendations ; co-rat would be so apt to be supplied to show
the construction, and the ti of 5' in could so easily fall out. Next, I think,
in order of merit is Prinz's <f>i\a 5£ davow €t ecrrcu, which palaeographically
is very easy; though it sacrifices the which word improves the sense and
has excellent MSS. authority. Nauck proposed Oavova is del, Wecklein Oavovva
KeiTcu (cf. Soph. El. 1134 OavCov cKeiao). See also Sel. Conj.

994. The extraordinary frequency of the metaphor of yoking with reference
to the marriage relation is extremely noticeable in the Greek writers, and the
same is true of the Latin, though to a less extent. I have noted over one
hundred instances of the metaphor, and the number might easily be increased.
A good parallel to the cases in the text is Ion 901 IVa fie \£x€<rL • • •	'•

cf. Troad. 671. kXio-£cu,s: here in its original sense (from k\L-v(o) = Mx«rc.
"A rare usage, perhaps without nearer parallel than I. T. 857 seqq. 'AxtXX&os |
is icKurlav Xinrpcw | 56\i 8t dybp.av'*'1 (Earle). In Pindar Pyth. IV. 133 airb
K\i<nav perhaps means ufrom their banqueting-couclies," though some take
k\i<riav= 1 'seats" and others (with the schol. ad loc.) think it means "tents."
But I know of no exact parallel to the passage in our text.

997. 0€ouri 8* oficuws: a fine example of " brachylogy."

1000.	Soxptav K€\€v0ov: the tomb of Alcestis was in a conspicuous place
in the suburb (see note on 836), so that the traveller, as he climbed up the
ascent, would see it from a distance and turn aside from the road into the path
that led to it. On the situation of the ancient Pherae, see Bursian Geog. v.
Griechenland I. p. 69; Wordsworth's Greece ed. Tozer p. 302.

1001.	I|x|3a£v<dv: L P (with the schol.) have ik^alpwv, which Usener (Jahrb.
f. Phil. 139, p. 309) defends, on the ground that the words 1002-4 would be
said after the person has seen the monument and as he is going back from the
side-path into the main road, not when he first enters the path. This is not156

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

at all conclusive; ns may refer to the towns-people and kin of Alcestis as well
as to strangers ; and those acquainted with the tomb would naturally pay their
greeting as they came in sight of the monument. Cf. Hel. 1165f. xa'P€i ^arpbs
ixvrjjx • iir £i-6doi(ri ybp | edaxj/a, Upwrev, a' Zveic ifiijs TrpovpTfjaeus • del 84 <f ££hvv
re Keicn&v 86/jlovs | QeoicXijfievos trats tide irpovevviTru), irdrep. Moreover, the passages
which Usener cites to support the construction KtXevdov iKfiaiveiv (Eur. Bacch.
554, II. VI. 128, Od. XVIII. 206) are not one of them parallel, the preposition
in all of them being not iic but Kara. I have not been able to find one example
of 656? or KtXevdov iK^aiveiv in the sense which Usener would assign to it (the
nearest approach being ratipy vdiros enpaLvovTi in a late epigram, Adaeus in
Arvth. Pal. IX. 300). I suspect that nfKevdov iicpalveiv would have meant to
Euripides "to overstep," "stray beyond the path"; cf. Her. F. 82 ws ovre
yalas 6pC &v iK^aifxev \d0pq,, Bacch. 1044 i&fiyfJLev 'Kawwov pods.

1002. irpov0av : irpovdavev or irpovdavev the MSS., but the responsion with
991 requires the shorter form.

1005.	: so Monk; the MSS. have (prjfiai. (Cf. avra above.) The

word not merely— " speeches," but has a distinct religious sense, "solemn
addresses." Aeschylus uses the word of solemn song, Suppl. 663 ayvQv r

£k (TTOfidrcov <f>ep£crdo) (prjfia (pi\o<p6pfAiyi~.

1006 if. Exodos. Heracles returns from the left, leading the veiled Alcestis.

1009. poppas: fwp<pds all the MSS. but L a, a blunder due to the frequent
confusion between a long-tailed n and a p. viro crirXa^xvois €\€iv : cf. Theocr.
VII. 99 iraidds uird (nr\dyxvoi<nv exet Trbdov. Euripides uses o-irXdyxvov no less
than eleven times. Cf. esp. Med. 220, Hippol. 118.

1011.	lyyvs irap€<rTws: so I. A. 465 irapwv iyyvs, and in English "near
at hand." <|>CXos: possibly we should read <pl\ov, 11 my friend " —<r£. If <f>t\os
is retained iZerdfro-dai will be passive, "to be proved to be ": see L. and S.
s. v. IV. I know no other instance of this use of the verb in Euripides. If we
read <pl\ov, e£erdfe<r0al will, of course, be middle, " to question my friend."

1012.	irpoK€Cjjt€vov: referring to the irpSOecris of the body.

1014. A line which does not belong here. See note on 778.

1017. |icv: so B and a; L P have the one 5^, the other Si. " Id (/itv) cum
excidisset propter sequentis syllabae similitudinem, correctores addiderunt §17,
quod hie multo deterius est" (Hermann).

1021. 0pt)K(as: dptfiicas L P, on which [6pt}lk]Iovs of I is a gloss. The metre,
of course, demands Qpyiclas (— —), not Qprjacas or OprjKas. The variant arose
from the correct spelling 0PHIKIAC : see Meisterhans p. 50. For the genitive,
see Goodwin Gr. Gram. 1119.

1023. Note the euphemism, and the prayer added to avert evil conse-
quences from the mention of possible misfortune. Cf. Heracl. 511, 714 and
the like.

1022 f. In B this passage was copied with excessive carelessness. See
App. Crit.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

157

1024. irpocriroXciv: irpbairoKov L P, which gives equally good sense; but the
infin. is more idiomatic. (Hermann observes, 4 4 in prima dipodiae arsi finalis
syllaba longioris vocabuli, quae nullum accentum habet, non perite collocatur " ;
but to this rule there are very numerous exceptions. Cf. just below in 1027
&£iov irbvov, etc.)

1027. irdvov: so B. a has irbvwv (<o for o), L P irbvov. As B L P have

0	in the ultima, and B a both have the final v, irbvov seems, op the whole, well
accredited; but irbvov gives equally good sense. Certainty in such a case is
scarcely possible, as the MSS. are so evenly balanced. Tlbvov is, of course,
in apposition with dyGiva, and if we read irbvov, &£iov would agree with dyQva.

1	have preferred irbvov, as being the difficilior lectio; but it may be a mere
44 copyist's error." To be dogmatic in such cases is the sheerest folly.

1029. td . . . kottya rots vikwtiv : a very unusual order, doubtless adopted
for metrical convenience, as well as to make Kov<pa emphatic. Cf. Soph. Antig.
710 Avdpa . . . rb /xa^dmc, Trach. 65 <rk ... rb /jltj irtideadai.

1031.	pov<|>6ppia: ayiXr) po&v schol. The word occurs also in I. T. 301,
fr. 485. It is here used of cattle taken separately, not of whole herds; as
Monk pointed out, Euripides obviously had II. XXIII. 259 ff. in mind in
arranging the scale of prizes.

1032.	4vtvx<*vti : some take this as meaning 4 to me that chanced upon (the
games).' So the schol., who paraphrases by i-recdi] ervxov i/ceiee, rb /j£v Kepdatveiv
avTTjv evicXeh Tjyijadfirjv, rb di iacrai afoxpbv. Others take tvrv%bvri =4 that hap-
pened upon (the prize)'; the sense being 4 since I had won her, I thought it
disgraceful not to keep her.' I incline to the former view, though some high
authorities (among them England) prefer the other.

1035.	icXoiraCav . . . \a|3<&v: periphrasis for /cXtyas.

1036.	|u : L P have y, the two letters being frequently confused in the
MSS. A 7 and a n with one arm shorter than usual often look extremely
alike in cursive writing.

1037.	&tC£g>v : all the best MSS. have ari/jLdfav, which the metre will not
admit of. Fortunately, however, Cod. Harl. 5743 has the true reading. The
MS. in question is of little value except in this passage, and I suspect that
drlfav is a lucky guess rather than an independent variant. Scaliger proposed
drlfav ex conj., not knowing that it stood in the Harleian. drindfav is merely
a gloss which has displaced the word which it was meant to explain. Cf. Suppl.
19 vb/MifA drlfovTes deCov, ib. 865 rdpKovvr arlfav, BJies. 251, 327, etc. cxOpoicriv:
akrxpoiffiv L P; but iv alo"xpoio-iv riOels is weak and tautological after drtfav.
Probably in an ancestor of L P only poTo-iv was legible, and the gap was filled
at a venture by some one. 44 Matthiae iv ai<rxpoi<nv referendum censet ad n5xas,
non quo uxoris sortem mihi turpem esse putem, ob ignaviam, quam pater Admeto
exprobraverat. At de hac re ille, quum Herculi se expurgare vult, non cogitat"
(Hermann).

1038.	aOXCov: so all the MSS. but a, which has ddXfovs. A decision between158	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

the two readings is very difficult. The order favors adXiov s, but may be due
to the exigencies of the metre. The weight of MSS. authority, on the other
hand, favors adXiov, which is clearly the difficilior lectio. It has been suggested
that adXiov is due to some one who was offended by what seemed to him to
be the masculine ending of adXiovs, not knowing that Euripides has a predi-
lection for the two-ending declension of adjectives. But if so, why did he not
at once read adXLaf ? The slight rhyme d6Xias ri/x^s would hardly have deterred
him. Hence, though not with great confidence, I have followed B L P. The
tragedians use AdXios freely both of persons and things.

1039.	7rpoKelfievov B P. Cf. 551 and 833, in both of which the MSS. have
irpo- for irpoa- in this compound. The sense, of course, requires irpoaKeifievov.

1040.	tov : L P have etirep, but the restrictive irep is not needed here.
Perhaps eiir6 — etirep was read by mistake for etr — et tov.

1045. |i avaji,v^<rQS: so (except for the i subscript) LP. a has fie fiifiv-fjo-ys
(with erasures above i and between p. and *>), B fie fiifivrjo-Keis. To read fir) fie
fiifiv7)<rkcls is, of course, impossible. Kirchhoff, Nauck, Weil, Bauer-Wecklein
and Earle read fit) 'fit • fiifivfi<rk€is kolkuv. This is ingenious but not convincing;
as Leutsch has pointed out (Philologus XXIII. (1866) p. 27), the tragedians
never elsewhere use the present fiifivrjo-Kw, and fiifiv^Keis KaK&v sounds abrupt
and almost discourteous. Probably in an ancestor of B the word avafiv/ja-ris
was so mutilated that only fivrf or fivrja- was legible, and the gap was wrongly
filled out. The reading of a looks like a conflation of fiifivfoKeis and dvafivf)<rris.
Cf. fitj . . . wpoadys below. A long study of the question has convinced the
writer that the testimony of L P is not only not to be despised, but is in many
cases to be preferred to that of the other family. -

1048. <rvn<|>op$: avficpopais a, but in speaking of a single misfortune the
singular is more natural.

1050. The edd. pass very lightly over this passage, which, simple as it
seems, is in reality one of the most difficult in the play. To show how compli-
cated the question of its syntax and interpretation is, I append a list of some
of the possibilities that have been, or may be, suggested. The question centres
about the meaning and use of ws and of irpiirei.

A.	The schol. paraphrases: icai ydp via <f>alverai <Js £k ttjs iadijTos, which
looks as though he read via yap, ws iadijTL ical icdo-pup, irpiirei, taking irpiirei=
44 appears," and so Woolsey. But via irpiwei, " she appears young," is hardly
classic Greek, and there is certainly nothing like it in the tragedians. The
nearest approach to it that I can find is Aesch. Pers. 247 rovde ybp dp&firjfia
<f>u>Tbs Uepcrticbv irpiirei fiadetv, and even here the meaning "is conspicuous" or
" clear " has not quite passed into that of u seems," as the addition of the inf.
shows. Even in this construction cJs is usually added; cf. Eur. Suppl. 1056,
Soph. El. 664 irpiireL y&p cJs rtipavvos elcopav.

B.	Another possibility is to assume the ellipsis of ofoa with irpiirei, "for she
clearly is (irpiirei odaa) young, to judge by her dress and ornaments." Cf. Aesch.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

159

Ag. 30 (Js o (ppvKrbs ayytWwv Tptirei ("clearly announces") and the like. But
I know of no example of this usage in Euripides.

C.	Again, we may take cJs as post-positive with v<?a, " for as a young woman
(naturally would be), she is conspicuous by (or uin respect to") her clothing
and ornaments." For the dative, cf. 512, Hel. 1204 *AiroWov, us iaOrjTi 5v<r-
fi6p<j><t) Trptirei, etc. Young women, especially the unmarried (Aristoph. Aves
670), wore much jewelry, and Admetus, seeing the queen's rich attire, would
naturally suppose her to be young.

D.	Or, still taking cJs as post-positive, we may construct irptirei <as v£a, i<rdijTi
Kal icda/jutf, "she is clearly young (is conspicuous as young) by her dress and
ornaments." The case would then be like Soph. El. 664 irpiireL ws Ttipawos
€i<ropciv if the eiaopav were omitted. But for this it will be hard to find a
parallel, and I doubt whether it is possible.

E.	Or cJs may be causal, " for she is young, inasmuch as she is conspicuous
by her dress and ornaments."

F.	Or ojs may be demonstrative, 44for she is young; so conspicuous is she
by her clothing and ornaments." Cf. Hippol. 1054 ws <rbv ixOalpta icdpa, El. 155,
Aesch. Ag. 894, Soph. 0. C. 1242, etc.

G.	Or we may take irpeweL as impersonal in its ordinary sense, "for she is
young, as is in keeping with (beseems) her dress and ornaments."

H.	Some would take irpiirei as impersonal in the sense of "is clear," "for
she is young, as is evident from her dress and ornaments." This is not, I think,
possible, as there seems to be no parallel for this use of irptirei.

I.	We might read vtq. and render " for she seems like (resembles) a young
woman, to judge by her dress and ornaments" ; but this would, I fear, imply
doubt as to the reality of her youth!

Explanations A, B, D, H and I we may, I think, dismiss, the first four
as not borne out by Euripidean usage, and the last as inappropriate in sense
and involving a change of the text. G, too, seems very dubious, as in classical
Greek irptirei is rarely, if ever, used impersonally with the dative of the thing
(cases like Aesch. Ag. 462 yvvaiicbs aixw irp^irei . . . x^Plv Zvvaivhrai are, of
course, not real exceptions, as there the inf. is really the subject of it pi-net);
though instances like fr. 292, 3 £kv ravra rrj vbay irptiret, Cycl. 137 <f>ws y&p
ifxtrox^fjlaa-iv irptirei, Plato Bep. V. 459 E v/mvoi . . . rrptrrovTes tois yiyvofitvois yd/iois,
etc. are not uncommon (see Stephanus s. v. irp^irw). Nor do I believe that ws
is causal, though I cannot give any very convincing reason for the disbelief.
F is, I think, possible, though the demonstrative ws is very rare in Attic; but,
on the whole, I strongly incline to explanation C, supported as it is by the
analogy of 512, Hel. 1204, Aesch. Choeph. 11, Sept. 117, etc. The post-positive
(Js is surely unobjectionable, as it is common in the tragedians. There are
thirteen cases at least in Aeschylus alone. Cf. Phoen. 628 SoDXos ws, Soph. Tr.
771 £x^vrls us, Aesch. Choeph. 493 <pe\\ol 8' ws, Suppl. 863 ^xL^va e^c.
But I must frankly admit that the true syntax and meaning of the passage are
far from certain. Dogmatism in such cases is mere folly.160	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

1052. &icpau{>Wj$: cf. Hec. 537 Kbprjs dicpaupvis at/ma. Cf. also Soph. 0. C.
1147 (where it means "unscathed," "safe"), Aristoph. fr. 32 Kock, Lysippus
fr. 9, Thuc. I. 19, 34 and 52, 25. The word is not rare in late writers. Bekker's
Anecd. p. 366 has &Kpai<t>vovs : djSXa/JoOs, olovei aicijpotpavovs * Krjp yap o ddvaros.
Suidas says dicpaupvis • Kadapbv, tyrfkbv, rtXeiov : Hesychius &Kpai<j>vrjs • KaOapbsr,
dicpifii/jh dXrjdJjs. Either'the meaning of "pure" or that of "safe" will suit
our passage. Cf. Latin integer.

1055.	€t<rfHj<ra$: so eicr^rja-' Bacch. 466, i^i^rjcre Hel. 1616, ififirjaai Heracl.
845, as Cycl. 467. The first aorist is therefore well attested for Euripides.
All the MSS. but a have els OdXapop pfoas, which is clearly erroneous, as the
anapaest in the fifth foot is not admissible.

1056.	4ir«r<|>pd>: the most plausible explanation of this curious form is that
of Brugmann (Fleckeisen's Jahrb. 1880 pp. 217 ft, Vergl. Gram. II. p. 962),
that from the stem <f>p-rj- "to bring" (I. E. bher-) were made forms after the
analogy of Htj/jli (0/>w, <pp£s, (ppijvai, (ppels). See Yeitch s.v. <pp£w for the Euripi-
dean instances. The old derivation from irpolrjfii is surely untenable. The
simple verb probably never occurs (in fr. com. adesp. 489 Kock eta^pes is to be
read) except in grammarians.

1058.	€X£yfn: so all the MSS. but B (iXtyxy). The reading of B is prob-
ably a mere blunder. The scribes constantly confuse and exchange the forms
of the present, future and aorist tenses*; and here there is no reason for
emphasizing the continuance of the action.

1059.	oXXtis: so L P, rightly. dXXois (so the other MSS.) is due to the
influence of the following dative. For the phrase tv depvlois Tclrveiv, cf. JElei.
1099 (3 tt6tvl ti dloktiv iv Xiicrpots irlrveis, and (in a different sense, of the sick
Orestes) Or. 35 irea&v iv defivlois Ketrai, ib. 88 irbaov xpbvov Si Sc/jlvLois iriirtujx'
68e; (where perhaps we should read 5' iv depvlois).

1063. irpos t)i£<u: England; irpoa^oL^ai L, irpo<r^e P, irpo<rr)i£ai the other
MSS. Hesychius has irpoarjiKraL • irpoatoLKe, which gloss Nauck refers to this
passage (Eur. Stud. II. p. 85), though he does not venture to decide whether
we should read the third person here or the second in Hesychius. He doubts,
however, the genuineness of the lection, for the reasons that neither 777)00-7717/xcu
nor any other form of irpoaefoKw occurs elsewhere (though, as he points out,
rjucTo and etKTo are attested for Homer, and fjiKrai for Nicander Theriaca 658),
and that the juxtaposition of constructions so different as tad' exova and irpocr-
TjL^aL is harsh. The true solution of the difficulty is, I believe, that the words
are wrongly divided in the MSS. ; irpbs is an adverb, as in Hel. 962 Kal irpbs
vGxrov, ib. 110, Or. 622, Phoen. 611, Heracl. 641, Aesch. Choeph. 293, etc. As
to the change of construction, it is not harder than many in Euripides, and
besides is softened by the Kal irpbs.

1065. |a IXgs npT|fUvov: see Otto Sprichwdrter s. v. vincere.

* See Wecklein Beitrdge sMr Kritik des Euripides p. 522 f. for a list of mistakes of this
class.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	161

1067.	OoXot: a very expressive figure. Cf. Pherecrates fr. 115 K. and the
parallels cited by Kock ad loc. Soph. Aj. 206 has 0o\ep$ keirai x€LfJL^VL voaJ/aas
of the mad Ajax. See also Aesch. Prom. 883 doKepol \6yoi (with Wecklein's
note) and Hesychius s. v. Oo\Q<rai.

1068.	m\yal: cf. Here. F. 99, 450, 1355; Aesch. Prom. 404, Ag. 852, Soph.
Antig. 803, and esp. Track. 852 eppwyev irayh dcucpfav. The figure is that of
a spring suddenly bursting forth and sweeping down in a torrent. tX^jjlcdv :
B and P have	, but the metre requires the form with «. So Andr. 348
w rX^fjLojv iyti (at the end of a trimeter); cf. Soph. O. C. 185.

1071.	tjns cfr): 6cttis c? crv the MSS. The edd. from Hermann down have
seen that an address in the second person, "whoever you are," is out of place
here. Hermann proposed Sans eiai, "whatever one shall come," whether a
hostile or a friendly deity. See Sel. Conj. for other suggestions. I suspect
that Euripides wrote f/ris etrj (see M. and T. 555). The emendation is palseo-
graphically easy, as a carelessly written H often looks extremely like C Y in the
MSS.; and fjris iror el <rii in 1062 would help to facilitate the change. Then
some u intelligent reader," noticing that yris el av would include only women,
changed ^ris to Sans.

1072.	«o-t€ a"f\v: lacking in LP. In P some one has added iicdeov ex conj.

1073.	iropcvo-cn: cf. Topa&tras in 444.

1074.	The words ical. . . v seem tame, but probably no change should
be made. Kal a-oi Tfyd* lirbpavv &v x&pw has been conjectured, but el yhp . . .
eixov is a wish, not a condition.

1077.	virlppaW': so Monk, wrtpfiaX a. The aorist imv. with fjA} in pro-
hibitions does sometimes occur in poetry (M. and T. 260), but as it is rare and
one X of virtpPaW' might so easily be lost, Monk's conjecture is probably right.
vtt£pPaiv\ the reading of the other MSS., would mean "transgress," "err,"
which is much less appropriate here than "go to excess." IN might easily
come from a carelessly written AA; or, as Earle observes, Mpfiaw may be
due to the influence of irapaiveip just below it.

1078.	Cf. Terence Andr. 307 facile omnes, quom valemus, recta consilia
aegrotis damus.

1079.	irpoK6trrois: "a metaphor taken from clearing ground" (Earle).—
The text of 1080, 1081 and 1085 I have given according to Galen, De plac.
Hipp, et Plat. pp. 388, 394 Mueller; for the MSS. variants, see App. Crit.
The most noticeable difference is in 1085, where Galen reads ijfi&aKei (our MSS.
of Euripides having <roi): cf. Photius ^Sd<r/cei • &Kfidfri, Macedonius in Anth.
Pal. VI. 30 kclkov 8' iirl yrjpaos rj/juv | tLWvros t}(3&<tk€i . . . irevlrj. A harder
question is whether in 1080 we should read i^dyei with Galen or il i%&yei with
the Euripidean MSS. In Suppl. 79 and Ion 361 we have the pronoun; but
that fact does not prove that Euripides used it here, where it can so easily be
supplied from the context. Moreover, " Porson's tfttle" (see note on 671) if
strictly interpreted favors i^dyei: and as Galen's MS. of the Alcestis seems162

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

to have been better than ours (witness ^/3d<rm just below), I have adopted
that reading.

1086.	The xp^vov just below xP^V0S of 1085 looks suspicious, and Nauck
conjectured dpdCbs Xiyois &v. But the threefold repetition (xpbvos— XP^V0V —
Xpbvos) may be intentional, to increase the emphasis; and probably no change
should be made.

1087.	viov ydfwv irbdoi the MSS., but Schmidt's emendation vioi ydfwi irbdov
is almost certainly right. Some early scribe simply exchanged the endings of
vioi, ydfxoi and irbdov, one of the commonest kinds of error in copying. Euripides
often uses the plural ydfioi of a single marriage.

1088.	ovk av	cf. the English "I wouldn't have thought that
of you."

1089.	A difficult place. The text follows a ; B has xvp^v X^xos, while
L P show the curious variant xvpdeu fibvos. Monk read XVPfibvos, which
gives good sense (cf. Soph. O. T. 479), though iibvos is somewhat pleonastic.
But, if I mistake not, fibvos is part of a gloss on xvp€or xvp^v- A much
stronger case may be made out for the reading x^ewms \£xos: xvp^is and
xripe&vei will then be different mistakes for xqpcftreis, and X4xos "accus. of
specification" with the verb, "remain widowed as to your couch." But in
that case X<?xos is otiose, and could well be spared. Kirchhoff and Earle read
XVP^V' middle does not occur elsewhere in Aeschylus, Sophocles
or Euripides, and I doubt if it is to be found in any good writer. On the
whole, it seems best to read x^P^crei Xtyos, making Xfyos the subject, " will
your couch remain empty " ? Cf. Od. IX. 123 f. dXX' ^ y (sc. vrjcos) . . . avdpuv
xypevei, and the English uwidowed couch." So 862 xvpuv neXddpwv. The
reading xvp^v may be due to iotacism, or be the work of some one who took
xypefoei, to be second person and preferred the form in -y. (It is just possible
that xvpet™h ^Xos and fibvos are all glosses, and that the true reading was dXX'
dvev koIttjs (or Xi/crpajv) fAeveis, or something of the sort.)

1094.	This line has been much tortured by the critics. The MSS. have
the reading in the text (except that B has KaXbv and I KaXetV), which I believe
to be correct without any change at all. There is, of course, an ellipsis of
Ml: fjL7)TroT€ needs no alteration (see M. and T. 688 for other cases of m with
a participle after olda in Oratio Obliqua). The construction is exactly like that
in Soph. Antig. 1063 qjs fii) ' pjvoX^awv fodi rrjv ifxyv <j>p£va, except that Mi is not
expressed. In L the first hand has written fodi above cos to show the ellipsis,
and the schol. says Mi firjd^TOTc KaX&twv fie vvficpLov. For emendations that
have been suggested, see Sel. Conj. The passage is a good example of the
way in which a perfectly sound text has sometimes been tampered with.

1095.	4irriv€<r : for this use of the aorist, see M. and T. 60. So Med. 707,
I. A. 440, Here. F. 1235, Or. 1672, Phoen. 771, Soph. Aj. 536, El. 1322, etc.
The usage in the case of this verb may fairly be called a settled idiom of
the language.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.	163

1097. -ycvvaCcov : so B a, yewalav L P, yevvaiios Lenting. I have retained
yevvaloov with Hermann; cf. Hippol. 409 iic yevvalujv 86fxo)v. The phrase rijvSe
yewalav could only mean 44 this high-born lady," an epithet which could not
fail to arouse curiosity when applied to a slave; but Admetus shows no
surprise.

1096. avTopai: so L P, rightly. The other family have alrovfiai, obviously
a gloss on the rarer and more distinctively poetic word. The substitution was
aided by the resemblance in form between the two words. Cf. Suppl. 279 irp6s
tre yeveiddos . . . &vto/ji.at, Heracl. 226.

1100.	Cf. Bhes. 596 Xviry Kapdlav dedrjy pivot.

1101.	Is 84ov ir. x- *• a curious phrase. The meaning seems to be, 44 perhaps
the kindness (or 44 favor ") may result advantageously " (or 44 opportunely ").
Bauer-Wecklein render is 8iov 44 wie es soli, zum guten." Earle and others take
it = & Kaipbv, which is supported by cases like Soph. Antig. 386, O. T. 1416,
and by the-analogy of iv diovn. Herod. I. 119 is diov iyeydvee and 186 is diov
£56k€€ yeyovivai are disputed, some rendering is biov 4 as it should be,' others
4 opportunely.' The difference, however, is not great. Cf. also Demos. IV. 14
els diov \iyov(riv, lb. XX. 41 els diov 82 vvv yiyovev afirf t6 . . . \afkiv . . . t^v
arikeiav.

1102.	|xt] "XafKs: on this aphaeresis see Christ Metrik2 pp. 34 ff. The MS.
variants here are due in part to a misunderstanding of it. Tyrwhitt restored
the true reading.

1105. aOpci: so the first class. Spa of L P is probably a gloss. Euripides
uses ad petv some fifteen times.

1107-8. Nauck rejects 1108 (which is not in the text of P, but has been
added in the margin by the first hand), and 1107 as well. He deems the whole
of 1107 corrupt except irpodvfitav, which word he holds to be a variant of irlOov
fiovov (Eur. Stud. II. p. 83 f.). This seems quite needless. The omission of
1108 in B does not prove very much, as that MS. is written 44unsaglich fliichtig"
(Wilamowitz) and abounds in slips. 1107 is intentionally vague, 441, too,
have some secret knowledge that leads me to show this eagerness (for you to
receive her)." Heracles in this scene is paying back Admetus for the double-
entendres of 513 ff. Though the vengeance is comic and harmless, the king
does not escape unpunished for his deceit. Kay do implies that it is now Heracles'
turn. There is no ground for any change, irocis: see Christ Metrik2 p. 26
(§ 36) and Wecklein Cur. Epigr. pp. 53 ff.

1112. Soicct: so LP) fiovXei the other MSS. The use of the impersonal
verb without a dative, seeming unusual, led to the emendation pofiXei. So often
in the MSS. Sokc? has been changed to doiceis or 86k€i. See Jebb on Antig. 1102.
S6jiov$: so the Venetian copy of L; 56/jlois of the other MSS. is clearly due to
86/jlois in 1110.

1115. |&6vy: /jl6vov Nauck, which is undeniably 4 neat'; but probably
change is unnecessary.164	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

1117.	irpoTcivat: irporelveiv L P, Trpdreive a. 6i/yc?v: dlyeiv the MSS. as
usual (0lye a). irporeivcu was proposed by Elmsley ex conj., and is confirmed
by B. u Nam et aoristus accommodatior est praesente (i.e. the act is momen-
tary), et ex ea scriptura intelligitur unde wp&reive et 0lye venerint'' (Hermann).
irpoTelveiv is due to the wish to have the other verb in the same tense as the
(supposed) present 0lyeii>.

1118.	KapaTopcov: so Lobeck; Kaparbw the MSS. Mr. Brennan (Class.
Rev. VII. pp. 17 ff.) has defended the reading of the MSS. on the ground that
KapaTOfjL&p u is in reality ridiculous, for Perseus was a model of courage."
But surely the most courageous man would be justified in using caution under
such circumstances. As another has well said (Class. Rev. VII. p. 204), u the
attitude of Admetus is the real point of the comparison. He is unwilling to
look at the stranger for fear he should be attracted by her beauty and so even
for a moment false to his wife's memory; and in thus standing with hand
outstretched but averted face (ravra \iyei direarpafjifiivos schol.),. he is like
Perseus, who dares not with all his courage look at the features which turned
beholders into stone." The elision of the dative t in tragedy has been almost
universally given up by scholars, and, all cases where it seems to occur are
capable of easy emendation. See Jebb's critical note on Soph. O. C. 1436. —
Cf. Rhes. 586 %p^ Kaparofieiv and Troad. 564, Phoen. 606, where Kapar&fios
is used. For the Gorgon simile, cf. Orest. 1520, Here. F. 990, Phoen. 455.

1121. irpos avTfjv: B has irpbs, the other MSS. 8' is. Euripides uses both
irp6s and ds (is) with p\iireiv: but as when the imperative fi\tyov is used in this
way the conjunction is almost always omitted (cf. 390, Hel. 1442, Heracl. 225,
Here. F. 1227, I. A. 1238; I. A. 320, etc.), I have followed B.*

1123. tC X4|o> : so LP. The other class has AetWcu (Xefow B), which Earle
reads, changing Xei5<r<rw in the next line to X^w. But cf. Hec. 488, Cycl. 375
co ZeO, rl X^o;, Hel. 483, and the like; and for X^w in 1124 there is no MS.
authority. It seems more likely that the reading Xetfo*<rw in 1123 is due to the
influence of the XetWw just under it in 1124. Nauck would read (pda^a for
Oav/jLCLy on the ground that u statt des unverhofften Wunders muss man eine
unverhoffte Erscheinung erwarten." He compares Ion 1395 rl dijTa (pda/ia tQv
&pe\irl<TT(iJv opQ; Or. 879 opG> 8' AeXirrov <pdtr/i, o fi^iroT <a<pe\op. Add I. A. 1585
&€\ittov el<ri86vT€s £k dedov twos | <f>d<r(j. But, as Nauck himself points out, the
phrase dadfi diXirurTov occurs in Soph. Track. 673, a play which shows a strong
Euripidean influence. Moreover, a general term like dav/ia may include an
4'unverhoffte Erscheinung" as well as any other form of prodigy. In Or. 879,
the very passage quoted by Nauck, B has eav/ia, and in I. A. 1581 we have
6avfia 8' fjv at<pvr)s opav just before the <j>d<r/jLa is mentioned. Hence, though the
emendations are plausible, I am inclined to believe that no change is necessary.
(f>d<r(jia would hardly have been used here unnecessarily when it occurs just

* See on the other side Wecklein Beitrage zur Kritilc des Euripides p. 538.CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

165

below in 1127. — Dobree punctuates u> OeoL, tL X$fw Bavfi av^Xiruttov ro8e;
yvvaiKa XeiVcrw /c.r.X., which may be right.

1125.	UA11 the MSS. except a (which has fj) read and all except P
(which has inirXfoaet) have iKwXrjaaeL. Nauck and Prinz suspect the words
iKirXfro-ei %apd, the former on the ground that the ideas expressed by iKir\ifi<T<reiv
and xaP^ are nofc congruous. But surely if one can say iicirXayrjvai xaPV
cf. Aesch. Choeph. 231) or ijdovy (cf. Soph. Track. 626), the expression xaP&
iKir\rj(r<T€L nvd ought to be both possible and natural. So in English we can
say 4 joy crazes a man' as well as 1 a man is crazed with joy.' On the other
hand, the simple genitive deov is certainly hard. If it is possessive, 4 some
delusive joy of the divinity,' it is ambiguous, and if it is a genitive of source
we miss some verb indicating motion or origin. Should we not insert one letter
and read fx £k deov ? This seems better than to escape the difficulty by altering
%apd to xd/us with Kvigala (Studien zu Euripides II. p. 36)" (Ed. in Harvard
Studies VII. p. 220). Since the above was written, I find that Buecheler pro-
posed fi £k deov many years ago (on quite different grounds); and the conjecture
therefore belongs to him. His reason for making it was that deov, 6eG>v, etc.,
when synizesis occurs, are almost always, if not always, preceded by a long
syllable. The conjecture is thus confirmed by evidence of another kind.

1126.	Radermacher's &\\rj for dXXd improves both sense and metre so
much that I have ventured, to receive it into the text. The caesura between
the conjunction dXXd and the clause with which it belongs seems very clumsy.

1127.	t68c : so Herwerden; J is, of course, understood. For the ellipsis,
cf. Iph. T. 67 Spa, <f>v\d<r<rov /jltj ris kv arlfiip PporQv. r65' eiaopCo of B and t6S'
of most MSS. will then be different attempts to supply the verb. For /xtj with
the subjunctive after opG> and ofda, see M. and T. 366. Kirchhoff thinks Bpa
ye a gloss, and that yd) n has come by a "copyist's error" from aXX' ^ ri
(i.e. MHTI from AAAHTI). Hence he would read aXX* ^ rt 0d<r/*a veprtpwv
t6S* eiaopQ); One might also think of /jlt] vepripcov ri <f>d<rfm y eixropG> rdde (M. and
T. 264; cf. v. 315) or /jltj veprtpwv tl (paafia vvv r6d' efoopG, which would account
better for the addition of Spa ye: but, on the whole, I prefer the reading in
the text.

1128.	41 Mediums" seem to have been in ill repute in ancient times as
well as in modern.

1130.	: so the MSS. The sense will then be " that you disbelieve

your good fortune," which seems apposite enough, as Admetus has just asked
doubtingly, u do I really behold my wife, whose funeral I was holding just
now?" I cannot see why Reiske's emendation rtixy is at all necessary.
" Aliud est non fidere sorti, quod est instabilem futuram putantis: de qua
re hie non est sermo; aliud non credere verum esse, quod accidit. De eo hie
solo agitur " (Hermann).

1135. As to envy felt by the gods, Wecklein aptly compares Herod. III.
40, ¥11. 46, V. 21. Do the words of Heracles also convey a gentle hint that166	CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

it is time to thank him and his divine parent ? At all events, the promptness
with which Admetus turns to him is noticeable.

1137.	<f>£ru<ras: this, the reading of B, is certainly right, as the metre
requires the antepenult to be long. The phrase o <f>vT€foas (<f)iTij<ras) irar^p is
a favorite one with the tragedians; cf. I. A. 1177, Soph. 0. T. 793, 1614, etc.

1138.	Tap." avwp0«(ras: Tfi.fi' upduxras L P (av lost after a/x). In L the
second hand has tried to fill out the line by reading rdfid y. Cf. Suppl. 1227
<ri> ybp fi avopdols.

1140. Scupovcov r§ icupty: so the schol., a and d. B L P have daifidvwv t$
Koip&vcp. Those who retain Koipdvy take Salpoves in the sense of 44 departed
spirits," manes, comparing 1003 and Hesiod Op. 121 toI dal/wvts d<ri. . .
i<r0\oL That 8a.lfj.uu sometimes has this sense cannot be denied; but, as Weil
ppints out, "tous les morts ne s'&evaient pas au rang de Salfwves, qui £tait
reserve k une minority privil£gi£e." To this privileged minority Alcestis would
belong; but surely no unprejudiced person on hearing the phrase daifidvav
icolpavos would ever think of Thanatos. He would naturally suppose that Zeus
was meant, or if the connection showed that daifjbvwv meant 44 departed spirits,"
that Pluto was in the speaker's mind. Those who believe that in this play
Hades and Thanatos are identified, find support for their theory in this pas-
sage; but see note on 1. 261. Moreover, as Jerram points out, an attributive
genitive, like Saindwv, usually has the article when the other noun has it, so
that we should expect tG>v baifibvuv if we accept r£ koip&vq. On the other hand,
if we read daifihvwv r<? kvply, " with that one of the divinities who had her in
his power," all is clear and simple. There is no need of interpreting with
Matthiae dalfjiovi iicelvty os Kijpids £<tti toiJtou, tov avdyeiv robs redvrjKdTas, or with
Hermann Saifidvwv t$ tov £r}v rj /jltj £i}j/ kvply: with kvply, airr}* or ttjs yvvaucds
is to be understood. The use of the article and the order of the words are just
what we should look for if the adj. kvply is used ; 8a.ifj.6pwv, too, has its ordinary
sense, and, in short, all is plain and regular. I cannot doubt for an instant
that Kvplip is the true reading. See on this whole passage Lessing De Mortis
apud veteres figura p. 19; Robert Thanatos p. 35.

1132 ff. A clumsy device for explaining the silence of Alcestis. The poet
obviously did not wish to have more than two speaking actors on the 41 stage"
at once; a fact which would mark the play as early even if we did not know
its date.

1145-6. irplv av d<j>a*yvC<rr]T(u: i.e. 44 before the consecration to the powers
of the lower world, which has been laid upon her, has been taken off." Cf.
vv. 75-6. dtpayvlfav is very rare in classic writers, if not indeed tiira£ dp.
Suidas defines d<f>o<riG> by a^ayvl^w.

1150. Tvpdvvo>: so B P L; Tvpdwov a I. Euripides often uses Ttipavvos as
an adj., e.g. Hippol. 843, Med. 957, Andr. 3, etc.

1153. Sprfpov: Wilamowitz's brilliant emendation for 8bfiov of L P (which
reading is also mentioned by the schol.). 6S6j> of B is probably a gloss onCRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.

167

8pbyuov: while v68a of a is doubtless an emendation made by some one who
had in mind ITec. 939 f. iwel v6<ttlimov | vavs iKlvycrev ir68a and the construction
ir68a @aIveiv (El. 94, 1173). The figure in e\6ois 8p6fiov is that of a ship making
her "run" (cf. Hel. 1080 vim 8p6p.os, etc.), so that the meaning is, "may your
return home be safe and speedy."

1154. irdo-T) t : so a (except that the i is omitted, as usual). The other
MSS. have traai r, but irdvri must be right, as the r shows; for the adj. must
belong with the following word. Tcrpapx^: Arjfioadivrjs QiXiinriKOLs. rerrdptav
fjLepujv 6vtu)v T7js QerraXlas ^Kaarov fiipos rerpbs iKaXeiro, icadd <pr)<riv 'EXXdviKos iv
tois QerraXiKOcs • 6vo/jlcl Si (prjaiv elvai rats rerpdai QeTTaXi&Tiv, $0iu>tiv, IIeXa<r7t-
G)tiv, 'E(TTiaiCoTiv. Kai 'ApKTTOTiXrjs Si iv rrj Koivrj QerraXCov ToXirelq. iirl 'AXetia
rod Iltippov 8iriprj<rdal (f>7]<TLV els 8' fAolpas rijv QerraXlav. . . . 8ti Si $LXnriros icad'
eKdcrrrjv toijtojv rwv fioiptov dpxovra KaTiffT7}<re SeSrjXdbKacriv HXXoi re Kai Qedjrofnros
iv TTj /id' (Harpocration ; cf. Photius and Suidas s. v. rerpapxhNauck would
read TerpairrbXet, as the tragedians do not elsewhere use rerpapxia and the
mention of a Terpapxla in Thessaly in the heroic age is an anachronism. But
I suspect Euripides did not think of this point. Does not Shakespeare make
Hector quote Aristotle? It looks as if the use of the word "tetrarchy " for
a political division of a country originated in Thessaly; and if so, Euripides
is probably using the technical Thessalian word.

1157.	itcOijpiMSo-pco-Oa: cf. Aesch. Prom. 313 Kai neddppxxrai rp&irovs | viovs.
Wakefield and Earle conjecture fiedoipixLa-fxea-da, which is very elegant; but there
seems to be no convincing reason for the change.

1158.	€vrv\&v dpvr|cro|Aat: the typical instance of this construction; see
M. and T. 910, and cf. Or. 1581.

1159 ff. These lines occur also at the close of the Andromache, Bacchae,
Helena and (with a change in the first line) Medea.METRICAL APPENDIX.

As might be expected from its early date, the Alcestis shows a relatively
strict metrical treatment. This is true both of the iambic trimeters, which
have comparatively few (about fifty) cases of resolution, and of the logaoedic
verses, which show very close responsion and very few irregular resolutions (see
Rumpel Die Auflosungen im Trimeter des Euripides in Philologus XXIV. pp.
407 ff.; K. F. Mueller Be pedibus solutis in dialogorum senariis Aesch. Soph.
Eur.; the appendix to Earle's Alcestis, and Groeppel Be Euripidis versibus
logaoedicis p. 91 f.).

In the schematization of the lyric metres I have not followed any one
authority to the exclusion of others. In his metrical schemes of the play
(in vol. III. of the Kunstformen) J. H. H. Schmidt pays, as usual, too much
attention to mere outward symmetry, and cannot be implicitly trusted. More
satisfactory, so far as it goes, is the treatment of Rossbach-Westphal in the
third edition of their Griechische Metrik. I have also found Christ's Metrik
and Gleditsch's Metrik (in the 2d vol. of I. Mueller's Handbuch d. klass. Alt
Wiss.) of great service. Of course, many different arrangements and schemes
are possible, and no single one will meet the approval of all scholars. I have
adopted in part the notation employed by Schmidt, as his system, thanks to
the admirable way in which it has been presented, is now in vogue in this
country.

Metres op the Play.

1-27 iambic trimeters.

28-37 anapaestic system.

38-76 iambic trimeters.

77-85 anapaestic system.

86-92 = 98-104 logaoedic: —

86	= 98 w \ J-kj \ J- \j | -L \j | J- (troch. dim. cat. with anacrusis).

87	= 99 — I J-kj \J-KJ	\J- " " " " "

88	= 100	(First Glyconic).

89	= 101 > | _Z_ ^ w |	| J- (log. tetrap. cat.).

90	= 102 | _Z_ vy w |	| (log. trip. cat. with anacrusis).

91	= 103 — | J_kj |	\lL\ -L (sync. log. tetrap. cat. with anacrusis).
92-104 JL > | M \j | ljI | — (sync, troch. dim, cat.).170

METRICAL APPENDIX.

93-97 = 105-111 (anapaestic systems).

112-121 = 122-131 (logaoedic): —

112	= 122 - | Zu \lL \ -L\j | J- (sync, troch. dim. cat. with anacr.).

113	= 123 ^ | _Z_ ^ | lL | -L. (sync, troch. dim. cat.).*

114	= 124 JL > \ J- \j\j | J- (log. trip. cat.).

115	= 125- S- kj\j	| J- (log. trip. cat.).

116	= 126 — | luu | J- (log. dip. cat. with anacrusis).

117	= 127 > | -L \j | \_L | J- (Second Pherecratean).

118	= 128	(troch. tetrap. cat. with anacr.).

119	= 129 — | _L w | -L kj | JL kj | J- 44 "■ 44 44 44

120-21 = 130-31 J- \j \j\-L kj \ -L kj \j \ JL kj\lL \ -L (sync. log. hexap. cat.).
132-5 anapaestic system.

(See also Rossbach-Westphal Griechische Metrik pp. 494-5, 165; J. H. H.
Schmidt Kunstformen d. Gr. Poesie vol. III. pp. II-III.)

136-212 iambic trimeters.

213-225 = 226-237 logaeodo-trochaic: —

213	= 226 \j\lL\J-\j\-L, — | jLu | i-u | i- (two troch. tripodies cat.,

the first syncopated, both with anacrusis).

214	= 227 —\J-\j\-L\j\-Lv\lLi — w | — ^ \ JL kj \ -L (two troch.

dims, cat., the first syncopated with anacr.).

215	= 228 — | J- \j\j | _L \j | J- \j | (First Glyconic with anacr.).

216	= 229	| —d \ J-w \ J- (First Glyconic).!

217	= 230 J- \j | J- \j | lL | J- (First Pherecratean).

218	= 231 J-\j \ J-\j \ J-, J- kj \ J- \ J- (two troch. trip. cat.).

219	= 232	\ -L\j \ iL \ J- (troch. tetrap.

cat. with anacr. + First Pherecratean).

220	= 233 | J- \j | J- (troch. monom. cat. with anacr.).

221	=233 b — | JLkj | J- > \J-kj\J-&\JL\j\J- (troch. trim. cat. with

anacr.).

222	= 234 kj\J-kj\J-kj\J-<j\J-kj\lL\J- (sync, troch. trim, with

anacr.).

223	= 235 J- \j | iL | JL (sync, troch. trip. cat.).

224	= 236 w | — w w | — \j \j | — w | J- (log. tetrap. cat. with anacr.).

225	= 237 w w	I — ^ | Ul | — (First Pherecratean with anacr.).
(See also Rossbach-Westphal pp. 286-7 ; Schmidt pp. IY-Y; Christ Metrik2

p. 629.)

238-43 anapaestic system.

244-47 = 248-51: —

244 = 248 J-\j\j I JLkjkj | J-\j \ JL (log. tetrap. cat.).

* Often called Ithyphallicus.

t The irrational long in the second foot (va <ttoK \ jxov) of 216 is highly suspicious, as the
antistrophe has J- \j. Schmidt and Rossbach-Westphal read (tt6\op, which, however, does
not seem to be used in this sense. Groeppel reads deip-qv fipbxV in 229*METRICAL APPENDIX.

171

245 = 249	| J-kj | lL, |	\ J-kj | lL | J- (sync. log. trip. + First

Pherecratean).

246	= 250

247	= 251 iambic trimeters.

252-8 = 259-65 iambo-logaoedic: —

252	= 259 w	|-u |-i (Second Glyconic with anacr.).

253	= 260 \jkj | JL \j \ \ J- (troch. trip, cat., syncopated, with anacr.).

254	= 261	uwu | d | u -i, & J-\ kj -L \ \j lL \ J- (two iambic

dims., the second syncopated).*

255	= 262 — | J- \j\j | lZ, | — ww | —(sync. log. trip. + Adonic).

256	= 263 J-w | | iZ | JL (First Pherecratean).

257-8 = 264-5 iambic trimeters.

266-72 logaoedic: —

266	www|www|lZ|-^ (sync, troch. dim. cat.).

267	(troch. dim. cat.).

268	— ww | lZ | -L (sync, troch. trip. cat.).t

269	(troch. dim. with anacr.).

270	i. vw |	| J- (log. trip. cat.).

271	— \j kj | — J- |__L | — (anapaest, tetrap. cat.).

272	— |Xw|-£-w|wrww|www|iZ|_£- (sync, troch. trim. cat. with

anacr.).

(See also Rossbach-Westphal pp. 494-5; Schmidt pp. VI-VII.)
273-9 anapaestic system.

280-392 iambic trimeters.

393-403 = 406-415 dochmiac-trochaic : —

393	= 406 u wi-u — | J-\j | J- \j | J- (dochmius + troch. trip. cat.).

394	= 407 \j\JL\j\J-kj\J-\j\J- (troch. dim. cat. with anacr.).

395	= 408 w w w w — (dochmius).

396	= 409 ww|_^.w|iZ|Jlw|w (sync, troch. dim. cat. with anacr.).

397	=410 > \j \j JL > — (dochmius).

398	= 411 w | vi w w | -£- ww | J- (log. trip. cat. with anacr.).

399	= 411 b — | w w w | JL w | w (troch. trip. cat. with anacr.).

400	=412 v;w|i.ww|^w|iZ, |i-v|-iw|iZ-i (sync. log. trip, with

anacr. + sync, troch. tetrap.).

401=413 w | J- w | iZ | J- w (sync, troch. trip, with anacr.).

402 = 414 J- \j\j | J. w | J- (log. trip. cat.).

403=415 _i uw | X w | Z, Ivw |lw |i-w (two log. trips., the first

sync.).

416-34 iambic trimeters.

435-444 = 445-454 logaoedic: —

435=445	|i-vu \ JL (log. trip. cat.).

* This line may also be regarded as an iambic tetrameter catalectic.

t May also be taken as an Adonic.172

METRICAL APPENDIX.

436	= 446 — | J- w \ -L w \ -L w | J-bJL (log. tetrap. with anacr.).

437	= 447 w \j | J- \j\j | -L \j | J- \j \lL-L (sync. log. pentap. with anacr.).
438-9 =448-9 — | JL. \j \j | J- \j \j \ lL \ i / ? | J— \j \j | X wu | lZ. | — (two

sync. log. tetrapodies, the first with anacr., the second-catalectic).

440	=450 J- sjkj ] — \j \j | J- (log. trip. cat.).

441	= 451 jL\j | J- \j | \_L j J- (sync, troch. dim. cat.).

442	= 452	| -L\j | — w \lL-L (sync. log. pentap. with anacr.).
443-4 = 453-4 — \ -Lw\-Lyj\-Lv\iL, \ J-w \ JL ^ \ lL \ JL (First

Glyconic with anacr. 4- First Pherecratean).

455-65 = 466-75 logaoedic: —

455	= 466 J-\j\j | J- kj | \_L | J- (First Pherecratean).

456	= 467 \j —	I lL j J- (Second Pherecratean).

457	= 468	(First Pherecratean with anacr.).

458	= *** J- > \ — w \iL\ J- (Second Pherecratean).

459	= 469 www|lZ|-Aw|-^-w|u1|-^ (sync, troch. hexap. cat.).

460	= 470 \jkj\J-\jkj\J-\j\J-\j\lLJ- (sync. log. pentap. with anacr.).

461	= 471 \j \j \ J- (anapaestic monometer, syncopated).

461	b = 471 bw | J- \j\j | J-\j | J- \j | \_L J- (sync. log. pentap. with anacr.).

462	= 472 JL_ | J-_\ JL_ | _Z__(dactylic tetram.).

463	= 473 J- \j\j | J- \j\j | J- w | J- \j\j (dactylic tetram.).

464	= 474 J— \j \j | J— \j \j j j.L \j J _Z_- u u | j u | J— \j | lL | — (dact. tetram.

+ sync, troch. trip. cat. with anacr.).

465	= 475 kj\lL\J-\j\J-kj\lL\J- (sync, troch. pentap. cat. with anacr.).
476-567 iambic trimeters.

568-77 = 578-587 logaoedic:—

568—9=578—9 J- \j J JL > | J- \j\j | l£., j w u \ JL \j | JL kj J — w" (sync.

Third Gly conic + log. trip, with anacr.).

570-71 = 580-81 ^ | w w	(sync. log. hexap.

cat. with anacr.).

572	= 582 JL\j | JL \j |- \J_ | JL (sync, troch. dim. cat.).

573	= 583 kj\J-kj\J-v\J-\j\j\ — (Third Glyconic with anacr.).

574	= 584 J. \j \ J- kj \ lL \ J- (sync, troch. trip. cat.).

575	= 585 J-kj\J-\jkj\J-kj\J~ (Second Glyconic).

576	= 586 — | J- kj\j | J- \j \ J- > \ J- (First Glyconic with anacr.).

577	= 587 J. > \ J- w \ lL \ J- (Second Pherecratean).

588-96 = 597-605 dactylo-epitritic, logaoedic.

588	= 597 — \ J-\j\j\JLkj\j\J- (dact. trip. cat. with anacr.).

589	= 598 \_L_ w--| J-\j\j \ J- kjkj |_Z.(2d Epitrite + dact. trip. cat.).

590=599 iZu--| J- ww | J- ww | J- " 44	44 44 44

591	= 600 Iwu | 1 wv |i- (dact. trip. cat.).

592	= 601 ww \ J- \j\j |_Lww|-^-w \ \JL \ J- (sync. log. pentap. cat., with

anacr.).METRICAL APPENDIX.

173

593—4 = 602—3 — | v>/w |Z vv | J- w | lLi J J- \j \ J- \j\j | J- (sync.

log. tetrap.with anacr. + log. trip. cat.).

695 = 604	(sync, troch. hexap. cat.).

596 = 605 ^ w |iZ|-A w 1^.	" 44 44 44

606-740 iambic trimeters.

741-6 anapaestic system.

747-860 iambic trimeters.

861-871 anapaestic system.

872-7 = 889-94 (pfkos dfioipaiov) logaoedic *: —

872	= 889 \j\-L\j\lL\J-kj\J-kj\lL\-L (sync, troch. hexap. cat. with

anacr.).

873	= 890	(sync, troch. pentap. cat. with

anacr.).

874	= 891 kj J. \j — (dochmius).

875	= 892 u |i-v	l-^-u |i-v | — (sync, troch. hexap. cat. with

anacr.).

876	= 893 w | j- \j \ _l \j | JL w w |Xuu | jl (log. pentap. cat. with anacr.).

877	= 894 — | kj | jL w \iL\ J- (sync, troch. pentap. cat. with anacr.).
895-902 anapaestic system.

903-10 = 926-34 logaoedo-trochaic : —

903	= 926 w | -l \j | — (troch. monom. cat. with anacr.).

904	= 927	\	|	\ j-\j (log. tetrapody).

905	= 928 — \j \ — w | \_L | — (sync, troch. dim. cat.).

906	= 929 \jkj\lL\lL\lL\J- (sync, troch. dim. cat. with anacr.).

907	= 930-31	(troch. dim. cat. with anacr.).

908	= 932 w w | — \j \j | lL | J- (sync. log. trip. cat. with anacr.).

909	= 933 — | luu \iL\ J- 44 44 4 4 14 4 4 44

910	= 934 kj \ — \iL \ JL (sync, troch. trip. cat. with anacr.).

911-925 anapaestic system.

935-961 iambic trimeters.

962-971 = 973-81 logaoedic : —

962	= 973 \j — |	| \_L | -L (Second Pherecratean).

963	= 974 J- \j j J- \j \j \-L\j \ J- (Second Glyconic).

964	= 975 _Z_ > | -lw \j-kj\-l

965	= 976 _d_ ^ | _Z. \j \j | \J_ | JL (Second Pherecratean).

966	= 977 j- > | jl kjkj | j. w | j- (Second Glyconic).

967	= 978 J->\J-kj\j\lL\J- (Second Pherecratean).

968	= 979 -L>\J-w\lL\J- 44

969—70 = 980 J- \j | \j\j | J- \j | lZ.? | — w w | J- kj | J- \j (Second Gly-
conic + log. trip.).

971	= 981 \j\j | vi w | J- (log. trip. cat.).

972	= 982 — ^ w | — w | ll | j- (First Pherecratean).

* The ejaculations made by Admetus stand extra metrum.174

METRICAL APPENDIX.

983-994 = 995-1005 logaoedic.

983-4 = 995-6 w \iL\ -L w | iZ, \ -L kj\j \ -L> \ J- (choriambic dime-
ter -f log. trip. cat.).

985	= 977-8 Z>	| lZ, | — w w \ lL\ J- (sync. log. trip. + sync. log.

trip. cat.).

986	= 999 -L>\JLw\-Lkj\jL (Second Gly conic).

987-9 = 1000 — |	| i- - \ — ^ (l°g- trip, with anacr.).

990= 1001 > | JL w | — (log. trip. cat.).

991	= 1002 M | -L \j\j | J- \j \lL\ J- (First Pherecratean with anacr.).

992	= 1003 M I -L kjkj j -L ^ | iZ | X "	"	" "

993	= 1004 — | X w w | JL w | l£ | "	"	" "

994	= 1005 -L > \	| J- \j | J-±L (log. tetrap.).

1159-63 anapaestic system.GREEK ODEX.

[The Roman numerals refer to the page of the Introduction; the Arabic numbers toihe
line of the play under which the word is discussed in the Critical Nptes.YZ^ —

A.

"AyaXfia^ meaning of, 613.

aydjv, meanings of, 489.

$5r)s, as common noun, 13.

del and cue/, 40.

a^ofxai, 326.

&0p4<a, 1105.

-at, elision of, in 1st and 3d person, 90.
AfycuW, 595.

al86cf)p(av, 658.

atpara, meaning of plur., 496.

aifxdppavTOS, 134.

cuVw, meaning of, 12.

&K\av<rros, sigmatic and non-sigmatic

forms of, 173.

&K0LTIS, 201.

aKpaL(f>v^s, 1052.

a\is — fierplus, 907.

a\l(TK€(rdai, use of, 786.

&X\(as, meaning of, 333.

afjLpaXeijt, use of form, 526.

afietxpao-dai tl, 752.

&v, ellipsis of partic. with, 181.

flip, omitted after eariv iVcos, 52.
dva — avdaTrjdi, 276.

avTirtfAveLv, 971.

tivTOfiai and cu'roO/zai, 1098.

airavT\tu, metaphorical use of, 354.
aireipdicaKOS, 927.

air\<iK(bv and a/jurXaKibv, 242.

aw apxys, 111.

dwb wavrolas	747.

airbrofiosy 118, 981.

tLpdyv, 608.

dpra/JLio), 494.

arlfav, 1037.

at50ts . . . waXiv, 188.

auX6s, 351.

avx^w, meaning of, 95.

d<payvLfav, 1145.

d<popLfav, 31.

B.

Ba^w, first aorist of, Euripidean, 1055.
pdppiros, nature of, 345.

0/otos, how different from	929.

|3\6retj>, with et's and 7rp6s, 1121.
/3ot/06/o/3ia, 1031.

r.

r for n, 96.

7aptly, not yaprf)<T€iv, Attic form, 372.
yotivatri, form, 947.

A.

Aalficov, meaning of, 1140.

8a<f>oiv6s, 581.

£<?, climactic force of, 847.

deivd 7rd(rxeiv, 816.

dfowoiva, title of deities, 163.

5td5o%os, as substantive, 655.
Siawpiweiv, with gen., 642.

SSfioL — cista, 160.

dv<Tird\ai<TTos, 889.

8v<r<popa and dvcrfxevri, 617.176

GREEK

INDEX.

E.

"E7xos = £/0os, 76.

efav and e^r, 295.

4d£\eiv and d£\eiv, 644.

etnw, form, 920.

efrrform, 232.

£iclrpoa<rrlov^ioxce of prep., 835.
iK1TJ>€TriJS and €VTTp€TT'r)S, 333.

iicfptpeo-dai, 601.

^/c0opa, 422.

ifjLpalveii' and £k(3clLv€iv ictXevdov, 1001.
e/x7ras, 906.

7^m, 904.

iv defivloLs irirveiv, 1059.

<rot ifffjuev ical £t}v Kal pA), 279.

iv rj5' yfitpv, use of prep., 513.
ivrvxbvTh meaning of, 1032.
^f, denoting agency, 629.

i^pX^Oai, use of, 640.

$ft67rios, 546.

iir' airrj and eir a foots, 148.
&re<T77>d</>?7, meaning of, 187.

iir-Qvefra, idiomatic use of aor., 1095.
iTriyafjLeiv, meaning of, 305.

iiriirdpodos, xlix.

iirlo-Taadai = dfoaeQai, 566.
& S&v, 1101.

& Tplrvjv fjLrjv6s, 320.

icrriv farot, opt. without after,
117.

€<ttlv &rws, opt. without &p after, 52.
eraipos, as adj., 776.

€T€fJLQV and 6TCL/J.OV, 215.

cvfwpos, 757.

etifiapT?)s, 492.

eiirpoa-^yopos, 775.

txdpo%£v°vs and KaKo^ivovs, 558.

exiSva, emblem of cruelty, 310.
%X€lv= " comprehend," 51.

Z.

x/"?*') 184.

0.

Oapo-eiv, form in p<r, 38.

foXou?, 1067.

Qprjidas, orthography of, 1021.

I.

I of dative not elided in tragedy, 1118.

t, mistaken for p, 228.

iepta and iepij, 25.

fcpfo with gen., 75.

" l7r pot, 596.

iirir6<TTacts, 590.

K.

Kat' . . . T€, 647.

KaWlvaos, of a lake, 589.

/caXws axrrois KarOaveiv tjkov piov, 291.

Kapa.rop.Cov, 1118.

Kara, with gen. and accus., 237.

KCLTapxevQah 74.

Karaa redact a = iroiri<ra<Ta, 283.

Karrj^aTo, form of augment, 162.

/cdrw xQwfc an(i	45.

KeSpa irpd^eLv, 605.

kcLpcov cpafxai, 866.

K€v$os, 872.

KXafw = " catch it," 64.

and /cXe/w, 447.

K\utICL = X^xos, 994.

KOLvovaOaij with accus., 426.

KopT)0eti(reL) meaning, 313.

k6/jos, form, 904.

Kvavavyfjs, use as epithet, 254.

KI55iov, 960.

/cup^y and Koip&vy, 1140.

Kvpcai and Kvpijcrai, 473.

KWfiTjTai, of Thessalians, 476.

A.

Aaiceiv = 4 4 sing,'' 351.

A(£/otcra, orthography of, 835.

X<fyeiv = " talk about," 697.GREEK

INDEX.

177

Xi7rapal, epithet applied to Athens, 452.

Xoxcuos, 846.

\v€lv — XutrrreXetV, 627.

Avidav, constr. of, 114.

M.

M.apalve<rdai, " pregnant constr." with,
236.

ILedapixb^eiv, 1157.

HeOopfilfciv, 798, 1157.

fitdv, 757.

/AeXa/x7r^7rXy (TTokrj and fieXayx^ois ir£-

7rXois, 427.

piv= " I suppose," 146.

liiaov, r6, = "the difference," 914.
fieraiOLtfjuos &ras, 91.

fi€T&<TTa<Tis, of the chorus, xlix.

with subj. to express apprehension
and desire to avert, 318.

fity . . . cS^eXor, 879.

firfKodiJTrjSj 119.

lufji.vri<rK(a, pres. not used by tragedians, .

1045.

fwvdfiwvijf, 428.

fiovdwais, 906.

/Aov6<rTo\os, 406.

fiovvos, fwtivusj not Euripidean, 122.
fxvppivds, rare word, 173.

N.

Nau/cX^a, meaning, 112.

veavlas, as adj., 679.

ve/3/)6s, 585.

veoXala, 103.

vhfiai, used in fut. sense, 737.

peo<r<r6s =44 child," 403.

v6fwis and 86fwis, 574.

voaQlfciv, 43.

&

JsJevwj'es, 547.

O.

Odvetos, 532.

oT5a /X77, with partic., 1094.

olSas and ditrdas, 780.

oiKeretieiv, 437.

oiKrlpeiv, orthography of, 193.
6p<paveijuj, 165.

o/5w and oi5a, with /atJ and subj., 1127.

os c?, meaning, 640.

8<rioS) meaning, 10.	--

6Vris 76, causal use of, 620-

6<TTpaKov or apddviov, 98.

owe o!5' e£ and nescio an, 48.

oiWa, the form, 810.

otipdwos, in Euripides, 230.

ourw, post-positive, 333.

oi)x' ovTttis = haud impune, 680.

6<p0d\fj.6T€yKTos, 184.

6xy/Mi 66.

n.

Ilaidf, use of the word, 424.

Tra/aci = " during," 926.

irapaXfoai, form, 117.

irapOiveia = " virginity," 177.

irdpodos, 77 f.

7ra/)os, with gen. of time, 223.

wdTpios and 7Tarpyos, 249.

ir^xrrjs = TrcXratrrqv, 498.

irt/juj/avTos . . . ^ro, 66.

Tr£pav = Tr£pa, 585.

1T€<ppOVTlKbs (3\4tT€IV, 773.

7riTveii>= " to be cut off," 103.

irlrveiv and ttLtttciv, 948.

irlrveiv and irirveiv, 183.

ttLtvxos, Euripidean uses of, 798.
7r\ddeiv, 119.

7tX<?op, orthography of, 229.

TrX^s, meaning, 132.

7r65a irefcfeiv, 869.

7roetv, form, 1107.

iroifivlrris, use of word, 576.

7roXetj/, 29.

7TOXUC£X*?tos, 918.

iropeijeiv, with two accus., 444.

7r6p<T(a, 910.

irpd<r<r(A>, not "old Attic," 148.178

GREEK

INDEX.

irp^TTci) meaning and constr., 1050.
irpetrPetieiv, 282.

7rpiv, with indie., 128.

irpo^aerai or '7ro/3^<r€rcu, 785.

irpoOvftiav ex€lJ/i ^1.

ttpok6ttt€lv, metaphorical use of, 1079.
Trpoirerrfs, 909.

7rpoS) adverbial use of, 1063.

7r/o6s, "for the interest of," 57.

irpo<r fcvyvtivai or (rvfevyviivai, 482.
7rpoaicfiviov, doors in, xlix, 547.
7r/5o<r7r£reo-0ai, 421.

7rp6<r<pay/xa1 845.

irvpd, meaning, 608.

Trvpyos, metaphorical use of, 311.

P.

PeWpov, used in plur. by Soph, and

Eurip., 458.

pT\pait intransitive use of, 897.

2.

2, doubled in first aor., 230.

aavls, meanings, 968.

crefrlyyTaL, force of tense, 78.

<TK\r)p6s, metaphorical use, 500.

<tov t6 <t>pd<rai, constr., 832.

<r<r, for rr, 148.

<TTaTl$e<r0ai, 90.

(TTcLx^iv itrl TLva, 74.

<rre/oefs, form, 227.

o-fryKaais, 410.

ctfju/xerpos, 26.

<rtJv, in Euripides, 915.

ffvvdvds, 474.

<r0e, as sing., 553.

(TX^rXios, 741.

<rxvfJLCt 56/xco**, 911.

orthography of, 292.

T.

Ttpa/jiva and r^pe/ira, 457.

TiOeis and ridt]s, 57.

ro^pris, 35.

-top and -rrjv, in dual of hist, tenses

and opt., 272.

t6v5' &vbpa = £/*£, 331.

rerpap%/a, 1154.

tL ytvufiai, meaning, 153.

tL Kanbv iiei^ov a/iapTeiv aX6%ou, constr.

of, 879.

Tijpawos, as adj., 1150.

Y.

'T/^pcuot, meaning, 576.

vwepaXyeiv, with gen., 883.

virepfi&Weiv and \nrepfialveiv, 1077.

inrb <nr\dyxvois ix€lvi 1009.

viropdWeiv, meaning, 639.

inroppdxTeiv, metaphorical use of, 537.
virovpyrjaai x<£pt*>, 842.

Qafiai = 44 solemn addresses," 1005.
0eO, followed by a wish, 719.

<j>ddvu, with partic., 662.

<£0ir6s, 100.

^pikrara, rd, 340.

fpiretiu) and 0urei5o;, 294, 1137.

0X6£, without adj., 4.

(ppoveiv dotcQ vs. <f>poveiv, 565.

<ppovdos, fem., 94.

X.

XaXv/3ot, 980.

tuTelveiv, 768.

Xeipe<r<n, form, 756.

Xp^v, without tfv, 384.

Skvxoppayeiv, 20.

a.

and o, confused in MSS., 88.

cJpatos, 516.

cus dp, in final clauses, 740.ANNOUNCEMENTSGREEK TEXT-BOOKS

List	Mailing

prtce	price

Allen: Medea of Euripides (Revised by Moore).......$1.00	#1.05

Baird: Greek-English Word-List............ .30	.35

Collar and Daniell: Beginner's Greek Composition...... .90	.95

College Series of Greek Authors (see circulars for details)	"

Flagg: Seven against Thebes..............1.00	1.10

Goodwin: Greek Grammar............ • x-5° I^5

Goodwin: Greek Moods and Tenses...........2.00 2.15

Goodwin: Greek Reader...............1.50	1.65

Goodwin and White: New Anabasis, with Illustrated Vocabulary . 1.50	1.65

Goodwin and White: Selections from Xenophon and Herodotus . 1.50	1.65
Greek (and Latin) School Classic Series (see circulars for details)

Bain: Odyssey, Book VI...............35	.40

Bain: Odyssey, Book VII..............40	.45

Gleason: Gate to the Anabasis............40	.45

Minckwitz : Odyssey, Book XII............35	.40

Rolfe: Anabasis, Book V..............40	.45

Sewall: Timon of Lucian..............50	.55

Hayley: Alcestis of Euripides.............1.50	1.60

Higley: Exercises in Greek Composition......... 1.00	1.10

Hogue: Irregular Verbs of Attic Prose..........1.50	1.60

Jebb: Introduction to the Study of Homer.........1.12	1.25

Kerr: Bacchae of Euripides..............1.00	1.05

Parson: Cebes' Tablet.................75	.85

Perrin and Seymour: School Odyssey

Books I-IV, with Vocabulary............1.25	1.35

Books I-IV, IX-XII, with Vocabulary.........1.50	1.65

Seymour: School Iliad (Revised Edition)

Books I—III, with Vocabulary............1.25	1.40

Books I-VI, with Vocabulary............ 1.60	1.75

Seymour: Selected Odes of Pindar............1.40	1.50

Sidgwick: Greek Prose Composition...........1.50	1.65

Tarbell: Philippics of Demosthenes...........1.00	1.10

Tyler: Selections from Greek Lyric Poets (Revised Edition) . . 1.00	1.05

White: Beginner's Greek Book.............1.50	1.60

White : First Greek Book...............1.25	1.35

White: First Lessons in Greek.............1.20	1.30

White: CEdipus Tyrannus of Sophocles..........1.12	1.25

White and Morgan: Anabasis Dictionary......... 1.25	1.35

Whiton: Orations of Lysias..............1.00	1.10

72

GINN AND COMPANY PublishersCOLLEGE SERIES OF GREEK
AUTHORS

Edited under the supervision of Professor John Williams White, and Thomas D. Sey-
mour, late Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in Yale University

List price

ieschines against Ctesiphon. Edited by Professor Rufus B. Richardson of the

American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 279 pages.......$1.40

y®s€hylus, Prometheus Bound, with the Fragments of Prometheus Un-
bound. Edited by N. Wecklein, late Rector of Maximilian Gymnasium in
Munich. Translated by the late Professor F. D. Allen of Harvard University.

~ 178 pages.........................1.40

Aristophanes^ Clouds. Edited by Professor Humphreys of the University of

Virginia. 252 pages.....................1.40

Euripides, Bacchantes. Edited by Professor Beckwith of Trinity College, Hart-
ford, Conn. 146 pages....................1.25

Euripides, Hippolytus. Edited by Professor Harry of the University of Cincin-
nati. xlv+175 pages.....................1.40

Euripides, Iphigenia among the Taurians. Edited by Professor Flagg of the

University of California. 197 pages...............1.40

Greek Dialects, Introduction to the Study of. With Grammar, Selected
Inscriptions, and Glossary. By Carl Darling Buck, Professor of Sanskrit
and Indo-European Philology in the University of Chicago. 319 pages . . . 2.75
Homer, Iliad, Books I-III, IV-VI. Edited by the late Professor Seymour of

Yale University....................each 1.40

Homer, Iliad, Books XIX-XXIV. Edited by Professor Clapp of the University

of California. 441 pages...................1.75

Homer, Introduction to the Language and Verse of. By the late Professor

Seymour of Yale University. 104 pages...............75

Homer, Odyssey, Books I-IV, V-VIII. Edited by Professor Perrin, recently of

Yale University.....................each 1.40

Lucian, Selected Writings. Edited by Professor Francis G. Allinson of Brown

University, xlii + 265 pages..................1.40

Lysias, Eight Orations. Edited by Professor Morgan of Harvard University.

liii + 223 pages ..................... . 1.40

Menander, Four Plays of. By Edward Capp, Professor of Classics, Princeton

University. 8vo, cloth, x + 32 pages...............2.50

Pausanias, Attica. Edited by Professor Mitchell Carroll of The George

Washington University. 293 pages...................1.65

Plato, Apology and Crito. Edited by the late Professor Dyer of Cornell

University. 246 pages....................1.40

Plato, Gorgias. Edited by Professor Lodge of Teachers College, New York

City. 308 pages......................1.65

Plato, Protagoras. Edited by Professor Towle, formerly of Talladega College,

Talladega, Ala. 179 pages..................1.25

Septuagint, Selections. Edited by Professor Conybeare, formerly of University
College, Oxford, and St. George Stock of the University of Birmingham.

313 pages .........................1.65

Sophocles, Antigone. Edited by Professor D'Ooge of the University of

Michigan. 196 pages....................1.40

Thucydides, Book I. Edited by the late Professor Morris. 349 pages .... 1.65
Thucydides, Book III. Edited by Professor Smith of the,. University of

Wisconsin. 320 pages....................1.65

Thucydides, Book V. Edited by Professor Fowler of Western Reserve

University. 213 pages....................1.40

Thucydides, Book VII. Edited by Professor Smith of the University of

Wisconsin. 202 pages....................1.40

Xenophon, Hellenica, I-IV. Edited by Professor Manatt of Brown University.

286 pages........................1.65

Xenophon, Hellenica, V-VII. Edited by Professor Bennett of Cornell

University. 240 pages....................1.40

Xenophon, Memorabilia. Edited by Professor Smith of the Ohio State

University. xix +270 pages ..................1.40

GINN AND COMPANY Publishers"This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2014