This volume follows on K.’s Euripidea (Mnemosyne Supplementum cxxxii) which was published in 1994, a work which in the manner of simultaneously founded masonic lodges ought perhaps to be re-entitled Euripidea bis, since it appeared in the same year as Diggle’s Euripidea. K’s Euripidea consisted of an extremely valuable collection of Euripidean testimonia plus a series of adversaria (interspersed with references to his previous discussions of passages in journals or monographs) on the three plays which were edited and translated in Euripides, Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea edited by D. Kovacs, Cambridge MA, London, 1994. Euripidea altera likewise runs parallel to the Loeb series by including adversaria on the four plays that feature in volume two (Euripides, Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba edited by D. Kovacs, Cambridge, MA, London, 1995, my review of which will appear in the first issue of the 1997 CR). It runs ahead by incorporating adversaria on the plays which will appear in the third volume (Supplices, Electra, Heracles, Troades). An addendum contains two further notes on Medea.
Despite the completion of Diggle’s great edition on which anyone now working on the text of Euripides is necessarily parasitic, few informed critics would take serious exception to K.’s statement in his preface “… in actuality there is still a great deal to be done on the text” (particularly, I would add, in the alphabetic plays). K. launches into the task with commendable gusto. Not a man to say ἐπέχω or to shy away from attempting to solve notorious cruces and an indefatigable seeker-out of corruption, he does on occasion appear to me to attempt to mend something that is not broken.
I now examine a selection of K.’s textual notes (the passages treated by K. which I shall not take note of are Hcld. 215-10, 219-32, 320-22, 377-80, 558-63, 572-76, 664-66, 709-13, 732-33, 788-89, Hipp. 66-74, 267-71, 866-70, Andr. 240-42, 1186-96, Hec. 52-54, 211-15, 671-73, Suppl. 173- 83, 220-46, 522-27, 549-57, 818-20, Electr. 112-13~127-28, 162-66, 862-65~876-79, 1038-48, Med. 131-38, 1181-84). Since there is so much novelty on parade in this densely packed book I have on occasion for reason of space and the convenience of the reader thought fit merely to record without discussing K.’s suggestions regarding a particular passage.
Heraclidae
80-83: σὺ δ’ἐκ τίνος γῆς, ὦ γέρον, τετράπτολιν/ξύνοικον ἦλθες λαόν; ἢ/πέραθεν ἁλίωι πλάται/κατέχετ’ ἐκλιπόντες Εὐβοῖδ’ ἀκτάν; If one posits a cοntrast γῆ versus νῆσος, mainland versus island (note Iolaos’ response in 84-85), Willink’s ἦ is not only unnecessary, but probably wrong. 107-8: ἄθεον… πόλει: is there really anything wrong with this? 147-48: utrum in alterum? The explanation of these lines given by Diggle and Wilkins seems to me perfectly adequate. 165-70: K. is right to state that, whatever else is wrong with this passage, ἐρεῖς (169) is in place. He mentions Martin West’s tentative suggestion that we take τὸ λῶιστον as the object of εὐρήσειν and read µόνηv for µόvov. 197-98: is οἶδα really “lacking in force”? Compare, in addition to the examples of οὐκ οἶδα cited by Wilkins, Eur. Cycl. 321 οὐδ᾽οἶδ᾽ ὅτι Ζεύς ἐστ᾽ἐμοῦ κρείσσων θεός. However, the fact that the expression here occurs in an apodosis makes a difference and K. may be right to support Kirchhoff’s οὔ φημι. 619-20: I do not see that Lesky’s στένε is in any way superior to Elmsley’s φέρε, which gives us an equivalent of the Thucydidean collocation φέρειν τὰ δαιμόνια. 637-40: 640 is a line more sinned against than sinning. Νῶϊν may be a learned stopgap in I.A. 1207 (as suggested by John Jackson) , but νῶιν is entirely in place here, idiomatically positioned: Person’s transposition is clearly wrong since νῶιν is unemphatic and is attracted to its “host”. And does the form σῶι exist in tragedy? 661-63: K. may well be right to posit a lacuna after 661. Hcld., regardless of the question of its possible large-scale reworking, is a play in which there is good reason to suppose the existence of many lacunae. 961-1055: K. devotes a good deal of space to the problematical ending of this play, discussing out of sequence the problems of 1045-55, 961ff., 1007-17. Like almost everyone who has written on the play since the appearance of Zuntz’s famous article K. does not believe that the play has been drastically curtailed by a producer (recently H. C. Günther has suggested, apparently without knowledge of Wilkins’ commentary, that the debate should re-opened (Exercitationes Sophocleae, Göttingen, 1996, 19). K.’s solution to the problems of the three passages is respectively to emend 1050 (rather than assume a lacuna following 1052) and to interpret μήθ᾽ ἐάστ᾽ in 1041 as “do not neglect” (after E. A. Beck in his school commentary [Cambridge, 1881]), to assume the loss of two lines spoken by the attendant in the stichomythia 969ff. (his supplementary line followιng 962, however, seems inapt: why should the chorus, by saying ἄλλως, accept Alcmene’s point?) and to posit that 1015 is a conflation of the beginning and ending of consecutive lines. This last suggestion has much to be said for it (K. does well to remind us that we have as yet heard nothing prophetic concerning Eurystheus and that attempts to emend 1015 by bringing it into line with the subsequently revealed prophecy may be misguided). I cannot agree, however, with his analysis of 1040-5. It seems to me that Pearson has essentially got it right regarding the opening of this passage. Wilkins’s objection, enthusiastically endorsed by K., that the Heraclids have not been mentioned since 1035 hardly disqualifies them as the likely subject of στάξαι: 1035 is only five lines previous and, in addition, they are referred to as αὐτοῖς in 1042, almost directly after 1040 ἀντὶ τῶνδε should be taken as it is taken by most commentators as referring to the Heraclids’ treatment of Eurystheus (“in requital for my present treatment”, Pearson) . If one does not accept the Beck-K. interpretation of l042ff., one will be little inclined to favour the conjecture χύσιν in 1050. I still believe that a lacuna following l052 is inevitable.
Hippolytus
239-41: K.’s advocacy of αἴσηι in 241 (P.Oxy. 3152) is misconceived: see the editor of the papyrus, M.W. Haslam, who describes its reading as “indefensible”. This is a tag from epic that has lingered in the copyist’s mind . 669-79: K. makes a good case for Barthold’s text in 670-71. 706-07: I do not see anything wrong with τὰ πρὶν. 838-43: K. revives Enger’s τοῦ δὲ κλύω in 840. See contra Barrett ad loc. 925-31: I see no need to introduce asyndeton in 931: Barrett’s explanation is perfectly adequate. 1169-70: I do not find “and Poseidon” as difficult as K. does. 1301-03: K. introduces a generalizing masculine, ὅσοισι, in order to include Hippolytus in the group of those who hate Aphrodite and take delight in virginity. But can παρθενία be applied to Hippolytus who, although he might describe his soul as παρθένος (1006), would scarcely have admitted that he took delight in maidenhood? 1348-49: ἐξ should not be changed to ὡς: χρησμοῖς is not simply “utterance” and ἐξ mean “emanating from”. 1459-61: K. and Stockert have independently arrived at ὦ κλείν᾽ Ἐρεχθέως in 1459, perhaps rightly.
Andromache
51-53: K. rightly prefers Barrett’s interpretation of the syntax to Stevens’. 56-60: K. defends Hartung’s γὰρ for τοι and in 59 prefers ἐκεῖ or ἀεὶ to δ᾽ἐκεῖ. 192-204: K. defends his previous treatment of this passage against the arguments of G. Goebel, CPh 84 (1989), 32-33. 220-225 K. would read χεῖρον for χείρον᾽ and he attacks προύστημεν καλῶς in 221 (the latter was clearly the reading confronting the ancient commentator). 234-36: there is nothing wrong with the first half of 235. σώφρων, the mot juste in this context, should not be tampered with, and σὺ is not “unnecessary”: it means “you, of all people” and is opposed to the following τἀμὰ. 336-37 (part of a passage K. considers spurious): χερός for χρέος is worth considering. 551-53: rejecting Platt’s με καὶ νῦν in 553, K. advocates Paley’s με ἀφηιρέθης λέχος for ἀπηλλάγης λέχους, admitting that he cannot explain the corruption. I do not see anything wrong in this context with the sarcastic “you were relieved of your wife.” 925-30 : K. defends the manuscript’s attribution of 929 to Orestes, comparing for one-line interruption Tro. 889 and IT 673, neither of which seems to me anything like a proper parallel for Orestes’ alleged interruption here. 1097-99: rejecting Diggle’s interpretation of the first line, K. reads ἀρχαὶ δ᾽ (δ᾽ Blaydes) ἐπληροῦντ᾽ ἐς τὰ βουλευτήρια (τὰ βουλευτήρια Reiske). One of the two passage adduced in support is not correctly explained: in IT 306 πολλοὶ is proleptic and “came streaming in” is not an adequate translation of the aorist ἐπληρώθημεν. In the other passage, Ar. Eccl. 89, πληρουμένης ἐκκλησίας is somewhat different: the ἐκκλησία could be regarded as a place. 1129-34: K. reads ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀνῆκαν in 1132. 1184-85: rejecting Holzner’s οὕτως in 1184, K. suggests, adopting the majority manuscript reading (and pre-Diggle vulgate) οὖτός τ᾽ and with L. Dindorf reading τ᾽ for δ᾽ in the next line.
Hecuba
227- 28: K. attacks ἀλκήν in 227, arguing that γίγνωσκε … ἀλκήν is not an acceptable way of saying “recognize your weakness”: but surely there are degrees of ἀλκή. 258-70: K. defends his deletion of 265-66 against Collard’s objections. 272-83: K. deletes 279-81. 409-12: K. advocates Wecklein’s deletion of 412. 438-43: K. defends 441-43. 534-41: K. returns to a topic broached in The Heroic Muse, attacking the traditional view that the Greeks are detained in the Chersonese by contrary winds . He seeks correctly to eliminate a piece of evidence that might seem to contradict his view, the presence of the adjective πρευμενοῦς in 540, a word already obelized by Diggle. None of his three suggested alternatives carries total conviction. 585-92: K. retracts his previous conclusions about these lines and would now read τάδ’ in 587. 814-27: K. deletes 821-23. 962-67: K. deletes 967. 1179: suspecting the periphrastic νῦν λέγων ἔστιν τις in this line, K. supports Wecklein’s deletion. 1199-1203: noting the singularity of the construction κηδεύσων τινα in 1202, K. would read τινὶ.
Supplices
163-67: following Dindorf, K. deletes 166, correctly I believe. 190-92: K. argues for Markland’s νεανιῶν. 2166-20: here he supports the same scholar’s σοφῆς in 219. 258-64: K. advocates a three line lacuna after 262 and makes 263-64 a continuation of Adrastus’ speech. 279-300: lac. post 299. 304-07: K. would read νῦν δ᾽ἐστὶ σοί τε τοῦτο δρᾶν τιμὴν φέρον in 306. 365-68: K. would emend κατ᾽ Ἄργος to κατ᾽ ἄνδρας, but could κατ᾽ here mean what K. wants it to mean, “as regards”? 399-402: K. favours Camper’s Πολυνείκους. 403-08: delete 406-08. 417-25: in 421 read ἔργων <θ᾽> ὔπ. 440-41: K. recommends Hartung’s ὁ δ᾽ οὐ θέλων. 508-10: K. favours Orelli’s νέος at the beginning of 509 and Hartung᾽s lacuna after ἥσυχος. 584-88: K. suggests κινῆσαι πρόσω at the end of 586. 686-93 K. supplies three lines after 689, a lacuna posited by Kirchhoff. 694-703: K. recommends the sequence of lines found in Murray. 731-33: K. reads σθένειν at the beginning of 733. 842-45: 859 post 843 (Camper). 867-71: lac. post 868.
Electra
1: accepting (after Haslam) Herwerden’s ἀρδμός (that it produces something factually inaccurate—see R. A. Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid, 10—is perhaps neither here nor there) and assuming that the word preceding it was an adjective agreeing with γῆς, K. ingeniously suggests that we read λεπαίας. K. cites 168, 210, 342, 489-90 to show that the Autourgos “is imagined to be living at a considerable distance from the town of Argos, in the mountains.” Only one of these (210) refers to mountains. He might have added 534 referring to the ground around Agamemnon’s tomb which is clearly a place in the vicinity en route to the farm. But why should there be stress on the mountainous area in which the Autourgos lives when it is surely the whole of the Argolid that is in question? Most of th Argolid is plain and, as Eduard Fraenkel once so memorably put it, “the plain of Argos as flat as a pikestaff.” What is wrong with calling Inachus or the land which the river is supposed to irrigate “ancient”? Argos is Pelasgian and according to Aeschylus it had a king called Παλαίχθων. 4: K. advocates Elmsley’s Ἰδαίαι instead of the manuscript’s Ἰλιάδι, perhaps rightly. 8-10: what’s wrong with variatio? 82-84: K. substitutes σύννομον for καὶ φίλον in 83, but is this the right sort of word in this context? 237-38: K. tends to dislike having to supply words. 282: K. recommend’s Camper’s excessive regularising. 391-95: K. finds fault with ἄξιος and changes it to a ἄξενος. 413-14: ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἀφιγμένος in 413 (surely τόνδ᾽ is wrong with this text). 630–33: K. changes to δμώων μὲν εἷς τις. 640-47: K. reads ἐν σκότωι in 646 and objects to Denniston’s punctuation. 784-87: K. reads μένοντας in 784 and λέχους in 786. 822-26: K.’s διήνυσ᾽ ἄν at the end of 825 is worth considering. 916-44: with others K. sees extensive interpolation in this passage. 973: K. reads χρῆν. 985-87: K. advocates Weil’s θεοῖσι δ᾽ εἰ in 986 (surely κοὐχ in 987 is inevitable?). 1013-17: K. convincingly defends the transmitted text. 1058-59: K. favours Weil’s προσθέσθαι. 1172-74: προσφθεγμάτων are more than just “words”.
Heracles
44-48: K. would read in 48 καθίζω <᾽ς>. I think Bond’s explanation renders this unnecessary. 60-70: in the problematical 63 K. boldly reads ἐγω γὰρ οὖν ἐς πατέρ᾽ἐπειράθην τύχης or ἐγω γὰρ οὖν ἐς πατέρ᾽ ἄπειρος (“or even ἄππρος”) ἦ τύχης. As an alternative to the deletion of 65 he suggests reading ἣν μακραὶ λόγχαι πέριξ. 85-90: K. supports Mastronarde’s defence of the transmitted order. 101-04: K. advocates Nauck’s deletion of 103. 254-58: K. objects to Dobree’s ἐμῶν in 257 and to the adjective κάκιστος. He would read ἄρχει κάκιστα τῶν ἐτῶν, but, again, is ἔτης the right word in the context? It means “private citizen”, as distinct from “office-holder” or the like, and would not produce the required contrast with ἐπηλύς. 268-69: K. suspects πόθον in 269. 289-301: K. takes exception to εἴκειν and adds a line following 300 so that the infinitive can be epexegetic. 529-35: K. objects to the division of speakers in Diggle’s text. His assumption that τῶνδε in 529 must means the chorus is unwarranted. τῶνδε means the whole stage tableau. Acceptance of the text he proposes is a large price to pay in order to restore “tragic decorum”. K. surprisingly does not refer to Mastronarde’s discussion (Contact and Discontinuity, 70f.). 642-46: K. suggests reading ὄλβον for ὄλβος in 644. 851-54 : K. approves Wilamowitz’s lacuna following 852. 867-69: K. suspects the text and suggests that οὐ σωφρονίζει may be an explanatory gloss. 880-84: in order to make the stage-action clearer K. introduces an anapaestic dimeter following 882. 913-16: finding it impossible to construe 916 as it stands, K. posits a lacuna following it. 953-58: K. attacks Kirchhoff’s ὡς in 957 and suggests reading ἐπὶ. He obelizes μονῆς in 957, treating it as an intrusive gloss (but would one gloss his στέγας with that word?). 1009-12: yet another lacuna is posited, this time to follow 1010 (K. accepts Pierson’s transposition). 1089-93: K. argues strongly for Wecklein’s ἔννους in 1089 and demands a lacuna following 1090. 1159-62: K. reads προσβαλεῖν at the end of 1161, treating 1162 as a separate asyndetic utterance. 1220-22: K. recommends Kirchhoff’s κεὶ γάρ ποτ᾽ εὐτύχης ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἀνοιστέον which he describes as palmary. 1236-42: K. detects more lacunae, a half line after χάριν σὴν in 1238, followed by a whole line and then another half line preceding ἐφ᾽ ἑτέραισι μείζοσιν (the present second half of 1238). This is too complicated to be convincing.
Troiades
424-26: K. finds Cassandra’s abusive tone here unwarranted and suspects that these lines have been taken from a more appropriate context by an actor and added to this play. 592-94: K. accepts that Diggle is right to introduce a Doric form at the end of line 594, but prefers to read ἐν Ἀίδαι.
The book is accurately produced and attractive to read. On p. 69 read “Moorhouse” and on p. 119, ἐπεκάθιζεν. Following the practice elsewhere adopted in this work the rubric at the top of p. 69 should read 1177-80. The references to Halleran on pp. 137, 139 and 145 are, to me at any rate, obscure. The note promised on p. 149 has now appeared in RhM 139 (1996), 97-101.
In the present, somewhat distressing, climate that overhangs our studies, it is good to encounter someone as passionately concerned as K. is to discover what his author intended to say. We look forward to the arrival of the final item of the trilogy, Euripidea tertia.