As stated in C.R. LI, p. 168, the Jerusalem palimpsest of Euripides had been collated by Tischendorf, Papadopoulos Kerameus and Horna Mr. D. L. Page's edition of the Medea takes account of the present collation, which in its turn owes much to the acumen of Mr. Page and to his kindness in allowing me to include some of his results obtained from independent photographs. Each of the above-named scholars has found reason to correct and add to his predecessor's work, and (...) this is natural, since not only is man not infallible but more and more is also required of a collator as time goes on. (shrink)

Peter Elmsley once said ‘difficillimum opus esse accuratam librorum collationem’. He was pointing out some mistakes in Porson's collation of the editio princeps of the four plays of Euripides, which Porson had said that he himself had collated ‘summa cum religione, ne dicam superstitione’. These were both men who knew Greek and who could collate manuscripts. So we ν;θρωπσκοι who would follow in their footsteps in this most difficult task cannot expect to do more than increase in some small measure (...) the accuracy and completeness of existing collations. It is to be hoped that others in their turn may in due course improve on our work also, so that finally, with sufficient workers in the field, a close approximation to truth may be achieved. (shrink)

The vast majority of the extant mss of Euripides consists of ‘Byzantine’ mss of the ‘school triad’, Hec, Or., Phoen. The value of this mass of material for textual criticism is problematical: it has been declared to be nil by numerous modern scholars, and this is no doubt a natural reaction against the excessive importance attached to certain of the ‘Byzantine’ mss by the scholars of the earlier part of last century, men like Porson and Dindorf, who, however, did not (...) collate their mss with a view to such things as Leitfekler. In fact, until our knowledge of this class of mss is far more thorough than it is at present, it would be premature to pass judgement on it as a whole. (shrink)

In beginning to speak of Euripides in this University of Manchester, one's thoughts naturally turn to the work of Professor Norwood in this direction, and it is with an especially keen sense of pleasure that I find myself not only following in his footsteps—a long way after!—but helping in a small way to contribute some further confirmation to the views on Euripides established by him and Professor Verrall.

The political situation in Hellas in the early part of 419 B.C. was extremely promising for the Athenians. Alcibiades had succeeded in 420 in concluding an alliance with Argos, Mantinea and Elis, and although the Fifty years Truce of Nicias had not yet been formally denounced and the alliance with the Argives and their allies was purely defensive, yet the star of Lacedaemon was to all appearances on the wane. Alcibiades had brought off successfully his first great coup and had (...) begun his ascent towards the principal place in the leadership of Athens. (shrink)

August Wilhelm von Schlegel, who did so much to rend the already torn artistic reputation of Euripides in the early nineteenth century, is singularly lenient in his criticism of the Hecuba. His adverse comment is limited to three points only: The first, that ‘the two actions of this piece—the sacrifice of Polyxena and the revenge on Polymestor on account of the murder of Polydorus—have nothing in common with each other but their connexion with Hecuba’; the second, that ‘the second half (...) destroys the soft impressions of the first in a highly repulsive manner’; and the third, that it is ‘not very suitable that Hecuba should display such presence of mind in her revenge.’ In this leniency he differs from one of the latest modern English critics, Professor G. Norwood,2 who does not hesitate to condemn the play as ‘on the whole poor and uninteresting,’ ‘far below the best of Euripides' work’; and from his great predecessor, J. J. Reiske, who condemned the play on ten distinct counts, all different from those that form the basis of SchlegeFs own argument. (shrink)