We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
I start at the end. Iolaus appeals to Demophon (229–31): ‘become their kinsman, friend, father, brother, master: all this is better than falling into the hands of the Argives.’ One should hope so. When Pearson comments ‘
: i.e. submission to Demophon is better than subjection by the Argives. The remark is prompted by 
, the climax of the preceding appeal’, he is unconsciously repeating what had been said by Herwerden, R.Ph. N.S. xvii (1893), 236: ‘manifestum est 
ad solum 
referri posse, nam praegressa omnia 
sunt eiusmodi quae nemo non sibi exoptet.’ How they can even consider the possibility that 
may refer to one item only in a list of five I do not know.
page 241 note 2 ‘The Heradidae’ ed. Pearson, A. C., Cambridge 1907.Google Scholar
page 241 note 3 All that needs to be said in support of Elmsley's 
in 228 has been said by Pearson.
page 242 note 1 Wecklein's catalogue (
olim Dindorf, 
Camper, 
Heimsoeth, 
olim Wecklein) may be augmented by 
denuo Naber (Mnemos. N.S. X [1882], 158),Google Scholar Blaydes (Adu. crit. 124) and 
uel 
Harry, (Greek tragic poets [Cincinnati 1914], 116).Google Scholar
page 243 note 1 Conversely Hec. 285 
page 243 note 2 Tidskrift for Phil, og Paedag. v (1864), 14.Google Scholar Haupt independently conjectured 
in Hermes viii (1874),Google ScholarI = Opusc. iii (1876), 602.
page 244 note 1 I never expected to see even the unemended text misinterpreted as it is by Webster, T. B. L., The tragedies of Euripides (London 1967), 104:Google Scholar ‘The chorus sing … that victory means dancing and music and women.’
page 244 note 2 In the same article, p. 39, I suggested 
at 396. As an altennative one might also consider 
(cf 774). To the inquiry of Dr. Austin and Mr Reeve, p. 11, ‘ “Vengeful” the Argive arm) may fitly be called by one of its number, but by Demophon?’, I reply that line 283 comes before and not after line 396.
page 244 note 3 Of the three possible instances in Euripides adduced by him, at least one may be withdrawn: at I.A. 1435 there is no fault in 
(see Barrett, on Hi. 503–4Google Scholar). But I do not regard this as a strong argument; and Platnauer is certainly wrong in denying prodelision after ci. Such readings as Soph. Ph. 360 
and O.C. 1602 
are not to be defended by the plea that the syllabic augment may be omitted in messenger speeches (for the conditions under which such omission is found see Page on Med. 1141), and 
is irremovable at Eur. Su. 521, a line which I do not share Platnauer's difficulty in translating, provided that the comma which editors place after 
is placed before that word. I should therefore accept Pearson's 
at line 610 of our play. Pearson later made a similar conjecture at Soph. Tr. 940 
This, though Platnauer seems reluctant to accept it, is one of the three Sophoclean conjectures of Pearson which Housman commended as ‘evidently true’ (C.R. xxxix [1925], 77).Google Scholar
page 245 note 1 He is wrong to ascribe this interpretation of Canter's conjecture to Canter, who takes 
as object of 
(‘tamen a me praedicabitur, cum fuerit uir excellens’), as do the commentators who accept this conjecture.
