Three famous sophists are referred to together in the Apology of Sokrates as still practising their enviably lucrative itinerant profession in 399 b.c. : Gorgias of Leontinoi, Prodikos of Keos and Hippias of Elis. The last of these was the least well known to the Athenian demos, having practised mainly in I Dorian cities. There is no extant reference to him in Old Comedy, but we can assume that he was sufficiently famous – especially for his fees – to justify (...) his inclusion as the third of this ‘triad’; cf. the triad Protagoras – Hippias – Prodikos in the Protagoras, considered further below. Gorgias was by now a grand old man of about ninety , the last survivor of the first generation of fee-taking educators, associated first and foremost in the popular mind with the suspect arts of political and forensic persuasion. Prodikos and Hippias were probably in their sixties. (shrink)

In Part I of this article the major problems of the transmission of the Bacchae were considered, with a discussion of interpolated lines and lacunae, whether certain or merely postulated by previous editors. In the Introduction it was argued that P is a copy of a manuscript which was very like L before being supplemented with variant readings and with the whole of Tr. and Ba. 756 ff. from a lost source. The symbols λ and were used for P's exemplar (...) and this remoter source respectively. The ancestry of in turn was traced back to Λ, the ancestor of L. This, if right, means that L and P both descend from a single uncial archetype, though with a fair chance that some true variants from a different tradition reached and λ. P, however, steadfastly preferred the original reading of λ whenever possible. When P differs from L, there are three possibilities: that he is making a fresh error ; that λ differed from L ; that λ included a variant which P preferred. (shrink)

Iphigenia at aulis presents many problems to the literary and textual critic. Among these the problem of the prologue is as clear-cut as it is controversial. It may be summarized as follows: Our text opens abruptly with an anapaestic dialogue between Agamemnon and the Retainer , instead of the usual monologue in trimeters. In reply to a question from the Retainer, Agamemnon launches into a long iambic narrative , describing much that the Retainer must know already, and with no sign, (...) for more than sixty lines, that the Retainer is being addressed. Moreover 49 {γνοντο ۸ήδαι…) reads like the first line of a conventional opening monologue. (shrink)

A. ScT 803–21 are a notorious crux, which has received very varied treatment from editors without any clear solution of the problem emerging.A widely favoured version follows that of Weil, and disposes the lines as follows: 803–4 –6–7 or )–8–9–io )–ll )–21–I2 … 19– [20]. We may be able to concede the arbitrary transpositions of 805 and 821, since it is likely enough that the text is substantially disordered; more serious, however, are the inherent weaknesses in Weil's rearrangement.

Much has been written about the problematic passage towards the end of the Medea prologue-speech, in which the Nurse expresses fear concerning the intention of her mistress; problematic both in itself, especially as to the interpretation of lines 40–2, and in relation to lines 379–80, which are almost the same as 40–1; a most suspicious circumstance.

Much has been written about the problematic passage towards the end of the Medea prologue-speech, in which the Nurse expresses fear concerning the intention of her mistress; problematic both in itself, especially as to the interpretation of lines 40–2, and in relation to lines 379–80, which are almost the same as 40–1; a most suspicious circumstance.

In a previous article I discussed some textual and metrical issues in the lyric-iambic stanzas Supplices 71–8/79–86, and the problematic persona and constitution of the Chorus. The preceding maternal κεсα in four ionic stanzas presents fewer textual problems; but here too there is a challenging crux, at 45 in the first strophe; and there is more to be said about the ode's metrical structure. I begin with a metrical reappraisal, which will prove to have a bearing on the textual problem. (...) Unless otherwise stated, the text given is identical with those of both Diggle and Collard, except in lineation. (shrink)

The first choral ode of Euripides' Supplices, or the Parodos if that term can be used for an ode which is not an ‘entry’, ends with two stanzas of lyric-iambic threnody, following four stanzas of supplication in ionic metre As Collard comments, this structure is broadly similar to, and very possibly modelled upon, A. Pers. 65–114, 115–39. But there is an important difference here: prima facie, the ‘further∕different concerted lament’ in 71ff. is sung and performed by the πρсπολοι mentioned in (...) 72, ‘taking over’ in a kind of antiphon to the Seven Mothers'lamenting κεсα. (shrink)

29–33. Phaedra's ἒρως must at first have been without betraying symptoms, by contrast with the change at Trozen to symptoms of νόσος as described in 34–40. We need to be told that explicitly, in preparation for 34ff. and in conjunction with the potentially revealing foundation of a temple to Aphrodite. We therefore need not only Jortin's ὀνομάσουσιν for ὠνόμαζєν in 33, but also my δηλον for ἒκδηλον in 32. The nearby ἒκδηλον in 37 will have played a part in the (...) corruption. (shrink)

In response to Iolaus' cry for help, the chorus in Held, enter at a run , and the Parodos takes a form appropriate to that. Instead of choral song-and-dance, what follows, after an exceptionally brief non-strophic ‘entry’-passage, is an amoibaion first between the Chorus-leader and Iolaus, then between the Chorus-leader and the Herald, musical only as featuring some ‘half-chanted’ sequences in the Chorus-leader's utterances.

In the last number of CQ,, I mistakenly attributed to Professor Zuntz the view that P's exemplar was, before correction, the ‘parent’ of L. The possibility that the parent of L became, after corrections derived from its own parent , the parent of P is in fact considered by Zuntz only as an alternative to the hypothesis, propounded by him on p. 122 and set out in his stemma on p. 192, that the parent of P was a copy of (...) Λ and thus a brother of L. Regrettably, An Inquiry appeared too late for me to do it justice, with my article already in proof. In addition, I now draw attention to the following passages in An Inquiry as containing arguments which affect what I have written: pp. 13 ff. , 119 f. , and 118. (shrink)

The familiar crux in line 139, as obelized by Dawe, disappears in the new Oxford Text, whose editors accept the Triclinian reading . Their short critical note touches only on the metrical issue, citing discussions by Stinton and Diggle, in both of which acceptance of here is cautiously linked with recognition of the same responsion at Philoctetes 209/218 and Euripides, Medea 159/183. The note concludes with a reference to p. 75 of an article by K. Itsumi.

The familiar crux in line 139, as obelized by Dawe, disappears in the new Oxford Text, whose editors accept the Triclinian reading. Their short critical note touches only on the metrical issue, citing discussions by Stinton and Diggle, in both of which acceptance of here is cautiously linked with recognition of the same responsion at Philoctetes 209/218 and Euripides, Medea 159/183. The note concludes with a reference to p. 75 of an article by K. Itsumi.

Phaedra's long speech is one of the most important elements in Euripides’ most intricate play; we may confidently assume that with his surpassing interest in women and in rhetoric the dramatist will have lavished more than usual pains upon it. Interpretation of it has suffered in the past from false preconceptions and lexicological imprecision; the nature of the speech is such that we can be led far astray by a small misjudgement of the connotation of such words as at the (...) same time there are some profoundly significant variants in the manuscripts, and it will be argued that the text of 405–12 has suffered from ancient garbling and interpolation. In the following discussion I am everywhere indebted to W. S. Barrett's commentary, whose detailed approach at least draws attention to numerous difficulties that have been hitherto neglected, but the conclusions reached differ radically from his. (shrink)

The following notes refer constantly to E. R. Dodds' Bacchae , which forms a valuable basis for study of the play; the passages discussed are those where I find myself in disagreement with Dodds' notes or with some new conjecture to offer, but everywhere my debt to the material he has assembled is very great. Recently W. S. Barrett's Hippolytos has illuminated a number of dark corners, providing a wealth of Euripidean parallels, metrical and linguistic; not least valuable is the (...) light it throws on the variants of a better-transmitted play, and on the ancestry of our texts. I am grateful to my colleague J. W. Roberts for help and encouragement with the first draft of these notes. Subsequently Professor D. L. Page was kind enough to read parts of my manuscript, clarifying a number of metrical problems for me and adding several invaluable suggestions. Both he and Professor K. J. Dover have saved me from many errors; for those that remain the blame is mine alone. (shrink)

Iphigenia at aulis presents many problems to the literary and textual critic. Among these the problem of the prologue is as clear-cut as it is controversial. It may be summarized as follows: Our text opens abruptly with an anapaestic dialogue between Agamemnon and the Retainer, instead of the usual monologue in trimeters.In reply to a question from the Retainer, Agamemnon launches into a long iambic narrative, describing much that the Retainer must know already, and with no sign, for more than (...) sixty lines, that the Retainer is being addressed. Moreover 49 {Ἐγ⋯νοντο ۸ήδαι…) reads like the first line of a conventional opening monologue. (shrink)