Euripides, Hippolytus 88 again Author(s): M. L. West Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Dec.

, 1966), pp. 274-275 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/709972 . Accessed: 22/03/2011 09:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

274

THE

CLASSICAL

REVIEW

CATCHING

WORMS

Iliad xix. 26-30 P. Oxy. 2530 'Callimachus, Hecale?' EIlosl [ lyyEtvwveaL, dELKtrWoLt 3LVEKpdV' OvAa..Lf. lTCvra yEatov. E[ tEK 3' alTov 7rEcOaaL-Ka-ra 3% Xpd'a avr'al. [ 3' U OEW EELS TpyvpoimEa 0V7iler[it OExfEoT 'oV, E.TL.e-ra TEKVOV, L7u T-rt -raV-ra /Epa bPEufluL /t LEpA'vWV. TEKvovILflT[
rj p v r W 7rELp'cW rpc &XAaAKEt-v a'ypLta oAt.

University College,Oxford

M. L. WEST

SOPHOCLES,

ANTIGONE

io8, 208,

223

IN C.R. lxxix (1965), 259, Professor H. Lloyd-Jones has replied to my notes on the Antigone in C.R. lxxix (1965), 5-6. I very much regret having overlooked his defence of dwro'pcp (io8), involving an entirely different interpretation from mine, in C.Q. li (I957), 12- 5. But I must protest against his suggestion that I was not aware that Dain retains rtL0V at 208, and that Jebb and Dain keep raxovg at 223. I made it quite plain that I was arguing in the one case specifically against Jebb and Pearson, and in the other against Pearson; for example, surely my statement that 'Pearson (O.C.T.)

follows some of the older editors in rejecting raxovg' implied that other editors retain it. My aim was to give support to those (Dain, Masqueray, Campbell and Abbott, and others) who feel that in these places the unanimous authority ofthe manuscripts should not be defied. Lloyd-Jones's readiness to brush aside the awkward fact that the manuscripts all have T/Lt7Vat 208 may indicate that my defence of the reading was not without justification. MARTIN F. SMITH Collegeof North Wales, Bangor University

EURIPIDES,

HIPPOLYTUS

88 AGAIN

KaAEv yap 3Sawrdra7a Xpecwv. avaC-Osobvs 'Lord-for gods are our masters fitly called.' IN C.R. lxxix [1965], 56, I propounded my interpretation of this line rather laconically, thinking that its rightness would be obvious. To some of my acquaintances it has been, but to others, including Mr. J. Glucker (C.R. lxxx [1966], 17), it has not, and I must try again. 'Outside poetry,' I said, 'JvaC survived only as an appellation of deities'; and I noted that its use by Hippolytus' servant in addressing Hippolytus was 'a normal traditional usage of poetry'. To cite against me large numbers of poetic examples, as Glucker does, is simply irrelevant. I agree with him that an accustomed audience would normally not think twice about them. The fact remains that outside poetry it was an appellation of deities; so that it was open to an intellectual poet at any moment to pause and put a new, meaningful interpretation on the familiar poeticism. I maintain that this is what Euripides did, because it is only

on this interpretation that the line says anything sensible. I rejected Barrett's interpretation; Glucker simply refers us back to it. Barrett's explanation is certainly subtle, but it convinces me no more now than at first. He says that the servant 'pointedly refrains from addressing him with the customary Sia~'rora, so that he can insist that this humblest of addresses is the privilege of the gods'. Why is it the humblest of addresses ? Because 'with the worshipper proclaims his UEaw'rora humility as that of slave towards master'. I find this contradictory. If Secr7o'-dqis applied to gods in order to suggest the master-slave relationship, it cannot at the same time be inappropriate to the master-slave relationship on the ground that it is only fit for the gods. The verse belongs to a type for which there are parallels. The speaker begins with an exclamation which may in itself be ordinary, and then, in an aside, suddenly explains why it is particularly appropriate-not why he has rejected a possible alternative.

THE

CLASSICAL

Euripides does something very similar in Helen 560 : ' OC0o-0-Esydp KaG TTytyvdLKew?AovUS. So does Sophocles in Electra 1361 (Electra to the old servant):
80Kic. ydp dEaopav xatp' c rdarEp-wrarepa

275 A diligent combing of Tragedy might add to these examples. They confirm that in a line beginning

REVIEW

avae-Osob; ydp ..., should be the explanation of dvae. OEov'o UniversityCollege,Oxford M. L. WEST

EURIPIDES, HYPSIPYLE Fr. I. i. 5 (Bond,p. 25) c~. rEcT 7ro' v. atapiaao~b.V ao[k'q, qlrL~
PAGE (G.L.P., p. 83) translates: 'How enviable your mother, whoever she was!' So read perhaps ~Ks) for W3. Cf. Eur. Ion 308 aob (' el -rt; c aov Soph. VTrv 'KOtEKav coApwa, Fr. 837P J 7rptawdAto / KEWVOL fporv . . ., Ar. C Ach.254 f. ( LgaKcpLog / &'rrtg a' Jwv'aa . .. (CO ' 'T Ar, ( Dobree, R), Lys. 572 'g 6vd'rro& ' c0 fr. K C aKdipov bpdo'vqa R), Diphilus I 14 (cs Gaisford, WStob. mss.), etc. Trinity Hall, Cambridge COLIN AUSTIN

P. OXY. 2329, 3-4

said not 'I am going to neglect things here', but 'I am going to neglect things here for a while'. first the THAT is the text printed by editor, Sense and palaeography would both be C. H. Roberts; but in his note on p. 79 of satisfied by the supplement pLX[p p&rwnd. Part XXII of the Oxyrhynchus series, he Samia 319f., where Moschion says, 'pEX[or (slightly less likely) e?E?['. Compare speaks as follows: When I inspected the manuscript in the 4 Ashmolean in company with Dr. John Rea, p. Se aae[Ta& irpoactE vvd 0[ar] o0;TO KCarapEELv S we both agreed that the chi was virtually Gse 8qacr7aL certain; only the top left-hand part of the rwVd,Set ydpJO'8,O'rav 80oK7L, opXp T, tAAw~ letter is preserved, but that closely resembles avTWON.' 7rE[L]ai07aooU' the corresponding part of the two chis in 1. I. HUGH LLOYD-JONES Christ Church, Oxford Further, the speaker of 1. 4 must surely have dppv p' d [AolEv-] -dya0n& rv'[x],- viv KGapoS rvy 4v0av'ayap rapap4EAacLv 80Koi. ItOL

KLtOJV IW AOo tO learned note PROFESSOR H. LLOYD-JONES'S on AtOog (C.R. lxxix [I965], 246 f.) iroAl'r& me reconsidera piece of doxohas made (iii. i o. 2 [Plutarch] = Diels, Doxographi Alcp Graeci, p. 376) we read Ava&4.Lav3pog Kiovt 7i ev yY 7rpoa0epi the corresponding passage in Hippolytus Haer. i. 6. 3 (Diels, Dox. Graec., p. 559) runs as follows: r 84' aXqca airhq i~ypov (libri; C. H. Kahn; yvpov ci. Roeper; edd.) arpoyy'Aov Xiovr AIOC) The attempt of A. Barigazzi in Athenaeum xxxiv (1956), 340 f. to argue that this fragment may come from the Georgoswas not worth making; neither have I much profited from the treatment by R. Stark in Rhein. Mus. c (1957), 29 f. In lines 9, io, and 24 the supplements printed by the first editor may be right, but they should not be in the text.

graphy on Anaximander which seems to have given rise to ratherlabouredexplanation or unnecessarily complicated (i.e. improbable) conjecture. While in Aftius

x Koerte rightly followed Wilamowitz in deleting the pov which in the papyrus Sudhaus'sexpedient of follows KaraTvELwv. to the beginningof the transposing8E'arEaL line in order to keep pov, which has been adoptedby ChristinaDedoussiin her recent edition of the play (Athens, 1965), is ruled out by the impossibly late position pov would then have in the sentence.