The Order of Lines in "Hippolytus" 1452-56 Segal, Charles P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1970; 11, 2; ProQuest pg. 101

The Order of Lines in 
Hippoiytus 1452·56 

Charles Segal 

LINES 1452-57 stand thus in the manuscripts of the Hippolytus: 

1452 €JR. 
1453 Ill. 
1454 BH. 
1455 Ill. 
1456 BH. 
1457 Ill. 

Wilamowitz transposed 1454 and 1453 after 1455, giving the order 
1452-5-4-3-6.1 His reasons were (1) the ease of connection between 
YEVVatOC and YV1}CLOC, (2) the naturalness of having Hippolytus' farewell 
of 1453 immediately precede Theseus' plea to Hippolytus not to die 
(1456), and (3) the difficulty, in the Ms. order, of having Theseus greet 
Hippolytus' announcement of his death with apparent approval 
(1454) and then of seeming to have Hippolytus revive in 1455 after the 
praise of 1454: "In tradito ordine cum alia absurda sint, tum Hippo­
lyto mortem sibi instare significanti plaudit pater, filius ita laudatus 
paullulum reviviscit."2 The transposition does indeed make the 
passage smoother, but it is not clear that smoothness was Euripides' 
aim, or that his taste was the same as Wilamowitz', especially as 
concerns points (2) and (3) above. Barrett regards the change as "cer­
tain," though he admits, "What caused the change is quite obscure." 
Like Wilamowitz, he is brief and dogmatic: "1453 c1J Xa'ipt: Ka~ (Tt5 can 
follow only 1454, not 1452 (and ought to be Hipp.'s last utterance, save 

1 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorlf, Analecta Euripidea (Berlin 1875, repro Hildesheim 
1963) 220-2l. 

I ibid. 220. 

3-G.R.B.S. 101 



102 THE ORDER OF LINES IN HIPPOLYTUS 1452-56 

for the final 1457-8) ; 1456/1/1] vvv 71'po8<jJe p.€ belongs after 1453 not 1455; 
1455 is better after 1452 (both concerned with behaviour towards Th.) 
than after 1454."3 

Though it may seem presumptuous to challenge the authority of 
scholars as distinguished as Wilamowitz and Barrett, it is worth re­
membering that no earlier editor, either ancient or modern, was 
troubled by the Ms. order of the lines. Kirchhoff, it is true, placed a 
lacuna of two lines after 1453, but his reason was the problem of the 
xclip€ Ka£ ell of 1453 (see infra), not the order of the lines:' Only a 
handful of editors have rejected Wilamowitz' transposition;5 and now 
that it is enshrined in Barrett's authoritative edition, it is likely to per­
sist plus uno saeclo. Hence a reminder of the tenuity of the grounds for 
transposition is all the more in order. 

One may easily grant that Wilamowitz' transposition does indeed 
simplify the relation between 1452 and 1455. But is it as absolutely 
necessary as Wilamowitz and others have thought? The problem of 
JJ xa'iP€ Ka2 ell in 1453, with which many editors have grappled, is not 
lessened by the transposition per se, nor is Wilamowitz' statement of 
the "absurdity" of the Ms. order entirely fair. Oip.ot in 1454 hardly 
constitutes the action conveyed in Wilamowitz' "plaudit."6 As for the 
«revival" of Hippolytus Cpaullulum reviviscit"), feeling on this point 
is a matter of taste. Surely it is not the praise which makes Hippolytus 
"revive," as Wilamowitz' scornful phrasing seems to imply. It is 
rather that Euripides has deliberately and painfully prolonged the 
death scene. Hippolytus (and the audience) must drain the bitter cup 
to the dregs. Not only is an innocent man to suffer, but he is to suffer 
a slow, drawn-out death. Lines 1454-55 (or 1453-54) could, in fact, 

a w. S. Barrett, Euripides, Hippolytos (Oxford 1964) ad 1453 (pA16) . 
.. A. Kirchhoff, EUripidis Tragoediae I (Berlin 1855). Valckenaer advocated the excision of 

1454 because of its repetition of 1419 and 1452 ("Inprimis cum his eadem in eius laudem a 
patre suo loco [i.e. 1452] dicantur," Euripidis Tragoedia Hippolytus [Leiden 1822] ad loc.). 

6 These include A. Balsamo, Euripides, Hippolytos (Florence 1899-1900); A. Nauck (in the 
critical appendix of his Teubner ed. of Euripides, 13 [Leipzig 1876]); C. W. Willink, "Some 
Problems of Text and Interpretation in the Hippolytus," CQ N.S. 18 (1968) 43 (who, however, 
emends 1453); and G. Ammendola in his school ed. of the play (Florence 1967), which I 
have been unable to consult. One may also mention I. H. Wheeler, De Alcestidis et Hippolyti 
Euripidearum interpolationibus (Diss. Bonn 1879) 62-{53, who rejects the transposition, but 
excises 1453-54. 

41 See Wheeler (preceding note) 63: "Sed magis etiam offendit me 1454. Num gaudii ex­
clamatio est illud o'lp.o'? An stuporis? Neutrum tolerari potest. Spurii sunt 1453, 1454, 
quibus expulsis omnia bene se habent." Others, including myself, find nothing unnatural 
in the o'lp.o,: see n.l3 infra. 



CHARLES SEGAL 103 

have been omitted entirely.7 But Euripides wrote them to give the 
knife one last twist in the wound and also (as we shall see) to ring one 
more change on the theme of Hippolytus' bastardy. 

Line 1453, says Barrett (cited supra), "ought to be Hipp(olytus') last 
utterance, save for the final 1457-8." But should a dying man know 
the exact moment at which he is going to expire? We have already 

noted the intensification of the pathos effected by the prolongation of 
Hippolytus' death agonies. These are stretched out for more than a 
hundred lines. Hippolytus states again and again that he is dead, and 
we do not feel that any of these remarks is exactly final. As early as 
1397 he says that he no longer "exists." Just before our passage, in his 
very first line in the stichomythia, he declares that he "has perished" 
(oAwAa) and sees Hades' gates (1447). The verb is repeated in his pen­
ultimate line in the play (oAwAa yap, 7TaT€p, 1457), and the repetition 
provides a formal rounding off of the stichomythia: the short, intense 
exchange begins and ends with "I am dead" (oAwAa; cf. also 1408). The 
formal motif does not completely answer the arguments of Wilamo­
witz and Barrett, but it mitigates the necessity of regarding the fare­
well of 1453 as Hippolytus' closing remark in the stichomythia. 

The Ms. placement of the line is also satisfactory for its relationship 
both to 1452 and 1454. It is not true that 1453 "can follow only 1454, 
not 1452" (Barrett, supra). Line 1452, JJ cPlATa()', cfJc y€vval:oc EKcPalv€t 
7TaTpl, is enough of a laudatory farewell to motivate a corresponding 
farewell on Hippolytus' part and therefore to account for the Ka£ c~ 
of 1453. Barrett remarks on 1453, "Here his [Theseus'] grief at losing 
Hipp(olytus) (1454) is near enough to a leave-taking for Hipp(olytus) 
to treat it as one." Barrett means, of course, 1453 as transposed imme­
diately before 1456. But the statement is equally applicable to the Ms. 
order, for the same grief is reflected in 1452. Theseus recognizes in 
1452 the greatness of his son, so nobly reflected in Hippolytus' final 
gesture of pardon (1449, 1451). To Hippolytus, long on the point of 
death, that recognition has the force of a farewell, a farewell which the 
father must be tactful of pronouncing as long as his son still has a 
spark of life in him. And let us recall that the gratitude expressed in 
1452 refers to Hippolytus' absolution of his father from the stain of his 
own death. Theseus' words in 1452 are, by the very nature of the situa­
tion, a pronouncement on the final act of his son's life and are so 
understood by Hippolytus. Hippolytus, therefore, can naturally con-

7 As Wheeler (see preceding note) in fact maintained for 1453-54. 



104 THE ORDER OF LINES IN HIPPOLYTUS 1452-56 

strue 1452 as the gesture of farewell that is expected but needs to be 
made very delicately. The lines in their preserved order indicate great 
tact and sensitivity on the part of the poet. 

The problem of the Kat of 1453 thus disappears, and we need not 
assume (with Barthold) that "you too" refers to Artemis,s nor emend 
(with Nauck and others),9 nor posit a lacuna (with Kirchhoff). It re­
mains possible, in fact likely, that there is also a reference to the for­
mulas of funerary inscriptions, as Wilamowitz thought.1o But it is also 
clear, as Nauck, Barthold and Balsamo have pointed out, that Theseus 
cannot speak a formal farewell, for such a gesture would have the 
tactless effect of seeming to hurry the dying man on his way.ll The 
Ms. order also suggests another touch of pathos in the juxtaposition of 
Xa'ipE and oZpm, the generous gesture of the dying and the keen grief 
of the survivor. 

We perhaps like to think of death coming amid serenity and finding 
a man reconciled to his fate. Euripides' Hippolytus disappoints our 
expectations. If we follow the Ms. order, his penultimate statement 
(omitting, that is, 1457-58) is not a gentle "Farewell, father, farewell," 
(1453), but the somewhat embittered "Pray to find your legitimate 
sons such (as I)" (1455). This line, left in its original position, is an 
acknowledgment of Theseus' praise of 1454, but an acknowledgment 
which also grasps the painful truth of the tragic waste of his present 
condition. It expresses a degree of incrimination of reality, not re­
conciliation with it; and such a gesture is also in keeping with the tone 
of the playas a whole. 

There is another consideration, admittedly subjective, favoring the 
Ms. order of 1453-54. Theseus' groan, oZP.Ot, marks his sharpest, most 

8 T. Barthold, Ausgewiihlte Tragodien des Euripides IV, Hippolytus (Berlin 1880) ad 1453. 
Barthold's view is adequately refuted by Balsamo (supra n.5) ad loc.; and one may add that 
Hippolytus has already taken his farewell of Artemis in the xulpovcu Kul cv of 1440, answer­
ing the goddess' Kul xu'ip(£) of 1437. 

'See the conjectures collected in the critical appendix of Nauck's ed. (supra n.5). To these 
may be added the transposition of words within 1453 suggested by Willink, op.cit. (supra 
n.5) 43. For the problems involved see also Wheeler, op.cit. (supra n.5) 62-63. 

10 Wilamowitz, op.cit. (supra n.l) 220-21, and also in his commentary to his translation, 
Euripides, Hippolytos, griech. und deutsch (Berlin 1891) ad loe. (p.242): "Wer die grabsteine 
kennt, wird die antwort <L xuip£ Kal cV einfach und riihrend finden." Wilamowitz' view is 
rejected, however, by Barthold (supra n.8) in his "Kritischer Anhang," p.177. 

11 Barthold, op.cit. (supra n.8) ad loe.: " ... Es wiirde so klingen, als konne der Vater den 
Moment des Abscheidens nicht erwarten ... " Balsamo, op.cit. (supra n.5) ad loc.: " .•. Ma 
giustamente osservo il Nauck che non si diceva mai addio ad un morente, perche questo era 
in qualche modo uno spingerlo ad andarsene." 



CHARLES SEGAL 105 

expressive moment of pain.12 It should, therefore, be preceded by the 
line of Hippolytus most capable of evoking a direct emotional res­
ponse. That line is 1453, with its XctLp€ ... xct'ip€, words which under­
line the vividness of Hippolytus' imminent death.13 

The Ms. order of 1454 and 1455 is also satisfactory as it stands. Since 
Hippolytus swore by Artemis a few lines before (1451) to free Theseus 
of the stain of blood, a reference to his piety in 1454 is in sufficiently 
close proximity to 1451 to be readily understandable. The initial otp.ot 
of 1454 refers to the suggested imminence of Hippolytus' death in 
1453, while the rest of the line refers back to 1451 and not (as Wilamo­
witz thought) to the rather arrogant 1455 transposed. Lines 1452 and 
1454 in the Ms. order are thus parallel responses to Hippolytus' oath 
of 1451. The preceding scene offers a close analogy to this kind of 
parallel construction in stichomythia. Lines 1397 and 1399, like 1452 
and 1454, both contain coordinate and equivalent statements of a 
single idea, even though a remark of the interlocutor, Artemis, has 
intervened. 

We come next to the relation between 1455 and 1456. There is a 
dramatic consideration favoring the contiguity of 1455 and 1456 as 
they stand in the Mss., which transposition quite destroys. M7} vvv 

7TPOOcfJC fL€ (1456) reflects a fairly common formula in death scenes, 
meaning, "Do not leave me" ("ne se deserat rogat [Theseus]," para­
phrases Wilamowitz).14 But 7Tpoo{owfL£ in the proper sense of <betray' 
has been an important word in the play (cf 305, 590, 591, 595), and one 
may wonder whether it does not carry some of the meaning of actual 
<betrayal' here. Theseus might well be uneasy about such <betrayal', 
i.e. Hippolytus' breaking of his oath of 1449-51, and all the more so 
after Hippolytus' reference to "legitimate sons" in 1455. Legitimacy 
has been a delicate matter in the play and a subtle but significant 
point in Hippolytus' psychology: cf. 308-10,926-63, 1010-18, 1082-83. 
It is worth quoting from Barrett's excellent note on the last passage: 
"This protest against his voO€{ct is prompted by Th.'s reference to his 
filial duty ... Dramatically, in fact, the outburst is unmotivated-the 

12 Compare Ale. 379-80 and Hec. 418-19. 
13 Balsamo, op.cit. (supra nS), seems to have appreciated the relation of 1453-54: " ... 

Bisogna lasciare il v. 1454 dopo i1 v. 1453, poiche wp.o£ [sic] e il grido del dolore, che deve 
seguire all addio del v. 1453" (in his HAppendice critica ed esegetica," 11.254). 

14 Wilamowitz, op.cit. (supra n.1) 220; see also Ale. 202, 250, 275. But in the Alcestis too the 
theme of 'betrayal' and the verb 7TpoSlSwp.t become important at the end: line 1096, 8avo£p.· 
El(fi{VT]V l(al7Tfip OUI( oJcav 7TpoSOtiC. 



106 THE ORDER OF LINES IN HIPPOLYTUS 1452-56 

VO()£La is wholly irrelevant to the action of the play; presumably 
therefore Eur:s purpose is to throw subtle light on Hipp:s psychology 
for its own sake, to suggest this feeling of inferiority, of otherness, as 
what lies behind his urge to establish himself in compensation as a 
paragon of virtues that common man [sic] cannot share. No word 
again of the VO()£La till the very end: when this self-same feeling finds 
expression once more as he dies (1455)."15 

It is possible, of course, that p:r] vvv 7Tpo8ijJc p.€ means only "Do not 
leave me" and nothing more. But, given the previously strained rela­
tions between father and son and the insecurity of Theseus reflected 
in 1448 and 1450, it is not implausible to detect a real concern about 
<betrayal', or at least a hint at that concern, in 1456. In any event, there 
is a greater and more characteristically Euripidean emotional climax 
if Hippolytus nears his end with a line which calls up all the bitterness 
and resentment which the bastard son has felt all his life. And even if 
Theseus does mean only "Do not leave me," there is an ominous 
suggestiveness in having that statement come at just this point and in 
just this form. Euripides could have found a more neutral verb to ex­
press departure than 7Tpo8l8wp.t. Such considerations can hardly consti­
tute proof, of course, but they perhaps point to dramatic possibilities 
in the existing Ms. order which Wilamowitz and his followers over­
look. 

There is another dramatic consideration in the connection between 
lines 1455-56 as they stand in the Mss., that is, the movement from 
Hippolytus' 7Tat1Jwv yvr}clwv to Theseus' ·dKVOV. This is a small but 
poignant touch. It stresses the strength of the blood tie and the filial 
bond despite the absence of the formal recognition of legitimacy. 
Hippolytus' 7T';:T€P at the end of the next line (1457) continues this in­
sistence on the basic bond of blood that the two men here rediscover. 

The importance of the sequence 1455--6-7 becomes even clearer 
when we reflect on Euripides' careful presentation of the relationships 
between parents and children throughout the play. Phaedra's rela­
tion to her parents (337-43), Hippolytus' to his Amazon mother 
(1082), and Theseus' to Poseidon (1169-70) are foils to the central 
relationship between Theseus and Hippolytus. Just after and just 
before the news ofPhaedra's death, Theseus expresses concern for his 
T'Kva (799, 847), as Phaedra had done at the critical moment for hers 

16 Barrett, ad loco (p.363). See also W. Schmid in Schmid-Stiihlin, GGL 1.3 (Munich 1940) 
p.383 with n.l. 



CHARLES SEGAL 107 

(717; cf 308-10, 314-15). In the turbulent first scene between father 
and son Hippolytus had begun, naturally enough, with the address 
mx:np (902). For almost forty lines, however, Theseus refuses to ad­
dress him at all (909-46; cf. 1038-40). He refers to him only by the 
studied periphrasis, 8c'TLC Jg Jp-ov {'Eyc.fJC (943). Similarly, at the news of 
Hippolytus' fatal mishap, Theseus speaks of his son merely as av8poc 
"TOV 7TE7TOVOO"TOC "TaOE (1257). Here, initially pleased at the news out of 
'hatred' for the victim (1257), Theseus agrees to be neither pleased nor 
pained OVVEK' ECTLV €~ E/WV (1259). In this last line, where the conviction 
of Hippolytus' alleged crime against his father is still firm, Theseus 
again refuses him any close term of kinship. It is only in the exodos, as 
father and son rediscover one another, that Theseus again calls Hip­
polytus "TEKVOV, now for the first time in the play (1408, 1446, 1456).16 
To return to 1456, there is, therefore, a special point and a heightened 
pathos in the combination of legitimacy, 'betrayal', and the terms of 
address in the juxtaposition of 1455 and 1456. 

There remains in favor of the transposition the word-play between 
{'EVVatOC and YV7]cLWV in 1452 and 1455.17 Yet it is by no means certain 
that this should be the decisive criterion, for the word-play can still 
be operative, albeit less vividly, if two lines intervene. The chief ad­
vantages of the Ms. order which I have sought to defend are the juxta­
position of Hippolytus' farewell in 1453 with Theseus' cry of grief, 
oipm, in 1454; the harsher, unreconciled, unsentimental tone of 
Hippolytus' last moments if 1455 stays where it is; the sequence of 
Hippolytus' reference to his illegitimacy and Theseus' uneasiness 
about 'betrayal' in 1455-56; and the emotionally taut and themati­
cally significant movement between 7Tat8wv YV7]cLWv--7"EKVOv----TrcX"TEP in 
1455-56-57.18 These considerations seem to me to outweigh the 
reasons hitherto advanced for changing the Ms. order of the lines. 

BROWN UNIVERSITY 

April, 1970 

16 Note also Artemis' address to Theseus as 'r/KYOl' Aly£wc in 1431, and the theme of 
destrOying T£KI'a in 1341. 

17 Wilamowitz, op.cit, (supra n.l0) 242, regarded the word playas the factor "welches 
ubrigens die richtige ordnung der verse am deutlichsten zeigt." 

18 To this point we may add another formalistic criterion: the symmetry between 1452 
and 1453, each beginning with the interjection ciJ followed by a word of trochaic shape (ciJ 
t/>D.Ta8, ciJ xarp~ and ending with "father" (7TaTpl, 7TaT~p), On the other hand, those who 
accept the transposition could argue that Euripides was seeking to avoid such symmetry. 
In this stichomythia, given the close repetition between 1452 and 1454 and the echo Kap­

T£p€t-K~KapT£p1'JTa, in 1457, such symmetry seems natural and appropriate.