KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

Coniectanea Euripidea 

David Kovacs 

J AMES DIGGLE'S new Euripides, now two-thirds complete, is a 
major advance in the establishment of the text. Diggle has con­
sidered each line afresh, made a number of successful emenda­

tions, and rescued numerous earlier suggestions from undeserved 
oblivion. I offer here some discussions of further places in the first 
volume where I believe text or apparatus can be improved. 
Ale. 829-34 

f.l' ~\8 ~ I~·· (.l '>\ I'> t-J'C!- u£ vp.ov rauu V7Tt:pt-JaAWV 7TVAaS' 
8 30 >I ' ~ I ' ,rl.. '> C I ~ I £7TtVOV avupOS' £V 't'ti\O~E:VOV uOp.OtS', 

I (f 1' ,,.., I 

7TpaCTCTOVTOS' OVTW. KC!-Ta KWfJ-a':.W Kapa 
,rl..l 8' ''>'>\ ~I \,rl.. I urt:'t'avots 7TVKau t:ts; al\1\a uov ro p.7J 't'pauat, 

..,. I ~ I I 
KaKOV TOCTOVTOV uwp.autV 7TpOCTKE:tfJ-£VOV. 

~ I ,rl.. 8' ~ r I '>I 7TOV Kat CT't'£ a7TTt:t; 7TOt VtV £Vp1JCTW fJ-01\WV; 

833 7rpouKHJJ.~vov Scaliger: 7rpoK- codd. 

Dale explains uov in 832 as an exclamatory genitive and <J>pauat as 
an exclamatory infinitive. Yet her grammatical explanation states, 
and her examples show, that when an exclamatory genitive is not 
dependent on tj>t:v or the like, it must contain some word that implies 
the quality in virtue of which an exclamation is appropriate, as rwv 
a'Aa(ovt:vp.<lrWV at Ar. Ach. 87. 1 This makes against CTOV as genitive of 
exclamation, for the pronoun implies no qualities at all. Dale thinks it 
a possible construction because it is followed by an exclamatory 
infinitive, but she gives no real parallels and appears not to believe it 
herself, as her next words show. For she alleges that a'AA.a here and at 
M ed. 1051 has the force of an interjection. I doubt that a'AA.a functions 
as an interjection here, and while KaK7JS' in Med. 1051 is a genitive of 
exclamation, it does not depend on "interjectional" a'AA.a. (See the 
discussion of Med. 1049-55 infra.) 

If grammar is parlous, sense is no better. Why should Heracles 
berate the servant for what was obviously not his own choice? The 
tone of the words, if they were grammatical, would be one of personal 
affront ("and could you bring yourself not to tell me?") and suggests 

1 See Kuhner-Gerth I 388f, Schwyzer II 134. 

115 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

116 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

that Heracles is rebuking the servant for a failure in the duties of 
friendship, which is impossible here: the man is a slave, and Heracles 
has never met him before this day. 

Grammar and sense are both set right by changing uov to uov and 
substituting some other monosyllable for JJ.~ or some other verb for 
cppauaL in 832, removing the period after 833, and replacing the two 
question-marks in 834 by a comma and a period: 

Ql ll'() ~ I '51>'' Q '1.\ 1\ tJLf!. u€ VJJ.OV TaCTu V7i€pt-Jai\WV 7iVI\aS 

830 f7iLVOV avopos EV cJ>tA.otlvov OOJJ.OLS, 
I t1 '9' I,._ I 

7ipaCTCTOVTOS OVTW. KQ.Ta KWJJ.a!:,W tcapa 

uncpavoLs 7iVKaCT8£ls; aA.A.a CTOV TO t JJ.~ cppauaL, t 
""' I 5::: I I 

tcaKOV TOCTOVTOV uWJJ.aCTLV 7ip0CTK€LJJ.€VOV, 
~ I ,j.. 8 I ~ < I '1. I 

7i0V KaL CT't'€ a7iT€L, 7iOL VLV €Vp'TJCTW JJ-01\WV. 

832 vvv cppcLtrat vel p.~ urlyEtv sensui satisfaceret 

"Doing violence to my feelings I passed through these gates and drank 
wine in the house of a hospitable man in his hour of misfortune. And 
then am I carousing with my head crowned with garlands? But it is 
your job now, with such a great misfortune added to the house, to tell 
me where in fact he buried her, where I must go to find her." There is 
theoretically no reason not to read uov TO tJJ.~t cppauaL (at Supp. 99 we 
read ~JJ.WV o' atcov£Lv with similar construction), but with uov exact 
parallels may be had by the handful: Held. 132, uov o~ TO cppa(Hv (uTl, 

JJ.~ JJ.hA£LV o ', EJJ.Ot, and also Supp. 98, HF 314, IT 1203, and Ion 1020. 
See Ale. 1027 for the corruption of -ov to -ov. 

In its new setting the genitive absolute in 833, with Scaliger's 
necessary correction, bears a rather different sense. "Such a great 
misfortune added to the house" seemed in the old text to refer to the 
death of Alcestis (ef 551), but there is talk elsewhere in the play (1039, 
1 048) of adding new griefs to this. That seems to be the case here too, 
for the phrase makes the most sense if the reference is to the magni­
tude of the insult Heracles has unwittingly paid the memory of Alces­
tis, an insult just described in the three-and-a-half lines preceding. 
This description gives TouovTov its point. A further benefit of the 
repunctuation is that we are now free of an asyndeton (beginning of 
834) that is hard to account for. 
Ale. 1037-40 

A A " ' ' 1/". 'll' ' ' ~ (} 1 
..:...l.. OVTOL CT aTL!:,WV Ovu fV aLCTXPOLCTLV TL fLS 

>I ,/,' ' ~ \ '8 '1. I I €KpV'f' f!J-'TJS' )'VVaLKOS a 1\LOVS TVXaS. 
'\\>>1'\ >1'\ ~>>'I ~ I 
a/\.1\. ai\.)'OS aA)'fL TOVT av 7JV 7ip0CTK€LJJ.EVOV, 

>1 \ >I'\ '\ I:> I ()' < I() t I 
£L Tov 7ipos a"'"'ov uWJJ.a WPJJ-7J TJS b"fvov. 

1037 aluXPoL'ut(v) LPQ: £x8poL'ut(v) BOV (£-vic, al- V) 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 117 

The corruption of aluxpos into €x8pos, which Diggle's text assumes 
here, is common (EI. 138, HF 293, and Tro. 1059 if Hermann's 
conjecture is correct), but the opposite change also occurs (Hec. 200, 
Pho. 585; Aesch. Sept. 695), and the intermediate alx8pos can be seen 
in the original reading of V above as well as at Tro. 7 41. Sense and 
style here favor ixOpo'icnv. There is a strong tendency in a Euripidean 
agon for the second of two paired speeches to answer the first point by 
point in order. "Not dishonoring you or considering you one of my 
enemies" is a perfect reply to 1010f, Heracles' first substantial point, 
that he expected to be treated as a friend and to be allowed to show his 
loyalty. Pace Dale, for Admetus to tell Heracles that he does not 
consider him an enemy is a good response to Heracles' disappoint­
ment at not being allowed to act as a friend. The exaggeration of "no 
friend" to "enemy" has a rhetorical function in making the change 
easier to rebut. 

The decisive point, however, is grammar. One has the sense that if 
there are in the same line two co-ordinated transitive participles (or 
verbs in any other mood, for that matter) and the first of them has an 
object, that object is to be supplied with the second as well. This 
intuition can be confirmed by the following examples: 

AI 787 ~ ' ~ ' I I 8' ' ~ I c. , TavT ovv aKovuas Kat p.a wv f.JJ.OV 1rapa 
AI 8 55 <I ' ' 'l> I ''l> I C ' ' 'l>' ' I\. c. , os p. f.S uop.ovs f.uf.~aT ovu a7T111\aUf.V 
A d 731 •I ' ~ 'l> I .4-, \. ~ " I n Y. , OVT OVV TL upauw 't'l\aVpOV OVTf. 7T£LUOJJ.aL 

and many others one could cite. In light of the expectations raised by 
OVTOL u' aTl(wv ovo' it is almost impossible to supply Tvxas as the 
object of n8Els. This ought to make €x8pol.uw the certain reading. 
Med. 1008-10 

MH. 
DA. 
MH. 

' ~ a taL 
1 '~>' '{: 'l> 1 ~ '{: \. I Tau OV £ VVcpua TOLULV f.r;;"'YYf.I\JJ.f.VOLS. 
' ~ I"' ~e nA ~ ' ' ~ ... " I ataL JJ.al\ av ts. . p.wv nv ayyf.I\1\WV TVX"'V 
' ~'l> 'l> I (: 'l>' ' .4-, I \. ' I\. OVK 0 tua, uOr:, 7IS u f.U'f'ai\71V f.Vayyf.I\OV; 

1009 ayyf>. .. A.wv BA et P 2 et gE: -hwv 0 DE V: -€A.w LP et yc 

The messenger brings the news that the children have been given 
permission to stay in Corinth. Medea answers with cries of woe. The 
messenger is puzzled: "Can it be that I do not know that I am 
announcing some misfortune and that I am cheated of my expectation 
of being the bearer of good news?" All is well here except that TV X "'V 
ought to have some qualifier to change the neutral "tum of events" 
into "misfortune." For while context can make an expression like 
T~voE T~v TVX"'V mean "this misfortune" because the demonstrative, 
by indicating which TVX"', makes its nature clear, I can find no in-



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

118 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

dubitable examples in tragedy of bare and unqualified T-6X1J meaning 
"unhappy tum of events." 

The reading ofLP and the corrector ofV is a vox nihili, but it is an 
easy corruption of a reading that would make perfect sense and could 
easily have given rise to the other two readings as well: 

A I ' , I... .... I 
fi.WV nv ay')'fi\1\W TVX1JV 

' '9'l:t 5Jt I t 5:t' ' "' I '\. , 1'\. OVK Otua, U0f:.1JS u fCT'f'a"'1JV fVa')'')'fi\.OV; 

"Can it be that I do not know what tum of events I am announcing 
and have been cheated of my hopes ofbeing the bearer of good news?" 
On one side of the tradition, some ancestor of L and P omitted one of 
the lambdas, while on the other a superfluous nu crept in from the 
ending of the words on either side of it. 
Med. 1049-55 

I I I R I.... I... ' , "' .... A KatTOt TL 7Tacrxw; tJOVI\.OfJ.at ')'fAWT O'f'I\.HV 
1050 , 8 I 8 A \ , I , /: I 

fX povs fJ.f ncra Tovs ffJ.OVS a~1Jf1-tovs; 
.... I llJt' ......... 1 A , A I 

TOAIJ-1JTfOV Tau ' al\.1\a T1JS ffJ-1JS ICaiC1JS 
\ I I 8 "8 I '\. I "' I TO Kat 7TpOCTfCT at fl.al\ aKOVS 1\.0')'0VS ..,pfVt. 

A AlJt , l:t I 5! lJtl I 
XWPHTf, 7TatufS, fS uOfJ.OVS. UTC!> uf fi-1J 
8 1 A A , A 81 

ffJ.tS 7Tapnvat TOtS ffJ.Otcrt VfJ.aCTtV, 

1055 avT[i> fJ.fA~CTH' Xftpa a' ov ata<J>8fpw. 

I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of 1053-55. It is usually 
claimed that they are a sort of macabre parody of expressions like 
procul o procul este, profani, and that Medea is warning the Chorus 
not to interfere. But construing them to get this meaning is difficult. 
We can see at a glance what corresponds to profani, but where is the 
procul este? Can fJ.fA~crn mean "Let him see to it [that he does not 
come]" (both R. Warner and P. Vellacott)? 

There are at least three problems: Why use the verb ~J-EAn to express 
this meaning? Why use the future indicative if the meaning is jussive, 
"Let him see to it"? And what is the understood genitive complement 
of the verb? 

Various translations give various answers to these questions. Some 
are quite possible versions of the Greek that happen to make little 
sense in context. "To him I leave it (i.e., let him come or stay away)," 
says Verrall. This apparent indifference is a plausible reading, for 
when you say "this will be a concern to him," you imply that it is none 
to your addressee. Cf Hector's words to Andromache (II. 6.492f), 
"War shall be the concern of men," with its clear implication that it is 
none to women. So translations like "It shall be his concern that he 
not enter" (a view that starts with the scholiast) seem to have little if 
any warrant. At the same time, it seems rather understated to say "It 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 119 

will be your concern to enter or not" if your real purpose is, as Verrall 
says in his previous note, to forbid the women of the Chorus to 
attempt interference. 

Other renderings fit the context but cannot be gotten out of the 
Greek. "If anyone thinks it impious to be present, to take part in my 
sacrifice, that will be his concern," runs J. R. Majors' note. Here we 
miss a ooKfL or the like to indicate the subjectivity of "thinks it 
impious" instead of the objective "is forbidden" which the Greek 
gives. (Note too the modernity of the sentiment: "If you think what I 
am doing is wrong, that is your problem.") Translations such as "der 
ziehe den eigenen Weg" (E. Buschor) lose contact with the Greek 
entirely. 

The absence of an expression in the Greek to indicate the object of 
the care is a stumbling-block to interpretation. It is also anomalous. In 
all but four instances of the verb in Euripides (Heracl. 712, on which 
see below, Hec. 1274, Bacch. 1387, fr.287.2), it has either a genitive 
complement or a nominative subject (or its equivalent, an indirect 
question). In each of these four instances, the context leaves no doubt 
about what is to be supplied. 

Likewise avr(il is not above suspicion. In the extant plays and the 
fragments in Nauck, Euripides uses a resumptive pronoun after a 
preceding relative clause forty-two times. In twenty-nine of these the 
pronoun is a form Of OVTOS, in eight it is CfSf, in one it is ~KfLVOS, and in 
one it is o avros. All these are words of strong demonstrative force. By 
contrast there are, besides our passage, only two other prima facie 
instances of the relatively colorless avros. 2 By far the commonest 
procedure is to use no pronoun at all, as at Med. 507f and Bacch. 228. 
There is no reason why Euripides, if he had wanted a pronoun, should 
not have followed his normal practice and written rovr~, but his MSS. 

tell us that he almost certainly did not. Transmitted avr{il thus gives us 
both more and less than we need, for it supplies a pronoun that is both 
unnecessary and unusual and fails to give us the object the verb 
requues. 

"We look before and after and pine for what is not," wrote Shelley. 

2 Relative clauses resumed with oi!Tos: Ale. 979, Hipp. 81, 445, 889, Andr. 369, 
Supp. 916, El. 20, HF 1328, Tro. 492, 646, He/. 1376, Phoen. 49, 706, 916, 1016, Or. 
66, 659, Bacch. 656, /A 62, frr.37.2, 175.2, 328.3, 583.2, 634.2, 757.1, 952.2, 953.2 
and 16 (both probably spurious), 1048.6; with CJot: Med. 548, 1409, IT 822, He/. 961, 
Bacch. 432, frr.110.2, 297.3, 852.2; with EKttvos: Bacch. 445; with 0 avTos: Phoen. 386. 
Of the two counterexamples, one is fr.377.3, which, even if it were undoubtedly 
sound and undoubtedly genuine, is sufficiently different in form from the others that 
it does not present much of a challenge to the rule that a resumptive pronoun should 
have demonstrative force. The other, interestingly, is Ion 600, from a passage that I 
had concluded on other grounds was spurious (see TAPA 109 [1979] 116-24). 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

120 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

He was, of course, speaking of the textual critic, whose duty it is to 
look at the context preceding and following any passage and divine 
from it what is no longer there, the meaning the poet's words once 
expressed, a meaning now obscured by corruption. Immediately be­
fore the doubtful lines, Medea reproaches herself for cowardice and 
sends the children into the house, the JJ.aA.6aKo'i. A.6yot of maternal 
feeling firmly mastered. Immediately after them is a half line in which 
she proclaims the firmness of her resolve. The o' with which it is 
connected to what precedes could be adversative and might suggest a 
contrast with other feelings and other people. If so, it could be that the 
verb JJ.EA~un refers to those feelings, that it is indicative because 
Medea is making a statement about the future, not issuing a com­
mand, that it has as its object the children, and that Medea means that 
those who are forbidden to be present at her sacrifice shall feel concern 
for them, while she shall not. Our choice is between avr(i> (sc. VJJ.rov vel 
avrrov), a suppletion that does not easily suggest itself, or the trifling 
change avrrov for avr(i>. 

The grammatical considerations already adduced make avrrov a 
logical choice: a genitive complement to the verb is needed, as we 
have seen, a resumptive pronoun is not, and the transmitted pronoun 
is anomalous. Translate: "But what has come over me? Do I wish to 
be a laughing-stock, allowing my enemies to escape unpunished? Must 
I suffer that?3 Nay, what cowardice in me to lay such soothing words 
to my soul. Children, go into the house! Whoso may not attend my 
sacrifice shall care for them. My hand I shall not weaken." For the 
corruption see Ale. 7 5, Andr. 1220, and for the reverse, Ale. 1025, 
Hipp. 302. The shift from second to third person is not difficult 
provided we recognize that only the imperative is directed to the 
children and the rest of Medea's words are spoken to herself and the 
Chorus. 
Med. 1076-77 

~ ~ ' ' I ' ' \ Q\. I xwpELTE XWPELT . OVKET ELJJ.L 7TpOO"tJAE7TELV 
<I t \ . ~ t '""' ~ ~ Ota TE 7Tp0S VJJ.aS aAAa VLKWJJ.aL KaKOLS. 

1 077 u 7Tpos vp.as A et V in ras. et 8 3: rE 7Tpocrp.as B: u 7Tpos ~IJ.as 0: 
'' ' ~ LP t V 3 ' ' ~ E ' ""'~ P T ES VIJ.aS . e : 7Tp0S VIJ.aS g : TE 7TpOS cr..,as age 

3 At CQ N.S. 36 (1986) 351fl suggest that the correct reading in 1078 is ToAp.~uw, 
the reading of all the MSS. except L, that it could well mean "undergo, bear up under," 
as the verb frequently does, and that another instance of this meaning is M ed. 1051, 
where we should perhaps read ToAp.TjT£ov nio '; This makes the reference of Tao' easier 
to understand (the unendurable things just mentioned rather than unnamed things 
she must dare to do) as well as making a>.>.a function more naturally. 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 121 

It may be possible to see a little further into the darkness of 1077. The 
essential question concerning the crux, as Page saw, was whether 
7Tpouf3A.€7TELV 1rpos nva is good Greek. He answered in the affirmative 
and proposed TE 1rpos ucpas, taking the third person as an aside, which 
was then 'corrected', on his view, to a direct address. 

The solution is a neat one, for Medea does in fact leave off speaking 
to the children in the next line and the aside leads into this. But the 
whole rests on a shaky foundation, for the evidence for 7Tpouj3A.f.7TELv 
1rpos nva is exceedingly slender (a single inscriptional prose text in a 
non-Attic dialect), while the use of 7Tpouf3A.€7Tnv with simple accusa­
tive is overwhelmingly attested. The reading of LP, r' f.s VJJ.as, is 
almost certainly conjectural, and if we supposed it to be genuine, we 
would have great difficulty explaining the corruption of f.s to 1rpos. It is 
an obvious inference that in 1rpos VJJ.as neither pronoun nor prepo­
sition is the work of Euripides but rather that of a glossator, and that 
what Euripides wrote was, e.g., 

' I ' > I /3" I OVKET ELJJ.L 7TpOU I\E7TELV 
t:l ,., '''""' " " Ota T EVaVTL al\1\a VLKWJJ.aL KaKOLS. 

That f.vavr{ov is the mot juste with 7TpoufjA.€7TELv can be seen from, e.g., 
Hipp. 1078 and Hec. 968. (For the neuter plural form of the adverb, 
see LSJ s. v.) In these places and others like them the direct object of 
the verb is expressed. Here the object has to be understood, which 
perhaps created difficulty enough for the prosaic mind that Medea's 
"in the face" was at some point glossed by "at you," and the lemma 
ousted by the glossema. 
M ed. 1 3 14-16 

xaA.an KAfjoaS' WS' T<lXLUTa, 7TpOU7TOAOL, 
> '1. I ll' < I < >l~:t 5:: '1. ~ I EKI\VEu apJ-1-0VS', WS' t uW ut'7T 1\0VV KaKOV 
[ I I e I I !il I I !ill ] TOVS' JJ.EV aVOVTaS, T1JV uE TELUWJJ.aL uLK1JV . 

1316 del. Schenkel. rluwfA-a' olK1JV LP: rluoJJ.at fj>ovw(t) H Q 

That two such disparate items as rovS' 8avovras and r~voE nluwJJ.at 
o{K1JV should be contrasted by JJ.EV and of. is clearly impossible. But 
Diggle's deletion is wrong for two reasons. First, it seems equally 
unlikely that an interpolator should have expressed himself so non­
sensically. Second, when a character in Euripides announces that 
there is a double toil, etc., he will rarely fail to spell out its two 
components: cf Ale. 760, 1057, Med. 1185, Heracl. 1043, Andr. 396, 
Hec. 518, Supp. 333, 1035, IT 688. Something, therefore, seems to be 
required after 1315, and as it is unlikely that anyone, either the poet 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

122 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

or an interpolator, wrote 1316 as it stands, it is likely to be corrupted, 
not interpolated. I suggest: 

< >I~ ~ '1. ~ I 
WS' LuW uL?TI\OVV ICaiCOV, 

\ \ 6 I \ ~\ ~ I I~ 
TOVS' J.LEV avovTas, T1JV uE <upauauav TauE, 
""I I~ ~ ~ I ~I 
't'OVOV Tf ?TaLuWV TWVuE> TfLCTWJ.LaL uLIC1JV. 

Open the doors so that I may see a double evil, my dead children 
and the one who did these things [cf 1318], and so that I may exact 
punishment for the murder of the children. 

Herac/. 165-74 
1' \ '1. I 165 1J ICaiCOV 1\0}'0V 

I \ ' ...,. ' I tl 
ICT1JCT'!I ?TpOS' auTwV, fL }'EpOVTOS' OVVEICa 

I Q \ ~ \ >I < ' ~ >I 
TVfLtJOV, TO fi.1JUEV OVTOS', WS' EL?TELV f?TOS', 

I~ ~ ~t> > >I '1. > Q I I~ 
?TaLuWV <rE> TWVu ES' aVTI\OV fJ.LtJ1JCT'!I ?TOua. 

t ' ~ \ '1. ~ ''1. I~> < I I t 
EpELS' TO 1\~CTTOV fi\?TLu EVP1JCTELV fLOVOV 

170 \ ~ '1. '1. ~ ~ I ' ~ I 
ICaL TOVTO ?TOI\1\~ TOV ?TapOVTOS fVuHS. 

~ ' 'A I tl~· • '1. I 
KaKws yap pynoLCTLV OL u W?T 1\LUJ.LEVOLS' 

I ' " t Q I '' """ 1 J.LaXOLVT av 1JtJ7JCTaVTES, fL <n> TOVTO CTE 
,/, \ ' I ' I '1. \ I 
.,vx7Jv E?TaLpn· xovv fLEeT~ ?TOI\VS' XPovos 
'"'~ 6~''1 ,,.,.,,' 6~ EV ~ uLEpyau ELT av. al\1\ EfLOL ?TL OV. 

Both 170 and the larger context establish the general sense of the 
Herald's point, that it is unwise to put too much trust in unfounded 
hopes, that one had better take the cash and let the credit go. If (A.?Tlo' 

in 169 is the credit, To A.ij>uTov is surely the cash, solid advantage, the 
sensible course. Excellent sense would be attained by writing 

\ \ '1. ~ ''1. I~> < I I 
?Tapns TO 1\~CTTOV EI\?TLu EVP1JCTELS J.LOV1JV, 

"If you let solid advantage slip, you will find only insubstantial hope, 
and this is far inferior to cash on the barrel." I am unsure about the 
asyndeton at the beginning of 169, which is difficult. ~eavEls or ~eatpEls 
would solve that problem, but the corruption becomes considerably 
more difficult to explain. Others may be able to do better. 
Heracl. 637-41 

=E (f I I ""'I I 
0 . 1JICW }'f fLEVTOL xapfLa CTOL 't'EpWV fLE)'a. 
10 I ~ ' 1' I ~ \ ' ~ 

• TLS' u u uv; ?TOV CTOL uvvTvxwv aJ.LV1JfLOVw; 
=E <ly '1. '1. I , I • ~ 
o . 1\1\0V '7TEVECTT1JS'" OV fLE }'L}'VWUICELS' opwv; 

640 Io 1' ""1'1. 6' <I 1' \ ~ Q'l. 1 Q 
• W 't'LI\Ta , 1JICELS' apa CTWT1Jp V~V fJI\atJ7JS'; 

=E I " \ I ' ' ~ ' ~ I ~ o • fLai\LCTTa· KaL ?Tpos y EVTVXELS Ta vvv rauE. 

640 7/~ens apogr. Par.: ~ICES' L vfilv uwr~p Porson 

Hyllus' servant, coming with news of his master, who has been away 
trying to win allies for the children of Heracles, finds Iolaus in a state 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 123 

of collapse caused by the sacrifice of Macaria. lola us does not at once 
recognize the servant. But the servant reminds him who he is. "Oh, 
dearest one," Iolaus replies (this being, as D. Gregor, CR 71 [ 1957] 
14f, has shown, a common way of addressing the messenger of good 
news, whether or not any propinquity actually obtains), "have you 
come as a savior from harm for the two of us?" We may grant that the 
recipient of good news may in the first flush of the moment treat the 
bearer as if he were the cause of the happy circumstances themselves. 
One cannot help but wonder, though, why the salvation in question is 
restricted to a pair of individuals and not shared with all of Heracles' 
children. Suspicion darkens when we read the servant's reply: "Indeed 
I have [come as a savior] and furthermore you are fortunate in your 
present circumstances." It is somewhat remarkable that the servant 
accepts the exaggerated view of his own accomplishments. It is even 
more remarkable that his "furthermore" adds nothing to the implica­
tions of IJ.a)uura. 

I suggest that what Euripides wrote was: 

Io I ~' Iii' I """' \ ' "" . TLS u U uv; 7TOV UOL UVVTVXWV aiJ.VfJIJ.OVW; 
Ct.E (/Y"" I , I • ~ o . 1\1\0V 7T£V£UT1]S" OV /)-£ )'L)'VWUK£LS opwv; 
IO. ri> <J>{A.rar', ~A.0£v 7x.pa uw<s li.>np [vc!'>v] {3A.af31Js; 
Ct.E I '\. ' I ' ' .... ' ,... I ~ 
0 . /)-ai\LUTa· KaL 7Tp0S )' £VTVX£LS Ta VVV Tau£. 

When uoos li.np was corrupted to uwr~p, the meter was repaired by the 
makeshift vc!'>v (which Porson thought was misplaced). After ri> <j>lA.rar' 
it is not unnatural to expect a second-person verb, and that is what 
some scribe's expectation caused him to see. If this suggestion is 
correct, it removes another curious anomaly. In 659 Iolaus reports to 
Alcmene the messenger's news that Hyllus has arrived. In the trans­
mitted text this is information that the messenger never explicitly 
gives but is now restored to him. 
Herac/. 709-13 

AA I ~ 1'1. '1. ~ ,f.. ~ ' >I !l> " . n XP1JIJ.a /)-£1\I\£LS uwv ..,..p£vwv OVK £VuOV wv 
710 \. " ' ,, \ 1 ' ' ,... I\L7T£LV 1J. £p1]1J.OV UVV <T£KVOV> T£KVOL~ £/)-OL~; 

Io ' !l> ~ \ ' ). I \ !l> \ \ I I). . avupwv yap ai\KTJ" uot u£ XP7J rovrwv IJ.€A£LV. 
AA I !l>' " 0 I I ~ ' \ 0 I . TL u ; 1JV aV'{}S UV, 7TW~ £)'W UW 1JUOIJ.aL; 
IO. 7Tatoo~ IJ.€A~U£L 7Tatul. ro'i~ A£A€LIJ.IJ.fVO~. 

Iolaus explains that it is Alcmene's job to care for the children while 
he goes off to fight. When she says, "If you die, how shall I survive?" 
Iolaus, according to L, replies, "Your grandchildren who are left shall 
take care of you." But the restrictive "who are left" is not notably 
apposite, suggesting as it does a contrast with grandchildren who will 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

124 CONIECT ANEA EURIPIDEA 

be dead. There is no suggestion in this context that any of the grand­
children is about to die. Worse still, if we found a scrap of papyrus 
with the two lines, "If you die, how shall I survive?" "Your remaining 
grandchildren will take care of you," we would almost certainly con­
clude that the two speakers were related as grandparent to grandchild. 
That is not, of course, the relation between Alcmene and Iolaus. 

The simplest solution is to read Tiiw AEAHJJ.JJ.Evwv, "Your grandchil­
dren will care for those who are left behind." The error is simple 
assimilation of endings. (In view of 711, 709 should be punctuated Tl 

XPfiJJ.a;) 

Heracl. 729-33 
c..E ... ~ ~ I I • '1. I I = . r-, 7Tatuaywy£Lv yap TOV 07TALT'r/V XPEwv; 

730 Io >I (} tl ' > ,1.. '1. ~ I . OpVL OS OVVEK au.,aAWS 7TOpEVTEOV. 
8E "8' '>' (} ~ I ~ ~ tl 18 '>' . f.L 1/0' a uVVaTOS upav OO'OV 7Tp0 VJJ.OS U. 

IO. E7Tf.L')'E. A.Et4>8E'r.s of.Lva 7TEluoJJ.a' JJ.axr-,s. 
8E I {3 ~ I ' > I I:> ~ ~ ~ . O'V TOL pauVVf.LS, OVK E')'W, uOKWV TL upav. 

733lioKwv Tyrwhitt: lioKw L 

In 732 Iolaus says "Hurry: if I am left out of the battle I shall suffer 
terrible things." One may grant that lola us in his excitement may be 
given to exaggeration, but "suffering terrible things" is an expression 
usually reserved, on the tragic stage or off, for people who have 
suffered sharper stings than those of even the keenest disappointment 
at being late. But the OEtva that look so exaggerated as the object of 
1rauxw are quite at home in another idiom of perfect aptness to this 
situation, and I suggest that Iolaus meant "I am (or shall be) wroth at 
being left out of the battle" and that Euripides wrote oHva 7TOLOVJJ.a' or 
(}~O'OJJ.aL. 

In the next line, the reading of L is nonsense. Tyrwhitt's conjecture 
restores the obviously intended contrast of subjects uv ... ovK f.yw 
with the same verb. But the participial phrase is lame: "It is you, not I, 
who are slow, seeming to do something." Why "seeming"? And, more 
important, why should n opav not be the complement to {3paovv£Ls, as 
it was clearly meant to be? The sense is "It is you who seem to be slow 
to act, not I," and it is achieved by undoing the assimilation of the 
endings of {3paovvns and ooKro to the pronouns that precede them, 
writing uv Tot {3paovv£Lv, ovK f.yw, ooKE'is n opav. For similar parenthe­
ses see Andr. 248 and Hipp. 352. See further, for parentheses as cause 
of corruption, J. Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford 1955) 128-
40. 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 

Hipp. 664-68 
>1\. 8 ~ 1:: ' >I ' ' \. 8 I 01\.0UT €. !J-LUWV u OV7TOT €/)-7TA1!U 'YJUO/)-aL 

66 5 ~ ' 1::' >I ,f.. I I ' ' I \. I 
yvvauca~, ovu EL .,..1JuL rt~ JJ- at"L 1\.EYHV' 
' \ \ 1' I ' ' ,... I 
a£t yap OVV 7TW~ ELUL KaKELVaL KaKaL. 
>I I ' I ,f.. ~ 1:: 1:: (:I 1J vvv Tt~ avras uw.,..povt"Lv uLua£"arw 
"'''"' ..... ~,, fJ' ,, 7} KaJ..L £aTw Tauro nrEJ.LpaLVELV an. 

664-68 in suspicionem vocavit Valckenaer: certe ex Hippolyti sen­
tentia (79 seqq.) uwcppouvv1J non discendo capitur 

125 

Barrett, following Valckenaer, suspects these lines of being an inter­
polation. Diggle's apparatus mentions a further telling point against 
them. I would like to add to the suspicion. "A curse upon you! I shall 
never get my fill of hating women, not even if someone says that I am 
always speaking (sc. of this)." Hating and reviling are two different 
things. It makes sense to speak of getting one's fill of the second but 
not of the first. Furthermore, it makes even greater sense to say (as 
this passage almost says) "I shall never get my fill of reviling women, 
even if someone says I am always doing so." These lines do not quite 
succeed at saying what they are intended to say, and though we must 
of course be prepared to be told that the illogicality of Hippolytus' 
words betokens his agitation, the excuse seems particularly feeble at 
the end of a long speech that has been as articulate as has this. 

His justification for always speaking ill of them is also strange: "for 
they too are always in some way vile." The position of Kal suggests 
that women share the quality of vileness with someone else. (The Kal 

in 668, by contrast, might modify the whole co-ordinate clause.) But 
this is clearly not the intended meaning. Finally, the collocation yap 

o~v 7Tws (666) looks rather like metrical filler: yap o?Jv 4 does not seem 
to be particularly apt here since the kind of emphasis this combina­
tion provides is not needed. This emphasis is cancelled out, more­
over, by the thoroughly unnecessary 7Tws. For 7Tw~ as a make-weight 
for inept versifiers, see Sop h. Aj. 82 7, rightly bracketed by Dawe in his 
Teubner edition. 
Hec. 52-54 

yEpaL~ o' (K7TOOWV xwp~uOJJ-aL 
• EKaf3rr 7TEP~ yap ifo • fmo uK1Jvii~ 7T6oa 
'A I "'I 1:: I ,, I yap.Ep.vovos, .,..avrauJ.La ut"Lp.atvovu Ep.ov. 

53 CTK1JVij<; .Qt'T1 et pc et :rmv: CTK1JV~V FLP(et :rrec. ad 762. 

4 See J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles 2 (Oxford 1954) 445f. 



111 "1""1111111tttttttt tttttlt!lttl!l!ttl!lttttroto•ototo!ototoppliOOIIIIIII! !!!! I !!!!!!!!!IIIOIOIOIOOOIOOO!IO!!IO!O!O IIOI !O!O!OO !O!! OO•Ioloouoooot•OOOOI 

126 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

Line 54 was first suspected by Usener, whose disquiet was apparently 
shared at least to a degree by Murray. With reason. Several possibili­
ties of reading and interpretation all yield some sort of contradiction 
with the rest of the play. (a) We might read, with Diggle, crK7Jvijs and 
construe ?Toaa with 7TEp~. But why should Hecuba be coming out of 
Agamemnon's tent? One scholiastic explanation is too complicated to 
be true. We are to imagine, says the scholiast, that she has already left 
her tent and entered that of Agamemnon, from which she now exits, 
not having found her daughter Cassandra. But the distinct impression 
we get, both from Polydorus and from Hecuba herself, is that during 
the prologue she was asleep in her own tent and is now just awaken­
ing: cf 30f, 69, 72. She has just seen the dream (caused by the ghost 
hovering over her head) and she bids her slaves take her out of her 
own tent so that she can avert its ill effects. No audience will under­
stand that she is telling her slaves for the second time to help her go 
forth or that 87-89 are her way of saying that she was unable to find 
Cassandra in the tent (with Helenus too?). (b) We might read with 
Diggle but construe ?Tooa as the object of v?To or read crK7Jv~v. Now we 
have Hecuba going toward the tent of Agamemnon. This is possible, 
at least. But in 59 she says ayET', 6J ?TataES, T~V ypavv 7Tp0 oop.wv, and 
?Tpo oop.wv with a verb of motion is more naturally used of an exit (cf 
Andr. 495, Tro. 897, Phoen. 1264, Or. 112, 1504, Bacch. 914, !A 1, 
fr.773.59 [=Pha. 102 Diggle]) than of an approach to the entrance of a 
structure from the outside (only Bacch. 121 7). And it seems more 
natural that Polydorus' words, like his mother's at 59, should refer to 
the start, rather than the end, of her journey. 

But what of the possibility that the tent where Hecuba sleeps is in 
fact the tent of Agamemnon? There is nothing in the play to contra­
dict this notion explicitly, but apart from this line there is nothing to 
support it either. It is clear elsewhere (1016ff) that a tent housing 
Trojan captives is to be imagined as the backdrop of the action. 
Hecuba can assure Polymestor with plausibility that there are no men 
within. If this same tent were Agamemnon's as well, it is strange that 
nothing is made of this fact. 

The suspect line also says that Hecuba comes out "being afraid of 
my ghost." This misrepresents the situation, as the scholiast's con­
torted attempt to make it square with the facts shows: 7TEp'r. Tov 
cf>avrd.crp.aros ov EiaE 7TEpt ep.ov aEaOLKVta. Hecuba nowhere alludes to her 
son's presence as a ghost but only as a dream. She comes out seeking 
oneirocritical advice, not in flight from an apparition. While it is true 
that 53 by itself is a rather abrupt sentence, it is not impossibly so, 
and its abruptness might help to explain the manufacture of 54. For 
another possible motive, see below on Hec. 504. 



DAVID KOVACS 127 

Hec. 74-97 

The lemma here is too long for transcription: see Diggle. J. M. 
Bremer's discussion pinpoints the major difficulties in this passage. 5 

Hecuba's dream is caused by the appearance of her son Polydorus' 
ghost over her head as she sleeps. Yet 7 4f and 90f give us two dreams, 
one the dream we expect and the second a quite extraordinary al­
legorical dream about "a dappled doe killed by the bloody paw of a 
wolf, tom pitilessly from my knees." About this second dream one 
should note that (a) it is strange to have one dream caused in the 
expected fashion by a spectral visitant and a second by a quite 
different agency; (b) Hecuba is made in 75 to identify the doe with her 
daughter, an easy identification for the audience to make and for that 
reason oddly put in the mouth of Hecuba, who ought to be properly 
baffled; (c) the second dream is superfluous in that Hecuba already 
has, apart from any dream, a reason to feel concern for her daughter, 
as we will see below; (d) metrically these lines interrupt the lyric 
anapests that have been used consistently since 68, right after a 
system of marching anapests; (e) though they have obviously suffered 
corruption, their style is not such as to suggest that strenuous efforts to 
restore them will be rewarded: see the clumsy ap.cp't after 7T£pt in 75, the 
inelegant postponement of u in the same line, the confused ot' ov£lpwv 
in a clause following lf'l/lw. 

Wilamowitz goes too far, however, in deleting 92-97. This sugges­
tion carries very little plausibility for several reasons. The palpable 
motive for the interpolation was to spell out Hecuba's dream in such a 
way as to include Polyxena in its scope. The interpolator chose to 
attempt dactylic hexameter, which contrasts with the meter of the rest 
of the passage. At 92, however, the subject is no longer the dream 
about Polyxena but a passage that makes the dream unnecessary, as 
we will see below. And the meter is no longer hexameter but anapestic 
dimeter, the meter of the undoubtedly genuine portion. It is hard to 
assign to a single interpolator a passage that is diverse both in motive 
and in manner of execution. And to posit two interpolators seems a 
rather expensive hypothesis. 

There are two objections to 92-97, but neither is decisive. First 
Achilles' demand here is for "one of the Trojan women," and this 
does not seem to square with his nominatim request for Polyxena in 
40 and elsewhere. In an appendix to the chapter on Hecuba in The 
Heroic Muse (Baltimore 1987) I discuss this contradiction along with 

5 "Euripides, Hecuba 59-215: A Reconsideration," Mnemosyne SER. IV 24 (1971) 
232-50. 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

128 CONIECT ANEA EURIPIDEA 

a number of similar discrepancies in the play, visible to the scholar in 
his study but unlikely to be noticed by the audience, which Euripides 
accepted in order to make a play out of two distinct and materially 
unrelated stories, those of Polyxena and Polydorus. Euripides wrote 
92ff in order to give Hecuba reason to be anxious about Polyxena 
equally with Polydorus. Just as with Polydorus, she must have some 
reason to be afraid for her daughter but not certitude that she is in 
clear danger, while in the rest of the play the plot required a nomi­
natim request. The discrepancy is of a piece with others in the play, 
such as the location of the action, discrepancies whose motives we can 
also trace, and it should not tell against the genuineness of 92ff. 

The second objection concerns the sequence of four shorts in 97; A. 
M. Dale notes the oddity and is inclined to suspect wholesale inter­
polation. 6 But N auck's solution, deletion of 97 and of o~v in 96, is the 
most economical as it removes not only the metrical anomaly but also 
that most prosaic and least lyrical of connectives. (It is surely no 
accident that of all the instances of o~v cited in Allen and ltalie's 
Concordance only three occur in lyric passages, and in two of these, 
Med. 1290 and IT 895, the text is corrupt [see Page and Platnauer ad 
locc.], while the third, Ion 209, is in answer to another singer in a 
lively lyric dialogue.) The reason for the manufacture of 97 and the 
insertion in 96 is perfectly transparent, that horror of the elliptical 
that bedevils nearly every sentence in tragedy ending in aA.A.' C$p.ws. We 
need not delete 92-97, and at most we need delete only 97 itself, 
which, however, may be protected by IT 215, cited by Diggle. This 
solution in its essentials was already set forth in briefby A. Lesky.7 

Hec. 144-47 
' '\ '\ ' >fl) I >ll) \ Q. I a"" LllL vaovs, L11L 1rpos ,...wp.ovs, 

145 [.,I" 'A I • I I ] 
'~ yap.t:p.vovos uct:ns yovarwv, 

I (} \ I ' ' Ill K7JpVUUf: f:OVS TOVS T ovpaVLuas 
I (}' t \ I TOVS V'lrO yatas. 

145 del. Heimsoeth: vide Studies 45 

Here I will merely confirm Diggle. (My reason for doing so will appear 
in my discussion of 504.) The diagnosis of interpolation was made by 
Heimsoeth, though milder measures have been proposed (by Nauck, 
for once, who wrote 'Ayap.f.p.vovos Y(). To pass sentence against a 
verse raised from the altar by N auck argues a steely temperament 
indeed. Yet severity is called for. ( 1) The suggestion that Hecuba 

6 Collected Papers (Cambridge 1969) 30 n.l. 
7 Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen 3 (Gottingen 1956) 326 n.81. 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 129 

become Agamemnon's suppliant is absurd coming from the same 
Trojan women who have just reported his utter helplessness in the 
assembly. (2) Line 145 interrupts the sequence "Go to the temples, go 
to the altars, call upon the gods in heaven and beneath the earth," as 
Barrett points out. (For this sense of Krwvcrcrw, see Aesch. Cho. 124a.) 
(3) If 145 is retained, the Chorus must be advising Hecuba to take 
refuge at the shrines or at Agamemnon's knees, and then K~pvcnH 
would most naturally mean "proclaim (to the Greeks) the (sanctity of 
the) gods (and the protective power of their altars)." But (a) that 
would not prevent Polyxena's death but only Hecuba's; and (b) since 
she can be a suppliant at only one shrine, she cannot claim the 
protective power of the entire pantheon. Rather, the Chorus are 
advising her to call on the gods for help, and the appeal to Agamem­
non is beside the point. (4) One further consideration is that in 62fwe 
have already detected an interpolator at work whose ideas of metre 
are compatible with lines such as 145. 

Hec. 260-70 

260 I I I ,f.,> ' I ' ' 8 ,f., ~ 7ronpa ro XP'Y/ u..,.. £7r1]yay av pw7rou..,..ay£Lv 
I I Q >I () Q () ~ A \. \. I 

7rp0~ TVJJ-1-'0V, £V a ,...ov VTHV JJ.an.n.OV 7rp£7r£L; 
" I I ' A () , ... 1J TOV~ KTaVOVTa~ avra7rOKTHVaL £n.WV 
''!:''A \\1 '!:' I,.,, H T7JVu XLn.n.£V~ £VuLKw~ T£LV£L ..,..ovov; 
' \. \. > > ~I > \ t/~ > >I I an.n. ovu£V avrov 1]u£ y Hpyaurat KaKov. 

265 'E\. I ' ~ ~ ,,., ,.,, n.£V1]V vtv atTHV XP1JV ra..,..cp 7rpou..,..ayJJ.ara· 
I I ,,... I ' T I ' ,, K£LV1] yap WA£CT£V VLV H potaV T ayH. 

' 5: ' ' \. I I ' ,, 8 A £L u atXJJ.an.wrwv XP'Y/ nv £KKptrov avHv 
I \. \. ()' • "' I ' • A I'!> Kan.n.H V7r£p'f'£povuav, OVX 'lJJJ.WV TOu£" 

• T 5: I I .o;-5: ' I 7J vvuapt~ yap uuo~ £K7rp£7r£CTTaT1J, 
270 aotKovua ()' ~JJ.WV ovo€v ifuuov 7JVpt87J. 

Lines 265f should be deleted. (1) Both 265f and 270 make the same 
point, as has already been noticed by Herwerden, who proposed 
deletion of 269f, by C. Busche, who deleted 270 alone, and by M. L. 
West (BICS 27 [1980] 12), who wants to excise 267-70. Yet these 
lines are blameless, whereas (2) 265 stands in asyndeton with 264, 
inexplicably; (3) 266 contains a none too attractive hysteron proteron 
and a false tense, liyH; and ( 4) the language is flat and colorless, 
entirely within the capabilities of the dullest Byzantine schoolmaster 
(I do not insist on a mediaeval provenance) penning an explanatory 
mythological note in verse: cf Andr. 655f, excised by VerralJ.S West 
fails to see the outline of the argument: 

8 CR 20 (1906) 214-47. I give supporting arguments in The Andromache of Euripi­
des (Chico 1980) 93 n.S8. 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

130 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

(1) Has fate forced them to perform human sacrifice? (Understood 
answer: No.) 
(2) Is it in requital for injuries received? Polyxena has inflicted none. 
(3) Shall the most beautiful captive then be sacrificed? The choice falls 
on Helen, who also and incidentally fulfills (2). 
West's construction of 267f is mistaken. These do not suggest that 
Helen is ineligible because she is not a captive. The emphasis is not 
(despite its early position) on al)(JJ-aA.wrwv, but on fKKpLrov, eximiam. 
Besides, Helen is regarded elsewhere as a captive, e.g. Tro. 35. 
Hec. 409-12 

' '1. '1.' 1' A..'" ,... ( ll I I a"'"' , w '~"'"'11 JJ.OL JJ.1JTEp, 7JuLCTT1JV X Epa 
Ill I I Q '1. ,... Ill 
uOS" KaL 1rapnav 7TpOCTJJaAELV 7Tap7JLuL· 
005" OV7TOT' atlhs- a>.>.a vvv 1Tavvurarov 
' ,... I '1. 8' ( '1. I I'/, aKTLVa KVKAOV f}ALOV 7Tp0CTO 'Y OfJ.aL. 

Diggle deletes Ale. 207f (Murray had deleted 208) and retains Hec. 
412 (as did Murray), both inexplicably. Ale. 205-08 explains why 
Alcestis is coming out of doors, and therefore 208, though slightly 
repetitious (see Dale ad loc.), is at least intelligible. In the Hecuba 
passage, by contrast, ( 1) the line must be treated as merely a way of 
saying "I will shortly die," and its emphasis on the physical act of 
looking at the sun's light is unexplained; (2) the motif of a last look at 
the sun occurs in Polyxena's dramatic last words (435-37), and its 
effect should not be blunted by anticipation; and (3) without 412, 
409-11 mean "give me your embrace knowing that you will never do 
so again." This is the sense we require (cf Tro. 761-63), and whether 
412 belongs in Alcestis or not, it is not wanted here. (4) There is also 
Ms. evidence for its spuriousness, fully reported in Diggle and Weck­
lein, who was the first to propose deletion. 
Hec. 503f 

T A. Ta>.8v{3Los- 1/Kw, 6.ava·iowv V1T1JpEr1Js-
[ ' A I I ,,, 1' I ' ] yaJJ.EfJ.VOVOS" 1TEJJ..,avros-, w yvvaL, fJ.ETa • 

504 del. Jenni: cf. Ale. 66 

Once again I merely confirm Diggle, though now I say why I do so. To 
construe this line as it stands in the MSS. is impossible; anastrophic 
tmesis seems not to occur in tragedy (see Barrett on Hipp. 548f); to 
take JJ.Era with 'AyaJJ.EJJ.Vovos- would be grammatically unobjectionable 
but factually false; and Verrall's suggestion of an aposiopesis, duly 
recorded in Murray's apparatus, is merely unspeakable. Of the pro­
posed conjectures, only Dindorfs 1rapa has any plausibility; but does 
not 1rapa make 1TEp.l/favros- unnecessary? Add, however, that the real 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 131 

authors of Talthybius' mission are named in 510 and in their proper 
and official style (this is no private errand, as 504 might imply), and 
that 504 makes 505 less rather than more natural, as a paraphrase 
makes clear ("I am Talthybius, servant of the Greeks [, come with a 
message from Agamemnon]." "Have they decided to sacrifice me 
too?''), and Jenne's conclusion is hard to avoid, with or without the 
reference to Ale. 66 as the supposed model. Just what this line was 
intended by its author to mean is something we cannot and need not 
determine. Diggle's deletion is right. 

What is interesting here is that this is the third time we have good 
reason to believe that Agamemnon's name has been added to the text 
by a later hand. (The others are 54 and 145.) Is this an actor's attempt 
to increase the importance of Agamemnon in the play? The actor who 
played Agamemnon might easily have played both Polydorus (who 
speaks 54) and Talthybius here. Presumably he was also able to 
persuade the Coryphaeus to add a dimeter to the anapests he had to 
recite. 

Hec. 585-92 

585 ..- ()' ' "'~:>' ' '' f.P· ',/, ~ W vyaT£p, OVK OLu US OTL tJA£'t'W KaKWV, 
\ \ ~ 1 " I <I' lr f '7T0AAWV 1TapOVTWV' 1]V yap a.,wp.aL TLVOS, 
,~,' ·~ .... ~~:>'' ~() ... TOu OVK f.g_ JJ.f., 1TapaKai\£L u £Kf.L £V a V 

A1J'7T7] TLS aAA1] OLaooxos KaKiilV KaKo'k 
\ " \ \ \ tl \ I '{) KaL VVV TO fJ-EV CTOV WCTTf. JJ-1] CTT£V£LV 1Ta OS 

590 OVK av l>vvalp.1]V £taAf.{\fFacr8aL tPPf.VIJso 
I ll ' ... \ f ~\ ' \() ~ f 

TO u a V 1\LaV 1Tapf.LA£S ayy£1\ f.L<Ta JJ.OL 

y£vva'ios. 

Daughter, I know not to which of my misfortunes I am to look, 
since there are so many. For if I lay my hand to one, this does not 
allow me (or does not let me go) and from it again some other grief 
calls me as a successor to my former misfortunes. And now [as a 
particular instance of this] I cannot, to be sure, wipe from my mind 
what has befallen you so as not to groan at it. But you have relieved 
me of excessive grieving by the report of your nobility. 

Several things trouble here. While it is conceivable that an actor by 
skilful use of his hands could convey by Too' the meaning "this [other] 
grief[over here]," the most natural reading is that Toll' in 587 refers to 
the same grief as in 586. But, to speak algebraically, it is Misfortune B 
that should prevent Hecuba from grieving over Misfortune A, not 
Misfortune A itself. If we take the second of the two renderings, in the 
parenthesis above, if Misfortune A will not let her go, no subsequent 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

132 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

misfortune can be regarded as its genuine successor. A further indi­
cation that this second alternative is wrong and that one misfortune 
really succeeds another instead of being simply added to it is 7rapa­

KaA£'i o' EK£'ilhv. Here again it is just conceivable that an actor could 
convey by gesture the meaning "from over there [i.e., from some other 
quarter] another grief calls me" (thus Meridier), but its most natural 
meaning is "calls me away from it," which implies that Misfortune A 
does release its grip. The verb €~, therefore, will mean "allow" rather 
than "let go," and it ought to have some other subject than Misfortune 
A. We might be tempted, accordingly, to write TOT' for Too', making 
AV7r?J the subject of €~ as well as of 7rapaKaA£'i. But word-order and 
connective seem to tell against this. 

A second worry is ouiooxos KaKEilV KaKo'is. The passage seems to 
require of ouiooxos a sense that is "quasi-active [better: causative], 
bringing a succession of evils after evils" (LSJ), "qui fait succeder des 
malheurs aux malheurs" (Weil), "bringing succession of new ills to 
old" (Russell), a sense not easy to parallel. At any rate, Supp. 72, cited 
by editors and LSJ, will not serve since the plain sense of71f(reading 
Valckenaer's widely accepted conjecture) is "taking up groans in 
succession to groans" (Paley). This is the usual sense of ouiooxos with 
genitive of the thing received and dative of the person (here personi­
fied thing) from which it is received, as in Aesch. PV 464, fJv.,.,To'is . .• 

ouzooxot IJ-oxfJwuiTwv, and Eur. Ale. 655, uot TEilVO£ ou1ooxos M~J-wV. 
Hadley, in fact, says that Euripides is not being logical for "he pro­
ceeds to speak of one of [the woes] as receiving in his tum a burden of 
misery from another." Emendations have been suggested (Heath's 
ouiooxov KaKov, Musgrave's otaooxots KaKwv), but they have not won 
acceptance. 

A third problem is the relevance of 585-88 to 589-92. The Kal. vvv 
promises an application in specific circumstances of a general truth 
just enunciated: ef Ale. 597, Med. 350, Andr. 60, Hee. 494. Yet it is 
hard to see how the hopelessness of 585-88 is exemplified by the 
consolation Hecuba derives in 589-92 from her daughter's nobility. 

Simple inversion of 587 and 588 solves the first difficulty and 
smooths the way for the solution of the second and third: 

58 5 .,. (J , ' .,.1:> ' ' <I r.l '\ 1,,, ~ W vyaT£p, OVK OLu HS' OTL fJI\£'f'W KaKWV, 
58 6 '\ '\ ~ I "' \ <I,/, I 'TrOI\1\WV 7rapOVTWV" 1JV yap a'I'WIJ-aL TLVOS, 
588 'Av7r71 ns ll'A'A71 otaooxos KaKwv KaKo'is 
587 1~:>'' ·~ "~~:>'' ~() ,. TOu OVK £f!. !J.€, 7rapaKai\£L u £K£L £V av. 

This transposition provides employment for Too' as object, not sub­
ject, of €~ (for Jav with infinitive to be supplied, ef HF 1361, IA 858, 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

DAVID KOVACS 133 

and Soph. Ant. 538: see also K.-G. I 327f) and makes A.1nr"' the natural 
subject (which was what the unsuccessful emendation ror' tried to 
do). 

Even more important, however, it makes clear the meaning of of 
the passage, a meaning by no means obvious: "0 daughter, I know not 
to which of my misfortunes I am to look with so many present. For ifl 
fasten on one, some other grief, taking the burden of misfortune from 
misfortune [or relieving misfortune by means of misfortune], does not 
permit me to do this but calls me away from it again." The second 
grief comes as a strange sort of relief to the first, paradoxically de­
creasing its pain. This is to give ouiooxos- precisely its Greek sense, 
precisely what Hadley said Hecuba ought not to mean. For whether 
KaKo'is is construed as a dative of the person (here personified thing) 
from which one receives something in succession or as a dative of 
means, this second grief is one that succeeds to Hecuba's pain, re­
lieves her of it. 

This explains Kat vvv. Talthybius in the conclusion to his speech 
(580-82) had said that Hecuba was of all women the one with the 
noblest offspring and (because she had lost them) the most terrible 
misfortune. For Hecuba, these same facts, her daughter's death and 
her nobility, stand in a different relation. She cannot but mourn her 
daughter's death. But the very fact of her nobility, which might have 
given the loss its most terrible sting, works to mitigate it. 
Hee. 671-73 

' I I I I 5> n '1. (:1 arap n vupov rovu~ JJ.OL 01\Vfi:.~V"'S 

,, '1': '1'' ''"(:} 'A. "'KHS KOJJ.L~OVCT , "'S' a7T"'YY~I\ "1 ra.,os 
I 'A ~ 5> I I 5> I ,, 7TaVTWV xatWV uta x~pOS CT7TOVu"'V ~x~w; 

The periphrasis rr1rovo~v lxEw means what u1rovoa(ELv means, "be 
eager, in earnest, zealous, busy, in a hurry" (ef Cycl. 84, Ale. 778, 
1014, Med. 557, Heracl. 118, Andr. 1050, HF 709, IT 1434, Phoen. 
901, and Or. 1 056). But a ra<J>os can be none of these. It is true, as 
Hadley points out, that lxw sometimes has the meaning "cause," as in 
353 where (ijA.ov txovua means "causing contention" rather than 
"being contentious" (see Ion 472 and Kannicht on He!. 93 for this 
usage). But add ota x~pos and the scale tips decisively: the subject of 
f.'xELv and hence of a7T"'YY£A.O"' is an entity capable of feeling eagerness 
and of having something literally or figuratively on its hands. That 
entity is concealed under the dissylable ra<J>os, it is naturally the Greek 
army in one or another guise, and the meaning is "the body of 
Polyxena, with which the Greek army was reported to be busying 
itself." For CT7TOVO~V tx~w nvos, ef Ale. 778 and 1014. The word to 



KOVACS, DAVID, Coniectanea Euripidea , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:2 
(1988:Summer) p.115 

134 CONIECTANEA EURIPIDEA 

replace racpos, for my money, is the most obvious one, urpar6s. If 
anyone objects to urparos 1ravrwv 'Axau'Ov as a phrase, he may have, 
at the trifling cost of changing one more letter, the attested collocation 
urparos 7Tas rwv 'Axa,wv (Hec. 530). 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 

December, 198 7