Sophoclean Fragments

SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS
EMENDED BY
RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER
LONDON
BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD.
*.<vJC/
SOPHOGLEAN FRAGMENTS
SOPHOCLEAN
FRAGMENTS
EMENDED BY
RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER
'Evrau9a
(livroi reavra Tiv0pa>7t<)v voaeT,
xaxot? orav 0Xcootv tao0ai xaxa.
Sophocles, Aleadae.
LONDON
BUKNS OATES & WASHBOUKNE LTD.
28
ORCHARD
ST.,
W.l
8-10
PATERNOSTER ROW,
AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

1921
E.C.4.
PA
l4Hfb
HftDEKKDWINTED
PROOEMIUM
TOTA
admiratur tragicos tres terra poetas,

Quos, Sophocles, inter sceptra secunda geris.
Non tribus unus honos fallit nisi fama, videtur
Qui natus, idem laudis et esse gradus.
Ingentes sculpit statuas pater Aeschylus illis
:
Religio et priscus terror in ore sedet.

Vix homo vix homini concessa hie audet, et ausus
Arguitur coepto non minor ipse suo.
Primum itaque. at non ut sit idoneus incola nostris
Aedibus, obtinuit, dignior aede, locum.
Cui fama ignota est Euripidis ? Haud tamen una
Huic auri species continuusve color.
Omnibus, hie, titulis opus admirabile, Bacchas
(Hujus et Hippolytus laus liber, hujus Ion)
Scripsit
at ipse idem non pauca poemata panxit,
Quorum haud judicium fit nisi lege sua,
Centum equidem versus ubi vix centusse liceri
Vel re spectata vel ratione velim.
Dexteritas certe sermonisque Atticus usus
Ante oculos. At quid talia sola queunt ?
:
10
15
20
Sed tamen idque inter rerum miracula pono

Vi propria quadam fabula tota valet.
Fabula tota valet
securus judicat orbis,
:
Tertiaque huic pleno jure corona cadit.

Jure igitur, Sophocles (pia nee te lusit imago),
Jussisti indecorem sic sine flore chorum
Ire tuum, ut dixit tibi nuntius advena
Vates
Occidit, heu, Macedo, qui modo noster erat."
Te tamen, o carum caput, o venerabile, quali
Barbaricae cumulem munere laudis ego,
Cui pietas suadet coner, pater inclite, paucis
Pandere sit musae gloria quanta tuae ?
Sim brevis. Arctis ipse minus sic finibus errem,
Sintque tibi a dictis damna minora meis.
25
30
vi
in dramaticis vicibus decus est tibi primum,

est fabula summus honos,
Antigona Electraque licet stent pignora famae,
Pinxeris et caecum, pinxeris, Oedipoda.
Haud
35
Nee bene morata
Ordine res agitur. Nos te praeeunte timemus ?

Et decet et legi est subditus ipse metus.
Compatimur ? Non cura caret ratione, potestque,
Auctus eat quamvis, sobrius ire dolor.
Saepe cies ventos, miris sed es usque serenus
salva proelia pace moves.
Ipse modis
Quidquid et humani scit tangere corda virorum
40
Non tantum in vita est est

Ars immo vincit modo fas sit
:
45
et in arte tua.
dicere vitam
Ars dat enim cultum quod rude vita dabat.
Haec inter venerum fastigia, magne, tuarum.
Unus in his tecum par sociusque Maro.
Matronae rupta ceu circum colla catena
Tota smaragdineo flumine fulget humus
Accurrunt pueri dispersaque gaudia cogunt
Et filo nectunt ordine quodque suo
Sic tibi, sed pretiosa magis, fragmenta monili
Majori studium restituisse meum est.
Arduus ille labos. Male si disjuncta rejungo
(In peccata patent nam mihi mille viae),
haec in discrimina tanta
Ignoscas, pater alme
Et tuus haud spernes egit et artis amor.
;
50
55
60
ERRATA
On p. vi, 1. 24, for " peccata " read " peccanda."
On p. 36, 1. 23, and on p. 37, 1. 4, for MeveXeco read
MeveXecp, and on p. 37, 1. 13, for MeveXeco read MeveXeco.
I suggest however that in Attic proper the nominative
MevXecoc
(standing,
by
metathesis,
for MevX7jfo<;)
must
have had a genitive MsveXeco (standing, by metathesis, for
MeveXôu) and a dative MeveXeo) (standing, by conception,

not by metathesis, for MeveX/jfcp).
On
p. 119,
1.
Sophoclean Fragments.
27, /or 7rpwT<ov7)0' read 7rpcoT6v7)6'
PREFACE
My
Euripidean Fragments and Observaciones acerca de los

Fragmentos de Esquilo were so drawn up by me as to
constitute, in a true sense, supplements to Nauck's
Tragicorum Oraecorum Fragmenta
I was thus enabled
to avoid, even in substance, the utterly superfluous
repetition of a large part of Nauck's most masterly
apparatus criticus. Similarly I should frame this book,
dealing with the Fragments of Sophocles, as a supplement to Nauck, were it not for the fact that, as regards
Sophocles, his work has been, in a manner, superseded
by Pearson's recent edition of that poet's Fragments
but as it is, in view of the appearance of that edition,
which in some respects I cannot praise too highly, I
have composed instead what is, so to speak, a supplement thereto, not to Nauck's treatment. But it must
not be thought that I am in general agreement with
Pearson to the same extent that I am with Nauck.
Pearson belongs, though hardly, I think, without a certain real difference, to the school of Jebb
I do not.
Jebb's brilliance is the admiration of scholars and his
:
services to learning are incontestable
cannot it may be
as Henry the Eighth,
I
" This
my
but, for
all
that,
misfortune quite say of him,
in his happier days, said of Colet
me
"
Neither, indeed, do
I follow Nauck blindly
but my detestation of the
pseudo-science of Germany is a reasoned detestation,
extending in no way to the splendid achievement of such
giants as Dindorf as Meineke, or (though he be of lesser
stature) as Nauck himself.
is
the doctor for

;
viii
The emendation of the Fragments of Sophocles differs

not a little from the emendation of the Fragments of
Aeschylus and Euripides. Those two authors, however
divergent otherwise, agree at least in this
they both
write, though in separate styles, with extreme straightforwardness and simplicity.
As a consequence, in a
highly corrupt Fragment and the Fragments of all three
tragedians are far more corrupt, as a rule, than are their
extant plays the kind of language that has been replaced
by some distortion can usually (at any rate if that distortion extend but to the space of a word or two) be
inferred with adequate security from the undisturbed
context, and, the metre being known, the ductus literarum
serves sufficiently to show which of only a few probable
ways of saying the same predictable thing was, as a
matter of fact, preferred and employed by the poet.
Now I do not mean to say that this is not, in large
were it not,
measure, true of Sophocles' Fragments also
the scientific emendation of them would be a matter of
sheer impossibility. But there exists a vast difference of
degree.
Sophocles constantly introduces what I can
precisely what he says not
best describe as colour
merely how he says it in the middle of a sentence is
by no means always securely ascertainable either from
the beginning and end of that sentence or from the more
extended context. He is almost as likely as not to throw
in colons gratia some touch or other without either
previous preparation or subsequent allusion. His employ:
ment
of ye, in particular, is frequently of this character,

while his practice includes many ramifications of a nature
far less simple.
In cases of Sophoclean corruption the
corrector's one safe course is to pay the minutest attention
in the spirit, often, rather than in the letter to the
usage of the poet himself. If he do this, he will find from
time to time that a restoration conceived, not in virtue
of any reliance on the light of nature, but as a result of
a study of Sophocles' especial predilections, will accord
so closely though by no means entirely with the
indications of the ductus that, having got thus far, he is
able both to modify it, without undue violence, into a
reading in full agreement with those indications and pari
passu to produce a result that has every appearance of
PREFACE
ix
authenticity. More he cannot do

to do even that is
extremely difficult.
Fortunately there remain over a
multitude of passages that, usually as a consequence
of the ductus being conclusive, present none but easy
problems.
As in my Euripidean Fragments, so here also I adopt
a quadripartite division into " Papers," the first three
" Papers " in this case corresponding to the volumes of
Pearson's work.
:
Monte
Carlo,
March
6,
1921.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Paper
I.
Paper
II.
A-IX
Kl-X
(following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles)
(following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles) 20
Paper III. Other Fragments
72
Paper IV. Paulo Majora
101
Index of Select Topics
117
Index of Emendations
119
SOPHOGLEAN FRAGMENTS
PAPER
I.
A IX
Athamas,
I.
and
II.
See
my edition of the Ichneutae
Fr.
5.
Unemended
Read
va.
oEvco y<*P
text
?][ai!v
otvcp
(p. 611).
yap
'A/eXwo?
'A/sXcoiot apa
-yjfxtv
The emen-
a(3pa va.
but with the

spelling axsXcocx;
why crasis, when it affects breathing
and quantity only, should cause a capital letter to be
written small I fail to see.
Of course I do not mean
that the mss. give 'A/sXwioi a capital.
dation 'Ayel&oc,
is,
of course, accepted,
A j ax
Locrus.
See
my
Macedonian Tetralogy (pp.
Fr. 11. In
and
Scott,
See also
1.
2, for 7rap8aX7j<p6pov,
7rap8aXif)<popov.
See
my
123, 124).
read with Liddell

notes on Fr. 696.
my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 92.

Fr. 12. See my Macedonian Tetralogy, p. 124.
Fr. 14.
should probably here adopt the ms.
reading
aocpol Tupavvoi Tfl ao<p<ov [xerouaCa.
Of two
other ms. readings, one, viz. ao<pol Ttipavvoi twv ao<pc5v
cTuvoucTta, is, it would seem, to be assigned to Euripides,
and, in particular, to the first edition of his Archelaus.
I discuss the matter in my Macedonian Tetralogy (pp. 123,
We
124).
Fr. 15. See my Macedonian Tetralogy (p. 124).

Fr. 16. Unemended text
xal raâ xai cpopfxtxra.
The words are quoted in illustration of Euripides' {xeXôuai
:
xa6'
e7iT<XTOv6v
t*
oupeiav (or opeiav)

|
xûv
ev
T aXupou;
Though elsewhere
xXtovre; Vvot? (Alcestis, 11. 446, 447)
adverb
to^ are used of
the
and
the adjective mCfc
same time, it
the
at
is
unmusical,
while
diction which,
of hymns
speak
to
would seem, metrical, nevertheless
as, even if unaccomnot said) be far more

sung,
are
they
panied by the lyre,
hesitation, to suppose
with
though
incline,
I
violent.
being contrasted with the
that it is the pan-pipe that is
as
would (inasmuch
pedestrian
and to read
lvre
songs
xaforeC* **i ?o P(xixTa, goat-foot
For an adjective
and songs to the music of the lyre.
as also the
aoroXoc,
hand,
one
the
on
atrefo compare,
the other,
on
compounds in the Ichneutae, and,
o,lto
happens
suggestion
this
Apvup&wfo and efofo. If
it
which
to
passages
other
possibly
be sound, there are
it must be understood
But
application.
may have an
with extreme tentativethat I am here myself speaking
ness.
Aegetjs
in reading
In 1. 2 follow Liddell and Scott
Casaubon'sTcaCcov.
*Xowe,' and adopt
*
Unemended text Aoicep Y*P ** ?uMotaiv
Fr. 20.
Fr 23
<p6XXoiaiv) alyapou
(vr ctooXXoiaiv for tv

aXXa TotocelvTj?
dXXo
uX,
LTavaxou ^
a\
T
Sou
vfiuai
that
,axP
t'
(t;.r.
-rife
xeivt)?)
xav
[xaxpa?,
xi^
|
xapa
|
^ ^^L
-TeP 6v. Read:

x^v *XXo
&nc* JP
v ipottounv
mere
acciaeiiu
it is a
aSpa xavaxoucpfc&i Tcxspwv.
the pas-e
elsewhere
foundry.
is
(=x^)
not under
did
he
but
xAvoxoupOfc
xL;
Brunck proposed
stand that
JV 24
aiipa x-
had been read
Unemended text
as aupau;.
6 Trarfa &pioev
ejiot
fxsv
vs
BA^fe v^v (a *r., for vsjxcov,
oâXov)
and
tôv
{v.rr.
*****
Nfa\k
is
^vVrcXsopov
only)
xTJTrov
/. JLL yap Apiasv
xal -rWavra? xxp9 cov
l|iol [xsv
i&W
aXo^
HaXXa^.
axxia;
In
1.
toc? TY)aSs
3 1 imagine
A-IX
that
Seurspav was written simply as <x[3.

For
SeuTspav vo[xwv (as second share) perhaps SetSrspov
vsfxwv
would be possible but I hesitate to assign to vzuoq a
7rp<oTa,
meaning other than that
of glade or the like, and, besides,

a feminine Seuxspav is, in view of t6v <*vTi7cXeupov
x9jtcov',
desirable for the sake of clarity
this latter consideration militates equally against my suggesting
an otherwise acceptable Sefrrcpov vojawv. I wonder, by the
way,
whether the distinction between v6(zo? and vopto?
is
anything better than a grammatical figment. Principle
seems to demand vojxo? equally in both cases. I
would
observe that on the Alexandrian system
vofxo? admitted
of being written either as vofxo? or as
vo(x6? (barytone,
not oxytone) it may be this vofxo?, adopted
by way of
graphic distinction, but not as indicating a
difference of
pronunciation, that has given rise to our
vo(xk, vouoo
Similarly, I suggest that the traditional, but
impossible,
Xprjcrrwv, of debtors, is merely a depravation
of xpâxtov
(=XP*l<>v), so written in order to distinguish it graphically, but graphically only, from
xpvjarcov, of good men.
In many medieval manuscripts no attempt
whatever is
normally made to differentiate, in writing, the acute
and
the grave accent. In 1. 6 the apparently correct
spelling,
Sxtpwvo?, seems first to have been proposed by Nauck.
:
Aegisthus.
have no comment to offer, except that it seems to

that the Aegisthus sive Clytemnestra, the Electra,
and
the Erigone must surely constitute a connected
trilogy
very similar to Aeschylus' Orestia (see my remarks
under
the headings Erigone and Clytemnestra).
I
me
Aethiopes.
Fr. 29.
In
1.
2 read, with Dindorf, xeXoav6p>vs<; for
xsXaivoptvsc.
Aechmalotides
See
my
edition of the Ichneutae (especially p. 513

but correct, in the light of my note on Fr. 44
below,'
;
the emendation which I there propose). I am

more than
inclined to think that Hartung is right in
identifying
Fr. 38 with Fr. 730
if so, it follows, as he sees, that
:
B 2
Aechmalotides and Chryses are only two names for one

The language of the Frr. of the Chryses resembles
that of the Frr. of the Aechmalotides.
Fr. 35. The ^[xiXtySoi; of the mss. is right.
A
mould is often made in two halves, that are put together
and a half-mould, rather than a mould as a whole, resemMoreover, it is only in the case of a mould
bles a shield.
into a mould
in two halves that holes would be required
in one piece (which could only be used once) liquid wax
would have to be poured, whereas into a mould in halves
semi-solid wax would be introduced, the super-plus of
which, when the two halves were pressed together, would
require apertures through which to be forced out.
Fr. 38. Unemended text xal ^cofxialov eCT/apa^XaPwv.
play.
Compare
xal (3to|i.iaiov iax^pocc, Xa(3y)v Xa(3cov.
Biblical references to the horn of the altar. Hartung,
I rather think rightly, identifies this Fr. with Fr. 730
Read
(from the Chryses that the two plays are one and the
same seems see above probable).
:
Unemended text tocuttjv eyoo, KiXXav ts xal

Read tocuttjv lyco KiXXav Te xal Xpticnjv ta-yj.
42.
Unemended text eaTCicra (3aia<; xuXixcx; coctts
Read zg-kzigcl [3oua<; xuXixo? cacrrs Seurpia. For
Fr. 40.
XpuoTjv.
Fr.
Ssurspa.
costs Seuxpia
uSpeuTpia.
Fr. 44.
a less probable emendation would be
Unemended
toaO'
text
toxtyjp 8e xpucrS^ aîXiva
very simple emendation (which I have
weighed carefully in my mind) would be toxttjp B ixpv\
It is, in my opinion, ruled
'abbe, ajxcpiSstv a xpo^TOxXa.
out of court by the consideration that s^p?) could
Though 7] and simple u acquired
scarcely pass into exP u
an identical pronunciation, yet in the later vernacular
proper, as written, it would seem that the letter u was but
seldom if indeed ever employed except as the second
element of a diphthong (with an entire change of pronunciation
au= Italian af or av su= Italian ef or ev ou,
Italian u, not Italian of nor ov), being
contrariwise,
normally replaced, in all other cases, by i, yj, n, or oi.
Consequently it is only with the utmost rarity that u
figures by way of corruption in our classical texts, except
when it so figures as the second element of a diphthong.
I therefore read
roar/p 8e Spue, 8u?, <x[xcptX/)va xpo\j7raXa.
xpotaraXa.
A IX
And the sire having put on his woodens, the clogs that he
wore about the vat. xpoiiraâi or xpooiraXa were wooden
Hence dpupiX-qva
clogs, used inter alia for treading olives.
{used about the vat) is fully appropriate. 8po<; is simply
a poetical substitute for uXoc, which may be employed
to connote any, or almost any, articles made of wood.
Campbell actually (but together with other and wrong
alterations) proposed dfjupiXTjva, though in the sense woolenwreathed (an impossible sense
X9jvo<;, wool, is a neuter
substantive of the third declension and would yield
not djixptX/jvo*;).
Formerly I myself, but
afzcpiXYjvy)*;,
erroneously, suggested Xpuaou? for ypuaSix;.
Fr. 47. On the evidence the ms. alxiioBezoq seems
correct.
In the Etymologicum Magnum (41, 3) read
:
oujqxooVtcx; for odyp.o'kexoc;.
Hesychius gives
Fr. 57.
iepoXa?" taiauq-
2o<poxX%
ax; xal t6v yspovra yepotSdv y) yspouvro? Xeyst.

At^fxaXcoTou;.
little earlier he gives
lepofxa?* tcov tepcov 7ct[j.eXou(j.vo?.
M. Schmidt, taking the two
entries together, proposes
UpoXac; tcov tepwv 7ri[xeXou(XVo<;.
'
2o<poxX^
This treat-
icnau^'
lepoXoc?
AtjQxaXamai, 6? xal tov yyjpcovTa "prjpoXav Xeyei.

ment is helpful, but requires considerable modification.
Read
tspoXai;'
lepoXa<; 'Iaaou?'
tcov lepcov emfxeXoujxevcx;.
SocpoxXyjs Atx[i.aXcoTLcn.
co<;
xai too yepovra IspoXav 'Ay-
The co<; Xeyei sentence seems to me to be

an addition in conversational style, jotted down, I suppose, by some scholarly reader. The Fr. tepoXa? 'IaaoiK;
is Fr. 57
the words IspoXav 'A^spovTo? I number as
Povto<; Xeyei.
Fr. 799 b.
ACRISITTS.
Unemended
Fr. 65.
Sstvcov,
ovap
Odpcra,
yuvaf
yjjiipai;
(xaXdaasTai..
text
0apasi,
yuvar
t<x tcoXXoc tcov
7rvu(7avra vuxto<;, yjptipai; (xaXaaaeTat.
t<x
mare.
Fr. 69.
See
7coXXa tcov Selvcov, 8vap
For
TcviâvTa,
my edition of
cf.
Read
7rvtavra vuxtoc,
7rvtyaXtcov,
a night-
the Ichneutae, p. 117.
Aleadae.
my
See
edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 614, 615): but
also see, in this book, under the heading Inachus.
Unemended
Fr. 82.
eY
ecra aoi
t<x
yap
text
7rpt,aaa
ti
TauTa tcoXXcov
7ravTa/oo Xu7dqp'
hrf\.
pY)|xaTcov
Read
6
xi<;
7roXX(ov p-y)[xax<ov
crtaa.
toxvtocxou
Xutttjp'
sx*
ctoi
saxt.
The
70].
slight
x<x
yap mpiacoc
rather in
shifting,
environment than in sense proper, of the Homeric alo-a

appears to me so Sophoclean that I propose this
emendation with some confidence. It exhibits the kind
of consideration that an emender of Sophocles has constantly to keep before his eyes
the mental criticism
involved is delicate and often difficult.
Fr. 88. Unemended text x<x XPW
dv0p<o7coi<riv
:
a50u; 8s xifxd<;, slxa xtj? U7repxdxyj<; xupavvi8o<; axoucnv {v.r. t ayouaiv) aYX^TTjv (v.rr. cdayiainp and
7up6?
yjSiaxTjv) s8pav.
srcixa 8' ou8sl<; eÔpo? outs cpiisxai.
QLvoc, (v.rr. ysvo?
XP^(jt.(x6' o2 ts <puvrs<; apvouvxai. axuystv.
and 8siv6<;) yap spTustv uXouto? saxat. (for saxai there is a
supiaxsi, <piXou<;,
v.r. 7rpo<; xs)
xa (3axa (for
t<x (3ax<x
there
is
v.r. t' a(3axa)

|
xal
7rp6<;
xa
j^ 27
suxu^tov and
(3ax<x,
suxu/wv
(v.rr.
xu^stv.
xal yap 8uctsi8sc;
aoifxa) xal
(v.r. ou8')
H-ifjS'
oWQP
svxu^wv) Suvaix' av &v spa
ato[j.a (a v.r., for CTW[xa, is xal
ravr;?
yXcoaay] cocpov xi0i)aiv s&fxopcpov t*

Ss xa ^P LV * a t voastv sôuata 7udpscmv auxw
xa7ttxpuâa9ai (v.r. xdauxpu^ 2
* 1 ) xaxd. Read xd xp^fxax'
av0p(o7Totatv supicrxst cpiXouc;,
aO0!,<; Ss xifxa?, slxa x9)<; uTcsp8uadovu[i.ov
[xovw
iSstiv.
xaxiQ<; xopavv8o<; 0axotat.v

sj(0p6<;,
ou8' scpisxai
ijzi xa8' ou 0soi<;

ov 8' s<psvxs? apvouvxai
dyx^crnqv s8pav.
7rp6i;
^py)[i.a0',
axuystv.
y'
v
sV
yap
8stvo<;
spirstv 7iXooxo<;
<3c(3axa, x<*>tc60sv
spSc xuxetv.
yXcoCTCTy]
tovy;? dv/jp
xal ydp
ec,
xs xa[x(3axa
xal
7rpo<;
ou8' syx^xcov 8uvatx'
cruoi8s<; arx6[xa
xdpa
<5cv,
x' iatovu[j.ov
|
aocpov xt0Yjai.v su|xopcp6v x'
[xovo
iSsiv.
|
7tdps<mv auxw xal mxp'
xal voastv sôucria
The expression
xs xajj-âxa xal
ic,
7rpo<; y' sx'
8s x"P lv
taa0at xaxd.
a(3axa
seems
to me typical of the almost meticulous precision which,

attained by means of a minimum of verbal mechanism,
translate not
it is characteristic of Sophocles to affect
only into all accessible places, but also to the verge, at
least, of some that are beyond the possibility of access.
0dxot(rtv in 1. 3 is an apparently certain conjecture of
Ellendt's
why it has not been currently accepted I am
at a loss to understand. For the spelling auoiSsc; (as
against auco8s<; or auco8s<;) in 1. 9 see my edition of the
Ichneutae (pp. 141, 142, 144, 145). The substitution of
(ptisxat (1. 4) and cpuvxs? (1. 5) both with u is proof of
late and " learned " rewriting.
:
AIX
Alexander.
my
See
edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 613, 614).
Aletes.
aXX' aico? &e$a? ou8e
ouSsv) [aev 7Uxpco?' ysvo? yap zlc, eXey/ov si6v xaXov
:
(v.r.
Read aXX' aico(x'

suxXsiav av xTYjaatro (xaXXov 7) yoyov.
ysvo? yap zlc, sXeyôv eiov xaXov
^Xsyâ? ouS' fx6v 7uxpoo<;:
uaXXov
av xr/jaaiTO
EuxXstav
^Xsyâ?.
Fr. 106.
Unemended
[BpoTOu
GciT]
text
(v.r. (3poTcov)
tfc Srj 7tot' 6X(3ov
CT(i.ixpov
7)
Bergk proposed
yoyov.
y)
y]
tov
^ [Asyav
fry)$a(AOu tijjlco-
(xevov
lie,
ou yap
7tot'
8?)
6v to
ji.yjSafx'
tcot'
6X(3ov
(xrj
ou
t;
xaurw
auTcov ouSev ev
\xkrf
[iivov.
Read
jjtivsi.
av GetY) PpoTOu
y\ a[i.ixp6v ; yjyou
ou yap totoxctO' &v pnrjSsv ev TauTco
|
For
(xsvst.
means
to
T07raa6' see Hesychius' statement that T07tasiv

put in a place. Cobet proposed (xsy' av.
Unemended
Fr. 107.
text
Ssivov (v.rr. Seivov 8s
Seivov fxev) tou? fzsv 8uo-as|3Et<; xaxcov
and
(BXaaTOVTa? (v.r.
<5aro
|
pXacrrwvTac;) slxa touctSe [aev 7rpaCTasi.v xaXco?,

ectOXouc;
ex re ysvvaicov ajxa
tou?
8'
ovTa?
yEycoTa? slra Sucttu/eii; racpuxe|
vat.
ou ^pyjv
7rlpt,
{v.rr. ypri
and
^prj) t<x8' outco
T^P T0U ? f^
Gecov 7rapa,
tou?
7tpacraet.v
sxp^jv
xsp8o? [X9avi;
(v.rr. tou? 8s and toictSe)
8at[xova<; Ovt]tcov
uas(3i<; [3poTcov
e/eiv ti
8'
8vxa? d8ixou? TouffSs

ttjv svavTiav
Sixtjv xaxtov Tijxcopov
(x<pav?)
tivsiv
xouSeI? av outco? eutuêi (v.rr. sutuêi.
Read 8eivov ys tou?
euzuyji
eutu/vJ ei) xaxo? ysyco?.
(xev Suctcteê^ xaxcov T #710
(3XaaTOVTa<; OLTOU TOU O0EVt
7ipao-o-!.v
xaXco?,
tou? 8' ovxa? saOXou? ex te ysvvaicov
a(xa
ysycoTa? ot<o Suo-tu^si? racpuxEvai.
ou /p^v t<x8'
outco 8afi.ova? Ovtjtcov rapt,
7ipdo*o"t.v*
eSei yap too? jxev
suffE^st? PpoTtov
^t,v Tt xspSo? EjxcpavEi; Gecov 7rapa,
TOU?
8' 6vTa? aSixou? ToiaSs tyjv svavTtav
Sixtjv xaxaiv Ti(i.cop6v
The
Ifxcpav^ Tivstv
xouSei? av outco? yjutu/ei xax6? yEyco?.
extension, agreeable to etymology, but dissonant from
Homeric practice, of the meaning of oIto? (11. 2 and 4)
seems to me at least, like the somewhat similar treatment of alo-a in Fr. 82, Sophoclean and, so far, confirmatory of my line of emendation. In 1. 1 Seivov ys is due
to Gesner, in 1. 10 tjutuxei to Heath. If this Fr. were
Euripidean (as F. W. Schmidt, with whom I disagree,
j
supposes), I should substitute at the end of 1. 9 a comma

for a colon and read 1. 10 as jxyjoVk; iv' ouxox; vjuxuxei.
but the less formal xouSet? av is more in
xaxo? yeyax;
Sophocles' style.
:
Alcmaeon.
Correct my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 609-611):
the tetralogy consists of the Eriphyle, the Epigoni, the
Alcmaeon, and the Amphiaraus.
Fr. 108. In 1. 1 insert, with Mekler, t after 9pev<ov.
Amycus.
See
my
edition of the Ichneutae (p. 612).
Amphiaraus.
See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 609-611): but
the second and third plays are the Epigoni and the
Alcmaeon.
6 ravvonqpY]? xouSe fxdcvFr. 113. Unemended text
:
xeox;
/opou.
Read
7uvoTY]p7]<;
touSs
(jt,avTsoo<;
Topou.
Dindorf proposed mvonrjpY)?. I discuss this Fr. at length

in my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 610.
ev0' outs
7reXXet,? ol
aypauXo? (36xo<;. Read ev0' outs tcXX', euaotdc y' dypauXoi?
See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 610.
(56toi?.
Fr. 115. Unemended text It' a5 cocrrap ocXieu? 7tXyjy^
ev&v StSdaxaXo?. Read eV at' <!><; rap^ oY ucyuXvjy' el? 9pevcov
I discuss this i^r. at length in my edition of
StSdaxaXo?.
the Ichneutae, pp. 609, 610. I refer the reader to that
discussion, but desire to add a remark that seems to me
important, namely that the closeness of the resemblance
between 7repa St' uottXyjy' el? and aXteu? izkr^dc, leads me
now to think that the Platonic scholiast (who speaks of
aXiea and xtaftclc, though he does not use the expression
aXisi>? nkfffdi right out) may well have had the corrupt
text of the Fr. before him and been influenced, as regards
his choice of words, by its language, though I do not
suppose that it led him to invent the story. 9pev>v is
accepted.
Unemended text of Athenaeus xat 2o<poxXy)?
Fr. 121
:
Se toutw 7capa7tX)qaiov
Ypa|X(xaTa TOxpaycov
e7roi7)<jev
opôupievov.
o-axupixco
t<x
xal SoipoxXr;?
8k
ev 'Afxcptapaco
Read
AIX
Touxq)
7capa7rX7](7!,ov
ypajjLfxaTa
7iapaycov
ETronrjcsv
'Afxqxapdto
ev
my
craTupixco
toc
discuss this
of the Ichneutae, pp.
I
6p/ou(xevov.
'Ayoiv'
matter at length in
edition
609-611.
Amphitryon.
Unemended
Fr. 122.
Xapsiv
(jiav
Read
atxvj
The
dpxst.
text
suaoiav apxsi.
eral 8e pXacrroi, tcov xpiwv
The optative
is
impossible.
etfaoiav,
8s (^Xaaxov, tgW xptcov jxtav, Xa(3sTv,
reference seems to be to the one eye of the
j
three Graeae in a resume of Perseus' adventures.
Andromache.
have no remarks to
offer.
Andromeda.
Fr.
Unemended
126.
text
Yjfxiouxov
xopiov
fjpeGvj
(Upoxeiov
GuûoXetv
Read A.
dp^7]0Ev yspo? T<o Kpovco.
fietov ou xoupstov
yjpeciO-y)
TcoXst
B. v6[i.o<; ydp eaTt. pap^dpot? 0uy]7roXiv
For the passive aorist
Ppoxeiov dpx^Gsv ys to Kpovco yepa?.
of dpecrxsiv in the sense required cf. 1. 500 of the Antigone.
xorlpsiov, which is generally accepted, was proposed by
Musurus. Tucker suggested the omission of xot? before
Editors,
Pap(3dpoi<;, and Buttmann changed yepo? to yepa?.
as a whole, have dealt too violently with the text.
7r6Xsr
yap zgti
v6[xo<;
zoic,
fioLofi&poic,
?)
Antenoridae.
I have no remarks to
offer.
Atreus.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
ACHAEON SYLLOGOS.
my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 611, 612).

Fr. 142, 1. 22. Papyrus text
]co[xevooaopat[ ]
x[
eSpaveToijjLoatov
If there be no miswriting in the
papyrus itself, the only way of filling up the line is this
xdya) (xev, & aopatps, Spav ixoipoc, &v
Ulysses is being
reproached by Achilles for his slowness & copcdpe=thou
coffin-bearer, thou undertaker's man.
xdyw is of course
accepted.
See
10
ACHILLEOS ErASTAE.
See my edition of the Ichneulae (pp. 611, 612), but
subject to a highly important correction. I am now
sufficiently convinced that Sophocles many Greeks were
decent men would not have dreamed of writing the
outrageous stuff which is currently supposed to have
formed the staple of this play. Chiron then can have had
nothing to do with it. When the Satyrs fell in love with
Achilles was when he was disguised as a woman. The
action may have been unsavoury (though, in view of the
Ichneutae, I doubt even that), but there is no ground for
thinking that it was worse. The known characters fit in
with this view, and Fr. 153 does not make against it
Fr. 156
(some scholiasts will imagine any beastliness)
makes strongly in its favour. Quite possibly the hound
(see Fr. 154) was brought to scent its master out.
epcoro? yap vocry)[i.a (for
spcaTO? yap v6cnqu.a there is a v.r. vocnQix' epa>To<;) tout'
%ypi\ av auTo utj xaxto<;
e<p"ir)[xspov {v.r. ecpi[xepov) xaxov
:
aTCtxaaoa.
otocv 7c<xyou cpavsvTCx; atGpiou yepaiv(v.r. êpotv)

|
xpucrrxXXov apTOxatoai 7ra8taio-ay9]
[y.rr.
tztxx&Kxic,
ayy)
and
zypvaw y)8ova<; 7tot' eviouq (for

a v.r. -yjSova? 7ioTaivtou<;' teXo<;
8' 6
^9'
(v.r.
u
faoic,
oxoiq)
(ô?
a^ OeXst, out' ev xe Pw T0
x
xT^jjia aujxcpopov (for xTYJfxa auptxpopov there is a v.r. yxt\\i
Tzca&ictic,
ay?)),
7cpwT'
toc
rjSova? 7tot' eviou; there is
outs (v.r. outco seeNauck)Tou<;ip<ovTa<;

8pav xal to jay) 8pav uoXXaxi? 7rpotsTai. Read
sixoi 8' av eu" to y' tj
Epo) v6cnr)[ia toot' EcpTQfxepov xaxov
orav 7rayou 9avVTO<; atOpiou /Epotv
xaxco? aTCixacran;.
lôuatv
t<x 7rptoT'
xpuenraXX' avap7raatocrt. izadSi tera yyj,
yj8ova<; 7roTatviou<;'
teXo? 8' 6 x ^ ? e ^' oôu? a<P% sXyj,
OUTCO y TOU?
Ou8' V /EpOLV TO XTY)(Xa CTUfXCpOpOV VfAlV.
Iptovra? auTo? ifXpo<;
Spav xaTa (jlyj 8pav 7roXXdbu<; 7tpotTat.
Except in a Satyric drama I should not suggest either
the genitive pto (or at any rate I should hesitate
as to this form), the heteroclite plural xpuerraXXa, the
diminutive 7rai8ta, or, at least in trimeters, the half-Epic
for Ipo) I would compare the probable yXco in the
el$s
Ichneutae (1. 359), xpucrraXXa appears to me sufficiently
guaranteed by the Latin neuter crystallum (from its
spelling, it is obvious, not a popular depravation), of
aau(xopov) ptivav.
auTo?
l\izpoq
7rai8ia I
need not speak in
detail, while ztfizw is
a word
AIX
11
of a class with which the pages of the Ichneutae are

copiously sprinkled. I take epcoTo? yap vocâ to be an
amplification of a would-be correction, viz. epooxcx; voa-ypa,
and suppose the amplification to be due to an idea that,
as not infrequently happens, the extreme beginning of the
quotation was given, not totidem verbis, but in a prose
form, and that the addition of yap would make this plainer.
Editors have dealt with 11. 6 and 7 on the assumption that
boys, when snow-balling, find after a while the snow-balls
freezing hard to their hands, so that they have difficulty
Were editors never boys themselves ?
in dropping them
On this basis, which, to speak plainly, is ridiculous, they
build for themselves a simultaneity of opposite tendencies,
such as to justify the Spav xal to [it] 8pav of the last line
but the simultaneity is non-existent, and, if Sophocles expressed himself intelligibly, he wrote Spocv xaxa (xtj Spav.
In 1. 8 ofrrto ys is due to Gesner. A word by way of digression (if it be a digression) in dealing with Stobaeus,
pay extreme attention to codex S, but do not imagine that
the readings of codex
however conjectural are mere
emendations of the text contained in S and its congeners.
6 Se ev6' 6nloiq dp&iv
(v.r.
Read 6 Se qvvuO'
apcoîv) 'H<paiCTTou Tspfoou.
For svvua0ai with the
6n'koic appw^tv, 'Hcpaicrrou te^v^.
dative (which sort of variation from ordinary usage is
fully in the manner of Sophocles) see Iliad xv. 1. 389.
The corruption evG' obviously arose via etvvuO' : but -qvvuO'
must have been the Attic form (the augment before f is
!
>
not -). Lobeck proposed dppwîv, Dindorf le/v^.

The corruption ts^vitou is due simply to the fact that
Choeroboscus, who preserves the Fr., continues immef)-,
that begins with the words
diately with a sentence

touto yap.
Daedalus.
what
say in
my
edition of the Ichneutae

the last of a tetralogy (the
Minos, the Theseus, the Camici, and itself).
Correct
(pp. 612, 613).
The play
is
Danae.
Fr. 166.
aypav.
Read
Unemended
:
text
#7rot,va |nf)Xa>v
y6voiov
(xyjXcov
xi&ppoSiatav aypav.
xdcppoSicuav
Satis fac-
12
tion consisting of sheep
and
of shot birds, even of
Venus
From
Hesychius' comment (for which see

Pearson) it is clear that the uncorrupted quotation
included some word, such as auotva, at least connotative
For the use of turtle-doves see the Bible.
of purification.
turtle-doves.
Dionysiscus.
See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 611).
Fr. 171. No alteration should be made in the text,
except that in I. 2 we must read, with Pearson, piva (x' for
Headlam introduced, by conjecture, in 1. 3 a
ptvav.
second trisyllabic foot, in addition to the one presented
by the text this is impermissible in Sophoclean Satyric
drama. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 192, 193).
:
Dolopes.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Helenes Apaetesis.
This play seems to me a member of the same trilogy
commonly (though, I think, mistakenly) called
the Momus : see under that heading. Correct what
I say in my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 613, 614).
as that
Helenes Gamos.
this play also see under the heading Momus.
Fr. 181B. So should, I think, be numbered Fr. 424,
usually attributed, by conjectural emendation, to the
" Momus "
see my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 615),
For
and
this
book under the heading Momus.

See
Fr. 183.
my
edition of the Ichneutae (p. 613).
Epigoni (the Eriphyle
is
really a separate play).
Correct my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 609-611):

the second and third plays are the Epigoni and the
Alcmaeon.
Unemended
text
cpiXet! yap yj SuaxXsia tol<;
vixav in odaxpolq tj 'nl {v.rr. tko, with the r
written where the mark of prodelision ought to be, and
'm) Tolq xaXou; 7tXeov. Read cpXst (xev yap yj SuaxXeia
ata/pot? tj *id Tot? xaXot?
vixqc 8' in
Tot? 90ovoi)[iivoi<;,
Fr. 188.
<p0ovou[jivot<;
if)
tcXsov.
A- IX
Unemended
Fr. 192.
pacrx'
13
text
Suou 8s (ay) t<x paor' (v.r.
lêon, vixa 8' sv tcoXsi, t<x xstpova,
sXsu0sp<o<; Xsysiv
otcou 8s
ala' sXsoOspooc; Xsystv,
7r<xp'
(jltj
Read
afiapxiau;) acpaXXouai tyjv CTonqpiav.
(v.r.
aptapxtat.
sscm vixav
ev uoXst
âjxapxiou acpaXXouai ttjv awTYjpiav.
xa êipova
|
i<Y.
Unemended
193.
TcpoaovTto*;)
a&^s
8'
&', &r/)
tyjv
&C
until
Read
Read
<x7rsX6'
(v.r.
yvjpai 7rpoCT^xovr'
further evidence
I shrink from writing.

voaou.
yrjpa 7rpocn)x6vTto<;
I suppose that yyjpou is the only
ist,.
svJcprjfx'
correct form
text
eu^Yjfjtiav.
is
produced,
a7rsX0' sxsivy]<; u7rvov fyxpov
sxoLfAYja'
uttvo<;
tarpeooov
voaou.
Valckenaer proposed o7tvo<;, but with a different context

and nothing (such as an adjoining locrpsucov) to account
Is not Pearson's voctov,
for the change of case in the text.
the last word in his quotation from Clement, a misprint
for voaou
Eris.
I strongly suspect that no such play ever existed, and
that the Frr. attributed to it come in reality from a
see my edition of the
Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticuw,
Ichneutae (pp. 353-377), where I go into the whole question
at considerable length.
Fr. 199. Unemended text syw 8s Tcsivoxrayau (v.r.
Read syo) 8' s7tiv<o<; ayav
usivcoa' ayav) npbc, txpia (3Xs7roo.
See my edition of the Ichneutae,
7rp6<; Sxpia (3Xs7ra).
pp. 354, 355, and, as regards the use of the metre of
comedy, pp. 359-361, 376.
See my edition of the
Fr. 200. Follow Nauck.
Ichneutae, pp. 354, 356.
Fr. 201. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 357.
:
Hermione.
Fr. 203. As regards yvcooros it must be remembered
that the morphologically later of two forms may nevertheless be the more archaic
potesiur is morphologically
:
later
than
potest.
Eumelus.
I conjecture that Eumelus of Cos is in question and
that the play deals, inter alia, with the story of Merops
and Ethemea.
14
EURYALUS.
offer.
EURYPYLTTS.
Fr. 207. In spite of the second hand's touti (1. 4) in
correction of the first hand's touto, this papyrus Fr.
is, I think, rightly assigned to the Eurypylus, and does
not belong, as has been suggested, to the Ichneutae.
Lines 5-7 are in a much shorter metre than 11. 1-4. At
no place in the Ichneutae, where either demonstrably or
probably such a change of metre occurs, will the remains
so comparatively well
of the seven lines of the Fr. fit in
preserved a Fr. can scarcely come from the lost portion
Hunt evidently inclines to fear that
of that play.
somehow or other the Frr. of the two dramas have been
on the evidence, such as it is, of
mixed up together
their contents I am disposed to think they have not been
mixed up. But in the Eurypylus the second hand would
not substitute toutl for touto, unless he had come fairly
in other
fresh from the correction of a Satyric drama
words the Ichneutae preceded the Eurypylus. This consideration strengthens my contention (see p. 172 of my
edition of the Ichneutae) that the papyrus title of the
Ichneutae was the Eupsai<; Aupa?, with or without the
addition y\ 'I^vsuTaL
Fr. 210, 11. 8, 9. In the papyrus there are preserved
only a penultimate portion of 1. 8, viz. ]t,a(3{3XY][x[, and
the end of 1. 9, viz. ]aXxea>vo7rXa>v. But Plutarch presents
xai tov NsoTTToXsfJiov 6 SocpoxXyj? xai t6v Eupum>Xov 07rXiaa<;'
:
aXoioNSpvjTa, <pYjat, eppvjâTTjv Iq xuxXa ycLkyix)V

Restore the papyrus thus exo^Tcaaav Sopvj ts
spp7)aT7)v he, xuxXa âXxccov o7rX<ov.
The
iap(3X"/]fAEVoi
aXot,86p7)Ta of the text of Plutarch, who omits
8x6(i.7cao-'
is a corruption of Ixofjuraaav
8op9j
ts.
8i.aps^X7)[xevoi,
Scholars have gone singularly astray in their attempts
to combine Plutarch and the papyrus. Sia^s^XiQiJLsvoi is
more or less generally accepted, but misunderstood it is,
of course, a " reciprocal " middle and, together with
epp-/)aT7]v, governs Sop5j.
ex6fjt,7taa'
StcXwv.
Eurysaces.
offer.
A IX
15
Hercules.
my edition of
the Ichneutae(pip. 608, 609), where,

agree with Wagner and Dindorf that no
Heracleiscus, but only the Hercules (i.q. Epitaenarii),
ever existed, and that consequently the two quotations
(Frr. 228, 229) from the alleged former should be assigned
to the latter.
Fr. 230. The text of Athenaeus presents x^P 0V 8'
See
inter
alia, I
ot "Icove<; xaXouat, x/jv OyjXaav, <o^ 'I-nnz&vxZ,
xal o<poxX9]<;
'EmraivapioK;* xoiyap 'icoSvj cpoXaâi /oipo? &<; xe 8ecj|ju<ov.

Read the Fr. thus xoiyap, el', &8\ >} <poXa Set, xpS
So then, tally-ho, hither ! Or art thou tied
coaxe Seajxta
:
up on watch, like a sow at a rope's end ? Hercules is

manifestly calling to Cerberus. Casaubon iJroposed cocrxe.
Fr. 234. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 134).
Erigone.
I take it almost for granted
that
the Clytemnestra
and the Erigone
(dealing with the trial of Orestes) constituted a connected
it would be more than rash
to infer from
trilogy
Dioscorides' epitaph on Sophocles (Anth. Pal. vii. 37)
that the appurtenant fourth play of the SiSaaxaXta was
strictly Satyric, or that Electra was a character in it.
Fr. 236. Erotian's text represents this Fr. as
occurring ev a^piyovy) of Sophocles. I can hardly read
this otherwise than as ev 'Oixyjptxojv tj', in the eighth of
In the Fr. itself I find confirmation.
the Homeric plays.
The unemended text runs vuv 8' etpyj ura^pot; s aux&v
I propose veucov Sepyj
aTctoXecrev xe xauxo? eâ7rcoXexo.
ia><;
y' U7T09pu<;, e auxcov eco?
a7ra>Xeaev xe xauxo? eôatwXexo.
Nodding with neck and brow in tune, until of them he lost
six and was utterly lost himself also.
This couplet is in
thought and language a conflation of three passages in
the Odyssey (it can have nothing to do with Sophocles'
xii.
Erigone), viz. xii. 1. 194
(6<ppuat
veuaxa^cov),
11. 245, 246 (xo<ppa Se (xoi 2xuXXy; xoiXv]? ex vyjo<; exatpou^
<5>Xeae
e lXe0'), and xxiii. 11. 67, 68 (auxap 'OSucraeu?
(identical with the Aegisthus) the Electra>
,
xt)Xou
and
voaxov
'AâttSoi;,
<&Xexo
8'
auxo<;).
For
o7ro<ppo<;
(both, I take it, corruptions of O7co9po<;)

see Pearson's note. The misapplication of the wppucrt
veuCTxa^wv incident and the allegation that Ulysses himself
unctypoc,
16
perished clearly shortly after passing Scylla show that

a garbled version of the facts is being intentionally put
by Sophocles
in the
mouth
some
of
relater
that the
one of the crew is sufficiently proved by

the auTcov of s ocutcov. I can only imagine that Telegonus, or perhaps one of his companions, is the speaker,
and that when Telegonus landed in Ithaca he was under
the impression that his father, Ulysses, had not survived
If so, he must, it would
his voyage from Circe's island.
seem, have obtained his false, but in detail not uninformed, version of the facts from Circe herself, who in her
turn received it, I suggest (for no other fallible eyewitnesses
appear possible), either from Scylla in person or from
the more benign Crataeis. Be that as it may, I attribute
the couplet with confidence to the Ulysses Acanthoplex.
As to Sophocles' Homerica, see my remarks on that
play and on the Nausicaa.
relater is not
Thamyras.
Fr. 238,
Fr. 240,
Fr. 241.
Tl8<OV
1.
1.
1.
1.
With Meineke read [jiayaSiSsc;.

Accept Nauck's proposed 7rp6ao8a.
Unemended
fliXY),
AUpai
text
ofywxs yap xpoTTjTa
TS XSl[i,(OVTSW? VCCOC,
yap xpoT7]Ta tttjxtiScov
7ryjx-
CTTSp7](Xa
(JLOVauXot,?
Read
xo>|xaaao"/]c;.
<ftx
wx
(xeXtq,
|
GTspTâ xcojAOaaaiv.
Compare (I quote from memory) " We too have danced,
we too have played, We too have sported in the shade,
We too have tangled in our hair Such garlands as the
wild loves wear." Herwerden proposed both the now
accepted $xk>* and a ^ so {aovocuXoi (followed by 0' )
Nauck suggested xioic,. This tswc is separately presented,
forming Fr. 1101 (quod delendum est).
[xouoro(i.avsi 8' sXafX90y]v
Xtipoa puSvaoXot t*, ay/ivtov tsco? yavo?,
epyp[Lax
av xal to (v.r. tu) 7totI Sstpdcv,
ou ajzupa? izepl
(v.r. etf/ofjwa) 8' ex te Xiipa? ex ts v6[acov
aXXa (xouao7uotL. Read fzoucrofxavEt.' sXdccp07jv eyxaxa xat
oO? 0a[xul/oâi * X T e Xiipas ex T voawv
tcotI 8sip<xv,
expression
as ex te
an
Such
pa? uspiaXXa pouoofioic?.
8'
(v.r. sXaqjOvjv)
ex ts Xupoc? oato ts v6(xwv,

in a suitable sentence sx (xsv X\jpa<; sx 8s vojxwv)
I dealt with this subject in my 'AvtI Mia?.
is not Greek
proposed
Blaydes
s'xofxai, Porson oO? and rapiaXXa.
Xupa<; sx T v6[xot>v (unlike, say,
or
AIX
17
Theseus.
See under the headings Alcmaeon and Daedalus
my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 609-611).
correct
Thyestes.
fan yap xt<; evaXia
euPoTjaaaa (I infer from Nauck and Pearson the existence
also of a v.r. or of v.rr., but what I do not know)* xyjSe
QoLY.yzloc, (36xpu<;
hi âp Sprat. 7rpcoxa \xh> Xa(j.7rpa? Soot
(for Xapt7tpa<; Soot there are three v.rr., Xa(3pa<7eto : Xa(3pa$eoo
:
Xa(3pa?)
xexXTjjxdxooxat
and
euav0Y)^
there are
v.rr. 3}ptapaet
TU7rov,
ofA<paxo<;
X"P?
euav0e<;) Septa;;'
xat
and
v r
-
X^P 0V )
eZx' ^jptap
uav07ji;
auêt) (iiaov (v.r.
^jptap
xXtvexat xe
(v.r.
(v.rr.
aet (for ^(xap aet

fjteo-aov)
xdrarapxouxat
ye)
Se(Xy) Sk 7ta<ra xeptvexat (UXaaxou[jtevy]

O7rcopa xaXco?
xdvaxtpvaxat (v.r. xdxxtpvaxat) raxov.
Read earn yap IK
evaXta
E6(3ott<; ata* xfjSe paxêto^ (36xpu<;
erc' 9)(xap Sprat.
(J6xpu^
7rpcoxa
Xapt7Epa<;
(xev
Sefxai;*
eZx'
3j[Jtap
Soo
xexXyj^dxtoxat
x^40 ?
aSet (jteaxov oâxoi; xurav,
"
otvavOyj*;
xata/uvexat
SetXyj 8' ETraaxa xeptvexat
xXdaxou
L. Dindorf proposed Euôu? ala, Soo is universally accepted, Bergk first
gave /Xoopov, Barnes otvdv0y)<;, while Meineke suggested
xXdaxou. I wonder whether Pearson, whose opinion on a
point of scholarship cannot safely be disregarded, has
really said his last word on 1. 6.
My objection to xai
xXtvexat xe has nothing to do with the xe (as to which
I fully agree with him), but is based on the, to my
mind, incredibly violent change of nominative involved.
" To plump all fruit with ripeness to the core." " Conscia
nympha Deum vidit et erubuit."
eêt (jtev aXyetva (v.r.
dXyetv a), olSa* ratpaa0at Se x?~h
paaxa xdvayxata xoo
(3tou cpepetv
ex xeov xotouxoov xp*)x/)v taatv (v.r. iaatv)Xa(3eiv.
Badham rightly ejected 1. 2, which comes from Euripides.
Read l/ei (xev dXyetv', oloV ratpacr0ai Se x?^l ^ x T " v
xoiouxcov xpyjyurjv alaav Xaêtv.
The writing dXyetv' is of
course accepted.
xe xd7torapxooxai
ye[xv)
fiorpuc,'
67ccopoxaXa0oi^ xavaxtpvaxat raxov.
Iberes.
See
my edition of the Ichneutae, pp.
569, 577, 578.
SOPHO CLEAN FRAGMENTS
18
Inachus.
Correct what I say in my edition of the Ichneutae,
pp. 614, 615. I now (see under the heading Cedalion)
take the Inachus as second play of the tetralogy beginning
with the Pandora.
yuv/) ti? -qSe aoX7)va<; (v.r.
Read yuvif), tic, tjSs cfuXy) Sacâ
auX/jva?) 'ApxaSo? xuv?}
t' 'ApxaSo? xuv%
:
IXION.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Iobates.
According to Rabe the Lexicon Messanense

the sole source) attributes this Fr. to Sophocles
tox.axT) (the dot representing a lacuna of the space of one
'Ioâx?)
letter). Now iox.cttt] can mean 'Ioxacrnq only
" A tragedy
Pearson says
is merely an emendation.
by Sophocles entitled locasta is of course incredible."
I agree to the extent of denying the moral possibility
that Sophocles can have written any tragedy reasonably
patient of a title Jocasta in addition to the Oedipus
Tyrannus that tragedy indeed might perhaps be referred
but in any case the
to under the name in question
What,
quotation is not from the Oedipus Tyrannus.
however, of a Satyric drama ? I am disposed to suggest
that, rather than without evidence assume corruption,
we ought to interpret the Lexicon Messanense as intending
by Sophocles' Jocasta Sophocles' Satyric Cnops (see
It would follow as a
later under the heading Cnops).
result
an eminently reasonable result that in the
Cnops Jocasta figures as a prominent character.
Fr. 297.
(which
is
HlPPONOUS.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Iphigenia.
Fr. 307.
7couX\i7tou?
Unemended
forco?
Ttexpqi
text
voet
xpoarecGoa
Ttpbq
yv/jaiou
avSpl
d&fxa
cppovY)(xaTo<;,
AIX
Read
vosi
7rpo<;
avSpl
^pcojxa,
19
7rouXu7cou?
o7tco?
uerpqc,
This particular way of

mixing metaphor and simile is highly idiomatic
the
metaphor, complete, but by itself not easily intelligible, is explained by the simile 7rouXu7cou<; otmac, izizpq.
(" understand " 7rpo<; from npbc; avSpl).
Reiske proposed
TpaTOcrOai
[xvTQCTtou
9poviQ(xaTo^.
Xpcofxa.
ICHNEUTAE.
See my edition of the play but also see, in this book,
under the heading Inachus (I formerly suggested that
the two plays came from the same tetralogy).
:
Frr. 314-318.
See
my edition
of the play.
c2
20
PAPER II.
IQ-X
Ion.
my
edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 614, 615, but

See
also see, in this book, under the heading Inachus (I
formerly suggested that the two plays came from the
same
tetralogy).
Unemended
Fr. 320.
text
lv Ato?
-/.rpzoic,
apoocrOou
|
jj.6vov
(xouvov)
(v.r.
eu8at[xova<;
apouarOai
xdbroK; raxp'
(j.6vov
6X(3ou<;.
Read
suSat{xova? oX(3ou<;.
edition of the Ichneutae, p. 420.
lv
Aioic,
See
my
M. Schmidt proposed
xoavoiQ.
The ascription (in Hesychius) of this Fr. is

The word km bears no accent
this
Fr. 321.
EocpoxX% km.
means the
feature is familiar that the copyist himself

regarded it as corrupt. Over the initial I a corrector has
written oi and over the final i has similarly written si,
thus converting km into otovst,, i.e. otoveL Now otovet,
exempli gratia (even in classical times the zl in such
expressions is beginning to lose its conditional force),
yields excellent sense in the context. Musurus emended
km to "Iom Dindorf proposed Otvet and M. Schmidt
Stv&M, both of these latter suggestions involving a
;
misunderstanding of oiovst.
The emendation "Icovi is
but the except for the accent identically
pronounced oiovst is equally possible in itself, and seems
to me, especially when I consider that the corrector was
probably as well aware of the graphic possibility of "Icovt
as we are, the better reading of the two.
Hesychius presents
Fr. 322.
dêdTou?, xpaxeta^.
EocpoxX9j<; crtcovirj (the y; of aicovv) is written above the v).
possible
It is universally
assumed that
aicovvj
is
corrupt (rival
but I am
emendations are "Iom, Otvwvyj, and Stvtovi)
not so sure it is fully possible that there is no corruption
;
in
21
and that the play in question is the satyricum of the

Tupw a' tetralogy. The supralineal position of the 73 of
with considerable probability, to the
presence of accompanying brachygraphy. If we grant
brachygraphy, then the acutely accented <o shows that we
are dealing with two words, and (as an initial can hardly,
at any rate in a case like this, be written above the line)
We
V7), not 7) only, must represent the second of them.
This it would be difficult to
thus arrive at aito vyj.
expand otherwise than as Siwvt] NtjXsi, in the Neleus
selling Watercress (-<ovy;<; in compounds means dealer or
This
c/. avSpauoScovT]?, oiva>v7]<;).
merchant, not buyer
(it is unnecessary to alter to Suwvt)) would be a good
The
title and subject for a highly rustic satyricum.
dtwvT) points, at least
possibility casts
doubt on any and every emendation of
the entry.
Camici.
The trilogy I once took to consist of the Manteis sive

Polyidus, Tyro II., and the Camici. But now, after
further investigation, I propose, as a connected tetralogy,
the Minos, the Theseus, the Camici, and the Daedalus
The Manteis and Tyro II. are too remote
sive Talos.
as regards plot.
6pvi0o<; 9jX0' E7ta>vu[Ao<;
:
7rep8ixo<; ev xXetvot? 'A0y]voucov irayoK;.
e7rwvu[xoc;
Read
opviOo? 9ja
nipSixoc, s5, Xiva 8e 6y;paT6>v uayai?.
Cedalion.
See but correct my edition
of the Ichneutae, pp.

play, certainly Satyric, is, I now suggest,
the pendant of a trilogy consisting of the Pandora, the
The
612, 613.
Inachus, and the Xoanephori. The Daedalus, I have

come to perceive, is required for the Minoan tetralogy.
I take Cedalion from the Pandora, Hera from the Inachus,
and Hephaestus from the Xoanephori.
Fr. 330.
Unemended text to!<; fjiv Xoyou; rot?
:
OOKUV OU
TX|A0UpOfZ0U
(for Xsuxfj
axaOpnQv).
<TTa0[x-fl
Read:
OU
[XOCXXOV
there are
tol?
(jlsv
7)
XsUXtO Xl6<0 XSUXT)
v.rr. Xsuxt] crraOfjnq
and
Xoyot? toi<; aotaiv ou
CTTaOfX-jQ
Xeuxyjv
xex(i.at-
22
aou (jwcXXov yj Xeoxto 'v Xi0co Xsuxyj crxa0[AY). For the

construction of xex[xaipo[xai see my edition of the Ichneutae,
pofxoa
p. 553.
i*V.
Bergk
331.
#vou axia.
first
proposed
Xsoxtji 'v XtOco.
Unemended text 8xt. av xt

avxixeivexai yap
Read 8
:
xt,.
yivTjxat
<xvx'
xa
toxvx'
ovou axia.
Surely 6 xi, answering tC, and meaning yow ask the reason
why, conveys an indirect question only and therefore
should not be followed by a mark of interrogation. See
also my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 195. Note that
yivso-0ai indecent mss. of the tragedians etc. is apt to be
a corruption of something other than yiyvo-0ai, the more
classical spelling of which is fairly frequently preserved,
in the case of such authors, even by various of the late
consult on this point the text of Stobaeus
copyists
passim.
:
Clytemnestra.
See my remarks on the Erigone. (I identify the
Clytemnestra with the Aegisthus.)
Fr. 334. Unemended text x6v 8' avxeov TreptSivsovxa
o\>x opaxs (for ou^' 6paxe there are v.rr. ou x oporce &nd
Read xav 8' avxatov reS' 'Eptvuv y' oujc
ou x opaxai).
opaxs
Of course avxatov and (though only as what lies
at the back of ou^' and ou /', and subject to further, in
my opinion unnecessary, emendation) oujr are universally
accepted.
I suggest that Erotian's <3cv0pa>7rov (see
For Erotian's
Pearson) is uncorrupt and emphatic.
avxatov 8' exaXouv ol TOxXatot xov cro^ppova a recognised
,
crux I would propose avxatot 8' IxaXouvG' ot Ilav (consult

Fr. 335) xal ayovo? Eucppova (the Doric termination would
be justified in quotation). If that be the right reading,
then in this very passage Sophocles must, one would
think, have spoken of a avxatoc; as ayovo<; Eitypova, Night
that never
knew
Fr. 335.
7rpoa7teovxa)
avxato?
birth.
Unemended text
Read
avxea? 0eoo.
8stfxa
Ssijj.'
7tpocncatovxa (v.r.
aypio? Ilav ouxa.
(x',
0o<;.
Cnops (the existence of this play was unknown to Nauck

and Pearson).
The Kvco^, or Spider, is the satyricum appurtenant
to the Oedipodean trilogy (with regard to the tetralogy
IO
23
my
edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 585-608,

in question see
and also the further information supplied below). I take
that the " Spider " is the Sphinx. In addition to

meaning spider (for which sense see Dindorf 's Stephanus
rather than Liddell and Scott), xvcotp is said to mean
blind.
I wonder whether this alleged sense arises from a
misapprehension on the part of some student, with the
root of xve<pa<; in his mind and aware of the position of
this drama in the tetralogy relating to the blind Oedipus,
but not aware of much else about it. On the other hand
there is doubtless a possibility that the Kvco^ of the title
really means The Blind Man, not The Spider.
It by no
means necessarily follows from Dioscorides' epitaph on
Sophocles (Anth. Pal. vn. 37) that Antigone impossible
in connexion with the Sphinx was a character in the
it
play.
I would go a long way to avoid the necessity of discussing the topic which I here approach. Though I am
about to clench the argument, as to the tetralogy, contained in my edition of the Ichneutae, yet I am about to
do so at a risk which I am far from relishing. The cursory
reader nay, if there be such a thing, the cursory reviewerwill, I fear, set me down as a sort of " Baconian "
bedlamite. That, however, I cannot help

if one plays
the game, one has always to put up with the " rubs of the
green."
In Sophocles' Antigone, according to the existing
text, 11. 34-60 run thus (notice that immediately before
aacpyj 7rpoxY)puovxa, the beginning of 1. 34, comes xauxa
Heath corrects toxoun jr/) eiSoaiv the occurrence,
xolc,
at this particular point, of xauxa xotai (jl>] etSoatv cra<p9j
TcpoxiQpuôvxa will soon acquire significance)
:
(ANTirONH)
ccccpri
7tpoxY)puovxa, xal x6 7rpay(x' ayetv

>
o\>x
"S
7ta P
ouSev, <xXX' 6? av xouxoov xi Spa,
35
<povov 7rpoxeia0at SrjfxoXsuaxov sv 7i6Xei.
ouxac, eyei aoi xauxa, xal Ssi^stc;

six' euyevy)*;
xa/a
TO<puxa? etx' eaGXtov xaxrj.
IZMHNH
xt 8', J> xaXatcppov, el xaS'
ev xouxoi?, eyco
(Brunck substitutes ^dacxouGa

from the scholia) 7rpoa0i[XY)v 7cXeov
40
Xuoua' av
yj
Odatxouaa
24
AN.
ûvspydaa
ei ÛfX7iov7)ai<; xat.
ax6izei.
IS. tohov tl xtvSuvsufxa ; tcou yvtojAT]? 7tot' si

AN. si tov vxpov uv T>]S xoixpiEu; X Z 9 1
'
IS.
^ yap
AN.
tov yoov I|jl6v xat t6v ctov, rjv c\!) ]xr\ OeXyj?,
45
dSsXcpov ou yap Syj 7rpo8oua' dXcoao|i.oa (a v.r., of the
greatest antiquity, omits this line).
voet<;
BauTStv
IS.
&
AN.
dXX' ouSsv ocutco
crcp',
ayzxTi^ Kpeovro?
duoppyjTOV ttoXei
dvTEtpyjxoTcx;
twv
e|xcov
(Brunck inserts
\x) sipyeiv
fjtira.
IS.
ofyzor cppovqaov, 3[xdTcov SircXa?
7rpo<;
6^t<;
dpdâ? auTO? auxoupyco yepi'
granta
[i.iQTy]p
xal
yuvr), 8i7iXouv etto?,
7tXsxTaicriv dprdvaicri XcoâTat. [3iov

8' dSEXcpw Suo [iiav xa0' yj[xspav
55
auToxxovoCvTE too TaXatjrcopco fxopov
xoivov xaTsipydaavr' etc' dXX/jXoiv (Hermann corrects
etc' dXXrjXoiv to E7caXX7)Xoi.v) Êpotv.
vuv 8' aO (Jiova 8?) vol) XsXsi.|XfXva axouEt
TpiTOv
Strep
xdxierr' oXoûeO', st vojxou (3ia
']w)<pov
Tupdvvcov
7]
xpaTY) 7raps^t.(xev.
60
From this passage, as it stands, and without any alteration, it is manifest that we have before us a single acrostic
the initial letters read, as regards vowels, in the preEuclidean script recording the composition by Sophocles
of the two Oedipi, the Hepta, and êCnops. This acrostic
is mutilated indeed, but not to such an extent as to render
it unintelligible.
It runs, mutilations included, and without any attempt at emendation, thus (iota diphthongs
evidently rank as single letters)
C, 0, O, O, EL T, A,
EI, II, EI, H, T, A, A, Q, A, 01, H, II, O, E, II, T, A,
K, N, O, T. In the pre-Euclidean spelling (as regards
vowels) this would be
C, O, O, O, EI. T, A, EI, II,
EI, E, T, A, O, A, 01, 0, n, 0, E, II, T, A, K, N, 0, T.
That is to say SoêotXei! (clearly a distortion of SocpoxXsi)
7Tt7)T<x (similarly a distortion of 7roiY)Td) oaoto (see what
I have to say later) uco (doubtless, in view of the following
context, the last two letters of OiSforto) "E7rTa Kvcot];.
Such, as it stands, uncorrected and incomplete, is the
single acrostic.
A few slight corrections are all that is
:
ID
needed to restore
25
in its completeness.
But, as one
one becomes aware of the existthis time a terminal
acrostic
in
it
effects these alterations,
ence of a second
other words, a double acrostic
Read
revealed.
is
7rpox7)puovTa, xal to repays'
(racpTj
7ra p' ou8ev, aXX'
oux &S
be,
aysiv
35
av toutcov ti Spa,
cpovov 7tpoxeicr0a!. StjôXeucttov ev 7io>.ci.
TaDra xal
ouTox; eêl aot
8sist.
37
39
xaâ.
TaXa&ppov, st xd8' ev toutok;, syco

Xotioua' av yj Gdbrrouaa 7rpoCT0et|i.7)v tcXsov
xal
7T6i(;,
40
si û(X7tovY]aet<;
xal ûvspyaay) axo7rei.
rauov ti xtvSuvEuâ
too
yvcofrrjs
tot'
f]
yap vosi? Gowrreiv
a7r6pp7]Tov toXei
crcp',
fj
ou t6v vsxpov aov Tyj8s xou9iei<; ^spoiv
tov youv e(x6v xal tov ctov, y)v au (i.v) GsXt)?,

a8sX<p6v ou yap 8?) tooSoGV aXwarofxai.
d>
a^TXia, Kpeovxo<; avxeipyjxoTOi;
aXX' ouSev
auxw twv
ejxtov
ja'
48
Eipysiv fxera.
o?[xoi*
8siXou
t?
cppoviQCTOv
vcpv dra^G?)?
7rpo<;
ax;,
49
xaatyvyjTT], 7za.ip6c,
SuaxXer^
t*
50
a7ta)XTO,
auTocptopcov a[X7rXax7)(xaT<ov Si7tXa?
8êi? dpda; auTo; auTOupyco
x P^'
xal yuv/j, 8i7rXouv tzoq,

7cXexTatffiv dpxavatat Xco(3arai. (3iov
UraiTa
(xyjTTjp
8' aSsXcpco Suo (j.ta 'ax a ^' ^spa

auxoxTOvouvTE to) TaXai7t<opa) (Jiopov
xoivov xar^pydoavT' E7raXXy)Xoiv ^spoiv.
vuv 8' au [xova 8t) voj XeXeijajjIevcd axo^st
octo) xaxiaT* 6Xou(j.e0', si v6[io\> (3ia
55
9YJ90V Tupavvoiv
60
rpixov
7j
xpanr) 7rap^t{Xv.
The
initial acrostic (iota diphthongs rank, as I have

as single letters) runs
C, 0, <D, 0, K, A, EI,
n, O, E, T, A, O, A, 01, A, I, II, O, E, II, T, A, K, N, O, Y.
said,
This means Z090XXS1 norâ., oil)

OiSotco, 'Etttoc, Kvcot];.
The scansion is E090XXS1 71:07]) toc, o5
01 8190),
'tctoc, Kvoit]/.
The rather strange o5 a (i.e. the letter o5, now
called omicron, and the letter #) seems to signify eightyone (the omicron being the initial of oySorjxovxa, just as in
<5c,
<5c,
26
" Composed
the old Attic system 8=8exa). Translate
Sophocles, aetat. 81, the two Oedipi, the Seven, the
Spider." Both before and after the numerical expression
the acrostician, not unnaturally, dispenses with elision.
How much cutting about of the original text was
necessary for the interpolation of this acrostic we cannot
determine. It seems, however, on the evidence, fairly
clear that 1. 46 was inserted bodily. Personally, I hold
that 1. 40 was similarly inserted and that consequently
in 1. 39 xi B\ <o is original. Sophocles probably wrote
:
by
&
xaXac9pov, st t<x8' ev toutok;, eyco

The alterations may conceivably be very extensive,
seeing that it is not impossible (so, at least, it would
appear) for the first upright, at any rate, to have been
worked in as early as the fourth century B.C., when
doubtless there still existed persons capable of producing
ti 8',
a colourable imitation of the Sophoclean
style.
Diogenes
6
(xTa0s(xevo<;, vj
Laertius writes (5, 92)
Aiovucjio<;
ZmvOapo?, on; evtot, ypaâ? tov napOevoTOXtov E7reypat];s
6 8s (i.e. Heraclides Ponticus) matzuGCLQ etc;
SocpoxXeouc;.
:
ti
twv
8tcov auyypafjtfJtaTcov sxp?jf o [Aapxuptotcj <ocj EocpoxXsoucj.

8' 6 Atovuatoc; ejxyjvuffev auxto to ysyovo:;.
too
ai(r66[xsvoi;
apvoufxsvou xat a7rt<7TouvTocj s7rsaTstXsv tSetv r/jv roxpaIIATKAAOS- goto? 8' 9jv Spcipevos
axtxtSa KAI'EI
oic, 8' In amoTcov sXsys xaxa tox^v svSsxeaOat
Atovuatou.
outcocj o/stv, uaXtv avTsrcsarstXev 6 Atovuato? 6xi xat xaura
ME
TETON ni'eHKOS OY'X 'AAI'EKETAI

IIATHI- 'AAI'SKETAI ME*N, META XPO'NON A'
AAI'SKETAI, xal npbq touto^ 'HPAKAEI'AHS TPA'M-
sup-fast?
MATA OT'K 'EIII'STATAI. 6 8' fex^H (KAI'EI

ME is my emendation of xal st^s 6 8' fjo-^vOy) is Nauck's
emendation he writes 6 8', not 6 8' of ou8' foxbvQr\,

which is presented, without a stop before it, as part of the
previous sentence). " Dionysius the Trimmer, or, according to some, Spintharus, having himself written a Parthenopaeus, labelled it with the name of Sophocles. Heraclides
Ponticus took the ascription on trust and in an original
composition of his own quoted certain statements in the
book as the evidence of Sophocles. Dionysius, observing
He
this, communicated the real facts to Heraclides.
however took up an attitude of negation and incredulity,
whereupon Dionysius wrote telling him to look at the
m
My
27
now Pancalus
acrostic-upright
flame is Pancalus
was a favourite of Dionysius'. Heraclides being still
incredulous and maintaining the possibility of the presence
of the upright being due to fortuitous coincidence, Dionysius sent him in reply yet a third letter, saying You
will find in addition For the old ape the trap is set in vain :
Nay, but wait long enough, and ev'n tti old ape is td'en,
and furthermore To Heraclides letters be unknoweS
Heraclides subsided in confusion." Diogenes does not
make it plain whether those who substituted Spintharus
for Dionysius substituted him only as author of the
Parthenopaeus or throughout the whole episode I suppose
:
'
the latter is what he really means. From what we know

of Heraclides Ponticus, a pupil of Plato, of Speusippus,
and of Aristotle, it is not inconceivable that he may
have lived on even to some such date as 305 B.C.
It is equally conceivable that at or before that date
Dionysius 6 (AexaOefzevoc, a pupil of Heraclides Ponticus
himself (so it is said), of Alexinus, of Menedemus, and of
Zeno, may already have been of competent age, not merely
to attend lectures, but also to compose a tragedy. The
possible margin of time is small, but still there is a possible
margin. Spintharus is ridiculed in Aristophanes' Aves
neither is he, chronologically, out of the question, though
he cannot have lived to see Heraclides a really old man
(it is doubtful what stress should be laid on the yepwv of
yepwv 7u073xo<;). I am myself inclined to accept the
account as true of Dionysius, and to suppose that by some
Spintharus' name was substituted partly because of the
patent though, perhaps, not even serious difficulty
presented by the conjunction of representatives of two
different periods and partly because, Dionysius once out
of the way, Heraclides' fellow-Heracliot, Spintharus,
was the most obvious person to put in his place. In any
case the tragic 7rapa<ruxi&e<; in question seem to date
back to the fourth century B.C. The only other fully
relevant use of the -KVLpaLcziyic, known to me is its employment by, or by the copyists of, Ennius Cicero tells
us (De Divinatione n. 112) that the words Q. Ennius
Plautine
fecit were presented in quibusdam Ennianis.
Arguments are not quite analogous.
For a single
acrostic unconcerned with authorship or tetralogical
:
28
content interpolated in Euripides' Ion see the end of

Paper IV.
A serious complication arises from the fact that we
have not now the acrostical lines in their first acrostical
form. The acrostic was once a single acrostic only. The
final upright exhibits a different, and quite obviously
later, method of treating compound vowel-signs.
With
now deal.
It runs, disregarding iotas " subscript " entirely and
in the case of diphthongs taking in the last element
only, thus
N, A, I, A, 0, N, E, E, N, I, C, I, C, A,
it
I will
C, 0, C, I, C, N, A, N, N, E, A, N.
This means:
Naia* & veyjvu;. laa* taâic,. vav vsav. Observe that here
also the vocalisation is pre-Euclidean
axorai, with its
I,
impure diphthong,
scansion
clearly
is
twice treated as SKOIIE.
is:
vav veav
On this, as
I would take occasion
|
The
&|vtj|vk;. la'- foco ait;.

translation is hardly indicated,
to remark that Naia or Nat' is
of Naia?, and that phrases can
as
Zaa ysv/jrat, ) in which Zaa
Nat'*
manifestly the vocative

easily be imagined (such
could fairly be equated with lgugic,. But it is more
necessary to direct attention to the extreme difficulty of
framing in Greek any kind of final acrostic. The letters
permitted by the rules of the language to end words are
far from sufficient to render the composition of final
acrostics even tolerably easy. This consideration and
it is most important weighs greatly in the direction of
inducing me to believe that this particular final acrostic
is not factitious.
But, given the final acrostic, it must clearly be connected in some way or other with the initial acrostic.
That means, seeing that neither Natdc, laa, nor vav occurs
in the extant Oedipodean trilogy ('Etc-toc obviously ='AvtiyovY)),that they must have been all three presented in the
Cnops Satyrica. Hence the following three Fragments
Fr. 335b. Naia.
Fr. 335c. laa.
Fr. 335D. vav (mss. vvv).
To these, as coming from the Cnops, should apparently
be added a fourth Fragment, namely Fr. 733 (q.v., together with my remarks thereon, in its numerical order
later in this book), and possibly also a fifth Fragment,
IQ.X
29
namely Fr. 297, which (under the heading

have already discussed.
Iobates) I
Colchides.
Unemended
Fr. 337.
Read
<popou.
oazj^t
text
arc^s
7ue[xcpt tvtou
7te|x<piiv
XeTraoôpou.
ou
My
7reXa<;
Xeroxa-
9opou is from the root of XeroxSvov. The reference is,

as Pearson suspects, to the Colchian bulls. Whether
refxcpi^ means smoke (from the skin) as Galen, though
with doubt on his own part, seems to have thought, is
Galen, one of the sanest of thinkers
gravely questionable
and a scholar in addition to his other qualifications
of no mean merit, is an authority of most excepbut, still, something like radiance appears
tional weight
a more natural signification in the almost certain context.
Dr. Galen was, perhaps, a trifle biassed, naturally and
creditably, in the direction of a pathological interpreta.
Bentley proposed
tion.
Fr. 339.
yTJaou
x^P lv
'>
7te[xcpi.
Unemended text
R ea d
9'fc <rb
^
T\
)<;
u7to{xvu<;
S[xvu<; T*
dv0u7roop-
dv6u7toupY5jcroa
That ofxviivai can really, and not merely as a

Xapiv
result of corruption, take an aorist, in a future sense,
is sufficiently proved by the fact that it can take
;
instead of ou. To emend, with Pearson, u7ro[i.vu<; to

(I agree that unoyyuc, is, apart from the matter
of the aorist infinitive, next door to impossible) is to
ignore the consideration that in the orthography of the
copyists the letter u, except in diphthongs, is, to use
Mendelian language, a recessive factor. I am unaware
that this proposition as to u has been previously formulated
but surely the facts must have been observed by
many students. One of my own private maxims, in
the case of a recalcitrant corruption, is to consider
whether the original had not a u in it, which has been
changed into some other letter.
Fr. 342. Unemended text of Pollux dp^Troi 8' dv
(xy)
Tcofxvu<;
Tcdq covai<; xauxat<; to Xuat^covov ewreiv, 6 te

^toarrqp, xal Y) ev xcclc, EocpoxXeoix; ZtoCTYjpo-iv
emCcoaxpa.
emcoaTpa<;.
Xeyei
youv
Read
Xucticovov ewteiv, 6 ts
zypvxoi.<;
dpfAdrrot, o
tyj<;
'Afxaôvo?
[v.r.
KoX^tartv)
eu^tovou? eaxaaav tjxartcov
dv
nctic,
<ovai<; xacovxiq
to
'Afxaôvo? swcrnqp, xal rj ev rode;

Eo<poxXeou<; KoX^toiv s7u<oaTpa.
ev ZcoaTvipai 8' eXeyetov
T?j<;
30
This seems to imply,

but not of necessity, that the Zoster es was Sophoclean,
and, if so, it was probably included in the volume of the
axowiSoic, eua>vou<; eaâcrav IfxaTtow.
Paeans.
Fr. 343.
my
remarks on Fr. 546 (belonging to the

See
Scythae).
remarks on Fr. 546 (belonging to the
Fr. 344. See
Scythae), of which this so-called Fr. is an erroneous
duplication.
Fr. 345. Unemended text : (nqpoi? ureatBoov v/]v At,6?
Read (jnrjpot? ureal 6?i3v ttjv At6? rupavvtSa.
xupavviSa.
Crushing with soft weapons of sacrifice the stern autocracy
of Zeus, ureo with the dative is specially used of weapons :
See
short note on the
[XYjpot? ureai is an oxymoron.
Achilleos Erastae. Sophocles was at least a gentleman
Athenaeus, I fear, was not. An inexperienced emender,
who did not appreciate the facts as to the letter u in mss.
remarks on Fr. 339), might here suggest (XTjpotat
(see
resiOoov, and, if so, would go hopelessly astray.
Read vso<79a8at,aTOv, not vsoacpaSacTov.
Fr. 349.
The forms [xardj^stv and cKpaScâv are, at least in Attic,
my
my
my
one must choose between fxaxat^siv and

from (jLaxatêiv, G9a8astv, on the one hand,
and, on the other hand, [jLaxa^stv and câSaêiv, without i,
and therefore without contraction [xaTat^siv and ocpaSaeiv would yield, not [xaTdtr.etv, âSêiv, but (xaTyjâv,
With these two verbs we ought doubtless to
acpaSyj^siv.
group the " pure " TspaEeiv. Similarly I suggest we
ought to employ, instead of u(xa<;, Ttjxa, the spelling Tijjiat?,
here the reason why we do not have tl^c, Ti[Ayj,
Ti(xat
as also an infinitive Tt[x?jv, etc., is that the a suffered anteimpossible
ocpaSai^siv,
vocalic correption before contraction took place
when
(with impure diphthong) etc. became

Tifxav etc., the Attic law of etacism had already ceased
to operate. Yet, as late Greek, Tifxa? and Ti[xa cannot be
impugned the late Greek pronunciation of a and of a is
that of (Italian) a, whereas, on the same system, at has the
sound of (Italian) e. /pyjv and the handful of similar verbs
present a complication. In these cases the Y) seems to be
I take the inherited present indicative
strictly original.
ultimately
Tijxaetv
to have been
Xpyjsi?,
xpffe
( )
(b)
XP^F^Q,
d ) XP^fov,
xprjeTov,
(a) xP+lFu, XPfa, x?o>, xpco,
Xrt**i XP*F>
XP7),
in
31
(/) XP^Fê, XPW, XP^h

h ) XP'hFoy.ou, xpsât, (i) xp*)/7),
XPVFzw, XP^ STal XP*F at (0 XPêoQov,
XP^TJ, XP7), XP7)>
Xp^saGov, xp^jaGov, (m) xp^ro^sGa, xP w[xs6a, (w) xP^jFectGe,
Now the forms
Xp"rj<T0, XP^ CT
() XP^F VTa S XP C0VTat
exhibiting Attic metathesis as a result of the combination
XP?)Tov, (e) xp7]Fo[Xv, xpe|i.ev,
(9) Xp-hFovxi, xp&avri, Xp<,
XP 2 ^^"*? XP Ct)VTa
patient of
synizesis, but are not, by law, capable of contraction.
Did the
But is this perhaps a purely graphic point ?
ordinary Athenian pronounce (3a<nXscos as paaiXto?, and
-rjfo- {viz.
are cf.
was the
xpew[xev, yjpicoai,
spelling
tradition
'
kept alive by a merely literary

one need not wonder at xpw|j.v, xP& CTt
fJaCTiXsto?
If so,
XPÎ1 '*
(Ua<jiXe<o<; pre-eminently
paaiXYJfb?,
>
no grammarian of Attic times

could possibly have fathomed the historical origin of the
Xptofxai, xpw(X0a, xp&vxat.
Cf. Fr. 848.
forms.
Creusa.
oCte (before ofrrs one
ms. puts the abbreviation indicatory of choric origin)
:
yap
ya[j.ov,
&
<piXat,
otfx'
av 8X(3ov X{XTpov
svSov
Etfâifx'
av(I seem to gather from Pearson that for Etfâtfx' av

there is a v.r. Euat[xav) sxst-v* cpGovspai yap 6801. Read
:
XO.
o(5t
yap yajxov,
J> <piXai,
oSt' av oX(3ov ExjxETpov y'

|
sv$ov Euâtfzav ix ziv
accepted.
Fr. 354, 11. 6,
<pGovpal yap 6S0I.
'
Of course
suâi-
(xav is
Soxsi
Unemended
7.
text
8'
iôl
slvai tcevtj? <ov avoao<;, dXX' asl vocteiv.
ouSsi?
Read
8'
oft
ti?
Soxel
slvat
7revy)<;
&v
<5cvoao<;,
<xXX'
Ifxol
asl voctelv.
The employment
of oti ti?, instead of ou8sl<;, avoids the

otherwise inevitable " zeugma " at the end of 1. 7. Though
some authority, at least superficial, can be adduced for
such a " zeugma," it yet appears, to me at any rate, an
unlikely blemish in the case of a careful writer. I therefore propose 00 nc- Could the " zeugma " be established
as an idiom, it would be quite another matter.
Crisis.

xal Syj <papt. (a
:
xal
Syj
9aps(.) tco8'
ax;
h\L&
xaXu7CTO(jt.ai.
v.r.
Read
omits
xal
8>)
My proposed
&<; e[xw, xaXun:TOfjt.at.
32
9<xpei TtpS',
e(x<5 is the
second person singular of the imperfect indicative of
Doubtless Aphrodite is
(xacrOai (this is a Satyric drama).
speaking, perhaps to Athene. The double citation in
Herodian makes it almost necessary that any correction
should be of a character scarcely graver than that of the
omission of an iota " subscript."
Fr. 361. For the probable (or, as I think, certain)
absence of Hera from Sophocles' Crisis, an absence
originally suggested by Stephani, see my edition of
Sophocles' Ichneutae, p. 613.
Cophi.
Fr. 365. Unemended text of Zenobius KsXjxk;
:
etq Ttov 'ISoucov AaxruXoov, tt]v |X7]fspa 'Peav

u7co8ea[j.evo<; utco
twv
a8eX<po>v u[aevg5<; ev Tyj "ISyj,
CTTpS(oxaTo<; iyivsro <n8v)po<;.
y<kp,
xal \iy\
acp' o5 6
ufjpicra?
(xefxvTjTat t9j<; taropiai; ScxpoxXTJt;
Read (and the

reading exhibits choric language evidently taken from the
Cophi)
KeXfJu? yap, zXc, tcov 'ISatcov AaxxuXwv, ttjv (jnqxpa
sv KuxpoZc, (a v.r.
omits
Ko>9<h<;) craxupoK;.
'Peav uppiaa? xal

EVOCTEl
TY)?
[iifxviQTai
"ISlQ?
(AY)
u7ro8â(Xvo<; uTOycov 8a<pcov ISu
TCX9OV,
he,
GTp<OTaTO<;
yVTO
laropta? E090XX7J1; lv Kcocpot? aaxupon;.

of the Ichneutae, p. 613.
tyj<;
my edition
a.\x
aiSvjpoi;.
See
Lacaenae.
Fr. 369.
Unemended text
te xal SavoTTjTO?.
I propose
h ^ 7rauCTT
v/]l
a[i.pcov [xoÔcov
7raaa0' afjtixpwv (jlo^Gwv
For no suggested substitute in place of

would seem, been known to Herodian,
it looks as though the passage was already felt to resist
trite emendation. As obdurate texts do not mellow with
time, I am forced to have recourse to the unobvious.
and I make it, if
Consequently, I make my suggestion
with hesitation, yet with a sense that some not less
te xal evSiotyjtcx;.
SavoTYJxo? to have, it
Nothing, I will
lectio is indicated by the data.
add, but the fact that the Lacaenae is, at least in a
sense, one of the Homer ica restrains me from Doricising
the hexameter.
difflcilis
in-x
33
Laocoon.
Fr.
jjtsSei?
su
yXauxa?
>)
IIocteiSov,
text
riocrsiSov,
Aiyouou
6?
[iiSsi? eu] avefxou (y.r. suave(xou?)
u^TjjXati; (rrctXaSsCTat. (y.r. crmXaSsori) aT0|xaT6yv.
Xi[xva<; 9'
Read
Unemended
371.
upcova^
<xvsfi.ou Xt[xva<;
oc,
Atyociou
Ttspt.
upcovac ^ yXauxa? (jiSei?
Tucker
so' u^yj'I Xat? cnciXaSeacrt To[xaicov.
probably written, as he points

out, in the form of a 7c surmounted by a p, having been
omitted in the Aristophanic text because of the 7rp of
7rpwva<;, the iamb fxeSet? was, I suggest, soon inserted in
order to complete the now defective trimeter. Hence the
infection spread to the scholium. In 1. 4, for 07riXaSa<Ti
CTTOfxaxtov, Pearson adopts Bergk's aTOfxaTcov CT7uXa8acrt
but cave de transpositionibus. yXauxa? suavôu XtjAva?
means the Euxine.
Fr. 372. In Isaac Tzetzes' scholium on Lycophron,
has a close
1. 344 (see Pearson, vol. ii. p. 39), which
"
bearing on Sophocles' Laocoon and on this " Fragment
in particular, read vEuaavxss for 7rXuaavT<;.
proposed
7tspl
the
rapl,
Unemended
Fr. 373.
6
TY)<;
0EOU
text
8' sv 7ruXouaiv
vuv
TOXpECTT', 7r' (ftfXCOV 7taTEp'
E^WV
AivEia?
XEpOCUVlOU
[JIOTOU
I
vwtou) xaxaaTaôvxa (3uctctivov <papoc, xuxXel {y.r.

cru[X7tXaTai (v.r.
xuxXot) 8s 7iaaav oixetcov 7ra[j(.7tXy)0iav.
auvoTOXÊToa) 8s 71X7560? ouj( oaov Soxsi
aoiTYJaS' (v.r. toict8')
Read vuv 8' sv 7ruXoaoiv AtvEa?,
spcocrt, Trie, ockoixiolc, Opuywv.
(v.r.
0ou,
Pottj?
TtapsCTT',
ett'
7taTEp'
<5>(j.cov
e'xwv xspauviou
I
vwxou xaTaaâôvTa
oixETtov 7ca{X7C7)ata,
xuxXoZ 8' etc' 3caaov

au[X7cXasTou 8e 7i:X^0o<;, e5/o? ev 8oxat<;
(3uctctivov
tpapo?.
Notice the picture-like

effect
the passage is certified by Dionysius of Halicarnassus as being from the speech of a messenger, xaxaaâovra is from aâêiv, laxare or demittere (cf. Fr. 374)
otou; I8puaat tyjX' a7coixia<; Opuycov.
:
The correction Atvsa? is

Naecke proposed TOxpurqaiav (in the accusa-
aufX7iXaETat= erupts XaÊTOu.
recognised
tive).
Fr. 374.
Cf.
my
Unemended text tcovou fXETaXXa/GsVroi; ol

Read tovou |XTaCT}a0VTO<; ol 7tovot, yXuxEi?.
:
7covoi yXuxst?.
correction, xaraaxaôvxa, in Fr. 373.
Larisaei.
Fr. 378.
Unemended
XTjpuaaExai,
j
text
tcoXuv
xa^TjXaTou? Xe^Ta? extcOeI?
8'
aywva 7raysva
cpEpsiv,
xai xoiXa
34
XpucroxoXXa xat rcavapyopa

I
81$.
propose
sxTcco[xaT',
tic,
e^xovra
dpi0[i.ov
5
tcoXuv 8' dycov' u7rdyyX
a 5 xTjpuaaexai,
xat xotXa /puaoxoXXa
|
XaXxyjXaTOUi; Xi&qrac IxtiOei!; (pspstv,

xal rcavdpyupa ex7rco[xaT', ei? dpt6|x6v
e^xovra
1 incline
St?.
to dycov' oTOxyysX' a5, not only on account of the termination of the mss. 7idysva, but also because of the presence,
It will be observed
in 1. 3, of the compound rcavapyupa.
that I have twice introduced the letter u, though the
second time in a diphthong.
Adptaaa [ayjttjp 7rpocry6vcov
:
nsXaaryiSav.
Thou
Stov.
Read
Adptcra, pt>JTp, 7rroXt, yovtov IIsXa(7yicity Larisa, that art mother of all the tribes of
:
the
7rroXt, not 7roXt, would yield npoaexpress mention of the city is desirable, in order to avoid
confusion (in view of the word mother) with its eponymous
Van Leeuwen
heroine. The spelling Aapiaa is accepted
proposed 7tpo<; yovcov IleXaayiStov as a possibility.
xat fxot Tptxov pinxovn
ayôu TcpoaYj^sv ^x[ ]C ^ v Stcrx7)[jiaTt.
AcaTteu? dvyjp
Read xat fxot rptrov pt7rrovTt Aamsix; dvyjp dyôu" 7cpo(r5j^
8' e Xd/o? ev StcrxeufJtaTt
For the verb otcrxsustv, applied
to the particular event in question, see the scholium on
the Pelasgians.
Apollonius Rhodius, iv. 1. 1091.

covt' ercapxetv
xoxt
auT&v
tov wvt' ETOxpxsZv auTov
might stand instead of

have run in
.Fr.
382.
êxat (puystv.
full
tw
Read
[i.7)8s7ca>
tov
ts0vy)-
Or (nrjSe 7rco
which case 1. 1 may
on; 6avoi![JtVov.
(jiyjSctw,
in
Oavoujxsvcp Ss fxvjSs
Unemended text ax;

Read 6ic, xat Tupavvtx'
:
tsOvtjxoti
(jtY]Ss
&<; Oavoujxsvov.
7rto
TsGvvjxoTt.
xal -nipavvt
izoic,
syyt-
ata' E7rstysTat Tpuystv.
Lemniae.
Fr. 386. Though it is true that Iv A7][xvtat<; TrpoTepat?,
as opposed to such an expression as sv Avpvtat? Ssuxepati;,
is (see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 384-387) fully
consistent with the play intended being a first edition,
not a separate work, yet I think it most improbable that a first edition of the Lemniae should have
survived as a whole to the days of Stephanus of Byzantium, and not much less unlikely that a quotation, of
the non-anthological kind in question, should so have
survived.
I therefore infer that Sophocles
equipped two
in
distinct
35
dramas with a Chorus
of
Lemnian women. To
use the word 7rpoTepat<;, Stephanus must have had some

acquaintance, direct or indirect, with the Sophoclean
that is a fact to be in this place noted only
didascaliae
but it has its own bearings.
:
Manteis.
my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 422-427)., See

my remarks in this book under the heading Camici.
See
also
Unemended text av0a<; <pa[xevo<; Teipeaiou

<J>a(xev6? xal Tsipeaiou
Read
< ^ ^ > Eav07)<;
Nauck proposed SocvOt]? Oapisvo? xal Tsipsatou as
Fr. 392.
Tcodq.
izctic,.
the complete reading.

Fr. 395. Unemended text 7rp<oTov ulv 64*73 teuxov
7rei.T<x cpoiviâvra
dcvGouvxa (a v.r. omits dcvOouvxa) crraôv,
yoyyuXov {v.rr. yoyyuXcov and cTpoyyuXov) (xopov, hzzna.
Read 7ipcoxov [iev 6&et Xeuxov
yYjpai; Xafj.[Javsi.<; AiyuTmov.
ztzzixol cpoivtâvxa yoyyuXov (j.6pov,
xpfcxov
dcvOouvra axaûv,
8' e Y/)pco<; Xa|x(3avEi cpatoo 7txepov.
I imagine that xpixov
8' e was written y8s.
For 6^7), 6<J>et was once accepted
but Pearson has put 6^7] back -73 is, no doubt, generally
:
right,
but what about (iouXei, otst, 6^/ei ?

See my edition of the Ichneutae
Fr. 396.
Fr. 397.
avsu 7rovou.
(p. 426).
Unemended text 00x01 tco0' Y)ei twv

Read ouxot. 7to0' r^fl T & v &*P6> V avcu
:
axpcov
tovoo.
the future-perfect
Cf. Horace's " arces attigit igneas "
of permanence is here suitable.
edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 426,
Fr. 399. See
:
my
427).
Meleager.
I
have no remarks to
Musae.
The play
is
offer.
doubtless identical with the Thamyras.
MYvSi.
Unemended text âXiSac; xiapa? xal aiaupRead < ^ ^ ^ > 8a<jnXa<; xiapa<; xal aioopI do not know why Liddell and Scott give
votSy) crxoX/jv.
The <J>aXio\x<;, pairs of scissors, of the
CTiCTUpvcoSv;? cttoXo?.
Fr. 413.
vcoSy)
ctxoXtjv.
d2
36
mss. is inappropriate, while Bergk's emendation yeXXta,

accepted by Pearson in the form ysXia, seems to introduce a diminutive impossible in tragedy (c/. armillae,
armlet, bracelet), though âXtov on the other hand, a word
of different meaning, appears, like ctt6(jliov, to be in origin
a neuter adjective. For SaîXa? Tiapa?, huge turbans,
compare the Btxîlbc, ou0yjp of Empedocles (Fr. 180).
Momus
See
light of
(?).
my
edition of the Ichneutae, p. 615, but in the
what I here add under the heading Frr. 419-423
b.
Frr. 419-423. Hesychius attributes these five Frr.

as follows Fr. 419, [x<o[xcov oic, SocpoxX?]? (Soping emends
to &c, ZofOxXJfc Mcofxw), Fr. 420, SocpoxX^? Ma>[xo>, Fr. 421,
Zo<poxX9j<; fxoi[xw (note the accent, which may be either a
true circumflex or else a mark of contraction), Fr. 422,
2o<poxX7) xcojAcp (Joseph Hill emended to Mcojxfc)), and
Fr. 423 (which consists apparently of the one word
docoxoXous), Eo<poxX% Ma>{jt.(p.
But, as regards Fr. 423,
we read in Bekker's Anecdota (435, 25) o<poxXyj<; 8e
to tiOToxoXous Iv MevsXaco (see also my note, below, on
Fr. 423 b). I infer that ^wptxp and [x<o|juo (as also [xcofxcov
to?, a mistake for [Kopuovo)) are contracted ways of writing
MsveXaca (or MevsXecp) Mspiovwfiivo}, " in the Deserted
Menelaus" Late Greek by no means rejected the
duplication of identical contractions that did not stand
for identical uncontracted words
cf. the established
schismatical symbol $ (a double <p), which means Owtio?
6 9amo>v, Photius the Illuminator.
For the existence
in which I disbelieve of a Sophoclean play called the
Momus there is no other evidence. For Frr. 421 and
423 see also my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 615).
Fr. 423 B. A character in this Sophoclean play seems
to have been an Achaean soldier ('A/ato^), who appears
to have spoken the prologue. A misunderstanding of the
record has resulted in the modern invention of a Momus
by Achaeus the tragedian and in the cataloguing as
Fr. 29 of Achaeus of a passage which, as Fr. 390 B,
I here restore to Sophocles.
In Aristophanes' Vespae
u0eco<; yap ExSpoqAOvxsc; cbv Sopl a6v
(1. 1081) we find
Similarly in his Pax (1. 357) we find
acncioV
kc, ArSxstov
xax Auxsiou auv Sopi ctijv acnriSt.
Now Choeroboscus
:
Iii
remarks (In Theodos.
Suep 'AptaxocpavT)^
37
or MeveXsoj
(Nauck
Tcapvu9atvst) ev Etprjv/), sv M<ojj.(p
to aov Sopsi gov doTciSi,

rightly alters to
(readMcoMco, i.e. MevsXocw
p. 376, 18)
7rap[xcpaivi
Me(jlovco(xev6)) SocpoxXsou? 7rpoxi[i.vov &<;
doto
This is plain enough, and Choeroboscus

incidentally we
is an authority of some importance
learn that the true reading is ctov Sopst, guv ocaniBi,
too
Sopo? EGTtv.
not as might be suggested uv

would violate Hilberg's canon.
led
editors
The
astray.
one,
Sopl uv aorctSt,
which
But two scholia have

on the passage from
the Vespae, runs

to too 'Aâiou a (above this a is
written a t) Mtojxou SpdqxaTO?. We should read x6 too
In the light of
Aâtou, a Mco (i.e. MevsXsoj) Moo Spd^xaTo;.
Choeroboscus (and the natural meaning of to too 'Ayaiou
supports me) I without hesitation translate " the words
of the Achaean, line one of the play Men.
the
Sophoclean play is meant. Editors however read
to too
'Axaioo daro Mcoptoo SpdfxaTo?. They understand this as
" the expression of Achaeus, taken from the play
Momus " there was, they conjecture, a Momus by
Achaeus. The other and fuller scholium, on the passage from the Pax, runs
to Be guv Sopl gov acnzLBi 'A/atoo
Igtiv ex Mcouou.
ouSev 8e /sipov oXoxXvjpov 0ivat, TO
"ApY]<; 6 XflGTTjt; ctuv o*opi gov
iafjL(3tov, 87TEp ootco? 'x t
From this, by itself, one might reasonably infer
ioniSi.
a Momus of Achaeus' but it does not stand by itself.
I wrong ?
I urgently invite criticism, though not
the sort of criticism (which I have encountered) that
states, without data, that I contradict known facts.
Fr. 424. This Fr. has been in modern times attributed
by conjecture to the alleged Momus. I in this book assign
it to the Helenes Oamos and number it Fr. 181 B. The
entry (in Bekker's Anecdota) which presents it now runs
ap7r/)V SpsTOxvov.
The word
EocpoxX7)<; vojxo) GaTopixw.
v6[xo> may well stand for Tajxcp.
Ichneutae (p. 615).
:
'
Mem"
"
Am
NAUPLIUS, I. AND II.

For the distinction between the two plays see Pearson
and also my remarks under the heading Fr. 431.
Fr. 431.
Unemended text
xoctco xpsfxavTat, cntta
tew? ev IpxEOTv.
Read xoctco xpsjxavTat, gtvXjx tw? ev
:
38
My emendation to*; is as certain (in view of the

Ichneutae) as anything in the way of emendation can
As the Fr. is from the Pyrcaeus, it follows that
be.
the Nauplius Pyrcaeus was distinct from the other
Nauplius and, like Aeschylus' Prometheus Pyrcaeus, a
Satyric drama. This conclusion is highly important.
Fr. 432.
Unemended text ooTS7UToy' ops<; (for
ouxETUTuy' sope? there is a v.r. o5to<; 8' scpsups) izljoc,
'Apystcov orpaToS
ara0ji,7) 8' (for axaOfjty) 8' there is a v.r.
CTT(X0[X7)V) dptO(ACOV Xal [AETpCDV UpY)[JiaTa
Taa<; TE TauTa?
oupavux te (DQâxa.
xaxsivo? esteue (for xaxsivcx; eêteuê
there is a v.r. xaxseV Itsu^s) tcp&toc, s hoc, 8sxa xax twv
fgncccriv,
8ex' a50i sops 7rsvT7]xovTa8ac,
su0u? there is a v.r.
opuxTwpia
fjtiva.
(v.r.
etpsups
8'
%0&'
be,
be,
eu0i><;)
cppuxrcopiav)
be,
s8st|s
[xsrpa
<5ccrrpcov
yikiv. su0u<; (for
oTpaToo
îXta
SsSsiy-
7Tpt,aTpo<pa<;,
uttvou
are <puXast 06a
9uXast. orrtOoa (v.rr. for <puXast crtt0oa
(puXaêi? cra06a) a7j[xavTyjpt.a,
ou
xavstpTjvsv
xal
be,
(v.r. <7TpaTcp)
and
vaaiv te TcufxavTTJpatv (v.r. mr)-
apxTou te arpoipEia (for ts arpocpEia

there is a v.r. axpocpo; te) xai xuv6<; û^pav Suaiv. The
passage is preserved in Achilles (Isag. ad Arat. Phaen.):
throughout I have accorded priority of place to the
readings of the first hand of codex V, than which for,
though full of mistakes, they are almost or altogether
undoctored and honest I have seldom seen any better.
Pearson rejects 1.2, while 1. 3 is put by Scaliger after 1. 8
and by Mekler after v. 7 I need not labour the point
that both lines are interpolations. Read
so" ys 7utuv
sop' be, 'zzlypc, 'Apysicov CTTpaxw,
SsxaSa 8' steu^s 7tpa>TO<; e
hoc, 8sxa
xax twv 8sx' a50t!; lps TCEVTTjxovTaSa?* a>c
/stXsaiv 8' he, oftc, o-TpaTou 9puxTcopia
eSelê xaEscp7)Vv ou
(jLavxyjpCTtv) v0aXa<TCTiot(;
XsXsyfjiva.
9uXas^,
<pup 8' aaTpoav [jtirpa xal 7iptaTpo(pa^,

|
vacov te
7rpu[j.V7]T7)aiv
utcvou
sv0aXaa-
apxreo TrEp^spst xal xuvo? û^pav 8u<nv.

In 1. 8
10 of the unemended text) the u of rajfjiavTyipo-iv leads
moi<;
(1.
<7Tt.9pa o-TjfxavTyjpia,
me
to reject Heath's prima facie obvious 7TOt,[jt.avTYJpo-t.v

besides, is pasturers of ships, or even shepherds of ships,
:
as applied to helmsmen of single vessels, not to admirals

of fleets, a reasonable expression ? For such datives as
7cpu[AvyjT7)o-t.v
see my remarks on Fr. 555
the dual
7Cpt,9pt, in the last line of all, is the proper contraction
of 7TEpi9sp. I rather think this resonant passage is from
:
IQ
39
the Satyric Pyrcaeus (see on Fr. 431). Is it not a little

too quasi- Aeschylean for a tragedy by Sophocles ?
I doubt e svo^ Bixot (ow 0/ a single ten) in any tragedy,
and with the almost certain cmcppa I would compare the
similarly almost certain cru<ppoo[x<x of the Ichneutae (1. 96).
I commend this Fr. to the specially minute study of any
scholar who may think it worth his while to gain an
insight into various matters that, at least in my own
deliberate judgement, lie at the very root of the science
and art of sound textual criticism.
Fr. 434. Unemended text xw yap xaxto? 7rpaa<rovTi
:
vu scrav,
jxupia fjua
eft
toxOovtoc
'repa (v.rr. for
tj
yj
'iipa
are
yj-repa
and
eI0'
erepa) Oavetv.
Read
vu saxiv, auTO<p<ov
The ductus points not obscurely to
me
to yap
xaxaj?
y spa Oaveiv.
which seems
a quite permissible formation in the sense of
7rpdc(TCTOVTi (xupta [xta
to
t' dcst
auxrcxpcov,
auTocpovo?.
Nausicaa.
of the Nausicaa may appear
a tragedy one might urge that the real tragedy
must have lain in the connected trilogy, taken as a whole.
But no connected trilogy seems available, and therefore
I lay some stress on the (apparently) alternative title,
" the Phaeaces ."
Fr. 440. The recently discovered additions to Photius
are, as regards the determination of the context of
Sophocles' previously known dcvappoifJoVt, a mere mare's
nest.
The relevant passage consists of two entries, not,
as has been imagined, of one entry only. Unemended
The subject-matter
slight for
text
(jtiv to
<xvappo9et SocpoxXyj?
Read
auxtxa &X7)|xa [i.7rapYjO"i>x a
avappot-PSetv "OjAYjpo? [xev to avappocpst, So<poxX9) Bh touvavxxov eoixs Nauaix (i.e. Nauatxaa).
ao^XTjota (or, possibly, aoxX-yjfj.a)' (xsyaXr; -qcruxia.
The adjective ao/XTjTCx;
is a technical term in the philosophy of Epicurus, who
himself also uses the actual substantive aoxXy;<ua. But
Reitzenstein was right in seeing (c/. Hesychius, s.v. dvapot-oVE) a reference to the Nausicaa, and I like the spirit
he shows (in spite of defective palaeographical equipment) in tackling the whole corruption.
Be
<xvappot[3Stv
TouvavTiov
loixev
"Ofxyjpo?
40
NlOBE.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Xoanephori.
Correct what I say in my edition of the Ichneutae,
pp. 612, 613. The play is, I now suggest, the third of a
tetralogy consisting of the Pandora, the Inachus, itself,
and the Cedalion. See under the heading Cedalion.
Ulysses Acanthoplex and Niptra.

These two plays were distinct. The only difficulty
as to the plot of the Acanthoplex arises from the relation
in that drama of some at least of the previous history of
Ulysses the reason for such a relation becomes apparent
from what I have said (see Fr. 236) with regard to
Telegonus' ignorance that his father had survived the
voyage in which he encountered Scylla. Both the plays
are Homerica. The Sophoclean play (why I italicise the
word will appear in a moment) called the Niptra, the
existence of which is certified by the ascription of Fr. 459,
must necessarily deal with the washing of Ulysses by
Euryclia and the consequent anagnorisis by means of the
scar. This means that Cicero (Tusc. Disp. n. 48), when,
speaking of the Niptra of Pacuvius, he contrasts the
lamentations, in Pacuvius and Sophocles respectively,
uttered by Ulysses over his wound, is referring, not to
the wound inflicted on him by Telegonus, but to the
But in
ouXyjv, tt)v tots fjuv cue, ^Xocae Xsuxco oSovti.
that case we have, not merely a play called the Niptra,
but a trilogy or tetralogy on the subject, doubtless passing under the same name.
The name of the
first play, which treated of the dealing of the wound,
we do not know (the Traumatias is certainly identical
with the Acanthoplex)
I will provisionally style it the
Ule (OuXt)). The third play is the Niptra proper. The
tragic element is thus diffuse, the tetralogy constituting
in effect one drama
perhaps such a method characterises other tetralogies, the data of which might resist a
more normal treatment. The second play is not far to
seek
it must be the Ptochia mentioned by Aristotle
{Poet. 1459 a, 30) in his list of ten tragedies based on the
;
"
IQ-X
Little Iliad (in
none
41
name of the
ten plays seem to be by one
of the ten cases is the
author mentioned, and
all
or other of the three great tragedians), and Helen must

compare the ordinary statues of St. Roque in rags
have recognised Ulysses in rags by the scar upon his
thigh. Such at least appear to be the conclusions that
flow most naturally from the extant evidence. The placing
of the Ulysses Acanthoplex is another matter.
But even
we
If I have
are not wholly without guidance.
rightly read Eratosthenes with regard to Fr. 236, the
Acanthoplex is the eighth of Sophocles' Homer ica. The
subject-matter of the play is not dealt with in either
the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Hymns, but in both the
Nosti (see Eustathius, p. 1796, 53) and the Telegony.
As the Telegony, by Eugamon, or Eugammon, of Cyrene,
cannot well have been regarded as "Homeric," I take
it that the Nosti was, or at least was assumed to be, the
source of the drama. That the Nosti passed as, in the
wider sense, " Homeric " is sufficiently indicated by
Eustathius, who (I.e.), though there were those that
ascribed it to Agias of Troezen, speaks of " the author
this is only a "highof the Nosti, a Colophonian "
brow" way of saying that the legend which made
Homer a Colophonian (" Smyrna, Chios, Colophon
Similarly the Cypria
etc.) recognised it as his work.
was variously attributed to Stasinus, to Hegesias (or
Hegesinus). and to Homer, and the Little Iliad to
Lesches, to Thestorides, to Cinaethon, to Diodorus, and
in all such cases we may be sure that popular
to Homer
thus
sentiment favoured the Homeric attribution.
get a clue as to the approximate range of the term
Homerica. Now as more than thirty (I speak vaguely
because of various uncertainties) of Sophocles' Homerica
are known to us by name, and as over 120 (I again speak
vaguely) of his total output of 140 plays are likewise
known to us by name, it stands to reason that at the most
here
We
the names of only a handful of his Homerica can have

perished. The list in fact is fairly complete. It follows
that the Ulysses Acanthoplex can scarcely have been the
eighth of them in alphabetical order. If it were styled
'Axav0o7tX7) simply, it could not well come so late
in the series, if '08uaae\><; 'Axav8o7rX^ or 'OSvaozuq
42
Tpaufxa-na?
it
would necessarily come
Tpaufi.a-aac simply,
very
much
later
far later,
We
still.
or
if
seem thus
to be thrown back on the chronological order. Nor is

this a matter for wonder. Eratosthenes is our authority
and Eratosthenes and, so far as my reading goes, he
alone among later writers contrived somehow or other
to get behind the veil of camouflage with which a corrupt
tradition had, subsequently to the days of Aristophanes
the Grammarian, shrouded from profane view the real
facts as to Sophocles
from him only do we learn
this has a profound bearing on the Electra that Sophocles
composed a Clytemnestra (the title Aegisthus, known to us
aliunde, is far less suggestive^. In whatever library he
worked, it is not unnatural that he at least should have
had access to a chronologically arranged volume of the
Homerica, a volume, that is, based directly on the tetralogical evidence of the didascaliae. But a chronologically
eighth Homericum spells, in all probability, the last play of
a second tetralogia Homerica. We are ex hypothesi, seeing
that we are only at the eighth play of a long series, still
at a date when Sophocles (and everyone else) wrote
connected trilogies only. In this period later it was otherwiseone Homericum must have meant a trilogy of
Homerica. True, the fourth play of the tetralogy need not,
even then, have been a Homericum if I am right (see
my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 608, 609), when Sophocles
in his old age reverted to the practice of writing connected
tetralogies, he appended to a trilogia Homerica, consisting
of the Syndipni, the Philoctetes Lemni, and the Philoctetes
Trojae, a non-Homeric Satyricum, the Epitaenarii.
But it is obvious that, in the case of the great majority
of trilogiae Homericae, an Homeric Satyricum, such as the
actually known Achilleos Erastae, Crisis, and Helenes
:
Gamos, would form both a more suitable and (in view

The
of the characters) a more convenient pendant.
chances, then, are in favour of the Acanihoplex having
formed the fourth play of Sophocles' second tetralogia
Homerica. But, if so, it throws great light on Euripides'
Alcestis.
It is, except for catalogue purposes, not a
satyricum it is a quasi satyricum, even, only in the same
broad sense as is the Alcestis. Yet that in this sense
:
it
was quasi-Satyric
is
indicated
by the extraordioary
IQ-X
43
finale o, finale from which Sophocles can scarcely have

ventured to depart presented by the Nosti, which work
rounds off the situation with a double marriage, splicing
(save the mark !) not only Telemachus and Circe, but
also Telegonus and Penelope. Moreover Fr. 453, as I shall
argue, shows traces of Satyric language. But Hercules
this is important does not figure. On the whole I incline
to consider that this play, with its second wounding of
Ulysses, is the quasi-Satyric fourth drama appurtenant
to the Niptra trilogy. If in it Circe comes in person
as seems to me probable on the stage, her anagnorisis
of Ulysses, alive or dead, would doubtless be based upon
the scar of the old wound.
Frr. 453, 454. From the Acanthoplex. Unemended
text of Fr. 453
7ro8a7r6v to Swpov afxcpl <pai.8t[xot<; e/cov
Unemended text of Fr. 454 w[xot<; a0y)p6(3pco&\ioic,
Read (in indirect interrogation)
tov 8pyavov cpepcov.
:
7Co8a7rov TO[xoupov
PpcoTov opyavov
without
cpepto.
dc[xcpl (f>tx.i8i[ioic,
e^cov
&\ioiq aGirjpo-
M. Schmidt and Wecklein both tried,
much
success, to combine the two Frr.

They
part of a narrative by Ulysses
hence the
clearly form
indirect interrogation.
most improbable, in view

of the merely incidental mention of the episode, that the
passage should have been spun out to the extent of
presenting two separate lines with &\ioiq in the first foot
of each of them
therefore I agree with those who
favour combination. Though Fr. 454 is, in its entirety,
presented twice, and each time with cpepcov, not cpepto, yet
the second presentation by Eustathius is not independent (witness his cpacn).
The expression roôupov
It is
opyavov may very well be the source of

" mystica vannus Iacchi."
For TOjxoupov here, consult
the mentions of Dodona elsewhere in the play (Frr.
455, 456, 460, 461)
also see the Ichneutae, and my
edition thereof passim.
Both 7ioSa7i6v in its late sense
(certified here by a scholiast on Dionysius Thrax
for
SocpoxX% o$v read ZocpoxX9)<; youv) and T6(xoupov suggest
the Satyric muse.
Fr. 455. From the Acanthoplex. Unemended text
AtoScovt. vatav Zsu? 6y.ibc, Ppoxcov.
Read AcoScovt vcucov
Zsu? 6 vdao<; Bpuycov. In his later wanderings Ulysses
fought against the Brygi, a Thesprotian tribe. Wilamowitz proposed 6 vaio?.
d07)po[3p<OTOv
:.
44
From
the Acanthoplex. Unemended text

Photius adds (inter alia) em KuxXcotox;.
He means that the Cyclop was, not that he had, a vyjSix;
Read vyjSu? evauSascrcra. .4 6e^y and
ika.ia.eaGX (sic).
eke a voice.
auSêt.? and
Cf. Milton's blind mouths.
evauSo? lend sufficient support,
between them, to
Fr. 457.
v7)Su<;
IXaiascyaa.
evauSaeaaa.
Fr. 459. As this Fr. is from the Niptra, Ribbeck's
interpretation is impossible. Manifestly the allusion is
to Autolycus and his family.
Ulysses Ftjrens.
my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 569, 577, 578).

toxvt olctOoc, toxvx' e'Xea
(j.u0oi;
xavxexaXfiiva*
yap 'ApyoXiaxi Gi>vxe[AVtv Ppa/u<;.
Read reavx' olaOa, 7tavx' eXea xavxsxaX[iiv<r (jluOo? yap
'ApyoXtaxl <n>vxe[xvet, Ppa^tkC/- Herodotus (v. 41)
xou
Xpovou CTUvxa[xvovxo<;. In my view Sophocles' language is
repeatedly a conscious echo of his Halicarnassian friend's.
Fr. 465. Unemended text (of Hesychius) -^[xaXaâr
See
xpui]>at,
aopaviaat.
SocpoxXyj? 'OSucraei; Matvo[xsvco.
y][xaXaâf xexpoâi,
see
Tjcpavicroa*
gested rj[i.aXaât also.

Fr. 467.
Unemended
Eo<poxX9ji; 'OSuaoret*
<[xayea
from Pearson that Ellendt proposed xexputpou,

but I do not gather that he sug-
vjcpaviam as possible
povxa.
Read
2o<poxX%'08uCTCTet Mouvojiivw
Read
text (of Photius)

[xayvov.
x6v (xeyav, xov aTcofxaacrovxa xal xaOat-
{xayu.6v
8e,> xov
SocpoxXvj?
,
,
Oo\)<TO et
a7rofxaaaovxa xal xa6aipovxa.
xo uiXav.
There are
two words (perhaps originally identical), fxaacreiv, to

knead, and [iolggziv, to rub. The latter bifurcates into
two meanings, to wipe and to smear. It does not elsewhere occur uncompounded, except in the derivatives
(xaysu?, a wiper (said of a sponge), and fxayfxa, a liquid
unguent. For this (xay(xa Sophocles here substitutes [Aayu.6<;,
in the sense of ink. At least that is what I make of
the Fr. The alternative is to suppose that in the time
of Sophocles the Latin, or at least the Italian, magnus
had already, via, I suppose, Sicily, passed to some
extent into Greek speech. A priori that proposition is
not impossible
but it is improbable in an extremely
high degree.
:
ID-X
Oecles
See
45
(?)
my
Oeneus.
I believe in the existence of this play
Cf. Fr. 732.
cf.
Fr. 732.
Fr. 470.
Oenomaus.
Unemended
text yj {xsv (for -^ jasv there is

Gaaaova (v.r. Gaaaova) yj Ss
axnrsôu (for rj 8s wctitsôu there is a v.r. siSco? sitsxoi)
From Apollonius it is clear that the
7cai8a (v.r. toxiSoc).
passage furnishes an example, or examples, of the pro-
Fr. 471.
v.r. si (xsv)<I)(tsI (v.r. coctsi)
noun
Read
w? s'G' t tsxoi
In both lines Dindorf proposed (o<; t he thought,
however, that t was long. See Pearson's note.
t.
yj
(xsv
o><;
Gocaaova,
tj
7iai8a.
Unemended text 8ux <j/y)XTpa<; a opco avRead 8ia dnfjxTpa?

xaGaipovG' Euttov aux(J.yjpa<; Tpix<kThe
av6yjv xaGaipovG' Itvkov auxF*)P<*? Tpt/a?.
opco
Fr. 475.
Gyjv
acp'
8'
09' is Campbell's,
aux^pa? Tpiya<;is *' accuthe part affected." The unemended text
would mean that the person addressed was using a currycomb to pull out or cut off the dirty hairs of a bay mare,
not to cleanse them. This, at least to my mind, is
unmitigated nonsense.
emendation
sative
of
Palamedes.
offer.
Pandora.
See but correct my edition of the Ichneutae (pp.

The play cannot be Satyric or quasi-Satyric,
612, 613).
I suggest, the first of a tetralogy consisting of
the Inachus, the Xoanephori, and the Cedalion
(see under the heading Cedalion).
xal uptoTov apôu (v.r.
but
is,
itself,
apxov) mXov
Read
(v.r.
7ttjX6v) opyaCsiv (v.r.
opya^cov) x s P^v
I*1 prose
xal 7tpcoTov ap/cov tctjXov opya^siv xP^v
7rpcoTov (which I take to be masculine, not neuter) could
scarcely, I suppose, be kept in agreement with 7njX6v
-
here handled with some

essentially Greek.
Cf. " principi limo."
but the underlying idiom,

boldness,
is
if
46
Fr. 483.
xepa<;
rpltyti
Ixmwv
nXvjpcc
Unemended text
y(jt,ovxa
tl<;
xat
jxaXGaxYJc;
ey^poaov
Kspa<;
|
uX9)p;
ixmovzi xpucrsov
utcoXouv?];;.
Read
xal
p^st- xevov y' ou [xaXGaxTJ?
Musurus proposed utc' <bXev7)<;. A Aorw,

a>Xev/)<;.
except in certain stories not here in question, cannot be
This Fr. does not point in the direction of a
Xpuasov.
utc'
Satyric drama.
Fr. 484. Erotian's evidence does not suggest the
use of pXifxa^stv by Sophocles in its amatory sense.
Rather, I take the word to refer to the moulding of
Pandora. This Fr. does not point, any more than the
last, in the direction of a Satyric drama.
Fr. 485. This Fr. is anatomical, not salacious,
referring doubtless to the construction of Pandora, and
not pointing in the direction of a Satyric drama. Both
Sophocles' svoupyjOpa and Pollux' apu<; must be understood, quasi-metaphorically, of the bladder. Similarly,
which both Aeschylus
oupavyj,
(Fr. 179)
and Sophocles
(Fr. 565) employ in the literal sense of ajxt?, was also

used in one or other of the two anatomical senses of
oupyjrqp (see Pollux himself, n. 223).
Cf. Ecclesiastes,
" Antequam rumpatur funiculus argenteus, et

xn. 6
recurrat vitta aurea, et conteratur hydria super fontem,
confringatur rota super cisternam."
:
Peleus.
See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 611, 612).
trco to> tirto (a v.r. gives
Bentley, defert<o twice only) 8s Iludiou; (3oa tw GeoS.
ring justly to the Aristophanic antistrophe, adopts the
reading which omits an Xxa and himself omits the
But the v.r. is probably a conjectural emenarticle xw.
:
dation. I propose: kq &t' foco $s ITuOia? (3oa toc Gecov.

Fr. 491. I prefer to follow the scholiast on codex
of Aristophanes in attributing this Fr. to Euripides'
Peleus. His s7u<pepsi yap seems to explain why he assigns
it to Euripides instead of Sophocles
he has looked
the passage up and cites the context in proof.
Fr. 493. The Aristophanic scholium (on Thesmophoriazusae, 1. 870) runs ou\rr\deq to crxâ. MevavSpo?'
olcrG'
[i
eXyj?
tohtjctov.
aveu Sopo?.
2o<poxX9j<;
IT^Xst'
[xyj
i|;su<jov,
&
Zeu,
(xtq
This must be a note on some other
IH-X
47
passage, and have been repeated, appropriately indeed,

in the case of this passage, but without the additions
necessary for the sake of ready intelligibility as a comment in the new context. The important point is that
it makes sheer nonsense, unless we expand the Sophoclean
quotation into
o!ct6' 8 [xyj [xe tyzuGov, & Zeu* (xr) \x iXyj?
#vsu Sopo?. This, although a most artificial construction,
accords with the view that sees in oIctG' o 7tofo)crov the
literary expression of a thought running toktjctov oZo-0' 6
thus olaO' o [xv] êuctov would, on analysis, yield êuctov
olaO' 6 [XT], itself indeed scarcely possible as a thought,
but more than possible as a sort of stock in the graftingplot of a fancier of " improved " idioms. Aristophanes
parodies with a point-blank (xyj tjisuo-ov. In Sophocles'
Ajax (11. 1180, 1181) for y* ocutov, & toxi, xai <puXacro-s,
xivrjaaTco Tiq, aXXa 7rpoa7isaG)v e/ou, read
(xrjSs as
sy/
:
auxov,
&
xai cpuXaaae
7cat,
[xyj
Ssoi;
xXtvrj? a.7tdiaji
a\ aXXa
Tcpocrêawv s'xou.
POEMENES.
Fr. 498.
vaom
Unemended
êa d
text
rj8u âvTJaat,
xal 7rpoyu[x-
x^P a It is rather late, at this time of day, to find Hilberg's

yipa.
canon denied
Sufl
avr)o"a<;,
toju,
7rpoy6[xvaCTai,
Unemended text
xal (x>) u^pi^cov auxix'
pu-ajpi xpoucov (after xpoucov a v.r. inserts
ex (SaGpcov iXto
yXouxov) u7CTtou ttoXo<; (v.r. 7to86<;). Hesychius remarks
svtot 8s oux em xou Kuxvou, aXX' S7tl TCOV 7toXS[XLC0V, coctte
9SUyovTa<; auTOu? (for cpsuyovrai; aurou?
slvat, tov Xoyov
read <peuyovxa cr' auuxa) tu u7mco 7ro8l tou? ihiovq yXourou?
I therefore propose with confidence
7roir)(Tco TU7rrtv.
xa[x9) 8' u(3pioov auxix', et os (3<x0pov sXco
puxrjpt, xpoucov aou
" But soon wilt thou wax weary of thy
aov utctiou 7to86<;.
wantonness, if so be I, belabouring with the upturned
sinew of thy proper foot thy proper bottom, drive thee
before me." Qui facit per alium, facit per se, but (pace
Pearson) within limits xal co<; av 6 (pp6vi[xo<; opiastsv.
The addition of trou ctov makes all the difference.
Obviously purrjpt is a mere variation of tevovti.
ev0' (v.r. si0') yj raicpotxcx;
Fr. 501.
rnqXajxix; /sifxaCETai
too Bocnropixy]* tcoSe
7iapoixo<; 'EXXyjoTcovru;,
yap Oafxi^srat.
Read
wpaia Ospou;
svO'
rj
toSoixo?
48
yeijxa^sxai,
7T7]Xa[x6?
Oepou?
tto0'
7rapo<;
BocncopiTT] tco8' sv
ptj>
<5cp0p'
tj
wpoua
'XXyjottovtic;,
aXiêrai.
504.
2?Y.
Unemended text
Read
ycri\ioZai
xrniolai ntexzolc, 7rop<pupa<;
yevo^.
<p0sipsi
The
7tXsxTOL<; 7ropcp6pa<;
<p0tpet.
the SsXsap cited by the scholiast (see

Pearson's note) from Herodian, which latter according
to the former compares this passage of Sophocles.
tujc&v (v.r. zzii&v) xal
It would be
0piyxou<; d7roast.cTa[Xvy].
S>j toij? Tzoaei&iouc,
temerarious to neglect the u of tu^&v. Read tuxi&v xal
yavo?.
y<xvo<; is
8y)
toik;
IlocttSsioix;
compound
Opiyxou?
arco,
ystar'
a[xsvyjva.
The
ancient lexicographical
authority, which may perhaps point to this very paswhen doro, separated by so-called " tmesis " from
sage
a7roxuxtîv possesses
its
preceding, the
verb, follows, instead of
said verb,
I presume, though I can find no direct evidence on the

point, that (as is unquestionably the case, in such circumIlcxuSaou? is
stances, with utto) it suffers anastrophe.
accepted.
Xoy<p yap ouSsv eXxo? oI8a
7tou /avov (for ouSsv IXxo? olSdc tcou /avov there is a v.r.
eXxo<; ouSev ol 7cou the ou is written, contracted in the
Read
Xoyw
ordinary manner, above the -k rojel^)yap Xxo<; ouSsv oI8' wroov yjxvov. The variant TU^stv, for
Xavov, is quite outside the ordinary run of corruption,
and seems to me to suggest that the line, already miswritten, was once emended into Xoycp yap eXxo? ouSsv olSa
The substantive 7TTuyfi.a is late Greek for a
7iou 7m>ylv.
pledget (a piece of lint, or the like, inserted, to stop
bleeding, into a wound), and of the verb 7cnSff<jsiv the
:
compound second
cratean.
Fr. 509.
f}oo<;
aorist passive dva7n;uy7jva!., is
Unemended text
Read Ktjxvo? ts
pTjvswv.
xuvo? toXXtj? ts
HippofjnrjxdSo?
TCeXXy; CTfXYjxo; to? fioicxptl
A trace of a^xa?, for {jLyjxa?, is probably to be

0e<ov.
found in Hesychius' qx-yjXaxstv (a corruption, I suggest,
of <7[XY)xa8etv), to produce a sound.
Unemended text
Fr. 511.
ayevvai
ttj
"I$7)<;
"I8t)<;
st,
"IS^?';
"ISt)?
I
for S^Tcoys.
ttjv
tots
ty}?
"ISyjc;
[xiqXoTpocpoi.'
TptoXu[jnuov
"IS-/)? SiQTcoye fjLYjXoTpocpw
TpioXiSfxraov
dyeX/jry)
<5tp[xa.
apfxa.
'ctttj
Read
ti?
Cobet proposed
Svj
V7J<;
tots
IQ-X
49
POLYXENA.
Unemended
Fr. 522.
text
auvayayoav
(v.r.
croo
cnj)
8'
a'j0i
whjavok; 'OXu|jltcou
too) xar' 'ISatav xG6 va
Read (3ou<; a50i (aijavcov tyj xoct'
OutjtoXei.
r?)v (v.r.
(xi{i,vcov
'ISouav ^Qova
The
7rp6[xvoi? 'OXu[X7cou cpjv ayajzco OutjttoXei.
ablatival 'OXuproo of the mss. text, apart from a geographical difficulty, does not go well in tragedy with a
verb (cruvayayobv) that is not distinctly a verb of motion.
Besides, Strabo's reference to Athene ought to find its
counterpart in the quotation. For tyj in tragedy see
my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 421.
& to? <xn awova? xs xal
:
Xwcouaa
Xt[xv7)?
'Ayepovro?
^X0ov <5cpaeva<; yoonq. Read
&olq
Xwrouaa Xifjivr;? 9jX0ov, <5cp<reva<;
a.nixioiV(x.c, xe y.cd [XXafA(3a0si<;
yXoccc,
'Axepovro? 6i>7rX9jya<; ^xo ^ C7a ? yoou?. From the
pit's songless fringes, deep in darkness, am I come hither,
even from the male greenwood growths of Acheron, that
re-echo with loud beatings of the breast in lamentation.
<5cpasva<; /X6a<; (ykoou;, for x o(*C> should also be read in
Apollodorus' explanation of the passage) 'Axspovroc is
an expression referring to the tree called axepwt?
(Iliad,
xni. 389, and xvi. 482), which Hercules
was reputed to have brought to earth from Hell. In
Attic the axspcot? was called the Xeuxvj. The tree is a
variety of the atyeipo<;. The bisexuality of the aiyeipo*;
was known to the ancients, who distinguished (see Liddell
and Scott) between the atyetpo? &xap7co and the ocEyeipo?
Hence dcpciEva? is here almost equivalent
xapTOôpo?.
For the atysipot; (under that name, and
to axapTOO?.
without specification of any variety) as a tree of Hell,
It will be noted that <&a<;
see the Odyssey (x. 510).
and yXoctjc, stand excellently in apposition, and that fac,
follows the full ductus of & xxc,, whereas dxxa? (proposed by Jacobs, for <o to?, and generally adopted,
will not well accord in apposition either with y\6ot.s or
with xk, and departs markedly from the ductus. It
is strange to me that my suggestions have not so far
as 1 know been anticipated
scholars, I fear, have
come of late to pay too much attention to commentaries
and too little to the actual text with which they have
to deal a text that, if it is more than a line or so in
[XXa^.(3a0Lc; (v.r. fjieXapipacpeu;)
6î)7rX^ya<; y\yox>acf.
TQ U ?
50
is usually its own best commentary.

And yet
the passage has been much canvassed, nor has the
result been altogether nil.
Canter proposed dcTratcova^ te
Heyne completed 1. 2 by adding to it
for oaz alcova; ts
Grotius altered Tjôuaa into rjôucra?.
1. 4 of the mss.
I presume that Nauck is right in attributing faz aicovo;
Pearson, if you take him au pied de la
te to the mss.
lettre, states unambiguously that
they present ocuova?
(not cd&voLc), but I conjecture that this is due to a
length,
method
defect in his
to
of exhibition, in
which department
many merits he seems sometimes
balance his
to
short of Nauck's clear-cut precision.
ou yap tic, av Suvatro
Tot? 7rac7t 8etou xal 7rpo(7apxaa(. /apiv
7cpcppiXTY)<; GTpaTou
hizzi ouo 6 xpaaaoov Zsu? iyiou TUpavviSi
oOY e 7tofx(3p<ov
(for h\ 7cofjt,^pcov there are v.rr. I 7c6[xPp(ov and !s7r6[A(3pcov)
(3poToi<; avsXGwv he,
8ixt)v Xoycov
out' ETraux^crai; cptXo^
09Xai.
tz&c. 89jV eyw Ovtjtoc; y' <*> v [v.r. av) ex Ovtjt^? te
Ai6<; yvot(X7)v so" q^povstv (for s5 9poviv there is a v.r.
(pu?
Read ou yap ti? av SuvatTo 7rp<}>u<ppovtv) aocpcoTEpoc;
aTpaxou ioic, 7raatv slât, xal 7rpoc7apxso-ai. x^P tv
paTirji;
out' s7rofj.ppcov
ItceI ou' 6 xpaaacov Zeuc; (jlou TupavviSt.
ouV 7rau^[jt.YjCTa(; 91X0?, (3poTOt<; 8' av eXGojv e<; Sixtjv y'
ay&v' 89X01. 7tco<; Stjt' lyw Gvyjtoc; y' av ex 0vy)tt]<; te 9U?
Wecklein proposed
A16? yvot[xr)v Zsu<; cppovEtv aocptoTEpof;
7ra<nv filial, Grotius ^7io[i,ppcov, Dobree 8' av eX0wv, and
fall
'
Brunck
69X01.
Procris.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Rhizotomi.
Fr. 534.
In
1.
6 follow Ellendt.
Salmoneus.
tocS'
sari
xviqxo? xai
xaXXtxoTTaôuvTt, vtxTjT/jpia
Ti0y]fi,i
:
9tXrjfi.aT(ov
tyocpoc,'
tw
x ^pa. Read yavvj 'crrl xviofxcx; xal

9iXYj[xaTcav ô? ?
wt&x'" aXXa xoa<Ta(3ouvTi. vLxyjTTjpia
The paratactic xocrcraTiGvjfju xal âXovrt âXxaov xapa.
Pouvtl xal (SaXovfi is idiomatic in place of the anti-idiomatic
xal (3aX6vu
x^xlov
|
IQ-X
51
xocraapouvn âXovTi (to him that shall have hit in the

course of play) xaXXixoc7aa(3oovu would scarcely suit this
construction. yjxly.ziov, in lieu of yaXxeov, is evidently
Satyric.
:
Sinon.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Sisyphus.
I will only say that I see no reason for doubting the
existence of this drama.
Scythae.
Fr. 546.
Under the headings Fr. 343 and Fr. 344
have referred to what
Fr. 343
I have here to say.
(belonging to the Colchides) consists, so far as it exists, of
a statement, in a scholium on Apollonius Rhodius, that
runs thus
EocpoxXvj:; $e sv KoX/im. cpiqcrl xaxa rov olxov
tou AlrjTou tov toxZSoc {i.e. AbsyrtusJcKpayTJvat.. It is thus
manifest that Absyrtus is mentioned in the Colchides.
Observe the reason for the observation will shortly
appear that the name "Aûpxo*; closely accords prima
Fr. 344
facie in etymology with the name Etpo(3lXyj.
(commonly attributed to the Scythae and regarded as a
mistaken quasi-presentation of Fr. 546, but assigned
by Pearson to the Colchides) consists, likewise so far as
it exists, of a statement, in another scholium on ApolloAiovuaio? Se 6 MiXr)<no?
nius Rhodius, that runs thus
(it is asserted such assertions are sometimes ill-founded
that Mikricioc, is a mistake for MuTiXTjva^cx;) 'Exar/jv
[XTjTepa M-y]8sia<; xal KipxT)? (subaudi Xeyet), oic, 7rpoipr)Tai,
ZocpoxX9j<; Neatpav jjtiav tcov NYjpyjtScov, 'HatoSoc 8s 'ISuiav.
Pearson, on the grounds that it is certain that in the
DxuOou Sophocles made Idyia the mother of Medea and
that there is nothing to show that he did not make Neaera
her mother in the KoXxtSe?, concludes that it seems better
to transfer the fragment here [i.e. to the Colchides).
I agree that " it is certain that in the SxuGoa Sophocles
made Idyia the mother of Medea " but in the passage
in the Scythae dealing with the matter [Fr. 546) it is to
be noted (a) that part of the extant language employed
is such as strongly to suggest that the personage once
I
e2
52
known
as Idyia
that there is
with a statement
is the unemended
(6)
subsequently changed her name, and

a lacuna which may easily be filled up
that she changed it to Neaera. Here
text of Fr. 546 ou yap sx ya^q xoittj?
:
s(3XaaTOv,
dXX' 6
(for pxdcCTTsaxev
fxsv
yjv
texvov apxi (3XdaToxV fy

there is a v.r. pXao-Tavsaxs t/jv 8')
N7]p-y]i8o<;
EtSuta 7rpiv 7tot' 'Qxeavou xopyj tixtsv. Now, though 7rptv

tot', in opposition to apu, merely conveys that Medea
was older than Absyrtus (one form of the legend), yet
apxt, (SXacTTsarxev is so obviously corrupt (apart from metre,
the iterative form in -saxev is impossible in the context)
that one is even at first sight led to wonder whether the
opposition may not be non-original and whether, in view
of the lacuna in 1. 3, 7tptv tot' may not really mean that
a daughter of Ocean, whose later name has disappeared

in 1. 3, was at an earlier date known as Idyia. Everything becomes clear if, with strict regard to the ductus,
so far as it extends, we read
ou yap sx [note, xotT7)<;
:
s'pXaarov, dXX' 6 jaev NyjpyjiSo?
<Neatpa
ty)v>,
EtSuta
Nauck proposed
twctsi
rcptv
xop-q
texvov 2tpo(3lXt)?, e?
8' Ivtjv
'Hxeavou tixtel xopv).

(Bergk, I understand, had
7tot',
previously proposed e-uxtev xopyj). On marriage with

a mortal ElSuux doubtless lost her supernatural knowit
ledge.
I put forward my reading with confidence
solves difficulties. I infer that in the Colchides Sophocles
had, in the context to which " Fr." 343 refers, without
qualification called Medea a daughter of Neaera, and
that in the Scythae he wrote as above in order to reconcile
though he is not necessarily himself the inventor of
statement with the more
the reconciliation that
prevalent legend. Note that, on this view, Sophocles
styles Strobile only, not Idyia, alias Neaera, into the
the latter he speaks of merely as a
bargain, a Nereid
But the Apollonian scholiast (see,
daughter of Ocean.
just above, the quotation called by Pearson Fr. 344)
speaks of Sophocles representing " Neaera, one of the
for the extenNereids," as mother of Medea and Circe
sion of the term Nereid see Jebb on Bacchylides' Eiiheoe.
I draw the further inference that the Scythae was composed and produced later than the Colchides.
:
IQ-X
53
SCYRII.
Unemended
(a v.r. omits yj) 7rovroo&re 8al(jt.<ov ofrre ti?

te^T/j?
7tXo6tou tot' av velfxsiav dlav x^P^-
Fr. 555.
vauxai Ttov TaXai7r<opo)V

Gecov vepicov
{v.r.
text
(3poxcov,
-7)
ol<;
X7n%)
7uppo7njcriv (v.n*. eVi po7i7Jaiv
and
fbuppoTtyjcriv)
del 7rapappi7rTOVTE<; ol 7roXu90opoi

fy cocrdv
Read 7) 'vo^rpa
xepSavav 7) SitoXeaav.
olc, outs Saqxcov oOre t*5
vaural y' <*> v TaXawreopwv Tporaav,
tcXou? y' o(>7cot' av velfAsiev dlav /apw
0<og)v y^ wv
del 7rapa^pt7CTOVT<; ol
XsTTTat? eirei po7r9jaiv e[X7roXd<; axpa?
7coXucp6opoi
^ 'acoaav dxepSavav yj SicoXeaav. The accentuMeineke proposed yy.av for vepiojv
ation 3j is accepted
and Xcttocis for XeuTYJt; or Xe7ct^<;, as also the emendation
Brunck changed vstfxeiav into vslfxeiev.
7) 'acoaav dxepSavav
I consider my 8aajj.wv and 0cpo>v (apart from the question
of the iota subscript) certain, and I suspect some topical
fX7roXa<; p.axpd<;
(v.r.
<o<;
av) ^
vaural y ... olc, I take as roughly equivalent

in the long run to vauxat
olc, y, and (I must here beg
the reader to pardon a statement that, unless read more
than once, may seem unintelligible) outs Saqxciv o(>ts tic
6(pwv y^[ao)v 7rXou<; y' * u8e Saafi&v ou8e tic. 0<pcov y[ioiv
the nuances of Ye, especially in Sophocles, have
tcXou^
not as yet been adequately explored. I follow Pearson
reference,
But his view that

in not altering po7a)cnv to poTOuaiv.
the form is locative (as of course in origin it must be)
has nothing to do with the matter. Inscriptional evidence abundantly certifies ttjch (not tôi) and the like
as Attic datives. Such forms, but usually with the iota
common enough in mss. of tragedy.

criticism has universally substituted xcdoi etc.,
"subscript," are
Modern
regarding the mss. readings as mistaken epicisms (but is,

e.g., the " epic " Ocyjai original, or is it a mere error for
But if we admit as I think we ought to
0s9j<n ?).
admit tyjo-i etc. into tragedy, what are we to say
(Pearson elsewhere himself raises this point) about zcdai ?
my axpa<;
I cannot make real sense of IjxuoXou; [xaxpd?
I take as almost equivalent to axpcot;, utterly.
dXX' si jxev vjv xXaiouaiv
6 /pucroc;
laaGai xaxd
xal t6v Gavovxa Saxpuou; dvtardvai,
:
vuv 8', & yzpctiz, raOV

too xXaleiv av vjv.
dvrjVUTW? eyei,
to {v.r. tov) [asv xdcpoi xpucpGevxa npbc, to
cpcoc;
&yzw xal fjioi y^P cv âT/jp ts {v.r. ye) Saxpucov
3Jttov
xTTJjxa
54
yjxpiv
av9)XT' av
xaxd
<pax;.
zlc,
Read
dXX' el \xbt
xXatoocav
3jv
6 ypoacx;
xal t6v Oavovra Saxpooi? dvicrrdvai,
vov o, xpocpOevra
dvyjvoO', ax; lyei
dv^xx' av
xa[xol yap av 7raT7]p to ye 8axpoa>v yapiv
dyv)*
taaOat.
The emendations 3jaaov, ev Tacpco (proposed by

Bergk), xd[zol, and he, are accepted. Herwerden and
Nauck expel 1. 5 but my slight alteration of 11. 4 and 5
!<;
<p<o<;.
removes the obvious stumbling-block. In 1. 6 xd[xol ydp

but ydp
ye, in
av 7caTY)p ye is generally approved
such close connexion, is an impossibility, whereas ydp
to ye is a different matter (and the ye becomes fully
:
intelligible).
Syndipni.
There seem to have been two Sophoclean plays of

name, one dealing with the banquet of Polydectes
at Seriphos, the other with that of the Achaeans at
Tenedos see under Fr. 564. With regard to the latter
this
my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 608, 609).

Fr. 562. Unemended text (of the anonymous Ilepl
Tpoucov and of Dionysius Thrax) ytvsTai Se dvao-Tpo^
xal 8id tcXeiovov uepcov too Xoyoo, ax; raxpd 2o<poxXsi ev
Eov&sotvok; y) @eTi<; 7rp6<; t6v 'AyiXXea cpYjcri- (up to this
the former continues
point the two authorities agree
thus) Xucoocra uiv tovtiov yopov aipouaa NY]p7)i8a>v to ydp
of these consult
ootox; ecru*
e?j<;
tovtiov yopov Xuroocra N-yjp^tScov ajpoocra.
Tcap' 'HatoSa). (but the

latter authority continues, instead, thus) Xewroucra (j.ev
7iovrt.ov yopov N7)p7ji8a)V wpoucra oti [iztol ae dvTl too 7rpoc; ae
6tl [xeTa ah dvTt too 7rp6<; ah xal
xal
7rap'
Read the Sophoclean
'HotoSco.
Fr.
as
ah
yopov <&pooc>a Nvjp-iqicKov. The whole

point of the grammatical note, which in the Ilepl Tpo7rcov
is but slightly corrupted, is that Xt7roocra [xev tovtiov
comes after (\lztol), instead of before (dvTt too 7rp6, mis-
Xurooara (xev uovtiov
written dvTt too 7rp6<;), the word ere, which word is

" governed " by <ftpooaa, not by Xurooaa.
Evidently
Hesiod presented some similar interlacement. Emend
ah XiTOocra fxev
the relevant part of the note thus
7rovTtov yopov wpooaa Nv)p7]t8a)v to ydp hc\y\c, ootox; tail (for
the ordo is this)' tovtiov yopov Xwcouaa NvjpvjiScov a>pooera
ere.
to tI (xeTa ok dvTl too 7rp6 ere (such and such words
:
come
after,
instead of
before,
ah),
xal
7iap'
'Hai68a>.
IQ-X
Hilgard put a full-stop
but considered
the sentence incomplete.
'HctioSco,
Dionysius) before xal
(in
(I
55
7tap'
doubt whether he was right)
Fr. 564. Unemended text (of Athenaeus)

rapt <ov
xal 2090XX7J1? CTUvSeOTvoi cpTjalv oftat aoi 7rapa7cXy)atoi<;* outoi.
opouvTa xdvu7ra!,8a xal ysvei,
yevsiov &8s /p /) 8iY)Xsi.<ps?
The
yacrrpo? xaXeia0at, 7ratSa, too Ticnpbc, rcapov.
(jtiyav
omission of ev before o-uvSeiTCvot, (which evidently stands
for SovSewrvou;) points to contamination, at least, from
thus the detailed (and most
the Athenaean Epitome
strange) oxxji crot, 7iapa7rX7)<Hoic becomes unlikely, and that
phrase is in any case suspicious as agreeing with the
:
Read repl &v xal 2o<poxX9j<; 2uv8i7n/oi<;

ou 7rapa yvTjatoi?* outoi yeveiov &8e /pyj Siyj-
title 2i>v8a7tvoi<;.
v60oi<;,
<py)(7t,
<popouvr',
Xi(p?
tcravTY)
IIav6<;,
alyeiov
[jiXav
<j'
|
"Acrrpa<;
Muslims proposed
xaXeurOou 7ratSa, too 7caxp6c 7rocpov.
The reference seems
SuvSsotvoi? and Casaubon Si-yjXupe?.
to be to Astreus, whose father I take, in Sophocles, to
have been Pan.
See Ovid's Metamorphoses (v. 144,
" Occidit Astreus, Matre Palaestina, dubio geni145)
tore, creatus." Astreus belongs to the legend of Perseus
one play, called Syndipni, by Sophocles may well have
dealt with the banquet of Polydectes. v60oi<; (apparently
:
indicated by voucher the u, in the ou diphthong, is no

objection) and 7capa yv7)<7toi<; (apparently indicated by
:
7rapa7rXY]o-t.ota)
reinforce each other.
follows, not that the
If they are right, it

Syndipni Nothi was in fact a forgery,
was one
of the seventeen plays by Sophocles

days of Aristophanes the Grammarian,
suspicion was wrongly cast
Ichneutae (especially pp. 615, 616). In other words, it was
a member of a Persean tetralogy. My argument under
this heading will, I am well aware, appear to some
but that
it
on which,
after the
scholars empty foolishness

but, nevertheless, there
exists already, even in Great Britain, a little flock
auspicium melioris aevi on whose eyes the vision of a
sj^stematised diplomatic has begun to dawn.
:

Fr. 568. Unemended text XdcGa IheptScov aruyepa
xal dvaparoc wSuvaasi?
GavaTou; si)7roT{ji6TaT [xeXewv,
dveôuaa (Siou Ppa/uv ia0fxov. Read
Xd6a IliepiScov
aicbv axuyspd y.a.vi\p<x.Toq' &
8uvaai<; 0vt)toi<; su7C0T[X0TaTY]
:
56
Because the
ave/oucra (3iou (3paûv wGfxov.
preposition (in origin an adverb) XaGa cf. xpâ was
mistaken for the Doric substantive XaGa, the whole passage was Doricised. Hence avaparo<;, GavaToi? (a further
depravation of GvaToi?), and U7roT(i.6TaT (an attempt to
deal with eu7roT[xoT<xTa) moreover it is the Doric o>8av,
not the original <p8cov, that must have dropped out
[xsXeoov, 4>&ov,
between
(xeXecov
and
avExouoa.
Tantalus.
much and notoriously

text
(after the sign that
indicates a choric utterance) (3iot% [aev yap XP 0V0 ? iarl
Fr. 572.
canvassed.
(3paxui?.
This Fr. has been
Unemended
xpucpGefoa
y%
utco
xEirat
There are two chief
Xpovov.
Gvyjtcx;
tov
arcavTa
one of them
difficulties,
unrecognised.
The recognised
the unrecognised difficulty
one hand, xpovov, standing so
soon after yjpovoi;, distinctly offends in point of diction,
whereas, in point of metre, its total omission would have
the advantage of presenting a paroemiac, instead of an
acatalectic line, at the climax of the sense
but, on the
other hand, the previous XP 0V0 ? * s Dv the addition of
(3toT%, limited in such a manner that it would not be
reasonably possible to " understand " from it an unex-
recognised, the other
difficulty is that of Gv/jto?

is that of yjpovov on the
(
>
pressed xpovov to go with tov arcavTa). Read

XO. 6
(3poT<n<; [xev yap xpovo? eaxl Ppa/u<;,
xputyzic, 8' uu6 yYJs
:
ouxext
Gvyjto?
t6v dbcavra.
Take
intransitively.
xpityei?
PpoTot? and ouxsti Gvtjtos lend each other an appreciable

degree of mutual support. The XO. is concerned- with
the omission of 6. A reason why ouxeti has become
xstTat is that paroemiacs more often than not mimic
hexameter endings. Grotius proposed 8' in lieu of the
-a of xpu<pQsto*a.
Teucer.
Fr. 578.
Unemended text
oupavou
8' airo
^c7TpatJ;
|
(for oupavou
8'
oaro
writing seems to
oupavou
Read
8'
ôTpa^s there
8'
v.r.
be uncertain oupavou
(3povry)
a7i7)CTTpat|;),
oupavou
arco
8'
fyrrpatjje,
|
aaTpo7iX7]^.
is
Eppayvj
Ppovr/]
either the
aTOrjaTpa^s
8i
8'
or
a-aipccTn^q.
Ippayr)
AV
IQ-X
57
Telephus.
I
See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 577, 578)
suggest a Telegonus, from which the Telephus must be
distinguished.
:
Tereus.
Unemended
Fr. 581.
text (of Aristotle): (xsrap&Xsi
8e xal 6 eno^ to XP^** xa ^

Ai<rxu ^S ev toutSe' toutov 8'
xaxwv
opviv
7ravTuxta'
'3
^ av
oq
9jpi
e/ei
wcnrep
9aivovTi
[xev
7CE7iofo}XV
auTou
usTpaiov
E7T07ra tcov
s7c67iT7)v
xa7u87;Xto(7a<;
7C7coixiXcox
ev
0paai>v
(v.r.
9aivovrai)
xtpxou X7iapyou' 8uo yap

SiaTOxXXa (v.r. 8ia(3aXXst) 7TTp6v
o5v (xopcpa? 9avt ncaSoc, te xauTOU vy)8uo<; (xta? oaro* viae,
8' OTrtopa? tva xaTaav09j gtolxuc,
cttixttq viv a50i<; dpi.91|
VW[XrjCT!,
7CTEpu*
(XeI
(JUOrEl (v.?T.
8s
[AtCTEl
and
{JLtCTEt)
Ttov8'
aXXov (for <*V #XXov there are v.rr. dbraXXou :

dtnraXXov arraXtov) ei? totcov
Spumous IpYjjxou? xal TOxyouc;
Aristotle appears to me to be in no way misdTcotxto-Ei.
takenthough Pearson considers that it seems to be
proved that he is mistaken in attributing the passage
to Aeschylus who could reasonably see in Gpaouv TCTpatov
opviv ev 7cavxuyja a Sophoclean or, indeed, a nonAeschylean touch ? Read the tragic Fr. thus toutov
(v.r.Tov 8s)
&7t*
8' 7T07ro)V E7COTOC TCOV OCUTOU XOCXCOV

gixc,
e'êi.
7TC7COtXtX6)XS XaTCl8YjX(0-
Opaoov TCETpalov opviv ev TcavTEUxwc" 6? 9jpi (JLEV

8ia7idXXi 7CTsp6v
xipxou XETOxpyou* Suo yap o5v
I
tpavsvTi
(xopepa 'X90WSI,
TICTE
KTEpU^*
8<; texovtoiv
av av0fl crrdyu^,
9jv
7rai<;
I
8' OTCcopat;, yjvix'
&8eI
8' otjXtCT0*,
8uoTv
[Aiou;
<5ctco'
va<;
cttixty) viv a50t<; d{X9Vto-
"ItUV 0'
6 t' (3tXyO? EXT07TOV
In 1. 4 8uo {i.op9<x
xal 7tayou<; sire' oiXTicrai.
The
'X9dvi means Ae reaps the advantage of two shapes.
legend indicated in 1. 5 is, so far, at least, as I know,
8pu(j.ou<; Ep7)(Aou<;
but the ductus is by itself sufficiently

6 av0yj comes from av0Eiv, flavescere
the formation is frequent in the case
(cf. euoo-jxeiv etc.
of compounds), not from a[viv, which could not, save
by a violent metaphor, be applied to grain. For a[X9Snot on record
In
conclusive.
1.
:
vcoticte
(1.
in
654).
1.
7 cf. the use of vcotiêiv in Euripides' Phoenissae

1. 8, after much consideration, I have ven-
In
tured on 6* x (suumque) it seems to me to be indicated,

on the whole, by the data of the text
and few could
:
58
be so rash as to deny the possibility outside Homer and

other really ancient epic of the disputed neuter o,
instead of 6v. For the construction of sZtc' in 1. 9 cf.
Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus (1. 933)
the " pathetic
fallacy " is in keeping with the metamorphosis. Nauck
:
proposed
and Camot -qvix' av

Unemended text vuv
cpavsvxi,
Fr. 583.
aXXa 7coXh.ct.yac,
av0fl.
8' ou8sv sljxi

x w P^xa&rqv) xtjv yuvaixslav
al vsat jxev yap (after yap a v.r.
:
sjSXsâ xauxfl
[v.r.
9ucri,v,
ax; ouSsv safxsv.
inserts ev) 7raxp6?
-qSiaxov, olfxai, &[jt.sv avOpcoraov (3lov
xsprcvto? yap asl Travxa? yj #voia xps^si.
oxav (after 6xav
a v.r. inserts 8') s? fjffyv sc\x<o|as0' s^povs?, a>0ofys0' ^<o
|
0scov Tcaxpc&ajv xcov xs cpuaavxcov <5aro,

xal St.{X7roXou[X0a
al [xev svou? 7rp&? av8pa?, at 8s (3ap(3apou?,
al 8' si? aXyj0^
{v.r. a7j0y)) 8a>[i.a0', al 8' smppo0a.
xal xaux', S7tst,8av sucppovyj
Read
ssuy) [zta,
XP ^ V 7catvstv xal 8oxstv xaXw? sx^v.
vuv 8' dhqScov slfju x&pvi?* aXXa 7roXX<xxi,? yov/)
s(3Xs<j/ sV
a>? ou8sv safxsv.
auxT) xtjv yuvat-xslav cpijatv,
al vsai (xsv
^Siaxov, oly.cni, <ojasv av0pa>7ca)v (3lov
sv rcaxpo?
xspuva)
oxav 8' s? 7](3y)v st.xa>us0'
yap sia 7iaI8a? avoia xpscpst.
sj^povs?,
a)0ou(xs0' sa) xal 8is[iJcoXco[i.s0a
0s<ov rcaxptocov
xcov xs 9U(7avxa>v oaio,
at jasv svou? 7rp6? av8pa?, al 8s
(3ap(iiapoi>?,
ai 8' si? <xy)8yj 8<o[jt.a0', al 8' S7uppo0a.
xal
xaux', S7ust,8<xv suqjpovv] sut) [xia, j XP ^ V stouvsiv xal 8oxsiv
In 1. 1 (particularly in view of the I^Xsâ
xaX>? sxstv.
xauxyj or xauxTjv of the mss. in 1. 2) the change of ouSsv to
dojStov (the u of ouSsv, in a diphthong, is no objection) and
the addition of yuvyj appear to me rather necessary than
desirable.
The resultant trochaic tetrameter was cut
down into an iambic trimeter because of the sequence of
such trimeters that immediately follows. For the change
of metre (though not in the middle of a sentence, and
though in the reverse direction) compare a speech of
Cassandra in Euripides' Troades (11. 426-463, Kirchhoff's
numbering), where the transition presents itself thus (in
|
443-446, the same numbering) ox; 8s

(3a?) <ov s? "AiSvjv xax<puywv
aXXa yap
XifJLVYj?
fju>p" supyjcrst, (xoXtov.
tC xo\j? 'OSucntsw? saxovxl<o 7covou?; In his extant plays
Sophocles employs trochaic tetrameters so sparsely
(there are sixteen non-lyrical trochaic tetrameters in the
Oedipus Tyrannus, four in the Oedipus Coloneus, and six
the course of
11.
xal (for xal read

xax' sv 86fxoiai
u8a>p
cruvxsfJLco,
m-x
59
in the Philoctetes, but none in Sophocles' other plays)

that we really gather no notion how, when, if ever, he
gave himself a looser rein, he is likely to have dealt with
the metre. I have considered, but only to dismiss, the
theoretical possibility that the whole passage was once
true, the caesura is penthecouched in tetrameters
mimeral throughout, and true also a sequence of eleven
trimeters with penthemimeral caesura comes, as a rule,
but, on a
not more than a dozen or so times in a play
:
balance, the probabilities against such wholesale alteration as would be involved are overwhelmingly greater.
We know
definitely from a scholiast on Aristophanes

99 et seq.) that in the Tereus of Sophocles
Procne appears in the form of a bird (editors have been
so silly and arrogant as to contradict point-blank the
I wonder whether she
scholiast's express statement).
was of full human size in that case recourse, one would
think, must have been had to some such relative adaptation of magnitudes as not many years ago we saw
at Porte St. Martin in Rostand's Chantecler. But, if she
was of the size of an ordinary nightingale, then, doubtless,
she was a dummy, moved by strings, and an actor in concealment, when her beak opened, spoke her part. In 1. 3
In
at veai [xsv ev 7caTpo<; is Valckenaer's emendation.
1. 5 F. W. Schmidt proposed tzoZSolq for7ravra<;, and the
after much consideration I
spelling avoia is accepted
adopt Schmidt's 7raiSas (as an uncial corruption of Tcavxa?),
but I cannot least of all from Sophocles, who knew
his Herodotus take, in the one sense here possible, the
consequently I alter Tep7rvco<; yap
expression <xei 7rai8a<;
aei to Tsp7rvco yap sia (adjectives in -oq, e.g. Xfyvcx;, are
of sta, cibus, I have treated
biterminational at will
In 1. 6 Dobree proposed eficppove?,
in my 'Avti Mia?).
in 1. 7 Valckenaer 8ie[x7coXa>[Ae6a, and in 1. 10 Wagner
coram
Is not Horace's (A. P. 186-187) " Nee
aY)8>).
populo ... in avem Procne mutetur " a condemna-
(Aves,
tion of this very play ?

Fr. 589. Two mss.
(of
Stobaeus) alone preserve
Sophocles or, rather, two lines of Sophocles

and three others probably, but not certainly, his that
figure as Fr. 589, but are split up by me into Frr. 589
and 589b. One of the two mss. begins with the words
five lines of
60
TiQpst and then gives, as one piece, all

the five lines. As regards the other ms., I cannot make
out whether it has an initial lemma or not, but at any
rate it separates the last three from the first two lines
that they ought so to be separated appears when one
attempts emendation. Fr. 589 (in my restricted sense)
presents the following unemended text
#vou<; sxeivo?* al
ZocpoxXeoix;
Read avou?
exeivov yjfxuvavTo xapxepov.
avouaTsp' sri
sxeivov 7jfi.uvavT* taatxepov
exslvo?* at 8' avouaiipa tigzi
Pearson reads at 8' but means at as demonstra7tTp6v.
tive, not relative.
8'
Fr. 589b. See Fr. 589.

Fr. 590. Unemended text (of Stobaeus) EocpoxXeotx;
Tt)pel (for ZocpoxXsou? Tirjpsi there are v.rr. Zo<poxXsou<;
i.e. Eo<poxXeou<;
ay^psi too auTOo
too aurou
ayTjpsi
:
'
i.e.
SocpoxXeoix; dy/jpei)
touto
xaxst-SoTa?
Tajxia?
[asXXovtcov
cppovstrco
Gvtjt/j
oic,
Itmv
oux
oti
cpuat?
'
Ovtjtoc cppovslv /pyj OvTjrqv (poaiv

|
7rXyjv
ouSsli;
At.6<;
Read
fsxeXsaOai.
XP*)
s5 touto xaTStSoo',
on;
twv
Ovrjxa
ou8' si? Tt?
Aio? oZ8sv twv (jIeXXovtcov Tajxta? 6 ti XP"*] TereXecrOai.

Fr. 591. This Fr. appears to be preserved in Stobaeus only, but a reading, v cpoXcp, in 1. 1 is attributed
by Pearson to " Tricl." (sic) " Tricl." ought to mean
Triclinius
but I suppose not without doubt that it
must in fact mean Trincavelli, though Nauck, if so, passes
this reading of his over in silence.
7tXt]v
Triptolemus.
Fr. 597. Follow Nauck.
Fr. 599. Write xpvjcrtm, not xpjjorai or xpôrai, unless
you are prepared to write yph&v.
Fr. 600. Latin text (in Pliny the elder): " Et
fortunatam Italiam frumento canere candido." The
Latin trochaic tetrameter doubtless represents the same
Xeuxo/pou t <xxt%
metre in the original. I propose
Pearson has proposed suSaiaeiSsiv 'kaXiav soSaijxova.
:
jxova.
Fr. 602.
Unemended
(v.r. xpaOTisSs?)
ao-roxo[jiai.
s8s6X' aoTcaôfxai.
My
text
Kapxôvo?
Read
s0X',
8s xpacncsSa
8'
spaoV
spacrr'
sSs0X'
Kapx?)86vo<;
that 8'
and that the
suggestion
passed into 8s xpaoTreS'
is
sOX'
(which,
in-x
6i
however, has left its trace in the reading xpacnreSa;) was

omitted as unintelligible. A more intelligent scribe would
probably have put the text beyond reasonable possibility of restoration by emending to xpdccnreS' eo-GX'
but
fortunately some copyists were stupid. I only escape
myself my own condemnation by proposing my emendations as avowedly emendations. Were I a medieval
copyist, I seriously doubt whether I should be one whit
more honest (though, given my modern knowledge, I
should certainly be far more mischievous) than the worst
of the tribe. They were not such bad fellows after all
Fr. 603. In the writer of proverbs [Paroem, i. 451)
cited by Pearson surely elSo? tt t% Aiûyj? means a spice
of Libya (cf. species).
Fr. 605. Unemended text (of Hesychius)
&xi<;;
8e
3jX0e
SocpoxXvji;
Bcdc,
(after
GyjXei
there
0-yjXei
is,
appears, some kind of gap or hiatus) npeafiu; tyj

oY Ipavcov eucoâ. evioi $k rote, Mouaa<;. Read
rj
ScxpoxXvjc;'
JjXOsv
$k
epavcov euco/ia* svioi Se
GaXeia,
Aai<;
tic,
Mouaa
npiofiu;
fjGecov.
8ai<;*
yj
Kuster changed
i'.
it
Gecov.
oY
G-yjXei
to GaXeia and Musurus Tzpicfiv; tyj to TzpecfiiGTri

both
emendations are accepted. But, given the context,
Kpzcfiiarri Gecov is either nonsense or broad burlesque.
My proposal, npiafiic, flGetov, patron saint of bachelors,
presents 7rpecr(3t.<; (the feminine of 7rpeo-(3o<;)in a sense which
I justify by the occurrence of 7rpea(3u<; in a sense something like that of prince. I have also thought of Tipiofioc,
:
which would be fully supported

but, on the whole, I prefer
Pearson fails to see that
izphaîc,, for textual reasons.
TzpzG$iair\ Gecov would seriously conflict with his view
that "the personification of Aau; is literary rather than
fjGecov (cf.
xYjpuxwv
Ge(3a<;),
by indubitable authority
religious."
Fr.
606.
EoooxX9]<;*
Unemended
ouS'
emended text
yj
of
Tapi^poS yapou.
text
TaXaiva Souaa
of
Pollux
Tapt^vjpoo
yapos, co?
Unyapou.
:
Athenaeus Zo<poxX9j<; TpiriToXefxto* tou

Text of Pseudo-Herodian
6 yapo?
:
tov tyGucov yapov (Aeschylus, Fr. 211), xa*

yapov t6v fyGusiov, EocpoxXrj?. Pseudo-Herodian is establishing the classical 6 ydcpo? as against a late to yapov
(Latin garum, neuter).
Consequently his accusative,
yapov, from Sophocles, is no copyist's substitution for the
dptrevt.xco<;*
62
would furnish no evidence) of the texts

and Athenaeus, though indeed his accusative
would itself be in no better case but for the tov which he
As for his whole expression, yapov tov
reads with it.
fyGoaov, I conjecture that he had before him tov xapi^pov
yapov tov fy^stov (where tov fyOostov was a gloss) and
genitive (that
of Pollux
that he erroneously selected for quotation, instead of the

words tov Taptjnqpov yxpov, the words yapov t6v t^Guaov.
But the accusative gives us all we want to make emendation easy and all but certain. Read in Pollux yapo?,
oiq SocpoxXyj?' diS' e'97) <paXXatv' tSouaa tov Tapi^Tjpov yapov.
Read in Athenaeus t6v Tap^yjpov yapov. In such a
sentence d>8' 973 is a traditional formula.
In mss.
<paXXaiva is usually miswritten (paXatva (hence TaXaiva).
I take it that it was a live Gar-fish that the Whale saw,
and that Taptx"/)pov means pickleable, not pickled.
The
evidence of Archilochian influence on the Triptolemus is
:
interesting.
Fr. 610.
Unemended
text
Ppurov 8s t6v xepâtov ou
In view of the subject-matter of the Triptolemus,

(3purov $e tov Xeporatov 0I8' OuXw xueiv.
I propose
For
Xspo-atov {of Cherrha or Cherse observe the pyjd; avyjp in
the passage of Archilochus quoted vide Pearson's note
by Athenaeus) see my Macedonian Tetralogy, p. 53.
Suetv.
Troilus.
See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 613, 614). There
has been much folly written about this play. I should
fancy that Sophocles' Troilus was a good deal less
dissimilar from Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida than
from the vain thing fondly imagined by some scholars
Sophocles respected at least the elementary moralities.
Fr. 620. Unemended text oxaXjAfl yap op^si? fiuaikls
Qui facit per alium facit per se, says
Ixteixvouct' efxooc;.
but, when it is quae, not qui, and the
Pearson. Yes
Read o-xaXjr/) yap 6px zl$
particular quae a fitxaikic, ?
Bergk proposed this, except
PacrtXl? exTefxvoua' s(aou?.
that he wrote crxaX(xy] why he has not been followed I
do not understand (the adjectival pacriXt?, royal, is tragic).
The change of accent (axaX[x?j to cxoik[iri) was first made
by Dindorf
:
Ift-X
63
Tympanistae.
The occurrence
of SpdxauXo? (Fr. 643), plus the preof the Chorus, suggests to

edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 58, 59) that the
sumably non-lyrical nature
me (see my
Tympanistae was in some sense a satyricum.

and Hermann both considered it to be such.
Unemended
Fr. 636.
xouxoo x^Pâ H-etôv av

cpeu, xC xouxou j^dcpfxa
xt
(a v.r. gives the line as <peu
Xd(3oi<; 7roxe
êiov av Xa(3ou;
it is
by Michael Acominatus
Xd(3oi xi? (xeiôv
(v.r.
xav) uuo axeyfi

&pu xi xouxou
|
apparently the source drawn on

in his
tw
<peu
<pu
xi
xou xax' auxov
xou) yTJ? sTtupauaavxa xal

uuxv^^ dxouoai âxaSo? suSouayj opevt
(3iou
Read
text
Boeckh
;)
(v.r.
X<xp[i.a
7uâuCTavxi oav U7r6 axey7)v
fi.eiov,
75
'v
XajSaii;
a<p
yr;<;
dxouaou âxaSo? euSouay)

I do not believe, except as a result of corruption,
cppcvt
in Pearson's <peu admirantis (see Euripides, Fr. 739, as
dealt with in my Euripidean Fragments). For ev Xaâi?
I consider that
yyj<; e7ctj;auaavTt cf. in manibus terrae.
EniTAYCANTICAN passed into EIHTAYCANTAKAN
via EniTATCANTAICAN. The construction utto oxeyvjv
would be possible, in poetry, even with a verb of rest
but here the sense is such as to suggest a " pregnant "
use.
In the text adopted by Pearson is E7tupauaavxa,
instead of e7ui];auaac, classical Greek ?
Fr. 643. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 58, 59).
|
7iuxvrj<;
Tyndareus.
Fr. 646.
Unemended
xuya<;
6X(3iaou
dvSp6<;,
text
rcplv
ou
auxai
yp?) 7tox' eu" 7tp<xaaovxo<;
7tavxeXco;;
^Syj
(3to<;
|
8iex7repav6fl xal xeXeux/jaY] (3iov.
oXiyto (for
xav oXtyco there are
7rav 7rXouxov
Xp6vco
ev yap ppayet xaOeiXe
v.rr. xal 6X(y<o
(v.r. 7rXouxov)
#Xpov
and
xav
xoXiytp)
8a|xovo<;
xaxou
6*xav fzsTaaTT) xal Qtolc, Soxyj xa8e.

86am,
Read ou xp>)
7tot' eu 7rpdooovxo<; oXîaai Tuyjxq
dvSpoc, rcplv <5cv tu toxvxeXou? {xyjStj Aioc,
8iex7repdv0y) xal xeXeuxYjar) (3iov.
ev yap
(3paxst xaOeiXe xaxXuaev xp6vcp
toxu.tcXouxov 6X(3ov Saifzovot;
xax' oftpov t<;,
oxav {jt,exao-x9j xal Qsolc, Soxyj xdSs.
Gesner
restored 7ra|i.7rXouxov.
:
Tyro
I.
and
II.
For these plays and their plots see

Ichneutae (pp. 378-431).
my
edition of the
I. see also
As regards Tyro
64
my remarks in this book re Fr. 322, and as regards Tyro II

those under the heading Camici.
Fr. 648. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 379,
380).

This Fr. does not come from either of the Tyro
plays it is from the Tyria Rhoeti, a Paean.
Fr. 651. Follow Kuester
Ichneutae (pp. 381, 524).
381).
382,
428).
Fr. 654.
Unemended
wv
text
xai
(* nere
scttco
{xyj
tic;
&v
elc,
are v rr of the line xai

(jly) Icrro) n&c;
râ.; sêSpov x^P av
T ^ opvi? outo?
Aristophanes writes in parody vyj
s^sSpov /copav exwv
v r X^P av ^X 6)V )
Ai' exepo? Syjxa x& T0 ? s^sSpov xP oav
jtyi&c
sêSpov
x^P av
&v el;
'x
Read
xdv
Spv( "Hpa? es8pov x^pav X WV
See my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 380, 382, 383, 422.
:
[xecrw
tk;
See
my
edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 380,
383).
Fr. 656.
383).
Fr. 657. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 265,

the anagnorisis in Pratinas' Neleus).
Fr. 658. Follow Cobet. See also my edition of the
Ichneutae (p. 380).
Fr. 659. This Fr. certainly refers to the loss, by
some woman, of her hair, and it is ascribed by Aelian to a,
or the, Tyro (I will in a moment be more explicit) of
Sophocles. Everyone understands it of the indignities
undergone by Tyro, daughter of Salmoneus and in my
edition of the Ichneutae I followed, without adequate
consideration, the general opinion. But va<ps xai [xe^vaa'
The exact form of the
d7ttffrstv ocpOpa tocutoc tcov 9psvwv.
relevant part of Aelian's ascription, in the existing text,
is
SocpoxX% ouvittstou ev tj\ Tupoi tw SpdjAocu' 7ceuoiY)Tai
I suggested that -rep 8pd{xaTt
8e oi auTY) Xeyouaa xtX.
might be meant to distinguish the Tupco from the Tupeta
But now I read SocpoxXyjs aivirreTat.
'Potarou, a Paean.
ev t9j TopoZ Kqi* 8pa[xaT07re7roi7]Ta!. 8e ol auxv) Xeyouaa xtX.
I am so strongly impressed with the obviousness of this
re
Ift-X
65
emendation that to-day I hardly hesitate to assign the

Fr. to the Tyro Cos. If this assignment be correct, it
looks as though Cos' medicinal memory, which was no
doubt regarded as a supernatural endowment, lay in her
hair. Unemended text of the Sophoclean Fr.
xojjlyj? 8e
:
izivQoc,
Xayxavoi 7tcoXou
8lxy)v,
yyzi<;
<n>vap7raa0iaa (3oux6Xcov
&no jjuxvSpaicnv for7reioaat.v aypia yepi 6po? 0pia09j av06v

au^voov octco, o-7raa0sTcia 8' ev XsijjLCovt. 7roTa(xtcav totcov
|
axia? eiScoXov auyaa0sia'
8?)
t!,X[j[.svy)<;
(v.r. SiaTT!.X(xsvjr))
OLXTSipElE
11C,
VIV
U7c6
96^73?.
7ro)<7CTOUCTaV
xoupaic;
dTt(xco<;
9U, xav
Stare-
avoiXTip[i.a>v
ola
atCTÛVTJOLV
[AalVSTat,
I
xXaiouaa tyjv TOxpoc; <p6(3y)v. Read

x6fr/)<; 8e
^tk; <n>vap7raa0su7' av ovoXayx<*v&> tcwXou Sixyjv,
7TV0ouCTa xal
7t;sv0o<;
xoXtov u7ro
fxavSpaic; ev iTnrEiaiaiv
I
av06v ocuêvcov
7cot(ov
87)
#710,
axa0Eura
eiSooXov,
CTXiac
aypia x z P^
8'
Iv
auyav0t<;
Qepo? 0spiar07J
Xsifxcovi
utoS
7COTa(xi(ov
xoupsuai
Tifxac;
8iaTTiX[i.evYj
Tpu<p%.
9SU,
xav avoiXTtpfxwv
ti?
oixTipsiEv
TCTTjCTcrouaav ataûvjq vtv, ola (i.aivTat

av
7Tv0ou<ra xal
xXaiouaa ttjv TOxpoi; 96(3-/^. Three separate reasons, (1) the
absence of the #v required by Attic grammar (the more
I read, the more convinced I am that tragedy enjoys no
privilege in this respect), (2) the utter inappropriateness
|
of (3oux6Xwv (brrcopouxoXoi; and the like have no bearing

on a context such as this), and (3) the necessity (see the
second passage from Aelian quoted by Pearson) for some
mention of asses or of ass-keepers, lead me to substitute
auvapTcaa0U7' av ovoxoXcov (mo for <7uvap7raa0iaa ôuxoXcov

graphically the emendation is easy. Brunck pro(Sto
posed piavSpaicnv
the spelling obmpEis viv (I alter to
:
obmpEiEv (5cv) is recognised.

Fr. 660. Follow Bergk. See also my edition of the
Ichneutae (pp. 423, 424).
Fr. 661. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380:
this is one of the Frr., there mentioned, that do not bear
a plot upon their face).
Fr. 662. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380, as
in the case of Fr. 661).
Fr. 664. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380,
as in the case of Fr. 661).
66
Fr. 665.
(p. 380,
as in the case of Fr. 661).
428).
Fr. 667.
Unemended
of choric origin) tcoXXcov
suysvewv
text
8'
(a v.r. prefixes the sign
ev
7ioXu7cXy)6ia
toXstoci
out'
to Xtav xaxo<;' (3poT6>

Read (as part, but not the opening of,
Se 7rio*T6v ouSsv.
a chorus)
yovecov S' Ircl toXu y' aXaOeia ysvsTa;
out'
arc' suysvscov (70X6? out' dxpstwv
to Xtav xaxo?" (SpoTcov
I can unlike the general run of
Se maTov ouSsv.
editors see nothing on earth amiss, especially in a
sententious lyrical passage, with the to of to Xiav.
Blaydes proposed ppoTcov (but with Se tcicttov ouSevt
Jebb suggested it without alteration of 8e maxov ouSev).
See also my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380, as in the
case of Fr. 661).
Fr. 669. The statement of the Antiatticist shews
clearly that in his day a (false) doctrine existed to the
effect that -J^vsyxov (first person) was not first-rate Attic.
See also my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380, as in the
case of Fr. 661).
a7i'
ecr0X6c;
out'
axpstoov
Hybris.
I maintain that the Hybris is only the Tyro Cos under
see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp.
another name
378-431 (more particularly pp. 417-421). Since editing
the Ichneutae I have come to the conclusion that the title
"Y(3pi<;, probably not of early origin, does not mean Insolence, but has its late sense of " the Hybrid,''' thus being a
mere compendium of the title Tyro Cos (that the genitive
is "Tj^peto? Stobaeus, Flor. 26, 3 and the dative Tfjpet
Athenaeus, 657 a does not make against this view).
:
Unemended
Fr. 670.
Tsp-y)[AsvY]v
xoxpvjv avauSov.
text
xco<pv)v avauSov
dTCCTTep7)tiiv7jv
Ichneutae, pp. 417-421.
t6v
8eX9axa.
Read
XyjOtjv
Read
eaOfeiv
te ttjv
XyjGtjv
See
ts
my
ttocvt'
aazea-
tyj ttjv ttocvt'
edition of the
laOtav IGsXcov (v.r.lGeXo))

ei6'
sXwv tov ZzkôoC.
Ift-X
Pearson omits to mention the
Ichneutae (pp. 424-426).
67
See
v.r.
my
edition of the
Hydrophoroe.
I
have no remarks to
offer.
Phaeaces.
Presumably
this play
identical with the Nausicaa.
is
Phaedra.
Fr. 679. Probably P. Schroeder should be followed.
His auyyuvoaxa is bold
but Euripides ventured on
:
(TU(X7l0XlTY];.
Unemended
Fr. 680.
ouo av zlq
text
afox?)
V*v>
xai Zeu?
(3poT<ov uo0', a>
cpuyot.
&
yuvatxe<;,
ecpopfXYjaoi (v.r.
e9opjj.v)cr7;)
Read
xaxd
dapr/j^v',
voarou<;
&
dvdyx7] too<;
S'
yuvalxe^, ouS' av
0r)XdTou<; cpepeiv.
sl<;
cpuyoi
d(3p6x<ov
xaxd*
voaoot; 8' dvdyxy) toix;
The spelling <pop(i.7)cifl is recognised.
627)Xdxou!; (pspstv.
to o euruxoSvxa ( v r
7r60cov,
<xv
Zsu<;
EtpoppiTjCTT),
Read
Iva.
opyjc7i<;
dpi0[x9jcrai,
:
to
(3poTG>v
8'
euTUXtv) 7cdvT'
oux
scrxiv
o5to<;
euTuyôuvTa toxvt',
Svtiv'
dpi6[xrjcra<;
2?w<, as for
e'xaaxov ou tolov tlv' upr)ai<; Iva.
Ppoxcov
your man fortunate in all things, you may go through the
whole gamut of humanity and yet never light upon one such.
I
xotov tiv' is idiomatic for -rotov, so that the tiv'

eva do not interfere with each other.
and the

outw yuvaixo? ouSev av
[asôv xaxov
xax% dvyjp xT/jaaiT' av ouSe <ra>9povo<;
xpetaaov (v.r. [xsiôv xpetcraov)* 7ra0o>v 8' gxacrroi; &v voyj]
Read outco Yuvatx ? ou8ev av [aeiCov xaxov
Xsyet.
xaxvj? dvvjp xryjaaiT' av ou8s craxppovot;
xpstcrCTOv 7ca0cov 8'
Ixacrro; &v to^yj Xeyet,.
By the outcome of his own experience. I once thought of reading wv -rdr\jz^The substitution of an ordinary word for a much less ordinary
word might perhaps cause u (not the second element of
a diphthong) to appear by way of corruption.
ou yap tzot av yevoivT'
:
av da<paXet<; 7roXi<; (for ylvoivT av dacpaXsi;; toSXsk; there

are v.rr. yevowz dv dorcpaXTji; 7toXi<; : yevoiTo da<paXr)<; toXi?
:
yvoix'
av
do"9aXy];
7roXi<;),
lv
f)
xd
[jlev
Sixaia xal rd
F 2
68
Xdy87)v 7raxiTat, xoVuXo? 8' avyjp Xa(3cov

7ravoupya
yepoiv XEVTpa X7)8euei (for x po^ xevxpa xyjSeusl there is a
v.r. yzpalv pya XTjSeuoi) 7coXtv.
Read
ou yap tot* av
acocppova
yevoiaT' aacpaXst?
Xsco
Iv6',
t<x
[xsv
Sixata xal
t<x
a-
XaySvjv 7raToiTO, xcotiXo? S' avvjp Xa(3cov

7tavoupya
I give the v.r. in 1. 4 with
yetpotv xsvrpa xtqSeuoi toXiv.
cppova
Nauck and Pearson agree that all the

three collated mss. of Stobaeus (A, M, and S) present
They also agree that for yzpolv
Xepoiv xevrpa xyjSeusi.
xsvxpa a scholiast on Lucian substitutes ytP a w epya.
According to Pearson this scholiast also substitutes
but on this point Nauck is silent.
xtjSsuoi. for xTjSsuet,
"
Pearson's words are these " xyjSeuoi schol. Luc. EVOQ
(without any stop after EVOQ). I conjecture with great
doubt Nauck throws no light on the matter that by
EVOQ Pearson intends to convey that those letters occur
in the text of the scholiast after the word xyjSeuot, or,
perhaps, after the word ttoXiv. If so, I suppose that
they must signify Eucpopicov. They are not printed in a
type that makes it possible to take them as names of four
codices of Lucian or the Lucianic scholia (of the names
of such codices I avow myself completely ignorant, and
I have no books on the subject available for consultation).
In Pearson's Addenda et Corrigenda there is no
entry bearing on the difficulty.
spco<; yap avSpa? ou [jlovou?
ûâ?
e7iep)(Tat
ouo a5 yuvaixa?, dXXa xal Ostov avco
yjxpoiGGei (v.r. TapaacjEt.) xdacl tovtov (for xdrcl tovtov there
some hesitancy.
is
xamTcovTcov) epyexoni'
v.r.
7cayxpaT/j<; arOevsi
Read
epcot;
yuvaixa<;,
yap
aXXa xal
Zsu<;,
xal tovo austpysiv ouS' 6
a XX* utcixei xal 0eXcov eyxXivsxai.
av8pa<;
ou
Oscov avco
fxovou<;
|
7rep%Tat
Ja>x<*? dpdcraet.
xdarl
ouo"
a$
touvSov
xal tovo d7iipyt,v ouo" 6 7rayxpaTY)<; ctGevei

Zsu<;,
For xa.nl to8v8ov
dXX' u7ttxi xal 0sXcov lyxXtvTat.
sp/erai compare such expressions as Irrl to iayoaov eX0iv
(Thucydides, iv. 92). The xal OeXcov of the mss. is at
least as suitable though either would make good sense
as Herwerden's xou 6eXcov, and therefore it should be
Musgrave's xal ysXcov is certainly elegant,
let stand
but with the oriental elegance of a Heine. The Fr. is
preserved by Stobaeus and by Clement of Alexandria
The former (his three collated mss. concur in this) attrifyjevaa.'
in-X
69
butes it to Sophocles' Phaedra, the latter to Euripides

(play unnamed). Stobaeus is the better authority.
Fr. 687. An intrusion from Salonica (or, less probably, from Cordoba or Salamanca) of Spanish into the
text of Hesychius has escaped editors. The text at
present runs xuXalvcov xdxco. Zo<poxX9j<; OaiSpa. xd coxa
:
xaxa(3aXcov, oarep
ol
xtxuOXdvvcov xal to.
ttoioucuv.
<joavovre<;
The Sophoclean
eoxat.
line
E7roupavco-
was emended
by Hemsterhuis into scraivsv oupdv coxa xuXXalvcov xdxco,

then by Brunck into eaouvev oupa Twxa xuXXalvcov xaxco,
and afterwards by Blaydes into eaaive \x oupa xcoxa
finally E. Hiller presented it, I think
xuXXalvcov xaxco
rightly, as eaoavev oupa [i cots xuXXatvcov xaxco.
Other
emendations are recorded in Pearson's note (Pearson
himself follows Hiller, except that instead of toxe, he
reads coxa, a suggestion, apparently, of Jebb's). In the
text of Hesychius proper xuXalvcov is, by general consent,
:
changed to
xuXXalvcov.
read 6rcp (or
Also, for a7rsp
ol
cralvovx<; toi-
Dindorf proposed orap,

Nauck fpzep) ol traivovxe<; xuve? (Hemsterhuis inserted
One ought, however, to read a Ttsppot.
xuvs^) tohouchv.
craivovxe^ tououcuv, as dogs do when they faivn.
With the
rappot. (the Spanish perros) here compare the notorious
Xoxoupyj, apparently, as is recognised, a depravation of
the Spanish locura (madness), in the text of the Orphic
ouctiv,
is
^7rep
Hymns.
Fr. 688. The Etymologicum Magnum, under the
heading deXXa, gives, inter alia xal aeXXai [v.r. deXXdSe?)
In view of the heading,
<pcovat, Trapa 2o<poxXst lv OalSpa.
deXXa, I am inclined to prefer deXXat. to deXXd8e<; (which
latter may be nothing better than an emendation), and
to take the meaning to be that in the Phaedra Sophocles
uses dsXXai in the sense of <pcoval. If so, the Fr. should
be read simply as deXXat, not as deXXat cpcovat nor as
deXXaSs^ ocoval. But the data are inadequate for any:
thing like certainty.
Phthiotides.
Fr. 696.
7raxpoxx6vo<;
means
killing
a father,
roxxpo-
xxovo? killed by a father.

In 7raxpoxxovo<; Six?) the
adjective has neither signification, but is a poetical equivalent of 7repl 7raxpoxxovta<;. As, however, 7raxpoxxovta is
70
active, the paroxytone accent appears though Ellendt

and Blaydes thought otherwise to be correct. But
there are other, and dissimilar, poetical uses of adjectives,
themselves similar, which uses it does not seem possible
to deal with thus summarily. Pearson elsewhere refers,

dealing with this topic, to the Sanscrit rules of accentuaI imagine myself that Sanscrit grammarians at
tion.
Alexandria are extremely likely to have imported some
at least of those rules into the Greek tradition
in the
case of artificial usages, such as those in question, there
is not much probability of the tragedians' own pronunciation having accurately been preserved on record.
The Alexandrian system of writing accents is clearly
based on the Sanscrit system, and the order of the cases
of nouns is the Sanscrit order.
:
Philoctetes Trojae.
6o-|i% |i.ou orcox; (for fj,ou
ottox; there is a v.r. [xovov <o<;) [xy) (3apuv8y)<7sa0e fxou,
:
Read
of
tz&c,
oct^xyj?
p]
Fr. 700.
Fr. 701.
Phineus,
drfxou
7ico<;
is strictly
I.
See
See
and
\xr\
(3apuv6y]<7(70' e[xou
The
{xyj
regular.
my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 6).

my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 6).
II.

386).

Fr. 711. Pollux expressly attributes the use of
(a) the xwjxwSoxowr/jXetov to two separate authorities
SiSaaxaXot, and (&) to xoojACpSoufJievov sv 2ocpoxXeou<; Oivst.
This, in view of the almost inevitable meaning of the
words to xco[xwSoij[Xvov ev SoipoxXeou? Otvst, leads me to
conclude that Sophocles himself, not a parodist, wrote
xa7ry)Xsiou Gupat, (see the discussion in Pearson's note).
You may draw what inference you like as to the nature
of one of the two Sophoclean plays called Phineus
I cannot imagine that it was an ordinary tragedy.
:
IQ
71
Phoenix.
See
my
Phrixus.

opta xeXsuGou tyjcSs yyj<;
Read 6pta xeXsuOa tyjctSc yrj<; 7cpoaaTia<;. The
7rpoaaTia<;.
paths that border on this suburban tract.
Fr. 722. I am, though very doubtfully, inclined to
follow Tucker.
:
Phryges.
Fr. 725. There is, I think, no lacuna. If there be
no lacuna, then the second syllable of avujjtsvaiouvre^ is
scanned long the scansion of ujayjv makes this, to my
mind, a clear possibility.
:
Chryses.
I am, on the whole, of Hartung's opinion, that this
play and the Aechmalotides are identical.
Fr. 729. Unemended text of Apollonius (Zex. Horn.):
Tot? yap twv Tpix&v ptâ? tovGou? Xeyet, ZocpoxXyj? ev XpiJay)-
Unemended
text of Heyap tov0o? pia

Read the Sophoclean Fr. thus ey<5)
U7tspex6)v.
8' iovOcov eiov0io> Tpi/a?.
The rest of the passage from
Apollonius is sound. Read Hesychius thus eiov0to>
syw
fjiav
sychius
Tpt^wv r\
\xlv eiov6i<o xptxa<;.
siov8ico Tpfya*
exStSwfxi.
ectti
ecru yap iov0o? pta Tpix&v, ^7rep l-/Zvoq.

spelling eiov0ico is recognised.
Tp(x<x<;* exSiSco(j.i.
The
Fr. 730.
just above,
imagine that Hartung's view is right (see

also under the heading Aechmalotides).
and
72
PAPER
III
Other Fragments
Incertae Fabulae.
Fr. 731. The lambe
of Sophocles must surely be

or quasi satyricum appurtenant to the
trilogy of which the Triptolemus formed part.
Fr. 732. Follow Dindorf
cf. Fr. 470.
Fr. 733. I cannot reject the evidence of the scholiast
on Aristides. He twice attributes to Sophocles on one
of the two occasions, more particularly, to Sophocles
a line which he each time quotes as follows
ev Ot8t7ro8',
Various authori7rpaavxo<; extcoSwv 91X01.
xaxoi:;
91X00
the satyricum
a highly similar, but not identical, line, viz.

Tzponaaovxoc, (a variant is 7rp<XTT0VT0<;) ex7ro8o>v
But once only is this latter line assigned to any
96X01.
source a scholium on Euripides' Phoenissae (1. 402) ascribing it to the Philoctetes, by which term the Philoctetes
of Euripides is, in the circumstances, presumably intended. I take it that the two lines are really distinct,
and indeed Aristides' own language (which Pearson
gives) seems to me to point in that direction. If so,
the scholiast on Aristides must by sv OiSitcoSi mean in
the Oedipus tetralogy, and the Fr. must come from the
Cnops (see my remarks under the heading of that play).
Positive testimony is usually of some importance. The
Aristidean tradition in particular, like though in less
degree that of Erotian, demands serious attention, as
presenting elements outside the range of that more
general tradition which alone is seen in the works of
Between Erotian and Aristides
late writers at large.
I would myself, in this respect, place Themistius.
Fr. 735. Unemended text to npbc, (3tav 7uvt,v Caov
xaxov Tc&poxe tco Su^vjv (3a. Read to Ttpo? (Siav raelv
feov xaxov 7re9ux tw 8197JV (3ia.
Ichneutae (p. 358), in which book I suggest (see pp. 353377) that it comes from an Eridion Agyrticum.
ties cite
avSpo^ xaxtoi;
:
OTHER FRAGMENTS
my
Consult
Fr. 736.
73
edition of the Ichneutae (pp.
which book I suggest (see pp. 353-377) that

comes from an Eridion Agyrticum.
358, 360), in
it

xavrauOa (a v.r. omits
xavrauGa) 7ra<; 7rpoo-xuvi 8e t6v axpecpovTa yjXiou xuxXov (for
Read xaviauyjXiou xuxXov there is a v.r. xuxXov rjXiou).
The
cioic, 7tupou;
xuv' eISs tov arpe90VTa y' yjXtou xuxXov.
y' compensates, I think, for the not strictly normal
position of tov (as regards its relation to eviaucrtott; Trupou;)
in tragedy, at least, deviations from accustomed order
are sometimes corrected, as it were, by ys. The reference
is obviously to the Herodotean reason for the variation
in the sun's course.
Fr. 752. Unemended text (of the author of De Arati
Interpretations)
ol 8s Aia tov tjXiov voyjaavTE? Xeyoucnv
6ti xai Zo<poxX9j<; Aicc tov yjXiov xaXsi, Xsytov
yjeXioio
:
XTStpeis Ifxs,
Read
oocpol Xeyouat ysvvTjT/jv 0<ov
"HXt', oixTtpou;
te 0sc5v,
[xs.
toxtyjp, arcavTcov.
TOXTSpa toxvtcov.
az Aia Xsyoucri ysvvyjTYjv

M. Schmidt proposed 'HeXux;
0*0901
otxTEtpotc,
then Bergk
"HXt' oixTsipou;,
and
Nauck
finally
"HXi', otxTtpot?.
Fr. 753. Unrestored and unemended text of the

papyrus (from Herculaneum) of Philodemus' De Poematibus (whether the original presents any spaces, stops, or
diacritical marks I do not know)
xaXcoersxsiv/jxaxooo-rov:
7)Xov7rotvxaXcocy[Xv[. .]7rapaao<poxXipapuCT[3apucruvo'.xo[. -]sv-
oi(3a[.]u<Tou8iaT7]v[. .]v0SCTt.V<OCmVEa[
voixoo"tovoi(3apuo"[3apui;.
]t<oi[.
Goettling reads
xaXw?
|o"e-
eysiv
9}
xaxa><; tov 3jx ov teosiv xaXco? fiiv oic 7rapa 2o<poxXt (3apu<;
(Sapu; ctuvoixoc;, <;

t6v 9Jx 0V ôeiv xaXco? (jlev on; 7rapa 2o90xXsi (3apu<; (3apu<;
ctuvoixoc;, & svoi, (3apuc, ou Sia tyjv cuvOeotv, &? Tive? (potoiv,
& evoi, (3apu<; (3apu<; (continuing

the Sophoclean Fr. is cited, more or
less fully, in three other places, viz. (a) by Apollonius
(De Synt.), in the form papu? (fopu? auvoixo? (m7
amplius), (b) by Phoebammon, in the same form fiapfx;
papu; auvoixo? (nil amplius), and (c) by John the Siceliot
in the form papu? auvotxo?, & 91X01, papuc. As the Jnp/e
papu? is highly surprising in itself, and as none of
ev Se
t&
t7rp
xtX.).
(Sapix;
uvoixo?,
Now
74
these three authorities though all three are discussing

repetitions or the like hint at its existence, I conclude
that a third (3<xpu<; has been interpolated into the first
of the two versions of the line text of Philodemus for the
mere purpose of completing a senarius. This conclusion
enables us to understand Hausrath's ouvOscnv [collocation)
which Goettling's iTcevOsatv (insertion) being almost
patently impossible is apparently the right reading,
whereas, given a triple (SapiS?, each of the two Philodemian versions of the line exhibits ctuvOsck; equally.
Read xaXco? iyzi (it is possible) 75 xaxoo<; tov 3jx v ô t v
'
xoCk&c, [Lev,
ou 81a
ty)v
oi<;
7rapa SotpoxXei*
ftctpbc,
auvOscriv, &c, Tive^, tyjv
ctuvoixck;,
(3'
&
svot, (tapu^
Ssurepou) (3apui;
I gather then
(i.e.
^voixo?, & evot, (3apu<; (tapiS?.

that Sophocles wrote (I take uvot,xo<;, instead of ouvoixo?,
from the evoixo<; of the second version in the text of
Philodemus, though auvoixo<; must stand behind the first
version
it is also preferred by editors)
(3apij<; ûvotxo?,
& voi, (3apu<;. This is sufficiently confirmed by John the
Siceliot. Two other readings were iSvotxo?, d> evot, (3api^
papu? (see Philodemus), and papij? [3apu; cnjvoixo?, <o 6voi
(see Apollonius and Phoebammon).
ify. 765.
I dispute the probability of Athenaeus,
if his reference be to a passage in a dramatic chorus
of Sophocles, not identifying the chorus by the use of
tco (tap^*
language less vague than ev tivi crraaipup (crTa(7t(x<o is

Casaubon's correction of CTT<xcri(i.to<;). I therefore incline
to understand cv nvt crTaaifAcp as roughly equivalent to
" in one of the Paeans." This leaves the question of
dialect (<ptXy) yap f\) open. We know so little about
the Paeans of Sophocles that it is impossible for us to
deny the possibility of Theoris having been mentioned
by name in one of them. Alcman did not scruple to
mention female names freely. I am thus very far from
being convinced that Athenaeus absurdly misinterpreted
a descriptive substantive, 6ea>pt<;, as the proper name,
It is not incredible that Sophocles wrote cptXY)
06>pi<;.
yap Y) @topi<;> or that by scopi? he meant his mistress
As regards morals, some people will
of that name.
as regards positive
strain at a gnat and swallow a camel
testimony, there is a strong tendency on the part of
modern critics to disregard it unduly.
:
OTHER FRAGMENTS
Unemended
Fr. 766.
text
6u(xw
75
8'
<pou8pa
outi?
Read 6i>(x<o 8' itnrt\c, <pai8pa

/opeuei
Tapôix;
The u, in a diphthong, of o(m<;
Tap(3ou? Ouya-nqp.
Xopeuei,
does not make against that word being a corruption of
6oyaT7]p.
l0Tf\C,.
my
See
Fr. 768.
on
edition of the Ichneutae (footnote
p. 312).
Fr. 770.
Unemended text npoq 8' olov rfeic 8atfW

vr
6? ouxe Tou7ueixe<; oure tyjv x**P tv
f)& a (
oISs), [xovov (v.r. (jlovyjv) 8' eaTspys (for 8' eaxepye there is
Read 7tpoc; toiov
a v.r. 8s arpoa) tyjv <x7tXco<; Sfoajv.
"Eporra,
<*><;
"Epw
oute TOU7cttxe<;
^8<o<;, (xovot; 8' eVrepê rqv datXco<; Sbajv.
outs tt]v x^P^
For the genitive "Epco see the discussion of the declension of ysXoic, in my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 83-85.
variation between fjSsi and oI8e indicates, at least by
way of presumption, that neither is original. eaTepê is
yjs 2
si?
8oafJt.ov\
'ax*
<5cTep,
on;
accepted.
Fr. 772.
attempt at restoration more than
Is the
Pearson, at any rate, shows no reason

at all for supposing that mxivvtv stood in the unmutilated
text (of Demetrius Lacon).
Unemended text 0yjpa<; Xyei<; jxoi to?
Fr. 773.
mere guess-work
7ruAa<; eTCTaar6[xou?,
oft
8?) jaovov tixtouctiv at OvrjTal 0eou<;.
Read
jx6vov
TixToumv al OvTjxal
Qrifac,
Xyei<;,
\iiy'
<5cctu,
to? e7tTaoT6(xou<;,
oft
8r]
0sou<;.

i^r. 777.
Follow Dindorf
Ichneutae, p. 219.
Fr. 779. I incline to take both the Etymologicum
Magnum and Hesychius as meaning that Briacchus
(feminine) is a name of a daughter of Briareus (the only
daughter in legend appears to be Aetne). The setting
suggests a Paean.
Fr. 780. Adopt Pearson's suggested reap'.
Fr. 781.
emend ? What ails <^ ^ >t6 8' ey/os
:
Why
ev
xuXivSstou ?
Fr. 782. Follow Sylberg.
7toctI
^6pw (v.rr. pipco and jj.upco) Xsuyamoreover a second v.r., viz. XsoyocXea,
may be deduced from Photius' XsuyaXsa* 8ux(3poxo<;.
In view of the evidence of the more
outco 2o<poxX%).
or less late identification in meaning of XeuyaXeog and
Fr. 785.
Mss. text
Xscp {v.r. XeuyaXscov
76
suspect, in spite of the discovery of the excellently accredited reading |i.6p<p, that Nauck is right in
uypo<;> I
accepting [xuptp XsuyaXea. Had not Sophocles just a trifle

of a weakness for whimsies of this sort ?
Fr. 790. Is it certain that the words in Eustathius
ou7cw
xpwfxsvov stand in need of emendation ?
Fr. 793. Follow Dindorf in 1. 1 and R. Ellis in 1. 3.
Fr. 799b. See under the heading of Fr. 57.
Fr. 805. In the text of John the Siceliot Jannaracis'
It
[KOfAstTou (for fxifxeErou) should, I think, be adopted.
looks as though the reference were to Sophocles' De
Choro. See my edition of the Ichneulae, pp. 305-312,
and, in particular, pp. 311, 31.2.
6xt yap yuau; avept, 8cp,
to 8' ou7tot' av e^fkoiq. Read
8 Tt, yap <pocrt.<; avept, Soiyj,
too ou7tot av s5,eXoic;.
Fr. 827. Unemended text (of Photius)
a7ravTY)tft.<;'
.
&q
sv
Tyj
eyto 8'
auv7)6sia 9afAev, Eoqx)xX9j<;.
a7cavT7)aiv
ei<;
The meaning is " aTOxvTTjcrt?

this word is used by Sophocles as we use it ourselves in
the vernacular. But the same author also uses it in
another sense in the expression syw
orcuScov." The
later vernacular employed doravTyjai? as meaning conversa6
tivo? crTTSoSoiv.
ai>TO<;.
tion, talk, not with its classical signification of encounter.

Consequently Photius' quotation from Sophocles is not
made by way of illustration of his preceding remark.
Before the quotation another, and illustrative, quotation
may have dropped out but it is possible, though, perhaps,
less likely, that Photius abstained from illustration in
the case of a usage so familiar as that of the vernacular.
The words actually given become tragic enough with
the minutest possible change. Read eyw 8' zlc, a7ravT7)crtv
The metre before lyw may have been
iivoc,
entsuScov;
that which would result in the case {e.g.) of the combination oux olaOa au y', eyw 8', or, on the other hand,
lyw may have suffered prodelision, as {e.g.) in the com:
bination oux o!o-6a Syj, 'ya> 8'.

tcov, ot TauTa 8sp^8evTe<; tsXt)
yap [aovok; sxsl 9jv sera, toic,
<o<;
Tpicr6X(3iot.
8'
xeivoi, f3po-
"AtSou* toio~8s
aXXourt tcixvt' exst xaxa.
fxoXtoff'
he,
Read
tsXy)
&$
rpiao'kfiioi
(xoXcoct'
|
xslvoi (3poTo5v, ot
he "Ai8ou"
tout8e yap
TauV av
(jlovoi?
exsl
epyfiivztt;
vjv
eon,
OTHER FRAGMENTS
77
As regards dv ipyQivrec,
'x eiv *axd.
maintain, necessarily required), I conjecture
that the mysteries in question are those of Cotytto,
whose priests were known as pdbcTai for peêtv in the
sense of $a.mzw see the entries etc. cited in Liddell and
Tot?
8'
dXXoicn 7rdvr'
(the av
is,
Scott.
Unemended
Fr. 841.
Virt.)
text of Plutarch {De Prof, in
otco 8' spcoxo? 89jyfxa toxiSixcov 7rpoa7Jv [v.r. 7rp6aGTi),
\iirpioq
av
(xev
aot,
xal 7rpao^ ev
<pavety)
7capivai
tco
xal
orav 8' a7rocr7taa6fl xtX. Unemended text

of Plutarch (Qu. Conv.)
ou fxovov oaoi? epcoxo? S^ypia
au[xcpiXocro<peZv
dXXd xal tou? e7cl yuvai^l xal

From the latter passage
it is clear that in the former the quotation is from
Sophocles. It is also clear that there Plutarch must
have written the quotation in the form
6t<o 8' e'pooTcx;
(the
established
correction
Valckenaer
toxioixov
ov)Y[j.a
proposes, repugnanle ductu literarum, toxioixou) 7ipoafj (the
Aldine reading). But dv is, I confidently maintain, required, and toxiSixov is consequently corrupt. This very
word toxiSixov is stylistically awkward (Valckenaer's
unacceptable 7ratotxou would not be), and points, I con-
7ip6acmv,
tou?
7rl
<&<;
97)01 2090XX7)?,
7cap0voi<;
8axvo(jtvou<;.
sider, to
an
dv di8iov
TipoCT^.
original av di8iov.
Compare
Read
5tco 8' epcoTo? Sr/v]*'
"Aeternurn servat sub pectore
In Sophocles dtSiov is no more difficult than

the second passage of Plutarch puts it beyond
doubt if, apart from it, any doubt is possible that
Plutarch himself really read uaioixov and that the corruption is not subsequent to his time. But it is precisely
in the second passage of Plutarch that the word toxiSixov
(or its equivalent) has, though the sense to be conveyed
by it is essential to the intelligibility of the context,
disappeared without trace or compensation, leaving the
sentence meaningless. Wyttenbach inserts toxiSixou (in
this place the genitive, though even here I should prefer
touSixov, may be correct) between STJyjxa and 7cp6ceorTiv.
But the bare fact of the loss of the adjective may well
be an indication that the copyists did not recognise it as
Sophoclean I can hardly imagine that even in Plutarch's
time schoolmasters and the like can have at all generally
acquiesced in the corrupt tradition that foisted filthiness
vulnus."
at.
Now
into texts originally clean.
:.
78
Fr. 844. Text of the

5(stpcova Xsa)?,
spydmv 0e6v
first
portion
ot xyjv At6<; yopyoi)7ttv
spydxtv Gsov) axaxot?
pax
el?
686v
St; tzolq
'Epydviqv ( v.rr pya7T/)v

.
Xtxvotat 7rpocrxp7raf0
there is a v.r. crrdxotat

Text of a prose adaptation of the
(for crxaxots Xtxvotat 7rpoo-xp7Ta0
Xtxvot? 7cpoxp7Tar0).
second portion
u7raxouou(7av
ment
of
selective)
ot uap' dxjxovt xuro&St (3apta xat 7rX7)yat<;
{JXyjv aij>uôv 8t) fxtoupyou vxec.
the text
(3ax'
st<;
is,
686v
8yJ,
tzolc,
At6<; yopytorav 'Epydvrjv axaxot<;
uap'
axfxovt
x^P& va
T. Gataker
to couple the passages, reading, after
x P^ v -
words xat 7iap' <5exfxovt

treatment no further.
adopted by me is that
treat-
xu7rd8t (Sapsta,
Xew?,
ot xy;v
Xtxvotat Tcpocrrp7rcj0, xyjv
7rX/)y[Aaatv 0' utoqxoov
xurcdSt (3apta
uXyjv Syj{xt.oupyouvx<;
Read (my
except for punctuation, merely
first
at];uôv
endeavoured
7tpoarxpe7rca0s, the
but carrying his
The text, after 7rpoo-xps7rsa0,

Hermann, with the sole exHermann's xat xotcok;, I accept
of
ception that, in lieu of

Blaydes' TCX/jypxatv 0'
353-377,
in
particular
and
pp. 373, 374), in which
(pp.
I suggest that the Fr. belongs to a Sophoclean Eridion
Agyrticum.
Fr. 848. Here (1. 1), as in Fr. 349 (see my remarks
thereon), the spelling of cypaSdCstv (as until lately it used
to be printed) comes in question. The mss. give crcpa8d.
Zîc,
read
acpaSatÊt?.
Unemended
Fr. 852.
<xt 8'
text of Plutarch (De Curios.)
aotScov (v.r. dcEtScov) [iouvoq sv axsyat?
xooxox6<;
(xat<;
xot? 7roXu7rpdy[j.oo-t fxouera xat astpyjv (xta.

text of Plutarch (De Cohib. Ir.)
dst 8'
i(jLTC7rxa>xv, ocuxy]
Unemended
aotSwv [xouvo? ev axsyat? opytXou dv8p6? xoxuxo?

Read the first passage thus dcst 8' dotS&v
:
s|iji:s7rxa>xs
(jtouva?
ev
axsyatc; efxat? xcoxuxix; E(jL7cs7rx(oxev, aux/) xot? TroXuTcpdyfAoat

(xouo-a
dst
8'
xat astpvjv
dotSwv
Read the
(i.7TTcxcox.
(jtouva? sv
(xta.
Read the second passage thus
(xouva? ev
axsyatc; i[icuc,
poetical Fr. thus

|
axsyat? opytXou dv8p6<; xcoxuxtj?

:
dst 8' dot,8<ov
xcoxuxu? sfjt7ES7cxoi>xsv, auxvj fxouaa

I am right or wrong in reading
Whether
xat astpyjv [xta.
auxv) for auxyj and in incorporating the
word in the Fr.,

the feminine [xouo-a xat crsipTjv |iia seems to make the
masculine xwxuxo? inelegant to the very verge of impossibility
xcoxuxu?, a quite regular formation from
xtoxustv, is the nearest feminine substitute. I take dotScov
:
OTHER FRAGMENTS
79
The tetrametrical iambic

(xouvas as alone of songstresses.
of the second line (I suppose the first line to be
rhythm
the same rhythm) appears to be indicated by the

words preserved, which cannot, so far as I can see, be
of
This
otherwise, except with violence, made to scan.
(if it be the right rhythm), combined with the
(xouv- of (j.ouvo<; or [xouvd*;, points, though not conclusively,
to a Sophoclean source, and, by itself, conclusively, to
a Satyric source.
ppa&eia fxev ydp ev Xoyowrt
[loXic,
oY wto? epyz-KU Tpu7rcouivou- 7coppco 8e
7rpoa(3oXr)
Read (3pa8eta (xev yap
Xeuaatov, eyyuGsv 8e to? TixpXo?.
ev "kofiolc, y) npoaftokr\
fxoXu; oY <ot6<; epxexai TpoTroojj^vou"
.For, retarded
7rp6(T6) 8e Xeuaacov, eyyu? etfx', & toxi, TixpXoc.
in the lobes, the iron-point will only just and scarcely go
through the ear when it is being bored : though far off I see,
at hand, my child, I am blind. The reference is obviously
to the popular belief (now discredited, rightly or wrongly,
by the faculty), that to bore the ears improves the eyesight, but with an addition otherwise unknown to
that difficulty experienced in the operation presages an
unsuccessful result. Dindorf emended 7roppci> to 7tp6a<o.
For 7rpo<rpoXy), the metal point of a puncturing implement, see Dion Cassius (xxxviii. 49) and Phrynichus
(in Bekkei^s Anecdota, 58).
Fr. 859. No emendation whatever is necessary.
Fr. 860. Unemended text of Plutarch
tou o<po-
rhythm
me
xXeou<;
em
tcov, 8ti
vuv, ou
cpxxj'koic,
d7ta.
Text
(x>)
Tcpoxspov ^v, d7ttaToufievcov, ei yeyove
yew) tou 7rp<oTOV 9jX0ev

irev/j<;
ISoê Xeyeiv
touto t6 tafx^stov obravra TaSoxyjTa 7ipcoTov 9jX0' SckoL'
The Sophoclean line should,
Oyjaaupov eftpe xal hz\o\jTT\az.
I suggest, be restored thus
aTOxvTa y' aievvTjxa Trporrovy]'
This is, to
mind, the form of words indicated
d-rcai;.
by the ductus in Plutarch (the student of corruption would
do well to be on his guard against forced meanings of
spxoâ!,), and it makes excellent sense if we take as
I conceive we ought to take aievv/jxa as looking forwards only, not backwards [from everlasting is not dei,
eforovro?*
of
<x7ravra 10.
Artemidorus
dvyjp
my
but da tote). Also I incline on the whole to suppose

that Plutarch himself presented the line thus
it accords
sufficiently closely with the rest of his language, and
:
80
may
well be a subsequent corruption of his

do not doubt but that Artemidorus actually
wrote TaSoxTjxa 7rp6)Tov vjXO' the TaSoxvjra and the 7rpwTov
tjX0' hang, in a way, together.
7cp(oxov 9)X6'
Yet
text.
Fr. 861.
SocpoxXeou?
Unemended
accentuation, which
text (of Plutarch)
xaOcbrep
do not understand this

printed without comment both by
973 al (I
'Oo\>aas6<;
is
Nauck and by Pearson)
Seiprjva?
sicra9ixa0ai,
6pxoo
Read
dOpouvTO?) too? "AtSou vofxou?.
xaOdbrep So90xXsou<; 'OSuctcteu? 97)01 SsipTJva? eioîxeaOai,
Oopxou xopa Opoouvxs too? "AtSou vofiou?. Lobeck restored
xopa? aiOpoovro?
{v.r.
Plutarch's quotation proper is confined to the

consequently the plural
senarius beginning with Oopxou
is
not
to
be
emended.
Sophocles, I suggest,
SstpTJva?
wrote Lsipvjvs o iaa9tx6[j!.7)v, Oopxou xopa OpoouvTS too*;
"A1S00 v6[xou?. Lobeck read EstpTjva? iaa9t,x6(jL7)v Oopxou xopa? GpooovTS too? "A1S00 vofxoo?.
Fr. 866. Follow Stephanus (that is to say, read
oixertv for oixsttjv), but do not disturb the order of the
words. The metre is that of comic senarii. See my
edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 353-377, and in particular,
pp. 360, 361 ), where I suggest that the passage comes from
OpoouvTc.
a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum.

so"
yap xal oôcrraTcov
Xoyo? auyxoXXaV appotv he, [jtiaov (for d(A90iv e? (iicov
there is a v.r. he, jjioov (jupotv) TexTaiveTai. Nauck states
categorically that the two readings are dôtv he, fxeo-ov
and he, [iio-ov djj/potv Pearson however uses language
which, if taken either strictly or as a chance reader would
understand it, conveys that the variation is between
api/potv per se and he, [iicrov aôiv. although I am persuaded
that he does not mean this, and that we have here an
instance of a fault of system mentioned by me elsewhere.
Read so" yap xai SiôaTotTatv Xoyo? croyxoXX' caz aôtv
For even in the case of two gainsay ers
he, [iiaov TSXTaiveTat..
reason can fashion aright into a mean, so that they cohere,
statements taken from both of them. The oaz of dot' dfi/poiv
is balanced by the he, of he, (jticrov.
:
Fr. 871.
Unemended
text
dXX'
Tpo^w xuxXeiTai xal
ev tcuxvw 0soo
oufxo?
aisl
jxeTaXXdaaet,
7tot[xo?
9601V
|
crajvat, 86vaiT* dv
891? eu9p6vau; 860
dXX' e dS^Xou Ttp&TOv sp/STai vea
oftnox* ev (xop9?j [xta,
&antp
aeXrjvT)?
8'
OTHER FRAGMENTS
xal
xaXXuvoutra
7rpoCTO)7ra
81
y&TCtvmp
7cX7]pou[AevY),
ai>T%
zuizpznzGia.Tr]) 9avyj,
(v.r.
euyevsCTTiXTY)
Read
(v.r. xei? to) fXTjSev zpyzzca.
0eou
ev TOJXvw
aXX'
xam
TtaXtv Siappet
oufx6<; aiel tz6t[ioc,
Tpo^tp xoxXeirat. xal [iexaXXaaaei. cpuaiv*
wo-Tisp csXy)vyj<; o^tc; eucppova
'<;
8uo
cra)vat, Suvaix'
av
o^tuot'
7rp6cr(xta,
aXX' e aSifjXou 7tpcoTov spheral vea
y&xcvmzp au-c7j<; eu7tpexaXXuvoutra xal 7rX7]pou(jtiv7),
uaXtv Stappei xa7r' aSrjXov epêxat. In
pav^,
7rs(TTaT7)
ev [xop97J
<07ra
Brunck proposed eucppova?

3, Gomperz omitted 8'
and Dindorf eucpp6va, but ei>9p6vat<; is, I suggest, a mis-
1.
writing of ei9p6va el;. In 1. 8 the (jnrjSev of xam [XYjSev

even
of course, not Greek, not even late Greek
Plutarch boggled at it, presenting once the perfectly
grammatical (but, as parent of the corruption, hopeBut good scholars will
lessly impossible) yjdc, to (xyjSev.
apparently swallow any rubbish, if only a copyist has
happened to scribble it. koltz <5c8tjXov should be read,
referring back to the e aS-yjXou of 1. 5.
Cf. " From the
great deep to the great deep he goes." An identical
correction must be effected in Sophocles' Electra,
1. 1000.
xal tocv veopyov (v.r.
is,
Gupaiov a.yL<pi
xal xav veoprov, Sec,
veoupyov) acrex' &rroXo<; ^txcbv
Read
gztm, 'Ep(xt6vav.
yix&v
eS
cpaiov
(xtjoov
a[i.cpl
Valckenaer proposed
veopxov,
Unemended text Ico? fire

Read vetocm xpiOcoo-/]? 8vou.
Fr. 876.
cty)<;
ovou.
(v.r. 6tou) xptOco-
Divide thus
^suyXyjXaTpi?.
7ro7nruCeTat.
|
racXaiol exaXouv, r)8ov9j<;
89ev xal ocpoxX9j<; oux dvotxsicoc hz\
(3o[A(3eE
(5cXXt)
Se vexptov
there
line thus
'Epjjuovav.
It'.
Unemended text (of Porphyry)
tStax; (xeXicaa? ol
Ttxa<;,
acrroXo?
Fr. 878.
Fr. 879.
a.c,
zx'
TtTUCTcrexai.,
Auratus &;
7ttuct-
fxyjpov
is
G|i.9jvo<;
zpyzxtxi
v.r. epêx'
avto).
8e vexpeov
f3o[A(3ei
I propose epyarat yavcov largely
:
x'
xaZq tywyaZs,
epyaa-
oftera?
twv tyuy&v
#XXy) (for
97]
Ipêrai t'
Read the Sophoclean

ct[ay]vo<;,
epyarai.
yavcov.
on the strength of Porphyry's y)8ovt]<; ouo-a; epyatmxdc. For the construction

compare Fr. 762. For Ipydxat, in this context compare
Aristotle, H.A. ix. 40, 50.
Fr. 887.
Zeuc;
Unemended
text
Zzuc, voorov ayoi t6v (for
t6v there is a v.r. Zeu avoro? ayoiro)
Read
racuaaviav xal 'AxpeiSav.
Zeu,
:
vocttov ayot
vixo(xa/av
xal
82
ayoCTTOv ayolc, tov
viy.6\x<x.ypv
xal 7caucravtav
xoct'
Nauck proposed vtxojxaxov and Bentley x<x.z\

Fr. 894. Unemended text opy/j yspovTo?
:
Oax
xotci?
/)
ev
yspovTO? coots
opy/j
Ta^st
xl P^ ftqyei ev
8'
coots
x2
[xaX-
Read
a[x[3XovsTai.
sv
xotoc"
(i.aX0ax7)
'ArpeiSaiv.
^TPQ
t' V
CTxaxut 8' d[x^XuvTai.
901. This Fr. is perhaps from the Ichneutae

see
edition of that play (pp. 506, 507, 565).
sv Toiotv Itztzoic, toictiv
Read
tSiov et x co P^ JLev ^ âvrl aSsvsi
IxXeXsifAptivoic;
jFV.
my
ouv
svtot
fxsv,
7]
jPr.
Read
frnroii;
toioiv exXeXsyfjivon;,
toxvtI aOsvst,
si6', si', avsu,
Schneidewin proposed
Unemended
text
jxev' si<;
(as Pearson tentatively suggests)
Sstvov.
906.
Headlam proposed
Ssivov
x w P&"
sxXsXsyfiivot,?.
o-o<pioT/)v
Ipiov.
\xi\zai croqxcrojv
afyxov'
would
be
slightly nearer the ductus, but not only on the ground of

idiomatic diction, but also because the elided atfxov'
would probably be quoted as ocl'jxova, I prefer Ssivov.
Fr. 907. There is nothing, I conceive, wrong with

yap ISpa Zeu? ev iax&Tji (sax<*T 7) is Heimsoeth's
expansion of the mss. reading, viz. of kayo- with a f
written above the a) Oscov. The ^Syj is logical, going
closely (the order is idiomatic) with iayj^fi the absoThe old printed reading sctx<*tcP * s
lutely ultimate seat.
due to the scholiast's tw iayjxTCx) (see Pearson's note)
t^St)
but his
ykygrfVLi xal SocpoxXv]?
tu
sax<*~to ocvtI tou 7rpcoTOi> is
in reality only a declensional way of saying xeypTjxai xal

EocpoxX% Tto fayaTCx; avrl tou 7rpcoTo<;.
This Fr. perhaps comes from the Ichneutae
.FV. 909.
see my edition of that play (pp. 506, 507, 565).
Fr. 910. Unemended text x&po? yap o5to<; (there is
:
perhaps a
scmv
cppsvcov
o7iou to
Saxpupposi t' o5v xal toc xal
Read y&poc, yap auToc; sotiv <xv6pco7rou CppSt<x Tuyxavcov.
SaxpUppOSlTOV
07TOU TO TSpTCVOV Xal TO TTYJfx', SV 8' 69PUS
VCOV
One could not, I imagine, without
xal to xal to Tuyxavov.
violence apply to 6cppus the simple Saxpupposirov. but
IvSaxpuppostTOv is another matter. Iv 8' ocppus Saxpupposttov and the " predicative " Tuyxavov, standing where it
does, seem to me Sophoclean. For the construction of
v.r.
oStouc;)
TspTcvov xal to 7ryj[i.atvov cpusr
av0pco7rou
to xal to Tuyxavov compare the use of qSscrOat etc. with

accusative and participle. Bamberger proposed auTo?.
OTHER FRAGMENTS
On no account emend.
Fr. 911.
83
The order
a manner similar to that of
<Dsp<yia is in
of
xal
y>j
(e.g.) "Hcpoacrre,
ctoI 8s.
Unemended text 7rdvao<pov xporyjfxa, AaepTou

Read uoXuaxpocpov xpoxyj^xa, AaepTou yovo?.
Fr. 918. Unemended text (quoted from Sophocles
in Stobaeus)
toxvt' exxaXuTCTCov 6 XP V S e ^ 9&S dyet,.
Menander presents (Jl/owos<., of course without lemma)
Xpovo? T<x xpu7cxoc 7rdvra zlc, cpdo? dyei. Read in Sophocles
The Menanrcavr' exxaXu7rr<ov 6 /povo? el? ei? (p<o? dyei.
Fr. 913.
yovo?.
drian reading seems to be a "technical

altered version that probably ran thus
distortion of
xpovo?
toc
an
xpu7cxa
dp' el? ei? <pto? dyet,.
tcocvt'
Unemended text d(i.vyj{jt.ovo<; yap dvSpo?

I distinctly prefer and go so far as to
oXXutou x^P 1?See my
propose
dpwqfxovo? ydp dvSpo? wXXurat /apt?.
remarks on Fr. 921.
Fr. 921. Unemended text o-xouoiat, 7roXXoi? el? aocpo?
iV. 920.
Read
SioXXurai.
The dative "
crxatoiat
7toXXoi? el?
aocpo?
owoXXurat.
the agent " with a passive present

awakens suspicion moreover the perfect, both here and
To StcoXin Fr. 920 (see just above), is more vigorous.
Xutoci, and wXXutou, as forms in tragedy, I can see no valid
of
objection.
Fr. 928.
I am not clear that the text is unsound,

though much may well be said for Cobet's emendation.
" They say. What say they ? Lat them
Contrast
:
say."
Fr. 929.
Unemended
otvcoOel? dvY]p
-qcrcjoov (v.r.
text
ti tocut' eroxive i?
toc?
ydp
qcraov) jjiv 6py9j? ecru, tou Se vou
cpiXei a v.r. once presented someerased and illegible, for which the other, and
otherwise invariable, reading cpiXet has been substituted)
xevo?-
thing,
<piXet
(instead of
now
axwv dxouetv ou?

Xoyou? (for ou? exwv ei7rev X6you? 0.fT. are ou?
Xoyou? ou? excov eluev xocxoo? drep exwv eiTiev
Se (v.r. ts) 7toXXyjv yXtociarocv exêa? fxdTYjv
sxqv
exwv
etrcev
et7C7)
xaxco?).
Read
ti tocut' e7raivei?
7rd?
ydp
oivcoGel? dv/jp
|
ocpXei 8e 7roXX7]v
ecm, tou 8e vou xevo?'
yXwo-a-av expect? [xdTTjv
dxtov dxoueiv daa' extov el7tev xaxco?.
The adequately certified present ocpXeiv is wrongly discredited.
In the twelfth line of Pearson's commentary
there is a mistake, Xoyou? being printed instead of xax&c.
yjaatov (Jiev
6pyyj?
62
84
Maas wishes
Fr. 933.
Ichneutae. I
to attribute the Fr. to the

inclined to dissent
see my edition of
that play (pp. 506, 507, 566).
jjiot,
xpixpouov fj.7]8ev
y.j}
xXet0pov yap ou8ev oic, 8' av eu7iexe? Xa(3ot<;
i^ziTZfic, eixoc,'
YX(octctyj<;, xpu9atov ou8ev ou
Siip^sxau The corruption is
more than usually puzzling. I propose \xv\ jxoi xpu<paiov
am
[r/j8ev
ercoe-
e^sOTfli;
(3Xa(3o<;
xXfjOpov yap
ouSev ctwv. ev eu7cexe<;

The
ouSev ou Stipxsxai.
xptxpaiov t'
yXca(K77)<;,
|
spelling xXyj0pov is accepted.

ou
Ku7cpi<; (xovov,
eroovufjio<;.
aXX'
noClSeq,
o>
xoi Ku7tpt<;
r\
(v.r. toxvxoov) ovofxaxcov
ecrxl tcoXXcov
e'axiv ptiv "KiBf]c,, laxt 8' acp0txo<; (3ia (v.r. pia),

|
otuv
present
eon
in one of the mss. that

the first a is apparently altered from av),
8s Xuacra [xavia<; (v.r.

8'
yjxivouc,
tyspoq,
(jiatva<;
ev xeivyj to itav
axpaxo;;, eox' oifxcoypio?.
ar7rou8aiov yjcruâZov {v.r. ri<yvyiov)
yap
7rXsufxovcov
^yr\.
Ivt
oaoic;
ayov.
(iiiav
ec,
xi? {v.r.
evx/jxexai
XYjaSe
ouxe,
ttj<;)
(a v.r. omits x9ja8e)
xy)<;
Oeou (3op6?
7rX(OTCp (v.r. 7tXcoxa>v) yevei,
yovyj {v.r. yevei)*
xei vy) ) rcxepov,

7caXatouar'
are
ec,
v.rr. et
(v.r.
07)po"lv,
and
(j.a
8'
el
(xt;)
Read
et
iW
ou
there
(i.ot
8e xaXY)0yj Xeyeiv
aveu 8opo<;,
aveu
7cXU[i.6va)v
|
xou
(v.r.
dcvco.
(for et
|j.ot,
Oetxn;
6e[j.i<;,
rcavxa xoi auvxefxvexai
jiouXeuâxa.
ev x^P <T0U xexpacrxeXei
ev Ppoxotatv, ev 0eoi<;
Aio? xupavvei
8'
eio-ep^sxat, [xev t^Gucov
ev oicovoun xouxeivy)<;
exâXXet, 0e<ov
xplc
Xeyeu;),
at8y)pou.
ev
vco(i.a
evecrxt
Kunpic, xa Oyjvxcov xal 0e<ov

Kurcpis ou KuTcpi?
d> TOclSe<;, yjxoi
[jlovov,
eaxtv (xev "Ai8t)?,

aXX' eoVi tcoXXcov ovofxaxoov e7Uovufj,oc;.
Icm 8' acpOtro? (Jia 7 ecmv 8e Xuacra (xaviai;, eon 8' ifxepoc;
|
ou8atov
yap 7roXuy6v6>v oaxot?
dbepotTO?, e'er* otpiwyfxo^, eyxXivei.

6iC,
xi?
(3ta (JLayou*
ou/l
ei y7]0exat.
ex'
(xot
[xovcov
0e[xt<;,
f]0eou
evecrxi
ev otwvoiCTt xou^
ev xal 0oZ<; avet.

ei
75
tû/aiov
^vyy)
evt,
|
xvjaS'
7rXcox(p yevet,
8'
xe 7iav
xiv'
ev
ou 7raXatouo-'
aveu
o-iSvjpou.
(jtev
TerpaaxeXet yovyj,
^' ^ v
Tcxepov.
eiaepêxat.
0y]pcri y',
ec, xplc:
8e xaXv)09], Xeyetv,
0[xk;
aveu 8op6?,
x^P aou
tvoi;
xopo?
i^0ucov
|
vtofjia
ev ^poxotaiv,
ex(3aXXei 0ecov
A16? xupavvet 7cXeu-
iravxa xoi ouvxefxvexai

|
KuTcpt? xa 0v7)xwv xal 0ecov ôuXeuâxa.

ye children, Venus is not Venus only
many names
Verily,
:
verily,
nay, she hath
Lo, she is
beside by the which she is named,
lo, she is raging madness,
Hell, lo, she is might immortal,
lo, she is lamentation, and
lo, she is lust untempered,
j
OTHER FRAGMENTS
85
both of the soil and the soul as

though with the might of a sorcerer ; for, if she maketh merry
in the bones of them that have oft-times begotten,
what soul
She
of a man still unmarried is not her dancing-place ?
gaineth an entrance into the sea-borne tribe of fishes,
she is
found in the four-footed creatures that be gendered of the dry
herself inclineth all things
land,
and she among
the fowls of the air letteth fly the
from her bow-string. One work in beasts, one work

in men, one work in gods also she compasseth.
Yea, what
god is there that, wrestling, she hath not thrown thrice and
vanquished ? If I may lawfully declare it [to declare the
feather
over Jove's own heart she queeneth it

without the help of spear,
without the help of steel. So true
it is that Venus
confoundeth all the counsels of men and
In 11. 1 and 2 $jtoi
aXX' equals a
of gods alike.
very strong (jtev
In 1. 6 rnrouSaiov is directly,
8e.
I imagine, a corruption, not of ou&ociov, but of e7rou8atov.
The contrast between earth {clay, matter, etc.) and soul
(spirit, fire, etc.) is a common-place, which finds expression
in many and widely varying forms
the terms ouSouov
and ôx<xiov cover, between them, in general language
the whole ground that Sophocles subsequently goes over
in some detail. Nauck, followed by Pearson, presents
As this
1. 8 thus
tlq ou/l TvjaSs Seuxepoi; 6sou
tyuyji'
book is meant by me to be read in conjunction with
Pearson's, it is my practice not to record emendations
to be found registered in his notes which I neither adopt
nor make partial use of. But from this practice I must
here deviate, as a matter of prime emendational importance
is in question.
Now Nauck says not one word as to how
he arrives at his SeuTspo?, although in fact it is evident
that he must have extracted it from the (3opo<; of the mss.
as it cannot be lawfully so extracted, and as Nauck, from
the range of his most careful and admirable work, must
have been at least as familiar with the relevant data as,
in the course of the same studies, I have myself become,
I tend to regard his silence as not without its significance.
Pearson, however (the sterling brilliance of whose achievement ought not to blind us to the fact that he has specialised more particularly in departments other than that
of textual criticism proper), writes
"I have adopted
truth is lawful),
Nauck's
Ssuxepo?,
assuming that
its
compendium was
86
misread as (3opo<; and that the verse was subsequently

patched for metrical reasons." This sounds reasonable
but so far as my observation goes, the "'compendium " of
SsuTspo? is simply non-existent. Its alphabetical equivalent, which is frequent, is (3', identical in every way
with the (3' that is the alphabetical equivalent of Suo.
On the other hand, neither (3o<;, nor fiepoq, nor indeed
anything except (}', is, so far as I know, to be found.
Similarly a' stands both for elc, and for 7tpa>To<;, y' both for
:
and
or the like, yoq, or the like, are,

unheard of. But, in
Hesychius and elsewhere, certain scholars have assumed
the existence of such compendia
in particular if, in a
corrupt passage of (let us say) a lexicon, the letters (3eo
either actually occur or can easily be presented by manipulation, you will often find that someone or other has
maintained that they stand for (3cp and that }g> means
ipzlc,
for
xpixoc,
within the range of
ocq>
my experience,
:
Seurspw (in the second edition of such and such a work).

of this class it amounts to a class of emendation is, in my opinion, utterly fallacious. I will not
do more than mention the point that my emendation
gets rid of the feminine Oeou. Herwerden eliminates 1. 12
but he does not explain the motive for assumed interpolation.
As it stands in the mss., it clearly interrupts the
The whole
but with the slight

ordered development of thought
emendations introduced by me the triple |v, for ev, and
the avet, for avw, are alone rigorously necessary, though
my y and xal seem to me eminently desirable it fits
itself in with perfect propriety, the Oyjpcrt and the (3poTounv being retrospective, the 6soi? prospective. In 1. 4
In conPorson proposed (xavia?, in 1. 8 Grotius ou/t.
formity with my scheme I desire to avoid expatiation
but a little further comment is necessary. This fragment,
arrestingly fine and certified by Stobaeus as Sophoclean,
departs in the direction of rhetoric from the usual
style of Sophocles and, if stripped of accidental diction,
strikes a note in singular unison (allowing for its pagan
What if it is a
origin) with that of the Christian pulpit.
part of the Eridion Agyrticum, which (see my edition of
the Ichneutae, pp. 353-377) I suggest that Sophocles
composed to be presented by the choir-boys at Delphi on
the occasion of their annual release from the service of
;
OTHER FRAGMENTS
87
In that case the reference would be to

on their temporary return to the world, to
the temptations of the flesh and the devil, and every single
word of the whole passage would be appropriate. Moreover the style is that of the longer fragments which I
assign to the Eridion. Now, if these lines were originally
delivered on the Delphic, not on the Athenian, stage, we
become for the first time able to attach a reasonable
meaning to the words of Plutarch, who writes (Amat. 13,
the temple
their exposure,
757a)
xdm
aXX'
octio
toioutok; ecpu
that this line is

numbered as 1. 1
&8e' ou
"Epco? yocp apyov

Stobaeus, Flor. 64, 5,
it is to-day
from Euripides' Danae
of Fr. 322 of Euripides), xal uaXiv aft
[xta? ctxtqvtj? axoiiofxsv
know from
(we
Ku7rpi<; [xovov,
aXX' earl tcoXX&v
6vo(jl<xt<ov
eTOovu-
s<m 8' o^mx; (&a, ecrrtv 1 Xuaaa

That there exists independent
fxavia? (sic in the mss.).
ground for suspicion that one of the two passages covered
by the expression a7r& yuoLt; ctxt)vyj<; was produced elsewhere
than at Athens is, in view of the singularity of that expression, at least a relevant circumstance and not without its
importance. That Euripides did not confine himself to
that he should
the stage of Athens is a known fact
have produced his Danae (doubtless with three accompanying plays) at Delphi, perhaps the best place in all
Greece for an audience, is in no way incredible. Indeed
the Danae, the Ion, and the Andromache have a good deal
the look of a Delphic trilogy. The whole plot of the
\oc,.
ecrnv
[jisv
"AiSy)?,
Danae
the Ion, of course,

springs out of a Delphic oracle
Delphic to the core the dSnouement of the Andromache
(11. 1058-1243. Kirchhoff's numeration), a play known to
have been produced elsewhere than at Athens, is Delphic
Of the extant plays of Euripides, in addition to the
Andromache, only the Ion and the Alcestis (that the
Apollo of the Alcestis is the Delphic Apollo is proved by
1. 586, Kirchhoff's numeration) are Delphic in tone (the
Delphic tinge in the Iphigenia in Tauris and the Electra
is so slight as to be nearly negligible)
of his non-extant
tragedies, in addition to the Danae, the AlcmaeonPsophide,
the Telephus, the Erechiheus, the Oedipus, and, perhaps,
the Polyidus are similarly circumstanced
I regard it
as important that the Alcmaeon Psophide, the Telephus,
and the Alcestis are known to be, all three, members of
is
88
one and the same tetralogy. In any case it is necessary

to assign to a.7ro fjtta? crx7)V7J(; the words constitute
a recognised problem a sense that is a real sense
Plutarch was certainly no idle phrase-monger. Almost
exactly the same question (re hzl t% aurTJ? ctxtjvtjc; in
Clement of Alexandria) arises with regard to Fr. 1126.
It must be remembered that I have never maintained
nor do I now maintain that it is certain that Sophocles
composed an Eridion Agyrticum
I only say that my
hypothesis that he may have done so removes quite a
number of difficulties, and that, as I proceed, I find that
that number increases.
Fr. 944b. The fragment which I number Fr. 944b of
Sophocles is that which is commonly accounted Fr. 546
Unemended text
of the Adespota Tragica (see Nauck).
eyo> yap, c! vouv stx' e\i (for stx' fy? tnere are WT.
Yjracrrajjnqv av [xouztyi [L and zlye [x') 6 crctEtpac; 7raTY]p,
:
[v.r. 7iapsl<; 7covtv),
ctixyjv TtapEtcrccovEtv
xax&?
Ppoxou;
0')
(v.r.
tots.
7cpa<ov
suoyxo?
tocotov
sTvat
yaorpl
(after
uSpyjpot?
(xsv
eutuxtqctwv xal
<o<;
Tiavxa
a>v
7rX-/]poufxsvy)
jat)
one ms.
uSp-qpot?
ytyvsTat
aTspystv t'
inserts, but
|
deletes, ast) costs 0?]p ast totoi?,

^stfjucovt t' dccrxstv crto(xa
TOê(xaT' (v.r. TO^sufxar') atvstv (XT) axtaOepfxdc 0' yjXtou
|
and
Tpacpoufjtsvo? (v.rr. axtaTpocpoufxsvo<;
crxta Tpocpoujxsvoc;).
|
oux s0ta0sl(; tout' s7ttaTa[Aai (xsv o5v (for (xsv oOv

there are v.rr. (xsv ou and ptsvouv), cpspetv 8' avayxyj, t6v
yap 'Opcpsa Xa(3tov octoxv ts Mouctcov svvs<xcp0oyyov fiiXo?,
sytb yap, el
oux av TctOotfxt yacrrsp', aXXa Sst (3iou. Read
7)7uaTa{A7)V av fxouatxYjv
vouv six' e[x' 6 cnretpa? uar/jp,
8'
vuv
xal xaXto? 7rpatov tots,

suoyxo? slvat
tocotov y' IV s^cov -komt a<ptsvat 0a(3p' oto?,
aTspystv f' tSpt? pot? coctts Gyjp, S7TS10'
yacrrpl pt.Yj 7iX7]poufAsv/)
7capel?
tovsZv,
to?
suTuxYjatov
Tosu[xaT' atvstv
xcquiftvC t* acrxstv areola 0sp[x<x 0' yjXfou
vuv 8' oux E0ta0sl? tout' 7rtoTa(xat [xsv
axtaTpo<pou|jtsvo?.
oto?
(j.7)
aôvTa
oux av mGotfu yaerrsp', aXXa Slot
See my edition of the Ichneutae (unnumbered page
Bou.
immediately before the Index of Subjects), in which book
and see pp. 353-377) I suggest that the Fr. comes
{I.e.
ou,
cpspstv 8'
avayxTj 'or', ou8' ap' 'Opcpsa Xa(3cov
Moucrcov swsacp0oyyov
[lekoc,
from a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum.

Fr. 947.
Unemended
xal 0sa0at 7cpTCt
text
aocpov xu(3suty]V,
crrspystv
81 Tax7rsa6vTa
aXXa
otsvsiv Tuxnv.
[ryj
OTHER FRAGMENTS
Read
axspysiv 8e Tdx7cea6vT
>
aV
89
awOsaOat.
izptizsi
aocpov
dXXd jxt; cttsveiv Tuyyjv. Some gamblers you

can see it to-day at roulette hide, as it were, their own
losses from themselves in a spirit of shall I say ?
perverted optimism
Fr. 950. Unemended text oux Itm y/jpa<; T " v aoqxov,
0sia uve<mv rjfxepa T0pa(ji[xevo?*
ev ol<; 6 vou?
7cpofr/)0ia
oux egti y?jpa<; twv
yap xepSoc; dv0pco7ro^ (jisya. Read
xu^suTyjv,
aoqxov, ev ol? 6 vou<;
0s(a ûvsaxoi y' Y)ps|At TS0pafifXEVO<;'
Here, as occasionally elsewhere, Pearson most laudably quotes the heading

of the Stobaean chapter in which the Fr. occurs.
I wish
it would enable the reader
editors would always do this
to form an opinion of his own as to the appropriateness
or inappropriateness of the reading. One can scarcely
be expected to carry a Stobaeus in one's pocket.
Fr. 958. Unemended text (of Strabo)
67tou <puyovra
7rpo(X7)0ta
yap
xsp8o<;
(Xya.
av0pco7roi(;
t6v
'A[i,<piap0i)v, &c,
<p7)at.
Eo<poxX7J<;, eSeôcto
payEiaa 07)(3aux
xovu;
auxotaiv frntot.? xal TExpaopicrrcp (v.rr.xsTptopiaTtp and
As orou occurs in Strabo 's prose, he
TExpaptcTO)) Suppcp.
very likely omitted ou from the quotation, and I suggest
|
8sa0' oo paysiaa 0r)(3aia xovt?

opco
Skppcp.
Hilberg's
canon
auxotatv itvkoic, xal Tsrpacertainly applies

but
:
Hilberg proposed himself a quite impossible correction.

Herwerden emended to TETpaopw.
Fr. 965. Follow, with Pearson, Blaydes in 1. 1 and
Nauck
in
1.
2.
Unemended text 6rav nc, &8y] (v.r. dstSfl)

t6v Boicotiov v6(j,ov, xa 7cp&Ta [xsv a/oXaiov, eutovoi; asi.
Read 6xav ti? #87) t6v Boiamov v6jaov, xa 7rpcoTa |xsv
Where I read eIt', others have
ayoXatov, eIt' opvu? asu
proposed slxa (unelided) with impossible alterations
following it.
Fr. 978. I cannot see that Pearson has any warrant
for applying the word taboo, with its Polynesian associations, to a matter, however pagan, of Greek practice.
Fr. 986. Dele the Fr., as a separate entity, in the
light of 1. 294 (my numeration) of the Ichneutae.
Fr. 990. This Fr. is not, I think, from the Ichneutae
see my edition of that play (especially p. 509).
Fr. 966.
90
Fr. 996. Text

aXxaGco xal aXxaOeiv SocpoxXyjf; xal
Aiax^^ ?- cnQlâtvet s to (ôtjOsiv. By aXxaOw is prono trace of any similar
bably meant the subjunctive
indicative seems to exist. That words of this group are
aorists, not presents, is pointed to by the apparent
non-existence in their case of indicatives in -co, whereas
the Homeric IpyaOsv and eepyaOev are aorist, not imperfect, in sense, so that it appears right to take the Aeschy:
lean xaTipya06(X7jv as an aorist also

scjêGov and ayzfiov
are fairly common, and, in view of the absence of oyeQa,
though it is not easy by the unaided light of their meaning
to make sure of the tense, are doubtless aorists, not
imperfects. Add to this the consideration that, in
addition to passive aorists in -0-yjv, there probably was
at any rate, as was argued
also an active aorist in -0aa
by my father, Dr. F. W. Walker, it is difficult to account
for (e.g.) exifxyjaa, instead of e-ujryja, except on the
hypothesis that it stands for eTipt.7)0o-a. But, granted
that the group I am discussing is an aorist group, it does
not at all follow that the accentuation ought to be that
The mere fact that the
of second aorists like <puystv.
ancient grammarians considered the forms to be present,
:
aorist, confirms the accentuation of our mss. and

goes far towards showing that in antiquity itself (e.g.)
aXxaOslv, as against aXxaOstv, was unknown. In claiming
the group for the aorist Elmsley was brilliantly right
in meddling with the accent he was wrong.
Fr. 1005. Stet afja>xpov.
Stet e^7ryjFr. 1045. Text
ftginffoatC (v.r. g^Tnjxus)WOtC. In the language of giants may well have been
said in one of Sophocles' Paeans (perhaps it came in the
not
Tyria Rhoeti).
but it is by
Fr. 1067. [xapiXoxauT&v may be right
no means certain that the word which ought to constitute the Fr. has not wholly perished. Again, whether
(xapiXoxaurcov be right or wrong here, it is probable, but
far from demonstrable, that (xaptXoxaurwv should be read
in the Ichneutae, 1. 33 (my numeration). For the whole
question see my edition of that play (pp. 115-117).
With Nauck, against
Fr. 1086. Text p< (v.r. pa).
I suspect
Pearson, I prefer pa (contracted from pea
;
OTHER FRAGMENTS
91
the spelling p< to be due to a fallacy that the word stood,

by " apocope," for pdStov).
Fr. 1097. Stet cmpaSoTcotoufievo?.
Fr. 1101. This Fr. is merely a duplication of a
morsel of Fr. 241, to 1. 2 of which (see under the heading
Fr. 241) Nauck rightly restored xeco?.
Fragmenta Dubia et Spuria.

Fr. 1119.
8iy.tx.ioc,
yovo?,
It seems to me that, examples or none,

though not by way of technical termi-
more or less
nology, can well mean a legitimate son
similar is Plato's (Theaet. 150a) #8txo<; uvaycoy>j dvSpo?
The Ajax Locrus is probably the source
xat yuvatxo?.
:
intended
Fr. 1120.
Unemended
text
erat 7te7rpaxTat 7iav to
^copcojiev ^8yj, 7tat8e?, tic, rd tcov acxpcov

tou 0eou xaXco?,
7rpoaXa[x(3dvetv Se Set
StSaaxaXeta, jaouctixyj? TOXtSeupxTa.
tkxic, 8'
xaO' Y)[jipav del,
eco? av ef) [xavOavetv fieXTtova.
auto? 7rap' aurou
tov xaxov fxev Spav Tt 7ipotx' marracT0at,
ttjv ^pyjara S\ ouo' av t6v StSaxTov
(jtavOdvcov ocveu tcovou'
|
Xa^yj,
e(xvy)[x6vi)(7v,
xat (i,ox07)Tsov,
^co(j.E0a,
Ppoxtov
[i6Xt<;.
7ratSs<;, co?
co
TauV ouv
av
(xyjt'
tou
to
7iav
0eou
xaXco?,
cpuXa-
aTOXtSEurcov
I
Soxcojaev elvat xdTtoSyjfxouvTo? TOXTpo?.
7re7rpaxTai
7csl
dcXXa xsxT7)Tat
propose
yoipdyjz^j
$)8t),
xa tcov
TzctiSzq, et?
yap
aocpcov
7rpoc7Xa(jLâvetv Set
StSacrxaXeta*
(jtouatXT)? 7cat8ei>[xa
{xavOdvetv
eraoTaTat,
(BEXxfova.
j
auTO?
Ttat?
7rap'
Ico? av ecjj,
Spav ti 7tpotx'
veu toSvou*
toc
xat xa0' -quipav det,

Xcov
auTOu
xaxov
(xev
[xavOdvcov
e|j.vy)[x6veuaev,
Xpyjaxd S' ou Xcov, ou8' 6rav (Saxxpov XafUy),
dXXd xexxrjrat [loXiq. TauY o$v (puXaco[xea0a, xat (AOÔtj|
xeov,
co
TOttSe?, co?
av
aTOXiSeurcov
(jltjt'
fipoTcov
Soxcojxev
3-5 the emendations and arrangement are Meineke's, except that I put a
stop in 1. 3 before, not after, [aouctixyj?. In 1. 6 EmaTaTat
and in 1. 8 toc are due to Gaisford. At the end I follow
Nauck in exhibiting the sentence as incomplete. For a
slightly more detailed treatment see my edition of the
Ichneutae (pp. 362, 363), in which book (see pp. 353-377,
and in particular pp. 362-364) I suggest that the Fr.
forms part of a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum.
Fr. 1121. I suggest in my edition of the Ichneutae
(see pp. 305-312, and in particular pp. 310, 311) that this
elvat, xa7ro873(jtouvTO? TOXTpo?
In
11.
92
prose Fr. is a quotation from Sophocles' lost dialogue

De Choro.
Fr. 1122. I suggest in my edition of the Ichneutae
(see pp. 353-377, and in particular p. 361) that this Fr.
forms part of a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum, and I
also suggest (p. 361) that it joins on almost directly to
Fr. 866.
Fr. 1124. Text (of the Etymologicum Magnum):
Pearson
ZocpoxXyj? e/s [v.r. eyzi
SeXrjTtov to SsXeap.
ignores this v.r.) to &Xy)tiov. yj Soxppcov (a v.r., ignored
by Pearson, omits r\ Sw9po>v). It looks at first sight
strange for an author of a lexicon to doubt coram
populo whether certain words come from Sophocles or
Let us then assume for the sake of
from Sophron.
argument (though the assumption will hardly be found
to hold water) that the doubt expressed is the result
On that hypothesis,
of an alteration of the text.
apparently simple alternative explanations would be
(a) that a copyist had before him an abbreviation which
he was uncertain whether to expand as Sophocles or as
Sophron, or (6) that Sophocles stood in the text, but that
some copyist, thinking that the passage savoured rather
But the open
of Sophron, added the words or Sophron.
confession involved in the former alternative and the
critical temper displayed in the second are alike foreign
to scribal practice. I infer, on the whole, that the doubt
is really that of the author of the dictionary, i.e. that we
are dealing with a passage of deliberately disputed
authorship. One can well understand, in view of the
refusal to attribute tetralogies (or anything of the sort)
to Sophocles, that the plots and titles of some of his
Satyric dramas must have been found very inconvenient.
Hence, I suggest, the 73 Swopcov. The fact that a v.r.
(and it is a v.r. of some authority) omits 7} Scocppwv is
The words yz to SsXtjtiov look to me like
significant.
and therefore I take them more probably as
verse
from a Satyric Satyric because of the diminutive
drama by Sophocles than from a mime by Sophron.
Fr. 1125. This line seems to come from an hexametrical poem ranking, I take it, with the Paeans
by Sophocles, called the Onomacles and written in honour
of Onomacles' victory off Miletus in the year 412 B.C.
:
OTHER FRAGMENTS
93
It appears to connect in some way or other Buthia, or

Buthoea, in Ionia with Buthoe (as it is commonly called),
on the Drilon, in Illyria, a city founded by Cadmus.
Unemended
Fr. 1126.
there is a v.r.
(v.r. 6
0e6i;),
there are
TETEUâi
[xaxpvjv
text
he,
elq
(for
-vatic,
zlc,
rale,
eariv (v.r. Icruv) Geo?

oupavov t' eteuê (for oupavov t' steus
hnctic,) dXy]0iatat.v,
tic,
oupavov t' stsu^s oupavov teteuê

oupavov
t6v oupavov eteuê) xal yatav
oupavov steue
[v.r. [xaxpav)
tcovtou te /apoTCov oTSfjwc xdvsfixov
v.rr.
0vtjtoI Se tcoXXoI
fiioic, and (3ia).
xapStav (for 7toXXol xapStav there are v.rr. toXXoI xap&Y)
(v.r. xal dvsfxwv) (iiav (v.rr.
tcoXu xapSia
7roXuxp8ia)
7i;Xavcojj.vot [v.r.
7cs7tXav7)[ivot,)
|
7tapaiJ;uj(a<;)
ISpuad^sGa)
[v.r.
tSpuc7d[XET0a
|
0ecov dydXixaT' ex XiOgjv
ri /aXxEwv there are v.rr. twv uXcov

XiOwv te xal uXcov
uXcov t) xa Xxwv
:
/pucroxEuxTtov
>j
7rapaûy^v (v.r.
/aXxscov (for XlOcov
âXxscov XiGivcov t)
7ry)(xdx<ov
>]
>j
:
Xi0cov xal uXcov)
sXsipavTivtov TU7rou<; (v.r. tu7C<ov)-
toutok; xal xaxa? (v.rr. xevok;
xaXd?
r\
Se
0uaia<;
xotva?) 7ravY)YupEu;
|
CTTE<povT? (v.rr. v[aovts<;
outwi; eucteêcv
s 6
<;,
<;
are
v.rr.
Read
itself) vofxôfxsv.
and
oupavov
tsuxovtsi;) outox; sucrspstv (for
rnuelc,
$crra(,<;
t"
and
euoePecv
eteuê xal
7c6vtou t' (5cxap7rov oZSfxa xd
Xtqv
euctePeiv
'AX/jOei' ffcsv tic,
by
ecttIv
yculccv (xd^v (xco v (3tav.
0V7jxol
8e
7toXXou<;
7TY)(i.dTwv 7iapaûx"yjv
|
73
TOxpoSiot,
dGXcov
t'
ISpuod^saGa,
tj
yaXxEtov
0uaia<; te toutok;
7rXavco|ASvoi
ayaXfza, tsxt6vcov
/puaroTsuxTcov ^ 'X9avTio>v tu7tou<;-
arsipovTE? auTco? eucteêcv vo[xô(jlev.

xal xevoc^ 7rav>]Yupt(;
To the singers Truth sang thus : " There is but one God,
|
Who
fashioned heaven, yea, and the dedal earth and the

fruitless gulf of the sea and the violence of the winds."
But many images, wandering from the way, have we that
are mortal men set up for ourselves to be a consolation
and a glory in recompense of our contests,
of our afflictions
the work of cunning carvers,
or of such as have skill in the
fashioning of gold, or in the polishing of ivory
in their
honour we offer sacrifices and assemble vain convocations
in worship that proflteth nothing, and say to ourselves
that we are godly.
This is certainly not the work of
'*
pseudo-Hecataeus " (the bearing of this remark will
appear shortly) he could no more have written it than
fly.
My emendations (which, though connected in the
sense of making for classical diction, by no means stand
|
94
or fall together) are based on the text itself, nor have I

found occasion to take as many or as great liberties as
are often, by general consent, necessary in the case of

corrupt passages of indisputably Attic origin. The most
serious alteration by far is that in the first line of all.
Palaeographically, indeed, &gt<uc, 'AXy)0ei' 3jcrev is only
a levissima mutatio of elq tcuq (or ivicdq, the v.r. for el?
rat?) aXy]6etat.CT!.v, especially if we take into account
the probability that in many mss. aXyjGetataiv (which
Sophocles would most likely have himself written as
while, apart from
dXyjGeiYjaiv
dXTjOeuxcjtv) was spelt
palaeography, I am very strongly impelled to make the
correction by the language employed by John Malalas,
which I reserve for quotation at the extreme end of
my discussion of this fragment but the emendation
effects a complete change of atmosphere, at one stroke
banishing the at best sub-Attic use of the plural of
dXrjOewc and this is more important introducing us to
the classical conception of certain oracles, or the like,
delivered by 'AXr)0eia in person (e.g. Zeu?, ox; XeXexxat.
:
rfic,
'AXTjOeta? (mo).
have spoken
of
this
matter
of
my
Euripidmn Fragments and will not

in this place discuss it further. Viewed in one light,
then, my correction, however simple, may appear auda'AXy)0et,a
in
my defence of it is that I am unable to picture

cious
to myself an author capable both of penning this fine
passage as a whole and of perpetrating sic, touc; dXyjentitled to claim,
Gsfociaiv, and that therefore I am
without either extension or diminution, the ordinary
liberty of emendation. If obvious emendation points
in an unexpected direction, so much the worse for preconceptions. I, at least, will welcome any light
q:8er<o
:
3 fxaxX-qv and dxocp7rov,

standing in contrast to each other, are, I think, selfimposed emendations of [xaxpiQV the tj is instructive
tne necessity of altering [xaxprjv
*s
and xa P 07r o v
In
'AXt]0si<x xal yj^tv.
(the
v.r.
11.
and
&
(xaxpdv
that paves the
is
way
obviously a
for
<3cxap7rov.
negligible
In 1. 3
correction)
pfocv
should
the influence of such

certainly be read
(3Ca? shows
expressions as silvarum viriditates, while (3ia looks very
much as if a copyist, knowing both (3iav and (3ia?,
had left out the final letter pending inquiry as to the
:
OTHER FRAGMENTS
95
In 1. 6 textovcov, which term embraces

both in wood and in stone, is doubtless the
graphic parent of the -ivwv of the v.r. XtQivoov and
also the parent, in point of sense, of the readings which
mention both stone and wood expressly. For the conright reading.
artificers
tracted sXscpavxi^cov (instead of sXecpavuôcov) in 1. 7

compare !uou (Iliad x. 373) no other emendation
seems possible, and I feel confident that such a contraction
cannot be post- Attic (such words as the late 8otXo<; stand
on a different footing, not being coined ad hoc and
consequently not being felt as contracted). My other
changes speak sufficiently, I think, for themselves
but I particularly invite the reader to study in Nauck
the sources of the v.rr. and, generally, to master all that
Pearson, while far ampler on
that editor has to say
:
some important points, is avowedly cavalier though

that word is my own, not his on others. St. Justin
Martyr, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret (among
other Christian authors) make use and who can wonder ?
it
difficult to suppose that
is
of these verses
three such lights of the early Church were tricked
into accepting as classical a bare-faced forgery. But it
is around Clement of Alexandria that the main controversy has centred. Before I deal with Clement's
evidence, I would call attention to the fact (for all this
see Pearson's notes) that the one grave argument against
the authenticity, as Sophoclean, of the fragment is
Bentley's main contention he coupled it with other
contentions now recognised as of little or no weight
that an Attic poet could not, at the Dionysia, have denounced Greek festivals. Naturally I agree but I hope
to make it probable that the Dionysiac festival is not
in question
Apart from this objection it would be difficult
to formulate let alone to establish a really valid
indictment of the passage. Its few late traits the Judaic
xapSia 7rXavco(xvot. included vanish on the exhibition of
remedies less violent than are frequently needed in the
case even of extant tragedies
and it must be borne in
mind that the context is such as to invite superficial
corruption of a particular character (cf. the cum bove
on the other
pardus presented in the Odes of Horace)
hand its theology is fully paralleled (not to go further
:
96
afield) by that of Aeschylus in the Agamemnon, and, as

regards the practical deductions from that theology,
the marvel, if any, is, not that Sophocles should on one
occasion draw them explicitly, but that we do not find
them drawn explicitly on dozens of occasions by dozens
of authors (the explanation I take to be in part that
Sophocles' piety was so completely certified that, in
appropriate surroundings, he was let say pretty much
what he chose, whereas others stood in prudent fear of
popular opinion, and in part that pagan scholars were
at one time in a position to suppress inconvenient
testimonies that made in favour of the Christians).
Pearson quotes Bernays as terming the fragment " a
capuchin's sermon against paganism." There seems to

me no point, save odium, in the remark indeed, if the
fragment be a forgery and semper ego auditor tantum?
Bernays believed that " pseudo-Hecataeus " comif
posed it, he should have spoken, not of a capuchin, but
Now let us turn to Clement. He writes
of a rabbi.
(Strom, v. p. 717) 6 fxev yap SocpoxXvj?, &c, (prpvi 'Exaxatoc;
;
tCTTopta? (TUVTaau,svo<; ev
xocc,
tw
xax' "A^pajxov xal
toiIx;
Atywcuous, av-axpix; irci t% oxtjvtJi; ex(3oa' (here follow the

nine lines of the fragment). Clement continues thus
Eupt,7u8y)<; Se em ttj? auTYJ? ctxtjvyjc rpayfpScov 6pa<; tov utpou
tovS' a7tei,pov aiSepa
xal yvjv 7rept 'iyovQ' uypat<; ev ayxa:
toutov vo[xtê Z9jva, tovS' yjyou 0e6v (this fragment

Fr., of Euripides, 9411 emend in
Euripidean
Fragments). Now Clement was a fairly good scholar,
and, although, like Josephus, he was misled into thinking
that the forged Jewish treatise about Abraham was a
genuine work of Hecataeus of Abdera, yet so at least
I contend he only mentions that treatise at all in order
not to scandalise certain weaker brethren among his
Christian readers
he lived in a period of acute susceptibilities, and it was not only more prudent, but also
more charitable, not to make an unnecessary parade of
Xau;
my
much first-hand acquaintance with the pagan classics and

a few references, such as the reference we have here, to
;
decorous sources of information, lend, as it were, a certain

colour of inoffensiveness to other classical quotations as
to the immediate provenance of which he is silent. But,
for those that have ears to hear, his language is charged
OTHER FRAGMENTS
97
with a meaning that would escape, and was meant to

escape, the vulgar.
He
is
quite deliberately imitating
Plutarch (Amat. 13, p. 757 a)

"Epac, yap dpyov
Stobaeus, Flor. 64,
dxouo|i.ev
from
xdm
aXX'
that
5,
ooto
toioutok; <pu
this
fjua<;
(we
line
<txt]v%
know
from
is
it is to-day numbered as 1. 1 of Fr. 322

Euripides' Danae
of Euripides), xal toxXiv a& &8s* ou Ku7rpti; (jl6vov,
aXX'
:
eCTTt,
7toXX6>V OVOfAOCTOiV S7TO)VU{X0<;.
ECTTIV
(xsv "AiSrjs, sort, 8'
The
&mv
(3ta,
8s Xuaaa [xavla? (stc in the mss.).
latter quotation is part of Fr. 944 of Sophocles
see
a96t.T0<;
my
remarks on it above. I have shown reason for

supposing ( I have not proved, but still I have shown
reason for supposing) that Plutarch's most singular
expression arco \iiolc, (txt)v% is to be explained on the basis
that the Sophoclean piece in question and Euripides'
Danae were both produced, not on the Athenian, but on
the Delphic stage. I understand Clement as meaning,
with regard to his two fragments, precisely the same
thing
indeed it requires not much imagination to assign
the second of them to Euripides' Danae, where it would
form a fitting counterpoise uttered perhaps by way of
disbelief to the story of the manner of the appearance of
Zeus in that legend. But Clement's TpaywStov, if he is
selecting his language with any degree of propriety,
ought to mean that his earlier quotation is not from a
tragedy. That suits my view. Sophocles is not reported
to have produced dramas outside Athens. We are
dealing with a " Paean " (not necessarily a Paean proper
in the technical sense of the term, but a non-dramatic
poem included in Sophocles' Book of Paeans). All
difficulties are lessened at once
but I willingly grant that,
without consideration at least, all do not vanish. What
about statues at Delphi itself, and what about the Pythian
Games ? Now although in and about the Delphic precinct there were most unquestionably representations
both of Apollo and of other deities, we must bear two
main facts in mind, (a) that, wherever in Greece Sophocles,
or anyone else, attacked the use of pagan statues, he of
necessity attacked an institution to a greater or to a
lesser extent established, and (b) that, nevertheless, at
Delphi, which was somewhat peculiar in this respect, the
focus of worship was not any statue, but the mysterious
:
98
stone comparable
Moslem Jerusalem
in a manner to the temple-rock in

or to the Black Stone at Mecca
known
as the yrtc, biitptxkoq, the navel of the earth, an

object by no means inconsistent with devotions of the
sort that the writer of the passage before us would
apparently have approved. Nor am I aware (I stand

open to correction) that the field of the Pythian Games
was the scene of the worship of any statue (it is to toxvyjyupctg in honour of statues, not to n<x.vrffbpsi<; per se, that
the fragment, if I read it aright, objects) at the Olympian Games there were images, notably that of Agon, and
at the Athenian Dionysia the image of Dionysus was of
course the centre around which all revolved
but at
the Pythian Games was there anything really similar ?
I would also call attention to the relatively unimportant
position that Guaiou, whether before a statue or not,
apparently occupied in the Delphic scheme of ceremonies
absolutely the only allusions to them in the whole of
Euripides' Ion are to those offered by pilgrims, not as part
of the liturgical round of services. But, whatever one
:
may think of these matters, it is surely in another connexion that the principal argument is to be found. The
Orphic worship established itself fairly early, side by side
with that of Apollo, at Delphi in that worship, with its
;
identification of deities, there was much that made for

monotheism, and it is as essentially Orphic that I take
the fragment. This explanation smooths difficulties away

to vanishing point. The Orphic tenets were at many
points contradictory in the extreme of those of the more
How both sets of teaching
accredited mythology.
managed harmoniously to co-exist at Delphi is somewhat
of a problem. For them to have managed it at all implies
a wide and a recognised toleration. This is the environment in which Sophocles, I say, produced his " Paean."
I will only add that John Malalas (for what he says in
detail see Pearson's note) deserves attention re the fragment. His remarks on the subject are comparatively
sensible and betray no gross ignorance, whereas elsewhere, when he deals with similar matters, he talks the
I can
most arrant and ludicrous nonsense imaginable
only suppose that he is basing himself, almost verbatim,
on some much older authority. The sentence of his that
;
OTHER FRAGMENTS
seems to
me
important
is
this
66sv
99
e^sOsxo
6 ocuto?
auxou cruyypajjifxaCTt. raura dXvjOsia? elvar

6? tov oupavov exeuê xai Ya ^ av (Aaxpdv
sIq scruv 6 QeoQ,
(and so on to the end of the fragment). Two points
emerge.
(1) dX-yjOsta-; is surely genitive singular, not
accusative plural, and should be written 'AXÔsia? it
strongly supports my $.<rc<xit; 'AXyjOsi' fjare. (2) The word
ai>YYpdfjt.pi.a<n suggests that the passage was only to be
found in a complete edition of Sophocles, i.e. that it
So<poxX9]<; ev toIc,
|
occurred in a Paean.
Fr. 1127. This Fr. is certainly not from the pen of
Sophocles the celebrated tragedian. As has been pointed
out, tctlXov, u7cr)[x(i}puco<yev, 6Xo<ryep7}<;, and eOopvuro are all,
so far as we know, inadmissible in Attic tragedy ; the
combination, at least, of all four of them is a moral
impossibility.
The form emqjxfpieqjivo? is even more
demonstrably untragic (would, I wonder, Jebb have

approved $8et.v 'y<o, had he found it in a well-accredited
text ?). As regards Satyric drama, the first four words
above mentioned are not of a class so alien (see the
Ichneutae passim) to that milieu as to tragedy, though
they come much too close together even for Satyric
but, for the purposes of Sophoclean (not
drama
;
Satyric drama e7TY)|j.<pLsq iivo<; is as decisive as for the purposes of Attic tragedy, seeing that
Sophocles (unlike Euripides) does not admit comic
Euripidean)
licence.
The above remarks
are of course
made
subject
emendation succeed in curing the

faults mentioned, they cease to apply. But emendation is
the faults are inherent. To remove them,
impossible
rewriting, not emendation, would be necessary.
The
passage then is to be rejected. Now in the mss. of Clement
of Alexandria it is attributed to Sophocles in the words
to the proviso that,
if
6 SocpoxXv}? 8e suOuppvjfjLOvcot; ypdqjsr (here follows the Fr.).
I desire to raise the question whether a scholar of

Clement's quite respectable calibre ever ascribed the
passage to the eminent dramatist. I should much like
to read, and I propose
6 2o<poxX% 8' 6 Eueuppôvo?
I
understand
Sophocles,
son of Euthyrrhemon,
by
Ypdcpst,.
that third Sophocles who, according to Suidas, lived
" after the Pleiad."
:
h2
100
Fr. 1128. St. Justin Martyr accepts this passage as

Clement of Alexandria however is careful
Sophoclean
to go no further than to assign it to tragedy (auvaSst, Ss
The subject is the
toutok; xal yj TpaycpSta Sta twvSs).
ecpyrosis, or conflagration of the universe, expected by
the Stoic philosophy, so that, although the diction is
classical enough, Sophocles, the eminent dramatist,
cannot be the author. I would assign it, like Fr. 1127, to
the third Sophocles, whose date it suits.
Fr. 1129. This Fr. I am inclined to ascribe to a
Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum
;
Ichneutae (pp. 353-377, and in particular pp. 366-368).
PAPER IV
PAULO MAJORA
I
have pointed out elsewhere that the
Life of Sophocles
and Suidas agree exactly as to the number of Sophocles'

plays, if only in the former we combine two various
in
readings, " 130 " and " 104," into a reading " 140 "
Greek uncial numeration the graphic distinction between
Suidas simply
130, 104, and 140 is extremely slight.
:
" Sophocles presented 123 plays, or, according to

some, far more." The Life of Sophocles says (if we read
" He has to his credit so Aristophanes states
" 140 ")
but, of these, seventeen have been branded
140 plays
as spurious." Observe that 140-17=123. In any case,
" spurious " plays to Suidas'
if you add the seventeen
figure of 123, you obtain a total of 140.
In the course of my work I have acquired something
like a conviction that the post-Aristophanic branding of
seventeen plays of Sophocles as spurious is due solely to
the superstition that he competed with single plays, not
with tetralogies. The existence of obviously connected
says
tetralogies militated against this superstition, and consequently various plays in such tetralogies were denounced
140 plays most naturally spell let

as non-Sophoclean.
me add 35 tetralogies (some of them, I think, connected,
others, as regards the trilogies, unconnected), that is to
say, 105 tragedies in the strictest sense and 35 fourth
plays of tetralogies.
On this general foundation, as a test, partly, of its
solidity, I base the main portion of the present paper.
Perhaps, if the ancient literature, of a technical order,
that dealt with the Satyric Drama were still extant, we
should be provided with an adequate nomenclature. As
it is, we are not.
In this paper I propose to call a tragedy
belonging to a trilogy a " tragoedia solemnis " and a
tragedy standing fourth in its tetralogy a " quarta
tragoedia "
a fourth play of a tetralogy, irrespective of
its particular character, I will style a " quartum quid"
:
102
a play with a Chorus of Satyrs a " satyr icum," and a

play without a Chorus of Satyrs, but Satyric in tone and
not a tragedy, a " quasi satyricum." I incline by the
way to conjecture that the forma of quarta quae, as such,
is a Chorus of twelve persons.
Let me now proceed to the business on hand.
On a balance of often complicated probabilities it
appears to me, as at present advised, that the number
of the plays of Sophocles known to us either by name or
by contents may, not unreasonably, be stated as 125.
Variations of nomenclature and possibilities of such
variation create, indeed, bewildering difficulties, and my
figure, I fully admit, may ultimately prove to stand in
need of slight, though but slight, rectification.

Of the 125 plays provisionally recognised by
me as
separate entities, thirteen only (including the Cnops, the
existence of which I have myself, I claim, discovered, and
the Telegonus, which I am the first to distinguish from the
Telephus) are so manifestly quarta quae as (except, of
course, as regards the Cnops and the Telegonus) to be
generally recognised as such. That leaves 112 plays over.
But we are working on the hypothesis that the
tragedies, apart from possible quartae tragoediae, of
Sophocles numbered 105 and no more. If that be so,
it follows that of the 1 12 plays left over, seven at least must
be quarta quae. Now eight quarta quae we can, I think,
with high probability pick out, viz. the Acrisius sive
Larisaei, the Daedalus sive Talos,th.e lambe, the Nauplius
Pyrcaeus, Phineus (I. or //.), the Tereus, the Tympanistae,
and the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias.
As ex hypothesi the quarta quae numbered exactly 35,
and as, given these eight plays, fourteen of them, or,
without these eight plays, 22 of them, are missing or
unidentified, it is clear that any number, up to and
including 22, of the plays in the long list, altogether
if
independently of their total, may be quarta quae
therefore my figure of 112 err by way of excess, eight
or more quarta quae are still possible, whereas, if it err
by way of defect, seven, plus one or more, are necessary.
The Sophoclean plays that I recognise as separate
entities are these
(1) the Achaeon Synodos, (2) the
Acrisius sive Larisaei, (3) the Admetus, (4) the Aegeus, (5)
:
PAULO MAJORA
103
the Aegisthus sive Clytemnestra, (6) the Aethiopes, (7) the

Ajax Locrus, (8) the Ajax Mastigophoros, (9) the Alcmaeon,
(10) the Aleadae, (11) the Aletes, (12) the Alexander, (13)
the Amphiaraus, (14) the Amphitryon, (15) the Amycus,
(16) the Andromache, (17) the Andromeda, (18) the
Antenoridae, (19) the Antigone, (20) Athamas I., (21)
Athamas II., (22) the Atreus, (23) the Camici, (24) the
Cedalion, (25) the Chryses sive Aechmalotides, (26) the
Cwops, (27) the Colchides, (28) the CopK (29) the Creusa,
(30) the Crisis, (31 ) the Daedalus sive Talos, (32) the Danae,
(33) the Dionysiscus, (34) the Dolopes, (35) the Electra, (36)
the Epigoni, (37) the Erigone, (38) the Eriphyle, (39) the
Eumelus, (40) the Euryalus, (41) the Eurypylus, (42) the
Eurysaces, (43) the Helenes Apaetesis, (44) the Helenes
Gamos, (45) the Helenes Harpage, (46) the Hercules sive
Epitaenarii, (47) the Hermione, (48) the Hippodamia,
(49) the Hipponous, (50) the Hydrophoroe, (51) the Iambe,
(52) the Iberes, (53) the Ichneutae, (54) the Inachus, (55)
the Iobates, (56) the lodes, (57) the /on, (58) the Iphigenia,
(59) the Ixion, (60) the Lacaenae, (61) the Laocoon, (62)
Lemniae I., (63) Lemniae II., (64) the Meleager, (65) the
Memnon, (66) the Menelaus Memonomenos, (67) the Minos,
(68) the Mycenaeae, (69) the ilfi/s*, (70) the Nauplius
Catapleon, (71) the Nauplius Pyrcaeus, (72) the Nausicaa
sive Phaeaces sive Plyntriae, (73) the Niobe, (74) the
Niptra, (75) the Oedipus Coloneus, (76) the Oedipus
Tyrannus, (77) the Oeneus, (78) the Oenomaus, (79) the
Palamedes, (80) the Pandora sive Sphyrocopi, (81) the
Peleus, (82) the Phaedra, (83) the Philoctetes Lemni, (84)
the Philoctetes Trojae, (85) Phineus I., (86) Phineus II.,
(87) the Phrixus, (88) the Phryges, (89) the Phthiotides,
(90) the Poemenes, (91) the Polyidus sive Manteis, (92) the
Polyxena, (93) the Priamus, (94) the Procris, (95) the
Ptochia, (96) the Rhizotomoe, (97) the Salmoneus, (98) the
Scyrii, (99) the Scyihae, ( 100) the Sinon, ( 10 1 ) the Sisyphus,
(102) the Syndipni Seriphi, (103) the Syndipni Tenedi,
(104) the Tantalus, (105) the Telegonus, (106) the Telephus,
(107) the Terews, (108) the Tewcer, (109) the Thamyras
sive Musae, (110) the Theseus, (111) Thyestes I., (112)
Thyestes II., (113) the Trachiniae, (114) Triptolemus /.,
(115) Triptolemus II., (116) Triptolemus III., (117) the
Troilus, (118) the Tympanistae, (119) the Tyndareus,
104
Tyro I., (121) Tyro II., (122) the Ule, (123) the
Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias, (124) the
Ulysses Fur ens, and (125) the Xoanephori.
For (26) the Cnops, see under that heading in this
book for (66) the Menelaus Memonomenos, see under
the heading Momus in this book
for (95) the Ptochia,
see under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex in this book
for (102) Syndipni Seriphi, see under the heading Syndipni
for (105) the Telegonus, see my edition of
in this book
the Ichneutae (pp. 577, 578)
for (122) the Ule, see under
the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex in this book.
As regards (51) the lambe and (114-116) Triptolemi
I -III., it is apparent from the date of production (in
or shortly after 468 B.C.) that the legend of Triptolemus
must have been dealt with in a connected tetralogy.
The first play was concerned, I imagine, with the events
that centred in the interrupted immortalisation of
Triptolemus by fire, the second with his despatch as a
missionary of material civilisation, and the third with
the subsequent vicissitudes that ultimately culminated
in his kingship. Welcker and Pearson are thus reconciled.
The specific names given in antiquity to the first
and third tragedies are not preserved (it is clear that no
play of Sophocles named, in our records, otherwise than
as " the Triptolemus " can form a member of the trilogy)
that it was the second play that, in strictness, went
under the name Triptolemus I rather gather from Pliny
(N.H. xviii. 65). The title of the satyricum, the lambe,
speaks for itself
but how Sophocles treated the story
is a matter for consideration.
In no case is lambe a
Satyric monster (deities and the like excepted, Satyric
characters seem always to be monsters), and, when once
the grossness of the traditional tale is modified (as
Sophocles was bound to modify it), there is no excuse
I therefore
for presenting her in even a similar light.
take her to be one of the three tragic characters, and,
as she was a native of Attica, borrow her from Triptolemus I., in which play I conjecture that she appeared as
an assistant of Demeter. But as, in addition to being
a native of Attica, she was a daughter of Pan and Echo,
I much incline to bring in Pan himself as the one Satyric
character required. In that case Silenus would be
(120)
105
PAULO MAJORA
merely choragus of the Satyrs. A second tragic character
was necessarily Demeter I suppose she figured both in

Triptolemus I. and in Triptolemus II., but I fetch her
from Triptolemus II. The third tragic character cannot,
:
I think, be Triptolemus himself, who at the time of the

incident in question was not more than a babe in arms.
In his absence I choose without hesitation King Celeus
(whether Sophocles did or did not recognise him as
Triptolemus' father), who (unless Sophocles innovated
greatly) must have taken a leading part in the action of
Triptolemus I., and who at any rate, after Triptolemus,
was the chief character in the legend underlying Tripto-
lemus III., from which latter play I adopt him. Brunck.

I may observe, considered Frr. 606, 610, and 611, all
three ascribed in antiquity to the Triptolemus, as Satyric,
and deduced the conclusion that the Triptolemus (no
one before myself has suggested three Triptolemi) was a
satyricum. As regards Frr. 606 and 611 at any rate I
am half-inclined to agree with him it is not impossible,
or even improbable, that the Satyric Iambe should
sometimes be quoted under the general tetralogical title
:
Triptolemus.
We see then good ground for separating the Iambe

from the tragedies (the title has been regarded as another
name for a solitary Triptolemus) and including it among
the satyrica concurrently we appear to have done something towards establishing a tetralogy. I have given
this group priority, because in dealing with it I have
had not merely to assemble plays together, but also to
:
treat briefly of their existence.

In like case and therefore I put it second stands the
question of (123) the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses
Traumatias and its tetralogy. But that question I have
discussed sufficiently in the earlier portion of this book
(under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex). It will here
be enough to say that I regard the Ulysses Acanthoplex
sive Ulysses Traumatias as a quarta tragoedia and build
up the tetralogy thus
(122) the Ule, (95) the Ptochia,
(74) the Niptra, (123) the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive
Ulysses Traumatias. The quartum. quid being, in this
a quarta tragoedia, there arises no question of the

borrowing of characters.
case,
106
Thirdly, let me .approach (31) the Daedalus sive Talos

That the Daedalus and the Talos
its tetralogy.
their
are identical I need not waste time in arguing
identity is recognised as almost certain and no words of
mine would add anything to the approximate certitude.
But that the play is out-and-out a satyricum or quasi
satyricum, not even a quarta tragoedia, much less a
and
I show it
tragoedia solemnis, it behoves me to show.
by pointing to Fr. 162, which (cf. Ichneutae, 1. 298) is,
mind, absolutely conclusive. As collateral security
to
I put forward the brazen Talos himself, with whom I
compare the speaking and moving statue, also the work
of Daedalus, which figures (see Euripides, Fr. 372) in
my
Euripides' Eurystheus, a certified satyricum. Pearson

but he talks
himself suspects that the play was Satyric
"
"
and
Dionysus
Hephaestus
of
cult-fellowship
the
about
and about " the donkey and the phallus." I do not
understand such matters, but anyhow they are nihil ad
;
rem the learned editor much of his work has put me

under the deepest obligations of gratitude will pardon
:
me when
why
Sophocles
brought Satyrs (if he did bring them) into the story of
Talos were that a satyricum about Talos suited his trilogy
and that he thought he could make a good job of it. I
think that the drama is a satyricum, not a quasi satyricum
my reason is that it seems impossible for any story to be
involved that would demand a special Chorus in lieu of
the ordinary Chorus of Satyrs. The actual story, whatever it may be in detail, is obviously concerned with the
making, or with some event soon after the making, not
with the destruction, of Talos in the latter case the tragic
characters would have to be Medea and two Argonauts,
and these could not conceivably be drawn from a Daedalean trilogy. That the trilogy is Daedalean is, I submit,
which
sufficiently proved by the intimate association
of Talos with Daedalus
it would be inartistic to sever
and Minos, coupled with the mere existence of the Camici
(in which, at Daedalus' instigation, Minos was killed),
plus the consideration that, if Daedalus be present, then
Minos, as well as Daedalus, is surely demanded as a
tragic character in the Daedalus sive Talos, so that one
other play of the trilogy, besides the Camici, must, in
I say that the sole reasons
PAULO MAJORA
107
order for each of the two characters in question to have

a separate provenance, have dealt with the same compartment of legend. That means, of course, that the
tetralogy is a connected tetralogy. The Camici, in view
of its plot, must stand third in the trilogy.
What are
the two tragedies that went before it ? One might,
indeed, suggest the Polyidus sive Manteis and Tyro II.
but they are too remote in subject-matter, and to lead
up to the slaying, at Daedalus' instance, of Minos one
manifestly requires a drama or dramas dealing with the
earlier relations of the two.
Their quarrel had arisen
out of the construction of the Labyrinth by Daedalus
for Pasiphae, as a place of concealment for the Minotaur.
Minos, finding this out, imprisoned Daedalus, who
however escaped and flew away over the sea.
Minos
thereupon put the Labyrinth and the Minotaur to
uses of his own. Later he went in pursuit of Daedalus,
but at Camicus Daedalus got the better of him.
I
therefore take the recorded Minos, of the plot of which
nothing is known, as a play distinct from the Camici,
and conjecture that it deals with matters connected
with the building of the Labyrinth. Again, I take the
Theseus (this play, in my edition of the Ichneutae, I
wrongly assigned, instead of the Alcmaeon, to the Eriphyle
tetralogy), of the plot of which also nothing is known,
as concerned with the imprisonment of Theseus in the
Labyrinth and the slaying by him of the Minotaur. By
no other method do I see my way to building up the
trilogy
the process of exclusion is a perfectly valid
process.
If I am right, we have definitely separated
(31) the Daedalus sive Talos from the tragedies as a
satyricum, and have, with its help, arrived at this tetralogy
(67) the Minos, (110) the Theseus, (23) the Camici,
But we have not yet fixed
(31) the Daedalus sive Talos.
the third tragic character of the satyricum. As Daedalus
and Minos both come not only in the Camici but also,
ex hypothesi, in the Minos, and as Minos, but not Daedalus,
comes, similarly ex hypothesi, in the Theseus into the
bargain, we are not limited for our choice of a third
tragic character to any particular play.
Surely, given
Minos and Daedalus, that third character is Icarus,
and the plot Holland guessed something of this (see
;

108
Fr. 162)
of the
satyricum
is
the escape, despite Talos'
Daedalus and Icarus. But Icarus can

be drawn only from the Minos. This leaves Daedalus
no provenance but the Camici. This in its turn means
that Minos is taken from the Theseus.
Fourthly, we have, I submit, a connected tetralogy
consisting of (32) the Danae, (17) the Andromeda, (102)
the Syndipni Seriphi, and (2) the Acrisius sive Larisaei.
for the
This last play is doubtless a quarta tragoedia
third play see under the headings Syndipni and Fr. 564.
These four are the only cases in which I find myself
at present able to help the argument that a particular
play is a quartum quid by depositing it as such at the end
of a particular tetralogy For proof that ( 7 1 ) the Nauplius
Pyrcaeus is a satyricum see earlier in this book under the
heading Nauplius. For reason for supposing that (85)
Phineus I. or (86) Phineus II. one or the other of them
is a quartum quid see earlier in this book under the heading Phineus, I. and II. For strong reason for holding
that (118) the Tympanistae is a quarta tragoedia see
earlier in this book under the heading Tympanistae.
That (107) the Tereus is a quarta tragoedia, and a
quarta tragoedia of a peculiarly uncompromising type,
is, I contend, proved to positive demonstration by the
appearance in it both of Tereus himself and of Procne
in the form of birds (see the scholia on Aristophanes'
Aves, 11. 99 et seq., and consult my remarks earlier in
this book under the heading Tereus), as also by the
scholiast's statement (I.e.) that in the Tereus Sophocles
" mocked much at Tereus " (so Euripides mocked,
though more covertly, it may be, at Admetus). This kind
of evidence, however distasteful to editors, cannot be got
round facts are chiels that winna ding.
vigilance,
of
quae, I may note, are these

Amphiaraus, (15) the Amycus,
the
Admetus,
the
(13)
(3)
(24) the Cedalion, (28) the Cophi, (30) the Crisis, (33) the
Dionysiscus, (44) the Helenes Gamos, (46) the Hercules
sive Epitaenarii, (53) the Ichneutae, and (97) the Salmoneus, together with the alleged Eris, Momus, and
Hybris. The title Eris I take as a mistake arising from
an abbreviation of Eridion (see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 354-6) the title Momus I explain as due to an
The recognised quarta

PAULO MAJORA
109
erroneous reading of the abbreviated dative of Menelaus

(or, possibly, Meneleos) Memonomenos (or, possibly, Monumenos), a tragoedia solemnis (see earlier in this book under
the Hybris meaning the " Hythe heading Momus)
"
I regard as a rather late alternative title for
brid
another tragoedia solemnis, the Tyro Cos (see my edition
of the Ichneutae, pp. 417, 421, and earlier in this book
under the heading Hybris). To these I have myself added
two obvious satyrica, viz. (26) the Cnops and (105) the
Telegonus, and also, though only as a possibility (see,
in this book, under Fr. 322), a satyricum called Neleus
Siones.
Having dealt with the disputed quarta quae, I will now

point out a connected tetralogy with an undisputed
satyricum. A connected tetralogy appears clearly to be
indicated by (45) the Helenes Harpage, (66) the Menelaus
Memonomenos, (43) the Helenes Apaetesis, and (44) the
Helenes Oamos (I withdraw certain remarks, inconsistent
with this conclusion, on pp. 613 and 614 of my edition of
the Ichneutae). But, if so, the trilogy is, in effect, only
one tragedy. This is a carrying further of the tendency
noted by me in the case of the Vie tetralogy (see earlier
in this book under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex), in
which the whole tetralogy is, in effect, but one drama
but there the one drama has also the completeness, despite
Here, on the
its unity, proper to a connected trilogy.
other hand, there is only the completeness of a drama.
Three such dramas would be needed to produce the effect
of a trilogy. But consider with how admirable a field, in
the case of this tetralogy, and especially of the Menelaus
Memonomenos, the peculiar genius of Sophocles has
Now such conprovided itself wherein to expatiate
sideration leads on to a point that is possibly of some
moment. In the Menelaus Memonomenos there is scope
it is essentially a drama of the inner
for but little action
man. It amounts, inevitably, to an exposition in scenic
detail of that interior desolation which in lyric outline
Aeschylus had already depicted the picture is a possession for ever in a chorus of his Agamemnon. To the
Menelaus of Aeschylus Helen comes in the visions of the
night. There is ground for thinking that she so comes
palpably, in this case, and on the stage to the Menelaus
;

110
of Sophocles also.
If
we see in part how action

The ground is this. We know
she does,
of a kindis provided.
that two of the tragic characters in the satyricum are

Helen and Paris the third tragic character is not known.
Prima facie it would seem feasible to take Helen and Paris
from the Helenes Harpage and the Helenes Apaetesis (both
of them must figure in each of the two plays) indiscriminately, and for third tragic character to fetch some
deity (only a deity appears possible), Aphrodite for choice,
from the Menelaus. But I entertain the gravest misgivings
with regard to this indiscriminate fetching of tragic
characters. It is inartistic, and we have seemed to see
already how in the Daedalean tetralogy Sophocles avoids
each tragic character ought definitely to represent
it
a particular tragedy. The one via salutis, I suggest,
qua minime reris in the
is to find Helen's provenance
Menelaus. You can then go on to borrow Paris from the
Apaetesis and Helen's old Nurse (for her there is abundant
precedent) from the Harpage. The Chorus was, we know,
a Chorus of Satyrs. Doubtless the Satyric character was
;
Silenus.
Other connected tetralogies are the following

Oedipus Tyrannus, (75) the Oedipus Coloneus,
(19) the Antigone, (26) the Cnops (for this tetralogy see
:
(76) the
my edition
this
of the Ichneutae, pp. 595-608, and earlier in

(103) the Syndipni
book under the heading Cnops)
Tenedi, (83) the Philoctetes Lemni, (84) the Philoctetes

Trojae, (46) the Hercules sive Epitaenarii (for this tetralogy see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 608, 609, and
earlier in this
Athamas
book under the heading Syndipni) (20)

Athamas II., (87) the Phrixus, (33) the
;
I., (21)
Dionysiscus (for this tetralogy see
my
edition of the
Ichneutae, p. 611).
There is yet one other connected tetralogy discernible.

In my edition of the Ichneutae I partially disentangled it,
but I wrongly included in it the Theseus, which I now see
appears to be required for the Daedalean tetralogy,
instead of the Alcmaeon, which manifestly deals with what
part and parcel of the legend. The tetralogy is this
the Epigoni, (9) the Alcmaeon,
this tetralogy see my edition of
(for
Amphiaraus
the
(13)
the Ichneutae, pp. 608-611, with however the modification
is
(38) the Eriphyle, (36)

PAULO MAJORA
111
have indicated the character Agon in the satyricum

comes Alcmaeon helped to found the Isthmian Games
from the Alcmaeon).
Moreover I can point to one connected trilogy (the
quartum quid is apparently unknown by name), viz. (5),
the Aegisthus sive Clytemnestra, (35) the Electra, (37) the

Erigone.
With the unconnected tetralogies elsewhere I have

some of them together, and one is on
we have here no concern. Of these there
tried to piece
partial record
was no temptation to label any of the constituent plays

neither do I suppose that their quarta quae,
as spurious
though they had necessarily to cohere, more or less, with
;
something, were
felt as
a difficulty.
We
have discovered, then, ten connected tetralogies

(one of them with its quartum quid missing), viz. those
beginning with Triptolemus I., with the Ule, with the
Daedalus, with the Danae, with the Helenes Harpage,
with the Oedipus Tyrannus, with the Syndipni Tenedi,
with Athamas I., with the Eriphyle, and with the
Aegisthus sive Clytemnestra respectively. I cannot see
that any more remain to be discovered. Of these ten
connected tetralogies seven, we have observed, appear to
conclude with satyrica and two with quartae tragoediae,
while of one the quartum quid seems to be unknown.
For totals to square (see the next paragraph) the
unknown quartum quid must have been a quarta
tragoedia.
The plays branded as spurious are seventeen in

number. That, I maintain, means that the higher critics
took one tragoedia solemnis the third ? out of each of
these ten connected tetralogies, together with all seven of
come in question (quartae tragoediae, as
not borrowing three, or indeed, in the strict sense, any,
characters, were comparatively inoffensive), and, in order
to kill the idea that Sophocles composed in tetralogies at
all, branded them as spurious.
Even of the tragedies of
the Oedipodia they branded the Antigone mad knaves
as spurious, attributing it to Iophon (see Anecd. Oxon.
iv. p. 315, 21), and circulated nefarious lies as to the time
and circumstances of the production of the Oedipus
the satyrica that
Coloneus.
112
Well, time has had its revenge. To-day no record

what plays, besides the Antigone (and, it would
seem, the Syndipni Seriphi), they branded, and as to the
states
Antigone itself not one soul believes them.

I conjecture that on the boards of the Alexandrian
theatre, after the days of the Pleiad and of the greater
Grammarians, in an age when new tragedies were aves
rarissimae, it became the practice to present principally
the works of the five tragedians of the Attic canon and
to piesent them thus either (a) a complete tetralogy,
dignitatis jure, of Aeschylus, or (&) a complete tetralogy,
connected or unconnected, popularitatis gratia, of
Euripides, or (c) a composite group of four plays by
Sophocles, Ion, and Achaeus, not more than two of them
by the same author. This, as regards the vital detail,
but on no other hypois conjecture pure and simple
thesis can I see my way to account for the origin of the
late superstition (late, but, it would appear, both known
to the true and original Suidas and accepted by Athenaeus)
that Sophocles I am prepared, in another book, to
show that the superstition also extended to Ion and to
A chaeus did not compose his dramas on a tetralogical
;
basis.
I ask to be permitted in this place seeing that my

treatment of certain Sophoclean problems cannot well be
dissociated from my treatment of certain Euripidean
problems to confirm the argument with regard to
fabulae necfabulae contained in my Macedonian Tetralogy
I there show by apparently necessary
of Euripides.
inference that of the numerous quarta quae of Euripides
eight only (including one antilegomenon) were by the
stricter school of ancient scholars regarded as dramata.
I can now offer what is, to all intents and purposes, direct
Thomas Magister (see Kirchhoff's Euripidis
proof.
Tragoediae, vol. i. p. 375), speaking of the plays composed
by Euripides, says sv oic, ^v notice the imperfect
I am thus seen to have correctly
oxto) [xovov aaxupixa.
elicited the implicit tenor of a tradition so tantalisingly
recorded scribbled, indeed, on a Sibyl's scattered leaves
as in this passage only to appear in explicit form.
:
PAULO MAJOR A
113
me
take further advantage of this opportunity

questions.
(1) What is the permissible
extent, in practice, of the meaning of a tragic
victory "
(there were three prizes) ?
(2) What happened as regards
performance and consequent record in didascaliae to
such tetralogies of a great composer (e.g. Euripides) as
failed to be awarded a chorus (and, therefore, one or other,
ultimately, of the three prizes) at the Urban Dionysia ?
(3) Is it reasonably certain that, in Arabic, Aristotle's
Let
by asking three
Didascaliae
is
whether the
no longer in existence ? I more than doubt

even of Spain have been properly
libraries
explored.
Finally, to satisfy my reference under the heading

Cnops, I will touch on yet another Euripidean topic.
Euripides' Ion exhibits (11. 29-53) an interpolated
initial acrostic.
The passage contrast the oasis of its
initials with the wilderness of other and unlinkable
initials that lie on either side of it runs as follows
:
&
ouyyov', eX0oiv Xaov eh; auTo/Oova
xXeivcov 'AOyjvwv, olaOa yap 0ea<; 7tt6Xiv,
30
Xa(3wv ppscpoi; veoyv&v ex xoiXyj? Tzkxpcuc,

auxcp cuv ayya a7Eapydvoiat 6' ol<; iyzi
eve-pee AeXcpcov xafjia 7tpo<; xpTjiTXTQpta
xai
Ta
auxai? sta68ot<; 86ficov e(xciv.

yap Icttiv, d><; siS^, 6 nculq,
0e<; Tzpbc,
8'
<5cXX',
k[ibc,
Aota
35
8'
eya> x^P tv
Ttpacracov d8sX<p<o 7cXsxt6v eâpa? <txutcx;
yjjjLiv
(jieXâst.
^jveyxa xal t6v 7rat8a xp7]m8cov
eXwxov
xupsl
dvTt7C7jyo<;, ax; 6p&)0'
8'
7rpocp>}Ti<;
o^t-v
em
vaou tou8' dva7rrua<; ctxuto?
TCOirjfxt
avi7nreuovTOt; y)Xiou
6 toci?.
eia(3aivouaa (xavretov 0eou*
8e 7rpoapaXouara touSI
e0aujxaa'' ei tk; AeX<p8cov
V7j7ria>
xXa^
x6p>j
Xa0paiov J>8tV zlc, 0soo ptâi 86fJiov,

uuep 8e 0ujiiXa<; Sioptcat, 7cp60u(xo<; 9jv
otxrtp 8* d<p9jxev cbfxonrjTa xal 0eo?
aruvepyo?
40
xuxXw
9jv
tw
tou81
rpscpet 8e vtv Xa(3ouaa*
jji.^
'xTcscetv 86fjiG)V.
tov o7cstpavra 8s
45
114
OUX oZ8s OotÔV OuSs
(JLYJTSp'
50
s<pu,
9)<;
6 Tzcuq ts too? tsxovtoc<; oux 7ricTaTai.
&v
veo? [xev oSv
dGoptov
/)XaV
Tpo9<x?
a[xcpi.pco[JLiou<;
to? 8'
a7r/)v8pa>0Y; 8eâ<;, (xtX.).
Reiske's certain emendation

In 11. 37 and 39
editors follow Stephanus in substituting x6to? for oxuto<;
they are, I think, right in making the alteration but the
In
1.
33 eveyxs AeX<ptov
of the sveyx' a8eX<pc5
is
the mss.
of
matter is not free from doubt. In 1. 40 sXixtov (required,

as will be seen, by the acrostic) is preferred by various
authorities
of the mss.,
and
by Liddell and Scott) to the

6ptp0' is Scaliger's
sIXixtov
secure correction of
In 1 52 Tpocpa? is Kirchhoff's emendation of orpoqxfc;

Taking the initial letters the initial diphthongs of
47 and 50 included we obtain
6paQ'
11.
(e.g.
CO,
X, X, a, , X, T,
C, T, OU, O, V,
That
spells
W,
T),
7),
T, S, X,
7t,
O,
X, U, 01,
7).
x< tco>s<Xuocttoo
<y>ovy).
" Cry Io, thou thunder-stricken child of

Translate
the god of many arrows." There is a play on uo and
The presentation of Ixto7C7)ts (c/. ex(3povxav) as
"Icov.
there
sxTy)7n)re pronounced identically is intentional
existed a rooted objection to the employment of u
except as the second element in a diphthong (sxTU7tetv
is a recognised alternative to sxxtotoiv).
Two lines (28 bis and 50 bis) must be added and two
the consequential changes are
(41 and 44) eliminated
Observe the result
of the slightest.
28 6*s
Uo:
d>
auYY0V \
sX0<5>v
Xaov
si<;
aoroxGova
xXsivtov 'AGtjvcov, olaOa yap Gsofe tctoXiv,

Xa(}cov ppecpo? veoyvov ex xoCXv)<; TtsTpa?
aorto cruv &yyei cntapYdvoiai G' ol? e'xsi
Iveyxe AeXcp&v Tafxd 7ipo<; xpy)crc-yjpta
xal Gs?
t4
8'
rjfjitv
7cp6i; ccxnaXc,
(ScXX',
I(jt6?
{xeXôei.
y*P
Aoa
ela6Soi<; 86[xtov sfxcov.
eoxtv,
eb<;
8' syeb
siSfj?,
6 wat?,
xP tv
TCpacocov <x8eX<ptp 7cXsxtov edpa<; xoto?
^vsyxa xal tov 7rat8a xpi}7u8cov

t(Gt){jli
30
Em
vaoo tou8* dva7rr6a<; xoro<;
35
PAULO MAJORA
eXixT&v avTfonjyo?*
opa
to?
8'
115
40
42
43
45
thz<x.i<;
Kj(3ouvouaa jxavTstov Oeou,
7tpocp7JTi<;
ys 7ipo<j(i}aXoucya toxi81 vvjuito

XaOpaiov o!)8tV ex Gsou pftpou Sofxtov
fttyiv
U7tp ts 0u[iiXa<; 8iopurat 7tp66u[j(.o<; 9jv

otxTCp 8' acpyjxev wjxoTrjxa xal 0s6?
auvepyo?
9jv
tu
toxiSI
OUX
OotÔV
oZSfi
6 Teat? re
tjXSct'
toiIk;
oSv
Tauxa
txovtoc<;
&v
aOupcov*
Sofxtov.
tov OTrstpavxa 8e
01>8e [XTJT^p'
yafAoiai xpu7tT0t?,
vo<; [Xv
'x7t<7iv
(X7j
xpecpet 8e vtv XajSouaa*
8'
<pu
$)<;
oI8'
eyw
[x6voc;,
50
50 bis
oux 7uaTaTai.
afX9ip<o(xiou<; xpocpac;
<o<;
8'
darqvSpcoO'y)
8e[jt,a<;,
(xtX.)
I certainly conceive that this version (of course I
myself down to such points as the detail of

but I do insist that the highly effective word,
(5t7cai<;, must have stood in 1. 40) is more original than the
current text, which latter I take to have been concocted
with the sole view of obscuring the existence of the
But the lines are not Euripidean the repeated
acrostic.
do not
1.
50
tie
bis,
device of the parenthesis
(11.
30 and 35)
is
enough to show
Probably they replace, with more or less incorporaa Euripidean passage covering much the same
ground, which was cut out in order to let the acrostic
They though (l) the alphabet of the acrostic is
in.
fully Euclidean, and (2) inherent etacism is exhibited
are of considerable antiquity. The correption of the a
of xXaav, however remarkable, is no whit more illicit,
per se, than the correption of the a of at. The accent
of yovy) negatives the possibility of a versus ttchnicus.
The really extraordinary feature is the acrostician's
identification of Ion with Phaethon.
Yet even for this
we ought to be in some measure prepared by the Hesiodic
legend which, not indeed representing Phaethon as a son
of Apollo, makes him guardian of a temple (of Aphrodite).
Have I envisaged the problem of this acrostic in an
honest and a sober spirit ? Such wares form so often
the stock-in-trade of charlatans and of fanatics that
that.
tion,
personally fortunatus, si nunquam aenigma fuisset

feel the answer to this question to be of some importance
even to scholarship and of much importance to myself.
Nor do I presume to judge in my own cause.
I
12
INDEX OF SELECT TOPICS

Play, Fragment, or Paper
Fr. 24
Accentuation, Conventional
Cnops; Paper IV.
Acrostics
Frr. 44, 339, 345, 378
Corruption, the letter u in
Frr. 941, 1126
Delphi, Productions (perhaps) on Stage of
Paper IV.
Euripides, Fabulae Necfabulae of
,
Frr. 349, 555, 848
Iota " Subscript "
Fr. 349
Metathesis, Attic
Momus (?) ; Frr. 419-424
Sophocles, an alleged Momus by
...
Nausicaa ; Frr. 236, 369
Sophocles, Homerica of
Fr. 1126
Sophocles, Monotheistic Passage (probably) of
Achilleos Erasiae ; Frr. 345, 841
Sophocles, Morality of
...
Sophocles, Oedipodia of
Cnops ; Frr. 335b-335d, 733
...
Paper IV.
Sophocles, Tetralogies of
Jr. 687
Spanish, Use of, in Greek Texts
INDEX OF EMENDATIONS
A
B
680
d(}p6xa>v 7to6cov, av
(iapix;
ayovo? Eucppova 334

dyx^voiv Tied? ydvex; 241
ayxoG'
8'
npoari^z
Sioxeufxaxi
Xa/os
ev
380
uvoixo<;,
evoi,
a>
753
P6t7& 373
(3ou<; a$0i (i.i(jivcov
Bptiywv 455
X7]
P apui
522
'Aywv' 121
dycov' UTrdyyeX'
a5 378
#8ei 8' <5c(jua8\ "Ixuv 0' o

eXXOTCOV 581
dr,8a>v
etji.1
xu; yuv?)
x&pvu;
x' <5cXyo<;
dXXd
7roXXd-
583
#0Xo>v t' ayaXjxa, xexxovgjv 1126

at 8' dvouaxepa xtaei 589
aixS) 8e pXaaxdv 122
659
alwv axuyepa xdv/jpaxa;* a> 568
axapuov 1126
<5cxpa? 555
dXXaxou, xetvY)<; axpa 23
dcXaeu; dxxa<; xa<; 24
d;x9evcoTWTC 581
#v xci) TCavreXous [i.7)87) Ai6? 646
dvr)vu0\ ox; exei 557
a^fcofi,' -qXeyâi; ou8' e[J.6v 105
y' dy<ov'
yavY)
y'
<5otoc5
(xtto,
atewyjxa
7tptoxa)vr)0'
860
yeTa' djxeviqvd
506
166
dpaaaet xdbd xouvSov epxexai 684
apt0[j(.7)(ja<; 681
dpXTw TreptcpspeT 432
dpx7)0ev ye xcji Kpov<) yspa<; 126
dpx&v 482
aoa' 929
dcaxau; 'AXÔei' f.oev 1126
arcoiva
680
'AxpetSaw 887
a6yav0ei<; 659
doX'/jf^v'
yevotax' da<paXeic Xea> 683

y^jpat.
aôvra 944b
yovecov
8'
yevexa<;
8'
ere'
let
to\
^tctj
*75
434
8'
193
ercl
7roX6
y'
dXa0eta
667
doaov
olxexcov
TratXTtTjeia
373
8'
eTraaxa xejxvexat xXdcxou
yjZ7)
255
8'
ernvw? 199
8'
epdex' e8e0X' 602
8'
I6v0cov
729
SaxpuppoeTxov xal x6 xal xo xuyXavov 910

8ao|i.wv ouxe xi? 0tptov yepicov 555
8J;iXa<; xidpoa; xal aicrupvolSir) 413
Seijx' dypux; Ilav ouxa \i\ avxaux;
335
8' 432
Seot 944b
SeiSxpta 42
0e6<;
SexdcSa
av dCSiov 844
SiSaaxaXeia* (iouaix% 1120
1126
aOxM-T)pa? fpt/otC
TrpooYjxovr'
eu<py][x'
Srjyii.'
aiixcxpwv t' dei y' epoj

atixco?
524
537
yavo? 504
ye 245
aloxuvy) viv
arcavxa
'crxl
Aioi? xoctcok; 7rdp'
320
Sixoaxaxatv 867
SicoXXuxai 921
8pu? 86?, d[i.<ptX7)va 44
120
âv/joa?,
867]
7rat,
7rpoyufi,vaaai
%ei
498
xa8' ou
Suvaau;
568
0vyjxoT<; euirox(xoxax7;
0eoi<;
ou8'
ex6p6<;,
88
IcpJexat
exeiv 837
E
e^Xey' It*
eyyuc
ei|x\
Zeu, ayocrxov oxoT? xov 887
583
XU9X0S 858
ccuxtj
Zeis 524
tzcu,
<5>
lyxXlvei xe 941
eyxuxov 88
sSei 107
e8ea0' ou 958
7)
ptov xp67rcov
471
0'
et yi?)0exott
yap TroXuy6va>v
60x011;
&8\
<puXa^
yj
coaxe Seo-jjia
sip' otcou?
eiScoc;,
149
SXtj
aqsrjf;
(jl6vo?
x1p$
555
ov x6
fj.7]8a[j.'
(xyj
ou (xevov 106
465
laalxepov 7ixep6v 589
yj[i,uvavx'
Set,
230
156
Wfl 397
yjvvuO'
770
,
aveu,
oBevei 904
el'0\ el
x&p&yjpt,
tj
rcavxl
uveaxoi y' vjpepiet 950

ev oxaxut 894
Geiqc
07]y/) y',
eXwv 671
eT0'
7)you
rjpiaXaâi.
941
el',
ou xoupeiov ^peo67) 126

'vonxpa vauxat y' &v xaXawco-
[xetov
8'
av eO to
aneixacaK; 149
cln olxxtaat 581
y'
etxoi
rj
xaxaii;
432
918
590
6vY)xa cppoveixco
0V7)xt) <puai<;
eu xouxo xaxei8ui' 590
elpe
el?
etx'
'Iaaou<;
6pvu<; ael
966
exaaxov 06 xoi6v
exjxexpov y' 353
exoi;j.y)CT'
urcvoc;
xiv'
681
"I8t)<;;
l'8pi<;
210
exmcov xt<; 483

eji,w 360
y', ev
aY
(In;
rcepq:
pou;
toaxe
8i'
erceiO'
o!o<;
tao0ai 88
xairaa 16
xataxuvexal xe 255
xal
7rCxp'
xaxXuaev 646
xaXtoi; 107
xaXco? 944b
xapt.fl
xa
uoTrXr.y' el?
115
eO ye mxuv eup' 8? 432
e5 cpaiov 872
e&pp6va '? 871
e5xS ev Soxat? 373
&pu xl XOUXOU x^PH- a ^ClÔV,
Xa0ai<; 636
0r)p,
Ppoxotaiv, v xal
941
evauSaeaoa 457
ev0', fi 683
gvioi auv 904
Ipyaxai yavcov 879
epa> 149
e? Te xa{i.(3axa 88
&x' txco 8e Hu0l:x<; pox
e<;
0ewv 490
0eoi<; avei
ex'
511
xptoXujxiaov 511
944b
Lvlou Xercao^pou 337
16x7]? 766
iaxpeucov 197
exdjXTcaoav 8op7) re
ev 6rjpot
57
"I&rfi "ISyj?
xivuol
7)
'v
8'
u(3pcov
auxtx',
el'
oe
Pa0pov eXai 501

xav (aeacp xi<; opvi<; "Hpoe? 654
xavtaualou; 7rupoT<; 738
xoctt' aSrjXov 871
xax' o5pov tq 646
x^xa 149
xeXeu0a 721
x'
Kxepoiv 23
x6pa 861
a{>pa
xavaxoixplêi
INDEX OF EMENDATIONS
xoupeuai
258
xoiSaxaXX' avapndacoai Tca(Si' Tea
149
Yfi
xpu9ai6v
935
572
x'
Kuxvcx;
cot;
a[xvjxa<;
te 7tXXy)
PtooTpeT 0eaiv 509
xuv' eT8e x6v arTplcpovra y' 738
xcoxutCx; e;j.7re7TT<oxev, aur>] [xouoa
xal osip^v [i.ta 852

241
'
38
Xa(icov
Xsux6xpou
ofaou too a0evsi 107

ok<j>
6v
107
8'
t' dtXTTJi; aetSsiv
'
IraXtav
858
BapuvOrjceoG'
\i^
7rto<;
697
frrou; ISpuaai t?jX' 373

06 XSv, oi8' 8xav Bdxxpov 1120
ou xu; 364
o\S8' el? tk; tcX-Jjv Ai6<; oTSev 590
ouSatov ^ 9uxaTov <b<; Bfa fiayou
941
o^Sev oIS'
600
88
eêvrei;
67opoxaXd9ois 255
efxoo;
XeXsYfiiva 432
Y)
avmsfosTai y<*P ^vt 331

y^P 9ôu; avept, 8olr, 808
otxTtpeiev av 659
oIa6' 8 iLJi |xe 493
oaiiff axpiou
xtofJtTjoaariv
XoBotc
6 7iaT})p y*P coptoev 24

8 ti.
o ti
xptyeic, 8'
Xcov
572
6 BporoT<;
xpTjY'i^v aloav
XaB^v
SLarexiXpisviQ Tpucpi)*;
Tifxa<;
659
121
Itcouv
508
ouxeri 6vt)t6<; t&v 6atavra 572
1120
69X61 929
M
467
1126
y.oty[i6v
fjtaxXriv
II
H^Y' #<*fu fa? 773

fxeXewv, tpSwv
[i.ecrr6v
381
7rdpo<; rro0'
[irJTsp, 7rr6Xi,
581
7TeS'
852
[jiouoopLavsi.'
eyxaTa xal
683
503
7tXX', eCaoia y'
7rtetv
ev 8' 89P6?
7ToX\iorpo90v
7TOTS
7taoeo6' ajjierptov
236
555
^.6)(6cov
913
(i.r)Xorp690i'
TCpscpu; fjGecov
re
7rp8;jLvot?
7rp6<; y'
'onr)
Teipectoo
605
432
Seurepav 24
7rpoJT6v y' ^ v '
xal
aYeXyjTfl
'OXiS^jtou ouv aY<x{xo) 622

6tpara 88
7TpUfJlV7)T7)(TlV
7rptora,
392
veljzeiev
511
xal ev8iOT7}TO<; 369

vixa 8' 188
TcaT?
av
TroXXoi? 7rap68ioi 1126
veiitov 8pYj y' fonxppm;,

vecoaxl 876
Oa(iev6?
910
735
tcXoui; y' o^tzox'
vav 335d
veêiv 149
veoo9a8atOTOV 349
3dv07)$
aYpaOXot? B6tou;
114
245
7r7][i.',
vrjl
503
762
'Epivuv y' 334
7rs8oixo?
IXd<p8ir)v
SuoTv 581
9jv
'XXiQ<J7rovTt<;
75
TraTrjp, <xtoxvt<ov
TcaTOiTo
fiopcpa 'X9<xvei
ttotI
yov"v 379
307
jivrjotou
(jiouvai;
8? tex6vtoiv
Ttdp' ale' 192
7rai<;
255
(i.7]87rto
uv 682
7ta0cov S' e'xaorcx;
568
wv
7tdvr' dîsvai
6*Bp' oloq 944b

7TTtox''
&XXa xoooapouvri 546
122
xotov
<ji
Boa7topkrf)
T<ji8'
^sic, Saijxov'.
iv <p6p'
cxXfc-
pw
'or'
TojAateov 371
453
x6{xoupov
exai 503
el^
770
a-rep
483
ptyei xevov y' oO
wv
T07rdo9'
106
[X7)8v
tooou 113
cxdcXfjirj
TpiTOv
yap 6pxeu;
(3amXl<;
8'
y^P Wi? Xa;a.(idvei 90(00

395
xuxtfiv 506
Tupawix' alo' iTrsiycTai -tpuysiv
382
rax; 431
7rxep6v
861
Eeiprjve 8'
941
toi} tvoq
"Aorpot? 564
a Xt7T0uoa [ikv 7r6vrtov 562
a'
620
aou 330
oou aov wtTlau 501
0090^ oe A(a X^youoi yswtjtVjv xe
Gewv 752
W,
ou8'
944b
<5tp*
wal 6Xwv
OTi9pa 432
Expo^X-/)?,
546
aiS t\
8'
<;
8(jlvu^ t*
otiyxoXX'
arc'
Niaipa
Svrjv
rfjv
9^pco 454
339
a;j.90iv
345
9X61 jxv 188
867
90pouvr',
c6Xv) Sdapia r 272

auvap7rao8eTa' av 6vox6Xcov 659
todvTTj
aiYetov
TTav6<;,
564
(jiXav
auvT^vsi 462
ox6[xa
auoi8<;
xapa
t'
lacovufiov
88
09a8atCeK; 848
oXOtvtSa? sti^tovou? ôy aoav
xX6a? 523
/op6v wpouaa
XpU(J7)V
^7rt9aiaavn
Y*)S
aav
urr6
636
aT^yriv
awv.
"
342
xfcov
â
Xauapxtai 192
Xepaou 8' Iv 941
Sv eu7rsT&<; (3Xdpo<;
XpuooxeuxTfov
ra
UX^J
y' ^ v Tt^cp
i5cyt]
tocxtcso6vt'
r\
&V
'Xe9avrt^tov 1126
^X^
St'
ttjoS'
f)66ou
941
xpt^pG^vra IItpoft
557
ala0o6at 947
Taur' av spx6vTe<; 837

Tep7tvqi y^P s^ a 583
670
xtvcx; 827
&
aopaipe 142
6ac;
5)8'
523
97)
9aXXaiv'
Taptx'/jpov
tS)
xiq cdooc
T^
Xop6<;
107
9aoo'
562
935
4*
t'
Ny)p-r)18<ov
40
l'<Tjf)
ISouoa
t&v
ydpov 606
oiXXuxai 920
82
T k v7fc "I8t)<; 511

nS ye 557
J> ?
770
x e sotv ^ ^?
9puXTtop(a 432
cbs
^S
orp arou
Printed by
SroTTiswooDK, Ballantynk & Co. Ltd.
London, Colchester &* Eton
PA
4413
19
1921
Sophocles
Sophoclean fragments
PLEASE
CARDS OR
DO NOT REMOVE
SLIPS
UNIVERSITY
FROM
THIS
OF TORONTO
POCKET
LIBRARY

Sophoclean Fragments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sophoclean Fragments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sophoclean Fragments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS

RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER

BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD.

RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER

(livroi reavra Tiv0pa>7t<)v voaeT,

xaxot? orav 0Xcootv tao0ai xaxa.

AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

admiratur tragicos tres terra poetas,

Religio et priscus terror in ore sedet.

Sed tamen idque inter rerum miracula pono

Tertiaque huic pleno jure corona cadit.

in dramaticis vicibus decus est tibi primum,

Nee bene morata

Ordine res agitur. Nos te praeeunte timemus ?

Non tantum in vita est est

have had a genitive MsveXeco (standing, by metathesis, for

MeveX^ou) and a dative MeveXeo) (standing, by conception,

27, /or 7rpwT<ov7)0' read 7rpcoT6v7)6'

Euripidean Fragments and Observaciones acerca de los

services to learning are incontestable

misfortune quite say of him,

in his happier days, said of Colet

the doctor for

The emendation of the Fragments of Sophocles differs

of ye, in particular, is frequently of this character,

authenticity. More he cannot do

(following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles)

(following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles) 20

Paper III. Other Fragments

Paper IV. Paulo Majora

Index of Select Topics

my edition of the Ichneutae

but with the

Macedonian Tetralogy (pp.

read with Liddell

my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 92.

Fr. 15. See my Macedonian Tetralogy (p. 124).

oupeiav (or opeiav)

as, even if unaccomnot said) be far more

(vr ctooXXoiaiv for tv

-TeP 6v. Read:

had been read

/. JLL yap Apiasv

xal -rWavra? xxp9 cov

Seurspav was written simply as <x[3.

meaning other than that

of glade or the like, and, besides,

have no comment to offer, except that it seems to

2 read, with Dindorf, xeXoav6p>vs<; for

edition of the Ichneutae (especially p. 513

the emendation which I there propose). I am

Aechmalotides and Chryses are only two names for one

Unemended text tocuttjv eyoo, KiXXav ts xal

a less probable emendation would be

oujqxooVtcx; for odyp.o'kexoc;.

ax; xal t6v yspovra yepotSdv y) yspouvro? Xeyst.

M. Schmidt, taking the two

entries together, proposes

UpoXac; tcov tepwv 7ri[xeXou(XVo<;.

AtjQxaXamai, 6? xal tov yyjpcovTa "prjpoXav Xeyei.