8/12/2019 04 Hippolytus 88-89, Diggle (Resp a West 2)-Asin_56sw7kw7pv5fihcykccazdmkfwbmkylz

1/3

Euripides, Hippolytus 88-89

Author(s): James DiggleSource: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 133-134Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/706868.

Accessed: 22/03/2011 09:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/706868?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/706868?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

8/12/2019 04 Hippolytus 88-89, Diggle (Resp a West 2)-Asin_56sw7kw7pv5fihcykccazdmkfwbmkylz

2/3

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 133PROSE IN SIMONIDES

THE beginning of Simonides fr. 26 Page isprinted as follows:3GLdrrpv'XoLeTv La7opLOvrvyypacL CLdvOL&AAairoAAol'Kal 7-,v 7TOLV77-,VaOv'Lv77-cavavTorv 7 S av38paya0las cOv yeyOVE Kal_&JOrV8I7S 0d lEAo07TOLoes a Leov 777S dapE7?) awvi-vrTotjaasEYKWpLLOV,V&AMyet.

Tv EI O&Ep o7TvAaLavo'vrwvYEVKAE' Ue Va' 7-Xa, KaAOGS' 0' rd7TOS,PwOS ' 0dTdio, lTpOOdV E8 Via7LSC,d8' oPK7OsEGraLVOg.

Some manuscripts of Diodorus, the quotingauthor, have eEpworrtAaLaL.Page suggestswriting 7-^v OPoeprrowAaLaLavo'v-rwvor thesake of the metre. In assuming that thephrase is verse he follows a long editorialtradition, in which even Wilamowitz ac-quiesced (SapphoundSimonides,p. 140, n. 3).But look at it. It is pure prose. Not that itcannot be induced to scan; I mean that

stylistically the articled participle with thesandwiched prepositional phrase is abhorrentin a fifth-century lyric poem. It may beadded that Simonides would not haveneeded to specify so bluntly whom he wastalking about. In the original there may havestood no more than 7wV3E.n3v ' OeepLo7Tv-Aats Oavodvrwv as substituted either byDiodorus himself, to lead into the quotation,or by a scribe.Another place where Professor Page hasbeen tricked by the semblance of a metricalphrase in a prose context is Ibycus, fr. 17(PoetaeMelici, and earlier C.R. lxvii [19531,I). For the correct reading see R. Merkel-bach, Arch.f. Pap. xvi (1956), 116.In line 4 of the Simonides fragment, read0 -7LSEpwS.For ov0tL ... ove cf. Denniston,P. 509, n. 2.UniversityCollege,Oxford M. L. WEST

EURIPIDES, HIPPOLYTUS 88-89uepdmrrovavaw---OEob;ydp SearrdoragKaAEivXPEW -

&p' av-rLov 3deaLofovAev'avroSo v;BARRETTranslates: 'Lord-(I address youthus because) it is the gods whom oneshould call master.' Mr. M. L. West (C.R.lxxix [1965], 156) objects: 'Why should theslave abstain from using the word "master"in its proper, everyday sense? No reason.What is more appropriate about "Lord"?Nothing.' The argument is just; such averbal quibble about the formalities ofaddress, even if it were presented in lan-guage which made the antithesis clear,'would be pointless. West goes on: 'Themeaning is, "for we should call our mastersgods";.. . to a fifth-century ear it [4vaf]suggested an address to a god.' To this inter-pretation two objections can be raised. Thelinguistic objection, that to a fifth-centuryear wvaehad no such immediate or inevitablesuggestion, has been adequately urged byMr. J. Glucker (C.R. lxxx [1966], I7). Theobjection to West's translation on grounds ofsense seems to me no less cogent: why evershould the slave start in so sycophantic a

fashion with the assertion that Hippolytusdeserves to be addressed as a god? Gluckerhas no new interpretation to offer, but assuresus that Barrett's explanation is convincing,which, as West and I agree, it is not. Allthree have missed the truth because theyhave insisted on seeing in the clause intro-duced by yap an explanation of the initialvocative: 'Lord-(I address you thus be-cause).' In fact this yap looks not backwardsbut forwards (the 'anticipatory' yap, Dennis-ton, G.P. 68-69). For such a ydp after aninitial vocative cf. Eur. Alc. I63-4 3ESlTow',yA)ydp pxop~taKa7, x0ovo/s,/ rTavvaTdvao rrpoairrvovo' aL7coqaLaL,bid. 28o-I8,lO', dp&syap 7adLa 7Tpadya'l e fE, iAe'at 00oAw ol, and no doubt Ba. 1329 4WTaEp, dpas yap 7aIL' oap LE7E7rpaC,were not the rest lost in a lacuna. There isa superficial difference between these passagesand ours. In them the ycap-clauseexplainsdirectly and plainly the following clause: 'Iwill ask you this last request, since I amabout to die.' In our passage there is at firstsight no such close logical connexion: 'Willyou listen to my advice, since we must callthe gods our masters?' But the difference is

I Contrast this vagueness with the clear-cut language in the two examples of the'parenthesis after an initial voc., explainingwhy that voc. is used' cited by Barrett: Eur.Med. 465-6 (c ,'wayKKLE7TE,OTO7 ydp a'

Elrrtv X, / yAa(A fytaTrovEl~ dvavsplavKaKOV, Hel. I193-4 C( 8ECaor'-78q7 ydp 7'8'dvottw oa'rros- / 6oAaa,and cf. And.56-578farrotv'--y 70oL ovo' o01 ObeVyw rd8EKaAELV', ErEL'7EpTA.

8/12/2019 04 Hippolytus 88-89, Diggle (Resp a West 2)-Asin_56sw7kw7pv5fihcykccazdmkfwbmkylz

3/3

134 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWonly superficial: the following stichomythiais concerned wholly with the relation of godsto mortals, and the causal link is in essenceas close as if the slave had said not flovAEv'aav-r70 Ev but fovAEa'avros EJ EpL'VyELwwV.The slave says: 'Lord, since it is essential tocall the gods our masters, will you listen toa good piece of advice from me [on this topicof the relation between gods and ourselves] ?'"The parentheses which enclose OEobs.. XpEwdvin Barrett's text (and Murray's) should bereplaced by commas.Queens'College,Cambridge JAMES DIGGLE

PostscriptIn C.R. lxxx (1966), 274 Mr. West, inreply to Mr. Glucker, has clarified his inter-

pretation, but he convinces me no more thanformerly. Aside from the linguistic precari-ousness of the play on words, the address'Hippolytus, my master and my god', isstartling and incredible on the lips of onewhose aim in this scene is to counsel humi-lity and teach his master tLLUE- UELuVd(93)-J. D.

GREEK TRAGEDY IN SIXTH-CENTURY EPIRUSTRACESf Aeschylus and Sophocles are fewand far between in the sixth century afterChrist (cf. Schmid-Stdihlin, Gesch.Gr.Lit. i. 2[I934], 304 f., 504 f.), and on the face of ita backwater like Epirusis not the firstplace inwhich one might have expected to find anyeven in more propitious days. Hence thefollowing dedication, set up in Apollonia inthe mid sixth century, deserves more atten-tion than it has so far received:

[o]K av IwOTErjS TOL~ (~OLSpO75UETaL,[' ]ov'rtvteavoi -r' Kpa'rTLUTOVvotLa&AA'o;8' d tLaKpK Ka dvaplOp-r70sXpdvosyrlqpvaKaAvbELOV d7TOVOVSBLKTwopvov,ELS9JOSavroo r(v dpEerv 7TlpLE'VWY(SEG ii. 377.)Feeble and even (by classical standards) un-metrical as it is, the diction of this piece isalmost wholly tragic. Line 3 comes straightfrom Sophocles: arlavO' cpaKprsKavaptlj70rosXpovos (Aj. 646). And while there are no

other definite echoes of specific passages,with xpdvos 'qpZvKaAhVOELf. Aeschylus,PV981, rridv'd y'qpd tKv Xpdvosnd Eum.286,XpdVOVKaOatpi rr7cvTra,qpdiuKWVdt o. Withthe last line cf. Euripides,Phoen. 04, 0;O'EyEvELtd a' 'pEvE LS t oS~ dyav or fr. I0405dv?Sp?r p- vpo ut oviTvwd.t maybe toothat line I is an unmetricalrehashof a linefrom some now lost play (for 8oO'ucrat tthe end of a trimetercf. Eur. Phoen.1650,Soph. Phil. 774). But the other echoes areall from the select plays now extant: theAjaxwas a particularavourite n Byzantineschools (Schmid-Stahlin,p. 505, n. I).Victorinus (or the poet he employed)certainlyseems to have known his tragedy.Unfortunately isonly othersurvivingdedi-cations(at Corinth:IGiv. 204 and 205) arewritten in unadornedand unimpeachablyChristianprose.Bedford College, London ALAN CAMERON

PAP. ANTINOOP. 15Recto, Col. ii. If the traces ].. [..].p..[ re-present MEviv3pov (and what else couldthey ?), the letters ]7oC[ n the next line (leg.Barns, J.H.S. lxxxiv [1964], 21-22) can onlybe part of the title of the play: of the 1o3

titles listed in K6rte-Thierfelder ii, pp.300 ff., there is only one possible candidate:the l7rrtaros.TrinityHall, Cambridge COLIN AUSTIN

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TRAPEZITICUSTHE recently published P. Oxy. 2537 (Oxy-rhynchusPapyri xxxi. 23 ff.; cf. 39) offers

This, if we omit his insistence on theantithesis EaOrd'rs-va6, is virtually Bar-rett's interpretation. 'Hipp. has just twicecalled Artemis dauvrova74, 82); . . (theold man) is trying to confirm and generalize

brief hypotheses to several speeches ofLysias, among them a speech, not otherwiseHipp.'s present attitude of humility, and ispreparing the ground for his suggestion thathe should be humble towards another god-dess too.' We can reach this interpretationwithout importing an illusory antithesis.