Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T08:11:11.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

James Diggle
James Diggle
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 162 read for . The sphere of reference of the verb is confined to water: 54 (Musgrave, L) (a reference to the ritual : see Denniston on El. 791), El. 157 (cf. ‘having washed’, Hom. Od. 4.750, 759, 17.48, 58).

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 22 , 1976 , pp. 42 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

2. In 872 a final resolved syllable is divided between two words. Since there are parallels for this division (Parker, L.P.E., CQ n.s. 18 (1968) 267)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Weil's transposition of before is unnecessary.

3. The lyric metres of Greek drama ed. 2 (Cambridge 1968) 114Google Scholar.

4. Hermes 92 (1964) 39Google Scholar.

5. One alleged instance in dochmiacs which he quotes (see also Fraenkel, , Agamemnon p. 827Google Scholar, Barrett, on Hi. 760Google Scholar) is Soph., El. 853Google Scholar, where we might remove the anomaly by writing , an expression formed in the same mould as Hom., Il. 10.250Google Scholar, Pi., Pyth. 4.142Google Scholar, Aesch., Ag. 39Google Scholar, Soph., Ai. 543Google Scholar;, Eur., HF 1185Google Scholar. Cf. Jebb on Soph. OC 1539Google Scholar, Bruhn, , Anhang § 251Google Scholar. The corruption of to is nothing out of the ordinary: is corrupted to at IT 150, IA 218 to – at IA 592, to– at Aesch., Eum. 142Google Scholar.

6. See Page, D.L., A new chapter in the history of Greek tragedy (Cambridge 1951) 44 n.25Google Scholar, and Denniston and Page on Aesch., Ag. 536Google Scholar.

7. Passages like (IT 3)are not relevant here.

8. Monk's objection, that ‘it is not the practice, when the genitive depends on an adjective, to add to it another epithet’, is answered by Hi. 811 .

9. See Breitenbach, W., Untersuchungen zur Sprache der Euripideischen Lyrik (Stuttgart 1934) 217–21Google Scholar.

10. Euripidis cantica (Leipzig 1910) 102Google Scholar.

11. Possibly the verb was similarly used at Soph. fr. 211.11 P (I. fr. 6.11 Carden, , Pap. fragments of Soph. (Berlin 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Wetklein and others ascribe Hermann's and to Bothe. This is incorrect, since the conjectures first appeared in Seidler's edition, which preceded Bothe's by thirteen years.

13. Wilamowitz, , Griechische Verskunst 268Google Scholar, compares Hec. 1099Google Scholar, a trochaic dimeter after dochmiacs.

14. But Platnauer should not have found fault with the word-order: cf. 1168 ; and Thomson, G., CQ 33 (1939) 147–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Jahrb.f.cl.Phil. 10 (1864) 233–4Google Scholar.

16. R.Phil. n.s. 2(1878) 49Google Scholar.

17. In 877 is sound: see 464, 595, 1209, 1214. Proposals for its replacement (several may be found in Wecklein) are unnecessary or worse.