No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some New Readings in Euripides
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
I. The Antiope.—The papyrus fragments of theAntiope, written in a small and crabbed hand of the third century B.C., were first published by Mahaffy in vol. 1 of the Petrie papyri in 1891, a time when the study of writing on papyrus was in its early days and there was not the abundance of other literary texts to provide practice and comparison that there is to-day. An advance in the study of the text was made by Blass in 1892, whose readings were based on first-hand knowledge of the manuscript; he was followed by von Arnim, who in his text in the Supplementum Euripideum introduced several startling alterations, based on the autotypes alone (particularly unreliable where cartonnage is concerned, which is often blurred and occasionally distorted in the process of preparation) and very rarely justified by the papyrus. A landmark in the history of the text was reached when Hans Schaal published his dissertation De Euripidis Antiopa; not only had he studied the papyrus closely in London, but he was able to make use of several readings of Wilamowitz. Though he left some of the major problems unattacked, perhaps too readily, his text represents a great advance on that of his predecessors, and I have found his readings in the majority of cases where he differs from Mahaffy or von Arnim confirmed by the papyrus, and consequently I have taken his text as the basis of my collation. That there was still a little more to be deciphered was suggested to me by the late Dr. Hunt, and I am indebted to him as the instigator of these notes if there is anything of value in them.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1935
References
page 164 note 1 Now P. Lond. 485= Milne, Catalogue of Literary Papyri, 70. I wish to thank Mr. H. J. M. Milne and Mr. T. C. Skeat of the British Museum for very kindly checking my readings in this text.
page 164 note 2 Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 145, pp, 578–580.
page 164 note 3 Lietzmann, , Kleine Texte 112, Bonn, 1913Google Scholar.
page 164 note 4 Diss. Berol., 1914.
page 165 note 1 Ellis, Robinson in The American Journal of Philology, XII (1891), pp. 481 sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar., proposed reading τοσοτον ἔρυμα For this reading there is no warrant in the papyrus, but if desperate measures are to be adopted in this passage (and πνεμα is in any case difficult), the emendation is attractive. We may perhaps assume that Zethus, in contrast to Amphion, carries, or is given by Hermes, a sword; in which case Mr. J. U. Powell has suggested to me that Robinson Ellis' line might be improved by substituting [διθηκτ]ον for [τοσοτ]ον.
page 166 note 1 Mr. Milne objects to this reading on the ground that ‘ές σϕω is necessary because of the address (to the twins) in the next line which would be otherwise unheralded,’ and thinks that the papyrus may have been corrected. We are then faced with the difficulty that in one and the same sentence Zeus is addressed in the vocative even in 1. 77 and Zethus and Amphion in 1. 79. Mr. Milne has since suggested to me that we should either (a) emend to κα σϕω, τκνω or (b) assume that a line is missing after άβονλας μάς in 1. 78 which would have mediated the transition between one address and the next.
page 166 note 2 Berliner Klassikertexte, V. 2, p. 73, II. 17·18.
page 167 note 1 Dr. W. Schubart very kindly checked my reading here as also that in 1. 52 and in the Melanippe Vincta.
page 167 note 2 Suppltmentum Euripideum, p. 23.
page 167 note 3 Text in Hunt, Fragments Tragica Papyracea, which includes the lines from Satyros' Life of Euripides (P. Oxy. 1176) together with the Berlin fragment (BKT. V. 2, p. 125).