The Hypotheses

Like many other Greek plays Rhesus is accompanied by a variety of prefatory material, although only V and Q preserve the entire set. This edition follows Diggle in reproducing the order exhibited by V. For details of the arrangement and transmission of the sections in the MSS see Zuntz, Inquiry, 144–6; on dramatic hypotheses in general Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship I, 192–6, Zuntz, Political Plays, 129–46, Barrett, Hippolytos, 153–4 and van Rossum-Steenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests?, 1–52. Liapis (pp. 55–69) offers a full commentary on the Rhesus arguments, although his interpretation of Hyp. (b) needs to be viewed with caution (cf. Introduction, 25–6 with n. 18, 27–8).

Hypothesis (a)

The piece belongs to the Tales from Euripides or ‘narrative hypotheses’, which go back to a late-Hellenistic collection of plot summaries, arranged alphabetically according to the first letter of the play title (cf. pp. 25 and 54 on the papyrus that carries the second half of the text). The narratives do not give a true synopsis of the action (as we find in Hyp. (a) Med.), but recount the story in the past tense, passing over and expanding on scenes as was deemed expedient, for the benefit of ‘persons unwilling or unable to go to the trouble of reading the originals’ (Barrett, Hippolytos, 153). In the fifth or sixth century AD perhaps (when marginal commentaries also began to be inserted extensively) these epitomes were prefixed to the tragic texts in the editions, from where they entered the medieval tradition, including that of the ‘alphabetical’ plays.210

4–5. > τόπον εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν αὐτῷ: Since the arrival of Rhesus and his acceptance as an ally by Hector could hardly have been omitted, something must have fallen out after the verb referring to Dolon’s dispatch, as Morstadt (Beitrag, 70–1 n. 2) indicated and Liapis (‘Notes’, 48) implied in his exempli gratia reconstruction of the sentence: Here, however, the closing participial clause Ao) seems to bear too much syntactical weight (‘… he admitted Rhesus … and demarcated a camping space for him’) to be compatible with the style of the hypotheses (cf. van Rossum-Steenbeek 9 on the frequent use of circumstantial participles and genitive absolutes to express subordination). It is better to keep (VQ).

Whether ἐκπέμπεσθαι is corrupt we cannot be sure. It may depend on a lost main verb, although the active would be more likely then. So perhaps the word combines fragments from before and in or after the lacuna, which appears to have been the reasoning behind Diggle’s … θηρὸς … (an odd expression, apart from the fact that Dolon’s animal disguise is too unimportant to have been mentioned in the hypothesis).²¹¹ Martin West tentatively suggests or

9. ἐὰν βιώσῃ: so VQ βιώσει Ao). is unavailable, but Luppe (Anagennesis 2 [1982], 78) very plausibly supplied … τοῖς Ἕλλη[σιν, ἐὰν εἰς βιῷ. τούτοι]ς δ᾽ … (with the earlier root aorist on the analogy of the ‘oracle’ at Rh. 600 ὃς εἰ διοίσει νύκτα ἐς αὔριον. Cf. Liapis 55.

10–11. ὡς δῆθεν ὑπὸ Ἀϕροδίτης is the reading (ὑπ᾽ Ao). has room only for Ἀϕροδίτ]ης (suppl. Gallavotti), but it seems less likely that the particle and preposition were added in the course of transmission than that the papyrus left them out.

14–15. διὰ Ἕκτορος τὸν ϕόνον ἐνηργῆσθαι This is the version of as against δι᾽ (fere VQAo). While is evidently correct, cannot stand, for (1) both its meaning (‘contrive, intend’) and construction are inappropriate, (2) the present tense does not conform to the author’s habit of writing (above) and (3) hiatus is admitted in the hypotheses only after prepositives (and δέ, where elision is possible). Haslam’s simple (apud van Rossum-Steenbeek 202) founders on (1) and (3), but Liapis (‘Notes’, 48–9) may be on the right track in assuming that the verb preserves traces of the original and combining it with (Ao) to e.g. … {διὰ τοῦ} <ἐπινοήσαντος> τὸν <ϕησὶν> ἐνεργῆσθαι or (removing what appears to be the only acceptable historic present) … {διὰ τοῦ} ἔϕησε> τὸν ἐνεργῆσθαι. Such an emendation, Liapis observes, would also represent accurately the Charioteer’s allegation that Hector arranged for the killing of Rhesus (rather than carrying it out himself), although the epitomiser may here have been misled by the use of the second person singular in Rh. 835–42.

18–19. concludes with … οὐδ᾽ suppl. Gallavotti). The MSS have and after ἔσεσθαι add στρατείαν κοινῷ om. V, om. spat. vac. rel. V), which Diggle, following Zuntz (Political Plays, 142), did not print. More recently, in the light of his research on rhythmical clausulae in the narrative hypotheses (in Euripide e i papiri, 27–67), he has conceded that κοινῷ … ‘may be genuine’ (comparing the ‘rhetorical flourish’ at the end of the Stheneboea hypothesis) and accorded the same benefit of doubt to … στρατείαν (41 with n. 25). The latter is unlikely, given that it could easily be understood to mean ‘for Achilles the campaign will not be without weeping either’ (cf. Liapis on Hyp. (a) Rh. 19–22), … should probably be retained.

Diggle (above) likewise disposes of Luppe’s ἔϕησε(ν) for in (Anagennesis 2 [1982], 81), on account of the hiatus this would create. The question does not arise in the parallels adduced by Luppe: Hyp. (a) Or. 187.18–19 Diggle ἐπιϕανεὶς δ᾽ εἰς θεοὺς and Hyp. Rhadamanthys … θυγα-] | τέρας δ᾽ θεὰς (where previous editors had wrongly read ἔϕη).

Hypothesis (b)

With the authenticity question and alternative prologues, the learned note, which in its present form perhaps dates to the second century AD,212 treats matters of literary history, like part of Hyp. Pers. (3.1–8 West), Hyp. (a) Med. (88.11–89.34 Diggle) and the end of the ‘Aristophanic’ hypothesis to Hippolytus (205.27–30 Diggle). It provides the clearest evidence for the origin and early transmission of Rhesus (Introduction, ch. III.1), although the material has suffered abridgement, most regrettably with regard to the argument for non-Euripidean authorship. This and at least the following references to the didascaliae and astronomical detail (cf. n. 3) go back to high Hellenistic scholarship, mediated perhaps through Didymus (P. Carrara, ZPE 90 [1990], 36–7 with n. 9).

23. Δικαίαρχος: For Nauck’s correction of the transmitted δικαίαν see Introduction, 25 with n. 18.

24. γράϕει κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως: a set expression in scholiastic Greek, indicating a usually longer verbatim quotation. Schwartz (II 324) therefore posited a lacuna, which Luppe filled with <Ῥῆσος, οὗ ἀρχή>, the equivalent to the standard opening tag of the ancient narrative hypotheses (ZPE 84 [1990], 11–13). This is still short, but if one includes the iambic trimeter, not too far from the two-and-a-half-line Timaeus excerpt, introduced by γράϕων, in Σ^MV Hec. 131 (I 26.3–5 Schwartz). The view, most recently endorsed by Liapis (GRBS 42 [2001], 313–28), that all the rest of Hyp. (b) Rh. belongs to Dicaearchus (cf. Introduction, 25 n. 18) is rendered unlikely by its content and style of writing, which ‘are … typical of a later period of scholarship’ (Ritchie 31).

Hypothesis (c)

This is a fragment of the hypothesis of Aristophanes of Byzantium (the heading was added by the rubricator in V). In their complete form these highly standardised introductions for the scholarly reader contained (1) a brief summary of the plot, (2) an indication of other dramatic treatments of the theme, (3) notes on the scene, the identity of the chorus and the prologist, (4) didascalic information (the date of the first performance, accompanying plays, choregos, the names of the competitors and the result of the contest, occasionally the play’s position in the author’s œuvre) and (5) a critical judgement.213 In some hypotheses (3) is followed by a list of keywords, introduced by τὸ δὲ κεϕάλαιον (PV, OT, Ant.) or δ᾽ ὑπόθεσις (Pers., Sept.), which name the main parts of the action, although C. H. Moore (HSPh 12 [1901], 288 n. 1) has doubted that these go back to Aristophanes.

For Rhesus only (1) and (3) survive, and apparently a variation on the in the concluding statement The plot summary has been expanded by interpolation and rewriting, certainly in the passages that, against the testimony of the play, name Terpsichore as Rhesus’ mother (cf. Th. O. H. Achelis, Philologus 73 [1914–16], 148 with n. 338c, who plausibly deletes μὲν … ἡγούμενος, Zuntz, Political Plays, 140 with n. 1, Liapis 67–8). Its final sentence in L (om. VQ) about Dolon’s murder being treated in passing ἐν δὲ καὶ Δόλωνος) also looks peculiar for its lack of connection with the preceding and use of + περί in an unparalleled sense.²¹⁴

Hypothesis (d)

The dramatis personae (including the chorus) are listed in the order of appearance in the play. This, however, is correctly preserved only in L (and with small variations O). Q has succumbed to a common error by which the names ‘written in [two] columns intended to be read vertically … were … instead read off horizontally’ (Barrett, Hippolytos, 154). Cf. Diggle’s apparatus on Hyp. (c) Or. (189.45–7) and for the same mistake also e.g. the lists for Seven against Thebes (p. 62 West) and Phoenissae (p. 81 Diggle). The rubricator of V has created (or copied out) untraceable confusion.