εἰκάσαι … πάρα: In addition to 802–3 (above), cf. Cho. 976–7 ὡς ἐπεικάσαι πάθει / πάρεστιν, OC 1503–4 πάντα γὰρ … / … εἰκάσαι πάρα, S. fr. 269c.22 (with Radt on 21–24) and Hel. 421–2 αὐτὰ δ᾽ εἰκάσαι / πάρεστι ναὸς ἐκβόλοις ἁμπίσχομαι.³³¹

γε μήν: 196n.

285. γάρ: See 284–6n. In contrast to many other messenger-speeches, the particle here does not introduce the story proper (I. J. F. de Jong, in NAGP, 180–1; cf. 762–3a n.), but merely marks νυκτὸς … στρατόν as the ‘object’ of εἰκάσαι. Similarly Pers. 254–5 ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνάγκη πᾶν ἀναπτύξαι πάθος, / Πέρσαι· στρατὸς γὰρ πᾶς ὄλωλε βαρβάρων, Ag. 266–7, OT 345–9, Phil. 915–16, Cyc. 313–15, Hec. 1180–2, Ar. Pl. 76–8.

οὔτι ϕαῦλον ἐσβαλεῖν στρατόν: Cf. E. El. 760 … οὔτοι βασιλέα ϕαῦλον κτανεῖν and, for the Euripidean quality of the construction, 197b–8n. Euripides was also among the first authors, and the only one of the three tragedians, to use the ‘everyday’ ϕαῦλος and its noun extensively (32 cases as against one in Aeschylus and two in Sophocles: Pers. 520, S. frr. 41, 771.3). Rhesus has it again at 599 and 769.

ἐσβαλεῖν στρατόν: Diggle (Euripidea, 515) for ἐμβαλεῖν … (Ω). His interpretation as ‘to come upon’ cannot be upheld (284–6n.), also because ‘intransitive εἰσβάλλω is normally followed by an accusative denoting the place or area entered’ (Cyc. 99, Hipp. 1198, Andr. 968, Ba. 1045, Phaeth. 168 Diggle = E. fr. 779.1), not a person or personal collective like στρατόν (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 62). Both ἐμβάλλω and εἰσβάλλω, however, are used (with or without στρατιάν or the like) for ‘to throw an army into’ = ‘make an inroad, invade’ (LSJ s.vv. ἐμβάλλω II 1, εἰσβάλλω I, II 1). Of these the latter seems to be the more common and also bears the neutral sense ‘to bring in’, which is required here: Hdt. 2.14.2 τότε σπείρας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑωυτοῦ ἄρουραν ἐσβάλλει ἐς αὐτὴν ὗς, E. El. 78–9 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἡμέρᾳ / βοῦς εἰς ἀρούρας ἐσβαλὼν σπερῶ γύας. The corruption of ἐσβ- to ἐμβ- is paralleled at Hdt. 4.125.4 (which has ἐμβ- in the same paragraph), 5.15.1 and 9.13.2 (cf. LSJ s.v. ἐμβάλλω II 1). For our passage Chr. Pat. 2096 μορϕῇ γὰρ οὔτι ϕαῦλον εἰσβαλεῖν τινά (~ 2452 … εἰσβαλεῖν ἔϕην) may or may not represent a MSS variant. In any event the author altered the meaning and construction to suit his own text.

286. This is the only trimeter in Rhesus with more than one resolution, inspired perhaps by Med. 1321–2 τοιόνδ᾽ ὄχημα πατρὸς Ἥλιος πατήρ / δίδωσιν ἡμῖν, ἔρυμα πολεμίας χερός (Ritchie 267–8; cf. Klyve on 286). For the π-alliteration see 282–3n.

κλυόντα: so West rightly for present κλύοντα (Ω) because the participle ‘is subordinated to an aorist main verb denoting a simultaneous or consequent action’ and ‘a single specific occasion of cognition is in question’ (BICS 31 [1984], 177, 178). Cf. 109–10a n.

287–9. ‘But he frightened us peasants, who live among the crags of Ida in our land’s ancestral dwellings, as he came to the thickets at night, the haunts of wild animals.’

ἀγρώσταις: 266n.

κατ᾽ λέπας: Here λέπας is employed ‘not in the older sense … of a naked cliff or summit … but rather [as] a collective term for the broken country where forest, rock, and upland pasture mix’ (Dodds on Ba. 677–8 (Αγ.) / μόσχων cf. 264–341n.). So also Andr. 295, E. fr. 411.2 (… ) λέπας, Phoen. 24, Ba. 751–2, 1045. Differently 921–2a (n.) ἐς / Πάγγαιον.

αὐτόρριζον ἑστίαν χθονός: literally ‘the self-rooted hearth of our land’ (i.e. ‘where we put down our roots’), and so probably an allusion to Dardanus’ ancient foundation at the foot of Mt. Ida: Il. 20.216–18 κτίσσε δὲ Δαρδανίην, ἐπεὶ οὔ / ἐν πεπόλιστο, / Hellanic. FGrHist 4 F 25a. This interpretation, which most scholars have adopted from the Renaissance on, is supported by A. Suppl. 370–2 (Chorus to Pelasgus) … / / , ἑστίαν χθονός and several places where ἑστία denotes a geographical focal point: E. fr. 944 καὶ Γαῖα · / ,³³² Call. Del. 325 , , Plb. 5.58.4, D. S. 4.19.2 (LSJ s.v. ἑστία I 5; cf. Feickert on 288). αὐτόρριζος is first found here, and not again before the first century BC. It usually means ‘together with the roots’ (e.g. D. S. 4.12.5, Babr. 36.1–2), but ‘self-rooted’ recurs at Opp. Hal. 2.464–6 (of the swordfish) καὶ /… αὐτόρριζον … / and Nonn. D. 40.469–70 αἷς ἔνι / … ἔρνος Par. 1.64, 19.224. In view of the Aeschylean parallel for ἑστίαν χθονός (above), Fraenkel (Rev. 238) may be right to associate the word with the same poet (who has numerous αὐτο- compounds). Cf. PV 1046–7 / (~ Il. 9.541–2 / αὐτῇσιν ῥίζῃσιν). Pindar applied to an aboriginal place: Pyth. 4.15 (Cyrene) , 9.8 (Libya) τρίταν (LSJ s.v. ῥίζα II 1).

Other renderings are less convincing. Paley’s ‘on the very foot of the mountain’ is feeble and not borne out by the later usage of αὐτόρριζος. J. T. Sheppard (CR 28 [1914], 87–8) compares Hsch. α 8492 Latte (~ fr. tr. adesp. 201) · ³³³ and assigns to the shepherds ‘a hearth rock-rooted on the mountains’, if they do not actually live in caves (cf. Rh. 288 [II 333.25–6 Schwartz = 91 Merro], Liapis on 287–9). That the latter contradicts 273 τὰς and 293 need not be an objection (185n.). But the description of humble peasant abodes seems less apposite here than a modest expression of pride in the land of Troy.

δρυμὸν … ἔνθηρον: an accusative of direction (KG I 311–12, SD 67–8). For note Il. 8.47 … πολυπίδακα, (cf. Il. 14.283, 15.151, h.Ven. 68) and, in terms of language, S. fr. 314.221–2 (Ichneutae) θῆρες, [τό]νδε / ἔν[θ] ὡρμήθητε σὺν ;

290. Θρῄκιος : The verb ῥέω suggests a great multitude of men (as described in 309–13) that inexorably moves forward like a stream. It here recalls Sept. 79–80 … / and the equivalent use of at Pers. 88 , 412 , Ant. 128–9 καί / (itself echoing Aeschylus) and IT 1437 … στρατοῦ. In a non-military context see E. fr. 146.1 < × - ∪ > πᾶς δὲ λεώς.

Within the narrative, … στρατός anticipates information gained only as the army drew nearer and could be overheard (294–5). But the Shepherd had already mentioned their provenance and that Rhesus was their lord (279–81).

291b–3. ‘And struck with alarm, we drove our flocks to the heights, in case any of the Argives was coming to plunder and to destroy your folds …’

The shepherds’ worries are realistic. Achaean raids were common (Feickert on 293), and on one occasion Aeneas only just escaped Achilles, who had come after the Trojan cattle grazing on Mt. Ida: Il. 20.90–1 (with Edwards on 89–93), 20.187–90, Cypria (Arg. p. 78 (11) GEF). For peasants and their livestock mountains presented a natural refuge in case of an invasion (V. D. Hanson, Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, Pisa ¹1983, 95–7 ~ Berkeley et al. ²1998, 114–16).

θάμβει: essentially ‘astonishment, awe’. The connotation of ‘alarm’ is even stronger in Hec. 177–9 / καρύξασ᾽ οἴκων μ᾽ / θάμβει τῷδ᾽ ἐξέπταξας; To the discussion of the word family by FJW on A. Suppl. 570 add ἀθαμβής, ‘devoid of awe’, i.e. ‘reckless, fearless’, in e.g. Ibyc. 286.11 PMGF, Phryn. Trag. TrGF 3 F 2, Bacch. 15.58, Lyc. 558, Plut. Lyc. 16.4 (Jebb on Bacch. 14[15].57–8, M. Nöthiger, Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus, Zurich 1971, 177–8) and Democritus’ ideal of philosophical (68 A 169, B 4, 215, 216 DK).

πρὸς ἄκρας: For ἄκρα, ‘summit, height’, cf. Alc. fr. 48.13 Voigt … ]ν (?), S. fr. 271.1–2 ῥεῖ γὰρ (sc. ὁ ) ἀπ᾽ ἄκρας / , Or. 871, Thuc. 7.3.3.

: Like 843 … ὥς τις Ἀργείων μολών, this is a variation on … (149–50n.). The object clause … depends on … as a verbal expression of fear.

λεηλατήσων: literally ‘to drive away booty’ (λεία + ἐλαύνω), and so particularly of (or including) cattle: e.g. Ai. 342–3, Hec. 1142–3, Xen. Cyr. 1.4.17, HG 2.4.4. It is combined with at Hell. Oxy. 24.1, 24.6 Chambers, Plb. 4.26.4 and Plut. Cam. 23.1.

294–7. Reassured by the sound of non-Greek voices (294–5), the Shepherd goes to question the foreign explorers – in Thracian (296–7). The fact that different peoples speak different languages or dialects, or that individuals speak more than their native tongue (see already Il. 2.803–4, 867, 4.437–8, Od. 19.175, h.Ven. 113–16) is conventionally ignored in tragedy, except when calling attention to it ‘serves some special purpose’ (FJW on A. Suppl. 118–19 = 129–30, who refer to Thomson and Fraenkel on Ag. 1061).³³⁴ The Shepherd’s proficiency here is probably meant to reflect not only the alleged racial ties between Thracians and Phrygians (below), but also the pan-barbarian opposition to the Greeks, which Hector and Rhesus’ charioteer invoke (404–5, 833–4nn.). In that latter sense linguistic (and dialectal) variance is played out at Pers. 401–7 and Sept. 169–70 (with Hutchinson on 170).

The Phrygians were known to have migrated into Anatolia from the Balkans and Thrace: Hdt. 7.73, Xanth. FGrHist 765 FF 14, 15, Strabo 10.3.16 (cf. P. Carrington, AS 27 [1977], 117–26). They did not, however, speak a common language; indeed Thracian and Phrygian may not even belong to the same Indo-European sub-group (R. D. Woodard – C. Brixhe, in R. D. Woodard [ed.], The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge 2004, 12, 780). Genuine ‘Thracians in Asia’ were the Bithynians and related tribes (Pherecyd. FGrHist 3 F 27, Hdt. 1.28, 3.90.2, 7.75.2, Xen. An. 6.4.1–2). Their area of settlement along the Propontis and south-western Black Sea was close enough to the Troad to allow for contact on various levels. A Trojan peasant speaking Thracian, therefore, was conceivable also in historical times.

294–5. One may compare Philoctetes’ relief at finally hearing Greek: Phil. 234–5 ὦ τὸ καὶ / τοιοῦδ᾽ (Klyve on 294).

πρὶν δή: ‘until (indeed) …’, as in Andr. 1145–8 ἐν / ἔστη … δεσπότης … / / δεινόν τι καὶ ϕρικῶδες, Hdt. 1.13.2, 4.157.2, Thuc. 1.118.2, 3.29.1, 3.104.6 (GP 220). The use of with the indicative depending on an affirmative clause in the past is rare (KG II 453–4, SD 655), and often a negative force can still be detected in the main verb, a predicative adjective or in thought (cf. Jebb on OT 776). In tragedy it also occurs at A. fr. 83 (?), PV 480–3, OT 775–8, Alc. 127–9, Med. 1171–5, Hec. 130–40, IA 489–90 and Rh. 568–9. All except the last example mark a decisive turning point in the narrated action (Dawe on OT 776).

δι᾽ ὤτων … / ἐδεξάμεσθα: ‘received with our ears’ = ‘heard’. Cf. Ba. 1086–7 αἳ δ᾽ ὠσὶν / καὶ , E. El. 110–11 / … , and, for δι᾽ / ὠτός, Cho. 56, 451, S. El. 737, 1437, OT 1387, Ant. 1188, S. fr. 858.2, Med. 1139, Rh. 565-6 κενὸς / στάζει δι᾽ ὤτων, Theoc. 14.27.

καὶ μετέστημεν ϕόβου: similar verse-ends in Eum. 900 … καὶ , Alc. 21 … καὶ μεταστῆναι βίου, Hel. 856 … καὶ μεταστήτω κακῶν and Ba. 944 … ὅτι μεθέστηκας ϕρενῶν.

296–7. ‘And I went and asked those scouting a path ahead for their lord, addressing them in Thracian.’

depends on ὁδοῦ or possibly προυξερευνητὰς ὁδοῦ together. There is no need to alter the text, as Kovacs did by adopting Morstadt’s ἔναντα (Beitrag, 20 n. 2), and several other scholars have proposed (Wecklein, Appendix, 50, to which add his own ἀν᾽ αὐτούς [SBAW I (1897), 494]). The Shepherd may assume that the army was led by a ‘lord’ – or ἄνακτος is spoken with hindsight, like 290 (n.) … .

προυξερευνητάς: The noun is a hapax. But occurs at Phoen. 92 (the Old Servant to Antigone) ἐπίσχες, ὡς ἂν προυξερευνήσω στίβον, which probably inspired the formation here (Fraenkel, Rev. 231, 234, against Ritchie 150, 207). For military scouting (cf. Xen. Cyr. 5.4.4, 6.3.2 προδιερευνάω, διερευνητής) the verb is used in Aen. Tact. 15.5 , <ἀτάκτους>, προεξερευνῶντάς καὶ . See further F. S. Russell, Information Gathering in Classical Greece, Ann Arbor 1999, 10–22.

ὁδοῦ: so rightly V. () cannot meaningfully be construed with either ἄνακτος or and may easily have intruded from the context. στρατόν or -ός stand at the end of 285 and 290.

: 294–7n. πρόσϕθεγγμα, ‘address’, is frequent in tragedy and mainly used in the plural, as here: e.g. Ag. 903, Cho. 876, A. fr. 47a.7 (Diktyoulkoi), Ai. 500, Phil. 235, Hcld. 573, Hec. 413, Or. 75, E. fr. 309a. For the double γ (as also in 608 ϕθέγγματος) see West, ed. Aeschylus, LII.

298–9. The Shepherd asks the traditional question for the general’s name and descent, leaving out the country of origin, which he has already established (294–7). The information was imparted to the audience at 278–81.

τίνος κεκλημένος: 279n.

σύμμαχος: The leader of an army not speaking Greek (294–5n.) can be assumed to be an ally.

300–1a. ὧν ἐϕιέμην μαθεῖν: The relative pronoun is governed by ἐϕιέμην, with a genitive, as usual (44–7a n.), and follows either as an epexegetic infinitive (Bruhn, Anhang, § 137, SD 361–2), or we explain the whole construction by attraction of the object to the main verb (KG II 276–7 with n. 1). So also Pl. Rep. 437b1–2 τὸ τινος and e.g. h.Cer. 283–4 οὐδέ τι / μνήσατο τηλυγέτοιο , Pi. Ol. 3.33–4 (δένδρεα …) τῶν νιν … / … ϕυτεῦσαι, Med. 1399–1400 ὤμοι, ϕιλίου χρῄζω στόματος / .

301b–8. Rhesus’ description is largely based on Il. 10.436–41 τοῦ δὴ · / , θείειν δ᾽ . / / , θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι, / / , θεοῖσιν. But while Dolon there presents him as little more than a valuable target (to save himself by offering useful information: Il. 10.442–5), the Shepherd expresses genuine wonder, which foreshadows the ‘deification’ of Rhesus in the chorus’ eyes (264–341, 301b–2nn.). Details of the reworking and other passages that influenced the report are discussed in 301b–2, 303–4, 305–6a, 306b–8nn.

301b–2. ὁρῶ δέ: With this introduction ‘the Messenger not only stresses the fact that he was an eyewitness, but through his use of the historic present also asks our special attention for what he has seen and is about to recount’ (de Jong, Narrative in Drama, 44). Cf. E. Suppl. 651–3 / / δὲ … (where note in the preceding line), Or. 871, Ba. 680 (cf. 264–341n.) and, marking a fresh start in the story, Phoen. 1165, Or. 879. In a way, all that the Shepherd had said so far was preliminary to his portrayal of Rhesus’ approach.

ὥστε δαίμονα: In contrast to Il. 10.436–41 (301b–8n.), the comparison with a god here comes first and refers to Rhesus’ entire appearance. The wording is not far from the epic δαίμονι ἶσος (e.g. Il. 5.438, 16.705, 786, h.Cer. 235) – whereas the chorus later all but identify Rhesus with Zeus and Ares (Ritchie 69, Fenik, Iliad X, 26–7 n. 3; cf. 355–6, 357–9, 385–7nn.).

Comparative ὥστε is common in tragedy, and usually (as here and in 618) the verb has to be supplied from the main clause. Examples of full comparative clauses are few and often doubtful (GP 526–7, Ruijgh, Te épique, 991–8, Diggle, Euripidea, 321–3). Cf. 972–3n.

ἑστῶτ᾽ ἐν ἵπποις Θρῃκίοις τ᾽ ὀχήμασιν: Λ’s text (apart from Q, L^cP) gains support from Il. 4.366 = 11.198 (of Diomedes and Hector respectively) ἑσταότ᾽ , which our poet evidently wished to recall. Editors before Murray preferred to read ἐν (Δ), with the horses expressed by an adjective, as in 416 παρ᾽ and Hcld. 845 . But apart from losing the Homeric echo, the presence of two parallel epithets with is awkward, especially since Θρῃκίοις is likely to qualify the horses as well as the chariot (cf. 616–17 δὲ / ). The mistake is a simplifying one by a scribe perhaps who was puzzled by the separate mention of animals and vehicle. This is regular in epic (or / -οι alone stands for ‘horses and chariot’), but in tragedy recurs only at IA 83 .335

303–4. ‘And a golden collar enclosed the yoke-bearing necks of his horses, gleaming whiter than snow.’

χρυσῆ … πλάστιγξ: Properly the ‘scale of a balance’, is here used for the collar that joined the horses to the yoke and allowed them to draw the chariot (Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship, 3, 108 with plts. 14a, 16, 19, 31c). The metaphor arose by similarity. Hanging ready from the outer ends of the yoke, the collars could be likened to the scales of a balance (GEW, DELG s.v. πλάστιγξ); conversely ζυγόν / ζυγός (‘yoke’) came to denote various kinds of crossbars and specifically the beam of a balance or the balance itself (LSJ s.v. ζυγόν IV a). Porter (on 303) appropriately cites Pl. Rep. 550e7 .

The same basic meaning for has been recognised at Cho. 288–90 καὶ , , where an allusion to human scapegoats and the metal collar employed ‘in execution by apotympanismos’ appears to be made (Sommerstein, Aeschylus II, 249 n. 64; cf. L. Battezzato, SCO 42 [1992], 71–4, West, apparatus 290).336 Our poet may even have had the passage in mind, given that Cho. 288–9 shares several words also with Rh. 691 (n.). The more widespread ζεύγλη, ‘half-collar’, and λέπαδνα, ‘yoke-straps’ (J. Wiesner, Arch. Hom. F 18–19, 53–5, 106–7), at any rate did not scan.

adapts Il. 10.438 ἅρμα δέ οἱ χρυσῷ τε καὶ (301b–8n.) and so refers to gold decoration, as presumably also of Rhesus’ armour at Il. 10.439 (305–6a, 340–1, 370–2a nn.). Hera’s chariot, by contrast, has a yoke and yoke-straps ‘of gold’ (Il. 5.729–31). The precious metal is characteristic of divine accoutrements (West, EFH 112, IEPM 153–4).

αὐχένα ζυγηϕόρον / πώλων: Cf. A. fr. dub. 465.1 … ζυγηϕόρους, Hipp. 1183 and HF 121 . Later prose has ζυγοϕόρος: Plut. De cup. div. 2.524a, [Athan.] In nat. praec. 28.905.38–9 Migne τὸν … αὐχένα (of an ox). For ᾱ (η) instead of ο in nominal o-stem composition see Schwyzer 438–9 with 439 n. 1.

The enallage produced by (Δ) is preferable to (Λ). Either reading, however, could have arisen by assimilation.

: Rhesus’ horses are λευκότεροι χιόνος in Il. 10.437 (301b–8n.), make Nestor compare them to sunrays (Il. 10.547) and shine though the night like a swan’s plumage at 616–18 (616–17, 618nn.). Only 356 ἥκεις deviates, perhaps from literary reminiscence (185, 355–6nn.).

ἐξαυγής (with intensifying ἐξ-) is a hapax formed like e.g. τηλαυγής, and (< ). There is no reason to write εὐαυγεστέρων with Blaydes (Adversaria critica, 4), although Ba. 661–2 …) / (εὐαυγεῖς Hemsterhuys, ἐξαυγεῖς Elmsley) remains worth quoting (264–341n.).

305–6a. ‘On his shoulders his shield flashed with images inlaid with gold.’

Following Il. 10.439 τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια (301b–8, 340–1, 382nn.), Rhesus is equipped with a gold-decorated Thracian pelte, like Telamon at E. fr. 530.1–2 (Meleager) / (sc. ἔχων) and Diomedes, lord of the flesh-eating horses, at Alc. 498 (~ Rh. 370–2a [n.]). In reality this small crescent-shaped shield was made of wood or wicker-work and covered with animal skin (often painted). Yet despite Aristotle apud ^V Rh. 311 (II 334.1–7 Schwartz = 92 Merro) = fr. 498 Rose, a thin layer of bronze is also attested (Xen. An. 5.2.29), which in ‘poetic fantasy’ (Parker on Alc. 498) could have been replaced with gold. Later in Rhesus the pelte tends to be described in terms of the much larger and heavier hoplite shield (311–13, 383–4, 408–10a, 485–7nn.).

χρυσοκολλήτοις τύποις: i.e. figures of beaten metal inlaid with gold (LSJ s.vv. τύπος IV, χρυσόκολλος, -κόλλητος). Even more perhaps than Telamon’s pelte (above), one recalls the blazons of the ‘Seven’ so elaborately described by the Scout in the course of Sept. 369–685; cf. particularly the gold-plated ones of Capaneus (434) and Polynices (644–5, 660–1). At Phoen. 1130–1 σιδηρονώτοις δ᾽ ἀσπίδος / γίγας ( ¹: ) the reading of the ancient wood tablet seems preferable to that of the MSS (J. M. Bremer, Mnemosyne IV 36 [1983], 300–1). Otherwise Mastronarde on Phoen. 1130.³³⁷

It is (for once) unlikely that here was borrowed from the Sun’s chariot at Phoen. 2 … (e.g. Fraenkel, Rev. 234). Phoen. 1–2 are deleted by Haslam (GRBS 16 [1975], 149–74) as virtually unattested before the medieval tradition and stylistically otiose in combination with Phoen. 3 (cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. [1–2]). If the lines are early, their absence from ancient testimonia and papyri may indicate simply that they were not widely current (and probably unknown to Aristophanes of Byzantium), but they have perhaps a better claim to a later date. and were regular in drama: S. fr. 378.3, E. fr. 587 (of a sword hilt), Antiph. frr. 105.2, 234.2 PCG (both paratragic). Similarly at Tr. 1261 and Men. fr. 275.1 PCG and at S. fr. 314.375 (Ichneutae).

V has δίϕροις for (ἵπποις Q), either by scribal recollection of Phoen. 2 (above) or from a marginal or interlinear parallel (Klyve on 305).

306b–8. ‘And a bronze Gorgon as on the goddess’ aegis was attached to the horses’ foreheads and rang forth terror with many bells.’

The narrative returns to the chariot in the widest sense: Il. 10.438 (301b–8n.). For the fearful noise of horse-trappings cf. e.g. the chorus at Sept. 123–4 διάδετοι δὲ < - > γενυῶν / (with West’s apparatus and Studies, 105) and 206–7 τ᾽ / . More specifically our poet seems to have recalled Sept. 385–6 ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος δὲ τῷ / , both here and at 383–4 (n.).³³⁸ His portrayal of a mighty foreign warrior bound to be killed at Troy was traditional, to judge by Ar. Ran. 962–3 (‘Euripides’ to ‘Aeschylus’) , / (cf. Introduction, 33, 41).

ὡς ἐπ᾽ αἰγίδος θεᾶς: i.e. Athena, who in classical times is mainly associated with the aegis (as a kind of shawl, usually lined with snakes and bearing the Gorgoneion [Il. 5.738–42] in the middle). In Homer the aegis – a shield of metal and/or covered with goat-skin (αἰγ-)? – belongs to Zeus, who shakes it in anger (Il. 4.166–8). Athena uses it to spur on the Greeks (Il. 2.446–54), and Apollo to lead the Trojans into battle and rout the Achaeans (Il. 15.229–30, 308–11, 318–27, 360–6). So also the Gorgon’s heads on the frontlets of Rhesus’ horses are meant to frighten the enemy with the flash of polished bronze and the clang of the bells (fastened to the bridles and maybe the harness) as the animals move. Like a god (301b–2n.) going before his host, Rhesus will cause panic merely by being seen (and heard): 335 (n.) .

The Gorgoneion was probably as common on horse frontlets (E. Pernice, Griechisches Pferdegeschirr im Antiquarium der Königlichen Museen, Berlin 1896, 28)³³⁹ as it was as a device on shields and other pieces of armour from the seventh century on (LIMC IV.1/2 s.v. Gorgo, Gorgones A 19, 72–4, 87, 89, B 147–9, 151, E 156–193, F 194–228). For the nature and various etymologies of the aegis see LfgrE s.v. αἰγίς E, B, Kirk on Il. 2.446–51, Janko on Il. 15.18–31 (p. 230), 308–11, Edwards on Il. 17.593–6.

ἐκτύπει ϕόβον: an internal accusative, as in Sept. 123–4, 385–6 (above) and Rh. 567–8a (n.) οὔκ, / .

309–10. The impression of an uncountable army (cf. 276 ) is first given in the introduction to the Achaean catalogue at Il. 2.488–90. Tragic examples include Pers. 39–40 καὶ / and the exchange between Iolaus and Hyllus’ Servant at Hcld. 668–9 . In phrasing our verses resemble Pers. 429–30 , where the ‘host of troubles’ stems from the vast number of Persian soldiers that fell (Garvie on 429–32).

ἐν ψήϕου λόγῳ / θέσθαι: ‘count by reckoning with pebbles’, i.e. by using an abacus for exact computation (Paley on 309, Porter on 309–10). The periphrasis with θέσθαι (LSJ s.v. B II 3) is unique and perhaps a little awkward in style (Fraenkel, Rev. 238). More regularly Ag. 570 … ἐν and in particular in Hdt. 2.36.4, Ar. Vesp. 656 and Thphr. Char. 14.2. Med. 532 , where alone means ‘set down, reckon’ (LSJ s.v. τίθημι A II 9 b), should not be compared.

δύναι᾽ ἄν: Δ has the correct generalising second person singular (‘you / one could not …’) with repeated ἄν (KG I 246–7, SD 306 with n. 1). The corruption into δυναίμην (Λ) is partly paralleled at Phoen. 407 (corr. Markland).

: causal-exclamatory: ‘so overwhelming it was to look upon’ (KG II 370–1, Barrett on Hipp. 877–80). The literal sense of is ‘unapproachable’ (α + the root stem πλη- / πλα- of πελάζω), with a connotation of ‘terrible, monstrous’ (LSJ s.v. 1), which also suits an enormous host: Lyc. 569 (of the Greeks coming to Troy). For a thing ‘too great for sense to grasp’ (Porter on 309–10) cf. Archestr. fr. 190.8–9 SH (describing Phoenician wine) .

311–13. The Shepherd’s synopsis can profitably be compared to Ba. 781–5 / τ᾽ ταχυπόδων / / (cf. 264–341n.). Both times ‘the military relationships of the time of writing … are obviously projected onto those of a distant past’ (Best, Thracian Peltasts, 12), but whereas Pentheus musters a typical Greek army, that of Rhesus reflects Thracian conditions, with the cavalry taking pride of place and peltasts supplanting the regular hoplite forces. It would be mistaken, therefore, to think here of the Thracian mercenaries whom the Athenians employed as light-armed skirmishing troops, let alone, as Liapis does, the later Macedonian peltasts with their somewhat larger and heavier shields (cf. Introduction, 19). We are dealing with poetic fiction, not absolute historical fact.

πολλοὶ μὲν … πολλὰ … / πολλοὶ δ᾽᾽ … πολὺς δ᾽: The anaphora emphasises the vastness of Rhesus’ army (Ammendola on 309–13). With lexical variation cf. Phoen. 113 ( …) ἵπποις, μυρίοις δ᾽ ὅπλοις For further effect ‘connexion is varied with asyndeton’ (GP 164).

311. ἱππῆς: Dindorf (PSG¹, 222) restored the classical Attic form of the nominative plural (). In drama cf. E. Suppl. 666 , Phoen. 1146–7 ; 1191, Ar. Eq. 225, 242.

πελταστῶν τέλη: ‘divisions of peltasts’. Likewise Pers. 47 δίρρυμά (with Garvie: ‘squadrons of two-poled and three-poled chariots’) and, in a broader sense, already Il. 10.470 (LSJ s.v. τέλος I 10 a; cf. G. C. Richards, CQ 10 [1916], 196).

While Thracian peltasts are first mentioned by Thucydides (e.g. 2.29.5, 4.28.4, 5.6.4, 7.27.1), the Athenians appear to have been familiar with them from at least the latter half of the sixth century BC (Best, Thracian Peltasts, 4–16, who adds vase-paintings to the description of Xerxes’ Thraco-Bithynian allies at Hdt. 7.75.1; cf. 312–13n.). The use of the term thus provides no terminus post quem for the composition of Rhesus (Ritchie 83, 157), even apart from the Macedonian interpretation rejected in 311–13n.

312–13. ἀτράκτων τοξόται: ‘shooters of arrows’. Our poet may have been inspired by A. fr. 139.2 (Myrmidons) ,340 although ἄτρακτος, ‘arrow’, also occurs at Tr. 714, Phil. 290, Thuc. 4.40.2 (below) and later Leon. Tarent. Ep. 92.4 Gow–Page HE. Originally the word means ‘spindle’, probably from an unattested IE verb ‘to twist, rotate’, which also lies behind Sanskrit tarku- (‘spindle’), Greek (‘unumwunden’) and Latin torquere (GEW, DELG s.v. ἄτρακτος). The metaphorical use for ‘arrow’ developed from similarity of form and movement (around its own axis). There is no sense of contempt involved, except perhaps at Thuc. 4.40.2 (a Spartan to an Athenian) , where ‘spindle’ (a female instrument) stresses the prejudice of the cowardly archer (Hornblower on Thuc. 4.40.2; cf. 32–3n.).

ὄχλος / γυμνής: i.e. slingers, stone- and/or javelin-throwers, mentioned separately from the archers, as at 31 (n.) ;

ἁμαρτῇ: ‘together, at once’. Diggle and Kovacs rightly follow Wackernagel (Sprachliche Untersuchungen, 70–1) in writing for Attic(?) here ( et O^1c) and at Hec. 839. Aristarchus read ἁμαρτή in Homer (Il. 5.656, 18.571, 21.162, Od. 22.81),³⁴¹ and for archaic and classical Attic is attested at Sol. fr. 33.4 IEG, Hcld. 138 (L: ὁμ- Tr²) and Hipp. 1195 (⁸ [III BC]: ). The far more frequent verb seems to have made a fuller change early on, given that we have 17 undisputed cases of - in tragedy (including three augmented forms: PV 678, OC 1647, Ion 1151) as against one possible of ἁμαρτ- at E. fr. 680 (= Hsch. α 3456 + 3457 Latte). See also Barrett on Hipp. 1194–7.

Θρῃκίαν ἔχων στολήν: The dress of strangers tends to be commented on as part of their national identification: A. Suppl. 234–7 ποδαπὸν / / / (with FJW on 234, 235), A. fr. 61 = Ar. Thesm. 136–42, Hec. 734–5, Hyps. fr. I iv.11–14 Bond = E. fr. 752h.11–14, Ar. fr. 311 PCG and, of Greeks, Phil. 223–4, Hcld. 130–1 (with Wilkins).

Thracian warriors typically wore a knee-length tunic covered by a heavy patterned cloak (ζειρά), soft leather boots and on their heads a fox-skin cap with earflaps (ἀλωπεκίς) – all primarily designed for protection against the cold. The accounts of Herodotus (7.75.1) and Xenophon (An. 7.4.4) are confirmed by artistic representations from the later sixth century on (Best, Thracian Peltasts, 6–8 with plts. 2, 3, 4 and, for further literature, Liapis on 311–13).

314–16. The implicit comparison between Rhesus and Achilles (as well as sometimes Ajax and Diomedes) becomes another leitmotif. After 335 (n.), it is resumed by the chorus (370–4, 460–2), Rhesus himself (491, 496–8), Athena (600–4) and the Muse (974–7), stressing Rhesus’ martial prowess and the Trojans’ reverent trust in him. Cf. G. Paduano, SCO 23 (1974), 19–21.

ϕεύγων … ἐκϕυγεῖν: This collocation ‘plays upon the conative aspect of the present and the complexive aspect of the aorist reinforced by … the preposition (‘get away’, ‘succeed in escaping’)’ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 1216 ). So in particular also Ar. Ach. 177 and Pl. (?) Hp. Ma. 292a6–7 … .

οὔθ᾽ ὑποσταθεὶς δορί: Cf. 375b–7 (n.) / Ἥ- / ρας δαπέδοις χορεύσει. The ‘first’ aorist passive (ὑποσταθ-) looks like a concession to metre, when otherwise the intransitive middle is the rule (LSJ s.v. ὑϕίστημι B with IV 1 ‘resist, withstand’; cf. Fraenkel, Rev. 239). Similarly e.g. (LSJ s.v. II 1, 3 ‘stand against, withstand, resist’), which in classical times has ἀντισταθ- only at Hdt. 5.72.2.

The coupling with in our line is natural: Cyc. 198–200 , / , / , Phoen. 1470–1, Thuc. 1.144.4, 4.54.2, Plut. Demetr. 25.1.

317–18. ‘When the gods stand firm for our citizens, fortune moves easily towards success.’

This kind of translation suits both the context and the Greek better than anything implying a rapid change from misfortune (ξυμϕορά) to good luck (τἀγαθά). ‘The chorus mean, that Hector’s recent success, showing the favour of heaven to the Trojans, has now been crowned by this second piece of luck, the arrival of a powerful ally’ (Paley on 317). Yet unlike their commander, they remain conscious of the mutability of fate (332) and eventually are forced to recant their optimistic statement here: 882–4 (n.) / / ;

Initially the expression resembles Pers. 601 …, and most words are used in comparable ways elsewhere (below). But one may wonder whether the whole sententia is in the best of Greek tragic style (Fraenkel, Rev. 238).

εὐσταθῶσι: ‘to be steady, stable’ (LSJ s.v. 1), attested only here in classical Greek. The sense corresponds to that of at Xen. HG 5.2.23 (LSJ s.v. B II 2), rather than Plut. Aet. Rom. 72.281b (of Roman augury), which commentators tend to quote. Paley and Feickert (on 317) suspect an allusion also to the belief that the gods leave a city which has fallen or is about to fall. Note particularly Sept. 217–18 / and 318–20 καὶ πόλεως ῥύτορες <ἔστ᾽> / εὔεδροί τε / (with Hutchinson on 318–19). Other examples in Hutchinson on Sept. 304.

ἕρπει: for the course of time or events also e.g. Pi. Nem. 7.67–8 / , Ai. 1087 (i.e. good and bad fortune) and IT 476–7 / .

κατάντης: literally ‘downwards’, implying quick and easy movement on a way (Ar. Ran. 127), not the tipping of a balance, as Palmer (CR 4 [1890], 229) and others surmised. The word is again unique in tragedy. But its opposite occurs metaphorically at Med. 303–5 / […] / (‘adverse, an obstacle’), 381, IT 1012–13 and Or. 790, while (for ἀνέντες) has been proposed at HF 122 (see Bond on 121–3). Ritchie (215) adds Alc. 500 (i.e. Heracles’ δαίμων).

ξυμϕορά: without a qualifying epithet in a good sense, as in Ag. 24, S. El. 1230 (with Finglass) and Sim. fr. 512 = 1 Poltera συμϕοραῖς (quoted in Ar. Eq. 406). ‘in itself [is] neither good nor bad but used most frequently of unfavourable events’ (Fraenkel on Ag. 24).

319–26. Confident as ever, Hector greets the news of Rhesus’ approach with a variation on the commonplace that friends are abundant in success (Feickert on 320). The indignant little speech foreshadows the first part of the agon (388–526, 388–453nn.), where Hector berates Rhesus for coming late, despite the many embassies he had sent: 399–403 (cf. the Muse at 935–7). Tensions between the Trojans and their allies occasionally surface in the Iliad and may have been a feature of the older epic tradition (Edwards on Il. 17.219–32; cf. 251b–2, 762–9, 859a nn.).

319–20. τοὐμὸν εὐτυχεῖ δόρυ: 60b–2n.

καὶ Ζεὺς πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν: Cf. 52–84, 317–18nn. and, for Hector’s failure to understand that the tide of war will turn, 983–96, 995b–6nn.

321–3. ‘But we do not need those who have not toiled with us all the long time that the violent winds of Ares were blowing with full force and rending the sails of our ship of state.’

321b–2a. οἵτινες πάλαι / μὴ ξυμπονοῦσιν: For πάλαι with a present tense for an action that continues from the past into the present (KG I 134–5, SD 273–4, LSJ s.v. I 1) cf. 329, 396 and 414. Only L has the correct indicative ξυμπονοῦσιν (ξυμπονῶσιν ΔQgB) with μή in a generalising relative clause (KG II 185–6, 422).

322b–3. ἡνίκ᾽ ἐξώστης Ἄρης / ἔθραυε τῆσδε γῆς μέγας As in Sept. 62–4 σὺ δ᾽ ὥστε ναὸς κεδνὸς οἰακοστρόϕος / ϕάρξαι πόλισμα, (with Hutchinson), the ‘Ship of State’ image (246–9a n.) is here amalgamated with that of Ares’ breath as a furious gale. The latter recurs twice in Seven against Thebes (112–15, 343–4 [~ Ant. 135–7, of Capaneus]) and has a precedent in the comparison of Ares to a storm-wind at Il. 20.51 αὖε δ᾽ ἑτέρωθεν, ἶσος (although the formula is also applied to humans: Il. 11.747 … κελαινῇ ἶσος, 12.375). It contrasts with the gentle, fragrant breeze of more benevolent gods, which is given a twist in 385–7 (n.).

ἐξώστης of a wind that drives ships off course (Σ^V Rh. 322 [II 334.10–11 Schwartz = 93 Merro], LSJ s.v. ἐξώστης 2) seems to be an Ionism: Hdt. 2.113.1, Hp. VM 9.4 (E. Fraenkel, Nomina agentis I, 241; cf. Fraenkel, Rev. 239, Rh. 810b–12a n.). The verb, however, was regularly so used in Attic: Cyc. 278–9 / σὴν γαῖαν ἐξωσθέντες ἥκομεν, Κύκλωψ, Thuc. 2.90.5, 7.52.2, 8.104.4 (LSJ s.v. II).

ἔθραυε λαίϕη: As (‘break in pieces, shatter’) is not entirely fitting for sails, there may be an echo of Eum. 553–7 τὸν ϕαμι … 555b ξὺν χρόνῳ καθήσειν / λαῖϕος, ὅταν λάβῃ πόνος, / (‘the yard-arm’, i.e. the crossbeam from which the sail was hung). V’s ‘durative’ imperfect is correct OgB: Λ).

μέγας πνέων: Cf. Thuc. 6.104.2 καὶ ἁρπασθεὶς ὑπ᾽ … ὃς μέγας and, of a person identifying himself with a storm, Ar. Eq. 430 γάρ σοι καὶ καθιείς. Tragic instances of with μέγα / are metaphorical (Andr. 189, Tro. 1277, Ba. 640).

324. ἦν refers to the time at which Rhesus professed his allegiance.

325–6. ‘For he has come to the feast, without helping the hunters catch the prey or sharing our toils with his spear.’

The hunting metaphor looks proverbial, although it entered only the medieval gE (325). As the thought returns to the literal world of fighting, λεία acquires a trace of its ordinary meaning ‘booty’ (LSJ s.v. (B) 1), suggesting that Hector does not wish to share the spoils (and glory) of a war he believes he has won alone (cf. Feickert on 326).

κυνηγέταις: Elmsley¹ (on Hcld. 694) proposed κυνηγέτης, which is also now found in gE. But unlike at Hcld. 694 οὖν τευχέων ἄτερ ϕανῇ; Elmsley: L), the dative is more trenchant here (it was the Trojans who did all the hard work). Moreover, an assimilative error seems likelier with παρών in the same line.

οὐδὲ συγκαμὼν δορί: Cf. Hector at 396–7 πάλαι πάλαι τῇδε συγκάμνειν χθονί / ἐλθόντα.

327–8. ἀτίζεις: 251b–2n.

κἀπίμομϕος: here active, ‘inclined to blame’ (LSJ s.v. I). The adjective is passive (‘blameable, unlucky’) at Ag. 551–3 ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ / μέν ἂν εὐπετῶς ἔχειν, / δ᾽ κἀπίμομϕα and, if correct, Cho. 829–30 καὶ πέραιν᾽ / οὐκ ἐπίμομϕον ἄταν (see West’s apparatus and Garvie on Cho. 827–30).

δέχου δέ: In view of 301 ὥστε δαίμονα (301b–8, 301b–2nn.), Strohm (270 with n. 5) compares the Herdsman at Ba. 769–70 δαίμον᾽ οὖν τόνδ᾽, ὅστις ἔστ᾽, ὦ δέσποτα, / δέχου (264–341n.).

329. The nearest parallel is Alc. 383 οἱ σέθεν. Ritchie (202 n. 1) fails to see the difference hinted at by Dale (on Alc. 383), namely that ἀρκέω here means ‘suffice’ not only in numerical terms, but also in the sense ‘to be strong enough’ (cf. Hcld. 574–6 καὶ δίδασκέ / παῖδας, ἐς τὸ πᾶν σοϕούς, / ὥσπερ σύ, μᾶλλον· γάρ). But he rightly draws attention to the use of the article, which puts special emphasis on the person(s) concerned (Feickert on 329).

πάλαι: 321b–2a n. Λ’s πόλιν intruded from the end of 328.

330–1. πέποιθας … / πέποιθα: Hector’s misguided confidence is sustained to the end: 989b–92 (n.) ὡς … / … / Τρωσί θ᾽ ἐλευθέραν / στείχουσαν ϕέρειν. For the ominous connotations of in Rhesus see 65–6n.

τοὐπιὸν σέλας θεοῦ: Cf. Med. 352 ᾽πιοῦσα … θεοῦ, E. Suppl. 469 … πρὶν θεοῦ δῦναι σέλας and Tro. 860 ὦ καλλιϕεγγὲς τόδε. Euripides had a penchant for attributive ἐπιών (‘coming, following’) and periphrases for sun- or daylight. The former is exemplified also by Alc. 173–4 τοὐπιόν / κακόν, IT 313, Or. 1659, IA 651, E. frr. 135.2, 1073.6,³⁴² the latter by Alc. 722 τὸ … τοῦ θεοῦ, Hcld. 749–50, Ion 1467 ἀελίου … λαμπάσιν and Or. 1025. Diggle (on Phaeth. 6, Euripidea, 405–6) cites further tragic cases for being replaced with θεός (properly ‘the relevant god’, i.e. the sun).

332. πόλλ᾽᾽ ἀναστρέϕει θεός: 317–18, 882–4nn. The idea of the gods ‘turning over’ the affairs of men is frequent in Euripides: E. Suppl. 331 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς πάλιν (with preceding, as here), Hipp. 981–2, Andr. 1007–8 γὰρ ἀνδρῶν μοῖραν εἰς ἀναστροϕήν / δαίμων δίδωσι, E. fr. 301.1, Hel. 712–13 εὖ δέ (sc. ὁ θεὸς) / ἐκεῖσε ἀναϕέρων, E. fr. 536. Elsewhere Eum. 650–1 (Zeus) τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντ᾽ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω / στρέϕων (with Sommerstein). Cf. Collard on E. Suppl. 330—1a and Liapis on 330–2 on the underlying ‘Wheel of Fortune’ image.

333–41. The transmitted line order and speaker distributions make no sense. 333 must belong to Hector (Ω), and 334–5, given to the coryphaeus and the Shepherd respectively, would follow well. But 336–8, which L alone rightly assigns to Hector, are no cogent reply to the preceding objections and at any rate cannot come immediately before Hector’s (Q) final decision to accept Rhesus as an ally (339–41).

Nauck’s transposition of 336–8 after 333 (Euripideische Studien II, 171–3) is the easiest solution. Hector still disapproves of tardy friends (333), but in order perhaps to avert the wrath of Zeus Ξένιος concedes admitting Rhesus as a guest (336–7n.). Further advice by the chorus-leader and the Shepherd (334–5n.) – for 339 (n.) τ᾽ … καὶ σὺ … refers to two different persons – then persuades him to take the second step (339–41). If his change of mind seems even more abrupt than in the Aeneas scene (264–341n.), the imperfection must probably be laid at our poet’s door. But it is possible that a few lines were lost after 335 (n.), which in the way of Il. 16.278–83 (Patroclus) and 18.197–238 (Achilles) expanded on the fear Rhesus would strike into the Greek host. ³⁴³ Apart from making Hector’s reaction more plausible, a short speech by the Shepherd would also fit the type of messenger who stays on to influence the course of the play (804–81n.). On the other hand, our poet may have intended a single put-down remark like that of Iolaus at Hcld. 687 ἔμ᾽ ἀνέξεται.

Zanetto’s transposition (cf. Ciclope, Reso, 145–6 n. 46) can be rejected at once. Placing 336–8 after 328 and giving 338 (punctuated as a question) to the coryphaeus does nothing to improve the logic of the passage. 329–35 awkwardly follow 338 (which is not answered by 329), and ‘Hector’s capitulation in 336–7 … would come as a complete surprise after only two lines of argumentation by the chorus (327–8)’ (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 66). The creation of straight stichomythia is a negligible advantage.

West (apud Klyve on 336–41 [p. 225]) proposed to treat 336–8 and 339–41 as alternative versions, one of which he would delete. From the subsequent ode it is evident that 336–8 could not stand on their own, since the chorus express hopes in Rhesus too high for him to have been admitted merely as a guest (Klyve). Without those lines the discussion would in a clear and coherent fashion centre on the question of military allegiance, and if there was a lacuna of the kind discussed above, Hector’s turn-about would appear no less abrupt than in Nauck’s correction of the paradosis. But it is difficult to explain how 336–8 could have entered the text, unless a redactor (desiring further conflict perhaps) interpolated them for a revival of the play.³⁴⁴ This, however, would have worked only after 333, bringing us back to the order restored by Nauck. Short of conclusive evidence, it seems best to accept it as what our poet wrote.

333. ‘I hate it if a man comes too late to help his friends.’

Hector’s summary complaint, which he repeats almost literally at 411b–12 (n.), resembles Ar. Ran. 1427–8 ~ E. frr. [886] [887] (‘Euripides’ on Alcibiades) πολίτην, ὅστις ὠϕελεῖν / (Hamaker: R, Suda σ 511: VAKL). The second verse-half echoes Phoen. 1432–3 … τέκν᾽, ὑστέρα / πάρειμι. Euripides liked (also Hcld. 339, El. 963, Or. 1290/1) and (Hcld. 121, Hipp. 776, Or. 1356, 1476, 1510, 1622), which elsewhere before the Imperial period is found only in A. fr. 46c.6 (Diktyoulkoi?) and, perhaps as Euripidean imitations (Liapis on 333), Lyc. 923 and Ezek. 232. Its use here remains true to the basic ‘run in response to a call for help’ (Willink on Or. 1288–91).

336–7. ὃ δ᾽ οὖν is Nauck’s idiomatic reinterpretation of the transmitted ὅδ᾽ (Euripideische Studien II, 173), in which he rightly prefers to leave the demonstrative accented (cf. West, ed. Aeschylus, XLIX). For ‘permissive’ δ᾽ οὖν (with a second- or third-person imperative) see GP 466–7; in mid-speech also OC 1205 and Ar. Lys. 491. The tone is petulant here, condescending in 868 δ᾽ οὖν ταῦτ᾽, ἐπείπερ σοι δοκεῖ.

ξένος … πρὸς τράπεζαν … ξένων: The polyptoton, here emphasised by the way it frames the line, expresses the mutual ties (and duties) of hospitality: Cho. 702–3 τί γάρ / ξένου ξένοισίν (~ Hdt. 7.237.3), Eum. 660–1 ἣ δ᾽ ἅπερ ξένῳ ξένη / ἔσωσεν ἔρνος, IA [604—6] and, in general, Denniston on E. El. 337, Gygli-Wyss, Polyptoton, 64–8, 112–15, 127 with n. 3, West, IEPM 113–14

For τράπεζαν … ξένων cf. Od. 14.158 = 17.155 ξενίη … and Ag. 401/2 τράπεζαν. See also 841b–2n.

338. ‘For he has utterly lost the gratitude of Priam’s sons.’

The sentiment corresponds to Men. fr. 702 PCG ἅμ᾽ χάρις / ἣν δεόμενος ἀθάνατον ἕξειν ἔϕη, the first verse of which became proverbial early on (PCG VI.2, 347). This, and not our passage, appears to be alluded to in Eust. 822.4–5 (on Il. 10.519–25) ὀκνοῦσι γὰρ ἴσως νεηλύδων, ἀπώναντο. καὶ εἰ τοῦτο, ἄρα ἐκ (cf. Introduction 46 with n. 96).

διώλετο: ΔQ. Liapis alone prefers L’s ἀπώλετο, on the ground that tends to emphasise ‘the role of an external agency’, while (ἀπ)όλλυμαι ‘can mean merely ‘to cease to exist, to fail” (‘Notes’, 67). But the stronger verb is desired here, suggesting that Rhesus himself has forfeited Hector’s gratitude (Paley on 338). Cf. Pers. 589–90 βασιλεία γὰρ ἰσχύς (i.e. through Xerxes’ failure) as against the ‘neutral’ S. fr. 920 ἀμνήμονος γὰρ ὄλλυται χάρις, Hcld. 437–8 εἰ θεοῖσι δὴ / ἔμ᾽, σοί γ᾽ χάρις and E. fr. 736.5–6 δ᾽ ἐν χάρις / ἀπόλωλ᾽, ἐκ θάνῃ.

334–5. For the need to divide the couplet between two speakers see 333–41n. The sententious admonition not to scorn allies (334) suits the coryphaeus, who had already said as much in 327–8. And the Shepherd has personal experience of Rhesus’ fearsome effect (287–9, 306–8). See Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 172–3.

334. ἐπίϕθονον: sc. ἐστίν (‘it is hateful …’). Cf. Hcld. 202–3 … καὶ γὰρ οὖν / λίαν ἐπαινεῖν and Ar. Eq. 1274 οὐδέν ἐπίϕθονον. The arrogance of rejecting an ally was likely to arouse resentment in both men and gods (Liapis on 334). See further 342–5, 342–3, 455b–7nn.

335. Two particular epic precedents exist. At Il. 16.278–83 Patroclus frightens the Trojans in Achilles’ panoply, and at Il. 18.197–238 the hero himself achieves that end, supernaturally enhanced by Athena in aspect and voice. Our poet thus resumes the connection of Rhesus with Achilles (314–16n.) in a way that intimates divine support for him.

It is possible that Aelius Aristides recalled Rhesus in Or. 1.106 Lenz–Behr (of Darius’ Persians) δ᾽ παρασκευῆς καὶ ποιουμένων, ἐξαρκεῖν ἐδόκει μόνον (Vater on 325; cf. Introduction, 45).

ϕόβος: ‘an object of fear’, as in e.g. A. Suppl. 479 γὰρ ἐν (i.e. Zeus), OC 1651–2 τινος / οὐδ᾽ ἀνασχέτου βλέπειν, Or. 1518 ὧδε Τροίᾳ σίδηρος πᾶσι Φρυξὶν ϕόβος; (FJW on A. Suppl. 479) and Rh. 52 (n.) … καίπερ ϕόβον. The Iliadic parallels (above) tell against capitalising the noun with, tentatively, Liapis (‘Notes’, 67–8).

ὀϕθείς: VΛ. O’s arose from ἦλθε in 336.

339. ‘You give good advice, and you consider <what is advanta-geous > in time.’

σύ τ᾽ … καὶ σύ: 333–41, 334–5nn. The choice of words suggests that the chorus-leader is addressed first. Usually the last speaker gets that privilege and/or a clarifying vocative is added: IT 655–6 ἔτι γὰρ ϕρήν, / σὲ σ᾽ γόοις (i.e. Pylades – Orestes), 1079 (Orestes – Pylades), OT 637 οὐκ εἶ τ᾽ σύ τε, Κρέον, τὰς σὰς στέγας, Ant. 724–5, 1340–4, Phoen. 568 (cf. Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 172 n. 1). But on stage a turn of the head or some other gesture would have sufficed.

καιρίως σκοπεῖς: For absolute σκοπέω, ‘look to, consider’, with an adverb or adverbial phrase cf. Phoen. 155 ὃ καὶ δέδοικα θεοί (with Mastronarde), Pl. Smp. 219a1–2 … ἄμεινον σκόπει, and probably A. Suppl. 232 κἀμείβεσθε (with FJW).

Some scholars refer the phrase to the Shepherd’s observation of Rhesus’ coming: ‘… and you were keeping your eyes open at the right time’ (Morwood). But neither the context nor the tense of the verb recommend this view.

340–1. χρυσοτευχής: a hapax, which may have been coined for the occasion after Il. 10.439 τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια (305–6a n.). Note the equally unparalleled E. Suppl. 999 Καπανέως.

ἀγγέλου λόγων ‘in view of what the messenger said’, as at Tro. 912–13 τῶν σῶν δ᾽ οὕνεχ᾽ … / δώσω (Klyve on 340–1). The alternative, namely to refer the clause to alone (‘as far as the messenger’s words are concerned’) has been discounted by Pearson (CQ 11 [1917], 60 + CQ 12 [1918], 79) on the ground that elsewhere this idiom indicates an entirely objective cause: e.g. S. El. 786–7 νῦν δ᾽ / οὕνεχ᾽ ἡμερεύσομεν, Phil. 774, OC 22, Hipp. 421–3 … / … οἰκοῖεν / μητρὸς οὕνεκ᾽ εὐκλεεῖς, Hel. 885–6, Phoen. 865–6, Or. 84 (LSJ s.v. ἕνεκα I 2). And while one need not perhaps be so strict (cf. W. H. Porter, CQ 11 [1917], 159–60), a half-sarcastic remark on Rhesus’ golden armour seems to be less relevant here than a (grudging) recognition of his potential value for Troy.

On οὕνεκα as a preposition in drama see LSJ s.v. II, Barrett on Hipp. 453–6 and West, ed. Aeschylus, XLIX.

342–79. Even more than 224–63 (n.) this joyous ode which greets Rhesus’ imminent arrival shows the elements of a cletic hymn (cf. Fenik, Iliad X, 26–7 n. 3, Furley–Bremer, Greek Hymns I, 50–63). After an apotropaic prayer to Adrasteia (342–5, 342–3nn.) and declaring their intention to sing Rhesus’ praise (344–5n.), the chorus ‘invoke’ him as the son of the Thracian river god Strymon, whose waters impregnated a virgin Muse (346–8a, 348b–51a, 351b–4nn.). The so-called ‘eulogy’ distinguishes Rhesus with titles derived from different aspects of Zeus and with his dramatically most important attribute, the marvellous horses (355–6, 357–9nn.).

In the second strophe we get a nostalgic picture of Troy enjoying the pleasures of peace (360–7n.), which the chorus hope Rhesus will restore (368–9n.). This develops out of his identification with Zeus Ἐλευθέριος (357–9n.) and in the hymn takes the place of the usual myth and/or here inapplicable reminder of the god’s previous service. The actual ‘prayer’ occupies the final stanza – forcefully introduced by ἐλθὲ (370–2a n.). As in the Shepherd’s imagination (315–16), Rhesus is to confront Achilles and thus, it is implied, to defeat the Greeks once and for all (370–5a, 373b–5a, 375b–7nn.). The confident imperatives and future indicatives (370, 377, 379) leave no doubt of the chorus’ trust at this point; contrast their misgivings in face of his arrogance upon arrival in 454–66 (n.).

Linguistically the hymnic style is evoked by anaphora (346–8a, 357–9nn.), a descriptive relative clause (351b–4n.), second-person invocations (355–6n.) and, reflecting choral-lyric rather than tragic practice, the syntactical overlap between the first strophe and antistrophe (348b–51a n.). All these set the tone for the unprecedented identification of a mortal with Zeus and, in the following anapaests, Ares ‘himself ’ (385–7n.).

By casting Rhesus’ arrival in the light of a divine epiphany, the chorus not only surpass the Shepherd’s excited description – including the epicising in 301 (301b–2n.) – but also their earlier exaltation of Dolon (224–63), who after all required the help of Apollo and Hermes to succeed (cf. Klyve on 342–87 [pp. 229–31]). In the course of the ode both the Trojan hopes and the audience’s expectation of Rhesus reach their peak, although for the latter sinister undercurrents again come in. The dazzling Thracian will no more ‘return home’ (367–9; cf. 450)345 than the hapless Dolon (235–7), and instead of witnessing symposia again, Troy will suffer the fate envisaged for the Greeks (357–9, 375b–7nn.).

If we had the choral response to Memnon’s arrival in A. Memnon (cf. 380–7n.) or to that of Cycnus in S. Poimenes (264–341, 388–526nn.), we might find that our poet went out of his way to elevate Rhesus before his fall (certainly with the lavish titles he bestowed on him). Yet it is not hybris and divine that will prove his doom. Rhesus is as potent as the chorus wish and he himself will maintain, and has to die because Athena will not let him have his way (Klyve on 342–87 [p. 231]).

Metre

342–50 ~ 351–9. A sequence of aeolic, iambo-choriambic and dactylo-epitrite cola with an aristophanean clausula. The pattern again resembles the parodos (23–33 ~ 41–51) and in Euripides especially Tro. 1060–70 ~ 1071–81 (Ritchie 306–7). On the frequent combination of these metres see also West, GM 118–20.

360–9 ~ 370–9. Primarily iambo-choriambic and aeolic. With the colometry given here a ‘dove-tailed’ iambo-choriambic period (360–2/370–2n.) is followed by a variation on that scheme (363–5/373–5n.) and two aeolic elements with a iambo-choriambic close. But it is possible that the rhythm turns to ionic in the middle (363–5/373–5, 366–7/376–7nn.).

Notes

344/353 The strophe shows correption between and ὅσον. The phenomenon does not often involve monophthongs (West, GM 12). In drama cf. particularly Ar. Vesp. 1065 αἵδ᾽ – ‘highly unusual in trochaics’ (Parker, Songs, 247) because ‘the shortened syllable is practically always preceded or followed by a naturally short syllable’ (West, GM 11).

347/356 For choriambic trimeters in tragedy see 224–63 ‘Metre’ 242–3/253–4n. The first exponent of ia cho ia‸ is Anacr. fr. 384 PMG. Like other pendant cola, the verse need not be clausular (cf. Ag. 141, Ant. 806 ~ 823, Med. 432 ~ 439, Hel. 1452 ~ 1466).

350/359 The aristophanean, which is not elsewhere appended to dactylo-epitrite (Parker, Songs, 83), echoes the closing rhythm of 347 ~ 356 (above).

360–2/370–2 Various divisions are possible, not least because of the regular word-ends after the choriambs. The standard arrangement is cho ia cho | cho | ia ∫ cho | ia‸ |, but the double ‘dove-tailing’, by which the initial colon (cho ia) is first expanded (cho | cho | ia), then reduced (cho | ia‸), may be preferable also in view of the parallel evolution that seems to obtain in 363–5 ~ 373–5 (below).

363–5/373–5 This is the colometry of Murray, Schroeder² (168) and Parker (unpublished notes). At the relatively small price of leaving the unidentifiable 346 at the beginning of 363 ~ 373, it produces another stretch of ‘dove-tailed’ iambo-choriambics (360–2/370–2n.), ending in a pendant hemiepes (D -), which combines equally well with the following aeolic (cf. West, GM 100–2, 104, 118–20). All other editors since Wilamowitz (GV 586–7) have adopted an ionic interpretation (in accordance with the word-divisions): ia 2io | 2io^÷ (anacr) | io‸ io |. For a sequence of iambo-choriambic, ionic and aeolic West (GM 126–7) compares Ag. 681–98 ~ 699–716 and 737–49 ~ 750–62. Yet in both those strophic pairs the ionic element is more pronounced and separated from the rest by period-ends (so admitting of no alternative analysis).³⁴⁷ The potentially ambiguous colon 366 ~ 376 (below), which rounds off the period, also favours aeolo-choriambic over ionic. Nevertheless it frequently remains difficult, if not impossible, to decide between iambo-choriambic / aeolic and ionic (Dale, LM² 143–7, West, GM 127, Parker, Songs, 63–4). For all we can tell, our poet may have preferred mixing metres to a regular series of related types.

In 363 (362b–5a n.) Canter’s ψαλμοῖσι for ψάλμασι (Ω) restores responsion. As a iambo-choriambic prefix is meaningless and could not be answered by . And if the line was ia 2io, we would have correspondence between cho and ia, certain examples of which are rare and not attested in an ionic context (Parker, Songs, 78, 151, 237–8, 369; cf. West, GM 105).

366–7/376–7 The verse should not be divided with Murray, Schroeder² (168), Diggle and Kovacs. It is best taken as a colon of the ‘asclepiad’ family (hi^c), as e.g. Ai. 630 ~ 641 and, with two internal choriambs, Rh. 251–2 ~ 262–3 (224–63 ‘Metre’ 250–2/261–3n.). In a more obviously ionic setting one could also regard it as contracted 2io . But ‘- - is very much commoner as aeolic opening than as ionic’ (Dale, LM² 144), which unequivocally occurs only at Sept. 321 ~ 333 and Ba. 81 (responding to in 97).

342–5. ‘May Adrasteia, the daughter of Zeus, keep (divine) envy from my mouth. For I shall say all that my soul finds pleasing to utter.’

In true Pindaric fashion the chorus seek to avert such misfortune as may come from their glorification of Rhesus: Ol. 13.24–6 (cited in 455b–7n.), Pyth. 8.71–2, 10.19–22, Isthm. 7.39 ἁρμόζων· ὁ δ᾽ ἀθανάτων μὴ θρασσέτω ϕθόνος (cf. Kranz, Stasimon, 264). The idea that excessive (self-)praise, as a form of ὕβρις, is liable to arouse the gods’ ill-will is deep-rooted in archaic and classical Greek thought (Nilsson, GGR I³, 736–40). See also Ag. 903–4 (with Fraenkel on 904) and Rh. 455b–7 (n.) μόνον / ϕθόνον ἄμαχον ὕπατος / Ζεὺς θέλοι ἀμϕὶ σοῖς λόγοισιν ἔργειν, 468 … σὺν δ᾽ Ἀδραστείᾳ λέγω.

342–3. Ἀδράστεια: Originally a Phrygian mountain goddess (Phoronis fr. 2.1–4 GEF < … > ἔνθα γόητες / , Φρύγες ἄνδρες, ὀρέστερα οἰκί᾽ ἔναιον, / … / εὐπά λαμοι θεράποντες ὀρείης Ἀδρηστείης, A. fr. 158.2–3) with a shrine near Cyzicus (Strab. 12.8.11, 13.1.13), Adrasteia was admitted to public cult at Athens some time before 429 BC (Parker, Athenian Religion, 172, 195, 197). Around that date she also surfaces in invocations against the effects of arrogant speech (PV 936, Pl. Rep. 451a4–5, [Dem.] 25.37, Men. Peric. 304) – like Nemesis, the personification of public and divine disapproval: e.g. Pittac. 10 ε 5 DK, S. El. 792 (with Finglass), Phoen. 182–4, Pl. Leg. 717d1–3. How this identification, which was first explicitly made in Antim. fr. 131 Matthews = 53 Wyss, came to pass we cannot tell. Nothing is known about Adrasteia’s Athenian cult, and hardly more about the much older and autochthonous one of Nemesis at Rhamnus (Parker, Polytheism and Society, 406–7). It may be that the popular etymology of her name as (‘not to be escaped’) already played a part, although it is not attested before the Hellenistic age, when the early Stoics equated her with Fate (H. Posnansky, Nemesis und Adrasteia …, Breslau 1890, 72–5, 88–90, West, Orphic Poems, 195–6 with n. 63). The explanation at any rate appears in the scholarly tradition: Ael. Dion. ν 5 Erbse (= Eust. 355.36–7) ἀναπόδραστον, Hsch. α 1190 Latte (= Phot. α 384 Theodoridis, Suda α 523 Adler) Ἀδράστεια· ἡ Νέμεσις, ἣν οὐκ ἄν τις ἀποδράσειεν.

It is possible that Adrasteia bore oriental associations here and at 468, spoken by Rhesus (e.g. Porter on 342, Jouan 65 n. 93, Liapis on 342–3). But given the frequent appeals to her also by Greeks, this is not a necessary assumption.

μέν: This is our sole example in lyric of ‘inceptive’ μέν without an answer expressed or implied (cf. GP 382–4, Fraenkel on Ag. 1). Similarly Ag. 40, the opening of the anapaestic parodos.

ἁ Διὸς / παῖς: As a daughter of Zeus Adrasteia recurs only at Plut. De sera num. vind. 25.564e Διὸς θυγάτηρ, which follows the tradition of Plato and the Stoics, where she became not only a judge of the departed souls (Pl. Phdr. 248c2–e5), but also the power of Fate itself (Posnansky, Nemesis und Adrasteia, 71 n. 1; cf. above). Our poet presumably created an ad hoc genealogy on the analogy of Dike, who fulfils a similar role as divinely authorised watcher over human affairs (Feickert on 342). That Adrasteia is thought to act on Zeus’ behalf is shown by the chorus’ prayer at 455–7 (342–5, 454–66, 455b–7nn.). On Adrasteia as one of Zeus’ nurses (Call. Iov. 47–8, A. R. 3.133, ‘Apollod.’ 1.1.6 [1.5]; cf. Σ^V Rh. 342 [II 334.15–16 Schwartz = 93 Merro]) and the origin of this idea in a late-fifth-century Orphic theogony see West, Orphic Poems, 72, 122–4, 127–8, 131–2, 158.

στομάτων: ‘the mouth as the organ of speech’ (LSJ s.v. I 2), or ‘lips’ to do justice to the plural. In any case we need not understand ‘speech, utterance’, as in e.g. OT 671–2 τὸ γὰρ σὸν …

344–5. ϕράσω γὰρ δὴ … εἰπεῖν: an emphatic explanation after the apotropaic prayer (cf. GP 243). is an ordinary rather than an ‘encomiastic’ or ‘performative’ future, as Liapis (on 344–5) would prefer.

μοι / ψυχᾷ: Cf. 266 for this form of σχῆμα καθ᾽ καὶ μέρος.

προσϕιλές: The word is common in tragedy, but used in lyrics and with an infinitive only here.

346–8a. ἥκεις … / ἥκεις: 249b–51a n. Here epanalepsis at the beginning of two successive cola (cf. Diggle, Euripidea, 370) ‘helps create a mood of jubilant impatience in view of Rhesus’ imminent arrival’ (Liapis on 346–8). Similarly 357–8 (357–9n.) Φρυγία, / … νῦν σοι … and 385–7 (n.) Τροία, θεός … σε. Ritchie (238–9) lists general tragic examples of iteration after an apostrophe.

The verb occupies the same initial position in the corresponding 355–6 μοι Ζεὺς ὁ Φαναῖος / ἥκεις …

ὦ ποταμοῦ παῖ: The obligatory hymnic address at once identifies the ‘god’ (Rhesus) and his genuinely divine father (Strymon). Cf. 224–6a, 226a, 342–79nn.

ἐπλάθης: 13–14n. Forms of this poetic intransitive passive aorist recur in 911 and 920 (910–11, 919–20nn.). To the passages cited there add Hec. 890 and probably Phil. 727–8 ἵν᾽ ὁ QR, coni. Bergk: -θῃ G^pc: -θει G^ac rell.).

Φιλίου πρὸς αὐλάν: ‘to the hall of the Friendly God’, i.e. the royal palace of Troy, where Rhesus will be received as a friend. For (Zeus) Φίλιος cf. e.g. Andr. 602–4 ( …) ἥτις ἐκ / τὸν / Ar. Ach. 730 Φίλιον, Pherecr. fr. 102.4 PCG, Pl. Euthphr. 6b3–4, Phdr. 234e 2 Διὸς ϕιλίου, Men. fr. 53 PCG (LSJ s.v. I 2). The fact that Φίλιος is more often (and in earlier sources) mentioned alone can be interpreted in two ways. It is possible that this Zeus had long been familiar in the domestic sphere and so could be referred to only by this epithet (Parker, Athenian Religion, 241–2). But it may also be that he was originally an independent deity (ὁ Φίλιος θεός), who as protector of friendship and family bonds (ϕιλία) tied in with the socio-moral aspects of Zeus (especially that of Ξένιος) and in time was subsumed by him (Wilamowitz, GV 585, Nilsson, GGR I³, 808–10).

Older editors (and Klyve) prefer (Δ), a weak alternative, which may go back to a gloss, an associative error or a scribe’s interpretation of a (partly) illegible reading.

ἀσπαστός occurs only here in tragedy, as does at Ag. 1555. Both adjectives are particularly epic.

348b–51a. To say that Rhesus is sent by Strymon and his Pierian mother (which turns out to be wrong: 899–901, 934–5) is an elegant way of expanding on his divine origin and leading into the colourful account of his conception (351b–4n.). With Strymon’s name in single-word enjambment placed prominently at the head of the antistrophe, the sentence continues over the stanza boundary in a way that is unique for drama (cf. 242–4a n.), but has many parallels in Pindar and Bacchylides: e.g. Pi. Ol. 2.95, 10.55, Pyth. 12.17, Nem. 9.31, Bacch. 1.124, 5.151 (Kranz, Stasimon, 263, Ritchie 333–6).348

Πιερὶς μάτηρ: one of the Muses, who remains unidentified throughout the play. On her place in the mythical tradition and the confusion about her name in later scholarly texts see Introduction, 13.

καλλιγέϕυρος: ‘with beautiful bridges’. The word is a hapax, like many poetic καλλι- compounds (which in tragedy tend to be found in lyrics). Of rivers also (HF 368), καλλιδόναξ (Hel. 493), and (Hel. 1) as well as the more widespread (Med. 835).

Our poet probably alludes to the well-known Strymon bridge on the north-western side of Amphipolis, which played a crucial part in Brasidas’ attack on the city in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.103.4, 4.108.1). Remains of its wooden structure were excavated in 1972 (cf. B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest, Leiden 1986, 55 with n. 284, Hornblower on Thuc. 4.103.4 [II, pp. 329–30]). It has nothing to do with the bridges Xerxes had built across the Strymon near Ennea Hodoi (Hdt. 7.24, 7.114.1)

351b–4. ‘… who swirling once in watery form through the virginal lap of the sweet-singing Muse begat your youthful vigour.’

Even more than in the previous clause the chorus speak as if they perform a hymn, not like a body of Trojan night-watchmen in the field. In a wider framework, but with less attention to ‘detail’, the story of Rhesus’ conception is told again by the Muse at 919–20 (n.). Here especially the picture recalls Od. 11.241–4, where Poseidon visits Tyro in the guise of the river-god Enipeus, and a large wave surrounds the couple. More often in hymns we hear of the birth of a god or hero, but the parental union is described at e.g. h.Merc. 3–10, h.Hom. 33.4–6 (Dioscuri), Alc. fr. 308 Voigt and Isyll. Pae. Epid. 48–51 (CA 134 = Furley–Bremer II 183).

For relative clauses identifying a god’s cult places or favourite haunts see 224–6a n. Other aspects so expressed included his genealogy, as here and in the first three examples quoted above (cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 168–76, Rh. 342–79n.).

τᾶς μελῳ- / δοῦ Μούσας: Cf. Rh. 393 παῖ μητέρος Μουσῶν μιᾶς, 921–3 ὅτ᾽ … / … / Μοῦσαι μεγίστην εἰς ἔριν and, at the same metrical position, IT 1104–5 μελῳ- / δὸς Μούσας (θεραπεύει). Euripides and Aristophanes were the first to use μελῳδός, μελῳδία (923–4a n.) and μελῳδέω.

δι᾽ ἀκηράτων … κόλπων: similarly Zeus at Hel. 1145–6 πτανὸς γὰρ ἐν Λή- / δας ἐτέκνωσε (LSJ s.v. I 2 c). For ἀκήρατος, ‘undefiled, untouched, pure’ (< κηραίνω), in a sexual context cf. Tro. 675–6 δέ μ᾽ … / πρῶτος , Or. 575, IA 1083, Pl. Leg. 840d5–6.

ὑδροειδής: another hapax, which emphasises Strymon’s natural (as opposed to human or animal) form when he attacked the Muse (Liapis on 351–4, who also compares Ov. Met. 3.342–4). With the wording resembles Ion 95–6 τὰς ἀργυροειδεῖς / … δίνας (~ IA 751–2).

σὰν … ἥβαν: i.e. ‘you, a vigorous young man’. For similar periphrases of the type βίη see 132 and 762–3a nn.

355–6. ‘You have come to me as Zeus the ‘Bringer of Light’, driving your chariot with your dappled mares.’

σύ μοι: Emphatic (and repeated) second-person addresses are again typical of hymns. Cf. 369 σᾷ χερὶ καὶ σῷ δορί, 375 σὲ γὰρ …, and see Norden, Agnostos Theos, 149–60, West, IEPM 310–11.

The dative is properly one ‘of advantage’ with ὁ Φαναῖος (‘ … the Bringer of Light for me’). Cf. below.

Ζεὺς ὁ Φαναῖος is not attested anywhere else. But Apollo was worshipped as Φαναῖος on Chios (e.g. Hsch. ϕ 141 Hansen–Cunningham ~ Achae. TrGF 20 F 35), where his temple stood close to the harbour and promontory of Φάναι (Strab. 14.1.35). Both the place name and title have correctly been derived from or ϕαναί, ‘torch(es)’ – most recently by Liapis (CQ n.s. 57 [2007], 382–5 and on 355–6). But whether he is justified in making wide-ranging assumptions about the use of ritual torches and mystic elements in the cults of Apollo Φαναῖος and Zeus is another question. Most of the parallels he adduces (CQ n.s. 57 [2007], 386–94) are late and/or relate to the fringes of the Greek world. It may be more promising after all to think of the Chian as ‘beacons’ for guiding ships safely into the harbour named after them (O. Crusius, Die Delphischen Hymnen. Untersuchungen über Texte und Melodien, Göttingen 1894, 16 n. 24). In that case our poet would have transferred the epithet to Zeus, one of whose many functions was to be a (cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 238–41) and whose sons Castor and Polydeuces brought light to ships in distress (Alc. fr. 34.9–12 Voigt). Likewise Rhesus (in his dazzling armour) could become a ‘light of salvation’ for the hard-pressed Trojans (cf. West, EFH 253, IEPM 482), without suggesting mystic release as the soon-to-be and ‘prophet of Bacchus’ in a Pangaean cave: 970–3 (962–82n.).

Ultimately we do not know what connotations Φαναῖος bore for a fifth- or fourth-century Greek. But in view of (Zeus) in 347 (346–8a n.) and the straightforward association of Rhesus with Zeus Ἐλευθέριος (357–9n.) and Ares (385–7n.), it would be strange to find a heavily ‘laden’ epithet here. The chorus’ hopes for delivery from their present plight are clear in any case.

ἥκεις: 346–8a n.

διϕρεύων βαλιαῖσι πώλοις: Cf. Andr. 1010–12 Φοῖβε … / καὶ κυανέαις ἵπποις διϕρεύ- / πέλαγος. In classical Greek is found only in Euripides (also Andr. 108, Suppl. 991, Or. 991, E. fr. 114.3 = Ar. Thesm. 1067), although Sophocles has (Ai. 857).

Rhesus’ horses serve as his ‘hymnic attribute’ (342–79n.). Here alone they are said to be dappled instead of gleaming white (303–4n.), the sort of minor contradiction all tragedians commit (185, 686nn.). In this case it may be due to IA 220–2 πώλους … / … / (Hermann, Opuscula III, 293), from the parodos that also seems to lie behind Rh. 48 and 261–3 (nn.). Apart from Achilles’ immortal stallion (Il. 16.149, 19.400), the adjective is not otherwise applied to horses.

For the gender of the team see again 185n.

357–9. The structure and diction of this emotional address to the fatherland (cf. 380–1, 385–7) recalls Hcld. 867–8 (Chorus) ὦ Ζεῦ τροπαῖε, νῦν ἐμοὶ δεινοῦ ἦμαρ εἰσιδεῖν. The sentries now all but identify Rhesus with Zeus of Freedom (below). Yet their hopes will turn out to be as ill-founded as Hector’s at 991–2 (989b–92n.) Τρωσί θ᾽ ἐλευθέραν / ϕέρειν.

νῦν … νῦν: 346–8a n.

ὦ πάτρις ὦ Φρυγία: The emphatic repetition of ‘vocative’ ὦ, usually between the noun and its attribute, is as old as Homer: Il. 6.55 πέπον, Μενέλαε, 17.238 (KG I 49–50). In tragedy note especially the metrically identical Tro. 601 ὦ πάτρις, ὦ and 1082 ὦ ϕίλος, πόσι μοι (Ritchie 238).

ξὺν θεῷ … … πάρεστιν εἰπεῖν: ‘with the favour of the god … ’ Cf. Rh. 468 … σὺν δ᾽ Ἀδραστείᾳ λέγω, Med. 625 = Ar. Pl. 114 σὺν δ᾽ and the common apotropaic formula σὺν θεῷ εἰπεῖν (e.g. S. fr. 479.1–2, Pl. Tht. 151b3–4, Prt. 317b7, Lg. 858b2). The chorus seek further protection against divine (342–5, 342–3nn.) before pronouncing the name of Zeus Ἐλευθέριος when Troy is still under siege (Liapis on 357–9).

τὸν Ἐλευθέριον / Ζῆνα: Zeus was the god who guarded a community against foreign and domestic oppression. His cult developed in the first half of the fifth century in response to the Persian Wars (first at Plataea: Thuc. 2.71.2–4) and the overthrow of the Sicilian tyrannies (Pi. Ol. 12.1–2, D. S. 11.72.2). At Athens at least he became an aspect of the much older Zeus Σωτήρ and between ca. 430 and 410 BC acquired a splendid stoa with cult statue on the west side of the agora (K. Raaflaub, Die Entdeckung der Freiheit …, Munich 1985, 125–47 ~ The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, Chicago – London 2004, 102–17, W. S. Barrett, JHS 93 [1973], 23–35 = Collected Papers, 78–97, especially 28–35 = 86–96). His mention here is ‘anachronistic’, although already in Il. 6.526–9 Hector could hope that Zeus would let the Trojans set up a ‘mixing bowl of freedom’ ( … ἐλεύθερον) to the gods when the Greeks had been expelled.

360–7. ‘Shall ancient Troy ever again spend all day in toasting company, with songs of love and drinking contests, in which the wine circles from left to right, when the sons of Atreus have gone over the sea to Sparta from the shore of Ilium?’

The joys of feasting and the symposium are regularly opposed to the grimness of war: Pi. Pyth. 10.29–46 (of the Hyperboreans, who live in a sort of paradise), Bacch. Pae. 4.61–80, Phoen. 784–92, E. frr. 369, 453 (cf. West, Ancient Greek Music, 13–14). But our passage appears to be connected with the third stasimon of Ajax (1185–1222), where the Salaminian sailors (another chorus of simple soldiers) bemoan the absence of drink, music and love in much the same way as the sentries here (Ai. 1199–1205) and eventually wish they were at home in Attica (1216–22). Correspondingly, the Trojans hope for the Greeks to depart so that they can resume their previous life.

The language of the passage is notable for its compression and large number of otherwise unattested compound adjectives and verbs (360–2a, 362b–5a nn.).

360–2a. ἁ παλαι- / ὰ Τροΐα: Cf. 231–2 (n.) Τροΐας / τείχη δείμας, likewise with trisyllabic Τροΐα (here restored by Murray). The article can stand in tragic lyrics and anapaests with a geographical name that also has an attribute (FJW on A. Suppl. 634).

τοὺς προπότας … θιάσους: literally ‘the toast-drinking companies (of revellers)’. This is our sole example of (< προπίνω, ‘drink a toast to’). It may have been coined for the occasion, although its common formation and ‘subject-matter’ means that it could have been more widespread. The article implies that at least in the chorus’ vision (daylong) merrymaking was a usual feature of Troy in peace.

παναμερεύ- / σει: ‘spend all day in, maintain all day long’ (transitive, like many verbs in –εύω). All three tragedians have intransitive ἡμερεύω, ‘spend the day’ or ‘pass one’s days’ (LSJ s.v. 1, 2), but the παν- compound is found only here. The respective adjectives and adverb (πανημέριος, πανήμερος, πανῆμαρ) are largely epic and more than once used with regard to extended meals: Od. 12.23–4 (Circe to Odysseus and his companions after their return from Hades) ἐσθίετε βρώμην οἶνον / αὖθι πανημέριοι, Cratin. fr. 149 PCG (Odyssēs) χορταζόμενοι γάλα λευκόν, / and, of the eagle that will come to ‘feast on’ Prometheus’ liver, PV 1024 (~ Hes. Th. 525 πρόπαν ἦμαρ ἔδοι ὄρνις). Likewise πρόπαν ἦμαρ at Il. 1.601–2 (= Od. 19.424–5) and Od. 9.161–2 (= 9.556–7, 10.183–4, 476–7, 12.29–30).

362b–5a. ἐρώτων / ψαλμοῖσι belong together as ‘love-songs accompanied by the sound of the lyre’, parallel to (datives of attendant circumstance). On Canter’s for (Ω) see 342–79 ‘Metre’ 363–5/373–5n. Originally the ‘plucking’ or ‘twanging’ () of a string, could denote the tune of a stringed instrument already in the first half of the fifth century (Pi. fr. 125.3 Sn.–M., Phryn. Trag. TrGF 3 F 11, A. fr. 57.7). As a dedicated word for this ψάλμα is first found in Phld. Ep. 21.1 Gow–Page GPh (I BC) and remains very rare both in later antiquity and in Byzantine times (especially compared to = ‘Psalm’). The error most likely arose by confusion of οι and α in early minuscule script (where they did not write accents).

On song and instrumental music at the symposium see West, Ancient Greek Music, 25–6, 348–9.

οἰνοπλανήτοις: again a hapax. It is hard to tell whether the verbal part is from passive-intransitive (as usual in such compounds) or transitive πλανάω, but the latter seems easier in direct application to ἁμίλλαις, whose ‘action’ it should describe. ‘Causing the wine to wander’ then is more natural than ‘causing (the mind) to wander with wine’ (Σ^V Rh. 360 [II 336.9–10 Schwartz = 96 Merro]), especially with (below). Nonnus has νοοπλανής, ‘leading the mind astray’ (e.g. D. 4.197, 9.44, 29.69, 42.168).

ἐπιδεξίοις: L. Dindorf (in ThGL III, col. 1568) for (O: -αις VΛ et ⁱΣ^V).349 ‘From left to right’ was the standard (since propitious) direction in which wine was served, cups circled and any other symposiastic activities took place: e.g. Il. 1.597–8 Od. 21.141–2, Eup. fr. 354 PCG ὅταν δὲ ἐπιδέξια (sc. κύλικα), fr. 395 PCG, Dionys. Eleg. frr. 1, 4 IEG, Critias 88 B 1.7 DK δεξιὰ νωμῶν, 88 B 6.1–8 (= fr. 6.1–7 IEG), 88 B 33 DK.

The transmitted ὑποδεξ- has little to recommend it. In its only other literary occurrence (Hdt. 7.49.3) ὑποδέξιος defines a harbour as ‘able to receive, capacious, ample’ (LSJ s.v.), and Σ^V Rh. 364 (II 336.11 Schwartz = 96 Merro), Photius (υ 191 Theodoridis) and the Suda (υ 475 Adler) gloss it with ὑποδεκτικός (‘of / for receiving’) or (‘receiver, host’). Transferred to … it would have to mean not ‘able to receive (a lot of wine)’, as the Rhesus scholiast understood it, but ‘receiving, hospitable to (the Trojan warriors)’ for the enallage to work in its ordinary way (G. Pace, in Scritti Gallo, 455–8).³⁵⁰ This, however, is impossibly weak and places too much emphasis on the supposed victory celebrations (360–7n.). That attributive ἐπιδέξιος (as opposed to the adverbial neuter plural or δεξιά) and ἐνδέξιος (LSJ s.v. I 1) do not elsewhere occur in the sense ‘from left to right’ does not seem a fatal objection.

366–7. Σπάρταν: Menelaus’ home is mentioned here probably because it was the abduction of Helen that triggered the Trojan War. But Stesichorus (fr. 216 PMGF) and Simonides (fr. 549 PMG = 276 Poltera) also placed Agamemnon there. Cf. Liapis on 360–7 (p. 165).

368–9. ὦ ϕίλος: The ‘nominative for vocative’ in words that also form a vocative of their own (otherwise 388–9n.) is common in poetry and often without special significance. But appears to be different in that the nominative (mainly substantival in use) marks a more serious or emotional tone (M. L. West, Glotta 44 [1966], 139–44; cf. J. Sven-nung, Anredeformen …, Uppsala 1958, 199–208). Both criteria, in addition to metrical considerations, fit the present case, which comes close to an appeal for help to a ‘friendly’ god: Sept. 174–9 ἰὼ δαίμονες, / <τ᾽> / δείξαθ᾽ ϕιλοπόλεις, / θ᾽ / δαμίων, δ᾽ (with Hutchinson on 174), Cyc. 73–5 / / ξανθὰν χαίταν (with Seaford on 73, 73–4).³⁵¹ Contrast Ar. Ach. 568 ἰὼ Λάμαχ᾽, ϕίλ᾽, (370–2a n.).

σᾷ χερὶ καὶ σῷ δορὶ πράξας τάδ᾽: In view of 464–6 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ τόδε ἦμαρ / εἰσίδοιμ᾽ … ὅτῳ πολυϕόνου / χειρὸς ἄποιν᾽ ἄροιο σᾷ λόγχᾳ (454–66, 464–6nn.), it is probably no coincidence that the expression here resembles Ag. 111 πέμπει ξὺν δορὶ καὶ χερὶ πράκτορι θούριος ὄρνις, where πράκτωρ means not just ‘doer’, but ‘exactor, avenger’ (LSJ s.v. II 3, Fraenkel on Ag. 111). The passage was famous (cf. Ar. Ran. 1289) and also seems to have inspired an early-fourth-century Attic funerary epigram: CEG 2 488 (ii).3–4 [δ]ορὶ καὶ χερὶ τόνδε ἀ[ν]δρός / θοῦρος Ἄρ<ης>. For the pairing of and δόρυ see also Andr. 523–5 ὦ πόσις, σὰν / χεῖρα καὶ δόρυ / κτησαίμαν, Πριάμου and for the (repeated) second-person address 355–6n.

ἐς οἶκον ἔλθοις: 447–53n.

370–5a. ‘Come, appear, hold before you your richly gilded shield as you face Peleus’ son, raising it aslant along the bifurcating chariot-rail, urging on your horses and brandishing your two-pronged spear.’

The chorus wish Rhesus to engage Achilles in single combat (342–79n.). Both heroes are imagined as fighting from their chariots – a rare scene in Homer (Il. 5.9–26, 8.112–29, 16.372–83), where the vehicle is mainly employed to carry a warrior into or out of battle (Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 325, M. A. Littauer – J. H. Crouwel, Antiquity 57 (1983), 187–92 = Selected Writings on Chariots, other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, Leiden et al. 2002, 53–61). In language the passage is largely ‘Euripidean’ (370–2a, 372b–3a nn.), with an epic touch at the end (373b–5a n.). Ar. Lys. 563 portrays an insolent Thracian mercenary as σείων ὁ Τηρεύς.

370–2a. ἐλθὲ ϕάνηθι: Both imperatives (and others like them) are typical of cletic hymns: e.g. Sapph. fr. 1.5 Voigt τυίδ᾽ ἔλθ᾽, 25 (Aphrodite), Pi. Dith. 3 fr. 70c.9 Sn.–M. (Dionysus), Alc. fr. 34.1–4 Voigt Δεῦτέ μοι …] … 3b προ[ϕά]νητε, Κάστορ / καὶ Πολύδε[υ]κες (cf. 355–6n.), Pers. 668, Ai. 694–7, HF 494 (Megara to Heracles) ἄρηξον, ἐλθέ· καὶ σκιὰ μοι, Ba. 1017–20, Rh. 226–8. Aristophanes parodies the usage at Ach. 566–7 Λάμαχ᾽ … / … (368–9n.). Cf. West, IEPM 318–20.

τὰν ζάχρυσον … πέλταν: 305–6a n. The epithet presumably comes from Alc. 498 Ἄρεος, ἄναξ. It is also found at Rh. 439 ἐν ζαχρύσοις and, referring to the Taurians, IT 1111–12 … δι᾽ ἐμπολᾶς. As an intensive prefix the tragedians adopted Aeolic ζα- (= δια-) from Homer. Other formations of their own are (Pers. 316), ζάπυρος (PV 1083) and, as a certain conjecture, ζάχρειος (A. Suppl. 194).³⁵²

προβαλοῦ: i.e. in attack or defence (LSJ s.v. B III 1). Of a shield also Carm. Pop. 856.3–4 PMG προβάλεσθε, / δόρυ δ᾽ (ascribed to Tyrtaeus by Σ D. Chr. 2.59, who quotes the poem, and Tz. Hist. 1.695–702 Leone) and Xen. Mem. 3.8.4 προβάλλεσθαι.

ὄμμα: Apart from Ant. 760–1, ὄμμα(τα), ‘face to face, in the face’, is confined to Euripides: Andr. 1064 ὄμμ᾽ μάχῃ; 1117, El. 910, Or. 288–9, Ba. 469 (Ritchie 211, where delete Tr. 102 [Chorus to Helios] εἴπ᾽, ὦ κατ᾽ ὄμμα). Cf. Rh. 420–1 … / … λέγω κατ᾽ ὄμμα σόν and 409 (408–10a n.), 491, 511 κατὰ στόμα.

372b–3a. δοχμίαν πεδαίρων: The crescent-shaped pelte was naturally held ‘aslant’ the upper body for protection. See Best, Thracian Peltasts, plts. 1b, 1c, 2, 3 and e.g. LIMC I 1/2 s.v. Amazones I A 41, 62, I C 242, I E 303.

Euripides employed πεδαίρω as an elevated form of in HF 819, 872 (both with Bond) and Phoen. 1027. The Aeolo-Doric πεδ-is unattested for Sophocles, but Aeschylus has (Cho. 846), (Cho. 590), (Cho. 589)³⁵³ and (fr. 246d). Of these the first recurs in PV 269, 710, 916 and Ar. Av. 1197 = fr. tr. adesp. 47.1. Mastronarde (on Phoen. 1027) notes the all but complete restriction in tragedy to ‘words from the root of ἀείρω’.

σχιστὰν παρ᾽᾽ ἄντυγα: The chariot-rail is called ‘divided’ probably because it branches out in two parts from the front of the breastwork. Hence also the plural in Il. 11.535 = 20.500 … καὶ αἳ δίϕρον, 21.37–8 ὃ δ᾽ ἐρινεὸν ὀξέϊ / νέους ὅρπηκας, ἵν᾽ ἅρματος ἄντυγες εἶεν (it would have been hard to find a branch long enough for a single rail) and e.g. [Hes.] Sc. 64, S. El. 746, Rh. 567 (567–8a n.). Hera’s chariot may be subject to ‘divine doubling’: Il. 5.728 δοιαὶ δὲ ἄντυγές εἰσιν. See Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 326, J. Wiesner, Arch. Hom. F 15–16, 103–4 and Kirk on Il. 5.727–8.

373b–5a. πώλους ἐρεθίζων: Reiske’s for κώλοις (Animadversiones, 88) eliminates the absurd picture of Rhesus trying to incite Achilles with some kind of war dance (cf. Σ^V Rh. 374 [II 336.26–7 Schwartz = 97 Merro] … ἀνακρούων. οἱ γὰρ κινοῦσι τοὺς πόδας, Feickert on 373). Musgrave (Exercitationes, 144) compared Ba. 148 ἐρεθίζων.

The phrase is absent in Δ, whence ΣΣ^V Rh. 372, 373 (II 336.13–16 Schwartz = 96 Merro) explain ἄντυξ as shield-rim.

τ᾽ ἄκοντα πάλλων has an epic flavour. In particular note Il. 3.18–19 (of Paris) / (with Kirk on 18) and Pi. Nem. 3.44–5 (the boy Achilles hunting wild animals) χερσὶ / ἄκοντα πάλλων.

Scholars since Vater (on 361 [pp. 168–9]) have explained … ἄκοντα by means of Σ^BD Pi. Nem. 6.50/85b (III 112.5–9 Drachmann) οὐκ ἐκ δὲ ζάκοτον τὸ δόρυ τοῦ … ὅτι ἰδιαίτερον παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα κατεσκεύαστο. δίκρουν γάρ, ὥστε δύο ἔχειν καὶ μιᾷ [ὥστε] δισσὰ τὰ τραύματα (cf. below). The reference is to Achilles’ famous spear, which only he could wield (Il. 16.141–2), and which in the Little Iliad had two points (Il. Parv. fr. 5.2 GEF αἰχμή). Like Aeschylus (fr. 152) and Sophocles (fr. 152), our poet may have followed this tradition here, ironically giving such a weapon to Achilles’ would-be defeater. A linguistic model is suggested by Hsch. τ 1350 Hansen–Cunningham τρίαιναν, where the lemma looks like an excerpt from tragedy or lyric (MLW). Conversely, PV 925 αἰχμὴν τὴν Ποσειδῶνος echoes the wording of Il. Parv. fr. 5.2 GEF (above), if West is right so to correct Ω’s τρίαιναν (Studies, 312–14).

On bident spears in ancient myth and reality see A. B. Cook, Zeus … II.1, Cambridge 1925, 799–806 and K. DeVries, in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal…, Leiden et al. 2000, 352–3 with fig. 13.7 (a fifth-century Phrygian warrior).

δίβολον: i.e. ‘scoring two hits at once’. To Hsch. τ 1350 Hansen–Cunningham add the … βουπόροι (‘double-pointed ox-piercing spits’) which are hurled as missiles at Andr. 1133–4 (with Stevens on 1133, 1134).

375b–7. ‘For no one who resists you shall ever (again) dance in the grounds of Argive Hera.’

This grim vision for Argos (Agamemnon’s capital) contrasts with the anticipated Trojan festivities (360–7n.).

σὲ γάρ: 355–6n. γάρ gives the motive for the ‘prayer’: ‘For (you are so powerful that) …’ See GP 60–2 and 608–9a n.

οὔτις ὑποστάς: Cf. Rh. 315 (of Achilles) οὔθ᾽ δορί (314–16, 342–79nn.), Phoen. 1470 κοὐδεὶς ὑπέστη and above all Pers. 87–9 δόκιμος δ᾽ οὔτις / μεγάλῳ / ὀχυροῖς ἕρκεσιν εἴργειν (with Garvie on 87–92), which takes up Rhesus’ association with Xerxes and his host (290, 264–341nn.).

Both dative and accusative occur with ὑϕίσταμαι, ‘resist, withstand’ (LSJ s.v. ὑϕίστημι B IV 1). They stand together in HF 1349–50 ταῖς γὰρ ὅστις / οὐδ᾽ ἂν δύναιθ᾽ βέλος.

Ἀργείας … ἐν Ἥρας δαπέδοις: The Argolid was Hera’s original home (Nilsson, GGR I³, 427–8) and Argos that of her most eminent sanctuary (situated some 7.5 km north-east of the city, near Mycenae). Its main annual festival was the Heraia or Hekatombaia, which included a sacrificial procession, the presentation of a by local maidens, athletic contests (W. Burkert, Homo Necans …, Berlin – New York 1972, 182–4 = Berkeley et al. 1983, 162–4 [English], Cropp on E. El. 173–4) and no doubt ample opportunity for music and dance (cf. E. El. 178–80 ἱστᾶσα χοροὺς / Ἀργείαις ἅμα νύμϕαις / εἱλικτὸν κρούσω πόδ᾽ ἐμόν). Any fifth- or fourth century Athenian would have had this occasion in mind.

In the Trojan legend Hera’s stock-epithet Ἀργεία / Ἀργείη (FJW on A. Suppl. 299) also expresses her partiality for the Greeks. Cf. Il. 4.8 = 5.908, Tro. 23–4 (Poseidon speaking) γὰρ Ἀργείας θεοῦ / Ἀθάνας θ᾽, αἳ συνεξεῖλον Φρύγας.

δαπέδοις: Euripides had a liking for δάπεδον (< √ + πέδον), ‘house floor’ or maybe rather ‘the flattened ground on which one can build’ (Schwyzer 358 with n. 10, 426, DELG s.v.). Like other post-Homeric writers, he primarily applied it to ‘the floor or ground of a temple or its precinct … usually with a gen[itive] or adj[ective] of a deity’ (Barrett on Hipp. 230), and almost always in lyrics: Hipp. 228–30 … … / … / ἐν σοῖς δαπέδοις, Andr. 117, E. Suppl. 271, Tro. 539–41, Ion 121, 576, Or. 330, E. fr. 955h. The only other certain instance in tragedy is in Cho. 798 (wavering between ‘house-floor’ and ‘race-track’).

378–9. καπϕθίμενον: Bothe (5 [1803], 293) for Ω’s unmetrical ( already Musgrave on 378). Cf. E. Suppl. 984 κλεινήν τ᾽ ἄλοχον τοῦ καπϕθιμένου and El. 1298–9 τῆσδέ τ᾽ ἀδελϕὼ / τῆς καπϕθιμένης (with Elmsley’s short form in both places). form in On apocope in tragedy see KB I 180.

ϕίλτατον ἄχθος: a poignant oxymoron. The notion reverses Achilles’ self-reproach at Il. 18.104 ἧμαι παρὰ ἄχθος (with Edwards).

380–7. As Rhesus with his retinue approaches from the left eisodos (i.e. the direction of Mt. Ida), he receives the kind of extended choral address in anapaests which since Aeschylus tended to accompany grandiose chariot entries: Ag. 783–809, E. El. 988–97, Tro. 568–76 (addressed in bitter irony to the captive Andromache and Astyanax), IA [590–7 + 598–606] (below); cf. the brief trochaics at Pers. 155–8. It is possible that Rhesus was also meant to arrive on his chariot (Taplin, Stagecraft, 43, 74–8, 287–8; cf. Liapis on 380–7). The device became fashionable again in the fourth century – a number of ‘classic’ tragedies received imitative interpolations³⁵⁴ – and the verbal parallels between Ar. Ran. 961–3 and Rh. 306b–8 and 383–4 (nn.) suggest that, if there was a pompous chariot entry in A. Memnon, our poet would have followed the lead (cf. Taplin, Stagecraft, 77, 422–3).

On the other hand, it may have been counter-productive to show the horses, which almost certainly do not come on stage with Odysseus and Diomedes (670–1a n.). There is also no indication of a vehicle in the text, except for the Shepherd’s description in 301–8 (this in contrast to the extant plays mentioned above), and in 383–4 (n.) the bells on Rhesus’ horse-trappings (306–8) have been transferred to his conspicuous shield. Perhaps, therefore, the exotic hero alone was considered impressive enough and, as at Ag. 258–63 (Clytaemestra) and Or. 348–55 (Menelaus), the honorific greeting applied to his entry on foot. Likewise it is unclear whether at A. Suppl. 234 Pelasgus appears with the horses and chariots depicted by Danaus in 180–3. As in our play, they are not referred to again (and no further comment signals their approach) so that ‘indeed the words may be a substitute for any attempt at staging’ (Taplin, Stagecraft, 201, FJW on A. Suppl. 180–3).

The hymnic mode continues in the opening address as ‘great king’ (380–1n.) and those to Thrace and Troy, which mask third-person predications of the ‘god’ (cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 163–6). Imperatives, half general and half directed at the chorus themselves, signal the appearance of Rhesus in essentially the way he was described by the Shepherd (382, 383–4nn.).355 The long-awaited hero is now actually seen (ἰδέ) and heard (κλύε).

380–1. ‘Hail, hail, o great king! A fine cub you have reared, o Thrace, an obvious ruler of cities.’

ἰὼ ἰώ could be extra metrum or an initial anapaestic monometer. The former seems more probable, as also at OC 140, Andr. 1226, Tro. 164, 172, 187, 1118, 1251.

μέγας ὦ βασιλεῦ: Cf. the exalted choral address to Hector at 820–1 (821–3n.) ἰώ, / ἐμοὶ μέγας κράτος. Among anapaestic greetings see Ag. 783–4 ἄγε δὴ βασιλεῦ, Τροίας π<τ>ολίπορθ᾽, / γένεθλον and E. El. 988 ἰώ, γύναι χθονὸς Ἀργείας. Sommerstein (Sophocles. Selected Fragmentary Plays II, 181, 203–4) also compares S. fr. 515 (Poimenes) ἰὼ (lyric, or indeed anapaestic).

The title μέγας … βασιλεῦ(ς) is redolent of oriental, especially Persian, royalty, but was also applied to Zeus in Pi. Ol. 7.34. For alone of Zeus cf. e.g. Pers. 532 and Ag. 355. is a common epithet of Greek gods.

ὦ Θρῄκη: 357–9n.

σκύμνον: especially a lion’s cub (LSJ s.v. 1). The notion suits a king and mighty warrior. So Achilles mourns over Patroclus like a lion whose young have been seized by a hunter (Il. 18.318–23), and oracles or dreams foreshadow the birth of powerful men as lions: Hdt. 5.92β.3 (Cypselus of Corinth), 6.131.2 (Pericles), Ar. Eq. 1037–44 (Cleon). In tragedy cf. Ai. 985–7 ὅσον τάχος / αὐτὸν ἄξεις δεῦρο, κενῆς / σκύμνον ἀναρπάσῃ; (with Garvie on 986–7, Finglass on 985–7), E. Suppl. 1222–3 (with Collard), Andr. 1169–70 and perhaps Or. 1213 (Hermione). The use of ‘animal’ words for young human beings is characteristically Euripidean (Breitenbach 153, Ritchie 232, West on Or. 1213). See also 386 (385–7n.) ὁ Στρυμόνιος πῶλος.

πολίαρχον ἰδεῖν: a common type of epexegetic infinitive (KG II 15 with n. 13, SD 364), which tends to stand last in dramatic spoken verse. The best syntactic parallel is Sept. 644 … ἄνδρα τευχηστὴν ἰδεῖν, where, despite Hutchinson, the word-order marks τευχηστήν, not χρυσήλατον, as the predicative with ἰδεῖν.

Our poet may well have got πολίαρχος, ‘ruler (of a city), prince’, from Pi. Nem. 7.84–5 λέγοντι γὰρ Αἰακόν νιν (Zeus) … ϕυτεῦσαι, / ἐμᾷ μὲν πάτρᾳ. It is the only earlier attestation of this very rare word (cf. Call. Iov. 73–4), and Zeus, with whom Rhesus was twice compared in the ode, is the recipient of the praise.

382. ‘See his body-armour, enriched with gold!’

ἰδέ: It is sensible to follow Liapis (on 382–4) in printing the Attic oxytone accentuation (cf. Hdn. I 431.5 Lentz, Σ^A Il. 1.85 [I 33.78–34.80 Erbse]) instead of epic ἴδε. The same applies to the unelided lyric cases in A. Suppl. 350, Tr. 222, OC 1463, Alc. 398 and Or. 1541. At S. fr. 1131.7 (= P. Oxy. 1083 fr. 2) editors have always read ἰδέ.

χρυσόδετον: ‘bound with gold’, i.e. ‘with golden adornments attached’ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 805, LSJ s.v. 2). Cf. 305 (305–6a n.) τύποις. Of arms or armour also Alc. fr. 350.1–2 Voigt ἐλεϕαντίναν / ξίϕεος χρυσοδέταν, Bacch. Pae. 4.69–70 ἐν δὲ αἰθᾶν / πέλονται, Sept. 161 … σακέων, Rh. 33 (n.) κερόδετα τόξα.

σώματος ἀλκήν: In the sense ‘protection, (means of) defence’ is applied to rocks at A. Suppl. 351–4 λυκοδί<ω>κτον πέτραις / ἠλιβάτοις, ἵν᾽ ἀλ- / κᾷ πίσυνος ϕρά- / ζουσα (with FJW on 352) and to an altar at A. Suppl. 731, 832 and Eum. 257.

383–4. ‘Hear too the boastful jingle of the bells which ring out from his shield band!’

To the parallels from Aeschylus (Sept. 385–6) and Aristophanes (Ran. 962–3) discussed at 306b–8 (n.) add S. fr. 859 (of the Trojans) καὶ κερουλκοί, / σὺν σάκει δὲ κωδωνοκρότῳ παλαισταί, which, if rightly attributed to Poimenes by Hartung (Sophokles. Fragmente, Leipzig 1851, 33), could hardly have been spoken in contempt (Pearson on S. fr. 859). On a practical reason for having the bells on S. a Rhesus’ shield instead of his horse-trappings here see 380–7n.

The series of κ-sounds mirrors the cacophonous jingle of the armour. See Ritchie 241–2 and Rh. 282–3n.

καί: If καί connects χρυσόδετον … ἀλκήν and κόμπους κωδωνοκρότους, we need not speak of postponement here. The imperatives ἰδέ and κλύε are subsumed under ‘verbs of sensory perception’.

κωδωνοκρότους: Apart from S. fr. 859.2 (above), this is the only surviving attestation of the adjective.

παρὰ πορπάκων: The was a bronze band on the inside of the hoplite shield (often covering the full diameter), through which the bearer passed his left arm up to the elbow. With the hand he then grasped a handle in the form of a leather thong or cord (ἀντιλαβή) near the right-hand rim of the shield (A. M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Arms and Armour, Edinburgh 1964, 61–6 with plt. 26, Arms and Armour of the Greeks, 53, 95 with plts. 18–19). The could be ornamented (P. Ducrey, Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique, Paris 1985, 49–51 with plt. 29 = Warfare in Ancient Greece, New York 1986, 47, 50 with plt. 29) and in myth at least also be equipped with bells. Their place inside the shield is paralleled at Sept. 385–6 δὲ τῷ / κώδωνες (above), where the variant δ᾽ (MQ²) for δὲ τῷ represents an associative error or a gloss on ἀσπίδος.

Our poet seems to transfer to Rhesus’ pelte the language appropriate for a hoplite shield (305–6a n.), although it is possible that the arm-strap and handle of the Thracian targe (see Best, Thracian Peltasts, plts. 1b, 2 and Appendix B) also came to be designated by and ἀντιλαβή. Mythical heroes in tragedy often wielded hoplite shields (cf. especially Tro. 1194–6 ὦ / σῴζουσ᾽ … / ἐν σῷ τύπος, Hel. 1376, Phoen. 1126–7),356 and at Ai. 574–6 Ajax’s famous tower-shield (σάκος) anachronistically has its (‘shoulder-strap’) replaced with a (Kannicht on Hel. 1375–81, Finglass on Ai. 574–6 [pp. 306–7]).

The plural here is explicable only as a poetic licence, suggested perhaps by the numerous bells ( … κελαδοῦντας).

385–7. ‘A god, o Troy, a god, Ares himself, the colt born of Strymon and the songstress Muse, has come and breathes upon you!’

After Zeus Φαναῖος and (355–6, 357–9nn.) Rhesus is equated with Ares, who in the Iliad also stands on the Trojans’ side. If 387 … σε is essentially correct (below), our poet has tried to convert Ares’ destructive blowing (322b–3n.) into something beneficial for Troy. One is reminded of Homeric gods breathing μένος or θάρσος into their protégés (e.g. Il. 10.482, Od. 24.520) as well as the sweet odour which accompanies deities (e.g. PV 114–15, Med. 835–45, Hipp. 1391–3). Cf. Richardson on h.Cer. 238 and 275 ff.

The war god was traditionally associated with Thrace (Il. 13.301, Od. 8.361–2, OT 190–7, Ant. 969–76, Alc. 498, Hec. 1088–90). Yet his name, like that of Enyalios and Dionysus, already appears on Mycenean tablets and may come from Greek ἀρή, ‘ruin, harm’ (Janko on Il. 13.301–3, 14.484–5). The Greek tendency to regard more violent gods as immigrants (cf. also Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 151) goes hand in hand with their readiness to adopt such from other peoples.

The whole passage goes far beyond the usual epic or epic-style comparison of a ferocious warrior to Ares (e.g. Il. 7.208, 11.295, 16.784, A. fr. 74.10).

θεός … θεός: an excited repetition, typical of invocations: e.g. Bacch. 3.21–2 θεὸν θ[εό]ν τις / ἀγλαϊζέθὠ γὰρ ἄριστος ὄλβων, Sept. 566–7 (but see Hutchinson on 565–7), S. fr. 314.100 (Ichneutae) θεὸς θεός, HF 772–3. Yet the closest parallels are Verg. Aen. 6.46 deus ecce deus and Ov. Met. 15.677 en deus est, deus est, both of which mark epiphanies and may go back to ritual calls. ‘Die überall zugrundeliegende Vorstellung ist, daß durch die Wiederholung die Richtigkeit oder Dringlichkeit des Wortes betont wird’ (Norden on Verg. Aen. 6.46). Cf. West, IEPM 106.

ὦ Τροία: 357–9n.

Στρυμόνιος πῶλος ἀοιδοῦ / Μούσης: literally ‘Strymon’s colt by the songstress Muse’. For (semi-)divine parents being indicated by a ‘proper-name adjective’ (1n.) for the father and a genitive of possession a (or origin) for the mother cf. Pi. Ol. 2.12 ἀλλ᾽ ὦ *nd A. Suppl. 314 τί<ς> οὖν ὁ Δῖος πόρτις βοός; (with FJW). The tone seems more elevated than in the case of the double genitive at Tr. 644 ὁ γὰρ Διὸς κόρος.

πῶλος: another ‘young animal’ word (380–1n.), appropriate for the leader of the ‘horse-loving’ Thracians. While is far more often used of young (unmarried) women than men (LSJ s.v. I 3; cf. J. Gould, JHS 100 [1980], 53), there is no need to assume with Roux (REG 87 [1974], 68–70) that in the latter it indicates weakness, especially when it merely stands for ‘offspring’, as here.³⁵⁷

καταπνεῖ σε: It is a matter of dispute whether the paradosis (Ω: Hn) can in fact mean ‘breathes upon you’, given that the only certain parallel for with a spatial accusative (cf. LSJ s.v. B I 2) is Hld. 3.2.1 αἱ δὲ κανᾶ κανηϕοροῦσαι κατέπνεον. In Med. 836–8 τὰν Κύπριν … / / αὔρας the genitive χώρας is Reiske’s very reasonable correction of the MSS’ χώραν, while elsewhere a dative (of interest) designates the person(s) positively or negatively affected by the verb: Ar. Lys. 551–2 / (Bentley: codd.) … καταπνεύσῃ, Pl. Com. fr. 189.15 PCG … μή σοι νέμεσις θεόθεν καταπνεύσῃ (~ Archestr. fr. 146.3–4 SH = 16.3–4 Olson–Sens).358

The evidence is insufficient to judge all possible constructions of in classical Greek (cf. Page on Med. 839–40). If we were to emend the pronoun, σου (West) seems preferable to Feickert’s σοι (on 387), which may carry the personification of Troy too far.

Nothing comes from changing the verb. Verrall’s (The ‘Medea’ of Euripides, London 1881, 120–3), endorsed by Porter, is impossibly flat, not to mention the doubtful accusative of direction it would have to take (cf. Jouan 66 n. 109). Collard’s (apud Klyve on 387), which he proposed after Hec. 1088–90 αἰαῖ … / … κάτοχον γένος (cf. Polyaen. 1.20.1 οἳ δὲ κάτοχοι ἐκ … Μεγαρεῖς κατὰ κράτος ἐνίκων), makes better sense, except that we do not want the durative notion of ‘possession’ or ‘inspiration’ by a god, when Rhesus has barely entered the stage. (Hn) is hardly convincing in the causative sense ‘gives you time to recover breath’ (Paley on 388).

388–526. At first sight the confrontation between Hector and Rhesus looks like a Euripidean agon of the strictest form (for which see C. Collard, G&R 22 [1995], 62 = J. Mossman [ed.], Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Euripides, Oxford 2003, 69). It occupies the whole second epeisodion, and initially opposes two speeches of almost equal length (393–421 + 422–53), which show several verbal and rhetorical echoes of the agones of Alcestis, Medea and Phoenissae (388–453n.). The lack of a two- or three-line choral comment after Hector’s speech has a parallel in E. Suppl. 409–25 + 426–62 – the first part of the famous ‘political’ double agon between Theseus and the Theban Herald (E. Suppl. 399–580). In both places the device is entirely natural. Just as the mothers of the Seven have nothing to say to the Herald’s attack on democracy, so Rhesus’ lateness has never been a problem for the chorus. At the same time the conflict becomes more pronounced.

The similarity ends when the chorus answer Rhesus’ defence (or rather his final promise to defeat the Greeks) with a characteristically energetic song (454–66n.). Likewise we have no dialogue, stichomythic or otherwise, to continue the debate in a livelier style. Instead the following irregular discussion (about as long as the two ‘set speeches’ together) brings up, but never quite resolves, a series of new points before the contestants leave in apparent harmony (467–526n.). The reason for this unique pattern 359 lies in the subject-matter of the agon, which unlike any other does not relate to the central dramatic question. In the great order of events Rhesus’ tardiness is of no consequence, particularly since he has already been accepted as an ally (Ritchie 89–90). Once he had explained himself, therefore, all that would have remained for Hector was to give his assent – a lame conclusion prevented by the chorus and Rhesus’ ever more outrageous plans and demands.

Like most agones in Euripides, the scene does nothing to advance the plot. Its purpose is to present Rhesus, who was so eagerly anticipated and whose fate will dominate the rest of the play (Ritchie 90–1). In that respect it seems clear that our poet intended him to be seen as a genuinely powerful, if increasingly overconfident, warrior. Rather than being a miles gloriosus, as has often been maintained,³⁶⁰ he is modelled on the Aeschylean Xerxes (cf. 388–453n.), the Argive heroes in Seven against Thebes (305–6a, 306b–8nn.) and apparently such boastful foreign warriors as Cycnus in S. Poimenes (especially fr. 501).361 Yet it is difficult to assess how the audience, who in part at least would have been familiar with not only the dramatic precedents, but also the tradition of Rhesus’ aristeia and possibly the invincibility oracle (Introduction, 11–12), would have interpreted what they heard. They could not know that Athena would confirm the threat (600–4n.) and, in view of the chorus’ warning note in 455–7 (454–66, 455b–7nn.), may have expected Rhesus to suffer for the hybris he displays (cf. 342–79n.). Hector’s reactions in 467–526 (n.) at any rate show that he has in more than one way overstepped the line.

388–453. The agon is introduced in a natural way. As a newcomer Rhesus extends a polite greeting to the Trojan commander (388–92), which by the very mention of his late arrival, however, was bound to arouse the charge of neglect (compare Pheres’ good intentions in Alc. 614–28 and the brusque provocation of Jason in Med. 446–64). Hector’s speech (393–421) is well-structured: a short proem professing frankness and honesty (393–5) is followed by the accusation (396–8) and a long narrative (399–419), in which the reasons for Hector’s claim to support alternate with variations on the original complaint (405, 411–12, 418–19). The conclusion (420–1) returns to the topic of candour, as it does in Polynices’ speech at Phoen. 469–96 (394b–5, 420–1nn.).

The strictly military nature of the conflict in Rhesus did not lend itself to the raising of complex questions about duty and ingratitude for favours done. Yet apart from the opening device, we find several verbal and rhetorical echoes of Achilles’ speech in Il. 9.308–429 (312–43) as well as the agones in Alcestis (614–733) and Medea (446–622) – all of which deal with these issues in highly emotional and unsettling situations. See Rh. 399–400 (n.) ~ Alc. 658–9, Rh. 411b–12 (n.) ~ Alc. 660–1, Rh. 406–12 (406–11a, 411b–12nn.) ~ Il. 9.315–32, Med. 476–90, Rh. 413–18 (n.) ~ Il. 9.321–43 and, in the respective replies, Rh. 438–40 (438–9, 440–2nn.) ~ Med. 555–9.

Rhesus’ defence (422–53) opens with a partly verbatim echo of Hector’s introduction and peroration, a feature we find in subtler form with Eteocles in Phoen. 503 (422–3n.). But subsequently he does not answer the accusations point by point – only the generalising charge of drunken indulgence is addressed: 418b–19 ~ 438–9 (nn.). Instead Rhesus gives an account of the difficulties he encountered on his way to Troy, including a war against the Scythians, which as a probably invented episode corresponds to the Thracian one Hector said he had won for him (406–11a, 426–42nn.). The whole narrative stands in the tradition of Aeschylean ‘travelogues’, with the report of Xerxes’ ill-fated homeward journey in Pers. 480–514 as a certain model (440–2n.; cf. 53–5, 56–8nn.). Other verbal and contextual references (430–1, 436–7nn.) confirm the evocation of the Persian king in Rhesus (cf. 264–341, 290, 375b–7nn.): his north-to-south crossing of the Bosporus really ‘becomes a Xerxes expedition in reverse’ (Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 182 n. 57).

A consequence of our poet’s choice of sources, and his interweaving of rare words from elsewhere, is that the passage acquires a (perhaps overly) grandiose ring. It is as if the tale of Rhesus’ hardship was set up as ‘epic’ – to match not only the great Persian march, but also the ten-year Trojan War he has come to end in a day (443–53). Apart from the Muse’s version of his rise in Thrace (930–3, 932–3nn.), this is all we will ever hear of his martial exploits.

388–9. ‘Greetings, noble son of a noble father, ruler of this land, Hector! It is late in the day that I am addressing you.’

Diggle was tempted to delete 388 as an addition to the vocative in the following line. But not all extended apostrophes in drama result from interpolation. Of the examples quoted by Haslam (in G. W. Bowersock et al. [eds.], Arktouros. Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M. W. Knox …, Berlin – New York 1979, 100) and Willink (on Or. 71–2), Hec. 953 should certainly remain (cf. Collard and Matthiessen on 953), and Or. 72 itself ‘would be abrupt on its own’ (West on 71). This is even truer of Rh. 389. However self-possessed, Rhesus could hardly omit some honorific epithet or apposition for Hector. Or. 852–4 [ τλῆμον, στρατηλάτου] / παῖ, Ἠλέκτρα, / ἄκουσον οὕς σοι δυστυχεῖς (852 del. Paley) illustrates the difference between a necessary and an unnecessary expansion.³⁶²

ἐσθλὸς ἐσθλοῦ παῖ: In tragedy the combination of a nominative adjective with a vocative noun, or vice versa, is restricted to special cases (cf. 368–9n., Finglass on Ai. 89–90, 641/2, 923–4). So here (ΔQ, Chr. Pat. 2098, 2538) with ἐσθλός, which has no vocative in classical Greek, is right. L’s παῖς would be most unusual in an address (Diggle, Euripidea, 317, 324 n. 10), especially if metre plays no part, as it does in the only possible dramatic instance at OC 188–9 ἄγε νυν σύ με, παῖ<ς> (Musgrave), / ἵν᾽ ἂν … (cf. L1-J/W, Sophoclea, 223). In 393 no one doubts παῖ (Δ) against παῖς (Λ), in 916 παῖ is transmitted unanimously.

Δ’s unmetrical variations of the whole phrase are easily explained. παῖ (V) arose by haplography and πατρὸς παῖ (O) by intrusion of a gloss and/or reminiscence of Phil. 96 …

γῆς: Cf. 165–6 and 484. In Rhesus Hector (not Priam) is the ruler of Troy. At 2, 886 and 993 the chorus call him βασιλεύς, a title which in fifth-century tragedy was reserved for actual monarchs (Hutchinson on Sept. 804).

The verse-end all but recurs in [E.] fr. 1132.4 (Danae) … γῆς, possibly from our play. But it looks as if it was a standard one.

παλαιᾷ … ἡμέρᾳ is difficult and, rather than being a colloquialism (Jouan 66 n. 110), may be owed to mechanical adaptation of Ai. 624–5 παλαιᾷ μὲν (codd.: συν- Nauck) ἁμέρᾳ, / τε γήρᾳ (A. Fries, CQ n.s. 60 [2010], 351, Introduction, 37). With παλαιός conveying the notion that time has itself grown old (cf. Barrett on Hipp. 907–8, Kannicht on Hel. 625–9, J. de Romilly, Time in Greek Tragedy, Ithaca [NY] 1968, 42–9), we need to think of ‘a period during which [Rhesus’] presence might have been expected’ (Porter on 388–9), and ἡμέρα in the sense ‘state or time of life’ (cf. LSJ s.v. I 2) comes closest to that idea. OC 1138 ἐς ἡμέρας (‘up to this time’) lacks this relative specificity, and at Hel. 628–9 περί ἐν / ϕαεσϕόρῳ, to which Kannicht on 625–9 (pp. 183–4) hesitantly refers, ‘suggests … repeated dawns’ (Allan on Hel. 627–9).

προσεννέπω: ‘to address (by name)’. The verb, which is often used in divine invocations (e.g. Pi. Isthm. 6.17, Ag. 162, Ai. [857], Hipp. 99), has formal overtones. See especially E. El. 552 ὅμως δὲ χαίρειν ξένους προσεννέπω, Tro. 48–50 (Athena to Poseidon) ἔξεστι τὸν γένει μὲν / μέγαν ἐν θεοῖς τίμιον, / ἔχθραν τὴν πάρος, προσεννέπειν; and Hel. 1165–8 χαῖρε, … / … / ἀεὶ δέ σ᾽ … / Θεοκλύμενος παῖς ὅδε προσεννέπω, ( Lenting: -ει L).

390–1a. χαίρω plays on χαῖρ᾽ (388). For the construction with an accusative and participle(s) cf. Hipp. 1339–40 γὰρ θεοί / χαίρουσι, E. fr. 673, Ai. 136 σὲ μὲν πράσσοντ᾽ and Phil. 1314 σε (KG I 298–9 with n. 6, SD 395, Finglass on Ai. 136).

εὐτυχοῦντα: 56–8n.

προσήμενον / πύργοισιν ἐχθρῶν: ‘besieging …’, as of the Erinyes at Ag. 1191–2 ὑμνοῦσι δ᾽ ὕμνον (with Fraenkel on 1191). Aeschylus was fond of in its various shades of meaning (LSJ s.v. I).

The towers belong to the fortifications which the Greeks built after the first Iliadic day of battle (Il. 7.337–43, 436–41). For the trench and wall see 110b–11, 116–18, 989b–92nn.

391b–2. συγκατασκάψων … / τείχη: ‘to help you demolish their walls’. Cf. Rh. 603 (603–4n.) (also of Rhesus), Andoc. 1.101 οὐδ᾽ τῇ πόλει, …; Strabo 12.4.3 and Lyc. 222 (‘joint-destroyer’). In Phoen. 884 and Or. 735 the prefix σύν- refers to the object of the verb and may add some intensive force.

νεῶν … σκάϕη: ‘the hulls of their ships’. So also Ai. 1278 (in the same context as here), Pers. 418–19 δέ / νεῶν, Cyc. 467, Tro. 538–9 and Hel. 1543–4. Elsewhere in Euripides the phrase is essentially a periphrasis for ‘ship’: Cyc. 85, 702, Tro. 686, 1049, IT 742, 1345.

Setting fire to Protesilaus’ ship marks the zenith of Hector’s aristeia at Il. 16.122–4. Cf. 60b–2, 120–1, 989b–92nn.

393–4a. By greeting Rhesus with all the grandeur that befits a foreign prince, Hector forestalls potential charges of discourtesy and ‘places the encounter on an official plane’ (Jouan 27 n. 112). His designation of Rhesus’ parents takes up the chorus at 349–52 and 386–7.

τῆς μελῳδοῦ μητέρος: 351b–4n. Of the other tragedians only Euripides uses μητέρος and (instead of , μητρί) in spoken verse (Ritchie 179). Metrical considerations no doubt apply, but the forms may also have a more elevated tone: E. El. 1243, 1267, Or. 423, 504, 580, 798, 1589 (all of Clytaemestra killed by Orestes), HF 843 (Lyssa identifying her divine mother, Nyx), IA 669, 909 (the latter in an invocation).

Μουσῶν μιᾶς: For indefinite εἷς (μία, ἕν) with a partitive genitive see Dodds on Ba. 917 and Kannicht on Hel. 6–7 (p. 18). Our passage belongs to the category ‘where something is predicated of one member of a group which by its nature can be true of only one’ (Dodds). Cf. Il. 14.275–6 ἦ μὲν ἐμοὶ δώσειν Χαρίτων μίαν ὁπλοτεράων, / Πασιθέην, Pi. Nem. 4.65 (of Peleus) μίαν Νηρεΐδων, Ion 1–3 and Hel. 6–7. Differently Rh. 891 (890–2a n.) Μοῦσα συγγόνων μία.

394b–5. ‘… it is my custom always to speak the truth, and I am not a duplicitous man.’

Hector opens his speech like Polynices at Phoen. 469 ὁ τῆς (cf. 388–453, 420–1nn.), which itself imitates A. fr. 176 (Hoplōn Krisis) γάρ ἔπη. But whereas Euripides proceeds with ‘an attack on sophistic conceptions of truth and on positive evaluations of rhetoric’ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 469–72), traditional honesty is the issue both here and in Rhesus’ answer at 422–3 (n.). Klyve, Feickert and Sansone (BMCR 2013.03.15, on 394–5) refer to Il. 9.312–14 (Achilles to Odysseus) ἐχθρὸς γάρ κεῖνος πύλῃσιν, / ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον ἐνὶ ϕρεσίν, δὲ / αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ὥς δοκεῖ εἶναι ἄριστα (~ Achilles at IA 926–7 ἐγὼ δ᾽ … / … ἔμαθον τοὺς τρόπους ἁπλοῦς ἔχειν).

κοὐ διπλοῦς πέϕυκ᾽ ἀνήρ: likewise 423. In the sense ‘ duplicitous, treacherous’ διπλοῦς is first attested in Archil. fr. 196a.36 IEG ] γὰρ οὔτ᾽ οὔτε (which LSJ s.v. IV 2 with Suppl. [1996] do not quote). Elsewhere e.g. Xen. HG 4.1.32 and Tro. 287 διπτύχῳ (of Odysseus). Cf. Latin duplex (OLD s.v. 6 b).

The verse-end … (first or third person singular) is typical of Euripides: Med. 294, Hcld. 2, Hipp. 1031, 1075, 1191, Or. 540, frr. 325.1, 425.1. Ritchie (207–8) notes that in Hippolytus, as here, an entire half-line (… ) is repeated with rhetorical effect.

396–8. πάλαι πάλαι: 321b–2a n. For the emphatic doubling of cf. Ar. Av. 921 and perhaps E. fr. 579 ( Il. 2.353a¹ Erbse, om. alii: πάλαι Nauck).

: a ‘sardonic’ reply to συγκατασκάψων in 391 (Liapis on 396–8). The expression resumes 326 ... δορί.

τοὐπὶ σ᾽: ‘in so far as it depended on you’. So also Alc. 666 τέθνηκα , Or. 1345 , IA 1557–8, Xen. Cyr. 1.4.12 and Rh. 405 … τὸ σὸν μέρος. Where the implied subject of the phrase ‘has no power to influence the situation’ (Parker on Alc. 666), the meaning is simply ‘as far as regards …’: e.g. Ant. 889 γὰρ ἁγνοὶ τοὐπὶ , Hec. 514 (Hecuba addressing the dead Polyxena).

πολεμίῳ … δορί: The transmitted … (by assimilation from ) was corrected by the scribe of Va (above the line) and Bothe (II [1826], 103). Ar. Ach. 1192/3 (Lamachus) διόλλυμαι parodies (…) (or vice versa) as a standard juncture in tragedy (cf. Sept. 416, Ai. 1013 and, with δόρυ for ‘armed force’ or ‘war’, Sept. 216, E. fr. 370.83).

399–403. Hector’s frequent embassies to Rhesus (implicit in 321–6, 333) have a model in Il. 17.220–2 ἐπικούρων. / , which is followed by a bitter comment on what it costs Troy to support her allies with provisions and conciliatory gifts: Il. 17.225–6 ~ Rh. 403 (n.). In the Little Iliad Priam sent for Eurypylus to come to his aid (Σ Od. 11.520 [II 517.15–17 Dindorf] = Acusil. fr. 40a Fowler), and the same is attested for Memnon from the early fourth century on (Ctes. FGrHist 688 F 1 [pp. 441–2] = D. S. 2.22.2,363 Q. S. 2.34–7). See West, Epic Cycle, 144 with n. 22, 190–1, Introduction, 13–14.

For the Charioteer (839–41) and the Muse (935–7) the entreaties become the main cause of Rhesus’ death, compelling Hector to defend himself (954–7). Parthenius incorporated the motif into his tale of Rhesus and Arganthone (Erot. Path. 36.4) – probably directly from our play (Introduction, 17, 44–5).

399–400. ‘For you cannot say it was because your friends failed to call you that you did not come or defend or spare a thought for us.’

For the rhetorical structure of the sentence Ritchie (92 n. 3) compares Alc. 658–9 (where is also followed by a negative participial phrase). By denoting what the subject can or should not do the future indicative shows part of its modal force (KG I 173, 175–6, SD 290–2).

ἄκλητος: ‘uncalled, unbidden’, here with a dative of the agent ( OL: -ος VQ). Of military allies the word is paralleled in Thuc. 6.87.2

οὐκ ἦλθες οὐδ᾽ ἤμυνας οὐδ᾽ ἐπεστράϕης: a rising tricolon (according to Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms), in which the verbs form a climactic sequence. That Rhesus did not even think of the beleaguered Trojans (οὐδ᾽ ἐπεστράϕης) is arguably his worst omission in Hector’s eyes. For ἐπιστρέϕομαι, ‘turn the mind towards, pay attention to, regard’, cf. e.g. Thgn. 439–40 νήπιος, ὃς τὸν ἐμὸν μὲν ἔχει νόον ἐν , Phil. 598–9 χάριν (…;), Dem. 10.9, 23.136 and of the ‘attention paid to a person or thing’ (LSJ s.v. II 3 a). Like other verbs of caring usually takes a genitive (KG I 365–6 with n. 13, SD 108–9).

401–3. ‘For what Phrygian herald or embassy of elders did not come and urge you to defend our city? What gifts of honour did we neglect to send you?’

In an urgent appeal the double rhetorical question (with merely a variation for ) has a precedent in Andr. 299–300 τίν᾽ οὐκ ἐπῆλθε, ; Similarly Ai. 1012–16, OT 420–3, Hcld. 440–1, Phoen. 878–9 (869–80 del. Fraenkel) Theoc. 2.90–1 (Liapis on 401–3).

401–2. κήρυξ: Cf. 955–6 τί μὴν ἔμελλον οὐ / κήρυκας …; (399–403n.). On the acute accent in the nominative singular see G. Hermann, De emendandae ratione Graecae grammaticae, Leipzig 1801, 71, West, ed. Aeschylus, XLVIII and Barrett, Collected Papers, 285 n. 1.

γερουσία for recurs elsewhere only at 936 (cf. 399–403n.). While it may be that this small (and metrically useful) shift in meaning was suggested by Priam’s Council of Elders at Il. 3.146–53 (Jouan 27 n. 115), the fact that γέρων and are synonyms probably also played a part (Liapis on 401–3).

Φρυγῶν: 32n.

ἐπέσκηψεν: The same verb, literally ‘make to lean (or fall) upon’ and so ‘lay it upon one, ask earnestly, enjoin’ (LSJ s.v. ἐπισκήπτω II 1, 2), is used by the Charioteer in 839–40. In other tragedy e.g. Pers. 103–6 (Μοῖρ᾽ …) , PV 663–6, Ai. 752–4 and, with accusative and infinitive (as here), Alc. 365–7.

403. Rhesus was induced by presents – like the other allies, who did not fight for their homes and families: Il. 17.223–6 (399–403n.). The material strain put on Troy by the long war is evident also from Il. 9.401–3 and especially Hector’s reply to Polydamas at 18.288–92 (Hainsworth on Il. 9.401–3, Edwards on 17.223–6, 18.290–2).

ποῖον δὲ δώρων κόσμον οὐκ ἐπέμψαμεν; literally ‘Which honour (consisting) of gifts …’ This sense of (LSJ s.v. II 2) is a metaphorical extension of ‘ornament, decoration’, which itself goes back to the original ‘(good) order’ (H. Diller, in Festschrift Bruno Snell … , Munich 1956, 57–9, J. Kerschensteiner, Kosmos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den Vorsokratikern, Munich 1962, 7–8, 20–3). For similar applications of the word cf. Tro. 1207–8 σοι and Phaeth. 88–90 Diggle = E. fr. 773.44–6 (with Diggle on 87–8).³⁶⁴ (‘finery’) and δῶρα occur together at Med. 972–3.

is lectio difficilior for (Δ;cf. Chr. Pat. 1720 δὲ δώρων …). Both syntax and metrical structure of the question correspond to Hcld. 441 ; (cf. 401–3n.).

404–5. ‘But you, for your part, a barbarian of a kindred race, betrayed us fellow-barbarians to the Greeks.’

Thracians and Phrygians were thought to be related (294–7n.). Equally common, at least in tragedy, was the pan-barbarian idea to which Hector appeals (below).

: For the language cf. fr. tr. adesp. 536 / .

ἐγγενής (frequent in Sophocles) easily corrupted into (OQgE): Rh. 413 ἐγγενεῖς (VLQ: εὐγ- O), S. El. 1328 (pars codd.), fr. tr. adesp. 536 (ἐγγ- Valckenaer: εὐγ- codd. Stob. 3.40.8) and vice versa probably OT 1225 ( Hartung: ἐγγ- codd.).

βάρβαρός τε βαρβάρους: Similar verse-ends appear in Rh. 833 (833–4n.) … βάρβαρός τε βαρβάρου and IT 31 … βαρβάροισι βάρβαρος. Euripides was particularly fond of nominal polyptota (Denniston on E. El. 337, Collard on E. Suppl. 42–4) and first applied them to the names of peoples: Hcld. 139 , Hec. 137–40 (Gygli-Wyss, Polyptoton, 127 with n. 4). For this implies a bond of kinship (and thus loyalty owed) between all foreigners as opposed to the Greeks. See Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 161, 195, to whose list of passages add Hel. 863–4 Τροίας ἐμπεσῇ.

The easiest explanation for in is the loss of a letter at line-end.

Ἕλλησιν ἡμᾶς προύπιες was probably inspired by A. fr. 131.1–4 (Myrmidons) τάδε μὲν λεύσσεις, ϕαίδιμ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῦ, / δοριλυμάντους .³⁶⁵ Both times we have προπίνω, which does not otherwise occur in drama, in the metaphorical sense ‘make a drinking-present of’, i.e. ‘give away, betray’ (LSJ s.v. II 2, 3), and the overall situations can be compared. At the beginning of Aeschylus’ play the chorus of Myrmidons rebuke Achilles for indulging his wrath and leaving the Greeks to their fate (Fraenkel, Rev. 231; cf. Introduction, 34–5).

Nevertheless one may also see here an allusion to the Thracians’ notorious drunkenness (Liapis on 404–5) in rhetorical anticipation of 418–19.

τὸ σὸν μέρος: likewise e.g. Ant. 1062 σὸν μέρος; OC 1366 and Tr. 1215, Hcld. 678 … (LSJ s.v. μέρος III 2). Cf. 396–8n. (τοὐπὶ σ᾽).

406–11a. With the omission of Hector’s part in it, Rhesus’ fight for supremacy over Thrace is also alluded to by the Muse at 930–3 (n.). But despite a pertinent remark in Il. 10.435 (p. 355 van Thiel = I 364.4–5 Dindorf), we cannot be sure that this, like the hero’s other pre-Trojan exploits (426–42n.), featured in earlier versions of the myth (Introduction, 11–12). Our poet perhaps invented the episode to give Hector a further powerful claim on Rhesus’ support (957 ).

In Il. 9.315–32 Achilles reminds the Greek envoys of his ceaseless fighting and the many raids he undertook on behalf of Agamemnon (cf. D. Sansone, BMCR 2013.15.03, on 394–5). Similarly Medea in her agon speech lists all the favours she has done Jason (Med. 476–87) and for which she would have wished to receive the proper reward (388–453, 411b–12nn.).

406–7. ‘And yet with this hand of mine I raised you from a petty kingdom to be the great ruler of the Thracians.’

καίτοι: 112n. ‘Surprise’ is the foremost notion here and at 941.

μικρᾶς ἐκ τυραννίδος: ‘abstract for concrete’, as in Cho. 405, 973–4 πορθήτορας, S. fr. 345 and Hdt. 8.137.2 (LSJ s.v. II 2). In general KG I 10–12.

τῇδ᾽ … χερί: By surrounding ἐγώ the phrase stresses the active role Hector played, instead of just being a pleonastic dative (56–8, 214–15nn.).

408–10a. ἀμϕί: ‘around, somewhere in’. Cf. Rh. 477 and especially Andr. 215–16 (LSJ s.v. C I 2, Mastronarde on Phoen. 825).

Πάγγαιόν τε Παιόνων τε γῆν: Mt. Pangaeus lies on the east side of the lower Strymon. On its rich mineral resources and consequent importance for Athens see 921–2a n.

The Paeonians were a Thraco-Illyrian people whose area of settlement stretched from the Axius in north-eastern Macedon as far as the Strymon. In both Homer and Rhesus they are independent Trojan allies (538–45, 540–2nn.), and our poet is vague enough here to avoid a conflict of statements (cf. Feickert on 408). His geographic boundaries merely indicate the size of Rhesus’ eventual rule.

Θρῃκῶν ἀρίστοις ἐμπεσών: so rightly Λ (~ Chr. Pat. 1724 ἐθνῶν is probably a mere copying error.

κατὰ στόμα: ‘face to face’. Cf. Rh. 491, 511 and e.g. Cho. 573, Hcld. 801, Hdt. 8.11.1, Xen. An. 5.2.26 (LSJ s.v. στόμα I 3 g).³⁶⁶ Also Rh. 371 (370–2a n.), 421

ἔρρηξα πέλτην: ‘broke their shields’ ( Rh. 410 [II 337.24 Schwartz = 98 Merro]), not with most commentators (and LSJ s.v. I 2) metonymically for‘… ranks of peltasts’ (Liapis on 408–10 ~ JHS 129 [2009], 73 with n. 15). The phrase is modelled on Il. 20.267–8 (~ 21.164–5) of Achilles’ indestructible divine shield (Morstadt, Beitrag, 23–4 n. 1). For the distributive singular here see KG I 14–15 and SD 42.