411b–12. ‘For these (favours) you have spurned your great debt of gratitude, and when your friends are in trouble, you come to our help too late.’

Words and rhetoric resemble Admetus’ demand for parental recognition at Alc. 660–1 … (less close Medea at Med. 488–90), while Achilles begins with the Achaeans’ lack of gratitude in Il. 9.316–17 … (+ 318–19). Cf. 388–453, 406–11a nn.

λακτίσας πολλὴν χάριν: literally ‘you have kicked …’. So also Ag. 381–4 , PV 651–2 and Eum. 110 (with Sommerstein).

ὕστερος βοηδρομεῖς: 333n. Personal ὕστερος (OQgV) is required in the sense ‘later, too late’ (LSJ s.v. A II 2, 3), whence also 443 (n.) ὕστερος μὲν ἦλθον … (corr. Cobet) and 453 … (-ος V: -ον ). The (adverbial) accusative here (VLgE) was easy after 333 … . V even continues with the infinitive.

413–18. Hector’s complaint that the Trojans and their other allies have endured the hardships of war, while Rhesus led an easy life (and now has come to receive a share in the spoils: 325–6) has a precedent in Achilles’ accusation of Agamemnon as only ever having profited from his exploits (Il. 9.321–43). Cf. D. Sansone, BMCR 2013.03.13 and 388–453n.

413–14a. δ᾽᾽: strongly adversative (GP 166–7), contrasting 404–5.

ἡμῖν ἐγγενεῖς πεϕυκότες: Cf. OC 1167–8 , and see 404–5n. Many editors before Murray read Valckenaer’s ἐν γένει (Diatribe, 105 n. 7), which, however, seems to be restricted to family ties: Cho. 287, OT 1016, 1430, Alc. 904, Dem. 23.72, 57.28, [Dem.] 47.70, 60.7. Unfortunately, the text of Dicaeog. TrGF 52 F 1b.3 is insecure.

πάλαι: 321b–2a n.

414b–15. ἐν χωστοῖς τάϕοις: ‘… in grave mounds’, such as were heaped over the pyre or, in the case of major individual heroes, the urn or coffin containing their bones: Il. 6.418–19, 7.328–37, 23.234–57, 24.788–801 (Hector), Od. 11.74–8, 12.11–15, 24.71–84 (Achilles and Patroclus), Rh. 959 (959–60n.) καὶ νῦν . Cf. M. Andronikos, Arch. Hom. W 32–4, 107–21.

(‘heaped up’) occurs only here in classical Greek (later e.g. Lyc. 698, 1064, Plb. 4.61.7, Strabo 11.2.7). But it may have been current to judge by the compounds in Cho. 351–2 and Ant. 848–9 πρὸς ἕργμα (v.l. ἕρμα) ἔρ- / χομαι ποταινίου. The verb is also regular in tragedy.

πίστις οὐ σμικρὰ πόλει (‘no small pledge of loyalty to our city’) echoes the second half of Hipp. 1037 ὅρκους παρασχών, σμικράν, θεῶν, which comes shortly after 1031 (= 1075, 1191) … εἰ κακὸς (cf. 394b–5n.). For the nominative in apposition to the sentence, expressing a judgement, cf. e.g. Tro. 489–90 τὸ κακῶν, / Ἑλλάδ᾽ εἰσαϕίξομαι (KG I 284, SD 617). This is preferable to Bothe’s οὐ (5 [1803], 293), which, following nominatives, would signify a result (257b–60n.).

416–18a. ‘… whereas others stand fast in armour and by their horse-drawn chariots, patiently enduring the wind’s cold blasts and the sun-god’s thirsty flame …’

The pairing of winter cold and summer heat resembles the account of the Argive Herald at Ag. 563–6 δ᾽ οἰωνοκτόνον, / παρεῖχ᾽ ἄϕερτον , / ἢ θάλπος, εὖτε πόντος ἐν μεσημβριναῖς / κοίταις ἀκύμων (Paley on 417). But one also recalls Odysseus’ account of a freezing night before Troy at Od. 14.471–502 (especially 475–7). For the language here cf. E. fr. 78a (below).

ἱππείοις ὄχοις: 301b–2n. The phrase may go back to Il. 5.794 δὲ τόν ἄνακτα καὶ ὄχεσϕιν, just as A. Suppl. 183 ἵπποις καμπύλοις τ᾽ ὀχήμασιν (with FJW) has more closely been adapted from Il. 4.297 (= 5.219, 9.384, 12.119, 18.237) καὶ ὄχεσϕιν. Similarly Il. 5.107 πρόσθ᾽ ἵπποιιν ὄχεσϕιν. Mycenean Greek has feminine i-qi-ja meaning ‘chariot’ (LSJ Suppl. [1996] s.v. IV).

ψυχρὰν ἄησιν: The noun otherwise appears only at E. fr. 78a (Alcmeon) ἄπεπλον, ὦ δύστηνε, ἔχεις σέθεν. / – ἐν καὶ θέρος διέρχομαι (where Phot. α 448 Theodoridis glosses ἄησιν with χειμῶνα) and Phaeth. 255 Diggle = E. fr. 781.46 ἄησις. More commonly in Aeschylus (Ag. 1418, Eum. 905), Sophocles (Ai. 674) and later poetry (e.g. Call. Aet. fr. 75.36 Harder, Nonn. D. 2.529 ).

δίψιόν τε πῦρ θεοῦ: ‘thirsty’ because the blazing summer sun drains all moisture from the land. Cf. Opp. Hal. 3.47–8 δὲ … δίψιον ὥρην / Σειρίου (unless this generally means ‘parched’), Nonn. D. 1.237 δίψιος … κύων (i.e. Sirius), 12.287. Conversely, dry ground has traditionally been called (πολυ)δίψιος: e.g. Il. 4.171 πολυδίψιον Ἄργος, Alc. 560, Ag. 495 κόνις, Ant. 246–7 (with Griffith on 245–7), 429, Call. Aet. fr. 137c.10 Harder δ[ί]ψιον ἄστυ γε . […].

For θεός = ‘the sun-god’ see 330–1n. ( θεοῦ).

418b–19. ‘… not (reclining) on soft bedding, like you, and toasting one another in many deep draughts.’

Heavy drinking (of beer and undiluted wine) was a vice traditionally ascribed to northern barbarians: Archil. fr. 42 IEG (Thracians and Scythians), Anacr. fr. 356 (b) PMG, Ar. Ach. 141, Hdt. 6.84, Pl. Leg. 637d2–e7 (who observes that it does not diminish their martial prowess), Call. Aet. fr. 178.11–12 Harder, Hor. Carm. 1.36.13–14 neu multi Damalis meri / Bassum Threicia vincat amystide. Cf. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 18, 133–4.

The ‘bedding’ here also implies a charge of luxuriousness, which Rhesus includes in his defence at 438–9 (n.).

ἄμυστιν is an internal accusative with (below), in which marks a frequently repeated action (LSJ s.v. A II 2; cf. 438–9n.). – from ἀμυστί (< α privative + μύω), ‘without closing one’s mouth’ (Schwyzer 623 with n. 10) – denotes (1) a long draught and (2) a cup that lends itself to being drained at one go: Ath. Epit. XI 783d (III 22.15–19 Kaibel), Σ^V Rh. 419 (II 337.6–10 Schwartz = 99 a¹ Merro) and, for further references, Kassel–Austin on Cratin. fr. 322 PCG. Both meanings have been advocated here.³⁶⁷ But the first better suits the grammatical construction, and the passage from a play Auge, quoted by Σ^V Rh. 419 (above) in support of ‘cup’, actually favours a series of deep draughts: σὺν τῷ καὶ πυκνὰς (~ Cyc. 416–18 ὁ δ᾽ … / ἐδέξατ᾽ ἔσπασέν <τ᾽> ἄμυστιν / ).³⁶⁸ Likewise at Ar. Ach. 1229 καὶ πρός γ᾽ ἄκρατον ἐγχέας ἄμυστιν ἐξέλαψα predicative ‘in one draught, without taking breath’ is preferable to a separate object ‘cup’ (Olson).

δεξιούμενοι: literally ‘greeting (one another) with the right hand’ (LSJ s.v. I with Suppl. [1996]). Of toasting also Men. Dysc. 948 ἐδεξιοῦτ᾽ κύκλῳ. The symposiastic order was from left to right (362b–5a n.).

420–1. Like Polynices at Phoen. 494–6 ταῦτ᾽ αὔθ᾽ ἕκαστα, μῆτερ, ἔνδιχ᾽, , Hector resumes the introductory theme of his speech (388–453, 394b–5nn.). Mastronarde (on Phoen. 494–6) observes the intricate verbal ring composition between Phoen. 469–72 and 494–6, which is lacking here.

… / … μέμϕομαί σοι: ‘This I blame you for’, as in Ar. Nub. 525–6 ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ὑμῖν μέμϕομαι / τοῖς σοϕοῖς (LSJ s.v. μέμϕομαι 2). The internal accusative pronoun (as always with τινί τι) here doubles as a ‘proper’ accusative object to (cf. KG II 561–3, SD 708–9).

ὡς ἄν: 72–3n.

καὶ λέγω κατ᾽᾽ ὄμμα σόν: 370–2a n. In particular cf. E. El. 910 (Electra to the murdered Aegisthus) θρυλοῦσ᾽ ἅ γ᾽ and Ar. Ran. 626 αὐτοῦ μὲν οὖν, ἵνα σοι κατ᾽ ὀϕθαλμοὺς λέγῃ.

422–3. ‘I am like this myself; I cleave a straight path in my speech, and I am not a duplicitous man.’

While Rhesus almost literally repeats Hector’s declaration of sincerity in 394–5, Eteocles recalls his brother only vaguely, and with no express acknowledgement, at Phoen. 503 γὰρ οὐδέν, μῆτερ, ἐρῶ (388–453, 394b–5, 420–1nn.). Yet in both cases we have a captatio benevolentiae for the defence: Rhesus will speak the truth, and Eteocles must be excused if he is too blunt (cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. 503).

εὐθεῖαν κέλευθον: Two metaphors converge in this phrase. The ‘path of words’ was common in poetry and prose from Homer on (cf. West, IEPM 43–4)³⁶⁹ and so was the association of ‘straightness’ with justice and, more generally, honesty (LSJ s.vv. εὐθύς A 2, ἰθύς (A) I 2, Liapis on 422–3; especially Hipp. 491–2 τάχος διιστέον, εὐθὺν λόγον). Verbal inspiration may have come from E. fr. 124.2–5 (Andromeda) ~ Ar. Thesm. 1099–1101 ,³⁷⁰ with a similar expression already used figuratively at A. Suppl. 806–7 ἀμϕυγᾶς τίν᾽ ; (for the text see FJW on 806). The origin of this idiom lay in ‘cutting a road’ (LSJ (A) VI 2 a, J. Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca …, Oxford 1996, 276–7: Thuc. 2.100.2 ὁδοὺς εὐθείας ἔτεμε) rather than ploughing, as could be the case with places like Od. 3.174–5 … / τέμνειν, 13.88, h.Cer. 383 (Mastronarde on Phoen. 1 [p. 142], Dunbar on Ar. Av. 1398–1400, J. Chadwick, BICS 39 [1994], 7).

Despite E. fr. 124.3 (above), Nauck’s (less likely τέμνειν) for the MSS’ (Euripideische Studien II, 173–4) seems inescapable here, since explanations after or τοιόσδε normally follow in an asyndetic main clause (infinitive at IA 502–3). To his list of examples (Cyc. 524 τοιόσδ᾽ ὁ δαίμων· οὐδένα βλάπτει βροτῶν, Or. 895–6 [895–7 del. Dindorf], E. fr. 196.1–3) Liapis added Andr. 173–6, E. Suppl. 881–7 and E. fr. 322.1–3 (‘Notes’, 71–2), while no satisfactory parallel for the participle exists (Ag. 312–13 τοιοίδε τοί μοι λαμπαδηϕόρων νόμοι, / διαδοχαῖς is a distributive apposition to the sentence [Fraenkel on 313, KG II 107, SD 403–4]). The corruption was easy by assimilation to the preceding εὐθείαν λόγων.

κοὐ διπλοῦς ἀνήρ: 394b–5n.

424–5. ‘I was more vexed, more distressed by sorrow in my heart, than you at being absent from this land.’

ἐγὼ δέ: The particle here ‘marks the transition from the introduction … to the opening of the speech proper’ (GP 170–1). So especially after (e.g. Ant. 1196, Alc. 681, Phoen. 473).

μεῖζον: thus rightly ΔQ. The neuter plural (L) is not used as an adverb.

τῆσδ᾽ ἀπὼν χθονός goes with both and, as a phrasal verb of feeling, … ἐτειρόμην (KG II 53–4, SD 392–3).

λύπῃ πρὸς ἧπαρ … ἐτειρόμην recalls Il. 22.242 ἐμὸς ἔνδοθι πένθεϊ (~ Od. 2.70–1), Od. 1.340–2 δ᾽ / λυγρῆς, ἥ μοι αἰὲν ἐνὶ / τείρει (cf. 750–1a, 799nn.) and, in the juxtaposition of and ἧπαρ, Ag. 791 δῆγμα δὲ λύπης οὐδὲν ἐϕ᾽ ἧπαρ προσικνεῖται. By the early fifth century BC the liver had come to be regarded as the organ affected by deep emotions: also Ag. 432 πρὸς ἧπαρ, Cho. 271–2, Eum. 135, Ai. 938 ἧπαρ, οἶδα, γενναία (with Kamerbeek, Finglass), Hipp. 1070 (with Barrett on 1070–1), E. Suppl. 599 .³⁷¹

There is no need to suspect ἧπαρ here (Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 174) or to take it attributively with (cf. Feickert on 425). Previous motion ‘towards’ the liver can easily be deduced from (LSJ s.v. C I 2 a, KG I 540–1, 543–4, SD 433–4 on the ‘pregnant’ use of prepositions).

δυσϕορῶν: a forceful verb (W. S. Barrett, in R. Carden [ed.], The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles, Berlin – New York 1974, 217–18, Hutchinson on Sept. 780 ‘… may denote being swept along by sinister or painful feelings … by madness, grief, or rage’), which here, however, looks like a verse filler.

426–42. As in the case of Rhesus’ Thracian battles (406–11a n.), there is no evidence that this Scythian war was anything but our poet’s invention – which Parthenius took over in Erot. Path. 36.1 δὲ καὶ Ῥῆσον, , ἰέναι προσαγόμενόν τε καὶ δασμὸν ἐπιτιθέντα (434–5n., Introduction, 17, 44–5). Similarly, Menelaus excuses himself with the necessity to defend Sparta in Andr. 732–8, and Polymestor in Hec. 962–7 declares that, when Hecuba came to the Greek camp, he had been away in inland Thrace (Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 30 with n. 52 [p. 181]).³⁷²

The Scythians lived beyond the Danube, whose lower stretch our poet appears to regard as the north-eastern border of Rhesus’ realm (as it was for the historical kingdom of the Odrysae). Thus if they attacked him by the Bosporus (cf. 436–7n.), ‘they were alarmingly deep into his territory’ (Liapis on 428–9). Rhesus’ apparent detour to the Black Sea also fits his arrival via Mt. Ida to the south-east of Troy (284–6n.).

426–8a. ‘But a country bordering on mine, the Scythian people, started a war on me as I was about to make the journey across to Ilium.’

ἀγχιτέρμων: ‘near the border, neighbouring’ (LSJ s.v.). Before Rhesus the adjective is attested only at S. fr. 384 Blaydes). Later Theodect. TrGF 72 F 17.1, Lyc. 729, 1130 and, in prose, Xen. Hier. 10.7 . Pollux (6.113) calls it (‘dithyrambic in style, high-flown’).

Σκύθης λεώς: The apposition of a people’s name to the country they inhabit γαῖά μοι) seems to be unparalleled.

: here simply ‘journey …’ (Σ^V Rh. 427 [II 337.11–13 Schwartz = 100 Merro]), as in IT 1111–12 ζαχρύσου , IA 965–6 , εἰ / , 1261. Also at Hel. 428, 474, 891, Ar. Ach. 28–9, Pherecr. fr. 87.2 PCG.

ξυνῆψε πόλεμον: Cf. Hdt. 1.18.2 ὁ τὸν πόλεμον … συνάψας, Thuc. 6.13.2 and, with the subject designating an external cause, Hel. 53–5 /… / (LSJ s.v. A II 1 b).

Euripides was extremely fond of in nearly all its applications. Though used by the other dramatists and once by Pindar (Pyth. 4.247), the verb does not seem to have been part of the poetic tradition.

428b–9. Ἀξένου … / πόντου πρὸς ἀκτάς: Diggle and Kovacs rightly read (better Ἀξένου) for the MSS’ εὐξένου with Markland (Euripidis dramata Iphigenia in Aulide et Iphigenia in Tauris, London ¹1771, 242–3) – as also in HF 410, IT 124–5, 395, 1388–9 and Andr. 1262 (Cobet). Even if one disputes the need for consistency in any given author or genre, is the more poignant in all these places³⁷³ and would easily have been replaced by the later ‘default’ form. Cf. Pi. Pyth. 4.203–4 … / (- codd. pler.: εὐξ- C), and see n. 159, Bond on HF 410.

Since Vasmer (1921)³⁷⁴ the original Greek Ἄξε(ι)νος for the Black Sea, first attested in Pi. Pyth. 4.203 (above), has been linked with common Iranian *axšaina-, ‘dark-coloured’, which is represented by Avestan axšaēna-, Old Persian axšaina- (marking the turquoise) and various terms for ‘blue’, ‘greenish’ or ‘dark gray’ in related languages (R. Schmitt, in H. M. Ölberg et al. [eds.], Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch … , Innsbruck 1985, 409–12, who notes, however, the lack of first-hand evidence that the word was used of the Black Sea).³⁷⁵ False etymology as ‘inhospitable’ then led to the euphemistic change into Εὔξεινος, probably indeed by Ionian settlers (Strabo 7.3.6), as the vocalism suggests (W. S. Allen, CQ 41 [1947], 88; cf. Bond on HF 410). Hecataeus may have been the earliest author to use that name (FGrHist 1 FF 18a, b).

Θρῇκα πορθμεύσων στρατόν: so L and most editors. But the final-consecutive infinitive (Q, Aldina) is attractive and has been adopted by Paley and Feickert (on 429). To the latter’s argument of lectio difficilior and the fact that an analogous pair of variants can be found at Med. 1303 (codd. pler.: ἐκσῶσαι HOP²: [Π⁵])³⁷⁶ one may add that would account even better for in Δ (on its genesis from the future participle see 452–3n. with n. 168). The infinitive survives in IT 937–8 (Ορ.) κελευσθεὶς ἀϕικόμην. / (Ιϕ.) ; (Elmsley: δράσειν L: idem Elmsley) and Phaeth. 97–8 Diggle = E. fr. 773.53–4 προσέβαν ὑμέναιον ἀεῖσαι / (cf. KG II 16–17, SD 362, Diggle, Euripidea, 324).

430–1. ‘There the spear drew thick streams of Scythian blood, (to run) into the ground, and Thracian gore mixed up with it.’

This grim depiction of the battle was clearly influenced by the Ghost of Darius’ prophecy of Plataea at Pers. 816–17 / . But our poet supplanted the unique and not universally transmitted (v.l. αἱματοσταγής – but see Garvie on 816–17) with the more familiar and metrically easier αἱματηρός, which qualifies in the otherwise unrelated Alc. 850–1 (Heracles of Death drinking sacrificial blood) ἢν δ᾽ οὖν ἁμάρτω τῆσδ᾽ ἄγρας καὶ μὴ μόλῃ / πρὸς αἱματηρὸν πελανόν. The result of this ‘non-slavish’ form of borrowing (Fraenkel, Rev. 232; cf. Introduction, 35–6) still sounds disproportionate for Rhesus’ peripheral war (388–453n.).

ἔνθ᾽: Like its temporal counterpart in 930, this marks a new development in the tale and so is demonstrative rather than relative. The usage is rare outside epic (LSJ s.v. ἔνθα I 1, 2). Certainly in drama only A. Suppl. 30–6 … ξὺν ὄχῳ / · , / … ὄλοιντο, although Andr. 21 and Phoen. 657 (at the beginning of a choral antistrophe) can hardly be different. See FJW on A. Suppl. 33.

αἱματηρὸς πελανός: Apart from Alc. 850–1 (above), cf. IT 300 αἱματηρὸν πέλαγος ἐξανθεῖν ἁλός, with predicative αἱματηρόν and the near-homophone at the same metrical position. πελανός can be ‘any thick liquid substance’ (LSJ s.v. I) and is applied to blood also in Eum. 265 ... (where, as in Alcestis, the ritual connotation is important). It is a favourite word of Aeschylus and Euripides (Fraenkel on Ag. 96, Parker on Alc. 851).

Θρῄξ τε συμμιγὴς ϕόνος: O alone has here. On the basis of ϕόνῳ, Matthiae (VIII [1824], 23, on 428) wrote Θρῃκὶ συμμιγὴς ϕόνῳ. But τε is much less likely to have arisen by anticipation (following especially) than as a dative falsely supplied with (cf. Sept. 739–40 πόνοι / νέοι παλαιοῖσι κακοῖς, S. fr. 398.3, Antiph. fr. 55.7–8 PCG).

In classical Greek is restricted ‘to poets and poetic prose’ (Dunbar on Ar. Av. 771–2).

432–3. τοι serves to emphasise the truth of what Rhesus has just explained. If translated at all, parenthetic ‘you (must) know’ would convey the point (GP 537–40).

πέδον / Τροίας: a ‘Euripidean’ juncture (Andr. 11, 58, Or. 522). Sophocles has Τροίας πεδία / -ίον five times in Philoctetes (920, 1297, 1332, 1376, 1435). Also Hec. 140 Τροίας πεδίων.

434–42. Nearly the whole long sentence hinges on as the main verb: Rhesus negotiated all obstacles as quickly as possible and now ‘has come’.

434–5. ‘But when I had sacked them, having taken their children as hostages and set an annual tribute to bring to my home …’

τῶνδ᾽ resumes the object of ἔπερσα (i.e. the Scythians), which has to be supplied from the context. For this ‘anaphoric’ use of (rare in prose) cf. e.g. Sept. 424, PV 904, Ai. 28, Hec. 427 (KG I 646–7, SD 209).

ὁμηρεύσας: transitive, ‘to take as a hostage’, only here (cf. 360–2a n.), though Aen. Tact. 10.23 has the middle in the sense ‘give hostages’. It is also our sole poetic attestation of the verb, save for Ba. 296–7 ὅτι θεᾷ θεός (Dionysus) / ποθ᾽ ὡμήρευσε (with Dodds) and Antiph. fr. 115.2 PCG (cf. Fraenkel, Rev. 234). The noun ὅμηρος is found in Alc. 870, Or. 1189, Ba. 293, Ar. Ach. 327 and Lys. 244.

The purpose of the hostages was to ensure that the Scythians accepted submission (Σ^V Rh. 434 [II 338.20–1 Schwartz = 100 Merro]) and paid their annual tribute. Similarly e.g. Thuc. 1.108.3, 1.115.3, 3.90.4 and, in general, M. Amit, RFIC 98 (1970), 129–47, Olson on Ar. Ach. 326–7.

τάξας ἔτειον δασμὸν … ϕέρειν follows in asyndeton to mark the rapid sequence of events (Feickert on 435). Lenting’s τάξας <τ᾽> (Animadversiones, 74) would spoil that effect.

Unlike for ‘tribute, payment’ (LSJ s.v. 1, 2), δασμός has a poetic heritage from epic and elegiac ‘division’ (< *δατ-σμος < δατέομαι: Il. 1.166, Hes. Th. 425, h.Cer. 86, ‘Thgn.’ 678) to ‘tribute’ in OT 36, OC 635 and S. fr. 730c.15. Of prose authors Xenophon alone made widespread use of the word. In particular see An. 5.5.10 διὸ οὗτοι τεταγμένον and Cyr. 8.6.8 δασμοὺς μέντοι καὶ τούτους.

The relative infrequency of suggests that Parth. Erot. Path. 36.1 (quoted in 426–42n.) goes back to our passage instead of representing a separate tradition. ‘But Parthenius speaks in very unspecific terms, and makes Rhesus sound like a second Achilles, winning over cities to his side before he joins the Greeks at Troy’ (Lightfoot, Parthenius, 555–6).

436–7. In addition to Xerxes’ return to Persia (388–453n.), we are reminded here of his fateful ‘yoking’ of the Hellespont at Pers. 65–72, 108–13, 721–4, 736–8 and 745–50 (cf. Hdt. 7.33–6, 8.117.1, 9.114.1). Darius I had the Bosporus bridged to bring his army across to Scythia (Hdt. 4.83–9).

ἥκω: 434–42n.

Πόντιον στόμα was a regular periphrasis for the Bosporus. Cf. e.g. Pers. 879 στόμωμα Πόντου, Pi. Pyth. 4.203 ἐπ᾽ Ἀξείνου στόμα, Hdt. 4.81.3 ἐπὶ τοῦ Πόντου, 4.85.3, Thuc. 4.75.2, A. R. 1.2, 4.1002 (Gow on Theoc. 22.28).

τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα … γῆς … ὁρίσματα: ‘the other territories’, as in Hec. 16 μὲν οὖν ὄρθ᾽ ἔκειθ᾽ ὁρίσματα (Troy and the Troad) and Tro. 375 ὅρι᾽ ἀποστερούμενοι. ‘Words meaning ‘boundaries’ … are commonly used with a gen[itive] of a country in contexts of leaving or entering … ; since in these contexts ὅροι χώρας differs little from χώρα, it was no long step to treating it as an equivalent of in any context’ (Barrett on Hipp. 1158–9 Τροζηνίας). So also Hipp. 1459 Fitton: vel codd.) and properly Andr. 968 πρὶν τὰ Τροίας ὁρίσματα.

438–9. ‘… no deep draughts on my part, as you loudly claim, nor resting on beds in all-golden palaces …’

The syntactic structure of Rhesus’ reply to 418–19 recalls Med. 555–7 (Jason to Medea) οὐχ, ᾗ κνίζῃ, σὸν μὲν λέχος / … / οὐδ᾽ εἰς (Ritchie 244–5; cf. 388–453, 440–2nn.). But it presents a very harsh anacoluthon, in which the expected participle (δεξιούμενος from 419) is omitted and its object transferred to the parenthesis ὡς κομπεῖς. Attempts to posit a lacuna after 438 (Vater on 425) or otherwise to emend the text have failed,³⁷⁷ so that we are left with the assumption that ‘[t]he anacoluthon … is authorial’ (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 73).

A closer parallel than Ba. 683–8 δὲ πᾶσαι / … 686 … / / θηρᾶν καθ᾽ ἠρημωμένας (cited by Porter), where the accusative and infinitive follows more easily on the verb of speaking (cf. Bruhn, Anhang, § 176, Jebb on Tr. 1238–9), is Theoc. 12.12–14 / , (‘lover’), χ᾽ Ὡμυκλαϊάζων, / , κεν ὁ εἴποι, (‘beloved’). There the apposition has been ‘attracted’ into the second parenthesis to produce a formally identical result.

ὡς κομπεῖς: For the exact phrase cf. Rh. 875–6 (n.) ὁ οὐ γὰρ σὲ / γλῶσσ᾽, σὺ … and Or. 570–1 δράσας δ᾽ / δείν᾽, κομπεῖς, τόνδ᾽ ἔπαυσα .378 Porter (on 438) does well to distinguish our passages from the regular (metaphorical) sense of κομπέω, ‘to brag, boast’ (LSJ s.v. II). Applied to human speech, the original ‘din’ or ‘clash’ (LSJ s.v. I) just as easily covered a loud proclamation or complaint.

The verb has a direct object also at PV 947 … (LSJ s.v. II 2).

τὰς ἐμὰς ἀμύστιδας: 418b–19n. The plural was implied in 419 ἄμυστιν. With the possessive pronoun, however, it also reflects Hector’s contempt (cf. 866–7n.).

ἐν ζαχρύσοις δώμασιν: 370–2a n. ζάχρυσον … πέλταν). Golden halls are a standard symbol of excessive (non-Greek) luxury: e.g. Pers. 3–4 καὶ καὶ ἑδράνων ϕύλακες, 159 δόμους, Hel. 928 Φρυγῶν … πολυχρύσους δόμους (Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 80–1, 127–8). In a wholly ‘barbarian’ context they are set against the austerity of the Trojan field (416–18a n.).

440–2. ‘No, I know what frozen blasts press heavily upon the Thracian sea and the Paeonians, having sleeplessly endured them in this cloak.’

‘Thrace was notorious for its snow and harsh winters’ (Olson on Ar. Ach. 138–40). ³⁷⁹ For Rhesus’ justification, which is added in the same way as that of Jason at Med. 559–65 … (388–453, 438–9nn.), our poet had again recourse to Persians – to produce a ‘mosaic passage’ similar to 430–1 (n.). The adjective is unique, like its parallel form κρυσταλλοπήξ, applied to the Strymon in Pers. 500–1 (cf. 388–453n.). By contrast, (below) occurs elsewhere only in the much later Phoen. 45–6 … δ᾽ / Σϕὶγξ ἁρπαγαῖσι … (at the same verse position), while πορπάματα, ‘cloak held by a clasp (πόρπη)’ is restricted to the ends of E. El. 820 and HF 959. On the technique of supplementing a contextual echo with external material see Introduction, 35–6, Fraenkel, Rev. 231, 233 and, for our lines in particular, A. Fries, CQ n.s. 60 (2010), 346–7 with nn. 11, 12.

It would be possible (as some scholars do) to connect predicatively with οἶδα: ‘No, I know that such frozen blasts as press heavily upon the Thracian sea … I have sleeplessly endured in this cloak’ (KG II 50–2, SD 394; cf. G. Pace, Lexis 27 [2009], 183–4, 185). But the circumstantial participle makes the statement more intense.

πόντον Θρῄκιον (Λ: ) seems to refer to the northern Aegean (rather than the Black Sea), which bore this designation from Homer on: Il. 23.229–30 οἳ δ᾽ πάλιν οἶκόνδε / κατὰ (i.e. Boreas and Zephyros, who blow from Thrace: Il. 9.4–6), Hdt. 7.176.1 Θρῃκίου. This also accords better with the mention of the Paeonians, whose land lies west of Mt. Pangaeus. So Rhesus generally speaks of the hardships of his journey now. Cf. Liapis on 440–2.

ϕυσήματα / κρυσταλλόπηκτα corresponds to 417 ἄησιν. The epithet, ‘congealed to ice, frozen’, is used here with the same ‘looseness of expression’ as English speaks of ‘frozen blasts’ (Porter on 441), unless, as a compound verbal adjective, it was meant to bear the causative sense ‘making freeze over’ (Feickert on 441, Liapis on 440–2 [p. 189]). Kirchhoff’s or (I [1855], 556, on 430) would resolve the ambiguity and bring the expression even closer to Pers. 500–1 (above). But they leave the Paeonians strangely unaffected (except by ordinary storms) and weaken the ‘competition’ for the greatest discomfort in the field.

of strong winds is paralleled at Tro. 78–9 χάλαζαν / πέμψει αἰθέρος and probably E. fr. 370.40 (Erechtheus) ϕόνια (with Cropp). Yet with preceding in the same line we also get a phonetic similarity to the foaming sea at Hipp. 1211 … ϕυσήματι. Euripides alone of the other tragedians has the word.

Παίονάς τ᾽: 408–10a n. The upper-case initial and correct accentuation were given in the Aldine (παιόνας Ω)

ἐπεζάρει is J. J. Scaliger’s restoration of the MSS’ non-existent (cf. C. Collard CQ n.s. 24 [1974], 249), which gains support from Σ^VQ Rh. 441 (II 338.23 Schwartz ~ 101 Merro) ἐπεβάρει, ( om. Q) and Hsch. ε 4304 Latte · ἐπεβάρει, ἐπέκειτο AS. (where the codex unicus of Hesychius also seems to give -ζάτει). The true meaning and etymology of the verb are obscure. Apart from Phoen. 45–6 (above), it is attested in Σ Od. 22.9–12 (II 707.4–5 Dindorf) μεγάλου (v.l. ἐπιβαρῆσαι) χωρίοις and, taken from some ancient text, the lemma of Hsch. ε 4303 Latte (= Phot. ε 1390 Theodoridis) ἐπεζάρηκεν. ‘Fall upon’ or ‘oppress’ is clearly how authors and grammarians understood the word. The statement in Eust. 381.19–20 and 909.27–8 that it was Arcadian is not supported by the sound-patterns of this dialect (cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. 45).

τοῖσδ᾽ … πορπάμασιν probably refers to the Thracian cloak called ζειρά (312–13n.), which Rhesus may be wearing on top of his armour (Liapis on 440–2 [p. 190]).

Porson (Appendix II, in J. Toup, Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium … IV, Oxford ²1790, 439–40; cf. G. Pace, Lexis 27 [2009], 185–6) corrected the paradosis (Λ) and -πάσμ- (Δ). (always plural) belongs to the derivatives of feminine a-stem nouns (πόρπη) which show Doric vocalisation also in spoken verse (Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 175, Björck, Alpha Impurum, 139–42, Rh. 513b–15n.). Thus the unanimous tradition at E. El. 820 and HF 959, as well as PV 61 πόρπασον and 141 προσπορπατός.

For ξύν (σύν) of clothing worn cf. Thuc. 2.70.3 and Xen. An. 4.5.33 (LSJ s.v. σύν A 4, KG I 466, SD 489). The old Attic ξύν (Λ) should be accepted on the premise that the MSS would hardly have replaced the later form (Barrett on Hipp. 40). Contrary to the evidence of inscriptions, from which (-) had all but disappeared by 400 BC (Threatte I 553–4, II 768), Rhesus has an equal number of (-) and συν(-) in metrically indifferent positions. Especially telling is the variable use as a preposition (148, 468 σύν, 358, 471 ),380 since ξυν- survived longer in literary texts.

443. The first verse-half is almost identical to Ar. Eccl. 381 νῦν ἦλθον, αἰσχύνομαι (another reason to leave that line as it is transmitted in most MSS?). It may also have occurred in lost tragedies.

ἀλλ᾽: in opposition to the preceding excuse, and so partly assentient (cf. GP 16–20): ‘But I did come late …’

ὕστερος: Cobet (Mnemosyne 11 [1862], 435–6) for (ΩgV, Chr. Pat. 1728). See 411b–12n. At Ar. Eccl. 381 (above) one MS also has ὕστερον.

ἐν καιρῷ: 10, 52nn. Liapis favours ἐς καιρόν (after Chr. Pat. 1728 εἰς καιρόν) because ‘[t]ragic idiom seems to prefer ἐς καιρόν after verbs of motion’ (‘Notes’, 73). However, the passages he cites (Ai. 1168–9 μὴν ἐς / πάρεισιν, Hipp. 899–900, Hec. 665–6, HF 701, Hel. 1081 ἐς καιρὸν ἦλθε, τότε δ᾽ ἄκαιρ᾽ ἀπώλλυτο, Phoen. 106, Or. 384, Rh. 52) all concern a new and/or urgent situation, often marking the entry of the character who has come ‘in time’ to learn and possibly act on it. Rhesus, by contrast, claims to have arrived ‘at the right time’ to end a war that has already lasted for ten years (444–50). The distinction seems to be less pronounced between ἐς δέον (OT 1416, Ant. 386, Alc. 1101) and temporal ἐν δέοντι (Alc. 817, Or. 211–12, E. fr. 727c.39), more so again between εἰς καλόν and ἐν (cf. Stevens, CEE 28).

If the above distinction is right, εἰς καιρόν does not suit Chr. Pat. 1728 either. It probably stems from a MS of Rhesus where ἐν καιρῷ had been corrupted to the commoner phrase.

444. αἰχμάζεις: Unlike αἰχμή, the verb is rare. Properly ‘to throw the spear’ (Il. 4.324), it acquired the general sense of ‘fight’: Pers. 755–6 τὸν δ᾽ / ἔνδον αἰχμάζειν (‘play the warrior at home’), Ai. 97, Tr. 355 and absolute also Men. Sam. 628–9 εἰς Βάκτρα ποι / Καρίαν αἰχμάζων ἐκεῖ. Cf. Sideras, Aeschylus Homericus, 76.

445b–6. ‘… day after day you cast the dice in war against the Argives. ’

Our poet liked the dicing metaphor (154–5, 182–3nn.). Here cf. especially E. Suppl. 329–31 θ᾽ ὁρῶσα εὖ / ἔτ᾽ ἄλλα ἐν / (with Collard on 330–1a) and Hell. Oxy. 4.2 Chambers (below).

ἡμέραν δ᾽ ἐξ ἡμέρας occurs at the same position in Henioch. fr. 5.13 PCG. Similarly Hdt. 9.8.1 ἐξ ἐς and A. R. 1.861 εἰς ἦμαρ … ἐξ ἤματος. ‘Such phrases convey in all Greek literature the notion of succession, continuity’ (Headlam on Herod. 5.85 ἐορτῆς; cf. Gow on Theoc. 18.15, Gygli-Wyss, Polyptoton, 69–71). It should thus be excluded from Fraenkel’s list of possible Ionisms (Rev. 239).

… τὸν πρὸς Ἀργείους Ἄρη: Sallier’s ῥίπτεις (Histoire de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres 5 [1729], 125) is correct. With the transmitted (which may have been suggested by the ‘fall’ of dice) Rhesus’ comment would be intolerably negative (Liapis on 444–6) and the construction of unclear (LSJ s.v. II 1, Porter and Liapis take it as transitive. But at Antip. Sid. Ep. 32.13–14 and Mel. Ep. 15.2 Gow–Page HE the object is what is ‘set at stake’, which cannot well be said about ‘the war against the Argives’. Hence Feickert’s accusative of respect). In the reconstructed text we have an internal accusative (‘cast a throw in war … ’), as in 154–5 (n.) τόνδε κίνδυνον … / and the parallels given there. Absolute reinforces the notion of dicing. Cf. Sept. 414 (quoted in 182–3n.), where Ares himself casts the dice of war.

On by metonymy for war see LSJ s.v. II 1 (and cf. 239n.). Whatever the truth at Il. 5.909 (with West’s apparatus), (OQ) is the correct accusative in Attic and (VL) a common error. This form, on the analogy of fourth-century and later -ην for -η in s-stem names (cf. Collard on E. Suppl. 928–9, Mastronarde on Phoen. 72), is never required by metre and appears to be absent from Attic inscriptions (LSJ s.v. I, Threatte II 274).

κυβεύων: our only tragic example of the verb, although S. fr. 947.2 has κυβευτής. In the context of war also Hell. Oxy. 4.2 Chambers | [] περὶ τῆς τοῖς μὲν | [σ]τρατηγοῖς ὠργίζοντο καὶ | [χο]ν ὑπολαμβάνοντες προπετῶς | [το]ὺς τὸν κίνδ[υ]νον καὶ κυ | [βε]ῦσαι τῆς πόλεως.

447–53. Without knowing it, Rhesus promises to fulfil the chorus’ wish at 368–9, although they hardly expected him to succeed in one day. The boast probably reflects the aristeia Rhesus enjoyed before his death in Pindar’s version of the myth (Introduction, 11–12, 595–641n.). The contradiction with his lengthy Scythian war (Valckenaer, Diatribe, 104–5) is likely to have passed unnoticed (Liapis on 447–9).

447–9a. ϕῶς ἓν ἡλίου: For (ἡλίου) = ‘day’ cf. Pers. 261 καὐτὸς δ᾽ νόστιμον ϕάος – after the Odyssean formula … νόστιμον ἦμαρ ἰδέσθαι / (3.233, 5.220, 6.311, 8.466) and also conveying a sense of salvation (Garvie on Pers. 261). In other such tragic periphrases (330–1n.) the notion of daylight remains stronger.

καταρκέσει: ‘will be fully sufficient’ (LSJ s.v.). The verb is very rare and in other drama found only at S. fr. 86.1 παῦσαι· τοῦδε πατρός.

πύργους: 390–1a n.

ναυστάθμοις ἐπεσπεσεῖν: 135b–6n. Δ’s ναυστάθμους was an easy error between πύργους and and given that can also take the accusative, as at HF 34 … ἐπεσπεσὼν πόλιν. Liapis (on 447–9) seems too hasty in calling the dative ‘prosaic’ on account of that single tragic parallel. At OC 915, Hec. 1042 and Ba. 753 the verb stands absolute.

449b–50. θἠτέρᾳ: sc. ἡμέρᾳ. This form (found in Chr. Pat. 1732 cod. Vat. gr. 481) rather than Brunck’s θατέρᾳ (Euripidis tragoediae quatuor …, Strasbourg 1780, 372, on Hipp. 905) should be read for θ᾽ ἡτέρᾳ in and the other MSS at Chr. Pat. 1732 (cf. Feickert on 449, Liapis on 449–50). In crasis of with the definite article Attic has ἁ̄τερ- and θἀ̄τερ- (from original ἅτερος: Schwyzer 401) in the masculine and neuter, while in the feminine (other than the nominative plural) only ἡτερ- and θἠτερ- are attested in inscriptions (Threatte I 431, II 345–7) and were declared correct by Pausanias the Atticist (θ 2 Erbse). Intermittent cases of feminine α-forms in ‘classical’ MSS (e.g. at OT 782, Tr. 272, Hipp. 894, Ar. Ach. 789, Henioch. fr. 5.16–17 PCG = Stob. 4.1.27) have no evidential value. In the later fourth century BC (it seems) came to be seen as a legitimate alternative to ἕτερος, first in the masculine and neuter (Theophr. Vent. 53, Men. Mis. 164, fr. 491 PCG ὁ θάτερος, Lyc. 590, D. S. 14.22.5 τὸ δὲ θάτερον μέρος) and later also in the feminine (Luc. Bacch. 2, JTr. 11, Icar. 14, Hld. 1.2.2, 3.4.6). All three gender forms are common in late-antique and Byzantine Greek and could therefore have been introduced into our MSS (ἅτερος of three endings also occasionally appears). It follows that feminine ἁ̄τερ- and θἀ̄τερ- should not be accepted in classical Attic texts, let alone be introduced against the tradition.

πρὸς οἶκον εἶμι: Cf. 368–9 ὦ ϕίλος, μοι / … πράξας ἐς οἶκον ἔλθοις (447–53n.).

συντεμὼν τοὺς σοὺς πόνους: ‘having cut short…’ Similarly S. fr. 941.16–17 / καὶ and, of a pregnancy, Hdt. 5.41.2 τοῦ χρόνου συντάμνοντος.

451. ὑμῶν δὲ τις ἀσπίδ᾽ ἄρηται χερί: Cf. 488 (n.) μόνος μάχεσθαι … and, for the expression, 492 (n.) οὐκ ἀντᾶραι δόρυ, 495 … οὐ συναίρεται δόρυ. Of beginning a war e.g. Hcld. 313–14 καὶ ἐς ἐχθρὸν / μέμνησθέ μοι τήνδ᾽, Phoen. 433–4, Ba. 788–9.

L. Dindorf (I [1825], 490 ~ W. Dindorf, III.2 [1840], 607) rightly wrote ἄρηται, since we do not want the durative aspect of Q’s αἰρέτω (cf. Liapis, ‘Notes’, 74) and otherwise the aorist subjunctive is required in prohibitions (KG I 220, SD 315). On the corruption of ἀρ- into αἰρ- (V) or αἱρ- (OL) see 53–5n.

452–3. ‘For I shall have the mightily proud Achaeans vanquished with my spear, latecomer though I am.’

… / πέρσας: The only way to understand the MSS text is as a case of + aorist participle to express a permanent result (Feickert on 452).³⁸¹ This is otherwise unattested in the future (KG II 61–2, W. J. Aerts, Periphrastica … , Amsterdam 1965, 128–60), but would lend a strong and effective conclusion to Rhesus’ boasts.

Emendation in any case is difficult (cf. Liapis, ‘Notes’, 73–5). Nauck’s … (II¹ [1854], XXIII) presupposes a simple error by assimilation in πέρσας (after in 452 or in 448)³⁸² and the less easy corruption of into ἕξω, but becomes somewhat tautologous with … ὕστερος μολών (though not intolerably so for our poet?). Kirchhoff’s ἀρήξω, which would resemble the beginning of Eum. 232 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀρήξω τὸν ἱκέτην τε ῥύσομαι, founders less on the absence of an explicit object³⁸³ than on the fact that Rhesus does not merely want to ‘succour’ (Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 174). Diggle (apud Jouan) and Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, 147) independently proposed ἥξω … πέρσας, which makes sense only if the main emphasis can fall onto the notion of the participle. This is not the case to judge by e.g. Alc. 488 ἄρ᾽ μενεῖς; Hec. 930–2, Tro. 460–1 and Rh. 156–7 καὶ πάντ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν ἐκμαθὼν βουλεύματα / (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 75). Of Diggle’s other two suggestions, ἐξαρκέσω γὰρ … πέρσας (‘For I shall succour <you> by vanquishing …’) attracts the same doubts as Kirchhoff’s reading, whereas (Holzner)³⁸⁴ … is not only too far from the paradosis, but also ill accords with … ὕστερος μολών. Nothing is gained by deleting 452–3 with Herwerden (RPh 18 [1894], 84–5) or, better, 451–3 (451 could hardly end the speech on its own). The lines do not look like an addition, and one would still have to account for the text as it stands. If an interpolator could write … πέρσας, perhaps our poet could too.

τοὺς μέγ᾽ αὐχοῦντας … / … Ἀχαιούς: Cf. Hcld. 353 εἰ σὺ μέγ᾽ , E. fr. 1007 αὐχοῦσιν μέγα, Andr. 463 μηδὲν τόδ᾽ αὔχει and also Xerxes at Hdt. 7.103.2 (of the Spartans willing to confront a Persian army ten times the size of their own) εἰ δὲ ἐόντες καὶ … , εἰρημένος (Ritchie 211–12). For the meaning of (properly ‘feel confident’) see Fraenkel on Ag. 1497, Barrett on Hipp. 952–5 and Kannicht on Hel. 1366–8.

δορί (56–8n.) is to be construed with rather than αὐχοῦντας. Cf. Rh. 472 … ἐκπέρσαι δορί and 478 … … δορί.

καίπερ ὕστερος μολών: 411b–12, 443nn.

454–66. Impressed with Rhesus’ words and appearance, the chorus sing a brief song of praise and exhortation. It is unusual not only for replacing the regular trimeter comment after an agon speech (388–526n.), but also, as Hermann (Opuscula III, 304, 308–9) demonstrated, for responding metrically with the sentries’ own defence against the charge of laxity in 820–32 (n.).³⁸⁵

The phenomenon of separated stanzas in drama has been discussed in 131–6 ~ 195–200n. In extant tragedy only Hipp. 362–72 ~ 669–79 with its intervening spoken passages, choral song (Hipp. 525–64) and semi-lyric amoibaion (Hipp. 565–600) can be compared to the present case. Yet it has often been felt (e.g. by Wilamowitz, GV 587, Ritchie 331, 332–3) that the extraordinary interval of 354 lines in this short play and the fact that it includes two lyric pieces (527–64, 675–82) as well as the temporary absence of the chorus (565–674) set Rhesus apart from anything known in Greek drama.

In both its structure and language the strophe echoes the preceding ‘Hymn to Rhesus’ (342–79), but is altogether more cautious in tone (cf. Klyve on 388–526 [p. 261]). Instead of invoking Adrasteia, as in 342–3 (342–5, 342–3nn.), the chorus pray that her father Zeus may not be angered by Rhesus’ boastful speech (455b–7n.). The following accolade (458–63) repeats the desired confrontation with Achilles and other, unnamed warriors (370–9), though partly in rhetorical questions (with a potential optative) rather than imperatives and statements in the future indicative (cf. 342–79n.). Only the final wish (464–6) corresponds exactly to 368–9 (n.).

It appears, therefore, that for all their admiration the chorus are somewhat sceptical of Rhesus’ ambitions (447–53) or, in other words, our poet felt that such excessive self-praise could not go unrestrained (just as Hector provides a corrective in the dialogue to come). Even if we are to take Rhesus seriously and he will fall victim only to divine whim (342–79, 388–526nn.), our sense of foreboding is further heightened by this ode.

Metre

454–66 ~ 820–32. With the analysis and colometry adopted here we get a slightly unusual combination of dochmiacs with larger stretches of dactylo-epitrite metres (cf. Wilamowitz, GV 587). Yet the transition is made elegantly through the trimeter in 457 ~ 823 (beginning like a dochmiac of the form - ⋃ ⋃ - ⋃ -), a common ‘enoplian’ colon (458/824n.) and the lecythion (= E) at 459 ~ 825. Towards the end the rhythm returns to the earlier iambo-choriambics (466/832n.).

Notes

454/820 ἰώ responding with itself could also be extra metrum. But the resolved cretic neatly foreshadows the opening rhythm of the following verse.

455/821 For a possible solution to the textual problems and lack of responsion see 821–3n.

456/822 Despite Conomis (Hermes 92 [1964], 30), the perfect correspondence, which even extends to word-ends, would seem to indicate that both lines are basically sound (for a textual interpretation of 822 see 821–3n.). The sequence ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ - is further attested among (iambo-)dochmiacs at Eum. 158 ~ 165, HF 1058 ἀδύνατά μοι and Tro. 311 ὁ (~ 328 τυχαῖς. ὁ χορὸς ὅσιος) and usually interpreted as a resolved dochmius Kaibelianus.386 Alternatively, and in view of the word-divisions here, one could regard the colon as a dochmiac with two shorts for initial (or, at Tro. 311, second) anceps (Wilamowitz, GV 405, 588, L. P. E. Parker, CQ n.s. 18 [1968], 261 n. 3, Songs, 66). But other possible examples of in tragedy are rare, and many scholars hesitate to admit it at all (especially Barrett, Add. on Hipp. 670 [p. 434], Diggle, Euripidea, 100–1, 167 with n. 28, 315). A well-balanced, if sceptical, record is given by R. Renehan, CPh 87 (1992), 344–6, and individual passages are defended by Bond on HF 878, Kannicht on Hel. 670 (‘Metrik’ [p. 180]), 670–1 and Dodds on Ba. 997–1001.

458/824 This colon, later named ‘cyrenaic’, also occurs in (iambo-) dochmiac settings at E. El. 586, 588, HF 1188, Ion 1448 and Phaeth. 276

Diggle = E. fr. 781.66.387 Elsewhere Euripides has the ‘dragged’ version ⋃ ⋃ - ⋃⋃ - ⋃ - - - (Ion 1494, Hel. 657, 680, 681, Hyps. fr. 64.94 Bond = E. fr. 759a.1615; cf. Tr. 647 ~ 655, and see Dale, LM² 171, Diggle, Euripidea, 107, 393).

460–2/826–7 Wilamowitz’ colometry (GV 587–8), which in the strophe also happens to be that of the MSS, has found favour with several scholars, most recently Liapis (on 454–66 ‘Metre’ [p. 196]). At the small cost of transposing the name Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς in 461 (461–3n.), he obtained straightforward dactylo-epitrites (for - D | - - | cf. Pi. Pyth. 1.2, Ar. Eccl. 576b and, in general, 527–64 ‘Metre’ 527–8/546–7n.), corresponding rhetorical and metrical break in strophe and antistrophe and more prominent positions for the verbal echo (below) and the anaphora … in 461–2. Compared to the traditional division of e.g. Wecklein, Murray, Diggle and Kovacs (460–1 … σέθεν κρείσσω. ~ 826–7 … παγάς· || ), this also removes one period-end after the long verse 460 ~ 826 (- D² (contr.) | - - ||?).

463/828 Our poet was fond of contracted D-cola. Cf. 535 ~ 554 (D - |) and 27 ~ 45, 899 ~ 910 (D²). The antistrophe here is incurably corrupt (827–8n.).

466/832 A rare clausular colon, which otherwise is found only at HF 1024 (again in juxtaposition to dochmiacs) and has variously been interpreted as cho ia ‸ia‸ or δ + ⋃ - - - (Diggle, Euripidea, 107–8, 395 with n. 108, 516). Yet here, where the preceding line is better taken as lec | than hδ | δ and - ⋃ ⋃ - ⋃ - ⋃ - - - may be seen to echo 457 ~ 823 (cho ia ia‸), the iambo-choriambic analysis seems preferable.

The responsion between 454–66 and 820–32, at least musically recognisable over the long distance, is underlined with a series of both strict and more liberal ‘isometric echoes’: 454 = 820 , 455 ϕίλα … ϕίλος ~ 821 , 457 Ζεὺς θέλοι ~ 823 ἄγγελος ἦλθον ναῦς αἴθειν (sentence structure), 459 ~ 825 οὔτ᾽ … οὔτ᾽, 461 (460) μοι ~ 827 (826) , 464 εἰ γάρ ~ 829 εἰ δέ. Among the other divided songs in tragedy this is proportionally matched only by Rh. 131–6 ~ 195–200 (n.). On such verbal correspondences in general see Bond on HF 763 ff. and West, GM 5 (with further literature).

455a. ϕίλα θροεῖς: ‘You speak welcome words.’ Cf. e.g. Tr. 373 … εἰ δὲ ϕίλα, Hec. 517, E. Suppl. 634, 643, Hdt. 7.104.1 οὐ τοι ἐρέω.

ϕίλος Διόθεν εἶ: For the concept of a ‘god-sent deliverer’ – here from the supreme patron deity of Troy – Liapis (on 455) compares Cho. 939–41 δ᾽ πᾶν / θεόθεν ὡρμημένος (the chorus after Orestes’ killing of Aegisthus and Clytaemestra), which presumably inspired S. El. 69–70 (Orestes) γὰρ ἔρχομαι / δίκῃ πρὸς ὡρμημένος.

455b–7. ‘Only may Zeus supreme wish to keep away irresistible resentment concerning your words.’

On the relationship of this invocation to that in 342–3 see 454–66n. The closest literary precedent is Pi. Ol. 13.24–6 / Ὀλυμπίας, / γένοιο χρόνον ἅπαντα, Ζεῦ πάτερ.

Nothing has been lost after 455–7, as Wilamowitz (GV 587–8) and Zanetto (ed. Rhesus, 33, 68, Ciclope, Reso, 149 n. 64) presumed. Instead, after 821–3 (n.) we should delete the universally transmitted στρατόν.

μόνον: often in asyndeton to express ‘a reservation or an important prerequisite’ (Liapis on 455–7). In wishes to divinities also e.g. Cho. 244–5 <μόνον> ξὺν / Ζηνὶ συγγένοιτό μοι, Phil. 528–9, Hipp. 522–3, E. Suppl. 1229–30 and Ar. Av. 1315 . Cf. Headlam on Herod. 2.89 and FJW on A. Suppl. 1012.

ϕθόνον ἄμαχον … / … θέλοι … εἴργειν: Cf. 343 (above). In tragedy ἄμαχος, ‘unconquerable, irresistible’, is restricted to lyrics and perhaps had an Aeschylean ring: Pers. 90, 856, Ag. 733, 769, Cho. 55 (otherwise only Ant. 799). But the comedians used it in spoken verse (e.g. Ar. Lys. 253, Antiph. fr. 7 PCG, Eub. fr. 117.2 PCG, Men. Dysc. 193, 775, 870), and it also occurs in prose (LSJ s.v. I with Suppl. [1996]).

ὕπατος / Ζεύς: Like Aeschylus and the lyric poets (Fraenkel on Ag. 55), but not, to our evidence, Sophocles and Euripides, our poet followed Homer in calling Zeus here and in 703 (n.). Cf. Il. 19.258, Od. 19.303 (et al.) , Il. 8.31, Od. 1.45 … ὕπατε κρειόντων, Il. 5.756, 8.22, 17.339 Ζῆν᾽ ὕπατον Κρονίδην (μήστωρα).

458–60. ‘Neither before nor now have the ships from Argos brought (here) any man superior to you.’

Feickert (on 460) aptly compares Ai. 418–26 (Ajax) / γείτονες ῥοαί / … / οὐκέτ᾽ / τόνδ᾽ … / … / οἷον / στρατοῦ / χθονὸς ἀπὸ / Ἑλλανίδος. While shameless self-aggrandisement (Finglass on Ai. 421–6) is not at issue here, we know that the chorus’ high hopes and panegyric have no basis in fact. They duly think of Achilles and Ajax in 461–3 (n.).

τὸ δὲ νάϊον … δόρυ: The expression recalls epic δόρυ (…) (Il. 15.410, 17.744, Od. 9.384, A. R. 3.582) and (Od. 9.498, h.Ap. 403, A. R. 2.79), though all of these refer to the ship’s planks. Metonymic δόρυ of the whole vessel is first attested in Sim. fr. 543.10 PMG = 271.9 Poltera and becomes very frequent in tragedy. Here the entire fleet is meant, as presumably also by IA 1494 δόρατα … νάϊ᾽ (Hartung [ναΐα]: δάϊα L).

οὔτε πρίν τιν᾽ οὔτε νῦν: Nauck (II¹ [1854], XXIII) for πρὶν νῦν τιν᾽ (Ω). This is the easiest, and no doubt correct, way to create responsion with 825. It ‘postulates only that was skipped after πριν and later restored in the wrong place’ (Willink, ‘Cantica’, 37 = Collected Papers, 576).

461–3. In our play Rhesus is regularly contrasted with Achilles (314–16n.). To stress their meaning, the chorus here add Ajax – by all accounts ‘the second best fighter among the Greeks at Troy’ (Finglass on Ai. 421–6). Athena does likewise at 601–2, and when Hector has to tell Rhesus that Achilles is out of reach, he names Ajax (along with Diomedes) as coming next (497–8a n.).

πῶς μοι τὸ σὸν ἔγχος Ἀχιλλεὺς ἂν δύναιτο / … ; With Wilamowitz’ colometry (454–66 ‘Metre’ 460–2/826–7n.) it is necessary to change the transmitted word-order (V: -λλ- OΛ) σὸν … in order to avoid hiatus after the second position in the verse. Apart from the metrical and rhetorical advantages of this arrangement (discussed above), there may also be a textual argument. While in Euripidean anapaests and lyrics epic Ἀχιλ- is lectio difficilior for Ἀχιλλ- (Hec. [94], 108, 128, El. 439, IT 436–7, IA 124, 128),³⁸⁸ it need not be the original here. The scribe of V had a tendency to write single for double consonants (with Ἀχιλλ- also 182, 491, 977;³⁸⁹ cf. Tro. 39, 264, 575, 623, 1124, Or. 1657). The same could have happened in the present passage, after Ἀχιλλεύς had been misplaced in an early source (either to normalise the word-order or because it was left out and wrongly reinserted from a note).

In other tragedy is found only at OT 1322–3 (‘stay behind, endure’). The sense ‘hold out against’ goes back to Homer: Il. 5.498 (= 15.312), 14.488–9 ὃ δ᾽ / , 16.814–15, 17.174 (Hector to Glaucus) .

464–6. ‘May I see that day, o lord, on which you exact retribution for his murderous hand with your spear.’

Similar wishes for salvation are uttered by the chorus of satyrs at Cyc. 437–8 ὦ ϕίλτατ᾽, εἰ γὰρ / ἀνόσιον κάρα and that of Greeks at Ar. Pax 346 εἰ γὰρ ἐκγένοιτ᾽ ἰδεῖν ταύτην μέ ἡμέραν (i.e. on which to enjoy the pleasures of peace again).

εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ τόδε γ᾽ ἦμαρ / εἰσίδοιμ᾽᾽: The MSS’ τόδ᾽ does not respond with παρὰ καιρόν or (Vater) in 829. To restore the missing element, Hermann’s τόδε γ᾽ (Opuscula III, 304) is preferable to Dindorf’s τόδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ (PSG², 182), which creates an unduly despondent tone (‘May I yet see that day …’). Changing the antistrophe instead would entail various metrical difficulties (829–32n.).

For ‘assentient or approving’ γάρ in wishes see GP 92–3 with n. 1 and Cyc. 437–8, Ar. Pax 346 (above).

ὅτῳ: Musgrave (on 466, 7) for ὅπως (Ω). Neither a temporal clause (LSJ s.v. ὅπως A I 7) nor a final-consecutive one (Paley on 466, G. Pace, QUCC n.s. 65 [2000], 134, Jouan 30 n. 139) has a place here. The optative (below) is due to attraction of mood, as in e.g. Tr. 953–5 γένοιτ᾽ … αὔρα, / ἥτις (KG I 255–6, SD 642, Bruhn, Anhang, § 136).

πολυϕόνου / χειρός: 60b–2n. The owner of the ‘murderous hand’ (Achilles or Ajax) is left deliberately unclear. As often χείρ effectively stands for the hand’s action or acts (LSJ s.v. IV).

: Diggle’s brilliant emendation (Euripidea, 515–17) solves all the metrical and linguistic problems presented by the transmitted (ἀποιν- Δ: ἀπον- LQ^1c: ἀπόν- Q, OQ: -α VL) and presupposes the easiest possible way of corruption. Hartung (17 [1852], 137) had already seen that instead of the verb ἀποινάομαι, which in 177 (n.) means ‘hold to ransom’, we need (‘compensation, requital’) and wrote σᾷ ϕέροις (or λάβοις) to respond with 832. Yet Diggle’s ἄροιο is the more idiomatic verb and requires only that an original was conflated with σαι inserted above the line. In its support he quotes Il. 1.159–60 … / S. El. 33–4 ὅτῳ τῶν ϕονευσάντων πάρα and Hec. 1073–4 ἀρνύμενος τ᾽ ἀντίποιν᾽ / ἐμᾶς, ὦ τάλας. Hsch. 1073-4 xoXaq. Hsch. α 7362 Latte ἄροιο· λάβοις, may well refer to our passage.

467–526. Despite the unbroken tension between Hector and Rhesus, this scene is not part of the formal agon (388–526n.). The exchange it portrays covers three main points: 1. Rhesus’ plan to carry the war into Greece (467–84), 2. the battle dispositions for the following day (485–98a) and 3. the ‘problem’ of Odysseus (498b–517). With Hector’s arrangements for the rest of the night (418–26) the plot somewhat abruptly returns to Iliad 10.

As in the final part of Rhesus’ speech (443–53), and perhaps incited by the flattery of the chorus, we observe him trying to assert his claim to leadership. The new war, which he proposes both as ‘compensation’ for his delay (467–8) and to take revenge on the Greeks (473),390 is meant to be a joint venture (471 ξὺν σοί … ), and he even seems to remember his status as an ally to Troy: 469–70 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν … / … Once he has been turned down, however, he reverts to his former arrogance in restating, and adding a new option to, the battle position he wishes to hold (488, 489–90, 49 1nn.). We may presume also that it was not his business to interfere with the treatment of potential captives (510–17).

Hector is justly sceptical about the Greek campaign, especially since their war has not yet been won (482). In opposing the idea he assumes the same role of prudent warner which Aeneas and the chorus had previously played for him (52–84, 85–148nn.) – not entirely out of character, given his ready acceptance of their advice and the fact that Rhesus’ plan is on a very different scale from continuing a successful attack at night. The reverse relationship between the scenes is underlined by a series of verbal and contextual reminiscences (477–8, 482, 483nn.; Klyve on 388–526 [p. 262]).

The discussion of battle order, together with that of Achilles’ wrath, is heavily indebted to Iliadic sources (485–7, 494–5, 497–8a nn.).³⁹¹ On a more general level the ensuing review of Greek heroes and the way it develops into the lengthy treatment of Odysseus is vaguely reminiscent of the (Il. 3.161–242), where Antenor likewise recounts an earlier, albeit peaceful, visit of the archtrickster to Troy (Il. 3.203–24).³⁹² In Rhesus the succession of stealthy blows dealt to the city and its inhabitants offers a preparation for the second half of the play (498b–509, 501–2, 503–7a, 507b–9a nn.). Our growing anticipation in this epeisodion reaches its peak when Hector encamps the Thracians as in Iliad 10 and asks the chorus to wait for Dolon’s return (519–20, 523–6, 523–5a nn.).

In the course of the conversation Hector cuts Rhesus short twice (cf. Liapis on 485–7 and 518). But the invasion of Greece he finds at least worth discussing, and we may take his brisk change of subject in 484–5 as an expedient response to the preceding affront (Rosivach 59–60). Rhesus’ fancy of impaling Odysseus, by contrast, he passes over in silence (518–26), as if he did not want to be associated with such cruelty (512–17, 513b–15nn.). The idea would also have alienated a largely Greek audience, who as a result may have viewed Odysseus’ plot with greater sympathy (as an act of pre-emptive self-defence). We noticed a similar ‘technique’, and source of dramatic irony, in Dolon’s promise to bring back Odysseus’ or Diomedes’ head (219–23, 257b–60nn.).

467–8. ‘Such things I shall allow you to exact (from me) in return for my long absence. I say this with (the approval of) Adrasteia.’

Nothing seems to be amiss here. With πρᾶξαι in the sense ‘exact’ (LSJ s.v. VI) and τῆς μακρᾶς as a genitive of price or exchange (below), the statement neatly summarises Rhesus’ promise to vanquish the Greeks in a single day (447–53). Kovacs’ argument for a lacuna after 467 (Euripidea Tertia, 147–8) rests on several wrong premises, most importantly that the declaration contradicts 447–53 and so should point forward to the plans for an attack on Greece itself (469–73). Yet apart from the difficulty of seeing such an contradiction, τοιαῦτα (μέν) is more naturally resumptive (KG I 646, J. Wackernagel, Glotta 7 [1916], 194–5 n. 1 = Sprachliche Untersuchungen, 34–5 n. 1), and μέν especially calls for a complement (other than … σὺν δ᾽ λέγω). Hence Morstadt’s for (fere Ω) in 469, which is impossible also on metrical grounds (469–70n.).

There is little merit in Liapis’ attempt (‘Notes’, 77) to revive Musgrave’s (Exercitationes, 94–5 ~ II [1778], 408): ‘These things I shall offer you as a compensation for my long absence’ or, with his own for τοιαῦτα (Ω), ‘This compensation I shall offer you …’. If one suspects the paradosis (Diggle, apparatus 468), it seems best to accept Kovacs’ lacuna and exempli gratia supplement (τοιαῦτα μέν σοι / , ἄξι᾽ ὠϕελήματα> / πρᾶξαι …), with anaphoric τοιαῦτα μέν and .

τῆς μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας / πρᾶξαι παρέξω: For the genitive of price or exchange (KG I 377–8, SD 127) with or its noun cf. Pl. Grg. 511e1–3 ταύτης μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας … (sc. κυβερνητική), Eum. 320 … ἐϕάνημεν and S. El. 953 … … πατρός. Otherwise e.g. Med. 534–5 μείζω μέντοι / , (Ritchie 249).

The line-end … is Euripidean in character: Hec. 962–3 (Polymestor to Hecuba) δ᾽, εἴ τι ἀπουσίας, / σχές (cf. 426–42n. with n. 158), IA 651 ᾽πιοῦσ᾽ ἀπουσία, 1172 … διὰ μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας.

σὺν δ᾽ Ἀδραστείᾳ λέγω: 342–5, 342–3, 455b–7nn. The indicative verb lends confidence to an otherwise reverent formula. Cf. Med. 625–6 , σὺν θεῷ δ᾽ εἰρήσεται, / γαμεῖς (with Mastronarde on 625, 626), Ar. Pl. 114–16, Rh. 357–9 (n.).

469–73. Whatever other motives we may ascribe to Rhesus for wishing to continue the war on Greek soil (467–526, 471–2nn.), he professes the well-known principle that one should help one’s friends and harm one’s enemies. See further 483 (n.) and generally M. W. Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies …, Cambridge 1989, 26–59, especially 26–31 with n. 21.

469–70. ἐπεὶ δ᾽᾽ ἄν: Morstadt (Beitrag, 25 n. 2). The transmitted ἐπειδάν ( V) cannot stand because 1. we need δέ to balance μέν in 467 (467–8n.) and 2. the final syllable of ( + ἄν) is long. The second criterion is decisive also at Sept. 734–5 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ / αὐτοδάϊκτοι θάνωσι, where most older editors read (M² et codd. pler.). V’s text here acknowledges the first (unless it is a simple copying error).

Sansone’s … (BMCR 2013.03.15, on 469), for which he compares Eum. 647 … and Eup. fr. 172.7 PCG … ἐκεῖ δ᾽ presupposes two stages of corruption instead of one (i.e. the regularisation of word order and loss of δ᾽).

θῶμεν … ἐξέλῃς: The use of person and number here is good rhetoric. Hector has to keep (some of) his privileges at Troy, if he is to be persuaded to join a new campaign. Contrast 451–3, 488 (467–526n.), and see Liapis on 469–70.

: Usually in the plural, ἀκροθίνια denotes the topmost or best part of a heap (< + θίς) and thus the choicest spoils or first fruits to be offered to the gods (LSJ s.v. ἀκροθίνιον with Suppl. [1996], Mastronarde on Phoen. 203, 281–2). For their ‘selection’ cf. Hdt. 8.121.1 μέν νυν τοῖσι θεοῖσι ἐξεῖλον καὶ Φοινίσσας and Xen. Cyr. 7.5.35 μάγους , ἀκροθίνια θεοῖς καὶ ἐκέλευσεν ἐξελεῖν.

471–2. It may not be coincidence that the language resembles Pers. 177–8 (the Queen has had frequent dream visions) οὗπερ παῖς ἐμὸς στρατόν / πέρσαι and 234 πᾶσα ἂν ὑπήκοος (cf. Paley on 474). If Rhesus is consistently portrayed as a would-be Xerxes (264–341, 290, 375b–7, 388–453nn.), his intended invasion of Greece also fits the theme.

ξὺν σοί: 467–526n. The words emphatically stand at the beginning of the main clause and a new line. On ξύν (Λ) as against σύν (Δ) see 440–2n.

γῆν ἔπ᾽ Ἀργείων … / … πᾶσαν … Ἑλλάδ᾽: Whereas Argos and Hellas are formally distinct in 477 (477–8n.), this cannot be the case here. At best ‘all Hellas’ includes the ‘land of the Argives’ (i.e. the Peloponnese), as it would at Pers. 234 (above).

adapts our poet’s favourite mid-verse formula … ναῦς … (149–50n.).

: Cf. Pers. 178 … πέρσαι θέλων (above). The redundant dative is Euripidean in style (56–8, 452–3nn.). Likewise Hector at 478 … δορί.

473. ὡς ἄν: 72–3n.

ἐν μέρει: ‘in turn’. Cf. Eum. 198 Ἄπολλον, μέρει, 436, Cyc. 253, Hcld. 182, Ar. Av. 1228. Elsewhere in drama (never Sophocles) the juncture is found in the sense ‘alternately, one after another’: e.g. Ag. 332, 1192 (with Fraenkel), Eum. 586, Cyc. 180, Andr. 216, Hec. 1130, Ar. Vesp. 1319.

475–6. πόλιν νεμοίμην: Cf. 700 . But the expression is standard from Homer on.

: 79n. ἦ κάρτα only occurs in tragedy (particularly Aeschylus) and always at the beginning of an iambic trimeter: A. Suppl. 452, Ag. 592, 1252, Cho. 929, Eum. 213, A. fr. 78a.3, Ai. 1359, 1278, Alc. 811, Hipp. 412 and perhaps Tr. 379 (with Davies and Ll-J/W, Sophoclea, 159). At S. El. 312 read Meineke’s καὶ κάρτα, followed by a stop (Finglass on 312 with n. 23).

For affirmative (+ adverb) introducing a conditional apodosis see GP 281.

477–8. ‘But the regions around Argos and the pastures of Hellas are not as easy to ravage with the spear as you say.’

In 112–22 Aeneas had warned Hector of the risks if he attacked the Greek camp at night. The wording of 121 in particular resembles 478 (below).

In addition we may see here another oblique reference to Persians (471–2n.). Xerxes and his army learnt to their cost that Greece was difficult to subdue (cf. particularly Pers. 230–45).

τὰ δ᾽ ἀμϕί τ᾽ Ἄργος καὶ νομὸν τὸν Ἑλλάδος: 408–1 0a n. The present phrase looks like an adaptation of the Odyssean formula … καθ᾽ (ἀν᾽) (1.344, 4.726, 816, 15.80), which combines two originally separate territories – used to designate Peleus’ Thessalian kingdom (and by extension northern Greece), while stands for the Peloponnese – to represent ‘… the whole of Greece’ (S. R. West on Od. 1.344; cf. Hoekstra on 15.80). Yet Liapis (on 477–8) puts too much emphasis on the distinction here. It is simply a way of taking up πᾶσαν … in 472 (471–2n.).

νομὸν τὸν Ἑλλάδος: With the article so placed the attributive genitive qualifies its noun as a specimen of its kind (KG I 618, who cite e.g. Hdt. 5.50.1 ). For νομός, ‘pastures, (fertile) land, region’, cf. Pi. Ol. 7.33 ἐς (i.e. Rhodes), OC 1061 ἐκ νομοῦ (codd.: εἰς νομόν Hartung) and possibly S. fr. 284 (Inachus) < … > νομὸν ἔχει κεκμηκότων (Ellendt: νόμον ἔχει Porson: ἔχει νόμον cod. Hsch. α 5460 Latte). In general LSJ s.v. II 1 with Suppl. (1996).

οὐχ ὧδε πορθεῖν ῥᾴδι᾽᾽ ὡς λέγεις δορί: Cf. 120–1 … / οὐδ᾽ (above). For … δορί see 471–2n.

479. ‘Do they not say that these who have come here are the Greeks’ most valiant men?’

ἀριστέας … Ἑλλήνων recalls the Homeric … (-ας) Παναχαιῶν, especially as it is used at Il. 7.73 (Hector addressing the Greeks) ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἐν γὰρ ἔασιν . For this reason and because forms of are lectio difficilior in tragedy (cf. Parker on Alc. 920–1 [pp. 236–7], Finglass on Ai. 1304–7) VΛ’s 393 should not be changed to with Cobet (VL², 583–4). ΣΣ^V Rh. 479 and 481 (II 338.5, 12 Schwartz = 102, 103 Merro) obviously substituted the regular word. On the synizesis of ε and α in see 85–6n. (Αἰνέας).

A similar echo may be found in Med. 4–6 μηδ᾽ ἐρετμῶσαι χέρας / / , where Wakefield’s (codd. et Σ^B) is supported by the fact that the Argonauts are called in Apollonius of Rhodes (e.g. 1.70, 2.301, 3.21, 4.106) and Theoc. 13.17 (Porson on Med. 5). This is likely to go back to the epic tradition.

480. ‘Yes, and we find no fault with them, but we are pressing them well enough.’

κοὐ μεμϕόμεσθά γ᾽᾽: sc. αὐτοῖς (LSJ s.v. 3 ‘to be dissatisfied with, find fault with’).³⁹⁴ Cf. Σ^V Rh. 480 (II 338.6, 8–9 Schwartz = 102–3 Merro) καὶ οὐκ αὐτούς.

For καὶ … γε in affirmative answers cf. A. Suppl. 296, 313, PV 93 1, OT 771–2, Ar. Nub. 1068. ‘The effect of … is to stress the addition made by καί’ (GP 157).

ἐλαύνομεν: another Homerism. The phrase goes back to Il. 13.315 οἵ μιν ἄδην ἐλόωσι καὶ ἐσσύμενον (~ 19.423 λήξω, Τρῶας ἄδην ἐλάσαι πολέμοιο), as is confirmed by the echo of Il. 13.307–9 in Rh. 485–7 (n.). For that reason (and because of Hector’s success on the previous day) we should take ἐλαύνω transitively and of the Greeks being harried ‘to their fill’ (cf. Σ^V Rh. 480 [II 338.6–8 Schwartz = 102–3 Merro] αὐτούς, ὁμόσε ἐλαύνομεν αὐτοῖς καὶ πολεμοῦμεν). Rhesus’ question in 481 (n.) then follows naturally: ‘So having killed these, shall we not have completed our work?’

The second explanation in Σ^V Rh. 480 (II 338.8–11 Schwartz = 103 Merro), which most modern critics adopt (with variations), makes the verb intransitive (i.e. ‘… we are driven to our fill of them’). But apart from contradicting Hector’s attitude (above), this is based on a misconception of Od. 5.290 ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μέν μίν ϕημι ἄδην ἐλάαν κακότητος –already found, it seems, in Tyrt. fr. 11.10 IEG ἀμϕοτέρων ἠλάσατε and Sol. fr. 4c.2 IEG . Hartung’s ἐλαύνομαι (17 [1852], 138–9) merely tries to exonerate our poet (and his scholiast) from that ‘mistake’.

The lack of a genitive here may be due to an interpretation of Il. 13.315 that construed with ἐσσύμενον (‘… although he is rushing for war’) instead of ἄδην. The latter is proved correct by Od. 5.290 and e.g. Il. 5.388 … (~ Hes. Th. 714),³⁹⁵ but the question was raised by Nicanor (Σ^A Il. 13.315 [III 459.81–4 Erbse]), and Hsch. α 1096 Latte excerpted ἄδην alone.

ἅδην is usually explained as a fossilised accusative of , ‘satiety’ (DELG, LfgrE s.v. E); hence ‘to satiety, to one’s fill’. It is cognate with Latin satis, satur (< √*seh₂-) and so should have an aspirate in Attic. Tragic MSS tend to give ἄδην (cf. Ag. 828, Ion 975, Hel. 620), probably under the influence of epic, where psilosis may apply.³⁹⁶

481. οὔκουν: 161–2a n. An animated question seems more appropriate than a statement with οὐκοῦν (Ω).

εἰργάσμεθα: Editors are divided between (Λ) and πᾶν (Δ), but the former is supported by 605 (605–6n.) τοῦτον κατακτὰς ἔχεις and maybe the neuter plurals in 482 (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 78). See also Σ^V Rh. 481 (II 338.13 Schwartz = 103 Merro) διαπεπραξόμεθα (Schwartz: V: Wilamowitz) and Xen. An. 1.8.12 κἂν τοῦτ᾽ … νικῶμεν, πεποίηται.

In references to the future the perfect tense vividly anticipates a verbal action as already completed (KG I 150, SD 287). So especially in conditional periods: cf. Phil. 75–6 ὥστ᾽ αἰσθήσεται, / ὄλωλα, E. El. 686–7 (685–9 del. Nauck), Or. 940–1, Xen. An. 1.8.12 (above). L here impossibly offers ἄν.

482. ‘Now do not set your sight on what is far away, neglecting what is close at hand.’

Hector’s warning, like that of the chorus in 76 (467–526n.), is fully rooted in the situation, with τἀγγύθεν referring to the Trojan War and τὰ to Rhesus’ plans for a Greek campaign. Yet the expression is proverbial, and it was included in the gnomologia gV, gB and gE. One may compare Pi. Pyth. 3.21–3 δὲ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι ματαιότατον, / ὅστις αἰσχύνων παπταίνει τὰ πόρσω, / ἐλπίσιν.

νυν: Enclitic νυν (gV, coni. Scaliger) is normal in injunctions (LSJ s.v. νῦν II 3, SD 570–1, Fraenkel on Ag. 937). But νῦν (ΩgBgE) can hardly count as an error, given that the ancients accentuated the word according to vowel length and that in the ‘weakened’ sense especially the may be either long or short (indeterminable here by position). It is rather a question of interpreting the MSS evidence (cf. P. J. Finglass, Mnemosyne IV 60 [2007], 269–73).

τὰ πόρσω τἀγγύθεν: The same juxtaposition (though of place, not time) was restored by Valckenaer (Diatribe, 32–3 with n. 4) at Phaeth. 6–7 Diggle = E. fr. 772 δ᾽ ἄνακτος γῆς / πόρσω, τἀγγύθεν δ᾽ . Cf. also S. fr. 858.3 δὲ λεύσσων, ἐγγύθεν δὲ τυϕλός and Ion 585–6 εἶδος / ἐγγύθεν θ᾽ ὁρωμένων.

Dindorf (III.2 [1840], 608) corrected the transmitted here, which is the form used in Attic comedy and prose. Tragic and lyric was regularly corrupted into or (Diggle on Phaeth. 7, Finglass on S. El. 213).

483. Rhesus’ accusation is an insult to the man who in 102–4 (n.) regarded it as shameful not to act and whose extraordinary, if sometimes misdirected, valour was praised by Aeneas in 105 (n.). But Hector remains true to his current placatory self.

παθεῖν, δρᾶσαι: a frequent antithesis in this context. Cf. e.g. Cho. 314 ‘δράσαντι παθεῖν’, τάδε ϕωνεῖ, OC 271 ἀντέδρων, 953, S. frr. 223b, 962, Andr. 438; also Paley on 483.

484. πολλῆς … τυραννίδος: The only parallel for in the territorial sense seems to be Liv. 38.14.12 Quinque et viginti talenta tyrannidem tuam exhaurient? (LSJ s.v. τυραννίς II 3, OLD s.v. 1 b). But is so used at e.g. Xen. Cyr. 8.8.1,397 and D. S. 20.25.2.

According to Il. 24.544–5 (cf. Richardson on 543–6, BK on 544–5), the kingdom of Troy extended to Lesbos (in the south), Phrygia (in the east) and the Hellespont (in the north). On Hector as the regent see 388–9n.

γάρ: assentient: ‘Yes, for …’ (GP 73–4). Likewise 579 and, dissentient, 683 (n.).

ἄρχω appears to play on in the preceding line (Porter on 483–4).

485–7. ‘But you may rest your shield and position your army either on the left or on the right wing or in the middle of the allied forces.’

Among the Achaeans, Meriones asks Idomeneus where he intends to fight at Il. 13.307–9 Δευκαλίδη, ταρ καταδῦναι ; / στρατοῦ, ἦ᾽ ἀνὰ μέσσους, / ; They choose the left side as the weaker (Il. 13.309–10, 326–7), while in Rhesus the question is never decided (cf. Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 31, Liapis on 485–7). Yet it soon becomes irrelevant anyway, and it is doubtful whether anyone would have noticed the omission by the end of the scene.

ἀλλ᾽ here marks ‘a break-off in the thought’ and the introduction of another thought (GP 8, Parker on Alc. 1034).

εἴτε λαιὸν εἴτε δεξιὸν κέρας: ‘This probably depends on the sense of the passage, and so may be resolved into a cognate accusative’, as in Hcld. 671 … καὶ δὴ λαιὸν ἕστηκεν κέρας and E. Suppl. 657–8 καὶ τοὺς τεταγμένους / κέρας (Paley on 485). Less likely, in all three passages, the noun phrase could be understood predicatively. At any rate there is a slight zeugma here.

ἐν μέσοισι συμμάχοις: For a group of persons cf. Ba. 221 θιάσοις ἐν μέσοισιν and 259 ἐν βάκχαισι … μέσαις.

πέλτην ἐρεῖσαι: Despite the lack of a complement, the sense appears to be that Rhesus is ‘to bring [his shield] in support of the others’ (Paley on 485) in close formation: Il. 13.131 = 16.215 ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε and especially Tyrt. fr. 11.31 IEG καὶ πὰρ θεὶς καὶ ἐρείσας (LSJ s.v. ἐρείδω I 2). Morstadt (Beitrag, 23–4 n. 1), by contrast, compares Il. 22.97 ἀσπίδ᾽ ἐρείσας – i.e. Hector leaning his shield against a wall tower before his duel with Achilles. Similarly the hoplite would often have to support the weight of his shield (whose place the pelte here takes) by resting its upper rim on his left shoulder (Hanson, Western Way of War, 65–70; cf. Liapis on 485–7).

Either way the phrase forms a hysteron proteron with καταστῆσαι στρατόν. Σ^V Rh. 485 (II 339.1–2 Schwartz = 103 Merro) is wrong to interpret πέλτην as ‘ranks of peltasts’ here. But as at 410 (408–10a n.), where the scholium is correct, several modern scholars have followed it.

καταστῆσαι στρατόν: a bare technical term after the Homerism: Cf. e.g. Xen. An. 1.10.10 καὶ βασιλεὺς … ϕάλαγγα (LSJ s.v. A II 1).

488. μόνος μάχεσθαι πολεμίοις … θέλω: 467–526n. A variation on 451 (n.), the demand runs counter to the epic motif that a hero cannot do it all by himself: Il. 12.409–12 (Sarpedon speaking) Λύκιοι, τί θούριδος ; / δέ μοί καὶ περ ἐόντι / ῥηξαμένῳ θέσθαι παρὰ κέλευθον. / (with Hainsworth), 20.354–9 (with Edwards) and, within a rebuke, 16.620–2.

489–90. The expression, which effectively reverses 391b–2 (n.) δ᾽ ἐγώ / τείχη καὶ σκάϕη, is impossibly condescending. See Paley on 489 and 467–526n.

συνεμπρῆσαι νεῶν / πρύμνας: In classical literature συνεμπίμπρημι is attested only here, and nowhere else in this verb, it seems, does συν- refer to a joint agent (as opposed to recipient of the action). It was probably coined for the occasion – after Iliadic for burning the ships.

The whole phrase is echoed in 768–9 κἀϕεδρεύοντας / πρύμναισι. By coincidence perhaps (…) πρύμν- (or vice versa) is all but confined to Euripides: Hec. 539–40, Tro. 1047, Ion 1243, IA 1319–20.

πονήσας τὸν πάρος πολὺν χρόνον resumes 444–6.

491. Ἀχιλλέως καὶ στρατοῦ: Only the ‘best of the Achaeans’ will be good enough for Rhesus (cf. 467–526n.). Given his regular pairing with Achilles (314–16, 461–3nn.) and ἐκείνῳ (i.e. Achilles) in 492, the phrase cannot be taken as a hendiadys (‘Achilles’ army’).

κατὰ στόμα: 408–10a n.

492. θοῦρον … δόρυ: ‘your furious spear’. The stock epithet of Ares was used of Achilles in 186 (n.) τὸν … θούριον γόνον. In its epic form it here well designates (the weapon of) his would-be opponent, who was all but identified with the war-god in 385–7 (n.).

Of military gear cf. Eum. 627–8 τι θουρίοις / τόξοις ὥστ᾽ Ἀμαζόνος, Il. 11.32 (with Hainsworth), 20.162 and, by analogy, Il. 15.308 (of Apollo) ἔχε δ᾽ αἰγίδα θοῦριν.

ἀντᾶραι: Reiske (Animadversiones, 89). The verb is appropriate for initiating hostilities: e.g. Thuc. 1.53.2 and, in the first century AD (?), ‘Anon.’ Ep. 40.1–2 FGE μὲν (LSJ s.v. I). The MSS’ (which is otherwise attested only in late Greek) ought to mean ‘arrange (light-armed men and hoplites) alternately’ or ‘insert (men) alternately’ (LSJ s.v. I 2). Its presumed use for ‘put in the way of (one’s opponent)’ cannot be justified with for in Ai. 104 (cf. Paley, Porter, Feickert on 492), which is easily derived from ἐνίσταμαι, ‘stand in the way, resist, block’ (LSJ s.v. B IV 1). Note also 451 (n.).

493. καὶ μὴν … γ᾽: 184n.

494–5. ‘He has sailed and is here. But in his wrath against the generals he does not raise his spear to help them.’

With especially, the allusion to the central theme of the Iliad, Achilles’ wrath, is unmistakable. His withdrawal from battle is recommended by Thetis at Il. 1.421–2 and put into practice at Il. 1.488–92. Hector cannot know (but the audience may remember) that Agamemnon’s attempt at reconciliation failed in that same night (cf. Feickert on 494).

μηνίων will at least have evoked Il. 1.1. In the Iliad μῆνις, and even more its derivatives, characterise ‘the mutual anger between Achilles and Agamemnon’ (G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans …, Baltimore –London ¹1979, ²1999, 73; cf. LfgrE s.vv. B 188.23–40, B 189.41–50 on the distribution and possible sacral connotations of the words). The strong ‘semantic Homerism’ (FJW on A. Suppl. 975) is reinforced by a metrical one in that the present stem here retains its primary short ι (Schwyzer 727, BK on Il. 2.769). In tragedy this is paralleled only in the lyric Hipp. 1145–6 (cf. Sim. fr. 572.1 PMG = 290 Poltera).³⁹⁸ For a collection of epic verb forms in Rhesus see 523–5a n. (δέχθαι).

οὐ συναίρεται δόρυ: 451, 492nn.

496. ‘Well then, who else after him is of high repute in the army?’

τίς δή: so Λ ( V: O), with ‘connective’ marking ‘the progression from one idea to a second of which the consideration naturally follows’ (GP 239). O’s text need not represent original τί<ς> δαί (Liapis, ‘Notes’, 78–9), and while ‘colloquial’ δαί (GP 262–4) will often be lectio difficilior in tragedy (Stevens, CEE 45–6, West, Studies, 258, 314), its tone does not seem appropriate here (contrast the lively ‘transitional’ Ion 275 / ). As in other passages where is an inferior or impossible reading (Hec. 1256, E. El. 244, 978, 1303, IA 1447 and perhaps E. El. 1116, IA 1443), the extreme frequency of the juncture in Aristophanes (eleven times in the ‘triad’ alone) may have aided confusion.

εὐδοξεῖ: Unlike εὔδοξος and (760n.), the verb is first attested here and in fourth-century prose (e.g. Xen. HG 1.1.31, Mem. 3.6.16, Dem. 8.20, 20.142, Aeschin. 2.66, 118, 172). Also probably Men. Asp. 4 (with Gomme–Sandbach on εὐδο[ξο]ῦντα rather than Austin’s εὐδο[κο]ῦντα).

Hec. 294–5 opposes (again our earliest example of the verb) to οἱ δοκοῦντες, ‘men of repute’ (LSJ s.v. II 5 with Suppl. [1996]).

497–8a. The relative ranking of Ajax and Achilles was traditional: Il. 2.768–9 , 7.226–32, 13.321–5. For further references see West, Making of the Iliad, 121; also Ai. 1338–41, Rh. 461–3 (n.). Diomedes is famed for his divinely supported aristeia in Iliad 5, although his mention here seems primarily intended as a preparation for Odysseus and their joint venture which will result in Rhesus’ death (498b–509, 501–2, 503–7a nn.).

ἡσσᾶσθαι: Dindorf (III.2 [1849], 608) for (Ω). Tragedy and Attic literary prose up to (and including) Thucydides generally wrote σσ instead of native ττ, no doubt under Ionic influence. Our verb in particular constitutes a false Ionism (as opposed to genuine ἑσσοῦσθαι). See Schwyzer 316, 317, J. Wackernagel, Hellenistica, Göttingen 1907, 14–15 = KS II, 1045–6 and W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca … , Cambridge ³1987, 13.

498b–509. Hector’s denunciation of Odysseus combines a typical piece of stage-abuse (498b–500n.) with the recounting of two episodes that technically belong to the final stages of the Trojan War: the theft of the Palladion (501–2n.) and Odysseus’ spying expedition to Troy in a beggar’s disguise (503–7a n.). Both featured in the Little Iliad and as single exploits of a furtive kind not only exemplify Odysseus’ post-Iliadic character, but also foreshadow the coming attack, which will involve both homicide and theft (cf. 503–7a n.).

The paradigmatic function of the stories is underlined by the fact that Hector tells them in reverse order to the Little Iliad. The more ‘recent’ Palladion theft also took place at night and (as the audience will remember) with the help of Diomedes, who is here suppressed. In this context it seems all the more likely that the capture of Helenus is alluded to in 507b–9a (n.).

With respect to the first account, the ‘mythical anachronism’ was already criticised by Rh. 502 (II 339.10–11 Schwartz = 104 Merro). Cf. Introduction, 13.

498b–500. ‘Then there is a most wily piece of work, Odysseus, sufficiently bold in spirit and a man who has inflicted the greatest number of insults on this land.’

Odysseus is introduced with strong language, part of which belonged to the common stock (below). Tragedy did not often present him in a favourable light (W. B. Stanford, The Ulysses Theme …, Oxford ²1968, 102–17, Willink on Or. 1403).

αἱμυλώτατον / κρότημ᾽ appears to be compounded from Ai. 388–9 and S. fr. 913 (Fraenkel, Rev. 232). Elsewhere in tragedy refers to Odysseus at Rh. 709 (n.), E. fr. 715.1 and maybe fr. tr. adesp. 564d (with Kannicht–Snell, where for the idea that Odysseus is addressed add Th. K. Stephanopoulos, ZPE 73 [1988], 235), but never in the superlative and/or with an abusive noun in -μα. In the latter category is unique to our passages. The word denotes the result of hammering (< κροτέω), i.e. an intricately worked bronze tool or artefact and so figuratively a cunning man; cf. Rh. 499 (II 339.8 Schwartz = 104 Merro) οἷον συγκρότημα, μηχάνημα, Theoc. 15.48–50c (310.1–3 Wendel): … It has to be distinguished from (‘clapper’), which stresses ‘the ‘sound’ aspect of (A. A. Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles …, London 1968, 115 n. 13) and is applied to Odysseus at Cyc. 104 (‘rattle, chatterbox’).

With as an image from craft compare also Ai. 379–80 and Phil. 927–8 (Philoctetes to Neoptolemus) … (Finglass on Ai. 379–80).³⁹⁹ For neuters in -μα used to characterise (and often denounce) persons in drama see Long (above), 114–20, Collard, ‘Supplement’, 370–1 and Barrett, Collected Papers, 351–64.

λῆμά τ᾽᾽ … θρασύς: Cf. Sept. 447–8 ἀνὴρ … / … (Polyphontes). Odysseus is θρασύς also in 707.

ἀρκούντως: largely a prose word. In other tragedy (and all poetry) only Cho. 892 (with Garvie), Hec. 318 … and S. El. 354 ἐπαρκούντως. It here provides ‘a sardonic touch’ (Liapis on 498–500), i.e ‘more than sufficiently’.

καὶ πλεῖστα χώραν τήνδ᾽ ἀνὴρ καθυβρίσας: As transmitted, the clause continues in apposition to Ὀδυσσεύς. But Hermann’s εἷς for καὶ (Opuscula III, 304–5) is attractive in view of the frequent collocation of and a superlative (945b–7n.), especially as we have it at Pers. 326–8 … / … πόνον / ἐχθροῖς παρασχών. The corruption would have been easy after the then single (GP 497–8) connecting predicative αἱμυλώτατον and . A possible objection is that εἷς ἀνήρ usually stands together.

Another common error, the intrusion of a form of ὅδε with a locality (FJW on A. Suppl. 79), is presupposed by Boissonade’s earlier εἷς (IV [1826], 289), which leaves the syntax as in the MSS text. But Hermann (above) rightly observed that the demonstrative is desired here.

501–2. In the Little Iliad (Arg. p. 122 (4) GEF + Il. Parv. fr. 11 GEF) Odysseus and Diomedes entered Troy at night to steal the Palladion, a statuette of Athena standing upright in arms, which guaranteed the safety of the city (cf. L. Ziehen, RE XVIII.3 s.v. Palladion, coll. 171–4, E. Penkova, LIMC II.1 ‘Athena’ A 7, C. A. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses … , New York 1992, 4, 7, 21). According to Verg. Aen. 2.166 (~ 9.151), this entailed their killing the guards on the acropolis to gain access to the goddess’ shrine.

Our poet ascribes the venture to Odysseus alone in order to highlight his depravity in the Trojans’ eyes and to prepare for the leading role he will play in the invasion of their camp. By the same token the chorus identify him, and not Diomedes, as the prime suspect in this case (692–727n.). The Palladion theft is recalled at 709 (n.)

With some changes the episode was dramatised in Sophocles’ Lakainai (S. frr. 367–9a). See Pearson, The Fragments of Sophocles II, 34–6, Rh. 503–7a n. and, for a reconstruction of the epic version, West, Epic Cycle, 199–203.

εἰς Ἀθάνας σηκόν: Properly (‘enclosure’) denotes a sacred precinct ‘without any roofed building’ (Jebb on Phil. 1327 ff.), often a hero’s burial place or cultic site. But the tragedians also used it more losely for ‘shrine’: cf. Ion 300 (i.e. his cave), Phoen. [1751–2], fr. tr. adesp. 424 ἁγνὸν εἰς .

Doric Ἀθάνα (V) is the regular trisyllabic form (tetrasyllabic Ἀθηναία) in tragic dialogue as in lyric verse (Björck, Alpha Impurum, 132–5, 201–2, 242–3, Barrett on Hipp. 1120–5 [p. 374]). Later Attic (fere ) is a frequent ‘simplifying’ mistake (Sept. 487, Phil. 134, Hcld. 350, 934, Tro. 979, Ion 1529, E. fr. 369.4).

ἔννυχος μολών: 226b–8n. The adjective appears also in 55 ἔννυχος and 788 (787–8n.) ἔννυχος … ϕόβος.

ναῦς ἔπ᾽ Ἀργείων ϕέρει: 149–50n.

503–7a. Unlike the other episodes (501–2, 507b–9a nn.), the so-called ‘Ptôcheia’ is repeated in more elaborate form (and with many verbal echoes) by the chorus to support their idea that it was Odysseus who had slipped by their lines: 710–21 (n.). Apart from the Little Iliad (cf. Arg. p. 122 (4) GEF + Il. Parv. frr. 8–10 GEF), it was told by Helen at Od. 4.242–64. Our poet deviates from both sources in that he does not have Odysseus disfigure himself (Od. 4.244) or receive disfiguring blows from Thoas (Il. Parv. fr. 8 GEF), perhaps because it did not suit his notion of ‘the self-serving master of wiles’ (Liapis on 498–509 [p. 206]).⁴⁰⁰ He also omitted as irrelevant the encounter with Helen, but not the killing of Trojan guards (Od. 4.257–8, Il. Parv. Arg. p. 122 (4) GEF). Whether or not the latter was ‘suggested by the Doloneia if that already existed’ (West, Epic Cycle, 199), in the reverse order of events here it shows that Odysseus is capable of combining reconnaissance with a violent assault on the enemy (cf. 498b–509, 501–2nn.).

A reference to Euripides’ idiosyncratic version at Hec. 239–50 is found in 505 (503–5n.) and possibly 711 (710–11n.). Of other dramatic treatments we cannot be sure. Very little is left of Ion’s Phrouroi (TrGF 19 FF 43a–49a), and the same is true of S. Lakainai (501–2n.), which appears to have conflated the ‘Ptôcheia’ and the Palladion theft. According to Aristotle (or his interpolator) in Poet. 1459b6, there also existed a tragedy Ptôcheia (fr. tr. adesp. 8k), unless this was identical with Lakainai or Phrouroi (Radt, TrGF IV, 328–9).

503–5. ‘And he had already entered our walls as a vagabond, dressed in beggar’s clothes, and uttered many curses against the Argives – when he had been sent as a spy on Ilion.’

ἤδη: indicating an action previous to the last one spoken about (KG II 120–1; cf. LSJ s.v. I 1).

ἀγύρτης: Cf. 715 (715–16n.) … . Properly (< ἀγείρω) denotes a priest or prophet who collects gifts for his deity. It is derogatory, as the once acceptable custom had turned into fraudulence and mere beggary under an honourable pretext: e.g. Ag. 1273–4 (Cassandra) (with Fraenkel on 1273), OT 388–9, Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1.4, Pl. Rep. 364b5–7 (cf. W. Burkert, RhM N.F. 105 [1962], 36–55, particularly 50–5, on a similar development in γόης, and ϕέναξ). Our passages are the first and by far the earliest where the word does not bear any ‘sacral’ connotations (see, however, Od. 19.284 , ‘to collect guest-gifts’, also of Odysseus). An excellent late parallel is Hld. 2.19.1 ἐλευσόμεθα δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως εἰς 401

πτωχικὴν ἔχων στολήν receives a lyric reworking at 712–13a (n.) … Like other adjectives in -ικός (205n.), was more at home in comedy and prose than in tragedy, although it may have stood in E. fr. 727a.30 (Telephus) Kannicht: πτω[χικῶς Snell). Otherwise note especially Lycurg. 86 – of the mythical Athenian king Kodros, who similarly deceived the enemy in a beggar’s disguise.

πολλὰ δ᾽ Ἀργείοις κακά / ἠρᾶτο: The repetition at 717–19 (n.) confirms that the imprecations were intended to make Odysseus look like a Greek defector, even without the (self-inflicted) disfigurement, which our poet suppressed (503–7a n.). Despite Fantuzzi (MD 36 [1996], 180–2), it is probable that this detail also came from the ‘Ptôcheia’ rather than the story of Sinon in the Little Iliad or Iliou Persis. At Plut. Sol. 30.1 Solon calls Peisistratos (who had used the same ruse to simulate an enemy attack) a bad ‘Homeric’ Odysseus, and other sources support this association (cf. West, Epic Cycle, 197 with n. 42). Yet it may be that Odysseus was an early doublet of Sinon here.

For , ‘imprecate, curse’, cf. e.g. Sept. 632–3 … πόλῃ / οἵας ἀρᾶται καὶ κατεύχεται τύχας, PV 912, OC 951–2, Alc. 714. Λ here has Ἀργείους, by assimilation to πύργους or false analogy with verbs of saying which take a double accusative.

κατάσκοπος echoes Hec. 239 (Hecuba to Odysseus) (503–7a n.). On κατάσκοπος see 125–6a n.

506–7a. ϕρουροὺς καὶ παραστάτας πυλῶν: Unless this is a hendiadys (‘the guards standing by the gates’), we must assume a distinction between other sentries (within the city walls) and the gatekeepers (Liapis on 506–7, who compares the clearer Tro. 956 πύργων πυλωροὶ κἀπὸ τειχέων σκοποί).

In the sense ‘standing by, defender of (something)’ παραστάτης does not occur anywhere else (LSJ s.v. I). Similarly has only two parallels in surviving drama (Ion 22, Hel. 1673), although it may have been more frequent in Ion’s Phrouroi (503–7a n.). Whatever restrictions the playwrights appear to have felt about ϕρουρός, they did not extend to its verb and other words from that stem.

ἐξῆλθεν balances ἐσῆλθε in 504.

507b–9a. Odysseus could always be expected to be lurking in ambush (cf. his false account to Eumaeus at Od. 14.468–506). If we are to think of a specific plot, it can only be the capture of Helenus, which in the Little Iliad preceded both the ‘Ptôcheia’ and the Palladion theft and was probably a prerequisite for the latter: Arg. p. 120 (2) GEF ταῦτα and, in greater detail, Phil. 604–7(9) … μάντις ἦν τις εὐγενής, / … / Ἕλενος, ὃν οὗτος νυκτὸς ἐξελθὼν μόνος / … / δόλοις Ὀδυσσεὺς εἷλε (Housman: K: δόλιος rell.).⁴⁰² The original location of the attack is unclear. But if it was not Mt. Ida or Arisbe (as in later sources), the Thymbraean altar, which is also where Achilles slew Troilus (224–5n.), seems a plausible choice (West, Epic Cycle, 180 with nn. 17, 18).

The acts of the Doloneia are mentioned alongside Helenus and the theft of the Palladion at Ov. Met. 13.98–100 (Ajax speaking) conferat his Ithacus Rhesum imbellemque Dolona / Priamidenque Helenum rapta cum Pallade captum; / luce nihil gestum, nihil est Diomede remoto. Cf. 498b–509n.

ἐν λόχοις … θάσσων: similarly 512 ἵζειν … κλωπικὰς ἕδρας. The versatile λόχος (17–18, 26nn.) here means ‘ambush’ in the sense ‘place for lying in wait’ (LSJ s.v. I 1, LfgrE s.v. B 1a). A possible model is Il. 13.284–5 (sc. ὁ ἀγαθὸς), πρῶτον ἐσίζηται λόχον ἀνδρῶν. Similarly Hes. Th. 174 εἷσε δέ μιν κρύψασα λόχῳ (i.e. Earth her son Cronus).

θάσσω is a favourite verb of Euripides (21 secure instances). Aristophanes exploited this in Thesm. 889–90 (‘Euripides’ speaking) τί δαὶ σὺ θάσσεις τάσδε τυμβήρεις ἕδρας / ϕάρει καλυπτός, ὦ ξένη;⁴⁰³ Otherwise only OT 161 and Ar. Vesp. 1482 (again paratragic).

Θυμβραῖον ἀμϕὶ βωμὸν ἄστεως πέλας: On Thymbra and the sanctuary of Thymbraean Apollo see 224–5n. The complaint of Dionysodorus (in Errors in the Tragedians) that the site lay fifty stades away from Troy and thus could not be described as being ‘near the city’ (Σ^V Rh. 508 [II 339.13–16 Schwartz = 104 Merro]) is learned pedantry getting the better of literary perception (and common sense). In order to appear as a constant threat, Odysseus needed to be placed in the vicinity of Troy, whether or not our poet had a clear topography in mind and could have expected his audience to do so. Probably neither was the case.

Prompted by the ancient criticism, the V-scholiast, or one of his sources, conjectured ἢ ἄστεος (with the epic genitive that is falsely in Δ).

509b. κακῷ … μερμέρῳ: ‘a baneful evil’. This is our only example of epic μέρμερος in drama and perhaps the earliest one of its application to a person rather than, in the neuter plural, to actions in war (or the doings of women): Il. 8.453 πολέμοιό τε μέρμερα ἔργα, 10.48 τοσσάδε μέρμερ᾽ … μητίσασθαι, 289, 524 θηέοντο δὲ μέρμερα ἔργα (the massacre in the Thracian camp), 11.502, 21.217, Hes. Th. 603 μέρμερα ἔργα γυναικῶν (LfgrE s.v. B). The precise meaning and etymology of the word are uncertain, but it may be related to μέριμνα, i.e. ‘causing anxiety’ and hence ‘grievous, baneful’ (GEW, DELG s.v. μέρμερος; cf. Hsch. μ 876 Latte, Σ^A Il. 10.48 [III 12.60–1 Erbse]).

No doubt the threefold occurrence of μέρμερα in Iliad 10 (above) influenced our poet’s choice. If there was such a need, its un-epic use of a person here may have been mitigated by the fact that grammatically it refers to a substantivised neuter adjective.⁴⁰⁴ Later see especially Lyc. 949 τεύξει … μερμέραν βλάβην (i.e. the Trojan Horse).

510–17. In his reply Rhesus expresses the usual heroic contempt for covert actions (510–11n.) before fastening on the Palladion theft and threatening Odysseus with the most gruesome death for the sacrilege (512–17n.). There is obvious dramatic irony, combined perhaps with an anticipatory moral judgement (Morwood on 510), in that Rhesus himself will soon fall victim to the man he denounces.

510–11. While epic saw some merit in ambushes and the men who executed them (Il. 13.276–91, Od. 14.468–506), traditional warrior ethics demanded meeting the enemy ‘face to face’, κατὰ στόμα (408–10a n.). Regarding Odysseus, note especially Antisth. Ai. 5 νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃ διαϕέρει πλέον ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦδε. ὃ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι ἂν δράσειε and, outside war, Phil. 88–91 (Neoptolemus) γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐκ τέχνης πράσσειν κακῆς, / … / ἀλλ᾽ εἴμ᾽ ἑτοῖμος πρὸς βίαν τὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἄγειν / καὶ μὴ δόλοισιν.

Cf. Hel. 852 εὔψυχον ἄνδρα. Both εὔψυχος and εὐψυχία are first found in Aeschylus (Pers. 326, 394). Later they became widespread in Attic prose, while of the tragedians only Euripides shows numerous cases of the noun and one more of the adjective (Andr. 764). In HF 157-64 is twice denied to the archer who strikes from afar (cf. 32–3, 312–13nn.).

512–17. Despite the noble denunciation of secrecy and the fact that the Greeks too had severe punishments for sacrilegious theft (below), Rhesus’ plans would hardly have endeared him to the audience (cf. 467–526n.). Impalement of the living or (parts of) the dead body was considered the utmost cruelty in Greece, not least presumably because of the ‘prolonged public exposure of the corpse’ (Parker, Miasma, 47 with n. 53). It was, however, practised by Near Eastern peoples like the Persians and Medes (e.g. Hdt. 1.128.2, 3.159.1, 4.43.6, 7.238.1, 9.78.3, Thuc. 1.110.3) and so became a characteristic of ‘barbarian’ behaviour (cf. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 158–9, 205). Hence Apollo telling the Erinyes they belong where impalement, among other atrocities, is committed (Eum. 186–90) and the remark of Orestes in E. El. 896–8 that his sister may cast out Aegisthus’ body or put it on a stake ‘as a spoil for the birds’.

In the context of temple robbery, Thoas in IT 1429–30 envisages impalement for Orestes and his party as an alternative to throwing them over a cliff, which in some Greek states was the penalty for this crime (Parker, Miasma, 45 with n. 47, 46–7, 170 with n. 150).⁴⁰⁵ The theft of the Palladion is declared sacrilege at Antisth. Ai. 2–3 and 6.

512–15. ‘This man who you say sits in thievish ambushes and plots –I will capture him alive, impale him along the spine and set him up outside the city gates to be a feasting-place for the winged vultures.’

512–13a. ἵζειν … κλωπικὰς ἕδρας: Cf. 507–9 and, for κλωπικός, 205 (n.). The adjective here evokes the Palladion theft, which seems to be foremost in Rhesus’ mind.

μηχανᾶσθαι: absolute, as in Od. 4.822–3 δυσμενέες γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μηχανόωνται / κτεῖναι, πρὶν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἱκέσθαι (LSJ s.v. μηχανάομαι A I 2).

513b–15. πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοισιν: i.e. for maximum visibility. The phrase comes from Sept. 58 πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοισι τάγευσαι τάχος, which itself is a repetition of Sept. 33–4 … πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοις / μίμνοντες. On ‘scattered’ references to the prologue of Seven against Thebes see Introduction, 33–4.

ἀμπείρας ῥάχιν: Cf. Eum. 189–90 καὶ μύζουσιν πολύν / ὑπὸ ῥάχιν παγέντες – from the same notable passage (Eum. 186–90) that seems to have influenced Rh. 817 (817–18a n.). ‘Execution by impalement’ involved ‘driving a sharp stake through the body from near the base of the spine’ (Sommerstein on Eum. 186–90 [p. 115]). Here ῥάχιν specifies τοῦτον (512) according to the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (266n.).

ἀναπείρω, properly ‘fix (meat) on a spit’ (LSJ s.v. I), is also used for impalement (of the head) at Hdt. 4.103.3 (describing the Taurians’ treatment of their dead enemies) ἀποταμὼν ἕκαστος κεϕαλὴν ἀποϕέρεται ἐς τὰ οἰκία, ἐπὶ ξύλου μεγάλου ἀναπείρας ἱστᾷ … The participle here with ‘epic-poetic’ apocope (cf. Il. 2.426 σπλάγχνα … ἀμπείραντες) is correctly preserved in Δ and Hsch. α 3775 Latte. Corruption into ἐμπ- (fere Λ) was helped by the fact that ἐμπείρω occurs in the same sense in later Greek (LSJ s.v. I 2). Likewise ‘Megarian’ ἀμπεπαρμένον at Ar. Ach. 796 (ἀμπ- Elmsley: ἐμπ- codd.).

πετεινοῖς γυψὶ θοινατήριον: Among the birds (and other beasts) that would have preyed on unburied corpses vultures are singled out at Il. 4.237, 11.161–2, 16.836, 18.271, 22.42–3 and Tro. 599–600. The earliest Greek example of this literary topos (West, EFH 215–16, IEPM 476 with n. 87, 491–2) is Il. 1.4–5 αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν / οἰωνοῖσί πᾶσι. With a variant δαῖτα for πᾶσι, favoured also by Zenodotus (apud Ath. 1.12e-f), this inspired A. Suppl. 800–1 κἀπιχωρίοις / ὄρνισι δεῖπνον (cf. FJW on 800–1, M. L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, Munich – Leipzig 2001, 173 with n. 1) and, directly or indirectly, a series of similar passages in tragedy (and nomos): Ant. 29–30 (~ Phoen. [1634]), Hec. 1077, Ion 504–6 πτανοῖς … / θοίναν θηρσί τε ϕοινίαν / δαῖτα (cf. 903–5, 1494–6), Tim. Pers. fr. 791.137–8 PMG = Hordern ἔνθα κείσομαι οἰκτρός, - / ἔθνεσιν ὠμοβρῶσι θοινά. Our poet stands in this tradition and perhaps had Ion (and Timotheus) in mind.

The unique θοινατήριον, literally ‘feasting-place’ (G. Björck, Eranos 55 [1957], 10), is a substantivised neuter adjective (cf. Schwyzer 467, 470), based on θοινατήρ (‘giver of a feast’), which itself is found only in Ag. 1502. For the irregular long α in tragic derivatives of θοίνη and other nouns (440–2n.) see Nauck, Euripideische Studien II, 175 and Björck, Alpha Impurum, 139–42, 223 (Hsch. θ 626 Latte writes θοινητήριον). O’s θοιναστήριον has a parallel in εὐναστηρ- for εὐνατηρ- at Tr. 918 and Or. 590.

516–17. θεῶν ἀνάκτορα: in the same metrical position Tro. 15–16 ἔρημα δ᾽ ἄλση καὶ ἀνάκτορα / ϕόνῳ καταρρεῖ … Euripides was fond of ἀνάκτορον (< ἄναξ, ἀνάκτωρ) for a god’s shrine (also Andr. 43, 117, 1111, 1157, Suppl. 88, Tro. 85, 330, IT 66, 636, Ion 55–6). Elsewhere before Rhesus only S. fr. 757.4 and Hdt. 9.65.2.

συλῶντα: ‘despoil’. Of temple robbery cf. e.g. Pers. 809–10 μολόντες Ἑλλάδ᾽ θεῶν βρέτη / ᾐδοῦντο συλᾶν οὐδὲ πιμπράναι νεώς, E. fr. 328.3 θεῶν συλᾶν βρέτη, Hdt. 6.19.3, 8.33 (LSJ s.v. 2).

τῷδε κατθανεῖν μόρῳ: Tragedy regularly has μόρος, ‘fate (of death)’, in this kind of expression. V’s πότμῳ is a curiously high-style variant, prompted perhaps by recollection of epic πότμος for ‘evil destiny’ and particularly ‘death’ (Liapis on 516–17; cf. LSJ s.v. I 1). Similarly at Pers. 444 τετθνᾶσιν αἰσχρῶς δυσκλεεστάτῳ μόρῳ some MSS read πότμῳ, which West and Sommerstein accept as lectio difficilior.406 The two words are paired in Hec. 695–6 τίνι μόρῳ θνῄσκεις, τίνι πότμῳ κεῖσαι, / πρὸς τίνος ἀνθρώπων;

518–26. On Hector’s breaking off the discussion see 467–526n. In addition to redirecting the plot towards Iliad 10 (467–526, 519–20, 523–6nn.), this short ‘coda’ motivates the exits of first Hector and Rhesus (526), then the chorus (564) to leave the stage empty for Odysseus and Diomedes.

518. καταυλίσθητι: ‘make camp, bivouac’, as at Xen. An. 7.5.15, Plut. Pyrrh. 27.2 and, in a non-military setting, Phil. 30 καθ᾽ ὕπνον μὴ καταυλισθεὶς κυρῇ. Diggle is probably right to accept Kirchhoff’s singular imperative (I [1855], 556, on 507) for the transmitted καταυλίσθητε. It readily curtails Rhesus’ exposition and suits the ensuing addresses to him alone.

καὶ γάρ: explanatory, with καί meaning ‘in fact’ (GP 108–9). So also 525–6 καὶ γάρ, εἴπερ ἐστὶ σῶς, / ἤδη πελάζει στρατοπέδοισι Τρωϊκοῖς.

εὐϕρόνη: 91–2n.

519–20. The placement of the Thracian contingent apart from the Trojans and their other allies accords with Il. 10.434 Θρήϊκες οἵδ᾽ ἀπάνευθε νεήλυδες, ἔσχατοι ἄλλων. So also Athena’s description in 613–15.

νυχεῦσαι: ‘pass the night’. The verb says nothing about sleep or wakefulness, although the latter is implied in its other three (four) occurrences: E. El. 181 δάκρυσι νυχεύω, Hyps. fr. 8/9.13–14 Bond = E. fr. 753c.19–20, Nic. fr. 74.8 Gow–Scholfield, Ant. 782–4 Ἔρως … / ὃς ἐν μαλακαῖς παρειαῖς / νεάνιδος ἐννυχεύεις.⁴⁰⁷ Similarly ἰαύω (740n.) and the prosaic νυκτερεύω, ‘spend the night in the open’ (LSJ Suppl. [1996] s.v. a).

Cf. 614 ἐκτὸς … τάξεων. Like the plural of τάξις (‘rank of soldiers’) there and in 523, 595 (595–8a n.) and 698, the semi-substantivised τεταγμένου (sc. στρατοῦ) loosely refers to an encamped army. The Thracians will not keep such good order (762–9n.).

521–2. We finally learn the Trojan watchword, which Hector did not allow the chorus to give after 12 (n.). It will be instrumental to Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ success.

ξύνθημα also appears in 572, 684 and, with reference to our lines, 762–3a (n.) ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ηὔνασ᾽ Ἑκτόρεια χείρ, / ξύνθημα λέξας. Unlike σῆμα (12, 688) and σύμβολον (573), this is the regular term for ‘watchword’ (e.g. Hdt. 9.98.3, Thuc. 7.44.4, Xen. An. 1.8.16, 6.5.25, 7.3.39, Phoen. 1140, fr. tr. adesp. 365). For other military applications of these words see LSJ s.vv. and Willink on Or. 1130.

Φοῖβος: Divine watchwords are well attested in historical times (add Xen. Cyr. 3.3.58 and 7.1.10 to the Herodotus and Anabasis passages cited above). Since they were meant to put the army under the respective god’s protection, there is great irony in that ‘Phoebus’, one of the chief supporters of Troy, will soon assist the Greeks: 573, 688 (with 675–91n.), C. W. Keyes, CPh 24 (1929), 207 ~ TAPA 59 (1928), xxviii, Rosivach 64. We also recall the chorus’ (abortive) prayer to Apollo for Dolon’s safety in 224–63 (n.).

ἤν τι καὶ δέῃ: ‘… if (indeed) you should need it’. For εἰ (τι) καί in this sense cf. PV 342–3 μάτην γὰρ … / … πονήσεις, εἴ τι καὶ πονεῖν θέλεις, and see GP 303.

μέμνησ᾽ ἀκούσας: ‘remember it, now that you have heard it …’, i.e. with as an ordinary circumstantial instead of a supplementary participle. Likewise Ag. 830 (with Fraenkel).

523–6. As it happens, the sentries will not return to their posts. Yet this is the first time that we hear of Dolon since his departure in 223 and, from Hector’s sceptical conclusion (525–6), get the impression that all may not be well. The chorus specify their premonition in 557–61 (n.).

523–5a. ‘But you must go in front of the lines to keep watch wakefully and receive Dolon, our spy upon the ships.’

ὑμᾶς δέ: i.e. the chorus.

προταινὶ τάξεων: Parmeniscus’ claim that προταινί is Boeotian (Σ^V Rh. 523 [II 340.3–4 Schwartz = 105 Merro]) is confirmed by the occurrence of (with later Boeotian spelling) in three fourth- to third-century BC inscriptions from Thespiae (IG VII 1739.14, BCH 21.554/557.2) and Thebes (IG VII 2406.7). There, however, the word is used as a temporal adverb (= πρότερον), in accordance with its likely derivation from locative-dative πρὸ ται-νί (sc. ἀμέρᾳ), ‘before this day’ (F. Bechtel, Die Griechischen Dialekte I, Berlin 1921, 309–10, C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects, Chicago 1955, §§ 123, 136.1). It seems, therefore, that our poet has misapplied a metrically convenient dialect gloss (Schwyzer 619 n. 3, Liapis on 523–5) on the analogy of πάρος, (ἐμ)πρόσθεν and the like (cf. Ritchie 159). Unfortunately, we cannot determine the origin of Hsch. π 3966 Hansen προταίνιον· πρὸ μικροῦ (~ 3967 προταίνιον· παλαιόν, where the text is uncertain), but the Doric (?) parallel form ποταίνιος, ‘fresh, new, unexpected’ (LSJ s.v. 1, 2), occurs several times in tragedy and satyr-play (Cho. 1055, Eum. 282, PV 102, A. frr. 46b.6 (?), 78a.69, Ant. 849, S. fr. 149.5). Its adverb is attested in ‘Zon.’ π 1571.9 Tittmann · προσϕάτως.

ἐγερτί: Cf. Ant. 413–14 ἐγερτὶ κινῶν ἄνδρ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐπιρρόθοις / κακοῖσιν (i.e. the guards keeping vigil over Polynices’ body) and Heraclit. 22 B 63 DK ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐόντι ἐπανίστασθαι καὶ ϕύλακας γίνεσθαι ἐγερτὶ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν. But the primary model would have been the Greek sentries at Il. 10.182 ἀλλ᾽ ἐγρηγορτεὶ σὺν τεύχεσιν εἵατο πάντες, with that unique adverb based on the perfect stem (Schwyzer 623, Hainsworth on Il. 10.180–2).

νεῶν κατάσκοπον / … Δόλωνα: similarly 557–8 (n.) ναῶν / … κατόπτην and 591–2 ναυστάθμων / Δόλωνα. For κατάσκοπος see 125–6a n.

δέχθαι: The epic infinitive (cf. Il. 1.23, 377, h.Ven. 140) suits the context. It was restored in the Aldine (cf. Introduction, 55) from the unmetrical δέχεσθαι (VΛ: -θε O), which appears to be an old gloss. Similar verbal epicisms are μηνίων (494–5n.), ἀμπείρας (513b–15n.), μεμβλωκότων (627–9n.) and ἐξαπώσατε (810b–12a n.).

525b–6. καὶ γάρ: 518n.

πελάζει: 13–14n.

στρατοπέδοισι Τρωϊκοῖς: plural for singular also in Rh. 811 κοὔτ᾽ εἰσιόντας στρατόπεδ᾽ and Xen. An. 7.3.34.

527–64. The sentries’ ‘Dawn-Song’ is widely recognised as the finest piece of lyric in Rhesus. Following the time-scale of Il. 10.251–3 ἀλλ᾽ ἴομεν· μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται, ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς, / ἄστρα δὲ δὴ προβέβηκε, παροίχωκεν δὲ πλέων νύξ / τῶν δύω μοιράων, τριτάτη δ᾽ ἔτι μοῖρα (cf. 527–31, 535–7nn.), its strophe (527–37) and antistrophe (546–56) give a vivid, and very poetical, picture of the sights and sounds commonly held to accompany daybreak. For the tired soldiers they are of special significance as signs that their period of guard duty is drawing to a close. The connection with the plot is strengthened by the brief anapaestic dialogues on the rota of night-watches (538–45, 562–4nn.) and Dolon’s alarming failure to return (557–61n.).

This ‘dramatic’ quality distinguishes our ode from the parodos of Euripides’ Phaethon (63–101 Diggle = E. fr. 773.19–58),⁴⁰⁸ with which it shares several motifs and expressions (527–30, 532–3, 535–7, 546–50, 551–3nn.; cf. G. H. Macurdy, AJPh 64 [1943], 408–16, Ritchie 255–6, Diggle on Phaeth. 63–101 [pp. 95–6]). Merops’ maidservants also describe dawn mainly in visual and aural terms, but apart from the stars and the nightingale’s song (Phaeth. 63–70 Diggle = E. fr. 773.19–26), these are not based on immediate observation, and the whole (imagined) bustle of early morning life merely serves as a foil for their own activities in preparation for Phaethon’s wedding.⁴⁰⁹ The sentries, moreover, with their keen personal interest in determining the time for relief, pay much more attention to the celestial bodies, which incidentally signal an hour somewhat prior to that in Phaethon (Fraenkel on Ag. 826 [II, 381 n. 2]; cf. Diggle [above] and H. D. Jocelyn, PCPS n.s. 17 [1971], 70 with n. 3 for the gap recorded between the first light here and sunrise at 985, 992).⁴¹⁰

Each ode thus perfectly suits the character and respective situation of its chorus, and even without invoking Euripides’ ‘obsession with astronomy’ (Hyp. (b) Rh. 64.27–8 = 430.25–6 Diggle), we should be hard put to tell the original from the imitation. It is not surprising, however, that our poet felt attracted by a piece which in the third century BC already formed part of a Euripidean anthology (Diggle, Phaethon, 34 + AC 65 [1996], 191) and was later to inspire the parodos of Seneca’s Hercules Furens.⁴¹¹

Formally, the watchmen’s song resembles the parodoi of Alcestis (77–135) and Antigone (100–61), the ‘only two other passages in tragedy where the chorus delivers both lyric and anapaestic sections’ (Parker on Alc. 77–135 [p. 70 (~ 68)]; cf. Dale on Alc. 91 and Rh. 527–64 ‘Metre’ 538–45 + 557–64n.). But it also foreshadows the epirrhematic structure of the epiparodos proper (692–727n.), in which the sentries, as it were, discuss the result of their collective departure. Inappropriate as this would be outside drama (Introduction, 39–40), their weariness gives a realistic impression. The small hours are the the most difficult for guards ‘torn from their regular sleeping cycle’ (cf. already Il. 10.97–9, 181–2, 192–3), and any stratagem like that of the Greeks would concentrate on them (F. S. Russell, Information Gathering in Classical Greece, Ann Arbor 1999, 36–7).

Metre

527–537 ~ 546–556. Dactylo-epitrites with one irregular colon at 530–1 ~ 549–50. The analysis of the lines as 4da + ith (530–1/549–50n.) removes the most pertinent metrical similarities with Alc. 568–77 + 588–96 ~ 578–87 + 597–605 (Ritchie 314–15) as well as Alc. 435–44 ~ 445–54 and Rh. 895–903 ~ 906–914 (890–914 ‘Metre’ nn.). Yet the former two still share the sequence D⁽²⁾ (536–7/555–6n.), and the latter ends in D - ||| (903 ~ 914 with 890–914 ‘Metre’ 903/914n. and Diggle, Euripidea, 207).

538–545 + 557–564. Recitative anapaests. As often in such epirrhematic structures, neither metre nor changes of speaker (538–45, 557–64nn.) correspond exactly. Cf. e.g. Cho. 306–14, 340–4, 372–9, 400–9, 476–8 (West, GM 79), Phil. 144–9, 159–68, 191–200, OC 138–49, 170–5, 188–91 and, in wholly choral systems, Ant. 110–16, 127–33, 141–7, 155–61, Alc. 77–85, 93–7, 105–11, [131–5]^?.

Notes

527–8/546–7 The rhythm (e - - or ‘cr sp’) concludes dactylo-epitrite sequences in Phaeth. 235 ~ 244 Diggle = E. fr. 781.22 ~ 31 and E. fr. 911.3–4, and also appears in such a context at Tro. 515 ~ 535 (Diggle, Euripidea, 392–3; cf. 149–50, 207). Occasional ‘spondees’ belong to dactylo-epitrites from the beginning: at verse-end Ibyc. fr. 287.4 PMGF, Pi. Pyth. 1.2, 9.2, Ar. Eccl. 576b and, with Wilamowitz’ text and colometry, Rh. 460 ~ 826 (454–66 ‘Metre’ 460–2/826–7n.). Cf. Dale, LM² 181–2, West, GM 53 with n. 60, 71, 73, 132, Parker, Songs, 86–7.

530–1/549–50 Diggle, as also Ritchie (314–15) and Willink (‘Cantica’, 39 = Collected Papers, 578) divides (D | ‘enopl.’ [890–914 ‘Metre’ 900–1/911–12n.]) on the ground that ‘[i]n dactylic lengths the clausular does not abut directly on to dactyls ending in double short’ (Euripidea, 395 n. 107; cf. 361). But acatalectic tetrameters are followed by syncopated iambics at Ant. 339–41 ~ 350–2 (4da | 4da | ‸ia‸ + ith), Cyc. 610–11, 615–16,412 Andr. 293–4 ~ 301–2, Ba. 159–60 and maybe Hyps. fr. 64 ii.90–2 Bond = E. fr. 759a.1611–13⁴¹³ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 1581 [p. 561]), and taken together our lines form the familiar ‘Archilochian dicolon’ 4da + ith (Archil. frr. 188–92 IEG; cf. Wilamowitz, GV 589, Schroeder² 170, Dale, LM² 181–2). The lack of diaeresis between the dactyls and the ithyphallic in the antistrophe is prefigured by Archil. fr. 191.1 IEG τοῖος γὰρ ϕιλότητος ἔρως ὑπὸ καρδίην ἐλυσθείς and, more clearly, Antig. Ep. 1.9 FGE (V BC)⁴¹⁴ τῶν ἐχορήγησεν κύκλον μελίγηρυν (with Page on 9–10 μελίγηρυν), while the regular ‘tetrameter caesura’ after helps to accommodate the verse to its dactylo-epitrite surroundings.⁴¹⁵

536–7/555–6 The line is metrically equivalent to Ant. 585 ~ 596 (). For a ‘bacchiac’ appended to a D-colon in dramatic dactylo-epitrites see also S. fr. 591.2–3 and, in ‘freer’ moves, A. Suppl. 539 ~ 548 (D ), Alc. 436 ~ 446 ( ) and 568 ~ 578 (e - ).

527–31. ‘Whose watch is it? Who is taking over from me? The first constellations are setting, and the Pleiades of the seven tracks are in the sky. The Eagle flies in mid-heaven.’

The syntax and astronomy of these verses have caused much confusion among scholars ancient and modern. Σ^V Rh. 528 (II 340.5–17 Schwartz = 105.1–106.14 a¹ Merro) chides Crates of Mallus⁴¹⁶ for failing to understand αἰθέριαι (530) predicatively and thus accusing ‘Euripides’ of youthful ignorance in celestial affairs. For the Eagle could not culminate when the Pleiades are setting. The scholiast’s view is supported by Parmeniscus (Σ^V Rh. 528 [II 340.17–341.3 Schwartz = 106.14–107.28 a¹ Merro], perhaps from his treatise Πρὸς ⁴¹⁷ whose further explanation of … σημεῖα as the first degrees of Scorpio (Σ^V Rh. 528 [II 340.17–23 Schwartz = 106.14–20 a¹ Merro]) has most recently been endorsed by Feickert (on 528–37). While this is astronomically conceivable, one should remember that Parmeniscus’ claim rests solely on a mutilated fragment from Cleostratus’ Phaenomena / Astrologia (6 B 1 DK): ἀλλ᾽ / ϕαίνων, τότε δὴ σημήϊα πρῶτα> / σκορπίου εἰς ἅλα (lac. stat. Boll: suppl. Diels). Likewise, Euctemon’s calendar records the heliacal setting of Scorpio by way of its ‘first stars’ ,⁴¹⁸ and Hipparchus in his commentary on Aratus regularly explains ἄστρων (‘constellations’) καὶ ἔσχατοι ἀνατέλλουσιν ἢ δύνουσι (In Arat. 1.1.10). Yet none of these passages suggests that πρῶτα … σημεῖα alone could point to a specific star group or indeed reflect a technical term (E. J. Webb, JHS 41 [1921], 77–80).⁴¹⁹ It appears, therefore, that our poet chose to be just as [1921], 77–80).⁴¹⁹ It appears, therefore, that our poet chose to be just as vague as Il. 10.251–2 μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται … / ἄστρα δὲ δὴ προβέβηκε (527–64n.) before mustering some notable constellations and heavenly bodies to indicate more precisely the hour of the night. Cf. IA 6–8 (with Stockert [pp. 161-4] on a similar astronomical problem) and [Sapph.] fr. mel. adesp. 976 PMG δέδυκε ἁ / καὶ Πληϊάδες, μέσαι δέ / νύκτες, δ᾽ ἔρχεθ᾽ ὥρα· / δὲ καθεύδω.

527–30. ἀμείβει: literally ‘takes (mine) in exchange’ (LSJ s.v. A I 2). The vocabulary recalls Il. 9.471 οἳ ἔχον and, much later, Q. S. 8.498–9 Δαναοὶ δὲ νεῶν προπάροιθεν ἴαυον / αἰὲν ἀμειβόμενοι ϕυλακάς.

πρῶτα / … σημεῖα: i.e. the stars or constellations that would set first towards dawn in that particular night (Jouan 69 n. 162) and so mark the end of the chorus’ watch (cf. Σ^V Rh. 528 [II 340.14 Schwartz = 106.10–11 a¹ Merro, II 341.2–3 Schwartz = 107.27 a¹ Merro]). There is no need to to look for greater detail here, although ‘it may no doubt be possible, from the data supplied by the Pleiades and the Eagle, to find out what these setting stars were or should have been’ (E. J. Webb, JHS 41 [1921], 75). Cf. 527–31n.

σημεῖα for constellations as heavenly ‘indicators’ has a clearer precedent in Ion 1156–7 Ὑάδες τε, ναυτίλοις / σαϕέστατον σημεῖον (LSJ s.v. σημεῖον I 2) than, if rightly restored, Cleostrat. 6 B 1 DK (527–31n.). s.v. I 2) than, if rightly restored, Cleostrat. 6 B 1 DK (527–31n.). More often the ‘epic’ is used in this way: Il. 22.30 μὲν ὅ γ᾽ ἐστί, δέ σῆμα (i.e. Sirius), Parm. 28 B 10.1–2 DK, S. fr. 432.3 οὐράνιά σήματα (with Radt) and e.g. Arat. 10–13, 167–71, 233–4. The notion recurs in Latin signum (OLD s.v. 13).

καὶ ἑπτάποροι / Πλειάδες αἰθέριαι: If we follow Σ^V Rh. 528 and Parmeniscus in mentally supplying εἰσίν (cf. 527–31n.), we achieve reasonable astronomy and avoid an otherwise redundant epithet with (contrast E. El. 467–8 αἰθέριοι χοροί, / Πλειάδες, Ὑάδες). Unlike Phaeth. 65–6 Diggle = E. fr. 773.21–2 ὑπὲρ δ᾽ ἐμᾶς κεϕαλᾶς / Πλειά[δων 420 then, where the Pleiades stand for the fading stars in general (Diggle on Phaeth. 66; cf. Or. 1005–6, E. fr. 124.2–5 ~ Ar. Thesm. 1099–1101), the present passage indicates their heliacal rising in late May (Hes. Op. 383–4 [with West], 571–3; Kidd on Arat. 254–267, 265). This would match the ancient tradition that Troy fell in Thargelion: e.g. Il. Parv. fr. 14 GEF (with n. 43), D. H. 1.63.1, (Fraenkel on Ag. 826 [II, 380–2], A. Grafton – N. M. Swerdlow, CQ n.s. 36 [1986], 212–18). But it is doubtful whether our poet thought so far or could have expected the audience to take the hint.

The language is reminiscent of late Euripides: El. 467–8 (above), Or. 1005 ἑπταπόρου δραμήματα and, at the same metrical position in anapaests, IA 6–8 … / σείριος ἑπταπόρου / ᾄσσων. First attested as a river-name in Il. 12.20 and Hes. Th. 341 (with West on 337–70), became a stock epithet for the Pleiades: e.g. Arat. 257, Antip. Sid. Ep. 33.4 Gow–Page HE, Nonn. 2.17, 8.76, 47.702. ⁴²¹ The seven stars of the cluster, only six of which are usually visible to the naked eye (Arat. 257–8 [with Kidd on 254–67, 258]), were identified with the seven daughters of Atlas (Hes. Op. 383, ‘Hes.’ fr. 169 M.–W., Sim. fr. 555.3–5 PMG = 20.3–5 Poltera, A. fr. 312), and various myths evolved about their catasterisation (W. and H. Gundel, RE 21.2 s.v. Pleiaden, coll. 2495–8, West on Hes. Op. 383–4).

V’s epic-ionic is unparalled in tragedy and should not be introduced here with Zanetto and, more hesitantly, Pace (Canti, 45–6). Apart from producing undesirable metre (530–1 ~ 549–50 ‸ia cho + ‘enopl.’), it would force us to read γήρυϊ ἁ in 549 and thus to accept a highly dubious case of consonantalised iota at word -end. ⁴²²

531. μέσα δ᾽ … οὐρανοῦ: i.e. ‘due south’, as in Hes. Op. 609–10 εὖτ᾽ ἂν δ᾽ Σείριος ἐς μέσον ἔλθῃ / οὐρανόν and the later technical term μεσουρανέω, ‘culminate’. Adverbial μέσον / μέσα with a genitive has one classical parallel at Or. 982–4 οὐρανοῦ / μέσον χθονός <τε> τεταμέναν / … / πέτραν (~ Il. 5.769 = 8.46 μεσσηγὺς καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος). For the MSS variants in our line see Zuntz, Inquiry, 149–50.

Αἰετός: This is the first Greek reference to the Babylonian constellation Eagle outside a calendar (Democr. 68 B 14 [143.11–13] DK = Gem. Calend. Sagitt. 16 [222.9–11 Manitius = 103.12–14 Aujac], Euct. Parap. Canc. 28, Sagitt. 15, Capric. 7, Taur. 30 [14, 19, 20, 25 Rehm = 33, 34, 35, 36 Pritchett–van der Waerden]). Willink (CQ n.s. 21 [1971], 351 = Collected Papers, 61–2) and O. Wenskus (Astronomische Zeitangaben von Homer bis Theophrast, Stuttgart 1990, 84) see it as a bad omen for Troy (cf. e.g. Il. 8.247–52, 12.200–29, Ag. 134–8), the great ‘bird of Zeus’, which prominently sits right on the equator (Kidd on Arat. 313, referring to 522–3). As with the rising Pleiades (527–30n.), however, this portentous connotation can at best be secondary, and a purely temporal reading remains to be preferred.

ποτᾶται: The Eagle ‘flies’ like a real bird (cf. Manil. Astr. 1.343–5). Non-frequentative (LSJ s.v. 1) is typical of tragedy, especially the lyrics: A. fr. 275.1 … ποτώμενος, Sept. 85 (βοὰ) ποτᾶται, A. Suppl. 656–8, Ag. 576 (3ia), S. fr. 476 = Ar. Av. 1337–9, Hipp. 1272–3. Note also (LSJ s.v., where add E. El. 175–8) and (Lyc. 17).

532–3. ἔγρεσθε, falsely repeated in 533 (below), could here be an aorist imperative like ἔγρεο in Il. 10.159 ἔγρεο Τυδέος ὑιέ· (followed by another urgent question), Od. 15.46, 23.5 and perhaps in Sapph. et Alc. fr. S 286 col. iii.4 SLG. But it is normally taken as a present and connected with Phaeth. 73–4 Diggle = E. fr. 773.29–30 ἔγρονται δ᾽ εἰς βοτάναν / ξανθᾶν πώλων συζυγίαι. For this rare secondary form of ἐγείρω / ἐγείρομαι (from precisely the poetic medio-passive aorist ἐγρέσθαι) cf. also Call. Hec. fr. 260.67–8 Pf. (= 288.67–8 SH = 74.26–7 Hollis) ἔγρει οἰκίον ἄξων / Opp. Hal. 2.204, 5.241, Q. S. 5.610 and Nonn. Par. 11.82. It has been conjectured at Ibyc. fr. 303 (b) PMGF ἆμος ὄρθρος (ἔγρησιν Page) / and Sopat. fr. 10.3 PCG (cf. R. Kassel, ZPE 128 [1999], 30 with n. 12).

τί μέλλετε; looks ahead to 534 μηνάδος αἴγλαν; as the immediate reason for the chorus’ impatience. Similar sequences, based on sound rather than sight, occur in Sept. 99–100 τί μέλλομεν / οὐκ κτύπον; Hec. 1094 τις τί μέλλετε; Phoen. 298–300 τεκοῦσα τόνδε / τί μέλλεις (…); (all lyric) and E. El. 747–57 (Χο.) ἔα· / ϕίλαι, … 757 (Ελ.) σϕαγὴν τῇδέ τί μέλλομεν; The close link between the two questions refutes O’s assignation of 534 to a semi-chorus (cf. Hutchinson on Sept. 98–108).

κοιτᾶν / ἔξιτε πρὸς ϕυλακάν: Hartung’s ἔξιτε (17 [1852], 66, 142) replaces ἔγρεσθε (Ω), which yields good Greek (HF 1048–50 / τὸν / … / ἐγείρετε), but does not correspond with 552. The reading is based on Chr. Pat. 1855–6 ἔγρεσθ᾽ ἔγρεσθε· τί, γυναῖκες, μέλλετε; / ἔξιτ᾽ τὴν πόλιν, where double ἔγρεσθε need not mirror a faulty text (cf. Chr. Pat. 2000–1 ἅδιστος ἅδιστος γὰρ ἐν τοῖς βλεϕάροις / … ~ Rh. 555–6 ἅδιστος γὰρ βλεϕάροις ἀῶ). It may gain further support from exsurgite (~ κοιτᾶν ἔξιτε) in Acc. Ant. fr. IV TRF³ = III Dangel Heus, vigiles, properate, expergite / pectora tarda sopore, exsurgite. The couplet, from a scene that seems to have adapted S. Ant. 249–77 and given this ‘wake-up call’ to the πρῶτος … ἡμεροσκόπος of Ant. 253 (O. Ribbeck, Die römische Tragödie im Zeitalter der Republik, Leipzig 1875, 484, M. Dangel, Accius. Oeuvres (fragments), Paris 1995, 363), looks nearly like a poetic translation of Rh. 532–3 (cf. Jouan 33 n. 163) and so comes closer to our play than anything remaining of the Nyctegresia (Introduction, 44).

534. ‘Do you not see the bright shine of the moon?’

μηνάδος αἴγλαν: ‘It is not explained how [this] proclaims the approach of dawn’ (Porter on 534), nor is this necessary in a poetic text (cf. 527–30n.). Still, several scenarios have been proposed. Of these a setting moon would be possible if μηνάδος … αἴγλαν stood in periphrasis for ‘the bright moon’ (Paley on 532). The opposite has rightly been excluded by Liapis (on 534) on the ground that ‘only a very new moon would rise just before dawn, and it would be unlikely to be referred to as ‘bright”. Those who see here a variety of res ponitur pro defectu rei (‘the fading light of the moon’ [KG II 569–70]) unduly strain the resources of the text, especially since darkness will prevail to the end of the play (985 γὰρ τόδε). Chr. Pat. 1997–8 οὐ λεύσετ᾽ (sic) ἐς / πέλας, … remains equally indistinct.

is a unique, metrically convenient, parallel formation to (Schwyzer 508). For similar ‘pairs’, with little or no difference in sense, cf. (mostly plural), οἰνάς (‘vine’: Ion fr. 26.4 IEG, Simm. Ep. 2.2 Gow–Page HE, ‘wine’: Nic. Alex. 355, 444), (in late church authors) and also αἷμα – αἱμάς (‘stream of blood’: Phil. 696). is probably unrelated to δειρή (Schwyzer 507 with n. 7, GEW, DELG s.v. δειράς).

535–7. ‘Dawn indeed is near, dawn is coming, and this star is one of her precursors.’

ἀὼς δὴ πέλας, ἀὼς / γίγνεται adapts Il. 10.251 ἐγγύθι δ᾽ (527–64, 527–3 1nn.) to tragic idiom and metre, but is also reminiscent of Phaeth. 63–4 Diggle = E. fr. 773.19–20 / κατὰ γᾶν (with Diggle on 63, for other such references to the coming day in tragedy).

The phrase should be punctuated and translated as above, not with … run together. For ἀὼς … γίγνεται cf. Ag. 264–5 εὐάγγελος μέν, παροιμία, / γένοιτο μητρὸς πάρα, Thuc. 4.32.2 ἅμα δὲ γιγνομένῃ, 4.67.3, 7.81.1, Xen. An. 2.4.24, Pl. Prt. 311a5 (LSJ s.v. I 2 a ‘of times of day’).