οὐ μὲν οὖν: Reiske (Animadversiones, 90) for the transmitted οὐ μενῶ. In this juncture οὖν emphasises adversative μέν (GP 475).

ἆ: here an expression of protest (‘Stop!’), followed by a prohibition, as in OT 1147 ἆ, κόλαζε, πρέσβυ, τόνδ’, Phil. 1300, Alc. 526, Hipp. 503 (with Barrett on 503–4), Hel. 445 (with Kannicht) and Ar. Pl. 127, 1052. It is often doubled, which may have given rise to the MSS error, corrected by Musgrave (on 689). For further details see 747–9n.

ϕίλιον ἄνδρα: On , ‘friendly’, as opposed to ‘(of an) enemy’, see 11n. Σ^V Rh. 683 (II 342.10–11 Schwartz = 108 Merro) notes Ὀδυσσεὺς εἶναι Τρωϊκός.

688. καὶ … in questions usually expresses surprise (GP 211). Here it is rather indignation or impatience: ‘Well, and what is the watchword? ’

σῆμα: 12, 521–2nn.

Φοῖβος: 521–2n.

ἴσχε πᾶς δόρυ: 680, 687nn.

689–91. Odysseus’ last trick formally reverses the more typical misdirection of a character by the chorus-leader: Cyc. 675–88 (below), IT 1293–1301, Ar. Thesm. 1217–26.

689. The situation and wording most closely resemble Cyc. 684–5 (Χο.) καί γε. / (Κυ.) πῃ, ; (Χο.) λέγω (cf. Seaford on 685). It makes little difference which semi-chorus speaks οἶσθ᾽ βεβᾶσιν ἅνδρες;

ὅπῃ, ‘which way’ (S. fr. 314.166–7 [Ichneutae] εἰ μὴ … ἐξιχνεύσε[τε] / βοῦς ὅπῃ βεβᾶσι …, Ar. Ach. 198, Ai. 867–8 πᾷ πᾷ / πᾷ γὰρ οὐκ ἔβαν ἐγώ;), is favoured by the MSS and seems both more relevant and a better preparation for than (Aldina, ὅπο P vel P^c), ‘to what destination’. The two words tend to be confused.

690–1. Leaving this couplet to a single speaker (with Λ) avoids having an opposition pending at the end of the scene. in 691 then becomes ‘self-correcting’ (GP 7–8).

690. ἕρπε πᾶς: 680, 687nn.

βοὴν ἐγερτέον; Cf. Or. 1353–5 ἰὼ ἰὼ ϕίλαι, / ἐγείρετε, καὶ / μελάθρων, ὁ πραχθεὶς ϕόνος / μὴ ϕόβον, where the final clause shares two further words with Rh. 691 (below). The is a ‘formal cry for help … which a person in distress must utter if he is to merit assistance’ (Diggle, Euripidea, 480 with n. 178).

691. At Il. 10.420–1 the allies are also said to be asleep. Here the coryphaeus probably fears that waking them might cause a nocturnal panic (15, 17–18, 36–7a nn.), which is difficult to suppress and hence dangerous (δεινόν).

… ταράσσειν δεινὸν ἐκ νυκτῶν ϕόβῳ: In addition to the possible echo of Or. 1354–5 (690n.), the formulation may have been influenced by Cho. 288–9 καὶ καὶ μάταιος ἐκ / κινεῖ, ταράσσει. For ἐκ νυκτῶν, ‘at night’, see 13–14n.

 

692–727. After the Greeks’ narrow escape the chorus eagerly follow the ‘new’ track (689–90) in pursuit of their elusive quarry. Baffled at first as to the identity of the bold intruder (692–703), they soon settle on Odysseus as a likely candidate (704–9) and, in the antistrophe, underpin this claim with their recollection of his spying expedition to Troy (710–21). Yet certainty is neither attainable nor practically relevant for these sentries so that in 722–7 they merely conclude with an anticipation of Hector’s wrath (808–19n.).

With its recitative-style choral epirrhemata this epiparodos proper structurally resembles Rh. 527–64 and Alc. 86–111 (the centre part of the parodos), where only the anapaestic tail-pieces do not correspond in length and changes of speaker (cf. 527–64n.). Among the tragic ‘search-scenes’ (675–91n.), one may also compare the ode and semi-lyric lamentation-amoibaia between the chorus and Tecmessa in Ai. 879–90 + 891–914 ~ 925–36 + 936–60 (Ritchie 295). This likewise starts with excited τίς-questions in the strophe (Ai. 879–87 ~ Rh. 692–6) and gains support as a possible source from the echoes of the Ajax prologue in 595–674 (n.).

Metre

692–703 ~ 710–21. Iambo-dochmiac. As in e.g. Sept. 98–107 (100, 103, 106), Alc. 213–25 ~ 226–37 (221 ~ 233) and HF 875–921 (880, 894, 905), there seems to be no emotional difference between the regular lyrics and the iambic trimeters (with Attic vocalisation) in 697 ~ 715 and 701 ~ 719 (cf. Bond on HF 875–921, Willink, ‘Cantica’, 41 = Collected Papers, 579). Still their mode of delivery is debated, and some have seen them closer to spoken verse (especially Dale, LM² 207–8; more reserved Fraenkel, Agamemnon III, p. 539, Denniston–Page on Ag. 1072–1330 [p. 165], Barrett, Collected Papers, 388, 390, 392–3).

704–9 ~ 722–7. Iambic trimeters enclosing bacchiacs / syncopated iambics. In contrast to the irregular anapaests at 538–45 + 557–64 (nn.), the distribution of speakers here responds exactly, although their respective number (three at least in 704–9, two in 722–7) cannot be firmly established (cf. Liapis on 704–9, 704–5, 722–7, who improbably follows Paley and Wilamowitz in dividing 704–5 and 722–3 between two choreutae).

Notes

699–700/717–18 The single choriamb preceding two dochmiacs is noteworthy. A partial parallel exists in Hipp. 1275 (δ | cho). See Barrett on Hipp. 1268–82 (pp. 392–3).

706–8/724–6 For such bacchiacs, sharply divided by rhetorical pause or even change of speaker, cf. Sept. 104 ῥέξεις; προδώσεις, παλαίχθων, Eum. 788–90, Or. 173 (Χο.) ὑπνώσσει. (Ηλ.) ~ 194 (Χο.) δίκαι μέν. (Ηλ.) δ᾽ οὔ, Ba. 1177, 1181–2 ~ 1193, 1197–8 (West, Studies, 46 n. 49 ~ BICS 30 (1983), 70, Parker, Songs, 449).

 

692. τίς ἀνδρῶν ὁ βάς; The ‘periphrasis’ with a substantival predicative participle (KG I 592 n. 4, 594, G. Björck, ΗΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΩΝ. Die peri-phrastischen Konstruktionen im Griechischen, Uppsala 1940, 90–1, W. J. Aerts, Periphrastica …, Amsterdam 1965, 21–2, 41–2) is almost as widespread in drama as it is elsewhere. Cf. Pers. 95–6, Ag. 1506, Ant. 248 τίς ὁ τολμήσας τάδε; Alc. 530 ὁ κατθανών; Hipp. 449 (FJW on A. Suppl. 571–2 with further examples) and in comedy e.g. Ar. Nub. 133 ἐσθ᾽ ὁ κόψας τὴν θύραν;

693–4. ‘Who is this mightily bold fellow, who will boast of having escaped my grasp?’

Sense and syntax are restored by Madvig’s θρασύς (Adversaria critica I, 271) for θράσος (Ω). then governs the participle instead of an impossible accusative object, and there is no need to interpret ὁ as the relative pronoun ὅ, which in the masculine singular is already rare in Homer and probably unparalleled in tragedy (KG I 587–8, Barrett on Hipp. 525–6).

For the form of the question cf. Il. 1.552 ἔειπες; Phil. 601 τίς ὁ αὐτοὺς ἵκετ᾽; and OC 205 ὁ ἄγῃ; (KG I 626 n. 1, LSJ s.v. τις, τι B I 2). As in the preceding line, the article indicates familiarity with the subject.

μέγα θρασύς: Adverbial μέγα for μάλα intensifying an adjective goes back to epic (on a possible origin see Leumann, Homerische Wörter, 119–20). It is almost completely absent from choral lyric (FJW on A. Suppl. 141 = 151), but regularly appears in tragedy (e.g. A. Suppl. 141, PV 647, OT 1343, Alc. 742) and some (mock-)elevated comic passages (Ar. Nub. 291, Cratin. fr. 360.1 PCG, fr. com. adesp. 1110.8 PCG).

ἐπεύξεται / … ϕυγών: The only other instance of ἐπεύχομαι, ‘boast’, with a predicative participle (cf. KG II 72 n. 2, SD 394) is Pl. Sph. 235c5–7 οὗτος γένος ἐπεύξηται δυναμένων καθ᾽ τε καὶ πάντα μέθοδον. In Homer the verb normally follows a personal military triumph (A. Corlu, Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière: d’Homère aux tragiques, Paris 1966, 133–4), whereas later all sorts of reasons may be supplied (h.Ven. 48, 286–7, Ag. 1262, 1394, 1474, Eum. 58, IT 508, Rh. 703). It is a nice touch of irony that the actual intruders have just escaped a second time – and with more to boast of than having entered the camp unseen.

χέρα … ἐμάν: so Hn and Musgrave (on 696). χεῖρα (Ω) would produce an equally correct dochmiac in responsion with 712, but corruption into the prose form is more likely than the reverse. At 887 Valckenaer’s for χεροῖν (Diatribe, 116) is metrically necessary.

695. πόθεν νιν κυρήσω; literally ‘Starting from what point shall I find him?’. On this use of , where we would expect ποῦ, see 611–12n.

696–8. τίνι προσεικάσω: ‘To whom shall I compare him …?’, i.e. ‘Who can he possibly be, who …?’. (‘compare, liken, refer to’) here gets a sense of equation, as in Sept. 430–1 δ᾽ τε καὶ κεραυνίους βολάς / προσῄκασεν, Ag. 1131 κακῷ and also Hel. 68–70 τῶνδ᾽ ἔχει κράτος; / γὰρ οἶκος ἄξιος / θ᾽ ἕδραι. See P. M. Smith, On the Hymn to Zeus in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Chico 1980, 8–12, 79–91, who claims that ‘identification by comparison’ underlies nearly all uses of the verb.

In a way analogous to Cho. 12–15 ποίᾳ προσεικάσω; (‘To what misfortune shall I refer them?’) / δόμοισι νέον, / τὠμῷ τάσδ᾽ ἐπεικάσας / χοὰς ϕερούσαις νερτέροις μειλίγματα; the chorus’ question prepares for their own suggestions at 699–701 and 704.

δι᾽ ὄρϕνης: 41–2n. The local force of , ‘through (and out of) the dark’, is a remnant of the ancient view, found in many languages, that night and darkness were substances, which could cover or occupy a space (R. Dyer, Glotta 52 [1974], 31–6). Similarly 773–4 (774n.) δὲ στρατόν / δι᾽ ὄρϕνης.

ἀδειμάντῳ ποδί: a frequent tragic enallage, ‘whereby the feet of moving persons are assigned qualities properly pertaining to their owners’ (Liapis on 696–8, who quotes e.g. Ag. 907 σὸν … πορθήτορα, Ant. 1144 and Alc. 611–12 καὶ ὁρῷ σὸν γεραιῷ ποδί / στείχοντ᾽). Apparently a highly poetic word, occurs only four times before Rhesus (Pi. Nem. 10.17, Isthm. 1.12, Pers. 162, Cho. 771) and very rarely in later Greek (e.g. Nonn. D. 22.35 ἀδειμάντοισι).

διά τε τάξεων: 519–20n.

699–701. Ritchie (246–7) notes certain syntactical and phraseological affinities with Tro. 187–9 τίς μ᾽ νησαίαν / δύστανον πόρσω Τροίας; and 241–2 αἰαῖ, χθονός; See also the elaborate chain of queries in Hec. 447–74.

Besides evoking three major Greek heroes (Achilles from Phthia / Thessaly, Ajax Locrus and the islander Odysseus) the chorus’ suspicions reflect fifth-century and later Athenian ideas of who could be credited with a bold and treacherous night-raid (699–700, 701nn; cf. Ammendola on 699–701, Porter on 701).

699–700. Θεσσαλός: The Thessalians were proverbially untrustworthy (Σ^recc. Ar. Pl. 521g [III 4b.141 Chantry] ‘αἰεὶ ἄπιστα’; cf. E. fr. 422, Dem. 1.21–2, 23.112 and, on the political incidents that inspired this belief, H.-J. Gehrke, Stasis …, Munich 1985, 185–9). Aristophanes (Pl. 520–1) accuses them, perhaps not unreasonably (Sommerstein on 521, 524), of habitual ἀνδραποδισμός, the kidnapping and selling of free persons or other people’s slaves.

παραλίαν Λοκρῶν νεμόμενος πόλιν: Both East and West Locrians had a long-standing reputation for banditry (Thuc. 1.5.3, Hell. Oxy. 21.3 Chambers) and piracy (Thuc. 2.32.2; cf. Thuc. 2.26.1, D. S. 12.44.1), which in antiquity included seaborne attacks on coastal settlements (P. de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge 1999, 1–42). On see 475–6n.

701. σποράδα κέκτηται βίον; Cf. Hcld. 84 νησιώτην, ὦ ξένοι, τρίβω (Iolaus’ reply to the chorus’ questions on his homeland) and for adjectival e.g. Pi. Pyth. 9.54–5 λαὸν … νασιώταν, Pers. 390 πέτρας, Tr. 658 ἑστίαν. Of the tragedians Euripides especially liked to use nouns as attributes (KG I 272–3); in also Hcld. 699 κόσμον, 800, El. 443 (with Denniston on 443–4) and Ion 1373 βίον. Likewise Rh. 715 (715–16n.) τις λάτρις.

suggests an isolated, backward life (especially Arist. Pol. 1252b23–4 καὶ ᾤκουν), whether or not the islands themselves were meant to be ‘scattered through the Aegean’ (Porter on 701; cf. Pi. Pae. 5.38–40 [fr. 52e Sn.–M. = D5 Rutherford] ϕερεμήλους / ἔκτισαν νάσους ἐρικυδέα ἔσχον / ).476 Islanders often suffered contempt from the mainland Greeks: e.g. Sol. fr. 2 IEG, Hcld. 84 (above), Andr. 14–15 τῷ νησιώτῃ Νεοπτολέμῳ δορὸς (with Stevens), Hdt. 8.125.2, Thuc. 6.77.1, Dem. 23.211. Here suspicions of piracy, for which cf. Thuc. 1.8.1, [Dem.] 58.56 and Plut. Cim. 8.3–5, may again play a part.

702. τίς ἦν; πόθεν; ποίας πάτρας; 682n. The series of interrogatives is paralleled in Ion 258–9 τίς δ᾽ εἶ; ; ἐκ ποίας / πέϕυκας; and E. El. 779–80 τίνες / πορεύεσθ᾽ ἔστε τ᾽ (Musgrave: πορεύεσθέ τ᾽ L) ἐκ ποίας χθονός; (cf. Diggle, Studies, 98).

Hermann (Opuscula III, 307) restored syntax and metre by removing the miscellaneous unmetrical additions in both MSS families, which look like successive attempts to ‘fill up’ the asyndetic text.

703. ‘Whom does he declare to be the highest of the gods?’

ἐπεύχεται / ὕπατον θεῶν; sc. εἶναι. Both (Hermann, Opuscula III, 307) and <δ᾽> (Porson on Phoen. 892, Bothe, 5 [1803], 297) restore normal dochmiac responsion with 721,⁴⁷⁷ but the former is preferable for keeping the asyndetic sequence of the previous line. For (ἐπ)εύχομαι, ‘declare’, with accusative and infinitive cf. particularly IT 508 τὸ κλεινὸν (sc. εἶναι) and Pi. Pyth. 4.97–8 γαῖαν … / ἔμμεν; The notion of personal pride inherent in either verb from Homer on (693–4n.) seems fitting here, where the different appellations of Zeus appear to correspond to national distinctions (Paley on 703; cf. below). Yet possibly an undertone of the sacral sense is to be discerned as well.

τὸν ὕπατον θεῶν: i.e. Zeus, to judge by 456–7 (455b–7n.) ὕπατος / Ζεύς. Murray (The Rhesus of Euripides, Oxford 1913, 64), followed by Liapis (on 703), quotes Hdt. 5.66.1 for the idea that someone’s tribal affiliations may be deduced from a god his relatives worship (Carian Zeus in this case). But in general the identification of a man by his religion was not common in ancient Greece, perhaps because it mattered little to their form of polytheism by which name a deity was addressed (cf. J. Assmann, in S. Budick – W. Iser [eds.], The Translatability of Cultures …, Stanford 1996, 25–36, especially 31–2, 34–5). Σ^V Rh. 703 (II 342.13 Schwartz = 109 Merro) paraphrases with ἐστιν πάτριος θεός;

704. ἆρ᾽᾽ ἔστ᾽ Ὀδύσσεως τίνος τόδε; See 722n.

705. εἰ τοῖς πάροιθε χρὴ τεκμαίρεσθαι: Cf. Alc. 239–40 τοῖς τε πάροιθεν / and OT 915–16 ἀνήρ / ἔννους καινὰ τοῖς τεκμαίρεται.

πάροιθε refers to the Palladion theft, the ‘Ptôcheia’ and the unidentified ambush by the Thymbraean altar, which (against epic chronology) Hector recalled in 501–9 (498b–509, 501–2, 503–7a, 503–5, 507b–9a nn.). The ‘Ptôcheia’ will gain further room in the antistrophe (710–21n.).

τί μήν; ‘What else indeed?’, meaning ‘Of course’. See GP 333, Fraenkel on Ag. 672, G. Wakker, in NAGP, 214–15 n. 13 and, for the supposedly Sicilian origin of this expression, A. F. Garvie, Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy, Cambridge 1969, 54–5, FJW on A. Suppl. 999.

706. δοκεῖς γάρ; ‘What! You think so?’. γάρ lends the question a surprised and incredulous tone, implying doubt about the justification of the previous speaker’s words (GP 77–8).

τί μὴν οὔ; sc. δοκῶ. The only other case of this elliptical answer is S. El. 1280 ξυναινεῖς; – (Seidler: codd.); On see Wakker (705n.).

707. θρασύς: 498b–500n. ( … θρασύς).

γοῦν: ‘at any rate’, introducing a ‘part proof’ argument for Odysseus’ responsibility. Cf. e.g. OC 319–20 οὐκ ἄλλη. γοῦν ἀπ᾽ / προσστείχουσα, Alc. 693–4 and IT 72–3 (GP 451–2).

708. ‘Cho.³ What (act of) valour are you praising? Whom? Cho.¹ Odysseus.’

Ὀδυσσῆ: likewise Pi. Nem. 8.26, based on Od. 19.136 (+ Il. 4.384 Τυδῆ, 15.339 Μηκιστῆ). It may be coincidence that the only tragic parallels for this contracted accusative singular come from Euripides: El. 439 (Heath: - L), Phaeth. 237 Diggle = E. fr. 781.24 (with J. Diggle, AC 65 [1996], 197). At Alc. 25 Diggle and Parker adopt ἱερέα (B^sL^s) instead of (BOVLP) in dialogue verse.

709. κλωπὸς … ϕωτός: 644–5n. In the light of 705 (n.), must also allude to the theft of the Palladion (cf. 502 κλέψας). Accordingly, here has a contemptuous undertone, as more often does in prose: e.g. Lys. 4.19 διὰ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, 30.28 ἐτέρους ἀνθρώπους (KG I 272, LSJ s.v. I 4). The same applies to ἄνδρες in 645 (cf. Ar. Pax 1120 … ἀνήρ).

αἱμύλον δόρυ: For (‘wily’) of Odysseus in tragedy see 498b–500n. Here the epithet is transferred from the man to his weapon, as in e.g. Pers. 320–1 … πολύπονον δόρυ / νωμῶν, Hcld. 500 … ἐχθρὸν (Elmsley: L), 932–3 ἐκ σὺν / (with Wilkins on 932).

710–21. Continuing the series of verbal reminiscences in the previous lines (707, 709nn.), this second account of the ‘Ptôcheia’ draws heavily on the vocabulary and syntax of 503–7a (n.). Note 711, 716 ~ 503 ἔχων (‘with’), 712 στολᾷ ~ 503 στολήν, 715 τις ~ 503 ἀγύρτης, 717–19 πολλὰ δὲ τὰν / ἑστίαν Ἀτρειδᾶν / ἔβαζε ~ 504–5 πολλὰ δ᾽ Ἀργείοις κακά / ἠρᾶτο. In addition to Od. 4.244–58 and the Cyclic tradition (Il. Parv. Arg. p. 122 (4) + frr. 8–10 GEF), there appears to be influence here from Athena’s transformation of Odysseus into a beggar in Od. 13.397–403 + 429–38. See M. Fantuzzi, MD 36 (1996), 182–3 and Rh. 710–11, 712–13a, 715–16nn.

710–14. ‘In the past too he came into our city, rheumy-eyed, wrapped in ragged clothes, with a sword hidden under his cloak.’

710–11. πάρος: 498b–509, 705nn.

ὕπαϕρον: ‘dim with tears, rheumy’ (cf. Hsch. υ 264 Hansen–Cunningham … τὸ ἔχον ἀϕρῷ) and so perhaps referring to conjunctivitis (a very common disease also associated with living in squalid conditions), like Latin lippus. This seems the most natural interpretation of the adjective here, which can be supported with ὕπαϕρος, ‘frothy’, in Gal. Cris. 1.5 (p. 78.4–5 Alexanderson) πτύσματα … ὕπαϕρα, Σ^bT Il. 14.16 (III 565.48–9 Erbse) τὸ … τὸ μηδέπω ἐκ κυμάτων παϕλαζόντων (cf. Eust. 964.50), probably Hp. de Arte 10.5 (fifth or fourth century BC) and ὑπαϕρίζω, ‘to foam a little’, in e.g. Eust. 586.8–9. The more frequent rendering ‘hidden, secret’ (Σ^L Rh. 711 [II 342.27–8 Schwartz = 109 a² Merro] ὁ ϕανερός, ἐκ τῶν ὑπ᾽ νηχομένων, ἢ τῶν αἷς ἐπανθεῖ ἀϕρός, Σ^V Rh. 711 [109 a¹ Merro] ὕπουλον; cf. e.g. Hsch. υ 264 Hansen–Cunningham, Phot. υ 84 Thedoridis, Erot. υ 10 Nachmanson⁴⁷⁸) may in fact be due to mis- or overinterpretation of the prefix (Jouanna on Hp. de Arte 10.5 [p. 261]). Σ^L Rh. 711 (II 342.29 Schwartz = 109 a² Merro) καταπληκτικός, ὁ μανικός shows that some here understood the word to be the neuter of , ‘slightly stupid’ (Hdt. 4.95.2).

If the above explanation is right, ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων can be taken to mirror the effect of Athena’s action at Od. 13.433 (~ 401) κνύζωσεν δέ οἱ ὄσσε περικαλλέ᾽ ἐόντε (‘she dimmed his eyes …’; cf. Hsch. κ 3148 Latte κνυζοί· οἱ τὰ πονοῦντες). Hermann (on Hec. 238, 239) had already compared it to Hec. 240–1 τ᾽ ἄπο / σὴν κατέσταζον γένυν (cf. 503–7a n.).

712–13a. ῥακοδύτῳ στολᾷ / πυκασθείς seems to have been phrased after Od. 22.488 ῥάκεσιν ὤμους. In the Odyssey ῥάκος and ῥάκεα (which do not appear in the Iliad) almost exclusively refer to Odysseus’ beggar disguise on Ithaca (e.g. 13.434, 14.342, 349, 512). Regarding the ‘Ptôcheia’, cf. Ar. Vesp. 351 εἶτ᾽ ἐκδῦναι ῥάκεσιν κρυϕθεὶς ὥσπερ πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς.

ῥακόδυτος, ‘dressed in rags’ or here ‘ragged’, is elsewhere attested only in Hsch. κ 331 Latte (Od. 18.41)· ῥακκοδύτους (sic). But Patristic and Byzantine Greek has (‘beg’), (‘beggar’) ans the collateral ῥακενδυτ-.

713b–14. ξιϕήρης / κρύϕιος ἐν πέπλοις: literally ‘secretly equipped with a sword under his cloak’. Cf. Or. 1125 ἐν πέπλοισι ξίϕη, 1271–2 / ϕανεῖ, both of the plot to kill Helen, whose important role in the ‘Ptôcheia’ our poet suppressed (503–7a n.). For a more natural use of predicative see Hec. 993 καὶ γ᾽ σὲ ἐζήτει and HF 598 ὥστ᾽ … χθόνα.

In ξιϕήρης, which is not safely attested before Euripides (also Andr. 1114, El. 225, Ion 1153, 1258, Phoen. 363, Or. 1346, 1627) and does not recur until the first century BC, the kinship with is still apparent, while elsewhere -ήρης has mostly lost its meaning (Wilamowitz on HF 243, J. Wackernagel, Progr. Univ. Basel (1889), 41 = KS II, 937). Cf. 226b–8n. (on τοξήρης).

κρύϕιος: Bothe (3 [1824], 366) and Morstadt (Beitrag, 41) for the unmetrical (Ω). Kaibeliani (kδ) in ‘responsion’ with normal dochmiacs are generally emended away (e.g. Sept. 233a ~ 239a, OT 657b ~ 686b, Or. 147b ~ 160b). This quite frequent MSS error may in part be due to the same tendency that caused unrecognised dochmiacs to be filled up to make iambic trimeters, however imperfect (Fraenkel on Ag. 478 with n. 2, Dodds on Ba. 1188 and, for kδ, Willink on Or. 1246–85 [p. 288]).

715–16. ‘And begging his bread he crept around, a vagabond menial, his head all rough and dirty.’

βίον δ᾽᾽ ἐπαιτῶν: Cf. OC 1364 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν and Hel. 790–1 (Με.) τοῖσδ᾽ (sc. πυλώμασιν), ἔνθεν ὥσπερ ἐξηλαυνόμην. / (Ελ.) ;In classical Greek ἐπαιτέω, originally ‘ask in addition’ (Il. 23.593), is otherwise attested only in OT 1416 and S. El. 1124 (middle), both times meaning ‘request urgently’, while later it becomes common for beggary. See LSJ s.v. 2 and especially the agent noun ἐπαίτης.

: in the literal sense (‘creep around’) also Sept. 17–19 γὰρ νέους / … / and, of the lame Philoctetes, Phil. 206–7 στίβον ἀνάγ- / καν (‘dragging along’).

ἀγύρτης τις λάτρις: For in the sense ‘vagabond’ see 503–5n. and for λάτρις, hired servant’ (as against the much rarer ‘slave’), Wilamowitz on HF 823. The latter is popular with Euripides, as is the placing of one noun in an attributive relationship to an other (701n.).

It is tempting to suggest that our poet created his begging ‘vagabond menial’ from a combination of Od. 4.245 σπεῖρα κάκ᾽ ὤμοισι βαλών, οἰκῆϊ ἐοικώς and its probable doublet 4.247–8 ἄλλῳ δ᾽ αὐτὸν ϕωτὶ κατακρύπτων ἤϊσκε / Δέκτῃ. In that case he would have been a precursor of Aristarchus, who understood ΔΕΚΤΗΙ to mean ἐπαίτῃ (‘beggar’), whereas in the Little Iliad, we are told, it was a proper name: Σ Od. 4.248 (II 254.84–9 Pontani) = Il. Parv. fr. 9 GEF. Cf. S. R. West on Od. 4.246–9, M. Fantuzzi, MD 36 (1996), 183–5, A. Fries, CQ n.s. 60 (2010), 349–50 (+ Introduction, 37), West, Epic Cycle, 196–7.

ψαϕαρόχρουν: most likely ‘with rough skin, scabby’, though not necessarily implying baldness (Σ^V Rh. 716 [II 342.4 Schwartz = 110 Merro]). The word appears only here and was probably coined for the occasion. Many adjectives in -χρως (-χροος, -χρωτος), often without direct reference to the skin, are first attested in Euripides, especially in the lyrics of his later plays: e.g. Hel. 215 χιονόχρῳ κύκνου πτερῷ, Phoen. 322–3 λευκόχροα … κόμαν, Hel. 1502–3 κυανόχροά τε κυμάτων / ῥόθια πολιὰ θαλάσσας, Phoen. 308–9 κυανόχρωτι χαί- / τας πλοκάμῳ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 138).

A possible model is ψαϕαρόθριξ, ‘rough-haired’ (of sheep), in h.Pan. 32. (‘powdery, crumbling’) is generally rare in poetry before Hellenistic times: only Sept. 323 ψαϕαρᾷ and maybe Pl. Com. fr. 126 PCG ψαϕαρόν = ἁπαλόν. Later cf. especially Nic. Ther. 369 καὶ τόθ᾽ ὅγ᾽ ἐν χερσῷ τελέθει ψαϕαρός τε καὶ ἄχρους (i.e. the χέρσυδρος, an amphibious snake).

Fantuzzi (MD 36 [1996], 182–3) sees here an allusion to Odysseus’ miraculous ageing at the hands of Athena in Od. 13.431–2 ξανθὰς δ᾽ ἐκ κεϕαλῆς ὄλεσε τρίχας, ἀμϕὶ δὲ δέρμα / πάντεσσιν μελέεσσι παλαιοῦ θῆκε γέροντος. If so Od. 13.430 (~ 398) κάρψε μέν οἱ χρόα καλὸν ἐνὶ γναμπτοῖσι (with κάρϕω = ‘dry up, wither’: cf. Hes. Op. 575, Archil. fr. 188.1–2 IEG) should also be taken into account.

πολυπινές: another classical hapax. For πίνος, ‘filth’ (on clothes or the body), cf. OC 1259, E. El. 305 and A. R. 2.200–1 (of Phineus) πίνῳ δέ οἱ αὐσταλέος χρώς / ἐσκλήκει. Similar compound adjectives in drama are δυσπινής (OC 1597, Ar. Ach. 426 ~ fr. tr. adesp. 42), κακοπινής (Ai. 381, metaphorically of Odysseus) and εὐπινής, ‘tidy’, in E. fr. 494.11 and Cratin. fr. 455 PCG.

717–19. The mythical background of Odysseus’ denunciations (by which he pretends to be a Greek deserter) is discussed in 503–5n.

πολλὰ δὲ τὰν / βασιλίδ᾽ ἑστίαν Ἀτρειδᾶν κακῶς / ἔβαζε: The construction with the adverb is equivalent to πολλὰ … κακὰ ἔβαζε (KG I 295, 323–4). governs a double accusative also at Il. 9.58–9 ἀτὰρ πεπνυμένα βάζεις / Ἀργείων βασιλῆας, 16.207 ταῦτά μ᾽ … θάμ᾽ ἐβάζετε and Hipp. 118–19 εἴ τις σ᾽ … / μάταια βάζει.

Adjectival βασιλίς is paralleled in IA 1305–6 Ἥρα δὲ Διὸς ἄνακτος / εὐναῖσι βασιλίσιν (sc. τρυϕῶσα). See 701n. and Introduction, 34.

δῆθεν: ‘as if …’, implying falsehood. The particle rarely precedes the phrase it qualifies, but cf. PV 986 ἐκερτόμησας δῆθεν ὥσ<τε> παῖδά με, Tr. ᾽καλεῖτο, τῆς ἐκεῖνος οὐδαμά / βλάστας ἐϕώνει δῆθεν οὐδὲν ἱστορῶν, Or. 1119 ἔσιμεν ἐς οἴκους ὡς θανούμενοι and Thuc. 1.127.1 τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ἄγος οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐκέλευον ἐλαύνειν δῆθεν τοῖς θεοῖς πρῶτον τιμωροῦντες (GP 265–6).

720–1. ‘I wish he had perished, perished as he deserved, before setting foot on the Phrygians’ land!’

ὄλοιτ᾽ ὄλοιτο: In curses has become so stereotyped that the optative can be used for an unrealisable wish in the past (KG I 228, SD 322). Likewise A. Suppl. 867–71 εἰ γὰρ δυσπαλάμως ὄλοιο / δι᾽ ἁλίρρυτον ἄλσος / … ἀλαθεὶς / Συρίαισιν αὔραις, Hipp. 407–9 ὡς ὄλοιτο παγκάκως / ἥτις ἄνδρας ἤρξατ᾽ αἰσχύνειν λέχη / πρώτη θυραίους and Hel. 1215 ὅπου κακῶς ὄλοιτο, Μενέλεως δὲ μή (with Kannicht on 1214–5). The anadiplosis has a match in Ion 705 (referring to the present).

πρὶν ἐπὶ γᾶν Φρυγῶν ποδὸς ἴχνος βαλεῖν: The clause is Euripidean in style. Cf. IT 752 μήποτε κατ᾽ ζῶσ᾽ ἴχνος θείην ποδός, El. 1344 δεινὸν γὰρ ἴχνος βάλλουσ᾽ ἐπὶ σοί (i.e. the Erinyes) and for ποδὸς ἴχνος = ‘foot’ also HF 125, Tro. 3, Ion 792, Phoen. 105 and E. fr. 530.7 (Ritchie 209–10).

Φρυγῶν: 32n.

722. The verse echoes 704 with almost corresponding word-ends and Ὀδυσσέως at the same metrical position. Likewise 24 ~ 42 Ἕκτορ (with 23–4n.).

εἴτ᾽ οὖν … εἴτε: ‘Whether, in point of fact, … or … ’, with οὖν marking indifference (GP 418–19). The combination is typical of tragedy and Plato.

ϕόβος μ᾽ ἔχει (or ϕόβος ἔχει με) also appears in A. Suppl. 379, Ag. 1243, S. fr. 314.278 (Ichneutae), Med. [356], Or. 1255 and Hyps. fr. 64 ii.76 Bond = E. fr. 759a.1597. In Euripides the periphrasis of a verb of feeling by way of its abstract noun with ἔχει (LSJ s.v. ἔχω (A) A I 8) has almost become a mannerism. Add Hec. 970, Or. 460 (~ 101), Ba. 828 (+ A. fr. 132c.12) αἰδώς μ ᾽ ἔχει, HF 515, IA 837, Ar. Thesm. 904 (‘Euripides’ speaking) ἀϕασία μ᾽ ἔχει, and see Kannicht on Hel. 558.

724. δυσοίζων: a very rare verb, attested elsewhere only in Ag. 1316 δυσοίζω θάμνον ὡς ὄρνις ϕόβῳ and Rh. 805 (804–5n.) μηδὲν δυσοίζου. Both etymology and meaning are disputed, but it seems easiest to explain it as an irregular compound of οἴζω (< οἰοί: A. D. Adv. 128.7 Schneider; cf. Schwyzer 716 on -ζω as a mode of verbifying interjections that end in vowels), which denotes a sharp cry of distress or here rather indignation (Σ^V Rh. 724 [II 342.16–17 Schwartz = 110 Merro] βλασϕημῶν. ἢ καὶ λοιδορῶν). See further A. Debrunner, IF 21 (1907), 273 and Fraenkel on Ag. 1316, who not quite justly compares the verbal adjective δυσβάϋκτος (< βαΰζω, βαύ) in Pers. 574.

725. τί δρᾶσαι: L. Dindorf ’s correction (I [1825], 492 ~ W. Dindorf, III.2 [1840], 617–18) of the MSS’ τί δρᾶς; (… δρᾶς δὴ; Tr¹) is supported by the infinitive περᾶσαι in the following line. Wilamowitz’ τί δράσας; (on HF 540), accepted by Porter and Kovacs (‘At what ill fortune?’), can also be excluded for semantic reasons, since in this and similar questions δρᾶν always refers to a physical action by its subject (e.g. HF 540, 1136, 1187, Or. 849). Cf. D. J. Mastronarde, ElectronAnt 8 (2004), 22.

727. ἐς Φρυγῶν στρατόν: 32n. Similarly 846 Φρυγῶν στρατός.

 

728–55. Both metrically and in terms of content this ‘interlude’ forms a transition between the preceding, almost entirely lyric search-scene and the narrative-agonistic episode of 756–881. The sentries, still groping in the dark at first in the hope of catching an intruder (730), meet Rhesus’ badly injured Charioteer instead and with painful slowness, which again betrays their lack of visual (736–7) and mental (745–6) perception, make out his nationality and preoccupation. The humble Thracian meanwhile – a substitute for the king’s cousin Hippocoon (< ἵππος + κοέω: ‘he who looks after horses’), who in Il. 10.518–22 is woken by Apollo to discover the slaughter in the camp (Ritchie 74–5) – is so absorbed in his grief and agony that he does not even react to the coryphaeus’ question in 736. In this emotional isolation⁴⁷⁹ he resembles characters like Xerxes in Pers. 908–16, Oedipus in OT 1307–18, Creon in Ant. 1261–9, Antigone in Phoen. 1485–1529 and especially the mortally wounded Hippolytus (Hipp. 1347–88) with his comic counterpart Lamachus (Ar. Ach. 1190–1234),⁴⁸⁰ whose respective lamentations offer some striking verbal and structural similarities (731–2, 733, 734–5, 750–1a nn.). Nearly all these entries, including the parody in Acharnians, are preceded by an account of the catastrophic events off-stage (in Persians it is the prediction of Plataea by the Ghost of Darius), while here the Charioteer himself will bring the news of the Thracian disaster: 756–803 (n.). With the relatively uniform introductions to Euripidean messenger-speeches (1–51n.) the present passage shares only an equivalent of the ‘general announcement’ (728b, 732a), the ‘information in brief’ (735, 742–4, 747–8, 752–3) and the ‘question for the addressee’ (738–40) – all in so free an order and arrangement as not even the (semi-)lyric compositions of HF 910–21, Ba. 1024–42 and Phoen. 1335–55 display.⁴⁸¹ Moreover, the chorus-leader fails to ask for a detailed report after 755, which gives the impression that the following speech is still directed at no one in particular (Strohm 272 with n. 2).

Influenced as it seems by two different scene types, the Charioteer’s entry at once points to his double function as victim and messenger so as to prepare for his unusually subjective narrative⁴⁸² and stubborn belief in the Trojans’ guilt. Yet the reminiscence of great tragic heroes in misery adds a somewhat incongruous note, although it may have been intended to raise the Thracian’s importance and pathos, even beyond such individual figures as the Guard in Ant. 223–331 and 384–445.

Metre

Given the trochaic tetrameters catalectic of 730 and 732, the Charioteer’s lyric opening line 728b is best regarded with Diggle as a syncopated trochaic trimeter (tr tr | ‘sp’ ||) after extra-metric ἰὼ ἰώ (cf. 731 and 733a)483 or perhaps even a trochaic dimeter with ϕεῦ ϕεῦ again extra metrum (for other analyses see Willink, ‘Cantica’, 41–2 = Collected Papers, 580).⁴⁸⁴ His longer outbursts are set in recitative anapaests (733–5, 738–44, 747–53: cf. e.g. Pers. 908–16 and Hipp. 1347–69), to which the coryphaeus responds with pairs of iambic trimeters (736–7, 745–6, 754–5). Formally this alternation of actor’s laments and choral spoken verse most closely resembles such semi-lyric amoibaia as Ag. 1072–1113 (the first four strophic pairs of the Cassandra-scene), OT 1313–68 or indeed Pers. 249–89, where Xerxes’ messenger adheres to iambics while the shocked chorus reply in dochmiacs. Likewise in HF 910–21, Ba. 1024–42 and Phoen. 1335–55, which like our passage begins with 4tr‸, although most of the remainder (1338–53) should go with 1308–34 (n. 267), it is the recipients of the news who burst into short snatches of song.⁴⁸⁵ The reverse pattern here underlines again the exceptional status of the victim-messenger.

 

728b. δαίμονος τύχα βαρεῖα: Cf. Med. 671 ἄπαιδές ἐσμεν δαίμονός τινος τύχῃ, Hipp. 831–3 πρόσωθεν δέ ποθεν ἀνακομίζομαι / τύχαν δαιμόνων ἀμπλακίαισι τῶν / πάροιθέν τινος, IT 865 + 867 and E. fr. 37. In this type of expression denotes the intervention of a known or unknown deity (LSJ s.v. I 1 a) with advantageous (e.g. Pi. Ol. 8.67, Pyth. 8.53, Nem. 4.6–8) or detrimental effect upon men.

τύχα βαρεῖα also occurs in Sept. 332 βαρείας τοι τύχας προταρβῶ, Ai. 980 ὤμοι βαρείας ἆρατῆς ἐμῆς τύχης, Hipp. 818–19 (with Barrett on 818–20), E. El. 300–1 and Phaeth. 93–4 Diggle = E. fr. 773.49–50 (with Diggle on 94). Similarly Rh. 731–2 (n.) ἰώ· / συμϕορὰ βαρεῖα Θρῃκῶν.

729. ἔα ἔα: in Euripides nearly always extra metrum (675–82 ‘Metre’ 675n.). On the meaning and etymology of ἔα see 574n.

730. ‘Crouch down in silence, everyone! Perhaps somebody is falling within the cast of our net.’

σῖγα πᾶς ὕϕιζ᾽: Cf. 680, 687 (nn.) and, in a very similar situation, Ar. Ach. 238 σῖγα πᾶς. ἠκούσατ᾽, ἄνδρες, ἆρα τῆς εὐϕημίας; L. Dindorf’s σῖγα (I [1825], 492 ~ W. Dindorf, III.2 [1840], 618) for σίγα (VQ: σιγᾶ L) is required by syntax and metre – an easy corruption with parallels in e.g. Ar. Ach. 238 (above), Hec. 532 and Or. 140. On σῖγα, especially in imperatives, see E. Schwyzer, Glotta 12 (1923), 27–8 = KS 483–4.

ὕϕιζ᾽ is Reiske’s correction (Animadversiones, 91), after Barnes (129), of the transmitted ὕϕιζος (V) or ὕβριζ᾽ (Λ). The verb is unique in classical Greek, except for the transitive Ionic aorist participle in Hdt. 3.126.2 and 6.103.3. The same applies to ὑϕιζάνω (Phoen. 1382–3 ἀλλ᾽ ὑϕίζανον κύκλοις, / ὅπως σίδηρος ἐξολισθάνοι μάτην, Aristotle and late).

ἴσως γὰρ ἐς βόλον τις ἔρχεται is reminiscent of Ba. 848 … ἁνὴρ ἐς βόλον καθίσταται and E. fr. 62d.29 … εἰςβόλονγὰρ ἂν πέσοι and may be a proverbial fishing metaphor (C. B. Sneller, De Rheso Tragoedia, Amsterdam 1949, 68 n. 1). Cf. Herod. 7.75–6 ὠς, ἤν τι μὴ νῦν ἦμιν ἐς βόλον κύρσῃ, / οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὄκως ἄμεινον ἠ χύτρη πρήξει and Hdt. 1.62.4 (oracle) ἔρριπται δ᾽ ὁ βόλος, τὸ δὲ δίκτυον ἐκπεπέτασται, / θύννοι δ᾽ οἱμήσουσι σεληναίης διὰ νυκτός.

731–2. Syntax and speaker assignations were restored by Hermann (Opuscula III, 307). Most MSS read and divide ἰὼ ἰώ · / συμϕορὰ βαρεῖα Θρῃκῶν συμμάχων / τίς ὁ στένων; But συμμάχων fits better in a statement initiating the chorus’ lengthy realisation process (728–55n.); cf. 736 and 755. By the same token, ἰὼ ἰώ … Θρῃκῶν cannot belong to them (Liapis on 732).

ἰὼ ἰώ·· / συμϕορὰ βαρεῖα Θρῃκῶν: For the wording cf. especially Tim. Pers. fr. 791.187 PMG = Hordern <ἰ>ὼ βαρεῖα συμϕορά, which imitates Pers. 1043–4 ὀτοτοτοτοῖ· / γ᾽ ἅδε συμϕορά. The resemblance to Ar. Ach. 1204 ὦ συμϕορὰ τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν κακῶν (Ritchie 3) and 1210 τάλας ξυμβολῆς βαρείας is also noteworthy (728–55n.).

On the exclamatory nominative (as in 728b and 733b) see KG I 46 and SD 65–6; after ἰὼ (ἰώ) e.g. Pers. 1073, Sept. 994, Ai. 893, Tro. 1118–19, Ion 912.

733. δύστηνος ἐγώ is a set-phrase in anapaestic laments (Pers. 908–10, OT 1307/8, Med. 96, Hipp. 239, 1348, HF 448, Tro. 112), but here, before σύ τ᾽ ἄναξ Θρῃκῶν, it gains special significance by suggesting that the Charioteer is more concerned with his own fate than that of his master. Cf. 752 (752–3n.) χρῆν γάρ μ᾽ ἀκλεῶς Ῥῆσόν τε θανεῖν.

734–5. ‘O you who looked on Troy (that proved) most hateful (to us), what a death has taken you away!’

ὦ στυγνοτάτην Τροίαν ἐσιδών: Liapis (on 734–5) probably rightly suspects an echo of Pers. 974–6 (Xerxes speaking) ἰώ, ἰώ μοι · / τὰς κατιδόντες / στυγνὰς Ἀθάνας. In both places στυγνός bears an anticipatory sense equivalent to that of πικρός in e.g. Od. 17.447–8 στῆθ᾽ … ἐμῆς ἀπάνευθε τραπέζης, / μὴ τάχα πικρὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ Κύπρον ἴδηαι (v.l. ἵκηαι), Phil. 355–6 κἀγὼ Σίγειον οὐρίῳ πλάτῃ / κατηγόμην and Hec. 772 ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἐπέμϕθη πικροτάτου χρυσοῦ ϕύλαξ (LSJ s.v. πικρός III 1 ‘… of what yields pain instead of expected pleasure’, FJW on A. Suppl. 1033 [III, p. 319]).

ὦ στυγνοτάτην could be a reminiscence of Hipp. 1355 ὦ στυγνὸν ὄχημ᾽ … (cf. 728–55n.), but similar apostrophes are found in Pers. 472 (ὦ στυγνὲ δαῖμον) and Phil. 1348 (ὦ στυγνὸς αἰών).

736–7. ‘Which of our allies are you? My vision is dimmed at night, and I cannot make you out clearly.’

κατ᾽ εὐϕρόνην: 91–2n.

ἀμβλῶπες αὐγαί: Photius (α 1164 Theodoridis) has given us an interesting parallel in E. fr. 397a (Thyestes) ἀμβλῶπας αὐγὰς ὀμμάτων ἔχεις σέθεν (Reitzenstein: ἀμβλωπὰς bz). He further attests ἀμβλώψ (rather than ἀμβλωπός: Eum. 955, E. frr. 155a ἀμβλωπὸς ὄψις, 386a, Critias 88 B 6.11 DK = fr. 6.10 IEG) for Sophocles (fr. 1001), Ion (TrGF 19 F 53a) and Plato the Comedian (fr. 254 PCG). Like δίβαμος (214–15n.), this form of the adjective had previously been a hapax (Ritchie 151, 210, Fraenkel, Rev. 230).

Bare αὐγαί, ‘eyes’, is paralleled in h.Merc. 361, A. (?) fr. 99.13 (Cares = Europa)⁴⁸⁶ ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν αὐγαῖς ταῖς ἐμαῖς ζόη σϕ᾽ ἔχει, Andr. 1179–80 … ⁴⁸⁷ and, figuratively, Pl. Rep. 540a6–8 καὶ ἀναγκαστέον ἀνακλίναντας τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐγὴν εἰς αὐτὸ ἀποβλέψαι πᾶσι ϕῶς παρέχον. The metaphor from the ‘rays’ or ‘beams’ of one’s eyes (LSJ s.v. αὐγή 1, 5) is clearest where ὀμμάτων (-ος) is added: Ai. 69–70 (with Finglass), HF 132, Phoen. 1564, E. fr. 397a (above), Licymn. fr. 771.2 PMG and also Hec. 1102–5 Ὠαρίων ἢ Σείριος ἔνθα πυρὸς ϕλογέας ἀϕίησιν / ὄσσων αὐγάς.

τορῶς: 77n.

738. Τρώων: Diggle for Τρωϊκῶν (Ω), since internal correption of a long vowel or diphthong – except with comic αὑτηί, τουτῳί, ἐκεινηί and the like (West, GM 12; cf. J. W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy, London 1912, 367) – would be unacceptable in Attic drama. Hermann (Opuscula III, 307) had already written Τρῴων, but the genitive of the people’s name is regular with ἄναξ in this sense: e.g. Rh. 406–7 μέγαν / ἄνακτα, Sept. 39 Καδμείων ἄναξ, A. Suppl. 328, 616, S. El. 482–3, Alc. 510.

740. τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κοῖτον ἰαύει: Metre and syntax are almost identical with Ai. 1408 τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κόσμον ϕερέτω (the body-armour) from the difficult anapaestic ending of that play (see Finglass on 1402–20, 1416–17, 1418–20). Direct borrowing is further suggested by the general rarity of ὑπασπίδιος (Il. 13.158, 807, 16.609 … ὑπασπίδια προποδίζων / προβιβάντι / προβιβάντος, Asius fr. 13.7 GEF … ὑπασπίδιον πολεμιστήν), which here must mean that Hector passed the night fully armed under the cover of his shield: cf. 20–2, 123–4 (nn.). Likewise Od. 14.479 (of a Greek ambushing party caught in bad weather) εὗδον δ᾽ εὔκηλοι, σάκεσιν εἰλυμένοι ὤμους and, with the shields as head-rests, Il. 10.150–2 βὰν δ᾽ ἐπὶ Τυδείδην Διομήδεα· … / … ἀμϕὶ δ᾽ ἑταῖροι / ηὗδον, ὑπὸ κρασὶν δ᾽ ἔχον ἀσπίδας.

κοῖτον ἰαύει combines two other essentially epic words. κοῖτος (‘bed, sleep’) is first and extensively attested in the Odyssey (cf. Hes. Op. 574), but in other drama occurs only at A. fr. 78c.7 (Theoroi?) ]ῳ τε καὶ The original sense of ἰαύω, ‘pass the night – in sleep or wakefulness’ (LfgrE s.v. B 1; cf. 519–20n.), is also still felt here, as in Ai. 1204 οὔτ᾽ ἐννυχίαν τέρψιν ἰαύειν. At HF 1049–50 τὸν εὔδι᾽ ἰαύονθ᾽ (Reiske: εὖ διαύοντα L) / ὑπνώδεά τ᾽ and Phoen. 1537–8 δεμνίοις / δύστανος ἰαύων it simply means ‘rest in bed’.

741. διόπων στρατιᾶς: ‘(of) the army’s commanders’ (< διέπω, as in e.g. Il. 2.207 ὅ γε κοιρανέων δίεπε στρατόν). For the noun, restored here by Portus (Breves Notae, 71), cf. especially Pers. 44 βασιλῆς δίοποι (with Garvie), again in recitative anapaests. It is elsewhere attested as A. fr. 232 (Sisyphus), E. fr. 447 (Hippolytus I)⁴⁸⁸ and, of a ship’s supervisor or captain (cf. A. fr. 269 ἀδίοπον), in Hp. Epid. 5.74.1 and 7.36.1 (ca. 350 BC). Although Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 338 Slater) and Ero-tian (δ 2 Nachmanson) classed the word as Attic, it may have carried an epic tone, given the verb from which it is derived.

742b–4. ‘… what someone has done to us unseen and then vanished, while the misfortune he has accomplished for the Thracians is plain to see.’

οἷά … ἀϕανῆ … ϕανερὸν / … πένθος: This chiastic juxtaposition has exact parallels in Hipp. 1286–9 Θησεῦ, τί τοῖσδε συνήδῃ, / παῖδ᾽ οὐχ ὁσίως σὸν ἀποκτείνας / ψεύδεσι μύθοις ἀλόχου πεισθεὶς / ἀϕανῆ; ϕανερὰν δ᾽ ἔσχεθες ἄτην and E. El. 1190–2 ἰὼ Φοῖβ᾽, ἀνύμνησας δίκαι᾽ / ἄϕαντα, δ᾽ ἐξέπρα- / ξας ἄχεα (δίκαι᾽ Murray: δίκαν L, ἄϕαντα Elmsley: ἄϕατα L), whence we should not write ἀϕανής with Dobree (Adversaria II [1833], 87 = IV [1874], 85). For ϕανερὸν … πένθος cf. also Ion 945 ϕανερὰ … κακά, Phoen. 1513 τοιάδ᾽ ἄχεα ϕανερά and 1565 τῶν μὲν ἐμῶν ϕανερὸν κακόν.

ϕροῦδος: 662n.

τολυπεύσας: literally ‘wind off, unravel’ (a skein of wool, τολύπη: Ar. Lys. 586, S. fr. 1102). Except for Od. 19.137 οἳ δὲ γάμον σπεύδουσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ δόλους τολυπεύω, where we have an allusion to Penelope’s web, the metaphor is already dead in Homer (Janko on Il. 14.85–7 … οἷσιν ἄρα Ζεύς / ἐκ νεότητος ἔδωκε ἐς γῆρας τολυπεύειν / ἀργαλέους πολέμους; cf. Il. 24.7–8 and the verse-end formula … ἐπεὶ πόλεμον τολύπευσε(ν) / -α in Od. 1.238, 4.490, 14.368 and 24.95). The verb is very rare after Homer and adds yet another epicism to the Charioteer’s lament (740, 741, 750–1a nn.). Similarly ἐκτολυπεύω (from [Hes.] Sc. 44?) at Ag. 1032–3 οὐδὲν ἐπελπομέ- / να ποτὲ καίριον ἐκτολυπεύσειν (with Fraenkel on 1033).

745–6. ‘Some evil seems to be falling on the Thracian host, according to what I understand from this man’s words.’

κυρεῖν … / ἔοικεν: Despite Paley (on 745), there is nothing exceptional about ἔοικα with a present infinitive (LSJ s.v. II 1). The latter, though perhaps slightly surprising after the aorist and perfect forms in 735 and 742–4, here seems to emphasise the lasting effects of the recent attack (Ammendola on 745–46) and point to further trouble ahead. Cf. Cho. 13 πότερα δόμοισι προσκυρεῖ νέον (Orestes seeing Electra and the chorus in mourning). κυρέω with a personal dative is otherwise restricted to Sophocles: Tr. 291 ἄνασσα, νῦν σοι τέρψις ἐμϕανὴς κυρεῖ, OC 1289–90 καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἀϕ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὦ ξένοι, βουλήσομαι / καὶ τοῖνδ᾽ ἀδελϕαῖν καὶ πατρὸς κυρεῖν ἐμοί.489

οἷα depends on both and κλύων. The clause is causal-exclamatory in origin (cf. 309–10n.).

747–9. ἔρρει στρατιά: similarly Pers. 732 Βακτρίων δ᾽ ἔρρει πανώλης δῆμος.

δολίῳ πληγῇ: The adjective suggests Odysseus’ agency (893b–4n.). Feminine δόλιος mostly stands for metrical reasons: Bacch. 17.116 δόλιος Ἀϕροδίτα, Cyc. 449, Tro. 530, IT 859 (δόλιον Hartung: δολίαν ὅτ᾽ L), Hel. 20, 238, 1589. But see Alc. 33–4 Μοίρας δολίῳ / σϕήλαντι τέχνῃ, where, as here, euphony may have played a part (cf. Kannicht on Hel. 335).

On Euripides’ fondness for using three-termination adjectives with two terminations see further W. Kastner, Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ, Heidelberg 1967, especially 95–99, 114 and Diggle, Euripidea, 167, 186, 262.

ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ: a cry of physical anguish as in 799 ἆ ἆ (extra metrum) and, again fourfold, Phil. 732 and 739. On the different denotations of the interjection – urgent protest, astonishment (HF 629, Ba. 586, 596), mental distress (A. Suppl. 162, Ag. 1087) – see the works cited in 687n. and also Dodds on Ba. 810–12, E. Schwentner, Die primären Interjektionen in den indogermanischen Sprachen … , Heidelberg 1924, 7, Ll-J/W, Second Thoughts, 66.

750–1a. ‘How the pain of my bloody wound afflicts me deep within!’

The expression is partly repeated in 799 (n.) ὀδύνη με τείρει κοὐκέτ᾽ ὀρθοῦμαι τάλας. It recalls Il. 15.60–1 δ᾽ ὀδυνάων / αἳ νῦν μιν τείρουσι κατὰ ϕρένας, Od. 9.440–1 ἄναξ … ὀδύνῃσι κακῇσι / τειρόμενος, Ar. Ach. 1205 ἰὼ ἰὼ τραυμάτων ἐπωδύνων, Hipp. 1351 διά μου κεϕαλῆς ᾄσσουσ᾽ ὀδύναι and 1370–1 αἰαῖ αἰαῖ· / νῦν ὀδύνα μ᾽ ὀδύνα βαίνει, which is also followed by a wish for death (1372–7, 1385–8). Cf. 728–55n.

ϕονίου: a favourite of Euripides (cf. Liapis on 750–1), as Aristophanes seems to have recognised in Ran. 1337. See 41–2, 662nn. and Introduction, 29–30 with n. 36.

εἴσω should be taken absolutely (‘inside the body’), as in Pl. Rep. 407d4–5 τὰ δ᾽ εἴσω διὰ παντὸς νενοσηκότα σώματα and epic ἔνδοθι (ἐντός) of various deep feelings at Il. 1.243–4 σὺ δ᾽ ἔνδοθι θυμὸν ἀμύξεις / χωόμενος, 22.242 ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὸς ἔνδοθι θυμὸς ἐτείρετο λυγρῷ, 10.10 τρομέοντο δέ οἱ ϕρένες ἐντός, Od. 2.315, 8.577, 19.377–8 and especially A. R. 3.761–2 ἔνδοθι δ᾽ αἰεί / τεῖρ᾽ ὀδύνη (Medea’s love-induced fear for Jason). Note also τὰ ἐντός, ‘the inner parts’ (LSJ s.v. ἐντός II with Suppl. [1996]), and Latin intus (TLL s.v. 103.52–76).

The only tragic parallel for this use of the adverb is Ag. 1343 ᾤμοι, πέπληγμαι καιρίαν ,where scholars have long suspected corruption and Vetta (GIF 5 [1974], 162–4) in particular assumed the intrusion of a ‘didascalic’ gloss (cf. Σ^B Med. 96 [II 149.16 Schwartz] τάδε λέγει Μήδεια ἔσω οὖσα). Yet with πληγῇ in 749 and another echo of Agamemnon’s death in 790–1 (n.), it is probable that our lines were also influenced by Aeschylus and that the passages hence support each other. Formulations like Il. 16.340 (~ 21.117–18) πᾶν δ᾽ εἴσω ἔδυ ξίϕος, E. El. 1221–3 ἐγὼ μὲν … / ϕασγάνῳ κατηρξάμαν / ματέρος δέρας μεθείς, Ion 767–8 διανταῖος ἔτυπεν ὀδύνα με πλευ- / μόνων τῶνδ᾽ ἔσω and Hel. 354–6 ἢ διωγμὸν / αἱμορρύτου σϕαγᾶς / αὐτοσίδαρον ἔσω πελάσω διὰ σαρκὸς ἅμιλλαν are made easier by the genitive or verb of motion they contain (Denniston–Page on Ag. 1343, M. Vetta, GIF 5 [1974], 159–64, who both falsely join εἴσω with ϕονίου τραύματος here).

751b. πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμην; another topos in anapaestic laments (cf. 733n.). So also Alc. 864, Med. 97 and, more expansively, E. Suppl. 795–7 μελέα / πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμην σὺν τοῖσδε τέκνοις / κοινὸν ἐς Ἅιδην ; (Ritchie 211). For desperate ‘wish-questions’ with πῶς ἄν see 869n.

752–3. The sentiment is further developed in 758–61 (n.). As in 733 (n.), the Charioteer puts himself before his master, no matter that the order μ᾽ … Ῥῆσόν τε is dictated by Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms.

ἀκλεῶς: likewise 761 (n.). Earlier tragic instances of ἀκλεῶς and its adjective all belong to Euripides: Or. 786 ἰτέον, ὡς ἄνανδρον ἀκλεῶς κατθανεῖν, Hcld. 623–4 ἀκλεής … δόξα, Hipp. 1028, IA 18 (if genuine). It is not clear whether fr. tr. adesp. 665.21 comes from a fourth-century or much later imitation of Euripides (Kannicht–Snell, TrGF II, 251–2).

Τροίᾳ κέλσαντ᾽ ἐπίκουρον: ‘… after he had landed in Troy as your ally’. In view of the verbal affinities with E. El. 135–9 ἔλθοις δὲ πόνων … / … λυτήρ, /… πατρί θ᾽ αἱμάτων / ἐπίκουρος (‘avenger’), Ἄρ- / γει πόδ᾽ (where κέλλω is uniquely transitive in tragedy: FJW on A. Suppl. 330–2), it seems preferable to take Τροίᾳ here with κέλσαντ᾽ rather than ἐπίκουρον (Kovacs, Liapis on 752–3). Elsewhere in Rhesus the verb has its regular construction with a prepositional phrase or an accusative of direction (895–8, 934–5a nn.).

754–5. ἐν αἰνιγμοῖσι … / σαϕῶς: a very common antithesis in fifth-century and later literature: e.g. Ag. 1178–83 καὶ μὴν ὁ χρησμὸς οὐκέτ᾽ ἐκ καλυμμάτων / ἔσται δεδορκὼς … 1183b ϕρενώσω δ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐξ αἰνιγμάτων, PV 609–10 λέξω τορῶς σοι πᾶν ὅπερ χρῄζεις μαθεῖν, / οὐκ ἐμπλέκων αἰνίγματ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῷ λόγῳ, 833–5, IA 1146–7, Aeschin. 3.121 and, conversely, A. Suppl. 464 αἰνιγματῶδες τοὔπος· ἀλλ᾽ ἁπ<λ>ῶς ϕράσον, Alexis fr. 242.6–7 PCG, Anaxil. fr. 22.23 PCG, Pl. Ep. 332d6–7. Further examples in FJW on A. Suppl. 464.

As regards tragedy, αἰνιγμός (for αἴνιγμα) is unique to our passage save for Phoen. 1353 Σϕιγγὸς αἰνιγμοῖς, which is very probably part of an interpolation (see Fraenkel, Zu den Phoenissen, 83–4 [cf. n. 267] and Diggle’s apparatus on 1308 ff.). The first unquestionably genuine instance is Ar. Ran. 61.

σημαίνει κακά: an inflectable Euripidean verse-end: Hec. 512 … σημανῶν κακά, HF 1230 … σημαίνεις κακά, Ion 945 … σημαίνω κακά.

 

756–803. In a movement comparable to that employed in scenes where the same situation is presented first ‘emotionally’ in lyrics, then ‘rationally’ in dialogue verse,⁴⁹⁰ the Charioteer turns from his sung and spoken trochaics (728b, 732a) and recitative anapaests (733–5, 738–44, 747–53) to regular iambic discourse. Among tragic messenger speeches, however, his account of Rhesus’ death stands out for its extreme subjectivity (728–55n. with n. 268) and narrow perspective. Himself a victim of the nocturnal slaughter, he can only speak from direct perception and, with his failure to anticipate the attack (773–9), his belated and clumsy attempts to defend the camp (792–8) and his ignorance of the actual circumstances and perpetrators of the deed (800–3), he becomes the most obvious exponent in the play of human short-sightedness and inefficiency (Strohm 271–2, J. Barrett, Staged Narrative. Poetics and the Messenger in Greek Tragedy, Berkeley – London 2002, 189).

After a lengthy reflection on failed heroism harking back to 752–3 (756–7a, 758–61, 761, 762–3a nn.), the report proper confirms the return to the substance of Iliad 10, observed previously in the adaptation of Hippocoon’s lament (728–55n.). This manifests itself in the all but exclusive interest in Rhesus’ horses, which is certainly appropriate to the faithful Charioteer, but turns the king into little more than a source of splendid booty: Il. 10.463–4 ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖτις / πέμψον ἐπὶ Θρῃκῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ εὐνάς, 477–81, 488–501, 520 (cf. Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 34–5, Barrett, Narrative, 173).491 The temporary marginalisation of Rhesus in favour of his servant’s more immediate pathos is clearest in 780–8 (n.), the translation of Il. 10.494–7 into the only dream related by a ‘messenger’ on stage, and 790–1 (n.), where even his final moments appear as a grisly experience of the Charioteer (Barrett, Narrative, 181–2). Moreover, by a slight change in the Thracians’ attitude towards self-protection (762–9n.), our poet manages to combine a first hint at the narrator’s resentments against his hosts with a sense that Rhesus invited his fate.

When it comes to his own foiled attack and injury (792, 793–5a, 797–8, 799nn.), the Charioteer reverts to his earlier penchant for epic language (740, 741, 742b–4, 750–1a nn.), as if to corroborate the Thracian’s lack of glory (756–61) by giving an ironic commentary on Homeric prowess. In addition, his groan at 799 almost literally takes up 749–51 and so reinforces the unique juxtaposition of message and lament.

756–61. Among introductions to tragic messenger speeches (284–6n.), the length and character of this passage are matched only by the Maidservant’s reflections on Alcestis’ excellence in Alc. 152–7. Both this woman and the Charioteer act as ‘substitute messengers’ and are in their respective ways perhaps more than usually affected by the incidents they are going to recount.

 

756–7a. ‘We have suffered a disastrous blow and, over and above disaster, disgrace as well.’

Construction and wording are almost identical with 102 (102–4n.) αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἡμῖν, καὶ πρὸς αἰσχύνῃ κακόν. But in contrast to Hector, the Charioteer is more concerned with physical suffering and, as Liapis (on 756–7) observes, foregrounds it over heroic shame. This also distinguishes him from other major characters in tragedy, such as Eteocles in Sept. 683–5 εἴπερ κακὸν ϕέροι τις, αἰσχύνης ἄτερ / ἔστω· μόνον γὰρ κέρδος ἐν τεθνηκόσιν· / κακῶν δὲ καἰσχρῶν οὔτιν᾽ εὐκλείαν ἐρεῖς, Iolaus in Hcld. 449–50 χρῆν ἄρ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀνδρὸς εἰς ἐχθροῦ χέρας / πεσόντας αἰσχρῶς καὶ κακῶς λιπεῖν βίον and Cadmus in Ba. 1305–7 ὅστις … / τῆς σῆς τόδ᾽ ἔρνος, ὦ τάλαινα, / αἴσχιστα καὶ κάκιστα κατθανόνθ᾽ ὁρῶ.

κακῶς πέπρακται: likewise Med. 364 κακῶς πέπρακται πανταχῇ· τίς ἀντερεῖ;

πρός after κἀπὶ τοῖς κακοῖσι is redundant and probably not more than a convenient verse-filler (Fraenkel, Rev. 238). Elsewhere this particular use of adverbial πρός is restricted to the phrases πρὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς (A. fr. 146a) and καὶ πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις (Ar. Pl. 1001, Anaxil. fr. 24 PCG).

757b. ‘And this is an evil twice as great.’

A similarly formulated question is asked by Tecmessa at Ai. 277 ἆρ᾽ ἐστὶ δὶς τόσ᾽ ἐξ ἁπλῶν κακά; meaning that Ajax, relieved from his madness, has started to torment himself as well as his family.

καίτοι: ‘logical’, marking the transition from minor to major premise in an incomplete syllogism (GP 561–4, especially ii). The particle seems to have no adversative force here.

δὶς τόσον κακόν: 159b–60n.

758–61. The wish for a glorious death in battle, if die one must, is a heroic commonplace from Homer on (e.g. Il. 22.304–5) and often contrasted with the prospect or reality of a less favourable end that brings no honour to the family: e.g. Od. 1.234–43, 14.365–71, 24.28–34, Cho. 345–53 + 494, Andr. 1181–5 (cf. Garvie on Cho. 345–53, Liapis on 758–60). Despite Ritchie (227), there is thus nothing specially Euripidean about the sentiment here, although certain phraseological resemblances can be discerned (758, 759, 760, 761nn.).

758. εἰ θανεῖν χρεών: Versions of this conditional clause appear several times in Euripides: Hipp. 442 (~ HF 147, Ion 1120) … εἰ θανεῖν αὐτοὺς χρεών, IT 1004–5 … οὐδέ σ᾽ εἰ θανεῖν χρεών / σώσασαν, Phoen. [1745] … εἰ καὶ θανεῖν … χρεών; cf. Cyc. 201 εἰ θανεῖν δεῖ, Hcld. 443 (~ Or. 50) εἴ με χρὴ θανεῖν. Aeschylus and Sophocles offer nothing of the sort, unless fr. tr. adesp. 626 (32 εἰ καὶ θανεῖν χρὴ … ) belongs to the latter.

759. On such strong subjective affirmations about the feelings or perceptions of the dead see K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford 1974, 243, who quotes S. El. 400 πατὴρ δὲ τούτων, οἶδα, συγγνώμην ἔχει and E. El. 684 πάντ᾽, οἶδ᾽, ἀκούει τάδε πατήρ· στείχειν δ᾽ ἀκμή.

λυπρὸν μὲν οἶμαι: Ritchie (245–6) notes the syntactical similarity to the opening of Alc. 353–4 ψυχρὰν μέν, οἶμαι, τέρψιν, ὅμως βάρος / ψυχῆς ἀπαντλοίην ἄν. Parenthetical οἶμαι (μέν) is more frequent in Euripides (also Alc. 565, Med. 311, 331, 588, Hcld. 511, 670, 968, Hipp. 458, El. 1124, Ba. 321, IA 392) than in all other extant tragedy together: Cho. 758 οἴομαι (spoken by the Nurse), PV 758, 968, Ant. 1051, Phil. 498, S. fr. 583.4. It mostly has a colloquial ring (Stevens, CEE 23–4, Collard, ‘Supplement’, 361).

πῶς γὰρ οὔ; ‘How could it not be?’, i.e. ‘of course’ (cf. GP 86). This is likewise at least conversational in tone and, especially in reply to a previous speaker’s words, exceedingly common in Plato. In tragedy it occurs in parenthesis at Cho. 753–4 (again from the Nurse’s speech) and S. El. 1307. Cf. also S. El. 911 πῶς γάρ; and perhaps OT 567, S. fr. 730e.5 πῶς δ᾽ οὐ(χί); (Collard, ‘Supplement’, 368).

760. καὶ δόμων εὐδοξία: For εὐδοξία with a possessive genitive cf. Sim. fr. 531.6–7 PMG = 261.5–6 Poltera ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ὅδε σηκὸς οἰκέταν εὐδοξίαν / Ἑλλάδος εἵλετο. In poetry the noun, but not its adjective, is virtually confined to choral lyric (also Pi. Pyth. 5.8, Nem. 3.40, Pae. 14.31 [fr. 52o Sn.–M. = S3 Rutherford]) and Euripides (Med. 627, Hec. 956, Suppl. 779, Tro. 643, possibly E. fr. 237.3); later only [Men.] Mon. 270 Jäkel. On εὐδοξέω see 496n.

761. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἀβούλως κἀκλεῶς ὀλώλαμεν: The formulation resembles Hipp. 1028 τἄρ᾽ ὀλοίμην ἀκλεὴς ἀνώνυμος and IA 17–18 ζηλῶ δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ὃς ἀκίνδυνον / βίον ἐξεπέρασ᾽ ἀγνὼς ἀκλεής (752–3n.). Yet strictly speaking, ἀβούλως here is causal, ‘through (our own) foolishness’ (cf. S. El. 398 καλόν γε μέντοι μὴ ᾽ξ ἀβουλίας πεσεῖν), while ἀκλεῶς acquires an almost consecutive sense: ita ut inglorii simus (KG II 115, SD 414 c). The incomplete correspondence is mitigated by the unifying force of the privative prefix (Fraenkel on Ag. 412 [II, p. 217] and, for other such juxtapositions, Richardson on h.Cer. 200 [p. 221]).

In view of the relative frequency of ἀβουλία and ἄβουλος (which Sophocles seems to like), ἀβούλως is surprisingly rare in fifth-century literature: Hdt. 3.71.3, Pherecr. fr. 152.6 PCG, Hcld. 152 (Kirchhoff: ἀβούλους L); cf. Hdt. 7.9β.1 ἀβουλότατα. After our passage it does not recur until Polybius and Diodorus Siculus.

762–9. The Charioteer freely admits to their neglect of basic emergency precautions, which at last betrays Rhesus’ gullibility and utter incompetence as a military leader. The somewhat reproachful tone in 767b–9a (as if the Trojans alone had failed to protect their auxiliaries) foreshadows his later accusations and probably mirrors Dolon’s misgivings at the lack of allied night-watches in Il. 10.420–2. The epic Thracians, however, have arranged their weapons and horses in perfect order (Il. 10.471–3 οἳ δ᾽ καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, ἔντεα δέ σϕιν / καλὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖσι χθονὶ κέκλιτο εὖ κατὰ κόσμον, / τριστοιχεί· παρὰ δέ σϕιν ἑκάστῳ δίζυγες ἵπποι) and even the goads (766b–7a n.) are in their proper place: Il. 10.500–1 (Odysseus drives Rhesus’ team with his bow) ἐπεὶ οὐ μάστιγα ϕαεινήν / ποικίλου ἐκ δίϕροιο νοήσατο χερσὶν ἑλέσθαι.

Rhesus here appears to have influenced Verg. Aen. 9.316–19 passim somno vinoque per herbam / corpora fusa vident, arrectos litore currus, / inter lora rotasque viros, simul arma iacere, / vina simul (cf. Introduction, 45).

762–3a. ἐπεὶ γάρ: Many dramatic narratives, and especially Euripidean messenger speeches, open with an ἐπεί-clause, which usually alludes to some earlier event or universally shared presupposition of the play: e.g. Tr. 899–946 (900), OC 1586–1669 (1590), Med. 1136–1230, IT 260–339, Ion 1122–1228, Phoen. 1090–1199; cf. OT 1237–85 (1241) ὅπως γάρ. The allocation of sleeping quarters had motivated Hector’s departure with Rhesus at 526, and ἡμᾶς may indicate that the Charioteer was also there as a member of the latter’s entourage. Cf. Andr. 1085 ἐπεὶ τὸ κλεινὸν ἤλθομεν Φοίβου πέδον, E. El. 774, IT 1327, Hel. 1526–30 and Ba. 1043–4 (A. Rijksbaron, in J. M. Bremer et al. [eds.], Miscellanea tragica in honorem J. C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam 1976, 293–308, Ritchie 253).

γάρ marks the entire report as explanation for the preceding ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἀβούλως κἀκλεῶς ὀλώλαμεν. More often in this position it comes after ‘an expression denoting the giving … of information’ (284–6, 285nn.). So e.g. Ai. 748–9 τοσοῦτον οἶδα καὶ παρὼν ἐτύγχανον. / ἐκ γὰρ συνέδρου καὶ τυραννικοῦ κύκλου (…), S. El. 680–1, Alc. 157–8, Hcld. 799–800, PV 827–9 and maybe also Phoen. 1427–8 (P. J. Finglass, Hcld. 799-800, PV 827-9 and maybe also Phoen. 1427-8 (P. J. Finglass, Mnemosyne IV 58 [2005], 561–4).

ηὔνασ᾽: 580–1n.

Ἑκτόρεια χείρ: a metrically convenient, epicising periphrasis for Ἕκτωρ (contrast Bacch. 13.151–4 / [δ᾽ ἔρ]ευθε ϕώτων / [αἵμα]τι γαῖα μέλα[ινα] / [Ἑκτορ]έας ὑπὸ χει[ρός]), although χείρ may imply that he pointed out the Thracian resting-places (Paley on 762; cf. 519 δείξω δ᾽ ἐγώ σοι χῶρον …), just as e.g. ‘strength’ is suggested by the noun in βίη Ἡρακληείη or the action of coming in Or. 1216–17 σὺ μέν νυν … παρθένου πόδα (i.e. Ἑρμιόνην). See KG I 280–1.

For the irregular prosody of Ἑκτόρειᾰ, restored by Dindorf (III.2 [1840], 619), cf. Ar. Eccl. 1029 καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἀνάγκη μοὐστί; – Διομήδειά γε and perhaps Pi. Ol. 10.15–16 τράπε δὲ Κύκνεια μάχα καὶ ὑπέρβιον / Ἡρακλέα (Κύκνεια Hermann: κύκνεα codd.: Κυκνεία byz.).492 The ori ( Hermann: codd.: byz.).⁴⁹² The origin of this phenomenon is obscure, but a possible explanation is offered by W. Kastner (Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ, Heidelberg 1967, 63–4). Noting the tendency of proper name adjectives to avoid feminine forms in -εία and -ία, he deduced a poetic licence to replace them with substantival formations in -ιᾰ, as illustrated by the coexistence of epic δῖα θεάων / γυναικῶν and δῖα θεά (Il. 10.290; cf. e.g. Il. 1.141 εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, 14.347 χθὼν δῖα) and the occasional attributive use of βασίλεια in Attic drama (Pers. 623, E. El. 988, Ar. Pax 974). Cf. A. Meschini AFLPad 1 (1976), 182–3 and Liapis on 762–4. Barrett (Collected Papers, 187 n. 197) prefers to speak of analogy.

ξύνθημα λέξας: The participle goes κατὰ σύνεσιν with χείρ, as in Il. 11.690–1 ἐλθὼν γὰρ ἐκάκωσε βίη Ἡρακληείη / τῶν προτέρων ἐτέων and Od. 16.476–7 μείδησεν δ᾽ ἱερὴ ἲ ς Τηλεμάχοιο / ἐς πατέρ᾽ ὀϕθαλμοῖσιν ἰδών. On ξύνθημα see 521–2n.

763b–4a. ηὕδομεν πεδοστιβεῖ / κόπῳ δαμέντες: ‘… we slept, overcome by the toils of our march’. This probably adapts the authorial statement about the Thracians at Il. 10.471 οἳ δ᾽ ηὗδον καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες (762–9n.), although with Morstadt’s πεδοστιβεῖ (Beitrag, 45) for the transmitted πεδοστιβεῖς (below) the construction comes closer to Il. 10.2 (= 24.678) ηὕδον παννύχιοι, μαλακῷ δεδμημένοι ὕπνῳ. Cf. also Rh. 123–4 (n.) ἀλλὰ στρατὸν … / εὕδειν ἐῶμεν ἐκ κόπων ἀρειϕάτων.

The textual change is necessary, for (‘earth-treading’) always implies at least a capacity for locomotion (cf. Pers. 127 πεδοστιβὴς λεώς, Med. 1123 ὄχον πεδοστιβῆ, Hel. 1516 πεδοστιβεῖ ποδί, E. fr. 670.3–4 ὑγρὰ δὲ μήτηρ, οὐ πεδοστιβὴς τροϕός / θάλασσα and 253–5a n.) and could thus not possibly be applied to persons lying sprawled on the ground (769). Despite Liapis (on 762–4), an equivalent to its combination with κόπος here seems to exist in A. fr. 131.2 (Myrmidons) δοριλυμάντους Δαναῶν μόχθους (literally ‘the toils of the Danaans resulting from the destruction by spears’).

ηὕδομεν: 580–1n.

764b–5a. οὐδ᾽ ἐϕρουρεῖτο στρατός / ϕυλακαῖσι νυκτέροισιν: similarly Cyc. 689–90 τηλοῦ σέθεν / ϕυλακαῖσι ϕρουρῶ σῶμ᾽ Ὀδυσσέως τόδε.

765b–6a. οὐδ᾽ ἐν τάξεσιν / ἔκειτο τεύχη: ‘… nor was our armour laid out in order’, with the plural τάξεσιν referring to the different sets of weapons (KG I 19 n. 3). Liapis (on 764–7 ~ ‘Notes’, 91) misunderstands the word as ‘ranks’ (cf. 519–20n.); hence his emendation οὐκ ἐν τεύχεσιν ἔκει<ν>το τάξεις, where τάξεις looks doubtful both in itself and in view of the following non-personal subject πλῆκτρα.

766b–7a. πλῆκτρά τ᾽ οὐκ ἐπὶ ζυγοῖς / ἵππων καθήρμοσθ᾽᾽: The custom of leaning one’s goad against the yoke is illustrated by Il. 23.510 (Diomedes after the chariot-race) κλῖνε δ᾽ ἄρα μάστιγα ποτὶ ζυγόν. On Il. 10.500–1 see 762–9n.

πλῆκτρον in the sense ‘goad, whip’, occurs only here, but the association is obvious (LSJ s.v. ‘anything to strike with’), and Suda κ 1338 Adler Κέντρα: τὰ τῶν πλῆκτρα (cf. κ 1344) need not be based on these lines.

For the pluperfect καθήρμοσθ᾽ of a state resulting from a (non-) action preceding ηὕδομεν in 763 Liapis (on 764–7) compares Il. 10.151–3 ἀμϕὶ δ᾽ ἑταῖροι / ηὗδον … ἔγχεα δέ σϕιν / ὄρθ᾽ ἐπὶ σαυρωτῆρος ἐλήλατο (i.e. Diomedes’ companions).

768–9. κἀϕεδρεύοντας νεῶν / πρύμναισι: 489–90n. ἐϕεδρεύω is exceedingly rare in poetry, and in its military use (‘lie in wait, besiege’) confined to our passage. But note Or. 1627 σύθ᾽ ὃς ξι ϕήρης τῇδ᾽ siege’) confined to our passage. But note Or. 1627 ἐϕεδρεύεις κόρῃ (with Willink).

ϕαύλως δ᾽ ηὕδομεν πεπτωκότες: rounding off the preliminaries in ring-composition with 763–4 ηὕδομεν πεδοστιβεῖ / κόπῳ δαμέντες (Liapis on 762–4 [p. 277]). For ηὕδομεν (εὕδ- Ω) see 580–1n. and for ϕαύλως 285n. The meaning here is ‘carelessly, thoughtlessly’ (LSJ s.v. ϕαῦλος II 3).

770–2. ‘And I awoke from sleep in heart-felt concern and with generous hand measured out fodder for the horses, expecting to yoke them for a battle at dawn.’

μελούσῃ καρδίᾳ λήξας ὕπνου: Personal μέλω, ‘care for, take an interest in’ (LSJ s.v. B), hardly ever has an non-personal subject (for a very late instance see Q. S. 4.500 ἱππασίῃ μεμελημένον ἦτορ), and Fraenkel (Rev. 238) was probably right in suspecting that our poet composed the phrase from Sept. 287 (Χο.) μέλει, ϕόβῳ δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπνώσσει κέαρ (+ 288–9 γείτονες δὲ καρδιᾶς / μέριμναι), where μέλει answers Eteocles’ preceding request for ‘a better prayer’ (265–81), but could easily have been mistaken for another predicate with κέαρ (A. Fries, CQ n.s. 60 [2010], 350; cf. Introduction, 37).

λήξας ὕπνου, which may itself be an echo of οὐχ ὑπνώσσει in Sept. 287 (Fraenkel, Rev. 238), comes from HF 1011 (cf. 70–5, 70–1nn.).

ἑωθινήν / … ἐς ἀλκήν: ‘for the purpose of …’, as in e.g. Hel. 1379 δ᾽ ἐς ἀλκὴν σῶμ᾽ ὅπλοις ἠσκήσατο and Il. 8.375–6 ὄϕρ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ … / τεύχεσιν ἐς πόλεμον θωρήξομαι (LSJ s.v. εἰς A V 2). The text is that of V. Λ’s πρός may be possible (LSJ s.v. C III 3 a), but most likely arose by assimilation to προσδοκῶν in 771 (Liapis on 770–2 ~ ‘Notes’, 91–2).

Unlike ἀλκή, ‘battle, fight’, which is regular in non-Sophoclean tragedy (and also occurs at 933), ἑωθινός is elsewhere attested in the genre only at S. fr. 502 (Poimenes) ἑωθινὸς γάρ … / θαλλὸν χιμαίραις προσϕέρων νεοσπάδα, / εἶδον στρατὸν στείχοντα παραλίαν πέτραν (Liapis on 770–2). On the (possible) connections between Poimenes and Rhesus see Introduction, 33 and 264–341, 388–526, 383–4nn.

ἀϕθόνῳ μετρῶ χερί comes closest to Med. 612 … ὡς ἕτοιμος ἀϕθόνῳ δο ῦναι χερί. Note also Pi. Ol. 2.93–5 ϕίλο ις ἄ νδρα μᾶ λλον / . Note also Pi. Ol. 2.93-5 εὐεργέταν ἀϕθονέστερόν τε χέρα / Θήρωνος, S. El. 457–8 ὅπως τὸ λοιπὸν αὐτὸν ἀϕνεωτέραις / χερσὶ στέϕωμεν and, for further parallels, FJW on A. Suppl. 958.

μετρέω, ‘measure out (particularly provisions)’, is a domestic term well-suited to this context and the attentive Charioteer. Cf. Hes. Op. 349 εὖ μὲν μετρεῖσθαι παρὰ γείτονος (with West), Ar. Ach. 548 σιτίων μετρουμένων, Eq. 1009 ἐν ἀγορᾷ κακῶς, , Eq. 1009 Av. 580 (LSJ s.v. III 3).

774a. πυκνῆς δι᾽ ὄρϕνης: ‘through the thick darkness’, as if this consisted of a substance which could be close-packed as in a cloud: Il. 5.751, 8.395 πυκινὸν νέϕος, 16.298, Hes. Op. 553, E. fr. 330.4 … συντιθεὶς πυκνὸν νέϕος, Phoen. 250–1 (metaphorical). On ὄρϕνη and traces of a quasi-material conception of night in Greek see 41–2, 696–8nn.

774b–5. Together with 778 (οἳ δ᾽ οὐδέν) this looks like the model of Nisus and Euryalus in Verg. Aen. 9.377–8 nihil illi tendere contra, / sed celerare fugam in silvas et fidere nocti (Introduction, 45).

κἀνεχωρείτην πάλιν: In a similar narrative and situation cf. IT 264–5 ἐνταῦθα δισσοὺς εἶδέ τις νεανίας / βουϕορβὸς ἡμῶν, πάλιν.

776–7. ‘And I called to them not to draw near our army, believing that some marauders from our allies had come.’

ἤπυσα: an originally epic word, which is not elsewhere found in tragic spoken verse. It occasionally governs a personal dative (e.g. Ai. 879–87 τίς ἂν δῆτά μοι … ἀπύοι; Ba. 984 μαινάσιν δ᾽ ἀπύσει, A. R. 230), but the infinitive, though easy on analogy with other verbs of saying, is again unique to this place.

κλῶπας … συμμάχων … τινάς: 644–5n. In suspecting his allies of theft (no doubt a well-known offence in army camps of all times) the Charioteer first explicitly shows his deep-rooted mistrust of the Trojans (cf. 802b–3n.). He ‘does not even consider the possibility of a Greek venture into [their] camp’ (Liapis on 776–7).

778–9. ‘But they gave no response. I in my turn did not say anything further, but went back to bed and slept.’

The laconic tone of this couplet, enhanced by the double verbal ellipsis in 778, reflects the Thracian’s fatal indifference to the intruders and aptly prepares for the horrors to come.

οἳ δ᾽ οὐδέν: sc. e.g. ἠμείβοντο (Paley).

οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ marks progression in negative statements (GP 338–9).

τὰ πλείονα: sc. ἔλεγον or εἶπον. The article, which sounds redundant to the modern ear, implies ‘the more I might have said’. Cf. especially Phil. 576 μή νύν μ᾽ ἔρῃ τὰ πλείον᾽, OC 36–7 πρὶν νῦν τὰ πλείον᾽ ἱστορεῖν, ἐκ τῆσδ᾽ ἕδρας / ἔξελθ᾽, Med. 609 ὡς κρινοῦμαι τῶνδέ σοι τὰ πλείονα (with Page), and see KG I 636–7, Liapis on 778–9.

ηὗδον: 580–1n.

αὖθις ἐς κοίτην πάλιν: The same phrase fills the second half of Alc. 188.

780–8. The Charioteer’s lively allegoric dream has a precedent in Rhesus’ highly ‘condensed’ nightmare of Diomedes at Il. 10.494–7 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ βασιλῆα κιχήσατο Τυδέος υἱός, / τὸν τρεισκαιδέκατον μελιηδέα ἀπηύρα, / ἀσθμαίνοντα· κακὸν γὰρ ὄναρ κεϕαλῆϕιν ἐπέστη / τὴν νύκτ᾽, Οἰνείδαο πάϊς, διὰ μῆτιν Ἀθήνης⁴⁹³ and can likewise be regarded as synchronous with the events that caused it. Unlike the foreboding dreams of other tragedy therefore (Pers. 181–99, Cho. 32–6, 526–34, S. El. 417–25, Hec. 1–58, 68–91, IT 42–55 – all received by women),⁴⁹⁴ its significance is limited to this single episode, where it helps to maintain the dire atmosphere of human half-knowledge and inefficiency (Strohm 271–2, R. Lennig, Traum und Sinnestäuschung bei Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides, diss. Tübingen 1969, 313).

The animal symbolism, thinly disguising Odysseus and Diomedes as marauding wolves, takes up a whole series of allusions centring around Dolon’s costume (201–23, 224–5, 543–5nn.; cf. S. H. Steadman, CR 59 [1945], 6–8, Burlando, Reso, 66–71 and, in general, West, IEPM 450–1), which eventually falls into his enemies’ hands (591–3n.) and may be thought to transfer part of its nature to them. Given the ancient reputation of wolves as tricksters (201–23n.), it is hardly coincidence that both here and in Hec. [90–1] (above) Odysseus, the grandson of Autolycus, is represented by that beast.

780. δόξα τις παρίσταται is evidently meant to recall the Homeric στῆ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ κεϕαλῆς … (Il. 2.20, 59, 23.68, 24.682, Od. 4.803, 6.21) and similar expressions used of dreams and related nocturnal apparitions, especially Il. 10.496–7 (780–8n.), Od. 20.93–4 δόκησε δέ οἱ κατὰ θυμόν / ἤδη γινώσκουσα παρεστάμεναι κεϕαλῆϕι, Hec. 30–1 νῦν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ϕίλης / Ἑκάβης ἀίσσω and ἐπιστῆναι in e.g. Hdt. 1.34.1, 2.139.1, 2.141.3 and numerous later writers (LSJ s.v. ἐϕίστημι B III 1; cf. E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley 1951, 105–6 with nn. 17 and 18). Yet most, if not all, of these passages feature anthropomorphic dream-figures or deities (who can literally be said to stand at somebody’s head or side), not complex symbolic dreams as here or at Od. 19.535–53. Further doubts as to the exact applicability of our phrase are aroused by the fact that in OT 911 we find δόξα μοι παρεστάθη with παρίσταμαι bearing its regular metaphorical meaning ‘come to one’s mind’ (LSJ s.v. παρίστημι B IV; cf. Pl. Phd. 66b1–2 οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη … δόξαν τοιάνδε τινὰ τοῖς γνησίως ϕιλοσόϕοις, ὥστε …). From there our poet may have adapted the words, aided by their corresponding verse position and the changeable sense of δόξα, ‘thought’ and ‘fancy, vision’ (Ag. 274–5, 420–1, Cho. 1051, 1053).

781–3. ‘For I saw, it seemed to me, as in a dream, (two) wolves, which had climbed onto the seats on the backs of the horses I tended and used to drive standing next to Rhesus.’

ἵππους … ἑδραίαν ῥάχιν: The σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος is rare of animals (SD 81c). At Il. 16.467–8 ὃ δὲ Πήδασον οὔτασεν ἵππον / ἔγχεϊ δεξιὸν ὦμον and Od. 10. 161 δ᾽ (sc. ἔλαϕον) ἐγὼ ἐκβαίνοντα κατὰ κνῆστιν μέσα νῶτα / πλῆξα (KG I 289–90) the deaths of the horse and stag are subsequently described in almost human terms (Janko on Il. 16.467–9, Heubeck on Od. 10.162–5).

γάρ: explanatory after a statement (780) equivalent to ‘an expression denoting the giving … of information’ (284–6n.); similarly e.g. Hdt. 1.59.1 γὰρ ἐόντι ἰδιώτῃ καὶ τέρας ἐγένετο μέγα· θύσαντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἱρά … and Pl. Ap. 40a2–5 ἐμοὶ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί … θαυμάσιόν τι γέγονεν. ἡ γὰρ εἰωθυῖά μοι μαντικὴ ἡ τοῦ δαιμονίου … (GP 60).

ἅς: 185n.

ὡς ὄναρ δοκῶν: sc. ὁρᾶν. Cf. Pers. 188 (of the Queen’s dream) ὡς ἐγὼ ᾽δόκουν ὁρᾶν, Ag. 423 εὖτ᾽ ἂν ἐσθλά δοκῶν ὁρᾶν and, with adverbial ὄναρ (LSJ s.v. II), Cyc. 8 ϕέρ᾽ ἴδω, τοῦτ᾽ ἰδὼν ὄναρ λέγω; and IT 518 ὡς μήποτ᾽ ὤϕελόν γε μηδ᾽ ἰδὼν ὄναρ. On Greeks ‘seeing’ rather than ‘having’ dreams see especially G. Björck, Eranos 44 (1946), 306–14 (311–14), Kessels (n. 279), 135–7, 138–43 and Arnott on Alexis fr. 274.1. δοκέω is even more common in this context (Garvie on Cho. 527).

ἐπεμβεβῶτας: of riders or (more often) warriors fighting from a chariot also e.g. [Hes.] Sc. 195 = 324 δίϕρου ἐπεμβεβαώς, Pi. Nem. 4.29 ἥροάς τ᾽ ἱπποδάμους and ἐπεμβάτης at E. Suppl. 585, 685, Ba. 782 (below) and, metaphorically, Anacr. fr. 417.6 PMG.

ἐπεμβαίνω, ‘step upon, mount’, usually governs a genitive or dative (LSJ s.v. I 1). The accusative here is unique in classical Greek,⁴⁹⁵ although one may compare ἐμβαίνω, ‘step into’, at Cyc. 91–2 (οὐκ ἴσασι …) ἄξενόν τε γῆν / τήνδ᾽ ἐμβεβῶτες and Hec. 921–2 ναύταν … ὅμιλον / Τροίαν ἐμβεβῶτα, as well as ἐπιβαίνω, ‘mount’, at [Hes.] Sc. 286 ἵππων ἐπιβάντες.

ἑδραίαν ῥάχιν: literally ‘the spine that provides a seat (for the rider)’. ἑδραῖος (which in other poetry is found only at Andr. 266 and Ar. Thesm. 663/4, meaning ‘seated’), does not recur in that sense. But ἡ ἕδρα τοῦ ἵππου is used in Xen. Eq. Mag. 4.1, Eq. 5.5 and 12.9 as a technical term for the horse’s back that carries the rider, and if this was at all common, the adjective here, together with ἐπεμβεβῶτας (cf. Ba. 782 ἵππων τ᾽ … ταχυπόδων ἐπεμβάτας), may help to give the ‘wolves’ their strangely human touch.

784–6. ‘And whipping the horses’ furry hide with their tails, they drove them on, while the mares snorted, breathing forth rage from their nostrils, and threw their manes back (i.e. reared up) in panic.’

θείνοντε echoes the dual participles for Odysseus and Diomedes at 586 (585–6n.), 590, 591, 595 and 619. Note further in this speech 773 ϕῶτε ἡμῶν στρατόν and 775 ἐπτηξάτην τε κἀνεχωρείτην πάλιν.

ῥινοῦ: here the skin of living animals, as in Hes. Op. 515 καί τε διὰ ῥινοῦ βοὸς ἔρχεται (sc. ὁ Βορέας) and [Hes.] Sc. 426–8 λεὼν ὣς σώματι κύρσας, / ὅς τε μάλ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ῥινὸν κρατεροῖς ὀνύχεσσι / σχίσσας ὅττι τάχιστα μελίϕρονα θυμὸν ἀπηύρα. This use of ῥινός is not found in Homer (LSJ s.v. II 1) and also apparently remained unpopular later.

: 185n.

ἔρρεγκον: The snorting of spirited or frightened horses is referred to in e.g. Il. 4.227 καὶ τοὺς μὲν θεράπων ἀπάνευθ᾽ ἔχε ϕυσιόωντας, 16.506–7, Sept. 245 (~ S. El. 717), 461–4 and 475. But ῥέγκω, which normally means ‘snore’, rather belongs to the comic register (Ar. Eq. 103–4, 115, Nub. 5, 11, Eup. fr. 289 PCG – of an aulos mouth-piece) and elsewhere in tragedy occurs only at Eum. 53 ῥέγκουσι δ᾽ οὐ πλατοῖσι ϕυσιάμασιν, where the Pythia is lost for words to describe the Erinyes in Apollo’s temple (A. H. Sommerstein, in A. Willi [ed.], The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford 2002, 160, 167).

Against Paley (on 785), the transmitted ἔρεγκον, corrected by Nauck (II¹ [1854], XXIII), cannot be justified by reference to Homeric ἔρεζον, ἐράπτομεν and the like, that is the epic and lyric496 licence of writing ρ instead of ρρ after the augment or in composition when a short syllable is required by metre.

ἐξ ἀρτηριῶν: perhaps ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ἔρρεγκον as well as θυμὸν πνέουσαι (cf. Σ^VL Rh. 785 [II 342.5, 29–30 Schwartz = 112 Merro] ἐκ τῶν μυκτήρων ποιὸν ἦχον ἀπετέλουν). On the basis of Tr. 1054–5 πλεύμονός τ᾽ ἀρτηρίας / ξυνοικοῦν (i.e. the Nessus-shirt ‘devouring’ Heracles’ ‘bronchial tubes’), Musgrave (on 787) wrote ἀρτηριῶν, ‘windpipes’, which can easily be extended to denote the horses’ nostrils. The MSS’ ἀντηρίδων is most unlikely to be right. But those who wish to defend it will have to derive it from ἀντῆρις (not ἀντηρίς as in LSJ s.v. II),⁴⁹⁷ a synonym of θυρίς, ‘window’, attested only in Suda α 2648 Adler (s.v. ἀντήρεις).

θυμὸν πνέουσαι: ‘breathing rage’, for which cf. Ba. 620 (of Pentheus) θυμὸν ἐκπνέων, Sept. 52–3 σιδηρόϕρων γὰρ … / ἔπνει λεόντων ὣς ἄρη δεδορκότων, Phoen. 454 θυμοῦ πνοάς and Ar. Ran. 1016—17 ... These and similar expressions like κότον or μένος πνεῖν (Cho. 33, 952, Eum. 840–1 = 873–4, S. El. 610) go back to the Homeric μένεα / μένος πνείοντες (e.g. Il. 2.536, Od. 22.203) and may originate in a belief that connected emotion with the act of breathing (R. B. Onians, The Origins of European Thought …, Cambridge 1951 = ²1954, 49–50, 53–6, Dodds on Ba. 620, Mastronarde on Phoen. 454 and, for further literature, Liapis on 784–6).

κἀνεχαίτιζον ϕόβῳ: With intransitive ἔρρεγκον preceding and no object expressed, the sense ‘and threw back their manes (i.e. reared up) in panic’ is more natural than Paley’s ‘… tried to shake them off …’, for which he compared Pentheus on his fir-tree at Ba. 1072 … ϕυλάσσων μὴ ἀναχαιτίσειέ νιν. By a curious coincidence, the (secondary) transitive of ἀναχαιτίζω seems only to occur in various metaphorical senses (LSJ s.v. I 2 with Suppl. [1996]). Contrast, of horses, D. H. 5.15.2 καὶ τοὺς ἐπιβάτας ἀναχαιτίσαντες ἀποσείονται and 12.5.2 ὃς ἀναχαιτίσας ῥιπτεῖ τὸν ἐπιβάτην.

Reiske’s ϕόβην (Animadversiones, 91), probably intended to remove the repetition with in 788, would give the sentence a rather weak ending. The construction, however, has good, if late, parallels in Hld. 2.35.1 (of a confident young man) ὀρθὸς τὸν αὐχένα καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετώπου τὴν κόμην πρὸς τὸ ὄρθιον ἀναχαιτίζων and Philostr. Her. 31.1 (of Ajax Locrus) καὶ ἀναχαιτίζων τὴν κομήν (cf. Liapis, ‘Notes’, 92).

787–8. Homeric sleepers usually awake immediately after the ‘departure’ of the dream: e.g. Il. 2.41, Od. 4.839–40, 6.48–9 (cf. E. Lévy, Ktèma 7 [1982], 26–7). To the Charioteer this happens quite realistically through fear and, as with Achilles trying to embrace Patroclus’ ghost (Il. 23.99–102), his active efforts to fend off the ‘wolves’. See Messer (n. 280), 15–16 with n. 48, 97–8.

ἔννυχος γὰρ ἐξώρμα ϕόβος: Platnauer (Eranos 62 [1964], 73), missing an accusative object with ἐξώρμα (as in e.g. Pers. 45–6, IT 1437, Ar. Thesm. 659, Thuc. 6.6.2), wished to read δέ μ᾽ for γάρ. But the ellipsis is nothing out of the ordinary and has an almost exact parallel in Pl. Pol. 294e5–7 διὸ δή γε καὶ ἴσους πόνους νῦν διδόντες ἁθρόοις, ἅμα μὲν ἐξορμῶσιν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ καταπαύουσι δρόμου καὶ πάλης καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰ σώματα πόνων.

For ἔννυχος … ϕόβος in relation to a nightmare cf. Cho. 32–5, 288 μάταιος ἐκ νυκτῶν ϕόβος, 929, fr. tr. adesp. 626.37 … δεῖμά τ᾽ ἔννυχον and also Cho. 523–4 ἔκ / καὶ νυκτιπλάγκτων δειμάτων (with Garvie on 523–5), S. El. 410 ἐκ δείματός του νυκτέρου (with Finglass) and Hec. 69–70 τί ποτ᾽ αἴρομαι ἔννυχος οὕτω / δείμασι ϕάσμασιν;

789. ‘And when I lifted my head, I heard the moans of dying men.’

The verse presumably represents a combination of Il. 10.483–4 τῶν δὲ στόνος ὤρνυτ᾽ ἀεικής / ἄορι θεινομένων and 10.519–21 ὃ δ᾽ (Hippocoon) ἐξ ὕπνου ἀνορούσας, / ὡς ἴδε χῶρον ἐρῆμον … / ἄνδράς τ᾽ (Ritchie 77) and may itself have inspired Verg. Aen. 9.332–3 tum caput ipsi aufert domino truncumque relinquit / sanguine singultantem (Introduction, 45).

ἐπάρας κρᾶτα: Cf. Hec. 499–500 ἀνίστασ᾽ … καὶ μετάρσιον / πλευρὰν ἔπαιρε καὶ τὸ πάλλευκον κάρα, E. Suppl. 289 ἔπαιρε κρᾶτα … and Tro. 98–9 ἄνα, δύσδαιμον· πεδόθεν κεϕαλὴν / ἐπάειρε δέρην <τ᾽>. In this form and context, however, the phrase particularly . In this form and context, however, the phrase particularly recalls Nestor roused by Agamemnon at Il. 10.80 ὀρθωθεὶς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀγκῶνος, κεϕαλὴν ἐπαείρας (7n.).

μυχθισμόν: a very rare word, which basically seems to have denoted a forced passage of air through the nostrils: Hp. Coac. 509 τὰ μετὰ μυχθισμοῦ ἔξω ἀναϕερομένα πνεύματα, 529 μυχθῶδες … πνεῦμα, Eust. 440.22–5 (on Il. 4.20 αἳ δ᾽ ἐπέμυξαν Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη), 1965.48–50 (on Od. 24.416 μυχμῷ). From there the step to ‘moan, groan’ is not far: Σ^V Rh. 789 (II 342.6–7 Schwartz = 112 a¹ Merro) ἦχον καὶ στεναγμὸν μετὰ πνοῆς γινόμενον; cf. e.g. PV 742–3 () ἰώ μοί μοι, ἐἕ. / (Πρ.) σὺ δ᾽ αὖ κέκραγας κἀναμυχθίζῃ, Eum. 117–20 (Χο.) ‘μυγμός’ / (Κλ.) μύζοιτ᾽ ἄν … / (Χο.) ‘μυγμός’ (with Sommerstein on 117), D. S. 17.11.5, 17.92.3 (of wounded men or a dog). But a connotation of ‘the laboured breathing of those who cannot rightly be described either as living or as dead’ (A. C. Pearson, CQ 11 [1917], 61) probably remained.

νεκρῶν: of dying men, as in Antipho 2.4.5 νεκροῖς ἀσπαίρουσι συντυχόντα and perhaps Thuc. 2.52.2 … καὶ νεκροὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις ἀποθνῄσκοντες ἔκειντο καὶ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἐκαλινδοῦντο καὶ περὶ τὰς κρήνας ἁπάσας ἡμιθνῆτες τοῦ ὕδατος ἐπιθυμίᾳ (where Gomme’s <καὶ> before ἀποθνῄσκοντες deserves consideration).

790–1. ‘And a warm jet of fresh blood hit me from the slaughter of my master, who was dying in agony.’

Ritchie (77) may be right in tracing the idea for κρουνὸς … αἵματος νέου to Il. 10.484 ἐρυθαίνετο δ᾽ αἵματι γαῖα, but above all we find here a combined echo of Clytaemestra’s gloating words over Agamemnon’s dead body at Ag. 1389–90 κἀκϕυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν αἵματος σϕαγήν / βάλλει μ᾽ ἐρεμνῇ ψακάδι ϕο ινίας δρόσου and the Messenger’s description of the dying Aegisthus at E. El. 842–3 πᾶν δὲ σῶμ᾽ ἄνω κάτω / ἤσπαιρεν ἠλέλιζε δυσθνῄσκων (ἠλέλιζε Schenkl: ἠλάλαζεν L, δυσθνῄσκων Paley: -θνῆσκον L). Apart from the presumably interrelated similarity of language and context, however, no special point is recognisable in this piquant juxtaposition, while Sophocles in his adaptation of Ag. 1389–90 at Ant. 1238–9 καὶ ϕυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν ἐκβάλλει / λευκῇ παρ ειᾷ ϕοινίου σταλάγματος skilfully retained some of the distorted overtones for Haemon’s and Antigone’s ‘bloody marriage’ (J. L. Moles, LCM 4 [1979], 179–89, A. H. Sommerstein, in A. Willi [ed.], The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford 2002, 154).

θερμὸς … κρουνὸς … αἵματο ς νέου: Cf. Hec. 566–8 ὃ δ᾽ οὐ τε καὶ θέλων οἴκτῳ κόρης / τέμνει σιδήρῳ πνεύματος διαρροάς· / κρουνοὶ δ᾽ ἐχώρουν.

δεσπότου παρὰ σϕαγῆς: Musgrave (on 792). A genitive is needed, since the transmitted δεσπότου παρὰ σϕαγαῖς would almost certainly have to be taken with με (‘And a warm jet of newly-shed blood strikes me, [as I lay] close to my slaughtered master … ’ [Paley]) and thus require a participle like κείμενον to clarify the connection. Hermann’s δεσπότου (Opuscula III, 308) with σϕαγαῖς … αἵματος νέου going together as ‘slaughters (i.e. spurts) of fresh blood’ has the seeming advantage of bringing sense and syntax even closer to Ag. 1389–90 (cf. Denniston– Page on 1389, A. Meschini, in Scritti Diano, 224–6), but doubts are cast on this conjecture by the fact that, except at verse-end, with ὑπέρ and forms in -αι, postposition of un-elided disyllabic prepositions is unexampled in Greek tragic trimeters (Denniston on E. El. 574).

δυσθνῄσκοντος: borrowed from E. El. 843 δυσθνῄσκων (above). The word contradicts analogy, since verbs of this type are usually formed from a corresponding compound noun or adjective and end in -έω (KB II 260, 336–7 with n. 2, Schwyzer 726). Yet the adjectival nature of the participle may soften the incongruity (cf. Fraenkel, Rev. 231, with earlier literature), as supposedly also in formations like Pers. 574 δυσβάϋκτον (724n.) and Hsch. δ 2671 Latte δυστοπάζοντες· ὑπονοήσαντες.

Euripides himself may have got δυσθνῄσκων from Aeschylus, if Enger was right to read δυσθνῄσκουσα (for συν-) at Ag. 819–20 … δυσθνῄσκουσα δέ / σποδὸς προπέμπει πίονας πλούτου The conjecture much improves the sense of the passage and has been adopted by Page and Sommerstein.

792. ὀρθὸς δ᾽ ἀνᾴσσω: Cf. Od. 21.118–19 (of Telemachus) ἦ, καὶ ἀπ᾽ ὤμοιϊν χλαῖναν θέτο ϕοινικόεσσαν / ὀρθὸς ἀναΐξας, ἀπὸ δὲ ξίϕος ὀξὺ θέτ᾽ ὤμων, Hel. 1600–1 ὀρθοὶ δ᾽ πάντες, οἳ μὲν ἐν χεροῖν / κορμοὺς ἔχοντες ναυτικούς, οἳ δὲ ξίϕη, Phoen. 1460 ἀνῇξε δ᾽ ὀρθὸς λαὸς εἰς ἔριν λόγων and Ba. 692–3 αἳ δ᾽ ἀποβαλοῦσαι θαλερὸν ὀμμάτων ὕπνον / ἀνῇξαν ὀρθαί. In each case the movement initiates vigorous (and often decisive) action, whereas all the Charioteer manages is to receive a serious blow (Liapis on 792).

χειρὶ σὺν κενῇ δορός: a natural consequence of the disarray in which the Thracians kept their equipment (765–6).

The genitive is usual with κενός (LSJ s.v. II 1, KG I 401–2; cf. especially Or. 688–9 γὰρ ἀνδρῶν συμμάχων κενὸν δόρυ / ἔχων), but there appears to be no other example of a preposition standing between its noun, an attribute and another substantive depending on the latter.

793–5a. ‘And while I was peering around and looking for a weapon, a man in his prime stood beside me and struck me in the lower flank with his sword.’

αὐγάζοντα: In most case αὐγάζω / -ομαι means ‘see distinctly’ or ‘look upon’ (LSJ s.v. I; cf. West on Hes. Op. 478: ‘I suppose the essential idea is ‘fix the gaze on’ a particular object’), but the sense required here can perhaps be derived from a ‘conative’ force of the present participle: ‘And as I strove to catch sight of my spear …’ (Porter on 793–4). In fifth-century tragedy, the verb is largely, if not exclusively, lyric (Phil. 217–18, Hec. 637, Hel. 1317, Ba. 596; S. fr. 659.6 [3ia] is dubious), although later its use was extended to iambic trimeters (Lyc. 71, 941, 1082) and even prose.

παίει παραστὰς … ξίϕει was presumably suggested by Il. 10.489 ὅν τινα Τυδείδης ἄορι πλήξασκε παραστάς (Ritchie 77). One may also compare Rhoetus’ violent death in Verg. Aen. 9.347–8 pectore in adverso totum cui comminus ensem / condidit adsurgenti et multa morte recepit (Porter on 793–4; cf. Introduction, 45).

νεῖραν ἐς πλευράν: so Bothe (3 [1824], 366) for the unmetrical νείαιραν ἐς πλευράν (Ω), to which, unlike Pierson’s νειάτην πλευράν (Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum, Leiden 1759, 268; cf. Chr. Pat. 1213 νύσσει παραστὰς νειάτην πλευρὰν ξίϕει) or Dobree’s νείατ᾽ ἐς πλευρά (Adversaria II [1833], 88 = IV [1874], 85), it could easily have been corrupted under epic influence (below). νεῖρα is a unique contraction of the old feminine adjective νείαιρα(Schwyzer 475, 503)498 and appropriately applied to the lower area of the trunk: cf. II. 5.857 ἐς κενεῶνα, the standard νείαιρα for ‘abdomen’ in Homer (Il. 5.539, 616, 16.465, 17.519) and the Hippocratic corpus, and also νείαιρα alone at Hp. Coac. 579, Call. Aet. fr. 43.15 Harder and perhaps Nic. Alex. 20 (Gow–Scholfield on 19 ff.). Another interesting parallel exists in Hp. Int. 27 in Hp. Int. 27 τάδε οὖν πάσχει· ἐς τὸ ἧπαρ ὀδύνη ὀξέη ἐμπίπτει, καὶ ὑπὸ τὰς νεάτας πλευρὰς (the lowest ribs) καὶ ἐς τὸν ὦμον … (dated to 400/390 BC by J. Jouanna, Hippocrate. Pour une archéologie de l’école de Cnide, Paris 1974, 513).

ἀνὴρ ἀκμάζων: similarly Pers. 441 Περσῶν ὅσοιπερ ἦσαν ἀκμαῖοι ϕύσιν and Sept. 10–11 καὶ τὸν ἐλλείποντ᾽ ἔτι / ἥβης ἀκμαίας. The verb ἀκμάζω (often in the present participle) is otherwise confined to prose, apart from its impersonal use at Sept. 98 ἀκμάζει βρετέων ἔχεσθαι and Cho. 726/7 νῦν γὰρ ἀκμάζει Πειθὼ δολία<ν> ξυγκαταβῆναι.

795b–6. ‘For I felt the blow of his sword, as I received the deep furrow of my wound.’

ϕασγάνου … / πληγῆς: Cf. Andr. 1074–5 (of Neoptolemus) τοιάσδε ϕασγάνων πληγὰς ἔχει / Δελϕῶν ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν καὶ Μυκηναίου ξένου. Compared to other tragedy, Euripides was exceedingly fond of (Liapis on 795–6).

γάρ explains ἀκμάζων: ‘I call him so because …’ (609b–10n.).

βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα τραύματος: Essentially the same metaphor appears in Cho. 25 ὄνυχος ἄλοκι νεοτόμῳ, whereas HF 164 δορὸς ταχεῖαν ἄλοκα, adduced as the primary parallel by Ritchie (211), is more likely to designate a ‘swathe’ cut into hoplite ranks by the enemy spears (Bond on 164, taking up Wilamowitz’ reaping imagery). βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα here most probably goes back to the famous Sept. 593–4 (of Amphiaraus) βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα διὰ ϕρενὸς καρπούμενος, / ἐξ ἧς τὰ κεδνὰ βλαστάνει βουλεύματα (cf. Pl. Rep. 362a8–b1 and West’s extensive testimonial apparatus).

797–8. πίπτω δὲ πρηνής: ‘And I fell on my face’, an epic juncture unique in tragedy, which is normally used of warriors being wounded or falling in battle: e.g. Il. 6.306–7 ἆξον δὴ Διομήδεος, ἠδὲ καὶ αὐτόν / πρηνέα δὸς πεσέειν, 12.395–6, 16.378–9, 17.300, [Hes.] Sc. 365 (LfgrE s.v. πρηνής B 1a). It is thus ironically at odds with the Charioteer’s ineffectual efforts (cf. 756–803n.).

ὄχημα πωλικόν / … ἵππων belongs together, despite the tautologous accumulation of attributes (e.g. Paley on 797, Fraenkel, Rev. 237–8). For ὄχημα, ‘team’, see 620b–1n. and especially Tim. Pers. fr. 791.190–1 PMG = Hordern τετρά<ορ>ον ἵπ- / πων ὄχημ᾽.

ἵεσαν ϕυγῇ πόδα: 203n. Comparable expressions for flight appear in OT 467–9 ὥρα νιν ἀελλάδων / ἵππων / ϕυγᾷ πόδα νωμᾶν, E. Suppl. 718 … ἔτρεψαν ἐς ϕυγὴν πόδα, Ba. 436–7 ὁ θὴρ δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἡμῖν πρᾶος οὐδ᾽ ὑπέσπασεν / ϕυγῇ πό δ᾽ and E. fr. 495.32–3 [κἀντεῦ] θεν … / [κοῦϕον] ἄλλος ἄλλοσ᾽ εἴχομεν ϕυγῇ.

799. ἆ ἆ / ὀδύνη με τείρει: a slight variation of 749–50 ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ, / οἵα μ᾽ ὀδύνη τείρει (747–9, 750–1a nn.), with another, contextually more neutral, epicism after 797 (797–8n.). For the structural meaning of the repetition see 756–803n.

κοὐκέτ᾽ ὀρθοῦμαι τάλας: Cf. Phil. 820 τὸ γὰρ κακὸν τόδ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ὀρθοῦσθαί μ᾽ ἐᾷ, where Kamerbeek (on 819, 20) sees an ambiguity between ὀρθοῦμαι, ‘to rise / stand upright’ and ‘to be restored to health’.

800–2a. The Guard in Antigone shows a similar lack of knowledge regarding the ‘perpetrator’ of Polynices’ first burial: Ant. 238–9 τὸ γάρ / πρᾶγμ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἔδρασ᾽ οὔτ᾽ εἶδον ὅστις ἦν ὁ δρῶν (cf. 245–7, 248–9, 252). If he and his comrades were inattentive or asleep, no such hint is given before 411–14 (Griffith on 253), and the uncanny nature of the nocturnal event (249–58) even leads the coryphaeus to suspect divine intervention (278–9, with Griffith’s note and his comments on 256, 376–440, 421). Yet in contrast to Rhesus (and Iliad 10), this is always left unclear to characters and audience alike, which creates tension and depth beyond the two reports.

τρόπῳ δ᾽ ὅτῳ / τεθνᾶσιν οἱ θανόντες οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι: almost a parody on the classical messenger speech, which is precisely concerned with how things came to pass and often triggered by a πῶς-question (282–3n.).

οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι (cf. 659 … οὐκ ἔχει ϕράσαι) is a rather frequent verse-end in Euripides (Hcld. 669, Ion 540 [4 tr‸], 803) and comedy (Ar. Ran. 60, Eccl. 333; cf. Alexis fr. 222.7 PCG … οὐκ ἔχοιμ᾽ ἄν <σοι> ϕράσαι, Men. Peric. 333 … οὐκ ἔχω τουτὶ ϕράσαι). Its plain, matter-of-fact tone (e.g. Hdt. 4.53.5 μούνου δὲ τούτου τοῦ καὶ Νείλου οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι τὰς πηγάς, δοκέω δέ, οὐδὲ οὐδεὶς Ἑλλήνων, Tr. 401 Εὐβοιίς· ὧν δ᾽ ἔβλαστεν οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν) here exemplifies the abrupt reversal from the colourful, poetic narrative of the Thracian disaster.

802b–3. The final remark, foreshadowed in 777 (776–7n.), prepares for the Charioteer’s more serious charges against Hector in 833–55, 866–7, 873 and 875–6. Again there is a parallel with Ant. 259–67, where in their first surprise and fear the guards accuse each other of having performed the funeral rites for Polynices.

εἰκάσαι δέ μοι / πάρεστι: 284n.

 

804–81. No sooner has the coryphaeus rejected the Charioteer’s allegation (804–5) than Hector returns, with bitter reproaches against the sentries who let the spies slip by (808–19). After the chorus’ lyric defence (820–32), Hector in turn is accused of having planned the attack out of desire for Rhesus’ horses (833–55). Unable to convince the Charioteer that Odysseus may be the culprit, he nevertheless has him led to his palace for care (856–81).

This second agon scene after 388–526 (388–526, 388–453, 467–526nn.) has been much criticised, both for appearing dramatically superfluous (G. Björck, Arctos n.s. 1 [1954], 17–18, Eranos 55 [1957], 16–17, H. D. F. Kitto, YCS 25 [1977], 341; cf. Ritchie 93–4) and its supposedly bad stage management regarding the Charioteer (e.g. F. Hagenbach, De Rheso Tragoedia, diss. Basel 1863, 25, Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 35; cf. Ritchie 131–2). Unusually indeed, the ‘victim-messenger’ (who must have collapsed for the moment at 799) does not exit upon delivering his speech to the chorus, but stays on to engage in further conversation with Hector. In this he particularly resembles the Phrygian in Or. 1506–36, while the fact that he gives a new turn to the plot brings him closer to the Idaean Shepherd (264–341n.) and the Old Man in Trachiniae, who recedes into the background after 180–99, waiting to offer his fateful assistance in 335–496 (Taplin, Stagecraft, 89, J. P. Poe, Philologus 148 [2004], 24–5 with n. 20).⁴⁹⁹

The entire parallel, yet chiastic, pair of disputes is centred on Hector in his successive functions of accuser and accused. Unlike the situation confronting him, he has not changed at all (808–19n.) and thus throws into even sharper relief the human characters’ limitations of judgement. In fact neither his nor the Charioteer’s charges lack a core of truth (808–19, 833–81nn.), but compared to the Muse’s superior knowledge they remain weak attempts at interpreting the events, which serve to illustrate the persisting confusion and, in a mirror-image of the quarrel between Hector and Rhesus, the disintegration of the Trojan and allied forces (Strohm 262, 264–5, G. Paduano, SCO 23 [1974], 28–30; cf. Ritchie 131–2). From this latter perspective we may understand the Charioteer’s premature removal (877–81) as a means not only to preserve medical realism and prevent the audience from dividing their sympathy between him and the grieving Muse (Ritchie 131), but also to leave a bitter note by making the suspicion that Hector killed for gain live on in one man (Burnett, ‘Smiles’, 35; cf. Rosivach 71–2 on Hector’s real part in the causal chain that led to Rhesus’ death).

Hector’s return presents the only really puzzling staging-problem in Rhesus. For it is unclear how he learnt of the Thracian disaster (806–7) and indeed from which direction he arrives. By convention it should be the eisodos leading to the Thracian camp (i.e. where he left at 526), but this would suggest that he was present when Rhesus and his comrades were killed. Perhaps, therefore, our poet had him re-enter from the other side, inviting his audience to think that in the meantime Hector had gone back to the Trojans. In view of the undefined backstage area (Introduction, 40–1, ‘Scene and Setting’, 114), this seems to be the lesser inconsistency, although doubts about such a step remain.500 See also Liapis, xli and on 808 ff.

 

 

804–5. ‘Charioteer of the Thracian who has fared so ill, do not distress yourself. The enemy has done that.’

ἡνίοχε: the only ‘first-foot dactyl’ in Rhesus. Cf. Ritchie 265–6, 268, who with Zieliński (Tragodumenon libri tres II, Cracow 1925, 145) regards ἡνίοχε as ‘almost equivalent to a proper name’ and thus liable to create an exception.

τοῦ κακῶς πεπραγότος: another apparently Euripidean verse-end: Alc. 246 ὁρᾷ σε κἀμέ, δύο κακῶς πεπραγότας, 961, Tro. 608 … τοῖς πεπραγόσιν, E. frr. 81.1, 130.1, 165.1, 957. Similarly also E. fr. 908b.1 ὦ δυστυχεῖν ϕὺς καὶ κακῶς πεπραγέναι, HF 707 (~ Or. 87) ἄναξ, διώκεις μ᾽ ἀθλίως πεπραγότα and, paratragic, Ar. Nub. 1269 txvoc^, and, paratragic, Ar. Nub. 1269 ἄλλως τε μέντοι καὶ κακῶς πεπραγότι, Pax 1255 οἴμ᾽, ὦ κρανοποί᾽, ὡς πεπράγαμεν.

μηδὲν δυσοίζου: On the most probable etymology and original sense of δυσοίζω (< οἴζω, ‘to give a cry of distress / dismay’) see 724n. If one of the corrections for the second verse-half (below) is correct, something like ‘do not utter such accusations’ might be expected here. However, the vulgate ‘do not distress yourself’ is perhaps easier to justify on the assumption that the middle shifted part of the emphasis from the ‘physical activity (of crying out)’ to the emotional state of the subject (KG I 102–3), as possibly in S. fr. 269c.47 (Inachus) . . . . . . . ριμ[ in a context of fear.501 Other, less dynamic middles of onomatopoeic verbs in –ζω occur in Ag. 1236–7 ὡς δ᾽ ἐπωλολύξατο / παντότολμος, S. fr. 534.5–7 τομάς, / ἃς ἥδε βοῶσ᾽ ἀλαλαζομένη (ὀλολυζομένη Ellendt) / γυμνὴ χαλκέοις ἤμα δρεπάνοις, Ba. 67 Βάκ- / χιον εὐαζομένα and 592–3 Βρόμιος <ὅδ᾽> ἀλα- / λάζεται στέγας ἔσω.

πολέμιοι ᾽´δρασ αν τάδε: If we assume the corruption lies here and not with δυσοίζου, as e.g. Valckenaer (Diatribe, 108–9) and Musgrave (on 808) suspected, Murray’s emendation of πολεμίους δρᾶσαι (Ω) is superior to Lenting’s δρῶσιν (Animadversiones, 76), which in the absence of any nearby past-tense or temporal adverb / conjunction to indicate a historic present (KG I 132–4, SD 271–2) could only be taken as ‘present for perfect’: ‘the enemies are the doers’ (cf. Feickert on 804). Yet doubt is cast on ᾽´δρασαν by the fact that neither tragedy nor comedy offer certain examples of prodelided ε after -οι, except in the exclamation οἲ ᾽γώ (M. Platnauer, CQ n.s. 10 [1960], 142).⁵⁰² Alternatively, one may consider unaugmented δρᾶσαν (West) as a deliberate epicism or ‘Aeschyleism’ outside a messenger speech. Cf. 811 (810b–12a n.) ἐξαπώσατε and perhaps Cho. 930 κάνες τὸν οὐ χρῆν (κάνες γ᾽ ὃν M: ἔκανες ὃν vel γ᾽ ὃν Pauw).

The accusative and infinitive was an easy error on the analogy of 724–5 – δυσοίζων … / – τί δρᾶσαι; … (cf. Porter on 805). Zanetto retains it, believing after Σ^Q Rh. 805 (112 Merro) δυσοίζου· ὑπόπτευε that μηδὲν δυσοίζου could bear the sense of πίστευε. But the gloss is simply based on the lexicographical tradition (n. 287).

806–7. συμϕορᾶς πεπυσμένος: For the genitive of the thing heard cf. Il. 15.224 μάλα γάρ κε μάχης ἐπύθοντο καὶ ἄλλοι, S. El. 35 χρῇ μοι τοιαῦθ᾽ ὁ Φοῖβος ὧν πεύσῃ τάχα, Lyc. 821 … κληδόνων πεπυσμένος (KG I 358 with n. 5, SD 107 ε) and, of indirect perception (as here), Od. 13.256 πυνθανόμην , 14.321 ἔνθ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἐγὼ and Ant. 1182 κλυοῦσα παιδός (KG I 360–1 n. 9 b, SD 106 β). The accusatives συμϕοράς (Lenting, Animadversiones, 76) or συμϕοράν (Wecklein) would give the regular construction, as in e.g. Ag. 261 σὺ δ᾽ εἴ τι κεδνὸν εἴτε μὴ πεπυσμένη, 1098–9 and Tr. 141–2 (KG I 360 n. 8, SD 106–7 δ).

χωρεῖ: On the verb of motion at the beginning of the second (or third) line of an entrance announcement see 85–6n. With χωρέω also S. El. 1432, Tr. 870 and Phoen. 444.

συναλγεῖ δ᾽ … σοῖς κακοῖς: Cf. PV 288 ταῖς σαῖς δὲ τύχαις, ἴσθι, συναλγῶ and Moschio TrGF 97 F 9.10 τύχαις συναλγῶν (LSJ s.v. συναλγέω I 3).

808–19. With Hector’s outburst the sentries finally get the censure they anticipated in 722–7 and, in a different context, tried to avoid by the very action that opened the camp to the Achaean attack: 49–51 (n.) σοὶ δ᾽, ὑποπτεύων τὸ μέλλον, / ἤλυθον ἄγγελος ὡς / μήποτέ τιν᾽ ἐς ἐμὲ μέμψιν εἴπῃς (cf. 820–32, 821–3nn.). Hector’s accusations, like his own later identification of Odysseus as the culprit (861–5), are thus partly justified and will remain unchallenged when the Charioteer interrupts at 833.

Throughout the speech Hector gives his old impression of a rash, at times inconsiderate commander (Introduction, 20), who far from showing the expected sympathy for the Charioteer (807) is mainly concerned with the shame he and all Trojans will incur from the enemy: 808–10 (…) λήθουσιν αἰσχρῶς, 814–15 (n.), 819 τὸ μηδὲν καὶ κακόν (Rosivach 68 with nn. 40, 41). In this futile appeal to heroic standards, however,, the allies are united (cf. 765-803n.) so as to create an ever more lasting image of human failure and defeat.

808–10a. ‘You, who brought about the greatest calamities, how did the enemy spies slip past you unobserved, to your disgrace …’

μέγιστα πήματ᾽᾽ ἐξειργασμένοι: Cf. Hcld. 959–60 (of Eurystheus) χρῆν γὰρ οὐχ ἅπαξ / θνῄσκειν σε πολλὰ πήματ᾽ ἐξειργασμένον and Pers. 785–6 ἅπαντες ἡμεῖς … / οὐκ ἂν ϕανεῖμεν πήματ᾽ τόσα.

πολεμίων κατάσκοποι: 125–6a n.

λήθουσιν: resultative present (literally: ‘Why did the enemy spies remain unseen … ?’), as e.g. ϕεύγω, ‘I have taken flight = live in banishment’ and νικῶ, ‘I have vanquished = hold the field’ (KG I 136–7 c, SD 274. 6).

αἰσχρῶς: here ‘adverb of judgement’ as more often in statements: e.g. Andr. 575–6 ῥῦσαί με πρὸς θεῶν· εἰ δὲ μή, θανούμεθα / αἰσχρῶς μὲν ὑμῖν, δυστυχῶς δ᾽ ἐμοί, γέρον, E. Suppl. 529–30 ἠμύνασθε πολεμίους καλῶς, / αἰσχρῶς δ᾽ ἐκείνοις (KG II 115–16, SD 414 d).

810b–12a. ‘… and the army has been massacred, and you beat them back neither when they were entering the camp nor when they were leaving it?’

καὶ στρατός: an affective hyperbole; cf. Hipp. 17–18 παρθένῳ ξυνὼν ἀεί / κυσὶν ταχείαις θῆρας ἐξαιρεῖ χθονός, Hel. 73–4 ἥ μ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν / πάντας τ᾽ Ἀχαιούς and 597–8 Μενέλαε, μαστεύων σε κιγχάνω μόλις, / πᾶσαν πλανηθεὶς τήνδε βάρβαρον χθόνα (with Kannicht). This and the anacoluthon after express Hector’s indignation.

ἐξαπώσατε: from ἐξαπωθέω, a unique and possibly epicising compound, in which both preverbs retain their force (‘thrust away out of’). Cf. Od. 5.372 εἵματα δ᾽ ἐξαπέδυνε, 12.306–7 καὶ ἑταῖροι / νηός, 22.443–4 εἰς ὅ κε πασέων / ψυχὰς ἐξαϕέλησθε (weakened in S. El. 1157, but not fr. tr. adesp. 296.2), and see SD 428–9, 462.

The verb has often been suspected, most recently by Liapis (‘Notes’, 94–5), who comes to posit a crux. Conjectures like Paley’s ἐξαπεώσατε (on 811)⁵⁰³ or Herwerden’s ἐξεώσατε (Exercitationes criticae, 140) address the absence of a syllabic augment, whereas Naber’s newly-formed ἐξηπύσατε, ‘you called (them) out’ (cf. ἤπυσα in 776 [776–7n.]) deals with the fact that logically ἐξαπώσατε fits εἰσιόντας much better than ἐξιόντας. Regarding the augment, however, one may argue that – unlike perhaps in S. fr. 479.1, where λιμὸν … ἔπαυσε (Herwerden) for … ἀπῶσε (Eust. 228.6) is now generally accepted – the epic-Ionic (and late) aorist here is protected by the striking series of verbal Homerisms earlier in Rhesus (523–5a n.), as well as the cognate Ionic noun ἐξώστης in 322 (322b–3n.). In terms of syntactic ‘logic’ then, οὔτ᾽ ἐξιόντας can easily be explained with Porter (on 811) and Mastronarde (ElectronAnt 8 [2004], 22) as a careless addition born out of Hector’s anger or, grammatically, as supplementing εἰσιόντας to an example of polar expression which either emphasises the action as a whole (‘during the entire invasion’) or simply adds up to the sense ‘not at all’ (Kemmer, Polare Ausdrucksweise, 218–22, 227; cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 759–61 οὐδέ ποτ᾽ αὐτούς / Ἠέλιος ϕαέθων ἐπιδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν / οὐρανὸν εἰσανιὼν οὐδ᾽ καταβαίνων).

812b–13. τείσει δίκην: so also 893b–4 (n.) ὅν ποθ᾽ ὁ κτείνας χρόνῳ / δόλιος Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀξίαν τείσει δίκην. The verse-end is common in Euripides: Med. 767, 802 … ὃς ἡμῖν σὺν θεῷ τείσει dίκην, where, as here, the MSS are divided between the later form τίσει (corr. Murray: cf. Threatte I 190, II 536–8, 654, West, ed. Iliad I, XXXV–VI) and δώσει, Suppl. 733, El. 260 … Ὀρέστῃ μή ποτ᾽ δίκην, Hcld. 852–3 (~ 882) … κἀποτείσασθαι δίκην / ἐχθρούς.

σὲ γὰρ δή: indignant, with δή perhaps stressing σέ (GP 207–8) rather than γάρ (GP 243) as usual in this combination: e.g. Alc. 1136–8 ὦ τοῦ μεγίστου Ζηνὸς εὐγενὲς τέκνον, / εὐδαιμονοίης … / … σὺ γὰρ δὴ τἄμ᾽ ἀνώρθωσας μόνος, E. El. 82–3 Πυλάδη, σὲ γὰρ δὴ πρῶτον ἀνθρώπων ἐγώ / νομίζω, E. fr. 674a, Men. Mis. A1–2 Sandbach (p. 351), Pl. Rep. 337e7–338a 1.

814–15. The wording, if not so much the thought, resembles Ai. 454–5 κεῖνοι δ᾽ ἐπεγγελῶσιν ἐκπεϕευγότες, / ἐμοῦ μὲν οὐχ ἑκόντος (of the Atridae, having escaped Ajax’ attack). Epic and even more, it seems, epic-style tragic heroes and heroines were acutely sensitive to the danger of falling victim to their enemies’ gloats or mockery: Il. 4.172–82, 8.147–50, Ai. 79 οὔκουν γέλως ἥδιστος εἰς ἐχθροὺς (with Garvie and Finglass), 303, 367, 382, 955–62, 1042–3, Med. 383 (with Mastronarde), 797 οὐ γὰρ γελᾶσθαι τλητὸν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν, ϕίλαι (B. M. W. Knox, The Heroic Temper … , Berkeley et al. 1964, 30–1 and, on the limits of such exultation, M. W. Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies …, Cambridge 1989, 55–6).

ϕροῦδοι: 662n.

ἄπληκτοι: ‘uninjured’. So Hellenistic Posidipp. Ep. 93.3–4 Austin–Bastianini πόντου πάτερ, εἰ δὲ σὺ κεύθεις, / ἄπληκτον ψιλὴν ἔκθες ἠϊόνα and Chrysipp. Stoic. fr. 998 SVF ii (p. 292).35–8 ἄπληκτον (×2) of a boxer.

τῇ Φρυγῶν κακανδρίᾳ: In classical Greek κακανδρία is shared (in the same case and metrical position) only with A. fr. 132a 4 col. I.2 (Myrmidons?) κακανδρίᾳ and Ai. 1014–15 τὸν δειλίᾳ προδόντα καὶ κακανδρίᾳ / σέ, ϕίλτ ατ᾽ Αἴας. Liapis (on 814–15) notes that this is the only passage in Rhesus where the proverbial cowardice of the ‘Phrygians’ (32n.) is alluded to.

816–19. ‘Now be sure of this – Father Zeus is my witness – either the lash or death by decapitation awaits you for having done such a thing, or you may consider Hector to be a nobody and a coward.’

The passage bears a remarkable (if most likely coincidental) similarity to Tr. 1107–9 εὖ γέ τοι τόδ᾽ ἴστε, κἂν τὸ μηδὲν ὦ, / κἂν μηδὲν ἕρπω, τήν γε δράσασαν τάδε / χειρώσομαι κἀκ τῶνδε.

816. εὖ νυν τόδ᾽᾽ ἴστε: introduces a threat also in Ai. 1308–9 and, similarly, Ant. 304–12 ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ ἴσχει ἔτ᾽ ἐξ ἐμοῦ σέβας, / εὖ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπίστασ᾽, ὅρκιος δέ σοι λέγω, / εἰ μὴ τὸν αὐτόχειρα τοῦδε τοῦ τάϕου / εὑρόντες ἐκϕανεῖτ᾽ … / οὐχ ὑμὶν Ἅιδης μοῦνος ἀρκέσει (…), Tr. 1107–9 (816–19n.) and Men. Epitr. 375 εὖ ἴσθι, τηρήσω πάντα τὸν χρόνον (cf. Finglass on S. El. 605 and Collard, ‘Supplement’, 371, among doubtful examples of colloquial speech).

Ζεὺς ὀμώμοται πατήρ: passive (‘Father Zeus has been sworn by’), as in Ar. Nub. 1241 καὶ Ζεὺς γέλοιος ὀμνύμενος τοῖς εἰδόσιν (KG I 296). The older, genuinely Attic ὀμώμοται is sanctioned by metre at Ag. 1290 ὀμώμοται γὰρ ὅρκος ἐκ θεῶν μέγας (susp. Schütz; cf. West’s apparatus and Fraenkel on 1290) and Ar. Lys. 1007–8 τουτὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα πανταχόθεν ξυνομώμοται / τῶν γυναικῶν and should therefore be restored here with Buttmann (Ausführliche Griechische Sprachlehre II¹, 198–9 ~ II², 255–6) and Matthiae (GG I³, 624). For the sigmatic form entering our MSS see also Dem. 20.159 ἀλλ᾽ ἀναμνησθέντες … τῆς Δημοϕάντου στήλης … ἐν ᾗ γέγραπται καὶ ὀμώμοται (S: ὀμώμοσται AFY) and in general West, ed. Aeschylus, XLIII–IV.

817–18a. While previously, it seems, Hector did not want to hear of Rhesus’ plan to impale Odysseus (467–526n.), he now threatens the chorus with a distinctly ‘barbarian’ form of capital punishment. Beheading was practised by the Persians (Pers. 369–71, Hdt. 7.35.3, 8.90.3, Xen. An. 2.6.1) and is ascribed to the Egyptian Herald in A. Suppl. 840. Our lines, like 513b–15 (n.), were almost certainly inspired by the collection of cruelties in Eum. 186–90 (below). The whip and decapitation also follow each other when the Scythian Archer loses his patience with ‘Euripides’ in Ar. Thesm. 1125–7.

ἤτοι … γ᾽᾽ ἤ: For γε after disjunctive particles see GP 119 (cf. 622–3n.) and for ἤτοι … ἤ GP 553.

μάραγνα: In extant literature the noun is paralleled only at Cho. 375 ἀλλὰ διπλῆς γὰρ τῆσδε μαράγνης δοῦπος ἱκνεῖται. Yet it may not have been so rare, given its metaphorical use there, the fact that Pollux (10.56) attests a most likely paratragic case (Fraenkel, Rev. 231) in Plato the Comedian (fr. 64 PCG) and the existence of σμαράγνα as a variant form (Hsch. σ 1226 Hansen). Herodian also employed it to illustrate the accentuation of nouns in -να: Σ^L Rh. 817 (II 343.20–1 Schwartz = 112 a¹ Merro) οὕτως (προπαροξύνει Lentz) Ἡρωδιανὸς ἐν τῇ Καθόλου (I 256.24–5 Lentz).

καρανιστὴς μόρος: Cf. Eum. 186–7 καρανιστῆρες … / δίκαι σϕαγαί τε (above) and Sept. 199 λευστῆρα … μόρον. Blaydes’ καρανιστὴρ μόρος (Adversaria critica, 10) is rendered improbable by the observation that archaising nomina agentis in -τήρ tend to be found in tragic trimeters only when the paradigm in -της would not have given a metrically suitable form. Note e.g. Sept. 36 κατοπτῆρας – Sept. 41 κατόπτης, Sept. [1015] – Ag. 1227 ἀναστάτης, Cho. 280 ἐπαμβατῆρας – Ba. 1107–8 τὸν ἀμβάτην / θῆρ᾽ (E. Fraenkel, Nomina agentis II, ch. 1, particularly pp. 8, 18, 23–4, 29, 43).

Despite the above reservations about the relative infrequency of μάραγνα, we have here yet another example of our poet’s taste for combining choice words from different sources (Fraenkel, Rev. 231, 233, Introduction, 35–6).

819. τὸ μηδέν, ‘a cipher, nobody’ (with generalising μη-), has become fossilised and thus keeps the article even in predicative position (KG II 197–8 with n. 2; cf. KG I 61 n. 2 and Denniston on E. El. 370). Unlike simple οὐδέν / μηδέν (or their masculines), this form and ὁ οὐδέν / μηδέν are restricted to serious drama, including satyr-play,⁵⁰⁴ and two elevated passages in Aristophanes and Herodotus (Ar. Av. 577, Hdt. 8.106.3).

 

820–32. The chorus defend themselves against Hector’s charges and threats in a short piece of song, which technically forms the antistrophe to their enthusiastic praise of Rhesus at 454–66 (n.). The tone is one of reverent defiance, born out of despair. As previously Rhesus, they address Hector almost in terms of a tutelary deity (821–3, 827–8nn.), while denying any failure in their execution of duty. Given their general awareness of how the Achaeans penetrated the camp (cf. 722–7), this sounds like an attempt to protect themselves not only from the consequences of Hector’s wrath, but also from the full realisation of the part they played in their hero’s death.⁵⁰⁵

Structurally this antistrophe separates the Charioteer’s lamentation and report from his ensuing quarrel with Hector, just as the strophe stands between the agonistic (388–453) and conversational (467–526) part of Hector’s encounter with Rhesus. This reversed parallel position is further underlined by the fact that the badly injured Charioteer acts, as it were, as his master’s representative at a time when all hopes in the Thracians are lost. Thus far from being isolated in their respective places, the stanzas look both ahead to and back on Rhesus’ disaster, which is so closely linked with the sentries’ behaviour. Similarly again in Hippolytus the corresponding laments of the chorus (362–72) and Phaedra (669–79) enclose the story of her tragedy by marking not two points of opposing sentiment (as in our play), but a succession of fatal events in the revelation of her love and Hippolytus’ violent rejection (cf. Ritchie 331).

Metre

454–66n.

 

821–3. ‘O guardian power of our city, mighty, mighty in my eyes, they must have arrived at the time when I came to you with the message that fires were blazing around the ships.’

ἐμοὶ μέγας πολίοχον κράτος / τότ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔμολον ὅτε σοι / ἄγγελος ἦλθον ἀμϕὶ ναῦς πύρ᾽ αἴθειν: If we regard 822 as sound (454–66 ‘Metre’ 456/822n.), interpretation and conjecture must begin with ἔμολον, which despite e.g. Ritchie (309), Willink (‘Cantica’, 38 = Collected Papers, 566–7) and Liapis (‘Notes’, 95–6), can only be third person plural referring to the enemy spies at 809–15 (Σ^Q Rh. 822 [113 Merro] ἔμολον· ἐκεῖνοι; cf. Porter on 820–4, Feickert on 822). All of 821 then probably conceals an elevated address like that of the chorus to the deceased Astyanax in Tro. 1216–17 ἒ ἔ, ϕρενῶν / ἔθι γες ἔθιγες· μέγας ἐμοί ποτ᾽ ὢν / ἀνάκτωρ πόλεως or, in terms of word-order, Hel. 1451–2 Φοίνισσα Σιδωνιὰς ὦ / ταχεῖα κώπα (with Kannicht) so that exempli gratia at least we may follow Porter, Dale (MATC I, 100) and Feickert among others in combining Nauck’s easy μέγα σύ μοι μέγ᾽ ὦ (II¹ [1854], XXIII) with Vater’s certain πολίοχον (below).

ἐμοὶ μέγας πολίοχον κράτος: almost an invocation (cf. 827–8n.), for whereas κράτος, like (380–1n.), could be used of gods and mortal rulers alike (e.g. Sept. 128–30 σύ τ᾽ ὦ Διογενὲς ϕιλόμαχον κράτος / … Παλλάς, Eum. 27, Ag. 109 Ἀχαιῶν δίθρονον κράτος, 619; FJW on A. Suppl. 525–6), πολιοῦχος and its cognates were largely reserved for the tutelary god(s) or hero(es) of a city (LSJ s.vv. πολιοῦχος (A), πολισσοῦχος I; cf. LSJ s.v. ἔχω (A) A I 3, where add SIG³ I 360.3–5, II 581.1–4, and 166n.).

Vater (on 808) restored πολίοχον (πολιοῦχον Ω) for metrical reasons. On this short form of the adjective see again 166n.

τότ᾽ ἄρ᾽: literally ‘then (they came …)’, with ἄρα expressing the realisation of a past event at the time of speaking, as in e.g. Ant. 1272–4 ἐν δ᾽ ἐμῷ κάρᾳ / θεὸς τότ᾽ ἄρα τότε με μέγα βάρος ἔχων / ἔπαισεν, Andr. 274–6 ἦ μεγάλων ἄρ᾽ ὑπῆρξεν, ὅτ᾽ / ἐς νάπαν ἦλθ᾽, ὁ Μαί- / ας τε καὶ Διὸς τόκος and Ar. Av. 513 ὃ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ εἱστήκει τὸν Λυσικράτη τηρῶν ὅ τι δωροδοκοίη (GP 36).

ὅτε σοι / ἄγγελος ἦλθον ἀμϕὶ ναῦς πύρ᾽ αἴθειν: Cf. the chorus at 41 πύρ᾽ αἴθει στρατὸς Ἀργόλας and 49–50 σοὶ δ᾽ … / ἤλυθον ἄγγελος … (where no ‘message’ depends on the verbal phrase). In addition to Reiske’s πύρ᾽ αἴθειν (41–2n.), Badham’s ναῦς(Philologus 10 [1855], 338) ke’s (41-2n.), Badham’s (Philologus 10 [1855], 338) for ναυσί (Ω) is required here to restore metre and responsion.

After 823 all MSS attest Ἀργείων στρατόν, which has no equivalent in the strophe and, since the text there is complete (455b–7n.), was rightly deleted by Badham (Philologus 10 [1855], 338) and Kirchhoff (I [1855], 561: στρατόν iam Tr¹).506 As an intrusive gloss the phrase most probably arose from misguided recollection of 41 … στρατὸς Ἀργόλας and 78 … Ἀργείων στρατόν (cf. 57, 127, 146 and some fourteen times in other tragedy), although failure to understand the rare intransitive use of αἴθω probably also played a part (Feickert on 824, Liapis on 823). Cf. Pi. Ol. 7.48 αἰθοίσας … ϕλογός, Ai. 285–6 ἡνίχ᾽ ἕσπεροι / λαμπτῆρες οὐκέτ᾽ ᾖθον and perhaps Cho. 536–7 πολλοὶ δ᾽ ἀνῇθον … / λαμπτῆρες (ἀνῇθον Valckenaer: ἀνῆλθον M, ἀνέλαμψαν Σ: ἀνῄθοντ᾽ Meineke), Ar. Pax 612 (N. G. Wilson, Aristophanea, Oxford 2007, 107).

824–6. ‘For my eyes were wakeful in the night, I did not put them to rest, nor did I fall asleep, no, by the streams of Simoeis.’

ἄγρυπνον: In view of 2–3 (n.) τίς ὑπασπιστῶν ἄγρυπνος βασιλέως / ἢ τευχοϕόρων; the adjective is best taken as proleptic. Alternatively, it could be generic as a defensive claim to universal wakefulness: e.g. PV 358 Ζηνὸς ἄγρυπνον βέλος (transferred from its owner), Theoc. 24.106 υἱὸς Ἀπόλλωνος μελεδωνεὺς ἥρως (i.e. Heracles’ tutor Linus).

ὄμμ᾽ … ἐκοίμισ᾽: similarly in connection with vigilance (desired or undesired) Il. 14.236 (Hera to Sleep) κοίμησόν μοι Ζηνὸς ὑπ᾽ ὀϕρύσιν ὄσσε ϕαεινώ, Sept. 2–3 ὅστις ϕυλάσσει πρᾶγος ἐν πρύμνῃ πόλεως / νωμῶν, βλέϕαρα μὴ κοιμῶν ὕπνῳ and, of death, OT 1221–2 ἀνέπνευσά τ᾽ ἐκ σέθεν / καὶ κατακοίμησα τοὐμὸν ὄμμα.

ἐν εὐϕρόνᾳ: 91–2n. Diggle restored the ‘Doric’ α (εὐϕρόνῃ Ω, Chr. Pat. 1840, 2331) in lyrics, as did Badham (Philologus 10 [1855], 338) with παγάς below. Cf. 546–50 (καὶ μάν) n.

οὔτ᾽ ἔβριξ᾽᾽: ingressive aorist. βρίζω is a Homeric verb (Il. 4.223, Od. 9.151 = 12.7 and later e.g. Theoc. Ep. 19.4 Gow, Call. Epigr. 16.3 Pf.), taken over by Aeschylus alone of the tragedians: Ag. 275 δόξαν ἂν ϕρενός, Cho. 897 βρίζων (of the baby Orestes), Eum. 280 βρίζει γὰρ αἷμα καὶ μαραίνεται χερός.

The ancient definition of βρίζω as denoting drowsiness after eating (LfgrE s.v. B; cf. e.g. Σ^LQ Rh. 826 [II 343.22–3 Schwartz = 113 Merro] βρίξαι κυρίως τὸ μετὰ βορὰν ὀλίγον κοιμηθῆναι, Σ^AD Il. 4.223 [I 491.90–1 Erbse]) is not borne out by actual usage and, to judge by its first appearance in Orion Et. 10.1–2 Sturz [ἀπὸ τοῦ βορὰ Sturz] καὶ τοῦ ἵζειν καὶ κατανεύειν· ὥστε κυρίως τὸ ἀποβορᾶς νυστάζειν), may have been inferred from the context of Od. 9.151 = 12.7 ἔνθα δ᾽ ἀποβρίξαντες ἐμείναμεν Ἠῶ δῖαν.

οὐ τὰς Σιμοεντιάδας παγάς: For Greek and Near-Eastern oaths and treaties in the name of rivers see West on Hes. Th. 400 (Styx becoming the ὅρκος of the gods), EFH 20–1, IEPM 274–5 and Liapis on 824–6.

Hermann (Opuscula III, 309) corrected the transmitted οὐ μὰ τὰς Σιμοεντίδας πηγάς (παγάς Badham), which does not respond with 460. The interpolation of μά in negative oaths is paralleled in S. El. 1063, 1239 (with Finglass, Ll-J/W, Second Thoughts, 43), OT 660 and 1088, while the geographical feminine adjective in -ιάς would have been sufficiently unusual to get corrupted. Hermann inferred the same in the lyric Tro. 1116–17 καὶ Σιμοεντιάσιν / … ῥοαῖσιν (Σιμοεντίσι(ν) VP) and Pers. 964–5 / vel -μινίσι Ω).

τὰς Σιμοεντιάδας παγάς: Plural πηγαί, ‘streams’, is a Homerism found in tragedy also at Pers. 311 πηγαῖς … Νείλου, PV 89 ποταμῶν … πηγαί, 434 and HF 1297 (~ Il. 20.9, Od. 6.124, h. Ven. 99 πηγὰς ποταμῶν). Aeschylus adds the singular in Pers. 201–2 and 613. Cf. Sideras, Aeschylus Homericus, 124, 136.

In contrast, adjectives derived from Σιμόεις are, with the exception of the personal name Σιμοείσιος (Il. 4.473–89), first attested in the lyrics of Euripides: Andr. 1019 ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖσιν Σιμοεντίσιν, 1183, Hec. 641 τᾷ Σιμουντίδι γᾷ, El. 441, Tro. 1116–17 (above), Hel. 250 παρὰ Σιμουντίοις ῥοαῖσι, Or. 809, IA 767 (in a doubtful passage). The uncontracted forms are even restricted to him.

827–8. μή μοι κότον … θῇς: ‘Do not be angry with me …’. κότον here functions as a simple periphrasis for κοτέω (LSJ s.v. τίθημι C 4), but the phrase also recalls the wrath Hera and Athena ‘laid up (in their hearts)’ at Il. 8.449 Τρῶας, τοῖσιν κότον αἰνὸν ἔθεσθε (cf. LSJ s.v. τίθημι A II 6). In Hel. 679 †τὰ δ᾽ εἰς κρίσιν σοι τῶνδ᾽ ἔθηχ᾽ Ἥρα κακῶν;† Diggle combined conjectures of Reiske (τί δ᾽) and Kayser (κότον) to the similar expression δ᾽ ἐς κρίσιν σοι τόνδ᾽ κότον; (Euripidea, 180–3; cf. his apparatus and Allan’s note).

The epic κότος, found once in Pindar (Pyth. 8.9), is a favourite of Aeschylus (cf. Sideras, Aeschylus Homericus, 32), but was more or less avoided by the other tragedians. Apart from Kayser’s conjecture at Hel. 679 (above), it occurs only in derivatives: PV 163, 601 (-οισι), Phil. 1191 ἀλλόκοτος, S. fr. 1042 ἐνεκότουν, E. fr. 572.2 (Hutchinson on Sept. 485).

ὦ ἄνα: This old vocative of ἄναξ is elsewhere exclusively used in approaching gods (LSJ s.v. ἄνα (A) with Suppl. [1996], Jouan 49 n. 247, Liapis on 826–8)507 and therefore in line with the chorus’ earlier extravagant addresses to Hector (821–3n.) and Rhesus (355–6, 357–9, 370–2a, 380–1, 385–7nn.). Cf. 820–32n.

: While sense and syntax are unexceptionable, the metre shows that something has fallen out in 828. Of the various exempli gratia remedies listed in Wecklein’s apparatus and appendix on 829, Nauck’s πάντων πάντῃ (-ᾳ Diggle) ἔγωγε (II¹ [1854], XXIII) has the double advantage of implying a simple process of corruption and keeping the ambiguity between pherecratean and contracted D - ||.

829–32. ‘But if in time you find out that I have done or said anything inopportune, send me under the earth (i.e. bury me) alive; I do not protest. ’

εἰ δὲ … πύθῃ: In occasionally combining εἰ with a pure subjunctive the tragedians (except Euripides) followed the still more liberal practice of Homer (KG II 474 n. 1, SD 684–5, Jebb on OT 198, FJW on A. Suppl. 91–2 and J. Willmott, The Moods of Homeric Greek, Cambridge 2007, 199–204 for a possible explanation of the phenomenon).

παρὰ καιρόν: On prepositional phrases depending on nouns without article see 567–8a n. But Vater’s παράκαιρον (on 817), for which cf. Isoc. 1.9 Thphr. CP 2.2.2, 3.7.6 and [Epich.] fr. 243 PCG, is very attractive, particularly since, as Feickert (on 830) points out, forms of that adjective tended to be corrupted into παρὰ καιρόν: e.g. Luc. Nigr. 31, [Men.] Mon. 302 Jäkel, Hsch. π 1040 Hansen πάρωρον· παράκαιρον (Guyet: παρὰ καιρόν H). Sansone’s χρόνῳ ποτ᾽ ἄκαιρον (BMCR 2013.03.15, on 829–30) is less close to the MSS text, although ἄκαιρος has the advantage of being attested in tragedy (especially PV 1036–7 ἡμῖν … οὐκ ἄκαιρα ϕαίνεται / λέγειν).

From the Cyril / Hesychius-gloss cited above Headlam (CR 15 [1901], 103) conjectured πάρωρον (e.g. Thphr. CP 3.23.3, 4.13.4, 5.1.2, Strato AP 12.199.6), which allows him to retain the paradosis in 464 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ (cf. 464–6n.). Metrically, however, this aristophanean (with a further period-end after ἦμαρ ~ πάρωρον) would look out of place in the present context, and so does the isolated dochmiac 465 ὅτῳ πολυϕόνου ~ 830 πύθῃ, κατά με γᾶς, which Willink introduced by dividing after … τόδ᾽ ἦμαρ εἰσίδοιμ᾽, ἄναξ and … πάρωρον ἔργον ἢ λόγον (‘Cantica’, 33–5, 38 = Collected Papers, 572–3, 577).

a typical case of ‘polar expression’, where the second member may have been added by pure association (Kemmer, Polare Ausdrucksweise, 216–17).

κατά με γᾶς / ζῶντα πόρευσον · οὐ παραιτοῦμαι: The chorus acknowledge Hector’s threat of capital punishment in 816–18 in a fashion resembling Hcld. 1026 (Eurystheus to Alcmena) κτεῖν᾽, οὐ παραιτοῦμαί σε. For πορεύω in connection with killing and journeys to and from Hades note also e.g. Pi. Pyth. 11.19–22 ὁπότε … / Κασσάνδραν πολιῷ χαλκῷ σὺν Ἀγαμεμνονίᾳ / ψυχᾷ πόρευ᾽ Ἀχέροντος ἀκτὰν παρ᾽ εὔσκιον / νηλὴς γυνά, HF 838–9, 1277–8 ϕάος / ὅπως πορεύσαιμ᾽, Alc. 442–4, 1072–4 (G. A. Longman, CQ n.s. 12 [1962], 65 with n. 2).

 

833–81. With his predictable (776–7, 802b–3nn.), yet surprisingly elaborate, attack on Hector’s integrity the Charioteer prevents any potential answer to the chorus’ lyric defence. Like a forensic speech, it falls into a brief introduction (833–4), the accusations proper (835–42) and two supporting arguments κατὰ τὸ εἰκός (843–55) to the effect that the Greeks had neither the opportunity nor, short of supernatural assistance (852–4a n.), the knowledge to commit the crime in question (cf. Feickert on 833–55, 852–5, 856–65). Of these parts, however, especially the second one seems unduly circular and repetitious, a sign perhaps of the Thracian’s delirious fury (Ritchie 131), which becomes even more prominent in his apparently unrelenting obstinacy towards the end (875–6n.).

Regarding the ‘evidence’, there is some irony in that the Charioteer draws his objectively wrong conclusion from irrefutable observations, whereas the chorus (805; cf. 692–721) and Hector (809, 861–5; cf. 498–509), on far less cogent grounds, both rightly suspect an enemy attack and identify Odysseus as one perpetrator of Rhesus’ as well as Dolon’s⁵⁰⁸ death (Rosivach 69 with n. 45, 70 with n. 48). Still his charges again do not fail to leave their mark, for (839) recalls Hector’s earlier self-confessed desire for Achilles’ horses (184n.), and although he vehemently denies such a quality (859b–60n.) to his desire, we are for a moment led to believe that under different circumstances he might have been capable of betraying his allies (cf. G. Paduano, Maia n.s. 25 [1973], 24).

 

833–4. ‘Why do you threaten these men and as a barbarian undermine my, a barbarian’s, opinion by weaving words?’

βάρβαρός τε βαρβάρου: 404–5n. It is noteworthy that, while previously the phrase was used by Hector against Rhesus, it is now the Charioteer who accuses Hector of betraying the ‘barbarian’ unity (Liapis on 833–4).

γνώμην ὑϕαιρῇ τὴν ἐμήν echoes the language of law-courts, where ὑϕαιρέω / -έομαι, literally ‘to steal (away)’, is a contemptuous metaphor for weakening one’s opponent’s arguments in advance. Cf. Hyp. Lyc. 11 καὶ τοῦτο πῶς καλῶς ἔχει … μου τὴν ἀπολογίαν; Eux. 10, Dem. 23.90 ὃ δὲ δεινότατον πάντων ἐστίν, τὸ μηδεμίαν κρίσιν ἐν παντὶ ποιῆσαι τῷ ψηϕίσματι τοιαύτης αἰτίας, τοῦθ᾽ ὑϕαιρεῖσθαι πειράσεται (Feickert on 833).

πλέκων λόγους: here negative (‘devising a deceitful speech’), as often with πλέκω (e.g. Cho. 220 πλέκεις; A. fr. 373, Andr. 66, 995, Ion 826–7; Diggle, Studies, 115) and other words of ‘weaving’ and ‘stitching’ from Homer on: e.g. Il. 6.187 πυκινὸν δόλον ἄλλον ὕϕαινεν, 18.367 κακὰ ῥάψαι (LSJ s. vv. ὑϕαίνω II, ῥάπτω II 1), Cho. 221 αὐτὸς κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τἄρα μηχανορραϕῶ (with Garvie). Similarly Phoen. 494–5 περιπλοκάς / (~ Antiph. fr. 75.1–2 PCG, Strato Com. fr. 1.35 PCG) connotes an over-intricate and potentially misleading way of arguing / speaking, which is also the sense in Pl. Hp.Mi. 369b8 Ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀεὶ σύ τινας τοιούτους πλέκεις λόγους. Conversely, the same metaphors could be applied to the artistic composition of poets: Pi. Ol. 6.86–7 ἀνδράσιν αἰχματαῖσι πλέκων / ποικίλον ὕμνον, Nem. 4.94, Pae. 3.12 (fr. 52c Sn.–M. = D3 Rutherford) ἀοιδαῖς ἐν εὐπλε[κέσσι], fr. 179 Sn.–M. ὑϕαίνω δ᾽ Ἀμυθαονίδαισιν , Bacch. 5.9–10. Cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. 494–6, H. Fränkel, Glotta 14 (1925), 3–6, West, IEPM 36–8.

835–7a. οὐδέν᾽ ἂν δεξαίμεθα … ἄλλον: expressing a fixed resolve (201–2n.): ‘We shall not accept anyone else …’

οὔθ᾽᾽ οἱ θανόντες οὔτ᾽᾽ … οἱ τετρωμένοι could simply stand in periphrasis for all Thracian victims (Jouan 49 n. 250); cf. 847–8, 849–50. We therefore need not think with Feickert (on 835) of unavenged dead seeking to know the guilty party.

837b–40. μακροῦ γε δεῖ σε καὶ σοϕοῦ λόγου: Impersonal δεῖ with an accusative (rather than dative) of the person and genitive of the thing is a favourite of Euripides (KG I 297 n. 5, Ritchie 249) and attested in other drama only at PV 86 αὐτὸν γάρ σε δεῖ προμηθίας and fr. com. adesp. 257 PCG εὐρυχωρίας σε δεῖ. For the formulation here Ritchie especially refers to Hipp. 490–1 οὐ λόγων εὐσχημόνων / δεῖ σ᾽ τἀνδρός and 688 ἀλλὰ δεῖ με δὴ καινῶν λόγων (‘thoughts, plan’), but see also PV 870 μακροῦ λόγου δεῖ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπεξελθεῖν and 875–6 ὅπως δὲ χὤπῃ, ταῦτα δεῖ μακροῦ λόγου / εἰπεῖν.

γε is exclamatory with perhaps a slightly sarcastic undertone, as in Hipp. 480–1 ἦ τἄρ᾽ ἂν ὀψέ γ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐξεύροιεν ἄν, / εἰ μὴ γυναῖκες μηχανὰς εὑρήσομεν (GP 129) and far more pointedly e.g. Ar. Av. 1401 χαριέντά γ᾽, ὦ πρεσβῦτ᾽, ἐσοϕίσω καὶ (GP 128 and, for examples from the orators, 129–30).

ὅτῳ με πείσεις μὴ ϕίλους κατακτανεῖν: In the sense ‘persuade (that)’ πείθω (cf. 65–6n.) usually governs a substantival clause introduced by ὡς, but note e.g. Phoen. 30–1 ἣ δὲ τὸν ἐμὸν ὠδίνων πόνον / μαστοῖς ὑϕεῖτο καὶ πόσιν πείθει τεκεῖν, Hdt. 3.155.4, 4.154.2 and Xen. Mem. 1.2.49 (KG II 9 n. 7, 32, Mastronarde on Phoen. 31).

ἵππων ἐρασθείς: 833–8 1n.

ϕονεύεις: ‘present for perfect’, as in e.g. Ant. 1173–4 (Αγ.) οἱ δὲ ζῶντες / (Χο.) καὶ τίς ; (KG I 137 d, SD 275 and 926–8a n.).

and ϕονεύς, although occasionally used by Aeschylus (Sept. 340–1, Ag. 1231, 1648, Eum. 122, 425) and Sophocles (also Ai. 409 and eight times in OT) are more typical of Euripides.

ἐπισκήπτων μολεῖν: 399–403, 401–3nn. The present participle here expresses a repeated (πολλά) action prior to that of the main verb (KG I 200 nn. 9, 10)

841b–2. ‘More seemly did Paris dishonour the bonds of hospitality than you by killing your allies.’

The remark is even more strongly reminiscent of Ag. 399–402 οἷος καὶ Πάρις / εἰς δόμον τὸν / ξενίαν τράπε- / ζαν κλοπαῖσι γυναικός than Rh. 336–7 (n.) ὃ δ᾽ οὖν … σύμμαχος οὔ, / ξένος δὲ πρὸς τράπεζαν ἡκέτω ξένων and, given the usual attitude to violations of hospitality (and especially the case of Paris), a very serious insult. With the charge of having killed one’s guest-friend out of greed Feickert (on 842–3) well compares Heracles’ murder of Iphitus at Od. 21.27–30 ὅς μιν ξεῖνον ἐόντα κατέκτανεν ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ, / σχέτλιος, θεῶν αἰδέσατ᾽ τράπεζαν, / οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτόν, / δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχε κρατερώνυχας ἐν μεγάροισι.

843. ὥς τις Ἀργείων μολών: 291b–3n.

844b–5. ‘Who could have got past the Trojan companies and reached us without even being noticed?’

τίς ἂν … ἦλθεν: Nauck (II¹ [1854], XXIII; cf. Euripideische Studien, 182–3) for τίς δ᾽ … (Ω). As in 852–3 τίς δ᾽ ἂν (v.l. αὖ) … / Ῥήσου … (…); we can hardly dispense with ἄν here, since passionate questions showing the pure ‘modal’ indicative are usually found in dialogue and almost exclusively introduced by (KG I 203, SD 307–8; in drama e.g. Ag. 1211, OT 1327–8, Phil. 250, Ar. Ran. 1186). Moreover, δ᾽ after γάρ would again disrupt the nearly unbroken line of asyndeta in this first part of the Charioteer’s speech (833–46), a minor objection which is not met by Beck’s τίς δ᾽ … ἦλθ᾽ ἄν (Exercitatio critica, 12 n. 3 = Diatribe critica, 451 n. 3).⁵⁰⁹

ὑπερβαλὼν λόχους / Τρώων: like a material, indeed often geographical, obstacle or boundary. Cf. 989–90 (989b–92n.) / τείχη τ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν and e.g. Ag. 306–8, PV 721–2 ἀστρογείτονας … / , Alc. 829, Or. 443 (~ 1644) ... ὅρους. Unlike middle ὑπερβάλλομαι, ‘overcome’ (LSJ s.v. B I 1), the active does not imply any interaction.

For λόχους, ‘troops, companies’, see 26n.

ὥστε καὶ λαθεῖν: literally ‘so as actually to escape notice’, with καί denoting the addition of a limitative qualification to the main clause. So likewise in questions Ai. 1325 τί γάρ σ᾽ ἔδρασεν, ὥστε καὶ ἔχειν; Hel. 841 οὖν ὥστε καὶ δόξαν ; and Pl. Tht. 182d4–5 (GP 299).

846. The Charioteer’s statement corroborates the relative positions of the Thracian and Trojan bivouacs (‘Scene and Setting’, 114, 613–15n.).

was changed to οὐ in (cf. Introduction, 54), which would make sense only if the scribe or corrector understood the line as a question.

ἧσο: 613n.

Φρυγῶν στρατός: 32n.

847–8. / τῶν σῶν, if sound, must mean not just Hector’s long-standing allies as opposed to the Thracians (e.g. Porter on 848, Jouan 50 n. 252, Feickert on 847), but, since we should expect another reference to the Trojans here, ‘all [except us] who fight on your side’ (L. Battezzato, CQ n.s. 50 [2000], 368 n. 9; cf. Liapis on 847–8, ‘Notes’, 98). Yet this sense seems difficult to extract from the Greek (Bothe II [1826], 124, on 806: ‘… sed Troiani et Phryges non possunt dici Hectoris σύμμαχοι’), especially in view of 839–40 συμμάχους / τοὺς σοὺς ϕονεύεις and 842 ἢ σὺ συμμάχους κτανών. Murray, therefore, was probably right in suspecting the phrase. Of his two conjectures, συγγενῶν / τῶν σῶν is superior to ἐν λόχῳ / τῷ σῷ, not so much for being palaeographically nearer (συμμάχων could, after all, have intruded on the analogy of 839–40 and then attracted the pronoun), but because Hector’s unit, unless singled out as a personal taunt, would be too restrictive a ‘subject’ after 844–5 λόχους / and 846 σὺ … καὶ στρατός.

ὧν: Bothe (3 [1824], 366, on 820) by attractio relativi. The transmitted (an easy slip, particularly with … λέγεις) would give an impossibly convoluted word-order (cf. Bothe II [1826], 124, on 807).

849–50. ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ : ‘But we have been wounded …’ καί stresses in a way that it contrasts its reality for the Thracians with their allies’ alleged escape from that fate (847–8). Similarly Ai. 1393–6 σὲ δ᾽ … / τάϕου μὲν ὀκνῶ τοῦδ᾽ ἐπιψαύειν ἐᾶν / … / τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα καὶ ξύμπρασσε (GP 321–3).

It is another sign of our poet’s metrical conservatism (208–9, 804–5nn.) that we have here the only iambic trimeter, where the hephthemi-meral caesura coincides with elision (Ritchie 285).

μειζόνως is not uncommon in Attic prose (especially Plato), but elsewhere in verse found only at Hec. 1121. The same applies to other such primarily Ionic (Schwyzer 621 n. 8) comparative adverbs in and -τέρως (OC 104 μειόνως, Ar. fr. 353 PCG ἀμεινόνως, Hcld. 543 ἐνδικωτέρως, IT 1375, IA 379, Ar. Lys. 419; KB I 577 n. 1, FJW on A. Suppl. 596 [II, p. 483]), whence Elmsley¹ (on Hcld. 544 [543]) here proposed μείζονα. But see his partial recantations in the 1821 and 1828 editions.

οὐχ ὁρῶσιν ἡλίου ϕάος: Together with Hipp. 4 and Phil. 663–4 ὅς γ᾽ τόδ᾽ εἰσορᾶν ἐμοὶ ϕάος / μόνος this version of the common poetic metaphor for ‘(not) being alive’ comes closest to the epic … ὁρᾷ (-ᾶν) ϕάος (967–9n.). See also 970–1n. ϕάος).

851. ἁπλῶς δ᾽: ‘in a word’. Cf. e.g. Thuc. 3.82.5 ἁπλῶς δὲ ὁ τὸν μέλλοντα κακόν τι δρᾶν ἐπῃνεῖτο, καὶ ὁ ἐπικελεύσας τὸν and Isoc. 4.154, Dem. 20.124 δ᾽ εἰπεῖν.

852–4a. ‘For which of our enemies could have come by night and found the resting-place of Rhesus, unless one of the gods had shown the murderers the way?’

With archetypal tragic irony the Charioteer hits upon the truth about Athena’s initiative (cf. 611–21) in a sarcastic question designed to undermine Hector’s theory of an Achaean night-raid. The difficulty of finding one’s way round an enemy camp alone in the dark was pointed out by Odysseus in 587–8.

δ᾽᾽: 132n.

χαμεύνας: 9n.

εὐϕρόνην: 91–2n.

εἰ μή … / ἔϕραζε: With the indicative μή is often ironic: nisi forte (KG II 486, SD 684). For ϕράζω in the epic sense ‘point out, show the way to’ see 658b–9n.

854b–5. ‘They did not even know he had arrived at all. No, this is a plot.’

Pierson (Verisimilium I, 82–3) compared D. Chr. 55.14 (of Dolon) γὰρ ἐμήνυσε Ῥῆσον, ὃν οὐδεὶς ἀϕιγμένον, although in this case the verbal similarity may be fortuitous (cf. Introduction, 45).

οὐδ᾽: ‘with [a] sense of climax’ (GP 196).

τὸ πάμπαν, which in other drama is found only at E. fr. 196.2 (Antiope) and without the article Med. 1091, Achae. TrGF 20 F 17.3 and Ar. Pax 121, should for lack of exhaustive evidence perhaps not be pressed into Ritchie’s list of ‘minor resemblances of phrase to Euripides’ (211–12). Yet while πάμπαν alone is exccedingly common in epic (especially with negatives) and not rare in the early lyric poets, the articular form remains a prose expression from Plato and the Hippocratic corpus on.

ἀλλά: completive after a rhetorical question (852–4a), as in e.g. S. El. 804–7, Med. 309–11 μ᾽ ἠδίκηκας; / ὅτῳ ἦγεν. ἐμὸν / (‘No, it is my husband I hate’) and Hcld. 466–7 (GP 5).

μηχαναί: Musgrave’s conjecture (Exercitationes, 95 ~ II [1778], 411) is confirmed by Et. Gen. cod. B (10^th century) = Orus B 77 Alpers … καὶ ᾖσαν (…) Εὐριπίδης (854 sq.) οὐδ᾽ … ᾖσαν· ἀλλὰ τάδε and, despite Feickert (on 855), also lends a more poignant conclusion to the impersonal second part of the speech (849–55). TheMSS’ μηχανᾷ (cf. Ba. 805 οἴμοι· τόδ᾽ ἤδη δόλιον ἐς ἐμὲ μηχανᾷ) was an easy error by misinterpretation of ΑΙ or αι as α with iota subscript.

856–8. ‘We have now had dealings with allies for all the time that the Achaean army has been in this land, and I am sure that I have never heard any harsh word from them.’

χρόνον … / ὅσονπερ: See 865n.

Ἀχαιικὸς λεώς: 622–3n. The phrase also appears in Ag. 189 (lyric) and Hec. 510 … Ἀχαιικός, by analogy with the epic λαὸς Ἀχαιικός (Il. 9.521, 13.349, 15.218).

πλημμελές: literally ‘out of tune, unrhythmical’ (< πλήν + μέλος: Pl. Lg. 816a7, Arist. Pr. 919a31–2 [πλημμελέω], Plut. De Pyth. or. 5.396d [πλημμέλεια], Quaest. Conv. 8.9.2.732e), but like its verb and noun mostly used metaphorically with various nuances of ‘deviation from the ideal’. Here, as often in classical Greek, the stem refers to injustice inflicted or suffered in word or action: e.g. Med. 306 … πλημμελὲς , Hel. 1085 … ἢν γὰρ καί τι πλημμελές σε δρᾷ, Phoen. [1655] τί πλημμελήσας (the only other certain poetic examples),⁵¹⁰ Aeschin. (the only other certain poetic examples),⁵¹⁰ Aeschin. 1.167 (S. Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Sep-tante, Paris 1966, 341–61, especially 341–2, 351–4).

κλυών: 109–10a, 286, 572–3nn.

859a. ἐν σοὶ δ᾽ ἂν ἀρχοίμεσθα: ‘But we seem to be making a start with you’. For ἐν = ‘with, in the case of ’ cf. Il. 9.97 ἐν σοὶ μὲν λήξω, σέο δ᾽ ἄρξομαι, Ai. 1091–2 … ἐν and 1314–15 ποτέ / καὶ εἶναι ᾽ν ἐμοὶ (LSJ s.v. A I 7, SD 458).

From the Iliadic perspective, Rhesus and his Charioteer were by no means the first allies to come into conflict with Hector (251b–2, 319–26nn.).

859b–60. μή μ᾽ ἔρως ἕλοι / τοιοῦτος ἵππων: By drawing a qualitative, not just quantitative, line between Hector’s longing (184) and murderous passion for the horses (833–81n.), Ω’s τοιοῦτος effects a more powerful defence than Wecklein’s tentative τοσοῦτος (Feickert on 859). For the overall phrasing cf. E. fr. 331.1–2 καί μ᾽ ποτέ / οὐκ εἰς τὸ οὐδέ μ᾽ εἰς Κύπριν τρέπων.

861. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς: ‘That is Odysseus again’, with omission of (Σ^V Rh. 861 [II 343.17–18 Schwartz = 114 Merro]), which could not easily be understood retrospectively from 862 (contrast e.g. Xen. Cyr. 4.4.13 ὅπως ὑμεῖς ἐκείνων, μὴ ἐκεῖνοι ὑμῶν ἄρχωσιν, quoted by Liapis on 861-2). The idiom is paralleled in Theoc. 15.8 ὁ τῆνος, Tr. 1278 τούτων ὅ Ζεύς (where Σ^vet. also adds ἔπραξεν), Cyc. 63–7 Βρόμιος, χοροὶ / (…), 204–5 and, less harshly, Tro. 99–100 οὐκέτι Τροία / τάδε καὶ ἐσμεν Τροίας. In full see Andr. 168–9 οὐ γάρ ἐσθ᾽ τάδε, / οὐ χρυσός, and Thuc. 6.77.1 οὐ … δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐκ τάδε εἰσὶν οὐδ᾽ καὶ νησιῶται (Gow on Theoc. 15.8).

There is thus no need for Fix’s καὶ ταῦτ᾽ (p. XXXI), which is in any case more difficult than the ellipsis in 722 (sc. τοὔργον ἐστὶν) μή, μ᾽ ἔχει (~ 704). Dawe’s for καί (apud Diggle), by contrast, could remove the slightly obscure allusion to Odysseus’ earlier Trojan exploits (498b–509, 705, 710–21nn.). On the frequent confusion of and καὶ (abbreviated) see Diggle, Studies, 27 and Euripidea, 198 (with earlier literature).

863–4. ‘But I fear, and something troubles my heart, that he has also run into Dolon and killed him.’

The sentiment and phrasing may have been inspired by Il. 10.538–9 (Nestor) αἰνῶς κατὰ ϕρένα, μή τι πάθωσιν / οἱ ἄριστοι ὀρυμαγδοῦ (Porter on 864; cf. Ritchie 181–2), but see below on the mood .

αὐτόν: proleptic, as in Med. 37 δέδοικα δ᾽ νέον and similarly OT 767–8 δέδοικ᾽ ἐμαυτόν … ἄγαν / μοι (KG II 577–9). καί τί θράσσει then becomes a parenthetic variation on δέδοικ᾽.

καί τί μου θράσσει ϕρένας: Cf. PV 628 … σὰς δ᾽ θρᾶξαι ϕρένας, where the notable correspondence of word-ends and metrical position may be significant. Otherwise it is true that and form ‘natural object[s]’ (Ritchie 200) for θράσσω (Ant. 1095, Hipp. 969, Ion 1538, E. fr. 1079.4).

μὴ … κατέκτανεν (Matthiae, VIII [1824], 38) restores the standard construction in a statement of fear relating to a past event (KG II 394–5, SD 354, Kannicht on Hel. 119). The transmitted … is often defended with the few Homeric instances of the aorist subjunctive in the same application: Il. 1.555–6 νῦν δ᾽ αἰνῶς κατὰ ϕρένα, σε / Θέτις, 10.97–9 ἴδωμεν, / … / κοιμήσωνται, ἐπὶ πάγχυ λάθωνται, 538–9 (SD 675, Chantraine, GH II, 299).⁵¹¹ But one may doubt whether that would have been recognised as a conscious epicism.

865. χρόνον alone as an adverb is found only here in tragedy and was classed as a Homerism by Pearson (CR 35 [1921], 56), who compared Od. 6.295 (to which add Od. 4.599 and 9.138). Yet it is also very rare in later Ionic and Attic literature (Hdt. 1.175, 7.223.1, Thuc. 4.73.4), perhaps because its lack of semantic precision (‘time’ in the expressive sense ‘a considerable time’) militated against the demands of standard speech. The more specific χρόνον … ὅσον(περ) or χρόνον (Hec. 436, Hel. 400–2, 612, Rh. 856–7) never underwent such apparent restriction.

ϕροῦδος: 662n.

οὐ ϕαίνεται: Unlike the aorist and perfect (e.g. Tr. 227–8 … χρόνῳ / ϕανέντα, OC 77, 328 τέκνον, πέϕηνας; Andr. 891), ‘the forms of the present stem are not used frequently of characters appearing ‘on stage’ in tragedy’ (Bond on HF 705 [704–5] καὶ δάμαρθ᾽ / κέλευε τῶνδε δόμων). See also Hec. 666 ἐς δὲ καιρὸν σοῖσι ϕαίνεται λόγοις and Ba. 645–6 πῶς προνώπιος / ϕαίνῃ πρὸς οἴκοις τοῖς ἐμοῖς. The idiom need not be ‘colloquial’ (Wilamowitz on HF 705; cf. Ar. Vesp. 273, Eccl. 312, Pl. Prot. 309a1), but its restriction to later Euripides is noteworthy.

866–7. ‘I don’t know these Odysseuses of yours that you speak of. We haven’t been struck by anyone of the enemies.’

The closest parallel for this couplet with scornful epanalepsis of something mentioned by the previous speaker (KG I 559 n. 10, SD 203) is presumably S. fr. 165 οἶδα σὴν · ἓν δ᾽ · / τοῦ παιδὸς ὄντος τοῦδ᾽ ἐγὼ διόλλυμαι (where lack of context precludes absolute certainty); then S. El. 1110 τὴν (taking up in 1109), Hcld. 284 · τὸ σὸν γὰρ δέδοικ᾽ (after 283 ἐν Ἄργει) and Phil. 1251 (with Hermann’s στρατόν and Jackson’s positioning of the lacuna, accepted by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson).⁵¹² In our lines the notion of contempt is reinforced by the plural Ὀδυσσέας, for which cf. Ag. 1439 Χρυσηΐδων (with Fraenkel on 1438) and, in a comparable usage, Rh. 438 (438–9n.) ἐμὰς ἀμύστιδας. Moreover, conveys the impression that, analogous to the Phrygian at Or. 1521 τὸ Γοργοῦς δ᾽ οὐ κάρα (with Willink on 1520–1), the Charioteer has never heard of or does not care about the Greek hero.

868. The Argive Herald begins his reply to Theseus with similar words in E. Suppl. 465–6 ἂν ἤδη. μὲν ἠγωνισμένων / σοὶ μὲν ταῦτ᾽, ἐμοὶ δὲ τἀντία. His tone, however, is coldly polite rather than condescending.

δ᾽᾽ οὖν: 336–7n.

869. ὦ γαῖα πατρίς: Cf. E. fr. 696.1 γαῖα πατρίς, ὁρίζεται.