Aris and Phillips Classical Texts

EURIPIDES
Iphigenia at Aulis

VOLUME 1
Introduction, Text and Translation

Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary by

Christopher Collard and James Morwood

LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY PRESS

First published 2017 by
Liverpool University Press
4 Cambridge Street
Liverpool
L69 7ZU

www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk

Copyright © 2017 Chris Collard and James Morwood

The right of C. Collard and J. Morwood to be identified as the authors of this book
has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data

A British Library CIP record is available

ISBN 978-1-911226-46-8 cased

ISBN 978-1-911226-47-5 paperback

Typeset by Tara Evans

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

Cover images:
Volume 1: Iphigenia (Lucia Lavia) and Agamemnon (Sebastiano Lo Monaco)
in their first scene together in the 2015 production of IA in the Greek theatre at
Syracuse.
Volume 2: Clytemnestra (Elena Ghiaurov) and Iphigenia (Lucia Lavia) in the
Syracuse production.
Reproduced by permission of Fondazione Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico
(INDA) Siracusa.
 to the memory of

Bill Ritchie
(1927–2004)

τῷ μὲν ἀποιχομένῳ βίβλος ἥδ’ ἀνάθημα γενέσθω,

μνημόσυνον κείνης ἣν ἔθαν’ οὐ τελέσας·
᾿Ιφιγένειαν γὰρ δι’ ἐτῶν σχολίοισιν ἐκόσμει
αἷς ῾Ρῆσον μελέταις κάρτ’ ἐφύλαξε πάλαι.

(see Preface II)

 CONTENTS

VOLUME 1
General Editor’s Foreword vii
Preface ix
Introduction
Preliminary 1
The Myth 3
Human and Animal Sacrifice 7
Sacrifice before Marriage 11
The Political Context 12
Panhellenism 15
Dramatis Personae 18
Iphigenia 25
Off-stage: the Army; Troy 28
The Chorus 30
Themes and Motifs: Looking; a Sense of Shame;
Fortune, Chance and Necessity; Glory 33
Early Performance and Later Reception 37
Metre 45
Text 50
Bibliography 63
Abbreviations 77
Note on the Greek Text and Critical Apparatus 79
Greek Text, Apparatus and Translation 81

VOLUME 2
Commentary 235
Addenda to Volumes 1 and 2 647
Indexes to Volumes 1 and 2 649
 GENERAL EDITOR’S FOREWORD

This is the twentieth and final volume in the Euripides Series. The
volumes have been published over a period of about thirty years. Users
and reviewers have been tolerant or generous towards the principles of
content, form and commentary which I set out in previous Forewords,
and which the earliest contributors followed closely. Since that time
large and swift changes in the study of Greek Tragedy, in the needs
of teachers at all levels, and not least in pupils’ decreased mastery
of the Greek language itself, have gradually induced flexibility; at
least one recent reviewer has used the phrase ‘mission creep’. More
economical methods of preparing and printing copy have permitted
greater length too, notably in the two most recent volumes, Medea
(2011) and Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama
(2013). These matters are addressed in the authors’ Preface to this
edition, which has become the longest of all.
It is my pleasure to thank all the contributors, and my sadness that
three of them have not lived to read this Foreword, Desmond Conacher
(Alcestis), Kevin Lee (Ion and Select Fragmentary Plays I) and Martin
West (Orestes). In turn I and all contributors are grateful to John Aris, and
to Adrian and Lucinda Phillips, as Aris and Phillips Ltd of Warminster,
for establishing the Series (see the Preface to Hecuba), and subsequently
to David Brown and Clare Litt of Oxbow Books for its completion.
If I may be allowed a personal satisfaction, it is appropriate: I am
myself a last contributor to the Euripides Series, which ends with
Euripides’ last play.
April 2016 Christopher Collard

Soon after I had written this Foreword, and the Iphigenia had been submitted
to Oxbow Books, it was made known that the Aris and Phillips imprint
would be transferred to Liverpool University Press, who thereby have
become its publishers. I wish LUP every success in continuing the Classical
Texts Series.
July 2016 C.C.
 PREFACE

I
Those who have glanced at or opened this edition may have been
disconcerted by its publication in two volumes, and an explanation is
proper in addition to what is said in the General Editor’s Foreword.
The IA is a long play; in Euripides’ surviving work it just exceeds Ion,
while Helen, Orestes and the fragmentary Hypsipyle, perhaps also the
now adulterated Phoenician Women, are a little longer; like IA, all those
are from Euripides’ ‘last period’. The play was left unfinished at his
death and first produced in haste, and its text is uniquely problematic,
because very many parts large and small are in consequence of disputed
authenticity: only 200 or so of its 1629 lines have not been suspected
or deleted by somebody. This problem often aggravates discussion of
the already numerous difficult or corrupt passages. Furthermore, the
play is at heart thoroughly good poetic drama (see our Introduction,
Reception and Text 2.d). So it is simultaneously unsurprising because
of the play’s problems but astonishing in the light of its qualities that
the only general commentaries in English remain those of the late
19th Century, F. A. Paley’s second edition of 1880, C. E. S. Headlam’s
brief school commentary of 1889 and E. B. England’s predominantly
text-critical edition of 1891.
In trying to repair the lack of a commentary for English-speaking
users, we provide, as are standard in the Series, an introduction,
bibliographical matter, an edited Greek text, a facing, unpretentious
translation, and indexes. The translation supports a commentary which
aims to meet many needs: firstly of those with little or no Greek (so
the initial lemmata are from the translation); secondly of those more
confident in the language; thirdly, we hope, of teachers and university
students and academics. In view of all this, the commentary contains
much discussion of plot, characters and dramaturgy, and we have
attempted a deal of suggestive interpretation.
We have given much more space in the commentary to language
than have earlier volumes in the Series, in separate sections headed
x Preface

Greek, and to text-critical issues in separate sections headed [Text];

these follow the initial, general notes. It also accords with the singular
factors in the play’s survival that our discussions of its textual
problems are unavoidably frequent and often lengthy; by the same
token these discussions of language and text are inescapable for those
whose study of the play is to be soundly based.
In our expanded treatment of language we admit to pragmatism,
for as teachers of Greek over many years (Collard in universities,
Morwood in both school and university), we have experienced a decline
in students’ knowledge and sureness. For our notes on grammar and
syntax we have set as an approximate starting-level matters which are
not treated in Morwood’s Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek (2001);
as reference-works we use H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G. M.
Messing, Harvard 1956), the best and fullest in the English language,
and occasionally R. Kühner and B. Gerth’s irreplaceable repository
Griechische Grammatik: Satzlehre (Hanover 18973).
We particularly ask users to note that in the Commentary it is our
frequent practice to give the Greek wording immediately after the
English lemma, and to include other Greek too (but usually with
translation) when discussing or illustrating matter of interest to all
users. Further:
• we are aware of some duplication of matter between our Introduction
and Commentary, necessarily between the critical apparatus and the
Commentary, and within the Commentary itself, but this is intended
to be helpful, and we add frequent cross-references;
• in the Commentary we often use ‘a’ or ‘b’ after a line-number: ‘a’
means ‘as far as’ the punctuation breaking the line (usually near its
centre, but sometimes after a single word); ‘b’ means ‘beginning
after’ such punctuation;
• we have tried to restrict our quotations of comparable material or
relevant bibliography to just two or three for almost every usage or
topic;
• like all commentators we are indebted to our predecessors, often
without acknowledgement; where we do cite them it is in the
common style of ‘x’ on ‘play y, line z’; editors of the text are usually
given their bare names, sometimes a page-number;
 Preface xi

• we seldom mention rarities of vocabulary, especially single

occurrences in Greek literature or single appearances in Euripides,
except where they seem important to interpretation or relate to textual
problems. Rich linguistic information is to be had in the monograph
of D. L. Page (1934) and particularly the commentary of W. Stockert
(1992): see the Bibliography;
• for metre we content ourselves with the brief general discussion in
the Introduction and summary notes in the Commentary especially
on the lyrics; but we point to the best detailed treatments we have
been able to find.
• for our handling of textual questions users are invited to read the
section Text in the Introduction. In the Greek text and Commentary,
where papyri are cited, some of the sublinear points which indicate
letters insecurely read may not be in true vertical alignment or are
half-lost beneath a consonant-descender (a software problem);
Our Translation is into prose, and only the line-by-line dialogue
(stichomythia: e.g. 303–33, 819–99) keeps its formal shape. Line-
numbers are placed at points corresponding as closely as possible
with the end of every fifth Greek line.
The Bibliography concentrates upon the play, and so omits many
works of reference or studies which were included in the most recent
Series Bibliography, published in Martin Cropp’s revised Electra
(2013, pp. 263–73). Works of reference which we cite frequently are
listed in Abbreviations, which follow the Bibliography.

II
Our dedication recognises the lengthy but unfinished work towards an
edition with commentary by William (‘Bill’) Ritchie, late Professor of
Greek in the University of Sydney; he appears to have begun it in the
1960s. (The Greek of the dedication means roughly: ‘We have wished
to dedicate this book to the late Bill Ritchie, as a memorial to the one
he died without completing; for over the years he had been furnishing
the Iphigenia with a commentary, with that careful study he had given
long ago to strong defence of the Rhesus.’)
Through the kindness of Prof. Ritchie’s literary executor Prof. Peter
xii Preface

Wilson, copies of his many working papers which survive were made
for us; we have prepared a summary of them and lodged it with Prof.
Wilson. We record our great pleasure that a munificent bequest to the
University of Sydney by Prof. Ritchie himself has been recognised in
his name’s attachment to the Chair of Classics, and that Peter Wilson
is the first Professor to be so designated.
The papers are entirely handwritten, except for those in (1) below,
and contain:
(1) two lectures on the play and its problems, in typescript (undated);
(2) a near final draft of commentary upon lines 919–74 (cf. Ritchie
(1978) in the Bibliography);
(3) copious preparatory materials, including exhaustive digests of
earlier scholarship, especially upon problems of authenticity and
constitution of the text;
(4) preliminary, partial and variably finished drafts of commentary, and
notes, upon lines 1–246, 303–450, 607–901, 977–84, 999–1035,
1098–1275, 1510–1629 but also upon many separate and briefer
passages;
(5) scattered brief appreciations of the action in progress, as drama
and as theatre; of characterization; of mythological aspects; of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia; brief general discussions of language and
style.
Ritchie made occasional notes from the editions of Jouan (1983),
Günther (1988), Stockert (1992) and Diggle (1994), but very seldom
from later publications.
We cite or acknowledge this material selectively (especially in
the Index) according to our best judgement of its value, as ‘Ritchie’
(without date).

III
We acknowledge with gratitude permission to reproduce as our cover
pictures two still photographs from a recent splendid production
of Iphigenia, that of the Teatro Greco a Siracusa. 51o Ciclo di
Rappresentazioni classiche 2015. Ifigenia in Aulide di Euripide,
 Preface xiii

regia Federico Tiezzi. Foto Franca Centaro per Archivio Fondazione

Instituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico ( INDA) Siracusa.
Our debts to earlier editors are set out in the section Text 4 of our
Introduction.
Our personal thanks go to many friends and colleagues who have
enquired about, encouraged and aided this edition over time; and
especially to Dr Almut Fries, who generously found time to read parts
of the Introduction and Commentary in a late draft and then a proof of
much of the Commentary, when her notes were as valuable as her eye
was eagle-sharp.
Lastly we are grateful to Clare Litt of Oxbow Books, and now
to Alison Welsby of Liverpool University Press, for agreeing to
publication in two volumes; and to Tara Evans for skilled setting of
the book.
The responsibility for the finished work is of course entirely our
own.

Oxford, Christopher Collard, The Queen’s College

July 2016 James Morwood, Wadham College
 INTRODUCTION

Preliminary
Readers may best begin their encounter with the play by observing
the paramount aspect of its dramaturgy: all the principal characters
– Agamemnon, Old Man, Menelaus, Clytemnestra and Iphigenia –
are from one family (and from one household, except for Menelaus)
– apart from Achilles, who is the victim of a false design to have
him join the family through marriage to Iphigenia. Their motives
and interactions are more complex and emotional even than those
in Alcestis and Hippolytus, two plays similarly concentrated within
one family house (but both feature gods who have already acted, and
who have speaking parts). Iphigenia at Aulis illustrates as well as any
Greek tragedy Aristotle’s opinion that the best plays technically are
those set within prominent and prosperous families, and that in this
respect Euripides excelled (Poetics 13.1453a7–30).
Yet the play’s plot takes earlier actions by the brothers Menelaus
and Agamemnon forward to their consequence not in their family
homes but in a military camp, bringing there also the two women,
Agamemnon’s wife and daughter. The Greeks are at Aulis to lead a
Panhellenic expedition against ‘barbarian’ Troy to recover Menelaus’
wife Helen, who was willingly abducted by Trojan Paris. When they
are unable to set sail for reasons unknown to the Greeks, the seer
Calchas declares that they are to sacrifice Iphigenia to the goddess
Artemis, and they will get both their sailing and their destruction of
the Trojans; but if they do not sacrifice her, these things will not be.
Such is the outcome firstly of Menelaus’ disastrous marriage to
Helen; secondly of Agamemnon’s participation in his brother’s cause;
thirdly of Agamemnon’s deceptions, of which he now repents, not
only of Achilles, but even more of his own wife and daughter in
fetching them into the camp for the girl’s sacrifice. After the Old Man
reveals Agamemnon’s deceit to Clytemnestra, she exposes the rotten
foundation of Agamemnon’s own marriage; a different exposure
accompanies it, confronting the impressionable girl Iphigenia with
2 Introduction

her father’s falseness and her mother’s latent hatred for him, and
simultaneously facing her with martial glamour but also war’s cruel
imperatives.
Critics like to debate a tragedy’s main turning point, especially
when it is ‘problematic’. In our play changes of mind turn the action
repeatedly; it is distinctive in this respect. The episodes 607–750
and 1098–1275 play out between the same three figures, father, wife
and daughter. It is in these family scenes on stage (and in that with
his brother Menelaus 303–542, in the course of which the arrival of
Clytemnestra and Iphigenia is announced) that Agamemnon is forced
to change his mind, from wishing to save his daughter to trying to
maintain his deceit, and then to persisting with the sacrifice. He is
devious from the outset, ironically like the Odysseus he criticises for
just this fault at 526; he continues to be devious until Clytemnestra
confronts him, for it is off-stage, between 750 and 1098, that he
becomes fully aware of the army’s determination upon Iphigenia’s
death. Menelaus changes abruptly to sympathy for his brother, the
Old Man betrays Agamemnon’s trust over the deception, Achilles
gradually retreats from his promise to keep Iphigenia safe. It is the
change of mind in Iphigenia that is notoriously ‘problematic’: she
moves quickly from pleading for her young life to its willing sacrifice
in the Greek cause (1120–1509). Aristotle used her as a prime example
of ‘anomaly’ in a character (Poetics 15.1454a26–33). Though we
put forward our own view later in this Introduction (see pp. 27–8),
argument will not stop about how far – or whether at all – this change
therefore flaws the play; but it reads well, and our experience tells us
that it performs better.
We do not summarize the action here: a detailed analysis of its
progress is given in the Commentary at the start of each formal section,
and at places within some sections: 1–163 prologue-scene, 164–302
choral entry-song, 303–542 first episode, 543–89 first choral ode,
590–750 second episode, 751–800 second choral ode, 801–1035 third
episode, 1036–97 third choral ode, 1098–1275 fourth episode, 1276–
1335 monody of Iphigenia, 1336–1509 fifth episode merging into exit
scene, [1510–1629] inauthentic ending, including a messenger speech.
 Introduction 3

The Myth1
The sacrifice of Iphigenia is not explicitly referred to anywhere
in the Iliad, though there may be a glance at it at 1.106–8 (see n.
86–93). But the Cypria (7th or 6th century BC), one of a number of
complements to Homer’s epics, contains the following version of the
story according to Proclus’ epitome (5th century AD; M. L. West,
Greek Epic Fragments, 66–81, section 8); it is the earliest surviving
account: ‘and when the expedition had been assembled at Aulis for
the second time, Agamemnon, after shooting a deer on a hunt,2 said
that he was better than even Artemis; and the goddess in her anger3
prevented [the Greeks] from sailing by sending storms; and when
Calchas spoke of the anger of the goddess and ordered the sacrifice of
Iphigenia to Artemis, they4 undertook to sacrifice her by summoning
her as if she was to be married to Achilles. But Artemis snatched her
away, took her to the Taurians and made her immortal, and set a deer
by the altar in place of the girl.’ To this account pseudo–Apollodorus
(1st–2nd century AD: Epit. 3.21, 22) adds that Odysseus (cf. IT 24–5)
and Talthybius were sent to negotiate with Clytemnestra, with the
plea that Iphigenia should be given in marriage to Achilles (cf. E. El.
1020–1) as the price for gaining his participation in the war. Hyginus
(probably 2nd century AD: Fab. 98) tells the same story save for the
substitution of Diomedes for Talthybius.5
The sacrifice also appears in Hesiod’s (?) epic Catalogue of Women
(c. 700 BC, F 23(a) M-W = Argument 8 West, Greek Epic Fragments);
the papyrus narrates in addition the substitution of an image (εἴδωλον)
at the altar and the immortality conferred on the girl (Merkelbach’s
supplement 21–6). And apparently Stesichorus’ lyric Oresteia (6th
1 For further details and discussion see Gantz (1993) 582–8; M. J. Cropp,
Iphigenia in Tauris (Warminster 2000) 31–56. See Addenda.
2 Cf. Hyg. Fab. 98, Schol. E. Or. 858.
3 Cf. S. El. 563–72, Hyg. Fab. 98.
4 ‘We notice immediately that Agamemnon has disappeared from this crucial
sentence...’ (Gibert (1995) 208).
5 A. C. Pearson (The Fragments of Sophocles 1 (Cambridge 1917) 219) feels that
these extracts give us the outline of Sophocles’ lost Iphigenia. An older suggestion
that this play was set in Argos, not Aulis, seems reasonable.
4 Introduction

century BC: PMG Page 38 = Davies/Finglass F 178) also told of the

escape of Iphigenia from the sacrifice and her transformation into
the goddess Hecate. In Pindar’s Pythian 11.22–3, Clytemnestra’s
daughter’s sacrifice is offered as a possible motive for her murder of
Agamemnon (5th century BC; cf. IA 1180–4).6 In our play the Greeks
are at Aulis in order to avenge the abduction of Helen by Paris. So that
Helen’s father Tyndareus could safeguard the outcome of the contest
for Helen’s hand in marriage, he had made wooing her conditional
upon swearing an oath (IA 57–65). This oath is first found in the
literary tradition as early as the Catalogue of Women (F 204.78–84)
where we are told that each suitor swears not to try to make Helen
his wife without Tyndareus’ consent, and to attack anyone who takes
her unilaterally by force. Though, like Achilles, Agamemnon was not
himself a suitor (he was already married to Clytemnestra) Catalogue
F 197.4–5 has him swearing the oath as a proxy for his brother.
In his moulding of the myth in IA Euripides has enriched the
dramatic material by bringing Clytemnestra and the infant Orestes
to Aulis with her daughter, thus giving poignant emphasis to the
family conflict in the tragedy. In addition, the playwright has
probably invented the brothers’ quarrel, Achilles’ involvement
with Clytemnestra and Iphigenia, and (most strikingly) Iphigenia’s
voluntary self-sacrifice. In Euripides’ shaping, the myth serves as a
donnée which presents the characters with the tragic dilemmas posed
by the ἄπλοια (the inability to sail, 88) and the θέσφατα (‘prophecy’:
Artemis’ decree, 498, 529, 879, 1268, 1486, [1556]). These mythical
facts precipitate the spiralling reactions and interreactions of the
members of Agamemnon’s family as well as of the man whom he has
falsely named as his son-in-law. The unexpected developments in the
play arise exclusively from this interplay; the action unfolds entirely
on the human plane.
Some of the original audience will have remembered Euripides’
Iphigenia among the Taurians, probably dating from 413 or 412 BC.
In this play, Iphigenia has been stolen away from Aulis by Artemis and
is serving as a sacrificial priestess of the goddess among the Taurians
6 Michelakis (2006) 21–5.
 Introduction 5

(on the Crimea) (IT 28–41); she makes her escape and will become
a priestess of Artemis, at Halai and Brauron in Attica (IT 1449–63),
the former not very far from Aulis. Here Iphigenia will be ‘associated
with an altered Greek realm which recognizes human sacrifice only
in symbols, and where Artemis has chosen to preside over an orderly
construction of female lives’.7 The thought of Iphigenia’s survival as
a priestess in Attica may have given the Athenian audience of IA a
certain consolation; but it must be conceded that there is no reference
to such a future for her in the play as we have it.
In the considerably earlier Agamemnon (458 BC), Aeschylus
introduced the story to what survives of Greek tragedy8 to devastating
effect, raising the question of whether the father had any choice but
to sacrifice his daughter. The behaviour of the winds sent by Artemis
in the relevant plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides is central
to the discussion here since, if the weather conditions had allowed
Agamemnon to sail home, the sacrifice would have been avoidable.
At 88 of our play the king says that ‘we are sitting at Aulis idle, unable
to sail’. We must infer from 90–1 that Artemis, who was worshipped
there, is in some way involved in the stalling of the fleet. We are not
told specifically why the ships could not set out, but even if the silence
of the winds in 10–11 may refer mainly to a specific time of night,
the audience, knowing the title of the play, would relate it to the myth
and assume that the winds have stopped blowing more lastingly (see
Commentary ad loc.). Yet the possibility of returning home certainly
remains (95, 817). In Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, the Chorus sing that
Artemis took offence at a sign from Zeus foretelling the Greeks’
success at Troy, viz. the devouring of a pregnant hare (representing
‘teeming’ Troy) by two eagles (representing Agamemnon and
Menelaus).9 In her anger she sent winds from the north-east to keep
the fleet in Aulis (114–20, 134–7, 192); but here too the expedition
could have gone back home (implied by 212–3). In Sophocles’
7 Cropp (n. 1 above) 50–5, quotation 55. See Addenda.
8 Aeschylus, like Sophocles (see n. 5), wrote a play called Iphigenia, but this too
is now almost completely lost.
9 On this portent, see most recently S. Lawrence, Moral Awareness in Greek
Tragedy (Oxford 2013) 71–3.
6 Introduction

Electra, Agamemnon’s daughter Electra tells us that Artemis was

angered by an unspecified remark by Agamemnon after he had killed
a stag in her grove (a variant on the account given in Proclus’ epitome
of the Cypria (above, p. 3)) and held back the Greeks so that, in
contrast with IA and Agamemnon, they could neither sail to Troy nor
return home (566–74) until the goddess was appeased. In Euripides’
Electra neither Agamemnon’s wife Clytemnestra nor Electra herself
say anything about what had impelled him to sacrifice Iphigenia;
however, in Euripides’ IT, Iphigenia herself looks back on the crisis
and quotes the seer Calchas as saying to Agamemnon that ‘you shall
not unmoor your ships from the land before Artemis receives your girl
Iphigenia as her slaughtered victim, because you had vowed that you
would sacrifice to the goddess the most beautiful thing that the year
produced’ (18–21). So we can see that, except in the case of Euripides’
Electra, the dramatists present scenarios in which the sacrifice was
either avoidable or unavoidable. Our play is one of the former, though
even so it must be added that many of the Greek leaders had sworn an
oath to avenge Helen’s abduction and this should have obliged them to
sail to Troy.10 Still, it remains the case that in sacrificing his daughter
our Agamemnon is doing something that the play in its earlier stages
suggests he could have avoided and this will certainly affect the way
we view him.
As a footnote to this discussion, it is worth remarking that Malcolm
Davies argues that the absence of any offence on Agamemnon’s part
in our play goes against the pattern of myth, fairy-tale and folk-lore.11
If this is indeed the case, it makes Euripides’ omission of this element
in IA particularly telling. Our Agamemnon is confronted with an
intolerable situation which he has done nothing to cause: he has been
entirely innocent. Thus, since the goddess’ horrific demand is not a
response to any human sin, it appears to be chillingly arbitrary.

10 A. H. Stein and I. C. Torrance, ‘Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece’ (Berlin/

Boston 2014) 49. Torrance dismisses Agamemnon’s argument that the oath need not
be binding (394–5) as ‘weak’ (50).
11 M. Davies, ‘ “Sins of the fathers”: omitted sacrifices and offended deities in
Greek Literature and the Folk-Tale’, Eikasmos 21 (2010) 331–55.
 Introduction 7

Human and animal sacrifice

ὦ πότνια <πότνια>, θύμασιν βροτησίοις
χαρεῖσα ....
O lady, <lady> (Artemis), delighted by human sacrifices...
IA [1524–5]
Human sacrifice is a common feature of Greek mythology, its first
literary appearance being that by Achilles of ‘twelve noble sons of
the great-hearted Trojans’ on the tomb of Patroclus at Iliad 23.175–6.
The actual killing of humans outside myth is more debatable. In
his note on Homer’s lines, N. J. Richardson argues that, although
this is the only instance of human sacrifice in Homer, probably
‘the poet of the Iliad was aware that such practices existed in life,
whether in the heroic past or (more probably) in recent times’.12 Two
German dissertations of the nineteenth century and a monograph of
the early twentieth collected the relevant material and came to the
conclusion that ancient Greece indeed practised human sacrifice but
over the course of time the ritual was replaced by animal sacrifice
or the expulsion of the victim.13 However, recent summaries, which
have profited from a century of archaeological activity and from the
attention to the patterns of myth and ritual as exemplified in the work
of W. Burkert, J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet,14 have unanimously
come to the conclusion that the actual practice of human sacrifice
in ancient Greece is unlikely.15 In the world of tragedy A. Henrichs
has no doubt that while ‘animal sacrifice represents normal violence,

12 G. S. Kirk (ed.), The Iliad: A Commentary Vol. VI: Books 21–24 (Cambridge
1993) 188.
13 R. Suchier, De victimis humanis apud Graecos (Diss. Marburg 1848); J.
Becker, De hostiis humanis apud Graecos (Diss. Münster 1867); F. Schwenn, Die
Menschenopfer bei den Griechen und Römern (Giessen 1915).
14 E.g. Burkert (1983); J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in
Ancient Greece (tr. J. Lloyd) (Brighton 1981, New York 1988).
15 J. N. Bremmer, ‘Body politics: Imagining human sacrifice in Euripides’
Iphigenia in Aulis’, in K. Bielawski (ed.), Mantic Perspectives (Krakow 2016) 15–
56. See Addenda.
8 Introduction

... human sacrifice is considered an aberration’.16 However, Plutarch

recounts an episode much closer to the time of our play (Themistocles
13.2–5, Aristides 9.1), on the morning of the Battle of Salamis
(480 BC). Themistocles was sacrificing when three very handsome
high-born Persians were brought to him. A flame shot up from the
animal victims awaiting sacrifice and a sneeze was heard on the
right. Thereupon the prophet Euphrantides ordered the Persians to be
sacrificed to a god. Themistocles was appalled but the people, ‘ready
to find salvation in the miraculous rather than a rational course of
action’, dragged the prisoners to the altar and forced the sacrifice to be
carried out. This story is seen as a fiction by Henrichs, D. D. Hughes
and J. N. Bremmer.17 But it may be supported by a story in Diodorus
(11.57.1–5); and Burkert concluded that it was ‘no mere phantasy’ but
‘intrinsically possible’.18
In fact, from our point of view it matters little whether the story is
true or false. If it was in circulation at the time IA was written, it offers
a template which relates helpfully to our tragedy. The high birth of the
three Persians provides an interesting parallel to Iphigenia; and the
demand for the fairest or the most noble is a frequent motif in human
sacrifice in literature (see e.g. IT 20–1, Cic. De Officiis 3.25.95;
Bremmer (n. 15)). In addition, the contrast between the horrified
reaction of Themistocles and eagerness for the sacrifice among the
mass of soldiers at Salamis finds a strong echo in the action of our
play in which the war-mania of the Greek forces makes Iphigenia’s
sacrifice inevitable (1262–5).
Euripides was clearly fascinated by the subject of human sacrifice.
It occurs in five of his extant plays: in addition to IA, it is a feature of
Iphigenia among the Taurians (in which the heroine, an involuntary
agent of such sacrifice, roundly condemns it (380–91)); his victims are
Polyxena in Hecuba, the Maiden (Macaria) in The Children of Heracles
16 A. Henrichs, ‘Drama and Dromena: Bloodshed and Violence, and Sacrificial
Metaphor in Euripides’, HSCP 100 (2000) 173–88, 184.
17 A. Henrichs, ‘Human Sacrifice in Greek Religion: Three Case Studies’, in
Entretiens Fondation Hardt 25 (1980) 208–24; D. D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in
Ancient Greece (London and New York 1991) 112–15; Bremmer (2002) 21–43, 27.
18 ‘Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual’, GRBS 7 (1966) 113.
 Introduction 9

(see Allan’s important note at 408–9), and Menoeceus, who commits a

sacrificial suicide, in Phoenissae: these sacrifices have a patriotic motive,
the safety of a homeland. (In Euripides’ fragmentary Erechtheus, one of
the daughters of the eponymous Athenian king sacrifices herself – and
her sisters commit suicide, presumably so as to share in the sacrifice – in
order to ensure victory over an invading army.19) These young people
die willingly, and knowingly forgo the rite of passage to adulthood. In
our play, although Iphigenia fervently wishes to cling to life until her
famous change of mind, she finally embraces the same values whole-
heartedly. In this eagerness to give their lives for what seems to them to
be a high ideal, these figures reflect a presumption of Greek religion that
a living animal victim’s progress to the altar should be seen as voluntary.
However, modern scholars have challenged the concept of what they
refer to as the ‘comedy of innocence’ whereby the victim is seen as
willing and the killer innocent. It is argued that this is illustrated only
by a particular case, the antiquated Attic Dipolieia festival, in which
a bull’s willing participation in its sacrifice to Zeus was important.20
In fact, there was no artistic taboo on showing animals vigorously
resisting being led to the altar, as naturally they frequently did,21 The
appalling picture of the sacrifice of the gagged and terrified Iphigenia
at Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 228–41 thus reflects the brutal compulsion
of many an animal sacrifice and points to the gap between the cosmetic
ideal and the frequently grisly reality.22
19 See p. 149 of Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays 1 in this Series where
the fragments of Erechtheus are edited by M. J. Cropp. Very differently from the
situation in our play, the mother of the victim prevails upon her reluctant husband
Erechtheus to go ahead with the sacrifice.
20 H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1986) 162–7; ‘antiquated’
162–7.
21 R. Parker, On Greek Religion (Cornell 2011) 129–30; for strenuous resistance to
sacrifice, see F. S. Naiden, Smoke signals for the gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from
the Archaic through Roman Periods (Oxford 2013) 94–5 (with a horrific modern
drawing of a sacrifice); cf. Virg. Aen. 2.223–4. For details of the bull-slaying rite
to Zeus at the Dipolieia, see A. M. Bowie, Aristophanes, Myth, Ritual and Comedy
(Cambridge 1993) 68. In Aristophanes, Clouds 984–5 The Worse Argument mocks
the ancient festival.
22 For the knock-out blow with a hammer or axe that preceded the throat-cut, see
10 Introduction

There are notable similarities between the sacrifice of Iphigenia

and that of animals not only in the actual description of the sacrifice
([1565–79]) but also earlier in the play when different characters
visualize its details, i.e. in references to the procession to the altar
(1362), the sacrificial knife (875, 1429), the lustral water and the
sacrificial barley grains (675, 955, 1111–12, 1470–2, 1479, [1513],
[1517–18]). Iphigenia, like Polyxena in Hecuba, is referred to and
likened to a young heifer (see Commentary on 1083, 1183), and for
her sacrifice she wears a wreath on her head just as sacrificial animals
did (1477–8, [1512–13]; cf. 1080–4).
A sacrifice as a preliminary to war was standard Greek practice
(see above on Salamis). The victim (σφάγιον) would be a goat23 or a
ram, and the army would look on as the seer cut the animal’s throat
(Parker (n. 21) 155, 159). Animal sacrifice in this context could have
been a ‘safe’ reflex of human (self-)sacrifice (the animal would be
killed in the hope that the fighters might not be). Before they began
their military service, Attic ephebes sacrificed to Artemis and swore
an oath in the sanctuary of Aglauros, a king’s daughter who met with
a mysterious death (Philochoros, FGrHist 328 F 105, Plut. Alcibiades
15.4). Before the Athenian army set out for war, they sacrificed at
the sanctuary of Erechtheus’ daughters, who of their own free will
offered themselves up for sacrifice (see above for Euripides’ take
on the story in his Erechtheus). The replication of their death in this
sacrifice guaranteed success in the subsequent bloodshed and victory
in battle.24

Commentary [1581b–3] n.
23 Cf. A. Ag. 232 where Iphigenia is held above the altar for sacrifice like a
yearling goat.
24 W. Burkert (1983) 65–6. It has recently been suggested by J. B. Connelly in
The Parthenon Enigma (London 2014) that the frieze of the Parthenon, the temple
dedicated to the city’s protecting goddess Athena built between 447 and 432 BC,
illustrates not the Panathenaic procession as has usually been thought, but the
preparations for the sacrifice of one of these daughters. Connelly’s theory has its
disbelievers (‘very doubtful’, says M. J. Cropp in the Loeb Euripides 7 (2008) 367,
n. 3), but if she is right, a myth that tells a parallel story to that of our play would
have been visible on the walls of the greatest public building in Athens.
 Introduction 11

A distinction which is significant in the vocabulary of our play can

be made between a θυσία, a sacrifice conceived as a food offering
which would be followed by a feast, and a σφάγιον, a ritual killing
which could be performed for purposes such as to assuage winds (Xen.
An. 4.5.4) and to ensure safe passage over a river (Parker (n. 21) 154).
The nouns and their related verbs θύω (‘I sacrifice’) and σφάζω (‘I
cut the throat’) refer respectively to the sacrificial process as a whole
and to the act of slaughtering the victim in a specific manner: thus
σφάγιον and σφάζω have associations, beyond the ritual context, of
violence and bloodshed (Henrichs (n. 17) 180). While it is important
not to make too much of this distinction – as Parker remarks, we
find Herodotus applying the verb θύω to a σφάγιον offering (p. 154),
and the difference is sometimes blurred in IA –, it clearly offers the
tragic dramatists opportunities for exploitation. Bremmer (n. 15)
traces Euripides’ handling of these words over the course of our play,
pointing out that Agamemnon prefers euphemistic θύω words (91, 93
(×2), 530, 673 (×2), 721 (×3), 1272) while the outraged Clytemnestra
almost always uses σφάζω and its correlates (906, 1186, 1200, 1360,
1367).

Sacrifice before marriage in IA

Euripides plays on the similarities between sacrificial ritual and the
marriage ceremony throughout the tragedy.25 The word proteleia
means preliminary rites generally as well as the sacrifices before
marriage specifically (433, 718); the latter involve baskets (435),
garlands (436, 905–6, 1477–8, [1512]), music (437–9, 1036–48,
1467–8), altar-fire (732, 1470–1, [1601–2]), feasting (720, 722–3,
1049–53) and a procession (1362). Marriage is, of course, a major
theme of the play, receiving its most extended appearance in the third
stasimon about the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, that union having

25 R. Seaford, ‘The Tragic Wedding’, JHS 107 (1987) 106–30 discusses

‘the persistent presentation of [the] sacrifice in terms of marriage’ in our play,
commenting on the ‘irony of the bride being transformed from participant in the
sacrifice to victim’ (pp. 108–10).
12 Introduction

produced Achilles, the putative groom for Iphigenia (1036–79). The

theme’s climactic occurrence comes when Iphigenia triumphantly but
tragically conflates the ideas of sacrifice and marriage in her great
turn-about speech (1398–9), and admiration for her perceived heroism
leads Achilles to an open declaration that he would have been a happy
man if he could have won her to wife (1404–5, cf. 1413). And there
is an additional tragic charge in the fact that Artemis, the deity who
demands the sacrifice, is also the goddess of young girls on the brink
of adulthood and marriage.26

The political context

A number of features of IA, most obviously Menelaus’ analysis of
Agamemnon’s electioneering campaign for the supreme Greek
command (337–48), resonate anachronistically, but in a manner
characteristic of Tragedy,27 with the world of 5th century Athenian
politics. It should accordingly prove illuminating to give some
impression of that political world in the last years of the Peloponnesian
War when Euripides wrote the play. He died in 407/6 BC. S. Scullion
has raised serious doubts, albeit doubts not universally shared, about
the tradition of his death in Macedon.28 In Aristophanes’ Frogs, staged
early in 405 BC, the poet causes his Euripides to participate in the
discussion of the poet’s role in a democracy, and, as Scullion remarks
(392), ‘there is no hint that this is in any way inappropriate; the play
lends itself naturally to the conclusion that Euripides died in Athens
still fully involved in Athenian life’.
All the evidence suggests that the vast majority of Athenians
cherished their democracy. Established in 508/7 BC and developing
along increasingly radical lines, it was interrupted only once before
the end of the Peloponnesian War. This occurred in 411 after the
catastrophic failure of the Sicilian expedition had undermined

26 Burkert (1985) 149–52.

27 P. E. Easterling, ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’, JHS 1985 (105) 1–10; EGT
98–100.
28 S. Scullion, ‘Euripides and Macedon’, CQ 53 (2003) 389–400.
 Introduction 13

confidence in democratic government, when the assembly was

induced to set up the regime of the Four Hundred, conceived as a
powerful council of 400 and a notional body of 5,000 citizens ‘able
to serve with their wealth and their bodies’, i.e. men of hoplite status
and above.29 The Four Hundred have impressed nobody – Thucydides
(8.91.3) writes that they would have accepted almost any peace terms
with the Spartans as long as they saved their own skins – and after the
Spartans had defeated an Athenian fleet in the Euboean Gulf (close to
the location of IA),30 an ad hoc assembly deposed them and set up an
intermediate regime based on the Five Thousand.
At this time the bulk of the Athenian fleet were on the other side
of the Aegean on the island of Samos and the sailors committed
themselves to the democratic cause. They thought of themselves as the
true city of Athens and the fundamental indispensability of the fleet
meant that it was their cause that prevailed. Thus the Five Thousand
were doomed and were replaced in 410 by the restored democracy;
and it was the ναυτικὸς ὄχλος (‘naval mob’)31 who brought this about.
They were the champions of democracy.
The theatre of Dionysus at Athens was a focal point for the expression
of democratic feeling. In 410/9 the city Dionysia witnessed a set of
highly politicized rituals, the taking of the oath of Demophantus against
anti-democrats by the assembled citizens and the announcement of
honours for the assassin of the oligarch Phrynichus, architect and
leading agent of the anti-democratic revolution of 411.32 Furthermore
a regular feature of the dramatic festival, probably continued through
most of the fifth century, was the reading of a decree proclaiming a
reward for killing any of the tyrants.33
The morale of the restored democracy was heightened by a number of
military successes between 411 and 408, mainly under the inspirational
29 Thuc. 8.65–70; Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 29–32.
30 Thuc. 8.95.
31 For the expression see Thuc. 8.72.2; for the naval mob in IA, see Commentary
on 913b–15a, 1000–1, 1357.
32 R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, ‘A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the
end of the fifth century BC’ (Oxford 1975) No. 25, 8–13.
33 Ar. Birds 1074–5 with Dunbar’s note.
14 Introduction

leadership of Alcibiades. Euripides was to die before this deeply

ambivalent figure fell into disfavour. Nor was he alive to witness the
renewed democracy’s most deplorable hour when the assembly legally
but reprehensibly condemned to death eight victorious generals after
the battle of Arginusae (406) because bad weather had prevented them
from saving the living sailors and the dead bodies from the wrecked
ships34 – an episode which incidentally illustrates the citizens’ care for
the ordinary citizens who made up their fleet.
This time of upheaval and triumph but not yet of disaster was the
backdrop against which IA was performed. Clearly the question must
be raised of how Euripides will have anticipated his fundamentally
democratic audience’s reaction in a number of significant instances.
How would they have felt about the eagerness of the kings to fix
things the way they want in secret (the fact that Agamemnon’s back-
tracking in the prologue is set in the darkness of night may be relevant
here)? What would have been their response to Agamemnon’s view of
Odysseus as a dangerous rabble-rouser on the grounds that he always
sides with the ὄχλος (526) and that he might communicate the shady
dealings of the sons of Atreus to the army (528–33)? When told that
Odysseus had been ‘chosen’ to lead Iphigenia to her death but was
willing as well (1362–4), would they have seen him as a malevolent
abuser of popular feeling or a democratic agent of its expression?35
Above all, would they have viewed the assembled forces with the fear
and even contempt with which the play’s royal figures regard them
(450, 526, 528–35, 914, 1357; cf. 1264)? These questions are certainly
worth asking if we are to stand any chance of seeing the participants
in the tragedy at Aulis through the eyes of Euripides’ contemporaries.

34 Xen. Hell. 1.7.34; ‘legally but reprehensibly’: see D. Hamel, The Battle of
Arginusae and its Tragic Aftermath in the Final Years of the Peloponnesian War
(Baltimore 2015) 89–90.
35 ‘In tragedy Odysseus is always, for good or evil, the representative of the general
public...’: H. Vretska, ‘Agamemnon in Euripides’ Iphigenie in Aulis’, WS 74 (1961)
18–39, 19. H. M. Roisman’s view is that ‘Euripides’ Odysseus is a consistently
odious character’ (EGT 910–11): such a monolithic approach impoverishes the
plays in which he appears.
 Introduction 15

Panhellenism
Homer’s Iliad is set in the final year of the Greeks’ siege of Troy
(12th century BC; the poem dates from c. 700 BC). According to the
Catalogue of Ships in Book 2, 29 Greek communities have sailed
against the barbarians in 1,186 ships. There is tension in the Greek high
command, but fundamentally the Panhellenic force is united. Even
Achilles, who withdraws from the fighting for a time with devastating
consequences, returns to the battlefield. Thus a rudimentary form of
Panhellenism was on display in the first work of Greek literature:
indeed, the poet speaks of Panachaeans twelve times and uses the
word Panhellenes at 2.530 (though the attribution of the line was
doubtful in antiquity and remains so). And as a continuing aspect of
the concept and its use, the values of ‘all the Greeks’ were defined in
part by their contrast with the barbarian culture of the Trojans.36
The earliest expressions of that Panhellenism as of meaningful
political significance date from the mid-6th century.37 However, it was
not until the early 5th century that the ideal seemed to later Greeks
to have been translated into a reality.38 In 490 a Persian force invaded
Greece and was defeated by 10,000 Athenians and 1,000 men from
their ally Plataea at Marathon. Ten years later, in 480, the Persians
returned in overwhelming force and succeeded in massacring 300
Spartans at Thermopylae and sacking Athens. Subsequently, however,
Panhellenic forces under Spartan leadership conquered the Persians
in a succession of sea and land battles in 480–479. But in point of
fact just how Panhellenic were these forces? We read in Herodotus
that many Greek city-states went over to the Persians (6.48–9; 7.138,
172–4) or did not take part at all (e.g. 7.148–53.1, 157–62, 168–9,
8.73). L. Mitchell observes that ‘rather than actually creating unity,
36 The key references here are Hall (1989) and her supplement, ‘Recasting the
Barbarian’, in Hall (2005) 184–224.
37 Mitchell (2007) xxi, Chapter 1.
38 The word Πανέλληνες is far from common in 5th and 4th century Greek.
Thucydides, Xenophon, Lysias and Isocrates do not use it. But Panhellenism is the
most convenient way to refer to this key concept. Euripides uses the word six times,
e.g. twice in IA (350, 414) and esp. Supp. 526 ‘the Panhellenic custom’. See also
our Commentary on 102.
16 Introduction

the Persian Wars came to represent unity and the idealized condition
of the Hellenic community’.39 The unified community, in fact, was a
‘utopian ideal’.
And indeed even the unity that had been achieved among the Greeks
in the Persian Wars soon began to unravel. The Spartan commander
Pausanias was recalled because of his tyrannical, indeed Asiatic
behaviour and the Athenians were left as the leading members of the
Greek fleet. Over the next 25 years what had started out as a league
of allied Greek cities (called the Delian League by modern historians
because its treasury was initially on the island of Delos) became an
Athenian empire from whose members the imperial city extorted
money in a protection racket based on the threat – and at times the
reality – of force. The second half of the 5th century was marked by
more or less continuous warfare between Greek cities, most notably
in the Peloponnesian War (431–404), which was a conflict between
Sparta and her allies and Athens and hers. The war was in its final
decade when Euripides wrote IA. In his lifetime he had witnessed
the corruption of an ideal that was unattained until King Philip II of
Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, unified the Greek world
by force of arms in the next century. Certainly his presentation in our
play of a united Greek force (the choral entry-song echoes Homer’s
Catalogue of Ships) will have offered to his audience a stark contrast
with the reality of the warring city states that confronted them. For one
thing, Euripides’ choice of women from Euboea for his chorus may
have reminded the Athenians of the revolt of almost all of that island
from their empire in 411 – an event that caused an unprecedented
panic in the city (Thuc. 8.95.7–96.1). Iphigenia sacrifices herself for
the Panhellenic cause (1378, 1386, 1393, 1446, 1472–3). But was it
in reality a mirage, an empty ideal?
Panhellenism was to find its most eloquent exponents in the
4th century in the speeches of Lysias and Isocrates (the latter’s
espousal of the cause being vitiated by the fact that he saw Philip
of Macedon, that enemy of Greek freedom and independence, as the
Panhellenic leader). However, Xenophon reports a Spartan admiral
39 (2007) 78.
 Introduction 17

called Callicratidas complaining in 406 BC that the Greeks were very

wretched because they were fawning on the barbarians for the sake
of money, and saying that if he got back home safely (he didn’t) he
would do his level best to reconcile the Athenians and the Spartans
(Hellenica 1.6.7). And if Gorgias’ Olympic Oration (entirely lost)
can be dated to 408 as seems probable, it too is contemporary with
Euripides’ starting to write his tragedy. Philostratus says that because
Gorgias saw that the Greeks were divided among themselves, he
advocated concord (homonoia) ‘by turning against the barbarians
and persuading them [i.e. the Greeks] to make the prize of arms not
each other’s cities, but the land of the barbarians’ (DK 82 B 8a).40 His
counsel finds its echo in IA when Agamemnon says that if he runs off
to Argos rather than sacrificing his daughter and thus enabling the
fleet to sail against the Trojans,41 the Greeks will come to Argos and
sack it (533–5). Agamemnon’s fears about abandoning the alliance
are in line with what was to become a mantra of the Panhellenic ideal:
the Greek cities should stand together.42
However, the Greek/barbarian polarity which is fundamental to the
justification of the expedition in the play (65, 370–2, 1264–6, 1378–
82, 1400–1) was being blurred in historical reality at the time that
Euripides was creating his tragedy by the fact that the Athenians were
vainly hoping for and the Spartans actually receiving Persian (i.e.
barbarian) gold in order to pursue the war with their fellow Greeks.
Indeed, in 412–411 the Spartans had agreed to return all the Greeks
in Asia to Persia in return for Persia’s support against Athens; and the
Athenians were prepared to make a not dissimilar arrangement (Thuc.
8.18, 8.56.4 ).
Thus at the end of the 5th century Panhellenism could be viewed
from a range of approaches, from cynicism about a failed concept that
had never in fact existed all the way to hopeful aspiration to make the
ideal (again?) a reality. The Greeks in IA have attained the unity to
which their leaders swore, if it should prove necessary, in their oath
40 Mitchell (2007) 12.
41 Cf. A. Ag. 212–3 where Agamemnon rejects the idea of becoming a deserter of
the fleet and thus failing the alliance.
42 See e.g. Lysias 33 (fragmentary), Xen. Hell. 6.5.33–4.
18 Introduction

to Tyndareus (58–67), even if Agamemnon, who did not take the oath
(see p. 4), is threatening that unity at the start of the play. (It is worth
remarking again that Achilles did not take the oath either.) And the
chorus communicate a glamorous picture of those leaders in their entry
song. However, as we reflect not only on the horrific filicide that will
make the army’s expedition possible and the reception Achilles meets
with when he tries to stop it (1346–57), but also on the expedition’s
objective of regaining an adulterous wife who had consensually run
off with her lover, we may come to feel that any idealism has been
severely tarnished.

Dramatis personae43
πλάγια γὰρ φρονεῖς, τὰ μὲν νῦν, τὰ δὲ πάλαι, τὰ δ᾿αὐτίκα.
Your thoughts keep shifting, some now, some long since, some soon
to come.
(Menelaus at 332)
Aristotle notoriously levelled the charge of inconsistency against
Euripides when he complained of IA that ‘the girl who beseeches is
in no way like her later self’ (Poetics 1454a31–3). And of course she
is not the only character to change radically in the play. Menelaus
accuses his brother Agamemnon of constantly shifting (332, above);
then at 471 he himself totally reverses his own position and at 511
Agamemnon reverses his. The Old Man assures Agamemnon of
his trustworthiness in 45 but then betrays him at 870–87. Achilles’
changing attitude is discussed in n. 1336–1509 at (C) 1404–32.
Clytemnestra makes her belief in a sense of shame clear in her first
scene with Achilles (see especially 851–2) but later casts it aside (994,
1343–4, cf. 901) and she will be totally transformed after her daughter
has been sacrificed, as she foresees at 1171–84. Changes of mind are
embedded in the language of the tragedy: see 346, 388, 402–3, 500–1.

43 One actor played Agamemnon and Achilles, another Menelaus and

Clytemnestra, and the third the Old Man, Messenger. and Iphigenia: see Pickard-
Cambridge (1988) 147.
 Introduction 19

Following in the footsteps of B. W. Knox,44 modern scholars have

acknowledged the way in which Euripides has by this means prepared
the ground for Iphigenia’s famous reversal at 1368. Indeed, we are
unlikely to be surprised when Achilles suggests that she may change
her mind again when she sees the sword at her throat (1428–9). And
if the play’s ending ([1510–1629]), the work of writers later than
Euripides,45 reflects his original conception, spanning all is the shift to
beneficence from apparent ruthlessness of the goddess Artemis when
she saves Iphigenia from the sacrifice she has demanded if the Greeks
are to sail to Troy.
Morwood has argued that the playwright has also set the scene
aptly for these reversals.46 For the play is located by Euripus, the
narrow strait which separates the island of Euboea from Boeotia in
mainland Greece. The current in this strait changes seven times a
day (Strabo 1.3.12) and we know from Aeschines (3.90) and other
writers that the strait’s name was used proverbially of an unstable
man. The word Euripus recurs throughout the play (11, 166, 804,
813, 1323). Can Euripides be exploiting the name of this strait with
its famously shifting currents for dramatic purposes, making it an
external symbol – an ‘objective correlative’, to use T. S. Eliot’s term
– for the psychological shifts that his characters undergo? If so, the
shifting currents of human motivation are an essential feature of the
play’s mental geography, finding expression in its many changes of
mind.
We first see Agamemnon, for instance, agonizing about whether to
go ahead with the sacrifice of his daughter and reversing his decision to
do so. He laments the burden of high office (16–19), expresses the wish
that someone else had been chosen to lead the Greek forces (85–6),
and says that his first reaction to Calchas’ horrific pronouncement was
to order the Greek fleet to disband (95). Soon Menelaus will challenge
44 B. Knox, ‘Second Thoughts in Greek Tragedy’ in Word and Action (Baltimore
and London 1979) 231–49 (the Chapter was first published in 1966). Knox was
largely anticipated by Markland in his extended note on 1375 in his 1783 edition
of the play.
45 West (1981) 73–8 (see Bibliography).
46 Morwood (2001) 607–8.
20 Introduction

our first impression of his brother, claiming that his initial show of
reluctance to be the commander of the Greeks against Troy was a
pretence: in reality he wanted the post and campaigned vigorously for
it (337–42: cf. Clytemnestra at 1194–5); and his reaction to Calchas’
words was one of joy because now the Greeks could sail; he gladly
promised to sacrifice his child (358–60). Menelaus himself then
reverses his initial stance that by his change of heart Agamemnon is
letting down ‘unhappy Greece’ (370), and now bids Agamemnon not
to sacrifice Iphigenia. As early as 1507 AD this later speech (473–503)
was declared insincere, by Erasmus.47 While we regard that view as
dramatically unfeasible48 and take Menelaus’ change of heart at 471 at
face value, the fact that he launches his speech with an oath by Pelops
(473) certainly arouses some suspicion, for the latter was a famously
treacherous character. When the Chorus comment on his speech that he
has spoken words worthy of the equally deplorable Tantalus (504–5),
that suspicion may be compounded. Certainly Menelaus’ reversal is
set in a destabilizing context. That said, the scene is convincing on a
naturalistic level. As A. N. Michelini remarks, ‘The quarrel between
two brothers ends as family quarrels usually do, with mutual abuse
forgotten and an amicable surface reestablished.’49
Both Agamemnon and Menelaus are highly emotional individuals.
We first see the latter passionately eager that Iphigenia should be
sacrificed so that the war can go forward and he can get his wife back.
Then, having shed tears in response to those of Agamemnon (477), he
declares the opposite, as we have seen. Agamemnon’s development is
decidedly more complex. Late in the play (1149–52) we discover that
he had won (‘taken’) Clytemnestra by force after killing her previous

47 J. H. Waszink (ed.), Euripidis Hecuba et Iphigenia in Aulide, ed. D. Erasmus

(1506 and 1507), in Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami I.i (Amsterdam
1969) 193–359, at 270.
48 England (1891) xvi thinks that Menelaus, in suggesting that the expedition
be called off, is in fact pointing out the unrealistic alternative to the sacrifice in
order to persuade Agamemnon to go ahead with it. This seems to us perversely
ingenious. However, it is the kind of strategy that Agamemnon adopts disastrously
in his speech to the Greek army at Hom. Il. 2.110–41.
49 Michelini (1999–2000) 41–57, at 45.
 Introduction 21

husband Tantalus as well as her child, having snatched it from her

breast, the act of infanticide of course being a grim anticipation of the
slaughter of Iphigenia.50 Our first sight of him in the play shows him
in a very different light: sympathetic and sensitive, he is in an extreme
state of physical and mental agitation, finally bringing himself to
make a desperate last bid to save Iphigenia. His love for his daughter
comes across strongly in this opening scene and in the subsequent
encounter with his brother. However, after hearing of the arrival of
Iphigenia and her mother in the camp, Agamemnon, in a speech of
considerable pathos (440–68), abandons his efforts to save the girl
and laments what he now sees as the necessity of going through with
the sacrifice. Now that his daughter is here, he fears that, if he goes
back on his decision to kill her, Odysseus and Calchas will expose
him (518, 528–31).51 This may in fact be a tragic miscalculation:
while they are in on the secret (106–7), there is no evidence in the
play that either Odysseus or Calchas would do such a thing; and, if
the Myrmidons are anything to go by, the army would be content to
abandon the expedition as late as 817. Agamemnon may, of course,
be thinking that Helen’s suitors among the Greek chieftains would be
unwilling to abandon their oath to attack anyone who abducted her
(55–65).52 However, the suddenness with which he goes back on his
decision to spare Iphigenia will certainly give an audience pause.
The painful scene with his daughter that now ensues (631–85)
reveals very clearly on stage the deep love he feels for her which he
had earlier expressed in words, and the further family scenes with
Clytemnestra and Iphigenia (685–750, 1098–1275) lay bare the
agonizing conflict between the father’s devotion to his family and what

50 The political passages in the scene with Menelaus in fact reveal Agamemnon
as a figure of the 5th century BC, recognizably human as opposed to the brutal
murderer and rapist from the epic world. See ‘The Political Context’ (above) and
Felix M. Wassermann, ‘Agamemnon in the Iphigeneia at Aulis: A Man in an Age of
Crisis’, TAPA 80 (1949) 174–86, at 176.
51 For a hostile view of Agamemnon at this point, see E. M. Blaiklock, The Male
Characters of Euripides (Wellington 1952) 115–16.
52 He questions the validity of the oath at 391–5 while at 66–7 he had praised
the cleverness of its instigator; but these are, of course, not incompatible positions.
22 Introduction

he sees as the necessity of the sacrifice; and a good actor will convey
this by posture and gesture even when Agamemnon is silent. In the
speech in which he enunciates for the last time the Panhellenic motive
that demands his daughter’s death (1255–75; cf. 514, 747–8), he again
declares his love for her (‘I love my children; otherwise, I should be
mad’ (1256)); he describes the Greek armada’s determination to sail
to Troy not as a noble aspiration but as a mad desire (1264); he adds
– perfectly plausibly (see n. 531b–5) – that if he cancels the attack on
Troy, the Greeks will kill the whole of his family (1267–8; cf. 533–
5). After such a prelude, there is a decidedly hollow ring to his final
declaration that it is Greece that is demanding the sacrifice to ensure
its freedom and prevent future rapes (1273–5).53 Agamemnon is a true
tragic hero: he has travelled to the heart of darkness.54
Until recently this play’s Clytemnestra has tended to attract
unsympathetic criticism. H. Foley55 refers to her ‘narrow and
bourgeois point of view’ and S. E. Lawrence draws attention to
the fact that commentators have remarked ‘particularly upon her
tendency to view the proposed sacrifice chiefly as an offence against
herself’.56 It is surely difficult to support such hostile readings from
the text. The happy snapshot of the doomed family shortly after their
entry (621–30) reveals her as a deeply loving mother and she shows
no trace of jealousy of Iphigenia’s close relationship with her father
(638–9). She has a strong personality, but she is totally justified in
her refusal to accept her husband’s order that she return home (726–
41): the mother’s participation was an essential element in a Greek

53 Cf. A. Markantonatos (2012) 189–218, at 208–10: ‘Agamemnon stands

powerless before a situation which has run dangerously out of control, hopelessly
seeking release from his bondage to a patriotic cause that he does not fully
comprehend’ (210).
54 On the character of Agamemnon see further John Jones, On Aristotle and Greek
Tragedy (London 1962) 247–52, H. Siegel, ‘Agamemnon in Euripides’ Iphigenia at
Aulis’, Hermes 109 (1981) 257–65, Griffin (1990) 140–5, Michelakis (2006) 33–5.
55 Foley (1985) 96.
56 ‘Iphigenia in Aulis: Characterization and Psychology in Euripides’, Ramus
17 (1988) 91–109, at 99. For a defence of Clytemnestra against this charge, see
Commentary on 1146–1275 (at the end of (B)).
 Introduction 23

marriage and Agamemnon has led her to believe that one is about
to take place. When she finds out the truth, her reactions are deeply
moving and totally understandable. Her portrayal is convincing and
consistent. Yet she too will not prove immune to the play’s tendency to
transform. To our previous mention of the way in which she sacrifices
her sense of shame (p. 18, cf. 34–5) we can add the following. Despite
the violent start of their relationship (1149–52),57 Clytemnestra has
proved the model wife to Agamemnon (1157–64: her own account,
but he does not demur).58 At 1171–84 it becomes clear that she can
see that if Agamemnon kills her daughter, she will be nursing her
bitter feelings as she waits at home for the whole duration of the
Trojan War. She too will be changed – after the end of the play but
the process begins on stage – from a loving champion of life into a
murderess. Her response to Iphigenia’s plea that she should not hate
her husband is that he has ‘to run a fearsome challenge because of
you’ (1454–5). It is only too clear what she means. Yet very soon she
reverts to poignant expressions of a mother’s love for her daughter
(1459–66): murder and love on the same lips.
IA sets the workings of a family caught up in a tragic crisis against an
offstage backdrop of warfare. Until the Greeks come to take Iphigenia
off to be sacrificed, the crucially important and all-precipitating
arrival of Clytemnestra and Iphigenia in the camp is the play’s only
significant event. After that members of the family simply talk – and
cry – with one another. There is a sense in which Achilles, to whom
we now progress, is a member of that family. He has been falsely
named as Iphigenia’s bridegroom and comes to wish – impossibly –
that he could in reality win her as a wife (1404–13). His high birth and
heroic status – and thus his desirability as a husband – are constants in
the play (see nn. 625–6, 697–712). His youthful impulsiveness makes
him a difficult character to pin down: hence no doubt the totally
divergent assessments of J. Gregory and P. Michelakis quoted below.
Overall he shifts from anger at Agamemnon for using his name as part
of the deception without asking him (962–7) to profound admiration

57 For the scholarly debate on this subject, see Commentary on 1148–50.

58 For J. Gibert (2005) on the subject, see Commentary on 1148–50; see Addenda.
24 Introduction

for Iphigenia (1404–13, 1421–7). Not everybody would go along with

Gregory’s high estimate of his character: she concludes her interesting
discussion by saying that for Euripides ‘an independent, questioning
attitude towards authority is presented not only as a viable option
for an idealistic, high-minded youth, but as a positive proof of good
character’.59 Yet we increasingly doubt that he will be able to live up
to his promise to save Iphigenia (1003–7; see Commentary on 1358–
61a). The play dwells twice on his education (708–10, 926–7) and a
less laudatory but nevertheless sympathetic reading might see him
still in the process of growing up, of still struggling to find his heroic
identity. However, in the most extended study of the character in this
play, Michelakis takes a hostile attitude towards him: ‘IA,’ he writes,
‘shows how familiar aspects of Achilles’ mythical personality enter a
narrative which scrutinizes them and deprives the dramatic character
of the young Achilles of his heroic qualities. .... The girl becomes a
woman at the expense of her life, whereas the ephebe becomes a man
at the expense of his personality.’60 We would prefer to follow a via
media between Gregory and Michelakis, seeing the young man as a
fundamentally attractive figure, torn between his pride, his duty to
his men and their strong voice, and his admiration for the girl. There
is no doubt an element of youthful posturing in his self-presentation:
the 2015 production of IA at Syracuse (see pp. 44–5) convincingly
portrayed him as ‘un divo del cinema’.61
59 J. Gregory, ‘Euripides as a Social Critic’, G&R 49 (2002) 145–62, discussion
149–50.
60 Michelakis (2002) 84, 112; cf. Blaiklock (cited in n. 51) 118: Euripides
portrays Achilles as ‘a spoilt and braggart boy’, a ‘young prig’. For a more positive
view of Achilles to supplement Gregory’s, see N. S. Rabinowitz, Anxiety Veiled.
Euripides and the traffic in women (Ithaca 1993) 46: the creation of ‘an Achilles
who measurably changes under [Iphigenia’s] influence is one of the ways Euripides
glorifies Iphigenia. The priggish, egotistic soldier gains heroic stature from her
example.’ Achilles is, incidentally, the only main character who does not weep in
the play or is not urged to do so (A. Suter, ‘Tragic Tears and Gender’ in T. Fögen
(ed.), Tears in the Graeco-Roman World (Berlin and New York 2009) 59–84, at
74–5.
61 For further discussion of Achilles, see Commentary on 801–1035, 900–1035,
919–74, 1017–18, 1028–32, 1336–1509 (A) and (B).
 Introduction 25

The Old Man, part of the family household, is characterized in

a way familiar from Euripides’ other plays.62 He also suffers a sea-
change. We first see him as loyal to Agamemnon (45) but later he
informs Clytemnestra and Achilles of the true state of affairs, breaking
his master’s confidence (855–95). Euripides has prepared for this by
making it clear that he was part of Clytemnestra’s dowry (46–8) and
it will prove that it is to her, not her husband, that his chief loyalty
belongs.63 But his disloyalty to Agamemnon is compounded by the
fact that he eavesdrops on the conversation between Clytemnestra and
Achilles (857).

Iphigenia
Our first impression of Iphigenia on her appearance is of a naive and
innocent girl, a loving daughter to her father as becomes transparent in
their scene together (634–85) in which she is blithely uncomprehending
of the sour ambiguities of the devoted Agamemnon’s responses. Then
the scene which the indisputably loving father has envisaged with
horror at 460–6 is played out as Iphigenia begs Agamemnon to spare
her (1211–52).
Finally, in the transformation that Aristotle found inconsistent, she
embraces her fate. At this point we summarize a range of interpretations
offered by scholars over the past 40 years or so which aim to
counter Aristotle’s objection and discover plausible motivations for
Iphigenia’s new-found self-dedication to death. In this we are greatly
indebted to J. Gibert’s sensitively calibrated discussion of her change
of mind in which he sets out a number of attempts that have been
made.64 None of these can be ‘proved’ from the text and some of them
seem pretty crazy, but they have their interest, even if it may lie only
in showing how various commentators have found her transformation
62 E.g. the Nurse and Tutor in Medea and the Old Man in Electra. See Brandt
(1973) 113–24 on our Old Man.
63 Hall (2005) 29 gives too favourable an assessment of the Old Man, calling
him ‘an impressive individual who does seem to be capable of independent ethical
intuition and steady resolve’.
64 Gibert (1995) 227–48. See also his ‘Change of Mind’ entry in EGT 204–6.
26 Introduction

understandable. A. Lesky feels that she is influenced by two factors:

Agamemnon’s Panhellenic justification of the war (1269–75) and the
reported threat against Achilles’ life (1373, 1392).65 He shied away,
however, from saying what H. Foley (1985) 83 states explicitly (and
persuasively): that Iphigenia’s emphasis on Paris and Helen in her
monody (1283–1335) shows an ‘awareness of her own dilemma in
the larger mythical/historical context’: she accepts the demand of
the myth that she must die so that the Trojan War can take place. G.
Mellert-Hoffmann argues that Iphigenia is no longer a childish little
girl. She has heard the Panhellenic justification for war and achieves
maturity.66 H. Siegel finds consistency in her character in that she
does not consciously change her mind: she cracks under pressure
and goes mad.67 M. A. Harder argues that she is putting on an act in
order to bring an end to conflict among the Greeks.68 M. McDonald
feels that she has espoused the Aristotelian virtue of φιλία, seen as
love of friends and relatives, and this enables her to accept death for
her father and her country.69 A. Green even proposes that Iphigenia’s
change of mind is the result of her Oedipal love for her father.70 A
hardy perennial among would-be solutions, one founded on Lesky’s
view, is that Iphigenia is motivated by love for Achilles and chooses

65 A. Lesky, ‘Zur Darstellung seelischer Abläufe in der griechischen Tragödie’

in Antidosis: Festschrift Walther Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag, WS Beiheft 5 (1972)
209–26. For the second motivation, see also D. Sansone, ‘Iphigenia Changes her
Mind’, ICS 16 (1991) 161–72, and Michelakis (2002) 84.
66 Mellert-Hoffmann (1969) 86.
67 H. Siegel, ‘Self-delusion and the Volte-face of Iphigenia in Euripides’ Iphigenia
at Aulis’, Hermes 108 (1980) 300–21, 315; cf. E. A. M. E. O’Connor-Visser, Aspects
of Human Sacrifice in the Tragedies of Euripides (Amsterdam 1987) 123.
68 M. A. Harder, ‘Iphigeneia: naïef, narcotisch of normal?’, Lampas 19 (1986)
21–33, 29 with n. 33.
69 M. McDonald, ‘Iphigenia’s Philia: Motivation in Euripides’ Iphigenia at
Aulis’, QUCC 34.1 (1990) 69–84.
70 A. Green, The Tragic Effect: The Oedipus Complex in Greek Tragedy
(Cambridge 1979) 154; Foley (1985) 101 with n. 67; N. S. Rabinowitz, ‘The
Strategy of Inconsistency in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’, Classical Bulletin 59
(1983) 21–7, 24–5.
 Introduction 27

to sacrifice herself for her intended husband.71 What strikes us as a

more plausible suggestion than any of the above is that Iphigenia
has been caught up in the war hysteria that has swept through the
army owing to what she has heard from Agamemnon (1264–72) and
Achilles (1346–59), lines to which her 1371–3 and 1378–94 plainly
look back.
All that is speculative. In contrast we can say with certainty that she
comes to an acceptance of Artemis’ role in the matter (1395–6, 1444–
6) and goes to her death celebrating the goddess (1467–9, 1480–93).
Furthermore, she shows an assertive independence of spirit when she
identifies the securing of freedom for the Greeks as the key objective
(1384, 1400–1) and views her death not as a marriage to Hades (461)
but as the path to glory (1376, 1383–4, 1398–9, 1473, 1502, cf. 1446,
1504).
We have considered above (pp. 2, 18–20) how changes of mind
are thematic in the tragedy so that Iphigenia’s conforms to a pattern.
We now move on to another possible way in which the play may have
prepared us to take a view of Iphigenia’s acceptance of her sacrifice.
Gibert points to the notable theme of marriage and its link with the
motif of sacrifice, both of which we have discussed earlier in this
Introduction (pp. 11–12). He formulates the matter thus:72 ‘events are
hurtling forward, presumably towards Iphigenia’s sacrifice. It will be
better artistically, since Euripides has dwelt on it, if the outcome can
be said to have something to do with marriage for Iphigenia, and she
alone brings about this superior resolution by her identification of her
sacrifice with the marriage for which she has been prepared.’ And
even if the stark reality that subverts that illusory equation may appal
us,73 she also finds within herself the resources to make a virtue of
necessity.74
The Chorus comment on the great speech of Iphigenia’s reversal
with a telling ambivalence. ‘Your part is noble, maiden,’ they observe,
‘but that of fortune and that of the goddess – they are where the
71 See e.g. Smith (1979). Discussion in Gibert (1995) 237–9.
72 (1995) 242.
73 Gibert (1995) 252–3 encourages an ironical reading.
74 Gibert (1995) 244–50.
28 Introduction

sickness lies.’ (1402–3). Iphigenia is noble, and she is sincere. Winning

through at the last to the truth the Greeks would have found in her
name (Iphigenia, ‘born (-γεν-) with might (ιφι-)’: cf. the Commentary
on 1487–90 ‘my name’), she has attained a kind of heroism when
she establishes a coherent meaning in her life and death. She has
constructed an identity for herself and she goes off to die with this
identity fully intact.

Off-stage: the army; Troy

We now move outside Agamemnon’s family and view the play in a
different perspective, for behind all these shifts in the thinking of its
characters, there lies another development which is as crucial to the
action as any of the others. This is the attitude of the Greek army to
the expedition against Troy.

The army. Agamemnon says at 95 that when he heard from Calchas

about Artemis’ demand he told the herald Talthybius to disband the
army. Presumably he had no reason to believe that the soldiers would
be reluctant to depart at that stage. At 814–18 Achilles tells us that
the Myrmidons are fed up with waiting at Aulis, and want to return
home if nothing is going to happen. While he says this, Agamemnon
is consulting with Calchas (746–8) and by the time he returns he has
become convinced that the army is maddened with desire to sail to
Troy (1264–6). When Achilles reappears at 1345, the army has clearly
made the discovery that the sacrifice of Iphigenia is necessary to ensure
that result and are shouting that she must be slaughtered (1346–8).
(Who has told them? Achilles himself? Calchas after consultation
with Agamemnon? Odysseus, as Agamemnon has feared at 528–31?)
Achilles says that the Greeks were also shouting that he should be
stoned for trying to save the girl (1349–53). The army’s movement
from indifference to war madness is an important factor in ensuring
that her sacrifice is now inevitable.75

75 B. V. Lush, ‘Popular Authority in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’, AJP 136.2

(2015) 207–42 argues (208) ‘that the Achaean force dictates the actions and
 Introduction 29

Troy. The play begins with the army stalled at Aulis and, if the
Myrmidons’ feelings as communicated at 817 are typical, not
unwilling to return home. Perhaps, we may feel, the Trojan War will
not take place and the horror of the murder which alone can bring it
about will be avoided. However, the myth will not allow this, and
Euripides communicates the accumulating pressure of the inevitable
and tragic war by increasingly dwelling upon it in his text. As the play
proceeds and especially after Achilles enters the action, Troy seeps
ever further into its fabric.
The line numbers below refer to passages which either explicitly
or implicitly present issues associated with Troy and the expedition or
pick up earlier references or refer to anything between Helen’s choice
of Menelaus and its inevitable consequence in Iphigenia’s death; we
name the speaker (or singer) of each passage:
in the prologue-scene: 71–93 Ag.
in the parodos: 171–84, 296–8 the Chorus
in Episode 1: 337–72 Men., 410–11 Men. and Ag., 467–8 Ag.,
487–8, 494–5 Men., 514–35 Ag. and Men.
in Ode 1: 573–89 the Chorus
in Episode 2: 662–659 (sic), 672–3 Iph. and Ag., 682–3, 746–8 Ag.
in Ode 2: 751–92 (but [773–84] are inauthentic) the Chorus
in Episode 3: 804–18 Ach., 879–82 OM and Clyt., 930–1, 955–6,
965–7, 970–1 Ach.
in Ode 3: 1067–75 the Chorus
in Episode 4: 1168–9, 1197–1202 Clyt., 1236–7 Iph., 1253–4 the
Chorus, 1258–75 Ag.
in the monody 1284–1311, 1316, 1319–22 Iph.
in ‘Episode 5’: (1338–64 Iph., Ach., Clyt. implicitly), 1378–1401
Iph., 1406 Ach., 1421, 1446, 1456, 1459–73 and (lyric) 1475–6,
(lyric)1495–7, 1502 Iph.
[in the inauthentic ending 1510–31 the Chorus, 1555–8 ‘Iph.’,
1572–6 ‘Ach.’, 1591–1601 ‘Calchas’, 1606 Messenger, 1624–6 Ag.,
1627–9 Chorus.]

(ultimately) the decisions of the play’s speaking characters, whose numerous

vacillations serve to highlight their lack of agency and, eventually, their forced
complicity in troubling violence’.
30 Introduction

The progressive increase in mentions of Troy is another small dimension

of the dramaturgy, like the smaller increase in the mentions of Helen;
the two are often associated (see the Commentary 467–8 n.).

The Chorus
The Chorus consists of women, with husbands (176) but young (615)
and still prone to blushing (187–8 n.). They do not reveal whether they
had their husbands’ permission to leave their homes on such a journey,
and they do not mention an escort of the kind attending Clytemnestra
and Iphigenia when Agamemnon summons his wife and daughter to
Aulis (415–17, cf. 99–100 etc.): most improper, if they had neither:
for women ‘on the loose’ see e.g. Pentheus at Bacc. 217, 231–2, 487;
Ar. Thes. 790–1. Stockert (1992) 176 n. suggests that the husbands
may however be already part of the Greek host (as at Iliad 2.537).
The women’s motive in coming? – the pleasurable satisfaction of
female curiosity (233–4: n.). Women in a military camp, too, who are
not fellow-captives with their former mistress (e.g. with Hecuba in
her name-play and in Trojan Women)? – note Agamemnon’s belated
concern for Clytemnestra at 735, Achilles’ astonishment over her at
825–6, cf. 1029–30. This identity of the chorus is implausible even
to us, and would have been a surprise, if not a shock, in 5th century
Athens,76 more so than the terrified wives so troublesome to Eteocles
as he defends their city in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes, or than
the maiden girls who are trapped in Thebes in the same emergency in
Phoenician Women and as ‘foreign women’ nevertheless are anxious
for its safety (239–60), as our chorus are over the kings’ crisis at 469–
70: see Commentary. (Euripides’ choruses indeed can give unexpected
circumstances or reasons for their arrival, e.g. Hipp. 121–9 the
women’s laundry-work is abandoned for sympathetic curiosity when
they hear of Phaedra’s ‘illness’; at Hel. 179–84 the chorus of Helen’s

76 It is possible that Ennius in his Latin version of the play has a decidedly more
plausible chorus of Greek soldiers (Iphigenia 200 Jocelyn), but Jocelyn suggests
(p. 335) that they may have been a secondary chorus only. For the revolt of Euboea
from the Athenian empire in 411 BC, see p. 16.
 Introduction 31

fellow-captive Greek women were also at their laundry.) Concerned

curiosity also motivates the female chorus at PV 128–30, overcoming
their modesty 134 (again, see Commentary on 187–8). Sometimes,
as in IA, the chorus has crossed water – wide waters in Pho. – and
much land in Bacc. For other choral ‘leaving an activity behind’ see
Commentary on 168.
The Chorus’ identity is so surprising that we might expect a better
‘explanation’ from the poet. We can ourselves at once foresee that
in this myth and plot a chorus of women will later side, or at least
sympathize, with women who have been brought by deception to the
Greek encampment and are now alone and endangered; and sympathize
also with the women not in the play, even Helen perhaps (782?), and
the expected captives from Troy certainly (785–93 – if authentic).
Such mutual support is naturally very frequent in Tragedy, from
Aeschylus’ Choephori through Sophocles’ Women of Trachis to our
play. Accordingly the Chorus will later provide a different observation
of background and developing action and its consequence, which
Agamemnon’s narrative and torment in the prologue-scene prefigure.
Thus they establish a natural polarity between women’s priorities and
the brutal world of masculine Realpolitik. In their entry-song, the
women’s desire to view the Greeks is fired by their husbands’ account
(168–84, cf. 301–2); they have been told of the expedition’s purpose
to punish Trojan Paris for abducting Helen (270–2, cf. 68–77) after
the Judgement when Aphrodite ‘gave’ her to him (181); they appear
disturbed by this story, and its consequences recur with greater point
in their first choral ode (572–89) and in Iphigenia’s monody (1283–
1310), helping to highlight the unusual and wretched experiences
of women which come to dominate the play. It is worth noting too
that these young wives find themselves poised in age between the
maiden Iphigenia and the motherly wife Clytemnestra; they can easily
sympathize with both. Never lending their support to the reasons
given for the sacrifice, they approve the sparing of children at 402–3.
Furthermore they criticize Artemis in 1403, though they do respond
to Iphigenia’s demand that they should sing a paean to the goddess
(1467–8) and do so ‘as if in good fortune’ (1510–31, 1523).
32 Introduction

As well as their entry-song 164–302, they sing three odes 543–

89, 751–800 and 1036–97; in these they enlarge upon what they see
and hear, and in the first two forebode Troy’s sack as the sacrifice
of Iphigenia becomes certain; but in comparison with most other
tragedies they draw ‘moral lessons’ only seldom (543–72, 1090–7).
Their spoken part during the characters’ dialogue (voiced by their
leader, the coryphaeus) amounts to as few as twenty lines, in ten
couplets. We can categorize their function and significance against
criteria appropriate to IA in particular which were sketched long ago
by Headlam and recently by Stockert, and against those formulated in
detail for general application to Euripides by Hose.77 Thus:
(1) couplets serving principally to mark the end of long formal speeches:
376–7, 402–3, 469–70, 504–5 in the confrontation of Menelaus and
Agamemnon (this is a regular choral function); 917–18, 975–6 in
the exchanges of Clytemnestra and Achilles; 1209–10, 1253–4 in the
supplication scene of Clytemnestra, Iphigenia and Agamemnon;
(2) couplets endorsing a speaker’s position or attitude, 402–3, 469–70,
917–18 by implication; 504–5, 975–6, 1209–10 with address by
name. 1336–7 mark Iphigenia’s monody, with sympathy;
(3) couplets of comment on the entire action: 402–3, 917–18, 1209–10
the sparing of children’s lives; 469–70 the ill-fortune of rulers. Only
two couplets carry a really potent charge, 1253–4 Helen’s marriage is
disastrous to the Atreid family-line, and 1402–3 Iphigenia’s nobility
contrasts with the joint malaise of fortune and the goddess.
That said, many of IA’s intensely personal exchanges effectively
limit much of the Chorus’ spoken comment to the blandness in the
citations in (1) and most of those in (2) above. Indeed they stay silent
throughout the Second Episode (607–750). Phoenissae is comparable
not only in its foreign female chorus, but in the limiting of the chorus
to just over twenty spoken lines (some are certainly, some probably
interpolated): perhaps only 497–8, 586–7 and 960–1 fall into category
(3).
77 Headlam 1253–4 n.; Stockert p. 39; Hose I (1990) 182–90. Hose’s discussion
is praised and illustrated from and for Hecuba 846–9 in a paper by M. J. Cropp
which will appear in a Festschrift for A. J. Podlecki. For the Tragic chorus in its
lyrics see the recent survey by Rutherford (2012) 217–61.
 Introduction 33

For further discussion of the Chorus, see Commentary on 164–302

where we concentrate (a) on matters relevant to the parodos and (b)
on how our Chorus relates to other Euripidean choruses.

Themes and Motifs

In this Introduction we have already met with a number of the
themes of the play: sacrifice, marriage, politics, Panhellenism, shifts
of character and changes of mind, and the family. We now briefly
discuss four others.78
We comment in n. 164–302, 3.2 on the accumulation of words of
looking in the parodos. These continue to be a feature of the play,
and they gain significant dramatic force when they go beyond simple
watching and show the eyes as the means of non-communication, i.e.
when a character is reluctant to look directly at another in a scene
of confrontation. J. Gibert notes that at 320 ‘Menelaus challenges
his brother to look him in the eye: this presumably means that he
has not been doing so.’79 As their scene continues, eye references
prove psychologically illuminating, at 354, 378–81, 477–8, 496. At
455 Agamemnon wonders how he will be able to look at his wife
on her arrival, and the way that he looks at his daughter is a telling
feature at the start of their first scene together (640–1, 644, 648–9, cf.
678–9). The excruciating embarrassment of the first scene between
Achilles and Clytemnestra is reflected in their attitudes to looking at
each other (821, 840, 851, cf. 830). Then at 998 Agamemnon asks

78 These four are certainly not exhaustive: we track a number of other themes
in our notes on 1–163, pp. 243–4 (e.g. the Greeks’ inability to set sail, high office
and its burdens, the gulf between the divine and the mortal human). Among these
‘the name, not the reality’ is part of the obvious motif of deception. C. L. Caspers,
‘Diversity and Common Ground: Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis and Bacchae as
Companion Plays’, in D. Rosenbloom and J. Davidson (eds), Greek Drama IV,
Texts, Contexts, Performance (Oxford 2012), 127–48 argues that the deception
plans of Dionysus and Agamemnon in Bacchae and IA, staged together at their
first performances, mirror each other. For the theme of philia in the play, see n.
303–414a.
79 Gibert (1995) 215.
34 Introduction

Clytemnestra to bring Iphigenia into his sight. In Agamemnon’s final

scene with his wife and daughter, the way that they look at him proves
cause for confusion (1122–3, 1128). Clytemnestra asks which of his
children will be able to bear to look at him on his return home if he
goes through with the sacrifice (1192). In her great pleading speech,
Iphigenia urgently begs her father to look at her (1238) and then at
Orestes (1245).80 We are in a world where words are insufficient: they
need to be authenticated by the language of the eye. The fact that
Agamemnon finds it ever more difficult to give this confirmation is a
powerful reflection of his increasingly urgent tragic dilemma.
A sense of shame (αἰδώς) plays an important part in the scene of
initial misunderstanding between Achilles and Clytemnestra where the
former encounters in the latter a woman who wrongly believes that he
is her future son-in-law (αἰδώς 821 (his shame), αἰδέομαι 833 (his), 839
(his), 848 (hers)): the scene escalates to their reciprocal shame at 851
and 853.81 But it is more widely thematic in the play as a whole: αἰδώς
994, 1089, 1342; αἰδέομαι 380, 451, 563 (τό τε γὰρ αἰδεῖσθαι σοφία
‘a sense of shame is itself wisdom’), 997 (L), ἐπαιδέομαι 900, ἀναιδής
379, and from a different word-root αἰσχρός (shameful) 830, 1187,
αἰσχύνη 188, αἰσχύνω 981, 1031, 1341, ἀναίσχυντος 327, 329, 1144.
αἰδώς, which was worshipped at an altar on the acropolis in classical
Athens,82 is defined by Barrett in his note on Hipp. 78 as a feeling ‘which
inhibits [a man’s] natural self-assertion or self-seeking in the face of the
requirements of morality and the like’. It ‘prevents a man from breaking
a taboo’. In Protagoras’ mythical account of the origin of civilization
in Plato’s dialogue of that name, he relates that Zeus sent Hermes with
the gifts of αἰδώς and δίκη (justice) as the two virtues necessary to
enable men to live together in civic harmony (Prot. 320cff.).83 The
characters in IA are highly conscious of the conventional demands for
appropriate behaviour but these become irrelevant in a situation where
80 For the theme of looking, see also Smith (1979) 176.
81 There is an excellent analysis of this scene in Cairns (1993) 309–13. It is part
of a wider discussion of the role of αἰδώς in the play (309–14). See also his entry
‘Honor and Shame’ in EGT 694–7.
82 R. Parker, Athenian Religion, A History (Oxford, 1996) 234–5.
83 Conacher (1998) 30–1.
 Introduction 35

Agamemnon, who employs shame-words six times (327, 329, 379, 380,
451, 1144), nevertheless feels compelled to sacrifice his own daughter.
Clytemnestra, for example, who uses shame-words seven times (839,
848, 900, 981, 994, 997 (L), 1187), finds in extremis that she cannot
abide by them (900–1, 994) and is impatient with Iphigenia’s double
expression of αἰδώς as Achilles approaches (1341–4). The decencies
implicit in αἰδώς no longer apply.
Agamemnon’s tragic dilemma is rammed home by a string of
references to fortune or chance (τύχη)84 or necessity (ἀνάγκη).85 The
words and their cognates occur in significant contexts 31 times and
Agamemnon speaks 11 of them.86 (Interestingly, the independently-
minded Achilles is given only one (1409).) The king’s strong feeling
that he is subject to these forces comes over with especial emphasis
when the two concepts are combined in 511 (ἀλλ᾿ ἥκομεν γὰρ εἰς
ἀναγκαίας τύχας, ‘However, I have come under compulsion in my
fortunes’) and in 1136 when τύχη is linked with other controlling
forces (ὦ πότνια μοῖρα καὶ τύχη δαίμων τ᾿ ἐμός, ‘O mistress Fate and
my fortune and destiny!’). Line 443, in which Agamemnon feels that
he has fallen under the yoke of necessity, has a powerful resonance
because of the clear reference to his Aeschylean counterpart who,
the chorus sing, ‘put on the yoke-strap of necessity’ (ἀνάγκας ἔδυ
λέπαδνον) at 218 of Agamemnon.87 These themes of fortune or chance
84 On τύχη in our play, see J. Ferguson, ‘Iphigenia at Aulis’, TAPA 99 (1968) 157–
68, 159–60. The word itself occurs 11 times and there are 8 significant cognates
(see n. 86 below). On τύχη generally, see the excellent article under Tyche in OCD3,
p. 1566 (N. Robertson and B. C. Dietrich).
85 On ἀνάγκη in general, see H. Schreckenberg, Ananke: Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte des Wortgebrauchs (Munich 1964). Only Hecuba and Orestes outdo our
play in instances of ἀνάγκη words, with 12 and 10 respectively: IA has 9.
86 He makes significant use of τύχη words at 56, 390, 441, 511, 717 (L), 719,
747, 1136, 1557 and ἀνάγκη words at 443, 511, 513–4 (word understood from the
previous line), cf. χρή (‘must’, i.e. in accordance with Calchas’ prophecy) in 721.
87 Awareness of Aeschylus’ Oresteia, of which Agamemnon is the first part, is
required of the audience at Aristophanes, Frogs 1124, 1128 at or about the time of
the first performance of IA. See also TrGF 3, pp. 56–8. A further comparison can
be made with Hec. 346–7 when Polyxena, another virgin princess who becomes
a sacrificial victim, says that she will go to her death both from necessity (τοῦ
36 Introduction

or necessity add force to the king’s belief that he is helpless to resist

the impact of the circumstances in which he is placed.88
The fourth theme that we wish to draw attention to here is glory
(κλέος, δόξα) (see above, p. 27). This is what Iphigenia hopes to
win by her sacrifice. The Maiden in The Children of Heracles and
Menoeceus in Phoenissae are, like Iphigenia, virgins who give their
lives for a city (see above, pp. 8–9), but they are very different from
her in that their courage is unwavering.89 In the case of Iphigenia, the
innocent and ingenuous daddy’s girl whom we see in her first scene
(634–85), scarcely seems the stuff of which heroines are made; and
our initial impressions are confirmed as she supplicates Agamemnon
when she declares, in a sentiment that astonishes as it falls from the
lips of a Euripidean princess, that ‘the one who prays to die is mad.
To live ignobly is better than to die nobly’ (1250–2: see n.). This final
sentence detonates like a bomb.
However, after that inglorious appeal, she reflects on the matter
(1374–5), and through her famous reversal proves that the Chorus
were right when they had sung at 563–7 in a different context that a
sense of shame ‘has the exceptional grace of discerning duty through
reason when reputation brings ageless glory (κλέος)’. Late in the day
the theme now comes into its own. Iphigenia wants to die gloriously
(εὐκλεῶς), putting aside all meanness of spirit (τὸ δυσγενές) (1376).
The prevention of future rapes that she will achieve by her death will be
her glory (κλέος, 1383) ‘These,’ she says at 1398–9, ‘and my children
and marriage, and my fame (δόξα).’90 At 1504 the chorus assert that
glory (κλέος) will never leave her, evoking the Homeric Achilles’ talk

ἀναγκαίου) and because she desires to die.

88 U. von Wilamowitz Moellendorff, Griechische Tragödien (Berlin, 1919) 2.26
remarks that ‘ἀνάγκη is much more the compulsion imposed on men in concrete
circumstances than predestined rigid necessity’.
89 Menoeceus’ pretence to his father that he is willing to flee from Thebes is
intended to enable him to do what he wishes and to save the city by his death
(991–2). For the contrast between Iphigenia and Menoeceus, see H. Foley, Female
Acts (Princeton 2001) 124–5.
90 Cf. the Maiden at Hcld. 533–4, who makes the splendid discovery that her
death will bring her glory.
 Introduction 37

of κλέος ἄφθιτον at Il. 9.413 (‘undying glory’, cf IA [1606]), and at

[1530–1] they pray that the sacrifice may cause Agamemnon to win
glory (κλέος) ever to be remembered. Iphigenia feels that her own
glory will reach to her mother as well as herself (1440, εὐκλεὴς ἔσῃ).
The Messenger tells Clytemnestra of the undying glory (δόξα) that her
daughter has won [1606]. Iphigenia triumphantly asserts her claim to
that glory in a tawdry masculine world characterized by the weakness
of Agamemnon and the ineffectiveness of Achilles. Agamemnon may
be the play’s protagonist but Iphigenia is indubitably its hero.

Early Performance and Late Reception

The posthumous first performance of Euripides’ IA together with its
accompanying plays, which included Bacchae,91 was staged at the
Great Dionysia by his son or nephew92 in or around 405 BC and won
first prize. Even if there is little hard evidence, we have no reason to
disbelieve that it was revived on occasion during the two following
centuries.93 Awareness of IA in the 4th century is indicated by the verbal
borrowing from the play and the similarities especially of wording
in the Rhesus;94 and in 341 BC the celebrated actor Neoptolemus
won the first prize at that competition with ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia’;95
while this could refer to the dramatist’s earlier Iphigenia among the
91 The third play was the lost Alcmeon in Corinth (scholiast at Ar. Ran. 66–7).
For discussion of the interaction between the three plays, see the essays of E. Hall
and I. Karamanou in D. Stuttard (ed.), Looking at Bacchae (London 2016), esp.
pp.14–17, 19–25, 49–55.
92 Son – Scholia to Ar. Frogs 67; nephew (Suda ε 3695 Adler: see Eur. T3 TrGF).
93 For an overview of the reception of the myth in antiquity and in the modern
world, see S. Aretz, Die Opferung der Iphigeneia in Aulis: die Rezeption des Mythos
in antiken und modernen Dramen (Stuttgart 1999); G. A. Kovacs, Iphigenia at Aulis:
Myth, Performance and Reception (PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, 2010: see our
Bibliography), whose chs 4–6 give the fullest recent account of the play’s reception,
including on pp. 181–96 an illustrated discussion of the ‘Homeric’ bowls mentioned
below; M.-K. Gamel, ‘Iphigenia at Aulis’ in R. Lauriola, K. M. Demetriou (eds),
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Euripides (Leiden, New York 2015, 15–43).
94 Gathered by Fries (2014) 34, 36, 37, 116, 124.
95 Inscription TrGF vol. 5 DID A 2a.2–3.
38 Introduction

Taurians, Michelakis (2006) 119 suggests that, if it was IA, ‘both

the theme of panhellenism [in IA] and the dramatic impact of what
Aristotle perceived as inconsistency in the behaviour of Iphigenia
may have appealed to fourth-century audiences’. Interest in the play
in the 3rd century BC is shown by a badly damaged papyrus fragment
from that era (Pap. Leiden inv. 510), which carries a section of the
sung dialogue between Iphigenia and the chorus at 1500–9 as well as
784–94 of a choral song, both with musical notation (for discussion
of this and two other papyri, see p. 53 ‘Text’ and on P. Leiden the
Commentary on 784–94). Interest in the play in the 2nd century BC
is indicated by the existence of six so-called Homeric bowls from the
first half of the century found in Attica, Boeotia and elsewhere, which
are decorated with scenes from it.96 Though there are differences
between what some of the illustrations show and the stage-picture
indicated by Euripides’ text, half of the bowls identify them as being
from Euripides’ Iphigenia, and the characters named on them make it
clear that the play is IA.97 The divergences have been used to suggest
that alterations had been made to the text; more probably they reflect
iconographical freedom. Relevant details of these bowls are given
in the Commentary on 111–4, 303–16, 320–6, 414–41, 590, 623–
80, 819–54, 866–95, 1098–1275, 1342–4. L. Bouke van der Meer98
reviews the bowls, and renews discussion of ten 2nd century BC urns
from ?Macedonia, now in Perugia, which can be loosely associated
with scenes from the play and seem to indicate knowledge of it.99
The Roman epic and dramatic poet Ennius, who dates from the
3rd–2nd century BC, wrote a Latin adaptation of the play which

96 Michelakis (2006) 119–21. One set of illustrations (Metropolitan Museum of

Art, New York, 13.11.2) is shown on his p. 120. LIMC V.1.711–2.
97 Differences: for example, in the scene of supplication (1211–52) both
Agamemnon and Clytemnestra are veiled (unlikely to reflect the performance
of the text as we have it) and Orestes, a child, not an infant, is in a supplicatory
posture supporting his sister. Orestes is also on the vehicle on which Iphigenia and
Clytemnestra arrive in the camp.
98 In ‘Iphigenia Aulidensis on Etruscan Urns from Perugia’, Studi Etrusci 57
(1991) 119–36.
99 They are LIMC V.1. 729–31 nos 3–12.
 Introduction 39

survives only in a very few fragments. We have mentioned above

(p. 30 n. 76) his innovation of having a main or secondary chorus of
Greek soldiers. In the 1st century BC the Roman philosopher poet
Lucretius wrote a devastating account of the sacrifice of Iphigenia to
show the evil wrought by religion (De Rerum Natura 1.82–101).100
And then a famous wall-painting from Pompeii of about 70 AD, based
on a now lost picture by Timanthes dating from either before or after
the time of the play’s first production, shows the Greek army lowering
its eyes and Agamemnon covering his face with his cloak, just as the
Messenger describes them at [1547–50], [1577] (see [1510–1629n.]
under ‘Art’).
IA made an early entry into the modern world.101 After seventeen
surviving Euripides plays (all except Electra) and the Rhesus had
been printed, for the first time, by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1503,
it was translated into Latin by Erasmus (1506) and became the first
Greek tragedy to be translated into English, by Lady Jane Lumley
(1558);102 French and Italian translations were made in the 1550s as
well. The play’s fame was given momentum by the success of the
first performance of Jean Racine’s Iphigénie en Aulide at Versailles
in 1674.103 An open-air theatre had been set up especially for its

100 At Satires 12.118–22 Juvenal (2nd century AD) uses the Iphigenia myth to
illustrate how a legacy-hunter will sacrifice a marriageable daughter if it means being
included in someone’s will, even though there is no hope of his receiving the deer of
tragedy. A thousand ships are nothing compared with a will! Ovid, Metamorphoses
12.24–38 and 13.181–95 tells the story with the reported substitution of the hind at
the last moment.
101 For an invaluable list of works of art, literature, music and theatre on the IA
theme from the 14th century AD to the 1990s, see J. D. Reid, Classical Mythology
in the Arts, 1330–1990s (Oxford 1993) 599–605. See also H. Flashar, Inszenierung
der Antike. Das griechische Drama auf der Bühne der Neuzeit 1585–1988 (Munich
1991).
102 D. H. Greene, CJ 36 (1941), 537–47 and (Lumley was translating Erasmus) F.
D. Crane, CJ 39 (1943–1944) 223–8. E. Hall and F. Macintosh, Greek Tragedy and
the British Theatre 1660–1914 (Oxford 2005) discuss the reception of Euripides’
Iphigenia plays between 1660 and the early 1730s on pp. 30–63.
103 See C. Barone, Euripide, Racine, Goethe, Ritsos. Ifigenia: variazioni sul mito
(Venice 2014). See Addenda.
40 Introduction

performance as part of a celebration of a military victory by Louis

XIV and it proved the most popular of his plays in its own day. Racine
has followed Euripides closely in some parts of his adaptation, but
the innovations are radical. Agamemnon changes his mind five
times; Menelaus has been written out; Odysseus appears, as a subtle
proponent of war; Achilles is straightforwardly – and thrillingly –
heroic; and Racine has imported an illegitimate daughter of Helen
called Eriphyle who is a rival with Iphigenia for the heart of Achilles.
She is an unappealing and emotionally uncontrolled character, an
antitype of her cousin Iphigenia. At the play’s conclusion, Calchas
conveniently proclaims that it is not Iphigenia but Eriphyle who must
be sacrificed, a fate that she anticipates by killing herself. Thus the
innocent Iphigenia is spared and, in the spirit of IA [1610–11], Racine
can show that Fortune, ‘deceptive, capricious, even cruel ... is at bottom
kindly, providential, or at least an instrument of Providence’.104 Thus,
in the context of a Christian court, official religion is endorsed. Even
so, the wavering and easily influenced Agamemnon is surely not the
most diplomatic pattern of monarchy to set before the Sun King.
In the wake of Racine’s triumphant Iphigénie, many playwrights,
librettists and composers produced their own variations on the play.
Over the next hundred years, operas on its subject appeared in French,
German and Italian. The greatest – or at least the most durable – of
these is Iphigénie en Aulide by the Bohemian-Austrian Gluck and
his librettist (‘after Racine’) du Roullet, a major masterpiece which
reached the stage, with the support of Gluck’s former singing pupil
the Dauphine Marie Antoinette (herself to prove the victim of an
execution), in Paris in 1774. It has been performed ever since. Wagner
conducted the work in Dresden in 1847, Mahler in Vienna in 1907.
The opera gives sympathetic portrayals of all the royal characters,
Agamemnon being granted a particularly poignant aria at the end of
Act 2. At the first performance Achilles’ bravura Act 3 aria with its
prominent horns and trumpets roused the gentlemen in the audience
to such a state of excitement that they ‘could hardly refrain from
drawing their swords and joining him on the stage in his attempt to
104 P. Butler, Classicisme et baroque dans l’oeuvre de Racine (Paris 1959) 248.
 Introduction 41

rescue the Princess’.105 The opera concludes with the goddess Diana
(Artemis) changing her mind and no longer requiring a sacrifice. In
Gluck’s first version Calchas imparts this information; in the 1775
revision Diana actually appears. Thus, as in Racine’s play, the deity is
portrayed as ultimately benign. Yet the original version ‘ended with a
sinister war chorus, “Partons, volons à la victoire” (cf. IA [1627–9]),
with stark, bare octaves and crude thumps on the bass drum’.106 Is
there subversion of ‘the happy ending’ here?
Apart from Gluck’s opera, performances of IA disappeared almost
totally from the 19th century stage outside Greece, at least after 1820.107
Interest in the play seems to have been largely restricted to the study,
with three English individual commentaries, those of Monk, Headlam
and England, dating from this century. The play did not in fact come
back to the professional stage until the final decade of the twentieth
century. Details of student productions can be found on the website of
the Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama at Oxford: we
should like to pay particular tribute to the Oxford University Classical
Drama Society’s effective production of the play in 1999.108
The play’s revival in the professional theatre towards the end of the
twentieth century was anticipated by Michael Cacoyannis’ masterly
film Iphigenia (1976).109 As Marianne McDonald has shown, it was
influenced by the invasion of the director’s homeland Cyprus by the

105 The Earl of Harewood (ed.), Kobbé’s Complete Opera Book (London 1976) 75.
106 Jeremy Hayes, The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (Oxford University
Press, 1997) Vol 2, p. 818.
107 E. Hall, ‘Iphigenia and Her Mother at Aulis: A Study in the Revival of a
Euripidean Classic’ in J. Dillon and S. E. Wilmer (eds), Rebel Women: Staging
Ancient Greek Drama Today (Methuen, London 2005) 3–41, at 5–7.
108 Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama. Ioannou Classics
Centre, University of Oxford (www.apgrd.ox.ac.uk); it holds printed, visual and
aural documentation of performances since antiquity. A selective list of relevant
poems, plays and stage productions and adaptations is given by Michelakis (2006a)
169–71.
109 Morwood was at the first showing of the film in the UK, in the National
Film Theatre, and vividly remembers the director bounding onto the platform and
exclaiming, ‘Euripides is alive!’
42 Introduction

Turks in 1974.110 It conveys powerfully the menacing power of the

mob, and the demagogic Odysseus and the seer Calchas are spookily
manipulative figures. After a group of men led by Agamemnon have
slaughtered animals including a sacred deer in a holy grove, the latter
invents the demand of Artemis which precipitates the action. The
protagonists are viewed in agonizing close-up: Iphigenia, beautifully
played by the twelve-year-old Tatiana Papamoskou, is affectingly
vulnerable; Irene Pappas is tremendous in outrage and pain as her
mother: The film ends by focusing on her face while she surveys
the scene of the drama, her eyes black with baleful threat; and as
Agamemnon Kostas Kazakos is deeply moving as his profound love
of his daughter struggles with the horror of her inevitable sacrifice.
Cacoyannis does not judge these three characters: he makes us live
through their tragic ordeals. There is, of course, no substitution of a
deer for the victim: Iphigenia is brutally killed even though the wind
has already started to blow.111
Then in the 1990s there was a flood of performances of the play in the
USA, the Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland which continued into the
21st century. Particularly interesting are a cluster of performances or
performed adaptations of IA in the professional theatres of England
and Ireland between 1999 and 2004 made up of Colin Teevan’s stage
adaptation Iph... (Belfast 1999), Katie Mitchell’s two productions
(Dublin 2001 and London 2004), Marina Carr’s Ariel (Dublin 2002)
and Edna O’Brien’s Iphigenia (Sheffield 2003).112 The Irish adaptors
(Teevan, Carr and O’Brien) were all interested in the maltreatment

110 M. McDonald, ‘Eye of the Camera, Eye of the Victim: Iphigenia by Euripides
and Cacoyannis’ in M. M. Winkler (ed.), Classical Myth and Culture in the Cinema
(Oxford 2001) 90–117, at 91–2.
111 In his Greek Tragedy on Screen (Oxford, 2013) 140–8 P. Michelakis conducts
an interesting discussion of the film as melodrama. More recently Diego Pellizzari
has set out to analyse the film ‘as an actual cinematographic translation of the ancient
drama’: ‘L’Ifigenia in Aulide sul grande schermo’, Dioniso NS 5 (2015) 89–107.
112 See L. Salis, Miti antichi, storie d’oggi: la tragedia e il teatro irlandese
contemporaneo (Cosenza 2009). Mitchell’s 2004 production is sensitively discussed
by S. Goldhill, How to Stage Greek Tragedy Today (Chicago 2007) 54–5, 107,
132–3.
 Introduction 43

of Clytemnestra by Agamemnon. They build on the psychological

motivation of the Aeschylean murderess that is undoubtedly suggested
in the Euripidean text (see p. 23) and see as centrally important the lines
in which Clytemnestra foresees what will happen to her emotionally
if Agamemnon kills his daughter (1171–84). Indeed, Teevan’s play
ends (as it begins) ‘Ten years later’ with her murder of Agamemnon,
and in O’Brien’s closing scene Clytemnestra, drenched in a shower
of bloodied rain, echoes the triumphant lines of the Aeschylean
figure over her murdered husband (Ag. 1391–2). Euripides’ play thus
becomes a prelude to the Oresteia, as indeed it was in the famous
production by Ariane Mnouchkine of Les Atrides for the Théâtre de
Soleil (1990).113
A further example of what modernism can make of Euripides’
tragedy is Caridad Svich’s multimedia play Iphigenia Crash Land
Falls on the Neon Shell That Was Once Her Heart (‘a rave fable’)
(Atlanta, Georgia, 2004, revived Chicago 2011). It is set in ‘the
present’ in a Latin American narcokleptocracy. As Cecelia A. E.
Luschnig puts it, ‘Extremes of brutality and poverty are mixed with
material extravagance and drug chic’.114 Iphigenia is ‘a spinning girl
of privileged means, slightly feral’;115 Achilles is ‘an androgynous
rock star, beautiful and damaged’; Orestes is ‘an addicted, spewing
child with an adult voice’; Camilla, the Clytemnestra figure, is ‘a
narcotized prop wife possessed of a fierce hauteur’ who hates her
daughter because of the violent circumstances of her conception:
her future husband had raped her after killing her baby. Adolfo, the
Agamemnon equivalent, is a general who countenances the killing of
his daughter because ‘if some great personal tragedy were to befall
him, it is possible the country would embrace him again’ and re-elect
him. Iphigenia flies away from her sacrifice. Svich’s play may seem
a long way ‘after’ Euripides (she calls it ‘a socio-sexual-political
113 Hall (2005: p. 41 n. 107 above) 12–19. Some of the encounters in IA were
used in the lengthy prelude to Robert Icke’s version of the Oresteia (a chorus-free
zone), performed at the Almeida Theatre and Trafalgar Studios in London in the
summer of 2015. On Mnouchkine see also Addenda.
114 C. E. E. Luschnig, EGT 434.
115 Quotations from play-text.
44 Introduction

riff’ chiefly on the IA) but quotations from the Greek original occur
throughout. Despite (or perhaps in part because of) its modish exterior,
Svich’s work ‘creates a transfixing vision of hell on earth’.116
A major production of IA was staged in the summer of 2015 by
L’Instituto Nazionale del Drama Antico (INDA) in the ancient Greek
theatre at Syracuse as part of its 51st season.117 It was directed by Federico
Tiezzi. The choice of play seemed to have been dictated simply by the
fact that it is a great one, dealing with themes of universal and undying
importance, above all with the dynamics within a family when confronted
by intolerable pressures, both divine and political. It was inspiring to see
the play working so powerfully on its own terms without any imported
agenda. The text, including the ersatz conclusion, was delivered with
superb responsiveness; the rhetoric came over particularly well, the
great speeches eliciting applause from an intelligently appreciative –
and huge – audience.118 Two small but significant details must serve to
illustrate the insight and thoughtfulness of the production: at the end of
the first episode Menelaus flung the tablets which he had intercepted
to the ground and smashed them, vividly illustrating the failure of
Agamemnon’s attempt to rewrite mythology; and during the urgent
dialogue between Clytemnestra and Achilles before her change-of-mind
speech, Iphigenia’s facial expression made it clear that she was thinking
hard (1374). Furthermore, the text being allowed to speak for itself,
there was some humour, e.g. with Menelaus’ taunting of the Old Man
over the tablets and with Agamemnon’s reflection on marriage at [749–
50]; the director rightly felt that the drama transcended the distinction

116 Kerry Reid, Chicago Tribune, 24.2.2011. Justine McConnell and Patrice
Rankine discuss another attempt to ‘translate’ the contemporary nature of Euripides’
Iphigenia plays into modern day America, that of Nicholas Rudall for the Chicago
Stage at Court Theatre in 1997 (K. Bosher, F. Macintosh, J. McConnell and P.
Rankin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek Dramas in the Americas (Oxford
2015) 767).
117 The play has been staged previously at Syracuse in 1930 and 1974.
118 Three Greek ships provided the backdrop and the Greek army were a
significant presence. The Chorus wore brightly coloured costumes and brought
girlish enthusiasm as well as deep emotion, as when they sang of the future fate of
the women of Troy (773–93).
 Introduction 45

between the comic and the tragic. Clearly it is not possible to stage a
play without in some way interpreting it, but Tiezzi’s production was
supremely intelligent as well as infused with deep passion throughout.
The pictures on our covers are taken from this production and illustrate
the first meeting of Iphigenia and her tormented father after she has
arrived at Aulis (634–85) and the distressed mother and daughter from
their second scene.

Metre
Greek verse consists of rhythmically different units or ‘measures’
(Greek metra, singular metron). The name shows that they were based
on syllabic length or weight (‘quantity’), and not on stress (‘dynamic’
rhythm, characteristic of most English verse); equivalent Latin terms
were modi (‘measures’) and numeri (‘numbers’). ‘Measures’ consist
of syllables, ‘l(ong)’ (or ‘heavy’), symbolised as l, ‘s(hort)’ (or ‘light’),
symbolised as s, or ‘variable’ (Latin term anceps: either long or short),
symbolised as x, which combine to create differing rhythmic units,
usually called ‘metres’. Metres were spoken, chanted or sung.
In IA spoken metres are the iambic trimeter, the form predominant
in dialogue (‘three-measure’, basic metron x-l-s-l); and the far less
common trochaic tetrameter, (‘four-measure’, basic metron l-s-l-x),
in 316–75 and 378–401, 855–916, 1336–1401. These metres repeat
from line to line, as in Shakespearean pentameters. Variety comes
from small freedoms of syllabic quantity and of resolved syllables
(‘resolutions’) within metra (s-s replacing either single l or, rarely,
x) or very rarely substitutions of s-s for single s; and from regular
division between words near mid-verse, termed caesura (‘cut’); or in
other places chosen in relation to the caesura or syntax or sense. In
the tetrameter the penultimate syllable (l) is suppressed in catalexis
(‘cessation, close’), so that the verse ends with a metron shaped
l-s-x. [Some scholars have thought that tetrameters were chanted
or intoned, e.g. Pickard-Cambridge (1988) 158–60, Webster (1967)
286; Xenophon, Symposium 6.3 writes of them as delivered to the
accompaniment of a pipe, aulos.]
46 Introduction

chanted metres (delivered in ‘recitative’) in IA are anapaestic

dimeters (‘two-measure’), the most regular of rhythms (single metron
s-s-l-s-s-l, with few internal freedoms, most commonly substitution of
l for s-s); dimeters regularly divide internally between the two metra.
A system of such dimeters closes with catalexis, suppression of the
final s-s, the final metron having the form s-s-l-x. In IA they occur at
1–48, frequently in 115–63, and at 590–606.
[Note on spoken and chanted metres: ancient metricians used also
the term ‘foot’ (Greek pous) as a unit of analysis, dividing into two
parts each metron of the trimeter, tetrameter and chanted anapaests.
Modern metricians still use the term in addition to metron for
convenience, to locate phenomena precisely within a verse, especially
in the trimeter, whose 12 metrical syllables are divided into 6 feet.
(These two sentences condense a paragraph in West (1982) 6.)]
sung or lyric metres frequently vary their rhythm from verse-line to
verse-line (colon ‘limb’); a particular feature is suppression of single
syllables, most often the penultimate syllable of a colon in catalexis.
They are used in groups of lines or ‘periods’ (periodoi); lyric metres of
different kinds can combine within periods and in successive identical
ones. They form systems which are in ‘responding’ stanzas of the same
metrical form (strophe and antistrophe, ‘turn’ and ‘reverse-turn’, terms
deriving it is believed from musical dance); or in single, continuous spans
not divided into stanzas (astrophic lyrics) which follow one or more
pairs of stanzas as epodes or stand on their own. These systems are used
in a choral entry-song (parodos) and in choral odes (stasima ‘(things)
performed in position’, i.e. in the theatre’s orchestra ‘dance-place’); and
in lyric exchanges of all kinds, and in monodies by characters (‘solo
songs’). The principal lyric metres found in IA are:
(1) Anapaestic (but with considerable internal freedoms, differently
from chanted anapaests; they occur occasionally within 115–63, and
at 1277–82, 1320–9).
(2) Iambo-trochaic, combining elements of both rhythms, with
considerable freedoms. The metre is typical of late Euripides (see
e.g. Parker (1997) 37–8). In IA it carries descriptive narrative in 231–
302, as at Pho. 638–89, 1019–66; it recurs markedly in Iphigenia’s
 Introduction 47

lamentatory lyrics 1283–1335 and 1475–1509 (compare Hel. 348–

74), and in her sung exchange with the chorus [1510–31]. Its use in
laments and dirges is traditional, first at A. Pers. 1002–77, cf. e.g.
Or. 960–1012.
(3) Aeolo-choriambic (basic units l-s-s-l and l-s-s-l-s-l), found more
widely in the play than any other metre. In its extreme rhythmic
variety the metre came to dominate Euripides’ later musical and
poetic style: descriptive and pictorial, colourful and often florid, and
emotionally expressive. The beginning of the IA’s parodos (164-
230) and all three ‘set’ choral odes (stasima) 543–89, 751–800 and
1035–97 have this flexible rhythm, associated in particular with the
‘New Music’ and its ‘dithyrambic’ character; its major surviving text
is Timotheus’ melodic poem Persians of the end of the 5th century
(F 788–91 PMG; see J. H. Hordern, Timotheus (Oxford 2002) 56–7).
For Eur. see e.g. Hel. 1301–68, 1451–1511, (Mastronarde on) Pho.
202–60; E. Csapo, ‘Later Euripidean Music’, ICS 24–5 (2000) 399–
426, and in his ‘The Politics of the New Music’, in P. Murray and
P. Wilson (eds), Music and the Muses (Oxford 2004) 207–48 and
‘New Music’s gallery of images: the “dithyrambic” first stasimon
of Euripides’ Electra’, in Cousland and Hume (eds) (2009) 95–109;
D. Mastronarde, Medea (Cambridge 2010) 104; Rutherford (2012)
267–77.
(4) Other rhythms: dactylic, basic metron l-s-s; ionic, basic metron s-s-
l-l; and dochmiac, basic metron s-l-l-s-l (its name means ‘slanting,
aslant’, from its uneven metrical shape, and it is chameleon-like in
variety); these three are very infrequent in IA.
Note. We do not attempt detailed technical analyses or descriptions of
any metre, which are readily available in West (1982 – or in his shorter
Introduction to Greek Metre, Oxford 1987), L. P. E. Parker in OCD3 970–5
or OCD4 943–7, L. Battezzato in EGT (2014) 822–39 or, for sung metres
alone, in Parker, Songs (1997) and Alcestis (Oxford 2006) lxvii–lxxix (see
Addenda). We use the terms above, and sometimes the metrical symbols
l, s and x, occasionally in the commentary, chiefly in relation to textual
problems. In our Greek text the lyrics are set out as in Diggle’s OCT, and
in the commentary we refer to other works where they are schematized, in
some places differently.
48 Introduction

Lyric Metres in Tragedy

The following general paragraphs serve all our notes upon lyric in
the commentary, where we offer summary notes upon structures, and
modest appreciations.
It is one holy grail of metricians to discern generic relationships
in Tragedy between the principal types of lyric metre (above), and
the poetic context, content, style and mood of their systems. The
two chief difficulties of such interpretation, often termed ‘ethical’,
were set out with detachment by A. M. Dale (19682) 13–14: (1) the
limited number and extremely diverse nature of surviving texts;
and (2) the nearly total loss in knowledge of both music and dance,
and of ancient commentary upon them. Dale stressed that there is
always room for subjective reaction, but that it must be formed upon
accurate perceptions of prosody and rhythm in the multiplicity and
combination of metrical units, from metra to cola, to ‘periods’, and
to entire systems. What Dale thought possible is expressed in one
sentence of the Preface to her book: ‘I have tried to indicate what I
take to be the prevailing movement of each type of rhythm and any
characteristic uses by particular poets.’ This book and her Collected
Papers (Cambridge 1969), most of them preparatory to it, teem with
examples from both Tragedy and Aristophanes’ Comedy; her path has
been followed for Aristophanes, correspondingly with much Tragic
material, by Parker, Songs (1997): see her Preface too.
Commentators particularly of Euripides handle this issue in varying
ways. While some have been encouraged by his more extensive
remains to ambitious generalisations, not one has gone convincingly
further than the limits sets by Dale and Parker; too much sophistication
is sometimes attempted. Dale herself hardly ventured upon ‘ethical’
commentary in her Alcestis (Oxford, 1954) and Helen (Oxford 1967),
and Parker is restrained in her Alcestis (Oxford 2007) – but her pp.
lxxi–ii link use of rhythm to dramatic progression (see Addenda).
West in his Orestes (1987: this Series) 12–13 writes of Tragedy that
its lyric metres ‘act as a kind of register of emotion’, and of ‘the subtle
blend and changes of rhythms which create special effects’. It is
nevertheless common ground among metricians and commentators to
 Introduction 49

associate a few metres with particular moods or contexts; of the three

dominant in IA, (1) sung anapaests are associated with heightened
emotion; (2) iambo-trochaic, esp. when syllables are resolved or
syncopated, with intense emotions; (3) aeolo-choriambic with ‘pure’
lyric, often employing more colourful language, with deeper and still
more powerful feelings.
[Note. Since we lack all but a very few scraps of lyric with ancient
musical annotation – one papyrus happens to contain IA 784–92 and
1500–9 (see the Commentary) – it is almost impossible to use the
surviving discussions of music and melody in their emotive qualities
for interpreting Tragic texts: see in particular M. L. West, Ancient
Greek Music (Oxford 1992) 157–9 (ethos) and 246–53 (ethos:
character and emotional effect), and 350–5 (Tragedy), with full
references and bibliography. Also: Stanford, Emotions (1983) 49–54,
166–8; A. D’Angour in EGT (2014) 868–9.]
There is in fact a wide range between confidence and diffidence
among interpreters of Euripides. Webster (1967) used the distinctive
diachronic evidence from the many plays and fragments most fully and
most adventurously in ‘ethical’ interpretation (repeating the approach of
his An Introduction to Sophocles (London 19361 = 19692) 135–62). Then
Stanford, Emotions (1983) 65–8, for example, was close to Webster, but
offered a very balanced discussion of the issues, arguing that ‘Modern
metricians … have tended to depreciate theories that particular metres
are intended to have, or can have, specific psychological effects’
(65). Conversely, Stockert’s appreciations of lyric structures in IA are
detailed but restrained in judgement, like those of R. Kannicht, Helena
(Heidelberg 1969); caution in the whole exercise has again been urged
by e.g. W. Allan, Helen (Cambridge 2008) 38 n. 165.
Here are two recent voices for English readers: First, R. Rutherford
(2012) 217–82 (‘The dramatists at work: lyrics’) concentrates upon
form, structure, language, characterization and function. He assesses
the ‘New Music, New Styles’ of the closing 5th century with
commendable restraint, although its florid character may seem to be
specially susceptible to ‘ethical’ interpretation (see his pp. 267–77).
Second, F. Budelmann, ‘Lyric Poetry and Tragedy’ in EGT (2014)
50 Introduction

780–4 proposes a comprehensive approach. He stresses that Tragic

lyric interacted widely with earlier genres of non-dramatic lyric,
adopting and developing its metres, notably in changing the rhythmic
pattern for each fresh pair of strophes within a passage, choral or
monodic, and in making much greater use of wholly or partially sung
lyric dialogue. Tragedy is however fundamentally different from non-
dramatic lyric: it personifies its performers. So it evokes traditional
genres such as celebratory and lamentatory odes, but transposes their
functions for a representational theatre. Tragic lyric is complex in
its dynamics, moods and allusiveness, Budelmann asserts, and as
musical poetry; he cites esp. L. A. Swift, The Hidden Chorus. Echoes
of Genre in Tragic Lyric (Oxford 2010). For Budelmann the poetry of
the ‘New Music’ is particularly interesting as an innovative variation
of the dithyramb, the older genre from which it had its own birth. In
sum, he states ‘Each passage requires examination on its own terms.’

The Greek Text

(1) The text and its basis. (2) Issues of authenticity and interpolation.
(3) Editions and commentaries. (4) Text and apparatus criticus in this
edition.
(1) The text and its basis.
The basis for the text, and the question of its integrity, are the most
problematic such issues for any Euripidean play; we present them
as concisely as is practicable. There are further discussions in the
commentary, particularly for 1–163, 231–302 and 1510–1629.
1.a The complete text survives in only one medieval manuscript of
authority: Florence, Laurentian Library pluteus (‘bookcase’) 32.2,
written about or soon after 1310 (symbol: L).119 The manuscript has
119 This date, and that of ‘about 1315’ for ms. P, are a little more precise than
those given by most recent editors, the beginning of the 14th century. The dates
stem from a neglected observation by Aleksander Turyn that Demetrius Triclinius,
the reviser of L, changed his writing of ‘round breathings’ to ‘angular’ ones between
1316 and 1319 (The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides
(Urbana 1957) 26–7, 26–8 n. 43, 223–4, 257–8). All Triclinius’ revisions in L show
 Introduction 51

been available in facsimile in a few major libraries since 1920; it has

recently become widely accessible in electronic reproduction (http://
teca.bmlonline.it; search successively for manoscritti, plutei, and 32.2).
L is famous as alone containing all 19 plays which survive complete
and are attributed to Euripides (except Troades and Bacchae 756–end),
from his total output estimated at about 90. Nine of the plays, with
marginal scholia (ancient commentaries), stand in the other, older and
richer branch of the poet’s manuscript tradition, which dates from about
1000. The ten plays which stand only in L have no scholia, including
Bacchae (although there is evidence to suggest that it once belonged
to the richer manuscript tradition and possessed scholia); nine however
have titles which begin with only four letters of the Greek alphabet,
epsilon, eta, iota and kappa. They are taken to be part-survivors of
an ancient, alphabetically ordered but perhaps not complete edition
which had separated and fractured at an early and indeterminable date,
probably after papyrus rolls had given way to parchment books. Their
titles are no longer in alphabetical order in L; and other Euripidean titles
with the same four initial letters are known, e.g. the now fragmentary
Erechtheus and Ixion, while two titles, the fragmentary Theseus and
Thyestes, begin with the theta unrepresented in L between eta and iota.
The plays are Helen, epsilon; Electra, Heracles, Heraclidae (Children
of Heracles), eta; Hiketides (Suppliant Women), Ion, Iphigenia at
Aulis, Iphigenia among the Taurians, iota; Kyklops (Cyclops), kappa.
How and where these nine plays survived is not to be discovered, but
the first scholar since late antiquity to cite from them was Eustathius,
Archbishop of Thessalonica in the last quarter of the 12th century (from
Ion indisputably and from Cyclops possibly; his citations of IA 84–5
and 1149–50 appear to have been drawn from the Homeric scholia). It
is almost certainly ‘his’ copy of the nine plays which has reached us in
L, after at least one intervening transcription.
L is remarkable in another way. Its text and scribes, two or more
likely three in number, were master-minded by the most accomplished

‘round’ breathings; and since P was copied from L between his first and second
revisions, both mss. must predate those years of change. See A. Fries, GRBS 55
(2015) 538.
52 Introduction

late Byzantine editor of Greek drama (including Aristophanes),

Demetrius Triclinius, who worked in Thessalonica, as had Eustathius.
Triclinius’ brother Nicolaus was one of the scribes and copied four
plays – of which IA was one. Triclinius first corrected the whole text
of L against its exemplar, e.g. at IA 39, 72, 335, 513; then on two later
occasions he revised it, making individual textual emendations and
conjectures, seldom at the second, e.g. 653, 1369, and at the third,
more frequently, e.g. 42, 177, 260, 354. The three occasions are almost
always clearly distinguishable by the predominant and differing
colour of the ink used for each (Zuntz (1965) 57–62). Chiefly on the
third occasion Triclinius analysed and wrote metrical notes upon the
lyrics (those in IA are transcribed and printed by Günther (1988) in his
critical apparatus).
L’s singularity almost certainly caused its speedy transcription into a
very handsome copy, ms. P of about 1315, also written at Thessalonica.
It is now in two long-separated parts: the larger is Rome, Vatican Library
Palatinus graecus 287, and contains IA; the smaller part is Florence
Laurentian Library conventi soppressi 172. The complete manuscript
has been accessible in facsimile in a few major libraries since 1946.
The exact relationship between L and P has been a matter of hot
dispute since the mid-19th century, and still smoulders; some scholars
argue that P may have drawn independently on L’s exemplar, or on
another copy of it made at about the same time as L. The very great
majority of experts, however, now believe that P was copied from
L after Triclinius’ initial correction of L but before his two later and
independent interventions: the argument was made by Zuntz (1965),
summarily on his p. 3, in detail on pp. 1–192. P nevertheless makes
an occasional small contribution to establishing the text; it preserves
the readings of L as edited by Triclinius 1 where Triclinius 2 or 3
later obscured them, e.g. IA 43, 177, 193, 552. There are one or two
places throughout L where P may have made small corrections or
conjectures of his own in the nine plays (in IA only 4 and 508 are
possible instances). A second and much later hand in P, writing after
the manuscript was brought to Italy, made some apparently original
corrections and conjectures, e.g. 45, 109, 378, 524.
 Introduction 53

A few further copies of L as finished by Triclinius (but without his

metrical notes) were made in Italy about 1500; they too offer a few
independent but minor improvements, e.g. two copies now in Paris at
846, 858, 1406.
1.b Very brief parts of IA survive elsewhere.
First, there are three scrappy papyri listed on pp. 79–80. Only one
other ‘alphabetical’ play boasts more than two papyri (IT, five), and
some have none; while this in itself may suggest that the IA was read
more widely and for longer in antiquity, it is more likely a simple
accident of survival. The three papyri are listed in Note on the Greek
Text and Critical Apparatus pp. 79–80. They range in date from the
3rd century BC to the 2nd AD, and offer slightly variant readings,
or better readings, in some places, e.g. 308–9, 570–2, 577–8, 581,
804. The earliest papyrus is significant for its rare musical notation
in the two short spans of lyric it carries (1500–9 and 784–93); it also
predates and differs, especially in 790–2, from the division of verse-
lines which was introduced to tragic texts by the Alexandrian editor
Aristophanes of Byzantium about 200 BC and was almost totally
perpetuated in the later manuscript tradition. These papyri, though
very brief, are continually re-examined.
Second, not a few quotations from the play, and a few evident
reflections of its content and text, are found in other ancient authors;
these are known respectively as ‘book-fragments’ and ‘testimonies’
(testimonia). They are sometimes disfigured by accidental or perhaps
deliberate alteration by their host-authors, or by corruption in their
manuscript traditions. One book-fragment is nevertheless very
important for IA, for it contains two and a half spoken verses attributed
to Iphigenia but not found in the text of our play carried by L (nor
in Iphigenia in Tauris): see 2.a.ii below. A full record of such book-
fragments and testimonies of the play is given by Günther (1988) in
his critical apparatus (enlarging the list of Page (1934) 128–9); they
number about 30, and no book-fragment is of more than 6 lines (28–
33); those at e.g. 6–7, 380, 394a (a line missing in L), 449–50 and
1400 are important to improving the text.
54 Introduction

1.c Such is the surviving ancient and medieval evidence for the text;
we tabulate details of the manuscripts and papyri before our Greek
text and apparatus.
The basis of the text is thus very limited. Furthermore, the
question of the L : P relationship makes little difference to textual
critics’ decisions, for only minor differences are at issue. L’s text is
of quite good quality overall, possibly as a result of comparatively
few transcriptions since antiquity. The text is defective in a few
places, almost certainly because in this and other plays L’s exemplar
lacked words or even lines rather than because its scribes could
not read difficult or damaged writing (see Zuntz (1965) 92); in IA
the places are 109 (one word missing), 261 and 273 (loss of verses
revealed by discrepant metrical responsion between lyric strophes),
394a (a line recovered from an ancient quotation), 1034 (one word
missing) and 1416 (part-line missing): on all these places, of which
the last is the most important to interpretation, see the Commentary.
There are many straightforward scribal errors which years of good
sense and exact scholarship have reversed, and there are many faults
which critical acumen has uncovered and for which sure or very
attractive emendations have been made. The number of places in IA
where editors despair altogether and apply ‘daggers’ (obeli: † ... †)
surrounding a damaged word, words or even passage so far uncured
or judged incurable is not greatly higher than the average for the
other ‘alphabetical’ plays; for example, Diggle’s edition of the Ion
(Euripides II, 1981), the ‘alphabetical’ play closest in length (1622
lines) to the IA (1629) and written in L by the same scribe Nicolaus
Triclines, shows obeli in 29 places. Of the three most recent editors
of IA, Günther (1988) obelizes in 35 places, but in five of them both
Stockert (1992) and Diggle (1994) do not; Stockert obelizes in 39, but
in 16 on his own; and Diggle in 40, but in ten on his own. Kovacs’s
text of the play (2002) obelizes in only eight, but he is following the
Loeb Library’s conventional practice of presenting as readable a text
as possible: see his Vol. 1 p. 38.
 Introduction 55

Bibliographical Note on the text. Principal accounts in English of

Euripides’ tradition are: W. S. Barrett, Euripides. Hippolytos (Oxford
1964), 45–90 and Zuntz (1965) 249–88 (who made the first convincing
demonstration of P’s relationship with L, 1–192). N. G. Wilson,
Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 249–56 evaluates Triclinius
as scholar. A brief survey by Collard (2014) documents recent
scholarship in this field, and the history of printed editions; a study of
Euripides’ tradition by P. J. Finglass will appear in A. Markantonatos
(ed.), Brill’s Companion to Euripides. German readers have a fine
summary account in Matthiessen (2002) 18–26. For IA the prefaces
of the three recent editors Günther (in Latin), Stockert (German) and
Diggle (Latin) should be added to these works. See too D. Kovacs,
‘Text and Transmission’ (of Tragedy as a whole) in Gregory (2005)
379–93. See Addenda.

(2) The issues of authenticity and interpolation.

2.a An official Athenian production record for a year between 405
and perhaps 400 stated ‘that after Euripides’ death his son of the same
name produced in the city Iphigenia in Aulis, Alcmeon (in Corinth),
Bacchae’: Scholia on Aristophanes, Frogs 67 = DID C 22 TrGF 1.49
= Alcmeon in Corinth test. 1a TrGF 5.211 = Testimonia 40 Kovacs
(Euripidea: Leiden etc. 1994) 48–9; the Suda Lexicon ε 3695 =
TrGF vol. 5 T 3.5 attributes this posthumous production to Euripides’
nephew (see also above p. 37). TrGF is however cautious where many
scholars infer that these three plays were performed in the same year
as Frogs, 405.
This statement, together with:
(i) inference that the posthumously produced play therefore almost
certainly suffered further and later interference by producers and
actors of the kind attested particularly for Euripides’ Orestes in
reperformance during the 4th century (see the scholia on Or. 57, 174,
268, 643 and 1366–8, cited by Page 1934, 41–3). A performance at
Athens of an Iphigenia by Euripides, perhaps the IA, is recorded for
341 BC: DID A 1, 292 A 2a, 1 TrGF 1.13 (see also above pp. 37–8).
56 Introduction

(ii) the attribution of two and a half lines to the play by the 2nd century
scholar Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 7.39 which are not found
in the text of L, ‘All those who say that a female deer does not grow
horns, have no respect for witnesses to the contrary ... Euripides in
the Iphigenia (has) “I shall put a horned doe in the Achaeans’ own
hands; while sacrificing it they will claim that they are sacrificing
your daughter” ’ (= Fragment 1 in the editions of Günther, Diggle
and Stockert, which we print at the play’s end). Moreover, the two
and a half lines of the fragment could only have been addressed
to Clytemnestra by Artemis as dea ex machina; if authentic, they
appear to stem from a different ending to the play which may have
been Euripides’ original one, or his conception (see the Commentary
on 1510–1629, Text);
(iii) established and putative linguistic and metrical phenomena
throughout the play which are discrepant with Euripides’ habitual
style, as well as dramaturgical inconsistencies –
all of (i–iii) have prompted editors since the mid-18th century to
suspect widespread interpolation, whether by actors or theatrical
producers and their copy-writers or less frequently by literary and
scholarly intervention, sometimes integrated into the text without
much thought by scribes.
2.b In his OCT of 1994 (Euripides III. 423–5) Diggle listed
scholars since the mid-18th century who first strongly suspected
or athetized particular lines and passages in the play. Of its 1629
lines, only about 200, scattered throughout its whole central part,
had escaped by 1994; the further suspicions of Kovacs (2002, 2003)
must now be taken into account. These figures may be presented in
a different way: interpolation or questionable authenticity has been
at some time suggested for the whole of the prologue 1–163 and
parodos 164–302; for great stretches of all four dialogue episodes
303–542, 607–750, 801–1035, 1098–1275; for the presence of the
baby Orestes at all (first mentioned at 418); for all the three choral
odes 543–606, 751–800 and 1036–97; and for the entire end of the
play after Agamemnon’s final speech at 1275. Conversely, Page
(1934) 207–8 identified the probable content and extent of the play
 Introduction 57

left unfinished by Euripides at his death: they are greater than a

reader might have expected from Page’s earlier commentary upon
its suspected parts.
2.c In fact, editors of the later 20th century have been unanimous
(almost) in deleting firmly only 1532–1629; their other deletions and
suspicions have been concentrated in 1–163 (most heavily), 164–230,
231–302 (heavily), 363–70, 404–42, 590–606 (heavily), 607–37
(heavily), 741 (this single verse, very heavily), 773–83, 919–1035,
1098–1119, 1276–1336, 1407–32, 1510–31 (very heavily). In many
of these places the presence of the baby Orestes is doubted: see (B)
414b–41n. in the Commentary.
It is apparent from Diggle’s list of ‘first deleters’ that study of the
text was dominated more and more by interpolation-hunting editors
from the 1820s to the 1930’s: initially by the brothers L. Dindorf
(1825) and W. Dindorf (18321–18695); then principally by Hartung
(1837), Monk (18401), Hermann (edition of 1831, and a two-part
article 1847–1848), Paley (18601), Hennig (1872, a journal article
responding to another criticising his dissertation of 1870), England
(1891), Harberton (1903),120 and finally Page (1934), a study: see also
2.b) above).121
Between times however came three more moderate editors: Nauck
(18541–18713), Paley in his second edition, a notable retreat from his

120 A volume of text-critical suggestions, with a corrected edition of 1910–1912,

was privately published under the name of ‘Unus Multorum’ (‘One of Many’ – but
the author (J. S. Pomeroy) was in fact Viscount Harberton). It is worth observing
that Harberton’s name is in Diggle’s list as the first deleter of about 220 lines in
total; following the fashion of his day, he rode hard on the heels of earlier scissor-
wielders, and many of his suggestions simply filled in the gaps (or took out the lines)
they had left. In consequence he is very seldom if ever named in any subsequent
editor’s apparatus; Page (1934) had ignored him altogether.
121 Page (1934) and Kovacs (2003) have subjected the whole play to the most
detailed examinations yet of language (Page especially) and dramatic coherence
and integrity (Kovacs especially); they attempt to identify those parts attributable
respectively to Euripides, to his son or nephew in an immediate completion for the
first performance, and to later interventions by producers and actors, particularly in
the 4th century BC.
58 Introduction

first (18802: 18601), Wecklein (1899 and his school edition of 1914)
– and two much more conservative, Weil (18681–18993) and Murray
(19091–19132).
The most recent editors vary: Diggle (1994) and particularly
Kovacs (2002, 2003) are most suspicious (there is a useful survey
and assessment of Kovacs’s 2003 article by C. A. E. Luschnig in EGT
430–1); Günther (1988) is more cautious, despite many suspicions;
Stockert (1992) is moderate; Jouan (1983) was deliberately very
cautious indeed; Turato (2001) reprinted Jouan’s text, but with
reservations. An extremely experienced and distinguished Euripidean
scholar compared the editions of Günther, Stockert and Diggle in a
review (Matthiessen 1999); he declared himself on the side of great
caution (see also 2.d below).
There is an assessment of interpolation as an issue in textual, poetic
and dramatic criticism of IA by Michelakis (2006) 105–14; cf. Gurd
(2005), esp. 61–72, a consciously theoretical discussion of editors’
historical practice with the play.
2.d Our own attitude has inclined strongly to editorial tolerance. We
have read the play very many times, sometimes with students, and
Morwood has both published an annotated translation and written about
it elsewhere. We have learned to appreciate the greater part of it as a
practicable performance-text of considerable dramatic and theatrical
power; and we have experienced how well it can work on the stage: cf.
pp. 44–5. We see much in it that is Euripidean in origin and spirit, and
not a little that is likely to stem from his own hand. We observed with
pleasure the similar impression of the play stated by Matthiessen (1999,
396–8), which he claimed to be that of ‘most readers and spectators’
(396); Turato (2001) 81 inclines this way; Michelakis (2006) 110
comments particularly on the performability of the prologue largely in
its transmitted form.
At the same time we have respected, and noted with reasonable
fullness in our apparatus and commentary, the arguments of our
predecessors for ‘inauthentic’ parts. Even if our tolerance is ‘wrong’,
and the text as we have it can be shown to be in the main a progressive
expansion of a Euripidean outline, initially into the 4th and possibly
 Introduction 59

3rd century BC, it will remain of great interest as illuminating the

taste and practice of that period: as such it stands with:
(i) original compositions like the Rhesus transmitted as Euripidean but
almost certainly from the 4th century BC (there are some similarities
of vocabulary between Rhesus and IA: see e.g. 16, 274, 405, 529–
30 in A. Fries, Rhesus (Berlin 2014); cf. above p. 37), and a few
substantial papyri both attributed to individuals or anonymous (see
TrGF vols 1, 2 and 5);
(ii) parts of Euripides’ Phoenician Women and Orestes, and Aeschylus’
Seven against Thebes, the three other surviving tragedies most
suspected of interpolation after the 5th century, if to a much lesser
extent.
Some interpolation into IA occurred in very late antiquity, particularly
the last 50 lines.
2.e Afterword. Many of our readers will be aware of the complex
and long-contentious issues which surround the textual status of
Shakespeare’s 18 plays printed during his life-time in the individual
quarto editions and of the 36 collected posthumously in the famous First
Folio of 1623. A review during 2013, by a distinguished scholar, of two
important studies of these issues prompted us to observe the potentially
suggestive comparison mutatis mutandis with those discussed above for
our play; we reproduce below a paragraph of this review. Page (1934)
19–20 had adduced actors’ and particular later producers’ ‘alterations’
in Shakespeare, but only on 216 with implicit reference to IA.
“The most influential complete edition of recent times, the Oxford
Shakespeare of 1986, was interested in performance texts. Its editors
departed from the tradition of producing, when more than one text
survives, a conflated “best” text. Instead they sought the text of the
play as it was acted. A difficult task, but a correction to an over-literary
approach. Debunkers of the Bard urged that the play was a “social text”,
collaboratively produced between scriptwriter, players and a south
London audience.” Michael Alexander, on Lukas Erne, Shakespeare
as Literary Dramatist and Shakespeare and the Book Trade (both,
Cambridge 2013), in The Tablet (8 June 2013) 17.
60 Introduction

(3) Editions and Commentaries.

We begin our Bibliography to IA with a select list of editions and
commentaries, from the first printed edition of the bare text of
Euripides, of 1503 (the ‘Aldine’), to the most recent known to us,
Turato (2001) and Kovacs (2002). The Aldine is named after its
scholarly publisher, Aldus Manutius, who may have been one of
the editors. We refer our readers who wish to know more about the
history of Euripidean textual scholarship to the excellent surveys
printed by R. Kannicht, Helena (Göttingen 1969, in German) 1.109–
29 and J. Diggle, Euripides I (Oxford 1984; in Latin) v–xi; for the IA
in particular see Gurd (2005) 61–171. See also Collard and Finglass
in (1) c Bibliographical Note above.
Here we offer a brief evaluation of the more significant individual
editions of IA with commentary. The first, with an almost exclusively
text-critical commentary, was by J. Markland (17711, 17832, reprinted
1811 and 1822; in Latin). The first straightforward, sound and wider
commentator in a vernacular appears to have been J. H. Monk (18401,
revised with a more academic cast in Latin in 18572; see Addenda). A
fuller commentated edition was by K. G. Firnhaber (1841, in German).
A complete commentary to Euripides deserves mention here, because
that of F. A. Paley (IA in Vol. 3, 18601, 18802) remains of use.122 Also
in England a small-scale, chiefly linguistic commentary for students
came from C. E. S. Headlam (1889) and a larger one, preoccupied with
interpolation, from E. B. England (1891); in this respect England’s
book was overtaken by D. L. Page’s monograph of 1934 (which
nevertheless contained a good deal of linguistic and stylistic matter in
a ‘commentary’, pp. 130–206). N. Wecklein’s German commentary
of 1914, directed at students very competent in Greek, was concisely
thorough. F. Jouan’s volume (1983) broke new ground in the French
‘Budé’ complete Euripides with the fullness of its explanatory notes.
K. Cavander’s translation (1973) contains in its commentary some very
stimulating observations on the dramaturgy. W. Stockert’s large German

122 Paley’s was the first and last complete commentary upon Euripides in English,
and no individual scholar, in any language, has since repeated his achievement on
the same scale. N. Wecklein finished separate commentaries on twelve plays.
 Introduction 61

edition in two volumes (1992) is the first comprehensive modern

commentary, rightly well received. F. Turato’s edition, with Jouan’s text,
and Italian translation and notes, is particularly useful and suggestive
for interpretation (2001); it is shaped much like this volume and others
in our Series. Both Stockert’s and Turato’s editions have exceptionally
full introductions.
(4) We print our own Greek text and critical apparatus. For the
evidence of papyri, manuscripts and ancient quotations, we have
relied principally on the editions of Günther, Stockert and Diggle;
we have consulted the facsimile of ms. L, but its value is sometimes
limited where the original script has been overwritten, ink is faint or
there is underlying erasure. We owe our greatest debt, as all who study
this play must, to Diggle’s work: his internationally standard critical
edition depends upon expert examination of manuscripts, papyri
and book-fragments, on exhaustive scrutiny of all previous textual
scholarship, and above all on unparalleled sensitivity to Euripides’
language and metre. For the IA Diggle’s textual conjectures, whether
in his text or apparatus alone, are listed by R. Renehan, CPh 93
(1998) 165.
Principal differences between our Greek text and: Diggle, OCT
(but note that Diggle seldom obelizes in passages he judges ‘scarcely
Euripidean’ or ‘not Euripidean’). Reference is in short form to our
apparatus.
1–163 suspect in parts: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 5 Wecklein 105
Markland 107 †Κάλχας ... Μενέλεως θ’†: not obelized 149–50 Günther
167 Wilamowitz 231–302 suspect in parts: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 251
†θετόν†: not obelized 263 Matthiae 275 Diggle (apparatus) 291 not
obelized 293 ὣς ?Murray 368–9 del. Hartung 373–5 del. Page 373 †ἂν
χρείους† 375 †πόλεος ὡς ἄρχων† 404–12 retained:‘scarcely Euripidean’
407 Nauck 413–39 retained: ‘not Euripidean’ 449 ταῦτα (L) 481 Elmsley
508–10 retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 520–1 del. Hartung: ‘scarcely
Euripidean’ 564–5 not obelized 571 Markland: 571–2a obelized 573 ᾇτε
Willink: verse (L) obelized 578 W. Dindorf: †πνέων† 580 ὅθι σε κρίσις
ἔμενεν θεᾶν Diggle (apparatus) 589 Blomfield; verse obelized 590–7
retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 592 †ἐμήν†: not obelized 602–4 obelized
62 Introduction

607–34 suspect in parts: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 614 Hermann 627–30

obelized 636 Porson 657 England 694 retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’
710 L 723–6 retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 724 †καλῶς ἀναγκαίως
τε†: not obelized 731 Herwerden 740–50 retained, but 741 del. Monk
and 749–50 del. Hartung: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 751–800 retained,
but 773–83 del. Hartung:‘scarcely Euripidean’ 775 Höpfner 783
†ἐσεῖται†: not obelized 792 Hermann: verse obelized 801–18 retained:
‘scarcely Euripidean’ 813 πνοαῖς L 844 θαύμαζ’ L and 845 εἴκαζε L
915–16 retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 919–1035 retained: ‘scarcely
Euripidean’ 924–5 del. Paley 947 †σῷ πόσει†: not obelized 963–4
del. Hermann 970 †φόνου κηλῖσιν αἵματι†: only αἵματι obelized 1013
Monk 1041 †ἐν δαιτὶ†: †ἐν δαιτὶ θεῶν† 1082 obelized 1084 αἱμάξοντες
Diggle (apparatus) 1087–8 obelized: susp. Diggle 1098–1119 retained:
‘scarcely Euripidean’ 1151 Jacobs/Musgrave and Scaliger 1168 Fix
1214 ἐμοὶ Diggle (apparatus) 1249 obelized: ‘perhaps corrupt’ 1276–82
retained: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 1276 †ὤ ξέναι†: not obelized 1320–2
†ἅδ’ Αὐλὶς ... πομπαίαν†: 1321–2 †εἰς Τροίαν ... πομπαίαν† 1346 L
1416 λέγω τάδ’ <οὐδὲν οὐδέν’ εὐλαβουμένη> Tr3 in L: †λέγω τάδε < ...
>† 1424 γὰρ Hermann 1425 del. Hermann: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 1430–
2 del. Monk: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 1437 Elmsley 1458 P2 1510–31
del. Kirchhoff: ‘scarcely Euripidean’ 1514–18 obelized: only 1516–18
obelized 1516 Markland 1532–1629 del. Porson: 1532–77 ‘scarcely
Euripidean’ and 1578–1629 del. (Porson) West
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

We do not reprint in this volume (for reasons of space) the General

Bibliography for the Series, which was last revised and printed
in Electra (M. J. Cropp, 2nd edn 2013, pp. 263–73); but we have
included under Secondary Works below a few items from it to which
we make reference in our Introduction and Commentary. For general
purposes we recommend English and American readers in particular
to use Michelakis (2006) and Roisman (2014) in the subsidiary section
‘Bibliography’ below.

Editions and Commentaries

mentioned in the critical apparatus and commentary (of Euripides’
complete plays; editions of the individual play are asterisked)
T = Text, Tr = Translation, C = Commentary, N = Notes
Aldus Manutius (publisher: the ‘Aldine’ edition), Venice 1503 (T)
editio Hervagiana, Basel 15442 (T)
editio Brubachiana, Frankfurt 1558 (T)
W. Canter, Antwerp 1571 (TN)
editio Commeliniana, Heidelberg 1597 (TN)
J. Barnes, Cambridge 1694 (TTrC)
*J. Markland, London 17711, 17832, repr. edn T. Gaisford, Oxford
1811 and Leipzig 1822 (TC): the 1822 edn contains reprinted
reviews by C. J. Blomfield (1814) and P. Elmsley (1811–1812)
S. Musgrave, Oxford 1778 (TTrC)
A. Matthiae, Leipzig 1813–1836 (TC)
L. Dindorf, Leipzig 1825 (T)
F. H. Bothe, Leipzig 1825–1826 (TN), preceded by TrN (Berlin and
Stettin 1800–18031 and Mannheim 1823–18242): see Diggle,
Euripidea (1994) 518
*G. Hermann, Leipzig 1831 (TC)
W. Dindorf, Leipzig 18321, Oxford 18695 (TN)
*J. A. Hartung, Erlangen 1837, repr. Leipzig 1844 (TC)
*J. H. Monk, Cambridge 18401, 18572 (TC)
64 Bibliography

*C. G. Firnhaber, Leipzig 1841 (TC)

A. Nauck, Leipzig 18541, 18713 (T); see Nauck (4) in Secondary
Works below
A. Kirchhoff, Berlin 18551, 18672 (T)
F. A. Paley, London 1857–18601, 18802 (vol. 3) (TC)
H. Weil, Paris 18681, 18993 (TC)
R. Prinz and N. Wecklein, Leipzig 1878–1902 (IA 1899) (T)
*C. E. S. Headlam, Cambridge 1889 (TC)
*E. B. England, London 1891 (TC)
G. Murray, Oxford 1902–19091, 19132 (vol. 3) (T)
*N. Wecklein, Berlin 1914 (TC)
D. L. Page, Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1934):
pp. 122–216 include a ‘Commentary’ on the text of IA (C)
*F. Jouan, Paris 1983 (vol. 7 of the ‘Budé’ edition) (TTrN)
*H.-C. Günther, Leipzig 1988 (T); see also Secondary Works below
*W. Stockert, Vienna 1992 (TC); see also Secondary Works below
J. Diggle, Oxford 1981–1994 (IA in tom. 3) (T); see also Secondary
Works below
K. Matthiessen (1999) (N, but in effect a mini-edition); see also
Secondary Works below
*F. Turato, Venice 2001 (T reprinted from Jouan 1983; TrC)
D. Kovacs, Cambridge MA and London 1994–2002 (‘Loeb’ edn; IA
in vol. 6) (TTrN); see also Secondary Works below
Reference to all the works above is by author’s name; in a few places
a year-number and/or a page-number are also given.

Some English Translations

C. R. Walker, Iphigenia in Aulis (with an introduction), in D. Grene,
R. Lattimore (eds), The Complete Greek Tragedies, Euripides vol.
4 (Chicago 1958) (much reprinted).
K. Cavander, Iphigenia at Aulis by Euripides. A translation with
commentary (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1973).
W. S. Merwin, G. E. Dimock Jr, Euripides. Iphigenia at Aulis. With an
introduction (Oxford and New York 1978). Also in P. Burian and A.
Shapiro (eds), The Complete Euripides. Volume II (Oxford 2010).
 Bibliography 65

E. Terranova, in D. R. Slavitt and P. Bovie (eds), Euripides vol. 3

(Philadelphia 1998).
J. Morwood, in Euripides, Bacchae and Other Plays. With explanatory
notes, and an introduction by E. Hall (Oxford 1999).
D. Kovacs (2002): see Editions and Commentaries above.
J. Davie, in Euripides. The Bacchae and Other Plays. With an
introduction and notes by R. Rutherford (London 2005).

Bibliographical Guidance
Older works (until 1940) in W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen
Literatur III.1 (München 1940) 631–56; (until 1970) in Lesky (1983)
354; (until 1990) in Stockert (1992) I. xi–xxi. Then:
M. Hose, ‘Euripides, Iphigenie in Aulis, 1970–2000’, in Lustrum
47 (2005: ed. M. Hose), 651–80, 725–6, with evaluative summaries.
The volume has only bibliographies for the individual plays, but a
further issue of Lustrum has been promised, dealing with general
works upon Euripides.
For works since 2000 see L’Année Philologique.
For text-critical issues and discussions see esp. the listings in
Günther (1988) and Stockert (1992) in Editions and Commentaries
above, and Gurd (2005) in Secondary Works below.
For general monographs on the play see Schreiber (1963), Luschnig
(1988) and Michelakis (2006) in Secondary Works below. Michelakis
145–68 has a comprehensive bibliography to Euripides as well as to
the play since 1960.
The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy, ed. H. Roisman (2014), on
1495–1628 offers a huge general bibliography of references; selective
access to it is through the Index of topics, 1629–1716.

Secondary Works
This list contains all items which are particular to the play and
which we cite, except for some discussions of specific points in the
Commentary, particularly textual problems. It contains too some items
which we have been unable to see first-hand, and some which we do
66 Bibliography

not ourselves cite but hope it may be useful to include, especially

some published since Michelakis (2006).

Aretz, S. 1999. Die Opferung der Iphigeneia in Aulis: die Rezeption

des Mythos in antiken und modernen Dramen (Stuttgart).
Bain, D. 1977a. ‘The Prologues of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’, CQ
27, 10–26.
Bain, D. 1977b. Actors and Audience. A study of asides and related
conventions in Greek tragedy (Oxford).
Barker, E. 2009. Entering the Agon. Dissent and authority in Homer,
historiography and tragedy (Oxford).
Barlow, S. A. 20083. The Imagery of Euripides ( London).
Barner, W. 1971. ‘Die Monodie’, in W. Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der
griechischen Tragödie (Munich) 277–320.
Barrett, J. 2002. Staged Narrative. Poetics and the messenger in
Greek tragedy (Berkeley).
Bers, V. 1997. Speech in Speech. Studies in incorporated Oratio recta
in Attic drama and oratory (Lanham).
Blume, H.-D. 2012. ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis: War and human
sacrifice’, in A. Markantonatos and B. Zimmermann (eds) 181–7.
Bouke van der Meer, L. 1991. ‘Iphigenia Aulidensis on Etruscan urns
from Perugia’, Studi Etrusci 57, 119–36.
Brandt, H. 1973. Die Sklaven in den Rollen von Dienern und Vertrauten
bei Euripides (Hildesheim).
Breitenbach, W. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Sprache der Euripideischen
Lyrik (Stuttgart).
Bremmer, J. N. 2002. ‘Sacrificing a child in ancient Greece: The case of
Iphigenia’ in E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Sacrifice of Isaac:
The Aquedah (Genesis 22) and its interpretations (Leiden) 21–43.
Bremmer, J. N. 2016. ‘Body politics: Imagining human sacrifice
in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’, in K. Bielawski (ed.), Mantic
Perspectives (Krakow) 15–56.
Burgess, D. L. 2004. ‘Lies and convictions at Aulis’, Hermes 132, 37–55.
Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans: The anthropology of ancient Greek
sacrificial ritual and myth (tr. P. Bing) (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London).
 Bibliography 67

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion (tr. J. Raffan) (Cambridge MA).

Burkert, W. 1993. ‘Attische Feste in der Aulischen Iphigenie des
Euripides’, Grazer Beiträge. Supplement 5, 87–92.
Buxton, R. G. A. 1982. Persuasion in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge).
Cairns, D. L. 1993. Aidōs: The psychology and ethics of honour and
shame in Ancient Greek literature (Oxford).
Caspers, C. L. 2012. ‘Diversity and common ground: Euripides’
Iphigenia in Aulis and Bacchae as companion plays’, in D.
Rosenbloom and J. Davidson (eds), Greek Drama IV, Texts,
Contexts, Performance (Oxford 2012), 127–48.
Cerbo, E. 2009. ‘Χαῖρέ μοι, φίλον φάος: il commiato di Ifigenia dalla
scena, Eur. IA 1467–1509’, in C. Braidotti et al. (eds), Οὐ πᾶν
ἐφήμερον: scritti in onore di R. Pretagostini (Rome) I. 93–106.
Cerbo, E. 2010. ‘Parola, metro e scena nelle monodie di Ifigenia
(Eur. IA 1283–1335 e 1475–99)’, in M. S. Celentano et al. (eds),
Ricerche di metrica ... per R. Pretagostini (Alessandria) 1–24.
Cecchi, S. 1960. ‘L’esodo dell’ Ifigenia in Aulide di Euripide’, Riv.
Stud.Class. 8, 69–87.
Collard, C. 2003. ‘Formal debates in Euripides’ drama’, in J. Mossman
(ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Euripides (Oxford)
64–80.
Collard, C., Cropp, M. J., Lee, K. H. 1995. Selected Fragmentary
Plays of Euripides I (Warminster).
Collard, C., Cropp, M. J., Gibert, J. 2004. Selected Fragmentary Plays
of Euripides II (Oxford).
Collard, C. 2005. ‘Colloquial language in tragedy: a supplement to
the work of P. T. Stevens’, CQ 55, 350–86.
Collard, C. 2007. Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans (Exeter).
Collard, C. 2014. ‘Euripides: Transmission of text’, in Roisman
(2014) 471–76.
Collard, C., Cropp, M. J. 2008. Euripides. Fragments. Aegeus–
Meleager (Euripides VII, Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge MA,
London); Fragments. Oedipus–Chrysippus. Other Fragments
(Euripides VIII; Cambridge MA, London).
Comotti, G. 1977. ‘Words, verse and music in Euripides’ Iphigenia in
Aulis’, Mus.Philol.Lond. 2, 69–84.
68 Bibliography

Conacher, D. J. 1967. Euripidean Drama. Myth, theme and structure

(Toronto).
Conacher, D. J. 1998. Euripides and the Sophists (London).
Cousland, J., Hume, J. (2009) (eds), The Play of Texts and Fragments.
Essays ... Cropp (Leiden, Boston).
Csapo, E. and Slater, W. J. 1994. The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann
Arbor).
Csapo, E. 2000. ‘Later Euripidean music’, ICS 24–5, 399–426.
Dale, A. M. 19682. The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (Cambridge).
Dale, A. M. 1971, 1981, 1983. Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses.
1. Dactylo-Epitrite, 2. Aeolo-Choriambic, 3. Dochmiac etc.
(London Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Suppl. 21.1–3).
Index of Choruses in 21.3.
de Jong, I. 1991. Narrative in Drama. The art of the Euripidean
messenger-speech (Leiden).
de Romilly, J. 1994. ‘Agamemnon in doubt and hesitation’, in Language
and the tragic hero. Essays ... Kirkwood (Scholar Press) 25–31.
Dettori, E. 1994. GIF 46, 133–40 (review of Stockert 1992).
Diggle, J. 1981. Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford).
Diggle, J. 1994. Euripidea (Oxford): esp. 48–51 (repr. review from
1971 of Mellert-Hoffmann, below), 407–15 (repr. review of
Günther 1988 above), 490–507 (notes on the play).
Distilo, N. 2013. Il Prologo dell’ ‘Ifigenia in Aulide’ di Euripide:
problemi di attribuzione e tradizione testuale euripidea (Drama
NS 14, Tübingen) (not seen by us).
Dubischar, M. 2001. Die Agonszenen bei Euripides. Untersuchungen
zu ausgewählten Dramen (Stuttgart 2001).
Easterling, P. E. 1985. ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’, JHS 105, 1–10.
Easterling, P. E. (ed.). 1997. Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy
(Cambridge).
Easterling, P. E. and Hall, E. (eds). 2002. Greek and Roman Actors:
aspects of an ancient profession (Cambridge).
Egli, F. 2002. Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössicher intellektueller
Strömungen (Munich).
Erbse, H. 1984. Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie
(Berlin and New York).
 Bibliography 69

Ferguson, J. 1968. ‘Iphigenia at Aulis’, TAPA 99, 157–68.

Ferrari, F. 1984. ‘P. Leid. inv. 510 e il testo di Euripide, Ifigenia in
Aulide 783–92’, CCC 5, 19–22.
Ferrari, R. 1990. ‘Osservazioni sulla parodo dell’ Ifigenia in Aulide di
Euripide’, Eikasmos 1, 101–9.
Foley, H. 1985. Ritual Irony. Poetry and sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca).
Fraenkel, E. 1955. ‘Ein Motiv aus Euripides in einer Szene der Neuen
Komödie’, in Studi ... U. E. Paoli (Florence) 293–304 (= E.F.,
Kleine Beiträge, Rome 1964 I.487–502).
Friedrich, W. H. 1935. ‘Zur aulischen Iphigenie’, Hermes 70, 73–100.
Fries, A. 2014. Pseudo-Euripides. Rhesus (Berlin).
Funke, H. 1964. ‘Aristoteles zu Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Aulis’,
Hermes 92, 284–99.
Gibert, J. 1995. Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy (Hypomnemata
108, Göttingen), esp. 202–54.
Gibert, J. 2005. ‘Clytemnestra’s first marriage: Euripides’ Iphigenia
in Aulis’, in V. Pedrick and S. M. Oberhelman (eds), The Soul of
Tragedy. Essays on Athenian Drama (Chicago) 227–48.
Goldhill, S., and Osborne, R. (eds) 1999. Performance Culture and
Athenian Democracy (Cambridge).
Goldhill, S. 2007. How to Stage Greek Tragedy Today (Chicago).
Gould, J. 2001. Myth, Ritual Memory and Exchange. Essays in Greek
literature and culture (Oxford).
Gregory, J. (ed.). 2005. A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Oxford).
Griffin, J. 1990. ‘Characterization in Euripides: Hippolytus and
Iphigenia in Aulis’, in C. B. R. Pelling (ed.), Characterization and
Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford) 128–49, esp. 140–7.
Günther, H.-C. 1986. ‘Zu dem Kölner Euripidespapyrus P. Köln II
67’, ZPE 63, 4–6.
Günther, H.-C. 1987. ‘Textprobleme im Prolog der Aulischen
Iphigenie des Euripides’, WJB 13, 59–74.
Günther, H.-C. 1992. ‘Further problems in the Iphigeneia in Aulis’,
Eikasmos 3, 123–36.
Gurd, S. A. 1989. Iphigenias at Aulis: Textual multiplicity, radical
philology (Ithaca) 2005.
Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford).
70 Bibliography

Hall, E. and Macintosh, F. 2005. Greek Tragedy and the British

Theatre 1660–1914 (Oxford).
Hall, E. 2007. The Theatrical Cast of Athens: Interactions between
Ancient Greek Drama and Society (Oxford).
Hall, E. 2010. Greek Tragedy. Suffering under the Sun (Oxford).
Halleran, M. R. 1985. Stagecraft in Euripides (London).
Harder, M. A. 1986. ‘Iphigeneia: naïef, narcotisch of normal?’,
Lampas 19, 21–33.
Hartigan, K. V. 1991. Ambiguity and Self-Deception. The Apollo and
Artemis plays of Euripides (Frankfurt): esp. 157–82.
Hennig, H. 1870. De Iphigeniae Aulidensis forma ac condicione (Berlin).
Hennig, H. 1872. ‘Zu Euripides Iphigenie in Aulis’, JbClassPhil 105
(1872) 369–90.
Hermann, G. 1847–8. ‘De interpolationibus Euripideae Iphigeniae in
Aulide dissertatio’, repr. in G.H., Opuscula academica VIII (Leipzig
1877), 218–42.
Hose, M. 1990–1. Studien zum Chor bei Euripides (2 vols, Stuttgart).
Hose, M. 1995. Drama und Gesellschaft. Studien zur dramatischen
Produktion in Athen am Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts. Drama Beiheft
3 (Stuttgart): esp. 154–61.
Hose, M. 2008. Euripides der Dichter der Leidenschaften (München),
esp. 219–32.
Hose, M. 2009. Euripides als Anthropologe (Bayer. Akad. Phil.-hist.
Kl. Sitzb. 2009.2): esp. 60–71.
Huys, M. 1986. ‘Euripide, Iphigénie à Aulis, v. 1284–91 et la montagne
où l’enfant exposé devrait périr’, LEC 54 (1986) 135–46.
Irigoin, J. 1988. ‘Le prologue et la parodos d’ Iphigénie à Aulis’, REG
101, 240–52.
Jackson, J. 1955. Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford).
Jens, W. (ed.) 1971. Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie (Munich).
Jocelyn, H. D. 1969. The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge).
Jouan, F. 1983. ‘Iphigénie à Aulis, v. 1–11’, REG 96, 49–63.
Jouan, F. 1988. ‘Sur le stasimon des Noces de Thétis et Pélée (Euripide,
Iphigénie à Aulis, 1036–97’, Mélanges ... Tuilier (Paris) 19–28.
Jouanna, J. 1988. ‘Euripide, Iphigénie à Aulis v. 694 ... et v. 421 etc.’,
REG 101, 515–25.
 Bibliography 71

Knox, B. 1972. ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis 1–163 (in that order)’, YCS
22, 239–261 (= B.K., Word and Action, Baltimore 1979, 275–94).
Kranz, W. 1933. Stasimon (Berlin).
Kovacs, D. 2003. ‘Towards a reconstruction of “Iphigenia Auli-
densis” ’, JHS 123, 77–103.
Kovacs, G. A. 2010. Iphigenia at Aulis: Myth, performance and
reception (PhD thesis University of Toronto): http://www.
collectionscanada.qc.ca/obj.thesescanada/vol2/003/NR97110.pdf.
Kyriakou, P. 2008. ‘Female kleos in Euripides and his predecessors’,
in G. Avezzù (ed.), Didakasliai II (Verona) 241–92, esp. 247–55.
Lauriola, R. and Demetriou, K. N. (eds). 2015. Brill’s Companion to
the Reception of Euripides (Leiden, New York).
Lawrence, S. E. 1988. ‘Iphigenia in Aulis: characterization and
psychology in Euripides’, Ramus 17, 91–109.
Lawrence, S. E. 1989. ‘Psychology in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’,
Prudentia 21.1, 4–13.
Lesky, A. 1983. Greek Tragic Poetry, trans. M. Dillon (London):
from the German edition Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen,
Göttingen 19723.
Lloyd, M. 1992. The Agon in Euripides (Oxford).
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1983. ‘Artemis and Iphigeneia’, JHS 103, 87–102:
repr. in his Academic Papers II (1990) 306–30.
Loraux, N. 1987. Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman (Cambridge MA);
first French edn Paris 1985.
Löwy, E. 1929. ‘Der Schluss der Iphigenie in Aulis’, Jb.Öst.Arch.Inst.
24. 1–41.
Luschnig, C. A. E. 1988. Tragic Aporia: A study of Euripides’
Iphigenia in Aulis (Berwick, Victoria).
Luschnig, C. A. E. 2014. ‘Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis’, in Roisman,
EGT 428–35.
Lush, B. 2015. ‘Popular authority in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’,
AJPh 136, 207–42.
McDonald, M. 1990. ‘Iphigenia’s Philia: Motivation in Euripides’
Iphigenia at Aulis’, QUCC 34.1, 69–84.
Markantonatos, A. 2012. ‘Leadership in action: wise policy and firm
resolve in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’, in A. Markantonatos and
72 Bibliography

B. Zimmermann (eds), Crisis on Stage. Tragedy and Comedy in

late fifth-century Athens (Berlin) 189–218.
Mastronarde, D. J. 1979. Contact and Discontinuity. Some Conventions
of Speech and Action on the Greek Stage (University of California
Publications. Classical Studies Volume 21).
Mastronarde, D. J. 1999. ‘Knowledge and authority in the choral
voice of Euripidean Tragedy’, Syllecta Classica 10, 87–104.
Mastronarde, D. J. 2010. The Art of Euripides: Dramatic technique
and social context (Cambridge).
Matthiessen, K. Gnomon 71 (1999) 395–402 (a review of Günther
(1988), Stockert (1992) and Diggle OCT; in effect a dense text-
critical commentary).
Matthiessen, K. 2002. Die Tragödien des Euripides (Munich).
Mellert-Hofmann, G. 1969. Untersuchungen zur ‘Iphigenie in Aulis’
des Euripides (Heidelberg).
Michelakis, P. 2002. Achilles in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge), esp.
84–143.
Michelakis, P. 2006. Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis (London).
Michelakis, P. 2006a. ‘Reception, performance, and the sacrifice of
Iphigenia’, in C. Martindale and R. Thomas (eds), Classics and the
Uses of Reception (Oxford) 216–26
Michelini, A. N. 1987. Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Michigan).
Michelini, A. N. 1999–2000. ‘The expansion of myth in late Euripides:
Iphigeneia at Aulis’, ICS 24–25, 41–59.
Mikalson, J. D. 1991. Honor Thy Gods: Popular religion in Greek
tragedy (Chapel Hill).
Mirto, M. S. 2015. ‘Vittima sacrificiale o “distruttice di città”? La
costruzione del personaggio nell’ Ifigenia in Aulide’, Dioniso NS
5 (2015) 51–72.
Mitchell, L. 2007. Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and
Classical Greece (Swansea).
Mizen, G. 1980. ‘The Iphigeneia at Aulis: the prologue anapaests’,
ICS 5, 15–43.
Moorhouse, A. C. 1982. The Syntax of Sophocles (Leiden, New York).
Morwood, J. 2001. ‘A note on the Euripus in Euripides’ Iphigenia at
Aulis’, CQ 51, 607–8.
 Bibliography 73

Morwood, J. 2015 ‘Negative capability: shifts and ambivalences in

Iphigenia at Aulis’, Dioniso NS 5, 73–87.
Morwood, J. 20162. The Plays of Euripides (London): IA on 115–20.
Nauck (4) = J. Druzinina (ed.), ‘A. Naucks Nachgelesene Marginalien
zu Euripides (nach der Vorlage V. K. Jernstedts)’, Hyperboreus 5
(1990) 238–55 (text-critical notes towards a projected 4th edn of
Nauck’s Euripides; IA on 249).
Nehendam. K. 1989. ‘A fresco showing a Hellenistic performance of
Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici
16, 53l–9.
Neitzel, H. 1980. ‘Iphigeniens Opfertod. Betrachtungen zur ‘Iphigenie
in Aulis’ des Euripides’, WJB 6a, 61–70.
Neitzel, H. 1987. ‘Prolog und Spiel in der euripideischen Iphigenie in
Aulis’, Philologus 131, 185–223.
Panagl, O. 1971. Die ‘dithyrambischen Stasima’ des Euripides
(Vienna) 194–222.
Parker, L. P. E. 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford).
Parker, L. P. E. 2016. Euripides. Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford).
Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: Pollution and purification in early Greek
religion (Oxford).
Parker, R. 2011. On Greek Religion (Cornell).
Pelling, C. 1997. Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford).
Pellizzari, D. 2012. ‘I due Agamennone dell’ Ifigenia in Aulide’,
Dioniso NS 2, 125–47 (not seen by us).
Pellizzari, D. 2015 ‘L’Ifigenia in Aulide sul grande schermo’, Dioniso
NS 5, 89–107.
Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens.
2nd edn revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis, reissued with
supplement and corrections (Oxford).
Pietruczuk, K. 2012. ‘The Prologue of Iphigeneia Aulidensis
reconsidered’, Mnem 65, 565–83.
Pötscher, W. 1992. ‘Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Euripides,
Iphigenia in Aulis’, Philologus 136, 5–13.
Prauscello, L. 2003. ‘La testimonianza di P. Leid. Inv. 510 (Eur. IA
1500?–1509, 784–93?) fra prassi esecutiva e trasmissione testuale’,
ZPE 144, 1–14.
74 Bibliography

Rabinowitz, N. S. 1983. ‘The strategy of inconsistency in Euripides’

Iphigenia at Aulis’, Classical Bulletin 59, 21–6.
Rauchenstein, R. 1871. ‘Des Euripides Iphigeneia in Aulis’,
JbClassPhil 103, 152–71
Rehm, R. 1994. Marriage to Death. The conflation of wedding and
funeral rituals in Greek tragedy (Princeton).
Renehan, R. 1998. ‘The Euripidean Studies of James Diggle’, CPh 93,
161–91 and 249–70 (review of Diggle 1981–1994; IA on 264–66).
Ritchie, W. 1978. ‘Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis 919–74’, in
Dionysiaca. Studies ... Sir Denys Page (Cambridge) 179–203.
Ritchie, W. (abbreviated as ‘Ritchie’): papers and notes preparatory
to an edition and commentary on the play, held in the Classics
Department of the University of Sydney: see our Preface II.
Roisman. H. (ed.) 2014. The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy (Malden
MA, Oxford).
Rutherford, R. 2007. ‘ “Why should I mention Io?” Aspects of choral
narrative in Greek Tragedy’, CCJ 53, 1–39.
Rutherford, R. 2012. Greek Tragic Style: Form, language and
interpretation (Cambridge).
Said, S. 1989–1990. ‘Iphigénie à Aulis: une pièce panhellénique?’,
SEJG 31, 359–78.
Sansone, D. 1991. ‘Iphigeneia Changes her Mind’, ICS 16, 161–72.
Savignagno, L. 2008. ‘La chiusa della parodo dell’ Ifigenia in Aulide
in P. Köln 67’, Incontri triestini di filologia classica 7, 37–51 (not
seen by us).
Schmidt, J. 1999. ‘Iphigenie in Aulis – Spiegel einer zerbrechenden
Welt und Grenzpunkt der Dichtung?’, Philologus 143, 211–248.
Schreiber, H. M. 1963. Iphigenies Opfertod (Frankfurt).
Schwinge, E. R. 1968. Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den
Dramen des Euripides (Heidelberg).
Siegel, H. 1980. ‘Self-delusion and the volte-face of Iphigenia in
Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’, Hermes 108, 300–21.
Siegel, H. 1981. ‘Agamemnon in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’,
Hermes 109, 257–65.
Silva, M. de F. S. 2007. ‘ “Philia” e “kléos” em Ifigenia em Áulide’,
Euphrosyne 35, 13–26 (not seen by us).
 Bibliography 75

Smith, W. D. 1979. ‘Iphigenia in love’, in Arktouros: Hellenic Studies

Presented to B. M. W. Knox on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday,
G. W. Bowerstock et al. (eds) (Berlin and New York).
Snell, B. 1928. ‘Euripides’ Aulische Iphigenie’, in B. S., Aischylos
and das Handeln im Drama, Philologus. Supplement 20.1. 148–60
(repr. E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, Oxford
1983, 396–405).
Sommerstein, A. 2010. The Tangled Ways of Zeus (Oxford).
Sorum, C. E. 1992. ‘Myth, choice, and meaning in Euripides’ Iphigenia
at Aulis’, AJPh 113, 527–42.
Stanford, W. B. 1983. Greek Tragedy and the Emotions (London).
Stevens, P. T. 1976. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. Hermes
Einzelschriften 38 (Wiesbaden).
Stieber, M. C. 2009. Euripides and the Language of Craft (Leiden).
Stinton, T. C. W. 1965. Euripides and the Judgement of Paris
(London, illus.) (repr. in T.C.W.S., Collected Papers on Greek
Tragedy, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones (Oxford 1990) 17–75); cited from
the 1965 edn.
Stinton, T. C. W. 1990: see above.
Stockert, W. 1982a. ‘Zum Schlussteil der Parodos der Euripideischen
Iphigenie in Aulis (v. 277ff.)’, Prometheus 8, 21–30.
Stockert, W. 1982b. ‘Eine Komödieszene in Euripides’ Aulischer
Iphigenie’, WS 16, 71–8.
Stockert, W. 1984–1985. ‘Zu Klytaimestras Dankesrede an Achill
(Euripides Iph. Aul. 977ff.)’, in Studi in onore di ... A. Barigazzi,
Sileno 10–11, 227–35.
Stockert, W. 1994/95. ‘ἀνώμαλα οὐκ ἀεὶ χείρονα (Zu Iph. Aul. 1375f.,
Vesp. 486 und Ant. 577)’, WS 107/108, 221–4.
Strohm, H. 1957. Euripides. Interpretationen zur dramatischen Form
(Mainz).
Synodinou, K. 2013. ‘Agamemnon’s change of mind in Euripides’
Iphigenia at Aulis’, Logeion 3, 51–65.
Taplin, O. P. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The dramatic use of
exits and entrances in Greek tragedy (Oxford).
Taplin, O. P. 1993. Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek
Drama through Vase-Paintings (Oxford).
76 Bibliography

Taplin, O. P. 2007. Pots and Plays. Interactions between tragedy and

Greek vase-painting of the fourth century BC. (Malibu).
Torrance, I. 2013. Metapoetry in Euripides (Oxford).
Vitelli, G. 1877. Intorno al alcuni luoghi della Ifigenia in Aulide di
Euripide (Florence).
Vretska, H. 1961. ‘Agamemnon in Euripides’ Iphigenie in Aulis’, WS
74, 18–39.
Walsh, G. W. 1974. ‘Iphigenia in Aulis’ third stasimon’, CPh 69, 241–8.
Wassermann, F. M. 1949. ‘Agamemnon in the Iphigeneia at Aulis: a
man in an age of crisis’, TAPA 80, 174–86.
Webster, T. B. L. 1967. The Tragedies of Euripides (London).
Weiss, N. 2014. ‘The antiphonal ending of Euripides’ Iphigenia in
Aulis (1475–1532)’, CPh 109, 119–29.
West, M. L. 1981. ‘Tragica V’, BICS 28, 71–8, including ‘The end of
Iphigenia in Aulis’ 73–8 = M. L. W., Hellenica, Volume II: Lyric
and Drama (Oxford 2013) 318–25.
West, M. L. 1982. Greek Metre (Oxford).
West, M. L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music (Oxford).
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1921. Griechische Verskunst (Berlin).
Wiles, D. 1997. Tragedy in Athens. Performance space and theatrical
meaning (Cambridge).
Willink, C. W. 1971. ‘The Prologue of Iphigenia at Aulis’, CQ 21,
343–64.
Willink, C. W. 2002. Conjectures published in Kovacs (2002).
Wright, M. 2005. Euripides’ Escape-tragedies (Oxford).
Zeitlin, F. 1994. ‘The artful eye: vision, ecphrasis, and spectacle in
Euripidean theatre’, in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds), Art and
Text in Ancient Greek Culture (Cambridge) 138–96.
Zeitlin, F. 1995. ‘Art, memory, and Kleos in Euripides’ Iphigenia in
Aulis’, in B. Goff (ed.) History, Tragedy, Theory: Dialogues on
Athenian drama (Austin, Texas) 174–201.
Zuntz, G. 1965. An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of
Euripides (Cambridge).
 ABBREVIATIONS

Reference-works
DK H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin
19526)
DELG P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue
Grecque. Histoire des Mots (Paris 1968; avec un Supplément
1999)
EGT H. M. Roisman (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy
(Malden MA and Oxford, 2014)
Gantz T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth. A guide to literary and artistic
sources (Baltimore 1993)
GP J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn by K. J. Dover
(Oxford 1954)
KG R. Kühner, B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der
griechischen Sprache. Satzlehre (Hannover 18973)
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zürich
and München 1981–2009)
LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon.
With a revised supplement (Oxford 1996)
OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary, eds S. Hornblower and A.
Spawforth, 3rd edn (Oxford 2003), 4th edn (Oxford 2012)
PCG R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin and
New York, 1983–)
PMG D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962)
Smyth H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G. M. Messing (Harvard
1956)
TrGF B. Snell, R. Kannicht, S. L. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta (Göttingen 1981–2004, in 5 volumes; vol. 1
19811, 19862)
Periodicals are abbreviated in accordance with L’ Année Philologique,
and ancient authors and works for the most part in accordance
with LSJ, but note A/Aesch(ylus), S/Soph(ocles), E/Eur(ipides),
78 Abbreviations

Ar(istophanes). We do not attribute the Prometheus Vinctus to

Aeschylus or the Rhesus to Euripides and cite them simply as PV
and Rhesus. Fragmentary plays of Euripides are given their full title
followed by a fragment-number (‘F’) and line-number; those of
Aeschylus and Sophocles are cited mostly without title, and by ‘F’
and line-number; all Tragic fragments unattributed to any play, or to
any poet (adespota, ‘ownerless’) are cited by ‘F’ and line-number. All
fragment-numbers are those of TrGF.
After their first appearance in the Translation and Commentary
the dramatis personae are usually abbreviated, to (Ag)amemnon,
O(ld)M(an), Cho(rus), Men(elaus), M(essenger), Clyt(emnestra),
Iph(igenia), Ach(illes).
Abbreviations of grammatical terms are those in common English
use, but note part(iciple), pers(on/onal), subj(unctive); ‘subject’ and
‘object’ are not abbreviated.
 NOTE ON THE GREEK TEXT
AND CRITICAL APPARATUS

The apparatus omits many minor details, generally straightforward

corrections of orthographic errors in the manuscript tradition,
supply or deletion of ‘movable’ nu, and other small and long-
accepted editorial corrections. Not all manuscript readings or editors’
interventions and conjectures recorded in the apparatus are discussed
in the commentary, especially when the latter are undisputed elements
of the ‘received’ text; they are included simply for information.

Abbreviations used in the Apparatus

L = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana 32.2 (about 1310 AD)
Lcorr = L’s reading after correction by the orginal scribe
L* = L’s reading before its original correction; (L*) such a
reading when inferred from ms. P
Trl, Tr2, Tr3 = Demetrius Triclinius, corrector of ms. L; Trl = his
corrections against L’s exemplar; Tr2 and Tr3 = his two
subsequent revisions of L, chiefly his own conjectures and
notes; bare Tr = Triclinius when distinction between his first
and a later hand is uncertain
P = Rome, Vatican Library Palatinus Graecus 287 (about 1315
AD); a copy of L made after its corrections by Trl but before
its revisions by Tr2 and 3
P2 a correcting hand in P, working in Italy in the later 15th
century
apogr. Par. = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale grec 2817 and 2887
(both about 1500 AD): copies of L made after its revisions
by Triclinius, with occasional corrections and (apparently)
independent conjectures
80 Notes

P. Leid. = P. Leiden inv. 510 (3rd century BC); contains vv. 1500–
1509, 784–92, all damaged; re-edited by E. Pöhlmann and
M. L. West, Documents of Ancient Greek Music (Oxford
2001) 18–21; L. Prauscello, ZPE 144 (2003) 1–14
P. Köln = Kölner Papyri II 67 (2nd century BC); contains vv. 301–9,
390–2, 569–83, 796–806, 819–20, all damaged or defective;
re-edited by H.-C. Günther, ZPE 63 (1986) 4–6.
P. Oxy. = Oxyrhynchus Papyri 3719 (3rd century AD), damaged;
contains 913–16
Aldine = Editio Aldina (the ‘Aldine Edition’, published by Aldus
Manutius, Venice 1503): the first printed edition of all
Euripides’ plays (but omitting Electra), based it appears on
a now lost copy of L. The editor(s) made a small number of
minor corrections and conjectures.
* each asterisk indicates a letter erased in a manuscript, and
usually then overwritten, the original being now illegible
† ... † ‘daggers’ (obeli) enclose a word or words deemed incurably
corrupt
[ ... ] letter(s), word(s), line(s) deleted by editors
< ... > letter(s) or word(s) added, or lacunae identified, by scribes
or scholars
add(ed), beg(inning(s)), conj(ectured), corr(ected),
def(ended), del(eted), om(itted), punct(uated), susp(ected)
A colon separates details of individual readings or conjectures (letter,
word, phrase, clause, line) in the numbered Greek line(s); a semi-
colon separates such information from that relating to another place in
the same line(s). When a correction or conjecture is followed by two
scholars’ names, it appears to have been their independent suggestion.
ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ

IPHIGENIA AT AULIS
82 Euripides

The Play’s First Performance

οὕτω γὰρ καὶ αἱ Διδασκαλίαι φέρουσι, τελευτήσαντος Εὐριπίδου
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δεδιδαχέναι ὁμώνυμον ἐν ἄστει ᾿Ιφιγένειαν τὴν ἐν
᾿Αυλίδι, ᾿Αλκμαιῶνα, Βάκχας.
Scholia on Ar. Frogs 67 = TrGF vol. 1 DID C 22 = TrGF vol. 5 Eur.
Alcmeon in Corinth test. 1a
νίκας ... ἀνείλετο ε΄, τὰς μὲν δ΄ περιών, τὴν δὲ μίαν μετὰ τὴν
τελευτήν, ἐπιδειξαμένου τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦ ἀδελφιδιοῦ αὐτοῦ
Εὐριπίδου.
Suda ε 3695 = TrGF vol. 5 Euripides T 3.5

τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα

᾿Αγαμέμνων, πρεσβύτης, χορός, Μενέλαος, <ἄγγελος>, Κλυταιμήστρα,
᾿Ιφιγένεια, ᾿Αχιλλεύς, [θεράπων], <ἕτερος> ἄγγελος

τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα: <ἄγγελος> Markland; θεράπων del. Markland;

<ἕτερος> Markland
 Iphigenia at Aulis 83

The Play’s First Performance

The Production Records also attest this, that after Euripides had
died his son of the same name produced in the city Iphigenia at
Aulis, Alcmeon, Bacchae.
Scholia on Ar. Frogs 67 = TrGF vol. 1 DID C 22 = TrGF vol. 5 Euripides,
Alcmeon in Corinth test. 1a, where TrGF cites Suda ε 3695 = vol. 5
Euripides T 3.5: ‘He won five victories, four in his life-time, and one after
his death, when his nephew, himself named Euripides, was the producer.’

Characters
AGAMEMNON, king of Mycenae/Argos and commander of the Greek
expedition against Troy, which is at Aulis but prevented from sailing
OLD MAN, the slave of Agamemnon and his wife Clytemnestra
MENELAUS, king of Sparta and brother of Agamemnon
MESSENGER from the retinue of Clytemnestra
CLYTEMNESTRA, wife of Agamemnon
IPHIGENIA, daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra
ORESTES, infant son of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra (mute)
ACHILLES, a Greek warrior, leader of the Myrmidons
[MESSENGER from the Greek army to Clytemnestra]
CHORUS of young married women from Chalcis, a city on the island of
Euboea across the strait of Euripus and opposite Aulis
ATTENDANTS of Clytemnestra and SOLDIERS of Achilles, all played
by mutes
84 Euripides

ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ
Ὦ πρέσβυ, δόμων τῶνδε πάροιθεν
στεῖχε.
ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΗΣ
στείχω. τί δὲ καινουργεῖς,
Ἀγάμεμνον ἄναξ; Αγ. σπεῦδε. Πρ. σπεύδω.
μάλα τοι γῆρας τοὐμὸν ἄυπνον
κἄτ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς τοὐξὺ πάρεστιν. 5
Αγ. τίς ποτ’ ἄρ’ ἀστὴρ ὅδε πορθμεύει
σείριος ἐγγὺς τῆς ἑπταπόρου
Πλειάδος ᾄσσων ἔτι μεσσήρης;
οὔκουν φθόγγος γ’ οὔτ’ ὀρνίθων
οὔτε θαλάσσης· σιγαὶ δ’ἀνέμων 10
τόνδε κατ’ Εὔριπον ἔχουσιν.
Πρ. τί δὲ σὺ σκηνῆς ἐκτὸς ἀΐσσεις,
Ἀγάμεμνον ἄναξ;
ἔτι δ’ ἡσυχία τήνδε κατ’ Αὖλιν
κἀκίνητοι φυλακαὶ τειχέων. 15

1–163 integrity and authenticity impugned (see below), but defended esp. by
Mellert-Hofmann (1969), Knox (1972), Jouan (1983), Erbse (1984), Matthiessen
(1999), Turato (2001), and 49–96, 1–48, 97–115, 116–63 in that order by Willink
(1971); strongly doubted esp. by Diggle (1994) 48–50 and in OCT, Bain (1977a);
less strongly by Günther (1988). The anapaestic 1–48 were condemned first by
Blomfield (1814) and 115–63 by Bremi (1819), and both esp. by Murray (1909),
Page (1934). In the iambic 49–114 49–109 were condemned first by W. Dindorf
(1830), 110–14 by Hartung (1837); defended as a whole esp. by Murray, Page,
Fraenkel (1955), and 49–105 by Kovacs (2003). Partial suspicions or deletions
by these and others scholars are noted in their place. See the fuller discussion in
the Commentary 1–163 n. 2.1–3.
1 δόμων τῶνδε: Tr1: τῶνδε δόμων L
3 σπεῦδε Porson: πεύσει L πεύσῃ Tr1: σπεύσεις; (i.e. a question) Dobree
4 τοι Livineius, Barnes: τὸ (L*?), P, Tr3: del. Trl; γῆρας in erasure Tr
4–5 4 τό (del. Tr1) and 5 del. (Bothe) Günther
5 κἄτ’ (i.e. καὶ ἔτ’) ... τοὐξὺ Wecklein: καὶ ἐπ’ ... ὀξὺ L
6–11 Αγ. Bremi, citing Theon (below): 6 Αγ., 7–8 Πρ., 9–11 Αγ. L
6–7 τί ποτ’ ... | σείριος; Theon of Smyrna, On Stars p. 147 ed. Hiller
14 τήνδε Blomfield, Kassel: τῆδε (i.e. τῇδε) L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 85

The action is set before Agamemnon’s hut at Aulis. Stage-right is the

road to the rest of Greece, stage-left the way to the body of the Greek
army and its ships.
It is towards the end of night. Enter AGAMEMNON, holding a
lantern and a writing tablet, and then the OLD MAN. Both chant their
lines.
AGAMEMNON Old man, come here, in front of the hut!
OLD MAN I’m coming! But what strange activity is this, lord
Agamemnon?
Ag. Hurry!
OM I’m hurrying! My old age is very wakeful, and my eyes remain
keen-sighted. (5)
Ag. Whatever is this star that passes with blazing light, still gliding in
mid-heaven near the Pleiades on their seven paths? At all events
there is no voice from birds or sea. Silence from the winds (10)
holds the strait of Euripus.
OM Why are you pacing quickly about outside your hut, lord
Agamemnon? Still there is silence over Aulis here, and the
guards on the walls do not stir. (15) Let us go inside.
86 Euripides

στείχωμεν ἔσω. Αγ. ζηλῶ σέ, γέρον,

ζηλῶ δ’ ἀνδρῶν ὃς ἀκίνδυνον
βίον ἐξεπέρασ’ ἀγνὼς ἀκλεής·
τοὺς δ’ ἐν τιμαῖς ἧσσον ζηλῶ.
Πρ. καὶ μὴν τὸ καλόν γ’ ἐνταῦθα βίου. 20
Αγ. τοῦτο δέ γ’ ἐστὶν τὸ καλὸν σφαλερόν,
καὶ τὸ πρότιμον
γλυκὺ μέν, λυπεῖ δὲ προσιστάμενον.
τοτὲ μὲν τὰ θεῶν οὐκ ὀρθωθέντ’
ἀνέτρεψε βίον, τοτὲ δ’ ἀνθρώπων 25
γνῶμαι πολλαὶ
καὶ δυσάρεστοι διέκναισαν.
Πρ. οὐκ ἄγαμαι ταῦτ’ ἀνδρὸς ἀριστέως.
οὐκ ἐπὶ πᾶσίν σ’ ἐφύτευσ’ ἀγαθοῖς,
Ἀγάμεμνον, Ἀτρεύς. δεῖ δέ σε χαίρειν 30
καὶ λυπεῖσθαι· θνητὸς γὰρ ἔφυς.
κἂν μὴ σὺ θέλῃς, τὰ θεῶν οὕτω
βουλόμεν’ ἔσται. σὺ δὲ λαμπτῆρος 33–4
φάος ἀμπετάσας δέλτον τε γράφεις 35
τήνδ’ ἣν πρὸ χερῶν ἔτι βαστάζεις,
καὶ ταὐτὰ πάλιν γράμματα συγχεῖς

16b ζηλῶ ... 19 end Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle, Topics 116a13 p. 223 ed.
Wallies, Stobaeus 4.16.4
16 ζηλῶ ... 18 ἀκλεής Plutarch, Moralia 471c 17 δ’ L, Plut., Alex.: σε Stob.
18 ἐξεπέρασ’ ἀγνὼς L, Plut.: ἕξει πέρας ἀγνὼς Alex.: ἐξεπέρασας ἀγνώστως Stob.
19 ζηλῶ L, Alex.: ἐπαινῶ Stob.
22 καὶ τὸ πρότιμον Conington, Nauck: καὶ τὸ φιλότιμον L: καὶ φιλότιμον Markland:
also [καὶ] τό <τε> φιλότιμον Markland; 22 del. Bothe
23 adapted in Machon fr. 4.24 Gow γλυκὺ μὲν προσιστάμενον δὲ λυπεῖ πανταχοῦ
28–33 Stobaeus 4.41.6, with order of lines disturbed
28 Chrysippus, Stoic.Vet.Fragm. II 180.5 ed. von Arnim
29–33 Plutarch, Mor. 103b and 29–31 33e
29 πᾶσίν σ’ Plut. 103b, without σ’ some mss. 33e and Stob.: πᾶσι σ’ L; ἔφυσεν Plut.
33e, some mss. 103b; ἔφυς Stob.
33 βουλομένων ἔσται Plut. 103b: νενόμισται Stob.
 Iphigenia at Aulis 87

Ag. I envy you, old man, I envy any man who passes through life
with no risk, no name, no glory. Those in places of honour, I envy
less.
OM And yet it is they who have success in life. (20)
Ag. But that success is an unsteady thing, and while preferment has
its sweetness, it brings pain to the man it attends. Now the will
of the gods comes right and overturns his life, now it is mankind
(25) whose many counsels arising from discontent crush it.
OM I do not admire this in a great man. It was not so that you should
find success everywhere, Agamemnon, that Atreus fathered you.
(30) You must meet with joy and sorrow, for you are mortal.
Even if you do not wish it, what the gods will, must be. No, you
shed lamp-light around and are writing on this tablet (35) which
you still hold in your hands, and you keep erasing what you
88 Euripides

καὶ σφραγίζεις λύεις τ’ ὀπίσω

ῥίπτεις τε πέδῳ πεύκην, θαλερὸν
κατὰ δάκρυ χέων, κἀκ τῶν ἀπόρων 40–1
οὐδενὸς ἐνδεῖς μὴ οὐ μαίνεσθαι. 41–2
τί πονεῖς; τί νέον παρὰ σοί, βασιλεῦ;
φέρε κοίνωσον μῦθον ἐς ἡμᾶς.
πρὸς <δ’> ἄνδρ’ ἀγαθὸν πιστόν τε φράσεις· 45
σῇ γάρ μ’ ἀλόχῳ ποτὲ Τυνδάρεως
πέμπει φερνὴν
συννυμφοκόμον τε δίκαιον.
Αγ. ἐγένοντο Λήδᾳ Θεστιάδι τρεῖς παρθένοι,
Φοίβη Κλυταιμήστρα τ’, ἐμὴ ξυνάορος, 50
Ἑλένη τε· ταύτης οἱ τὰ πρῶτ’ ὠλβισμένοι
μνηστῆρες ἦλθον Ἑλλάδος νεανίαι.
δειναὶ δ’ ἀπειλαὶ καὶ κατ’ ἀλλήλων φθόνος
ξυνίσταθ’, ὅστις μὴ λάβοι τὴν παρθένον.
τὸ πρᾶγμα δ’ ἀπόρως εἶχε Τυνδάρεῳ πατρί, 55
δοῦναί τε μὴ δοῦναί τε, τῆς τύχης ὅπως
ἅψαιτ’ ἄριστα. καί νιν εἰσῆλθεν τάδε·
ὅρκους συνάψαι δεξιάς τε συμβαλεῖν
μνηστῆρας ἀλλήλοισι καὶ δι’ ἐμπύρων
σπονδὰς καθεῖναι κἀπαράσασθαι τάδε· 60
ὅτου γυνὴ γένοιτο Τυνδαρὶς κόρη,

39 πέδω (i.e. πέδῳ) πεύκην Tr1: πεύκην πέδω L

41 κἀκ Naber: καὶ L
42 μὴ οὐ μαίνεσθαι Tr3, P2: μὴ θυμαίνεσθαι (L*)P
43 τί πονεῖς; τί νέον Blomfield: τί π.; | τί π.; τί ν. (L*)P: <τί νέον;> τί π.; | τί π.; τί ν.
Tr?2: τί πονεῖς; τί π.; | τί ν.; τί ν. Tr3, P2; παρὰ Porson: περὶ L
45 <δ’> P2
46 ποτὲ Barnes: τότε L
47 πέμπει Porson: πέμπεν L
53 φθόνος Markland: φόνος L
54 δὴ Nauck (4)
57 ἄριστα] ἄθραυστα Hemsterhuys: see Doubtful Fragments ii, after the play-text
 Iphigenia at Aulis 89

have written, seal the pine-tablet up and break it open again, and
fling it on the ground, shedding big, rich tears, (40) and in your
helplessness you’re nothing short of going mad. What troubles
you? What’s new with you, my king? Come, talk it over with me.
You will be speaking to a good and trustworthy man; (45) for
Tyndareus sent me to your wife as part of her bridal dowry long
ago; and I am an upright man.
Ag. (speaking now) Leda, the child of Thestius, had three daughters,
Phoebe and Clytemnestra, my wife, (50) and Helen. To woo
Helen there came the young men who were most blest by wealth
in Greece. Terrible threats and jealousy arose between them at the
prospect of failing to win the maiden, and her father Tyndareus
was in a quandary over this. (55) Should he give her or not, to
deal best with what was happening? And the idea came to him
that the suitors should join in an oath, clasp one another’s right
hands, burn sacrifices and pour libations, and swear to this (60) –
that whichever of them should have the daughter of Tyndareus as
90 Euripides

τούτῳ συναμυνεῖν, εἴ τις ἐκ δόμων λαβὼν

οἴχοιτο τόν τ’ ἔχοντ’ ἀπωθοίη λέχους,
κἀπιστρατεύσειν καὶ κατασκάψειν πόλιν
Ἕλλην’ ὁμοίως βάρβαρόν θ’ ὅπλων μέτα. 65
ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐπιστώθησαν – εὖ δέ πως γέρων
ὑπῆλθεν αὐτοὺς Τυνδάρεως πυκνῇ φρενί –,
δίδωσ’ ἑλέσθαι θυγατρὶ μνηστήρων ἕνα,
ὅποι πνοαὶ φέροιεν Ἀφροδίτης φίλαι.
ἡ δ’ εἵλεθ’, ὅς σφε μήποτ’ ὤφελεν λαβεῖν, 70
Μενέλαον. ἐλθὼν δ’ ἐκ Φρυγῶν ὁ τὰς θεὰς
κρίνας ὅδ’, ὡς ὁ μῦθος ἀνθρώπων ἔχει,
Λακεδαίμον’, ἀνθηρὸς μὲν εἱμάτων στολῇ
χρυσῷ τε λαμπρός, βαρβάρῳ χλιδήματι,
ἐρῶν ἐρῶσαν ᾤχετ’ ἐξαναρπάσας 75
Ἑλένην πρὸς Ἴδης βούσταθμ’, ἔκδημον λαβὼν
Μενέλαον. ὁ δὲ καθ’ Ἑλλάδ’ οἰστρήσας δρόμῳ
ὅρκους παλαιοὺς Τυνδάρεω μαρτύρεται,
ὡς χρὴ βοηθεῖν τοῖσιν ἠδικημένοις.
τοὐντεῦθεν οὖν Ἕλληνες ᾄξαντες δορί, 80
τεύχη λαβόντες στενόπορ’ Αὐλίδος βάθρα
ἥκουσι τῆσδε, ναυσὶν ἀσπίσιν θ’ ὁμοῦ
ἵπποις τε πολλοῖς ἅρμασίν τ’ ἠσκημένοι.

62 συναμυνεῖν Heath: συναμύνειν L

64 κἀπιστρατεύσειν Markland: κἀπιστρατεύειν L
69 ὅποι Lenting: ὅτου L: ὅπου Heath
70 ὅς σφε Monk: ὥς γε L
71b ἐλθὼν ... 77a Μενέλαον Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus III 2.13.1 Stählin
72 κρίνων Clem.; ὡς ὁ Tr1, Clem.: ὡς L; ἀνθρώπων] Ἀργείων Clem.
73 στολὴν Clem.
74 τε L, Clem.: δὲ Markland
77 δρόμῳ Markland: μόρῳ L: μόνος P2 (μου P): χόλῳ Stockert: ἔρῳ Willink
79 ἠδικημένοις Tr: ἀδικουμένοις L*
80 τοὐλευθερὸν δ’ Ἕλληνες ᾄξαντες ποσίν Aristotle, Rhetoric III.11 1411b30
83 ἅρμασίν τ’ Reiske: θ’ ἅρμασιν L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 91

his wife, they should all join to help him if anyone took her from
her home and went off with her, ousting her husband from his
marriage-bed; and they should go on campaign and by force of
arms raze his city, Greek or barbarian alike. (65) And when they
had pledged themselves – it was a neat scheme with which the
crafty invention of old Tyndareus caught them – he allowed his
daughter to choose whichever of the suitors the sweet winds of
Aphrodite should carry her towards. And she chose – if only he
had never taken her! (70) – Menelaus. And to Sparta there came
from the Phrygians this man who judged the goddesses – as men
tell the tale – dazzling in the finery of his robes, a-glitter with
gold, with all the luxury of barbarians. He fell in love with Helen
and she with him, and finding Menelaus away from home, (75)
he snatched her up and went off to his ox-stalls on Mount Ida.
So Menelaus raced the length and breadth of Greece in a frenzy,
calling in witness the old oath they had sworn to Tyndareus – that
they must help those wronged.
After that the Greeks rushed to war. They took their arms and
came, (80) equipped with ships and shields together, to Aulis
92 Euripides

κἀμὲ στρατηγεῖν †κἆτα† Μενέλεω χάριν

εἵλοντο, σύγγονόν γε· τἀξίωμα δὲ 85
ἄλλος τις ὤφελ’ ἀντ’ ἐμοῦ λαβεῖν τόδε.
ἠθροισμένου δὲ καὶ ξυνεστῶτος στρατοῦ
ἥμεσθ’ ἀπλοίᾳ χρώμενοι κατ’ Αὐλίδα.
Κάλχας δ’ ὁ μάντις ἀπορίᾳ κεχρημένοις
ἀνεῖλεν Ἰφιγένειαν ἣν ἔσπειρ’ ἐγὼ 90
Ἀρτέμιδι θῦσαι τῇ τόδ’ οἰκούσῃ πέδον,
καὶ πλοῦν τ’ ἔσεσθαι καὶ κατασκαφὰς Φρυγῶν
θύσασι, μὴ θύσασι δ’ οὐκ εἶναι τάδε.
κλυὼν δ’ ἐγὼ ταῦτ’, ὀρθίῳ κηρύγματι
Ταλθύβιον εἶπον πάντ’ ἀφιέναι στρατόν, 95
ὡς οὔποτ’ ἂν τλὰς θυγατέρα κτανεῖν ἐμήν.
οὗ δή μ’ ἀδελφὸς πάντα προσφέρων λόγον
ἔπεισε τλῆναι δεινά. κἀν δέλτου πτυχαῖς
γράψας ἔπεμψα πρὸς δάμαρτα τὴν ἐμὴν
πέμπειν Ἀχιλλεῖ θυγατέρ’ ὡς γαμουμένην, 100
τό τ’ ἀξίωμα τἀνδρὸς ἐκγαυρούμενος,
συμπλεῖν τ’ Ἀχαιοῖς οὕνεκ’ οὐ θέλοι λέγων,
εἰ μὴ παρ’ ἡμῶν εἶσιν ἐς Φθίαν λέχος·
πειθὼ γὰρ εἶχον τήνδε πρὸς δάμαρτ᾽ ἐμήν,
ψευδῆ συνάψας ἀμφὶ παρθένου γάμον. 105
μόνοι δ’ Ἀχαιῶν ἴσμεν ὡς ἔχει τάδε

84–5 Scholia on Iliad 1.102, 2.108, 7.180, whence (?) Eustathius, Iliad in these
places (57.31–32, 185.4–6, 674.53–54 van der Valk)
84 κἆτα (i.e. καὶ εἶτα)] δῆτα Elmsley, Nauck: κάρτα Heath: πάντα Renehan;
στρατηγὸν (Conington) Μενέλεῳ μὲν εἰς χάριν Stockert
85 συγγόνου Diggle
89 κεχρημένοις Heath: κεχρημένος L
92 κατασκαφὰς Heath: κατασφαγὰς L
93 del. Conington
100 πέμπειν] στέλλειν Markland
104–14 del. Klinkenberg (104–10 Willink, 111–14 England)
105 ἀμφὶ παρθένου Markland: ἀντὶ παρθένου L: ἀμφὶ παρθένῳ Hennig; τόνδε
παρθένῳ γάμον Günther
106 lacuna after this verse Stockert
 Iphigenia at Aulis 93

here, built by its narrow strait. And †and then† they chose me to
be general, as a favour to Menelaus, as his brother, of course. If
only someone else had won this honour and not me! (85) With
the expedition gathered together and all assembled, we are sitting
at Aulis idle, unable to sail. And Calchas the seer announced the
divine will to us in our helplessness: I had to sacrifice Iphigenia,
my own daughter, (90) to Artemis who dwells in this place. And
we would sail and sack the Phrygians’ city if we performed this
sacrifice; but if we did not sacrifice her, this was not to be. When
I heard this, I told Talthybius to make a loud proclamation, to
dismiss the whole army (95) – for I would never bring myself
to kill my daughter. At that point, my brother put all kinds of
argument and persuaded me to bring myself to a terrible deed.
So I wrote on folded tablets which I sent to my wife, to send my
daughter here to be married to Achilles. (100) I boasted of the
man’s high worth and said that he was not willing to sail with the
Achaeans unless a bride from my family were to go to Phthia.
For I used this means of persuasion upon my wife – putting
together a false marriage for the girl. We alone of the Achaeans
94 Euripides

†Κάλχας Ὀδυσσεὺς Μενέλεώς θ’†. ἃ δ’ οὐ καλῶς

ἔγνων τότ’, αὖθις μεταγράφω καλῶς πάλιν
ἐς τήνδε δέλτον, ἣν κατ’ εὐφρόνης < ... >
λύοντα καὶ συνδοῦντά μ’ εἰσεῖδες, γέρον. 110
ἀλλ’ εἷα χώρει τάσδ’ ἐπιστολὰς λαβὼν
πρὸς Ἄργος. ἃ δὲ κέκευθε δέλτος ἐν πτυχαῖς,
λόγῳ φράσω σοι πάντα τἀγγεγραμμένα·
πιστὸς γὰρ ἀλόχῳ τοῖς τ’ ἐμοῖς δόμοισιν εἶ. 114
Πρ. λέγε καὶ σήμαιν’, ἵνα καὶ γλώσσῃ 117
σύντονα τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασιν αὐδῶ. 118
Αγ. πέμπω σοι πρὸς ταῖς πρόσθεν 115
δέλτους, ὦ Λήδας ἔρνος, 116
μὴ στέλλειν τὰν σὰν ἶνιν πρὸς 119
τὰν κολπώδη πτέρυγ’ Εὐβοίας 120
Αὖλιν ἀκλύσταν.
εἰς ἄλλας ὥρας γὰρ δὴ
παιδὸς δαίσομεν ὑμεναίους.
Πρ. καὶ πῶς Ἀχιλεὺς λέκτρων ἀπλακὼν
οὐ μέγα φυσῶν θυμὸν ἐπαρεῖ 125
σοὶ σῇ τ’ ἀλόχῳ; τόδε καὶ δεινόν.
σήμαιν’ ὅτι φῄς.
Αγ. ὄνομ’, οὐκ ἔργον, παρέχων Ἀχιλεὺς

107–8 Μενέλεως <ἐγώ θ’>. ἃ δ’ οὐ | καλῶς [ἔγνων] τότ’, αὖθις Vitelli

109 εὐφρόνην Tr?2; <σκιὰν> (σκ- in erasure) P2: <σκότον> Wecklein: <κνέφας>
Barrett
115–16 transferred after 118 by Reiske; ταῖς (L) ... δέλτους Monk, also τὰς ...
δέλτους: ταῖς ... δέλτοις L
119 τὰν σὰν ἶνι[ν] Inscr. Délos 2459 II BCH Supp. I (1973) 410–11
120 τὰν del. Monk
121 susp. Günther; ἄκλυστον Blaydes
122–3 εἰς ἄλλας γὰρ δὴ παιδὸς | δαίσομεν ὥρας ὑμεναίους Herwerden
124 λέκτρων (earlier Scaliger) ἀπλακὼν Burney: λέκτρ***πλακὼν L*: λέκτρ’
ἀμπλακὼν Lcorr (or Tr1?)
125 ἐπαρεῖ Reiske: ἀπαίρει L
128 ὄνομ’ ἀντ’ ἔργου (conj. Unger: ὄνομα ἓν τέρπου mss.) παρεχομένου Libanius,
Letters 1322 Förster
 Iphigenia at Aulis 95

know of this situation, †Calchas, Odysseus and Menelaus.† (105)

My decision then was dishonourable, and now I am writing an
honourable countermand on this tablet which you have seen me
tying and untying in the night (a word missing), old man. (110)
But come now, take this letter, and off you go to Argos! I
shall tell you all that is written and lies concealed in these folded
tablets; for you are faithful to my wife and my house.
OM (chanting) Speak and make it plain, so that what my tongue says
(117) may be in harmony with what you have written. (118)
Ag. (singing) I send you a tablet in addition to the former one, (115)
O daughter of Leda, (116) (to tell you) not to send your child
(119) to the bay enfolded by Euboea’s wing, (120) to sheltered
Aulis. It will be at another time that we shall feast our daughter’s
wedding.
OM (chanting) And what of Achilles? If he is robbed of the marriage,
will he not burst out in indignation and stir up his resentment
(125) against you and your wife? This is a real danger! Make
plain what you mean.
Ag. (singing) Achilles has provided his name, nothing substantial;
he does not know about the marriage or what we are getting up
96 Euripides

οὐκ οἶδε γάμους, οὐδ’ ὅτι πράσσομεν,

οὐδ’ ὅτι κείνῳ παῖδ’ ἐπεφήμισα 130
νυμφείους εἰς ἀγκώνων
εὐνὰς ἐκδώσειν λέκτροις.
Πρ. δεινά γ’ ἐτόλμας, Ἀγάμεμνον ἄναξ,
ὃς τῷ τῆς θεᾶς σὴν παῖδ᾽ ἄλοχον
φατίσας ἦγες σφάγιον Δαναοῖς. 135
Αγ. οἴμοι, γνώμας ἐξέσταν,
αἰαῖ, πίπτω δ’ εἰς ἄταν.
ἀλλ’ ἴθ’ ἐρέσσων σὸν πόδα, γήρᾳ
μηδὲν ὑπείκων. Πρ. σπεύδω, βασιλεῦ. 140
Αγ. μή νυν μήτ’ ἀλσώδεις ἵζου
κρήνας μήθ’ ὕπνῳ θελχθῇς.
Πρ. εὔφημα θρόει.
Αγ. πάντῃ δὲ πόρον σχιστὸν ἀμείβων
λεῦσσε, φυλάσσων μή τίς σε λάθῃ 145
τροχαλοῖσιν ὄχοις παραμειψαμένη
παῖδα κομίζουσ’ ἐνθάδ’ ἀπήνη
Δαναῶν πρὸς ναῦς.
Πρ. ἔσται. Αγ. κλῄθρων δ’ ἐξόρμοις
ἢν ἀντήσῃς πομπαῖσιν, 150
†πάλιν ἐξορμάσεις χαλινούς,†
ἐπὶ Κυκλώπων ἱεὶς θυμέλας.

130–2 susp. Günther

130 οὐδέ τι Willink; ἐπεφήμισα Markland: ἐπέφησα L
131 νυμφείοις Diggle
132 ἐκδώσειν Markland: ἐνδώσειν L; λέκτρον Monk
133 γ’ ἐτόλμας Markland: γε τολμᾷς L
134 ὃς τῷ Canter: οὕτω L
145 τίς Markland: τι L; λάθη Lcorr from λάβη
148 ναῦς Tr3: ναούς L
149–52 del. Monk, W. Dindorf
149 ἔσται <τάδε> Tr3; ἐξόρμοις Bothe: ἐξόρμα Lcorr (Tr1?): ἐξώρμα L: ἐξορμώσαις
Wecklein
149–50 ἐξόρμοις (Bothe) | ἢν ἀντήσῃς πομπαῖσιν Günther: | ἤν νιν πόμπαις ἀντήσῃς
L
151 ἐξορμάσεις] ἐξόρμα, σεῖε Blomfield: εἰσόρμα, σεῖε (Blomfield) Wecklein
 Iphigenia at Aulis 97

to – nor that I promised my child to him (130) to embrace as a

bride in the marriage-bed.
OM (chanting) That was a terrible deed you brought yourself to do,
lord Agamemnon, promising your child as wife to the son of the
goddess when you meant to bring her here as a blood-sacrifice
for the Danaans. (135)
Ag. (singing) Ah, me! I was out of my mind. Oh, what have I done?
I am falling into utter ruin. Now go, move fast on your feet! No
submitting to old age!
OM (chanting) I’ll hurry, my king! (140)
Ag. (singing) No sitting by woodland springs, or falling beneath the
spell of sleep!
OM (chanting) Quiet! Say no more.
Ag. (chanting now) As you pass any place where roads diverge, keep
your eyes open in case you fail to spot (145) passing you on
rolling wheels, bringing my daughter here, a carriage on its way
to the ships of the Danaans.
OM (chanting) I shall.
Ag. (singing, or perhaps again chanting) If you meet the escort
setting out from her chamber-doors, (150) †set the horses’ bridles
off back again,† and send her to the Cyclopean hearth-altars.
98 Euripides

Πρ. πιστὸς δὲ φράσας τάδε πῶς ἔσομαι,

λέγε, παιδὶ σέθεν τῇ σῇ τ’ ἀλόχῳ;
Αγ. σφραγῖδα φύλασσ’ ἣν ἐπὶ δέλτῳ 155
τῇδε κομίζεις. ἴθι· λευκαίνει
τόδε φῶς ἤδη λάμπουσ’ ἠὼς
πῦρ τε τεθρίππων τῶν Ἀελίου.
σύλλαβε μόχθων. θνητῶν δ’ ὄλβιος 160–61
ἐς τέλος οὐδεὶς οὐδ’ εὐδαίμων·
οὔπω γὰρ ἔφυ τις ἄλυπος.
ΧΟΡΟΣ
ἔμολον ἀμφὶ παρακτίαν στροφὴ α
ψάμαθον Αὐλίδος ἐναλίας, 165
Εὐρίπου διὰ χευμάτων
κέλσασα στενοπόρθμου,
Χαλκίδα πόλιν ἐμὰν προλιποῦσ’,
ἀγχιάλων ὑδάτων τροφὸν
τᾶς κλεινᾶς Ἀρεθούσας, 170
Ἀχαιῶν στρατιὰν ὡς ἐσιδοίμαν
Ἀχαιῶν τε πλάτας ναυσιπόρους ἡ-
μιθέων, οὓς ἐπὶ Τροίαν

156 τήνδε L, with -ῆ- (i.e. τῆδε) written above the line, L or Tr2
161 θνητῶν ... 163 ἄλυπος Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III 2.13.1 Stählin and
Orion, Anthology 8.8
161 ἐς (εἰς L) τέλος om. Clem.
164–302 integrity and authenticity suspected: 164–230 del. first Hermann, 231–302
del. first Boeckh; 164–230 def. most eds, and 231–302 condemned by many,
since Monk; 231–302 def. e.g. Wilamowitz, Günther, Stockert; some interference
suspected, e.g. Jouan, Lesky. See Commentary 164–302 n. 4.
164 παρακτίαν ed. Brubachiana: παρ’ ἀκτίαν Tr2/3: παρ’ ἀκτὰν L
167 στενοπόρθμου Wilamowitz: στενόπορθμον L: στενοπόρθμων Weil
169 ἀγχίαλον Monk
171 ἐσιδοίμαν Elmsley: ἴδοιμ’ ἂν L
172 Ἀχαιῶν] Ἀτρειδᾶν Camper; δὲ Monk
173 οὓς Scaliger: ὡς L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 99

OM (chanting) But if I say this, how shall I win belief, tell me, with
your daughter and your wife?
Ag. (chanting) Keep safe the seal which you carry (155) on these
tablets. Go! The glimmering dawn and the fiery four-horsed
chariot of the Sun already bring a gleam of whiteness here to
the sky. Share my troubles! (160) No mortal is prosperous or
fortunate till the end. No one has yet been born free from sorrow.
AGAMEMNON goes into the hut and the OLD MAN leaves stage-right
for Mycenae. The CHORUS of women from Chalcis in Euboea enter
stage-left.
CHORUS (singing and dancing; strophe 1) I came along on the sandy
shore of Aulis that lies by the sea (165), after putting in across
the currents of Euripus’ narrow strait, leaving my city of Chalcis,
nurse of the waters of famous Arethusa close by the sea. (170)
To view the army of the Achaeans was my purpose, and the sea-
faring vessels of the Achaean demi-gods, whom, our husbands
100 Euripides

ἐλάταις χιλιόναυσιν
τὸν ξανθὸν Μενέλαόν <θ’> 175
ἁμέτεροι πόσεις
ἐνέπουσ’ Ἀγαμέμνονά τ’ εὐπατρίδαν στέλλειν
ἐπὶ τὰν Ἑλέναν, ἀπ’ Εὐ-
ρώτα δονακοτρόφου
Πάρις ὁ βουκόλος ἃν ἔλαβε 180
δῶρον τᾶς Ἀφροδίτας,
ὅτ’ ἐπὶ κρηναίαισι δρόσοις
Ἥρᾳ Παλλάδι τ’ ἔριν ἔριν
μορφᾶς ἁ Κύπρις ἔσχεν.
πολύθυτον δὲ δι’ ἄλσος Ἀρ- ἀντιστροφὴ α
τέμιδος ἤλυθον ὀρομένα, 186
φοινίσσουσα παρῇδ’ ἐμὰν
αἰσχύνᾳ νεοθαλεῖ,
ἀσπίδος ἔρυμα καὶ κλισίας
ὁπλοφόρους Δαναῶν θέλουσ’ 190
ἵππων τ’ ὄχλον ἰδέσθαι.
κατεῖδον δὲ δύ’ Αἴαντε συνέδρω,
τὸν Οἰλέως Τελαμῶνός τε γόνον, τὸν
Σαλαμῖνος στέφανον, Πρω-
τεσίλαόν τ’ ἐπὶ θάκοις 195
πεσσῶν ἡδομένους μορ-
φαῖσι πολυπλόκοις
Παλαμήδεά θ’, ὃν τέκε παῖς ὁ Ποσειδᾶνος,
Διομήδεά θ’ ἡδοναῖς
δίσκου κεχαρημένον, 200

175 <θ’> Fritzsche

186 ὀρομένα Canter: ὁρωμέναν L
188 νεοθαλῆ Blaydes
190 θέλουσ’ Tr2/3: ἐθέλουσ’ (L*P)
191 τ’ ὄχλον Heath: ὄχλον τ’ (L*P): ὄχλον Tr2/3
193 τε γόνον Tr2/3: τε*γονον L: perhaps τ’ ἔκγονον L*: ἔκγονον P; line-end τὸν
Monk: τοῖς L
194 σαλαμῖνος P2: σαλαμινίοις L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 101

say, <both> the fair-haired Menelaus (175) and the nobly-born

Agamemnon are leading a fleet of a thousand ships to Troy to get
Helen: Paris the oxherd took her (180) from Eurotas’ reedy river,
as the gift of Aphrodite when by the dewy waters of a spring the
Cyprian goddess joined in strife, strife with Hera and Pallas over
beauty.
(antistrophe 1) I came in haste through the sacred grove of
Artemis, (185) place of many sacrifices, my cheeks turning
red with the bashfulness of a young woman, wishing to see the
guarding shields and armed encampment of the Danaans, (190)
and their mass of horse-chariots. And I saw the two Ajaxes sitting
together, the son of Oileus and the son of Telamon, the glory
of Salamis; and Protesilaus (195) and Palamedes whom the son
of Poseidon fathered, as they sat taking delight in the intricate
patterns of draughts; and Diomedes enjoying (200) the pleasures
102 Euripides

παρὰ δὲ Μηριόνην, Ἄρεος

ὄζον, θαῦμα βροτοῖσιν,
τὸν ἀπὸ νησαίων τ’ ὀρέων
Λαέρτα τόκον, ἅμα δὲ Νι-
ρέα, κάλλιστον Ἀχαιῶν. 205
τὸν ἰσάνεμόν τε ποδοῖν ἐπῳδός
λαιψηροδρόμον Ἀχιλλέα,
τὸν ἁ Θέτις τέκε καὶ
Χείρων ἐξεπόνησεν,
ἴδον αἰγιαλοῖς παρά τε κροκάλαις 210
δρόμον ἔχοντα σὺν ὅπλοις·
ἅμιλλαν δ’ ἐπόνει ποδοῖν
πρὸς ἅρμα τέτρωρον
ἑλίσσων περὶ νίκας· 215
ὁ δὲ διφρηλάτας ἐβοᾶτ’
Εὔμηλος Φερητιάδας,
οὗ καλλίστους ἰδόμαν
χρυσοδαιδάλτοις στομίοις
πώλους κέντρῳ θεινομένους, 220
τοὺς μὲν μέσους ζυγίους
λευκοστίκτῳ τριχὶ βαλιούς,
τοὺς δ’ ἔξω σειροφόρους
ἀντήρεις καμπαῖσι δρόμων
πυρσότριχας, μονόχαλα δ’ ὑπὸ σφυρὰ 225–26
ποικιλοδέρμονας· οἷς παρεπάλλετο 227–28
Πηλεΐδας σὺν ὅπλοισι παρ’ ἄντυγα
καὶ σύριγγας ἁρματείους. 230

206 δὲ Monk
207 Ἀχιλλέα Hermann: Ἀχιλῆα L
210 ἴδον Hermann: εἶδον L, cf. 218
215 ἐρίζων Pikkolos
216 ἐβοᾶτ’ Bothe, W. Dindorf: βοᾶτ’ L
218 οὗ Hermann: ὧ (i.e. ᾧ) L; ἰδόμαν Bothe: εἰδόμαν L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 103

of the discus, and beside him Meriones, scion of Ares, a wonder

to men; and the son of Laertes from his mountainous island, and
together with him Nireus, handsomest of the Achaeans. (205)
(epode) And I saw, his feet the equal of the wind, light-running
Achilles whom Thetis bore and Chiron trained to perfection,
running in armour over beach, (210) over shingle, as he raced
hard on foot against a four-horsed chariot, rounding (the course)
in pursuit of victory. (215) And the charioteer was shouting,
Eumelus, Pheres’ grandson; I saw his horses – most beautiful,
their bits gold-chased – as he struck them with his goad, (220)
the middle ones which carried the yoke dappled with flecks of
white on their coats, the trace-horses outside them countering
the turnings of the race-track, roans with spotted fetlocks at their
hooves below. (225) Along by their side went bounding the son
of Peleus, beside the chariot’s rail and its wheel-naves. (230)
104 Euripides

ναῶν δ’ εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἤλυθον στρ. β

καὶ θέαν ἀθέσφατον,
τὰν γυναικεῖον ὄψιν ὀμμάτων
ὡς πλήσαιμι †μείλινον† ἁδονάν.
καὶ κέρας μὲν ἦν 235
δεξιὸν πλάτας ἔχων
Φθιωτίδας ὁ Μυρμιδὼν Ἄρης
πεντήκοντα ναυσὶ θουρίαις·
χρυσέαις δ’ εἰκόσιν κατ’ ἄκρα Νη-
ρῇδες ἕστασαν θεαί, 240
πρύμναις σῆμ’ Ἀχιλλείου στρατοῦ.
Ἀργείων δὲ ταῖσδ’ ἰσήρετμοι ἀντ. β
νᾶες ἕστασαν πέλας,
ὧν ὁ Μηκιστέως στρατηλάτας
παῖς ἦν, Ταλαὸς ὃν τρέφει πατήρ, 245
Καπανέως τε παῖς
Σθένελος. Ἀτθίδας δ’ ἄγων
ἑξήκοντα ναῦς ὁ Θησέως
παῖς ἑξῆς ἐναυλόχει, θεὰν
Παλλάδ’ ἐν μωνύχοις ἔχων πτερω- 250
τοῖσιν ἅρμασιν †θετόν†,
εὔσημόν γε φάσμα ναυβάταις.
Βοιωτῶν δ’ ὅπλισμα πόντιον στρ. γ

231–302 see 164–302 above

232 ἀθεσφάτων Willink
233 γυναικεῖον Boeckh: γυναικείαν L
234 μείλιχον Markland: λίχνον Wilamowitz: μᾶλλον ἁδονᾶν Hermann
237 Φθιωτίδας Wilamowitz: φθιώτας L; Μυρμιδὼν Hermann: μυρμιδόνων L
239 ἄκρα Pierson: ἄκραν L
247 Ἀτθίδας Dobree: ἀτθίδος L
249 θοὰν and 251 θεάν (for θετόν) Weil: κόραν ... θεόν Stockert
251 ἅρμασιν (Tr2/3) θετάν Bothe: ἄρμασιν θοάν Firnhaber: ἅρμασι (L) τ’ εὔθετον
Madvig: ἅρμασ’ ἔνθετον Burkert
252 γε Musgrave: τε L: τι Markland
253 <τῶν> Βοιωτῶν Tr3; πόντιον Weil, England: ποντίαν L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 105

(strophe 2) And I went on to counting their ships, and a spectacle

beyond words to describe, so that I could fill my woman’s eyes
with seeing, a †honey-sweet† pleasure. Holding the right wing
(235) of the fleet was the warrior force of Myrmidons from
Phthia with fifty fierce ships. In golden images high up stood the
Nereid goddesses, (240) the emblem on the sterns of Achilles’
armament.
(antistrophe 2) And the Argives’ ships, equal in number to
these, stood nearby; their commander was Mecisteus’ son whom
his grandfather Talaus brought up, (245) and with him was
Sthenelus son of Capaneus. Leading sixty Attic ships the son
of Theseus lay at anchor next in line; he had the goddess Pallas
†made† in a winged chariot (250) and horses with uncloven
hoofs, indeed an omen of good fortune to sea-farers.
(strophe 3) And the Boeotians’ sea armament I saw, fifty ships
106 Euripides

πεντήκοντα νῆας εἰδόμαν

σημείοισιν ἐστολισμένας· 255
τοῖς δὲ Κάδμος ἦν
χρύσεον δράκοντ’ ἔχων
ἀμφὶ ναῶν κόρυμβα·
Λήϊτος δ᾽ ὁ γηγενὴς
ἆρχε ναΐου στρατοῦ. 260
Φωκίδος δ’ ἀπὸ χθονὸς
<
>
Λοκρὰς δὲ ταῖσδ’ ἴσας ἄγων
ναῦς <ἦλθ’> Οἰλέως τόκος κλυτὰν
Θρονιάδ’ ἐκλιπὼν πόλιν.
ἐκ Μυκήνας δὲ τᾶς Κυκλωπίας ἀντ. γ
παῖς Ἀτρέως ἔπεμπε ναυβάτας 266
ναῶν ἑκατὸν ἠθροϊσμένους·
σὺν δ’ ἀδελφὸς ἦν
ταγός, ὡς φίλος φίλῳ,
τᾶς φυγούσας μέλαθρα 270
βαρβάρων χάριν γάμων
πρᾶξιν Ἑλλὰς ὡς λάβοι.
ἐκ Πύλου δὲ Νέστορος
Γερηνίου κατειδόμαν
<
>

255 ἐστολισμένας Scaliger: εὐστολισμένας L

260 ἆρχε Tr3: ἄρχει (L*)P: ἄρχε Diggle, cf. 279
261 space for two verses left in L after this line, with note λείπει (‘there is a
deficiency’); Tr3 deleted the note and ran 261 into 262: cf. 274
262 Λοκρὰς Markland: λοκροῖς L; ταῖσδ’ Markland: τοῖσδ’ L
263 ναῦς <ἦλθ’> Matthiae: ναῦς <ἦν> Hermann: <ἦν> ναῦς Nauck
265 ἐκ del. Nauck
268 ἀδελφὸς Markland: ἄδραστος L
274 lacuna of two verses after this line Weil, cf. 261
 Iphigenia at Aulis 107

fitted out with emblems. (255) For them it was Cadmus with
the golden dragon on their ships’ curving sterns; the earth-born
Leïtus led their naval host. (260) And from the land of Phocis
(text missing) ... And the Locrian ships, equal to these, were
led by the son of Oileus; <he came> leaving the famous city of
Thronium.
(antistrophe 3) And from Cyclopean Mycenae (265) the son
of Atreus led the mustered crews of a hundred ships. With him
was his brother as a commander, as kin supporting kin, so that
Greece should exact reparation for the woman who fled her home
(270) for a barbarian marriage. From Pylos I saw (text missing)
108 Euripides

πρύμναις σῆμα ταυρόπουν ὁρᾶν, 275

τὸν πάροικον Ἀλφεόν.
Αἰνιάνων δὲ δωδεκάστολοι
νᾶες ἦσαν, ὧν ἄναξ
Γουνεὺς ἆρχε· τῶνδε δ’ αὖ πέλας
Ἤλιδος δυνάστορες, 280
οὓς Ἐπειοὺς ὠνόμαζε πᾶς λεώς·
Εὔρυτος δ’ ἄνασσε τῶνδε·
λευκήρετμον δ’ Ἄρη
Τάφιον †ἦγεν ὧν Μέγης ἄνασσε†,
Φυλέως λόχευμα, 285
τὰς Ἐχίνας λιπὼν
νήσους ναυβάταις ἀπροσφόρους.
Αἴας δ’ ὁ Σαλαμῖνος ἔντροφος
†δεξιὸν κέρας
πρὸς τὸ λαιὸν ξύναγε† 290
τῶν ἆσσον ὥρμει πλάταισιν
ἐσχάταισι συμπλέκων
δώδεκ’ εὐστροφωτάταισι ναυσίν. ὣς
ἄϊον καὶ ναυβάταν
εἰδόμαν λεών· 295
ᾧ τις εἰ προσαρμόσει
βαρβάρους βάριδας,
νόστον οὐκ ἀποίσεται,
ἐνθάδ’ οἷον εἰδόμαν

275 πρύμναις Diggle (πρύμναισι earlier Markland): πρύμνας L: πρυμνᾶν Murray

277–87 and 288–302 brought into strophic responsion by Hermann
279 ἄρχε Diggle
282–3 Εὐρύτου ... τῶνδ’ | <ἔκγονος> Hermann (with further supplements)
284 ἡγεμὼν Μέγης Musgrave, Tyrwhitt; ἄνασσε del. Hermann
286 ᾿Εχίνας Brodaeus: ἐχίδνας L: Ἐχινάδας Voss (ἐχίδνας (P) glossed with τὰς
᾿Εχινάδας φησί P2)
290 ξυνᾶγε Hermann
293–4 εὐστροφωτάτας | ναῦς Blaydes; ὣς ?Murray: ὡς L
299 οἷον Hermann: ἄιον L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 109

of Gerenian Nestor (text missing) ... the emblem on their stern,

with a bull’s feet visible, (275) their neighbouring Alpheus.
The Aenians had a fleet of twelve ships which lord Gouneus
commanded. Then, near these were the masters of Elis, (280)
whom the whole army called Epeians; Eurytus was their lord.
The warrior Taphians with their white oars †were led by Meges
their lord†, child of Phyleus; (285) he had left the Echinae
islands, unsuitable for sea-faring men. And Ajax, nursling of
Salamis, †united the right wing to the left (290) – he was moored
near its furthest vessels – †, linking (them) with his twelve very
manoeuvrable ships. That was the way I heard and saw the sea-
faring host. (295) If anyone sets his barbarian boats against it, he
110 Euripides

νάϊον πόρευμα, 300

τὰ δὲ κατ’ οἴκους κλύουσα συγκλήτου
μνήμην σῴζομαι στρατεύματος.
Πρ. Μενέλαε, τολμᾷς δείν’, ἅ σ’ οὐ τολμᾶν χρεών.
ΜΕΝΕΛΑΟΣ
ἄπελθε· λίαν δεσπόταισι πιστὸς εἶ.
Πρ. καλόν γέ μοι τοὔνειδος ἐξωνείδισας. 305
Με. κλαίοις ἄν, εἰ πράσσοις ἃ μὴ πράσσειν σε δεῖ.
Πρ. οὐ χρῆν σε λῦσαι δέλτον, ἣν ἐγὼ ’φερον.
Με. οὐδέ γε φέρειν σὲ πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν κακά.
Πρ. ἄλλοις ἁμιλλῶ ταῦτ’· ἄφες δὲ τήνδ’ ἐμοί.
Με. οὐκ ἂν μεθείμην. Πρ. οὐδ’ ἔγωγ’ ἀφήσομαι. 310
Με. σκήπτρῳ τάχ’ ἆρα σὸν καθαιμάξω κάρα.
Πρ. ἀλλ’ εὐκλεές τοι δεσποτῶν θνῄσκειν ὕπερ.
Με. μέθες· μακροὺς δὲ δοῦλος ὢν λέγεις λόγους.
Πρ. ὦ δέσποτ᾽, ἀδικούμεσθα· σὰς δ᾽ ἐπιστολὰς
ἐξαρπάσας ὅδ’ ἐκ χερῶν ἐμῶν βίᾳ, 315
Ἀγάμεμνον, οὐδὲν τῇ δίκῃ χρῆσθαι θέλει.
Αγ. ἔα·
τίς ποτ’ ἐν πύλαισι θόρυβος καὶ λόγων ἀκοσμία;
Με. οὑμὸς οὐχ ὁ τοῦδε μῦθος κυριώτερος λέγειν.
Αγ. σὺ δὲ τί τῷδ’ ἐς ἔριν ἀφῖξαι, Μενέλεως, βίᾳ τ’ ἄγεις;
Με. βλέψον εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἵν’ ἀρχὰς τῶν λόγων ταύτας λάβω. 320
Αγ. μῶν τρέσας οὐκ ἀνακαλύψω βλέφαρον, Ἀτρέως γεγώς;
Με. τήνδ’ ὁρᾷς δέλτον, κακίστων γραμμάτων ὑπηρέτιν;

301–9 fragmentary line-beginnings in P. Köln 67

301 συγκλήτου] συλλόγου W. Dindorf: [P. Köln defective]
308 γε φερειν σε P. Köln, γε φέρειν σὲ conj. Kirchhoff: γε φέρειν σε δεῖ (L)P: σε
φέρειν δεῖ Tr2/3, P2
309 αλλοις P. Köln, ἄλλοις conj. Markland: ἄλλως L
317 ποτ’ Anecdota Bekker I 369.8, Photius α 829 Theodoridis, and other citations:
δήποτ’ ?L: δῆτ’ Tr1; πύλαισι] θύραισι Anecdota; θόρυβος Tr1, Anecdota,
Photius: θόρυβος ἐστὶ L*
318 Με. Hermann: πρ. L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 111

will not win a return home – such an armada have I seen here;
(300) and from hearing some things at home I keep a memory of
the host called together.
The OLD MAN and MENELAUS come in stage-right, for the road
out of Aulis. They are quarrelling angrily over the writing-tablet which
Menelaus holds and the Old Man is trying to seize back.
OM Menelaus, you are committing an outrage, one you must not
commit!
MENELAUS Away with you! You are all too faithful to your master.
OM What you reproach me with brings me honour! (305)
Men. You’ll be sorry if you do what you must not do.
OM. You shouldn’t have undone the tablet which I was carrying.
Men. And you shouldn’t be bringing disaster to all the Greeks.
OM Quarrel about this with someone else. Give this tablet up to me!
Men. I won’t let it go. OM Neither will I give it up! (310)
Men. Then I’ll soon bloody your head with my staff.
OM Well, it’s a glorious thing to die for one’s master.
Men. Let it go! For a slave, you’re talking far too much.
OM. (crying out) Master! We are being wronged!
AGAMEMNON comes out from his hut.
This man has used force on me, Agamemnon, and snatched your
letter from my hand; (315) he’s wholly unwilling to deal justly
with us.
Ag. What’s going on? What’s this noisy argument at my gates?
Men. My words have a better right to be spoken than his.
Ag. But why have you got into strife with this man, Menelaus? Why
are you pulling him about so violently?
The OLD MAN goes silently into the hut.
Men. Look at me, so that I can have this start to what I have to say.
(320)
Ag. Do you think that I, the son of Atreus, am going to tremble and
not look you in the eye?
112 Euripides

Αγ. εἰσορῶ· καὶ πρῶτα ταύτην σῶν ἀπάλλαξον χερῶν.

Με. οὔ, πρὶν ἂν δείξω γε Δαναοῖς πᾶσι τἀγγεγραμμένα.
Αγ. ἦ γὰρ οἶσθ’ ἃ μή σε καιρὸς εἰδέναι, σήμαντρ’ ἀνείς; 325
Με. ὥστε σ’ ἀλγῦναί γ’, ἀνοίξας ἃ σὺ κάκ’ ἠργάσω λάθρᾳ.
Αγ. ποῦ δὲ κἄλαβές νιν; ὦ θεοί, σῆς ἀναισχύντου φρενός.
Με. προσδοκῶν σὴν παῖδ’ ἀπ’ Ἄργους εἰ στράτευμ’ ἀφίξεται.
Αγ. τί δέ σε τἀμὰ δεῖ φυλάσσειν; οὐκ ἀναισχύντου τόδε;
Με. ὅτι τὸ βούλεσθαί μ’ ἔκνιζε· σὸς δὲ δοῦλος οὐκ ἔφυν. 330
Αγ. οὐχὶ δεινά; τὸν ἐμὸν οἰκεῖν οἶκον οὐκ ἐάσομαι;
Με. πλάγια γὰρ φρονεῖς, τὰ μὲν νῦν, τὰ δὲ πάλαι, τὰ δ’ αὐτίκα.
Αγ. εὖ κεκόμψευσαι πονηρά· γλῶσσ’ ἐπίφθονον σοφή.
Με. νοῦς δέ γ’ οὐ βέβαιος ἄδικον κτῆμα κοὐ σαφὲς φίλοις.
βούλομαι δέ σ’ ἐξελέγξαι, καὶ σὺ μήτ’ ὀργῆς ὕπο 335
ἀποτρέπου τἀληθὲς οὔτ’ αὖ κατατενῶ λίαν ἐγώ.
οἶσθ’, ὅτ’ ἐσπούδαζες ἄρχειν Δαναΐδαις πρὸς Ἴλιον,
τῷ δοκεῖν μὲν οὐχὶ χρῄζων, τῷ δὲ βούλεσθαι θέλων,
ὡς ταπεινὸς ἦσθα, πάσης δεξιᾶς προσθιγγάνων
καὶ θύρας ἔχων ἀκλῄστους τῷ θέλοντι δημοτῶν 340
καὶ διδοὺς πρόσρησιν ἑξῆς πᾶσι, κεἰ μή τις θέλοι,
τοῖς τρόποις ζητῶν πρίασθαι τὸ φιλότιμον ἐκ μέσου,
κᾆτ’, ἐπεὶ κατέσχες ἀρχάς, μεταβαλὼν ἄλλους τρόπους
τοῖς φίλοισιν οὐκέτ’ ἦσθα τοῖς πρὶν ὡς πρόσθεν φίλος,
δυσπρόσιτος ἔσω τε κλῄθρων σπάνιος; ἄνδρα δ’ οὐ χρεὼν 345

326 ἠργάσω Wackernagel: εἰργάσω L

329 τἄμ’ ἔδει Herwerden
333 εὖ κεκόμψευσαι Ruhnken: ἐκκεκόμψευσαι L; πονηρά Monk, with punct.
following: πονηρὸν L, with punct. preceding: πονηρῶν Bothe
334 δέ γ’ Tr3: δ’ L
335 ἐξελέγξαι Tr3: ἐλέγξαι L
336 ἀποτρέπου Tr3: ἀποστρέφου (L*)P; οὔτ’ αὖ Blomfield: οὔτοι L: οὔτε Hermann;
κατατενῶ λίαν Boeckh: καταινῶ λίαν σ’ L
338 del. Hennig
339 ἦσθα, πάσης ?L*, conj. Markland: ἦς, ἁπάσης Tr1
345 ἔξω Portus
 Iphigenia at Aulis 113

Men. Do you see this tablet, the servant of a most disastrous message?
Ag. I see it. First of all, let go of it from your hands.
Men. No, not before I show what is written there to all the Danaans.
Ag. Why, have you really opened the seal? Do you know what it is
not the time for you to know? (325)
Men. Yes, to your cost! I opened it; I have revealed your underhand
mischief.
Ag. Just where did you get it? By the gods, what a shameless mind
you have!
Men. While I waited to see whether your child would come to the army
from Argos.
Ag. Why must you keep watch on my business? Isn’t that the action
of a shameless man?
Men. Because the wish kept chafing me; and I’m not your slave. (330)
Ag. Is this not outrageous? Am I not to be allowed to manage my own
affairs?
Men. No, for your thoughts keep shifting, some now, some long since,
some soon to come.
Ag. What a smart gloss you have put on your ill-doing! A clever
tongue is a hateful thing.
Men. Yes, but a mind not steadfast is a possession without justice and
unreliable for friends.
I wish to prove you in the wrong, however; and you must not
turn the truth away in a passion, (335) and I for my part shall not
press too hard.
You know, when you were eager to command the Danaans
against Ilium – to all appearance not desiring this, but willing it
as your wish – you know how humble you were, clasping every
hand, keeping doors open for any common man who wanted
(340) and allowing all in turn to talk to you even if they did not
want to. In behaving like this, you sought to buy your ambition
openly. And then, when you had secured the command, you
changed your ways. You were no longer as friendly as before
to your one-time friends. It was hard to approach you since you
stayed behind barred doors and were rarely to be seen. Do you
114 Euripides

τὸν ἀγαθὸν πράσσοντα μεγάλα τοὺς τρόπους μεθιστάναι,

ἀλλὰ καὶ βέβαιον εἶναι τότε μάλιστα τοῖς φίλοις,
ἡνίκ’ ὠφελεῖν μάλιστα δυνατός ἐστιν εὐτυχῶν.
ταῦτα μέν σε πρῶτ’ ἐπῆλθον, ἵνα σε πρῶθ’ ηὗρον κακόν.
ὡς δ’ ἐς Αὖλιν ἦλθες αὖθις χὠ Πανελλήνων στρατός, 350
οὐδὲν ἦσθ’, ἀλλ’ ἐξεπλήσσου τῇ τύχῃ τῇ τῶν θεῶν,
οὐρίας πομπῆς σπανίζων· Δαναΐδαι δ’ ἀφιέναι
ναῦς διήγγελλον, μάτην δὲ μὴ πονεῖν ἐν Αὐλίδι.
ὡς <δ’> ἄνολβον εἶχες ὄμμα σύγχυσίν τ’, εἰ μὴ νεῶν
χιλίων ἄρχων τὸ Πριάμου πεδίον ἐμπλήσεις δορός. 355
κἀμὲ παρεκάλεις· “Τί δράσω; τίνα <δὲ> πόρον εὕρω πόθεν;”
ὥστε μὴ στερέντα σ’ ἀρχῆς ἀπολέσαι καλὸν κλέος.
κᾆτ’, ἐπεὶ Κάλχας ἐν ἱεροῖς εἶπε σὴν θῦσαι κόρην
Ἀρτέμιδι, καὶ πλοῦν ἔσεσθαι Δαναΐδαις, ἡσθεὶς φρένας
ἄσμενος θύσειν ὑπέστης παῖδα· καὶ πέμπεις ἑκών, 360
οὐ βίᾳ – μὴ τοῦτο λέξῃς – σῇ δάμαρτι παῖδα σὴν
δεῦρ’ ἀποστέλλειν, Ἀχιλλεῖ πρόφασιν ὡς γαμουμένην.
κᾆθ’ ὑποστρέψας λέληψαι μεταβαλὼν ἄλλας γραφάς,
ὡς φονεὺς οὐκέτι θυγατρὸς σῆς ἔσῃ; μάλιστά γε.
οὗτος αὑτός ἐστιν αἰθὴρ ὃς τάδ’ ἤκουσεν σέθεν. 365
μυρίοι δέ τοι πεπόνθασ’ αὐτό· πρὸς τὰ πράγματα
ἐκπονοῦσ’ ἔχοντες, εἶτα δ’ ἐξεχώρησαν κακῶς.

349 ηὗρον (εὗρον Reiske) Elmsley: εὕρω L

350 ἦλθες Aldine: ἦλθεν L
354 <δ’> Tr3; τ’, εἰ Musgrave: τε, L
355 τὸ Πριάμου Elmsley: τὸ πριάμου τὲ (sic) L: πριαμου τὲ Tr3; ἐμπλήσεις
Musgrave: ἐμπλήσας L
356 <δὲ> Tr3
359 del. Nauck
364 ἔσῃ] γένῃ Kovacs; punct. as question Diggle: without punct. L
365 transferred after 362 Monk; αὑτός Markland: αὐτός L
366–75 variously susp. and del. by eds: 368–69 del. Hartung, 373–75 del. Page
(370–75 L. Dindorf)
366 punct. after αὐτό Bothe, Madvig
367 ἐγκονοῦσ’ Wecklein; ἕκοντες Canter: ἐκπονοῦσιν, εἶτ’ ἔχοντες West
 Iphigenia at Aulis 115

remember? A good man (345) should not change his ways when
busy with great matters. Rather, it is then most of all that he
should prove steadfast to his friends, at the time when his success
enables him to help them most. This is the first point on which I
attack you, the first where I found you base.
Then again, when you and the united army of the Greeks came
to Aulis, (350) you were nothing. You were panic-stricken by
the fortune the gods gave us when you lacked a favourable wind
to send us off. The Danaans spread the word that you should
disband the ships – no wasted effort at Aulis for them. How
helpless you looked, how confused at the thought that, though
you ruled a thousand ships, you would not fill the plain of Priam
with war. (355) And so you called for my help. ‘What am I to
do?’ you said. ‘What solution can I find? or where?’ – so that you
shouldn’t lose your command and forfeit splendid glory.
And then when Calchas amid the holy offerings bade you
sacrifice your daughter to Artemis and said that if you did, the
Danaans could sail, your heart rejoiced. You gladly promised to
sacrifice your child. And you willingly sent (360) to your wife –
not through compulsion, don’t say that – telling her to send your
child off here on the pretext of marriage with Achilles. And then
you did an about-turn and have been caught sending a different
message, that you will no longer be the killer of your daughter.
Most certainly you have been caught! This is the same sky above
us as heard your former words! (365)
Countless men have shared your experience. They keep toiling
116 Euripides

[τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ γνώμης πολιτῶν ἀσυνέτου, τὰ δ’ ἐνδίκως

ἀδύνατοι γεγῶτες αὐτοὶ διαφυλάξασθαι πόλιν.]
Ἑλλάδος μάλιστ’ ἔγωγε τῆς ταλαιπώρου στένω, 370
ἥ, θέλουσα δρᾶν τι κεδνόν, βαρβάρους τοὺς οὐδένας
καταγελῶντας ἐξανήσει διὰ σὲ καὶ τὴν σὴν κόρην.
[μηδέν’ †ἂν χρείους† ἕκατι προστάτην θείμην χθονὸς
μηδ’ ὅπλων ἄρχοντα· νοῦν χρὴ τὸν στρατηλάτην ἔχειν
†πόλεος ὡς ἄρχων† ἀνὴρ πᾶς, ξύνεσιν ἢν ἔχων τύχῃ]. 375
Χο. δεινὸν κασιγνήτοισι γίγνεσθαι ψόγους
μάχας θ’, ὅταν ποτ’ ἐμπέσωσιν εἰς ἔριν.
Αγ. βούλομαί σ’ εἰπεῖν κακῶς αὖ βραχέα, μὴ λίαν ἄνω
βλέφαρα πρὸς τἀναιδὲς ἀγαγών, ἀλλὰ σωφρονεστέρως,
ὡς ἀδελφὸν ὄντ’· ἀνὴρ γὰρ χρηστὸς αἰδεῖσθαι φιλεῖ. 380
εἰπέ μοι, τί δεινὰ φυσᾷς αἱματηρὸν ὄμμ’ ἔχων;
τίς ἀδικεῖ σε; τοῦ κέχρησαι; χρηστὰ λέκτρ’ ἐρᾷς λαβεῖν;
οὐκ ἔχοιμ’ ἄν σοι παρασχεῖν· ὧν γὰρ ἐκτήσω, κακῶς
ἦρχες. εἶτ’ ἐγὼ δίκην δῶ σῶν κακῶν, ὁ μὴ σφαλείς;

368–9: see 366–75

370 adapted by Eubulus F 67.10 PCG ῾Ελλάδος ἔγωγε τῆς ταλαιπώρου στένω
372 ἐξαφήσει Markland
373–75: see 366–75
373 ἂν γένους Reiske: ἀνδρείας Pantazidis; χθονὸς] πόλεως Nauck (4)
375 πόλεος· ὡς ἀρκῶν Weil
376–77 Stobaeus 4.27.3
376 ψόγους Musgrave: λόγους L, Stob.
378–441 variously susp. or del. in parts by eds, susp. as a whole by Günther
378–80 Stobaeus 3.31.2
378 αὖ P2, Markland: εὖ L, Stob.; ἄνω Stob.: ἂν ὦ L, with note γρ(άφεται) (‘there
is written’) ἀνῶ
379 ἀγαγών L, Stob.: ἀνάγων Naber; σωφρονεστέρως Stob.: σωφρονέστερος L
380 χρηστὸς Stob. one ms., Grotius: χρηστὸς χρηστὸν Stob. two mss.: αἰσχρὸς οὐκ
L: χρηστοῦ γ’ (δ’ Diggle) ἀνδρὸς αἰδεῖσθαι φίλους Willink
381 Phrynichus, Praep. Soph. p. 63 de Borries
382 χρηστὰ λέκτρ’ ἐρᾷς Reiske: λέκτ’ ἐρᾷς χρηστὰ L (λέκτρ’ P2)
384, 396–7 adapted by Ennius, Iphigenia 204–6 Jocelyn
384 δῶ σῶν Dawes: δώσω L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 117

away at affairs of state, but then back out ignobly [some through
the citizens’ foolish misjudgement, but some justly since it is their
own fault they cannot keep their city safe]. Unhappy Greece, it
is for her above all that I myself lament, (370) for she wishes
to do something fine, yet will let the barbarians escape – those
nobodies who laugh at her – because of you and your daughter. [I
†would† never make anyone leader of a country or commander
of an army because of †need†. A general must have sense. †For
every man is ruling a city† if he possesses intelligence.] (375)
Cho. It is a terrible thing that blame and fighting happen to brothers
whenever they fall into strife.
Ag. I wish to criticise you in turn, briefly, not raising my eyes too
much in unashamed scorn but more moderately, since you are
my brother. After all, a good man is accustomed to show respect
to others. (380)
Tell me, why are you snorting so dreadfully, your face flushed
with blood? Who is wronging you? What do you want? Do you
desire to win a good wife? I could not provide you with one.
You certainly proved a bad master of the one you had. Then
am I, the one who made no mistake, to pay the penalty for your
118 Euripides

οὐ δάκνει σε τὸ φιλότιμον τοὐμόν, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀγκάλαις 385

εὐπρεπῆ γυναῖκα χρῄζεις, τὸ λελογισμένον παρεὶς
καὶ τὸ καλόν, ἔχειν. πονηροῦ φωτὸς ἡδοναὶ κακαί.
εἰ δ’ ἐγώ, γνοὺς πρόσθεν οὐκ εὖ, μετεθέμην εὐβουλίαν,
μαίνομαι; σὺ μᾶλλον, ὅστις ἀπολέσας κακὸν λέχος
ἀναλαβεῖν θέλεις, θεοῦ σοι τὴν τύχην διδόντος εὖ. 390
ὤμοσαν τὸν Τυνδάρειον ὅρκον οἱ κακόφρονες
φιλόγαμοι μνηστῆρες – ἡ δέ γ’ ἐλπίς, οἶμαι μέν, θεός,
κἀξέπραξεν αὐτὸ μᾶλλον ἢ σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν σθένος –
οὓς λαβὼν στράτευ’· ἕτοιμοι δ’ εἰσὶ μωρίᾳ φρενῶν. 394
οὐ γὰρ ἀσύνετον τὸ θεῖον, ἀλλ’ ἔχει συνιέναι 394a
τοὺς κακῶς παγέντας ὅρκους καὶ κατηναγκασμένους. 395
τἀμὰ δ’ οὐκ ἀποκτενῶ ’γὼ τέκνα· κοὐ τὸ σὸν μὲν εὖ
παρὰ δίκην ἔσται κακίστης εὔνιδος τιμωρίᾳ,
ἐμὲ δὲ συντήξουσι νύκτες ἡμέραι τε δακρύοις,
ἄνομα δρῶντα κοὐ δίκαια παῖδας οὓς ἐγεινάμην.
ταῦτά σοι βραχέα λέλεκται καὶ σαφῆ καὶ ῥᾴδια· 400
εἰ δὲ μὴ βούλῃ φρονεῖν εὖ, τἄμ’ ἐγὼ θήσω καλῶς.
Χο. οἵδ’ αὖ διάφοροι τῶν πάρος λελεγμένων
μύθων, καλῶς δ’ ἔχουσι, φείδεσθαι τέκνων.
Με. αἰαῖ, φίλους ἄρ’ οὐκ ἐκεκτήμην τάλας.

385–7 del. Wecklein

385 οὐ Murray: ἢ L
388 μετεθέμην εὐβουλίαν Monk: μετετέθην εὐβουλία L
389 μαίνῃ above μᾶλλον L
390–2 P. Köln 67 preserves a few letters at line-end
394 στράτευ’· ἕτοιμοι δ’ εἰσὶ Monk: στράτευε· οἶμαι δ’ εἴσῃ L
394a–5 Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.37 p. 96 Grant and Stobaeus 3.28.2
394a om. L; συνιέναι] διειδέναι Wecklein
395 κατηναγκασμένους Theoph., Stob.: συνηναγκασμένους L
396 κοὐ Lenting: καὶ L
397 παρὰ (Reiske) δίκην Porson: πέρα δίκης L
400 ῥᾴδια] καίρια Stadtmüller
401 εὖ] σύ Markland
404–12 susp. Page, Diggle
404 οὐκ ἐκεκτήμην Heath: οὐχὶ κεκτήμην L: οὐχὶ κέκτημαι Monk
 Iphigenia at Aulis 119

bad actions? It is not my ambition that needles you: (385) no,

you want to hold a beautiful woman in your arms, putting aside
reason and honour. Evil pleasures belong to a base man.
But if I made the wrong decision before and have now thought
better of it, am I out of my mind? No, it is rather you who are
that. You lost a bad wife and want to get her back, though a god
was giving you good fortune. (390)
The suitors were thinking badly when in their eagerness to win
the bride they swore Tyndareus’ oath. But hope, I think, is a god,
and made it happen rather than you and your strength. Take them
and go on your expedition! In their hearts’ folly they are ready.
(394) For the gods are not devoid of wisdom! No, they are able
to recognize (394a) oaths which were basely sworn because they
were made under compulsion. (395)
I will not kill my own child. And your fortunes will not prosper,
in defiance of what is just, by your vengeance on a worthless
bedmate, while days and nights waste me away in tears, if I act
lawlessly and unjustly against the daughter I fathered.
That is what I have to say to you. It is brief, clear, and easy.
(400) If you do not wish to be sensible, I shall put my own affairs
in good order.
Cho. What you have just spoken is quite different from what you said
before. But it is good that you talk of sparing a child.
Men. Alas! Then I can see in my misery that I had no friends.
120 Euripides

Αγ. εἰ τοὺς φίλους γε μὴ θέλεις ἀπολλύναι. 405

Με. δείξεις δὲ ποῦ μοι πατρὸς ἐκ ταὐτοῦ γεγώς;
Αγ. συσσωφρονεῖν σοι βούλομαι κοὐ συννοσεῖν.
Με. ἐς κοινὸν ἀλγεῖν τοῖς φίλοισι χρὴ φίλους.
Αγ. εὖ δρῶν παρακάλει μ’, ἀλλὰ μὴ λυπῶν ἐμέ.
Με. οὐκ ἄρα δοκεῖ σοι τάδε πονεῖν σὺν Ἑλλάδι; 410
Αγ. Ἑλλὰς δὲ σὺν σοὶ κατὰ θεὸν νοσεῖ τινα.
Με. σκήπτρῳ νυν αὔχει, σὸν κασίγνητον προδούς.
ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλας εἶμι μηχανάς τινας
φίλους τ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλους.
ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ
ὦ Πανελλήνων ἄναξ,
Ἀγάμεμνον, ἥκω παῖδά σοι τὴν σὴν ἄγων, 415
ἣν Ἰφιγένειαν ὠνόμαζες ἐν δόμοις.
μήτηρ δ’ ὁμαρτεῖ, σῆς Κλυταιμήστρας δέμας,
καὶ παῖς Ὀρέστης, ὥς σφε τερφθείης ἰδών,
χρόνον παλαιὸν δωμάτων ἔκδημος ὤν.
ἀλλ’ ὡς μακρὰν ἔτεινον, εὔρυτον παρὰ 420
κρήνην ἀναψύχουσι θηλύπουν βάσιν
αὐταί τε πῶλοί τ’· ἐς δὲ λειμώνων χλόην
καθεῖμεν αὐτάς, ὡς βορᾶς γευσαίατο.
ἐγὼ δὲ πρόδρομος σῆς παρασκευῆς χάριν
ἥκω· πέπυσται γὰρ στρατός – ταχεῖα γὰρ 425

405 θέλοις West

407 cf. Plut. Mor. 64c συσσωφρονεῖν γάρ, οὐχὶ συννοσεῖν ἔφυ (unattributed);
βούλομαι κοὐ Nauck: βούλομ’, ἀλλ’ οὐ L: βουλόμεσθ’, οὐ Fix: βουλόμενος,
οὐ Vitelli
412 αὔχει Tyrwhitt: αὐχεῖς L
413–41 susp. or del. many eds, most recently Diggle (413–39) and Kovacs: def. first
Hermann, cf. e.g. Stockert, Matthiessen, Turato
416 ὠνόμαζες Markland: ὠνόμαξας L
417 σὴ Κλυταίμηστρα δάμαρ Elmsley
418 ὥς σφε Vater: ὥστε L: ὥς τι Hermann
422–3 del. Page
422 αὐτοῖσι (αὐταῖσι later Gaisford) πώλοις Porson; τ’ Livineius, Markland: γ’ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 121

Ag. Ah, but you do have, if you do not wish to ruin your friends.
(405)
Men. How can you show that you were born from the same father as
myself?
Ag. I want to share with you in wisdom, not in sick folly.
Men. Friends should join in their friends’ distress.
Ag. Ask for my help by treating me well, not by causing me pain.
Men. Do you not think it right to share in the efforts of Greece? (410)
Ag. Some god together with yourself has brought this sickness on
Greece.
Men. Well, take pride in your sceptre then, and betray your brother.
But I shall go to other plans and other friends. (414a)
A MESSENGER enters hurriedly stage-right, on the road from Greece.
MESSENGER. O lord of all the Greeks, (414b) Agamemnon, I
have come bringing you your child (415), whom you named
Iphigenia in your palace. Her mother is accompanying her, your
Clytemnestra in person, as well as your son Orestes, so that you
can take pleasure in seeing him after your long absence from
home. But since they were travelling far, they are cooling and
refreshing their feet by a fair-flowing spring, (420) women and
fillies alike. We turned them loose in the meadows’ grass so that
they could feed.
As for myself, I have come running on before them so that
you may make preparations. For the army has learned (425) –
122 Euripides

διῇξε φήμη – παῖδα σὴν ἀφιγμένην.

πᾶς δ’ ἐς θέαν ὅμιλος ἔρχεται δρόμῳ,
σὴν παῖδ’ ὅπως ἴδωσιν· οἱ δ’ εὐδαίμονες
ἐν πᾶσι κλεινοὶ καὶ περίβλεπτοι βροτοῖς.
λέγουσι δ’· “ Ὑμέναιός τις ἢ τί πράσσεται; 430
ἢ πόθον ἔχων θυγατρὸς Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ
ἐκόμισε παῖδα;” τῶν δ’ ἂν ἤκουσας τάδε·
“Ἀρτέμιδι προτελίζουσι τὴν νεάνιδα,
Αὐλίδος ἀνάσσῃ· τίς νιν ἄξεταί ποτε;”
ἀλλ’ εἷα τἀπὶ τοισίδ’ ἐξάρχου κανᾶ, 435
στεφανοῦσθε κρᾶτα, καὶ σύ, Μενέλεως ἄναξ,
ὑμέναιον εὐτρέπιζε, καὶ κατὰ στέγας
λωτὸς βοάσθω καὶ ποδῶν ἔστω κτύπος·
φῶς γὰρ τόδ’ ἥκει μακάριον τῇ παρθένῳ.
Αγ. ἐπῄνεσ’, ἀλλὰ στεῖχε δωμάτων ἔσω· 440
τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ἰούσης τῆς τύχης ἔσται καλῶς.
οἴμοι, τί φῶ δύστηνος; ἄρξωμαι πόθεν;
ἐς οἷ’ ἀνάγκης ζεύγματ’ ἐμπεπτώκαμεν.
ὑπῆλθε δαίμων, ὥστε τῶν σοφισμάτων
πολλῷ γενέσθαι τῶν ἐμῶν σοφώτερος. 445
ἡ δυσγένεια δ’ ὡς ἔχει τι χρήσιμον·
καὶ γὰρ δακρῦσαι ῥᾳδίως αὐτοῖς ἔχει
ἅπαντά τ’ εἰπεῖν· τῷ δὲ γενναίῳ φύσιν
ἄνολβα ταῦτα· προστάτην δὲ τοῦ βίου
τὸν ὄγκον ἔχομεν τῷ τ’ ὄχλῳ δουλεύομεν. 450

430 πράσσεται] -ε written above -αι by L

435 τοισίδ’ L. Dindorf: τοῖσι δ’ (L*)P: τοῖσιν Tr2/3
442 ἄρξωμαι Burges: ἄρξομαι L; πόθεν Grotius: σέθεν L
443 οἷ’ P2: οἷά γ’ L
448 ἅπαντα Musgrave: ἄνολβα L
449b–50 Plut. Nicias 5.7 (526cd)
449 ἄνολβα Musgrave: ἅπαντα L: ἄφαντα Apelt; ταῦτα] πάντα Diggle; δὲ Plut.: γε
L: τε Matthiae
450 ὄγκον Plut.: δῆμον L; τ’ L: δ’ Plut.
 Iphigenia at Aulis 123

because report spread quickly – that your daughter has arrived.

The whole host is coming to the sight at a run, to see your
child. Yes, those of blessed estate are famous among all men,
and widely admired. The soldiers are saying: ‘Does this mean a
marriage? Or what is going on? (430) Is it because he misses her
that the king has fetched his young daughter?’ And you would
have heard this from others: ‘They are consecrating the young
girl to Artemis, the lady of Aulis, in preparation for her wedding.
Whoever will be marrying her?’
Come then: do what follows, (to Ag.) begin with the baskets,
(435) start the sacrificial rite, and (to Ag. and Men.) garland your
heads. And you, lord Menelaus, rehearse the wedding song! Let
the pipe sound throughout the shelters and the earth thud with
stamping feet! For this day has dawned with the promise of
happiness for the maiden.
Ag. Thank you! But go inside the hut. (440) As fortune takes its
course, the rest will turn out well.
The MESSENGER enters the hut.
Alas! What am I to say in my misery? Where begin? What a
yoke of necessity I have fallen under! A god has outwitted me
and proved far cleverer than all my clever plans. Low birth has
some usefulness: (445) men can weep easily and say everything.
But for the man of noble birth this is profitless. We have dignity
as the ruler of our lives and we are slaves to the masses. (450)
124 Euripides

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκβαλεῖν μὲν αἰδοῦμαι δάκρυ,

τὸ μὴ δακρῦσαι δ’ αὖθις αἰδοῦμαι τάλας,
ἐς τὰς μεγίστας συμφορὰς ἀφιγμένος.
εἶἑν· τί φήσω πρὸς δάμαρτα τὴν ἐμήν;
πῶς δέξομαί νιν; ποῖον ὄμμα συμβαλῶ; 455
καὶ γάρ μ’ ἀπώλεσ’ ἐπὶ κακοῖς ἅ μοι πάρα
ἐλθοῦσ’ ἄκλητος. εἰκότως δ’ ἅμ’ ἕσπετο
θυγατρὶ νυμφεύσουσα καὶ τὰ φίλτατα
δώσουσ’, ἵν’ ἡμᾶς ὄντας εὑρήσει κακούς.
τὴν δ’ αὖ τάλαιναν παρθένον – τί παρθένον; 460
Ἅιδης νιν, ὡς ἔοικε, νυμφεύσει τάχα –
ὡς ᾤκτισ’· οἶμαι γάρ νιν ἱκετεύσειν τάδε·
“Ὦ πάτερ, ἀποκτενεῖς με; τοιούτους γάμους
γήμειας αὐτὸς χὤστις ἐστί σοι φίλος.”
παρὼν δ’ Ὀρέστης ἐγγὺς ἀναβοήσεται 465
οὐ συνετὰ συνετῶς· ἔτι γάρ ἐστι νήπιος.
αἰαῖ, τὸν Ἑλένης ὥς μ’ ἀπώλεσεν γάμον
γήμας ὁ Πριάμου Πάρις, ὃς εἴργασται τάδε.
Χο. κἀγὼ κατῴκτιρ’, ὡς γυναῖκα δεῖ ξένην
ὑπὲρ τυράννων συμφορᾶς καταστένειν. 470
Με. ἀδελφέ, δός μοι δεξιᾶς τῆς σῆς θιγεῖν.
Αγ. δίδωμι· σὸν γὰρ τὸ κράτος, ἄθλιος δ’ ἐγώ.
Με. Πέλοπα κατόμνυμ’, ὃς πατὴρ τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦ σοῦ τ’ ἐκλήθη, τὸν τεκόντα τ’ Ἀτρέα,
ἦ μὴν ἐρεῖν σοι τἀπὸ καρδίας σαφῶς 475
καὶ μὴ ’πίτηδες μηδέν, ἀλλ’ ὅσον φρονῶ.
ἐγώ σ’ ἀπ’ ὄσσων ἐκβαλόντ’ ἰδὼν δάκρυ
ᾤκτιρα καὐτὸς ἀνταφῆκά σοι πάλιν
καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν ἐξαφίσταμαι λόγων,

455 συμβαλῶ P2: συμβάλω L

456 πάρα P2: πάρος L
458 νυμφεύσουσα Markland: νυμφεύουσα L
462 ἱκετεύσειν Markland: ἱκετεῦσαι L
466 εὐσύνετ’ ἀσυνέτως Musgrave; συνετῶς] συνετοῖς Pierson
468 ὃς Heath: ὅς μ’ L: ὅ μ’ Markland
 Iphigenia at Aulis 125

For I am ashamed to pour out tears, but in turn I am ashamed to

hold them in, poor wretch that I am, now that I have come into
the greatest of disasters.
Well then, what shall I say to my wife? How shall I receive
her? What look shall I meet hers with? (455) On top of the
troubles I have already, she has destroyed me by coming here
unsummoned. Yet it was likely that she would accompany her
daughter to marry and give away her dearest – where she will
discover my baseness. As for the wretched maiden – why say,
maiden? (460) Hades, it seems, will soon marry her – how I pity
her! I think she will supplicate me with these words: ‘O father,
will you kill me? May you make such a marriage yourself, may
anyone you love!’ And Orestes will be there nearby, to shout out
(465) incomprehensibly, though comprehending.
Alas, it was Priam’s son, Paris, who brought me to this when
he made his marriage with Helen and destroyed me!
Cho. I feel pity too – as far as a foreign woman may grieve for the
fortune of kings. (470)
Men. My brother, let me take your right hand in mine.
Ag. Here is my hand. For yours is the victory, and the misery mine.
Men. I swear by Pelops, who was called the father of my father and
yours, and by Atreus who fathered us, that I shall open my
heart to you, speaking clearly (475) and without any deceit, but
(saying) what I think.
When I saw tears falling from your eyes, I pitied you and
myself shed tears for you in my turn; and I abandon the words I
spoke before. You have nothing to fear from me. No, I am now
126 Euripides

οὐκ ἐς σὲ δεινός, εἰμὶ δ’ οὗπερ εἶ σὺ νῦν. 480

καί σοι παραινῶ μήτ’ ἀποκτεῖναι τέκνον
μήτ’ ἀνθελέσθαι τοὐμόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔνδικον
σὲ μὲν στενάζειν, τἀμὰ δ’ ἡδέως ἔχειν,
θνῄσκειν τε τοὺς σούς, τοὺς δ’ ἐμοὺς ὁρᾶν φάος.
τί βούλομαι γάρ; οὐ γάμους ἐξαιρέτους 485
ἄλλους λάβοιμ’ ἄν, εἰ γάμων ἱμείρομαι;
ἀλλ’ ἀπολέσας ἀδελφόν, ὅν μ’ ἥκιστ’ ἐχρῆν,
Ἑλένην ἕλωμαι, τὸ κακὸν ἀντὶ τἀγαθοῦ;
ἄφρων νέος τ’ ἦ, πρὶν τὰ πράγματ’ ἐγγύθεν
σκοπῶν ἐσεῖδον οἷον ἦν κτείνειν τέκνα. 490
ἄλλως τέ μ’ ἔλεος τῆς ταλαιπώρου κόρης
ἐσῆλθε, συγγένειαν ἐννοουμένῳ,
ἣ τῶν ἐμῶν ἕκατι θύεσθαι γάμων
μέλλει. τί δ’ Ἑλένης παρθένῳ τῇ σῇ μέτα;
ἴτω στρατεία διαλυθεῖσ’ ἐξ Αὐλίδος, 495
σὺ δ’ ὄμμα παῦσαι δακρύοις τέγγων τὸ σόν,
ἀδελφέ, κἀμὲ παρακαλῶν ἐς δάκρυα.
εἰ δέ τι κόρης σῆς θεσφάτων μέτεστι σοί,
μὴ ’μοὶ μετέστω· σοὶ νέμω τοὐμὸν μέρος.
ἀλλ’ ἐς μεταβολὰς ἦλθον ἀπὸ δεινῶν λόγων; 500
εἰκὸς πέπονθα· τὸν ὁμόθεν πεφυκότα
στέργων μετέπεσον. ἀνδρὸς οὐ κακοῦ τρόποι
τοιοίδε, χρῆσθαι τοῖσι βελτίστοις ἀεί.

480 εἰμὶ Kirchhoff: εἶμι L

481 ἀποκτεῖναι Elmsley: ἀποκτείνειν L
487 ἥκιστα χρῆν Nauck (4), Wecklein
489 ἦ Cobet: ἦν L, cf. 1158; τὰ πράγματ Lenting: πράγματα δ’ L
491 σῆς Dawe
492 ἐννοούμενον Markland
499 ’μοὶ Hermann: μοι L
500–3 del. W. Dindorf
500 punct. as question Reiske
502 τροπαὶ (-αὶ written above -οι) and 503 τοιoίδε (-οί- above -αί-) L
503 τὸ above χρῆσθαι L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 127

where you are. (480) And I urge you not to kill your child and
not to prefer my business to yours. For it is not right that you
should sorrow while all goes pleasingly for me, and that your
child should die while my family sees the light of the sun. What
do I want then? Could I not make another marriage, a choice one,
(485) if, as you say, it is marriage I desire? Am I to destroy a
brother – whom I least should – by choosing Helen, exchanging
good for evil? I was foolish and raw until I examined the matter
from close at hand and realised what it means to kill one’s child.
(490)
And besides that, pity for the wretched girl swept over me
as I thought about our kinship, for the girl who is about to be
sacrificed for the sake of my marriage. What has your maiden
daughter to do with Helen?
Disband the expedition! Let it go from Aulis! (495) And
yourself: stop wetting your eyes with tears, brother, and exciting
me to tears with you. Whatever concern you may have in the
prophecies about your daughter, let them be no concern of mine.
My part in this business I make over to you.
But have I changed from the man who spoke so frighteningly?
(500) What I have been through is natural. I have changed out of
love for the son of the parents we share. To act in the best way as
occasion arises – that is how an honourable man behaves.
128 Euripides

Χο. γενναῖ’ ἔλεξας Ταντάλῳ τε τῷ Διὸς

πρέποντα· προγόνους οὐ καταισχύνεις σέθεν. 505
Αγ. αἰνῶ σε, Μενέλα’, ὅτι παρὰ γνώμην ἐμὴν
ὑπέθηκας ὀρθῶς τοὺς λόγους σοῦ τ’ ἀξίως.
ταραχὴ δ’ ἀδελφῶν διά τ’ ἔρωτα γίγνεται
πλεονεξίαν τε δωμάτων· ἀπέπτυσα
τοιάνδε συγγένειαν ἀλλήλοιν πικράν. 510
ἀλλ’ ἥκομεν γὰρ εἰς ἀναγκαίας τύχας,
θυγατρὸς αἱματηρὸν ἐκπρᾶξαι φόνον.
Με. πῶς; τίς δ’ ἀναγκάσει σε τήν γε σὴν κτανεῖν;
Αγ. ἅπας Ἀχαιῶν σύλλογος στρατεύματος.
Με. οὔκ, ἤν νιν εἰς Ἄργος <γ’> ἀποστείλῃς πάλιν. 515
Αγ. λάθοιμι τοῦτ’ ἄν, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖν’ οὐ λήσομεν.
Με. τὸ ποῖον; οὔτοι χρὴ λίαν ταρβεῖν ὄχλον.
Αγ. Κάλχας ἐρεῖ μαντεύματ’ Ἀργείων στρατῷ.
Με. οὔκ, ἢν θάνῃ γε πρόσθε· τοῦτο δ’ εὐμαρές.
Αγ. [τὸ μαντικὸν πᾶν σπέρμα φιλότιμον κακόν. 520
Με. †κοὐδέν γ’ ἄχρηστον οὐδὲ χρήσιμον παρόν.†]
Αγ. ἐκεῖνο δ’ οὐ δέδοικας οὕμ’ ἐσέρχεται;
Με. ὃν μὴ σὺ φράζεις πῶς ὑπολάβοιμ’ ἂν λόγον;
Αγ. τὸ Σισύφειον σπέρμα πάντ’ οἶδεν τάδε.
Με. οὐκ ἔστ’ Ὀδυσσεὺς ὅτι σὲ κἀμὲ πημανεῖ. 525

505 προγόνους <δ’> Hermann

506 Μενέλα’, Musgrave: Μενέλαος L
508–10 Αγ. Hermann: Με. L; 508–10 del. Boeckh: transferred after 499 Günther
508 δ’ Hermann: γ’ L; διά τ’ Porson: διὰ L*?: γε δι’ Tr1?, P: τις δι’ Tr3
510 ἀλλήλοιν Markland: ἀλλήλων L
513 σε Tr1: om. L
514 Ἀχαιοῦ Nauck (4)
515 <γ’> Tr2/3; ἀποστείλῃς Markland: ἀποστελεῖς L; ἢν ἀποστέλλῃς νιν εἰς ῎Αργος
πάλιν attributed to Bothe by Wecklein
520–1 del. Hartung
521 γε χρηστὸν Canter: γ’ ἄρεστον Nauck
522 οὕμ’ Markland: ὃ ἐμ’ L* overwritten with ὅ μ’ Tr1 (= P): ὅτι μ’ Tr2/3
523 ὑπολάβοιμ’ ἂν Markland: ὑπολάβοιμεν L
524 οἶδεν P2: εἶδε L: εἶδεν Tr2/3
 Iphigenia at Aulis 129

Cho. You have spoken noble words, worthy of Tantalus, the son of
Zeus. You bring no shame on your ancestors. (505)
Ag. I thank you, Menelaus, because against my expectation you
set out your words correctly, and worthily of yourself. Strife
between brothers arises through love of a woman or desire to
take over the house. I detest the type of brothers’ bond which
leads to bitterness for both of them. (510)
However: I have come under compulsion from my fortunes,
to carry out the bloody killing of my daughter.
Men. How? Who will compel you to kill your own child?
Ag. The whole mustered host of the Achaeans.
Men. Not if you send Iphigenia back to Argos. (515)
Ag. I could do that secretly, but there is something that we cannot
keep secret.
Men. Why, what is that? You must not fear the masses too much.
Ag. Calchas will tell the prophecy to the Argive army.
Men. No, not if he dies first; and this is easy.
[Ag. The whole breed of seers is an evil – always ambitious. (520)
Men. †Yes, and nothing of use, nor useful, when it’s there.†]
Ag. But are you not afraid of something else that comes to my mind?
Men. How can I understand what you’re talking about if you don’t tell
me?
Ag. Sisyphus’ seed knows all of this.
Men. There is no harm that Odysseus will do you or me. (525)
130 Euripides

Αγ. ποικίλος ἀεὶ πέφυκε τοῦ τ’ ὄχλου μέτα.

Με. φιλοτιμίᾳ μὲν ἐνέχεται, δεινῷ κακῷ.
Αγ. οὔκουν δοκεῖς νιν στάντ’ ἐν Ἀργείοις μέσοις
λέξειν ἃ Κάλχας θέσφατ’ ἐξηγήσατο,
κἄμ’ ὡς ὑπέστην θῦμα, κᾆτ’ ἐψευδόμην, 530
Ἀρτέμιδι θύσειν; οὐ ξυναρπάσας στρατόν,
σὲ κἄμ’ ἀποκτείναντας Ἀργείους κόρην
σφάξαι κελεύσει; κἂν πρὸς Ἄργος ἐκφύγω,
ἐλθόντες αὐτοῖς τείχεσιν Κυκλωπίοις
ἀναρπάσουσι καὶ κατασκάψουσι γῆν. 535
τοιαῦτα τἀμὰ πήματ’· ὦ τάλας ἐγώ,
ὡς ἠπόρημαι πρὸς θεῶν τὰ νῦν τάδε.
ἕν μοι φύλαξον, Μενέλεως, ἀνὰ στρατὸν
ἐλθών, ὅπως ἂν μὴ Κλυταιμήστρα τάδε
μάθῃ, πρὶν Ἅιδῃ παῖδ’ ἐμὴν προσθῶ λαβών, 540
ὡς ἐπ’ ἐλαχίστοις δακρύοις πράσσω κακῶς.
ὑμεῖς δὲ σιγήν, ὦ ξέναι, φυλάσσετε.
Χο. μάκαρες οἳ μετρίας θεοῦ στρ.
μετά τε σωφροσύνας μετέ-
σχον λέκτρων Ἀφροδίτας, 545
γαλανείᾳ χρησάμενοι
μαινομένων οἴστρων, ὅθι δὴ

526 τ’ Reiske: γ’ L
528–42 del. W. Dindorf
528 οὔκουν δοκεῖς Musgrave: οὐκοῦν δόκει L
530 κᾆτ’ ἐψευδόμην Murray: κἆτα ψεύδομαι L: κᾆτ’ ἐψεύσομαι Porson
531 οὐ Reiske: ὃς L
535 ἀναρπάσουσι Markland: συναρπάσουσι L
537 ἠπάτημαι Hartung: ἠμπόλημαι Kirchhoff
538 φύλαξαι Headlam
542 δὲ Günther: τε L
543 εἰσὶν written above μάκαρες L
545 θέλκτρων Nauck
547 μαινομένων Reiske: μαινόμεν’ L: μανιάδων Wecklein
 Iphigenia at Aulis 131

Ag. He is always sly and sides with the masses.

Men. It is ambition, a terrible evil, that has him caught.
Ag. Don’t you think that he will stand in the midst of the Argives
and speak out the prophecies which Calchas expounded, and say
of me how I promised to undertake the sacrifice to Artemis and
then tried lying about it? (530) Will he not then carry the whole
army along with him and tell the Argives to kill you and me and
slaughter the girl? And if I escape to Argos, they will come there,
ravage the city and raze it to the ground, Cyclopean walls and
all. (535) Such are my torments. Poor wretch that I am, to what
helplessness the gods have now reduced me!
Please secure one thing for me, Menelaus, when you go among
the army – see that Clytemnestra does not learn of this before I
take my daughter and hand her to Hades, (540) so that I may pass
through my troubles with the fewest tears.
And you, keep silent, you foreign women.
MENELAUS leaves stage-left, to go to the army. AGAMEMNON stays,
stage-left.
Cho. (singing and dancing; strophe) Happy are they who with the
goddess being moderate and with self-restraint share in Aphrodite
of the marriage-bed, (545) experiencing a calm free from the
stings of mad desire, the moment when golden-haired Eros bends
132 Euripides

δίδυμ’ ὁ χρυσοκόμας Ἔρως

τόξ’ ἐντείνεται χαρίτων,
τὸ μὲν ἐπ’ εὐαίωνι πότμῳ, 550
τὸ δ’ ἐπὶ συγχύσει βιοτᾶς.
ἀπενέπω νιν ἁμετέρων,
ὦ Κύπρι καλλίστα, θαλάμων.
εἴη δέ μοι μετρία
μὲν χάρις, πόθοι δ’ ὅσιοι, 555
καὶ μετέχοιμι τᾶς Ἀφροδί-
τας, πολλὰν δ’ ἀποθείμαν.
διάφοροι δὲ φύσεις βροτῶν, ἀντ.
διάφοροι δὲ τρόποι· τὸ δ’ ὀρ-
θῶς ἐσθλὸν σαφὲς αἰεί· 560
τροφαί θ’ αἱ παιδευόμεναι
μέγα φέρουσ’ ἐς τὰν ἀρετάν·
τό τε γὰρ αἰδεῖσθαι σοφία,
τάν τ’ ἐξαλλάσσουσαν ἔχει
χάριν ὑπὸ γνώμας ἐσορᾶν 565
τὸ δέον, ἔνθα δόξα φέρει
κλέος ἀγήρατον βιοτᾷ.

548–51 Athenaeus 13.562e; 548–49 Menander Rhetor III.404–405 Spengel has

ἔρωτας ... τόξα ... ἐντειναμένους
548 ἔρως ὁ χρυσοκόμας Tr3
550 πότμῳ] τύχᾳ Athen.
552 ἀπενέπω Tr2/3: ἀπεννέπων (L*)P
553 ὦ del. Tr2/3
556 μετέχοιμ’ ἴσας Valckenaer
557 δ’ Reiske: τ’ L
558 διάφοροι Höpfner: διάτροποι L
559 τρόποι Scaliger: τρόποις L
559–60 τὸ δ’ ὀρθῶς Musgrave: ὁ δ’ ὀρθὸς L
561 θ’ Lcorr: τ’ ?L; θ’ αἱ παιδευομένων Monk: τ’ εὖ παιδευόμεναι Nauck: τ’ εὖ
παιδευομένοις Diggle
566 δόξα Barnes: δόξαν L; δόξα φέρει κλέος susp. Diggle
567 ἀγήραον Ritschl; βιοτᾷ Markland: βιοτάν L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 133

on the two arrows of his delights, one bringing a lifetime of good

fortune, (550) the other a life of ruinous confusion. I forbid him,
O most beautiful Cypris, from our bedrooms. Rather may my
delight be moderate, and my desires pure, (555) and may I have
my part in Aphrodite, but put her from me at her full.
(antistrophe) Mortals have different natures, different habits;
but what is truly good is always clear. (560) An upbringing with
education greatly contributes to virtue. A sense of shame is
itself wisdom, and has the exceptional grace of discerning duty
through reason, (565) when reputation brings ageless glory to a
134 Euripides

μέγα τι θηρεύειν ἀρετάν,

γυναιξὶ μὲν κατὰ Κύ-
πριν κρυπτάν, ἐν ἀνδράσι δ’ αὖ 570
κόσμος ἐνὼν ὁ μυριοπλη-
θὴς μείζω πόλιν αὔξει.
ἔμολες, ὦ Πάρις, ᾇτε σύ γε ἐπῳδ.
βουκόλος ἀργενναῖς ἐτράφης
Ἰδαίαις παρὰ μόσχοις, 575
βάρβαρα συρίζων, Φρυγίων
αὐλῶν Οὐλύμπου καλάμοις
μιμήματα πνείων.
εὔθηλοι δὲ τρέφοντο βόες,
ὅθι σε κρίσις ἔμενεν θεᾶν, 580
ἅ σ’ ἐς Ἑλλάδα πέμπει·
ἐλεφαντοδέτων πάροι-
θεν θρόνων ὃς στὰς Ἑλένας

569–83 P. Köln 67, with considerable damage and loss

569–70 γυναιξι μεν [ | κρυπταν P. Köln
570 ἐν ἀνδράσι δ’ Tr3: ἐν δ’ ἀνδράσιν (L*)P: εν α̣[ or εν δ̣[ P. Köln
571–2 αυ κοσμος οδεν̣[ | πληθει μειζω π̣[ P. Köln
571 ἐνὼν ὁ Markland: ὁ δ’ ἔνδον L
571–2 μυριοπληθεῖ or -εὶ eds
573 ἔμολες] ἔμαθον Kovacs; ἔμαθες and 576 συρίζειν Willink
573 παρ̣ι̣σ̣ [ | βουκολος P. Köln; ᾇτε Willink: ᾗτε L; σύ γε susp. eds
577 ο̣υ̣[λυμπου] P. Köln, Οὐλύμπου conj. Heath: ὀλύμπου L
578 μιμηματ̣[4/5 letters]υ̣ων P. Köln; ἀναπ]ύων conj. Günther: πνε]ύων Musso (but
rejected), West; πνείων W. Dindorf: πνέων L
579 δ’ ἐτρέφοντο Blomfield [P. Köln defective]
580 ο[6/7 let.]σ̣ε̣μ̣[5 let.]αν P. Köln (i.e. ο[ὗ κρίσι]ς Günther): ὅθι Bothe: ὅτι L: ὅτε
Aldine; ἔμενεν Bothe, Monk; ἔμενε L: ἔμηνε Hermann; ὅθι (or οὗ) κρίσις σ’ or
(σε κρίσις L) ἔμενεν θεᾶν Diggle
581 σ’ ἐς Ἑλλάδα L. Dindorf: σ[5 let.]λ̣α̣δ̣[ P. Köln (i.e. σ[εισελ]λαδ[α Günther,
Diggle): σ’ ἑλλάδα L
582–3 πάροιθεν θρόνων Hermann: πάροιθε (-θεν P/P2) δόμων L: παρο[| 6 let.]ω̣ν̣ε̣[
P. Köln
583 ὃς (L) στὰς Jouan (δὲ στὰς earlier Kirchhoff): ὃς τᾶς L: οὗ τᾶς Musgrave: ἔστας
῾Ελένας <δ’> Wilamowitz
 Iphigenia at Aulis 135

life. It is a great thing to hunt after virtue – for women within a

hidden love, and among men in their turn good order within them
in countless forms increases their city to greatness. (570)
(epode) You came, O Paris, to where you yourself were reared,
an oxherd on Mt Ida among white heifers, (575) playing barbarian
music, breathing on the reeds imitations of the Phrygian pipes of
Olympus; and your full-uddered cows were being reared where
judgement of the goddesses awaited you (580) – which sent you
to Greece. You stood before the throne of Helen with its ivoried
136 Euripides

ἐν ἀντωποῖς βλεφάροις
ἔρωτά τ’ ἔδωκας ἔρωτί τ’ 585
αὐτὸς ἐπτοήθης.
ὅθεν ἔριν ἔριν
Ἑλλάδα σὺν δορὶ ναυσί τ’ ἄγεις
ἐς πέργαμα Τροίας.
ἰὼ ἰώ· μεγάλαι μεγάλων 590
εὐδαιμονίαι· τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως
ἴδετ’ Ἰφιγένειαν, ἄνασσαν †ἐμήν†,
τὴν Τυνδάρεω τε Κλυταιμήστραν,
ὡς ἐκ μεγάλων ἐβλαστήκασ’
ἐπί τ’ εὐμήκεις ἥκουσι τύχας. 595
θεοί γ’ οἱ κρείσσους οἵ τ’ ὀλβοφόροι
τοῖς οὐκ εὐδαίμοσι θνητῶν.
[στῶμεν, Χαλκίδος ἔκγονα θρέμματα,
τὴν βασίλειαν δεξώμεθ’ ὄχων
ἄπο μὴ σφαλερῶς ἐπὶ γαῖαν, 600
ἀγανῶς δὲ χεροῖν, μαλακῇ γνώμῃ,
†μὴ ταρβήσῃ νεωστί μοι μολὸν
κλεινὸν τέκνον Ἀγαμέμνονος,
μηδὲ θόρυβον μηδ’ ἔκπληξιν†
ταῖς Ἀργείαις 605
ξεῖναι ξείναις παρέχωμεν.]

585 τ’ ἔδωκας Blomfield: δέδωκας L: δέδορκας Headlam; τ’ before αὐτὸς Blomfield:

δ’ L
586 ἐπτοήθης Wilamowitz: ἐπτοάθης L
587 ἔριν ἔριν Page: ἔρις ἔριν L
588 ἄγεις Page: ἄγει L
589 πέργαμα Τροίας Blomfield: τροίας πέργαμα L
590–7 susp. many eds, e.g. Page, Diggle: del. L. and W. Dindorf: retained by e.g.
Stockert, Ritchie, Matthiessen, Turato
592 ἐμήν del. Bothe
593 τε Aldine: γε L
598–606 del. W. Dindorf, most eds: some defence by e.g. Jouan, Matthiessen, Turato
599 τὴν Tr2/3: τήνδε (L*)P; ὄχων Canter: ὄχλων L
601 ῥώμῃ Hermann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 137

work, and in the meeting of eyes you gave love (585) just as you
were yourself fluttered by love. And for that you are bringing
strife, yes, strife – Greece with her spears and ships – to Troy’s
citadel.
CLYTEMNESTRA, holding the baby ORESTES, and IPHIGENIA
enter stage-right on a carriage; they have male and female attendants.
(the Chorus now chants, joyfully) Hail, hail! Great is the happiness
of the great (590)! See Iphigenia, the daughter of the king, †my†
queen, and Clytemnestra, Tyndareus’ daughter! From what high
ancestry they were born! To what happily long fortunes they
have come! (595) In the eyes of unfortunate mortals the powerful
and the wealthy are gods.
[Let us take our stand, we from Chalcis, descended and
reared there; let us receive the queen from her carriage without
her stumbling to the ground, (600) our hands kind with gentle
intention, †so that the famous child of Agamemnon, whom I see
has just arrived, may not be frightened, and let us not trouble† or
alarm these foreign women from Argos (605) – we are foreigners
too.]
138 Euripides

ΚΛΥΤΑΙΜΗΣΤΡΑ
ὄρνιθα μὲν τόνδ’ αἴσιον ποιούμεθα,
τὸ σόν τε χρηστὸν καὶ λόγων εὐφημίαν·
ἐλπίδα δ’ ἔχω τιν’ ὡς ἐπ’ ἐσθλοῖσιν γάμοις
πάρειμι νυμφαγωγός. ἀλλ’ ὀχημάτων 610
ἔξω πορεύεθ’ ἃς φέρω φερνὰς κόρῃ
καὶ πέμπετ’ ἐς μέλαθρον εὐλαβούμενοι.
σὺ δ’, ὦ τέκνον μοι, λεῖπε πωλικοὺς ὄχους,
ἁβρὸν τιθεῖσα κῶλον ἀσφαλῶς χαμαί.
ὑμεῖς δὲ νεάνιδές νιν ἀγκάλαις ἔπι 615
δέξασθε καὶ πορεύσατ’ ἐξ ὀχημάτων.
κἀμοὶ χερός τις ἐνδότω στηρίγματα,
θάκους ἀπήνης ὡς ἂν ἐκλίπω καλῶς.
αἱ δ’ ἐς τὸ πρόσθεν στῆτε πωλικῶν ζυγῶν·
φοβερὸν γὰρ ἀπαράμυθον ὄμμα πωλικόν. 620
καὶ παῖδα τόνδε, τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονος γόνον,
λάζυσθ’, Ὀρέστην· ἔτι γάρ ἐστι νήπιος.
τέκνον, καθεύδεις, πωλικῷ δαμεὶς ὄχῳ;
ἔγειρ’ ἀδελφῆς ἐφ’ ὑμέναιον εὐτυχῶς·
ἀνδρὸς γὰρ ἀγαθοῦ κῆδος αὐτὸς ἐσθλὸς ὢν 625
λήψῃ, κόρης Νηρῇδος ἰσοθέου γένους.
†ἑξῆς κάθησο δεῦρό μου ποδός, τέκνον·
πρὸς μητέρ’, Ἰφιγένεια, μακαρίαν δέ με
ξέναισι ταῖσδε πλησία σταθεῖσα θές,

607–30 susp. or partly del. many eds: wholly del. W. Dindorf and e.g. Page: def. in
part by Jouan and esp. Matthiessen
614 ἀσφαλῶς χαμαί Hermann: ἀσθενές θ’ ἅμα L
615 νεάνιδές νιν Pierson: νεανίδαισιν L: νεανίδεσσιν Tr2/3: ὑμεῖς δ’ ἐπ’ ἀγκάλαις
νιν, ὦ νεάνιδές Monk
617 κἀμοὶ Bothe: καί μοι L
619 οἱ δ’ Dobree, Höpfner
623 καθεύδεις P2: θακεύεις L; ὄχῳ] δρόμῳ Stockert
626 κόρης Νηρῇδος Murray: τὸ νηρηῖδος L: τὸ <τῆς> Νηρῇδος Portus; ἰσοθέου
γένους Diggle: ἰσόθεον γένος L
627 καθίστω Markland
629 θές Camper: δός L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 139

CLYTEMNESTRA (speaking from the carriage) I count this a

favourable omen, your goodness and your auspicious words. I
have some expectation that I am here escorting a bride for an
excellent marriage. (to her male attendants) Come, bring from
the carriage (610) the gifts I am bearing for the girl and take them
carefully inside. And you, my child, please leave the carriage and
horses and put your delicate feet safely to the ground. (to her
female attendants) And you young women, receive her on your
bent arms (615) and bring her from the carriage. And someone
give me a supporting hand too so that I may leave my seat in the
carriage with decorum. And you other young women, stand at
the front of the yoked horses; for a horse looks frightened when
no one soothes it. (620)
And take this boy, Agamemnon’s son, Orestes! He’s still a
baby. Are you sleeping, my child, exhausted by the carriage?
Wake up for the wedding of your sister, and be happy; for you,
nobly-born yourself, will gain the connection to an excellent
man (625), the god-like offspring of Nereus’ daughter. †Here, sit
beside my feet, my child. To your mother, Iphigenia! Stand next
to me and make me blest in the eyes of these women foreigners.
140 Euripides

καὶ δεῦρο δὴ πατέρα πρόσειπε σὸν φίλον.† 630

ὦ σέβας ἐμοὶ μέγιστον, Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ, 633
ἥκομεν, ἐφετμαῖς οὐκ ἀπιστοῦσαι σέθεν. 634
ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ
ὦ μῆτερ, ὑποδραμοῦσά σ’ – ὀργισθῇς δὲ μή – 631
πρὸς στέρνα πατρὸς στέρνα τἀμὰ προσβαλῶ. 632
[ἐγὼ δὲ βούλομαι τὰ σὰ στέρν’, ὦ πάτερ, 635
ὑποδραμοῦσα περιβαλεῖν διὰ χρόνου·
ποθῶ γὰρ ὄμμα <δὴ> σόν· ὀργισθῇς δὲ μή.]
Κλ. ἀλλ’, ὦ τέκνον, χρή· φιλοπάτωρ δ’ ἀεί ποτ’ εἶ
μάλιστα παίδων τῷδ’ ὅσους ἐγὼ ’τεκον.
Ιφ. ὦ πάτερ, ἐσεῖδόν σ’ ἀσμένη πολλῷ χρόνῳ. 640
Αγ. καὶ γὰρ πατὴρ σέ· τόδ’ ἴσον ὑπὲρ ἀμφοῖν λέγεις.
Ιφ. χαῖρ’· εὖ δέ μ’ ἀγαγὼν πρὸς σ’ ἐποίησας, πάτερ.
Αγ. οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ, τέκνον.
Ιφ. ἔα·
ὡς οὐ βλέπεις εὔκηλον ἄσμενός μ’ ἰδών.
Αγ. πόλλ’ ἀνδρὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ στρατηλάτῃ μέλει. 645
Ιφ. παρ’ ἐμοὶ γενοῦ νῦν, μὴ ’πὶ φροντίδας τρέπου.
Αγ. ἀλλ’ εἰμὶ παρὰ σοὶ νῦν ἅπας κοὐκ ἄλλοθι.

630 πρόσειπε πατέρα Fix

633–4 transferred after 630 Porson: del. Page
632 προσβαλῶ Porson: περιβαλῶ L
633–7 del. Bremi; del., with lacuna before 631 Kovacs
635–7 del. Porson
636 περιβαλεῖν Porson: προσβαλεῖν L
637 <δὴ> Tr3
638 Κλ. Porson: Αγ. L
639 τῷδ Bothe: τῶνδε L
640–1 del. Kovacs
644 ὡς] πῶς and punct. as question Nauck (4); ἕκηλον Blomfield
645 στρατηλάτη (i.e. -ῃ) P2: στρατηλατεῖ L
646 μὴ Barnes: καὶ μὴ L
647 εἰμὶ P2: εἶμι L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 141

AGAMEMNON moves forward

And here! Speak to your dear father.† (630)
O my most revered majesty, lord Agamemnon, (633) we have
come; we have not disobeyed your commands! (634)
IPHIGENIA Mother, I shall run out ahead of you – do not be angry! –
(631) and clasp my father breast to breast. (632) [O father, I want
(635) to run out ahead and clasp your breast to me, it has been so
long! I yearn for the very sight of you! Do not be angry!]
Clyt. So you should, my child. Of all the children I bore your father,
you have always been the one who loved him most.
Iph. Father, I am glad to see you after so long a time! (640)
Ag. Yes, and your father to see you! You speak for us both there,
equally.
Iph. Greetings! You have done well to bring me here, father.
Ag. I don’t know that I should say that, my child, or not say it.
Iph. (with a start) What? How uneasy you look in being glad to see
me!
Ag. A king and commander has many cares. (645)
Iph. Be with me now; don’t turn to anxieties.
Ag. But I am with you, altogether, and nowhere else.
142 Euripides

Ιφ. μέθες νυν ὀφρὺν ὄμμα τ’ ἔκτεινον φίλον.

Αγ. ἰδού, γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ ὁρῶν, τέκνον.
Ιφ. κἄπειτα λείβεις δάκρυ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων σέθεν; 650
Αγ. μακρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ ’πιοῦσ’ ἀπουσία.
Ιφ. [†οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅτι φῄς, οὐκ οἶδα, φίλτατ’ ἐμοὶ πάτερ.†] 652
ποῦ τοὺς Φρύγας λέγουσιν ᾠκίσθαι, πάτερ; 662
Αγ. οὗ μήποτ’ οἰκεῖν ὤφελ’ ὁ Πριάμου Πάρις. 663
Ιφ. μακρὰν ἀπαίρεις, ὦ πάτερ, λιπὼν ἐμέ. 664
Αγ. [ἐς ταὐτόν, ὦ θύγατερ, ἥξεις σῷ πατρί.] 665
συνετὰ λέγουσα μᾶλλον εἰς οἶκτόν μ’ ἄγεις. 653
Ιφ. ἀσύνετά νυν ἐροῦμεν, εἰ σέ γ’ εὐφρανῶ.
Αγ. παπαῖ· τὸ σιγᾶν οὐ σθένω, σὲ δ’ ᾔνεσα. 655
Ιφ. μέν’, ὦ πάτερ, κατ’ οἶκον ἐπὶ τέκνοις σέθεν.
Αγ. θέλω γε, τὸ μένειν δ’ οὐκ ἔχων ἀλγύνομαι.
Ιφ. ὄλοιντο λόγχαι καὶ τὰ Μενέλεω κακά.
Αγ. ἄλλους ὀλεῖ πρόσθ’ ἁμὲ διολέσαντ’ ἔχει.
Ιφ. ὡς πολὺν ἀπῆσθα χρόνον ἐν Αὐλίδος μυχοῖς. 660
Αγ. καὶ νῦν γέ μ’ ἴσχει δή τι μὴ στέλλειν στρατόν. 661
Ιφ. φεῦ·
εἴθ’ ἦν καλόν †μοι σοί τ’ ἄγειν σύμπλουν ἐμέ†. 666
Αγ. ἔτ’ ἔστι καὶ σοὶ πλοῦς, ἵνα †μνήση† πατρός.
Ιφ. σὺν μητρὶ πλεύσασ’ ἢ μόνη πορεύσομαι;

649 γέγηθά σ’ ὡς γέγηθ’ Musgrave: γέγηθ’ ἕως γέγηθά σ’ L

652–65 652 and 665 del. Wilamowitz (after W. Dindorf): 652 and 665 del., 662–64
transferred before 653, Jackson
662 τοὺς] γῆς Elmsley; ᾠκίσθαι Porson: ᾠκῆσθαι L
664 ἀπαρεῖς Wecklein
665 ἥξεις Bothe, Weil: ἥκεις L
653 εἰς οἶκτόν μ’ Tr2: μ’ εἰς οἶκτον (L*)P
657 τὸ μένειν England: τὸ θέλειν L: τὸ τελεῖν Markland: τοῦτο Günther
659 πρόσθ’ ἁμὲ Porson: πρόσθ’ ἅ με L: πρόσθεν ἅ με Tr2
661 γέ μ’ Aldine: γ’ ἔμ’ L
666 σε κἀμέ σοι σύμπλουν ἄγειν Hermann: σοι κἄμ’ ἄγειν σύμπλουν ὁμοῦ Diggle
667 ἔτ’ ἔστι Porson: αἰτεῖς τί; L; ἵν’ οὐ μνήσῃ Musgrave: ἵν’ ἀμμνήσῃ Murray: ἵν’
ἀμνηστῇς Diggle
 Iphigenia at Aulis 143

Iph. Away with this frown then, and give me a loving look.
Ag. Look, I have all the joy I can have in seeing you, my child.
Iph. And then you have tears streaming from your eyes? (650)
Ag. Yes, for the coming absence will be long for us. (651)
Iph. [I don’t know what you mean, I don’t know, dearest of fathers!
(652)] Where do they say that the Phrygians dwell, father? (662)
Ag. Where ... if only Priam’s son Paris were not living there! (663)
Iph. You are sailing a long way, father, and leaving me. (664)
Ag. [You will come to the same place as your father, my daughter.
(665)] The understanding in your words makes me pity you the
more. (653)
Iph. I shall talk with no understanding then, if that will make you
happy.
Ag. (groaning) Oh no! I do not have the strength to be silent. Thank
you, though. (655)
Iph. Stay at home, father, for your children!
Ag. That is my wish; but I cannot stay, and it is painful for me.
Iph. A curse on wars and Menelaus’ wrongs!
Ag. What has brought me ruin will ruin others first.
Iph. How long a time you have been away in the bay of Aulis! (660)
Ag. And now something holds me back from sending the expedition
off. (661)
Iph. Alas! If only it were right †for us both to take me with you on
your voyage!† (666)
Ag. There is still a voyage for you too, where †you will remember†
your father.
Iph. Will I voyage with my mother or make the crossing alone?
144 Euripides

Αγ. μόνη, μονωθεῖσ’ ἀπὸ πατρὸς καὶ μητέρος.

Ιφ οὔ πού μ’ ἐς ἄλλα δώματ’ οἰκίζεις, πάτερ; 670
Αγ. ἐατέ’· οὐ χρὴ τοιάδ’ εἰδέναι κόρας.
Ιφ. σπεῦδ’ ἐκ Φρυγῶν μοι, θέμενος εὖ τἀκεῖ, πάτερ.
Αγ. θῦσαί με θυσίαν πρῶτα δεῖ τιν’ ἐνθάδε.
Ιφ. ἀλλὰ ξὺν ἱεροῖς χρὴ τό γ’ εὐσεβὲς σκοπεῖν.
Αγ. εἴσῃ σύ· χερνίβων γὰρ ἑστήξεις πέλας. 675
Ιφ. στήσομεν ἄρ’ ἀμφὶ βωμόν, ὦ πάτερ, χορούς;
Αγ. ζηλῶ σὲ μᾶλλον ἢ ’μὲ τοῦ μηδὲν φρονεῖν.
χώρει δὲ μελάθρων ἐντός – ὀφθῆναι κόραις
πικρόν – φίλημα δοῦσα δεξιάν τέ μοι,
μέλλουσα δαρὸν πατρὸς ἀποικήσειν χρόνον. 680
ὦ στέρνα καὶ παρῇδες, ὦ ξανθαὶ κόμαι,
ὡς ἄχθος ἡμῖν ἐγένεθ’ ἡ Φρυγῶν πόλις
Ἑλένη τε. παύω τοὺς λόγους· ταχεῖα γὰρ
νοτὶς διώκει μ’ ὀμμάτων ψαύσαντά σου.
ἴθ’ ἐς μέλαθρα.
σὲ δὲ παραιτοῦμαι τάδε, 685
Λήδας γένεθλον, εἰ κατῳκτίσθην ἄγαν,
μέλλων Ἀχιλλεῖ θυγατέρ’ ἐκδώσειν ἐμήν.
ἀποστολαὶ γὰρ μακάριαι μέν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως
δάκνουσι τοὺς τεκόντας, ὅταν ἄλλοις δόμοις
παῖδας παραδιδῷ πολλὰ μοχθήσας πατήρ. 690
Κλ. οὐχ ὧδ’ ἀσύνετός εἰμι, πείσεσθαι δ’ ἐμὲ

670 οἰκιεῖς Wecklein

671 ἐατέ’· Stadtmüller: ἔα γε· L: ἔα γέ <μ’>· Jouan; τοιάδ Markland: τοι τάδ’ L
674 susp. eds; 674–77 del. Paley
674 ἀλλὰ ξὺν] ποίοισιν, and punct. as question, Rauchenstein
675 ἑστήξεις Elmsley: ἑστήξῃ L
677 σὲ Matthiae: σε L; ἢ ’μὲ P2: ἤ με L
678b–9a punct. as parenthesis England
679 τέ μοι Matthiae: τ’ ἐμοί L
682 ὑμῖν Musgrave
684 διαίνει Herwerden
688 μακάριον Murray
691 δ’ ἐμὲ Matthiae: δέ με L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 145

Ag. Alone, alone, away from your father and mother.

Iph. Can it really be that you’re moving me to another home, father?
(670)
Ag. We must let this be; it is not right for girls to know such things.
Iph. Hurry back from the Phrygians please, father, when you have put
things right there!
Ag. First I must offer a certain sacrifice here.
Iph. Well, with religious rites you should have regard for what is holy.
Ag. You will come to know; for you will stand near the sprinkling of
the water. (675)
Iph. Then shall we set up dancing and song round the altar, father?
Ag. I envy you more than myself because you do not understand at
all. But go inside the hut – girls are seen at their cost. Give me a
kiss and your hand first, for you are going to live far away from
your father for a lengthy time. (680)
O this breast and cheeks, O this blond hair! What a burden of
sorrow the city of the Phrygians has become for us, and Helen!
I’ll say no more, for a sudden flooding of my eyes presses on me
now that I have touched you. Go into the hut.
IPHIGENIA goes inside the hut, and AGAMEMNON turns to
CLYTEMNESTRA
And you, offspring of Leda, I beg you (685) to forgive me if I
have lamented too much when I am about to give my daughter to
Achilles. To send away one’s child in marriage is a happy event,
but it tears nevertheless at the parents’ hearts when a father hands
over his children to other houses (690) after all his labour in
bringing them up.
Clyt. I am not so devoid of understanding – be sure that I shall suffer
146 Euripides

καὐτὴν δόκει τάδ’, ὥστε μή σε νουθετεῖν,

ὅταν σὺν ὑμεναίοισιν ἐξάγω κόρην·
ἀλλ’ ὁ νόμος αὐτὰ τῷ χρόνῳ συνισχνανεῖ.
τοὔνομα μὲν οὖν παῖδ’ οἶδ’ ὅτῳ κατῄνεσας, 695
γένους δὲ ποίου χὠπόθεν μαθεῖν θέλω.
Αγ. Αἴγινα θυγάτηρ ἐγένετ’ Ἀσωποῦ πατρός.
Κλ. ταύτην δὲ θνητῶν ἢ θεῶν ἔζευξε τίς;
Αγ. Ζεύς· Αἰακὸν δ’ ἔφυσεν, Οἰνώνης πρόμον.
Κλ. τοῦ δ’ Αἰακοῦ παῖς τίς κατέσχε δώματα; 700
Αγ. Πηλεύς· ὁ Πηλεὺς δ’ ἔσχε Νηρέως κόρην.
Κλ. θεοῦ διδόντος ἢ βίᾳ θεῶν λαβών;
Αγ. Ζεὺς ἠγγύησε καὶ δίδωσ’ ὁ κύριος.
Κλ. γαμεῖ δὲ ποῦ νιν; ἦ κατ’ οἶδμα πόντιον;
Αγ. Χείρων ἵν’ οἰκεῖ σεμνὰ Πηλίου βάθρα. 705
Κλ. οὗ φασι Κενταύρειον ᾠκίσθαι γένος;
Αγ. ἐνταῦθ’ ἔδαισαν Πηλέως γάμους θεοί.
Κλ. Θέτις δ’ ἔθρεψεν ἢ πατὴρ Ἀχιλλέα;
Αγ. Χείρων, ἵν’ ἤθη μὴ μάθοι κακῶν βροτῶν.
Κλ. φεῦ·
σοφός γ’ ὁ θρέψας χὠ διδοὺς σοφώτερος. 710
Αγ. τοιόσδε παιδὸς σῆς ἀνὴρ ἔσται πόσις.
Κλ. οὐ μεμπτός· οἰκεῖ δ’ ἄστυ ποῖον Ἑλλάδος;
Αγ. Ἀπιδανὸν ἀμφὶ ποταμὸν ἐν Φθίας ὅροις.
Κλ. ἐκεῖσ’ ἀπάξει σὴν ἐμήν τε παρθένον;
Αγ κείνῳ μελήσει ταῦτα τῷ κεκτημένῳ. 715

694 susp. Page, Diggle; συνισχνανεῖ Musgrave: συνανίσχει L: συνισχάνει P2:

συνισχανεῖ Heath
696 δ’ ὁποίου Porson
698 ἔζευξε τίς; Lenting: ἔζευξέ τις L
700 τοῦ] τὰ Elmsley
705 Πηλίου Canter: πηλείου L
706 ᾠκίσθαι Porson: οἰκεῖσθαι L
709 μάθοι Musgrave: μάθη L
710 σοφωτέροις Musgrave
714 ἀπάξεις Dobree
715 κείνην Hermann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 147

this myself as well – as to rebuke you when I lead the girl out
accompanied by wedding-songs. But the custom will help reduce
my suffering with time. As to the name, I know who it is that you
have promised our child to, (695) but I want to learn about his
family and where he was born.
Ag. Aegina was born daughter to Father Asopus.
Clyt. And was married by a mortal or a god? Who?
Ag. Zeus; and he fathered Aeacus, foremost in Oenone.
Clyt. And which son of Aeacus inherited his house? (700)
Ag. Peleus, and Peleus married Nereus’ daughter.
Clyt. Did a god give her to him or did he take her in defiance of the
gods?
Ag. Zeus betrothed her and Nereus in his full right gave her away.
Clyt. Where did he marry her? Was it beneath the swell of the sea?
Ag. It was where Chiron lives on the sacred foothills of Pelion. (705)
Clyt. Where they say that the Centaur race dwells?
Ag. It was there that the gods feasted Peleus’ wedding.
Clyt. Did Thetis or his father bring up Achilles?
Ag. Chiron did, so that he might not learn the ways of evil men.
Clyt. Ah! The one who brought him up was indeed wise, and the one
who entrusted him was wiser! (710)
Ag. Such is the man who will be your daughter’s husband.
Clyt. He is without fault. Which Greek city does he live in?
Ag. By the river Apidanos in the land of Phthia.
Clyt. Will he take your and my daughter away there?
Ag. That will be the concern of the one who gets her. (715)
148 Euripides

Κλ. ἀλλ’ εὐτυχοίτην. τίνι δ’ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ γαμεῖ;

Αγ. ὅταν σελήνης ἐντελὴς ἔλθῃ κύκλος.
Κλ. προτέλεια δ’ ἤδη παιδὸς ἔσφαξας θεᾷ;
Αγ. μέλλω· ’πὶ ταύτῃ καὶ καθέσταμεν τύχῃ.
Κλ. κἄπειτα δαίσεις τοὺς γάμους ἐς ὕστερον; 720
Αγ. θύσας γε θύμαθ’ ἁμὲ χρὴ θῦσαι θεοῖς.
Κλ. ἡμεῖς δὲ θοίνην ποῦ γυναιξὶ θήσομεν;
Αγ. ἐνθάδε παρ’ εὐπρύμνοισιν Ἀργείων πλάταις.
Κλ. †καλῶς ἀναγκαίως τε†· συνενέγκοι δ’ ὅμως.
Αγ. οἶσθ’ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον, ὦ γύναι· πιθοῦ δέ μοι. 725
Κλ. τί χρῆμα; πείθεσθαι γὰρ εἴθισμαι σέθεν.
Αγ. ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐνθάδ’, οὗπέρ ἐσθ’ ὁ νυμφίος ...
Κλ. μητρὸς τί χωρὶς δράσεθ’ ἁμὲ δρᾶν χρεών;
Αγ. ἐκδώσομεν σὴν παῖδα Δαναΐδων μέτα.
Κλ. ἡμᾶς δὲ ποῦ χρὴ τηνικαῦτα τυγχάνειν; 730
Αγ. χώρει πρὸς Ἄργος παρθένων τε τημέλει.
Κλ. λιποῦσα παῖδα; τίς δ’ ἀνασχήσει φλόγα;
Αγ. ἐγὼ παρέξω φῶς ὃ νυμφίοις πρέπει.
Κλ. οὐχ ὁ νόμος οὗτος οὐδὲ φαῦλ’ ἡγητέα.
Αγ. οὐ καλὸν ἐν ὄχλῳ σ’ ἐξομιλεῖσθαι στρατοῦ. 735
Κλ καλὸν τεκοῦσαν τἀμά μ’ ἐκδοῦναι τέκνα.
Αγ. καὶ τάς γ’ ἐν οἴκῳ μὴ μόνας εἶναι κόρας.

716 εὐτυχοίτην Portus: εὐτυχείτην L

717 ἐντελὴς Musgrave: εὐτυχὴς L
721–6 del. Kovacs
721 ἁμὲ χρὴ Porson: ἅ μ’ ἐχρῆν L
723–4 susp. Günther, 723–6 Diggle
724 κακῶς, ἀναγκαίως δέ Heath: κακῶς ἀναξίως τε Matthiae: ἀλλ’ οὖν ἀναγκαῖόν
γε· Günther; συνενέγκοι L. Dindorf: συνενέγκαι L
726 εἰθίσμεθά σοι Hermann
728 τι Aldine; ἁμὲ Markland: ἅ με L: ὧν με Reiske
731 παρθένων Herwerden: παρθένους L
734 οὐδὲ φαῦλ’ ἡγητέα Tucker: σὺ δὲ φαῦλ’ ἡγῇ τάδε L
735 ἐξομιλῆσαι England
736 μ’ Markland: γ’ L
737 οἴκοις Diggle
 Iphigenia at Aulis 149

Clyt. May the two meet with good fortune! But on what day will he
marry her?
Ag. When the moon’s orb comes to fullness.
Clyt. And have you already made the preliminary sacrifice to the
goddess for our daughter?
Ag. I am about to; this is the very point of fortune I stand at now.
Clyt. And then will you postpone the marriage feast? (720)
Ag. Yes, when I have made the sacrifice which I must make to the
gods.
Clyt. And we: where shall we hold the banquet for the women?
Ag. Here by the Argives’ fine-sterned ships.
Clyt. †Good, and necessary†; but may all be well even so.
Ag. You know what you must do, lady? Obey me, please! (725)
Clyt. What? Why, I am accustomed to obey you.
Ag. I myself here, just where the bridegroom is ...
Clyt. Away from the mother, what will you all do that I should be
doing?
Ag. ... I shall give your daughter away together in company with the
Danaans.
Clyt. And where shall I be at that moment? (730)
Ag. Go to Argos and take care of the maiden-girls.
Clyt. And leave my child? Who will hold high the marriage-torch?
Ag. I shall provide the light for bride and groom.
Clyt. This is not the custom, and it must not be held trivial.
Ag. It is not right for you to be out in company with a mass of soldiers.
(735)
Clyt. But it is right for me as the mother to give away my daughter.
Ag. Yes, and right that the girls at home are not on their own.
150 Euripides

Κλ. ὀχυροῖσι παρθενῶσι φρουροῦνται καλῶς.

Αγ. πιθοῦ. Κλ. μὰ τὴν ἄνασσαν Ἀργείαν θεάν.
ἐλθὼν δὲ τἄξω πρᾶσσε, τἀν δόμοις δ’ ἐγώ. 740
[ἃ χρὴ παρεῖναι νυμφίοισι παρθένοις.]
Αγ. οἴμοι· μάτην ᾖξ’, ἐλπίδος δ’ ἀπεσφάλην,
ἐξ ὀμμάτων δάμαρτ’ ἀποστεῖλαι θέλων.
σοφίζομαι δὲ κἀπὶ τοῖσι φιλτάτοις
τέχνας πορίζω, πανταχῇ νικώμενος. 745
ὅμως δὲ σὺν Κάλχαντι τῷ θυηπόλῳ
κοινῇ τὸ τῇ θεῷ φίλον, ἐμοὶ δ’ οὐκ εὐτυχές,
ἐξευπορήσων εἶμι, μόχθον Ἑλλάδος.
[χρὴ δ’ ἐν δόμοισιν ἄνδρα τὸν σοφὸν τρέφειν
γυναῖκα χρηστὴν κἀγαθήν, ἢ μὴ τρέφειν.] 750
Χο. ἥξει δὴ Σιμόεντα καὶ στρ.
δίνας ἀργυροειδεῖς
ἄγυρις Ἑλλάνων στρατιᾶς
ἀνά τε ναυσὶν καὶ σὺν ὅπλοις
Ἴλιον ἐς τὸ Τροίας 755
Φοιβήϊον δάπεδον,
τὰν Κασσάνδραν ἵν’ ἀκού-
ω ῥίπτειν ξανθοὺς πλοκάμους
χλωροκόμῳ στεφάνῳ δάφνας

739 οὔ above μὰ L; θεόν Wecklein; 739 wholly Αγ. Wilamowitz; lacuna after 739
Günther
740 δὲ (L*)P: γε Tr: σὺ Markland
741 del. Monk
745–9 P.Köln, very damaged
746–8 del. Monk
747 τῇ θεῷ Rauchenstein: τῆς θεοῦ L: [P. Köln defective]
748 ἐξευπορήσων (L?P?), conj. England: ἐξ***ορήσων L: ἐξε**ορήσων ?P:
ἐξιστορήσων Tr3, P2 [P. Köln]
749–50 del. Hartung
750 τρέφειν] γαμεῖν Hermann
755 Ἰλίου ἐς πετραίας Willink
759 χλωροκόμου Fritzsche
 Iphigenia at Aulis 151

Clyt. They are well and securely guarded in maidens’ quarters.

Ag. Obey me! Clyt. No, by the sovereign goddess of Argos! Go and
arrange the things outside, and I will those indoors (740) [which
must be there for maidens at their marriage].
CLYTEMNESTRA goes in.
Ag. Alas! My rushing in was useless, and I was baffled of my hope in
wanting to send my wife away out of my sight. I am being clever
in devising schemes against my dearest, but I am defeated at
every point. (745) Despite that, I shall go to share with Calchas,
the man of sacrifices, in making ready what pleases the goddess
but is my ill fortune, a burden for Greece. [The wise man must
maintain a wife in his house who is helpful and good, or not
maintain one.] (750)
AGAMEMNON goes off towards the army.
Cho. (singing and dancing; strophe) There will indeed come to Simoeis
and its silvery swirling waters the gathered army of the Greeks,
aboard its ships and with its arms, to Ilium, (755) to Phoebus’
ground at Troy, where I hear that Cassandra, adorned with a
garland of green-leafed bay, tosses her blond tresses whenever
152 Euripides

κοσμηθεῖσαν, ὅταν θεοῦ 760

μαντόσυνοι πνεύσωσ’ ἀνάγκαι.
στάσονται δ’ ἐπὶ περγάμων ἀντ.
Τροίας ἀμφί τε τείχη
Τρῶες, ὅταν χάλκασπις Ἄρης
πόντιος εὐπρῴροιο πλάτας 765
εἰρεσίᾳ πελάζῃ
Σιμουντίοις ὀχετοῖς,
τὰν τῶν ἐν αἰθέρι δισ-
σῶν Διοσκούρων Ἑλέναν
ἐκ Πριάμου κομίσαι θέλων 770
ἐς γᾶν Ἑλλάδα δοριπόνων
ἀσπίσι καὶ λόγχαις Ἀχαιῶν.
[Πέργαμον δὲ Φρυγῶν πόλιν ἐπῳδ.
λαΐνους περὶ πύργους
κυκλώσας Ἄρης φόνιος 775
λαιμοτόμους κεφαλὰς †σπάσας
πόλισμα Τροίας†
πέρσας κατ’ ἄκρας πόλιν,
θήσει κόρας πολυκλαύ-
τους δάμαρτά τε Πριάμου. 780
ἁ δὲ Διὸς Ἑλένα κόρα
πολύκλαυτος †ἐσεῖται†
πόσιν προλιποῦσα.]

765 εὐπρῴροιο πλάτας Wecklein: εὐπρώροισι ((L*)P: -οις Tr2/3) πλάταις L

771 ἐς γᾶν] γᾶς Willink; δοριπόνων Kirchhoff: δοριπόνοις L
773–83 del. Hartung
775 ῎Αρης φόνιος Höpfner (῎Αρης φοίνιος earlier Markland): ἄρει φονίῳ L (ἄρει
Lcorr: ἄρω ?L); ἄρει] δορὶ Hermann (with φοινίῳ following; φοινίῳ P2): ἕρκει
Jacobs: ἔριδι (φονίᾳ) Günther: λίνῳ or βρόχῳ West
777 πόλισμα Τροίας del. Monk
777–8 πόλισμα ... πόλιν] πέρσας κατ’ ἄκρας πόλισμα West
779 πολυκλαύτους Aldine: πολυκλαύστους L
782 πολύκλαυτος Lcorr or Tr1: πολύκλαυστος L; ἐσεῖται] ἑδεῖται Musgrave: εἴσεται
Hermann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 153

the god (760) breathes compulsion to prophecy.

(antistrophe) The Trojans will stand on the citadel of Troy and
round on the walls, when Ares of the bronze shield, rowed
over the sea on fine-prowed ships, (765) comes near Simoeis’
channels, wishing to bring back Helen, sister of the two Dioscuri
in the heaven, from Priam (770) to the land of Greece, by means
of the shields and spears of toiling warriors, the Achaeans.
(epode) [Circling Pergamum, the Phrygians’ city, round its
stone towers bloody Ares (775), †pulling† heads severed at
the throat, will ransack †Troy’s city† from top to bottom, and
make girls and the wife of Priam weep many tears. (780). And
Helen, the daughter of Zeus †will be† in many tears for deserting
154 Euripides

μήτ’ ἐμοὶ μήτ’ ἐμοῖσι τέκνων τέκνοις 784–85

ἐλπὶς ἅδε ποτ’ ἔλθοι,
οἵαν αἱ πολύχρυσοι
Λυδαὶ καὶ Φρυγῶν ἄλοχοι
σχήσουσι, παρ’ ἱστοῖς
μυθεῦσαι τάδ’ ἐς ἀλλήλας· 790
“Τίς ἄρα μ’ εὐπλοκάμου κόμας
ῥῦμα δακρυόεν τανύσας
πατρίδος ὀλομένας ἀπολωτιεῖ;”
διὰ σέ, τὰν κύκνου δολιχαύχενος γόνον,
εἰ δὴ φάτις ἔτυμος ὡς 795
†ἔτυχε Λήδα† ὄρνιθι πταμένῳ,
Διὸς ὅτ’ ἀλλάχθη δέμας, εἴτ’
ἐν δέλτοις Πιερίσιν
μῦθοι τάδ’ ἐς ἀνθρώπους
ἤνεγκαν παρὰ καιρὸν ἄλλως. 800

784–93 P. Leiden 510, with musical annotation but no colometric indications, and
with major gaps
784–6 only ]τε̣μ̣ο̣ι̣μητε̣μοισ[ P. Leid.
787–9 only ο̣[ι]α̣να̣ι̣πολυχρ̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ι̣λυδ̣αι̣[ P. Leid.
789 σχήσουσι Tyrwhitt: στήσουσι L [P. Leid. defective]
790 μυθεύουσαι Matthiae: [P. Leid.]
790–1 only ταδεεσαλληλαστισα[ P. Leid.
791 εὐπλοκάμου Duport: εὐπλοκάμους L [P. Leid.]
792 ῥῦμα Hermann: ἔρυμα L: [P. Leid.]
792–3 only ν̣[υσα]σπ̣ασπατριασολο̣[ (-γασ- ‘intended?’, Pohlmann and West: -γασ-
read by Diggle) P. Leid.: (τανύσας) πατρίδος L
793 ολο̣[μενασ P. Leid., ὀλομένας conj. Burges: οὐλομένας L
794 γονάν Bothe
796–806 P. Köln 67 has damaged line-ends
796 <σ’> ἔτεκε Λήδα Musgrave: ἔτεκε Λήδα <σ’> Elmsley; Λήδα <μιγεῖσ’>
Scaliger: <μιχθεῖσ’> Porson: <πλαθεῖσ’> Monk; ὄρνιθι πταμένῳ Markland:
ὄρνιθ’ ἱπταμένῳ L; only ορνι]θ[ι P. Köln; σ᾿ ἔτεκεν [Λήδα] (del. Hermann)
ὄρνιθι πταμένῳ <Λήδα> Willink
797 ἠλλάχθη Monk; δεμ]ας σ̣ε̣ι̣ P. Köln
798 πιερισι]ν̣ P. Köln: Πιέρισιν conj. Bothe: -σι L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 155

her husband.] May there never come to me or to my children’s

children (785) an expectation of the kind the Lydian women with
their great gold and the wives of the Phrygians will have, as at
their looms (790) they say these words to one another: ‘Who
will it be that †strains to drag† me by the fine tresses of my hair
as I shed tears, and who will pluck me as the flower from my
fatherland in its destruction?’ This is because of you, daughter of
the long-necked swan, if indeed the story is true (795) that †Leda
met† with the winged bird, when Zeus’ body had changed – or
myths on Pierian tablets have carried this to men off the mark,
falsely. (800)
156 Euripides

ΑΧΙΛΛΕΥΣ
ποῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἐνθάδ’ ὁ στρατηλάτης;
τίς ἂν φράσειε προσπόλων τὸν Πηλέως
ζητοῦντά νιν παῖδ’ ἐν πύλαις Ἀχιλλέα;
οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ μένομεν Εὐρίπου πέλας·
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν, ὄντες ἄζυγες γάμων, 805
οἴκους ἐρήμους ἐκλιπόντες ἐνθάδε
θάσσουσ’ ἐπ’ ἀκταῖς, οἱ δ’ ἔχοντες εὔνιδας
καὶ παῖδας· οὕτω δεινὸς ἐμπέπτωκ’ ἔρως
τῆσδε στρατείας Ἑλλάδ’ οὐκ ἄνευ θεῶν.
τοὐμὸν μὲν οὖν δίκαιον ἐμὲ λέγειν χρέος, 810
ἄλλος δ’ ὁ χρῄζων αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ φράσει.
γῆν γὰρ λιπὼν Φάρσαλον ἠδὲ Πηλέα
μένω ’πὶ λεπταῖς ταισίδ’ Εὐρίπου πνοαῖς,
Μυρμιδόνας ἴσχων· οἱ δ’ ἀεὶ προσκείμενοι
λέγουσ’· “Ἀχιλλεῦ, τί μένομεν; πόσον χρόνον 815
ἔτ’ ἐκμετρῆσαι χρὴ πρὸς Ἰλίου στόλον;
δρᾶ <δ’>, εἴ τι δράσεις, ἢ ἄπαγ’ οἴκαδε στρατόν,
τὰ τῶν Ἀτρειδῶν μὴ μένων μελλήματα.”

802 τὸν P. Köln: τῶν L

804 πελ̣[ας P. Köln, conj. Barnes: πύλας L; line punct. as question Hermann
805–9 del. Hennig
807 ἀκταῖς Markland: ἀκτὰς L
808 καὶ παῖδας Musgrave: ἄπαιδες L; ἐσπέπτωκ’ Murray: ἐπτέρωκ’ Jackson
809 ῾Ελλάδ’ Scaliger: ἑλλάδ* L: ἑλλάδι γ’ Tr1
810–18 del. Conington
810 χρέος Hennig: χρεών L
811 δὲ χρῄζων Paley, Kirchhoff
812 φάρσαλον P2: φαρσάλιον L: Φάρσαλιν Musgrave
813 ταισίδ’ Blomfield: ταῖσδέ γ’ L; ῥοαῖς Markland
814 δ’ Monk: μ’ L
815 πόσον Monk: ποῖον L
816 ἴλιον Tr3, P2; (Ἴλιον) στόλου Markland; τὸν ῾Ιλίου στόλον England
817 <δ’> Fix: <γ’> P2; δρᾶτ’, εἴ τι δράσετ’ Monk (later abandoned)
 Iphigenia at Aulis 157

ACHILLES enters from the camp, stage-left.

ACHILLES Where can I find here the commander of the Achaeans?
Will one of his servants let him know that Achilles, the son of
Peleus, is at the gates looking for him? The fact is that we are
not waiting near Euripus on equal terms. For some of us who sit
here on the shore are unmarried (805) and have left our homes
unprotected, while others have wives and children. So fierce
a passion for this expedition has fallen upon Greece, it cannot
be without the gods. It is right that I speak of my own need;
(810) anyone else who desires will state his case for himself. I
have left the land of Pharsalus, and Peleus, and as I wait by the
Euripus with its slight breezes, I am restraining my Myrmidons.
They are for ever on the attack, saying ‘Achilles, why are we
waiting? How much time (815) must we still measure out until
the expedition for Ilium? Act, if you are going to act at all – or
lead our army home, and don’t wait upon the Atreids’ delays.’
158 Euripides

Κλ. ὦ παῖ θεᾶς Νηρῇδος, ἔνδοθεν λόγων

τῶν σῶν ἀκούσασ’ ἐξέβην πρὸ δωμάτων. 820
Αχ. ὦ πότνι’ Αἰδώς, τήνδε τίνα λεύσσω ποτὲ
γυναῖκα, μορφὴν εὐπρεπῆ κεκτημένην;
Κλ. οὐ θαῦμά σ’ ἡμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, οἷς μὴ πάρος
προσῆκες· αἰνῶ δ’ ὅτι σέβεις τὸ σωφρονεῖν.
Αχ. τίς δ’ εἶ; τί δ’ ἦλθες Δαναΐδων ἐς σύλλογον, 825
γυνὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀσπίσιν πεφαργμένους;
Κλ. Λήδας μέν εἰμι παῖς, Κλυταιμήστρα δέ μοι
ὄνομα, πόσις δέ μοὐστὶν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ.
Αχ. καλῶς ἔλεξας ἐν βραχεῖ τὰ καίρια·
αἰσχρὸν δέ μοι γυναιξὶ συμβάλλειν λόγους. 830
Κλ. μεῖνον – τί φεύγεις; – δεξιάν τ’ ἐμῇ χερὶ
σύναψον, ἀρχὴν μακαρίων νυμφευμάτων.
Αχ. τί φῄς; ἐγώ σοι δεξιάν; αἰδοίμεθ’ ἂν
Ἀγαμέμνον’, εἰ ψαύοιμεν ὧν μή μοι θέμις.
Κλ. θέμις μάλιστα, τὴν ἐμὴν ἐπεὶ γαμεῖς 835
παῖδ’, ὦ θεᾶς παῖ ποντίας Νηρηΐδος.
Αχ. ποίους γάμους φῄς; ἀφασία μ’ ἔχει, γύναι,
εἰ μή τι παρανοοῦσα καινουργεῖς λόγον.
Κλ. πᾶσιν τόδ’ ἐμπέφυκεν, αἰδεῖσθαι φίλους
καινοὺς ὁρῶσι καὶ γάμων μεμνημένους. 840
Αχ. οὐπώποτ’ ἐμνήστευσα παῖδα σήν, γύναι,
οὐδ’ ἐξ Ἀτρειδῶν ἦλθέ μοι λόγος γάμων.

819–20 P. Köln 67, badly damaged

823 οἷς ... 824 προσῆκες Nauck: οὓς ... προσέβης L (προσέβης ἂν Tr1): οἷς ...
προσῆλθες Paley: οὓς ... κατεῖδες noted as a variant P: οὓς ... προσεῖδες Fix
825 τίς εἶ; Bothe
826 πεφαργμένους W. Dindorf: πεφραγμένους L, cf. 1259, 1387
828 μοὐστὶν Gaisford: μοι ’στὶν L
831 μεῖνον Valckenaer: δεινὸν L; τ’ Markland: γ’ L
832 μακαρίων Markland: μακαρίαν L
834 ψαύοιμεν P2: ψαύοιμεν ἂν L
835 γαμεῖς P2: γαμοῖς L
837 φῄς Barnes: ἔφησθ’ L
840 μεμνημένους ed. Commeliniana: μεμνημένοις L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 159

Clyt. O son of the divine daughter of Nereus, I heard your words from
inside and have come out in front of the hut. (820)
Ach. (in astonishment) O mistress Shame, whichever woman is this
that I see? How beautiful she is!
Clyt. It’s no wonder that you do not know me when you were not
previously related to me. But I approve your respect for
correctness.
Ach. But who are you? Why have you come to the Danaans mustered
here (825) – a woman among men heavily armoured?
Clyt. I am the daughter of Leda, Clytemnestra is my name, and my
husband is lord Agamemnon.
Ach. You do well to be brief in telling me the main facts. But it is
shameful for me to join in conversation with women. (830)
Clyt. Stay! Why are you trying to escape? Join your right hand to mine
as a beginning to a happy marriage.
Ach. What do you mean? My right hand with yours? I should feel
shame before Agamemnon if I were to touch what I have no right
to.
Clyt. You have every right, for you are to marry my child, (835) O son
of the sea-goddess, the daughter of Nereus.
Ach. How do you mean, marriage? I am speechless, lady. Perhaps you
are a bit out of your mind, and that is why you are speaking so
strangely.
Clyt. It is natural for everyone to feel shame before new relatives on
seeing them, and they mention marriage. (840)
Ach. I have never yet at any time paid court to your daughter, lady, and
no talk of marriage came to me from Atreus’ sons.
160 Euripides

Κλ. τί δῆτ’ ἂν εἴη; σὺ πάλιν αὖ λόγους ἐμοὺς

θαύμαζ’· ἐμοὶ γὰρ θαύματ’ ἐστὶ τὰ παρὰ σοῦ.
Αγ. εἴκαζε· κοινὸν <δ’> ἐστὶν εἰκάζειν τάδε· 845
ἄμφω γὰρ ἐψευδόμεθα τοῖς λόγοις ἴσως.
Κλ. ἀλλ’ ἦ πέπονθα δεινά; μνηστεύω γάμους
οὐκ ὄντας, ὡς εἴξασιν· αἰδοῦμαι τάδε.
Αχ. ἴσως ἐκερτόμησε κἀμὲ καὶ σέ τις·
ἀλλ’ ἀμελίᾳ δὸς αὐτὰ καὶ φαύλως φέρε. 850
Κλ. χαῖρ’· οὐ γὰρ ὀρθοῖς ὄμμασίν <σ’> ἔτ’ εἰσορῶ,
ψευδὴς γενομένη καὶ παθοῦσ’ ἀνάξια.
Αχ. καὶ σοὶ τόδ’ ἐστὶν ἐξ ἐμοῦ· πόσιν δὲ σὸν
στείχω ματεύσων τῶνδε δωμάτων ἔσω.
Πρ. ὦ ξέν’, Αἰακοῦ γένεθλον, μεῖνον· ὦ, σέ τοι λέγω, 855
τὸν θεᾶς γεγῶτα παῖδα, καὶ σέ, τὴν Λήδας κόρην.
Αχ. τίς ὁ καλῶν, πύλας παροίξας; ὡς τεταρβηκὸς καλεῖ.
Πρ. δοῦλος, οὐχ ἁβρύνομαι τῷδ’· ἡ τύχη γὰρ οὐκ ἐᾷ.
Αχ. τίνος; ἐμὸς μὲν οὐχί· χωρὶς τἀμὰ κἀγαμέμνονος.
Πρ. τῆσδε τῆς πάροιθεν οἴκων, Τυνδάρεω δόντος πατρός. 860
Αχ. ἕσταμεν· φράζ’, εἴ τι χρῄζεις, ὧν μ’ ἐπέσχες οὕνεκα.
Πρ. ἦ μόνω παρόντε δῆτα ταῖσδ’ ἐφέστατον πύλαις;
Αχ. ὡς μόνοιν λέγοις ἄν, ἔξω δ’ ἐλθὲ βασιλείων δόμων.
Πρ. ὦ Τύχη πρόνοιά θ’ ἡμή, σώσαθ’ οὓς ἐγὼ θέλω.

843 λόγοις ἐμοῖς Diggle

844 εἴκαζ’ ... 845 θαύμαζε Jackson; τἀπὸ σοῦ Dobree
845 <δ᾿> Jackson
845–8 del. Page
846 ἐψευδόμεθα apogr. Par., Markland: οὐ ψευδόμεθα L
847 μαστεύω Nauck
848 ἐοίκασιν written above εἴξασιν L
851 <σ’> P2
855 Πρ. Markland: θεράπων L; ὦ, σέ Markland: ὡς σέ L
857 τεταρβηκὸς England: τεταρβηκὼς L
858 γὰρ οὐκ apogr. Par., Elmsley: γάρ μ’ οὐκ L; γὰρ οὔ μ’ Radermacher
862 πάροντε Porson: πάροιθεν L
863 μόνοιν Markland: μόνοις L
864 σώσαθ’ Musgrave: σώσασ’ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 161

Clyt. What could this mean, then? Go back again and wonder at my
words: I for my part wonder at what you are saying.
Ach. Make a guess! We have guessing in common here; (845) we
were both deceived by what was said, perhaps.
Clyt. Can I really have been treated so outrageously? I am paying court
for a marriage which does not exist, it seems. I am ashamed of
this.
Ach. Perhaps someone was making a mockery of us. But don’t give it
a care, and take it lightly! (850)
Clyt. Goodbye! I cannot look <you> straight in the face – I have
proved to be a liar, and the victim of treatment I do not deserve.
Ach. I bid you goodbye as well! I am going to look for your husband
inside the hut here.
Both CLYTEMNESTRA and ACHILLES start to leave, but the OLD
MAN speaks from inside the gateway, which he has half-opened.
OM Stranger, descendant of Aeacus, wait! It’s you I mean, (855) born
the son of a goddess, and you, the daughter of Leda.
Ach. Who is this who is calling and has half-opened the gate? How
frightened his call is!
OM A slave – I’m not delicate about this. What has happened to me
does not allow it.
Ach. Whose slave? Certainly not mine! My possessions and
Agamemnon’s are separate.
OM I am the lady’s here, in front of the hut. Her father Tyndareus
gave me to her. (860)
Ach. (impatiently) We’re standing here! Tell me, if you want
something, why you stopped me.
OM Are the two of you here alone, then, standing at the gate?
Ach. You would be speaking only to the two of us – so come out of the
king’s hut.
The OLD MAN comes outside.
OM O Fortune and my forethought, save those I myself wish!
162 Euripides

Αχ. ὁ λόγος ἐς μέλλοντ’ †ἂν ὤσῃ† χρόνον· ἔχει δ’ ὄκνον τινά. 865
Κλ. δεξιᾶς ἕκατι μὴ μέλλ’, εἴ τί μοι χρῄζεις λέγειν.
Πρ. οἶσθα δῆτά μ’, ὅστις ὤν σοι καὶ τέκνοις εὔνους ἔφυν;
Κλ. οἶδά σ’ ὄντ’ ἐγὼ παλαιὸν δωμάτων ἐμῶν λάτριν.
Πρ. χὤτι μ’ ἐν ταῖς σαῖσι φερναῖς ἔλαβεν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ;
Κλ. ἦλθες εἰς Ἄργος μεθ’ ἡμῶν κἀμὸς ἦσθ’ ἀεί ποτε. 870
Πρ. ὧδ’ ἔχει· καὶ σοὶ μὲν εὔνους εἰμί, σῷ δ’ ἧσσον πόσει.
Κλ. ἐκκάλυπτε νῦν ποθ’ ἡμῖν οὕστινας στέγεις λόγους.
Πρ. παῖδα σὴν πατὴρ ὁ φύσας αὐτόχειρ μέλλει κτανεῖν ...
Κλ. πῶς; ἀπέπτυσ’, ὦ γεραιέ, μῦθον· οὐ γὰρ εὖ φρονεῖς.
Πρ. φασγάνῳ λευκὴν φονεύων τῆς ταλαιπώρου δέρην. 875
Κλ. ὦ τάλαιν’ ἐγώ· μεμηνὼς ἆρα τυγχάνει πόσις;
Πρ. ἀρτίφρων, πλὴν ἐς σὲ καὶ σὴν παῖδα· τοῦτο δ’ οὐ φρονεῖ.
Κλ. ἐκ τίνος λόγου; τίς αὐτὸν οὑπάγων ἀλαστόρων;
Πρ. θέσφαθ’, ὥς γέ φησι Κάλχας, ἵνα πορεύηται στρατός.
Κλ. ποῖ; τάλαιν’ ἐγώ, τάλαινα δ’ ἣν πατὴρ μέλλει κτανεῖν. 880
Πρ. Δαρδάνου πρὸς δώμαθ’, Ἑλένην Μενέλεως ὅπως λάβῃ.
Κλ. εἰς ἄρ’ Ἰφιγένειαν Ἑλένης νόστος ἦν πεπρωμένος;
Πρ. πάντ’ ἔχεις· Ἀρτέμιδι θύσειν παῖδα σὴν μέλλει πατήρ.
Κλ. ὁ δὲ γάμος τίν’ εἶχε πρόφασιν, ᾧ μ’ ἐκόμισεν ἐκ δόμων;
Πρ. ἵν’ ἀγάγοις χαίρουσ’ Ἀχιλλεῖ παῖδα νυμφεύσουσα σήν. 885

865 ἀνοίσει Markland: ὄναιτο Stockert: μέλλοντα σώσει Monk: μέλλοντα σώσαι
Schwabl; ὄκνον Hermann: ὄγκον L; ἔχω δ’ ὄκνον Collard; 865 given to Πρ.,
after loss of preceding line of Αχ., Weil: line of Πρ. lost after 865, Walter
867 δῆτά μ’ Porson: δῆθ’ (L*)P: δῆτά γ’ Tr2/3
868 παλαιὸν Aldine: παλαιῶν L
869 μ’ ἐν Tr2/3: με (L?)P
872 στέγεις F.W. Schmidt: λέγεις L
873 κτενεῖν Elmsley, cf. 880, 1131
876 ἆρα Aldine: ἄρα L
880: cf. 873
881 λάβῃ P2: λάβοι L
884 τιν’ ... ἣ (L) Weil; ᾧ Musgrave: ἣ L: ᾗ Stockert
885 ἀγάγοις Blomfield: ἀγάγης L: ἵνα γ’ ἄγοις Vitelli; νυμφεύσουσα Barnes:
νυμφεύουσα L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 163

Ach. (to Clyt.) What he says †(text meaningless)† to a future time; and
he has a certain hesitation. (865)
Clyt. (to the OM) My right hand on it! Don’t delay if you want to say
something to me.
OM Then surely you know who I am and how well-disposed I am
towards you and your children?
Clyt. I know that you are an old slave of my house.
OM And you know that lord Agamemnon took me as part of your
dowry?
Clyt. You came to Argos with me and have been mine ever since. (870)
OM That is so. And I am well-disposed towards you, less so to your
husband.
Clyt. Now at last reveal to us what you are keeping unsaid.
OM Your daughter’s father, her begetter, intends to kill her with his
own hand.
Clyt. What? What you say, old man, is abominable. You are not of
sound mind!
OM With a sword he will bloody the wretched girl’s white neck.
(875)
Clyt. Oh, what I endure! Has my husband now gone mad?
OM He is in his right mind except towards you and your child; there
he is out of his mind.
Clyt. But for what reason? What demon is driving him on?
OM A prophecy, so Calchas at any rate says – so that the expedition
may set off.
Clyt. Where to? What I endure! And what the girl endures whom her
father intends to kill! (880)
OM To the house of Dardanus, so that Menelaus can get back Helen.
Clyt. Was Helen’s return then fated (to depend) upon Iphigenia?
OM You understand it all. Her father intends to sacrifice your daughter
to Artemis.
Clyt. What was his pretext for the marriage for which he fetched me
from home?
OM For you to rejoice in bringing your child here to marry Achilles.
(885)
164 Euripides

Κλ. ὦ θύγατερ, ἥκεις ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ καὶ σὺ καὶ μήτηρ σέθεν.

Πρ. οἰκτρὰ πάσχετον δύ’ οὖσαι· δεινὰ δ’ Ἀγαμέμνων ἔτλη.
Κλ. οἴχομαι τάλαινα· δακρύων νάματ’ οὐκέτι στέγω.
Πρ. εἴπερ ἀλγεινὸν τὸ τέκνων στερόμενον, δακρυρρόει.
Κλ. σὺ δὲ τάδ’, ὦ γέρον, πόθεν φῂς εἰδέναι πεπυσμένος; 890
Πρ. δέλτον ᾠχόμην φέρων σοι πρὸς τὰ πρὶν γεγραμμένα.
Κλ. οὐκ ἐῶν ἢ ξυγκελεύων παῖδ’ ἄγειν θανουμένην;
Πρ. μὴ μὲν οὖν ἄγειν· φρονῶν γὰρ ἔτυχε σὸς πόσις τότ’ εὖ.
Κλ. κᾆτα πῶς φέρων γε δέλτον οὐκ ἐμοὶ δίδως λαβεῖν;
Πρ. Μενέλεως ἀφείλεθ’ ἡμᾶς, ὃς κακῶν τῶνδ’ αἴτιος. 895
Κλ. ὦ τέκνον Νηρῇδος, ὦ παῖ Πηλέως, κλύεις τάδε;
Αχ. ἔκλυον οὖσαν ἀθλίαν σε, τὸ δ’ ἐμὸν οὐ φαύλως φέρω.
Κλ. παῖδά μου κατακτενοῦσι σοῖς δολώσαντες γάμοις.
Αχ. μέμφομαι κἀγὼ πόσει σῷ, κοὐχ ἁπλῶς οὕτω φέρω.
Κλ. οὐκ ἐπαιδεσθήσομαι ’γὼ προσπεσεῖν τὸ σὸν γόνυ 900
θνητὸς ἐκ θεᾶς γεγῶτος· τί γὰρ ἐγὼ σεμνύνομαι;
ἦ τινος σπουδαστέον μοι μᾶλλον ἢ τέκνου πέρι;
ἀλλ’ ἄμυνον, ὦ θεᾶς παῖ, τῇ τ’ ἐμῇ δυσπραξίᾳ
τῇ τε λεχθείσῃ δάμαρτι σῇ μάτην μέν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως.
σοὶ καταστέψασ’ ἐγώ νιν ἦγον ὡς γαμουμένην, 905
νῦν δ’ ἐπὶ σφαγὰς κομίζω· σοὶ δ’ ὄνειδος ἵξεται,

886 σὺ Aldine: σὴ L
887 οὖσαι] ὄντε Wecklein
888 δάκρυον Tr3; νάματ’ Hense: τ’ ὄμματ’ L; στέγει Tr3; δάκρυ (or δάκρυά) τ’
ὄμματ’ (... στέγει) Barnes: δάκρυον (Tr3) ὄμματ’ (... στέγει) Matthiae
889 στερόμενον, δακρυρρόει Weil: στερομένην δακρυρροεῖν (L?)P
890 πεπυσμένος Tr2/3: πεπυσμένα (L?)P
895 ὃς Tr3: ὃς τῶν L; τῶνδ’ ὃς αἴτιος κακῶν Porson
898–9 susp. eds; 899 del. Hennig
900 ’γὼ Markland: γε L
901 [γεγῶτ]ος written above γεγῶτα L; 901 del. Wilamowitz
902 ἦ τινος Diggle: ἐπὶ τίνος L: ἢ τίνος Porson: ἐπὶ τίνι Hermann; σπουδαστέον μοι
Tr3: μοι σπουδαστέον L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 165

Clyt. O my daughter, you have come here for death, you and your
mother too.
OM I pity you both equally in your sufferings. Agamemnon has
brought himself to a terrible deed.
Clyt. Oh, unendurable! It is all over for me! I can no longer hold back
my streaming tears.
OM Being deprived of children is painful, so let your tears flow.
Clyt. But where do you say you learnt this from, old man? How did
you find it out? (890)
OM I was going with a letter-tablet for you about what he had written
to you before.
Clyt. Were you to tell me not to bring my child here to her death, or to
confirm this?
OM No, you were not to bring her; your husband was sound of mind
then.
Clyt. Then if you were carrying the tablet, how was it that you did not
hand it over to me?
OM Menelaus took it from me. He is to blame for this evil. (895)
Clyt. (turning abruptly to Achilles) O child of Nereus’ daughter,
Peleus’ son, do you hear this?
Ach. I hear your misery; and I do not take my own case lightly.
Clyt. They are going to kill my child, and it was through marriage to
you that they tricked me.
Ach. I too find your husband at fault, and I do not take it quite so
simply.
The OLD MAN has now gone silently into the hut. CLYTEMNESTRA
supplicates ACHILLES.
Clyt. I shall feel no shame in falling at your knees, (900) a mortal at
those of one born of a goddess. For why should I be proud? Is
there anyone I am to exert myself for more than my child?
No, defend me, son of a goddess, in my ill plight, and her
who was spoken of as your wife – falsely, but even so. It was
to you that I garlanded her and led her to be married; (905); but
now I am taking her to the slaughter. You will have reproach
166 Euripides

ὅστις οὐκ ἤμυνας· εἰ γὰρ μὴ γάμοισιν ἐζύγης,

ἀλλ’ ἐκλήθης γοῦν ταλαίνης παρθένου φίλος πόσις.
πρὸς γενειάδος <σε>, πρός σε δεξιᾶς, πρὸς μητέρος –
ὄνομα γὰρ τὸ σόν μ’ ἀπώλεσ’, ᾧ σ’ ἀμυναθεῖν χρεών – 910
οὐκ ἔχω βωμὸν καταφυγεῖν ἄλλον ἢ τὸ σὸν γόνυ,
οὐδὲ φίλος οὐδεὶς πέλας μοι· τὰ δ’ Ἀγαμέμνονος κλύεις
ὠμὰ καὶ πάντολμ’· ἀφῖγμαι δ’, ὥσπερ εἰσορᾷς, γυνὴ
ναυτικὸν στράτευμ’ ἄναρχον κἀπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς θρασύ,
χρήσιμον δ’, ὅταν θέλωσιν. ἢν δὲ τολμήσῃς σύ μου 915
χεῖρ’ ὑπερτεῖναι, σεσώμεθ’· εἰ δὲ μή, οὐ σεσώμεθα.
Χο. δεινὸν τὸ τίκτειν καὶ φέρει φίλτρον μέγα,
πᾶσίν τε κοινόν ἐσθ’ ὑπερκάμνειν τέκνων.
Αχ. ὑψηλόφρων μοι θυμὸς αἴρεται πρόσω·
ἐπίσταμαι δὲ τοῖς κακοῖσί τ’ ἀσχαλᾶν 920
μετρίως τε χαίρειν τοῖσιν ἐξωγκωμένοις.
λελογισμένοι γὰρ οἱ τοιοίδ’ εἰσὶν βροτῶν
ὀρθῶς διαζῆν τὸν βίον γνώμης μέτα.
[ἔστιν μὲν οὖν ἵν’ ἡδὺ μὴ λίαν φρονεῖν,
ἔστιν δὲ χὤπου χρήσιμον γνώμην ἔχειν.] 925
ἐγὼ δ’, ἐν ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβεστάτου τραφεὶς
Χείρωνος, ἔμαθον τοὺς τρόπους ἁπλοῦς ἔχειν.

907 μὴ] οὐ Wecklein

909 <σε> Markland; σε Markland: σῆς L; πρός <τε> μητέρος Tr1
910 ἀμυναθεῖν Elmsley: ἀμυνάθειν L; 910 del. Hennig
912 πέλας Markland: γελᾶ (i.e. γελᾷ) L
913–8 P. Oxy. 3719 has badly damaged line-ends
914b κἀπὶ ... 915a θέλωσιν del. England
915–6 susp. Diggle
916 σεσώμεθ’ ... σεσώμεθα Nauck (4), Wecklein: σεσώσμεθ’ ... σεσώσμεθα L, cf.
1440: ]μεθα P. Oxy.
917 φέρει P2: φέρειν L
918 ἐσθ’ Reiske: ὥσθ’ L
919–1035 wholly or variously susp. or del. eds; see esp. Commentary on 919–74
920 ἐπίσταμαι Musgrave: ἐπίσταται L
922–3 Αχ. Burges: Χο. L
924–5 del. Paley
 Iphigenia at Aulis 167

come to you if you did not defend her; for although you were not
joined with her in marriage, you were at any rate still called the
wretched girl’s dear husband.
By your beard, by your right hand, by your mother – I call
on you because your name, which you should be defending, has
destroyed me. (910) I have no altar to take refuge at except your
knees, nor there is any friend near me; and you hear of the cruelty
of Agamemnon, and his total determination. I have come, as you
see, a woman to an army of unruly sailors who are bold in pursuit
of evil, though useful when they wish to be. If you have the
courage (915) to hold your hand over me, we are safe; if not, we
are not safe.
Cho. There is a strange power in motherhood, and it works a great
spell: it is an instinct all share, to fight hard for their children.
Ach. My spirit is high with proud thoughts, and borne forward, but
I know to be moderate in my distress over misfortune (920)
as well as in my joy over full prosperity. For such men have
reasoned how to go through life with good judgement. [So while
there are times when it is pleasant not to be too sensible, there
are also occasions when it is useful to exercise judgement.] (925)
As for myself, brought up in the house of Chiron, a most reverent
man, I learnt to have straightforward ways. And I shall obey the
168 Euripides

καὶ τοῖς Ἀτρείδαις, ἢν μὲν ἡγῶνται καλῶς,

πεισόμεθ’, ὅταν δὲ μὴ καλῶς, οὐ πείσομαι.
ἀλλ’ ἐνθάδ’ ἐν Τροίᾳ τ’ ἐλευθέραν φύσιν 930
παρέχων, Ἄρη τὸ κατ’ ἐμὲ κοσμήσω δορί.
σὲ δ’, ὦ σχέτλια παθοῦσα πρὸς τῶν φιλτάτων,
ἃ δὴ κατ’ ἄνδρα γίγνεται νεανίαν,
τοσοῦτον οἶκτον περιβαλὼν καταστελῶ,
κοὔποτε κόρη σὴ πρὸς πατρὸς σφαγήσεται, 935
ἐμὴ φατισθεῖσ’· οὐ γὰρ ἐμπλέκειν πλοκὰς
ἐγὼ παρέξω σῷ πόσει τοὐμὸν δέμας.
τοὔνομα γάρ, εἰ καὶ μὴ σίδηρον ἤρατο,
τοὐμὸν φονεύσει παῖδα σήν. τὸ δ’ αἴτιον
πόσις σός. ἁγνὸν δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἐστὶ σῶμ’ ἐμόν, 940
εἰ δι’ ἔμ’ ὀλεῖται διά τε τοὺς ἐμοὺς γάμους
ἡ δεινὰ τλᾶσα κοὐκ ἀνεκτὰ παρθένος,
θαυμαστὰ δ’ ὡς ἀνάξι’ ἠτιμασμένη.
ἐγὼ κάκιστος ἦν ἄρ’ Ἀργείων ἀνήρ,
ἐγὼ τὸ μηδέν, Μενέλεως δ’ ἐν ἀνδράσιν 945
ὡς οὐχὶ Πηλέως ἀλλ’ ἀλάστορος γεγώς,
εἴπερ φονεύει τοὐμὸν ὄνομα †σῷ πόσει†.
μὰ τὸν δι’ ὑγρῶν κυμάτων τεθραμμένον
Νηρέα, φυτουργὸν Θέτιδος ἥ μ’ ἐγείνατο,
οὐχ ἅψεται σῆς θυγατρὸς Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ, 950

929 πείσομαι L, with -αι rewritten perhaps by Tr: πεισόμεθα P

931 (ἄρ)η above ἄρει L; τὸ Brodaeus: τῶ (i.e. τῷ) L
932–4 del. Paley
932 παθοῦσα σχέτλια Scaliger
934 οἴκτῳ Stockert; καταστένω Matthiae
935 οὔποτε W. Headlam
938 καὶ μὴ Aldine: μὴ καὶ L; ἠράμην Nauck, Paley
943 ἠτιμάσμεθα Monk
944–7 susp. eds; 946 (or 945–6) del. Stockert
945 δ’ written above τ’ L
947 εἴπερ Aldine: ὅσπερ L; φονεύσει Schaefer; σῷ πόσει] σὴν κόρην Reiske: παῖδα
σῆν Burges
 Iphigenia at Aulis 169

sons of Atreus if they lead well, but when they lead badly I shall
not obey them. Here and in Troy, however, I shall display a free
nature, (930) and as far as I am able, I shall pay Ares honour with
the spear.
As for you, so cruelly treated by those closest to you, I shall
put my pity round you and protect you, as far as a young man is
able; and your daughter, who was spoken of as my bride, shall
never be slaughtered by her father, (935) because I will not give
my person to your husband for weaving into his plots. For it is
my name that will shed your daughter’s blood, even though it
did not raise a sword. Your husband is the cause; but my body
will no longer be untainted (940) if the girl dies because of me
and her marriage to me: she is the victim of terrible, unbearable
suffering, of an outrage so remarkably undeserved.
I am proved the most cowardly of the Argives, myself the
nonentity – and Menelaus is proved to be among real men! –
(945) not the son of Peleus but of a demon, if indeed my name
sheds blood †for your husband†. By Nereus, reared amid the
sea-waves, the begetter of Thetis who gave me birth, I swear that
lord Agamemnon shall not lay a hand on your daughter, (950)
170 Euripides

οὐδ’ εἰς ἄκραν χεῖρ’, ὥστε προσβαλεῖν πέπλοις·

ἢ Σίπυλος ἔσται πολύς, ἔρεισμα βαρβάρων,
ὅθεν πεφύκασ’ οἱ στρατηλάται γένος,
Φθίας δὲ τοὔνομ’ οὐδαμοῦ κεκλήσεται.
πικροὺς δὲ προχύτας χέρνιβάς τ’ ἐνάρξεται 955
Κάλχας ὁ μάντις. τίς δὲ μάντις ἔστ’ ἀνήρ,
ὃς ὀλίγ’ ἀληθῆ, πολλὰ δὲ ψευδῆ λέγει
τυχών, ὅταν δὲ μὴ τύχῃ διοίχεται;
   οὐ τῶν γάμων ἕκατι – μυρίαι κόραι
θηρῶσι λέκτρον τοὐμόν – εἴρηται τόδε· 960
ἀλλ’ ὕβριν ἐς ἡμᾶς ὕβρισ’ Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ.
χρῆν δ’ αὐτὸν αἰτεῖν τοὐμὸν ὄνομ’ ἐμοῦ πάρα.
[θήραμα παιδός· ἡ Κλυταιμήστρα δ’ ἐμοὶ
μάλιστ’ ἐπείσθη θυγατέρ’ ἐκδοῦναι πόσει.]
ἔδωκά τἂν Ἕλλησιν, εἰ πρὸς Ἴλιον 965
ἐν τῷδ’ ἔκαμνε νόστος· οὐκ ἠρνούμεθ’ ἂν
τὸ κοινὸν αὔξειν ὧν μέτ’ ἐστρατευόμην.
νῦν δ’ οὐδέν εἰμι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς στρατηλάταις
ἐν εὐμαρεῖ με δρᾶν τε καὶ μὴ δρᾶν κακῶς.
τάχ’ εἴσεται σίδηρος, ὃν πρὶν ἐς Φρύγας 970

952 πολύς Musgrave: πόλις L; ἔρεισμα Hartung: ὅρισμα L

954 Φθίας δὲ τοὔνομ’ Jacobs: φθία δὲ τοὐμόν τ’ L
955 ἐνάρξεται Musgrave: ἀνάξεται L
958 τυχὼν <δ’> ὅταν τε Hartung
959 οὐ Lenting: ἦ` (i.e. ἦ or ἢ) L; γάμων Canter: γαμούντων L
959b μυρίαι ... 960a τοὐμόν del. Hartung
963–4 del. Hermann
963 δ’ ἐμοὶ Matthiae: δέ μοι L
964 θυγατέρ’ ἐκδοῦναι Lcorr: θυγατέρ’ δοῦναι L?
965 ἔδωκά ed. Hervagiana: ἔδωκέ L; τἂν (i.e. τοι ἂν) Gaisford: τ’ ἂν L
967 ἐστρατεύομεν Monk
968 δὲ Hermann (together with τὸ replacing the first τε L in 969): γε L
969 με Tournier (with τε replacing γε in 968): τε L; κακῶς Kirchhoff: καλῶς L
970 σίδηρος Tr2/3: σίδηρον L; Φρυγῶν (with φόνον Porson in 971) Hartmann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 171

not even a finger-tip, to touch her dress – otherwise Sipylus,

barbarian stronghold from which our commanders draw their
descent, will be mighty and Phthia’s name will be called of no
account.
To his bitter cost shall Calchas begin the sacrifice with barley
and sprinklings (955). But what kind of man is a seer, who tells
a few truths and many lies – and that is when he hits the mark?
When he does not hit it, he is finished.
This has not been said because of the marriage; countless
girls are hunting for my bed. (960) But Agamemnon has insulted
me outrageously. He ought to have asked me himself for the
use of my name [in the hunt for his child; and Clytemnestra
was especially persuaded to betroth her daughter to myself].
I certainly would have given my name for the Greeks if that
was the issue causing the voyage to Troy to founder. (965) I
certainly would not have refused to increase the common good
of my comrades in arms. But now I am nothing, and for the
commanders it is a light matter whether they treat me both badly
and not. My sword, which before I go to Phrygia (970) I shall
172 Euripides

ἐλθεῖν †φόνου κηλῖσιν αἵματι† χρανῶ,

εἴ τίς με τὴν σὴν θυγατέρ’ ἐξαιρήσεται.
ἀλλ’ ἡσύχαζε· θεὸς ἐγὼ πέφηνά σοι
μέγιστος, οὐκ ὤν· ἀλλ’ ὅμως γενήσομαι.
Χο. ἔλεξας, ὦ παῖ Πηλέως, σοῦ τ’ ἄξια 975
καὶ τῆς ἐναλίας δαίμονος, σεμνῆς θεοῦ.
Κλ. φεῦ·
πῶς ἄν σ’ ἐπαινέσαιμι μὴ λίαν λόγοις
μηδ’ ἐνδεὴς τοῦδ’ ἀπολέσαιμι τὴν χάριν;
αἰνούμενοι γὰρ ἁγαθοὶ τρόπον τινὰ
μισοῦσι τοὺς αἰνοῦντας, ἢν αἰνῶσ’ ἄγαν. 980
αἰσχύνομαι δὲ παραφέρουσ’ οἰκτροὺς λόγους,
ἰδίᾳ νοσοῦσα· σὺ δ’ ἄνοσος κακῶν γ’ ἐμῶν.
ἀλλ’ οὖν ἔχει τι σχῆμα, κἂν ἄπωθεν ᾖ
ἀνὴρ ὁ χρηστός, δυστυχοῦντας ὠφελεῖν.
οἴκτιρε δ’ ἡμᾶς· οἰκτρὰ γὰρ πεπόνθαμεν. 985
ἣ πρῶτα μέν σε γαμβρὸν οἰηθεῖσ’ ἔχειν
κενὴν κατέσχον ἐλπίδ’· εἶτά σοι τάχα
ὄρνις γένοιτ’ ἂν τοῖσι μέλλουσιν γάμοις
θανοῦσ’ ἐμὴ παῖς, ὅ σε φυλάξασθαι χρεών.
ἀλλ’ εὖ μὲν ἀρχὰς εἶπας, εὖ δὲ καὶ τέλη· 990
σοῦ γὰρ θέλοντος παῖς ἐμὴ σωθήσεται.
βούλῃ νιν ἱκέτιν σὸν περιπτύξαι γόνυ;

971 φόνους Reiske: φόνον Porson; αἵματος Reiske: Ἕλληνος Piccolimini,

Herwerden: ἐμφύλου Wecklein: ᾿Αργείου Page: βαρβάρου Jackson
973–4 del. Hartung
978 μηδ’ W. Dindorf: μήτ’ L; (ἐνδε)ὴς above ἐνδεῶς L; τοῦδ’ Markland: μὴ τοῦδ’ L;
που (του later Stockert) διολέσαιμι Weil; 978 del. England
979–80 Stobaeus 3.14.5
979 ἁγαθοὶ Porson: οἱ ἀγαθοὶ P2: ἀγαθοὶ L and Stob.
981–9 del. Hennig
982 γ’ del. Aldine
983 τι Aldine: τοι L
985 susp. eds
990 τέλος Wecklein
 Iphigenia at Aulis 173

defile †with stains of bloodshed with blood†, shall soon know

whether anyone will take your daughter from me.
Keep calm! I appear to you like a very great god, when I am
not; even so, I shall become one.
Cho. You have said things, son of Peleus, worthy both of yourself
(975) and of the sea-divinity, the august goddess.
CLYTEMNESTRA has by now risen from her knees
Clyt. Ah! What words could I find to praise you that do not go too far
and yet do not fall short and lose your favour? When good men
are praised in some way they resent those who praise them if
they praise excessively. (980)
I am ashamed of intruding talk of pity, for my troubles are my
private sickness and you are uninfected by them. But it looks
quite well for the good man to come to help the unfortunate, even
though he is remote from them.
Show us pity – for we have suffered piteously! (985) First, I
thought that I would have you as my son-in-law, but the hope I
held was empty. Then it may perhaps prove a bad omen for your
marriage when it comes if my daughter dies, a thing which you
must guard against.
Yet what you said at the beginning was well, and what you said
at the end was also well: (990) if you wish it, my daughter shall
be saved. Do you want her to clasp your knees as a suppliant?
174 Euripides

ἀπαρθένευτα μὲν τάδ’· εἰ δέ σοι δοκεῖ,

ἔξεισιν, αἰδοῦς ὄμμ’ ἔχουσ’ ἐλεύθερον.
εἰ δ’ οὐ παρούσης ταὐτὰ τεύξομαι σέθεν, 995
μενέτω κατ’ οἴκους· σεμνὰ γὰρ σεμνύνεται.
ὅμως δ’ ὅσον γε δυνατὸν αἰτεῖσθαι χρεών.
Αχ. σὺ μήτε σὴν παῖδ’ ἔξαγ’ ὄψιν εἰς ἐμὴν
μήτ’ εἰς ὄνειδος ἀμαθὲς ἔλθωμεν, γύναι·
στρατὸς γὰρ ἀθρόος, ἀργὸς ὢν τῶν οἴκοθεν, 1000
λέσχας πονηρὰς καὶ κακοστόμους φιλεῖ.
πάντως δέ μ’ ἱκετεύοντέ θ’ ἥξετ’ εἰς ἴσον
ἐπ’ ἀνικετεύτοις θ’· εἷς ἐμοὶ γάρ ἐστ’ ἀγὼν
μέγιστος, ὑμᾶς ἐξαπαλλάξαι κακῶν.
ὡς ἕν γ’ ἀκούσασ’ ἴσθι, μὴ ψευδῶς μ’ ἐρεῖν· 1005
ψευδῆ λέγων δὲ καὶ μάτην ἐγκερτομῶν,
θάνοιμι· μὴ θάνοιμι δ’, ἢν σώσω κόρην.
Κλ. ὄναιο συνεχῶς δυστυχοῦντας ὠφελῶν.
Αχ. ἄκουε δή νυν, ἵνα τὸ πρᾶγμ’ ἔχῃ καλῶς.
Κλ. τί τοῦτ’ ἔλεξας; ὡς ἀκουστέον γέ σου. 1010
Αχ. πείθωμεν αὖθις πατέρα βέλτιον φρονεῖν.
Κλ. κακός τίς ἐστι καὶ λίαν ταρβεῖ στρατόν.
Αχ. ἀλλ’ οὖν λόγοι γε καταπαλαίουσιν φόβους.

994 ἔξεισιν Porson, Elmsley: ἥξει δι’ L

995 εἰ δ’ οὐ Hartung: ἰδοὺ L; ταὐτὰ Heath: ταῦτα L
996–7 Κλ. Elmsley: Αχ. L
997 αἰτεῖσθαι Markland: αἰδεῖσθαι L; 997 del. Nauck
1000 ἁθρόος Lcorr: ἀθλόος L
1002 ἱκετεύοντέ θ’ Wecklein: ἱκετεύοντες L; ἥξετ’ P2: ἕξετ’ L
1003 ἐπ’ ἀνικετεύτοις Weil: εἴ τ’ ἀνικέτευτος L; εἷς Nauck: ἦς· L: ἦσθ’· Markland
1005–7 del. Conington
1006 <σ’> ἐγκερτομῶν Markland
1008 συνεχῶς Tr1: συνεχ** L: συνετῶς Hermann
1009 νυν Barnes: νῦν L
1011 πείθωμεν written above πειθώμεθ’ L; πεῖσον μεταῦθις England: πεῖσον μετ’
αὐτῆς Murray
1013 οὖν Monk: οἱ L; φόβους Musgrave: λόγους L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 175

That is not how a maiden should behave, but if you desire it, she
will come out, with her look free of modesty. But if I can win the
same result from you if she is not here, (995) let her remain in
the hut: for the proprieties are observed. Nevertheless we must
plead as far as we are able.
Ach. You are not to bring the girl out into my sight, and let us not expose
ourselves to ignorant reproach, lady. An army all together, and
idle from its own duties, (1000) loves malicious, foul-mouthed
gossip. In any case you will come to the same result, whether the
two of you supplicate me or there is no supplication. Before me
lies a single very great challenge, to release you from your evil
plight. For listen, and be assured of one thing: I will not lie to
you. (1005) And if my words are lies and false mockery, may I
die – but may I not die, if I save the girl.
Clyt. May you benefit continually from helping the unfortunate!
Ach. Now listen then, so that the thing turns out well.
Clyt. What’s this you say? I must surely listen to you! (1010)
Ach. Let us persuade her father to think again, for the better.
Clyt. He is a very weak man, and too fearful of the army.
Ach. But still argument can outwrestle fears.
176 Euripides

Κλ. ψυχρὰ μὲν ἐλπίς· ὅτι δὲ χρή με δρᾶν φράσον.

Αχ. ἱκέτευ’ ἐκεῖνον πρῶτα μὴ κτείνειν τέκνα· 1015
ἢν δ’ ἀντιβαίνῃ, πρὸς ἐμέ σοι πορευτέον.
†εἴη γὰρ τὸ χρῇζον ἐπίθετ’† οὐ τοὐμὸν χρεὼν
χωρεῖν· ἔχει γὰρ τοῦτο τὴν σωτηρίαν.
κἀγώ τ’ ἀμείνων πρὸς φίλον γενήσομαι
στρατός τ’ ἂν οὐ μέμψαιτό μ’, εἰ τὰ πράγματα 1020
λελογισμένως πράσσοιμι μᾶλλον ἢ σθένει.
†καλῶς δὲ κρανθέντων καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν φίλοις
σοί τ’ ἂν γένοιτο κἂν ἐμοῦ χωρὶς τάδε.†
Κλ. ὡς σώφρον’ εἶπας· δραστέον δ’ ἅ σοι δοκεῖ.
ἢν δ’ αὖ τι μὴ πράσσωμεν ὧν ἐγὼ θέλω, 1025
ποῦ σ’ αὖθις ὀψόμεσθα; ποῦ χρή μ’ ἀθλίαν
ἐλθοῦσαν εὑρεῖν σὴν χέρ’ ἐπίκουρον κακῶν;
Αχ. ἡμεῖς σε, φύλακος οὗ χρέος, φυλάξομεν,
μή τίς σ’ ἴδῃ στείχουσαν ἐπτοημένην
Δαναῶν δι’ ὄχλου. μηδὲ πατρῷον δόμον 1030
αἴσχυν’· ὁ γάρ τοι Τυνδάρεως οὐκ ἄξιος
κακῶς ἀκούειν· ἐν γὰρ Ἕλλησιν μέγας.
Κλ. ἔσται τάδ’· ἄρχε· σοί με δουλεύειν χρεών.

1014 ὅτι Livineius, Barnes: τι L

1015 τέκνον Diggle
1017–23 del. W. Dindorf
1017 εἰ γὰρ P2; ἔπιθεν Musgrave; οὐ γάρ, τὸ χρῇζον εἰ πίθοι, τοὐμὸν χρεὼν Jackson
1018 αὐτὸ Vater
1021 (σθέν)ω written above σθένει L
1022–3 καλῶς δὲ κρανθὲν κἂν ἐμοῦ χωρὶς τόδε | σοί τ’ ἂν γένοιτο καὶ φίλοις πρὸς
ἡδονήν Murray; 1022–3 del. Weil
1022 καὶ del. Tr2/3
1023 κἂν] πάντ’ Pötscher
1024 ὡς Tr3: ὧ (i.e. ᾧ) (L*)P
1025 αὖ τι ... ὧν Monk: αὐτὰ ... ῾ἂν (i.e. ἃν, ἃ ἂν) L
1026 ποῖ Wecklein
1028 φύλακος ... χρέος England: φύλακες ... χρεὼν L; φυλάξομεν Markland:
φυλάσσομεν L
1032 del. Fritzsche
1033 ἔσται Markland: ἔστιν L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 177

Clyt. My hope is cold; but tell me what I must do.

Ach. Supplicate him first, not to kill a child; (1015) and if he resists,
you must come to me. †But if your request is persuasive†,
I ought not to go myself; for this holds safety. I shall behave
better towards a friend, just as the army would not fault me if I
managed things (1020) by reason rather than by force. †If things
reached a successful conclusion, it would please friends and you,
and this would be without myself.†
Clyt. How sensibly you have spoken! I must do what you decide. But
on the other hand, if I do not achieve any of my wishes, (1025)
where shall I see you again? Where must I come, poor woman,
to find your hand as help against evil?
Ach. I shall guard you myself where there is need of a guard, so that
no one sees you going through the mass of Danaans in frantic
distress. And do not disgrace your father’s house; (1030) for
Tyndareus does not deserve ill repute, because he is great among
the Greeks.
Clyt. It shall be so. Rule me – it is you I must serve. If the gods are
178 Euripides

εἰ δ’ εἰσὶ <συνετοὶ> θεοί, δίκαιος ὢν ἀνὴρ

ἐσθλῶν κυρήσεις· εἰ δὲ μή, τί δεῖ πονεῖν; 1035
Χο. τίν’ ἄρ’ Ὑμέναιος διὰ λωτοῦ Λίβυος στρ.
μετά τε φιλοχόρου κιθάρας
συρίγγων θ’ ὑπὸ καλαμοεσ-
σᾶν ἔστασεν ἰαχάν,
ὅτ’ ἀνὰ Πήλιον αἱ καλλιπλόκαμοι 1040
Πιερίδες †ἐν δαιτὶ† θεῶν
χρυσεοσάνδαλον ἴχνος
ἐν γᾷ κρούουσαι
Πηλέως ἐς γάμον ἦλθον,
μελῳδοῖς Θέτιν ἀχήμασι τόν τ’ Αἰακίδαν 1045–46
Κενταύρων ἐν ὄρεσι κλέουσαι
Πηλιάδα καθ’ ὕλαν;
ὁ δὲ Δαρδανίδας, Διὸς
λέκτρων τρύφημα φίλον, 1050
χρυσέοισιν ἄφυσσε λοι-
βὰν ἐκ κρατήρων γυάλοις
ὁ Φρύγιος Γανυμήδης.
παρὰ δὲ λευκοφαῆ ψάμαθον
εἱλισσόμεναι κύκλια 1055
πεντήκοντα κόραι Νηρέως
γάμους ἐχόρευσαν.

1034 <συνετοὶ> Diggle; <πολλῶν> ἀνὴρ West: ἀνὴρ <σύ γε> Tr3: ἀνὴρ <θεῶν>
Vitelli
1036 τίν’ Portus: τίς L; ὑμεναίοις Willink
1038 καλαμοεσσᾶν Markland: καλαμόεσσαν L
1039 ἔστασεν Portus: ἔστασαν L, with (ἔστ)η(σαν) written above
1040 ὅτ’ Tr3: ὅταν L
1041 ἐπὶ δαιτὶ Monk: παρὰ δαιτὶ Kirchhoff: μετὰ δαῖτα Wecklein
1045–6 μελῳδοῖς ... ἀχήμασι Elsmley: μελῳδοὶ ... ἰαχήμασι L
1047 κλέουσαι Monk (κλείουσαι earlier Livineius): κλύουσαι L
1050 φίλον Aldine: φίλιον L
1052 ἐκ ed. Hervagiana, Wecklein: ἐν L
1056–7 γάμους κόραι | Νηρέως Wilamowitz
 Iphigenia at Aulis 179

<wise>, as a just man you will find good fortune; but if not, what
use is there for effort? (1035)
CLYTEMNESTRA goes into the hut, ACHILLES leaves to rejoin his
men.
Cho. (singing and dancing; strophe) What joyous sound did Hymenaeus
set up by means of the Libyan lotus-pipe, and with the lyre that
loves the dance, and to the reedy pipes, when the Muses of Pieria
with their lovely tresses (1040) came up along Pelion to the
wedding of Peleus, stamping their golden-sandalled feet on the
ground at the gods’ feast, in melodious songs celebrating Thetis
and the grandson of Aeacus (1045) on the Centaurs’ mountains
throughout Pelion’s woods? The descendant of Dardanus,
the beloved plaything of Zeus’ bed, (1050) was drawing off
the libation from mixing-bowls in golden cups, the Phrygian
Ganymedes; and along the bright white sand the fifty daughters
of Nereus (1055) twirled in circles to dance the wedding.
180 Euripides

ἅμα δ’ ἐλάταισι στεφανώδει τε χλόᾳ ἀντ.

θίασος ἔμολεν ἱπποβάτας
Κενταύρων ἐπὶ δαῖτα τὰν 1060
θεῶν κρατῆρά τε Βάκχου.
μέγα δ’ ἀνέκλαγον· “Ὦ Νηρηῒ κόρα,
παῖδά σε Θεσσαλίᾳ μέγα φῶς
μάντις ὁ φοιβάδα μοῦσαν
εἰδὼς γεννάσειν 1065
Χείρων ἐξονόμαζεν,
ὃς ἥξει χθόνα λογχήρεσι σὺν Μυρμιδόνων 1067–68
ἀσπισταῖς Πριάμοιο κλεινὰν
γαῖαν ἐκπυρώσων, 1070
περὶ σώματι χρυσέων
ὅπλων Ἡφαιστοπόνων
κεκορυθμένος ἐνδύτ’, ἐκ
θεᾶς ματρὸς δωρήματ’ ἔχων
Θέτιδος, ἅ νιν ἔτικτεν.” 1075
μακάριον τότε δαίμονες
τᾶς εὐπάτριδος γάμον
Νηρῄδων ἔθεσαν πρώτας
Πηλέως θ’ ὑμεναίους.
σὲ δ’ ἐπὶ κάρᾳ στέψουσι καλλικόμαν ἐπῳδ.

1058 ἅμα Conington: ἀνὰ L; ἐλάταισι] ἐλάταις σὺν Weil

1059 ἱπποβάτας Gomperz: ἱπποβότας L
1063 παῖδά σε Θεσσαλίᾳ Weil (παῖδα σὺ Θεσσαλίᾳ earlier Kirchhoff): παῖδες αἱ
θεσσαλαὶ L
1064 ὁ φοιβάδα Hermann: δ’ ὁ φοῖβα L
1065 γεννάσειν Weil: γεννάσεις L, with (γενν)ή(σεις) written above
1066 ἐξονόμαζεν Bothe, Monk: ἐξωνόμασεν L
1067 ἥξοι England
1070 γαῖαν] πέργαμ’ Willink
1080–97 del. W. Dindorf
1080–4 variously suspected and emended by eds
1080 ἐπὶ κάρᾳ Burges (ἐπὶ κάρα L): ὦ κόρα Hermann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 181

(antistrophe) And with their staffs of silver fir, and garlands

of greenery, the revelling company of Centaurs, with their horse-
legs, came to the feast (1060) of the gods and the wine-bowl of
Bacchus. Loudly they cried, ‘O daughter of Nereus, the son you
shall bear will be a great light to Thessaly: prophetic Chiron,
knowing the art of Phoebus, has declared it of him. (1065) He
will come with his Myrmidons’ spears and shields to Priam’s
country to burn out his famous land, (1070) his body clad in his
suit of golden armour, the work of Hephaestus that he has from
his goddess mother Thetis who bore him.’ (1075) Then the gods
made blest the marriage of the first among Nereids, daughter of
a splendid father, and Peleus’ wedding.
(epode) But you the Argives will garland, (1080) the tresses of
182 Euripides

πλόκαμον Ἀργεῖοι, βαλιὰν 1081

ὥστε πετραίων
†ἀπ’ ἄντρων ἐλθοῦσαν ὀρέων† 1082
μόσχον ἀκήρατον, βρότειον
αἱμάξοντες λαιμόν·
οὐ σύριγγι τραφεῖσαν οὐδ’ 1085
ἐν ῥοιβδήσεσι βουκόλων,
†παρὰ δὲ ματέρι νυμφοκόμον
Ἰναχίδαις γάμον†.
ποῦ τὸ τᾶς Αἰδοῦς ἢ τὸ τᾶς Ἀρετᾶς 1089–90
σθένει τι πρόσωπον,
ὁπότε τὸ μὲν ἄσεπτον ἔχει
δύνασιν, ἁ δ’ Ἀρετὰ κατόπι-
σθεν θνατοῖς ἀμελεῖται,
Ἀνομία δὲ νόμων κρατεῖ, 1095
καὶ <μὴ> κοινὸς ἀγὼν βροτοῖς
μή τις θεῶν φθόνος ἔλθῃ;
Κλ. ἐξῆλθον οἴκων προσκοπουμένη πόσιν,
χρόνιον ἀπόντα κἀκλελοιπότα στέγας.
ἐν δακρύοισι δ’ ἡ τάλαινα παῖς ἐμή, 1100

1081 βαλιὰν Scaliger: γ’ ἁλιᾶν L

1082 ἄντρων ἐλθοῦσαν del. Wilamowitz; ὀρέων del. W. Dindorf
1082–3 <ἔλαφον> ὥστε ... ὀρεί- | αν <ἢ> μόσχον Monk: ὥστε πετραίων <τιν’>
(Fritzsche) ἀπ’ ἄν- | τρων ἐλθοῦσαν ὀρείων (Hermann) Diggle
1083–4 βρότειον ... λαιμόν del. Monk
1084 αἱμάξοντες Diggle: αἱμάσσοντες L
1087 νυμφόκομον Reiske: νυμφοκόμῳ Markland
1088 <κλεινὸν> Ἰναχίδαις Monk
1091 σθένει Bothe, Hartung: δύνασιν ἔχει σθένειν L: [δύνασιν] ἔχει σθένειν also
Bothe
1093 δύνασιν Bothe: δύναμιν L
1096 καὶ] κοὐ Willink; <μὴ> Hermann
1098–1133 variously susp. or del. eds: see below
1098–1105 del. Monk
1099 ἀπόντα κἀκλελοιπότα Tr3: ἀπόντ’ ἐκλελοιπότα (L*)P
1100 δ’ Markland: τ’ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 183

lovely hair on your head, like a dappled heifer that came pure from
rocky mountain-caves, in their purpose to let blood from human
throat. You were not brought up (1085) among the reed-pipes or
whistlings of herdsmen, †but at a mother’s side tended as bride
for marriage to a descendant of Inachus†. Where is the face of
Shame, or of Virtue, (1090) at all strong ? – when irreverence has
domination, and Virtue is afterwards of no concern to mortals,
and Lawlessness is master over laws, (1095) and mortals make
<no> common struggle to avoid the coming of the gods’ jealous
anger?
CLYTEMNESTRA re-enters.
Clyt. I have come from the hut looking out for my husband, who has
been away some time and left the shelter; but my poor daughter
184 Euripides

πολλὰς ἱεῖσα μεταβολὰς ὀδυρμάτων,

θάνατον ἀκούσασ’ ὃν πατὴρ βουλεύεται.
μνήμην δ’ ἄρ’ εἶχον πλησίον βεβηκότος
Ἀγαμέμνονος τοῦδ’, ὃς ἐπὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ τέκνοις
ἀνόσια πράσσων αὐτίχ’ εὑρεθήσεται. 1105
Αγ. Λήδας γένεθλον, ἐν καλῷ σ’ ἔξω δόμων
ηὕρηχ’, ἵν’ εἴπω παρθένου χωρὶς λόγους
οὓς οὐκ ἀκούειν τὰς γαμουμένας πρέπει.
Κλ. τί δ’ ἔστιν οὗ σοι καιρὸς ἀντιλάζυται;
Αγ. ἔκπεμπε παῖδα δωμάτων πατρὸς μέτα· 1110
ὡς χέρνιβες πάρεισιν ηὐτρεπισμέναι
προχύται τε, βάλλειν πῦρ καθάρσιον χεροῖν,
μόσχοι τε, πρὸ γάμων ἃς θεᾷ πεσεῖν χρεὼν
Ἀρτέμιδι μέλανος αἵματος φυσήματι.
Κλ. τοῖς ὀνόμασιν μὲν εὖ λέγεις, τὰ δ’ ἔργα σου 1115
οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως χρή μ’ ὀνομάσασαν εὖ λέγειν.
χώρει δέ, θύγατερ, ἐκτός – οἶσθα γὰρ πατρὸς
πάντως ἃ μέλλει – χὐπὸ τοῖς πέπλοις ἄγε
λαβοῦσ’ Ὀρέστην, σὸν κασίγνητον, τέκνον.
ἰδού, πάρεστιν ἥδε πειθαρχοῦσά σοι· 1120
τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ἐγὼ πρὸ τῆσδε κἀμαυτῆς φράσω.
Αγ. τέκνον, τί κλαίεις οὐδ’ ἔθ’ ἡδέως <μ’> ὁρᾷς,
ἐς γῆν δ’ ἐρείσασ’ ὄμμα πρόσθ’ ἔχεις πέπλους;

1101 ἱεῖσα πολλὰς Blaydes

1106–8 susp. Page
1110 end <τῶνδε> δωμάτων πάρος (Nauck) [μέτα] Heimsoeth
1112 χεροῖν Musgrave: χερῶν L
1114 φυσήματι Diggle: φυσήματα L; 1114 del. England
1115–9 del. Kovacs
1117–21 del. Paley
1117 χώρει δὲ P2: χώρ***L: χώρε (or χώρι) P: χώρει Tr2/3
1121 πρὸ Barnes: πρὸς L
1122–6 susp. Bremi
1122 <μ’> Markland
 Iphigenia at Aulis 185

is in tears, (1100) sounding laments in many different tones, for

she has heard about the death which her father is resolved upon.
AGAMEMNON comes from the army, stage-left.
But here is Agamemnon already nearby when I was mentioning
him! In a moment he will be found out for planning an impious
act against his own child. (1105)
Ag. Daughter of Leda, it is the right moment for me to have found
you outside the hut, to say words in the girl’s absence which it is
not proper for a bride to hear.
Clyt. What is it that you are seizing this opportunity to say?
Ag. Send the girl out from the hut to join her father: (1110) the water
for sprinkling is ready, and the barley, to throw on the cleansing
fire with both hands, and the heifers which must fall in a spurt
of black blood before the marriage, in sacrifice to the goddess
Artemis.
Clyt. You talk well with your words, (1115) but how I should name and
speak well of your actions, I do not know. (she calls back into
the hut) Come outside, daughter – for in any case you are aware
of what your father intends; take your brother Orestes under the
cover of your dress and bring him here, my child.
IPHIGENIA enters, holding ORESTES
Look, here she is in obedience to your commands. (1120) As for
the rest, I shall say it for my daughter and myself.
Ag. My child, why are you weeping? Why are you not still looking
pleased <at me>, but fixing your eyes on the ground and holding
your dress in front of them?
186 Euripides

Κλ. φεῦ·
τίν’ ἂν λάβοιμι τῶν ἐμῶν ἀρχὴν κακῶν;
ἅπασι γὰρ πρώτοισι χρήσασθαι πάρα 1125
κἀν ὑστάτοισι κἀν μέσοισι πανταχοῦ.
Αγ. τί δ’ ἔστιν; ὥς μοι πάντες εἰς ἓν ἥκετε,
σύγχυσιν ἔχοντες καὶ ταραγμὸν ὀμμάτων.
Κλ. εἴφ’ ἃν ἐρωτήσω σε γενναίως, πόσι.
Αγ. οὐδὲν κελευσμοῦ δεῖ σ’· ἐρωτᾶσθαι θέλω. 1130
Κλ. τὴν παῖδα τὴν σὴν τήν τ’ ἐμὴν μέλλεις κτανεῖν;
Αγ. ἔα·
τλήμονά γ’ ἔλεξας ὑπονοεῖς θ’ ἃ μή σε χρή.
Κλ. ἔχ’ ἥσυχος·
κἀκεῖνό μοι τὸ πρῶτον ἀπόκριναι πάλιν.
Αγ. σὺ δ’, ἤν γ’ ἐρωτᾷς εἰκότ’, εἰκότ’ ἂν κλύοις.
Κλ. οὐκ ἄλλ’ ἐρωτῶ, καὶ σὺ μὴ λέγ’ ἄλλα μοι. 1135
Αγ. ὦ πότνια Μοῖρα καὶ τύχη δαίμων τ’ ἐμός.
Κλ. κἀμός γε καὶ τῆσδ’, εἷς τριῶν δυσδαιμόνων.
Αγ. τί δ’ ἠδίκησαι; Κλ. τοῦτ’ ἐμοῦ πεύθῃ πάρα;
ὁ νοῦς ὅδ’ αὐτὸς νοῦν ἔχων οὐ τυγχάνει.
Αγ. ἀπωλόμεσθα· προδέδοται τὰ κρυπτά μου. 1140
Κλ. πάντ’ οἶδα καὶ πεπύσμεθ’ ἃ σὺ μέλλεις με δρᾶν·

1124–8 del. Kovacs

1126 del. Monk
1130–3 del. Günther
1130 κελευσμοῦ Canter: κέλευσμ’ οὐ L?, P; σ’ Dobree: γ’ L: μ’ Reiske
1131 κτενεῖν Elmsley, cf. 873
1132 τλήμονά γ’ Tr1: τλήμον (sic) L
1134 εἰκότ’ ἂν κλύοις Markland: εἰκότα κλύεις L
1136 μοῖρα καὶ τύχη Musgrave: τύχη καὶ μοῖρα L
1137 γε Matthiae: τε L
1138–9 transferred after 1126 Hermann; del. Wilamowitz
1138 τί δ’ ἠδίκησαι Matthiae: τί μ’ (with (τί)ν’ ἠ written above) ἠδίκησε L: τίν’
ἠδίκησαι P2: τίς σ’ ἠδίκησε or τί σ’ ἠδίκησα Markland: τίν’ ἠδίκησα Hermann
1139 Κλ. Aldine: Αγ. L
1141 πεπύσμεθ’ Burges: πέπυσμ’ (i.e. πέπυσμαι) Aldine: πέπεισμαι L?: πέπεισμ’
(Tr1) ἃ σύ <γε> Tr3
 Iphigenia at Aulis 187

Clyt. Alas! What beginning should I make upon my troubles? I can use
all of them, at first, and at the end, and in the middle, everywhere.
(1125)
Ag. But what is it? You are all one for me, with confusion and
agitation in your eyes!
Clyt. Reply honestly to whatever I ask you, husband.
Ag. You have no need for a command! I am willing to be questioned.
(1130)
Clyt. Your child and mine – are you about to kill her?
Ag. What? What you have said is overbold, and you suspect what you
have no right to.
Clyt. Be quiet! And answer again what I first asked just now.
Ag. If you ask reasonable questions, you’d hear reasonable answers.
Clyt. I ask no others, and you must give me no other answers. (1135)
Ag. O mistress Fate, and my fortune and destiny!
Clyt. Yes, and mine and hers, a single one for three unfortunates!
Ag. But what wrong have you been done?
Clyt. You ask that of me? This mind of yours is really no mind at all.
Ag. (aside) All is lost for me! My secrets are betrayed. (1140)
Clyt. I know everything. I have learned what you are about to do to me.
188 Euripides

αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ σιγᾶν ὁμολογοῦντός ἐστί σου

καὶ τὸ στενάζειν· πολλὰ μὴ κάμῃς λέγων.
Αγ. ἰδού, σιωπῶ· τὸ γὰρ ἀναίσχυντον τί δεῖ
ψευδῆ λέγοντα προσλαβεῖν τῇ συμφορᾷ; 1145
Κλ. ἄκουε δή νυν· ἀνακαλύψω γὰρ λόγους
κοὐκέτι παρῳδοῖς χρησόμεσθ’ αἰνίγμασιν.
πρῶτον μέν, ἵνα σοι πρῶτα τοῦτ’ ὀνειδίσω,
ἔγημας ἄκουσάν με κἄλαβες βίᾳ,
τὸν πρόσθεν ἄνδρα Τάνταλον κατακτανών· 1150
βρέφος τε τοὐμὸν ζῶν προσούδισας πέδῳ,
μαστῶν βιαίως τῶν ἐμῶν ἀποσπάσας.
καὶ τὼ Διός σε παῖδ’, ἐμὼ δὲ συγγόνω,
ἵπποισι μαρμαίροντ’ ἐπεστρατευσάτην·
πατὴρ δὲ πρέσβυς Τυνδάρεώς σ’ ἐρρύσατο 1155
ἱκέτην γενόμενον, τἀμὰ δ’ ἔσχες αὖ λέχη.
οὗ σοι καταλλαχθεῖσα περὶ σὲ καὶ δόμους
συμμαρτυρήσεις ὡς ἄμεμπτος ἦ γυνή,
ἔς τ’ Ἀφροδίτην σωφρονοῦσα καὶ τὸ σὸν
μέλαθρον αὔξουσ’, ὥστε σ’ εἰσιόντα τε 1160
χαίρειν θύραζέ τ’ ἐξιόντ’ εὐδαιμονεῖν.
σπάνιον δὲ θήρευμ’ ἀνδρὶ τοιαύτην λαβεῖν
δάμαρτα· φλαύραν δ’ οὐ σπάνις γυναῖκ’ ἔχειν.
τίκτω δ’ ἐπὶ τρισὶ παρθένοισι παῖδά σοι
τόνδ’· ὧν μιᾶς σὺ τλημόνως μ’ ἀποστερεῖς. 1165
κἄν τίς σ’ ἔρηται τίνος ἕκατί νιν κτενεῖς,

1143 κάμῃς Porson: κάμνης L

1144 τί Elmsley: με L
1148 ταῦτ’ Monk
1149–50 Schol. Od. 11.430
1149 κἄμβαλες Schol. Od.
1151 ζῶν Jacobs, Musgrave: σῷ L; προσούδισας πέδῳ Scaliger: προσούρισας πάλῳ
L: προσώρισας πάλῳ Hartung
1153 σε Markland: γε L; δὲ Matthiae: τε L
1158: cf. 489
1160 ὥστε σ’ Canter: ὥστ’ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 189

Your very silence marks your agreement, your very groaning.

Spare yourself the effort of many words!
Ag. Look, I am silent! What need to tell lies and add shamelessness
to my disaster? (1145)
Clyt. Listen now: I shall reveal my meaning plainly and no longer use
hinting in riddles.
First – and this will be my first reproach against you – you
married me against my will, and took me with violence, by
killing my former husband Tantalus; (1150) and you dashed
my baby living to the ground, tearing him violently from my
breast. The two sons of Zeus – who are my kinsmen – came
on their flashing white horses to make war against you; but my
old father, Tyndareus, saved you (1155) when you became his
suppliant, and you nonetheless kept me as bedmate – in that, I
was reconciled to you personally and to your house, and you will
bear me witness how blameless I was as your wife, and chaste
sexually, and how I increased your estate, so that you rejoiced
on entering the house (1160) and were happy on leaving for the
outside. It is a rare catch for a man to get such a spouse, while
having a bad wife is no rarity.
As well as three daughters, I bore you this son here; and you
are cruelly robbing me of one of the girls. (1165) If someone asks
190 Euripides

λέξον, τί φήσεις; ἢ ’μὲ χρὴ λέγειν τὰ σά;

“Μενέλαος Ἑλένην ἵνα λάβῃ”. καλόν γέ τοι,
κακῆς γυναικὸς μισθὸν ἀποτεῖσαι τέκνα.
τἄχθιστα τοῖσι φιλτάτοις ὠνούμεθα. 1170
ἄγ’, εἰ στρατεύσῃ καταλιπών μ’ ἐν δώμασιν
κἀκεῖ γενήσῃ διὰ μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας,
τίν’ ἐν δόμοις με καρδίαν ἕξειν δοκεῖς;
ὅταν θρόνους τῆσδ’ εἰσίδω πάντας κενούς,
κενοὺς δὲ παρθενῶνας, ἐπὶ δὲ δακρύοις 1175
μόνη κάθωμαι, τήνδε θρηνῳδοῦσ’ ἀεί·
“Ἀπώλεσέν σ’, ὦ τέκνον, ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ,
αὐτὸς κτανών, οὐκ ἄλλος οὐδ’ ἄλλῃ χερί,
†τοιόνδε μισθὸν καταλιπὼν πρὸς τοὺς δόμους†.”

1167 ’μὲ P2: με L

1168 Μενέλαος ῾Ελένην Elmsley: ἑλένην μενέλαος L; γέ τοι Fix: γένος L: γάνος
Bothe: γ’ ἔθος Elmsley: γ’ ἔπος Vitelli: γέρας Vater: see next entry
1168–70 1168 end γε νῷν (γε νῷ ed. Hervagiana) ... 1170 ὠνουμένοιν Musgrave: 1168
γ’ ἂν οὖν ... 1169 ἀποτείσαις ... 1170 ὠνούμενος Diggle (cf. 1169 ἀποτίσαιμεν
ἂν ... 1170 ὠνούμενοι Reiske, and ἀποτείσεις ... ὠνούμενος England)
1169–70 μισθὸν (L) ... 1170 ὠνούμενον Wecklein
1170 τἄχθιστα Brodaeus: ταχθεῖσα L
1171 εἰ Elmsley: ἢν L
1171b καταλιπὼν ... 1172a γενήσῃ del. Conington
1173–5a παρθενῶνας Apsines p. 325 Hammer
1174 δόμους μὲν τούσδε προσίδω κενούς Apsines: κενοὺς μὲν εἰσίδω παιδὸς
(Rauchenstein) θρόνους (or παιδὸς εἰσίδω) Diggle
1176 κάθωμαι Elmsley: κάθημαι L
1177–9 del. England
1177–84 del. Paley
1177 φιτύσας Blomfield
1179 lacuna before this line Paley; <ποίαν ἀπάρας Αὐλίδος ψυχὴν ἔχων> | 1179
ποῖον δὲ (Camper) νόστον (Murray) καταλιπὼν Jackson: (ποῖον δὲ νόστον)
προσδοκῶν Matthiessen; πρὸς τοὺς in erasure Tr1; lacuna after 1179 Matthiae;
1178–9 e.g. τοιόνδε μῖσος (Musgrave) καταλιπὼν <τοῖς φιλτάτοις | νόστου
θελήσεις τυγχάνειν> πρὸς τοὺς δόμους; Kovacs
1179–80 πρὸς τοὺς δόμους | ἄπει; Madvig; ... | ἔπει· L. Dindorf; ἐνδεῖ Reiske: ἔδει
L: με δεῖ Monk
 Iphigenia at Aulis 191

why you will kill her, tell me, what will you say? Or must I say it
for you? – ‘So that Menelaus may take back Helen.’ Truly a fine
thing to pay with a child the fee for a bad wife! We are buying
what is our greatest hate with what is dearest to us. (1170)
Come now! – if you go off to fight, leaving me in the house
and staying at Troy in a long absence from me, what do you
imagine will be my feelings at home whenever I see every chair
of hers empty, and the maidens’ chambers empty? (1175) – while
I sit alone weeping, for ever singing my lament for her: ‘The
father who got you has destroyed you, my child! He killed you
himself, no other, and by no other’s hand, †leaving such a fee
192 Euripides

ἐπεὶ βραχείας προφάσεως ἐνδεῖ μόνον, 1180

ἐφ’ ᾗ σ’ ἐγὼ καὶ παῖδες αἱ λελειμμέναι
δεξόμεθα δέξιν ἥν σε δέξασθαι χρεών.
μὴ δῆτα πρὸς θεῶν μήτ’ ἀναγκάσῃς ἐμὲ
κακὴν γενέσθαι περὶ σὲ μήτ’ αὐτὸς γένῃ.
εἶἑν·
θύσεις †δὲ παῖδ’ ἔνθα† τίνας εὐχὰς ἐρεῖς; 1185
τί σοι κατεύξῃ τἀγαθόν, σφάζων τέκνον;
νόστον πονηρόν, οἴκοθέν γ’ αἰσχρῶς ἰών;
ἀλλ’ ἐμὲ δίκαιον ἀγαθὸν εὔχεσθαί τί σοι;
οὔ τἄρα συνετοὺς τοὺς θεοὺς ἡγοίμεθ’ ἄν,
εἰ τοῖσιν αὐθένταισιν εὖ φρονήσομεν. 1190
ἥκων δ’ ἐς Ἄργος προσπεσῇ τέκνοισι σοῖς;
ἀλλ’ οὐ θέμις σοι· τίς δὲ καὶ προσβλέψεται
παίδων σ’, ἵν’ αὐτῶν προσέμενος κτάνῃς τινά;
ταῦτ’ ἦλθες ἤδη διὰ λόγων, ἢ σκῆπτρά σοι
μόνον διαφέρειν καὶ στρατηλατεῖν μέλει; 1195
ὃν χρῆν δίκαιον λόγον ἐν Ἀργείοις λέγειν·
“Βούλεσθ’, Ἀχαιοί, πλεῖν Φρυγῶν ἐπὶ χθόνα;
κλῆρον τίθεσθε παῖδ’ ὅτου θανεῖν χρεών.”

1185 εἶἑν· | θύσεις δὲ <τὴν> (Tr3) παῖδ’· εἶτα τίνας ... ; Elmsley: εἶἑν· | θύσεις δὲ
<δὴ> παῖδ’; εἶτα τίνας ... ; L. Dindorf: εἶἑν· | θύσεις σὺ (Vitelli) παῖδα, κᾆτα
τίνας ... ; Günther: εἶἑν· θύων δὲ παῖδ’ ἐν<ταῦ>θα ... ; Luppe (ἐνταῦθα earlier
F.W. Schmidt): εἶἑν· | θύσεις δὲ παῖδα <σήν>; τίνας <δ’> ... ; Stockert: εἶἑν· σὺ
θύσεις παῖδα· τίνας ... ; Nauck
1186 τἀγαθὸν Lcorr: τἀγαθὸς L?: <πο>τ’ ἀγαθὸν Diggle; σφάζων Tr2/3: ὁ σφάζων
(L*)P
1187 del. Monk
1189–90 susp. eds; lacuna after 1189 Stockert
1189 οὔ τἄρα συνετοὺς Wecklein (οὐκ ἆρα συνετοὺς earlier Reiske): οὔτ’ ἄρ’
ἀσυνέτους L: ἦ τἄρ’ ἀσυνέτους Valckenaer
1191 προσπεσῇ Musgrave: προσπέσης L
1193 ἵν’ Elmsley: ἐὰν L; (ἵνα) σφῷν Reiske; προσέμενος Weil: προθέμενος L
1194 ἦλθες Hermann: ἦλθ’ (L*?)P: ἦλθεν Tr2/3?
1195 μέλει Musgrave: σε δεῖ L
1196 χρῆν Reiske: χρὴ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 193

towards his house†.’ For it needs only a slight pretext, (1180)

and I and the girls who were left behind will receive you with the
reception you should receive.
By the gods then – do not force me to become evil towards
you, and don’t become so yourself.
So then: †you will sacrifice your daughter. And then† what
prayers will you say? (1185) What is the good thing you will
pray for yourself as you slaughter your child? A sorry return?
– as you depart shamefully from home? But what good thing
is it right that I should pray for you? Then truly we should be
thinking that the gods have no intelligence, if we are to be well-
disposed to murderers! (1190) On your return to Argos, will you
fall before your children? But you have no right to do so! And
which of them will even look at you, for you to kill any you draw
toward you?
Those things – did you already consider them, or do you care
only about parading your sceptre and commanding an army?
(1195) For you should have voiced a just argument among the
Argives: ‘Achaeans, do you wish to sail against the Phrygians’
land? Cast lots whose child must die.’ This would have been
194 Euripides

ἐν ἴσῳ γὰρ ἦν τόδ’, ἀλλὰ μὴ σ’ ἐξαίρετον

σφάγιον παρασχεῖν Δαναΐδαισι παῖδα σήν, 1200
ἢ Μενέλεων πρὸ μητρὸς Ἑρμιόνην κτανεῖν,
οὗπερ τὸ πρᾶγμ’ ἦν. νῦν δ’ ἐγὼ μὲν ἡ τὸ σὸν
σῴζουσα λέκτρον παιδὸς ἐστερήσομαι,
ἡ δ’ ἐξαμαρτοῦσ’, ὑπόροφον νεάνιδα
Σπάρτῃ κομίζουσ’, εὐτυχὴς γενήσεται. 1205
τούτων ἄμειψαί μ’ εἴ τι μὴ καλῶς λέγω·
εἰ δ’ εὖ λέλεκται †νῶϊ μὴ δή γε† κτάνῃς
τὴν σήν τε κἀμὴν παῖδα, καὶ σώφρων ἔσῃ.
Χο. πιθοῦ· τὸ γάρ τοι τέκνα συσσῴζειν καλόν,
Ἀγάμεμνον· οὐδεὶς πρὸς τάδ’ ἀντερεῖ βροτῶν. 1210
Ιφ. εἰ μὲν τὸν Ὀρφέως εἶχον, ὦ πάτερ, λόγον,
πείθειν ἐπᾴδουσ’, ὥσθ’ ὁμαρτεῖν μοι πέτρας
κηλεῖν τε τοῖς λόγοισιν οὓς ἐβουλόμην,
ἐνταῦθ’ ἂν ἦλθον· νῦν δέ, τἀπ’ ἐμοὶ σοφά,
δάκρυα παρέξω· ταῦτα γὰρ δυναίμεθ’ ἄν. 1215
ἱκετηρίαν δὲ γόνασιν ἐξάπτω σέθεν
τὸ σῶμα τοὐμόν, ὅπερ ἔτικτεν ἥδε σοι·
μή μ’ ἀπολέσῃς ἄωρον· ἡδὺ γὰρ τὸ φῶς
βλέπειν· τὰ δ’ ὑπὸ γῆς μή μ’ ἰδεῖν ἀναγκάσῃς.
πρώτη σ’ ἐκάλεσα πατέρα καὶ σὺ παῖδ’ ἐμέ· 1220
πρώτη δὲ γόνασι σοῖσι σῶμα δοῦσ’ ἐμὸν
φίλας χάριτας ἔδωκα κἀντεδεξάμην.
λόγος δ’ ὁ μὲν σὸς ἦν ὅδ’· “ Ἆρά σ’, ὦ τέκνον,

1201 πρὸ Scaliger: πρὸς L

1203 ἐστερήσομαι Reiske: ὑστερήσομαι L
1204 ὑπόροφον Hermann (ὑπώροφον earlier Scaliger): ὑπότροφον L
1207 νῶϊ, Tr1: νῶϊν, L?; νῶϊ] ταῦτα, Pierson: τἀμὰ, Elmsley; πλεῖστα, μὴ κατακτάνῃς
Jackson: μηδαμῶς κατακτάνῃς or μηδαμῶς σύ γε κτάνῃς Stockert
1210 ἀντερεῖ Elmsley: ἀντείποι L; τοῖσδ’ <ἄν> ἀντείποι Burges
1214 ἂν ἦλθον P2: ἀνῆλθον L; ἐμοὶ Diggle: ἐμοῦ L
1215 δυναίμεθ’ ἄν Markland: δυναίμεθα L
1218–9 Plut. Mor. 17cd
1219 λεύσσειν ... γῆν Plut.
 Iphigenia at Aulis 195

fair, not that you should provide your daughter to the Danaans,
a sacrificial victim picked out (1200) – or fair that Menelaus
should kill Hermione for her mother. The matter was his! But as
things are, I myself, who have been loyal to your bed, shall be
robbed of my child, and the woman who did wrong will take care
of her girl under her roof in Sparta and become happy. (1205)
Answer me if anything of all this was not well said; but if it
was well said, †then don’t† kill your child and mine, and you
will be sensible.
Cho. Be persuaded! To join in saving a child is a noble thing,
Agamemnon. No mortal will gainsay that. (1210)
Iph. If I had the words of Orpheus, father, to persuade by enchantment,
so that rocks would follow me, and charm those I wished with
my words, I would have gone there; but now I shall offer the skill
that I do possess, my tears: these, I well can. (1215)
As my supplication I press my body, which she here bore you,
to your knees. Do not kill me before my time! The light of day is
sweet to see. Do not force me to look on the underworld! I was
the first to call you father, and you to call me child. (1220).
I was the first to put myself upon your knees and give you
loving kisses and receive them in return. And this is what you
196 Euripides

εὐδαίμον’ ἀνδρὸς ἐν δόμοισιν ὄψομαι,

ζῶσάν τε καὶ θάλλουσαν ἀξίως ἐμοῦ;” 1225
οὑμὸς δ’ ὅδ’ ἦν αὖ περὶ σὸν ἐξαρτωμένης
γένειον, οὗ νῦν ἀντιλάζυμαι χερί·
“Τί δ’ ἆρ’ ἐγὼ σέ; πρέσβυν ἆρ’ ἐσδέξομαι
ἐμῶν φίλαισιν ὑποδοχαῖς δόμων, πάτερ,
πόνων τιθηνοὺς ἀποδιδοῦσά σοι τροφάς;” 1230
τούτων ἐγὼ μὲν τῶν λόγων μνήμην ἔχω,
σὺ δ’ ἐπιλέλησαι, καί μ’ ἀποκτεῖναι θέλεις.
μή, πρός σε Πέλοπος καὶ πρὸς Ἀτρέως πατρὸς
καὶ τῆσδε μητρός, ἣ πρὶν ὠδίνουσ’ ἐμὲ
νῦν δευτέραν ὠδῖνα τήνδε λαμβάνει. 1235
τί μοι μέτεστι τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου γάμων
Ἑλένης τε; πόθεν ἦλθ’ ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ τὠμῷ, πάτερ;
βλέψον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὄμμα δὸς φίλημά τε,
ἵν’ ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κατθανοῦσ’ ἔχω σέθεν
μνημεῖον, ἢν μὴ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πεισθῇς λόγοις. 1240
ἀδελφέ, μικρὸς μὲν σύ γ’ ἐπίκουρος φίλοις,
ὅμως δὲ συνδάκρυσον, ἱκέτευσον πατρὸς
τὴν σὴν ἀδελφὴν μὴ θανεῖν· αἴσθημά τοι
κἀν νηπίοις γε τῶν κακῶν ἐγγίγνεται.
ἰδού, σιωπῶν λίσσεταί σ’ ὅδ’, ὦ πάτερ. 1245
ἀλλ’ αἴδεσαί με καὶ κατοίκτιρον βίον.
ναί, πρὸς γενείου σ’ ἀντόμεσθα δύο φίλω·
ὁ μὲν νεοσσός ἐστιν, ἡ δ’ ηὐξημένη.
†ἓν συντεμοῦσα† πάντα νικήσω λόγον·
1224 εὐδαίμον’ Pierson: εὐδαίμονος L
1228 σε om. L, then written above the line
1230 τιθηνῶν Nauck
1233 σε Markland: γε L
1237 del. Matthiae
1240 ἢν Hermann: εἰ L; (εἰ) ... πείσῃ Elmsley; 1240 del. Nauck
1241–52 variously del. eds, esp. 1241–8 L. Dindorf
1242 πατρὸς] τε πρὸς Burges
1246 βίου Markland: τύχης Stockert; 1246 transferred after 1248 Marcovich
1248 ἐστ(ιν) rewritten in L: οὗτος Hermann: ὢν ἔθ’ Weil
1249 susp. Diggle; ἑνὶ Reiske; κινήσω Canter
 Iphigenia at Aulis 197

used to say: ‘Shall I see you happy, my child, in a husband’s

house, living and flourishing worthily of me?’ (1225) And I in
turn used to say, as I hung close by your chin, which I take hold
of now: ‘And how shall I see you? Shall I welcome you in my
house with a loving reception, father, when you are old, and
repay you for my tender upbringing and its tasks?’ (1230) I can
remember those words, but you have forgotten them, and you
want to kill me.
Don’t – I beg you by Pelops and by Atreus your father and by
my mother here who long ago suffered the agony of giving me
birth and has this second agony now! (1235)
What part have I in the marriage of Alexandros and Helen?
How did it come to mean my death, father? Look at me, give
me your eyes and a kiss so that at least as I die I may have this
remembrance of you, if my words do not persuade you! (1240)
(She holds out Orestes) Brother, you are a tiny aid to your
dear ones, but nonetheless weep with me, and supplicate your
father that your sister should not die! Truly, even in infants there
is an inborn sense of life’s troubles. Look! – though silent he is
pleading with you, father! (1245) So, show me regard, and pity
my life! Yes, by your chin, we entreat you, we two who are dear
to you; the one is a chick, the other now grown.
†I’ll cut short to one thing† and carry every argument. This
198 Euripides

τὸ φῶς τόδ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ἥδιστον βλέπειν, 1250

τὰ νέρθε δ’ οὐδέν· μαίνεται δ’ ὃς εὔχεται
θανεῖν· κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ καλῶς θανεῖν.
Χο. ὦ τλῆμον Ἑλένη, διὰ σὲ καὶ τοὺς σοὺς γάμους
ἀγὼν Ἀτρείδαις καὶ τέκνοις ἥκει μέγας.
Αγ. ἐγὼ τά τ’ οἰκτρὰ συνετός εἰμι καὶ τὰ μή, 1255
φιλῶ τ’ ἐμαυτοῦ τέκνα· μαινοίμην γὰρ ἄν.
δεινῶς δ’ ἔχει μοι ταῦτα τολμῆσαι, γύναι,
δεινῶς δὲ καὶ μή· ταὐτὰ γὰρ πρᾶξαί με δεῖ.
ὁρᾶθ’ ὅσον στράτευμα ναύφαρκτον τόδε
χαλκέων θ’ ὅπλων ἄνακτες Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι, 1260
οἷς νόστος οὐκ ἔστ’ Ἰλίου πύργους ἔπι 1261
οὐδ’ ἔστι Τροίας ἐξελεῖν κλεινὸν βάθρον, 1263
εἰ μή σε θύσω, μάντις ὡς Κάλχας λέγει. 1262
μέμηνε δ’ Ἀφροδίτη τις Ἑλλήνων στρατῷ
πλεῖν ὡς τάχιστα βαρβάρων ἐπὶ χθόνα 1265
παῦσαί τε λέκτρων ἁρπαγὰς Ἑλληνικῶν·
οἳ τὰς ἐν Ἄργει παρθένους κτενοῦσί μου
ὑμᾶς τε κἀμέ, θέσφατ’ εἰ λύσω θεᾶς.
οὐ Μενέλεώς με καταδεδούλωται, τέκνον,
οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τὸ κείνου βουλόμενον ἐλήλυθα, 1270

1250–2 Stobaeus 4.52.9

1251 τὸ Stob; οὐδέν Stob.: οὐδείς L
1252 end θανεῖν καλῶς Stob. one ms., P2
1255–75 variously susp. to eds: 1255–62 del. L. Dindorf, 1264–75 W. Dindorf, cf.
1263, 1270, 1275
1256 φιλῶ τ’ Markland: φιλῶν L
1257 μοι Monk: με L; τοῦτο England
1258 ταὐτὰ Kirchhoff: τοῦτο L
1259: cf. 826
1263 transferred before 1262 Markland; κλεινὸν Reiske: καινὸν L; 1263 del.
Matthiae
1264 ἔμηνε ... στρατὸν Lobeck
1266 ῾Ελληνικῶν Bothe, Elmsley: ἑλληνικάς L
1267 κτενοῦσί Scaliger: κτείνουσί L
1268 θέσφατ’ Scaliger: θέσφατον L
1270 del. W. Dindorf, Nauck
 Iphigenia at Aulis 199

light of day is very sweet for men to look upon (1250), and what
is below the ground is nothing: the one who prays to die is mad.
To live ignobly is better than to die nobly.
Cho. Cruel Helen, because of you and your marriage a great struggle
has come to the sons of Atreus and their children!
Ag. I understand what calls for pity and what does not, (1255) and I
love my children; otherwise, I should be mad. But it is terrible
for me to brave myself to this deed, and also terrible not to. The
outcome for me must be the same.
(addressing both Clytemnestra and Iphigenia) See how great
an army is here with its armada, and how many Greeks, lords of
bronze weaponry! (1260) They will get no voyage against the
towers of Ilium, nor will they destroy the famous foundations of
Troy, (1263) if I do not sacrifice you, as the seer Calchas says.
(1262) Some mad desire rages in the army of the Greeks to sail
with all speed against the land of the barbarians (1265) and stop
the seizure of Greek wives: the army’s men will kill my girls
in Argos, and you and me, if I fail to obey the prophecy of the
goddess. It is not Menelaus who has made me his slave, my child,
nor have I gone with his wish. (1270) It is Greece for which I
200 Euripides

ἀλλ’ Ἑλλάς, ᾗ δεῖ, κἂν θέλω κἂν μὴ θέλω,

θῦσαί σε· τούτου δ’ ἥσσονες καθέσταμεν.
ἐλευθέραν γὰρ δεῖ νιν ὅσον ἐν σοί, τέκνον,
κἀμοὶ γενέσθαι, μηδὲ βαρβάρων ὕπο
Ἕλληνας ὄντας λέκτρα συλᾶσθαι βίᾳ. 1275
Κλ. ὦ τέκνον, †ὦ ξέναι†,
οἲ ’γὼ θανάτου <τοῦ> σοῦ μελέα,
φεύγει σε πατὴρ Ἅιδῃ παραδούς.
Ιφ. οἲ ’γώ, μῆτερ· ταὐτὸν †ταὐτὸν γὰρ†
μέλος εἰς ἄμφω πέπτωκε τύχης, 1280
κοὐκέτι μοι φῶς
οὐδ’ ἀελίου τόδε φέγγος.
ἰὼ ἰώ·
νιφόβολον Φρυγῶν νάπος
Ἴδας τ’ ὄρεα, Πρίαμος 1285
ὅθι ποτὲ βρέφος ἁπαλὸν ἔβαλε
ματρὸς ἀποπρὸ νοσφίσας
ἐπὶ μόρῳ θανατόεντι
Πάριν, ὃς Ἰδαῖος Ἰ-
δαῖος ἐλέγετ’ ἐλέγετ’ ἐν Φρυγῶν πόλει, 1290
μήποτ’ ὤφελες τὸν ἀμφὶ
βουσὶ βουκόλον τραφέντ’ Ἀ-
λέξανδρον οἰκίσαι
ἀμφὶ τὸ λευκὸν ὕδωρ, ὅθι κρῆναι

1272 ταύτης Nauck

1274 βαρβάρων Musgrave: βαρβάροις L
1275 del. Günther
1276–82 susp. eds, del. e.g. Kovacs
1276 ὦ ξέναι] ὦ τέκνον Monk
1277 <τοῦ> Heath
1279 ταὐτὸν ταὐτὸν γάρ] ταὐτὸν τόδε γὰρ Murray: ταὐτὸν γὰρ δὴ Dobree
1280 τύχης susp. eds
1283–1335 variously susp. or del. eds; the metres are often uncertain
1291 ὤφελες Elmsley: ὤφειλε L: ὤφελεν Burges
1292–3 Ἀλέξανδρον del. Bothe
 Iphigenia at Aulis 201

must sacrifice you whether I want to or not; that is the necessity

that masters me. Greece must be free, as far as is in your power,
my child, and in mine, and her men as Greeks must not be robbed
of their wives by barbarians through force. (1275)
AGAMEMNON leaves abruptly, to go to the army.
Clyt. (chanting) O my child, †O you foreign women†! Oh, my own
misery over your death! Your father flees from you now he has
handed you over to Hades!
Iph. (chanting) Oh for me, mother! For the same, †the same† song
of fortune has fallen to us both, (1280) and the daylight and this
brilliant sun are mine no longer.
(singing) Oh, oh! You snow-beaten valley of the Phrygians,
and their mountains of Ida, where Priam (1285) once cast out the
tender babe, taking it far from its mother for a deathly fate, Paris,
who was called Idaeus, called Idaeus in the Phrygians’ city (1290)
– if only you had never given a home to Alexandros, the oxherd
reared among oxen, by the bright water, where the springs of the
202 Euripides

Νυμφᾶν κεῖνται 1295

λειμών τ’ ἔρνεσι θάλλων
χλωροῖς καὶ ῥοδόεντ’
ἄνθε’ ὑακίνθινά τε θεαῖς δρέπειν· ἔνθα ποτὲ 1298–99
Παλλὰς ἔμολε καὶ δολιόφρων Κύπρις 1300–301
†Ἥρα θ’ Ἑρμᾶς ὁ Διὸς ἄγγελος†,
ἁ μὲν ἐπὶ πόθῳ τρυφῶσα
Κύπρις, ἁ δὲ δορὶ Παλλάς,
Ἥρα δὲ Διὸς ἄνακτος 1305
εὐναῖσι βασιλίσιν,
κρίσιν ἐπὶ στυγνὰν ἔριν τε
καλλονᾶς, ἐμοὶ δὲ θάνατον,
ὄνομα μὲν φέροντα Δαναΐ-
σιν κόραις, πρόθυμα δ’ ἔλαβεν 1310
Ἄρτεμις πρὸς Ἴλιον.
ὁ δὲ τεκών με τὰν τάλαιναν,
ὦ μᾶτερ ὦ μᾶτερ,
οἴχεται προδοὺς ἔρημον.
δυστάλαιν’ ἐγώ, πικρὰν 1315
πικρὰν ἰδοῦσα δυσελέναν,
φονεύομαι διόλλυμαι
σφαγαῖσιν ἀνοσίοισιν ἀνοσίου πατρός.

1296 ἔρνεσι Sybel: ἄνθεσι L

1302 ῞Ηρα θ’] ἦγε δ’ Stinton (ἆγε Diggle): ἦγε δ’ [Ἑρμᾶς] ὁ Διὸς ἄγγελος Günther:
ἑρμᾶς <θ’> Tr3
1304 δὲ] δ’ <ἐπὶ> Wilamowitz
1305 δὲ Markland: τε L
1308 καλλονᾶς Bothe, Matthiae: τᾶς καλλονᾶς L; ἐμὸν Elmsley
1309 (μ)ὰν written above μὲν L
1309–10 Δαναΐσιν κόραις West: δαναΐδαισιν ὦ κόραι L; ἔλακεν Viljoen
1310–1 πρόθυμα ... ῎Ιλιον restored to Ιφ. Reiske: Χο. L
1310 δ’ Hennig: σ’ L
1311 ῎Ιλιον <στόλου> Wilamowitz
1315 δυστάλαιν’ West, Parker: ὦ δυστάλαιν’ L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 203

Nymphs lie, (1295) and the meadow lush with green shoots, and
flowering roses and hyacinths for goddesses to pick: where once
Pallas came, and crafty Cypris (1300), †and Hera, and Hermes
Zeus’ messenger†, Cypris flaunting desire, Pallas her spear, and
Hera the royal bed of lord Zeus (1305) – came to an abominable
judgement and strife over beauty, but death for myself, bringing
fame to Danaan maidens while Artemis (1310) took the sacrifice
as prelude against Troy.
But the one who fathered me, wretched that I am, O mother,
O mother, has gone, betraying me to abandonment. Cruelly
wretched I am; bitter, (1315) bitter my sight of Ill-Helen: my
blood is being shed, I am being destroyed, in impious slaughter
by an impious father!
204 Euripides

μή μοι ναῶν χαλκεμβολάδων

πρύμνας †ἅδ’ Αὐλὶς δέξασθαι 1320
τούσδ’ εἰς ὅρμους εἰς Τροίαν
ὤφελεν ἐλάταν πομπαίαν†,
μηδ’ ἀνταίαν Εὐρίπῳ
πνεῦσαι πομπὰν Ζεύς, εἱλίσσων
αὔραν ἄλλοις ἄλλαν θνατῶν, 1325
λαίφεσι χαίρειν,
τοῖσι δὲ λύπαν, τοῖσι δ’ ἀνάγκαν,
τοῖς δ’ ἐξορμᾶν, τοῖς δὲ στέλλειν,
τοῖσι δὲ μέλλειν.
ἦ πολύμοχθον ἄρ’ ἦν γένος, ἦ πολύμοχθον 1330
ἁμερίων, <τὸ> χρεὼν δέ τι δύσποτμον 1331–32
ἀνδράσιν ἀνευρεῖν. 1333
ἰώ,
μεγάλα πάθεα, μεγάλα δ’ ἄχεα,
Δαναΐδαις τιθεῖσα Τυνδαρὶς κόρα. 1335
Χο. ἐγὼ μὲν οἰκτίρω σε συμφορᾶς κακῆς
τυχοῦσαν, οἵας μήποτ’ ὤφελες τυχεῖν.
Ιφ. ὦ τεκοῦσα μῆτερ, ἀνδρῶν ὄχλον εἰσορῶ πέλας.
Κλ. τόν τε τῆς θεᾶς Ἀχιλλέα, τέκνον, ᾧ δεῦρ’ ἤλυθες.
Ιφ. διαχαλᾶτέ μοι μέλαθρα, δμῶες, ὡς κρύψω δέμας. 1340

1320 ἅδ’ del. Monk

1321 εἰς Τροίαν del. Hartung; line del. Herwerden;
1321–2 del. Wecklein
1322 ἐλατᾶν πομπαία Wilamowitz
1323 μηδ’ Hermann: μήτ’ L
1324 εἱλίσσων Tyrwhitt: μείλισσων L
1331 <τὸ> χρεὼν Hermann; δύσπονον W. Headlam
1333 εὑρεῖν W. Dindorf
1334 ... 1335 Ιφ. Blomfield: Χο. L; attribution to Χο. retained, but 1336–7 del.,
Wilamowitz
1339 Ἀχιλλέα] παῖδα Heath: παῖδ’ ὦ Tr2; ᾧ <σὺ> δεῦρ’ Hermann; ἤλυθες Vitelli:
ἐλήλυθας L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 205

If only – I wish – Aulis †here had not received† (1320) the

sterns of bronze-rammed ships †into this anchorage, the fleet on
its mission to Troy,† nor Zeus blown at Euripus a wind adverse
to setting sail, and swirled different breezes for different mortals,
for some to delight in full canvas, (1325) but for others pain and
for others necessity, and for some to set out, and for others to furl
sail, and for others to delay.
Truly full of suffering is the race of ephemeral men, truly full
of suffering, (1330) and fate is a hard fortune for men to discover.
Oh, the great calamities, and the great woes, you put upon the
Danaans, daughter of Tyndareus! (1335)

Cho. (speaking) I pity you. You have met with evil fortune. O that you
had never met it!
Iph. (speaking) O mother, who gave me birth! I see a crowd of men
approaching.
Clyt. And the son of the goddess, Achilles, child, the man for whom
you came here.
Iph. Open up the hut, please, servants, so that I may hide myself.
(1340)
206 Euripides

Κλ. τί δέ, τέκνον, φεύγεις; Ιφ. Ἀχιλλέα τόνδ’ ἰδεῖν αἰσχύνομαι.

Κλ. ὡς τί δή; Ιφ. τὸ δυστυχές μοι τῶν γάμων αἰδῶ φέρει.
Κλ. οὐκ ἐν ἁβρότητι κεῖσαι πρὸς τὰ νῦν πεπτωκότα·
ἀλλὰ μίμν’· οὐ σεμνότητος ἔργον, ἢν ὀνώμεθα.
Αχ. ὦ γύναι τάλαινα, Λήδας θύγατερ ... Κλ. οὐ ψευδῆ θροεῖς. 1345
Αχ. δείν’ ἐν Ἀργείοις βοᾶται ... Κλ. τίνα βοήν; σήμαινέ μοι.
Αχ. ἀμφὶ σῆς παιδός ... Κλ. πονηρῶν εἶπας οἰωνὸν λόγον.
Αχ. ὡς χρεὼν σφάξαι νιν. Κλ. †κοὐδεὶς ἐναντία λέγει;†
Αχ. ἐς θόρυβον ἐγώ τιν’ αὐτὸς ἤλυθον ... Κλ. τίν’, ὦ ξένε;
Αχ. σῶμα λευσθῆναι πέτροισι. Κλ. μῶν κόρην σῴζων ἐμήν; 1350
Αχ. αὐτὸ τοῦτο. Κλ. τίς δ’ ἂν ἔτλη σώματος τοῦ σοῦ θιγεῖν;
Αχ. πάντες Ἕλληνες. Κλ. στρατὸς δὲ Μυρμιδὼν οὔ σοι παρῆν;
Αχ. πρῶτος ἦν ἐκεῖνος ἐχθρός ... Κλ. δι’ ἄρ’ ὀλώλαμεν, τέκνον.
Αχ. οἵ με τὸν γάμων ἀπεκάλουν ἥσσον’. Κλ. ἀπεκρίνω δὲ τί;
Αχ. τὴν ἐμὴν μέλλουσαν εὐνὴν μὴ κτανεῖν ... Κλ. δίκαια γάρ. 1355
Αχ. ἣν ἐφήμισεν πατήρ μοι. Κλ. κἀργόθεν γ’ ἐπέμψατο.
Αχ. ἀλλ’ ἐνικώμην κεκραγμοῦ. Κλ. τὸ πολὺ γὰρ δεινὸν κακόν.

1341 τέκνον, φεύγεις Heath: φεύγεις τέκνον L; τόνδ’ Musgrave: τὸν L

1344 ὀνώμεθα Wecklein: δυνώμεθα L
1345a–8a speaker-attributions to Αχ. ed. Brubachiana: to Χο. L
1346 τίς βοή; Herwerden
1347 πονηρῶν Nauck: πονηρὸν L; λόγων Markland
1348 οὐδεὶς <τοῖσδ’> ἐναντίον P2, Heath (<τοῖς δ’> P2): οὐδεὶς <δ’ οὐδ>ὲν ἀντίον
Vitelli
1349 τιν’ αὐτὸς Blomfield: τοι καὐτὸς L: τι καὐτὸς Musgrave: ἔγωγε καὐτὸς
Markland; ἦλθον England; (Κλ.) τίν’ Nauck: ἐς τίν’ L
1350 σῴζων Canter: σῴζειν L
1351 τίς ἂν ἔτλη δὲ Hermann; σώματος Tr3: τοῦ σώματος L
1352 Μυρμιδὼν Elmsley: μυρμιδόνων L
1354 ἀπεκρίνω Tr3: ὑπεκρίνω L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 207

Clyt. Why are you trying to escape, my child? Iph. I am ashamed to

look at Achilles here.
Clyt. For what reason? Iph. The ill-fortune with my marriage brings
me shame.
Clyt. You are not in a position to be fastidious, considering what has
happened. I tell you, you must stay. It is no time for pride if we
are to benefit.
ACHILLES enters from the army; attendants carry his armour.
Ach. Poor woman, daughter of Leda ... Clyt. There you speak the
truth. (1345)
Ach. Terrible things are being shouted among the Argives ... Clyt.
What is the shouting? Tell me.
Ach. ... about your child ... Clyt. What you say bodes bad news.
Ach. ... that she must be slaughtered. Clyt. †And no one speaks
against it?†
Ach. I myself met with some noisy clamour ... Clyt. What was it,
stranger?
Ach. ... that I should be stoned bodily with rocks. Clyt. I fear, because
you were trying to save my child? (1350)
Ach. Just that. Clyt. Who would have dared to lay a hand on you?
Ach. All the Greeks. Clyt. But wasn’t the Myrmidon army there to
protect you?
Ach. It was foremost in opposing me ... Clyt. It is all over with us,
then, my child.
Ach. Why, they abused me, calling me the one who gave in to
marriage! Clyt. And what did you answer?
Ach. I forbade them to kill my future wife ... Clyt. Yes, for that was
right. (1355)
Ach. ... the wife her father promised me. Clyt. ... and sent for from
Argos.
Ach. But I was overwhelmed by bawling. Clyt. Yes, the many are a
terrible evil.
208 Euripides

Αχ. ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἀρήξομέν σοι. Κλ. καὶ μαχῇ πολλοῖσιν εἷς;
Αχ. εἰσορᾷς τεύχη φέροντας τούσδ’; Κλ. ὄναιο τῶν φρενῶν.
Αχ. ἀλλ’ ὀνησόμεσθα. Κλ. παῖς ἄρ’ οὐκέτι σφαγήσεται; 1360
Αχ. οὔκ, ἐμοῦ γ’ ἑκόντος. Κλ. ἥξει δ’ ὅστις ἅψεται κόρης;
Αχ. μυρίοι γ’, ἄξει δ’ Ὀδυσσεύς. Κλ. ἆρ’ ὁ Σισύφου γόνος;
Αχ. αὐτὸς οὗτος. Κλ. ἴδια πράσσων ἢ στρατοῦ ταχθεὶς ὕπο;
Αχ. αἱρεθεὶς ἑκών. Κλ. πονηράν γ’ αἵρεσιν, μιαιφονεῖν.
Αχ. ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ σχήσω νιν. Κλ. ἄξει δ’ οὐχ ἑκοῦσαν ἁρπάσας; 1365
Αχ. δηλαδὴ ξανθῆς ἐθείρας. Κλ. ἐμὲ δὲ δρᾶν τί χρὴ τότε;
Αχ. ἀντέχου θυγατρός. Κλ. ὡς τοῦδ’ οὕνεκ’ οὐ σφαγήσεται.
Αχ. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐς τοῦτό γ’ ἥξει. Ιφ. μῆτερ, εἰσακουστέα
τῶν ἐμῶν λόγων· μάτην γάρ <σ’> εἰσορῶ θυμουμένην
σῷ πόσει· τὰ δ’ ἀδύναθ’ ἡμῖν καρτερεῖν οὐ ῥᾴδιον. 1370
τὸν μὲν οὖν ξένον δίκαιον αἰνέσαι προθυμίας·
ἀλλὰ καὶ σὲ τοῦθ’ ὁρᾶν χρή, μὴ διαβληθῇ στρατῷ,
καὶ πλέον πράξωμεν οὐδέν, ὅδε δὲ συμφορᾶς τύχῃ.
οἷα δ’ εἰσῆλθέν μ’ ἄκουσον, μῆτερ, ἐννοουμένην·
κατθανεῖν μέν μοι δέδοκται· τοῦτο δ’ αὐτὸ βούλομαι 1375
εὐκλεῶς πρᾶξαι, παρεῖσά γ’ ἐκποδὼν τὸ δυσγενές.
δεῦρο δὴ σκέψαι μεθ’ ἡμῶν, μῆτερ, ὡς καλῶς λέγω·
εἰς ἔμ’ Ἑλλὰς ἡ μεγίστη πᾶσα νῦν ἀποβλέπει,
κἀν ἐμοὶ πορθμός τε ναῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν κατασκαφαὶ

1358 μαχῇ Elmsley: μάχῃ L

1362 ἄρξει Wecklein
1363 ἴδια Heath: ἰδία (i.e. ἰδίᾳ) L
1366 δρᾶν τί χρὴ Kirchhoff: τί χρὴ δρᾶν L: χρὴ τί δρᾶν Gaisford
1367 τῆσδ’ Elmsley; οὕνεκ’ Aldine: ἕνεκ’ L
1368 εἰσακουστέα Diggle (εἰσακουστέον earlier Monk): εἰσακούσατε L
1369–70 del. Kovacs
1369 τῶν ἐμῶν Tr?1, in an empty space (L or Tr1 wrote λείπ(ει) ‘there is a deficiency’
in the margin, struck through by Tr3): τῶν ἐμῶν P; λόγων ?L or Tr?1, P; <σ’>
Tr2
1372 διαβληθῇ Hartung: διαβληθῆς L
1373 ὅδε δὲ Musgrave: ὁ δὲ L, with ὁ Ἀχιλλεύς written above
1375 μὲν ἐμὲ Rauchenstein
1378 νῦν ἀποβλέπει Tr3: συναποβλέπει L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 209

Ach. But I shall come to your aid nevertheless. Clyt. And will you
fight all alone against a multitude?
Ach. Do you see these men carrying arms? Clyt. May you benefit
from your sense of honour!
Ach. Well, I shall have my own benefit. Clyt. Will my child now not
be slaughtered? (1360)
Ach. No, at least not with my consent. Clyt. But will someone come
to lay hold of the girl?
Ach. Yes, large numbers, but Odysseus will lead her away. Clyt.
What, the son of Sisyphus?
Ach. The man himself. Clyt. Acting for himself, or instructed by the
army?
Ach. Chosen, willingly. Clyt. A vile choice, to commit murder!
Ach. But I shall hold him back. Clyt. But will he lead her away
against her will, after seizing her? (1365)
Ach. Certainly, and by her blond hair. Clyt. What must I do then?
Ach. Cling to your daughter! Clyt. So far as that goes, she shall not
be slaughtered!
Ach. But it will certainly come to that. Iph. (breaking in) Mother, my
words must be heard! For I see that <you> are angry with your
husband, and in vain. It is not easy for us bear up against the
impossible. (1370) It is right to thank the stranger for his ready
zeal; but you should pay heed to this too, that he should not be
traduced before the army, and we be no better off, and he meet
with disaster.
Hear what has come into my mind, mother, as I was thinking
about this. To die – this is my decision. I want to do just this,
(1375) gloriously, putting all meanness of spirit wholly aside.
Here! Consider with me the good in my words. It is to me that
Greece in all its wide extent now looks, and on me depend the
ships’ crossing and the destruction of the Phrygians; and, as to
210 Euripides

τάς τε μελλούσας γυναῖκας, ἤν τι δρῶσι βάρβαροι, 1380

μηκέθ’ ἁρπάζειν ἐᾶν †τὰς† ὀλβίας ἐξ Ἑλλάδος,
τὸν Ἑλένης τείσαντας ὄλεθρον, ἣν ἀνήρπασεν Πάρις.
ταῦτα πάντα κατθανοῦσα ῥύσομαι, καί μου κλέος,
Ἑλλάδ’ ὡς ἠλευθέρωσα, μακάριον γενήσεται.
καὶ γὰρ οὐδέ τοί <τι> λίαν ἐμὲ φιλοψυχεῖν χρεών· 1385
πᾶσι γάρ μ’ Ἕλλησι κοινὸν ἔτεκες, οὐχὶ σοὶ μόνῃ.
ἀλλὰ μυρίοι μὲν ἄνδρες ἀσπίσιν πεφαργμένοι,
μυρίοι δ’ ἐρέτμ’ ἔχοντες, πατρίδος ἠδικημένης,
δρᾶν τι τολμήσουσιν ἐχθροὺς χὐπὲρ Ἑλλάδος θανεῖν,
ἡ δ’ ἐμὴ ψυχὴ μί’ οὖσα πάντα κωλύσει τάδε; 1390
†τί τὸ δίκαιον τοῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἔχοιμεν† ἀντειπεῖν ἔπος;
κἀπ’ ἐκεῖν’ ἔλθωμεν· οὐ δεῖ τόνδε διὰ μάχης μολεῖν
πᾶσιν Ἀργείοις γυναικὸς οὕνεκ’ οὐδὲ κατθανεῖν.
εἷς γ’ ἀνὴρ κρείσσων γυναικῶν μυρίων ὁρᾶν φάος.
εἰ †δ’ ἐβουλήθη† σῶμα τοὐμὸν Ἄρτεμις λαβεῖν, 1395
ἐμποδὼν γενήσομαι ’γὼ θνητὸς οὖσα τῇ θεῷ;
ἀλλ’ ἀμήχανον· δίδωμι σῶμα τοὐμὸν Ἑλλάδι.
θύετ’, ἐκπορθεῖτε Τροίαν· ταῦτα γὰρ μνημεῖά μου

1380–2 1380 τάς γε ... μή τι ..., 1381 del., 1382 τείσαντες Günther (1380 μή and
1382 τίσαντες earlier Weil); 1380b ἤν τι ... βάρβαροι and 1381b τὰς ... ῾Ελλάδος
del. Conington: 1381–2 del. Wecklein: 1382 del. Monk
1381 ἐᾶν τάσδ’ Porson: ἐᾶν τούσδ’ Monk: ἐᾶν σφας Diggle: ἑαυτοῖς Jackson;
lacuna before 1381 Kirchhoff
1382 ἀνήρπασεν Vitelli: ἥρπασεν L
1383 οἴσομαι England
1385 <τι> Elmsley
1386 κοινὴν Elmsley
1387: cf. 826
1391 τοῦτ’ ἂρ (sic) L: τοῦτό γ’ ἆρ’ Tr3; τί τὸ δίκαιον τοῦτ’; ἔχοιμεν ἆρ’ ἂν Hartung:
τί τὸ δίκαιον ἆρα τούτοις ἔχομεν Weil: τί τὸ δίκαιον τοῦτό γ’; ἆρ’ ἓν ἔχομεν
Page: τί τὸ δίκαιον; ἆρ’ ἔχοις ἂν <τοῖσδ’> ἓν Stockert
1393 οὕνεκ’ Tr3: ἕνεκ’ L, cf. 1367
1394 γ’ del. Hermann
1395 δ’ ἐβουλήθη <γε> Fix: βεβούληται δὲ (or βεβούλευται δὲ) W. Headlam
1396 γενήσομαι ’γὼ Livineius, Reiske: γενήσομ’ ἐγὼ L
1398 θυέτ’ ἔμ’, Nauck (4)
 Iphigenia at Aulis 211

our women in the future, if the barbarians do something, (1380)

not to allow them any longer to snatch them from prosperous
Greece, by ensuring that they pay for the ruin of Helen whom
Paris snatched away. Through my death I shall secure all that,
and my fame as the liberator of Greece will be blest.
For in fact it is also not right for me to love life too much.
(1385) You gave me birth for the common good of the Greeks,
not for yourself alone. Then, shall numberless men, heavily
armoured with shields, and numberless oarsmen, dare to strike
against the enemy when their fatherland is wronged, and die for
Greece, and shall my life, a single life, prevent all this? (1390)
†How could we argue that this is right?†
And let us come to the next thing. This man must not battle
with all the Argives because of a woman, and die. It is better that
one man should see the light of day than numberless women.
If Artemis †wished† to take my body, (1395) am I, a mortal,
to oppose the goddess? No, it is impossible. I give my body to
Greece.
Make your sacrifice, sack Troy! These shall be my lasting
212 Euripides

διὰ μακροῦ καὶ παῖδες οὗτοι καὶ γάμοι καὶ δόξ’ ἐμή.
βαρβάρων δ’ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός, ἀλλ’ οὐ βαρβάρους 1400
μῆτερ, Ἑλλήνων· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλον, οἱ δ’ ἐλεύθεροι.
Χο. τὸ μὲν σόν, ὦ νεᾶνι, γενναίως ἔχει·
τὸ τῆς τύχης δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς θεοῦ νοσεῖ.
Αχ. Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖ, μακάριόν μέ τις θεῶν
ἔμελλε θήσειν, εἰ τύχοιμι σῶν γάμων. 1405
ζηλῶ δὲ σοῦ μὲν Ἑλλάδ’, Ἑλλάδος δὲ σέ.
[εὖ γὰρ τόδ’ εἶπας ἀξίως τε πατρίδος·
τὸ θεομαχεῖν γὰρ ἀπολιποῦσ’, ὅ σου κρατεῖ,
ἐξελογίσω τὰ χρηστὰ τἀναγκαῖά τε.]
μᾶλλον δὲ λέκτρων σῶν πόθος μ’ ἐσέρχεται 1410
ἐς τὴν φύσιν βλέψαντα· γενναία γὰρ εἶ.
ὅρα δ’· ἐγὼ γὰρ βούλομαί σ’ εὐεργετεῖν
λαβεῖν τ’ ἐς οἴκους· ἄχθομαι δ’, ἴστω Θέτις,
εἰ μή σε σώσω Δαναΐδαισι διὰ μάχης
ἐλθών. ἄθρησον· ὁ θάνατος δεινὸν κακόν. 1415
Ιφ. λέγω τάδ’ <οὐδὲν οὐδέν’ εὐλαβουμένη>.
ἡ Τυνδαρὶς παῖς διὰ τὸ σῶμ’ ἀρκεῖ μάχας
ἀνδρῶν τιθεῖσα καὶ φόνους· σὺ δ’, ὦ ξένε,
μὴ θνῇσκε δι’ ἐμὲ μηδ’ ἀποκτείνῃς τινά,
ἔα δὲ σῶσαί μ’ Ἑλλάδ’, ἢν δυνώμεθα. 1420

1400 ἄρχειν εἰκός Aristot. Pol. 1252b8: εἰκὸς ἄρχειν L

1401 οἳ (in part-erasure) δ’ ἐλεύθεροι Tr3: τὸ δ’ ἐλεύθερον (L?)P
1407 del. Hermann
1408–9 del. Monk
1408–11 del. W. Dindorf
1408 ’κράτει W. Dindorf
1409 τἀναγκαῖά τε Grotius (τἀναγκαῖά γε earlier Scaliger): τά τ’ ἀναγκαῖα (sic) γε L
1410 σῶν Tr3: μοι σῶν L
1413 δ’ Monk: τ’ L
1416 λέγω τάδε with following note λείπει (‘there is a deficiency’) L/Tr1, P: λείπει
del. Tr3: λέγω τάδ’ <οὐδὲν οὐδὲν (οὐδέν’ P2) εὐλαβουμένη> Tr3
1417 ἀρκεῖ Hardouin: ἄρχει L; (μάχ)η(ς) above the line L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 213

memorial, and my children and marriage, and my fame. It is right

that Greeks should rule barbarians, and not barbarians Greeks.
(1400) For slavery is theirs, but Greeks are free.
Cho. Your part is noble, maiden, but that of fortune and that of the
goddess – they are where the sickness lies.
Ach. Child of Agamemnon, some god meant to make me blest – if I
could win you in marriage; (1405) I envy you Greece, and Greece
you. [Your words were noble and worthy of your fatherland. You
have given up the fight with the gods, for it is overpowering you,
and you have reasoned out what is good and inevitable.] More
and more, desire to marry you comes over me, (1410) now that I
have watched your nature; you are noble.
See here! It is my own wish to benefit you and to take you into
my house; and it will lie heavy on me – let Thetis be my witness
– if I do not do battle with the Danaans and save you. Think:
death is a fearful evil. (1415)
Iph. I say this <without heed of anyone>: the daughter of Tyndareus
is enough in causing men bloody battles through her beauty; and
you, stranger, are not to die or kill anyone because of me, but
allow me to save Greece if I can. (1420)
214 Euripides

Αχ. ὦ λῆμ’ ἄριστον, οὐκ ἔχω πρὸς τοῦτ’ ἔτι

λέγειν, ἐπεί σοι τάδε δοκεῖ· γενναῖα γὰρ
φρονεῖς· τί γὰρ τἀληθὲς οὐκ εἴποι τις ἄν;
ὅμως δ’ ἴσως γὰρ κἂν μεταγνοίης τάδε.
[ὡς οὖν ἂν εἰδῇς τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ λελεγμένα,] 1425
ἐλθὼν τάδ’ ὅπλα θήσομαι βωμοῦ πέλας,
ὡς οὐκ ἐάσων σ’ ἀλλὰ κωλύσων θανεῖν.
χρήσῃ δὲ καὶ σὺ τοῖς ἐμοῖς λόγοις τάχα,
ὅταν πέλας σῆς φάσγανον δέρης ἴδῃς.
[οὔκουν ἐάσω σ’ ἀφροσύνῃ τῇ σῇ θανεῖν· 1430
ἐλθὼν δὲ σὺν ὅπλοις τοῖσδε πρὸς ναὸν θεᾶς
καραδοκήσω σὴν ἐκεῖ παρουσίαν.]
Ιφ. μῆτερ, τί σιγῇ δακρύοις τέγγεις κόρας;
Κλ. ἔχω τάλαινα πρόφασιν ὥστ’ ἀλγεῖν φρένα.
Ιφ. παῦσαί με μὴ κάκιζε· τάδε δέ μοι πιθοῦ. 1435
Κλ. λέγ’· ὡς παρ’ ἡμῶν οὐδὲν ἀδικήσῃ, τέκνον.
Ιφ. μήτ’ οὖν σὺ τὸν σὸν πλόκαμον ἐκτέμῃς τριχὸς
μήτ’ ἀμφὶ σῶμα μέλανας ἀμπίσχῃ πέπλους.
Κλ. τί δὴ τόδ’ εἶπας, τέκνον; ἀπολέσασά σε;
Ιφ. οὐ σύ γε· σέσωμαι, κατ’ ἐμὲ δ’ εὐκλεὴς ἔσῃ. 1440
Κλ. πῶς εἶπας; οὐ πενθεῖν με σὴν ψυχὴν χρεών;

1421–32 variously susp. or del. eds

1423 susp. Conington, del. Page
1424 γὰρ, deleting 1425, Hermann: γε L: σὺ Markland: γ’ ἔτ’ ἂν Fix
1425 δεδογμένα Diggle
1427 del. W. Dindorf
1428–32 del. Hermann
1430–2 del. Monk
1435–9 susp. Diggle
1435 παῦσαι; ’μὲ Porson; δέ μοι Monk: δ’ ἐμοὶ L
1437 μήτ’ οὖν σὺ Elmsley: μήτ’ οὖν γε L: μήτε σύ γε West: μή μοι σύ, deleting
1438, Hermann; 1437 del. L. Dindorf
1439 δὴ Barnes: δῆτα L; τέκνον Markland: ὦ τέκνον L
1440 σέσωμαι Nauck (4), Wecklein: σέσωσμαι L, cf. 916
 Iphigenia at Aulis 215

Ach. You heroic spirit! I have nothing more to say to that, since this is
your decision; your thoughts are noble! For why should one not
speak the truth? Even so, you might perhaps change your mind
about this. [But so you may know what I have said,] (1425) I
shall go to the altar and place these arms nearby. I shall not allow
you to be killed. No, I shall prevent it. Even you will take up my
words soon enough when you see the sword close to your neck.
[So I shall not let you die because of your folly; (1430) I shall
go with these arms to the temple of the goddess and expect your
presence there.]
ACHILLES and his attendants leave to rejoin the army.
Iph. Mother, why these tear-soaked eyes, in silence?
Clyt. In my misery I have good cause for pain at heart.
Iph. Stop, do not make a coward of me! Obey me in this, please!
(1435)
Clyt. Say on: you will not be wronged in any way by me, my child.
Iph. Then don’t you cut off a lock of your hair, or clothe your body in
black robes.
Clyt. Why do you say this, my child – when I have lost you?
Iph. But you have not! I have been saved, and through me you will
win glory. (1440)
Clyt. What do you mean? Must I not mourn your death?
216 Euripides

Ιφ. ἥκιστ’, ἐπεί μοι τύμβος οὐ χωσθήσεται.

Κλ. †τί δὲ τὸ θνῄσκειν οὐ τάφος νομίζεται;†
Ιφ. βωμὸς θεᾶς μοι μνῆμα τῆς Διὸς κόρης.
Κλ. ἀλλ’ ὦ τέκνον σοι πείσομαι· λέγεις γὰρ εὖ. 1445
Ιφ. ὡς εὐτυχοῦσά γ’ Ἑλλάδος τ’ εὐεργέτις.
Κλ. τί δὴ κασιγνήταισιν ἀγγείλω σέθεν;
Ιφ. μηδ’ ἀμφὶ κείναις μέλανας ἐξάψῃς πέπλους.
Κλ. εἴπω δὲ παρὰ σοῦ φίλον ἔπος τι παρθένοις;
Ιφ. χαίρειν γ’· Ὀρέστην δ’ ἔκτρεφ’ ἄνδρα τόνδε μοι. 1450
Κλ. προσέλκυσαί νιν ὕστατον θεωμένη.
Ιφ. ὦ φίλτατ’, ἐπεκούρησας ὅσον εἶχες φίλοις.
Κλ. ἔσθ’ ὅτι κατ’ Ἄργος δρῶσά σοι χάριν φέρω;
Ιφ. πατέρα τὸν ἀμὸν μὴ στύγει, πόσιν γε σόν.
Κλ. δεινοὺς ἀγῶνας διὰ σὲ δεῖ κεῖνον δραμεῖν. 1455
Ιφ. ἄκων μ’ ὑπὲρ γῆς Ἑλλάδος διώλεσεν.
Κλ. δόλῳ δ’, ἀγεννῶς Ἀτρέως τ’ οὐκ ἀξίως.
Ιφ. τίς μ’ εἶσιν ἄξων πρὶν σπαράσσεσθαι κόμας;
Κλ. ἐγώ, μετά γε σοῦ ... Ιφ. μὴ σύ γ’· οὐ καλῶς λέγεις.
Κλ. πέπλων ἐχομένη σῶν. Ιφ. ἐμοί, μῆτερ, πιθοῦ· 1460
μέν’· ὡς ἐμοί τε σοί τε κάλλιον τόδε.
πατρὸς δ’ ὀπαδῶν τῶνδέ τίς με πεμπέτω
Ἀρτέμιδος ἐς λειμῶν’, ὅπου σφαγήσομαι.
Κλ. ὦ τέκνον, οἴχῃ; Ιφ. καὶ πάλιν γ’ οὐ μὴ μόλω.
Κλ. λιποῦσα μητέρ’; Ιφ. ὡς ὁρᾷς γ’, οὐκ ἀξίως. 1465

1443 δὲ (L*)P: δαί; Tr2/3: δή; Gaisford; τὸ θνῄσκειν] θανοῦσιν Reiske, Paley:
τεθνέωσιν Weil: τυθεῖσιν Vitelli
1447 δὴ Gaisford: δὲ (L)P: δαὶ Tr2/3; ἀγγείλω Weil: ἀγγελῶ L: ἀγγέλλω Kirchhoff
1448–9 susp. eds
1448 ἐξάψῃς Reiske: ἐξάψῃ L
1449–52 del. Wecklein, England
1450 δ’ Monk: τ’ L: τόνδε μοι P2; τόνδ’ ἐμοί L
1454 ἀμὸν Scaliger: ἐμὸν L; γε Elmsley: τε L: δὲ Hartung
1455 δεῖ κεῖνον Porson: κεῖνον δεῖ L
1458 σπαράσσεσθαι Elmsley: σπαράξεσθαι L; κόμας P2: κόμης L
1465 εὖ κἀξίως Hermann: εὐκαρδίως F. W. Schmidt
 Iphigenia at Aulis 217

Iph. No, not at all. For no tomb will be raised for me.
Clyt. †What? Is not burial customary for the dead?†
Iph. The altar of the divine daughter of Zeus will be my memorial.
Clyt. Well then, my child, I shall obey you. What you say is good.
(1445)
Iph. Yes, as fortunate in my success, and as Greece’s benefactress.
Clyt. What message from you then am I to give your sisters?
Iph. Do not dress them in black robes either.
Clyt. Should I say some loving word from you to the girls?
Iph. Yes, ‘Farewell’. And bring up Orestes here to manhood, please.
(1450)
Clyt. Hug him to you and look at him for the last time.
Iph. (to Orestes) Dearest, you did as much as you could to help your
dear ones.
Clyt. Is there anything I can do to please you in Argos?
Iph. Do not hate my father – your husband.
Clyt. He has to run a fearsome challenge because of you. (1455)
Iph. It was against his will that he has destroyed me for the sake of
Greece.
Clyt. But by a trick, ignobly, and unworthy of Atreus.
Iph. Who will come to lead me away before my hair is torn?
Clyt. I myself, there with you... Iph. No, not you: don’t! What you say
is not good.
Clyt. ...clinging to your robes. Iph. Obey me, mother! (1460) Stay!
– this will be better both for myself and for you. Let one of my
father’s attendants here escort me to Artemis’ meadow where I
am to be slaughtered.
Clyt. Are you going, my child? Iph. Yes, and I shall not come again.
Clyt. Leaving your mother? Iph. Yes, as you see, and in no worthy
way. (1465)
218 Euripides

Κλ. σχές, μή με προλίπῃς. Ιφ. οὐκ ἐῶ στάζειν δάκρυ.

ὑμεῖς δ’ ἐπευφημήσατ’, ὦ νεάνιδες,
παιᾶνα τἠμῇ συμφορᾷ Διὸς κόρην
Ἄρτεμιν· ἴτω δὲ Δαναΐδαις εὐφημία.
κανᾶ δ’ ἐναρχέσθω τις, αἰθέσθω δὲ πῦρ 1470
προχύταις καθαρσίοισι, καὶ πατὴρ ἐμὸς
ἐνδεξιούσθω βωμόν· ὡς σωτηρίαν
Ἕλλησι δώσουσ’ ἔρχομαι νικηφόρον.
ἄγετέ με τὰν Ἰλίου 1475
καὶ Φρυγῶν ἑλέπτολιν.
στέφεα περίβολα δίδοτε φέρε-
τε – πλόκαμος ὅδε καταστέφειν –
χερνίβων τε παγάς.
ἑλίσσετ’ ἀμφὶ ναόν, 1480
ἀμφὶ βωμὸν Ἄρτεμιν,
τὰν ἄνασσαν Ἄρτεμιν,
τὰν μάκαιραν· ὡς ἐμοῖσιν, εἰ χρεών,
αἵμασι θύμασί τε 1485
θέσφατ’ ἐξαλείψω.
ὦ πότνια πότνια μᾶτερ, οὐ δάκρυά γέ σοι 1487–88
δώσομεν ἁμέτερα·
παρ’ ἱεροῖς γὰρ οὐ πρέπει. 1490
ἰὼ ἰὼ νεάνιδες,
συνεπαείδετ’ Ἄρτεμιν
Χαλκίδος ἀντίπορον,

1478 susp. Stockert

1479 παγάς Reiske: παγαῖσι (L)P
1480–2 susp. eds
1480–3 ἑλίσσετ’ ἀμφιβώμιοι τὰν ἄνασσαν Ἄρτεμιν Murray
1480 ἀμφὶ ναόν del. Burges, Monk
1481 Ἄρτεμιν del. Nauck
1487–90 Ιφ. Seidler: Χο. L
1487 μᾶτερ Burges: μερ (in compendium) L
1488 οὐ Höpfner: ὡς L; γέ del. Blomfield
1491 ἰὼ ἰὼ Hermann: ὦ Tr1: om. L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 219

Clyt. Stop, do not desert me! Iph. I forbid shedding tears.

And you, young women, sing a reverent paean over my fate,
to Zeus’ daughter Artemis. Let reverent silence come to the
Danaans! Let someone begin with the baskets, and the fire blaze
(1470) with the cleansing scattered barley, and my father walk
round the altar from left to right, for I am going to give safety to
the Greeks, and bring them victory.
(singing) Lead me, the destroyer of Ilium’s city (1475) and the
Phrygians! Give me, bring me garlands to put round me – here
is my tressed hair to garland – and spring-water for sprinkling.
Turn in your dance round the temple, round the altar (1480) to
honour Artemis, the queenly Artemis, the blessed one; for with
my blood and sacrifice, (1485) if it must be, I shall wipe away
the prophecy.
O lady, lady mother, I shall not give you my tears; for it is not
fitting at holy rites. (1490)
Oh, oh! You young women, join with me in singing to praise
Artemis Across From Chalcis, and where the timbered ships
220 Euripides

ἵνα τε δόρατα μέμονε νάϊ’

ὄνομα δι’ ἐμὸν Αὐλίδος 1495
στενοπόροις ἐν ὅρμοις.
ἰὼ γᾶ μᾶτερ ὦ Πελασγία 1497–98
Μυκηναῖαί τ’ ἐμαὶ θεράπναι ...
Χο. καλεῖς πόλισμα Περσέως, 1500
Κυκλωπιᾶν πόνον χερῶν;
Ιφ. ἐθρέψαθ’ Ἑλλάδι με φάος·
θανοῦσα δ’ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι.
Χο. κλέος γὰρ οὔ σε μὴ λίπῃ.
Ιφ. ἰὼ ἰώ· 1505
λαμπαδοῦχος ἁμέρα
Διός τε φέγγος, ἕτερον αἰ-
ῶνα καὶ μοῖραν οἰκήσομεν.
χαῖρέ μοι, φίλον φάος.
[Χο. ἰὼ ἰώ·
ἴδεσθε τὰν Ἰλίου 1510
καὶ Φρυγῶν ἑλέπτολιν
στείχουσαν, ἐπὶ κάρᾳ στέφη

1494 lacuna before this line Monk; νάϊ’ Hartung: δάϊα L; order νάϊα μέμονε Günther
1495 ὄνομα δι’ ἐμὸν Murray: δι’ ἐμὸν ὄνομα L; Αὐλίδος Matthiae: τᾶσδ’ αὐλίδος L
1496 στενοπόροις ἐν Burges: στενοπόροισιν L
1499 (θεράπ)ναι above the line Tr1: θεράπαι L
1500–9 P. Leiden inv. 510 has some damaged words and letters
1501 Κυκλωπιᾶν Diggle: κυκλωπίων L: [P. Leid. defective]
1502 only beg. ε̣θ̣[ P. Leid.: ἐθρέψαθ’ Ἑλλάδι με φάος Elmsley: ἔθρεψας (with ἐμὲ
written above -ψας) ἑλλάδι μέγα φάος L: [P. Leid.]
1503 θανοῦσα susp. Diggle, expecting θνῄσκουσα: [P. Leid.]; [α]ν̣α̣ι̣ν̣[ομαι P. Leid.
1504 ]λιπ̣η̣[4–5 let.]λαμπ[ P. Leid.
1507 ἕτερον W. Dindorf: ἕτερον ἕτερον L: [P.Leid.]
1508 ]ω̣νακαιμοιρανοικη̣[ P. Leid.
1509 φίλον Lcorr: φίλος L: [P.Leid.]
1510–1629: 1510–31 del. first Kirchhoff (but defended by some eds); 1532–1629
del. first Porson (but 1532–77 are defended by some eds; 1578–1629 del. esp.
West)
1512 κάρᾳ Diggle: κάρα L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 221

are eager because of my name, at Aulis’ (1495) moorings in the

narrow strait. Oh! Land of Argos my mother! O Pelasgia, and
Mycenae my home ...
CLYTEMNESTRA silently enters the hut, carrying Orestes.
Cho. (singing) You call on the city of Perseus, (1500) the work of
Cyclopean hands?
Iph. ... it brought me up to be a light for Greece. My death I do not
refuse.
Cho. Yes, for glory will not leave you.
Iph. Oh, oh! (1505) Daylight with your torch, and Zeus’ sun, a
different lifetime and destiny will be mine to live! Farewell, dear
light!
IPHIGENIA is led away towards the army, stage-left.
(The rest of the play-text is not from Euripides’ own hand)
[Cho. Oh, oh! (1510) See the destroyer of Ilium’s city and the Phrygians
going on her way! She is to have garlands put on her head, and
222 Euripides

βαλουμέναν χερνίβων τε παγάς,

†βωμόν γε δαίμονος θεᾶς
αἱματορρύτοις 1515
ῥανοῦσαν εὐφυῆ τε σώματος δέρην
σφαγεῖσαν. εὔδροσοι παγαὶ
πατρῷαι μένουσί σε χέρνιβές τε†
στρατός τ’ Ἀχαιῶν θέλων
Ἰλίου πόλιν μολεῖν. 1520
ἀλλὰ τὰν Διὸς κόραν
κλῄσωμεν Ἄρτεμιν,
θεῶν ἄνασσαν, ὡς ἐπ’ εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ·
ὦ πότνια <πότνια>, θύμασιν βροτησίοις
χαρεῖσα, πέμψον ἐς Φρυγῶν 1525
γαῖαν Ἑλλάνων στρατὸν
†καὶ δολόεντα Τροίας ἕδη
Ἀγαμέμνονά τε λόγχαις
Ἑλλάδι κλεινότατον στέφανον
δὸς ἀμφὶ κάρα ἑὸν† 1530
κλέος ἀείμνηστον ἀμφιθεῖναι.
ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ
ὦ Τυνδαρεία παῖ Κλυταιμήστρα, δόμων
ἔξω πέρασον, ὡς κλύῃς ἐμῶν λόγων.

1513 βαλουμέναν Bothe, Hartung: βαλλομέναν L; (παγ)άς written above the line
Tr2/3: παγαῖς L
1514 τε Reiske; θεᾶς del. Bothe, Monk
1516 ῥανοῦσαν Markland: θανοῦσαν L: χρανοῦσαν Monk; εὐφυᾶ ... δέραν W.
Dindorf; εὐφυοῦς Kovacs
1517 σφαγεῖσαν del. W. Dindorf: σφαγαῖσιν Griffiths; εὔδροσοί <σε> Willink
1518 σε del. Willink; πατρῷαί τέ σε μένουσι χέρνιβες Günther
1523 θεῶν] θεὰν Bothe, Hennig: τὰν Dain
1524 <πότνια> Hermann
1528–31 <δος> τ’ ’Αγαμέμνονα [τε] λόγχαις, 1529, 1530 del. (Monk), 1531 κλέος
<τ’> Kovacs
1529 Ἑλλάσι Markland
1530 κάρα <θ’> Scaliger
1533 κλύῃς Tr3: κλύεις (L)P; ἐμῶν κλύῃς λόγων Nauck (4)
 Iphigenia at Aulis 223

spring-water for sprinkling, to spatter †the goddess’s altar with

drops of streaming blood (1515), and her body’s graceful neck
after her slaughter. Dewy spring-water and its sprinkling by your
father await you,† and the army of the Achaeans wishing to go to
Ilium’s city. (1520)
But let us call upon the daughter of Zeus, Artemis, queenly
among gods, for a happy outcome! O lady, <lady,> delighted
by human sacrifices, send (1525) the army of the Greeks to the
Phrygians’ land †and the treacherous foundations of Troy; and
grant that Agamemnon with the spears may put the most glorious
crown upon Greece around his own head,† (1530) glory ever to
be remembered.
Enter MESSENGER from the army.
MESSENGER Daughter of Tyndareus, Clytemnestra, come out of the
hut, so that you may hear my words.
224 Euripides

Κλ. φθογγῆς κλυοῦσα δεῦρο σῆς ἀφικόμην,

ταρβοῦσα τλήμων κἀκπεπληγμένη φόβῳ. 1535
μή μοί τιν’ ἄλλην ξυμφορὰν ἥκεις φέρων
πρὸς τῇ παρούσῃ; Αγ. σῆς μὲν οὖν παιδὸς πέρι
θαυμαστά σοι καὶ δεινὰ σημῆναι θέλω.
Κλ. μὴ μέλλε τοίνυν, ἀλλὰ φράζ’ ὅσον τάχος.
Αγγ. ἀλλ’, ὦ φίλη δέσποινα, πᾶν πεύσῃ σαφῶς. 1540
λέξω δ’ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἤν τι μὴ σφαλεῖσά που
γνώμη ταράξῃ γλῶσσαν ἐν λόγοις ἐμήν.
ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἱκόμεσθα τῆς Διὸς κόρης
Ἀρτέμιδος ἄλσος λείμακάς τ’ ἀνθεσφόρους,
ἵν’ ἦν Ἀχαιῶν σύλλογος στρατεύματος, 1545
σὴν παῖδ’ ἄγοντες, εὐθὺς Ἀργείων ὄχλος
ἠθροίζεθ’. ὡς δ’ ἐσεῖδεν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ
ἐπὶ σφαγὰς στείχουσαν εἰς ἄλσος κόρην,
ἀνεστέναξε κἄμπαλιν στρέψας κάρα
δάκρυα προῆκεν, ὀμμάτων πέπλον προθείς. 1550
ἡ δὲ σταθεῖσα τῷ τεκόντι πλησίον
ἔλεξε τοιάδ’· “Ὦ πάτερ, πάρειμί σοι·
τοὐμὸν δὲ σῶμα τῆς ἐμῆς ὑπὲρ πάτρας
καὶ τῆς ἁπάσης Ἑλλάδος γαίας ὕπερ
θῦσαι δίδωμ’ ἑκοῦσα πρὸς βωμὸν θεᾶς 1555
ἄγοντας, εἴπερ ἐστὶ θέσφατον τόδε.
καὶ τοὐπ’ ἔμ’ εὐτυχοῖτε καὶ νικηφόρου
δορὸς τύχοιτε πατρίδα τ’ ἐξίκοισθε γῆν.
πρὸς ταῦτα μὴ ψαύσῃ τις Ἀργείων ἐμοῦ·
σιγῇ παρέξω γὰρ δέρην εὐκαρδίως.” 1560

1536 ἥκῃς Portus

1541 που Markland: μου L
1545 del. Page
1548 susp. England
1550 προῆκεν W. Dindorf: προῆγεν L; δάκρυε, πρόσθεν Semitelos
1556 ἄγουσιν Weil (but rejected)
1557 εὐτυχοῖτε Aldine: εὐτυχεῖτε L
1558 δορὸς Pierson: δώρου L
1560 σφαγῇ Jacobs
 Iphigenia at Aulis 225

CLYTEMNESTRA re-enters, again holding ORESTES.

Clyt. I heard your voice and have come here, wretchedly frightened
and driven out of myself by fear. (1535) Surely you have not
come with another disaster to add to what I have now?
M. No. I want to tell you something wonderful and strange about
your child.
Clyt. Do not delay then, but tell me with all speed.
M. Well then, my dear mistress, you shall learn everything clearly.
(1540) I will tell it from the beginning, in case my mind fails
somewhere and makes me incoherent in the telling.
Well, when we came to the grove of Zeus’ daughter Artemis
and her flowery meadows where the army of the Achaeans
had mustered (1545), and when we were leading your child –
immediately a mass of Argives collected. As lord Agamemnon
saw his daughter coming into the grove to be slaughtered, he
groaned loudly and, turning his head away from her, he burst
into tears, pulling his robe in front of his eyes. (1550) But she
stood near to her father and spoke as follows; ‘O my father, here
I am for you. My body I give willingly for my fatherland and for
the whole land of Greece, to be led to the goddess’ altar (1555)
and sacrificed, since this is the prophecy. So far as it depends
on me, may you have success, may you win victory with the
spear, and may you come back to your fatherland. Therefore let
no Argive touch me: I shall offer my neck with a brave heart,
in silence.’ (1560) That much she said; and as they listened
226 Euripides

τοσαῦτ’ ἔλεξε· πᾶς δ’ ἐθάμβησεν κλυὼν

εὐψυχίαν τε κἀρετὴν τῆς παρθένου.
στὰς δ’ ἐν μέσῳ Ταλθύβιος, ᾧ τόδ’ ἦν μέλον,
εὐφημίαν ἀνεῖπε καὶ σιγὴν στρατῷ·
Κάλχας δ’ ὁ μάντις ἐς κανοῦν χρυσήλατον 1565
ἔθηκεν ὀξὺ χειρὶ φάσγανον σπάσας
κολεῶν ἔσωθεν κρᾶτά τ’ ἔστεψεν κόρης.
ὁ παῖς δ’ ὁ Πηλέως ἐν κύκλῳ βωμοῦ θεᾶς
λαβὼν κανοῦν ἔθρεξε χέρνιβάς θ’ ὁμοῦ,
ἔλεξε δ’· “Ὦ παῖ Ζηνός, ὦ θηροκτόνε, 1570
τὸ λαμπρὸν εἱλίσσουσ’ ἐν εὐφρόνῃ φάος,
δέξαι τὸ θῦμα τόδ’ ὅ γέ σοι δωρούμεθα
στρατός τ’ Ἀχαιῶν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ θ’ ὁμοῦ,
ἄχραντον αἷμα καλλιπαρθένου δέρης,
καὶ δὸς γενέσθαι πλοῦν νεῶν ἀπήμονα 1575
Τροίας τε πέργαμ’ ἐξελεῖν ἡμᾶς δορί.”
ἐς γῆν δ’ Ἀτρεῖδαι πᾶς στρατός τ’ ἔστη βλέπων.
ἱερεὺς δὲ φάσγανον λαβὼν ἐπεύξατο
λαιμόν τ’ ἐπεσκοπεῖθ’, ἵνα πλήξειεν ἄν.
ἐμοὶ δέ τ’ ἄλγος οὐ μικρὸν εἰσῄει φρενὶ 1580
κἄστην νενευκώς· θαῦμα δ’ ἦν αἴφνης ὁρᾶν.
πληγῆς κτύπον γὰρ πᾶς τις ᾔσθετ’ ἂν σαφῶς,
τὴν παρθένον δ’ οὐκ οἶδεν οὗ γῆς εἰσέδυ.
βοᾷ δ’ ἱερεύς, ἅπας δ’ ἐπήχησε στρατός,
ἄελπτον εἰσιδόντες ἐκ θεῶν τινος 1585

1568 βωμοῦ Heath: βωμὸν L

1569 ἔβρεξε ?Scaliger, Weil
1570–2 1570 written in a blank space, after erasure of (probably) λείπει στίχος ‘a
verse is lacking’, Lcorr; perhaps 1571, 1572 similarly in a blank space Lcorr
1570 Ζηνός, ὦ Nauck: ζηνὸς ἄρτεμις L
1572 τοῦθ’ ὅ σοι Porson
1573 τ’ ἄναξ ὁμοῦ Scaliger
1579 ἵνα (or ἵν’εὖ) πλήξειέ νιν Hermann
1580 γ’ Reiske
1583 εἶδεν Matthiae, earlier rejected by Markland
 Iphigenia at Aulis 227

everyone marvelled at the courage and heroism of the maiden.

Then Talthybius, whose concern it was, stood in the midst and
called for reverent silence from the army. And the seer Calchas
drew a sharp sword from its sheath, placed it in a golden basket,
(1565) and garlanded the girl’s head. Next the son of Peleus took
the basket and the water for sprinkling too, quickly circled the
altar of the goddess, and said, ‘O daughter of Zeus, O slayer of
wild beasts, (1570) revolving your bright radiance through the
darkness of the night, accept this sacrifice which we, the Achaean
army and lord Agamemnon too, present to you, the undefiled
blood from a beautiful virgin’s neck; and grant that our ships sail
without harm (1575) and sack Troy’s citadel.’ The sons of Atreus
and the whole army stood looking at the ground.
The priest took the sword, uttered his prayer and looked at
the throat to see where he would strike. As for me, no small
anguish began to enter my heart (1580) and I stood with my head
bowed. But suddenly there was a marvel to behold. Everyone
would have heard the thud of a blow clearly, but nobody knows
where in the ground the girl had sunk. The priest shouted and the
whole army echoed the cry; we saw an unhoped-for portent from
one of the gods (1585), which it was not possible to trust even
228 Euripides

φάσμ’, οὗ γε μηδ’ ὁρωμένου πίστις παρῆν·

ἔλαφος γὰρ ἀσπαίρουσ’ ἔκειτ’ ἐπὶ χθονὶ
ἰδεῖν μεγίστη διαπρεπής τε τὴν θέαν,
ἧς αἵματι βωμὸς ἐραίνετ’ ἄρδην τῆς θεοῦ.
κἀν τῷδε Κάλχας πῶς δοκεῖς χαίρων ἔφη· 1590
“Ὦ τοῦδ’ Ἀχαιῶν κοίρανοι κοινοῦ στρατοῦ,
ὁρᾶτε τήνδε θυσίαν, ἣν ἡ θεὸς
προύθηκε βωμίαν, ἔλαφον ὀρειδρόμον;
ταύτην μάλιστα τῆς κόρης ἀσπάζεται,
ὡς μὴ μιαίνοι βωμὸν εὐγενεῖ φόνῳ. 1595
ἡδέως τε τοῦτ’ ἐδέξατο καὶ πλοῦν οὔριον
δίδωσιν ἡμῖν Ἰλίου τ’ ἐπιδρομάς.
πρὸς ταῦτα πᾶς τις θάρσος αἶρε ναυβάτης
χώρει τε πρὸς ναῦν· ὡς ἡμέρᾳ τῇδε δεῖ
λιπόντας ἡμᾶς Αὐλίδος κοιλοὺς μυχοὺς 1600
Αἴγαιον οἶδμα διαπερᾶν.” ἐπεὶ δ’ ἅπαν
κατηνθρακώθη θῦμ’ ἐν Ἡφαίστου φλογί,
τὰ πρόσφορ’ ηὔξαθ’, ὡς τύχοι νόστου στρατός.
πέμπει δ’ Ἀγαμέμνων μ’ ὥστε σοι φράσαι τάδε
λέγειν θ’ ὁποίας ἐκ θεῶν μοίρας κυρεῖ 1605
καὶ δόξαν ἔσχεν ἄφθιτον καθ’ Ἑλλάδα.
ἐγὼ παρών τε καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμ’ ὁρῶν λέγω·
ἡ παῖς σαφῶς σοι πρὸς θεοὺς ἀφίπτατο.
λύπης δ’ ἀφαίρει καὶ πόσει πάρες χόλον·
ἀπροσδόκητα δὲ βροτοῖς τὰ τῶν θεῶν, 1610
σῴζουσί θ’ οὓς φιλοῦσιν· ἦμαρ γὰρ τόδε
θανοῦσαν εἶδε καὶ βλέπουσαν παῖδα σήν.
Χο. ὡς ἥδομαί τοι ταῦτ’ ἀκούσασ’ ἀγγέλου·
ζῶν δ’ ἐν θεοῖσι σὸν μένειν φράζει τέκος.

1589 ἐραίνετ’ P: ἐρραίνετ’ L

1592 ἡ Lcorr: ὁ L
1595 μιαίνῃ apogr. Par.
1606 transferred after 1608 Günther
1607 δὲ Tr3
1609 λύπας Bothe: λύπην Hermann
 Iphigenia at Aulis 229

when seen. For a hind lay gasping and struggling on the ground,
very big to the eye and a conspicuous sight; and it was the hind’s
blood that spattered the altar high up.
At this, Calchas cried out with unimaginable joy: (1590)
‘Commanders of the common Achaean army, do you see this
victim which the goddess has placed on her altar, a mountain-
running hind? She welcomes this rather than the girl, so that
she may not defile her altar with noble blood. (1595) She gladly
accepted this sacrifice and grants us a favourable voyage to attack
Troy. So: lift your courage high, every sailor, and go to your ship.
For on this day we must leave the hollow bay of Aulis (1600)
and cross the swelling Aegean sea.’ When the whole sacrifice
had been burnt to ashes in Hephaestus’ flame, Calchas prayed
appropriately that the army might get a good voyage.
Agamemnon has sent me to tell you this and to say what
kind of fate (Iphigenia) meets with from the gods (1605) and
(that) she has won imperishable glory throughout Greece. I was
there myself and speak as one who saw the thing. Your daughter
clearly has flown away to the gods.
Relent from your grief and lay aside your anger against your
husband. What the gods do is unexpected by mortals. (1610)
They save those they love; for this day has seen your daughter
dying and living.
Cho. How I rejoice to hear this from the messenger! He says your
daughter is alive and remains among the gods.
The MESSENGER leaves silently, into the hut.
230 Euripides

Κλ. ὦ παῖ, θεῶν τοῦ κλέμμα γέγονας; 1615

πῶς σε προσείπω; πῶς δ’ οὐ φῶ
παραμυθεῖσθαι τούσδε μάτην 1617
μύθους, ὥς σου
πένθους λυγροῦ παυσαίμην; 1618
Χο. καὶ μὴν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ στείχει,
τούσδ’ αὐτοὺς ἔχων σοι φράζειν μύθους. 1620
Αγ. γύναι, θυγατρὸς ἕνεκ’ ὄλβιοι γενοίμεθ’ ἄν·
ἔχει γὰρ ὄντως ἐν θεοῖς ὁμιλίαν.
χρὴ δέ σε λαβοῦσαν τόνδε μόσχον νεαγενῆ
στείχειν πρὸς οἴκους· ὡς στρατὸς πρὸς πλοῦν ὁρᾷ.
καὶ χαῖρε· χρόνιά γε τἀμά σοι προσφθέγματα 1625
Τροίηθεν ἔσται· καὶ γένοιτό σοι καλῶς.
Χο. χαίρων, Ἀτρείδη, γῆν ἱκοῦ
Φρυγίαν, χαίρων δ’ ἐπάνηκε,
κάλλιστά μοι σκῦλ’ ἀπὸ Τροίας ἑλών.]

1615 τοῦ P2: του L

1616 δ’ οὐ] δὲ Tr3
1620 αὐτὸς Heath
1627 ἱκοῦ L. Dindorf: ἵκου L
 Iphigenia at Aulis 231

Clyt. (chanting or singing) O my child, which of the gods has stolen

you? (1615) How am I to address you, how am I to say that this
story is not false consolation, to make me cease from hideous
grief for you?
Cho. (chanting or singing) But look, lord Agamemnon is coming with
these same words to tell you. (1620).
AGAMEMNON enters, stage-left, coming from the army.
Ag. (singing) Lady, we may be happy because of our daughter. For
she truly keeps company among the gods. But you must take this
new-born boy and make your way home, since the army has its
voyage in prospect. And farewell! It will be a long time before I
address greetings to you from Troy. (1625) And may all be well
for you!
Cho. (singing) Reach the land of Phrygia rejoicing, son of Atreus, and
return rejoicing, after winning me the finest spoils from Troy.
All leave, CLYTEMNESTRA with ORESTES into the hut, AGAMEMNON
back to the army, stage-left, the CHORUS towards Aulis, stage-right.
232 Euripides

Doubtful fragments and testimonies

(numbered as in all recent editions)

Fr. i = E. F 857 Nauck; not in TrGF

ἔλαφον δ’ Ἀχαιῶν χερσὶν ἐνθήσω φίλαις
κεροῦσσαν, ἣν σφάζοντες αὐχήσουσι σὴν
σφάζειν θυγατέρα.
Aelian, Nature of Animals 7.39 ὅσοι λέγουσι θῆλυν ἔλαφον κέρατα οὐ
φύειν, οὐκ αἰδοῦνται τοὺς τοῦ ἐναντίου μάρτυρας ... ὁ δὲ Εὐριπίδης ἐν
τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ “ἔλαφον ... θυγατέρα”. Attributed to the play’s exodos by
Porson, to its parodos earlier by Musgrave. 1 φίλαις] λάθρᾳ Monk

Fr. ii; not included by Nauck and TrGF

ἄθραυστα· ἀπρόσκοπα. Εὐριπίδης Ἰφιγενείᾳ τῇ ἐν Αὐλίδι.
Hesychius α 1608 Latte

Fr. iii = E. F 856 TrGF

ἀλκυόνες, αἳ παρ’ ἀενάοις θαλάσσας
κύμασιν στωμύλλετε,
τέγγουσαι νοτίοις πτερῶν
ῥανίσι χρόα δροσιζόμεναι
= Ar. Frogs 1309–12, with scholia attributing all or part of these verses
to IA
 Iphigenia at Aulis 233

Doubtful fragments and testimonies

Fr. i = E. F 857 Nauck (Aelian, Nature of Animals 7.39); not in TrGF
All those who say that a female deer does not grow horns,
fail to respect witnesses to the contrary ... Euripides in the
Iphigenia (has) ‘And I shall place in the Achaeans’ own hands
an antlered hind, which they will slaughter, confident that they
are slaughtering your daughter.’

Fr. ii = Hesychius α 1608 Latte; not included in Nauck and TrGF

Unbreakable: unforeseeable. Euripides in the Iphigenia in Aulis.

Fr. iii = Ar. Frogs 1309–12 = E. F 856 TrGF (Scholia on Ar. Frogs 1310
and 1318)
“You halcyons, who chatter by the sea’s ever-flowing waves,
moistening, bedewing your wings with flecks of spray.”
The preceding is from the Iphigenia in Aulis (so schol. 1310; lines
omitted by schol. 1318, but with statement ‘from Euripides’ Iphigenia’).
 Aris and Phillips Classical Texts

EURIPIDES
Iphigenia at Aulis

VOLUME 2
Commentary and Indexes

Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary by

Christopher Collard and James Morwood

LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY PRESS

First published 2017 by
Liverpool University Press
4 Cambridge Street
Liverpool
L69 7ZU

www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk

Copyright © 2017 Chris Collard and James Morwood

The right of C. Collard and J. Morwood to be identified as the authors of this book
has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data

A British Library CIP record is available

ISBN 978-1-911226-46-8 cased

ISBN 978-1-911226-47-5 paperback

Typeset by Tara Evans

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

Cover images:
Volume 1: Iphigenia (Lucia Lavia) and Agamemnon (Sebastiano Lo Monaco)
in their first scene together in the 2015 production of IA in the Greek theatre at
Syracuse.
Volume 2: Clytemnestra (Elena Ghiaurov) and Iphigenia (Lucia Lavia) in the
Syracuse production.
Reproduced by permission of Fondazione Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico
(INDA) Siracusa.
 CONTENTS
VOLUME 2
Commentary 235
Addenda to Volumes 1 and 2 647
Indexes to Volumes 1 and 2 649

VOLUME 1
General Editor’s Foreword vii
Preface ix
Introduction
Preliminary 1
The Myth 3
Human and Animal Sacrifice 7
Sacrifice before Marriage 11
The Political Context 12
Panhellenism 15
Dramatis Personae 18
Iphigenia 25
Off-stage: the Army; Troy 28
The Chorus 30
Themes and Motifs: Looking; a Sense of Shame;
Fortune, Chance and Necessity; Glory 33
Early Performance and Later Reception 37
Metre 45
Text 50
Bibliography 63
Abbreviations 77
Note on the Greek Text and Critical Apparatus 79
Greek Text, Apparatus and Translation 81
 COMMENTARY

The Play’s First Performance

Euripides had died: in the winter of 407/6 BC; cf. Introduction pp. 12,
91. in the city: in Athens, at the City (‘Great’) Dionysiac Festival (see
E. Csapo and P. Wilson, EGT 293–6). This Alcmeon was the fragmentary
Alcmeon in Corinth; the fragmentary Alcmeon in Psophis was produced
in 438 BC, together with the surviving Alcestis.
Note the difference between the Aristophanes Scholia which name
Euripides’ son as the producer, and the Suda which names his nephew;
cf. Introduction pp. 37 n. 92, 55.

List of Play-characters
Old Man: called πρεσβύτης in ms. L’s list but πρέσβυς in the text at IA 1;
similarly for Ion, with πρέσβυς in the text at 725, 1211. At IA 855 L in the
margin calls him θεράπων ‘servant’, and Markland restored πρ(έσβυς). For
the [Messenger] (<ἕτερος> ἄγγελος ‘<other> messenger’, supplemented
by Markland) at play-end, see 1532–1629 n.

1–163 Prologue-scene
1.1 Content; 1.2. Staging; 1.3 Metre. 2.1 Authenticity and Integrity of the
scene; 2.2 Formal Singularity, Coherence, Contradictions, Adequacy,
Compatibility with Euripides’ habits; 2.3 Conclusions.
1.1 Content. The play’s beginning plunges the spectators in medias res,
into what is soon revealed as a second crisis for Agamemnon, commander
of the Greek expedition against Troy which is now unable to sail from
Aulis. The severity of the crisis is indicated by an opening still during
darkness (6–8: n.), as is made clear by the lantern which Ag. is holding:
see 1.2. Staging.
The first and precipitating crisis had been the unexplained obstacle
to the Greeks’ sailing (88, cf. 10–11 the ‘silence’ of the winds, that is,
their stillness, and the general quiet 14–15). The seer Calchas enjoined a
grim remedy, also unexplained: for Ag.’s fleet to sail and sack Troy, his
236 Commentary

daughter Iphigenia must be sacrificed to the goddess Artemis (91–3); on

these issues see Introduction pp. 3–6. Ag.’s initial reaction to this stark
declaration was to instruct the herald Talthybius to disband the army, for
he would not kill his daughter (94–5); he was nevertheless persuaded
by his brother Menelaus to ‘the terrible deed’ (98); in a letter to his wife
Clytemnestra he ordered her to send the girl to Aulis on the pretext of her
betrothal to Achilles (98–105).
The second crisis has Ag. bracing himself to countermand his letter,
in a second one which he holds but cannot yet bring himself to seal.
He calls the Old Man (a family slave, 46–8, 114, 304) out from the hut
(1–3). The OM sees his distress and tries to offer moral comfort (16–27).
When he invites Ag. to confide in him (28–48), Ag. narrates the already
thwarted progress of the expedition which is intended to recover Men.’s
wife Helen. Before their marriage, dissension between her suitors had
led her father Tyndareus to cause these to swear a solemn oath: whoever
married Helen, all the rest would help him if she were to be abducted,
and take military action against the adulterer’s city, whether Greek or
barbarian (i.e. non-Greek; 49–65). Ag. regrets that Helen used the choice
of husband given her by her father to choose his brother; for while
Men. was away from home the alluring Trojan Paris arrived and swept
the infatuated Helen off to Troy (66–77). Reminded by the cuckolded
Men. of their oath, the Greeks have assembled with their army and fleet
(77–85 – the play’s Panhellenic theme is established here, for which see
Introduction p. 15). After retailing Calchas’ declaration and the sending
of the letter (above), Ag. reveals that only Calchas, Odysseus, Men. and
he himself know of this design (106–7a). Now, he is making every effort
to countermand his first letter (107b–9) with a second which in renewed
dialogue he tells the OM to take to Argos (111–12a); he summarises it
(113, 115–23) as a precaution against its loss, and against Clyt.’s disbelief
– as well, of course, as to inform the audience of its contents (compare
Eur.’s technique with Iph.’s letter IT 755–69). The OM is aghast at the
deceit being practised upon daughter and mother in order to enact so
horrific a sacrifice (133–5; cf. Ag. at 98–105) and, no less terrible, upon
Achilles (124–7), who knows nothing of it (128–32). Ag. groans at his
own crazy and disastrous actions (136–7), but speeds the OM on his
errand (138–52); dawn is already at hand (156–63).
The general silence is in contrast with Ag.’s turmoil. When in
 Commentary 237

astonished concern the OM asks the reason and invites the king to
confide, that would seem to be enough to launch the action quickly; but a
further contrast is made, between the OM’s risk-free anonymity (16–18)
and Ag.’s precarious responsibility as commander, however desirable the
honour, caught between inconstant gods and man’s fallible intentions
(19–27); the OM proposes acceptance of this inescapable condition
(28–33). In this way, not only are Ag.’s crises and choices throughout
the play heralded (161–3 n. 2.2 (iv)), but also the OM’s involvement in
the later action is prepared and made plausible (16b–33 n., cf. his words
throughout 117–63, also in the prologue-scene, then 302–16, 855–95).
The scene is noteworthy in its anticipation of many later developments
and themes: see 2.2. (iv) below.
1.2 Staging. A lively start. The theatre’s canvas back-cloth (skênê σκηνή),
with a central door, represents Ag.’s hut (1 n.); similarly in Hecuba and
Trojan Women. Ag. is already outside his hut with a lantern, moving
irregularly to-and-fro (12), behaving irresolutely with a writing-tablet
(35–9 – at 39 he flings it to the ground, but has later retrieved it: 109),
and weeping (39–40). He calls the OM out from the hut; in the dramatic
technique first one character and then a second enters, in instant, anxious
dialogue, without an expository speech (compare 303ff.). Several tragedies
start during the night or just before its end, when events portend a crisis
in the coming day, notably Aeschylus’ Libation Bearers (Clytemnestra’s
nightmare), Sophocles’ Ajax (the goddess Athena has deranged the hero),
Euripides’ Electra (Electra’s routine tasks before dawn put her in the path
of the returning Orestes) and Andromeda (2.2 (i)), and the anonymous
Rhesus (night-sentries report an unexpected development); or at dawn itself,
when anticipated anxieties for the coming day are voiced, e.g. Euripides’
Hecuba and Antiope (both, disturbing dreams), Phaethon (immediacy of
an unwanted marriage), and even Ion (the temple-boy’s happy daybreak
routines are infused with concern). In all these plays except Rhesus initial
darkness soon gives way to daylight and its activities (Rhesus ends with
the arriving dawn, 991–2): so here in 156–8 we are told that the sun is
now rising.
Only at the end of the scene does the OM’s departure towards Mycenae
establish for the audience which side-entrance they were to imagine leading
away from Aulis to Greece generally, and which towards the rest of the
238 Commentary

encampment: stage-right to the first, stage-left to the latter (on this frequent
problem, and the establishment of a convention after the 5th century, see
Taplin (1977) 450–5). See also 164–302 n. 1.2, beginning.
1.3 Metre. Anapaestic metre (see Introduction pp. 46–7, 49) is frequent
throughout Tragedy for initial entrances, most commonly those of the
chorus. It is often passionate and dramatic, and when used by individuals
occurs almost always once the action is underway; but among Eur.’s
plays only Andromeda certainly begins with anapaests (see 2.2 (i)
below). Here, both the more common chanted form (sometimes termed
‘recitative’, 1–48) and the rhythmically more varied and expressive
lyric form occur (‘melic’), in Ag.’s voice-parts throughout 115–42;
149–52 are uncertain in status (see n.); they convey his torment. The
OM’s more measured responses are in chanted form throughout. For the
combination, and smaller details, see West (1982) 121–2, who compares
e.g. S. Trac. 971–1003 and E. Or. 1297–1311; Dale (1968) 52 writes that
the changes reflect the ‘higher emotional level’. Stockert 157 gives a
detailed analysis. See too Parker (1997) 57. For one feature of the system
here which bears on arguments about authenticity see 2.2 (v) below.
The interruption of the two anapaestic spans 1–48 and 115–63 by
the spoken iambic trimeters of 49–114 has no parallel: see 2. 2 (i). An
emotional anapaestic and partly lyric sequence, shared by two voices,
precedes rational analysis Med. 96–131 (the chorus enter at 132).

2.1 Integrity of the prologue scene. This is the most contentious issue
in the play’s text; it has generated a profuse literature. We discuss it as
economically as we can, and we refer almost entirely to recent scholarship
alone. We summarise our discussion in 2. 3 Conclusions below.
All three formal sections 1–48, 49–114 and 115–63 have been
defended, suspected or deleted, wholly or partially – or rearranged. The
most helpful recent chronological accounts of the dispute are Willink
(1971) 343–45, Bain (1977a) 15–21, Stockert 66–79, Turato 251–3 and
Michelakis (2006) 105–13. Material and argument of all kinds (which
began in the mid-18th century) have been progressively expanded since
England (1891) xvii, xxi–v and Wecklein (1914) x–xii, both of whom
document earlier literature; subsequent publications were concisely
assembled by Günther (1988) 2 apparatus.
 Commentary 239

The spectrum of recent scholars’ positions is:

(i) almost all is original to Euripides and sound as transmitted, if with
some later retouching, e.g. Mellert-Hofmann 1969 (who notes that
the iambics 49–110 divide into 17+14+14+17 lines), Knox 1979
(orig. 1972), Jouan, Erbse 1984, Irigoin 1988 (developing Mellert-
Hofmann’s argument from internal symmetries of form in both
anapaests and iambics: see (v) Compatibility below), Hose (1990)
II 89 n. l, Matthiessen, Turato (‘largely sound dramaturgically as an
introduction’), Ritchie (see below), Michelakis (2006), Pietruczuk.
(ii) almost all is sound, but with signs of incomplete work, e.g.
Conacher (1967) 253–54, Lesky (1983) 354–5;
(iii) the text has suffered dislocation: much is sound but the iambics 49–
114 stood originally before the anapaests 1–48, England; slightly
differently, 49–96, 1–48 (i.e. 48+48 lines), 97–163 Willink (1971);
(iv) the anapaests 1–48 and 115–63 are irreconcilable in some details
with the iambics 49–114: many scholars, esp. Bain (1977a);
(v) the anapaests are genuine, the iambics inauthentic, e.g. Fraenkel
(1955); his arguments have had wide acceptance, especially by
Schreiber (1963) 86–8 and Stockert: ‘49–114 more likely to be
interpolated than 1–48 and 115–63’;
(vi) the iambics are genuine, if with some corruption towards the end,
the anapaests inauthentic, e.g. Murray, Page, Mizen (1980: the
iambics of 80–107 genuine), Kovacs (2002, with 2003 ‘only 49–
105 (are) the remainder of the original (Euripidean) prologue’);
(vii) ‘hardly Euripidean as a whole’, Günther;
(viii) all is ‘scarcely Euripidean’, e.g. Diggle, in a review of Mellert-
Hofmann published in 1971 (= 1994, 48–50) and his edition of
1994; Bain (1977a);
(ix) the text of 1–163 as we have it represents the uneasy and post-
Euripidean combination of two designs for the prologue-scene, a
view now gaining support: see 2.3 Conclusions.
Some of these positions were first taken by earlier scholars; but all,
including defenders, have found intermittent corruption or interpolation
to a varying extent: see our apparatus.
(Ritchie made a particularly thorough study of the prologue-scene.
He left in typescript two completed, and complementary, lectures upon
its integrity, and substantial matter towards his commentary. The first
240 Commentary

lecture (1970 or earlier) concentrated on ‘language, style, metrical

technique etc.’, concluding, ‘The poet was a bold innovator in technique.
We have found no reason to believe that he was not Euripides. … we
may attribute to him the beginnings of a technical device much favoured
by New Comedy, that of the “postponed prologue”.’ The second lecture
(soon after 1980) ranged widely, concluding, ‘The parts of the prologue
as we have it are all stylistically compatible with Euripides’ authorship
and … each has a useful dramatic function.’)
We have not been able to see N. Distilo, Il prologo dell’ Ifigenia in
Aulide, Drama NS 4, Tübingen 2003.

2.2 Dispute focuses upon five chief issues:

(i) Formal singularity. Only Euripides’ fragmentary Andromeda (412
BC, one of his latest tragedies), of the 40 or so complete and fragmentary
plays whose opening line(s) survive (some half of his total oeuvre), begins
like IA with anapaests. There they are a monody from the heroine, an
‘exchange’ rather than a dialogue between herself (already fettered to a
sea-cliff) and an off-stage Echo (F 114–15, from Ar. Thes. 1059–73 and
scholia); anapaests continue in a true dialogue between Andromeda and an
entering chorus (F 115a–21) and then her lyric monody (F 122) before the
wing-sandalled Perseus appears: the whole sequence is both expository and
preparatory. The uniqueness in Euripides’ work in IA as transmitted is that
the opening anapaestic dialogue is followed abruptly by a prologue-speech
from Ag.; such a speech, typically an expository and historical narrative,
addressed to the theatre audience, directly begins all other Euripidean plays
whose openings we know (again except Andromeda).
The start of Andromeda is nevertheless enough to suggest to many
critics that Euripides could have begun IA similarly with anapaests, only
a few years afterwards; they adduce his ever looser and more adventurous
use of tragedy’s formal elements, in dialogue and lyric.
Rhesus, ascribed to Euripides in medieval mss., also begins with
lively anapaests: in part choral entry, in part an exchange with Hector,
the play’s main character. These opening anapaests have been only one
ground for almost all modern scholars to confirm antiquity’s judgement
of Rhesus as not Euripidean; introductory matter in the mss. attests two
iambic prologues for the play, apparently in addition to the anapaests. It
 Commentary 241

cites a single opening line and the start of a second such iambic speech
found ‘in some copies’ which is damned as pedestrian, un-Euripidean
in style and perhaps an actor’s composition: this matter is printed by
Diggle OCT III. 430–1, and as Rhesus test. i.a by TrGF 5.642–3, and by
Fries (2014) 63–5, with discussion 22–8, 109–13; cf. W. Ritchie, The
Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides (Cambridge 1965) 6–40, and
at the end of 2.1 above. It is unsafe to adduce Rhesus as a Euripidean
parallel to Andromeda, let alone to IA. For the apparent verbal debts of
Rhesus to IA see Introduction pp. 37 n. 94, 59.
(ii) Coherence. Towards the end of the first anapaestic dialogue the
OM’s questions to Ag. in 43, ‘What troubles you? What’s new with you?’,
indicate his extreme unease at his master’s behaviour; it has increased
through 2 and 12 (perplexity at Ag.’s untimely and continued agitation),
28–33 (moral misgivings), and 34–42 (frank incomprehension). Yet his
question is answered by Ag. simply with an exposition of the crisis for the
Greeks’ expedition against Troy (49–114), of which only its last words
are addressed to the OM himself, 110–14. Thus an urgent interrogator is
unconvincingly ignored and his stage-presence theatrically ‘awkward’
for over 50 lines (see also (iii) Contradictions below). At 115 Ag. at last
responds with an explanation of his second letter by returning suddenly
to anapaests to recite its content; the OM’s initial unease over the letter
(34–41) at once increases again (124–7, 133).
In sum, the transitions from 48 to 49, and from 114 to 115, are
formally and dramaturgically harsh. On the other hand, removal of 49–
114 deprives the audience of vital information about Ag.’s motives and
behaviour, even if transition from 48 to 117 arguably works on stage
(with 115–16 moved to begin Ag.’s response at 119).
(iii) Contradictions – or, perhaps better, discrepancies perceived in
matter and implication, particularly (a) between the iambics 97–107
(cf. 89–96) and the anapaests 124–6 (cf. 130–5), and (b) subsequently
between the iambics 89–96 and the first episode at 358–9 and 518.
(iii.a) The chief difficulty is identified as follows. On the one hand, in
106–7 Ag. states that only he himself, Calchas the seer, Odysseus and
Men. know of the deceitful plan through which Ag.’s first letter (98–
100) was to bring Iphigenia to Aulis, ostensibly to marry Achilles, who
242 Commentary

is also to be deceived. It is implicit therefore that they alone also know

of Calchas’ injunction that Ag. must sacrifice his daughter to Artemis if
the expedition is to continue (87–93). On the other hand, Ag.’s intention
in his second letter is to stop Iphigenia from coming (115–16, 119–21).
The OM in 124–6 expects Ach. to be furious if he loses the marriage; the
expectation rests, it is argued, on his assumption that Ach. must know
of the marriage–plan (but Ag. in 128–32 says that Ach. knows nothing
about it, and Ach. himself later in 837–42 confirms this). To have made
this assumption, the argument continues, the OM, who has been visible
throughout, must have heard Ag.’s account in 89–107; and so critics
of integrity stress the dramatic and theatrical awkwardness when Ag.
addresses the OM directly only in 110, after completing his expository
narrative (see on Coherence above).
(iii.b) Further, would not the OM have heard the herald Talthybius if
he proclaimed to ‘the whole army’ Ag.’s order to disband (94–5)? At
801ff. Ach. on his first entry does not mention it, only that he and his
men are more and more impatient of Ag.’s delay in sailing; and they even
suggest he might lead them home (814–18). Moreover, it is improbable
that Agamemnon’s determination not to kill his daughter (96), as reason
for the disbandment, would actually have been part of the proclamation
(the text at 94–5, ‘a loud proclamation, to dismiss the whole army’,
supports this too: see n.). In fact, it seems likely that Talthybius never
made a proclamation: at 518 Men. states that Calchas has yet to disclose
his seer’s injunction to all the Greeks, and at 529 Ag. fears that Od. may
reveal it to them; Men.’s words at 358–9, like Ag.’s at 89–96, seem to
confine knowledge of the injunction to the four persons named in 106–7.
There, in 106, ‘the situation’ is a vague phrase, but it appears to cover
everything from Calchas’ injunction to the deceit now underway.
Such perceived discrepancies (and others less clear) seem to many to
strengthen the argument against integrity. Rescue from them has been
attempted by deletion variously of 104– (or 105– or 109– or 110–)14,
and of 130–2: see the Commentary. Defenders of integrity suggest
that such discrepancies both within the prologue-scene and with later
passages are not inconsistent with such unclarities or even false trails
elsewhere in Euripides (e.g. Ion 71–3: see W. G. Arnott, ‘Euripides and
the Unexpected’, G&R 20 (1973) 49–64, esp. 54ff.). Or, because of the
 Commentary 243

importance of the marriage and because Ach. has been deceived, the OM
in 124–6 may be predicting the predictable angry reaction of an Achilles
always explosive when his honour is abused, 929–34 (this point holds
even if these latter lines are not authentic to Euripides).
On (ii) Coherence and (iii) Contradictions together: the most systematic
argument for accepting the repetitions of words and phrase, and the
(supposed) discrepancies, esp. between 106–14 in the iambics and
124–32 in the anapaests, is by Knox (1979) 280–3 (with nn. 37–46); cf.
Michelakis (2002) 129–30.
(iv) Adequacy as introduction to plot and themes. The opening and
concluding anapaests are appropriate to the immediate, tense dilemma
of Agamemnon, the Greek’s commander and arguably the play’s
principal figure; he has the biggest part, and his agony dominates until
that of Iphigenia takes over. In these anapaests the OM’s anxious,
repeated questions (2, 12–13, 43, and 124–7 again) force Agamemnon’s
revelations. (Erbse (1984) 274 in particular thinks that doubts of the
authenticity of passages or lines in the prologue-scene can only arise if
their relation to the subsequent text is not observed: ‘its unique form is
exactly tailored to the conception of the drama’.)
Elements of the later dramaturgy and important motifs introduced in
the anapaestic parts are:
• 9–11 the Greeks’ inability to set sail (88 in the iambics): cf. 352, 359,
813, 1323–4.
• 16–23, 28–30, 136–7 the pressures of command (85–6 in the
iambics): cf. later esp. 337–412, 513–41, 1255–74.
• 18–29 high office and its burdens: cf. ambition later 342, 385, 520,
527,
• 24–7, 30–4 the gulf between the divine and the mortal human; cf.
later 351, 393–4, 444–5, 596–7, 1096–7, 1396.
• 34–9 Ag.’s first letter (99 in the iambics), and the second 155–6 (pre-
echoed in 108–10 in the iambics), 303–27, 360–4, 641–2, 891–5,
leading to ‘change of mind and resolution’ as a prominent issue,
Ag.’s over the first letter 334ff., Men.’s over the second 481ff., more
sensationally in Iphigenia 1374ff.: see Introduction pp. 2, 18–20.
• 45–8, 153–4 (58–67, 78, 114 in the iambics) loyalty: cf. later 304,
867–71.
244 Commentary

• 124–9 Ach. and his reactions: cf. later 801–54, 896–1035, 1338–
1429;
• 128 ‘the name, not the reality’: cf. 1017, 1115, 1240; ‘name’ alone
910, 938, 947, 962, 1496.
• 137–8 Ag.’s admission of (fated) fault: 388, 443–4;
• 144–57 Iph. may be already approaching Aulis, with her mother
(154) – as indeed she is, 415 (if the text is sound, as we believe: see
Commentary).
Significant elements and motifs introduced in the iambics are:
• 67, 97–8, 104 persuasion, direct or devious: cf. later the agon of
Men. and Ag. 316–414, cf. 471–541; the word ‘persuade’ itself
1011, 1212; (to be persuaded, i.e. ‘obey’) Clyt. to Ag. 726, cf. 739;
the Cho. ask Ag. 1209; Iph. asks Clyt. 1435, 1460, and Clyt. agrees
1445; Ach.’s variable obedience to Ag. and Men. 929. There is
eloquent supplication too, of Ag. by Iph. 462, 992, of Ach. by Clyt.
900ff. (cf. 1015), of Ag. by Clyt. 1146ff., esp. 1183–4, and by Iph.
1211ff., esp. 1216–9, 1233–5, 1247.
• 97–8 (with a clear echo in the anapaests, 133) outrageous lack of
morality: cf. later 887, 1090–7, 1144.
• 73–9 Greek must override barbarian (the ‘Panhellenic’ theme):
cf. later esp. 370–2, 1264–6, 1274–5, 1378–1401, 1472–3: see
Introduction pp. 17–18.
(The most prominent themes of the play, including several not mentioned
here, are reviewed in the Introduction esp. pp. 33–7.)

(v) Compatibility with Euripides’ habits in language, style and metre;

dramaturgy
Language: 44 questionable use of the prep. ἐς; 72 ὅδε ‘here present’
questionable in the first mention of a person in fact not present; 105
incorrect use of the prep. ἀντί (but the ms. text is almost certainly corrupt);
106 omission of the 1. pers. pron. ἐγώ when the speaker names himself
among others (corruption also probable); 130 demonstrative κείνῳ, not
reflexive ἑαυτῷ, referring to the main subject; 158–9 adjacence of Ionic
and Epic ἠώς and Epic Ἀελίου; 161 ambiguity in the phrase ἐς τέλος.
Vocabulary: rarities or nonce-words in 2 (but this word also 838), 48,
55 (a prose-idiom), 74, 108 (a prose word), 120, 121.
 Commentary 245

Style: 75–9 ornate intensity inappropriate in factual exposition;

similarities and possible imitations of earlier tragedies in 51, 55–6, 73–4
and esp. 111–13 (IT 760–1); also imitation by later tragedy e.g. 2, 7 and
36 (the 4th century Rhesus: see Introduction pp. 37 n. 94, 59).
Metre: Anapaests: 8 and 12, 80 varying prosody of ἀίσσω; 119
prep. ending an anapaestic colon; 2, 3 and (text insecure) 149 division
of an anapaestic metron between voices (see nn.). Iambics: a very rare
end–rhythm in 49 (see Commentary). Conversely, the hidden metrical
structures, employing units of ‘11’ metra in the anapaests, are taken as
a Euripidean feature (Irigoin 1988); Willink (1971) 356–60 allowed that
rare phenomena of (language and) metre in 115–63 could be matched
among Euripidean passages of comparable form.
Dramaturgy: The speaker of an expository prologue is sometimes
involved deeply in its events, here Ag. 70, 85–6, 97–8, 107–8 – but cf.
e.g. Electra in Or. 19–24, Jocasta in Pho. 55 and earlier e.g. Aethra at the
start of Supplices and Helen in her name-play. And again: the sequence
of anapaestic dialogue, prologue-speech, resumed anapaestic dialogue
which begins the play (2.2 (i) above).
2.3 Conclusions. It is worth repeating a point not always made.
However much (or little) of Euripides’ own composition remains in our
text of the prologue-scene, at its first production by his son or nephew
(see Introduction pp. 37, 55) the play must have begun with adequate
orientation of the audience. If Euripides left nothing firm in draft, it is
at least probable that one or the other knew the poet’s general intention
when he put together something which would work in the theatre; what
we have now is indeed still that, however and whenever the initial
play-text suffered interventions. It is also rarely pointed out that few, if
anybody, during a performance will perceive minor inconsistencies. All
worked very well in the Syracuse production of 2015 (Introduction pp.
44–5).
The anticipations and echoes set out in 2.2 (iv) do not bear upon
inconsistency between the anapaests and the iambics; rather they attest
some care that the prologue-scene should indeed prepare the audience
fully in many ways which are later shown to be important. They suggest to
many analysts that the anapaestic and iambic parts have been imperfectly
brought together; but few agree whether both may have been conceived
246 Commentary

as alternative play-beginnings (a possibility in the Rhesus: above 2.2. (i)),

and whether both are original to Euripides himself, or are independent
compositions, one at least by Euripides’ son or nephew. As to the date of
composition of what ms. L transmits, it is observed that line 28 from the
anapaests was cited by Chrysippus SVF 2. 53.28 von Arnim (end of the 4th
century BC) and 81 from the trimeters by Aristotle (died 322), Rhetoric
3.11.1411b30. Analogies for both the play’s opening (and its theatricality)
and its ‘prologue-speech’ have been found in later 4th century Comedy:
for the former see 34–48 n. and for the latter 49–114 n. at end.
One may speculate about the very first conception of the prologue-
scene. The three parts it now has largely cohere, but neither the anapaests
(in combination) nor the trimeters can stand separately.
We shall not now recover the facts, without unlikely fresh evidence
from further papyri; but they will need to be very early ones, and to span
all three parts – and even they may just attest what we have if it was
original to the first performance (if not to Euripides) or datable to the mid-
4th century BC. We can only make our own best judgement of the text we
have, in whole or part; the extremely wide range of scholars’ views often
shows their irreconcilability. In this prologue-scene we present the text
of ms. L, and urge our readers to form their own views on the basis of
their own reading, the hard information in our apparatus, this whole note,
and the discussions of individual passages in the Commentary. It seems
to us most likely that two forms of prologue have become conflated,
probably in the hands of a theatrical director working quickly and with
successful performance as his chief object. Euripides’ own imagination
and style could have conceived both formal components, anapaests
and iambics. Notable recent support for such a view (advanced first, it
appears, by Wilamowitz in Hermes 54 (1919) 52–3 = Kl. Schriften IV
290–1) comes from West (1981) 73 = (2013) 308, Michelakis (2006)
109–10, Mastronarde (2010) 42 and Rutherford (2012) 181 n. 30.
1–48 The initial description of night in IA 6–11, 14–15 is very brief in
comparison with the extensive lyric evocations of dawn and its activities
which, after Eur.’s regular expository prologues, begin Ion (82–183,
Ion’s monody) and Phaethon (63–86, start of a choral parodos); the latter
markedly features the onset of daytime’s noise and bustle after night’s
quiet (cf. IA 9–10, 14–15); birds herald the dawn at S. El. 17–19 (birds
 Commentary 247

are still silent at IA 9); Seneca, Hercules 125–77; see also 6–11 n.
Scholars since Scaliger in the 16th century have drawn attention to
likely echoes of the scene and language of IA 1–2, 6–8 and 9 in Ennius,
Iphigenia 188–91 Jocelyn (a star as indicator of the hour of night) and
193–4 (command to an old man to come outside): see H. D. Jocelyn, The
Tragedies of Ennius (1969) 329–30. For our play’s beginning as a likely
model for some scenes in later Comedy involving slaves see 34–48 n.
1–3 These lines set a tone: Ag. is impatient and abrupt, the OM rather
slow to sense it. hut: δόμων, lit. ‘house’. A hut at best it would have
been, in a temporary camp, and we use the term to translate all references
in the play to Ag.’s ‘(head)quarters’. The plain name σκηνή ‘(canvas-)
tent’ is used only in 12; elsewhere it is his ‘home’ δόμος here, 1106 etc.,
δώματα 440, 854 etc., μέλαθρα ‘hall, headquarters’ 612, 678 etc. (as,
apparently, Ag.’s housing at A. Ag. 117), στέγη ‘roof, shelter’ 437, 1099
(αὐλή ‘enclosed court, enclosing structure’ is avoided, perhaps because
of its homophony with the noun αὖλις ‘bivouac’ (cf. 87–8 n.) or the place
Aulis). For the use of these terms to describe the back-cloth in the 5th
century theatre see Sommerstein (2010) 172 n. 4. Our imagination of Ag.’s
headquarters must take account also of its having ‘gates’ (317, 803 etc.),
represented by the central double ‘doors’ in the back-cloth. See too the n.
on 189 ‘encampment’ κλισίας. strange activity: καινουργέω is lit. ‘do
something new’, the ‘new’ implying ‘sudden, unexpected and alarming’
(see 43 n.). It is a very rare verb, but recurs at 838, and is Classical: not
therefore an indication in itself of post-Euripidean composition (Page
131; cf. 1–163n. 2.2 (v)); similarly the echo of 1–3 in 139–40, accidental
or even deliberate, does not damn either place.
[Text: 2 σπεῦδε Hurry! Porson: πεύσει L ‘you will learn’, which is
aimless before the answer σπεύδω ‘Ι’m hurrying’; for the coupling cf.
e.g. Rhesus 16 θάρσει … θαρσῶ ‘Courage!’ … ‘I’ve got courage’;
Men. Sicyonian 169–70 μεῖνον … μένω ‘Wait!’ … ‘I’m waiting’.
Dobree’s conjecture σπεύσεις; ‘Will you not hurry?’, command phrased
idiomatically as question, tries to rescue L’s simple miscopying.
Metre. 2 and 3 have a change of voice within a verse-line (antilabe:
303–16 n.) dividing an anapaestic metron, which is extremely rare: see
Fries on Rhesus 16, and cf. 149 n. Metre below.]
4–5 Two difficult lines, in text and interpretation. wakeful is a better
translation of ἄυπνον here than neutral ‘unsleeping’ (e.g. Med. 481),
248 Commentary

because the OM swiftly defines his dutiful promptness (3); the adjective
is used of constant, untiring watching over children at e.g. Supp. 1137
or over the sick at Or. 83. keen-sighted is shown to be the invariable
meaning of ὀξύς describing eyes in the 5th century by Günther (1987) 61
and 72–4, who argues that the sense ‘sharp, (suddenly) painful’ belongs
to later Greek.
[Text. In L the prep. ἐπί with dat. ‘on the eyes’ is against usage when
coupled with the verb πάρεστι, for ἐν or a bare dat. is regular; and the
article with ὀξύ is needed idiomatically if 5 is to make its point separately
from 4. We therefore print (καὶ) ἔτ(ι) … τοὐξύ (Wecklein), lit. ‘keen-
sightedness is still present to my eyes’; so too Stockert. Further: in L in 4
all the words but the last were written by Trl in erasure: L* may have had
τὸ (which is in P), and it was restored by Tr3 (see Zuntz (1965) 96); but
the article is unmetrical, and idiomatically superfluous; probably L* had
τοι, restored by Livineius and later Barnes, both working from printed
texts. To meet the problems in 5 Günther suggested deleting the verse, a
proposal first made by Bothe and liked by Diggle (1994) 409.]
6–11 confirm the setting at Aulis (11, the Euripus) and the moment of
crisis: Ag. is named in 3. The stillness of the wind (10) encourages the
immediate inference that no sailing can be done (explicit only at 88). The
play’s first audience may well have known the play’s subject or even title
in advance, as a consequence of the proagon, ‘preliminary contest’, a
kind of live ‘trailer’ (Csapo and Slater (1994) 109–10).
The reference to the stars (6–8) is a common means (as in real life)
for registering the time of night, full dark (8 still gliding in mid-heaven)
– and implicitly the season: Hesiod, WD 614–22 relates the setting
of the Pleiades to the end of the sailing season (the Greeks appear to
have linked the name Πλειάδες with the verb πλέω ‘sail’: DELG; see
Addenda). The theatre audience will note both this and the time. At A.
Ag. 1–7 the night-watchman (long at this work, not explicitly an old
man but like our OM awake at night – perforce) knows the hours from
the stars. passes: πορθμεύει: the verb is usually transitive, but cf. IT
1445. gliding: ᾄ/ἀΐσσω lit. ‘rush, dart’ describes mainly ‘shooting
stars’, but here a measured pace; the verb is used of Polydorus’ ghost
‘hovering’ at Hec. 31. For the individual star’s identity see Text
below. on their seven paths: ἑπτάπορος of the Pleiades also e.g. Or.
1005. At all events: i.e. ‘whatever time of night is indicated by the
 Commentary 249

stars’, Paley. Silence: σιγαί: plur. of an abstract indicates instances of it,

here implying ‘everywhere’; this plur. as high style A. Ag. 412, silence in
a single room. The winds’ silence: E. Phaethon 84 has σιγώντων ἀνέμων
‘amid quiet winds’. Euripus: the narrowest and most tortuous part of
the strait separating Euboea from the mainland; Aulis was there (120–1),
almost opposite Chalcis (164–8). The currents were accordingly strong
and unpredictable, and were used metaphorically of human instability
(Hyperides, Against Demosthenes P. Lit. Lond. 132 fr. xx.21–5, Aeschines
3.90, Pl. Phaedo 90c5: see Cicero, Nature of the Gods 3.24, with Pease’s
exhaustive commentary); the location of the play is matched in the shifts
undergone by the characters (Morwood 2001: see Introduction p. 19).
The whole of 6–11 surprises as an evocative and markedly poetic flight
after the matter-of-fact 1–5; that tone resumes in 12.
Greek. 9 οὔκουν … γε: an emphatic negative, ‘at all events … not’ GP
423; esp. in dialogue e.g. IT 516, Or. 1606.
[Text. Günther, Diggle and Kovacs follow Bremi is giving all of 6
to 11 to Ag. (as in our text). Bremi observed that the 3rd century BC
Alexandrian scholar Theon of Smyrna (see apparatus) marked the end of
Ag.’s question after the first word of 7 (also the end of Theon’s quotation).
This implies that he took the rest of 7–8 as completing the question, and
σείριος not as the individual star Sirius but as an adj. ‘brilliant, sparkling,
with blazing light’; Theon states that it was used generally of stars,
citing Ibycus fr. 314 PMG. The star (or planet) here, near the Pleiades, is
not identified, but some suggest Aldebaran. Ritchie notes however that
in Theon’s punctuation Ag.’s question goes unanswered, and that Ag.
moves to musing about silent birds, sea and winds, ‘talking to himself?’.
Jouan, Stockert and Turato (and, apparently, Ritchie) preserve L’s
attribution of 7–8 to the OM: then Ag.’s question is answered at once
with the named star Sirius, Σείριος the Dog-Star – but Sirius at no time
nears the Pleiades in the sky (astronomical aspects of this passage are
discussed by A. E. Housman, CR 28 (1914) 267 = Collected Papers 886,
Page 131–3, Jouan 1983 and D. Kovacs, Euripidea Tertia (Leiden 2003)
139–41, no less than by commentators); and Ag. could be expected to
identify Sirius for himself, for it was familiar to everybody – so that the
Whatever in his question perhaps expresses his surprise that night is not
yet over. Willink (1971) gave 6–16 wholly to the OM.]
12–16a you: The OM thinks, ‘Why are you outside when as commander
250 Commentary

you, of all others, need rest?’ (Paley). hut: see 1 n. The word σκηνή lit.
‘tent’ is not Homeric, occurring first in the 5th century and at S. Aj. 218
describing Ajax’s dwelling at Troy. do not stir: ἀκίνητοι like Bacc. 727,
but here possibly ‘undisturbed’ (see Greek): by noise and its indications,
unlike the night-guards in Rhesus 1–89. walls: ‘temporary’ fortifications
for a military camp, earthworks for the most part like those protecting the
Greek ships at Troy, also called ‘walls’, e.g. Iliad 9.349, cf. Rhesus 392.
Greek. 15 ἀκίνητος: verbal adjs. in -τος may be ‘passive’ or ‘active’ or
merely register actiοn (Barrett on Hipp. 677–9).
[Text. 14 τήνδε Blomfield/Kassel here (Aulis): the pronominal adj.
with a place name, not the bare adverbial dat. τῇδε, is Euripides’ style of
locating his scene in prologues, e.g. Hec. 33, Pho. 6, Bacc. 1.]
16b–33 are important for the whole play; and the tormented Ag. at once
has a foil in the OM. He envies him his insignificance, but paradoxically
later gives him a very heavy command (111–12, 139–40), which makes
him as a simple slave far from enviable. Despite his doubts about Ag.’s
actions the OM invites his trust (44–8, 153–4), and remains true to it
when confronted by Men. (303–16); and even when betraying that trust,
he tries to explain Ag.’s crazy deceit, though rather unsympathetically,
to Clyt. and Ach., 855–93 (Ag.’s madness 136, 877, 887, 893). Since
he came to Ag.’s house originally in Clyt.’s dowry (46–8 n.), he can
communicate between the two, and he speaks plausibly from divided
loyalties. In 867 and 871 he says he had already been ‘well-disposed’
(εὔνους) to Clyt. and her children, but in 871 ‘less so’ to her husband.
Like the OM a male slave counsels his master at e.g. El. 598–684 (and
is given a task, to carry a message, 651–67) and Hipp. 88–107. For his
characterization see Introduction p. 25.
16b–19 I envy: ζηλῶ (16, 17, 19): a striking repetition, as in the three
negative adjs. in 17–18; compare the same verb in 677 conveying Ag.’s
good opinion, as much as envy, of Iph.’s incomprehension, and in 1406–7
Ach.’s envy of her noble patriotism. Conversely, envy of human success
in its transience is unwise Hcld. 865–6, cf. our 24–7, 32–3. passes: (ἐκ)
περάω is one of Eur.’s favourite verbs, often used of surviving life without
trouble or pain, e.g. δια- Her. 504–5, διεκ- Supp. 953–4. with no risk, no
name, no glory: i.e. unendangered, unnoted, unfamed. The accumulation
of three successive negative adjs. is a trait of poets, e.g. And. 491; see
Fraenkel on A. Ag. 412.
 Commentary 251

Thought and words here are very like Eur.’s Odysseus debating with
himself his helpless compulsion, typical of a man of high birth and
office, to risk any fresh danger for fear of losing the fame he already has:
Philoctetes F 787–89, paraphrased with commentary by Dio Chrysostom
52.11–12 and 59.1–2; for Od. in IA see Introduction pp. 15, 21. For such
‘political’ dilemmas between conscience and risk, and quietude, cf. e.g.
E. Antiope F 193–4, 198, Hcld. 619–29, Ion 595–606; S. OT 584–602,
Pindar, Pyth. 4.185–7. Our 16–18 are paraphrased, with reference to ‘the
well-known anapaests of a most powerful king’, by Cicero, Tusculans
3.57; Wecklein cites Ovid, Tristia 3.4.25 bene qui latuit, bene uixit ‘one
who has escaped notice well, has lived well’. See also 160–3 and n.
Greek. 16–17 μέν omitted with the first of contrasted identical words
(ζηλῶ): 1220 n. 18 ἐξεπέρασε: the aor. is gnomic; see ἀνέτρεψε 25 n.
Greek.
[Text. The variations in the quotations in Stobaeus and Athenaeus
stem from false memory or deliberate adaptation, typical of such literary
collectors, if not from mere scribal error; but in 20 ‘rhetoric’ suggests
that ζηλῶ ‘I envy’, echoing 16 and 17, is correct, not Stobaeus’ ἐπαινῶ ‘I
applaud’.]
20–3 it is they: paraphrases ἐνταῦθα lit. ‘there’: see Greek. places
of honour (19), success and preferment are unsteady: the adj.
σφαλερός ‘prone to disaster’, is commonly used of persons, e.g. Supp.
508, Phaethon 126, cf. Rhesus 132; of tyranny Hdt. 3.53.4. The ideas in
these lines are commonplace, but here effectively expose Ag.’s torment:
but see Text below. it attends: προσιστάμενον is lit. ‘taking its stand
nearby’. The pres. tense has analogies, in the same verb Eur. F 1038.2
πλάνος … καρδίᾳ προσίσταται ‘wandering attends the heart, the heart
begins to lose its way’, and strikingly in an antithesis similar to our 22 at
Hec. 383 καλῶς μὲν εἶπες … ἀλλὰ τῷ καλῷ λύπη πρόσεστιν ‘you spoke
nobly, but pain attaches to the nobility’; Xen. Cyr. 6.2.13 (see Stockert).
Greek. 20 βίου possibly with ἐνταῦθα, lit. ‘success is there in life; cf.
A. Cho. 891 ἐνταυθα … τοῦδ’ … κακοῦ.
[Text. A very difficult problem. 22 τὸ πρότιμον Conington/Nauck
preferment, ‘advancement to honour’ affords the best sense as an
emendation of L’s τό φιλότιμον ‘ambition for honour’, an illogical third
term after ‘places of honour’ and ‘success’, for these represent ambition
achieved; so ‘preferment’ sits better with προσιστάμενον ‘attends’, and all
252 Commentary

three are ‘unsteady’. The emendation was made in part also for metrical
reasons, but no less importantly it preserves an articular noun-phrase as
the subject of has its sweetness in 23, in a separate clause parallel with
that of 21. The adj. πρότιμος, here substantivised, is not attested with the
meaning ‘preferment’ before much later Greek; in the Classical period it
appears to mean ‘highly valued, precious’, e.g. of speed Xenophanes B2
17 DK or of substances Plato, Laws 947d; but the verb προτιμάω is found
as ‘give preferment to, advance’ at e.g. Thuc. 1.120.1, of political leaders.
L’s ‘ambition for honour’ is plausible as an error, because it is later
a minor issue between Ag. and Men. in their confrontation, at 342 (n.).
Many eds indeed retain it, and Turato stretches its sense to ‘prestige
from a coveted position’; LSJ φιλοτιμία II give that word the meaning
‘distinction’ for prose, esp. in Demosthenes, and under φιλότιμος 1a
equate our 22 with it. Of Markland’s two proposals τό τε φιλότιμον is a
purely metrical emendation of L, while καὶ φιλότιμον attaches φιλότιμον
as adj. ‘ambitious’ to σφαλερόν ‘unsteady’, leaving 23 in asyndeton and
explanatory, ‘(success) is sweet but painful etc.’ (but Wecklein defended
φιλότιμον as non-articular noun coupled with articular from Bacc. 1150,
S. OT 627). A drastic remedy was proposed by Bothe: deletion of the
entire line 22.
23 was adapted by the 3rd century BC anecdotal moralist Machon
4.24 for parody in a context of meat (see the apparatus), ‘it is tasty,
but when you have it, it brings pain all round’. The verb λυπεῖ stands
there, protecting L against Hermann’s conjecture λύπῃ ‘(…is sweet, but
attends) pain’.]
24–7 the will of the gods: the neut. def. art. with gen. of θεός (or
with its adj. θεῖος, e.g. 394a) must be given an English sense which
fits the context; cf. e.g. Supp. 301, Hel. 1140. The idea in full stands
in 33 (n.). does not come right: οὐκ ὀρθωθέντα lit. ‘not having gone
straight’, implicitly a failure for what the gods wish. When do the gods’
wishes not succeed? Zeus for example is famously deceived by his wife
in Iliad 14, meets with a disappointment at A. Eum. 717, and is frustrated
by Prometheus’ secret knowledge PV 907–40 and 989–96; but the rule
was that one god did not oppose the purpose of another, Hipp. 1328–30.
Conversely, the gods cause men to slip, E. Archelaus F 254, Auge F
273, and delude men’s expectations Hipp. 1414. overturns: ἀνατρέπω
with βίον ‘life’, also e.g. Pl. Gorg. 481c. discontent: translates the adj.
 Commentary 253

δυσάρεστος, lit. ‘hard to (be) please(d)’; of a community, a polis, E. El.

904; cf. the adverb ἀρεσκόντως of a city’s pleasing action ΙT 463.
Greek. 24 Now … now: τοτὲ … τοτέ (enclitic) ‘at any one moment,
then at any other’, e.g. Od. 24.447–8, A. Ag. 100–1, slightly different
from τότε … τότε (accented) ‘then at one moment, then at another’,
e.g. E. Hypsipyle 261–2. ὀρθόω pass., LSJ II.2.3, cf. e.g. Hipp. 680
τέχναι ‘artful designs, schemes’.   25 The aor. ἀνέτρεψε, like 26
διέκναισαν, is timeless (indeed a-orist ‘without boundary’), reflecting ‘a
fact of experience’ Smyth 1930, leading to the ‘gnomic’ use 1931; cf. 18
ἐξεπέρασε n., 367.   27 διακναίω crush, lit. ‘grate, rasp thoroughly
away’, a metaphor of utter destruction; with its object ‘life’ βίον (from
15) compare ‘life-spirit’ ψυχήν Hcld. 296. For Eur.’s use of this verb, six
times all in anapaests, see Parker on Alc. 109.
28–33a I do not admire … a great man: ἀριστεύς, lit. ‘a man supreme
in prowess (and therefore in rank)’, a Homeric use, e.g. Od. 14.218. A
presumptuous remark from a slave?: cf. a king’s protest against a slave at
Hel. 1630, and Hel. 1641 cited in 45–8 n. The OM’s criticism resembles
that of Ag. by Men. 345–6 (‘a good man should not change in his ways’).
It may be over-fanciful to find a pun in the Greek assonance between
‘Agam-’ and the verb ἀγα(μ)- aga(m)- ‘admire’, but there is a pun on
the name of Atreus in 321 (n.). As to 29–33a: mortals must bear their
mortality, in joy or pain, and none can expect only good fortune: ancient
wisdom according to Andocides 2.3, cf. (Wecklein) S. Trac. 127–9; the
idea is reflected in Cicero, Tusculans 3.59.
Greek. 28 ἄγαμαι usually with gen. of thing (Alc. 602, cf. αἰνέω 1371
below); here acc. of thing (frequently a pron.) and gen. of person, as
Xen. Cyr. 2.3.21; cf. θαυμάζω ‘admire in’ with gen. of person Hipp.
1041; Smyth 1405.   29 ἐπί: of motive or purpose (so that you
should): with φυτεύω ‘beget’ Hipp. 460 ‘on stated conditions’; Smyth
1689.2.c.   30 δεῖ (must) used of inevitable fate, And. 1250, El.
1264, instead of the commoner χρή: see Barrett on Hipp. 41. 32–3 τὰ …
βουλόμενα: for the def. art. and neut. part. as noun cf. 1270 τὸ κείνου
βουλόμενον (Menelaus), Thuc. 1.90.2 τὸ βουλόμενον … τῆς γνώμης,
‘(their) mind’s wish’; Smyth 2051, cf. 1153b.
[Text. Plutarch’s and Stobaeus’ errors are unmetrical, and their cause
like those in 18–19: see n.; the same cause may underlie the differing
order of lines in Stobaeus.]
254 Commentary

33b–48 Fraenkel (1955) examined the possible model in this scene for
those in New Comedy in which slaves observe masters in turmoil and
invite their confidence. In particular at Plautus, Pseudolus 1–41, esp.
9–12, 16–17, the master is in tears over tablets he has been constantly
correcting; cf. Adespota F 1027 PCG. (It is likely that Ovid, Met. 9.523–5,
(a woman’s) irresolution with a tablet like that of Ag., stems if at all from
Comedy rather than IA.)
33b–42 A sentence long for chanted anapaests (but cf. A. Ag. 40–54, E.
Hec. 130–40, Tro. 122–37, all in expository narrative), if unexceptional
in lyrics, e.g. 164–84 below.
33b–9a Ag.’s torment racks him, and he cannot sleep; for the significance
of the lamp he carries and his walking about see 1–163n. 1.2 Staging. shed
lamp-light around: Ag. has a portable lamp (λαμπτήρ), a luchnos (λύχνος,
very common in Aristophanes, e.g. Wasps 249–62; the word is not certainly
found in Tragedy, and doubtful at the satyric Cyc. 514). Must Ag. have set
it down on the ground, to write? In other occurrences of the word λαμπτήρ
in Tragedy, however, a brazier may be meant, e.g. S. Aj. 286 (see Finglass);
but a λαμπτήρ can be a flaring torch of pine, in ritual at e.g. A. Eum. 1022,
Tro. 298 and Hel. 865 and incendiary at E. Ino F 411.2 (the commoner
terms for a torch are λαμπάς and πεύκη). tablet: δέλτος was a single
leaf made of fissile pine-wood (38), one side waxed for writing; letters
γράμματα (translated as what you have written) were incised (the strict
sense of ἐγγράφω, 113) with a stylus; γράμματα e.g. 118, 322, IT 745. Two
leaves could be bound facing each other (‘folding tablets’, πτυχαί 98, 110,
IT 727; a good description by Headlam, citing esp. Hdt. 7.239.3); then the
binding could be ‘sealed’ (below); cf. famously Iliad 6.169, apparently
runes or symbols written in a folded tablet (πίναξ), the earliest surviving
record of a ‘letter’. For letters used on stage see 111–14 n. keep erasing:
συγχεῖς, lit. ‘scramble together, blur’, followed by smoothing of the wax
for revised writing. seal: letters, receptacles and room-doors were sealed
with wax (e.g. Lucian 42.21) or with clay (Hdt. 2. 38.3), into which the
writer’s personal seal (σφραγίς) was pressed for security (our 155, cf.
e.g. Or. 1108 and Diggle on Phaethon 223). fling: a vigorous theatrical
action, e.g. famously at A. Ag. 1264–7 and Tro. 256 Cassandra hurls her
ritual wear on the ground.
Greek. 35 ἀναπετάσας ‘spreading out, shedding widely’; the
uncompounded verb is used of the sun’s gleaming light Iliad 17.371,
 Commentary 255

but cf. ἀναπτύχαι ‘the unfolding, the spread’ of such light at Hipp.
601.  36 πρὸ χερῶν βαστάζειν hold in your hands: of weapons
brandished Rhesus 274, and the same verb and context with adjectival
πρόχειρος e.g. El. 696; but at Tro. 1207 πρὸ χειρῶν is ‘at hand and ready’
(funeral clothing).   39 The dat. πέδῳ is directional, as in e. g. Or. 1433
and E. Oedipus F 541; Smyth 1531b. The locative πέδοι is not attested
for Euripides, who does however use the directional form πεδόσε three
times.
39b–42 big, rich tears: Ag.’s tears are described in Homeric language,
θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα ending a hexameter at e.g. Iliad 6.496
(Andromache with Hector and the baby Astyanax); in IA Ag. weeps
again in despair, at 451–2 (see Men. at 477), as e.g. Amphitryon at Her.
528, 1111.
Greek. 40 For the tmesis in κατὰ … χέων cf. 11; for the figure see
Smyth 1650–3; V. Bers, EGT 1373. ἐκ in (consequence of), causative, e.g.
878 ἐκ τίνος λόγου ‘for what reason?’, And. 1142; Smyth 1688.c.   41
οὐδενὸς ἐνδεῖς you’re nothing short of: lit. ‘lack nothing from’; for
an exact parallel to μὴ οὐ and resultative infin. after a negative verb
(Smyth 2744–9), cf. Tro. 797–8 τίνος ἐνδέομεν μὴ οὐ … χωρεῖν ὀλέθρου
διὰ παντός; ‘what do we lack to prevent our going through wholesale
destruction?’
[Text. (1) In 41 L presents two gens. τῶν ἀπόρων οὐδενός ‘(lack)
nothing of helplessness’; and Diggle is almost certainly right to adopt
Naber’s easy correction of L’s καὶ to κἀκ (καὶ ἐκ), lit. ‘and as a consequence
of’. (2) Ιn the ms. tradition earlier than L, simple miscopying of omicron
as theta had produced the half-plausible reading μὴ θυμαίνεσθαι ‘from
growing angry’; Tr3’s correction obliterated the fault, but ms. P had
already copied it. A different motive may have been to avoid a supposed
hiatus in μὴ οὐ, but this coupling fuses as a single long syllable, as e.g, at
916 (n.), Tro. 797–8 (above), Hipp. 658: West (1982) 13.]
43–4 What troubles…?: On the tone and placing of these two
questions see 1–163 n, 2.2.(ii). new: νέος ‘new, unexpected and
unwanted, upsetting, implicitly threatening’, e.g. τί νέον τόδε; Alc. 931,
cf. IT 137; see also 2 n., on ‘strange new activity’.
Greek. 43 πονεῖς: intrans. as 1035 τί δεῖ πονεῖν; with (you): παρά
with dat. expresses a person’s situation, feelings or capacity, e.g. 968, El.
738; see Diggle (1994a) 491.   44 φέρε with imperative is probably
256 Commentary

colloquial: Stevens (1976) 42; also e.g. Bacc. 1106, Ion 984. κοίνωσον ἐς
and acc. lit. ‘share talk with’, rather than a simple dat. of the person (e.g.
Med. 811). LSJ εἰς I. 3 adequately illustrate this prep. with plain verbs
of speaking and synonymous phrases, but it has been taken to indicate
post-Euripidean writing: see 1–163 n. 2.2.(v).
[Text. In 43 L*, Tr and P all offer various redundant accumulated
questions: two distinct ones suffice for the dramatic moment – and fit the
metrical pattern of ‘double’ anapaestic cola since 28. παρὰ Porson: περὶ
L, but Eur. does not use it as ‘with’.]
45 trustworthy: Ag. acknowledges the OM’s assurance only later in
114, and the OM repeats it in ‘(shall I) win belief’ (the same adj. πιστός)
at 153 (n.). Whether or not these echoes are deliberate (1–163 n. 2.2 (iv)),
at 304 Men. calls the OM ‘too loyal’ to Ag. his master; cf. 16b–33a n;
the OM himself at 867–71. Slaves claim, or are allowed, the qualities
of well-born and (48) virtuous men (as many captured persons who
became slaves were by birth), e.g. Hel. 1641 (a slave not only tries nobly
to dissuade his master, but clutches him, 1629), Melanippe Captive F
495.40–3, cf. F 511, Phrixus F 831 (a similarly loyal Old Man).
46–8 sent me … upright man: lit. ‘…sent me as dowry and a bridal
attendant (who was) upright’; for Tyndareus the father of Clytemnestra
(67 n.) at her second marriage see 1155–6. dowry: the OM may
therefore have been a chattel-slave, such as often formed part of a dowry:
again 860, 870, cf. e.g. A. Supp. 979. But such male attendants certainly
did not ‘tend’ the bride (the meaning of νυμφοκόμος at 1087, Med. 985).
The Epic verb κομέω means ‘take care of’, e.g. children Od. 11.250; cf.
1205 n. below on κομίζω.
Greek. πέμπει sent is historic pres. (Smyth 1883), a tense found with
ποτε long ago (lit. ‘once in the past’), e.g. Med. 955 (see Diggle (1994)
492). συννυμφοκόμος adj. part of her bridal is a nonce-word.
[Text. 46 ποτὲ Barnes: τότε L ‘at that time’ has been defended, i.e. ‘on
that particular occasion’, e.g. Or. 99.]
49–114 Ag.’s exposition of the crisis and his actions, summarised in
1–163 n. 1.1 Content.
Beginning a pattern which becomes characteristic of this play (see
Introduction pp. 2, 18–21, 25–7), Ag. has already changed his mind
twice, first from pressure by Men. (97–8), and second from regret of
that ignoble behaviour (107–8). He orders the OM to take a new letter
 Commentary 257

to Clyt., trusting his loyalty sufficiently to read him the letter’s contents
(108–114 – but 109–114 are problematic, and many editors delete them
in whole or part: see nn. there).
In their narrative content and style, 49–114 are typical of Euripides’
expository prologue-speeches, particularly in his later plays, in many
of which an initial family history is traced to a present crisis in which
the speaker, sometimes a principal character, like Ag. here, is caught up
(see 1–163 n. 2.2 at end, on dramaturgy). In this function the previously
tormented Ag. seems to be addressing not the OM but the audience. He
is not quite talking to himself again (cf. 9–11), but going over the events
which have led to the present horrific crisis; he turns to the OM only at
109.
A ‘postponed prologue’, a narrative exposition of background coming
only after a lively opening scene, became frequent in New Comedy,
e.g. Menander, Shield 97–148; see e.g. R. Hunter, The New Comedy of
Greece and Rome (Cambridge 1981) 11–12; but something similar in
technique is found in Ar. Knights 54–75, Wasps 49–74, both plays of
the 420s: see A. W. Gomme, F. H. Sandbach, Menander, A Commentary
(Cambridge 1973) 20–21. Ritchie regarded the IA as probably influential
in this development, just as Fraenkel (1955) had judged the theatricality
of Ag.’s irresolution (see 33b–48 n.); see too 1–163 n. 2.3.
49–51a Leda … Helen: Thestius was king of Aetolia. Ag.’s version of
the birth of Helen and her siblings includes a sister called Phoebe who is
not referred to elsewhere in literature before Ovid, Heroides 8.77, though
she is portrayed on a hydria of the 6th century BC now in Basel (LIMC
IV 1.505 no. 8). Tyndareus (55–7 n.) was the king of Sparta and the
human husband of Leda; but in mythology Helen and her twin brothers
Castor and Pollux (unlike Phoebe and Clytemnestra: 50) are usually
Leda’s children fathered by Zeus (at 1153 Clyt. refers to the twins as her
‘kinsmen’). Ag. omits any mention of this possible paternity; in a famous
version of the myth Zeus came to Leda disguised as a swan; but at 794–
800, after a forecast of Helen’s bringing disaster to Troy, this account of
her birth is sketched in by the Chorus who wonder whether it may be ‘off
the mark, false(ly)’. For an account of the Helen myth in early Greek
culture, see Allan, Helen (2008) 10–13. For an analysis of the stories
of Helen’s birth, see Jouan (1966) 145–56; Gantz (1993) 318–23; M.
Bettini and C. Brillante, Il Mito di Elena (Torino, 2002) 66–75. wife:
258 Commentary

Eur. alone of the tragedians uses the word ξυνάορος for ‘wife’ (×12),
here for an elevated tone: etymologically it is from συν-αείρω ‘lift (the
harness) with’, ‘couple in harness’: see DELG 23.
Greek. The important name of Helen is both postponed and then
emphasized by enjambement of syntax and sense across the end of 50 and
the start of 51; similarly in e.g. 70–1, 73, 92–3, 358–9. There are grades
of such connection, ranging from the very weak (e.g. 53–4, 76–7, 84–5)
to the very strong, as here. We draw attention only to some instances of
the latter. Cf. also 107–8 Text. The whole topic of enjambement receives
a thorough, up-to-date treatment by L. Battezzato, EGT 325–8.
[Metre. The rhythm of 49 is remarkable for the opening line of a long
iambic speech. It has two resolutions, the first creating an initial ‘anapaest’
(‘possibly designed to assist the transition from anapaests to iambics’,
Ritchie – but this takes a charitable view of the change from emotion to
exposition, and presumes that the parts were meant to stand together);
the second resolution lies in Θεστιάδι (but such licence in a proper name
is common). At line-end the ‘long’ monosyllable τρεῖς without an elided
enclitic (507 n.), and followed by the one-word terminal cretic παρθένῳ,
is a very rare rhythm, but does not break ‘Porson’s Law’: cf. IT 580 (with
Platnauer’s n.), Bacc. 271; West (1982) 85; it gives the line’s unsettled
rhythm a solid conclusion.]
51b–2 To woo Helen: lit. ‘(as) suitors for Helen’: μνηστῆρες, the key
word in the line, agrees with the subject of ἦλθον: ‘they came as suitors’:
cf. ἦλθες … κατάσκοπος at Hec. 239 ‘you came … as a spy’. The
Hesiodic Catalogue gave a list of the suitors which is partially preserved
(F 196–204 MW); they are also found in [Apollodorus] 3.10.8 and Hyg.
Fables 81. Ag. (who was already married) and Achilles (still under the
care of Chiron on Pelion: 708–9 below, Hes. F 204 87–92 MW) are never
named among the suitors save for the latter’s unique inclusion at Hel. 99.
Thus neither Ag. nor Ach., if we disregard the mention in Helen, is bound
by the oath and accordingly not obliged to participate in the expedition
(Ritchie). The oath has no place in Aeschylus’ Oresteia. who were
most blest by wealth: Gorgias, Helen 4 mentions the suitors’ ‘great
wealth’. No doubt Tyndareus (55 n.) wanted an already rich son-in-law.
Ritchie suggests that Eur. may be preparing us for the idea that what the
suitors offer was surpassed by the opulence of Paris (73–4). Greece:
for the names ῾Ελλάς and Ἕλληνες ‘Greeks’ see 102 n. on ‘Achaeans’.
 Commentary 259

Greek. τὰ πρῶτ’ ὠλβισμένοι: adverbial acc. with the participle, cf.

μέγα … ὀλβισθείς in Tro. 1253; τὰ πρῶτ(α) e.g. Or. 1246, S. Aj. 1300
(this latter place illustrates the gen. Ἑλλάδος with a superlative, στρατοῦ
τὰ πρῶτ’ ἀριστεύσας: Smyth 1315).
53–4 at the prospect of failing to win the maiden: lit. ‘whoever did
not win the maiden’, loosely connected to the threats and jealousy in the
previous line (see below): each suitor threatened that, if he did not win
her, he would do something terrible. See Text below.
Greek. ξυνίστατ(ο): arose (lit. ‘stood together, combined’, intrans.)
has as its subjects both ‘threats’ and ‘jealousy’, but has been attracted by
the latter and closer noun into the sing. (Smyth 968). ὅστις: ‘whoever’;
the antecedent to the sing rel. pron. is the plur. (κατ̓ ) ἀλλήλων, in
sense giving both κατ(ά) ‘against one another’ and ‘(jealousy from)
whoever…’; such syntax is frequent, e.g. Hec. 359–60; Smyth 2502c.
The opt. λάβοι represents in historic sequence the indef. subj. with ἄν.
[Text. 53 φθόνος Markland jealousy makes a natural pairing with
‘threats’; κατ̓ ἀλλήλων stands with both. L’s φόνος ‘bloodshed’ must be
wrong with the past tense ξυνίστατο ‘arose’; but it remains seductive
to many eds, for there are near parallels for a hendiadys ‘threats of
bloodshed’ at 1417–8 μάχας | … καὶ φόνους ‘bloody battles’ and Supp.
950 λόγχας καὶ κατ ̓ ἀλλήλων φόνους ‘bloody spears against one another’
(for this stylistic figure cf. 210, 317, 376–7 etc.: Collard on Supp.
447–49; Smyth 3015; V. Bers in EGT 1371); also, Stockert notes that
‘death’ is a typical reaction in issues of τιμή, honour infringed. On the
other hand, despite Ritchie’s appeals to the incident of the oath at Hesiod,
Catalogue F 204.78–85 MW and Stesichorus F 87 Davies-Finglass (=
190 PMG; a testimony), bloodshed has no explicit mention in either.
φόνος and φθόνος are confused in the mss. at And. 780 and Pho. 479 (see
Mastronarde’s n.).   54 μὴ L: δὴ Nauck is a big change: Tyndareus
now faced the problem of preventing bloodshed should any suitor win
the maiden.]
55–7 quandary: in talking of Tyndareus’ aporia, Ag. speaks directly
and plainly, but later uses the same word (89) of the ‘helplessness’ of all
the Greeks; cf. his own irresolution with which the play begins (34–41;
τῶν ἀπόρων 40). to deal best with what was happening: the suitors’
squabble threatened Tyndareus with no marriage at all for Helen.
Greek. 55 For ἔχειν + adv. = εἶναι + adj. ‘be x (for somebody: dat.)’
260 Commentary

see e.g. 447, 1257. Both ἀπόρως ἔχειν and τῆς τύχης ἅπτεσθαι are used
elsewhere only in prose.   56 The expression δοῦναί τε μὴ δοῦναί τε
(Should he) give (her) or not, with alternative explanatory infins. (cf.
969 below), has a precedent at A. Supp. 379–80.
[Text. 57 ἄριστα L: Stockert and Kovacs (alone of recent editors)
entertain ἄθραυστα, cited by Hesychius α 1608 from IA (= fr. ii after 1629
in our text: see n.). It was interpreted by Hemsterhuys as displaced by
the similarly written ἄριστα; it gives strained sense ‘(get) an unbreakable
(hold on what…)’. It is most likely a false attribution in Hesychius.]
58–60 the idea … swear to this: according to Isoc. Helen 40 the
idea came from the suitors themselves, and in [Apollodorus] 3.10.9
it is suggested to Tyndareus by Odysseus (cf. Hyginus, Fables 78).
Stesichorus F 87 (53–4 n.) appears to be the earliest account of the
oath; for its wording cf. Hes. Catalogue F 204 (51–2 n. above). Eur.’s
version generally agrees with these sources except in the choosing of the
successful suitor, left to Helen herself (as in Hyginus): see 68 n. For a
discussion of the sources for this episode see esp. Jouan (1966) 156–61.
In the 2nd century AD, Pausanias gives us mythographers’ details of
the oath (3.20.8–9). It took place at the Tomb of the Horse on the road
from Sparta to Arcadia. Here Tyndareus sacrificed a horse and got the
suitors to swear the oath standing upon the pieces of the victim. The
oath was to defend Helen and the one who was chosen to marry her
if they were wronged. After he had made the suitors swear to this, he
buried the horse on the spot. clasp one another’s right hands: for the
combination of handclasp, sacrifice and libations in the taking of oaths,
cf. e.g. Iliad 4.158–9; also Iliad 3.245, Plato, Critias 120ab; see A. Allan
in A. Sommerstein, J. Fletcher (eds), Horkos (Exeter 2007) 114–15; the
standard work on oaths is now A. Sommerstein et al. (eds), Oaths and
Swearing in Ancient Greece (Berlin 2014); see Addenda. For binding
pledges given by right hands even without religious ceremonies, see
471, 866, Med. 21. pour libations: this concluding ritual honoured the
gods, signifying ratification.
Greek. 58 εἰσῆλθεν the idea came: for this use of εἰσέρχομαι, cf.
1374, Ion 1539.   59 ὅρκους συνάψαι join in an oath: cf. Pho. 1241;
acc. and infin. construction after a dem. pron., here τάδε (Smyth 1987).
δεξιὰς συμβαλεῖν ‘clasp hands’ is (remarkably) a unique expression
(LSJ).   60 καθεῖναι: καθίημι ‘pour’ is used also of libations at Ion
 Commentary 261

435–6. ἐπαράσασθαι here means ‘swear over (the offerings)’, but ἐπι- in
this verb is normally ‘(swear) against’, i.e. ‘curse’.
62 join to help: the verb συναμύνω is unique to this line: it emphasizes
the collaborative nature of the oath. her husband: τῶ ἔχοντι, lit. ‘the
man who possesses her’; cf. 715, And. 970.
Greek. For the order ὅτου … τούτῳ rel. pron. then antecedent (which
is thereby emphasized), cf. 70–1 (n.), Pho. 48–9; Smyth 2541.
[Text, Metre. The υ in (συν)αμυνεῖν fut. is short: see Smyth p. 687.]
64–5 and they should go on campaign … Greek or barbarian alike:
Agamemnon later speaks of the possibility that the army, formed around
the nucleus of suitors, might throw his own city to the ground (534–
5). barbarian prepares for the intervention of the exotic Paris (71–4).
Greek. ῞Ελλην(α) is the noun ‘a Greek’ not uncommonly used as adj.,
e.g. IT 495, A. Ag. 1254; for the masc. form qualifying a fem. noun, cf.
e.g. Hcld. 130 (στολή), IT 341 (γῆ).
66–7 a neat scheme: the oath; its neatness may have been Tyndareus’
decision to leave the choice of husband to his daughter: see 58–60 n.
The Greek word for caught (ὑπῆλθεν) draws attention to the cunning:
see Greek. The words crafty invention πυκνῇ φρενί add a hint of the
Homeric world (Iliad 2.94, 15.461) but also of Aristophanic comedy
(Ecc. 571; cf. Ach. 445, where Euripides is the speaker). Tyndareus
nevertheless implicitly bound himself to abide by Helen’s choice: an
irony in view of the choice she did make (Ag.’s comment in 70).
Greek. εὖ … πως, translated with ‘neat’, an ironic or sardonic pairing
of the adverbs ‘well’ and ‘somehow’, e.g. Hec. 902, Hipp. 477. ὑπῆλθεν:
ὑπο- as a prefix frequently implies something underhand or a subterfuge,
or the insidious overcoming of conscience or the like: this verb again
e.g. with δόλῳ ‘by trickery’ And. 435; a god subverts human weakness
Cretans F 472e.25.
68–71a In a Greek context the apparent freedom given to a daughter
to choose whoever attracted her sexually (69) is striking. Ritchie writes,
‘A woman did not have the legal right to choose her own husband either
in the heroic age (Nausicaa is an exception: Od. 6.282–3) or in the later
Greek world. But there was nothing to prevent a father from allowing his
daughter to choose for herself, if more than one eligible suitor presented
himself.’ Helen’s choice is compatible with her characterization in myth
as impetuous and promiscuous: she is left to love’s impulse (69), and
262 Commentary

she chooses Menelaus, just as she elopes with Paris in their mutual
infatuation, 75–6, 582–6, cf. 782–4: cf. esp. A. Ag. 404–8. Her sexuality
and capitulation to Paris’ exotic person are the cue for a crude joke at
Cyc. 179–86. whichever: ὅποι: see 69 Text. It is tempting to see in
68 ‘choose’ ἑλέσθαι and 70 ‘chose’ εἵλεθ’, in the neighbourhood of
Tyndareus’ ‘daughter’ Helen, the common play upon her name as ἑλ-
‘destroyer’, as clearly in 488 and esp. 1316 and 1476 (see nn.); for
‘destroy’ Menelaus (70) she indeed did, cf. 369.
Greek. 68 δίδωσι allowed, lit. ‘grants’, a ‘historic’ pres. tense (47 n.,
Smyth 1883). Naturally, it is frequent in orientatory prologue-narratives,
e.g. Supp. 6, Her. 33, Bacc. 11.
[Metre. In 68 the final ι of θυγατρί must scan short though it precedes
two nasal consonants: cf. the -α in 847 δεινά; μνηστεύω, where a clear
sense break helps; for another possible instance see A. Eum. 383; West
(1982) 16–17.]
69 the sweet winds of Aphrodite: Aphrodite inspires Helen’s love
here, but even more in her later elopement with Paris, 71b–6, 181, 1300,
1304–5; erotic imagination accompanies Helen thoughout the play. The
word πνοή means both ‘breath’ and ‘wind’. The winds or breath of the
gods are a commonplace, esp. when they incite or seduce women, e.g.
Apollo with Cassandra (A. Ag. 1206); cf. the breath of Love, Eros himself
(E. F 929a, with Kannicht’s note in TrGF; an allusion in our 585–6). For
other uses of the metaphor, see e.g. Adespota F 187 TrGF, Ap. Rhod.
3.937, Theoc. 12.10; love has ‘windy wings’ in Latin love poetry, e.g.
Propertius 2.12.5, Ov. Am. 2.9.49. sweet: the word φίλος has, as often,
strong sexual overtones (compare φιλότης, the Homeric word for sexual
intercourse): Supp. 1019–20, Hec. 828, A. Eum. 216. Also: ‘the verb
φέροιεν transforms the breath of divine influence into a breeze wafting
Helen like a ship at sea’, Ritchie. The stillness of the actual winds (10–
11, 88) is in contrast with the shifting currents of motivation in IA: see
6–11 n., end.
[Text. ὅποι Lenting (rel. adv., lit. ‘to wherever’), translated as
whichever: ὅπου Heath ‘wherever’. One might expect a pers. rel. pron.
after ‘one of the suitors’, which L indeed has in ὅτου, objective gen.
after πνοαὶ Ἀφροδίτης equivalent to ἔρως ‘love’, lit. ‘(one of the suitors)
whom, pleasing to herself, love should carry her to desire’; but that is
very hard to defend, despite efforts by e.g. Hermann and Ritchie.]
 Commentary 263

70–1a Greek. ὃς … λαβεῖν: a rel. clause beginning with ὅς ‘who’, to

which Menelaus (in emphatic enjambement: 50–1 n.) is the postponed
antecedent. The clause is effectively in parenthesis; for ὤφελον (‘if
only…!’) in a rel. clause, cf. 1337, Or. 879.
[Text. ὅς σφε Monk (who … her): it is specifically Men.’s position as
abandoned husband that has landed Ag. in this crisis. ὥς γε L ‘if only she
had never taken him like this’ is retained by some editors: Stockert cites
Ar. Rhet. 1401b34 ‘the choice was given to her by her father’, to support
Jouan’s idea that Helen’s responsibility is increased in this way since
she has been given the male’s right. That was a transgressive shock, for
the verb λαμβάνω ‘take, get, catch’ is the male’s action in marriage, e.g.
1162, And. 623; LSJ II.1c.]
71b–6 this man who judged the goddesses: Paris, the son of king
Priam of Troy, was an oxherd (575–9) on Mt Ida behind Troy (76) when
he awarded a golden apple as the prize for beauty to Aphrodite, in the
famous ‘Judgement’: the story is told by the Chorus with increasing detail
in 178–85 and 573–89, and by Iph. in grim reflection in 1283–1310. See
Stinton (1965) for this motif in the dramatist’s work.
The whole description of Paris in 71–6 relies upon a sequence
of identity-tags so familiar that his name itself is omitted: Phrygian,
goddesses, judgement, Oriental glitz, sexuality – and herding on Mt. Ida,
especially evocative for the later Greek pastoral tradition: myth has Paris
as an exposed foundling (1283–90), brought up by oxherds there for this
work (180, 574, 1292). For this mode of identifying a person instead
of using their name, cf. e.g. Or. 750, Hel. 1385–6, Men. Perikeiromene
(The Lock of Hair) 172–3. Avoidance of the person’s name may be an
indication of the speaker’s aversion (Ritchie). Menelaus avoids naming
Paris at Tro. 865ff.; and Gorgias shows a comparable reluctance to
mention the name Helen (Hel. 5 = 82 B 11 DK).
Ag.’s assertion that Paris took Helen off to Mt. Ida goes against the
tradition that, once he was identified by his mother Hecuba and brought
back into Troy, he enjoyed princely status inside the city; and A. Ag.
739–42 has Helen going straight to Troy after her elopement, her sex-
appeal proving an ‘adornment to riches’. Yet here the glamorous oriental
whisks Helen off to a pastoral life-style: cf. Cratinus’s comedy or satyr
play Dionysalexandros in which the ‘hero’, a merged figure of Dionysus
and Paris (his alternative name was Alexandros: 1292–3 n.), elopes with
264 Commentary

Helen and returns to Ida: Test. (i) Hypothesis 21–2 PCG IV.140. In our
play Helen and Paris did not need luxury to find fulfilment in their love;
similarly, at Iliad 3.443–6, Paris recalls his passionate desire for her
when they made love during their elopement on the presumably non-
luxurious island of Kranaë (‘Rock(y)’).
71b–3a Details. Lines 71–7 are cited by Clement of Alexandria (see
the apparatus) as a fine example of Oriental effeminacy in a ‘seducer’,
a μοιχός. In drama, the pron. ὅδε this usually refers to a person at
that moment on the stage, or just off-stage and vividly present to the
spectator’s imagination; for this ‘theatrical’ use of demonstratives cf. e.g.
1341 and n., and see Taplin (1977) 149–51, with exx. and bibl.; Diggle
(1994) 36 n. 3, 49 n. 2. A sense of Paris’ presence is created, at once
enhanced by the luxurious description in 73–4. Stockert has an excellent
discussion here, and thinks that Tro. 924 ‘this man judged the “yoked”
trio’ (Alexandros/Paris is named in 922) may have provided a model
for our passage (Stockert judges 49–114 to be inauthentic). to Sparta
there came: the wide separation over 71–3 of ἐλθών from the acc. of
‘motion towards’ Λακεδαίμον(α), and the enjambement (see 50–1 n.)
of this name, give it emphasis: Helen was ‘abducted’ from the home
of the husband she had chosen. For the rhetorical separation, the figure
hyperbaton, see Smyth 3028; V. Bers, EGT 1372. Phrygians: this
name brings a tone of distaste for un-Greek morality. For the interchange
of ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Trojan’ in Tragedy, see Hall (1989) 38–9.
[Text. 72 κρίνας L judged, aor. part.; but e.g. Matthiessen preferred
Clement’s pres. κρίνων, one ‘registering’ an action (n. on 68–71), for
which he compared Hec. 645, of the same judgement. ἀνθρώπων L (as)
men (tell the tale) is unquestionably right, this tale being universal and
widespread (similar expressions at e.g. Ion 265, S. Ant. 829): Clement’s
Ἀργείων ‘the Argives (tell)’ is too local, even though Argos provided
Menelaus, the suitor Helen selected at Sparta.] See Addenda.
73b–6 Details. dazzling … barbarians: ‘dazzling’ (ἀνθηρός), lit.
‘flowery, blooming’, suggests colour as well as glamour. For the dazzling
Paris, cf. Iliad 3.392 ‘gleaming in his beauty and his garments’, Tro. 992
‘bright with gold’; cf. Cyc. 182–5). Paris’ exoticism is a topos: Hall (1989:
above) 128, 137 etc.; Stinton (1965) 51 n.1 and Pl. VIII. Gorgias Helen
15ff. (above) stresses the importance of ὄψις (sight) as the sense by which
ἔρως is aroused in the soul, saying that its influence may be irresistible:
 Commentary 265

contrast Cretans F 472e, 9–11 where Pasiphaë argues that her love for the
bull was divinely implanted and not the result of the animal’s appearance
(‘was it so handsome a sight in robes?’, sardonic, 13). For ‘love in the
eyes’ see 584 and n. luxury: χλίδημα is an attention-grabbing nonce-
formation for χλιδή. He fell in love with Helen and she with him: the
mutuality of their love is memorably communicated by two Greek words
ἐρῶν ἐρῶσαν: ‘(he) loving … (her) loving’: cf. 585–6 ἔρωτά τ ̓ ἔδωκας,
ἔρωτι δ ̓ | αὐτὸς ἐπτοήθης (Paris). This poetic (and rhetorical) figure of two
words from a single root used in adjacence in differing forms (paregmenon
and polyptoton Breitenbach (1934) 221–6; V.Bers, EGT 1372–3) is any
writer’s instrument, and a favourite of Eur. e.g. 785, 465–6, 1317, and
thus easily imitable, whether in homage or parody (Rau (1967) 76, cf.
133); the most striking exx. are those with ἑκὼν ἑκοῦσαν ‘willing’, e.g.
Bellerophon F 304a, Hipp. 319, Or. 613; cf. Od. 3.272 ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν
‘willing … willing’ (Aegisthus seducing Clytemnestra). Stockert notes that
in Gorgias, Helen 17 βία (‘violence’) and ἔρως together ‘excuse’ Helen,
but our 75, like 270–1, shows that she went willingly. finding Menelaus
away from home: this factor adds to the appalling nature of Paris’ violation
of hospitality at Menelaus’ palace. We are told that in the Cypria (Argument
(2) West: Loeb ed.) Men. left for Crete after the arrival of Paris, but here
he had already gone there, according to Tro. 973–4 to sacrifice to Zeus
(whence [Apollodorus] Epitome 3.2); cf. And. 592–3. Similarly Theseus
is away when Phaedra begins her attempt to end her guilty attraction to
her stepson Hippolytus, Hipp. 281.
[Text. 73 στολῇ L instrum. dat. with ἀνθηρός and matching 74 χρυσῷ
(note the chiasmus); στολὴν Clem. acc. of reference.   74 τε L answers
73 μὲν, not rare, e.g. Or. 501–2, Pho. 55–7, GP 374–6; but Markland
conjectured δὲ, and certainly 77 δὲ is not an answer to 73 μὲν.]
77–9 the length and breadth of Greece: a further anticipation of the
Panhellenic motif, cf. 64–5: Introduction, pp. 17–18. The word-root for
frenzy, οἶστρος the noun (properly the ‘(sting of) the gadfly’) and here
verb (οἰστράω), is used most frequently of those maddened by gods, e.g.
Io by Hera PV 836, with the same intrans. use of the verb; note Heracles
the maddened child-slayer Her. 1144, Orestes the maddened matricide
IT 393. the old oath: the marriage of Menelaus and Helen had lasted
some time. They had a daughter together, Hermione (1201 n.), who
figures in Andromache and Orestes.
266 Commentary

[Text. 77 δρόμῳ raced (… in a frenzy): lit. ‘frenzied (part.) in

running (dat.)’. The noun is Markland’s conjecture, and the best. μόρῳ L
(normally ‘death’, i.e. ‘fated end’, rather than simple ‘fate’ in Tragedy:
see Fraenkel on Ag. 1146) has no point, since Men. was entitled by the
oath to call for help; the scribe’s error was simple anagrammatism. P2’s
remarkable reading μόνος ‘on his own’ (a correction of μου P miscopied
incompletely from (δρό)μῳ, rather than a conjecture) counters Ag.’s
‘traditional association with Men. in mustering the expedition’: Ritchie,
who draws attention to L’s error μόνος for μόρον at And. 414. Of other
conjectures, Stockert’s χόλῳ ‘in anger’ was approved by Matthiessen;
but this confines the phrase to the sense ‘frenzied rage’, while ‘frenzied
motion’ is surely needed; and the corruption of χόλῳ to δρόμῳ is much
less likely. Kovacs (2002) printed Willink’s conjecture ἔρῳ ‘(frenzied)
by love’, the dat. of 2. decl. ἔρoς. (×6 in E.’s dialogue).]
80–3 to war: lit. ‘with a spear’ (see Greek); words for ‘spear’ are often
used in this metonymy, as e.g. 355: see Bond on Her. 158. The details
of the Greek war machine pile up: as well as the general word arms in
the next line, we have cavalry and shields and ships in 82–3. to Aulis
here, built by its narrow strait: we try to convey the idea of βάθρα lit.
‘base/foundations’ with ‘built’; the word is used, as elsewhere e.g. of a
city (Troy, Hel. 1652), to indicate that something massive rises above its
foundations: cf. 705 where the centaur Chiron’s habitation on Mt Pelion
is described as βάθρα ‘foothills’. here: Bain (1977a) 17 observes that
this repeated location of the scene is against Eur.’s expository style in
prologues (cf. our 72 n.).
Greek. 80 ᾄσσω with instrumental dat. as e.g. Iliad 11.483 ἀΐσσων ᾧ
ἔγχει ‘rushed with his spear’. 83 For ἀσκέω equip(ped) with dat. cf. Hel.
1379 σῶμ’ ὅπλοις ἠσκήσατο ‘his body … with armour’, Pho. 1382.
[Text. 80 Aristotle, Rhet. 3.11.1411b30 in the 4th century cited the
whole line (but it is now corrupt in his mss.), but did not attribute it to
Euripides.]
84–6 And … they chose me … and not me!: in view of what he is
about to tell us it is not surprising that Ag. wishes that someone else had
been made commander-in-chief. But his modest assertion in 84–5 that
he was chosen for this role because of his special position as the brother
of Men. clashes with the latter’s account of Ag.’s energetic campaigning
for the position (337–43). For the idea that Ag. undertook the expedition
 Commentary 267

as a favour to his brother, cf. IT 14 Μενέλεῳ χάριν φέρων; for family

ties as a motive for involvement in military action, cf. e.g. Supp. 132
δισσοῖσι γαμβροῖς τήνδε πορσύνων χάριν ‘extending this favour to my
two sons-in-law’. Lines 84–5, linking the brothers in Ag.’s generalship,
strongly anticipate the play’s plot. For Ag. as elected general, cf. El. 1082,
Or. 1167–8; Aeschylus’ Oresteia, like the Iliad, regularly emphasizes his
prominence, e.g. Ag. 1–8, Cho. 723–5. An election, or a least a ‘choice’,
recurs in the play when Odysseus is picked to seize Iph. for her sacrifice,
1364. chose: a further disaster followed this choice, like Helen’s of 70:
note the way that 86 echoes this line. honour: ἀξίωμα (the word also
101) conveys the idea that Ag.’s worth has been recognized: cf. Or. 1167–8
(of Ag.) ὃς Ἑλλάδος ἦρξ ̓ ἀξιωθείς, οὐ τύραννος ‘who led Greece after
being chosen as worthy, not as supreme king’. Again we must assume an
electoral process.
Greek. 85 For the verb αἱρέομαι with the acc. and prolative infin.
(‘choose someone to…’), cf. Iliad 2.127, Plat. Apol. 28e.
[Text. 84 The daggered words, καὶ εἶτα in crasis, †and then†, are
corrupt: in combination they always begin a clause, e.g. 343. Nor is εἶτα
alone, ‘then’, suitable here idiomatically: it also can begin a clause, e.g.
384; but within a clause, in Eur. at least, it invariably follows an earlier
action expressed in a participle, e.g. And. 756. There have been many
conjectures, the most popular being Nauck’s δῆτα, ‘…(chose me) indeed’,
GP 273 (but Stockert points out that GP 277 states δῆτα is ‘not found
in historic narrative’); next popular is Heath’s κάρτα, ‘very much (for
Menelaus’ sake)’, i.e. (Ritchie) Ag. fends off likely criticism that he, Ag.,
had another motive. This too Stockert rejects, thinking that κάρτα brings
in an emphasis already strong enough in the following ‘as his brother,
of course’; in his own conjecture κἀμὲ στρατηγὸν (Conington) [κᾆτα]
Μενέλεῳ μὲν εἰς χάριν ‘and (they chose) me general to please Menelaus’
the particle μὲν is superfluous, and the error very hard to explain. Renehan
(1998) 264–5 abandoned both particle and adverb, conjecturing πάντα ‘(to
be commander) in everything’, citing esp. Dem. 3.6 ἐστρατηγηκότες πάντ’
ἔσεσθε ‘you will have been in command in everything’: attractive.   In
85, instead of L’s acc. σύγγονον ‘(me as) his brother’, Diggle suggested gen.
συγγόνου γε ‘Men. as my brother’: the different emphasis is also attractive.]
87–8 we are sitting at Aulis idle, unable to sail: – because? No reason
is given: see Introduction pp. 4–6. There is surely an irony here in the
268 Commentary

fact that the ordinary noun αὖλις means a tent or place for passing the
night in, a bivouac (Iliad 9.232) or a roost for birds (Od. 22.470), i.e. a
temporary location. Yet the Greeks are stalled here.
Greek. The verb ἥμεσθ(α) is probably pres. tense (the Greeks are still
sitting), rather than the past; if it is a past form, it occurs only here, but
that would fit with the sequence of historic verbs from 85 onward. Αὐλίδα:
for this acc. form cf. IT 26; Αὖλιν is the commoner, e.g. 14. χρώμενοι lit.
‘using, experiencing (a lack of sailing)’, a common idiom; again in 89
ἀπορίᾳ ‘in our helplessness’ (Headlam can hardly be right with ‘when we
had consulted the oracle in our helplessness’, for which cf. Pho. 957); also
Archelaus F 228a.19 ἀπαιδίᾳ … χρώμενος ‘in his childlessness’; further
expressions: 316 n. The repetition of the verb in 88–9 is typical of Eur.’s
(and the Greeks’) indifference to such effects: see e.g. 99 ἔπεμψα … 100
πέμπειν; Diggle (1994) 161 and n. 14.
89–93 Calchas the seer: accompanying the expedition: ‘by far the best
of those who watch the flight of birds’ and ‘he knew the present and the
future and the past’ Iliad 1.69–70; ‘trusty’ A. Ag. 122. But Ag.’s words
at Iliad 1.106–7, ‘Prophet of evil, never yet have you told me anything
good; it is always dear to your heart to prophesy calamities’, probably an
allusion to this very incident, will prompt the audience to expect that he
will horrify Ag.; and [520–1] confirm Ag.’s and Men.’s low opinion of
him. Nevertheless Ag. later goes off to work with him, 746–8. But there is
no reason to accept Ag.’s and Men.’s distaste for him. Besides IT and IA,
he is mentioned only at Hel. 749 in Eur.’s plays; and he is never a speaking
character. For seers in war see H. Van Wees, Greek Warfare. Myths and
Realities (Oxford 2004) 119–21; S. I. Johnson, Ancient Greek Divination
(Oxford 2008) 116–18. announced the divine will: ἀνεῖλεν: the verb
ἀναιρέω, lit. ‘take up’, is regularly used in prose of oracular or prophetic
responses, but it appears to be unique here in verse. It is an allusive usage,
apparently from the practice of ‘picking up, drawing’ lots, employed at
Delphi to select initially those to be admitted to consultation of the oracle
(Ion 416, cf. 908 ὀμφὰν κληροῖς lit. ‘you (Apollo) allocate by lot your
(oracular) voice’; cf. Barrett on Hipp. 1058. Lots were often used to
make a critical decision itself, e.g. Hdt. 1.94.5 μοίρας … κληροῦν a king
determines ‘the fates’ of those who are to leave his endangered kingdom.
For the nature of Calchas’ ‘announcement’ here, of his prophecy as seer,
a θέσφατον, see 529 n. to us: to be inferred from the ‘we’ of ‘we are
 Commentary 269

sitting’ in the previous line. Iphigenia, my own daughter: lit. ‘Iph.

whom I fathered’, presumably an agonized gloss by Ag. (cf. A. Ag. 207
‘if I shall cleave my child, my house’s darling’), rather than reproducing
part of Calchas’ declaration (but IT 20–1 ‘you (Ag.) vowed to sacrifice to
Artemis whatever was the fairest thing brought to birth by the year’ may
allude to both passages); for the fulsome expression, and its archaic ring,
cf. esp. 873 and 399 etc.; used of Ag. in his hearing by the angry Clyt.
1177 (see n.); cf. Tro. 459, Her. 1367 etc., Supp. 986 with Collard’s n.
The name Iphigenia now gets its first mention in the play. Artemis …
dwells: the Olympian god has a local ‘habitation’, often with a distinctive
shrine, temple or cult (for that of Artemis at Brauron south of Aulis see IT
1462–7, with ritual prescribed for her dwelling, οἴκοι ‘house’). Pausanias
9.16.6 records that in his time (2nd century AD) there was a temple of the
goddess at Aulis with two images of white marble, one carrying torches
and the other shooting an arrow. The foundations of this temple go back
to the 5th century BC.
if we performed this sacrifice; but if we did not…, this was not to
be: Denniston on El. 1017 observed that among Eur.’s plays IA is very
rich in examples of positive and negative (conditional) antitheses, e.g.
911, 928–9, 1006–7. Stockert quotes Vitelli’s defence of this idiom in 93,
citing E. Philoctetes F 789d.9, where Calchas prophesies that sacrifice at
Chryse’s altar will be necessary if Troy is to fall, ‘but if not…’, θύσαντες
… εἰ δὲ μή. Similar phrasing is attested in other reported prophecies: see
J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley etc. 1970) 179, 184–6 on
(infrequent) ‘conditional precedents’ using ‘only when’ or ‘not until’.
The phrasing here, with the part. θύσασι ‘if we performed etc.’ enjambed
before punctuation (51, 71, 73 nn. above), helps to emphasize that
Calchas’ declaration leaves no room for doubt: if they sacrifice Iph. they
can both sail and sack Troy. The fact that Men. does not mention the sack
at 359 is not significant there. The word ‘sacrifice’ avoids the brutal fact
that it will be an act of slaughter: see Introduction p. 11.
Greek. 91 θῦσαι to sacrifice, infin. of the action advised, representing
an imperative in the pronouncement, cf. e.g. 95 n., 358 n.; Smyth 1997,
2633. 93 εἶναι: the Greek pres infin. ‘instead of the fut. in statements
of what is immediate, likely, certain, or threatening’ (Smyth 1879); it is
common in prophetic utterance, e.g. of this same eventuality 1261–3 and
A. Ag. 126 (and there followed by a fut. in 129).
270 Commentary

[Text. 89 κεχρημένοις Heath, supplying a dat. to ἀνεῖλεν ‘announced

(to)’; but κεχρημένος ἀπορίᾳ L ‘(Calchas) in his doubt’ has been
defended. 93 Conington and many after him deleted the line, because
it seemed superfluous, and awkward with the change of tense from fut.
to pres.; and because its qualification is absent from the repetition of
Calchas’ pronouncement in 358–9 (but see above on all three points). Its
deletion here would also leave the wording very curt.]
94–6 I told Talthybius: the audience would know his name’s significance
as the herald of the Greek army; his poetic debut is at Iliad 1.320. They
might recall his highly sympathetic roles (and words) at the sacrifice of
Polyxena in Hec. 484–582 and the killing of Astyanax in Tro. 709–98
(in which play he is very active as the bringer of bad news). a loud
proclamation: the adj. ὄρθιος (‘high, loud and clear’, as going ‘straight’
to the hearer, e.g. a trumpet at Hcld. 830) is traditional with κήρυγμα, e.g.
S. El. 683, Trackers 46. to dismiss the whole army: Men. paraphrases
this instruction at 495. The idea perhaps derives from Zeus’ temptation of
Ag. through the false dream which leads to his disastrous proposal that
the Greeks should flee with their ships to their native land in Iliad 2.111–8
(= 9.18–25, cf. 14.69–81). for I would never bring myself to kill my
daughter: this clause explains why Ag. gave the order, not (directly) why
the army should disband. We do not discover whether Talthybius actually
made the announcement before Menelaus’ intervention; it seems unlikely:
see 1–163n. 2.2 (iii) b. Ag.’s words here again (84–6 n.) clash with those
of Men., who at 358–62 says that Ag. was delighted by Calchas’ prophecy
and willingly called his daughter to her death. The clash is discussed by
Griffin in Pelling (1990) 142.
Greek. 95 εἶπον ‘I told’ (lit. ‘I said’) = ‘I ordered’, the acc. and infin.
representing a vocative and imperative in direct speech: 91 n.   96 For
ὡς with part. and ἄν, cf. Med. 781; Smyth 2480a.
97–8a At that point: The particle δή stresses the immediacy of
Menelaus’ intervention; see Greek. At And. 624–5 Men. is accused of
having urged his brother to carry out the sacrifice. put all kinds of
argument: for the expression cf. Hec. 840 ἐπισκήπτοντα παντοίους
λόγους ‘enjoining…’; Supp. 600. to bring myself to a terrible deed:
τλῆναι δεινά: probably an echo of this same dreadful moment in A. Ag.
221–5 (where only τλῆναι occurs); both words are used of Orestes’
matricide at IT 862, 868–9 and 924. Cf. 133 n.
 Commentary 271

Greek. For οὗ (δή) lit. ‘where’ used of time see also 1157 (without
δή), IT 320, S. OT 1263; similarly ὅθι δή ‘the moment when’, with δή
emphasizing the rel. adv., 547 and n.
98b–103 Turato well observes that there is no indication here of how
the first letter had been sent to or whether it reached Clytemnestra, and
in 144–56 only of Ag.’s fear that it may well have done. boasted of
the man’s high worth: Ag. is presenting his own action in a bad light:
see 107–8. τἀνδρὸς ‘the man’s’ has a colloquial flavour; cf. e.g. Hipp.
491, El. 937, where the expression however seems undignified. ἀξίωμα,
‘deserved esteem, honour’ at 85 (n.). he was not willing: Achilles has
not said this but Ag. is alleging that he has; indeed Ach.’s first words
in the play (801–18) precede his discovery of the planned marriage
(837–8). Achaeans is one of Homer’s collective name for the Greeks,
like ‘Argives’ (242 n., etc.) and ‘Danaans’ (135 etc.); all three names
are used collectively of the Greeks within IA 1196–1200. Homer uses
Ἑλλάς or Ἕλληνες only as local names within Thessaly, but they are the
commonest collective names in IA and Tragedy; we translate them as
‘Greece, Greeks’. Homer has Πανέλληνες ‘All the Greeks’ once, Iliad
2.530, coupled there with Ἀχαιοί; he has Παναχαιοί ‘All the Achaeans’
once, 9.301, and the formulaic ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν ‘princes of All the
Achaeans’ ×8, including a vocative use 23.236; but in none of these
places is the historical concept of Panhellenism latent. bride: a word
for bed (here λέχος) is frequently used in metonomy for a bride: cf. 389
κακὸν λέχος (Helen), 131 n. were to go: Ag. (unconsciously?) sees
the invented marriage with Ach. as something of a threat (see Greek
below). Phthia in Thessaly was Ach.’s homeland: 713, Iliad 1.155
etc.
Greek. 99–100 for πέμπειν with infin. and its subject understood
(sent) to my wife … to send, acting not unlike εἶπον in 95, see 115–19,
360–2; Smyth 1991, 2009.   102 οὕνεκα = ὅτι that as often, e.g. IT
783, 1305; the opt. θέλοι expresses what is ‘vouched for’.   103 εἶσιν:
the use of the determinative fut. indic. (‘shall go’) in the conditional
clause is powerful, almost threatening (Smyth 2328); cf. Hcld. 386, Tro.
362, and Parker’s n. on Alc. 215–7.
[Text. 100 Markland’s conjectural replacement of πέμπειν L with
στέλλειν is unnecessary; there are many examples of such close
repetition, e.g. above at 88–9. Nor should πέμπειν be changed because of
272 Commentary

its possible sense ‘escort’ (so England): at 456–7 Ag. ‘makes it clear he
did not intend Clytemnestra to come with her daughter’, Ritchie.]
104–114 [Text. The lines are suspect or deleted wholly (e.g. Klinkenberg;
Turato) or in part (e.g. 104–10 Willink, 110–14 England), or emended
(esp. 106–10: see below), because of apparent contradictions with the
anapaests (1–163 n. 2. 2 (iii)) and repetitions (108–11 from 34–9, 112
from 98), or from the marked similarity of 112–13 (see n.) with IT 760–1;
they are defended however by Knox (1979) 279–84. If 104–14 are deleted
the transition from 103 to 117 is intolerably abrupt, and impossible for a
listening audience. See also 1–163 n. 2.2 (ii and iii, at end).]
104–5 I used this means of persuasion upon my wife: lit. ‘I had this
persuasion towards my wife’. For persuasion in Eur. see esp. Hec. 814–9
with Collard’s note; it is the essence of much drama (Buxton 1982; Gould
(2001) 98–103), and prominent in IA: see 1–163 n. 2.2 (iv). putting
together a false marriage for the girl: Ag. makes no bones about his
deception.
Greek. 104 For the noun πειθώ with ἔχω, but in the sense ‘put trust
in’ see Hypsipyle 948.   105 For συνάπτω γάμον ‘put together, form’
a marriage, a favourite phrase of Eur., see Text.
[Text. 105 ἀμφί Markland for (the girl), acceptable to most recent
editors; translation of this prep. depends on context and idiom, and here
its meaning is stretched with the phrase συνάψας γάμον, where one might
expect a bare dat. of advantage: cf. 1335 and e.g. And. 620, Pho. 1047–9;
LSJ A II.2.b – see Günther below. Hennig conjectured ἀμφὶ παρθένῳ,
with the same sense: Smyth 1681.2 allows the sense ‘on account of’
for the dat. L has ἀντί (παρθένου), which can only mean ‘in place of’
(or ‘in return for’: so Günther (1987) 63–65); even if the meaning is ‘a
(pretended marriage) instead of the girl’, it does not fit the fact, for Iph.
had already been sent for. Diggle leaves the prep. obelized but entertains
Günther’s bold conjecture τόνδε (for ἀντί) παρθένῳ (for παρθένου)
γάμον, ‘this … marriage for the girl’.]
106–10 At last Ag. responds to the OM’s anxious questions of 43–4,
and in 114 to his protestation of trustworthiness as confidant. Such a
transition is formally untypical of expository prologue-speeches, of
which there is seldom a hearer on-stage, but dramatically explicable
given Ag.’s own emotional involvement in his narration at 70 and from
84 onward. Note however that Ag.’s vocative old man is reserved to his
 Commentary 273

two final words: from 111 to 163 he again gives him the same attention as
thoroughout 1–48. We are the only ones … †Calchas, Odysseus and
Menelaus†: this is important information for the play’s development.
Ag. and Men. will feel that they have been wrong to confide in Calchas
and Od. (518–35), but there will be no evidence of any dishonourable
behaviour on their part. Od. will prove to be an important, though unseen,
figure in the action.
dishonourable: lit. ‘not well’: for καλός/καλῶς expressing a moral or
ethical valuation cf. e.g. 928–9 (cf. 926–7), 1252, Or. 705, 1604 etc; LSJ
III.1. tying and untying in the night: cf. 38.
[Text. 106–10 are heavily suspect – and 109 curtailed in L.   107
is usually daggered because Ag. does not name himself, with an explicit
1. pers. pron., among the ‘we … who know’; editors disagree whether
such a pron. is necessary when the sense is clear from the 1. pers. plur.
verb. Diggle does not dagger, citing just Vitelli’s rewriting, supported
by Jackson (1955) 209–10; it is certainly the best conjecture: ‘…(and)
Menelaus and <I myself>. And what (I did) not (write) well then, I go
back again and countermand well’ (see apparatus). Vitelli removes the
verb 108 ἔγνων, questioning the meaning ‘I decided’ (but see 388).
Nevertheless Stockert rejects Vitelli because: (1) οὐ καλῶς is best left
undisturbed at verse-end (but for the enjambement in Vitelli’s οὐ | καλῶς,
cf. in Eur. (Ritchie) e.g. Hcld. 1016–17 and Melanippe Captive F 494.19;
such enjambement across a proclitic word (Smyth 179) is not rare in
Aeschylus: see Fraenkel on Ag. 557); (2) αὖθις … πάλιν pleonastic is not
rare in Euripides, e.g. Hcld. 487, Hel. 262, 932; (3) ἐγώ most naturally
begins, rather than ends, a sequence of names: so Stockert offers his
suggestion of a lacuna after 106.
Further, the compound 108 μεταγράφω in the meaning countermand
(lit. ‘change what is written’) is sometimes taken in itself to indicate post-
Euripidean authorship (see 1–163 n. 2.2 (v)). Stockert cites Thuc. 1.132.5
and one or two other sources, however, and we think that the objection
therefore fails (its sense in Thuc. 1 is possibly ‘add a postscript’, and at
4.50.2 it is quite clearly ‘change’ in the sense of ‘translate’). Knox (1979)
244 notes that while μεταγράφω occurs only here in Tragedy it carries
the normal 5th century meaning ‘correct a draft, rewrite’.
The loss of the last word of 109 in L, a bisyllable, is a conundrum,
discussed at length by Zuntz (1965) 97–8; cf. our Introduction p. 54,
274 Commentary

Text 1.c. Was there nothing at all to copy from its exemplar? Tr2 did not
supply a word, only changed L’s gen. εὐφρόνης to the more common
acc. with κατά (e.g. Bacc. 425). P copied the gen. and its corrector P2
supplemented with <σκιάν> ‘(night’s) shadow’, but the letters σκ are
in erasure – of what? There is no other place where σκιά is used of the
dark of night; and this makes Barrett’s supplement <κνέφας> ‘(night’s)
darkness’ attractive: Pho. 727 δεινὸν εὐφρόνης κνέφας, cf. A. Pers. 357
νυκτὸς κνέφας. P’s writing of σκ- in erasure may just suggest a first idea
to supplement εὐφρόνης with <σκότον>, also meaning ‘night’s darkness’:
Wecklein conjectured this, and it is very tempting. Another possibility is
εὐφρόνην (Tr2) <ἄκραν> ‘deep night’: S. Aj. 285 has ἄκρας νυκτός.]
111–14 But come now: ἀλλ᾿ εἷα marks, ‘as often, the transition from
discussion to action’ (Mastronarde on Pho. 990). (ἀλλ )̓ εἷα is colloquial:
Stevens (1976) 32–3; the whole expression is ‘typical in dialogue with
a subordinate person’ (Stockert); 435 n. While Ag. wishes to send the
OM off quickly, the OM’s reactions to the contents of the second letter
cause an important delay: see 117–63 n. letter: Barrett on Hipp. 858
defines ἐπιστολαί as ‘a message, whether written or verbal, esp. one
giving instructions’: see LSJ ἐπιστέλλω 2. The noun is always plur. in
Tragedy. Argos: Ag. was king of Mycenae, but in Tragedy the names
of the cities of Argos and Mycenae are used interchangeably (see Willink
on Or. 46, with bibl.); they were close neighbours. In fact, the use of the
name Argos may reflect a historical reality. In 464 BC Argos destroyed
Mycenae and started to appropriate its mythological traditions (Bremmer
(2002) 37, citing Jacoby FGrH IIIb 14–15 F 303 Athanades). concealed:
the verb κεύθω ‘conceal’ in the perf. may be translated as ‘contain’ (LSJ
1; cf. Iliad 22.118, etc.). The concealing here derives from the tying and
sealing (39). Ag. summarises the content of the letter verbally, so that the
OM may if necessary tell Clytemnestra, 153–6. you are faithful to my
wife and my house: an echo of 45–8 (see n.), cf. 153–4.
Stage-letters are normally and naturally paraphrased and summarised
in verse-drama (see 1–163 n. 2.2 (ii)), e.g. at IT 760–1 (see Text below) by
Iphigenia, Hipp. 856ff. by Theseus. It is unknowable whether Odysseus’
letter forged in Eur.’s Palamedes as evidence against Palamedes was
retailed at all, or Proetus’ letter in his Stheneboea requiring its recipient
to contrive the death of the hero Bellerophon; see also 115–16, 119–23
nn. below. There is an excellent review of all letters in ancient drama
 Commentary 275

by G. Monaco, Dioniso 39 (1965) 334–51; on our letter see too T. E.

Jenkins, Interrupted Letters. Epistolarity and Narrative in Greek and
Roman Drama (Lanham MD 2006) 87–96. Editors compare Xen. Cyr.
4.5.26 (a letter read to a courier before it is sent) ‘I want to read you the
letter and its instructions, so that with this knowledge what you say may
correspond, if there should be any question to you regarding them.’
Art. A number of scenes attributed to Eur.’s Iphigenia are on ‘Homeric’
(or ‘Megarian’) bowls of the mid. 2nd century BC, some of them
duplicated: LIMC V.1 711–12 nos 6–10, cf. Michelakis (2006) 119–21;
all have character-names inscribed: see Introduction p. 38. No. 6 shows
Ag. giving the OM the letter.
Greek. 111 For the rough breathing in εἷα, attested in Sophoclean
papyri of the 2nd century AD, see Mastronarde on Pho. 970.
[Text. 112–13 At IT 760–1 Iphigenia hands Pylades a letter to take back
to Argos, using words so similar that imitation in our text is suspected
(e.g. by Fraenkel (1955) 498): τἀνόντα κἀγγεγραμμέν̓ ἐν δέλτου πτυχαῖς
‘what is inside and written in the tablet’s folds’ (cf. also our 98) |
λόγῳ φράσω σοι πάντ ̓ ἀναγγεῖλαι φίλοις ‘I shall explain all to you in
words, to report to my kin’. Knox (1979) 284 argues against imitation,
pointing out that the same words (esp. δέλτος, πτυχαί, ἐγγράφω) recur
in the tragedians whenever writing is mentioned, and that λόγῳ φράζειν
has two Euripidean parallels, Peleus F 621 and Temenus/Temenidae F
727e.10. Willink (1971) 356 refers also to Eur.’s tendency to repeat his
own phraseology.]

117–63 are summarised in 1–163 n. 1.1 Content.  117–23 develop

Ag.’s countermand (from 107–11), and 138–56 his instructions for
taking his letter, and 156–63 the urgency. In between (124–37) the OM
anticipates what becomes a major issue later in the play, Ach.’s reaction
to discovering that he had an innocent part in the deception of Clyt. and
Iph. (833–54). The OM’s misgivings also cause a delay, so that Ag. has
to tell him twice more (138–63 n.). The repetitions help ‘to emphasize
Ag.’s disturbed emotional state and the urgency of the mission’ – so
Ritchie, comparing the similar effect in Deianeira’s repeated dismissal
of the herald Lichas at S. Trac. 616 and 624 (exit after 629). Lastly,
Ag.’s 136–7 find variation in his 160–3, his appeal to the OM to share
his troubles, and a statement of man’s insubstantial happiness – lines
276 Commentary

themselves echoing his 16b–27 and the OM’s 31–2. Ag. rests his fragile
hopes on a fragile old man. We do not however accept the view of K.
Synodinou, ‘Agamemnon’s Change of Mind in Euripides’ Iphigenia at
Aulis’, Logeion 3 (2013) 51–65, that Ag. entrusts the mission to the OM
because he intends it to fail.
[Text. Once again, for the disputed authenticity of 117–63 see 1–163
n. 2.1, 2.2 (ii–iv).
Metre. For the mixture of Ag.’s sung anapaests 117–42, appropriate to
his distress, and the OM’s chanting throughout, see 1–163 n. 1.3 Metre.]
117–18 Speak and make it plain: λέγε καὶ σήμαιν(ε) are an idiomatic
pairing, e.g. Hec. 1225, Hel. 749; cf. our 127. in harmony with:
σύντονα: a musical metaphor from properly tuned lyre-strings, lit.
‘stretched and matching’, i.e. ‘in strict accord with’: see Barrett on Hipp.
1361. The OM tells Ag. to speak, and raises the idea of harmony – and
Ag. replies with the first of his sung anapaests (see previous n.): might
the audience have appreciated the effect? what you have written:
γράμματα lit. ‘letters’, plural, the marks made into the wax of a tablet
(37–9 n.), inscribed (ἐγγράφω 113); the same word is used e.g. of
Iphigenia’s letter at IT 760–1 (also 112–13 n.).
[Text. Reiske’s transposition of 115–16 is inescapable: 117 must
follow 114 immediately; the OM cannot ask Ag. to speak once he has
already started.]
115–16, 119–23 Ag.’s countermand: Clyt. is told not to send Iph. to
Aulis, but promised a deferment of the girl’s marriage. It appears that
Ag. reads out the actual words of his letters, whereas at Hipp. 885–86 it
is unclear whether Theseus is reading out what Phaedra wrote, or voicing
his own reaction to its words; at IT 769–87 Iph. recalls what she dictated
to a fellow captive to write for her (584–6).
daughter of Leda: 49–51 n. ἔρνος ‘daughter’, lit. ‘sprig’, vocative also
e.g. Tro. 766; similarly ‘poetic’ is 119 child ἶνις, lit. an animal’s ‘whelp,
pup’, e.g. Her. 1182. Only Aesch. and Eur. use ἶνις as a metaphor in
poetry before the Hellenistic period; here it may have a deliberate nuance,
for it is applied in pathos to Hector’s baby son Astyanax, doomed to
vindictive execution, at Tro. 571, like the names of other young creatures
for sacrifical victims, e.g. μόσχος ‘heifer’ of Iph. IT 359; cf. our 1084,
and σκύμνος ‘whelp’ of Polyxena Hec. 205. The word ἶνις is reviewed
by O. Masson, REG 88 (1975) 1–15, who notes that it appears as fem.
 Commentary 277

elsewhere only in a 2nd century BC Cyprus inscription (BCH Suppl. I

(1973) 410–11) of a poem by Antisthenes of Paphos, almost certainly
echoing our passage – both have the ‘Doric’ alpha (τὰν etc., cf. 120, 136,
137), usual in lyric anapaests. the bay enfolded by Euboea’s wing:
τὰν κολπώδη πτέρυγ’ Εὐβοίας, lit. ‘the bay-shaped wing of Euboea’. In
Greek as in Latin this is a surprisingly rare, if natural, image of a ‘wing’ of
land bounding one end of a bay. The description is in fact loose because
Euboea is the island across from mainland Aulis, and Aulis’ bay has
itself a southern ‘wing’; but this stretches out far enough, when viewed
from inside the bay, to seem about to join a projecting promontory on
the island. Style too is fulsome here, surprisingly in a letter, but it suits
perhaps the formality of 115–16 and the tenor of metaphorical ‘sprig’
and ‘whelp’; and then comes sheltered Aulis (see Text below). feast
… wedding: cf. the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, 1060.
Greek. 120 the adj. κολπώδης ‘bay-shaped’ does not occur again
before Dio Cassius 48.50 (2nd/3rd century AD, also of a sea-coast with
‘bays’); but Eur. likes (and apparently coins) adjs. in -ώδης ‘resembling
a ~’ (DELG 777 ὄζω), e.g. 141 ἀλσωδής ‘woodland’, Ion 494 μυχώδης
‘cavernous’.   123 δαίνυμι with obj. ‘feast a wedding’ again at 707,
720, first at Iliad 19.299. at another time: 720 also illustrates the prep.
εἰς used of postponement.
[Text. There are a number of problems. 115–16 Editors vary between
(1) πρὸς ταῖς … δέλτοις L ‘in addition to the former tablet’, when πέμπω
‘send (to tell)’ controls the inf. 119 μὴ στέλλειν ‘not to send’ directly
(cf. 99–100 n., 360–2); (2) πρὸς τὰς … δέλτους Monk ‘in respect of my
former tablet’, with πέμπω also used this way; (3) πρὸς ταῖς L … δέλτους
Monk, ‘I send a tablet in addition to my former (one)’, verb and object
giving the sense I send you a tablet … (to tell you) not to (e.g. Günther,
Diggle, and our text).
119 The prep. πρός at verse-end and enjambed with 120 (cf. 107–8
Text) troubles many editors (cf. also Dale (1968) 50); Monk also proposed
deleting τὰν in 120 and dividing the two verses before πρὸς.
121 The two words Ἆυλιν ἀκλύσταν sheltered Aulis are suspect
(Günther). They stand rather awkwardly either in grammatical apposition
to ‘wing’ or as acc. of motion after ‘send’. A compound verbal adj.
equivalent to a pass. part. such as ἄκλυστος lit. ‘not wave-dashed’
normally has only two endings (Smyth 425Ν; but e.g. περικλύστα fem.
278 Commentary

sing. A. Pers. 596); ἄκλυστον Blaydes). Also, ‘sheltered’ seems otiose

(from the currents of Euripus?, 11 n.).
123 Herwerden’s transposition cures a rhythmic irregularity and
restores γάρ to its normal position; but γάρ often follows a sense unit,
e.g. Alc. 365, Or. 314.]
124–7 The OM’s first words after 115–23 are a surprise, but activate
‘another theme … (Ach.’s) anger’ (Michelakis (2002) 92–4). The lines as
they stand convey the OM’s urgent disquiet most effectively. He comes
to the matter of Iph.’s sacrifice only in 133–5. (See Text below.) And
what of Achilles?: καὶ πῶς…; begins an interrogative objection, like
e.g. Pho. 1348 ‘And how would…?’ robbed of the marriage:
λέκτρων ἀπλακὼν: cf. Alc. 242 ἀπλακὼν ἀλόχου (Admetus about to lose
Alcestis). burst out in indignation: μέγα φυσῶν: lit. ‘blowing out a
great breath’, almost ‘snort’; the verb φυσάω with δεινά ‘terribly’ 381
(n.); μεγάλα also Men. Epitr. 913. This is a real danger: note Ag.’s
use of δεινά in 98; cf. the OM again in 133 (n.). Make plain what
you mean: Stockert well compares Ar. Wealth 349 λέγ’ ἀνύσας ὅ τι φῄς
‘hurry up and say what you mean’; see also 117 n.
Greek. 124 ἀπλακὼν: this form of ἀμπλακ- is for metrical convenience:
see 149–52 n. (3) below.   125 ἐπαίρω usually has a person as object,
‘stir x up’, but cf. Hcld. 173 ψυχήν ‘lift one’s spirits’.   126 καί
real is adverbial, and after e.g. τόδε ‘adds something important to the
demonstrative’, GP 307, translating ‘There’s the rub’ (Hamlet’s metaphor
from the bowling-green).
[Text. 124–6 The OM’s speaking only of the postponed wedding, and
not of the much more terrible sacrifice, caused Günther (1987) 65–70
(but in his 1988 edition only in the apparatus) to suppose that the OM
had not heard Ag.’s long speech and that the original lines have been lost
between 129 and 133 in which Ag. tells the OM of the sacrifice: rejected
by Stockert and unmentioned by Diggle. See also 130–2 n. Text. Kovacs
(2003) 101–2 brackets 124–35 in total as markers of interpolation by a
late 4th century reviser. See 1–163 n. 2.2 (iii)].
128–9 his name: at 910 Clyt. complains to Ach. that Ag.’s use of his
name began the disaster, and Ach. responds with sympathy in 935–47, with
anger (cf. ‘resentment’, 125) in 961–2. name, nothing substantial: at
1115 Clyt., with ‘You talk well with your words, but how I should name
and speak well of your actions, I do not know’, employs the common
 Commentary 279

antithesis ‘word :: action’, to rebuke Ag. face to face; she is renewing

Ach.’s own repeated play upon it in 937 οὐ … παρέξω … τοὐμὸν δέμας
lit. ‘I’ll not provide myself (lit. ‘my body’) to Ag.’, then in 938–9, 947,
962 ‘my name’, cf. 1309. The contrast here in IA has striking parallels
at IT 128 ‘You will be sacrificing my body, not my name’ (Orestes to
Iphigenia; cf. 504) and Hel. 1100 τοὔνομα παράσχουσ’, οὐ τὸ σῶμα
‘(Helen) providing her name, not her body’ (at Troy, where Hera had
substituted a phantom Hel. 586, while she herself was brought to Egypt).
The antithesis began among the Presocratics: excellent illustration, with
bibl., by Kannicht, Helena (1969) I. 57ff., Stockert on our passage, and
Egli (2003) 214–16. Typical is Or. 454 ὄνομα γάρ, ἔργον δ’ οὐκ ἔχουσιν
οἱ φίλοι ‘for the friends (453 who are no friends amid disaster) have the
name, but not the reality’.
Greek. πράσσω ‘I do, contrive (a thing) unseen, underhand; get
up to’, cf. 430 n.; LSJ III 6.b, e.g. Thuc. 5.83.1 τι αὐτοῖς … αὐτόθεν
πρασσόμενον ‘something being got up for them on the spot’, S. OT 125.
[Text. 128 Libanius’ citation, corrected by Unger, affords only a
paraphrase, not a variant reading.]
130–2 promised: ἐπεφήμισα: the scarcely avoidable translation of the
compound verb here and of plain φημίζω in 1356, given the dats. in both
places; so too with φατίζω in 135 (on 936 see below). But the English
verb ‘promise’ usually connotes communication with a recipient. Ach. is
as yet ignorant of the whole ‘marriage’ 129–30, and finds it out only from
Clyt. 835–48; Ag. has told Clyt. only his name, in his first letter, 99–105.
The two verbs occur in Eur. only in this play; Aesch. has only the first,
Soph. only the second. Both are founded on φα-/φη-, but differ slightly in
meaning: φατίζω is essentially ‘speak, utter, state’, e.g. S. Aj. 715, ‘speak
of as, name’, IA 935 (n.), cf. Hdt. 5.58.2; φημίζω is ‘put into words,
declare’, e.g. A. Ag. 629, but commonly connotes a pronouncement
looking to the future, e.g. a prophecy A. Cho. 558, cf. Cassandra’s
declarations 1162, 1172, ill-omened words Hdt. 3.123.3: ‘promise’ at
least suits this. to embrace as a bride in the marriage bed: lit. ‘to the
bridal bed of embraces into the marriage-bed’; such pleonastic language
conveys the significance of the wedding: e.g. Hipp. 154, Tro. 339–40.
Greek. κείνῳ to him: the dat. is governed by ‘give’, not ‘promised’. A
demonstrative pron. in an oblique case where a reflexive may be expected
(referring to the subject of the ruling verb 129 οἶδε) is very rare. Or. 292
280 Commentary

is rightly rejected as parallel by Page 135; see rather the prose exx. in
Smyth 1259, e.g. Thuc. 2.11.6. We use the verb embrace to translate
ἀγκώνων lit. ‘bent arms’, e.g. Supp. 817 (a mother’s); but the descriptive
gen.’s attachment to εὐνάς ‘beds’ is strained. Much the commoner noun
is ἀγκάλη, a sexual embrace at 385. in … bed: λέκτροις is a directional
dat., like πέδῳ ‘to the ground’ in 39 (n.). For the dat. of a thing ‘paired’
with the personal κείνῳ, resembling the construction of ‘whole and part’
(1080–1; Smyth 985), cf. e.g. Iliad 1.11 ἑκάστῳ κραδίῃ ‘for each in his
heart’, Med. 991 παισὶν … ὄλεθρον βιοτᾷ προσάγεις ‘you bring death to
your sons, to their life’.
[Text. 130–2 are suspect to Günther as ‘discrepant’ with 124–6: see
n. there. Willink (1971) 356 suggested removing the supposed clash by
reading in 130 οὐδέ τι ‘nor have I declared at all …’   130 ἐπεφήμισα
Markland I promised: ἐπέφησα L ‘I agreed, assented’.   131–2 Two
conjectures try to ease the phrasing: Diggle’s νυμφείοις, with λέκτροις
‘in a bridal bed’, brackets the whole; Monk’s λέκτρον, as object of
ἐκδώσειν, is metonymic, ‘wife’ (103 n.).]
133–5 a terrible deed etc.: a turning point in the exchange, a climax
to the OM’s sturdy interventions; not only does it recall 98 verbally, but
it precipitates Ag.’s admission of error, and despair, 136–7. promising:
φατίσας: see 130n. the goddess: Thetis, sea-goddess: 701, 1062, 1074–6;
Ach.’s father was the mortal Peleus, 701, 707–8. blood-sacrifice: σφάγιον
is ‘a blood sacrifice slaughtered by a ritual throat-cut’. It is a stark word,
frequently substituted with the euphemistic θυσία, a plain sacrifice, in the
play: see Introduction pp. 10–11. It is used of victims such as Iph. offered
to secure victory in a battle, e.g. Hcld. 399, Pho. 174 (rich material in
Fries’s n. on Rhesus 30), and of Polyxena to placate Achilles’ ghost at Hec.
109. Danaans: for the name see n. on 102 ‘Achaeans’.
Greek. ἦγες you meant to bring: ‘conative’ (impf.), Smyth 1895.
136–7 I was out of my mind: lit. ‘I stood out of…’. The phrase again at
Or. 1021; for such expressions see e.g. Collard in D. Cairns and V. Liapis
(eds), Dionysalexandros. Essays … in honour of A. F. Garvie (Swansea
2007) 54, with bibl. Oh, what have I done?: translates αἰαῖ lit. ‘Alas!’;
in consequence of one’s own action e.g. Her. 1140, of another’s Hipp.
813. (I am falling into) utter ruin: ἄτη in Homer is ‘(god-induced)
madness or infatuation, or disaster’. Both action and word dog Ag. after
Iliad 2.111 (his quarrel with Achilles; see end of this n.), and notably at
 Commentary 281

A. Ag. 1566. By Eur.’s time the word ἄτη was becoming little more than
general ‘ruin, disaster’ (e.g. Ion 1240, Tro. 137; see D. Cairns, EGT 153–5);
here in IA, ‘out of my mind’ gives the Homeric connotation. Cf. 443–4
‘What a yoke of necessity I have fallen under! A god has outwitted me.’
Later in our play at 1136 ‘O mistress Fate, and my fortune and destiny’, Ag.
comes near attributing his ruin to causes outside himself (as Homer’s Ag.
had in Iliad 19. 86–138, esp. 137 ‘my actions were folly (ἀασάμην, verb
cognate with ἄτη), and Zeus took away my wits’); but in his final speech
1255–75 below he makes no such attribution.
Greek. ἐξέσταν: the aor. is ‘ingressive’ (Smyth 1924), so it is followed
by pres. πίπτω.
138–63 The prologue-scene ends with the need for haste, as it began: 3
‘Hurry!’. Ag.’s second letter must reach Clyt. before Iph. reaches Aulis,
esp. if she has already set out from Mycenae; so the OM is ordered not to
rest on his errand (138–43), and to set out now dawn is visible (157–9).
138–40 move fast on your feet: lit. ‘row(ing) your foot’, plying legs
like oars, a metaphor used of birds’ wings at e.g. Ion 161, A. Ag. 52; cf.
LSJ ἐρέσσω II. 2. No submitting to old age: an echo of 4, just as 140
σπεύδω I’ll hurry echoes 3 σπεύδω.
Greek. ἐρέσσων πόδα, with πούς as e.g. Ion 162–3 oὐκ ἄλλᾳ …. πόδα
κινήσεις; ‘Go elsewhere!’ For ὑπείκω ‘submit, bow to’ (LSJ II) cf. esp. S.
Aj. 670 τιμαῖς ‘bow to office’ (transl. Jebb).
141–3 No sitting … springs … sleep!: travellers seek relief for legs in
shade and (420–1) cool water, esp. (Jouan) in the hot weather associated
with the ‘Dog Days’ marked by the Pleiades (8 n.). Quiet! Say no more:
εὔφημα θρόει, not just (lit.) ‘speak things correctly said, safely said’, but
‘keep silent to avoid saying the opposite’ (cf. 608 n.); such commands
at e.g. [1564] and IT 687. The expression euphemizes a warning during
ritual, ‘(think and) speak no damaging word (βλασ-φημ-)’ (Wilamowitz
on Her. 1185) – as Ag. risks doing in 141–2 even by mentioning ‘rest’.
Greek. The particle νυν introduces and emphasizes the urgent
commands: see LSJ II.3. ἵζω act. ‘sit’ with bare acc. locating the place
e.g. Ion 1314, mid. And. 1266, (καθ-) Hcld. 394. The combination of
pres. imperative ἵζου with a milder aor. subj. (for a single command)
occurs at e.g. S. Phil. 1400, OC 731; cf. 998–9 below, Smyth 1841.d.
144–8 where roads diverge: lit. ‘split, divided road’, Pho. 38 and
(disastrously for Oedipus) S. OT 733: a ‘fork’, which you may have passed
282 Commentary

before those you wish to encounter reach it on the other road. rolling
wheels: ὄχος etymologically is ‘carrier, conveyance’ (see 617–18 n.; LSJ
I. 2), normally the whole vehicle but here, given the noun carriage 147,
just the ‘wheels’; often the idea of wheels lies in the adj., e.g. PV 710
εὔκυκλοις ὄχοις (‘well-wheeled wagons’), Iliad 8.438 εὔτροχον ἅρμα (‘a
well-running chariot’). The point of the phrase is ‘speed’: Clyt. herself
will be using a light carriage, ἀπήνη: so 618 (n.), with Iph. and Orestes
(Clyt. rides alone in one El. 998). The word is artfully postponed long
after the initial nom. sing. indefinite pron. and grammatical subject τις
and its two congruent fem. participles; ‘carriage’ as grammatical subject
replaces the woman expected to be riding in it.
Greek. ἀμείβω trans. ‘pass, cross’, infrequent: LSJ A.I.3.a, e.g. Pho.
131 ‘cross water’, ὕδωρ.
149a I shall: ἔσται, lit. ‘it shall be (so)’.
Greek. This terse confirmation occurs in Eur. only in dialogue
trimeters, at Hel. 1262, but ἔσται τάδε ‘this shall be’ is frequent, e.g.
1033 below, Or. 1041; it was conjectured here by Tr3 (see 149b–52 n.
Text (3), on Metre). These and comparable expressions (which begin in
Homer) in both Comedy and Tragedy received their definitive analysis
by E. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome 1962) 77–89.
For their possible colloquial pedigree see also Collard (2005) 371.
149b–52 If the OM does meet Iph. (and Clyt.) already coming to Aulis,
he is to turn them back to Mycenae. chamber-doors: Iph. is to return
to an unmarried girl’s safe home, the strongly secured maiden-quarters
of 738. We are in the world of 5th century Athens; women in Homer have
more freedom of movement, notably Nausicaa in Od. 6 (cf. 68–71a n.).
κλῇθρα are the general confines of a secure structure (see Hutchinson
on A. Seven 396), e.g. 345 below, Her. 1029, but more often are just
the ‘closures’ (verb κλείω, κλῄω) themselves, door-bars which safeguard
access, e.g. Pho. 64, 114. Cyclopean: the already ancient walls of
Mycenae and Tiryns were so massive that they seemed the work of the
mythically massive Cyclopes, 265, 534, Her. 943–4; cf. IT 845 ‘Hail,
Cyclopean hearth; hail, fatherland, beloved Mycenae’. hearth-altars:
θυμέλη is a sacrificial altar for burnt offerings (e.g. Supp. 64 ‘receiving
sheep’ as victims; cf. 135 n. above), here specifically at a house’s hearth,
the centre of the (ancient: above) family home: IT above; ἑστία ‘(home-)
hearth’ e.g. Alc. 545, 1017.
 Commentary 283

[Text. 149b–51 κλῄθρων … † … χαλίνους†: If you meet … from

her chamber-doors, †set … back again†’: all these words are judged
irremediably corrupt by almost all editors; Monk and Dindorf deleted
them. Partial repairs have been proposed, but no combination convinces.
(1) L has two forms of the verb ἐξορμάω ‘send out, set out from’, in
asyndeton. In 149 the ambiguous ἐξώρμα/ἐξόρμα (impf.? imperative?)
was changed to the adj. ἐξόρμοις by Bothe, to agree with 150 πόμπαις
and to control the separative gen. κλῄθρων ‘setting out from … doors’
(cf. Hipp. 156 Κρήτας ἔξορμος ‘from Crete’). Wecklein proposed
ἐξορμώσαις, dat. pres. part., also with πόμπαις and with the same
meaning, for metrical reasons: (3) below.
(2) In 150 ἀντήσῃς requires a dat., not L’s acc. νιν. The passage is
discussed by Günther (1987) 70–2, who proposed a partial repair with
150–1 ἐξόρμοις (Bothe) | ἢν ἀντήσῃς πομπαῖσιν ‘if you meet the escort
setting out’; we adopt it. In 151 L’s plain fut. ἐξορμάσεις is incorrect as a
command after the conditional 149–50 (-σεις is read in L by Diggle, and is
clear in the facsimile: -σης, i.e. -σῃς, subj., previous editors). An attractive
suggestion is Wecklein’s εἰσόρμα, σεῖε ‘send (them) to (to Mycenae?),
shake the bridles’, modifying Blomfield’s ἐξόρμα, σεῖε ‘send (them) off…’.
For ‘shake the bridles’, i.e. ‘set the horses going’, cf. S. El. 712–13 ‘reins’.
Metre. The textual corruption makes it uncertain whether Ag. reverts
to lyric anapaests. L has them in 149–50: but then the OM’s ἔσται is
his only lyric utterance in the whole scene: impossible. The change of
voice (antilabe) in mid-metron in 149 is a secondary problem (see 1–3 n.
Metre); it is not cured by Tr3’s supplement ἔσται <τάδε>, which makes
L’s 149 a chanted line, and was accepted by Fraenkel (149a n. above)
80; but see Diggle (1994) 409, who in OCT obelizes 149 ἐξόρμα –151
entirely. For Tr’s remedy here see also Zuntz (1965) 98.]
153–4 shall I win belief…: the adj. πιστός must here be translated as
‘credible’ (LSJ A. I. 2, of a person, e.g. Thuc. 3.43.2); at 45 the OM used
it of himself as ‘trustworthy’ and at 114 as ‘faithful’. Note that this word
occurs at or near the end of each of the three sections of the scene; cf.
163 n. 2.2. (iv).
Greek. λέγε tell me normally precedes a direct question, e.g. IT 738 (a
similar context), Her. 919; similarly εἰπέ e.g. 381 below.
155–9 seal: 38 n. Go!: the brusque command, without e.g. ‘Now
(go!)’, ‘(Go) then!’ or without a verb of motion (e.g. 139, which 156
284 Commentary

nevertheless echoes) or other qualification, is very rare even in Comedy;

but cf. S. OC 797. This usage is however not a colloquialism. The
glimmering dawn … to the sky: we are reminded that the action so far
has taken place in full dark (6–15). fiery etc.: for πῦρ ‘fire’ as the Sun’s
blazing chariot cf. e.g. Ion 82–4.
Greek. 156–9 The syntax apparently has πῦρ fiery (Sun) and ἠώς
dawn together as the coupled subjects of λευκαίνει bring … whiteness,
with φῶς gleam as internal acc. (a noun of imagery related to the verb:
Smyth 1567); also λάμπουσ(α) glimmering intrans. These constructions
could in theory be reversed here, with λευκαίνει intrans. ‘become white’,
and φῶς and πῦρ as internal accs. to λάμπουσα (e.g. Pho. 226–7 with
σέλας ‘gleam’); but the word-order is tortuous. Dawn’s ‘white face’ El.
730, cf. 102.
[Text. 158 L has the Ionic/Epic form ἠώς unique in Tragedy, possibly
echoing the Epic ‘formula’ ῥοδοδάκτυλος ἠώς ‘rosy-fingered dawn’
e.g. Od. 2.1, Hesiod, WD 610.; Attic ἕως is to be expected in chanted
anapaests (Doric ἀώς in lyric e.g. El. 730, Or. 1004).   In 159 Aeolic
Ἀελίου (e.g. El. 729) is a similar surprise. The two singularities and the
inconsistency add to suspicions of authenticity: see 1–163 n. 2.2 (v).]
160–3 No mortal … sorrow: a sententious commonplace in Tragedy,
e.g. A. Ag. 928–9, S. Trac. 2–3, E. Hec. 625–8, And. 100–2. In the last,
the prologue-scene ends with this same maxim; for sententiousness at
this dramatic point cf. e.g. Supp. 40–1 (with Collard’s n.), Tro. 95–7. till
the end: ἐς τέλος, a phrase with fine shades of meaning. This translation
is much the commonest (e.g. Hdt. 9.37.4); but Bain (1977a) 23 rejects
it here, and Stockert fairly observes that this meaning in this maxim is
normally expressed with διὰ τέλους, e.g. Supp. 269–70, Her. 103. Other
meanings of the phrase are ‘finally, at last’ (e.g. Ion 1615, cf. ‘ultimately’
Jebb on S. Phil. 409) and ‘completely’ (perhaps Hec. 817: here, Bain,
Stockert).
Greek. συλλαμβάνω Share act. with partitive gen. e.g. Ion 331, mid.
e.g. Med. 946.
[Text. 161–3 For the nature of Clement’s errors see 18–19 n.]
On 160–3 Ritchie writes two comments which form a useful
recapitulation of the whole prologue-scene: (1) ‘These lines show the
great man acknowledging the conditions of his humanity; so he accepts
his inevitable lot when he fails to prevent the sacrifice.’ (2) ‘There is also
 Commentary 285

a very practical reason for the arrangement. The OM is later to betray

Ag.’s secret (855–95); it is desirable that we see Ag.’s confidence in him.
The same information needs to be imparted to the OM and the audience.
Therefore the OM needs to be brought on stage before the story is told.’
Ag. enters his hut, but since the OM already holds Ag.’s letter (111)
he at once sets out for Mycenae (stage-right: see 1–163 n. 1.2 Staging),
and is almost at once stopped by Menelaus (303ff.) and brought back to
Ag.’s hut (317).

164–302 Entry-song of the Chorus (parodos)

1.1 Content; 1.2 Dramatic Sequence and Form. 2. The Chorus in the
Dramaturgy. 3.1 Length, Structure and Metrical Character; 3.2 Pictorial
Quality. 4 Integrity and Authenticity.
1.1. Content. The Chorus of women have crossed the Euripus to Aulis
from their home city of Chalcis (164–70) to see the Greek army and fleet
which their husbands have told them is being sent against Troy to recover
Helen after her abduction by Paris (171–84). They have reached the
army’s encampment (185–91), and seen many (mainly Iliadic) heroes:
Ajax the son of Oileus and Ajax the son of Telamon; Protesilaus and
Palamedes; then Diomedes and Meriones; Odysseus and Nireus (192–
205). Next, they have watched Achilles running in full armour beside
his chariot and fine horses driven by Eumelus (206–30). That is the first
part of the song; in the remaining part the Chorus have seen the fleet,
beginning with its right wing, the position of honour, held by Achilles’
ships (231–41); the other contingents follow (242–93a). Then comes a
concluding reflection on the naval power that the women have heard
about and now seen, invincible against non-Greeks (293b–302). See 3.1
(b) below on Structure.
1.2. Dramatic sequence and Form. The Chorus enter a now empty
theatrical space, Ag. having gone into the hut, and the OM towards
Mycenae; the Chorus would enter from stage-right (see 1–163 n. 1.2
Staging). Such a beginning, after a prologue-speech or prologue-scene,
is quite rare, found first in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes and e.g.
in Sophocles’ Antigone; but it appears in Eur.’s earliest complete play,
Alcestis, and in two close in time to ours, Phoenician Women and
286 Commentary

Bacchae (but in the latter after a single prologue-speech: see 3.1 (a) a
below). In IA, however, it is as if the Chorus are themselves beginning
the play, in a style once presumed from the earliest surviving tragedy to
be archaic, Aeschylus’ Persians; his Suppliants begins in the same way,
but its chorus are effectively the protagonists.
2. The Chorus in the dramaturgy. Their surprising identity as young
married women away from home, and without male escort, who have
come to view the Greek forces, and the nature of their subsequent
sympathies and observations, are discussed in detail in the Introduction
pp. 30–3.
The Chorus are remote from the immediate action; they know nothing
of the planned sacrifice: so Mastronarde (2010) 129, who notes that the
parodoi of Ion and Phaethon start with similar disconnections, but that
in Ion the chorus say nothing of their mistress Creusa’s childlessness and
her oracular consultation at Delphi, only at the end of their exchange
with Ion revealing their identity; and in Phaethon the chorus’ dawn-
song turns only at its end to the forthcoming marriage which leads to
the play’s tragedy. Some scholars suggest that in their full and lengthy
descriptions, the Chorus nevertheless give scale early in the play to the
Greek enterprise, and its eventual significance against non-Greeks (297,
cf. Ag. at 65 and 80, and Menelaus in his agon with Ag. at 350, 371–2,
410); they also reveal the ‘enforced idleness of the host (suggesting
restless and thwarted energy, in particular that of Achilles)’.
Further, and most importantly, Hose (1990) I.153 observes two
dramatic needs: there must be no chorus of ordinary Greek troops to
overhear the quarrel of Ag. and Men., and who know and engage in
the divided feelings of the whole expedition (and even as outsiders
the women are sworn to silence on what they do hear, 542 n.); nor, on
the same ground, can the Chorus be servants of Clyt. and Iph. without
having to betray the deception to them, else the scene between Clyt. and
Ach. becomes impossible. (For the soldier-chorus in Ennius’ Iphigenia,
generally regarded as based upon Euripides’ play, see Introduction p.
30 n. 76.) Citing Hose I.155, Ritchie adds that the entry-song is linked
neither to the prologue-scene nor to the following episode, above all in
time: the prologue ended as dawn breaks, but the Chorus relate what they
have already seen, and in detail. The poet makes use of dramatic time
 Commentary 287

rather than logically continuous sequence, for the first episode begins
with Menelaus’ halting the OM (308–9, 327–8) as soon as he has set out
(156–9).

3.1 Length, Structure and Metrical Character

(a) Length. 164–302 is the longest purely lyric span attested for
Euripides at play-beginning, rivalled only by the parodos Bacc. 64–169,
where the singers, and both their matter and manner, are at the heart of
the tragedy. Length by design or accident? See (b) and 4 below.
(b) Structure. Ostensibly a ‘double ode’: 164–230 self-introduction and
description of the Greek camp and heroes, and, with a marked change of
metre, 231–302 description of the Greek ships and concluding reflection.
Kranz (1933) 233–4 etc. compares the ‘double’ parodoi of Aeschylus’
Persians, Suppliants and Agamemnon, all longer than those of IA and
Bacc. On the metrical structure see (c) below.
175–230 The choice and order of the heroes relate strongly to the
plot. The Chorus begin with Men. and Ag. and their objectives, of whom
they only heard tell (175–84), but for the audience the brothers and their
behaviour have already dominated the prologue-scene (Men. at 71–98)
and will fill the first episode (303–542). In 192–230 the Chorus describe
the heroes briefly, ending with Ach., the third major male character of the
play, and he receives the longest description (206–30), and was already
significant in the prologue-scene (100–3, 124–35); see also below. Many
details of the heroes and the ships stem from the Iliad’s Catalogue of Greek
ships and their commanders (2.494–760) and its brief continuation ‘The
best of the Greeks themselves and their horses’ (761–79). All the heroes
named appear there as commanders of contingents, and some in the same
order, with the exception of Palamedes (unmentioned in Homer). All,
with the exception of Ag., Od., Ach. and Palamedes, are named in the
list of Helen’s suitors in mythographers, esp. Hyginus, Fables 81 (2nd
century AD); some other names there, and in [Apollodorus] 3.10.8, stand
in 231–302: ‘Euripides may be concerned to remind us of those who
were parties to Tyndareus’ oath, 55–67’ (Ritchie). Ach.’s prominence in
206–30 is brought out by his exceptional physical feats, 210–15, 226–
30; he begins the ‘ships’ 236–41 just as he ends the ‘heroes’, probably
a deliberate ‘bridge’ (also Ritchie). His prominence contrasts with the
288 Commentary

lower rankings, as in the Iliad, of Eumelus (217) and the two Ajaxes
(193); and in Iliad 7.161ff. Diomedes (199), both Ajaxes, Meriones
(201) and Odysseus (203–4) are among nine warriors, including Ag.,
who cast lots to respond to Hector’s challenge when Ach. is absent and
sulking. Od., the off-stage presence later potentially dangerous to Ag.
and Men. (106–10 n.), named early and briefly (203–4), is omitted from
the ships: see Michelakis (2006) 44–6. Conversely, Palamedes’ playing
of a board-game recalls this most inventive of the heroes (194b–8 n.);
but the audience will remember from myth how he was destroyed by
the ruthless and devious Odysseus (E. Palamedes test. iic and F 588;
Philoctetes F 789d (8): see 198 n.). Two other names derive from the
Iliadic Catalogue: one is the Aenians’ leader Gouneus (2.748), but here
he comes from an otherwise unknown place Cyphus (278–9 n.); the
second is Nireus (2.671–5), but here he appears only among the ‘heroes’
(204–5 n.) – and directly before Ach. (206–30), exactly as in the Iliad.
231–302 The order of the ships is not clear in purpose. The Iliad’s
Catalogue (2.484–760) again provided the principal model, and some
of the detail, but there are big differences: see on Sources at the end of
this section (b). The ships add up neither to the Iliad’s exact number of
1,186, nor to the round ‘thousand’ canonical in myth (our 174 n.), and
not all squadrons are given numbers. The Iliad moreover emphasizes
genealogies, typically of Epic. There are verbal reminiscences of the
Catalogue and other phraseology, esp. 232, 238, 242–5, 250–2, 254,
263–4, 273, 283: see our sparse nn. and the full reviews by Page 141–7;
by Ferrari (1990), who argues for Euripidean authorship on the grounds
of a ‘rhetorical’ analysis (see 4. Text below); and by Stockert.
The order of the ship-contingents, like that of the Catalogue, does not
proceed from the largest to the smallest. They are told off from the right
wing (236) toward the left (289–90) – although these latter two lines, if
textually sound (see n.), may imply that the fleet was in a crescent, almost
meeting to make a circle: see Stockert 228, and Diggle OCT cited in our
n. on 290. The relative positions of the contingents between 253 and
290 are however not given, except in 279. They would all be beached or
moored by anchor (249 and, more clearly, 291 n.). No consistent Greek
‘geographical’ arrangement emerges, e.g. according to modern compass-
points, or through movement from mainland to island cities. Athens has
an early and important place (248–52), reinforcing the likely allusion in
 Commentary 289

Ach.’s exercise of 210–15, 227–30 to its cultic race-in-full armour (see

nn. on all three places). Specially puzzling is the separation of Argos (242)
from Mycenae (265), names for one place interchangeable in Tragedy
(152 n.). Men. – his city Sparta goes unmentioned – is ‘amalgamated’
with Ag. from Mycenae (265–72); this is reflected in the way the two are
an interdependent but conflicting pair (first at 97–110) until the end of
the first episode at 542 (cf. Torrance (2013) 83, 85). The many omissions
from the Catalogue are understandable in a play’s necessarily much
shorter lyrics where concentration must be upon names significant later
in the plot; absent too are the Iliad’s Euboeans, Arcadians, Cretans and
Rhodians.
Listing by dramatic (or military) significance looks possible, for
Ach.’s ships come first (235–42), on the right wing and the station of
greatest honour in all conflicts, by land and sea (235–8 n.); but perhaps
only the final place has equal point, with Telamonian Ajax from Salamis
(289–93), who with his namesake Ajax son of Oileus began the heroes
(192–4); the placing of Ag.’s and Ajax’s ships matches that of their
encampments in the Iliad, at opposite ends of the host. Ag., as supreme
commander, has an approximate middle place in the list (265–7). The
order of ships then may be immaterial, impressive detail being more
important.
Progressive structural analysis of the whole parodos, with Homeric
references, is offered by Kirk (1985) 166–247, Hose (1990) I.155–60
and J. Latacz (ed.), Homer’s Ilias. Gesamtkommentar II.2 (Munich
2003) 145–255; see also Jouan (1966) 293–8 and Stockert 229–31. A
choreographic, mimetic structural interpretation of 164–302 for live
performance is given by Wiles (1997) 105–12.
‘Sources’ of the lists. Scholars early on judged that IA drew on other
sources; these survive now only as minimal fragments or testimonies,
principally of the Epic Cypria; but there is dispute still about that poem’s
relation to the Iliad in time and dependence. It contains no lists or
numbers of ships and heroes, or indeed any references to such lists. For
the Cypria English readers should see most conveniently (texts) M. L.
West, Greek Epic Fragments (‘Loeb’ Library 2003) 64–107 and (analysis
and discussion) M. Davies, The Epic Cycle (Bristol 1989) 33–52 and
West 13.
290 Commentary

(c) Metrical character. See first the general note on ‘ethos’ in Metre,
Introduction pp. 48–50.
The two parts are quite distinct: 164–230 are almost entirely aeolo-
choriambic and 231–302 almost entirely iambo-trochaic. For the sequence
from aeolo-choriambic to trochaic within a ‘double ode’ parodos cf. Pho.
202–38/239–60, each part having one strophic pair: see Parker (1997)
72, 506.
164–230 One pair of long responding strophes (164–84 = 185–205)
and an even longer system in the epode (206–30). After 164–70 = 185–
91 describe the Chorus’ route to Aulis and their purpose (and 189–91
the Greeks’ camp), there is only one change of rhythm, to ionics from
171–5 = 192–6, marking breaks in content, tone and syntax. 171 and
172 begin each with emphatic pointers, Ἀχαιῶν … Ἀχαιῶν, ‘Achaeans
… Achaeans’. 176–84 = 197–205 return to aeolo-choriambic – and
although the subject-matter changes in the progression of heroes, there
are no further clear strophic responsions between breaks in syntax and
sense. Then in the epode 206–30 vary from aeolo-choriambic only at the
very end, with dactyls in 225–9 perhaps evoking Achilles’ pacy bounding
beside the chariot, while the terminal 230 is a single iambo-trochaic
colon (which some see as heralding the change of metre in 231–302,
and use as a subsidiary argument for the integrity of the two parts of the
parodos: see (4) below). Period-end separates the sequential description
of Achilles at 209, 211 and (at a marked sense-break) 215, but nowhere
in 216–30, the long continuous description of the chariot.
231–302 The system begins with two strophic pairs 231–41 = 242–52
and 253–64 = 265–276 (but the second pair has lost verses in differing
places). The only responding sense-breaks at 234 = 245 (but 245 is weak)
and 255 = 267 both precede isolated single dochmiac metra which mark
the only differing rhythm in the whole system. The sense break in mid-
verse at 247 does not match one in 236.
The long system 277–302 has two spans of bad textual corruption,
and metrical analysis is both uncertain and disputed. A fourth strophic
pair was created from these verses through much textual manipulation by
Hermann (1831), and accepted recently by Günther and Stockert 1992;
but it was rightly rejected by Wilamowitz (1921) 283, in favour of an
astrophic continuum after 276 ‘matching’ the epode 206–30 after 205;
followed recently by Hose (1990) I. 158 n. 43, Diggle, Matthiessen. West
 Commentary 291

(1982) 106 suggested ‘semi-responsion … if … not all meant as one

overlong epode’.
Schematic analyses of 164–302: Wilamowitz (1921) 610 on 164–205,
212–13 on 206–30; Dale, BICS Supplement 21.2 (1971) 142–6, with
commentary on 147; Günther 62–3; Stockert 234–7 with commentary –
but their texts and colometry vary slightly.
3.2 Pictorial quality. The remarkable and sustained frequency of
verbs of seeing, mostly in the first person (171, 19(0–)1, 192, 210,
218, (231–2), 233(–4), 254, (275), 295, 299), supplemented by voices
heard before the sights themselves (177, 301), as well as during (216)
and after them (294) – these are straightforward attempts at narrative
and visual immediacy; cf. Introduction pp. 33–4. Focus varies: there are
brief, distant glimpses, individual heroes being named but with scanty
enlivening detail (principally in 185–205) and ship-squadrons numbered
with their named commanders (throughout 235–93); and there are
‘close-ups’, brief (194–7 the board-game; 239–42, 249–52, 255–60,
275–6 ships’ ornamentation) and very long (206–30 Achilles running
beside Eumelus’ splendid chariot and horses). Ships’ decorated sterns
would be close to, if not on, the beach, and credibly visible for a detailed
description (241, 258, 275).
The IA’s heroes and ships stand in an imaginative tradition which
began in the more staid Iliadic Catalogue (above (3) 1.c), but also in its
‘View from the Wall’, 3.161–244, when Priam of Troy asks Helen to
identify the Greek commanders (with the Homeric teichoskopia compare
esp. Pho. 88–192 when a servant describes to Antigone the assailants of
Thebes: see R. Scodel, ‘Teichoskopia, catalogues and the female spectator
in Euripides’, Colby Quarterly 33 (1) (1997) 76–93). One of the earliest
reflexes of the Iliad appears to be in Sappho (early 6th century) F 16.1–3
PMG ‘some say that a host of cavalry, others of infantry, and others of
ships, is the most beautiful thing on the black earth’ (trans. D. Campbell);
then Ibycus (after 550 BC) F 282.15–46 PMG, beginning ‘nor shall I go
on to the proud courage … of the heroes’ and including 25–8 ‘no mortal
man … could tell each detail, the great number of ships that came from
Aulis’ and 30–7 ‘with bronze-shielded warriors on board … among them
foremost with the spear went swift-footed Achilles and great Telamonian
Ajax … Cyanippus, the most handsome man’ (trans. Campbell). In Eur.
292 Commentary

the fragmentary Hypsipyle F 752f.216–8 are from the female chorus’

report of armour flashing from the Seven against Thebes, and Supp.
653–67 describe the Athenian and Theban combatants’ deployment in
battle there after the Argives’ first, failed assault on the city. The IA’s
descriptions of the emblems have a Euripidean precedent too, in those on
the shield of Achilles at El. 452–86 (note 456–8 ‘such emblems (σήματα:
IA 240, 275) were fashioned, terrors for the Phrygians’) – and behind
them stands the extended sequence of shield-emblems pictured in A.
Seven 369–676 (σῆμα ×7, e.g. 387).
As for women’s ‘sight-seeing’ in particular, Euripides’ Ion, less than
a decade earlier than IA, affords a much-adduced parallel, as the arriving
chorus of women admire Delphi’s decorated architecture (184–218, cf.
233), and that too after Ion’s eyes take leisurely pride in the temple-front
as he clears it of birds (102–83, in his entry-monody). These ‘tourists’
include personal responses to what they see, whereas especially in 231–
302 our Chorus views things largely in mechanical succession (this big
difference fuels one major argument for the suspected authenticity of
231–302 ((4) below): see Matthiessen (2002) 29).
The play’s list of ships in 231–93 indeed has little of the descriptive
colour given to the ‘heroes’ of 192–230 – but does the poet excuse
himself with his initial ‘something beyond words to describe’ (232)?
Zeitlin (1994) esp. 145–7 and 157–71 on IA, and her briefer (1995) at
181–6, and Torrance (2013) 86–93, both discuss the ecphrastic aspects of
the ship-emblems. These direct an audience to note meanings related to
the plot: all four pictures, Torrance argues, suggest marriage and violence
in their mythic backgrounds.
One particular aspect: the descriptions of the heroes are found
by some readers to ‘eroticize’ the women’s curiosity. They point to
their abandonment of decorum as young wives leaving home (see 2.1
above), and their blushing as they near the Greek camp (187–8 n.); it
is perhaps not unreasonable to infer that women eager to view warriors
exercising physically would anticipate being excited by the ‘glamour’.
Ach.’s beauty, a constant of myth, is nevertheless not explicit in the text,
and that of Nireus, which is, reproduces Homer’s superlative (206 n.);
but male beauty does end the antistrophe 205, as female beauty ends
the strophe 184. Above all, these readers may be trusting too much to
Wilamowitz’s misjudged emendation of 234, enshrined in most editions
 Commentary 293

before Diggle and Stockert, which introduces a tonally incongruous

adjective ‘gluttonous’ for the women’s curiosity (see 234 n.).
4. Text. Integrity and authenticity
164–230 ‘The majority of scholars have been prepared to accept
164–230 as genuine’, Ritchie: so e.g. recently Jouan (earlier (1966)
293–4), Günther (who does not even mention others’ suspicions in
his apparatus), Stockert, Matthiessen and Kovacs (2002, 2003). Page
thought the lines Euripidean but ‘probably unfinished’, Diggle ‘perhaps
Euripidean’. We ourselves have no doubt of Eur.’s imagination here,
and almost certainly his own hand; if we are wrong, then the passage
is a brilliant imitation.
231–302 The majority of scholars until the early 20th century believed
these verses inauthentic, most prominently England and Wecklein (1899,
1914), or at best very questionable, and some more recent ones still do,
e.g. Page, Diggle, Kovacs (2002, 2003); even the conservative Ritchie
was sceptical. Defence began with Weil and particularly Wilamowitz
(1921) 282–4 (followed by Kranz (1933) 257–8); then e.g. Schreiber
(1963) 99, Mellert-Hofmann, Günther, Ferrari (1990), Hose (1990) I.
160–1, Stockert, Matthiessen, Turato – and in passing Burkert (1993);
some interference was suspected by e.g. Lesky (1983) 354, Jouan (1983:
‘not unworthy of Euripides’, p. 30).
Ritchie listed many considerations, chiefly:
for authenticity
(a) The impressive size of the Greek fleet is relevant, for the expedition
is Panhellenic (Introduction p. 17); it will be invincible against non-
Greeks (296–8; cf. 1378–84, 1400–1). The ships complement the
army of 189–230; 171–2 ‘to view the army and the sea-faring oars’
are a headline to both parts of the entry-song; this view was put
strongly by Hose I.160, who argues that the conflict in the prologue
(unknown, of course, to the Chorus) contrasts with the impression
of confident outcome given by the parodos, especially its final
sentences: the army’s present idleness will compel it to overturn
Ag.’s wish to save his daughter. ‘The Greek host must be constantly
in the background of the action’, Matthiessen (1999) 399.
(b) Catalogues are not rare in Tragedy, most prominently in Aeschylus’
Persians (16–58, 865–900, 955–1001) and Seven 375–676; in
294 Commentary

Euripides see Pho. 119–92, 1104–40 and the sequences of heroes’

names in Supp. 860–908 and the hero’s feats in Her. 354–435.
(c) Stylistic features are not unlike those of 189–230, especially echoes
of Homer: see most recently Ferrari (1990); repetitions and a certain
monotony are to be expected in ‘catalogues’.
(d) Iambo-trochaic rhythm is common in late Euripidean lyric: see 3.1.c
above.
(e) A good debating-point: what motive could there have been for a
lengthy lyric interpolation? The entry-song would be incomplete in
the audience’s expectation of further detail (171–2 in (a) above); an
end at 230 is impossibly abrupt, while 293–302 recapitulate both
content and motive (all three points were stressed by Hose I.160).
Contrast the endings of the odes 543–89 and 751–800 and their
immediately following contexts, and the conclusive ending of the
ode 1036–97.
(f) The four ecphrastic emblems 213–4, 250–2, 256–8, 275–6 allude to
marriage and violence in the underlying myths, themes linked in the
whole progress of the plot (cf. Torrance (2013) in 3.2 above).
against authenticity
(g) Excessive length as an entry-song (but see 3.1.b above).
(h) The matter is unsuitable for a choral narrative, esp. from women (but
see 3.2 above, and (a) above).
(j) The ‘theme’, the sheer numbers of the Greeks, is carelessly
executed: the numbers tail off and are incomplete (none are given
for the contingents of 277–87; numbers are lost, but together with
text, probably in 261–2 and almost certainly in 274–5); the list is
selective (unlike the Iliad’s completeness), but does not indicate this.
(k) The lines in their dullness ‘spoil the climactic word-picture of
Achilles, an image of supreme power and grace’ with which the
previous stanzas end at 230 (Cavander (1973) 172–3 – an excellent
observation), and weaken the impact of the third important male in
the play (3.1 (b) above).
(l) Poverty of imagination, vocabulary and style, the whole being rather
‘mechanical’; frequency of words found only here in Euripides or
only once (seldom more) elsewhere, including prose; numerous
repetitions, especially of words for ‘seeing’ (about 10: 3.2 above) and
of ‘ship’ ναῦς (×12) and its compounds (×5): see esp. Page 142–5.
 Commentary 295

(m) Monotony in metre (3.1.c above); versification is sometimes crude.

(n) The distinction between Argos (242) and Mycenae (265) is incorrect
(but see 3.1 b above).
Conclusions. The positive considerations (a–f) are attractive, but it
remains unlikely that a single mind composed 231–302, as the lines now
stand in ms. L, after the accomplished and lively 164–230, even if the
‘idea’ was that of Euripides. We therefore are unconvinced of ‘integrity’,
and think of partial completion either by Euripides’ son or nephew or,
perhaps, by a later composer altogether (see esp. Kovacs (2002) 186 and
(2003) 83–4).

164–8, 185–9 The Chorus’ route from home (168) was the ancient one
by boat and ‘road’: from Chalcis on Euboea just south of the Euripus
where the waters are narrowest (about 70 metres; a bridge was built there
as early as 410 BC (see Diodorus 13.47.3–6), but Euripides naturally
ignores this), along and round the sandy bay of Aulis, through Artemis’
precinct, to the Greeks’ encampment. It is not clear from 231 whether the
ships were right by the camp, or further along to the south.
164–84 The strophe is filled by a single long sentence: cf. e.g. A. Ag.
104–20, Hel. 191–210, Pho. 202–13.
164–70 I came … leaving: a common motif to begin a parodos, esp.
in Aeschylus (Kranz (1933) 150, e.g. Supp. 4, Cho. 23), but rare in
Sophocles and Euripides: ‘I come’ from an entering chorus too at Pho.
216, Cretans F 472.4. ‘leaving’: not ‘abandoning’, as e.g. Pho. 202, but
as in English ‘we are now leaving London’, Cretans F 472.4. For verbs
of ‘coming’ elsewhere in Eurpides’ lyric see 573–5 n. sandy: Aulis
also at IT 215 – but 211 below has ‘shingle’. nurse: τροφόν as not just
the ‘host’ location, but one ‘protecting, fostering, enriching’, cf. El. 54
night as ‘nurse’ of the stars; used of the food-bearing sea E. Stheneboea
F 670.3; Stockert cites e.g. Pind. Paean 6.14 (Apollo’s grove protecting
dedicated wreaths and feasts). One expects the spring to ‘nurse’ the city
(England). Chalcis both sheltered and fostered the famous spring
Arethusa as a cult-site; though of fresh-water, it was close by the sea,
south of the city. The nymph Arethusa was desired and pursued by the
river-god Alpheus (his name in 276), but was saved by Artemis who
took her to Sicilian Syracuse and changed her to a spring; a variant of
296 Commentary

the myth had the river Alpheus in the W. Peloponese flow under the sea
and mingle his waters with hers. She became a common metonymy for
any significant spring, first found at Od. 13.408 for one on Ithaca. The
most celebrated ‘Arethusa’ continued to be that at Syracuse, where the
spring is on the shore on Ortygia: Callimachus F 407.45 Pfeiffer, Strabo
10.1.13.
Greek. 164 along on: ἀμφί: LSJ under C I. 2 translate most examples
with the acc. of place as ‘somewhere on’, e.g. Or. 114 ἐλθοῦσα δ’ ἀμφὶ
Κλυταιμήστρας τάφον ‘coming close round Clyt.’s tomb’, S. Aj. 1064
ἀμφὶ χλωρὰν ψάμαθον ἐκβεβλημένος ‘cast up on the yellow sand’.
παρακτίαν is a compound adj. of the 2. decl. with 3 terminations; but
this is no great rarity in Tragedy; again e.g. in the very next line, 165
ἐναλίας.
[Text. 167 στενοπόρθμου Wilamowitz and many eds, of Euripus
the place, known for its narrow strait; the adj. and the name thus
embrace the phrase after putting in across the currents: -πορθμον
L, a simple copyist’s error: -πόρθμων of the currents themselves Weil,
Diggle.   169 ἀγχιάλων L, of the spring’s waters near the sea (above):
the adj. describes Chalcis itself Il. 2.640, whence Monk conjectured
ἀγχίαλον.]
171–3a To view … was my purpose: the translation tries to reflect
the emphasis on ‘viewing’ achieved through the postponed final particle
ὡς and verb (a longer postponement in e.g. 233–4). The compound verb
εἰσοράω means ‘set (and keep) eyes on’, a sense aided by the mid. voice,
an Epicism, e.g. Supp. 1122 viewing the bodies of slain sons; cf. 274
below κατειδόμαν, 295 εἰδόμαν. army … vessels: in unity, a powerful
war-fleet, emphasized by the repetition Achaeans … Achaean beginning
171 and 172 in the Greek (but see Text below). Together with 174 ‘ships’
the words are a headline for the separate descriptions of 189–230 and
231–300, perhaps reflected in the final words 301–2 ‘host summoned
together’: a mild consideration favouring the ‘integrity’ of the whole
parodos? demi-gods: ἡμιθέων, the word only here in Eur., and in
Homer only at Il. 12.23 (also Hes. WD 159–60 ‘heroes whom they call
demi-gods’, cf. Pind. Pyth. 4.12, 184, 211, the Argonauts). Even Achilles,
son of a goddess (134), is never described as such elsewhere; so here the
word may suggest the women’s excited curiosity and imagination? Cf.
232 ‘a spectacle beyond words to describe’.
 Commentary 297

Greek. 172 πλάτας vessels lit. ‘oar-blades’, a common synecdoche for

ships (e.g. 291, 765), like 174 ἐλάταις ‘oars’, and κώπη ‘oar’ IT 141.
ναυσιπόρους sea-faring is Eur.’s coinage, probably imitated at Rhesus 48.
[Text. 171 ἐσιδοίμαν: a neat correction by Elmsley, the preverb ἐσ-
omitted by haplography with ὡς; L’s modal particle ἄν is incorrect in
Attic Greek with the opt. in a final clause, except in Xenophon.   172
τε L and: Diggle in OCT points to Pho. 340 and his (1981) 55–6 for
Monk’s δὲ, common with a second, repeated term, e.g. 17, 559, 1334;
GP 163; but some eds have disliked the repetition of Ἀχαιῶν, and e.g.
Camper suggested emendation in 172 to Ἀτρειδᾶν ‘of the Atreids’,
preparatory to the naming of Men. and Ag. 175 and 177.]
173b–8a whom: οὕς begins the first of three successive rel. clauses,
a marked feature of Eur.’s style in lyric narrative: see 573–89 n. our
husbands say: for talk as spur to the women’s coming cf. Hipp.
129–30, cited in 164–302 n. 2.1 end; for ‘lyric’ narrative prompted by
hearing cf. El. 452–3. For ‘husbands’ see Introduction pp. 30–1, on the
Chorus. fair-haired Menelaus: Iliad 3.284 etc.; the conventional
English translation is ‘red-haired’, but the adj. ξανθός covers any bright
colour in the yellow-red range (or red and white, Pl. Timaeus 108b); it
is the colour of Iph.’s hair 681, 1366, and Cassandra’s 758. Men.’s light
hair-colour figures in the contrived contrast in mettle between him and
his black-haired brother Ag. (see Fraenkel on Ag. 115). nobly-born:
εὐπατρίδαν lit. ‘of a fine paternal lineage’, a word denoting at Athens
‘the old … aristocratic governing caste (e.g. Ion 1073), but in Tragedy
… simply an archaic and more dignified synonym of εὐγενής’, Barrett
on Hipp. 152. are leading: indeed they are, and this sense of στέλλω
is often extended from literal ‘forming and sending off’, e.g. A. Pers.
177 στείλας στρατόν; used again of Ag. at 661. fleet of a thousand
ships: lit.‘…oars’; a ‘thousand’ became the canonical and identifying
number for this fleet, e.g. 355, E. El. 2; the Iliad totals 1186 in Book 2;
Thuc.1.10.4 rounded this up to 1200. For the accumulation in 171–4 of
near-synonyms cf. 131–2 n.; Breitenbach (1934) 188–9.
Greek. 178 ἐπί to get: the prep. with acc. Smyth 1689.3c, LSJ C III.1;
of a person e.g. S. OT 141 ‘to get Tiresias’, Ar. Frogs 1418 ‘to get a
poet’.
[Text. 173 οὓς Scaliger is inescapable: ὡς ‘as’ adverbial gives
incorrect sense, even when stretched to ‘because (our husbands tell us
298 Commentary

that…)’.   175 <θ’> <both> Fritzsche: a metrical supplement; for τε

postponed cf. e.g. 203.]
178b–81 Paris the oxherd: 76n. Eurotas’ reedy river: Sparta’s river
(Hel. 492–3), with its ‘formulaic’ description, first at Theognis 785; cf. IT
399, Hel. 208. gift of Aphrodite: Helen calls herself this Hel. 363–4,
cf. 883 and 69 n. above. Aphrodite gave Helen to Paris so that he should
choose herself as victor in the Judgement, 182–4 and n.; Stinton (1965)
18–19.
Greek. 180 ἃν: a remarkable postponement of the rel. pron., to seventh
place in its clause; next long is to fifth in Hel. 1498: see Breitenbach
(1934) 263. The rel. here is placed as first object before the verb ἔλαβε
with the second object δῶρον after it.   In 184 Κύπρις has the def. art.,
like Μενέλαον 175 and ῾Ελέναν 178: the implication may approach ‘the
well-known or famous…’, as probably it does in 757 (n.).
182–4 dewy waters of a spring: the regular place of the goddesses’
strife and the Judgement (e.g. 1291–9, 1300–8, And. 284–6), in both
myth and poetry, a suitable locus amoenus (‘delightful place’: 1295–9 n.)
for the bathing with which they got themselves ready for the beauty
contest (Hel. 676); but the bathing is simultaneously the ‘beginning of
the trouble’, ἀρχὴ κακῶν: Stinton (1965) 15. joined in strife, strife:
doubling of words (anadiplosis: V. Bers, EGT 1369–70), not always
ones of importance, was a marked idiosyncrasy of Eur. in his later plays:
with ἔριν again 587, and e.g. an adj. like πικρός ‘bitter(ly damaging)’
1315–16, cf. 1330; the mannerism was mocked at Ar. Frogs 1337, 1352,
1353–5: Breitenbach (1934) 220. beauty: μορφᾶς lit. ‘shape(liness)’,
explicitly ἔριν τῆς καλλονᾶς ‘strife over beauty’ 1307–8.
Greek. ἔσχεν ‘joined’, ingressive aor.; for ἔχω with acc. and dat. cf. e.g.
Hcld. 163 πόλεμον ᾿Αργείοις ἔχειν ‘to begin war against the Argives’.
185–6 I came etc.: similar to the opening of the parodos 164–8, but
the Chorus are now moving closer to the army. The first word of the
Greek sentence is the adj. πολύθυτον, lit. ‘of, with many sacrifices’,
emphatically placed and ominous, for Ag. is trying to prevent yet another
but hideous sacrifice there. We therefore slightly over-translate it with
place of many sacrifices, to Artemis (91); cf. [1548] ‘his daughter
coming into the grove to be slain’; [1544] has Artemis’ ‘grove … and
flowery meadows’. Cf. Hcld. 777 πολύθυτος … τιμά ‘honour … through
many sacrifices’. grove: the usual English translation of ἄλσος, but the
 Commentary 299

word connotes not necessarily a place with trees (e.g. Iliad 20.8), just a
sacred precinct (without trees e.g. Iliad 2.506, S. Ant. 844, and perhaps
IA [1544] cited above). Strabo describes the ‘sacred Run of Achilles’ in
Scythia (see on 210–12) as ‘a bare place, but called an ἄλσος’). It can
be an area big enough to accommodate the Lion of Nemea, for example,
Her. 359. The word etymologically may derive from ἀλ(δαίνω) ‘nourish’,
as a place of ‘growth’, or one made prosperous by the gods.
Greek. 186 ὄρνυμαι mid. ‘hasten’: cf. IT 1149, Pho. 1569.
[Text. Τhe aor. mid. part of ὄρνυμι is confused in mss. with ὁρῶμαι
‘see’, as here, A. Ag. 1408, Seven 87].
187–8 turning red … the bashfulness of a young woman: why do
the women blush in the grove? Because they are married, and no longer
maidens in the presence of a maiden goddess? Or does the poet anticipate
the shame of a woman come to view, and just about to view, men-at-arms
exercising? Women’s properly modest conduct is a motif in the later
action: see 164–302 n. 2.1 and 2; Introduction pp. 30–1, 34–5. ‘turning
red’: φοινίσσουσα, but transitive: the Greeks often perceived emotions
as generated by those who feel them; Headlam cites 1434 ‘you wet your
eyes with tears’. More elaborate is the noun φοινίξ ‘red’ at Pho. 1488 τὸν
ὑπὸ βλεφάροις φοινίκ’, ἐρύθημα προσώπου ‘the red beneath my eye, the
blush on my face’. The colour in Eur. usually denotes shed blood, so the
qualification with ‘bashfulness’ is necessary.
[Text. 188 νεοθαλῆ Blaydes, with παρῇδα, confines ‘young’ to the
cheek.]
189–91 guarding shields and armed encampment: a plain translation,
and with the inherent ambiguity of the Greek. ἔρυμα is a ‘strong guard’,
lit. a defensive bulwark, defined by the subjective gen. ἀσπίδος; with
obj. gen. e.g. E. Antiope F 223.89 πολεμίων ‘(walls a bulwark) against
enemies’; and ἀσπίς sing. or plur. may stand in synecdoche for ‘war’,
e.g. Supp. 572, Pho. 1326, or ‘army (at war)’, e.g. Pho. 78, possibly 82
above. The Greek words are placed artfully and may interlace meaning:
so, overall, perhaps ‘the Greeks’ defensive might (Ritchie) in their
shields, and their encampment (of men) bearing arms’. Defence, though,
is not what the women expect (or what we anticipate from the women’s
descriptions, and think would not be needed at Aulis), for they know that
the expedition is punitive (272), and are sure it will be invincible (296–8).
They are as yet unaware that it has completely stalled. encampment:
300 Commentary

κλισίη is the Homeric word for a military dwelling, lit. a ‘lean-to’, but
it can mean a substantial structure, not just a temporary ‘tent’: at Iliad
24.448–54 Ach.’s κλισίη is lofty, made of pine, roofed with straw, with
an αὐλή ‘court’ surrounded by a palisade and entered through a single
pine gate; see also 24.644, 647 and 673. horse-chariots: just ‘horses’
in the Greek, as Supp. 694 and in Homer, e.g. Iliad 5.13.
192–205 The heroes come in pairs, and are separated in the translation
by semi-colons.
192–4a the two Ajaxes: Iliad 2.527 and 557 in the Catalogue
respectively; they are named with the Greek dual at 2.406, as here.
Oileus’ son became notorious for violating the Trojan princess and
prophetess Cassandra (named in our 757) at the city’s fall, and near a
statue of Athena. (For the variant form of his name Ileus see Fries (2014)
183.) Telamon’s son competed with Od. for the arms of the slain Ach.,
and was humiliated into suicide by Od.’s patroness Athena (the plot of
Sophocles’ Ajax). As a warrior he was indeed the glory (στέφανον lit.
‘wreath, crown’) of Salamis; for the metaphor in Tragedy cf. e.g. Tro.
565; compare ἄνθος ‘flower’ e.g. Pers. 59, Her. 876. sitting together:
as comrades, not necessarily ‘in counsel’ (LSJ).
[Text. 193 τὸν Monk: τοῖς L; the acc. is necessary in apposition to
γόνον, and the usage is as in 289 Αἴας … ὁ Σαλαμῖνος ἔντροφος.   194
Σαλαμῖνος P2: Σαλαμινίοις L, dat. ‘for the Salaminians’, is poorer idiom
and difficult metrically.]
194b–8 Protesilaus: one of myth’s truly tragic figures, forcibly separated
from his wife of one day to join the expedition, and the first Greek to be
killed at Troy, while leading the disembarkation (Iliad 2.698–702); the
gods permitted his return to life, perhaps as a phantom, for just one day
for reunion with his wife, who afterwards killed herself. Most of his story
seems to have been contained in Eur.’s Protesilaus: see test. ii TrGF and
Collard and Cropp (2008) VIII 106–17. Palamedes: not in Homer (see
164–302 n. 2.3 (b)). Son of Poseidon’s son the sea-lord Nauplius, and ‘a
human counterpart of the intellectual and inventive demi-god Prometheus,
he became a by-word for cleverness’, Collard and Cropp (2008) VIII 46.
Myth credited him in particular with the invention of writing, and of board-
games; Eur. draws on the tradition that the Greeks diverted themselves
with these at Aulis: see e.g. Soph. Palamedes F 479; Gorgias, Palamedes
20. Eur.’s Palamedes dramatised his destruction by the jealous Od. and
 Commentary 301

Diomedes (Cypria F 27 West = Paus. 10.31.2; Collard and Cropp (2004)

VIII 92–101). draughts: πεσσοί, but played with dice; of two forms
of the game, one was called ‘cities’, πόλεις poleis, its intricate patterns
alluded to at E. Erechtheus F 360.8–9 ‘cities established as in the differing
moves in pessoi’; the same play on ‘cities’ at Supp. 409–10. For the moment
the Greeks are playing at capturing cities, however; when the army learns
how the real capture of Troy depends upon the sacrifice of Iph., the heroes’
interactions are in deadly earnest, e.g. 531–5, 1346–50; and Troy’s capture
will be grim, 751–800. There survive many artistic representations of Ajax
playing the game, particularly with Ach. on a famous vessel by Exekias
(540–30 BC): LIMC I.1 ‘Achilleus’ 96–7 no. 397 = ‘Aias’ I.1 324 no. 67;
Pausanias 10.31.1 described a painting by Polygnotus at Delphi depicting
both Ajaxes, Palamedes and Thersites playing with dice. Note the emphasis
on pleasure in 196 and 199–200 (and Ach. ‘bounds’ alongside a chariot
in 229).
Greek. 196 ἡδομένους: plur. verb-form standing between two sing.
subjects, schema Alcmanicum, e.g. Alcman F 2 PMG; Smyth 965. 198
τίκτω lit. ‘beget’, seldom of a man, e.g. 474, Her. 3; usually ‘bear’ of
a mother, e.g. 208 (where the unaugmented verb recurs: such forms in
lyric are commoner in Eur.’s later plays; see also 578 n; Denniston on El.
1224).  
199–202 Diomedes: first at Iliad 2.563, 567 and very frequently
afterwards. pleasures of the discus: Iliad 2.774 (Ach.’s Myrmidons
during his sulk) ‘delighting themselves with the discus’. Meriones:
first at Iliad 2.651 and very frequently afterwards, but there he is no
more than a name; at 13.328 he is ‘like Ares’, but not his scion, ὄζος lit.
‘sprig’: the same metaphor as ἔρνος (116 n.), but a little higher in register
(whence our translation here), like ἶνις ‘whelp’ (119 n.): Iliad 2.540 of
Elephenor, Hec. 123 of Theseus’ twin sons. a wonder to men: this
phrase describes a beautiful woman at Od. 11.287; for its use of heroes
see S. Trac. 961 (Heracles); Diggle (1981) 90.
Greek. 200 κεχαρημένον: the rare poetic perf. mid. of χαίρω in -η-
occurs only here in Eur.   201 παρὰ beside: an adv. in the Greek, an
Epic usage, e.g. Iliad 1.611 (LSJ E), but only here in Eur.   202 θαῦμα
βροτοῖσιν: with the infin. ὁρᾶν e.g. Ion 1142 θαύματ’ ἀνθρώποις ὁρᾶν,
‘wonders for men to see’, below [1581]; and with the adj. ταυρόπουν
275: Smyth 2002, 2004.
302 Commentary

203–5 son of Laertes: Odysseus, Iliad 2.631 and frequently; for his
mountainous island, Ithaca, see e.g. 3.201. Perhaps for reasons of
emphasis, he is often referred to by his (disputed) father, either the heroic
Laertes or, if the poet wishes to suggest ruthless and selfish guile, usually
Sisyphus the trickster, e.g. 524 (see n.), 1362; cf. 106–10 n. Nireus:
only at Iliad 2.671–5, where as here he is impoverished, bringing
only three ships, and handsomest κάλλιστος of the Greeks (if second
nonetheless to Achilles in that); and so he makes a good transition to the
greatest hero in 206. Nireus’ beauty became ‘proverbial’, e.g. Lucian,
Timon 23; Dialog. Dead 19.4; Ibycus F 228.37–45 PMG however names
Cyanippus as ‘handsomest’ of the Greeks and Troilus of the Trojans.
Greek. In 203 connective τ(ε) has an apparently unusual postponement
because the prep. phrase is treated as a linguistic unit; cf. GP 516.  204
Λαέρτα is the Doric gen.
206–30 Achilles: Iliad 2.685 with 50 ships (as in our 239). He enjoys
the longest vignette (164–302 n. 3.1 (b)), founded on his fleetness of foot
(207), with which it begins and ends. Homer’s most frequent adj. for him
is ποδώκης ‘foot-swift’, Iliad 2.860 etc. (×20); ironically he does little
running in Homer, except to escape from the raging river Scamander
21.251–4 and to pursue the fleeing Hector 22.138–66, 189–207; and he
naturally does not compete in the foot-race at Patroclus’ funeral, for he
donates the prizes, 23.740–97. His strength and prowess in battle are
suggested by his running in full armour, 212–15, 227–8 and nn. For his
depiction here see too Michelakis (2002) 120–1.
206–9 feet the equal of the wind: ἰσάνεμον … ποδοῖν, cf. Iliad
2.781 ποδήνεμος (‘foot-windy, wind-footed’) … Ἶρις, the gods’ aerial
messenger in the Iliad; Collectanea Alexandrina F 106 Powell has
ἀνεμώκης ‘wind-swift’ of a girl. light-running: λαιψηδρόμον: the
compound adj. happens to be unique, but the simple adj. λαιψηρός
describes Achilles at Iliad 21.264. whom Thetis bore: this identifier
for him also 1075. trained to perfection: the play will later give us an
idea how successful Chiron’s moral training of Achilles (709) has been.
In ἐκπονέω the preverb means ‘(work, toil) to a finish’; e.g. of horses and
men trained for the hunt Xen. Hell. 6.4.28. πονέω ‘educate a boy’ Theocr.
13.14; cf. μοχθέω ‘toil to bring up’ Her. 281.
Greek. 206 ποδοῖν is instrum. dat. (as 213), but pleonastic here before
‘light-running’; the dual number is usual of things one possesses in pairs,
 Commentary 303

like χεροῖν ‘hands’ 1112.   207 τὸν: the def. art. as rel. pron. is Epic,
poetic and Ionic (e.g. in Herodotus), occurring even in Tragic dialogue
when metre requires (see e.g. Barrett on Hipp. 525, Diggle (1994) 32–3,
466–67).   208 τέκε unaugmented: 198 n.   209 ἐκπονέω is one of
Eur.’s favourite compounds, e.g. 367 and n.; see Lee on Ion 375.
[Text. 206 δὲ Monk, the stronger connective marking the transition to
a major topic (206–30 n.); GP 170–71: τε L.
Metre. 207 Ἀχιλλέα Hermann, Diggle, the two final vowels scanned
as one ‘long’ syllable (synizesis), like 204–5 Νιρέα. Eds choose from
the name’s variant forms according to their identification of the metrical
colon: so e.g. Ἀχιλέα (Günther, Stockert; Ἀχιλῆ also Hermann.]
210–12 running in armour: both wearing armour and carrying shield
and spear, an arduous exercise not found in Homer but familiar to an
Athenian audience: the verb was ὁπλιτοδρομέω and the adj. ὁπλιτοδρόμος
‘running armed (as a hoplite)’. It was a competitive event at the great
Panathenaic festival; it is described at Plato, Laws 833a, cf. Scholia to Ar.
Acharnians 213, Pollux 3.151: the armed runner sprang from the chariot
before running with it (Dem. 61.28); uncertainly attested in Inscr.Gr. I2
351. Burkert (1993) 88–90 traces competitive running in armour (e.g. Pind.
Ol. 4.22), at the Games and in cult, and even at an ‘Achilles’ Run’ (a race-
track) in Scythia Hdt. 4.76.4 and Strabo 7.3.19 (cf. our 185–6 n) – but
more importantly in Athens. He argues that Eur. here in IA wanted the
audience to make the hero ‘at home’ in Athens as an ‘identification-figure’
(but also as an inconsistent one, ultimately helpless despite his ‘armour’:
see Ach.’s final words at 1426–9). He combines this interpretation with
a similarly suggestive discussion of Athena as emblem in 250–2: see n.
there. over beach, over shingle: not all sand, then (165), and much
tougher for running, but probably there is Homeric influence, e.g. Iliad
2.773 discus-throwing παρὰ ῥηγμῖνι ‘by the surf’.
Greek. 210 ἴδον: unaugmented aor. (ἐ- before lost consonantal
digamma: Smyth 431 and p. 700); again in 218. παρά with dat. locates,
and not always at rest. Only one ‘over’ in the Greek, but the two nouns
are closely linked by τε ‘and’ placed after the prep. with the second:
543–4, 1085–6; Smyth 2983c; Diggle (1981) 117.   211 δρόμον
ἔχοντα lit. ‘having a run’, a use of ἔχω not unlike that in 183–84 ἔριν …
ἔσχεν ‘joined in strife’; And. 599–600 δρόμους … ἔχουσι ‘have races’.
213–15 four-horsed chariot: that of Eumelus, 216: see 221–4 n.
304 Commentary

rounding (the course): at the sharp double–back turn ending a leg: see
n. on 224. ἑλίσσω, here intrans., is usually trans., e.g. Pho. 3 of the Sun’s
circuit while driving his chariot; of racing horses e.g. Iliad 23.309; it was
a favourite verb of Eur. (×40), e.g. 1055 of girls twirling in round dances;
the poet is mocked for it in parody, Ar. Frogs 1314, 1348. in pursuit of
victory: the phrase περὶ νίκης of chariot-racing Iliad 23.437, 496.
Greek. 213 ἅμιλλαν … ἐπόνει raced hard lit. ‘toiled (in) competition’,
the noun internal acc. with a verb of allied meaning, as e.g. Hipp. 1367–9
μόχθους … ἐπόνησα ‘toiled in troubles’.   214 πρός against of
competition LSJ C I.4.   215 περί in pursuit of: LSJ A II.1.
[Text. 215 ἑλίσσων ‘turning, twisting’ is found awkward by some eds,
who ask: would a running Achilles be able to turn sharply? Turning battle-
chariots abruptly was a distinct skill, just as on the race-course where
the end-turn (221–6 n.) was the point of greatest danger: see 744–5 in
the exciting narrative in S. El. 681–756. For ἑλίσσων Diggle OCT notes
Pikkolos’ conjecture ἐρίζων ‘in rivalry’ (this verb in chariot-racing Iliad
23.404).]
216–26 Eumelus: first at Iliad 2.714, and frequently thereafter, esp.
23.288–9 in the chariot-racing; at 2.763–4 his horses are the fastest at
Troy; here in 218 and 225–6 their beautiful appearance is foremost,
perhaps to add (literal) colour to the otherwise ‘physical’ description.
216–20 shouting: to the horses, e.g. Orestes at S. El. 737. Pheres’
grandson: the patronym in -(ι)άδης here goes back two generations
(Smyth 845), cf. 855 Ach. Αἰακοῦ γένεθλον ‘offspring’, i.e. Aeacus’
grandson, and in the frequent Homeric Αἰακίδης, e.g. Iliad 2.860. horses:
Eumelus’ horses are male (220–3) (like those described racing at S. El.
721, 725), but in Iliad 2.763 they are mares. bits gold-chased: ‘gold,
golden’ recur in 239 and 257, naturally enough of rich ornamentation
(see Greek). struck: for a goad used on horses in Homer see e.g. Iliad
23.387, by a charioteer A. Eum. 157; such sharp prods were later used
mostly on cattle. A horse-whip is used at e.g. Iliad 17.430.
Greek. 219 in χρυσοδαιδάλτοις ‘gold-chased’ -δαιδαλ- denotes
artificers’ work, craftmanship, ‘Daedalic’: DELG 246. στομίοις: the bare
dat. is associative, a variety of the instrumental, Smyth 1507.
[Text. 218 Hermann’s possessive gen. οὗ seems inescapable. Some
eds take L’s dat. ᾧ as that of the agent, rare with a pres. pass., e.g. S. Aj.
539: Smyth 1490.]
 Commentary 305

221–6 middle ones which carried the yoke: so too Scholia on Ar.
Clouds 122a; cf. Jebb or Finglass on S. El. 722. coats: θρίξ lit. ‘hair’;
of a shaggy horse being combed at S. F 475. trace-horses: either side
of the yokers, and fastened only to the bottom of the rounded chariot-
front, the ἄντυξ (229): see Jebb or Finglass as before. These horses not
only gave extra pull, they also chiefly turned the chariot at the bend (IT 81
δρόμους … καμπίμους ‘turns on the course’). The outsider was trained
to run more strongly, the insider to slacken speed; both horses help to
tug yokers and chariot round. So they are said here to be countering
(the turnings of the race-track); this must be the sense of ἀντήρεις,
‘opposed to’ and not ‘opposite’ the bend (for that is without point: the
whole team and its chariot are that) nor ‘opposite’ each other (for that
needs no saying). What is intended here, perhaps, is simply to distinguish
the trace-horses from the yokers first in their principal function, then
in their ‘colour’; this view approaches the translation of ἀντήρεις by
England, that the yokers are ‘suited to’ such turnings. Cf. in particular
Nestor’s instructions to his son on how to race at Iliad 23.306–48, esp.
336–7, cited by Finglass on S. El. 721–2. with spotted fetlocks at
their hooves below: lit. ‘spotted below on their single-hoofed ankles
(pasterns)’. The passage may be imitated at Rhesus 355–6 ‘driving a
chariot with spotted horses’ (see Introduction p. 59).
Greek. 224 ἀντήρης: for argument that the element -ήρης is not inert,
but reflects the verb ἀ(ε)ίρω, in the sense of ‘raise, rise against (ἀντι-);
counter’, see DELG 1378.   225 ὑπὸ is adverbial not prepositional,
e.g. Iliad 10.95; σφυρά is acc. of respect with the adj. ποικιλοδέρμονας.
227–30 went bounding: the simple verb πάλλω; the act.is used of
horses themselves at El. 477. beside … rail and … wheel-naves:
parallel with the charioteer, who stood directly above the wheels. The
nave σύριγξ is pierced for the fixed axle, e.g. Hipp. 1234.
[Text. Notice the numbering of these lines: the first printed edition (the
‘Aldine’: see Introduction p. 60) used the line-divisions first introduced
in L by Triclinius, after 225/26 μονο- and 226/27 after ποικιλο-.]
231–302 The ‘catalogue’ of ships: see 164–302 n. 2.3 (b), 3 and
(authenticity) 4.
231–2 I went on to counting … and a spectacle: a mild zeugma
in the Greek. For the noun ἀριθμός ‘counting, count’ cf. Hdt. 7.59.3
τῆς στρατιῆς ἀριθμὸν ποιεῖσθαι ‘make a count of the army’. beyond
306 Commentary

words to describe: ἀθέσφατον lit. ‘beyond a god’s saying’, an Epic

adj., e.g. Iliad 3.4 a rainstorm; isolated here in Tragedy. With the whole
phenomenon cf. Thuc. 6.31.1 ‘foreigners and the rest of the crowd came
for the spectacle (κατὰ θέαν) … as if (to see) a noteworthy and incredible
enterprise’ (the gathering of the Athenians’ expedition against Syracuse,
415 BC).
[Text. ἀθέσφατον L: ἀθεσφάτων of the ships Willink, the two gens.
‘bracketing’ the clause; accepted by Kovacs (2002), but the adj. is much
apter to θέαν ‘spectacle’ ]
233–4 fill … my woman’s eyes with seeing: cf. F 1063.7 τὴν ὄψιν
ἐμπλήσασα ‘filling her eyes’, after line 3 there ‘her eyes desire the
pleasure outside the house’ (in the context, any attractive man: see below
on Text).
Greek. γυναικεῖον: the 2-termination form of a simple adj. with fem.
in -ος, (rare: LSJ, cf. Smyth 288) helps euphony [Text. The form was
restored by Boeckh]. ὄψις active in force, ‘seeing’. with subjective gen.
ὀμμάτων as e.g. Cyc. 628, Or. 513. ἁδονάν pleasure: acc. in apposition
to a whole clause, as 241, 252, 832, 1308; Smyth 991b. The trope with
adj. and noun often conveys an ‘emotive’ charge (Ritchie), e.g. Or. 727
‘a pleasing sight’, 1105 ‘a bitter hurt’.
[Text. 234 †honey-sweet† μείλινον L, translated as if a variant form
of μέλινος ‘honeyed’, but it is unattested; a rather precious term here,
although defended. The Epic adj. μείλινος means ‘made of ash-wood’,
clearly incorrect. The obvious conjecture μείλιχον ‘gentle, mild’ was
made long ago (Markland), but like μείλινον has a metrical shape not
corresponding with the antistrophe at 245 ὃν τρε-; Ferrari (1990) 103–4
accepts both μείλιχον and metrical licence. Markland himself therefore
altered the word-order in 245 to (ὃν τρέ)φει Τάλα(ος), but the rhythm, at
this point of a trochaic verse, is very questionable (J. Diggle, CR 34 (1984)
67). Most recent eds (except Stockert and Diggle, cf. Matthiessen) have
printed Wilamowitz’ misjudged conjecture λίχνον ἁδονάν ‘a gluttonous
pleasure’, the adj. being 2-termination as in Hipp. 913 (better would
be Jackson’s λίχνον ἁδονᾶν ‘gluttonous (i.e. a woman’s sight itself)
for pleasures’). The English word jars here, the Greek one is ‘always
disapproving’ (Barrett on Hipp.); it most often implies sexual interest
or prurience, as in F 1063.[8] ‘curious for what is hidden’, of a male
ogling women. Hermann’s emendation μᾶλλον ἁδονᾶν (gen. plur.) took
 Commentary 307

a different course: ‘(that I might sate my sight) more with pleasures’.

Numerous other conjectures are gathered (and added to) by Stockert,
almost all based upon ‘honey’.]
235–8 the right wing: again at 290; the position of honour and
leadership, accorded to the best combatants, e.g. A. Pers. 399 (the Greeks
at Salamis), E. Supp. 657 (Theseus at Thebes), Hdt. 9.28.2 (the Spartans
at Plataea). warrior force: the single word Ἄρης, ‘Ares the God of War’,
a common metonymy, e.g. 283 Ἄρη Τάφιον ‘The warrior Taphians’, And.
106 ὁ χιλιόναυς … Ἄρης ‘war-force of a thousand ships’. Myrmidons:
eager fighters 814–18 (but content to go home if frustrated, 817: see n.);
ferocious Iliad 16.156–64 (like wolves). fifty: Ach.’s number at Iliad
2.685, 16.168. fierce: θούριος, the Tragic form of Epic θοῦρος/θοῦρις,
lit. ‘rushing’, i.e. furious in onslaught; of Ares himself Iliad 15.127;
applied to armaments, weaponry e.g. 11.32 a shield, A. Eum. 628 bows.
Greek. 235–6 ἦν ἔχων ‘was holding’: the verb ‘to be’ and pres. part.
in periphrasis for a continuous action or state, here impf. εἶχε [Text. So
Ferrari (1990) 105, supporting Jouan’s now widely accepted emendation];
cf. e.g. IT 721–2 ἔστιν … διδοῦσα ‘is giving’; Smyth 1857, 1961. 236
πλάτας gen. sing., not acc. plur. in apposition with κέρας ‘wing’. For
the synecdoche as fleet see 172 n.   238 ναυσὶ: the dat. is probably
comitative, e.g. of ‘military accompaniment’ Smyth 1526, or a variety of
the ‘constituent’ instrumental dat. (239 n.).
239–41 In golden images: cf. the shields at A. Seven 644 (image of a
man), 434 and 660 (inlaid lettering). high up: lit. ‘at the high points’:
on the sterns therefore, and easily visible (164–302 n. 3.2, end of 1.
paragraph); cf. 241, 258, 275. Nereid goddesses: nymphs, in fact, of
the sea, sisters and companions of Thetis, Ach.’s goddess-mother (208),
as an emblem doubly apt for his ships. The Nereids accompany his own
ship in El. 432–41, for they had brought him his armour before he sailed,
442–4; but they do not appear on his shield in its description at 455–78.
Neither in El. nor here are they numbered; a mesmerising passage at
Iliad 18.38–49 gives 33 individual names, ‘and others’.
Greek. 239 εἰκόσιν: ‘constituent’ dat., Smyth 1508c; cf. Od. 4.616 ‘the
lips of a crater fashioned in gold’.   240 ἕστασαν plupf., again in 243,
but nowhere else in Eur.   241 πρύμναις is normally taken as locative
dat., but may be purposive ‘for the sterns’, particularly if dependent upon
the verbal noun σῆμα emblem, which takes a dat. like its derivative verb
308 Commentary

σημαίνω ‘sign (to), indicate (to)’; cf. e.g. IT 387 θεοῖσιν ἑστίαματα ‘banquets
for the gods’; Smyth 1502.   241 Ἀχιλλείου Achilles’: possessive adj.,
as e.g. Hec. 128 of his spear.
[Text. 239 κατ’ ἄκρα Pierson, neut. plur. noun as Tro. 1297; L has the
fem. sing. noun in κατ’ ἄκραν.
Metre. The diphthong -ει- scans ‘short’, rare (West (1982) 12; see
Barrett on Hipp. 1127 ὄρειος).]
242–7 Argives: separate here from the Mycenaeans of 265: see 164–
302 n. 2.3 (b). Usually the name ‘Argives’ in IA is used for the Greeks
generally: see n. on 102 ‘Achaeans’. equal in number: ἰσήρετμοι lit.
‘equal in oars’, i.e. in power as well as number. Iliad 2.559–68 gives
the Argives 80 ships, not Eur.’s implied 50. Diomedes is the overall
commander there, together with Sthenelus son of Capaneus (564: our
246–7) and Eurytus, son of Mecisteus (566: our 244–5, his grandfather
Talaus). Capaneus was the infamous boaster destroyed by Zeus’ lightning
in the assault of the Seven against Thebes, e.g. S. Ant. 134, E. Supp.
496; Mecisteus is outside the ‘canon’ of the Seven, but according to Hdt.
5.67.3 was killed at Thebes by Melanippus.
Greek. 242 ἰσήρετμοι: the second member of the adj. (-ήρετμοι lit.
‘-oared’) is probably otiose; this adj., found only here, is discussed
inconclusively in Fraenkel’s extensive treatment of ἰσο- compounds in
his Agamemnon pp. 681–82, 695–97.   245 τρέφει brought up: for the
Greek pres. tense see 47 n. The word-order in 244–5 is rare, the complement
στρατηλάτας intervening harshly between the gen. Μηκιστέως dependent
upon the subject παῖς; Ritchie compares the predicate adj. φίλιον in Supp.
372 γᾶν δὲ φίλιον ᾿Ινάχου θεῖτ(ο) ‘make the land of Inachus friendly’.
247–9a the son of Theseus: unnamed, which is striking in an
Athenian play, because very strong Athenian tradition gave him two
sons, Demophon and Acamas (e.g. Hcld. 115, 119; neither is named in
the Iliad): see e.g. Pausanias 1.28.8–9, where the two bring Athena’s
sacred image the Palladion from Troy (after Odysseus and Diomedes
have first removed it from that city). The poet here may be making a
deliberate allusion to Homer, who has the Athenians led by a single son,
but of a different father; he is named as Menestheus the son of Peteous
Iliad 2.552; he has 50 ships (556), not sixty; the poet follows the Cypria
perhaps, and certainly the Iliupersis fr. 6 West (Loeb). On the ‘sources’
see 164–302 n. 2.3 (b), at end.
 Commentary 309

Greek. 247 Ἀτθίδας Dobree: the plur. of the adj. is very rare, and
Eur. uses only the gen. sing. Ἀτθίδος (×4/5) [Text: so Stockert defended
L].   249 ἑξῆς next in line: lit. ‘adjacently’, e.g. of just two corpses
Hel. 986; from (σ)εχ-/ἑχ- the root of the verb ἔχω, i.e. ‘hold(ing to)’.
ἐναυλόχει lay at anchor: the verb only here in verse, but the adj.
ναύλοχος describes an on-beach lay-up safe for ships Hec. 1015.
249b–52 A description of the emblem significant for the ship-
commander ends both strophe (240–2) and antistrophe; not so in the next
strophic pair, 255–8 and <…> 275–6. The lines here are rich in meaning.
the goddess Pallas: Athena, emblem of her city in monumental artistry
(the Parthenon, with Pheidias’ gold and ivory statue!) and on Athenian
coinage; she was embroidered on the sacred peplos given to clothe her
statue at the Panathenaic festival, Hec. 466–74. Her winged chariot
was regular in her iconography; in poetry see e.g. A. Eum. 404, Hec.
467; in statuary on the pediment of the Treasury of Siphnos at Delphi
of c. 525 BC: LIMC II.1.974 no. 174. omen: φάσμα lit. ‘thing shown
or showing’, most often a spectral apparition or phenomenon of any
kind (LSJ 1–3); but as an ‘omen’, a portentous ‘appearance’, e.g. A.
Ag. 145 the eagles and the hare, S. El. 1466 the corpse of Clytemnestra
(LSJ 4). of good fortune: the adj. εὔσημος is very much commoner in
the sense ‘conspicuous’ (LSJ II), than ‘favourable as omen’, here being
its first occurrence (LSJ I: it is emended at IT 1383). Burkert (1993)
90–2 argues that the emblem not only brings Athens forcibly into the
catalogue, but reinforces the picture of Ach. running beside the chariot,
evoking for the Athenian audience their ritual race at the Panathenaic
festival, 210–12 n. Together the two evocations of ‘victory’ for Ach. and
of Athens’ victorious goddess portend Troy’s defeat by the armada.
Greek. 251 ἅρμασιν ‘chariot and horses’, e.g. Her. 881, metonymic
like ἵπποι ‘horses and chariots’ in 191 (n.). μώνυχος uncloven: lit.
‘single-hoofed’, the Homeric form being μῶνυξ Iliad 5.236 etc., cf. 225
above μονόχαλος. This ‘formulaic’ adj., an unnecessary description,
is perhaps justifiable with the metonymic ἅρμασιν.   252 The dat.
ναυβάταις depends on the adj. εὔσημον of good fortune for sea-farers
rather than on the verbal noun φάσμα (cf. 241 n.).
[Text. 251 †θετόν† L, †made†: obelized by most eds, because (1)
2-termination forms of uncompounded verbal adjs. in -τος are very rare
in Tragedy (A. Cho. 22, 236; PV 592; not in Soph. or Eur.; they are ruled
310 Commentary

out by Smyth 472); and because (2) θετόν is here imprecise in meaning
with ἐν … ἅρμασιν: ‘made (in her chariot)’ or ‘made on (to the ship)’
or ‘put on, placed’? θετός is used elsewhere predominantly in the sense
‘adopted’, of a child, e.g. E. Erechtheus F 359. The wording of 250–2
does not locate the emblem of Pallas on the stern, but the responding
verse 241 does have that of the Nereids: is the echo sufficient for this
meaning? In 251 simple replacement with θετάν Bothe cures only (1)
above; and e.g. ἅρμασι τ’ εὔθετον Madvig does not cure (2), for it gives
awkward sense ‘having the goddess Pallas well-made in winged horses
and chariot’. Writing θοὰν for θεὰν 249 (Weil) ‘(Pallas) swift’ is clever,
but in 251 θεάν (also Weil) ‘goddess’ or θοάν (Firnhaber) ‘swift’ for
θετόν does not explain how θετόν arose. Ritchie suggested that the word
is a gloss which has ousted the original, e.g. φίλιον (with 252 εὔσημόν
τε L) ‘precious (omen)’. Lastly, ἅρμασ’ ἔ<ν>θετον Burkert (1993) ‘made
on’ must be resisted as a solution to both (1) and (2): the dat. plur. of the
3. decl. is never elided in Tragedy, only in Epic (West (1982) 10). The
verb ἐντίθημι happens to be unattested of works of art in this English
sense ‘make on (to)’, although adverbial ἐν and τίθημι and e.g. ποιέω
and τεύχω are not rare throughout Iliad 18.468–608 (five layers of metal
‘made on to’ Hephaestus’ Shield of Achilles).
252 γε Musgrave indeed: good instead of τε L, for no connection is
needed, φάσμα being in apposition with 249 θεάν; and γε emphasizes the
point; less well τι Markland, as in e.g. S. Trac. 961 ἄσπετόν τι θαῦμα ‘a
marvel unspeakably great’.]
253–5 Boeotians: 50 ships, as here and at 509 in Iliad 2.494–510,
where among the contributing places ‘rocky’ Aulis appears at 496, and
at 494 Leïtus (our 259) is among five leaders named. emblems: not
σήματα (241), but σημεῖα as in Thuc. 6.31.3 ‘trierarchs using costly
emblems and furnishings (i.e. ornamentation)’.
Greek. 255 στολίζω ‘fit out’, usually ‘dress with clothing’, but in the
pass. of men ‘armed’ with spears at Supp. 659 (see Text).
[Text. 253 Βοιωτῶν L, with inexact responsion with 265 ἐκ
Μυκή(νας), is acceptable to metricians, it seems: a licence with names?
Tr3’s <τῶν> Βοιώτων responds only if -οι- scans ‘short’ (not rare: West
(1982) 11). Nauck rejected Tr’s suggestion and proposed the same
scansion by deleting ἐκ in 265 (but see n. there). Also 253: πόντιον Weil/
England defining ὅπλισμα armament as naval (at Supp. 714 this noun
 Commentary 311

is a hand-weapon), cf. 260 ναΐου … στρατοῦ ‘naval host’: so nearly all

eds; ποντίας L is ‘otiose’ with νῆας, Ritchie, but some compare IT 70
ναῦν ποντίαν.   255 ἐστολισμένας Scaliger fitted out: εὐστολισμένας
L ‘well-equipped’: εὐστολίζω is an unattested verb, despite the adj.
εὔστολος, used of ships at S. Phil. 516.]
256–60 golden dragon: that of Ares, guarding a prominent spring at
Thebes named for the god (Pho. 657–73). Cadmus, the city’s founding
king, killed it and sowed its teeth in the ground, generating men whose
descendants bore the name Spartoi (‘Sown Men’). One such was
earth-born Leïtus, whose name is etymologically uncertain: ‘Reaper’,
‘Plunderer’ and most probably ‘People’s Man’ seem possible; he was
one of the city’s defenders against the Seven Against Thebes, but was
a Boeotian from Plataea, with a memorial there (Pausanias 9.4.3); he is
named at Iliad 2.494. curving sterns: the meaning usually given to
κόρυμβος (its neut. plur. is alternative to the masc.) when used of ships;
its base-sense is ‘high point’. The curved timbers of the stern (e.g. Iliad
9.241, A. Pers. 411) swept upward, not round.
Greek. 256 τοῖς For them: def. art. as pron., And. 284, Med. 740;
Smyth 1112. In 432 below the pronominal article τῶν (δέ) stands as
‘others’ after preceding suppressed οἱ (μέν) ‘some’.   260 ἆρχε led is
Doric for impf. ἦρχε.
[Text. 260 Diggle suggested ἄρχε impf. without lengthening,
equivalent to lack of augment in e.g. 208 aor. τέκε.]
261–4 have lost text: see below. Phocis: in Iliad 2.517–26 the land
contributes 40 ships, led by Schedius and Epistrophus; 262 equal to these
refers to a now missing number, perhaps 40. Locris follows Phocis at
Iliad 2.527–35. son of Oileus: given his name Ajax in the Iliad above,
but distinguished there from Ajax the son of Telamon (193 above) by
his speed on foot and ‘much smaller size’. famous … Thronium is
named among his cities, Iliad 2.533; it was the chief city of Locris and
possessed its principal harbour, opposite the NW extremity of Euboea.
Greek. 262 Λοκράς Locrian: fem. acc. plur. of the adj.   263
κλυτός is an Epic adj., only here in Eur.
[Text. Textual loss is clear: cf. our Introduction p. 54, Text 1.c. After
261 space is expressly left in L (enough for two lines); Tr3 erased L’s
λείπει (‘there is a deficiency’) and indicated that the text should run on
into 262, and P2 joined the lines across the space left by P (copied from L),
312 Commentary

in which the first hand may have written the same word λείπει (see Zuntz
(1965) 98). Two lines are also lost towards the end of the antistrophe,
between 273 and 275, revealed by defective syntax and sense, but also
by lack of metrical responsion (not noticed by Tr); the slightly different
location of the losses is hard to explain. We follow the markings of all
recent editors. Two interventions are necessary: (1) 262 Λοκρὰς and
ταῖσδ(ε) Markland, both fem., the ships: Λοκροῖς … τοῖσδ(ε), masc., the
people, L; cf. 238 ναυσὶ … 242 ταῖσδ’ ἰσήρετμοι. (2) 263 sense and
metre require the supplement of a monosyllabic finite verb; Matthiae’s
<ἦλθ(ε)> <he came> is more stylish, with two dependent parts., than
Hermann’s or Nauck’s <ἦν> in periphrasis with ἄγων, ‘was leading’ (cf.
235–6 n.).]
265–7 Mycenae … a hundred ships: led by Agamemnon, Iliad 2.569–
80. For the separation here of Mycenae from Argos, see 164–302 n. 2.3
(b); in the lyric 1499 it substitutes as usual for Argos, which is Ag.’s
home-city in the play’s dialogue, 112 etc. (×9). We might have expected
an ‘emblem’ for Ag. as supreme commander, perhaps the apotropaic
lions still standing over his citadel’s gateway at Mycenae. At A. Ag. 1259
Ag. is a ‘noble lion’. Cyclopean: 152 n., where IT 845–6 are cited,
another rare instance of Μυκήνη sing. as the place-name.
Greek. 266 πέμπω of ‘sending’ those you yourself direct and lead, cf.
Supp. 23, and n. on στέλλω 177 above.   267 ἀθροΐζω with dieresis,
metrically required, is found at e.g. Ar. Birds 253; cf. (Page) Hcld. 915
χροΐζω, also lyric.
[Text. 265 For the metrical problem in the responding 255 see n. there;
here the retention of the prep. ἐκ is necessary, like ἀπό with a place-name
in 261.]
268–72 brother: Men. (see Text below). as a commander: jointly
with Ag., 175–7, although Ag. was superior, 84–6, 343. The word ταγός
only here in Eur., but it is Tragic (see Fraenkel on Ag. 110); of naval
commanders in Persians 324, 480. kin supporting kin: 85, a relationship
made much of by Men. in his agon with Ag.: see 317–414a n. (i). The
Chorus’ straightforward view of the brothers’ harmony in the pursuit of
punishment is interestingly placed between the uneasy prologue and the
agon. reparation for the woman: i.e. Helen 62–5, cf. Ag. at 384–5, Men.
at 487–8. ‘Reparation’ is the regular legal sense of πρᾶξις: LSJ VI.1, cf. the
verb πράσσω LSJ VI and the agent-noun πράκτωρ LSJ II; the gen. states
 Commentary 313

the person (or object) for whom compensation is sought, not punishment
(see Iliad 2.581–90 cited under Text below); and Helen was indeed not to
be killed. There are nevertheless many places where this vocabulary nears,
or does mean, ‘retribution upon’ – and LSJ πρᾶξις VI.2 gives IA 272 as
its sole example for this noun; so ‘revenge for’ is clear where ‘bloodshed’
stands in the gen., e.g. S. El. 953 (πράκτωρ). Greece … barbarian: a
continuation of the Panhellenic theme, 65 n., Introduction pp. 15–18; cf.
Men. in the agon 370, 410.
Greek. 269 φίλος φίλῳ: for the figure polyptoton in adjacent words
see 73b–6 n.
[Text. 268 ἀδελφὸς Markland brother: ἄδραστος L ‘Adrastus’. The
correction is disputed but indisputable (cf. Renehan (1998) 265), accepted
by all recent eds except Günther and Turato; like Murray in the first OCT,
they supposed adulteration or confusion with Adrastus of Sicyon, Iliad
2.572; see too Ferrari (1990) 107–8. But ‘brother’ is appropriate to the
insistence on kinship (above), let alone the simple facts of the expedition
(84–5 n.). It is no adequate objection that Men. has been mentioned in
175 but not again in the catalogue, or that Spartan ships, under his sole
command, may have been lost from a gap to be located between 272 and
273. The simplest explanation of the error is that a scribe miscopied one
of the two words so similar in lettering, esp. since a proper name had no
‘capital’.]
273–6 From Pylos … Nestor: Iliad 2.591–602, with 90 ships, a number
second only to Ag.’s 100 (our 267). There Nestor follows Ag., with
Men. in between: cf. 268–72 n. Text. Gerenian: Nestor’s formulaic
identification in the Iliad (×25), but its origin and meaning were lost
even in antiquity. visible: English makes for a slight exaggeration in
translating the Greek inf. ὁρᾶν ‘to see’: see Greek. with a bull’s feet …
their neighbouring Alpheus: Jouan 70 n. 2 says that Alpheus is always
depicted in human form, unlike other rivers; see our 170 n. (his pursuit
of Arethusa). River-gods were normally male (water being generative:
697 n.), and with some bull’s attributes, an allusion to their patron ‘god’
Poseidon (horned River Oceanus Or. 1378, famously River Achelous
S. Trac. 508–9, cf. 11). In Iliad 2.592 there is a ford of the Alpheus
at Thryon, a place in Pylian territory; 11.711–12 locates it ‘far’ from
Pylos, and indeed Alpheus was the great river at Olympia to the N, so
that ‘neighbouring’ here is vague at best.
314 Commentary

Greek. 275 ὁρᾶν is dependent upon the adj. ταυρόπουν: see 202 n.
[Text. Lines 273–6 are defective, lacking an object for 274 I saw,
perhaps the number of Nestor’s ships, and probably both sense and syntax
preparatory to 275 the emblem (see 261–4 n. Text).   275 πρύμναις
Diggle dat. plur. as in 241 (πρύμναισι earlier Markland): πρύμνας L gen.,
and sing., a little awkwardly when Nestor brought 90 ships (above);
πρυμνᾶν gen. plur. Murray.]
277–302 have an indeterminable metrical structure: see 164–302 n. 3.1
(c).
277–93 In this last part of the list, detail of the peoples and leaders
becomes thinner, just four (apparently) in 17 (corrupt) lines; the last
picture, of Ajax (288–93a: n.), is longest; all but he are minor figures.
277–9a Aenians: Aenis was an area NW of Locris and inland from the
Malian Gulf. Its people are not, probably, the Enienes of Iliad 2.748–9,
although their leader is named here in IA as Gouneus, for there he comes
from an unknown city Cyphus, and has with him the Perrhaebians of
Thessaly well to the N; and they have 22 ships, not 12. This man is
shadowy in myth; [Apollodorus] Epit. 6.15a and Lycophron, Alexandra
899 add a few but different details. fleet: translates -στολος in the adj.;
the noun στόλος registers anything put in order for sending off, a fleet
again IT 10, a chariot Or. 990; or a departure itself and its purpose, an
‘expedition’ 816 below.
279b–82 Elis: Iliad 2.615, coupled with an unlocated Buprasion, 40
ships. Elis was in the NW Peloponnese, so that its place in the fleet near
the Aenians in mainland Locris is not ‘geographical’. Iliad 2.618–24
names four ‘rulers’ (ἄρχοι) of Elis, each with ‘many Epeians on board’:
these ‘rulers’ may be reflected in 280 masters (δυνάστορες), and Od.
13.275 has ‘where the Epeians rule’. army: the usual meaning of
λαός in the Iliad, ‘the people (at war)’ (LSJ I.1), whereas λαός in the
Odyssey and λεώς in Tragedy usually mean ‘people, population’ (LSJ
I.2). Eurytus: named in Iliad 2.621, but as father of Thalpius, one of
two leaders (apparently) of the Epeians (see Text).
Greek. 281 ὠνόμαζε called: for the idiomatic impf. rather than aor. of
this verb, see 416 and e.g. Supp. 1218; Fraenkel on Ag. 681.
[Text. Hermann wrote the gen. Εὐρύτου here, with <ἔκγονος> ‘son’
missing in the gap which he established after 282].
283–7 †were led by Meges their lord†: only an approximation to the
 Commentary 315

sense which may have been intended (see Text). Taphians: not named
in the Iliad, but at 2.625–30 Meges leads 40 ships from the Echinae
islands. Modern geographers locate the Taphiae islands NW of them,
and both were among many islands NW of Elis (the Iliad has ‘opposite
Elis’, 626). The islands were normally called the Echinades (Hdt. 2.10.3
[Text: conjectured by Voss, despite his likely ignorance of P2’s comment
‘he means the Echinades’]). The name derives from ἐχῖνος ‘hedgehog’:
the islands were ‘spiny, jagged’, and decidedly unsuitable for sailors; but
some have interpreted this adj. from the nearby Taphians’ reputation for
piracy, Od. 15.427; with their white oars: Od. 1.181 calls them ‘lovers
of the oar’; splashing oars throw up white foam, 12.172, cf. perhaps E.
Hypsipyle 844.
Greek. 285 λόχευμα child, abstract verbal noun in -μα personified (lit.
‘birthing, thing birthed’), cf. Pho. 803; see also on πόρευμα 300 n.
[Text. 285 is obviously corrupt (many editors have obelized all of 282
Εὔρυτος to 284 ἄνασσε): there is no syntax; the two finite verbs ἦγεν ‘led’
and ἄνασσε ‘ruled’ are near-synonyms; the plur. rel. pron. ὧν is problematic
if its antecedent is sing. Ἄρη. Musgrave/Tyrwhitt’s conjecture ἡγεμὼν,
replacing ἦγεν ὧν L, would seem to meet the difficulties, ‘Meges as leader
commanded the warrior Taphians’, and attractively, for Iliad 2.627 has the
words ἡγεμόνευε Μέγης; but ἄνασσε (translated as ‘their lord’, nowhere
controls an acc., and in repetition does not sit well close to ἄνασσε in
282, esp. when there the verb indeed means ‘ruled’. Hermann deleted 284
ἄνασσε, but as part of his reconstruction of the line.]
288–93a Ajax … of Salamis: 193–4 and n.; Iliad 2.557 similarly
gives him 12 ships. The stationing of his vessels in relation to others is
described the most fully in the entire list; elsewhere we have just ‘near’,
243, 249, 279; and Ajax’s final placing appears to be on the left wing,
just as the first placing, that of Achilles, was on the right, 235–6 – but
the obelized words lack sense as translated (see Text below) and are
metrically uncertain. linking: lit. ‘interweaving’; the verb συμπλέκω
and its noun συμπλοκή are used not just of ‘close engagement’ of ships
and forces at war, but expressly of ‘entanglement’ (LSJ II.1 cite e.g. Hdt.
8.84.1 ‘(ships) entangled and incapable of separation’); but no contingent
would combine and mix anchorages with another, despite Ajax’s having
very manoeuvrable ships. The word furthest is perhaps due to its use
at Iliad 8.225 = 11.8, where it indeed describes the location on the wings
316 Commentary

of both Ajax and Achilles, ‘confident in the courage and strength of their
hands (literally, χειρῶν, not naval ‘hands’)’.
Greek. πλάταισιν vessels: for the meaning see 172 n.
[Text. There are successive problems. (1) 290 ξύναγε L: the accentuation
is correct only if the verb is impf. without temporal ‘lengthening’, but its
metrical shape is very difficult at colon-end: so ξυνᾶγε (Doric) impf.
Hermann (but as part of his reconstruction). (2) The inescapable meaning
of L in 290 is (Ajax … united) the right wing (held by Ach.: above)
to the left (held by himself): Diggle’s apparatus puts the difficulty
concisely, ‘the one who holds the left wing, as Ajax does, is incorrectly
said to bring the right together towards the left. He can perhaps be said
to bring the left together towards the right, provided the fleet is shaped
into a round’. (3) 291–2a The masc. gen. plur. def. art. τῶν serving as
rel. pron. (Smyth 1105) appears to have as its antecedent the neut. sing.
δέξιον κέρας, in the construction ‘according to sense’ (967 and n.; Smyth
2502a), despite the word-order. The literal sense is ‘nearer whose vessels
(Ajax) was moored’ (those of Achilles on the right); the dat. adj. ἐσχάταισι
‘furthest’ goes readily with the preceding noun ‘vessels’ πλάταισιν; only
the extreme ships of the two squadrons would be adjacent. We translate
τῶν ἆσσον ὥρμει πλάταισιν ἐσχάταισι as he was moored near its
furthest vessels, in parenthesis. The second dat. ναυσίν appears to be
appositional to πλάταισιν. (4) 292b–3a The number twelve must relate to
Ajax himself, not to Ach., who has 50 ships (238), and our ‘translation’
linking (them) with his … ships gives not the literal meaning, but the
desired one. LSJ συμπλέκω I.1 cite our passage with just the first dat.
(πλάταισιν), ignoring the second, and commenting ‘perhaps binding the
whole together’, where ‘the whole’ is an acc. ‘understood’: so we put
them in our translation. Blaydes’ conjecture of the acc. εὐστροφώτατας
ναῦς very manoeuvrable ships, as object to συμπλέκων, would indeed
restore sense; but the conjecture has severe consequences for restoring
metre.]
293b–5 That was the way I heard and saw: the conclusion of the list,
phrasing repeated but reversed in 299 and 301. The pairing ‘heard’ with
‘saw’ may be ‘automatic rhetoric’ (e.g. Supp. 849–50, with Collard’s n.),
but perhaps looks back to what the Chorus heard from their husbands
(176) and have now seen. Note the recurring words for ships in 293, 297,
300.
 Commentary 317

Greek. 293 ὥς accented, ‘thus’, adverbial, very rare in Tragedy and

always disputed, e.g. Hec. 441, S. El. 65. The simple verb ἀΐω has no aor.
forms recorded (LSJ); here its impf. ἄϊον is combined with aor. εἰδόμαν.
[Text. 293 ὥς ?Murray. Some eds print ὡς L, the relative adv., ‘as (I
heard…)’ – but relative to what? The clause has its own independent
syntax, and gives complete sense.]
296–9 sets … against: a unique hostile sense for προσαρμόζω ‘fit to,
attach to’, but the notion may be close to the English metaphor ‘measure
against’; cf. συνάπτω ‘fit together’, of engaged weapons e.g. Pho.1192,
Or. 1482. boats: βᾶρις, an Egyptian (loan-?) word; properly flat-
bottomed vessels like punts, for river-freighting (Hdt. 2.96 describes
their construction). Τhe poet here uses the word of sea-going vessels
for exotic colour, like the ‘barbarian’ ships of A. Pers. 553, Supp. 836;
perhaps he was drawn by the alliteration bar- bar- in the Greek (for
alliteration see V. Bers, EGT 1369). The Panhellenic theme again? see
Introduction p. 15.
Greek. 298 ἀποφέρομαι mid. win, lit. ‘carry off, bring away’ a prize
for oneself; LSJ B II; the verb is used bleakly of a man whose broken
skull will prevent him ‘bringing his life home’ to his mother Pho. 1161.
The conditional sentence has the fut. indic. in both clauses, a usage often
threatening, i.e. ‘if you will not … you shall not’: Smyth 2328.   299
οἷον equates here with (δι)οτι τοιοῦτο, ‘(because) such … have I seen’;
it forms a dependent explanatory clause, ‘exclamatory in origin’, Bond
on Her. 816–17; it is frequent, e.g. Hel. 74, twice 664; LSJ II.2; Smyth
2687.   300 πόρευμα lit. ‘crossing, means of crossing’, a neut. verbal
noun personified of the ‘crosser’, the armada; the usage is typical of
Euripides, e.g. Supp. 173, Hel. 191. Cf. A. Ag. 73 ἀρωγή ‘help, support’,
an army as a means, of this same force against Troy.
[Text. 299 οἷον ‘such etc.’ Hermann, palmary: ἄιον L ‘I heard’ was
an easy error, the pairing with ‘saw’ being idiomatic (294–5 n.); but the
asyndetic verbs are awkward.]
301–2 hearing … at home: from their husbands, 175 and n. called
together: some commentators take the adj. σύγκλητος here as an echo
of the Athenians’ technical vocabulary for convening an extraordinary
meeting of the assembly (see Jebb on Ant. 159): unlikely, but the word may
link with the play’s ‘democratic’ contexts (see Introduction pp. 12–14).
Greek. κλύουσα from hearing pres. tense after aor. εἰδόμαν, well
318 Commentary

illustrated by Tro. 687 ἰδοῦσα καὶ κλύουσ’ ἐπίσταμαι ‘I know after seeing
and from hearsay’.
[Text. 302 Editors have suspected the adj. σύγκλητου called together,
and Dindorf suggested the noun συλλόγου, dependent upon τὰ κατ’
οἴκους ‘the things at home (of, about) the gathering’; then στρατεύματος
host alone depends upon μνήμην.]

303–542 First Episode

There are three parts: A: 303–414a confrontation (agon) of Menelaus
and Agamemnon; B: 414b–41 a messenger reports the imminent arrival
of Iphigenia, in the charge of Clytemnestra; C: 442–542 reconciliation
of Men. and Ag.
For suspect authenticity within the episode see the nn. on 303–16,
366–75, 404–14a (407), 414b–41, 520–1.
A: 303–414a Confrontation of Men. and Ag. The sun now shines
(156–8) on the hugger-mugger dealings of the sons of Atreus. 303–16 are
an introductory incident, an angry encounter between the OM and Men.,
who has intercepted the OM on his way to Clyt., seized Ag.’s second letter
and read its contents. The two enter quarrelling in agitated stichomythia
about each other’s behaviour, and a tussle over possession of the letter
ensues 303–13. Failing to recover it, the OM calls out to Ag. in his hut,
and he appears 314–16. The agon itself follows: see 317–414a n.
Staging. The episode starts in a lively way with a dialogue, recalling the
play’s beginning (see 1–163 n. Staging). As Ag.’s lantern there immediately
focussed the issues at hand, so Ag.’s letter here at once draws eyes and
attention to a further crisis for him. His confrontation with Men. in 317–
414a begins and ends in anger; it gives actors the chance of expressive
movement and gesturing; indeed the whole episode 303–542 affords such
opportunity, including weeping 450–2, 477–8, and many shifting tones of
voice (473–503 n., para. 2 at end).
Some details:
303–16 Men. enters, holding in one hand his staff of rank 311 while
with the other struggling to keep hold of Ag.’s tablet-letter 310. Men.
speaks scornfully to the OM and threatens him with a bloody beating 311;
he appears to regain possession of the letter in 313, prompting the OM to
 Commentary 319

cry out to Ag. who is in his hut 314–16.   Art. The tussle is imagined
on the 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls nos 6 and 7: see 111–14 n.
In Tragedy such talking entries are not rare in scenes of tension (Taplin
(1977) 363–4), esp. Hipp. 601ff., Supp. 381–2 and 838, Alexandros F 62a
(a vigorous argument); also A. Eum. 64, S. Phil. 1222–40; see Stevens’
note on And. 146, Fries on Rhesus 565–94. For threats of violence cf.
And. 588 Peleus’ threat to give Men. a bloody head; Hel. 1628–9 a
servant grips his master’s robe to prevent his movement. For physical
touch in Tragedy see K. Kaimio, EGT 972–4. Two characters entering
already engaged in conversation or a quarrel is particularly a technique
of New Comedy (‘a device much favoured by Menander’, Gomme and
Sandbach on Dyskolos 233, with references); compare the disputes over
trinkets, perhaps already underway, at Menander, Epitr. 218ff., and over
the chest at Plautus, Rope 938 ff. This similarity, and the comic elements
of the scene in IA, esp. the physical struggle, raised doubts about its
authenticity from England and Stockert (1982b); but Stockert abandoned
his case in his edition (1992, 277); he also observed that the iambic
trimeters of 303–16 are metrically conservative, untypical of Eur.’s late
plays.
Stage-properties: for Men.’s staff see 311 n. The tablet: Men.’s threat
to show it to the Greeks 324 is overtaken by the brothers’ reconciliation
506–7, and we hear no more of it: either Men. hands it over to Ag. (cf.
323) or takes it away on his exit at 542. In the 2015 Syracuse production
he flung the tablet to the ground, smashing it.
314–16 For shouting to someone off-stage, see Mastronarde on
Pho. 1069–71 and Allan on Hcld. 642–3. It appears from the following
stichomythia 318–34 that Ag. hears the summons but does not grasp that
Men. has seized the tablet; cf. Mastronarde (1979) 28–9, with interesting
parallels, esp. ‘a character not yet in full contact with those on stage
can both hear and not hear, that is, both hear the summons and not hear
the details of the lines that are ostensibly addressed to the emerging
character’.
317 Ag. enters upon hearing not just the OM’s summons, but the
‘noisy argument’: see 317 n.
318–19 The OM may well be on stage still when he is referred to
here, but can go out at any time after that: silent exits by minor characters
are often indeterminable from the text: see Taplin (1977) 8 n. 4, 88–91
320 Commentary

(messengers); 309–10 (major persons exiting without a final word). Are

we nevertheless supposed to believe that he eavesdrops on the rest of the
scene? At 865ff. he knows that Ag. has changed his mind since 316; but
when and how does he know this? Ag. does not reenter his hut at 543 (see
n.) and is on stage until 750 when he goes off to the army.
303–16 Men.’s tussle with the OM is vividly reflected in their direct,
urgent Greek: there is simple emphasis through repeated verbs in 303,
306, 309–10; the cluster of colloquialisms (Stockert II.278; Collard (2005)
358) has however an admixture of poetic diction (see esp. 305 n.); and the
stichomythia breaks into two voices within one line (antilabe) in 310 at the
height of the tussle (compare the disputes at Menander, Epitr. 218ff. and
at Plautus, Rope 938 ff. described under Staging above). For antilabe cf.
1–3 (n.), 739, [1537] and esp. 1336–1509 n. and (E) 1475–1509 n. Form.
In the parodos, the Chorus had presented an idealized view of the
Greeks, referring to them as demi-gods (ἡμίθεοι 172). By his undignified
behaviour, with its possible comedic overtones, Men. brings us abruptly
down to earth.
303 you are committing an outrage: cf. Ag. to Men. at 331. The
OM speaks in familiar language, lit. ‘you are daring terrible things’;
cf. τολμᾷς…; with infin. in other protests Alc. 552, (lyric) Or. 827. The
wording is like that of 98 and 133, but can hardly echo those graver
moments.
304 Away with you!: ἄπελθε ‘go away!’, perhaps literally, rather than
‘Get lost!’, for which Stockert compares Hcld. 273, El. 223. all too
faithful: the audience will recall that this reverses the OM’s assertion
of his value to Ag. his master 114 – and in his own eyes 45, 153; Men.
attacks again in 313. But see Introduction p. 25 for the OM’s subsequent
breach of fidelity to Ag. 855–95.
Greek. δεσπόταισι ‘master’: the unmistakably allusive plur. is
idiomatic, e.g. Hec. 557, 1237 the same word; Smyth 1007; in 312 below
the plur. is perhaps general.
305 What you reproach me with brings me honour: καλόν γέ μοι
τοὔνειδος ἐξωνείδισας, lit. ‘fine is the insult you insulted me with’. The
emphatic particle γε frequently follows καλός, καλῶς ‘fine’ in sarcasm
(1170 n.; GP 128), but is surely to be taken at face value here in view
of the speaker; the OM’s 312 repeats this tone in his objection. The
oxymoron (Smyth 3035; V. Bers, EGT 1372; in lyric Breitenbach 1934,
 Commentary 321

236–8) καλὸν ὄνειδος ‘fine insult’ is something of a cliché, e.g. Med. 514,
Pho. 821; indeed it became part of a proverb, Diogenian 4.85. While the
OM voices his sentiments with simplicity, here the expression’s use as a
cognate acc. with ἐξωνείδισας moves his language to a higher register,
as he stands on his dignity; cf. Bacc. 652 ὠνείδισας δὴ τοῦτο Διονύσῳ
καλόν ‘A fine insult to Dionysus, indeed!’
For the topos of the noble slave, cf. e.g. Hel. 726–33, Ion 854–6, and
J. Gregory, G&R 49 (2002), 145–62, at 153–60; Brandt (1973) 5, 21–2
on loyalty.
Greek. ἐξωνείδισας: for the ‘dramatic’ aor. see 440 n.
306 You’ll be sorry: κλαίοις ἄν is colloquial (Stevens (1976) 15–16).
The idiom with κλαίω is common in Aristophanes (κλαύσῃ fut. ‘you’ll
be weeping (with pain) if…’, i.e. from a beating), but not infrequent in
Tragedy, e.g. And. 577, 758; (together with a conditional protasis) A.
Supp. 925.
307 undone: λύω as in 38.
308 And you shouldn’t be…: Greek. οὐδέ γε … σέ: understand
χρῆν from 307. οὐδέ γε unseparated by an intervening word or words is
uncommon, but cf. S. El. 1347, also in an answer (GP 156); our 310 οὐδ’
(ἔγω)γε illustrates the commoner usage.
[Text. The papyrus confirms Kirchhoff’s correction of L, where the
invasion of δεῖ is perhaps explicable as continuing the sense of 307 χρῆν.]
309–10 Quarrel: The verb ἁμιλλάομαι and the phrase ἅμιλλα (λόγων)
‘quarrel (of words)’ often herald a Euripidean agon, e.g. Supp. 195,
Her. 1255. about this: ταῦτα: internal acc. with this verb, as Hipp.
971. with someone else: the plur. ἄλλοις ‘others’ is either generalizing
(i.e. ‘not with me’) or alludes to Ag.
In the tussle for the chest at Plautus, Rope 938ff. cf. esp. 1015 Mitte
rudentem, sceleste. Mittam: omitte uidulum. ‘Let the rope go, you rascal.’
‘I’ll let it go: forget the chest!’
Greek. ἁμιλλῶ is 2. pers. sing. pres. mid. imperative. οὐκ ἂν μεθείμην
I won’t let it go, opt. with ἄν in a refusal, e.g. Alc. 1114, Hcld. 344;
Smyth 1826a. The mid. voice of strong personal intention is at once
matched in fut. indic. ἀφήσομαι.
[Text. The papyrus confirms Markland’s correction to ἄλλοις of L’s
ἄλλως, which in the sense ‘otherwise (than successfully)’, i.e. ‘vainly’,
is inappropriate with an imperative, even when used sardonically.]
322 Commentary

311 Then I’ll soon … with my staff: similar wording And. 588 σκήπτρῳ
γε τῷδε σὸν καθαιμάξας κάρα, Peleus’ threat to Menelaus (there is a fut.
verb in 587). The verb καθαιμάσσω strikes a tragic register: cf. also e.g.
Hec. 1126, Or. 1527. There may be a reference here to Hom. Il. 2.265–71
where Odysseus uses the royal sceptre to beat up the lowly and stroppy
Thersites, much to amusement of the Achaeans. Sommerstein (2010)
48–55 argues from our scene and others that violence is never visibly
inflicted in tragedy, with the one exception of PV in which a wedge
is driven right through the hero’s chest (64–5); even without Men.’s
carrying out his threat, the unique nature of this on-stage action would
have made it highly effective dramatically (see 303–414a n. Staging).
Greek. τάχα ‘soon’ in a threat e.g. 970. ἆρα inferential Then is a
frequent alternative form for ἄρα (GP 45); here it is required by metre.
312 a glorious thing to die for one’s master: again the topos of the
noble slave (305 n.): cf. Hel. 1640–1 ὡς πρὸ δεσποτῶν | τοῖσι γενναίοισι
δούλοις εὐκλεέστατον θανεῖν (‘very glorious for noble slaves to die…’,
in a parallel scene).
Greek. ἀλλὰ … τοι ‘Well, it is’, with the latter particle emphatic to the
person addressed; cf. [1629], GP 549).
313 Let it go: probably Men. succeeds in wresting the tablet from the
OM at this point (Paley); so the OM cries out suddenly to Ag. in 314. you
are talking far too much: μακρούς = ‘overlong’ (Headlam); cf. Hec. 1177,
Pho. 592. For the speech of slaves restricted cf. Ion 674–5, Pho. 391–2.
Men. makes a curt rejoinder to the OM’s ‘glorious thing … for one’s
master’. Brandt (1973) 123 observes that the OM is differently ‘wordy’,
i.e. reluctant to come to the point, in 861–71.
Greek. δοῦλος ὤν for a slave: for this idiom of the part. without a
restrictive rel. adv. such as ὡς (Smyth 2993; LSJ Ab. II.2), cf. Hel. 1629
ἀλλὰ δεσποτῶν κρατήσεις δοῦλος ὤν ‘Will you control your master
when you are a slave?’; the part. itself is circumstantial, but the idiom is
not illustrated by Smyth 2086.
315–16 An early contrast between force βία and ‘justice’ δίκη at e.g.
Hom. Il. 16.387–8, Hes. WD 275. In Athenian law, violence (ὕβρις)
towards another man’s slave was illegal: see MacDowell’s discussion in
his edition of Demosthenes, Meidias 21.46–8.
Greek. χράομαι lit. ‘use (justice)’ is a very flexible verb, its translation
dependent on context; e.g. with τοῖς βελτίστοις ‘the best (conduct)’ at
 Commentary 323

503, νόμοις ‘law’ at Med. 537–8 ‘you know justice, and to use law
without force’; cf. 87–8 n., 1147, 1428.
317–414a Agon of Men. and Ag.
(i) The animosity of the brothers in the opening stichomythia 317–34
springs from their sense that each has failed their mutual obligations as
kin, as well as those to friends: the Greek word φίλος embraces both
meanings, here chiefly the first, and it is used repeatedly by Men., 334,
344 and 347 in his speech; later, 404–5, 408, cf. 414a, all three in the
closing stichomythia: note Mastronarde (2010) 235–6, Men.’s hammering
repetitions of the word philos. Ag. uses the word just once in retaliation,
405. The theme returns strongly in the brothers’ reconciliation 470–541:
cf. 473–503 n. See M. McDonald, ‘Philia: motivation in Euripides’
Iphigenia at Aulis’, QUCC 34.1 (1990) 69–84; for philia in Tragedy see
S. Lawrence in EGT 1451–3. Men. is angry at Ag.’s secret betrayal of his
own and the Greek cause through his second letter to Clyt. 322–8; Ag.
is angry at Men.’s interference in his personal affairs 329–31. Although
in the Iliad Ag. is a protective elder brother, and Men. a sympathetic
figure (whom like Patroclus Homer is liable to address in apostrophe),
quarrels between them nevertheless became part of the poetic tradition
after Nestor’s words in Od. 3.136–56, on which see B. Sammons, Mnem
67 (2014) 1–27; the quarrels, which mirror those between their father
Atreus and their uncle Thyestes, are reflected in Tragedy, e.g. S. Polyxena
F 522 and E. Telephus F 722–3, their disputes about sailing to Troy and
back to Greece; on IA see Sammons 10–14.
Both main speeches (335–75, 378–401) start by deprecating mutual
offensiveness, but both claim the higher ground morally (Men. 335–6,
Ag. 378–80); then each mounts four principal arguments. In summary:
335–75 Men.’s speech is long and impassioned (‘he rushes headlong
into his tirade without pausing for breath’, Ritchie); yet the speech is
both well–organized and full of rhetorical turns. (a) Ag. sought the
command against Troy through open canvassing, but once he had gained
it, he closed his mind to all ‘friends’ 337–49; (b) Men. saved Ag.’s ‘face’
when the winds failed, and he had been reduced to utter helplessness
350–7; (c) When Calchas assured Ag. that, if he sacrificed his daughter
to Artemis, the expedition could sail, he joyfully agreed and summoned
the girl to Aulis under the pretext of marriage with Achilles (but with
Men’s ‘joyfully’ contrast Ag.’s own defensive account 80–103); then Ag.
324 Commentary

reversed his agreement in his second letter to her mother 358–65; (d) He
thus endangers the Greeks’ noble intention against barbarians, making
the Greeks ridiculous to the non-Greek Trojans 366–75. Men. charges
Ag. with moral ‘badness’ (κακός 349, cf. 367); and Ag. throws the word
back at him repeatedly (384–7, 395; cf. 389, 397, of Men.’s ‘bad’ wife
Helen). The narrative elements in this scornful speech bring to vivid life
Men.’s portrait of the shifting Ag.; they have a cumulative effect assisted
by the clearly placed conjunctions, esp. 343 κᾆτ(α) ‘And then…’, 350 ὡς
δ(έ) ‘Then again…’ followed by 356 κἀμέ ‘And … my…’, 358 κᾆτ(α)
‘And then…’, 363 κᾆτ(α) ‘And then…’.
378–401 Ag.’s speech begins crisply, promising a rejoinder to Men. –
but ‘brief’ 378; the word marks his peroration too 400, and this may be the
poet’s way of drawing attention to the differing length of the two speeches.
In particular Ag.’s 381–4, with their ‘short, jabbing questions’ (Cavander
(1973) 96), have an attacking style unlike anything in Men.’s speech. Ag.
however also attempts a note of moderation, starting with (a) ‘Who is
wronging you?’, but at once counter-attacks Men.’s selfish sensuality in
trying to rescue his disastrous marriage; its consequences are for Men.
381–7; (b) that, and his own change of mind upon realising his mistake
while Men. persisted, are the ground for his third attack on his brother’s
motive 388–90; (c) Men. swore to the suitors’ foolish oath (see 58–65) out
of hope, not understanding the gods’ view of it 391–5; therefore (d) Ag.
will not kill his daughter to enable Men.’s retaliation upon a worthless wife
396–9. In his curt peroration 400–1 Ag.’s words ‘if you do not wish to be
sensible’ echo his 388 and 394a, and ‘I shall put my affairs in good order’
echo his 331. Of the whole speech Conacher (1967) 254 remarks that ‘we
find the whole projected war, and so the threat to Iph.’s life, appearing as
a shabby affair, the result of personal ambition on the one hand and of lust
or, at best, a misplaced uxoriousness, on the other’.
Ag. in effect replies only to Men.’s (d), esp. that Ag. will betray
Greece to save his daughter’s life (370–2), but this does not mean that
he has no answer to his brother’s most extravagant charges: rebuttal
is not dramatically necessary because the audience can make its own
judgement in the light of what it has already seen of Ag.’s present state
of mind (so Ritchie). Mastronarde (2010) 236 argues that ‘the agonistic
setting of rhetorical display’ has given Ag. ‘a more decisive voice’ than
he had in the prologue.
 Commentary 325

The concluding stichomythia 404–14a, like the first, is a sequence

of irreconcilable hostility: Ag. rejects Men.’s appeal to aid Greece. The
typical agon in Euripides at its finish leaves things unaltered from its
start; it normally ends with the exit of one of the main contestants – but
here both Ag. and Men. remain on stage to hear the Messenger’s speech
(B: 414b–41) and then achieve harmony of a kind in an anti-agon (C:
441–542, esp. 471–541). This overall structure is unique to this play:
see Lloyd (1992) 3–4, 15 (see (ii) below), who on 130 draws attention to
the fact that while Euripides’ three agones immediately before this one
(in Troades, Phoenissae and Orestes) ‘may have indicated a tendency
… later … to complexity and abstraction’, the agon in IA ‘is a quarrel
in which the contestants concentrate on points of an essentially personal
nature’, thus recalling that of the early Alcestis 614–740.
(ii) The agon (ἀγών lit. ‘contest’) has the structure regular in this scene
of formalised argument; it is a favourite dramatic mode of Euripides. In
general see Duchemin (1968), Rutherford (2012) 190–200, Collard in
EGT 534–6. For our scene see Lloyd (1992) esp. 15–16; Stockert 276;
S. Halliwell in Pelling (1997) 135–7; Dubischar (2001) 114–17, 123–4,
364–70; see also the scene 1098–1275 and n. For Euripides generally
see Collard in Mossman (2003) 64–80; Lloyd 1–18, 130–2; Dubischar;
Mastronarde (2010) 222–45.
The structural elements are: introductory encounter of the two opponents,
setting out the grounds of dispute 317–34; two opposing long speeches,
the end of each marked off by a choral couplet 335–75 + 376–7 and 378–
401 + 402–3; a closing stichomythia confirming two intractable positions
404–14a. Unusual elements here (Dubischar 115–16) are (1) the casting of
the introductory matter not in a brief irregular exchange but in antagonistic
stichomythia (comparable introductions e.g. And. 577–89, Pho. 482–90);
(2) the abruptness of its beginning immediately upon Ag.’s entry; (3) the
great disparity in length between the two speeches, Ag.’s being little more
than half that of Men.’s – greater than the one other significant disparity,
between And. 147–80 and 184–231 (Lloyd (1992) 6; see also below); (4)
the unique employment for the speeches not of iambic trimeters but of
more vigorous trochaic tetrameters (see below).
Equality in length of the speeches in an agon is usually taken not only
to reflect the practice regular in real-life forensic speeches (where the
326 Commentary

use of a waterclock was intended to ensure equal timings), but to mark

an equivalence in cogency between two positions which leads plausibly
to continued disagreement. Here, Ag.’s patronising attitude and brevity
contrast with Men.’s passion, so that Men.’s subsequent capitulation to pity
in 471–510 is more effective, and significant for Ag.’s later lack of feeling.
The question is often asked: do Eur.’s agon-scenes lead to a ‘winner’,
in that many of them resemble judicial trials and that all deploy forensic
rhetoric? An older and common view is that the second speaker normally
‘wins’; but Lloyd (1992) 15–17 begins the most balanced discussion of the
issue by observing that ‘The agon in Euripides rarely achieves anything’
and that ‘the rule is that the plaintiff or claimant speaks first’ (pp. 15 and 17).
Is the second speaker then normally ‘more sympathetic’ in the theatre (16)?
Very often – but not always; in IA Ag., the play’s tormented protagonist,
is certainly more sympathetic: cf. e.g. 442–542 n., Introduction pp. 20–3.
(iii) Trochaic tetrameters are used in Tragedy in ‘scenes of heightened
tension’, West (1982) 78, who 91–2 analyses their rhythmic variety. They
occur in the earliest surviving play, A. Persians, in two episodes at 155–
75 and 215–28, and 697–9 and 703–58, and once in Agamemnon, 1649–
73. Otherwise, Euripides is their great exponent, first at Tro. 444–61 (415
BC) and increasingly after that; Sophocles uses them only briefly, in the
extant late plays Philoctetes and Oedipus at Colonus. The IA has three
spans, 327–401 here, 855–96 a fraught scene between Clyt. and Ag.,
and 1338–1401 Iph.’s long speech resolving upon self-sacrifice; all three
scenes portray strong emotions. In an interesting discussion Mastronarde
(2010) 239 remarks that in IA Euripides seems to be experimenting ‘with
… trochaic tetrameters to modulate the pace and tone of dialogue toward
the excited or even the feverish’. The best treatment of the metre’s
dramatic use by Euripides remains W. Krieg, Philologus 91 (1936) 42–
51; for Tragedy in general see M. Imhof, MH 13 (1956) 125–43 (127–8
on IA); T. Drew-Bear, AJP 89 (1968) 385–405 (403–5 on IA); for both
Tragedy and Comedy see A. N. Michelini, Tradition and Form in the
Persians of Aeschylus (Leiden 1982) 41–64. Also: M. Centanni, Metro,
ritmo e poesia nella tragedia greca: le scene in tetrametri trocaici (Lecce
1996: not seen by us).
317–34 Stichomythia between Ag. and Men. The metre now changes
to trochaic: 317–414a n. (iii), at end.
 Commentary 327

317 What’s going on?: the single word ἔα in the Greek: ‘without
exception in Eur. ἔα expresses the surprise of the speaker at some novel,
often unwelcome, impression on his senses’ (Fraenkel, Agamemnon p.
580 n. 4, cited by Stevens (1976) 33 and n. 81 on this colloquialism, cf.
Collard (2005) 362). It stands usually outside the metre, in an emphatic
signal of its abruptness; 644, 1132, cf. Med. 1005, Hec. 1116. at my
gates: cf. 803, 862. Ag.’s ‘hut’ (1 n.) is substantial: see 189 n. Ag. enters
upon hearing not just the OM’s summons, but the noisy argument – just
as Agamemnon enters Hec. 1109 (on hearing the noise of Polymestor’s
agony when blinded).
Greek. ‘noisy argument’: hendiadys of θόρυβος and λόγων ἀκοσμία.
This last word (only here in E.) refers both to literal disorder (Pl. Gorg.
509a) and unseemliness (S. F 846). The figure hendiadys is common in
Euripides, 53 n.
[Text. For a full discussion of L* and Triclinius’ interventions (and P)
see Zuntz (1965) 99–100.]
318 My words have a better right: Men. seizes the initiative: cf. e.g.
And. 153, Hcld. 181–3; Lloyd (1992) 25–7.
Greek. For κύριός εἰμι + inf. meaning ‘I am entitled to, I have authority
to’ (famously A. Ag. 104) see LSJ I.2.
319 into strife: the Chorus are made to pick up this phrase in 377.
Greek. σύ: you: the emphatic pron. is further emphasized by the
postponement of the interrogative, as e.g. 700, 728, 730 in a tense
dialogue; see e.g. Dodds on Bacc. 471, Mastronarde, Medea (2002) 95
§ 35; Smyth 3028. ἄγω ‘pull, drag’ e.g. 1365; Med. 1216 also with πρὸς
βίαν (but in an attempt to escape); Tro. 998 with βίᾳ.
[Metre. Three resolutions in this line, as in 356, 884 in IA; this is rare
in tetrameters, but the three lines all express extreme emotions.]
320 Look at me: for a comparable demand for a face-to-face confrontation,
before an agon, cf. Hipp. 946–7 and Her. 1155–6 (despite its being with a
polluted killer; such a killer tries to avoid it); even more blunt is S. OT 1121
φώνει βλέπων ‘Look (at me) and speak!’ Men. will not start his complaints
against Ag. until they have full eye contact; see Ag. at 378–9 (n.); for such
rules of encounter see D. Lateiner, EGT 654–56; Introduction pp. 33–4.
Even after this, Ag. must face the eyes of Clyt., Iph. and little Orestes: 455,
644, 743, 1245 (for this point see Smith (1979) 176); as for Ach., the OM
has already warned Ag. of his likely anger, 124–6. this start: marking
328 Commentary

out the stages of an agon is common; speech-beginnings e.g. Supp. 403,

517; Lloyd (1992) 4.
321 …that I, the son of Atreus, am going to tremble…?: the point
here lies in the etymology of the name Atreus. Among Socrates’ three
suggestions for it at Plat. Crat. 395b–c only the second, τὸ ἄτρεστον
(‘not trembling’, α-τρε-, a-tre-, i.e. fearlessness) comes into play: the son
of Atreus can ‘eyeball’ his brother without trembling; the other two are τὸ
ἀτειρές (a-teir, stubbornness) and, a little different in spelling, τὸ ἀτηρόν
(ate- ruinous nature). Ironically enough, Socrates says (395a) that Ag.’s
own name (ἀγα-με(μ)ν- aga-me(m)n-, ‘admirable for remaining’) is apt
for him, but in IA steadfastness is far from being one of his virtues: cf.
Men. at 332 and Clyt.’s innuendo at 1012, 1457; Introduction pp. 18,
20–1. Eur. is particularly fond of etymological play upon proper names:
see Rutherford (2012) 100 n. 89 (bibl.). not look you in the eye: lit.
‘not uncover my eyes’, i.e. keep them open in a level gaze, not lowered
and so hidden, whether from fear or shame: here, perhaps, from both.
Cairns (1993) 283 n. 10 writes ‘Men. accuses (Ag.) of shame before kin’:
at Med. 470–2 Medea accuses Jason of looking directly at her, without
shame ‘when he has done ill to his kin’; cf. Hec. 968 ‘I am ashamed to
look at you directly’.
322 the servant of a most disastrous message: lit. ‘…of very bad
letters’ (γράμματα 118 n.): ‘fanciful, but quite Euripidean: the servant
bears the tablet, and the tablet in its turn performs the same office, and
bears the writing’ (England). For the trope cf. El. 716–17 λωτὸς …
Μουσᾶν θεράπων ‘pipe … servant of the Muses’.
Art. The 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls (details in 111–14 n.) depict
Men. showing Ag. the tablet: nos 6 and 7.
323 Greek. ἀπαλλάσσω let go of … from your hands: cf. Hec. 1222
(gold).
324 to all the Danaans: cf. 308. Ag. later says (528–35, after the
arrival of Iph.) that the consequences of the Greeks’ discovering his
present intention would be disastrous for him, his family and his city.
Kovacs (2003) 79 argues that Men.’s threat here ‘would make sense only
if [all the Greeks] knew Calchas’s prophecy’. Gurd (2005), who on pp.
169–71 discusses this issue with regard to 87–91, 324, 538–40, 814–
18 and 1259–75, 1345–57, responds on 170, ‘But the revelation of the
plot and the announcement of the letter could happen at the same time.
 Commentary 329

The main point of Men.’s denunciation, Ag.’s failure to do his duty as

generalissimo, would be the same’ (indeed: cf. 370–72).
325 (not) the time (…to know): καιρός: W. Race, TAPA 111 (1981)
197–213 examines most 5th century uses of the word; at 210 he compares
our line with Med. 80–1 οὐ γὰρ καιρὸς εἰδέναι τάδε | δέσποιναν ‘…not
the time for our mistress to know’; on our 1109 he writes of ‘appropriate
need’.
Greek. ἦ γάρ Why, have you really…? in surprised questions, e.g.
Or. 739, 1595; GP 284–5. The negative μή is indefinite, ‘the kind of
things not’: Smyth 2505–7.
326 Yes, to your cost: lit. ‘with the result that I cause you pain’; the
verb ἀλγύνω and pron. as in Hipp. 1297. revealed: here the meaning
shifts from the literal ‘opening’ of the letter to the metaphoric.
Greek. ἀνοίγνυμι ‘open up, reveal’ as e.g. Ion 923 (passive), 1563.
[Text. For the aor. form ἠργάσω see Diggle (1994) 415; cf. Smyth 432.]
327 it: the pron. νιν (fem., as e.g. 1273, Cyc. 113) refers to the tablet
δέλτον in 322 – distant, but to take it as masc. of the OM, as some
commentators do (pointing to Men.’s immediate mention in 328 of Iph.,
the person he was hoping to ‘get’), is harder still, and after 319 the OM
may well be no longer present as the subject of argument (303–414a
n. Staging). shameless: the adj. ἀναίσχυντος ‘shameless’ again in 329
and 1144; see Introduction pp. 34–5.
Greek. καί Just where… ? following but emphasizing the interrogative:
GP 312; more often it stresses the next word. what a shameless mind
you have!: σῆς … φρενός gen. of the thing exclaimed over, one of cause:
Smyth 1407, ‘often preceded by an interjection’, cf. Stevens (1976) 62;
e.g. And. 394; S. El. 920 with Finglass’s note, Ar. Birds 61.
328 Greek. παῖδα your child is both the obj. of προσδοκῶν and, by
idiomatic transference, the subject of ἀφίξεται; the usage is a form of
anticipation or prolepsis: Smyth 2182. προσδοκάω … εἰ has no parallel
in Eur., but εἰ ‘in case’ is not rare after expressions of expectation or
anxiety, e.g. 354, And. 61; Smyth 2354. ἀφίξεται: verbs of motion are
often used without a prep. in poetry.
329 my business: τἄμα: 396 n. Isn’t that the action of a shameless
man?: Cicero Tusc. 4.77 quotes a fragment of a vituperative stichomythic
exchange between Ag. and Men., attributed by some to Ennius’ Iphigenia:
Ag. ‘Which man of any people has ever surpassed you in shamelessness?’
330 Commentary

Men. ‘Or you in soldiering?’ (but Jocelyn (1969) 321 rejects attribution
to Iphigenia). On the other hand Iphigenia 203 Jocelyn seems to echo
IA 331, ‘Menelaus rebukes me: the command is an obstacle to my own
affairs’: see Jocelyn pp. 339–40.
[Text. Diggle cites Herwerden’s conjecture (τἄμ’) ἔδει impf. ‘Why
had you to keep…?’, attractive because of the past tense of ἔκνιζε ‘kept
chafing’ in 330.
Metre. West (1982) 91 quotes 329–2 to illustrate Euripides’ free use
of resolutions: five in these few lines. The intention at the end of the
stichomythia may be to quicken already strong feelings.]
330 kept chafing me: the metaphorical use of κνίζω ‘scratch, gash,
chafe’ is usually in the context of love, e.g. Med. 555, 568, but sometimes
of other emotions such as satiety, anxiety e.g. Med. 599 (LSJ II.2) and
anger, e.g. Pind. Nem. 5.32. Here the point is that, unlike a slave of Ag.,
Men. can take action after the wish.
Greek. τὸ βούλεσθαι ‘the wish’, articular infin. as again in Men.’s 338.
331 Is this not outrageous?: οὐχὶ δεινά; cf. on 1406. manage my own
affairs: τὸν ἐμὸν οἰκεῖν οἶκον lit. ‘…my own house’, cf. Pho. 486, 602,
οἰκεῖν τἀμά ‘my own business’ Ion 1295; ‘perhaps colloquial’, Stevens
on And. 581–2, cf. Collard (2005) 376; see also οἰκέω trans. ‘live one’s
lifetime’, 1508 n. Stockert suggests that the point lies in the literal meaning,
‘to be the master in my own house’, picking up Men.’s reference to slavery
in the previous line; but Ag. means his entire family (328).
Greek. ἐάσομαι fut. mid. as pass., e.g. 1436, [1513], is common also
in prose, e.g. Thuc. 1.142.7; Smyth 807–9.
332 your thoughts keep shifting: the meaning of the adj. πλάγιος lit.
‘wandering, astray’ (the verb is πλάζω) seems here, at its only occurrence
in Eur., to be determined by the following some now, some long since,
some soon to come, simple phrases of time; for its use with φρονέω, φρήν
cf. φρένες πλάγιαι (Pind. Isthm. 3.5, prose); Hipp. 283 has πλάνος φρενῶν
of wandering wits. It is tempting however to adduce And. 448–9 ἑλικτὰ
… φρονοῦντες ‘with twisted, i.e. crooked, deceitful, thoughts’, esp. in the
light of Hesychius π 2413 Hansen πλάγιος· δόλιος ‘full of tricks, deceitful’
(without attribution, but the use is Homeric), and some commentators
translate it so (Stockert has ‘dishonest’); but Men. in 334 and his speech
accuses Ag. only of inconstancy and indecision. The flux of Ag.’s thoughts
is clear from 84–110 (see also 6–11 n.). There is irony here too, for Men.’s
 Commentary 331

own thinking is to undergo an abrupt change from 471. Line 332 could
surely serve as a motto for the play: Introduction pp. 18–19.
Greek. γάρ in stichomythia often carries the meaning ‘yes, for…’ or
‘no, for…’ depending on the context: GP 74. For αὐτίκα meaning soon
to come, see LSJ I.1; for the three-fold formulation with τὰ μέν etc., cf.
IT 1264–5, Supp. 550–1 (with Collard’s note).
333 a smart gloss you have put upon: translates both εὖ and
κεκόμψευσαι, where the adv. εὖ ‘well’ and the contrasting grammatical
obj. ill-doing πονηρά frame the verb κομψεύω ‘be smart’; for such word-
play Stockert compares Bacc. 475 εὖ τοῦτ’ ἐκιβδήλευσας ‘You faked
that answer cleverly’ (Dodds). The verb κομψεύω is often pejorative
about a speaker, as e.g. Pl. Laws 197d πρέπει … σοφιστῇ τὰ τοιαῦτα
κομψεύεσθαι ‘it’s appropriate for a sophist to show such smartness’; so
too the adj. κομψός, e.g. Supp. 426 (see Collard’s n.), Cyc. 315, Antiope
F 188.5 (see Text below); unlikely to be colloquial, Collard (2005) 375.
In Aristophanes’ Clouds Socrates is represented as a sophist to whom
one would go to learn how to make the worse argument prevail over the
better; for this verbal equivocation in Eur. see 1115–6, Hec. 1191; cf.
Egli (2003) 196–7. A clever tongue is a hateful thing: cf. Med. 303
σοφὴ γὰρ οὖσα … εἰμ’ ἐπίφθονος ‘because of my cleverness … I am
odious’. Note Men.’s rejoinder in the next line.
Greek. ἐπίφθονον neut. adj. as complement to fem. subject, Smyth 1048.
[Text. εὖ κεκόμψευσαι Ruhnken, a fine correction: ἐκκεκόμψευσαι L,
in which ἐκ- means something like ‘(you’ve been) very (smart with)’.
πονηρά Monk, with punctuation following: rightly, an allusive plur., i.e.
‘(all) your base (deeds)’, like Hec. 1190; πονηρὸν L. Bothe conjectured
πονηρῶν, gen. plur., with punctuation preceding it as in L, ‘(a clever
tongue) in base men’.]
334 Men. ends the stichomythia by again remarking on his brother’s lack
of stability (cf. 332). mind not steadfast: cf. φύσις a person’s ‘nature’
not ‘steadfast’ βέβαιος El. 941; with possession cf. Or. 703 θυμὸς μέγας
… κτῆμα τιμιώτατον ‘a great heart is a most valuable possession’; for
σαφής ‘sure, reliable’ cf. Or. 1155 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν κρεῖσσον ἢ φίλος
σαφής ‘there is nothing better than a sure friend’. The theme of usefulness
to one’s friends looks forward to the main body of the speech: see nn. at
344–5, 347–8; earlier at 303–542 (A) n.
Greek. δέ γε Yes, but: 21 n.
332 Commentary

335–75 Menelaus’ speech: see 317–414b n. for a summary in context.

335–6 prove you in the wrong: ἐξελέγξαι LSJ II, e.g. Hipp. 944
‘expose’, also opening an agon speech (Lloyd (1992) 26); in both places
the word sets the entire tenor. Ritchie remarks laconically that in 335b–6
‘Men.’s opening provides an expectation of veracity and moderation
which is hardly fulfilled’.
Greek. The two lines are cleverly made: the apparently anomalous
correlation μήτε .. οὔτ(ε) reflects the syntactic coupling of negative
command and negative future statement (noticed only by Headlam
among commentators, and very hard to find illustrated even in GP; but see
Jebb on S. Ant. 686); more important is the way the correlation becomes
emphatic contrast through the deliberate word-order σὺ μήτε … οὔτε …
ἐγώ.   636 κατατείνω lit. ‘stretch taut’, but here intrans. press …
hard, ‘be vehement’ (LSJ II.2), cf. Protesilaus F 654 (with dat., ‘oppose
vehemently’), Xen. Anab. 2.5.30, Pl. Rep. 358d.; pass. Hec. 130 σπουδαὶ
… λόγων κατατεινόμεναι ‘eager words pressed hard’ (LSJ I.7).
[Text. 336 L has multiple errors, all but οὔτοι unmetrical and the final
καταινῶ λίαν σ(ε) impossible sense, ‘I do not approve you too much’. The
forceful οὔτ’ αὖ Blomfield and … for my part … not is far preferable to
simple οὔτε Hermann ‘and … not’.]
337–8 when you were eager to command … – to all appearance
not desiring this, but willing it as your wish: there is surely no conflict
here with Ag.’s own wish at 85–6 that someone else had assumed the
role. Since he became commander, the threat to his daughter’s life has
changed the situation radically. Men. here concedes that Ag. did not
appear eager for the post.
Greek. ἄρχειν with dat. ‘lead’ (e.g. And. 666, Hel. 396), rather than the
gen. (‘rule over’): LSJ II.2.
[Text. Hennig wished to delete 338.]
339–42 Since generals were not popularly elected in the heroic world
but were so elected in 5th century Athens, in 339–49 we are plunged
into the world of politics contemporary with Eur. (for ‘anachronism’
in Tragedy, see P. E. Easterling, JHS 105 (1985) 1–10; EGT 98–100).
Men.’s account of his brother’s canvassing certainly strikes echoes from
the 5th century: generosity and accessibility to one’s fellow demesmen
(δημοτῶν 340) was a key; the great politician and general Cimon was a
notable exemplar of this (Arist., Ath. Pol. 27.3; cf. Plut. Cimon 10.1–8).
 Commentary 333

For the same behaviour in Rome see Horace, Epistles 1.6.51–2, Cicero,
For Plancius 27.66. Tragedy early noticed the syndrome: in Aeschylus’
Suppliant Women, a play of the 460s, the proto-democratic king Pelasgus
of Argos is dependent on his citizens, 517–18 ‘to get their goodwill’, cf.
616–24. Simply knowing people was important: Themistocles is said to
have been able to call every citizen by name (Plut. Them. 5.4). Eur. F
1053 typically admits such a view, ‘I hate it when a country’s general
does not use winning ways towards everybody in everything’. A valuable
account of this kind of politicking in Eur.’s day is P. J. Rhodes, JHS 1986
(106) 142–4. humble: there may well be an overtone of abasement to
the Greek word ταπεινός, here of Ag.’s pretended demeanour: cf. Hec.
245, Telephus F 716.4; Hdt. 7.14. keeping doors open: lit. ‘had doors
unlocked’. common man: δημότης lit. ‘a man of the people’, a word
found as early as in Tyrtaeus, 7th century (LSJ I); in Eur.’s Athens a
‘demesman’, a political category (×5 in Eur.); cf. the milder and more
frequent ‘anachronism’ πολίτης ‘citizen’, 368. you sought to buy …
openly: ‘buy’ suggests generosity expecting a political return, perhaps
bribery; ‘openly’ is the likely translation of ἐκ μέσου lit. ‘from the
midst’, locating Ag.’s public activity (LSJ III 1.c); cf. 345a–9 n. The idea
of ‘in the middle political position or stance’ is usually expressed by ἐν
μέσῳ ‘in…’; these phrases and ἐς μέσον ‘into…’ are discussed without
clear distinction by Denniston on El. 797. ambition: τὸ φιλότιμον, 22
n. and Text; cf. 385, 527 and [520]. Ambition stands in political contexts
at Supp. 907 (if the text is sound) and Pho. 532; as to its contemporary
Athenian signficance, Thuc. 2.44.4 describes it as ageless, and at 3.82.8
as the cause of all political troubles. behaving like this: τοῖς τρόποις,
and the same word in this sense ‘your ways’ in 343, 346, 502, 559.
Greek. δημοτῶν: for this partitive gen. with ὁ θέλων, lit. ‘the one of
the common people who wanted’, cf. Ion 1167, S. Aj. 1146.
343–5a no longer as friendly … to your one-time friends: for the
reciprocal nature of friendship and enmity, cf. e.g. Med. 809, Hec.
1250–1; Supp. 867–8 with Morwood’s note. behind barred doors …
rarely to be seen: this seems to have been a perfectly acceptable stance
of Athenian politicians, no doubt alternating with the self-interested
openness of which Men. accused Ag. in 339–42 (n.). Both Pericles (Plut.
Per. 7.4–5) and Nicias (Plut. Nicias 5.1–2) kept out of the public eye.
The latter was ‘difficult of access’ (δυσπρόσοδος, used of the Spartan
334 Commentary

Pausanias in Thuc. 1.130.2; the word hard to approach δυσπρόσιτος

occurs here and S. OC 1277), since he stayed at home with his ‘doors
bolted’ (contrast ‘doors unlocked’ 340 above); his aim was to avoid
informers and apply himself to his work.
Greek. 343 μεταβάλλω is used with the acc. of the thing to which
change is made at 363, cf. LSJ II a; similarly μεθίστημι 346 μετατίθημι
288.   345 σπάνιος ‘rarely-seen’, cf. Pl. Euthyphro 3d, Plut. Crassus
7; at 1162 below it describes a wife as a ‘rare catch’.
[Text. 345a ἔξω Portus is an attractive conjecture: ‘(since you were
rarely to be seen) outside (barred doors)’.]
345b–8 steadfast to his friends … when his success enables him
to help them most: Athens provided prominent counter-examples.
Cleon formally renounced all his friends on entering politics (Plut. Mor.
806f–907b), and may have advertised himself as a lover of the dēmos
(inferred from Ar. Knights 732, 1340–4). Earlier, while Themistocles
was happy to advantage his friends in the public arena, Aristides ‘walked
the way of statesmanship by himself, on a private path of his own, …
thinking it right that the good citizen should base his confidence only on
serviceable and just conduct’ (Plut. Arist. 2.4–5). W. R. Connor, The New
Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton, 1971) 87–198 (esp. 117–
18) argues that a change in the style of politics towards the end of the 5th
century was characterized by the cessation of working through friends
and by appealing directly to the people en masse (cf. 342 n. on ‘openly’).
We might view such principled avoidance of cronyism on Ag.’s part
as laudable and some members of the audience may well have found
Men.’s criticism here questionable. Ag. may have resolved to devote
himself to the Panhellenic cause, at least until that cause threatened his
family. Indeed, he had wished to make an open announcement of the
abandonment of the expedition (94–5), according to Men. in line with the
army’s wishes (352–3, cf. Ach. at 804–18), until Men. got him to change
his mind. steadfast … to his friends is a heavily pointed reminder of
334. his success: the Greek causal part. εὐτυχῶν ‘(as) being successful’
is placed emphatically at the end of the sentence.
Greek. 346 μεγάλα πράσσω: ‘be busy with great things’; for μεγάλα
see LSJ A II.4; for πράσσω ‘be engaged with, manage’ see LSJ III.5–6,
cf. πράγματα ‘affairs of state’ 366 n., 1020–1; LSJ II.
349 This is the first point etc.: the ordered structure of the line with
 Commentary 335

its repetition of ‘first’ πρῶτα, and its self-containment, lend an air of

rhetorical deliberation to Men.’s speech: see 335–75 n. in 317–414b
n. The signal ‘first’ occurs early in agon speeches at e.g. Hipp. 991–2,
Med. 475; Supp. 517 ‘First I’ll answer your first points’ (all three with
the doubling); cf. 1148 n. below. base: i.e. morally; for κακός ‘bad’ in
Men.’s speech, see 317–414b n.
Greek.: ταῦτα This is a limiting acc. of respect (Smyth 1253), which
looks both backward and forward before ἵνα on which (lit. ‘where’); at
1194 it is also ambiguous. LSJ οὗτος VIII.1 define the usage here with
‘therefore’, and this works as well. The phrasing with σ’ ἐπῆλθον attack
occurs in an agon also at And. 688.
350–3 Then again: after ‘first’ πρῶτα 349, αὖθις effectively means
‘secondly’: cf. Alc. 503, Hel. 714. the united army of the Greeks:
the Panhellenic theme again. you were nothing: enlarged upon in
354. panic-stricken: lit. ‘struck out of yourself’; ἐκπλήσσσω is a
common image for the sudden and crippling loss of self-command,
most often owing to fear ([1535]) or grief: Ag. was struck dumb and
helpless. by the fortune the gods gave us: for the combined workings
of the gods and τύχη cf. 864 n., 1403 n., Med. 671, Her. 1393 (with
Bond’s note: ‘A τύχη is often regarded as sent by a god, for the gods are
[rulers of fortune] (El. 890–1).’). disband the ships: at 95 it is Ag.
who tells Talthybius to issue this command, but the ‘deception’ prevents
it; at 495 it becomes Men.’s own wish, after his change of mind. no
wasted effort: the words πονέω, πόνος often connote both ‘effort’ and
‘suffering’, as e.g. in 410; but in 367 ἐκπονέω the sense ‘successfully use
effort’ is clear.
Greek. 350 ἦλθες: the verb retains the 2. pers. of the first and more
important subject though coupled with a 3. pers. noun (here a collective):
Smyth 968.   351 οὐδέν (and μηδέν) nothing: cf. 945 ἐγὼ τὸ μηδέν
and n. Greek, 968 νῦν δ’ οὐδέν εἰμι (both, Ach. of himself); also ὁ οὐδείς,
μηδείς, cf. IA 371 τοὺς οὐδένας ‘nobodies’, And. 700 ὄντες οὐδένες (with
Stevens’ n.), S. Aj. 1114.   353 διαγγέλλω with the infin. in indirect
command like πέμπω at 360–2, cf. 99–100 (n.), 115–19.
354–5 How helpless you looked, how confused: lit. ‘how helpless
an eye (i.e. expression) you had, and confusion’, but possibly hendiadys
(53 n.), ‘How helplessly confused’; 1128 σύγχυσιν ἔχοντες καὶ ταραγμὸν
ὀμμάτων ‘with confusion and agitation in your eyes’ is an exact parallel
336 Commentary

for the trope and for the sense; compare the OM’s picture of Ag.’s
turmoil 39–42. For the inference of feelings from the eye, cf. 381, Pho.
1366. at the thought that … you would not fill… : lit. ‘if (328 n.) you
will not fill…’; the Greek fut. indic. implies that Ag., in Men.’s view,
had thought that the expedition was a certainty. a thousand ships: 174
n. the plain of Priam: a Homeric echo, esp. of ‘the Trojan plain’, e.g.
Iliad 10.11, 23.464. Cf. 755–6 below ‘to Ilium, to Phoebus’ ground at
Troy’, similarly evocative in context.
Greek. war: δορός: see 80 n.
[Text. 354–5 εἰ μὴ … ἐμπλήσεις Musgrave: the part. ἐμπλήσας in L
is not impossible syntactically after εἰ μή, ‘except by filling’, but is rare
(e.g. Med. 369; KG II.487) and here gives inappropriate sense; its aor.
tense would however be idiomatic, even of a future eventuality, e.g. IT
99.]
356–7 ‘What am I to do?’: for direct speech reported within a
speech cf. 463–4, 815–18, 1168, 1177–9, 1197–8, 1223–5, 1228–30;
in a messenger-speech 430–4 (n.), [1552–60, 1570–6, 1596–8]; in lyric
description, where it is specially evocative 791–3 (n.), 1062–75 (n.): there
are unusually many cases in IA (Page 154). Many of these places are
discussed by V. Bers, Speech in Speech (Lanham 1997); F. Chiecchi in G.
Avezzù (ed.), Didaskaliai II (Verona 2008) 225–30. See Addenda. so
that you shouldn’t lose your command and forfeit splendid glory:
here again (cf. 354–5), Men. is attributing thoughts to Ag., the truth of
which cannot be validated; he is developing further his attack in 343–5,
Ag.’s change after achieving the ‘command’. Compare Ag.’s envy of
the man ‘without glory’, 18–19 and n. However, in the Iliad, on two
of the occasions when Ag. proposes abandoning the expedition in Troy,
Ag. says that Zeus is ordering him δυσκλέα Ἄργος ἱκέσθαι (2.115, 9.22)
‘to go to Argos in dishonour’. For καλὸν κλέος ‘glorious honour’ in the
play see Introduction pp. 36–7; the phrase occurs at Hec. 1225, with the
superlative κάλλιστον Hel. 941, Tro. 386.
[Text. 356 Tr3 restored the metre, but Matthiae’s placing of <δ’> after
the phrase τίνα πόρον may be thought better idiom. Dindorf restored
the second interrogative (πόθεν where (from)?) in the one sentence, for
which cf. e.g. Hel. 1543, Bacc. 579; Smyth 2646.]
358–62 Calchas … bade: the plainer meaning of εἶπε ‘said’ asserts itself
in the next line. 358–9 largely repeat the wording of 90–2, as 361–2 do
 Commentary 337

that of 99–100. the Danaans could sail: no mention of the sack of Troy
(92), but this is not spelt out with every recall of Calchas’ prophecy: 529,
879–81 – it is however at 1261–3, [1596–7], and implicit in the Chorus’
expectations 588–9, [773–8]. your heart rejoiced. You gladly promised
to sacrifice your child: Men.’s words appear to many scholars to contradict
Ag.’s declaration in the prologue-scene (94–6) that after Calchas’ terrible
words, he ordered Talthybius to announce the dismissal of the army since
he would never bring himself to kill his daughter. It may however be
possible to make some sense of the discrepancy. Men.’s version appears
to be articulated with deliberate rhetorical exaggeration; he has interpreted
– or is now pretending to interpret – his brother’s reluctant capitulation
as joyful agreement. Furthermore, when Men. says that Ag. sent the letter
summoning Iph. to her death ‘willingly, not out of compulsion’, this verbal
conceit is a Euripidean habit: for the antithesis ἑκών, οὐ βίᾳ, cf. e.g. Tro.
373 ἑκούσης κοὐ βίᾳ λελῃσμένης ‘willingly, and not by force, taken as
plunder’ (Helen abducted by Paris), Hcld. 885. Indeed, Ritchie remarks
at 358–62 that ‘this is by any standard so obvious a distortion of the truth
that it considerably weakens the force of Men.’s whole case’. For a good
discussion of this passage see J. Griffin in Pelling (1990) 142–43, ‘The
fact is that Euripides has not shown us how and why Ag. took his fatal
decision…’. don’t say that: a parenthetic command during a speech,
like IT 1073 φθέγξασθε ‘say!’, cf. e.g. Hcld. 224–5, Bacc. 341–2. Ag.
may well react with a dissenting gesture or exclamation. If so, Jason’s
silencing of an erupting Medea (Med. 550 ἀλλ’ ἔχ’ ἥσυχος ‘Keep quiet!’)
and Theseus’ of Adrastus with similar words (Supp. 513 σῖγ’, Ἄδραστ’,
ἔχε στόμα) may be comparable, both also places in an agon. On Med. 550
Mastronarde notes that the ‘gestural style of the speaking actor himself was
varied and probably became more lively in the late 5th and 4th century:
see Arist. Poetics 1461b34–2a1’; and Mossman (also on 550) notes that
‘it is a remarkable freedom to take with the agon form to have even the
possibility raised that one speaker might interrupt the other in the formal
pair of speeches’. See also 303–542 n. Staging.
Greek. 358 λέγω ‘bid’, 91 n., A. Cho. 553, S. Phil. 101.  360–2
πέμπεις is vivid historic pres. (47 n.); on the syntax of the infin.
ἀποστέλλειν see 353 n. on διαγγέλλω.   362 πρόφασιν adverbial acc.
is used with the meaning ‘ostensibly’, on the pretext: cf. 884, Bacc. 224,
Hdt. 5.33.1, Th. 3.111.1 etc.; LSJ I.2.
338 Commentary

[Text. Nauck deleted 359, probably because of the apparent duplication

‘your heart rejoiced’ and ‘gladly promised’, but verse-end separates the
two ideas and they reinforce each other, the first expressing the feeling,
the second qualifying the action. With the deletion, 358 θῦσαι is repeated
very closely in 360 θύσειν – perhaps acceptable rhetorically.]
363–5 sending a different message: for the wording here, cf.
343 n.; Ag., says Men., changes his messages just as he changes his
character. killer: φονεύς, ‘one who sheds blood’: a strong word,
pointedly implied by Ag. himself at 512 ἐκπρᾶξαι φόνον ‘carry out the
bloody killing’ (n.), by the OM of Ag.’s intention at 875 (φονεύειν verb
‘to bloody’), by Ach. at 939 and 947, and by Iph. herself at 1317; cf.
91 n. on θύω for σφάζω ‘sacrifice’. Most certainly (you have been
caught): μάλιστά γε e.g. Hel. 851, a colloquial expression with a real
punch, answering one’s own question: Stevens (1976) 16. This is the
same sky above us as heard your former words!: an implicit appeal to
‘the all-knowing witness, … typically Euripidean’, Stockert, citing Tro.
1023–4 ‘You saw the same sky as your husband’, cf. Hippolytus Veiled
F 443, Wise Melanippe F 487. The phrase ‘your former words’ translates
just ‘this’ (τάδε) in the Greek, but the reference is to Ag.’s undertaking,
361–2.
Greek. 363 ὑποστρέφω intrans. did an about-turn (here
metaphorical), as Alc. 1019, Melanippe Captive F 495.5.   364 ὡς
‘since’ with the fut. indic. is used of a presumed intention, like the more
frequent ὡς with the fut. part. (Stockert); Smyth 2086c, 2996. γε (in
μάλιστά γε) in affirmative answers contradicting a denial as e.g. Bacc.
484; GP 132.
[Text. Monk moved 365 to follow 362; Hennig deleted it – but the line
is in place, and spoken with the same passion, like the end of 364; compare
Men.’s 406.   364 Kovacs’ conjecture γένῃ ‘you will be(come)’ for
ἔσῃ L ‘you will be’ alleviates sigmatism; on this phenomenon in Tragedy
see L. Battezzato in EGT 1334–5. For γίγνομαι in such contexts cf. e.g.
Ach. at 974 (θεὸς) γενήσομαι ‘I shall become (a god for you)’.]
366–75 [Text. A major problem, the lines being suspect to editors in
whole or part. 368–9 and 373–5 give Men. a heavily rhetorical, and
gnomic, peroration; but they savour of interpolation, because their
references in 373–5 to citizens’ government and to leadership within
(Athenian?) democracy by ‘a leader’ jar strongly; differently the political
 Commentary 339

allusions in 339–48 (see nn.). Page 149 rightly argues that 368–9 ‘are
incongruous with Ag.’s position’, but 151 wrongly that without 373–5
‘we miss a general sentiment to conclude the speech’: see the end of
Ag.’s speech in reply, 396–401. 366–7 suffice as an illustrative truism,
but Men. needs to finish a personal attack on Ag. by emphasizing his
particular failing towards Greece, just as he began the attack in 337 (cf.
also 350). There is no rescue for 368–9 and 373–7 in appeal to Supp.
508–10, where an agon speech ends with a gnome of similar content, for
there the entire subject of argument has been leadership, the comparative
merits of autocracy and democracy. 368–9 and 373–5 have been defended
by appeal to Men.’s similar comparison of military and civic leaders at
S. Aj. 1071–83; practically all recent editors delete them, as we do, but
Matthiessen 397 suggests that 373–4 are authentic, if corrupt.]
366–7 your experience: the translation attempts to convey the apparent
meaning of αὐτό: see Text. They keep toiling away at affairs of state:
the context lends the noun πράγματα ‘affairs’ the political significance it
often bears (346 n.); and 370–3 follow pointedly; we translate ms. L’s text
but it is insecure (printed by Diggle, however): see below.
Greek. 366–7 ἐκπονέω ‘work hard to achieve’, intrans. with prep.
phrase πρὸς τὰ πράγματα like the simple verb πονέω e.g. Theognis 919
ἐς ἄκαιρα ‘at untimely things’; intrans. also e.g. Or. 653, Supp. 318–19
(see Collard’s n.). The verb is trans. at e.g. 209 (n.), Hipp. 381.  367
The part. of ἔχω ‘adds a notion of duration to that of present action’ (LSJ),
i.e. ‘keep toiling away’: cf. Ar. Clouds 509, Pl. Gorg. 490e; Smyth 2062a
and LSJ B.IV.2 cite only Comedy and prose, cf. (satyric) S. Ichn. 133;
possibly colloquial, Collard (2005) 370: see Text below. Alternatively:
ἔχω and prep. phrase ‘having to do with’ is certainly attested only in
Xenophon, e.g. Anab. 5.2.26 ἀμφὶ ταῦτα ‘with these things’, Hell. 7.4.28
περὶ τοὺς Ἠλείους ‘with the Eleans’. ἐξεχώρησαν back out, gnomic aor.
For this sense see LSJ I.3; LSJ give no parallel to support ‘come out of
(badly), fail’.
[Text. 366 αὐτό: this use of the pron. commonly carries forward the
meaning of a preceding sentence (393 n.). Diggle, OCT fairly remarks that
ταὐτό ‘the same thing’ or τοῦτο ‘this’ (prospective of 367–9) is required for
adequate meaning here.   367 Doubt of ἔχοντες (above) can be dissolved,
and the word-order of L maintained, and economically, by Canter’s simple
conjecture ἑκόντες, ‘(they toil away) willingly (at affairs, but then…)’;
340 Commentary

it is commended by Diggle and Matthiessen. West’s slight reordering of

L to ἐκπονοῦσιν, εἶτ’ ἔχοντες (BICS 28 (1971) 71) gives a very different
meaning, ‘they toil away at affairs of state, but when they have them (done,
i.e. successfully), they back out…’ Weakness after success more logically
precedes the thought of 370–2, but one would expect an aor. part. instead
of a pres. Wecklein’s ἐγκονοῦσ(ι) ‘hasten, quickly get busy’ is momentarily
attractive: the verb is attested most frequently in Tragedy in urgent, familiar
commands, e.g. Hec. 507, Her. 521.]
[368–9] citizens’ foolish misjudgement: Stockert remarks that ‘the
folly of the many is a familiar topos’, cf. 1357 and n. ‘the many are a
great evil’; and Collard on Supp. 420b–2 observed that the theme starts in
the earliest writers, citing Theognis 683, Solon F 8.2. But interpretation
of each instance depends on its speaker as well as its context. Men. is a
fixer (77–9, 97–8), confident that he and his brother, a fellow-king, are
entitled to make the arrangements that suit them best. He is slighting of
the democratic process (but if the couplet is after all authentic to Eur.,
in the theatre Men.’s criticism of the citizens, particularly at the play’s
date, might not go down well). justly: early eds took ἐνδίκως with
ἀδύνατοι ‘since they are really incapable of keeping…’, but verse-end
after the adv., and the phrasing of 369, are against them: the incapable
fail because of their own errors.
Greek. τὰ μέν … τὰ δέ: 332 n.
[Text. For Hartung’s deletion of the two verses see 366–75 n.]
370–2 Unhappy Greece … barbarians: yet another but now
important statement of the Panhellenic theme: the issue leaves Men. and
Ag. wholly divided at the agon’s end, 410–11 (n). The theme returns
strongly later in the play, from Ag. at 1265–6, 1274–5 and Iph.’s echo of
her father at 1378–82, 1400–1. Note the apparent echo of 370 in Eubulus
F 67.10 PCG (see the apparatus). (something) fine: the adj. κεδνός
is variously ‘valued, true-hearted, wise’ according to context; similarly
Tro. 683 δρᾶν τι κεδνόν, cf. Alc. 605 κεδνὰ πράξειν ‘will do fine things’;
Hcld. 795 ἡγωνίζετο τι κεδνόν ‘he fought with true valour’ (the aged
Iolaus); LSJ II. In these expressions τι is meiotic, i.e. ‘something very
(fine)’: see 609 n. nobodies who laugh at her: laughter from one’s
enemies was intolerable humiliation, to be avoided or punished; it is a
major theme of Sophocles’ Ajax, e.g. 79, 955–8, 1042–3; in Eur. see e.g.
Med. 383, Her. 285, Bacc. 842.
 Commentary 341

Greek. 370 Ἑλλάδος is gen. of cause after στένω, approximately as

in Hipp. 1409 στένω σὲ μᾶλλον ἢ ’μὲ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ‘I grieve for you
more than for myself over your error’; Smyth 1405; correspondingly
after the verb ‘praise’, 1371 below.   371 τοὺς οὐδένας ‘nobodies’:
351 n.   372 ἐξανίημι let … escape: Pho. 670, Bacc. 707; LSJ I.2.
[Text. 372 Note Markland’s alternative ἐξαφήσει, a simpler ‘let …
go’, LSJ ἐξαφίημι II].
[373–5] Interpolated: 366–75 n. leader: the noun προστάτης has
a clear ‘Athenian’ ring, as the ‘champion’ of democratic interest, e.g.
Supp. 243: LSJ II.1; but LSJ II.2 has IA 373 as a ‘leader in general’,
citing also Hcld. 964, with χώρας ‘country’ (see Text below). See also
449 n. †every man … † if he possesses intelligence: for the sentiment,
cf. Or. 909–11 ‘all those who constantly give good, sensible counsel …
are useful to a city’. Wecklein cites Xen. Mem. 3.9.10 τοὺς ἐπισταμένους
ἄρχειν ‘those with the knowledge to rule’. For σύνεσις of intellectual
qualities in Eur. see Willink on Or. 396.
Greek. 373 ὅπλων lit. ‘arms’, army by metonymy, e.g. Ion 1292, Pho.
113; cf. δορός ‘war’, 80 n.
[Text. 373 L offers ἄν and potential opt., I †would† never etc., in
a ‘polite’ hope expressing confidence, acceptable in (any) context; but
χρείους (because of) †need† is clearly corrupt, and improvement has
been sought most commonly through Reiske’s ἂν γένους ἕκατι ‘(because
of his) birth’; or through Pantazidis’s ἀνδρείας, with change to a bare and
pure opt., ‘I wish I never make … (because of his) bravery’. ἀνδρείας was
printed in Murray’s and in Diggle’s OCT (but Diggle categorizes 366–75
as ‘scarcely Euripidean’); while it makes a good connection in sense with
ὅπλων ἄρχοντα ‘commander of an army’, Page 150 remarks that this is
‘highly perplexing’; its implication is that Men. considers his brother
brave rather than sensible (374–5 – if the lines are authentic). Also 373
χθονὸς L: πόλεως Nauck (4), making the same change after προστάτην
as he wished in Antiope F 194.4, and giving the lines immediately an
Athenian resonance (above). In 375 †πόλεος ὡς ἄρχων† L ‘†For … is
ruling a city† if…’ scarcely gives meaning; also, the ellipse of ἐστι with
a pres. part. is against usage (see KG I.38–9, cf. Smyth 945). Diggle
puts Weil’s conjecture ἀρκῶν in his text: πόλεος· ὡς ἀρκῶν ἀνὴρ … ‘a
city’s (374 general must have sense). For every man is adequate if…’;
but the noun πόλεος is then superfluous and its enjambement (50–1 n.)
342 Commentary

before the stop appears to give it inappropriate emphasis; and the ellipse
survives.]
376–7 It is a terrible thing etc.: a generalisation typical of a chorus’
iambic couplets which regularly follow the iambic long speeches in an
agon; compare 402–3; see Introduction p. 32 on the Chorus. Here, the
‘responding’ couplets stand in iambic trimeters uniquely after trochaic
tetrameter speeches (Rutherford (2012) 192 n. 59); but it is more the
tetrameters themselves that are unique (317–414a n. at end). It would
weaken that effect if the Chorus were to speak in the same metre; in
fact it helps to mark their detachment. That the two men are brothers
is an argument lacking from Men.’s speech (despite his emphasis on
philoi), but one he uses in disgust in the closing stichomythia 406, 412.
Ag. however makes the point at once, as he begins his speech, 380.
For conflict between brothers in Eur., see esp. Pho. 446–637 (Eteocles
and Polynices) and the famous scene from the fragmentary Antiope F
183–202 (between Amphion and Zethus on the rival merits of music and
agriculture, representing political quietude and activity); cf. also F 975
χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν ‘wars between brothers (are) cruel’.
[Text. 376 ψόγους Musgrave blame, printed by Diggle, is slightly
preferable to L’s weaker λόγους ‘words’ (although this stands in
Stobaeus’ text); the noun ψόγος and verb ψέγω are sometimes confused
with λόγος and λέγω in mss., e.g. Supp. 565, And. 419, Bellerophon F
297.5. λόγους would stand in hendiadys with μάχας, ‘fighting words’, for
which compare 53 ἀπειλαὶ καὶ … φθόνος (Markland: φόνος L): see n.]
378–441 [Text. All these lines were suspect to Günther, who in his
apparatus on 376–7 wondered whether Eur. himself wished to continue
in iambics – but that would have left the trochaic tetrameters awkwardly
used just for Men.’s speech (see also 376–7 n.); note Diggle (1994) 411
‘(378–403) are largely inoffensive textually’. Most editors’ suspicions
have begun with 404–12 (Page and Diggle suspected them strongly) and
particularly 407, 413–14a and 414b–39 (–41): see nn. below.
378–401 Agamemnon’s speech: see 317–414b n. for a summary in
context.
378–80 Lines packed with meaning (for their textual uncertainties see
below). I wish to criticise you … more moderately: the lines echo
and balance Men.’s proem ‘I wish to prove you in the wrong … and I
… shall not press … hard’ (335–6). not raising my eyes too much in
 Commentary 343

unashamed scorn: then the unqualified adversative ‘more moderately’

shows that Ag. rejects such behaviour in himself, not that of Men. earlier
(when a directive ‘you(r)’ would be expected); but with since you are
my brother Ag. explicitly acknowledges the relationship when Men. has
failed to do (cf. Ag.’s 321). After all, a good man is accustomed to
show respect to others surely implies criticism of Men. Raised eyebrows
(ὀφρύες) provide the usual image for scorn or contempt, e.g. F 1113a.3,
Ar. Ach. 1069, and Menander F 857.3 (ἀνασπάσας ‘drawing the brows
upward’); amusingly, Amphis F 13.3 ‘eyebrows arrogantly lifted like
a snail’. England quotes from Proverbs 30.13: ‘There is a generation,
oh how lofty are their eyes! And their eyelids are lifted up.’ Cf. 320–
1 (n.), where Men. demands that Ag. look him straight in the eye; see
Introduction p. 33.
Greek. 378 εἰπεῖν κακῶς + acc. of the person, and sometimes an acc.
of what is said (e.g. κακά), has the meaning ‘speak badly of, criticise’,
e.g. Or. 556, Alc. 704; Smyth 1591b, 1622. βραχέα: the substantivised
neut. plur. adj. ‘brief things’ is used almost adverbially, ‘briefly’. βλέφαρα
lit. ‘eyelids’ frequently mean ‘eyes’, in synecdoche, e.g. S. Aj. 85, Trac.
107.   379 σωφρονεστέρως: the ending -ως of the comparative adverb
is uncommon but unproblematic: cf. Hcld. 543, IT 1375; Smyth 345c.
[Text. 378 αὖ P2/Markland in turn, rightly: εὖ L is difficult in oxymoron
(305 n.) in ‘(criticise you) well’, an awkward contrast reinforced by
the adverb’s place before the mid-verse division (note that position
after the cohesive οὐκ εὖ in 388); also, εὖ ‘well’ cannot be justified by
appeal to e.g. Tro. 914 ‘both if I seem to speak well and if badly’ κἂν
εὖ κἂν κακῶς δόξω λέγειν (not ‘and if I abuse’), also the beginning of
an agon speech. The oxymoron itself is however defended from Hipp.
694 μὴ καλῶς εὐεργετεῖν ‘to benefit (friends) not well’ (Wecklein) and
from IT 559 εὖ κακὸν δίκαιον ἐξεπράξατο ‘he performed a just evil
well’ (Stockert); Turato supports it as part of Ag.’s rhetorical criticism
of Men.’s rhetoric.   379 ἄνω … ἀγάγων L ‘raising (my eyes)’ is
satisfactory: for ἄνω … ἀνάγων Naber ‘drawing (my eyes) up(ward)’
cf. perhaps ἀνάγω with the half-redundant adv. ἄνω Alc. 986–7 (leading
the dead up from Hades).   380 χρηστὸς (or χρηστὸν) Stobaeus good:
αἰσχρὸς οὐκ L, with an intrusive negative when a positive expression is
required, gives neither sense (‘base … (is) not (accustomed)’) nor metre,
and (Stockert) sits badly with αἰδεῖσθαι. Diggle cites Willink’s χρηστοῦ
344 Commentary

γ’ (δ’ preferred by Diggle) ἀνδρὸς αἰδεσθεὶς φίλους ‘(It is) a good man’s
part to show respect to kin’ – excellent sense, and a better continuation,
but an improbably violent alteration.]
381–4 snorting so dreadfully, your face flushed with blood?:
‘snorting so dreadfully’: δεινὰ φυσᾷς: Phrynichus (see apparatus)
glosses the expression (but does not cite Eur.) with ‘such as in getting
angry’; cf. 125 μέγα φυσῶν. ‘face flushed’: αἵματηρὸν ὄμμα: we have
followed Monk’s interpretation, but the expression could equally well
mean ‘eye(s) bloodshot (in rage)’. One play-character here fills out with
his description what the other’s mask could not convey.
Note Ag.’s series of rhetorical questions in 381–4, a sign of defence
through attack: cf. 1185–8 (Clyt. to Ag.), and e.g. And. 388–94, 404–5,
450–2, Hec. 258–63. A sense of justified indignation is the keynote in
these passages. Who is wronging you?: ἀδικεῖ: the OM had used
the verb in protesting at Men.’s seizure of the letter, a ‘wrong’ to his
master, 314. What do you want?: τοῦ = τίνος neut., confirmed by the
continuation – but momentarily taken as fem., ‘whom’, i.e. the wife who
indeed has ‘wronged’ Men., 397. a good wife: lit. ‘a good marriage’,
λέκτρα as e.g. 124 (n.). You certainly proved a bad master of the
one you had: similarly Peleus’ attack on Menelaus And. 591–641 (in an
agon). Ennius 204–6 Jocelyn took the cue from our lines for a passage
in his fragmentary Iphigenia: ‘Am I the scapegoat because you are at
fault? You †commit† (sense good, grammar and metre faulty) a wrong,
but I am accused? Is Helen to return as reward for her wrong-doing? Is
an innocent girl to die for her husband? Is your wife to be reconciled,
but my daughter to be slain?’ Cf. also Telephus F 722, Ag. to Men.: ‘I’ll
not die for your Helen’s sake.’ As to ‘had’: for the verb κτάομαι used
of a husband see 715 n. I … who made no mistake: Ag. claims that
he belongs to the class of people who haven’t been tripped up (see μή
under Greek); for σφάλλω of sexual misbehavour and its consequence
see (Paley) esp. Hipp. 5, Ion 1523.
Greek. 382 The perf. of χράομαι usually occurs in the part. when the
meaning is ‘want’, but see also Med. 334, Theoc. 26.18.   383 Τhe rel.
pron. ὧν is attracted into the gen. of its antecedent λέκτρων, understood
from 382.   384 The negative μή is indefinite, generalising (with a
part., Smyth 2705.g).
[Text. 382 Reiske corrected L’s unmetrical order of words, and the
 Commentary 345

here senseless λέκτ(α) ‘(to be) spoken (of)’. 384 δῶ (deliberative subj.)
σῶ<ν> Dawes is palmary; L’s fut. indic. δώσω is against idiom.]
385–7 ambition: for the meaning of τὸ φιλότιμον see 22 n. needles:
δάκνει lit. ‘bites’, a very common metaphor of painful or rankling emotions,
e.g. 689 the marrying-away of daughters ‘tears at’ parents; Hcld. 483
anguish. Cf. Men.’s metaphor of ‘chafing’, 330. beautiful: εὐπρεπής of
Clyt. at 822. But the adj. is often ambiguous, with the sense ‘well-seeming,
specious’ (see Fraenkel’s n. on Ag. 615f.); here it may hint that Helen’s
looks do not correspond to the reality of her nature. reason: a main theme
of Ag.’s speech is the contrast between rational and irrational behaviour. He
sets his own εὐβουλία ‘sound counsel’ (388) against the lack of it in Men.
(401), who shared the infatuation of the foolish suitors (391–2). a base
man: πονηρός ‘base’ is a strong word: e.g. 333 (also Ag., his ‘ill-doing’),
Hec. 596 ‘the base man is nothing other than evil’.
Greek. 386 τὸ λελογισμένον, def. art. and neut. part. making a noun
(33–4 n., cf. 1017, 1270), common in verse and esp. Thucydides: Smyth
1153b, 2051; Barrett on Hipp. 248 cites the perf. part. Or. 210 τῷ λίαν
παρειμένῳ ‘excessive prostration’. Note 1021 below λελογισμένως
adverbial, ‘according to reason’. παρίημι ‘put aside, abandon’ as 1376 τὸ
δυσγενές ‘meanness of spirit’, Pho. 508 τοῦτο … τὸ χρηστόν ‘this good’,
i.e. sovereign power; cf. [1609] below χόλον ‘anger’.
[Text. 385 οὐ Murray restores the necessary negative statement;
ἢ L ‘or…?’ continues the questioning; but Ag. changes here to direct
accusation. Similar error, similar correction in 959.   385–7 were
condemned by Wecklein, but Ag.’s 385 ‘ambition’ τὸ φιλότιμον echoes
Men.’s 342.]
388–90 thought better of it: lit. ‘changed to sound counsel’, εὐβουλία:
this word e.g. Hcld. 110, Hel. 757; for its contemporary currency see
Egli (2003) 203. am I out of my mind?: μαίνομαι may be colloquial:
Stevens (1976) 16, noting 1256 φιλῶ τ’ ἐμαυτοῦ τέκνα· μαινοίμην γὰρ
ἄν ‘And I love my children, otherwise I should be mad’. The word is
emphasized here by enjambement (50–1 n.).
Greek. 388 μετεθέμην mid.: cf. Or. 254 μετέθου λύσσαν ‘you
changed to madness’; for the acc. of the thing changed to, see 343 n. on
μεταβάλλω.   390 διδόντος: pres. part. serving as an ‘imperfect’, was
giving: Smyth 1872a.1. The gen. absolute participial expression with
δίδωμι is not rare, sometimes with an adverb or the like, e.g. 702 with
346 Commentary

εὖ ‘give good fortune’: pres. and sing. there, plur. e.g. Hipp. 1434, aor.
e.g. Supp. 214–15; cf. And. 750 θεοί σοι δοῖεν εὖ καὶ τοῖσι σοῖς ‘May the
gods give you and yours good fortune!’, Med. 879.
[Text. 388 μετεθέμην εὐβουλίαν Monk, one of his best emendations:
μετετέθην εὐβουλίᾳ L means ‘I was changed by sound counsel’.   389
L glossed μᾶλλον ‘rather’ with 2. pers. μαίνῃ ‘you are mad’; interpretative
glosses are rare in L, but sometimes invade the text: see Zuntz (1965)
117–18, 228–9.   In 390–2 P. Köln has only a few letters at line-ends;
they match L.]
391–4 Ag.’s next point is introduced by asyndeton ‘explaining’ what has
preceded, as often (444, 655, 1170; Smyth 2165a, 2167b; V. Bers, EGT
1370). The suitors … Tyndareus’ oath: cf. 58, 79. were thinking
badly: the meaning of κακόφρονες is as at e.g. Hcld. 372, Or. 824 (and
clearly not ‘ill-minded’); cf. previous n. hope … a god: cf. Theognis
1135–46; also 637–40. Eur. half-personifies hope here, but for deifications
of psychological functions and abstract nouns, cf. 1136 (fate), Tro. 768
(envy), 989 (sexual love), Bacc. 415 (desire), Cyc. 316 (wealth). made it
happen: ‘it’ is the suitors’ hopeful swearing of the oath, 391–2a, primarily
to win Helen (53–4), secondly to destroy Troy (64). you and your
strength: σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν σθένος: contemptuous, with its hissing sigmas;
cf. S. Aj. 1147 σὲ καὶ τό σὸν λάβρον στόμα ‘you and your loud mouth’, Ar.
Birds 893 καὶ σὺ καὶ τὰ στέμματα ‘both you and your garlands’; ‘hissing’
sigmatism also 524 n, 1361–4 n. In their hearts’ folly: 394a–5 n.
Greek. 392 δέ γε is ‘strongly adversative’ in continuous speech,
with the speaker often countering his own words (GP 153); Stevens
(1976) 23–4 entertains δέ γε as colloquial, describing it as a ‘confident
assertion’. Perhaps Ag. is anticipating an attempt of Men. to interrupt
with an objection: cf. 361 ‘don’t say that’ and n. οἶμαι (μέν) ‘I think’
parenthetic as Alc. 794, cf. 780.   393 ἐκπράσσω ‘make happen’, as
e.g. Her. 1383, Bacc. 1161; for ἐκ-compounds in Eur. see 209, 367 (n.),
1070, 1450. αὐτό refers to the preceding idea, that of 391–2a (see above),
cf. 366 ~ 363, Bacc. 1151 ~ 1150, Or. 610 ~ 609.
[Text. 394 στράτευ’· ἕτοιμοι δ’ εἰσὶ Monk, another excellent
correction: στράτευε· οἶμαι δ’ εἴσῃ L seemingly perpetuated ancient but
simple copying errors; apart form the metrical hiatus before οἶμαι, there
is no rescue for it as ‘I think’ (see 392) or for εἴσῃ ‘you will know’.]
394a–5 gods … not devoid of wisdom: for the intelligence of the
 Commentary 347

gods in punishing false oaths see Polyidus F 645.5, employing the same
adj. ἀσύνετος; a positive view of the gods with adj. συνετός by Iph.
1189–90. The gods see through Ag.’s own σοφίσματα ‘clever plans’
444 and n. (cf. Supp. 216–18); ‘gods should be wiser than men’ at e.g.
Hipp. 120. oaths … basely sworn: compounding the swearers’ stupid
indifference to the gods 391–2, esp. after Tyndareus’ ‘neat scheme’ 66–7,
where Ag.’s attitude to the oath is consistent with his description here,
cf. 56–8. Zeus was the god of oaths (e.g. Med. 169–70; he is Ὅρκιος 208
there, Hipp. 1025); cf. Med. 492–5. Castor at El. 1349–55 recommends
avoiding the company of perjurors on their ships. For a discussion of the
two cases in Tragedy in which a human and a god commit (the Guard in
Antigone) and advocate (Apollo in Eumenides) perjury unscathed, see
Mikalson (1991) 84–6. For oaths in IA see esp. 58–60 nn.; in Tragedy J.
Fletcher, EGT 903–5.
Greek. 394a τὸ θεῖον = οἱ θεοί, e.g. Or. 267, 420. ἔχω and infin. is ‘be
able to’, IA 1421, Med. 492 etc. συνίημι ‘understand, recognize’ and acc.
of a thing e.g. Pho. 422 θέσφατα ‘oracles’.   395 For the passive of
πήγνυμι ‘strike’ as ‘irrevocably fixed, established’, see LSJ IV, and cf. A.
Ag. 1198 ὅρκου πῆγμα γενναίως παγέν ‘the striking of an oath genuinely
struck’.
[Text. 394a is preserved by Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century AD)
and Stobaeus (5th century), who have it together with 395 in quotations
attributed to Eur. (but not to IA). The omission in L’s tradition may have
been due to the similar letters beginning 394, 394a and 395. Other verses
omitted for this reason are Hel. 561 and Supp. 974b; cf. our Introduction p.
54, Text 1.c. συνιέναι: Diggle mentions Wecklein’s διειδέναι ‘to know
apart, distinguish, discern’ (e.g. Med. 518), which Wecklein ‘expected’
in avoiding the echo of (ἀ)σύνετον – but this sound-effect occurs in 466,
653–4, Pho. 1506.   In 395 all recent eds accept κατηναγκασμένους
made under compulsion from Theophilus and Stobaeus, rightly: L’s
συνηναγκασμένους (‘collectively enforced’) was retained by early eds;
this compound is found nowhere else in Tragedy. The error was probably
assimilation of κατ- to συν-, which stands twice in the preceding line.]
396–9 I will not kill my own child: wording like Ag.’s at 96. weeping
days and nights: a Homeric echo, Iliad 24.745; cf. Bacc. 237, 425. the
daughter I fathered: cf. Ag.’s emphasis on this point, 90 n.
Greek. 396 the negative in κοὐ applies to both the μέν and the δέ
348 Commentary

clauses (the latter in 397–8): e.g. Hec. 576–7, IT 116–17; GP 371, Smyth
2904.b. τὸ σόν = ‘you, anything of yours, your fortunes’, and frequent,
e.g. 1402, And. 1185; cf. 329 τἀμά ‘my business’; cf. 1403 n. The words
τὸ σὸν do not go with εὖ as ‘your success’, as some have taken it, but
belong with 397 ἔσται, a separation rare in Eur.; cf. 610–11.   397
τιμωρίᾳ instrumental dat.   398 (συν)τήκω often has a personal
subject, e.g. Med. 25, 141, but cf. Med. 689 χρώς ‘flesh, body’, El. 240
δέμας ‘body’.   399 παῖδας οὓς generalizing masc. plur. standing for
a singular fem. individual, e.g. Hel. 1184–5; this is regular idiom: Smyth
1015.
[Text. 396 κοὐ Lenting is inescapable; καὶ L leaves too much to
counter-inference, ‘and (if I don’t kill her) your fortunes…’.   397
Porson’s παρὰ δίκην is generally accepted; but L’s phrase πέρα δίκης
with similar meaning (‘beyond justice’) occurs at PV 30.]
400–1 what I have to say to you: such phrasing is common at the end
of formal speeches, e.g. Supp. 456, Pho. 953: see commentators. brief:
as Ag. promised, 378 n. easy: i.e. ‘easy enough, in the circumstances’;
Od. 11.146 ‘I will tell you an easy (ῥηΐδιον) word and put it in in your
mind.’
Greek. καλῶς τίθημι put … in good order: e.g. εὖ τίθημι 672 (n.),
Hec. 875, Hipp. 521; at play-end A. Ag. 1673; cf. εὖ τίθημι IA 672.
[Text. 400 some editors find ῥᾴδια ‘easy’ otiose after σαφῆ ‘clear’,
but the two adjs. reinforce Ag.’s chief point: ‘Let me not have to kill my
daughter!’ For ῥᾴδια Stadtmüller conjectured καίρια, ‘what meets the
(need of the) moment’, as in 829; cf. καιρός 325 n.; Stockert fairly objects
to the mild jingle καὶ (σαφῆ) καὶ καί(ρια).   401 εὖ L has point – and
the word has exactly the same metrical position as in Ag.’s first line, 378
(see n.). But Markland’s σύ ‘you’, emphatic, makes a good contrast with
Ag.’s my own; it leaves φρονεῖν unqualified as ‘think sensibly’, but this
is not rare, e.g. 877, And. 666, Ion 521.]
402–3 different from what you said before: the Chorus infer this from
Men.’s accusation of Ag. that he at first ‘gladly promised to sacrifice his
child’ 359–60, but then ‘did an about turn’ 363; the Chorus base their
comment also on the shifts – and shiftiness – of Ag. of which Men. has
spoken throughout 332–64. Ag. has now in 396 restated his determination
not to kill his daughter 364 with unhesitating, indeed superb, confidence.
The Chorus’ couplet 402–3 matches that which follows the first long speech
 Commentary 349

(cf. 376–7n.), and it returns the metre to iambic: see 404–14a n. good
that you talk of sparing a child: the Chorus of young women is naturally
sympathetic to Iph.’s plight (see Introduction p. 31). The single enjambed
word μύθων carries no emphasis (see 71–3 n.).
Greek. φείδεσθαι: the infin. after οἵδε (μῦθοι) falls between an
appositive use (Smyth 1987) and a defining one, nearing ‘a datival
meaning, of purpose’ (2001, 2004): cf. 511–12 ἀναγκαίας τύχας …
ἐκπρᾶξαι lit. ‘necessity in our fortunes to carry out’, and e.g. Tro. 1031
νόμον … τόνδε … θνῄσκειν ἥτις … ‘this law that any woman who …
should die’. τέκνων allusive plur.: 1015 and n.
404–14a On this style of irreconcilable stichomythia closing an agon
see n. on 303–542 A: 303–414a, at end. The theme is still that of philia,
the value of kinship and friendship both reciprocated and betrayed, esp.
404 and 405 (317–414a n. (i)).
[Text. These verses have long been suspected as non–Euripidean: see
n. on 407 Text.]
404 Greek. ἄρα ‘inferential’ in realization, Then, ‘after all’: cf. e.g.
882, 944, 1330 with a past tense: GP 36–7, 44–5; Smyth 1902; colloquial:
Stevens (1976) 62.
[Text. οὐκ ἐκεκτήμην Heath, Diggle, who mentions οὐχὶ κέκτημαι
Monk ‘I do not have’: οὐχὶ κεκτήμην L. The (Ionic) plup. without
augment is esp. a Herodotean usage (Smyth 438.d), not attested in
Euripidean dialogue.]
405 Ah, but you do have: γε, 364 n. [Text: see on 406.]
406 How can you show: The word ‘show’ is emphasized by the
postponement of the Greek interrogative: 319 n.
Greek. ποῦ implies ‘how’ rather than ‘where’ and doubts the
possibility, cf. Or. 802 ποῦ γὰρ ὢν δείξω φίλος…; ‘How shall I show I
am your friend…?’ This line illustrates too the nom. part. construction
with a verb of showing; also e.g. Med. 548.
[Text. The fut. indic. δείξεις matches the indic. θέλεις in 405. West
(1981) 71 prefers the opt. θέλοις (‘if you were not willing’): ‘Men. does
at present wish to destroy his friends. If he were to change his attitude, he
would find that he does have friends.’ This application of precise logic,
however, seems de trop.]
407 share … in sick folly: for the sickness imagery in συννοσεῖν, see
411 n.
350 Commentary

[Text, Metre. L’s elision of final -αι (in βούλομαι) has no certain
parallel in Tragic dialogue; the four places listed by West (1982) 10 n. 15,
including this line, are readily emended: see Diggle (1994) 313. So here
e.g. βούλομαι κοὐ Nauck (the best conjecture); βουλόμεσθ’, οὐ Fix (but
Ag. has used only the 1. pers. sing. since 321: note Men.’s ἡμᾶς of himself
320); βουλόμενος, οὐ Vitelli. All are cited by Diggle, who nevertheless
follows L. He doubts the authenticity, however; similarly, this metrical
anomaly, the importance of 407 within its context (cf. esp. 411), and the
mid-line entry of 414, persuaded particularly Page 152 to suspect that
the whole of 404–14 is probably a 4th century BC confection; Wecklein
observed that Men.’s 413 ‘I shall go to other friends’ conflicts with his
denial of having them in 407 – but see 413–14a n.
Some editors have replaced L’s wording with a quotation by Plutarch
at Mor. 64c συσσωφρονεῖν γάρ, οὐχὶ συννοσεῖν ἔφυ<ν>, but he does
not attribute these words to author or play; and they may be a conflation
of our line with S. Ant. 523 οὔτοι συνέχθειν, ἀλλά συμφιλεῖν ἔφυν
‘I was certainly not born to join in hatred, but to join in friendship’.
συσσωφρονεῖν occurs only in these two places; συννοσεῖν is found at
e.g. And. 948 and four other places in Eur., including Oedipus F 545a.11
(the fragment’s lines 8–12 contain – very deliberately – four συν-
compounds).]
408 Friends should join in their friends’ distress: for the bond of
friendship dishonoured, see 334 n. and e.g. Or. 735, And. 376–7, Hec.
1226–7.
Greek. ἐς κοινόν adverbial (‘in common’): LSJ B.III.
409 Ask for my help: a rejoinder to Men.’s 356 ‘You called me to help’.
410 to share in the efforts of Greece: Men. appeals again to the
Panhellenic cause (cf. 350 n., 370–2), which Ag. repudiates, 411.
‘efforts’: probably a recall of Men.’s (gnomic) 367.
411 Some god … has brought this sickness: the god is left unspecified
(like δαίμων, 444 and n.); Achilles is similarly vague about a different
issue at 809, ‘not without the gods’. Ag. now sees the expedition as a
symptom of disease, a common metaphor for anything irregular or
flawed, e.g. 407, 982, 1403; And. 1043 νόσον ῾Ελλὰς ἔτλα, νόσον ‘it was
a sickness Greece endured, a sickness.’
Greek. κατὰ θεόν ‘by the agency of a god’: for the expression, see LSJ
κατά V.
 Commentary 351

412 Well, take pride in your sceptre: Men.’s bitter sarcasm recalls his
337–8, 342–8, 357; Ag.’s ‘sceptre’ is similarly scorned by Clyt., 1194–5.
For αὐχέω in such sarcasm cf. Collard on Supp. 504–5, citing Hipp. 952
‘Well, take pride in…’ (Theseus condemning Hippolytus’ life-style).
Greek. For αὐχέω ‘take pride’, rather than ‘boast’, see Barrett on
Hipp. 952–5, modifying Fraenkel on Ag. 1497.
413–14a to other plans and to other friends: Ritchie suggests that
these ‘other friends’ (φίλοι are not ‘kin’, here!) may be Calchas and Od.,
the two others who know about the planned sacrifice (106–7; note Ag.’s
fear of them at 517 and 524–35); the apparent contradiction of Men.’s
404 ‘I had no friends’ fuels suspicion of 412–39 overall. Ritchie remarks
that ‘substance is given to this threat here by the fact that Men. still has
in his hand the tablets which give proof of Ag.’s volte-face’ – but see
303–542 n. Staging, at end. Thus there is genuine menace in this line,
which is not untypical at the end of a disagreement (cf. Ag. at 401),
particularly when ‘friends’ have been a significant theme (317–414a n.
(i); see also the next paragraph below). μηχανάς ‘plans’ is ‘loaded’, in
view of Men.’s scheme for the false marriage, 97–105, cf. Ag. in 129 of
the same deception; at 444 Ag. describes it as σοφίσματα ‘clever plans’
and 745 as τέχνας ‘schemes’. For μηχανή/αί cf. e.g. Hel. 813 ‘plan’, IT
112 ‘device’.
I shall go etc.: in fact Men. does not leave: he is addressed by the
Messenger at 436, hears Ag.’s monologue 442–68, responds to it
positively and speaks again at 471 – with very great effect. On this,
Lloyd (1992) 3 notes that an agon normally continues for as long as
the two opposed characters are on stage together, and observes that this
is the only instance where its end is not clearly marked by an exit. In a
remarkable development of the form’s tradition, worthy of Euripides in
modifying conventions which he himself had largely set, it continues
with the arrival of new information which causes both brothers (in a kind
of anti-agon) to reverse their positions. In doing so, they win through to
harmony. Lloyd 17 observes too that ‘Euripides thus sometimes makes a
point of the tragic futility of rational discussion’. See also C: 442–542 n.

B: 414b–41 Messenger-scene.
The M(essenger), one of Clyt.’s household who has accompanied her to
Aulis and come on in advance to prepare Ag. (424), bursts in to announce
352 Commentary

her arrival together with Iph. and the infant Orestes (see below on Staging
and Text): they are at the moment resting in a pleasant pastoral spot 415–
423. The news of their coming has spread through the army and all the
soldiers are rushing to see Iph. and speculating why she has come: is her
marriage in the offing? 425–435 (see on 414b–19). The M. concludes
by urging that the preparations for marriage, with singing and dancing,
should begin 435–8; for his exit see 440–1 n., at end.
Two unusual features of this speech are observed by A. Rijksbaron,
‘How does a messenger begin his speech?’, in J. C. Bremer etc. (eds),
Miscellanea Tragica in Honorem J. C. Kamerbeek (Amsterdam 1976),
300–1: its beginning is abrupt (see Staging) and does not give the source
of the news; and it reports an event still happening, although this has
parallels at Bacc. 660–774 and Rhesus 264–342 (see Fries (2014) 216);
see Text below. Furthermore, the M.’s abrupt arrival gives Ag. no chance
to acknowledge him, as Tragic practice requires (which the interpolator of
[1534–9] knew), but Ag. follows practice after the report, 441.  
Staging. A new character enters unannounced, and mid-line. This
striking effect is typical of New Comedy, e.g. Men. Epitr. 382, and its
use here has been taken to disqualify 413–41 from 5th century Tragedy,
but there is one good enough analogy, near in date to IA: at S. Phil.
974 (409 BC) Odysseus suddenly interrupts, mid-line, when a fraught
episode long under way between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes has
reached an impasse, and Philoctetes cries ‘Oh, no! Who is this man? Do
I hear Odysseus?’; his amazement implies that Odysseus has not been
‘visible’, and there is no indication that he has returned. The hurried
entry of our M., impatient to spill out the news, is theatrically effective;
the actor’s timing at mid-verse must have been critical to its success.
Hasty entries in Tragedy are discussed generally by Taplin (1977) 147
and n. 2; conversely, Men.’s intended exit at 414a is abruptly abandoned,
or prevented, like that of Achilles stopped by the OM’s intervention at
855; cf. And. 1070 and four other examples from Soph. and Eur. given
by Taplin 300 n. 2.
Art. The 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls (details in 111–14 n.) depict
the M. announcing Iph.’s arrival to Ag.: nos 6 and 7.
[Text. The authenticity of this scene was suspect to editors early
enough for Hermann (1831) to defend it; but later 19th century scholars
athetized it, followed in the 20th century by Page and Diggle, and Kovacs
 Commentary 353

(2003) 87, 97–8. Further grounds for suspicion are the observations
of A. Rijksbaron (above). The scene has been retained with differing
confidence by some editors since Jouan (1983); also by Matthiessen and
Michelakis (2006) 99–100.
Arguments in defence were marshalled by Stockert 318–19, turning
chiefly on the dramatic and theatrical advantages, above all the (ironic)
contrast between Ag.’s bleak determination in 378–411 and the M.’s joy
(later shared by the Chorus in 590–606 – but these lines too are very
strongly suspected), and the important first extended mention of the
army’s feelings as a factor in 425–34 (leading to Ag.’s further dilemma in
528–37: see n.; Introduction pp. 21, 28). Even athetizers admit that news
of Clyt.’s arrival must have reached Ag. somehow before 442, and they
need to suggest the content which may have been lost, as well as why, and
how and when the ms. text we have was substituted, e.g. after physical
damage or deliberate expansion. The lines are fraught with pathos which
will move spectators; and they emphasize the theme of the family, one of
the play’s central motifs. Cavander (1973) 99 allows that the speech as
we have it may not be authentic, but argues strongly that Euripides may
have conceived it as a ‘counterweight to the acrimonious quarrel’ and a
bridge to Clyt.’s arrival; also that ‘it motivates Ag.’s change of mood and
contributes to the “fated” atmosphere of the story’.
Wecklein (1899, 1914, following England (1891)) deleted (or
suspected or emended) all passages in the play which refer to the infant
Orestes, beginning with 418 (as part of 413–41); the others are 465–6
(part of 465–8), 602–3 (588–606), 621–6 (619–30), 1117–19, 1164–5,
1241–8, 1449–52, 1623 ([1510–1629]); these passages were examined
by Page 206, who attributed 418, 602–3, 621–6 and 1117–19 to
interpolation, but pointed out that 465–6 presuppose the imminent arrival
of Orestes, and that 1164–5, 1241–8 and 1449–52 are interdependent for
their pathetic effect; Page’s remarks are considered favourably by Gibert
(2005) 245 n. 55. Athetizers misjudge in particular the effectiveness of
the infant Orestes, whose poignant silence Iph. uses in appeal to Ag.
(465–6 (cf. 622), 1241–5, 1450–2); compare the dramatic effect of
other non-speaking infants or children in Tragedy when addressed or
apostrophized, e.g. Ajax’s son with his mother Tecmessa S. Aj. 340, 552–
3, Andromache’s infant son And. 309–463, 754–5, the similarly doomed
Astyanax with his mother Tro. 740–79, the infant Opheltes sung to by
354 Commentary

Hypsipyle, before she later carelessly brings about his death Hypisyple F
752f.1–14 (= 187–201), and, above all, the same infant Orestes used as
hostage by Euripides’ Telephus in his name-play (see esp. Michaelakis
cited above). The analogies are not, of course, a pointer to, let alone ‘proof’
of, Euripidean authenticity for our scene: Aristophanes’ marvellous
parody in Thes. 689–758 of 411 BC shows that the theatrical device was
familiar enough for any poet to employ. For ‘silent children’ see Pickard-
Cambridge (1988) 144, A. Tzanetou, ‘Children in Greek Tragedy’, in
EGT 218–20, and C. W. Marshall, ibid. 1249–50. It is unknown whether
infants or babies were consistently played by live children, or represented
by dummies.
Gibert (2005) 239–40 has helpful comments on the stage-handling of
Orestes.
Further: (1) the news of Clyt.’s imminent arrival, with Iph. and
Orestes, brings Ag.’s torment to an extreme (442–5, cf. his 137–8; 446–
50; earlier, his 16–23). Then 451–66 (cf. 538–41) ‘anticipate’ his later
emotions when he fails to deceive Clyt. 742–5 and both her and Iph.
1255–75; (2) Men. in fact has not left Ag. alone, despite his intention
in 413–14a (n.); he hears the M.’s news and during that time the reality
of what Ag. must do shows him the cost, and plausibly stirs him to
unexpected pity (471–84 and ff.).
We therefore leave the scene as it is.]
414b–16 lord of all the Greeks: This formal address to Ag. looks
heavily deliberate, even clumsy, given that the M. brings what he believes
to be personal news of his wife Clyt., but in context appears to serve
the introduction of the army’s reaction to Iph.’s arrival, 425–34 (above,
414b–41; the Panhellenic motif yet again).
Greek. 416 ὠνόμαζες: for the impf. idiomatic in such formal namings
see 281 and n.
[Metre. 416 Ἰφιγένειαν: an anapaest in the 2. foot of the trimeter, to
accommodate a proper name; this one again at IT 771: see Diggle (1994)
317, modifying West (1982) 82.]
417–19 (your Clytemnestra) in person: δέμας: lit. ‘the body (of
your Clytemnestra)’, a style of periphrasis, usually complimentary,
influenced by Homer’s βίη, σθένος etc. (‘might, strength’) with personal
gen.; with δέμας e.g. Hec. 724–25 τοῦδε δεσπότου δέμας | Ἀγαμέμνονος
‘Agamemnon our master in person here’ (Ag. is about to enter); Or. 107,
 Commentary 355

El. 1340–1 (but see Text). The epicism adds to the formality (previous
n.). For the presence of Orestes see 414b–41 n. Text.
Greek. For the possessive ‘your’ Wecklein compared Tro. 1135
῞Εκτορος τοῦ σοῦ γόνος ‘son of your Hector’. after … long (absence):
χρόνον παλαιὸν lit. ‘during an old time’, acc. of ‘time how long’. Barrett
on Hipp. 908 is helpful here: ‘παλαιός (‘old’, in the sense of ‘having
existed since long ago’) is often used of a period of time continuing from
long ago up to the present’; cf. 479 below (not long, in fact), e.g. Hel. 626
(with Kannicht’s n.), S. OT 561.
[Text. 417 Elmsley rejected the periphrasis with δέμας and proposed
σὴ Κλυταιμήστρα δάμαρ ‘your spouse Clytemnestra’, the ending of IT
22; for the word δάμαρ see 1163 and n.   418 ὡς σφε Vater, restoring
syntax (and pron. ‘him’) for irregular ὥστε L and opt. Less well ὥς τι
Hermann ‘(take) some (pleasure in…)’.]
420–3 their feet: θηλύπουν βάσιν lit. ‘female-footed going, going
on women’s feet’ (our translation transforms ‘female’ into women for
αὐταί ‘themselves’ in 422 (see also Text). The adj. occurs only here, but
is characteristic of Euripidean diction: cf. Oedipus F 540.2 λεοντόπουν
βάσιν ‘going on lion’s feet’ (the Sphinx), Hec. 66–7 βραδύπουν ἤλυσιν
(ἄρθρων) ‘the slow-footed coming (of my joints)’ (the aged Hecuba’s), cf.
βάσις LSJ II. For the verb ἀναψύχω ‘refresh’ cf. Hes. WD 608 ‘(servants)
refresh their own limbs’, with West’s n. women and fillies alike: not
alone among scholars, Page 153 finds this conjunction of women and
horses ‘somewhat absurd’, and he deletes 422–3; J. Jouanna, REG 101
(1988) 521–5 not altogether successfully proposed an underlying sense
‘recover one’s breath (after fatigue)’, citing the prayer Hel. 1094 ‘(Hera,)
give (two pitiable wretches) recovery from their sufferings’, ἀνάψυξον
… πόνων. Whatever the sense intended, the M. must say why he has
appeared ahead of the women (Stockert): 424 πρόδρομος (n.). There
is a simple informality about the scene, characteristic of Eur., e.g. the
Fisherman-Messenger’s concern for details of his gear Stheneboea F 670.
Greek. μακράν far: the fem. acc. of the adj., used adverbially as ‘afar,
to a distance’, has been explained through ellipse of the noun ὅδον as
internal obj. ‘(on a) far (road)’; cf. 664 μακρὰν ἀπαίρεις ‘you’re sailing
far away’, Cyc. 12 ὡς ὁδηθείης μακράν ‘so your road should be far away’;
LSJ μακράν Ι.1, DELG. But both in such cases and esp. the expression
μακρὰν ἔτεινον ‘they spoke at length’, e.g. Med. 1351 and A. Ag. 916,
356 Commentary

it seems likely that this use of the fem. is a generalised phenomenon:

Fraenkel on Ag. 916, who describes it as colloquial (see Collard (2005)
372); KG I.313 n. 12; LSJ I.2. βορά: lit. ‘food’; it is commonly ‘flesh’,
often human flesh when eaten; of ordinary human fare e.g. El. 425, 429.
In γευσαίατο feed (lit. ‘taste’) the ending -ατο is Ionic (Smyth 465f and
footnote, 35b); its use in Attic at this time seems to be an archaism; cf.
Kannicht on Hel. 159.
[Text. 422 Porson had anticipated Page’s ‘absurd’ (above) with his
ingenious conjecture αὐτοῖσι (improved by Gaisford to αὐταῖσι) πώλοις:
‘fillies and all’ instead of ‘women and fillies alike’.]
424–6 I have come: ἥκω: an excited repetition from 415? running
on before them: πρόδρομος: the M. is in a hurry, trying to catch up
with, if not beat, rumour! so that you may make preparations: σῆς
παρασκευῆς χάριν, lit. ‘for the sake of your preparation’: the meaning of
the phrase is confirmed by 435–6 where the M. suggests the preparations
that Ag. should make (see Greek). the army: see 414b–16 n., and for
its progressive introduction into the off-stage factors with which Ag. in
particular must deal (beginning at 87), Introduction pp. 27, 28–30.
Greek. 424 σῆς: poss. adj. standing for subjective gen., not objective
‘(so as to) prepare you’; the latter is the commoner use, e.g. And. 660
προνοίᾳ τῇ τε σῇ κἀμῇ ‘out of forethought for both you and me’, Pho.
365 σὴ πίστις ‘trust in you’, Smyth 1197; for both uses see KG I. 560
n. 11.   425 γάρ in successive clauses as 1422–3, and twice in a line,
IT 1325; see GP 58.   426 διᾴσσω lit. ‘rush, speed through’; the verb
only here in Eur., cf. PV 133 with subject ἠχώ ‘(resonant noise,) echo’.
427–9 to the sight: like the Chorus viewing the encampment 171,
190–1 and the fleet 231–2; by implication, the army later viewing the
sacrifice [1545–7]. (famous among all men, and) widely admired:
περίβλεπτος: lit. ‘seen, looked at from all round’, used of Amphitryon as
youthful hero Her. 508.
Greek. ὅμιλος … ἴδωσιν: collective sing. subject, plur. verb, as e.g.
914, [1589]; Smyth 950, 996.
430–4 Quoted direct speech is a regular feature of Euripides’ surviving
messenger-speeches, appearing in almost all of them (de Jong (1991)
131–9, 199–200); see 356–7 n. for its frequency elsewhere in IA. Two
voices are reported, 430–2a ‘Does this mean … daughter?’ and 432b–4
‘They are consecrating … marrying her?’. Metrical resolutions help
 Commentary 357

to convey the general excitement, as again in 436–7. The scene recalls

the bystanders’ malicious gossip at Od. 6.276–85, when Nausicaa fears
taking the handsome Odysseus to her home; with our 434 compare 6.277
‘He’s going to be her husband!’ a marriage: translates Ὑμέναιος
Hymenaeus, the god’s name used in metonymy for his function; he is
depersonified as ‘marriage-song’ in 437 (see n.). what is going on:
πράσσεται: this use of πράσσω is perhaps colloquial: cf. Ar. Wasps 767
ταὔθ’ ἅπερ ἐκεῖ πράττεται ‘The very same as is going on there’, cf.
Wealth 181. For this verb used of secretive action cf. 129 n. And you
would have heard this from others: τῶν δ’ ἂν ἤκουσας τάδε: compare
Bacc. 1085 θηρῶν δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἤκουσας βοήν ‘you would not have heard
the call of wild creatures’, also a messenger-speech (cf. our [1582]
n.); for the idiom with ἄν and aor. indic. of ἀκούω cf. Ar. Lys. 510–11;
colloquial: Stevens (1976) 60. They are consecrating the young girl
to Artemis: the army’s ignorance of the true situation is given poignant
emphasis, and irony. προτελίζω ‘initiate or consecrate by a preliminary
ceremony’ occurs elsewhere only at Cratinus F 191 PCG (which has
interesting matter on the ritual at Athens) and as a variant reading in
Pollux 3.38. The cognate noun προτέλεια is used of Iph.’s sacrifice (at
Artemis’ order) before the fleet may sail at A. Ag. 227 – and below at
718 (see n.; Introduction pp. 5–6, 10–12); the poet almost certainly had
A. Ag. 224–7 in mind, Ag. steeling himself to sacrifice Iph. as προτέλεια
ναῶν ‘an advance payment/sacrifice for his ships’ (i.e. to enable the
voyage to Troy); Ag. 224–7 are cited also on 443, 451–2, 463–4 below.
But here the questioner thinks of Artemis as the goddess whose precinct
was nearby (91) and as the goddess of young girls on the brink of
marriage (718 n.).
Greek. 430 Note L’s πράσσετ(ε), more likely a simple copying error
than a genuine variant; the 2. pers. plur. has no reference here, appearing
first in 436.   432 The second reported voice is introduced with
pronominal τῶν δέ (256 n.) ‘and/while from others…’, perhaps implying
the omission of pronominal οἱ μέν with λέγουσι ‘some are saying’; for
such omission see Smyth 2838, GP 166.  434 ἄγομαι mid. of the
bridegroom, ‘lead, bring (to his home)’, e.g. Med. 1331 (Jason’s bringing
Medea from Colchis), And. 104, Or. 248.
435–9 Come then: ἀλλ’ εἷα: 111 n.; from a messenger e.g. Pho.
970, 990. begin with the baskets: ἐξάρχομαι here has the sense of
358 Commentary

ἐνάρχομαι in sacrifices, ‘begin the offering’, by taking the barley meal

from the baskets: e.g. 1470, El. 1142. It would be sprinkled over the
head of the animal victim and on the altar fire, e.g. 1471; and the baskets
would also contain the sacrificial knife [1565–6]: see Denniston on El.
791ff.; Burkert (1983) 4–5; Foley (1985) 69–70 notes that the rituals
described here are common to sacrifice and marriage: see Introduction p.
11. garland: all were garlanded at a wedding-rite (cf. 436). Iph. herself
is to be such, 1080, 1477–8; the passage 1080–9 plays on the irony of her
being brought up as a valuable bride, not a country girl like a mountain
heifer reared for bloody slaughter – also garlanded, 1080–4. rehearse
the wedding-song: εὐτρεπίζω ‘get ready’: 1111, IT 470, both also of
ritual sacrifice. ὑμέναιος means both the song (as here) and the marriage
itself (430 n.). Hymenaeus, the god of marriage, himself leads the music
and dancing at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis 1036–40. He was of
course addressed in marriage songs, e.g. Phaethon 227 (a chorus of
girls sings); at Tro. 310 ff. the bride Cassandra herself sings (in deluded
possession by Apollo). Here, the instruction would no doubt be more
appropriate to Ag. as the putative bride’s father; but in his excitement our
M. is not too worried about precision.
Let the pipe sound … stamping feet: for music at weddings cf. Hel.
1433–5, Tro. 335–9, Phaethon 218, 248; the λωτός ‘pipe’ at weddings e.g.
1036 below, Her. 10–12; the verb βοάω lit. ‘cry’ naturally suits the sound
of a blown instrument, but is used of a stringed one at e.g. Hypsipyle F
752g. Dancing: e.g. 1040–3, 1054–7, Phaethon 247; stamping feet in the
dance at a wedding 1042–3 below. with the promise of happiness:
lit. ‘blessed (day)’, the adj. μακάριος typifying indeed the happiest day
of a marriageable girl’s life, and in particular the ‘song of blessing’, the
μακαρισμός, sung on it, e.g. 832, 1076; Phaethon 227–44 is a complete
example of the song.
435–7 The three imperatives begin, garland, rehearse are directed
successively to Ag., apparently to Ag. and Men. jointly, and expressly
to Men.; but why should Men. be involved in the wedding ceremony? It
may be that the M.’s casting of Men. as loving uncle to Iph. is one of the
factors in Men.’s subsequent change of heart (491–5). England complains
of the ‘clumsy’ changes of person in 435–6 – apparently the interpolator
(whose work he supposed) is showing ‘signs of fatigue’ – but, as Page
154 justly remarks, ‘of course it would act well on the stage’.
 Commentary 359

Greek. τἀπὶ τοισίδ(ε): τὰ ἐπὶ: neut. acc. of an articulated phrase in

apposition to the clause (here ἐξάρχου κανᾶ); the prep. with dat. is here
‘following from (this)’, what follows, expressing both time and cause, as
e.g. Ion 256 τἀπί τῷδε, Pho. 1208.
440–1 Thank you!: ἐπῄνεσ(α): lit. ‘I (have) approved, praised (you’)’;
for the idiom of ‘thanks’ with (ἐπ)αινέω see J. H. Quincey, JHS 86 (1966)
155. As fortune takes its course: the expression here is unsurprisingly
vague: Ag. must politely acknowledge the M.’s celebratory announcement
in a way that will deflect his further questions or encouragement, and that
the audience will recognize as non-committal; no one must learn what is
really intended: 538–42, at the end of the episode.
Greek. 440 ἐπῄνεσα: for the ‘tragic’, ‘dramatic’ or ‘instantaneous’
aorist see ᾔνεσα again at 655, ᾤκτισα ‘I pity (her)’ 462, cf. 499, 509,
607, 874: M. Lloyd, CQ 49 (1999) 24–45; C. Bary, Glotta 88 (2012)
31–51, developing Lloyd’s ‘performative’ explanation; Smyth 1937,
1939.   441 ἰούσης: for a simple verb of motion, lit. ‘goes, comes’,
with τύχη ‘fortune’, cf. Antiope F 223.7 ἔρχεται; also e.g. Supp. 89 ἠχοῦς
ἰούσης ‘noise coming’. καλῶς adv. with ἔσται, when a form of ἔχω might
be expected; but cf. Med. 89, Or. 1106; note IA 396–7 εὖ … ἔσται; LSJ
εἰμί C 1.
The M. is now sent into Ag.’s hut 440, appropriately as a member
of his household; he must be got off stage very decisively before Ag.
begins his powerful monologue. Messengers in Tragedy sometimes give
their own reasons for exiting, sometimes leave without notice: see Taplin
(1977) 88.

C: 442–542 Reconciliation of Agamemon and Menelaus.

In this remarkable sequel to the agon 317–412, both brothers reverse
their previous positions. They still cannot find agreement but the
fraternal bond is renewed and affection speaks loud: thus the scene is a
kind of anti-agon. The quickness of this reconciliation, within the same
episode, is a further unusual feature of the agon-form’s use, for 442–542
appear to repeat its basic structure (see 317–414a n.): two contrasting
long speeches 442–68 and 473–503, each marked off by a choral couplet
469–70 and 503–4, followed by an exchange 506–42, consisting of two
short speeches surrounding stichomythia 513–27 (see nn. on these lines).
This outward appearance is illusory, however: in 442–68 Ag. delivers
360 Commentary

a monologue of agonized doubt, with no word to Men.; he responds to

news of his wife’s and daughter’s arrival and its certain consequence. In
473–503 Men. responds to that agony with altered sympathy and change
of mind; in 506–42 Ag. ends in the same agony (535–6), but with Men.
silently complicit in Ag.’s renewed plan to sacrifice Iph. before Clyt.
discovers his purpose.
442–68 Ag.’s monologue. While he listened to the Messenger, he has
realized that the arrival of Iph. at Aulis in full sight of the army means that
her sacrifice is inevitable. Appalled, he contemplates his situation 442–5;
he again laments his high birth and its constraints upon showing emotions
446–53, and he foresees with horror greeting his wife and daughter,
encounters which will be made the more harrowing by the presence of
the infant Orestes 454–66. He ends by exclaiming against Paris, the cause
of his plight 467–8. His monologue is essentially a soliloquy, but Men.
observes his distress and reacts first to his tears (477–80, 496), only later,
and again, to what he has said (481–4 ~ Ag.’s 396–9).
Throughout his speech, Ag. shows a touching empathy with the
feelings of his wife and particularly his daughter. For the emotional
techniques written into his monologue, see next n. and the comparison
with Men.’s speech in 473–503 n.
442–3 Alas!: οἴμοι: Ag. at 136, 742. Other emotional interjections
and deliberative questions mark this speech at 443, 446, 454–6 (twice),
467, cf. Ag. in 136–7, 536, 655, 1132, 1136, 1140. What am I to say?
Where begin?: approximately the same two questions at A. Cho. 855
(but beginning a choral ode); ‘What … say’? twice at Hel. 483; ‘begin’ in
an indirect question Hel. 631. What a yoke of necessity I have fallen
under!: a clear reference to A. Ag. 218 where Ag. ‘put on the yoke-
strap of necessity’ ἀνάγκας ἔδυ λέπαδνον in this very same predicament;
compare our 1257–8 ‘it is terrible for me to brave doing this deed’ with
Ag. 224–5 ‘he endured becoming the sacrificer’. Necessity’s yoke also
Or. 1330, Licymnius F 475, S. F 591.6 (all with ζύγον).
[Text. 442 ἄρξωμαι Burges, deliberative subj. for L’s fut. indic.
ἄρξομαι, restores idiom in such paired questions introduced by an
interrogative pron., as e.g. Ion 758. The fut. indic. following a subj. at
e.g. El. 967, IT 96–8 stands in fuller, consequential questions. Here, in
place of ἄρξωμαι πόθεν;, both the change of grammatical mood and the
fut. verb’s emphatic place before the pron. will be dissonant.]
 Commentary 361

444–5 in the Greek begin with asyndeton, explanatory of 442–3: A god

has outwitted me: ‘outwitted’ ὑπῆλθε: 67 n. ‘god’ δαίμων: a nameless
divinity which ‘distributes’ (Greek δαίομαι daiomai/daimon) man’s
μοῖρα moira ‘part, share’ as his τύχη tuche ‘that which befalls, fortune’:
Ag. uses all three words in 1136 ‘O mistress Fate (Μοῖρα), and my fate
(τύχη) and destiny (daimon)’ (see 1136 n.), speaking of it as his own,
as also e.g. Alc. 499, Med. 1347. So the word daimon itself becomes
synonymous with ‘fate’, the power controlling the destiny of individuals;
e.g. And. 1007–8 and Hcld. 935 it changes a man’s ‘fate, fortunes’; Or.
1545 it ‘has an end for men, an end wherever it wishes’. On Med. 1208
‘which of divine powers (daimones) has destroyed you?’, Mastronarde
remarks that ‘it is in the nature of tragic story-telling that characters are
quick to assume the intervention of a divine force’ (like Phaedra at Hipp.
241); certainly Ag. does so: 393–4, 537, 1136 (above), 1264; cf. his
24–7. For daimon see esp. Burkert (1985) 179–81 and Mikalson (1991)
22–9; a careful analysis of its range in Tragedy by Stevens on And. 98.
Here in 444, then, the impersonal daimon is active, undermining Ag.’s
‘clever plans’ (see below) for no apparent reason except that such powers
are gods, often self-interested; the implication of ὥστε with the infin.,
lit. ‘so as to…’, is their general assertion of power superior to men, e.g.
with their own ‘clever plans’; cf. F 972 ‘The gods (οἱ θεοί) trip us up
with clever devices of many forms, for they are superior by nature.’ For
fortune τύχη in the play see Introduction pp. 35–6.
clever plans: σοφίσματα: at 744–7 Ag. again acknowledges total
defeat for his schemes, conceding that Iph.’s sacrifice is prized (not
by any nameless power but) by ‘the goddess Artemis’ (91 n.); cf.
Iph.’s own criticism IT 380 of Artemis’ σοφίσματα: ‘clever plans’ (–
or, ironic, ‘wisdom’?). The word is used of the Greeks’ intention to
sacrifice Polyxena to Achilles’ ghost Hec. 258 and (in Pentheus’ words)
of Dionysus’ designs against Theban women Bacc. 489; cf. Odysseus’
scheme to capture Philoctetes S. Phil. 14 and (the verb σοφίζω) 77. In
Eur. in particular the noun σοφιστής ‘sophist’ is generally pejorative, e.g.
Hcld. 993, Hipp. 921; for the 5th century Sophists and intellectualism
in Eur. see G. B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge 1981),
Conacher (1998), Egli (2003) 181, W. Allan in Gregory (ed.) (2005)
71–82 (bibl.). There is implicit play here between this slanted sense of
σοφός ‘(over-)clever’ and ‘wise’, as if Ag. nears admitting that the gods
362 Commentary

have been wiser than himself; cf. the much cited Bacc. 395 τὸ σοφὸν δ’
οὐ σοφία ‘cleverness is not wisdom’ (Dodds), and 1139 below ὁ νοῦς ὅδ’
αὐτὸς νοῦν ἔχων οὐ τυγχάνει ‘This mind of yours is really no mind at
all.’
Greek. Explanatory asyndeton: 391 n. Note the effect of σοφίσματα
and σοφώτερος ending successive lines.
446–50 Ag.’s words on the handicaps of noble birth chime with his
earlier ones on the drawbacks of high office (16–27). Low birth …
usefulness: the words give an instant of relief, quickly reversed in Ag.’s
gloom, 449b–53; for χρήσιμον ‘useful’ in a political context see 915 of
common sailors, 925 of personal moderation. Contrast Hcld. 302 ‘High
birth protects against misfortune more than low birth.’ men: translates
αὐτοῖς 447, i.e. ‘them, those of low birth’; the pron. personifies the abstract
noun δυσγένεια in 446. These lines may have been a model for Ennius
Incerta 388–9 ‘In this the common people have the advantage over the
king: in an appropriate place the people may weep, the king decently
may not’. See also Text below. (of noble) birth: most commentators
here adduce noblesse oblige. dignity: ὄγκος, here stuffy, empty and
inhibiting: Tro. 108 in one’s ancestors, Melanippe F 504.1 in ostentatious
wealth; the verb ὀγκόω Hec. 623 in wealth and political fame; the word
in context is hard to capture in English without importing its pejorative
sense, ‘swollen pride, haughtiness’ (see Text below). Stockert cites
Plut. Pericles 4.6 for a positive meaning, the philosopher Anaxagoras
seemingly without criticism attributing ὄγκος to the statesman, a
‘magisterial demeanour’; Here it seems calculated in its expressive
symmetry and contrast with the similar sounding ὄχλῳ the masses. The
term ruler προστάτην in 449 therefore is an effective metaphor (see
below) in the light of we are slaves ‘to the masses’, because it was used
of popular ‘leaders, champions’ who at Athens in the later 5th century
increasingly influenced that part of the citizenry, e.g. [373] and n., Ar.
Knights 1128; cf. esp. Supp. 243 their control of the poor, Or. 772 of
the many, οἱ πολλοί; their equivalents at Corcyra manipulate the people
Thuc. 4.46.4. So ‘the masses’ emerge as a dramatic factor here, and even
more strongly in 517 ‘you must not fear the masses too much’, cf. 526,
1357 (at Hec. 868–9 Ag. is accused of ‘ceding more to the masses’ out
of fear). In IA the word ὄχλος is not always contemptuous, ‘mob’ as e.g.
Supp. 411 (see n. on 526): at 191, 735 and 1030 it is simply ‘mass, body’
 Commentary 363

of the army. In general see J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:
Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People (Princeton 1989) 11.
Two metaphors: 449 προστάτης ‘one standing at the fore, ruler’ e.g.
Pl. Rep. 572e love as ‘ruler’ of lazy desires; the adj. προστατήριος is used
at Α. Ag. 976 of fear ‘ruling’ a heart; compare the noun ἐπιστάτης S. El.
76 the moment ‘ruling’ every action. Cf. προστάτης as (political) ‘leader’
373 (n.).   450 δουλεύω ‘be a slave to’ e.g. Her. 1357 to fortune, Pho.
395 to profit; the noun δοῦλος Her. 251 to supreme power.
Greek. 447 ἔχει and adv. (ῥᾳδίως) for ἐστί and adj., also 483, 1257,
1402; cf. 440 n. Greek. The repetition of ἔχει between 446 and 447 is
innocent, like that of γάμους … γάμων in 485–6: contrast αἰδοῦμαι in
451–2 (n.).
[Text. 448–9 ἄνολβα L’s first word in 448 gives bare sense, ‘(easy for
the low born … to say) profitless things’, but ἅπαντα in 449 no sense at
all, ‘(these things are) everything’. Most editors have accepted Musgrave’s
transposition, as we do, but with misgiving, which we share; but for
interchange at line–beginnings in mss. see e.g. Hel. 680–1 proper names, S.
OC 1234–5 single words; cf. Jackson (1955) 228–31. Conjectures therefore
abound, many cited by Diggle (1994) 492–3, among them Apelt’s 449
ἄφαντα (for L’s ἅπαντα) ταῦτα ‘these things (are) not to be revealed’,
“exactly the sense required here” Ritchie. Diggle accepted Musgrave’s
ἅπαντα in 448 but in 449 proposed and printed ἄνολβα (Musgrave) πάντα
(D. himself, for ταῦτα L) ‘all is profitless’. Renehan (1998) 265–6 however
defended 449 (ἄνολβα) ταῦτα this in association with the man of noble
birth from the fragment of Ennius cited above (Incerta 388–9 Jocelyn);
it is ascribed by some scholars to his Iphigenia as reflecting Eur.’s 448–9,
plebes in hoc regi antestat: loco licet | lacrimare plebi, regi honeste non
licet, but Jocelyn p. 323 is doubtful. Whatever change to L is accepted, its
γε in 449 must be replaced by a connective, either Plut.’s adversative δὲ,
Diggle’s own preference, or Matthiae’s simple τε ‘and’.   450 ὄγκον
is in Plutarch’s citation; δῆμον L gives exaggerated emphasis to nobles’
submitting like slaves to an enfranchised populace (the word’s Athenian
connotation): it is false to Ag.’s insistence on the constraint which birth
puts on his emotions: see on ‘For’ 451–3 n. Greek. L’s error probably came
through the prominence of ‘political’ προστάτην in 449 (above).]
451–3 Ag. must suppress his personal feelings as constrained by his
nobility, 446–50. For the idea in Tragedy, see e.g. A. Seven 656–7, S. Trac.
364 Commentary

1070–2. The repetition of αἰδοῦμαι ‘I am ashamed’ at the same metrical

place in successive verses emphasizes Ag.’s predicament heavily, like
δεινῶς beginning both 1257 and 1258. ashamed to pour out tears, but
… ashamed … to hold them in: and weep he does, 477, as often in this
play, 39–40, 496–7, 650, 683–4: the powerful precedent is A. Ag. 203–4,
where he and Men. cannot forbear to weep at their terrible dilemma over
the sacrifice, 206–11. Male tears have Homeric precedent (Il. 8.245 and
9.13–15, Od. 11.391, 466, all shed by Ag.), and are not rare in Tragedy,
e.g. A. Seven 656–7, S. Ajax 1208–9, E. Ino F 407; but Kannicht on Hel.
947–53 detects stiffer upper lips in the later 5th century.
This is one of many places where spoken words must convey changes
of facial expression in masked actors (for Men. too, 478); they may have
suggested weeping though their voices or by raising their hands to their
eyes. Ag. has already rejected shaming behaviour in his brother 327,
329, and avoids it himself 1144; cf. Ach.’s sense of αἰδώς ‘shame’ when
facing the great lady Clyt. 821, 824, and preparing for the unmarried
Iph.’s presence 994, 997: it is a theme in the play (Introduction pp. 34–5),
and Turato p. 216 n. 43 gives it the significance of Phaedra’s ‘shame’ in
Hippolytus (see Halleran’s Commentary p. 44 and esp. the problematic
line 385).
Greek. 451 γάρ For, moving from generalisation to particular case:
GP 66.   452 The def. art. with infin. after (the second) αἰδοῦμαι is
idiomatic with verbs of emotion etc.: Smyth 2238.
454–5 Well then: speakers regularly use εἶἑν to signal their next point,
as Clyt. does in 1185 (where the interjection stands outside the verse, as
often): Mastronarde on Pho. 1615. It is probably a colloquialism (Stevens
(1976) 34 and Collard (2005) 362). See on Greek. The weeping Ag. may
recover his composure here what shall I say to my wife?: Ag. had
hoped that Clyt, would stay at home and send Iph. to Aulis without her. It is
Clyt.’s decision to accompany her daughter that has given Ag. the coup de
grace. Not only will it make what he sees as the now inevitable sacrifice far
more problematic to accomplish, it will also add greatly to the trauma for
him: see his 742–5. What look shall I meet hers with?: the implication
of συμβάλλω is clear: ‘join (with hers), meet her eyes with’ (LSJ I.6), an
action as significant as words joined with a lady 830, hands joined in an
oath 58; related are 648 ‘give me a loving look’ ὄμμα … ἔκτεινον φίλον,
1238 ‘Look at me, give me your eyes and a kiss’ βλέψον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὄμμα
 Commentary 365

δὸς φίλημά τε; for the dramatic moment cf. Plaut. Casina 938 ‘how to look
my wife in the face?’ For eye-contact in this episode see 320–1 n., in the
play Introduction pp. 33–4; cf. S. Aj. 462 ‘What sort of look shall I show
my father Telamon when I appear?’, OT 1371.
Greek. εἶἑν is perhaps related etymologically to εἷα (111 n.). With -ἑν
compare Latin hem: see DELG; for the aspirate see also Mastronarde on
Pho. 849, citing Plut. Mor. 393b, where εἶ ἕν is stated to be an older form
of the exclamation εἶ.
[Text. 455 P2’s fut. συμβαλῶ is a necessary correction after the
two futs. φήσω (for which cf. And. 84) and δέξομαι; for the idiom see
e.g. 1447 τί … ἀγγελῶ;, Smyth 1916. L’s aor. subj. συμβάλω has been
defended, in (rare) transition from a fut., as e.g. Ion 758, S. Trac. 973:
Smyth 1916a.]
456–9 likely: εἰκότως (e.g. IT 911) understates Ag.’s wish to keep his
wife well away from Aulis; for ‘probability’ in argument see 501 n.,
1134–5 n. her dearest: cf. our ‘close family’; ‘daughter’ is the usual
sense of τὰ φίλτατα in Eur., e.g. 1170: see Mastronarde on Pho. 434. will
discover my baseness: κακός, the adj. Men. used of Ag.’s betrayal, esp.
349 ‘where I found you base’. εὑρήσει fut., like Protesilaus F 657.3 ‘you
will find one (woman) bad’ τὴν μὲν εὑρήσεις κακήν.
Greek. νυμφεύω trans. marry of either parent, as e.g. 885 (but of the
groom 461), like δίδωμι in the sense of ἐκδίδωμι ‘give away’ (e.g. 132).
ἵνα is originally locative where, thus ‘to a place where, to an occasion or
matter where’, e.g. 924, Alc. 319.
[Text. 456 πάρα P2, i.e. πάρεστι ‘(troubles) are present’, is necessary;
cf. Or. 713 τῶν κακῶν ἅ σοι πάρα: πάρος L ‘previously’ requires
understanding the verb ἦν ‘were…’, but such ellipse of the past tense is
extremely rare in Tragedy: KG I.41 n. 2 (Smyth is silent).]
460–2a the wretched maiden – why say, maiden?: τί with a word
repeated in its grammatical form in an indignant or incredulous question
is colloquial: Stevens (1976) 40, cf. Diggle (1981) 50–2; a verb is repeated
at e.g. Alc. 807, Bacc. 1181. Commentators adduce Hec. 612 παρθένον
ἀπάρθενον ‘a maiden no maiden (now)’, Polyxena sacrificed, and as if
for marriage to Achilles, himself dead (Hec. 108), in the underworld ruled
by Hades. The question ‘why?’ may seem to relate to ‘wretched’ rather
than Iph.’s virginity, but its explanation follows in Hades, it seems, will
soon marry her (whence the punctuation as parenthesis); ‘it seems’ is
366 Commentary

an understatement, given Ag.’s despair in 456–9: he believes that Iph. is

doomed. For the idea of marriage to death, cf. A. Supp. 791 (apparently
the earliest occurrence) with Friis Johansen-Whittle’s n., S. Ant. 654, 816,
IT 369, Or. 1109: R. Seaford, ‘The Tragic Wedding’, JHS 107 (1987)
106–30, at 110; R. Rehm, Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy
(Princeton 1994). On a fragment of a relief which deals with the story
of Medea, Hymen, the god of marriage, who presides over the nuptials
of Jason and his new bride, bears in his hand the symbols of Death, thus
signifying the imminent fate of the bride (LIMC V 1.633 no. 66).
Greek. 460 δ’ αὖ ‘in turn, next’, conveyed in the translation by As for;
cf. e.g. 279, for the acc. παρθένον is not one of respect but the obj. of the
verb pity 462, delayed and set in enjambement for emphasis, as in 71–3
(n.).   462 ᾤκτισα: for the ‘tragic’ aorist, see 440 n.
462b–4 How I pity her!: note the Chorus’ pity for both Iph. and Ag. at
469. she will supplicate: Ag. constructs his own tragic sketch (462–6),
even acting the part of Iph. in direct speech (463–4: see Bers cited in 356
n.). His envisaged scene is very close to what indeed transpires in Iph.’s
impassioned supplication 1211–52: see esp. her words in 1216, 1226–7,
1233, 1246–7; with 463 ‘will you kill me?’ cf. 1218, 1232, 1239, 1249–
52; for 463 marriage see 1235–6; for 465–6 appeal by the voiceless infant
see 1241–8. Note too the inescapable echo from Iph.’s supplication at A.
Ag. 234–8 – stifled to prevent its becoming a curse, feared here by Ag.
in his imagination of Iph.’s words. May you make such a marriage
yourself, may anyone you love!: Iph. is later to hear her mother reveal
the harsh beginning of her own marriage to Ag., when Clyt. lets out her
repressed animosity, 1148–56 (cf. 1454–5). For the phrasing ‘such …
yourself’ cf. the bleak Tro. 724 ‘May he win such a victory in the matter
of his own children’, S. Phil. 275 ‘the kind of things I wish may happen
to them’.
[Text. 462 ἱκετεύσειν Markland, fut.: L’s aor. ἱκετεῦσαι can mean only
‘did supplicate’.]
465–6 Orestes will be there nearby, to shout out: in fact Orestes joins the
supplication through his tears, and silently, 1242–5. incomprehensibly,
though comprehending: polyptoton, one word-root in different
grammatical forms (73b–6 n.), and , juxtaposed, in paregmenon (587–9 n.);
the same polyptoton in 394a; Pho. 1506 δυσξύνετον ξύνετος μέλος ἔγνω
‘unintelligible … intelligent(ly)’, Oedipus solving the Sphinx’s riddle; cf.
 Commentary 367

Tro. 625 αἴνγιμ’ οὐ σαφῶς εἶπεν σαφές ‘a riddle unclearly spoken but
clear’, itself an unclear statement. The figure in oxymoron (305 n.) is
poignantly expressive of the emotional battering that Ag. (rightly) feels is
in store for him.
Greek. παρών pres. part. ‘being present’ is an idiomatic redundancy
here given emphasis by its position at the start of the Greek sentence, i.e.
‘to my (Ag.’s) face’; with a fut. indic. also at And. 738, other verb-forms
e.g. El. 331, Ion 1468, sometimes with no special weight.
[Text. The two lines were excised by scholars wishing to remove
the infant Orestes from the play: see n. on 414b–1 Text.  466
Musgrave unwisely altered L’s meaning with εὐσύνετ’ ἀσυνέτως ‘readily
comprehensible … without comprehension’. A better conjecture, but still
inferior to συνετῶς L, was Pierson’s συνετοῖς ‘(incomprehensibly) to
those comprehending’: that is, hearers would grasp the infant’s distress.
The words ἔτι γάρ ἐστι νήπιος recur in 622 – an unconvincing argument
for deletion of 462–6 (above).]
467–8 A powerful conclusion, with yet another cry of despair; destroyed
repeats the impact of Clyt.’s sudden arrival, 456–7 ‘she has destroyed me’.
In the Greek note the advanced position of Helen’s name, the exclamation
lit. ‘how he destroyed me’ interrupting ‘his marriage with Helen’, and the
common emphatic figure of verb and cognate noun made (lit. ‘married’) …
marriage (figura etymologica; see below), the juxtaposed and alliterative
names Priam and Paris, and perhaps the metrical resolutions in each
of the three accursed names, suggesting agitation. It is likely that the
names themselves, and their mythic resonance, are more effective than
the resolutions. They have necessarily to be accommodated within the
trimeter – just as the expansion of Tragedy’s general vocabulary in later
Eur. brought expanding metrical freedoms in both dialogue and lyric: see
e.g. Dale (1968) 25 n. 2, Willink, Orestes (1986) liii.
The ‘etymological’ figure, figura etymologica, verb with cognate acc.
object (Breitenbach (1934) 229–30; V. Bers, EGT 1371) is very common
in Eur. and sometimes carries a strong adj., e.g. Tro. 357 Ἑλένης γαμεῖ
με δυσχερέστατον γάμον ‘Agamemnon will marry me (Cassandra) in a
very difficult marriage’ (one worse than Helen’s); El. 247 ‘fatal’, 926
‘impious’. Helen’s marriage to Paris and its consequences become more
and more a theme, first at 49–79, esp. 70, then in Ag.’s 382–97 and later
683–4; the Chorus in 178–84, 581–9, 794–7 and 1253–4; Iph. at 1236–7,
368 Commentary

1283–1318, 1333–5, 1382. Compare the increasing frequency and often

association of ‘Troy’: Introduction pp. 29–30.
[Text. 468 ὅς μ’ L is unmetrical; Heath’s deletion of μ’ is simpler
than Markland’s ὅ μ’ ‘which (i.e. his marrying Helen) had done this to
me’; and rel. words followed by μ(ε) in successive lines create unstylish
duplication.]
469–70 foreign woman: we are reminded that the Chorus are distanced
by their presence in a military camp, 171–2, 185–91 (see 164–302 n.)
– but distanced too from the all or largely male and mainly Athenian
theatre-audience by their status and foreign birth. Here their leader
(coryphaeus) speaks for them, whence the singular; in their lyric voice
they often use the plural, and are so addressed by Ag. at 542 (for which
469–70 seem to prepare), by Clyt. at 1276 (cf. 629), by Iph. at 1491. Cf.
the chorus at Pho. 497–8 ‘even if we were not reared in a Greek land, you
do seem to me to speak with understanding’, and at Rhesus 904–5 ‘as
far as one who is no blood-relation may, I pity you for his painful death’
(trans. Fries (2014) 448: see her n.). For this particular couplet 469–70
see Introduction p. 32. kings: perhaps implying ‘we are not ourselves
royal’, but more a generalisation: see the word τύραννος at e.g. Med.
597, 700, where it has its older sense ‘supreme ruler’, with ‘no negative
overtones’ (Bond on Her. 29). Cf. e.g. Phaethon 91 ‘happy days for kings
(ἄνακτες)’, Hec. 352 ‘a bride for princes (βασιλεῖς)’.
Greek. ὡς as far as: the probable sense (Smyth 2993 includes ‘as
much as could be expected’ in his range of meanings), rather than plain
‘(exactly) as’; but the meaning ‘since’ is well possible (Smyth 2240).
Compare ὅσον ‘as far as’ (Smyth 1468).
471–72 Two important and theatrical lines, bridging Ag.’s despair
and Men.’s unexpected sympathy. take your right hand: the regular
gesture and symbol of pledging, 339, earlier 58 in an oath (n.); Hel. 838,
Med. 21–2, S. Phil. 941–2 etc. victory: for κράτος in this sense, over an
issue, cf. S. Ant. 485; κρατέω Aj. 1353; cf. A. Ag. 94(2–)3, Clyt.’s verbal
victory over Ag. In 472 the prominently chiastic order is reflected in our
translation.
Greek. δός with dat. and infin. ‘grant, allow me to touch your right
hand’, Hec. 540, Her. 600 etc.; cf. [1528–31] n. Text; Smyth 2009. For
simple ‘give me your hand’ see Ag. to Iph. 679 (with a kiss of true love),
Hec. 410, Erechtheus F 362.32.
 Commentary 369

473–503 Men. has completely changed his position. He swears by his

grandfather and father that he will now speak sincerely 473–6. Moved
by his brother’s tears, he advises him not to kill his daughter 477–81. It
is wrong that his own interests should trump Ag.’s: he could marry other
women than Helen and does not wish to destroy his brother; he realises
now what killing one’s child is like 482–90. He now feels pity for Iph.
(as he had for Ag., 478) and takes kinship to heart 491–4. Let the army
be disbanded, let the two of them end their tears! The prophecy is now
Ag.’s alone to deal with 495–9. His change of mind has been natural, he
claims, motivated by refound love for his brother: such behaviour is that
of an honourable man 500–3.
The speech is far from agonistic – it could not be after Ag.’s mental
torment – but it is not less clearly organized, and as carefully paced by
rhetorical techniques. Men.’s reasoning is bracketed by 480 ‘nothing
to fear from me’ and 500 ‘have I changed from … frighteningly’. The
emphasis continues to be on family bonds, philia (see 317–414a n. (i)),
at start 473–4 and finish 500, and throughout at 484, 487, 493, 497. Men.
is as confessional as was Ag. in 442–68: his doubting questions 485–94
even outdo Ag.’s at 442, 454–5. The speech contains many asyndeta,
473, 477, 489, 495, three in the closing 501–3. These, and short sentences
at 485, 499, 501, perhaps imply jerky exposition, conveying Men.’s
scarcely controlled emotion: a fine opportunity for the actor.
Erasmus was the first of a number of scholars who have felt that
Men.’s recantation is false (e.g. England xvi), designed to ram home,
behind a facade of sincere fraternal support, the true dangers Ag. would
face if he did not kill Iph. (see Introduction p. 17). While Men.’s opening
oath and the double-edged praise of the Chorus that follows his speech
combine to set his words in an unstable context (see nn. on 473–4, 504–
5), dramatic characters should not be taken as meaning the total opposite
of what they are saying unless there is conclusive evidence that they are
doing so. An extreme shift in Men.’s view is entirely characteristic of this
play (Introduction pp. 3, 18–19).  
473–6 I swear by Pelops … and by Atreus: the father and grandfather
of Ag. and Men., these are famously treacherous characters in Greek
mythology; but there can be no such tone here, and Iph. appeals to her
father through the same ancestors at 1233. The formulaic phrasing who
was called is also innocent of deceit; for its use in a family relationship
370 Commentary

see e.g. 908, Alc. 637, And. 75. Pelops had won his bride Hippodameia
by cheating in a chariot race and murdering his charioteer; Atreus had
vengefully tricked his brother Thyestes into eating his own children.
Pindar however had already given an entirely laudatory account of
Pelops, ‘running counter to the tale told by former poets’ (Ol. 1.37–98).
After his tirade of 335–75, Men. may appear to speak with an ingenuous
simplicity, and so the actor must emphasize his sincerity. Another way of
reading these lines would be to remark with England that ‘he protests too
much’; but see 473–503 n., at end.
Greek. 473 κατόμνυμι and acc. ‘swear by a person’ e.g. Med. 752,
Hipp. 713.   475 For ἦ μήν ‘I swear’ introducing oaths and strong
assertions both in direct and (as here) indirect speech see GP 350–2. For
the expression τἀπὸ καρδίας lit. ‘the things from the heart’, translated
as open my heart, cf. Ino F 412.3; with its corollary here, what (lit.
‘as much as’, i.e. ‘all that’) I think (similar expressions at Hipp. 523,
Telephus F 707), it contrasts in meaning with (without) deceit.  476
(ἐ)πίτηδες is lit. ‘to serve a purpose’; this word is found only in a bad
sense (LSJ), e.g. Od. 15.28, Ar. Knights 893; it is an isolated adv., as if
from an adj. ἐπιτήδης.
477–80 pitied: as Ag. instinctively pitied his daughter, 462. in (my)
turn: πάλιν (see Collard on Supp. 569). The language is pleonastic: ἀντι- in
ἀνταφῆκα means ‘in response’, and gives its force with You have nothing
to fear from me; this is Paley’s wording. δεινός, as again in 500 (Men.’s
change from speaking ‘frighteningly’), is a difficult adj. to translate when
used of a person, but cf. e.g. Med. 44 Medea’s nature, Bacc. 856 Pentheus
threatening the women of Thebes, 861 the god Dionysus towards mankind;
but Hipp. 921 a clever (and therefore ‘dangerous’) sophist.
Greek. 478–9 the double-compound verb ἐξαφίστημι only here and S.
OC 561; the double ἀνταφίημι only here. παλαιός: see 417–19 n.   480
The participle ὤν of the verb εἰμί is omitted from the adj. δεινός, a rarity,
but cf. e.g. Med. 737, Pho. 442 with Mastronarde’s n.; Smyth 2118.
[Text. 480 εἰμὶ Kirchoff I am, a certain correction of εἶμι L ‘I shall
go’: note the paired εἶ ‘you are’.]
481–4 For it is not right … light of the sun: 482–4 recall, and largely
reverse, Ag.’s wording at 396b–9. all goes pleasingly for me: a fine
understatement. your child … my family: τοὺς σούς … τοὺς ἐμούς,
masc. serving as common gender, and plur. – but only Ag.’s one daughter
 Commentary 371

Iph. and Men.’s one daughter (Hermione, 1201 n.) are meant, and in an
unreal argument: there is no threat at Aulis to Hermione (although Clyt.
at 1201 uses just this argument with Ag.). Perhaps ‘sees the light of the
sun’ is meant to hint that today’s sun is the last that Iph. will see: see
1218–19, her own words.
Greek. 482 τοὐμόν and 483 τἀμά plur. have the same literal meaning
my business (see 329 n.), but the first is translated with ‘all … for
me’.   484 ὁρᾶν φάος ‘sees the light of the sun’, i.e. ‘is alive’, a
common poetic expression, first in Homer, e.g. Il. 18.61, Od. 4.540; ‘of
the sun’ is often omitted, as here and e.g. 1218–19, 1250, and sometimes
also ‘the light’, when the context is clear, e.g. Alc. 142, S. Trac. 828.
[Text. 481 ἀποκτεῖναι Elmsley, aor. infin., perfective like Ag.’s κτανεῖν
96, and paired with ἀνθελέσθαι; L’s ἀποκτείνειν pres. infin., durative,
may seem to be matched by 484 θνῄσκειν, but that infin. too stands with
three other pres. ones in 483–4.]
485–8 choice: the adj. ἐξαίρετος as e.g. Tro. 249, 273 (of a bridegroom
485); the word is not rare of girls chosen from spoils (e.g. Iliad 2.227);
this high value is put poignantly on Iph. by herself when she imagines
Ag.’s pleasure in his daughter 1223–5, and by Ach. 1404–5. At 1199 Clyt.
describes Iph. as a ‘choice sacrifice’. destroy: cf. 456. choosing Helen:
but ἕλωμαι in part echoes 482 ἀνθελέσθαι ‘prefer’ (note exchanging).
There is word-play here in the first syllables of the words Ἑλένην ἕλωμαι.
Previously in poetry Helen’s name, with the root ἑλ- ‘capture, destroy’, was
often related devastatingly to the fall of Troy (e.g. A. Ag. 689, Tro. 891–2);
cf. 68, 1316; 1476 ἑλέπτολις ‘destroyer of a city’ and n. there. Through
the echo here of the Agamemnon Eur. may be making Men. imply that the
fate of Helen will not in fact lead to the capture of Troy. Helen’s name is
emphasized by its enjambed position: 71 n. etc.
Greek. 486 λάβοιμ’ ἄν, εἰ … ἱμείρομαι: mixed conditional syntax,
but idiomatic as in English (see Smyth 2300e): with ἄν and opt. in
the apodosis, one might expect an opt. in the protasis, ‘…if I were to
desire’.   488 ἕλωμαι is deliberative subj. without interrogative pron.
or particle: Smyth 1805a.
[Text. 487 ἐχρῆν: towards the end of the 5th century this form
gradually replaced the older past χρῆν (ἥκιστα χρῆν was conjectured here
by Nauck/Wecklein) and is better retained where attested in Euripidean
mss: Barrett on Hipp. 1072–3.]
372 Commentary

489–90 foolish and raw: Men. means, his entire conduct over Helen
has been foolish since his youth; only Ag.’s imminent filicide has brought
him to his senses. For the topos of raw immaturity, the colouring given
here to the adj. νέος ‘young’, in Eur. cf. Hipp. 114–15, And. 184–5;
Melanippe F 510 ‘young and gauche’; cf. A. Pers. 753–8, the young king
Darius. realised: The prefix ἐσ– (‘into’) in ἐσεῖδον suggests insight.
i.e. ‘(perceived and) understood’; cf. Her. 144, S. El. 997. Compare Ion
585–6 ‘things far away and those seen close up do not have the same
appearance’. matter is plur. in the Greek, implying that there were
several aspects to it, as again at 1020; cf. 366 and n.; contrast the specific
sing. in 1009.
Greek. 489 ἦ: the older Attic form for the 1. pers. sing. of the impf. of
εἰμί (always used by Aesch. and Soph.); in Eur. the mss. overwhelmingly
attest the newer 5th century form ἦν (as in 1158) except where metre
requires ἦ (as in e.g. the possibly inauthentic 944): Barrett on Hipp. 700
and Kannicht on Hel. 992 judge that ἦ should be restored when metre does
not require ἦν.   490 οἷον and infin. as e.g. Med. 35 ‘what it means not
to have abandoned a native land’, Supp. 1090. ἦν is assimilated to the
past tense of the ruling verb, as in e.g. ἔγνω ὡς θεὸς ἦσθα ‘he knew you
are a god’ Hom. Hymn Aphr. 186; Smyth 2623b.
[Text. 490 ἦ Cobet, and again in 1158: ἦν L: see Greek above. τὰ
πράγματα Lenting cures two faults in πράγματα δ’ L, which lacks the
def. art. required before πράγματα, and ends the preceding clause with
πρίν as adv.]
491–4 And besides that: for this meaning of ἄλλως τε, cf. e.g.
(appropriately) Ion 618 ἄλλως τε τὴν σὴν ἄλοχον οἰκτίρω ‘Besides, I pity
your wife’, Supp. 417; LSJ I.2. pity: Men. has already pitied Ag. (478)
but here his feeling for Iph. matches Ag.’s in 460–2; see 473–503 n. is
about to be: enjambement (50–1 n.) gives a strong emphasis to the verb
μέλλει. Like Ag., Men. feels that as things stand the sacrifice is imminent
(Stockert). sacrificed: the mitigating synonym for ‘slaughtered’ (91 n.;
Introduction p. 11): Men. earlier used the bleaker ‘kill’, 481. What has
your maiden daughter to do with Helen?: ‘maiden’ may echo Ag.’s
despairing 460. With Men.’s question compare Iph.’s plea to Ag. 1236–7.
Were Men. not himself speaking of his wife, his question could imply
that ‘Helen was not exactly a maiden’ (A. Fries).
492 is a ‘three-word trimeter’, and its words have successively 3, 4
 Commentary 373

and 5 syllables (in metrical terms). There are three others in the play, 1154
(3, 3, 6) and 1451 (5, 3, 4), both differently effective, but 510 (6, 3, 4) is
hardly so. M. Marcovich, Three Word Trimeter [sic] in Greek Tragedy
(Königstein 1984) 140–1 contends, as most do, that the device is one of
emphasis, here upon the line’s central word kinship. Such trimeters are
very common in Aeschylus, and invariably taken to give grandiose weight
to his style. Marcovich counts 80 examples in Eur.
Greek. 492 ἐννοουμένῳ dat. as though ἐσῆλθέ μοι had preceded it (the
verb takes the dat. at e.g. Ion 964), unlike the expected acc. ἐννοούμενον
(cf. 1374 ἐννοουμένην): the dat. part. similarly e.g. Med. 57–8 ἵμερός μ’
ὑπῆλθε γῇ τε κοὐρανῷ | λέξαι μολούσῃ δεῦρο; Smyth 2148d.   493
θύεσθαι pres. infin. after μέλλω, as e.g. 1141; Smyth 1959 a little
understates the usage in describing it as a ‘periphrastic future’.   494
μέτα = μέτεστι, cf. 498 and 499. A question τί δὲ … μέτα; also IT 1300.
[Text. 491 σῆς Dawe: the poss. pron. is attractive: cf. 498.   492
ἐννοούμενον Markland: see on Greek above.]
495–9 Disband the expedition: Ag. at 95 and 352; cf. Achilles 817 –
and Ag.’s agonized question at A. Ag. 212–13 ‘How am I to abandon the
ships and fail the alliance?’ exciting (me to tears): παρακαλῶν; that
is, simply through my seeing ‘tears falling from your eyes’ 477–8; the
same verb at e.g. Or. 1583, ‘exciting’ to fear. Earlier the verb signified
positive invitation, 356 and 409. concern … concern: for the emphatic
repetition see on 451–2 ‘ashamed’. The doubling of the prefix μετ(α)-
in 498–9 as ‘sharing’ may be thought careless before its repetition in
500 and 502, even though its sense there is of ‘change’; but the Greeks
seemed often indifferent to such things.
Greek. 496 παῦσαι and part. (τέγγων) as a sharp negative command is
a Euripidean habit, e.g. Bacc. 809 ‘stop speaking’: see Fries on Rhesus
273.   498 κόρης σῆς objective gen. after θεσφάτων; cf. 842 λόγος
γάμων ‘word of (the) marriage’, Med. 451 λόγος σέθεν ‘word of (i.e.
about) you’; Smyth 1331–3.   499 νέμω μέρος ‘make over part’ as e.g.
Supp. 241 (LSJ μέρος is inadequate); νέμω πλέον ‘grant more (to)’ e.g.
Hec. 868, Hel. 918.
500–3 The repetition from 479 δεινός ‘fear’ of δεινῶν frighteningly
marks the end of Men.’s argument (477–80 n.); then But … begins
his peroration and requires punctuation of 500 as a question to begin
his conclusive point. What I have been though is natural: like
374 Commentary

e.g. Tro. 467–8 ἄξια | πάσχω τε καὶ πέπονθα ‘I am going through and
have been through what is deserved’. ‘natural’: εἰκός lit. ‘(something)
probable’, i.e. both likely and here ‘natural’ between brothers, just as
Clyt.’s accompanying Iph. to her expected marriage was both probable
and natural, 457. The idea and word εἰκός however are redolent of
rhetorical argumentation in the later 5th century, common in Euripidean
dialectic, e.g. adv. εἰκότως 457, noun εἰκότα 1134 (n.): Lloyd (1992) 22,
29 etc. (use Index); J. A. Bromberg in EGT 1178; see also Greek. (the
parents) we share: the sense of the adv. ὁμόθεν as at Temenidae F 736.4,
cf. S. El. 156. With the sentiment compare Or. 486 ‘it’s good to respect
one’s brother always’, cf. ‘cousins’ at IT 918. To act … behaves: in its
sententiousness Men.’s conclusion recalls that of Ag.’s speech at 400–1
(see Text below). ‘behaves’ translates τρόποι ‘ways’; the noun in 343,
346, 559.
Greek. 500 ἀλλά But: for the powerful usage here cf. Hipp. 966–7
and see GP 9–11, esp. (iv).   501 εἰκός: for the sing. cf. esp. Cretans
F 472e.11 ἔχει γὰρ οὐδὲν εἰκός ‘why, it has no probability’, and
the expression εἰκός (ἐστί) ‘it’s likely and natural that’ 1400, Hipp.
615; the plur. (τὰ) εἰκότα is usual, e.g. 1134 (and proposed here by
Hartung).   502 στέργω of deep affection, e.g. F 1064.4 ‘I cherish my
father’. μεταπίπτω ‘change (one’s mind suddenly)’ LSJ I.b; cf. Ar. Birds
627 ἐξ ἐχθίστου μεταπίπτων ‘changing from very great enmity’.   503
For χρῆσθαι cf. F 1035.2 χρῆται τοῖς καλοῖς (also neut.) and above 316
n.; τοῖσι βελτίστοις is neut., lit. ‘things’, Andromeda F 138a; it cannot
here be masc. (‘the best men’).
[Text. The sententiousness of 502–3, and the apparent finality of
498–9, caused Dindorf to delete 500–3, but Men. restates his total
change with contrition repeated and enlarged from 475–80.   502
τρόποι is certainly preferable to L’s variant τροπαὶ ‘turns, changes’, a
‘pejorative prose word’ (Stockert). For variant readings in L, esp. its
scribes’ corrections of their own copying which may seem to have greater
authority, see Zuntz (1965) 132.   503 τό written above χρῆσθαι L:
unmetrical (a ‘2. foot’ anapaest), and more likely a gloss to indicate that
the infin. acts here as a noun.]
504–5 As in the formal couplet marking the end of Ag.’s speech
(469–70), the Chorus pick up the last topic, honour for one’s own blood-
kin. Tantalus: a surprising choice of ancestor as moral example. He was
 Commentary 375

the father of Pelops, Men.’s and Ag.’s grandfather (473 n.) and founder of
the dynasty, and received a famous punishment in the Underworld because
of his evil dealing on earth (first described at Od. 11.582–92). Included
however in the Chorus’ blithe approval is that his own father was Zeus;
and e.g. at Or. 5 he is μακάριος ‘blessed’, because of his wealth before his
disaster (see Willink’s n.). While Men.’s words are noble, communicating
generous fraternal feeling, the Chorus’ mention of Tantalus may stir doubts
about the sincerity of his speech; but see on 473–6.
[Text. 505 <δ’> Hermann, but a connective particle is weaker than the
explanatory asyndeton (391 n.).]
506–12 Ag.’s short speech endorses Men.’s refound fraternal feeling,
deprecating the destructive enmity which is its opposite 506–10; then he
abruptly introduces a further difficult confrontation, not with a daughter
who will plead for mercy (462–6), but with the army who will press for
the sacrifice, 511–12.
506–7 I thank you: idiomatic αἰνῶ hovers between ‘I approve, praise’
and ‘I thank’: cf. 824 n., 1372 n., and Tro. 890 αἰνῶ σε, Μενέλα’, εἰ
κτενεῖς δάμαρτα σήν, ‘…Menelaus, if you will kill your wife’. Thanks
are clearer at e.g. Hipp. 483, Bacc. 944 (it is perhaps related to colloquial
(ἐπ)ῄνεσα ‘Thanks!’: 440 n.). against my expectation: παρὰ γνώμην
ἐμήν (also e.g. Her. 594, Med. 577) bears out his sudden warmth towards
Men.’s 501–3: see Ag.’s 379–80; his correctly and worthily pick up the
Chorus’ praise of 504–5; similar commendations by the Chorus 975–6,
by Ach. 1407. set out: ὑποτίθημι lit. ‘put underneath’, i.e. ‘suggest,
propose as fundamental’ (whence 508–10; but see Text there).
Greek. ὑποτίθημι is usually mid. as ‘propose’, but cf. Bacc. 675, Xen.
Cyr. 5.5.13; LSJ I.2b wrongly translate as ‘advise’. σοῦ pers. pron. for
reflexive (as often in English), e.g. 677, 975, El. 507; Smyth 1222.
[Metre. In σοῦ τ’ ἀξίως the combination of a monosyllable, an elided
enclitic and a cretic word at verse-end does not break Porson’s Law, and
is frequent in late Eur.: 975 again, 1026 χρή μ’ ἀθλίαν; Dodds on Bacc.
246–7. Without the enclitic, 49 and n.]
508–10 Strife between brothers: ταραχή … ἀδελφῶν is a bold
but easily intelligible use of the gen.; cf. e.g. Thuc. 5.25.1 τ. … τῶν
συμμάχων ‘among the allies’, IT 572 ταραγμός ‘among the affairs of
both god and men’. Are these lines a generalisation, or do they allude to
the brothers’ own family? If so, love means adulterous love: Thyestes
376 Commentary

had seduced Atreus’ wife Aerope; but ἔρωτα ‘love’ may perhaps stand
also with πλεονεξίαν … δωμάτων, making a hendiadys (53 n.) ‘passion
to take over the house’. Again, this ‘passion’ may be just a particular
allusion: the corrupted Aerope gave Thyestes a golden lamb which had
been presented to Atreus as a divine authority for his claim to the throne.
When Atreus was on the point of succeeding to it, Thyestes produced
the lamb and was declared king instead of his brother (the story at e.g.
El. 699–746); see also on Text below. For desire to take over, the noun
πλεονεξία ‘grasping for more’, see e.g. Thuc. 4.61.5, 62.3 (the Athenians
in the 420’s; alluded to at E. Supp. 576); Eur. dos not use the verb
πλεονεκτέω, but periphrasis e.g. Supp. 239 πλειόνων τ’ ἐρῶσ’ ἀεί ‘they
(the rich) always desire more’ (see Collard’s notes on both passages from
Supp.) or e.g. Ino F 417.4 ζητῶν τὰ πλείονα ‘(an individual) seeking
more’. leads to bitterness: the adj. πικρός often implies a subsequent
recoil into disaster, e.g. 679, 955; also 1316 (Helen’s marriage to Paris),
Med. 399–400 πικρούς δ’ ἐγώ σφιν καὶ λυγροὺς θήσω γάμους | πικρὸν
δὲ κῆδος καὶ φυγὰς ἐμὰς χθονός ‘I’ll make their marriage bitter and
hideous, their pledging and my exile from the land bitter too’ (Medea
destroying Jason’s new marriage in revenge for her exile).
Greek. 509 ἀπέπτυσα: I detest, cf. 874; for the aor. see 440 n.
[Text. 508–10 are given to Men. in L (with Ag. resuming at 511);
Hermann gave them to Ag. In particular, rivalry for power (πλεονεξία)
between brothers is not relevant to Ag. and Men. (as it was between their
father Atreus and uncle Thyestes, and between Eteocles and Polynices
in Aeschylus’ Seven and in Phoenician Women), only the danger of one
brother interfering in the other’s affairs (Ag. at 329–31). Page observes
that 507, 508 and 509 all begin with anapaestic ‘feet’, but none to
accommodate a proper name and so more acceptable in that position; and
both ταραχή and πλεονεξία occur nowhere else in Eur.: all grounds for
suspicion. The verses were deleted by Boeckh: if they are kept, who better
speaks them? If Men., he continues but varies his theme of 501–3, and
this continuation is unexpected after Ag.’s concise approval in 506–7; if
Ag., he too unexpectedly continues the theme, but kinship (συγγένεια)
echoes 492, forcefully. Neither attribution affects the impact of 511 (see
506–12 n.), but deletion strengthens it further, and for this reason will seem
acceptable to many. We retain the lines with misgiving. Günther’s transfer
of 508–10 to follow Men.’s 499 makes them impossibly interruptive before
 Commentary 377

500.   508 Hermann’s δ’ for L’s γ’ and Porson’s economical cure for Tr’s
wretched interventions are inescapable (for Tr here see Diggle (1994) 407);
so too 510 Markland’s dat. ἀλλήλοιν, giving point to πικράν.
Metre. 509 is a three-word trimeter: see 492 n.]
511–12 the bloody killing: the grim reality of the sacrifice (Men. at 364:
n.) now dominates Ag.’s thoughts; at 396 he had used the plain verb ‘kill’
and abstract expressions in 399, cf. his imagination of Iph. asking ‘Will
you kill me?’ in 463. Again see 91 n., Introduction p. 11. compulsion
from my fortunes: the phrase with adj. ἀναγκαῖος ‘necessary’ and τύχη
is Sophoclean, e.g. S. El. 48, sing. Aj. 485, 803; for ‘come to necessity’
cf. Her. 1281. Men. moves any ‘compulsion’ to human agency with 513
‘Who will compel you…?’
Greek. 511 ἀλλὰ … γάρ (However) ‘breaking off … marking the
contrast between what is irrelevant or subsidiary and what is vital,
primary, or decisive’, GP 103. Cf. Ag. at 443.   512 ἐκπράσσω φόνον
as Her. 1079, Or. 416 etc. For the use of the infin. see 403 n.
513–27 Stichomythic exchange between the brothers. Men. fails to
dissuade Ag., who rides over his negative arguments: note οὐκ beginning
Men.’s 515, 519, 525 and οὔτοι in 517.
513 Greek. πῶς; How? incredulous: 874 n. γε (your) own emphatic
between article and noun as e.g. 674, Bacc. 844, Ion 965.
514 mustered host: σύλλογος as 825 (see Text below), and e.g. Thuc.
1.67.3, 4.114.3; cf. 301–2 συγκλήτου … στρατεύματος. A now fragmentary
play of Soph. bore the title Ἀχαιῶν Σύλλογος, usually translated as
‘Gathering of the Achaeans’ (F 143–8 TrGF): see A. Sommerstein (ed.),
Select Fragmentary Plays of Sophocles I (2006) 84–140.
[Text. The wording Ἀχαιῶν σύλλογος στρατεύματος recurs in [1545]
and this may support the separate gen. plur. dependent on the gen.
στρατεύματος against Nauck’s conjecture Ἀχαιοῦ; such combinations
are often avoided, and suspect, e.g. at Alc. 448–9.]
[515 Text. Tr’s <γ’> was his common panacea (Zuntz (1965) 194),
but here gives good emphasis, ‘back to Argos’; a different means to
this emphasis is Bothe’s (?) reordering of the verse. For γε’s limitative
function after ‘if’ (Not…) Diggle compared 519, GP 142. ἀποστείλῃς
Markland, aor. subj. for ἀποστελεῖς L fut. indic., preceded Bothe’s
suggestion. For internally disordered verses in L cf. e.g. 1, 39; Supp.
303, Hel. 446; in mss. generally Jackson (1955) 228–31.]
378 Commentary

516 I could do that secretly … secret: the translation does scant

justice to the chiastic structure of this beautifully shaped line; there is
a similar arrangement with forms of λανθάνω in Ion 1028 λήσεις …
λαθεῖν. In τοῦτο and ἐκεῖνο, accs. of respect (see e.g. Stevens on And.
212, Smyth 1601c), the former refers to the previous line and the latter
as often (cf. 522, 1133) to what follows.
517 Why, what is that?: for the def. art. with ποῖος in a very surprised
question cf. Pho. 1703–4 – χρησμὸς … – ὁ ποῖος; – ‘…oracle…’ – ‘The
what?’, IT 1319 etc.; it is perhaps colloquial: (Stevens in) Collard (2005)
368; Smyth 1186, 2648. fear the masses: see n. on 450 ‘slave to the
masses’.
Greek. ποῖος; without art. but with repetition of the surprising term
gives less emphasis, and is marked as colloquial by Stevens (1976) 38–9;
cf. Diggle (1981) 50–1, who calls it ‘indignant’: e.g. Hel. 566 – … σῆς
δάμαρτος … – ποίας δάμαρτος; – ‘…your wife’. – ‘What wife?’
518–19 Calchas will tell: i.e. without authorisation: see on 95. If Calchas
does not reveal it, Ag. fears that Od. may, 528–9. Calchas, like all grim
prophets, is regularly suspect and unpopular, implicitly at 956–8. Ag.’s
reaction to him at Il. 1.105–8 is typical (cf. 89–93 n.); but Calchas was
correct there, and at 746–8 below Ag. goes off to work with him. See
[520–1] n. Stockert compares Creon’s anxiety, about what the seer Tiresias
may reveal to the city at large, Pho. 925. No, not if he dies first: Ag. does
not seem shocked by this chilling suggestion, but the brothers’ emotions
are running high. At IT 533 Iph. expresses great joy at the news of the
seer’s death. Ag. and Od. contrive the death of the intellectual warrior
Palamedes in his fragmentary name-play, but the elimination of a seer
would be beyond the pale. Like all priests, seers were inviolable, so that
Ajax the son of Oileus committed a monstrous offence when he raped
the prophetess Cassandra in Athena’s temple (see e.g. Tro. 69–71), and
Minos risked one when he shut Polyidus alive in a tomb in the name-play
by Eur. (test. iva: Hyginus, Fables 136.5). In IT 1173–4 when Iph. tells
the barbarian king Thoas that two Greeks shared killing the mother of one
of them, he replies, ‘Apollo! Not even a barbarian would do that!’ easy:
εὐμαρές, e.g. E. Antigone F 176.2; the adj. differently in 969 below, ‘the
army is easy (i.e. comfortable) that I do both well and not well.’
[520–1] seers … an evil – always ambitious: cf. S. Ant. 1055 ‘the
whole race of seers loves money’ (Creon about Tiresias: he is very much
 Commentary 379

mistaken), Pho. 772–3 with Mastronarde’s n.; for ambition see also 527
n. (Odysseus). breed: in context pejorative; σπέρμα of demagogues
Hec. 254 (ἀχάριστον ‘unlovely’), of heralds F 1012 (λαλόν ‘loquacious’).
[Text. These lines are deleted by most editors; they interrupt the finality
of Men.’s ‘not if he dies first’ and the transfer of Ag.’s anxiety to Od.,
522–32. Invasion of texts by illustrative parallels once noted in margins
receives a classic discussion, esp. for Eur., by Fraenkel on Ag. 570–2;
cf. Mastronarde on Pho. 558. A good example is Hel. 744–60, similarly
on seers, including a denunciation of Calchas, but with intrusive verses;
excellent notes by Kannicht, Burian and Allan there. The appearance of
φιλοτιμ- and σπέρμα in 527 and 524 strongly suggests that these words
were keys for the invasion from the margin. Against the deletion: Stockert
observes that ambition is a theme of the play (22 n.); less cogently, that
520–1 if kept give Calchas and Od. six lines each as subjects.
521 in L is nonsense, †Yes, and nothing of use, nor useful, when it’s
there†. The last word παρόν is otiose; but παρών half-redundant of persons
is not rare, e.g. And. 80, Supp. 391 (but see 465 n. above). Both vocabulary
and phrasing may indicate Euripidean pedigree, therefore: cf. 914–15 ‘a
fleet lacks discipline … but is useful when (the sailors) are willing’, Hcld.
4 ‘(a profiteer) both useless to a city and hard to deal with’. Turato well
remarks that ‘whatever the correct text, the intention was to reinforce the
negative judgement of 520’. Nauck conjectured γ’ ἀρεστὸν for γ’ ἄχρηστον,
‘Yes, and nothing pleasing…’, Canter more simply γε χρηστὸν ‘Yes, and
nothing good…’ Other rewritings followed Hermann’s conjecture πικρόν
‘bitter’ (510 n.) for the otiose παρόν: see OCT apparatus.]
522–3 But are you not afraid … if you don’t tell me: this kind
of stichomythic manoeuvre is parodied by Housman in his famous
Fragment of a Greek Tragedy:
ALCMAEON: A shepherd’s questioned mouth informed me that…
CHORUS: What? for I know not yet what you will say.
ALCMAEON: Nor will you ever, if you interrupt.
The manoeuvre is however highly effective here as Ag. introduces what
he sees as a worse danger than Calchas. For similar examples cf. Ion
1023, IT 658–9, Hec. 743–4.
Greek. 523 For μή indefinite with the indic. see 325 n.: ‘the sort (of
word) that you say’. ὑπολαμβάνω meaning ‘I understand’ is rare, only here
380 Commentary

in Eur.; LSJ I.3 cite Pl. Rep. 338d, Euthyd. 295c, both also in dialogue.
[Text. 522 οὕμ’ Markland i.e. ὃ ἐμέ, ‘me’ (see ‘Housman’ above): Tr
erased L’s unemphatic (and unmetrical) ὅ μ’ in trying to correct it.   523
ὑπολάβοιμ’ ἂν Markland again is palmary: a 1. pers. sing. not plur. (L) is
needed; and the bare opt. without ἄν has limited use in Tragedy (Barrett
on Hipp. 1186). Note how rel. pron. and antecedent taken into the rel.
clause bracket the line.]
524 Sisyphus’ seed: Od. is usually regarded as the son of Laertes
(as by the Chorus at 204). The tradition which makes him the son of
Sisyphus, his mother Anticleia’s lover before her marriage to Laertes, is
insulting to him since it makes him out to be a bastard and tarred with
his father’s criminality – and esp. his deviousness, which Ag. alleges in
526, for which see also 1362 n.; cf. on ‘Laertes’ in 203–5 n. Cf. Hec.
131–2 (cited in 526 n.), S. Phil. 608 and esp. E. Philoctetes F 789d §§
8–9 TrGF; S. Phil. 417 ‘the son of Sisyphus foisted on Laertes’. Turato
makes much of Sisyphus’ genealogy and its implication here. The line’s
beginning is sibilant and the actor playing Ag. could hiss it out. For
‘seed’, contemptuous, see on ‘breed’, 520 n.
525 There is no harm that Odysseus will do you or me: the Greek
word-order is contrived to emphasize the last of Men.’s negative
objections, beginning with οὐκ (513–27 n.), and Od.’s name is put before
the rel. clause begins.
Greek. ὅτι i.e. πῆμα, internal cognate acc. with πημανεῖ; for the two
accs. see Smyth 1622.
526 sly: on the adj. ποικίλος lit. ‘variegated’, metaphorically ‘shifty,
double-dealing’, see Collard’s n. on the verb ποικίλλω Supp. 187, writing
that the word-root ‘often expresses disapproval of moral inconsistency’
in Tragedy: e.g. Med. 300–1, and esp. Aeolus F 16.2 τὰ κομψὰ …
ποικίλοι ‘devious in their sophistries’. At Hec. 131 Od. is ποικιλόφρων
‘shifty-minded’ (and associated with the mass interest at 254 there: 517
n. above). the masses: ὄχλος (450 n.), but here nearing ‘mob’: see Hec.
607 cited in 914 n.
527 has him caught: ἐνέχομαι pass. as Or. 516 ‘caught up in
bloodshed’, Hdt. 1.190.2 ‘in doubts’; literally, in a net Hdt. 2.121.β2.
The force of μέν following φιλοτιμίᾳ ambition with no contrasting idea
expressed but implicit (GP 380), is to lay emphasis on the preceding
word. Headlam suggests: ‘Ambition he is enslaved by’, i.e. ‘so far, I
 Commentary 381

agree with you’. For ‘ambition’ as an evil, cf. e.g. Pl. Rep. 347b ‘or don’t
you know that ambition and love of money are both said to be a reproach
– and are?’ Cf. 520.
528–42 [Text. Page gave eleven reasons, almost all linguistic, to justify
Dindorf’s deletion, but observed that emendation would remove most of
them. We judge that the lines both conclude the episode satisfactorily –
indeed, without them it is incomplete, and Men. leaves far too abruptly
– and point the action forward; for Od.’s future role, but off-stage, see
1361b–4 n., Introduction p. 14. Ag.’s deceit of Clyt. continues, but with
the personal cost he fears (541).]
528–31a Don’t you think…?: Ag.’s question keeps the emphasis
on Od.’s populism (526, cf. 1364). stand in the midst: the automatic
focus of any gathering; the phrase first in Homer, e.g. Iliad 7.277,
19.77; a herald at Iph.’s sacrifice [1563], at that of Polyxena Hec.
531; a public tribunal Bellerophon F 305.2. the prophecies which
Calchas expounded: θέσφατα, lit. ‘divine words, i.e. decrees’ (498,
1486), matches μαντεύματα ‘prophecies’, predictions by a μάντις, in
518, cf. 760 (Cassandra); but it also matches the vocabulary of 89–90,
esp. ἀνεῖλεν ‘announced’, in the first statement of Calchas’ activity as a
μάντις (see 89–93 n.). ἐξηγέομαι here expresses the seer’s disclosure,
and clarification, and often his injunction to fulfil the divine word: Pho.
1011 and e.g. A. Cho. 552, Eum. 595; LSJ II. The first clause 529 sets Od.
rather than Calchas as the discloser, the second 530 (say) of me puts Ag.
himself under attack for falseness and betrayal, precisely Men.’s own
personal charge in 335–72; compare 360 θύσειν ὑπέστης with 530–1
ὑπέστην θῦμα … θύσειν and 363 κᾆθ’ ὑποστρέψας ‘and then you did an
about-turn’ with 530 κᾆτ’ ἐψευδόμην and then tried lying: this clause
interrupting the promise emphasizes the antithesis; for similar interposed
statements cf. e.g. Hipp. 402, And. 691–2; Diggle (1981) 116. κᾆτα ‘and
then’ again recalls Men.’s accusation, marking out Ag.’s change of mind,
343, 358; see Stevens (1976) 47.
Greek. For the broad difference between lively οὔκουν questioning
the previous speaker’s words and unemotional οὐκοῦν see GP 430–6.
[Text. 530 κᾆτα ψεύδομαι L (pres. tense) breaks ‘Porson’s Law’ (49–
50 n.) and gives awkward sense: κᾆτ’ ἐψευδόμην Murray creates a past
tense (impf.) matching, but contrasting with, the aor. ὑπέστην in aspect:
Ag. did give an undertaking, but then began upon falsehood. Porson’s
382 Commentary

own fut. perf. ἐψεύσομαι is different, ‘(say of me … and then) that I shall
have lied’.]
531b–5 carry the whole army along with him: ξυναρπάσας:
metaphorical as ‘seize, carry headlong away with one’, and rare: of
the rapid power of love Call. Epigr. 30.5 Pfeiffer. ἀναρπάζω in 535 is
literal, ‘seize by storm, ravage’ (see Greek). raze: κατασκάπτω is the
verb of 64, in the suitors’ pledge to do just this to any oath-breaker’s
city, as they hoped to do to Troy, 92. Cyclopean walls: see 152 n. A
small awkwardness is noted by Stockert: those who may rise against
Ag., ‘Argives’ 532, may also attack his and their own home city Argos
535 (but on the name ‘Argives’ see 102 n.). For collective retaliation
upon the homeland of one who fails a cause cf. S. Phil. 1405. Michelakis
(2006) 79 at n. 16 well remarks, ‘Ag.’s claim … is not as outrageous as it
has sometimes been argued … Rather it echoes historical practices used
against allied cities which revolted in the course of the Peloponnesian
War’, citing the case of Mytilene Thuc. 3.37–50. See Introduction p. 17.
Greek. 534 αὐτός with comitative dat. Smyth 1525; 5 times in Eur.,
e.g. Med. 164 αὐτοῖς μελάθροις διακναιομένους ‘being rubbed out with
their palace and all’. The idiom appears to be colloquial, Stevens (1976)
52, cf. Collard (2005) 364.
[Text. 531 οὐ…; Reiske makes a rhetorically superior question: ὃς L
is a much flatter rel. pron. in place of the negative.   535 ἀναρπάσουσι
Markland, cf. Hel. 751 πόλις ἀνηρπάσθη: L has the same compound
συναρπάζω as in 531, an easy copy-error. Wecklein notes that the prefix
συν- is against usage in the ‘αὐτός’ ‘…and all’ idiom.]
536–7 torments: πήματα, perhaps a delayed echo, and expansion, of
Men.’s πημανεῖ ‘harm’ in 525. to what helplessness the gods have
now reduced me: Ag. returns to the gods as cause, 443–5 (n.); cf. the
OM at 33–4; for Ag.’s ‘helplessness’ cf. the term ἀπορία in 401, described
in 34–3, 351–5 (note πόρος 356), 451–5; also 511 ‘the compulsion from
my fortunes’.
Greek. ἠπόρημαι lit. ‘I have been made helpless’: the medio-passive
voice is rare for this act. but intrans. verb, but is found at Adespota F 904
PCG, Dem. 27.53. Wecklein compares Alc. 78 σεσίγηται δόμος ‘the house
is brought to silence’. For πρός + gen. ‘from, at the hand of’ see Smyth
1695b, LSJ II.1. τὰ νῦν τάδε now: the adverbial acc. phrase (Smyth 1611)
is idiomatic, extending the usual τὰ νῦν: see Bond on HF 246.
 Commentary 383

[Text. Ag.’s ‘helplessness’ (ἠπόρημαι L) is more appropriate than

ἠπάτημαι Hartung ‘I have been deceived’ and ἠμπόλημαι Kirchhoff ‘I
have been trafficked, traded by the gods’ (to their advantage, through the
prophecy).]
538–41 take … and hand her to Hades: Ag. will marry her to Death;
the same idea at Hec. 368 (cf. our 461 n.); cf. Clyt. of Ag. at 1278 ‘he has
handed you (Iph.) over to Hades’. For προστίθημι in similar contexts cf.
e.g. Pho. 964, And. 1016.
Greek. 538 ἕν is defined in dependent syntax, the clause ὅπως μάθῃ,
as e.g. 1005 ἕν … μὴ ψευδῶς μ’ ἐρεῖν; initial ἕν abruptly, and with a
particle, is common, e.g. 1249, Barrett on Hipp. 715–16. μοι is ethic dat.,
‘please’ (Smyth 1486).   538–9 φυλάσσω ‘be on guard that, secure’
regularly takes ὅπως and fut. indic., but Eur. can use ὅπως ἄν and subj.
(Smyth 2215); cf. Hel. 742–3 φρουρεῖν ὅπως ἂν … σωθῶμεν ‘secure our
safety’.   540 πρίν (ἄν) and subj. is regular after a negative, μή 539
(Smyth 2444), but ἄν is omitted here, as e.g. Alc. 849, Or. 1218. λαβών
lit. ‘taking’: the aor. part. is often idiomatically superfluous, meaning
little more than ‘with’ (Smyth 2068a); but here it adds something, as in
e.g. S. OT 641 κτεῖναι λαβών ‘take and kill’.   541 ἐλαχίστοις: the
adj. ‘fewest’ makes ἐπί and dat. approximate to ‘with a view to, with
the result that’, 29 n.; cf. e.g. Pho. 1555 ἐπ’ ὀνείδεσιν ‘for abuse’, Hipp.
511–12 (LSJ B III.2); this meaning is here superior to ‘in circumstances
of’ e.g. 1175 ἐπὶ δακρύοις ‘in tears’, for which phrase cf. El. 133 with
Denniston’s note. πράσσω with adv. ‘fare (in some way)’: see Barrett on
Hipp. 377–81.
[Text. 538 φύλαξον L act., as 145 φυλάσσων (with μή and subj.); the
mid. is usual, e.g. 989, whence φυλάξαι Headlam.]
542 keep silent, you foreign women: Ag. abruptly addresses the
Chorus, whose presence is now a factor in Ag.’s continuing deception:
their complicity becomes a dramatic necessity, as at e.g. Hipp. 710–12,
Med. 259–63; see Barrett’s and Mastronarde’s notes for full examples;
a useful comment by Rutherford (2012) 359 n. 84 and his p. 44 on Or.
1103–4, the planned murder of Helen. When such complicity is broken, it
has strong dramatic importance, e.g. Ion 666–7 (when silence is brutally
enjoined on the chorus with a threat) and 756–60. Ag. knows that the
women are ‘foreign’ from 469 (n.). The women are addressed as such by
Iph. at 1276 and by Clyt. at 629 – but as ‘young women’ by Iph. at 1468.
384 Commentary

Men. goes off towards the army, not to reappear. Ag. remains onstage,
it seems, hearing the choral ode and observing Clyt.’s and Iph.’s arrival
silently until they address him, 630, 633–4; it is much less likely that he
enters his hut and comes out after 630: see 590 n. Staging.

543–89 First Choral Ode (stasimon)

The Chorus became aware at 454–68 and 511–42 that Iph. will be
sacrificed and that the Greek expedition will therefore sail to Troy (cf.
542 n.).
Their ode begins with an unexpected subject, moderation in love;
it is a long way back to Ag.’s criticism of Men.’s faults in this regard
(382–97). The strophe 549–57 strongly recalls Med. 627–37 where the
chorus react in song to the disastrous marriage between Medea and
Jason: ‘When passions are over-excessive, they bring with them neither
good reputation nor virtue to men (our antistrophe 558–72 moves to
these topics); but if Cypris (Aphrodite) comes in due measure, no other
goddess is so full of favours. Never, O queen, shoot at me from your
golden bow your inescapable arrow, having anointed it with desire. May
self-restraint, most beautiful gift of the gods, favour me…’; for similar
warnings and wishes cf. esp. E. Melanippe F 503 ‘Moderation in their
unions, and moderation in their marriages, with self-restraint, are best
for mortals to find’, Hipp. 525–34, Hel. 1097–9, 1102–6, F 967; see also
the references to Sophocles in Metre (below). The antistrophe 558–72
states that education and upbringing, and a sense of shame, are the way
to virtue and reputation; while women’s virtue finds expression in the
home, men’s can raise their city to greatness. The epode 573–89 (see n.)
initially dissolves the tone of moral seriousness: Paris is seen against a
romantic pastoral background playing his pipes, on Mt Ida (cf. 76, 1289).
After a glance at his Judgement of the goddesses there, the Chorus whisk
us to Sparta for a headily sensual evocation of the mutual passion, a coup
de foudre, as Paris and Helen gaze into each other’s eyes; it has led to the
strife between Greece and Troy.
The ode’s theme – passionate love’s perils – takes up the earlier
references to Helen’s disastrous effect upon Men. (68–70, 77; Ag.’s
criticism of him as besotted 382–97 and Men.’s own remorse 485–95)
and upon Paris (71–6); and Ag.’s realisation of the consequence for himself
 Commentary 385

(467–8). Aphrodite’s power was already explicit in 69: here she is named
in 545, 553, 557 and 569, and Eros in 548. The long moral and didactic
analysis of love and virtue in the strophic pair is striking; cf. the ode And.
274–308 ‘where only at the end is contact made with the action of the
play’, also with a Paris-Helen incident (Stinton (1965) 26); and two other
and better-known choriambic odes ‘to’ Eros (and Aphrodite) start with
the same tone: 781–800 in S. Ant. 781–882 and 525–32 in Hipp. 525–64.
The moral theme serves also the play’s other two choral odes, the Second
751–800 developing the fatal narrative of Helen and Paris as far as the
imminent attack on Troy, and the Third 1036–97 the story of one particular
wedding, also tragic in its outcome, that of Peleus to Thetis, the mother
of Achilles; this ode ends with further reflections on virtue (1089–97).
Stockert 355–7 (in part anticipated by Cavander (trans. 1973) 10–11)
begins a wide-ranging appreciation of the morality by stressing that this
First Ode is placed critically between the failure of Ag.’s deception of
Clyt. and Iph. and their arrival: an ideological basis is thus established for
the remainder of the drama, and it is encapsulated in the word-play ἔρως/
ἔρις ‘love/strife’ in 585–7 (see nn.). Stinton (1965) 25–9 has a superlative
general appreciation of the ode, noting reflections of the epode’s incidents
in vase-paintings, with pp. 75–6 on the text; Turato has a crisp analysis
of the ideas. The function of the ode is discussed by Hose II (1991) 92–3,
98; and its theme of ‘wrong’ love reviewed against the Greeks’ ‘love’ for
war, esp. in conjunction with 1080–97 in the Third Ode, by U. Bittrich,
Aphrodite und Eros in der antiken Tragödie (Berlin 2005) 124–9.  
Metre. (For the lyric metres of IA and the difficulties of appreciating
them as apt to content and context see Introduction pp. 48–50.)
One pair of corresponding strophes and a long epode as again in both
the Second Ode 751–800 and the Third 1036–97; it is a form frequent in
Eur., e.g. Ion 452–509, Or. 807–43. For the metre, aeolo-choriambic, the
commonest in the play, see 164–302 n. 3 (c); here there is considerable
variety in the cola.
In the strophic pair sense-breaks occur only in weak responsion at
period-end, and only at 545 = 560 and probably at 553 = 568. It is striking
that the strong sense-break at 551 βιοτᾶς does not respond metrically
with that at 567 βιοτᾷ. The strophes include a remarkable sequence
of eight consecutive and fully choriambic cola; in the antistrophe the
sequence fills 561–8, giving a suitably maintained rhythm to a complete
386 Commentary

section of the argument (note that 562 ἀρετάν is repeated in 568); there is
no comparable structure in the strophe, only the recapitulation of 543–5
in the final 554–7.
The epode begins with three 3-cola periods and sense-breaks (at 575,
578, 581) marking stages in Paris’ path to the Judgement. The final eight
cola move from his and Helen’s mutual infatuation in Greece (582–6)
to the consequent Trojan War (587–9), but different metres replace
choriambic from 585. Such a change of rhythm occurred in the parodos
at the epode’s end 225–30, but it is not repeated in the play’s other two
odes.
For schematic analyses see Dale (1968) 151–2 with commentary on
543–57 and (1981) 148–9; Günther 63–4; Stockert II.357–9 with very
full commentary. See too Parker (1997) 506.
[Text. Despite earlier critics’ suspicion, even to the extreme of
complete deletion, few now doubt the authenticity of this ode; Page
158–9 conceded that there is ‘nothing very tangible’ to occasional doubts
of expression. We judge it wholly Euripidean. There are however damage
and difficulties at 547, 561, 564, 566, 570–2, 578, 580–3, 587–9. P. Köln
67 preserves 569–83 in a very damaged state; it gives a little help.]
543–5 Happy are they…: μάκαρες introduces a beatitude (‘blessed
are they…’); the motif is traditional in Greek poetry, introduced both
by μάκαρ and μακάριος. The word is usual of the gods unique in their
bliss, but applied commonly to mortals at their wedding, e.g. 439 n.,
688 μακάριος, and esp. in wedding-hymns such as 1036–79 (μακάριος
at 1076) and Phaethon 227–44 (μάκαρ at 240: see Diggle’s n.). These
two adjs. stand in cultic contexts at e.g. Bacc. 72, 1180, Cyc. 495, Hel.
375, and in general contexts at e.g. Archelaus F 256, F 1057; further
ὄλβιος e.g. Alcman 1.37 PMG (Partheneion or Maidensong), Pindar F
120, S. F 837.1 τρισόλβιος ‘thrice-blest’. So there may be a hint here
for Athenians of metaphorical initiation into a cult of Aphrodite such
as the annual Aphrodisia and Arrephoria. In 543–4 note the remarkable
doubling in μετά/μετ(α)-, and the alliteration on μ and triple assonance in
μετ-: deliberate, probably, for it recurs in the disguised beatitude of 590
(n.); for alliteration see 297 n. moderate: μετρίας of Aphrodite: this
hope in e.g. Hel. 1105, F 967; cf. Hipp. 529 μηδ’ ἄρρυθμος ἔλθοις ‘and
may you (Aphr.) not come in uneven measure’; for her status in charge
of the marriage-bed cf. e.g. 553, Hipp. 539 ‘of bedrooms’.
 Commentary 387

Greek. The adj. μάκαρες is of ‘common’ gender, not the masc. regularly
used by women in generalisations about themselves (Smyth 1009). The
prep. μετά with in 544 stands with both θεοῦ and σωφροσύνης and is
connected by τε which follows it (cf. παρά 210 n.).
[Text. 543 εἰσὶν L is merely an explanatory gloss; put in the text it would
be against the idiom of beatitudes (see above), and unmetrical.   545
θέλκτρων Nauck ‘enchantments’, an aptly seductive conjecture. It puts
Aphrodite’s devices in place of their common consequence λέκτρων L
‘marriage-beds’; but the Chorus sing as women already married 552–3,
cf. 569–70. The noun θέλκτρον is rare (only S. Trac. 585 in Tragedy,
φίλτροις (‘philtres’) … καὶ θέλκτροις); the adj./noun θελκτήριον is usual,
e.g. Hipp. 509–10 φίλτρα … θελκτήρια | ἔρωτος; of Aphrodite’s girdle
Iliad 14.215.]
546–7a experiencing a calm free from the stings of mad desire:
‘calm’ is a metaphor from sea and storm; also Pl. Phaedo 84a γαλήνην
τούτων (‘from pleasures and sorrows’), Pl. Rep. 329c (τῶν ἀφροδισίων)
εἰρήνη … καὶ ἐλευθερία ‘peace and freedom from sex’, cf. A. Ag.
740 mental calm, IT 345 adj. γαληνός of the sentient ‘heart’. For
‘experiencing’ χρησάμενοι cf. 88 ἀπλοίᾳ χρώμενοι, the Greeks’ inability
to sail, apparently from a windless calm, the literal experience which
Turato suggests may be recalled here. ‘stings (of desire)’ οἴστροι as
e.g. Hipp. 1300 (Phaedra); the ‘madness’ (μαίνομαι, μανία) of love e.g.
Hipp. 241, 1274 (also Phaedra), Cretans F 472e.9 and 20 (her mother
Pasiphae’s desire for the bull). Cf. 1264 ‘desire’ n.
Greek. οἴστρων is separative gen. (Smyth 1427), matched in the Plato
passages above.
[Text. 547 μαινομένων Reiske, correcting μαίνομεν’ L by the simple
restitution of omitted -ων, which is similar to εν in mss.: μανιάδων
Wecklein (same sense) gives exact responsion with 562, and is favoured
by Stockert.]
547b–51 golden-haired: Eros is χρυσοχαίτης Anacreon F 43.12 West;
Hipp. 1275 he is χρυσοφαής ‘of golden light’. Eur. elsewhere uses
the adj. χρυσοκόμης of Apollo, e.g. Tro. 254. bends on: the mid. of
ἐντείνω is unusual (see Text), perhaps implying Eros’ wilfulness with
his two arrows, good and bad (550–1). This distinction between two
kinds of love is common in Eur., see e.g. Hipp. 525–42, Theseus F 388
and esp. Stheneboea F 661.22–5 (where the good love leads to prudence
388 Commentary

and virtue: cf. 561–8 nn. below); again see Med. 627–37 etc. cited at the
start of 543–89 n. delights: χάρις of love 555, Hipp. 527 and often, of
Aphrodite Bacc. 236; for the gen. here cf. Adespota F 354 τόξoν μερίμνης
‘arrow of concern’. lifetime of good fortune: the same Greek phrase
at A. Pers. 711; εὐαίων of a person with such a lifetime e.g. Ion 126,
142. life of ruinous confusion: cf. And. 291 πικρὰν … σύγχυσιν βίου;
‘no doubt a worn phrase’ (Stevens there).
Greek. 547 ὅθι when lit. ‘where’ (1285, 1294 and probably 580), not
used of ‘circumstances’ by Eur.; cf. οὗ ‘where’ in this sense in e.g. οὗ δή
97, IT 320, οὗ alone 1157, S. El. 1259 etc. We translate δή, emphasizing
the rel. adv., as in 97, with the moment (when).  550 ἐπί with dat.
bringing an objective or result, 29 n.; cf. e.g. [1523] ἐπ’ εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ
‘a fate of good fortune’, Hec. 647 ἐπὶ δορί, the Judgement (our 580)
resulting ‘in war’.
[Text. 548 Tr3 offered a slightly more poetic word-order with ῎Ερως
ὁ χρυσοκόμας.   549 ἐντείνομαι mid. (rare) is supported here by the
citation in Athenaeus.]
552–3 this one: the second arrow (see Greek). most beautiful Cypris:
Hel. 1348, Phaethon 232. This frequent name for Aphrodite comes from
her birthplace (off-shore at Paphos on Cyprus), Od. 8.362, Hes. Theog.
193–4. from our bedrooms: the Chorus are married, 176; the noun
echoes 545.
Greek. 552 ἀπεν(ν)έπω forbid, a Tragic verb and only here in lyric;
a synonym is ἀπαυδάω, common in the 1. pers., e.g. Med. 813; the
separative gen. θαλάμων is like that with e.g. κωλύω ‘bar from’; Smyth
1392. νιν is almost certainly neut. (e.g. And. 45, Hel. 503, A. Cho. 542, S.
Trac. 145), taking up 551 τὸ δέ the second arrow. If it is masc., it takes up
Eros 548 in his complete activity, for good or bad, but a little awkwardly
before 554–7.
[Text, Metre. 553 Tr2/3 deleτed ὦ to secure responsion with L’s corrupt
547 μαινόμεν’.]
554–7 delight … desires: chiasmus in the Greek, effective; for lyric
see Breitenbach (1934) 264–6. The first noun repeats 549; for the second
in the plur. cf. Alc. 1087 ‘desires for marriage’. pure: ὅσιος ‘giving
no offence to the gods’, also e.g. Ion 1092, Phaethon 107. The ‘impure
loves’ of Hipp. 764 οὐχ ὁσίων ἐρώτων are nevertheless Aphrodite’s
work. have my part in Aphrodite: Aeolus F 26.3 similarly ‘when she
 Commentary 389

is kindly’. (may I) put her away: opt. now, against the indic. of 552
‘banish’. For ἀποτίθεμαι see Theognis 1369 (disowning pederasty). at
her full: for the adj. πολλή of Aphrodite cf. Hipp. 443 ‘if she comes in
full flood (ῥέω)’, Cretans F 472c.6; LSJ I.2c; cf. Hor. Odes 1.19.9 in
me tota ruens Venus ‘in her whole (force)’, Racine, Phèdre 1.3 Vénus
toute entière à sa proie attachée. Note that 554–7 echo 543–5 in ‘ring-
composition’.
[Text. 556 P. Finglass, GRBS 49 (2009) 201 reports an unpublished
18th century conjecture by Valckenaer, μετέχοιμ’ ἴσας ‘…my part in (an
Aphrodite who is) equitable, fair’ between lovers; the adj. of persons
e.g. S. OT 677, Phil. 685: attractive, because it provides an antithesis to
‘at her full’; but the def. art. makes sufficient contrast between ‘sharing
(μέν)’ and ‘resisting (δέ)’.]
558–60 introduce the theme of the antistrophe, as the three verses
543–5 do that of the strophe. natures: plurals of abstract nouns are
not rare, esp. when registering separate examples: 561, 591 etc. With
what is truly good is always clear Eur. launches into high, abstract lyric
style, esp. with a def. art. and neuter noun; again in 563, 566; Bacc. 386–
401 and the refrain 877–81 = 897–901 are classic examples, on σοφία
‘wisdom’ (our 563). ‘truly good’, i.e. morally correct, ἔσθλον as e.g.
Med. 408, Hipp. 331: see (Stockert) K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality
(Oxford 1974) 53. ‘Always’ in a moral axiom e.g. Bacc. 881, 896.
Greek. 559 δέ in repetition (of διάφοροι) without μέν: 16–17, 1220 n.
ὀρθῶς adv. ‘genuinely’ is attached to the noun phrase τὸ ἐσθλόν as to e.g.
the adj. φίλος ‘friend’ at And. 376–7, IT 610; to e.g. the noun θεός ‘god’
Her. 1345.
[Text. The corrections successively by Höpfner, Scaliger and Musgrave
are palmary, and were made across three centuries.]
561–2 An upbringing with education greatly contributes to virtue:
whether virtue can be taught was one of the great questions of later
5th century thought, and became constant in Plato: see e.g. Rep. 492e
πεπαιδευμένον πρὸς ἀρετήν ‘educated towards virtue’: R. Sharples,
Meno (Warminster 1984) 4–6, 14–16; W. K. C. Guthrie, History of Greek
Philosophy (Cambridge 962–81) III. 250ff. Eur. often touches positively
on the issue, e.g. 708–10, 926–7: see esp. Hec. 592–602, Supp. 911–17,
El. 367–72 and commentators, Phoenix F 810. The play will later show
whether Ach.’s moral education by Chiron (708–9, 926–7) leads him
390 Commentary

to true virtue (see e.g. 800–1035 n., (C) 900–1035, subsection 919–74;
1358–61a n.; Introduction p. 24); for Ach. himself Iph.’s noble virtue is
wholly inborn, natural (1411, 1422–3).
Greek. 561 τροφαί ‘upbringing(s), rearing(s)’ is often plur., LSJ II.; in
παιδευόμεναι ‘educating’ the mid. serves as act., LSJ II.1; for τρέφω also
of ‘educated bringing-up’ cf. esp. 708, 710, of Ach. in the care of Chiron.
These two word-roots often appear together in apparent pleonasm.   562
φέρω ‘contribute’ with neut. qualification μέγα greatly Pl. Rep. 449d μέγα
τι φέρειν ‘benefit greatly’; Supp. 596 οὐδὲν φέρει ‘nothing’, Archelaus F
242 φέρει … οὐχὶ μικρόν ‘by no means a little’; LSJ VII.3.a.
[Text. Diggle, Stockert and Matthiessen prefer θ’ αἱ παιδευόμεναι
L to such conjectures as θ’ αἱ παιδευομένων Monk ‘(and upbringings)
of (those) being educated’ or τ’ εὖ παιδευόμεναι Nauck lit. ‘(and
upbringings) educating well’; instead of the latter Diggle OCT wanted τ’
εὖ παιδευομένοις ‘for (those) being educated well’.]
563–6a A sense of shame: which divided Ag.’s conscience 451–2; see
n. there and for αἰδώς in the play Introduction pp. 34–5. Here the shame
relates to sexual moderation, 543–5 and 554–7; cf. 1090–1 (where it is
associated with ἀρετή virtue). wisdom: a desired and predicated quality
in e.g. Bacc. 395 (cf. 877 = 897), Alc. 603, Med. 827. exceptional: i.e.
‘superior’ or even ‘supreme’, a bold (and disputed) meaning of intrans.
ἐξαλλάσσω lit. ‘change utterly, exceed’ (LSJ II.1), because shame leads
through reason to the highest moral imperative, duty τὸ δέον, lit. ‘what
is needful (to the particular behaviour or action)’.
Greek. 565 ὑπὸ γνώμας: the prep. ‘through the agency of’, Smyth
1689b; the same phrase in 368.   566 τὸ δέον: in prose the def. art. is
regular with the part.; in Eur. contrast e.g. Alc. 1101 τάχ’ ἂν … ἐς δέον
πέσοι χάρις ‘perhaps a kindness may turn into what is needed’.
[Text. 565–6 are insecure, and obelized by Diggle, because the apparent
direct dependence on the noun χάριν of the infin. ἐσορᾶν without gen. of
the def. art. is hard to parallel; but with ἔχει χάριν cf. perhaps Isocrates
16.11 ἔχοντα τιθασεύεσθαι φύσιν ‘having a nature (able) to be tamed’,
Pl. Statesman 264a διδάσκειν τέχνην ἔχουσι ‘have the skill to teach’ (not
‘are able to teach skill’).
566b–7 reputation brings ageless glory to a life: rather ‘flat’ in feel,
and suspect to Diggle; while ‘reputation’ δόξα and ‘glory’ κλέος appear
weakly pleonastic, they are not quite the same, for δόξα is often ‘(good)
 Commentary 391

opinion’ (LSJ III 2), formed on appearances, cf. esp. Hipp. 431–2
‘(sexual) restraint harvests a fine reputation (δόξαν ἐσθλήν)’; ‘fame’
1399 below (Greek δοκ-: the versatile root is definitively examined in
DELG for its semantics). κλέος ‘glory’ is from the versatile root (κλε-,
κ(α)λέω ‘call’) and (κλυ- ‘hear’), i.e. ‘hear oneself called glorious’. For
glory in the play see Introduction pp. 36–7. ageless: of χάρις a favour
Supp. 1178, ἀρετή virtue F 999 (in both places the form ἀγήρως).
Greek. ἔνθα when rel. adv. of place used of circumstances, e.g. Tro.
647, 685: see 547 n. on ὅθι. Instead of ἀγήρατος Eur. elsewhere (above)
uses the contracted Attic form ἀγήρως of Epic ἀγήραος [Text. Ritschl
proposed ἀγήραον here].  
568–72 It is a great thing … virtue: 568 summarises the disquisition
upon virtue here in the antistrophe by echoing 561; 569–70a unsurprisingly
relate its lesson of moderation in sexuality to the married women of the
strophe 543–57, but 570b–2 relate it unexpectedly to men in public
life. One might therefore expect Men. to be an illustration in the epode
573–89, but those lines link woman and man in Helen and Paris for the
international not just public consequences of virtue abandoned. hunt
after: θηρεύω metaphorical as e.g. Bacc. 1005 ‘wisdom’, Pl. Theaet.
200a ‘knowledge’. within a hidden love: ambiguous. Usually ‘hidden’
describes a love culpably concealed, e.g. a woman’s Ion 1524, a man’s
Hipp. 154, both El. 922: is it here ‘a great thing’ and virtuous for women
merely to hide it, or by implication to end it? Or to hide from the world a
chaste love for husbands alone? Diggle writes furtum olet of the phrase,
‘it smells of theft’, suggesting incautious application; Stockert says that
its multivalence contrasts with men’s single virtue, 571. Certainly there is
heavy antithesis with the ‘moderate’ of 543 and 554, and the ‘pure desires’
of 555. In the Greek ‘(sexual) love’ is ‘Cypris’ (553 n.), in metonymy.
The counter-moral for men (in their turn: δ’ αὖ, 1226, Or. 1063 etc.) is
good order, in the context by implication founded on virtue as ‘good’
husbands, since household well-being conduces to public well-being
(one of the moralities of Aeschylus’ Eumenides): whence increases their
city to greatness (αὔξει: this expression e.g. Her. 793, our 967 ‘increase
the common good’; a ‘city is increased’ e.g. Supp. 507). Unfortunately
the close definition of ‘good order’ in 571 is uncertain. The word κόσμος
there is used of order in the polis at Supp. 245, of mental (dis)order S.
F. 846 – and of disciplined morality e.g. Pl. Phaedo 114e, and of order
392 Commentary

‘within’ a person at Laws 689b ‘fair words within (ἐνόντες ἐν) a soul’
(see Text below).
Greek. 571–2 μυριοπληθής: in countless forms is an acceptable
translation, although -πληθής is properly of number, i.e. ‘multitudinous’,
μυριο- being ‘countless’, e.g. 366, 1388; the compound παμπληθής
is applied to such sing. nouns as ‘species, property, fire’ according to
LSJ, cf. πολυπληθία ‘multiplicity’ of men S. F 667.1.   572 μείζω is
predicative (or proleptic) second acc. after πόλιν αὔξει, cf. e.g. φίλον
648, μαξάριον 1076.
[Text. P.Köln 67 comes in at 569, but offers an insecure, defective
or different text in 570–2, where L is partly corrupt: 570 εν α̣[ or εν δ̣[
against Tr3’s ἐν ἀνδράσι δ’ (ἐν δ’ ἀνδράσιν L*P), 570–2 αυ κοσμοσ οδεν̣[
| πληθει against δ’ αὖ | κόσμος ἔνδον ὁ μυριοπληθὴς L, lit. ‘and (among
men in their turn) good order within, in multiple form’. All eds accept Tr3’s
metrical correction in 570; most print (as we do), or at least commend,
Markland’s conjecture in 571 ἐνὼν (‘being within’: cf. Plato, Laws 689b
above) followed as in L by ὁ; some words remain obelized by Günther and
Diggle.   571–2 P.Köln’s μυριο]πληθει is printed as -εῖ by Günther, a
dat. adj. without a noun (unless -πληθει is the dat. of an unattested noun
μυριόπληθος ‘multitude’); an adv. -εί has been posited (‘a thousand-fold’,
with αὔξει ‘increases’), but the formation is anomalous.]
573–89 Narrative illuminating the didactic 543–72: Paris goes from
Trojan pastoral Mt Ida to Greek royal Sparta (573–81); there he is
fluttered by Helen, and their mutual passion leads to the War (582–9).
Note that flow is given to the narrative through relative clauses, 573,
580, 581, 583, 587, with which compare e.g. 173, 180, 182; 757, 760,
764; 1287, 1289, 1294; it is a marked feature of Eur.’s lyric style. Other
descriptions of the scene and Judgement by Eur. at 182–4, 1283–1311,
And. 274–92, Hec. 631–46, Hel. 357–9; see esp. Stinton (1965) cited in
543–89 n. Choral narratives in Tragedy are illustrated from a variety of
approaches by Rutherford (2007).
573–5 You came, O Paris: not necessarily ‘came back’ to Ida, though
that is suggested by to where you yourself were reared (and appears to
match And. 295), for he was exposed there at birth (1284–6 below). This
detail is vague, and matched by omission in 579–80 of the water-spring
regular as the scene of Judgement, e.g. 1294 and n. The aor. ἔμολον
‘came’ is particularly common in E.’s lyric descriptions, of Paris e.g.
 Commentary 393

Hel. 1118 (×2), the goddesses e.g. our 1300, Hel. 678; it begins our
parodos 164, cf. El. 169 (×2) after ἤλυθον 167. ‘O’ ὦ begins epodes
also Ion 492, (ἰώ) 714. Eur.’s particular fondness for apostrophizing
persons and things mythical is parodied at Ar. Frogs 1309, 1331–41
(see Dover’s nn.); passages are listed by Rutherford (2007) 36. ‘reared’
ἐτράφης is a very clear link with 561 ‘upbringings’ τροφαί. white: the
epic adj. ἀργεννός is the colour usually of sheep and their wool, e.g. Iliad
3.198. But heifers or oxen intended for sacrifice were often white as
symbolic of their purity (e.g. Iliad 21.30), and were necessarily perfect,
e.g. ‘unblemished’ 1083 (cf. 1113 n.), and 579 full-uddered εὔθηλοι (a
Homeric word, of a heifer πόρις Bacc. 737).
[Text. 573 ‘if sound, scarcely Euripidean’ Diggle. Suspect in L are (1)
ἔμολες (but see above), and a different verb was suggested by Kovacs with
ἔμαθον ‘I learned’, which he claimed develops the preceding strophe’s
emphasis on a good education leading to glory for virtuous citizens, 561–
72. Nor do we see cause to disturb ἔμολες in favour of Willink’s ἔμαθες
(with 576 βάρβαρα συρίζειν) ‘you learned (to play barbarian music)’; (2)
the Epic rel. adv. ᾗτε, not found elsewhere in E., but well enough here
as Doric ᾇτε (Willink: for the principles governing the ‘Doric alpha’ in
Tragic lyric see Barrett on Hipp. 61–71 or Mastronarde, Medea (2002)
pp. 83, 105; in our epode cf. 581 ἅ; also e.g. 544, 553, 557); (3) the style
of σύ γε, emphasis added to emphatic pron.: defended by Stinton (1965)
75 as anticipating Paris’ important role with Helen 582–9. P. Köln cannot
help: the words are lost from it.]
576–8 playing barbarian music: see Greek. reeds: συρίζω and σύριγγες
usually denote the multiple ‘Pan-pipes’ (σύριγξ syrinx), expressly with
‘reeds’ at 1038, cf. IT 1125; the god Pan himself ‘breathes’ on them at
El. 703–4, cf. Or. 145 ‘the breath of the pipes’. Paris has them also Hel.
358. See West (1992) 109–12, with a list of literary references at 110
n. 126. imitations: the verb μιμέομαι and cognates in the vocabulary
of artistic criticism registered ‘representations’ of speech and song e.g.
Pl. Rep. 605c, of rhythm and harmonies Laws 812c. Phrygian pipes:
their tone was exciting and passionate, Aristot. Pol. 1342a32–b12, cited
by West (1992) 180–1; at Tro. 545 Phrygian pipe-music welcomes the
entry of the Wooden Horse to Troy; it accompanies ecstatic cult Bacc.
126–8, 158–69. Olympus: a mythical musician of Phrygia (or Mysia):
Ar. Knights 9, Adespota F 53 TrGF, Pindar F 157; he was later confused
394 Commentary

with the 7th century inventor of the harmonic scale, whose music ‘was
agreed to possess the feelings’, Aristot. Pol. 1340a9–10; see West (1992)
163–4.
Greek. 576 βάρβαρα: lit. ‘barbarian’ (pipings), συρίγματα being
supplied from συρίζων; ‘music’ is not expressed in the Greek, which
often leaves an acc. neut. plur. adj. isolated, the noun from the verb-
stem being omitted: cf. 644 n. and e.g. Smyth 1572–3; Breitenbach
(1934) 242–7 with many examples. συρίζων and πνείων are two parts. in
asyndeton, a lyric habit of Eur.: see e.g. Bond on Her. 700, Smyth 2147f.
[Text. 577 P. Köln confirms Heath’s correction Οὐλύμπου.   578
The long penultimate syllable required at period-end in this abbreviated
colon (reizianum) is easily supplied by Reiske’s correction of L’s πνέων
to πνείων. P. Köln however has ]υ̣ων, prompting Günther’s ἀναπ]ύ̣ων
‘crying loud’, the Doric part. of ἀνηπύω, a compound occuring first in
Hellenistic verse; better would be West’s Aeolic form πνε]ύ̣ων (Studies
in Aeschylus (Stuttgart 1991) 176), entertained earlier by O. Musso,
Prometheus 6 (1980) 229.]
579–81 sent: historic pres. (47 n.). The same verb and tense are used of
Ag. and Men. in joint authority sending the Greeks to Troy, A. Ag. 109.
[Text. 579 τρέφοντο L without syllabic augment, common in lyric, e.g.
198 (n.), χόρευσε Alc. 583, τέκετο Pho. 649; Smyth 438a, Diggle (1994)
213: Blomfield’s change to δ’ ἐτρέφοντο is unnecessary.   580 where
(judgement etc.): both ὅθι ‘where’ (Bothe, Monk) and ὅτε (Aldine) ‘when’
suit the detail of 579; we prefer the former, with ὅθι as in 573 (n.); ὅτι L
‘because’ is impossible. There is a metrical problem in 580: in this epode
there is no responding verse to validate L’s wholly resolved but apparent
glyconic colon, which lacks one short syllable (and no choriambic colon
in the whole ode is similarly resolved); Hermann’s remedy was to restore
a complete glyconic with ἔμηνε ‘maddened’ (for the verb see 1264 n.
Text) in place of L’s ἔμενε ‘awaited’. An attraction of the latter is that it
provides a link correct in context: it implies that everything at and after
the Judgement was inevitable once Aphrodite had craftily inflamed and
bribed Paris with Helen (cf. Iph.’s lamenting monody 1283–1335, esp.
1301, 1303–4); and it was not the Judgement itself that ‘maddened’ Paris
but his behaviour towards Helen under Aphrodite’s continuing influence,
587, cf. 547. Günther, Stockert and Diggle all obelize 580; Stockert
prefers ‘when (ὅτε) … maddened’; Diggle suggests ‘where’, with ὅθι
 Commentary 395

(or οὗ) and κρίσις σ’ (or σε κρίσις L), but with ἔμενεν θεᾶν at verse-
end, also completing the glyconic, where judgement of the goddesses
awaited you; we accept this. P. Köln cannot help: its few very separated
letters match those in L, but apparently it had three fewer letters at line-
beginning.   581 P. Köln confirms L. Dindorf’s correction.]
582–6 before the throne (see Text below) of Helen with its ivoried
work: an echo of Od. 4.72–5, where the palace of Men. and Helen at
Sparta is rich with gold, amber, silver and ivory: see Heubeck, West and
Hainsworth’s n. there. The adj. ἐλεφαντόδετος at Ar. Birds 219 describes
a lyre, probably inlaid with ivory, and this may be the sense here. A couch
at Od. 19.55–6 has ivory as a component; at Plato Comicus F 230.1 one
has ivory feet. meeting of eyes … love: ‘love in the eyes’, Helen and
Paris at Gorgias 82 B 11 (Helen), 19 DK, Men. and Hel. Od. 4.150, A.
Ag. 742–3, cf. 418–19; Bacc. 236 the handsome Lydian alias Dionysus
‘has Aphrodite in his eyes’; S. F 474.4–5; famously Sappho F 31.7 and
12 Lobel-Page. ‘meeting of eyes’; Anth.Pal. 12.196.3 ‘I look and meet
your eyes’, ἀντωπός βλέπω. fluttered: πτοέω ‘excite’, of high emotion
(LSJ 2), e.g. also Helen affected by Paris Alcaeus F 283.3, Clyt.’s anxiety
in our 1029; Sappho F 31.4–6 Lobel-Page effect of a lover’s laughter.
Mutual love … love: 75.
Greek. 582 In the adj. ἐλεφαντόδετος and others similarly formed
the second element -δετος lit. ‘bound on, bound with’ has little meaning
beyond ‘made (partly) with’: see Diggle (1994) 343.   584 ἐν of
circumstance (in the meeting), with δίδωμι as with ὀπάζω ‘give’ Med.
424.   585 correlative τε … τε just as; Smyth 2973, GP 504.
[Text. 582–83 πάροιθεν θρόνων Hermann ‘before the throne’ is certain:
Helen, the lady of the house in Men.’s absence (76), might just have
welcomed Paris, a visiting male stranger, before the house (δόμων L),
but would have given him courteous (and relative) privacy only inside,
when herself seated; then amorous looks began. (At A. Cho. 663–4 the
disguised Orestes has asked the porter at the dead Agamemnon’s palace
for the ‘lady with authority’, i.e. Clytemnestra, to greet him at the door,
but with heavy irony adds ‘but it would be more fitting for a man to
come’.)   583 seems a bigger problem. Kirchoff’s restoration of στὰς
from L’s ὃς τᾶς was brilliant (and simple: restoration of a lost sigma), but
his δὲ στὰς gave δὲ an anomalous position; Jouan’s recourse to ὅς (στὰς)
makes excellent sense and word-order. Musgrave had long ago restored
396 Commentary

an appropriate rel. word with οὗ τᾶς (‘where’). Wilamowitz replaced both

pron. and def. art. with ἔστας, but the finite verb forced the supply of a
connective to the next clause, with Ἑλένας <δ’> (‘you stood, and…’).
P. Köln against frustrates us.   585 τ’ ἔδωκας Blomfield restores the
necessary coupling of the two aorists: δέδωκας L; but note δέδορκας W.
Headlam ‘you see’ (‘love in the eyes’: above), on which Diggle OCT
remarks ‘the meaning is apt but not the verb’s tense’.]
587–9 strife, yes strife: the doubling of ἔριν (Text below) echoes
the repetition 585 ἔρωτα … ἔρωτι (the latter figure, differing forms of
the same word, is paregmenon: V. Bers, EGT 1372); for ἔρις/῎Ερις as
Helen’s effect cf. esp. A. Ag. l455–61; cf. also e.g. Hel. 1134–5. Troy’s
citadel: the coupling πέργαμα Τροίας, though questioned, occurs also at
762 and e.g. Stesichorus F 192 PMG = 91a Davies-Finglass. The n. plur.
Πέργαμα is often used of Troy’s whole high city (e.g. Tro. 556, 1295), as
is the fem. sing. in -oς ([773], Tro. 1065, in Latin usually changed to neut.
Pergamum); both are then often capitalised in modern texts. πέργαμα is
elsewhere used of any citadel, e.g. Pho. 1098 Thebes.
Greek. 588 Ἑλλάδα the proper name is used as an adj. with strife, i.e.
‘strife with Greece’; similar use at IT 1292 a Greek ship, Rhes. 234 the
Greek host, cf. our [1528–31] n. Text.
[Text. 587–8 Page’s changes to L are convincing (and printed by Günther
and Diggle), not only because L’s ἔρις ἔριν … ἄγει ‘strife brings … strife’
is ‘an odd sentence’ (Page), but because it was not the strife between the
goddesses at the Judgement that brought Greek war to Troy, but Paris’
behaviour at Sparta (579–81 n. Text, cf. 71–82): compare esp. Or. 1365
‘Paris, who brought Greece to Ilium’ (also with ἄγω; the verb is common
in mythical narrative, e.g. Hel. 239, 1135). To defend L’s text, however,
Stockert uses Hel. 248–9 ‘creating strife, strife for Priam’s sons with
Greece’ (Hera sending Hermes to Sparta to take the real Helen to Egypt,
leaving for Paris a phantom in her place); commended by Matthiessen.
Page has two incidental benefits: doubled ἔριν ἔριν (emphatic
anadiplosis as in 183 (n.) and Hel. 248: this same episode) is typical
of E.’s lyric style (×4 in Iph.’s monody 1283–1335 alone), and ἄγεις |
ἐς avoids metrical hiatus between cola of differing rhythm.   In 589
Blomfield restored a superior final colon and makes ‘Troy’ the effective
last word.]
 Commentary 397

590–750 Second Episode

Successively: entry of Clyt. with Iph., and the baby Orestes, in a carriage
(590–630); scenes between Iph. and Ag. (633–85a) and then Clyt. and
Ag. (685b–741); brief soliloquy of Ag. (742–50). See the introductory
notes below on 590–7 and 598–606, 607–30 and 633–750 – which
should be read in the light of the following paragraph.
Yet again, the text has difficulties: there is almost certainly a short
loss (after 739); there are a number of heavily suspect or almost certainly
interpolated lines (590–630, 635–7, 652, 665, 741, 749–50); and the
order of lines has been disrupted (between 651 and 666). We can be
confident that only 633 to 748 represent Eur.’s own work, even if 590–
630 stem in part from his intentions.
590 Staging. If the Messenger’s report 414b–39 is part of Eur.’s design,
as we think, Clyt. and Iph. (with Or.) have remounted the carriage
(618 n.) which is implied in 421–3 and repeatedly mentioned in Clyt.’s
610–23 (lines themselves suspect). Taplin (1977) 75–9 reviews chariot
and carriage entries in Tragedy, finding that in the few other examples
there are anticipatory announcements or greetings: A. Pers. 155 (but a
vehicle is not mentioned until 607) and Ag. 783 (vehicle first mentioned
only at 906); E. El. 988 (see 966), Tro. 572 (see 569); Rhesus 380 (see
301–4: doubted however by Fries (2014)); Taplin 77 however judges that
IA 590–606 are a 4th century composition. The two Aeschylus passages
can answer doubts about the omission of the greeting here, perhaps:
spectators’ eyes tell them the mode of entry, and any special significance
can be left to later words. Thus (cf. Taplin 79) at Ag. 783 Cassandra’s
accompaniment of Ag. in his chariot, ominous for Clyt., goes unnoticed
in the text until after he has been verbally defeated by Clyt. at 950–5;
for Clyt.’s own important first defeat is imminent, and it is inflicted by
Cass.’s obstinate silence throughout 1035–68. (For this reason we reject
the contention by O. Thomas, CQ 63 (2013) 494–5 that Cassandra is in a
second vehicle, as a spoil of war carried among other spoils.)
It is effective that Ag. has not left the stage at 542 (n.), and that he
‘hears’ the Chorus’ song, and certainly their greeting of the travellers.
Ritchie offers two considerations: (1) if Ag. goes unnoticed ‘theatrically’,
then Clyt.’s taking charge of the arrival underlines his reluctance to
encounter her; and (2) Iph.’s impetuous rush to embrace him suggests
398 Commentary

that she has only just seen him (‘but would not her rush be as effective if
he had just returned?’, A. Fries). Ag.’s presence on the ‘Homeric bowl’
(below) may suggest that he has been on stage for the arrival, but the
scene is likely to be an artist’s general impression, a composite picture.
This is one of several entry-problems arising from textual silences which
are listed by Taplin (1977) 8 n. 1, e.g. the entries of Adrastus at Supp.
381ff., Menelaus at Hel. 1369ff.
Lines 631–84 give opportunities to a director for poignant embraces
between daughter and father, 631 (?), 640–7, 679–84 (see n. there).
Art. The 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls (details in 111–14 n.)
appear to reflect (1) 613–27 Clyt. and Orestes (as a child, not a baby) in
a carriage – but they are being helped to descend by a named Electra!:
bowls nos 6 and 7; and (2) 623–80, in a composite scene, Clyt. caressing
the child Orestes and Iph. bending to greet Ag. who is seated on a throne
and has raised his right hand to his cheek in distress: bowl n. 8.
590–7 and [598–606] duplicate each other, but also conflict, as entry-
announcements.
[Text. Few scholars defend both passages, some delete both.
590–7 the chief issues are: (1) There is no anapaestic announcement
‘customary’ before theatrically distinctive entries at the start of an
episode like that of Clyt. and Iph. (Matthiessen; cf. Taplin 75–9 cited
above under 590 Staging); but Achilles’ entry at 801 has no warning at
all, cf. e.g. Orestes at And. 881, Menelaus at Tro. 860 and a few other
Euripidean places discussed by Taplin 11–12. Clyt.’s arrival and entry
here are not unexpected after the Messenger’s 415–19 and Ag.’s 454–9,
538–9. (2) 590–7 greet Clyt. and Iph. fulsomely enough to justify her
explicit thanks in 607–8, lines which would otherwise have no reference
(see also 607–30 n.). It appears however that Clyt. and Iph. have not yet
entered and therefore do not hear 590–7, lines which make no explicit
mention of marriage (even if a theatre audience would take them to
imply it); Clyt. makes the first mention at 609–10. (3) 590–1 and 596–7
are perhaps part of a disguised but personal ‘beatitude’ made to match
the general one sung by the Chorus in 543–57 (see also 607–30 n., last
sentence before Art). On the other hand, they know that ‘happiness’ is
not coming, so that their knowledge may falsify their ‘beatitude’, and it
can be objected that this only creates an ironic effect which is singularly
 Commentary 399

inappropriate. (4) There are two large faults, both in 592: the Argive
Clyt., let alone the girl Iph., is not the Chalcidean Chorus’ queen, and
the line is unmetrical. Both faults can be easily healed (see 590–7 Details
below, Text). (5) 590–1 are the first confirmation that the Chorus will
keep silent about Ag.’s plan (542); it is perhaps borne out by their later
forecast that the Greeks will indeed reach Troy to attack it (Second Ode,
751–72 – and that is the next time we hear from the Chorus).
In [598–606] there are strong reasons for suspicion: (1) Their
emphasis on a gentle reception for the travellers preempts Clyt.’s own
concern in 610b–27, esp. for Iph. in 613–16. (2) Some details are so
similar to Clyt.’s arrival by carriage in El. 988–95 that they appear to
derive from it. (3) The prep. ἄπο enjambed across anapaestic dimeters in
599–600 is clumsy at best. (4) 601–4 are textually and metrically corrupt
(and irremediable except by wholesale conjecture); and they contain two
egregious errors: (5) 602 Iph. is already ‘famous’ to wives from Chalcis
(still worse would be the natural inference from 604 that it is the baby
Orestes who is famous and to be spared ‘trouble’ and ‘alarm’); (6) 604
θόρυβον stands with long -υ-, not Classical. Most editors (and Ritchie)
have condemned the lines. Lesser reasons for suspicion are given under
Details of 598–606 below.
Our judgement: we retain 590–7 rather than 598–606, like Jouan,
Günther, Stockert (but see on 592 below), Matthiessen, Ritchie and
Turato, against the doubts of Page and Diggle, but with our own
misgivings (see also 607–30 n.). In the first performance text, something
must have stood between 589 and 607, or between 589 and 633, whether
Euripidean in conception at the least, or wholly interpolated.]
Details of 590–7. 590–1 Hail, hail!: ἰὼ ἰώ is here an exclamation of
delight, e.g. in various greetings Ion 1445, Pho. 310, S. Trac. 219; singly
A. Ag. 503, 518. happiness: εὐδαιμονίαι plur. also of a (past) wedding
Supp. 997, cf. εὐαμερίαι ‘happy day(s)’ of an imminent one Phaethon
91. the great: μεγάλων: also 594, Hipp. 1465 etc.   595 happily
long: εὐμήκεις: a prose adj., but cf. μῆκος ‘length’ of e.g. joy S. Ant. 393,
prosperity Empedocles 31 B 119 DK. The adj. is judged by some to be
colourless here with the neutral noun τύχας fortunes, but the first member
εὐ- ‘good-, well-’ suffices; Stockert cites Hel. 678 τύχης εὐδαίμονος
‘good fortune from the gods’.   596–7 the powerful: οἱ κρείσσους
also e.g. Archelaus F 261.2. the wealthy: the adj. ὀλβοφόρος is unique,
400 Commentary

but cf. οἱ ὄλβιοι Supp. 238 the rich (in a polis), Danae F 327.1. gods:
mortals supreme in power are equal to gods (ἰσόθεος) Α. Pers. 80, Tro.
1169, and in wealth and happiness El. 994–5 ‘I revere you (Clyt.) equally
with the blessed gods for your great wealth and happiness’ (possibly the
model for our passage); for other exx. see Diggle on Phaethon 240.
Recent editors generally dismiss Murray’s suggestion that 590–7
were delivered by a secondary chorus of Argive soldiers, whom 592 ‘my
queen’ would suit; Stockert gives the proposal the fullest consideration,
but inclines to delete the lines. The principle of Occam’s Razor is powerful
against Murray: why posit an unannounced body of male singers, for just
a few lines, who then fall from notice? The male slaves brought by Clyt.,
whom she tells to take dowry-gifts from the carriage (610–12), would be
silent extras (see 607–30 n.), like Ach.’s silent soldiers (1359). A Tragic
chorus always identifies itself upon entry, or its identity is announced,
and that will have sufficed for the audience. The secondary chorus in
Hippolytus of Hippolytus’ attendants is carefully introduced before they
sing, and it is no less carefully taken off-stage a while later: 54–5, 61–71;
108, 114–16; but in some editions these attendants share 1102–41 with the
main chorus. (A soldier-chorus was nevertheless deployed convincingly
in the 2015 Syracuse production of IA, on which see Introduction pp.
44–5. Its helpful effect was to project the latent influence of the army 514
etc. and the army’s pejorative alias as the mass or mob, 526 etc.)
Greek. 597 τοῖς οὐκ εὐδαίμοσι In the eyes of: for the dat. of reference
cf. Med. 509 πολλαῖς μακαρίαν ‘blest in the eyes of many’ (a now
embittered Medea speaking of her marriage), S. Trac. 1071 πολλοῖσιν
οἰκτρός ‘pitiful…’; Smyth 1496.
[Text. 592 Bothe’s deletion of ἐμήν from ‘my (queen)’ restores phrasing
and sense, ‘princess Iphigenia’; and it removes a metrical fault in chanted
anapaests impossible for Eur. (syllabic overlap between metra: Barrett,
Hippolytos p. 368 n. 1), except at the end of metrical periods as in 597,
606; but there is a similar fault in 593. Matthiessen however suggested
that ‘queen’ may be a polite recognition by the Chorus of Clyt.’s status.
Healers must also ask, How did ἐμήν intrude?
Metre. 593 Τυνδάρεω with -εω scans as one long syllable (synizesis)
like 55 Τυνδάρεῳ; whence no accent upon -ω from enclitic τε.]
Details of [598–606]. Suspicions and weaknesses, in addition to
those noted above: 598 στῶμεν is suspect because of 619 στῆτε, as is
 Commentary 401

599 δεξώμεθα because of 616 δέξασθε; ἔκγονα is a near-synonym of

θρέμματα, and although it is an adj. Eur. uses its plur. invariably as a
noun, and its sing. almost always. θρέμμα is lit. ‘a fostered offspring’,
used most commonly of animals, but of a child S. OT 1143, Phil. 243.
600–1 the successive two-word phrases are even poorer writing amid
these wretched lines. 602–4 are faulty throughout in language and metre.
606 the word-play on foreign(ers) is pointless.
[Text. 601 μαλακῇ γνώμῃ L with gentle intention is defensible
as extending and emphasizing ἀγανῶς kind (lit. ‘kindly’): μαλακῇ
ῥώμῃ (Hermann) ‘with gentle strength’, implying physical support, is
nevertheless an attractive if mild oxymoron. just arrived: νεωστί …
μολόν is clumsy and superfluous. We ignore other attempts to improve
the text.]
607–30 Deleted wholly or in part by many early editors; suspect to
almost all recent ones; defended cautiously by Jouan (see also Matthiessen
below).
The greatest problem is the conflict between Iph.’s knowledge of her
marriage to Achilles implicit from her hearing Clyt. allude to it in 607–
10a and 628–9, and her obvious ignorance of it as fact in her exchange
with Ag. 631–85a, even if her question in 670 ‘Can it really be that you’re
moving me to another home, father?’ is a shy allusion to marriage in
general (on this problem see also 905 n.). Dramatic (and psychological)
credibility rests upon Iph.’s ignorance in her exchange with Ag. Later she
learns of her death-sentence only off-stage, between her exit in 685 and
re-entry in 1120: we are told that she knows of it in 1102, and therefore
of the falsity of her marriage, no doubt from Clyt. who herself learns of
both only from the Old Man, 873–89.
There is a second, less serious conflict: Clyt. in 625–6 knows of
Achilles’ goddess-mother but asks to be told his parentage in 696 (but
see 697–740 n., at start). Internal problems: (1) The males addressed in
611–12 must be slaves accompanying Clyt. The young women νεανίδες
in 615, and you other young women in 619, are more likely to be
her maids than the women of the Chorus (although they are addressed
with νεανίδες by Iph. 1467, 1491): Clyt. could scarcely give orders to
clearly independent women, who may be young but are married, 188;
and their more elaborate dress and masks might make clear that they
were not slaves (there is inadequate evidence for such differentiation
402 Commentary

in status by means of costume, both in real life and in the theatre; for
example, [Xenophon] Athen. Respublica (‘The Old Oligarch’) I.10 says
that ordinary people at Athens dressed no better than slaves); but the
play’s director would ensure that Clyt. faced and addressed only the
‘right’ women. All these identities would be clear in performance, from
gestures. (2) The command in 627 †sit† – if correct (see n.) – is difficult
both if it is addressed to the infant Orestes, and if it indicates Iph. when
she is at once sent to speak to Ag., 630. (3) Women are ordered to take
men’s normal responsibility for steadying horses, 619. (4) Words and
phrases are repeated unstylishly: 610–11 ~ 616 carriage; 613 ~ 619 ~
620 ~ 623 horses; 613 ~ 618 leave; 627 ~ 30 the command here. (5)
Expression is weak or inaccurate in 607, 623, 624, 630. (6) The end
of 622 replicates that of 466 (but such distant repetitions are frequent
in Eur. (7) There is a metrical anomaly in 615. (8) Orestes’ presence at
all is questioned by some editors: see (B) 414b–41 n. Text. Some of the
linguistic and stylistic problems are taken up in single line-notes below.
We judge that while the theatrical conception is worthy of Eur., he
could not have written Clyt.’s speech as it stands. Its deletion however is
an extreme measure, and damaging to performance, whether or not 590–7
are kept (above). We therefore accept that the passage must be a theatre-
man’s (or -men’s) carelessly managed insertion where the play-text was
incomplete or faulty; and it does contain good things, esp. the depiction
of Clyt.’s proud satisfaction and motherly concern (Cavander (1973) 111
finds here ‘the kind of character drawing which became extremely popular
through the naturalistic drama of the fourth century … it could have been
written for a high comedy’). These qualities in Clyt. will underlie her
anger and strength against Ag. when confronting him – and be part-cause
of Achilles’ admiration for both mother and daughter. These arguments
are stressed by Matthiessen; Jouan p. 84 n. 7 nicely observes that Clyt.’s
extended concern for Orestes in 621–6 would pique an audience well
familiar with his later matricide. Two small further points: while 607–8
presuppose something like the felicitations of 590–7, those earlier verses
can exist without the later; 633–4 (when moved before 631–2: see n.) make
a satisfactory entry-greeting to the person who matters, from Clyt. to her
husband – and to her supposed master (see 725, 739).
607–8 omen: ὄρνις lit. ‘bird’, one observed for divination, becomes by
metonymy the omen itself and is often accompanied by αἴσιος favourable,
 Commentary 403

e.g. Pind. Nem. 9.18–19, S. OT 52; the context sometimes colours the
simple word ὄρνις as ‘unfavourable’, e.g. 988 below; similarly οἰωνός
‘bird’, explicit at 1347. Pho. 858 has ‘I count (ἐθέμην) your victory-
wreaths an omen’ (οἰωνός). Words spoken by chance are ominous Ion
1189–91 (also οἰωνός). goodness: τὸ χρηστόν of a thing valued, here
the friendly greeting; friendship Or. 451; even absolute power Pho. 507;
in the context here cf. our idiom ‘Thanks: it’s good of you!’
Greek. 607 ποιούμεθα count; here the mid. conveys the personal
interest: see LSJ A.V.   608 εὐφημίαν (trans. as adj. auspicious) is
a noun without the def. art. coupled to a preceding one which has it,
common enough (Smyth 1143), but here uncommonly the nouns have
differing gender, as e.g. Dem. 2.9 τὰ χωρία καὶ λίμενας ‘the places and
the harbours’. Hendiadys (53 n.) therefore seems close: ‘your auspicious
fair words’.
609–10a some expectation: ἐλπίς as e.g. A. Ag. 999, S. Aj. 606, cf.
below 786 n. ‘some’ τινα is meiotic in understatement, i.e. ‘great’:
371, 983, 1012 and nn.; see e.g. Collard on Supp. 40, 288; Smyth
1268–9. escorting a bride: as Ag. imagined Clyt. at 457–8, cf. her
hopes at 693, disappointment 732, 734. The word νυμφαγωγός stresses
that Clyt. has embarked on a mother’s role in the marriage – which she
will not readily relinquish. It is a rare word, but so is 48 συννυμφοκόμος,
the Old Man as part of Clyt.’s dowry (see 610b–12 n.). excellent
(marriage): ἐσθλοῖσιν, allusive plur.: marriage to a man of high birth
and quality 625, 711–12; not, pace Stockert and others, ‘fortunate’, LSJ
ἐσθλός II.3.
Greek. δέ is continuative, approximating to γάρ, ‘explaining’ 607–8:
see e.g. Mastronarde on Pho. 198; GP 189; there is no contrast with 607
μέν. for: ἐπί: 29 n.
610b–12 carriage: ὀχημάτων: for the translation see 618 n. attendants:
Clyt. has male slaves, no doubt as protection for women travelling, and
some perhaps to form part of Iph.’s dowry. The part. translated carefully
is masc.; the gender helped to provoke Murray’s suggestion that 590–7
were uttered by soldiers from Argos: see ‘Details of 590–7’ above.
Greek. ἔξω: enjambement (50–1 n.) of an (adverbial) prep. is very rare
in Eur., cf. e.g. Or. 1216–17 δόμων | πάρος: see Platnauer on IT 987–8.
613–14 my child, please: ὦ τέκνον μοι as e.g. Alc. 313, Ion
1399. delicate: ἁβρός of a fine, pampered lady, describing e.g. Helen’s
404 Commentary

walk Hel. 1528, Jason’s bride Med. 1164, Deianeira as bride S. Trac. 523.
[Text. 614 ἀσθενές L ‘weak’ – but why the attribution of feebleness
to Iph., as if needing support in dismounting, 615–16? She would be
an adolescent. The emphatic coupling with ‘delicate’ by means of θ’
ἅμα is both wrong and empty, and may indicate incompetent haste in an
interpolator. Both difficulties are removed by ἀσφαλῶς χαμαί Hermann
safely to the ground, which fills out the picture well.]
615–16 [Text. Both νεανίδαισιν L and νεανίδεσσιν Tr are awkward
as adjectival (e.g. Alc. 679), women’s ‘sturdy young’ arms. Pierson’s
changed articulation of this word as νεανίδες νιν supplied an object pron.
to δέξασθε, without removing the metrical rarity (see Metre); Monk’s
improvements cost a violent transposition (see apparatus), but he
preferred to delete both 615 and 616.
Metre. 615 The scansion of νεαν- as one long syllable (synizesis) is
very rare in Tragedy (Fries (2014) on Rhesus 886–8).]
617–18 For help in dismounting cf. El. 998–9 (possibly a model for
our passage: 590–7 n.). seat … carriage: an ἀπήνη was a four-wheeled
vehicle with a sided body; Clyt. has one at El. 998. A synonym is ἅμαξα
‘cart, wagon’ (see DELG: thus Iliad 24.324 and 266 respectively, cf.
A. Ag. 1039 and 1054). Both could accommodate seats for travellers:
again cf. Ag. 1054. We use ‘carriage’ to translate also ὄχημα 610 and
ὄχος 613, 623, words meaning lit. ‘conveyance’ (ὄχημα is a ship IT
410); they derive from the verb ὀχέω combining the senses ‘support’ and
‘transport’, itself deriving from a lost verb ἔχω etymologically related to
Latin ueho (whence our ‘vehicle’): see DELG 2 ἔχω. Travelling vehicles
were normally drawn by mules, ἡμίονοι: this word is metrically difficult
for dramatic dialogue, which therefore uses ‘horse’, e.g. ἵππος or, as in
our passages, πῶλος lit. ‘young horse, colt, filly’. a supporting hand:
στηρίγματα allusive plur.; a rare word, of a house’s ‘supports’, i.e. its
children, Adespota F 427 TrGF.
Greek. 617 in ἐνδότω the preverb ‘in’ ἐν- looks ‘pointless’ (Page), but
it emphasizes the context for the action; cf. Hec. 1239 ‘afford’ starting-
points for immediate argument. ἀπήνης attributive gen., as Tro. 572
ἀπήνης νώτοισι a carriage’s ‘back’, its body; Smyth 1320a.   618 ὡς
ἄν and subjunctive of purpose, not rare in verse: [1425]; Smyth 2201a.
619 frightened: φοβερός of horses e.g. Pl. Rep. 413b (by noise);
fretful therefore, tempting the alternative translation ‘frightening, to be
 Commentary 405

feared’. looks: lit. ‘the eye (is frightened)’: ‘a horse shows its fear in
its eyes’, Stockert.
Greek. αἱ δέ (you) other (young women) presupposes αἱ μέν, lacking
with the ‘young women’ of 615; such omission is common, e.g. 430–2
(n.); Smyth 2838, esp. b, KG I.584–5; GP 165. Grammars afford no
parallel for the def. art. as a vocative pronoun, even in this idiom. ἐς τὸ
πρόσθεν at the front of with gen. happens to recur at Pl. Rep. 550e (for
the adv. see on 610–11); without gen. in Eur. at Hel. 1579.
[Text. Because of the seeming impropriety of women managing horses
(607–30 n.), Dobree/Höpfner conjectured οἱ δέ, ‘you other men’.]
622 baby: νήπιος ‘infant(ile)’: of Orestes again 1244; it was his age
when the War began, IT 230–2, 834–6, Or. 377–8. For the speculative
etymology (it is not ‘not speaking’, Latin infans) see DELG. But Or.
indeed does not speak, 1245.
623–4 We understand δαμείς (ὄχῳ) lit. ‘laid low, overcome’ as
exhausted by the motion of the carriage, the Greek expression being
elliptical (see Text); but it is tolerable, as in our ‘exhausted by the train’.
Greek. ἐγείρω intrans. ‘wake (up)’ has no certain parallel (on Ar.
Frogs 340 see commentators). There are comparable verbs, however,
e.g. ἔπειγε ‘hurry!’ S. El. 1435; Smyth 1709d. εὐτυχῶς adv. ‘in happy
fortune’ goes not with ‘Wake up’ but with the whole sentence; similarly
IT 1481, Pho. 1206.
[Text. 623 Stockert suggested δρόμῳ for (πωλικῷ) … ὄχῳ, ‘exhausted
by the run(ning), pace (of the horses)’; for the idea he cites And. 992
πωλικοῖς διώγμασιν ‘pursuit on horseback’.]
625–6 connection: κῆδος lit. ‘care, concern’ and so a ‘relationship
bringing obligation’, esp. marriage e.g. Med. 400, 700. excellent: see
609 n.; the adj. ἀγαθός often registers the qualities of the high-born, e.g.
346, and its superlative form ἄριστος generated the poetic noun ἀριστεύς
‘one supreme in war’, e.g. 28 (n.), Iliad 2.404 etc. Achilles’ high birth is a
constant of the play, 100–1, 134, 695–712 (n.), 819, 836, 855–6, 896, 901,
903, 1339: see Introduction pp. 23–4. god-like: 596–7 n. The Chorus
describe the Greek heroes at Aulis as ‘demi-gods’ ἡμίθεοι 173 (n.).
[Text. 626 Diggle (1994) 494–5 asks how L’s acc. γένος (‘offspring’,
e.g. Cyc. 104) can stand in apposition with acc. κῆδος meaning
‘connection’, and emends to the gen. γένους in apposition with ἀνδρός
(as in our text and translation as man, the … offspring); most eds accept
406 Commentary

the acc. as apposition of one noun to another near in sense, ‘defining’

it (the new ‘connection’ will be Thetis’ ‘son’): see Smyth 976, 988.
Diggle prefers κόρης Murray to τὸ <τῆς> Portus (retaining L’s def. art.)
as remedy for both syntactical and metrical deficiency; he compares 701
Νηρέως κόρην and 1062 ὦ Νηρηῒ κόρα.]
627–30 have multiple problems, of stage-realisation as well as in
language and metre; they hardly represent a clear intention, let alone
Euripides’ own wording: see 607–30 n. and nn. below.
627 †sit … my child: Or., it appears: an infant (622 n.) is improbably
told to seat himself – ‘unless Clyt. puts him down herself with this word’
(A. Fries); for the question whether a live infant or a dummy was used
see B 414b–41 n. Text. Then in 628 Clyt. calls Iph. to join them, so that
Ag. may see this family group about to celebrate a marriage: with due
formality she addresses Ag. to announce their presence in obedience to
his commands 633–4 (see n. on Text there), before Iph. preempts Clyt.’s
wish she should call to her father 630 by running forward to embrace him
631–2. For an attempt to visualise and reconstruct the staging from the
‘Homeric’ bowl (590 n.) see Stockert.
[Text. Not all eds agree on the movements, however. Markland
changed κάθησο †sit to καθίστω ‘stand, place yourself’ (Iph., not
Or.), matching 629 σταθεῖσα ‘stand in place’; cf. 861 ἕσταμεν ‘we’re
standing here’. Indeed, on what should anyone ‘sit’? It means nothing
that the ‘Homeric’ bowls show Ag. himself seated on a throne (see 590
n. Art). The phrasing ἑξῆς … μου ποδός ‘beside my feet’ is clumsy with
the double gen., although πούς with gen. sometimes means ‘a person
(moving)’, e.g. Her. 336 ὁμαρτεῖτ’ ἀθλίῳ μητρὸς ποδί ‘accompany your
wretched mother as she goes’.]
628–9 blest: as mother of the bride-to-be, 610 and n.; for μακάριος see
439 n.
[Text. 628 πρὸς μητέρα To your mother, a command without an
explicit verb (cf. 630 n.) is superfluous and awkward.   629 θές Camper
make me (blest) looks a necessary correction, cf. 1076–8 μακάριον …
ἔθεσαν (the marriage of Peleus to Thetis, 1404 (Achilles’ dashed hope of
the marriage): δός L means at best ‘present (me to…)’, but then a second
predicative acc. meaning ‘as blest’ is unparalleled.]
630 here!: δεῦρο δή, another command without a verb, as in English,
e.g. Bacc. 341. The whole line is suspect, however: it was devised to
 Commentary 407

prepare for 631–2 when they were (impossibly) followed by 633–4; now
it is at best clumsy directly before Clyt.’s greeting of Ag.
[Text. There is an irregular caesura, dividing the line exactly in half
and unjustified by any special effect, and easily corrected by Fix’s
transposition. The line was deleted first by Porson.]
633–750 After Clyt.’s formal address of Ag., Iph. runs to embrace
her father. She is disconcerted by his evasive greetings and then his
answers to her innocent questions, and learns only that, after an already
long separation (640, 660), there is to be an even longer and distant one
(651). She infers this will be his absence at Troy (662), for which she
curses Menelaus’ ‘wrongs’ (658 n.: a dramatist’s echo of Ag.’s 380–
411, 467–8). Ag. deflects her hope to sail with her father into further
unanswered questions about her role in a coming sacrifice (673–6).
Their exchange is blackly ironic, mostly in stichomythia (640–77 n.).
Ag. cannot control his tears 684 (cf. 451–2, 477, 496), and dismisses Iph.
into his hut (678, 685a). D. Lateiner in EGT 655 outlines concisely the
‘disconnect between (Ag.’s) word and body language, between affection
and duty, that he cannot hide’ in his exchange with Iph.
At 685 Ag. then turns, as he can no longer avoid, to Clyt.; Ritchie
well observes that ‘it is good dramatic technique to keep us waiting for
this encounter’, so feared by Ag. (see n. on ‘590 Staging’), after we have
first seen ‘the genuine tenderness’ between daughter and father. Ag. asks
Clyt.’s pardon for his tears (685b–90), which she grants sympathetically
(691–4). When she turns naturally to enquire about Achilles as the
bride-groom (695–711) and then the wedding itself, dismay overcomes
her as Ag. hides details of the ceremony and gives the bride’s mother
nothing of her expected role (he says, to maintain decorum in a military
camp). Refusing to obey him, she nevertheless goes into the hut; but
text is almost certainly lost after 739 from her response which may have
illuminated her subsequent behaviour. Their exchange, like that of Iph.
and Ag., is mostly in stichomythia (697–740 n.). Ag. is acceptant, but
again in despair, defeated in his plans (745: n.), hoping only to manage
the sacrifice ‘for the best’ (741–8, a short speech).
This Second Episode’s ending, bleak for Ag., clearly reprises that of
the First (536–41). In its course Eur. finishes developing the father to
prepare for his moral collapse when he makes his next and final entry for
408 Commentary

the Fourth Episode 1098–1275; and he begins shaping the characters of

both mother and daughter for the turmoils that lie ahead.
The Chorus are silent throughout the episode, from 607–750: similarly
e.g. IT 658–899; and IT 1156 is their one perfunctory line throughout
1152–1233. See Introduction p. 32.
633–4 Clyt. is at first properly respectful of her royal husband. revered:
the noun σέβας ‘august majesty’, addressing a (much) superior person,
has no parallel in Eur.; addressing a divine power, Justice, Or. 1242. Its
use here may stem from A. Cho. 157 σέβας … ὦ δέσποτα ‘Your Majesty
… master!’, also Ag. – but there he is addressed as retaining his living
majesty in death; cf. also A. Pers. 694–5 the chorus’ awed address to
the ghost of Darius, σέβομαι μὲν προσίδεσθαι, σέβομαι δ’ ἀντία λέξαι
‘I am in awe to look at you, I am in awe to speak directly to you’. Note
however the verbs of deference to rulers σέβω Hcld. 25, Dictys F 337.2,
σεβίζω A. Ag. 785 (Ag. again). we have not disobeyed: obedience is
again demanded of Clyt. by Ag. in 725, 739, a wife’s duty 726. Ag. has
been reduced to this impasse by her arrival: he did not send for her, only
Iph. (456–7).
[Text. These two lines must be transposed before 631–2 (Porson) to
restore logic to the stage-movements: see 627 n. Page however favoured
deletion, suspecting the use not only of σέβας but also the nom. form
Ἀγαμέμνων used vocatively (but he ackowledged Ἀμφίων as parallel,
Antiope F 223.91 TrGF = 97 Diggle TrGFS (1998)/Collard and Cropp
(2008)). Kovacs (2002) suggests a lacuna before 631, deleting 633–7
with Bremi.]
631–2 run out ahead of you: Iph. is eager, but wary, unnecessarily
as it proves, of her mother’s reaction, do not be angry; this is a plea
interrupting a sentence as e.g. 361 (n.). clasp … breast to breast: for
such filial affection cf. Polyxena to her mother Hecuba at Hec. 410 ‘grant
me cheek to press to cheek’, and our 681, Ag.’s delayed response to this
physical contact.
Greek. 631 (ὑποδραμοῦσα): ὑποτρέχω ‘intercept (another’s
movement)’: see LSJ III (not I); Willink on Or. 670 compares ὑποθέω
‘cut in before’, LSJ I.2.
[Text. 632 προσβαλῶ Porson ‘press … to’ is a necessary correction
of περιβαλῶ L ‘embrace’, just as the reverse change must be made in
[636].]
 Commentary 409

[635–7] Deleted by Porson: 635–6 clearly duplicate the wording

of 631–2, and the end of 637 that of 631. 635 and 636 have metrical
problems. The sense of 637 ὄμμα … σόν is uncertain, either ‘your
looking at me’ or ‘my sight of you’. With <very> we translate <δὴ> P2,
emphatic; its relation to γάρ here is doubtful: GP 244.
638–9 all the children: four (1164–5, Or. 22–4), Iph. (the oldest, 1020),
Electra, Chrysothemis, Orestes. loved him most: El. 1102–4 Clyt. to El.
‘My child, affection for your father is in your nature. This happens; some
children belong to their fathers, while others are more devoted to their
mothers’ (trans. Cropp). Daughters more pleasing to a father Supp. 1101–3,
cf. Her. 536. Iph. indeed expresses her closeness through repeated appeals
to him with ‘O father!’ ὦ πάτερ, not only in their following exchange
640, [652], 656, 662, 664, 670, 676, but also in her final supplication
1211, 1229 (the penultimate line of the intensely filial 1216–30), 1237,
1245. The styling of her often oblique requests may owe something to
Nausicaa’s to her father in Odyssey 6; note her initial ‘Daddy, dear’ 6.57.
In our 669–71 Ag. has to fend off her likely mention of marriage, while
at Od. 6.66–7 Homer can offer a narrator’s commentary, ‘Nausicaa was
ashamed to name marriage and its new joy outright to her dear father’; later
the impressionable girl fantasizes about Odysseus (244–5), but is wary of
reproachful gossip (273–5): cf. Iph’s different shame on first encountering
Ach. 1341–2. See too our 426–34 n.
Greek. εἶ pres. tense and ἀεί ποτε ‘always and ever’ where English has
a perf. ‘have … been’; but with a past tense at 870.
640–77 Stichomythia, shot through with ironic ambiguities as Ag.
dissembles: 640–51 awkward exchange of feelings, with Iph.’s joy in
contrast with Ag.’s gloom, ending with Ag.’s explanation that a long
parting faces them; 662–4, 653–61 its causes: Paris of Troy and Menelaus’
troubles; and Ag. has already been too long at Aulis; 666–77 Iph.’s
questions about accompanying her father, and assisting at the sacrifice
he must make, are evaded by Ag. Note that the last section begins with a
heavy sigh from Iph., 666.
The stichomythia is analysed at length by Schwinge (1968) 186–90
(who resists Jackson’s transpositions, for which see 652–65 n.), together
with Alc. 509–45, Med. 922–31 and 1008–20 as examples of slow-
moving exchanges in which one party tries to conceal facts from the
other. Other good analyses are by Jouan and esp. of the ironies by Turato
410 Commentary

(and by Ritchie); the ironies are observed by Rutherford (2012) 329–34,

at 333, among ‘(malign) scenes of entrapment’ such as Med. 922–31,
El. 1123–41, Or. 1323–46. The dialogue relies greatly on couplets or
successive lines coordinated in wording and effect, a feature of the most
effective stichomythia.
640 Greek. ἐσεῖδον I am glad to see: ingressive aor., of the start of
seeing: Smyth 1924–5. after … time: χρόνῳ: for this sense of the dat.
of time, ‘at (the end of, over)’, cf. e.g. IT 306, Tro. 20; Smyth 1540.
641 yes, and your father…: on the surface a make-weight line, but the
reciprocation with 640 is part of the irony, cf. 649; Ag. is hardly ‘glad’,
460–2.
Greek. καὶ γάρ: 651 n.
[Text. Kovacs (2002) deletes both 640 and 641; without them 642 is
rather cool as Iph.’s first words to her father.]
642 Greetings!: χαῖρε accepts the sentiment of 641. me: the position
of the Greek pron. (as an enclitic advanced as usual: 1153 n.) permits its
association with both done well (for me) and bring, making poignant
irony: Ag. has done well by and for Iph. by bringing her to her death.
Greek. In the colloquial idiom εὖ … ποιέω and a part. (‘thank you for
…ing’) the aor. ἐποίησας is usual (Stevens (1976) 54), e.g. Med. 472.
644 (with a start): ἔα What?: marking surprise rather than
consternation (Ag. at 317, with n.). So ὡς How…! is exclamatory rather
than explanatory (see Greek).
Greek. εὔκηλον ‘at ease, relaxed (from care)’ is an adj. ‘agreeing’
with an idiomatically suppressed acc. neut. noun βλέμμα with the verb
(οὐ) βλέπεις, cf. e.g. Alc. 773 σεμνόν ‘look solemn’; 576 n. Greek and
1055 n. Greek. The form εὔκηλος is commoner in verse than its doublet
ἕκηλος (see Text), e.g. S. El. 786–7 ἕκηλα … ἡμερεύσομεν ‘spend our
days peacefully’): see DELG.
[Text. Iph.’s surprise permits consideration of Nauck’s conjecture πῶς
οὐ… ; ‘How is it that you look uneasy when you are glad to see me?’
εὔκηλον L: ἕκηλον Blomfield, printed by Stockert.]
645 king … many cares: the idea recalls Ag. 16b–27, and is as old as
Iliad 2.24–5; cf. ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown’ Henry IV Part
II 3.1.29. For the phrase ἀνὴρ βασιλεύς cf. e.g. Iliad 3.170, Supp. 444; it
is a usage of ἀνήρ (often ‘real man’) as expressing status, respectful here
and e.g. 711, cf. 1450 n.; Smyth 986b.
 Commentary 411

646–7 Be with me now … I am with you: a very telling example of

stichomythic reciprocation: again see the end of 640–77 n. altogether,
and nowhere else: but he is ‘elsewhere’ throughout, and Iph.’s words
reveal her anxiety about the ‘distance’ between them, past, present and
future, 662, 664, 656, 660, 666, 672, 676.
Greek. 646 The prep. παρά is powerful here, ‘be wholly engaged with,
stand by’; contrast 1352 where the Myrmidons do not ‘stand by, support’
Ach.; see LSJ πάρειμι I.4. (ἐ)πὶ φροντίδας to anxieties also Ion 583, F 964.2.
648 Away with this frown: ὀφρῦν lit. ‘eyebrow’, with λύω ‘undo’
Hipp. 290; for μεθίημι here cf. Med. 590 of giving up anger. Frowning e.g.
Alc. 777, Hipp. 172. give me a loving look: this must be the meaning,
lit. ‘extend (ἔκτεινον) a look of love’, with φίλον predicative/proleptic
‘(so it becomes) loving’; cf. 1238 ὄμμα δός φίλημά τε ‘give me your
eyes and a kiss’, where Iph. appeals to Ag. for the last time, and Ag.’s
679 φίλημα δοῦσα δεξίαν τέ μοι ‘give me a kiss and your hand (i.e. to
clasp)’. ἔκτεινον in 648 is usually translated ‘smooth, clear your face’ on
the strength of S. F 902 ὡς ἄν Διὸς μέτωπον ἐκταθῇ χαρᾷ ‘so that Zeus’
brow may be cleared by joy’, where the fragment’s sources offer it as
illustration of this idea, and Pearson adduces Greek examples (including
Hipp. 290 above), and Latin Ter. Brothers 439 exporge frontem.
649 Look: ἰδού: compliant, very common and near-colloquial, cf.
1120, 1144; ‘There!’, Stevens (1976) 35. Ag. tries to match Iph.’s lighter
tone. I have all the joy I can have: γέγηθα … ὡς γέγηθα: a main
verb repeated in a rel. clause is a marked Tragic locution, very often
euphemistic and evasive, as e.g. 659, 721, 1182; cf. esp. Tro. 630 ὄλωλεν
ὡς ὄλωλεν ‘she died as she died’ (the sacrificed Polyxena); copiously
illustrated by Denniston on El. 1141. Ag. throws up a smoke-screen.
650 Greek. κἄπειτα and κᾆτα And then esp. in stichomythia mark
a ‘surprised, indignant or sarcastic question’, a frequent colloquialism
(Stevens (1976) 47), e.g. 894, Or. 419. Distinguish their use in a
structured speech, e.g. 343 and n.
651 coming absence: has the marked assonance in the Greek (ἐ)
πιοῦσ(α) ἀπουσία significance? Hardly Ag.’s ‘tension’ (Jouan)? Does
it emphasize the issue which dominates the rest of the exchange? Is it
unconscious? Clyt. uses the same words ‘long absence’ in 1172.
Greek. γάρ Yes, for, e.g. Or. 410, ‘very common in stichomythia’ GP
74; cf. 641 καὶ γάρ ‘Yes, and…’; GP 109–10.
412 Commentary

652–65 [Text. In L’s order of lines Iph.’s [652] is a wholly inadequate

‘prompt’ for Ag.’s 653 (and clumsily echoes 643 as well as containing
anapaestic prosody impossible for the Classical period); 662–4 illogically
renew attention to Troy after Ag.’s conclusive 661; [665] is senseless
after 664 (and is metrically corrupt at mid-verse: see Jackson (1955) 1–2,
Diggle (1994) 93–4). Jackson’s deletions of 652 and 665, together with
transposition of 662–4, superseded earlier attempts at cure, and almost all
recent editors adopt them; cf. Bain (1977b) 48–50 at 49 n. 1: ‘essential …
that 664 should precede 653’. Two awkward transitions remain, however:
662 now following 651 requires accepting a remarkably quick deduction
by Iph. that a ‘long absence’ will mean that of Ag. at Troy; similarly 653
as a reply to 664 is unconvincing unless Ag. means that Iph. has been
intelligent enough also to deduce from his unhelpful answer that Troy is
far away. A judicious discussion by Stockert.]
662 Where do they say…?: Iph.’s naively innocent enquiry leads to
Ag.’s reply heavy with his earlier agony (467–8 n.), and incomprehensible
to her. dwell: lit. ‘are now settled’, οἰκίζω meaning ‘settle, establish a
(new) home’, 670, 706; see Text and 663 n. All eds cite A. Pers. 231
ποῦ τὰς Ἀθήνας φασὶν ἱδρῦσθαι χθονός; ‘where on the earth do they say
Athens is established?’ In this line too the proper name Phrygians at its
first mention unusually has the def. art. (Smyth 1136); perhaps therefore
‘those well-known Phrygians’ (Stockert).
[Text. τοὺς: because of the unusual usage (above) Elmsley proposed
to substitute (ποῦ) γῆς ‘(Where) on the earth…?’, a phrase found e.g. El.
233, Hel. 492.]
663 (Paris … not) living (there): the verb οἰκεῖν is suggestive, in
addition to its response to 662 ‘dwell’. Does the dramatist intend to
recall 573–89, Paris’ fated and fatal return to live on Ida, where he was
exposed?
Greek. οἰκεῖν: a pres. inf. in an unreal wish with (μὴ) ὤφελον registers
‘if only (not) now’, but usually as the effect of a past action, e.g. Alc. 881:
Smyth 1781; it is much rarer than an aor. infin. (for which see e.g. 70,
1322).
[Text. Note Porson’s interchange of οἰκίζω and οἰκέω L in 662 and 706.]
664 Greek. μακράν a long way: see 420 n. ἀπαίρεις are sailing is
‘dynamic’ pres., as in 670, allied to the ‘prophetic’ pres.; Smyth 1879.
[Text. Wecklein conjectured ἀπαρεῖς fut., ‘you are about to sail’.]
 Commentary 413

[665] Greek. ἐς ταὐτόν … ἥξεις: for the idiom ‘come to the same’ cf. e.g.
El. 787 with fut. verb, Hec. 748 with ‘dynamic’ pres.
[Text. For the deletion see 652–65 n. ἥξεις Bothe, Weil fut.: ἥκεις L
pres.]
653 The understanding in your words: i.e. ‘you understand me only
too well’; for this as an unconvincing response to 664 see 652–65 n.
England’s idea that 653 is half an aside is rightly dismissed by Bain
(cited in 653 n., and again on 655).
654 with no understanding: for the word-play upon (ἀ)συνετα 653 cf.
466 and n. The line’s unexpected playfulness evokes the loving intimacy
between father and daughter.
Greek. νυν ‘so, in that case, then’, e.g. Hel. 1237, IT 1203. In the
latter place, as here, enclitic νυν has the less frequent long vowel: LSJ
II.1 cite also e.g. Or. 1678.
655 Oh no!: the exclamation marks not just Ag.’s sudden pain, but
also an emotional transition in the stichomythia, like that in 666. That
the sentence I do not have … silent explains (through asyndeton: 391
n.) Ag.’s agonized groan brought Bain to concede that this part of the
verse is perhaps an aside. Possibly, but the connective δέ ‘and/but’ which
follows in the Greek is then a little awkward if Iph. is to hear only Thank
you, though.
Greek. παπαῖ expresses any agony, mental e.g. Alc. 226, Cyc. 110, or
physical (Bond on Her. 1120). For the articular inf. τὸ σιγᾶν as obj. to
σθένω cf. S. Trac. 545 τὸ … ξυνοικεῖν … ἂν … δύναιτο ‘would be able to
share a home’, and below 657 n.; Smyth 2034e. ᾔνεσα: in thanks, 440 n.
656 Greek. For the prep. ἐπί for see 29 n.
657 Greek. τὸ μένειν articular inf. as acc. obj. with ἔχω as e.g. Peliades
F 610 τὸ γὰρ δρᾶν οὐκ … ἔχεις ‘you cannot do it’.
[Text. τὸ θέλειν L as obj. of οὐκ ἔχω ‘I cannot wish (it)’ is nonsense
after θέλω γε That is my wish. The obvious emendation is τὸ μένειν stay,
originating with England; it reflects ‘stay’ in 656. He wanted however to
punctuate after it, ‘That is my wish, to wait; but since I can’t, I feel pain’;
he distrusted γε approximating to μέν before δέ; this doubt is invalidated
by Diggle (1994) 495–6, adducing e.g. And. 5–6, 239 and GP 140–1.
Diggle nevertheless confined τὸ μένειν to his apparatus, citing with it only
Markland’s clever τὸ τελεῖν ‘to accomplish, do (it)’ (for the confusion τ/θ
in mss. see Diggle (1994) 470); this verb could here hint at the ritual of
414 Commentary

sacrifice, e.g. IT 464: see Ag.’s 673! Günther (1992) 123 suggested that
τὸ θέλειν was a gloss displacing an original τοῦτο ‘not being capable of
this’, i.e. staying: supported by Stockert, Matthiessen and Kovacs (2002).
It is likely that θέλ(ειν) was an assimilation to θέλ(ω) at line-beginning.]
658 A curse on: the imprecation is commonly directed at people, e.g.
Ion 704, IT 535, but cf. e.g. Auge F 275.1–2 in a moral generalisation.
Such a curse seems surprising pronounced by a young girl, but at the
same time illustrates her naivety. wrongs: κακά, done to him: 383–4
and n.
659 ruin … ruin: in the Greek the same word-root as ‘curse’ in
658: for this manoeuvre in stichomythia see 640–77 n. others first:
the effectiveness of the exchange depends upon Iph.’s not asking who
‘others’ are, like her not asking in 661 what ‘something’ is; with the
expression cf. Med. 1016 ‘I shall bring down others first’.
Greek. διολέσαντ(α) ‘has brought … ruin’: aor. part. with ἔχω
‘emphasizing permanence of result’, Hel. 718, Bacc. 302; Smyth 599b,
1963.
660 bay of Aulis: [1600] has ‘hollow bay of Aulis’, cf. 120–1 n.: μυχός
is a recess, a hidden place often difficult of access; Aulis’ distance from
Argos distresses Iph. Both Sicily and Greece are described as μυχοί when
imagined each from the other Cyc. 291, 297.
661 something: see 659 n.
666 Alas!: φεῦ, outside the metre: 710 n. right: καλόν: morally
‘good, honourable’, as e.g. 735 (n.), Or. 108 ἐς ὄχλον ἕρπειν παρθένοισιν
οὐ καλόν ‘it is improper for maiden girls to approach a crowd’ (cited by
Stockert).
[Text. Corrupt: lit. ‘(right) for me and you to take me as your fellow-
voyager’: accepted by most eds, but illogical, for sense and syntax
require disjunction between σοι τε ‘and you’ and the rest, ‘for me <to
sail with you> and for you to take me’. Hermann conjectured σε κἀμέ
σοι συμπλοῦν ἄγειν ‘that you take me also with you on the voyage’ and
Diggle σοι κἄμ’ ἄγειν συμπλοῦν ὁμοῦ ‘for you to take me also together
with you on the voyage’ (printed by Kovacs); for both see the apparatus.]    
667 voyage: Ag. means crossing Hades’ river, the Styx. where †you will
remember† your father: an unsolved difficulty. In her innocence Iph. can
take comfort from this idea (but her father hardly so in voicing it), and pass
to her next question, 667, about her mother’s accompanying her. If ‘not
 Commentary 415

remember’ is substituted (see Text below), she would naturally respond

unhappily to this final parting from her father, and that before asking her
next question. Ambiguity is no doubt intended, but with what purpose?
She herself seeks a very different final memory in 1238–40, a loving kiss.
Greek. ἔτ’ ἔστι There is still: dynamic pres. in both English and
Greek, like 664 ἀπαίρεις (n.); cf. Med. 366 ἔτ’ εἴσ’ ἀγῶνες ‘There are
still (to be) struggles…’. Triclinius in ms. L glossed ἔστι … πλοῦς with
ἔσται fut., ‘There will still be…’
[Text. We judge the text insecure at best. Editors use daggers, and are
divided between (1) ‘where … remember’, e.g. ἀμμνήσῃ Murray fut.
indic. of ἀναμιμνήσκομαι (with syncopation of the preverb ἀνα-: Smyth
75D): supported by Matthiessen; and (2) ‘where you will not remember’,
e.g. ἵν’ <οὐ> μνήσῃ Musgrave, Kovacs (2002) fut. indic., or ‘in order
that you may not remember’, e.g. ἵν’ ἀμνηστῇς Diggle pres. subj. – this
verb ἀμνηστέω in Eur. at Telephus F 727b.13.]
669 Greek. μόνη, μονωθεῖσ’ ἀπό: expressive pleonasm; the doubling
with Greek adj. and part. is increased by the prep. ἀπό with gen., an
idiom found e.g. Stheneboea F 668 ἀνεῦ τύχης … μονωθείς ‘alone …
without fortune’; gen. without prep. e.g. Alc. 296, 380.
670–80 Ag. pretends that he is performing ‘the role of a fond father’ in
marriage ritual: Foley (1985) 71–2.
670 Can it really be that…?: as in 668 Iph. seemingly touches on the
idea of marriage taking her to a new home, and away from her mother
and Argos: see 638–9 n. Ag. cuts her off in 671 in case she infers that
the other ‘home’ is that of Hades (cf. his 461); he cut her short similarly
in 675, between his black ambiguities in 673 and 677. In his last
ambiguous words to Iph., however, his 680 ‘live away from’ ἀποικήσειν
acknowledges 670 ‘move to another home’ οἰκίζειν.
Greek. οὔ που has the tone ‘Surely … not…?’, e.g. Ion 1113, Hel.
135; GP 492: ‘colloquial’ Stevens (1976) 24.
[Text. οἰκιεῖς Wecklein fut., matching Iph.’s tense in 668.]
671 let … be: ἐάω as Her. 1125 τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ἔα ‘Let the rest be’, Tro. 361.
Greek. The neut. plur. gerundive ἐατέ(α) without subject and verb
ἐστί is idiomatic; again in 734 and 1368 (Diggle (1994) 506–7); Smyth
1052.
[Text. L has ἔα γε, a brusque ‘Let be’, but Stadtmüller’s correction of
one letter to gerundive ἐατέ’·. We must let this be is rightly preferred
416 Commentary

by eds. In Jouan’s explicit ἔα γέ <μ’> ‘Let me be’ the pron. ‘me’ is

unwanted; and Ag. is still tender towards Iph. in 677–84.]
672 Greek. εὖ τίθημι put things right: a common phrase, e.g. 401;
Her. 605, Bacc. 49.
673 sacrifice: translation cannot reproduce the strong effect in the
Greek of the doubled word-root in differing grammatical forms ‘sacrifice
a sacrifice’ (e.g. El. 1141; cf. Greek) and with evasive τινα a certain.
Note Ag.’s similar deception of Clyt. in 721 – but there with tripling of
‘sacrifice’ (see n.).
Greek. Such doubling of the word-root is the rhetorical trope figura
etymologica, 467–8 n.
674 with religious rites … have regard for what is holy: vague, but
suiting expected propriety (673, 676) if ‘rites’ is the meaning of ἱεροῖς;
but the verb σκοπεῖν ‘(have) regard (for), consider’ (e.g. Supp. 301 τὰ τῶν
θεῶν ‘what is the gods’; S. OT 286) has suggested to some that ἱεροσκοπία
‘examination of the entrails (during sacrifice)’ is meant, as if Iph. hopes
it will be wise also to get favourable omens before the formal marriage.
Greek. σύν ‘(in conformity) with’: Smyth 1696d, LSJ A.6.
[Text. The nature of Iph.’s remark and its wording, and the initial ἀλλά
‘but’ (translated as Well), have caused unease (e.g. Stockert, Diggle):
Rauchenstein began the line ποίοισιν ἱεροῖς ‘With what kind of rites…?’,
to make a better transition to Ag.’s answer in 675; supported by Kovacs
(2002), but the change is violent and implies a gross scribal error. Some
eds have suspected the entire couplet; while 675 may seem presupposed
by 676, 674–5 do savour of a theatre-man’s eagerness to prolong the
ironies. Paley deleted 674–7, chiefly for linguistic reasons.]
675 You will come to know: εἴσῃ σύ: a formula, Hel. 811, but often
threatening, e.g. γνώσῃ σύ Hcld. 65, Supp. 580; such a tone here is
perhaps for the audience rather than for Iph. sprinkling of the water:
χέρνιβες, pure and purifying water, over the sacrificial offerings, Ag.
again at 1111 and e.g. Ach. at 955, Iph. at 1479; cf. El. 792 ‘so they stand
round the altar near the sprinkling’.
[Text. ἑστήξεις Elmsley stand fut. perf. act. and intrans.: -ήξῃ L pass.
‘made to stand’. Such active forms are rare in late 5th century Greek, e.g.
τεθνήξω from θνῄσκω (Smyth 581, cf. 584).]
676 dancing and song: the most frequent implication of χορός ‘a dancing
chorus’ (as that of Tragedy itself). set up: ἵστημι, here trans. (as Alc. 1155
 Commentary 417

also with χορούς) against the intrans. form of the same verb ‘stand’ in 675: a
conscious stichomythic effect, no doubt, but a little ‘cold’. Some eds make
the line a statement, ‘Then we shall…’: hardly less effective.
Greek. ἄρα ‘surprised’, Then, with the fut. as 1360; GP 37.
677 I envy you … because you do not understand: Iph. has been
prevented from understanding, and is enviable still, unlike Ag. who has
long been forced to realise what he now must do, 511, 540–1, 747–8.
But the verse is artfully ambiguous, for μηδὲν φρονεῖν can mean ‘have
no care’, but this sense is rejected by Bain (1977b) 51; in contrast with
Iph., anxiety has attended Ag. from the start of the play, 1–43. The verse
works less well as an ‘aside’.
Greek. ζηλῶ with gen., like ἄγαμαι 28 n. ἐμέ = ἐμαυτόν ‘myself’:
Hipp. 1409 στένω σε μᾶλλον ἢ ’μέ, IT 608 etc.; Smyth 1222–4.
678–94 Ag.’s parting from Iph. is as effective as his turning to Clyt.,
in his words 685b–90 and her acknowledgement 691–4; the emotion of
losing a daughter, ostensibly to marriage (688 and n.), marks the instincts
of both parents (689) at the beginning of Ag.’s closer dialogue with Clyt.,
but it turns her gradually from sympathy to baffled distancing.
678–80 hut: for the name see 1 n. girls are seen at their cost: that
is, in public, and esp. among males: their sense of shame, as far as good
character for decorum is concerned, is harmed (Iph. herself fears this
1340), and their marriageability, cf. El. 343–4, Hcld. 43–4 etc.; at Pho.
89–95 a princess is culpably out of doors; maiden girls are to be kept
secluded, our 738, cf. 149 n. Clyt. is similarly at risk: Achilles fears she
too will be damaged if seen in a military camp, 825–6, 1029–32. The adj.
πικρός lit. ‘bitter’ conveys once again the unpleasant recoil of an action
‘to one’s cost’ (510 n.), e.g. And. 225, Pho. 892; the word is emphasized
by enjambement (50–1 n.). For such statements in parenthesis, cf.
e.g. And. 691–2; questions or imperatives (e.g. 361 and n., 691–2) are
commonest: see Diggle (1981) 116 and (1994) 429 n. 40. Give me a
kiss etc.: the climax of the scene, at Iph.’s first parting from her father;
it is she who asks for Ag.’s kiss at their next and final on-stage parting
in 1238: see n. there and on 648. live far away … for a lengthy time:
earlier 651 and esp. 670 (see Text).
[Text. 680 suspect to England, and ‘as if 670 was forgotten’ Page, but
the verse (cf. above) is essential to the emotion of 681–4.]
681–5a breast … cheeks … hair: ‘breast’ recalls the embraces of
418 Commentary

632; the moment and words call to mind other partings of parent from
child before death, e.g. Polyxena’s farewell to her mother Hecuba Hec.
424 ὦ στέρνα (‘breast’) μαστοί θ’ (‘breasts’); Jocasta’s farewell after
her sons’ mutual fratricide Pho. 1434; even more intimate parting-words
(and stage-scene) from parent to child(ren) Med. 1069–77. blond:
the colour has no significance here, as often (but see 175 n.); used
e.g. of Jason’s new bride Med. 980, an older Clyt. El. 1071, the young
Hippolytus Hipp. 1343, the tyrant Lycus Her. 233. burden of sorrow:
‘burden, toil’ literally (410 and n.), cf. Ag.’s 645; ‘sorrow’ ever since
Ag. found tears inevitable (398, 451–2); they are natural in him at this
moment too, 684, just as Iph. noticed them earlier, 650. Helen: for the
emphatic enjambement see 51 n. now that I have touched you: for
a third time since 632 (or was that hopeful on Iph.’s part?) and 640–7;
and here it is her response to Ag.’s request of 679. Later she recalls their
physical closeness when she was a child, which she feels that Ag. has
forgotten, 1220–32. See Addenda.
Greek. 683 παύω τοὺς λόγους I’ll say no more, lit. ‘I stop my words’:
Pho. 1309 παύσω … γόους ‘I’ll stop my laments’.   684 διώκω lit.
‘pursue’; ‘press (on)’ in a different metaphor Supp. 156 ‘press me hard
(in argument)’, S. El. 871 ‘pressed hard (by pleasure)’.
[Text. 682 Note Musgrave’s ὑμῖν ‘(burden) for you’ (Iph.’s breast,
cheeks and hair) – not Iph. and Clyt. together, for Ag. turns to Clyt.
only in 685: that would be a remarkable transference of Ag.’s own
distress.   684 διώκει L ‘presses on’ is much more vigorous than
διαίνει Herwerden, the verb of tears ‘wetting’ the eyes, e.g. A. Pers.
1064.]
685b–7 The division of 685, between Ag.’s dismissal of Iph. and
sudden first words to Clyt., betrays emotion. Ag. can’t go on, but pulls
himself together and acts to Clyt. the part of loving father of the bride.
Surely the actor playing Ag. would make a pause in the verse? offspring
(of Leda): she is dignified as γένεθλον also 855, 1106 (as at A. Ag. 914:
see Fraenkel’s n.); cf. above ἔρνος 116 n..
Greek. 685 τάδε: the neut. plur. pron. (English idiom does not
translate it) is an internal acc. with παραιτοῦμαι and at once defined in
the conditional clause εἰ κατῳκτίσθην; this verb’s pass. here expresses
personal distress, explained in 688–90 (n.); at A. Pers. 1062 it is ‘lament
for’ with an object acc.; its mid. means ‘grieve’ at IT 486.
 Commentary 419

688–90 is a happy event: translates the adj. μακάριαι, an echo of

μακαρίαν ‘blest’ in 628, Clyt.’s pride in (the) marriage: for clarity, we
have added these words to ‘send away’. The ‘sending’ of course has tones
only Ag. knows: it is a final separation, and a further ironic ambiguity is
that the adj. μακάριος is sometimes used of the dead, LSJ I.3. tears …
at: δάκνει lit. ‘bites’ in metaphor as 385 (envy ‘needles’); of catastrophes
Oenomaus F 572.4. hands over: the literal sense of παραδίδωμι, but in
context it seems to double for ἐκδίδωμι ‘give in marriage’; so Hel. 225
is compared, βάξις ἅ σε βαρβάροισι | … παραδίδωσι λέχεσιν ‘rumour
which hands you (Helen) over to a barbarian husband’ (‘personifying the
rumour’, Allan in his n.); the verb has its common meaning of passing
information (e.g. Ion 689–90 a god’s voice). other houses: 670, but
without the ambiguity there. labour etc.: μοχθήσας: at 1230 Iph.
recognizes her father’s ‘tasks’ πόνοι; cf. Hcld. 448, Tro. [862]. Ritchie
links Ag.’s parental μόχθος with that as general, 160, 748.
Greek. 688 ἀποστολαί: a plur. noun in the Greek, ‘sendings away’,
and only here in Eur.; but cf. εὐδαιμονίαι 591 n., τροφαί 561.
[Text. Murray conjectured μακάριον, neut. sing. complement to fem.
plur. subject, ‘sendings away’ are a ‘thing of blessing’; but this introduces
a syntactic rarity, Smyth 1047–8.]
691–3 devoid of understanding: ἀσύνετος: describing the feelings
equally with the intellect: 1255 τά τ’ οἰκτρὰ συνετός εἰμι καὶ τὰ μή ‘I
understand what calls for pity and what does not’ (Ag.). I … shall suffer
… when I lead the girl out: 688–9 mothers cry at daughters’ weddings.
692–3 anticipate Clyt.’s expectations of her own role, in 720–36; Ag. can
ignore the implications here for his continuing deception because Clyt. at
once asks easy questions about the bridegroom. rebuke: νουθετέω LSJ
1 ‘admonish’. accompanied by wedding-songs: e.g. Alc. 915–16 σὺν
πεύκαις Πηλιάσιν σύν θ’ ὑμεναίοις (‘accompanied by pine–torches from
Pelion and wedding-songs’), Admetus taking Alcestis into their married
home; for σύν see Greek.
Greek. 691–2 ἐμὲ | καὐτὴν myself as well: in this rare idiom with the
two prons. καί appears superfluous; in Tragedy also 1349 ms. L (see n.),
Med. 302, 1142, S. Phil. 319, all nom. sing., and all mostly unnoticed by
commentators; even GP 320 is silent (but cf. Jebb on S. Phil. 620); see
also Text.   692 δόκει 2. sing. imperative with acc. and infin. as e.g. IT
1402, Or. 675.   693 σύν of attendant phenomena, Smyth 1696.c; LSJ
420 Commentary

A.4. The Greek clauses in 691–3 are interlaced (as in the translation):
692 the ὥστε clause depends upon 691 οὐχ ὧδε etc., and 693 the ὅταν
clause depends upon 691 πείσεσθαι etc.; the latter is a parenthetic full
clause with δέ interrupting the syntax of the first clause, as e.g. Alc.
1085, Ion 699: see also 678–9 n. In the ὥστε clause μή is idiomatically
redundant with the infin. after a controlling verb or expression itself
negative, ‘sympathetic’ Smyth 2759b, cf. KG II.215(f).
[Text. 691 δ’ ἐμὲ Matthiae, supported by Ritchie, the emphatic pron.
‘required’ before καὐτήν (above), as in Ar. Thes. 1117–18 ἐμὲ δὲ καὐτόν:
L has δέ με.]
694 A troublesome line, although the sentiment is clear; one would
expect time to be the principal comforter, as e.g. Alc. 381, 1085, and
as subject of e.g. μαλάσσω ‘soften’. Further: the custom: the most
frequent translation of ὁ νόμος, and the def. art. points the way to it;
Ritchie appealed to Clyt.’s 734 ὁ νόμος οὗτος ‘the custom (in marriage-
ritual)’. Jouan translated with ‘la loi commune’. Matthiessen suggested
‘the complete rite of marriage’, and this may well be correct. Translation
as ‘customariness’ or (Morwood) ‘getting used to it’ would otherwise be
better. it: n. plur. αὐτά takes up 691 τάδε, the parents’ pain of 689–90;
so too Ritchie, Stockert. Others refer it to Ag.’s now distant tears of 684,
translating συνισχνανεῖ (help reduce) in its literal sense ‘dry up’; but
the metaphor here has a direct parallel in Or. 297–8 σύ μου τὸ δεινὸν
καὶ διαφθαρὲν φρενῶν | ἴσχναινε παραμυθοῦ θ’ ‘you (are to) reduce my
irrational terror and comfort it/me’ (Willink): LSJ ἰσχναίνω 2.
Greek. αὐτό/ά in weak referral, or without specific antecedent: Diggle
on Phaethon 52 cites e.g. Alc. 421, El. 373. συν- as preverb often controls
a dat., here χρόνῳ: see 640 n.; Smyth 1545.
[Text. Doubt with regard to the language, particularly the sense of
νόμος, caused Page to judge the line non-Euripidean; so too Diggle.
In the light of Or. 297–8 (above), συνισχνανεῖ Musgrave ‘will help
reduce’ is superior to Heath’s συνισχανεῖ ‘will hold in check’ (literal
and metaphorical, LSJ I) as a correction of L’s unmetrical συνανίσχει
(also ‘holds in check’). Subsequently to his edition J. Jouanna, REG 101
(1988) 515–21 proposed the Epic verb κατισχανεῖ ‘will check’.]
695–6 promised: καταινέω, lit. ‘approve’, here signifies a formal
action, a father’s promise of his daughter to a potential husband – as
Ag. told Clyt. in his first letter he had promised Achilles, 130, 134–5.
 Commentary 421

Clyt. has relied on it in coming to Aulis, 610, 625–26, as she does still
when she meets Achilles, 832–47. The uncompounded αἰνέω occurs of
‘approving’ a marriage Or. 1658, the compound ἐπ- 1092; note also Pind.
Pyth. 4.222–3 καταίνησάν τε … γάμον | … ἐν ἀλλάλοισι μεῖξαι ‘(Medea
and Jason) promised to join (in) marriage with each other’. Distinguish
ἐγγυάω ‘betroth’ 703 n. his family … where he was born: formulaic
questions at first encounters, or details in accounts, after e.g. Od. 7.238;
in Eur. e.g. Ion 785–800, Hel. 1202–13, Bacc. 460–75 throughout.
Greek. 695 Idiomatic omission of an antecedent poss. gen. ἐκείνου
between τοὔνομα and ὅτῳ, as e.g. El. 33, Hel. 1039; Smyth 2509.   696
ποίου χὠπόθεν: direct and indirect interrogatives together in an indirect
question: Diggle cites IT 256–7, Ion 785–6 [Text. – places which counter
Porson’s indirect (δ’) ὁποίου].

(695–) 697–740 Stichomythia of Ag. and Clyt., developing from her

questions about Achilles’ lineage; its stylised beginning means there
is no contradiction with her part-knowledge in 625–6. In 697–715 Ag.
gives straightforward answers, even ‘casually’ (Cavander (1973) 115);
but in 716–24 he moves into ambiguities and evasions about the wedding
formalities, and black ironies begin like those in his dialogue with Iph.;
in 725–41 he continues these in deflecting all Clyt.’s questions about
what her own role in the wedding is to be, and he tries to insist on her
wifely obedience (his 725 ‘Obey me!’ is repeated peremptorily in 739) –
contrast the quickly compliant Agamemnon of A. Ag. 931–43! Husband
and wife become more and more at emotional odds; and Clyt. can go
only into his hut (740), just as Iph. did, but not submissively, for she goes
with a purpose, to organize things inside. The whole exchange builds
smoothly to a climax, with a subtle increase in tension through 714 to
724; it prepares convincingly for the final estrangement in 1098–1275.
The outcome is Ag.’s despair that his deceptions have failed – and his
remorse at the cost to his family; he now sees no way of avoiding the
sacrifice, recalling his fear of Calchas at 518, though now he plans to
work with him (brief soliloquy, 742–8).
Stichomythic techniques here are quite different from those in
640–77 (see n.), where there are mostly statements and inferences, and
few questions (only 650, 662, 670, 676); but both dialogues are full
of ironic ambiguities. Now information comes chiefly in response to
422 Commentary

questions 696–709, 712–3, (mid-line in) 725–6, 728–33; finally there

are counter-statements at the end 734–9, with the wording of 735–6 and
737–8 tightly correlated. In 697–709 close continuity is achieved through
linked and repeated nouns; in 712a and 716b ideas carried over maintain
continuity across disparate subjects. For Schwinge (1968) 224–8, in a
detailed appreciation, the exchange exemplifies very well the capacity
of stichomythia for ‘information and persuasion’; he compares esp. And.
64–87 where there is also a collapse into distrust. Mastronarde (1979)
44 and 47 cites Hypsipyle F 752k.3–11 as a (damaged) ‘genealogical’
exchange enjoyable for its own sake.
697–712 The best commentary on Ach.’s grand lineage comes from
his own mouth at Iliad 21.187–9 as he triumphs over Asteropaeus, a
descendant of the river Axios; in Pope’s splendid paraphrase, ‘How durst
thou vaunt thy wat’ry Progeny? | Of Peleus, Aeacus and Jove am I.’ Clyt.
recognized Ach.’s heroic status 625–6, just as Ag. used it to weigh with
her in his first letter 101–3 and the Old Man feared the consequence
124–5; she defers to his lineage 819, 836, 896, 903–4: see Michelakis
(2002) 95–100.
697 Father Asopus: Greek rivers are normally masculine (the Alpheus,
276 and n.); the name ‘Father’ recognizes their special importance to
fertility; cf. 713 the Apidanus. Here the daughter of a (river-)god begins
Achilles’ female line, significantly, and Zeus himself begins his male,
698–9.
698 married: ζεύγνυμι lit. ‘yoke’ is normally accompanied by explicit
γάμοις ‘in marriage, in union’, as e.g. 805, 907, Pho. 1366; unaccompanied
e.g. S. F 583.11 (Stockert). Ritchie asks whether the assonance of ἔζευξε
with 699 Ζεύς is deliberate; if it is, it lays a neat stress on the idea of
‘harmonious union’. There is a similar play on the name and the verb at
Bacc. 467–8, part of Dionysus’ cruel cat-and-mouse game with Pentheus.
Greek. Our translation tries to reproduce the striking position of
interrog. τίς at clause- and line-end [Text. Interrogative pron. restored by
Lenting] after two dependent gens.; it emphasizes the matter of identity,
no less than ‘Zeus’ beginning the answer in 699. τί ending short clauses
e.g. 1354, S. El. 1402. Different postponements in 722, 821.
699 Aeacus: renowned for wisdom e.g. Pind. Nem. 8.8, and justice
Isthm. 8.20–4; as son of Zeus, supreme in both, he was rewarded in Hades
as one of the three judge-kings of Elysium, together with two other sons
 Commentary 423

of Zeus, Minos and Rhadamanthys; Gantz (1993) 219–21. Oenone: the

old name of the island (see Bowie on Hdt. 8.46.1), renamed for Aegina, a
nymph of the island, when Aeacus, its foremost man i.e. ‘king’, married
her.
700 inherited: κατέσχε lit. ‘secured’, of a succession e.g. And. 156,
Supp. 15.
[Text. L’s def. art. τοῦ is correct with the name Αἰακοῦ repeated from
699 (see Smyth 1136), against Elmsley’s τὰ; cf. 701 Πηλεύς· ὁ Πηλεὺς
δὲ κτλ.: so Diggle (1994) 497 n. 22 (and Ritchie), allowing the gen.
Αἰακοῦ to go with both παῖς and δώματα.]
701 Nereus’ daughter: Thetis, 626 and n. For the wedding see 1036–
79, and for its background Gantz (1993) 228–31. The line is parodied
for bathos by the early 4th century comedian Philetaerus F 4.1 Πηλεύς·
ὁ Πηλεὺς δ’ ἐστὶν ὄνομα κεραμέως, ‘Peleus; and Peleus is the name of a
potter’ (πηλός pelos means ‘clay’).
Greek. ἔχω ‘married’ e.g. Bacc. 1332; cf. κτάομαι 715 n.
702–3 Two clever lines. a god: Zeus (e.g. Ritchie, Turato), not, as
many eds, ‘the god’, i.e. Nereus 702 (a sea-god, 948–9), Thetis’ father,
although betrothal and bestowal were the father’s prerogative (see Ag.’s
insistence in 727–34). in defiance of the gods is thus the apt alternative
to Did a god give in a line deliberately worded as a ‘feed’ to 703 (note
also the chiasmus; Zeus had everything under control): Zeus betrothed
her, arrogating this office from the father (695–6 n.); ἐγγυάω (LSJ I.2)
as e.g. κατ- Or. 1079, 1675; lit. ‘put into the palm of’ (a timeless gesture
of guarantee). Eur. follows the myth-version which had Zeus at first
desire Thetis for himself, only to be deterred by a prophecy from the
goddess Themis (‘Right’) that any son of himself and Thetis would seek
to depose him from his supremacy. Themis advised Zeus to cede Thetis
to Peleus: this explains why the gods were happy with her marriage to a
mortal (1041 below), and why ‘in defiance’ is raised here. Themis also
advised that glory should be guaranteed for the son (Achilles), and this
too was agreed among all the gods (Pind. Isthm. 8.26–48), who attended
the wedding, 1041 below (cf. Iliad 24.62). Zeus’ presence, implicit in
1049, was the ultimate endorsement: cf. Catullus 64.298, earlier 26–7.
Nevertheless Nereus gave … away his daughter as ὁ κύριος (translated
with in his full right), the man authorised (in Athenian law) by position
as head of the family, normally the father: El. 259, And. 558. The
424 Commentary

distinction between betrother and bestower is conveyed in the change in

703 from aor. (the single act) to pres. (the lasting one): see Greek.
Greek. δίδωσι the ‘registering’ or ‘annalistic’ pres. tense, as in e.g.
Supp. 6, Hel. 568, cf. γαμεῖ in our 704 and τίκτω 1164 (n.): ‘its purpose
is to identify persons or earmark things’ (Pearson on Hel. 568); Smyth
1887a: so e.g. Jouan and (an excellent n. on the two lines) Turato.
704 beneath … the sea: her father’s home, the normal place of a
marriage (720 n.), but here impracticable because Peleus was mortal.
705 Chiron: 209 n., 1066; appointed by the gods to superintend and
‘host’ the marriage, Pind. Isthm. 8.41; Gantz (1993) 231. sacred:
σεμνός (σεβ-νος) of anything to be honoured as divine (σέβω, σεβίζω),
e.g. the oracular buildings (βάθρα) of Dodona Pho. 982, Mt Olympus
Bacc. 411; similarly σέβας of royal majesty, 633 n. Pelion: for this
mountain see 1045–8 n.
706 Centaurs: 1046, the half-horse, half-man progeny of the depraved
Ixion’s son Centaurus who mated with mares on Mt Pelion, Pind. Pyth.
2.43–8.; Gantz (1993) 143–7.
707 feasted … wedding: 123, 720, 1041.
708–9 Did … bring up: as a mortal Achilles required a mortal’s moral
education, as 709 shows; mythological material on his childhood is
gathered by Jouan (1966) 87–92, cf. Gantz (1993) 231; for Achilles with
Chiron in art see LIMC I.45–56, nos 19–3 and 198–9. After his birth,
Thetis returned to the sea, her father’s home: [Apollodorus] 3.13.6, cf.
Ap. Rhod. 4.87–. Given the gods’ will (702–3 n.), Peleus had no option
but to yield his father’s role to Chiron, despite the compliment paid him
in 710 (n.).
710 Ah!: φεῦ expressing ‘joyful wonder’, 710 n., Jebb on S. Phil. 234;
the same exclamation ‘outside the metre’, marking an important moment
977 (Clyt. exclaiming over Achilles’s promise to save Iph.); distress 666,
1124. wise: σοφός in its widest poetic meaning, i.e. skilled in the art of
poetry, sage, shrewdly conveying the truths of life, intuitive of the gods’
will and teaching their wisdom. Chiron was a familiar of both gods and
men, himself semi-divine, even prophetic (1064–6): see esp. Pind. Pyth.
9.29–66, where Apollo the god of prophecy asks his advice and Chiron
responds with a prophecy for Apollo himself. As the one who brought
(Achilles) up (209, cf. Iliad 11.832, Hesiod F 204.87–9), he was pre-
eminently the best (West on Hes. Theog. 1001). His humanity offsets his
 Commentary 425

outward appearance as half-beast; and his humane instruction of Ach.

showed in the hero’s supreme gesture in giving the body of his son Hector
to the grieving Priam in Iliad 24. Chiron also ‘brought up’ (ἔτρεφε) Jason
as part of ‘Zeus’ intention’ for the hero (Hes. Theog. 1001–2), and indeed
minor gods as well: see Gantz (1993) 190–1.
Note the chiasmus, and the use of ‘wise’ at start and end of the verse;
the latter effect also in 1252 (n.).
[Text. σοφώτερος L wiser, stating a different, pragmatic acuteness in
Peleus the father: σοφωτέροις Musgrave ‘to ones wiser (than himself)’
is attractive and approved by Weil and Wecklein (‘schön’) but only by
Diggle of recent eds (1994) 497 n. 22 (and Ritchie).]
711 man: i.e. ‘real man’, one of the highest standing: 645 n. At 1063
the Chorus describe Achilles as a ‘great light for Thessaly’ (see 713 n).
712 He is without fault!: οὐ μεμπτός in litotes; as e.g. Pho. 425 a
marriage, Med. 958 marriage-gifts; for the figure see Smyth 3032; V.
Bers, EGT 1372; in lyric Breitenbach (1934) 213.
Greek. ποῖος, not τίς, is idiomatic in enquiries about countries, e.g. IT
495; illustrated by Diggle (1981) 98.
713 Apidanus: a smallish river, a tributary of the Peneus in Phthia,
part of Pharsalia (812) in Thessaly.
714 your and my daughter: the one both parents prize and will be
pained to lose, 681–93; Clyt. is still in sympathy with Ag. παρθένος here
is clearly just ‘daughter’, as e.g. S. OT 1462 (Stockert).
[Text. ἀπάξεις 2. sing. Dobree, Kovacs (2002) – but the groom, not the
father, takes the bride to her new home.]
715 gets: κτάομαι ‘gain possession of, own’, to us a seemingly aggressive
word, but usual of husbands, e.g. 383, IT 825, and of children, e.g. IT
696; it registers husbands’ absolute power as ‘masters’, e.g. 726 and n.
on 703; in particular A. Supp. 337 ‘Who would despise her owners (τοὺς
κεκτημένους) if she loved them’ (trans. Bowen). Cf. 701 n. on ἔχω ‘marry’.
[Text. κείνην Hermann, ‘her’ expressly, mentioned by Diggle, OCT
but not in his Euripidea (1994); and κείνῳ L the one (who gets her) is
superior, for it indicates a further evasion by Ag., after Clyt. has readily
inferred that Iph’s husband will be Ach., 712–14.]
716–31 Problems of text and interpretation are exhaustively discussed
by Diggle (1994) 497–503, with many doubts of ms. L’s text in 732–50
in his notes there.
426 Commentary

716–23 The rituals of marriage: 435–9 n., 702–3 n.; Introduction pp.
11–12.
716 Greek. εὐτυχοίτην 3. pers. dual opt. meet with good fortune:
this wish at e.g. Med. 688 2. sing. to a would-be father, also with ἀλλά
(GP 15); 2. pers. opt. in farewells e.g. sing. A. Cho. 1063, plur. IA [1557]
and Alc. 1153.
717 moon’s orb … fullness: optimal for weddings, e.g. Supp. 990–2
(see Collard’s n.), Pind. Isthm. 8.44–5 (also the marriage of Peleus and
Thetis, but the moon is absent from our 1036–79); Hes. WD 800 with
West’s n. With the Greek cf. Ion 1155 κύκλος … πανσέληνος ‘orb of the
complete moon’.
[Text. ἐντελής Musgrave lit. ‘in its fulfilment, complete’ is right;
accepted by West (above), Stockert, Diggle. The arguments for εὐτυχής
L ‘fortunate’, retained by many eds, are the common association of
‘luck’ with the full moon (see refs. above), and the word-play upon -τυχ-
‘fortune’ in 716; cf. also 624.]
718 preliminary sacrifice … for our daughter: προτέλεια … παιδός,
made to the goddess Artemis (virgin-goddess), for her to favour the
bride’s transition from girl to woman, 1111–14 (430–4 n.); the ‘deadly
irony’ in the goddess’s paradoxical role is noted by Stinton (1965) 34
n. 2. Others find a different irony: Clyt. means not Artemis but Hera,
the goddess of marriage (739 n.). The objective gen. παιδός ‘for our…’
stands as in the famous precedent A. Ag. 226 προτέλεια ναῶν ‘…for the
ships’, Iph.’s sacrifice so that they might sail (cf. our 879; recall Calchas
at 90–1 and see e.g. 746–8). Schwinge (1968) 225–6 wrongly questions
this interpretation of our 718 by Fraenkel (n. on Ag. 65), proposing
‘of our daughter’ instead; but that grim undertone is brought out here
through the juxtaposed words παιδὸς ‘daughter’ and ἔσφαξας ‘made the
(throat-cut in) sacrifice’.
719 the very point of fortune I stand at now: tellingly vague, but Ag.
means ‘I am helpless in the situation as it is now’; cf. e.g. 1272 τούτου
(the sacrifice) δ’ ἥσσονες καθέσταμεν lit. ‘I stand overcome by this’, Hel.
1660 ‘by fate’
Greek. For καί ‘very’ lit. ‘actually’ cf. 126 n.; for ἐπί pointing to an
outcome cf. Alc. 1155 ἐπ’ ἐσθλαῖς συμφοραῖς ‘upon our good fortune’;
29 n. above.
720–6 [Text. Diggle (1994) 497–9, cf. 410, suspected 723–6, esp.
 Commentary 427

723–4 which like Günther he judged ‘scarcely Euripidean’: see n. there;

Kovacs (2002) deleted all of 721–6. Certainly the transition from 720
straight to 727 would be compelling; but much of the dynamism of the
exchange would be lost if 721–6 were deleted, esp. the first sign of a
thwarted Ag.’s impatience in 725, whether 723–4 are kept or not; and
a strain of grim humour in the confrontation of husband and wife (esp.
739–41) would be weakened.]
720 the marriage feast: usually at the bride’s home, and with its own
rituals for the mother and the couple, before she is taken to the groom’s
house: see 727–34.
721 Ag.’s evasions intensify with Yes (γε: 326 n.). English translation
cannot reflect the assonance of the four aspirated t’s and the triple
repetition of sacrifice; the word was doubled in 673 (n.), and it is hard
to know the rhetorical figure’s point here except to emphasize Ag.’s
evasion: Clyt. employs tripled ‘welcome’ against Ag. in 1182.
722 And we: the pron. is emphatic, and Ag.’s answer suggests that the
women must act for themselves, for they cannot attend a feast among
male soldiers, 735: cf. 727 n. Diggle (1994) 499 asks ‘Who are these
women?’ Ritchie suggested that both Clyt. with her attendants and the
Chorus are meant, noting the participation of ‘young women’ in the
sacrificial hymn, 1467, 1491. Clyt.’s question in 722 stems from her
still happy expectations. Ritchie points to some evidence of women’s
separate celebrations at a wedding-feast, Men. Dyscolus 847–9, (Dunbar
on) Ar. Birds 132.
Greek. τίθημι with θοινάν hold (a feast), e.g. Hec. 1073. For the
postponed interrog. adv. ποῦ see 698 n.
723–4 Here by the … ships: since Ag. and Clyt. are standing outside
his hut, Ag. may be pointing across the open space in which the Chorus
watched the Greeks exercising (185–230) before they reached the ships
(231–300). Iph.’s death near the ships might further encourage Artemis
to grant the Greeks their voyage. May all be well even so: suspect
in expression (see Text); ‘even so’ must qualify Clyt.’s reservation
‘necessary’.
[Text. 723 εὔπρυμνος fine-sterned used of oars has roused needless
suspicion (Page, Diggle 499 n. 29), for πλάται ‘oar-blades’ stands for
‘ships’ in synecdoche (172 n.); εὔπρῳρος ‘fine-prowed’ stands with the
same noun in 765.   724 †Good, and necessary† is scarcely credible
428 Commentary

as a response from Clyt; nor is Jouan’s defence of it as ironic, ‘Well

(enough), and necessary’. Editors rightly look for something like ‘Bad
(κακῶς), but…’; so 724 Heath’s κακῶς (ἀναγκαίως) δέ ‘badly, but
(necessarily)’ is the best conjecture; this contrast is very common, e.g.
Hel. 510–12, Or. 229–30, cf. (Ritchie) Plut. Camillus 143e οὐ καλῶς ἀλλ’
ἀναγκαίως. Matthiessen favoured Matthiae’s κακῶς ἀναξίως τε ‘badly
and unworthily’. L has συνένεγκαι, a bare infin. in a prayer, for which see
Smyth 2014. The strong aor. is the more likely tense-form in this verb;
its opt. συνενέγκοι in the wish was restored by Dindorf and Günther.
The sense of the verb is disputed, but ‘suit, serve’ is less likely than ‘turn
out (well)’: for this cf. Ar. Ach. 252 καλῶς ξυνενεγκεῖν.   723–4 were
deleted by Günther (1992) 123–4; they do seem a little digressive, but
then Clyt.’s question in 722 gets no answer at all from the increasingly
impatient Ag.]
725–6 Ag. abandons self-deception for assertion. You know what you
must do…?: the imperative in the dependent clause is a colloquialism, not
rare in Tragedy, e.g. Hel. 315, 1233 (Stevens (1976) 36, Collard (2005)
363). What?: τί χρῆμα;, very common in Tragedy, matches it in idiom
and tone (Stevens 21–2, 33, Collard 361), and is provoked by Obey me,
please! Clyt.’s surprise, but implicit dissent, shows in Why etc.. For wives’
expected obedience see 715 n.; Ag. demands it again (unsuccessfully) in
739: see 695–740 n.
Greek. 726 γάρ ‘Why, …’ see GP 73–4. πείθομαι with gen. is modelled
on ἀκούω ‘obey’ (Smyth 1366); it is an Ionicism, e.g. Hdt. 6.12.3. See
also Text.
[Text. 726 εἰθίσμεθά σοι Hermann would restore the dat. normal with
πείθομαι.]
727 I myself: a further emphatic pron., but the plur. stands here for
the sing. (contrast 722), as Clyt.’s protest in 728 shows. here: not by
the ships, a significant location (723 n.), but close to Ach.’s ‘home’ in
the armed camp; a different ‘here’ from 723. where the bridegroom
is…: syntax in stichomythia interrupted by the following line, here an
encouraging question as e.g. Med. 679–81, Hec. 1000–2. The technique
is illustrated by Mastronarde (1979) 57 and n. 16, cited here by Diggle
(1994) 501.
728 Away from: the adverbial prep. χωρίς is literal, here of distance,
as e.g. 1107, cf. Or. 272 ‘away from eyes’. ‘what…?’: Diggle (1994)
 Commentary 429

501 argues that τί must mean ‘Why will you…?’ before the neut. plur.
ἁ(μέ) (unless that is replaced with a gen. of the rel. pron., e.g. ὧν με
‘of the things which’: so Reiske), but that cannot be when Ag. answers
by talking of an action, not giving a reason. Also, ‘What?’ before Ag.’s
factual answer makes Clyt. prescient, but that is typical of stichomythia’s
frequent contrivance. you all: δράσετε: the Greek verb is 2. plur.; its
number is reflected in Ag.’s answer ‘among the Achaeans’ 729.
[Text. Diggle however mentions the Aldine’s indefinite τι ‘(Will you
do) something…?’, conveying Clyt.’s apprehension.]
729 I shall give … away: the climax of the entire exchange; the denial
of the right to Clyt. induces her vain repetition of the word ‘give away’
in 736. in company with: the prep. μετά may mean both ‘in the midst
of, among’ (LSJ A I) and ‘together with’ (LSJ A II), and Clyt.’s final
objection in 736 accommodates both.
730 at that moment: τηνικαῦτα: for Clyt. as the bride’s mother the
important time.
Greek. τυγχάνω without participle = εἶναι be; not rare (LSJ A II.2),
like φαίνομαι etc., Smyth 2119.
731 take care of the maiden-girls: again in 737–8: Electra and
Chrysothemis are meant (638–9 n.). παρθένους: the sense ‘daughters’ is
stronger in 714 (n.). τημελέω ‘take care of’ is first attested in Eur., and
rare in Classical Greek.
[Text. At its only other occurrence in Eur., IT 311, τημελέω is found
with the gen., reason enough for Herwerden and esp. Diggle (1994) 502
n. 40 to propose παρθένων here].
732 hold … the marriage-torch: a further customary right of mothers,
734, cf. Med. 1026–7, schol. Tro. 315 and schol. Pho. 344. In Tro. 308–
24 the deranged Cassandra carries her own torch (because her mother is
still grieving for her father, and at 344–9 Cassandra’s action distresses
her mother).
733 provide the light: παρέχω as in Tro. 308 ἄνεχε, πάρεχε, φῶς φέρε
‘raise, provide, carry the torch’, Cassandra’s wild cry that she be taken
to her married home.
734 Greek. νομίζω and φαῦλος held trivial as Bacc. 430, Med. 807.
ἡγητέα: for the neut. plur. gerundive and lack of subject see 671 n.
[Text. All recent editors print Tucker’s brilliant correction οὐδὲ φαῦλ’
ἡγητέα: L’s σὺ δὲ is unmetrical, and stems from a scribe’s misreading of
430 Commentary

ο as σ; the 2. pers. sing. indic. ἥγῃ followed in consequence, ‘even if you

hold (this, i.e. the custom, trivial)’.]
735 It is not right etc.: ‘the only argument advanced by Ag. which
Clyt. can accept’, Turato; it is used against Clyt. herself by Ach. in
825. be out in company: in ἐξομιλέω the preverb ἐξ- indicates leaving
habitual company or place (cf. the adj. ἐξόμιλος S. Trac. 964). mass: for
ὄχλος see 450 n.
[Text. In ἐξομιλέω the act. voice is intrans. and usual (e.g. Xen.
Agesilaus 11.4), so that some editors accept England’s aor. ἐξομιλῆσαι].
737 Greek. καὶ … γε Yes, and…, esp. with one word interposed, is
very common: GP 157.
[Text. Diggle (1994) 502 n. 40 proposed to read οἴκοις: the plur. is very
much commoner in combination with the prep. ἐν, the sing. occurring
only once elsewhere in Eur., at F 1066 (to avoid prominent assonance
upon ‘s’ (sigmatism), as perhaps here in IA); Archelaus F 266.3 οἴκῳ is
best amended to οἴκτῳ ‘pity’.]
738 well: καλῶς of a ‘(morally) good’, i.e. strict, upbringing, for
maiden daughters, as Supp. 452, Alc. 313; cf. 666 (n.), 735. securely:
the adj. ὀχυροῖσι is emphatically placed. For maidens’ quarters, a place
unmarried girls may not lightly leave, see esp. Pho. 89, 1275; our 149b–
52 n.
739 Obey me!: the abrupt command in antilabe (cf. 303–16 n.) marks
Ag.’s impatience. That Clyt. speaks the rest of the line, in a superb
declaration of independence, is certain: oaths sworn by the sovereign
(lit. ‘queen, lady’) goddess are ordinarily women’s, e.g. And. 934; and
the goddess of Argos was Hera (Tro. 23–4 etc.), divine protector of
marriage (cf. 1301 and n.), esp. of the bride after it.
Greek. The oath-particle μά stands without a negative (but English
requires one: No), cf. LSJ ‘in itself neither affirmative nor negative, but
made so by prefixing with ναί (‘yes’) or οὐ (‘no’), or in Attic by the
context’; Smyth 2894, KG II.148. There is no parallel in Tragedy, but Ar.
Thes. 1125 and Frogs 951 in Comedy (and usage in prose) suggested to
Wecklein that the omission may be colloquial; in the theatre it would be
helped by a gesture of rejection.
[Text. L wrote the obvious gloss οὔ ‘No!’ above μά. In 740 Triclinius
conjectured a harmless γε, to create ‘syntax’ between the oath and the
imperative πρᾶσσε ‘arrange’. A much superior solution came from
 Commentary 431

Günther, followed by Stockert and Matthiessen, cf. Diggle (1994) 501 n.

35: a short lacuna between 739 and 740 containing an explicit negative.
In 739 Wecklein’s θεόν for θεάν reflected the common gender of θεός,
which is used with Hera’s name in the principal ms. at Tro. 23.]
740–50 [Text. Yet another editorial battleground. Most lines have been
suspected or deleted, on grounds of language (741, 742, 747–8, 749–50)
or content (741, 746–8, 749–50); all are marked ‘scarcely Euripidean’
by Diggle. Jouan, Stockert and Turato however retained them all, and
Matthiessen made a strong plea to keep 740 and possibly 741, and very
definitely 742–50: ‘Ag. begins to guess the consequence of the sacrifice
for his marriage’. We judge that (1) Clyt.’s exit immediately after 740
is dramatically sound, and (with Matthiessen) that this verse restates
crisply the traditional roles of husband and wife outside and inside the
house (El. 73–5 are cited); (2) Ag. remains briefly alone in despair. He
cannot himself leave without adding confirmation of the sacrifice to his
words which end the Second Episode (538–41), for what happens in
the Third presupposes it (and Ag. is therefore kept offstage), as does
the confrontation of Clyt. and Ag. in the Fourth; (3) Ag.’s intention to
join Calchas means also that he does not go into his hut, and he has not
returned to it when he reappears at 1103–7. Some of our views were
anticipated by Ritchie.
We therefore retain 740 and 742–8, although we are not confident
that all their wording goes back to Euripides himself, and we believe
emendation necessary in 747. We discard [741]: it is an unnecessary and
weak line, it mars Clyt.’s exit, and it is ‘not worth saving’ (Diggle (1994)
501 n. 35); some editors keep it despite (or because of) the word νύμφιος
standing unusually as adjectival (at their marriage), influenced by its
substantive use in 733 as ‘bride and groom’. [749–50] must go too: the
trite maxim destroys Ag.’s powerful exit; worse, it is false to his tone
throughout the episode, going beyond demand for Clyt.’s obedience in
725, 739. See also the individual line-notes below.]
740 Go and: ἐλθών lit. ‘going’, idiomatically superfluous part. 1426,
Hel. 1436.
742–3 My rushing in: ᾔξα; translation not quite secure, and the intrans.
use without a qualification ‘where to’ is doubted, unlike the explicit Ion
328 ᾔξας εἰς ἔρευναν ‘you rushed into an inquiry’, 572 οἷ δ’ ᾔξας ὀρθῶς
‘where you rushed to correctly’ (οἷ Herwerden: ὃ L); but cf. Iliad 15.80
432 Commentary

ὅτ’ ἂν ἀΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος ‘whenever a man’s mind rushes in’. Wecklein
suggests that the image is that of a violent wind, a ‘stormy impulse’.
Ag.’s out of my sight (the phrase e.g. Alc. 1064, Or. 272) must mean, he
rushed too abruptly into the controlling commands ‘Obey me (, please)’
725, 739 in trying to get Clyt. away from Iph. and back to Argos to the
other girls (731).
Greek. baffled in: ἀποσφάλλω and separative gen. as e.g. Med. 1010
δόξης ‘expectation’.
744–5 I am being clever: Ag. at 444–5 (n.). For the verb σοφίζομαι,
implicitly ‘wrongly clever’, cf. Bacc. 200 οὐδὲν σοφιζόμεσθα
τοῖσι δαίμοσιν ‘We are not clever in the gods’ eyes’. devising
(schemes): πορίζω as in Alc. 222 μηχανάν … κακῶν ‘means against
disaster’. against my dearest: Ag. means esp. Iph., as in 458 (n.). at
every point: πανταχῇ lit. ‘everywhere’; it is loosely allusive, as e.g. And.
903, Med. 364, not narrowly locative.
Greek. τὰ φίλτατα neut. of persons 458 n. For the prep. ἐπί of hostility
cf. 1104; see LSJ B I.1.c.
746–8 Despite that: despite his failure to send Clyt. home. to share
with: σὺν (prep.) …κοινῇ (adv.), emphatic pleonasm, also Or. 1074. Ag.
will now collaborate fully, and seems to have got over the antipathy to
seers he expressed in 520. the man of sacrifices: θυηπόλος of a seer
as Ar. Peace 1124 (see on Greek). Calchas as μάντις (89–91, 358, 518)
has enjoined and will superintend Iph.’s sacrifice [1563], offering the
knife and garlanding the victim, but a separate priest will perform it, a
ἱερεύς [1578], Her. 451, Hec. 224; cf. Hcld. 401 θυηπολεῖται δ’ ἄστυ
μαντέων ὕπο ‘the city is filled with sacrifices because of seers’ (trans.
Allan). what pleases the goddess: her will 90–1: φίλος with dat. of gods
as PV 660, S. OC 964 (see Text below). ill fortune: Ag. understates,
in precaution. The Greek litotes ‘not good fortune’ is effective; earlier
the sacrifice was δεινόν ‘terrible’ in prospect 98; Ag. would not become
a ‘killer’ φονεύς 364. Iph. herself comes to accept her death εὐτυχοῦσα
1446 ‘in (my) good fortune’. burden for Greece: ‘for’ is ambiguous,
reflecting the Greek gen. The meaning is more likely ‘a burden Greece
must suffer’ (Page) than ‘a burden for Greece which I must undertake’
(see also on Text).
Greek. 746 in the word θυηπόλος the element -πόλος registers
‘engaged in, active in’ (DELG 878 πέλομαι), like μαντιπόλος ‘active in
 Commentary 433

prophecy’ Hec. 121, πυρπόλος ‘fiery (lightning-bolt)’ Supp. 640.  748

ἐξευπορέω lit. ‘provide an easy way out for’, i.e. ‘complete easily’. The
verb only here in Eur., but he uses the adj. εὔπορος, e.g. Hippolytus
Veiled F 430.2 of Eros easing love’s problems.
[Text. 747 τῇ θεῷ Rauchenstein dat. is necessary, the gen. being against
idiom, indeed ‘intolerable’ Diggle 500 n. 35; the neut. in τὸ φίλον shows
that e.g. PV 304 τὸν Διὸς φίλον ‘the friend of Zeus’ is no analogy for the
gen.   748 In L’s ἐξευπορήσων Diggle thought he could make out ευπ
as the original letters beneath an erasure intended by Tr3 to accommodate
his conjecture (ἐξ)ιστ(ορήσων) (cf. P and P2). The meaning of this, ‘to
enquire into’, is inappropriate, despite Ritchie’s defence that ‘Ag. will
further test the will of the goddess by means of sacrifice’. Calchas has
already done with all ‘enquiry’, his injunction is final – as in A. Ag.
198–211. Diggle also suspected as non-Euripidean the rather strained
apposition of acc. μόχθον Ἑλλάδος ‘a burden for Greece’ to the action
and result implied by τὸ τῇ θεῷ φίλον … ἐξευπορήσων. Note that Monk
deleted 746–8.]
[749–50] For the observation on wives cf. in Eur. e.g. Alc. 627–8, 879–
81, F 1055–57. maintain: τρέφω, a wife e.g. Alc. 1049, Hel. 1278.
[Text. Hartung’s deletion is incontestable. The episode must end with
Ag.’s grim words of failure (742–5) and inevitability (747), not with a
gnomic reflection on marriage, let alone implicit criticism of Clyt. for
faults she has certainly not yet exhibited, despite her stance in 739 (still
less, despite some scholars, criticism of Helen, unmentioned since 583,
and there by the Chorus). While there is truth in Turato’s defence that a
gnomic close to an episode is not rare in Eur. (e.g. Med. 407–9, Hcld.
745–7, And. 1007–8), no pique in Ag. can justify the words here; nor
Jouan’s plea that ‘Clyt. is downgraded; she has her say in 1146–1208’.
Interpolation of maxims, relevant or not, was typical of 4th century
and later actors and directors: see Fraenkel, Agamemnon pp. 814–15,
G. Kovacs in EGT 7–11.   750 There is no compelling need to alter
τρέφειν because the word ends both 749 and 750 (see Jackson (1955)
221–2 for such repetitions), but Hermann’s γαμεῖν ‘marry’ is a stronger
close to the gnome, which reflects an underlying maxim ‘either marry
such a (good) wife or not marry (at all)’, Adespota F 95 PCG; cf. Alc.
627 ‘such marriages (as that of Alcestis sacrificing her own life for her
husband’s) benefit mortal men, or marrying is not worthwhile’. 749–50
434 Commentary

were retained in the 2015 Syracuse production (Introduction p. 44); they

elicited a ripple of laughter from the men in the audience. Any humour,
even sardonic, is inappropriate to Ag.’s tragic impasse – but might a
theatre-man have intended this effect?]

751–800 Second Choral Ode (stasimon)

The Chorus now know that Ag. will sacrifice Iph. and that war is
inevitable; ‘Troy’ and ‘Helen’ will increasingly colour the language of
the play: see Introduction pp. 29–30.
Beginning at the point where the First Ode ended, the immoderate love
of Paris and Helen which precipitated the expedition against Troy (587–9),
they sing of the Greeks sailing there to regain Helen, 751–72. They expect
misery for the city’s women when it is taken, deprecating the fate that
will befall their counterparts, 785–800 (for [773–83] see Text below); and
this misery anticipates that of the other women sufferers, Clyt. and Iph.
(Women’s suffering as war captives is evoked appropriately by a women’s
chorus also in Hec. esp. 905–51 and in Tro. esp. 1060–1117, and as bereaved
mothers in Supp. esp. 778–1837.) This is the contribution both odes make
to the play, in recalling Ag.’s account of the fatal marriage between Paris
and Helen 49–79, and its recurrence in his arguments with Men. 314–
414a, 460–535 – and the Chorus’ initial comment 171–84. The First Ode
had begun with significant moralisation, the Second has it in conclusion,
casting doubt on the myth which made Helen the miraculously conceived
offspring of Zeus (794–800 n.). There are again pictorial highlights, typical
of Eur.’s ‘dithyrambic’ style (see 1276–1335 n. Language): Cassandra in
prophetic ecstasy at Troy 757–61, the approach of the Greek ships viewed
by the defenders 762–7, (Troy’s sack [775–8] and) the Trojan women’s
imagination of rape 784–92, Helen’s conception by Leda through Zeus in
the form of a swan 794–6. The use of direct speech 790–3 (n.) adds pathos
to the imagined scene of rape. The composition and stylistic features of the
ode are discussed by Panagl (1971) 194–207 in enthusiastic detail, and its
function in the play by Hose II (1991) 93–5 (with bibl.).
Metrical form. One pair of responding strophes and one long span of
astrophic verses, as in the other two Odes 543–89 and 1036–97. Again
the metre is the colourful aeolo-choriambic (see 164–302 n. 3.1 (c) on
164–230), and again there is much variety, but here with no invasion
 Commentary 435

by other rhythms. Despite the clear sense-breaks in both stanzas (at

756 = 767), both consist of one metrical period; in the astrophic verses
narrative and sense units coincide with clear metrical divisions only at
786, 790 and 793 (for 780 and 783 see Text). Schematic analyses by
Wilamowitz (1921) 261–2, Dale (1981) 150–1, Günther 64–5, with
metrical commentary Stockert 418–20 – all with slightly different texts.
[Text. The narrative and syntactic structure of strophe and antistrophe
751–72 is straightforward, even smooth, and the text uncontentious;
each stanza is a single sentence. Not so the astrophic 773–800, where
damage is widespread and lines 773–83 are inauthentic (see below),
and suspicion or deletion has spread gradually to the whole ode: see
Diggle’s OCT with p. 424 and esp. his (1994) 503–6. We think that he
takes his doubts too far about various aspects of expression 754, 755,
758, 768–9; repetitions of vocabulary 751 ~ 766–7, 754 and 764 ~ 772,
755–6 ~ 763–4 (although such pleonasm is characteristic of Eur.’s lyric:
Breitenbach (1934) 186–94); apparent borrowing from other plays 752
(Ion 95–6), 755–6 (Hel. 1510–11), 767 (Or. 809), 768–9 (Hec. 943);
metrical form esp. in 761 = 772 (this doubt shared by Ritchie). See our
notes on many individual lines.
Hartung deleted 773–83 altogether, rightly: similarly e.g. Wilamowitz
(above, undecided whether the lines represent an aborted but different
passage from Eur.’s own hand or another writer’s fabrication), Dale
(above), West (1981) 71–2, Stockert, and Diggle; retained by e.g. Jouan,
Günther and Turato. The duplication of matter from 762–4 in 773–4
grates. When the lines are deleted, there remains an excellent transition
from 769–72, which end upon the intended recovery of Helen by war,
to 784–7 the Chorus’ anxiety for themselves and their children as they
imagine that of the Trojan women 791–3. Kovacs (2002) 163 however
makes the puzzling comment, ‘If there is any criticism of the Trojan war
in our play, it is unemphatic nearly to the vanishing point’. Lastly, it may
be significant that 784, and not 773, begins the ‘musical’ quotation in P.
Leiden (see also Kranz, cited in 784–90 n. below). In sum, 773–83 are a
clumsy expansion of matter and themes frequent in Eur.’s Trojan plays,
without thought for dramatic context.]
751–6 There will indeed come: ἥξει δή: it was old Tragic style to begin
an ode or strophe solemnly with a verb, often one of motion, prophetic fut.
436 Commentary

as here, cf. 762 ‘will stand’; or a past verb, e.g. 573 (n.), Pho. 1018 ‘you
came, you came’, A. Cho. 935, 946 ‘There came…’ (but our 164 ‘I came’
is in a personal narrative). The particle δή gives strong emphasis to the
beginning of the ode and its initial word ἥξει ‘There will come’; cf. Tro.
1060 ‘Thus indeed (οὕτω δὴ) did you…’; at the beginning of an antistrophe
e.g. A. Cho. 612–14 ἄλλαν δὴ … | φοινίαν κόραν | ἅτε … ‘…another
murdering maiden indeed, who…’; see GP 214–15). Simoeis: one of
Troy’s two major rivers, its name prominent in context because its mouth
was the chief landing-place (A. Ag. 696, E. El. 441, Tro. 810, all evoking
the Greeks’ arrival); the other river, the Xanthus, is also ‘silver-swirling’
Iliad 21.8; both are named in Iliad 6.4. Our words silvery swirling waters
δίνας ἀργυροειδεῖς describe Castalia’s glittering spring at Delphi Ion 95–6.
We are given a glimpse of Troy’s beautiful plain before it becomes a place
of destruction. gathered (army): ἄγυρις, a noun, another Epic echo
(of ships Iliad 24.141, even of corpses 16.661). (Phoebus’) ground:
δάπεδον, lit. ‘flat area’, denotes here a specific, famous and sacred site,
like the temples And. 117 and (Apollo’s at Delphi) Ion 121 and Pind. Nem.
7.34. The god’s temple at Troy implied his constant presence as the city’s
principal divine defender (Iliad 5.454–61); at e.g. Tro. 5 he is the city’s
divine builder, together with Poseidon (cf. Iliad 7.452–3). Apollo’s name
leads naturally to that of his wild prophetess Trojan Cassandra (757 n.).
Greek. 751 Σιμοέντα, 752 δίνας and 755 ῎Ιλιον are accs. of ‘motion
to’; the last is amplified by the prep. ἐς governing the phrase τὸ …
δάπεδον in closer location (phrasing suspect to Diggle (1994) 504,
however).   754 ἀνά with dat. ‘up on’, here aboard: Epic too, and
rare in Tragedy e.g. El. 466 ‘on horseback’, A. Supp. 351 ‘on rocks’.  
[Text. Kovacs (2002) puts in his text Willink’s clever conjecture
᾿Ιλίου ἐς πετραίας ‘to (Phoebus’ ground) at rocky Ilium’ (unpublished);
it solves the problem identified by Diggle (1994) 504 as against Eur.’s
style in the order Ἴλιον ἐς τὸ … δάπεδον.]
757–61 where: ἵνα, like ὅταν 760 and 764 ‘whenever’, heads a clause
adding detail and is typical of Eur.’s lyric style: 547 and 573–89 n.; 1276–
1336 n. on Language. I hear: perhaps from their husbands (176–7, cf.
301–2); a verb of hearing ‘verifies’ a description, as e.g El. 452–4 ‘I heard
from someone who came ashore in the harbour of Nauplion’, cf. Med. 1282,
Hipp. 129–30, 135. ‘Hearing’ a mythic tale e.g. Ion 994, Hel. 99, Pho. 819,
cf. hearing of remote places Tro. 216, 222. For 1. pers. verbs in choral
 Commentary 437

narratives see Rutherford (2007) 35. The Chorus now name Cassandra,
whose prophecies were unfailingly correct but seldom if ever believed;
allusion to them here hints at certain Greek victory at Troy: she had warned
of the city’s destiny to be destroyed, once when Paris was born and later
when he went to Sparta, abducted Helen and returned with her: Cypria,
Proclus’ ‘Argument’ 1 West (Loeb ed.), cf. E. Alexandros test. iii.23–8, F
62g. For Cassandra’s ‘fame’ see Greek. In Tragedy there is an easy freedom
of cross-reference to myth by and between persons, of whatever location
and status, and without regard for relative time; it is part of the dramatist’s
trade: see 797b–800 n. adorned … bay: the tree was sacred to Apollo,
and provided garlands for his celebrants, e.g. at Delphi Ion 1169; for
Cassandra Tro. 329–30, cf. A. Ag. 1264–70. green-leafed: χλωροκόμῳ
lit. ‘green-haired’: a unique word, but there are similarly formed colour-
adjs. with -κομος describing hair κόμη itself. Here ‘green-’ χλωρο- implies
‘fresh(ly cut)’, like Hippolytus’ special garland for Artemis Hipp. 73–4
(see also Text below). tosses her … tresses: in her restless movement, an
action of god-possessed worshippers running free, esp. those of Dionysus
Bacc. 150, 865; the ecstatic Cassandra is herself ‘bacchic’ in behaviour
Hec. 676–7, Tro. 341; she is ‘whirled round’ in prophetic seizure A. Ag.
1214–16. Cf. Virgil’s description of the Sibyl Aen. 6.47–51. breathes
compulsion to prophecy: ‘breath’ is the impulse from an unseen god,
e.g. noun πνοή Aphrodite 69, Dionysus Bacc. 1094; here, literal prophetic
‘inspiration’, poetic inspiration A. Ag. 105. Such ‘breath’ is irresistible:
with ‘compulsion’ we translate ἀνάγκαι lit. ‘necessities, inevitabilities’,
brought by god or fate.
Greek. 757 In τὰν (Κασσάνδραν) the Greek def. art. with a proper
name is like that with Helen’s in 178, referring idiomatically to a person
distinctive or well-known in some way, but with less emphasis than
idomatic Latin ille; Smyth 1120a. Distinguish the art., separated from
Helen’s name in 768–9, which conveys idiomatically that she is ‘sister’
to the Dioscuri (see n. there); the def. art. has no special emphasis except
perhaps in virtue of its standing in the same metrical position in the
antistr. as in 757.   760 κοσμέω ‘dress, deck’ of religious or cultic
wear e.g. Bacc. 934, Ion 327.
[Text. 759 The adj. χλωροκόμῳ stands in enallage (771 n. Text)
with στεφάνῳ; Fritzsche’s χλωροκόμου allies it more logically (and
prosaically) with δάφνας.]
438 Commentary

762–7 citadel: πέργαμα, the fortified citadel of Troy: 589 n. round

on the walls: their lofty view-point for the Greek’s approach. ‘Citadel’
and ‘walls’ together emphasize the city’s defences. The Trojans at once
prepare for siege, and would not be already outside the city offering battle;
but their failure is imagined in 793. All such scenes are in debt to Priam
looking from the walls at the besieging Greeks Iliad 3.161–242. Ares:
i.e. ‘war’ and its belligerents, metonymyic ‘warrior’ e.g. 263, 775 and
And. 106 Ares ‘of a thousand ships’. Ares’ first adj. here, of the bronze
shield, describes him also Pind. Isthm. 7.25. ‘Bronze’ is the regular adj.
of weaponry, not only of Ares e.g. Iliad 5.704, Pind. Ol. 10.15, but of e.g.
the Greeks again 1260 below. rowed: sails are lowered as ships come
towards anchorage; conversely E. Phaethon 79 ‘(vessels put off) under
oars’, before raising sail. over the sea: Ares’ second adj. is πόντιος;
we translate with this phrase, like 283 ‘warrior (Ares: above) … with
… white oars’. The adj. is placed as predicative to comes near; contrast
253, where the adj. πόντιος is attributive of the Boeotians’ ‘armament’.
Its position creates a mild paradox, in that Ares is not a sea-god, for the
adj. normally describes Poseidon, the god whose province is the sea, e.g.
Hipp. 44, 1318. channels: ὀχετοῖς: of Simoeis (751 n.) also Or. 809
(cf. ῥοαί its ‘streams’ Tro. 1116); of a natural water-course Pind. Ol. 5.12.
Greek. 763 ἀμφί ‘somewhere on’: 164–5 n.   765 εὐπρώροιο Doric
gen., occasional in lyric; see Barrett on Hipp. 850.   766 εἰρεσίᾳ lit.
‘by rowing’: instrum. dat.   767 ὀχετοῖς: a dat. with the verb of motion
πελάζω is not rare, e.g. Hec. 1289, the verb deriving from the adverbial
prep. πέλας ‘near (to)’: Smyth 1463 (but the gen. is commoner, Smyth
1353). The word ὀχετός means ‘bearer, carrier’ (cf. n. on 617–18 ὀχέω),
usually of water and esp. of irrigation, LSJ I.1; streams LSJ II.
[Text. 765 Diggle (1994) 503 accepts Wecklein’s improvement
εὐπρῴροιο πλάτας, which we print, but dislikes the adj. fine-prowed, as
he did ‘fine-sterned’ in 723 (n.): εὐπρώροισι πλάταις L].
768–72 Helen, sister: Helen’s relationship to the two Dioscuri (Gantz
(1993) 323–8) is fully expressed at e.g. Hec. 943 ‘the sister of the two
Dioscuri, Helen’ (see Greek). They were Castor and Polydeuces (Latin
Pollux), born together with Helen from Leda and Zeus in his guise as a
swan: 795–7 and n.; their sister Clyt. recalls their aid when Ag. killed
her first husband and seized her 1149–50. Zeus made them stars in the
heaven (Or. 1635–7), as safe conductors of voyagers El. 990–3, cf.
 Commentary 439

Hel. 1495–1505; perhaps this is the implication here for those bringing
back their sister. (Ritchie resists Kannicht’s contention, on Hel. 140,
1498–9, that in Eur.’s day the twins had still not yet ‘become’ stars in
mythography.)
Greek. 768–9 τὰν: ‘sister’ is not in the Greek, but a noun expressing
a well-known family relationship is often omitted from the def. art. and
a following poss. gen., e.g. ‘wife’ And. 486, ‘daughter’ Med. 209: Smyth
1301.   770 The prep. ἐκ is used loosely as in e.g. Hcld. 1043 ἐξ ἐμοῦ
‘(you will gain) from me’, Med. 23 ἐξ Ἰάσονος ‘from Jason’; its proper
sense is not ‘away from’ (ἀπό) but ‘out of, from within’, often of origin
as e.g. 71, 672; Smyth 1688c. Τhere is no ellipse of γᾶς ‘from Priam’s
(land)’; for that, ἐκ τᾶς Πριάμου would be idiomatic (Diggle (1994)
504).   772 ἀσπίσι καὶ λόγχαις instrum. dat. with κομίσαι.
[Text. 770–1 ἐς γᾶν L: reduced to γᾶς in Willink’s conjecture,
which is against idiom (Greek above); but it was printed by Kovacs
(2002).   771 δοριπόνων Kirchhoff (printed by Diggle), on the model
of El. 479 δοριπόνων … ἀνδρῶν, creating a ‘bracketing’ phrase to end
the stanza. δοριπόνοις L shows change of the adj. from one noun to the
other (enallage: 1229–30, 1437 and nn.; Breitenbach (1934) 182–6, V.
Bers in EGT 1370–1), ‘won by shields toiling in war…’, and is kept by
most eds]
[773–83] The content alone of these lines damns them: 751–800 n.
Text.
[Text. There are also weaknesses and insuperable difficulties in the
Greek, for which we cite some attempted justifications or remedies: 774
the prep. περί round appears superfluous with κυκλώσας Circling, which
elsewhere is trans. (Stockert asks, does the prep. stand in tmesis (40 n.),
from περικυκλόω?).   775 Ἄρει L, an instrum. dat., is impossible in
this sentence when Ἄρης continues as its grammatical subject unchanged
from 764 in the three nom. masc. parts. κυκλώσας, σπάσας, πέρσας:
therefore Höpfner conjectured Ἄρης φόνιος bloody Ares, which we print
(the god is φό(ι)νιος in Homer and e.g. Pho. 1006). Alternatively e.g. δορὶ
φοινίῳ Hermann, ‘with bloody spear’; more adventurously ἔριδι (φονίᾳ)
Günther ‘in bloody strife’, ἕρκει Jacobs ‘with a fence of bloodshed’, λίνῳ
or βρόχῳ West ‘with a bloody net’ or ‘noose’.   776 †σπάσας† may
mean †pulling† (heads severed at the throat), such heads being treated as
grisly trophies e.g. Iliad 13.202, 18.336–7 = 23.22–3), or ‘pulling heads to
440 Commentary

sever them’; the latter is very strained in expression (but appeal has been
made to E. Meleager F 537 κάρηνα … γένυσι Μελανίππου σπάσας ‘(the
cannibalistic Tydeus) rending Melanippus’ head with his jaws’ (LSJ II.2)
– a very different action, however. For analysis of the adj. λαιμοτομος
(-ότ- or -τό-, ‘severed’ or ‘severing’ a throat) see E. Csapo in Cousland
and Hume (2009) 106 n. 30.   777 The words †πόλισμα Τροίας†
†Troy’s city† duplicate intolerably 773 Φρυγῶν πόλιν the Phrygians’
city; they were deleted by Monk; 777–8 were reduced to πέρσας κατ’
ἄκρας πόλισμα by West, ‘sacking the city from top to bottom’. Similarly
779–80 the words κόρας πολυκλαύτους girls … weep many tears
duplicate 781–2 κόρα (Helen herself) πολύκλαυτος daughter … weep
many tears (no cure).   782 The Ionic(Epic)/Doric fut. †ἐσεῖται† (of
εἰμί ‘I am’) has no parallel in Tragedy. ἑδεῖται Musgrave ‘will sit’ is
hardly apt, and is an unparalleled mid. fut. of the simple verb ἵζω; εἴσεται
Hermann, and later Willink (printed by Kovacs 2002), the fut. of οἶδα,
was intended to produce the threat ‘she will know to her cost that (she
has betrayed her husband)’; cf. Ion 708, Bacc. 859; used of satisfactory
retaliation by Ach. 970 below, if he resorts to bloodshed.
Conversely, unobjectionable usages: 775–8 κυκλώσας, †σπάσας†,
πέρσας: co-ordinated but unconnected participles, with climactic
meaning: Smyth 2147f.   778 from top to bottom κατ᾿ ἄκρας is a
phrase regular in Epic, e.g. Iliad 13.772 and Hel. 691 also of Troy (cf.
Pho. 1176 κατ᾿ ἄκρων περγάμων ‘from topmost citadel to bottom’, of
Thebes).  779 make τίθημι with two accs. in the sense of ποιέω is in
order, e.g. 1076, 1405, probably 629 (n.), Pho. 855.  781 The word-
order in ἁ δὲ Διὸς ῾Ελένα κόρα is matched at e.g. Hec. 943 τὰν τοῖν
Διοσκουροῖν Ἑλέναν κάσιν.]
Also: 773 Pergamum: see 761 n. on ‘citadel’.   780 wife of Priam:
Hecuba. her husband: Menelaus, her first; for myth had Helen ‘marry’
at Troy both Paris and, after his death, his brother Deiphobus (e.g. E. F
1093a; Gantz (1993) 638–9).
784–93 [Text. The musically annotated P. Leid. 510 has a very
damaged text of these lines: see E. Pöhlmann, M. L. West, Documents
of Ancient Greek Music (Oxford 2001) 18–21 for commentary, with
colour reproduction; subsequently L. Prauscello, ZPE 144 (2003) 1–14;
Introduction p. 53. As a mid-3rd century BC text, it is too early to carry
Aristophanes of Byzantium’s verse-divisions. Enough of the papyrus
 Commentary 441

however survives to confirm the beginnings of 785 and 788, to provoke

questions about the end of 792, and to give a slightly different text at the
start of 793. It is frustratingly defective where L is plainly corrupt or has
been subject to conjecture, in 791 and the start of 792; and it is a further
frustration that it does not overlap P. Köln 67, which carries fragmentary
wording from 796–800.]
784–90 May there never come etc.: Kranz (1933) 240 n. (on his p.
312) argued that, on the analogy of e.g. Hipp. 1142, Tro. 551 where a
change to personal engagement begins epodes, 784 should begin this
one too: see 751–800 n. Text. children’s children: an ancient locution,
as in many languages, e.g. Her. 7, Supp. 1172 (see Collard), Pho. 281.
expectation: ἐλπίς of a prospect feared e.g. Or. 859, A. Seven 367;
Fraenkel on Ag. 1434. Lydian … gold … Phrygians: proverbial for
their riches, not least the 7th century king of Lydia Gyges (Archilochus F
13.11 West; Aesch. F 59) and the 6th century king Croesus (Hdt. 1.32.5–
6), the finest mines being within their territory. The adj. πολύχρυσος with
… great gold is Homeric (e.g. Iliad 11.46 of Mycenae) and occurs 8
times in Eur., e.g. Bacc. 13 of the Lydians, Hec. 492 of the Phrygians (i.e.
Trojans). There is perhaps an allusion to Helen’s susceptibility to Paris’
eastern luxury, 75 n., Tro. 991–7, Hel. 927–8 (see Allan’s n.). at their
looms: the occupation of ladies, e.g. Penelope Od. 24.139, Electra A.
Cho. 231–2, Iphigenia IT 222; cf. Hector to Andromache at Iliad 6.490–3
defining the loom and the distaff for women, war for men. Women’s talk
at the loom e.g. Ion 196–7 (μυθεύω as here), 507 and Tro. 199–200;
during laundry Hipp. 129–30.
Greek. 787–8 lit. ‘the gold-rich Lydian (wives) and Phrygians’ wives’,
typical lyric interlacing of grammatical forms.   790 μυθεῦσαι: the
fem. nom. plur. of the part. (see Text). The act. form of μυθέω is unattested
except in the Byzantine lexicographer Photius μ 577 Theodoridis; the
form is not elsewhere used by Eur. (who has μυθεύω Her. 77, Ion 196:
cf. Text below); but the mid. μυθοῦμαι is not rare, e.g. Iliad 17.200,
Democritus 68 B 30.13 DK, PV 664.
[Text. 789 σχήσουσι Tyrwhitt will have seems inescapable, ἔχω with
ἐλπίδα as e.g. 609 (n.): στήσουσι L ‘will set up (expectation)’ is retained
by some eds in unpersuasive appeal to e.g. 1039 ἰαχάν ‘cry, sound’, Or.
1529 κραυγήν ‘bawling’.   790 μυθεῦσαι L is required by metre (three
long syllables), and the Ionic form of the part. is protected by Med. 423
442 Commentary

ὑμνεῦσαι: to normalise it Matthiae conjectured μυθεύουσαι. This was

printed by Stockert, but the verse then scans as two anapaestic metra,
an extremely improbable invasion into the otherwise entirely aeolo-
choriambic system 784–800.]
791–3 ‘Who will it be … destruction?’: women facing captivity fear
both the identity and the cruelty of a potential master e.g. Hec. 359–
66, 448–9, Tro. 185–96. For direct speech quoted in Tragedy in both
dialogue and lyric see Bers (1997) cited in 356 n., who on his pp. 113–14
asks whether all of 791–800 are reported, and whether by one or two
separate voices; for such quoting see also Rutherford (2007) 17, (2012)
83–4. drag me by … my hair: a common image of war’s cruelty to
captive women, e.g. And. 402 Andromache, Hel. 116 Helen dragged
by Menelaus (cf. his threat at Tro. 882), A. Seven 326–8 women pulled
by their headbands like horses; at 1365–6 below Clyt. fears that Iph.
will be dragged by her hair to her sacrifice. For the detail fine tresses
εὐπλοκάμου (adj.) see esp. Hec. 923–5 a Trojan wife’s attention to her
coiffure (πλόκαμος) at bed-time on the night the city was sacked; cf. also
A. Supp. 884 ‘(the women’s chorus) dragged with no reverence for your
tresses’. pluck me (791) as the flower: ἀπολωτίζω lit. ‘cull (from) the
lotus’, the lotus being the name of many plants or trees, particularly trees
from N. Africa which became metaphorical for splendour or special value
through the name of the fabulous Lotus-Eaters Od. 9.84. The compound
verb also Supp. 449 of tyrants ‘culling’ youth, the noun λώτισμα e.g. Hel.
1593 men encouraged to bravery as ‘the picked flower of Greece’; cf.
the plain noun ‘flower’ ἄνθος as metaphor in Her. 875–6 ἀποκείρεται …
ἄνθος ‘the flower (of your city) is shorn away’, Heracles about to destroy
his own children. For the ‘deflowering’ of women cf. also the allusive
Pind. Pyth. 9.37 ἐκ λεχέων κεῖραι μελιαδέα ποίαν ‘shear the honey-sweet
herbage from the bed of love’.
Greek. 792 τανύω is ‘stretch, strain’, ῥῦμα is internal acc., lit. ‘strain
(in) a drag’, and δακρυόεν as I shed tears (lit. ‘in tears’, an adj.) is
predicative to ῥῦμα.   791 εὐπλοκάμου κόμας is objective gen.
dependent upon ῥῦμα lit. ‘dragging of hair’.   793 πατρίδος ὀλομένας
is separative gen. with ἀπολωτιεῖ; cf. Hec. 946 με γᾶς ἐκ πατρίας ἀπώλεσε
lit. ‘destroyed me from my fatherland’; others take the words as gen.
absolute ‘after my fatherland was destroyed’.
[Text. We print what we believe to be acceptable Greek. L has 791 τίς
 Commentary 443

ἄρα μ’ εὐπλοκάμους κόμας 792 ἔρυμα δακρυόεν τανύσας 793 πατρίδος

ὀλομένας ἀπολωτιεῖ. Eds generally set daggers round 792, and some
suggest that μ’ εὐπλοκάμους κόμας (acc. plur.) … ἀπολωτιεῖ may be
sound, with the two accs. being ‘whole and part’ (1080–1; Smyth 985),
‘pluck me (by) my hair’.   In 792 ἔρυμα L can mean only ‘defence,
bulwark’, as the noun from LSJ ἐρύω/ἐρ(ύ)ομαι B (192 and n.), and here
unapt; but Hermann suggested ῥῦμα ‘drag(ging), pulling’, the noun from
LSJ ἐρύω A (e.g. with gen. τόξου ‘pull of a bow’ A. Pers. 147); for the verb
Ritchie notes Willink, Orestes p. lv n. 90 citing Od. 22.187–8 ἔρυσαν …
κουρίξ ‘they dragged (him) by the hair’; and Duport had in fact previously
conjectured the gen. εὐπλοκάμου κόμας (as in our text). As to τανύσας
lit. ‘stretching, straining’, defence is precarious, since this Epic verb is
unattested for Tragedy, but LSJ I.2 yields an approximate analogy for the
internal acc. ῥῦμα with it, Iliad 17.401 ἐτάνυσσε κακὸν πόνον ‘(Zeus)
stretched the evil work (of battle over Patroclus’s corpse)’.   In 793
instead of L’s single word πατρίδος, P. Leid. 510 attests π̣ασπατριασ (so
Pöhlmann-West, with γασ- perhaps ‘intended’) or γασπατριασ (Diggle)
or τασπατριασ (earlier eds); all three readings lead to a dochmiac colon
alien to the otherwise entirely aeolo-choriambic ode.]
794–800 if indeed the story is true: the passage was formerly read
as typical of Eur.’s scepticism, or rationalist criticism, towards myth
in general (e.g. by Webster (1967) 291, with reference esp. to El. 737–
44, Her. 1341–6); the myth here is similarly questioned in Hel. 17–21
‘There is indeed some tale that Zeus flew to my mother Leda taking the
form of a swan-bird, which escaping in flight from an eagle achieved
union by deceit, if this tale is certain’. Recent commentators confine the
meaning in IA to context and relate the alternative conditional clauses
795 if indeed and 797 or to the metamorphosis of Zeus alone. This
conforms with the myth-version that Zeus as Helen’s certain father used
her to embroil Greece and Troy in war (e.g. El. 1282–3, Hel. 38–40, cf.
Or. 1639–42) through her willing abduction by Paris (IA 75–6, 467–8,
583–6 and nn.); and that she was reviled in consequence as cause of all
the misery (e.g. Hel. 1147–8) and not least in the house of Atreus, Ag.’s
father (A. Ag. 1455–61). At Hel. 1144–6 Zeus’ metamorphosis goes
unquestioned in advance of blame put on Helen herself; but there the
whole story attracts incredulity, that the gods can operate so inexplicably
(1140–3, 1149–50). Cf. e.g. El. 737–8; further esp. Kannicht on Hel.
444 Commentary

16–22 and 256–61, Stinton (1990) 254–8, Jouan (and his 1966, 145–52),
Stockert 430. Allan on Hel. 17–21 cites the questioning of mythology
by rationalising ‘intellectuals’ such as Herodotus (2.120) and Plato
(Phaedrus 220c–30c).
794–7a you, daughter etc.: the initial 2. pers. address is very
emphatic, cf. 1080 n. An ode ends with a 2. pers. apostrophe also S.
El. 504–15: see Rutherford (2007) 36. long-necked: δολιχαύχενος: a
natural if ornamental adj. for the swan, e.g. Bacchyl. 15.6, δολιχόδειρος
Iliad 2.460. The neck’s encircling length gives power to many artists’
representations of Zeus’ rape of Leda. if indeed the story is true: on
this doubt see previous n. Comparable expressions with ἔτυμος ‘true’
e.g. Hel. 351, Aeolus F 17 and El. 818, all reports. winged: lit. ‘after it
flew (to her)’: Zeus’ winged arrival is a constant of the story, e.g. Hel. 18
above, 216, 1145–6, Or. 1386.
Greek. 794 daughter: the fem. def. art. with γόνον ‘offspring’ is
unparalleled, but so is it with ἶνις 119 (n.).   797a body: δέμας the
body’s ‘build’ (δεμ-/δομ-). εἰ … (797b) εἴτ(ε): Ion 1121; equivalent to
εἴτε … εἴτε in plain alternatives, Smyth 2675d.
[Text. 794 Bothe conjectured the fem. γονάν, to suit Helen.   796
ἔτεκε Musgrave ‘bore’ is the easiest and most suitable emendation of
†ἔτυχε† L, which would mean ‘happened’ (the two verbs are confused
in mss. at S. OT 1025: Stockert). With either verb eds have wanted to
supplement the meaning ‘had intercourse with’, ἔτυχε Λήδα <μιγεῖσ’>
Scaliger ‘happened to have had, actually had…’, or ἔτεκε … <μιχθεῖσ’>
Porson and <πλαθεῖσ’> Monk ‘bore after having had…’. The supply
of σ(ε) ‘you’ is essential; placed after Λήδα (Elmsley and e.g. Stinton
(1990) 258 n. 51), rather than after ὡς (Musgrave), it removes metrical
hiatus before ὄρνιθι. Also σ᾿ ἔτεκεν [Λήδα] (del. Hermann) ὄρνιθι
πταμένῳ <Λήδα> Willink, in part a metrical rewriting, was printed by
Kovacs.   797a ἀλλάχθη without temporal ‘augment’ L, as e.g. 589
(n.): ἠλλάχθη Monk.]
797b–800 Pierian tablets: poems inspired by the Muses, Zeus’
daughters who lived at Pieria near Mt Olympus, 1041, Hes. Theog.
53, cf. Bacchyl. 16.6 ‘from Pieria … excellent songs’. For tablets cf.
Erechtheus F 369.6 ‘unfold the voice of the tablets in which the wise are
celebrated’. myths … carried … to men: and retold by them, e.g. Ion
265; converse wording but similar meaning Hipp. 197 μύθοις δ’ ἄλλως
 Commentary 445

φερόμεσθα ‘we are carried away by tales, falsely’ (see Barrett), cf. El.
743 ‘tales frightening to mortals’. Also: μῦθος an account current among
men 72 above, cf. ‘men say’ Bacc. 295 (that the baby Dionysus was sewn
into Zeus’ thigh to conceal him from Hera’s enmity). off the mark,
falsely: παρὰ καιρὸν ἄλλως: a remarkable double contrast with ‘true’
794, emphasized by the words’ asyndeton and final place in the epode;
cf. pleonastic ἄλλως … μάτην ‘falsely … idly’ Hec. 489. In παρὰ καιρόν
‘off the mark’ the context bars a reference to time, for here καιρός denotes
an appropriate measure or point, like Pind. Ol. 8.24 of impropriety, or Pl.
Statesman 277a παρὰ καιρὸν … σπεύδοντες of sculptors’ excessive haste.
The lyric Rhesus 829–30 illustrates παρὰ καιρὸν in a similar context of
appropriateness rather than timeliness, εἰ δὲ χρόνῳ παρὰ καιρὸν ἔργον ἤ
λόγον πύθῃ ‘but if in time you learn of an action or word that is off the
mark’. The sense ‘mark’ aptly conveys the metaphor from archery, as in
Supp. 745 †τὸ τόξον ἐντείνοντες τοῦ καιροῦ πέρα† (the metre is at fault)
‘stretching, shooting the bow past the mark’; cf. e.g. And. 1120 ἐς καιρόν
of an exact blow to the body, lethal (and LSJ καίριος I adj., famously of
Ag.’s death-blow A. Ag. 1343). As to ἄλλως ‘otherwise (than in reality),
falsely’, cf. in dialogue Hel. 614–15 φήμας … | ἄλλως κακὰς ἤκουσεν
οὐδὲν αἰτία ‘she heard evil reports, falsely, when she was not guilty’).
Greek. 800 φέρω ‘carry’ cf. Hel. 1250 a report κληδών, Ion 1340
(εἰσφέρω) ‘introduce’ an account, μῦθος again.
[Text. 797 and 798 Note in the apparatus the frustrating evidence of
P. Köln 67.]

801–1035 Third Episode

As in the Second Episode 303–542, there are three parts: (A) Ach.’s
entry and first exchange with Clyt. 801–54; (B) intervention by the
Old Man, revealing Ag.’s deception to both Clyt. and Ach. 855–99; (C)
supplication by Clyt. of Ach.’s protection for herself and Iph. 900–1035.
The play is at its turning-point; indeed Achilles’ entry speech can
be seen as a brief ‘second prologue-speech’ by a new entrant; the
dramaturgical device is sometimes used in Eur.’s later plays, e.g. El.
487–502, Hel. 386–434, Bacc. 215–47, but here when the action is well-
advanced, like the strongly theatrical entry of Agamemnon in A. Ag.
810–54. See Rutherford (2012) 33.
446 Commentary

Ag. has failed to thwart his daughter’s sacrifice demanded by

Calchas if the expedition is to proceed. Although he has gained Men.’s
unexpected sympathy for its cost to any father, Men. has withdrawn
from further involvement (487–8), except for keeping Clyt. in ignorance
(538–41). Ag.’s attempt to stop his daughter from coming to Aulis has
been overtaken by the arrival also of his wife, and by his emotional
and moral capitulation to their presence (742–5). Now Clyt. (and
later Iph.) will learn the truth – as will Ach., also deceived unawares:
so the Third Episode introduces this last important and long-expected
character, but in it he meets only Clyt. Ach.’s importance is conveyed by
the episode’s length; and its three scenes are coherently progressive in
revealing his character, while different in nature: (A) his impatient entry-
speech, after his unanswered call to a gate-keeper, becomes in effect a
soliloquy; though it is overheard by the off-stage Clyt. (819–20), she
naturally does not react to his complaint; and after this Ach. engages
in measured but difficult dialogue with her; (B) the OM’s revelation to
Clyt. and Ach. comes in an even more fraught three-way dialogue; (C)
Clyt.’s supplication of Ach. is made in a protracted exchange of longer
and shorter speeches, leading to his urging her to make a final appeal to
Ag. to relent.
For Achilles in the play see the Introduction pp. 23–4 and the
comprehensive chapter in Michaelakis (2002) 84–143, and the Index of
his (2006); but we do not fully share his views. After the initial encounter
of Ach. and Clyt. some factors become prominent: the soldiers’ pressure
for action; the presence of women among fighting men; (undeserved)
suffering and (deserved) pity.
Ritchie’s notes on this episode were the most fully worked and
valuable to us (and only those on 919–74 were published, in 1978); we
cannot ackowledge them all.
[Text. Yet again there are suspicions of inauthenticity, esp. in 805–18
and most of the third scene, 919–1035 within 900–1035.]

(A) 801–54, in two parts, Ach.’s entry and meeting with Clyt.
801–18 Ach.’s speech shows him intending to force upon Ag. his own
and his men’s impatience at the delay (his last word: he behaves like the
Ach. frustrated by delay while still in Argos, E. Telephus F 727c.35–48:
see on 817–18 below). For the introduction of so vigorous a warrior his
 Commentary 447

motive is well-conceived, and at once establishes his persona as correct

and proud. His honourable conduct continues when he meets Clyt., and
is vital to both this episode and to 1341–1429 in the fourth; he scruples
to talk with her and tries to leave 831, to avoid clasping hands with her
in her husband’s absence 833–4. His delicate behaviour is in extreme
contrast with that of Paris vis-à-vis Helen (whose husband also was
absent from home, 76–7).
819–54 Ach.’s dialogue with Clyt. is cast effectively into distichomythia
(see Form below). Its slower pace suits the measured exposure of the
attitudes and changes gradually forced upon both Clyt. and Ach., for each
couplet can carry fuller content than a single line. It is a scene which
creates mutual misunderstanding and awkwardness, just as the earlier
scenes between Ag. and Iph. and Clyt. used ambiguity to create irony.
Some critics have found a mild comic effect in 819–54, especially in Ach.’s
astonished reaction in 821–2 to Clyt. when she appears; but here a cruel
death is in prospect – unlike the amusing misunderstandings between Ion
and Xuthus Ion 517–62 (note the word ‘laughter’ in 528) and the stuttering
recognition between Menelaus and Helen Hel. 541–96; there are many
similar effects in New Comedy: Lesky (1983) 358. A judicious rebuttal of
exaggeration of the comic here by Cavander (1973) 124.
Staging. Ach. enters seeking Ag.; he announces his own name 802–3
(see n.) outside Ag.’s hut (from which Ag. is absent, 746–8) and is
overheard by Clyt. 820, who naturally comes out to meet her proposed
son-in-law 831–40. Ach. appears not to know that women have come
from Argos, let alone Ag.’s wife and daughter, and therefore that the
planned sacrifice, let alone the deception with the marriage, would bring
an end to the delay; so he is astounded to be confronted by a ‘beautiful’
woman (822) among armed men. At the scene’s end their mutually
embarrassed incredulity makes them wish only to separate at once;
but there is a second surprise for Ach. in 855 where his exit is stopped
also unexpectedly, by the OM (see 855–99 n.); cf. Ion 1553 where Ion
encounters Athena instead of Apollo (on this scene see Halleran (1985)
40–2 – but not his comparison also with A. Cho. 668 where Clyt. herself,
not ‘the masters of the house’ (658), comes out to greet the disguised
Orestes, who is expecting her).
Form. Distichomythia, both parties speaking in couplets (819–54).
This rarer form is superficially more contrived than that with single lines,
448 Commentary

and perhaps less ‘plausible’ at length. It survives in Tragedy first at A.

Ag. 620–35 (information emotionally sought and given), Cho. 1051–64;
it is rare in Soph., e.g. Trac. 417–35 (a testy interrogation) and often
irregular e.g. Phil. 965–1003 (tense excitement). Eur. uses it throughout
his career, e.g. Hipp. 1064–89, Tro. 610–33, Or. 215–67, Bacc. 923–
62, although most longish exchanges except Hel. 1032–84 have small
irregularities of sequence. Its spaciousness is not suited to sharper verbal
techniques, but see 831–3, 834–5, 836–7, 844–5, 846–9 and nn. This first
stichomythia between Clyt. and Ach. reveals obstacles which the second
855–99 resolves: see n. Both are analysed by Schwinge (1968) 190–2; a
sensitive appraisal of the first by Turato.
Art. The 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls (details in 111–14 n.)
depict two moments: Clyt. encountering an astonished Ach. 819ff. and
Clyt. astonished by the OM’s revelations 873ff. (nos 8, 9, 10).
801–3 Where…?: in Eur. an unannounced entrant often asks to
find a particular person, e.g. El. 487, Ion 1106 (Ritchie), cf. A. Cho.
653–9. here: not superfluous with ‘Where?’: Ach. assumes that Ag. will
be in his hut. Will … let him know that Achilles…?: such an entrant
also identifies himself at once with his own name (see Rutherford (2012)
95–6); it is less a courtesy than confirmatory guidance for the audience.
Greek. 802 πῶς ἄν and opt. in a polite request, as e.g. 977, Bacc. 170,
Hel. 435; Smyth 1833. φράζω with acc. and part. is a verb of showing,
e.g. Alc. 1012: Smyth 2106.
804 Ach.’s impatience increases. He will not wait for an answer, but
begins a general protest with not … on equal terms, displacing in the
Greek word-order The fact is that (γάρ) – the particle is elliptical and
prospective, apparently explaining why Ach. has come at all, so that the
contrast which Ach. then draws in 805–8a appears inexact and out of
place (n.). At 810 he moves to his personal ‘inequality’: his men are
rebellious. waiting: headline-word for Ach.’s speech: 815, 818 at its
end; cf. ‘sit’ 807 (n.).
Greek. ἐξ ἴσου ‘on equal terms’ Pho. 1402, S. OT 563, and in
an identical line-beginning Ar. Frogs 867 (also a differentiation).
Postponement of γάρ is far from rare, e.g. 122, GP 96; the problem of
the ellipse is discussed at GP 581–2.
[Text. P. Köln preserves πελ̣[ας, which Barnes conjectured; L’s πύλας
was a simple copying error (as in Supp. 1009), but has a false attraction,
 Commentary 449

for narrow straits are imagined as ‘gates’, e.g. Gibraltar Pindar F 256,
Thracian Bosporus PV 729. Hermann punctuated the line as a question;
but a firm opening statement is more convincing from Ach. to explain
why he seeks Ag.]
805–9 The contrast is a little unsatisfactory: (1) some … unmarried
… left … homes unprotected, (2) others have wives and children:
all sit here, but they are different from Ag. in two ways. (1) is Ach.’s
own situation (and implicitly, his aging father Peleus, 812, is too frail
to protect his house); and Clyt.’s revelation in 835–6 that he is about
to gain a wife will be ironic; (2) is no doubt true of many. (1) and (2)
together threaten men’s supreme duty to perpetuate their households, and
can only be explained by a passion for war in those men so fierce …
it cannot be without the gods. It is a further irony that in mythology
Ach.’s own passion was indeed engineered by the gods (like that of the
Greeks generally 411, cf. 1264) – for Ach.’s mother Thetis tried to keep
him from the War, e.g. E. Scyrians, Hypothesis (test. iia): Jouan (1966)
204–6; nor was he bound by Tyndareus’ oath (58–69) since he was not a
suitor for Helen. sit: i.e. ‘sit inactive’, explained from 804 ‘waiting’; cf.
Ag.’s pretended proposal to leave Troy itself Iliad 2.140; Ach. threatens
leaving 1.169–70, 9.356–61. At Hec. 35–6 the frustrated ‘Achaeans sit
inactive (ἥσυχοι) on the shore’ of Thrace, prevented from going home
after taking Troy.
Greek. 805 ἄζυγες γάμων ‘unmarried’ lit. ‘unyoked in marriage’,
image as 698 (n.) and e.g. Med. 673, Hipp. 546.   808 ἐμπίπτω ‘fall
upon’ with acc. is unique (and increases suspicion of these lines: see
Text); for the usual dat. (Ἑλλάδι was Tr1’s unmetrical intervention) in
this common image with ἔρως ‘passion’ cf. A. Ag. 341 στρατῷ ‘the
army’; the Athenian expedition to Sicily Thuc. 6.24.3 τοῖς πᾶσιν ‘all of
them’.
[Text. Eds explain and edit L’s text differently, none with total
confidence. Hennig and after him Page took suspicion furthest, but
Page ended (172) with the comment ‘the fault is natural in unrevised
work’.   808 καὶ παῖδας Musgrave (have wives) and children has
found recent approval; it attempted to sharpen the contrast (Ag. himself
has children, above all: not at all ‘on equal terms’ with Ach.); ἄπαιδες
L ‘(and others who have wives are) childless’ – but perhaps a sharper
contrast could be made by reading ἄπαιδας ‘(have) childless (wives)’,
450 Commentary

because others have left at home wives who have borne no heirs; and if they
die at Troy they will leave their male-lines extinguished.   807 ἀκταῖς
Markland and 809 Ἑλλάδ(α) Scaliger are certain corrections.   808
two attempts to save the unique acc. Ἑλλάδα: ἐσπέπτωκ(ε) Murray ‘has
fallen onto’ and ἐπτέρωκ(ε) Jackson ‘gave wings to, excited (Greece)’;
for the latter image see LSJ πτερόω II and πτοέω 586 n., 1029.]
810–18 [Text. Marked as ‘scarcely Euripidean’ by Diggle; 810–18 and
esp. 812–18 were suspect to, or deleted by, Conington, Wecklein and
Page, chiefly on grounds of apparent contradiction of detail between 806
and 812 and 813 (n.) with 1323, and of doubtful expression in 813, 816.
We do not agree with deletion.]
810–11 who desires to: i.e. speak; similarly Supp. 440, part-echoing
the formula proclaimed at the Athenian ecclesia, Τίς ἀγορεύειν βούλεται;
‘Who wishes to address the assembly?’
Greek. δίκαιον (It is) right that: for the construction cf. 1188. χρέος
with poss. pron. τοὐμὸν my own need as Hec. 892, IT 881–2.
[Text. 810 τοὐμὸν … χρέος Hennig my own need is right, despite
intervening δίκαιον (ἐστί): χρεών L gives the sense ‘I ought to speak my
own just case, justification’ (the phrase τὸ δίκαιον e.g. IT 500) – but Ach.
is not claiming ‘justice’, he is asserting a need.   811 δὲ χρῄζων Paley/
Kirchoff; but L’s def. art in δ’ ὁ χρῄζων ‘the one who desires’ is like that
in a similar context at Supp. 440.]
812–13 of Pharsalus: Pharsalus was the chief place in Phthia, Peleus
and Ach.’s homeland 103, 713 etc. Ach. grieves to have left Peleus alone
in his old age Iliad 24.540–2, cf. (Ach. in Hades) Od. 11.494–7. slight
breezes: not strong enough for sailing; cf. 10–11; it will be a different
thing if they strengthen and blow adversely 1323 (so there is no
contradiction with that line: 810–18 n.); but see Text.
Greek. ἠδέ and is Epic, very occasional in dialogue-trimeters in Eur.,
e.g. Hec. 323.
[Text. 812 Stockert prints Musgrave’s Φάρσαλιν (a Hellenistic
form).   813 πνοαῖς L ‘breezes’. The main argument against ῥοαῖς
Markland ‘currents’ (printed by Diggle, Kovacs) is that the Greeks’
departure depends rather upon the winds (10–11), as far as Ach. knows
(he is unaware of the proposed sacrifice of Iph. until 873–9). Also the
Euripus was almost always evoked for its uniquely strong currents, e.g.
166, IT 6–7; an exception is Ion 19 F 18 TrGF where the adj. λεπτός
 Commentary 451

‘slight’ is found describing the motion of its waters. Ach.’s thrust is

weaker if he is dismissively ironic about slight currents.]
814–16 I am restraining my Myrmidons: the passage 814–18 is
modelled on Iliad 16.200–7; with our 817 compare the Myrmidons’
outcry there at 205 ‘let us return home with our seafaring ships’. The
lines prepare for 1352–7, by which time opposition to Ach. has grown.
For Ach. and the Myrmidons see 1067–9 (n.), Michaelakis (2002) 113–
20, 122–3. ‘Achilles etc.’: actual speech reported, 356 n. why are
we waiting?: cf. Telephus F 727c.37 (and 43) ‘Why do you (plur., the
Atreids) delay?’, Ach.’s own complaint, but made at Argos. Also: ‘Why
do we delay going?’ S. OC 1627, the unearthly voice calling Oedipus to
leave the world. measure out: ἐκμετρέω; for time’s ‘measure’ μέτρον
see S. OT 561; e.g. Or. 72 has μακρὸν … μῆκος … χρόνου ‘long length
of time’.
Greek. 816 πρός the meaning ‘until’ for the prep. is not securely
attested (see Text). Ἰλίου objective gen. with στολόν lit. ‘sending off’,
expedition for Ilium: for the gen. cf. e.g. IT 1066 νόστον γῆς πατρῴας
‘return to our fatherland’; Smyth 1332–3. Cf. S. Phil. 247 τοῦ πρὸς Ἴλιον
στόλου.
[Text. 814 Monk’s οἱ δ(ὲ) ‘and they’ must replace L’s οἵ μ(ε) ‘who
… me’: the pron. με cannot stand as object either with προσκείμενοι on
the attack (it is always intrans.) or with λέγουσι as ‘say of me’.  815
Monk’s πόσον How much is quantitative, necessary as object to a verb of
measurement; L’s ποῖον, qualitative ‘what sort of ?’, cannot be defended
from A. Ag. 278 ποίου χρόνου ‘what sort of time since…?’, which is a
separative gen.   816 πρός L is difficult, explained uncertainly as ‘until’
or ‘for, upon, with a view to’ (LSJ C III.3.a), or even as an adv. ‘forwards’:
whence England’s replacement with τὸν, creating a single phrase as object
for ἐκμετρῆσαι; cf. S. Phil. 247 in Greek above. Tr3 and P2 wrote (Ἴλι)
ον above Ἰλίου, and early eds offered the meaning ‘(measure out time)
in sending off to Ilium’, with στόλον as an unlikely internal acc. with
ἐκμετρῆσαι; Markland adopted Ἴλιον, but with στόλου as descriptive gen.
dependent upon 815 χρόνον ‘time spent on the expedition’.]  
817–18 Act … if … act at all: colloquial impatience: the idiom with
verb repeated in conditional clause is illustrated by Stevens (1976) 53,
cf. Collard (2005) 364; but this appears to be the only certain example
in Tragedy. don’t wait … delays: Ach. in Telephus (814–16 n.) F
452 Commentary

727c.46–8 ‘<without waiting> on the delays (of the sons of Atreus)’ <οὐ
μένων> μελλήματα. Atreids: the inclusive name indicates that Men.
has indeed not betrayed Ag.’s secret, nor his own disengagement at 499
(Ritchie); cf. Ach. again at 842. Also, therefore neither Calchas nor Od.
has betrayed Ag.’s secret (his fear, 525–35). The Telephus passage and
our own have the only two poetic occurrences of μέλλημα ‘delay’; it
recurs in a possible allusion to one or the other passage at Aeschines,
Against Ctesiphon 72 ‘nor wait upon the delays of the Greeks’. In all
three places μεν- μελλ- are juxtaposed, and in 818 μὴ precedes them:
deliberately suggestive onomatopoeia or careless assonance?
[Text. 817 <δ’> Fix, a useful adversative; L/Tr offered nothing in the
metrical hiatus; <γ’> P2, the particle sharpening the imperative (rare: GP
125, discussed by Diggle (1981) 22). This <γ’> in early printed editions
prompted Monk’s δρᾶτ’ … δράσετ’, plurals ‘pointless’ (Ritchie) in a
complaint to a single commander.
Metre. 817 ἢ ἀ- with crasis, making a single long syllable, as e.g. Hec.
1249 μὴ ἀ-: West (1982) 13.]
819–54 On this distichomythia see (A) 801–54 n.
819–20 O son … divine daughter: Clyt. continues from 710–12 her
awe of Iph.’s bridegroom; similarly 836. heard … from inside: – or
from off-stage, a common enough entry-motive, e.g. Hec. 1114–15 (cf.
1109), Hcld. 478–9, Supp. 87; cf. our 317 and n.
821–2 O mistress Shame!: ὦ πότνι᾿ Αἰδώς: Hippolytus utters the
same cry at Hippolytus Veiled F 436, despairing at loose morality.
Here it conveys (1) Ach.’s astonishment at encountering a woman, and
a beautiful one, among armed men (826): is her modesty forgotten?;
and (2) his own instinctive restraint before a lady. The apostrophe of
Shame establishes a major aspect of his character (see also 801–54 and
801–18 n.; Michelakis (2002) 101–2), particularly throughout this first
exchange, where the verb αἰδέομαι ‘feel shame’ (see Barrett on Hipp.
244) recurs: 833 from Ach. and 839 from Clyt. (cf. 830 Ach.’s own
fear of ‘shaming’ αἰσχρόν behaviour, 824 Clyt.’s commendation of his
‘correctness’, τὸ σωφρονεῖν: n.); at 848 the verb is taken over by Clyt.
of herself (851 she drops her eyes before him). For ‘shame’ αἰδώς in the
play see Introduction pp. 34–5.
Surprise like Ach.’s often provokes an invocation of a god, e.g. Or.
385 ‘O gods, what do I see?’, Men. encountering the desperately ill
 Commentary 453

and bed-ridden Orestes. Abstractions are often deified, and sometimes

personified; then eds print them with a capital letter – as can reasonably
be done here (cf. Fortune 864 n., and Fate 1136). Just as the noun αἰδώς is
hard to translate satisfactorily and consistently, so is πότνια ‘mistress’, for
it registers a power to be obeyed (ποτ- ‘master’ as in δεσποτ-: see DELG
under both nouns), in both mortal and god (e.g. 1524 Artemis; perhaps
also 1487); cf. Hipp. 88 ‘we must call gods masters’ (δεσπότας)… How
beautiful…!: εὐπρεπής ‘well-seeming, well-prominent’ is here defined
by its noun μορφή ‘form’, as e.g. El. 1074 ‘face’; by its context 386
above.
Greek. The word γυναῖκα is emphasized by enjambement (50–1 n.).
823–4 related: προσῆκες: The word begins the stichomythic
misunderstandings: see Text. Clyt. is clear in her own meaning, but Ach.
cannot know it until 832–6. Ritchie however demurs: ‘it is not on family
connection that recognition depends’. I approve: αἰνῶ, a very common
1. pers., e.g. Bacc. 944 of a man’s thinking, Supp. 201 of a god making
provision for men. correctness: a difficult translation. σωφρονέω is lit.
‘think safely, soundly’, in context ‘show proper restraint, scruple’, here
Ach.’s reaction to her lady’s status and beauty. Clyt. compliments him
again with the adj. σώφρων 1024 (n.).
Greek. 823 θαῦμα with acc. and infin. as e.g. Danae F 324.6, like the
verb θαυμάζω e.g. Alc. 1130. οἷς masc. or ‘common’ plur., usual of a single
woman ‘generalised’: Smyth 1009.   824 προσήκω ‘be related to’ IT
550; LSJ II.l.b, III.3 (but see Text); this verb with a dat. never has the sense
‘come to’. For ‘generalising’ μή in the rel. clause cf. 834; 384 n.
[Text. οἷς … προσῆκες Nauck and most eds, lit. ‘to whom you were
not related’: οὓς … προσέβης L ‘whom you had not approached’; οἷς
… προσῆλθες Paley ‘whom you had not visited’ (the dat. of a person is
normal: LSJ προσέρχομαι I.1). Ritchie favoured οὓς … προσεῖδες Fix
‘whom you had not looked upon before’ – and indeed ms. P’s rubricator
entered a conjecture κατεῖδες ‘saw’ (apparently unknown to Fix).]
825–6 a woman among men: soon to become Clyt.’s argument for
Ach.’s sympathy, 913–14. heavily armoured: φράσσω lit. ‘fence in,
secure’, a term for men in full-body metal armour e.g. 1387, Iliad 17.268;
but here it brings out Clyt.’s abnormal presence among them.
Greek. 825 (τίς) δέ opening an interrogation (Ach. did not address
Clyt. in 821–2), cf. Hcld. 638, Ion 308, GP 173–4; Bothe removed the
454 Commentary

particle, introducing a tone of abrupt astonishment.   826 Eur. uses

the old Attic perf. mid.-pass. stem of φράσσω in φαργ- (Barrett on Hipp.
657, pace DELG); again in 1259, 1387.
827–8 I am etc.: self-identifications vary their formulae of pedigree,
e.g. Ion 260–1, Hel. 87–8, Pho. 288–90.
829–30 You do well … brief … main facts: as one educated by
Chiron to practise simplicity (927), Ach. appreciates brevity, timeliness
and accuracy (see Plato, Hippias Minor 365ab, quoting Iliad 9.309–14);
for other such moments cf. S. El. 1259, OC 808–9. But it is shameful
etc.: Ach. may be thinking that ‘Clyt. has been sent out by Ag. to confer’
in his place (England).
Greek. 829 ἐν βραχεῖ ‘in brief’ e.g. Or. 734, Supp. 566. τά καιρία
lit. ‘things for the precise, critical moment’, e.g. Soph. above; the adj.
καίριος of a plan Hcld. 471; cf. καιρός 800 n.   830 συμβάλλω join in
conversation with: this place is not listed with dat. at LSJ I.11.
831–2 Stay! Why are you trying to escape?: the same words in
attempts to detain another speaker e.g. Hel. 548–9, Pho. 897; different
wording e.g. S. Trac. 335; ‘stay’ alone e.g. 855 (see 1461 n. Greek). For
recent entrants in such moments see Taplin (1977) 300 n. 2. right hand:
pledges are so made, 58 n. Clyt. wants a mother’s reassurance from the
fiancé before the wedding, in a beginning to a happy marriage.
Greek. 832 ἀρχήν ‘as a beginning’ is acc. in apposition to the sentence:
234 n.
[Text. 831 μεῖνον – τί φεύγεις; Valckenaer Stay! Why … escape?
makes perfect contextual sense; δεινὸν τί φεύγεις L ‘What are you trying
to escape that is (so) terrible?’ (or, with older eds, δεινόν τι ‘Are you
trying to escape something terrible?’) leaves too much to implication.
Markland’s deft τ(ε) is again perfect: L’s γ’ is nonsense in any meaning
of the particle.   832 μακαρίαν ‘happy’ is attached to ‘beginning’ in L,
but more effective when transferred to ‘marriage’ (μακαρίων Markland):
see above.]
833–4 Ach. picks up only ‘hand’ from 831, the leading word in the
sentence; he is made not to hear ‘marriage’, so that Clyt. must repeat the
matter forcibly with 835 ‘you are to marry (my child)’; then he reacts
will full amazement 837. My right hand with yours?: ellipse of
‘join’, a not rare device to convey astonishment at reunions, e.g. IT 802
Or. ‘…now you have your brother!’ 803 Iph. ‘I (have) you, my brother?’,
 Commentary 455

S. Trac. 429; Headlam on Herodas 5.4. See also ‘speechless’ 838 and
n. touch … no right to: Electra 223 El. ‘Away with you! Do not touch
those you should not touch.’ 224 Orestes ‘There is no one I would touch
more rightly (ἐνδικώτερον)’.
835–6 every right: such emphatic picking up of a word from the other
speaker (as in 833 from 831) is a marked feature of stichomythia, 801–54
n. at end. The effect here is greater because the first use ends one speech,
the second begins the answer. sea-goddess: an addition to Clyt.’s initial
address of Ach., 819; she continues to be preoccupied with his lineage.
Greek. The pres. of γαμέω can serve as a ‘dynamic’ fut. from Homer
on, e.g. Iliad 9.388, 391, DELG; this is not a ‘contract’ fut. like τελῶ, for
which see Smyth 488d.
837–8 How do you mean, marriage?: lit. ‘What sort of marriage are
you talking about?’, ποῖος with noun or idea repeated from the other
speaker (835 ‘marry’); it is indignant or disdainful, and colloquial: Stevens
(1976) 38, cf. Collard (2005) 363; Diggle (1981) 50–1. speechless:
lit. ‘speechlessness holds me’ (an idiomatic use of ἔχω: LSJ A I.8). The
same phrase at Her. 515, the same noun Hel. 549, in both following
a wholly unexpected sight. out of your mind: the verb παρανοέω is
found first at Ar. Clouds 1480, the noun παράνοια at A. Seven 756, then
e.g. Or. 824 (there of ‘evil-minded men’); both occur as clinical terms
in the Hippocratic Corpus. Cf. Ion 520 ‘Are you in your right mind?’ εὖ
φρονεῖς μέν; (in a comic context, unlike here). speaking so strangely:
the rare verb καινουργέω: see n. on 2 ‘strange activity’.
839–40 It is natural: ἐμφύω of inborn attitudes e.g. Med. 519, 1345.
relatives: the closest English can get to φίλος lit. ‘loving, friendly’ in its
common use of those to whom one is obliged by birth or marriage; see
e.g. 317–414a n. (i), 458 and n.
Greek. μεμνημένους: the aor. pass. ἐμνήσθην is usual in the sense
‘mention’, not the perf. mid. as here; but cf. e.g. Hel. 120.
[Text. The acc. μεμνημένους, not L’s dat. -οις, is required: Clyt., not
Ach., mentioned ‘marriage’.]
841–2 paid court to: see 847 n. Atreus’ sons: for their significance
here see 818 n.
Greek. 841 οὐπώποτ(ε): this very strong negative is not rare in Eur.; it
is the converse of ἀεί ποτε 638.   842 λόγος and objective gen. γάμων
talk of marriage: 498 n.
456 Commentary

843–4 What could this mean, then?: both Clyt. and Ach. are at an
impasse, after 841–2; the question (in various forms with potential opt.,
e.g. Supp. 558 with πῶς ‘How … then?’, Hel. 467 with ποῦ ‘Where
… then?’; cf. GP 270) is half-rhetorical, perplexed; hence the mutual
challenges of 843–5. back again: Clyt. invites Ach. to revisit his 837
and wonder again at her 835–6, just as she could only wonder at his
astonished ignorance of the marriage, although she concealed wonder
beneath the platitude of 839–40 (but see 845–6 Text).
Greek. 843 πάλιν αὖ, pleonastic, 108.   844 τὰ παρὰ σοῦ what you
are saying: for the prep. παρά with gen. pron. ‘(coming) from you’ eds
cite e.g. Gorgias 82 B 11a Palamedes 37 DK, Xen. Cyr. 6.1.42; LSJ A.II.2
record it as a prose usage, and it is found in Eur. only here (see Text).
[Text. 844 τἀπὸ σοῦ Dobree ‘your actions’, as e.g. Tro. 74; LSJ ἀπό
III.4.]
845–6 Make a guess!: answering Clyt.’s 843 ‘What could this mean,
then?’; then We have guessing in common here. Ach. next offers a way
out, we were both deceived by what was said, perhaps, i.e. ‘we were
each misinterpreting the other’, Jackson (see Text).
Greek. 845 κοινόν ἐστί ‘share’ as e.g. 918 (with dat. expressed).
εἰκάζω ‘guess’, not rare in Eur., e.g. Tro. 163, cf. A. Cho. 518.  846
ἐψευδόμεθα ‘were … deceived’, impf. ‘of immediate past reference’:
Smyth 1902–3.
[Text of 843–6: a difficult matter after the seductively clever interchange
of θαύμαζε wonder and εἴκαζε Make a guess! made by Jackson (1955)
40, cf. Diggle (1994) 493 n. 12. We believe L’s text of 844–5 to be sound,
however: the doubling of ‘wonder’ in 844 and of ‘guess(ing)’ in 845
is excellent, the play of one against the other effective. With Jackson’s
interchange further alteration becomes necessary: 844 ‘guess’ governing
843 ‘my words’ acc. τοὺς λόγους is meaningless, and Diggle changed
to the dat. τοῖς λόγοις ‘guess by means of my words’, which does not
suit 843 ‘What could this mean, then?’; Jackson himself was forced to
follow 845 ‘Wonder!’ with κοινὸν <δ’>, ‘<But> we share…’.   In 846
ἐψευδόμεθα (Paris apograph, conjectured by Markland) ‘we were …
deceived’ is superior after any constitution of 843–5 to οὐ ψευδόμεθα L
‘we are not being deceived’. Page’s strong doubt of 845–6 obliged him
to suggest deletion also of 847–8.]
847–8 With Clyt.’s been treated lit. ‘suffered’ compare her 985 ‘we
 Commentary 457

have suffered pitiably’. I am paying court: μνηστεύω is a male suitor’s

verb (841); here it represents Clyt.’s sense of her false position revealed.
Of a woman also (but finding a bride) Stesichorus F 93 Davies-Finglass
(but the context is lost), Ap. Rhod. 2.511 the Muses seek a wife for
Aristaeus. ashamed: see 821–2 n.; Clyt. means the words and actions
that have resulted from Ag.’s deception of her.
Greek. 847 ἀλλ’ ἦ in an incredulous, protesting question, Can I
really…?: GP 27. Alc. 816 has the same beginning.   848 εἴξασιν is
a ‘local’ Attic form of ἐοίκασιν 3. plur. (see apparatus), also Hel. 497 in
Eur.: Smyth 704d; colloquial?: Collard (2005) 377.
[Text. 847 μνηστεύω L: Diggle printed Nauck’s conjecture μαστεύω
‘I am looking for, seeking’.   848 the form εἴξασιν is required here
by metre (as in the same phrase with ὡς at Hel. 497); L’s alternative
ἐοίκασιν is the normal form.
Metre. -α short before μν-: 68 n.]
849–50 making a mockery of: a hero’s greatest indignity, esp. if the
basis is false: κερτομέω e.g. Hel. 619, S. Phil. 1235. take … lightly:
φαύλως φέρω from Ach. again 897 – but there negative like 899, of the
same sense of injury.
Greek. δός give: an example of the wide application of δίδωμι (too
wide for LSJ at e.g. I.5 to note this place); the sense is that of Antiope F
187.2 ἀμελίᾳ παρεὶς ἐᾷ lit. ‘he lets (it) go into lack of care and leaves it’.
851–2 Goodbye!: abrupt, but Clyt. is now so ashamed that she must
leave Ach.’s presence, not just fail still to look (him) straight in the face,
ὀρθοῖς ὄμμασιν lit. ‘with straight eyes, level gaze’ (Hec. 972 has ὀρθαῖς
κόραις, the same idiom): she is guilty as a liar, but herself a victim (847),
even if undeserving, and in that state unworthy of contact. For ‘undeserved
suffering’ cf. Tro. 1289 slavery, Ion 1515 matricide (but there avoided).
853–4 (I bid) you goodbye as well!: this is the most likely sense, τόδε
lit. ‘this’ referring to the the farewell χαῖρε in 851 and καὶ σοί ‘and to
you’ replacing the pron. καὶ σύ in the formula seen at e.g. Alc. 509 –
χαῖρε … 510 – … καὶ σὺ χαῖρε; the phrase ἐξ ἐμοῦ ‘from me’ shows
that Ach. is offering something. look for: ματεύω, a deliberate echo of
Ach.’s entry-motive ζητέω 803; compare Hel. 597 (μαστεύω).
Staging. Both Clyt. and Ach. now make to leave, Ach. into Ag.’s hut
(Clyt. is given no time to tell him Ag. is not there), Clyt. to go – where?
Where else but into the hut as well, although that is unthinkable together
458 Commentary

with Ach.? – but the question is pedantic, for the sudden entry of the
OM prevents such an embarrassment after their parting words. For the
possibility nevertheless of a second door in the stage back-cloth (in the
5th century theatre?) representing a second entrance to the hut, see Taplin
(1977) 439; Halleran (1985) 48 n. 24.

(B) 855–99. Revelation to Clyt. and Ach. of Ag.’s true plan. The
mechanism chosen by Eur. is not through loose talk overheard and
reported to Clyt. (Ag.’s fear: 538–40), but through an unexpected
informer, the OM; he was Ag.’s previously faithful confidant (28–48,
114) and bearer of his second letter to Clyt. (139–54) when intercepted
by Men. (303–16; here 891–5). The OM’s greater loyalty to Clyt., as her
slave before her marriage (858–60, 867–71), now breaks through; he
sides with her 871, to save ‘those I wish’ 864. In the Prologue-scene he
had shown concern for Ach.’s reactions (124–7).
The OM’s first words make it clear that he will speak to Ach. and
Clyt. jointly, but he establishes with Ach. first – and only with him – that
they will not be overheard 855–65. Clyt. then takes over as interlocutor,
and after accepting his assurance of goodwill 866–71 urges him to
say what he intends 872. It is his carefully slow revelation of changed
loyalty which makes both that and his immediately following disclosure
about Ag. so effective. Clyt. is successively incredulous, appalled by
her husband’s motives, and tearful for herself and daughter 873–89, but
collected enough to verify the OM’s ‘sources’ 890–5. The ground is laid
for her to turn abruptly to Ach. in formal supplication 896–9; she kneels
to him at 900, preventing him from leaving for a second time; and scene
(C) 900–1035 begins.
Staging. The OM speaks from behind the partly opened gate 857, 863.
We must not speculate how or why he had not revealed the truth to Clyt.
before; but his fear (857 n.) was of danger from her sudden encounter
with Ach., whose voice outside he too overheard (cf. Clyt. 820), so
that he may well have followed her to the gate before the scene began.
‘Eavesdropping’ by ordinary servants is not rare in Tragedy (S. Mills in
EGT 305–6), and often precedes a crisis, e.g. Med. 67 the Tutor, Hipp.
565 the Nurse, S. El. 1239–1320 the Tutor. Peeping from behind a door
is a motif of Comedy, e.g. Ar. Peace 981–5, Thes. 797, Ecc. 924.
 Commentary 459

With the OM’s interruption compare (Ritchie) that of Odysseus after

overhearing Neoptolemus’ sudden vacillation at S. Phil. 974 (414b n.),
or that of the servant revealing to the unruly guest Heracles the death
of Admetus’ wife at Alc. 803–25, which his host had concealed from
him (509–22); an intervention preventing departure at e.g. S. Trac. 335.
With the OM’s disclosure his part in the play is done, and he withdraws
silently (as probably at 319: n.), almost certainly when Clyt. turns in
despair to Ach. 896–9.
Form. Distichomythia gives way to ordinary stichomythia, across a
transitional couplet in the OM’s opening words 855–6, and iambic trimeters
yield to the brisker rhythm of trochaic tetrameters (316–401 n.); they are
needed for the sharply increased tension created by the OM’s nervous
intervention and frank disclosures. The ironic half-revelations of Ag. facing
Iph. and Clyt. (631–745) are abandoned (and only Ag. will try to repeat
them, 1106–28). After 855–6 the OM’s ‘you … and you’ we might have
expected an interactive three-voice exchange, but this form is infrequent in
Tragedy, used most widely in Soph. but always briefly and with speakers
usually in differing, successive pairs, as here; in Eur. the third voice may
have an occasional single line or two (the densest passage is El. 671–93):
see B. Seidensticker in Jens (1971) 203–4, (on Eur.) 210–11.
855–6 Stranger: with the exclamatory ὦ, the vocative ξένε underlines
an address to persons of status e.g. Alc. 821, Ion 415 and conversely e.g.
Ion 247, so that it does not conflict in tone with the formal descendant (of
Aeacus) γένεθλον (Ag. used it to his wife 686 n., cf. 1106) and born the
son of a goddess (cf. 901). On Iph.’s later address to Ach. as ‘stranger’ see
1418 and n. It’s you I mean: σέ τοι λέγω, an idiom ranging between the
respectful e.g. A. Cho. 456 and the disrespectful S. Aj. 1228; with αὐδῶ Ion
219 (lyric); in Comedy, GP 542. In all, the OM’s mixed tones may suggest
his anxiety; note Ach.’s reaction in 857 ‘How frightened…’.
Greek. μεῖνον wait: for the aor. imperative see 1461 n. Greek.
[Text. 855 For Markland’s correction of L’s designation of him
as θε(ράπων) ‘servant’ see List of Play-characters at the start of this
Commentary. ὦ, σέ Markland, with the pron. calling attention, like ὦ,
οὗτος … σε προσκαλῶ S. Aj. 89 (to Ajax inside his hut): ὡς σέ τοι λέγω
L, with sigma copied twice in probably an ancestor ms., can mean only
‘so that I may speak of you’.]
460 Commentary

857 is calling: καλέω of calling attention, through a theatre-door e.g.

A. Cho. 655. half-opened: i.e. one leaf of the theatre’s central door,
partly opened, παροίγνυμι as at Ar. Peace 30.
Greek. τεταρβηκός neut. perf. part. intrans. as internal acc. to καλεῖ,
How frightened his call. Alc. 773 has πεφροντικὸς βλέπεις ‘you have
an anxious look’; cf. [Theocr.] 20.14 with a verb of voicing τι σεσαρὸς
… ἐγέλαξεν ‘he laughed a little mockingly’; for the construction see KG
I.309 (Smyth’s treatment 1573 is limited).
[Text. τεταρβηκὸς England, Diggle: τεταρβηκὼς L and most eds,
masc. nom. ‘in terror’.]
858 I’m not delicate about this: as indeed he wasn’t in his blunt
exchanges with Ag. in the prologue-scene 46–8 or with Men. 303–12.
Good slaves admit the shame only of their name e.g. Ion 854–6; cf. 867
n. What has happened: ἡ τύχη; cf. 719. Translation as ‘my (own)
fortune, circumstance’ is false to the context: the OM is not defending
his speaking out as a slave, but explaining why he has to; and he comes
to his loyal goodwill towards Clyt. in 867–71.
Greek. For the sense of ἁβρ- cf. Clyt. reproving Iph. 1343 ‘you’re
in no position to be delicate’ (noun ἁβρότης); for the verb ἁβρυν- see
Fraenkel on Ag. 1205. The dat. τῷδε is causal: Smyth 1517.
[Text. L’s μ(ε) is absent from the Paris copy (design or accident?);
Elmsley deleted it as offending ‘Porson’s Law’ (49–51a n.; West (1982)
42, 84–5); Radermacher rescued it with οὔ μ’ ἐᾷ.]
859 Certainly not mine: Ach. assumes that a slave calling from inside
Ag.’s hut cannot be his own and cannot concern him (My possessions
… separate; a slave was a chattel); but the OM’s pointing to Clyt. (860)
obliges Ach.’s courtesy towards her.
Greek. μέν on its own with a pers. or poss. pron., emphatic: GP 381. οὐχί
emphatic negative emphatically postponed, e.g. Med. 708 λόγῳ μὲν οὐχί
‘in what he says, not’. χωρίς adv. ‘separate’ as complement e.g. Aeolus F
21.3 ‘good and bad … separate’. τἀμά ‘anything to do with me, my things,
affairs, obligations, interests etc.’: 396 n. καὶ (τὰ) Ἀγαμέμνονος: the def.
art. is often omitted with the second of coupled nouns, e.g. El. 273 τἀμὰ
καὶ σ(ὰ) ἔπη ‘my and your words’, Pho. 474; Smyth 1143 (but thin).
861 We’re standing here!: ἕσταμεν: i.e. ‘standing (and waiting)’,
mildly impatient after 855 ‘Wait!’, like El. 227 ἕστηκα ‘I’m standing
here!’ answering 226 ‘Stay and hear!’. See Addenda. Tell me, if you
 Commentary 461

want something: a variation on a formula, e.g. El. 905, S. Trac. 416; cf.
Clyt. 866 ‘if you want to say something to me’.
862 alone: μόνω (dual): securing privacy for a confidence e.g. Hec.
978–81, Ion 1520–2. Comedy used the device frequently, e.g. Ar. Thes.
472, (Stockert) Plaut. Miles 596–9.
Greek. ἦ … δῆτα; is a nuanced interrogative, e.g. Ion 560, IT 1176, in
which δῆτα keeps its ‘own logical force’ ‘…then, …’; GP 271.
[Text. παρόντε Porson (dual: see 863 Text) is certain; πάροιθεν L
is unmetrical, and a clear invader from 860, the line above 862 in the
transcolumnar sequence of lines in both L and, it is inferred, its exemplar.]
863 only to the two of us: avoiding unwanted hearers or watchers, a
design at e.g. Hec. 1017–18, Pho. 92–3. The presence of the Chorus is
completely ignored: see Bain (1977b) 59. See Addenda.
Greek. ὡς: idiomatic ellipse of <ἴσθι> in the Greek ‘<Know> that
you…’, e.g. 1367; Smyth 3001. See Addenda.
[Text. μόνοιν Markland, the dual reflecting that of 862: μόνοις L.]
864 The OM now comes fully outside the gate. O Fortune and my
forethought: does the OM just thank his own precaution, or (better)
mean his imminent hope to involve Clyt. and Ach.? The poss. pron. ‘my’
may however stand with both nouns, despite the clear personification of
the first. For the appeal in a crisis to more than one abstraction cf. Ag. in
1136 Fate, fortune and destiny, El. 1301 fate and necessity. Fortune τύχη
is found increasingly personified after A. Ag. 664, and in the 4th century
in dedicated cult: Collard on Hec. 785–6, 491; other abstractions too,
Mikalson (1991) 277 n. 7 (but he omits Fortune!). Ritchie points to the
frequent coupling of fortune and forethought, sometimes in contrast, e.g.
S. OT 977–8 ‘What should man fear, for whom fortune is powerful and
who has forethought for nothing?’, cf. Phil. 774; Hdt. 8.87.3, Antiphon
5.21. those I myself wish: precautionary veiling of detail, e.g. Hcld.
791, IT 513; contrast Clyt.’s only too clear use at 1025.
865 What he says: ὁ λόγος or ‘What you say…’, or even ‘The
word’ (i.e. ‘forethought’)? Ach. seems to indicate that he will leave the
speaking to Clyt.; but the line’s meaning and tone are in doubt from
textual corruption and insecurity (see Text).
Greek. μέλλων part. ‘future’ of time as e.g. E. F 1028.3 coupled with
παρελθών ‘past (time)’, cf. 988 of marriages, 1355, 1380, Alc. 784 of
tomorrow’s advent, El. 626 of a coming birth.
462 Commentary

[Text. (1) †ἂν ὤση (= -ῃ?)† L has no syntax or meaning. In (μέλλοντ)α

σώσει Monk ‘will save (them)’ (i.e. those the OM wishes, 864), the fut.
is counter to Ach.’s uncertainty; on the other hand ‘save’ repeats the
previous speaker’s word pointedly, a familiar stichomythic effect.
Accordingly Stockert, Matthiessen and Kovacs favour Schwabl’s
(unpublished) σώσαι, a bare opt. ‘May what he says save (them)’; but
this at once implies Ach.’s support, like Stockert’s own opt. ὄναιτο ‘May
… bring benefit (to them)’. Schwabl’s suggestion is however superior to
(μέλλοντ’) ἀνοίσει Markland ‘will relate to (a future time)’ (not ‘defer’:
that would be ἀναβαλεῖ): excellent in English but (Ritchie) against the
normal sense of ἀναφέρω intrans. with a prep. phrase as ‘relate to a
standard’ (LSJ II 6.b). Diggle OCT cites no conjecture at all. (2) ὄκνον
Hermann hesitation, a word which Clyt. immediately exploits in her
886 ‘don’t delay’: ὄγκον L ‘weight’ i.e. ponderousness, conveying a
half-joking condescension towards a slave, is inappropriate to Ach.; this
noun of ‘swollen, puffed-up’ speech e.g. Pho. 716–17, S. OC 1162. Also
ἔχω … ὄκνον Collard ‘but I have a certain hesitation’ makes Ach.’s own
uncertainty explicit. (3) Other editors have supposed a line of Ach. to be
lost before 865, or of the OM after it (where Stockert prints a lacuna).]
866 My right hand on it: that we are alone; lit. ‘in virtue of my right
hand’ (as pledge, 58, 339, 471) – i.e. ‘don’t wait for a spoken pledge’
(England).
Greek. ἕκατι ‘as far as … goes’; e.g. Her. 277 ‘…as I go’, Hel. 1182
‘…my effort goes’.
867 well-disposed: 871 n. The OM stressed his loyalty 45, cf. Ag. 114;
but note 871!
Greek. δῆτα ‘to be sure’, here Then surely, inferential, in a question
likely conveyed also by tone of voice, e.g. Pho. 722, 901; GP 271.
868 I know: οἶδα answering the other speaker’s οἶσθα; ‘Do you know?’
is common in Eur.’s stichomythia: Dodds on Bacc. 462–3. (old) slave:
λάτρις as e.g. Hec. 609 ἀρχαία (‘old’) λάτρι; it is usually a (hired) servant.
869 dowry: 47; cf. 860 above.
870 with me: 48. Greek. ἀεί ποτε ever since: see 638 n.
871 less (well-disposed) … to your husband: startling. Clyt. has no
reason to expect this, since she would be aware that Ag. would take only
a trusted slave on campaign (867 n.). Cf. And. 59 ‘(a woman captive-
slave) well-disposed to you and your husband while he lived’, Ion 811–
 Commentary 463

12 ‘I speak of your husband without hate, but liking you more than him’.
At E. Phrixus F 822a and b.3–5, 13–15 a slave switches allegiance from
mistress to master.
872 reveal: ἐκκάλυπτε lit. ‘uncover’ suits the secrecy requested in
862–3; cf. 1146.
Greek. ποτε at last with imperative as S. Phil. 816; with νῦν temporal
preceding ποτε compare Phil. 1041 τείσασθε … τῷ χρόνῳ ποτέ ‘punish
(them) all in time at last’.
[Text. στέγεις Schmidt are keeping unsaid lit. ‘cover, hide’ (e.g.
El. 273 words, Pho. 1214 bad news; cf. LSJ B III.2); printed by Diggle
(followed by Kovacs), citing his similar emendation at Tro. 1177 (Diggle
(1981) 74): λέγεις L, dynamic pres., ‘want to say’.]
873 father, her begetter: the redundant phrasing is pathetic, 90 n.
Clyt. uses it again in 1177–8, where she repeats the description of Ag.’s
action with his own hand more emphatically, ‘himself, no other, and by
no other’s hand’. αὐτόχειρ, here of kin-killing, of fratricide Pho. 880 and
of Medea’s filicide Med. 1281 (see Mastronarde on either).
Greek. For μέλλω and aor. infin. in Eur. cf. 880, Ion 1210, 1265 (all
κτανεῖν, the aor. signifying finality); Diggle (1994) 415 cites Stevens on
And. 571; Smyth 1959.
874 What?: πῶς; lit. ‘How(‘s that)?’, incredulous, e.g. Hec. 397, Hel.
95, stronger even than in 513; What you say … is abominable follows,
lit. ‘I spit your words out’ (cf. A. Eum. 303), ἀπέπτυσα as in 509 (n.); for
the aor. see 440 n. You are not of sound mind: note the OM’s 893, and
877 ‘he is out of his mind’, both of Ag.
875 With a sword etc.: the OM answers incredulity with flat certainty,
continuing his syntax from 873. bloody: a deliberate verb, Iph.’s for
her own imminent death 1317, cf. 939, 947; Her. 319–20 ‘stab, bloody
necks with a sword’, And. 411–12. ‘White’ and ‘bloody’ are effective
neighbours in the Greek, as e.g. Supp. 77, a lacerated face. Ritchie notes
that sword 1429, [1566], [1578], bloody (above) and neck (1084, 1429,
1516 etc.) inevitably become frequent later.
876 what I endure!: in addition to the hurtful discovery of the false
marriage, 852 ‘treatment I do not deserve’. Clyt.’s self-pity, before she
shows pity for her daughter (880, 888 again), conflicts with the OM’s
emphasis on the girl in 875 (cf. 887). mad: μαίνομαι as e.g. Bacc. 359
μέμηνας ἤδη ‘You’ve now gone mad!’; cf. (Ritchie) Men. Epitr. 878–9
464 Commentary

‘the man here’s beginning madness, … is going mad, … is mad, … is

truly mad’.
Greek. τυγχάνω with pres. or perf. part. conveys actuality, ‘happen to
be’: 1138–9 n., Barrett on Hipp. 388–90.
877 in his right mind: ἀρτίφρων also Med. 294; A. Seven 778 (also
of recovery), cf. Tro. 417 οὐ γὰρ ἀρτίας ἔχεις φρένας ‘your mind’s not
right’. (out of) his mind: bare φρονέω of a sound mind e.g. Bacc. 854;
contrasted with ‘mad’ (μεμηνώς) S. Aj. 82.
Greek. πλὴν ἐς … τοῦτο δέ except towards … there as Or. 541.
878 demon: lit. ‘(Which among) demons?’ ἀλάστορες: supernatural
forces compelling bloodshed and often vengeful within a family – but also
culpable, e.g. Hipp. 820, Med. 1333: the audience at least would think of all
these implications, of Ag. as an Atreid, if Clyt. does not. At 946–7 (see n.)
Ach. pictures himself as such a demon if he fails to prevent Iph.’s sacrifice.
879 A prophecy … Calchas: a shocking answer to ‘Which among
demons?’. at any rate: for the OM’s ancient disapproval cf. his 133,
and Ag.’s tone in 518 (which the OM did not hear).
880 Where to?: Clyt. already knows (662–4), so she is distraught? Her
question in 882 shows her bitterness. What I endure! (Clyt. 876, 888)
… the girl endures: the same double concern in Clyt.’s 886 (– but see
n.). intends to kill: Clyt. uses the OM’s line-end of 873.
881 get back Helen: see also 882 n. Clyt. overheard Ag.’s 682–3, and
Iph.’s 658.
882 Helen’s: her name has the same place, before the Greek mid-verse
caesura, as in 881; here in the Greek it is effectively juxtaposed to that of
Iph. fated (to depend) upon: England thinks that this nears ‘fatal to’ Iph.
Greek. πεπρωμένος ‘fated’, part. describing a thing, as e.g. marriage
Hel. 1646, Melanippe F 501.1; usually neut. and impersonal, e.g. And.
1268. ἄρα with impf./plup. of a new realisation (Was) … then: 404 n.,
1330. upon: εἰς ‘in relation to’ expressing hostility, e.g. El. 329, Hipp. 438.
883 Artemis: at 91 the goddess was named in the prophecy (879), as
the destined beneficiary.
Greek. for the idiom πάντα ἔχω understand … all cf. (Ritchie) Or.
1120 ‘I understand so much, but the rest I do not understand’; LSJ A I.9.
A different idiom at e.g. Pho. 953 τὰ μὲν παρ’ ἡμῶν πάντ’ ἔχεις ‘You
have my entire case’, cf. Ion 1367–8.
884 What…?: [Text. Better punctuated as a specific question (τίνα
 Commentary 465

L, Wecklein, Diggle, Kovacs); weaker as an uncertain one (τινα Weil,

Günther, Ritchie, ‘Was the marriage some pretext…?’); weaker still
as an inference (‘The marriage was some pretext…’). ᾧ Musgrave, lit.
‘for which (marriage)’, enables Ag. to be maintained from 883 as the
subject of the clause and of attention before the damning 885: superior to
ᾗ Stockert ‘with which (pretext)’. Ritchie retains ἣ L ‘the pretext which
fetched me’, comparing 580–1 ‘the judgement which sent you’, Pho. 365
‘the pledge which brought me’.]
885 For you to rejoice in bringing … your child: Turato (pp. 230–2
n. 105 on this line) sets out his argument that the whole series of potential
and actual misunderstandings between Ag., OM, Clyt. and Iph., some
of them half-spoken, over the apparently conflicting contents of Ag.’s
two letters – whether Clyt. was just to send Iph., or to accompany her,
beginning with 99 (n.) – is Eur.’s richly enjoyable ‘fabric of dramatic
verisimilitude and psychological motivation’. ‘to rejoice’: double-edged
(Ritchie): Clyt. was to respond to the prospective joy of a fine marriage;
the general joy would be a good omen for the sacrifice.
Greek. χαίρουσα: part. carrying the main idea, cf. 892; Smyth 2147a.
[Text. ἵν’ ἀγάγοις Blomfield (-ης i.e. -ῃς L): ἵνα γ’ ἄγοις Vitelli
introduces an attractive ‘Yes’ in γε with the chief thrust of the answer
(e.g. And. 247, Bacc. 835; GP 134). Barnes’ fut. part. νυμφεύσουσα is
necessary: cf. 458.]
886 O my daughter!: pathetic apostrophe (at last!).
Greek. Note how and your mother is subsumed into the 2. pers. sing.
of the verb ἥκεις. ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ for death: 1237, IT 601, cf. 29 n.
887 you both equally: picking up the end of 886, but lit. ‘you two
(suffer: dual), being two’: emphatic doubling of ‘two’ with the part.
οὖσαι ‘being’, as S. Trac. 539–40 ‘we wait (not dual), being two sharing
an embrace under one cloak’ (as bed-mates of Heracles), cf. Ant. 13–14
‘we were deprived, two (of us) of two brothers killed in one day by a
double blow’; see Stevens on And. 516, 692. brought himself etc.: for
the OM’s wording see his 133 and n.
[Text. ὄντε dual Wecklein, but a finite dual verb, here πάσχετον, with a
plur. subject, here οὖσαι, is common: Diggle (1994) 205; Smyth 962.]
888 all over for me: both οἴχομαι ‘I am gone, destroyed’ and ὠλόμην,
ὄλωλα ‘I am destroyed, lost’ are common Tragic metaphors of lives
in ruin but not yet ended; together at e.g. Hipp. 878 ‘I am destroyed,
466 Commentary

gone’ (Theseus on finding Phaedra’s body). no longer hold back my

streaming tears: Her. 625 νάματ’ ὄσσων μηκέτ’ ἐξανίετε ‘no longer let
streams from your eyes’, cf. S. Ant. 803 ‘I can no longer restrain (ἴσχειν)
the springs (πηγαί) of my tears’; Ag. 451–3 and to Iph. 683–4. For στέγω
lit. ‘hide’ (872 n.) half-metaphorical ‘hold back, hold in’ cf. e.g. A. Supp.
135 ‘keep out sea-water’.
[Text. δακρύων νάματ(α) Hense: eds have accepted Hense’s plur.
νάματ(α) ‘streams’ in place of ὄμμα(τα) ‘eyes’, given the use of the noun
in Pho. 370 δι’ ὄσσων νᾶμ’ ἔχων δακρύρροον ‘with a stream of running
tears across my eyes’. δακρύων τ’ ὄμματα L ‘eyes of tears’ is nonsense
here; Tr3’s remedy δακρύον (sic: Zuntz (1965) 101) τ’ ὄμματ(α) … στέγει
(adopted by Matthiae; cf. Barnes in the apparatus) ‘my eyes no longer
hold in a tear’ shows the gap between Byzantine conservative textual
emendation and modern imagination.]
889 Greek. εἴπερ ‘if indeed’ can introduce a condition whose truth is
obvious or admitted, and so become causal ‘since’ (we convey this with so),
e.g. Hipp. 248, Ion 366, Supp. 914; Smyth 2246; LSJ II. τὸ … στερόμενον:
the def. art. and neut. of a passive part., making a noun, is rare, e.g. 386,
Thuc. 2.63.1 τῆς πόλεως … τῷ τιμωμένῳ ‘the honour of the city’.
[Text. στερόμενον, δακρυρρόει Weil: στερομένην δακρυρροεῖν L
translates as ‘Since letting tears flow when you are deprived of children is
painful’, but then ‘Since etc.’ follows less well from 888 ‘I can no longer
hold back my … tears’.]
891 about (what … written): πρός ‘in relation to’ nears ‘to counter’;
cf. 115 and n.
892 confirm: ξυγκελεύων lit. ‘jointly order’; the only other recorded use
of this verb is at Thuc. 8.31.2, of an officer sharing command.
893 sound of mind: (Ag.) contrasting with 876–7; for the translation cf.
874. Note the emphatic and effective postponement to line-end of Greek
‘sound’, the adv. εὖ.
Greek. μὲν οὖν adversative, No, … not, contradicting, cf. e.g. [1537],
Or. 169, 1511, in μὴ μὲν οὖν 1522; GP 475.
894 Greek. κᾆτα πῶς in a surprised question, Then … how was it that
…?, as e.g. And. 339; GP 311; judged colloquial by Stevens (1976) 47.
γε emphasizes the contrast in φέρων carrying with not hand it over.
895 evil: the κακά of Menelaus seem slightly different from one context
to another, both ‘evils’ and ‘troubles’: see e.g. 384, 658 and nn.
 Commentary 467

[Text. The end of the line in L does not break ‘Porson’s Law’ (above
858 n.), despite Porson’s own conjecture aligning it with Med. 332 τῶνδ’
ὃς αἴτιος κακῶν: see Diggle (1994) 467 n. 121.]
896 Clyt. turns abruptly to Ach. (see 855–99 n., second para.); her
formal address O child of Nereus’ daughter shows that she still expects
much of a man of Ach.’s lineage: 819, 836 nn. do you hear this?: for
such cries at peaks of emotion cf. Pho. 611, Supp. 366, 1143.
Greek. E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address (Oxford 1996) 65 discusses
the question whether τέκνον ‘child’ and παῖ ‘son’ are synonyms in this
formulaic phrase (and in others elsewhere).
897 I hear your misery: lit. ‘that you are wretched’; from her own lips
876, 880, 886. I do not take my own case lightly: cf. 899; contrary
to the advice Ach. gave Clyt. in her case, 850. He resents the insult to
his honour implicit from 885; we may understand that his long listening
to the OM (866–95) has slowly kindled his anger – his ‘true nature’
(Michelakis (2002) 93).
Greek. For τοὐμόν ‘my case, interests etc.’, the sing. of τἀμά (396 n.),
cf. e.g. El. 1114 ‘I watch my own situation, not his’, Ion 1022 ‘you blame
my own position’.
898 tricked: Clyt. again at 1457, speaking to Iph. For such tricks cf.
e.g. Alc. 12 (upon the Fates), A. Ag. 1636 (upon Ag. by Clyt., his murder).
899 quite so simply: together with 897, Ach. means that he feels a hurt
in himself greater than that done to Clyt. and Iph. by Ag.; he expands
on this in 919–61, esp. 930–47. Ritchie well argues that ἁπλῶς ‘simply’
is not a synonym of 897 φαύλως ‘lightly’. Indeed ἁπλῶς followed by
οὕτως ‘so’ is a common expression, judged colloquial by Stevens (1976)
19; also Supp. 1186 in Tragedy, and common in Plato.
[Text. Günther shared earlier editors’ suspicions of both 898 and 899,
and Diggle (1994) 410 was sympathetic (though impugning only 899 in
OCT).   898 has no fault, while 899 strongly repeats 897 (above), not
duplicates it (899 del. Hennig).]

(C) 900–1035 Clytemnestra appeals to Achilles.

Clyt. supplicates Ach. for her own and her daughter’s protection. Urgency
gives her arguments concision and punch 900–16 (see below), and they
compel Ach. to a long but self-centred agreement 919–74 (below). Clyt.
therefore renews her appeal for pity, and to strengthen it says that Iph. too
468 Commentary

will supplicate Ach., in person, if he thinks it right 977–7. Then comes a

varied sequence of brief speeches and stichomythic exchange 998–1035:
Ach. replies that Iph.’s public appearance would be improper, and he
states that it could not affect the decision he has made, to put his own
life at issue to save hers. Yet he has a new and prior plan: first Clyt., then
he himself if need be, must try to persuade Ag. ‘to change his mind for
the better’ (1011). Clyt. accedes, but gets leave to seek Ach.’s physical
protection if her attempt fails. She goes into the hut to await Ag. (see
1098–9); Ach. leaves.
Form and Content. The supplication-scene, like 1146–1275 and others
in Euripides, imitates in 900–76 the structural core of a full-scale agon
(335–403), two speeches each marked off by a choral distich: see
Collard (1975) on Supp. 87–262 (C) and in Mossman (2003) 79 (with
her comment 7 n. 29), and the counter by Lloyd (1992) 8–9, 77–9;
judiciously Rutherford (2012) 192–3.
900–16 Clyt.’s contentions are:
(1) 900–2 As a mother she supplicates a mother’s son (also 903, cf. 909)
to protect her child (Ach.’s goddess mother was famously protective:
1068–79 n.). Iph. too later entreats him in her name (1233).
(2) 903–8 (a) 903–6a the deceit with the marriage threatens death to her
daughter; (b) 906b–8 Ach. will be reproached if he does not protect
her; the insult to himself through abuse of his name requires it. Ach.
has already been angry for his damaged honour (899); Clyt. here
makes the injury to her daughter into Ach.’s responsibility to avenge,
jointly with his own, as if he were in reality her husband (for a similarly
legalistic contention, but in a different context, see Mastronarde on
Pho. 944–6). It is the chief argument in Clyt.’s entreaty.
(3) 909–11 In renewing her formal supplication from (1), Clyt. repeats
(2b).
(4) 912–15a She has no friends; Ag. (who should be one) is cruel; she is
a woman come among soldiers; they are dangerous – but might help.
(5) 915b–16 Her safety, and her daughter’s, depend wholly on Ach.’s
protection (renewing 2b, 3).
Although her appeal acquires pathos, she does not use the word pity: that
comes first in Ach.’s recognition of her plight (934), and she herself first
uses it in her second appeal (977–7, at 981, 985).
 Commentary 469

919–74 Ach.’s response:

919–31 He begins by asserting his strong sense of honour, and his
straightforward morality as a free man.
928–31 nevertheless show how Ach. is being shaped by his role;
though sympathetic towards Iph. he will eventually give way to
admiration for her nobility (1411, 1421–30) and therefore to the
needs of the army (966–7, 1357).
932–72 He expands this profession into accepting the obligation brought
by his name’s linking with Iph. (Clyt.’s 2a, b and 3), repetitiously but
variously:
932–4 Clyt. has his pity because of Ag.’s treatment of her;
935–7 he will not tolerate Ag.’s abuse of his name, for 938–43 he is
the cause of his dishonour;
944–54 he will be as nothing if he does nothing, for his name is
killing Clyt.’s daughter; but Ag. shall not touch her;
959–62 it is not the loss of the marriage that insults him, but the
abuse of his name;
968–72 he is as nothing now, but his sword shall save the daughter.
The speech is uneven, perhaps deliberately so; and its impact is at risk
from two diversions, 955–8 the sudden condemnation of Calchas (see
n.) and 965–7 the ambiguous concession over Ach.’s name’s use for a
common cause; [963–4] are an interpolation: see n.
The final two lines 973–4, perhaps intended as an envoi, are remarkable
(if genuine: n.): disclaiming the status of a god which Clyt. has half-
accorded him (her 1, 4, cf. 5), he nevertheless ‘will become’ one – and
after he accepts her second appeal (1002–5), she defers to him absolutely
(1010, 1014, 1024, 1033). See also 919–74 n.
Staging. At 900 Clyt. drops to the ground to supplicate Ach., and it is
uncertain from the text when she gets up: see 900–1 n.
[Text. Every line of 900–1035 has been deleted (not just suspected) by
one or more scholars (details in Diggle OCT p. 424): see separate notes
in their place, esp. on 919–74 and 977–1035.]

900–1 at your knees: the ritualised posture of a suppliant, e.g. Hec.

339, 737, like the form of address in 909 (n.). Ach. gives Clyt. no explicit
470 Commentary

word to bring her to her feet again, signifying his acceptance (e.g. A.
Supp. 324, Thuc. 1.137.1); but in the theatre he might gesture, for he was
wary of physical contact with her, 833–4. His assurance to her in 973–4,
and her response at 977–8, let alone 1008, and her agreement to act as he
suggests in 1009–33, imply that by 977 she is again standing; indeed it
would be incongruous for her to remain on the ground much after 934 (see
n. there (and Text) on ‘protect’ καταστελῶ). feel no shame: because in
Clyt.’s case supplication means loss of dignity, in an act of submission: 902
n. Adrastus feels it bitterly Supp. 164–5, Menelaus Hel. 947–9; Oedipus
refuses the indignity Pho. 1622–4. Ritchie wonders if Clyt.’s denial of
shame is modelled on her hypocritical protestations A. Ag. 856 and 1372
‘I shall feel no shame’. The classic analysis of the aetiology and practices
of Greek supplication is by Gould (2001) 22–77, including on 35–42 an
exposition of ‘the rules of the game’ and on 74–7 an important Addendum
to the original publication of 1973; F. S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication
(Oxford 2006) has however challenged Gould’s interpretation, arguing
inter alia that the person supplicated had by and large nothing to fear from
men or gods if the grounds for the supplication led him to reject it. For
supplication in Tragedy see also J. Fletcher in EGT 1379–81. mortal …
(born of a) goddess: a pathetic contrast here, like Iph.’s words 1396; but
this juxtaposition is often weighted against the god, e.g. Her. 342, 757.
Greek. θνητός ‘common’ gender, as also in Iph.’s 1396. γεγῶτος gen.
in apposition with poss. gen. σου implicit in τὸ σὸν γόνυ, as e.g. 1226;
Hec. 430 θανούσης ὄμμα … τὸ σόν; Smyth 977.
[Text. 900 (ἐ)γὼ Markland for L’s γε: the particle is sound, emphasizing
the verb, but the pron. better, emphasizing the personal cost: 901, and
ἐγώ repeated there.   901 γεγῶτος: -ος is a variant in L itself, printed
by Diggle; L’s γεγῶτα represents a copyist’s misreading. Wilamowitz’s
deletion of 901 loses too much of the pressure on Clyt. to supplicate: cf.
903, 909, 910 (n.).]
902 exert myself … child?: for the moral idea cf. Her. 574 ‘Whom
should I defend rather than my wife?’
Greek. ἦ interrogative ‘introducing a suggested answer to a question
just asked’ GP 283, citing e.g. IT 1168, Bacc. 828. σπουδάζω as e.g. Supp.
761 πέλας γὰρ πᾶν ὅτι σπουδάζεται ‘the object of all your exertions is
near at hand’; intrans. with preps. LSJ I.2; trans. e.g. Thyestes F 391.2
‘we make many exertions from hope’.
 Commentary 471

[Text. ἦ τινος Diggle, with interrogative particle preceding the

indefinite pron. anyone. L has ἐπὶ τίνος ‘on what ground…?’, and
Hermann suggested ἐπὶ τίνι ‘for what purpose…?’; but such a question
is without point here when τέκνου πέρι ‘for my child’ stands at line-
end. Τhe entire word-order (with metre restored by Tr3) ensures
heavy emphasis on ‘anyone’ and ‘child’. At line-beginning ἢ Porson,
followed by interrogative τίνος, ‘Or for whom…?’, is an inappropriate
disjunctive.]
903–4 son of a goddess: 901 n. defend: ἀμύνω again in 907, cf.
ἀμυναθεῖν ‘defend’ 910. spoken of: the poet echoes 130 (n.) and 135,
Ag. ‘promising’ Iph. as affianced, cf. Ach. at 936, 1356; cf. 908 ‘called
(husband)’ (καλέω).
Greek. 903 δυσπραξία ill plight, not rare in Eur., e.g. with poss. pron.
IT 514, Hipp. 915.   904 λέγω ‘speak of (as)’, e.g. Hel. 284 ‘as sons (of
Zeus)’, Ion 1325 ‘as mother’. μάτην falsely as e.g. Ion 275, S. El. 1298.
ἀλλ’ ὅμως: the elliptical idiom ‘requires’ repetition of the grammatical
form preceding it, i.e. ‘but (spoken of as: λεχθείσῃ) even so’; often with
μέν, and also an adverb e.g. Bacc. 1027, Her. 1365. Colloquial in tone:
Collard (2005) 367.
905–6a (It was to) you: the pron. is emphasized in the Greek both by
its leading position (and the sentence stands in asyndeton) and by its
far separation from to be married; cf. initial ‘you’ again in 906b. Clyt.
however mentions garlanded nowhere in her entry speech (despite her 610
‘escorting a bride’) nor does the Messenger in his surmise of the coming
marriage 430–9 (despite his advice to Men. and Ag. to garland themselves);
so Clyt.’s detail is for rhetorical colour? Later Iph.’s garlanding is for her
sacrificiaI death itself, 1080 in grim anticipation by the Chorus (n.), 1478
in her own words (n.). to the slaughter: σφαγαί, brutal, lit. ‘the throat-
cuts’ (for Polyxena Hec. 522): see 875 n.; Introduction p. 11.
906b–1088 if you did not defend her: οὐκ ἤμυνας indic. presents
Ach.’s failure as fact and as if the reproach had already been made.
Greek. 906 ὄνειδος reproach as grammatical subject to a verb
of ‘coming’ (Stockert) A. Ag. 1560, Eum. 155.   907 ὅστις the rel.
pron. ‘(as one) who’, approximating to ‘in as much as’, and typifying
quality or capacity (e.g. 389; Smyth 2496); here its clause behaves as a
conditional (whence translation as ‘if’: cf. Smyth 2560), and in a mixed
structure of an aor. with a fut. (e.g. 937–8; Smyth 2343).   908 ἀλλά
472 Commentary

still, reinforced by γοῦν at any rate: ‘but…’ in a result clause (‘apodotic’

GP 458–9), ἀλλά alone 11–13, Smyth 2782.
[Text. 907 οὐ Wecklein could stand in a conditional protasis where
fact is emphasized (Smyth 2698b): Ach. has not yet married Iph.]
909–11 By your beard, by your right hand: both were touched or
held by a suppliant, beard (or chin) to hinder words of rejection, hand in
hope of a pledging grasp (866) or of being raised to one’s feet (900–1 n.).
Michelakis (2002) 86 n. 6 observes that a fully grown beard on Ach.’s
theatrical mask would be consistent with 5th century representations of
him in art; but if the beard were very short, it might imply that he still
lacks the adult strength to rescue Iph. physically (note Ach.’s 933 ‘a
young man’, and his assertions in 938, 970–1). But ‘By your beard’ may
be only a form of words here? The apparently bearded Hamlet (‘Who
… Plucks off my beard?’: 2.2.574–5) is rarely played with a beard. by
your mother: see 910–16 n. in (C) 900–1035 n. Form. altar … refuge:
resort to sanctuary as alternative to human supplication, common in
Tragic theatre e.g. And. 43–4, 162, Ion 1280; but ‘altar’ is metaphorical,
as e.g. Or. 448 ‘the altar of hope’.
Greek. 910 ἀμυναθεῖν is the strong aor. infin. of ἀμύνω, regularly
accented in mss. as a non-existent pres. form: see LSJ, DELG.
[Text. 909 <σε> Markland restored normal idiom (and metre: Tr1 had
failed) to this formula of appeal, with the ellipse of a verb ‘I entreat’:
see Barrett on Hipp. 605 (an entreaty just ‘by your hand’), Smyth 1599;
cf. Hec. 752–3 ‘knees, chin, hand’.   910 was deleted by Hennig,
misjudging it as poorly worded and its content as weakly anticipating
Ach. in 938 and 947.]
912–13a any friend: φίλος, one conventionally therefore under
obligation (317–414a n. (i); 334 n.); the same adj. in ‘dear (husband)’
908 hints Ach.’s obligation to his ‘wife’. Clyt.’s continuation you hear
etc. has its logic in that Agamemnon is certainly no φίλος. cruelty
… total determination: the description is modelled on Ag.’s behaviour
at A. Ag. 221–6. The latter phrase repeats πάντολμος ‘all-daring, all-
enduring’ from Ag. 221, an adj. itself echoed in ἔτλα ‘endured (to do)’
225 there, cf. IT 862 τόλμαν ἣν ἔτλη πατήρ ‘the cruel action that my
father endured to do’ and our 133, cf. 887 (see nn.). ‘cruelty’: the adj.
ὠμός as e.g. Hipp. 1264 ‘cruel to your son’.
[Text. near πέλας Markland, a palmary emendation of the ancient and
 Commentary 473

simple miscopying γελᾷ ‘laughs for me’ which now stands in L, vainly
defended by some eds as ‘looks bright’, i.e. ‘offers hope’; Alc. 79 has
similar wording, οὐδὲ φίλων πέλας ἔστ’ οὐδείς. Also: P. Oxy. 3719 (3rd
century AD) has a few part-words from the ends of 913–18, with no
differences from L. It is possible that its severely defective single page
once held lines as far as 977 (it preserves a speaker-indication ‘Clyt.’, but
no text): if so it may well have carried all of Ach.’s speech 919–74 as part
of an anthology, but its late date makes the papyrus of no significance to
authenticity.]
913b–15a a woman to an army of unruly sailors … bold in pursuit
of evil: a pity-seeking development of 912 ‘no friend near me’ (in fact
the army welcomed her daughter and herself joyfully, inferring that
Iph. was about to be married, 427–34). The language resembles Hec.
606–8 (Hecuba’s anxiety for the dead Polyxena) ‘let no one touch my
daughter, and keep the mob from her: in a numberless army the mob is
undisciplined and sailors’ unruliness stronger than fire; and the villain
is the one who does no villainy’: Hec. 607 ἀκόλαστος ὄχλος ναυτική τ’
ἀναρχία is like IA 914 ναυτικὸν στράτευμ’ ἄναρχον. Sailors’ unruliness
Thuc. 6.72.4, hard to control 7.14.1–2; caused by idleness IA 807, 1000.
The poet may be recalling the idleness at Aulis described in A. Ag. 193–
8, esp. 194 ‘leisure with its evils’. Hec. 608 κακὸς δ’ ὁ μή τι δρῶν κακόν
‘the one committing no evil act (was held to be) evil’ resembles as a
judgement IA 914b ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς θρασύ ‘bold in pursuit of evil’ (with
this phrase cf. IT 275 ‘wild, bold in irreverence’, a man scorning another’s
prayer). Clyt. echoes Ag.’s fear of the ‘masses’ 526–33, and anticipates
the idea’s stronger recurrence 999–1001, 1030, 1346–57 (all, spoken by
Ach.) – so why her qualification though useful when they wish to be?
Eds suggest that she is hinting to Ach. that he may find support among
sailors for saving herself and daughter (see Text). The qualification has
a precedent, Or. 772–3 ‘(the mass of the people is evil) but good when
they get good leaders’. The other parallels cited by eds show that these
are common generalisations about the sailors on whom Athens’ survival
in the Peloponnesian War depended, not directed here at a contemporary
political crisis: they are part-mechanism of the poet’s dramaturgy no less
than of Clyt.’s rhetoric. As to ‘useful’: this too is Euripidean in a civic
context: χρήσιμος Supp. 887, Or. 910–11; conversely, ‘useless’ Supp.
239, Hcld. 4.
474 Commentary

Greek. 914 ἐπί ‘in pursuit of’: 29 n.   915 θέλωσιν plur. after sing.
στράτευμα, a collective noun: 428 n.
[Text. 914b–15a κἀπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς | … θέλωσιν ‘bold … wish to be’:
doubt of Clyt.’s qualification caused England and some other eds to
delete these words. Diggle suspected 915–16.]
915b–16 hold your hand over me: Clyt. hopes this again 1026–7.
What weight do we give the pron. ‘me’? Ritchie puts it well: ‘not
necessarily a sign of her self-centredness (see n. on 876), rather that she
has formally become ‘first person’ as the suppliant of 910, 912, 913 – and
will offer Ach. additional supplication by Iph. 992–4’. safe … not safe:
more rhetoric, both ‘ring-composition’ with ‘come to my aid’ 903, and a
pleonastic, negative contrast, particularly common in IA (Stockert), e.g.
93, 982, (twice in 928–9). Wecklein notes S. Trac. 83–5 ‘either we are
saved if his life is saved, or we are lost together’.
Greek. ἢν … τολμήσῃς … σεσώμεθ(α) is a vigorous mixed condition
(Smyth 2326); the indic. of result presses the point.   916 εἰ δὲ μή is
syntactically inert, equivalent to an adv. ‘otherwise’; followed by οὐ also
And. 242, 254. σεσώμεθα: the 5th century perf. mid. form of σῴζω, cf.
1440 n., not σεσωσμ- (later Greek: Smyth 489b).
[Metre. 916 μή, οὐ fuse as one long syllable, even across the sense-
break, as in And. 242, 254; cf. 41 n. Text; West (1982) 13.]
917–18 This divider between speeches from a chorus is not perfunctory
(cf. Introduction p. 32), but stresses Clyt.’s devotion to her daughter,
which is important throughout the play (even when variable: 876
n.). strange power in motherhood: the same words spoken by a (bad)
mother (Clyt.) S. El. 770. (works a great) spell: φίλτρον, upon the
feelings of kin Tro. 52, cf. E. Alcmene F 103 ‘children a powerful spell
upon men’. The ideas together: Erechtheus F 358.1 ‘nothing brings
children more joy than their mother’, Pho. 355–6 ‘the pains of giving
birth are powerful over women, and the whole female sex is in some way
loving towards children’. fight hard: perhaps more than this is hinted,
as in the other Euripidean occurrence of ὑπερκάμνειν Bacc. 963, where
the verb’s common implication ‘toil, suffer, die for’ is ‘for the audience’
(Dodds).
919–74 For the content see in 900–1035 n.
[Here, on Text. The speech was most strongly attacked by England,
who saved only 928–45 and 955–8, and by Page 175–80, who seemed
 Commentary 475

willing to save only 922–31, 944–5, 957–61 and 965–9. Among recent
scholars Günther kept only 959–62 and 965–74; Griffin in Pelling
(1990) 147 inclined towards Page; Diggle marked the whole as ‘scarcely
Euripidean’; Kovacs kept only 944–5, 947–54, 970–2; preservers have
been Lesky (1983) 359, noting Murray’s caution in his 1913 OCT;
Ritchie (1978); Jouan, with whom Turato was in sympathy (2000: 81,
233); Stockert (deleting only 924–5, 963–4 and perhaps 944–7; we
share his position); Matthiessen; and Michelakis (2002, also strongly
suspicious only of 924–5 and 963–4). We give these full data to show
that conservatism is now prevalent, but that agreement in large and small
will never come. Good summaries of the problems, after those by Page
and Ritchie (1978), are by Stockert 462–3 and Michelakis (2002) 130–
4 (who observes wryly (132) that ‘the same observations are used to
express different views on the issue of authorship (of 919–1035)’.
Page identified fifteen or more lexical and stylistic features and
four or five repeated or inorganic ideas which point to non-Euripidean
authorship (cf. Paley’s n.), together with theatrical emphasis on Clyt.’s
sorrow and ‘lingering on the love of Ach. and Iph.’ (the word ‘marriage’
would be better), and Ach.’s inconsistent moods; for him the latter two
had the ambience of 4th century New Comedy. Subjective and often
insecure judgements of language have now mostly given way to differing
opinions about the admitted unevenness of the speech: are Ach.’s changes
of attitude and position the result of unskilled if dramatically effective
interpolation, exploiting Ach.’s Homeric persona, or Eur.’s original
purpose in shaping this third (and young) ‘hero’ of the play as unable in
himself to handle his responsibility and conduct? Like Men. and Ag. he
ends by capitulating to the irresistible, in his case to the determination of
Iph. (1404–32).
919–31 Self-analysis as a dramatist’s mode of characterization,
esp. in crises: e.g. (Ritchie 1978) Hipp. 373ff. (Phaedra), Tro. 643ff.
(Andromache); cf. Michelakis (2002) 104. Here after Ach.’s introductory
919 he continues strikingly with four ‘gnomic’ couplets 920–7, for some
critics a cause of suspicion; see 924–5n.
919–21 My spirit is high with proud thoughts, and borne forward,
but…: Ach.’s instinctive pride, a strong part of his sense of honour, stirs him
to action, but he is at once able to control it, from moral principle, 920–1,
922–3, 933–5 etc.; see esp. Michelakis (2002) 93–5. This moderation would
476 Commentary

be surprising in the adult fiery or sulky Iliadic Achilles (Telephus F 718 may
be spoken to him by Odysseus: ‘It is time for your mind (γνώμη) to rule
your temper (θυμός)’), but it is a Euripidean touch in his characterization
here: in Supp. 861–8 praise for a moderate Capaneus is surprising after his
god-defying arrogance had killed him, Supp. 496–9.
The few Greek words in 919 are packed with meaning: ὑψηλόφρων
is lit. ‘lofty-thinking’; the word elsewhere only Pl. Rep. 550b, as ‘high-
spirited’ coupled with ‘ambitious’; here with θυμός ‘spirit’ and the
vigorous αἴρεται πρόσω lit. ‘is roused (to move) forward’, it conveys an
overriding impulse (and so is not English ‘high-minded’); the language
is matched in the OM’s expectation that Ach. will ‘stir up his resentment’
θυμὸν ἐπαρεῖ 124–6. With the form of 919 Ritchie (1978) compares
Erechtheus F 362.34 γυναικόφρων γὰρ θυμὸς ἀνδρὸς οὐ σοφοῦ ‘a spirit
that thinks as a woman is that of a man not wise’. For αἴρω ‘rouse, lift’
of an emotional impulse cf. e.g. Hec. 69, A. Seven 214 fear; for ὑψ-
‘high’ cf. esp. S. OT 914 ‘Oedipus rouses his spirit high (ὑψοῦ), excites
it’ (in impetuous reaction). For πρόσω figurative cf. (Ritchie) Iliad
16.265 πρόσσω πᾶς πέτεται, ‘every (wasp) taking to (angry) flight’ as
comparison for the θυμός of the Myrmidons roused for action.
920–1 I know: ἐπίσταμαι of moral intelligence, with inf. (‘know how
to’) e.g. Med. 537 ‘to obey the law’, Ino F 413.1 ‘to keep silent’. distress
over misfortune … joy over full prosperity: all eds cite as precedent in
idea and language Archilochus F 128.5–7 IEG West ‘(Spirit, my spirit!)
… rejoice over joys and do not distress yourself over troubles too much’
(θυμὲ θυμέ) … χαρτοῖσίν τε χαῖρε καὶ κακοῖσιν ἀσχάλα | μὴ λίαν; cf. e.g.
Theognis 593–4, S. OT 937.
Greek. τοῖς κακοῖσι and τοῖσιν ἐξωγκωμένοις are neut. plur., and dat.
of cause with a verb of emotion: Smyth 1517; in ἐξωγκωμένοις the root
ὀγκ- has unusually a favourable connotation, ‘grown full’, rather than
pejorative ‘swollen’ (cf. ὄγκος ‘dignity’ 450 n.). The adv. μετρίως stands
with both infins., like the adv. κακῶς 969 below; cf. Med. 1302, Ion
858: for such stylistic economy see Wilamowitz on Her. 238 (Smyth has
nothing). The verb ἀσχαλάω/ἀσχάλλω ‘be distressed, aggrieved at’ e.g.
Or. 785 with acc. θάνατον ‘death’, PV 303 with dat. κακοῖς.
[Text. ἐπίσταμαι Musgrave ‘I know’ and e.g. Stockert, Diggle: the
1. pers. suits Ach.’s self-identification with ‘the reasoners’ of 922 much
better than L’s ἐπίσταται ‘(my spirit) knows’.]
 Commentary 477

922–3 reasoned … with good judgement: in the Greek the words

enclose the sentence completely, emphatic before the couplet 926–7.
For Ach.’s confidence in reasoned moderation (921, 922) see Michelakis
(2002) 102, 104–5. The superiority of ‘judgement’ to ‘spirit, instinctive
feeling’ became poetic tradition after Theognis 631–2 ‘whoever’s mind
is not stronger than his spirit is always in the midst of disaster’.
Greek. λογίζομαι ‘reason’ as in Ag.’s 386 τὸ λελογισμένον ‘reason’
and (Ach. again) 1021 λελογισμένως ‘from reason’, cf. 1409; for the
dependent inf. διαζῆν cf. 920 ἀσχαλᾶν. For διαζάω go through life cf.
Bacc. 426 ‘live through a happy lifetime’. For μετά in γνώμης μέτα ‘with
judgement’ cf. 544 n., cf. ὑπὸ γνώμης 368, 565; conversely ἀμαθίας μέτα
‘in ignorance’ E. Antigone F 163.1.
[Text. This sententious couplet is given to the Chorus by L, but would
at once interrupt Ach.’s powerful beginning; and it would offend the
formal conventions of Tragedy.]
[924–5] Deleted by Paley (as part of 924–31). The verses are
superfluous after 920–1, and delay a forceful return to the 1. pers. in
926. Their contrast of pleasant and useful does not suit the context, and
they are probably an invasive marginal parallel (cf. [520–1] n.; Bond on
Her. 1291–3). (be …) sensible: φρονεῖν: the most likely meaning but,
after 922–3, perhaps ‘clever’, even ‘arrogant’. useful χρήσιμον: possibly
the word’s occurrence in 915 helped to attract the interpolation, but that
was a ‘usefulness’ specific to that context; cf. nevertheless Pho. [1740]
τὸ χρήσιμον φρενῶν ‘a mind’s high worth’ (Mastronarde); Oedipus F
552.1–2 ‘Is it more useful to be intelligent and without daring than…?’
Greek. ἔστιν μὲν … ἵνα … ἔστι δὲ … ὅπου: comparably Or. 638–9
ἔστι δ’ οὗ … ἔστι δ’ οὗ.
926–7 As for myself: ἐγὼ δέ begins a personal assertion emphatically,
e.g. Alc. 681, 939; GP 170. Chiron: educator of Ach., 709 n. An
apocryphal ‘collection’ The Maxims of Chiron was attributed to
Hesiod: F 283–5 M-W, cf. Pausanias 9.31.5; probably they lay behind
Chiron’s naming as the ‘textbook’ teacher of Pericles, Plato Com. F
207 PCG. straightforward ways: τοὺς τρόπους ἁπλοῦς: Pl. Hippias
Minor 365b has ‘Achilles both truthful and straightforward’ (ἁπλοῦς in
Pl.’s previous clause), words which may derive less from this passage
than Ach.’s own Iliad 9.312–13 ‘that man is my enemy, like the gates
of Hades, who hides one thing in his mind but says another’; cf. Ach.’s
478 Commentary

son Neoptolemus S. Phil. 88–9 (himself about to scheme) ‘I was

(be)gotten to do nothing from evil scheming, neither myself nor, as men
say, my begetter’. Ritchie (1978) points to the play’s contrast between
Ach.’s (claimed) straightforwardness and Odysseus’ alleged ‘duplicity’,
ποικιλία 526 (n.).
Greek. 926 ἐν followed by gen. ἀνδρός ‘in (the house) of’: idiomatic
ellipse of δόμοις, οἴκοις, most commonly in ἐν Ἅιδου ‘Hades’ Hec. 418,
El. 122 etc.; Smyth 1302; colloquial, Stevens (1976) 27–8. Cf. English
‘at my brother’s’. τραφείς brought up ‘coincident’ aor. part.: Barrett on
Hipp. 289, Smyth 1872c.2.
928–31 For the significance of these lines see C 900–1035 n. Form and
Content, n. on 919–74. sons of Atreus if they lead well: Ach. means
chiefly Ag., because of Ag.’s insult 936–40, 961–2, but includes also
Men. in his general criticism 953, 968 (as earlier 818) – and specifically
945. obey … if … well, but when … not … not obey: for such heavy
contrasts cf. 1005–7; 915–16 n. free nature: the independent spirit of the
well-born; cf. Ach. to Iph. 1410–11 ‘desire to marry you comes over me,
now that I have watched your nature’; Amphiaraus similarly recognises
at first sight the noble ‘freedom’ of the queen Eurydice, Hypsipyle
855. pay Ares honour with the spear: he will fight worthily of the
war-god as well as ‘freely’. The marvellous warrior Meriones is a ‘scion
of Ares’ 201–2 above. κοσμέω ‘honour and adorn’, e.g. one’s country
Meleager F 530.3, Thuc. 2.42.2. The less good, and flat, translation here
is ‘give order to, organize my fighting’, with the war-god depersonalised
as ‘army’ in 283–4. Eds cite Ar. Frogs 1027 κοσμήσας ἔργον ἄριστον,
where the verb has something of both meanings, ‘give order to, shape an
excellent work (of poetry)’ and ‘make it an adornment’.
Greek. 930 ἀλλά is untranslated; its positive tone is ‘in the voice’ in
English, beginning a climax after 926–9; with a fut. indic. it is frequent in
Tragedy, e.g. Ion 76, Supp. 1014; GP 8.   931 παρέχω ‘show’, almost
‘evince’, e.g. El. 363 one’s character as not ill-bred, Supp. 877 one’s
ways as not slavish. κατά ‘as far as … is able’, again in 933; it extends
κατά ‘as far as concerns’, LSJ B IV.2. Ritchie (1978) however interprets
931 as ‘for my part’, explaining Ach.’s independence, not suggesting
limitations to his ability.
932–7 The accumulations of Greek sigma and labial pi esp. in 935–7
drive home Ach.’s first reassurance to Clyt. (cruelly) treated: the
 Commentary 479

wording recalls Clyt. at 847, 852, the OM 887, and recurs from Clyt.
985. those closest to you: τῶν φιλτάτων, i.e. Ag.; cf. 912–13 φίλος of
him, with n.; also 458 n., 744. (put my pity round you and) protect
(you): καταστελῶ fut. The lack of a clear parallel makes translation of
this verb insecure (LSJ II.2 translate with ‘repress’, an extraordinary
mistake); but the verb controls σέ ‘you’ and in context ‘protect’ seems
possible, a metaphor from ‘put round, clothe’, e.g. Ar. Thes. 256; and
it is a probable meaning of περιστέλλω (LSJ III). Perhaps κατα- was
chosen to avoid a clash with περι(βαλών), for which ἀμφι- would be
unmetrical: for these verbs of ‘putting round’ cf. περιβ. σωτηρίαν
‘safety’ Her. 304, ἀμφιβ. δουλοσύναν ‘slavery’ And. 110; see Text
below. my person: Ach. in anger seems to exaggerate Ag.’s insult to
his name into physical assault. So Ritchie (1978), rejecting τoὐμὸν δέμας
lit. ‘my body’ as periphrasis for ‘me, myself’ e.g. Ion 563 (LSJ ignores
the usage). weaving into his plots: ἐμπλέκειν πλοκάς. Both verb and
noun are metaphors for trickery, Ion 826; verb and μηχανάς ‘schemes’
e.g. And. 66, 995; see Diggle (1981) 115. Ag.’s confessions of his own
schemes: 413–14a, 744–5.
Greek. 932 ὦ exclamatory (translated as so… !) with a nom. part.,
formal and often emotional, e.g. Hec. 1000, IT 983; KG I. 50.6 and 7;
cf. Smyth 1288. σχέτλια cruelly lit. ‘(suffering) cruel things’, those to be
‘endured’ (σχε- from ἔχω, DELG), often with πάσχω e.g. Alc. 408; eds
compare A. Eum. 100 παθοῦσα δ’ οὕτω δεινὰ πρὸς τῶν φιλτάτων ‘treated
so dreadfully by your dearest’.   933 κατ’ ἄνδρα as Med. 675; see 931
n.   936 ἐμή my (bride), poss. pron. defined by context, e.g. ‘wife’
And. 966, ‘son’ Supp. 320. φατισθεῖσα spoken of: cf. 904 n.   937
παρέχω provide, with acc. and infin. e.g. Hel. 812 δῆσαι χέρας ‘hands to
tie’, IT 1416–18; Smyth 2009.
[Text. 932–4 were wrongly deleted by Paley: 932 is Ach.’s first direct
address to Clyt. in his speech, essential before the otherwise cursory your
(daughter) in 935.   934 οἶκτον περιβαλών is idiomatic (above), but
Stockert suggested the instrum. dat. οἴκτῳ ‘surrounding … with pity’,
e.g. with oaths IT 788; cf. LSJ περιβάλλω II.2. In particular: καταστελῶ
is insecurely translated (above), and subject to conjecture: καταστένω
Matthiae ‘I lament you’, but this meaning is barely possible when
935 with its promise to Clyt. follows; and a fut. tense seems required.
W. B. Tyrrell, CQ 58 (2008) 665–6 ingeniously suggests combined
480 Commentary

meanings, ‘I shall put you to rights’ (Paley had suggested ‘set right’, i.e.
‘tranquillize’) and ‘I shall set you upright (on your feet)’, but gives no
parallel for either; he proposes the latter so that Clyt. will be standing
again and ready to exit at episode-end, 1035. On this point see our n. on
900.   935 οὔποτε Headlam makes the line an independent sentence,
with asyndeton forcefully corroborating 934.]
938–9a my name that will shed your daughter’s blood: an allusion,
rather than response, to Clyt.’s 910 ‘your name … has destroyed me’. Her
past tense there is matched in it did not raise here: for rhetorical effect,
anticipated disaster becomes realised fact. name … body (940): the
rhetorical contrast is frequent, esp. e.g. Hel. 66–7, 588, 1100; commoner
still is ‘name … deed, reality’, 947: see 128–9 n.
[Text. ἤρατο L 3. pers., i.e. Ach.’s name, the subject of φονεύσει (cf.
910 again), but the trope with personified sword seems a little forced
here; less so in 970 (see n.): ἠράμην Nauck, Paley independently, the 1.
pers. suiting ‘my (name)’. See also 947 Text.]
939b–43 Your husband is the cause: but Ach. does not forget Men.’s
responsibility too: 928–9 and n. but … no longer … untainted: the
‘but’ is big: Ach. disclaims the potential pollution from Iph.’s blood;
ἁγνός ‘pure’ of such blood e.g. Hcld. 1011, El. 975. Foley (1985) 73 is
surely wrong to say that Ach. here thinks of a compromise to ‘his status
as an unmarried man’, despite Clyt.’s 987b–9. the victim: ἡ δεινὰ
τλᾶσα, lit. ‘who has endured … terrible (sufferings)’, reinforced with a
pleonastic converse unbearable; for οὐκ ἄνεκτα cf. Hec. 715 ‘unholy
(οὐχ ὅσια) and unbearable’, the treacherous murder of Hecuba’s son
Polydorus. undeserved: cf. 852 Clyt.’s complaint for herself. 942–3
are the closest Ach. comes to explicit pity towards Iph. herself (towards
Clyt., see 934 n.).
Greek. 940 ἐστί will … be, ‘dynamic’ pres.: 93 n.
[Text. 943 θαυμαστὰ … ὡς has been questioned because in the colloquial
exclamation ‘Remarkable how/that…!’ the adj. θαυμαστός/όν is usually
combined with a rel. pron. but the adv. -ῶς with a rel. adv.: see Stevens
(1976) 14, who suggested that the construction here is θαυμαστά (ἐστι)
… ὡς ‘It’s remarkable that…’, as perhaps in S. F 960. The consequence
would be that a finite verb-form must then replace ἠτιμασμένη; Monk
conjectured ἠτιμάσμεθα ‘we have been dishonoured’, conformably with
Ach.’s sympathetic attitude in 932–4. It is a nice question whether Monk
 Commentary 481

should also be preferred if the construction of θαυμαστά is acceptable;

Ritchie (1978) inclined to this.]
944–7 most cowardly: an extreme self-castigation by a warrior, from
which he attempts to rescue himself in 948–72 (see 945–8 n.); it is clearly
modelled on Ach. at Iliad 1.293 ‘I should be called a coward (δειλός) and
a nobody (οὐτιδανός), if I were to yield (to Ag.)’. For this ‘Epic’ sense
of κακός cf. e.g. Iliad. 13.729, Hcld. 744, Or. 755; LSJ I.3. Note how
the position of emphatic I … myself (ἐγώ beginning both 944 and 945)
brings out Ach.’s absorption in his own image, more strongly still than in
initial ‘my … I’ in 935–6. the nonentity: μηδέν and οὐδέν, ‘a nothing,
a nobody’ (351 n.), neut. with or without the def. art.: μηδέν with it, Hipp.
638, El. 370 (see Denniston); without, 968 below; οὐδέν without, 351.
Here μηδέν may imply uncertainty, while in 968 οὐδέν states reality; cf.
Greek below. and Menelaus (is proved to be) among real men: he is
not among the foremost warriors of the Iliad while Ag. most decidedly
is; the literary tradition developed the contrast, most prominently e.g. A.
Ag. 122 and even more And. 590–1 ‘What? You among men, you great
coward like your ancestors? What part do you have in counting as a
man?’; for ‘real man’ see 645 n.; ἐν ‘among real men’ Alc. 723, 732, Her.
41. The clause is a parenthesis, interruptive of the syntax; like many such
it works through contrast, e.g. Her. 222 (with Bond’s n.), And. 651; see
Diggle (1981) 115–16. Stockert observes that Ach. heard from the OM’s
895 that Men. knew of the deception (and has not stopped it): this is the
clinching argument against translation not as a parenthesis but as ‘and I
(am a) Menelaus among men’. not the son of Peleus: cf. IT 369–71
(Iph. recalls entreating Ag.) ‘Achilles is proved to be Hades, not the
son of Peleus, whom you held out as husband for me when you carried
me in your chariot to a bloody marriage by trickery’. Both passages are
in debt to Iliad 16.33–5 Achilles ‘son of sea and rocks (i.e. ruthlessly
hard), not the son of Peleus’. demon: ἀλάστωρ, 878 n.: an irresistible
power; often personified, cf. esp. Tro. 767–8 ‘I say that you (Helen) are
the offspring of many fathers, Alastor first, then Jealousy, Bloodshed
and Death’: for such parenthood(s) see Rutherford (2012) 148–9 n. 75.
A similar, associated power is ‘Fury’ ᾿Ερινύς, used e.g. of Cassandra
Tro. 457. †for your husband†: the only possible translation, a dat. of
advantage (Smyth 1481–2): see Text.
Greek. 944 (ἦν) ἄρα of realisation, ‘am proved’: at 404 (n.) also
482 Commentary

followed by a past tense.   945 (τὸ) μηδέν and (τὸ) οὐδέν. The fullest
discussion of this idiomatic expression is by Moorhouse (1982) 338–9.
The forms appear to be interchangeable where metre requires. 946
γεγώς and bare gen., ‘born of’: Smyth 1301.
[Text. 944–7 are variously damned or deleted by eds: they seem to
duplicate (947 from 938–9) or to preempt (945 before 968). The Greek
is questioned: 945 the parenthesis (above); 947 φονεύει intrans. ‘sheds
blood’ is rare, e.g. S. Ant. 1174; the present tense is dynamic, anticipatory
(Smyth 1879) and Schaefer’s fut. φονεύσει is unnecessary. In particular
the dat. σῷ πόσει (above) is very strained indeed here (the similar dat. ᾧ
in 1339 is less difficult), and takes away from Iph. the emphasis which
runs from 939 to 950; indeed the two words σῷ πόσει look like invaders
from 937, 940; and so conjecture is free: σὴν κόρην Reiske, παῖδα σήν
Burges, both ‘your daughter’. Stockert suggested deletion of 945–6 or at
least 946; for 946 he was followed by Kovacs.]
948–54 Ach. curses himself violently, should he fail to save Iph. – and
does so again, with his own death, 1006–7; compare esp. Hippolytus
swearing his innocence, on pain of his death, Hipp. 1025–31. Ach. swears
in 948–9 by Nereus and Thetis, both forebears and divinities, a formula
comically exaggerated at Cyc. 262–5.
948–51 Nereus, reared etc.: a sea-god older than the Olympian
Poseidon, and elemental: his father was Pontos ‘Ocean’ Hes. Theog. 233–5
(his mother being Gaia ‘Earth’ [Apollod.] 1.2.6), where he is ‘unerring
and righteous’; he was Ach.’s own grandfather (Clyt. 896, cf. 1056–7),
and therefore doubly good to swear by in answer to her; his name is
emphasized through enjambement (50–1 n.). sea(-waves): ὑγρῶν lit. ‘wet’,
an ornamental adj., e.g. of waves Hel. 1209, Polyidus F 636.6. begetter:
φυτοῦργος lit. ‘worker with plants, generator’, a mild metaphor and rarish;
with ‘father’ also Tro. 481, the polyphiloprogenitive Priam; cf. A. Supp.
592. lay a hand: ἅπτομαι ‘touch’, e.g. 1361 Ach. predicts that Odysseus
will do just this, Hcld. 270; cf. θιγγάνω IA 1351. not even a finger-tip:
‘-tip’ conveys the force of εἰς (ἄκραν) ‘towards, as far as (the extremity
of)’; ἄκραν χεῖρα bare acc. as object of προσφέρειν ‘move a finger-end
against’ Ar. Lys. 435–6, 443; instrum. dat. in Hel. 1444 ἄκρᾳ θιγεῖν χερί,
Zeus’ bare ‘touch’ to save Men. and Helen.
952–4 otherwise: initial ἤ ‘or’ is very strong here. Sipylus: a small
place in barbarian Phrygia, in myth the home of Tantalus father of Pelops
 Commentary 483

(Pind. Ol. 1.38) from whom therefore the Atreids our commanders
draw their descent. Iliad 24.615 names it a haunt of nymphs, the place
where Zeus turned not only Tantalus’ daughter Niobe to stone after her
endless grief but also its inhabitants, making it notoriously rocky (see
on Text). mighty: πολύς: ‘of great power’; the adj. will be unique of a
city (see Text) but is not rare of gods e.g. 557 (n.), Hipp. 1 or persons Or.
349 (see Willink’s n.), 1200. Phthia: Ach.’s homeland, 713. (called)
of no account: οὐδαμοῦ lit. ‘nowhere’, of value e.g. And. 210 the island
Scyros, Erechtheus F 360.49 the goddess Athena; colloquial, Stevens
(1976) 50, Collard (2005) 364. Compare Ion 594 †μηδὲν καὶ οὐδὲν ὢν†
κεκλήσομαι, where οὐδένων has been conjectured, ‘(called a nonentity
and as one) among nobodies’.
Greek. κεκλήσεται: The fut. perf. as the fut. of a tense-form indicating
completed action conveys a lasting result: Smyth 1958.
[Text. 952 πολύς Musgrave (above): πόλις L ‘a city (indeed), a (real)
city’ has been defended unpersuasively from S. OC 879 τάνδ’ ἄρ’ οὐκέτι
νέμω πόλιν ‘I no longer count this a city’. ἔρεισμα Hartung stronghold, lit.
‘prop, support’: Pind. F 76.2–3 of Athens the ‘pillar’ (LSJ 2a) of Greece,
cf. Ol. 2.6 the king Theron that of Acragas. The word gains credibility
from the ‘rocky’ associations of Sipylus (above); but elsewhere in Eur. it
is a supporting staff Her. 109, 254 or confining bonds 1036. L’s ὅρισμα
‘boundary’ (the same ms. error at Her. 254) has no point: the context
needs an image of strength.   954 Jacobs’ correction is palmary.]  
955–8 To his bitter cost: πικρός as in 510 (n.). Calchas: Ach. had
heard the OM doubt the seer (879 n.); here Ach. does the same, since ‘if
Ach. is to oppose the sacrifice he cannot believe it is divinely sanctioned’
(Ritchie (1978) 191). begin the sacrifice: ἐνάρχομαι as 435 (n.), 1470;
but see Text below. barley: προχύται, a verbal adj. used as noun, lit.
‘poured first’, from which the fem. plur. noun κριθαί has disappeared.
Barley was mixed into a gruel esp. with honey and wine, and thrown
into the altar-fire, 1112, 1471, cf. El. 803, Ion 707–8. sprinklings:
χέρνιβες 675 n. But what kind of a man is a seer?: lit. ‘what is a
seer-man?’. Suspicion of seers was widespread, and Eur.’s characters are
often contemptuous, 520 (n.), El. 399–400, esp. Hel. 744–57; cf. L. R.
Lanzilotta, EGT 1006–7. With Ach.’s criticism here contrast Iliad 1.90–1,
where he turns Calchas to his advantage against Ag. In fact, the criticism
of Calchas in our play is unjustified: there is no reason to disbelieve
484 Commentary

his report of the divine will. hits the mark: τυγχάνω in a metaphor
from throwing or shooting, ‘be right, succeed’, Pho. 765, Hipp. 827 (see
Barrett), Pind. Pyth. 10.62 etc. The force of enjambed τύχων is conveyed
by and that is when…; cf. 50–1 n. (see Text). he is finished: διοίχεται,
‘gone, done for’, is the translation of most eds; used of people Or. 181
(but of things succeeding e.g. Supp. 530 justice); possibly impersonal,
‘all is lost’ (Jouan) – but the verb is ambiguous, used also of a person
‘who’s gone, is no longer to be seen’, like an absconding wife F 1063.16;
the simple verb οἴχομαι is this sense is Homeric (LSJ I at end), cf. Ar.
Ach. 210 of a messenger, ‘he’s clean gone, disappeared’.
Greek. 956 ἀνήρ appositional with a category, here μάντις; cf. e.g.
Supp. 420 γαπόνος ‘land-worker’, 444 βασιλεύς ‘sovereign’; Smyth
986b.
[Text. 955 ἐνάρξεται Musgrave (above): ἀνάξεται L ‘bring, carry
up, forward’, which Stockert observes may nevertheless be right, in a
demonstrative display of the vessels and offerings like that described at
e.g. El. 799–802 (φέρω ‘carry’ 800); and he gives evidence that ἐνάρχομαι
is elsewhere used only of the basket (κανοῦν), e.g. 435, 1472.   958
Hartung suggested τυχῶν <δ’> ὅταν τε ‘<but> (both) when he succeeds
and when he does not, …’; this however diminishes the cynicism,
removing the seer’s lies (957) altogether from his success.]
959–69 Deleted by those who judge them incompatible with Ach.’s
character as so far revealed: see 919–74 n. In particular Hartung removed
the colourful 959b μυρίαι – 960a τοὐμόν countless girls are hunting for
my bed.
959–62 This has (not) been said: a rhetorical marker, commonest at
speech-end e.g. 400; variant forms at mid-speech cf. El. 1276, Med. 546.
‘Ach. will protect Iph. “in principle” – but in 1354–5 his Myrmidons will
call him “a slave of marriage” ’, Gibert (2005) 240. countless girls etc.:
Ach. at Iliad 9.395–7 ‘I could have had any Achaean woman I wished
as wife.’ hunting for: θηράω, metaphorical of seeking a marriage e.g.
1162–3 (θήρευμα); the image also e.g. Hel. 63, 314 (by a man), Tro. 979
(a woman). insulted … outrageously: ὕβριν … ὕβρισε, redundancy
for emphasis, e.g. Her. 741, Bacc. 247. Cf. Ach.’s complaint of ὕβρις
from Ag. at Troy Iliad 1.203, 9.368.
Greek. 961 ὑβρίζω εἰς and acc. of persons as Hcld. 18, Hel. 785,
without prep. e.g. Supp. 512.
 Commentary 485

[Text. 959 οὐ Lenting, a negative being essential: L offers both

ἦ interrogative and ἢ ‘or’, both inappropriate; cf. 385 n. on Text. The
metrically faulty γαμούντων may have arisen from scanning ἕκατι with
short alpha.]
[963–4] The lines are vainly defended by Ritchie (1978) 193–5 and
Matthiessen. It is dramatically inconceivable that Ach. should refer to
Clyt. as 3. pers. with the def. art. in her presence (contrast the use of
demonstrative ὅδε ‘this (person) here’ e.g. Hcld. 435, Hec. 674); and the
two verses are not an ‘aside’ (Bain (1977b) 52–3, agreeing interpolation);
but Turato thinks of them as part of Ach.’s hypothetical review of Ag.’s
deception. Lastly, the lines interrupt Ach.’s concentration here on his
own name; 962 leads easily into 965. in the hunt for his child: i.e.
to ‘catch’ her for the sacrifice, a difficult alteration in the image of 960,
girls ‘hunting’ for Ach. as husband; but cf. perhaps Hel. 192 θήραμα
βαρβάρου πλάτας ‘(Greek girls as) prey of a barbarian fleet’. This is the
only meaning θήραμα παιδός can bear, with an objective gen., and with
θήραμα acc. in apposition to the idea of 962 (see 234 n.), rather than to
τοὐμὸν ὄνομα ‘my name’ alone. The translation ‘in hunting (a husband)
for his child’ is impossible.
965–7 I would indeed have given my name etc.: an apparent and
startling conflict with Ach.’s profession of ‘straightforward ways’ in
926–7 (n.), and with his stance upon the abuse of his name 935–7, 940–2,
946–7: see 919–74 n. The lines stand in asyndeton, ‘explanatory’ of 962;
cf. 391 n. the issue causing … to founder: lit. ‘in this (matter) …
was beginning to founder’: κάμνω ‘grow weary, fail’ metaphorical as
Hec. 306 ἐν τῷδε … κάμνουσι (cities), Ion 363 ὃ κάμνει τοῦ λόγου ‘the
part of your speech which falters’: Bond on Her. 101; similarly νοσέω
metaphorical ‘sicken’ (411 n.), with τῇδε ‘here’ IT 1018, ἐκεῖ ‘there’
Hel. 581. voyage: νόστος plain ‘journey’, 1261, [1603], IT 1112. the
common good: τὸ κοινόν, Telephus F 727.62; ‘the commons, the
majority’ A. Supp. 518; Smyth 1023, LSJ II 2.b; plur. ‘matters common
to all, politics’ Supp. 422 (on which see Collard’s n.).
Greek. 967 αὔξω ‘promote’, 572 n. ‘increase’, cf. S. Ant. 191. ὧν: plur.
with an antecedent e.g. ἐκείνων suppressed, lit. ‘(of those) with whom…’,
a frequent compression, Smyth 2509; less probable, a construction
‘according to sense’, with sing. antecedent τὸ κοινόν translated as ‘the
commons’ (above): 1353 n.; Smyth 2502a.
486 Commentary

[Text. 967 ἐστρατεύομεν Monk, act. voice; for L’s mid. cf. 1171, its
only other occurrence in Eur.; but ‘the middle is much more frequent’
LSJ I.]
968–9 nothing: see n. on 945 ‘nonentity’ and 351 n. Greek. for
the commanders it is a light matter: lit. ‘before the commanders (it
is) in easiness’ (see Greek). Ach.’s entry speech complained of Ag.’s
indecision, 801–13. both badly and not: English idiom reduces Greek
‘both to treat me and not to treat me badly’.
Greek. 968 παρά both locative ‘before’, a king Hdt. 4.65.2, jurors
Thuc. 1.73.1 (LSJ B II.3) and judgemental ‘in the eyes of’ Bacc. 401
(see Dodds), Med. 763.   969 ἐν εὐμαρεῖ with (acc. and) infin. e.g.
Hel. 1227, Theseus F 382.10; for such phrases of neut. adj. with prep. see
Barrett on Hipp. 784–5. δρᾶν … δρᾶν: for the double infins. see e.g. 56;
the adv. κακῶς stands with both: see 921 n.
[Text. 968 δὲ Hermann … 969 με Tournier contrast a crisp statement
with a long rider; γε … τε L weaken the effect (though defended by
Ritchie and Jouan).   969 κακῶς Kirchhoff badly is needed after
‘of no account’: καλῶς L ‘well’, an interchange of the two words very
common in mss., e.g. Her. 1368, Tro. 718.]
970–2 My sword … shall soon know: Ach.’s reassertion of his
physical prowess, stronger than in 931; in the Greek the asyndeton has its
common force ‘because (of that), therefore’ (Smyth 2167b); the outburst
follows his scorn of ‘the commanders’. The picture derives from Ach.’s
threat to Ag. at Iliad 1.301–3 ‘You’ll not take (any of my prizes) against
my will! Come and try, so these men here too may know: your black
blood shall flow swiftly round my spear!’ A threat of a bad outcome
worded with ‘shall know’, with εἴσεται or γνώσεται, is common, usually
to ‘third persons’, e.g. And. 1006, Antiope F 223.43, Bacc. 859; here it
has ‘my sword’ as impersonal subject, like e.g. Pho. [1677] ἴστω σίδηρος;
And. 998 Delphi. Cf. the threatening 2. pers. expression ‘you will come
to know’ εἴσῃ 675 above (n.). defile: χρανῶ: Ach. means primarily that
the blood of such men as Ag. will pollute his own sword. The verb χραίνω
is conjectured in [1516], of Iph.’s blood; used of suppliants’ blood e.g. A.
Supp. 266. anyone: Ag., unmistakably; see also Greek.
Greek. 972 τις: for the indef. pron. in such threatening allusions see
e.g. S. Aj. 1138, Ant. 751; Smyth 1269. See Addenda.
[Text. 970 σίδηρος Tr2/3 nom. is inescapable; σίδηρον L acc. requires
 Commentary 487

a search for a subject for εἴσεται, and only deletion of 959–69 (see n.)
supplies an improbable one, Calchas, as far back as 956.   971 has
found no cure: αἵματι ‘with blood’ is redundant, and is metrically suspect
(-ι scanning ‘long’ before χρ-). Reiske’s emendation to αἵματος ‘(stains)
of blood’ creates redundancy with φόνου ‘bloodshed’ or with his own
φόνους. Hartman suggested 970–1 ἐς Φρυγῶν | … φόνον (Porson)
‘to slaughter Phrygians’. Τhere have been other rewritings: deleting
L’s αἵματι (Wecklein) permits a free supplement to φόνου, such as
῞Ελληνος Piccolomini ‘Greek (bloodshed)’; or ᾿Αργείου Page ‘Argive
(bloodshed)’: cf. Ach.’s 965 ‘for the Greeks’; or ἐμφύλου Wecklein
‘kindred (bloodshed)’. βαρβάρου Jackson ‘barbarian (bloodshed)’
removes Ach.’s chilling threat and transfers the cost to the enemy.]
973–4 Keep calm!: ἡσύχαζε: Ag. suddenly reassures Clyt., and she is
immediately grateful. In the theatre with these words Ach. may anticipate
some gesture of anxiety – or an outburst, so that his single imperative
may be double-edged, ‘(and keep quiet)’, as e.g. Her. 98 the same verb
(coupled with ‘and stop weeping’); Med. 81 approaches ‘be quiet’, cf.
below 1133 ἔχ’ ἥσυχος Clyt. forestalling Ag. appear to you like a
(very) great (god): Ach. at last acknowledges Clyt.’s emphatic hopes
from his ancestry, 896 (n.), 901 (n.), 903, 911. ‘great’: μέγας of divine
power and status, Zeus above all, e.g. μέγιστος Alc. 1136, Ion 1606.
Greek. 973 πέφηνα (φαίνομαι) with complement alone, cf. Bacc.
1031 θεὸς φαίνῃ μέγας ‘you appear as a great god’. For the omission of
ὤν ‘being’, e.g. Hec. 1233, Supp. 219, see Smyth 2119; it is inevitable
here given the immediate qualification οὐκ ὤν when I am not.  974
μέγιστος: the word is emphasized by enjambement (50–1 n.), as again in
1004.
[Text. 973–4 have been suspected, for alleged linguistic poverty,
since Markland, but were deleted first by Hartung. The best defence is
by Ritchie (1978) 196, citing both Ach.’s recognition of Clyt.’s appeal
(above) and the use of θεός ‘god’ as a human saviour, e.g. Iliad 24.258,
Theognis 337–40, Her. 521–2. In this light, the couplet makes a necessary
and apt ending by Ach.; cf. (C) 900–1035 n. at end.]
975–6 You have said etc.: this couplet from the Chorus resembles
that of 504–5 as a bald comment on the preceding speech – but it does
recognize Clyt.’s insistent appeal to Ach. through his own parent. For the
formula ‘spoken worthily’ (and the use of the pers. pron. σοῦ as reflexive
488 Commentary

σαυτοῦ) cf. 507 n., 1407. august goddess: the Chorus pick up Ach.’s
oath by his goddess mother 948–9 (again in 1413).
977–7 Despite admiring gratitude for Ach.’s speech (977), Clyt. still
doubts his protection; she hesitates now in pressing her appeal, 981 ‘I am
ashamed to…’ contrasting with 900 ‘I shall feel no shame in …’ Her 990
applauds his ‘beginning’ and his ‘end’: she imitates his lead by herself
starting with ‘neither too much nor too little’, 977 ~ 920–1, and takes up
expressly the idea of pity for the unfortunate, 983–5 ~ 932–4. Her 991
in momentary confidence mirrors his closing 972–4, but she ends by
offering Iph. too as a suppliant, if that will help, 992–7. It is worth note
that Clyt. like Ach. is given sequential couplets initially: four 977–84 ~
five 920–3 + 926–31.
977–84 may have verbal echoes in Terence’s Brothers (269–70 ~ 977–
80, 274 ~ 981) and a contextual echo (254–5 ~ 982–4), mediated by
Menander’s Brothers: see J. N. Grant, CQ 30 (1980) 341–55, at 348.
977–80 Ah!: φεῦ, admiring: 710 n. Hcld. 552, Or. 1155. What
words … praise etc.?: the danger of excessive or insufficient gratitude
and praise is something of a topos after A. Ag. 785–7 ‘How shall I
address you … neither overshooting nor falling short of proper thanks?’:
cf. Hcld. 202–4, Or. 1161–2. ‘Different behaviours draw different praise’
Hipp. 264, And. 866–8. Pericles is anxious to find the right means of
praise in his Funeral Speech Thuc. 2.35.1–2. In 979–80 praised …
praise … praise the threefold use of the verb is ostentatiously emphatic
after ‘praise’ in 977, particularly when predicated of good men οἱ
ἀγαθοί, unmistakeably meaning Ach.; cf. 984 n. Such ‘good’ men occur
in various moral contexts, e.g. 45 their loyalty, Alc. 602 their wisdom,
Aegeus F 7 their companionship.
Greek. 977 πῶς ἄν…; and opt. in a polite wish, 802–3 n. (τίς ἄν); the
negative μή, rather than οὐ, implies doubt of avoiding failure: Smyth
2737.   979 τρόπον τινά in some way e.g. Hipp. 1300, IT 512.
[Text. 978 idiom is restored with Dindorf’s μηδ(ὲ) for L’s μήτ(ε) and
metre with Markland’s deletion of μή. L however attests both ἐνδεῶς
(adv. matching 977 λίαν) ‘in the falling short of’ qualifying the verb
and ἐνδεής nom. adj. ‘falling short of’ qualifying the verb’s subject,
with both governing τοῦδε ‘this’ i.e. τοῦ ἐπαινεῖν ‘praise, praising’; the
adj. gives better idiom. Some eds distrust this reference and meaning
for τοῦδε, however; Weil for example writes που (διολέσαιμι) indefinite
 Commentary 489

‘lose (your favour) at some point’, and Stockert ἐνδεής του (διολέσαιμι),
‘falling short of something’, vague as in Med. 462 ἐνδεής του ‘(neither
moneyless nor) lacking anything’. England preferred to delete 978,
conjecturing that it was ‘a foolish addition by an early scribe’.]
981–9 [Text. Deleted by Hennig and Stockert on the ground of supposed
linguistic abnormalities (but none is compelling): 981 παραφέρουσα, 986
οἰηθεῖσ(α), 987 κατέσχον, 988 ὄρνις γένοιτο and citations or imitations
of 983 ~ Tro. 470, 985 ~ El. 672 (see nn. below). The lines were deleted
also to achieve a smoother sequence of ideas.]
981–2 I am ashamed … pity: see on 977–97. intruding:
παραφέρουσα: this is the nuance of the preverb παρα-, with παραφέρω
stronger than lit. ‘bring alongside, adduce’ (this at S. OC 1675, see LSJ
I.2): cf. e.g. PV 1065 παρασύρειν ἔπος ‘slip in a word’, Med. 910 γάμους
παρεμπολάω ‘smuggle in a (second) marriage’, and παρα- in Supp. 426
παρεργάτης λόγων ‘lit. ‘worker adding to his words’, i.e. ‘…to what he’s
meant to say’, ‘argumentative’; El. 63 πάρεργα … δόμων ‘additional
children for the house’, i.e. ‘bastards’. troubles … uninfected: our
translation diminishes the first metaphorical νόσος, lit. ‘sickness’ (411
n.), but enhances the second ἄνοσος ‘not sick’; private: ἰδίᾳ, adv. lit.
‘privately’, of good fortune Ion 775 and bad Pho. 1207.
Greek. 981 αἰσχύνομαι with infin. e.g. El. 900, Ion 934; with part. e.g.
Or. 281. ἰδίᾳ the fem. dat. of an adj. as adv. was once explained from the
ellipse of ὁδῷ ‘way, route’ (e.g. Smyth 1527c), but is now regarded as an
idiosyncrasy of Greek: see 420 n. on μακράν.   982 ἄνοσος controls
the separative gen. of related sense κακῶν, cf. e.g. 805 ἄζυγες γάμων
‘unyoked, not joined in marriage’ (n.), S. El. 1002 ἄλυπος ἄτης ‘unhurt
by disaster’.
[Text. 982 L’s γ(ε) was omitted by the Aldine; it provides only weak
emphasis of ‘my troubles’, but was perhaps intended to aid the immediate
contrast with 983–4.]
983–4 it looks quite well: σχῆμα lit. ‘(it has some) form, appearance’
is coloured by indef. τι in understatement (see Text below), exactly as
in Tro. 470 ‘it looks quite well to invoke the gods when any of us has
misfortune’. the good man: ἀνὴρ χρηστός, like 380, Hcld. 999. help
the unfortunate: taken up by Clyt. in her grateful 1008. (though …)
remote (from them): ἄπωθεν, in reversing the thought of 981 ‘intruding’.
Some take the word as the antithesis of οἴκοθεν ‘at home’, like Supp. 182
490 Commentary

οἴκοθεν ἀτώμενος ‘stricken by personal disaster’ or ‘not connected to the

house of family (and therefore not obliged to it)’, like θυραῖος ‘outside
the door, an outsider’ as in Or. 805–6 ‘a man of sympathetic ways, who
is an outsider, is a better friend … than countless kinsmen’, cf. F 902;
similarly And. 421–2 ‘misfortune deserves all men’s pity, even if one
happens to be an outsider’.
Greek. 983 ἀλλ’οὖν by a speaker countering his own objection: GP
442 cites this line and e.g. Tro. 1192; cf. 1013 n.
[Text. 983 τι Aldine, with σχῆμα as in Tro. 470 (above); the meiotic
use (here, ‘quite’) (609 n.) is not rare with ἔχει and an obj. noun, e.g.
Antiope F 205.2 ἡδονὴν … τινά ‘considerable pleasure’; for the pron.
with an adj. see 1012 n. τοι L ‘in truth; you know’ is too assertive before
the strong appeal for pity in 985.]
985–9 First … Then: an unexpected continuation, the second idea
changing the subject, although the 2. pers. pron. occurs in both parts.
hope and omen reflect Clyt.’s words at entry 607–9; the omen hopeful
for her there is dashed now, but threatens Ach. as a ‘bad omen’; bare
ὄρνις is defined in both places by context (607 n.). your marriage
when it comes: Clyt. presses even harder Ach.’s obligation to Iph. should
she die (940–2 n.), despite his 959–60; she plays to his proud sense of
honour (esp. 925, 944, 961), by hinting that his future wife will have the
knowledge that he let his previous ‘bride’ die. Perhaps however a thing
which you must guard against admits the possibility that Ach. will both
save Iph. and not marry her.
Greek. 986 ἥ = I, 1. pers., an extremely rare example of an antecedent
to a sing. rel. pron. ‘contained’ within a plur. verb-form, here πεπόνθαμεν:
KG I.57. The rel. pron. is in effect causal, ‘For I…’: see 1196 n. ἔχειν
would have, anticipatory pres. infin. after a verb of expecting: Smyth
1868b.   987 κατέσχον held: κατέχω with abstract object e.g. Med.
761 ἐπίνοιαν ‘intention’, Pho. 330 πόθον ‘desire’.   989 ὅ ‘(a thing)
which’: the preceding clause acts as antecedent to the neut. rel. pron., e.g.
Or. 679, 1175; cf. 393 αὐτό, 1018 and 1272 τοῦτο.
[Text. 985 is almost identical with El. 672, causing suspicion of borrowing;
but there are many such similarities in Eur. (as in any voluminous author,
cf. And. 421–2 cited on 983–4: see esp. Mastronarde, Phoenissae p. 193
n. 1 for bibl.); furthermore, the line is the heart of Clyt.’s appeal.   986
οἰηθεῖσ(α) is a prose-form, a further cause of suspicion for some eds.]
 Commentary 491

990–1 beginning … end: ‘rhetorical’ terms: ‘start’ 320 n.; the sing.
ἀρχή e.g. El. 1060, Ion 517, verb ἄρχομαι Her. 538, Pho. 1336; ‘end’:
in plur. τέλη this sense is unparalleled (see Text). Cf. however El. 907–8
τίν’ ἀρχὴν … ποίας τελευτάς ‘what beginning, what kind of ending?’
(rhetorical). (shall be) saved: cf. Clyt.’s 915–16. With the fut. tense
here Clyt. ‘deifies’ Ach. again? He used it 935, 950, cf. 972.
Greek. 991 σοῦ … θέλοντος gen. absol. and fut. main verb, e.g. Supp.
350 δόξει δ’ ἐμοῦ θέλοντος ‘(the people) will decide as I wish’; but the
phrase is more common of a god’s wish; Supp. 499 θεοῦ θέλοντος, 1146.
[Text. 990 τέλη L: τέλος Wecklein for the ‘rhetorical’ sing. (above), as
e.g. Hec. 413.]
992–4 Do you want…?: the idiom of βούλῃ …; often signals a surprise
development in asyndeton, e.g. Bacc. 811 (a famous moment), Hec.
405. clasp (… knees): the ritual posture (900–1 n.). she will come
out, with her look free of modesty: this is the likely, but problematic,
meaning (see Text). It makes Clyt. impute to Iph. a readiness like her own
to be unashamed of supplicating Ach. (900), which conflicts with Iph.’s
determined if temporary ‘shame’ to avoid meeting him 1341; and there is
a consequence for the interpretation of 996 (n.). Ach. proclaims his own
‘free nature’ 930.
Greek. 992 προσπτύσσω lit. ‘enfold’, e.g. clothing Hec. 734–5.
993 ἀπαρθένευτα not how a maiden should behave (‘unseemly for
maidens’ Hesychius α 5808 Latte), also Pho. [1739] ‘(wandering) as no
maiden should’. In negative forms the verbal adj. in -τος is particularly
expressive, e.g. in 1003 (n.); for its range of meanings see Smyth 472.
[Text. 994 With some misgiving we print Porson/Elmsley’s conjecture
ἔξεισιν, with following comma (‘brilliant, universally spurned’ Diggle
(1994) 414; adopted by Kovacs). While ‘come out (of Ag.’s hut)’ adds
something to the context, the adj. ἐλεύθερος with separative gen. αἰδοῦς
‘(free) from modesty’ is questionable, and illustrated by LSJ I.1 only of
persons, e.g. Hec. 869 ‘free of fear’; here in IA it is impossible to take
ὄμμα ‘look’ as half-personified in periphrasis, ‘look, facial expression’
for the whole person, because of its dependence upon ἔχουσα. L’s ἥξει
δι’ αἰδοῦς is punctuated after ἥξει by most recent eds, ‘she will come,
in modesty with a free look’, which is almost self-contradictory; or the
words δι’ αἰδοῦς … ἔχουσα are taken together as ‘treating a free(-born)
face with modesty’, i.e. that of Ach. (‘silly’, Page 178; but cf. Ach.’s
492 Commentary

998 ‘you are not to bring the girl into my sight’). Older eds punctuated
after αἰδοῦς, ‘she will come in modesty, with a free look’, also self-
contradictory.]
995–7 win the same result from you: matched in Ach.’s response 1002
‘you’ll come to the same thing’. the proprieties are observed: σεμνὰ
γὰρ σεμνύνεται, the verb passive. For this translation see 994 n. on ‘free
of modesty’. Alternatively ‘she observes proprieties’, the verb mid. and
personal. On the basis of 1341 (also 994 n.), Jouan offers ‘her self-respect
deserves respect’, a paraphrase of the Greek. Clyt. later disapproves
of Iph.’s modesty, but that is in the emergency of 1344. Iph. however
knowingly did not observe proprieties in her haste to greet her father 631–2.
Greek. 995 παρούσης i.e. αὐτῆς; for gen. absol. in a bare participle,
whether or not a subj. can be supplied from context, cf. e.g. And. 101, El.
1168: Smyth 2072a; cf. 1022 n. ταὐτά the same result is ‘semi-cognate’
acc., not rare with τυγχάνω in a pron., in place of a gen., e.g. Hec. 51;
Smyth 1573.
[Text. 996 given to Clyt. by Elmsley; to Ach. by L, not illogically
because of his concern for women’s propriety 821–30. Clyt. must speak
997, her continuing anxiety, but 996 for Ach. is just possible if 995 is
taken as a conditional protasis answered by his interruption.   997
αἰτεῖσθαι plead Markland, Diggle; all other eds keep L’s αἰδεῖσθαι ‘show
respect (for proprieties, 996)’, but it gives weak sense and is not apt after
Nevertheless. Nauck proposed a different solution: deletion of 997.]
998–1007 Ach. both fends off Iph.’s presence 998–1001 as a woman
(consistently with his 821–30) and reasserts his determination to save
Clyt. and Iph. in a ‘single, very great struggle’ 1002–7 (cf. his earlier
933 ‘as far as a young man is able’). He twice forswears falsehood 1005,
1006–7 (in contrast with those who traduced him 847–9).
998–1001 ignorant reproach … army … idle … malicious, foul-
mouthed gossip: the words link Ach.’s indignation at the idleness forced
upon his Myrmidons (814–18) with his later inability to resist their taunts
that his marriage to Iph. will thwart her sacrifice and the whole expedition
(1346–57); in between Clyt. has condemned unruly sailors’ readiness for
evil (914). The adj. ἀμαθές ranges between lit. ‘uncomprehending’, the
pejorative ‘ignorant’ of half-colloquial English (e.g. Bacc. 480, Supp.
421), and ‘stupid, crass, boorish’; cf. El. 294 ἀμαθία ‘lack of moral
feeling’ (pity). gossip: λέσχας, plur. as Hipp. 384, sing. Licymnius F
 Commentary 493

473.3; lit. ‘a public hall’, a meeting-place for ‘talk’; cf. Theognis 613
κακοὶ κακὰ λεσχάζοντες ‘evil men making evil gossip’; Callim. Epigram
2.3 ἥλιον ἐν λέσχῃ κατεδύσαμεν ‘we tired the sun with talking and sent
him down the sky’ (trans. W. J. Cory).
Greek. 1000 ἄργος i.e. ἀ-εργος ‘not-working, unoccupied with’, of
a useless citizen E. Melanippe F 512; with separative gen. e.g. Pl. Rep.
835d πόνων ‘tasks’, A. Seven 411 αἰσχρῶν ‘evil (actions)’. οἴκοθεν: the
separative suffix -θεν is here inert, as if the word were οἴκοι ‘at home’, as
e.g. Med. 506 τοῖς … οἰκόθεν φίλοις ‘friends at home’.
1002–4 challenge: ἀγών: lit. ‘contest’, a very common metaphor, again
at 1455 (n.) and as ‘struggle’ 1254; cf. Parker on Alc. 648–9 (‘matter at
stake’); with very great and infin. to e.g. Med. 235; ‘great’, Hipp. 496
‘to save your life’. The idiom is so common in Comedy that it may be
colloquial: so Fries (2014) on Rhesus 195.
Greek. 1002 πάντως In any case: 1117–19 n. ἥξετ’ εἰς ἴσον lit. ‘come
to an equal (outcome)’; ‘…to the same thing’ ἐς ταὐτὸν ἥξετε El. 787,
cf. Hec. 748. For a dual part. and plur. verb with the same reference
see Smyth 1045, citing e.g. IT 777.   1003 ἐπί of circumstances e.g.
And. 927 ‘most shameful’; also in a verbal phrase Ion 228 ‘with sheep
not sacrificed’. The part. ἱκετεύοντε is conditional, coupled with the
implicitly conditional phrase ἐπ’ ἀνικετεύτοις lit. ‘in the circumstance of
no supplications’; for the flexible sense and use of the verbal adj. see 993
n. εἷς single, with superlative adj. extremely emphatic, e.g. Iliad 12.243
εἷς οἰωνὸς ἄριστος ‘single, best omen’; Smyth 1088.
[Text. 1002–3 τε … τε ‘both … and, just as … so’: 585 n. The pairing
justifies Wecklein’s dual participle (-τέ θ’ for -τες, masc. as common
gender for two females, as e.g. Hipp. 387), and Weil’s prep. phrase ἐπ’
ἀνικετεύτοις for L’s clause εἴ τ’ ἀνικέτευτος (ἦς) ‘and if (you were)
not supplicating’. The past tense-form ἦς of εἰμί is most insecure in
Classical Greek (so Markland proposed ἦσθ’·, i.e. ἦστ(ε)·); but Nauck’s
emendation to εἷς ‘one’ is palmary.]
1005–7 For listen etc.: cf. Or. 627 ‘Listen and know that much’. one
thing: idiomatic, emphasized by γε after ὡς (again in 1010: colloquial,
Stevens (1976) 48): the most important thing, 538, Or. 1069, Supp. 409
etc.; cf. εἷς ‘single’ 1003 n. Ach. then swears on his life to the truth of
his words: see 948–54 n. lie … lies: see 998–1007 n. mockery: Ach. at
849 suggested it in others towards himself. die … not die: like ‘lie …
494 Commentary

lies’, idiomatic emphasis through repetition, e.g. El. 1017 ‘to hate…; but
if not, what’s the use of hate?’ (see Denniston).
Greek. 1005 ὡς … γε the acc. and infin. μ’ ἐρεῖν is in apposition
to ἕν (538 and n.), with μή in an asseveration rather than οὐ (Smyth
2725): similarly e.g. Med. 593 εὖ νυν τόδ’ ἴσθι, μή…; after any verb
of knowing e.g. S. OT. 1455: Smyth 2727.   1006 μάτην false: 904
n. The compound ἐγκερτομέω is unique, but (Stockert) Eur. has many
such verbs with ἐν-, e.g. 1472 ἐνδεξιοῦμαι.   1007 θάνοιμι: the word
is emphasized by enjambement (50–1 n.)
[Text. 1005–7 were unnecessarily deleted by Conington; but as in
1003–4 Ach.’s injured pride carries him to high promises.   1006
<σ’> ἐγκερτομῶν Markland ‘(mocking) <you>’, specifying Clyt. as the
deceived; but L’s general protestation is in order.]
1008–14 A brief stichomythia of persuasion, like Hipp. 516–21, Or.
1069–75.
1008 May you benefit … from: ὄναιο is a formulaic felicitation,
often implying gratitude (‘Bless you!’); e.g. with a part. Or. 1677 γήμας
‘(benefit) from marrying’; with a gen. ‘from’ 1359 below. continually:
συνεχῶς before the metrical caesura is more likely to go with ‘may
you profit’ (most recent eds) than with ὠφελῶν ‘helping’. helping the
unfortunate: part of Clyt.’s appeal, 984.
[Text. συνεχῶς Tr1: συνεχ** L, probably συνεχὲς adverbial acc.;
συνετῶς ‘understandingly’ Hermann, with ὠφελῶν. The adv. συνεχῶς is
rare in poetry, but occurs as early as Hes. Theog. 636.]
1009 Now listen then: ἄκουε δή νυν is a Tragic and Euripidean
formula, 1146, Supp. 857 with Collard’s n.
[Text. Punctuation after the formula, with the clause so that …
well left hanging as Clyt. interrupts with 1010, is worth a thought (an
‘anonymous’ suggestion in Ritchie).]
1010 What’s this you say?: another formula, of surprise, e.g. Bacc.
1032; following ‘Now listen then’ Hel. 1035–7. I must surely listen to
you: not stichomythic padding after 1009 ‘Listen’, but indicative of Clyt.’s
increasing deference to Ach., 1014, 1024, 1033 (cf. 819–20 n.).
1011 [Text. πείθωμεν L Let us persuade (act. voice, a self-correction
by L): suspect to eds because it implies Ach.’s full participation now,
and anticipates his fall-back upon his own possible negotiation with
Ag. (1016). The mid. voice of L’s original πειθώμεθ(α) is also suspect,
 Commentary 495

however, if it intends the same meaning; the sense ‘be persuaded’, mid.-
pass., is usual. England proposed πεῖσον μεταῦθις, 2. pers. ‘persuade
… to think better afterwards’, a command to Clyt.; Murray suggested
πεῖσον μετ’ αὐτῆς ‘join her in persuading (her father) to think better’.]
1012 a very weak man: κακός τις. The meaning is not quite clear:
Clyt.’s immediate scorn of Ag. as too fearful suggests ‘very cowardly’,
and is less surprising than abrupt; but after her previous indictment of
Ag.’s cruelty (912–13) the adj. appears to prepare for her onslaught to
Ag.’s face in 1146–208, and may mean ‘base’; see esp. her 1184 with its
weight upon κακός as ‘evil’. Clyt. is right about the fear of the army:
Men. also charged Ag. with it, 517, cf. 522; more significantly, Ag.
speaks of it in his final self–defence 1259–68.
Greek. κακός τις. The indef. pron. often modifies (or emphasizes) an
adj. in a predicate, e.g. Iliad 3.220 ‘a very angry man’, A. Ag. 1140 ‘quite
mad’: LSJ A II.7, Smyth 1268; cf. above 983; 609 n.
1013 outwrestle: lit. ‘wrestle down, to the ground’, καταπαλαίω
metaphoric of overcoming an argument e.g. Pl. Rep. 362d; similarly
καταβάλλω ‘throw down’ Bacc. 202, Ar. Clouds 1229, and the title οf
Protagoras’ lost treatise Καταβάλλοντες Λόγοι ‘Arguments That Score a
Fall’ 80 B 1 DK, cf. Democritus 68 B 125 DK. Similarly Med. 585 ‘one
word will stretch you out on the ground (ἐκτείνω)’.
Greek. ἀλλ’ οὖν But still…, an objection to a previous speaker: GP
442, citing e.g. Ion 1325, Hcld. 689.
[Text. οὖν Monk is inescapable: for ἀλλ᾿οὖν … γε ‘still, at least’ cf.
(Diggle) Cyc. 652, Hcld. 589; GP 444. The def. art. in L’s ἀλλ’ οἱ λόγοι
is against idiom before φόβους without the art.; this word, Musgrave’s
correction, is strangely rejected by some eds: fears takes up fearful
1012; and (λόγοι … ) λόγους L ‘(arguments wrestle down) arguments’ is
simply flat.]
1014 (hope …) cold: like ‘delight’ τέρψις Alc. 353 (Admetus embracing
an image of Alcestis after her death), cf. S. Ant. 88 ‘a hot spirit in a cold
(i.e. hopeless) business’. Headlam cites All’s Well etc. 2.1.147 ‘where
hope is coldest’.
1015–23 Problematic lines: 1017–18 and 1022–3 are corrupt, and
opaque; but they surround clear meaning in 1019–21. Ach.’s wish there
is to avoid dispute with Ag. and the army – a marked change of attitude
‘from boldness to prudence’ (Jouan 100 n. 2): 900–1035 n.
496 Commentary

1015–16 Supplicate him: Ach. suggests to Clyt. the manner of

persuasion (1011) that she had used on himself 900, cf. 992, 1002. a
child: Iph., of course, an allusive plur. (see Greek); in 490 the same plur.
τέκνα is general, not allusive.
Greek. 1015 τέκνα: allusive plur., like 403; frequent in e.g. δεσπόται
‘masters’ when clearly just one is meant, e.g. Hec. 397, 1237; Smyth
1007.
[Text. Diggle’s conjecture τέκνον sing. is nevertheless attractive here.]
1017–18 †But if your request is persuasive†: the Greek words are
corrupt, our English only a meaning possibly intended. In these two lines
(if genuine: see Text) Ach. begins to change his attitude (1015–23 n.). I
ought not to go myself: also insecurely translated, stretching τοὐμόν
‘what is mine, my state, what affects me, what I feel’ into personification
‘I … (myself)’ (but going beyond the exx. given by LSJ II.3 as ‘almost
periphrastic’, S. El. 1302, Trac. 1068 etc.). safety: for Iph., 991, cf.
972 – but Ach. thinks as much for his own, 1019–21.
Greek. 1017 τὸ χρῇζον ‘your request, desire’, def. art. and neut. part.
for verbal noun; cf. 33–4 τὰ θεῶν … βουλόμενα and n., 1270; Smyth
2051, 1153b.   1018 ἔχει … σωτηρίαν as e.g. E. Erechtheus F 362.13;
cf. Pho. 471 cited in Text.
[Text. 1017 εἴη L is a plain copy-error (probably for εἰ ‘if’: εἰ γὰρ
P2). Both ἐπίθετ(ε) and ἐπίθετ(ο), whatever meanings are tried (‘you
persuaded (me) of your request’ and ‘he had been persuaded of…’ [LSJ
πείθω B II.a]), are wrong in tense, like Musgrave’s ἔπιθεν ‘your request
persuaded (him)’; a fut. indic. or potential opt. is needed. Jackson’s bold
οὐ γάρ, τὸ χρῇζον εἰ πίθοι, τοὐμὸν ‘For if your request were persuasive,
I ought not…’ is accepted by Günther, Stockert and Kovacs, but not by
Diggle, wisely: L’s γάρ ‘for’ is illogical after 1016 ‘you must come to
me’, for a contrast is needed, not an explanation. This may have been
a main reason for Dindorf’s deletion of 1017–23 in total, accepted by
most eds before Murray. We do not go that far: 1017–21 in some form
are integral to Ach.’s new and prudently half-heroic stance, and Clyt.’s
1024 ‘How sensibly you have spoken’ must respond to more than 1015–
16.   1018 αὐτό Vater ‘(For) in itself (it holds safety)’, cf. e.g. Pho.
471 ἔχει γὰρ αὐτὰ καιρόν ‘(just claims) in themselves hit the mark’; but
L’s τοῦτο is sound: see 989 n. Greek.]
1019–21 I …better towards a friend … the army would not fault
 Commentary 497

me … reason rather than force: both sentiments suit the apparent drift
of 1017–18 and 1022–3: Ach.’s pragmatism is in the common interest,
cf. 965–7, 1421–3; he will succeed through reason, cf. 919–25, 1013,
not the force implicit in 928–31, 950–6, 970–2. Does Ach. mean ‘on
better terms with Ag.’, cf. Ach. 928–9, 961, 969–70, or ‘better in the
common interest’, cf. his 966–7? As to ‘friend’, φίλος: here of a comrade
in war, Ε. Philoctetes F 789d.8, 10; 799a, S. Phil. 242, 1385 etc. I
shall behave: γενήσομαι lit. ‘become’: cf. Ach. at 974 ‘I shall become
a god’! not fault me: cf. (Turato) Hcld. 415–22 Demophon’s wish to
avoid blame for risking the city. managed things: πράγματα πράσσω,
a very common phrase, 366 n.; LSJ III.6 (often ‘political’, III.5).
Greek. 1019 ἀμείνων πρός ‘better towards’ e.g. Alc. 433 εἰς ἐμέ (of a
wife), 1022; Thuc. 1.86.1 ἀγαθός πρός ‘good towards’ (in international
relations).   1021 λελογισμένως ‘by reason’, adv. formed on a perf. mid.
part., like μεμηχανημένως ‘by contrivance’ Ion 809, σεσωφρονισμένως
‘with moderation’ A. Supp. 724. This part. as noun τὸ λελογισμένον
‘reason’ 386.
1022–3 †If things reached etc.†: we translate as best we can words
no doubt intended to continue Ach.’s caginess (but see Text). successful
conclusion: κραίνω ‘accomplish’ a (usually) wise decision, esp. a
god’s ordinance fulfilled (see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 369); e.g. Or. 1023 τὰ
κρανθέντα ‘what has been accomplished’.
Greek. 1022 κρανθέντων gen. neut. plur. of a pass. part. without a
noun (but e.g. πραγμάτων is easily supplied from 1020): cf. τελουμένων
‘(things) being fulfilled’ e.g. And. 998, S. El. 1344; Smyth 2072b. πρὸς
ἡδονήν ‘to please’ (πρός is purposive, Smyth 1695.3c); the phrase with
dat. here, but gen. e.g. Ion 553.   1023 When ἄν is repeated it often
emphasizes particular words, here ἐμοῦ: e.g. Alc. 72, 464; Smyth 1765b.
[Text. 1022 can be superficially healed in metre by deleting καὶ (Tr),
but caesura then falls between prep. and noun, very rare (West (1982)
83). The couplet was deleted by Weil as adding nothing to 1017–23, and
this must be admitted; Jouan, Günther and Matthiessen retain the lines;
Stockert and Diggle mention, and Kovacs prints, Murray’s rearrangement
(apparatus), ‘If these things reached a successful conclusion like this
without myself, it would please both you and friends.’ We mention W.
Pötscher’s conjecture πάντ’ for κἂν in 1023, with deletion of καὶ in 1022
(with Tr2/3), as ‘diagnostic’ and potentially suggestive of better, ‘all this
498 Commentary

would please your friends and you without me (i.e. my intervention)’:

Philologus 136 (1992) 9–12, discussing also Ach.’s change towards Iph.
in the course of the play.]
1024–7 sensibly: σώφρονα: cf. Clyt.’s approval of Ach.’s ‘correctness’
τὸ σωφρονεῖν 824; but ‘sensibly’ here picks up Ach.’s 1021 ‘by reason’
and recalls his 919–21. see you again: i.e. if they turn to him, 1016.
It is a further hint that Ach. will be involved again – although it is he
who comes to ‘see’ her first, 1341ff. Such ‘appointments’ (Page) or
hopes are common in New Comedy (see Handley on Men. Dys. 107–8,
Sandbach on Perik. 159), but at home in Tragedy too, e.g. Hel. 1083–5,
S. Ant. 164–5. poor woman: Ach. acknowledges Clyt.’s distress in
1029. find also has Comic ambience, e.g. Alc. 834 ‘where shall I find
him?’ (which like 1026 has two anxious questions, ‘where … where?’),
Ion 1106–7.
Greek. 1025 ὧν: for the omission of the antecedent ἐκείνων (dependent
on τι) see 967 n.   1027 ἐπίκουρος help (against) with gen. obj. e.g.
El. 138 ‘against bloodshed’, Or. 211 illness.
[Text. 1025 αὖ τι … ὧν: Monk’s correction of αὐτὰ … ῾ἂν L (sic: ἃ
ἂν intended?) is securely founded upon IT 513 ἆρ’ ἄν τί μοι φρασείας
ὧν…; ‘would you explain to me any of the things (I want)?’   1026 ποῖ
Wecklein ‘where (to)’, with ἐλθεῖν, is accepted by some eds; but L’s ποῦ
‘where (at)’ with εὑρεῖν is better: where will Ach. actually be, to help?]
1028–32 Ach. reverts once more to proprieties for a woman in public
(821–30, 998–1001); should Clyt. need to speak to him again, he will
ensure she is escorted, to hide her wretched agitation. 1030 mass is the
milder connotation of ὄχλος ‘crowd’ (446–50 n.), despite Clyt.’s and
Ach.’s fear of sailors’ anarchy and abuse 914, 1000–1; Ag. had the same
concern about the ὄχλος as ‘mass’ 735. frantic distress: πτοέω lit.
‘flutter’ (trans.), of feelings excited or agitated and overmastering one,
586 love (n.); Or. 1505 of panicky flight. not disgrace … Tyndareus
… great among the Greeks: a curious rider to Ach.’s concern, but hinting
perhaps his own fear of such disgrace: again see 1352–7; or (Turato) ‘an
anticipation of the perfectly happy marriage of Peleus, Tyndareus’ father’
in the ode 1036–98. The imperative ‘disgrace’ αἴσχυνε is emphasized by
enjambement (50–1 n.). To call Tyndareus ‘great’ in this play may just
reflect his prominence in 55–67; but an audience recalling Orestes, a little
earlier than IA, would be surprised by the adj., given his unsympathetic
 Commentary 499

portrayal there in 249–50 and esp. 607–31. μέγας of e.g. Menelaus ‘great
(in Sparta)’ And. 461; cf. El. 380.
Greek. 1032 κακῶς ἀκούω (ill repute), lit. ‘hear badly (of oneself)’,
e.g. Alc. 726, Hel. 968.
[Text. 1028 φύλακος … χρέος England need of a guard, an excellent
improvement upon φύλακες … χρεών L ‘(protect you) as protectors
(where we) should’. φυλάξομεν Markland fut. is necessary, not L’s pres.
φυλάσσομεν.   1032 was deleted by F. W. Schmidt, and Kovacs, but
wrongly: see the start of this n. on 1028–32.]
1033–5 It shall be so: ἔσται (τάδε), a formula of compliance with a
wish or command, 149 (n.). That, and you I must serve, show that ἄρχε
translates as Rule me, not ‘Take the lead’ (this, S. El. 1319). <wise>:
of gods e.g. Hel. 851, but ‘unwise’ 1189 below and (heretically) Her.
655–6 (see Text below). but if not etc.: for the style of antithesis cf.
916 n., and e.g. El. 1017 ‘It is just to hate; but if not, what use is hating?’
Comparable with 1034–5 in thought and expression is E. Phrixus B F
820b.4–5 ‘If chance exists, there is no need of gods; but if the gods have
power, chance is nothing’; for doubts of the gods’ existence in Eur. cf.
e.g. Bellerophon F 286.1, with Collard’s n. in Collard, Cropp and Lee I
(1995).
Greek. 1035 τί δεῖ…; what use…?: cf. And. 765, with Stevens’ n.; for
effort cf. S. OC 1022 οὐδὲν δεῖ πονεῖν ‘(there’s no use for) effort’.
[Text. 1033 ἔσται (τάδε) Markland is palmary (above): ἔστιν (τάδε)
L ‘This is so’, i.e. ‘Yes, Tyndareus is great’, is defended by some,
surprisingly.   1034 L is defective by two syllables; cf. our Introduction
p. 54, Text 1.c. Tr3’s <σύ γε> at verse-end must be ignored (see Zuntz
(1965) 194); he tried it also at Hcld. 628. Modern supplements: (1) θεῶν
at verse-end (Vitelli) picks up θεοί, ‘you will meet with good gods’,
with ἐσθλός ‘(a) good (god)’ as in Ion 1269, but its sense will tend
towards ‘kind’, i.e. rewarding with prosperity. Vitelli however creates
a verse without caesura and preserves the scansion of a form of θεός
as one syllable (synizesis) after a short syllable (in εἰσί), an infrequent
phenomenon, with only one parallel in this verse-position in Eur. at And.
750: see L. Battezzato, BICS 44 (2000) 42 and 43 n. 7. (2) <πολλῶν>
before ἀνήρ (West) ‘you will meet with many good things’, but its
separation from ἐσθλῶν is awkward. (3) <συνετοὶ> before θεοί, earlier
in the verse (Diggle (1981) 112, with parallels like 394a above for the
500 Commentary

gods’ wisdom, and (1994) 132, cf. 414), which we adopt because Diggle
well argues that Vitelli’s supplement “if the gods exist, you will find
them good” is not ‘compelling’ logic.]
Clyt. goes into the hut (see 900 n., 934 n. Text); but after the following
choral ode she comes out again, having failed to find Ag. (1098). Ach.
goes back to his men, but returns at 1341 to tell Clyt. (and Iph.) of his
inability to withstand their clamorous insistence on the sacrifice.

1036–1097 Third Choral Ode (stasimon)

In the preceding episode nothing more was said of Iph.’s marriage after
Clyt. had despaired of it (986–7); the Chorus now pass over Ach.’s
promises – or hopes – to save the girl (esp. 935–6, 970–4, 1007); their
silence perhaps offers a commentary on the uselessness of Ach.’s
protestations. They begin the ode abruptly by picturing the splendid
marriage of Ach.’s parents Peleus and Thetis: in this way, the poet
invites us to imagine the marriage of Ach. and Iph. only as it might have
been. Peleus and Thetis were married in the presence of the gods, and
a glorious future prophesied for their son in the Trojan war. For this to
happen, Iph. cannot be saved, and the Chorus move to poignant contrast
with imminent reality, her sacrifice, shameful and impious.
1036–57 = 1058–79 strophe and antistrophe. The wedding is described
with much repetition of detail; it begins with music and song 1036–9
and ends with the ‘blessing’ (makarismos) 1076–9. There is dancing
by the Pierides (Muses) 1042–3 and the Nereids 1054–7; drinking of
wine poured by no less a cup-bearer than Zeus’ Ganymedes 1049–53,
implying the supreme god’s presence together with the other divinities
(1040–4 n.) and the Centaurs 1058–66; and the bride Thetis herself is
divine 1074, the groom Peleus of the highest descent, indeed from Zeus
himself through Aeacus 1046 (cf. 699–701). Greatness is prophesied for
their son, nameless 1063 but identified as the decisive hero at Troy 1067–
70 in his god-made armour 1071–5. The setting too is significant, Pelion
the mountain of Thessaly 1047 (n.), Peleus’ homeland, and that of the
Centaurs including Chiron 1066–7, destined to be Achilles’ tutor (708–
10, 926–7 nn.); the wedding is out-of-doors, with green woods 1048;
the lovely-haired Pierides have golden sandals 1042, golden like the
drinking-cups 1051–2 (matched in the golden armour to be given Achilles
 Commentary 501

1071–3). Missing from such joy (of course) is the Apple of Discord
thrown during the wedding by Eris ‘Strife’ between the great goddesses
Hera, Athena and Aphrodite (Strife first in the Cypria, Argument 1 West,
the Apple e.g. Hyginus, Fables 92), just as the incident is missing from
the Judgement of Paris itself in 1294–1311, and was from the Second
Ode 580–9; necessarily missing here too is the death of Achilles at Troy
(see esp. A. F 350, Thetis complaining that the prophecy for Ach. was
false, for he was to be killed at Troy by Paris (1067–70 n., at end); cf.
And. 1231–72 Thetis’ bitterness disclosed to Peleus). Noteworthy as well
is that the ode does not repeat the motif of Iph. as the ‘bride of Hades’,
Ag.’s fear (460–1 n.; at 540 and 1278 Ag. simply ‘hands her over’ to
Hades).
1080–97 The epode makes a grim and ironic contrast between god
and man. It begins with the garlanding of the lovely-haired Iph. – as
the dancing lovely-haired Pierides 1040 were no doubt garlanded, and
the Centaurs certainly 1058 – like a sacrificial, pure heifer (ritually
garlanded) from the mountains 1081–4: Iph. is to suffer such a victim’s
throat-cut 1084 (cf. 1485, 1515–17). She is to have garlands at her
sacrifice too (1477–8, 1512–13), but no music, unlike the heifer amid
herdsmen’s pipes 1085–6, though she was reared for a noble wedding
1087–8! Then comes the sudden shift to didacticism: ‘where are Shame
and Virtue gone to, when men are irreverent, without virtue and lawless,
indifferent to the gods’ anger?’ 1087–97.
The pictorial sequence is essentially the same as in the Second Ode
(751–800): there at first a long description by a prophetic narrator 751–
72, [773–83], here an extended vignette 1036–79 which includes a short
prophecy 1062–75. Both odes include images of a woman forcibly taken
away: 790–800 Trojan wives into slavery 790–2 ~ 1080–97 Iph. taken
from life itself 1083–4. This order and these proportions reverse those of
the First Ode, which begins with heavy and extended moralising about
(happy) marriage (see 543–99 n.).
The importance of the wedding, and the future glory of Ach., were
favourite opportunities for poets, after Iliad 24.62–3 and Cypria F 4
West, esp. Pindar, Pyth. 3.92–5 and (Ach.) 100–3; Catullus 64.19–30,
265–304 and (a savage Ach.) 323–83 (including the sacrifice to his ghost
of the virgin Polyxena, 368–70): full survey by Jouan (1966) 68–87, with
77–85 on IA.
502 Commentary

Art. LIMC VII.1 Peleus nos 47–212 show Peleus and Thetis in various
scenes, many including Nereids and Chiron, esp. 205–212 picturing the
wedding itself. Two early black-figure vessels stand out, both of 580–570
BC, showing the gods’ processional arrival: LIMC p. 267 no. 211 a dinos
of Sophilos now in the British Museum and no. 212 a volute-krater of
Kleitias and Ergasimos, the famous ‘François Vase’ now in Florence.
Literary references also LIMC VII.1 pp. 251–2. An ancient influence upon
all artistic and poetic ‘weddings’ was the famous episode Iliad 14.153–353
(see Janko’s Commentary, 1992), in which Hera distracts her husband
Zeus with love-making on Mt Ida: 347–51 begin an evocation of nature’s
rich beauty as setting; it is a precursor of the literary locus amoenus or
‘delightful setting’ (1295–9 n.). Foley (below) stresses that the ode borrows
heavily from the traditional language of wedding songs, after Sappho F
141 PMG (a wedding attended by gods). The Olympian Muses (Pierides)
attending the wedding are matched by the Muses of Helicon at that of
Theban Cadmus and Harmonia, Theognis 15–16 (see Jouan (1983) 101 n.
4); the two are coupled at Pind. Pyth. 3.88–91 and 92–5.
The ode is much admired and discussed for its composition, the way
in which lyric charm gives way to despair. For a contrast between an
(anticipated) blissful wedding and a (groom’s) death which has already
prevented it see Phaethon 227–44 and (178–)214; in Tro. 308–423
Cassandra’s fantasy-wedding leads only to her own wretched fate and
the lamentation of those who know it (for these analogies see Contiades-
Tsitsoni below). For odes beginning with a mythical incident and turning
later to the dramatic present cf. esp. And. 274–308 (the Judgement of
Paris), El. 699–746 (Mastronarde (2010) 140–41 and n. 108).
Most sentences are very long, 1036–48, 1062–75, 1080 and 1089–97;
but the syntax is simple, though featuring many preps., esp. in the strophe
(see 1036–9 n. Greek). Compound adjs., nouns and adjs. of light and
colour, metaphors and Homeric echoes are very frequent; there are some
cases of unusual word-order (also 1036–9 n.): colourful style indeed.
Some discussions: Panagl (1971) 208–22 (structure and style); G. B.
Walsh, CPh 69 (1974) 241–48 (meanings for the subsequent dramaturgy,
esp. the now doomed Iph., and the characterization of Ach. and Iph.);
Foley (1981) 81–3; F. Jouan, Mélanges … Tuilier (1988) 19–28 (dramatic
function; 1090–7 a message to the Athenians about their own times);
Hose II (1991) 95–7, cf. 186–7 (function in the play); E. Contiades-
 Commentary 503

Tsitsoni, ZPE 102 (1994) 52–60; U. Bittrich (2005) 128–9, cited in 543–
89 n. (discusses 1080–97 incidentally to the moral themes of the First
Ode); Rutherford (2007) 11, 17 (subject of the narrative; direct speech
within it); Mastronarde (2010) 141.
Text. 1036–79 strophe and antistrophe have the true stamp of
Euripides. Page 180–2 allowed that the often adventurous vocabulary, as
far as 1088 in the epode, is no argument for suspicion overall; but he had
some doubt about 1071–5. The epode 1080–97 was deleted by Dindorf
and suspect most recently to Diggle; it contains real difficulties, but its
effect is strong (above), and it is inconceivable that 1036–79 stood alone
as purely decorative and wholly optimistic lyrics. The Greek text itself is
occasionally insecure: 1041=1063, 1081–4, 1090–1.
Metre. There are one pair of responding strophes and a single epode,
as in the other two odes and 164–230 of the parodos; metrical periods
coincide with clause-end in the strophic pair. The metre is again the very
changeful aeolo-choriambic, here almost self-referential in the strophe
with its evocations of music and dance; iambo-trochaic rhythm interrupts
only briefly in 1048 = 1070, 1080, 1090. Analyses by Wilamowitz (1921)
259–61, with commentary; Dale (1981) 152–4, with brief notes; Günther
65–6; Stockert 497–9, with commentary and bibliography.
1036–48 One long sentence (above); note the multiple preps. (next n.,
Greek).
1036–9 joyous sound: ἰαχή, lit. ‘cry’, a noun coloured by its context;
at Cassandra’s ‘wedding’ Tro. 337, but shunned by Chiron’s daughter at
hers Pind. Pyth. 3.17. Hymenaeus: the wedding-god himself (430 and
437 nn.) would attend so important a union (see Text below). Cassandra
invokes him repeatedly Tro. 308–40, like the chorus Phaethon 227–44
(both cited in 1036–97 n.); ten-fold invocation Ar. Peace 1331–57. The
god employs three instruments, lotus-pipe, lyre and reedy pipes, each
with its own prep. and adj.; three instruments each have an adj. in the
celebration attended by the Muses Hel. 1346–52 (see Greek below). For
the lotus see 438 n.; as to the Libyan association with the lotus (e.g.
Tro. 544, El. 716), it is mythological, topographically factual and mildly
exotic (a rich note by Kannicht on Hel. 170–1a). Reed-pipes 576–8
n., 1085; ‘lyre’ here translates κιθάρα kithara, the names of stringed
instruments being interchangeable (West (1992) 50–1).
504 Commentary

Greek. Note the extraordinary separation (hyperbaton (71b–3a n.)

of initial τίν(α) 1036 and terminal ἰαχάν 1039, embracing the sentence:
14 words between, here; 10 at Bacc. 421–3; 7 Pho. 190–2 (Breitenbach
(1934) 246). Similarly subject and verb are separated by 11 words
in 1040–4, though helped by an intervening participle 1043; milder
hyperbata 1063–5, 1067–9. Multiplication of preps. is not rare in Eur.’s
‘full’ lyric style: nine here in 1036–48; three e.g. Med. 192–3 (also festal
music), and e.g. IA 754–5, 762–3, Med. 210–11.   1038 ὑπό and gen.
of musical accompaniment as e.g. Ion 499, Pho. 824.   1039 ἵστημι
set up a noise, e.g. shouts IT 1307, Or. 1529.
[Text. 1036 τίν(α) Portus: τίς L. Also, τίς … ὑμέναιος L ‘what wedding-
song set up a joyous cry?’ is too flat; the god’s own name must stand here
(above). Kovacs however prints Willink’s conjecture ὑμεναίοις, with
1036 Portus’ τίν(α) and 1039 L’s ἔστασαν, ‘What cry in the wedding-
songs … did they (i.e. those present) raise?’   1039 καλαμοεσσᾶν
Markland, third adj. for third noun (above).]
1040–4 lovely tresses: καλλιπλόκαμοι: cf. 1080 Iph. with ‘tresses of
lovely hair’, 790 a woman ‘with fine tresses’. Muses of Pieria: 798
n. gods: their presence is constantly emphasized, with several named,
1045, 1049, 1050, 1057, 1061, 1072, 1075. Peleus … Pelion: hero giving
name to mountain (705), in his native Thessaly 1063. stamping: κρούω
in the dance, e.g. El. 180. feet: ἴχνος, lit. ‘step, path, track’, metonymic
(LSJ 2); but perhaps the pattern of their dance is suggested; cf. ‘circles’
1055 n. Τhe adj. golden-sandalled also Or. 1468 (a king’s daughter).
[Text. 1039–40 ὅτ(αν) ἀνὰ L, with twice-copied αν reduced by Tr3 to
once.   1041 ἐν δαιτί L ‘at the feast’ gives inexact metrical responsion
with 1063 – where L is corrupt. Eds either emend text and sense there
(Jouan, Stockert, Diggle) and accept the irregularity here (but Diggle
obelizes), or emend here too: ἐπὶ δαιτὶ Monk or παρὰ δαιτὶ Kirchhoff (same
sense, ‘at the feast’), or μετὰ δαῖτα Wecklein ‘to join the feast’, adopted by
Kovacs. ἐν δαιτί is however frequent, e.g. Hcld. 893, Bacc. 261, and the
prep. ἐν ‘in, at’ sometimes describes a destination now reached (motion
implicit in 1040 ἀνά ‘along’): Smyth 1659a.]
1045–8 grandson of Aeacus: for Ach.’s lineage see 700–1 and
n. Centaurs: important in 1058–66. Pelion’s woods: typically in
mountain-glens, e.g. And. 849, Bacc. 688. Pelion is the mountainous part
of a SW-thrusting promontory and lies 10–15 m. NE of modern Volos;
 Commentary 505

the slopes and valley below it have always been one of the greenest and
most fertile areas of Greece, e.g. Iliad 1.155; cf. 1058 and n.
[Text. 1045 μελῳδοῖς (…ἀχήμασι) Elmsley melodious; the adj. is
needed to colour the noun: μελῳδοὶ L, the Muses themselves (as Rhes.
351–2, 393).
Metre. ἰαχήμασι L, with short first alpha, as in 1039 ἰαχάν: ἀχη- with
long α is needed here.]
1049–53 plaything: τρύφημα lit. ‘luxuriance’, a verbal noun
personifying self-indulgence, here sexual, cf. 1303 τρυφάω of Aphrodite
‘flaunting’ desire; like some other nouns in -μα it is sometimes opprobrious
and probably colloquial: Stevens in Collard (2005) 370. Similarly perhaps
Hel. 241–2 Hera as Zeus’ ‘august embrace’ ὑπαγκάλισμα σεμνόν (or in
currrent colloquial English ‘squeeze’): see Addenda. cups: γύαλα lit.
‘hollow(s)’, metonymous for a vessel: Athenaeus 11.467c mentions a
Megarian cup called a γυάλας (Doric 1. Decl. nom. masc.). descendant
of Dardanus … Ganymedes: his great-grandfather; Tros was his father,
Iliad 5.265–6. For his abduction by Zeus and service as cup-bearer
and ‘catamite’ (Latin catamitus ‘corrupts’ his name Ganymedes) see
Hom. Hymn to Apollo 202–6, Tro. 819–24. In the sentence his name is
postponed to the very end, in the frequent ‘riddle’ (γρῖφος) technique,
e.g. Pho. 255, (Collard on) Supp. 837; often this signals an important
identity, but not here, for it is fanciful to see a contrast between this youth
in Zeus’ arms and the youthful Iph. who will not enjoy those of Ach.;
but the fortune of Ganymedes is contrasted with that of his city also at
Tro. 820–4. libation: λοιβή if literal is striking: the gods follow human
practice and libate to themselves, unless to Zeus alone.
[Text. 1052 ἐκ (κρατήρων) editio Hervagiana and Wecklein, wine
being drawn from bowls, not (ἐν … γυάλοις L) ‘in hollows of bowls’.]
1054–7 sand: the beach of the seaward side of the promontory (1048
n.); the sea-dwelling Nereid sisters of Thetis would probably come no
further ashore, e.g. Iliad 18.65–9, Od. 24.47–50, cf. El. 442–5 cited in
1071–5 n. bright white: λευκοφάης, uncertainly read at Hypsipyle
F 752f.4; for Eur.’s coinages in -φάης see Page 180, for his interest
in ‘light’ Barlow (2008) 9–10, 58–9. The Nereids conventionally are
numbered at a round fifty, e.g. Ion 1081–6; for poets’ variable counts of
their individual names see Gantz (1993) 16–17. twirled: in the dance
e.g. IT 1145; circles: LSJ under κύκλιος is remarkably informative about
506 Commentary

‘round’ dances; at weddings e.g. El. 178–80, Hel. 1312–13. For the music
and dancing in this and other Eur. passages see esp. E. Csapo, ICS 24/25
(1999–2000) 420–1.
Greek. 1055 κύκλια: the acc. plur. of the adj. is probably adverbial, but
the sing. κύκλιον with ὠρχήσαντο ‘danced in a circle’ at Callim. Hymn
to Delos 313 may suggest its agreement there with a suppressed cognate
noun ὄρχημα; cf. 644 n. (Smyth 1572); here a suppressed ἑλίγματα
‘twirlings’ would be against this noun’s exclusive use of tangible
windings, e.g. of wool.   1057 γάμους is internal obj. to ἐχόρευσαν
‘danced (to celebrate)’, e.g. Ion 1084, as with ἔδαισαν ‘feasted’ 707 (n.).
[Text. 1056–7 Wilamowitz’s word-order (see apparatus), with the
proper name responding in position with 1079, is attractive but metrically
unnecessary: Diggle (1994) 415.]
1058–61 The Centaurs bring traditional greenery to the wedding. At
Catullus 64.278–93 green boughs and garlands are brought, in first place
by Chiron (1066 below), as ‘gifts from the woodland’ 279; the garlands
include fragrant flowers 282–4. Fir-branches are carried by Dionysus’
celebrants Bacc. 110, together with ‘greenery’ for garlands 106–8. staffs
of silver fir: bare ἐλάται in the Greek, whole ‘fir-trees’ in synecdoche for
their boughs. A paradox is pointed here: such staffs were normally weapons
for the Centaurs, e.g. [Hes.] Shield 188; Her. 372; while they come as
a revelling company here, a θίασος, more often they form an ‘army’,
στρατός, e.g. Pind. Pyth. 2.46, (violent) S. Trac. 1095. with their horse-
legs: ἱπποβάτας: Centaurs had the lower bodies and (four) legs of horses
(see Greek). the wine-bowl of Bacchus: the Centaurs were bibulous
too, e.g. Plut. Theseus 30; and at another wedding, that of Pirithous and
Deidamia, their drunkenness led to violence e.g. Od. 21.295–304, Ov. Met.
12.210–535: see Jouan (1966) 82 n. 3 for it in art. The ancient audience
could hardly miss the association, and perhaps we are to infer that they
were already drunk. At any rate, it is striking that the Centaurs on their way
to the wedding cry out Chiron’s prophecy as already made 1062–6 when
he is there in his home to deliver it himself to the bridal pair.
[Text. 1058 ἅμα Conington prepositional with (their staffs) is
compelling, if rare of ‘things’; perhaps Bacc. 567 χορεύσων ἅμα
βακχεύμασι ‘to set dancing with Bacchic rites’ is sufficient parallel.
ἀνὰ L must either stand in tmesis (40 n.) from ἔμολεν ‘(came) up’,
as Hec. 928, or be an adv. ‘high up’, or even prep. ‘up in the trees’.
 Commentary 507

Weil suggested ἀνὰ (adv.) ἐλάταις σὺν ‘up (came … the Centaurs) with
staffs’.   1059 ἱπποβάτας Gomperz: ἱπποβότας L ‘horse-rearing’ is
empty in this context (and did the Centaurs raise horses?). Both are nom.
sing., with Doric alpha in -ας.]
1062–75 The significance of this passage for the armed Ach. in the
play is well set out by Michelakis (2002) 120–8. For ‘direct speech’ in
lyric narrative cf. 791–3, and Bers cited in 356 n.; Rutherford (2007) 17.
The verbatim prophecy here stretches as far as 1075; it is addressed to
Thetis, Ach.’s mother, as 2. pers. in 1062–3, but she becomes 3. pers. at
its end in 1075, where the past tense ‘bore’ also is doubted: see n. there.
1062–6 cried: ἀνέκλαγον: the uncompounded verb κλάζω ‘cry
(loudly)’, e.g. Pho. 1144, is used of the seer Calchas’ declaration itself at
A. Ag. 201, cf. 174. shall bear: see Text below. great light: glory’s
splendour, metaphoric of Ach. also El. 449 (see on 1071–5), cf. Iph. of
herself 1502, Orestes IT 849; a hoped-for saviour Or. 243 (the faithless
Menelaus!). Perhaps a hint of ‘glory’ as a theme of the play: Introduction
pp. 36–7. Chiron was a confidant of prophetic Apollo; at Pind. Pyth.
9.39–66 he himself prophesies Apollo’s future. His prophecy here for
Ach. reappears at Hor. Epodes 13.11–18. knowing: εἰδώς, of particular,
shrewd knowledge, as in English: οἶδα and cognates e.g. Iliad 1.70
(Calchas again). the art (of Phoebus): μοῦσα of any poetic skill, esp.
‘song’ e.g. of Orpheus Bacc. 562 or ‘verse’ of the Sphinx’s hexametric
riddle solved by Oedipus Pho. 50. The adj./noun φοιβάς ‘of Phoebus’,
with an overtone of ‘possessed, inspired’, is used of Phoebus-Apollo’s
prophetess Cassandra Hec. 827. declared it of him: ἐξονόμαζεν, lit.
‘spoke out his name’, as any prophet would name his subject – or make
him unmistakeable to an audience as here through the words son and
‘burn out (Troy)’ 1070. Just possibly, Eur. did not name Ach. expressly
here because he was conscious of the ancient folk-etymology which
linked his name with ἄχος ‘suffering’, Schol. D Iliad 1.1h Erbse. The verb
is used of gifts ‘named (for the future)’ Iliad. 9.515, 18.449 (England).
Greek. 1066 ἐξονόμαζεν lacks temporal lengthening to -ωνο- (see
apparatus), like many verbs in Tragic lyric, e.g. 208, 210, 1051; many
exx. in Diggle (1981) 65–6; Smyth 438a. The impf. rather than aor. (L) is
idiomatic in the simple verb ὀνομάζω (281 n.), which occurs in a reported
‘prophecy’ at A. Ag. 681 (see Fraenkel’s n.); here the compound follows
the usage.
508 Commentary

[Text. 1063–6 the successive corrections by Kirchhoff, Weil (twice),

Hermann and Bothe/Monk are all palmary.]
1067–70 Myrmidons: bellicose Iliad 16.65, ferocious with spears
Iliad 2.692, Od. 3.188. (Priam’s) country … (his famous) land:
χθόνα … γαῖαν. Most eds doubt the awkward synonyms (and the context
does not justify the translation of χθών as ‘city’, for which see LSJ II
at end). χθόνα requires description, and Πριάμοιο ‘Priam’s’ in mid-
place between it and γαῖαν provides it; then (Turato) either γαῖαν is in
apposition to χθόνα, or each is controlled by a separate verb, χθόνα as
acc. of motion with ἥξει ‘come (to)’ and γαῖαν as obj. of ἐκπυρώσων
burn out (our preference; Kovacs however obelizes γαῖαν; see Text).
‘to burn out’ is expressed as Ach.’s intention, but he gets only as far as
ensuring it through killing Hector before he himself is killed by Paris’
arrow when shot into his heel. For the burning of Troy see Hera’s and
Athena’s oath Iliad 20.315–17 and Priam’s ‘reading’ of it as presaged in
Hector’s death 22.410–11 ‘as if all of beetling Troy were to smoulder
from the top down’ (= Chapman’s Homer 22.354 ‘Ilion, with his tops
on fire’, published after Marlowe’s Dr Faustus 5.1.98 ‘burnt the topless
towers of Ilium’). Troy burnt in Eur. e.g. Tro. 8, 299, 548–9, 1256–2.
Greek. 1070 ἐκ- in ἐκπυρόω is ‘utterly’, as in ἐξαλαπάζω ‘sack
utterly’, Ach.’s prayer for Troy Iliad 1.129, and ἐκπέρθω with the same
meaning 1.19, Chryses’ fear of it.
[Text. 1067 England plausibly conjectured ἥξοι, fut. opt. for indic. in
secondary sequence in indirect speech (Smyth 2331, 2619a).   1070
πέργαμ’ Willink ‘(to burn out) the citadel’ in place of γαῖαν L, the
displeasing synonym of χθόνα: above.]
1071–5 Achilles’ golden armour (implying his victory at Troy),
celebrated in Homer’s ecphrastic description in Iliad 18; it comes
between Thetis’ request to Hephaestus to forge it Iliad 18.369ff. and her
giving it him at Troy 19.12–13, particularly the decorated shield 18.478–
608. Ach.’s armour in the play briefly elsewhere 211, 1359: see 1062–75
n. Eur. has a different account in El. 442–5: there the Nereids, not Thetis,
bring Ach. Hephaestus’ armour, and at Pelion before he leaves for Troy;
it too receives a poetic ecphrasis 452–77 (on both passages see Cropp’s
nn.). his body clad in his suit of … armour: lit. ‘equipped round his
body with clothing of armour’. ὅπλων … ἐνδυτ(ά) is mildly metaphoric,
like ‘clothing of flesh’ σαρκὸς … ἐνδυτά Bacc. 746 (torn from cattle by
 Commentary 509

the bacchants). mother … who bore him: the pleonasm (90 n., 1177
n.) is heavily emphatic at the prophecy’s end, in ‘ring-composition’ with
1063 ‘son’, the special son of a special marriage: see n. on 1076 ‘blest’.
The address to Thetis in the 3. pers. is remarkable and puzzling after the
initial address to her in 1062–3, and not to be satisfactorily explained as
the overcoming of ‘reality’ by the influence of the Iliad’s close verbal
association of this mother and son, from 1.352 onward ‘mother, since
you bore me’ μῆτερ, ἐπεί μ’ ἔτεκες, cf. 414.  
Greek. 1071 περὶ σώματι: ‘round (his body)’: for the prep. with dat.
cf. Cyc. 183 ‘round legs’, with acc. Ar. Thes. 256.   1073 κορύσσω lit.
‘equip with a helmet’ extends to arming in general; its mid. with acc. of
the thing worn is unique, but follows the construction of ἕννυμαι ‘clothe
oneself in’ (Tro. 496), freqent in the Iliad of armour, e.g. 14.383.   1075
ἔτικτε ‘bore’, impf. apparently in the same idiom as ὠνόμαζε ‘named’
281 n., 416.
1076–9 blest: μακάριον, emphatic as first word and in asyndeton;
for the meaning see 439 n. The verb ὀλβίζω ‘endow, bless (with good
fortune)’ is used of Peleus’ wedding at And. 1218, but there with bleak
hindsight, ‘In vain the gods blessed you …’ first among Nereids: in
virtue of her individual status and power, well exemplified in her bold
request to Zeus to return a favour on Ach.’s behalf Iliad 1.495–530; cf.
her literal leadership of the Nereids And. 1266–7. of a splendid father:
εὐπατρίς of a child of a god, like εὐπάτειρα of Artemis daughter of Zeus
Cretans F 472b.8; such adjs. usually denote mortal fathers ‘noble’ by
birth. Note the further ‘ring-composition’ (1075 n.) of 1079 ὑμεναίους
echoing 1036 ῾Υμέναιος, wedding and wedding-god.
Greek. 1076 μακάριον is predicative/proleptic acc. to both γάμον
marriage and ὑμεναίους wedding governed by ἔθεσαν (779 n.; Smyth
1169), the adj. taking the sing. number of the nearer noun (Smyth 1053);
the expression paraphrases ἐμακάρισαν, in the ritual song of blessing,
makarismos.
1080–97 [Text. eds have failed to agree upon cure for the many faults of
text and metre certain or suspected in these lines; they have been deleted
wholly or in part by some (see 1035–97 n. Text).]
1080–4 But you: σὲ δέ, very emphatic at strophe-beginning; the same
effect in 794. Argives: the sacrifice will become a collective act 1352,
not just a father’s (Iph. at 1318). heifer: a comparison for an unwed
510 Commentary

girl awaiting sacrifice IT 359 (Iph.), Hec. 206 (Polyxena; metaphor

526); at A. Ag. 1415–17 Ag. has sacrificed Iph. as if she were just one
of his sheep. dappled: an unparalleled adj. for a sacrificial heifer (see
Text), white for purity being desired e.g. El. 823; cf. our 574. pure:
ἀκήρατον: undefiled by domestication (e.g. A. Pers. 611 living wholly on
a mountain-side), and unmated like Iph. (ἀκήρατος of a virgin-girl Tro.
675). to let blood from … throat: sacrificial heifer’s blood 1113–14, cf.
Hcld. 821–2 blood from sacrificial oxen examined for a favourable omen
(Wilkins’ Commentary (1993) there discusses IA 1083–4); bull’s blood
also A. Seven 43–6. human: English usage requires this translation in
context of βρότε(ι)ος lit. ‘mortal’, as brutally direct.
Greek. 1080–1 σὲ … πλόκαμον ‘you … tresses (on your head)’: the
construction of ‘whole and part’, very common in poetry: 791–2 n.;
Smyth 981–5.   1083 Distinguish βρότειος ‘mortal’ from βροτοείς
‘gory’, found only in Epic formulae.
[Text. 1080–4 are variously suspect as corrupt and unmetrical,
and partly deleted.   1080 initial σέ you is unidentified in L’s text,
but perhaps the absent Iph. is readily inferred. Hermann suggested ὦ
κόρα ‘O (maiden) girl’ for L’s ἐπὶ κάρα (see below); cf. the epode IT
1123 beginning ‘And you, mistress, …’ (Iph., who is present on stage).
Mastronarde (1979) 99–100 however notes that the even more extreme
example of the absent Andromache addressed simply as ‘you’ in And.
1041 gives possible support for IA 1080. In ἐπὶ κάρᾳ (Burges) ‘on your
head’ the locative dat., not L’s acc. ἐπὶ κάρα, is idiomatic: e.g. Bacc.
833.   1081 βαλιὰν Scaliger is uncomfortably accepted for L’s plain
copy-error γ’ ἁλιᾶν (both the meaningless particle and the adj. ‘marine’
are impossible): ‘dappled’ is used accurately of a hind Hec. [90], Hipp.
218 etc., but any colour here is unwanted and merely pathetic (and see
above).   1082 L has two nouns ἄντρων ‘caves’ and ὀρέων ‘mountains’
served by one adj. πετραίων ‘rocky’. Wilamowitz removed the two words
ἄντρων ἐλθοῦσαν ‘came (from) caves’ as an intrusive gloss, the most
economical conjecture. Dindorf deleted just ὀρέων, others changed it to
adj. ὀρείων or supplemented; Monk daringly introduced ἔλαφον ‘hind’,
apt for βαλιὰν, writing in full (see apparatus) ‘like a dappled <hind> on
a mountain that came from rocky caves <or> a pure heifer’, but deleted
1083–4 βροτεῖον … λαιμόν; Kovacs followed him. All these conjectures
involve changes to achieve satisfactory choriambic cola; Diggle’s own
 Commentary 511

suggestion for example is 1082–3 ὥστε πετραίων <τιν’> (Fritzsche) ἀπ’

ἄν- | τρων ἐλθοῦσαν ὀρείων (Hermann) μόσχον ‘like <some> heifer that
came from rocky, mountain caves’.   1084 αἱμάξοντες Diggle fut.
part. ‘in their purpose to let blood’ improves L’s pres. part.: the throat-cut
comes ritually well after the garlanding (1080).]
1085–8 not brought up among … herdsmen, but at a mother’s
side: application and inversion of the comparison 1081–4. reed-
pipes … whistlings: recalling the herdsman Paris of 574–9 (note
also ‘heifer’ 575, ‘reared’ 579), but any ironic allusion to him as fatal
‘lover’ (581–9) matching Iph. as doomed ‘bride’ is surely accidental.
An echo of the ‘reedy pipes’ at Peleus’ wedding 1038 seems possible,
however? ‘whistling’: ῥοίβδησις onomatopoeic, like the Cyclops’ ῥοῖζος
to his sheep Od. 9.315, and a herdsman’s ῥοίβδημα to cattle S. Trackers
113. †tended as bride for marriage†: possibly the intended sense:
see Text below. to a descendant of Inachus: that is, to marry within
her own royal family at Argos, Inachus being a son of the god Oceanus;
he was the city’s founding king and homonymous with the Inachus,
its principal river, Or. 932, Archelaus F 228.6, cf. S. Inachus F 270.
Compare Hec. 351–2 ‘brought up in good hopes (of becoming) a bride
to a king’.
Greek. 1086 τραφεῖσαν agrees primarily with σέ 1080, i.e. Iph.,
but relates also to 1083 μόσχον.   1085–6 ἐν prep. with the second
of co-ordinated nouns: 210 n.   1088 ᾿Ιναχίδαις general plur., i.e. ‘a
descendant of Inachus’, like βασιλεῦσι Hec. 352 cited above; a variety
of the allusive plur., Smyth 1006.
[Text. 1087–8 νυμφοκόμον … γάμον lit. ‘bride-tending marriage’ lacks
syntax; it can hardly be an acc. phrase in apposition to the idea τραφεῖσαν
‘brought up’ (i.e. Iph.) if it is to mean ‘for marriage’. Translation of γάμον
as ‘as wife’ has therefore been tried; it is correctly doubted by LSJ II at
And. 103 and Tro. 357, but allowed by Stevens on And. 103 as possible at
Ino F 405.1 κἂν ἄμορφος ᾖ γάμος ‘even if the wife is unhandsome’ and
(in our view dubiously) S. Trac. 1139 τοὺς ἔνδον γάμους ‘the (state of)
the marriage (allusive plur.) indoors’. The interpretation of νυμφοκόμον
act. ‘tending a bride’ is also strained (from κομέω ‘tend’), like Reiske’s
νυμφόκομον meaning just ‘bridal’ (but cf. 48 συννυμφοκόμον act., lit.
‘escorting a bride’): both are awkwardly pleonastic with γάμον; that
is why Markland’s νυμφοκόμῳ attracts: ‘(a mother) tending a bride’,
512 Commentary

but the problem of γάμον remains. Monk inserted κλεινὸν ‘famous’ to

bolster it, ‘a <famous> marriage/wife to a descendant of Inachus’.]
1089–97 The moralising tone, employing the ‘personified’ abstractions
Shame, Virtue and Lawlessness, recalls the didactic First Ode, esp.
(Virtue) 562, 568, Shame 563; such disquiet pervades Eur.’s work. Some
critics think it may have a particular and contemporary reference, as the
equivalent passage of Catullus (64.397–408) certainly does. With 1089–
90 cf. Med. 439–40 ‘The grace of oaths has gone, and shame no longer
remains.’
1089–91 face: πρόσωπον, in personification, almost deification, of an
abstract power, i.e. its watchful gaze: of righteousness Melanippe Wise
F 486 (a), Persuasion S. F 865, Peaceableness Ar. Birds 1321; the same
implication in ὄμμα ‘eye’, of Persuasion A. Eum. 971, of Justice S. F 12;
with our passage cf. perhaps Cresphontes F 457 ‘shame is in the eyes’ (a
‘proverb’, Aristot. Rhet. 1384a34). For these metaphors see Pearson on
the two Sophoclean fragments. Shame is personified as early as Hes. WD
200; in the preceding episode see 821 n.; Introduction pp. 34–5. is …
strong: σθένει, e.g. Bellerophon F 302 θάρσος … μέγα σθένει ‘courage
has great strength’, IT 911 τὸ θεῖον ‘the divine, godhead’; the noun
σθένος of Justice El. 958. The vocabulary of 1090–5 resembles that
of contemporary intellectualism (see 444–5 n.), including abstractions
phrased with neut. adj. and def. art.; in lyric cf. 559–60 τὸ ὀρθῶς ἐσθλόν
‘what is truly good’ and e.g. Hel. 1149 τὸ σαφές ‘certainty’, Bacc. 895 τὸ
…νόμιμον ‘lawfulness’ (Bacc. 890–6 teach similar morality: see Dodds’
nn. for illustration).
[Text. 1091 σθένει Bothe/Hartung ‘is strong’ in place of δύνασιν ἔχει
σθένειν L; the latter means ‘has domination to be strong’, pleonastic and
unmetrical; [δύνασιν] ἔχει σθένειν ‘is able to be strong’ Bothe also. A
copyist earlier than L confused this line, expanding it, with 1092–3 ἔχει
δύναμιν (so L: see Text there).]
1092–7 domination: δύνασις, of gold’s unjust sway Her. 776, cf.
(mss.) And. 483 of a single man; cf. Hippolytus Veiled F 446.4 ‘no power
(δύναμις) greater than virtue’. afterwards: κατόπισθεν ‘subsequently’
nearing ‘consequently’, like μετόπισθεν Hippolytus Veiled F 446.5 of
the reward for virtue. is … no concern of: ἀμελεῖται lit. ‘is neglected’,
pass., e.g. (LSJ II) S. OT 111 τἀμελούμενον ‘neglect’, Thuc. 1.68.2 of
people neglected; cf. noun ἀμελία 850, Antiope F 187.2. Lawlessness:
 Commentary 513

ἀνομία coupled with offence to god (1097) e.g. And. 491, Her. 757; for
the word-effect with νόμων laws cf. Her. 779 νόμον παρέμενος ἀνομίᾳ
χάριν διδούς ‘abandoning law, favouring lawlessness’, (Stockert) Dem.
24.152 νόμον … οὐκ ἀνομίαν ‘law … not lawlessness’. struggle:
ἀγών, see 1003 n. the gods’ jealous anger: θεῶν φθόνος, because
man is setting his own (wrong) values 1090–4, and it is the gods who
superintend correct observance. The phrase translates according to
context, e.g. Alc. 1135 and Supp. 348 disfavour, Or. 974 outright anger.
Greek. 1092 ὁπότε when circumstantial, almost ‘because’, rather
than temporal: e.g. Or. 998, S. OC 1699. irreverence: ἄσεπτος verbal
adj. with act. force (glossed with ἀσεβής ‘irreverent’ Hesychius α 7644
Latte), of a person e.g. Hel. 542.   1096 the copula ἐστί ‘is’ is omitted
in a general statement (Smyth 944), here in a rel. clause (cf. Text): KG
I.41 n. 1 (Smyth inadequate).
[Text. 1093 δύνασιν domination Bothe, to match 1095 κρατεῖ ‘(is)
master’: δύναμιν L, plain ‘power’.   1096 <μὴ> Hermann: indefinite
negative in the rel. clause beginning 1092 ὁπότε (see Smyth 2392); it
was easily omitted after similarly written καὶ; Kovacs adopted Willink’s
economical κοὐ, the definite negative.]

1098–1275 Fourth Episode

Clyt. comes from the hut, looking out for Ag. He had left at 750 to
consult with Calchas about the sacrifice but now returns ‘on cue’,
apparently to pursue his deception of Clyt. and Iph. 1107–8; he is of
course unaware that the Old Man has told Clyt. everything (855–95).
In the previous episode she had agreed to Ach.’s suggestion that she
should plead with Ag. (1015–24); now she has been moved to confront
Ag. by Iph.’s distress after she told her daughter the terrible truth off-
stage 1100–5. At the episode’s end Ag. will reveal that the army now
desires passionately to sail against Troy 1264–5, and that he is helpless
to prevent Iph.’s sacrifice 1271–2.
The episode has two parts:
(A) 1098–1145 In a tense dialogue 1109–45 Clyt. batters Ag.’s
prevarications aside, and reduces him to guilty silence 1144–5. The
dialogue is irregular throughout (including stichomythia 1129–38),
514 Commentary

but more so after 1121 as emotions overcome both persons: note the
interjections and even words ‘outside the metre’ 1124 and 1132, and
1133 (n.) respectively, and as bitter climax the divided 1138 (antilabe:
see 303–16 n.).
(B) 1146–1275 There are just three speeches, appeals to Ag. by Clyt. and
then Iph., to spare his daughter’s life, and his rejection. Clyt.’s is 1146–
1208 (n.), combative and aggressive but with a midway appeal for pity
1171–84. Iph.’s 1211–52 (n.) is pure supplication, eloquent amid pathos.
Ag.’s 1255–75 (n.) is awkward, smacking of desperation and stubbornly
defiant.
Form. In its tone, structure and progression the episode has a good
deal which is typical of a formal agon (see 317–414a n.): it is adversarial
between Clyt. and Ag., and it ends with nothing achieved or altered, when
Ag. exits abruptly; the first two and principal speeches are marked off
with choral couplets 1209–10 and 1253–4 (see nn.); but the three decrease
successively in length, and proportionately: 63: 42: 21 lines (but see Text
below). While the tenor of Clyt.’s and Iph.’s speeches differs greatly,
the whole sequence is comparable with three-person scenes in which
two sympathetic voices precede an inflexible third, esp. the pure agon
Pho. 434–637 and the agonistic, complex Bacc. 170–369: see Collard
in Mossman (2003) 74–6. Comparable too in dramatic content are Pho.
834–1018, an agon-like argument between Tiresias and Creon about the
sacrifice of Creon’s son Menoeceus which, the seer says, is necessary
to save Thebes; the boy overhears it (in silence) before resolving to
kill himself, and the agon-like scene between Odysseus, Hecuba and
Polyxena Hec. 216–443 (over Polyxena’s sacrifice; but its outcome
affects only the play’s first part). Lloyd (1992) 9 dismisses the three-
person supplication-scene Hel. 857–1031 as less agon-like than ours; cf.
also Dubischar (2001) 75, Collard in EGT (2014) 535. For the scene as a
blend of ‘different formal features’ see Rutherford (2012) 192–3.
Staging: the action and emotions – and in art? The episode has the
same characters as 607–750: mother, father and daughter; both episodes,
despite the setting of a military camp, are therefore family and domestic
scenes, driven by intimate emotions, and they are mutually illuminating.
More perhaps than the intervening episode of Clyt. and Ach. 801–1035
they determine the temper of the play’s end. Eur. filled particularly his later
 Commentary 515

plays with family members interacting: see esp. Webster (1967) 287–9;
E. M. Griffiths, ‘Family in Greek Tragedy’ in EGT (2014) 497–502. The
return of Ag. would have been expected, like the entry of the messenger to
report the death of Aegisthus El. 758–64 and that of Cadmus to find Agave
holding Pentheus’ head Bacc. 1211–15 (cf. Taplin (1977) 138).
The episode contrives the unmasking and moral collapse of Ag.
through powerful eloquence esp. from Clyt.; we are reminded of her
physical and verbal prowess when ‘in a corner’ throughout surviving
Tragedy, from Aeschylus’ Oresteia to the Electra plays of both Sophocles
and Euripides. While Iph.’s tones are softer but straightforward, they are
compelling in their own way (though hardly ‘childish’, pace Turato: see
the separate 1211–52 n.).
Ag. is struck early on by the distress he sees in Clyt. and Iph. 1128, and
at the end declares his pity for his children 1255–6, before subordinating
it to the army’s demands and the Panhellenic cause. The baby Orestes is
deployed with pity-seeking theatricality 1241–8, but in vain; compare
the stage-use of Medea’s children throughout her play, Andromache’s
young son fathered by Hector, Astyanax, in Tro. 568–798, and her infant
son by Neoptolemus in her name-play; all have a precedent in Ajax and
Tecmessa’s infant son Eurysaces in Sophocles. Cf. (Stockert) Men. Epitr.
302–7 with a babe-in-arms’s words simulated.
Art. The effectiveness of our scene may be reflected in art: a mosaic of
about 200 AD in Antioch apparently depicts Ag. dressed as stage-royalty
with Clyt. and Iph. (about to cover her face, it seems; but Orestes is not
there), the three of them standing before a fully architectural theatre-
background; it is related to lines 1122–3 by LIMC V.1.726 ‘Iphigeneia’
no. 37. A performance of the play may have prompted the mosaic; and
the 2nd century BC ‘Homeric’ bowls (110–14 n.; Introduction p. 38)
depict Iph. supplicating Ag., whose head is veiled in grief; Orestes (a
small child, not a baby) kneels at her feet in supplication too; Clyt. turns
away, to veil her face and head: nos 8, 9, 10.
Text. The great part of the episode is unquestionably Euripidean and
authentic. Only two passages of any length have been strongly impugned
(1098–1119: n. and 1241–52: n.); individual lines less strongly suspect
are 1124–6, 1130–3, 1171–2, 1187, 1270. Page 182–6 remains the fullest
discussion.
516 Commentary

(A) 1098–1145 Confrontation of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon.

1098–1119 are incoherent in ms. L. Had Ag. hoped to find Clyt. outside
his hut 1106 and without Iph. 1107–8? What did he want to say that he can
immediately forget Iph.’s absence and command Clyt. to bring her out
1110? 1111–14 merely repeat in more detail what he told Iph. in 675, and
told Clyt. in 716–23. The echo in Clyt.’s ‘opportune’ 1109 of Ag.’s ‘right
moment’ 1106 is not a convincing cue for Ag.’s change of purpose. Are
we to suppose that Ag. has nevertheless been thrown by meeting Clyt.
and contradicts himself from confusion? Then there are the difficulties
perceived in 1117–19: Clyt. calls Iph. outside 1117 (as Ag. asked 1110)
but tells her also to bring Orestes 1118–19 – and she appears at once
1120, and must have Or. with her, although we hear no more of him until
Iph. ‘uses’ him in pathetic appeal 1241–8 (1098–1275 n. Staging). This
is theatrical activity at first compressed in time, but the expectation from
the child that it creates is then delayed. Stockert observes that, after 1110,
without 1117–19 there is no conventional indication of Iph.’s entry, only
of her presence at Ag.’s command 1120. See also 1110–14 n.
[Text. No untangling of these lines has been agreed, either through
textual conjecture e.g. in 1110, 1114 (see nn.), or through deletion
in various combinations: 1098–1105 del. Monk (1099–1103) and
Conington, (1106–8 susp. Page,) 1114 England, 1115–19 Kovacs, 1117–
21 Paley; all of 1098–1119 were suspect to Diggle; but Stockert and
Matthiessen conserve them.]
1098–9 hut οἶκος and shelter στέγαι, cf. 1110 δώματα ‘hut’: for these
translations see 1 n.
Greek: προσκοπέω ‘watch in front’, i.e. look(ing) out for, a person
also Ar. Knights 154; the noun προσκοπή ‘look-out (for ships)’ Thuc.
1.116.1. χρόνιον for some time: personal adj. for temporal adv., as e.g.
Supp. 91 χρονίαν ἀποῦσαν, And. 84 χρόνιος οὖσ’ ἐκ δωμάτων; Smyth
1042. The adj. χρόνιος has two or three ‘terminations’: Smyth 289d.
1100–2 sounding: ἱεῖσα: lit. ‘sending out’, often of a distinctive (and
loud) sound, e.g. Supp. 281 a bitter lament, Hec. 338 a nightingale’s
song; as in those places the musical metaphor is poignantly expressive of
sorrow. different tones: μεταβολαί, in music defined as modulations,
‘transitions effected gradually from one mode to another’, Aristides, On
Music I.19 Winnington-Ingram; Quintilian 9.4.50.
Greek: 1100 ἐν (δακρύοισι) ‘in (tears)’, as in English: LSJ II.2; Smyth
 Commentary 517

1687c.   1102 βουλεύεται mid. is resolved upon, e.g. Hipp. 901, Iliad
2.114, Thuc. 2.44.3.
[Text. 1100 δ’ Markland but, to differentiate Iph.’s behaviour from
Clyt.’s; θ’ L ‘and’.   1101 ἱεῖσα L with short iota, rare in Attic verse
e.g. Supp. 281 (Smyth 778): whence ἱεῖσα πολλὰς Blaydes.]
1103–5 But here… : surprise (often pleased) is typically conveyed
with idiomatic δ’ ἄρα (GP 35); locative ‘here’ is also literal in the
demonstrative pron. τοῦδε. already: translates βεβηκότος lit. ‘having
come’. I was mentioning: to herself; almost an aside. Clyt. indeed
thinks ‘Talk of the devil!’, for her (will be) found out translates εὑρίσκω
as e.g. Hec. 270 ἀδικοῦσα ‘in doing wrong’, cf. And. 219; a similar
but even more grim stage-moment Bacc. 1211–12 when Agave in her
hallucination asks for Pentheus, and his dismembered corpse is brought
in at 1216–17. planning: πράσσω as 129 (n.). impious: ἀνόσια: the
adj. stands twice in 1318, Iph. deploring her father and his deed.
Greek: 1103 μνήμην ἔχω ‘make mention (of)’ e.g. Hel. 1583, LSJ
μνήμη II.   1104 ἐπί and dat., e.g. ‘against’: 744 n., Smyth 1689.2c.
τέκνοις allusive plur., child, as again in 1104: 1015 n.
1106–8 Daughter of Leda: for the tone of Ag.’s address to his wife
see 686 n. the right moment: ἐν καλῷ, half-colloquial, e.g. Hcld. 971,
Or. 579 (Stevens (1976) 28). found: mild word-play on Clyt.’s 1105
‘found out’ – but only for the audience: Ag. did not hear that verse.
Greek: 1107 ἵν’ εἴπω to say: for ἵνα of purpose after a mild ellipse of
sense (from ἐν καλῷ) cf. 320.   1108 τὰς γαμουμένας a bride, another
allusive plur., cf. 1104 ‘child’ and n. Greek.
1109 What … this opportunity to say?: lit. ‘What is it which
opportuneness seizes hold of for you?’ καιρός is here ‘opportunity,
chance’, as in Ion 659, 1062, and a little different from ‘the appropriate
or right time’ of e.g. 325 ‘not the time for etc.’ (see n.), Med. 80; Clyt.
puts her own gloss on Ag.’s 1106 ‘right moment’. For a similar question
cf. And. 131 τί σοι καιρός…; ‘Why is it opportune for you…?’, Med.
127–8 with Page’s n.
Greek: σοι dat. of advantage (Smyth 1481) rather than of reference ‘in
your eyes’ (Smyth 1496).
1110–14 Send the girl out: Ag. expects Clyt. to go inside to do this;
instead she speaks at once to Iph. herself 1117 as if she has entered the
hut, unless she calls back through the half-open door as the Old Man had
518 Commentary

called out through it at 855–7 (see (B) 855–99 n. Staging); and the girl
appears 1120. The slight inconsistency has added to suspicions of these
lines: see 1098–1119 n. to join her father: the usual but precarious
translation of πατρὸς μέτα (see Text), but consistent with Ag.’s assertion
to Clyt. that he, not she, will conduct the marriage 729–39. water for
sprinkling: χέρνιβες as in 675 (n.), cf. IT 244; coupled with barley
πρόχυται 955 n., cf. ‘barley thrown’ El. 803–4. Below at 1471 the adj.
cleansing καθάρσιος describes ‘barley’ itself, ‘let the fire blaze with
cleansing scattered barley’ – but ritual water too was ‘purified’ by a
flaming brand plunged into it, e.g. Her. 928–9. ready: εὐτρεπίζω
in the same context 437: n. heifers: an echo for the audience of Iph.
pictured as sacrificial heifer, 1083 and n. spurt of black blood: a
grisly accompaniment of the throat-cut (also 1083–4); of a sword-thrust
A. Ag. 1389, S. Ant. 1238–9 and esp. Aj. 918–19 (Ajax’s suicide) ‘up to
nostril and forth from red gash he spurts darkened blood from the self-
dealt wound’ (trans. Jebb), who compares 1411 there and the killing of
Antinous Od. 22.18; at Aj. 833 Ajax had hoped for such a death-thrust
‘without a struggle’, like Cassandra foreseeing hers A. Ag. 1292. See
Text below. before (the marriage): πρό temporal, implicit in the term
προτέλεια ‘preliminary rite’, 433 n. (see Introduction pp. 11–12); but
ambiguity may be intended with ‘on behalf of, for the good of’; clearly so
in πρὸ γάμων Hel. 1477, S. Trac. 505 (see 1121 n. below); for ambiguity
see L. Battezzato, EGT 96–8. to … Artemis: 718 n.
Greek. 1111 for the perfect form ηὐ- in a εὐ- compound verb see
Diggle (1994) 415.   1112 βάλλειν to throw, final infin. after ‘is
ready’, Smyth 2008–10; with acc. on (the … fire) as e.g. Tro. 81 ‘on (the
ships)’: ‘throw on’ is how English idiom renders the verb’s basic sense
‘hit, strike’.
[Text. 1110 The difficulty with ‘proleptic’ πατρὸς μέτα ‘to join her
father’, lit. ‘with her father’, has been addressed either by translation
as ‘escort the girl from the hut with her father’, i.e. give her a formal
‘send-off’ to her marriage, or by emendation with <τῶνδε> (England)
δωμάτων πάρος (Heimsoeth: πατρὸς L) [μέτα] (Heimsoeth) ‘send … out
in front of <this> hut’. Kovacs printed this (and deleted 1115–19). Such
a process of corruption is however hard to reconstruct.   1112 χεροῖν
Musgrave instrumental dat. economically corrects L’s χερῶν, objective
gen. ‘(cleansing) the hands’.   1114 φυσήματι Diggle in a spurt,
 Commentary 519

palmary, modal dat. like Bacc. 1112 πίπτει … οἰμώγμασι ‘(Pentheus) falls
… groaning’: φυσήματα L ‘in spurtings’, acc. in apposition to the clause
ἃς … πεσεῖν χρεών ‘which must fall’, was defended before Diggle’s
emendation by Stockert, but with difficulty. England had deleted 1114.]
1115–16 You talk well with your words, but how I should name and
speak well of your actions etc.: a wholly Euripidean word-play: (1) ὄνομα
and ἔργον contrasted as e.g. Hipp. 501–2, Or. 454, but enhanced here with
the supplementary verb ὀνομάζω ‘name, call’, and (2) εὖ λέγειν changing
its sense from ‘use words skilfully’ e.g. 1445, Or. 111, to ‘speak well of,
commend’ e.g. Or. 239. Clyt. means that Ag. names his actions speciously
(Iph.’s sacrificial ritual is concealed as ‘marriage’) while she cannot name
them favourably. Cf. Tro. 1233 ‘a poor physician, with the name but not the
actions’, (Stockert) Thuc. 8.78 ‘a name without effect, not an action’ (cf. IA
128). For ὄνομα ‘word’ see LSJ VI.1 and (perhaps relevant here, because of
the antithesis ὀνόματα/ἔργα ‘words/actions’) VI.2 ‘noun’ opposed to ῥῆμα
‘(action) word, verb’. Turato discusses theorizing by rhetoricians in Eur.’s
time about the relation between words skilfully used and the stirring of
pity in the theatre (Men. at 477–9, Ag. at 1255); he notes that Aristophanes
targets Eur. on this count at Ach. 383–94, 435–6, 496–7. For pity in Tragedy
see D. Konstan, EGT 976–7. For discussion of pity by rhetoricians in the
4th century see Stanford (1983) 24–6.
1117–19 in any case: πάντως: 1002 and e.g. Med. 1064, El. 227.
Greek. 1117 πατρός gen. dependent upon οἶσθα aware of is unusual, but
follows the construction available to verbs of perception like πυνθάνομαι
(Smyth 1361): such a gen. indicates the source of knowledge, but Iph.
has not heard from her father, only of him (1102). The enjambement (50–
1 n.) of πάντως nevertheless forces the dependence of the clause ἃ μέλλει
‘what (your father) intends’ upon οἶσθα; but there are few parallels, the
best being Od. 3.15, a clause beginning with ὅπου (KG II.360–1), and Pl.
Rep. 375e, one beginning with ὅτι (Stockert); a gen. with participle e.g.
Thuc. 4.6.1 (Smyth 1365).   1118 ὑπό under the cover of: of clothing
e.g. Hel. 1574 (hidden swords); of shelter Hcld. 10, a bird’s protective
wings.
[Text. 1117–19 are often deleted, and remain suspect. Ritchie builds
upon Page’s comment that, because Ag. ignores Orestes’ presence
altogether in this part of the episode, the verses are ‘A spectacular
interpolation? Another tableau’ (Page 183, cf. 206). Ritchie suggests
520 Commentary

that it was designed to set up ‘a family group for a pathetic appeal, in

preparation for Clyt.’s expected speech’ (see 1098–1275 n. Staging;
1124–6 n.)].
1120–1 Look: ἰδού: 649 n., also 1144. in obedience to: πειθαρχέω
only here in Eur., and a rather heavy word, perhaps reminiscent of Clyt.’s
obedience to Ach. 1033, cf. 1024? As for the rest: implying ‘Iph. is
here, as you commanded, but I’ll do the talking’, despite her knowledge
of Ag.’s intention 1112, 1117–18. At 1211 Iph. nevertheless speaks
without prompting or persuasion (rather like her forwardness in 631–2).
Greek. πρό ‘for, on behalf of’ with a verb of speech e.g. S. OT 10,
1434, perhaps Alc. 326.
[Text. πρὸ Barnes: πρὸς L, cf. 1201 apparatus; the latter can mean
only ‘from her and my standpoint’.]
1122–3 not still looking pleased: cf. Iph.’s own words ‘I am glad to
see you’ 640. She is holding her dress in front of her eyes from mingled
shame and horror at a father she knows is false; cf. e.g. Aethra’s shame
and fear for her son Theseus if he scorns the gods Supp. 286–7. Iph.
forbids Clyt. to veil herself from grief 1438, 1448.
Greek. 1123 ἐρείδω lit. ‘prop against, upon’; for the sense fixing eyes
LSJ I.1 cite Ap. Rhod. 1.784; eyes also with πήγνυμι ‘fix’, e.g. Iliad
3.217. πρόσθε here is an adv., like Iliad 13.157 ‘held his shield in front’,
LSJ B.I.1; as prep. cf. 7.224 ‘(shield) before his chest’, LSJ A.I.1.
[Text. 1122 <μ’> ὁρᾷς Markland (looking) <at me>, because the adv.
ἡδέως with bare ὁράω (rather than the usual βλέπω) as ‘look pleased’
is doubtful Greek; it means rather ‘look (at) with pleasure’. See also
1124–6 n.]
1124–6 Alas! What beginning…?: the exclamation and the wording
seem to herald a long speech, as in El. 907–8 ‘Well then! What beginning
… should I speak out first…? (Electra begins to revile Aegisthus’
corpse); but 1124–6 mark Clyt.’s sudden uncertainty before collecting
herself in 1129 for her abrupt demand from Ag. 1131. The trope has a
simple naturalness e.g. Od. 9.14, Hel. 630–1, but can at times be heavily
rhetorical e.g. Hec. 585–8, Ion 927–30. Ag.’s interruption in 1127 is
effective theatre, marking the concerted appeal for pity he sees in Clyt.’s
and Iph.’s demeanour – as he himself foresaw and feared 462–6.
[Text. Bremi deleted 1124–6 (in fact 1122–6), and many eds follow,
recently e.g. Günther and (1124–8) Kovacs; Diggle suspected the lines.
 Commentary 521

Transition from 1123 to 1127 is tolerable, but then something is lost

from Clyt.’s ‘struggle (between 1109 and 1131) to get her act together’
(Ritchie). Stockert and Matthiessen keep the lines. See also 1138–9
Text.]
1127–8 (You …) all: a clear indication that Orestes is there (see
1098–1119 n.); cf. 1137 n. ‘You are all one for me’ is lit. ‘you have all
come to one thing for me’, εἰς ἕν, the ‘one’ being defined in 1128; see
Greek. confusion … in your eyes: 354. For agitation (ταραγμός) of
minds, cf. Her. 1091 ‘stormy agitation (τάραγμα)’ of mind; Ion 1538
verb ταράσσω.
Greek. 1127 ὡς explanatory, elliptical, a causal use of exclamatory
‘How…!’: see Kannicht on Hel. 623–4 (where the text is uncertain);
cf. 644n., Smyth 3001. εἰς ἓν ἥκετε: cf. 1002 ἥξετ’ εἰς ἴσον ‘you will
come to the same result’; Archelaus F 246.2 ταῦτ’ εἰς ἓν ἐλθόντα ‘these
(factors) come to one thing’; Hel. 742 a little differently εἰς ἓν ἐλθόντες
τύχης ‘(persons) come to one fortune’, cf. And. 1172.
1129 honestly: γενναῖος adj. is lit. ‘true to noble birth, honourable’,
Lat. honestus; used by Ach. of Iph. 1411, 1422; the adv. also 1402, Ion
935. Compare (Stockert) Hcld. 890–1 ‘the tongue of honourable men
must not lie’.
1130–3 [Text. Diggle (1994) 409 strongly supported Günther’s
deletion, but marked the lines only as suspect in OCT; Kovacs deleted.
Page doubted their authenticity, while terming 1124–50 ‘splendidly
vigorous’. Indeed they are, and if 1131 in particular is deleted, 1138–9
alone remain to prompt Ag.’s realisation in 1140 that ‘all is lost’: see
Text there.]
1130 Greek. δεῖ ‘need’ with acc. of pers. and gen. of thing, e.g. Hec.
1021, Ion 1018; commoner in Eur. is dat. of pers., e.g. Med. 565: Smyth
1400.
[Text. σ(ε) you Dobree, a pron. being better than γ(ε) L, which is
separated from κελευσμοῦ the word it emphasizes (rare: GP 150); μ’
Reiske ‘I need no command!’]
1131–3 your child and mine: so Clyt. earlier at 1121, later 1164–5,
1208; cf. her earlier recognition of Iph.’s closeness to Ag. 638–9. are
you about to kill: words postponed in the devastating simplicity of
this line in order to enhance its power. After his What? (317 n., 644)
Ag. prevaricates, concealing his guilt, to avoid answering: note Clyt.’s
522 Commentary

later reaction 1142–3: see Mastronarde (1979) 83 n. 21 for this dramatic

technique in Tragedy. overbold: the difficult adj. τλήμων (cf. 1165;
98 n.), here connoting effrontery: as a woman and his wife Clyt. has
gone too far for Ag.: cf. S. El. 439 τλημονεστάτη (also Clyt.), Med. 1274
τλήμων (Medea, ‘cruel’).
Be quiet!: ἔχ’ ἥσυχος, curt, and pointedly ‘outside the metre’, perhaps
followed in performance by a short pause, when Clyt.’s silence itself
would add to her insistence on an answer. The expression has colloquial
pedigree (Stevens (1976) 34–5), but occurs at line-end Med. 550, Hipp.
1313, like the brutal put-down σῖγ(α), … ἔχε στόμα ‘Silence! Hold your
tongue!’ Supp. 513. Very short clauses in place of a complete verse are
rare in Tragedy, except in Sophocles, esp. OT 1468, 1471, 1475 at the
end of a long, disturbed speech; commands and questions are commonest
(see Fraenkel, Agamemnon pp. 558–9, 580 n. 4). ‘Be quiet!’ here shows
that Ag.’s 1132 is not an aside: Bain (1977b) 53–4.
Greek. 1133 πάλιν again, idiomatically redundant, nearing ‘in return’,
as e.g. 478 ἀνταφῆκα … πάλιν ‘shed (tears) in response in return’, Supp.
569 ἀντάκουσον … πάλιν ‘Listen in response in return’.
1134–9 Repeated contrasts with doubled words (1134 ‘reasonable’,
1135 ‘other’, 1139 ‘mind’) sharpen the stichomythic conflict, expressing
Clyt.’s bitterness: for such tropes Jebb, commenting on the angry
exchange S. OT 547–2, cites A. Seven [1042–3] and Aristophanes’
paratragic Ach. 1097–8.
1134–5 reasonable: εἰκότα, lit. ‘likely’: appeals to probability (457,
501 n.) became a staple of sophistic and esp. forensic argument, and
so are frequent in the Euripidean agon: see Lloyd (1992) 22 esp. n. 13,
29 and Index; Collard in SFP Ι (1995) 73 on Cretans F 472e.11; J. A.
Bromberg in EGT 1173–5, 1178.
Greek. For the ‘mixed conditional syntax’, ἤν (ἐάν) with subjunctive +
ἄν with opt. [Text: restored by Markland], as easy in Greek as in English
if you ask, you’d hear, see Smyth 2343.
1136–7 mistress: applied to Shame 821 n. destiny: δαίμων, a
supernatural ‘agent of fortune’. It often becomes one’s depersonalised
‘destiny, fortune’ when used with a possessive pron. as here, e.g. And.
974, Supp. 591; Stevens on And. 98 discusses the ambiguities of the
word: cf. above 444 n., Mikalson (1990) 22. Closely similar with 1136–7
in formulation is S. El. 1156–7 ὁ δυστυχὴς | δαίμων ὁ σός τε κἀμός
 Commentary 523

‘our unhappy destiny, yours and mine’.Cf. Introduction p. 35. one for
three: Ag. (1136), Clyt. and Iph. The figure ‘one/three’ also e.g. Hipp.
1403 ‘one daimon destroyed the three of us’ (who are named in 1404),
Or. 1244 ‘one struggle for three friends, one just cause’; cf. S. OC 330–1
– ‘Miserable upbringings!’ – ‘Hers and mine?’ – ‘And mine … the third’.
[Text. 1136 Musgrave’s order Μοῖρα καὶ τύχη restores metre: L’s τ. κ.
μ. has an improper ‘2. foot’ anapaest.]
1138–9 For the effect of the divided 1138 (antilabe: 303–16 n.) see
1098–1145 n. mind … no mind: the translation preserves the doubling
of Greek νοῦς, but the first means ‘the organ of reason’ and the second
‘reason’ itself, ‘sense’; cf. Bain (1977b) 55. The Old Man had attributed
a different change of ‘mind’ to Ag., from good to bad, 877, 893. at all:
the force of αὐτός ‘itself’.
Greek. 1139 τυγχάνω and part. of fact (really): Barrett on Hipp. 388–
90 cites e.g. IT 607, Med. 608.
[Text. 1138 τί δ’ ἠδίκησαι;: in Ag.’s final prevarication the important
τί δέ But what…? is due to Matthiae; all recent eds follow him except
Günther, who prints τίν’ ἠδίκησαι; P2 with the unusual plur. pron. as acc.
retained with a pass. verb., giving the less aggressive sense ‘What wrong
have you been done?’, with no initial ‘But…’. Ag. would ask the nature
of Clyt.’s wrongs, but not their cause, let alone offer himself as that: so L’s
τί μ’ (τίν’ above the line) ἠδίκησε; ‘What wrong did it (‘destiny’ δαίμων
1136) do me?’, and Markland’s change of μ’ to σ’ (‘…do you?’), give no apt
sense in context; nor does Hermann’s τίν’ ἠδίκησα ‘Whom did I wrong?’
or Markland’s earlier τί σ’ ἠδίκησα ‘What wrong did I do you?’   1139
was rightly given to Clyt. by the Aldine: the words are impossible from Ag.
(L).   1138–9 were moved to follow 1126 by Hermann; while 1138 as
‘But what wrong have you been done?’ (Matthiae) fits well there (but not
Hermann’s ‘Whom did I wrong?’), 1139 ‘You ask that of me?’ does not fit
(pace Stockert); its bitterness is appropriate only when Clyt. is completing
Ag.’s collapse. Wilamowitz deleted the couplet.]
1140–3 1140 is an aside, for Clyt. 1142 speaks of Ag.’s very silence
as an admission of guilt, although she has heard his groaning 1143; for
their compatibility see Bain (1977b) 54–5, who notes Ag.’s Hec. 739–40
‘Why do you turn your back to my face and weep, but not say what has
been done?’ as response to Hecuba’s half-aside 736–8 ‘Shall I fall in
supplication or keep silent?’; cf. Hel. 133, also beginning ‘All is lost
524 Commentary

for me!’, which is perhaps half an aside. ‘Your very silence etc.’ αὐτὸ
τὸ σιγᾶν: cf. And. 265 τὸ … ἔργον αὐτό ‘(my) very action will soon
show…’, cf. Or. 1129 ‘….shows’. For the moral idea cf. (Stockert) S.
Trac. 813–14 ‘Why are you making off in silence? Don’t you know that
if you are silent you support your accuser?’ Groaning is commented
upon during dialogue IT 550, Ion 769. The Homeric Ag. notably groans
Iliad 4.153, 9.16. My secrets: τὰ κρυπτά, used of Phaedra’s concealed
passion Hipp. 593. betrayed: Ag.’s fear in 539–40; in 742–5 he
realised that his deception had failed. (do) to me: Clyt. again puts self-
interest first, as she seemed to do when talking with Ach. 847, 880, 903,
910–16. But see the end of 1146–1208 n. for the self-referential nature
of Greek sorrow. Spare yourself etc.: bitter irony. The expression μὴ
κάμῃς λέγων lit. ‘Don’t take the trouble of saying’ may be colloquial.
[Text. 1141 πεπύσμεθ’ Burges have learned, Clyt. pointedly repeating
her verb from 1138 πεύθῃ ‘you ask that of me?’: πέπεισμαι L ‘have been
persuaded’(?), unmetrical with makeshift cure by Tr.   1143 κάμῃς
Porson, aor. subj.: κάμνῃς L, pres. There is (still) no certain Classical
example of μή and the 2. pers. pres. subj. in a negative command: Smyth
1840 B.N.]
1144–5 The two lines have been judged an aside, like 1140, for it
is surprising that Ag. should admit such feelings to Clyt.’s ears (Bain
(previous n.) disagrees); yet ‘Look, I am silent’ seems intended for her
hearing. A matter for a director. shamelessness: τὸ … ἀναίσχυντον also
Hippolyus Veiled F 436 with φρενῶν ‘of mind’, cf. 327 above ‘What a
shameless mind you have’, Ag. accusing Men. For ‘shame’ as a motif in
the play see Introduction pp. 34–5.
Greek: 1144 ἰδού Look!, compliant; very common, and near-
colloquial: Stevens (1976) 35. For the verbal adj. ἀναίσχυντον with
article see 1092 τὸ ἄσεπτον and n.
[Text. 1144 τί δεῖ…; Elmsley ‘What need…?’ corrects L’s nonsensical
με δεῖ ‘ I must…’ (a strange error).]
(B) 1146–1275 Speeches of Clytemnestra, Iphigenia and Agamemnon;
see esp. the last paragraph of this note.
1146–1208 Clyt.’s speech. (The following scheme is built upon
Ritchie’s notes.)
1146–7 (1) Headline: I’ll now speak openly, with no further dark words.
 Commentary 525

1148–63 (A) The past: despite your taking me as bride amid violence, I
have been blameless as wife.
1164–70 (B) The present: I have borne you children – but must you kill
our daughter to recover Menelaus’ worthless wife?
1171–82 (C, and D below) The future: if you do, my heart and house will
be empty – and (to Iph.) ‘your own father’s hand will kill you’ – ; but a
brief pretext to escape Iph.’s sacrifice will ensure your welcome home.
1183–4 (2) Recapitulation: – and supplication: ‘therefore do not compel
me to become evil against you (in revenge), nor become evil yourself’.
1185–93 (D) If you kill your child, what prayers for your good will the
gods accept, or what forgiveness or welcome can you expect from your
children?
1194–1206 (E) A plea: against that prospect, reconsider your concern
only to hold command, or find another father to offer his daughter, or
Men. to offer his own daughter in his own cause. Now I, your faithful
wife, will lose mine, and his erring wife have happiness with hers.
1207–8 (3) Final challenge: admit my logic, spare our child, and show
good sense.
Clyt. is adversarial throughout, methodically destroying Ag.’s
conceivable defences of his disregard for wife and daughter, and
exposing his practical and moral failings: she uses the familiar rhetorical
technique of anticipating and disarming an opponent’s argument (C, D,
E; on this technique see 1166–7 n.). But because she is ‘more concerned
with the wrong (compounding earlier wrongs!) done to herself than
with the imminent loss of her daughter’s life’ (Conacher (1967) 259),
some find her solipsism unsympathetically portrayed. Such an objection
ignores the self-referential nature of Greek sorrow: e.g. Priam’s great
speech Iliad. 22.38–75 is largely about himself and yet communicates
overwhelming parental love. Clyt. shows how much her own survival as
a compassionate woman is dependent on such love for Iph.; this is borne
out in her coming scene with Ach., in Iph.’s presence: see Clyt.’s 1344–5,
1366–7 and 1433–66 throughout, esp. her final hopeless plea not to be
abandoned by Iph. 1465–6.
1211–52 Iph.’s speech.
1211–15 Headline: she disclaims having the eloquence to dissuade Ag.;
instead she makes ‘tears her rhetoric’.
526 Commentary

1216–48 Pathos then dominates her speech:

(A) 1216–19 She supplicates for her life; cf. 1227, 1233, 1247;
(B) 1220–32 she dwells poignantly upon her ancient closeness to her
father, and their shared hopes now lost –
(C) 1233–5 and upon the hurt to her mother, which she supplicates her
father not to repeat after the agony of her childbirth.
(D) 1236–7 interrupt with a single, plain argument: the unreason of her
death in order to punish Helen and Paris.
(E) 1238–40 Reverting to pathos Iph. demands Ag.’s embrace and kiss as
a final memory of him –
(F) 1241–8 and in a theatrical climax urges the baby Orestes to shed
natural tears of sympathy.
(G) 1249–52 Similar passion fills her closing appeal to the preciousness
of her life – of all mortal life; she ends as she began in (A).
While Iph.’s words are apt to a fond young daughter (she uses the
word ‘father’ six times, 1211, 1220, 1229, 1237, 1242, 1245), they are
far from ‘childish’ (pace Turato), while still in moving contrast with
Clyt.’s harshness (throughout 1146–1208) and Ag.’s inflexibility (1257–
75, after his opening 1255–6).
It is noticeable that the speeches of both mother and daughter reach an
emotional climax in deterrent supplications of Ag., 1183–4 ~ 1233–5.
1255–75 Ag.’s speech. It is a terse reply – to both Clyt. and Iph.
1255–6 He responds to Clyt.’s appeal for parental love (her B, 1165;
C, 1175–7; D, 1191–3, (3) 1207–8) and to Iph.’s appeal for pity (her
A and B, 1255); he does so by asserting that he loves his children, and
understands what pity means..
1257–68 carry the weight of his speech and his principal defence: he
must fight the war to secure Greece’s freedom from barbarians’ rape of
its women.
1269–70 He contests Clyt.’s charge that he is serving Men.’s pursuit of
a worthless wife only indirectly (her B, 1168–9; E, 1201–3), when he
addresses Iph.’s echo of it (her D) so that he may present her death as a
duty common to himself and her, 1273–4.
1271–5 He returns to the war he must fight: see n. on 1271 ‘whether I
want to or not’.
Ag. does not mention Orestes at all, although the child and his other
 Commentary 527

children were prominent in Clyt.’s B, D and (3), and the child in Iph.’s F.
See also 1098–1119 n.
[Text. Despite its brevity, and abrupt close, the speech has nevertheless
been accused of sudden over-emphasis on the whole army’s desire,
almost erotic, for the war (1264 n.), now hard and dangerous to thwart
1259–68; but that is not new, and continues to be important. Ag. feared
it long since, 513–14, 526–35, cf. 1012; and Ach. wished to warn him,
801–18, and will repeat his anxiety to Clyt. 1345–57 and to Iph. 1414–
15, 1425–32. Earlier eds deleted many lines (see apparatus) on grounds
of content or repetition, and 1270 and 1275 individually (see the nn.).]  
As to the three speeches together: it is necessary to the plot and to
Clyt.’s angry passion here that no word of Iph.’s sacrifice or of Troy had
passed between Clyt. and Ag. in their first encounter 685–740, before she
learned of Ag.’s deception from the Old Man 866–95; but she overheard
Iph. question her father about his long absence at Troy 651–61, including
Iph.’s curse upon Menelaus 658. More important to Iph.’s change from
supplication for her life (1211–52: n.) to exultant acceptance of her death
(from 1368) is that until Ag.’s speech here she has heard while on stage
nothing about saving Greeks from barbarians, or about ideals of freedom;
but these factors later come from her own lips, and are magnified, in
1377–89, 1397–1401 (see Ach.’s admiration in 1406), later 1420, 1446,
1456 – and in her farewells 1472–3, 1502 (cf. the Chorus’ [1519–20,
1525–31]); on this matter, and the emotional style chosen for Iph.’s first
speech 1211–52 and monody 1279–1335, see esp. Gibert (2005) 230.
1146–7 Listen now: ἄκουε δή νυν, a Eur. formula 1009 n.; at the start
of a measured speech e.g. Supp. 857. reveal … plainly … no longer
use hinting in riddles: Clyt. asserts her intention strongly, with 1148 ‘my
first reproach’. Her ‘hinting’ seems to refer to her 1124–6, 1135, 1137
and particularly 1139. The noun ‘hinting’ translates the adj. παρῳδός,
lit. ‘singing beside’ (verb παραείδω ‘accompany’ Od. 22.348); the adj. is
apt to αἰνίγματα ‘riddles’ because (riddling) oracles were sung verse (see
n. on 1064 ‘art of Phoebus’). In this musical metaphor the prefix παρα-
implies ‘inferiority or defect’ (LSJ παρά C.I.7), i.e. ‘singing off-key’,
cf. παράμουσος ‘discordant’ Pho. 785, A. Cho. 467; παραπαίω ‘strike
a false note’ A. F 314; full illustration by Stockert. The development of
the sense ‘parody’ is readily understandable, and became dominant from
528 Commentary

the 4th century BC: see LSJ. For ‘riddles’, puzzling words, cf. Tro. 625
‘Talthybius … spoke unclearly a riddle only too clear’, a reference to
264 his instruction that Polyxena was ‘to serve Achilles’ tomb’ (but as a
sacrifice); other qualifications of ‘riddles’ by their speakers Supp. 1064,
A. Ag. 1183; contrast of riddling and simplicity A. Supp. 464; PV 610,
833.
Greek. The change from 1. sing. ἀνακαλύψω to plur. χρησόμεσθα is
not rare, e.g. Ion 1250–1, Tro. 904 cited by Bond on Her. 858. For the
flexibility of the verb χράομαι lit. ‘use’ see 316 n.
1148–50 First … first: the doubling typifies rhetorical method in
an agon, beginning a speech (349 n.), e.g. Med. 475, Supp. 517 with
Collard’s n. reproach: also a rhetorical tone-word, e.g. 906; in Tro.
936 (in an agon) Helen rejects reproach over her love for Paris; cf. the
combative words starting our agon, of Men. 335 ‘put you to the proof’
and of Ag. 378 ‘criticize’. married … took me: inversion for effect,
hysteron proteron (also 1184, 1307, [1682]), for ‘you married me’ is a
surprising initial attack. Contrast Clyt. welcoming Ag. home, with praise
of his worth as husband, in A. Ag. 855–913. Tantalus: not the famous
sufferer in Hades (504) but a son of Thyestes, brother of Ag.’s father
Atreus: [Apollodorus], Epitome 2.15, Pausanias 2.18.2 – the latter raises
the question of whether Ag.’s murder of him launched the feud between
the brothers; note that Eur. gives Ag. no motive. This Tantalus is first
recorded here (at El. 1018–19 Tyndareus simply gives Clyt. to Ag. as her
first husband). It is impossible to establish whether or not he was Eur.’s
invention, as some have thought: see Gibert (2005) 227–48, at 229, with
bibl., who however suggests that the contrast between Clyt. as model
wife (in her own words, 1157–65) and the monstrous adulteress of myth
is typical Euripidean ‘innovation’; cf. A. N. Michelini, ICS (1999–2000)
48–50. Scholars have observed that the violent start of Clyt.’s and Ag.’s
marriage heralds the misery she fears following Iph.’s death at Ag.’s
hand (1171ff.); also that Clyt. endured something as a result of which
she will become the killer of her husband (J. Griffin in Pelling (1990)
146); cf. C. Luschnig ‘(she) turns into the woman likely to be obsessed
with revenge whom we know from Aeschylus’, EGT 432, cf. her (1988)
30–1, 82–3, 117. Gibert (2005) esp. 238–40 argues that the presentation
of Clyt.’s first marriage resonates in various ways with many of the play’s
important moments as the inevitable tragedy approaches.
 Commentary 529

[Text. 1148 ταῦτ’ Monk for τοῦτ’; the plur. is used in a similar
rhetorical ploy at 349.   1149 κἄμβαλες i.e. καὶ ἔμβαλες (= ἐνέβαλες)
in Schol. Od.’s quotation (next sentence) is an unaugmented Epic aor.
impossible in Euripidean dialogue; and its meaning here would be
‘attacked (me) violently’, i.e. ‘raped’, for Schol. is commenting on Od.
11.422–30 where the shade of Ag. recounts Clyt.’s own violence, her
murder of Cassandra and himself. But κἄμβαλες may be no more than
part-anagram of κἄλαβες?]
1151–2 dashed my baby living to the ground: a similar intention
Hdt. 5.92.γ.2. It was the fate notoriously of Hector’s and Andromache’s
son Astyanax, thrown from Troy’s wall e.g. Tro. 725, 1134–5. When at
Iliad 22.63–4 Priam visualises that Trojan infants will be thrown to the
ground, it is no doubt Homer’s allusive anticipation for his audience of
Astyanax’s death (feared also by Andromache 24.734–5). See also Text
below, at end. tearing … from my breast: babies at A. Seven 348–50,
there too for slaughter, which would be unusual in contemporary war
(Hutchinson ad loc.). For such ‘tearing away’ for slaughter cf. also And.
441, an infant, νεοσσός lit. ‘chick’ (like Orestes in our 1248: n.), torn
from beneath its mother’s wings. The maternal breast is a stock element
of pathetic appeal, regularly associated with Clyt. e.g. A. Cho. 896–8, E.
El. 1207, Or. 527, 839–43. The here brutish Ag. (poet and Clyt. make
him so for the dramaturgy) contrasts with the otherwise very human and
tormented character elsewhere in the play (note his 1255–8), rather like
the dual-natured Clyt. observed in 1148–50 n. Gibert (2005) 239 remarks
that while the horror of the baby’s death is being described, ‘Iph. stands
by silently holding an infant’.
[Text. 1151 ζῶν Musgrave and προσούδισας πέδῳ Scaliger ‘dashed …
living to the ground’: apt and excellent meaning in context (above), but
bold emendations. Most eds obelize L’s σῷ προσούρισας πάλῳ, either
doubting its supposed meaning as ‘guided (my baby) to your lot’ (i.e.
allotment from the spoils of war: 1154) or distrusting the wide textual
change. The 2. pers. poss. pron. σῷ is meaningless with πέδῳ ‘ground’, and
Musgrave’s ζῶν is inescapable with Scaliger’s verb. Other than Musgrave-
Scaliger there is Hartung’s conjecture προσωρίσας ‘annexed to (your lot)’,
but both ‘guided to’ and ‘annexed to’ are impossible: no usurper of another
man’s wife after killing the husband would take over his male child and let
it live as a threat to his own descendants: for that reason Andromache in
530 Commentary

slavery may lose her infant son by Neoptolemus when his wife Hermione
and her father Menelaus consider killing the child And. 516–22; the same
motif Her. 166–9, Hdt. 1.155.1, 5.92.γ.1 (above) and (a proverb) Cypria
F 31 West ‘He is a fool who kills the father and spares the sons’; cf. A.
Tzanetou in EGT 216. Compare also the threats from Clyt. and Aegisthus
to Electra who prays and works for Orestes’ return as avenger of Ag. El.
1116–21, S. El. 379–82, 516–18 etc.]
1153–6 two sons of Zeus – my kinsmen: Castor and Pollux (the
Dioscuri, Διόσκοροι), and Helen, were fathered by Zeus 794–7; for the
rel. clause in parenthesis see on Text. Clyt. was fathered by Tyndareus,
who in many accounts became Helen’s father too; the mother of all
four was Leda (48–9). The twins rode white horses, swift and flashing
brilliantly, emblematic both of their semi-divine status (μαρμαίρω of
Apollo’s golden hair Ion 887–8, of brilliant armour Iliad 12.195) and of
their superior horsemanship e.g. Pind. Pyth. 1.66, Hel. 639, Ovid, Met.
8.372–4; for ‘flashing’ cf. And. 1146 Neoptolemus ‘gleaming (στίλβων)
in brilliant armour’ (cf. the English cliché ‘knight in shining armour’
in similar contexts of rescue). At the ends of Helen and of Electra the
Dioscuri may have entered riding their horses ‘on the machine’: see
Allan on Hel. 1642–79. Here they save Clyt.; after Zeus placed them
in the sky, they saved sailors through the phenomenon we know as St
Elmo’s fire, Alcaeus F 34 Lobel-Page. 1154 is a three-word trimeter of
unusual form, with mid-verse caesura eased by elision (West (1982) 83;
S. Phil. 226 has exactly the same shape), perhaps emphasizing the single
six-syllable Greek word after the caesura, to make war against you:
Marcovich (see 492 n.) 141–2 suggests that this rhythm, as much as the
wording, ‘ridicules’ and humiliates Ag. after Clyt. began to accuse him
of taking her by force, 1149; it may also be implied that if the two gods
had attacked Ag., he would have been destroyed.
Greek: 1154 ἵπποισι instrumental dat., with e.g. βρέμων ‘(Polynices)
thundering with…’ Pho. 113.   1156 αὖ adversative and consequential,
nonetheless, ‘on the contrary’ (LSJ IV); not ‘in turn’, still less temporal
‘afterwards’.
[Text. 1153 σε Markland, explicit acc. object with ἐπιστρατεύω as
Pho. 285; the enclitic pron. is here advanced near the start of its clause
(‘Wackernagel’s Law’: formulated too late for KG; not in Smyth): γε L,
in καὶ … γε emphasizing ‘kinsmen’, is unwanted. Also 1153 δὲ Matthiae,
 Commentary 531

translated by means of the parenthesis, makes a deliberate point as Clyt.

emphasizes her pedigree: τε L, a simple connective.]
1157–61 (chaste) sexually: ἐς ᾿Αφροδίτην, lit. ‘towards Aphrodite’, cf.
Bacc. 314–15 σωφρονεῖν … ἐς τὴν Κύπριν also of women; cf. the Chorus’
approval of such wives 543–4, 553–4 and esp. 569–70 (n.). (increased)
your estate: μέλαθρον lit. ‘your palace-hall’, i.e. did more than just maintain
it, the wife’s duty when her lord was away (1161). At A. Ag. 914 Ag. calls
Clyt. the ‘guardian of his house’ during his absence; cf. Megara acting for
Heracles Her. 45 and (observing sexual chastity) 1373. The phrase implies
also the wife’s bearing children to secure heirs, 1164; cf. Aeolus’ hopes
for his line E. Aeolus F 15.1 ‘May I see descendants from them, sons from
sons’. Clyt. claims the qualities in a wife which Ag. missed in one [749–50,
a generalisation]; similarly e.g. Or. [603–5], Meleager F 521. entering:
cf. a (peasant) husband’s pleasure on returning to his house and finding
all well El. 75–6. happy (on leaving): εὐδαιμονεῖν has a connotation:
an everyday expression of thanks in farewell was εὐδαιμονοίης ‘May the
gods give you happiness’, ‘Bless you!’: in Eur. e.g. Alc. 1137, Hypsipyle
1590, reciprocated in 1591; see Stevens (1976) 13.
Greek. 1157 οὗ in that: 97 n. περὶ σὲ personally lit. ‘about you’,
emphatic after σοι to you.  1158 συμμαρτυρέω ‘support my evidence
or contention’, Ε. Danae F 319.1; with rel. clause ὡς ‘that’ Hipp. 286.
1162–3 catch: metaphor from hunting, cf. Achilles hunted by unmarried
women 960 (n.). spouse: for the nuance of ‘legitimacy’ in the word
δάμαρ see Stevens on And. 4; DELG. bad: φλαῦρος ‘of poor quality’,
often moral; of persons e.g. Med. 1103 (children); LSJ II. no rarity: a
good wife is ‘a rare portion in life’ Alc. 472–4. The immediate echo of
rare helps to signal that the section 1148–63 ‘I was a good wife’ is now
finished: see 1146–1208 n.
Greek. σπάνις with neg. (also e.g. And. 771, Hec. 12), lit. ‘not-lack’,
is a Euripidean marker, like the verb σπανίζω e.g. Cyc. 133, Med. 560.
Note that 1161, 2, 3 all end with infinitival -ειν: cf. 1323–9 n., Tro. 81–2
and many other such ‘unconscious repetitions by the poet’ at line-ends in
Jackson (1955) 219–21.
1164–7 three daughters: 638–9 n. this son here: held in Iph.’s
arms (1118–19); the baby as silent but emotional lever ((B) 414b–
41 n.) is strongest in Iph.’s own speech 1241–8: see 1098–1275 n.
Staging. cruelly: again ‘pejorative’ sense for τλη-, ταλ-: 98 n., above
532 Commentary

1132 n.; in a parallel context of filicide Med. 865 τλάμονι θυμῷ ‘with
a cruel, ruthless heart’, 1274. one of the girls: Iph.’s preciousness to
Clyt. is brought out in 1174–9, in her bitterness about the sacrifice 1177–
8, 1203, and in her description of Iph. as ‘picked out’ as sacrificial victim
1199 (see n.). Unwillingness as a mother to sacrifice a child is criticised
by Praxithea, E. Erechtheus F 360.30–1. If someone asks … what will
you say?: both a natural question and a rhetorical technique, anticipation
(and implicit devaluation) of an opponent’s argument (procatalepsis),
found in shadow as early as Iliad 6.459–62; for ‘what will you say?’ cf.
Her. 1320 (with Bond’s n.), Hcld. 162; in general see Collard on Supp.
184 ‘someone will say…’, Lloyd (1992) 30–1 etc. The device recurs in
1185–90. why: τίνος (ἕκατι): the ‘answer’ in 1168–9 shows that the
pron. is neut., not masc. ‘whom’.   1166–70 (and 1203–4) closely
resemble Tro. 370–3, Cassandra’s condemnation of Ag.’s motive: ‘The
wise commander destroyed his dearest (our 1177–8), donating his joy in
children at home to his brother because of a woman (Helen, Tro. 369),
and one carried off willingly at that, and not by force.’ It is possible that
the actor paused after ‘what will you say?’, for greater effect; compare
lines divided at a change of speaker (antilabe 303–16 n.).
Greek. 1164 τίκτω I bore, pres. ‘registering’ a past action as important
still: 68 n., also e.g. And. 9. ἐπί As well as, ‘in addition to’, used of
persons e.g. Med. 694; LSJ B.I.1e.   1167 τὰ σά ‘(speak) your things’
i.e. ‘your case’, also Supp. 456; cf. 396 n. on ἐμόν/-ά.
1168–70 ‘So that … Helen’: Clyt. invents and slants Ag.’s answer to
her purpose. For speech quoted in a speech see Clyt. again 1177–9, Iph.
in 1223–30 (n.); V. Bers cited in 356 n. Truly a fine thing…!: ironic,
with fee contemptuous, Helen as traded goods (her own love of gold Tro.
991–7); for the image cf. El. 1090 Clyt. ‘buying marriage (to Aegisthus)
for a fee’, E. Cresphontes F 458 ‘taking my dearest as their fee’, a mother
losing her son. a child: τέκνα, allusive plur. (1015 n.), repeated in the
idiom what is dearest to us τοῖς φιλτάτοις (458 n., 744) – and in our
greatest hate τἄχθιστα: Helen is ἐχθίστη Tro. 211, Hel. 72. Cf. also Tro.
370–1 ἐχθίστων ὕπερ | τά φίλτατ’ ὤλεσε Cassandra’s indictment of Ag.
Greek. 1168 καλόν γε: see Text.   1169 ἀποτίνω ‘pay’ price or
penalty (with μισθόν ‘fee’ acc. as e.g. Hdt. 2.65.5 ζημίην ‘punishment’);
for the person γυναικός (or thing) in the gen., e.g. Or. 531, absolute A.
Ag. 1503. Here μισθόν is in apposition to τέκνα.
 Commentary 533

[Text. 1168 Μενέλαος ῾Ελένην Elmsley, avoiding the ‘2. foot anapaest’
in L’s word-order. Line-end: γέ τοι Fix Truly…!; but the combination
γέ τοι is rare in Eur., e.g. Cyc. 224, Pho. 730 (and is termed ‘a lively
“at any rate” ’ at GP 550; probably not colloquial, Collard (2005) 374).
γένος L is universally condemned, although it gives momentarily attractive
sense, either ‘(A fine) family…!’, i.e. that of Ag. and Men., as if Clyt.
had heard the brothers acknowledging their kinship 471–510, or ‘(A fine)
sort of lineage…!’ (see Stockert’s n). Exclamations with initial καλός are
colloquial (Stevens (1976) 54–5) and often ironic, and almost always
involve γε, e.g. 305 (n.) καλόν γε … τοὔνειδος acc., Med. 514 καλόν γ’
ὄνειδος nom. The best conjectures for γένος here retain γε, e.g. Fix (above);
γε νῷν (νῷ earlier ed. Hervagiana) ‘…for us two (to pay) …!’ with 1170
ὠνουμένοιν Musgrave ‘in buying’; 1168 γ’ ἂν οὖν… 1169 … ἀποτείσαις…
1170 …ὠνούμενος Diggle (with debts to Reiske and England) ‘A fine price
(καλόν i.e. μισθόν 1169) you’d therefore pay … in buying…!’ (Diggle
compares Med. 504 καλῶς γ’ ἂν οὖν at verse-end); less well γ’ ἔθος Elmsley
‘…habit…!’, Vitelli γ’ ἔπος ‘…thing to say…!’ (translated with ‘to answer’
by Jouan). Other conjectures substitute a noun more similar in lettering
to γένος, e.g. γέρας Vater ‘A fine (exercise of your) rank…!’, printed by
Stockert; or γάνος Bothe ‘…splendour, splendid thing…!’, advocated by
Turato citing A. Ag. 579 where the word applies to the spoils from Troy,
i.e. Helen. In 1170 L’s ὠνούμεθα We are buying can stand, the line having
explanatory asyndeton (391 n.).]
1171–3 Come now: ἄγε marks a challenge, with a new point (Clyt.’s
own future), e.g. Med. 499, (Mastronarde on) Pho. 559. if you go etc.:
Clyt. is taunting Ag. with his ambition, and does so again in 1194–5;
Men. made the same charge in 337–49. The fut. indic. in a stark,
‘emotional’ ‘if’-clause (Smyth 2328) nears ‘if you will go’. leaving
me in the house etc.: husband at war, wife at home, Clyt.’s complaint
also A. Ag. 861–2 and ff., cf. Cho. 920 (with Garvie’s n.); cf. generally
805–8a above and nn. at Troy: ἐκεῖ: lit. ‘there’, i.e. from where Helen
is to be recovered, 1168. absence: the cause of Iph.’s distress at 664; at
A. Ag. 1259 the word is used of Ag. while at Troy.
Greek. 1172 διὰ … ἀπουσίας ‘during’, διά with temporal gen. e.g.
1399, LSJ A II.1; not causal ‘by reason of’ (LSJ A III.1.b).   1173
καρδίαν lit. ‘heart’, i.e. feelings; this Greek expression with ἔχω is ‘the
saying, what people commonly say’ Pl. Rep. 492c, LSJ καρδία I.1; with
534 Commentary

ψυχήν in the same sense e.g. Or. 526; full illustration by Headlam on
Herodas 1.36.
[Text. 1171 εἰ Elmsley accommodates the necessary, and coupled, fut.
indics. στρατεύσῃ … γενήσῃ, both mid.; L’s ἢν mixes aor. subj. act. and
fut. indic. mid. – the reason why Conington deleted 1171b καταλιπών…
1172a γενήσῃ; but the repetition ἐν δώμασιν… ἐν δόμοις is strong, not
weak.]
1174–7 (chair) of hers: lit. ‘of her here’, the demonstrative pron.
attending a gesture in the theatre, and repeating Iph.’s identity from
1164–70 ‘three daughters … one 1165, her 1166, our dearest 1170’.
The pron. however may be objective gen. with κενούς, ‘empty of her’
(England), like Hel. 1261 a bier ‘empty of a body’. For such pathos cf.
Alc. 945–6 ‘when I see the bed empty of my wife (or ‘my wife’s bed
empty’), and the chairs in which she used to sit’ (and the Chorus at Alc.
861–2); houses empty of children Supp. 1095–6. Ion 791–2. I sit alone:
1171 and n.
Greek: 1174 ἐπὶ δακρύοις weeping, lit. ‘in, at tears’, also 541 (n.), Med.
928, cf. ἐν δακρύοισι 1100 above.   1176 θρηνῳδέω ‘sing a lament’
only here, but Eur. has a similar formation ὑμνῳδέω ‘sing (oracles)’ Ion
6.
[Text. 1174 Apsines (3rd century AD: apparatus) has the order
δόμους μὲν τούσδε προσίδω κένους, probably a reminiscence rather
than an unmetrical quotation, but it prompted κενοὺς μὲν εἰσίδω παιδὸς
(Rauchenstein) θρόνους (or παιδὸς εἰσίδω) suggested by Diggle: this
gives κενοὺς the same predicative position as in 1175 and provides μέν
preceding δέ, but undoes the chiasm θρ. … κ. … κ. … παρθενῶνας.]
1177–9 More ‘speech in speech’, and again in Clyt.’s 1197–8: 356
n. The father who begot you: for the pathetic redundancy in this phrase
see 90 n. he killed you himself: Clyt. echoes esp. her 1131 ‘Your child
and mine – are you about to kill her?’. Cf. her words at A. Ag. 1416–17
‘he sacrificed his own child, the dearest of my birth-pains’. no other,
and by no other’s hand: cf. the Old Man 873.
Greek. 1178 for οὐ(κ) … οὐδέ with repeated ἄλλος cf. 1261–3 οὐκ …
Ἰλίου … | οὐδ(ε) … Τροίας .
[Text. 1177 The rhythm in ὦ τέκνον ὁ φυτεύσας L (τέκνον with a long
first syllable to accommodate caesura after the word) is questionable,
and the caesura after prepositive ὦ in Blomfield’s proposal ὦ τέκνον
 Commentary 535

ὁ φιτύσας is very rare (West (1982) 83): here τέκνον has a short first
syllable and φιτύσας a long first syllable). The two verbs φυτεύω and
φιτύω are sometimes confused in mss., e.g. Alc. 294.
1179, with μισθὸν ‘fee’ apparently repeated from 1169, gives strained
sense in context, ‘leaving a fee behind’; and πρὸς τοὺς δόμους means
‘to(wards), against his house’, while ‘(leaving) to the house’ as the
recipient is dubious idiom (but πρὸς τοὺς was written in erasure in L
by Tr1, and Tr may have altered the wording). Eds mostly emend by
making the line a question, in contrast with the statement in 1177–8,
e.g. ποῖον δὲ (Camper) νόστον (Murray) καταλιπὼν…; ‘but/and leaving
what kind of return(-journey) to his house?’, in which ‘leaving behind’
is still awkward. νόστον is approved by Jackson (1955) 62–4, but he
posits a preceding lacuna of one verse (first proposed by Paley), which
he suggests should like 1179 begin with a ποῖος-question, e.g. ‘with what
kind of feeling upon sailing for Aulis’: see apparatus; but he dismisses
a lacuna following 1179 (Matthiae, favoured by Stockert, Kovacs):
for substantial words or lines lost in L see Introduction p. 54, Text 1.c.
Matthiessen accepted Camper and Murray but in place of καταλιπὼν
proposed προσδοκῶν ‘expecting (this verb 338) what kind of return?’:
excellent sense, but a very large change. Quite different is Kovacs’s free
rewriting of 1179 as a question directly to Ag.: ‘Having left such cause
for hatred (μῖσος Musgrave) <to your kin, will you desire to return> to
your own home?’ (again, see apparatus). See also 1180 Text.]
1180–2 pretext: πρόφασις, common in Eur., e.g. 362 (n.), 884.
Clyt. means, it seems, (1) that Ag. could excuse himself from his own
daughter’s sacrifice (she develops the point in 1196–1202), and without
more ado; and (2), with black ambiguity directed at the spectators, that
she would need small ground (such as his bringing home Cassandra
in Agamemnon) to be forced to give him the welcome he deserves for
killing Iph., namely his own murder, the ‘evil’ of 1184. There is grim
humour for an audience in Clyt.’s anticipation of welcoming her husband
home at A. Ag. 600–4. slight: βραχεῖα: with πρόφασις e.g. Thuc.
1.141.1. girls: παῖδες, fem.: Or. will be too young to share Ag.’s home-
coming ‘reception’ (if it is soon: but in A. Ag. 877–86 Ag. returns after
the war’s ten years, by when the then adolescent Or. is in Phocis for
safekeeping, cf. El. 16–18). In 1182 Clyt.’s sarcasm (for the audience,
knowing the myth and alive to the ironic menace) is brought out through
536 Commentary

the triple repetition of δεξ- receive/reception, for which the unique noun
δέξις may have been coined; similar triples in 721 (θυ- ‘sacrifice’; see
n.), Bacc. 955 (κρυπ- ‘conceal’: see Greek below).
Greek: 1180 ἐπεὶ For: the rel. adv. here begins an independent clause,
equating to the particle γάρ; for the elliptical sense ‘since (otherwise,
if not)…’ cf. e.g. Hec. 1280, Her. 270; Smyth 2244. ἐνδέω ‘need’ with
gen. in Eur. elsewhere is personal, 41, Tro. 797; impersonal LSJ (B)
3.   1182 δέξιν ἥν σε δέξασθαι ‘receive’: cognate acc. together with
direct object as Bacc. 955 κρύψῃ σὺ κρύψιν ἥν σε κρυφθῆναι χρεών
‘conceal(ment)’.
[Text. 1180 ἐπεὶ L ‘For’ is sound: see Greek. Some conjectures
however have made 1179 dependent syntactically upon 1180, replacing
ἐπεὶ with ἄπει; interrog. (Madvig) ‘Will you go away (leaving…)?’ or
with ἔπει· a statement (L. Dindorf: from ἔπειμι ‘travel to’) ‘You will
return (home) leaving hatred (μῖσος: see 1179 Text)…’ Also in 1180:
ἐνδεῖ Reiske ‘there is need’ is regarded by Diggle (1994) 411 as the one
certain correction: a ‘prospective’ pres. is wanted, not L’s impf. ἔδει.
Monk’s με δεῖ ‘I have need of’ at least restored this.]
1183–4 A further sharpening of Clyt.’s tone: after her pathos (but
slanted to her purpose) 1171–9 and sarcasm 1180–2, she veils a threat
in the language of supplication (similarly at a climax Alc. 308, at an end
Hel. 939). With her single appeal to the gods in 1183 contrast Clyt.’s
909 (chin, right hand, mother) and Iph.’s 1233–4 (ancestors, mother).
evil: κακός at its most extreme, of motive and behaviour, e.g. El. 929,
1073 (also Clyt.). The poet clearly alludes to her future revenge upon
Ag., which Iph. fears too, 1454–7: a second evil death (his) requiting the
first (Iph.’s), but illogically preceding it (hysteron proteron, 1149 n.). As
earlier, the poet relies on the audience’s familiarity not just with myth
but with Aeschylus’ Oresteia, which had been revived in the theatre
in the later 5th century (Aesch. Test(imonia) 1.46–52 TrGF 3; cf. (D)
1433–6 n. below); Introduction p. 35 n. 87. Note Luschnig (1988) 32,
‘Clytemnestra had forgiven her husband once (our 1157–8). But he did
not learn from her suffering.’
Greek. μὴ δῆτα starting an appeal is very forceful, e.g. Supp. 267 with
Collard’s n. μή … μήτε go with a first verb, then μήτε with a second, as
in IA 141–2; μή repeated after μὴ δῆτα with one verb e.g. Med. 1056. For
πρὸς θεῶν By the gods, the strongest invocation, cf. e.g. IT 547, Or. 787.
 Commentary 537

1185–90 So then: εἶἑν after a high point in a speech and moving to a

new argument, 454 n. †you will sacrifice your daughter. And then†
what prayers will you say?: the daggers enclose apt sense, but the Greek
is both shaky and unmetrical (see Text below). What is the good thing
you will pray for yourself…? A sorry return etc.: Clyt. continues with
biting irony, first this (for ‘return’ see 1179 Text), then 1188–90, which
are a little oblique, and imply ‘What good may I rightly pray for you that
we’d not think the gods stupid (to grant) if we wish murderers well?’
For 1186 and 1188 ‘praying to a god for a thing’ cf. e.g. And. 1104–5,
for ‘good’ e.g. Hel. 754 (while sacrificing). For prayers in Tragedy see
H. E. Moritz, EGT 100–4.   1189 gods’ intelligence (adj. συνετός)
as e.g. Archelaus F 255.1 τὰ τῶν θεῶν συνετά. At 394a–5 Ag. similarly
had argued that intelligent gods would understand the invalidity of the
suitors’ oath, cf. Clyt.’s 1034 (text insecure); similar questioning of the
gods’ understanding at Hel. 919–23.  1190 murderers: αὐθένταισιν,
used of a kin-slayer e.g. Her. 839, 1359 (children). An interesting word
etymologically: DELG favours ‘self-accomplisher, causer, responsible
agent’ (αὐτ- + ἀνύω) over ‘striking, killing for oneself’ (αὐτ- + θείνω),
given its dominant sense ‘authoritative’ in later Greek – whence
αὐθεντικός (LSJ 2), our ‘authentic’.
Greek: 1186 τί … τἀγαθόν interrog. pron. with appositional and
predicative art. and noun e.g. Bacc. 492 τί … τὸ δεινὸν ἐργάσῃ; ‘What
is the dreadful thing you will do?’; Smyth 2647.   1188 i.e. δίκαιον
(ἐστι) with acc. and infin., and here ἀγαθόν without art. predicative to
τί; note the position of the interrogative, postponed for effect, e.g. Med.
565, Hel. 1055; Willink on Or. 101. This question, directly playing
upon that of 1186, is better rhetorically than one in which the postponed
τι is indefinite, taking its accent from enclitic σοι: ‘Is there any good
thing etc.?’   1189 τἄρα = τοι ἄρα truly; in combination with οὐ, τοι
‘strengthens the negative but always keeps its force’ (J. C. Lowe, Glotta
61 (1973) 54–5, whose translation of 1189–90 we largely reproduce), cf.
Hipp. 441, Supp. 496; GP 555.
[Text. 1185 L’s bare δέ, either adversative or connective, or making a
new suggestion (GP 170), is false in tone after εἶἑν (above), which itself
discharges these meanings; but many eds retain δὲ. L’s purely temporal
ἔνθα ‘thereupon, then’, a Homeric usage (LSJ I.2), is unconvincing; also
1185 lacks one syllable. Conjectures, many approximating to the English
538 Commentary

in the translation, are legion. First, with εἶἑν· outside the verse: θύσεις
δὲ <τὴν> (Tr3) παῖδ’· εἶτα τίνας…; Elmsley ‘And you will sacrifice
your daughter: then what prayers…?’, adopted by Jouan, Matthiessen;
θύσεις δὲ <δὴ> (L. Dindorf) παῖδ’; εἶτα τίνας…; ‘And … daughter?
Then…?’, which we think best (δὲ δή ‘in a crucial question’, GP 259;
colloquial, Stevens (1976) 46); θύσεις σὺ (Vitelli) παῖδα, κᾆτα τίνας…;
Günther, commended by Diggle (1994) 410 but omitted from his OCT
apparatus; θύσεις δὲ παῖδα <σήν>; [ἔνθα] τίνας <δ’>…; Stockert; θύων
δὲ παῖδ’ ἐν<ταῦ>θα, τίνας…; W. Luppe, Philologus 139 (1995) 161–2
(ἐνταῦθα earlier F. W. Schmidt) ‘As you sacrifice your daughter there,
…?’ Second, with εἶἑν· inside the verse: εἶἑν· σὺ θύσεις παῖδα· τίνας…;
Nauck, followed by Kovacs.
1186 For τί … τἀγαθὸν Diggle suggested τί … <πο>τ’ ἀγαθὸν
‘What<ever> good…?’, an attractive improvement on L’s plain
question.   1187 was deleted by Monk, as weakening the force of
1186 as well as relying on its syntax.   In 1189 the obliquity of 1189–
90, and in L the impossible οὔτε ‘neither’ and the double negative with
ἀσυνέτους, induced alternative emendations by Reiske/Wecklein (our
text) and Valckenaer, or (Stockert) lacuna after 1189: unnecessarily.]
1191–3 fall before: προσπίπτω: i.e. ‘in supplication’ (see Greek below);
it is a further thrust by Clyt. to aggravate Ag.’s difficulty on his return, and
you have no right follows cruelly: as a killer of his own kin Ag. could
not supplicate family survivors for purification (his matricide son Orestes
received it from Apollo himself A. Eum. 282–3 but also from strangers in
their own houses 447–52, IT 947–54); the phrase οὐ θέμις ‘no(t) right’ is
used of impure persons’ being forbidden various actions e.g. IT 1035, Hipp.
1396, Protesilaus F 648. even (look): England argues for the translation
‘actually’, with ‘What child will greet you…? for you to kill…?: that
is, which child will risk losing its life to a father who has already killed its
sister and may intend a repetition? Clyt.’s sarcasm is brutal.
Greek. 1191 προσπίπτω/-πίτνω ‘supplicate’ with a dat. of the person
e.g. El. 576, Or. 1338; not ‘fall into the arms of’.
[Text. 1193 ἵνα Elmsley ‘so that, in order that’ corrects L’s ἐὰν, which
is unmetrical (a ‘2. foot anapaest’), and gives weaker sense, ‘if, in case’:
Reiske preserved this with σφῷν ‘(one) of the two of them’. προσέμενος
Weil ‘drawing towards himself’, προσίεμαι LSJ II.1: προθέμενος L
‘putting in front of himself’, not ‘preferring’.]
 Commentary 539

1194–5 Those things: all of 1185–93; cf. 1206 ‘of all this’ τούτων,
i.e. 1148–1205, also first word. care only about … commanding an
army: Men.’s charge against Ag. at 412, cf. 337–8, 354–7. parading:
διαφέρω ‘carry about’, contemptuous in context; ordinarily e.g. Supp.
382 κηρύγματα ‘proclamations’ a herald’s duty. A modern parallel for
such swagger was Hermann Göring with his oversized marshal’s baton.
Greek. 1194 διὰ λόγων εἶμι lit. ‘go through (the medium of) words,
thoughts’, equivalent here to ‘think about, reason’, διαλογίζομαι; for the
multiple idioms of διά and gen. with a verb of motion expressing activity
see Barrett on Hipp. 542–4; for ταῦτα acc. here cf. 349 ταῦτα μέν σε
πρῶτ’ ἐπῆλθον and n.
[Text. 1195 μέλει Musgrave: σε δεῖ L is an ancient copyist’s error.]
1196–1202a Cast lots whose child must die: compare esp. Hcld.
543–6 where Iolaus would prefer lots drawn among the maiden-girls
to be sacrificed: his 543 ‘I’ll say how it would be done more justly,
ἐνδικωτέρως’ resembles our 1196 δίκαιον; his 546 ‘It is not just (δίκαιον)
that you should die without (casting) lots’ resembles E. Erechtheus
F 360.14–40, the factors in naming one child of the royal couple for
sacrifice. But Clyt. is fantasizing here: she knows from the Old Man that
Calchas had specified Iph. as the victim, 873–3. Iph. was picked out
1199, just as Men. might have found a bride ‘picked out’ to replace Helen
485. The idea stands in contrast with fair ἐν ἴσῳ lit. ‘in equality’; of
rights e.g. Thuc. 2.60.6; at Supp. 432 monarchy is not ἴσον, ‘equal, fair’,
because one man has the law entirely in his hands. sacrificial victim:
σφάγιον again; earlier 135 n., 906, 1318; Introduction p. 11. Here the
bleak word is emphasized by enjambement (50–1 n.). for her mother:
for Menelaus to recover Helen. At S. El. 537–41 Clyt. protests that ‘Men.
had two sons who it was more reasonable should die’ (than Iph.); at Or.
658–9 Or. in retrospect concedes his sister’s sacrifice but tells Men. to
kill not his own daughter Hermione in requital, but Helen; a similar motif
at Hec. 265–70: not Polyxena but Helen herself should be sacrificed to
Achilles’ ghost. The matter was his: τὸ πρᾶγμα, neutral, ‘the thing,
business, affair, concern’, 55, 1009, LSJ II.1, 4b; cf. 1236–7 n. Not ‘the
scheme, the plan’ (for which see πράσσομεν 129 n.): Clyt. knows from
the Old Man (895) only that Men. was the root of all the troubles, not that
he planned the sacrifice (this, 97–8).
Greek. 1196 ὃν i.e. σε, from σοι 1194, equivalent to σὺ γάρ, causal,
540 Commentary

For you…: 986 n., Or. 286 etc.; Smyth 2555.   1198 κλῆρον τίθεσθε
= κληροῦσθε ‘cast lots’, as ψῆφον τίθεσθαι = ψηφίζεσθαι ‘cast vote(s)’
e.g. Hdt. 6.57.5; for the indirect question ὅτου… dependent upon an
implicit verb of discovering, establishing etc. see Smyth 2669.   1199
ἦν ‘would have been’ but without ἄν, in the apodosis of an unfulfilled
condition, esp. an impersonal construction: Smyth 2313.
[Text. 1201 πρὸ Scaliger: πρὸς L gives no clear meaning here. For the
ms. error see on 1121.   1203 ἐστερήσομαι Reiske: ὑστερήσομαι L,
translated by LSJ IV.1 as ‘lose’; but all the examples are Hellenistic.]
1202b–5 loyal to your bed: Clyt. repeats her 1158–9, and with robbed
repeats her 1165. For σῴζω ‘keep safe’ cf. e.g. Hel. 48 Helen (! – but
she is herself speaking) saving Men.’s bed. did wrong: (ἐξ)αμαρτ- of
an ‘erring’ wife, Helen also Or. 649–50, Clyt. herself 576. under her
roof: in her own home, where Clyt. would wish to keep Iph., 1173–9,
cf. 1203. At Od. 4.14 Hermione is Helen’s first child, born at Sparta
before she went to Troy, 262–3; myth tells of no child she had with Paris,
indicating that their union was barren.
Greek. 1205 κομίζω take care of: an Epic meaning, in Tragedy only
A. Cho. 262, here and perhaps Hcld. 91.
[Text. 1204 ὑπόροφον Hermann ‘under (her) roof’ (earlier, ὑπώροφον
Scaliger, this form occurring e.g. Pho. 299; unmetrical here): ὑπότροφον
L ‘under (her) nurture’, not otherwise attested, but cf. νεοτρεφεῖς Hcld.
92 of grandchildren in care.]
1206–8 of all this: τούτων: cf. 1194 n. sensible: σώφρων, lit ‘safe-
thinking’: by no means a weak ending to Clyt.’s speech: it counters her
last words in its first part, 1184 ‘and do not yourself become evil’, by
killing: cf. esp. And. 685–6 Men. ‘If when I came in sight of my wife I
stopped from killing her, I was sensible’, ἐσωφρόνουν; this verb e.g. S.
El. 465 ‘If you will have sense, you will do this’ (i.e. behave dutifully),
Aj. 1259 ‘Will you not have sense’ (i.e. moderate your conduct); Diggle
(1981) 70 compares Tro. 726 and e.g. Med. 600 καὶ σοφωτέρα φάνῃ ‘and
you will appear wiser’.
Greek. 1206 ἀμείβομαι with acc. of the person answered e.g. Supp.
517, Or. 608.
[Text. The corrupt wording in 1207 has found no convincing cure,
but the meaning intended is clear and barely affected. νῶϊ(ν) L gives
no tolerable sense in context as dat. of interest ‘(said) for us both’ with
 Commentary 541

†don’t† kill, and δή γε is very doubtful in a command (GP 247; one

would expect μὴ δῆτα in an entreaty, e.g. 1183). Jackson (1955) 80–2
judges both to be metrical stopgaps, and found no persuasive earlier
conjecture preserving ‘a simulacrum of the letters νωι’. He therefore felt
free to propose κατακτάνῃς at line-end, and πλεῖστα with λέλεκται, ‘most
(has been said well)’. Eds such as Günther and Matthiessen commend
the former, but the latter with Pierson’s ταῦτα ‘these things’ or Elmsley’s
τἀμὰ ‘my argument’. Stockert ingeniously proposed μηδαμῶς (μωσ as a
miscopying of νωι) with κατακτάνῃς or <σύ> γε (Monk) κτάνῃς ‘In no
way are you to kill…!’; for μηδαμῶς in a command cf. e.g. Hipp. 607.]
1209–10 Be persuaded: appeals from a chorus in a couplet (see
Introduction p. 32) at speech-end in an agon or agon-like scene also e.g.
And. 233, Pho. 586–7, Or. 681–2; cf. (B) 1146–1275 n. Form. join in
saving: the Chorus mean ‘join with your wife’, and rephrase prosaically
Clyt.’s climactic 1207–8. The motif is extended in Hel. 1389 ‘after saving
(both) ourselves to join in saving you (a third person) as well’.
[Text. 1210 ἀντερεῖ Elmsley will gainsay gives a firm fut. indic.
against L’s pure opt. ἀντείποι and its faulty syntax; it is accepted by
most recent eds as a better cure than Burges’s alteration of πρὸς τάδ’ to
τοῖσδ’ <ἂν> (ἀντείποι) ‘would speak against this’; cf. οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ in
parenthesis Alc. 615, Hipp. 402.]
1211–52 Iph.’s speech (n. (B) 1146–1275). Clyt. said at 1121 that she
would speak for her daughter and herself, and the Chorus at 1209–10
lead us to expect a response from Ag. Thus Iph.’s speech may come as
a surprise; but (1) see n. (B) 1145–1275 on the scene’s structure, and
generally; and (2) there is no real surprise, for Ag. long ago anticipated
Iph.’s suppliant appeal, with Or. in silent support (462–6): see (B) 414b1
n. Text.
[Text. 1241–8 are deleted or suspected by those who allow Or. no
stage-presence in Eur.’s own design; see 414b–41 n. Text. Note however
Page 206: these lines are ‘certainly Euripidean’, cf. his 185.   1249–
52 are seen by a few eds as sententious interpolation, or actors’ attempt
to make a greater effect when Iph. changes her mind (see n. on her 1252).
All of 1241–52 were suspect to Diggle, and judged post-Euripidean by
Kovacs; but most eds keep them.]
1211–15 father: Iph. appeals to him again in 1229, 1237, 1245 –
even more frequently than in their initial encounter, 631–85: see 638–9
542 Commentary

n. Orpheus: the archetype of the supreme musician, singer and poet,

he made such sweet sound that animals, rocks, trees and plants would
follow him, and the wildest of men be tamed; so he became an emblem
of irresistible persuasion 1212, e.g. A. Ag. 1629–30, Alc. 357–9, Med.
543 (the lyre-player Amphion was accorded the same powers, Antiope F
223.90–4, charming rocks as Orpheus here, cf. Bacc. 562): bibl. by Nisbet
and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1.12.7. Cf. Shakespeare, The Merchant of
Venice 5.1.78–82 ‘Therefore the poet / Did feign that Orpheus drew trees,
stones, and floods, / Since naught so stockish, hard, and full of rage, /
But music for the time doth change his nature.’ words: λόγον sing.,
quickly repeated in λόγοισιν plur. 1213. by enchantment: ἐπᾳδοῦσ(α)
lit. ‘enchanting’, fem. part., Iph. wishing herself Orpheus’ powers with
words, instead of which she now has only tears. The noun ἐπῳδή of
Orpheus Cyc. 646, the verb e.g. of the Sirens with Odysseus Xen. Mem.
2.6.11; the verb charm κηλεῖν of Orpheus Alc. 359 (above), Pl. Prot.
315a; Amphion Antiope (above). See below on ‘skill’. (It is neither
irony nor poetic slyness that Iph. later does sing, and not to ‘persuade’;
her monody 1283–1335 is purely lamentatory and 1475–99 almost
triumphant.) Are her tears a ‘stage-direction’? Is she already weeping?
At 1242 she prompts Or. to weep with her.
skill: τὰ σοφά. σοφός is the oldest and quintessential adjective
of technical skill and clever (or ‘wise’) content, implicitly attributed
to poets and musicians: see LSJ I.1, DK III.397. From the early 5th
century it provided a name for the Sophists, articulate with their own
ideas but increasingly suspect when they claimed to teach the skills with
language which were necessary to public life in open communities: see
Aristophanes’ Clouds (esp. Dover’s n. on 331) and its resonance in
Plato’s Apology of Socrates. Turato, like earlier scholars, says that the
words 1212 ‘enchant’ ἐπᾴδω and ‘persuade’ πείθω reflect the purpose
of the sophist Gorgias’ rhetoric, manipulating emotions; it is set out
in essence in Gorgias, Helen esp. 10 (82 B 11, III.290–1 DK), where
the words ‘enchanting/ment’ and ‘charm’ (θέλγω) occur alongside
‘persuasion’. In Eur. the ‘classic’ place using σοφός is Antiope F 189,
of ability to present contrasting arguments. Eur.’s acquaintance with
Gorgias is illustrated by Conacher (1998) 51–69 ‘The Power and Abuses
of Rhetoric’, esp. 51–7. The audience of IA will remember what Iph. did
not hear: Ag. distrusted a ‘clever tongue’ γλῶσσα σοφή 333, and called
 Commentary 543

his own attempted deception σοφίσματα 444–5, (coupled with τέχναι

‘schemes’) 744–5.
Greek. 1212 πείθειν infin. dependent upon εἶχον … λόγον: Smyth
2004.   1214 ἂν ἦλθον I would have gone: a very common idiom of
this verb, in any mood or tense, with or without ἄν, often with a prep.
phrase ‘to…’ but here with the adv. ἐνταῦθα there, e.g. Hipp. 1332, Pho.
1328; impersonal e.g. 1368 n., Tro. 401.   1215 παρέχω offer: an
idiomatically flexible verb, e.g. Tro. 654–5 ‘offer silence and a calm gaze
to my husband’, like δίδωμι 1221. ταῦτα γὰρ δυναίμεθ’ ἄν I well can,
lit. ‘I might be able’, but effectively ‘might do now’; the phrase suggests
an alternative reluctantly adopted, also e.g. IT 62 Iph. in the land of the
Taurians offering libations to her brother Orestes whom she believes to
be dead.
[Text. 1214 ἐπ’ ἐμοὶ ‘in my power’ Diggle (but he printed ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ
L), supported by Ritchie, comparing e.g. Alc. 455 (‘if only it were…’,
followed by δυναίμαν δέ ‘and if only I could’, like our δυναίμεθ’ ἄν),
Hipp. 889–90; Smyth 1689.2c: both ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ L ‘in my case’ (Smyth
1689.1c) and ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ‘from me (here, as speaker)’ (Smyth 1684.1 (2)),
as opposed to ‘from Clyt.’, are much weaker.]
1216–19 As my supplication (ἱκετηρία: see Greek below) … my body:
a suppliant’s emblem was conventionally an olive-branch, bound with
white wool (for purity), described at e.g. Iliad 1.14–15, A. Eum. 43–5, S.
OC 484, cf. OT 3; the emblem was held by suppliants as they clutched
knees (here, 1221, And. 894–5 etc.) or chin (1247), or laid symbolically
before persons or altars. The single word ἱκετηρίαν in the acc. beginning
the sentence marks a sudden, important idea after 1215 (cf. 1273 ‘free’):
Iph. will do more than weep, she will formally supplicate: compare for both
effects Clyt. with Ach. at 900 (n.). For ‘body’ as surrogate for leafy branch,
but equal in power, cf. (Stockert) e.g. And. 894–5 ‘bent arms round knees’,
Dem. 43.83 a child so used. before my time: cf. the sacrificial Polyxena
Hec. 425. The light of day is sweet to see: the enjambed βλέπειν ‘see’
gives emphasis. In 1225 Iph. says that Ag. had visualised a fulfilling life
for her, ‘living and flourishing’ (see n.); the uncertainty of survival into
adulthood was a major concern of the ancient world: 1250–2 and n.
Greek. 1216 ἱκετηρία, fem. adj. elevated to noun, that being lost in
usage, namely ἐλαία ‘olive (branch)’: LSJ incorrectly give ῥάβδος (fem.),
a trimmed stick or staff. Here the acc. stands as predicate, almost as
544 Commentary

second object, to ἐξάπτω press lit. ‘hang … from’; with dat. as e.g. Her.
1342 of bonds fastened ‘upon hands’, χεροῖν; cf. Tro. 1209.  1218–
19 φῶς βλέπειν is very common, Hipp. 57 etc.
[Text. 1219 βλέπειν L is to be retained, cf. its deliberate recall in 1250:
λεύσσειν … ὑπὸ γῆν Plutarch (his acc. is chiefly a prose usage) was a
lapse of memory, frequent in ancient citations: see 16b–19 n. Text.]
1220–2 first to call you father: cf. esp. Aeschines 3.77 ‘(after a
daughter’s death) the wretched man had lost the first and only one to call
him father’, cf. Lucretius 1.93–4 a wretched girl (Iph.) not benefited by
‘being the first to give the king the name of father’. The reciprocation
and you to call me child, lit. ‘and you me child’ with its economy, gives
1220 a touching simplicity; similarly the Greek wording in 1221 and
1222, where the reciprocation is intense in ‘having given, give … receive
… in return’. For put … upon … knees cf. e.g. a son on a grandfather’s
lap Iliad 9.455. kisses: χάριτας, lit. ‘gratifications’ LSJ IV, carries
its common strong sense of mutuality, here of loving affection; kisses
between father and daughter e.g. Supp. 1099–1100, son 1153, And. 416.
Greek: 1220 μέν is omitted after a word which is then repeated
(πρώτη), as often, 16–17, 558–9 and e.g. Pho. 1034, Bacc. 143; GP
163.   1221 δοῦσα ‘put… (upon)’ lit. ‘having given’, for δίδωμι is
as flexible as παρέχω 1215 (n.), e.g. 1238, 585, and idiomatic too with
the verb’s repetition in 1222 (cf. 1238 n.). σῶμα … ἐμόν myself lit. ‘my
body’: for this common periphrasis cf. 1340 n.
1223–2 ‘Shall I see you etc.’: Iph. increases the emotional pressure by
recalling Ag.’s and her endearments as spoken ‘live’, insisting first how
she remembers them but afterwards how he has now forgotten them;
through the direct speech ‘the poet expected his audience to accept …
their pathetic demands … as accurate’, Bers (1997) 68–9, citing 99–102
(for Bers see esp. 356 n.); comparable emotive technique at e.g. Tro.
1015–19, 1180–4, Bacc. 1316–22.
1223–5 happy … in a husband’s house: for a related idea see Clyt.
1160–1. living and flourishing: ‘living’ is perhaps ironic to the
audience, but the Greek pairing of ζάω and θάλλω is commonplace, e.g.
S. Trac. 235, E. F 898.13, Antiphon 87 F 60 DK; LSJ θάλλω 2; for such
double, emphatic phrasing see Fraenkel on Ag. 677. worthily of me:
important for noble parents, cf. Clyt.’s shaft against Ag. 1457; e.g. Hec.
379–81, Ion 735.
 Commentary 545

Greek. 1224 σε … εὐδαίμονα … ὄψομαι: syntax normally requires

the participle of εἰμί, here οὖσαν, but it is sometimes omitted as e.g. And.
754 γέροντα … σ’ ὁρῶντες, ἀσθενῆ δ’ ἐμέ, Supp. 1164 ἄγαλμ’ ὄψομαί σε
ματρός; Smyth 2119.
[Text. 1224 εὐδαίμον’ Pierson ‘happy’, the adj. being needed for the
daughter: εὐδαίμονος L of the father, but metrically incorrect, a ‘2. foot
anapaest’, for which see e.g. 1168 n. Text, 1193 n.]
1226–7 hung close by your chin: lit. ‘round your chin’, i.e. cheek to
cheek, cf. El. 1214–17 Clyt. touching Orestes’ face, ‘hanging (κρήμνημι)
from his cheek’ to plead for her life. ἐξαρτάω ‘hang from’ (in supplication)
e.g. (from chin) IT 362–3, (hand) Hipp. 325.
Greek. 1226 οὑμὸς (λόγος, 1223) … ἐξαρτωμένης: gen., as if in
agreement with ἐμοῦ implicit in the poss. pron., 901 n.
1228–32 And how shall I see you?: ‘see’ is understood from
1224–5 (see also Greek). welcome …, father: Iph. reuses Clyt.’s
1181–2. reception: ὑποδοχαί: plur. as e.g. Pl. Laws 919a. It often
implies hospitality, entertainment, e.g. Ar. Peace 530. repay … my
tender upbringing and its tasks: a prime debt and duty to a parent,
earliest at Iliad 4.477–8 τοκεῦσι | θρέπτρα … ἀπέδωκε ‘repaid his parents
for his upbringing’, cf. Hes. WD 188, A. Seven 548. ‘tasks’ πόνων (see
Greek below), a father’s for his young child, 690. The whole expression
is artful, with the figure enallage, ‘exchange’, an adj. transposed between
nouns (771 n.): one might expect τιθηνοὺς ‘tender’, lit. ‘nurturing’, to
agree prosaically with gen. πόνων [Text. τιθηνῶν was indeed conjectured
by Nauck].
Greek. 1228 τί δέ…; ‘And how…?’ is English idiom for ‘And
what…?’, for the acc. of the interrog. τί represents a new predicate to
the verb ὄψομαι supplied from the syntax of the preceding clause in
1224 (n. on Greek): KG II.518 n. 4. The first ἆρα is inferential (as 311),
here after an interrogative, e.g. Ion 563; GP 45–6.   1230 πόνων is a
loosely attached gen. of description, like an adj. ‘laborious, toilsome’, as
at PV 900 ἀλατείαις πόνων ‘stressful wanderings’, Bacc. 1218 μόχθων
… ζητήμασιν ‘laborious searches’; Smyth 1291.
1233–40 Two appeals through and to kin, 1233–5 and 1238–40,
surround an argument repudiating family obligation 1236–7 (to Helen
as Men.’s wife).
1233–5 Pelops and Atreus were not wonderful examples of mercy. my
546 Commentary

mother … agony of … birth … second agony: Iph. appears to pick up

Clyt.’s protestation of her dutiful childbirth 1164–5, and the emotional
pain which will come from losing a child 1173–9, 1202–3. There may
be a nod here to A. Ag. 1416–17 where Clyt. refers to Iph. as φιλτάτην
ἐμοὶ | ὠδῖνα, ‘my dearest travail’. The literal and metaphorical senses of
the verb ὠδίνω ‘give birth in agony’ and the noun ὠδίς ‘travail, agony’
are effectively paired; for the latter cf. e.g. A. Cho. 211 (of mind), Her.
862 (of madness). The double metaphor e.g. A. Supp. 770 ‘night usually
breeds (τίκτω) agony (ὠδίς) for a helmsman’.
Greek. 1233 context and the familiar idioms of supplication permit
the omission both of an imperative to μή Don’t (e.g. Med. 324) and an
indic. I beg you from σε (e.g. 909 (n.), Alc. 275; Smyth 1599); cf. our
1183.   1235 λαμβάνω (has) of ‘getting’ sorrow, e.g. Ion 763.
[Text. 1233 σε is idiomatic (see Greek): γε L.]
1236–7 What part have I … Helen?: cf. Men.’s question to Ag. about
Iph. at 494 ‘What has your maiden daughter to do with Helen?’; cf. Clyt.
at 1167–8. Alexandros: on this alternative name of Paris see 1283–
90 n. at ‘Idaeus’. How did it come to mean my death?: the likely
translation, with ‘(did) it (come)’ impersonal (see Greek), referring to
Iph.’s involuntary part in the aftermath of Helen’s marriage.
Greek. 1237 Questions with πόθεν…; or πόθεν; ‘How…?’ or ‘How?’,
lit. ‘Where from?’, relate loosely to cause or means, expressing disbelief
or impossibility, e.g. A. Cho. 515, Alc. 95 (with Parker’s n.); LSJ I.4;
allied is the colloquial idiom πόθεν γάρ; ‘Of course not!’, lit. ‘Because,
where … from?’: see Stevens (1976) 38. ἦλθ(ε) stands impersonally with
a prep. phrase as in e.g. Tro. 401 εἰ δ’ ἐς τόδ’ ἔλθοι ‘if it were to come
to this’, cf. 1368 n. Greek. In our line the verb ἦλθ(ε) gives no sense if
personal, when its subject can be only Helen, the nearest preceding noun
(still less Alexandros), and πόθεν literal, ‘where (s)he came from’; nor
can plur. ‘marriage’ in 1236 be the subject.
[Text. Doubts over the meaning, esp. of πόθεν, caused Matthiae to
delete 1237, followed by Stockert; but 1236 on its own becomes too
terse.]
1238–40 Look at me: an abrupt request (cf. Men. to Ag. 320), its
importance strengthened by give me your eyes; both stand in asyndeton,
and imply that Ag. had avoided Iph.’s own eyes since her accusation in
1232 (on such avoidance see Introduction pp. 33–4). Then and a kiss
 Commentary 547

φίλημα is a second request, rather than coupled with ‘eyes’ as ‘loving

look’ (hendiadys, 53 n.), cf. Iph. 648 to Ag. ‘give me a loving look’,
and Ag. to her 679 ‘Give me a kiss and your hand’ (which seems not to
mean ‘your hand to kiss’, just as the translation here of ὄμμα as ‘((your)
face (to kiss)’ would be less pointed). As to ‘me’ ἡμᾶς: plur. for sing.,
made certain by the whole tenor of these lines; but Turato observes that
the plur. implies Ag.’s avoidance also of Clyt.’s eyes and reinforces his
silence since 1144: he has not yet answered Clyt.’s closing request of
1206. remembrance: μνημεῖον, an emotional word as in English: 1398,
IT 702, powerfully at S. El. 1126 (Electra addressing the urn reportedly
holding Or.’s ashes); also e.g. A. Seven 49 (locks of hair sent home from
men at war); the word’s impact here is aided by its enjambement (50–1
n.) after 1239 σέθεν.
Greek. 1238 ὄμμα δίδωμι e.g. Her. 600 and, tellingly for our passage,
Pho. 462 ὄμματ’ ὄμμασιν διδῷ ‘match eye with eye’.   1239 ἀλλά
adverbial ‘at least’, GP 45–6; inside a dependent clause as e.g. Her. 331,
Or. 1562; cf. 908.
[Text. 1240 L has εἰ with subjunctive πείσθῃς but without ἄν, a
usage found occasionally in verse (Smyth 2327a); but πείσθῃς strongly
suggests that ἢν (i.e. ἐὰν) (Hermann) should be read, the open condition
better suiting Iph.’s ‘persuasive tone’ (Turato); PV 1014 has the same
clause with ἐάν. But Elmsley’s πείσῃ fut. indic., in a precise (and feared)
condition ‘if you are not going to heed’ (Smyth 2328), is tempting; this
clause ends Hipp. 1088, a coincidence that caused Nauck to delete 1240,
but see above on ‘remembrance’.]
1241–52 [Text. Lines all variously deleted by earlier scholars, esp.
1241–8 by L. Dindorf: the principal reason is the disputed presence of
Orestes, for which see 414b–1 n. Text.]
1241–5 a tiny aid: μικρὸς … ἐπίκουρος, the same phrase Bacc. 1367
of an old and unavailing parent. Or. is physically tiny and so ‘little help’;
but at 1452 Iph. does praise his help (verb ἐπικουρέω). Look! – though
silent: ἰδού, σιωπῶν is more likely the poet’s unconscious rather than
deliberate recall of Ag.’s very different ἰδού, σιωπῶ 1144; cf. (Stockert)
Or. 1592 ‘He is speaking, though silent’, i.e. the now ‘mute’ Pylades
(whose earlier spoken words were very important, 729–98, 1069–1244).
For the use of a silent infant see 1098–1275 n. Staging. weep with me
… in infants there is an inborn sense of life’s troubles: cf. Tro. 749
548 Commentary

‘Child, are you crying? Do you sense your troubles?’ (Andromache to her
doomed infant son Astyanax). ‘Sense’ αἴσθημα, properly what is sensed,
serves for αἴσθησις ‘sense of, perception of’, for which see El. 290–1
‘a sense even of outsiders’ troubles bites at mortal men’, Antiphanes F
194.5 PCG; LSJ II. Note the asyndeton in ‘weep with me, supplicate’:
urgency.
Greek. 1242 ἱκετεύω ‘supplicate’ with a separative gen. pers. (πατρός
‘from … father’) on the analogy of e.g. παραιτέω ‘entreat’ Med. 1154, cf.
942 ἄντομαι, δέομαι ‘beg’ Dem. 27.68; Smyth 1398 (but at Smyth 1347
it is explained on the analogy of verbs of touching e.g. ἅπτομαι Hec.
245 ‘knees’).   1244 καὶ … γε ‘even’ is rare: GP 158. ἐγγίγνομαι ‘be
inborn’ Ion 1524, LSJ I.1, like ἐμφύω Med. 519 etc.
[Text. 1242 πατρὸς L (above): τε πρὸς ingeniously Burges ‘and
supplicate as well’, destroying the urgent asyndeton (above); for πρός
adverbial cf. e.g. Pho. 610 (also line-end).]
1246–8 show me regard, and pity my life: the verbs αἰδέομαι and
ἐλεείνω are coupled in Homeric supplications e.g. Iliad 22.82, Od.
22.312, cf. Hec. 286–7 αἰδέσθητί με, | οἴκτιρον; for αἰδέομαι cf. esp.
Clyt.’s appeal to Or. for her life at A. Cho. 896. Iph.’s words suddenly
take on epic dignity, and her So,… (ἀλλά, GP 14 top) starts a final appeal
which Yes ναί emphasizes (e.g. Med. 1277, Hipp. 605). we two who
are dear to you: Iph. has stressed family love and obligation (φιλία)
throughout, 1222, 1229, 1238, 1241. chick: the commonest meaning
of νεοσσός lit. ‘youngster’, and a common metaphor for a young child,
in pathos, e.g. Alc. 403, And. 441, Her. 224 – and even of adult children
A. Cho. 256, when Or. and Electra appeal to Zeus to aid their vengeance
for Ag.
[Text. 1246 after 1248 Marcovich (492 n.) 143, wanting the neater
link between 1245 and 1247, and bringing ‘life’ closer to 1249–52:
tempting, but (Stockert) ‘pathos is not less effective than logic’. There
are two further problems, neither definitively solved. (1) 1246 βίον L
‘life’ is very difficult without an adjectival qualification like ‘miserable’,
but accepted by many eds including Ritchie: ‘…her life is not the thing
for which she is to be pitied (which of course would be in the genitive).
Iph. is pleading for her life to be spared.’; we would favour Wecklein’s
interpretation, ‘my life as it is’. The word was obelized by Stockert and
Diggle, who indeed cite Markland’s gen. βίου, with με ‘understood’ (and
 Commentary 549

Kovacs silently prints it); the gen. is causative, Smyth 1405. One or
other case must be preferred, for there is no apter noun than ‘life’ as the
headline to 1250–2, but neither can be printed with confidence. Stockert
conjectured τύχης ‘my (ill) fortune’. (2) 1248 ἐστιν L, partly rewritten
either by the original scribe or by Tr1 in erasure; and because the verse
reads more idiomatically if taken with its two nom. prons. ὁ μὲν and ἡ
δ(ὲ) as extending dual φίλω, the subj. of ἀντόμεσθα, eds suppose the
erasure to have offered a word other than a verb – but what? Stockert
cites οὗτος Hermann ‘(Orestes) here’, and ὢν ἔθ’ ‘being still (a chick)’
Weil.]
1249–52 Iph.’s final words are rhetorical (1249, like her beginning
1211–13) and gnomic (1250–2), their tone counter to the rest of her
speech, except that her appeal light of day … sweet repeats 1218–19,
cf. later her 1281–2, 1394, 1509 (her final words); her despair makes
familiar sentiments freshly emotive. Once again, note the asyndeta:
1249, 1250, and 1252 after θανεῖν. †I’ll cut short to one thing† and
carry every argument: the apparent meaning, good in context, and the
‘one thing’ is her overriding argument for life which follows; but the
Greek of 1249 is unidiomatic (see Text). what is below the ground
is nothing: Hel. 1421 ‘the dead are nothing’, cf. Tro. 636 ‘I count not
being born equal to death’; Hipp. 191–7, Meleager F 533.1–2; but Eur.’s
characters notoriously equivocate: Polyidus F 638 ‘Who knows if life
is death, and if in the underworld death is considered life’ (= Ar. Frogs
1477, cf. 1478, 1475), with Phrixus F 833 almost identical. Formative
for all such sentiments were Achilles’ famous words that he would
rather be the humblest man on earth than king of all the underworld,
Od. 11.489–91. Also Or. 1523 ‘every man, even if he is a slave, rejoices
to see the light’, cf. 1509 there. To live ignobly is better than to die
nobly: Iph.’s conclusive statement is astounding from a Euripidean
princess, and astoundingly reversed in 1375–85, 1390, 1394, when she
becomes like Polyxena facing her sacrifice, Hec. 377–8 ‘A man might be
much more fortunate dead than living; not living well is great suffering’.
Also, Iph. is closing her appeal for her life, with καλῶς ‘nobly’ of moral
well-being, not ‘well’ of material; compare Praxithea using the same two
terms κακός ‘base, cowardly’ and καλός ‘noble, honourable’ to defend
the sacrifice of her daughter for Athens Erechtheus F 360.30–1; cf. S. Aj.
479 ‘either live nobly or die nobly’. Iph. is unlike Andromache at Tro.
550 Commentary

637 ‘death is better than living in dishonour’ (cf. 636 above), similarly
?Critias, 43 Pirithous F 12 TrGF (= ?Eur. F 596). Iph.’s final words are
given force by the enjambement (50–1 n.) of θανεῖν 1252, and the same
word’s repetition at the end of the line, e.g. Alc. 722, Hcld. 307 and other
places cited by Fries (2014) on Rhes. 579; cf. our 710.
[Text. 1249 †ἓν συντεμοῦσα† translates illogically, lit. ‘cutting one
thing together’, but many eds paraphrase, e.g. Kovacs ‘I shall say one
thing’. The verb is frequent as ‘cut short, condense’, but with expressions
such as εἰς ἕν ‘into one’ e.g. IT 1016 ‘everything’, and ἐν βραχεῖ ‘in
brief, briefly’ e.g. Ar. Thes. 177–8; or a bare acc. e.g. Hec. 1180 ‘all
this’; or absolute e.g. Tro. 441 ὡς δὲ συντέμω ‘so that I may be brief’:
LSJ II. Stockert adduced Tro. 441 in attempted rescue, taking either ἓν
alone or as internal acc. with νικήσω, ‘I shall overcome every argument
in one thing’, or (G. Danek) taking both ἓν and πάντα … λόγον in the
same function, ‘I shall carry (i.e. ‘win with’) every argument in one
thing’; indeed λόγον may here be direct object or internal acc. of a noun
of ‘kindred meaning’ to the verb, Smyth 1567, 1570d, e. Diggle OCT
comments tersely on 1249: ‘perhaps corrupt’. Canter made the earliest
conjecture, κινήσω ‘I shall set forth (my whole argument)’, with the verb
meaning ‘stir to speech’ e.g. El. 302; of sunrise ‘prompting’ birds’ song S.
El. 18. In 1250–2 Stobaeus has typical but partly immaterial differences
from L; his 1251 οὐδέν however is necessary, and his 1252 θανεῖν καλῶς
temptingly makes Iph.’s closing words a chiasmus.]
1253–4 This choral couplet has greater resonances than its predecessor
1209–10 (n.): first, it picks up Iph.’s reference to Helen in 1236–7, while
looking back to the threat that Helen represents to Trojan families in
791–3 (cf. [781–3]) and anticipating that to Greek ones in 1315–18,
1334–5; second, the words a great struggle … to the sons of Atreus
and their children refer immediately to the tragedy of Ag. and Iph.,
but for the audience to its aftermath in Clyt.’s later revenge upon Ag.
(1183–4 and n.) and Orestes’ upon her. The phrase ‘great struggle’ μέγας
ἀγών is common in Eur., e.g. to save lives Hipp. 496, Hec. 229 and Hel.
1090; cf. 1455 n.
1255–75 Ag.’s speech (n. (B) 1146–1275). Ag. addresses Clyt. first, in
1257; both her and Iph. in 1259 and 1268 (in 1259 the plur. ὁρᾶτε ‘See!’
‘smooths the transition to Iph. as the principal addressee’: Ritchie); Iph.
alone 1262, 1272, 1273.
 Commentary 551

1255–8 I understand … pity: Ag. acknowledges Iph.’s appeal

of 1246; cf. Ach.’s pity for Clyt. 932–4 after her pleas for protection
903–16 – and Ach. begins his reply with ‘I understand’ 920. At Hec.
850–1 Ag. responds to Hecuba’s supplication similarly, ‘I do pity you
and your son and your misfortunes, and your suppliant hand’. Pity ‘was
one of the leading ideals of Athenian democracy’: C. Macleod, Collected
Essays (Oxford 1974) 74, cites esp. Pl. Menex. 244e, the altar of Pity in
Athens (Paus. 1.17.1) and Parrhasius’ inclusion of pity in the conflicting
passions he attempted to represent in his portrait of the Athenian Demos
(Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35.69). I love my children etc.: cf. Megara at Her.
280–1 ‘I love my children! How can I not love those I bore, those I
laboured over?’; contrast Praxithea willingly offering a child for sacrifice
Erechtheus F 360a ‘I love my children, but I love my homeland more’,
cf. her F 360.14–15. otherwise, I should be mad: μαινοίμην γὰρ ἄν,
a colloquialism, and a fine touch, hinting Ag.’s disturbance in his agony
(1257–8); Stevens (1976) 16 compares 389 ‘Am I mad?’ μαίνομαι; but
here in IA there is a ‘prompt’ for the verb in Iph.’s 1252 μαίνεται – and Ag.
begins 1264 with this verb. terrible … to brave myself to this deed
… also terrible not to: modelled on Ag.’s summation of his dilemma at
Aulis in A. Ag. 206–7 ‘fate is heavy if I disobey (Calchas), heavy if I hew
my child’; cf. below n. on 1264 ‘desire’.
Greek. 1255 συνετός is a verbal adj. in -τος controlling an acc. like
the verb συνίημι itself, cf. Thuc. 1.84.3 τὰ ἀχρεῖα ξυνετοί ‘understanding
what was useless, unprofitable’, Hipp. 574 φρένας ἐπίσσυτος ‘sweeping
upon your mind’ (among Barrett’s illustrations is συνίστωρ with acc.
object ‘comprehending’ A. Ag. 1090); KG I.296 n. 4 (Smyth 1598
omits).   1256 γάρ ‘for otherwise’, elliptical: GP 62–3.   1257 For
‘bring myself to, endure’, τολμάω or τλάω and cognate words see 98
n.   1258 πρᾶξαι aor., whence the translation outcome; for πράσσω
as ‘fare’ with ταὐτά ‘the same’ Diggle OCT compares Ion 771 ταὐτὰ
(Canter: τοῦτο L) πράσσων, where the pres. is aspectually correct in
context; fut. e.g. Hel. 1393–4.
[Text. 1256 φιλῶ τ’ Markland: φιλῶν L: the finite verb is necessary
before μαινοίμην ἄν, which relates to it closely, not also to 1255 (the
counter-argument is put by Paley).   1257 τοῦτο England for ταῦτα L,
to avoid near homophony with ταὐτὰ in the following line.   1258 ταὐτὰ
Kirchhoff ‘(fare) the same’: τοῦτο L, with πρᾶξαι meaning ‘do, carry this
552 Commentary

through’ (like ἐκπρᾶξαι of the sacrifice 512); and the verb as ‘do’ with
ταὐτά ‘the same’ would make little sense of the couplet 1257–8.]
1259–62 See…!: ὁρᾶτε: Ag. begins his sole argument vigorously; for
this imperative (with a dependent clause) cf. e.g. Ion 1090, IT 1298. Note
the first and last positions in the Greek clauses of 1259 ὅσον how great
and 1260 ὅσοι how many. Cf. the sentence Pho. 101–2 σκόπει … | …
στράτευμ’ ὅσον, ‘See … the army and how great it is!’ army … with
its armada … lords of bronze weaponry: στράτευμα ναύφαρκτον, lit.
‘army fenced by ships’, echoes A. Pers. 951 ναύφαρκτος ῎Αρης (‘Ares’
i.e. ‘army at war’, cf. 764 and n.), cf. Ar. Knights 567 ναύφαρκτος στρατός;
and ὅπλων ἄνακτες resembles Pers. 378 κώπης ἄναξ ‘lord of his oar’
(plur. also Cyc. 86). The sudden imagery from war communicates Ag.’s
real fear of danger (cf. his 1267–8 and earlier 531–5). Note the (rare)
distinction between soldiers and sailors: see esp. 1387–8. voyage:
νόστος; 966 n. destroy: ἐξαιρέω, e.g. of Troy also e.g. Tro. 24; the lit.
sense ‘take out’ has become modern war-speak. famous foundations
of Troy: Troy is regularly ‘famous’ in Tragedy, e.g. Hel. 105, Tro. 25
(its ‘land’ 1069 above), but so are other prominent cities, e.g. Athens
Hipp. 350, Argos IT 508. Troy’s structures too were distinctive in poetic
imagination (and in fact!), βάθρα ‘foundations’ e.g. Hel. 1652, Supp.
1198, cf. Troy’s ἑδώλια ‘seat, site’ S. F 566; πέργαμα ‘citadel’ above 589
n.; πύργοι ‘towers’ e.g. Hec. 17, 1209. βάθρον ‘base’ (from βαίνω, i.e.
‘where one may go securely’) is widely applied, e.g. the site of Aulis 81
(n.), the footings of Mt Pelion 705. The alliteration on ‘f’ is not in the
Greek.
[Text. Markland’s transposition of 1262 and 1263, with ‘voyage …
destroy’, matches the order ‘sailing … sack’ of Calchas’ prophecy
in 89, 92–3; also, the transposition keeps the crucial condition of the
sacrifice after both clauses (for this reason Matthiae’s deletion of 1263
is incorrect). Eds divide upon accepting the transposition, and argument
against it relies upon variation in other references to the prophecy’s
terms: Men. omits the destruction in 359 (see n.) and Iph. the voyage in
1398; but the poet, not the characters, is in charge of individual moments,
and in 751–78 the Chorus (naturally) dwell on both.   1263 κλεινὸν
Reiske ‘famous’: καινὸν L ‘new’: the two words are often confused in
mss., e.g. Supp. 593, 1055, Her. 541.
1264–8 desire: ᾿Αφροδίτη, the goddess of sexual desire depersonalised
 Commentary 553

in metonymy, we judge, as in Pho. 399 (a passionate clinging to hopes);

here ironic, since the real Aphrodite ‘caused’ the Trojan war originally,
543–89, 1301–4. But G. Pironti, Kernos 18 (2005) 167–84, at 183, takes
the name literally, studying the association of Aphrodite and Ares ‘God
of War’ in the entire mythic and cultural context. ἔρως ‘sexual desire’ is
often metaphorical of any passionate longing: the army’s for the campaign
808 n., Tro. 732 ‘for battle’, Thuc. 6.24.3 the Athenians’ passion for
the Sicilian expedition in 415 BC; see Greek below. Our 1264 almost
certainly echoes the tone of A. Ag. 214–17, the allied Greeks at Aulis
‘raging for the sacrifice and a maiden’s blood with extreme passion’,
θυσίας παρθενίου θ’ αἵματος ὀργᾷ περιόργως (ms. text insecure). stop
the seizure of … wives: a term of the suitors’ oath before Helen was
given in marriage, 62–3; the recovery of Helen thus became a collective
Greek cause, 80, for she was ‘snatched’ when she and Paris fell mutually
in love, 75, cf. 582–6. kill my girls in Argos … if I fail to obey…: a
fear exaggerated by fear? Siegel (1981) 257–65, at 263–4, thought so,
but Ag. extends his earlier fear, 533b–5 and n.; cf. Introduction p. 17. fail
to obey: λύσω lit. ‘undo’, of obligations, e.g. truce-terms sworn on oath
Xen. Anab. 3.2.10; LSJ II.4 and 5. Cf. 1486 below ‘I shall wipe away the
prophecy’ θέσφατ’ ἐξαλείψω, Iph.’s own decision to accept her sacrifice.
Greek: 1264 τις understating, i.e. ‘big, extraordinary’ (609 n.)
(whence some (mad) in the translation); cf. Alc. 1080 ἔρως τις ἐξάγει
‘some desire leads me on’ (Admetus mourns his wife continually); A.
Ag. 55 τις ᾿Απόλλων ‘some Apollo’ (!). English might say e.g. ‘That’s
some ambition!’ στρατῷ (rages) in the army is a rather strained dat.
of relation (Smyth 1495); more difficult is the sense ‘for the army (to
sail)’ (see Text).   1267 οἵ plur. rel. pron. has Ἑλλήνων 1264 as its
antecedent; the rel. pron. introducing a main clause seems to convey
hostile contrast, as e.g. (Turato) 1354 (a not dissimilar context), 1196,
Tro. 368.
[Text. 1264 ἔμηνε … στρατὸν Lobeck ‘some mad desire maddened the
army’ eases the language (see Greek); for μαίνω trans. cf. perhaps 580
(n.), Ion 520 ἤ σ’ ἔμηνε θεοῦ τις … βλάβη; ‘(Are you in your right mind?)
Or has some harm from a god made you mad?’; Ar. Thes. 561.  1266
῾Ελληνικῶν Bothe corrects L’s at first ambiguous ῾Ελληνικάς: not the
robberies but the wives are Greek.   1267 κτενοῦσι Scaliger, fut.
matching 1268 λύσω: κτείνουσι L is a difficult ‘dynamic’ pres.]
554 Commentary

1269–72 It is not Menelaus etc.: Ag. replies indirectly to Iph.’s

argument 1236–7, itself repeating Clyt.’s attack 1167–70. whether I
want to or not: this is Ag.’s own first (and last) explicit subscription
to the ideal of Panhellenism. In the prologue-scene he is already going
back on Men.’s plan to secure the expedition through the deception of
Iph.’s marriage, 84–100, 115–18, 136–7 (cf. Men. 363–4); at 411 he
rejects the Greek cause, but at 511–14 recognizes what he sees as its
inevitable progress, reflected perhaps in his 748. Markantonatos (2012)
210, in a very negative reading of Ag.’s speech, writes that he ‘stands
powerless before a situation … dangerously out of control, hopelessly
seeking release from his bondage to a patriotic cause that he does not
fully comprehend’.
Greek. 1270 ἐλήλυθα gone with (the English idiom), lit. ‘gone to’:
ἔρχομαι of thoughts etc. as 1214 (n.). τὸ κείνου βουλόμενον his wish: art.
and neut. part. as noun, see n. on 32–3 τὰ … βουλόμενα. Also κἂν θέλω
κἂν μὴ θέλω ‘whether I want to or not’ is a frequent locution: 3. pers.
Cyc. 332, commonly with parts. e.g. οὐχ ἑκὼν ἑκών IT 512.  1272
τούτου ἥσσονες lit. ‘weaker than that’, i.e. ‘too weak to resist’: with gen.
as 1354, Hel. 1660 τοῦ πεπρωμένου ‘fate’; for τοῦτο neut. taking up a
preceding idea (all of 1270–2a, not 1271–2a) see 516 n., 889 n.; Smyth
1253. καθέσταμεν intrans. perf. and resultative, ‘am now set as, have
become’, Smyth 819.
[Text. 1270 deleted by W. Dindorf and e.g. Günther, suspect to
Page and Diggle; it is a milder protest than 1269, certainly, and
perhaps delays the important contrast with 1271. Kept by Stockert and
Matthiessen.   1272 ταύτης Nauck, i.e. Iph. – but the 3. pers. is harsh
between the 2. pers. plur. (Clyt. and Iph.) in 1268 and the 2. pers. my
child in 1273.]
1273–5 free: ἐλευθέραν, emphatically first word in the Greek (cf.
1216 n.), but widely separated as complement from its verb γενέσθαι
1274; the idea is no less important to Iph.’s defence of her change, 1384,
1401, cf. 1472–3, than that of ‘fame’ (1307–11: n.; 1283–1335 n., at the
paragraph ‘One passage etc.’). in your power: as Iph. acknowledges
at 1379. robbed of their wives by barbarians through force: Ag.’s
patriotism here distorts the facts of the play (and most sources) that
Paris did not ‘rape’ Helen – it was her own will to go with him, as Ag.
said himself in 75–6 (cf. 383–4, 397), words matched by the Chorus in
 Commentary 555

585–6, [781–3], and implicitly by Iph. 1315–16. The person who had got
a wife by force was Ag. himself, 1149 (n.). As to ‘by barbarians’: cf. Iph.
herself 1380–4, 1400, Men. at 371; Telephus F 719 ‘Shall we as Greeks
be slaves to barbarians?’
Greek. 1272 the words θῦσαί σε are emphasized by enjambement
(50–1 n.).   1273 ἐν σοί ‘in your power’ e.g. Hel. 1425, Pho. 1250;
held by Fraenkel (unpublished) to be colloquial, but see Collard (2005)
375. ὅσον is common with this and similar phrases, e.g. And. 232, 239,
LSJ IV.1a, and the verb is often omitted.   1275 ῞Ελληνας ὄντας as
Greeks, lit. ‘being Greeks’ (Telephus F 719 above); the acc. plur. part.
is identified by logical apposition to the preceding acc. sing. νιν 1273
(Smyth 2148). συλᾶσθαι robbed of their wives, pass. with ‘retained’
acc. (λέκτρα), e.g. Tro. 791, PV 761, S. Phil. 413; cf. 1364 n., 1138;
Smyth 1632.
[Text. 1274 βαρβάρων ὕπο ‘(robbed) by barbarians’ Musgrave, cf.
(Diggle) Hel. 600 βαρβάρων συλᾶσθ’ ὕπο (Men.’s attendants being
‘robbed’): βαρβάροις (ὕπο) L ‘(beneath, subject to) barbarians’ overdoes
Ag.’s point in 1275. Günther unnecessarily deleted 1275, to give ‘and
(Greece: νιν 1273) not be (γενέσθαι) beneath…’]
At 1275 Ag. leaves abruptly; in 1278 Clyt. says he ‘flees from’ Iph.
(φεύγει σε, but the text is almost certainly inauthentic: n.).

1276–1335 Iphigenia’s Monody

The Fourth Episode (1098–1275) is followed not by a fourth choral ode but
smoothly by Iph.’s monody of despair. While Ag. has exited immediately
before it and Ach. enters directly after it (1338), the impression is given
that 1098–1509 are a unit, the play’s final sequence (exodos), in which
Iph. ‘changes her mind’ (see Introduction pp. 25–8). In 1098–1275 she
joined her pleas for life to her mother’s; now she moves through pathetic
fatalism in her monody to accepting self-sacrifice heroically while facing
Ach. (1338–1432) and Clyt. (1433–65) before her proud exit (1466–
1509, of which her 1475–99 are again solo lyrics); cf. 1336–1509 n.
In substituting for a choral ode after the Fourth Episode (cf. Rutherford
(2012) 31 n. 6), Iph.’s monody is like that of Antigone at Pho. 1485–
1538, in which Antigone’s lamentation for her dead brothers, and then
for her mother, carries the action forward into resolving the future of
556 Commentary

her father Oedipus and herself. These two monodies also look back to
‘mythical’ quarrels leading to present predicaments: the strife between
Antigone’s brothers (ἔρις Pho. 1495) and that following the Judgement
of Paris (ἔρις IA 1307); and Electra’s monody Or. 982–1012, directly
following a choral ode, is also such a bridge, telling of the ancient strife
(ἔρις 1001) between Atreus and Thyestes which has visited disaster on
Atreus’ descendants.
Clyt.’s ‘trailer’ 1276–8 your death and handed you over to Hades,
and 1279–82 Iph.’s acknowledgement, are intended to herald the
monody’s nearly continuous lamentatory tone; but these seven lines
are almost certainly not Euripidean (1276–82 n.). An excellent effect is
achieved when Iph., whose supplication of her father preceded his final,
shattering speech, herself at once responds with lyric grief; compare
Creusa at Ion 859–922, or the Phrygian’s abupt lyric entry Or. 1368. The
effect is greater than if her mother were to launch upon sung lament for
her daughter; Hall (2006) 313 observes that despite anticipating Iph.’s
death (1277) and then hearing her ‘heart-rending monody’, Clyt. is given
no lyric in the play.
The monody has two parts, unequal in length but corresponding in
several ways: in (1a) 1283–1311 Iph. ‘retells the myth’, lamenting Paris’
exposure as an infant on Mt Ida and subsequent role in the Judgement
there; in (1b) 1312–18 she deplores its consequence, and sees Helen as
cause of her imminent death. In these passages her monody continues the
preceding episode (Clyt. 1166–70, 1197–1202, Iph. 1236–7, Ag. 1257–
75 on Men., Helen and Troy) – but it also recalls the prophecies for
Ach. at Troy of the Third Choral Ode, esp. 1063–79; Iph. despairs of her
life, 1308, 1317, 1334 (recalling 1219–20, 1250–2 in her supplication).
In (2a) 1319–29 she laments Aulis’ reception of the Greeks, setting the
literal adverse winds at Aulis 1323–4 (but see the n. there) against the
metaphorical changing winds 1324–5 which disunite human fortunes and
actions; and in (2b) 1330–5 Iph. deplores mankind’s fate of unforeseeable
ill-fortune, with Helen as cause now of the Greeks’ woe (this is the note
on which she begins her ‘change of mind’ speech 1368–1401: 1370 ‘it is
not easy for us to bear up against the impossible’).
One passage is especially noteworthy: in 1309–10 Iph. foresees that
her death will bring a ‘name (i.e. fame) to Greek girls’. She has just heard
Ag.’s 1273 ‘Greece must be free, as far as is in your power, my child’. Both
 Commentary 557

places bear upon what otherwise is an inference ex silentio, that because

Iph. fails to repeat the idea of fame, and to appeal to that of freedom,
until 1375–1401 (1376, 1383, 1398, and 1384, 1401, respectively), her
‘change of mind’ may have been made during her monody, and become
fixed before she hears Ach. fear he will be helpless to save her (1347–67).
For such a change of mind half-hidden in a monody Barner (see Form
below) 313 compares Creusa’s shift towards punishing her husband in
Ion 859–922 – for his perceived betrayal, 864, cf. Ag.’s betrayal IA 1314
(recalling Iph.’s 1231–2); but Creusa begins by signalling her intention,
862–4.
Staging. When Ag. abruptly departs at 1275 the baby Orestes may be
presumed from the silence of the text to be still in Iph.’s arms (1245, cf.
1098–1275 n. Staging). Gibert (2005) 239–40 asks whether he remains
there during her monody, giving an opportunity for ‘mimetic action’ when
in 1286–9 Iph. describes Priam’s exposure of the infant Paris, and recalling
Clyt.’s baby son from Tantalus whom Ag. dashed to the ground 1151–2
with a violence soon to be replicated in his slaughter of herself 1317–18.
On the other hand the actor playing Iph. might have greater freedom to
give the monody’s polymetric colours full vocal and physical expression if
(s)he relinquishes Or. to Clyt. The text also does not reveal who is holding
Or. when Achilles enters at 1338–44: see 1336–1509 n. Staging.
Form. Monody (μονῳδία, ‘single-song, solo aria’) voices extreme
individual feelings, expressed with musical freedom and lyric passion,
and sometimes theatrically (e.g. Evadne about to leap to her death Supp.
990–1030, the panicking Phrygian Or. 1368–1502). As an element of
surviving Tragedy (but only in Sophocles and Euripides, and PV) it is
analysed in detail for its dramatic functions by W. Barner in Jens (1971)
277–320; and it receives wider evaluation from Hall (2006) 288–320 (esp.
293–318 on Eur. and 308–15 on his preference for women monodists)
and from Rutherford (2012) 256–67 (both with bibl.). On the monody’s
astrophic form see Metre below.
Language. Eur.’s florid style, with lush imagery and diction
(sometimes called ‘dithyrambic’) in his later lyrics, esp. monodies, is
very evident here: extended narrative 1283–99; topical colour (see esp.
1295–9 n.); emphasis on detail and emotion through repetition, doubling
of words, assonance, and effects of contrast and asyndeton in 1302–32
558 Commentary

esp. 1302–18, 1325–30. These habits of Eur. are superbly parodied in Ar.
Frogs 1309–63, where 1330 has the word ‘monody’.
Both (1a) 1283–1311 and (2a) 1319–29 are single, complex sentences;
the first employs a succession of relative clauses 1286–8, 1289–94a,
1294b–9 and 1300–11, this last ending with progressive coordinations
and contrasts through nine particles; the second has coupled main clauses
1319–22, 1323–9, the second ending also with five coordinated particles.
Both (1a) and (2a) begin with apostrophes, the first of Mt Ida and the
second of Aulis; the device echoes the earlier attribution of cause to the
Judgement, in the apostrophe of Paris himself returning to Ida in 573–89,
cf. 75–6. (1a) is a continuous flow of differently evocative pictures, while
(2a) is much plainer and direct, with differing simple verbs and nouns.
Metre. Metricians are divided upon the rhythms of some cola, and
therefore upon the apparent relations between their rhythmic grouping
and sequence, and between the passages 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b above. The
monody is astrophic in form, consistent with uneven distress, like Iph.’s
final lyrics 1475–99; in fact IA has two sequences of solo lyric and IT has
three, and all are astrophic. For rhythms and metres in Eur.’s monodies
see Parker (1997) 514–18; they are listed by strophic and astrophic form
by E. Csapo, ICS 24/25 (2000–2001) 407. Other examples from later
plays are El. 112–66 (lamentation), Pho. 302–54 (despair), Or. 1369–
1502 (panic) and (above) Ion 859–922; of these monodies only that in
Electra has strophic form. IA 1283–1335 is a complex system, with spans
of dochmiac (– or trochaic?), anapaestic, iambo-trochaic and dactylic;
textual corruption or uncertainty increases the problems of identifying
and defining some cola confidently: Wilamowitz (1921) 573–5 (with
commentary); Stinton (1965) 30–1 (with notes); Dale (1983) 147–9
(with notes); Günther 66–7; Stockert 559–61 and on individual lines
(commentary); and Diggle (1994) 424 n. 18 and OCT apparatus; all
differ in their analysis.
The monody as a whole: Stinton (1965) 29–34 and 60 offers a fine,
concise appreciation of the poetic background and imaginative structure
esp. of 1283–1314. Detailed analysis: Cerbo (2010).
Text. For 1276–82 see the n. As to the monody: L has some corruption
(1301, 1321–2), and doubtful Greek (esp. 1296, 1301, 1310, 1320–2,
1331–2). In particular, Wilamowitz (1921) 573 suspected that 1319–32
were a duplicate of 1283–1314; but their real correspondences (above),
 Commentary 559

esp. in the appended 1315–18 ~ 1333–4, point rather to authenticity: see

esp. Stinton (1965) 30 n. 1. Wilamowitz also supported L’s attribution of
1333–4 to the Chorus: see Text there.
1276–82 Almost certainly not Euripidean (so Diggle; deleted by
Kovacs); corrupt in part, and the Greek is often doubtful. foreign
women: a sudden turn to the Chorus as awkward as that by Ag. in 542
(n.): we have heard only couplets from them at 1209–10 and 1253–4
since their Third Ode 1036–97. Such a turn is also premature, like that in
the ms. text at 1310 (n.); only at 1467 does Iph. herself invite the Chorus
to participate in the singing at her departure (see also Text). your
father flees from you 1278 smells strongly of theatrical interpolation,
to ease transition from Ag.’s abrupt departure to Iph.’s monody; it may
reflect the performing tradition. song of fortune: μέλος … τύχης
1280 is a colourless expression, even if the echo in μέλος of ‘misery’
μελέα 1277 is designed to imply ‘song about misfortune’; contrast e.g.
Hipp. 1178 ταὐτὸν δακρύων … μέλος ‘the same song of tears’. fallen:
πέπτωκε: πίπτω of the fall of events, an image from dice-play, 1343 and
n. daylight … brilliant sun: φῶς … ἀελίου … φέγγος 1281–2 lit.
‘light … of the sun … light’ is an unidiomatic pleonasm.
Greek. 1277 θανάτου is causative gen. after adj. μελέα, e.g.
Med. 96 πόνων ‘over, because of burdens, troubles’, Or. 160; Smyth
1435.   1278 παραδίδωμι ‘hand over’ to death Alc. 871.   1280 On
the Doric alpha in ἀελίου see Metre below.
[Text. 1276 ὦ ξέναι is dramaturgically impossible (above), and is
part of a single dochmiac metre heading the anapaests 1277–82. Monk
replaced it with a second ὦ τέκνον, the doubling apt to the emotional
moment; but the ms. copying error is hard to explain, and the two
dactyls thus created are questionable.   1277 <τοῦ> Heath: a metrical
supplement.   1279 The second †ταὐτὸν† †the same† is plainly
wrong, and unmetrical when followed by γὰρ; but the particle explains
the repetition of οἲ ’γώ from 1277 (Stockert). Recent eds have favoured
ταὐτὸν τόδε γὰρ Murray ‘for this same (song)’ as the line-end; less good
is the δὴ in Dobree’s ταὐτὸν γὰρ δὴ.   1280 τύχης is poor style, and
suspect to eds: see Greek.
Metre. The Doric alpha in ἀελίου is discrepant in chanted anapaests,
which we take to be the nature of 1276–82; but metricians are divided,
560 Commentary

and some eds have written Doric μᾶτερ 1279 and τύχας 1280 to create
lyric anapaests.]
1283–90 snow-beaten valley … Ida: Ida’s snow e.g. A. Ag. 564, Hel.
1323–4, its valleys e.g. And. 275, 284; both Tro. 1066–7. The Greek
words make a complex hendiadys (53 n.). The adj. νιφόβολος ‘snow-
beaten’ of Delphic Mt Parnassus Pho. 206. Priam … cast out …
babe: after Cassandra’s dire warning to kill it or it would be Troy’s
destruction, e.g. And. 293–8, Tro. 919–22: see Stinton (1965) 20–3,
51–2; Gantz (1993) 562–3. The incident and its long-delayed aftermath
(1294–1311) are the background to Euripides’ Alexandros, for which
see Jouan (1966) 113–42; Collard, Cropp and Gibert (2004) 35–91 or
Collard and Cropp (2008) VII.33–75. Cf. Pho. 804 ‘babe cast out from
the house’ (Oedipus) and Ion 492–506 (Ion), in similar evocations of
place (discussed together with IA 1286–91 by M. Huys, The Tale of the
Hero Who Was Εxposed at Birth in Euripidean Tragedy (Leuven 1995)
191–5); but all three exposed babies were rescued (Huys 330). for a
deathly fate: also Pho. 803–4 ‘put out for death’ (Huys 263–6). The
adj. tender ἁπαλόν ‘conveys the child’s innocence’, Stockert. called
Idaeus: because Paris came from Ida to Troy while still unidentified,
to compete in the funeral games established by his mother Hecuba in
memory of her exposed child (himself): Alexandros test. iii.7–21 (he
beat Hector in the games, F 62a.9–10). ‘Idaeus’ also e.g. And. 706, Hec.
944 and esp. Or. 1364 ‘the accursed, accursed Idaean Paris’. His ‘other’
name Alexandros (1236, 1292–3) was that given him by the herdsmen
who had reared him from a foundling, Alexandros test. iii.6–7, because
he ‘warded off’ (Greek aleg/x-) ‘men’ (-andr-), i.e. robbers, from flocks,
F 42d: see Stinton (1965) 32, Collard and Cropp (2008) VII.45, both
citing Ennius, Alexander 64 Jocelyn ‘for which reason the herdsmen
now call Paris Alexander’. The doubling ‘called Idaeus, called Idaeus’
is thought to be a musical rather than a verbal effect; Breitenbach (1934)
220 gives over 10 examples, e.g. Or. 149, 1373.
Greek. 1286 νοσφίζω with (superfluous prep. and) separative gen.
e.g. Hel. 641 (ἐκ). 1287 ἀποπρό ‘far away from’ with gen. e.g. Pho.
[1738].   1288 ἐπί of intended consequence: 29 n. μόρος ‘fate, fated
end’, i.e. ‘death’, the word’s usual connotation in Tragedy: Fraenkel on
Ag. 1146.
1291–4a if only etc.: again in 1319–24; wishes to ‘undo’ the past like
 Commentary 561

And. 293–308 (Paris’ exposure and survival), Med. 1 (Jason’s voyage for
the Golden Fleece), Hipp. 1412 (Theseus’ death-curse on his son). oxherd
reared among oxen: 71b–6 n.; e.g. And. 280–2. The doubling ‘ox(herd)
… oxen’ emphasizes the strange setting of Paris’ early life, and his being
given a home on Ida, eventually to make the Judgement (And. 295 ‘before
he found a home (κατοικίσαι) on Ida’s crag’). Versions of the myth vary:
in some Paris is not accepted at Troy after being identified at the funeral
games, but the menace in Cassandra’s prophecy is simply ignored; or he
is sent back to Ida (see Text): cf. e.g. Gantz (1993) 562–3. bright (water):
lit. ‘white’, i.e. pure, in springs (next n.) e.g. Od. 5.70, Her. 573.
[Text. 1291 ὤφελες Elmsley (cf. Stinton (1965) 77), with the
apostrophized νάπος ‘valley’ as subject, exactly as in Pho. 801–4 of
snowy Mt Cithaeron where Oedipus was exposed (above): ὤφειλε L
(impf., incorrectly: ὤφελεν aor. Burges) has Πρίαμος as subject, i.e.
sending Paris back to Ida (above).   1292–3 ᾿Αλέξανδρον deleted first
by Bothe and recently e.g. Günther and Matthiessen as an invasive gloss,
but to be kept: the name closes the phrase τὸν … τραφέντα; it is not a
second predicate after οἰκίσαι ‘to give him a home as Alexandros’, i.e. in
the role which brought this name (1289–90 n.). The trochaic metre will
tolerate the name’s presence and absence.]
1294b–9a The simple, rustic but idyllic setting of the Judgement,
with its appealing flowers, contrasts with its disastrous outcome, as in
182, 573–9 (n.); less vividly in Tro. 1066–70; Stinton (1965) 59; Gantz
(1993) 567–71; a milder contrast with the later flowery meadow of the
sacrifice below [1543–4, 1548]. The poetic technique is that of the locus
amoenus (‘pleasant place’), visible already in Homer, e.g. Od. 7.112–31
Alcinous’ walled orchard and vineyard, well-watered. A pretty and often
idealised rural scene colours an important moment of narrative, often
as here with an erotic charge: Iliad 14.347–51 are cited in 1036–97 n.,
cf. esp. Sappho F 2 Lobel-Page. A classic example is the abduction of
Persephone by Hades from the flower-meadow, Hom. Hymn Dem. 417–
32. The technique is deployed a little disconcertingly by Plato, Phaedrus
229a–30e4; and its ‘purple patches’ (purpureus … pannus) are treated
snootily by Horace, Art of Poetry 14–20 (17 has ‘the winding of water
hurrying through pleasant (amoenos) fields’). Splendid illustrative matter
and bibliography by Stockert on our passage; cf. e.g. Hose I (1990) 98,
II (1991) 116.
562 Commentary

The springs on Ida are prominent, 182, and they characterize the
poetic scene-setting after Iliad 8.47. The three goddesses bathe in them
in preparation And. 285–6, Hel. 676–8; Stinton (1965) 17. (Water-)
Nymphs on Ida (e.g. Hel. 1324) are therefore unsurprising. lush:
θάλλων of flowers e.g. (Stockert) Hom.Hymn Demeter 401–2, Sappho
F 2.9–10 Lobel-Page. flowering roses (lit. ‘rosy flowers’): associated
esp. with Cypris and sex, e.g. Med. 841 and Cypria F 5.3–4 West (her
fragrant garland) – and with Helen Hel. 243–5. A model for this aspect
of the scene may have been the lush and dewy bed of flowers that Zeus
creates on which to make love to Hera, Iliad 14.347–9. It includes
hyacinths: a curly, dark flower is meant: see Stanford or Heubeck etc. on
Od. 6.231. to pick: roses Hel. 244 again; e.g. crocuses Ion 889, Hom.
Hymn Demeter 425–6. Privileged ‘picking’ in Hippolytus’ half-idealised
riverside meadow Hipp. 73–80; compare (Turato) also Phaedra’s fantasy
Hipp. 208–11. goddesses is a headline for their advent in 1299b–1306.
Greek. 1295 κεῖμαι lie, = ‘be situated’, as in English; but perhaps
idiomatically ‘be, be available’, like weapons at Iliad 3.327, LSJ II.2; for
the dependent prolative infin. δρέπειν in 1299 see Smyth 2010.
[Text. 1296 ἔρνεσι Sybel shoots, more aptly described by χλωροῖς
green, seems preferable to ἄνθεσι L ‘flowers’: branches of bushes
or small trees (on which roses grow or ramble) are consistent with a
meadow, which need not be only grassland; or the green shoots may be
of reeds (Hel. 183), natural to a damp area near springs. L’s ‘flowers’ is
however defended by Stockert, citing χλοερός meaning ‘fresh’ of roses
at Hel. 243 (above) and less cogently of a ‘meadow’ Bacc. 866; the
repetition ‘flowers’ in 1299 is indeed possible in Eur.’s lyric style.]
1299b–1306 The goddesses arrive for the ‘beauty contest’ 1307–8, cf.
182–4, And. 279, Hel. 24–7. Each is named twice, but in differing order;
in the first triplet Cypris has the middle place and the only adj., the telling
and typifying crafty δολιόφρων (the goddess is δόλιος And. 289, Hel. 238).
In the second triplet she has first place, but the descriptive part. flaunting
τρυφῶσα (see below) and the prep. phrase ἐπί and the dat. πόθῳ desire are
extended to describe Pallas (ἐπὶ) δορί (flaunting) her spear and Hera (ἐπὶ)
Διὸς ἄνακτος εὐναῖσι βασιλίσιν (flaunting) the royal bed of lord Zeus
(for the ‘omission’ of the prep. in our translation see Greek). For Cypris
(Aphrodite) the word ‘desire’ and for Pallas the word ‘spear’ represent
their offers (or bribes) to name them as victor in beauty. Cypris lures Paris’
 Commentary 563

‘grievous lust’ (Iliad 24.30; at 13.769 Hector calls him ‘women-mad’)

through her own aura of ‘desire’ (Iliad 14.198–9 love-making and desire,
Hom. Hymn Aphr. 1–3), like that of Helen herself Tro. 891, and by offering
Paris Helen in her beauty as his wife (178–82; Hel. 27–8, cf. 261 cited in
1307–11 n.; Isocrates, Helen 41–2). Pallas (Athena) comes with her spear,
iconic in Attic art (at Iliad 21.410–11 she asserts her superiority with the
spear even over Ares the war-god); she offers Paris martial prowess in the
war at Troy (Tro. 925–6; at Iliad 11.385–7 he is despised as a mere archer
by Diomedes). For Hera the words ‘the royal bed of lord Zeus’ seem to
indicate that, as goddess of marriage (739 n.), she offers Paris a marriage
as splendid and secure as is her own in that bed (Iliad 14.213); an offer
of marriage however is counter to that which she is commonly stated in
mythology to have made, of power to rule, such as she boasts she herself
possesses from sharing the supreme rule of Zeus (as his bedmate, Iliad
4.60–1). This is her offer in the earliest poetic account, of about 430 BC,
Cratinus’ comedy Dionysalexandros (i) P. Oxy. 633.14–15 PCG IV.140
‘immovable absolute rule’ τυραννὶς ἀκίνητος; subsequently Tro. 927–8
‘rule over Asia and Europe’, cf. Isocrates, Helen 41 (see in general Gantz
(1993) 570–1). Euripides’ readiness to vary myth, indeed to exploit it,
is shown by his further sally with the ‘Judgement’ in Trojan Women; in
the marvellously rhetorical agon between Helen and Hecuba (895–1059),
Helen boasts that her own beauty awed Cypris on Mt Ida 929–30; and
she is attacked by Hecuba who questions whether Hera could ever have
‘traded away’ her city of Argos to barbarians or Pallas her Athens to Trojans
973–4; and Hecuba mocks as absurd the idea that either Hera or Pallas
would have taken part in such frivolity as a beauty contest, Hera to get a
husband better than Zeus 976–7, or Pallas a husband at all, given Zeus’
guarantee to her of perpetual virginity 978–81. As to the outcome of the
contest, Paris’ capitulation to the lure of Helen, the Iliad has it that after
ambivalent concern for Paris’ safety in war (3.433–6) Helen herself sets
little store by the union Cypris gives him (6.350–3, cf. 24.763–4). Here
in IA the emphasis is naturally on the outcome for Iphigenia, 1309–18,
1333–4.
The verb τρυφάω 1303 is ‘untranslatable … implying pride, luxury
and sexual forwardness’ in Aphrodite here, Stinton (1965) 33–4, who
nevertheless brilliantly chose ‘flaunt’ (which we gladly purloin); for the
word’s sexual connotation cf. the nouns τρύφημα 1050 (n.) and τρυφή Ar.
564 Commentary

Ecc. 973, Lys. 387. The root τρυφ- commonly describes unconscionable
glitz e.g. Tro. 997 (Hecuba accuses Helen), or arrogant self-indulgence
e.g. Supp. 214 (mankind’s dissatisfaction with god-given well-being).
Hermes escorts the goddesses in most accounts after Cypria,
Argument (1) West, esp. And. 275–8 (Stinton (1965) 28 n. 2, 60;
Jouan (1966) 112–13); Zeus’ messenger: otiose – or does it imply that
everything happened at Zeus’ will, a statement that poets made about the
Trojan war and all its preliminary incidents, e.g. Iliad 1.5, El. 1282–3,
Hel. 36–41? See Stinton (1965) 1–3, 7–9 and Jouan (1966) 41–54 ‘La
Volonté de Zeus’.
Greek. 1299 ἔνθα where matches the common pattern of this and
other lyric narratives, a sequence of rel. clauses, 1286, 1289, 1294 (see
1283–1335 n., Language).   1303 ἐπί and dat. of reason or cause,
‘in, upon’, e.g. [1523], Hipp. 729 (Smyth 1689.2c; LSJ B.III.1), but left
untranslated after ‘flaunting’; the force of the prep., like that of the verb,
extends to δορί and εὐναῖσι (above; but see Text).
[Text. 1301 is corrupt (and its metre uncertain); Ἑρμᾶς lacks a
connection (<θ’> Tr3). Analysing the whole passage, Stinton (1965) 77
hoped to restore both syntax and trochaic metre with ἦγε δ’ (in place
of Ἥρα θ’) Ἑρμᾶς ‘and Hermes led them’, citing And. 278 ‘(Hermes)
leading the beautifully yoked team of goddesses, the three fillies’;
Diggle (1994) 411 suggested ἆγε, with Doric alpha. Hera’s name is too
important, however, to lose before 1305–6; Günther proposed ‘losing’
Hermes’ name too, with ἦγε δ’ ὁ Διὸς ἄγγελος ‘and Zeus’ messenger
led (them)’.   1304 δ’ <ἐπὶ> δορὶ Wilamowitz, needlessly: see
Greek.   1305 δὲ Markland must replace τε L after μὲν … δὲ.]
1307–11 abominable judgement and strife: here, hateful to Iph.
herself: her death, 1308! The adj. στυγνάν goes with both nouns, helping
to counter their illogically reversed order (hysteron proteron: 1149 n.); the
‘strife’ is the rivalry between the beauty contestants, 183 (not the Trojan
War, 587). The word στυγ- ‘hate’ is used of Helen and her marriage e.g.
Or. 19 στυγουμένη, Tro. 598 στυγερῶν; but cf. rather And. 279 ἔριδι
στυγερᾷ κεκορυθμένον εὐμορφίας (the team of goddesses: see our 1301
Text above) ‘accoutred (Stinton: brilliant translation of the metaphor from
armour) for an abominable strife over shapeliness’. beauty: at Hel. 261,
cf. 1097, Helen says that her beauty was the cause of her extraordinary
life and actions. fame: ὄνομα lit. ‘name’, the first mention by Iph. of
 Commentary 565

future glory, just as ‘my name/fame’ is among her last words in the play,
1495. In between, cf. her 1376, 1383, 1398–9 and her other evocations
1446, 1468, 1474, 1502, the Chorus 1504; she forecasts consequent
glory for Clyt. 1440. Fame and glory for the Maiden Hcld. 621–4; for
Praxithea’s daughter Erechtheus F 360.34–5. For ‘glory’ generally in the
play see Introduction pp. 36–7. Artemis took the sacrifice as prelude
against Troy: the Greek and the meaning are most insecure: see both
Greek and Text below. Iph. appears to repeat the idea in part in 1395 εἰ
†δ’ ἐβουλήθη† σῶμα τοὐμὸν Ἄρτεμις λαβεῖν ‘if Artemis †wished† to
take my body’. The noun πρόθυμα can be both ‘preliminary sacrifice’
(see on 718 προτέλεια; Introduction p. 11) and ‘sacrifice on behalf of
(the Greeks)’, cf. e.g. ‘for the army’ στρατοῦ objective gen. Hypsipyle
345, 893; Artemis is the recipient of both the preliminary sacrifice and
the main sacrifice (Stinton (1965) 34).
Greek. 1307 μέν is omitted after κρίσιν in the first member of a
contrast: 1327 (n.), GP 165.   1308 θάνατον is in apposition not to
the acc. nouns κρίσιν ἐπὶ … ἔριν τε, but to the whole idea 1299b ἔνθα
… 1308 καλλονᾶς (for such apposition see 234 n.); it is developed by
μὲν φέροντα … δ’ ἔλαβεν Ἄρτεμις death … bringing … while Artemis
took: the shift within parallel clauses from participle to finite verb (and a
changed subject) is striking, and a rare form of grammatical anacoluthon
(cf. 1346 n.): cf. S. Ant. 810–11 με … Ἅιδας … ἄγει … 813 οὔθ’ ὑμεναίων
ἔγκληρον (οὖσαν) οὔτε … μέ τις ὕμνος ὕμνησεν (instead of ὑμνωθεῖσαν),
OC 348–51 (see Jebb on 351): see GP 369 n. 1; Stinton (1990) 215–16,
cf. (1965) 31 n. 2; Smyth 3008c.   1309–10 It is possible that με ‘me’
should be understood from 1308 ἐμοί as the first object of ἔλαβεν and
πρόθυμα as the second, ‘took me as sacrifice’.   1311 The dependence
of πρὸς Ἴλιον ‘against Troy’ upon either πρόθυμα or ἔλαβεν is strained.
[Text. 1308 τᾶς (καλλονᾶς) L, deleted by Bothe/Matthiae: the def.
art. is wrong in idiom and destroys a trochaic dimeter. ἐμοὶ L ‘(but) …
for myself’ is right, a stronger contrast with the goddesses’ strife than
ἐμὸν … θάνατον Elmsley ‘(but) my death’.   1309 (μ)ὰν L (above
the line) is curious (unless it is a mere slip), Doric for emphatic μὴν,
non-connective and here unidiomatic.   1309–10 Δαναΐσιν κόραις
West: δαναΐδαισιν ὦ κόραι L, in which the address to the Chorus is
dramaturgically improbable (1276 n.) and factually wrong: they are
wives, 176, no longer girls.   1310–11 δ(ὲ) Hennig, a particle being
566 Commentary

necessary (Stinton (1965) 77): σ(ε) L ‘you’, first object of ἔλαβεν (see
above), and perhaps cause or consequence of L’s address ὦ κόραι. The
difficulty of πρὸς Ἴλιον was attempted by Wilamowitz with πρὸς Ἴλιον
<στόλου>, the gen. dependent upon πρόθυμα ‘sacrifice for the expedition
against Troy’, as perhaps in 816 (see Text there).
Stockert on 1309–11 analyses the linguistic problems at length and
proposes a wholesale if hypothetical rewriting of 1308–11, spoiled by his
retention of ὦ κόραι but incorporating a striking conjecture by Viljoen
1310 ἔλακεν ‘cried out, proclaimed’ in place of ἔλαβεν L ‘took’: cf.
Calchas A. Ag. 156, 201 (ἀπ)έκλαγξεν ‘rang out’ his interpretation of the
eagle-omen.]
1312–14 fathered me: ὁ τεκών: at 1177 Clyt. spoke harshly of the
filicidal Ag. as ‘the father who begot you’ ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ; here, Iph.
does not use the word ‘father’ πατήρ so prominent in her appeal to him
1211–52 (n.). betraying: Men. accused Ag. of betraying him, 412. to
abandonment: ἔρημον, like Hermione abandoned by her father Men. at
And. 855, 918, cf. 805.
Greek: 1314 ἔρημον adj. is predicative/proleptic acc.; Eur. uses only
the ‘two endings’ form of ἔρημος (Smyth 288).
1315–18 The climax of Iph.’s sudden despair in 1312–14, made
emphatic through doubled words and synonyms, and the absence of
particles. Her unexpected and bitter denunciation of her father may be
seen as one stage in what we suppose to have been her turmoil between
Ag.’s abandonment of her (1255–62) and Achilles’ equivocally renewed
promise to save her (1358–68a), leading to her resolve to die voluntarily:
see esp. 1392–7 n. Ill-Helen: Δυσελέναν, the name earlier in Eur. Or.
1387 as the agent of Troy’s destruction (ἑλ- is ‘destroy’, the root of aor.
εἷλον from αἱρέω); it is formed on the model of Ill-Paris Δύσπαρις Iliad
3.39, cf. Dread-Paris Αἰνόπαρις Alcman F 77 PMG, Hec. 945 and Paris
αἰνόλεκτρος ‘of the dread marriage-bed’ A. Ag. 714. Cf. the notable
play on Helen’s name as ἑλ- ‘destroyer’ of ships, men, and cities A. Ag.
681–90; Iph. arrogates the last, ἑλέπτολις, to herself as ‘destroyer of the
(Phrygians’) city’ 1476 (n.; and the Chorus repeat it [1511]), cf. also
68, 488. bitter: πικρός yet again of an (unforeseen, harsh) aftermath,
510 n. The adj. stands with Helen here, as with the new-born Paris if
allowed to live Tro. 922. my sight: lit. ‘seeing’ ἰδοῦσα nom. part., i.e.
‘having to realise by experience’, e.g. Med. 1388 Jason seeing the end
 Commentary 567

of his marriage, El. 638 Aegisthus seeing and about to invite Orestes as
(a later murderous) guest. my blood … shed: φονεύομαι: Ag.’s bloody
intention for Iph. 875, cf. his earlier refusal to shed it 364. impious …
impious: sacrilegious as human sacrifice and filicide alike. Ag. himself
calls the actions ἄνομα ‘lawless’, 399; he is ‘impious’ also 1105, Or.
1213. Even Medea calls her intended filicide impious, Med. 796; cf.
Artemis condemning Theseus’ curse upon his son Hipp. 1287. Similar
wording but with a surprise Tro. 1316 θάνατος ὅσιος ἀνοσίοις σφαγαῖσιν,
the impious slaughter of Priam (at an altar) which is nevertheless
‘pious, sacred’ in the eyes of the gods because his death saved him from
suffering Troy’s and his women-folk’s tragedies. Words used in two
grammatical forms are frequent in Eur.’s lyric pathos, e.g. Supp. 42–3
‘old’, 598 ‘pitiable’; this rhetorical figure (paregmenon: 587–9 n.) ‘nears
a mannerism’, Denniston on El. 337; full exx. in Breitenbach (1934)
221–6. slaughter: cf. Iph. 1463 σφαγήσομαι ‘I shall be slaughtered’;
on the word’s avoidance earlier in the play see 133–5 n., Introduction p.
11.
[Text. 1315 ὦ L ‘O’ deleted by West/Parker in order to create an
ambiguous transitional verse between the end of the trochaic 1311–14
and the iambic 1316–18; approved e.g. by Diggle (1994) 414.]
1319–32 Judged by Wilamowitz to duplicate 1283–1314: see 1283–1335
n. Text.
1319–22 The first of Iph.’s two further impossible wishes, the second
following in 1323–9. Aulis: sometimes named almost resentfully as the
Greeks’ rendezvous, 14, 119–21, El. 1022 ‘Aulis which held the (ships’)
sterns’, i.e. when beached; but ‘famous’ (ironically) IT 9. bronze-
rammed: χαλκεμβολάδων, almost certainly anachronistic colour, as at
Pind. Pyth. 4.191 (the mythical Argo); but bronze rams (ἔμβολον sing.)
are historical in A. Pers. 415, at Salamis, cf. Adespota F 1027f PMG from
?Timotheus, Persae. anchorage: ὅρμους, Aulis again 1496; cf. verb
ὁρμέω 291. †the fleet on its mission to Troy†: the meaning probably
intended, but it cannot be got from ms. L’s Greek.
Greek. 1319 μοι I wish, lit. ‘for me’, a common use of the ‘ethic’ dat.
(538 n.) in prayers or wishes, Smyth 1486.
[Text. 1320 †ἅδ(ε) †here, lit. ‘this’, i.e. ‘where I am’, was deleted by
Monk: it duplicates the locative function of 1321 ‘this anchorage’, and
creates a metrical problem.   1322 (1) The adj. πομπαίαν ‘sending,
568 Commentary

conducting’ can describe ἐλάταν only with awkwardness: a fleet is itself

sent by the πομπή of a favourable wind (or not, by its lack, 352); cf.
the adj. πόμπιμος of winds Hel. 1073, Hec. 1290. (2) The phrase εἰς
Τροίαν has no syntax; it cannot be attached to πομπαίαν ‘despatching
(i.e. Greeks) to Troy’ (and its position in the clause bars that too). (1)
can be cured by ἐλατᾶν πομπαία (Wilamowitz), ‘(Aulis) despatching the
fleet’ (ἐλάται plur. as 172: see 171–3a n.), but (2) εἰς Τροίαν remains
stranded and is perhaps best deleted as a gloss (Hartung). Herwerden
preferred drastic surgery, deletion of 1321, as did Wecklein of 1321–2.]
1323–9 wind adverse to setting sail, contradicting the absence of any
wind 10–11, cf. the converse 352 ‘lacked a favourable wind’; perhaps
excused by its attribution to Zeus (see 1301 n.), for the absence was
implicitly due to Artemis 88–91 (who in A. Ag. 148, 202 does send
adverse winds: see Introduction p. 5, cf. 3). swirled: εἱλίσσων, of
rapid and variable movement, e.g. of the waters of the Euripus IT 7,
where its eddying currents and the winds appear to act together (see
Text). mortals: unnecessary to the identity of (some) … others, who
are ordinary sailors; but the broad term perhaps prepares for the truism
upon ephemeral mankind’s suffering in 1330–2. pain and necessity
contrast with initial delight; then comes a second triplet: set out
ἐξορμᾶν, furl sail στέλλειν, delay μέλλειν; but furling ends a voyage and
is placed between setting out and delay (cf. 818, the Atreids’ delay). Note
the Greek ‘rhymes’ 1327 λύπαν, ἀνάγκαν, 1328–9 στέλλειν, μέλλειν,
elements typical of incantatory or cultic refrain: see e.g. Pho. 339–40,
Tro. 527–8 cited by Diggle on Phaethon 99 (with bibl.); also V. Bers,
EGT 1373. Innocent rhyming 1162–3 n.
Greek. 1323 Εὐρίπῳ at Euripus is locative dat.   1326–9 τοῖσι
μὲν is ‘understood’ before λαίφεσι, cf. 1307 n. above, 432 n.; GP 165.
The omission of the dat. art. also eases the use of λαίφεσι plur. (rare),
else τοῖσι … λαίφεσι would be heard together. For μέν + 5× δέ, see
1276–1335 n. Language. Med. 303–5 has μέν + 3× δέ, Phaethon 63–86
μέν + 8× δέ over three stanzas.   1327 λύπαν and ἀνάγκαν are nouns
with verbal sense standing instead of metrically awkward passive infins.
λυπεῖσθαι and ἀναγκάζεσθαι.   1328–9 ἐξορμᾶν intrans. ‘set out’, of a
ship e.g. Od. 12.221; στέλλειν ‘furl sail’, but usually trans., e.g. Od. 3.11,
LSJ IV.1 (the translation ‘make ready’ ship or sail, e.g. Od. 2.287, cited
by LSJ I, is wrong here).
 Commentary 569

[Text. 1323 μηδ(έ) Hermann nor seems necessary, a mild contrast

rather than μήτ(ε) L, a mere addition; but GP 509 cautions against
such automatic alteration.   1324 εἱλίσσων Tyrwhitt: μειλίσσων L
‘soothing’, defended by Wecklein, but this sense conflicts with ‘delight’
and works only with ‘pain’ and ‘necessity’.
Metre. 1323 is a very rare form of lyric anapaest: West (1982) 121
cites only Andromeda F 114.4.]
1330–3 Truly full etc.: the generalisation cloaks Iph.’s understanding
that man’s inescapable and harshly unforeseeable (1332–3) suffering is
exemplified in her own. The message is common, e.g. Or. 976–8 ‘O you
races of ephemeral men, with all your tears and heavy toils’, El. 1330
‘mortals with their many sufferings’ (πολυμόχθων); S. Ant. 613–14 ‘life
in its whole extent comes to no mortal without disaster’. Yet here the
truism is phrased with a complexity surprising after the plain 1326–9:
doubled ἦ πολύμοχθον separates the coherent γένος … ἁμερίων; similar
word-figures in sad reflections Hipp. 836–7, Hec. 165–7. a hard
fortune: δύσποτμον, if correct, seems tautologous as a predicate to fate,
and awkward as a means of emphasis esp. when accompanied by τι,
which may be meiotic, in understatement, ‘a very hard…’ (609 n.); see
Text.
Greek. 1330 ἄρ’ ἦν is, i.e. ‘has proved to be’, of a truth just realised,
impf. or plup. with ἄρα, 404 n., 944.   1331 <τὸ> χρεών ‘fate’, the
def. art. being idiomatic, e.g. Her. 21, El. 1301, cf. τὸ χρή Her. 828;
bare (and unmetrical) χρεών here would mean ‘it is necessary for men to
discover some hard fortune’.
[Text. 1331 <τὸ> Hermann: see Greek.   1332 δύσποτμον L lit. ‘ill-
fated’: a more suitable adj., matching πολύμοχθον, is to be expected,
e.g. δύσπονον (Headlam) ‘laborious, painful’, but this word is not
Euripidean.   1333 ἀνευρεῖν L: εὑρεῖν Dindorf, to produce a more
harmonious closure after dactylic 1330–2 (see Diggle (1994) 316).]
1334–5 great calamities … you put upon the Danaans: μεγάλα
… ἄχεα … τιθεῖσα: an echo of Iliad 1.2 μυρί’ ’Αχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε
‘(Achilles’ wrath) put countless sorrows upon the Achaeans’. daughter
of Tyndareus: Helen, 54–5; the accusation is here blandly worded after
that of 1315–16, perhaps as a conclusion.
Greek. τιθεῖσα is nom. for voc. after an exclamation, commonest with
ὦ and often solemn, e.g. Hec. 1000, IT 983, S. Phil. 1402.
570 Commentary

[Text. The correspondence in sentiment between these two verses and

1315–16 justified Blomfield in giving them to Iph; L has them for the
Chorus. The Chorus however participate in lyric exchange in IA only in
1500–9, and upon invitation (1491–3); and if they sing 1334–5 they must
lose the spoken 1336–7 (Wilamowitz, rightly; ‘not bad, provided 1336–
7 are not there’, Diggle OCT); cf. 1336–7 n. Also: with 1337 μήποτ’
ὤφελες ‘O that you had never…’ the Chorus echo Iph.’s 1291 and 1322,
and they usefully separate her pathetic indictment of Helen in 1334–5
from her sudden alarm upon seeing Achilles’ approach, 1338.]

1336–1509 Final Sequence (exodos) – or ‘Fifth Episode’

This is the authentic part of the play’s transmitted end; see 1509 n.,
1510–1629 n.
Ach. returns, saying to Clyt. that he is no longer able to resist the
clamour for war of his Myrmidons; and his earlier assertions that he
will save Iph. from the sacrifice falter. At this, Iph. breaks in with her
astonishing ‘change of mind’, to die voluntarily for Greece. Ach. reacts
with admiration for her courage, and with regret that he must now forgo
marriage to a wife of such nobility; but he also retreats further still from
his promises to Clyt. and Iph., intending it seems to intervene physically
only if Iph. at the last moment decides upon life. After he leaves, Iph. is
confidently unresponsive to her mother’s grief and goes proudly to her
death, singing in praise of Artemis.
In a sequence of five brief movements the three persons either speak in
differing pairs, or Iph. voices powerfully on her own: (A) 1336–68a Iph.
and Clyt, then Ach. and Clyt.; (B) 1368b–1403 Iph. alone; (C) 1404–32
Ach. and Iph.; (D) 1433–66 Clyt. and Iph.; (E) 1467–1509 Iph. alone (in
which she changes at 1475 from speech to song).
(A) 1336–68a After her monody Iph. is at once alarmed to see Ach.
approaching with men carrying arms, but Clyt. stops her from hiding
in Ag.’s hut out of shame, 1338–44. Iph. remains silent during Clyt.’s
intense, at times stiff, exchange with Ach., 1345–68a – indeed she is
referred to only in the 3. pers. (1347–8, 1350, 1355–6, 1360–2, 1365,
1367); Clyt. now addresses Ach. as ‘stranger’ 1349. Ach. tells how he has
been threatened by the Greek army, above all by his own Myrmidons, for
 Commentary 571

wishing to save Iph. in order, they taunt him, to marry her. It becomes
implicit that he can no longer prevent her sacrifice, but he nevertheless
pledges his utmost to help her, while expecting Odysseus to come to drag
her away.
(B) 1368b–1403 Iph. interrupts – at mid-line – to deliver her great
turn-about speech, 1368b–1401 (n.); she addresses only her mother,
1368, 1369, 1372, 1374, 1377, 1386, and Ach. becomes 3. pers. to her
(1371–2, 1392), as she had been to him ((A) above). She heard Ag.
abandon her in his final speech (1255–75; it appears to have influenced
her monody, 1275–1335 n., cf. 1309–10 and n.); now she declares that
she must embrace her fate (cf. 1330–2 in her monody) and wishes to die
gloriously for Greece.
(C) 1404–32 Ach. now speaks only to Iph. He admires her new-found
courage, and is inspired with desire to marry her, again undertaking to
save her, but now he swears to it on oath (1404–15). At the same time,
Ach. hopes she may yet change her mind: so he will be with her at the
altar (1421–32). His two short speeches surround Iph.’s command to let
her die, without cost to his or others’ lives (1416–20); as had her mother
in 1349, she too now addresses him as ‘stranger’, 1418, cf. 1371. It is
disconcerting that Ach.’s second speech as transmitted appears in part to
contradict his first, and to be self-contradictory as well (see nn. on 1358–
61a, 1421–32), so that we are again uncertain both of his true intention
and motive: his own conscience and honour? The behaviour of Ach. is
discussed esp. by Michelakis (2002) 106–13, 117–19.
(D) 1433–66 Both Iph.’s long speech and now this exchange with her
mother derive some of their power from the audience’s knowledge of
Aeschylus’ Oresteia (revived during the later 5th century: see 1183–4
n.; Introduction p. 35 n. 87). Eur.’s Iph. contrasts greatly with that of
the Agamemnon, who has to be gagged and manhandled like an animal
victim as she struggles against her sacrifice (Ag. 228–37); but the
audience might ponder as well the irony of the girl’s unwilling role in
Eur.’s other Iphigenia-play, earlier by a decade or so: there, after her
rescue by Artemis, she presides over the rituals of human sacrifice (IT
34–41, 342–7 etc.), but it is unclear whether she takes part in the killing
(e.g. 225–6) or not (esp. 40). IA 1454–7 are noteworthy too, in developing
572 Commentary

Clyt.’s earlier warning to Ag., 1183–4 and n.: Eur.’s psychological

insight brings him to portray Iph.’s awareness already that Ag.’s killing
of their daughter may transform Clyt. into a vengeful murderess; in this
Eur. adds further colour to Clyt.’s characterization throughout Tragedy,
including his own Electra, where she is portrayed not without sympathy.
Parts (A) to (D) dramatize the dissolution of Ag.’s family: he had
abandoned his wife, daughter and son abruptly at 1275; he is mentioned
now only as in danger from Clyt.’s vengeful hate, 1369, 1454–7. Iph.
will not see her mother and brother, and her sisters, again, 1446–51,
1464–7. Furthermore, despite Ach.’s new eagerness to marry Iph., born
of admiration at her change of mind, and despite his show of arms, his
determination to save her fades to a promise to be with her at the altar,
1431, after he half-suspects she will change her mind, 1424: will he fail
her or not?
(E) 1467–1509 (see n.) Iph. moves swiftly from speech (1467–73) to
renewed song (at 1475). She lays down the ritual for her own sacrifice,
as if to take control of it: compare Polyxena insisting that she should
die free of bonds Hec. 547–65, and the Maiden Hcld. 529, 560–1. Iph.
invites the Chorus to join her in praising Artemis (1467–9, 1475–94), and
they share her confidence in the glory her death will bring her (1500–9),
which she had already foreseen in her ‘change-of-mind’ speech (1383–4,
1398–9). While she sings, Iph. begins to depart, and she is gone after
1509. That confidence in Iph.’s everlasting glory is picked up in the
spurious messenger-speech at [1606–7] and her ‘assumption’ by the gods
[1608], followed by the Chorus [1614] and Ag. [1622]: the audience will
recall the goddess Athena’s forecast of Iph.’s burial and cult at Brauron,
IT 1462–7 (see 1441–6 n.).
Form. 1336–1473 complete the interaction and dialogue between the
characters; and run smoothly into lyric from 1475.
Parts (A) and (B) above, 1336–1403, begin and end with choral
comments in iambic couplets (see 1336–7 n.). These enclose trochaic
tetrameters, aptly for (A above) the tense exchanges between Iph. and
Clyt. 1338–44 and between Ach. and Clyt. 1345–68a. The latter is set
entirely in stichomythia in which the pair share every line (antilabe: 303–
16 n.); monotony is avoided however by near constant variation in the
point of line-division; 1356–8 and 1360–1 are the only consecutive lines
 Commentary 573

with identical points; elsewhere the irregularity helps to convey barely

controlled feelings. Stockert on 1345ff. suggests that Ach.’s sentences
broken across antilabe in 1345–7 and 1349 mark his struggle for breath,
and Clyt.’s terse responses hers for self-control. (This exchange is a
technical masterpiece, like Ion 529–62, Or. 774–98; see esp. Mastronarde
(1979) 60.) Tetrameters house also (B above) Iph.’s long speech, as they
did the passionate and long speeches of argument between Men. and Ag.
335–75 and 378–401. Compare the excited trochaic stichomythia 855–
95 between the Old Man, Ach. and Clyt., followed by Clyt.’s desperate
speech of supplication (900–16), also trochaic.
Parts (C) and (D) above, 1404–66, are set in the more temperate and
normal metre of dialogue, iambic trimeters, but the tension is hardly less
than in (A) above: three short speeches between Iph. and Ach. 1404–32
and the stichomythic farewell between Iph. and Clyt. 1433–66; in the
latter antilabe is used only for final pleading and assured rejection. It is
an effective surprise that it is not Clyt. who answers Iph.’s long speech at
1404 but Ach.; Clyt. has fallen into tears by 1433.
Staging. It was unclear whether Iph. continued to hold Orestes during
her monody, or handed him to Clyt. (see 1276–1335 n. Staging). The
text gives no further firm indication what happens to Or.; for when Iph.
asks Clyt. to foster him to manhood (1450), her words ‘Orestes here’
and Clyt.’s command ‘Hug him to you and look at him for the last time’
(1450) are consistent with either one’s holding him at that moment. We
hold the view, however, that things will be best managed if Clyt. takes
Or. with her when she herself leaves, at some point in 1475–1509 (see
n.); the stage-handling of Or. from 1275 to 1509 is a large matter for
any director, ancient or modern. It is irrelevant that the final lines of the
spurious ending 1510–1629 indicate that Clyt. has re-entered carrying
Or. (‘this new-born boy’ 1623).
How many from the ‘crowd’ of Ach.’s men (1338) enter with him?
Enough to make weaponry visible, at least: that is important for 1359 and
1426. In theatrical expectation, the most effective mute extras carrying
weapons in Tragedy are those that Eteocles calls to arm him before his
duel with his brother, A. Seven 675; compare that same moment E. Pho.
779; cf. Hcld. 698–747 (the decrepit but determined Iolaus); others in
Michelakis (2002) 126 n. 68.
574 Commentary

Art. The 2nd century ‘Homeric’ bowls (details in 110–14 n. and

Introduction p. 38) depict Ach. on the left leaning on his spear, while
Clyt. in the centre looks toward Iph. on the right who covers her face:
nos 8–10. The artist(s) imagined a moment very soon after Ach.’s entry
during 1338–44. Also: it has been suggested that a now very fragmentary
fresco at Pompeii depicts a Hellenistic performance of Iphigenia’s great
speech during 1387–1401: see K. Nehendam (1987) 53–9.
Text. As the play nears its end, suspect (and often corrupt) passages
and lines become more frequent. 1336–1403 are healthier than 1404–73,
where 1407–9, 1424–32, 1435–9, 1448–9 and 1458–61 in particular
are impugned. Textual defect or corruption without convincing remedy
occurs in 1348, 1381, 1391, 1395, 1416 and 1443.
1336–7 I pity you etc.: typical sympathy from a chorus (cf. 469;
Introduction p. 32), repeated but sharpened in their later couplet 1402–3,
their iambics in both bracket the tetrameters 1338–1401. Simple met
with here (τυγχάνω) becomes ‘fortune’ itself (τύχη) in 1403: the Chorus
use the root τυχ- just as Iph. herself used ‘fortune’ τύχη in 1280, and
will use ‘misfortune’ δυστυχές in 1342. Note how enjambed τυχοῦσαν
beginning 1337 is matched by τυχεῖν at its end: a similar figure with
θανεῖν in 1252 (n.). It is common for a chorus to speak a couplet directly
after an actor’s monody (Mastronarde on Pho. 355–6), there as here of
sympathy, and most appropriately; cf. Ion 923–4. For choral couplets in
general see Introduction p. 32.
(A) 1338–68a Stichomythia between Clyt. and briefly Iph., then Ach.
1338–41 The words mother, who gave me birth and crowd of men
are adjacent in the Greek, drawing attention to a sudden terror for Iph.
The maiden girl is confronted with ‘men carrying arms’ (1359). Iph. is
instinctively ashamed (αἰσχύνομαι 1341, cf. ‘shame’ αἰδῶ 1342); Clyt.
had protected her from a meeting with Ach., 992–7 – conversely Ach.
reacted to encountering Clyt. with manly ‘shame’ 821 (n.), 830. Now,
Iph.’s shame may override her immediate fear that the men have come
to take her away to sacrifice (cf. her later 1458). Clyt. however is not so
much alarmed as anxious for the meaning of Ach.’s return (see his 1003–
35): instead of Iph.’s marriage, her daughter’s life is now at stake, and
she must lay aside her earlier shame, and Iph. must do the same, 1343–4
n. (on shame generally see Introduction pp. 34–5). Ach.’s behaviour too
 Commentary 575

is in contrast: his first words tell of the new danger to Iph.’s life. Open
up the hut … servants: an instruction to off-stage personnel. διαχαλᾶτε
means ‘unbar’ (i.e. undo the real-life fastening of) the central stage-door
when it represents the door of a building, e.g. Med. 1314, Hipp. 808 and
esp. A. Cho. 879 (on which see D. Bain, Masters, Servants and Orders
in Greek Tragedy (Manchester 1981) 57 and 63 n. 8); and indeed Ag.’s
‘hut’ has ‘gates’ (see 1 n.). Ag. sent Iph. inside at 678 and had her called
outside at 1120, when the door closed behind her (on entrances and exits
through the door, whether indicated or implied, see Taplin (1977) esp.
339–41, 343–4). Why are you trying to escape?: Clyt. detains Iph.
in 1344 – and tries to do so at their final parting, 1465–6. (Achilles)
here: the demonstr. pron. ὅδε as a ‘stage-direction’ registers anyone (or
anything) seen approaching or already present (e.g. 1392), or just off-
stage and remaining invisible or expected to enter; cf. 71–3 n.
Greek. 1338 ὦ τεκοῦσα μῆτερ: also Pho. 1270, cf. 298; for this
emphatic and often emotional pleonasm cf. e.g. 1177 ὁ φυτεύσας πατήρ
and n.   1339 ᾧ: a rather strained dat. of personal advantage, ‘for
whose sake’ (Kovacs). 947 σῷ πόσει ‘for your husband’ is an even greater
difficulty (see n.): see Smyth 1481 and, after a verb of motion as here, 1485,
citing Thuc. 1.61.1, 107.7 (both with ἦλθον).   1340 μοι please: 538, cf.
613–14 n. κρύψω δέμας hide myself, as e.g. Tro. 777 (Andromache asks
to be ‘hidden’ when doomed to ‘marriage’ with Neoptolemus the slayer
of her husband Hector). δέμας lit. ‘(my) body’ means no more than ‘me’,
cf. 937 n., 1349–53 n.   1341 αἰσχύνομαι with inf. (Smyth 2126), e.g.
Hec. 968 σε προσβλέπειν ἐναντίον ‘to look at you directly’.
[Text. 1339 ᾿Αχιλλέα L is doubted by eds, because of the name’s
repetition in 1341 (in fact, that is a validation), but also because the
phrasing is unusual, the name being appositional to the def. art. τόν …
(τῆς θεᾶς) in the Homeric manner, ‘the goddess’ son, Achilles’. Tr2 and
later Heath thought it a gloss which had displaced παῖδα, and this led
to misguided conjecture to cure the consequent metrical problem in
mid-verse (both Tr and Hermann in the apparatus). ἤλυθες Vitelli is the
easiest correction of L’s ἐλήλυθας, which is ‘wrong’ in tense: the perf.
‘have come’ implies that Iph. may yet marry Ach., but because Clyt. and
she have long learned of Ag.’s failed deception a simple aor. ‘came’ is
necessary. The readings of L and Tr in 1339 are definitively discussed by
Zuntz (1965) 101, who accepts Vitelli’s correction.]
576 Commentary

1342–4 For what reason?: ὡς τί δή;, an idiom of impatience with a

person’s thinking or intention, often with ellipse of a verb, and colloquial
(GP 211, Stevens (1976) 29); cf. Ion 525 ὡς τί δὴ φεύγεις με; ‘Why are
you trying to escape from me?’ ill-fortune: a mild word from Iph. after
her 1330–2, and the Chorus’ harsh ‘evil fortune’ συμφορά 1336: the latter
occurs in 1468 as ‘fate’ (n.). fastidious: ἐν ἁβρότητι, a noun in the
Greek; cf. the verb ἁβρύνομαι in 858 (n.), the Old Man’s realisation he
dare not be fastidious; compare too Clyt.’s (no time for) pride, σεμνότης,
with her 901 ‘For why should I be proud?’ τί γὰρ σεμνύνομαι; (see n.),
her abandonment of reserve in supplicating Ach. Also, for Iph.’s being
‘ashamed’ of facing men compare Pho. 1276 – ‘I (Antigone) feel shame
before a crowd’. – ‘Your situation does not allow for shame’. what has
happened: lit. ‘fallen out’, cf. 1280 n. Greek. The expression is thought
to derive from the ‘fall’ of thrown dice: see Wilamowitz or Bond on
Her. 1228 †τὰ τῶν θεῶν γε πτώματα†, ‘what the gods cause to fall out’,
cf. 1276–82 n., S. F 947 ‘the wise dice-player must put up with what
falls out’. you must stay: μίμν(ε), at a critical moment, cf. 855 μεῖνον,
the Old Man to Ach., and 1461 μένε, Iph. to Clyt. (no) time for: lit.
‘work for’, i.e. harm or loss will follow inaction. The idiom οὐδὲν ἔργον
is discussed by Barrett on Hipp. 911, citing e.g. And. 552 ‘no time for
leisure’, cf. LSJ ἔργον IV.1b; given the colloquial idiom σὸν ἔργον ‘it’s
for you to…’ (Stevens (1976) 39), this one too may be such, continuing
the tone of ‘For what reason?’
Greek: 1343 κεῖμαι with ἐν and dat. ‘be in a position of’ also e.g. Hec.
969, Hel. 1195. πρὸς considering etc., lit. ‘with regard to’, also Hipp.
718 πρὸς τὰ νῦν πεπτωκότα; cf. πρὸς τὸ πῖπτον El. 639; Smyth 1695.3c:
LSJ πρός C. III.1.   1344 benefit: ὀνίνημαι, as in the expression ὄναιο
1008–9 (n.), 1359–60; LSJ II.2.
[Text. 1344 ὀνώμεθα Wecklein are to benefit is palmary, supposing a
very slight miscopying behind L’s δυνώμεθα ‘are to be able’.]
1345–68a For this stichomythic exchange see 1336–1509 n., Form.
1345–8 daughter of Leda: for the formality of this address, used
by Ag. to his wife at 686: see n.; cf. the Old Man addressing Ach. as
‘descendant of Aeacus’ 855. you speak the truth: in calling me
‘poor’; but there may be a certain coldness in Clyt. now that Ach.’s
advice to her to supplicate Ag. (1009–24) has failed (cf. 1336–1509 n. at
(A) 1336–68a): she calls him ‘stranger’, 1349. The verb θροέω ‘speak’
 Commentary 577

is used most often in Tragedy at fraught moments, e.g. 143 the Old Man
deprecating criticism; of unwelcome voices or words e.g. Hipp. 571 =
Or. 1249. What you say bodes bad news: lit. ‘you say a word (that
is) an omen of wicked things’; cf. Ion 754 ‘the prelude of your words is
not happy’. οἰωνός ‘bird(-omen)’ is used metaphorically, e.g. Or. 788,
Hipp. 873, like ὄρνις 988 (n.; cf. 607 and Pho. 858 of good omens).
Observation of bird-flight was one of the oldest and commonest forms
of divination (Latin au(spicium), au(gurium) from au(is) ‘bird’); the
observation of the eagles at Aulis is famously expounded by Calchas A.
Ag. 114–57. bad: πονηρῶν: for the adj. πονηρός of ‘wicked things’, of
actions (πον-) transgressing all morality, cf. e.g. 1001 gossip and Hec.
1190–1 treachery, Meleager F 528.2 vileness. slaughtered: the brutal
word once more: see 1318 n. †And no one speaks against?†: excellent
sense but the Greek is metrically at fault: see Text below.
Greek. 1346 τίνα βοήν; L, a mild anacoluthon (Smyth 3004–8; V. Bers,
EGT 1369), as if βοῶσι dat. plur. part. in agreement with Ἀργείοις, and
governing the acc., is to be understood, ‘the Argives shouting (what
shout)?’ See Text.
[Text. In 1345–8 the part of Ach. is given to the Chorus in L,
impossibly, since the women could not go to discover what the Greek
army were doing, and since they take no part at all in dialogue; and
Ach.’s first words are then an abrupt 1349 ‘I myself met with some noisy
clamour’.   1346 Because βοᾶται is pass., Hermann’s conjecture τίς
βοή; ‘What shout (is being shouted)?’ offers a smoother transition; but
τίνα βοήν; L is accepted by all eds except Diggle and Kovacs, and by
Matthiessen and Renehan (1998) 266.   1347 πονηρῶν Nauck, the
anticipated ‘wicked actions’ in emphatic first place; πονηρὸν L is wrong
in sense and impossible as predicate with οἰωνὸν λόγον, and not to be
rescued by Nauck’s λόγων, lit. ‘wicked omen of words’.   1348 The καί
in κοὐδεὶς L wrecks the mid-verse metre and (ἐναντ)ία gives a resolved
syllable in the 4th trochaic metron, a very unusual place (West (1982) 91).
οὐδεὶς cures the first, ἐναντίον the second, but a supplementary syllable
is then needed somewhere: Heath, unaware of P2’s <τοῖς δ’>, proposed
<τοῖσδ’> ἐναντία ‘(against) this’; but Vitelli’s <δ’ οὐδ>ὲν ἀντίον ‘but …
nothing (against)’ would be stronger and neater, although ἀντίος is less
frequent than ἐναντίος in spoken contexts.]
1349–53 noisy clamour: θόρυβος, expanding upon the shouting
578 Commentary

of 1346. Compare Hec. 872–4 the possibility of soldiers’ clamour

preventing a just revenge, Or. [905] clamour in an assembly exploited
to secure condemnation (for ‘crowd-power’ in Eur. see Webster (1967)
288). stranger: ξένε: for Clyt.’s suddenly stiff mode of addressing Ach.
see 1336–1509 n. and (A) 1336–68a n.; cf. also Iph. at 1418. stoned:
the punishment of a severe offence against a community, esp. betrayal,
imposed and executed collectively, e.g. for burying a traitor S. Ant. 35–6
(where Griffith notes ‘Like a modern-day firing squad, stoning spreads
the responsibility around: nobody ever knows which stone (or bullet) is
the fatal one’). Achilles is threatened with stoning for refusing to fight
also at A. Myrmidons F 132c.1–4 (see Michelakis (2002) 119). Orestes’
matricide counts as such treason, Or. 50. For stoning in historical Athens
see e.g. Ar. Ach. 234–6; V. J. Rosivach, ClassAnt 6 (1987) 232–48; in
Tragedy M. Lloyd, EGT 1029–30. ‘(stoned) with rocks’: idiomatic, not
emphatic, pleonasm, e.g. Or. 442, S. OC 435. bodily: σῶμα, lit. ‘body’,
Ach. also 940 and (δέμας) 937 (n.); an often emotive periphrase for the
person, the self, coming frequently from Iph. 1217, 1221, 1395, 1397,
1417. Stockert on 1351 sees ‘body’ as a ‘keyword’ of the play. Just
that: αὐτὸ τοῦτο: also Or. 665, a colloquialism (Stevens (1976) 27),
expressive of Ach.’s impatience or stress; cf. the masc. ‘the man himself’
αὐτὸς οὗτος 1363. All the Greeks: only a mild repetition of the
Panhellenic theme, but Ach. appears to share the ideal at 809, 965–7 and
perhaps 1019–21; if he does here too, Iph. may pick it up in her coming
speech, from 1378 onward; cf. Ach. again in 1406. Myrmidon army:
more resentment from them, cf. 814–18 n.
Greek. 1350 σῶμα λευσθῆναι: acc. and infin. of indirect speech,
implicit after the verbal noun θόρυβος 1349; the inf. represents a direct
imperative, with σῶμα as its subject (Smyth 2633c); cf. μὴ κτανεῖν 1355.
μῶν But wasn’t…?: the particle is here apprehensive of the truth, e.g. Or.
875, Hipp. 794 with Barrett’s n.; different from μῶν 321, which expects
a negative answer. σῴζων trying to save: conative pres., like (Stockert)
Or. 129 σῴζουσα κάλλος (Helen her beauty); Smyth 1878.   1351
θιγγάνω with τλάω ‘dare to touch’ e.g. Hipp. 885, El. 255.  1352
πάρειμι ‘be there (to aid, protect)’ e.g. Iliad 18.472, Or. 1159; cf. 645,
646 παρά with dat. and γίγνομαι, εἰμί.   1353 πρῶτος foremost,
‘principal, above all others’, e.g. Hec. 304, And. 1237; Denniston on El.
83. ἄρα then, an extremely rare use of this non-connective particle as the
 Commentary 579

separative word in tmesis (40 n.); cf. the modal particle ἄν so used Alc.
901 (anapaests), the adv. αὖ El. 1121 (dialogue).
[Text. 1349 Blomfield’s emendation τιν’ αὐτὸς is the best: in τοι καὐτὸς
L, τοι is against metre (but ἐγὼ … καὐτός emphatic ‘myself’ is idiomatic:
691–2 n.). The tone of understatement too is more idiomatically given by
τιν(α), meiotic (609 n.), in agreement with θόρυβον than by Musgrave’s
τι (καὐτὸς).   1351 Hermann altered the word-order to avoid the very
rare prosody of ἐ- lengthened within ἔτλη, creating a not uncommon
postponement of the connective particle δέ: see GP 187(i)–8.]
1354–7 Why, they…: the force here of the rel. pron. οἵ: 1267 n. abused
… calling: Iph. is later concerned to prevent such abuse of Ach. her helper,
1371–2; see also Greek below. promised me: cf. ἐπιφημίζω 130 n.;
Ach. at 936 said ἐμὴ φατισθεῖσ(α) ‘spoken of as mine’. the many are a
terrible evil: similar scorn Or. 772 δεινὸν οἱ πολλοί ‘the many are a terrible
thing’, IT 678 τοῖς πολλοῖσι (πολλοὶ γὰρ κακοί) ‘…the many (for many are
evil)’; (οἱ πολλοί in Eur. also Hec. 257); Or. 908 τὸ πλῆθος, τῇ πόλει κακὸν
μέγα ‘the masses, a great evil for the city’; cf. anxiety about the ὄχλος
‘masses’, verging on ‘mob’, 526 n. Clyt. here is doubtless being made to
speak of the ‘mob’ generally, but means primarily the collected Myrmidons
of 1352; but her words recall Hecuba’s aspersions on the ‘mob’ at Hec.
604–8, in her anxiety that it should not touch her daughter Polyxena’s body
after her sacrifical death; and Clyt. has forgotten the admiring welcome
that the army gave her and Iph. 424–34.
Greek. 1353 οἵ: the plur. rel. pron. has a collective sing. noun as
antecedent, στρατός 1352; cf. 967 and e.g. Or. 920, Supp. 868; Smyth
2502b.   1354 ἀποκαλέω ‘call by a name’: the preverb ἀπο- is negative
and pejorative (LSJ ἀπό D.5, DELG 97); this verb occurs in Tragedy
also S. Aj. 727 (abusing the kin of a perceived traitor), in satyr-play E.
Autolycus F 282a (bodily appearance). The def. art. (τὸν) is common in
‘calling’, e.g. Or. 1140, Bacc. 725; Smyth 1152. ἥσσονα (who) gave in
to (marriage) is lit. ‘less, weaker than’, i.e. ‘too weak to resist, overcome
by’, e.g. And. 631 Κύπριδος ‘overcome by Aphrodite’ (Menelaus by
Helen); the comparative gen. naturally follows the verb ἡσσάομαι, e.g.
1272 (n.), Hipp. 727 ἔρωτος ‘overcome by passion’ (Phaedra); similarly
1357 here νικάομαι (LSJ II): Smyth 1402. Cf. also S. Ant. 680 οὐκ ἂν
γυναικῶν ἥσσονες καλοίμεθ’ ἄν ‘I’d not (want to) be called weaker
than women’ (Creon speaking of Antigone, after 678 γυναικὸς οὐδαμῶς
580 Commentary

ἡσσητέα ‘one must in no way be worsted by a woman’).   1355 εὐνή

‘bed’ personified as ‘bedmate, wife’, e.g. Hipp. 1011, Her. 68; cf. λέχος
103 n. μέλλουσαν absolute, adjectival: future: of marriage also 988,
1380; cf. 865. δίκαια: nom., sc. ἐστί, as in e.g. Her. 583; the neut. plur.
is idiomatic.   1356 ἐπέμψατο mid., ‘sent for, fetched’, e.g. Hec. 977.
1357 κεκραγμός: cf. κέκραγμα Ar. Peace 637; these nouns are formed on
the perf. stem κέκραγμαι οf onomatopoeic κράζω ‘bawl, cry out’, with
an incidental further sound effect in κε-; compare e.g. τετανός ‘tension
(tetanus)’ from τείνω, and τέτρο(or α)μος ‘trembling’ from τρέμω.
τό πολύ: abstract for concrete οἱ πολλοί, possibly to avoid clash with
πολλοῖς in a different sense in 1358; cf. 1401 τὸ δοῦλον for οἱ δοῦλοι.
[Text. 1354 ἀπεκρίνω Tr3: ὑπεκρίνω L, but this verb means ‘answer’
only in Epic/Ionic: LSJ B.1.]
1358–61a all alone against a multitude: deliberate over-translation
of plain πολλοῖσιν εἷς, juxtaposed ‘many/one’ being a favoured and
always effective antithesis, e.g. 1394, Hcld. 8, And. 217. these men
carrying arms: those who alarmed Iph. at 1338; they are carrying Ach.’s
weaponry (cf. 1426), like the stage-extras carrying that of Eteocles A.
Sept. 675. Despite the emphasis in the play on Ach.’s prowess in war
and his splendid weaponry (206–15, 1068–75), he does not himself
wear it on stage, either when he comes to complain to Ag. on behalf
of his Myrmidons (804–18) or in this scene. Michelakis (2002) 120–8
(contrasting Ach.’s appearance in full armour at Argos, even earlier than
the gathering at Aulis, at Telephus F 727c.46–9) argues that these places
‘correspond to a role … that Ach. fails to assume’ (124), observing how it
‘undermines’ his exit at 1432 and ‘underlines’ his unheroic presentation;
it adds to doubt that he will attempt to save Iph. See 1336–1509 n. at (C)
1404–32; Introduction pp. 23–4. May you benefit: Clyt. responds to
Ach.’s 1358 ‘I shall come to your aid’; cf. her earlier thanks 1008, and her
hopes now 1344. sense of honour: τῶν φρενῶν lit. ‘mind, thinking’,
a word like so many abstractions coloured by its context; explicit e.g.
Hipp. 1390 τὸ εὐγενὲς … τῶν φρενῶν ‘nobility of mind’. I shall
benefit: what does Ach. mean? Hardly that he may yet marry Iph., for
only her decision to accept her death induces this now impossible hope
from him, 1404–7, 1410–11. Does he mean his own moral satisfaction,
for upholding his honour among his fellow soldiers, 930–1, 944–5,
959–61, 1019–21? ‘A chivalrous action is its own reward’, comments
 Commentary 581

Headlam. Is he offering reassurance? He offers more in 1361 and 1365

before his bleaker prediction 1366–8 (see n.). At the worst his reply is
empty, in the familiar device whereby one speaker at once substantiates
the other’s words and turns them to his own purpose: see the exx. in
GP 20 illustrating the device with Well ἀλλά from prose and Tragedy
(including stichomythia, like S. El. 1204–5). Will my child now not
be slaughtered?: cf. Ach. 935 ‘your daughter shall never be slaughtered
by her father.’ not … with my consent: cf. Clyt. to Ach. 991 ‘If you
wish it my child will be saved’; cf. 1367 n.; Hel. 1640 οὐ κτενεῖς ἡμῶν
ἑκόντων ‘you’ll not kill with my consent’.
Greek. 1359 φρενῶν is partitive gen., cf. e.g. IT 1078 ὄναισθε μύθων
‘…from words’, Med. 1348 λέκτρων ‘from a (new) marriage’; Smyth
1355.   1360 ἀλλά: above.
1361b–4 Odysseus: his final mention in the play, perhaps a little
surprising after his knowledge of Ag.’s deception 107 and Ag.’s fear of
his revealing it 524–9. Both are characteristic of his mythic cunning and
lack of scruple as the son of Sisyphus (524 n.), and Euripides invariably
exploits them, without necessarily endorsing them, in Cyclops, Hecuba
(where he will take Polyxena from her mother, 141–3, 222–3, 432),
Trojan Women, Palamedes, Scyrians. 1361–4 reflect his readiness to
undertake but sometimes to initiate unpleasant actions in the common
interest and sometimes in his own (Acting for himself, or instructed by
the army?): the prime example of the first is his treatment of Philoctetes
in the name-plays of Sophocles (esp. 568–73, 615–16; cf. 6 ‘instructed
(ταχθείς) to do this’, Od. of himself) and of Euripides (F 787–9d, in
which he examines his motivation, esp. to strengthen his fame 789b
(2) at end); the prime example of the second is his contriving the death
of Palamedes out of jealousy (E. Palamedes test. v.a, b; Philoctetes F
789d.8). The contrast between individual and public or common interest
is very frequent, from Od. 4.314 onward, esp. in Thucydides; cf. e.g.
Hec. 641–2 κοινὸν … ἐξ ἰδίας ἀνοίας | κακόν ‘common disaster from
individual folly’. but Odysseus will lead her away: out of context
the Greek would normally mean ‘(Yes, large numbers,) and Od. will
lead them’; but we prefer Ach. to answer Clyt.’s question of 1361 as
expecting an individual; similarly Stockert, Turato. The Greek of 1362–3
has a large number of sibilants; such ‘hissing’ often attends disapproval
(e.g. 393, 524, [1429]): see Page’s n. on Med. 476, a line notorious in
582 Commentary

antiquity. Chosen, willingly: αἱρεθεὶς ἑκών, cf. (Stockert) ἄσμενος

(‘gladly’) αἱρεθείς Thuc. 6.12.2 (Alcibiades). It is a very Euripidean
antithesis, extending 1361 ‘not with my consent’, which is repeated
in 1365; cf. e.g. 360 ‘willingly … not through compulsion’ (see n.,
and on 73b–6), Tro. 373; the trope is at an extreme in Bellerophon F
304a.2 ἑκὼν ἑκοῦσαν ἢ <οὐ> θέλουσαν οὐχ ἑκών; ‘(Did he) willingly
(kill her) against her will, or against her wishes unwillingly?’ commit
murder: μιαιφονεῖν, lit. ‘shed blood that pollutes’ (μια(ι)-), commonly
of kindred murder e.g. Med. 1346, Or. 524. Clyt. is implying that Od.
will not himself shed blood, but commit sacrilege by his complicity in
the ‘impious slaughter’ (Iph. in 1318).
Greek. 1362 μυρίοι large numbers, ‘countless’: distinguished in the
nom. by accent from μύριοι ‘ten thousand’.   1363 αὐτὸς οὗτος, The
man himself: 1351 αὐτὸ τοῦτο ‘just that’, neuter. ἴδια πράσσων ‘acting
for himself’, lit. ‘doing individual, private things’, ἴδιος as in e.g. Supp.
413 πρὸς κέρδος ἴδιον ‘for private gain’, LSJ I.2; but πράσσω implies
‘acting by design, underhand’ (Od.’s alleged habit: above), for which
see 129 n.   1364 μιαιφονεῖν is inf. appositional to αἵρεσιν, this noun
taking up the verb αἱρεθείς (with which it is cognate acc. retained with
the pass.: cf. 1275 n.): eds compare Hel. 1633 – ἥ με προύδωκεν. – καλήν
γε προδοσίαν, δίκαια δρᾶν; – ‘Who betrayed me.’ – ‘A fine betrayal,
doing justice!’; for this stichomythic device cf. also Bacc. 970, Or. 1582;
GP 134.
[Text. 1362 ἄξει L will lead is satisfactory, with either Iph. as object
(above) or ‘large numbers’; but in the light of Erasmus’ translation dux …
agminis ‘leader of the troop’ Wecklein conjectured ἄρξει ‘will command,
be at the head of’ (337, 355).   1363 ἴδια Heath restores metre: ἰδίᾳ L.]
1365–8a Clyt. does not accept Ach.’s reassurance I shall hold him back;
she asks again about the violent seizure of Iph. (cf. 1361). Certainly:
δηλαδή, a colloquialism (Stevens (1976) 46, in Tragedy also Or. 789,
S. OT 1501; on its accentuation see GP 205). The urgency, perhaps
impatience, conveyed by the word continues in Ach.’s next two, more
chilling replies. hair: captured women faced such dragging: 791–2
(n.). Iph. herself, no captive, fears it 1458, like her mother here. blond:
ξανθῆς is Iph.’s hair-colour also 681 (see n.). Cling to your daughter:
perhaps an echo of Hec. 398, where Hecuba, faced with separation from
Polyxena, says ‘I’ll cling to her like ivy to an oak’; see on Greek.
 Commentary 583

Greek. 1365 ἔχω ‘hold back’, LSJ A II.9; the fut. form σχήσω is usual
in this sense, e.g. Or. 263.   1367 ἀντέχομαι ‘cling to’ with partitive
gen.: mother to child Tro. 727, child to mother 750; simple ἔχομαι Hec.
398 (above) – followed in 400 as here by ὡς … οὐ with preceding ellipse
of e.g. ἴσθι ‘know (that … not)…’: ‘I’ll not willingly let go of the girl
here’: τοῦδ’ οὕνεκα, i.e. τοῦ ἀντέχεσθαι, So far as that (clinging to her)
goes: the prep. οὕνεκα as e.g. S. El. 387, Ant. 19, with nouns e.g. Hel.
1254 πλούτου ‘wealth’: full exemplification by Fries (2014) on Rhesus
340, referring for the forms ἕ/εἵ/οὕνεκα to Barrett on Hipp. 453–6
(see also Text).   1368 ἀλλὰ μὴν But … certainly: assentient, here
‘substantiating a condition “If clinging can save her … it will in fact be
the only way to save her” ’, GP 344; about ×6 in Eur. ἐς τοῦτο … ἥξει(ν)
‘it will … come to that’: impersonal, as in the idiom ἐς τοῦτο ἔρχεται
‘it comes to this’, e.g. Tro. 401, Antiope F 223.7; but cf. Her. 1294 ἐς
τοῦτο δ’ ἥξειν συμφορᾶς οἶμαι ‘I think (I) shall come to this point of
catastrophe’; 2. pers. in this idiom at 1002, cf. [665].
[Text. 1366 δρᾶν τί χρὴ Kirchoff, to ease the metre: τί χρὴ δρᾶν L,
with unusual lengthening of τί before χρ-.   1367 τοῦδε L: τῆσδε
Elmsley, the pron. personified, i.e. ‘(me) here’, with οὕνεκα ‘as far as I
am concerned’: clever but unneeded; and ὅδε so used by a 1. pers. is very
rare, e.g. S. Trac. 305, when not accompanying a pron., e.g. ἐγώ Hel.
528: see Jebb on S. OC 453, Moorhouse (1982) 155–6. οὕνεκα Aldine:
the same correction of ἕνεκα L as in 1393; reversed in the post-Classical
[1621].]
(B) 1368b–1403 Iphigenia’s great speech.
Iph. has been totally silent during the urgent and emotional dialogue
between Ach. and Clyt.; she has been thinking (1374–5: n.). Now she
bursts in at mid-line (on this, 1368b–70 n.) with the great speech in
which she changes her mind (see below) and willingly embraces death
for the Greek cause. It is a tour de force. After saying that Clyt.’s anger
against her husband is pointless, that what is impossible to handle must
nevertheless be faced, and that Ach. must not suffer from going against
the army’s feelings 1368–73, she assures Clyt. that she wishes to die,
and gloriously 1374–6; all Greece looks to her, she asserts, to enable the
sack of Troy and to prevent the further abduction of Greek women such
as that of Helen 1377–84. She must not hold her life too dear: Clyt. gave
584 Commentary

her birth for the advantage of all Greeks, and it is proper that one woman,
herself, should sacrifice her life when so many Greek men will fight for a
fatherland that is wronged 1385–91. Ach. must not be endangered; better
that one man should see the light of day than countless women. She
herself cannot oppose Artemis’ demand for her life 1392–4. The sack of
Troy will be her memorial, for ensuring that Greeks rule barbarians, not
barbarians Greece 1398–1401.
Iph. in part uses Ag.’s patriotic arguments in his 1255–75: 1380–1 and
1400–1 ‘stop the barbarians’ ~ 1266, 1275; 1384 and 1401 ‘freedom for
Greeks’ ~ 1273; 1386–9 ‘the cause of Greece is overriding’ ~ 1269–73.
She names Greece eight times, and the Panhellenic theme appears in
1378, 1386, 1393. Her speech nevertheless is emphatically her own, ‘my
decision’ (1375 n.), with over twenty uses of 1. pers. verbs, pronouns and
possessives; prons. begin 1378 and 1379, possessives 1369 and 1390. Iph.
is determined and confident, and her speech cogent also in its rhetorical
style. There are two prominent headlines: 1375 ‘I have decided to die;
I want just this, to die gloriously’ invites Clyt. to share her reasoning;
1385 ‘I must not hold my life too dear’ comes exactly half-way and sets
a more passionate tone for the remainder. Then 1398–1401 are a rousing,
recapitulatory end. Asyndeton beginning lines is very marked, 1375,
1377, 1378, 1383, 1391, 1394, 1398 – yet the important 1385 begins
with a unique sequence of four particles. There are similarities with
Praxithea’s speech to her husband defending the sacrifice of one child to
save Athens, Erechtheus F 360; we note some below.
The speech continues the trochaic tetrameters of the preceding
animated dialogue: Mastronarde (2010) 239–40 suggests that Iph. is
‘swept up emotionally in … an opportunity for patriotism’ or (240 n.
56) that ‘the meter might lend her speech a quasi-oracular authority’: he
compares the prophetic Cassandra changing from iambics to trochaics at
Tro. 444–61 and Dionysus continuing stichomythic tetrameters into his
speech Bacc. 616–41.
Iph.’s change of mind: Aristotle famously judged her inconsistent,
Poetics Ch. 15, 1354a31–2. We have summed up scholars’ various
reactions and explanations, and commented on how Euripides has woven
such changes of mind into the fabric of his play, Introduction pp. 2, 18–
22 and 25–7.
1368b–70 my words must be heard: peremptory, as Iph. breaks
 Commentary 585

urgently into the stichomythia at mid-line; for this there is no certain

parallel, 414b being only superficially similar, with a new entrant (whose
authenticity is disputed). Where speeches elsewhere appear to begin at
this point the speaker is one of the parties to an exchange and the half-line
completes it, e.g. Pho. 624, perhaps 985; Or. 799. On ‘must be heard’ see
Text below. angry with your husband: the same words begin Creon’s
opening accusation of Medea, Med. 271, which falls on similarly deaf
ears (see Clyt. 1455–7). in vain: Clyt.’s attack upon Ag. (1124–1208)
had no effect. for us: generalising plur. (‘from delicacy of feeling’,
Headlam), for Iph. soon invites Clyt.’s personal understanding much more
strongly, 1372–7. bear up against (the impossible): i.e. unfavourable
fortune (full illustration of the axiom and language by Richardson on
Hom. Hymn. Demeter 147–8). Iph. repeats ‘the impossible’ in 1397, with
ἀμήχανον: cf. Hcld. 706–7 χρὴ … τὰ … ἀμήχανα … ἐᾶν ‘one should
let the impossible be’, Hel. 811 ‘to venture the impossible (ἀδύνατα) is
the act of a man without wisdom’. ‘The impossible’ may reflect Ag.’s
1257–8 ‘It is terrible for me to brave myself to this deed, and also terrible
not to. The outcome for me must be the same’.
Greek: 1368 εἰσακουστέα: the plur of the gerundive is common
in verse, esp. when it acts as main verb, often without ἐστί: 671 n.,
734.   1370 καρτερεῖν, lit. ‘have strength (καρτ-/κρατ-) to endure’,
trans. e.g. Alc. 1071 θεοῦ δόσιν ‘god’s gift’, Her. 1351 ἐγκαρτερήσω
βίοτον ‘life’ (Heracles renouncing suicide; βίοτον Wecklein: θάνατον L
‘death’); intrans. ‘endure’ Alc. 1078 παθόντα ‘when suffering’.
[Text. 1368 εἰσακουστέα Diggle (1994) 506–7 (and -τέον earlier
Monk). Diggle shows that an impersonal gerundive must be preferred
to L’s imperative εἰσακούσατε, to conform with an idiom of all drama:
when a 2. pers. plur. imperative follows a sing. voc., that individual is
being given a command upon which both or all persons present are to
act, e.g. Hel. 700 (πρόσδοτον Cobet, dual: -δοτε L), S. Phil. 369, OC
1102–4 (Diggle cites Headlam on Herodas 3.87). Here, Iph. directs
her persuasion only at her mother (see (B) 1368b–1403 in 1336–1509
n.).   In 1369 the start of the verse was marked as defective in L by
the scribe himself or by Tr1; it is unclear whether L had τῶν ἐμῶν (but
P copied it from L after Tr1); Tr2 supplemented with λόγων (L and Tr
here are fully discussed by Günther p. VIII n. 9 and Stockert p. 583).
The resulting wording is unexceptionable, e.g. Bacc. 787. Tr2’s further
586 Commentary

supplement <σ(ε)> is inescapable. Too much is lost from Iph.’s beginning

– and from the play – through Kovacs’ deletion of 1369–70: cf. 1336–
1509 n. Text, p. 574.
1371–3 the stranger: despite hearing of Ach.’s defence of her life,
against his men’s charge that he was not strong enough to resist his
‘marriage’, Iph. has not revived any hope of it she may herself still have
had. It is wrong to read such hope into her recognition of his ready zeal,
προθυμίας, for thank αἰνέσαι stands in the idiom of ‘I thank you (but
decline)’, a polite refusal: see Mastronarde on the similarly worded Pho.
1683 αἰνῶ μέν σε τῆς προθυμίας. Iph. has already closed her mind to
the marriage, seemingly: she did not mention it in her plea to her father
1211–52; indeed Ag. only alluded to it at 1108, 1113 (when Iph. was off-
stage), before he learned that his deception had been revealed. traduced
(before the army): διαβληθῇ. A common fear of commanders, e.g. Hec.
863 Agamemnon, Hcld. 422 Demophon; the verb διαβάλλω is frequent
in Thucydides, of men at war and in domestic politics; Ach. was wary
of the army’s blame 1020. Iph. here picks up his report in 1349–57 of
this danger; is she understating it, or using an evasive euphemism? She
is plain about his danger in battle amid the whole Greek army, 1392–
3. meet with disaster: similar wording from the Chorus, 1337; cf.
1280.
Greek: 1371 μὲν οὖν (‘transitional’ GP 471–2) is taken up by δέ
1374. αἰνέω and gen. of cause προθυμίας also Pho. 1683, cf. 28 above
ἄγαμαι and n.; Smyth 1405.   1372 τοῦτο anticipates the clause μή
and subjunctive: e.g. τοῦτο … ὅπως Tro. 1008, … ἵνα Antiope F 184.3;
Smyth 1248. στρατῷ ‘before (the army)’ is a dat. difficult to describe
(such a dat. with διαβάλλω pass. also Hcld. 422 πολίταις ‘citizens’, Hec.
863 Ἀχαιοῖς ‘the Greeks’): of association, Smyth 1523a; similarly KG
I.432–3, comitative-instrumental.   1373 πλέον (πράσσω) οὐδέν lit.
‘(do, achieve) nothing more’ Philoctetes F 788.2, with e.g. δράω And.
698, ἐργάζομαι Hipp. 284; cf. Hel. 322 τί σοι πλέον …; ‘What advantage
to you…?’
[Text. 1372 διαβληθῇ Hartung, 3. pers. of Ach., is necessary: διαβληθῇς
L, 2. pers. of Ach., as if Iph. suddenly addresses him; but it is Clyt. to whom
Iph. now appeals, as again in 1374, 1376, cf. 1385: see 1368b–1401 n.]
1374–6 as I was thinking: only during the preceding dialogue,
or beginning in her monody (1282–1335 n., 1336–1509 n. (A)
 Commentary 587

1336–1403)? Ach. responds with ‘reasoned out’ [1409] to her word

‘thinking’ (ἐννοέομαι; of Men.’s ‘reflections’, 492). To die: κατθανεῖν
begins the line abruptly. my decision: μοι δέδοκται; the perf. conveys
finality (with μοι dat. of the agent as is regular with the perf. pass.:
1425 Text), e.g. Med. 1236 (Medea will kill her children) and Hel. 982
(Menelaus plans to kill Helen if they cannot escape). Iph.’s death is
inevitable (1370 and n.), but she speaks as if the decision is her own, as
Ach. recognizes, 1422. Furthermore, this fits the strongly ‘first-person’
cast of 1369–74, and the sequel I want to do just this (see 1368a–1401
n., 2nd paragraph). The translation ‘my decision’ is widely adopted,
and we accept it, but it has a difficulty: the particles μέν and δέ appear
merely to correlate μοι δέδοκται ‘my decision’ with βούλομαι ‘I wish’,
a weak function thinly illustrated by GP 370. Their normal antithetical
function is restored, and a quite different meaning given to the line, by
Stockert’s interpretation (1994/5) of μοι δέδοκται as ‘It has been decided
for me that I am to die, but I wish to do just this gloriously’ (Iph. is
now aware of Ag.’s deception, 1102, 1257–8, and of Calchas’ prophecy,
1261–2). Stockert adduces parallels for the expression δέδοκται with
dat. of (dis)advantage and prolative inf. at Hdt. 4.68.4, 6.109.3 (text
insecure) – both are death-sentences – and Ar. Wasps 485 (if ms. μοι
is retained: τοι Platnauer in Wilson’s OCT); cf. also absolute δέδοκται,
without μοι, ‘it is decided’ e.g. Cretans F 472e.50 (also a sentence of
death). Stockert is followed by Kovacs (see Text below). just this:
τοῦτο … αὐτό, a forceful coupling also at e.g. Supp. 1067 χρῄζω ‘I
desire…’ (Evadne, suicide), Tro. 955 ἔσπευδον ‘I was eager for…’
(Helen, escape). gloriously: the idea again in 1383, 1399; cf. 1309 n.,
Introduction pp. 36–7. meanness: τὸ δυσγενές, lit. ‘low birth’, i.e. the
ungenerous morality usually associated with it, and rejected by Electra’s
peasant husband El. 362–3 ‘I may be poor, but I’ll certainly not show
meanness in my nature’ (contrast Ag.’s envy of one advantage of low
birth, our 446–9 n.). Iph. means to display the converse, the inborn
‘nobility’ at once recognised by the Chorus in 1402 and Ach. in 1411,
1421. What a contrast with her 1252, her final words to Ag., ‘To live
ignobly is better than to die nobly’! They scarcely evince the nobility of
spirit which she is now determined to embody.
Greek. 1374 εἰσέρχομαι ‘come to mind’, 57, 491–2, 522.   1376 γε
sharpening the point of a word, here παρεῖσα; a participial phrase also
588 Commentary

e.g. Hel. 955; GP 138–9.  1375 τοῦτο … αὐτό is probably a variation

of colloquial αὐτὸ τοῦτο in an answer (1351 n.); Stevens (1976) 27 cites
Men. Sicyonian 374 ζῶ· τοῦτ’ ἔχοιμ’ ἂν αὐτό σοι φράσαι ‘I am alive:
I can tell you just this’.   1376 putting aside: παρεῖσα, controlling
an abstract phrase as in 386, cf. Alc. 939 τὸ μόρσιμον ‘what is fated’.
ἐκποδών, pleonastic in emphasizing παρεῖσα, is translated as wholly; it
is lit. ‘away from (one’s) feet’ i.e., ‘right out of the way’; literally with
verbs of departure e.g. Hel. 1023, Hdt. 8.75.3. See Addenda.
[Text. 1375 δέδοκται: the sense Stockert desires (‘it has been decided’:
above) would be given expressly, and idiomatically, by Rauchenstein’s
μὲν ἐμὲ (θανεῖν) acc. and infin. after impersonal δοκεῖ, as e.g. S. Trac.
19–20 δέδοκται κἀμὲ συνθανεῖν, cf. Ant. 576; Smyth 1991.]
1377–82 A long and difficult sentence. Iph. embraces the opportunity
now given to herself as a Greek woman to prevent any future Greek
woman from being seized by barbarians as in the single, terrible case of
Helen by Trojan Paris, 1383–1401. Her argument begins methodically
with Consider: σκέψαι (aor. imperative mid.), an invitation not rare in
mid-speech, and expecting agreement, e.g. Supp. 476 with Collard’s
n.; with a dependent clause as here e.g. Tro. 931 ‘…how the argument
continues’. the good in my words: καλῶς λέγω, a rhetorical
commonplace, 1206–7 n.
It is to me that Greece … now looks: as IT 928 ‘Argos … to you’;
Supp. 177 ‘poor man … to the rich’. in all its wide extent: ἡ μεγίστη
πᾶσα; this is Mastronarde’s translation in his n. on Med. 440 (also Tro.
1115); but πᾶσα here marks the Panhellenic ideal, and μεγίστη may be a
value-term, ‘supremely great’, for Greece is prosperous, ὀλβία. crossing:
πορθμός, used of the Greeks’ return from Troy Hel. 127, 532. Note IA
300 νάϊον πόρευμα i.e. the ships assembled for the crossing, 879 the verb
πορεύομαι. do something: τι δρῶσι, understatement (see Greek), perhaps
intended as a euphemism appropriate from an unmarried girl. snatch:
ἁρπάζειν, emphatically repeated in 1382 ἀνήρπασεν snatched away; the
motif comes from Ag.’s 1266, cf. his 1275 ‘robbed’. ruin of Helen:
allusive, meaning apparently her willing seduction (71–9); ὄλεθρον lit.
‘destruction’ (see Greek) seems exaggerated, weakening the argument:
she had eloped with Paris, although Ag. naturally described his action as
‘snatching her away’, 70–6 ἐξαναρπάσας, 1382. Here, not ‘ruin, destruction
caused by Helen’, because that, wholesale death among both Greeks and
 Commentary 589

Trojans, is a Tragic commonplace at e.g. A. Ag. 1465–7, And. 103–4, Tro.

367–8 (cited on 1392 ‘because of a woman’); here it has yet to happen,
even if ‘predicted’ by the Chorus 751–800 and feared by Iph. 1387–9,
1392–3. pay for: τείσαντας: Page compares Iliad 2.590 τείσασθαι
Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε ‘to punish Helen’s impulsiveness and
the sorrow (it caused)’; but the overall meaning there is disputed.
Further on our women … whom Paris snatched away: Herodotus
begins his history of Greek-Persian conflict with a fairly light-hearted
account of four mythical tit-for-tat abductions of women by Easterners
and Greeks (Hdt. 1.1–5; 1.3.2. begins ‘after Paris snatched (ἥρπασεν)
Helen away’). Aristophanes makes his Dicaeopolis attribute the
Peloponnesian War satirically to tit-for-tat thefts (ἀντικλέπτω) of whores
(πορναί) by Megarians and Athenians (Ach. 524–9). These places reveal
a very different view of Paris’ abduction from that prevalent in Tragedy.
Greek. 1377 δεῦρο δή Here!, cf. 630, Or. 1181 ‘Here, think about
this!’; GP 218. Possibly colloquial: Collard (2005) 368.   1379 ἐν
ἐμοί on me depend: for the dat. cf. 1273n. τάς … γυναῖκας as to our
women: γυναῖκας ‘women’ rather than ‘wives’, despite ‘Helen’ 1382
(see above). English as an uninflected language requires e.g. ‘as to’ in
order to retain the emphasis given ‘women’ through their first place in the
complex Greek infinitival clause 1380–2; γυναῖκας is the direct object of
ἁρπάζειν ‘snatch’; βαρβάρους ‘them’, ‘understood’ from βάρβαροι, is
the subject of ἁρπάζειν and simultaneously the object of ἐᾶν ‘allow’ (see
also Text).  1380 μελλούσας, in the future: this participle of Iph.’s
‘marriage’ 988 n., 1355. τι δρᾶν ‘do something’: understatement with
meiotic τι (609 n.), ‘bad’ as Or. 1191; ‘good’ our 817, 1389.   1382
Page offers as near-parallel for the ‘queer metaphorical’ use of ὄλεθρος
‘ruin’ with an οbjective gen. Pho. 534 τῶν χρωμένων ‘(Ambition the
ruin) of those who have dealings with her’.
[Text. 1381–2 Not just L’s grammatically isolated and corrupt plur.
def. art. †τὰς† but also the complex word-order have prompted many
conjectures, including partial deletions, e.g. 1380 end [ἢν … βάρβαροι]
and 1381 end [τὰς … ῾Ελλάδος] Conington (making one verse in
place of two) ‘and no longer allowing the seizure of our future wives’;
it is the best solution yet according to Günther (1992) 128–9, but in
his edition (1988) he had printed 1380 τάς γε … μή (Weil) τι δρῶσι
βάρβαροι, 1381 deleted, 1382 …τείσαντες (τίσαντες earlier Weil) ‘(on
590 Commentary

me depend etc.) that the barbarians should not do anything to our future
wives … by paying for…’). Also conjectured: 1381–2 were deleted by
Wecklein (removing the comma at mid-1380) ‘…and if the barbarians
do something to our future wives’; Kovacs printed Günther’s version of
1380 but deleted 1381–2 with Wecklein; Kirchhoff proposed a lacuna
before 1381. Others have tried to emend †τὰς†: τάσδ(ε) Porson ‘these’,
i.e. ‘women’; τούσδ(ε) Monk ‘them’, i.e. ‘the barbarians’, the subject of
ἁρπάζειν 1381 made explicit (but Monk deleted 1382); similarly σφας
Diggle; even ἑαυτοῖς (for ἐᾶν †τὰς†) Jackson (1955) 125–6 ‘seize for
themselves’. We think Porson’s the best conjecture.   1382 ἀνήρπασεν
Vitelli: ἤρπασεν L, haplography in -ηνανηρ-).]
1383–4 secure all that: all of 1379–82, two new achievements and one
new prevention; so the meaning of ῥύσομαι must cover all three, not the last
alone. The fut. verb is from ἐρύω ‘save, make safe’ (Latin seruo): LSJ 5.
There is similar spread in the threefold use of the verb in S. OT 312–3 ‘save
yourself and the city, and save me, and ‘save’ (i.e. ‘redeem’, LSJ 6) the
entire pollution by the dead man’, a passage cited by Stockert in giving the
verb in IA only the meaning ‘set free’ (see Text below). fame: Iph. in 1376
‘gloriously’ (n.), 1399. liberator: Iph. repeats Ag.’s 1273 (n.). blest:
μακάριον, the height of human happiness, nearing that of the gods; the
adj. describes the ‘bliss’ befalling all participants at a wedding, 543 (n.).
Iph. however means not the bliss of glory which can attend wifely virtues
(543–70), but the blessing of fame to be won through and after her death
(like a Homeric hero), 1399; similarly it is promised to the Maiden Hcld.
598–9 (who is named as Makaria Μακαρία in the list of play-characters
in ms. L). Related is the use of the adj. μακάριος (LSJ I.3, cf. the noun
μακαρίτης) of any ‘blessed’ dead person. The adj. of human fame occurs
first at Pind. Pyth. 5.46 (see Fries (2014) on Rhesus 196). Cf. the Chorus
1504 ‘glory will not leave you’.
[Text. 1383 For ῥύσομαι L England cleverly conjectured οἴσομαι ‘I
shall win’ lit. ‘carry off as prize’, an image from athletic victory leading
to fame, e.g. Pind. Ol. 8.64 ἐξ … ἀέθλων … δόξαν φέρειν ‘win fame
from the games’.]
1385–6 For in fact … also not: καὶ γὰρ οὐδέ τοι: a unique combination
of Greek particles for this important line (1368b–1401 n.). (not) …
to love life too much: so too the Maiden Hcld. 501–6, 533–4 (also
dying ‘gloriously’: 1370 n.), Polyxena Hec. 348; cf. 1390 n. for the
 Commentary 591

common good: lit. ‘(to be) a thing in common, a common benefit’, an

idea Iph. develops in 1390–6; for the sentiment cf. Praxithea’s readiness
to sacrifice one child Erechtheus F 360.14–18; Dem. On the Crown
205. not for yourself alone: Clyt. is unlike Praxithea (though both had
three daughters) – understandably, given Ag.’s brutality to her first-born
child by her first husband, 1151–2. Iph. later tries to console Clyt. with
the glory she too will acquire, 1440 – although Iph.’s commitment to
Greece and glory will contribute to the breakdown of her family.
Greek. 1385 For the very emphatic combination of particles καὶ γὰρ
οὐδέ τοι see GP 552; Supp. 1068 has ἀλλ’ οὐδέ τοι.   1386 κοινόν is
the neut. of the adj. used as a noun but without the def. art.: cf. φίλον ‘(an
action) welcome to’ Supp. 1070; ζηλωτόν ‘…enviable to’ Med. 1035;
Smyth 1023.
[Text. 1385 <τι> Elmsley, a near-homophone of τοι (iotacism) omitted
during dictation of copy.   1386 κοινὴν Elmsley, fem. of the adj.,
weakens Iph.’s point ‘for the common good’ (above): it would mean just
‘(gave) me (birth for the Greeks) in common’.]
1387–91 numberless men … numberless: preparing the ground both
for the contrasting ‘my life, a single life’ of 1390 and for ‘countless women’
in the striking line 1394 (n.). heavily armoured with shields: ἀσπίσιν
πεφαργμένοι also 826 and n. (words of Ach., not heard by Iph.). oarsmen:
ἐρέτμ’ ἔχοντες, lit. ‘having oars’, like IT 1347–8 πλάτας | ἔχοντας. against
the enemy: for the principle cf. F 1091 ‘do the enemy harm’, Her. 586, S.
Aj. 679. life: ψυχή, volunteered by the self-sacrificing e.g. Hcld. 530–1,
550–1, Pho. 998; see on 1395. single … all: 1358 (n.). Note Praxithea
offering her daughter Erechtheus F 360.51–2 ‘At the cost of just one life
I surely shall not fail to save this city’ and (‘die for Greece’) F 360a ‘I
love my children, but I love my homeland more’, cf. her earlier F 360.14–
15. prevent: κωλύσει: at Pho. 990 the self-sacrificing Menoeceus tells
his father ‘don’t you prevent things!’ (but the attribution of the line is
disputed). Ach. uses the word of his own (ambiguous) final intention
towards Iph., 1427. †How could we argue that this is right?†: the sense
intended is clear enough despite corruption (see Text). An earlier crisis
provoked a similar question from Clyt., 1348 (also corrupt); both places
vary a common expression (ἐν)αντίον/α λέγειν/εἰπεῖν ‘say the opposite,
speak against’. Having now made her intention very clear, Iph. associates
Clyt. with her own thinking more strongly than in 1373, 1377.
592 Commentary

Greek. 1387 ἀλλά, translated as Then, moving from the ‘false’

negative, love of life 1385, to the ‘truer’ positive, self-sacrifice 1387–
97; cf. 1392 ‘next thing’.   1387–8 μυρίοι μέν – μυρίοι δέ: for the
repetition in a pairing cf. 990 εὖ μέν … εὖ δέ, And. 1078 φρούδη …
φροῦδα; GP 374, Smyth 2906.   1389 δρᾶν τι: 1380 n.
[Text. 1391 L is faulty in syntax (potential opt. without ἄν) and metre
(in the second trochaic metron) and dubious in expression (τοῦτ(ο) of
an ἔπος yet to be spoken). Cure is sought (1) by dividing the line into
two questions (Hartung first), either ‘What is the justice?’ or ‘What is
the justice in this?’, and then (2) by emendation creating e.g. ‘Could/
can we say a word in opposition?’: see Hartung, Page in the apparatus.
An attractive idea is (3) to keep the line as one question and to turn
τοῦτο into dat. τούτοις controlled by ἀντειπεῖν, e.g. ‘What is the just
word in that case that we have to say against this?’ Weil (followed by
Kovacs); alternatively (4) Stockert proposed making the line a challenge
to Clyt., ‘What is the justice? Would you have one word to say against
this?’ (followed by Matthiessen as ‘a long way from the transmitted text,
but good sense’). We judge it best to retain Diggle’s daggers.]
1392–7 (come) to the next thing: (ἐλθεῖν) ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνο. Iph. now answers
her own question of 1390. The Greek phrase is used by Pylades at IT 904,
of an escape-plan. because of a woman: γυναικὸς οὕνεκα: a clever
ambiguity, and ironic. Does Iph. mean herself and her life? The audience
will hear the phrase also, or only, as a literary echo, ‘the woman’ being
Helen (1382), often seen by poets as the ‘beginning of the woes’ ἀρχὴ
κακῶν (Stinton (1965) 14). She is explicitly named with ‘because of
(Helen)’ ἕνεκα at Iliad 9.339, A. Ag. 800, and with διά ‘because of’ Tro.
367–8 ‘(the victorious Greeks) because of one woman and one love, in
their hunt for Helen, destroyed countless men’; allusively as ‘the Spartan’
Hdt. 1.4.3, but left unidentified at A. Ag. 823, 1453 and in coarse allusion
62, 448 – whence ‘bad wife’ our 389, 1169 (cf. 488).
better … one man … than numberless women: an extreme sentiment,
perhaps intended to shock, esp. on the lips of a woman; and Stockert
observes the irony, that Iph’s words contradict the qualities shown by
the play’s male characters. Nevertheless it conforms with archaic Greek
blackening of women with every vice which could undermine a man’s
honour and prosperity, in particular Hesiod, WD 53–105 and Theogony
570–616, and Semonides F 7 throughout, and it matches the occasional
 Commentary 593

misogyny which Eur.’s contemporaries found in him (TrGF 5 test.

108a–11b; Hipp. 616–8 is notorious, cf. e.g. Her. 1308); but the poet
was often ‘fair’ or sympathetic to women. Comprehensive illustration
and bibl. in Mastronarde (2010) 246–79; for the fragmentary plays cf.
Collard and Cropp (2008) VIII.710 Index.
Iph.’s passionate rhetoric here will take her further still, when she
says that the sack of Troy will be her memorial, her children and her
marriage (1298–9): contrast Eur.’s Hecuba and Trojan Women with
their shattering portrayal of the women after Troy’s fall (cf. our Chorus
784–93). The shock Iph. causes is compounded when she twice insists
on a polarity between ‘free’ Greeks and slavish barbarians that Eur. had
spent much of his career deconstructing (see 1400–1 n.). May the poet
be putting these challenging words into the mouth of his heroine in order
to point to an element of hysteria in her rhetoric, or to hint how tragically
she has misled herself? Then her ‘change of mind’ must be found less
than coldly rational. See also Introduction pp. 25–7, 36–7.
to see the light of day: Iph.’s own earlier priority, 1218–19, 1250. am
I … to oppose?: ἐμποδῶν γενήσομαι, lit. ‘become, get in the way of’. For
the fut. verb contrast Ach.’s confidence to Clyt. 973–4 ‘I shall become (a
very great god) to you’. For the frequent contrast of mortal with god cf.
901, esp. Ion 973 ‘And how shall I, who am mortal, overcome what is
stronger (i.e. the god Apollo, 972)?’, IT 1478–9 ‘What good to compete
with the gods and their power?’ impossible: τἀμήχανον, a second
divine constraint (for the first see 1368b–1401 and 1370 and nn.); Iph.
acknowledges Artemis’ power in 1311; she can no more resist ‘Artemis’
in Calchas’ prophecy (90–1) than could her father 1258, cf. 746–8; Ag.
in A. Ag. 199–217. See too n. on [1407–9]. I give my body: cf. the
Maiden Hcld. 550–1 ‘I give my life (ψυχή) willingly’; Praxithea gives
her daughter’s body for sacrifice Erechtheus F 360.38–9. body: σῶμα
1395 and 1397: see 1349–53 n.; but Iph’s body stands here in possible
contrast with her nearby ‘life’ ψυχή 1390 (translated as ‘death’, 1441),
mortal matter and immaterial ‘soul’, a distinction increasingly debated
as the 5th century went on, and reflected in Eur.: see Collard on Supp.
531–6 and Allan on Hel. 1013–6.
Greek. 1392 διὰ μάχης ἔρχομαι and personal dat. also 1414–15; Smyth
1685d.   1394 κρείσσων personal adj. and prolative inf., e.g. Or. 806
μυρίων κρείσσων ὁμαίμων ἀνδρὶ κεκτῆσθαι φίλος ‘a friend is better for
594 Commentary

a man to have than countless relatives’, LSJ Ι.3; cf. ἄξιος 1031 above;
Smyth 2002.
[Text. 1394 γ(ε) L, rightly kept by Diggle, Kovacs; ‘quasi-connective,
for it contains an explanation’, GP 154–5; deleted by Hermann, most
eds.   1395 †δ’ ἐβουλήθη† L is unmetrical, and the short syllable
missing after it most economically supplied with <γε> (Fix). Better (perf.
rather than aor.) might be βεβούληται <δὲ> ‘has wished’ (W. Headlam),
favoured by Matthiessen comparing for the inf. (λαβεῖν) S. El. 385;
βεβούλευται (also Headlam) ‘has designed’ would imply a deliberate
intention not attributed to Artemis elsewhere in the play.]
1398–9 Make your sacrifice, sack Troy: asyndeton, here double, once
again marks Iph.’s determination; compare its use in the final instructions
of the Maiden Hcld. 528–9, of Praxithea Erechtheus F 360.50. The linked
commands (taken up as These) again reflect Calchas’ pronouncement of
91–3, 358–9, 879–83, 1261–2; they are implicit when Iph. joins her death
at Artemis’ altar to her fame after it as Greece’s benefactress, 1444–6.
Her memorial and fame will replace her normal expectations from life,
children and marriage; similar confidence from the Maiden at Hcld. 579–
80, 591–2, that after her self-sacrifice her remembrance will replace her
‘children’ and ‘maidenhood’ when her actions are ‘stored up’ (in perpetuity:
as κειμήλια, 591–2: see Allan’s n.). Similar wording, different context
when Orestes accepts reunion with his sister Iphigenia instead of potential
children and marriage, Or. 1050 (but the line is probably inauthentic);
also S. Ant. 813–16. The ‘remembrance’ μνημεῖον that Iph. had hoped
for earlier was personal, her very own, her father’s final embrace, 1240.
As to ‘fame’ δόξα cf. 566–7 ‘reputation’, where the Chorus attribute it to
virtue, in ‘ageless glory’: note their response here, her ‘nobility’ 1402.
Iph.’s satisfaction at this outcome from Troy’s sack may seem at odds with
the Chorus’ earlier imagination of what such a sack will mean for Troy’s
unwed girls, and mothers and children, but the sympathy for them there
(784–93 and nn., cf. [773–83]) jars with Iph.’s uncomplicated idealism.
Greek. διὰ μακροῦ lasting, lit. ‘through, after long’, Hec. 320, Cyc.
439.
[Text. 1398 θύετ’ ἐμ’, Nauck, ‘Sacrifice me,…’, expressly emphatic;
but ‘my body’ in 1397 sufffices.]
1400–1 It is right … and not barbarians: in the 5th century there
was a pervasive belief in the superiority of Greeks over barbarians.
 Commentary 595

Recent English scholarship has argued that Tragedy, esp. the plays of
Euripides, blurred the standard distinctions according to language, ethos
and practices: successively Hall (1989) 201–23 and ‘Recasting the
Barbarian’ in (2005) 185–224; Wright (2005) 179; Allan, Helen (2008)
59. Iph.’s summary anthitheses may thus have struck the audience as
too absolute – or may they have sensed irony for rhetorical effect? The
scholia on Med. 538 found that Jason is ‘mocking’ (καταμωκώμενος)
when he asserts Greek superiority. For slavery is theirs, but Greeks
are free: Iph. revisits her 1380–4, and her words echo Ag.’s in 1273–5;
cf. Or. 1115 ‘their slavish race (i.e. the Trojans) is nothing against the
one that is not slavish’. Our two lines interlace two principal issues,
which occur piecemeal elsewhere in Eur.: (1) Greeks vs. barbarians,
e.g. And. 665–6 ‘shall those born barbarian rule Greeks?’ (see Stevens’
n.), Telephus F 719 ‘shall we who are Greeks be slaves to barbarians’
(cf. Hall (1989) 196–7), cf. further Tro. 933 ‘you (Greeks) are not ruled
by barbarians’ (Helen speaking); (2) slaves not inferior to free men,
e.g. Melanippe Captive F 495.41–3, F 511, Phrixus F 831 and (both
passages disputably authentic) Ion 854–6, Hel. 728–33.   1400 ‘It is
right that Greeks should rule barbarians’ is quoted from ‘the poets’ by
Aristot. Politics 1.2 1252b5–10, but he takes the words to confirm his
own argument that ‘barbarian and slave are the same in nature’ because
both lack inborn capacity for command; he might have done better to
cite Hel. 276, which struck the point home to its original audience, ‘In
the barbarian world everyone is a slave apart from one man’ (i.e. their
king). For slavery in general in Eur. see Brandt (1973) 5–25; in Tragedy
K. Synodinou in EGT 1251–4.
[Text. 1400 Aristotle (above) has ἄρχειν εἰκός: L’s εἰκὸς ἄρχειν is
unmetrical.   1401 οἳ δ’ ἐλεύθεροι Tr2/3, erasing or overwriting L’s τὸ
δ’ ἐλεύθερον ‘but the other is free’, which P copied before Tr’s intervention
(his accentuation of the def. art. οἱ used as a pron. followed the occasional
practice of medieval scribes; modern eds seldom adopt it).]
1402–3 It is hard to evaluate this couplet. The Chorus’ praise of Iph.’s
nobility gives way to criticism of fortune and, unusually, of a god, indeed
of Artemis. Are the audience suddenly invited to see the causation
differently? Is the Chorus’ intervention stronger precisely because it is
not pursued? Is Eur. endowing Iph. with a kind of heroism when she
makes a coherent pattern of her own life in the cruel world of IA? Or is
596 Commentary

the couplet no more than a complement to the Chorus’ general sentiments

following Iph.’s monody, 1336–7, both being in iambics: explicit pity
there, here praise coupled with implicit pity? See Introduction pp. 32–3.
noble: γενναίως, adv.; cf. the Chorus’ approval of Men.’s speech,
504. Ach. twice repeats the word, 1411, 1422; cf. ‘honourably’ 1129
n. and ‘ignobly’ ἀγεννῶς 1457 n. At Hcld. 537–8 the chorus applaud
the Maiden’s speech of self-sacrifice, ‘Who could speak nobler words
(γενναίους λόγους | μᾶλλον) than those?’ the sickness lies: νοσεῖ: for
the medical metaphor and the gods see e.g. Tro. 1042 ‘the sickness of/in
the gods’ τὴν νόσον τὴν τῶν θεῶν (Helen’s view of the gods as the cause
of her behaviour); in general 411 n.; of fortune Pho. 66 ‘sick owing
to fortune’ πρὸς … τῆς τύχης νοσῶν (Oedipus as its victim). God and
fortune linked e.g. 351, 390; for their convergence see 1136 n. goddess:
Artemis, Iph. at 1311, 1395, and later 1463 etc. Ach. does not react to
‘the goddess’, nor did he when the Old Man named her at 882.
Greek: in τὸ σόν, τὸ τῆς τύχης (also e.g. Alc. 785), τὸ τῆς θεοῦ the
neut. def. art. and dependent words mean little more than those words
themselves; the usage is listed as colloquial by Stevens (1976) 20; cf. 396 n.
The urgency of 1338–1401 now slows to a normal pace; formally,
the couplet 1402–3 returns the dialogue to iambic trimeters after the
passionate trochaic tetrameters of 1338–1401 (see 1336–1509 n. Form);
but in 1404–73 the emotional intensity is hardly less: Ach. becomes
passionate, Iph. resolute, Clyt. tearful and angry. For the change of metre
cf. too the Chorus’ iambic couplets 376–7 and 402–3 after long speeches
in tetrameters.
(C) 1404–32 Final exchange between Achilles and Iphigenia
1404–15, 1421–32 Ach.’s final words in the play, two short speeches. His
burst of admiration for Iph. 1406 and for her nobility 1411 (cf. 1421–3)
accompanies a sudden desire to marry her 1410–13a – and he swears on
oath to save her 1413b–15, cf. 1426–7, warning her of death’s terrible
immediacy 1428–9. Just as Iph. in her 1368b–1401 picked up earlier words
of Ag., herself and Ach., so Ach. picks up both Iph.’s and his own.
[Text. Unfortunately, many lines are strongly suspect, or deleted: see
esp. on 1407–9, 1424–5, 1430–2.]
1404–6 Child of Agamemnon: this style of address (see on 1345 n.)
from Ach. recognizes both Iph.’s acceptance of her father’s will and her
 Commentary 597

high-born virtues as potential wife: Ach. is about to ‘propose’, 1410–13.

She would make him blest (μακάριον of marriage 439 n., 628), just as
she expected ‘blessing’ for herself (1383–4) as a result of giving freedom
to Greece, but in the different sphere of men at war (see n. on 1421 ‘You
heroic spirit’). In the neat verbal but mildly illogical balance of 1406 I
envy you Greece, and Greece you, each is envied for the possession
of the other. The words emphasize the idealistic visions of both Ach.
and Iph.; there is a similar balance, but very different feelings towards
Menelaus from his captive Andromache And. 328–9 ‘I regard you as
no longer worthy of Troy, or Troy as worthy of you.’ some god: a very
common phrase (×20 in Eur.); Ach. has no particular god in mind (let
alone Artemis…).
Greek. 1404–5 μακάριον τίθημι ‘make blest’ 1076–8, Ach.’s father
Peleus in marriage to Thetis; cf. Ion 562. ἔμελλε meant: the impf.
denotes a past intention (Smyth 1960, cf. 2318); but the opt. τύχοιμι in
the conditional clause holds it open still (an impf. indic. would close
it out as ‘impossible’); cf. (England) Bacc. 612.   1406 ζηλόω ‘envy
(for)’ with gen. of cause 677, cf. ἄγαμαι 28 n.
[1407–9] Text. These lines have been defended; e.g. Headlam argued that
Ach. is torn between Iph.’s nobility and horror at its inevitable consequence,
cf. Turato. Matthiessen firmly kept 1407, and with Stockert leaned in
support of 1408–9. Michelakis (2002) 135 wrote of ‘Ach.’s speech as a
receptacle of multiple and contrasting responses to Iph.’s speech’. Deletion
in whole or part began in the early 19th century; most recently note Diggle
and Kovacs. The obvious and worst faults are (1) the interruption of Ach.’s
sudden passion (1406 ‘envy’, 1410 ‘desire’: 1410–15 n.) with inappropriate
matter, even the praise of Iph.’s patriotism in 1407; and (2) inaccuracy:
even if an audience may have viewed her previous unwillingness to die as
resistance to the gods’ will (though her death was not actually demanded
by Artemis: Calchas in 90–1 did not spell that out), she can hardly be said
to be ‘fighting with the gods’, still less to have given up the fight with
the gods, for she did not contemplate it at all (1395–6) – unless her earlier
resistance to her sacrifice was off-stage, when Clyt. would have told her
of Artemis in Calchas’ pronouncement; Iph. did not mention the gods in
her appeal to her father 1210–52. In 1408 Dindorf’s impf. (ἐ)κράτει is
no rescue, also implying that Iph. was fighting them – but then asserted
her independence. Furthermore, the Greek verbal compound θεομαχέω
598 Commentary

is particular in meaning, and in its use of persistent, active hostility to

godhead; it does not occur before the 4th century except in Bacchae, at 45,
1255, cf. 325, Pentheus opposing Dionysus (‘surprisingly rare in tragedy’,
Rutherford (2012) 88 n. 60). (Elsewhere Eur. expresses ‘fighting the gods’
through the simple verbs μάχομαι Melanippe Captive F 491.5, Telephus
F 716.1 and ἁμιλλάομαι IT 1479, or the adj. ἐναντίος ‘opposing’ e.g. Or.
535, Ion 373.)
Other faults are small but significant: 1407 πατρίδος with metrically
‘long’ alpha is not found in Eur.’s dialogue (so Diggle OCT).   1408 ὅ
must relate awkwardly just to θεο-, i.e. τὸ θεῖον, ‘the divine (not ‘fighting
the gods’) is overcoming you’.   1409 ἐξελογίσω: no other trimeter in
Eur. begins with a 5-syllable word of this metrical shape (so Page).]
1410–15 More and more, desire etc.: envy (1406) has increased
Ach.’s wishful imagination of marriage to Iph. (1404–5) into a
‘proposal’. Iph. had herself evoked the power of sexual desire, but
unheard by Ach., 1303 (n.; cf. the Chorus 555), and does so again in
1417 (n.). Some scholars have felt that Iph. herself has by now fallen
in love with Ach. (see Introduction pp. 26–7): they must explain why
she does not respond in 1416–20, however mutedly, to his declaration,
since she is now far from being too ashamed, or timid, to address him
about marriage (1341–2). nature: φύσιν; for the noun’s combination
with the adj. γενναῖος noble cf. 448; Antiope F 185.2 ‘the noble nature
of your spirit’. Ach. calls Iph. noble again at 1422 (cf. the Chorus 1402,
with n.). See here!: Ach. is suddenly urgent (see Greek). benefit
you: with a ‘fine’ marriage, e.g. γενναῖος, ἐσθλός And. 1278–9, ἐσθλός
609 above, Hcld. 299, cf. Clyt. of Ach. at 712, ‘He is without fault’ (as
a future husband). take you into my house: as a bride And. 609, El.
50. it will lie heavy on me … if I do not … save you: Ach.’s rhetoric
has weakened since 1005–7, his wish (to Clyt.) to die if he does not
save Iph.; if he tries to save her now, he probably will die. And Think:
death is a fearful evil seems to hint that he himself may wish to avoid
risking his life – and Iph. tells him not to, 1418–19 (repeating her 1392–
4). ‘Death is a fearful evil’: cf. Iph. herself, 1250–2, the climax of her
plea for life; Alc. 671–2 ‘If death comes near (our 1429), no one wishes
to die’; Measure for Measure 3.1.117 ‘Death is a fearful thing’. For the
term δεινὸν κακόν ‘terrible evil’ cf. 527 (ambition), 1357 (the mob). let
(Thetis) be my witness: ἴστω lit. ‘let … know’, a regular form of oath
 Commentary 599

by the gods, most commonly by Zeus (who sees all, e.g. A. Eum. 1045,
S. Ant. 184); first in the Iliad, e.g. 19.258; IT 1077; for the formula see
Collard on Supp. 1174. That Ach. can invoke his own divine mother, and
does so, is unsurprising (cf. 948–9), for she looks after him closely, from
Iliad 1.351–427 onward: cf. 1073–5 above.
Greek. 1410 εἰσέρχομαι ‘come over’ of emotions: 522; cf. 57 n.; of
thoughts ‘coming into the mind’ 1374 n..   1411 βλέπω εἰς φύσιν here
appears to mean no more than watched your nature, not as much as
e.g. Hypsipyle 946 ‘look at the natures (of men)’; still less, as the idiom
‘look to’ is used in 1378 (n.).   1412 ὅρα ‘See here!’, urging a stronger
consideration, e.g. Hcld. 420; possibly colloquial, like remonstrative
ὁρᾶς; ‘Do you see?’ (Stevens (1976) 36–7). Verbs of seeing are used
of grasping points made in argument, in Greek as in English: similarly
ἄθρησον ‘Think’ (lit. ‘look’) 1415, And. 668; σκόπει And. 755 – and
σκέψαι 1377 n.?   1413 ἄχθομαι lit. ‘I am burdened by, find hard
to bear’, e.g. Med. 244 (company), Phoenix F 813a.2 (a person); often
loosely ‘am aggrieved’. As to ἄχθομαι pres. with fut. in an ‘if’-clause,
e.g. (LSJ II) Thuc. 8.109.1, Greek emphatic idiom is reversed in English
‘it will lie heavy … I do not’: Smyth 2360b.   1414–15 διὰ μάχης
ἔρχομαι and personal dat.: 1392–3 n.
1416–20 I say this <without heed of anyone>: asyndeton continues
to mark Iph.’s determination (see n. on 1368b–1401), and in 1411 it
heads, as often, a continuation, here defiant. See Text. bloody battles:
μάχας | … καὶ φόνους, hendiadys (53n.). The enjambement (50–1 n.) of
men ἀνδρῶν seems an empty effect, but Iph. was concerned for Greek
warriors’ lives in 1387–9 (cf. 1334–5), before she came to that of Ach.
in 1392–4 and now in 1419. through her beauty: lit. ‘her body’; at
Hel. 27, 261 Helen uses the words ‘her beauty’ (κάλλος) of the cause:
cf. 1307–11 n. Note the repetition of the prep. διά ‘through/because of’
of both Helen and Iph. stranger: ξένε, Iph. again at 1371, as Clyt. had
called Ach. 1349 (n.); there and here the word sits in meaning between
‘stranger’ and ‘friend’, and perhaps also at 855 (see n.). you … are not
to die … because of me: similarly Alc. 690 ‘do not die for me’ (Pheres to
his son Admetus), Rhesus 870 (Hector to his charioteer, who is severely
wounded). (save) Greece: a theme of Iph.’s speech, 1368b–1401 (n.);
then e.g. 1446. See, on the Panhellenic theme, Introduction pp. 15–18.
Greek. 1417 ἀρκέω ‘be enough’ with personal subject. and part. e.g.
600 Commentary

Or. 1592, S. Ant. 547.   1418 τίθημι ‘cause’: ‘put (woes) upon’ 1335
n.   1420 ἔα allow me: i.e. μὴ παῦε ‘don’t stop me’, e.g. Hel. 1403;
ἔα δέ e.g. Ion 646, Or. 536. μ(ε) … δυνώμεθα: for the change of pers. cf.
1146–7 n.
[Text. 1416 The words supplied by Tr3 and improved by P2 as οὐδὲν
οὐδέν’ εὐλαβουμένη ‘without heed of anyone’ are apt in context but of
disputed authority. Significant perhaps is that Tr erased the note λείπει
‘there is a deficiency’ in L; whether the original scribe or he himself
(i.e. Tr1) wrote it before making the supplement, the change suggests
confidence. Zuntz (1965) 102 and 198 used this place among others
to argue for Tr’s access to a now lost ms., citing esp. Her. 924 (Tr3),
Cyc. 456 (Tr1) for Tr’s additions which are superior to his conjectural
ability elsewhere. Zuntz convinced Günther and Matthiessen; Jouan
printed the words without <…>, Kovacs with; Stockert and Diggle leave
<…> empty.   1417 μάχης L was probably an older alignment of the
grammatical case to the erroneous ἄρχει ‘begins the battle’.]
1421–32 [Text. Ach.’s final speech has been suspect partly or wholly
since the early 1800’s (see apparatus, and Page), justly: 1425 is a clear
interpolation, both sense and Greek expression being faulty; in 1430
‘folly’ contradicts 1422–3 ‘noble thoughts’, and ‘allow’ duplicates 1427
‘allow’; 1431 ‘these arms’ duplicates 1427 ‘these arms’. All recent eds
(except Jouan) and Michelakis (2002) 135 delete 1425 and almost all
impugn or delete 1430–2; we agree (but Kovacs keeps 1431–2 after
deleting 1407–30). If 1425 goes, 1424 ‘Even so … change your mind
about this’ is necessarily left to provide a link in sense and syntax
between 1423 ‘why … not speak the truth?’ and 1426 ‘I shall go etc.’;
but 1423 is also impugned, because Ach. has already praised Iph.’s
nobility in 1411.]
1421–3 You heroic spirit…!: Ach.’s exclamation, praise apt to a
Greek warrior, is explained by your thoughts are noble. The phrase ὦ
λῆμ’ ἄριστον is applied to Orestes (by Iph.) IT 609; ‘heroic’ translates
ἄριστον lit. ‘best’, the Homeric adj. for the man supreme in nobility,
rank and bravery (see LSJ I. 1–3), as e.g. Her. 150 (Heracles), Tro. 395
(Hector); cf. the noun ἀριστεύς ‘great man’ 28 and n.; the superlative
adj. is used also of e.g. the noble, heroic wife Alcestis, Alc. 83, 742. For
γενναῖος ‘noble’ of Iph. see 1411 and n.; cf. esp. the Maiden at Hcld. 597
ὦ μέγιστον ἐκπρέπουσ’ εὐψυχίᾳ | γυναικῶν ‘You who stand out for your
 Commentary 601

courage the most greatly among women!’. Further E. Protesilaus F 657.4

‘possessing a noble spirit’ λῆμ’ (ἔχουσαν) εὐγενές (of womankind). For
why … not speak the truth?: almost a forensic question, like Hecuba’s
‘if you were willing to tell the truth’ Hec. 1206, where it is an accusation.
Greek. 1420 The noun λῆμα ‘will, resolution, spirit’ is from the verb
λῶ (etymologized uncertainly as le(i) ‘wish, will’ in DELG); distinguish
λῆμμα (from λαμβάνω) ‘a thing taken, received’; in this book a
‘lemma’.   1422–4 γάρ in successive clauses is not rare, GP 58, 64;
twice in a line e.g. 425, IT 1325. See 1424–7 Text.
1424–7 Even so etc.: Ach. is reluctant still to give up on a cause which
may redeem his own honour (944–4, 961–2, 969–72), but he also finds
it hard to believe that Iph.’s courage will not desert her at the moment of
sacrifice, 1428–9, and that she will not change … mind. These words
(though matched only in Men.’s explicit change of heart and mind, 478–
9, 500) encapsulate the most discussed aspect of the play, and the oldest,
Aristotle’s judgement of Iph.’s characterization: see Introduction pp. 2,
18 and 25–7. Indeed the audience may sense yet another such twist in
the play’s pattern, here against the facts of the myth. the altar: the first
mention of it – for Iph.’s 676 (n.) was ambiguous, if telling as dramatic
irony. The spurious Messenger in [1568] relates how Ach. in fact assisted
at the sacrifice. these arms: 1359 n.
Greek. 1424 μεταγιγνώσκω ‘change … mind about’, with acc. e.g.
Med. 64.   [1425] ὡς ἄν and subj. of purpose: 618 n.   1427 ὡς and
fut. part. of an avowed intention: 363 n.
[Text. 1424 γὰρ Hermann is superior, accompanying his deletion of
1425, for it explains why Ach. will keep arms by him (to intervene at
the last moment): γε L could be quasi-connective, as in 1394 (n.), but
would give strong emphasis to ἴσως ‘perhaps’, ameliorated a little in
Fix’s (γ’) ἔτ’ (ἂν) ‘yet’; σύ Markland ‘you’ would give more acceptable
point, esp. with following καὶ ‘in fact’.   [1425] τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ λελεγμένα,
even if acceptable Greek for ‘what I said’, gives sense only if Ach. refers
to what he may have said in defying his Myrmidons, 1357–8: τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ
δεδογμένα Diggle ‘what I decided’ gives rather weak sense after 1422
‘this is your decision’ – but both phrases are against idiom in employing
the prep. ἀπό ‘from me’ as a substitute for ὑπό ‘by me’ instead of μοι the
plain dat. of agent regular with a perf. part. passive, e.g. 1375: cf. Hipp.
244, Hcld. 1, Med. 822; Smyth 1492–4.]
602 Commentary

1428–9 take up: lit. ‘use’: another idiomatic use of χράομαι: see 316 n.
The force of καί is hard to determine, as often: ‘even (you)’ (i.e. despite
your courage) or ‘in fact, actually’, of minding Ach.’s advice. see the
sword close to etc.: the nearness of death deters everyone from wishing
to die Alc. 671–2, and even the brave S. Ant. 580–1. For the downward
thrust, the σφαγή: see e.g. [1581b–3] n.
[1430–2] folly: ἀφροσύνῃ. In Eur. both this noun and the adj. ἄφρων
denote foolishness rather than lit. ‘lack of thought’ (one exception may
be Hipp. 164, where Phaedra’s ἀφροσύνη is attributed to illness).
Greek. 1430 οὔκουν, not οὐκοῦν, in a negative statement: GP 439.
[Text. Deletion of these lines (1420–31 n.) is further encouraged by
the sudden and surprising formality of 1432, which is almost a ‘3-word
trimeter’ (492 n.), and, less cogently, the naming of the temple (also
1480) when the sacrifice is to be in Artemis’ ‘meadow’ or ‘grove’, 1463
(n.), cf. [1544].]
(D) 1433–66 Final exchange between Iphigenia and Clytemnestra
In Hec. 402–40 a determined daughter (Polyxena) is similarly paired
with a distraught mother (Hecuba); but Jouan points out that there a third
person is present, the implacable Odysseus. Compare the siblings Electra
and Orestes, the former despairing, the latter defiant, Or. 1022–59. Our
scene is however particularly strong as drama, because of its convincing
alterations of mood and logical progress. Iph. cuts short Clyt.’s instinctive
mother’s grief 1433–4; Clyt. yields to her 1445, but her offer to carry a
message home to Iph.’s sisters leads only to Iph.’s abrupt demands that
she bring Or. up to manhood 1446–52, and not hate her father for her
death, provoking Clyt.’s dark threat against Ag. 1453–7 (cf. 1336–74
n.). It is an impasse, with Clyt.’s acceptance in 1445 now reversed. Iph.
therefore turns suddenly to how she will be led to death, rejecting Clyt.’s
supporting arm and preferring an impersonal escort, 1458–63; with equal
suddenness Clyt. realises that this is the moment of final parting, but her
resurgent maternal agony is again checked by Iph. 1464–6.
Iph. reasserts her expectation of glory, as a comfort to Clyt. 1440, but
not less from pride at saving Greece 1446, 1456 (to be strongly expanded
in 1467–1503). Her resolve barely falters (but see 1435), although Ach.
warned that it might (1424, 1428–9). She abjures Clyt.’s tears 1435,
1466, but hopes to avoid indignity herself 1458.
 Commentary 603

Clyt. is given no further words after 1466. When does she leave
(together with Or.)? See 1475–1509 n. Staging.
1433–6 why … tear-soaked eyes, in silence?: probably Clyt. turns her
face away as she weeps (like Medea at Med. 922–3), and may cover it too
(like Helen at Hel. 1189); for women’s veiling see L. Llewellyn-Jones,
EGT 1460–2 (illus). Iph. is afraid Clyt.’s tears may soften her. ‘Eyes’
κόρας, lit. ‘little girls’, a kind of metonymy deriving from the diminutive
images observable in others’ pupils (Lat. pupillae, same senses). On tears
see 451–3 n. good cause: the less common meaning of πρόφασις, e.g.
Hec. 340, F 1041.2 and famously Thuc. 1.23.6 (the Peloponnesian War:
see Hornblower’s commentary); commonly ‘ostensible cause, pretext’,
e.g. 362 n. do not make a coward of me: cf. Med. 1246 ‘Do not be a
coward!’ μὴ κακισθῇς, Medea’s self-exhortation. Clyt. however appears
to understand Iph. as saying ‘do not wrong me’, with κακίζω in the sense
found elsewhere only in prose, for she answers you will not be wronged
… by me: why else should Clyt. say this? Is it in contrast with ‘wrong’ by
Iph.’s father? – see 1369–70, and 1453–7 n. More probably the meaning
is straightforward, as in 316 οὐδὲν τῇ δίκῃ χρῆσθαι θέλει ‘He’s wholly
unwilling to deal justly with us’. The expression ‘by me’ παρ’ ἐμοῦ is
‘quasi-legal’ (England, citing Xen. Cyr. 5.5.13 τὸ παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἀδίκημα
‘wrong from our side’); but παρά with gen. approximates to ‘by’, e.g.
Hcld. 241 ‘the prior obligation from, by us’, Or. 69 ‘…saved by him’;
Smyth 1692.1b.
Greek. 1433 τέγγω ‘dampen, wet, soak’ of tears, 496.   1435 παῦσαί
με μὴ κάκιζε: a remarkable but adequately attested idiom of word-order,
an enclitic (με) pushing outside its syntactic unit to second place in a
sentence (‘Wackernagel’s Law’: 1153 n. Text), which here consists of two
imperatives not joined by a connective: illustration and bibl. in Barrett’s
n. on Hipp. 503, e.g. Bacc. 341 δεῦρό σου στέψω κάρα ‘Here! Let me
garland your head’, Pl. Ion 535b ἔχε δή μοι τόδε εἰπέ ‘Hold on! Tell me
this!’. In τάδε … πιθοῦ the neut. acc. pron. is an internal object, lit. ‘let
yourself be persuaded of this’: LSJ πείθω B. I.2b, Smyth 1574.   1436
ἀδικήσῃ fut. mid. as pass.: 331 n.
[Text. 1435 παῦσαι· ’μὲ Porson: but see Greek.   1435–9 are suspect
to eds because of other doubts: ‘black robes’ 1438 recurs in 1448; 1437–8
break the stichomythia with a couplet, but e.g. El. 573–4 and Bacc. 1269–
70 are sure parallels, the commonest purpose being dramatic effect (full
604 Commentary

discussion and bibl. by Diggle (1981) 110–11); here the verses prepare
for Iph.’s resistance to conventional mourning, 1441–4. Deletion of either
1437 or 1438 would require ‘emendation’ of the other, so strongly do they
cohere; whence Hermann’s 1437 μή μοι σὺ ‘Don’t you, please…’ (for μοι
see 613–14 n.) before his deletion of 1438. On the other hand, deleting
1435–9 altogether would leave an excellent transition from 1434 to 1440.]
1437–40 Then: οὖν, i.e. ‘I will not be a coward (1435), and I shall
die gloriously (1440).’ Just as Iph. forbids her mother any mourning for
herself, so Ag. had attempted to deprive Clyt. of any part in the supposed
wedding, 730–41. cut … a lock: after Iph.’s death. Locks were cut in
mourning, but Iph. wants celebration – and will have no tomb to place
them on, 1442. The cutting symbolized the (safe) sacrifice of part of the
living self, to recognize death’s damage to normal life; it was reflected
in cutting hair from an animal victim before its slaughter (e.g. El. 811–
12): see Dodds on Bacc. 493–7, and Mikalson (1991) 273 n. 268 who
illustrates also the wearing of funeral black (1438, 1448, Alc. 427,
819). I have been saved: Iph. means, for everlasting fame, 1398–9,
which Clyt. will gain in consequence; the audience would think rather of
Clyt.’s future infamy for killing Ag. (1453–7).
Greek. 1437 τὸν σὸν πλόκαμον … τριχός ‘your lock of hair’ is an
example of a poss. adj. removed from its natural attachment to another
noun (enallage: 771 n.); Smyth 3027 cites e.g. Od. 14.197 ἐμὰ κήδεα
θυμοῦ ‘my heart’s cares’. Less probable is the dependence of τριχός upon
ἐκτέμῃς, ‘cut your lock from (your) hair’.   1439 ἀπολέσασα nom. as
1. pers. understood from the subject of the 2. pers. verbs in 1437–8 –
which Iph. takes up with σύ.   1440 σέσωμαι, cf. 916 (apparatus):
argument continues, given manuscripts’ variations, about whether
Tragedy uses this perf. form exclusively (most eds) or also σέσωσμαι or
σέσῳ(σ)μαι: see West, Aeschylus. Tragoediae (1990) xliv.
[Text. 1437 Both μήτ’ οὖν σὺ Elmsley (in our text) and μήτε σύ γε
West restore normal expression and introduce the pron. σύ you which
picks up ἡμῶν ‘by me’ 1436; cf. Hermann’s conjecture cited in 1435–9
Text. μήτ’ οὖν γε L is a ‘hardly possible’ combination, GP 420.]
1441–6 No, not at all: ἥκιστα lit. ‘least (of all); of course not!’: colloquial
(Stevens (1976) 14), e.g. Hel. 1428; curt in tone, its brevity is useful in
stichomythia (see Collard (2005) 361). no tomb will be raised for me:
and so there will be no place for ritual offerings (1437 n.). There is apparent
 Commentary 605

conflict with other mythography, which told of her ‘empty tomb’ at Brauron
(Euphorion F 91 Powell) or her eventual burial and cult there (IT 1462–5;
Gantz (1993) 687); see our Addenda. The sacrificed Polyxena will get
burial from her mother Hec. 609–18, 894–901; funeral for the Maiden
is left to implication Hcld. 560–73. It is an impossible question, whether
Iph.’s prediction that she will have no tomb was meant to prepare for
her disappearance at the moment of slaughter (cf. [1581–95] below), cf.
Introduction pp. 3–4. †Is not burial customary for the dead?†: the right
of all to funeral and mourning is brought out with special poignancy in
Suppliants, where they are withheld from the Argive dead, against Greek
norms (νόμος): 45–7, 308–11, 378, 538–40 etc. (See Text.) I shall obey
you: rounding off the exchange from 1435 ‘Obey me in this’; but Clyt.
now turns to the consequences of Iph.’s death for the family at home, about
which she had challenged Ag. 1173–82: see 1453–7 n. fortunate in my
success: εὐτυχοῦσα, implicit in Iph.’s claims to glory 1376, 1398–9. For
εὐτυχ- of successful achievement cf. esp. 349 n.; Hec. 18 (Hector’s in
war), Or. 1212 (a plot). Greece’s benefactress: Iph.’s dominant theme
since 1377–8, cf. e.g. 1386 and 1389 and nn. Note the triple repetition of
εὐ- ‘well’ in 1445–6.
Greek. 1446 γε affirmative in an answer, ‘Yes, …’: 364 n., 1450; GP
130–1.
[Text. 1443 in L is nonsense (and unmetrical), ‘Why is dying not
considered a tomb?’; our translation gives the sense plainly required.
At line-beginning sense and metre are readily restored with either τί
δή; Gaisford ‘What(, then)?’ (GP 210–11) or τί δαί; Tr3, apparently its
colloquial equivalent (Stevens (1976) 45 – who inclines to adopt it here,
despite its apparent conflict with dignity). δαί is however a Triclinian
cure-all: 1447 again, El. 1116, Or. 1275; GP 262 nevertheless regards
our line and 1447 as ‘solid’ examples of the particle δαί in Eur. In the
rest of 1443 some indication of ‘(for) the dead’ would be best restored
with Reiske/Paley’s dat. aor. part. θανοῦσιν or Weil’s Epic-Ionic perf.
form τεθνεῶσιν (rare in Tragedy, e.g. Supp. 273); also τυθεῖσιν Vitelli
‘for those sacrificed’ (printed by Kovacs). For parts. without the def. art.
cf. Pho. 270; Diggle (1994) 25.
1447–52 What message…?: Polyxena at Hec. 422 asks Hecuba before
her death ‘What should I say for you to Hector or your elderly husband?’
(both are already in the underworld). sisters: Electra and Chrysothemis,
606 Commentary

638–9 n. Clyt. thinks of those at home closest to Iph., the still unmarried
girls who will be most affected by her death. Do not dress them in
black … either: reaching back to 1437–8, in an oblique answer to 1447;
one might have expected ‘Tell them not to mourn me’ (see Text). loving
word: but Iph.’s ‘Farewell’ is both terse and hardly loving. χαίρειν however
often carries a double sense, both this and ‘Fare well!’, e.g. Hec. 426–7
(see Collard on Supp. 1181); cf. [1621–6] n. on ‘And farewell’. Orestes:
on his presence see (B) 414b–1 n. It would be inappropriate for him to be
more than mentioned after the theatrical 1242–8. to manhood: ἄνδρα
as second predicate, and hinting (for the audience) ‘to man’s full stature’;
cf. e.g. El. 693 ‘you must be a man’, Electra to Or. to be strong in taking
revenge on Clyt. For ‘real man’ see also 645 n. The wording with ἐκτρέφω
bring up is common, e.g. IT 849 τοῖσδε δόμοισιν … φάος ‘to be a light to
this house’, Iph. of Orestes; Tro. 702–3 ‘my son to be the greatest help to
Troy’, Hector of Astyanax; Supp. 1222 ‘to be bitterly fierce’, descendants
avenging their fathers (the poet’s allusion here). Hug him to you:
προσέλκυσαι. Theseus hugs the dying Hippolytus Hipp. 1432. look at
him for the last time: a natural element of final partings, e.g. Hipp. 1097,
together with ‘last words’, e.g. Alc. 387–90; before being killed e.g. the
Maiden Hcld. 573, Polyxena cheek to cheek with her mother Hec. 410,
clasping her hand 439; cf. 1505–9 n. (Dearest …) help: ἐπεκούρησας:
Iph. acknowledged this of Orestes, 1241. 1451 is metrically a three-word
trimeter (492 n.), and the line has an emotional charge: close embrace of
her infant brother for the last time leads Iph. to think of her father and to
wish to restore harmony between her parents, 1454.
Greek. 1450 χαίρειν: inf. in indirect speech (felt from 1449 ‘say …
word’) for an imperative in direct (91 n.), here χαίρετε ‘Farewell!’ 2.
pers. plur. addressed to Iph.’s sisters (above). Less probable: inf. as noun
‘a farewell’ in apposition to noun (ἔπος): Smyth 1987.
[Text. 1447 τί δή;: see 1443 n. Text.   ἀγγείλω Weil deliberative aor.
subj. is certain, cf. 1449: neither a fut. indic. (ἀγγελῶ L) nor pres. subj.
(ἀγγέλλω Kirchhoff) stands well here.   1448 ἐξάψῃς Reiske, 2. pers.
aor. subj. act., is superior; ἐξάψῃ L 2. mid. ‘dress them for yourself’ (e.g.
Hel. 1186) is most unlikely.   1448–9 are suspect to those doubting
Or.’s presence at all (above; some eds delete 1449–52); 1448 μηδ(ὲ) ‘Do
not … either’ is a little strained, and there is the unmistakeable echo in
1448 of 1438.]
 Commentary 607

1453–7 Do not hate my father: the spurious Messenger presumes to

give Clyt. this advice, [1609]. In Aeschylus Clyt.’s hate continues after
Ag.’s death, Ag. 1413–20; in Sophocles cf. El. 549–50. Iph.’s attempt to
reconcile Clyt. to Ag. only rekindles her mother’s hostility of 876–98,
1124–43, 1148–1205, 1369–70. The family relationships here come to
a terrible climax: Iph. pleads for her father, but he will kill her; Clyt.
will not yield to her plea; Or., now in Iph.’s arms, will kill Clyt. Artemis
advises the dying Hippolytus ‘Do not hate your father’ Hipp. 1435,
Theseus who caused his death being the helpless agent of the goddess
Aphrodite 1400; so here Ag. may seem to be such an agent of Artemis,
to an audience which recalls A. Ag. 201–2 (the seer Calchas crying out
the sacrifice of Iph. as ‘a remedy’ at windless Aulis ‘still worse for the
leaders (Ag. and Men.), bringing forward Artemis as the cause’).
to run a … challenge: both ‘challenge’ (ἀγῶνας lit. plur. ‘contests’)
and ‘run’ δραμεῖν are metaphors, from competitions on foot or chariot
to win or thereby to be safe (as Ag. will not be); combined, but with
sing. ‘challenge’, e.g. Or. 878 ‘about to run a deathly challenge’ (Orestes
facing stoning for matricide), Alc. 489 (with Parker’s n.: Heracles forced
to capture the flesh-eating mares of Diomedes); ‘run’ τρέχω singly
(implying risk) e.g. El. 954, cf. 1264, Pind. Ol. 10.65; ‘contest’ ἀγών
singly and unspecified e.g. 1003–4 and 1254 above (where without the
athletic allusion ‘challenge’ may be a better translation), Med. 366, Bacc.
964. The metaphor is however probably not colloquial, Collard (2005)
374. because of you: Pind. Pyth. 11.22–3 gives this as a possible
motive for Clyt.’s murder of her husband; cf. Clyt.’s words at A. Ag. 1432
‘justice for my child’, and ‘justice’ S. El. 538. against his will: ἄκων,
emphatic at line-beginning. Iph. has not defended Ag. before; indeed in
1232 she said he wished to kill her. Since she has adopted his arguments
of 1255–75 (1368b–1401 n.) she can now plead for him. There has been
earlier argument about Ag.’s changing will-power: Men. in 332, 360,
363. destroyed me: Iph. already at 1317. trick: Clyt.’s charge as early
as 898. ignobly: ἀγεννῶς, a word to startle the audience: it contrasts
with Ach.’s judgement of Iph.’s nobility 1411, 1422–3. unworthy of
Atreus: Clyt.’s allusion is disconcerting: the audience, if not Iph., knew
of Atreus’ vile trick upon his brother Thyestes, by which he caused him
to eat his own children’s flesh (El. 613, Or. 1008; Α. Ag. 1593–7); Iph.
appealed to Ag. through his father’s name 1233; cf. 473–6 and n. on
608 Commentary

Men.’s oath by Atreus and Pelops and the Chorus’ comment 504–5.
Ag.’s own pun upon Atreus’s name as ‘untrembling’, which was valid
in 321 (n.), has no point here. Some eds find Clyt.’s answers specially
expressive though dental consonants (four in 1455) and sibilants (three
in each of 1453 and 1457) – but Iph. has three sibilants in 1454 and 1456,
and six in 1458.
Greek. 1453 ἔσθ’ ὅτι … φέρω; Is there anything…?: an open form of
interrogative τί and deliberative subj. ‘What may I/am I to (do)…?’; cf.
Alc. 52 with opt. ἔστ’ οὖν ὅπως … μόλοι; ‘Is there a way … might come?’
(compare too the negation οὐκ ἔστι and forms of ὅτι e.g. 525, Alc. 848, El.
224). But the wording ‘Is there anything…?’ here resembles a formula of
leave-taking where such questions are empty, expecting the answer, No:
see Collard on Supp. 1180. χάριν φέρω ‘oblige’ IT 14, Or. 239.  1454
ἁμός, with long alpha, Doric for ἐμός (Smyth 330 D.1), in Eur. also And.
581 (see Stevens), El. 555, Hel. 531, all in dialogue.   1457 δ(έ) is
very ‘strong’ here, as in 411, 956; GP 166–7.
[Text. 1454 We follow e.g. Diggle with Elmsley’s γε, ‘explanatory’ as
in 252 (GP 139), for τε L, most eds; but δὲ Hartung is attractive, creating
‘a second predicate of one person’ Wecklein, cf. Matthiessen.   1455
The order δεῖ κεῖνον restored by Porson upheld the metrical law named
after him (49–51a n. Metre).]
1458–60a Who will come… ?: note the abruptness of Iph.’s question
after Clyt. refuses reconciliation with her husband. She asks what Clyt.
asked Ach. in 1361, being told ‘Odysseus’ – and that he would seize
Iph. by her hair, 1366. Here, she tries to prevent that cruelty. there
(with you): our translation of γε, with an emphasis explained in
clinging to your robes; not, surely, γε ‘adding detail to an assent
already expressed’, GP 136: Iph. has given none, and at once refuses
it with No, not you: don’t!: i.e. ‘don’t come to take me’, μὴ σύ γε (see
Greek). Polyxena will not allow Hecuba to cling to her Hec. 398–408,
to spare her mother the indignity of being dragged away; but she does
allow her a final embrace Hec. 409–14; Iph. wanted only her father’s,
above 1238–40. Pathetic clinging to robes also Her. 520, Heracles’
children to him at his unexpected return from Hades. What you say
is not good: Iph.’s words echo but reverse those of Clyt. (reluctantly)
approving Iph.’s own actions, 1445 (but the phrase καλῶς λέγειν ‘to
say, to speak well’ is adaptable to context, and defined by it, and very
 Commentary 609

frequent; it therefore has variable significance or emphasis: see e.g.

1206–7, 1377–82 nn.).
Greek. 1458 πρίν and infin. nears ‘to prevent’: so England, citing
IT 102 πρὶν θανεῖν νεὼς ἔπι φεύγωμεν ‘before we die let’s escape on
the ship’.   1459 μὴ σύ γε i.e. ἄγε ‘Don’t you (lead me)’; for such
elliptical pleas cf. Polyxena Hec. 408; Pho. 532; similarly 1233 above
(n.). The idiom is probably colloquial: Collard (2005) 367.
[Text. 1458 σπαράσσεσθαι Elmsley: σπαράξεσθαι L, but the fut.
infin. is impossible with πρίν (Smyth 2453c) and one might expect the
simple aor. ‘is torn’, rather than the pres. ‘begins to be, gets torn’: Smyth
2453c. L’s gen. κόμης has no meaning, for σπαράσσω means ‘tear, rend
apart’, with an acc. object, e.g. And. 1209 οὐ σπαράξομαι κόμαν ‘I shall
not tear my hair (in mourning)’; some eds nevertheless compare the
partitive gen. in 1365–6 ἁρπάσας … ἐθείρας ‘(seizing) by the hair’, but
σπαράσσω does not have the meaning or use of ἁρπάζω. To keep the
verb here, κόμης L must be altered to plur. κόμας P2 (our text) or sing.
κόμην (anon.) as acc. subj. of the pass. infin., ‘before my hair is torn’.]
1460b–3 Obey me, mother!: Iph. repeats her 1435, but more forcefully;
in the Greek the 1. pers. pron. ἐμοί stands as first word, replacing the
weaker enclitic meaning ‘please’. this will be better etc.: referring
back, to Stay!, not forward to Let one etc.; and better picks up ‘good’ in
1459. attendants here: for ὅδε ‘here’ of persons off-stage, i.e. inside
Ag.’s hut, see 71–3 n.; attendants indoors e.g. Alc. 136, one approaching
e.g. Med. 1119; attendants on-stage for escort e.g. IT 1208. Artemis’
meadow: Iph.’s acceptance of the goddess’s power in the background
began in 1311, cf. 1395. ‘meadow’ appeared in 422, where Clyt.’s horses
are watered, possibly as a synonym of ἄλσος Artemis’s ‘grove’ 185 and
n., [1544]: such areas are holy to any god (e.g. Hipp. 73–8 Artemis, Pho.
24 Hera, Hypsipyle 330 Zeus) and surround a shrine or temple, whence
ναός ‘temple’ 1431 (see n.). I am to be slaughtered: Iph. first used
the word at 1318; the verb is used of her 935, 1360, 1367, cf. 1348; cf.
Introduction p. 11.
Greek. μέν(ε) ‘Stay, remain’, literal, pres. imperative, with durative
aspect (‘continued action’, Smyth 1852a, 1855); contrast e.g. 831, 855
and El. 220, where the aor. μεῖνον is for the moment, ‘Stay; stop there!’,
a command to hear more, e.g. Hel. 548, Pho. 897.
1464–6 Are you going?: i.e. ‘going away’: οἴχῃ both lit. ‘Are
610 Commentary

you gone (away)?’ (e.g. Iph. of Ag. 1314) and euphemistic, like
English ‘gone, departed’, e.g. Or. 763 and (strikingly) A. Pers. 1 (see
commentators). Leaving your mother: λιποῦσα, intensified in desert
προλίπῃς (this verb e.g. [783] of Helen forsaking her husband Menelaus;
Alc. 391 and 396 a wife her husband and child); cf. Hecuba to Polyxena
Hec. 440 ‘Do not leave me childless’. in no worthy way: οὐκ ἀξίως,
questioned or marked as corrupt by some, because it seems to imply
criticism of Ag. by Iph. in contradicting her plea for him 1454. This
very phrase ended Clyt.’s denunciation of Ag. in 1457. Iph. cannot here
depreciate a death which she has willingly accepted and will bring her
fame (1398–9, 1440), by saying she is an innocent who does not deserve
to die. She may therefore be trying to comfort her mother against a
separation which will be be more painful to her as the one abandoned. A
director’s interpretation would have been made plain in performance by
movement and gesture (and in modern theatre in faces without masks).
(See Text below.) Stop: σχές, here of movement, ‘Don’t go!’, like S.
OC 1169; but often it is ‘Hold hard!’ in a verbal exchange, e.g. Hec. 963,
even with oneself Hipp. 1353; ‘possibly colloquial’ Stockert. I forbid
shedding tears: note the absence of a pron. ‘<you> to shed tears’, i.e.
Clyt.: Iph. wants no one to detract from proclaiming her ‘victory’ in a
hymn to Artemis, 1473 at the end of 1467–73; such a rite must not be
sullied by weeping, 1487–90.
Greek. 1464 οὐ μὴ μόλω I shall not come: this idiom, a categoric
denial (also 1504; Smyth 2755a), negates with ‘black and white’ οὐ an
apprehension or doubtful assumption expressed with indefinite μή and
aor. subj., i.e. ‘it’s not that I may not come, I shall not’ (Smyth 2755;
Moorhouse (1982) 336–7).
[Text. 1465 εὖ κἀξίως Hermann ‘well, and worthily’, to meet doubt of
L (above); the phrase occurs in Hec. 990, but there is blackly ironic. Note
the clever conjecture εὐκαρδίως F. W. Schmidt ‘with a brave heart’ – as
Polyxena’s death is described Hec. 549, cf. 579.]
(E) 1467–1509 Iphigenia is left alone
Iph. prepares to leave for a triumphant death, 1473, 1502–9. She
invites the Chorus to join in singing a paean to Artemis, 1467–9. The
term denotes many kinds of hymn, most often one anticipating victory
(1473 again) in battle but also one rousing courage e.g. A. Pers. 393,
 Commentary 611

or celebrating victory e.g. A. Seven 635, Thuc. 7.44.6–7 – but also one
sung for the dead and Hades e.g. Alc. 422–4, Hel. 177, A. Cho. 151. The
word’s ambiguities, and ironies, are brought out here by the paradoxical
association of παιάν paean and συμφορά fate (ambiguous too), as at Tro.
578–80: see Rutherford (2012) 48, with bibl. Iph.’s invitation embraces
the ritual of her sacrificial death, which she lays down in 1469b–72a
(completed in her 1477–9: n.). For paeans in Tragedy see W. D. Furley,
J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns I (Tübingen 2001) 273–9.
1467–9 young women: Iph. as a princess may invite, but not order,
married women (176), even if herself younger; cf Clyt. 607–30 n. νεανίς
of a married woman e.g. Cyc. 179 (Helen), Ion 477; cf. 615 n. sing …
reverent … to: ἐπευφημήσατε, denoting the sacrally correct in sound
and words, just as reverent silence εὐφημία, lit. ‘well-speaking’ (itself a
euphemism…), is later to be proclaimed at the rite itself, [1564].
Greek. ἐπευφημήσατε … παιᾶνα … ῎Αρτεμιν, verb with internal acc.
of a noun of related sense and external acc. of a personal object; similarly
in honour of Artemis IT 1403–4 ἐπευφήμησαν εὐχαῖσιν κόρης | παιᾶνα
‘they voiced a reverent paean with prayers to the maiden’; in honour of
Apollo Her. 687–90 παιᾶνα … ὑμνοῦσι … τὸν Λατοῦς εὔπαιδα γόνον
(see Bond’s nn. on 689f. and 709; Smyth 1620; KG I.299–300); also
e.g. Tro. 335–7 βόασον ὑμέναιον … νύμφαν ‘cry a wedding-song to the
bride’. See too 1480–1 n.
1470–3 Let … come to: ἴτω, calling for ritual actions and sounds
to begin, e.g. Supp. 1025, Phaethon 101 (wedding joys); S. Trac. 208
(Heracles’ return, with 211 the female chorus told to ‘start up a paean’).
Imperatives in 2. and 3. pers. are formulaic in ritual, e.g. 435–8, lines
which together with 675, 1111–14, 1477–9 and [1569–72] (see nn.)
illustrate the procedures with baskets containing meal to scatter upon
the cleansing altar fire, and pure water to sprinkle; see Cropp on El.
791–839. Ag. is to walk round the altar from left to right, i.e. away
from his left when facing the altar, from an (unfavourable) beginning
towards a favourable outcome (the classic instance is of the eagles’ flight
portending victory A. Ag. 109–24); this (clockwise) direction also Ar.
Peace 956–7, Lys. 1130; similarly at the censing in the Christian Mass.
Cf. Her. 926–7 ‘the basket went round in a circle of the altar, and we
maintained holiness of speech (i.e. silence)’, where Bond discusses the
variable order in the rituals. safety … to the Greeks: Iph. repeats her
612 Commentary

1420 ‘allow me to save Greece’, her father’s cause to free Greece and
its wives from barbarian plundering, 1273–5. Wecklein however extends
‘safety’ beyond victory at Troy to the Greeks’ return home (cf. the Chorus
in [1629]); at 1187 Clyt. is bitter about Ag.’s own return.
[Text. A line 1474 is not numbered in most 20th century editions.]
1475–1531 are a lyric continuum, but 1510–31, designed to amplify
the preceding antiphony between Iph. and Chorus, are post-Euripidean:
see 1510–1629 n.
1475–1509 Iph. asks for garlands to be put round her, like a sacrifical
animal, and to be led to Artemis’ altar; the Chorus are to dance round it,
and there is to be no weeping 1475–90. She urges the Chorus to invoke
the goddess, whose site is opposite their home city of Calchis, before
she apostrophizes in farewell her own home at Argos-Mycenae 1491–9.
There follows a very brief exchange with the Chorus as she leaves in
confident triumph 1500–9: see 1509 n.
At 1475 Iph. moves from brief speech smoothly into solo-song;
Prometheus is a parallel at PV 114, but he had already changed from
speech to chanted anapaests for 93–100 and back to speech for 101–13.
Our 1475–99 are a paean-hymn to Artemis (1468–9 n.), sung solo by Iph.
Her song is often described as her second monody, but the headline word
‘paean’, and the absence of personal narrative or account of motives
and feelings which are characteristic of Eur.’s late monodies, show it
not to be so (see 1276–1335 n.). For a choral song urged by a play-
character cf. A. Cho. 150–1 followed by 152–63 (a paean, 151), E. Alc.
423–4 followed by 435–75 (a paean, 423–4); S. Trac. 202–3 followed
by 205–24 (a paean, 210–11). Cerbo (2009) and Weiss (2014) give full
examples).
Staging. What do the spectators see? Iph.’s words in 1505–9 are
clearly her last, as she passes from view. Between 1475 and 1509 her
movements and those of the Chorus are as a director wishes: she may
begin to leave even at 1466 (see n.), and to halt at 1487–90 if she is
calling to her mother then (see 1487–90 n.); Clyt. may therefore be still
visible, exiting silently with Orestes after 1490 or perhaps 1499 (on silent
exits see (A) 303–414a n. Staging 318–19 and (B) 855–99 n. Staging).
A director might take her off silently then; if she is kept visible till Iph.’s
own exit at 1509, she must not impair its effect. The Chorus may dance
throughout, or begin at 1491, perhaps anticipating, with circular steps
 Commentary 613

round Iph., those which at 1480 she invites them to repeat at the altar
itself (impossibly: the army would bar their presence). Who might bring
on the garlands Iph. demands in 1477–8? – the stage-extra Iph. asked
in 1462–3 to escort her, an attendant from Ag.’s hut? – other extras,
anonymous? – or are no garlands brought, her demand being just allusive
(see n. there)? At [1546] she is conducted to the altar by a number of
men, of whom the Messenger is one.
Text and Metre. Iambo-trochaic (Introduction, Metre p. 46)
throughout, but there is much uncertainty about individual cola, esp. in
1479–86, 1495–7. Some scholars identify occasional brief interruptions
by other rhythms (compare the metre of Iph.’s monody 1283–1335:
see Parker (1997) 515). Some eds have followed Hermann in trying to
restore strophic responsion between 1475–99 and 1510–31. Analyses
of 1475–1531 therefore differ, esp. that of Wilamowitz (1921) 576–7,
with brief commentary; Dale (1983) 258–60 (Murray’s text); Günther
67–8; Stockert 610–12, with notes; Cerbo (2009) 98–103, with primarily
metrical commentary.
1475–6 Lead me: as foreseen in 1362, 1458; Iph. thus avoids being
dragged (1462–3). The imperative is plur. in the Greek, and addressed
either to the Chorus (1467, 1491; cf. Hecuba Tro. 506) or to mute extras
(e.g. Andromache Tro. 774). Cf. esp. S. Ant. 811–939 where the verb
‘lead’ repeatedly accompanies Antigone’s slow exit to her death, but the
text names no persons to lead her. destroyer of … city: ἑλέπτολιν, an adj.
with a paradoxical provenance, for Eur. has Iph. usurp this memorable
attribute of Helen herself, A. Ag. 689–90 ἑλέναυς ἕλανδρος ἑλέπτολις
‘destroyer of ships, destroyer of men, destroyer of cities’ (see 68 and
488 nn., 1316); but Iph. has urged that her sacrifice would make Troy’s
destruction possible, 1397–1401, and in 1379 referred to the ‘destruction
of the Phrygians’ without using the city’s name. For discussion of the
Aeschylean echoes, esp. that of the adj. ἑλέπτολις, in our play, see Mirto
(2015) 51–72.
1477–9 garlands and spring-water complete the essentials of ritual
(1111–14) which Iph. named in 1469–72 (n.), silence, baskets of barley,
altar fire and circular movements; ‘water’ is allusive only, since neither
Iph. nor her companions would carry it there. Garlands here are not only
for the sacrificial victim (1080, 1512, [1567]) but also for the ‘victory’
(1473): exactly as the Maiden asks to be garlanded Hcld. 529–30 (cf.
614 Commentary

Ag.’s ‘wreath of victory over Troy’ IT 12). to put round me: περίβολα,
adj. ‘encircling’, not only her head but also her neck like an animal victim
(1080–4).
Greek. 1478 καταστέφειν final-consecutive infin.; Barrett on Hipp.
294 γυναῖκες αἵδε συγκαθιστάναι νόσον favours its dependence on εἰσι
‘understood’ there, ‘these women (are) to help put right your sickness’,
but half-allows dependence on the pron. alone, i.e. IA 1478 ‘My hair is
here to… / Here is my hair to…’, citing Iliad 19.140 δῶρα δ’ ἐγὼν ὅδε
… παρασχέμεν ‘Here am I to provide…’.
[Text. 1478 Despite the line’s aptness to the context (above) Stockert
was inclined to delete it in seeking to restore responsion between 1475–9
and 1510–14.   1479 παγάς Reiske, acc. controlled by φέρετε, and
needed for metre; παγαῖσι (L)P, the dat. perhaps construed with ἑλίσσετ(ε)
‘circle the altar with waters’.]
1480–4a Turn in your dance: ἑλίσσετ(ε): in a ritual ‘round’ dance,
the verb translated at 1055 with ‘twirl in’ (n.), there of an ostentatiously
joyous occasion, here perhaps ironically of a triumphant one; also
Phaethon 247 at weddings. Her. 687–90 is parallel, παιᾶνα … | …
ὑμνοῦσι… | τὸν Λατοῦς εὔπαιδα γόνον | εἱλίσσουσαι καλλίχοροι ‘they
sing the paean (our 1468), circling the splendid son of Leto (Apollo) in
beautiful dance’, cf. Callim. Hymn to Delos 321 βωμὸν … ἑλίξαι ‘circle
the altar’. In these passages ἑλίσσω stands in a kind of synecdoche, for
the verb ‘dance’ embodying its function as ‘dance in honour of’; similarly
S. Ant. 1151–2 σὲ … χορεύουσι ‘dance in your honour’ (Dionysus), cf.
Pind. Isthm. 1.7; n. on 1467–9 above. queenly: ἄνασσαν (as [1523])
like ἄναξ of any god (e.g. Zeus 1306), powerful over mortals (Hipp. 88 is
minatory, equating divine ἄναξ with human δεσπότης ‘master’, cited in
821–2 n.). blessed: μάκαιρα (fem. of μάκαρ) usually denotes divinity,
and deified mortals e.g. Callisto Hel. 375, Dirce Bacc. 530; it shares the
nuance of ‘blessed dead’, μακάριος: at Alc. 1003 the supposedly dead
Alcestis is μάκαιρα δαίμων, i.e. ‘heroized’ (see Parker’s n., cited above
in 1421–3 n.). The adj. is used of perfect human happiness 543 and n.
For Artemis however the adj. may be a word of general praise; at Hipp.
1440 she is ὀλβία, as a god sure of eternal blessedness, perfectly happy
(which a mortal cannot be eternally IA 161, even if blessed with wealth,
like Helen’s suitors ὠλβισμένοι 51; hyperbolic [1621]).
[Text. 1480–2 Eds despair of establishing clear phrasing and metre.
 Commentary 615

Many follow Burges/Monk in deleting ἀμφὶ ναόν or Nauck the first

Ἄρτεμιν; indeed ναόν may be the intruder (see n. on [1431]). Murray
reduced 1480–2 to ἑλίσσετ’ ἀμφιβώμιοι τὰν ἄνασσαν Ἄρτεμιν ‘dance
round the altar in honour of the queenly Artemis’ (the adj. ἀμφιβώμιος
describes slaughtered animal victims ‘round altars’ at Tro. 562).]
1484b–6 if it must be: the words, placed in the Greek between my and
blood, accord with Iph.’s acceptance of the goddess’ will 1395–6, and
were reflected by the fabricator of [1556] ‘since this is the prophecy’.
The meaning is not ‘if there is need’. For χρεών ‘fate’s necessity’ cf.
1331; ‘if I must die’ e.g. IT 1004; for other such conditional clauses
with χρεών see Fries (2014) on Rhesus 758. blood and sacrifice:
αἵμασι θύμασί τε, more forceful as two ideas than in hendiadys (53 n.)
‘bloody sacrifice’; for plur. θύματα Stockert compares S. El. 573, also
the sacrifice of Iph.; cf. Med. 1054 of Medea’s imminent filicide. wipe
away: ἐξαλείφω, a metaphor from painting on walls or writing on wax
tablets, has frequently in prose the sense ‘end the authority of, cancel’
political decrees, laws, legal accusations (LSJ II.1); and for prophecy
θέσφατα the appropriate implication is ‘be rid of it after satisfying
it’; cf. ‘through her sacrifice Iph. destroys the obligation published in
Calchas’ pronouncement’ (Wilamowitz (1921) 576–7); cf. 1268 n. At
Pho. 999–1005 Menoeceus says that those ‘freed of the prophecies’
(θεσφάτων ἐλεύθεροι) through his death will fight fearlessly for their
country. Denial that augury can save a man, or change fate, e.g. Iliad
2.859, Solon fr. 13.55–6 IEG.
[Text. Metrical uncertainty has prompted many emendations of 1485,
but Diggle (1994) 411 observes that its rhythm recurs in 1489 and 1494.]
1487–90 O … mother: whom does Iph. address? If Clyt., then
witholding her own tears from her (you) is consistent with her 1466; but
‘O lady, lady’ in its respectful and formal tone (used of a mother e.g. Pho.
296–8) is surprising and discordant from Iph.’s direct ‘mother’ in the
requests of 1433, 1460. Giving ritual propriety as reason against weeping
seems more apt when addressing the god invoked and honoured, so that
here ‘you’ should be Artemis. The goddess however is nowhere in Greek
addressed as ‘mother’ – indeed she was virginal: ; note the address to her
[1524] ὦ πότνια <πότνια>; at e.g. Hipp. 61–6 she is addressed as both
‘lady, lady’ πότνια πότνια and ‘far the fairest of maidens’; and the cult-
title ‘mother’ is applied to true mother-gods, like Hera and esp. Demeter.
616 Commentary

This difficulty seems insoluble (see Text). For no tears in sacred ambience
or during ritual see Ion 638–9, (Collard on) Supp. 286–90; cf. 1466 and
n. above.
[Text. 1487–90 are attributed to the Chorus in L, probably to recognize
the interruption of Iph.’s theme, rather than to avoid the difficulties in
‘mother’ (above), none of which it eases.   1487 deletion of μῆτερ
would evade, rather than solve, the problem of ‘mother’: it would create
a verse comprising a single resolved dochmiac ὦ πότνια πότνι’ οὐ and a
single iambus δάκρυά γέ σοι, with a questionable ‘join’ after οὐ, instead
of a heavily resolved iambic trimeter. Höpfner’s οὐ is forced by the sense
of 1490: ὡς L is probably a mere slip; it can hardly be exclamatory or
explanatory, ‘How or Know that we will give you our tears’.   1488
γε del. Blomfield, but its emphasis upon ‘not … tears’ is good, and its
deletion difficult metrically.]
1491–7 you young women: Iph. invites the Chorus as natives of
Chalcis (168) to celebrate the goddess named for her cult-site Across
From Chalcis, and at the moorings (1321 n.) over the narrows at Aulis.
Naming gods for such sites was frequent, e.g. Artemis of the Lake (at
Trozen) Hipp. 228, Zeus of Ida (in Crete) Cretans F 472.10; analogous are
British locations like St Martin-in-the-Fields, St Mary-le-Bow. eager:
Ach.’s Myrmidons 812–18, 1352; the whole army 1264. because of
my name: allusive, it appears: once Iph.’s name, and presence at Aulis
for her sacrifice, became known to the army, its eagerness grew, indeed
became irresistible: Ach. at 808–18, 1346–68, cf. Ag.’s early fear 528–
36. Iph. cannot mean that ‘her name’ literally, as that of a willing victim,
has already excited the Greeks: Ach., who alone could take such news to
them, has left the scene only 60 lines earlier in this same episode. Also:
the poet may be glancing at Iph.’s own etymology, ‘Born (-γεν-) With
Strength (ἰφι-)’ (cf. 1 ἴς DELG 469). Cf. Introduction p. 28.
Greek. 1493 ἀντίπορον ‘across from, opposite’, even of great
distances e.g. Med. 210 Greece ‘across’ from the (eastern) Black Sea; cf.
ἀντίπορθμος Ion 1585.   1494 μέμονα ‘I am eager’, a very common
Epic verb with only perf. forms, rare elsewhere (Smyth p. 706), e.g. IT
655 of ‘divided desires’. Some take the form here as a perf. of μένω
‘wait’, citing the waits of 804 and 818, and appealing to Hesychius μ 804
Latte μέμονε· καρτερεῖ ‘endures’; but the only perf. attested is μεμένηκα
(DELG 680).
 Commentary 617

[Text. The problems and corrections are metrical except for 1494 νάϊα
Hartung lit. ‘(δόρατα: timbers) to do with ships’, a conjecture ‘applauded’
by Diggle (1994) 410: δάϊα L ‘hostile’ is retained by some because plur.
δόρατα elsewhere means only ‘spears’, and because (Stockert) spears are
associated with mad eagerness e.g. Iliad 8.111, E. Supp. 485.]
1498–9 Land of Argos: for farewells to one’s motherland, common
enough in lamentation, see e.g. And. 394, S. Ant. 937. Pelasgia: Argos,
bade farewell by Electra under threat of death Or. 960, cf. 692; named
after its early ruler (if not ‘founder’) Pelasgus, who as a play-character
proudly claims his land’s great extent at A. Supp. 250–9; but see below
1500–1 n. Mycenae: in Tragedy it doubles as Argos, e.g. 265, n. om
111–14: see Willink on Or. 46, with bibl. home: θεράπναι (developed
from θεραπ- ‘tend, rear’: DELG; cf. 1502 ‘reared’, τρέφω), an elevated
term found only in lyric in Eur., e.g. Her. 370, except Bacc. 1043
(messenger-speech).
1500–9 [Text. This little lyric exchange stands in the Leiden papyrus,
with musical annotation, preceding the excerpt 784–92 (n.; see Text,
Introduction p. 53); unlike there, it is too defective to afford any help
with the text, problematic in 1502–3: see n.]
1500–1 You call on: καλεῖς: such ‘empty’ verbs, usually from a chorus,
acknowledge and reword significant invocations, e.g. Hel. 334; Tro.1304
ἀπύεις ‘cry out to’, 1310 βοᾷς ‘cry loud’. Perseus: Pausanias 2.16.3 has a
version of the myth in which, after Perseus’ famous exploits and according
to his destiny of establishing a great dynasty, he declined to rule at Argos
but founded neighbouring Mycenae, cf. Hel. 1464; Heracles was among
his descendants, Her. 2–3. Cyclopean: 152 n., 265, 534 n.
Greek. πόνον in apposition to πόλισμα, like Or. 1570 παλαιὰ γεῖσα,
τεκτόνων πόνον ‘ancient wall-copings, the work of craftsmen-builders’.
1502–4 a light: not just a bright glory (φῶς of Ach. 1063 and n., El.
449; Hec. 841 Ag. for Greece), but a ‘saving’ light like Orestes IT 849,
Heracles Her. 531. glory: κλέος: ‘ageless’ glory for supreme virtue
567, glory ‘ever to be remembered’ [1531]; cf. Iph.’s confident hope
of lasting ‘fame’ 1399. For ‘glory’ in the play see Introduction pp. 36–
7. will not leave you: cf. Supp. 1158 ‘grief for your father will never
leave you’.
Greek. 1502 τρέφω with two accs., (ἐκ-) above 1450 (n.).   1503
ἀναίνομαι ‘refuse’ with pres. part. of present action e.g. Bacc. 251, with
618 Commentary

aor. of past action e.g. Her. 1235.   1504 οὐ μή and subj. in a categoric
negative statement, 1464 n.
[Text. 1502 ἐθρέψατ(ο) Elmsley, 3. pers. mid., with subject Mycenae,
the ‘city’ 1500 πόλισμα: ἔθρεψας L 2. pers. act., with subject 1498
Πελασγία, the motherland invoked.   1503 θανοῦσα aor. is difficult
here, unless Iph. means that she will become a light after she has not only
rejected life, but indeed died (‘you would expect θνῄσκουσα’, Diggle
OCT: indeed).].
1505–9 1505–7 are Iph.’s envoi, a farewell to the light of day and sun
(she dreaded it 1250, 1281–2 above): compare the words of Polyxena
Hec. 411–12, 435, cf. e.g. Alcestis Alc. 205–6 (244 ‘Sun, and light of day’
~ IA 1506–7), Antigone S. Ant. 807–19, 879–80; see too 1451 n. with
your torch: λαμπαδοῦχος, the word only here in Eur., and rather grand
(but cf. 1476 ἑλέπτολις); λαμπάς lit. ‘torch(-light)’ of the sun e.g. Med.
352, Ion 1467. Here the light is that of Zeus, equated with the sun’s
brilliance (σέλας) S. OC 95; etymologically his name is ‘light, brightness
(of the sky)’. a different lifetime … to live: ἕτερον (lit. ‘other’) αἰῶνα
… οἰκήσομεν: cf. Med. 1039 ἐς ἄλλο σχῆμ’ ἀποστάντες βίου ‘removed
to another form of life’ (Medea’s children), Ion 1067 εἰς ἄλλας βιότου
κάτεισι μορφάς ‘she will go down to other forms of living’ (Creusa’s
possible suicide); ‘other’ in these places is plainly a euphemism, i.e. ‘no
living existence’. οἰκέω is lit. ‘dwell in’; compare Supp. 535 ἐνοικέω of
the life-spirit ‘inhabiting’ the body. English cannot adequately translate
οἰκέω when it is figurative as ‘manage’, as if from οἰκονομέω ‘manage
a house’ (βίον ‘life’ Euphro F 4 PCG), e.g. 331 (n.) ‘manage my own
affairs’, Andromeda F 144 μὴ τὸν ἐμὸν οἴκει νοῦν ‘don’t make my mind
your home (to manage)’. Here in IA the verb goes flexibly both with
‘life-time’ αἰῶνα, i.e. ‘live it’ (cf. αἰῶνα Pho. 1520 with διάγω ‘lead …
through’), and with ‘fate, destiny’ μοῖραν (see 1136 n.), as little more than
‘have’ (e.g. μοῖραν ἔχω Supp. 968–70. The latter passage is curiously
similar to ours, ‘having some destiny apart from these, numbered neither
among the dead nor among the living’).
[Text. 1507 L has ἕτερον doubled (anadiplosis: for this ‘emotional’
emphasis cf. 587 and 183 n.); Dindorf deleted one ἕτερον for metrical
improvement.   1509 οἰκήσομεν (above) has been doubted by some
eds but is protected by P. Leid., which has its beginning οικη̣[.]
1509 A play-ending here would satisfy modern dramatic sensibilities
 Commentary 619

completely: Men. will recover Helen; Ag. will share that triumph but his
own tragedy will begin with Iph.’s death, for Clyt.’s hostility will engineer
it; Ach. will gain his glory at Troy (although his fluid attitude to saving his
honour in our play will have hardened into uncompromising self-assertion
in the Iliad: note his prominence at Iph.’s sacrifice [1568–76]). Iph. will
deserve her undying fame; her departure for death has theatrical finality;
she was the last play-character to speak on stage, and had isolated herself
from her mother (who may well have gone into the hut: see 1510–1629
n. Staging). We can well understand why Schiller ends his version of the
play with Iph.’s exit after the line ‘Geliebte Sonne, fahre wohl!’ (IA 1509).
There is another, proper consequence: we would be left to ponder
the qualities of all the persons, in the way they faced their individual
pressures.
The play-text however continues after 1509, with:

[1510–1629 Final Scene (inauthentic)]

1510–31 The Chorus call attention to Iph. as she goes to her bloody
sacrifice; they invoke Artemis to secure the Greeks’ safe voyage to Troy,
and glorious victory for the Greeks and Ag.
1532–1629 are a messenger-scene (for the character of the narrative
report itself see 1540–1612 n.). The Messenger calls Clyt. out from Ag.’s
hut, into which she had withdrawn with Orestes after Iph. refused her
company to the sacrifice (1461–6: see Staging below); he appears to be
one of Ag.’s attendants who led Iph. to her death (1546; cf. her request for
one to lead her, 1462 and n.). He promises Clyt. ‘wonderful and strange’
news about Iph. 1532–9. He is ecstatic in describing Iph.’s extraordinary
courage in the face of death, when Calchas prepared the sword 1540–67.
Achilles took a leading part in the ritual and prayed to the goddess for the
Greeks’ success 1568–77. Just in the instant of sacrifice, a hind already
in its bloody death-throes was miraculously substituted for the girl, the
work as Calchas declares of Artemis; and it was burned in her place
1602. The miracle simultaneously fulfils Calchas’ prophecy (cf. 1485–6
n.), and Troy is doomed 1578–1603. The M. informs Clyt. that Ag. has
sent him with this news, and that Iph. has flown to live among the gods
1604–12 (repeated by the Chorus, 1613–14). He tells Clyt. to relent from
her anger against Ag. 1609. In response she only wonders whether this
620 Commentary

miraculous tale has been invented to comfort her in her grief 1615–18.
Then Ag. himself appears; he says they can be happy for Iph.’s fate,
dismisses Clyt. and Or. homeward, and makes his own brief and bleak
farewell to her 1619–26. The Chorus close the play with wishes for Ag.’s
success 1627–9.
Staging. The Messenger would exit silently at the end of his speech,
1612. That Ag. should re-enter at 1619 almost immediately after Clyt.’s
few words in 1615–18 is very contrived; and that the two are brought
again into each other’s presence is extraordinary, and has theatrical
consequences. Clyt. has to stay to hear Ag.’s instructions, esp. for the
infant Orestes whom she is carrying (1623); but we ask, how plausible
is it that she would have carried the child outside again? And how would
wife and husband leave? Separately, seems required, for psychological
consistency with Ag.’s final speech 1255–75 and Clyt.’s animosity
towards him 1454–7. Clyt. with the child best retreats into Ag.’s hut, and
Ag. goes towards the now impatient army, as he did at 750 and 1275.
The Chorus would best chant their last words to Ag.’s back as he goes,
before leaving from the opposite side. Simultaneous final exits of two
characters are rare; Taplin (1977) 190 cites those of Electra and Orestes
in Electra and of Cadmus and Agave in Bacchae.
Art. Ag.’s veiled posture before the sacrifice (1550) was imagined in
a celebrated wall-painting by Timanthes (flor. c. 400 BC), but it was lost
in antiquity. Cicero described it at Orator 22.74: ‘the famous painter
saw that, when Calchas was sad at the sacrifice of Iphigenia, Ulysses
more sad, and Menelaus grieving (cf. our 478–84), Ag.’s head had to
be veiled, since that ultimate sorrow could not be imitated by a brush’;
Cicero’s words were paraphrased by later writers. The painting is LIMC
I.1.263 ‘Agamemnon’ 31. Because of their likely closeness in time it is
impossible to know whether Timanthes influenced the writer of 1510–
77, or the reverse; but M. Stieber in EGT 593–4 inclines to the former,
and reproduces a Pompeian fresco perhaps reflecting Timanthes’ scene
(LIMC I.1.265 ‘Agamemnon’ 41; reproduced also by Michelakis (2006)
92). See also Introduction p. 38. See Addenda.
A mid-4th century Apulian volute-crater has been associated with the
messenger-speech, at the moments of sacrifice and substitution of the
hind (LIMC V.1.712 ‘Iphigenia’ 11). Taplin (2007) 159–60 with Plate 52,
and bibl. in n. 120, is strongly doubtful of the association, esp. because
 Commentary 621

the sacrificer with raised knife appears to be Ag. himself, and because the
painting lacks the ‘standard indicators’ of a Tragic scene on such vases.
It is more likely that this mid-4th century painter is responding to the
mythological tradition as a whole, in the light of the textual issues set out
in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, 1578–93 are post-Classical in
date: see the next section.
Authenticity and Text. The choral lyrics 1510–31 are a feeble
recapitulation of Iph.’s lyric 1475–1509. The entire scene 1532–1629 is
inauthentic; it has two parts composed at an interval of almost a thousand
years, 1532–77 and 1578–1629; and the M.’s account in 1540–77 derives
largely from that of Polyxena’s death Hec. 521–75.
The messenger-scene is against Eur.’s habit, particularly in his later
plays, of ending with ‘a god from the machine’, who explains, sometimes
offers reassurance or comfort, and foretells; on the other hand, such a divine
manifestation often follows a messenger’s report, of disaster either suffered
or escaped. The report in IA in its first part 1540–77 exemplifies a taste
changing as the 4th century progressed towards increased theatricality and
stronger descriptive colours (for these and other developments see esp. the
essays by P. E. Easterling in (P.E.E. ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
Greek Tragedy (1997), esp. 211–27 and E. Hall in R. G. Osborne, Debating
the Athenian Cultural Revolution (Cambridge 2007) esp. 279–81; both
list other publications). The report was ‘completed’ in the same vein,
describing Iph.’s miraculous salvation, in 1578–1612, and the scene’s end
1613–29 was fabricated at the same time for the sake of further, final words
both from Clyt., her unforgiving 1615–18, and from Ag., his cold farewell
1622–6. It conspires with a reader’s knowledge of the mythic future, in
particular as Eur. had set it out in his other and earlier Iphigenia (IT 24–64
etc.), Iph.’s second unexpected rescue; but there it was a very human and
plausibly contrived rescue, by herself (1029–38), so that she and Orestes
might fulfil Apollo’s command to take Artemis’ statue back to Greece and
give it to Athens (85–91).
What damns the dramaturgy here is the reappearance of Clyt. from
1532 and Ag. from 1619 (see on Staging above); worse, their tones
stultify the tragic and ironic joy of Iph.’s climactic departure; they
direct our feelings with emphatic and clumsy literalness. Turato has an
excellent analysis of the contrasting behaviour of Ag. and Ach. before
the sacrifice, and of Clyt. and Ag. after it.
622 Commentary

(1) Very few scholars hold out for the authenticity of 1510–31 (see n. on
those lines), most recently Kovacs (2003) 99–100 and earlier in his Loeb
ed. (2002), who retains them as Euripidean but rejects 1475–99; see also
Cerbo (2009) and Weiss (2014). We share the opinion that the lines were
composed either to supply a fuller choral part in Iph.’s theatrical exit, or
both that and to create a plausible time-lag before her death is described.
(2) Almost all scholars agree that 1532–77 are post-Euripidean; and the
metre of these lines is very much more sparing of syllabic resolution in
spoken verse than Eur.’s later plays, in this respect showing a tendency
of 4th century Tragedy. (3) All scholars agree that 1578–1629 are latest
in date, Byzantine of the 5th/6th century (West (1981) 73–8 = (2013)
318–25 is definitive); they were composed to complete the messenger-
scene which began at 1532 and was left unfinished (or lost physically)
after 1577. West 78 = 325 hazards the name of their composer, the
distinguished scholar Eugenios at Byzantium/Constantinople about 500
AD (on whom see N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London (1983)
51–3).
Critics have naturally speculated how these inauthentic lines have
invaded the play-text, and what Eur. himself may have intended,
if anything, after Iph.’s departure. Some editors nevertheless think
that some lines in 1532–77 and particularly 1578–1612 are possibly
Euripidean in origin, and have asked whether L’s text may represent one
irregularly repaired after physical loss: see esp. Page 196–9, Stockert 85–
6; cf. 1540–1612 n. below on typical Euripidean elements in the speech,
1601b–3 n. on a surely accidental echo in Aristophanes. The Aelian-
fragment (fr. i: see after 1629 in the Greek Text and the Translation, and
in this Commentary) has suggested to many that Eur. not only conceived a
god’s appearance to end the play, but composed part of it (if he composed
a whole scene, then it was wholly lost; and 1510–77 at least, and perhaps
more lines subsequently lost, were written for performance after his
death). In such an ending Artemis would have appeared to Clyt. after
Iph.’s departure to foretell the girl’s rescue and perhaps also her removal
to the land of the Taurians (as in IT: above). Matthiessen (2002) 235
observes that such a divine scene could not follow the messenger-speech
which we have, where the sacrifice is narrated as now complete, and that
the certainly spurious ending or the hypothetical one are the alternatives;
and he counters the argument that Clyt. could not have maintained
 Commentary 623

her anger after such divine explanation and comfort, with the fact that
mythology said that she did maintain it – in contrast with Theseus’ not
maintaining his anger against Hippolytus, Hipp. 1408–14, cf. 1431–4.
Majority opinion favours the loss of an Artemis scene, e.g. Günther p.
61, Stockert pp. 81–3, Matthiessen (above), Rutherford (2012) 343 n. 37;
inclined are e.g. Michelakis (below) and Turato (below, in an admirably
concise survey of difficulties and views); unconvinced is Kovacs (above).
Diggle OCT does not commit himself.
Page 191–9 offers the fullest identification and evaluation of post-
Euripidean elements in 1510–1629; for metre see West (1981) 74–5 =
(2013) 321–3. Cecchi (1960) 69–76 documents scholars’ views very fully
up to 1959; recent discussions: Stockert 79–87, Turato 254–6, Kovacs
(2003) 97–101, Michelakis (2006) 110–14. Gurd (2005) 152–5, cf. 75–6,
124–7, illustrates methodologies of textual criticism in 1510–1629.
(Here are the principal differences from 5th/4th century practice in
1578–1629: vocabulary, expression and syntax 1579, 1580, 1, 3, 1604,
5, 8, 9, 1618. Versification in the iambic trimeters 1578–1614: prosody
1573, 8, 9, 1580, 9, 1592; anapaests in the ‘2. foot’ 1584, 1589, 1604, ‘4.
foot’ 1596; lack of caesura 1578, 1586, 1593, 1610; violation of Porson’s
Law (49–51a n.) 1583, 1589, 1592, 1599, 1612 (1613 has no violation:
see West (1982) 85.b). In the lyric 1615–29 anapaestic elements appear
to dominate 1615–19 and these lines may have been chanted. In 1620–9
anapaestic and iambic elements combine, in ‘a number of recognizable
cola, even if they come in chaotic sequence’, West (1981) 78 = (2013)
325; these lines were apparently to be sung.)
Recent eds debate whether the lines deserve conventional textual
criticism, e.g. Diggle (1994) 412, Matthiessen 402, Turato 256. On
the one hand, the poor poetic quality and wide corruption of 1510–31,
and the derivative character of 1532–77, should not bar them from the
degree of attention given to other strongly suspect passages of the play,
in particular the prologue and parodos, which may have been composed
soon after Euripides’ death. On the other hand, 1578–1629 are so clearly
post-Classical that it is misguided to ‘correct’ them according to 5th/4th
century norms. We follow Diggle’s lead in his OCT in leaving the text
of these lines almost entirely as it stands in ms. L; and our apparatus is
correspondingly sparse.
Throughout our notes on 1510–1629 we omit […] from internal
624 Commentary

line-numbers. Throughout 1578–1612 we use ‘[Metre, with bare line-

numbers]’ in reference to the metrical phenomena listed above in the
bracketed paragraph.
1510–31 Those who condemn these lines agree with Page’s comment
(191), ‘There is great poverty of thought and expression in this passage;
most of it is repeated from 1475–99.’ Summarily: 1510–13, 1517–18
~ 1475–9; 1514–17 ~ 1480; 1519–20, 1525–6 ~ 1495–7; 1524 ~ 1487,
(θύμασι) 1484–5; also 1531 ~ 1504. The language is strained in 1513–17
and 1527–30; combined textual and metrical problems are much greater
than in 1475–99. Those who retain the lines argue that the repetitions are
deliberate, to enhance a theatrically stirring exit of Iph., e.g. Jouan 120
n. 4, Cerbo (2009) and Weiss (2014) esp. 119; Günther (1992) 133–4
inclines to think 1509–22 genuine, and for deliberate repetition compares
IT 144–78 (sung by Iph.) with 179–202 (chorus). For the ‘exchange’
between solo-singer and chorus 1475–99 and 1510–31 Cerbo 97–8
compares the lamentatory paean IT 125–235, also shared by chorus and
Iphigenia; Weiss esp. 124 argues that the antiphonal exchange overall is
characteristic of the paean-style.
1510–17a going on her way: στείχουσαν: this verb is very common in
Tragedy for marking entries and exits, often accompanying movements
already visible to spectators; exits to death e.g. Hcld. 1053, S. OC 1541.
Lines 1512b–18 are widely corrupt (see Text), but clear enough as a
picture: Iph. goes to her bloody sacrifice already garlanded and sprinkled.
Greek: 1513–14 βαλουμέναν fut. mid. for pass. (331 n.), with στέφη
and παγάς internal accus. to have … put: cf. ἐπιβάλλομαι mid. of
putting on a flowery wreath Med. 841–2, and with the phrase ἐπὶ κάρᾳ
on her head cf. e.g. Tro. 935: the verb serves spring-water a little
awkwardly, but see Diggle (1994) 411.   1516 graceful: εὐφυῆ; of a
shapely face Med. 1198.
[Text. 1513 παγάς Tr for παγαῖς L, a dat. without syntax (compare
L’s error in 1479 παγαῖσιν). The major problems in the badly corrupt
1514–18 are: (1) The tenses of the participles in L: instead of the pres.
βαλλομέναν 1513 and the aors. θανοῦσαν 1516 and σφαγεῖσαν 1517,
futs. are required by sense: note 1518 μένουσί σε await you. βαλουμέναν
Bothe/Hartung fut. is straightforward (see on Greek); for θανοῦσαν
Markland essayed ῥανοῦσαν fut. to spatter the … altar (which we
 Commentary 625

adopt), with τε Reiske for γε, giving βωμόν 1514a good sense and syntax
(cf. 1589 βωμὸς ἐραίνετο lit. ‘the altar was spattered’), and this is much
better than βωμόν as acc. of motion with στείχουσαν 1512 ‘going on her
way to the altar’; Monk preferred χρανοῦσαν fut. ‘to defile (the altar)’, in
the light of 1595 μιαίνοι ‘defile’. σφαγεῖσαν, an aor. hard to defend as ‘at
the moment after your slaughter’, was deleted altogether by Dindorf, as
a gloss; σφαγαῖσιν Griffiths replaces it with a loose dat. of circumstance
‘in (the) slaughter’. (2) The pleonasm δαίμονος θεᾶς L 1514; θεᾶς
deleted by Bothe/Monk, easily enough. (3) In the expression (εὐφυῆ
…) σώματος δέρην L ‘(graceful) throat of (your) body’ the superfluous
‘body’ is very strange, and not wholly cured by Kovacs’ (2002) εὐφυοῦς
‘(throat of your) graceful body’; perhaps there is intentional recall of
Polyxena baring her beauty for the sword Hec. 559–60; cf. 1574 below
‘beautiful virgin’s neck’. There are widespread metrical difficulties too,
and the lines are best left within daggers.]
1517b–20 Dewy spring-water etc.: εὔδροσοι ‘dewy’, i.e. ‘limpid’, the
purest water for ritual, as at Hel. 1335 πηγάς … δροσεράς; Hipp. 208 ‘a
drink of pure water from a limpid spring’ (Phaedra’s fantasy). spring-
water … sprinkling and army: παγαί, χέρνιβες and στρατός are
paradoxically conjoined as subjects to await; and army … wishing to
go to Ilium’s city is very flat as a description of the soldiers massed in
1545–7, where Iph. is a girl alone in a crowd expecting her death.
Greek. 1517b The asyndeton seems to indicate an explanation (391
n.), and is feeble.
[Text. Unsatisfactory sense and metre continue; in particular L’s
τε after χέρνιβες is impossibly placed, and best moved after πατρῷαι
(Günther, approved by Diggle (1994) 410), giving the paired παγαὶ and
χέρνιβες each an adj. As in 1512–17a there are multiple conjectures.]
1521–3 call upon: in Eur. the verb κλῄζω means usually ‘call, name’,
the sense ‘invoke’ being later. for a happy outcome: ἐπ’ εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ:
cf. 550 ἐπ’ εὐαιῶνι πότμῳ ‘bringing a lifetime of good fortune’. The line
recalls esp. Iph.’s 1446 with the verb εὐτυχέω ‘fortunate in my success’.
Greek. ὡς (ἐπί) ‘as though…’, of an avowed purpose: Smyth 2996.
[Text. 1523 θεῶν L is partitive gen., among, of a ‘divided whole’
(Smyth 1310): θεὰν Bothe/Hennig ‘goddess (queen)’ and τὰν Dain ‘the
(queen)’ (as in 1482) are unnecessary.]
1524–7 lady: πότνια of a goddess, 1487 n.; of Artemis e.g. IT 463,
626 Commentary

1082. delighted by human sacrifices: a criticism, or just incautious

writing for the context? Cf. Introduction p. 7. At IT 382–4 among
the barbaric Taurians Iph. as Artemis’ priestess criticises not only her
avoidance of those polluted by (bloody) childbirth or death but also her
delight nevertheless in such sacrifices; she is incredulous that Artemis’
mother Leto, partner of Zeus, should have given birth to such gross
amorality in the goddess (IT 385–6). treacherous: δολοέντα, but the
implication is not clear: either walls ‘craftily (constructed)’ (LSJ II) as
work of sheer cleverness, or ‘with inherent guile’: in myth Troy was
built for its king Laomedon by the gods Poseidon and Apollo, but they
were tricked of their payment by him, e.g. Iliad 21.450–2, cf. 5.649;
Gantz (1993) 400–1. Others assume a more relevant allusion to the
treacherous theft of Helen by Paris 75–7, Iliad 3.443–4; Gantz 571–6;
or ‘anachronistically’ to the oath-breaking of Pandarus in Iliad 5.
foundations: ἕδη lit. ‘seats’ (cf. ἕδρα, ἕζομαι), i.e. ‘abodes’ solidly sited,
e.g. Hes. Th. 118 of Earth affording a sure home for the gods on Mt
Olympus; LSJ 3; of Argos Or. 1247, cf. βάθρον of Troy IA 1263 (n.).
Troy’s great walled city, often described as unsackable (e.g. Hec. 17,
906, 1209), is to be sacked 92, cf. Iph. at 1398.
[Text. 1524 <πότνια> Hermann, a metrical supplement, but cf. e.g.
1487 for the doubling (anadiplosis: 183 n.).   1527 is daggered
because of metrical uncertainty.]
1528–31 crown: στέφανον, the ‘wreath’ of victory in war e.g. IT 12
(cited in 1477–9 n.), Erechtheus F 369.3. glory ever to be remembered:
Iph.’s desired objective 1398–9, promised her by the Chorus 1504 (and
granted her by the M. in 1606), is now transferred to Ag. (but see Text),
who half-claims it for himself in 1621.
Greek. The syntax of L’s extraordinary word-order (see Text) appears
to be 1528 Ἀγαμέμνονα … 1530 δὸς … 1531 ἀμφιθεῖναι imperative and
acc. and inf. in a prayer or wish, as 1575–6; cf. Iliad 3.351 Ζεῦ ἄνα, δὸς
(με) τείσασθαι ‘Zeus, lord, grant that I may avenge…’ (echoed at A. Cho.
18); KG II.22 (Smyth 2014, 2013c is inadequate). Distinguish δός with
dat. and inf., 471 n.   1530 the Epic-Ionic poss. reflex. pron. ἑός is not
Euripidean (at El. 1206 it is removed by emendation).
[Text. Confused and beyond convincing remedy, like †1514–
18†.   1529 ῾Ελλάδι dat. appears to be controlled by distant ἀμφιθεῖναι
‘put … upon Greece’, although in 1530 the glory is seemingly to be Ag.’s
 Commentary 627

alone: so Ἑλλάσι Markland as adj. (cf. 588 n. Text), plur. with λόγχαις
instrumental dat. ‘with Greek spears’.   1529 κλεινότατον στέφανον
and 1531 κλέος ἀείμνηστον are both grammatical objects of ἀμφιθεῖναι
but uncoordinated; and it is difficult to take κλέος as appositional to
στέφανον because of their separation: contrast the idiomatic couplings
e.g. Tro. 803 στέφανον … κόσμον (see OCT), And. 773 τιμὰ καὶ κλέος;
idiomatic too is στέφανος with gen. εὐκλείας, e.g. Her. 1334, Supp.
315. Scaliger’s remedy was to insert connective τε ‘and’ between ‘(put)
a garland round Greece’ and ‘put glory round his own head’. Monk’s
proposal was simpler and drastic: transferring imperative δὸς to 1528,
placing τε before Ἀγαμέμνονα and deleting 1530 altogether; it was
printed by Kovacs with his own <τ’> in 1531, ‘and <grant> that Ag. by
the spear may lay upon Hellas’ brow a crown most glorious <and> fame
that is never forgotten’.]
1532–1629 Messenger-scene.
1532–3 [Text. ἐμῶν κλύῃς λόγων Nauck, a more stylish order.]
1534–7a heard your voice: similar explanation for entry e.g. Clyt.
819–20 (n.). frightened … fear: ταρβοῦσα … φόβῳ: pleonasm
(similarly Her. 871) enhances the Greek onomatopoeic driven out of
my mind by fear (ἐκ)πεπληγμένη φόβῳ (πεπ- φ- i.e. p(h) in sound;
this effect occurs more aptly at Bacc. 604, of the women frightened by
Dionysus’ earthquake). with another disaster: but Clyt. ‘should ask
for news of Iph.’, Page, suggesting Hipp. 1160 ‘Surely some new and
worse disaster hasn’t…?’ as model; note too examples of fear generating
greater, unknown anxieties, Pho. 1072 ‘Surely you have not come with
disaster?’ (Jocasta fears the death of Eteocles), 1347–8 ‘I bring (news
of) great evil on top of other woes enacted’ (that same death); cf. Hec.
585–8 ‘fresh pain distracts (me) constantly from one evil in succession
to another’. Hamlet 4.5.78–9 ‘When sorrows come, they come not single
spies, | But in battalions.’
Greek. 1534 φθογγή lit. ‘sound uttered’ here in the sense of φωνή
‘voice’, cf. Hipp. 418, El. 1292.   1535 ἐκπλήσσω lit. ‘beat, strike
out of (a present mental state)’, frequently metaphoric of overpowering
emotions e.g. 351(n.); fear also Bacc. 604 above, Tro. 183.
[Text. 1536 ἥκῃς subj. Portus, in a μή clause dependent upon ‘fear’
1535, ‘that you may have come’; but L’s independent and apprehensive
628 Commentary

question with ἤκεις indic. ‘Surely you have not come…?’ serves very
well.]
1537b–9 No: μὲν οὖν: adversative: 893 n.; its force here is aided
by antilabe (see 303–16 n.). wonderful: θαυμαστά: cf. θαῦμα 1581
n. strange: δεινά, as e.g. (Wecklein) S. Phil. 1225 δεινόν γε φωνεῖς
‘What you say is strange indeed!’ (an unexpected change of mind).
This sense of the adj. goes with ‘No!’; the M. wishes to reassure Clyt.
(Stockert), not frighten her; the meaning ‘terrible’ is much commoner in
Tragedy, LSJ I. with all speed: ὅσον τάχος: because the M. has not at
once told the chief news.
Greek. 1539 τοίνυν Well then is rare in Tragedy, ‘in a lively answer’
GP 569, e.g. Ion 936, 987 (GP may go too far in calling this use
‘colloquial’: not in Stevens (1976)). ὅσον τάχος i.e. ἂν δύνῃ ‘with as
much speed as you may be able’, a variety of the ὡς τάχιστα idiom:
Smyth 1087–8.
1540–1612 Messenger-speech. The writer of the first part 1532–77
followed many of Eur.’s habits: insistence on accuracy 1540–2 (n.);
initial description of the scene 1543–7 (n.); orderly presentation of the
chief persons and their actions, Ag. 1547–50, Iph. 1551–62, Calchas
1565–7, Ach. 1568–76; persons’ words reproduced in direct speech,
Iph. 1552–60, Ach. 1570–6. One habit however the writer did not
follow: summary announcement of the essential news before the longer
narrative begins, e.g. Or. 857–8, Bacc. 1030; instead the M. speaks only
of ‘something wonderful and strange’ 1538 (n.). For a possible relation
of this first part to Art (Ag.’s veiling 1550) see 1510–1629 n., end.
The much later second writer of 1578–1612 repeated the M.’s claim
to accuracy (1540–2), but stressed that he was an eye-witness 1607
(n.; cf. 1580–1, 1586), and again included direct speech, by Calchas
1591–1601a; he gave the M. personal impressions and feelings, 1580–1,
1609–12; and he ended with a valuation of what he reported 1610–12
(also a habit of Eur.).
For the Euripidean messenger-speech and its techniques see de Jong
(1991); for Tragedy in general see Rutherford (2012) 200–16, with select
bibl. in 200 n. 78 (to which should be added the important appraisal
of its stylized form as narrative by Gould (2001) 328–31); and see
now J. Barrett in EGT 816–19 ‘Messenger’ and 877–2 ‘Narratological
 Commentary 629

Approaches to Greek Tragedy’. Because of its inauthenticity the speech

in IA is excluded from almost all discussions.
Particularly throughout 1532–77 we cite many similar actions and
words from Eur.’s scenes of voluntary sacrifice, of Polyxena in Hec.
above all (1510–1629 n.), but also of the Maiden in Hcld., of the boy
Menoeceus in Pho., and of Praxithea offering her daughter in Erechtheus.
These scenes are compared and discussed by Loraux (1987) esp. 31–48,
50–3. For self-sacrifice in Tragedy see A. L. Allan in EGT 1237–8.
1540–2 Well then: ἀλλά implying consent: GP 17. learn everything
clearly: πᾶν πεύσῃ σαφῶς: see the messengers at e.g. Hcld. 799, S. Ajax
734, and for the claimed accuracy 1540–1612 n., 1604–8 n. my dear
mistress: greater familiarity than in the man’s opening, formal address
1532. The writer of 1604–12 gave the M. no vocative to address Clyt., but
allowed him to speak frankly in 1609. in case my mind fails somewhere
etc.: γνώμη ‘mind’, failing in concentration or memory, perhaps also
because of emotional stress (Stockert). For memory Wecklein compares S.
OT 1239 ‘Nevertheless, so far as I can myself recollect, you shall learn…’
makes me incoherent: ταράξῃ: lit. ‘disorders my tongue’; cf. Dem. 19.92
‘jumble everything up’ (LSJ), in a list of debating points.
[Text. 1541 που Markland, Diggle: μου L ‘my’, dependent on
enjambed γνώμη, is awkward, and duplicates ἐμήν in the next verse.]
1543–7a Well…: γάρ ‘after notice of giving information’, GP 59; ἐπεὶ
γάρ stand similarly in a messenger’s second line at Hcld. 800; usually
ἐπεί stands alone when he introduces circumstances, e.g. And. 1085 (see
Stevens’ n.), IT 1327. grove … meadows: they connote a locus amoenus
(1295–9 n.) in grim contrast with the coming grisly sacrifice. Artemis’
grove: 1544, cf. 185. 1545 a mass of Argives collected is the first of the
many ‘similarities’ to, or models from, the Polyxena scene in Hecuba, at
521 ‘the entire mass of the Achaean army was present’.
Greek. ἄλσος and λειμών are synonymous at A. Supp. 558–9, cf. Od.
6.291–2. σύλλογος ‘muster’, as 514 (n.), 825.
[Text. Page deleted 1545, as copied from 514, and with ‘muster’
duplicating ‘collected’ 1547; but 1545 registers the original place of total
encampment, 1547 a movement within it.]
1547b–50 groaned: for Ag.’s groaning see 1143 n., and e.g.
483. turning his head away: ἔμπαλιν στρέψας: to avoid the meeting
of eyes (see Introduction pp. 33–4) or from shame at unbearable stress
630 Commentary

or tears, e.g. Ion 967–8, Od. 8.86; Ag.’s tears IA 39–40, 451–2, 477 etc.
Cf. Med. 1148 ἀπέστρεψ’ ἔμπαλιν a cheek turned away to avoid a kiss,
then 1152 an expectation of that face being turned back πάλιν στρέψεις
to receive one. putting … in front of his eyes: ‘veiling’ in a gesture of
shame, 621 n.
[Text. 1548 England and Page questioned two prep. phrases with
one verb, but one indicates a purpose, the other a place reached; cf. e.g.
(conversely) Hec. 522 πρὸ τύμβου σῆς κόρης ἐπὶ σφαγάς ‘before the
tomb for the slaughter of your daughter’.   1550 προῆκεν Dindorf
burst into (tears): for προίημι ‘send out, emit’ cf. Hipp. 124 a spring its
waters; in medical writers of bodily emissions LSJ B.I.3. One might have
expected ἀφίημι of tears, e.g. Od. 23.33; note too ἐκβάλλω IA 451, 477.
προῆγεν L ‘led, drove forward’ has been defended from Ach. Tatius 3.14.3
δάκρυα προαγαγεῖν (2nd century AD), or replacement conjectured: some
eds commend Semitelos’ improbable δάκρυε πρόσθεν ὀμμάτων προθείς
‘began to weep, putting his robe in front of his eyes’, (a past tense without
augment is an occasional feature of Eur. messenger-speeches).]
Art. For Ag. veiled, see 1510–1629 n. end.
1551–60 But she stood … and spoke etc.: Iph. offers her life bravely;
cf. Polyxena Hec. 546–8a ‘You Argives who have sacked my city, I die
willingly’ ~ 1555, cf. Hec. 347 ‘my desire to die’; 548b–9 ‘Let no one
touch my person ( ~ 1559); for I shall offer my neck with good courage’
( ~ 1560); cf. the Maiden Hcld. 530b–1a ‘Here is my life, willing and
not unwilling’ ( ~ 1555), 550b–1a ‘I give my life willingly, and without
compulsion’.
1551–6 My body I give for … Greece (1554): Iph. ‘saving (all)
Greece’: see esp. 1255–75 n. (Ag.’s final speech), last paragraph, 1433–6
n., cf. Introduction p. 26; similarly (‘saving the city’) the Maiden Hcld.
503–6, 588; Menoeceus Pho. 997–8; Praxithea Erechtheus F 360.14–18,
34–5, 50–2. here I am for you: at an important moment, πάρειμι; cf.
646–7 n.; Pho. 446 ‘Mother, I am here’. Iph’s body: 1217, 1221 etc.
and esp. 1395 (n.); Ach.’s body 940, 1350, 1351, Clyt.’s body 1438 (cf.
Helen’s, i.e. her beauty, 1417). since this is the prophecy: i.e. what
it ‘bids’, England, comparing Hdt. 4.164.3 ‘learning that this was the
oracle’ μαθὼν … τὸ μαντήϊον ἐὸν τοῦτο (see Greek). The sentiment
repeats Iph.’s 1484 ‘if it must be’. Iph. knows of the prophecy, having
learned of it from Clyt. after the Old Man revealed it (879).
 Commentary 631

Greek. 1551 πλησίον n. acc. adv. (1103) as prep. (Smyth 1700); for
the dat., not the usual gen., see e.g. Cyc. 387, perhaps Hec. 896, Pho.
160: Smyth 1440. One might have expected the idiomatic nom. sing.
personal adj. πλησία, as in 629.   1556 ἄγοντας: we use the pass. to
be led to translate the personal and act. part.: it is in agreement with the
unexpressed acc. subject (‘men, people’) of inf. θῦσαι, according to the
natural reversion to this case from an unexpressed dat. (Smyth 1062),
here governed by δίδωμι 1555: the full construction in e.g. Hec. 540–1
δὸς ἡμῖν … | νόστου τυχόντας πάντας ἐς πάτραν μολεῖν ‘grant we may all
meet with return and reach our fatherland’. εἴπερ since lit. ‘if really’ with
pres. indic. expresses the speaker’s real opinion, or admits the fact: cf.
889 (n.).
[Text. 1556 ἄγουσιν dat. i.e. ἡμῖν was considered by Weil, but rightly
rejected as unnecessary.]
1557–60 victory: νικηφόρου, adj.: Iph. used it of ‘safety’ 1473. For the
idea cf. the Maiden Hcld. 530 ‘conquer (νικᾶτε) the enemy!’, Praxithea
Erechtheus F 360.51 ‘be victorious!’ (νικᾶτε). Therefore: πρὸς ταῦτα,
‘in the light of this (my independence); accordingly’: Smyth 1695.3c;
more defiantly still e.g. Med. 1358 Medea dismissing Jason’s bitter
remonstrance. let no Argive touch me etc.: ~ Hec. 548–9, cited in
1551–60 n. silence: at A. Ag. 235–8 Iph. has to be gagged to prevent
her cursing her killers (see also Text below).
Greek. 1557 τοὐπ’ ἔμ(ε) as far as it depends on me as e.g. Or. 1345,
τοὐπὶ σ(έ), Alc. 666: for the prep. see Smyth 1689.3d, for the adverbial
acc. of the def. art. 931 above, Smyth 1111.
[Text. 1558 δορὸς Pierson, cf. Her. 49 καλλινίκου δορός: L has δώρου
‘gift (of victory)’, reflecting δίδωμι 1555.   1560 σιγῇ L ‘in silence’ is
questioned because Polyxena in Hec. 563–5 cries out, inviting the death-
blow: σφαγῇ Jacobs ‘(offer, provide) for slaughter’.]
1561–2 That much she said: τοσαῦτ’ ἔλεξε, probably implying ‘no
more, no less’, i.e. words exactly measured; similarly Neoptolemus Hec.
542 before killing Polyxena; the phrase also Pho. 1236 (also a messenger-
speech). marvelled etc.: ἐθάμβησεν: compare the hubbub of approval
Hec. 553 for Polyxena’s bravery 549 (ἐθάμβησεν in a messenger-
speech also Ion 1205–6 ‘the whole crowd marvelled’). Then courage
and heroism: such explicit appreciation is given Polyxena immediately
after her death Hec. 579–80, as ‘exceedingly brave and most virtuous at
632 Commentary

heart’ τῇ περίσσ’ εὐκαρδίῳ | ψυχήν τ’ ἀρίστῃ. Compare too Demophon’s

determination to secure the Maiden praise for her bravery (εὐψυχία)
Hcld. 569 (see Allan’s n. there, or Mossman’s on Med. 403, for the
word’s connotations), 537–8, 554–5.
1563–7 Talthybius … in the midst … called for reverent silence: for
Talthybius see 95 n. At Hec. 530–3 Talthybius narrates his own actions
at the sacrifice of Polyxena, ‘… to proclaim silence from the whole army
of the Achaeans. And I took my stand in their midst and said “Silence,
Achaeans, let all people be in silence! Be silent, quiet!” And I brought
the crowd to stillness.’ ‘Reverent silence’: for εὐφημία see 608, 1469 n.
Then 1565–7 Calchas … sheath ~ Hec. 543–4a ‘(Neoptolemus) took
the gilded sword by its hilt and drew it from the sheath’. garlanded:
cf. the Maiden’s eagerness in Hcld. 529, cited in our n. on 1477. Since
Iph. asked to be garlanded there, Calchas here in 1567 apparently adds
a further garland, perhaps required for complete adherence to ritual.
Note the splendid instruments of gold for so great a moment, sword
and basket; a golden cup at Hec. 527–8. At El. 810 Aegisthus takes a
sacrificial knife from a basket; Ar. Peace 949 has basket, garland and
knife (see Olson’s n. for such baskets); Od. 10.355 has golden baskets
at a grand feast.
Art. 1565–93: the sacrifice and substitution of the hind are insecurely
identified on a 4th century BC vase-painting: see 1510–1629 n. Art.
Greek. 1563 ἦν μέλον concern it was, periphrastic pres. part. with
εἰμί, like 235–6 ἦν ἔχων; see n. there. The phrase replaces ἔμελε, cf.
e.g. μέλει μοι καὶ τόδε Pho. 1084; S. Phil. 150 μέλον (adjectival) πάλαι
μέλημά μοι ‘a duty long my concern’; for the root μελ- of a religious
office cf. also e.g. IT 40, Hipp. 104.   1564 ἀνεῖπε lit. ‘spoke up’,
i.e. ‘proclaimed’; the verb at Ion 1167, a crier announcing entry to a
celebratory feast.   1567 ἔσωθεν, lit. ‘from inside’, can also mean
‘(to) within, into’, e.g. IT 1389, Hcld. 42; but here the suffix -θεν controls
a separative gen. (Smyth 342) as usually in the analogous ἔξωθεν lit.
‘from outside’ e.g. Med. 1312 ‘outside’ (a house), κάτωθεν ‘down from’
e.g. Her. 1240 (the heaven).
1568–9 the son of Peleus: Ach. prays with the sacrifice to Artemis
(which Calchas enjoined in 90–1), as one now resigned to its necessity,
or even supportive of it, while at Hec. 534 Neoptolemus prays to his dead
father Ach., to whom Polyxena is to be sacrificed, to secure the Greeks’
 Commentary 633

onward journey homeward from the Thracian Chersonese (Hec. 37–43).

Prayers at the sacrifice of Praxithea’s daughter will naturally be to her
city’s protectress Athena, Erechtheus F 360.38–9, 49. quickly circled
the altar: lit. ‘ran in a circle of the altar’; from left to right: 1472 and n.
The speed is surprising on such a grave occasion? Ar. Peace 956–7 ‘take
the basket and the sprinkling-water and go quickly round the altar to the
right’ appears to offer an analogy, but speed there is enjoined in comic
rivalry, 937, 943, 950. And the runner in our play is no less surprising, for
he is Ach.: is he now anxious to put his promised support of Iph. aside,
to be done with the past, now that her death is unavoidable? Why else
is he acting so prominently? Jouan 123 n. 1 notes suggestions that he
acts from assumed authority over his ‘fiancée’, esp. since Ag. her father
stands away from her, veiling himself 1549–50. For Ach. here see esp.
Michelakis (2002) 135–43, who goes as far as finding 141–2 a possible
note of comedy to match his rapid entry after flight from his angry
Myrmidons 1338–57. The writer of this passage gives Iph. no second
speech of comment (1560, her silence), unlike Polyxena repeating her
readiness to die, Hec. 563–5 after 546–2.
Greek. ἔθρεξε a weak aor. unattested for Eur., but occasional in Epic
and later poetry, e.g. Ar. Thes. 657 (περιτρέχω).
[Text. 1568 (ἐν κύκλῳ) βωμοῦ Heath as in Her. 926–7: βωμὸν L (a
very simple copying error). Earlier eds doubted the form ἔθρεξε and
conjectured ἔβρεξε ‘soaked’, an improbable exaggeration; ‘wrongly,
although there is no need of fleetness’ (ἔθρεξε ‘ran’: cf. the Homeric
Ach. as ποδώκης ‘fleet-footed’), drily Diggle, OCT.]
1570–7 slayer of wild beasts: θηροκτόνε. The adj. is used of hunting-
hounds at Hel. 154; and at Ar. Lys. 1262 with reference to the Spartan
practice before battle of sacrificing to Artemis as Agrotera Ἀγροτέρα ‘Of
the Open Wild’; cf. Her. 378 θηροφόνος ‘killer of wild beasts’; Iliad
21.470 πότνια θηρῶν ‘mistress of wild beasts’, both to foster and to
kill them. Theognis 11–12 has a prayer for safety to Ἄρτεμι θηροφόνη
‘Artemis killer of wild beasts’ at the start of the poem, ‘(she) whom
Agamemnon established (i.e. in her cult-site) when he sailed to Troy’.
The indirect reference here is like that in A. Ag. 134–7, 140–4, where a
seemingly animal-fond Artemis is offended by eagles killing a hare and its
young and requires the compensatory sacrifice of Iph. as a young human
counterpart. All those contexts rest upon a time-old heroic equation of
634 Commentary

hunting with war, the first being practice for the second, so that sacrifice
is offered to the divine huntress-archer to secure success in war; and the
delight of Artemis in human sacrifice is clear enough: 1524–5 (n.) and IT
382–4 cited there; see esp. Burkert (1985) 151–2.
revolving: an English metaphor too for planets and stars turning
across heaven’s ‘round’ (κύκλος Ion 1147); Pho. 3 ‘You Sun, revolving
your flame with swift horses’, cf. PV 1092; 1571 is in Eur.’s own best
manner. Artemis is moon-goddess, IT 21 and other passages cited by
Mastronarde on Pho. 175 ‘O daughter of … Leto, Selene’. accept: δέξαι,
regular in sacrificial prayers, e.g. Hipp. 83, IT 464; Artemis accepts,
1596. The model for 1572–4 is Hec. 534–8 (Neoptolemus to Ach.)
‘Receive from me this libation of appeasement … Come, that you may
drink this girl’s pure dark blood which is your gift from the army and
myself.’ undefiled: ἄχραντον, the equivalent of ἀκραιφνές ‘unmixed’
in Hec. 537, i.e. pure, virginal, cf. Iph. pictured as the pure, mountain-
bred, sacrificial heifer 1083 and substituted with the mountain-running
hind at 1593; at A. Ag. 245 Iph. is ἀταύρωτος ‘un-bulled’, virginal; cf.
the Maiden sacrificed instead of marrying Hcld. 579–80, 591–2. sail
… sack Troy’s citadel: Calchas at 92, 359; for ‘citadel’ πέργαμα see
762–3 n. stood looking at the ground: the M. too, 1581: see 1578–89
n. Casting down eyes signified emotions overwhelmed, immobilising:
cf. Iph. 1123.
Greek. 1574 καλλιπαρθένου δέρης: similar freedom with -πάρθενος
Hel. 1 καλλιπάρθενοι ῥοαί ‘(the Nile’s) beautiful virgin streams’, pure in
their waters.   1575–6 δός and dat. and inf., as in Hec. 539–41 cited in
1557–60 n.   1577 the postponement of τε after coupled adj. and noun
is rare: GP 517.
[Text. 1570–1–2 All direct collators of L detect traces of an erased
marginal note λείπ(ει) στίχ(ος) ‘a verse is missing’ (or plur. ‘verses are
missing’), for which see Introduction (Text) p. 54; but they disagree about
the identity of the hand which later added (or rewrote) part or all of 1570
and perhaps 1571 (Günther, Diggle) and maybe even 1572 (Stockert):
perhaps the original scribe, perhaps another hand. In the facsimile in
1569–73 the writing throughout appears to be that of the initial scribe,
but ‘rewritten with a thicker nib’, West (2013) 320, except for Tr’s in-line
conjecture ὦ διὸς. There is no great consequence for the constitution of
the text itself.   1570 Ζηνός, ὦ Nauck, in which ὦ replaces the invasive
 Commentary 635

and unmetrical gloss ἄρτεμις deduced to have stood in L from its copy P
(Artemis’ name similarly invaded the appeal to her as ‘O fairest, fairest
of those on Olympus’, Hipp. 70–1).   1572 γε L gives inept emphasis:
τοῦθ’ ὃ σοὶ for τόδ’ ὅ γε Porson.   1573 θ’ (τε) so placed in L preserves
the close collocation Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ θ᾿ὁμοῦ; Scaliger’s τ’ ἄναξ ὁμοῦ
normalises the particle’s position.]
1578–1629 For our method in annotating these lines see 1510–1629 n.
1578–89 The sequence of sights and sounds is: (1577) all but the
officers of sacrifice turn eyes to the ground as the moment of Iph.’s death
comes. 1578–81a the M. alone nevertheless watches the priest examining
Iph.’s neck before himself looking down. 1581b–3 a marvel is seen, for
the M. and others have now looked up, but no blow has been heard (see
n.) and this on its own might have prompted them to raise their eyes; and
they see that Iph. has disappeared. 1584–9 only then does the priest cry
out from the altar, and the army echo him, after seeing the marvel, the
substitution for the living Iph. of the hind in its bloody death-throe.
1578–81a priest: ἱερεύς (as 1584): paired with σφαγεύς ‘slayer,
sacrificer’ Her. 451. Anonymous here, and certainly not Calchas himself.
Ag. has been expected to kill his own daughter 873, 1177–8, and at IT
853–4 Iph. reports that he himself used the sword (but see IT 360 below).
At Hec. 563–7 Neoptolemus himself sacrifices Polyxena to his father Ach.
At A. Ag. 240 Ag. deputes the act to unnamed ‘sacrificers’, and though he
is named as ἱερεύς at IT 360 it is the ‘Greeks’ collectively who slaughter
Iph. 359; similarly Iph. as ἱερέα ‘priestess’ IT 34 deputes to others 40 (but
the text of 37–41 is disputed). uttered his prayer: ἐπηύξατο, another
borrowing, from Hec. 542, the army’s response to Polyxena’s first speech
of willingness and prayer for the Greek’s homecoming. throat: Iph.’s
‘bloody throat’ is anticipated by the Chorus at 1084, cf. ‘neck’ their 1516;
Ach. warned her of this horror, 1429. At Hec. 563–5 Polyxena offers
Neoptolemus ‘if he desires’ her breast or her full throat for the sword. no
small: οὐ μικρόν, no rare litotes e.g. Tro. 52, 940; for the figure see V. Bers,
EGT 1372. bowed: νενευκώς, the verb used of Aegisthus bending over
to examine a victim’s entrails El. 839; the verb of fear S. Ant. 269–70, but
of defiant denial 441 there (so Stockert).
Greek: 1579 resists analysis according to Classical syntax. After
a verb such as ἐπισκοπέω ‘look at, examine’ we expect an indirect
question, e.g. Hcld. 395 ποίᾳ, Her. 314 ὅπως. The rel. adv. ἵνα ‘where’
636 Commentary

appears to serve here as the interrogative word (cf. οὗ 1583 n.); then ἄν
and opt. must express potentiality, would strike: cf. S. OC 188–90 ἄγε
νυν σύ με … ἵν’ ἂν … εἴποιμεν ‘Lead me … where … we might say…’
(see Jebb’s n.). The same ἄν and opt. rules out interpretation here in
IA as either an indirect deliberative question ‘should strike’ or a final
clause ‘in order that’ (the latter with ἄν and opt. is Homeric and very
rare afterwards: a good n. by Smyth 2202ab); see Text below.  1580
The combination δέ τ(ε) is ‘highly doubtful’, GP 532: see Text. For dat.
ἐμοί with εἰσῄει ‘entered’ and a ‘thought’ or ‘feeling’ as subject cf. σοὶ
… δόξ’ ἐσῆλθεν ‘a decision’ Ion 964, ἐμοὶ … οἶκτος … εἰσέβη ‘pity’ S.
Trac. 298; after the initial dat. ἐμοί one would expect not dat. φρενί but
acc. φρένα (conjectured by some). Cf. 1374–6 n. Greek 1374.
[Text. 1579 Hermann removed ἄν to create a final clause ἵνα (or ἵν’
εὖ) πλήξειέ νιν ‘in order that he might strike her (well)’.   1580 δέ γ(ε)
Reiske, ‘continuing narrative’ GP 154 (3).
Metre. 1578, 9, 80.]
1581b–3 marvel: θαῦμα: in messenger-speeches e.g. Alc. 1123, Hcld.
853; cf. θαυμαστά ‘wonderful’ 1538, Hcld. 797; IT 340 θαυμάστ’ ἔλεξας;
Hel. 672 θαυμαστά, an exclamation; for θαῦμα … ὁρᾶν ‘…to behold’
cf. Ion 1142 (a messenger-speech); Hipp. 1216–17 εἰσορῶσι | κρεῖσσον
θέαμα δεργμάτων ἐφαίνετο ‘for (us) watching, a sight too powerful for
eyes (to bear)’ (a messenger-speech). Also 1585–6 below ‘we saw an
unhoped-for portent’. (Everyone) would have heard: for this motif
in a messenger-speech, with aor. indic. and ἄν, cf. positive And. 1135
and Bacc. 740 ἂν εἶδες ‘you would have seen’; negative Bacc. 1085
οὐκ ἂν ἤκουσας ‘you would not have heard’; excellent illustration by
Stockert. the thud of a blow: The M. assumed that Iph. was about
to be stunned (audibly) with a heavy blow, such as that given to a large
animal victim by an ‘ox-striker’ βουτύπος, Latin popa (e.g. standing
on tip-toe to gain height Ap. Rhod. 2.91 cited by LSJ 1); then other
assistants would hold the animal’s head up over the altar (see Diggle on
Theophrastus, Characters 27.5); and the sacrificer ἱερεύς (1578, 1584)
would slit its throat so that blood spattered the altar, completing the ritual
correctly (see on ‘high up’ in 1584–9 n.). For the ritual as a whole see
Burkert (1983) 138–40 and G. S. Aldrete, ‘Hammers, Axes, Bulls and
Blood: Some Practical Aspects of Roman Animal Sacrifice’, JRS 104
(2014) 28–50, with much Greek material. The blow was not itself the
 Commentary 637

act of slaughter; and the killing throat-cut or thrust would not be audible.
For descriptions in Tragedy of how women were killed with weapons
at the altar, or killed themselves or were killed by others, all in similar
‘anatomical’ detail, see Loraux (1540–1612 n.) 50–3, citing on 51 esp.
Or. 1471–3 ‘Orestes (intending to kill Helen) had bent back her neck and
was about to strike a black sword into her throat’, “the exact picture of a
sacrifice in action”. where in the ground … had sunk: the automatic
supposition upon a sudden disappearance; it is one reaction among the
mystified spectators of Oedipus’ miraculous vanishing S. OC 1656–2 (a
messenger-speech). The seer Amphiaraus at A. Seven 587–8 forebodes
his own remarkable death, described at E. Supp. 926 as ‘snatched living
into earth’s recesses’. Later at our 1608 the M. assumes that Iph. has
‘flown’ to the gods, i.e. up to heaven or Olympus (cf. OC 1655).
Greek. 1581 θαῦμα ὁρᾶν: for the inf. see 273–6 n. αἴφνης adv. is
a late Greek form; the Classical adj. was αἰφνίδιος (again, Stockert is
excellent).   1583 παρθένον: the subject of the dependent clause
is made the object of the principal verb (one of perception): this is a
Classical construction, Smyth 2182 and .b. The partitive gen. in οὗ γῆς
replicates that in direct interrogative ποῦ γῆς e.g. El. 233, Tro. 191; for
a relative adv. serving as indirect interrogative see perhaps ἵνα 1579 n.;
Smyth 2668.
[Text. οἶδεν L pres. knows is a vigorous change of tense after aor.
ᾔσθετο, implying ‘no one yet knows’: but it may be just a copying error
(phonetic) for εἶδεν Matthiae ‘saw’ – a simple contrast with ‘heard’, but
a little prosaic? (Markland rejected it). See 524 apparatus.
Metre. 1583.]
1584–9 shouted: βοᾷ δέ: a Euripidean line-beginning, in messenger-
speeches e.g. And. 1124, Her. 975, Ion 1210. (the whole army) echoed
the cry: ἐπήχησε, a vociferous reaction, like the acclaim for Polyxena’s
courage Hec. 553 cited in 1561–2 n. unhoped for portent: ἄελπτον
φάσμα; the words occur at Or. 879 (a surprising but encouraging sudden
human presence), cf. Ion 1395 φάσμα τῶν ἀνελπίστων (the revelation of
a wholly unexpected object from the past, powerful in consequence); cf.
also e.g. Alc. 1123 (cited in 1581b–3 n.) ‘unexpected marvel’. For the
substitution of the hind cf. esp. IT 28, 782–3; Gantz (1993) 586–7. to
the eye and a conspicuous sight: pleonasm, no doubt consciously
emphatic, like Aesch. F 25e. 5–6 (text damaged) ‘…there is evidence
638 Commentary

from eyes. With no dimness of sight nor vainly (?did I see)’. See also
Greek. gasping and struggling: the single verb ἀσπαίρουσα, which
denotes the first and connotes the second, a word in Homer used always of
the dying warrior, cf. A. Pers. 977; Eur. has it of the murdered Aegisthus’
gasping and body-spasms El. 842–3 πᾶν … σῶμα … | ἤσπαιρεν. Such
struggling was undignified, and feared: by Ajax before his suicide S. Aj.
833, by Cassandra before her killing A. Ag. 1293. spattered: 1514–15
n. high up: ἄρδην (from αἴρω ‘raise up’) gives excellent point: the
blood would be widely visible; but this older meaning of the adv. (LSJ
I) gave way to ‘wholly, utterly’ (LSJ II), which may have been intended
here. Because the hind’s blood has spattered the altar, Calchas can claim
that the ritual has been correctly completed, and that Artemis has wished
not to pollute the altar with human and noble blood (1594–5) while
accepting the Greeks’ sacrifice and granting their success (1596–7).
Greek. 1586 μηδέ with ὁρωμένου in Classical Greek would be
conditional, ‘not even were it being seen’ rather than ‘even when seen’
(which would need οὐδέ: Smyth 2728); and indeed the result of the
substitution was seen.   1588 ἰδεῖν ‘to the eye’, cf. ὁρᾶν 1581 n. τὴν
θέαν lit. ‘at the spectacle’, acc. of respect with διαπρεπής ‘conspicuous’
(πρέπω is ‘be clear to view’): similarly pleonastic Cretans F 472e.13
εὐπρεπὴς … ἰδεῖν, Alc. 333 εἶδος ἐκπρεπεστάτη.   1584–5 στρατὸς …
εἰσιδόντες: grammatical concord by sense, not number, 427–8 n.
[Metre. 1584, 6, 9.]
1590–5 unimaginable: translates πῶς δοκεῖς; lit. ‘how do you think?’, a
colloquialism used to enhance narrative also Hipp. 446 (see Barrett), Hec.
1160: Stevens (1976) 39, Collard (2005) 363. This view of Calchas’ capacity
for joy contrasts strongly with that of Ag. and Men. 518–21. Commanders
… common: κοίρανοι κοινοῦ: hardly a chance alliteration, and we have
attempted to imitate it in our translation; its purpose must be to underline
the ‘inclusiveness’ marking the Greeks now, 1545–7, 1561, 1573, 1577,
1584, and later 1598: see ‘Panhellenism’, Introduction pp. 17–18; for
alliteration see 297 n. For ‘common’ cf. Ach. 967 τὸ κοινὸν … ὧν μέτ’
ἐστρατευόμην ‘the common good of my comrades-in-arms’. mountain-
running: ὀρειδρόμος, i.e. pure (cf. 1083–4): see n. on 1574 ‘undefiled’.
1594 is a little puzzling: (1) the sense appears to be that Artemis
welcomes ἀσπάζεται the hind in place of Iph. although its substitution is
the god’s own act (in this respect the substitution of the ram caught in the
 Commentary 639

thicket for Abraham’s son Isaac is a telling analogy, Genesis 22.7–13);

(2) do the words μάλιστα τῆς κόρης go together, and what do they mean?
Translation as rather than the girl seems likely, in which superlative
and comparative ideas combine (whence the gen.), like S. Ant. 100–2
τὸ κάλλιστον … τῶν προτέρων φάος ‘the fairest light of those that ever
were’, 1212–13 δυστυχεστάτην | κέλευθον … τῶν παρελθουσῶν ὁδῶν
‘the most ill-starred of paths ever gone along’; Smyth 1434. If μάλιστα
τῆς κόρης do not go together, the meaning may be ‘especially welcomes
the hind at a value (equivalent to that) of the girl’, as if ἀσπάζεται is used
as a synonym of ἀξιοῖ ‘judges … worth’ (gen. of value, Smyth 1372):
poor sense in context.
Greek. 1593 βωμίαν: adj. for adv. or prep. phrase, the same word
e.g. Supp. 93, And. 357; cf. χρόνιον 1099 n.; Smyth 1042. For the fem.
gender of ἔλαφος see on Fr. i after the main text.   1594 ἀσπάζεται of
a ‘welcome’ sacrifice may be a Hellenistic usage (Stockert, citing Schol.
on Iliad 20.405 γάνυται Poseidon ‘joyed’ by youths killing a mountain
bull).   1595 μιαίνοι: in a purpose-clause, an opt. in primary sequence
is rare and normally extends the verb’s force from the past into the future
(Smyth 2200): Artemis wished her altar to be pure then, and for evermore.
Also 1618 below – but two examples so close together are surprising.
[Metre. 1592, 3.]
1596–1601a this sacrifice: just ‘this’ in the Greek, τοῦτο neut.,
referring to 1594–5 in total (bare ‘this’ in English will mean the hind
alone, ‘this’ ταύτην in 1594); cf. 516 n. 1596b–7 repeat 1575–6, with
‘sail without harm’ πλοῦν … ἀπήμονα there reduced here to favourable
voyage πλοῦν οὔριον (for which see 352). sailing to attack: we
translate πλοῦν … ἐπιδρομάς as hendiadys, lit. ‘sailing and attacks’ (53
n.). Page 195 notes vocabulary similar to 1578–1607 in Hel. 400–6;
ἐπιδρομάς ends Hel. 404. hollow bay: κοίλους μυχούς: of Aulis 660,
cf. of Euboea (effectively the same bay) Tro. 84; see 660 n. swelling …
sea: οἶδμα (×20 in Eur.), cf. 704.
Greek. 1598 πᾶς τις … αἶρε, 3. pers. subject with 2. pers. imperative:
informal, if not colloquial, Collard (2005) 370; cf. e.g. Ar. Birds 1186
δεῦρο πᾶς χώρει ‘run here, everybody!’, Rhes. 687 ἴσχε πᾶς τις ‘hold
back, everybody!’, with Fries’s n. on 680. θάρσος αἴρω: the verb of
‘heightened’ feelings or passions e.g. S. OT 914 θυμόν, Oedipus’ anxious
excitement; Trac. 216 αἴρομαι ‘I am elated’; cf. αἴρεται above 919 n.
640 Commentary

1601b–3 burnt to ashes: κατηνθρακώθη, a vigorous verb; of Orestes’

faked ashes S. El. 58; of the Cyclops’ extinguished sight Cyc. 663.
Normally parts of a sacrificed animal would be kept for eating; but the
animals were fully burnt (in a ‘holocaust’) in many rites honouring Zeus
or all the gods, or the dead, esp. in hero-cults: that would be appropriate
for Iph. Hephaestus’ flame: Ἡφαίστου φλογί ends verses at Ar.
Wealth 661, Men. Sam. 674, also in sacrificial contexts: an echo of ritual
language? (prayed) appropriately: τὰ πρόσφορα lit. ‘the appropriate
things’, like Alc. 148 πράσσεται τὰ πρόσφορα ‘he prepares what is
appropriate’ (for a funeral), cf. LSJ I.3. See Greek. voyage: νόστου, to
Troy: 966 n.
Greek. 1603 τὰ πρόσφορα here is effectively an internal obj. to
εὔχομαι (compare 1185 τίνας εὐχὰς ἐρεῖς; ‘What prayers will you say?’);
not ‘prayed for what was appropriate’, the sense in e.g. 1185, 1188.
[Text. The mild similarities between Ar. Wealth 661 and 1602, and
653 and 1543–4 are surely accidental; they do not justify the view of
some editors that this part of IA may have influenced Ar., or of others
that the writer of 1578–1629 was using verses written by the writer of
1510–77: see Page 196–9, Stockert 85–6; 1510–1629 n. paragraph beg.
‘Critics have etc.’.
Metre. 1596, 9.]
1604–8 fate: Iph.’s removal by the gods is meant, not her fate in
general, which has long been recognized as bad, although this was not
stated explicitly until 1336–7. The phrase ‘undying glory’ is Homeric-
heroic in register, e.g. Iliad 9.413, cf. ‘glory ever to be remembered’
1531 above, Ε. Palamedes F 585.2 δόξα ἀθάνατος ‘immortal fame’. I
was … there … and … saw: messenger as eye-witness, claiming
therefore to be clear and truthful, 1540 n.; cf. esp. S. Ajax 748 τοσοῦτον
οἶδα καὶ παρὼν ἐτύγχανον ‘that much I know, and I was in fact there’,
Bacc. 680, IT 1345, Supp. 651–3 etc.;. Your daughter etc.: asyndeton
in an immediate, summary confirmation: Smyth 2167a. flown … to
the gods: 1583 n. For the wide variation in poetry and mythography,
whether Iph. dies at the altar (e.g. in A. Ag.), or becomes immortal (as
here), or is transformed, or is translated to the land of the Taurians, all
through Artemis, see Gantz (1993) 583–8; Introduction p. 3. In the OT
at Judges 11.30–40 Jephtha vows to sacrifice to God the first person he
meets on leaving his house if he wins a battle: it is his virgin daughter;
 Commentary 641

she agrees to die, and is sacrificed. In Handel’s 1752 oratorio on the story
the librettist Thomas Morell has Jephtha on the day of sacrifice pray that
his daughter may be taken up to heaven, ‘Waft her, angels, through the
skies | Far above yon azure plain’. An angel appears and obliges. The
grim OT story is given a happy ending just as happens in the text of our
play, whether Euripidean in design or not.
Greek. 1604 has sent: πέμπει, historic pres.; 47 n. The language of
1604b–8 is clumsy: (1) 1604b ὥστε is superfluous, for πέμπω usually
takes just an inf. of purpose, e.g. 99–100, 360, LSJ I.3; ὥστε emphasizes
an intended result, e.g. Hipp. 1327 (see Barrett); Smyth 2271. (2) φράσαι
tell and λέγει say are empty duplicates (and have differing verbal aspect);
(3) 1605 the subject of κυρεῖ has (Iphigenia) must be inferred from what
follows in 1606 and 1608, since imperishable glory was her objective
(1376, 1383–4, 1398–9), not Ag.’s; it is he who is strictly the grammatical
subject of κυρεῖ, continued from πέμπει; (4) the tense-sequence 1605
ὁποίας … pres. κυρεῖ to 1606 δόξαν aor. ἔσχεν, and the change in their
subjects, are strained (see Text).   1607 παρών, ὁρῶν pres. part. as
‘imperfect’, common in such messengers’ assertions: see Collard on
Supp. 649.   1608 (ἀφ)ίπτατο is a later Greek form of πέτομαι (DELG
892); σοι: dat. of interest.
[Text. 1606 is moved to follow 1608 by Günther, approved by
Stockert; note Diggle (1994) 410 (‘plausible had the writer been more
competent’). It cures weakness (4) in Greek above, with ἔσχεν aor. now
followed by ἀφίπτατο impf.]
[Metre. 1604.]
1609–12 Relent … lay aside: the verse draws upon Iph.’s 1454 ‘Do
not hate my father – your husband’. Clyt.’s chafing anger towards Ag.
for the killing of Iph. is suggested by Pind. Pyth. 11.22–4; she defends
her angry vengeance at A. Ag. 1415–20, 1432–3, 1524–9; S. El. 525–50;
E. El. 1020–48. Messengers sometimes speak curtly, e.g. IT 1411, Pho.
1259–60; unless Ag. (1604) himself sent this command with the news
– but Ag. did not hear 1454 or Clyt.’s menacing response 1455 ‘He has
to run a fearsome challenge because of you’. When messengers do give
advice, it is often veiled in deference to a master, e.g. Bacc. 769–72.
But 1609 is transparently an awkward preparation for 1616–18; and it is
here that the 6th century AD writer reveals himself as desk-bound, not
theatre-aware (indeed, he may never have seen a tragedy performed):
642 Commentary

see 1510–1632 n. on Staging. (gods …) unexpected (by mortals):

ἀπροσδόκητα: i.e. the ‘unhoped-for’ rescue of Iph. ‘by one of the gods’,
1585–6, and now their taking her to themselves, 1608, 1622. The axiom
is a commonplace, e.g. Zeus sends the unexpected, Antiope F 223.104;
another generalisation Alexandros F 62. dying and living: mild
hysteron proteron (1149 n.), mild effect of surprise. Cf. esp. Alc. 141–2
– ‘You can speak (of her) as both living and dead.’ – ‘And how could the
same person be dead and alive?’ The same inversion also e.g. IT 718; cf.
S. OT 438 ‘this day will bring you both birth and destruction’, Tiresias
to the angry Oedipus.
Greek. 1609 ἀφαιρέω intrans. with separative gen. (λύπης), lit. ‘take
away from (your) pain’, may have a precedent in Solon fr. 5.2 τιμῆς
… ἀφελών ‘taking away from (others’) honour’ and a closer analogy in
Plut. Antony 53.7 τῶν δακρύων ἀφῄρει ‘left off tears’ (mss.: τὸ δακρῦον
Ziegler ‘weeping’). An acc. with the trans. verb would be expected here
[Text: either λύπην Hermann (cf. Med. 1150 ὁργάς τ’ ἀφῄρει ‘removed
anger from’ another), or λύπας Bothe]. πάρες χόλον like μεθέμεν χόλον
Iliad 1.283; πάρες τὸ μάργον ‘have done with this mad appetite!’ Cyc.
310, ‘…lamentation!’ Supp. 111; for παρίημι cf. 386 n.   1612 bare
βλέπω is ‘see (the light of day), be alive’ when the context is plain, e.g.
Alc. 142 above.
[Metre. 1610, 12.]
1613–14 A chorus regularly speaks similar empty couplets after a
messenger-speech; 1614 merely paraphrases 1611–12; compare the
emptiness of the Chorus’ 1620. On the other hand, their reaction with
this cliché contrasts effectively with Clyt.’s refusal to be comforted,
1615–18. remains: μένειν does not need the translation ‘dwells’ (LSJ
I.2.b): ‘remain’ is the point here, the reassurance: permanency for Iph. in
the gods’ company, 1622 (but at IT 30 Artemis sends Iph. at once to the
Taurians).
Greek. 1613 ὡς is exclamatory, cf. e.g. Hel. 377, 455; see 1127 n.,
Smyth 2682a; τοι emphasizes preceding ἥδομαι, e.g. S. El. 871 ὑφ’
ἡδονῆς τοι; GP 541.
[Metre. 1613.]
1615–29 [Metre. See 1510–1629 n.]
1615–18 not false consolation…?: Clyt.’s distress is not to be
comforted by invented tales. She shows her bafflement by imputing
 Commentary 643

Iph.’s theft to one of the gods, although she has just heard it was Artemis’
doing, and by her asking How am I to address you?: πῶς σε προσείπω;
Is Iph. to be called mortal or immortal? The chorus put this question to
their master Ag. on his victorious return from Troy A. Ag. 784–5, cf.
the anxieties of the chorus beginning to salute their dead king Darius’
ghost Pers. 700–1. As to stolen: the writer has in mind how the gods
stole Helen from Troy and spirited her to Egypt, e.g. Hel. 1675; cf. Or.
1498. hideous (grief): λυγροῦ, one of the strongest Tragic adjs., e.g.
of πένθος ‘grief’ also A. Cho. 17; of bodily affliction S. Phil. 1424, the
hero’s repellent ulcer. Iph. ordered Clyt. to stop her tears 1433–5 and
again at 1466; a director might have her disobey at 1466.
Greek. 1616 With μύθους as subject of pass. παραμυθεῖσθαι, the
normal act. and cognate acc. are reversed. Stockert unconvincingly takes
the verb as ‘persuade otherwise’, citing Or. 298 where the coupling with
ἰσχναίνω ‘reduce a swelling’ suggests rather ‘comfort’.   1618 σου
for you is objective gen., with πένθος also e.g. Alc. 426; Smyth 1331
and 1331.a. παυσαίμην opt. in primary sequence (φῶ subj. 1616): 1595
n.
[Text. 1616 δ’ οὐ L is correct, the negative effectively fusing with
φημί so that the μή regular in a deliberative question is put aside (see
Smyth 2692a). It is surprising that Tr3 wrongly ‘emended’ to δὲ.]
1619–20 But look: καὶ μήν is an entry-cue, most commonly from a
chorus; GP 356.
Greek. ἔχω and acc. and infin. of purpose: Smyth 2008.
[Text. 1620 αὐτοὺς L ‘same (words)’, the surmise that Iph. is now
‘with the gods’ 1608 and the consolation it should bring to Clyt., 1609a:
but αὐτὸς Heath ‘himself’ is tempting, putting weight on Ag.’s personal
intention to repeat the double reassurance 1621–2.]
1621–6 we may be happy etc.: in his delight over Iph., Ag. now quite
forgets the irresistible pressure on himself to sacrifice her (1255–75); in
a rare nice touch from this writer, Ag.’s excitement makes him interpose
the fleet’s readiness to sail between instructions to Clyt. to take Orestes
home and a perfunctory and cold farewell to her. ‘happy’: ὄλβιοι: the word
possibly chosen in recollection of Ag.’s 161, his doubt of such mortal
happiness. because of our daughter: the same use of ἕνεκα as of Helen,
1392–7 n. keeps company: ἔχει … ὁμιλίαν: Hippolytus claimed the
special company of Artemis Hipp. 19, 1441; Heracles had that of the gods
644 Commentary

Hcld. 872 (verb ὁμιλέω). boy: Ag.’s hope for Orestes is left to implication,
but Iph. was explicit, 1450: see 1447–52 n. it will be a long time before:
the force of χρόνιος, of things e.g. Ion 1615, Hel. 1232. Compare El. 1333
λοίσθιά μοι προσφθέγματά σου ‘my final words to say to you’. Note that
Ag. makes no mention of ‘sending letters home’ (115–16); and beneath his
optimism lies an awareness that the war will indeed be a long one. In A.
Ag. 863–74 Clyt. speaks only of reports from Troy, not personal messages;
our passage recalls 914–16 there, ‘your speech was like my absence –
you stretched it out at great length.’ has its voyage in prospect: see
Greek. Cf. Hec. 1289–90 ‘In truth, I already see winds here to send us
home’, where, as here, the immediately following choral tailpiece 1293–5
unusually stems directly from this thought. Cacoyannis’ film of IA ends
with the blowing of the winds. And farewell: καὶ χαῖρε, an abrupt leave-
taking, and May all be well for you is likewise cursory. Both are formulaic,
the former e.g. Hipp. 1437, the latter e.g. Alc. 626–7; see further on 1627–9
‘rejoicing … rejoicing’.
Greek. 1621 γενοίμεθ’ ἄν we may be (happy): opt. with ἄν, English
idiom for ‘we will prove to be’: Smyth 1828.   1622 the adv. ὄντως,
predominantly a word of 4th century prose, in fact occurs 4 times in
Eur.   1623 μόσχον here ‘male-calf’, i.e. boy (used in metaphor even
for a lion-cub Bacc. 1185); lit. ‘heifer’, it is common as ‘young girl’, e.g.
Hec. 206, 526 (cf. 1083 n. above). Similarly πῶλος ‘filly’ is often used
for a young woman e.g. And. 621, Hec. 142, but as ‘colt’ of a young man
A. Cho. 794 (Orestes), Pho. 947.   1624 πρὸς (πλοῦν) ὁρᾷ: ‘looks to,
has in prospect’, in expectation; the phrase e.g. El. 377, often to persons
e.g. Her. 81; without the prep. Hec. 901 πλοῦν ὁρῶντας.
1627–9 The Chorus ignore Clyt. in their final words; the lines in fact
rework 1525–31, their wishes for Ag.’s glory. rejoicing … (return)
rejoicing: χαίρων twice, playing on the double meanings of the greeting
χαῖρε, ‘farewell’ and ‘welcome’. An audience or a reader will appreciate
the irony, if they recall Clyt.’s welcome for Ag. in Aeschylus, Ag. 855–
972; see the chorus at Ag. 1238, darkly, ‘she seems to rejoice at his
safety in returning’. spoils (from Troy): σκῦλα as e.g. El. 7, Tro. 574;
foretold for Philoctetes by Heracles S. Phil. 1428. Neither Men. nor Ag.
had mentioned spoils from Troy, only its sack. finest is κάλλιστα, the
adj. for spoils in Rhes. 620; but κάλλιστα is lit. ‘most beautiful’, and
indeed at A. Ag. 954–5 Ag. refers to the captive girl Cassandra as the
 Commentary 645

‘choice flower among the many riches’ taken from Troy, cf. Tro. 414.
And is the recovery of Helen herself hinted? Her beauty was stated in 386
above. (winning) me: i.e. ‘for me’: surprising: these are wives from
Chalcis; but the city was a partner in the force sent to Troy, Iliad 2.537.
The wish is consistent perhaps with the Chorus’ sentiments towards Ag.
in 1528–31, with their admiring curiosity about the Greeks 171, 189–
91, 293–302, and with their confidence that Troy will fall [773–80]; it
is ironic too that here they forget their sympathy in 785–93 for Troy’s
women, doomed to dreadful suffering.
1629 All leave: see 1510–1629 n. under Staging.

Doubtful fragments and testimonies

Fr. i: attributed to the play’s exodos by Porson (earlier to its prologue
by Musgrave); the words ‘And I shall place … your daughter’ would
be spoken by Artemis, appearing as ‘god’ at play-end: see our 1532–1629
n. on Text; Introduction p. 53. their own (hands): the word φίλαις,
perhaps ‘their dear (hands)’, means little without its immediate context;
so Monk conjectured the substitution of λάθρᾳ ‘(place) unnoticed (in the
Achaeans’ hands…)’.
Fr. ii: Unbreakable: ἄθραυστα: Hesychius’ gloss ‘unforeseeable’
makes little sense etymologically. Hemsterhuys had referred the word to
IA 57 (Tyndareus forcing his oath upon the suitors of Helen), substituting
it for ἄριστα ‘best’ with the meaning ‘unbreakably’: see n. there.
Fr. iii: ‘You halcyons etc.’: the quotation is from Aristophanes’
brilliant parody of Eur.’s lyric monodies, Frogs 1309–63. The four verses
no doubt contain some of Eur.’s actual words, but it is guesswork, which
words they are. They certainly do not come from the text-version of IA
which we read, and have been attributed at a venture either to IT or to
Hypsipyle. Kannicht in TrGF 5.889–90 gives full details of the complex
scholia on these lines in Aristophanes, and of modern discussions; see
also Collard-Cropp (2008) VIII 481 n. 1.
 ADDENDA TO VOLUMES 1 AND 2

p. 4 On the myth before Euripides see now also Parker 2016, xix–xxx (IA on xxvii),
and on Euripides and Iphigenia xxx–xxxix
p. 5 n. 7 For Iphigenia and cult at Brauron see now Parker 2016 xvi–xviii, 346–7.
p. 7 n. 15 We share Bremmer’s scepticism over a report that skeletal remains
recently found on Mount Lykaion indicate that the ancient Greeks practised human
sacrifice (The Guardian 10 August 2016).
Doubt of the historicity of human sacrifice also by M. Jost in D. Ogden (ed.), A
Companion to Greek Religion (Malden MA 2010) 267; see too Parker 2016, xviii n.
17.
p. 23 n. 58 For Clytemnestra as the blameless wife see now J. Radding, ‘Clytemnestra
at Aulis: Euripides and the Reconsideration of a Tradition’, GRBS 55 (2015) 832–
62.
p. 39 On IA in the 16th century and after, and esp. Racine’s play, see Parker 2106,
l–lii, lxv.
p. 43 On the Mnouchkine production Les Atrides see also D. Wiles, Mask and
Performance in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 2007) 100–1 (on the use of masks).
p. 47 Note. On Euripides’ dialogue trimeters see also Parker 2016, lxxvi–lxxix,
lxxxi–lxxxv; on metres in tragedy lxxx-xcvii, esp. xcii–iv on aeolo-choriambic.
p. 48 Parker on ‘dramatic progression’: see also Parker 2016, lxxxvii–iii.
p. 55 A fresh and detailed account of the manuscript tradition and editing of IT, like
the IA an ‘alphabetical’ play, is given by Parker 2016, xcvii–cvi.
p. 59 On Monk’s approach to editing IA see Collard 2007, 238 and 240.
p. 248 6–11 n., para. 2, the Pleiades marking the end of the sailing-season: cf. S.
Nauplius the Fire-Kindler F 432.11 κυνὸς ψυχρὰν δύσιν ‘the cold setting of the
Dog-star’, with the n. in A. S. Sommerstein and T. H.Talboy, Sophocles. Select
Fragmentary Plays II (Oxford 2012) 167–8.
p. 250 end of 12–16a n., walls: cf. S. Nauplius the Fire-Kindler F 432.11
‘(Palamedes) invented a wall for the Argive army’, with the n. in Sommerstein and
Talboy (above, p. 248) 165.
p. 261 66–7 n. Greek, εὖ πως: add Hel. 712, Pho. 1126.
p. 264 71b–3 n. line 3: for ἀνθρώπων cf. also Theocr. 15.107 ἀνθρώπων ὡς μῦθος,
where Dover comments ‘strengthens an argument’.
648 Addenda
p. 301 194b–8 n., draughts: cf. S. Nauplius the Fire-Kindler F 429 ‘(Palamedes
invented) five-line draughts and dice-throwing’, with description of the game and
further references, in Sommerstein and Talboy (above p. 248) 165.
p. 336 356–7 n., ‘speech within speech’: cf. R. Nünlist, ‘Speech within speech
in Menander’, in A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy (Oxford 2002)
219–59, esp. 220–6.
p. 376 509 n., ἀπέπτυσα I detest: lit. ‘I spit (it) out’: useful references by
Matthiessen in his edns of Hecuba (both 2008 and 2010), at line 1276; unlikely to
be a colloquialism, however: Collard (2005) 375.
p. 418, para. 1, Ag. speaks to Iph.’s back as she leaves to enter the hut. This device
usually carries threats or insults, and rarely good wishes, in Tragedy, where the
words are seldom meant to be heard: see Taplin 1977, 221–2. At 742 Ag. has no
parting words for Clyt. when she reluctantly obeys him and also goes inside.
p. 460 861 n. ἕσταμεν ‘we stand waiting’: cf. Ar. Av. 1308, Lys. 424; Headlam on
Herodas 5.40.
p. 461 862 and 863 nn. For the word μόνος ‘alone’, and in similar circumstances, see
Headlam on Herodas 6.70 αὐταὶ γάρ ἐσμεν ‘we’re by ourselves’.
p. 486 970–2 n. Greek, τις: the idiom may have a colloquial pedigree: Collard
(2005) 361–2.
p. 505 1049–53 n. ὑπαγκάλισμα: cf. also S. Trac. 539–40 δύ’ οὖσαι μίμνομεν μιᾶς
ὑπὸ | χλαίνης ὑπαγκάλισμα.
p. 587–8 1375 μοι δέδοκται: at Ar. Wasps 485 Biles and Olson print the ms. reading
ἢ δέδοκταί μοι and approve Stockert’s interpretation; Wilson’s OCT however reads
ἢ δέδοκταί τοι (Platnauer), and cites MacDowell’s conjecture καὶ.
p. 605 top, Iphigenia at Brauron: see Addenda for Vol. 1, p. 5 n.7.
p. 620 Art, end of para. 1: Parker 2016 p. xx n. 26 has ‘The earliest undoubted
representation on a pot of the sacrifice of Iphigenia is on a white-ground lecythus
by Duris of c. 490–480 BC. It shows her dressed as a bride, with her name inscribed
before her face’ (she is being led by a named [T]eukros (Teucer) to an altar named
for Ar[temis]; this is LIMC V.1.709 ‘Iphigenia’ no. 3), and ‘A protoattic crater of
650–630 BC has been conjecturally identified as depicting the death of Iphigenia’
(this is LIMC V.1.709 no. 2).
 INDEXES

All references are to page-numbers: pp. i–xii and 1–233 are in Vol. 1 and pp.
235–645 in Vol. 2.

General Index
Necessarily very selective, for reasons of space, especially for names of play-
characters, mythical and actual names and places, and some topics. There are
longer entries, with sub-categories, for: play-characters (each by name), Chorus,
adjectives, apposition, Art, article (definite), dramaturgy, Euripides, metre,
nouns, plural, pronouns, sacrifice and its rituals, staging, text of IA, themes,
verb, words.

Abraham and Isaac 639 changes his mind 2, 18, 496, 571
abstractions personified 453, 461, 512 criticized 579, 580, 586, cf. 24
Achaeans = ‘Greeks’ 271 in the Iliad 15, 451, 477, 481, 483,
Achilles, etymology of name 507 484, 486, 508, 599
characterized 23–4, 278, 422, 446– adjectives, of 2 terminations 306, of 3
7, 452, 457, 459, 467, 475, 490, 296
580–1 as noun 306, 486, 591, cf. 506
education 24, 302, 389–90, 424, as adv. 639, (dat.) 489
425, 454, 477 replacing adv. 516
prominence, in parodos 289; his negative, accumulated 250
ships 307, 315–16; physical adverb, rel., as interrog. ?635, 637
prowess 302, 303, 309 Aenians 314
‘stranger’ 459, 570, 571, 578, 586 Aeschylus, Oresteia 35 n. 87, 571, cf.
his scorn for Men. 481 Index Locorum
like a god 487, 491 Choephori 31
as potential husband 421–3, 484–5, Seven against Thebes 30
598 Agamemnon, etymology of name 328
prophecy about him 500–1 characterized 19–22, 281, 333–4,
and/with Clyt. 446–58, 467–500 381, 363–4, 407, 495
and/with Iph. 271, 467–8, 570–1, as father 269, 526, 534, 544, 551,
574–5, 579, 586, 596–602; will 643
save her 480, 482, 493, 570; at ambitious 251, 324, 351, 353, 539;
her sacrifice 601, 619, 632–4 command 12, 20, 237, 266–7,
and his Myrmidons 570–1, 578–9 33l–3, 336
deceived 271, 275, 278, 468, 479, his deceit 1, 2, 272, 279–80, 381,
485 385, 419, 421, 445, 468, 513, 527
650 Indexes

Agamemnon contd. apostrophe in Eur. 353, 393, 444, 452,

and/with Clyt. 364–5, 417–43, 465, 522, 558, 561, 612
513–24, 551–5, 620–1, 643–4 apposition, nouns 310, 617, (name)
and/with Iph. 365, 366, 407, 409, 575, noun (accus.) to clause 306,
413–17, 526–7, 541–55 519; cf. nouns, accus.
and/with Men. 266–7, 270, 318, of infin. to clause 582
323–5, 358–84, 554 of clause to ἕν 494
changes his mind 18, 19, 21, 243, with change of number 555
323, 330–1, 334, 337, 338, 348, problematic 259, 627
353, 381, 523 Ares 438, 478, his dragon 311
moral collapse 407–8, 446, 515 Arethusa, nymph and spring 295–6
amid necessity 360, 377 Argives 308, 509, 629, 631, = ‘Greeks’
in torment 235–7, 241, 254, 270, 271
275, 335–6, 354, 360, 361, 363– Argos = Mycenae 274, 308, 312, 612,
7, 407, 412, 413, 417–18, 431, cf. 289, 430, 617
551; groans 523, 629, uses many Aristophanes of Byzantium 53
interjections 360; veils himself army (the Greek) 28–9, 266, 286,
39, 620, 630 293–4, 296, 299, 307, 353, 382,
agon 321, 323–6, 327, 335, 337, 351, 400, 495, 552
359–60, 468, 514, 522 arrival of Clyt., Iph. and Or. 351–2
anti-agon 325–6, 351, 359–60, 369 reactions to 352–4, 356–7, 360, 367
Ajax, son of Oileus 300, 378 Art, pots and vases 38, 275, 301, 319,
of Telamon 289, 300, 315–16 328, 352, 385, 398, 406, 448, 502,
Alexandros/Paris 546, 560; see Paris 574, 632, Addenda to p. 620
altar(s) 282, 601, 612, 613, 615, 624– see also ‘Homeric’ bowls, mosaic
5, 633, 635–9, see sacrifice 515, wall-painting 39, 620
ambiguity 414–15, 417, 421 Artemis, virginal 426, goddess of girls
anachronism 282, 332–3 12, but also of marriage 357, 426
anacoluthon 565, 577 and human sacrifice 7; of Iph. 298,
animal names 276–7 626, 634
antilabe 247, 283, 320, 430, 523, 572– changes her mind 19; self-
3, 628 contradictory nature 633–4
antithesis 251, 265, 269, 279, 337, and beasts 633
381, 391, 499, 519, 568, 580, 582 and moon 634
Aphrodite 31, 262, 298, 384–9, 552–3, and winds 5–6, 568
562–3 at Aulis 269, 357, 602, 609, 616, at
at her full, 389 Brauron 4–5, 269
Athenian cults of 386 at play-end 19, 56, 622–3, 645
Apollo, temple at Troy 437 criticized 27–8, 31, 595–6, 626
bay-tree 437 article, definite, with proper names
and prophecy 436–7, 507 412, 423, 437
 Indexes 651

as pronoun 311, rel. pron. 303, 316, Cacoyannis, M., Iphigenia 41–2
with poss. pron. 348, poss. gen. 439 Calchas, his prophecy 241–2, 269,
neut., with abstractions, with infin. 270, 273, 328, 378–9, 381, 464,
364, with part. 253, dependent 483, 552, 615
words 596 and Ag. 268–9, 378
other idioms 248, 252, 298, 300, and Men. 378, 432
495, 569, 579 at Iph.’s sacrifice 432, 632, 635, 638
omitted with coupled nouns 400, carriages 282, 284, 397, 404, cf.
403 chariot entries
in voc. case 405 cases, see nouns
asides 413 (×2), 417, 517, 523, 524 catalogues, in poetry 291–3, 294–5
assonance 347, 348, 386, 411, 422, Chalcis 249, 295, 616, 645
427, 478, 638 chance, see themes
asyndeton 283, 346, 445, 471, 480, changes of mind 2, 18–20, 25–8, e.g.
485, 491, 509, 546, 548, 549, 594, 324, 330, 331, 348, 351, 359–60,
599, 640; repeated 584 369, 381, cf. Ach., Ag., Art., Clyt.,
explanatory 362, 375, 413, 486, Iph., Men., Old Man
533, 625 chariot(s), entries in Tragedy 397
Athena 309 racing 304–5
Athens 289, 303, 309, 341 chiasmus 265, 368, 378, 423, 425,
Atreus 369–70, 375–6, 545, 607, 534, 550
Atreids 550 children 515, 529–30, 547–8, cf. infants
pun on his name 328, 608 Chiron, and Achilles 302, 389–90,
Aulis 249, 266, 277, 295, 414, 567; 424–5, 477
topography 277; winds at 5–6, 556; makes prophecies 506, 507
military camp at 1, 22 Chorus of IA 30–3
identity and sympathies 16, 30–1,
babies, exposed in Eur. 560, killed 32, 286, 349, 574, 645
529, 530 married 30–1, 297, 387, 388,
barbarians 1, 15 blushing 299
Trojans as 15 ignored 461, silences 286, 408
polarity with Greeks 17, 244 moralise 349, 384–6, 512–13
slavish 593, 595 criticize gods 31, 595–6
beard, in supplications 472 and Iph. 611
beatitudes 386, 398 odes (stasima), content and
black, funeral 604 structure 384–6, 434–5, 500–3
Boeotians 310, 311 couplets in dialogue 32, 325, 342,
Brauron 4–5, 269, 605 348, 359, 368, 374–5, 488, 514,
breath, god’s 262, 437 541, 550, 559, 570, 572, 574,
brothers, see family 595–6 (×4), 642
burial: a right 605 as play-tailpiece 644–5
652 Indexes

Clytemnestra, characterized 22–3, 458, Cyclopean 282, 312, 382, 617

462–3, 467–9, 474, 524–5, 527, Cypris, see Aphrodite
528, 529, 531, 539, 540, 574, 627,
643; beauty 447, 453 daimon 361
sense of shame 18, 34–5, 457, 470, Danaans, = ‘Greeks’ 271
488, 491, 574–6 dance 416, 503, 504, 505–6, 612–13,
and/with Ach. 455, 467–500, esp. 614
467, 470, 471, 472, 487–8 death/life 36, 549, 602
and/with Ag. 4, 364–5, 408, 430, deception 1–2, 3, 14, 20 n. 48, 23, 31
516–24, 525, 528, 529, 535, 537, n. 78, 236, 272, 335, 351, 383, 513,
602, 607, 608 527, 587, cf. Ach., Ag.
and/with Iph. 408–9, 468, 520, 532, democracy 12–14, 15, 332–4
546, 602, 608, 610 and Athenian fleet 13, 309, 317,
changes her mind 2, 18 332–3, 340
supplicates, Ach. 467–74, Ag. 525– demons, alastores 464, 481
39 desire, sexual 387, 484
has no lyrics 556 destiny, see Themes
colloquialisms, certain or suggested dialect forms, Aeolic 284, 394
256, 271, 274, 282, 284, 320, 321, Attic 457
327, 330, 331, 338, 339, 342, 345, Doric 277, 284 (×2), 302, 311, 316,
346, 349, 356, 357 (×2), 364, 365, 393, 394, 438, 440, 505, 507,
375, 378, 382, 410, 411 (×2), 415, 559, 564, 608
430, 428, 451, 455, 457, 466, 467, Epic/Ionic, and usages 284, 303,
471, 478, 480, 483, 493 (×2), 505, 349, 356, 428, 440, 441, 605, 626
517, 522, 524 (×2), 533, 538, 546, Diomedes 301, 308
551, 555, 576 (×2), 578, 582, 588, Dioscuri 430, 438–9, 530
589, 596, 599, 604, 605, 607, 609, Dipolieia, Athenian festival 9
610, 638, 639 ‘direct speech in speech’ 336, 366,
colour(s) 264, 297, 299, 393, 418, 437, 451, 544, in lyric 434, 442, 507
463, 502, 510, 582, 603, 604, 606 dramaturgy, inept 620, 621
comic elements? 319, 402, 447, 461, dramatic time 287, 516
633 see also agon, asides, children,
Comedy, New 240, 246, 254, 257, infants, entries, exits, mutes, off-
319, 320, 321, 352, 447, 475, 498 stage, silences, staging, violence
conditions, mixed 371, 474, 522, 599, draughts (board-game) 300–1
cf. verb, indic., fut.
construction of ‘whole and part’ 280, eaves-dropping: see Old Man
443, 510 ecphrasis 292, 294
coryphaeus 368 education 302, 384, 389–90, 393, 477
costume 401–2 Electra 409, 429, 605–6
curse(s) 407, 414, self- 482 ellipse, of verb in appeals 472, 609
 Indexes 653

of εἰμί with pres. part. 341 Hecuba, Polyxena in 8, 10, 35 n. 87,

emblems, on ships 291, 292, 307, 309, 270, 280, 365, 408, 418, 471, 510,
310, 313 549, 579, 582, 590, 602, 605, 606,
emotions, devices for 360, 367, 514, 608, 610, 618, 625, 629–35, 637,
cf. metre, lyric cf. Index Locorum
enallage 437, 545, 604 Heraclidae, the Maiden (Macaria) in
enjambement 258, 263, 264, 273, 366, 565, 572, 590 (×2), 593, 594, 596,
372, 399, 403, 417, 484, 487, 494, 600, 606, 613, 629, 630 (×2), 632,
498, 519, 539, 543, 550, 555, 599 632 (×2), 634
Ennius, Iphigenia 30 n. 76, 38, 247, Iphigenia at Aulis, first performance
286, 329–30, 344, cf. Index Locorum 37, 55, 235, cf. Reception
entries 237, 318–19; motivated 327; Palamedes 288
unannounced 351–2, 458, 459, 612; Phoenissae, chorus in 32
contrived 515, 620; ‘talking’ entries Menoeceus in 514, 591, 615, 629,
319 630
Epic (linguistic) features 244, 256, Euripus 19, 249, 295, 296, 450, 568
289, 296, 301, 306, 393, 540, 548 Eustathius of Thessalonica 51
Erasmus, translator 20, 39, 369, 582 Exekias, vase-painter 301
Eris (Strife) 501 exits, abrupt 555; abandoned 351, 352,
Eros 385, 387 447, 458
etymology of names, see names
Euboea 277, 295, bridge to 295 exodos (authentic) 570–619,
revolt of 16 (inauthentic) 619–45
Eugenios (scholar, 5/6th cent.) 622 eyes, raised in scorn 343
Euripides, death, when and where 12, 14
his son or nephew produces IA 37, fairy-tale and folk-lore, and myth 6
235 family 1, 2, 4, 20, 21–2, 23, 25, 44,
voluntary human sacrifice in 8–9, 11– 257, 312, 323–5, 330, 334, 353–4,
12, 36–7, 555, 594, 596, 629–35 359, 365, 369–71, 373, 374–5,
and women 592–3 375–6, 406–8, 464, 514–15, 520,
and contemporary events 12–14, 533, 534, 545–6, 548, 550, 572,
16–17 591, 605, 607
repeats own wording 275, 402 farewells 617, 618, 644
‘dithyrambic’ style 47, cf. 49–50, fate 37, 611, Fate (Moira) 361
434, 557–8 figura etymologica 367, 446
Alcmeon in Corinth 37 n. 91, 235 fortune 335, 359, 361, and god 596
Alexandros 560 Fortune 461; see also themes
Andromeda, prologue 240 freedom, Greek 27, 554, 556–7, 595
Bacchae 31, 33 n. 78, 37 Iphigenia’s ‘freedom’ 491
Erechtheus, Praxithea in 532, 549, François Vase 502
551, 584, 591, 629, 630, 631, 633 friendship, see philia, φιλία
654 Indexes

Ganymedes 500, 505 Hermione 371, 540

garlands 358, 471, 501, 612, 632 hind, replacing Iphigenia 637–8, 640
gestures 337, 368, 402, 427, 430, 470, holocaust 640
534, 610 ‘Homeric’ bowls 37 n. 93, 38, 275,
glory, see themes 319, 328, 352, 398, 406, 448, 515,
Gluck, W., Iphigénie en Aulide 40 574, cf. Art
gods (and men) 237, 252, 335, 346–7, hope 495, a god 346
350, 382, 400, 449, 499, 513, 593, humour 427, 434, grim 535
597–8, 640, 642, 643 Hymen 366, Hymenaeus 358, 503–4
gold, highlighted 304, 307, 441, 500, hysteron proteron 528, 536, 564, 642
632
Gorgias 542 Icke, R., Oresteia 43 n. 113
gratitude 488, 494 Ida, Mt 384, 392, 556, 558, 560, 561,
Greeks: motives for Troy 22 562
/barbarians 324, 340, 527, 554–5, infants, babies on stage 353–4, 515,
584, 588, 589, 594–5 557, 573
intellectualism, contemporary 512, see
Hades 365–6, 415, ‘bride of’ 365–6, also Sophists
501 interpolation, certain or suspected 56–
hair, colour 297; cut in mourning 604; 9, 238–43, 272, 278, 284, 293–5,
dragging by 582–3 318, 342, 350, 352–4, 374, 376, 379,
hands, right: significance 260, 368, 381, 386, 397, 398–9, 401–2, 409,
454, 462, 472 426–7, 412, 428, 431, 433, 439, 446,
hearing as verification 357, 436 450, 456, 469, 474–5, 477, 479, 482,
heifer(s) 9, 393, metaphoric 276, 509– 484, 485, 487, 496, 497, 503, 510,
10, 518 515–16, 519, 521, 541, 547, 554,
Helen, etymology of name 262, 371, 558–9, 559, 574, 586, 589, 596,
566, 613 597–8, 600–2, 603–4, 606, 614,
and the swan myth 443, cf. Leda 614–15, 618–19, 621–4, 629
her suitors 258, 260, 287 Iphigenia, etymology of name 28
and Paris 264, 265, 384, 392, 395, characterization 25–8, 555, 583–
441, 443, 540, 554, 556, 563, 588 96, 599, 602, 619, 630, 631
and Men. 29, 262–3, 324, 369, 372, her reasoning 36–7, 549, 583–4,
539 592–3, 595, 598
anonymous as ‘woman’ 592 and glory 36–7, 583–4, 587, 590,
will go unpunished? 312–13, 539, 540 594, 602, 604, 605, 641
hendiadys 259, 327, 335, 342, 376, and Greece 583–96, 588, 605, 612,
560, 615, 639 630
Hephaestus 508, 640 changes her mind 18–19, 36, 38,
Hera 426, 430, 502, 562–3 527, 549, 556–7, 570–1, 583–
Hermes 564 96, 598, 600–1
 Indexes 655

supplicates 366, 543–5 357–8, 366, 386, 401, 403, 406–7,

and/with Ach. 409, 570, 571, 572, 409, 419, 423, 424, 433, 454, 455,
583–602, 586, 592, 598 465, 471, 594
and/with Ag. 407, 408–18, 514–15, rituals 357–8, 415, 416, 423, 426,
517–18, 521, 525–6, 527, 541– 427, 429, 502, 518
50, 566–7, 607 of Peleus and Thetis 500–9
and/with Clyt. 401, 574–6, 585, masks 344, 364, 402, 472, 610
602, 606, 607, 610 Menelaus, characterized 20–1, 320,
as sacrifice 269, 365–6, 612, 613– 323–4, 369
14, 624 and/with Ag. 18–20, 236, 323,
her after-life 4–5, 619, 640, 643–4 358–84
and Brauron 4–5, 269, 605 and Helen 29, 261–2, 324, 344,
her monody 555–70; her hymn to 369, 371, 372, 384, 584
Artemis 612–17 and Iph. 358, 372
and/with Old Man 318–23
irony 353, 357, 358, 361, 395, 399, changes his mind 18, 20, 354, 359–
409, 410 (×2), 419, 421, 426, 428, 60, 369–74; sincere? 369–70
447, 449, 507, 524, 533, 537, 542, a ‘fixer’ 14, 340, 351, 378, 446
552–3, 571, 592, 595, 601, 644 Menoeceus in Phoenissae: see Eur.
Isaac 639 messenger, scenes 351–9, 619, 621,
628–42
Jephtha, and Handel, G. 640–1 speeches, features of 352, 356, 627,
Judgement of Paris, see Paris 628–9 ( esp. Eur.), 630, 631, 636,
637, 640, 641
kisses (Ag. and Iph.) 417, 544, 546–7 metaphors 262, 281, 301, 317, 330,
345, 350, 360, 362, 382, 387, 391,
lacuna, see text (ms. L) 418, 420, 472, 485, 489, 495, 507,
lamp, lantern 235, 237, 254 508, 512, 531, 546, 564, 577, 607,
Leda 257, 438, 443, 444, 517, 530, 615, 627, 634
576 metonymy 266, 307, 309, 341, 357,
letter(s), see tablet 438, 552, 603
life / death 549, 598, 602 metre, prosody 262, 308, 350, 404,
litotes 425, 432, 635 452, 474, 487, 579
locus amoenus 298, 502, 561–2, 629 dialogue iambic trimeters 45,
Lumley, Lady Jane, translator 39 ‘conservative’ 319, of 3 words
love 26–7, 265, 384–5, 387–9, 391, ‘in 372, 530, 606, resolutions in
the eyes’ 395 367, 376, 622, ‘2 foot anapaests’
354, 374, 523, 533, 538, 545,
Maiden in Heraclidae: see Euripides 623, caesura 497, 499, 534,
manuscript, see text ‘Porson’s Law’ 258, 375, 381,
marriage 1, 11–12, 22–3, 27, 261, 352, 460, 467, 608, 623
656 Indexes

metre contd. Neoptolemus, 4th cent. actor 37

‘broken’ 352, 418, 571 (cf. antilabe), Nereus 423, 467, 482, Nereids 307, 505
part-line 522; post-Classical 623; Nicias 333–4
see also enjambement night, significance at play’s start 235,
dialogue trochaic tetrameters 45, 237, 246, 248, 284
326, 327, 330, 572–3, 577, 584, Nireus 292, 302
596 nouns, cases
anapaests 46, 283 accus., cognate 394, 410, internal
lyric 46–7, ‘ethical’ interpretation 304, 442, 506, 611, 640, proleptic
48–50 328, 329, 392, 406, 509, 566,
aeolo-choriambic 47, 290, 385–6, 606, of ‘whole and part’ 443,
434–5, 503 510, adverbial 337, 343, (-αν
iambo-trochaic 46–7, 290, 294, fem.) 355–6, appositional 454,
503, 558, 613 565, cf. apposition.
strophic structure 287–90, 309, gen., objective 262, 356, 373, 426,
310, 385–6, 434–5, 500–2, 556, 442, 451, 455, 485, 518, 534,
558, 612–13, cf. music 565, 643, partitive 333, 581,
Mitchell, K., director of IA 42 583, separative 432, 442
Mnouchkine, A., producer of Les causal 253, 329, 341, 559
Atrides 43 descriptive 545
monody 555–8, 612 comparative 579, with superlative
monologue 359–60 639
mosaic, see Art dat., of relation 400, 553, 586, and
music 38, 46–50, 53, 384, 393, 416, advantage 481, 482, 517, 545,
500, 501, 503–4, 516, 527, 542, 575, 587, comit.-instrum. 307,
559, 560 constituent 255, 307, directional
mutes 609, 613, 619, see Staging 255, 280, locative 568, purposive
Mycenae, see Argos, Μυκήνη ?307
Myrmidons 28, 307, 451, 492, 508,
577–9 oaths 6 n. 10, 20, 21, 236, 258, 260,
myth questioned 443–5, of Iphigenia 347, 370, 430, 571, 598–9, cf.
3–6, 26, 29 Tyndareus
O’Brien, E., Iphigenia 42–3
names, etymology and play on 28, Odysseus, son of Sisyphus 380, 581
253, 262, 328, 371, 507, 566 characterized 380, 382, 581,
name/body, reality etc. 244, 480, word/ devious 288, motivation 380–1,
action 278–9 581, as demagogue 380–2
Nausicaa, and marriage 261, 282, 357, off-stage 28–30, 401, 458, 513, 575, 597
409 persons there addressed 319, 517–18
‘naval mob’ 13, 473, 498, 579 onomatopoeia 511, 580
necessity, see themes optative, see verb
 Indexes 657

Old Man, characterized 25, a slave Peloponnesian War 16–17

250, 256, 460 Pelops 20, 369–70, 375, 545
loyalties 18, 250, 256–7, 272, 283, Pergamum 440
285, 320, 458, 460, 462 periphrasis (εἰμί and part.) 307
anxieties 238, 459, 460 personification, various 317, 346, 362,
eavesdrops 320, 458 419, 453, 461, 480, 481, 512 (×2),
changes his mind 18, 25, 458 580, cf. 496
and/with Ag. 249–50, 253, 256, persuasion 244, 272, 542
272, 274–5, 275–6, 280, 458 philia, friendship etc. 26, 33 n. 78,
and/with Clyt. 256, 458, 462 331, 333–4, 349, 350, 351, cf. φιλία
Orestes, esp. whether in IA at all? 4, Phrygia(ns) 264, 412, 441
56, 353–4, cf. 398, 402, 406, 515, Phthia 425, 450, 483
516, 519, 521, 547, 557, 573 Pierides (Muses) 500–1, 502, 504
Orpheus, ‘persuasive’ 542 pipe(s), musical 393, 501, 503, 511
Oxford Archive of Performances 41 pity 366, 368, 370, 372, 468–9, 473, 514,
oxymoron 320–1, 343 515, 519, 520, 526, 548, 551, 574
Pleiades 248
paean 610–11 pleonasm 279, 302, 370, 390, 415,
Panhellenism 1, 15–18, 236, 293, 334, 432, 474, 509, 625, 627, 637, 638
335, 340, 350, 354, 578, 584, 638 plural, verb, single subject 356, 474;
papyri, see Text plur. allusive to sing. 320, 321, 496,
paregmenon 265, 366, 567 517, 532, change to sing. 528
parenthesis 263, 316, 337, 365, 417, nouns, abstract, in 248–9, 389, 390,
481–2, 530, 541 399
Paris, name Alexandros 560 masc., of women 348, 453
exposed at birth 556, 560, oxherd politics, contemporary 12–14, 15–18,
on Mt Ida 384, 560, 561 21 n. 50, 251–2, 332–4, 338–9, 340,
Oriental glitz 263–4, sexuality 362–3, 376, 450
562–3 Polygnotus, painter 301
and Helen 264, 265, 384, 392, 394, polyptoton 265, 313, 366
395, 540 Polyxena, see Euripides, Hecuba
Judgement of, 263, 264–5, 298, Praxithea, see Euripides, Erechtheus
384, 394–5, 556, 561–4 prepositions, repeated 599, multiple
parodos 285–91, 296, 320, 393 503, 504, 630
Parthenon frieze 10 n. 24 Priam 367, 438, 508, 560
participles, see verb procatalepsis 532
particles, numerous 558, absent 566, prologue 235–85, content 235–7,
cf. asyndeton, Greek Index integrity of 238–46, ‘postponed’
Pelasgus, Pelasgia 617 240, 257, language and style 244–
Peleus 424, 449, 450, 481, 500–9 5, metres 238, 245, staging 237–8,
Pelion, Mt 424, 500, 504–5 247, 254
658 Indexes

prologue contd. sacrifice, and its rituals 7–12, 27, 269,

second prologue 445 280, 357–8, 372, 377, 393, 407, 409,
prologue-speeches (general) 240–1, 413–14, 416, 427, 432, 463, 480,
245, 257, 272 483, 500–1, 510, 518, 537, 539,
pronouns, interrog., postponed 327, 565, 571, 611, 612–14, 615, 636–7;
422, 427, two in one clause 336 circling of altar 611, 614, 633; at a
personal, 2. pers. emphatic 444 marriage 11–12, 500–2
possessive, idioms 356, 371, 479, animal 7–12, 510, 571, 612, 614,
496 616, 633, 636–7, 640
relative, attracted 344, postponed human 7–12, 36, 567, 571, 626,
298; antecedent, congruence 633, 638
259, 579, follows 261, omitted sailing, inability to sail, 5–6, 235–6,
421, 485, 490, 498; rel. clauses, 243, 267–8, 286, 446, 568
multiple in Eur. 392 sailing home 270, 335, 337, 644
prophecy, language of 269, cf. Calchas, sarcasm 320–1, 351, 411, 535–6, 538
Chiron seals, sealing 254
proteleia 11, 357, 426, 565, cf. Greek ‘seeing’, see themes
pun on name 328, cf. names seers 378–9, 432, 483
self-analysis 360, 475, 583–4
Racine, J., Iphigénie en Aulide 39–40 sentences, long, (dialogue) 558, 588,
‘Reception’ 37–45 (lyric) 295, 502
repetition, see esp. words Shakespeare, editing of, and IA 59
Rhesus and IA 37, 59, 240–1 shame, see themes
rhetoric, techniques etc. 323–4, 325– sibilance, sigmatism 338, 346, 380,
6, 334–5, 337, 339, 343, 344, 369, 430, 581–2, 608
373–4, 468–9, 491, 519, 520, 524– silences 236, 248–9, 632
8, 542–3, 549, 563, 581 Simoeis, river 436, 438
rhetoricism 519, 528, 532 Sirius 249
see also 547, 584, 595, 598 sky as witness 338
rhyme, line-ends 433, lyric words 568 slaves, slavery 321, 322 (×4), 460, 595
riddles 505, 527–8 Sophilos, vase-painter 502, cf. Art
Ritchie, W., our acknowledgements, iii Sophists 331, 361–2, 370, 522, 542–3
(Dedication), xi–xii, then esp. 239– Sparta 384, 392
40, 241, 249, 258–67 throughout, sprinkling-water 416, 625
272, 275, 284–5, 287–8, 299, 324, staging, stage-left and -right 67
332, 337, 351, 397–8, 407, 422, central door 247, 460, 575, half-
427, 433, 446, 452, 453, 461, 463, open 458
465, 467, 470, 474, 476, 478–9, off-stage 2, 28–30
483, 485, 510–20 throughout, 521, empty stage 285
524–5, 548, 550 mutes 573, 613
objects as focus 318–19
 Indexes 659

actors’ voicing 238, 318, 364, 462 loss of text in L 54, e.g. 273, 311,
see also dramaturgy 347, 430–1, 499, 549, 585, 600,
stichomythia and aspects 318, 319, ?634
320, 323, 325 (×2), 331, 349, 359, lacuna, actual or conjectured 273,
379, 407 (×2), 409–10, 411, 421– 408, 431, 462, 535, 538, 590, 634
2, 454, 459, 494, 513, 572, 573; transposition of lines e.g. 276, 408,
broken by couplet 603 412, 523, 552, 641, of words e.g.
distichomythia 447–8 278, 363, 377, 404, 407, 408, 412
stoning to death 578 notable errors e.g. 248, 255, 313–
subjunctive, see verb 14, 315–16, 346, 379, 473, 487
sunlight = ‘life’ 371, 543, 549, 559, attribution of parts e.g. 249, 376,
584, 593, 618, 642 565, 570, 577, 616
supplication 366, 445–6, 468–9, 469– ms. P (copy of L) 52, 54, other
70, 472, 496, 514, 524–7, 536, 546, copies of L 53
548 ancient quotations, testimonia 53;
Svich, Caridad, Iphigenia 43–4 inaccuracy of e.g. 249, 251,
synecdoche 297, 299, 307, 343, 427, 253, 260, 264, 529, 534, 544,
506, 614 595, 645
syrinx 393, cf. pipe(s) printed editions, commentaries
Syracuse, 2015 production of Iphigenia 57–8, 60–1; ‘Aldine’ edition 39,
xii, 24, 44–5, 319, 400, 434 60, 305
OCT (J. Diggle) 61, our differences
tablet(-letter)s 44, 236–7, 254, 274–5, from 61–2
276, 318–19, 323–4, 328, 337, 351
Pierian 444 Théâtre du Soleil, Les Atrides 43
Talthybius 3, 270, 335, 632 Theatre of Dionysus, democratic focus
Tantalus, father of Pelops 20, 374–5 13
son of Thyestes 528 themes and motifs, 33 n. 78, 243–4
tears, weeping 20, 24 n. 60, 255, 318, chance, fortune, destiny, necessity
360, 362–4, 364, 373, 407, 418, 35–6, 335, 359, 361, 460, 461,
442, 466, 516, 525, 534, 542, 547– 574, 576, 596
8, 573, 602–3, 610, 615, 629–30 glory 36–7, 336, 390–1, 556–7,
text of IA 50–62, mss. 50–9, quality, 565, 572, 584, 587, 590, 594,
interpolation 54, 55–9 (see separate 602, 604, 605, 617, 640, 641
entry) seeing or looking 33–4, 291–3,
papyri 38, 49, 53, 321, 346, 366, 386, 296, 299, 306, 316, 342–3, 356,
392, 394, 395, 435, 448, 473, 617 411, 438, 491–2, 520, 521, 573,
ms. L esp. 50–3; DemetriusTriclinius 606, 636, 637; looking in the eye
50 n. 119, 52–3, and e.g. 255, 33–4, 327–8, 364–5, 457, 546–7,
305, 327, 415, 430, 515, 600; 629; ‘erotic’ gaze 264–5, 306,
Nicolaus Triclines 52 384, 395
660 Indexes

themes and motifs contd. subjunctive, deliberative 360, 365,

shame 34–5, 299, 364, 384, 390, 409, 371, 606, with τί; 608
417, 452, 454, 457, 470, 491–2, opt., main verb with ἄν 321, 636,
520, 570, 574, 576, 629–30 644, without 380; in conditions
Thetis 302, 423, 424, 598–9, and 597; in primary sequence 639
Peleus 500–9 infin., dependent on noun or adj.
Timanthes, painter 39, 620, cf. Art e.g. 301, 314; appositive 349;
tmesis 255, 439, 506, 579 with def. art. 413 (×2); final-
Tragedy in the 4th Century 37–8, 621 consecutive etc. 267, 638, with
transposition of lines, words, see text εἰμί 614; pres. anticipatory
Troy, references in play 29, 30, 396, 490, in wish with ὤφελον 412;
436, 438, 552, 626; the War 434, = direct imperative in indirect
435, 443, 449, 500, 508, 563, 594, speech 269, 270, 578, 606;
644–5 accus. and infin. in prayers 626
Tyndareus 4, 256, 257, 259, 498–9, part., congruence of 373; neut. with
530; the oath 4, 6, 21, 260–1, 324, τό as noun 253, 345, 496, 554; =
346–7 noun as internal object 460; pres.
= impf. 345, periphrastic with
vase-painting, see Art εἰμί 632; fut., of purpose, bare
veil(ing) 39, 515, 629, 630, 633 511; aor., ‘coincident’ 478, with
verb, dual, usage 461, with plur. 465, ἔχω 414, perf. mid.-pass. and
493; congruence of 335 agent 602, adv. in -ως 497; in
middle voice, fut. as passive 330, gen., implicit in poss. pron. 470,
624 545; ‘gen. absol.’, with no noun
indic., pres., dynamic, or future 322, 492, 497, in fut. 491; causal
412, 415, 455, 480, 536, historic 334, conditional 638, after εἰ μή
256, 262, 394, ‘registering’ 264, 336; carries main idea 465
308, 424, 532 verbal adjs. in -τος, meanings 250,
impf., idioms 280, 456, 507, 509, 277, 309, 311, 318, 330, 491,
597, of ὀνομάζω 314; without ἄν 493, 513, 524, 551
in condition 540 violence, absent from stage 319, 322
fut., in conditions 271, 317, 336, virtue 384–5, 389–90, 391, Virtue 501
349, 533–4, 547
aor., dramatic 321, 359, gnomic wall-painting, see Art
251, 253, 339, ingressive 281, war 1–2, 8, -mania 22, 27, 28, 449,
298, 410; idiom with ἄν 636 513, 527, 553, cruelty to women
fut. perf., senses of 483 434, 442, 501, 526, 588–9
augment, omitted 301, 303 (×2), wedding, see marriage, sacrifice and
394, 507 rituals
imperative, both 2. pers. and 3. winds 5–6, 248, 262, 450, 568, 644,
pers. subject 639 metaphoric 556
 Indexes 661

wisdom 390, 424–5, 432 repeated, doubled (anadiplosis)

women, 282, 355, 391, 417, 427, 430, 298, 396, 522, 566–7, 569, 618,
447, 452–3, 468, 473, 492, 498, 589, 626, tripled 250, 427, 488, 535–
blackened 592–3 6, start and end of verse 425, 550
how slaughtered 637, cf. 10 word-play 385, 396, 517
words, order 301, 332, 367, 477, 534,
562, 589, 626, unusual, rare, 308, Zeus 505, etymology 618, cf. 422
420, 440, position, emphatic 298, and Peleus’ wedding 423, 500
554, juxtaposed 363, 426, 464, and the Judgement of Paris 562–3
580, postponed 466, 521, separated
(hyperbaton) 264, 471, 504

Greek Index

ἅβρος, ἁβρύνομαι 404, 460 ἀνάγκη 35–6

ἀγαθός 405, 488 ἀναιρέω ‘announce’ 268
ἀγεννής, -ῶς 607 ἄναξ, ἄνασσα 614
Ἀγροτέρα 633 ἀνήρ ‘real man’ 425, 481, 606, cf. 271
ἀγών 493, 550, 607; cf. agon appositional 410, 484
ἄθραυστος 260, 645 ἀντήρης 305
αἰδώς, αἰδέομαι 34–5 ἀπήνη 282, 404
αἰνέω 375, 413, 420–1, 458, 589 ἀπλοία 4, 235–6, 268
Αἰνόπαρις 566 ἁπλῶς 467
αἴρω of feelings 476, 639 ἀπό 456, 601, ἀπο- 579
ᾄσσω, ἀΐσσω 248, 266, 356, 431 ἀποκαλέω 579
ἄκρος 308, 482 ἀποτίνω 532
ἀλάστωρ 464, 481 ἄρα in tmesis 578–9
Ἀλέξανδρος etymology 560 ἄρδην 638
ἀλλά adverb 547 Ἄρης ‘war’ 438
ἀλλ’ ὅμως 471 ἄριστος 600, ἀριστεύς 253
ἀλλ’ οὖν 490, 495 ἄτη 280–1
ἄλλος euphemistic 618 αὐθέντης 537
ἄλλως 445 αὐλή 247, 300
ἄλσος 248, 298, 629 αὖλις 247
ἅμα preposition 506 αὐτός idioms 339, 382, 413, 419, 578
ἁμός 608 ἀφαιρέω intrans. 642
ἀμφί and accus. 296, 438 Ἀφροδίτη metaphoric 552–3
ἄν omitted 383, 540, 547, 592,
repeated 497 βάθρον 266, 552
ἀνά and dat. 436 βᾶρις 317
662 Indexes

γάμος ‘wife’ 511 εἷς, ἕν idioms 383, 493, 580

γάρ postponed 448, repeated 356, 601 εἷτα, κᾆτα 267, 324, 411
‘for otherwise’ 551 ἐκ 255, 439, ἐκ- 346, 430, 433, 451,
γέ τοι 533 508, 588
γενναῖος 521, 596, 598 ἐκεῖνος as reflexive pron. 279
γένεθλον 418, 459 ἐκτείνω 411
ἑλέπτολις 566, 613
δαί 605 ἐλεύθερος metaphoric 491
δαίμων 361, 522 ἑλίσσω 304, 568, 569, 614, 634
δάμαρ 531 ἐλπίς 403, 441
δέ γε 346 ἐν 395, 504, 516, 517, 555, 589, ἐν- 494
δεῖ of fate 253 and gen. pers. 478
(τὸ) δέον 390 adverb 310
δεινός 270, 278, 330, 342, 344, 373, ἐνάρχομαι 484
579, 628 ἐξαίρετος 371
δέλτος 254 ἐξάρχομαι 357–8
δέμας ‘person’ 354–5, 479, 575 ἐξορμάω, -μος 283, 568
δεῦρο δή 589 ἐπαινέω in thanks 359
δηλαδή 582 ἐπεί = γάρ 531
δημότης 333 ἐπί and accus. 297, 631
διά and gen. 533, 539, 594 gen. 471, 543
διαβάλλω ‘traduce’ 586 dat. 248, 253, 359, 383, 388, 426,
διακναίω 253 432, 474, 493, 517, 532, 534,
δίδωμι idioms 345–6, 368, 457, 544, 560, 564, 625
547, 626, 631 ἐπιστολή, -αί 274
διοίχομαι 484 ἐπίτηδες 370
διώκω ‘press hard’ 418 ἐπῳδή 542
(δοκέω) δέδοκται 587, 588 ἔργον 576, cf. ὄνομα
δόξα 36–7, 390–1 ἔρεισμα 483
δυσγενής, -γένεια 362, 587 ἔρνος 276, 562
Δυσελένη 566 ἔρυμα 299, 443
ἐρύω ‘save’ 590
ἔα 327 (ἔρχομαι) ἦλθον εἰς idioms 431, 543,
εἷα 274 546, 583, 592, 593
εἶἑν 364, 365 ἔρως metaphoric 449, 553
εἰκός in rhetoric 374 (×2), 522 ἐσθλός 403, 598
(εἰμί) ἔσται (τάδε) 282, 499 εὐδαιμονέω 531
ἦ, ἦν 1 pers. impf. 372 εὐμαρής 378, 486
ellipse 341, 365, 370, 513, 545 εὐπρεπής 345, 453
(εἶμι) ἴτω in ritual 611 εὔσημος 309
εἰς 277, 464, 531, 599 εὐτυχέω, -ής 334, 426, 605, 625
 Indexes 663

εὐφημία, -ος 281, 611, 632 καλός moral term 414, 430, 549–50
εὐψυχία 632 καλόν with γε 320, 365, 533, εἰμί
ἔχω idioms 260, 298, 303, 347, 455, 359, λέγω 608–9
464, 491, 496, 517, 522, 533, 583, κάμνω metaphoric 485
643 (×2) καρδία 533–4
σχές ‘stop!’ 610 κατά and accus. 350, 478
ἔχων ‘continuously’ 339 καταπαλαίω 495
καταστέλλω 479
ἥκιστα· 604 κατατείνω 332
ἥκω εἰς idioms 493, 521 κατέχω 490
ἡμίθεος 296 κεδνός 340
κεῖμαι idioms 562
θαυμαστός, -ῶς … ὡς 480 κλάζω 507
θεομαχέω 597–8 κλισία, -η 300
θέσφατον 4, 381, 615 κλέος 36–7, 336, 390–1, 617, 627
θετός 309–10 κνίζω 330
θηράω, -αμα metaphoric 484, 485, cf. κοινός 350, 485, 591, 638
θηρεύω 391 κομίζω 540
θηροκτόνος 633 κομψός, -εύω 331
θροέω 576–7 κόραι ‘eyes’ 603
θυηπόλος 432 κόρυμβος 311
θύω 11, 269, cf. θυσία 11 κόσμος 391–2, -έω 437, 478
κτάομαι of husband 344, 425
ἰδού 411, 524 κύκλιος 505–6
ἱερεύς, ἱερέα 635, 636 κύριος 327, 423
ἱκετηρία 543
ἵνα ‘where’ 365, interrog.? 635–6 λαμβάνω of marriage 263
in E.’s lyric 436 λαμπάς of ‘sun’ 618
ἶνις 276 λαμπτήρ 254
ἰσόθεος 400 λαός, λεώς 314
ἴσος 448, 539, ἰσο- 308 λέγω and acc. of person 343, 459, 471
ἰσχναίνω 420 ‘command’ 337
Ἰφιγένεια etymology 28, 616 εὖ λέγω 519, καλῶς 608–9
λέσχη, -αι 492–3
καί adverb 278, 426 λῆμα 601
καί … γε 548 λιχνός 306
καινουργέω 247 λογίζομαι 345, 477
καιρός 329, 445, 454, 517 λυγρός 643
κακίζω 603 λωτός ‘pipe’ 358
κακός moral term 324, 335, 365, 495
κακῶς λέγω 343 μά in oaths 430
664 Indexes

μαίνομαι 345, 463 ξανθός 297, 418

μάλιστα·338 ξένος tone of 459, 599
μάκαρ, μακάριος 358, 386, 419, 454,
590, 597, 614 ὄγκος, -έω 362, 462, 476
(μακρός) μακράν adverb 355 ὅδε stage-use 250, 264, 534, 575, 609
μέγας of gods 487, ‘wide’ 588 of 1 pers. sing. 583
(μέλλω) μέλλων part. 461, 580 τόδε in reference 418, 457, 488
μέμονα 616 ὄζος metaphoric 301
μέν om. before δέ 251, 311, 405, 544, ὅθι in Eur. 388
565, 568 οἰκέω ‘manage’ 330, 618, cf. 412
with no δέ 380, 460 οἰκόθεν 493
with δέ correlative 587, 592 (οἷος) οἷον = ὅτι τοιοῦτο 317
with τε 265 οἶστρος, -άω 265, 387
(μένω) μένε, μεῖνον 609 οἰωνός ‘omen’ 577
μέσος ‘political’ 333 ὄλβιος 614, 643
μετά and gen. of things 477, 518 ὄλεθρος sense 588, 589
μεταβολή musical 516 ὄμμα of abstract power 512
μεταγράφω 273 ὄνειδος 321, 471
μή indefinite 329, 344, 379 (ὀνίνημι) ὄναιο formula 494
redundant 420 ὄνομα ‘a word’ 519, ‘fame’ 564
not οὐ, in assertion 494 / ἔργον etc. 278–9, 519
μὴ δῆτα elliptical 536 ὀξύς ‘keen-sighted’ 248
μηδείς, -έν ‘a nobody’: see οὐδείς ὅποι sense 262
μήτε in combination 332, 536 ὁπότε ‘because’ 513
μιαιφονέω 582 ὁράω ‘see by appointment’ 498
μνημεῖον 547 ὄρνις ‘omen’ 403, 490
μνηστεύω 457 οὗ ‘when’ 271
μόσχος metaphoric 276, 644 οὐ in protasis 472
μοῦσα ‘skill’ 507 οὐ μή and aor. subj. 610
μῦθος 444–5 οὐδαμοῦ ‘of no account’ 483
Μυκήνη, -αι 312 οὐδείς, -έν ‘a nobody’ 335, 481, 482
μῶν 578 (οὗτος) τοῦτο … αὐτό 587
τοῦτο anaphoric 554, 639,
νιν number, gender 329, 388 anticipatory 586
νέος overtones 255, 372 ταῦτα adverb 335, 539
νεοσσός metaphoric 548 ὀχετός 438 (×2)
νόμος sense 420 ὄχημα 404, ὄχος 282
νόσος, -έω metaphoric 350, 489, 596 ὄχλος 13, 14, 362, 380, 498
νόστος ‘journey, voyage’ 485
νυν 281, 413 παλαιός 355
παρά and gen. 456, 603
 Indexes 665

dat. 255, 411, 486 προτέλεια, -ίζω 357, 426

adverb 301 πρότιμος 251
παρα- 489, 527 πρόφασις 535, 603; -σιν adverb 337
παρανοέω, -οία 455 προχύται 483
παραφέρω 489 πτοέω 395, 498
πάρειμι, senses 365, 379, 411, 578, πῶς ἄν …; and opt. 448
παρών 367 πῶς δοκεῖς; 638
παρέχω 479, 543
παρῳδός 527 σέβας 408, σεμνός 424
πειθαρχέω 520 σείριος, Σ- 249
πέμπω uses 271, 312, 335 σῆμα ‘emblem’ 307
περί and accus. 531 σθένος of abstractions 512
dat. 509 σκηνή 247, 250
πέργαμα, Π- 396 σοφός, -ίζω, -ισμα etc. 361–2, 424,
πεσσοί 301 432, 542–3
πετάννυμι 254–5 σπανίς 531
πικρός 376, 417, 566 σπάω 439–40
πίπτω of dice 576 σπέρμα 379
πιστός 283 στέγη 247; -γω 463, 466
πλάγιος 330 στείχω 624
πλεονεξία 376 στέλλω 277, 297, of sails 568
πόθεν; 546 σύγκλητος 317–18
ποικίλος 380 (συμφέρω) -ρει 428
ποῖος; idioms 378, 425, 455 σύν senses 416, 419; prepos. 432
πολύς of might 389, 483, cf. πλέον 586 συντέμνω 550
πονηρός 345, 577 σύντονος 276
πότνια 453, 615, 625 σφαγή 471, -ιον 10, 11, 280, 539,
πράσσω senses 279, 334, 357, 517, σφάζω 11, 567, 609
551, 582 σχῆμα 489
πρᾶγμα 334, 339, 366, 372, 497, σῶμα ‘person’ 544, 578, 593
539 σώφρων, -φρονέω 453, 540
πρᾶξις 312
πρό, προ- senses 255, 518, 520 τε … τε ‘just as … so’ 395, 493
πρόθυμα (noun) 565, 566 τέλος senses 284, 491
πρός and accus. 451, 466, 497, 576, 644 -τέος verbal adjs. in 415, 585
adverb 451 τίκτω of a male 301
πρὸς ταῦτα 631 τις, τι meiotic 340, 403, 490, 553, 579,
προσίστημι 251 589
προστάτης 341, 362, 363 in threats 486
πρόσω 476 with adj. in predicate 495
πρόσωπον of abstract power 512 τλήμων 522, 531–2
666 Indexes

τοτὲ … τοτέ/τότε … τότε 253 φονεύς, -εύω 338, 463, 567

τρόφος metaphoric 295 (φρήν) φρένες senses 580
τρυφή, -άω, -ημα 505, 563–4 φρονέω senses 464, 477
τυγχάνω senses 484, 492 φυτοῦργος 482
with part. 464, 523, without 429 φῶς metaphoric 507, 617
τύχη 35–6, 335, 460, 461, Τύχη 461
(χαίρω) χαῖρε 457, 606
ὑμεναῖος, Ὑ- 357, 358, 503, 504 χάρις 544
ὑπό and gen. 390, 504 χέρνιβες 416, 518
dat. 519, 555 χράομαι idioms 268, 270, 322, 344,
adverb 305 374, 387, 602
of stealth 261 χρέος 450
ὑποτίθημι 375 χρεών of fate 615
χρήσιμος 362, 473, 477
φαίνομαι and complement 487
φάσμα 309, 637 ὦ calling attention 459, with part. 479
φατίζω 279 ὠδίς, ὠδίνω 546
φέρω intrans. ‘contribute’ 390 ὥς adverb 317
φέρε idiom 256 ὡς exclamatory 642, explanatory 521
φεῦ joyful 424 following omitted ἴσθι 461
φημίζω 279 ‘as far as x goes’ 368
φιλία 26, 323, 331, 350, 351, 548 with ἄν and subj. of purpose 404, 601
φίλος 262, 323, 331, 455, 472, 497 with future indic. or part. 601
τὰ φίλτατα 365, 479, 532, 546 ὡς … γε 494
φιλότιμος 251, 333 ὡς τί δή; 576
φίλτρον metaphoric 474 ὥστε superfluous 641

Index Locorum
Highly selective: the references bear almost entirely upon places and contexts
of importance or interest to the play as a whole, a very few upon details of
interpretation or constitution of the text.

Aelian, NH 7.39 56, 232–3, 622, 645 Seven 369–676 292

Aeschines 3.90 19 [Aeschylus] PV 128–30 31
Aeschylus, Ag. 206–7 551; 218 and Ps.-Apollodorus, Epit. 3.21–2 3
224–5 360; 221–6 472; 226 426; Apsines p. 325 Hammer 534
224–7, 357; 228–41 9; 228–37 Archil. F 128.5–7 West 476
571; 235–8 631; 240 635; 244 634; Aristoph. Ach. 524–9 589
689 371; 785–7 488; 914–16 644; Frogs 1309–12 645
1416–17 546 Wealth 661, 1602 640
 Indexes 667

Thes. 689–758 354 549, 551, 565, 584, 591 (×2),

Aristot. Poet. 13.1453a.7–30 1; 593, 594, 630, 631, 633
15.1454a.26–33 2, 18, 584 F 661.22–5 (Stheneboea) 387
Pol. 1252b.5–10 595 F 727c. 35–48 (Telephus) 446, 451,
Athenaeus 562e 388 451–2
F 773.19–58 (Phaethon, = 63–101
Catullus 64.278–93 506; 397–408 Diggle) 246; F 781.14–31
512; cf. 501 (Phaethon, = 227–44 Diggle)
Cicero, Tusc. 3. 57 251, .59 253; 4.77 386, 502
329 F 787–9 (Philoctetes) 251
Cratinus, Dionysalexandros Test. (i) F 820b.4–5 (Phrixus B) 499
Hypothesis 21–2 PCG 264
Cypria, Proclus §8 West 3 Gorgias, Helen 82 B 11 DK 542

Ennius, Alexander 64 Jocelyn 560 Hdt. 1.1–5 589

Iphigenia 203 Jocelyn 330; 204–6 Hes. Catal. F 23a M-W 3; 197.4–5 4;
344 204.78–84 4
Incerta 388–9 Jocelyn 362, 363 Hesych. α 1608 Latte 260, 645
Eur. Alc. 803–25 459 Hom. Iliad l.1–2 569, 293 481, 301–3
And. 328–9 597 486; 2.115 336, 140 449; 3.161–242
Bacc. 170–369 514 438; 14.153–353 502; 16.33–5 481,
El. 452–86 292, 307; 988–9 397, 200–7 451; 19.137 281; 21.187–9
399, 404; 1020–1 3 422; 22.63–4 529
Hcld. 543–6 539; see also Euripides Od. 6.276–85 261, 357, cf. 409
Hec. 216–443 514; 606–8 473; see Hyginus, Fables 98 3
also Euripides
Hel. 179–84 30; 744–60 379; Ibycus F 282.15–46 PMG 291
1640–1 322
Hipp. 121–9 30; 525–32 385 Juvenal 12.118–22 39 n. 100
Ion 102–83 and 184–218 292
IT 18–21 6; 380–91 8; 382–4 626; Lucretius 1.82–101 39; 93–4 544
760–1 275
Med. 627–37 384 Machon 4.24 252
Pho. 239–60 30, cf. 32; 434–637, Men. Epitr. 218ff. 319–20
514; 446–637 342; 834–1018
514; 1485–1538 555; see also Ovid, Met. 12.24–38 and 13.181–95
Euripides 39 n. 100
Supp. 440 450; 653–67 292
Tro. 370–3 532 Pausanias 3.20.8–9 260
F 183–202 (Antiope) 342 Philetaerus F 4.1 PCG 423
F 360 (Erechtheus) 301, 532, 539, Philochorus 328 F 105 FGrH 10
668 Indexes

Pind. Pyth. 11.22–4 3, 607, 641 El. 566–746 5–6

Plato, Prot. 320c ff. 34 OC 1656–62 637
Plautus, Pseudolus 1–41 254 Phil. 974 352, 459
Rudens 938ff. 319–21 Stesichorus F 178 D-F 3–4
Plut. Aristides 9.1 8 Stobaeus 3.28.2 347
Themistocles 8
Mor. 64c 350 Terence, Adelphi 254–5 and 269–70
488
Sappho F 16.1–3 PMG 291
Schol. Hom. Od. 11.430 529 Xen. Hell. 1.6–7 16–17
Soph. Ant. 781–800 385