Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:39:26.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

P. Petrie 1.1–2: Euripides, Antiope (fr. 223 (Nauck) Kannicht, XLVIII Kambitsis)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

James Diggle
James Diggle
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Here is a text which incorporates all the readings and supplements which I explain below and some which I do not.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 42 , 1997 , pp. 106 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. I have printed here what I can read in the papyrus: 12] (Ṭ hitherto unreported; right tip of horizontal visible); 13 … φ. λη Mahaffy, [ανω]ϕελη Schaal, Page, Kambitsis, αν[ω]ϕελη Blass3, but trace of Ω visible. And I shall do so in what follows, but I shall not always draw attention to newly deciphered letters where the text is not in doubt.

2. To the instances cited by the lexica add S. fr. 210.71 Radt.

3. And perhaps El. 692/694. See Studies on the Text of Euripides (1981) 39Google Scholar.

4. Cf. Maas, P., ‘De Deorum cum feminis mortalibus concubitu’, Kl. Schr. (1973) 66–7Google Scholar.

5. See KG 2.80, van Otterlo, W. A. A., Med. Ned. Akad. Wet., Letterkunde 7 (1944) 21–31Google Scholar.

6. On this line see CR 40 (1990) 9Google Scholar = Euripidea 358. To counter my argument that is corrupt, since in this idiom only the finite verb has an object, none being needed by the participle, D. J. Mastronarde (in his commentary, 1994) cites as an example of repeated object S. OC 982–4 . Here the credit of με is not enhanced by the appearance of u.oi at the end of the sentence. I suggest , like OC 1352 E. Andr. 385 . Dr R. D. Dawe reminds me of his conjecture at OT 1191–2 (δόξαντ’ codd., δόξαν Stob.) .

7. See Gnomon 47 (1975) 289–90Google Scholar = Euripidea 145–6.

8. He is addressed by Lycus as ἄνθϱωπε, a vocative attested in tragedy only in addresses to anonymous persons (S. Ai. 791, 1154). The case for Amphion, argued by Webster, T. B. L., The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, ed. Wallach, L. (1966) 96Google Scholar, is refuted by Hose, M., Studien zum Chor bei Euripides 1 (1990) 270–1Google Scholar.

9. Here I write not . See Mastronarde, D. J., ed. Phoen. (Teubner 1988) xxii–iii, and my app. crit. at Ba. 5Google Scholar.

10. Seidler, , De versibus dochmiacis (1811–1812) 412Google Scholar, took as a solitary cretic interposed between dochmiacs. Against such solitary interposed cretics see CQ 40 (1990) 107–9Google ScholarPubMed = Euripidea 373–6.

11. In his edition of Stob. (Göttingen 1792). The same conjecture was made by Schmidt, F. W., Kritische Studien zu den griechischen Dramatikern 2 (1886) 453Google Scholar, but he accepted Meineke's ἴδηι.

12. First in a paper published in 1847 (= Études sur le drame antique (1897 [1908 2]) 232 n. 1)Google Scholar, again in REG 2 (1889) 334Google Scholar.

13. SBAM 1878, ii. 181Google Scholar.

14. For the confusion of ἐπι- and ὑπο- see Studies on the Text of Euripides 40. Stob. will be guilty of (virtual) haplography (ἔλαθεν for ), the papyrus of lipography (ἔπεϲεν for ).

15. fere codd. ( L, ἐνν- Tr), ἐνέπεϲον Mess, ἐπέπεϲον Aldina (cf. ).

16. Fr. 493.1–2 as printed by Kannicht and Snell reads . I should expect, rather, (Herwerden), like E. Archel. fr. 255.3 (29.3 Austin) (and for Δίϰη as subject of ὁϱᾶι see the passages cited under (iv) below).

17. Heitsch, E., Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der röm. Kaiserzeit 1 2 (1963) 26Google Scholar.

18. (Kannicht) not (edd.). See KB 1.365, Chandler, H. W., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (1881 2) §670.5Google Scholar.

19. Just as at Hel. 1681 the context demands 2nd-person dual ϲϕῶιν not 3rd-person ϲϕῶν. By contrast, at 106 . … … (that is all that I can read; εϲϲϕϱ .. […] Mahaffy), (2nd-person dual), which features in many conjectures, is impossible. Only ἐϲ ϲϕᾶϲ would be possible, but that was probably not written, and in any case ἐϲ is unlikely, since the papyrus always has εἰϲ.