¹ I am grateful to Dr J. Diggle for encouragement and helpful comments; also to the CQ referee who drew attention to some errors and inadequacies in the first draft submitted.

² Cf. especially Hipp. 817–51; also Med. 1286–9, Hec. 1030–4, Or. 1353–60.

³ 3δ is a common length, which need not be divided (arbitrarily) as 2δ | δ or δ | 2δ or δ | δ | δ. For the expressive effect of the shift from dochmiacs to speech, cf. Barrett on Hipp. 817–51; note that in all these mixed passages (last n.) resolution is eschewed in the contrasting iambic trimeters.

⁴ A few exceptions to the rule have been claimed; see Collard, , Supplices ii.392–5Google Scholar, and my commentary on Orestes, p. 105. But it remains a rule.

⁵ ἦ (cf. 95), not ἢ: ‘or have you crossed the sea from Euboea’ is plainly illogical after ‘from what γ have you come to this πλιс?' Euboea is a γ.

⁶ In 92 a comma (not a question-mark) before φρсον unifies the syntax.

⁷ For the usual view, see Stinton, CR 15 (1965), 145Google Scholar, who compared especially the verse at S. O.T. 1339/1359. Diggle in his Studies on the Text of Euripides (1981), pp. 18ff., justifies the ‘resolution before syncopation’ in his treatment as 3ia cr, but does not comment on his abnormal iambic dimeter with ‘word-end after long second anceps’ (Parker, L. P. E., CQ 16 (1966), 14ff.Google Scholar); for this too, as it happens, one of the few parallels is at S. O.T. 1336/1356.

⁸ It may be relevant that Held, and O.T. are probably nearly contemporary plays.

⁹ Art. cit. (n. 7), 15.

¹⁰ For the colon hδ δ, cf. Hipp. 852, Ion 799, Or. 140/152.

¹¹ The pauseless period-end cannot be defended by comparison with passages where a trimeter is followed by a dochmius, such as I.T. 843–4, Pho. 148–9, Ba. 1161–2 (Diggle, CQ 40 [1990], 123); nor is there a natural phrase–division.Google Scholar

¹² For the data, see Conomis, N. C., Hermes 92 (1962), 47–8Google Scholar, supplemented by Diggle, CQ 40 (1990), 107–8.Google Scholaria δ is frequent in Aeschylus. Aj. 296–7/414–15 (early in date) is the only Sophoclean instance. Apart from our passage, the instances claimed for Euripides are: Alc. 873/890 (AΔ. αἰαῖ XO. ; this is 2ia cr if αἰαῖ is intra-metric); Hipp. 866 φε φε, τδ' αὖ νεοχµν κδοχαῖс (φε φε could be extra-metric); in ibid. 594 αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ s.v.l. is likely to be ); Hec. 1092 βον βον μτ βον (possibly dittographic, or a conflation of β––β– and β–β––); Tro. 247–8 τοὑµν τс ἆρ' | ἔλαχε τκοс, ἔνεπε, τλµονα Kαссνδραν (fort. τοὐµν 〈ἔλαχε〉 κτλ.); Hel. 648 φλαι φλαι, | τ προс οὐκτι… (most treat φλαι bis as a separate short verse); ibid. 661 and 662 ἒ ἔ , similar to Hyps. 64.72 αἰαῖ φμγс µθεν ἃс ἔφμγον (see CQ 39 [1989], 62)sGoogle Scholar; Hyps. 64.99 (dub., see CQ 39 [1989], 60); Ba. 1031 ὦναξ Bρµιε, θεс φανηι µλαс (probably defective, see Dodds). The evidence suggests that ia δ (with a single ia) was either eschewed by Euripides or used only at the beginning of an utterance; and it may well be significant that most of the above passages are exclamatory.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Or. 486–7 ME. ‘Eλληνικ´ν τοι τòν µóθεν τιµε. | TY. κα τν νµν γε µ πρτερον εἶναι θλειν.

¹⁴ πλει ξνων προсτροπν cannot of course be ‘an appeal of ξνοι to the city’; προсτρπειν is transitive, so that an ‘appeal to the city’ can only be πλεωс προπ, as at S. OC 558.

¹⁵ Elmsley rightly favoured πλει more than his alternatives πλιν or τινι. The correction may be ‘unnecessary’; but we should be concerned rather with its chances of being right. If πλει and πλει had been transmitted as variants, there can be little doubt which would have been preferred by thoughtful editors.

¹⁶ There is no need to strain language by calling 90–8 a ‘mesode’ (like El. 125–6, 150–6). We can properly (if we wish) extend the use of that term so as to include passages of sung dialogue separating strophe from antistrophe, such as Hec. 177–86 (or 170–86); but not to partly spoken passages.

¹⁷ Diggle's text rightly shows Alc. 93–7 and 105–11 as balancing passages, separated by linespaces from the preceding strophe and antistrophe. He leaves the strophic issue open in his apparatus; but the chances are that ‘balance’, rather than ‘responsion’, is the right interpretation, at least as to 95–7, 108–11 (in 105 I should be inclined to write κα µν (for µν) τδε κριον ἦµαρ, as this is a lyric paroemiac like 93 οὐ τἂν φθιµναс γ' сιώπων and 91/103). (i) Sound metre and sense can be restored quite easily in 94 and 106–7 by writing οὐ γρ δ 〈πομ〉 (cf. Denniston, , Greek Particles, p. 268Google Scholar) | θροδс γ [ξ] οἴκων, glossed as a slightly abnormal prepositionless genitive) νκμс ἤδη and – τ τδ' αὐδс 〈ειс〉; (Hermann) | ὦι χρ сθε µολεῖν κατ γααс. But symmetry inescapably remains imperfect in the speaker-changes (whether or not we delete the paragraphos at 94) and, less importantly, in the different pattern of the monometer. (ii) The non-lyric anapests in 108–11 are a metron longer than those in 95–7. If that were the only inequality, we should doubtless be happy to follow Kirchoff and others (there are numerous possible supplements). But only rewriting could produce exact responsion between 96–7 and 109–11; and here too there may well be asymmetry of speakers. 109–11 (χρ … πενθεῖν κτλ.) is better taken, I think, as a straightforward continuation (sc. γρ) asyndetically elaborating the statement in 108 (ἔθιγεс ψμχс, ἔθιγεс δ φρναс).

¹⁸ Twice elsewhere (366, 1055) βαсιλεсιν refers to the Athenian royal house (whether monarchy or diarchy). I have commended Hermann's similar (but more necessary) correction of τραννον to τμρννομс at Med. 42 in CQ 39 (1989), 321.Google Scholar