¹ A very close formal parallel for the inscenation suggested by Murray is provided by E. Hel. 1165 ff. where Theoklymenos' entrance speech begins with an apostrophe (Hel. 1165 ff. ˜ Ion 126 ff.) which is followed first by a command addressed to attendants (Hel. 1169 f. ˜ Ion 1266 f.) and then by soliloquy. Finally the speaker makes an observation about what is going on on stage (Hel. 1177 ff. ˜ Ion 1279 ff.).

² And that Wilamowitz was half right in making Ion aware of Kreousa from 1268. Obviously he found he could not regard (4) as apostrophe.

³ If one accepts 1275–8, there are the additional second-person references (1276).

⁴ I mean that tragedy does not include scenes where eavesdroppers are visible to the audience and active; there are passages in tragedy where characters announce their intention of going into hiding and eavesdropping (see Actors and Audience, pp. 91 f.).Google Scholar

⁵ Note the exchange in 1309–10 which is almost immediately followed by a reasoned speech whose starting-point is the impossibility of seizing Kreousa.

⁶ There is also the problem of the reaction of Ion's attendants. Are they supposed like Ion not to see Kreousa and as a result fail to carry out his order? Or are we to follow Murray in assuming that they do see her, but disobey the order because they respect the altar, an unnecessarily distracting piece of by-play?

⁷ there is ambiguous-Owen perhaps goes too far in claiming that the first part of the compound forces us to take it as ‘pelted with stones’ rather than ‘thrown from a cliff (the second part of the compound would suit either meaning, cf. E. Bakch. 1079, E. Kykl. 166 for both uses of ) but an audience having already heard that stoning was the decreed punishment would be bound to take it in the former sense.

⁸ Kirchhoff (followed by Wecklein) transposed 1266–8, placing if after 1278 and then (taking up Musgrave's transposition of 1275–8 to follow 1281) moving the two sections to follow 1281. Murray's suggestion that 1275–8, 1266–8 would go better after 1319 has the initial attraction that 1266–8 would give rise to the prophetess's tirioxes (1320), but makes nonsense of Ion's speech of 1312 ff. Mrs. Burnett's stage direction after 1319 (‘He raises his hand to seize Kreousa …’) is likewise quite mistaken and is in complete contradiction to the text. One does not lament the iniquity of the wicked having the same facilities of sanctuary as the good and then go on without another word to violate sanctuary. If Ion was going to behave in so impious a manner he would have said so. I do not think it necessary to have the prophetess's refer to any particular action or threatened action of Ion's (cf. Bond on E. Hyps. fr. 60.22)

⁹ This is expressed either by ‘I see (or something similar)’ in E. Suppl. 87, E. Her. 525 f., E. Hel. 541, 1177 ff., E. fr. 125, or in less excited manner by E. Phoin. 274 and E. Ba. 248.

¹⁰ Sections (5), (4), (2) taken together might be regarded as an alternative (melodramatic) entrance speech intended to replace a speech consisting of (1) and (3), but (5), (4), (2) is the order of Kirchhoff and Wecklein, not of L.

¹¹ Unless perhaps someone felt that Kreousa's first words after Ion's speech (1282) ought to reply to a threat just uttered by Ion and that such a threat was implicit in but this perhaps is demanding too much subtlety of the putative critic. At all events I do not think it necessary for there to be any explicit threat to evoke Kreousa's response. She is after all confronted by armed pursuers (N.B. 1258 and the words of the chorus in 1259 f. ).

¹² I am grateful to Professor H. D. Jocelyn and Dr. Oliver Taplin for helpful discussion of the passage. It is not to be assumed that they accept my conclusions.