¹ Eusebius, 8, 1–2, (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller, 43, 1–2) ed. P. Mras [Berlin, 1954 and 1956]. The text is in 8, 1, p. 534. We cite verses by the line no. in Wieneke, J., Ezechielis Iudaei poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribitur ΕΞΑΓΩΓΗ fragmenta (Münster, 1931)Google Scholar, and by page and line in Mras (e.g., Mras I, 534).

² ποσσίν,, χερί, and θιγεῖν are Stephanus' corrections of the MSS's ποσν, χερσ and θγειν. For other variants of the witnesses see Mras ad loc., and for the treatment of the editors see Wieneke. One still has hesitations about ὑποδδεσθε; for τε γρ cf. n. 9 infra.

³ Wieneke, p. 116, cites line 105 (Mras I, 530²⁴) as another example, but the line can be scanned regularly; cf. n. 5 infra.

The only remaining case of an irregular caesura is in line 212 (Mras I, 535¹³), where Mras reads, with MS B,

while others read φωνὴν πρὸς αίθέρα τʼἐστάθησαν ἀθρόοι κτλ; with MSS ION. Even if Eusebius wrote τʼστθησαν (meaning?), the anapaest in the third foot is unparalleled in Ezekiel. The more meaningful reading suggested by B [τʼἐστάθησαν] gives us a tribrach with a caesura at the wrong point in it, and this again is unparalleled in Ezekiel, who divides his numerous tribrachs of the third foot in the regular place. Metrical regularity could be restored, if one emends φωνήν · πρὸς αίθέρʼ ἀπετάθησαν ἀθρόοι θεὸν πατρῷον …‥; the emendation, ΕΡΑΤΕ > ΕΡΑΠΕ is minimal; for the sense of ἀποτείνομαι, here “complained” (cf. the people's complaints in Ex. 14:11), see Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v. The passage should be regarded as another instance of the use of šmym/οὐρρανς vel sim.for the divine name.

⁴ There are no other spondees in improper positions in all the surviving lines of Ezekiel.

⁵ A highly unlikely assumption, which I discuss merely since the editors seem to have entertained it. The manuscripts of Eusebius do not indicate crasis or elision with any regularity, but a study of Ezekiel's metre shows that, with the exceptions of line 252 (Mras I, 537¹⁰) ἔγκαρπα, δεκάκις ἑπτά, καὶ ἐπίρρυτος [a doubtful line, well emended by περίρρυτος] and line 10S (Mras I, 530²⁴) Αβραάγ|τε καὶ Ἰ|σαὰκ καὶ|Ἰα|κώβου|τρἰτου where the barbarian names require one καὶ in crasis and another long in hiatus, in all other 23 cases where καὶ is followed by a vowel, it may, and in at least four cases —

— it must, be scanned in conformity with the regular laws of crasis. This scansion produces strict agreement with the norm of tragical metrics. Even if there were a theoretical possibility that in some, though not all, of the remaining lines κα was shortened in hiatus, the result would in five further cases —

— then give us anapaests in improper positions.

⁶ In Mras' text there are some apparent instances of anapaests in positions where tragedy does not allow them. Those in lines 206 (Mras I, 535⁷) Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης ᾒεσαν ὴθροΪσμένοι [which can easily be healed by Gaisford's ἦσαν], and 135 (Mras I, 532⁴) βατράχων τε πλῆθος καὶ σκνίπɑς ἐμβαλῶ χθονί [a line which is impossible on other grounds since σκνῖπας should be a trochee — might one suggest βατρχων τε πλθος σκνπ τʼμβαλ χθον] should probably not be allowed to darken Ezekiel's repute as a poet. Mras's emendation of the defective line 165 (Mras I, 533⁸) χρυσóν τε καί <τὸν> ἄργυρον ἠδὲ καὶ στoλάς produces another anapaest in the fourth foot; that, however, does not say much for his emendation — Duebner's χρυσοῦν τε κἀργύρειον ἠδὲ καί στολάς is grammatically as good, and metrically considerably better. Wieneke reads two further anapaests; that in the fifth foot of line 207 (Mras I, 535⁸) ο μν τκνοισι δδουν βορν is not justified by the MSS, and it does not survive in Mras's edition, which reads … νηπίοις δίδουν βοράν; that in line 226 (Mras I, 536⁴) rests on an emendation of Stephanus — Mras' return to a text closer to the MSS, σημεῖα καὶ τεράατʻ ἐξεμήσατο, has the additional advantage of removing the offending anapaest. The only irregular anapaest that seems unavoidable is that of line 74 (Mras I, 529¹¹), Σκῆπτρον δέ μοι παρέδωκε καὶ εἰς θρόνον μέγαν … and even here the poet who wrote δίδουν may well have permitted himself πάρδωκε!

⁷ Prof. Zeph Stewart of Harvard points to another fault in the transmitted text, which even alone should probably be decisive. While one may translate κληθήτεται alternatively “will be summoned” and “will be named,” κληθήτεται can only be translated “will be named.”

⁸ For these forms see T.W.N.T. s.v. πάσχα and G. W. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v. πσχα.

⁹ The problem in line 182 ἐν σπουδῇ τε γὰρ … is twofold. A) in Ex. 12:11 bḥpzwn describes the manner in which the Israelites should eat the paschal lamb, not the urgency of the King's command. Our text can, however, in this respect be compared with lines 160–61 (Mras I, 533^3–4), ὑμεῖς δὲ νυκτὸς ὀπτὰ δαίσεσθε κρέα · σπουδῇ δε βασιλεὺς ἐκβαλεῖ πρόπαντʼ ὄχλον, whose Biblical sources are a combination of Ex. 12:8 and 12:33, and where also Ezekiel seems to pass directly from the meal to the royal command. Materially then the text is allowable. B) One might suspect deeper corruption, ν in the adverbial ἐν σπουδῇ being improper Greek; but in Ezekiel this can surely be explained as a Hebraism or Septuagintalism attested in Dt. 16:3 (ἐν σπουδῇ ἐξήλθετε) and also in 2 Es. 4:23, Dan (LXX) 10:7, (Th) 2:25, 3:24, 6:19 (all ἐν σπουδῇ) ; cf. Ezekiel's analogous ἐν τῇδε ῤάβδῳ πάντα ποιήσεις κακά (line 132; Mras I, 532¹) and Gen. 32:10, Ex. 21:10, etc. However, the presence of τε γὰρ presents a difficulty (cf. J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles² [Oxford, 1954], 536). Even if the combination of particles be allowable in certain cases, why here ἐν σπουδῇ , unless it refers to the haste with which one should eat the paschal lamb (cf. at this precise point in Ex. 12:11 bḥpzwn = μετὰ σπουδῆς) ? One hesitates to translate “… and having a staff in his hand; for it is also in haste (i.e., in a like haste) that the King …” I have no solution; one has been suggested to me by Mr. B. Layton, who proposes … τε · <> γρ βασιλεὺς κελεσει: but, though palaeographically easy, it is criticized by another student, Mrs. Martha Schecter, as infringing Ezekiel's constant use (perhaps in imitation of Aeschylus) of βασιλεὺς without the article.

¹⁰ Wieneke lists lines 174 (Mras I, 533¹⁷) and 163 (Mras I, 533⁶), μήτρας μητέρων and παρὰ γυναικὸς λήψεται. Since, however, Porson's Law only allows a long syllable separated by caesura from the final cretic if it is (a) a monosyllabic word that goes with what follows (e.g., πρὸς δώματα or τοὺς ἔνδοθεν) or (b) in a polysyllabic word that has undergone elision (e.g., σήμαινʼ εἴτʼ ἔχει), we should probably regard line 233 (Mras I, 536¹¹) δέσμιοι δʼ ῶς ἤρμοσαν — against (a) —, line 62 (Mras I, 527¹⁹) ἄρχων δʼ ἐστὶ γῆς -cf. (b), but δ is not enclitic —, line 131 (Mras I, 531²²) ἔσται δʼ ὥσπερ ἦν -same objection-, and line 240 (Mras I, 536¹⁸) ἡμῖν δʼ ἀθλίοις -same objection- as decadent. Or do we misstate the Law? Would tragedy admit any elision before the final cretic, and not just that of the pattern σήμαινʼ εἴτʼ ἔχει and ἅρχων τʼ ἐστὶ γῆς? The only argument I can find for this is in Nauck, Trag. Gr. Fragmenta, Adespota 400 ἐγένοντο, τοῦ μὲν ʻHρακλῆς, τοῦ δʼ Ἴφικλος and this could come from a Satyr play, where Porson's Law is gaily broken, cf. ibid. Astydamas fg. 3, 4; Python fgg. I, 3; I, 13; I, 18; Adespota (547, 7); and, in B. Snell's Supplementum to the Hildesheim reprint of Nauck (1964), Euripides fg. 282^a. The text is not certain in all the apparent cases of hiatus (lines 105, 158, 235, 252, 255). As for the seeming irregularity of the trochaic caesura in an initial dactyl (lines 169, 178), cf., e.g., E. R. Dodds on Bacchae 192.