¹ According to one of the Hypotheseis to the play (Hyp. b, 23–24 Diggle), there were ‘certain’ (ἔνιοι) ancient scholars who believed Rhesus to be spurious ‘because it rather evinces the marks of Sophoclean style’ (τòν γ⋯ρ Σоφόκλειον μ⋯λλον ὑποφαἰν φαρκτ⋯ρα). This was evidence enough for A. Lesky (Greek Tragic Poetry, trsl. M. Dillon (New Haven 1983) 397) to proclaim that ‘the debate over the play's authenticity was already heated in antiquity”. However, there is no evidence that any ancient scholar of note ever doubted the authenticity of Rhesus: cf., for example, Dionysodorus apud Σ Rhesus 508 (339.14 Schwartz); Crates and Parmeniscus apud Σ Rhesus 528 (340.5, 11, 17, 23 Schwartz).

² See Del Rio, M.A. (Delrio), Syntagma tragoediae latinae in tres partes distinctum (Antwerp 1593) 122Google Scholar; Scaliger, J.J., M. Manili A stronomicon (Leiden 1600) 6–8.Google Scholar

³ Hermann, Notably G., ‘De Rheso tragoedia dissertatio”, Opusculavol. III (Leipzig 1828; repr. Hildesheim 1970) 262–310Google Scholar; Spengler, C.G., ‘De Rheso tragoedia pars prior”, Programm. Gymn. Düren (Düren 1857) 1–23Google Scholar; Hagenbach, F., De Rheso tragoedia (diss. Basel 1863)Google Scholar; Menzer, O., De Rheso tragoedia (diss. Berlin 1867)Google Scholar; Albert, P., De Rheso tragoedia (diss. Halle 1876) 33–40Google Scholar; Eysert, L., ‘Rhesus im Lichte des euripideischen Sprachgebrauches’, Jahresb. d. kais. kön. Staats-Ober-Gymn. in Böhm.-Leipa (Böhm.-Leipa 1891) 3–36Google Scholar; Eysert, L., ‘Rhesus im Lichte des euripideischen Sprachgebrauches: II. Theil (Voces Euripideae)’, Jahresb. d. kais. kön. Staats-Ober-Gymn. in Böhm.-Leipa (Böhm.-Leipa 1893) 3–40Google Scholar; Rolfe, J.C., ‘The tragedy Rhesus’, HSPh 4 (1893) 61–97Google Scholar; Pearson, A.C., ‘The Rhesus’, CR 35 (1921) 52–61Google Scholar, esp. 57–58; Ritchie, W., The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides (Cambridge 1964) 141–344Google Scholar; Fraenkel, E. (review of Ritchie), Gnomon 37 (1965) 228–41.Google Scholar

⁴ Thus, as Fraenkel (n. 3) was the first to point out, it is not the sheer number of, for example, ᾅπαξ ειημένα or of quotations from fifth-century tragedy found in Rhesus that decides the authenticity issue; it is rather the use the Rhesus author makes of such elements. Whoever wrote Rhesus is prone to sew together ‘purple passages’, i.e., ‘flashy’ words, eye-catching turns of phrase, pompous expressions etc., filched directly from Euripidean, Aeschylean and (more rarely) Sophoclean plays, in a manner unparalleled in fifth-century tragedy.

⁵ See Goossens, R., ‘La date du Rhésos’, AC 1 (1932) 93–134Google Scholar; Grégoire, H., ‘L'authenticité du “Rhésus” d'Euripide’, AC 2 (1933) 91–133.Google ScholarContra Sinko, T. (‘De causae Rhesi novissima defensione’, AC 3 (1934) 223–29, 411–29)Google Scholar, who argued that Rhesus contains allusions to the troubled relationship between Cersebleptes and Athens. Grégoire and Goossens retaliated in their ‘Sitalkès et Athènes dans le “Rhésos” d'Euripide’, AC 3 (1934) 431–46. The Goossens/Grégoire thesis was essentially taken up by Delebecque, E. (Euripide et la guerre du Péloponnèse (Paris 1951) 110–28)Google Scholar, who diverged only insofar as he considered Rhesus to be a pro-satyric drama produced in the context of the same trilogy as Hippolytus in 428.

⁶ Thus, for example, Sinko (n. 5) and Iliescu, V., ‘Zeitgeschichtliche Bezüge im Rhesos’, Klio 58 (1976) 367–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar (here 374–76). The latter challenged the Rhesus ∼ Sitalkes equation, and suggested that Rhesus was rather an allegory for the Thracian king Kotys I (regn. 384/383–359 BC), which according to Iliescu fixed the play firmly in the fourth century.

⁷ See in this respect the seminal remarks of Ehrenberg, V., Sophocles and Pericles (Oxford 1954) 3Google Scholar with nn. 1–3; Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester 1955) 58–69Google Scholar, 78–80, 91.

⁸ Cf. in this respect Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie: Erläuterungen (Göttingen² 1954) 187.Google Scholar

⁹ Regrettably, I did myself indulge in this unprofitable practice in Liapis, V., ‘They Dolt with Mirrors: the mystery of the two Rhesus plays’, in Jacob, D.I. and Papazoglou, E. (eds), Θυμέλη Μελέτες χαρισμέυες στον Καθηγητη Ν.Х Χουρμοζιάδη (Heraklion 2004) 159–88Google Scholar, esp. 177–82, where I toyed with the idea that Hector ‘stands for’ Philip II, while Rhesus ‘stands for’ Cersebleptes, king of Thrace, and that the animosity between the two characters in the play is meant to reflect the tense relations between the two historical persons.

¹⁰ See Revermann, M., ‘Euripides, tragedy and Macedon: some conditions of reception’, ICS 24/25 (1999/2000) 451–67.Google Scholar

¹¹ Quotation from Revermann (n. 10) 461.

¹² Liapis (n. 9).

¹³ In this section I take up and expand on arguments I first used, in a slightly different form, in Liapis (n. 9) 165–68.

¹⁴ See Snodgrass, A.M., Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Baltimore² 1999) 78–79Google Scholar; also Lissarrague, F., L'autre guerrier: archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l'imagerie attique (Paris and Rome 1990) 151–89Google Scholar, with special emphasis on the iconographic marginality of peltasts. For Greek views on Thracian mercenary peltasts see the detailed discussion in Best, J.G.P., Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen 1969) 126–33.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Most editors (and LSJ s.v. 1.2) take Πέλτη in this passage as a collective designation of ‘ranks of peltasts’, on the analogy of, for example, the prosaic ⋯ ἵΠΠоς = ‘the cavalry’. However, nowhere else is Π⋯λτη thus used: in all its other instances it has its usual meaning of ‘shiel’ (on E., Ale. 498 see Dale); cf. esp. Luc. DMort. 12(14).2 where τ⋯ν Øετταλ⋯ν ἵΠΠоν is juxtaposed to τ⋯ Μαντινέων Πελταστικ⋯ν (not Πέλτη). What is more, ⋯ ἵΠΠоς etc. refer to a specific section of the army as opposed to other sections (for example, the infantry); here, however, Πέλτη, if used collectively, would have to refer to the entire Thracian army, since no other defensive weapon is ever envisaged for the Thracians in this play (cf. Rhesus 311, 487). What Hector means here is that he shattered the actual shields of the Thracian champions he fought with; so already Vater, F. (ed.), Euripidis Rhesus cum scholiis antiquis (Berlin 1837) 173.Google Scholar After all, as pointed out already by Morstadt, R. (Beitrag zur Kritik der dem Euripides zugeschriebenen Tragödie Rhesos (Heidelberg 1827) 24 n. 1)Google Scholar ἔρρηξα Π⋯την is a conscious epicism, modelled on ῥῆξε σ⋯κоς (II. 20.268, 21.165), a phrase used in connection with shattering an opponen's shield with one's lance. For the distributive singula Πέλτην (instead of Πέλται) cf., for example, Thuc. 3.22.3 ψιλоι δώδεκα ξ⋯ν ξιφξιωι και θώρακι Kühner, R. and Gerth, B., Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache II.1 (Hannover and Leipzig³ 1898) 14–15.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For a similar choice of right, centre or left, cf., albeit in a different context, II. 13.307–09 ‘where do you wish to attack the enemy? ⋯’ ⋯Π⋯ δεξι⋯φιν Παντ⋯ς στρατοũ, ᾖ ⋯ν⋯ μέσσους Ι ᾖ ⋯Π ⋯ριστερ⋯φιν.

¹⁷ See Hanson, V.D., The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (New York 1989) 65–69.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See IG 2/3 ii¹ 1473.9–10, 1487.96–97, 1490.30–31, cited by Liampi, K., Der makedonische Schild (Bonn 1998) 3.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See imprimis Markle, M.M. III, ‘The Macedonian sarissa, spear, and related armor,’, AJA 81 (1977) 323–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 326 with nn. 19, 20. The main literary testimony on the diameter of the Macedonian shield is Ascl. Tact. 5, 1 (11, 6–7 Poznanski), who describes it as ὈκταΠ⋯λαιστος, i.e. eight palms (61.66cm) in diameter: see Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War I (Berkeley 1971) 150Google Scholar; and Poznanski's note ad loc. (42–43).

²⁰ Macedonian shields found at Dion and at Veghora (Florina) are 73.6cm and 65.6cm in diameter respectively; on the Dion shield (probably belonging to Demetrios Poliorketes), see Pantermalis, D. in To Aρχαιογικ⋯ Έργο στη Μακεδον⋯α και øρ⋯κη 13, (1999) 417–19Google Scholar ∼ Μ⋯ρτος: Μν⋯μη λολ⋯ας ΒοκοτοΠο⋯λου (Thessaloniki 2000) xviii–xxii; on the Veghora shield (perhaps from the time of Antigonos Gonatas), see Adam-Veleni, P. in Ancient Macedonia: Fifth International Symposium, vol. 1 (1993) 19Google Scholar (noting that the shied's apparent diameter of 73.6cm must be significantly reduced when its curvature is taken into account). Of particular importance are also the life-size sculptured shields found on monuments. Such monuments include: an early third century ⋯ρώιον at Yannitsa (4.5km Northwest of ancient Pella), with its shield measuring 62cm in diameter (see Chrysostomou, P. in TΑρχαιολογικ⋯ Έργο στη Μακεδον⋯α και øρκη 12 (1998) 345)Google Scholar; a monument erected in Beroia shortly after 297 BC, whose shields are 73–76cm in diameter (see Markle, M.M., ‘A shield monument from Veria and the chronology of Macedonian shield types’, Hesperia 68 (1999) 219–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 222, 223, 227); finally, a mid-second-century tomb at Spilià (Eordaia), whose façade features two sculptured shields measuring 72cm and 69cm in diameter (see Karamitrou-Mentesidhi, G. in To Aρχαιολογικ⋯ Έργο στη Μακεδον⋯α και øρཱκη 1 (1987) 30).Google ScholarCf. also Liampi (n. 18) 4–5. On the discrepancy between the literary evidence and the archaeological record on this point, see Pritchett (n. 19) 145–47, 150. Cf. Liapis (n. 9) 166–67.

²¹ For bibliography and discussion see Pritchett (n.19) 146–47; cf. Lorimer, H.L., ‘The hoplite phalanx with special reference to the poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus’, ABSA 42 (1947) 76–138Google Scholar, esp. 76–77, n. 3. Shields of the hoplite type were also used in the Macedonian army until ca. 300 BC: Markle (n. 20) 244.

²² Although χρυσοκ⋯λλητος occurs only in the interpolated E. Ph. 2 (but χρυσοκ⋯λλητος does occur in S. fr. 378.3 Radt, E. fr. 587 Kannicht), it is an apposite term for shield blazons, which were separately constructed sheets of beaten metal, often decorated with engravings, and fixed (here by means of golden bolts) on the outer surface of the shield: cf. A. Th. 539–42 with Hutchinson ad 541f.; Snodgrass (n. 14) 54–55, 96. For blazons and other decorative motifs on Macedonian shields in particular, see Liampi (n. 18) 27–41, with tables 33–39.

²³ Snodgrass (n. 14) 53. For the discomfort involved therein see however Hanson (n. 17) 65–69.

²⁴ Snodgrass (n. 14) 95.

²⁵ Quotation from Sage, M.M., Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook (London and New York 1996) xx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ See imprimis Best (n. 14) 85–97 for a detailed account of the guerrilla operations of Iphicrates’ peltasts; indeed Best (n. 14, 102–10) went so far as to claim that ‘Iphicratean reform’ may be a misnomer, since ‘the Iphikratean peltast appears to be nothing more than a variant of already existing Thracian peltasts’ (104), and to have never been involved in pitched battle. On Iphicrates’ peltasts as essentially a skirmishing force, see also Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War II (Berkeley 1974) 124Google Scholar; cf. Adcock, F.E., The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1957) 21–22.Google Scholar Even the small number of scholars who realize that the peltasts mentioned in Rhesus are no longer the marginal troops they were in fifth-century Athens tend to see in them an echo of Iphicrates’ reforms rather than of Macedon's ascendancy: cf., for example, Menzer (n. 3) 52–53; Nöldeke, W., De Rhesi fabulae aetate et forma (Schwerin 1877) 13Google Scholar; Iliescu (n. 6) 368, n. 30, 369, n. 34.

²⁷ Quotation from Hammond in Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T., A History of Macedonia II (Oxford 1979) 148.Google ScholarCf. also Ellis, J.R. in The Cambridge Ancient History VI²(Cambridge 1994) 735Google Scholar: ‘The Macedonian infantry soldier […], more closely akin to the Thracian peltast, faced relatively less expense than the hoplite in fitting himself out: his shield was appreciably smaller…’. On the all-important role of peltasts in the Macedonian army, especially in the period after Alexander, see Errington, R.M., A History of Macedonia, trsl. Errington, C. (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1990) 245Google Scholar; cf. also Hammond in Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia III (Oxford 1988) 541–42.Google Scholar

²⁸ Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 424. Emphasis added. The text quoted by Griffith is from Best (n. 14) 142.

²⁹ This was pointed out already by Menzer (n. 3) 53. Eysert (n. 3) 3–40 (esp. 32–33) and Goossens (n. 5) 99 tried imconvincingly to underplay the importance of this piece of lexical evidence. This is not to say, of course, that the Greeks were unfamiliar with peltasts as such before the Peloponnesian War: see Best (n. 14) 3–16 for evidence suggesting a familiarity with Thracian peltasts already from the mid-sixth century onwards. For peltasts in the Peloponnesian War see again Best (n. 14) 17–35.

³⁰ The argument of this section was first put forth in a less developed form in Liapis (n. 9) 170–71.

³¹ ‘Squire’ or even ‘subordinate but fighting comrade’; see Mastronarde ad loc.

³² Cf. Hermann (n. 3) 292.

³³ See Hanson (n. 17) 61–63; Van Wees, H., Greek Warfare (London 2004) 68–71.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Kalléris, J., Les anciens Macédoniens I (Athens 1954) 271Google Scholar: ‘le terme “ủΠασΠιστα⋯” se rencontre uniquement en Macédoine, dans le sens technique de “corps militaire des hypaspistes”’. The term occurs in, for example, Arr., An. 1.8.4 and 5.13.4. On ủΠασΠιστα⋯ οἱβασιλικο⋯ see especially Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great II: Sources and Studies (Cambridge 1948) 148–50Google Scholar, 191–92. On the special association of the ὑΠασΠιστα⋯, evidently as bodyguards, with the Macedonian king, cf. Plut., Alex. 51.6; Tarn, (op. cit) 140Google Scholar; Errington (n. 27) 244; Hammond, N.G.L., Collected Studies II (Amsterdam 1993) 182Google Scholar; Milns, R.D., ‘The hypaspists of Alexander III: some problems’, Historia 20 (1971) 186–95Google Scholar, esp. 187.

³⁵ Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 415.

³⁶ On the number of the ὑΠασΠιστα⋯, see Tarn (n. 34) 149–50; Milns (n. 34) 188–91.

³⁷ ‘Perhaps anytime after 356’ (Milns, R.D., ‘Philip II and the hypaspists’, Historia 16 (1967) 509–12Google Scholar, esp. 511), or ‘in the latter part at least of the reign of Philip’ (Hammond (n. 34) 187).

³⁸ As Milns (n. 37) 511–12 has plausibly argued.

³⁹ That λ⋯χος here denotes a cavalry company may be deduced, precisely, from the immediately ensuing injimction to harness the horses (27). For λ⋯χος = ‘equestrian unit’, cf. A., Th. 56 with 60–61, 80 (cf 42 λοχαγέται).

⁴⁰ cf. esp. Theopomp. Hist., FGrH 115 F 225; Arr., An. 1.25.4–5; Curtius 6.7.17; Hammond, N.G.L., The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History (Oxford 1989) 54Google Scholar, 140–42, 238–39; Hatzopoulos, M.B., Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. I (Athens 1996) 286–88.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Hammond in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 159; Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 397 with n. 3.

⁴² For ἴλη ⋯ βασιλικ⋯ as an élite corps, cf. especially Arr., An. 3.11.8; Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 408–10; Bosworth, A.B., Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1988) 261Google Scholar; Ellis, J.R., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London 1976) 54.Google ScholarContra Tarn (n. 34) 139 who speculates, improbably, that the King's Squadron was formed from the lesser nobility.

⁴³ Momigliano, A., Filippo il Macedone (Florence 1934) 8–10.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Jacoby, F., FGrHist vol. IIc, p. 107Google Scholar; Hammond (n.40) 98.

⁴⁵ Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 705–09;Hatzopoulos (n. 40) 269.

⁴⁶ Cawkwell, G., Philip of Macedon (London 1978) 31–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The point has already been made by Hermann (n. 32) 291.

⁴⁸ Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 431.

⁴⁹ cf. already Beck, C.D., Exercitatio critica de Rheso supposititio Euripidis dramate (Leipzig 1780) 6–7, 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ cf. especially S., Aj. 349–50, 481–84; Ph. 135–43. True, in E., Hel. 1553 a sailor does criticize his king, but (a) he is not a chorus-member and (b) the king is a buffoon who fails to command respect even amongst his servants (Hel. 1627–38).

⁵¹ For the term see Plb. 5.27.6; cf. Hammond in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 161.

⁵² Thus, for example, Valckenaer, L.C., Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias (Leiden 1767) 100Google Scholar; Björck, G., ‘The authenticity of Rhesus’, Eranos 55 (1957) 71–17Google Scholar, esp. 14. Strohm, H., ‘Beobachtungen zum “Rhesos”’, Hermes 87 (1959) 257–74Google Scholar, esp. 269–70, sees Hector as passive and paralysed.

⁵³ See especially Stewart, A.F., Faces of Power (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993) 80–86Google Scholar; Erskine, A., Troy between Greece and Róme (Oxford 2001) 229.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Arr., An. 1.11.7; D. S. 17.18.1; Plut., Alex. 15.7.

⁵⁵ Plut., Alex. 15.8; Arr., An. 1.12.1 οἱ δέ ὅτι κα⋯ τ⋯ν Ἀχιλλέως ἄρα τ⋯φον ⋯στεφ⋯νωσεν Ἡχλλέωνα δ⋯ λέγουσιν ὅτι τοũ Πατρ⋯κλου τ⋯ν τ⋯φον ⋯στεφανωσε.

⁵⁶ Thus Arr., An. 1.11.5 κα⋯ Ὁ νοũς τῆσ θυσ⋯ας ᾖ Πρωτεσιλ⋯ωι τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯βασιν.

⁵⁷ Arr., An. 1.11.7; D. S. 17.17.2; Justin. 11.5.10–11. cf. Bosworth (n. 42) 38 with n. 35.

⁵⁸ Str. 13.1.27 (594C, III.562.27–564.29 Radt) κατ⋯ τε δ⋯ τ⋯ν τοũ ποιητοũ ζῆλον κα⋯ κατ⋯ τ⋯ν συγγένειαν τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν Αἰακιδ⋯ν τ⋯ν ⋯ν Μολοττοῖς βασιλευσ⋯ντων παρ οἷσ κα⋯ τ⋯ν Ἀνδρομ⋯χην ἱστορƖσι βαιλεũσαι τ⋯ν Ἕκτορος γενομένην γυναῖκα ⋯φιλορονεῖτο πρ⋯ς Ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος. cf. Hammond (n. 40) 206 with n. 2; Bosworth (n. 42) 39, 281.

⁵⁹ Str. 13.1.26 (593C, III.560.19–25 Radt), though it seems unlikely that this happened after the battle at Granicus as Strabo claims (μετ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ Г ραν⋯κῳ νίκην).

⁶⁰ Arr., An. 1.11.8; cf. Erskine (n. 53) 228 with n. 15. For depictions of Neoptolemus on Macedonian artefacts, though of a much later date (second/first century BC), see Ancient Macedonia (Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Athens 1988) 364, no. 325, 371, no. 334.

⁶¹ On the political and ritual significance of Alexande's focus on the Troad, see further Erskine (n.53) 227–28.

⁶² Bosworth (n. 42) 39; Erskine (n. 53) 228–29.

⁶³ Phrygia is geographically quite distinct from the Troad and Homer rightly keeps the two peoples apart, but their identification becomes current by Aeschylus’ time (Hall, E., ‘When did the Trojans turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15’, ZPE 73 (1988) 15–18)Google Scholar, and is standard especially in late Euripides (for example, Andr. 592, IA 71, esp. Or. 485, 1110–11, 1351, 1369–529).

⁶⁴ For the paradigmatic antithesis ‘freedom-loving Greece’ / ‘servile Asia’, of which the Trojan War was the paradigm par excellence, see Isocr. 4.158; Willink, C. (ed.), Euripides Orestes (Oxford 1986) xlvGoogle Scholar; Hall, E., Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford 1989) 101Google Scholar, 110 with nn. 29–31, 164–65, 193–94, 196–97; DeVries, K., ‘The nearly other: the Attic vision of Phrygians and Lydians’ in Cohen, B. (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal (Leiden 2000) 339–56Google Scholar; Erskine (n. 53) 61–92, esp. 73–74, 87–90.

⁶⁵ Erskine (n. 53) 229.

⁶⁶ Erskine (n. 53) 230.

⁶⁷ In Liapis (n. 9) 179–80, I argued that the enormous importance Alexander seems to have attached to the Troad as a cardinal locus in the Symbolik of his long-term policies may have owed something to his father's ambitions, which probably went well beyond dominance in Greece. This seems likely enough, but cannot be proved for lack of sufficient evidence; at any rate, the point is immaterial for my argument.

⁶⁸ cf. Janko ad loc.

⁶⁹ On the rivalry between the Priamids and the family of Aeneas, especially insofar as the former are destined to perish whereas the latter survive, see further Anderson, M.J., The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art (Oxford 1997) 62–69.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Hammond, N.G.L., A History of Macedonia I (Oxford 1972) 187Google Scholar, 301–02; Hammond in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 25; Erskine (n. 53) 93–98, 153–54 with discussion of coins of Aeneia bearing images of Aeneas, on which see also Head, B.V., A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Macedonia, etc. (London 1879) 41–42Google Scholar; and (with literary sources) Baege, W., De Macedonum sacris (diss. Halle 1913) 203–04.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The point was already made by von Wilamowitz, U., ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 61 (1926) 277–303Google Scholar (287) = Kleine Schriften IV (Berlin 1962) 414. Certain critics insisted that Aeneas’ advice is in fact at the root of Trojan misfortune: for if Hector had launched the night attack Aeneas manages to dissuade him from, Odysseus and Diomedes would never have had the opportunity to kill Rhesus. See notably Strohm (n. 52) 258–59; Fantuzzi, M., ‘The myths of Dolon and Rhesus from Homer to the “Homeric/Cyclic” tragedy Rhesus’, in Montanari, F. and Rengakos, A. (eds), La poésie épique grecque (Entretiens Hardt 52) (Vandœuvres-Geneva 2006) 135–76Google Scholar, esp. 148–49; cf. Fantuzzi, M., ‘La Doloneia del Reso come luogo dell’ errore e dell'in-certezza’, in Vetta, M. and Catenacci, C. (eds), I luoghi e la poesia nella Grecia antica (Alessandria 2006) 241–63Google Scholar, esp. 246. But the play never encourages us, even implicitly, to think along these lines: had it been so important for the outcome of the action, Aeneas’ responsibility would have been more clearly pointed out.

⁷² See Harder, A., Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos (Leiden 1985) esp. 126–31.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Easterling, P.E., ‘Euripides outside Athens: aspeculative note’, ICIS 19 (1994) 73–80Google Scholar, esp. 77–79. cf. also Allan, W., The ‘Andromache’ and Euripidean Tragedy (Oxford 2000) 149–60.Google Scholar By far the most detailed, as well as brilliantly argued, case for an early spread of Athenian tragedy outside Attica through (re)performance is Taplin, O., ‘Spreading the word through performance’, in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge 1999) 33–57Google Scholar, esp. 42 on Euripides in Macedon.

⁷⁴ Allan (n. 73) 150–51 argues that Andr. was in fact produced in Athens because, as he maintains, the mention of Callimachus (fr. 451 Pfeiffer) in the same scholion suggests that Athenian didascalic records were available for that play. But the scholiast cites Callimachus on a point (‘Callimachus says that the tragedy [the Andr.] was ascribed to Democrates’) for which information might well have been obtained from non-didascalic sources, for example, from manuscripts of the play claiming Democrates as its author. More importantly, the fact that the scholiast had access to Callimachus but was still unable to establish the play's date with any certainty suggests, precisely, that didascalic information on its première was lacking, in all likelihood owing to the reason the scholiast himself evokes, namely that Andr. was not produced in Athens.

⁷⁵ Taplin (n. 73) 48–52, quotation from (n. 73) 51.

⁷⁶ Hall (n. 64) 121–33, 160–65 and passim.

⁷⁷ For instance, in E., Tr. even Trojan characters use β⋯ρβρος (764, 973) in the depreciatory way one expects from an author such as Euripides whose viewpoint is fundamentally Greek-centred: Tr. 764 ὦ β⋯ρβαρ ⋯ξευρ⋯ντες Ἕλληνες κακ⋯, a line spoken by Andromache; Tr. 973 ὥσθ ⋯ μέν ᾌργος βαρβ⋯ροις ⋯πημπ⋯λα a line spoken by Hecuba. And in IT 1174, a barbarian king expresses disgust at a heinous crime: οủδ ⋯ν βαρβ⋯ροις ἔτλη τις ἄν.

⁷⁸ The ancient scholia ad loc. (338.6–10 Schwartz) explain: ‘we do not make light of our enemies (κα⋯ οũκ ⋯κφυλ⋯ζομεν αủτο⋯ς) but do our best to drive them away’. This is untenable, although adopted by several editors: μέμφαι does not mean ‘depreciate’ (⋯κφαυλ⋯ζω) but ‘blame, censure’. For μέμφομαι used absolutely (‘find fault, complain’), cf/A., Su. 137 οủμδέμέμφομαι (with Friis Johansen and Whittle ad loc); E., Med. 558 ἅλις γ⋯ρ οἱ γεγἶτες [sc. παῖδες] οủδέ μέμφομαι Hel. 637 οủκ ⋯μέμφθην ‘I have no fault to find’ (thus rightly Dale, pace Kannicht).

⁷⁹ See Hammond in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 137–39.

⁸⁰ Thus, the crushing defeat of Olynthus in 348 BC, in spite of the significant military assistance the Olynthians had received from Athens, was followed by Philip's unwavering willingness to use diplomacy rather than force in his dealings with Athens (even as he launched harassing operations against Athenian advanced bases!), and finally to negotiate the terms of what came to be known as the ‘Peace of Philocrates’ (346 BC); see Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 329–47. Similarly, ten years later, in the aftermath of Chaeronea (338 BC), Philip refrained from turning his triumph into an opportunity to crush Athens, as he certainly could have. Instead, he returned to the Athenians the bones of their dead soldiers, released hundreds of prisoners without ransom and proposed a peace treaty on more lenient terms than most would have dared to hope: see further Griffith in Hammond and Griffith (n. 27) 604–15.

⁸¹ For example, Ridgeway, W., ‘Euripides in Macedon’, CQ 20 (1926) 1–19Google Scholar, here 15–16; Ridgeway, W., ‘Rejoinder’, CQ 20 (1926) 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sneller, C.B., De Rheso tragoedia, (diss. Utrecht, Amsterdam 1949) 94–95Google Scholar with n. 1.

⁸² The catalogue of Aeschylus’ dramas found in the MSS (test. 78 1d, 2a Radt) mentions an Αἰτνα࿖αι γν⋯σιοι and an Αἰτνα࿖αι.

⁸³ Arist. Byz., fr. 385 Slater = Soph. test. 1, 76–77 Radt.

⁸⁴ See Peirithous test. ii Karmicht, and cf Pearson (n. 3) 61. For the argument that the tetralogy is by Critias, see principally von Wilamowitz, U., Analecta Euripidea (Berlin 1875) 161–72.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See, for example, Dihle, A., ‘Das Satyrspiel “Sisyphos”’, Hermes 105 (1977) 28–42Google Scholar (with polemical doxography at 29, n. 2); Dihle, A., ‘Philosophie und Tradition im 5. Jahrhundert v. C.’, in Wegweisende Antike: Zur Aktualität humanistischer Bildung (Humanistische Bildung Beiheft 1) (Stuttgart 1986) 13–24Google Scholar, esp. 16–17 with nn. 16–17. Against the spuriousness theory (‘the grounds for denying the Euripidean authorship of the Peirithous are grossly inadequate’), see also Sutton, D.F., Two Lost Plays of Euripides (New York 1987) 5–81Google Scholar (quotation from 10); Collard, C., ‘The Pirithous fragments’, in López Férez, J.A. (ed.), De Homero a Libanio (Madrid 1995) 183–93Google Scholar = Collard, C., Tragédy, Euripides and Euripideans (Exeter 2007) 56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar (with a mainly bibliographic ‘Endnote 2006’ at 67–68).

⁸⁶ Kannicht, R. (ed.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmentu, vol. 5.2: Euripides (Göttingen 2004) 659CrossRefGoogle Scholar speculates that for reasons now unknown attribution of the Peirithous tetralogy, which was really the work of Critias, fluctuated between Euripides and Critias in the Didascaliae, and that it was eventually inserted by the Alexandrians into the Euripidean corpus.

⁸⁷ cf. Nöldeke (n. 26) 14. In Liapis (n. 9) 182–87,1 suggested, πα⋯ζων οủδ⋯ν ἧττον ἢ σπουδ⋯ζων, that the substitution may have been effected on purpose by someone sufficiently disgruntled with Athens to want to pass off as Euripidean a play which like Rhesus displayed anti-Athenian feeling (cf especially Rhesus 938–49). As an obvious candidate I suggested Demetrius of Phaleron, who was both expelled from Athens after its ‘liberation’ by Demetrius Poliorcetes and seems to have played a central role in the founding of the Library of Alexandria. I have since been apprized that Demetrius has been held responsible for yet another forgery, namely the Hieron attributed to Xenophon: see Lincke, K., ‘Xenophons Hieron und Demetrios von Phaleron’, Philologus 58 (1899) 224–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Although benevolent readers found it charmingly amusing, my old hypothesis is entirely fanciful, and much less economical than the one adopted here.

⁸⁸ Kirchhoff, A., ‘Das argument zum Rhesos’, Philologus 7 (1852) 559–64Google Scholar (563) interprets ‘two prologues are extant’; but this is not what the Greek says.

⁸⁹ cf. Denniston, J.D., The Greek Particles (Oxford²1950) 451–53.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Both supplements are based on E., Ion 1158. See Kannicht's app. crit. ad E., Rhesus test. i a 8 (TrGF 5.2, p. 643); Diggle's app. crit. to Rhesus, ad init. cf. Liapis (n. 9) 174.

⁹¹ cf. E., Ion 84–85; Verg., A. 3.521, 4.6–7, 5.42–43; Ov., Met. 2.112–15, 7.100; Am. 1.13.27–28; Sen., Herc. O. 614; Oct. 1–2; see further Diggle on E., Phaeth. 66. The concept is evidently of Indo-European origin, cf. Rgveda 1.92.5 ‘[Dawn] spreads herself out, driving back the formless black abyss’; Rgveda 1.92.11 ‘she pushes aside her sister’; cf. 10.127.3 ‘[Night] has drawn near, pushing aside her sister the day; darkness, too, will give way’ (trsl. W. Doniger). For the IndoEuropean concept of the Dawn's chariot (transferred from the Sun's horses and chariot), see West, M.L., IndoEuropean Poetry and Myth (Oxford 2007) 222–23, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² Thus D. Mastronarde, review of Kovacs, D. (ed.), Euripides VI: Bacchae, Iphigenia in Aulis, Rhesus (Loeb Classical Library 495) (Cambridge, Mass. and London 2002)Google Scholar, Electronic Antiquity 8.1 (2004) 15–30 (17), in the wake of Morstadt (n. 15) 72–74, with corr.on vi-viii.

⁹³ Naturally, μέν would have here its common inceptive function, cf Denniston (n. 89) 382–83.

⁹⁴ That the information on the second prologue must also have formed part of the same Dicaearchus quotation was argued most recently by Liapis, V., ‘An ancient hypothesis to Rhesus, and Dicaearchus’ Hypotheseis’, GRBS 42 (2001) 313–28Google Scholar, esp. 317–20. In that paper, I pointed out that γρ⋯φει κατ⋯ λέξιν οὕτως regularly prefaces extensive quotations; cf already Kirchhoff (n. 88) 563–64 and especially Ritchie (n. 3) 31.

⁹⁵ cf. already Hagenbach (n. 3) 14; Liapis (n. 9) 174.

⁹⁶ See Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968) 105–08.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ cf. on this point A. Matthiae (ed.), Euripidis tragoediae et fragmenta, vol. VIII (Leipzig 1824) 4–5; Wilamowitz (n. 71) 285 = 413.

⁹⁸ Ritchie (n. 3) 21–22, 24.

⁹⁹ See Ritchie (n. 3) 2–4.

¹⁰⁰ For Asclepiades’ date, see Liapis, V., ‘Epicharmus, Asclepiades of Tragilus, and the Rhesus: lessons from a lexicographical entry’, ZPE 143 (2003) 19–22Google Scholar (21 n. 18).

¹⁰¹ Asclep. TragiL, FGrHist 12 F 5 = Hsch. ρ 272 (III 428 Schmidt) = Phot., Lex. 486, 18 Porson = Suda ρ 143 (IV 291, 28 Adler): ῤησ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς, ὃς †αἱαει (θροεῖ Liapis (n. 100) 19–20) τ⋯ θέσφαα. παρ Ἐπιχ⋯ρμωι (fr. 206 K.-A.). ἤτοι παρ⋯ τ⋯ν ῥ⋯σιν εἵρηκεν ἤ ὡς Ἀσκληπι⋯δης ⋯λ⋯θειαν εἰπεῖν ⋯γένετο κα⋯ ἕτερος The cormexion with Rhesus 970–73, a passage dwelling on Rhesus’ posthumous status as ‘prophet of Bacchus’ (cf θέσφατα, ‘prophetic utterances’, in the Asclep. Tragil. passage), was first suggested by Kaibel, G. (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1.1 (Berlin 1899) 128Google Scholar (app. ad fr. 205); cf also F. Jacoby in FGrHist Ia, p. 485; R. Kassel and C. Austin in app. crit. ad Epich. fr. 206.

¹⁰² Apulian red-figure volute crater by the Rhesus painter, Staatl. Mus. Berlin V.I. 3157 = LIMC VIII.1, 1045 no. 3 (ca. 350 BC); Apulian red-figure situla by the Lycurgus painter, Mus. Naz. Naples 81863 = LIMC VIII.1, 1046 no. 6 (ca. 360–350 BC); Apulian red-figure volute crater by the Darius painter, Staatl. Mus. Berlin 1984.39 = LIMC Vlll.l, 1045–6 no. 4 (ca. 340 BC). On the possibility of theatrical influence on these vases see Webster, T.B.L., Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr Play (BICS Suppl. 20) (London² 1967) 167Google Scholar; Trendall, A.D. and Webster, T.B.L., Illustrations of Greek Drama (London 1971) 112–13.Google Scholar On the first and second vases cited above, see also Trendall, A.D. and Cambitoglou, A., The Red-Figured Vases of Apulia, vol. I (Oxford 1978) 441Google Scholar, no. 102a, 417–18, no. 18; on the third see Trendall, A.D. and Cambitoglou, A., Second Supplement to the Red-Figured Vases of Apulia, Part I (BICS Suppl. 60) (London 1991) 146Google Scholar, no. 17a. The most up-to-date, detailed and judicious discussion of all three vases is Giuliani, L., ‘Rhesus between dream and death: on the relation of image to literature in Apulian vase-painting’, BICS 41 (1996) 71–86Google Scholar with pls 14–20, esp. 76–85 with pls 16–20. For criticism of Giuliani see however Taplin, O., Pots & Plays (Los Angeles 2007) 165Google Scholar with n. 21–22.

¹⁰³ The point is missed by Giuliani (n. 102) 79, who oddly asserts that ‘a decisive feature of the legend consisted precisely in the fact that none of the Thracians wakes up, none flees’

¹⁰⁴ Taplin (n. 102) 161.

¹⁰⁵ On the seated figure's identification with the Muse, see Giuliani (n. 102) 81. On telescoping in theatre-inspired vase-paintings of scenes belonging to different parts of a play, cf. Taplin, O., ‘The Pictorial Record’, in Easterling, P.E. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1997) 69–90,here 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Rhesus 279, 351, 386, 394, 652, 920, 929. See Giuliani (n. 102) 81; cf. LIMC VII.1 (1994) 815, no. 2.

¹⁰⁷ Thus Taplin (n. 102) 163–65 with n. 129.