^{page 200 note 1} Some minor gaps in P were not discussed, those at 1036 (two-thirds of an iambic couplet), 1174 (? two words), and a number of smaller omissions (e.g. 1353, 1358, 1384); for all these, see Dodds. The frequency of such omissions increases sharply towards the end, either because the copyist was racing for home, or because the last pages of his exemplar were defaced by blots and stains.

^{page 200 note 2} Here also, as in Part I, I owe much to Dodds', E. R.Bacchae (ed. 2, Oxford, 1960). Even when I disagree with him, the material he has assembled provides the necessary basis for discussion. And I must repeat my indebtedness to the helpful suggestions and patience of Professor D. L. Page and Professor K. J. Dover.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Cf. X. An. ii. 3. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Barrett, , p. 310; and cf. 1003 below.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} False variants at the end of lines are very common, especially dissyllables. Cf. 227 P; 1087 P. Ant. et Chr. Pat., P. Some at least of these variants are likely to be ancient (Barrett, , pp. 53–57) and caused by casual memory (actors ?); others may be due to the proximity of the margin.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} The only worthwhile suggestion is that of Paley: the Nile was believed to discharge mud far out into the Mediterranean (Stat. Theb. viii. 361 ff.Google Scholar), and Manilius was capable of the hyperbole Aegyptique Cypros pulsatur fluctibus amnis (Astr. 4. 635). I see no reason at all for supposing (with Housman) a connexion with the present passage; is very different from pulsare. If a Roman poet knew of an Euripidean hyperbole to the effect that the Nile fertilized Cyprus (let alone Paphos), we may be sure that he would have increased, not diminished, the hyperbole in his own version of it (cf. 661).

^{page 222 note 4} The oft-propounded question ‘why should the Chorus want to go to Cyprus?’ (Verrall, Norwood, etc.) shows a basic misunderstanding of the rhetorical structure; Cyprus and Egypt are romantically distant and offer attractions to devotees of ecstatic religion, especially to orientals like the Chorus—more we need not look for. What the Chorus long for in this ode is not so much ‘orgies’ as an escape from (395, 427), who at this point seem to be identifiable with opponents of Dionysus. Seen in this light the whole of Stasimon 1 is coherent. See on 427 ff., 877 ff., and 1005 ff.

^{page 223 note 2} Such an error would be most likely occur when the uncial archetype was f transcribed into minuscules (Barrett, , pp. 57 ff.); the ancient codex is likely enough to have had interlinear annotations obsc ing the tops of the letters. And there n well have been a marginal note about Paphos (402–5).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Cf. 982, which I take to be a comparable usage (q.v.); so too 905 (Elmsley) which is perhaps the likeliest adjustment of P. (See further p. 227 n. 2.)

^{page 224 note 2} It is far from certain that 412 and 427 should be iambic dimeters (like 414 ˜ 431): cf. 875–6 ˜ 895–6 for a solitary iambic dimeter, followed by an enoplion, forming a strophic cadence. It is possible that 412 and 427 should be read as (Barrett's ‘9-syllable blunt’ aeolic with resolution: see also on 573 below); and it is easier to make 412 match 427 than vice versa (see Dodds). But a suggestion for 427 is offered in the app. crit.

^{page 224 note 3} (Aid.) is probably a mere guess. I doubt whether the corruption here is purely accidental; it is curious that almost every time ‘the right side’ displays coolness towards and the text should show symptoms of dislocation (cf. 200 ff., 877 ff., 1005 ff.). With the cult of in later antiquity it is hardly surprising that apparent blasphemy from a Chorus should be bowdlerized—if not deliberately, then by progressive misunderstanding and well-meaning rectification. Ba. would be strong drink for those brought up in the milk-and-water tradition of pious sentiments exemplified by Hor. AP 196–201.

^{page 224 note 4} Cf. 1113, where P. Ant. has , probably rightly (Dodds), against P's hitherto unchallenged and are much more similar than Perhaps we should restore at 118 also: makes excellent dramatic sense, showing that the Chorus have recently become aware of the of the Theban women; 116–19 do not of course refer to the generalized antecedents of any recalls 35–36), and helps to particularize the description.

^{page 225 note 1} I suspect another example in Med. 158 The word-rhythms are strikingly similar to Ba. 416 ˜ 433, though Med. 183 is a syllable short. The simplest way of adding a syllable, and at the same time of accounting for can only be an attempted improvement), is to write The popular (Wecklein) postulates a less probable corruption, and yields inferior word-order (can one really construe with rather than with ?); moreover, a disjunct request (with asyndeton) suits the overall structure better.

^{page 225 note 2} L2/l can be safely disregarded: someone at a late stage tried to produce the absurd and ungrammatical sense ‘and that the rabble have inferior views, this I would say’.

^{page 225 note 3} Gf. also 894. Apart from the Parodos, all the choric odes in Ba. are closely related to revelations or statements in the immediately preceding scenes—see below on 859–61 (p. 228, n. 1) and 1002–4 (p. 234, n. 5); also Dodds on 395.

^{page 226 note 1} such a clumsy article is a priori suspect in lyrics. The second introduces a third unnamed and unidentifiable river, though doubtless whoever inserted it had no such intention—he was merely unaware that could be adjectival.

^{page 226 note 2} Dodds but apart from other unusual features (e.g. ) it is difficult to justify the final brevis in longo.

^{page 227 note 1} 427 (˜ 412) is analogous, unless we emend to produce an iambic dimeter (q.v.) is the counterpart of

^{page 227 note 2} Cf. also the three successive pairs of hipponactean + glyconic at 902–7: 903 is surely in this context, not; trochaic dimeter (the choriambic base is resolved in 107, 122, 123, 877); 905 may be either (with Elmsley), or perhaps with … Dodds argues, per haps rightly, that is more meaningful and cf. in a very similar song at 421. (Murray) is a surprising incongruity.

^{page 227 note 3} The transposition printed in the Oxford Text is certainly wrong; not only is the misplaced an unwelcome feature, but Wilamo-witz's explanation of the error is nonsensical. is supposed to have been omitted and replaced before the wrong but there is only one in his corrected text, and one can hardly visualize an earlier erroneous The better alternative postulates omission and replacement before the wrong and a later insertion of : this is imaginable, but one cannot call it likely.

^{page 228 note 1} Cf. on 1002–4 (n- 5), for a comparable link between 965 and the Fourth Stasimon.

^{page 228 note 2} In this I differ from ‘Maguire and others’ (Dodds, p. 181 n.): they, apparently, interpret the predicate as I prefer to view it as with covering as well as The position of in the word-order would seem to favour this interpretation; moreover, if, as I believe, the second limb of the antithesis carries the greater emphasis (‘though most powerful as a god, nevertheless most gentle to men’), the first phrase should not be the longer of the two.

^{page 229 note 1} Unless the origin of the idiom is something like —‘those powerful in respect of office’.

^{page 230 note 1} Dodds advocates on metrical and linguistic grounds: (a) gives a normal choriam- bic dimeter (glyconic a), which we may expect in such an otherwise regular metrical pattern. (b) ‘What is the fairer boon than … ?’ is scarcely grammatical.

^{page 230 note 2} Epexegetic is the normal usage when a questioner answers his own question with another. Cf. 1290 ( P) and S. OT 622 () for an enclitic following .

^{page 230 note 3} is something that can be ‘found through keen wits’ (203), ‘given by the gods’ (877–8), and ‘pursued’ (1005–6), but distinct from ‘wisdom’ (395). ‘Cleverness’ is clearly too limited, and question-begging with its derogatory overtones; ‘intellec tuality’ is fair, but too unwieldy a word; ‘braininess’ comes closest, perhaps, but is hardly an attractive rendering. We should not repine at our inability to find a perfect equivalent: the whole point is that is an ‘unknown’ which it is one purpose of the drama to evaluate.

^{page 230 note 4} Dodds believes that the Messenger at 1150–2 is giving 'a significantly different view of and This is inherently improbable: the sentiments expressed by the Messenger are in the nature of a final ‘moral’, and his admired virtues (1150) are close to those praised by the Chorus in 1008 ff. At such a late stage of the drama, Messenger and Chorus are sure to have used key words in the same sense. The truth, surely, is that in 877–81 the Chorus are not yet clear about the meaning of and (see p. 231, n. 2 below).

^{page 231 note 1} For other uses of the proverb in antiquity, see Dodds. What the Muses meant by it at the marriage feast of Cadmus (Theogn, . 15 ff.Google Scholar) is obscure: in the context of an epithalamium, ‘the lovely is beloved’ may suggest a compliment to the excellence of the bridal pair; but as spoken by the Muses we may look for a wider application: ‘the beautiful is cherished, the ugly is not’ is an epitome of Greek aesthetics. In the field of ethics the proverb is remarkably similar to ‘For where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also’ (Matt. v. 21), both in its external form and in its unlimited range of applicability to different interpretations of The purely selfish application to those who pursue their own advantage is not attested till much later, and would seem to involve a false equation with

^{page 231 note 2} It is, incidentally, but perhaps significantly, the first time that the Chorus use the adjective at all (if we discount 108, 409, and 575, which are merely applied to physically ‘beautiful’ things). 877–81 is thus the first step towards an ethical definition of this difficult word also (see p. 230, n. 4).

^{page 232 note 1} The only shot worth mentioning is (Wecklein), but here too is the commoner word and corruption to unlikely; moreover, the verbless relative clause has a makeshift air. But at least it retains the metre.

^{page 233 note 1} For the position of the enclitic cf. Barrett, on Hp. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} IT 1428–9 are interesting, where and are paired as possible means of execution. Tyrrell thought could have intruded as a reminiscence of this pas sage; this is untenable, for there is nothing to suggest ‘death by rock’ in On the contrary, I should prefer to suppose that IT 1428 tends to support here, by showing how the word was suggested to the poet; later Pentheus is to be both stoned and impaled, and these thoughts may have been passing in Euripides’ mind; though it is impossible to guess whether a fifth-century listener would have caught sinister overtones in

^{page 233 note 3} That in this usage follows the noun, rather than precedes the verb, is shown, for example, by Il. viii. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} is a small change, the terminations being often hard to distinguish in manuscripts (cf. P—surely for —immediately preceding); I owe this suggestion to Professor Page, who also led me, via to the most economical rectification of the metre in 1003.

^{page 234 note 2} Penultimate anceps in 1004 (˜ 984): cf. 977 ˜ 997, and 985 ˜ 1005.

^{page 234 note 3} Intrusion of prepositions is very fre quent: cf. 20 (q.v.) and Barrett, , p. 310.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 4} See Barrett, , p. 268, for this tendency in dochmiac passages. 1188 is a perfect example in Ba.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} Dodds, though rightly determined to keep ‘death’, toys with but 997–1002 are evidently a commentary on Dionysus’ outrageous statement 965, showing that Dionysus was in one sense speaking the truth. Death, the Chorus are saying, is indeed a way of salvation for the mad.

^{page 234 note 6} Aristarch. Trag. 3, which may have influenced our passage.

^{page 234 note 7} is hardly ad missible as a dochmius, and certainly un welcome in a conjecture. Rare examples of the rhythm are known ( Tr. 312, and HF 1058); but in both these the words form a self-contained phrase, and may not be dochmii at all. One would have to argue that is here an extension of (983) and (1021) by progressive resolution, but such an argument is at best hypothetical. See also Barrett, , p. 434,Google Scholar and Conomis, , Hermes xcii (1964), 23 ff. The parallels sited by Dodds himself are seemingly irrelevant.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 8} Accepting the text of Murray and Dodds (with the generally adopted corrections in 381, g8g, 999, 1001, but not 985–6 [q.v.]) ind permitting penultimate anceps (n. 2, above), the only remaining anomaly is 978 ( suppl. Scaliger); it is likely that the correspondence was exact here, but one must remain uncertain whether 998 is substantially corrupt (e.g. [Mekler] for ) or whether could be scanned as a dissyllable (Barrett, , p. 434).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} See Introduction to Part I (summarized in the Introduction above).

^{page 235 note 2} Discussion of 1005–6 has been bedevilled by the habit of writing and then emending it to a different verb, e.g. (Headlam); there is neither evidence nor probability that was ever the reading, since takes the dative.

^{page 235 note 3} awkward Greek: grammatically improved, perhaps, by the addition (Musgrave); but the lumpish result is hardly lyrical.

^{page 236 note 1} The closing lines of the Messenger’ narrative are generally and rightly inter preted as conveying the moral of the play It is highly significant that the Messenge continues elsewhere opposed (877 ff., 1005 ff.), are at last reconciled.

^{page 236 note 2} 200, 203: the deletion of 201–2 wa proposed in Part I.

^{page 236 note 3} Cf. Ar. Th. 375-a very ‘Euripidean’ phrase.

^{page 236 note 4} Cf. E. fr. 909. 1; and cf. 472 —Pentheus was refused an inswer at the time, but 473 seems to suggest that an answer will be given later in the play.

^{page 238 note 1} An alternative explanation is that could already mean ‘lathe-turned disks’, and that the process described is ‘stencilling’; this cannot be more than a guess, in the absence of other extant uses of the plural.

^{page 240 note 1} Dodds disputes the technological use of finding it ‘inappropriate in tragedy’: but the tone is here epic (a Messenger-speech -cf. ), and detailed pro cesses of carpentry are a characteristic ele ment in epic similes (e.g. Od. ix. 384–6). This in itself makes it likely that the image was originally a single one, with introdu cing an indicative verb, not a noun qualified by a relative clause.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} The error seems likely to be archetypal. for some degree of ‘rectification’ has tc be postulated whatever interpretation is adopted, and P himself was apparently in capable of a constructive grammatical ap proach (for which we may well be grateful), I should guess that the uncial codex was here misread (it is likely enough that there was a crop of marginalia to confuse the copyist), But it would not be surprising if a new papyrus fragment showed the error to be much more ancient.

^{page 240 note 3} Compare Med. 1181–2: explained, and we do not want one leg of a course: means the finish, not some artificial halfway mark. I suggest (his legs) (Schaefer) or (Musgrave). (pace Page, ad loc.) is against the tradition both here and in El. 883; also context and language here favour a longer course, while the point in El. cannot be a sprint. Galen's suggests a modified form of an (= ?) that originally spiralled inwards in a square : thus the metaphors in El. and Thphr. Char. 23. 2 are of ‘running round in circles’.

^{page 241 note 1} (Kirchhoff, Madvig, citing Tr. 383) necessitates a major stop at with asyndeton just where the period should be flowing to a smooth close. (Heath) is rightly condemned by Dodds.

^{page 241 note 2} See above on 984 (p. 233, n. 2) for the possibility of another such indirect allusion to the impaling of Pentheus.

^{page 242 note 1} Musurus, P (crassly). P's sheer carelessness in the last hundred lines ol Ba. may be sufficient to account for the mistakes in 1377; but the coherence of the three errors suggests an earlier, more constructive mind than that of P, who evidently thought little about what he was writing as he neared the end of his task.