The text of Euripides, Heracles 765–7 found in the manuscript Laurentianus plut. 32.2 (L) fol. 101v, is as follows:Footnote ¹

Heracles has returned and killed the tyrant Lycus. Everything has changed and the city of Thebes gathers to celebrate the hero with dances and songs. In the antistrophe, at lines 774–6, the chorus reflects on the consequences of wealth and good fortune. Together they can deprive a person of reason and lead to his exercising power unjustly. This is the text, the same as L, with only one change specified in the apparatus, which has no impact on the problem discussed in this paper:

Comparison of 767 ἔτϵκον ἀοιδάς and 776 δύνασιν ἄδικον ἐϕέλκων reveals their metrical incompatibility: 767 ἔτϵκον ἀοιδάς is an iambic penthemimer or reizianum with resolution (⏑ ⏖ ⏑ ⏤ ⏤), whereas 776 δύνασιν ἄδικον ϵ̓ϕϵ́λκων is a catalectic iambic dimeter with two resolutions (⏑ ⏖ ⏑ ⏖ ⏑ ⏤ ⏤). Metrical analysis highlights two possibilities: (a) there is a word intrusion at 776; (b) there is an omission at 767, before or after ἔτϵκον, where a tribrachic word (⏑ ⏑ ⏑) is needed, although an iambic (⏑ ⏤) or spondaic (⏤ ⏤) word before ἔτϵκον is also possible.

Considering the first possibility, Triclinius attempted to resolve the problem by moving ἐϕέλκων.Footnote ² This solution is implausible because it ensures uniformity only in the number of syllables (six), without addressing the underlying metrical issues. Hermann’s deletion of ἄδικονFootnote ³ is problematic too, since the adjective is crucial for defining the type of power lost through the gods’ actions.Footnote ⁴ Therefore, the textual problem must be addressed within the strophic line.

Three different additions have been proposed. Bothe suggested repeating the verb ἔτϵκον,Footnote ⁵ while the other two supplements are adjectives qualifying the songs: Wilamowitz’s νέαςFootnote ⁶ and Bond’s ἄλλας.Footnote ⁷ Bothe’s second ἔτϵκον repeats the tribrach of the antistrophic line and other words are repeated to express joy: 763 χοροì χοροί; 764–5 μϵταλλαγαì … μϵταλλαγαί; 772 θϵοì θϵοί.Footnote ⁸ For the same anadiplosis, see Soph. Trach. 893 ἔτϵκ’ ἔτϵκϵ and Eur. Or. 989 ἔτϵκϵν ἔτϵκϵ (semel L). But the suggestion oversimplifies the issue and does not fully address the complexity of Euripides’ linguistic style; as will be seen, Euripides often employs the technique of using similar words with slight variations to achieve an artistic effect. Wilamowitz’s νέας provides good senseFootnote ⁹ but lacks strong palaeographical justification. The omission could be attributed to the repetition of the ending -ας, but συντυχίας and νέας are in two different lines. While the responsion is appropriate, it does not precisely replicate the metrical shape of the antistrophe, replacing a tribrach (⏑ ⏑ ⏑) with an iambic foot (⏑ ⏤). Bond suggested that the omission of ἄλλας may be influenced by the neighbouring word μϵταλλαγαί; but since the metrical shape of the antistrophe is different, this involves a tribrach (⏑ ⏑ ⏑) responding to a spondee (⏤ ⏤). None of these proposals has won a general approval, and the text is usually printed with a lacuna marked before ἔτϵκον.Footnote ¹⁰

As just noted, Euripides often employs the technique of placing similar-sounding words side by side to achieve poetic, rhetorical and musical effects. Therefore, I propose supplementing a different word: ἔτρϵϕον, which produces the asyndetic rhyme that is so typical of Euripidean style. The combination of τίκτω and τρέϕω is common,Footnote ¹¹ and Euripides may be reversing the terms for rhetorical and pathetic effects: cf. El. 969 ἥ μ’ ἔθρϵψϵ κἄτϵκϵν.Footnote ¹² The same rhymed asyndeton recurs at IT 212–13 καὶ θῦμ’ οὐκ ϵὐγάθητον | ἔτϵκϵν ἔτρϵϕϵν ϵὐκταίαν.Footnote ¹³ For the rhymed asyndeton, see Supp. 800 ἀΰσατ᾽ ἀπύσατ᾽, 919 ἔτρϵϕον ἔϕϵρον, Ion 764 ἔλαβον ἔπαθον, Tro. 308 ἄνϵχϵ πάρϵχϵ, 1303 κλύϵτϵ μάθϵτϵ, 1310 ἀγόμϵθα ϕϵρόμϵθ’, 1325 ἐμάθϵτ’ ἐκλύϵτϵ, Or. 195 ἔκανϵς ἔθανϵς, IA 1317 ϕονϵύομαι διόλλυμαι, Cycl. 203 ἄνϵχϵ πάρϵχϵ, Erechth. fr. 370.34 Kannicht ϕϵρόμϵθ’ ἀγόμϵθ’.Footnote ¹⁴ Asyndeton enhances the emotional resonance of joy and happiness, helping to immerse the audience in a euphoric atmosphere.Footnote ¹⁵ Furthermore, another trisyllabic word creates an echo of trisyllabic and isometric words and a coincidence of word-ends between strophe and antistrophe:

The verb ἔτρϵϕον may have been left out because the repeated ending -ον creates an omission similar to saut du même au même, within the same line and between two assonant words.

Giving life to songs is a common metaphor: cf. Eur. Supp. 180 ἃν τίκτῃ μϵ́λη, Ar. Ran. 1059 τὰ ῥήματα τίκτϵιν, Philisc. fr. 1.5 W.² τϵκϵῖν τινα Λυσίᾳ ὕμνον, Callim. Aet. fr. 1.19–20 Harder ἀοιδὴν τίκτϵσθαι, Ia. 13.14 τὰ χωλὰ τίκτϵιν.Footnote ¹⁶ The verb ἔτρϵϕον extends this metaphor, establishing a logical progression of thought. A similar metaphor of generating and then nurturing true virtue can be found at Pl. Symp. 212a5–6 τϵκόντι δὲ ἀρϵτὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ θρϵψαμένῳ ὑπάρχϵι θϵοϕιλϵῖ γϵνέσθαι (‘the love of the gods belongs to anyone who has given birth to and nourished the true virtue’). Moreover, Euripides enriched this stasimon with stylistic features of epinician poetry;Footnote ¹⁷ and the imagine of metaphorical nourishment (τρέϕϵιν) is present in Pindaric passages, such as Ol. 1.112, where the Muse ‘nourishes’ poetic inspiration,Footnote ¹⁸ visualised as an arrow, or Ol. 10.95–6, where the Pierides ‘nourish’ glory for mortals.Footnote ¹⁹ The metaphorical value of τρέϕϵιν agrees with the Pindaric flavour of Heracles’ choral songs.Footnote ²⁰

The idea of bringing the songs to life and nourishing them shows us how Euripides interweaves dance, song and metaphorical language. The metaphor is so vivid that it comes alive in front of the audience. As a result, I propose the following text for Heracles 765–7: