Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:29:08.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EURIPIDES, PROTESILAVS FR. 646A KANNICHT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2026

Paolo Santé
Paolo Santé*
Affiliation:
Montecatini Terme
*
paolo.sante@outlook.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note presents a new supplement for Euripides, Protesilaus fr. 646a Kannicht.

Keywords

EuripidesProtesilaustextual criticismiambic trimeterGreek metrePhotius

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , December 2025, pp. 972 - 975
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

The entry of Photius’ Lexicon α 1251 Theodoridis (= Phryn. Praep. Soph. fr. 171.155.8 de Borries)—first edited by R. Reitzenstein, Der Anfang des Lexicons des Photios (Leipzig, 1907), 95.13Footnote 1 —preserves fr. 646a Kannicht of Euripides’ Protesilaus as follows:Footnote 2 ἀμπρεύοντι· Eὐριπίδης Πρωτεσιλάῳ “ἕπου δὲ μοῦνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι” ἀντὶ τοῦ προηγουμένῳ καὶ ὀδηγοῦντί σε καὶ οἷον ἕλκοντι (“ἀμπρεύοντι: Euripides in Protesilaus: ‘just follow me as I guide you’, instead of as I walk before you and as I lead the way to you and as I drag you”).Footnote 3

The line has been regarded as corrupt owing to μοῦνον, which is not attested elsewhere in Euripides.Footnote 4 This epic and Ionic form appears in tragic diction for metrical purposes, drawing on a prestigious literary tradition.Footnote 5 Aeschylus does not use it.Footnote 6 Sophocles uses it thirteen times, mostly in iambic trimeter and in catalectic trochaic tetrameter, with a few instances in lyric passages and in anapaestic dimeter.Footnote 7 As well as in lyrical sections, however, forms with -ου- or -ει- are also occasionally found in Euripides’ iambics: cf. Alc. 947 γούνασιν; Andr. 892 γουνάτων; Hec. 752 and 839 γουνάτων; HF 872 Οὔλυμπος (a trochaic tetrameter); Tro. 215 Οὐλύμπου; Hel. 1098 κούρη; Andr. 889 τηλουρά; Or. 1325 τηλουρός; Tro. 14 δούρειος; ΙT 798 ξεῖν᾽ (L); El. 247 ὦ ξεῖνε (L, warranted by metre); Hel. 105 ὦ ξεῖν᾽ (L). Therefore, the form μοῦνος is not necessarily improper in Euripides; the avoidance of this form seems to be a trend rather than a strict rule.Footnote 8

Another issue is both metrical and textual. The fragment presents the following iambic pattern:

⏑ ⏤ ⏑ ⏤ ⏑ ⏤ ⏤ ⏤ ⏑ ⏤.

Content suggests dialogue and then iambic trimeters or trochaic tetrameters,Footnote 9 which Euripides used sparingly and mainly in later tragedies. Protesilaus is considered an early work because of the absence of resolutions.Footnote 10 Thus it seems more likely that the verse was an iambic trimeter.

Attempts have been made to reconstruct a trimeter as follows: ἕπου δὲ μοῦνον <ἐνθάδ᾽> ἀμπρεύοντί μοι and ἕπου δὲ <σὺ> μόνον <ἐνθάδ᾽> ἀμπρεύοντί μοι by van Herwerden; ἕπου δ᾽ <ἰδὼν> ὅμευνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι by Mekler.Footnote 11 None is successful. A gap after μοῦνον is unlikely (see below); van Herwerden’s second proposal introduces a tribrach (⏑ ⏑ ⏑), which goes against a feature of Protesilaus’ iambics; Mekler’s proposal changes the meaning too much.

To establish the likeliest location of the lacuna, we can examine Sophocles’ use of μοῦνος in iambics, as the young Euripides may have been particularly influenced by him.Footnote 12 There are fifteen occurrences, which we can divide into three types, based on the coincidence between the syllable μοῦ- and the long element: type a): Trach. 1209, OC 875; type b): Ant. 508, OC 1250; type c): Ant. 308, Ant. 705, Trach. 277, Aj. 1276, OT 304, OT 1418, El. 531, OC 991, frr. 314.55, 478 and **852.1 Radt.Footnote 13

The syllable μοῦ- recurs twice with the second element (13.33%) and the fourth element (13.33%), and eleven times with the sixth element (73.33%), as visualized below:

⏒ ⏤2 ⏑ ⏤2 ⏒ ⏤11 ⏑ ⏤ ⏒ ⏤ ⏑ ⏤.

Type a) is excluded because μοῦνον cannot be the second word in the sentence; type b) can be reconstructed in this way:

ἕπου δὲ μοῦνον <⏤ ⏑> ἀμπρεύοντί μοι.

This reconstruction is statistically less likely, as type c) is far more common. For type c) we can place the gap at the beginning:Footnote 14

<⏒ ⏤> ἕπου δὲ μοῦνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι.

Since δέ typically comes second, we must then assume that the first word of the verse was the end of a sentence, later omitted in the quotation, thereby compromising the iambic trimeter. A different restoration would run:

ἕπου δὲ <⏤ ⏒> μοῦνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι.

I therefore propose the following:

ἕπου δὲ <νῦν σε> μοῦνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι.

The inclusion of σε is supported by the entry, which provides a similar phrasing: … ἀντὶ τοῦ προηγουμένῳ καὶ ὀδηγοῦντί σε. The content of the gloss may derive from the ancient annotations to Euripides, which were anthologized by Photius and lexica in general. Therefore, σε could be a trace of the original text and μοῦνον might be an adjectiveFootnote 15 and not an adverb (= Lat. modo) as has been thought so far. The absence of νῦν can be explained as a form of haplography caused by the neighbouring μοῦνον.Footnote 16

Regarding context, this fragment probably belongs to a dialogue between Hermes and Protesilaus.Footnote 17 The imperative tone is appropriate for a god addressing a mortal. But is Hermes leading Protesilaus among the living or among the dead?Footnote 18 My textual reconstruction suits the moment when Protesilaus is being separated from Laodamia and returned to Hades. Hermes’ words underscore the separation of the lovers, emphasizing μοῦνον with tragic irony, since Laodamia’s suicide will reunite them in the Underworld. In journeys between worlds, mortals are passive, so ἀμπρεύειν highlights Hermes’ physical effort in transporting Protesilaus, as it denotes the action of dragging something heavy.Footnote 19 There may be a connection with the physical, not the ethereal,Footnote 20 nature of Protesilaus’ ghost.Footnote 21 The choice of ἀμπρεύειν can also evoke a coercion of Protesilaus, because his time was up. The entry provides the more common ἕλκειν (Lat. trahere), which may specifically connote forced dragging into Hades: see Myrinus 2.1–2 Gow–Page (= Anth. Pal. 6.254) Στατύλλιον … | ἕλκειν εἰς Ἀΐδην ἡνίκ’ ἔμελλε χρόνος; Eunap. VS 7.56.11–12 τὸν Μάξιμον, τραχηλάγχην ἐπιβαλόμενον, ἔφασκε ἕλκειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ᾅδην; Sen. Apocol. 11.6 Cyllenius illum collo obtorto trahit ad inferos a caelo.

As a result, I propose the following reconstruction:

<Hermes>

(to Protesilaus, who is being led back to Hades; Laodamia is probably also on stage)

ἕπου δὲ <νῦν σε> μοῦνον ἀμπρεύοντί μοι
follow me now as I lead you alone

Footnotes

*

Thanks go to Professors Pietro Giannini, Antonietta Gostoli and Esteban Calderón Dorda for reading a first draft; and to CQ’s Editors and reader for their remarks.

1 Berol. graec. oct. 22 (b) preserves the beginning of the work until ἄπαρνος and partially fills the gap of Galeanus (g) on which the old editions were based, where most of α–ε is missing.

2 For a reconstruction of the play, see F.G. Welcker, Die griechischen Tragödien: mit Rücksicht auf den epischen Cyclus, 3 vols. (Bonn, 1839–41), 2.494–9; M. Mayer, ‘Der Protesilaos des Euripides’, Hermes 20 (1885), 101–43; L. Séchan, ‘La légende de Protésilas’, BAGB 4 (1953), 3–27; F. Jouan, Euripide et les légendes des Chants Cypriens (Paris, 1966), 317–28; T.B.L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London, 1967), 97–8.

3 ἀμπρεύειν is rare: Callim. Hecale fr. 52 Hollis; Lycoph. Alex. 635, 975, 1298; Σ Ar. Lys. 289; and cf. Soph. fr. 820 Radt (ἀμπρευτής).

4 Reitzenstein placed a question mark after μοῦνον. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Zum Lexikon des Photios’, SPAW 2.1 (1907), 2–14 = Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1962), 4.528–41, at 535 left open the possibility that Euripides, still young when he wrote Protesilaus, was influenced by Sophocles’ style. His view becomes sharper in U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Sepulcri portuensis imagines’, SIFC 7 (1929), 91–100 = Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1937), 5.1.523–32, at 525 n. 3: “μοῦνον et per se ineptum est et ab Euripidis sermone alienum, qui Ionicam productionem non admittit”. B. Snell, Supplementum ad A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta continens nova fragmenta Euripidea et adespota apud scriptores veteres reperta adiecit (Hildesheim, 1964), 1034 and F. Jouan and H. van Looy (edd.), Euripide: Tragédies (Paris, 2000), 8.2.587–8 obelize μοῦνον; not so R. Kannicht (ed.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen, 2004), 5.1.636 and C. Collard and M. Cropp (edd.), Euripides. Fragments: Oedipus – Chrysippus, Other Fragments (Cambridge, MA and London, 2008), 111.

5 A. Willi, ‘Der Sprachraum der Tragödie’, in A. Willi (ed.), Formes et fonctions des langues littéraires en Grèce ancienne: neuf exposés suivis de discussions (Vandœuvres, 2019), 97–142 argues that these linguistic features are the result of an effort to turn colloquial Attic into a more formal Greek, without links to Ionian poetry (‘as far as the spoken parts of tragedy are concerned, ξεῖνος and μοῦνος are used with some frequency only by Sophocles, not by Aeschylus or Euripides; I cannot really say why this is so, and perhaps we simply have to accept that individual habits are at stake’, 139).

6 But see PV 804 μουνώψ, if this play is by him.

7 See R. Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts (Göttingen, 1976), 62–3. For the adverb μοῦνον or μόνον with an imperative, see Aesch. Supp. 1012; Soph. frr. 314.55 and 478 Radt; Eur. Alc. 1109, IT 1075, Or. 782.

8 LSJ s.v. μόνος contains an inaccuracy: ‘Ep. and Ion. μοῦνος … by E(uripides) only in μούναρχος’. But that stem is not found in Euripides (whereas μοναρχ- is).

9 Without the first five elements, as assumed by Renehan (n. 7), 63.

10 M.J. Cropp and G. Fick, Resolution and Chronology in Euripides. The Fragmentary Tragedies (London, 1985), 70 and 90 assign the play to 455–425; the ‘severe style’ is reaffirmed in M.J. Cropp and G. Fick, ‘Resolutions and chronology revisited: revised estimates for the dating of Euripides’ fragmentary tragedies’, in R. Niccolai and M. Sonnino (edd.), Euripide: prospettive di ricerca (Rome, 2025), 5–37, at 20. On the basis of resolution chronology and possible allusions to Alcestis, Kannicht (n. 4), 5.1.635 assigns the play to 455–428, Jouan and van Looy (n. 4), 8.2.574 to 438–430, Collard and Cropp (n. 4), 109 before 425; on shared motifs between Protesilaus and Alcestis, probably performed in 438 b.c., see Jouan (n. 2), 317–36, passim.

11 See H. van Herwerden, ‘Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den Anfang des Lexicons des Photios’, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 27 (1907), 285–6, at 285; S. Mekler, ‘Bemerkungen zu den Szenikerfragmenten im Anfang des Lexicons des Photios’, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 27 (1907), 381–3, at 382–3.

12 As Wilamowitz (n. 4 [1962]) already suggested.

13 Soph. fr. 260a Radt, likely an iambic trimeter, is corrupt; for type c), see also [Thespis] fr. 3.3 Snell and Trag. adesp. fr. 167c.2 Kannicht–Snell.

14 See Snell (n. 4); Kannicht (n. 4); H.J. Mette, Lustrum 23–4 (1981–2), 5–448, at 228.

15 See Soph. Aj. 359; Eur. Alc. 179–80; [Eur.] Rhes. 218; Lucian, Dial. meret. 12.2.

16 For ἕπου with νῦν/νυν, see Eur. Ion 741, Ar. Thesm. 279 and Lucian, Catapl. 13, where Hermes orders the tyrant Megapenthes to board Charon’s boat, a similar situation to that of Protesilaus (see below). Catapl. 8 ἡμιτελὴς γὰρ ὁ δόμος καταλέλειπται (= Hom. Il. 2.700–1) is a sure allusion to Protesilaus.

17 Wilamowitz (n. 4 [1962]), 535 spotted this straight away. Hermes as Protesilaus’ escort is suggested by Hyg. Fab. 103; Lucian, Dial. mort. 23.3; Apollod. Epit. 3.30; and three Roman sarcophagi, for which see F. Canciani in LIMC 7.1.554–60, s.v. Protesilaus.

18 For the first hypothesis, see Wilamowitz (n. 4 [1962]); Snell (n. 4); R. Lyne, ‘Love and death: Laodamia and Protesilaus in Catullus, Propertius, and others’, CQ 48 (1998), 200–12, at 202; Collard and Cropp (n. 4), 108. For the second, see Séchan (n. 2), 17 n. 102; Webster (n. 2), 97; Jouan and van Looy (n. 4), 8.2.579 n. 42; H. Pelliccia, ‘Unlocking Aeneid 6.460: Plautus’ Amphitryon, Euripides’ Protesilaus and the referents of Callimachus’ Coma’, CJ 106 (2010–11), 149–219, at 180.

19 This remark is due to CQ’s reader. For the link with ἀμπρόν, a rope used to pull heavy loads by pack animals, see P. Chantraine, Dictionaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris, 1968), 1.78 and R. Beekes and L. van Beek, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden, 2009), 1.92.

20 See Prop. 1.19.7–12.

21 See Lucian, Dial. mort. 23.3; Séchan (n. 2), 16; Collard and Cropp (n. 4), 108; Pelliccia (n. 18), 182–3; V. Liapis, ‘The somatics of the Greek dead’, in G.A. Gazis and A. Hooper (edd.), Aspects of Death and the Afterlife in Greek Literature (Liverpool, 2021), 33–47, at 43.