In the anapaestic sequences of Eur. Alc. 93–7 and 105–11, a fast-paced exchange takes place between two choreuts (or two groups of choreuts) eager to learn about Alcestis’ fate. The two passages pose several metrical and textual problems.Footnote 1 The most serious is the presence at lines 94 and 106 of the ᴗ ᴗ – – sequence (a ‘catalectic monometer’), which finds no parallel in anapaestic poetry from any age or literary genre.Footnote 2 The same sequence occurs at the beginning of the short anapaestic coda of lines 132–5, which, whether authentic or not,Footnote 3 from a metrical point of view presents certain affinities with the two previous sequences.
As regards lines 94 and 132, the attempts made to emend the transmitted text have yielded rather unconvincing results.Footnote 4 To this day, the most economical solution is the athetesis of the words νέκυς ἤδη at line 94 (Elmsley) and βασιλεῦσιν at line 132 (Haupt):Footnote 5
94 οὐ γὰρ δὴ φροῦδός γ’ ἐξ οἴκων {νέκυς ἤδη} – – – – – – – – {ᴗ ᴗ – –} 2an
132 πάντα γὰρ ἤδη τετέλεσται {βασιλεῦσιν} – ᴗ ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ – – {ᴗ ᴗ – –} 2an∧
The purpose of the interpolations would seem to be to aid the understanding of two sentences that might be perceived as being too elliptical. At line 94 (‘for she is not out of the house’) the word νέκυς makes the reference to the ἐκφορά explicit.Footnote 6 As regards line 132, the introduction of the dative of agency (or advantage)Footnote 7 clarifies that the sentence should not be taken to mean ‘everything … is over’ (that is to say, Alcestis is dead) but rather ‘all the rites … have been accomplished’.Footnote 8
Be that as it may, a completely different situation—and possibly a far more straightforward explanation—may be found at line 106. Diggle's text reads as follows:
105 – καὶ μὴν τόδε κύριον ἦμαρ – – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – – 2an∧
106 – † τί τόδ’ αὐδᾷς; † ᴗ ᴗ – – ?
107 – ᾧ χρή σφε μολεῖν κατὰ γαίας. – – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – – 2an∧
An economical way of obtaining a coherent sequence at line 106 is to restore an anapaestic monometer.Footnote 9 Hermann thus emends αὐδᾷς to αὐδάσεις:Footnote 10
The Dorism may be justified by the co-presence, at lines 93–7 and 105–11, of Doric forms (93, 108) and Attic-Ionic ones (97, 105, 111).Footnote 11 The future is instead explained by Hermann in the light of the Euripidean use of τί λέξεις; to express ‘a horrified “what do you mean to say?”’;Footnote 12 yet this usage would seem to be confined to the verb λέγειν. The crux of the matter, however, is the demonstrative τόδ(ε), which can only refer to what has just been stated at line 105 (‘What is this you are saying?’). The only parallel I was able to find in support of Hermann's conjecture is Aesch. Supp. 460 (λέξον τίν̓ αὐδὴν τήνδε γηρυθεῖσ̓ ἔσῃ), where a periphrasis with a ‘timeless’ aorist participle is employed.Footnote 13 Beside this passage, the combination τίς ὅδε (or ὅδε τίς) appears to require, in Euripides as well as in the other two tragedians, the present or the aorist.Footnote 14 In particular, an interrogative clause with τί τόδε followed by a uerbum dicendi in the present occurs, in a similar context to that of Alc. 105–7, at Hec. 186–9 (τέκνον τέκνον μελέας ματρός—: | τί τόδ̓ ἀγγέλλεις;: | σφάξαι σ̓ Ἀργείων κοινὰ | συντείνει … γνώμα),Footnote 15 Or. 790–1 (κεῖνό μοι μόνον πρόσαντες—: τί τόδε καινὸν αὖ λέγεις;: | μὴ θεαί μ̓ οἴστρῳ κατάσχωσ̓)Footnote 16 and Soph. OC 208–10 (ὦ ξένοι, ἀπόπολις· ἀλλὰ μή— : | τί τόδ̓ ἀπεννέπεις, γέρον;: | μὴ μή μ̓ ἀνέρῃ τίς εἰ|μι). In the light of what has been argued so far, Hermann's conjecture is at least questionable.
One way of restoring an anapaestic monometer at line 106 without changing the present tense would be to integrate a syllable not after but before αὐδᾷς:
The corruption would not appear to be due to graphic or phonetic factors. The dropping of the preverb ἐκ-/ἐξ- as a mere oversight can be observed, for instance, at Heracl. 129, Cyc. 456, Alc. 298 (MS V), Med. [361] (MS O) and Andr. 1040 (MSS MODAVLP). The error may partly have arisen because of the relative rarity of the compound form (nine occurrences in EuripidesFootnote 17 against forty occurrences of αὐδᾶνFootnote 18). The primary meaning of ἐξαυδᾶν would appear to be ‘speak out’ (LSJ s.v.), by contrast to an attitude of reticence: this is, for instance, the case at Hec. 183 (ἐξαύδα· μὴ κρύψῃς δαρόν). Nevertheless, ἐξαυδᾶν can be used as a generic uerbum dicendi, as at Eur. Supp. 143 (δύο γὰρ ἐξαυδᾷς ἅμα) and Soph. Phil. 1244 (σοφὸς πεφυκὼς οὐδὲν ἐξαυδᾷς σοφόν). Sometimes, especially in the context of public statements, the verb carries a nuance of solemnity,Footnote 19 which would agree with the almost oracular tone of lines 105 and 107. One can refer to Pind. Nem. 10.79–80 (Ζεὺς … | … τόδ’ ἐξαύδασ’ ἔπος) as well as Eur. Phoen. 1249 (λόγοις ἐθάρσυνόν τε κἀξηύδων τάδε) and, especially, fr. 223.7–10 K. (Antiope), which presents a situation very similar to that of the Alcestis passage:
With this solemn proclamation, Amphion envisages two possibilities: triumph over his and his loved ones’ enemies, or death ‘in this day's light’ (compare τόδε κύριον ἦμαρ). In the case of Alc. 106, the meaning would be: ‘what is this declaration you are making?’
