Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:28:07.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Cyclops of Euripides1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

James Diggle
James Diggle
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pluralis inapposite, sinceωμος applied to a band of revellers is a collective noun and, however many times the band accompanied Dionysus, it is still the sameωμος and not a plurality ofωμοι. Dobree's and Bothe's κώμοις must face the same objection, unless it is understood as ‘songs’ (as at 492–3 ), in which case it becomes a feeble anticipation of οιδᾶις in 40. Florens Christianus' κμοί is negligible. Porson suggested κώμωι but left it unclear whether he interpreted Bακχίωι as adjective or noun. Bάκχιος is used adjectivally not more than once or twice in over thirty Euripidean examples (eight in this play), and the satyrs cannot be said to have accompanied a Bacchicωμος, for theωμος was constituted of the satyrs themselves. And yet Bακχίωι interpreted as a noun would produce an intolerably unstylish collocation of independent datives. Unimpeachable sense and style, and a strong candidate for corruption, would be furnished byωμος (, ‘serving alongside Bacchus as his revelling train’).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , May 1971, pp. 42 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 43 note 1 Similarly Kassel, R., Rh. Mus. xcviii (1955), 280–3.Google Scholar

page 43 note 2 In line 30 Triclinius' lame guessforωιδε does not deserve the respect which editors have accorded it. The deictic ὅδε may be used of a person who, though not on the stage, is present in the speaker's thoughts (cf. Platnauer on I.T. 558, Lloyd-Jones, H., CR. N.s. xv [1965], 241–2Google Scholar), and the collocation τάσδε, is inoffensive.

page 43 note 3 This conjecture, which I have not seen admitted into any text, is demanded by the imagery of the passage: for the image cf. Antiphanes 3. 2K, Schulze, W., Kleine Schriften (Göttingen, 1933), 713.Google Scholar The conjecture is ascribed by Wecklein to Seymour; Wilamowitz in his verse-translation seems to claim it for himself.

page 48 note 1 I have written ὠινοχόος for LP's οỉνοχόος and have retained LP's ινος. For the crasis cf. ὠιζυρός, Ar. Nub. 655, Vesp. 1504, 1514, Lys. 948, Theoc. 10. 1. Editors usually print Canter's οἱνοχόος (ὡιν–) andἱνος (ινος), but a vocative is more effective, as Murray saw (he prints οỉνοχόος andỉνος).