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