Euripides’ Ion is a play rather neglected by scholarship. In recent years, however, the interest of quite a few scholars has turned to this puzzling drama; the result has been the publication not only of various papers but also of two commentaries. The book under review is the most recent. G.'s commentary belongs to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series (aka ‘Green and Yellow’; for the series, see now R. Gibson, ‘Fifty Years of Green and Yellow,’ in S. Harrison and C. Pelling [edd.], Classical Scholarship and its History from the Renaissance to the Present [2021]). Although the series aims primarily at undergraduate and graduate students (in contrast to Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries series that aims at advanced students and scholars), G.'s commentary is a book to be read by all those interested in Euripides’ Ion.
The introduction, devoted to examining a range of topics, consists of ten chapters dealing with the major themes and questions of the play. G. focuses on Euripides’ life and works, Ion's myth, the play's stagecraft and production, Euripides’ dramatic technique, the play's characters, transmission of the text, political identities, ritual and religion, and the concept of revelation and deception. The most interesting is the ninth chapter (‘Genre and Tone’). G. treats with seriousness and sobriety an issue that has concerned and will continue to concern scholars: what genre does Ion belong to? Ion is a play that lacks a tragic catastrophe; it has several ‘light’ moments and elements that influenced New Comedy. On the one hand, I completely agree with G.'s position that we cannot consider this play to be a comedy; on the other hand, the generic identity of this play is so fluid and perplexed that G.'s argument that ‘the effects achieved in Ion are hard for us to pin down …, but acknowledging them as tragic is ultimately more instructive than dismissing the play as insufficiently serious or seeing it merely as the harbinger of later genres’ (p. 63) is fairly simplistic. As for the Greek, G. largely follows the text in J. Diggle's edition with some exceptions.
G.'s commentary is illuminating, thorough and offers a many-sided interpretation of Euripides’ enigmatic text. Each section of the play is prefaced by comments on such general matters as structure, style, staging, content, dramatic significance etc.
G.'s translations are in general insightful and contribute greatly to understanding Euripides’ puzzling language. For example, it is worth noting the translation of the verb ἐλαύνει in lines 67–8 (Λοξίας δὲ τὴν τύχην | ἐς τοῦτ’ ἐλαύνει) as ‘is guiding’ since G. achieves transcribing Apollo's decisive role in directing the play's plot into English. Additionally, G. is right in translating the noun συμφορά in lines 685–7 (οὐ γάρ με σαίνει θέσφατα μή τιν᾽ ἔχῃ δόλον. | δειμαίνω συμφοράν, | ἐφ᾽ ὅ<τι> ποτὲ βάσεται) as ‘the outcome’. The noun is neutral (and means ‘event, circumstance’ – cf. LSJ s.v. συμφορά). The exact meaning of the word (either ‘good luck’ or ‘misfortune’) is determined each time by its context (cf. A.S. Owen, Euripides: Ion [1937], p. 108 on l. 536). I am not quite sure, however, that the term συμφορά in lines 857–8 (κἀγώ, φίλη δέσποινα, συμφορὰν θέλω | κοινουμένη τήνδ᾽ ἢ θανεῖν ἢ ζῆν καλῶς) should be translated as ‘misfortune’. συμφορά here is ambiguous and refers to what is going to happen to Creusa in the future, whether it results in θανεῖν (‘to die’) or in ζῆν καλῶς (‘to live well/in honour’), and this ambiguity contributes to the dramatic suspense.
G. provides sections of metrical analysis, either prefaced or followed by short notes to the metrical schemes. However, there is little attempt at aesthetic comments on Ion's metrical rhythm. For example, in the second stasimon, Creusa's maids, having witnessed the false recognition between Xuthus and Ion, predict sadness and woes when their lady sees Xuthus with his ‘son’ (ll. 676–80). In these lines, both the tribrachys, which is noted in the noun δάκρυα (l. 676) and describes emotional charge, and Euripides’ metrical choices in this choral ode in general, with dochmiacs prevailing, could have been commented on. On the other hand, G.'s comments on lines 510–65 (pp. 207–8) are extraordinary; he clearly shows how Euripides’ metrical choices mirror metrically the content of the text and how they help us understand Ion's stage business.
The comments on terms or lines of the Ion are to be praised. G. manages to present to readers a full range of scholarly interpretations. He approaches the Ion as text, literature, performance and as a source to outline Euripides’ stance on the myth, religion etc. Almost all moments that are crucial or difficult to interpret are meticulously commented on. His analysis is so acute and eloquent that sometimes the reader has the desire for more. There are only a few instances that are not commented on where I would have liked to read G.'s remarks, for example, on the periphrastic perfect (aka Sophoclean form) occurring in lines 230 (Chorus: ἔχω μαθοῦσα) and 736 (Old Tutor: κοὐ καταισχύνασ’ ἔχεις), through which Euripides underlines something abnormal (for periphrastic perfect in Greek tragedy see J. Pouilloux, ‘Une particularité sophocléenne: La périphrase du participe aoriste et de ἔχω’, in Mélanges offerts à Octave et Melpo Merlier à l'occasion du 25e anniversaire de leur arrivée en Grèce [1957]). Moreover, his interesting comments on the parodos of the play would have benefited (mostly in terms of the vision verbs reoccurring) from B. Snell's The Discovery of the Mind (1953). G.'s book is concluded by a bibliography and two indexes (‘Greek Index’ and ‘Subject Index’). The parallels with ancient literature are numerous, and thankfully G. in general forgoes lists of citations in favour of quotation. Some good examples occur on p. 207 on ll. 510–65, p. 209 on ll. 517–27, p. 237 on ll. 725–1047, p. 326 on ll. 1421–3, pp. 343–4 on ll. 1549–622 (to mention just a few). Therefore, an index of these parallels would have helped readers (though I recognise that this is not something common in commentaries).
G. provides a thorough and up-to-date bibliography; thus, one is surprised to find no reference to: F. Dunn, ‘The Battle of the Sexes in Euripides’ Ion’, Ramus 19 (1990); A. Farrington, ‘Γνῶθι Σαυτόν. Social Self-Knowledge in Euripides’ Ion’, RhM 134 (1991); E.M. Griffiths, ‘Ion: An Edible Fairy Tale?’ in A Companion to Euripides (2007); K. Hartigan, ‘An Appendix. Ion: A Quest’, in Brill's Companion to the Reception of Euripides (2015); A. Markantonatos, ‘The Delphic School of Government: Apollonian Wisdom and Athenian Folly in Euripides’ Ion’, in Wisdom and Folly in Euripides (2016); J.E. Thorburn, ‘Euripides’ Ion: the Gold and the Darkness’, CB 76 (2000); id., ‘Apollo's Comedy and the Ending of Euripides’ Ion’, AClass 44 (2001); N. Weiss, ‘Recognition and Identity in Euripides’ Ion’, in Recognition and Modes of Knowledge (2013).
Nevertheless, the omission of these references does not diminish the high quality of G.'s commentary. The book is nicely printed, and I noticed no typos. The volume is a significant addition to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series, and G. is to be congratulated on his scholarly achievement. The book is extremely useful for anyone working on Euripides’ Ion (students and scholars alike), and it should find a place in all university libraries.
