ΧΟ.

ΙΦ.

οὐδεὶς τὰ τῆς θεοῦ θύματ' ηὐστόχει βαλών.
μόλις δέ νιν τόλμῃ μὲν οὐ χειρούμεθα,
κύκλῳ δὲ περιβαλόντες ἐξεκοψαμεν
πέτροισι χειρῶν φάσγαν', εἰς δὲ γῆν γόνυ
καμάτῳ καθεῖσαν. πρὸς δ ̓ ἄνακτα τῆσδε γῆς
κομίζομέν νιν. ὃ δ' ἐσιδὼν ὅσον τάχος
ἐς χέρνιβάς τε καὶ σφαγεῖν ἔπεμπέ σοι.
εὔχου δὲ τοιάδ ̓ ὦ νεανί σοι ξένων
σφάγια παρεῖναι· κἂν ἀναλίσκῃς ξένους
τοιούσδε, τὸν σὸν Ἑλλὰς ἀποτίσει φόνον
δίκας τίνουσα τῆς ἐν Αὐλίδι σφαγής.
θαυμάστ ̓ ἔλεξας τὸν φανένθ ̓, ὅστις ποτὲ
Ἕλληνος ἐκ γῆς πόντον ἦλθεν ἄξενον.

εἶεν. σὺ μὲν κόμιζε τους ξένους μολών,

330

335

340

αὖθις, Ald. οὔτις and ἤρασσεν (for the mss. ἤρασσον). 329. mss. εὐτύχει, Ρ λαβών, L βαλών ; there can be no doubt that λαβών is wrong. For the former word I have adopted Badham's conjecture ηὐστοχεί. He remarks that s is often mistaken for r in mss. (for the ηύ cf. Wecklein Curae Epigraphicae, p. 33). 331. mss. περιβάλλοντες, corrected by Reiske to the aor. mss. ἐξεκλέψαμεν, Βothe ἐξεκόψαμεν, Herm. ἐξελέψαμεν, Köchly ἐξεκλέψαμεν | πέπλοισι (for πέτροισι). 333. Ρι καθεῖσα. 335. mss. τε χέρνιβάς τε καὶ σφάγι ̓ ἔπεμπέ σοι. Ald. ὡς χ.τ.Κ.

T

σφάγι ̓ ἐξέπεμπε, Valckenaer εἰς χ., Hartung ἐπὶ χ.τ.κ. σφαγάς, Musgrave σφαγεῖ. In itself σφαγάς would seem preferable, but would not explain the mss. σφάγι'. Köchly adopts both of Hartung's corrections. 339. Nauck regards this verse as an interpolation. Köchly proposes διδοῦσα for τίνουσα. 341. mss. "Ελληνος, Though "Ελλην is four times found as a feminine in tragedy, Elmsley, in his craving for grammatical regularity, alters them all-here he proposes ̔Ελληνίδος γῆς.

τὰ δ ̓ ἐνθάδ ̓ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἀφροντιστήσομεν.
ὦ καρδία τάλαινα, πρὶν μὲν εἰς ξένους
γαληνὸς ἦσθα καὶ φιλοικτίρμων ἀεί,
εἰς θοὐμόφυλον ἀναμετρουμένη δάκρυ,
Ἕλληνας ἄνδρας ἡνίκ ̓ εἰς χέρας λάβοις.
νῦν δ ̓ ἐξ ὀνείρων οἷσιν ἠγριώμεθα
δύσνουν με λήψεσθ', οἵτινές ποθ ̓ ἧκετε.
καὶ τοῦτ ̓ ἄρ ̓ ἦν ἀληθές, ᾐσθόμην, φίλαι
οἱ δυστυχεῖς γὰρ τοῖσιν εὐτυχεστέροις
αὐτοῖς κακῶς πράξασιν οὐ φρονοῦσιν εὖ.

345

348 350

343. mss. οἷα φροντιούμεθα. In the first place, the middle future of this verb is found nowhere else; hence Badham wrote φροντιοῦμεν οἷα χρή. Then οἷα for οἷα ἔσται is extremely harsh ; hence Reiske proposed ὅσια φροντιούμεθα. I have accepted Madvig's conjecture οὐκ ἀφροντιστήσομεν not because I feel any confidence that that is what Euripides wrote, but because I cannot help thinking that οἷα φροντιοῦμεν was a commentator's explanation of some expression that was equi-{ valent to (οἷα) φροντισῦμεν, the change to the middle being a subsequent metrical correction. 346. Badham has effectively defended the crasis θοὐμόφυλον. The mss. have τὸ ὁμόφυλον, Ald. τ' ομόφυλον. Monk unhesitatingly rejected this and the following lines. 349. In the mss. this line runs δοκοῦσ' (a corrector of L δοκοῦσαν) ὀρέστην μηκέθ' ἥλιον βλέπειν. I have followed Nauck in rejecting this line, not because of the slight irregularity of the δοκοῦσα (after ἠγριώμεθα), but because the μηκέτι (for οὐκέτι) does not fit in here, and gives the words the look of an adaptation from some other line. 351. mss. ἠχθόμην, corrected by L. Dindorf to ᾐσθόμην. 353. mss. αὐτοὶ κακῶς πράξαντες οὐ φρονοῦσιν εὖ. Seidler καλῶς : those editors who adopt this reading make αὐτ. καλ. πράξ. mean “if they

ἀλλ ̓ εἴθε πνεῦμα Διόθεν ἦλθε πώποτε,
ἢ πορθμίς, ἥτις διὰ πέτρας Συμπληγάδας
Ἑλένην ἀπήγαγ' ἐνθάδ', ἡ μ' ἀπώλεσε,
Μενέλεων θ', ἵν' αὐτοὺς ἀντετιμωρησάμην,
τὴν ἐνθάδ' Αὖλιν ἀντιθεῖσα τῆς ἐκεῖ,
οὗ μ' ὥστε μόσχον Δαναΐδαι χειρούμενοι
ἔσφαξον, ἱερεὺς δ ̓ ἦν ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ.
οἴμοι· κακῶν γὰρ τῶν τότ' οὐκ ἀμνημονῶ,

ὅσας γενείου χεῖρας ἐξηκόντισα

γονάτων τε τοῦ τεκόντος ἐξαρτωμένη,

λέγουσα τοιάδ ̓· ὦ πάτερ, νυμφεύομαι

νυμφεύματ' αἰσχρὰ πρὸς σέθεν μήτηρ δ' ἐμὲ 365
σέθεν κατακτείνοντος Αργεῖαί τε νῦν

have themselves been happy once," but, as Hartung pointed
out, the word for once is indispensable; hence Dindorf con-
jectured πάλαι καλῶς, Rauchenstein αὐτοί ποτ' εὖ πράξαντες,
Wecklein retains κακῶs and reads τοῖσι δυστυχεστέροις in v.
352. But this, though suiting the present situation, can
hardly be called a general maxim. It is too special. I have
adopted Kirchhoff's conjecture αὐτοῖς κακῶς πράξασιν, because
the following verses show that Iphigeneia is considering
the case of men plunged into sudden misfortune. 354 and
355. I have here also adopted Kirchhoff's conjecture ἀλλ ̓
εἴθε and ἢ πορθμίς for the mass. ἀλλ ̓ οὔτε, and οὐ πορθμίς. Cf.
ν. 439 ff., where the chorus refer to their mistress's εὐχαί.
356. mss. ἀπήγαγ', Badham κατήγαγ' (? ἂν ἤγαγ). 357. mss.
μενέλαον, corrected by Barnes to Μενέλεων. 359. mss, οἵ μ',
corrected by Pierson to οὗ μ'. 361. mss. τῶν τοῦδ', corrected
in Ald. to τῶν τότ'. 365 and 366. mss. δ' ἐμή and 'Αργεῖαί τέ
Kirch. leaves d'un and conjectures μe for vv in v. 366.
It seems simpler to adopt Reiske's ἐμέ for ἐμή along with

νι.

B

ὑμνοῦσιν ὑμεναίοισιν, αὐλεῖται δὲ πᾶν
μέλαθρον· ἡμεῖς δ ̓ ὀλλύμεσθα πρὸς σέθεν.
"Αιδης Αχιλλεὺς ἦν ἄρ', οὐχ ὁ Πηλέως,

375

ὅν μοι προτείνας πόσιν, ἐν ἁρμάτων μ' ὄχοις 370
εἰς αἱματηρὸν γάμον ἐπόρθμευσας δόλῳ.
ἐγὼ δὲ λεπτῶν ὄμμα διὰ καλυμμάτων
ἔχουσ', ἀδελφόν τ ̓ οὐκ ἀνειλόμην χεροίν,
ὃς νῦν ὄλωλεν, οὐ κασιγνήτῃ στόμα
συνῆψ' ὑπ ̓ αἰδοῦς, ὡς ἰοῦσ ̓ εἰς Πηλέως
μέλαθρα πολλὰ δ ̓ ἀπεθέμην ἀσπάσματα
εἰσαὖθις, ὡς ἥξουσ ̓ ἐς "Αργος αὖ πάλιν.
ὦ τλῆμον, εἰ τέθνηκας, ἐξ οἴων καλῶν
ἔρρεις, Ορέστα, καὶ πατρὸς ζηλωμάτων.
τὰ τῆς θεοῦ δὲ μέμφομαι σοφίσματα,

ἥτις βροτῶν μὲν ἤν τις ἅψηται φόνου
βωμῶν ἀπείργει, μυσαρὸν ὡς ἡγουμένη,

380

383

Heath's and Tyrrwhitt's vûv for vw in v. 366. 370. mss. προσείπας, Badham προτείνας. Bernays and Bothe (followed by Dindorf) προσείσας. Badham ἁρμάτων μ' for the mss. ἁρμάτων. Ald. ἁρμάτων δ' (keeping προσείπας). 373. mss. ἀδελφὸν τοῦτον εἱλόμην. Tyrrwhitt οὔτ ̓ ἀνειλόμην, Herm. τ' οὐκ ἀνειλόμην, Köchly οὐκ ἀνειλόμην, but this last does not explain the τοῦτον. 374. mss. κασιγνήτη, a corrector of L κασιγνήτῳ, cf. v. 1473. Tyrrwhitt κασιγνήτη. 375. Elmsley, followed by Monk, ιοῦσα Πηλέως. 377. mss. εἰσαῦτις. 378. mss. κακῶν, Reiske καλῶν. Weil remarks that the text must have been altered by some commentator who thought that xaкŵv best suited Orestes's misfortunes, forgetting that Iphigeneia knew nothing about them. 380. Barnes, Monk, Badham, and Nauck, mark a lacuna before this verse. Anyhow, as Weil says, we must

αὐτὴ δὲ θυσίαις ἥδεται βροτοκτόνοις.
οὐκ ἔσθ ̓ ὅπως ἔτικτεν ἡ Διὸς δάμαρ
Λητὼ τοσαύτην ἀμαθίαν. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν
τὰ Ταντάλου τε θεοῖσιν ἑστιάματα
ἄπιστα κρίνω, παιδὸς ἡσθῆναι βορά,
τοὺς δ ̓ ἐνθάδ', αὐτοὺς ὄντας ἀνθρωποκτόνους,
εἰς τὴν θεὸν τὸ φαῦλον ἀναφέρειν δοκῶ·
οὐδένα γὰρ οἶμαι δαιμόνων εἶναι κακόν.

385

390

suppose Iphigeneia to have paused here. 382. mss. ἢ καὶ λοχείας ἢ νεκροῦ θίγῃ χεροῖν. This verse seems to have been rightly rejected by Badham and Nauck as an interpolation. The details and the xepoî certainly appear unnecessary and weaken the sentence. 384. mss. αὕτη, Portus αὐτή. 385. mss. ἔτεκεν ἄν, Porson ἔτικτεν, Herm, ποτ ̓ ἔτεκεν, Klotz ἔτεκεν ἄρ ̓, Badham well defends the imperfect, saying that as τίκτω="1 am the parent of,” so ἔτικτε = “she was the parent of,” cf. v. 23, Köchly defends the mss. reading. Badham, however, considers vv. 385-391 as spurious. Nauck rejects vv. 387 and 388, reading τοὺς ἐνθάδ' in v. 389. 386. Nauck ἀνομίαν for ἀμαθίαν. 387. Herm. inserted the re after Ταντάλου. 390. mss. τὸν θεόν, a friend of Markland's τὴν θεόν. L τὸ φαῦλον, Ρ τὸν φαῦλον.