In the surviving plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles the gods appear to men only rarely. In theEumenidesApollo and Athena intervene to bring acquittal to Orestes. In Sophocles'PhiloctetesHeracles appearsex machinato ensure that the hero returns to Troy, and we learn from a messenger how the gods have summoned the aged Oedipus to a hero's tomb. In Sophocles'AjaxAthena drives Ajax mad and taunts him cruelly.Prometheus Bound(assuming that it is by Aeschylus) might seem to be an exception, since all but one of its (...) characters are gods. But nonetheless the intervention of the gods in the life of the one human character, Io, brings pain and trouble as well as promise of benefit. Io has been driven mad because she has refused to obey the dreams that tell her to go to the meadow where Zeus wants to have intercourse with her. The god does not make his request in person, and it is only in the course of her wanderings that Io learns how Zeus will bring a gentle end to her sufferings. Her informant is another god, Zeus' adversary Prometheus, who answers her questions, at times grudgingly (778), and in ways that are not immediately clear to her (775). (shrink)

This paper presents evidence, in the form of two passages from the Electra, that the editor of Euripides will do well not to resign himself too easily to pointless illogicality or violations of the formal regularities of tragedy or to comfort himself with the idea that illogic and meandering are ‘human’ touches, while formal incongruities are Euripides' incipient verismo.

This difficult passage has been much discussed and the text of L emended usually by rearrangement of the verses. The work of commentators before Wilamowitz is practically valueless, for their inexact knowledge of Theban topography, with which Euripides' account of this battle shows a good acquaintance, was based largely upon the unsatisfactory description of Pausanias: despite the good sense of Markland, they misunderstood 653.

This difficult passage has been much discussed and the text of L emended usually by rearrangement of the verses. The work of commentators before Wilamowitz is practically valueless, for their inexact knowledge of Theban topography, with which Euripides' account of this battle shows a good acquaintance, was based largely upon the unsatisfactory description of Pausanias: despite the good sense of Markland, they misunderstood 653.

We generally think of the poetry of Anacreon as coming from an entirely different world from that of the iambists, but among the extant fragments there is some indication to the contrary. With fr. 44 Gentili = 432 PMG iamb. 5 West, an epodic passage, we find Anacreon closest in form to the iambists. Here is the text with the full context from the Etymologicum Magnum : τò δ κνύςα ώς λÉγι ‘Hgr;ρωδιανòς ν τ καθολικ, εί μν πί τοű υτοű, (...) συγκοπή στιν πò τοű κóνυςα, οίον “χαμαίςήλοιο κονύςης”. εί δ πί τού παρθαρμÉνου καί ρρυσωμνου, οÙ συγκοπή οτιν, λλ' πò τοű κνύω, ' οǘ κνύος θορá οȋον “κατà κνύος Ȅχευεν, φίλωτο δ κáρηνα”. γίνεται κνύςα, ώς παρà’ ΑνακρÉοντι ν ίáμβω κνυςή τις ñδη καί πÉπειρα γίνομαι σ διà μαργοσύνην. (shrink)