i "J /Cfc"^ 
 
PA 
 
 3f73 
 
TRAGEI)^ RHESUS 
 
 -BY 
 
 John- C rRoLFE- 
 
 vt',^.' .ACTirfG' PROCESSOR OF LATIS IN THE UNrVEKSITY OK MlCHieAIT 
 
 A Eiissertatibn. presented to, the Faculty of the" "Cornell University 
 for the degree of Doctor . of Philosophy ■ 
 
 - :' ,,: BOSTON' 
 ; OIN.N & CO. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026467724 
 
' ' n I •: 
 
 THE I f;ni i <, p, ^ 
 
 TRAGEDY RHESUS 
 
 BY 
 
 John C. Rolfe 
 
 ACTING PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 
 
 A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Cornell University 
 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 GINN & CO. 
 
 1893 
 
THE TRAGEDY RHESUS.^ 
 By John C. Rolfe. 
 
 ALTHOUGH the Rhesus has been handed down to us as one of 
 the tragedies of Euripides, its genuineness was suspected even 
 in antiquity, for in the first of the two arguments which we possess, 
 after a brief outline of the plot, we read these words : tovto to Spa/xa 
 tviot voOov virevo'qa'av, EiptmSou 8« /xri etvaf rov yap 2o(^okXc(ov juoAXov 
 VTrofj^aCvtiv )(a.paicr^pa. iv fievToi Tats 8i8a<7KaA,iats <os yvijcriov dvayi- 
 ypaTTTai, Koi 17 iripl to, ii£Tdp(Tia Se ev atiTcS TroX.vwpay/xotTvvri Tov Eijoi- 
 irSfqv bfioXoyei. 
 
 In modern times the discussion was first revived over two centuries 
 ago by Joseph Scaliger, whose conclusion is : " ' auctor Rhesi vetustissi- 
 mus, qui sine dubio non est Euripides.' 
 
 Since his time the discussion has been vigorously carried on, and 
 almost every one who has given his attention to the study of Euripides, 
 or of the Greek drama in general, has had something to say on the 
 question. In 1863 Frederic Hagenbach, who took the authorship of 
 the Rhesus as the subject of his inaugural dissertation,' did a service 
 to future investigators by giving * a full list of those who had discussed 
 the question up to his time, together with a brief summary of their 
 views. 
 
 To this dissertation the reader may be referred for fuller partic- 
 ulars. It is enough to say here that while the majority of critics are 
 of the opinion that the play is not the work of Euripides, hardly any 
 two agree as to the author or the time in which he lived. It has 
 
 1 This paper, written in Latin, was accepted in 1885 by the classical faculty of 
 the Cornell University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 
 While the general plan of the dissertation remains unchanged, it has been wholly 
 rewritten, and a number of additions and corrections have been made. 
 
 ^ Proleg. ad Manilium, pp. vi. fol. 
 
 ° De Rheso Tragoedia, Basle, 1863. 
 
 * pp. 6, 7, and 51-62. 
 
 61 
 
62 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 been ascribed to Sophocles/ to the younger Euripides," to one of the 
 Alexandrine Pleiad/ and to an obscure and tasteless imitator/ about 
 whose period there is a wide divergence of opinion. One distin- 
 guished critic ^ thought that the many absurdities which he saw in the 
 Rhesus could best be accounted for by supposing that it was a com- 
 bination of a tragedy and a comedy, intended for the fourth place in 
 a tetralogy, in lieu of a satyric drama. This last view has found only 
 a single supporter." 
 
 The opposite view, that our Rhesus was written by Euripides, was 
 ably sustained by Vater' and Hartung,^ and is still held by some 
 competent critics. 
 
 Hagenbach's dissertation was reviewed favorably by Rauchenstein,' 
 and unfavorably by Schenkel.'" The question has since been made 
 the subject of special discussion by Menzer," who supported Her- 
 mann's view ; by Albert,^ who thought the Rhesus a youthful work of 
 Euripides ; by Noldecke/^ who merely decides that the drama was 
 not written by any one of the three great tragedians, nor in their 
 time j and by Eysert," who does not attempt to determine the author 
 and date of the play, but only to show that it is not abnormal in its 
 language, and that it is not the work of an imitator. 
 
 Views on the date and authorship of the Rhesus have also been 
 pronounced incidentally in histories of Greek literature and works 
 of various kinds dealing with the Greek drama. Such views are 
 more likely to be unbiased, and the present state of the controversy 
 may be shown, and incidentally that the question is still an open one, 
 by quoting three opinions of this kind. 
 
 1 Gruppe, Ariadne, pp. vii-x. 
 
 " M. Anton. Delrio, Proleg. in Senecae Tragoedias, p. xxi. 
 
 ' Hermann, Optiscula, III. pp. 262-310. 
 
 * Hagenbach and others. 
 
 ^ Dindorf, Euripides, Ed. Oxon. pp. 560 fol. 
 
 ' Spengler, De Rheso Tragoedia, Program d. gym. z. Dfiren, 1857. 
 
 ' Vindiciae. 8 Euripides RestittUus. 
 
 ° Jahn^s Jahrb.f. Phil. 89, pp. 569-571. 
 1" Philologus, XX. p. 484. 
 ^1 De Rheso Tragoedia, Berlin, 1867. 
 12 De Rheso Tragoedia, Halle, 1876. 
 " De Rhesi fabulae aetate et forma, Schwerin, 1877. 
 " Rhesus im Lichie des Eur. Sprachgebrauches, Bohm. Leipa, 189 1. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 63 
 
 Bergk in his Griechische Literaturgeschichte ^ discusses the matter 
 at 'some length; his view may be summarized as follows: — 
 
 The Rhesus is the work of an imitator of Aeschylus, who lived 
 after the close of the Peloponnesian war, but before the time of 
 Alexander the Great. He has followed his model closely in the lan- 
 guage and in the external details, but has missed the Aeschylean 
 spirit. The play does not deserve the excessively severe criticism 
 which has been passed on it. The choruses, especially the beautiful 
 one beginning with v. 527, are deserving of the highest praise.^ It 
 must be admitted, however, that the author lacked dramatic power, 
 and that he has not made the most of his subject, which is well 
 adapted to a drama.' The play shows not the slightest sign of the 
 style of Euripides} It cannot be Alexandrine. The author has 
 been indirectly influenced by Euripides and his school. Bergk's 
 view with regard to the alleged '%o^6k\v.ov xo-paKT^pa of the Rhesus 
 had best be quoted in full : ' Von dem Geiste des Sophokles ist hier 
 nichts wahrzunehmen, und wenn uns auch keine von den friihesten 
 Tragodien des Sophokles erhalten ist, so konnen wir doch zuver- 
 sichtlich voraussetzen, dass sie des grossen Namens nicht unwiirdig 
 waren. Indes enthalt jene Bemerkung, richtig verstanden, einen 
 beachtenswerthen Fingerzeig. Sophokles hat in der ersten Periode 
 seiner dicterischen Thatigkeit sich vorzugsweise an Aeschylus an- 
 geschlossen und namentlich den Stil jene Meisters sich angeeignet, 
 jedoch in der massvoUen Weise, die jedes Werk des Sophokles kenn- 
 zeichnet. An diese alteren Tragodien des Sophokles mochte der 
 Rhesus hinsichtlich der Behandlung der Sprache erinnem ; denn nur 
 diesen Punkt hattenfene Kritiker itn Auge.' 
 
 The other side of the question is supported by Christ in his Grie- 
 chische Litteraturgeschichte.^ He says : ' Der Rhesus ist nichts anderes 
 als ein Iliadis carmen diductum in actus. Die Echtheit der Tragodie 
 ward nach den Didaskalien schon in dem Altertum angezweifelt, in- 
 
 1 Vol. III. pp. 612-619. 
 
 2 Bergk thinks that this chorus may be derived from an old ' Volkslied.' 
 
 ° The opposite view is held by many critics. See especially Beck, Diatribes, 
 p. 266. 
 
 * P. 615. 'Im Uebrigen hat der Rhesus nicht die entfernteste Aehnlichkeit 
 mit der Weise des Euripides . . - wovon sich nicht die geringste Spur zeigt.' 
 
 '' In Iwan Miillers Handbuch, Vol. VII. pp. 203, 204. 
 
64 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 dem die alexandrinischen Kunstrichter in ihr mehr den sophoklei- 
 schen Character finden wollten. Das kann sich nun kaum auf etwas 
 anderes als den Mangel an euripideischem Pathos beziehen ; denn von 
 der eigenilichen Kunst des Sophokles I'dsst sich noch weniger etwas 
 in der Tragodie finden. Aber dieselbe weicht so sehr von der Art der 
 Medea, der Troades, und aller erhaltenen Tragodien des Euripides 
 ab, dass sie entweder aus ein ganz anderen Kunstperiode unseres 
 Dichters stammt oder uberhaupt falschlich demselben zugeschrieben 
 wurde. Fiir die Unechtheit sprachen sich Valckenaer und Hermann ; 
 aber dass Chorlieder ^ von so kunstvollem und reichem Versbau wie 
 die des Rhesos sind, in der Zeit der alexandrinischen Pleias, an 
 welchem Hermann dachte, noch gedichtet worden seien, hat durchaus 
 keine Wahrscheinlichkeit. Glaubwiirdiger ist daher die Ansicht der 
 alten Gramatiker Krates, Dionysodorus, und Parmeniskos," denen sich 
 in unserer Zeit Vater und Hartung angeschlossen haben, dass der 
 Rhesus ein Jugendstiick des Euripides sei. In der That hatte Eurip- 
 ides nach den Didaskalien, wie in der Hypothesis bezeugt ist, einen 
 Rhesus geschrieben, und konnte demnach hochstens nur davon die 
 Rede sein, dass der euripideische Rhesos durch das gleichnamige 
 Stiick eines anderen Tragikers verdrangt worden sei. Auf die Jugend- 
 zeit des Euripides furht aber auch der politische Hintergrund der 
 erhaltenen Tragodie, der mit der Griindung von Amphipolis am 
 Strymon (um 453) zusammenhangt. Der Rhesos ist also das alteste 
 Stiick des Euripides, und aus dem Vergleich desselben mit der Medea 
 kann man ermessen, welche ausserordentliche Fortschritte der 
 Dichter in der Darstellungen der Leidenschaft und der Erregung 
 tragischer Effeckte gemacht hat.' 
 
 If beside these views we set those of v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 
 we shall see how little the best scholars agree about the Rhesus. In 
 his brilliant monograph entitled De Rhesi scholiis disputatiuncula he 
 says : ' ' Constat banc tragoediam circa Demosthenis aetatem ex imi- 
 tatione cum Sophoclis turn Euripidis ortam esse Athenis.' In his 
 edition of the Herakles ■* of Euripides he adds : ' Die nachahmung 
 des Sophokles ist in den motiven und der stiliserung der personen 
 nicht minder greifbar als in der diction und namentlich der metrik.' 
 
 1 Cf. Bergk's opinion of the Choruses, p. 63 above. 
 
 ''■ As V. Wilamowitz says (p. 71 below) it is not certain that Parmeniscus held 
 this view. ' p. 12. * p. 41. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 6$ 
 
 Foreseeing that this view will be assailed, he says : ^ * Quaesiverit quis- 
 piam ex caecis praecipue quorum ferax haec aetas est Sophoclis 
 admiratoribus, quomodo is qui tot et tam gravia vitia Rheso expro- 
 baverit, de Sophoclea cogitare potuerit imitatione.' His answer is 
 that the 'plumbeus imitator' did not do justice to his model. He has 
 but a slight opinion of the play, which he characterizes as ' mediocris 
 ingenii fetus.' 
 
 That two centuries of discussion have led to so little result, and 
 that there is still an excuse for writing on the question, is due in a 
 great measure to the methods of the disputants. Almost without 
 exception they have begun with a preconceived theory of the author- 
 ship of the play, and have supported their theory without regard to 
 any other possibility. This is especially true of Valckenaer, Beck, 
 Hermann, Gruppe, Vater, and Hartung. These earlier disputants, 
 too, have argued largely on what are called aesthetic grounds ; that is 
 to say, they have attempted to show that the Rhesus is or is not 
 worthy of Euripides. How subjective and how thoroughly unsatis- 
 factory this kind of criticism is, especially when used to support a 
 preconceived view, may be judged from the results. Valckenaer, 
 Hermann, and others of that faction saw absolutely no merit in the 
 drama ; it seemed to them a pitiful piece of patchwork, made of bits 
 taken from Homer and the three great tragedians, put together with- 
 out taste or skill. To Vater and Hartung, on the contrary, it seemed 
 a very meritorious piece of work, and Gruppe reached the climax by 
 regarding the Rhesus as an early work of Sophocles, part of a trilogy 
 with which he won his first dramatic victory ! In supporting these 
 views their authors have heaped on the play the most extravagant 
 praise and the most unreasonable condemnation, and have thus offered 
 opportunities to their adversaries, without strengthening their own 
 cause. 
 
 The problem has also been attacked from the point of view of the 
 language and style ^ and of the metre,' but no more satisfactory con- 
 clusions have been reached, mainly because no one apparently has 
 begun the investigation with an unbiased mind. 
 
 In this paper the non-aesthetic arguments, from the didascaliae and 
 
 1 De Rhesi Scholiis, p. 12. ^ Hermann, Hagenbach, Menzer, Albert. 
 
 ' Spengler, Menzer, and others. 
 
66 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 scholia, the language, the metre, and the syntax and style will be 
 mainly relied on, but before taking them up, it will be well to give a 
 brief outline of the play, especially as recent criticism has thrown 
 some light on many of the disputed points. 
 
 The action of the drama goes on at night in the plain of Troy 
 before Hector's tent. The Chorus, composed of Trojan guards, comes 
 to arouse Hector. They tell him that the watchfires of the Greeks 
 are still burning, and that the generals are hastening to Agamemnon's 
 tent to take council. As a fair specimen of a good deal of the crit- 
 icism which is used to show that the Rhesus is unworthy of Euripides, 
 it may be said that the poet is censured for representing the whole 
 guard as going to the general's tent, insfead of sending one of their 
 number ! Another critic says : ' In Rheso Hectorem excitent vigiles 
 nunciantes frequentissimam congressionem ducum ad tentorium 
 Agamemnonis, quod inventum est ineptissime, nam si tanta sunt acie 
 oculorum vel tam prope a Graecorum castris stationem habent, ut 
 ista tam distincte cemant, vix opus est exploratorem mitti.' 
 
 Surely this is to inquire too curiously and to hold the poet too 
 closely to details. 
 
 When the guards make their report, Hector at once concludes that 
 the Greeks are intending flight, and proposes an immediate attack 
 on them. The Chorus endeavors to dissuade him, as does Aeneas, 
 who has been aroused by the confusion. Aeneas urges that it is 
 better to allow the army needed rest and to defer the attack until 
 dawn, but in the meantime to send a spy to learn the reason of the 
 disturbance in the Grecian camp. Hector is finally persuaded and 
 calls for a volunteer for this dangerous mission. Dolon offers himself, 
 but demands a substantial reward. Hector offers him successively 
 the privilege of becoming one of Priam's sons-in-law, a large amount 
 of gold, and one of the famous Greek generals as his slave. Dolon 
 refuses them all and demands as his reward the horses of Achilles, and 
 these Hector finally promises him. 
 
 Then Dolon explains his plan for disguising himself. He will 
 cover his head and his whole body with a wolfs skin, and running 
 on all fours will enter the Grecian camp without exciting suspicion. 
 When secure from observation he will walk erect. This stratagem, 
 which the Chorus highly commends, has been ridiculed by all who 
 have denied that Euripides wrote our play, and even by most of the 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 67 
 
 opposite faction. And yet, as v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf points out,* 
 our author follows a tradition which, though different from the 
 Homeric account, was current in the fifth and fourth centuries 
 before Christ. He says: 'Atqui Dolonem re vera indutum pelle 
 lupina rerpdirovv lu/juqcracrOai \vkov KtkevOov (uti similes insidiae 
 passim de barbaris Americae incolis narrantur) vulgari per quintum 
 quartumque saeculum ferebatur fabula, cuius in litteris quidem nulla 
 praeter hanc tragoediam pervenit ad nos mentio, sed vascula Attica 
 et . antiquissima et recentia pictam luculentissime hanc scaenam 
 exhibent.' Some illustrations which fully coniirm this statement are 
 given by Schreiber in the Annali delV Institutiox 1875.^ He men- 
 tions thirteen vases which represent the Doloneia, although Vogel* 
 seems to know of but one, and that too one which follows the 
 Homeric tradition. There can be no question, however, that in 
 the scene depicted by Schreiber in Tav. R. i, exactly the disguise 
 described by our poet is represented. 
 
 After the departure of Dolon a shepherd comes from Mt. Ida, 
 to announce the arrival of Rhesus, the Thracian king. Hector at 
 first refuses to listen to him, and insists on supposing that he has 
 come at this inopportune time to bring news of his flock. When at 
 last the shepherd is allowed to tell his story, he gives a vivid descrip- 
 tion of the mighty army and wonderful horses of Rhesus. This 
 scene also has been severely criticised. Von Wilamowitz sees in it 
 an indication that the Rhesus is an imitation of Sophocles's lost 
 drama Pastores, the points of resemblance being that in the play of 
 Sophocles the scene is laid in the Trojan camp, there is a double 
 plot in the deaths of Protesilaus and Cycnus, and finally ' chorum 
 audimus de pecoribus suis multa narrantem.' 
 
 Aftef the shepherd has told his story, the Chorus in a beautiful pas- 
 sage celebrates Rhesus, the son of the river Strymon and one of the 
 Muses. Then Rhesus appears and is met by Hector with reproaches 
 for his long delay. Rhesus urges as his excuse a protracted war 
 against the Scythians, saying that as soon as he had finished it he 
 had hastened to the relief of his allies. In a boastful speech he 
 declares that on the morrow he will finish the war which has raged 
 
 1 De Rhesi Scholiis, p. ii. ^ See especially Tav. R. i. 
 
 ' Scenen aus Euripides in Vasengemalden, p. 21. 
 
68 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 for ten years with his own army alone. Then he will go with Hector 
 to conquer Greece. Hector, before so boastful, becomes modest in 
 comparison with this new miles gloriosus, as Valckenaer calls him, and 
 informs Rhesus that to conquer Greece is not so easy a matter. 
 Rhesus finally consents to let the Trojans' take part in the coming 
 battle, but insists that he be placed with his force opposite the bravest 
 of the Greeks. 
 
 While Hector accompanies the Thracian to the resting-place as- 
 signed him for the night, the guards are reheved. The approach of 
 dawn is described in a charming ode. Of this Patin'^ says: 'On 
 y voit les astres qui s'effacent a I'horizon, les pl^iades qui com- 
 mencent a paraitre, la constellation de I'aigle planant au milieu du 
 ciel, la lune illuminant tout de sa lumifere : on y entend les plaintes 
 du rossignol aux bords du Simois, la flute des pasteurs qui d^ja mfe- 
 nent leur troupeaux dans les paturages de I'lda. Ces souvenirs de la 
 nature et la vie champetre, ainsi jet6s, a la fagon d'Homfere, parmi 
 les scenes de guerre, ont beaucoup de charme.'^ As the Chorus 
 departs it expresses anxiety about Dolon. 
 
 Meanwhile Odysseus and Diomedes have made their way into the 
 Trojan camp. When they appear on the scene, we learn from their 
 conversation that they have killed Dolon and have learned from him 
 the pass-word and the position of Hector's tent. They propose to 
 slay Hector, but find him gone. As they are on the point of depart- 
 ing without accomplishing anything more than Dolon's death, Athena 
 appears, to tell them of the arrival of Rhesus, and how they may 
 slay him and carry off his steeds. This they proceed to do, while 
 Athena, in the guise of Aphrodite, reassures Paris, who is hastening 
 to his brother's tent. Paris, Aeneas, and Athena are really not neces- 
 sary to the action of the drama, and their introduction has been 
 severely criticised. The multiplicity of characters, however, which 
 Bergk^ ascribes to the influence of Euripides and his school, give 
 variety and liveliness to a drama somewhat lacking in action, while 
 the intervention of Athena, as Patin * points out, lends a fatalistic turn 
 to the events which follow. 
 
 1 Tragiques Grecs, Vol. III. p. i6o. 
 
 s Valckenaer, Hermann, and critics of their school saw no such beauties in this 
 passage. It is fair to say, however, that it has been generally admired by all who 
 have not had reasons for refusing to see any merit in the Rhesus. 
 
 » I.e. * I.e. p. 162. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 69 
 
 Meanwhile the guards are aroused, and returning surround the two 
 Grecian heroes, who escape by the coolness of Odysseus and his 
 knowledge of the pass-word. Then the charioteer of Rhesus, severely 
 wounded, enters and informs the guards in a simple and dramatic 
 narrative that the Thracian king has been killed with many of his 
 followers. When Hector appears, the charioteer accuses him of 
 treachery and of the murder of Rhesus, saying that the Greeks could 
 have had no idea of the arrival of the Thracians, and of their position, 
 without supernatural intervention.^ Hector listens with a patience 
 which seems to most critics excessive, and orders that the charioteer 
 be taken to his house and his wounds attended to. 
 
 Then the Muse, the mother of Rhesus, appears with her son's 
 body in her arms,^ bewailing his death in a speech which many critics 
 believe adds to the drama the pathos which it otherwise lacks, though 
 others find it only laughable. 
 
 After this Hector deplores the death of his ally in simple and noble 
 language, the dawn appears, and an attack on the Greeks is ordered. 
 
 One of the things which has been especially censured in the play 
 is the boastfulness of Hector and Rhesus. Others have attempted 
 to justify it, by saying that the author wished to represent the bar- 
 barians as despisers of the gods, and as finally visited by their 
 vengeance. This view is examined at length and disposed of by 
 Noldecke.' Von Wilamowitz sees in this proof of imitation of Soph- 
 ocles ; he says : * ' Nihil est quod in Rheso legendo plus taedii moveat 
 quam tumidissima Hectoris et Rhesi gloriatio : at Sophocles consimili 
 artificio barbaros mores pinxerat, nee dubitamus magno poetae bene 
 cedere potuisse, quod in plumbeo imitatore bilem movet.' 
 
 Before passing to the non-aesthetic arguments, it may be well to 
 give one or two opinions to offset the flood of condemnation which 
 has been poured on our unlucky author, opinions which are not given 
 to support a theory. Patin" finds the Rhesus beautiful in details, 
 carefully worked out, but lacking in dramatic power, especially in 
 
 1 Patin considers this an ingenious justification of the appearance of Athena 
 on the scene. 
 
 2 Recalling Aurora and Memnon in the Psychostasia of Aeschylus. 
 ' De Rhtsi fabulae aetate ei forma, pp. 5 fol. 
 
 * De Rhesi Scholiis,^. 12. 
 6 l.c. Vol. III. pp. 178 fol. 
 
•JO John C. Rolfe. 
 
 pathos.' Mahaffy^ compares it to Schiller's Wallenstein as a picture 
 of camp life. Klein* considers that in many of its details it is not 
 unworthy of Sophocles ; that the scene in which the guards gather 
 round Hector's tent, to intercept the fleeing Odysseus, is sui generis, 
 reminding one of a camp scene of Salvator Rosa. 
 
 Passing now to more tangible evidence, let us first consider what 
 light is thrown on the question by the arguments and the schoha. In 
 the first argument we are informed that the didascaliae recorded a 
 Rhesus of Euripides. The origin and trustworthiness of the didas- 
 caliae are treated by Boeckh.'' Their testimony regarding the Rhesus 
 has never been questioned, and it is generally admitted that Euripides 
 wrote a Rhesus. If our play was not the work of Euripides, it was 
 substituted for his Rhesus, and to that fact undoubtedly owes its 
 preservation. That the substitution was accidental seems clear, for 
 a play deliberately designed to be fraudulently assigned to Euripides 
 would surely not show so many departures from his usual manner. 
 The substitution would seem to have been made before the play 
 came to Alexandria. Certainly the work of one of the Alexandrine 
 Pleiad could not have deceived the grammarians of the time. 
 
 The authorship of the first argument is disputed. Kirchoff ^ main- 
 tains that it is all derived from a AiKaidpxov hroOecn'i, such as is 
 prefixed to the Medea and the Alcestis, but Hagenbach's ^ view seems 
 more probable. He thinks that the fact that the writer of the argu- 
 ments cites Dicaearchus especially as authority for the statement that 
 there were two prologues is a proof that the other parts of the argu- 
 ment were not drawn from him. He says : ' Nihil aliud sumere 
 possumus nisi compilatorem appellasse auctores, ubi maximi ponderis 
 erant, non nominasse ubi vel inferioris erant notae, vel omnino eorum 
 nomina evanuerunt.' 
 
 The view that the oi Ivtoi of the argument were less known gram- 
 marians, though of fine critical sense, is supported by v. Wilamowitz.' 
 From an examination of the scholia he reaches the following conclu- 
 sion : 'Tenemus igitur extitisse editionem Rhesi Ke.yyi.<r}i,ivi\v, extitisse 
 0-vyypa/Aju.a explicandis signis scriptum ad demonstrandum spuriam 
 
 1 It may be compared in the latter regard with the Persians of Aeschylus. 
 
 2 Hist. Greek Lit., Vol. I. p. 376. ■ 6 Philologm, VII. p. 536. 
 
 ' Geschichte d. Dramas, Vol, I. p. 302. ^ De Rheso Tragoedia, p. 9. 
 
 * C. I. G. Vol. I. p. 350. 7 De Rhesi Scholiis, p. 11. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 71 
 
 eius originem. Nihil est cur huius editionis auctorem post Chr. nat. 
 fuisse credamus, cum ex ipsius Aristarchi discipulis complures com- 
 memoret, minorem natu neminem. Deinde alius extitit grammaticus 
 qui in priore commentario novum extruxit refutatis quantum potuit 
 dubitationibus, servato Euripidis nomine . . . talem editionem nul- 
 1am fuisse contendimus nisi unius Rhesi ; scilicet neque est Euripidis 
 haec tragoedia neque antiquitus eadem est credulitas.' 
 
 He sees in the argument traces of these same critics, ' quorum 
 alter dubitationem movet, a qua alieni fuerunt Aristophanes, Crates 
 (de Parmenisco dubitari potest), alter satis earn credit refelli e studio 
 astrorum, quod quantas turbas excitasset e scholiis noverat et ex 
 didascaliarum testimonio.' The view of Hagenbach that these tVtot 
 must have lived ' aliquot saecula post Alexandrinorum aevum ' seems 
 to lack evidence. 
 
 The question of the prologue is an important one, for all the play 
 of Euripides, except the doubtful Iphigenia at Aulis, have prologues. 
 Unfortunately the evidence is conflicting. As it is expressly stated 
 in the argument of Aristophanes that the guards speak the prologue, 
 and as the Rhesus is the shortest of all Greek tragedies, it has been 
 maintained that the play has come down to us in a fragmentary 
 state, and that the prologue has been lost. This view has been 
 examined by Menzer,^ who shows very ingeniously that none of the 
 characters of the Rhesus could have spoken such a prologue. His 
 conclusion is : ' NuUo modo verisimile est intercidisse Rhesi prolo- 
 gum, Euripidis more compositum.' Perhaps, as Hagenbach sug- 
 gests, the line quoted from Dicaearchus may have been preserved 
 from the lost play of Euripides. The origin of the second prologue 
 seems to be correctly stated in the argument. If this view be 
 accepted, the Rhesus began with an anapaestic system like the Per- 
 sians and the Suppliants of Aeschylus. While this must be admitted 
 to be doubtful, the deductions of v. Wilamowitz from the scholia are 
 certainly deserving of consideration. In the light of his arguments 
 the TTEjot TO. iJ,€Tdp(Tux iroXvTTpay/ioo-wjj would seem to be a desperate 
 attempt to defend the view that our play is the Rhesus of Euri- 
 pides, like that of Crates : ' Kpariys iyvoeiv <j}rj<Ti. rbv 'EvpnriSrjv rijv 
 irepl TO, nereuipa Ovapuw, 8ia to veov tri cTvtu ot£ rbv 'P'^crov iSiSacrKC. 
 
 1 De H. T. pp. 4S fol. * Scholium on v. 528. 
 
72 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 This passage is the only suggestion of 17 irepi to ixeToipcna. TroXvTrpay- 
 fioa-vvT] . 
 
 No light seems to be thrown on the authorship of the Rhesus by 
 the fragments of the Nyctegersia of Accius, or by the mediaeval 
 Christus Patiens, whose author takes fifty lines from the Rhesus. 
 
 In taking the language of the Rhesus as the basis of argument, 
 critics have made the same error as in the aesthetic criticism of the 
 play. The indices of Hermann, Hagenbach, and Albert are evi- 
 dently made to support a preconceived theory. Those which follow 
 have been made on a different plan. An attempt has been made to 
 classify the words and expressions used in the Rhesus without form- 
 ing any previous opinion, and to get from the indices thus made 
 whatever light is possible. No great reliance must be placed on 
 this argument alone, for in the first place we do not possess all the 
 works of the three great tragedians ; and secondly, the occurrence 
 even of an unusual word only in the Rhesus and in Aeschylus, for 
 instance, does not necessarily prove that the writer of the Rhesus 
 borrowed that word from Aeschylus. The uncertainty of this kind 
 of criticism is pointed out by Nauck : * ' Ware die Euripideische 
 Electra uns nicht erhalten, so wiirde die Form ZacrBvffTKwv als ein 
 hochst gewichtiges Argument fur die Unechtheit des Rhesus geltend 
 gemacht werden, und jeder Versuch dieselbe zu beseitigen als miss- 
 lich erscheinen.' 
 
 It may be said by way of preface that Hagenbach's indices are not 
 wholly correct ; for in the list of words which seem to him to show 
 imitation of Sophocles, we find not a few which are found also in 
 Aeschylus, and the same is true of his Euripidean list. Moreover, he 
 gives altogether too much weight to this kind of testimony. His 
 indices are criticised by Albert ^ and Eysert,' and I have examined 
 some of them below.* 
 
 The lists * of aTra^ upri[i.4va and of airal TpayifSovfi.eva, as Hermann 
 calls those words which are not found in the extant works or frag- 
 ments of the three great tragedians, are mainly from Hermaim and 
 Hagenbach. Just as Hagenbach added to Hermann's list, and Men- 
 zer to Hagenbach's, I have found it necessary to add several airai 
 
 1 £ur. Studien, p. 179. 2 jjg g^ x. pp. 39, 40. 
 
 * Der J!Aestts im Lichie des Eur. Sprachgebrauches. 
 
 * pp. 83, 84, 89. 6 i.^ II. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 73 
 
 dpTiiiiva * and a number of aira^ rpayaSovfteva. A separate list of char- 
 acteristic expressions ^ has been made. The other indices are new.^ 
 
 I. cnra^ elprifiiva. 
 
 1. o!i7<ns. 417-* Albert compares aij/ta, Aesch. Eum. 906; Soph. Aj. 674. 
 
 2. aiJ.l3X.mil/. 727. Cf. djtt/SXowros, Aesch. Eum. 956. 
 
 3. avOpayKoSaifimv. 971. In this sense. 
 
 4. '8ij8a/u>s. 215. 
 
 5. e^ovyijs. 304. Albert compares xpvcravyj;?, Soph. Oed. Col. 685. 
 
 6. ^oivttTi^ptov. 515. Cf. Qoivarfip, Aesch. Ag. 1503. 
 
 7. Ka.K6ya.ii.^p<K. 260. 
 
 8. KaXXiye^upos. 349. Albert compares KaAAiirpcapos, Aesch. Ag. 245. 
 
 9. Kapavio-T^s. 817. Cf. KapavuJTrip, Aesch. Eum. 186. 
 
 10. Kapirtwrotos. 964. 
 
 11. KepdSeTos. 33- Albert compares xP^fo'SeTos, Soph. El. 837, and 
 
 XoXkoSetos, Aesch. Sept. 146. 
 
 12. p.ijvd.'s. S34- 
 
 13. WKTlPpOjX^. 552. 
 
 14. otvoirXavijTos. 363. 
 
 15. 6^E(\ms. 965. Cf. d^etXcri/s, Soph. Aj. 590. 
 
 16. irava/iEpevo). 36 1. 
 
 17. •Kaakmrwrji. 716. 
 
 18. irpojrdrijs. 361. 
 
 19. TrpocravXeios. 273. 
 
 20. irpoTaivi. 523. 
 
 21. trponi^e.pfWTfrri's. 296. Cf. ■jrpov^cpeuvaw, Eur. Phoe. 92. 
 
 22. paKoSvros. 712. paKoByTTji occurs in Chrysostom. 
 
 23. raxyPaTK. 134. A. compares aySpo^Sarjjs, Aesch. Pers. 1073. 
 
 24. TtTpdfWlpOi- 4' 
 
 25. Teuxo<l>6pos. 3. 
 
 26. (^DWoo-TpojTos. 8. Cf. (jyvWocrrpdi, [Theocr.J Epigr. III. 
 
 27. XP'""'"/^"^"*- 92'- A. compares KaXA.tj8o)Xos, Eur. Or. 1382. 
 
 28. )(jpvcTOT£vxT^i- 340. A. compares xpi'fo'^eyyi^s, Aesch. Ag. 300. 
 
 29. i/iac^apoxpoos. 7 1 6. 
 
 1 Eysert adds eight Hva^ eiprjuira to Hagenbach's list. It is fair to say that all 
 these appeared in my original list of 1885. I am somewhat indebted to Eysert's 
 valuable monograph in the revision of lists I. and II., but as I was unable to 
 consult it until my paper was in type, I have been unable to give it the con- 
 sideration it deserves. It is a very important contribution to the subject. 
 
 2 III. » IV.-VIII. 
 
 * The following editions have been used: Wecklein's Aeschylus, Berlin, 1885; 
 Campbell's Sophocles, Oxford, 1871; Nauck's Euripides, ed. 3, Leipzig, 1870. 
 
74 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 II. aira^ rpaywBov/ieva.^ 
 
 1 . dySouXus. 761. The adj. occurs frequently in Sophocles and Euripides. 
 
 2. a.'qSovk. ;so- 
 
 3. alflos. 990. 
 
 4. d/ai/8w(os. 588. The adj. occurs Eur. Med. 248. 
 
 5. dK/jidCov. Used of a person. 795. dt/xa^eo occurs in Aesch. Sept. 95, 
 
 and Choe. 722. 
 
 6. avaTeCpoi. 5 14. 
 
 7. arrXrjKTO'i. 814. 
 
 8. arroivtoitAU. 1 77, 466. 
 
 9. dptiTTOTdKOs. 909. 
 
 10. dtriratTTOs. 348. 
 
 1 1 . duToppt^os- 288. 
 
 12. a4>V7rvlC<'>. 25. 
 
 13. yoTTOviia. 75. yaTrwos, Eur. Supp. 420. 
 
 14. ycpovcria. 401, 936. 
 
 15. yetopyiia. 176. 
 
 16. Scx^ai. 525. 
 
 17. 8t/8oXos. 374- 
 
 18. SioVras. 234. In this sense. 
 
 19. Sofa. 780. With the meaning 'vision.' 
 
 20. Sopi; (= SdpaTa) 274. 
 
 21. Sijopai. 529. 
 
 22. iyepTi. 524. Occurs with a different meaning Soph. Antig. 413. 
 
 23. cSpaios. 783. In the sense of 'furnishing a seat.' 
 
 24. e'urSpofJL'^. 604. 
 
 25. eKKeavTES- 97- koivtes, Aesch. Ag. 840. 
 
 26. iKTVTrem. 308. 
 
 27. iKTpoTT-q. 881. In this sense. 
 
 28. eXeu^epios- 3S8. 
 
 29. ivrdxra-oi. 492.^ 
 
 30. i^ainaOiii). 81 1. 
 
 31. efucTTiys. 322. 
 
 32. CTTiSefios. 364. 
 
 33. iinBpuxTKUi. 100. 
 
 1 Sr/pvirvoi, which Eysert gives as 47ro{ rpayifiSoinevov, is found in Aesch. Pro. 
 374. Eysert rejects ipoiXias because Euripides uses the adjective, but retains 
 &KLpSivus where the conditions are the same. He also diminishes the list by 
 rejecting all 'Horn. Reminiscenzen,' such as /Up/juepo!, S^x^<"> etc. 
 
 ^ So the MSS. and Liddell and Scott. Nauck adopts Musgrave's conjecture, 
 AvTapai, 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 75 
 
 34. £irt/io/x^os. 327. Occurs in Aesch. Choe. 817, and elsewhere in a 
 
 different sense. 
 
 35. iTrixpdoiJM. 942. 
 
 36. EvSo^EQ). 496. 
 
 37. eio-TrXayxvta. 192. A. compares OfKi.<TV(rir\dxv<iiS, Aesch. Pro. 756. 
 
 38. £v(TTa6i(o. 317. 
 
 39. KapaTo/iOs. 606.1 
 
 40. KaraKovut. 553. 
 
 41. KaTavTrj^. 318. 
 
 42. KiLft,T^\i.ov. 654. Used of a person. 2 
 
 43. (cXowrtKos. 205, 512. 
 
 44. KpvcrTaXA.OTi;KTos. 441. KpytTToXXoTrrji, Aesch. Pers. 504. 
 
 45. K-ujSevtt). 446. 
 
 46. Xeaxfiopoi- 881. 
 
 47. fieXxmoios. SJO. 
 
 48. /ieXoiSia. 923. 
 
 49. /j^ixpXiDKiiii . 629. 
 
 50. juepjuepos. 509. 
 
 51. fufjuK- 256. Used by Aesch. in a different sense. 
 
 52. /iD;^ft(r/xds. 789. 
 
 53. i/avxX^piov. 233. 
 
 54. vava-ToBiiov. 136, 244, 448, 582, 591, 602, 673. 
 
 55. wKT-qyopia.^ 19. Cf. wKTijyopeiv, Rh. 89, and wKTrf^opuudax, Aesch 
 
 Sept. 29. 
 
 56. Trapa/caipos. 830. 
 
 57. TTtXTacTT^s. 311. 
 
 58. irpOKaBtiiiM,. 6. 
 
 59. TrXotmyf. 303. In the sense of 'yoke.' Used in a different sense 
 
 by Aesch. Choe. 289. 
 
 60. iroXtixpxos. 382. 
 
 61. Trpijv^s. 797- 
 
 62. TrpotrSeTos. 307. 
 
 63. irpotrftos- 210. 
 
 64. ■TTTcox'tos- 503- 
 
 65. TTupo-d (heterogeneous plu.). 97. 
 
 66. pv/xiy. 64. 
 
 1 See Eysert, I.e. p. 18. 
 
 ^ So Liddell and Scott (^Greek-English Lexicon s.v.) and others. This inter- 
 pretation does not seem certain. 
 
 " Schirlitz (De Euripide novi sermonis conditore, Halis, Sax. 1864) considers 
 ^\% fiTTttf elpriiiivov in this sense. 
 
•jS John C. Rolfe. 
 
 67. o^/xa. 688. In the sense of watchword.' 
 
 68. cn^ixepov- 683. 
 
 69. (Tiravta. 245.' 
 
 70. o-TTopas. 701. 
 
 71. <nJva.6poi^(o. 61 3. 
 
 72. (TWiiMm/nrprifu. 489. 
 
 73. ToXuTreud). 744. Cf. £KTo\u7r£«a>, Aesch. Ag. 1017. 
 
 74. Tpo/xepos. 36. In this sense. 
 
 75. vSpoetS^f. 353. 
 
 76. v<i>L^<o. 730. 
 
 77. (^avaios- 355. 
 
 78. (^iXoTTToXis. ijB. (^iXoTToXis, Aesch. Sept. 160. 
 
 79. x*""'''''*' 414- Cf. 7roXi5x"°"''°Sj Aesch. Choe. 350. 
 
 While some of the words in these two lists, especially in the latter, 
 ought not to be considered of great weight as evidence, the number 
 of rare words which occur in the Rhesus has always been deemed 
 significant, and a weighty argument against the view that the play 
 was written by Euripides. Those who support that view have at- 
 tempted to diminish the number or to show strong resemblances in 
 form and composition to words which are found in the other tragic 
 writers. Albert ^ showed that very similar words occur in Aeschylus, 
 Sophocles, and Euripides, but without greatly strengthening his case. 
 Vater made ' an examination of the Bacchae of Euripides, with the 
 view of showing that it did not differ from the Rhesus in that regard, 
 but could find in a play of 1370 lines (as against 996 in the Rhesus) 
 only eight aira^ dpij/ieva, some of which were at least doubtful. The 
 first really scientific examination of the question has been made 
 recently* by Eysert, whose results are most interesting, and in view 
 of the weight which has always been laid on the number of rare words 
 in the Rhesus, almost startling. As the result of an extensive lexico- 
 graphical examination of all the tragedies of Euripides, he finds that 
 while the Rhesus, according to his table, has 28" aTra^ dprifieva, it 
 contains only one-eighteenth of the 482 aira^ dp7ip.eva to be found in 
 
 all the plays of Euripides. The Rhesus he finds to be exceeded in 
 
 « 
 
 1 On this word see Schirlitz, I.e. p. 28. 2 j)^ j(_ -p., pp. 33-39. 
 
 * Vindiciae. * 1891, I.e. 
 
 6 It will be noted that my list contains 29, and differs in some other particulars 
 from his. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. yj 
 
 that respect by the Phoenissae (40), the/^« (36), the Iph. Tau. (35), 
 the Iph. Aul. (32), and the Bacchae (31).^ In the percentage of 
 airal elprnieva to the number of verses in the plays the Rhesus stands 
 higher, though it is surpassed by the Cyclops and approached by some 
 of the tragedies. His table is as follows : Cyclops, 3.10 % ; Rhesus, 
 2.81; Iph. T., 2.34; Phoen., 2.27; Bacch., 2.23 j Ion, 2.22; Here. 
 F., 1.97 ; Iph. A., 1.96 j Hiket, 1.86 ; Elect., 1.84 ; Hel., 1.59 ; Troad., 
 1.35 ; Hipp., 1.29 j Orest, 1.28 ; Hec, 1.23 ; Andr., 0.79 ; Heraclid., 
 0.76 ; Med., 0.63 ; Ale, 0.60. 
 
 In view of these results the argument from the number of rare 
 words in the Rhesus is certainly deprived of much of its weight. On 
 the other hand an examination of the above table of percentages 
 makes it difficult to suppose that the Rhesus was the earliest work of 
 Euripides, and most of the upholders of the Euripidean authorship of 
 the play have admitted their position to be untenable without that 
 hypothesis. Eysert does not take sides on the question of the author- 
 ship of the play, although he seems to lean toward the view that it 
 was written by Euripides. His aim is to show that in the number of 
 its rare words the Rhesus does not differ greatly from the other plays, 
 and in this he has certainly succeeded. Even the number of a7ra| 
 r/oayajSov/ieca 'in the Rhesus cannot be said to be very significant 
 against the 103 in the Bacchae. 
 
 Eysert's list of ' Voces Euripideae kolt iioxqv ' is also interesting, and 
 justifies his claim that the author of the Rhesus was no servile imita- 
 tor. Whether the presence of eight such words in the Rhesus, out of 
 a list of seventy-four, indicates, as he beheves, the Euripidean char- 
 acter of the play may well be doubted. It would seem to indicate 
 that the author of the Rhesus was familiar with the writings of Eurip- 
 ides, but it is not of sufificient weight to offset the arguments against 
 the Euripidean authorship of the play.^ 
 
 The next list contains some expressions which seem to Hagenbach 
 and Menzer to be peculiar to the Rhesus. Those in division a, it 
 seems to me, can be paralleled in the other tragic writers, and I have 
 subjoined some expressions which appear similar. Those in division 
 
 1 It will be remembered that Vater found only 8 fiir. elp. in the Bacchae; Eysert 
 finds 31, and 103 SttoJ rpayifSoineva ! 
 
 2 See especially Wecklein's review of Eysert's monograph quoted below, p. 82. 
 
78 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 b I have been unable to parallel. To the latter list I have added a 
 few cases. Some of the expressions given by Hagenbach have been 
 transferred to other lists. 
 
 III. Expressions said to be peculiar to the Rhesus.'' 
 
 54. aipetrflat <^vy^v. Cf. aipovrat (fivyrjv, Aesch. Pars. 484. 
 173. a-rpa.TrjKa.Trj<s vemv. Cf. (rrpaTriXdrrji viStv, Aesch. Eum. 640. 
 318. epTrei KaTavTijs fvjti^opo, Trpos rayaSd. Cf. Trpos Tov e\ovff 6 cjidovoi 
 
 epiret. Soph. Aj. 157. 
 388. 6f.6s Karairvu <rc. Cf. 6e.69ev KaTajrvtCa ireiOo) /wXttolv, Aesch. Ag. 107. 
 512. t^civ KkamiKa.'s eSpas. Cf. TiVas iroS" ISpas TacrSe /juoi Ood^ere; Soph. 
 
 O. T. 2. 
 566. xj/64>os crra^ei St' cortoi/.^ Cf OTofei ^ Iv ff VTTVia irpo KapSuK wwos, 
 
 Aesch. Ag. 189. 
 875. €ts o-e Ttiverai. Cf ets TiyvSe ToVa <l>6vov, Eur. Hec. 263. 
 
 30. cr^ayttov i<j>opoi. 
 
 31. yvft,vriT(ov ixovapxoi- 
 III. vuKTos ev KaTaoTa(r£t. 
 
 184. ipSivTi y dvTEpas linriav i/wt. 
 
 194. apuTTcvm with the genitive. 
 
 2X0. Pa.(nv X^P"'' 'TpouOiav KoSapixodK. 
 
 217. 'Epfirji <j>r]\.r]T!ov ava^. 
 
 254. ireSoa-Tifi^i tr^ayeus. 
 
 39;. SmtXovs dvijp. 
 
 487. TreXrjjv ipucrai. 
 
 538. Ti's eK-qpvxOri with the accusative. 
 
 560. elo'vaim Xop^ov. 
 
 568. KXa^et (TiSn^pov. 
 
 612. TTO^ei/ reraKTai ^ap^dpov arpaTevfuiTOi ; 
 
 787. a/ivvtov Orjpas iieyeCpopai TrmXouTiv. 
 
 929. injyaiai Kopax. 
 
 932. dA.Kai <l>iXdpiMTOi. 
 
 While some of the expressions in ^ must not be pressed, it seems 
 fair to conclude from the lists already presented that the author of 
 
 1 By ' peculiar to the Rhesus ' is meant an expression which is a &va^ TpayipSoi- 
 lievop (see p. 72). 
 
 ^ Hagenbach's comment on this expression is ' inaudite dictum.' 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 79 
 
 the Rhesus aimed at originality in his diction, and that he was not a 
 servile imitator of the three great tragedians, or of any one of them. 
 So far as he was influenced by others, his model appears to have been 
 Aeschylus. 
 
 IV. Words found only in the Rhesus and in Aeschylus.^ 
 
 1. ayoi. 29. ent sense and in the fern, in 
 
 2. oypvTTvos. 3, 825. Soph. Aj. 17. 
 
 3. dSEtjuavros. 697. 13. pApayva. 817. 
 
 4. dvrepao). 184. 14. /xdi/apxos- 31. 
 
 5. SucroXtos. 247. 15. WKTriyopkia. 89. 
 
 6. 8u<rot^«i). 724,805. 16. opyavov, of a musical instrument. 
 
 7. Itcios. 435. 922. 
 
 8. \A. 553. 17. iroAtoxos. 821. 
 
 9. hnrrjSArri%. II7. 18. irpcTrovTMs. 202. 
 
 10. Katpicds. 339- 19- vpOTTLVO). 405. 
 
 11. KOTOS. 828. 20. peyKO).^ 785. 
 
 12. KoiSoiiv. 308. Used in a diiFer- 21. a-vp&rjv. 58. 
 
 V. Words found only in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and the Rhesus.' 
 
 1. aWuJv. 122. As adj. 8. ■Kpoarnuu. 390. 
 
 2. apaxoi- 456. 9. ^vaiveo). 172. 
 
 3. aiXuv. 112. 10. ^XriTrji. 217. 
 
 4. Iv^ijpos. 289. II. (l>pvKToipia. 55, 128. 
 
 5. t^iopoi. 30. 12. <j>VTdXiuos. 920. 
 
 6. 6pd(T(Tw. 863. 13. xa/xevvri. 8, 852. 
 
 7. TravSocoJS. 720. 14. X''^^- 'I^. 
 
 VI. Words found only in Aeschylus, Euripides, and the Rhesus.' 
 
 1. ayKoh]. 948. 7. dvao-o-o). 792. 
 
 2. dSijv. 480. 8. aTraipo). 143. 
 
 3. alM^p-oviiO. 647. 9. airova-ux. 467. 
 
 4. avaliMKTCK. 222. 10. dp£t<^aTOS. 124. 
 
 5. dratTios. 828. II. dpKowTOJs. 499. 
 
 6. avaKTmp. 516. 12. aiflevTrjs. 873. 
 
 1 It has been thought best to make lists IV. -VIII. complete, rather than to 
 select those words which seem especially significant. The meaning of course is 
 that the words are found in no tragedy except the Rhesus, and the works and 
 fragments of Aeschylus. 
 
 ^ Menzer says (p. 33) that ^iyKia used of animals is a Sir. t/j. 
 
 ' See note to list IV. 
 
8o 
 
 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 13. avTovtil/iOi. 944. 4°- 
 
 14. avrim. 668. 41. 
 IJ. avxeoy. 452. 42. 
 
 16. )8ai;<i). 719. 43- 
 
 17. jSiauos. 901. 44. 
 
 18. ^oAos. 730. * 45. 
 
 19. yopycoTTOs. 7. yopyJiTriSj Soph. 46. 
 
 Aj. 450- 47- 
 
 20. StV);. 928. 48. 
 
 21. StWos. 741. 49. 
 
 22. &6\nioi. 372. 50. 
 
 23. Sva-cvperoi. 212. JI. 
 
 24. Svarv\m. 961. 52. 
 
 25. iKiripOm. 472. 53. 
 
 26. im<l}6ovtK. 334. 54. 
 
 27. ep-qiiom. 278. 55. 
 
 28. evkXeus. 758. 56. 
 
 29. evilnixoi. SI°- 57- 
 
 30. fuyijc^dpos. 303. 58. 
 
 31. Oeivai. 676,687,784. 59. 
 
 32. OrjKTOi. 669. 60. 
 
 33. Ooivrj. S7- 61. 
 
 34. Oovpo'S. 492. 62. 
 
 35. ^u/teXi;. 235. 63. 
 
 36. iaA.£/uo$. 895. 64. 
 
 37. Ka6vij8(i>. 643. 65. 
 
 38. KaTttKTas. 605. 66. 
 
 39. KaraTTvioi. 388. 67. 
 
 KttTOTiTijs. i34,iSO)iSS)SS8,632- 
 KcXaSim. 385. 
 
 KVKVOi. 618. 
 
 \aKTt^<i). 411. 
 A.eiras. 287, 921. 
 XuTrpds, 759, 803. 
 /(xeXayxi/tos. 962. 
 /wvov/jievoi. 871. 
 IxvpiAi. 913. 
 iraiSoXiTtop. 549. 
 TravoTrXos. 22. 
 iratrtraXETJO). 180. 
 TTcSoo-r t)8ijs. 254, 763. 
 ireXa^o). 557.^ 
 TreXavos- 430. 
 Tnjyaios. 929. 
 ttXeko). 834. 
 Trpeu/iEvijs. 646. 
 TTpocraKa^a). 696. 
 ■jTvpyom. 122. 
 fTTpa.TriKa.Tiio. 276. 
 (rvvaipo/j/u. 495 • 
 OTJi/aTTTO). 428. 
 ropus. 656. 
 rpavcos. 40- 
 Tpavpa. 751. 
 xl/dXiw- 27. 
 ^aX/xds. 363. 
 
 VII. Words found only in Sophocles and in the Rhesus.^ 
 
 r. ayvprtj's- 503, 715. 
 
 2. dyx'Tcp/iO)!'. 426. 
 
 3. Scwd^^o). 925, 951. 
 
 4. SK^pijXaTco). 781. Si^pi/Xdn/s, 
 
 Aesch. Eum. 156. 
 
 5. eicrirato). 560. 
 
 6. iiraiTem. 715. 
 
 7. tVjSouXos- 105. evj3ovX(i>s, 
 
 Aesch. Choe. 692. 
 
 8. eudtvds. 771. 
 g. KaKavSpux. 814. 
 
 10. KaTapKcio. 447. 
 
 11. KaTavXi'fsatfoi. 518. 
 
 12. KaTcuvofm. 611, 614. In Eur. 
 
 in a different sense. 
 
 13. KpOTTjIM. 499. 
 
 14. KcoScdvoKporos. 384. 
 
 15. 6\o<t>vpofuu. 896. 
 
 16. jreSids. 283. 
 
 17. pivds. 784. 
 
 1 8. wooTTtSios. 740. 
 
 1 So the MSS.; Nauck reads wXiSa. 
 
 * See note to list IV. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 
 
 8i 
 
 VIII. Words found only in Euripides and the Rhesus.^ 
 
 10. 
 
 II. 
 
 12. 
 
 13- 
 14. 
 
 IS' 
 16. 
 
 i7' 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 22. 
 
 23' 
 
 24. 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 30- 
 31- 
 
 ayafuu. 244. 32. 
 
 atvty/ixds. 754. aiviyjouxinAesch. 33. 
 
 and Soph. 34. 
 
 cLkXcSs. 752, 761. 35. 
 
 o/ivoTis. 419, 438. 36. 
 
 av^iytvijs. 895. auToyeviJs, 37. 
 
 Aesch. Supp. 8. 38. 
 
 ^aXios. 356. 39. 
 
 j8(Mj8po/i£(o. 333, 412. 40. 
 
 yv/ivi?s. 313. 41. 
 
 ywj/. 515- yvTMos, Aesch. Supp. 42. 
 
 804. 43. 
 
 Bifim. 232. 44. 
 Siairpetrij's. 617. 
 
 8ti7r£Ti;s. 43. 45. 
 
 Si<l>pc.v<o. 356. 46. 
 
 8D(r^v^(7K<i). 791. 47. 
 
 l^iaofiai. 872. 48. 
 
 im^apea). 441 . 49. 
 
 hnKovpiia. gyj, 956. jo. 
 
 eirraTTopos. 529. Compounds of 51. 
 
 this kind are common in Aesch. 52. 
 
 e.g. enToTTuXos, Sept. 150. 53. 
 
 cuff-eX/ios. 97. 54- 
 
 cvSo^t'a. 760. Cf. £v8ofos> SS- 
 
 Aesch. Choe. 302. 56. 
 evvSpos. 927. 
 
 ^axpvo-os. 370,439. Such com- 57. 
 
 pounds are common in Aesch. 58. 
 
 e.g. ^dwvpo^ Pro. 1 1 18. 59. 
 
 Ka.6apiwi,m. 767. 60. 
 KaBapSfs. 35. 
 
 KapaSoKem. 144. 61 . 
 
 KapaTOfiiio. 586. 62. 
 
 KaTcio-KOiros- 125, 505, 592. 63. 
 
 k\(oi^. 777. 64. 
 
 Koivcovta. 904. Koivfflvosj Aesch. 65. 
 
 Ag. 1021, and elsewhere. 66. 
 
 Kopt/Wo). 933. 67. 
 Kvvr)yeT7ji. 325. 
 
 Aa^vjuai. 877. 
 
 /tcXcpSos. 351, 393. 
 
 vaucriirdpos. 48. 
 
 i/i;}(eije(>. 520. 
 
 ^i<f>riprp. 713. 
 
 dpyas. 282. 
 
 opiupa. 437. 
 
 7rai8cnroids. 980. 
 
 irdp/Trav. 855. 
 
 7re8atp(i>. 372. 
 
 TTikTrj (=7r£A.TaoTai). 410. 
 
 ir\7;fijU£A,'i;s. 858. 
 
 TToXvi^OVOS. 62, 465. Cf. TToXv- 
 
 <l>6opo^, Aesch. Pro. 660. 
 
 TToprrrapa. 442. 
 irpia-pevpa. 936. 
 paivut. 73. 
 
 aaBpoi (A.dyos). 63^. 
 CTKdAojrts. 116. 
 CTKvXevpa. 593. 
 (TTlk^O). 618. 
 
 (Tvprnvpoio. 960. 
 (TvyKaTatrKaiTTO). 39 1 . 
 (TvvOrjiJui. 572, 684. 
 
 TETpaTTO-US. 255. Cf. T£Tpa(rK£- 
 
 X^s, Aesch. Pro. 411. 
 Toirjprji. 226. 
 Tpt'jSojv. 675. 
 mdpyvptK. 970. 
 OTao-irtcrrjJs. Cf. vTrcurirurrrip, 
 
 Aesch. Supp. 188. 
 <l>avai. 943. 
 cfMpirpa. 979. 
 <f>povpoi. 506. 
 ^vifriiia. 440. 
 XafTpa (Otjpoi), 209. 
 XdpTOS. 771- 
 XpucroKoAAijTos. 305. Cf.xpvo"d- 
 
 KoXXos, Soph. Fr. 68. 
 
 1 See note to list IV. 
 
82 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 It may not be amiss to collect the above results in tabular form. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Total 
 
 Words found in no tragedy except 
 
 29 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 108 
 
 Words found in Aeschylus 
 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 Words found in Sophocles 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 32 
 
 Words found in Euripides 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 67 
 
 134 
 
 Words not found in Aeschylus. . . 
 
 29 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 67 
 
 193 
 
 Words not found in Sophocles. . . 
 
 29 
 
 79 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 67 
 
 263 
 
 Words not found in Euripides.. . . 
 
 29 
 
 79 
 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 161 
 
 Words found only in Aeschylus. . 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 Words found only in Sophocles. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 18 
 
 Words found only in Euripides. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 67 
 
 In considering this table it should be borne in mind that we 
 possess more plays of Euripides than of Aeschylus and Sophocles 
 together. Remembering this, we are justified in saying that the lan- 
 guage of the Rhesus is Aeschylean rather than Euripidean, while the 
 resemblance to the language of Sophocles is slight. There is certainly 
 no servile imitation of any one of the three. 
 
 But as Wecklein says,^ ' Hier muss weniger gezahlt als gewogen 
 werden.' The following words, forms, and expressions seem to him 
 to be strong evidence that our Rhesus is not the work of Eurip- 
 ides : — 
 
 avOprnTroSai/jLiav. 971- 
 TtiveaSai tis n. 875. 
 irpOTCuvi. 523. 
 Soprj. 274. 
 Se'x^ai. 525. 
 fjteiJiPXaiKa. 629. 
 
 voBs iir 'Apycitov /xoXciv. 150, 155, 221, 589. 
 ijltro) vaCs fTT 'ApyetW irdSa. 203. 
 
 a-Teix^Lv. 86, 138, 201, 291, 296, 299, 582, 594, 628, 992, 993. 
 n-oXA.01 p£v iTTinji, ttoXXo. ireXTaoruv TeXr/, iroAAoi 8' aTpaKTiav Toiortu, 
 voXvi 8' &xX.oi yv/j.vii'i. 311 fol. 
 
 '^Berl. Phil. Woch., 19 Dec. 1891, in a review of Eysert's monograph. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 83 
 
 Of these the use of the word ird^rcunai is, perhaps, the most sig- 
 nificant, carrying us down as it apparently does to the reorganization 
 of the Athenian army by Iphicrates in 391 B.C. The word, which first 
 occurs in Thucydides II. 29, does not seem to have been formed 
 before the time of the Peloponnesian war, when the Athenians had 
 Thracian allies. Its use in the Rhesus seems to show that the play 
 was not written before the time of the Peloponnesian war, but not 
 necessarily, as Menzer claims,^ ' multo post.' Hence it would seem 
 that the Rhesus was not written by Euripides in his youth, and there- 
 fore, that it was not written by Euripides at all. 
 
 Before leaving the consideration of the language of the Rhesus 
 it will be well to scrutinize carefully the lists of expressions which 
 seemed to Hagenbach to show imitation of Sophocles and of Eurip- 
 ides, and to see whether they will bear investigation. Finally, as 
 the result of the examination so far seems to suggest imitation of 
 Aeschylus, a list of expressions which seem to have been derived 
 from Aeschylus will be given. 
 
 IX. Expressions which seem to Hagenbach to suggest Imitation 
 
 OF Sophocles.^ 
 
 55. cratvei fh hmvyoi <j>pvKTU>pia. Cf. rratSos /i£ aaivei <j>06yyoi, Soph. Ant. 
 
 1214, but also a-aCvofuu 8' iir' eAm'Sos, Aesch. Choe. 193. Note 
 
 the third example in list X. 
 82. iv TpoTry Sopo's. Cf. iv Tpcmri Sopos, Soph. Aj. 1275, but also iv 
 
 /u.aX'/s Tpcnrg, Aesch. Ag. 1236. 
 145. irpovp.L^ai with the dative. Same construction Soph. Ph. 106, but 
 
 also Eur. Fr. 903. 
 158. i-n-wvvfwi^ fikv Kopra. Cf. opdoJs S' '08v<r(T£us dpi iir<avvp.oi xaxois, 
 
 Soph. Fr. 877, but also Kopra & a>v evrwD/aos, Aesch. Eum. 90, and 
 
 lirmvvpM 8e Kopra IXoXwetKei Xc'yo), Sept. 645. 
 183. ^Iivx^v irpoySoAAovr' iv Kvjioun Saipovoi. Cf. ael yap tv miTTOvaiv ol 
 
 Aioi Kvfioi, Soph. Fr. 809, but also tpyov ev Kvj3ois "Apjjs Kptvet, 
 
 Aesch. Sept. 401,^ and Rh. 446, pCvTeis Kv^evatv tov Trpos 'Apyetous 
 
 'Aprfv. 
 
 1 De R. T., p. S3. 
 
 2 In all cases the parallel first given is Hagenbach's, though in some cases I have 
 quoted more at length than he. Those which follow are my own, though it is more 
 than likely that some, if not all, of the cases have been noticed by others. When 
 no parallel but Hagenbach's is given, I have been unable to find a similar expression. 
 
 ' Hagenbach considers iwiimiios a Sophoclean word ! 
 * This may well have been a proverbial exoression. 
 
■84 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 329. apKovfiev 01 <ro)^ovT£s 'JXiov vdXcu.. Cf. apKiaio OvrjaKova-' lyu>, Soph. 
 
 Ant. 547, but also apKovfjuEv ■^p.di ot trpoOv^o'KovTes, Eur. Ale. 383.1 
 389. TraXaia ■qfn-epq.. Cf. iroXatoT dftipa, Soph. Aj. 624.2 
 476. ^ KapTa. Cf. ^ Kapra, Soph. El. 312. A frequent expression in 
 
 Aeschylus. See Ag. 597, 1251 ; Choe. 928 ; and elsewhere. 
 •690. ^oriv iyepreov. Cf. Op^vov eyetpcTe, Soph. O. C. 1778. For a meta- 
 phorical use of iycCpo), cf. ■^yapev oAAi^ ekSox^v ttoixttov wvpoi, 
 
 Aesch. Ag. 311. 
 732. cru/t</>opa flapela. Cf. Papetav ^p,<j)opdv, Soph. Tr. 746, but also 
 
 Papdd y aSc (Tvii<j)opd, Aesch. Pers. 1045. 
 819. Tov'EKTopa TO (MjSkv dvM voni^ere. Cf. v/xas to fi,i]Sev ovras, Soph. 
 
 Aj. 1275. 
 •883. Tpowxv avaya, iroXiv eis irevOoi 8at/xo)v. Cf. cos ■^p.epa kXivci te xdraya 
 
 iroXtv airavTa TavOpunreui) Soph. Aj. 131. 
 892. iraiSa rovS opSxr oiKTpfis 6av6v6' vir i^BpHv. Cf. Soph. El. I02, (rav, 
 
 irdrep, outois alKSt's otKTpSs re ^avdvros. 
 965-6. offtaXiTii 8i /not Tois 'Opc^eus ripmiTa. ijiaCvicrOai ^iXovs . Cf. oi 
 
 Karourff eyco ^eois ws ovScv apKuv afi o^eiA.£Tijs en ; Soph. Aj. 589. 
 
 In those cases in which an expression is paralleled in both Aeschy- 
 lus and Sophocles, there is certainly no reason for considering that it 
 shows imitation of Sophocles. It is certainly fairer either to give the 
 earlier poet the credit, or to consider the expression a literary com- 
 monplace, which any writer might use without making himself liable 
 to the charge of imitation. The remaining cases, even if we accept 
 such far-fetched comparisons as the one on v. 883, are surely not 
 sufficient to show systematic imitation of Sophocles, much less to 
 justify Hagenbach's charge ' nostrum pariter ex omnibus fabulis hau- 
 sisse quae opusculo suo intexeret.' The conclusion may fairly be 
 drawn from this list and from the word lists, that the Rhesus shows 
 little resemblance in language and style to the extant works of Soph- 
 ocles. 
 
 1 This expression from the Alcestis, with Rh. 329 as parallel, is quoted by Hagen- 
 bach among the expressions which seem to him to show imitation of Euripides. 
 
 2 In this case the parallel is only apparent, for though the words are identical, 
 they are used in very different senses. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 85 
 
 X. List of expressions which seem to Hagenbach to suggest 
 
 IMITATION OF EuRIPIDES.' 
 
 6. opQov KSKJiaXT^v. Cf. opOuKTov Kapa, Eur. Herac. 635, opOovre Kapa, 
 
 Eur. Hipp. 198, opOcyu irpoa-omov, Eur. Ale. 388. 
 
 7. \v(rov pX€ff}a.p<av yopyowrov ISpav. Cf. (rTvyvr]v 6<l>pvv kva-aaa, Eur. 
 
 Hipp. 290. 
 55. tratm /x' iwvx<K <f>pivKTmp[a.^ Cf. ov yap ^e traiVct Bicr^ara, Eur. 
 
 Ion, 685. 
 59. <t>acwdi ■^Xlov Aa/iTTT^pcs. Cf. ^aewats ^Atou TreptTrruxats, Eur. 
 
 Ion. 1517. 
 80. TOVT av (jto^rjOeli laOi, hapaivtov toSc. Cf. Eur. Hipp. 519, iravT av 
 
 <f>ofir]6€icr' luOt • ScLfmivas Se ti ; ' but also Travra Seipaivav <j>i\ei, 
 
 Aesch. Pers. 603. 
 
 84. airXovi eTT EX^po'5 /J.v6oi oirkL^eiv X^P"" ^^- ai'A.oSs o pJuOo^ t^s 
 
 dXij^etas £<^u, Eur. Phoe. 469, but also ciirAovs 6 p.v6(ys ■ tj;i/8£ pjkv 
 (TTiixav £tru, Aesch. Choe. 552. 
 
 85. fjujXa (TTTOVorj ttoSos. Cf. /cat jU^i/ 'OSucrcreiis tpx^rai cnrovSr} iroSds, 
 
 Eur. Hec. 216. 
 
 90. irvKa^cyu rc.vx^o'i-v Sifjuxi (riOcv. Cf. Koa-iuo TruKoIfiv T(SSe, Eur. Herac. 
 
 725, and TTVKafe xpar' e/xov viK-q<^6pov, Eur. Tro. 353. 
 
 91. T6 8' ecrri; /xSv Tts 7ro\e/xiW dyyeAAeTat \oxos ; Cf. Tt 8' ecTTt toS 
 
 TrapovTos EKTrX^crtroi' Xoyou ; Eur. I. T. 240, and ti 8' lo-riv, 'l<f>iye- 
 
 vaa, Kaivov iv So/xois, Eur. I. T. 1160. 
 105. (iff rjcrff dvrjp ev^ovXos, ws 8paa'at x^P'' C^' ^0' ^(rOa Swaroi Spav 
 
 oaov vpoOv/ws et, Eur. Herac. 731. 
 122. TreTTvpyusrai Opacrei. Cf. os TreTrvpymrax Opdxrei, Eur. Orest. 1568, but 
 
 also x^ fikv TyS iirvpymiTo (TToXy, Aesch. Pers. 195. 
 144- troXirtyyos ai&rjv. Cf. troA-Trtyyos ^ix^v, Eur. Tro. 1267, but also Poijv 
 
 craXiriyycK, Aesch. Sept. 381. 
 154- "i^po yauxs toj/Se kiVSuvoi' pCxj/a's. Cf. klvSwov ii aiM!jxo.vu)v prarovTeSj 
 
 Eur. Herac. 148, and klv&uvov fiiyav piirrovTCi, Eur. Fr. 406. The 
 
 metaphor is the same as in Ipyov ev kv^oh 'Aprji Kpivfl, Aesch. 
 
 Sept. 401. See noJ:e to this expression in list IX. 
 168. yapm/ iK.* Same expression in Eur. Andr. 1279. But cf. the third 
 
 example in list XI. 
 
 1 See note to list IX. 
 
 2 Note that Hagenbach gives this expression with a Sophoclean parallel in list 
 IX. It cannot be evidence of imitation of both Sophocles and Euripides. 
 
 ' Lachmann suggests that this is a proverbial expression; it seems highly 
 probable. 
 
 * There is no significance in such a parallel as this. 
 
86 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 178. to-Ti xpiJcros «v Sojuots-^ Cf. etj; 8' 2/iwye fx^re xf"«''os ^^ 80/iois, Eur. 
 
 Med. 542. 
 186. Boipijov yovov. Cf. floupws 'Aprjs, Eur. Phoe. 24(9, but also ^oujotos 
 
 Sepfijs, Aesch. Pers. 720 and 756. 
 
 201. tXflcov 8' es 8dju,ous e<l>f<rnoi. Cf. 8E^a( Se X<^/>? *""' Sd/iots e^eortoi', 
 
 Eur. Med. 713, but also So/juav i^icrruK efmv, Aesch. Eum. 580. 
 
 202. iTKivy irpETTOVTUS trfiju' e/aov KaOailiOfmi. Cf. ev rm KuBa^iuT aii^i 
 
 7rai8i o-m/ittTos ; Eur. Ion. I006. 
 204. eiw' £1 Ttv' oAXijv dm t^o-8' lias o-toXiJj'. Cf. crTo\^v Sc rtvo <^s 
 dfi<^t XP'^''"' ^i"^'' /S'^^'"; Eur. Bacch. 830. o-toXi; in the same 
 sense in Aesch. Pers. 195 quoted above on 122. 
 
 208. XvKOov d/A<^t vSrov ail/ojxiu Sopav K.T.k. Cf. (TToh/jv re 6}/pos dp.<^€- 
 
 j8aXA.£ cr^ Kapa Xeovros, JJTtp airos lionrXC^ero, Eur. H. F. 465. 
 
 209. xaa-iw. 6r]p6s. Cf. Seivw x^l""-''''- Oi^poi, Eur. H. F. 363. 
 
 211. rerpdirovv pj,p.i^<TopM, X.vkov KeXevOw. Cf. TtrpairoSos pdxnv 6rjpoi 
 
 TiOeiievoi, Eur. Hec. 1058. 
 216. dX\' eS (T 6 Matiis irais eKeiO"e Kat iraXiv irifofiaev 'Epp.rj'S. Cf. dXXa c' 
 
 o Matixs iro/x7ratos ava^ ireXdcrtie 8djuoi9, Eur. Med. 759, but also 
 
 ^uAAajSoi 8 cfSiKoif irats 6 Maias eirK^opwTaTos, Aesch. Choe. 808, 
 
 and 'Epp.^? 8' evXoyun crvvijyaycv, Aesch. Sept. 495. 
 274. ixa\ai TTpb xapusv ml Sopi^ j3a<TTd^op.tv. Cf. SeXrov re ypa^eis t^i/S" 
 
 ^v Trpo -xeplov eTt /SaffTa^ets, Eur. I. A. 35. 
 278. TTOuis TraTpoJas y^s Epi^pucras ireSov; Cf. k£i p.^ too ekXittoSo' epij- 
 
 pajo-eis ir£8oT/, Eur. Andr. 314, but also Tdi/8' eprjpMaaxT o^ov, Aesch. 
 
 Ag. 1054. ^ ^ ^ 
 
 281. Xdyou 8e 8is rdo'ou p,' iKov<f>UTai. Cf. Xdyov 8e cc paxpov diroirawro), 
 
 Eur. Hik. 638. 
 
 282. wpos'lSiys dpyaSas. Cf. Trpos dpydSas, Eur. Bacch. 445. 
 
 287. 'l8aTov Xcjras. Cf. 'iSalov Xevas, Eur. Andr. 295 and Fr. 415, but also 
 
 Trpos KiSatpwos Xe'was, Aesch. Ag. 310. 
 287. <^d/8ov irapifrxc. Cf. t^ofiov Trape'trxe, Eur. Hec. 11 13, but also jrdvov 
 
 irapaxrxdiv, Aesch. Pers. 330, and Trev^os Trapao-xw, Pers. 325. 
 296. (rT£tx<ov 8' dvaKTos irpovicpevvrfTas oSov. Cf. <Js av irpoufepeDVijO'O) 
 
 cTTtjSov,^ Eur. Phoe. 92. 
 323. peyas irve'tov. This reading of Nauck's spoils H.'s parallel with Andr. 
 
 189, and Bacch. 640, which he cites. 
 329. apKovfji.iv oi a-iL^ovTi's. Cf. apKmjp.£V ^p«s ot irpo^vi;o-KOVT£s cedev, 
 
 Eur. Ale. 383, but Hagenbach himself in his Sophoclean list 
 
 compares dpKccrcu Ovt^o-kovit iyu>, Soph. Ant. 547. 
 
 1 There is no significance in such a parallel as this. 
 
 2 There is no significance in this parallel except in the use of wpovitpevvriTi.t 
 and Tpoviepevir^ffa, which has already been noted in list I. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 87 
 
 331. o-e'Xas ^eoC. Cf. 6em o-e'Xas, Eur. Hik. 469, but also Atos (TiKa.%, Soph. 
 
 Oed. Col. 95, and <^axlpav dXCov tre'Xas, Aesch. Eutn. 927. 
 
 332. TToXX' avaxTrpi(i>a ^eos. Cf. 6 yap 6eos iravT dvtwTpe<l>a ttoXlv, Eur. 
 
 Hik. 331. 
 357. M TraTpts <u $p-uyui. Cf. <o koXAmttoi/ w KvK\(i)Tnov, Eur. Cycl. 266,1 
 
 but also 111 TToAts (3 irarpla, Soph. Phil. 1213. 
 370. faxpi'coi' ■n-iXrav. Cf. ^axpvcrov TreXriys &af, Eur. Ale. 498. 
 397. TovTTL as.. The same expression in Eur. I. A. 1557, but not appar- 
 ently in the same sense. 
 399. ov yap TL Xe^ets <us dtKXijTos <Sv ^tXots. Cf. oi /w.^!/ ipu% ye /J.' <jjs aripA- 
 
 t,wv, Eur. Ale. 658. 
 403. TTOLOiV Se Biipoiv Kotrpxiv ovk eirc/ii/'a/yiev ; Cf. TroW 8e yatas epKos ovk 
 
 a^iyiieBa; Eur. Herac. 441. 
 409. Kara (TTOfxa. Same expression occurs Eur. Herac. 801, but also 
 
 Aesch. Choe. 571, and Fr. 434. 
 415. TrtcTTis oi) (TfUKpa TToXu. Cf. opKovs, wiOTiv ov (T/UKpav, Eur. Hipp. 
 
 1037. According to Stobaeus we should read iricms in this sense 
 
 in Aesch. Sept. 54, instead of irvo-rts. 
 419. afiva-Tiv Beiiov/Jitvoi. Cf. aimaTiv eX/cvo-as, Eur. Cycl. 417. 
 421. Xeyctf /car' oft-pa aov. Cf. Kar op.pJ iX6(ii>v /iaXj?) Eur. Andr. 1064, and 
 
 j((o juev Kar o/jl/jux (ttws irpocrevX^Tai OttS,^ Eur. Andr. 1 1 17. 
 423. ciOciav Xdytov ripvim KiXevOov. Cf. ovpavov T€p.v<ov oSov, Eur. Phoe. 
 
 I, and also tiv ap.4> a-uros in vopov Tep,vm ydpxni Xvnjpa; 
 
 Aesch. Supp. 814. 
 427. vo(TT(yv Tov irpos IXtoi'. Cf. Trpos IXtov vocttos, Eur. I. A. 966, and 
 
 voo-ros 'IXtou TTvpyovq etti, Eur. I. A. 1261. According to the 
 
 scholiast votrros is used in the same sense in iirl <^op^yji vourav. 
 
 Soph. Ph. 43. 
 430. alp/xTr/poi TreXavos- Cf. alparrjpov ireXavov, Eur. Ale. 851. Cf. 
 
 seventh example in list XI . 
 438. (OS (TV Kop.Trd's. Same expression Eur. Orest. 57'. Cf. also toctovSc 
 
 fKOfiLTrei p.v6ov, Soph. Aj. Tjo. ' 
 
 446. ptiTTEis Kv^cvaiv TOV TTpos ApyEt'ous Aprjv. cf. £T avTov aXXa pX-qpar 
 
 hi KvjSoLs jSoXeiv -rreiroiff, Eur. Hik. 330. See on 154 above. 
 453. Tois p.e.y a-u^owTas. Cf. d av p,iy aix"S) Eur. Herac. 353.* 
 467. paKpas aTravtrlas- Cf. 8ta paKpas awoviria'S, Eur. I. A. 1 172.' 
 498. eaTi 8' alpvXuiTarov Kpori/p.' 'OSvaaevi. Cf. ou rap 'OSvctcevs icrnv 
 
 alp,vXoi p,6voi, Eur. Fr. 709. 
 
 1 H. might have found a closer parallel in Med. 643, <3 irorpis, w Siinara. 
 
 ^ The parallel is not exact in either case. 
 
 ' There is no significance in such parallels as these. 
 
88 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 530. eirTixTropoi, nXeiaScs aWipuu. Cf. eyyis r^S ewTaTTOpou IlXeiaSos, 
 
 Eur. I. A. 7, and lu S' e^' eirTa nA.£ia8<oi' «;!(ci)v Spo/xw, Eur. Fr. 
 
 779. In the same way Aesch. (Fr. 304) uses lirrapoos of the Nile. 
 580. Ti S^Ttt 8pS>fii£v. The same expression Eur. I. T. 1188. ri Stjra is 
 
 frequent in Aesch. 
 596. KapSiav StSjiypLivoi,. Cf kol Sp&v ye Xujrg KapSuiv SrfxO'^a'oiuu, Eur. Ale. 
 
 1 1 00 . A common metaphor. Cf (niixcjtopa. SaKva, Aesch. Pers. 848. 
 608. Sia-iroLv 'AOdva, ^diyparoi yap ycrOoixriv tov crdu crvvriBr] yfjpvv. Cf 
 
 Kkvui yap aiiSijv Kaarep ov Trapiiv Oiai, Eur. I. T. 1447, and kXvoiv 
 
 fjikv avSn^v, o/jiija 8" ovx opSiv to <t6v, Eur. Hipp. 86, but also /cat 
 
 TaAAa iroAA' cireiKao'at Slkoiov ^v, et p-rj Trapovn <l>66yyos ^v 
 
 a-qpavun/, Aesch. Supp. 250. 
 618. wdTt irtrrafiCov kvkvov TTTcpov. Cf. 81 aidepos )(un'6)(p(oi kvkvov wnpa, 
 
 Eur. Hel. 216. 
 625. TpL^mv Kal (ToijiO's. Cf. (Totj>bi Kal rpi/iiav, Eur. Med. 686. 
 639. (TaOpoii XoyoLcriv apsCijiopjax. Cf. Tois Xoyovs etvat (raOpovs, Eur. Hec. 
 
 1 1 90. A common metaphor. Cf. Pindar N. 8, 59, o-a^pos kBSos. 
 647. ov8' ap.vrip.ovS> Tiprj'}. Cf KaK&v yap rStv tot ovk apvtjpavS), Eur. 
 
 I. T. 361. 
 693. Tts avSpSyv 6 fSd's ; Cf use of o in*Ep<i)s o iolt' 6p,paT<i>v Id's ttoBov. 
 
 Eur. Hipp. 525. 
 701 . vijCTKuTijs oTTopaSa KiKTTjTai jSc'ov ," TMs reading of Nauck's spoils H.'s 
 
 parallel with Eur. Herac. 84. 
 721. CTTi yav $pvyGv ttoSos iX'"'* /SoXetv. Cf . kot Apyos iX''°s fletjp' toSos, 
 
 Eur. I. T. 752.1 
 730. I'crtos yap eis p6\ov m cpxerat. Cf. av^p tis p6X.ov KaOCaraToj,, Eur. 
 
 Bacch. 848.2 
 732. avpcj)opa. jSapeia. Cf. ^apeiq, crvp<jiopa ircn-Xiyy/ici/os, Eur. Ale. 856. 
 
 See note on this expression in list IX. 
 751. Trm av 6\,oip,r]v ; Same expression in Eur. Ale. 864, and Med. 97.' 
 756. KaKoJs ireTrpaKTai. Cf. same expression in* Eur. Med. 364, but also 
 * KOKois 8e irpafas, Aesch. Pers. 216, andeS irarpaKToi, Aesch. Ag. 
 
 556.^ 
 772. a<j>96via x^p'- Cf. same expression Eur. Med. 612.* 
 
 1 These expressions are not parallel. Here, as elsewhere,, the author of the 
 Rhesus shows his originality in coining new phrases. 
 
 ^ This seems likely to have been a proverbial expression. If not, the parallel 
 is striking, especially as Schwartz (Z>« metaphoris e mari et re navali petitis quaes- 
 tiones Euripideae, Keil, 1878, p. 20) says that this metaphor is not found in 
 Aesch. or Soph. 
 
 8 There is no significance in this. 
 
 * There can be no significance in such a parallel, unless one believes that our 
 •uthor literally made his play a piece of patchwork. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 89 
 
 796. ^aOtiav aXoKa Tpavfiaro^. Cf. Sopos ra^^eiav aXoKa, Eur. H. F. 1 64, 
 
 but also ow^os aXoKi vioro/ita, Aesch. Choe. 25. jSaSaav aXoKa is 
 
 used metaphorically in Aesch. Sept. 580. 
 796. (fiaa-ydvon} TrXijyiJs. Cf. t^aayavutv TrXTjyas, Eur. Andr. 1074, but also 
 
 TrXijyg Sopd$, Aesch. Pers. 307. 
 803. ctKaffai 7rap£o-Ti. Cf. same expression, Eur. Hel. 421,1 but also ovk 
 
 eXO'/"'' o-v etKtto-ai, Aesch. Choe. 516. 
 834. irXeKwv Xo-yoDs. Cf. Trotas ^Hjx'^i'as TrXeKouo-tv ; Eur. Andr. 66, but 
 
 also SoXoi/ irXcKEis, Aesch. Choe. 219. 
 855. TO TTci/ATrav. Cf. same expression, Eur. Fr. ig6. 
 870. oAis rStv TiBvTqKOTwv. Cf. same expression, Eur. Hec. 278, but also 
 
 oXts XeXijyjLieVuv, Aesch. Eum. 678, and wij/xov^s 8' aXis, Aesch. 
 
 Ag. 1656. 
 877. \aZ,v(Tff • ayovres «S 8d/aoD9 e^ois . . . TropcrwETC. Cf. Xa^ucrfle 
 
 T^vSe KEis 8d/*o-us Ko/ju^eTe, Eur. Phoe. 1660.I' 
 879. £/Lias 8" idvras Totcnv iv retx^L xp^'^v Hpid/juo re Kal ycpoDcri (rrjfirjvai 
 
 ve/cpous OaTTTei-v KeXewtv. Cf. cnjfuaLVCLV ov ravpov dXXa irapOevov 
 
 (T<j>d^ai, Eur. Herac. 489, but also ' A.yap.ip.vovo'i yvvaiid crrifmvSt 
 
 TopSs, eivrji i-iravTeiXaaav . . . hrop6idt,av, Aesch. Ag. 26. 
 904. yej/o-us Koivwviav- Cf. 170180)1/ Kowtovuxv, Eur. Phoe. 16.^ 
 949. dOfftuTTTjv 8' oXXov oi/c litaioixM. Cf. pavTiv ovx erepov aio/MU, Eur. 
 
 H. F. 912.8 
 974. Tre'vfe oio-ft). Cf. oto-o) 8c mvOo^, Eur. Ale. 336, but also irij/toms 
 
 (j>epav, Aesch. Pers. 296. 
 974. paov ottro). Cf. paov criWs, Eur. Hipp. 205,^ but also ^epetv cos 
 
 pao-Ttt, Aesch. Pro. 104. 
 980. (0 7rat8o7rotoi a-vficfiopai, wovoi jSporlav, /c.t.X. Cf. ^i/Xoi 8 dyap.ovs 
 
 aTEKvotis re Ppcnwv, Eur. Ale. 882, 8et]/6v to tlktuv kol <^£p£t 
 
 4>iXTpai/ /Acya, Eur. I. A. 917, 8eivov ywatfiv ai 8t' uStVtov yovat, 
 
 Eur. Phoe. 355.^ 
 
 In general the same criticism of Hagenbach's method may be 
 made as in the case of the expressions in list IX. There remain, 
 however, in this list of Euripidean expressions more cases in which 
 no other parallel than his can be given. Is this evidence of deliberate 
 imitation of Euripides? To my mind it is not. In the first place 
 many of the parallels are of no significance, as has already been 
 
 1 There can be nothing significant in such a parallel as this. 
 
 2 See note *, p. 88. 
 
 'It seems to me that these expressions are not parallel. The idea in the 
 passage from the Rhesus is quite a different one. 
 
90 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 pointed out, others are far-fetched, and the number of those which 
 show such imitation or adaptation as is shown in the sixth example 
 in list XI. are very few. Even were they more numerous, they would 
 not prove our author to be a servile imitator of Euripides. Euripides 
 himself is justly charged by Aristophanes^ with diligently reading 
 and imitating Aeschylus and other poets, and Schirlitz ^ gives a list of 
 writers who ' partim consulto partim fortuito ' have drawn on Euripides 
 for words and expressions, without laying themselves open to the 
 charge of being servile imitators. The judgment of Schirlitz on the 
 Rhesus is interesting : ^ ' Praeterea exarainavi Rhesi fabulam : quam 
 qui composuit, tum * Aeschylea nonnuUa, Sophoclea, Euripidea recepit 
 nusquam praeterea obvia, tum ipse nove dictorum partimque audacter 
 fuit artifex.' 
 
 This judgment is supported by our word lists. It seems fair to 
 conclude that there is no evidence in the language and style of the 
 Rhesus strong enough to prove that Euripides wrote the play, or that 
 its author was a servile imitator. On the ■ other hand, this last list, 
 added to the other evidence, makes it probable that the author of 
 the Rhesus was familiar with all the works of Euripides, and hence 
 lived after his time. 
 
 In considering the following list of Aeschylean expressions, the 
 reader should remember that many expressions which seem to have 
 been derived from Aeschylus have already been cited. 
 
 XI. List of expressions which suggest imitation of Aeschylus. 
 
 22. KoiTYjv iravOTrXovs Karexovra^. Cf. KaTe^ovra xafievvT]V, Aesch. Ag. 
 
 1541. 
 163. KepSos TTpbi epyo> Trjv X'^P'" TiKTa SiTrXrjv. Cf. Kal T(J8e Kepha KEpSos 
 
 aAAo TLKTirai,^ Aesch. Sept. 424. 
 168. oiiK. 1$ ijjMVTOv fia^ovtov ya/xeiv Oekai. Cf. to Kr]8aia'<u Kaff lavTov 
 
 apuTTeva paKpiS,^ Aesch. Pro. 916. 
 1 79. Kal /x^v \a<j>vpiiiv y avTos aipjjtra Tropcov. Oeoimv aira ■jracrcraXeue irpos 
 
 &6fjLovi. Cf. OeoK Xa.<l>vpa ravra rots Ka$' 'EXXaSa Sojuois eTrcuTtra- 
 
 Xeva-av, Aesch. Ag. 583. 
 288. ea-Tiav x^ovos. Same expression in Aesch. Supp. 377. 
 
 1 Froffs, 943, 1049. 8 I.e. p. 9. 
 
 ^ De Euyipide novi sermonis conditore, p. 7. » sic ; probably for cum. 
 ' Perhaps a proverbial expression. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 91 
 
 308. TToAAoto-t ow KuSdJcnv CKT V7r« t^d/Soi/. Cf. X"^*"?^"™' kXo^ovo-i 
 
 K(u8(i)ves <j>6fiov, Aesch. Sept. 373. 
 430. aliMTrjpbi ireXavos. Cf. 7re\avos ai/iaTO(r<^ay^s, Aesch. Pers. 8l8. 
 514. d/xTTCipas pdxiv. Cf. vTTo paX"* wayei/rts, Aesch. Eum. 190. 
 934. ao-Tu KtAo-ai. Cf. KeXaat yatav, Aesch. Supp. 15. 
 
 Most of these expressions are not of great weight. They certainly 
 do not indicate servile imitation of Aeschylus. The parallel in 308, 
 as has been said, is striking, and all the evidence thus far supports 
 the view that if our author took any one of the tragedians as his 
 model, that one was Aeschylus. 
 
 The metrical structure of the Rhesus has been so thoroughly 
 worked over that nothing more can be done than to give a summary 
 of the conclusions which have been reached. It is generally agreed 
 the metre is such, with regard to the resolution of long syllables, as 
 was usual before the 89th Olympiad. Although agreeing on this 
 point, Vater and Hermann draw different conclusions from it. Vater 
 contends that the Rhesus was therefore written before that date, a 
 view which Spengler ' supports. Hermann however says : ^ ' Quoniam 
 numeri sunt quales ante Olympiadem LXXXIX, cetera autem qualia 
 nee ante illam Olympiadem nee proximis post earn temporibus scripta 
 esse credibile videtur, mu/ft? recentiorem essefabulam contendo numeris 
 ad optima exemfla conformatis.' Lachmann^ sees no signs of imita- 
 tion of Sophocles or Euripides, but of Aeschylus. The metre, how- 
 ever, he thinks corresponds to that of Sophocles and Euripides at 
 their best. 
 
 The case is well summed up by v. Wilaraowitz : * ' In anapaestis 
 Tov ^ocjiOKkeiov xnroiJMLvei. )(apaKTrjpa scriptor Rhesi, in senariis vero ne 
 antilabas quidem admittit (quas in trochaicis tetrametris habet 686 
 sqq.) nedum laxiori indulgeat disciplinae. Docemur igitur hac 
 quoque in re superstitibus etiamtum Sophocle Euripideque sensim 
 relaxatum esse veteris tragoediae severitatem, duce ac principe in 
 numeris Sophocle, in rerum tractatione Euripide, a duum virorum 
 magnorum exemplo cum aequales pependisse tum eos qui proxime 
 sequerentur (Agathonem, Critiam, Chaeremonem, Carcinum dico ; de 
 ceteris parum constat) at fuisse tempus quo Athenienses diffluentis 
 
 1 De Rheso Tragoedia, p. 12. ' De Choricis systematis trag. grace, p. 1 16. 
 
 ' I.e. p. 280, * Analecta Euripidea, p. 198. 
 
92 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 levitatis taederet; rediisse igitur quantum possent ad antiquiora 
 exempla ; atque suspicare licet hac ex causa Theodectae gloriam non 
 minimam promanasse. Cuius severioris Musae unum poetam inlus- 
 travit Meinekius Moschionem, cum doceret eum ab omni pede tri- 
 syllabo in senariis cavisse ; mediocris ingenii fetus at consimili 
 subtilitatis amore commendati extat Rhesus, saeculo quarto exeunte 
 haud dubie Athenis scripta.' 
 
 It will be seen that Hermann and v. Wilamowitz substantially 
 agree, except that while- the latter assigns the Rhesus to the end of 
 the- fourth century, the former attributes it to an Alexandrine writer. 
 The principal argument against the latter view is the number of the 
 choral passages. We know that the Alexandrine writers so subor- 
 dinated the chorus that Lycophron in his Cassandra dispensed with 
 it altogether. In our play the chorus forms an essential part of the 
 play, and the choral passages are marked by a simplicity and beauty 
 which does not suggest Alexandria. 
 
 A line of argument which has been wholly neglected in all special 
 dissertations on the Rhesus, but has been touched on incidentally by 
 writers on the grammar of Euripides, consists of deductions from 
 syntactical peculiarities. Evidence of this kind seems especially 
 valuable ; unfortunately, however, it is difficult to collect. Some 
 of these writers have left the Rhesus out of consideration altogether 
 as non-Euripidean, and in the other cases it is difficult to collect 
 and classify the scattered references. Such material as I have been 
 able to gather is given below. 
 
 Tycho Mommsen,' in examining the use of crw and of juetii with 
 the genitive in Euripides, finds the latter construction more frequent 
 in Euripides than in the other tragedians. Of the Rhesus he says : ^ 
 ' Der Rhesus hat von allem am wenigsten /ieto c. gen. und verrath 
 sich auch dadurch als unecht.' He continues : ' Denn die Zeit der 
 ersten Alexandriner werwarf diese Construction wieder fast voU- 
 standig. Hiernach zu urtheilen konnte der Vf. des Rhesus mit 
 Lykophron, ApoUonius Rhodius, Kallimachus, Leonidas von Tarent 
 gleichzeitig gewesen sein.' 
 
 Harmsen ' says : ' Multo vero rarius quam adiectivum invenitur 
 
 1 Program des Stad. Gym. zu Frankfort a. M. ^ P- S- 
 
 ° De verborum coUocaiione apud Aesch. Soph. Eur. capita selecta, p. II. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 
 
 93 
 
 genitivus post praepositionem coUocatus. . , . Rhesus hoc in re 
 longe recedit ab usu dicendi Euripideo in quo quidem inveniuntur 
 octo huiusmodi exempla.' ^ Further on, speaking of anastrophe, he 
 says : ^ ' Inter Euripidis singulas fabulas hac in re nullum fere dis- 
 crimen est; tantum id commemoratione dignum est, Rhesum 
 fabulam multo minorem exemplorum numerum praebere, quam 
 genuinas fabulas Euripidis. Sunt enim in Rheso tres loci (72, 397, 
 930) J genuinae fabulae vero singulae octo minimum exempla conti- 
 nent ut Ale, vel novem ut HeracL, vel tredecim ut Cyclops, quam- 
 quam multo brevior haec fabula est ceteris.' 
 
 Tachan,^ speaking of the use of the infinitive with iinal force, says : 
 ' Quam clarissime elucebit, id quod supra iam monui, exemplorum 
 copiam eo maiorem fieri quo recentiore tempore scriptae sunt 
 fabulae.' After stating the principle on which his infinitives are 
 selected,* excluding such cases as the infinitive with StSto/tu and ^0- 
 ^ou/wu, ^voi Xeyeiv, xaipbi d/coScrat, etc., he gives a table, from which 
 the following selections are interesting : — 
 
 
 All cases. 
 
 •iva, ij.i. 
 
 Participle. 
 
 Infinitive. 
 
 Alcestis, 1 1 62. 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Medea, 1419. 
 
 21 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Hippolytus, 1466. 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Electra, 1359. 
 
 44 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 Here. 1428. 
 
 4« 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 Phoe. 1766. 
 
 43 
 
 2S 
 
 13 
 
 S 
 
 Orest. 1693. 
 
 41 
 
 34 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Rhesus, 996. 
 
 25 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 1 ISO, 155, 203, 221, 471, 502, 398, 660. 2 p. 25. 
 
 ' De enuntiationum finalium apud Eurip. ratione atque usu, p. 72. 
 
 * ' Eos tantum commemorabo infinitives qui re vera pro enuntiatione finali extant.' 
 
g4 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 Tietzel ^ shows no important variation in the Rhesus from the plays 
 of Euripides. He accepts the Rhesus as written by Euripides, and 
 assigns it to the years 445-442 B.C. 
 
 Professor Goodwin,^ speaking of the independent clause with juij 
 or f).r\ ov expressing desure to avert an object of fear, notes that after 
 Homer we find no examples of the independent clause either with 
 ii.-t] or with iijf] ov until Euripides, who has three cases of the former 
 and one of the latter.* An example with /u,^ oi occurs in the Rhesus.* 
 Cases of this kind are so rare that the coincidence in usage must be 
 admitted to be striking. It is possible that the author of the Rhesus 
 followed Homer directly, whom he has followed in other respects.* 
 It is perhaps more reasonable, however, to admit that he followed 
 Euripides. 
 
 Speaking of the use of irpiv with the indicative in poetry, Professor 
 Goodwin ° notes in Aeschylus' one example, after a negative; in 
 Sophocles one,* after an affirmative; in Euripides five,' all after 
 aifirmatives; while the Rhesus has two." 
 
 This last coincidence is very striking, for unless our author is here 
 influenced by Pindar, who has three cases, he is certainly following 
 Euripides. Imitation of Pindar seems unlikely, since neither of the 
 cases is in a lyric passage. 
 
 From these illustrations it may be seen that this field is a promising 
 one. The examples are not selected, but are all that I have been 
 able to collect. It will be seen that three of the six give evidence 
 against the view that Euripides wrote the play, two give equally strong 
 
 1 De Conj. temporal, usu Euripideo. 
 
 2 Greek Moods and Tenses, 264. 
 
 ° Ale. 315, Orest. 776, H. F. 1399, Tro. 982, of which the last is with ph[ 06. 
 
 » 115. 
 
 * Note the ' Horn. Reminiscenzen ' of Eysert (see p. 74 of this paper) Six^ai, 
 li^uPXuKa, etc. 
 
 ' Moods and Tenses, 633. He classes the Rhesus in this "note among the 
 plays of Euripides, but from the language of the other note it would seem that 
 it is rather for convenience than because he looks on the Rhesus as the work of 
 Euripides. 
 
 ' Pro. 479. 8 o. T. 775. 
 
 ^ And. 1 145, I. A. 489, Med. 1 173, Hec. 132, Ale. 182. In the second and 
 third examples a negative is implied. 
 
 w 294, 568. 
 
The Tragedy Rhesus. 95 
 
 evidence on the other side, while the other throws no light on the 
 subject at all. Taken alone the last two examples are strong argu- 
 ments for the view that Euripides was the author of our play. Taken 
 in connection with the other evidence, they seem merely to show 
 Euripidean influence. 
 
 After this presentation of the evidence, it may be well to examine 
 all the hypotheses and possibilities, and to see what conclusion can be 
 reached. In the first place, was the play written by Aeschylus or in 
 his time? Is there any sign of the influence of Aeschylus ? To the 
 latter question the answer must be in the afifirmative. The number 
 of unusual words, many of which seem to be suggested by Aeschylean 
 words, the anapaestic beginning and the absence of a prologue, the 
 close connexion of the chorus with the action of the play, the num- 
 ber of words and expressions which may be traced to Aeschylus, 
 make any other view unreasonable. 
 
 That the play was actually written by Aeschylus has been main- 
 tained by no one. That it was written in his time might be inferred 
 from the language of Scaliger' and Lachmann.^ It will be shown 
 below that so early a date seems impossible.' 
 
 Next we may ask the same questions about Sophocles. That the 
 Rhesus was written by Sophocles was maintained, as has been said,* 
 by Gruppe ; that it shows imitation of Sophocles, by v. Wilamowitz.' 
 The answer to the former is the same as to the corresponding 
 question about Aeschylus. The latter is a more difficult question. 
 The comparison which v. Wilamowitz makes with the Pastores\ 
 does not seem convincing, and the argument which he derives from 
 the metre' cannot be held to be conclusive evidence of imitation 
 of Sophocles. On the other hand, the examination of the words 
 and expressions which Hagenbach regards as Sophoclean,* taken 
 in connection with the large number of words which do not occur 
 in Sophocles at all,' seems to show that Christ's statement is hardly 
 
 1 See p. 61. ^ De choricis systemaHs trag.graec, p. Ii6. 
 
 * Cf. also the remarks on ireKTaoTal and on the metre pp. 83 and 91 above. 
 
 * See p. 62. ^ See p. 64. * See p. 67. 
 ' See p. 91. ^ pp. 83 and 84. 
 
 ' See p. 82, and Hagenb., De. H. T., p. 30. It should be noted that a few of 
 the words cited by Hagenbach are found in Sophocles; x<«A'«'i'"7i for instance, 
 appears in his own list of Sophoclean words. 
 
g6 John C. Rolfe. 
 
 too strong. There are certainly no signs of direct imitation of 
 Sophocles. 
 
 Was Euripides the author of our play? Are there signs of imita- 
 tion of Euripides? To the latter question the answer must be in 
 the affirmative. 
 
 The answer to the former question is made easier by the fact that 
 all those who now support that view admit that if Euripides wrote our 
 play, it was his earliest work. Even they '■ acknowledge that there is 
 a great difference between the Rhesus' and the later plays of Eurip- 
 ides. On this point Hermann's remark,^ though not conclusive, is 
 significant : ' Mutat profecto aliquid aetas, facitque saepe ut quis 
 alius videtur vir factus quam adulescens fuit ; at non mutantur omnia, 
 sed est etiam quod sibi constet, manentque eiusdem ingeni vestigia.' 
 
 But there are more tangible proofs that the play could not have 
 been written so early. The list of words and expressions given by 
 Wecklein,^ the fact that the action of the play demands four actors,* 
 and the evidence that the author of the Rhesus was acquainted with 
 the later plays of Euripides,^ seem very strong arguments. That the 
 play was not the work of Euripides, though perhaps not necessarily 
 that it was later than his time, is shown by other evidence. First, by 
 the apparent lack of a prologue.' Hartung made so much of this as 
 to say ' : ' Aut Euripidem Rhesi auctorem esse negandum aut pro- 
 oemio banc fabulum instructam esse credendum.' Then he betrays 
 himself into the hands of his adversaries by failing utterly to prove 
 the former existence of a prologue by an examination of the frag- 
 ments of the Nyctegersia of Accius. Next the arguments from the 
 first three cases cited in the examination of the syntax ' seem to be 
 of some weight. And finally we can hardly believe that Aristophanes 
 would have missed the opportunity of ridiculing a youthful effusion 
 of Euripides. 
 
 The idea of Dindorf, that the Rhesus was written for the fourth 
 place in a tetralogy, which Bergk characterizes as ' ganz ungliicklich,' 
 may readily be answered by aesthetic arguments, for it is evident that 
 the Rhesus has not the slightest resemblance to the extant works of 
 
 1 See Christ's remark, p. 203. * I.e., p. 274. ' p. 82. 
 
 * This is generally admitted and seems certain. * See list X. 
 
 •Seep. 71. "< Eur. Rest.,-p. 1^. ^-p.^^sq.